The Letter of the Maharal on the Creation of the Golem The Letter of the Maharal on the Creation of the Golem: A Modern Forgery By: Shnayer Leiman For a related post by Dr. Leiman see “Did a Disciple of the Maharal Create a Golem.” I. Introduction In 1923, Chaim Bloch (1881-1973), noted author and polemicist,1published a letter of the Maharal (d. 1609) that was previously unknown to all of Jewish literature.2 The letter, dated 1582 (or more precisely: Tuesday of parshat va- yera, [5]343), was addressed to R. Jacob Günzberg (d. 1615), Chief Rabbi of Friedberg in Hesse.3 Rich in content, the letter provides a lengthy and detailed account of why it was necessary for the Maharal to create a Golem, how he went about doing it, and the precise spiritual, psychological, and halakhic status of the created Golem. Bloch assured his readers that the letter was published from an original copy in his possession. In order to quell any doubts, he reproduced a facsimile of the Maharal’s autograph, as it appeared on the original letter.4 Bloch did not provide much detail about the letter’s whereabouts for the more than 300 years it apparently had been withdrawn from circulation and unknown. He thanks Rabbi Samuel Neuwirth of Vienna for his efforts in acquiring the letter and handing it over to Bloch for publication. Given that it was published together with a series of hasidic documents (including letters of the Baal Shem Tov), allegedly recovered from East European archives that had been plundered during World War I and its aftermath, the impression one has is that the Maharal letter belonged to these archives as well – though this is never explicitly stated by Bloch.5 In 1931, R. Yitzchok Eizik Weiss (d. 1944), the Spinka Rebbe,6 published the very same letter of the Maharal (without any mention of the prior Bloch publication) based upon — what he believed to be — an original manuscript in his possession. He appended it to the posthumous publication of his Although he gave no . אמרי יוסף על המועדיםfather’s 7 indication as to when or how the letter came into his hands, two witnesses provide us with some interesting detail. The first witness, R. Yitzchok Weiss (d. 1942), Chief a book written primarily ,אלף כתב Rabbi of Kadelburg,8 in his between 1927 and 1939 but published posthumously in 1997, includes the following entry: The Gaon and Zaddik of Spinka informed me on Monday of [parshat] Hukkat-Balak, 7 Tammuz, 5682 [= 1922], that a manuscript written by the hand of the Maharal of Prague came into his possession. In it, he responded to R. Jacob Günzberg about the making of the Golem, how and why it was done, and whether the Golem will be included in the resurrection of the dead.9 Thus, we know that the letter reached the Spinka Rebbe no later than the beginning of July in 1922. The second witness, R. Samuel Weingarten (d. 1987), noted scholar of Hungarian Jewry and religious Zionist,10 reported that he was present at the home of R. Hayyim Eleazar Shapira (d. 1937), the Munkatcher Rebbe, circa 1922-23, when two of the sons of the Spinka Rebbe [R. Yitzchok Eizik Weiss], R. Naftoli and R. Yisrael Hayyim, approached the Munkatcher Rebbe with a query. They carefully removed a manuscript from a large envelope and asked the Rebbe to examine it. It was a handwritten letter signed by the Maharal of Prague and it dealt with the creation of the Golem. They explained that a soldier who had been taken captive at the Russian front during the World War, and who had participated in the looting of government archives during the Russian revolution, had brought the letter to their father and was prepared to sell it to him for a stiff price. Since the Spinka Rebbe was not expert in Hebrew manuscripts, he sought the advice of the Munkatcher Rebbe. The latter examined the manuscript carefully for some fifteen minutes. He then asked that a magnifying glass be brought and he re-examined the manuscript. He concluded that it was worthless; it was a forgery. The sons thanked the rabbi and went on their way with the manuscript.11 In 1969, the very same letter of the Maharal was published once again by R. Zvi Elimelech Kalush of Bnei Brak.12 The title page of the volume assures the reader that the text of the letter was copied from the “original handwritten holy manuscript” penned by the Maharal of Prague himself. Kalush admits that he is simply reprinting the text published by the Indeed, Kalush’s text .אמרי יוסף Spinka Rebbe in his father’s incorporates all the misreadings and printers’ errors of the and, as often happens אמרי יוסף text as it appeared in the when type is reset, adds several new printers’ errors as well.13 Since the letter is often reprinted and quoted as an authentic letter of the Maharal, it is probably useful to list some of the reasons that led the Munkatcher Rebbe and others14 to declare that it is a forgery. In order to facilitate discussion of the evidence, the full text of the letter is printed below, with each line identified by number. II. Letter of the Maharal15 III. Evidence of Forgery16 :The 1931 edition reads correctly ושלום :p. 86, l. 2 חיים שלום וברכה As an epistolary formula, the phrase .והשלום (and its variations) does not appear in Jewish literature prior to the eighteenth century. אל כבוד As an epistolary formula, the phrase אל כבוד יד”נ does not occur in Jewish literature prior to the יד”נ eighteenth century. first כבוד קדושת שם תפארתו This abbreviation for כקש”ת appears in Jewish literature in the eighteenth century. The 1931 edition reads בשנת השלום (בו?) לפ”ק :p. 87, l. 6 ,Thus, according to the Letter .בשנת ה’ של”ב לפ”ג :correctly Maharal was appointed Rabbi of Prague in 1572. According to the historical sources, the Maharal was appointed Rosh Yeshiva of Prague in 1573. His appointment as Rabbi of Prague came many years later. p. 87, l. 8: The Maharal is depicted throughout the letter as devoting all his energies to countering the blood libel in Prague. There is no historical evidence – Jewish or Christian – of a charge of blood libel in Prague during the lifetime of the Maharal. p. 87, l. 12: Cardinal Johann Sylvester is described here as the leading Christian authority in Prague. No cardinal by that name served in Prague or, for that matter, anywhere else in Christian Europe. For a list of the cardinals who functioned in Prague, see Hierarchia Catholica Medii Aevi 3(1920), pp. 297-354; 4(1935), p. 288; and 5(1952), p. 323; and cf. A. Frind, Die Geschichte der Bischoefe und Erzbischoefe von Prag, Prague, 1873, pp. 178-249. p. 87, l. 27: An anti-Semitic priest and rogue in sixteenth century Prague by the name of Thaddeus is unknown to all of Jewish and Christian literature prior to the twentieth century. used here in the sense of ,יהודים חשוכים בדעתם :p. 87, l. 28 “unenlightened Jews,” is a usage found only in modern Hebrew literature. p. 88, l. 4: Rudolph II is described here as serving as King of Bohemia in 1572-3. In fact, Maximilian II served as King of Bohemia and Holy Roman Emperor in 1572-3. It is surprising that the Maharal confused these two kings with each other. p. 88, l. 6: The Maharal reports that he was summoned for an audience with King Rudolph in 1573. Aside from the fact that Rudolph was not in office at the time, the Maharal met with Rudolph only once – in 1592. See the testimony of the ,ed. M. Breuer ,צמח דוד ,Maharal’s disciple, R. David Gans Jerusalem, 1983, p. 145. Since this letter was allegedly written and sent to R. Jacob Günzberg in 1583, the confusion here is astonishing. refers to the Moldau River, today the מולדווקא :p. 89, l. 7 Vltava River. It is surprising that the Maharal was unaware of the correct spelling for this river in Hebrew – an essential ingredient for the writing of legally valid divorce documents. שלחן ערוך In the commentaries to the standard editions of the It is even more surprising that .מולטאit is always spelled 17 the Maharal was unaware of the fact that the Moldau flows through the center of the city of Prague, and not on the “outskirts of the city” (see line 6). p. 90, I. 21-22: Maharal here refers to the permutations and combinations of the Hebrew letters that enable one to create a Golem, as they appear in the printed editions of Sefer Yetzirah. Alas, no such permutations and combinations appeared in any of the printed editions of Sefer Yetzirah until 1883 Przemysl, 1883).18 ,פירוש הר”א גרמיזא על ספר יצירה) .a watch or clock ,כלי המ”ש = כלי המורה שעות :p. 91, l. 20 This term first entered Hebrew in the nineteenth century. in the sense of “machine” entered Hebrew מכונה :p. 91, l. 25 in the modern period. p. 94, l. 9: The signature reads: Judah, dubbed Leib, son of R. Bezalel. In fact, the Maharal never signed his name in this ,המהר”ל מפראג: חייו תקופתו ותורתו ,manner. See A. Gottesdiener Jerusalem, 1976, pp. 19 and 29. IV. Comments We have hardly exhausted the evidence – historical and linguistic – that can be adduced in order to prove that Bloch’s Letter of the Maharal is a forgery. The cumulative evidence is sufficiently overwhelming that there is really no point in adducing more of the same.