בין רשי"ר לרשר"ה - הקרע שלא נתאחה - הקדמה

[Note: 1 - I tried experimenting with my Hebrew, with the results as you see them. I hope this is at least somewhat decipherable. The continuation will be in English.

2 - I saw in Shlomo Spitzer's article on R' Hirsch in Moravia that Bar Ilan has published some of the letters sent to R' Hirsch during this period:

Diese stammen teils aus Mähren, teils aus dem Ausland, besonders aus Ungarn. Hirschs Antworten, die in einem schönen und besonderenhebräischen Stil geschrieben sind, sind größtenteils von Eliahu Meir Klugman veröffentlicht worden; die Anfragen an ihn, die bei Klugman meist fehlen, sind im Jahre 2007 durch den Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch Chair an der Bar?Ilan University (Ramat?Gan, Israel) herausgegeben worden (Heft Nr. 8).

If anyone has this or knows where to get it, please contact me (ishimshittos-at-yahoo dot com)? Thanks.]

בניגוד לשאר ערכי יהדות שבהן ההלכה הוא המכריע היחידי, שונה הוא השאלה של היחס ליהודים שאינם שומרי תורה ומצות שבו גם ההיסטוריה יש בכחו להכריע. ברצוני להמחיש זה במעשה ששמעתי בשם אחד שהיה מקורב מאד לאגו"י.

בערך כלפני עשירם שנים ה"ציונים" עשה איזה מין כנסיה ושלחו שתי הזמנות למשרד אגודת ישראל. שאלו (המספר ועוד אחד) ר' משה שרר מה לעשות וענה שעליהם להתייעץ עם הג"ר יצחק הוטנר אם כדאי ללכת . כששאלו ר' הוטנר הוא ישב ודן לכשעה על כל אורך ההיסטוריה מתי ואיך הסכימו המאמינים לשתף פעולה ביחד אם ה"לא מאמינים" כדי לדעת אם גם ענין זה בכלל. לבסוף החליט שעליהם לקנות שתי כיפות בצבע אדום ולשלחם להכנסיה כי "הם לא מענינים בדעות שלנו, הם רק רוצים להראות שיש להם הסכמה גם מאת הכיפות (החרדים)". עכ"פ רואים שלגבי שאלה זו ההיסטוריה ולא רק ההלכה הוא המכריע (אולי במילים אחרים בענין זו היסטוריה הוא ההלכה) [א

ברצוני להבהיר כמה נקודות בנוגע לשיטת ההפרדה של הר' הירש כפי מיעוט ידיעתי בענין [ב]. כפי שכתב חמיאל (דף קלג), ר' הירש,"לא כלל את כל הרפורמים בקטגוריה אחת" , הוא מצטט את הרמב"ם ב"הלכות ממרים" פ"ג ה"ב-ג [ג], ובעקבות רבו הרב עטלינגר, מכנה במכתביו הגלויים לבמברגר את בניהם ותלמידיהם של מנהיגי הרפורמים, הרחוקים שנים ושלושה דורות מהמייסדים, במונח "תינוקות שנשבו". הוא מבחין בכך בין המטיפים והאידאולוגים המדיחים, והממסד הקהילתי הרפורמי המאורגן, לבין הפרטים שהודחו. את הפרטים יש לקרב ולנסות להחזיר בתשובה, כי הם עדיין יהודים באופן פורמאלי. אך את "המדיחים והארגון יש לנדות ולהתפלג מהם בקהילה נפרדת

גם ביחס להמנהיגי הריפורמה לא היה ההפרדה דבר קל בשביל הר' הירש וע' באגרתו ב"תורת הקנאות (נערך ע"י הערו"נ נגד אסיפת הרבנים הרפורמים הראשונה בבראונשוויג ב1844

"הלא תדעו ולא תבינו כי לו דבריכם יעשו פרי, הפעם יקרע בית ישראל לשני קרעים, לשמצה בקמינו, ולאבדן נחלתנו...לא תהי עוד תקומה לבריתנו יחד, ובדמע נפרד איש מאת רעהו."

מצאתי תשובה מענינית בשמש מרפא (עט) בו רואים עד כמה היה הר' הירש מוכן לוותר אפ' על עניני הלכה בכדי לקרב את הרחוקים. (ע' כאן איך שתקף ריז"ש את הרב שי"ר על שהתיר חופה בבית הכנסת

[א] היסטוריה הוא נקודה חשובה בהגות ר' הוטנר. ראה למשל הסכמתו ל"בינו שנות דור ודור" ובקונטרם החנוכה שנדפס שם. גם בתוך מאמרו על דעת תורה והשואה (עליו כתב פרופ. קפלן תגובתו הידוע ב"טראדישן") ההיסטוריה תופס מקום נכבד. ר' הלל גולדברג במאמרו המאלפת על הגותו של הר' הוטנר (טראדישן וגם בספרו מברלין לא עמד על נקודה תשובה זו...)

ב] הסתמכתי על עבודתו של א. חמיאל על הגותו של חיות הירש ושד"ל. עדיין חא קראתי את ההתכבות בין ר' הירש ור' במברגר בעיון הראוי. גם לא ראיתי את ספרו של יעקב כ"ץ "הקרע שלא נתאחה" ומאמרו 'רבי שמשון רפאל הירש, המימין והמשמאיל', תורה עם דרך ארץ, התנועה, אישיה,רעיונותיה, מרדכי ברויאר (עורך), רמת-גן תשמ"ז, עמ' 13-31

Also cf. L. Levi, “The Relation of the Orthodox to the Heterodox Organizations,” Tradition 9 (fall 1967): 95-102.

ג] דברי הרמב"ם נאמרו ביחס לקראים, ע' כאן למאמר חשוב על שיטת הרמב"ם בזה ויש להאריך ואכ"מ

Parallels between the Gospels and Avos?

In an earlier post[1a], I noted a possible parallel between the language of the New Testament and that of Chazal. I believe that these parallels might attest to the veracity of the story in the Talmud according to which Jesus, in his earlier years, was in fact a member of the Pharisees, as a student of R' Yehoshua ben Perachya.

Although one must take care in drawing parallels [1], the appearance of parallels in Avot which contains the oldest Rabbinic traditions [2] would seem to be important.

In Avot 4:20:

רבי אומר, אל תסתכל בקנקן, אלא במה שיש בו: יש קנקן חדש, מלא ישן; וישן, אפילו חדש אין בו.
[3]

In Luke: 5:33-39:

33They said to him, "John's disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking."
...

And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins[4], the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. 38No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. 39And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, 'The old is better.'

It would seem that the use of this particular parable, in the context of a polemic against the Pharisees, using a phrase that we know was adopted by the Pharisees, is particularly significant. But I am not certain how to interpret this? Ideas, anyone.

[I thought of one possibility. Luke was the companion to Paul who is most famous for propagating the the abrogation of Jewish law (satirized in BT Shabbos - Ch. 16) [Since as Kevin notes, it also appears in Mathhew - this is nonesense]. Following the explanation mentioned in Note 3 that wine = the law\content and vessel = the form of the transmission of the law. In this polemic, the Pharisees are protesting Jesus's disregard of the law (of fasting). To which Jesus (acc. to Luke) responds that new Wine - i.e. the new doctrine that Jesus (acc. to Paul/Luke) was propounding cannot be stored in old vessels - i.e. the laws of the old testament. This is then an argument in support of the abrogation of the law[5].

This interpretation depends on the (admittedly questionable) assumption that the Wine parable was current in the circles of the Pharisees before Rebbi. An alternative explanation would have Rebbi differentiating between himself and the Christians by stressing that he is merely changing the form of the law, not the law itself. But the expression isn't formulated correctly for such a polemic. Incorrect - as in comments, still think basic parallel interesting.]

[Note that the parable of wine and its vessel is also used in the argument between R' Yehoshua ben Chananya and the princess - Taanis 7a]

[1a] The credit for the idea behind that post goes to my friend, SL Rubinstein.

[1] For instance one cannot deduce anything from the "eye of a needle" parallel as this is likely a popular expression that was in wide use.

[2] See R' Dovid Tzvi Hoffmann "HaMishna Rishonah". I will discuss this sefer when I continue my series on him at some future time.

[3]According to some commentaries, the connection between this phrase and Rebbi is that Rebbi as redactor of the Mishna was pointing out that despite the "new" form of his creation it is still full of "old"er traditions. This perhaps has important implications regarding the question of Rebbis actions as redactor of the Mishna. Perhaps this is proof that the original form of the traditions were as a Midrash and Mishna is a new form originated by Rebbi. [I erred in ignoring the context in which Rebbi is clearly responding to R' Yosi B'R' Yehuda who says there is no point in learning from a young person (as it is used by Baal HaMeor in his intro). (I am reminded of the Gemara in Bava Metzia (Ch. 4) where Rebbi says - "ילדות היתה בי והעזתי את פני ר' נתן הבבלי" - i.e. he is admitting the deficiencies of youth.]

It is clear that Rebbi didn't originate this phrase since it appears aleady in Luke, before Rebbi was born.

[4] Now we need to understand Rebbi's - אפילו - even - new wine, if new wine would damage the vessel why should new wine be placed there at all? Is anything besides wine stored in a Kankan? See comments

[Update: Potentially interesting book (Google books will only let me see so much), some of his claims in the page linked are invalid. Jesus's anti-divorce sentiment may reflect the opinion of Beis Shammai (see Rosen-Tzvi's article in JSIJ), the fasting is the subject of my discussion here but is not simple (if he believed himself Messiah then, like the later Shabsai Tzvi, he would naturally believe fasts need be abolished - "Can you make the wedding guests fast while the bridegroom is with them " - note the parallel to Mishna Sukkah where guests at a wedding are also exempt from Sukkah).]

[5] But if the thesis in this book is correct my whole argument has no basis. I don't know waht to do with the preceding parable about clothes and with the concluding statement that "old wine is better".

Perhaps: "The old is good: this saying is meant to be ironic and offers an explanation for the rejection by some of the new wine that Jesus offers: satisfaction with old forms will prevent one from sampling the new." (here) but this is difficult since it is well-know that old is better (and this can be seen in both the Bible (Esther), and Rabbinic documents). This is clearly a Paulian apologetic

עבד עבדים יהיה לאחיו - מקורות

1 - Essays and speeches on the eve of the civil war - Pro - R. Raphall , R. Illowy, Anti - M. Heilprin, Dr. Einhorn.

2 - Einhorn's article is particularly well argued. Regarding this point:

Only on one point has Dr. Raphall shown a friendly disposition towards the negro; at the expense of his holiest duty, he has failed to call to the attention of the Jewish slave-holders that they must have their slaves circumcised.

I have heard of (but not seen - nor can I find) a Teshuva to the Noda B' Yehuda [?] sent by a Jewish slave-owner in the south. I believe the NY paskened like Dr. Einhorn that circumcision is required. The end of the story is that the slaves heard of this plan and revolted. See also J. Schorsch "Jews and Blacks in the early modern world".

3 - R' Yaakov Kamenetzky said (in a lecture) that the בני כנען also have a צלם אלהים and it is therefore absolutely forbidden to embarass or discriminate against them in any way.

1 - Why a really good Posek has to know Akkadian

2 - על גדולתו של ר' משה פיינשטיין Interestingly, he uses the same example that I used - here.

A Midrash in a Maaseh

Apollo Min HaTorah minayin, Venus Min HaTorah minayin

A fasinating piece of Shadal:

כ] ותלד עדה וגו' : נ"ל, שהזכיר הכתוב את האנשים האלה ממציאי קצת המלאכות, מפני שהיו האנשים האלה בימים ההם נעבדים כאלהים, ורצה הקב"ה להודיע לישראל כי אנשים היו, ומי אביהם. אבי : ראשון, ומלמד, כטעם בני הנביאים. יושב אהל ומקנה : יושבי אהלים ההולכים כה וכה עם מקניהם אשר ימצאו מקום מרעה. ומקנה : איש מקנה.

[כא] יובל : נראה שהוא אפולו. תופש : מנגן ביד. ועגב : נראה, שהוא מין כנור משונה מעט בצורתו.

[כב] תובל קין : נראה שהוא וולקאנוס, ודע כי קיניא בל' סורי וערבי ענינו צורף זהב וכסף גם חרש ברזל. אין ספק, כי הבלים הרבה נאמרו בימים קדמונים על האנשים האלה, והתורה טיהרה את הסיפורים ההם מחלאתם. לוטש : לשון מירוק וחידוד. כל חרש : על כרחנו צריך לפרש חורש כלי אומנות שבו החרטים עושים מלאכתם. נעמה : גם היא נראה, שהיתה נעבדת, ואולי היא וינוס ושמה מעיד עליה.

R' Matisyahu Strashun on Besamim Rosh

Shul bans "racist" Tanya

Shul bans "racist" Tanya but see here.

I believe that this is a basic Kabbalistic doctrine and is not specific to Tanya at all.

For instance from Eitz Chaim (R' Chaim Vital) 48:2 -

אמנם עכו"ם אין בהם רק בחי' נפש לבד מצד הנוקבא של הקליפות

R' Kook

בס' 'אורות', אורות ישראל פ"ה פיסקה י (ע' קנו) כותב הרב קוק: "ההבדל שבין הנשמה הישראלית, עצמיותה, מאוייה הפנימיים, שאיפתה, תכונתה ועמדתה, ובין נשמת הגוים כולם, לכל דרגותיהם, הוא יותר גדול ועמוק, מההבדל שבין נפש האדם ונפש הבהמה, שבין האחרונים רק הבדל כמותי נמצא, אבל בין הראשונים שורר הבדל עצמי איכותי".


And many more - see here

[See LazerA's insightful comment. I saw something similar in the Ben Ish Chai's ShuT Teshuvas Torah L'Shmoh (see the last מקבציאל) in which he suggests that someone with small handwriting is only "b'bechinos nefesh" whereas someone with big handwriting is "b'bchinos neshomoh" and another similar analysis based on the shape of the beard.

It is further important to note that many of the peasants in pre-modern times were "illiterate, unwashed, permanatly drunk" and similar adjectives and so it is not hard to understand where the above sentiment is coming from. (cf. the following from H. Soloveitchik's - Halacha, Hermenutucs and Martyrdom:


Then there was the revulsion. Franco-German Jewry saw themselves as living among murderous barbarians, little different from beasts [emphasis mine - W.]. The pride of place given to the warrior in feudal society was in their eyes an endorsement of violence and bloodshed. Judgment by ordeal revealed a people bereft of rational thinking and a society devoid of justice. Christians of the Midi, proud heirs of a millennia old Roman culture, despised the northern barbarians, Jews even more so. Perhaps the view of the ‘‘natives’’ held by white settlers in Africa in the late nineteenth century came closest to those of Jewish parents in the medieval German Empire. The thought that their child might grow up a murderous savage must have filled them with horror.)

See Kevin's post for an excellent, nuanced presentation of the position of the Gentile in the world-view of the Sages (based on J. Neusner's Theology of the Oral Torah).

See also Emes L'Yaakov Genesis 9:25 for a very sharp refutation of the claim that Judaism is a "racist" religion.]

Indeed, the Babylonian Talmud, which makes possible a study of Babylonian Judaism, presents a monumental impediment to the study of that very history. It is mostly a commentary upon the Mishnah, and the historically useful data are limited by the concentration on what was relevant to Mishnah and other legal study, interpretation, and application. So the available literature leads us to suppose that we know more than we actually do. One could learn as much about American history and culture from approximately similar sources: minutes of some learned societies and faculty meetings of Harvard and Yale Universities, pious stories of Parson Weems, fragments of the Congressional Record and some court reports, and, chiefly, Blackstone's Commentaries in an American annotated edition. Our knowledge would be partial and impoverished for America as it is for Babylonian Jewry.

J. Neusner - Jews and Judaism Under Iranian Rule

Interesting site- for instance on חסורי מיחסרא, on Rashi. and more.

New Ha'Mayaan

Latest issue of the periodical Ha'Mayaan available here.

R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach's stance on heter mechirah is fully clarified. R' Posen (author of a great book on Targum Onkelos) has a fascinating letter in which he discusses changes in Tefillah,Mendelssohn (note esp. the letter from R' Yonoson Eibschutz in fn. 12). He mentions as an example the correct pronounciation of Geshem, there is quite a useful post on the subject here.

On the issue of fixing the nusach of tefillos, given the difficulties with the nusach that is called Sefard, I am surprised that no effort has been made to fix this. (See ShuT Minchas Eliezer for a fascinating responsa in switching nuschaos)



[Hat tip: Rav Tzair]

על יו"ט שני של גליות

Two interesting articles on the controversies (Karaites, Reformers, and, strangely, even among traditionalists) surrounding Yom Tov Sheini are - Hirsch Jakob Zimmels, "The Controversy about the Second Day of the Festival," in Samuel Belkin, ed., Abraham Weiss Jubilee Volume (New York, 1964), 139-168, and Jacob Katz, "The Orthodox Defense of the Second Day of the Festivals," Divine Law in Human Hands: Case Studies in Halakhic Flexibility (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1998), 255-319 (My thanks to Menachem Butler for telling me about these).


In the recent volume of the journal (אלול תשס"ח) Nezer HaTorah, several letters of R' Yaakov Schorr (wiki is excellent but see the intro to Mishnas R' Yaakov by Tzvi Michelson) to Rav Dr. Chanoch Ehrentrau (wiki on grandson only) [1] were published. In one of them he castigates R' Ehrentrau for offering a "strange and impossible explanation" of Beitzah 4b on Yom Tov Shein (that it refers to the time in which Kiddush HaChodesh was through testimony) which opens a door to those who want to abrogate it, etc.

[1] There are fascinating letters from both of these great Geonim in Parnes L' Doro. See eg. in letter 108 - he has a fascinating chiddush that the Bavli cites Mishnayos from those Mesechtos for which there are no Gemara in order to explicate them. (See more recently Y. Sussmans studies of the sugyos of the Bavli conecrning Zeraim and Taharos in Mechkarei Talmud 3) Schorr was very much the critical scholar. See for example his Mishnas R' Yaakov on the Tosefta and its relation to the Bavli (see more recently Y. Elman's doctoral dissertation).


From R' Ehrentrau we have a fascinating explanation of the machlokos in Pesachim 53a concerning the ripening of olives. Based on Josephus and Gesenius, he shows that each of Tanna was explaining based on his specific geographical location. We also have a lengthy mathematical exposition on the shiur of revi'is acccording to Tosafos. Parnes L' Doro is a fascinating intellectual treasure house for 19th-20th century Rabbis and a must-have for anyone interested in the subject.

Biblicalia on theology of the Oral Torah

Biblicalia has a very interesting series reviewing J. Neusner's – Theology of the Oral Torah. Several general observations:


1 – There are significant theological differences between different parts of the Oral Torah.. For example, Yaakov Elman has shown that the Bavli and the Yerushalmi have different attitudes regarding the question of theodicy.


2 – An essential point to any discussion of Jewish theology is the fact Jewish thought is always concentrated primarily within the exegetical form. This is as opposed to the Greeks whose thought was primarily systematic. This suggestive point was discussed at length by Yeshaya Wolfsberg in an important article in Talpiot 5 pgs. 288 ff. (see also Talpiot 6 pgs. 179 ff. - and also the article following by G. Churgin).

As is well known, Neusner is notorious for his harsh polemical articles (and books!!) against many of his colleagues and teachers [1]. In his criticism of such well-respected figures as Prof. Saul Lieberman or R' JB Soloveitchik he harps on the fact that their major works of scholarship is in the (old-fashioned) exegetical rather then the (modern) systematic form and this reflects some type of failue on their part to engage with modern scholarship. I do not understand why Neusner considers the systematic form to be inherently stronger then the exegetical form as each accomplishes a different task.. But in any event, this has nothing to do with the conflict between the old and the new but rather, as Wolfsberg explains, with Jewish as opposed to Greek methods of thought.

[1] See for example “When Paradigms meet...”. Interestingly, the same people who he castigates so harshly in these later articles are praised and held up as models to emulate in his earlier articles (see his Bibliographical reflections..”). I believe the key to understanding this surprising about-face is in an article in BAR. ואכמ"ל

[Update: My thanks to Kevin for his informative comment.]

H. Soloveitchik on sitting in the Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres

Review of Olam K'Minhago Noheg

Zimmer attributes to the colder climes of Poland the desuetude, in many Hasidic circles, of sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Azeret. If climate were a sufficient explanation,there should have been a disappearance of sitting in the sukkah on Sukkot itself. Climate, then, is a necessary but scarcely sufficient condition for this deviation from the norm. I would suggest that sukkah-sitting on Shemini Azeret was established on an original fault line, and its observance ultimately cracked under the joint pressure of colder climate and the change in religious calendar that occurred in eastern Europe as the Safedian kabbalah made ever greater inroads, especially among Hasidim. Allow me to explain. The Talmud( Shabbat2 3a), when discussing the second day of yom tov (yom tov sheni shel galuyyot), states that, strictly speaking, one shouldn't recite a blessing on the commandments performed that day,a s, for example, the second night of the seder. However, were the rabbis to have instituted the second seder, for example,without the appropriate blessings over matzah and maror, people would not take the second-day ceremonies seriously (de-lo 'le-zilzulei bah). They made one exception to this policy, sukkah on Shemini A zeret-where they instituted sitting without the blessing, and, in the fullness of time, the exception prove the wisdom of the rule.

It did not have to happen, and in most lands, ideed, it did not happen. In Poland, however,t he frequently, bitter autumn cold made sukkah-sitting a genuine burden. Jews had sacrificed much for their religion, and no one dreamed that severe chills suspended the demands of religion, and Jews dutifully sat in sukkot throughout the Sukkot holiday. Shemini Azeret,however,was a different matter.Sukkah-eating on that day was clearly a second-class commandment. Evidence-it did not even merit a blessing,unlike all other second-day misvot.And by the 1640s,t he laxity in sukkah-sitting on Shemini Azeret was widespread in Poland,as the remarks o f the super-commentators on the Tur and the Shulhan Arukh clearly indicate (pp. 168-169). Common though it was, it was not yet characteristic of any group. In the course of the next century, the growing influence of Safedic kabbalah transformed HoshanahR abbah into a day equal to-indeed, greater in its momentous irreversibility than Yom Kippur. On this day, the final and irrevocable judgment on every individual was rendered. The tension of Judgment Day stretched now, not from the first of Ellul (when selihot began) to Yom Kippur, but some fifty-two days-all the way to Hoshanah Rabbah. Just as mos'ei Yom Kippurin Temple times became an occasion of celebration, as the accumulated tensions of that awesome day found release, so mos'ei Hoshanah Rabbah, the night of Shemini Azeret, became an eve of Hasidic celebration. Haqqafot were shifted from SimhatT orah,a nd the festivities of Shemini Azeret far exceeded those of its sister holiday. Such celebrations could scarcely be held outside in the cold October nights, and the festive eating and drinking could take place in the sukkah only with difficulty And so sukkah-eating on Shemini Azeret fell into desuetude among large bodies of Hasidim. The northern climate, indeed, played a role in this disuse, but without the original fault line of "no-berakhah"and the shift in date of the religious climax of the year, the sharp autumn cold, by itself.I would suggest, would have been insufficient to effect any large-scale change .

---
Pp. 163-74. In his treatment of sukkah on Shemini Azeret,our author has omitted the characteristically original position of R. Judah ben Kalonymus in his Yihusei Tannaim ve-Amoraim( ed. Y. L. Maimon),p p. 329-330. It deserves wider currency, as it is the most cogent argument ever made for eating indoors on Shemini Azeret

Notes (from me):
1 - The postion of Yichuse Tannoim is that since the V'Hilchsos are a later Saboraic\Geonic they may be disregarded. This position if accepted has major halachic implications. (Y. S. Spiegel said in a lecture that he left his doctoral work on Saboraic additions because he did not want to get involved with these halachic problems.)

2 - See B'Mechitos Rabbeinu pg. 135 and Emes L' Yaaov Vayikra 23:24 for an interesting explantion from R' Yaakov on why Hoshana Rabbah is not mentioned in the Talmud. (Note his comment that the question is a קנטור נגד הזוהר. I have an email R' Nosson about his fathers relation to Kabbalah but I would have to ask him before placing it here.)

Writing on the walls - the biography of the Magen Avrohom and on his sources

I am not aware of any scholarly biographies of the MA but see here for a general overview from R' Zvi Hirsch Michelson [1]. Note especially his comments on the MA's reverent attitude towards SA and Rema.

I also noticed that in MA 284:7 he writes:

..כי בכל העולם יש יהודים - ע' מאור עינים

The relevant quote is in the Meor Einayim (de Rossi) in Imrei Binah 3:55. Not a source that one usually associates with the MA.


[1] I don't own part 3 of C. Tchernowitz's Toledot HaPosekim but I would imagine he has useful information. (NB - It is surprising that Tchernowitz doesn't discuss the Mishna Berurah, although he does discuss the Aruch HaShulchan. TP was reviewed by J Katz in KS.)

Jewish Observance in 19th century America 1 , 2 . This letter is particulalry interesting in light of the recent controversy.

Some notes - Rambam and Kabbalah and on the thought of R' MM Schneerson Zt"l

1 - On Rambam and Kabbalah - I saw in V. 3 of Igrot Kodesh of the Lubavitcher Rebbe (letter to R' Y Leiner - earlier note in same letter discounting Redak and Abravanel (on Yirmiyahu) on Keri and Ksiv is alos of interest) that he has a tradition in his family going back to the Besht that the Rambam was "a great Mekubal". He questions this based on the statement in Shar HaGilgulim that the Rambam was משמאלא דדיקנא דזעיר אנפין ,etc.

2 - On Precedent and Autonomy - In a letter to R' Zevin the Rebbe cites ShuT Divrei Nechemiah that the Alter Rebbe admitted that he placed to much weight in the opinion of the Achronim (especially the Magen Avrohom) and that he later decided to follow his own opinions to a greater extent (usually for Kabbalistic reasons - this is why his Siddur which was written later is considered more authoritave)

3 - I am surprised that so little attention has been given to the discussion of the conflict of Torah and Science in the thought of the Rebbe (this is what Rambi has I , II). I believe that it was in order to investigate this that the Rebbe went to Berlin.

In the first letter in Igros Kodesh V. 1 to the Rogatchover [1] he points out that all the Rambam's science is taken from the Aristotle [2] . I erred in my previous post when I wrote that he believed the Rambam's science infallible. It seems his desire to defend the Alter Rebbe was so very great that he was even willing to violate his own anti-apologetic stance [3].

The Rebbe's use of medievel scientific concepts is in general in need of clarification. For instance, he has a really brilliant explanation of the Mishna in Pesachim 2,1 based on the Greek idea of four elements and the fifth element of the "hylic matter". The explanation is eminently plausible and quite possibly an excellent example of "Hellenism in Jewish Palestine" but I can't quite see the Rebbe taking a "positive-historical stance".

There is an entire book on the subject of Emunah U' Maddah in the Otzar HaChochmah (and one in English as well.)

I'd also like to point out that in all of the letters that I looked over I didn't catch a single Messianic reference (except for one negative statement about Messianism). Contrary to Deutsch, I believe the Messianism must be a relatively late development in his thought. [4]

[1] Interestingly, the Rebbe realized right away that the letter of the Rogatchover in Dovev Sifsei Yeshonim was a forgery see his sharply worded letter (there are two) to Bloch in Igrot Kodesh (V. 19 or thereabouts)

[2] R' Deutch, Larger then Life printed several fascimiles of the Rogatchover's letters I don't remember if he has the reply to this one.

[3] In a different letter he writes that the Hirschian model of "raising difficult questions and providing insufficient answers" is no good either for Israel or the US. It is true that apologetic was very important to German Orthodoxy (see Prof. Breuer's book on the subject) but I don't know why he identifies R' Hirsch as the founder of this approach.

[4] It is almost impossible to engage extensively in Kabbalah without involving some level of Messianism - cf. R' Avrohom Abulafia, Ramchal, R' Kook, the Rebbe. etc.

R' Yehuda Halevi, Ramban and Maharal - Threefold, yet unified

I was reading Prof. Twersky's article on Maimonides and Eretz Yisroel and I came across the following intriguing statement (pg. 261 fn.10):

"In many respects, R. Judah Halevi, Nahmonides, and Maharal constitute a special strand in Jewish thought-threefold, yet unified."

I'd like to try to expand on this.

Threefold - This is obvious. R' Yehudah Halevi represents the philosophic view, Ramban the Kabbalistic (there are various anti-Maimonidean statements throughout the commentary but cf. his famous letter of compromise during the First Maimonidean Controversy.), and Maharal a complex synthesis of the two.

yet unified - I would identify this with what Shadal called Abrahamism [1] (see at length in Marc Gopins outstanding diss.) I think the important points here is 1- all three thinkers view the realtionship with God as personal, rather then the more "abstract" system of Rambam or Ibn Ezra (perhaps father/son as compared to servant/master.) [2] 2 - All three of the above have a highly Judeo-centric view of the universe.

[1]Shadal places Avraham Avinu, Rashi and R' Yehuda HaLevi as the main representatives of Abrahmism. See Gopin on the significance of the placement of Avrahma rather then Moshe as the founder of Judaism.

[2] Another point - in line with the above - For Halevi and the Jewish mystics, Holiness is ontologically innate, a state that inheres in Jewish prophets, places, or sanctified artifacts of their very nature. It "reflects a reality which is really 'out there,' an actual facet of the cosmos, even if not accessible to our senses." The aspect of "holiness" that impinges most robustly upon our contemporaneous sociopolitical lives is surely the Land of Israel, especially Jerusalem. In his day, Kellner observes, Halevi endorsed this stance without qualification. On the other hand, consistent with his conceptualization of holiness in other spheres, Maimonides appears to view the sanctity of the Land as conditional. - Review of Maimonides confrontation with Mysticism - Midstream.

Why did Yonah run away?

Here is one explanation.

But see Midrash Yonah:

ולמה ברח יונה שפעם ראשונה קודם לכן שלחו הק"בה להשיב את בני ישראל ועמרו דבריו והשיב את נכול ישראל מלבא חטת ער ים הערבה כרכר ה' אשר רכרביד עבדו יונה בן אמיתי אשר מגרוה חפר. פעם שני"שלחו לירושלים להחריבה וכשעשו ישראל חשוכה עשה הק"בה כרוב רחמיו וניהם על הרעה ולא החריבהו היו ישראל קוראים אותו נביא שקר . פעם שלישית שלחו לנינוה דן יונה דין בעצמו ואמר לא דיו שישראל קורין אותי נביא שקר אף אומות והעולם קורין אותי נביא שקר.

Cf.:

Hal smiled. 'At Bury, then, sure enough, I met my enemyBenedetto. He had painted a picture in plaster on the south wall ofthe Refectory - a noble place for a noble thing - a picture of Jonah.'

'Ah! Jonah an' his whale. I've never been as far as Bury. You'veworked about a lot,' said Mr Springett, with his eyes on the carter below.

'No. Not the whale. This was a picture of Jonah and thepompion that withered. But all that Benedetto had shown was a peevish grey-beard huggled up in angle-edged drapery beneath apompion on a wooden trellis. This last, being a dead thing, he'd drawn it as 'twere to the life. But fierce old Jonah, bared in the sun, angry even to death that his cold prophecy was disproven -Jonah, ashamed, and already hearing the children of Nineveh running to mock him - ah, that was what Benedetto had not drawn!'

R. Kipling - Rewards and Fairies

Review of R' E. Brodt's בין כסה לעשור

[Note: I would normally prefer not to write about a sefer unless I had read it from cover to cover but since I doubt that I will finish it before Yom Kippur, and since it makes more sense to write about it בין כסה לעשור I will place some general observations and a few comments here.]

Those of us who follow R' Brodt's excellent posts over at Seforim already know of his near-complete grasp of all relevant sources. This is especially true for this sefer where he even cites sources from manuscript, and from sources in Latin and Judeo-German. Also worthy of note is his impressive use of of the works of the great beki'im: Aderet, Zecher Yosef, and R' Yaakov Chaim Sofer among others is also very impressive.

The sefer represents something new in that this is the first time that I am aware of in which a traditionally-oriented sefer (openly) makes extensive use of academic studies. This greatly enhances the quality of the sefer and it is to be hoped that others will follow in his path [1].

Following are some comments on the sefer - perhaps I will be able to add more when I complete it.

1 - pg. 79 - R' Brodt cites a Mahari Mintz that even women went to the Mikvah on Erev Rosh HaShanah. I would suggest that this citation is only good for Northern Italy which is where Mahri Mintz lived. Regarding southern Italy R' Ovadiah M' Bartenura (the Ra'av - of the same time period) reports that even biblically ordained tevilot were neglected. See the extensive discussion in "Towards a social history of Jewish popular religion : Obadiah of Bertinoro on the Jews of Palermo" - Horowitz, Elliott Journal of Religious History 17,2

2 - pg. 139 - The Rambam's use of Yerushalmi - I would add to R' Brodt's list Chaim Tchernowitz Toledot HaPosekim Vol. 1 who discusses this at length. He even brings a list of places where he believes the Rambam relies on the Yerushalmi over the Bavli!

3 - pg. 177 -On Rashi's (and Rambam's) use of Kabbalah - See my earlier post.

4 - pg. 176 - On Yashar's Metzaref L'Chochmo - I haven't seen David Rudermans book but I will point out that the Chavas Yair definitely believed that Yashar was not being complete sincere. Note the following statement in Teshuva 210:

מסתמא יש בידך ספר בחינות הדת שביקש להדיח רבים בדף ה' ע"ב ועמד נגדו כארי נוהם הרב מהר"ר יש"ר מקנדיאה בספרו מצרף לחכמה שהאריך מאד וקיבץ כעמיר גורנה רוב דעות שקדמוהו לקרב ולא לרחק בגזירת עירין ומאמר קדישין לולי דאיהו גופי' נתן דופי בכל דבריו במ"ש...

As R' I. Twersky [2] notes in his "Law and Spirituality" the refernce to Modena's Ari Nohem attacking Kabbalah to describe Yashar's "defense" is no accident. (It is somewhat interesting that the Chasam Sofer quotes Yashar in a maner that makes it clear that believed he was sincere. I noticed this in his chiddushim to Shabbos and in his Responsa (likely can easily be found with DBS or Bar Ilan).

5 - pg. 52 - on additions to Ibn Ezra - see my earlier post.

[1] It is already well known that many traditional works make use of academic books without proper citation. In a recently published sefer on אומר דבר בשם אומרו by someone Spitz (if my memory serves) I saw a section pemitting non-citation when quoting from אינשי דלא מעלי (a notoriously "plastic" term). I have gathered many Talmudic and some later sources relating to this question but I am not as yet sure how to put them together (the clearest statement in the Posekim is that of MA OC 156:2). In any event, the very fact that the matter is looked upon so severely in secular circles is itself a reason that the matter should be forbidden. Cf. the argument of the Shoel U'Meishiv concerning copyrights - ולא תהא תורה שלימה שלנו כשיחה בטילה שלהם )

[2] I noticed that in one paragraph we have a reference to L. Ginzberg, R' Shaul Lieberman , G. Alon, Harav someone else, etc. !

From Baranovitch to Bnei Brak: The Remaking of a Gadol

My first introduction to Jewish History was R' Chaim Dov Rabinowitz's "From Nechemiah to the Present". The book consists of short historical summaries followed by extensive discussions analysing import of the events from the religious point of view. I tried to describe some of the unique aspects of this work as well as his work in Biblical exegesis in a WP article I wrote awhile back.

I was therefore greatly interested in the recent republication of his Daat Soferim on Yehoshua in a new edition as well as a special section of the last Yeshurun (Nissan '08). I was somwhat surprised to see that the writers are trying to remake R' Rabinowitz's image to conform to the "standards" of modern Bnei-Berak.

1. It is clear that the Haskamos were taken from the letters collected in the beginning of the third edition of "From Nechemiah..". It is interesting to point to the omission of the letters of two great Rabbis who apparently aren't part of the Bnei Berak "canon":

1. R' Yitzchok Isaac Herzog Zt"l:

2. The Lubavitcher Rebbe Zt"l:

In the Yeshurun article when listing Rabbis who wrote comments on his sefer - the Rebbe's name, of course, does not appear.

As far as I can see, the Yeshurun article is actually a slightly expanded version of his obituary that was published in Yated - since the link in the WP article doesn't seem to work anymore I will provide it here:

Two aspects of R' Rabinowitz's career are not mentioned. First, his position teaching Chumash at YU (see letter from Dr. Belkin next to the Rebbe's Haskomoh). Nor was his position at the Ministry of Welfare mentioned in the article (although it is mentioned in the Yated article!).

R' Rabinowitz wrote some memoirs - one of which "Lebatim" recieved a glowing approbation from R' Yaakov Kamenetzky. He was not always this fortunate, his Daat Soferim was reviewed very harshly by the Radziner in HaDarom 57, this is one excerpt:

One of the things that Radziners disliked was the R' Rabinowitz's apologetics. For instance, he tries to explain the story of Yaakov and the different colored sheep with a quasi-scientific explanation (see also Shadal on that verse).

It is interesting that despite this apologetic tendency the Chazon Ish still had high praise for Daas Soferim (see Yeshurun article) - does this perhaps mirror the CI's relations with R' Gedalyah Nadel - who also apologetics?

Lubavitcher Rebbe on apologetics

R' Yaakov Reifmann on the origin of Kapores

Here (taken from the Otzar HaChochma - If there is a copyright problem I will remove it). See also S.'s post here. I am sure there must be better studies by now.

Reifmann was a "frum maskil" along the model of Mahaitz Chajes (although a bit more daring in theological issues as this sefer shows. See also here and one can dig up more stuff on HaMaggid).

Meir Hershkowitz published many of his letters and some of his articles in HaDarom and Ohr HaMizrach (he gathered all of these articles as well as Reifmann's other Seforim into a Kol Kisvei).

מענה למענה - ועל גדולתו של ר' משה פינשטיין

I happen to come across this sefer Maaneh L’ Igrot (see here for another book by the same author) and I decided to attempt a refutation of some of his points. I didn’t really research the issues under discussion so this is only a preliminary refutation.

I do not know very much about the author or what his intentions were in writing this book. His polemics are rather crass, but upon examination he uses the same three expressions repeatedly and applies them rather mechanically. It doesn’t seem as if his heart was really in it.

I am writing very concisely (and perhaps not as clearly as I should) so it is best to look up the original.

1 (OC 28) - Partnership with a non-shomer shabbos washerwoman – R’ Moshe – if she can manage without a partner there is no problem of לפני עור Maaneh 1 – No-one makes a unless they can’t manage alone. – This isn’t true. One might make a partnership to lighten the workload, even if one can manage alone. Second, she might take a different partner. 2 – Even if there is no problem of לפני עור there is a Rabbinic prohibition of מסייע לידי עובר עבירה. – R’ Moshe might say that she isn’t considered an עובר עבירה per se – but rather in the category of תינוק שנשבה perhaps מסייע doesn’t apply.

2 (EH 166-167) - Artificial insemination - R’ Moshe – Majority non-Jews – therefore no problem of שמא ישא אחותו Maaneh – 1- מעלה עשו ביוחסין so that we don’t follow Rov (argued at length) – I don’t see his point. There is no prohibition on the actual insemination. On the status of the child himself, even he would agree that he is permitted (as per Ran- since the child has no options – the מעלה applies chiefly to Kohanim where there are other options. He provides no sources that one must prevent such a situation from occurring. 2 – The child of a Gentile and Jewess will have זוהמה , etc. etc, and pilpul in the various sources. – R’ Moshe will say (as he consistently does) that said sources only apply for actual intercourse not artificial insemination.

(NB - What are the דיעות חיצוניות that R’ Moshe refers to in the following Teshuva – Genetic?, Eugenics?!!) [FP is correct that he is referring to the Catholic influence - see Shut Chelkas Ya'akov EH 14:1 where he invokes the Catholic opposition as a reason to forbid AI]

3 (OC 21) – On the heter of the Aruch Ha-Shulchan to recite Shema before a woman with uncovered hair – R’ Moshe adds an additional proof in that the Gemara (Berachot 24a) cites a Passuk in Shir HaShirim rather then the biblical prohibition from ופרע. This proves that the prohibition to keep the hair covered doesn’t automatically give it the status of ערוה. This being the case the fact that one can recite Shema across from a פנויה shows that it is permitted to recite before regularly uncovered hair. (In truth, I favor the literary solution to this problem (proposed I think by the SE in his monumental responsum 3:233) that notes that R’ Sheshet is part of a cluster of such ערוה statements all quoting Shir HaShirim. This is why R’ Shehshet chose to cite a Shir HaShirim prooftext for hair despite the availability of the Biblical prohibition. I doubt such a “literary” solution would be looked upon with favor by halachists – not sure why not.) b) Maaneh 1 – The biblical prohibition alone would not suffice as one would say that a covering because of a גזירת הכתוב does not make it into a ערוה. We need the Shir HaShirim text to demonstrate that the biblical prohibition is because of ערוה. – The biblical prohibition is form the passage of Sotah and its point is that she uncovers he hair in order to show that she does not have the מידה of צניעות that is the trait of the Jewish Woman. The ערוה component is clear from the context of the verse. Secondly, if R’ Schwartz were correct then the biblical verse ought to be cited and the ShS verse added as a ואומר.


[S. had an interesting post awhile back about hair covering (http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2007/05/positive-historical-chumra.html). Regarding his main point: A review of A. Schremers book about Jewish Marriage in JQR writes:

"The most convincing and innovative chapters in the book are those on the marital age of men and women in Palestine and Babylonia. Schremer tentatively estimates that men in Palestine did not typically get married until their late twenties, or even early thirties. Girls were married sometime after reaching sexual maturity (around twelve or thirteen), perhaps up until their late teens. In contrast, in Babylonia both boys and girls married much earlier, boys in their late teens and girls were frequently married before reaching puberty. As Schremer demonstrates, awareness of these differences in marital age informs our understanding of numerous other halakhot, as well as some of the differences between Babylonian and Palestinian practice. In his chapter on the choice of spouse he points out that the older a person marries, the more likely s/he will choose a partner with less aid from parents, and the more likely that that partner will be chosen based more on personal rather than societal or familial preferences. In his chapter on the financial arrangements of marriage, he suggests that the lower marital age in Babylonia may have contributed to a lowering of the ketubah value. To the extent that knowledge of the typical age of marriage is important for understanding any society, Schremer's hypothesis makes a substantial contribution to our understanding of Jewish society in antiquity. "

R’ Sheshet was from Babylonia.

Appendix:

This is not the only sharp polemic that was published against R’ Moshe. During the heat of the Artificial Insemination controversy, the journal HaMeor published a series of letters from various Rabbis condemning R’ Moshe’s stance on this issue. His talmud R’ Ephraim Greenblatt penned a sharp response in his Rebbi’s honor to which the editor R’ Amsel responded with a letter delineating all of R’ Moshe’s many “sins” (lenient rulings). R’ Moshe mentions in his letters that this caused much aggravation but even so he did not yield an inch – a living embodiment of לא תגורו מפני איש – for to do so would be to compromise the integrity of Halacha (as he writes in his Igrot). In general, the matter of AI deserves a complete study. In my opinion, the criteria laid out in H. Soloveitchik’s “Halacha, Hermeneutics and Martyrdom”:

When we do encounter an agglomeration of logical leaps and farfetched interpretations on a specific topic, then (and only then) are we justified in saying that a sensitive subject is deflecting the course of tosafist thought from its usual exegetical channels.

exists in abundance in the literature surrounding this issue. In fact, I mentioned this once to a prominent Rov and he admitted that the issue here was not how to intrpret the soutces but the essentially meta-halachic issue of Kedushas Yisroel.

On the issue of polemics against R' Moshe, I recall hearing a story according to which “one of the Briskers” announced in midst of a discussion that “There is a Rabbi who is destroying Torah in America – and his name is Feinstein.” To which someone countered “There is a Rabbi an America who is responsible for far worse – and his name is Soloveitchik.”