Clarification of a previous post- On R' Menashe M' Ilya

[In an earlier post, I discussed some of R' Dovid Kamenetsky's articles in Yeshurun. For some reason, a commenter was very displeased with this post. I therefore reviewed the post and the articles in question and on the whole, I stand by all I have written. But there are some points that I would like to clarify.]

In an interesting development, the Hasidic-Mitnagidic controversy which has almost entirely disappeared from the public arena in the last few decades seems to have risen again in the pages of the Haredi scholarly journals. Thus, there is a tendency among Hasidic scholars (most notably Y. Monshine) to identify the Gra and his school (and by extension Misnagdism as a whole) as Maskilim (See the articles cited in Kamenetsky's article on R' Menashe). The neo-misnagdim have not stood by idly and Kamenetsky's article in Yeshrun is to a large part in attempt to clear the Gra and his school of the "taint" of Maskilism.

Before I begin, I would like to emphasize that Rabbi Kamenetsky is a fine scholar and he has published many important documents. My only critique is that to a certain extent he allows his political agenda to influence his scholarship.

My first critique of Kamenetsky, involves his series of article in Yeshurun - 8-10, in which he attempts to lighten the association of R' Shlomo Dubno (who was connected with the Gra) and R' Moshe Mendelssohn by insisting that Dubno left because he discovered Mendelssohn's "non-kosher" philosophy. The reader is invited to examine the documents cited by A. Altmann in his biography pgs. 399 ff. It is clear from documents relating to the period of the break-up (as opposed to the documents Kamenetsky cites which were written years later) that the chief reason Dubno left was because Mendelssohn refused to publish his lengthy introduction. Kamenetsky's claim that Mendelssohn deliberately refused to publish his introdocution in order to cause Dubno - who was to frum for him - to leave has no basis and in fact contradicts all relevant documents of that period.

My second critique involved his important article on R' Menashe M' Ilya (Yeshurun 20). Previously, Prof. I. Barzilay had published a full length biography on R' Menashe (I only have access to the various articles he has published) . As Dan Rabinowitz wrote in his review at Seforim, this book is "rife with sloppy work" and is therefore not very valuable. Despite this, I believe that there is a large amount of valuable material within his book so I would have expected R' Kamenetsky to cite it at the very least. Instead, he simply insists that all Mensahe's biographers up until now were Maskilim with an "agenda".

Kamentsky engages in frequent harsh polemics against Menashe's main biographer, Mordechai Plungian. He claims that Plungian deliberately forged the majority of the biography in order to recreate R' Menashe "in his own (maskilic) image". Now, I agree with R' Kamenetsky that Plungian's work is exceedingly unreliable based as it is on hearsay and belonging as it does to the genre of literary historiography (to some degree like Mekor Baruch) in which the author takes extensive artistic license. R' Kamenetsky provides ample proof of its unreliablity. I draw the line at actual fraudulence and I don't believe evidence has been provided to support this [1].

First, there is a reason why Plungian chose R' Menashe as his hero and this could only be because R' Menashe's reputation as an unconventional figure was already well-known. Second, R' Menashe's protestation against those who are afraid of new thoughts and push away all those who come to investigate them [2] bespeaks some type of personal experience [3].

Regarding, the reconcilation between the three groups that is the focus of Pesher Davar. We are working with the period in which Maskilism first started to become a significant (and controversial) force, in which the Gra's conflict with the Hasidim was at its greatest height and a book is published entitled "Pesher Davar" and tries to reconciliate three groups that roughly correspond to these three groups. Any attempts to deny that Menashe was attempting a reconciliation between these three groups is like one "who swears on a tree that it is a stone" and Kamenetsky's careful exegesis [4], if interesting, is analogous to "he who would purify a Sheretz with a hundred and fifty kal v' chomers". R' Menashe was very much the activist (see for instance Marc Shapiros' post at Seforim for an account of R' Menashe's proto-communist ideas - even if this story is apocryphal (I believe it is - this is a famous story with many variants) , it does demonstrate R' Menashe's reputation as an unconventional thinker existed independant of Plungian. Note also his plans to reinstate the Vaad Arbah Aratzos.) and so I imagine that he had very practical intentions in mind with the publication of this pamphlet.

Some random points -

1- R' Menashe's description of the second group describes them as believers of Natural Law.

2-R' Menashe's polemics in the beginning of PD against those who claim that Philosophy and Kabbalah are the same with different terms. This view was stated most famously stated by the Rema in Torat Ha-Olah III,4 (based on R' Moshe Botarel). I did not find the specific statement that Metatron is to be identified as the Active Intellect,etc. there. It is interesting to speculate whether this relates to the Gra's polemics [5] against Rema (He did not see the Pardes ,etc.)

[1] The fact that Kamenetsky has the manuscript and that it shows that Plungian edited significantly is hardly proof. Every author does that. The fact that Plungian does not cite his sources but merely writes Shomati is also not proof. One wouldn't expect Plungian to write the equivilant of "I heard from some guy in a bar" or from "my great-aunt Yentl" and I suspect that is what his "sources" were (hence the books unreliability).

[2] See his description of the first group. There are other statements throughout Pesher Davar that seem to hint at some type of confrontation between R' Menashe and the more "narrow-minded" believers.

[3] That is why although R' Kamenetsky's arguments against Plungians report that Menashe's books were burnt seem mostly compelling, I still think that there may be some ground to the report. Interestingly, there were also false reports of Mendelssohn's Biur being burnt in Vilna (see Altmann). Something must have been behind all these reports of book-burnings?

[4] I believe that the discrepancies that R' Kamenesky notes are the result of R' Menashe's attempt to discuss the beliefs that lie behind these movements (note his statement in Alfei Menashe that he never mention the name of the Seforim in order to avoid embarassing the authors) and to avoid referring to specific people themselves.

[5] In his discussion of the Gra's famous polemic against the Rambam's philosophy in the Biur. Kamenetsky would have done well to cite J. Dienstag's "The Relation of R. Elijah Gaon to the Philosophy of Maimonides." Talpioth 4 (1949): 253-268 rather then reinventing the wheel.
[Update: The following article might have some useful information. Can anyone check this -
מרדכי פלונגיאן - דיוקן של משכיל נוסח העיר וילנה]

On some articles in Yeshurun - R' Menashe M' Ilya and R' Shlomo Dubno

In the recent edition of Yeshurun, there is a rather lengthy article on R' Menashe M' Ilya by a R' Dovid Kamenetsky. As you will see in the Seforim blog post I linked above, there is a dearth of information on R' Menashe so this new addition is quite useful. (He was also discussed in a previous edition of Yeshurun).

The article is written in a very polemical style and there seems to be a bit of politics behind it. Apparently, Yehoshua Mondshine (or one of his followers) published an article in Kerem Chabad 4 (I don't have access to this but I've seen a similar article in Ohr Yisroel) denigrating the accomodating nature of the Beis Medrash of the Gra towards the Maskilim [1] and using R' Menashe as an example.

Kamenetsky's main fight is with R' Menashe's official biographer, Mordechai Plungian. He quotes the negative HaMaggid review cited in Seforim and relates in "oral tradition" that it was written by R' Mattisyahu Strashun (Strashun usually signed his articles Yud Beis (or something like that) according to At Bash (or something like that). He accuses Plungian of recreating R' Menashe "in his own (maskilic) image". He notes several discrepancies in his account, for example a famous statement attributed to R' Yisroel Salanter (by Louis Ginzberg "Students".. - A favorite saying of his was that the Hasidim as well as their opponents, the Mitnagdim, err the former in believing that they have leaders, the latter in maintaining that they have no need of them) is put into the mouth of R' Menashe, and some other good points.

Interestingly, Kamenetsky never mentions the other great (or not so great according to the Seforim Blog post) biography on R' Menashe which is that of Isaac Barzilay.

Kamenetsky's articles are generally very tendentious and very often resort to forced, "pilpulistic" readings of the text in order to support his views. For example, R' Menashe wrote a book Pesher Davar which is very clearly attempting some type of reconciliation between Chassidim [2], Misnagdim and Maskilim. For some reason Kamentsky isn't happy with this so he re-interprets the book as a theoretical fusion of the elements of Kabbalah, the sciences, etc. into one coherent worldview - not directed towards any specific groups of people.

This is a very forced reading, it is almost certain (to me) that an activist like Menashe (for ex. he had plans to reinstate the Vaad Arbah Aratzos) would have very practical concerns in mind when writing such a book (pamphlet really). Second, I really don't see how Menashe's clear statement that he seeks a "reconciliation among the Tsaddikim" and his following discussion about the various "groups" can be understood to refer to a question of forming a theoretical reconciliation of various "viewpoints" unless by "forcing an elephant through the eye of a needle" (I am quoting the Talmud, not the NT - obviously).

Another article in which Kamenetsky follows a similar pattern is in Yeshurun 8-10. There he is discussing R' Shlomo Dubno who was one of the original circle of the Biurists. At one point, Dubno broke with Mendelssohn and he later had a very close relationship with many Gedolim of that time, as the Haskamos that Kamenetsky printed attest. Kamentesky is faced with a bit of a dilemma here since Mendelssohn is the personification of the evil of Haskalah, and Dubno's association with him is a bit of a headache.

Now all the evidence (very finely laid out by Altmann in his biography of M.) suggests that the cause of the break was Mendelssohn's refusal to print Dubno's lengthy introduction. This isn't good enough for Kamentsky though so he invents a conspiracy theory according to which M. deliberately refused to print the introduction in order to push of D. who was to frum for him. D. on his part was only to happy to leave because he knew how bad M. was all along anyway. This really doesn't work to well. All the documents prior to the break show a pretty fine relationship bet. M. and D. The only statements that support Kamenetsky's assertion were those written after the break up which appear only to reflect an attempt by Dubno to retroactively justify his break.

In short, Yeshurun is a very fine journal with many good articles but rather tendentious on historical issues. (Incidentally, I was quite surprised that R' Yaakov Chaim Sofer in his "Al Seforim..) in the issue prior to this one seems not to have been aware of the existence of R' Nosson Adler of Hanover/London , the Baal Nesinah La-Ger.

[1] Inadvertently, Kamenetsky helped me clear up an interesting historical point. It is easily understood why the Maskilim called themselves by that name (though from a purely philological point of view it might be inappropriate (V'Hamaskilim Yizaharu in Daniel isn't referring to the "rationalists") but would did their opponents call them by a complimentary term. אבל כנראה כוונתם היה על המלה מסכילים זה מזכיר לי את כמאמר המפורסם של סטנוב "לא כל הראשונים השכילו ולא כל האחרונים הסכילו" עוד יש לפרש שהוא מלשון "שכל את ידיו" (בראשית מח, יד) והבוחר יבחר

[2 Most of Kamentsky's arguments that Menashe was essentially a Misnaggid are already presented in Barzilay's book. See the chapter on Menashe's ambivalent attitude towards Chassidim (also printed in the JQR).

How R' Yaakov Emden learned to read European languages

To complement to S's recent post on Solomon Dubno, I decided to post this fascinating passage from R' Yaakov Emden's Megillat Sefer which describes the way in which he aquired his vast secular knowledge.

"I yearned to know and to recognize the script of the German language in its own form, which my revered father never taught me, nor did I learn their handwriting from a teacher. It was necessary for me to learn by myself. My heart was always inclined to know (and) to examine worldly matters as well; the (various) nations and faiths, their characteristics and dispositions, their histories and sciences, all of whose matters cannot be known from our sacred books.

This was also (necessary) in order to know how to respond (to a heretic),to mingle comfortably
with people, to know the proper etiquette of each country, the nature of the lands and of their inhabitants, to reveal their secrets and to overcome any difficulties. All this I yearned to learn from their own books in the original. (Yet,) I found no way or manner to achieve this for I did not permit myself to hire a teacher for reading foreign books. I feared a great waste (of time from Torah studies). It was also abominable in my eyes to spend money for this (and), in addition to which, I was simply embarrassed to do so lest people find out.

Behold, I knew (that) a young lad from among the servants was learning to write and read the German language. I clandestinely took him aside and asked him to show me the shape of the printed letters in the foreign alphabet. He had just begun to learn from a Christian teacher who was a scribe and he still barely knew the shape of the separate letters,without knowing how to read the connected letters nor understand the meaning of their words. The lad showed me just once or twice to say this is A, this is B, this is C, etc. Nothing more. With the help of God, may He be blessed, who endows man with wisdom, I immediately grasped the recognition of the letters in their forms. I then struggled by myself alone to put together the words; I applied myself and understood the matter without any assistance from any tutor or teacher whatsoever. Within a short time, I acquired the ability to read a German book as well, as if I had a teacher for this for many years.

However, I succeeded in reading only their printed books and Latin script. But the German
script, with its swift connected flourishes, I still cannot recognize because of my inadequate study. Even in the printed Latin script there remained certain forms and markings or changes in the image of the letters that I do not know to this day.

For this matter I snatched surreptitiously and fleetingly. Even the lad who had shown me was not perfect.Afterwards, I was ashamed to ask anyone (to help me with) that which I failed to understand of their wisdom. With it all, I hastened to read all their printed books immediately by myself until I acquired the skill to read even the Dutch language and gazettes and also to understand much of the Latin language.

I read many of their books with all varied information about Europe, to understand all the views of people around the world in matters of their faiths and religious customs and to reveal their
thoughts about us and our holy faith. I also long, my soul yearns to know and to
understand the arrangement of the terrestrial globe which is determined by the celestial movements as described in their books. Although it is explained in our literature, it is done in a very brief manner. I also wanted to know and to perceive matters of nature; the nature of minerals; the qualities of plants and grasses; especially the science of medicine; the practices of nations and kings, their wars and history; their unique tales and the annals of (their) generations; the original ideas of those who write about the lands, oceans, rivers and deserts and those who describe their condition; the designer's craft, skills, cunning, fraud and deception and foolish stories of fabricated contrivances. All of this my eyes saw in their books. I have expert knowledge of them and their deeds. All their thoughts, their frauds and their good qualities are known and revealed to me so as not to be ignorant of the wisdom
of people the world over.

However, I am careful to read and study them only in a place where it is forbidden to meditate on words of Torah, nowhere else. Indeed, on several occasions, I extracted the sweet from the strong. The honey that I found in them I scooped into my hands to use it in the pursuit of the sacred task (to reveal) various esoteric and sealed matters. Above all, I thus succeeded in knowing how to refute (a heretic) and not to be considered a fool in their eyes. As mentioned above, I studied their books in times of leisure especially those in the fields of medical science and health preservation which is the (very) life of all creation. I studied the science of nature which I felt to be absolutely essential for the survival of the human species."

translated by Rabbi Dr. J. J. Schacter - "R' Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works"

Hat tip: S.