Of late several harsh criticisms have been directed against the works of R’ Baruch Halevi Epstein including accusations plagiarism and of "manufacturing stories". For the moment, I will focus on the latter complaint. I hope to focus on some of the other complaints in future posts.
As part of a series analyzing various “Sippurei Tsadddikim”, Mr. Y. Mondeshein has provided us with a through (according to his lights) analysis of various inconsistencies in R’ Epsteins work.
The majority of his criticisms merely prove that R’ Epstein availed himself of a small amount of artistic license. Hardly a devastating criticism given that (to the best of my knowledge) R’ Epstein never intended to produce an academically accurate history.
Mondeshein cites only two proofs to support his insinuation that these stories are a complete fabrication. Namely,
1. אבל הסיפור בכללותו סותר את המקובל בקרב חסידי חב"ד, שאביו עזב את ליובאוויטש בחרון-אף על אשר אחד מגדולי החסידים נהג בו שלא בכבוד המגיע לו לדעתו
2. אנחנו ידענו את הרב רש"י זוין ע"ה, שנסמך להוראה גם על-ידי בעל 'ערוך השולחן', והקשרים ביניהם נמשכו גם לאחר מכן. האם הרב זוין סיפר בהזדמנות כלשהי על "כללי ההוראה" שקיבל מ'ערוך השולחן' בשם אדמו"ר ה'צמח צדק'?! האם בעל 'ערוך השולחן' לא מצא לנכון להשמיע באזני אברך עילוי זה, חסיד חב"ד, עוד סיפורים מאשר שמע במאות שעות שיחותיו עם ה'צמח צדק'?! וכלום לא נזדמנה ל'ערוך השולחן' הזדמנות נוספת כלשהי לספר על אותו חודש מאושר שזכה לו במחיצת ה'צמח צדק'?!
And it is precisely complaint number two that causes Mondeshein's entire house of cards falls. For a close talmud of the Aruch HaShulchan does in fact record some of these conversations. R’ Y. L. Maimon (Fishman) in his books Sarei HaMayos (V. 6) describes several such conversations that “the Aruch Hashulchan himself has told me when at the request of some of the (Chassidic) townspeople he went to visit the Tzemach Tsedek.” Their first conversation involved a discussion of the disagreements between Chassidim and Misnagdim…." (See at length there)
Of course for a conspiracy theorist of the like of M. (he writes that R’ Epstein invented these tales to get Chassidim to accept the Pesakim of his father, to put all sorts of strange anti-Chassidic statements in the mouth of the Tzemach Tzedek [1] , etc. ad nauseum) this presents no difficulty. He will simply extend the conspiracy to a vast Misnagdik – Tsionist (R' Maimon) conspiracy to discredit Lubavitch. This may be amusing material for a pulp novel but hardly constitutes good scholarship. [2]
It also seems eminently reasonable to suggest that the AS received Kabbalistic knowledge from the Tzemach Tzedek (Something that M. thinks unlikely). See the study of the AS's unique use of Kabbalah here.
As far as the first comment, it is clear that the AS had very positive relations with the Chassidim of his town. Proof of this is the enthusiastic approbations given to his Ohr LaYesharim by the Rebbe of Chernobyl and his son (The Tzemach Tzedek had passed on at that time). The AS printed these to his own detriment. This enraged the misnagdim who ripped the haskamos off of the work. (See the account in Maimon ibid. He obtained a copy of the work with Haskamas at great expense. Undoubtedly a study of these Haskamas will yield important information to a more serious scholar then M.)
Note also that R’ Epstein brother-in-law Meir Bar Ilan records somewhat similar information on this in his book. Many of R’ Epsteins stories are corroborated there.
Dan Rabinowitz’s has a far more balanced discussion in Tradition (Rayna Batya…An evaluation of R’ Baruch Halevi’s sources). Lacking access to a Mayin Ganim I cannot refute his sole proof [3]. Still being as her son R’ Chaim Berlin (and presumably other people who would have know her well) alive, R’ Baruch could not have entirely recreated her personality. This holds good for many of R' Baruch's accounts.
I am therefore somewhat surprised that a historian of the caliber of Dr. Marc Shapiro should write:
“While in many cases the stories told are strange and one wonders whether they are accurate, in some cases it can be determined with virtual, or even complete, certainty that they are false. Yehoshua Mondshine has authored a number of articles showing the falsehoods in (mostly) hasidic stories. Among the non-hasidic works he takes aim at is R. Barukh Epstein’s Mekor Barukh.[16] Mondshine’s prime concern is with the famous story recorded by Epstein about his father’s meeting with the Tzemah Tzedek, and Mondshine attempts to show that there is no reason to believe the report.To this I would only add that, knowing Epstein’s reputation as a plagiarizer and how he manufactured stories, one should not take seriously any of his “recollections.” I know the feminists will be upset with this, but we must assume that the entire dialogue between him and Rayna Batya,[17] which shows her as a proto-feminist, is contrived and has no historical significance other than revealing that Epstein himself wanted to call attention to the sad fate of talented women who are not permitted to study Torah In the unlikely event that he does accurately portray Rayna Batya, all I can say is that the punishment of one who tells tall tales is that even when he tells a true story he is not believed”
(Dr. Shapiro neglects to mention that this a quotation from TB Sanhedrin. See however S. Friedmans study of Talmudic proverbs here.)
As I think I have shown, M.’s study is deeply flawed and proves nothing at all. I hope to deal with the issue of Epstein's supposed plagiarism in a future post.
I would also like to put to rest any doubts on "the idea that the Netziv C"V read newspapers". The Netziv's full page article in support of Chovivei Tzion as well as some letters to the editor can easily be accessed here. (Republished and annotated in an isue of HaMaayan)
תבנא לדינא השבח שבכתבי ר' ברוך מגיע הרבה למעלה מכזביו (אם אכן יש כזה דבר שכלל אינו ברור אצלי) ותאלמנה שפתי שקר וכו
[1] R’ Epstein in fact shows a rather friendly face towards Chassidim - See for example his account of Avigdor M’Pinsk in Mekor Baruch.
[2] Some originality in this area would be quite a good thing. At present, the Charedi novel is largely a product of plagiarism. Compare for example Y. Weinstocks Calculated Risk and Agatha Christie’s Destination Unknown. The plotlines are almost identical except for the substitution of female characters with men (Somewhat in the manner of the ancient Greek and the English thespians) and an extended discussion of the dangers of computers as an “outside influence”.
[3] Also cited by M. Note that in his magisterial (an adjective that extends to all his writings) work על חינוך הבנות in Ohr Hamzrach. Dr. Meir Hershkowitz z”l arrives at the same conclusion as that of the Mayin Ganim (R’ Archivolti) using standard halachic sources. This being the case I see no reason that Archivolti (who was Leon Modena’s teacher (see Adelmans thesis on Modena) cannot be cited כתנא דמסייע
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
On Theodicy and its counterarguments
ברכות ז: -אמר ר' יותנן משום ר' יוסי.... בקש (משה) להודיעו דרכיו של הקב"ה ונתן לו שנא' (שמות לג) הודיעני נא את דרכיך אמר לפניו רבש"ע מפני מה יש צדיק וטוב לו ויש צדיק ורע לו יש רשע וטוב לו ויש רשע ורע לו אמר לו משה צדיק וטוב לו צדיק בן צדיק צדיק ורע לו צדיק בן רשע רשע וטוב לו רשע בן צדיק רשע ורע לו רשע בן רשע:
אמר מר צדיק וטוב לו צדיק בן צדיק צדיק ורע לו צדיק בן רשע איני והא כתיב (שמות לד) פקד עון אבות על בנים וכתיב (דברים כד) ובנים לא יומתו על אבות ורמינן קראי אהדדי ומשנינן לא קשיא הא כשאוחזין מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם הא כשאין אוחזין מעשה אבותיהם בידיהם אלא הכי קא"ל צדיק וטוב לו צדיק גמור צדיק ורע לו צדיק שאינו גמור רשע וטוב לו רשע שאינו גמור
רשע ורע לו רשע גמור"
I'd like to propose a theory that would explain the difference between הו"א and the מסקנא. It would at first appear that whoever proposed the first explanation seemed to have forgotten an obvious Passuk - דבר שאפילו תשב"ר יודעין בה
In truth, the word "Ben" does not necessarily mean son. It can also be used to denote profession (e.g. the popular term Ben Torah, R' Yochana bar Nafcha (but cf. Rashi)), birthplace (e.g. R' Abba bar Mamal as explained by Shir - Divrei Shalom V' Emes), or to describe certain character traits[1].
If so then the original Tanna in referring to a צדיק בן רשע actually intended to say צדיק שאינו גמר (i.e. a Tsaddik with some traits of a Rasha)- the מסקנא of the Gemara. The שו"ט of the Gemara is based on a misunderstanding of the term "Ben". (The term ה"ק is generally not meant to be a new formulation but rather an explanation of the original formulation.)
I suggest that many sugyos in which the הו"א of a Gemara seems to be saying an obviously incorrect explanation is in fact simply an unclear statement that needs to be properly interpreted ( A statement transmitted orally may convey certain nuances that are lost in print thus leading to misunderstandings, The meanigs of certain words may have changed over the 300 year period of the transmission of the Talmud , etc.)
והדבר צריך עוד עיון דו"ק ותשכח
[1] (In Mekor Baruch Vol. 3 - he suggests that the phrase Taanis 21b:
אמר ליה מוטב יבא מנה בן פרס אצל מנה בן מנה ואל יבא מנה בן מנה אצל מנה בן פרס
is not referring to his father (Why would he express humility at the expense of his father? What
of Kibbud Av?) but is rather describing himself as being incomplete - ( a loaf with traits of a half-loaf. See there for a more extended discussion on the meanings of the term "Ben".)
The Pinner Talmud
I'd like to call attention to a rather important source that R' Chaim Rapoport rather disingenuously ignores in his recent (altogether rather disingenuous) article on Artscroll. R' Rapoport cites various Gedolim who supported a certain handbook to aquaint laymen with the Talmud but unaccountably fails to mention the controversial Pinner Talmud. R' S. has already brought most of the relevant information here . Much of the relevant documentation is recorded in R' Y. Y. Greenwalds Otzar Nechmad (pg. 81ff.)(See also the interesting chapter on the CS and Shir - אריא דבי עילאי).
I was quite surprised to see that R' Yaakov Kaminetzky refused to give a Haskamah to a Talmud with Nekkudot [1] for rather similar reasons to those advanced by R' Gorelick.
1. Previously every Am Haaretz knew he was an Am Haaretz, now every Am Haaretz will believe that he also "knows and understands".
2. They placed seperation marks between questions and answers - something that is frequently unclear and subject to disagreements among the Rishonim.
3.They removed several letters writing- סכה (with nekkudos) instead of סוכה and even the letters in Shas have holiness.
4. Their Dikduk was wrong.
במחיצות רבינו- דף לא
A helpful footnote from R' Shmuel Kaminetsky informs us that "this isn't relevant to the Artscroll Shas of our days because they print the standard text of the Gemara across from the translation." (Note: So did the Pinner Talmud)
A copy of the Pinner Talmud is available on the second floor of the Samuel Abrams Research Library - והמבין יבין
Update:
[1] Manuscripts fragments from the Genizah contain Nekkudot (in the Babylonian style of punctuation). See here - http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2006/07/geniza-research-by-seridei-esh-and.html . See also Dov Zlotnicks article in the Journal Ancient Near Eastern studies (JANE) (should be online somewhere)
I was quite surprised to see that R' Yaakov Kaminetzky refused to give a Haskamah to a Talmud with Nekkudot [1] for rather similar reasons to those advanced by R' Gorelick.
1. Previously every Am Haaretz knew he was an Am Haaretz, now every Am Haaretz will believe that he also "knows and understands".
2. They placed seperation marks between questions and answers - something that is frequently unclear and subject to disagreements among the Rishonim.
3.They removed several letters writing- סכה (with nekkudos) instead of סוכה and even the letters in Shas have holiness.
4. Their Dikduk was wrong.
במחיצות רבינו- דף לא
A helpful footnote from R' Shmuel Kaminetsky informs us that "this isn't relevant to the Artscroll Shas of our days because they print the standard text of the Gemara across from the translation." (Note: So did the Pinner Talmud)
A copy of the Pinner Talmud is available on the second floor of the Samuel Abrams Research Library - והמבין יבין
Update:
[1] Manuscripts fragments from the Genizah contain Nekkudot (in the Babylonian style of punctuation). See here - http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2006/07/geniza-research-by-seridei-esh-and.html . See also Dov Zlotnicks article in the Journal Ancient Near Eastern studies (JANE) (should be online somewhere)
Friday, December 21, 2007
אפילו שיחת חולין של תלמידי חכמים צריכים תלמוד - ר' יעקב קמנצקי זצ"ל והכוללים
I recall reading in his biography (by Y. Rosenblum. I regret that I have as yet been unable to obtain The Making of a Gadol) that R' Yaakov considered it important to "stay in learning" the first two years after marraige.
It is well known that everything R' Yaakov did or said had its roots in Chazal (See B'Mechitzos Rabbenu for more examples). I would like to propose a possible explanation.
The mishna in Avot provides the following program -at 5 yrs. Mikra (Tenach), at 10 yrs. Mishna, at 15 Gemara. The reader wil see that the amount of time necessary to receive a complete knowledge in any subject is 5 yrs. If at the age of 18 a boy is to be married there remain two more years for which he has to complete his 5 years of Talmud (and after this כל ימיו בעמוד והחזר). And it is from there that R' Yaakov must have reached his conclusion that the first two years after marriage should be devoted to Torah study.
I also recall reading that a certain businessman, who already kept a rigorous learning schedule, wanted to retire and devote all his time to learning. R' Yaakov told him to stay in work saying "After retirement - one starts spending more time with a newspaper and coffee." The learning will not necessarily increase.
It is well known that everything R' Yaakov did or said had its roots in Chazal (See B'Mechitzos Rabbenu for more examples). I would like to propose a possible explanation.
The mishna in Avot provides the following program -at 5 yrs. Mikra (Tenach), at 10 yrs. Mishna, at 15 Gemara. The reader wil see that the amount of time necessary to receive a complete knowledge in any subject is 5 yrs. If at the age of 18 a boy is to be married there remain two more years for which he has to complete his 5 years of Talmud (and after this כל ימיו בעמוד והחזר). And it is from there that R' Yaakov must have reached his conclusion that the first two years after marriage should be devoted to Torah study.
I also recall reading that a certain businessman, who already kept a rigorous learning schedule, wanted to retire and devote all his time to learning. R' Yaakov told him to stay in work saying "After retirement - one starts spending more time with a newspaper and coffee." The learning will not necessarily increase.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Truth of Yaakov - towards an intellectual portrait of R' Yaakov Kaminetsky Zt"l 5- Minhagim
Mekorei Minhagim
The final aspect of R’ Yaakov’s work that we will discuss here is his analysis on the sources of certain Minhagim. One can find these in the comments to EY SA (מפי השמועה).
In the end of Pesukei D’ Zimra we recite a passage starting ויברך דוד in the middle of the passage אתה הוא השם לבדך there is a separate paragraph starting וכרת. R’ Yaakov notes that וכרת is the middle of a Passuk. The Talmud writes that – "כל פסוקא דלא פסקי משה אנן לא פסקינן ליה" (מגילה כב,א. וש"נ). [1] - it is forbidden to break up a Passuk?
He provides the following ingenious explanation. On days when there was a Bris the congregation would stop to sing at this point and the Shaliach Tzibur would have to pause. It is for this reason that the printer of the Siddur (AKA the Bochur Ha’Zetser who, as is well know, was generally far from being the greatest Talmud Chacham) divided this passage into two paragraphs.
"מצווה להתענות יום שמת בו אביו או אמו" - רמ"א, יו"ד ת"ב י"ב. Today the Minhag has become to make a Kiddush on this day [2]. R’ Yaakov explains that this Taanis, like the Taanis Bechorim on Erev Pesach, could be interrupted by a Seudas Mitzvah like a Siyum. Therefore someone with a Yahrtzeit would make a Siyum and provide a Kiddush. As time passed, explains R’ Yaakov, the Kiddush was remembered but the Siyum- forgotten.
These are only two examples out of many [3]. R' Yaakov's incisive logic is the equal of even the most advanced scholar in this field[4].
[1] For the Halachic details, see the relevant discussion here. In addition see also שו"ת חתם סופר או"ח סי' י
[2] See R’ Yitchok Alfasi – Ha’Chassidus V’Ha Shulchan Aruch:
החסידים נהגו ביום ה"יאהרצייט" לתת "לחיים" ולשמוח, כי הנשמה עולה מדי שנה בשנה, אם כי
קבעו גם לימוד פרקים ידועים במשניות. כן נהגו לפי קבלת האר"י להתפלל מוסף בשבת שלפני ה"יאהרצייט" ומעריב במוצאי שבת. אצל "יאהרצייט" של צדיק, אף נהגו לסעוד סעודה גדולה עם אורות גדולים ורבים ואין אומרים תחנון. עיצומו של ענין מ"ההלולא" שהיו עושים על קברו של רשב"י. קובע רבי דוד משה מטשורטקוב: לכן צריכים בני הצדיק, ותלמידיו, לעשות יום טוב ביום פטירתו, כי באותו היום מתעלה נשמת הצדיק בכל שנה ושנה למדרגה עליונה ביותר והוא דומה ליום שנעשה בו נס לאבותיו". ("דברי דוד" ע' כ"א
[3] More of these can be found on the bottom of EY on SA (culled from various conversations with different people – R’ Neustadt did a truly amazing job collecting this fascinating storehouse of information). It is interesting that R’ Yaakov didn’t find these points to be of sufficient interest to write down. Mention should also be made here of במחיצות רבינו an enthralling collection of observations and conversation of R’ Yaakov from one of his Talmidim - R’ Michoel Yaakov Jacobs
[4] In the introduction of the expanded version of EY on Chumash is son-in law writes that R' Chaim Heller who was a good friend of R' Yaakov told him that - "Your father-in laws knowledge of Tenach exceeds that of several well known professionals in the field". R' Yaakov used to say that R' Chaim Heller was a יחיד in Emunah in this generation. The present writer would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to HaRav Mordechai Ben R' Shimshon Breuer Zt"l who more then anything else was a גדול in יראת שמים. The spirit of pure emunah that is imbued in his writings speaks far louder then the intellectual arguments alone would have. זכר צדיק לברכה
The final aspect of R’ Yaakov’s work that we will discuss here is his analysis on the sources of certain Minhagim. One can find these in the comments to EY SA (מפי השמועה).
In the end of Pesukei D’ Zimra we recite a passage starting ויברך דוד in the middle of the passage אתה הוא השם לבדך there is a separate paragraph starting וכרת. R’ Yaakov notes that וכרת is the middle of a Passuk. The Talmud writes that – "כל פסוקא דלא פסקי משה אנן לא פסקינן ליה" (מגילה כב,א. וש"נ). [1] - it is forbidden to break up a Passuk?
He provides the following ingenious explanation. On days when there was a Bris the congregation would stop to sing at this point and the Shaliach Tzibur would have to pause. It is for this reason that the printer of the Siddur (AKA the Bochur Ha’Zetser who, as is well know, was generally far from being the greatest Talmud Chacham) divided this passage into two paragraphs.
"מצווה להתענות יום שמת בו אביו או אמו" - רמ"א, יו"ד ת"ב י"ב. Today the Minhag has become to make a Kiddush on this day [2]. R’ Yaakov explains that this Taanis, like the Taanis Bechorim on Erev Pesach, could be interrupted by a Seudas Mitzvah like a Siyum. Therefore someone with a Yahrtzeit would make a Siyum and provide a Kiddush. As time passed, explains R’ Yaakov, the Kiddush was remembered but the Siyum- forgotten.
These are only two examples out of many [3]. R' Yaakov's incisive logic is the equal of even the most advanced scholar in this field[4].
[1] For the Halachic details, see the relevant discussion here. In addition see also שו"ת חתם סופר או"ח סי' י
[2] See R’ Yitchok Alfasi – Ha’Chassidus V’Ha Shulchan Aruch:
החסידים נהגו ביום ה"יאהרצייט" לתת "לחיים" ולשמוח, כי הנשמה עולה מדי שנה בשנה, אם כי
קבעו גם לימוד פרקים ידועים במשניות. כן נהגו לפי קבלת האר"י להתפלל מוסף בשבת שלפני ה"יאהרצייט" ומעריב במוצאי שבת. אצל "יאהרצייט" של צדיק, אף נהגו לסעוד סעודה גדולה עם אורות גדולים ורבים ואין אומרים תחנון. עיצומו של ענין מ"ההלולא" שהיו עושים על קברו של רשב"י. קובע רבי דוד משה מטשורטקוב: לכן צריכים בני הצדיק, ותלמידיו, לעשות יום טוב ביום פטירתו, כי באותו היום מתעלה נשמת הצדיק בכל שנה ושנה למדרגה עליונה ביותר והוא דומה ליום שנעשה בו נס לאבותיו". ("דברי דוד" ע' כ"א
[3] More of these can be found on the bottom of EY on SA (culled from various conversations with different people – R’ Neustadt did a truly amazing job collecting this fascinating storehouse of information). It is interesting that R’ Yaakov didn’t find these points to be of sufficient interest to write down. Mention should also be made here of במחיצות רבינו an enthralling collection of observations and conversation of R’ Yaakov from one of his Talmidim - R’ Michoel Yaakov Jacobs
[4] In the introduction of the expanded version of EY on Chumash is son-in law writes that R' Chaim Heller who was a good friend of R' Yaakov told him that - "Your father-in laws knowledge of Tenach exceeds that of several well known professionals in the field". R' Yaakov used to say that R' Chaim Heller was a יחיד in Emunah in this generation. The present writer would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to HaRav Mordechai Ben R' Shimshon Breuer Zt"l who more then anything else was a גדול in יראת שמים. The spirit of pure emunah that is imbued in his writings speaks far louder then the intellectual arguments alone would have. זכר צדיק לברכה
The Truth of Yaakov - towards an intellectual portrait of R' Yaakov Kaminetsky Zt"l 4- Etymology
Etymology
One can find a list of some words that R’ Yaakov analyses in the index of the expanded edition of Emet L’ Yaakov on Chumash. For now I will focus on one significant example.
Shabbos 33b: (בראשית לג) ויחן את פני העיר אמר רב מטבע תיקן להם ושמואל אמר שווקים תיקן להם ור' יוחנן אמר מרחצאות תיקן להם
Rashi finding it difficult to relate the word Tikkun to the word Va’Yichan suggests that the Gemara refers to the next Passuk (Did Rashi have a different Taamei Ha’Mikra here?)
וַיִּקֶן אֶת-חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶהֹ - VaYikan according to Rashi is related to the word Tikkun.
The Maharsha comments that “this is difficult since we only find the term Tikkun in Kohelet [!!!] and never without the Tav which is a root letter.”
R’ Yaakov comments on this that we do in fact find letters in Rabbinic Hebrew with a Tav that lack a Tav in Tenach. He cites as in example the word Terumah which in the Chumash is written וירם without the Tav. [1a]
I am exceedingly surprised that both the Maharsha and R’ Yaakov noted the frequent use of Mishnaic Hebrew in Kohelet and passed over it without comment. [1]
[1a] I recall the term Terumah being used as a prime example of the differences between Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew in one of the "Wissenschaft das Jedentums" works but I have forgotten where I saw this. Can anyone recall what this might have been?
[1]See the introduction to the standard Mishnayot on the nature of Mishnaic Hebrew and in the footnote there – רק בקהלת והטעם ידוע למשכילי עם . Surprisingly this disgustingly snide comment has not been removed from the new Zecher Chanoch edition.
See also R’ Chaim Dov Rabinowitz in his interesting From Nechemia to the Present: A History.. In one of the discussions there he writes how upset he is that this article was included in the Mishnayos. R’ Rabinowitz’s writes that Tenach uses a higher Hebrew and therefore does not contain all of the words used in daily life. This according to his view, accounts for all the difference between Biblical .and Rabbinic Hebrew. That R’ Rabinowitz was aware of at least some of the issues of Bibical criticism is obvious from his introduction to Daat Soferim - Isaiah and various other apologetics scattered throughout his work. See also the Radziner’s scathing review in HaDarom complaining (among other things) of the apologetic tendency in the Daat Soferim.
One can find a list of some words that R’ Yaakov analyses in the index of the expanded edition of Emet L’ Yaakov on Chumash. For now I will focus on one significant example.
Shabbos 33b: (בראשית לג) ויחן את פני העיר אמר רב מטבע תיקן להם ושמואל אמר שווקים תיקן להם ור' יוחנן אמר מרחצאות תיקן להם
Rashi finding it difficult to relate the word Tikkun to the word Va’Yichan suggests that the Gemara refers to the next Passuk (Did Rashi have a different Taamei Ha’Mikra here?)
וַיִּקֶן אֶת-חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶהֹ - VaYikan according to Rashi is related to the word Tikkun.
The Maharsha comments that “this is difficult since we only find the term Tikkun in Kohelet [!!!] and never without the Tav which is a root letter.”
R’ Yaakov comments on this that we do in fact find letters in Rabbinic Hebrew with a Tav that lack a Tav in Tenach. He cites as in example the word Terumah which in the Chumash is written וירם without the Tav. [1a]
I am exceedingly surprised that both the Maharsha and R’ Yaakov noted the frequent use of Mishnaic Hebrew in Kohelet and passed over it without comment. [1]
[1a] I recall the term Terumah being used as a prime example of the differences between Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew in one of the "Wissenschaft das Jedentums" works but I have forgotten where I saw this. Can anyone recall what this might have been?
[1]See the introduction to the standard Mishnayot on the nature of Mishnaic Hebrew and in the footnote there – רק בקהלת והטעם ידוע למשכילי עם . Surprisingly this disgustingly snide comment has not been removed from the new Zecher Chanoch edition.
See also R’ Chaim Dov Rabinowitz in his interesting From Nechemia to the Present: A History.. In one of the discussions there he writes how upset he is that this article was included in the Mishnayos. R’ Rabinowitz’s writes that Tenach uses a higher Hebrew and therefore does not contain all of the words used in daily life. This according to his view, accounts for all the difference between Biblical .and Rabbinic Hebrew. That R’ Rabinowitz was aware of at least some of the issues of Bibical criticism is obvious from his introduction to Daat Soferim - Isaiah and various other apologetics scattered throughout his work. See also the Radziner’s scathing review in HaDarom complaining (among other things) of the apologetic tendency in the Daat Soferim.
The Truth of Yaakov - towards an intellectual portrait of R' Yaakov Kaminetsky Zt"l - 2- History
History
In his Haskamah [1] to the בינו שנות דור ודור of R’ Nosson Dovid Rabinowitz, R’ Yaakov praises the fact that “now Bnei Torah will have access to a knowledge [of history] of which they heretofore knew nothing at all” and that it is good that he is focusing on the Second Temple period of which heretofore each historian had written כאדם העושה בתוך שלו but “now they will see that it is impossible to write on this period without a clear knowledge of the Talmud” [2].
One example of this is in Megillah 9a in reference to the translation of the seventy wise men - instead of Ex. iv. 20 (on a donkey), "Set them on a porter (man-carrier)". R’ Yaakov asks, Why the great emphasis on which animal was involved? It seems a minor irrelevant detail.
He refers us to Josephus’s Contra Apion , wherein it is written that the Jews were accused of worshiping an ass. He further points to the predominance of the donkey in the Bible (The Messiah is a “poor man riding on a donkey”, Abraham “saddles up his donkey” traveling to the Akeidah, etc.) to explain the source of this slander [3].
[Update: Ephraim notes that this explanation has already been noted by Maharat"z Chajes in his Imrei Binah (Siman 15). I responded by noting that R' Yaakov actually indirectly refers to Imrei Binah at one point (EY Taanis 31b). He attempts to refute Chajes's position that the Rashi commentary on Taanis was not written by Rashi by pointing out that Tosafos somewhere else cites a Rashi that is identical to the Rashi on Taanis. Since as far as I can recall R' Chajes actually deals with that objection (and answers by saying that Rashi wrote a parts of a commentary that was later incorporated into the larger pirush), I think that R' Yaakov never really read Imrei Binah but saw Chajes's view in his Hagahos to Taanis. ]
See also his explanation of the encounter between R’ Yochanan and the Sadducees (Bava Basra Ch. 8) on the discussion of "ירושה בקבר" in light of the Sadducees denial of the afterlife (cited here).
See EY Yoma 84b in which he cites a Rosh (explaining the Rif) that says that matters of Pikuach Nefesh should not be done through woman and children but rather through Gedolei Yisroel , the Rosh says that this is to prevent מינות. R’ Yakov explains this in light of the Christain slander that the Pharisees valued the law over human life [4]. He approvingly cites the Dorot Ha’Rishonim’s work on this point
In Samhedrin 58b: Resh Lakish also said: A heathen who keeps a day of rest, deserves death, for it is written, And a day and a night they shall not rest, and a master has said: Their prohibition is their death sentence. Rabina said: Even if he rested on a Monday
Rashi notes that he mentions Monday to exclude the Christains who rest on Sunday. R’ Yaakov wonders about this for an Babylonia, as opposed to Israel, Christains were not a significant sector and Ravina should not have found it necessary to phrase his statement to exclude their day of rest? [5]
Despite all this I see no evidence that R’ Yaakov placed a special emphasis on learning history. His knowledge was of the superficial sort that can be picked up by a vague perusal of Josephus, Dorot Ha’Rishonim and the like. (Cf. R’ Herzog’s analysis of Mar Shmuel cited here that shows an in depth knowledge of the Sassanian dynasty.) Although R’ Yaakov appreciated the value of history to help better understand the Talmud, he never made any systematic attempt to acquire such knowledge.
[1] Compare the other Haskamahs none of which stress the importance of the study of history - (note that the Rambam writes in Pirush Ha'Mishnayos that the study of History is a waste of time- apologetics like that of Ze'ev Yavetz (History- vol. 12) that claim that in the Rambam's times "history" was all of the "Arabian Nights" variety has been disproven by the discovery of accurate historiography from that period.) See also the Haskamah of R’ Moshe Feinstein to Toledot Am Olam.
[2] The reader will see that in this R’ Yaakov was influenced by the writings of the Dorot Ha’Rishonim (on this see further below). This book is a worthy successor in both excellence of scholarship (Rabinowitz is clearly proficient in the relevant literature) and regrettably, also in the vicious polemical style. On Halevy’s polemics see Mordecai (ben Yitzchok) Breuer שלש גישות למדעי יהודות and further the criticism of the Seridei Eish in SE vol. 4 דרכו של רי"א הלוי בחקר המשנה This article was censored in the Sefer Zikaron L’ R’ Yitchok Isaac Halevy (See the review in HaMaayan of this sefer.)
[3] See also the story that Agrippa 1 relates to the mad Casear Caligula to avoid having a statue placed in the Beis Hamikdash (I saw this in the -not entirely accurate- Claudius novels by Robert Graves.)
[4] R’ Yaakov is clearly referring to the story of the Good Samaritan - Luke 10:25-37
[5] In this R’ Yakov was mistaken – See here
In his Haskamah [1] to the בינו שנות דור ודור of R’ Nosson Dovid Rabinowitz, R’ Yaakov praises the fact that “now Bnei Torah will have access to a knowledge [of history] of which they heretofore knew nothing at all” and that it is good that he is focusing on the Second Temple period of which heretofore each historian had written כאדם העושה בתוך שלו but “now they will see that it is impossible to write on this period without a clear knowledge of the Talmud” [2].
One example of this is in Megillah 9a in reference to the translation of the seventy wise men - instead of Ex. iv. 20 (on a donkey), "Set them on a porter (man-carrier)". R’ Yaakov asks, Why the great emphasis on which animal was involved? It seems a minor irrelevant detail.
He refers us to Josephus’s Contra Apion , wherein it is written that the Jews were accused of worshiping an ass. He further points to the predominance of the donkey in the Bible (The Messiah is a “poor man riding on a donkey”, Abraham “saddles up his donkey” traveling to the Akeidah, etc.) to explain the source of this slander [3].
[Update: Ephraim notes that this explanation has already been noted by Maharat"z Chajes in his Imrei Binah (Siman 15). I responded by noting that R' Yaakov actually indirectly refers to Imrei Binah at one point (EY Taanis 31b). He attempts to refute Chajes's position that the Rashi commentary on Taanis was not written by Rashi by pointing out that Tosafos somewhere else cites a Rashi that is identical to the Rashi on Taanis. Since as far as I can recall R' Chajes actually deals with that objection (and answers by saying that Rashi wrote a parts of a commentary that was later incorporated into the larger pirush), I think that R' Yaakov never really read Imrei Binah but saw Chajes's view in his Hagahos to Taanis. ]
See also his explanation of the encounter between R’ Yochanan and the Sadducees (Bava Basra Ch. 8) on the discussion of "ירושה בקבר" in light of the Sadducees denial of the afterlife (cited here).
See EY Yoma 84b in which he cites a Rosh (explaining the Rif) that says that matters of Pikuach Nefesh should not be done through woman and children but rather through Gedolei Yisroel , the Rosh says that this is to prevent מינות. R’ Yakov explains this in light of the Christain slander that the Pharisees valued the law over human life [4]. He approvingly cites the Dorot Ha’Rishonim’s work on this point
In Samhedrin 58b: Resh Lakish also said: A heathen who keeps a day of rest, deserves death, for it is written, And a day and a night they shall not rest, and a master has said: Their prohibition is their death sentence. Rabina said: Even if he rested on a Monday
Rashi notes that he mentions Monday to exclude the Christains who rest on Sunday. R’ Yaakov wonders about this for an Babylonia, as opposed to Israel, Christains were not a significant sector and Ravina should not have found it necessary to phrase his statement to exclude their day of rest? [5]
Despite all this I see no evidence that R’ Yaakov placed a special emphasis on learning history. His knowledge was of the superficial sort that can be picked up by a vague perusal of Josephus, Dorot Ha’Rishonim and the like. (Cf. R’ Herzog’s analysis of Mar Shmuel cited here that shows an in depth knowledge of the Sassanian dynasty.) Although R’ Yaakov appreciated the value of history to help better understand the Talmud, he never made any systematic attempt to acquire such knowledge.
[1] Compare the other Haskamahs none of which stress the importance of the study of history - (note that the Rambam writes in Pirush Ha'Mishnayos that the study of History is a waste of time- apologetics like that of Ze'ev Yavetz (History- vol. 12) that claim that in the Rambam's times "history" was all of the "Arabian Nights" variety has been disproven by the discovery of accurate historiography from that period.) See also the Haskamah of R’ Moshe Feinstein to Toledot Am Olam.
[2] The reader will see that in this R’ Yaakov was influenced by the writings of the Dorot Ha’Rishonim (on this see further below). This book is a worthy successor in both excellence of scholarship (Rabinowitz is clearly proficient in the relevant literature) and regrettably, also in the vicious polemical style. On Halevy’s polemics see Mordecai (ben Yitzchok) Breuer שלש גישות למדעי יהודות and further the criticism of the Seridei Eish in SE vol. 4 דרכו של רי"א הלוי בחקר המשנה This article was censored in the Sefer Zikaron L’ R’ Yitchok Isaac Halevy (See the review in HaMaayan of this sefer.)
[3] See also the story that Agrippa 1 relates to the mad Casear Caligula to avoid having a statue placed in the Beis Hamikdash (I saw this in the -not entirely accurate- Claudius novels by Robert Graves.)
[4] R’ Yaakov is clearly referring to the story of the Good Samaritan - Luke 10:25-37
[5] In this R’ Yakov was mistaken – See here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
