A complete discussion of Rebbetzin Diskin's role in Yerushalmi politics can be found in a Touro dissertation, Maharil Diskin, the man and his era (1994) , David Rotloy(?) pg.s 125-133.
In her youth, she was pretty, and dressed in the latest fashions (even with some pritzus), and was fluent in French. She married RYL Diskin at the age of 40,a nd went up with him to Jerusalem. There she is referred to in many newspapers as the commander of the kannoim, with quotes such as this one:
He quotes a source that as her saying "Let a fifth of Yerushalayim be destroyed but I won't send away any of "my" men." when asked to send away some of the kanoim.
Rotloy suggests that the reason the newspapers of the time gave her such an inflated role in the politics, is that Maharil Diskin was too great a figure to attack directly so they preferred to attack his wife. In addition, R Diskin rarely left his house, so it was his wife who asked him questions and transmitted his answers. Many suspected her of doctoring the answers or the questions.
A hesped of her can be found here (although I don't get the tea story), and another report concerning her can be found in Moriah.
(N.B. Her name and that of couple of other women is mentioned here, I don't know of any parallel.)
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Another rocking Rebbetzin - Rebbetzin Sarah/Sonia Diskin
In the history of Yerushalmi politics, much is made of the role of Rebetzin Diskin as a large cause of the trouble. Sources abound, but I found the following source (from here ) to be the most revealing.
"Rabbi J.L. Diskin's second wife Sarah was famed as the Brisker Rebbetzen. She was learned and knowledgeable in all the laws. She was very strict in the matter of orthodoxy and mixed into all the community affairs. She had very strong mind; she came from a very prestigious family – she was the granddaughter of the rabbi “Nodah BeYehudah” – and she also came from the wealthy family of Joshua Zeitlin. When she married Joshua Diskin she brought with her a sum of 40,000 rubles (a huge amount in those days), with which they built the J.L. Diskin Orphanage in Jerusalem.
"Rabbi J.L. Diskin's second wife Sarah was famed as the Brisker Rebbetzen. She was learned and knowledgeable in all the laws. She was very strict in the matter of orthodoxy and mixed into all the community affairs. She had very strong mind; she came from a very prestigious family – she was the granddaughter of the rabbi “Nodah BeYehudah” – and she also came from the wealthy family of Joshua Zeitlin. When she married Joshua Diskin she brought with her a sum of 40,000 rubles (a huge amount in those days), with which they built the J.L. Diskin Orphanage in Jerusalem.
Although she had very strong opinions, she was very knowledgeable in the laws of what was forbidden and what was permitted – she would even at times give her opinion in front of her husband the rabbi. And it would happen that she sometimes disagreed with her husband's rulings. Joshua Lieb's method was to try and make things easier for people – the Rebbetzen was far stricter.
Once, on the eve of Passover, a Jew came and asked a question - a kernel of corn had fallen into the soup…. Rabbi Diskin considered and decided that the soup remained kosher for Passover. When his wife the rebbetzen heard this, she jumped into the conversation and said:” Although I'm not allowed to give my opinion in front of my husband the rabbi, if we should follow Rabbi Diskin's verdict, then God forbid, the whole city would eat Chometz during Passover!”
After the writing of the marriage contract, she said to her husband the groom Joshua Leib: “ Mazal Tov! Don't take your brides blessing lightly….”
On the eve of Passover she would even scour the door handles, afraid that there was a residue of Chometz on them.
It was said that she was responsible for the majority of disputes and fights between the Neturei Carta and the leaders of the new Zionist settlements.
She passed away in Jerusalem in 1907, and was accorded much honor after her death. She once asked her husband: ” why did the sages create the blessing that is said every morning by males thanking God for not making me a woman? Is the shoemaker who can't learn the Torah or Gemarra better then me who is educated and learned? Or is it because I am I woman that I am inferior? ”
The rabbi replied: “every man says this blessing, but only in regards to his own wife. The rabbi thanks God that he is not his wife the Rebbetzen! The shoemaker thanks God that he is not his wife….”
One Passover eve, after the burning of all the Chometz, the rabbi said: “I have already cleaned all the Chometz that is in my property, except this Chometz (pointing at his wife) which I can't get rid of….”. ” You are wrong” she answered her husband, “this Chometz doesn't have to be cleaned out because my father already sold it long ago to a Gentile!"
(Its pretty obvious why she her first marriage ended in divorce)
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
On the Greek-Roman-Jewish connection
I see that Alan Brill has a review of a new book on cultural borrowing between the Talmud and the Greek and Roman literature. To the best of my knowledge, Talmudic "borrowing" from Socrates was first noticed by S. Lieberman in GJP/HJP (expanded in Azzam Yadin, “Rabban Gamliel, Aphrodite’s Bath, and the Question of Pagan Monotheism,” Jewish Quarterly Review 96 (2006), 149-179), in that case the satire was used against the "philosoph." (There is also some discussion of possible borrowing from Aesop's fables but as many of these fables originate in the Near East
this is not relevant here.)
As Brill notes, many saw the parallels as early as the 19th century. My favorite example of this is the borrowing of the Tantalus myth by the Yerushalmi. This parallel was noted by Shir in passing in a very evocative passage of his letters (follow link - I really think this is worth the read). The imagery is so very compelling that is hardly surprising that the Talmud would borrow it despite its pagan origins.
this is not relevant here.)
As Brill notes, many saw the parallels as early as the 19th century. My favorite example of this is the borrowing of the Tantalus myth by the Yerushalmi. This parallel was noted by Shir in passing in a very evocative passage of his letters (follow link - I really think this is worth the read). The imagery is so very compelling that is hardly surprising that the Talmud would borrow it despite its pagan origins.
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Chasam Sofer's Pashtanim?
In Chasam Sofer Gittin 12a s.v. kol, he refers to a novel explanation of the pashtanim on Tehillim 45:13 כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה namely - that internal beauty (middos) is more important then the external beauty of the gold chains in the end of the passuk. I could not find this explanation in Ibn Ezra or R'dak on that passuk, any ideas which commentary Chasam Sofer might be referring to?
Monday, November 30, 2009
On Chasam Sofer's Derekh HaLimud
From Gittin 11a:
You can see from here the way the Chasam Sofer would actively look for Halachic implications even during his theoretical learnining. In this case, he comes out with a Chumra that you wouldn't be able to believe a military court that reports that a Jewish soldier was killed.
You can see from here the way the Chasam Sofer would actively look for Halachic implications even during his theoretical learnining. In this case, he comes out with a Chumra that you wouldn't be able to believe a military court that reports that a Jewish soldier was killed.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Reish Lakish on the joys of marriage
Yitzhak's provocative post reminded me of the famous disagreement between R YB Solveitchick and R E Rackman as to whether the principle of Reish Lakish - "tav l'meisiv tan du mil'meisiv armalo" - and to whether it is a "transient psychological behavioral pattern" or a "permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, in the metaphysical human personality [!]".
First, some basic philological analysis. The expression is in the "lashon ketzarah" of Yerushalmi (although it does not appear in Yerusahlmi) which I think proves that this is an exact recording of Reish Lakish's statement. The translation is that it is better to carry a "load" (Tan being a contraction of either To'en - a load, or perhaps Ten - a basket?) of grief (Du being related to the word - Devai - as in "Al Eresh Dvai" - on a bed of grief (deathbed), then to live as a widow.
Its unclear in which context the statement was made, and whether it is Reish Lakish's own observation on the joys of marriage or some type of received tradition (unlikely). Its unclear how much grief the basket/load is supposed to include. R' Mohe Feinstein (on whose rulings R' Rackman supposedly relied (see the summary in this article) believs it to be finite, and in a case where the husband is impotent or homosexual, R' Moshe ruled that Reish Lakish's principle does not apply and you can claim Mekach Ta'us.
I am far from an expert in R' YB Soloveitchik's p'sak, but I would guess that he would disagree with R Moshe in the above two case, as the woman will still have company, if nothing else.
In the Talmud, the statement is cited in relation to engagement by proxy (Kiddushin 41a), one who is "mezakeh" a get to his wife in the midst of a quarrel (unclear - a quarrel of which intensity) (Yevamot 118b), that a woman would be willing to accept a levirate marriage with a brother with a terrible skin disease for a woman is happy with anything (Bava Kamma 111a) - this last statement ought to be clarified in light of the interesting Gemara that states that a woman is pleased to receive the honor bestowed on a married woman, even if she marries a very short husband - but with the addition that she will cheat" and use her husband as cover, an addition that shows that a moral woman would perhaps not be satisfied with such a husband?, the last case is (Kiddushin 7a) that a woman will be willing to get engaged for minimal payment (adam chashuv).
It would seem that the Talmud at least placed the basket of grief to be quite large, and that as long as the man can act in at least some of the roles of a husband, the marriage will stand. The fact that all this is observably not the opinion of women today (metaphysical personality or no) makes for a real challenge.
[Update: I see that there are many great sources on this topic in Otzar HaPoskim V. 13 pg. 109 ff. I hope to update this post soon.]
First, some basic philological analysis. The expression is in the "lashon ketzarah" of Yerushalmi (although it does not appear in Yerusahlmi) which I think proves that this is an exact recording of Reish Lakish's statement. The translation is that it is better to carry a "load" (Tan being a contraction of either To'en - a load, or perhaps Ten - a basket?) of grief (Du being related to the word - Devai - as in "Al Eresh Dvai" - on a bed of grief (deathbed), then to live as a widow.
Its unclear in which context the statement was made, and whether it is Reish Lakish's own observation on the joys of marriage or some type of received tradition (unlikely). Its unclear how much grief the basket/load is supposed to include. R' Mohe Feinstein (on whose rulings R' Rackman supposedly relied (see the summary in this article) believs it to be finite, and in a case where the husband is impotent or homosexual, R' Moshe ruled that Reish Lakish's principle does not apply and you can claim Mekach Ta'us.
I am far from an expert in R' YB Soloveitchik's p'sak, but I would guess that he would disagree with R Moshe in the above two case, as the woman will still have company, if nothing else.
In the Talmud, the statement is cited in relation to engagement by proxy (Kiddushin 41a), one who is "mezakeh" a get to his wife in the midst of a quarrel (unclear - a quarrel of which intensity) (Yevamot 118b), that a woman would be willing to accept a levirate marriage with a brother with a terrible skin disease for a woman is happy with anything (Bava Kamma 111a) - this last statement ought to be clarified in light of the interesting Gemara that states that a woman is pleased to receive the honor bestowed on a married woman, even if she marries a very short husband - but with the addition that she will cheat" and use her husband as cover, an addition that shows that a moral woman would perhaps not be satisfied with such a husband?, the last case is (Kiddushin 7a) that a woman will be willing to get engaged for minimal payment (adam chashuv).
It would seem that the Talmud at least placed the basket of grief to be quite large, and that as long as the man can act in at least some of the roles of a husband, the marriage will stand. The fact that all this is observably not the opinion of women today (metaphysical personality or no) makes for a real challenge.
[Update: I see that there are many great sources on this topic in Otzar HaPoskim V. 13 pg. 109 ff. I hope to update this post soon.]
Monday, November 16, 2009
On RJJ
Those interested in early American Jewish history will find the pamphlet Toldeos Yaakov Yoseph in New York of great interest. For more on New York's first Chief Rabbi -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
