Prolegomena to the study of Shir

Well nothing quite as pretentious as all that but I do want to discuss some of the earlier studies pn Shir.

The first is Simon Bernfield's Toledot Shir. It seems like a somewhat mass-produced volume (part of a series of such Toldot by Dr. Bernfeld). Bernfeld was writing at at time when the image of the enlightened Maskil (i.e. rationalists) had lost its glamour and the more mystical, romantic type was becoming in vogue. Bernfeld tries rather too hard to seem objective, constantly declaiming that "he has now wish to act as Shir's "defender"" which gives the book a very jumpy feeling since he tries to write from four points of view at once.

This style displeased the adherents of the enlightened maskil school. A Feivel Wettstein put out a small pamphlet "L'Toledot Shir" as a scathing (but not very good) attack on Bernfeld and to defend Shir. Bernfelds book does an adequate job sketching the basics of Shir's biography but he hardly takes advantage of the abundance of material, both in print, and still in manuscript nor can we is his analysis particularly perceptive.

The next study shares most of the faults of the former (indeed he appears to have borrowed quite heavily from Bernfelds book). This is Isaac Eisenstein-Barzilay's (Barzilay is the Hebrew for eisen) "Shir and his contemporaries. The first part is an adequate overview of "The Scholarly Contribution of Shelomo Judah Leib Rapoport", first printed as an article in PAAJR (I thank R' S. for notifying me of that article). The second is an overview of Shir's polemics. It is on the whole a very adequate job, and some pieces of his analysis (e.g his analysis of his polemic with Fisher/Hirsch - although even here he misses the point as I hope to show) are quite good but in general it is mostly a summary of the various polemics without much in the way of analysis. He also narrowly focuses on only these two areas leaving many aspects that still need to be explored.

Rav Shlomo Yehuda Leib Rapoport - Shir

As someone has already noted there seems to be a general lack of information on Shir. His position as a son-in-law of the Ketzos HaChoshen, as the Founder of Chochmat Yisroel in Galicia, and Chief Rabbi of Prague is enough by itself demonstrate the complexity of his position.

There is simply a massive amount of Shir's writings available on the Internet. These include:

1- Harkavy's Zichron La'Rishonim - These contain the first collection of letters between Shir and Shadal. (Artscroll released a book called Zechor Yemos Olam containing all sorts of correspondance between Harkavy and the Rabbonim of his day.)

2. Igrot Shir - and this contains the rest of the letters. This collection focuses on the argument on the origin of the Masoretes (Bavel acc. to Shadal, Eretz Yisroel acc. to Shir), a long commentary of Shir's to "deutero"-Isaiah (towards the end), Onkeles vs. Aquilas and other such issues. The volatile nature of their relationship is discussed (though not particularly well) in the Shadal bi-centennial volume.

3. Tochacha Megullah (the last part is in Hebrew)- This was Shir's response to the Reform convention in Frankfurt.

4. Toledot Mishpachot Rosenthal - This contains a good many documents relating to Shir's problems in Tarnopol and his attempt for the Rabbanus in Prague.

5. Otzar Nechmad - In the chapter on Tekufos Sa'arah B' Chayei HaChatam Sofer. Same as before.

6. Nachlas Yehuda - This was published posthumously by his son. The first part (Ner Mitzvah) is a letter to a friend of his who had become attracted to Chassidus. It's quite typical of anti-Hasidic polemic if its time. (Or says Barzilay whose work I will discuss soon. Unfortunately the file is missing pages so I acn't read the whole thing.)

The second part (Ohr Torah - a pun on the name of Geiger's book - Ur - schrift) is a very heavy attack on Geiger's magnum opus - "Urschrift und Übersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhängigkeit von der innern Entwicklung des Judentums” (Basically - Original text and translations of the Bible as they relate to the inner development of Judaism - See Susannah Heschel's book on Geiger and the Jewish Jesus Ch. 2 for an overview. Basically he uses the Targumim to construct his own version of Second Temple history in order to support his own program of Reform (but don't worry its all very objective and "scientific"). Incidentally some of Geiger's works are also available in the same place.)

7. Lots of his ontroductions to various books are available, each containing all sorts of information - Shoresh Davar, Maamaer HaYichud (of the Rambam), Gal Ed (R' S. has already pointed this one out.), Higayon HaNefesh and (not on-line at the moment) Teshuvos HaGaonim ed. Lyck and the dictionary of Ibn-Parchon.

8. Kiryat Sefer Years 1-4 - M'Arkiono Shel Shir by B. Dinaberg containing some letters written by Shir

Mar Shmuel available on line

R' Dovid Tzvi Hoffmann's doctorate - Mar Samuel is now available online both at Google Books and the Internet archive.

While in the archive, you can also check out his son-in-laws biography of him here. in Louis Ginzberg's monograph on him in "Student,Scholars, and Saints" here.

(Ginzberg's doctoral dissertation on "The Agaddah in the writings of the Church Fathers" is also available.)

A conversation with Hagaon Prof. Dovid Halivni

I recently had the opportunity to meet with Professor Halivni and discuss several issues which I will record here. Prof. Halivni revolutionized the field of Talmudics by distinguishing between the various elements of the sugya – The amoraic statements and the stammatic discussions. This methodology helps clear up various difficulties within the sugya as Halvni demonstrates in his multi-volume Mekorot U’ Mesorot.

It was interesting to watch the Professor learning . He uses only the standard Vilna Shas and the Dikdukei Soferim. (He is currently studying Tractate Sanhedrin, after just recently publishing Mekorot U' Mesorot on Bava Basra) Occasionally he opens another Tractate (or the Sifra ,etc. ) in order to compare readings. It is fascinating to watch the amount of concentration that is placed in analyzing every line.

1. I asked him how he understood the Talmudic phrase (Ravina V’ Reb Ashi Sof Hora’ah). The Rishonim seem to have understood it as referring to the redaction of the Talmud (See Kalmin’s excellent book on that subject) although even they were not entirely sure (See Tosafos in Chullin 2a). Now the word Horaah literally refers to decision-making. One might say that one cannot refute a decision of Ravina and R’ Ashi but this also seems not to be correct as frequently a V’Hilchosa (which are generally assumed to be Geonic) argues on an Amoraic decision. See also my earlier post)

I cannot remember all the details of his response. He was (naturally) quite adamant that it had nothing to do with redaction. He noted that the term “Itmar” is only used in connection with pre- R’ Ashi Amoraim (although there weren’t that many Amoraim after R' Ashi for this to be significant?) and that the statement was simply meant to express the end of an era (marked by “Itmar”). Most surprisingly, he said that he believed that even today there is no technical reason that would prevent us from arguing on an Amora. The difficulty is practical i.e. we don’t know really understand the methodology that the Amoraim used to arrive at their decisions that we should be able to dispute them.

2. Another issue I raised is the statement in Shabbos 118b - וא"ר יוסי מימי לא עברתי על דברי חברי יודע אני בעצמי שאיני כהן אם אומרים לי חבירי עלה לדוכן אני עולה

First, I was bothered by the question of Tosafos – “What issur is involved…?”. I do not understand why Tosafos assumed that there must be an issur involved (raising the question that we will soon discuss how could he involve himself in an issur to please his friends). Certainly, the next statement (I never said anything and retracted) involves no issur. It would be easier to say that R’ Yosi was simply saying that he would even do something remarkably strange (for a non-kohen to go up to the duchen) for his friends.

Prof. Halivni’s response was that in the view of the Tosafists – it is obvious R’ Yose would do all one can for a friend, even something somewhat strange. The vehemence of R’ Yose’s exclamation would imply something more – an actual issur.

Regarding the main difficulties of the passage – 1. How could R’ Yose transgress an issur (acc. to Tosafos) 2, and why would his friends ask him to do so? Prof. Halivni is of the opinion that R’ Yose was merely using an expression to demonstrate his loyalty to his friends – not that he ever was asked to actually do so. I find this explanation somewhat difficult since I do not see why R’ Yose should have chosen such a strange way of expressing himself – one that has parallels anywhere else.

(The Torah Temimah had pointed to a variant in Rabbenu Yerucham that substitutes “K’dai” for Kohen. Acc. to this explanation – duchen which simply means a platform referred to a place where a darshen stood (as in Reish Duchna referring to an assistant teacher). This would resolve the question neatly.

This brought forth a rather immoderate attack from R’ Kasher in Torah Shlemah to Tsav. To cite one example – Kasher questions the TT’s new interpretation for Duchen as opposed to everywhere else where Duchen means Birkat Kohanim. In fact, in all of the Tannitic and Amoraic literature duchen never is used in to refer to Birkat Kohanim. I would suggest that perhaps the substitution of Kohen to K’dai might have happened during Geonic times when the word duchen started to be used in reference to Birkat Kohanim VT”I).

3.I also raised the issue of the “מאי לאו” that is that frequently a proof is brought in which the Talmud first assumes (w/o any proof) that the Baraita should be interpreted to be referring to the case under discussion and is then pushed off by saying that it does not refer to that case. Prof. Halivni’s explanation (it is already recorded numerous times in his book) is that when this proof is brought by Amoraim it is generally followed by a “אי הכי” which demonstrates why the first position (the מאי לאי) is to be preferred. The Stammim kept this form even where there is no אי הכי to be followed simply to demonstrate that they realize that there exist two ways to understand this Baraita (elsewhere Halivni writes of the general rhetorical style of the Stammaim which involved a back and forth even where this is not strictly needed). (I might add that generally one might say that the first option – the מאי לאו would fit more logically within the pashtus of the baraita whereas the second option is a mere דיחוי which doesn’t fit as well – ויל"ד)

4. I told him a pshat of mine (rather vilely written here) that I think he liked. I think it is important since it would mean that one has to carefully check every Maskonah to see if it might not be a reformulation of an earlier "Hava Amina".

5. Finally, he told me an explanation (I think its already printed in his Memoirs) on the statement לעולם לא יפטר אדם מחבירו אלא מתוך דבר הלכה שמתוך כך זוכרהו - ברכות, לא why the empasis on D'var Halach as opposed to Aggadah? This is because Aggadah is by nature plastic, as one can see that each movement and ideology through the ages interprets the aggadah to fit with their own ideas. Thus with an aggadah you will not "remember him" for the aggadah can be changed to a new form. But the Halacha is eternal and unchangeable.

(This is not at all an exact account and all the usual disclaimers apply)

R' Yair Chaim Bachrach's Etz Chayyim

Although the only one of the R Yair's works that is fully extant is his Chavas Yair, he also left behind over 46 volumes of writings in manuscripts. A large part of which was to have been a vast encyclopedic work called Eitz Chaim. All that we have of this is the introduction (printed together with Chavas Yair) and an index (Yair Nesiv) with which one can get a taste of the vastness of the project.

An excellent overview of R' Yair Chaim's life and major works can be found in the JQR 1891 V. 3(this is an English summary of a larger work in German). Here is a small excerpt:

The merest glance at the extent of this collection gives some idea of its richness; a thorough examination of the multiplicity and scientific tone of its contents changes our wonder to admiration. Thus the first volume consisted of 237 leaves, the table of contents of which occupies twenty-four closely written folio pages of the index. The headings that succeed each other in miscellaneous order are somewhat as follows:- Talmud, Agada, Legalism, Ritual, Bible, Homiletics, Ethics, Philosophy, Cabbala, History, and general Criticism.

The variety of the contents, and the rays of light that break through the mental darkness of the period may be illustrated by a few examples from this work. Thus in one passage he asserts that even ethical writings in German are of more value than the greatest and most ingenious Tal-mudical works that are not based upon truth. Elsewhere he excuses the Polish Talmudists for their deficient knowledge of the Bible. The story of two women who agreed that the one who died first should relate to the survivor her experiences after death,' seems to him to be as well worth noting down as the impressive rebuke he administered to his co-religionists for certain defects (and their causes) that had crept into divine service. At one time he inveighs against the misunderstanding of Christian commentators of the Talmudical saying, "Keep back your children from reading," as well as against the reproaches levelled against the Jews for their ignorance of the interpretation of Holy Writ, and then his philosophical reflections cause him to soar aloft to a height whence he recognises how the Biblical verse (Ps. civ. 31) has this profound meaning, that God will only rejoice in the future, for at the present time each day reveals some new imper-fection in the world.

At one time he is defending Abraham Ibn Ezra against the imputation that in his exegesis he disregarded Rabbinical tradition, and at another he traces the development of the system of hospitality among the ancients, and the origin of the so-called Pletten, i.e., the bills for the payment of the expenses of poor students and travellers to whom hospitality was shown. In one passage he seeks reasons for declaring the drawing and hanging up of one's own portrait, and that of one's relatives to be perfectly allowable; in another he puzzles himself about the phenomenon that in a mirror the human face does not seem to turn from right to left. He is as anxious to settle the question whether Maimuni possessed a knowledge of Hebrew grammar, poetry and metre, as whether the Joseph Hacohen mentioned in the Mishna may not be the author of Josippon.

In this part he is engaged in questions of natural science, as, e.g., about objects that are visible and yet cannot be perceived by the sense of touch, and vice versa [A"H- See Chavas Yair No. 233] , or about the query, why drunkem men have thought or presenttiments that are more correct then other men. He further speaks of the superstitious notions of about hobgoblins, elves , and litle fairies as he had read about them in the popular literature of his time.

[ ענין בן תמליון . ושאין חמא על מי שמגדלו בביתו ודברים רבים ראיתי בספרי א"ה וקוראים לו קאבאלד ובכינוי פולדר גייסטער והם דמות ילדים קטנים בלבוש יפה רואין ואינם נראין וכל משרתי הבית משימי' להן בזמן קבוע קערה בתבשיל לאכול הוא עושה להם כל מיני עבודת הבית ובפרט לנקות הרפת ושאר עבודות הבהמות ובלבד שלא ילעיגו עליו או ירבה עליו דברי בזיון ושאר פרטי ענינין ומעשיו שהיו ומהותו לדעתם לא רציתי להאריך]

On the בן תמלין - see TB Mei'lah 17a.

"Especially rich in material was Vol. VII., that contained 282 leaves, and is described in the index from p. 89a-104a. Here he had written out his father's commentary to the tractate of the Mishna, called Kinnim, with his own criticisms and the replies thereto of the author. Natural science, history, and literature were here gathered together pell-mell. The pigmies (Alriunchen) are as much a point of interest to him as the query whether the human race has really deteriorated in stature, strength, and longevity."

The enumeration of the Messianic movements in Jewish history, is as important an object of solicitude as the fixing the date of the composition of the legal code of Joseph Karo, at the years 1522-1542. He makes a note of the supposed introduction of Hebrew words into other languages, such as the word "baar" into German, or the word " null," into Latin, and, like a harbinger of the study of folk-lore, he comments upon the appearance of Talmudical tales in other literatures. Like the Christian theologians, he raises the question, how America was peopled after the flood, and makes use of an opinion of Philo to help him to disprove that Cain married his sister. He holds in pious respect every Jewish custom, but nevertheless reads polemical writings against Judaism, and adduces remarks collected from Wagenseil's works. He
is as much interested in the personal individuality of Bachya b. Joseph, as he is eager to defend Maimuni against the suspicions of Abravanel.

[concluding statement]

But even if he has not come down to posterity with all the ripe produce of his life's work, nevertheless he has become so deeply impressed upon their memory as to have his name preserved as one of the most prominent men of genius, one of the most important phenomena among the German Jews of the seventeenth century, who, though having his nature deeply rooted in the past was still in advance of his time, and who will always be regarded as the forerunner of the study of Judaism in a historical and scientific spirit.

Some He'aros on Kalmin's article in HTR- Christians and Heretics in Rabbinic Literature..

Note 5: "According to conventional accounts of the chronology of Yehoshua ben Perahya, he lived well before Jesus and could not have come in contact with him. The rabbis here reveal either ignorance of Jesus' chronology or a lack of concern for historical accuracy. It is conceivable, although unlikely, that the present story has in mind a Jesus other than the founder of the Christian faith."

There is a crucial point that Kalmin misses. As is well known, The Jewish chronology differs from the general chronology by some 150 years. What is particularly interesting here is that Jesus would fit quite perfectly into Yehosua Ben Perachya's times according to chronology of the Rabbis. Assuming the general chronoly correct (which seems likely) one would have to say that the Amoraim had a tradition that Yeshu was a student of an important Rabbi of his time but following their own chronology they assumed it to be Yehoshua ben Perachya (who was the only well-know Rabbi who had run off to Egypt. וצ"ע ויש להאריך ואכ"מ

Kalmin consistently refers to minim and Christians, without attempting to define minnim.

(He provides the following sources -25 On the question of the identity of these minim, see Hirshman, "Midrash Qohelet Rabbah," 2. 61; Burton L. Visotzky, "Overturning the Lamp," JJS 38 (1987) 76-77; and Stuart S. Miller, "The Minim of Sepphoris Reconsidered," HTR 86 (1993) 384-85 n. 31. - The only one I have at the moment is the last and that one is to specific to be useful).

I would imagine that the other "non-jewish bible readers" were some form of gnosticism. (R' Yosef Zecharya Stern (Maamer Al Tahluchei Aggados - possibly quoting someone else) suggests that the etymology of the word min is related to the founder of mancheism - Manos). The discussions in the Talmud trying to refute the doctrine of dualism (Berachot - Yotzer Ohr U' Borei Choshech, Acc. to Shadal the Ohr L' Arbaah Assar of the first Mishna in Pesachim was because of a desire to avoid referring to the dark (D' Lo K'Hagemara and it seems unlikely anyway), there is also a discussion somewhere abou Hormuz and Ahormuz but I can't find it a at the moment.)

If one assumes the tale of Yeshu and Yehoshua ben Percahya is a historical then it was the Rabbis explanation for the excessive emphasis on Repentance in the NT. If it is historical then this is what caused that doctrine.

(TBC)

Mizrachi movement in Russia - Need help identifying men in photo