New perspective on R' Aaron Kotler's opposition to secular studies - from a PH.D on BMG

I've just come across a very amusing dissertation on Beth Medrash Govoha. The title says it all.

A school for scholars: The Beth Medrash Govoha, The Rabbi Aaron Kotler Jewish Institute of Higher Learning in Lakewood, New Jersey: A study of the development and theory of one aspect of higher education in America

S. R. Lewitter - 1981 - Rutgers University

Take a look at the impressive list of subjects that a pupil must master in order to qualify for their First Rabbinic Degree:

Students of BMG are of course, world famous for their proficiency in the Major and Minor prophets, the philosophical writings, etc.

Although, a distinguished alumnus of BMG seems to have had a somewhat different opinion. The point he raises really needs to be discussed at length. V'od Chazon L'Moed.

Lewitter has an interesting theory to account for R' Aaron Kotler's opposition to secular studies (even today most Lakewood Mesivtas do not teach secular studies).

R' Halivni records an interesting conversation he had with R' Aaron on this subject. See "The Book and the Swrod" pgs. 85-87:

They were in the car together and R' Aaron was trying to dissuade Halivni from his decision to go for a degree. They passed underneath the Battery-Battery Tunnel. R' Aaron exclaimed "all water, on the top water, below water, and on the sides water."

I couldn't resist and said, "R' Aaron, this is what they teach in college."

A study of the attitude of prominent Rabbinic figures such as R' Aaron, R' Moshe and (acharon choviv) R' Yaakov to secular studies and similar subject and the development of American "ultra"- orthodoxy is certainly a "major scholarly desideratum".

On Naftali Hertz Wessely and the Biur to Vayikra

Aaron Schreiber - The Hatam Sofer’s Nuanced Attitude Towards Secular Learning, Maskilim, and Reformers in TUMJ 11 (online):

"In fn. #105:"R. Hayim Kanievsky, a noted contemporary talmudic scholar in Israel with a reputation for zealotry, advised me in a recent note that he had it on good authority that many prominent talmudic scholars had examined the Biur on Va-Yikra and could find no fault whatsoever with it.""

R' Kanievsky's father, the Steipler Gaon is reported to have said that "Der Seforim zennen Gutt Oif Em iz geven Taanos" (See Milchmatom (cited below) 4th installment last footnote)

The Biur on Vayikra was authored by Naftali Hertz Wessely (Wiesel in Hebrew). On Wessely see "Milchamtam Shel HaRabbonim Neged HaMaskil Naftali Hertz Wiesel" in Beis Ahron V' Yisroel (Issue 43 on) by one Yehosua Heschel Schorr containing some unpublished documents relating to the controversy.

In general see Meir Hildesheimers articles in PAAJR, specifically the article on "Moses Mendelssohn in Nineteenth-Century Rabbinical Literature."

On Sleep and the Jewish Question?

For do but consider what an excellent thing sleep is : it is so inestimable a jewel, that, if a tyrant would give his crown for an hour's slumber, it cannot be bought : of so beautiful a shape is it, that, though a man lie with an empress, his heart cannot be at quiet till he leaves her embracements to be at rest with the other : yea, so greatly indebted are we to this kinsman of death, that we owe the better tributary half of our life to him ; and there's good cause why we should do so, for sleep is that golden chain that ties health and our bodies together. Who complains of want, of wounds, of cares, of great men's oppressions, of captivity, whilst he sleepeth ? Beggars in their beds take as much pleasure as kings. Can we therefore surfeit on this delicate ambrosia ? Can we drink too much of that, whereof to taste too little tumbles us into a churchyard ; and to use it but indifferently throws us into Bedlam ? No, no ! Look upon Endymion,,the Moon's minion, who slept threescore and fifteen years ; and was not a hair the worse for it. Can lying abed till noon then, being not the threescore and fifteenth thousand part of his nap, be hurtful ?

-John Dekker

Amongst all the wild men that run up and down in this wide forest of fools, the world, none are more superstitious than those notable Ebritians, the Jews : yet a Jew never wears his cap threadbare with putting it off; never bends i' th' hams with casting away a leg; never cries "God save you!" though he sees the devil at your elbow. Play the Jews therefore in this, and save thy lips that labour ; only remember, that so soon as thy eyelids be unglued, thy first exercise must be, either sitting upright on thy pillow, or rarely lolling at thy body's whole length, to yawn, to stretch, and to gape wider than any oyster-wife ; for thereby thou dost not only send out the lively spirits, like vaunt-couriers, to fortify and make good the uttermost borders of the body ; but also, as a cunning painter, thy goodly lineaments are drawn out in their fairest proportion.

- Ibid. (Index - Jews salute no one - What does all that mean?)

Reactions to Yaavetz's Mitpachat Seforim

In his (as usual) meticulously researched, very interesting post, R. Brodt cited a passage in ShuT Chasam Sofer approvingly citing the Mitpachat Seforim . MS is really a sort of intellectual minefield since it was A - authored by one of the most prominent and well respected traditional Rabbis of the last century, and B - contains some very trenchant, powerful criticisms against a deeply held traditional view [1]. I thought it would be interesting to examine the reactions of several prominent Rabbonim to the Mitpachat.

1. Chasam Sofer - Calm acceptance. At first glance. this would seem to be a bit surprising given that the Chasam Sofer was 1- a student of the R' Nosson Adler and R' Pinchas Horowitz who were both Mekubbalim, and 2- seems to have been an adherent of Kabbalah himself (See Marc Shapiro's article in Be'erot Yitzchok - Aspects..). In truth, Yavetz's claim was not all that radical since R' Chaim Vital (I don't know the exact source) had already suggested that there were interpolations in the Zohar. Moreover, the question in this case was not the authenticity of Kabbalah as a whole since that was supported by the Ramban, Sefer Yetzirah , etc. but of one (admittedly very important) source of Kabbalistic teachings.


2. Chida - Denial. See the citation in the link in note one and the discussion there.

3. Ben Ish Chai - Grudging acceptance - In the Kuntres Sod LaYesharim that is at the back of ShuT Rav Paolim (I don't have the sefer in front of me, I will try to bring the exact Siman later) there is a discussion concerning a Teshuva attributed to the Ari printed in Avkas Rochel 136. The Ben Ish Chai insists that this letter is a forgery (the Teshuva would appear to show a very weak understanding in the subject and the Beis Yosef's response is very critical) and grudgingly cites MS as proof. The Ben Ish Chai was clearly very upset at the Yavetz for writing MS and I believe that the sharp criticism of Yavetz in the introduction to Ravv Paolim is hinting at this.

4. R' Moshe Kunitz[2] - Apologetics - Kunitz's book Bar Yochai (available at Hebrewbooks.org ). The book is full of rather ridiculous nonesensical interpretations and was never taken very seriously. Shir (I intend to continue posting on him as soon as I have time) was enraged by this book and wrote very sharp criticisms inside his copy of Bar Yochai. These notes were published posthumously as a pamphlet - Maaneh La'Mitpachat. From the notes it appears that Shir was chiefly angered at the insulting tone with which Kunitz responded to the Yavetz. It is possible that Shir also wrote this becuase he was upset at Kuniz's involvement with Choriner (whom he detested - see Igrot Shir, and because Shir was very much against even the slightest change in practice - see his letter regarding kitniyos cited in Zecher Yosef OC V. 3), and because Shir strongly believed that the Zohar was forged by R' Moses De Leon (this is apparent in either the first or second of the letters in Igrot Shir. Shir wanted to examine R' De Leon's other seforim so he could ascertain this.)

5. The Gra - Oblivious? - The most puzzling reaction is that of the Gra - namely no reaction. The Gra had a tremendous critical sense (See L. Ginzberg , Students.., I. H. Weiss frequently emphasized that the Gra was the founder of the science of criticism,etc.,etc.). Although the Gra's form of criticism was rather different then that engaged in by the Yavetz, it is still strange that he didn't at least respond to the Yavetz's critcism. I emailed Prof. Etkes thinking that perhaps there might be some hint of a response in the Gra's kabbalistic works but he assures me that the Gra had absolutely no doubts regarding the absolute authenticity and authority of Kabbalah.

(One final note, the Torah Temimah very pointedly lists Eish Nogeh (the Yavetz pointed out that this seems to be based on the Portugese Esnoga - Synagogue) in his list of terms for synagagogues in Mekor Baruch - Mevo. See there - I think he is trying to hint at some type of response to this criticism of the Yavetz.)

[1] See here for an interesting discussion on Mitpachat and the Yavetz as well as some more sources Re: the CS and MS.

[2] He was accused of being a Reformer because he wrote a responsum in Nogeh Tsedek permitting the introduction of the Organ in the Synagague. This seems to have been a mistake on Kunitz's part and he is not to be considered a reformer.

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).

An anti--Essene polemic in Tosefta

דמאי ב:ז כהן שקבל עליו כל עבודת כהונה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו בן לוי שקבל עליו כל עבודת לויה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא ז) המקריב את דם השלמים וגו' אין לי אלא זריקת דם והקטר חלבים מנין ליציקות ובלילות תנופות והגשות הקמיצות והקטרות המליקות והקבלות והזאות והשקאת סוטה ועריפת עגלה וטהרת מצורע ונשיאות כפים מבפנים ומבחוץ ת"ל (שם) בני אהרן כל עבודה שהיא בבני אהרן [אמר ר"ש] יכול אין דוחין אותן אלא ממתנות מקדש בלבד מנין אף ממתנות גבולין ת"ל (דברים יח) ראשית דגנך [תירושך ויצהרך] וגו' מפני מה (שם) כי בו בחר ה' כל המקבל עליו שירות יש לו במתנות כל שאין מקבל עליו שירות אין לו במתנות בזמן שהכהנים עושין רצונו של מקום מה נאמר בהם (ויקרא ו) חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי משלהן הן נוטלין ואין נוטלין משלי ובזמן שאין עושין רצונו של מקום מה נאמר בהם (מלאכי א) מי גם בכם ויסגור דלתים וגו'.

See also the alternative formulation in Chullin 133a. The Essenes believed that it was forbidden to sacrifice animals. The emphasis on Kohanim might imply that their opponents were something akin to the Tzadokite sect (?). If I am correct in this (although R' Shimon (bar Yochai) is not quite the right time frame) then this might be another support to Halivni's theory that the Midrash preceded the Mishna since this would be the earliest formulation of this law. I am sure this Baraita must have already been discussed, perhaps someone can check the Tosefta Kipeshuto.

A basic analysis of Shir's legacy - courtesy of R' S.

My thanks to R' S. for allowing me to post this email that he sent me awhile ago. This is an excellent, very perceptive summation of Shir's complicated legacy.

"My opinion of him is a little mixed, but mostly for personal reasons. I just get the sense that perhaps he really wasn't a very nice person. This shouldn't make a difference, maybe, but I can't say it doesn't.

Putting that aside, he was a very, very interesting person. He is definitely an important figure in the history of Jewish history. Although he didn't originate the genre of the Jewish biography (Zunz, essentially did, with his Toldos Rashi), Shir took it to a new level. It was he who really showed what Zunz had discovered, namely that you can actually get a good picture of who some of the great people of Israel were by carefully studying what they wrote and what others wrote about them. So he's important. As for who claims him, to a certain extent the Conservative movement claims him, particularly the scholarly-historical-JTS wing. Or at least it did, when it used to care about such things (they also, sort of, claim Shadal - Gerson Cohen [former JTS chancellor] pretty much claims Shadal in his foreward to Morris Margolies bio of Shadal). What is interesting is that *Orthodoxy* hasn't completely repudiated Shir, although often he is ridiculed in Orthodox sources. So, for example, in "My Uncle the Netziv" R. Epstein's story that Shir began to dress like a choshuve rov only when he was about to become a rov is repeated. In R. Wein's Triumph of Survival he writes the following: "[Isaac Mayer Wise]* was ordained by Rabbi Solomon Y. Rapaport, a noted rabbinic scholar and maskil, who was the controversial rabbi of Prague in the middle 1800s" - and in a larger treatment: "Even traditional, Talmudic scholars, such as Rabbi Shlomo Yehuda Rapaport, Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Chajes, and others, were strongly opposed by the chassidim." - which is a little odd, since Shir was a major misnaged, so of course they opposed him. He called them "mischasedim."

Anyway, Wein's footnote reads:

"Known by his acronym Shir, he was a well-known Talmudic scholar and the son-in-law of the renowned author of Ketzos HaChoshen. His rabbinic career was beset by fierce opposition from chassidim, because he was accused of being a maskil. He was opposed by the German leaders, Rabbi S.B. Baemberger and Rabbi S.R. Hirsch, as well, because of his tolerance of Reform." - the last is a strange, well, libel. Since he was pretty kannoisdike against Reform!

In any event, Shir is interesting also because it seems that he had a personal belief that although Jews are permitted free thought, rabbis aren't, but they must maintain the traditional role that they always had, especially because the people expect it of them. That's why he could only oppose rabbis proposing reforms. Not only that, he seems to have practiced what he preached, voluntarily (or prudently, depending if you're cynical) suppressing his critical bent, once he became a rabbi. I think a lot of people looked at him like he was kind of a joke, having been a notorious maskil who suddently reinvented himself as a serious rav, but the point is that for him that was the only way one could be a rav, and when he wanted to be a rav, he stayed true to that vision.

*it might be worth pointing out that there is no evidence that Wise was ordained by Shir, or anyone - and, indeed, this was a matter of controversy in the US. Orthodox Jews claimed that he isn't even a rabbi (or a Dr.), and he never could produce evidence that he was. Conversely, Wise used to attack Isaac Leeser for not being a rabbi, despite the fact that Leeser used to make a point of noting that he wasn't a rabbi" [A"H - See this site - http://www.jewish-history.com/Illoway/index.html - for a good deal of information about Wise and his contemporaries."]

To be continued