The Truth of Yaakov - towards an intellectual portrait of R' Yaakov Kaminetsky Zt"l - 1

Over two decades have elapsed since the passing of R’ Yaakov Kamenetzky Zt”l. Although he has been the subject of two extensive biographies, surprisingly little has been written about his scholarly work. His work has not been the subject of any academic papers to the best of my knowledge, and more surprisingly, in the so called “yeshiva world” [1] his chiddushim are rarely studied and certainly not discussed and expounded on in any shiur.

The lions share of R’ Yaakov’s legacy is undoubtedly his chiddushei torah in the traditional sense and I hope to expand on these in a future post. A good illustration of R’ Yaakov’s methodology can be seein in the note of the publisher in the introduction “We had to omit some of R’ Yaakov’s chiddushim because they were found to be identical with that of Rishonim that had not yet been printed in his lifetime.” The relationship between his Emes L’Yaakov and the works of the Rishonim can be seen both in his writing style (R’ Yaakov wrote in a very clear concise writing style never adding in extra word – See the introduction to EY on SA) and his methodology. The older and newer (Brisker) pilpulistic style is almost entirely absent from his work and in its place we have the more direct approach in the style of the Tosafists, the Aruch LaNer and the Netziv.

R’ Yaakov was possessed of an extremely sound (albeit unscientific) critical sense. He paid special attention to the intention of the author in writing his book [2], to the particular writing style of the author [3], and a very careful textual criticism [4]

His chiddushim focus on Gemara, Rif, Rosh and Rambam. He rarely cites the Talmud Yerushalmi or any of the later Achronim. Apropos of the name of the sefer, truth is the hallmark of all his writings. He avoids forced questions and fanciful, convoluted explanations. All of his answers are faithful to the text and its authors. To paraphrase the Seridei Eish, his work undoubtedly represents the historical Rambam and not simply his own Rambam [5].

For the moment I would like to focus on several of the more diverse, colorful elements
that R’ Yaakov makes use of in his Chiddushim. These include a knowledge of history, some fascinating amateur linguistic studies, knowledge of grammar and in interest in the origin of certain Minhagim


[1] See some interesting comments from R’ Yaakov on the modern Yeshivos here.

[2] He notes for instance that the Taz wrote his sefer originally on both the Tur and the Sulchan Aruch and for this reason some of the notes of the Taz are on the Tur and not on the SA (See Emet L’ Yaakov (henceforth EY) on SA – 66,7 and see the note there that corroborates this from the inscription on the Taz’s Tombstone). He also notes that the Rosh was originally written as a Pirush on the Rif (EY on Shas – I can’t reacall exactly where at this moment).

[3] He notes that the Posekim – specifically the Rambam, always phrased their Halachas in the manner of לא זו אף זו and in this manner he finds nuances in Halacha or in the Rambam’s interpretation of the sugya that would otherwise not be noted. (I myself have once made use of this כלל to good effect as I hope to demonstrate in a future post come Purim). He notes when the Rambam changes from the order of Shas or omits something that he should have cited. And in the same manner he analyses other seforim (in particular the Mishna Berurah for which he had great respect. See the introduction to EY SA and see my earlier post on one aspect of this.)

[4] This can be seen on almost every page. He carefully examines variants between the Rif’s text, the Rosh’s text and the Gemara, textual errors in the Rambam, conjoined Dibbur Ha’Maschils in Rashi , and the like. In this he is a worth successor to the Bach, Maharshal and the Gr”a He generally tries to back this up by speculating what might have caused the error. See for example EY Chullin 60b. In almost every case his emendation were validated by the new Oz' V' Hodor Talmud or the Frankel Rambam.

[5] Although R’ Neustadt has generally done an excellent job in producing his grandfather's (in-law really) seforim, in this he erred greatly. He ought to have placed the chiddushim on the Rambam in a separate volume so that they can easily accessible to those studying the Rambam. At the very least he ought to have included an index to the relevant material. As it is besides for several references in the Frankel Rambam his chiddushim are virtually inaccessible (and therefore unknown) to those studying the Rambam.

על משיחי שקר בכלל וישו בפרט

בבלי חולין סג.

רחם זו שרקרק א"ר יוחנן למה נקרא שמו רחם כיון שבא רחם באו רחמים לעולם אמר רב ביבי בר אביי והוא דיתיב אמידי ועביד שרקרק וגמירי דאי יתיב אארעא ושריק אתא משיחא שנאמר (זכריה י) אשרקה להם ואקבצם א"ל רב אדא בר שימי למר בר רב אידאי והא ההוא דיתיב בי כרבא ושרק ואתא גלל אפסקיה למוחיה א"ל ההוא ביידא הוה

ברור שיש כאן רמז למשיחי שקר בכלל ואולי גם לישו הנוצרי בפרט וצריך לפרש כל השו"ט כאן ע"פ זה. ודו"ק

על כותים במשנתו של הרמב"ם

רמב"ם ברכות א,יג כל השומע אחד מישראל מברך ברכה מכל הברכות כולן--אף על פי שלא שמע הברכה כולה מתחילתה ועד סופה, ואף על פי שאינו חייב באותה ברכה--חייב לענות אמן; ואם היה המברך גוי, או מין, או כותי, או תינוק המתלמד, או שהיה גדול ושינה מטבע הברכה--אין עונין אחריהן אמן

This is {partially) based on the Mishna in Berachos Ch. 8 - ועונין אמן אחר ישראל המברך ואין עונין אמן אחר כותי המברך עד שישמע כל הברכה כולה

The difficulty with this Rambam is that it contradicts a Tosefta that clearly states that one should answerאמן after the Beracha of a Gentile: ה,כב עובד כוכבים המברך בשם עונין אחריו אמן כותי המברך בשם אין עונין אחריו אמן עד שישמע את הברכה כולה

And a Yerushalmi [1] that says the same:
תני עכו"ם שבירך את השם עונין אחריו אמן. בשם אין עונין אחריו אמן. א"ר תנחומא אם בירכך עכו"ם ענה אחריו אמן דכתיב (דברים ז) ברוך תהיה מכל העמים. עכו"ם אחד פגע בר' ישמעאל ובירכו. א"ל כבר מילתך אמורה. אחר פגע בו וקיללו. א"ל כבר מילתך אמורה. אמרו ליה תלמידוי רבי היך מה דאמרת לדין אמרת לדין אמר לון ולא כן כתיב (בראשית סו) ארריך ארור ומברכיך ברוך

The Rambam is clearly לשיטתו in פירוש המשניות here:

ובכאן אפרש לך עניין הכותים. העם שהביא סנחריב מכותה, והושיבם בערי שומרון, העיד הכתוב בהם: "את ה' היו יראים ואת אלהיהם היו עובדים" (מלכים ב יז). אבל באורך הימים למדו התורה וקבלוה על פשוטה, והמצוות אשר החזיקו בהן – היו מקפידים עליהם וישימו ליבם עליהם מאד. והוחזקו שהיו מאמינים בדתינו ומיחדים ולא יעבדו עבודה זרה, עד אשר חקרו עליהם חכמים ומצאום מכבדים הר גריזים, וחקרו על הדבר ההוא ומצאו להם בהר ההוא דמות יונה, וידעו שהם עובדים עבודה זרה, אז החזיקום בחזקת גויים גמורים לכל דבריהם.
וכל מה שתמצא במשנה מן הדברים מעניין הכותים, אשר תבין מהם שהכותים נכבדים מן הנכרים ופחותים מישראל, כמו שאמרו: "מזמנין עם הכותי" (ברכות פרק ז משנה א), ו"כותי המברך" (משנה כאן) וזולתו, לא אמרו זה אלא קודם שחקרו עליהם; אבל מעת שחקרו עליהם ומצאו אשר זכרנו, הם פחותים מן הנכרים מאד. ועל כן דע אותו ולא נצטרך לשנות לך זה העיקר, בכל מקום שנזכר כותי.

Clearly the Rambam holds that this that one answers אמן to a כותי after hearing the whole Beracha is as a result of a special status but to a Gentile that does not have this status one should not answer his Beracha. This clearly knocks off the first answer of the Kesef Mishna that this Halacha of the Rambam was said if one does not hear the entire Beracha and the Yerushalmi refers to one who does hear the whole Beracha (See also the objections of the Lechem Mishnah there), and the second answer that points to the Tur’s citation of the Rambam w/o the word Gentile (the Bach there writes that in ספרים מדוייקים the Tur also has the word Gentile.) and the Gra’s insistence that there must be some mistake in the Rambam. (Did the Gra and Kesef Mishna not have access to the Pirush Hamishnayos??)

The צפנת פעניח refers us to the Rambam ה' ע"ז

טו [י] כל השומע ברכת השם, חייב לקרוע; ואפילו על ברכת הכינוי, חייב לקרוע: והוא, שישמענה מישראל …..אבל השומע מן הגוי, אינו חייב לקרוע
Although this is a very nice לשיטתו this cannot be the מקור of the Rambam as the Rambam doesn’t cite Halachos that don’t have a direct source [2].

The אבן האזל suggests that the Rambam is saying that one isn’t required to respond אמן whereas the Yerushalmi is saying that one is permitted to respond. He points out that in Halacha טו the Rambam uses the word אסור whereas here the Rambam simply says that one doesn’t answer. The difficulty with this is 1- the diyuk is in any event weak as the Rambam is simply citing the language of the Mishna (as the Migdal Oz repeatedly points out) which uses this wording. 2- The ברכה of a מין is assumed to be with intention of ע"ז . It is impossible to say that it is permitted (but not obligated) to answer אמן to such a Bracha [3].

The most viable source I’ve seen is the כסף משנה who says that the Rambam is accepting the simple explanation of the Mishna against that of the Yerushalmi since the Bavli makes no mention of it [4].

The יד פשוטה tries to answer by reinterpreting the Yerushalmi. He points out that according to the interpretation that we are referring to a ברכת הודאה the story of R’ Tanchum cited right after appears irrelevant. He therefore suggests that the Yerushalmi is referring to Gentiles blessing of a Jew. He cites a variant reading of the תוספתא כפשוטה that would conform with this explanation. This would still require the Kesef Mishna’s point for a source.

The עלה תמר points out that the curious juxtaposition in the Yerushalmi of את השם and בשם is hard to understand [5]. He therefore suggests that one of them is a variant reading (הגהה) that made its way into the main text and the Rambam paskens like the second one since this is accords with the simple understanding of our Mishna. (This still leaves the Tosefta without explanation.)

The point that really fascinates me is that this is the only one of two places that the Rambam refers to כותים. The other place is in עבדים ו,ו
ובזמן הזה, שהכותים כגויים לכל דבריהם, אנו למדין מהן לצדוקיין: שהצדוקיין בזמן הזה כמו הכותי באותו הזמן, קודם שיגזרו עליהם שיהיו כגויים לכל דבריהם

Since they were given the status of גוים the Rambam has no need to refer to them anywhere else. Why then does he mention כותים here? Why further does he first make his decision on כותים known in this Mishna as opposed to "מזמנין עם הכותי" (ברכות פרק ז משנה א), which preceded it?

It would seem clear that this is one of the missing pieces of the puzzle but I have no idea as yet how to make use of it.

''הרי השולחן והרי הבשר והרי הסכין לפנינו ואין לנו פה לאכול'' (קידושין, מו, ע''א)

[1] I quoted the Yerushalmi in Sukkah 3:10 because this appears to be the best reading. The Yerushalmi Berachos (End of Ch. 8) is missing the words בשם אין עונין אחריו אמן. See also Yerushalmi Megillah 1:9 and Bereishis Rabbah 61. An interesting side note, the Alei Tamar notes that Yerushalmi Sukkah seems (at least in part) to be composed of excerpts taken from other Mesechtos and is not an independent work. This accounts for the especially “jumpy” nature of this Mesechta.
[2] See the Rambam’s letter to R’ Pinchas Dayan. See also R’ Shlomo Yosef Zevin’s review of הרמב"ם והמכילתא דרשב"י in Seforim V’ Soferim
[3]In this the אבן האזל was mislead by the censor who switched אפיקורס for מין. The Taz says something similar סי' רט"ו..See also שו"ת תשובה מאהבה סי' סט in an interesting Teshuva on whether one can answer Amen to the Bracha of a Sabbatian. He takes it as a given that one cannot answer to the Beracha of an אפיקורס. (The Teshuva M’ Ahavah was a lifelong foe of the Sabbatians, he even authored in anti-Sabbatian work Ahavat Dovid.)
[4] This is dependant on the (incorrect) view of the Rif (end of Eiruvin):
"הסוגיא דידן להתירא ולא אכפת לן במאי דאמרי בגירסא
דבני מערבא. דעל גמרא דילן סמכינן, דבתרא הוא ואינהו הא
בקיאי בגמרא דבני מערבא טפי מינן ואי לאו דהוו ידעי דהא
דבני מערבא לאו דסמכא הוא, לא הוו קא שארי לה
אינהו" (אלפס סוף עירובין

See also the גר"א who questions this and אבן האזל who explains that since the Mishna had to specify Yisroel this implies that to a gentile one doesn’t answer.

[5] See the classical Meforshim there. See also the Tevunah’s Toledot Yitzchok pirush (this is his Tosafos) which I have not cited since it is dependant on the censor’s גירסא of עכו"ם instead of גוי.

Aryeh Kaplan bio info-in need of sourcing

A deleted portion of the Aryeh Kaplan page - looking for a source:

Aryeh Kaplan briefly worked as a lab assistant. Thereafter he served as a rabbi in Conservative congregation Ohav Shalom in upstate NY near Albany [citation needed] (although he was not conservative). Afterward, he served as the rabbi of the Dover, New Jersey synagogue in 1971 and 1972. He then spent a year full time in abstract painting [citation needed]. Rabbi Kaplan also spent a year as a first grade teacher in Louisville [citation needed].

על דרך כתיבתו של ספר משנה ברורה

באמת ליעקב על שו"ע סימן ש"מ תוך דיון הלכתי מעיר כלאחר יד ש-כל מקום במשנה ברורה שלא מובא שם המחבר בשערי ציון אלא מציינו בסוגרים כזה [קרבן נתנאל] זה מורה שבעל המ"ב אינו מסכים כ"כ לדינא בשיטה זו רק מביא הדבר בשם אומרו- (ע"ש ואולי טעיתי בפירוש דבריו כיון שבס' מובא רק חלק מהמכתב).

ואם קבלה הוא נקבל אבל אני בעניי לא מצאתי כי הרי המ"ב מביא גם דברי הרמב"ם והרא"ש והב"י (בכדי לפרש דברי השו"ע) בסוגרים והאם נוכל לומר שהמ"ב אינו מסכים עם פ' ב"י לשו"ע, אתמהה! גם כי מאופן הכתיבה הרבה פעמים משמע שהוא כ מסכים לההלכה שהוא מביא. ולא ציינתי מקומות כי בכל דף יכולים למצוא דוגמאות דו"ק ותשכח.

אבל באמת נראין כי בכל מקום שהמחבר מובא בסוגרים יש כאן פרט נוסף בהלכה שלא כתוב בתוך השו"ע ולפיכך המ"ב בחר לציין את שם מחברו בסוגרים כי אין זה פ' לשו"ע אלא הלכה בפנ"ע. וכשהוא מביא פ' על ענין שכתוב בתוך השו"ע סותם ומביא

מחברו בשער הציון וגם זה לאו כללא הוא ועדיין צ"ע.

וכאן המקום להתרעם על המו"ל של כתבי בעל האמת ליעקב שלא עשא מלאכתו באמונה.

א' - כבר לפני חמש שנים (או יותר) קראתי בהנאה מרובה את הפ' של אמת ליעקב על שני פרקים ראשונים של ספר שמואל בכת"ע ישורון ושמחתי לראות ש"המו"ל עומד להוציא את כל ס' אמת ליעקב על נ"ך "בקרוב". והנה אני יושב ומצפה ליותר מחמש שנים ואין יוצא ואין בא ופשוט מה הוא סיבת העיכוב ואכ"מ וכדי בזיון וקצף

ב' - באמת ליעקב על הש"ס נכלל גם חידושיו על הרמב"ם (שבהם רואים חוש הביקורתי הנפלא של הגאון ר' יעקב בכל תקפו איך שמדיוקים דקים וקלים (הוא מרבה להשתמש בכלל שכל דברי הרמב"ם נכתבו באופן של לא זו אף זו ובזה סתר כמה פירושים של המפרשים קדמונים ומבאר לנו פ' האמיתי) יש ביכלתו להוציא פ' שהוא לא רק אמת ל"אמיתו של תורה" אבל גם אמת לאמיתת ההיסטורית של הרמב"ם.) מפני שהם נוגע לפ' הסוגיות. וכל זה יפה וטוב אבל סבר לתקן ולא תיקון כי עכשיו יפה כח הבן מכח האב וללומדי הרמב"ם עצמו חסר להם דברי הגאון. והמו"ל אפ' לא חיבר מפתח לבסוף כי הרי שוב "עומד להוציא חי' על הרמב"ם בקרוב" ולא היה וחוששני שגם לא יהיה. ובמקצת חידושיו מצויין במפתח לרמב"ם פרנקל אבל כ"ז איננו מספיק.

The mystery of the missing פך שמן

There is no mention of the miracle of the פך שמן:

In Sefer Hamaccabim [1]
In Josephus [2]
In Jossiphon
In the Raavad's Sefer HaKabbalah
In the Al Hanissim Tefillah
In הנרות הללו
In the Megillat Taanis [3]
In the Pssikta D' Rav Kahana


The פך שמן makes its first appearance in the Baraisa added to Megillas Taanis and in the Megillas Antiochus.

In any event it would seem clear that the פך שמן only became an important feature of Chanukka at a much later date. [4]

Two possible suggestions for this new focus for Chanukka are:

1- The Chasam Sofer (and somewhat similarly Kaufmann Kohler in his JE article), suggests that the reason why there is little mention of Chanukka in the Mishna is because Rebbi who belonged to the house of the Nossi and was a descendant from Dovid Hamelech (אנן מן הזכרים) resented the usurpation of the Malchus by the חשמונאים. To put it more plainly perhaps the Pharisees unhappy with the Saducee influenced- כחי ועוצם ידי- חשמונאי rule decided to downplay their military achievements and focus on a more spiritual aspect of Chanukka.

2- R' Reuvain Margolies (See my section in Wikipedia Mishnah on this) suggests that as the Mishnah was redacted after the Bar Kochba revolt, Rabbi could not have included discussion of Hanukkah which commemorates the Jewish revolt against the Syrian-Greeks (the Romans would not have tolerated such an overt display of nationalism). If so possibly at that time the נס of the פך שמן was given as the main reason for the celebration so as to avoid giving the Romans a reason to suspect revolt (similar to the reason that Shofar blowing was pushed off to Mussaf).

[1] See the article מאי חנוכה in the periodical אור מזרח wherein the view of Yaakov Reifmann is cited that the non-jew who translated it from the Hebrew deliberately left it out because it seemed to him incredible. See בינו שנות דור ודור who pints out that Maccabees II which generally focuses on miracles is in its original language.

[2] "From that time onward unto this day we celebrate the festival, calling it 'Lights'" (Φῶτα, Ant. 12:325). He explains that the festival acquired this name because the right to serve God came to the people unexpectedly, like a sudden light (ibid.).

[3] Actually our version of Megillat Taanit does mention the נס but in the critical addition it is noted that this is a later addition (scholium). The Megillas Taanis (and the Pesikta) appears to say that the נס was that they found pure שפודין to make into the Menorah.

[4]The fact that the נס isn't mentioned earlier should not cause significant doubts over its veracity for according to the account of Maccabees II it would appear that ניסים in the ביהמ"ק were commonplace (or at least considered so by the populace) and would not have been the centerpiece of the Festival.

[Edit: I missed this article at JPost . His main arguments -

"We see that it assumes that the high priest was a person of impeccable integrity. Second Maccabees tells us quite clearly that this man was Menelaus, a rogue of the first water.

and

They did not know that the High Priest at the time the Hasmoneans forced their way into the Temple was Menelaus, who was guilty of bribery, stealing the Temple gold, and murdering the former high priest Honia. If they had known that, would they have seen the seal of the high priest as a guarantee of purity, would they have seen a miracle in a cruse of oil sealed by such a high priest."

His proof would depend on the nature of this seal. There may have been ways of identifying which seal was placed by which Kohen Gadol. If so they may have been able to identify that the seal belonged to an earlier righteous Kohen Gadol. Alternatively - Who said Menelaus was involved in the production of oil at all? He seems to have had other concerns on his mind. I doubt he would have been much concerned about procuring and sealing pure oil. All in all his thesis still has a long way to go.]

בזכות שמך הגדול (דיקרנוסא גי' חת"ך) הממונה על הפרנסה

Chacham Yosef Faur - Anti-Maimonidean Demons [1]

"A most solemn prayer pronounced at the end of the Sephardic services (but not of the Spanish and Portuguese!) the night of Rosh ha- Shanah invokes the “great and holy name dicarnosa” (wulma’an ha-shem ha-gadol vehaqadosh diaqarnosa) that is supposed to be encoded in the subtexts of two Scriptural passages. This superlative magical name is nothing more than the Spanish “dea carnosa” or “fleshy”—probably in the sense of “portly”—“goddess.” Let us not forget that, until recently, only plump ladies were regarded as sexually attractive. I once casually brought this point to the attention of an acquaintance. Upon realizing the gravity of the matter, he wished to request from the rabbi removal of this conjuration from the prayer. I remember telling him that since nobody, including the rabbi and cantor, had the foggiest idea of what they were saying, there was no point in removing it."

Note: A similar name (Edit: I leave it to ny readers to guess who Dionysum might be) is also encoded in the prayer said after the "ישא ה'" of Birkas Kohanim. (As an aside the first two Tefillos - from the Talmud Berachot to "sweeten" bad dreams - end of ותחנני ותשמרני ותרצני- Note that each ending corresponds to a different Bracha (יברכיך...וישמריך,יאר...ויחניך,ישא ה' פניו אליך (שתפלתינו(?) יתקבל לרצון לפני ה'-ותרצני ) apparently the original intention was to add only the ending that corresponds to that Bracha - According to this the Dream prayer was meant to be said all three times (It would be worth checking the earlier editions of the Siddur) and the Kabbalists inserted the third prayer on their own. The same name is found in the Tefillah for Parnosoh that can be found in the Tefilloh for Parnosoh on the bottom of שומע תפלה in Shemona Esrei and other places. (Edit: This tefillah is always accompanied with dire warnings not to say the name in the parenthesis - perhaps whoever wrote this wanted to prevent straoghtforward idol-worship. Note also that Artscroll unobtrusively removed this name from their version of the Tefillah.)

In the sefer Ha-kemea Haivri they write "מלאך הפרנסה. בגימטריה 431, כמו באותיות המודגשות ב-"פותח את ידך"

The following is also relevant - taken from http://www.sichosinenglish.org/books/vedibarta-bam/091.htm

Some Chassidim and men of deeds have a custom to purchase a new knife, Erev Rosh Hashanah (Nitei Gavriel 11:10)

QUESTION: What is the reason for the custom of purchasing a new sharp knife before Rosh Hashanah

The final letters of the words, "Potei'ach et yadecha" - "You open up your hand" - spell the word "chatach" - "cut" - which is the name of the Angel in charge of parnasah - livelihood. Also, the word "u'masbe'a" - "and satisfy [the desire of every living being]" - which follows afterwards in the pasuk (Psalms 145:16) has the numerical value of four hundred and twenty-eight which is also the numerical value of "chatach." Thus, the acquiring of a new sharp knife is considered a "segulah" - something spiritually propitious - for parnasah, which we request on Rosh Hashanah for the entire coming year.

See also Mitpachat Soferim from R' Yaakov Emden on the Zohars term for Shul אש נוגה is actually the Portugese Esnoga (Synagogue) (See also the Mevo to Mekor Baruch wherein he talks about the different terms for Shul's - typically - ער מאכט זיך נישט ויסענדיק )to which the Ittur Soferim responds with the implausible and impossible assertion that "maybe the Portugese took the word from the Zohar rather then vice-versa."

See also the section I added to Wikipedia -Arguments for an earlier dating והבוחר יבחר

[1]- I was highly surprised that Chacham Faur for whom I have the greatest respect produced such a flawed biased article. If possible I will demonstrate this at another time. Suffice it to say that he matches Graetz at his most venomous. See Reuvein Margolies's article on the Raavid (Peninim U' Margolyet) for a clear refutation of Faur on the Raavad's reason for writing the Hasagot.