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)

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.

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 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.

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

The Truth of Yaakov - towards an intellectual portrait of R' Yaakov Kaminetsky Zt"l - 3 Linguistics

Linguistics

A fascinating feature of R’ Yaakov’s work are his linguistic studies. For example, he attempt to create an Egyptain etymology by pointing out that most Egyptain names contain as root letters the פ ר or ע (EY – Parshas Vayechi) See the discussion here.

He also notes that the letter ד must sound similar to the English “th” (as in “the”) as the Yemenites pronounce it for otherwise it would be impossible to lengthen the word “Echad” in Shema as the Halacha states (the d – dalet sound- cannot be lengthened and would sound like a d plus an extended a) (E”Y on SA in the notes). [1a]

An extensive discussion is in his בענין דקדוק קריאת שמע בכל לשון in EY to Seder Zeraim. There based on several diyukim in the Rambam demonstrating his usual critical style, he creates an extensive linguistic structure.

He correctly notes that there is a connection between the Latin and Hebrew alphabets [1] which he demonstrates like this:
A B C
ג ב א
,etc.

[2]

Noting that the Gimel lines up with the C – He first suggests that the correct pronunciation of the Gimel corresponds with the s sound of the C [3](This he does based on the Gemara that compares Gimel to Tsadi – לא גמין צדיין)

However noting that the Latin C is spelled in Hebrew with a ק (Compare- Caeser – קיסר Ocean-אוקיינות Cedar-קדרום ) and therefore corresponds to a guttural G sound he recants. Instead he interprets the Gemara (acc. to the Rambam) as referring to the Greek names of these letters [4]. He also interprets the line of the Gemara לא פיפין טיתין (whose Hebrew letters show little similarity) as referring to Theta and Pi [5]. He writes that one cannot write Payin in Hebrew (for grammatical reasons) and therefore it is written פיפין.

In this a in his knowledge of History we see that despite a good grounding in the information on the subject, R’ Yaakovs sound innate critical sense alone suffices for him to make brilliant observations in an area far from his expertise.

(On a side note I refer you to the writings of HaRav Shir who suggests that the R was confused with an L among the Greeks (An example of this is the Chinese who pronounce an L as an R). See his interestng observations on Deucalion here. He further suggests that the Hebrew Ari became the Greek Leo. Again I can find no evidence to support this.)

[1a]In a somewhat similar deduction, R' Baruch Epstein observes that the Sefaradim are correct in pronouncing certain letters with a dagesh - else why would the Talmud need to warn that one pause between words with similar endings and beginnings (ליתן ריוח בין הדבקים) in the like of HaKanaf Pesil. The F and the P sounds are very different.

[1]He would have been better served by making use of the Greek alphabet which is the intermediary between Hebrew (more correctly Paleo-Hebrew) and the Latin (Roman) alphabet. See this chart which I will make use of in my analysis.) Obviously lacking access to a Greek phonetic chart he had to make use of the Latin alphabet.

[2] In a note he mentions that according to this chart the Vav corresponds with an F (unclear in the chart). He then points out that the Sheimos HaGittin consistently spells names of the like of Freidel which should apparently be spelled with a soft Pey פ as וריידל with a Vav implying that a vav in fact had an F sound. He then points out that a German W is pronounce in English as a V and the German V as an F showing the overall relationship between these letters. And then explains the in Hebrew the W as in Vilna or Warsaw is spelled with two Vav’s – possibly similar to the W (double V)

[3] As you can see from the chart this is incorrect as the Greek Gamma in fact has a G not a C sound.

[4] The Gamin refers to Gamma. I do not know which letter he refers to with Tsadin. There is in fact no common greek letter corresponding to Tsadi – See the chart.

[5] I see no obvious similarity between these two letters. It would appear R’ Yaakov knew the names of the letters without being aware of the shapes. R’ Menachem Kasher in his analysis of the anointing of the Kohen Gadol with the Greek Chi in Horiyos (originally in article in a Sefer HaYovel whose name escapes me for the moment, also in the addenda to Torah Sheleimah Va’Yakhel) made use of the Shiltei Gibborim of Avraham HaRofe to identify the letters. I will include his analysis here for it is of interest in its own right –

He points to the Gemara in Horiyos that mentions the anointing of the Kohen Gadol in the shape of a Greek Chi (an X). (There some discussion if an X or some other shape see there). Why X? In Kesav Ivri (Phoenician) an X is a Tav, The Gemara in Shabbos mentions G-d telling the angels to paint a letter Tav on the foreheads for Tamus and Tichya. At the time of the anointing they were demonstrating to the Kohen Gadol that if he follows the correct procedure he will live if not he will die. Since there is no X in Ashuri they referred to the Greek letter instead. See also R’ Shaul Lieberman “Greek in Jewish Palestine” Pgs. 185- 190. My thanks to R’ S for directing me to this source.

R’ Yaakov also discusses this Gemara (See EY on Horiyos there) but lacking a complete knowledge in the Greek Alphabet is unable to find a good answer.