Seforim for Sale, List III

Seforim for Sale List IIISeforim for Sale List III

by Eliezer BrodtThis is the third and (for now) the final list of out-of-printseforim (the two prior lists can be seen here and here) Wehave provided links for most of the books where a bit ofinformation about the book can be gleaned These books willonly be available for a short bit longer

Most of the titles mentioned here are out-of-print and forsome of the listed titles there are only a few copiesavailable For example for-some of the titles there are onlytwo copies available for sale while others there are many moreavailable Thus these books are on a first come first servebasis These books will not be available much longer Allthese books are brand new and are in mint conditionSpecialIf one buys five books he will receive a ten percent discountoff the total price (not including the shipping) If one buysten or more books he will receive twenty percent off the totalprice (not including the shipping)How to Order E-mail your order to EliezerSeforim-at-gmailcom You will then be sent a bill based upon what isavailable as the sale is first-come first-serve Payment isdone Via Pay Pal Shipping is available itrsquos about $5 a sefer(on average size seforim some of the books are over sized sothey cost a little more to mail) If one buys 5 seforim theprice on shipping goes down a bit All books will be airmailed out shortly after I receive the money All questionsabout information of the seforim should be sent to the abovee-mail address Enjoy

Some of the titles from list one and two are still available

חסידותספרים של גדליה נגאל על חסידות (כל אחד יש הערות ומבוא ממנו)

א צפנת פענח $15

ב יעקב דרידרמן- תמימי דרך 140 עמ $12

ג מנחם ציטרין ndash שבחי צדיקים 142 עמ $12

ד יעקב קידנר- סיפורים נוראים סיפוריו של איש חבד- 167 עמ $13

ה ישעיה וולף ציקרניק סיפורי חסידות צירנוביל -202 עמ $14

ו יעקב סופר- סיפורי יעקב 216 עמ $14

ז מחקרים בחסידות ג נגאל בחלקים 460 עמ $33

ח ממלכת החכמה על חסידי ראפשיץ יצחק אלפסי שעו עמודים $15

ט בנתיבי חסידות איזביצא ראדזין ש שרגאי תשלג 193 עמ כריכהרכה $10

י הסיפור החסידי יוסף דן 275 עמ $16

תימןיאמשא תימן חיים צדוק 304 עמ $11

יב פקודי תימן 355 עמ $15

יג ארחות תימן תשמד 456 עמ $15

יד היהודים והמלך בתימן שלו בר גמליאל ב חלקים [חלק א 463עמ חלק ב 186 עמ] $25

מגנסמקרא

טושקיעי חכמה בספר תהלים $11

טזהמקרא בין טעמים לפרשנות $16יזמחקרים בלשון המקרא $17

יחספר בראשית ומבנהו $19

יטמאמר על תיקון השכל $11

כתוכן וצורה בפיוטי שאבןגבירל $17

קבלהכאחקרי קבלה י תשבי חלק ב-ג $30 (עדיין יכול להשיג חלק א אצל

מגנס לבד)כבמיתוס ומטאפורה $17

כגבין השיטין $15 עורך משה אידל על קבלה קבלה נוצרית שבתאות

שונות מגנסכדכתבי משה זילברג $19

כהיצחק קצנלסון-כתבים שניצלו מגיטו וארשה וממחנה ויטל $18

כותולדות האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים כרך א $16

כז אדולף רודניצקי סופר בין שני עולמות $12

כחרב משורר ומחזאי $15

כט מקדש הדממה $15

לדרכי הסגנון הכוהני בתורה$17

לארוח חדשה בקרב אחינו באשכנז $15

לב די יידישע ליטעראטור אין ניינצעטן יארהונדערט $23

לג קובץ על עגנון $14

ספרים של מנחם זהרי לדמקורות רשי תהלים $13

לה הבנינים הסבילים שימושיהם ושגירותם בלשון המקרא תשנב 159 עמ$10

לו נתיבות בשירה המקראית 135 עמ $10

לזמדקדקים וחיבוריהםה בפירושי רשי 240 עמ [על רשי ומנחם בן

סרוק ורשי אם דונש בן לברט] $15

לחדברי משה הדרשן ופיוטי אליעזר הקלירי בפירושי רשי 67 עמ $8

מרכז זלמן שזרלטמצפונות צפת מחקרים ומקורות לתולדות צפת וחכמיה במאה הטז $8ספר זה כולל דרשה של ר שלמה אלקבץ מדרש שמואל על מות האריזל

חזות קשה להאלשיך יומנו של החרדים199 עמ

מהגליל $9

מאציונת ודת $12

מבדת וכלכלה $14

מגקיום ושבר $15

מדיהודי ארצות הברית $15

מהאשנב לחייהן של נשים $17 394 עמ

This book is all about Lives of Women in Jewish societies

מוהיהודים בעולם האסלם $15

מז יהודה החשמונאית בעולם ההלניסטי פרקים בהיסטוריה מדינית $10

מחכמראה כסופה חיי היהודים באיטליה בימי הרינסאנס ראובן בונפיל$13

מטרעיון הבחירה $15

נהתרבות העממית $13

נאתולדות היהודים בארצות האיסלאם ndash חלק ראשון ndash העת החדשה ndash עדאמצע המאה היט ג חלקים $35

נבכמנהג אשכנז ופולין ספר יובל לחנא שמרוק ndash קובץ מחקריםבתרבות היהודית $10

נגקיבוץ גלויות עלייה לארץ ישראל ndash מיתוס ומציאות $10

נדבין חזון לרוויזיה מאה שנות היסטוריוגרפיה ציונית ndash קובץמאמרים $13

נהירושלים בתעודה ובעשיה $15

נובשם החרות והשוויון עיונים במהפכה הצרפתית ndash קובץ מאמרים $15

נזדה ודיוקנה אורתודוקסיה יהודית ברייך הגרמני 1871-1918 ndashהיסטוריה חברתית של מיעוט דתי $12

נחהיהודים בעולם ההלניסטי והרומי מחקרים לזכרו של מנחם שטרן (לאמופיע אצל שזר) 488 עמ+158 עמ $17

נטסופרים מוסלמים על יהודים ויהדות היהודים בקרב שכניהםהמוסלמים $17

סבין שבט לחסד השלטונות האיטלקיים ויהודי צרפת ותוניסיה בימימלחמת העולם השניהה $10

סאבין מסורת לקדמה תולדות תנועת הרפורמה ביהדות $15

פיוטסבפרקי שירה מגנזי השירה והפיוט של קהילות ישראל חלק א $15

סגפיוטי ר יהודה בירבי מקיצי נרדמים $15

סדמגנזי שירת הקדם מהדיר י רצהבי תשנא 404 עמ $15

ראשוניםסהמחקרים של י אפשטין חלק ג $14 -הקובץ כולל מאמרים הדניםבפירושיו של ר יהודה בן נתן חתנו של רשי ומגדולי תלמידיולמסכתות רבות בתלמוד ובזיהוים של פירושיו כמו כן מובאים בו

הטקסט של פירוש ריבן למסכת כתובות מלוקט מתוך שיטה מקובצתמתוקן לפי המקורות השונים ובתוספת הערות וציון המקורות וליקוטים

מפירושי ריבן למסכתות אחרות

סו פירוש מסכת פסחים וסוכה מבית מדרשו של רשי מהדיר א קופפר-מקיצי נרדמים תשמד 210 עמודים $15

סזפירוש רשי למסכת מועד קטן א קופפר מקיצי נרדמים תשכא 96עמ $11

שונותסחקובץ על יד סדרה ראשונה חלקים א-ד ו ח-י כל חלק $11

סטהשליח הנודד ר יוסף חיים שרים מהדיר אברהם בן יעקב שניחלקים $18

עזאב בן חיים במלחמה של לשון אקדמיה ללשון העברית $15

עאילקוט מורשת חלק 57 על יהודי הונגריה 410 עמ כריכה רכה $14

עבמשה דייויס ארהב והערגה לציון המכון ליהדות זמננוירושלים תשס 164 עמ $12

עגעכשיו או לעולם לא דיוני מפאי בשנה האחרונה למנדט הבריטיתשמט ב חלקים $20

עדאדם לאדם גשר פתגמים של יהודי גורגיה בישראל $12

עהלא בשמים היא סוגיות בפילוסופיה של הלכה אבי שגיא כריכה רכה(מרכז יעקב הרצוג) 190 עמ $12

עוציפורי בימי בית שני המשנה והתלמוד- יהודה נאמן 377 עמ $17

עזאסופות חלק יד מכון הרב ניסים $15

עחספר היובל לאהרן מירסקי באורח מדע 1986 610 עמ [35 מאמריםעל נושאים שונים] $18

עט פשט ודרש בפרשנותו של רשי בנימין גלס 184 עמ $16

פפאר תחת אפר העישון בימי החול ובימים טובים לאור הלכה דבאטינגר תשמט רכב עמודים $15

פארואה האורות שירת אדם שירת התשובה במשנת מרן הרב אברהםיצחק הכהן קוק פרופ חיים ליפשיץ ירושלים תשלה שסא עמ $15

פבגיוס כהלכה 298 עמ כריכה רכה $14

פג ישראל עם ארץ מדינה עורך אביגדור שנאן אהרן אופנהיימראברהם גרוסמן יהושע קניאל 356 עמ $22

פד מדינת היהודים תיאודר הרצל- מבוא הערות ונספחים חיה הראל

תשנו 100 עמ $9

פה ספר התקנות יהודי ספרד ופורטוגל במרוקו 1492-1753 בעריכתשלום בר אשר-386 עמודים $15

פועלייה ללא ירדיה יונה כהן יהודי תוניסייה ג רבהאלגירייה 144 עמ $10

פזיהודי לוב גולה וגאולה יונה כהן 170 עמ $11

מוסד רב קוקפחמדרש החפץ בראשית שמות $15

פטרשי פירוש התורה ndash ר שעוועל תרסט עמודים $12

צ בעקבות היראה $9

צא רלבג בראשית $8

צבאדר היקר (ר קוק על האדרת) $8

צגשרגאי חלק ג $10

צדפתוחים פתוחים ואטורים $12

צההתקנות בישראל חלק ד $15

צו תרביץ שנה נט חוברת א- ב בתוך קובץ זה יש המאמר החשוב שליעקב זוסמן חקר תולדות הלכה ומגיללות מדבר יהודה הרהורים

תלמודיים ראשונים לאור מגילת מקצת מעשי תורה ndash $7

צז תרביץ עשרים כרכים -בודדים משנה תשן עד תשסז הסט של עשריםכרכים הוא $70 שוה בערך $360 אם אתה רוצה חמש עותקים זה $20 (אני

לא מוכר פחות מ5 עותקים)

Special ndash I am selling back issues of the excellent journal Tarbitz If you buy 20 issues it is $80 The regular price ismore than $360 If You want to buy only five issues the priceis $25 I am not selling less than five issues at a time1Hasidism as Mysticism $172A Land in the Balance The Struggle for Palestine 1919-1948 $35

3The Yellow Star The Persecution of the Jews in Europe1933-1945 [Hardcover] $15

4Henrietta Szold A Documentation in Photos and Text[Hardcover] $10

5 JEWISH ART VOLUME 18 ndash $20 211 pages devoted to artrelated to Sefard

6 JEWISH ART VOLUME 19-20 $23 270 pages

Further Comments by MarcShapiro

Further CommentsBy Marc B Shapiro

I had thought that this would be my last post of the currentbatch but it turned out to be too long So I have divided itinto two parts Here is part no 1The volumes Shomrei Mishmeret ha-Kodesh by R Natan RaphaelAuerbach have just appeared Here is the cover

This book is devoted to the Auerbach family which was one ofthe great rabbinic families in Germany They were the ldquoArdquo inwhat was known as the ABC rabbinic families (the others beingBamberger and Carlebach) Over 150 pages are devoted to R ZviBenjamin Auerbach who was the most prominent of the Auerbachrabbis He was also the publisher of Sefer ha-Eshkol to whichhe added his commentary Nahal Eshkol In a number of posts Idealt with Auerbachrsquos edition of Sefer Ha-Eshkol anddiscussed how both academic scholars and traditional talmideihakhamim have concluded that the work is a forgery1 Readerswho are interested in the details can examine the earlier

posts In this newly published volume which was called to myattention by Eliezer Brodt the author speaks briefly aboutthe Sefer ha-Eshkol controversy and responds to those who inhis words continue to defame a gadol be-Yisrael (p 382)

הממשיכים לבזות גדול בישראל ולהכפישו באופן אישיIn the note the author refers to Moshe Samet who earlier haddealt with Sefer ha-Eshkol and also to one of my posts on theSeforim Blog While Seforim Blog posts have been cited inEnglish scholarly writings as far as I know this is the firsttime that there has been citation in a Hebrew volumeI understand why members of the Auerbach family might feelobliged to defend him (Yet one of my college suitemates was adescendant of Auerbach and it didnrsquot seem to trouble him whenI told him about the controversy) Why a respected rabbi wouldforge a book is not something I want to get into now In theearlier post I assumed that he was schizophrenic as when itcomes to Sefer ha-Eshkol I canrsquot think of any ideologicalreason for his actions (Samet He-Hadash Assur min ha-Torah[Jerusalem 2005] p 152 n 235 identifies as one ofAuerbachrsquos motivations מגמה אורתודוקסית)As for the argument that since he was a leading rabbi we musttherefore assume that he couldnrsquot have done such a thing thisis disproven by all the recent examples of well-known rabbiswho were involved in a variety of types of improper behaviorBefore they were exposed no one could ever have imagined whatwe learnt and everyone would have been 100 percent sure thatthese rabbis could not possibly have been involved in suchactivities This simply shows that that just because someoneis a well-known rabbi we donrsquot have to automatically concludethat he is innocent no matter what the evidence saysIn many of the recent cases at least the ones dealing withsexual abuse the rabbis no doubt suffered from some sort ofmental illness as I canrsquot imagine that men who did so much toinfluence people positively and help them were completefrauds I think that Auerbach must also have had somepsychological issues and this is actually the best limudzekhut For once we assume this it means that we donrsquot haveto view the rest of his illustrious career and achievements asfraudulent In short he had a problem and it manifesteditself in his forgeries Yet I admit that I canrsquot prove mysupposition and at the end of the day we will probably never

be able to explain definitively why Auerbach would forge thetext any more than we can explain how another great figureErasmus forged a patristic work and attributed it to SaintCyprian2 Anthony Grafton who has written an entire book onthe subject sums up the matter as follows ldquoThe desire toforge in other words can infect almost anyone the learnedas well as the ignorant the honest person as well as theroguerdquo3Unfortunately Shomrei Mishmeret ha-Kodesh does not seriouslydeal with any of the evidence that has led to the conclusionthat we are dealing with a forgery (For reasons I canrsquot getinto now I find it completely implausible that someone inmedieval times forged the work and Auerbach was duped But letme make one point Auerbach claimed to be working from a veryold manuscript and yet this ldquomanuscriptrdquo contains materialfrom the 17th and 18th centuries) Since the author mentionsSefer ha-Eshkol vol 4 which was published in 1986 togetherwith the Nahal Eshkol I once again renew my call for thismanuscript to be made public and for some explanation to begiven as to where it comes from since Auerbachrsquos manydefenders were unaware of it The fact that a portion ofAuerbachrsquos manuscript (ie his copy of the supposed medievalmanuscript) mysteriously surfaced so many decades afterAuerbachrsquos death and that we are told nothing about it oreven shown a picture of it certainly raises red flags As Inoted in one of my previous posts the Nahal Eshkol publishedhere has a reference to a book that only appeared afterAuerbach died This means that quite apart from Sefer ha-Eshkol we also have to raise questions about whether theNahal Eshkol published here is itself authentic It could bethat it is indeed genuine and the reference to the later bookis an interpolation but that is why we have to see themanuscript After all if the manuscript is written in onehand and it includes the reference to the later book thenthere is no doubt that it too is a forgery So let theevidence about Sefer ha-Eshkol vol 4 together with themanuscript be placed on the Seforim Blog for all to seePerhaps then we can begin to understand the mystery of thisvolumeAs long as the topic has been brought up let me callattention to Shulamit Elitzurrsquos new book Lamah Tzamnu

(Jerusalem 2007) On p 115 n 2 she gives an example wherethe Sefer ha-Eshkol forgery was perpetrated by using aquotation from the Shibolei ha-Leket and cites a comment inthis regard from the noted scholar Simhah Emanuel On p 235n 38 she mentions another example of forgery in the AuerbachSefer Ha-Eshkol For further instance see Israel Moshe Ta-Shmarsquos posthumously published Keneset Mehkarim vol 4(Jerusalem 2010) p 183 n 284 In an article in Atarah le-Hayyim (Jerusalem 2000) p 292 Neil Danzig also points to anon-authentic interpolation in Auerbachrsquos Sefer ha-Eshkol YetI am surprised to see that he follows Ta-Shma in thinking thatR Moses De Leon might have had something to do with thisIn terms of traditional Torah scholars I came across acomment by R Avigdor Nebenzahl in R Yaakov Epsteinrsquosrecently published Hevel Nahalato vol 7 p 157 (Epstein isthe grandson of Prof Jacob Nahum Epstein5) Nebenzahl comesfrom a German Orthodox background so one might expect him tocome to the defense of Auerbach as did a number of prominentGerman Orthodox figures Yet that is not what we find Epsteinhad cited a passage from Auerbachrsquos Sefer ha- Eshkol to whichNebenzahl added that it is well known that some question theauthenticity of this edition and claim that it is a forgeryIn case you are looking for any non-scholarly motivations forthis comment I should mention that Nebenzahlrsquos sister wasPlia Albeck (died 2005) the daughter-in-law of Hanokh Albeckand a significant person in her own right (She paved the wayfor most of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank) HanokhAlbeck together with his father Shalom Albeck published theauthentic Sefer ha-Eshkol and were both very involved inexposing Auerbachrsquos forgery In other words Nebenzahlrsquoscomment shows that families stick together (Just out ofcuriosity does anyone know if there have been any marriagesbetween the two important families the Auerbachs and theAlbecks)In a previous post I mentioned R Yehiel Avraham Zilberrsquosbelief that the Auerbach Sefer ha-Eshkol is forged To thesources I referred to we can add Birur Halakhah Orah Hayyim75 Also R Yisrael Tuporovitz who has written many volumesof Talmudic commentaries is not shy about offering hisopinion Here is what he writes in Derekh Yisrael Hullin(Bnei Brak 1999) p 8

וכבר נודע שספר האשכול הנדפס עם ביאור נחל אשכול הוא מזוייף ואיןלסמוך עליו כלל

He repeats this judgment on pages 38 53 and 345In one of the earlier posts I mentioned that R YitzhakRatsaby denies the authenticity of Auerbachrsquos edition I alsoquoted from his letter to me At the time I was unaware thatportions of this letter also appear in his haskamah to RMoshe Parzisrsquo Taharat Kelim (Bnei Brak 2002) Another newsource in this regard from Ratsaby is his Shulhan Arukh ha-Mekutzar (Bnei Brak 2000) Yoreh Deah 1383 (p 287) wherehe accuses Auerbach of taking something from the Peri Hadashand placing it in Sefer ha-Eshkol Ratsaby discussed the Sefer ha-Eshkol in his haskamah toParzisrsquo book because the latter had called attention to thedefense of Auerbach in Tzidkat ha-Tzaddik Here is the titlepage of the latter work

Among the defenders of Auerbach was R Jacob Schorr of KutyGalicia Schorr was a genius and is best known for his editionof the Sefer ha-Itim6 He also wrote the responsa volumeDivrei Yaakov (Kolomea 1881) and a second volume culledfrom various sources both published and manuscript appearedin 2006 Here is his picture taken from Aharon SoraskyrsquosMarbitzei Torah me-Olam ha-Hasidut vol 3 p 11

It is an unfortunate oversight that this incredible scholardoes not have an entry in the Encyclopaedia Judaica A list ofall of his works can be found in the introduction to his Mavoal ha-Tosefta (Petrokov 1930) This introduction alsocontains R Zvi Ezekiel Michaelsonrsquos biography of Schorr Aswith everything written by this amazing bibliophile7 onelearns a great deal not only about the subject he focuses onbut about all sorts of other things8 Michaelson was killed inthe Holocaust and numerous unpublished manuscripts of his werelost His grandson was Prof Moshe Shulvass and a responsum

is addressed to him in Michaelsonrsquos Tirosh ve-Yitzhar no158Schorrrsquos son was Dr Alexander Schorr who translated manyclassic Greek and Latin texts into Hebrew9 Alexander Schorrrsquosgrandson is the well-known Israeli film director RenenSchorr10Since Prof Leiman has just written about the Maharal it isworth noting that Schorr tells an incredibly far-fetchedstory which he actually believed about the Maharal andEmperor Rudolph According to the tale Rudolphrsquos biologicalfather was a Jewish man What happened was that Rudolphrsquosmother the queen could not have children with the EmperorShe therefore asked a Jewish man to impregnate her or else shewould unleash persecution on the Jews in the kingdom Uponhearing this the beit din gave the man permission to accedeto her wishes I donrsquot want to repeat any more of thisnonsensical story but those who are interested can find it inR Abraham Michaelsonrsquos Shemen ha-Tov (Petrokov 1905) pp60a-b (R Abraham was R Zvi Ezekielrsquos son)Returning to Schorr one of the most astounding examples ofself-confidencemdashothers will no doubt call it arrogance orfoolishnessmdashever stated by a rabbi (in print at least) waspenned by him In his Meir Einei Hakhamim reprinted in Kitveive-Hiddushei ha-Gaon Rabbi Yaakov Schorr (Bnei Brak 1991) p177 we find the following

ואני מעיד עלי שמים וארץ כי לא היה ולא יקום עוד אחרי שום חכםאשר יהיrsquo בקי בטוב [] בפלפול תנאים ואמוראים כמותי

This text is often quoted by R Yaakov Hayyim Sofer in hisvarious works11 This is not the only time Schorr expressedhimself this way On page 129 he writes

ודע דהופיע רוח הקודש בבית מדרשי(This expression can also be found in other books andoriginates in Rabadrsquos hassagah to Hilkhot Lulav 85 But tosee this type of language in a sefer written by a someone veryyoung [see below] even a genius like Schorr is a bitjarring) Sofer Shem Betzalel p 28 also points to MeirEinei Hakhamim p 209 where Schorr writes about one of hisideas

וזה נכון יותר מפירוש רשrdquoי(On this page Schorr alludes to R Zvi Hirsch Chajes

referring to him as אחד מחכמי הזמן Sofer claims that Schorrrsquosgeneral practice is to not mention Chajes by name Sofer wantsthe reader to think that he doesnrsquot know why Schorr acts thisway Yet the reason is obvious and Sofer himself certainlyknows that some talmudists were not fans of Chajes)Perhaps we can attribute Schorrrsquos over-the-top comments to hisown immaturity After all as Sofer Shem Betzalel p 29points out Schorr began writing the book I am quoting fromat age thirteen and completed it by the time he was sixteenA genius he certainly was yet I think we should assume thathis excessive comments were the product of youthfulexuberance Sofer sees Schorrrsquos youthfulness as alsoresponsible for the very harsh way he criticizes the writingsof various gedolim which is something that is moreunderstandable and forgivable in a teenager than in a maturescholar I think all writers are embarrassed of things theirpenned in their youth and that is to be expected12 Anexample I often mention in this regard (when not referring tomyself) is Hirschrsquos harsh criticism of Maimonides Thisappeared in Hirschrsquos first book the Nineteen Letterspublished when he was 28 years old Never again in Hirschrsquosmany writings does he ever express himself this way Myassumption is that he regretted what he wrote and in hismature years he would not have used such strong languageSimilarly I wonder if in his mature years R Soloveitchikwould have commented to R Weinbergmdashas he did in histwentiesmdashthat his grandfather had a greater understanding thaneven the Vilna Gaon (I have printed Weinbergrsquos letter wherethis appears in a few different places most recently on theSeforim Blog and in the Hebrew section to my Studies inMaimonides)In terms of young achievers in the Lithuanian Torah world Iwonder how many have ever heard of R Meir Shafit He lived inthe nineteenth century and wrote a commentary on the JerusalemTalmud when not many were studying it Here is the title pageof one of the volumes where it tells us that he became rav ofa community at the age of fifteen

The Hazon Ish once remarked that the young Rabbi Shafit wouldmischievously throw pillows at his gabbaim13Returning to Schorr and Sefer ha-Eshkol Ratsaby is notimpressed by Schorrrsquos defense He notes that in R YaakovHayyim Soferrsquos Torat Yaakov Sofer states that the ideas ofSchorr ldquoצריכים בדיקהrdquoI found the comment in Torat Yaakov (2002 edition) p 880Here Sofer claims that despite his brilliance Schorr oftenputs forth unsustainable suppositions and he calls attention

to R Reuven Margaliot Ha-Mikra ve-ha-Mesorah ch 12 HereMargaliot cites a suggestion by Schorr that the text ofKiddushin 30a should be emended because the vav of גחון is notthe middle letter of the Torah Schorr further states that theeditor of Masekhet Sofrim was misled by the error in theTalmud The implication of Schorrrsquos comment is that all of oursifrei Torah are mistaken for they mark this letter asspecial Margaliot respondsותמה אני על תלמיד חכם מובהק כמוהו איך הרשה לעצמו לחשוב על מסדרמסכת סופרים שהוא טועה ומטעה וגם בודה מלבו מנהגים בכתיבת סrdquoת

בrdquoהגהותrdquo כאלו יכולים לעשות כל מה שרוצים וכאשר כתב הגרrdquoא[אליהו] פוסק בפסקי אליהו שם רעדה אחזתני לעשות טעות כזה בגמרא

ולחשוב על כל הסrdquoת שגיונות בדקדוקים דוrsquo דגחון ודרש דרשWith regard to Ratsaby I should also note that his disputewith R Ovadiah Yosef continues unabated In his recent NerYom Tov (Bnei Brak 2008) pp 20-21 he goes so far as toaccuse R Ovadiah of plagiarism

He also states with regard to R Ovadiah (p 100) שכבוד התורה אצלו הוא רק למי שמסכים לדבריו

Ratsabyrsquos book was written to defend the Yemenite practice ofnot making a blessing on Yom Tov candles against the criticismof R Ovadiah He also deals with R Ovadiahrsquos larger pointthat the Yemenites must embrace the Shulhan Arukhrsquos rulingsnow that they are in the Land of Israel The entire Yemeniterabbinate agrees with Ratsabyrsquos position but upon seeing howhe attacked R Ovadiah the condemnation of him from otherYemenite rabbis was swift All I can say in defense of Ratsabyis that R Ovadiah has been criticizing him in a less than

respectful way for some time now But in a sense Ratsaby gotwhat was coming to him because for many years he has beenwriting very disrespectfully about R KafihIn this new book p 98 Ratsaby goes so far as to repeat thelegend that when Kafih was appointed a dayan in Jerusalem heswore to R Ovadiah that he accepted the Zohar and Ratsabyclaims that Kafih swore falsely Kafih however denied thathe ever took such an oath14 For a long time Ratsaby has beenproclaiming that it forbidden to use Kafihrsquos books as he is amember of the kat ie the Dardaim who donrsquot accept theZohar or Kabbalah in general Yet R Ovadiah has declared thatthe Dardaim are not to be regarded as heretics15 This is incontrast to R Chaim Kanievsky who holds that the Dardaim areheretics who cannot be counted in a minyan16 R DavidTeherani states that since the Dardaim reject the Zohar theirwine is yein nesekh17 According to Aaron Abadi R ShlomoZalman Auerbach also ruled that rejection of the Zohar andKabbalah is heresy18I can understand those who assert that one must believe thatthe Zohar was written by Rashbi or at the very least that itwas written be-ruah ha-kodesh and if you deny this it isheresy Yet what is one to make of the following statementwhich greatly enlarges the realm of heresy (R Menasheh KleinMishneh Halakhot vol 7 no 160)ואם הוא אינו מאמין שהמrdquoב [משנה ברורה] נכתב ברוהrdquoק אזי הוא בכלל

אפיקורוס וכופר בתורת הrsquo יש בזמן הזה שאין מאמינים שגםבדורינו אנו ישנם חכמי הזמן שיש להם רוהrdquoק ומי שלא מאמין

בזה הרי הוא אפיקורוס וכופר בלי ספק

Based on this definition I think the entire Lithuanianrabbinate until World War II would be regarded as hereticsWould such a statement even have been imaginable before twentyyears ago It is of course no secret that the Lithuanianrabbinate has been transformed along hasidic lines Thischange is undeniable and I can point to many examples of thisHere is one (which was sent to me by R Yitzhak Hershkowitz)

Would any Jew in Lithuania ever fall for such a thing as magic(or holy) wine Anyone who tried to peddle this stuff wouldhave been thrown out of the beit midrash I was actually toldan anti-hasidic joke with regard to this picture I ask allHasidim not to be offended as neither I nor the managementendorse the joke Yet it deserves to be recorded forposterity for as we all know jokes are simply jokes but thehistory of jokes (even bad ones) well that is scholarshipThe joke goes as follows ldquoIt is incredbible We now see greatLithuanian Torah scholars doing things that until now only

hasidic rebbes did But even more incredible would be to seethe reverse that is to see hasidic rebbes write seforim onShas and poskimrdquoWith regard to the Zohar I must mention an amazing pointcalled to my attention by David Zilberberg from which we seethat R Joseph B Soloveitchik did not believe that R Simeonbar Yohai wrote the Zohar or at least that he didnrsquot writeall of it I always assumed as much but as far as I knowthere was never any proof until now In The Lord is Righteousin All His Ways pp 206-207 the Rav discusses the WesternWall and says that there is no mention of it in Chazal andvery little mention in rishonim The Wall is mentioned in Shirha-Shirim Rabbah 22219 where it states that the Kotel willnever be destroyed but the Rav says about this MidrashI will tell you frankly that I am always suspicious aboutthis midrash because the classical sources the Bavli andthe Yerushalmi do not mention the Kotel ha-Marsquoaravi Themidrash cited earlier is perhaps a later insertApparently Rabbi Elrsquoazar ha-Kalir knew the midrash To mymind this kinah of Rabbi Elazar ha-Kalir is one of theearliest documents to mention the Kotel ha-Marsquoaravi

Earlier in this book the Rav tells us when Kalir livedI do not know why historians have to explore when Kalir livedwhen he himself states that nine hundred years have passedand the Messiah has not yet arrived It means that Kalirlived in the tenth century

Yet as Zilberberg correctly points out the Western Wall isseen as quite significant in the Zohar (II 5b) and isreferred to as Rosh Amanah20 The Rav knew the Zohar verywell and therefore when he tells us that Chazal do notmention the Western Wall and it is only during the time ofthe rishonim that we begin to see references to it he is alsotelling us that the Zohar (or at least this section of theZohar) was written in the days of the rishonimReturning to Auerbach let me add in conclusion that he is notthe only great rabbi and Torah scholar who was involved inforgery An earlier case is R Benjamin Zersquoev of Arta

(sixteenth century) author of the well known responsa volumeTeshuvot Binyamin Zersquoev Here is the title page from the firstedition (Venice 1539)

In the midst of a dispute he was involved in he forged thesignature of the Venetian rabbi R Baruch Bendit Axelradplacing it on a document that supported himself He alsoforged an entire letter in R Baruch Benditrsquos name When allthis was discovered it helped lead to R Benjaminrsquosdownfall21Quite apart from the forgery R Solomon Luria Yam ShelShlomo Bava Kamma ch 8 no 72 also accuses R Benjamin Zev

of plagiarism Here are some his words כל דבריו גנובים וארוכים בפלפול שאינו לצורך וכנגד פנים מראה

אחור ושרי לי מרי אם הוא צדיק למה הביא הקבrdquoה תקלה על ידוהלא הוא היה הכותב ונתן לדפוס הספר מידו ומפיו

One big question that needs to be considered is how farremoved is forgery from false attribution When it comes tofalse attribution there is a long rabbinic traditionsupporting it and in the book I am currently working on Ideal with this in great detail If you can falsely attribute aposition to a sage perhaps you can forge a document in hisname as well (assuming it is not done for personal gain)Could that be what was driving Auerbach

A few people have sent me a question about my Monday nightTorah in Motion classes so I assume that there are others whohave the question as well Here is the answer If you cannotbe with us at 9PM and you are signed up the classes are sentto you so that you can watch or listen at your convenienceThis is much cheaper than downloading the classesindividuallyNotes

1 From my post here you can find all the links2 See Anthony Grafton Forgers and Critics Creativity andDuplicity in Western Scholarship (Princeton 1990) pp 44-453 Ibid p 484 As has been noted by many Auerbachrsquos edition of Sefer Ha-Eshkol has misled countless talmidei hakhamim There isanother way in which Auerbach misled a scholar but in thiscase it was accidental In the introduction to his edition pxv note 9 Auerbach reports in the name of a supposedlyreliable person that the Yerushalmi Kodashim was to be foundin the Vatican library This false report led R MordechaiFarhand to travel there from Hungary in search of thistreasure and he describes his journey See Farhand BersquoerMordechai (Galanta 1927) pp 154ff Farhand was a gulliblefellow See ibid p 152 where even though it had been anumber of years since Friedlaenderrsquos Yerushalmi forgery hadbeen established he didnrsquot want to take sides The legendthat there was a copy of the Yerushalmi Kodashim in theVatican had been disproven already in the nineteenth century

See R Baruch Oberlander in Or Yisrael (Tamuz 5761) p 2205 In his review of my edition of Kitvei ha-Rav Weinberg vol2 R Neriah Guttel Ha-Marsquoayan (Nisan 5764) pp 82-83writes that it was improper for me to publish Weinbergrsquojudgment of Epstein (p 430) Although they were friends andWeinberg thought that Epstein was a great scholar he alsopointed out that that Epstein wasnrsquot a lamdan What Weinbergmeant is that Epstein wasnrsquot a traditional talmid hakham butan academic Talmudic researcher As such while hispublications had great value in Weinbergrsquos eyes they didnrsquotget to the heart of what Talmudic scholarship should be aboutIn Weinbergrsquos words

סוכrdquoס אפשטיין אינו למדן ואיננו אלא פילולוג בעל חוש חד בלאלומדות אי אפשר לחקור לא את המשנה ולא התלמוד

Statements like these are vital for evaluating Weinbergrsquosapproach to academic scholarship and I never would dream ofcensoring such things6 In his Sharsquoar Yaakov (Petrokov 1922) no 16 there is aresponsum to ldquoAbraham Joshua Heschelrdquo Shmuel Glick Kuntresha-Teshuvot he-Hadash vol 3 sv Sharsquoar Yaakov assumesthat this is the famous A J Heschel but I donrsquot think wecan conclude this based only on the name which was shared bya number of others7 Eleh Ezkerah (New York 1957) vol 2 p 196 (repeated inthe Encylopaedia Judaica entry on Michaelson) states that inMichaelsonrsquos Degan Shamayim (Petrokov 1901) there areresponsa written when he was twelve and thirteen years oldThis is a mistake The earliest responsa dates from when hewas seventeen years old See pp 10a 11a8 On p 23 he prints a letter that Schorr wrote toMichaelsonrsquos son who wanted to translate the Sefer ha-Hinukhinto Yiddish Schorr was strongly opposed to this Heexplained as follows using words that wonrsquot make the womenvery happyרבינו הרמבrdquoם והחינוך אחריו שהודיעו ברבים טעמי מצות וכוrsquo יכשלובזה קלי הדעת לבטל המצוה כפי סכלות דעתם אשר לפי הטעם אין לחושעוד בזמנינו וכיוצא שבטל בהם טעם זה וכוrsquo איך ניתן לגלות טעמי

מצות גם בפני נשים ועמי הארץ אשר יקראו בו חלילה לרוrdquoמ לעבור עללפני עור

9 See here10 See here

11 Sofer often refers to a similar type of comment by RShlomo Kluger Ha-Elef Lekha Shlomo Orah Hayyim 367

אם הייתי זוכר כל מה שכתבתי מעולם לא היrsquo שום הערה בעולם שלאהרגשתי בזה

(I cited both Schorr and Kluger in a footnote in my article onthe Hatam Sofer in Bersquoerot Yitzhak Studies in Memory ofIsadore Twersky Although other writers also cite this commentof Kluger as with much else I believe that I first saw thereference in one of Soferrsquos writings) Kluger wrote so manythousands of responsa that it is not uncommon for him tocontradict himself and forget what he wrote previously See RYehudah Leib Maimon ed Sefer ha-Gra (Jerusalem 1954) p99 in the note R Solomon Schreiber Hut ha-Meshulash (TelAviv 1963) p 19 claims that R Nathan Adlerrsquos reason fornot recording his Torah teachings was due to a belief that thepermission to put the Oral Law into writing only applies ifone is not able to remember this information Since accordingto Schreiber R Nathan claimed that he never forgot any Torahknowledge he was not permitted to take advantage of thisheter12 Regarding Schorr being a childhood genius this letter fromhim to R Shlomo Kluger appeared in Moriah Av 5767

As you can see the letter was written in 1860 (although Icanrsquot make out what the handwriting says after תרrdquoך) We areinformed correctly that Schorr was born in 1853 which wouldmean that he was seven years old when he wrote the letterThis I believe would make him the greatest child genius inJewish history as I donrsquot think the Vilna Gaon could evenwrite like this at age seven Furthermore if you read theletter you see that two years prior to this Schorr had alsowritten to Kluger Are there any other examples of a five-year-old writing Torah letters to one of the gedolei ha-dorFurthermore from the letter we see that the seven-year-old

Schorr was also the rav of the town of Mariompol (TheMariompol in Galicia not Lithuania) I would have thoughtthat this merited some mention by the person publishing thisletter After all Schorr would be the only seven-year-oldcommunal rav in history and this letter would be the onlyevidence that he ever served as rav in this town But the manwho published this document and the editor of the journal areentirely oblivious to what must be one of the most fascinatingletters in all of Jewish history Yet all this assumes thatthe letter was actually written by Schorr Once again we mustthank R Yaakov Hayyim Sofer for setting the record straightIn his recently published Shuvi ha-Shulamit (Jerusalem 2009)vol 7 p 101 he calls attention to the error and pointsout citing Wunder Meorei Galicia that the rav of Mariampolwas another man entirely who was also named Jacob Schorr13 A Horowitz Orhot Rabbenu (Bnei Brak 1991) vol 1 p36414 See Avivit Levi Holekh Tamim (Jerusalem 2003) p 133 n16115 See R Yosef Pinhasi Yefeh Toar p 11616 See his response in Mordechai Alemkayas Va-YikhtovMordechai (Jerusalem 2009) p 34017 Yayin le-Nesekh (Betar Ilit 1996) p 7018 See here According to Abadi R Shlomo Zalmanrsquos decisionwas made with regard to a well-known scholar who is veryinvolved with Artscroll19 The Rav doesnrsquot note that there is a mention of the Wall inShemot Rabbah 22 as well but his judgment would no doubt bethe same Contrary to the Rav since these midrashim are foundin so many parallel sources I donrsquot think there is anyquestion that they indeed originate with Chazal20 See Pinchas Giller Reading the Zohar (Oxford 2001) pp12-1321 The event is described in Meir Benayahu Mavo le-SeferBinyamin Zersquoev (Jerusalem 1989) pp 120ff Once the disputegot going all sorts things were said R Benjamin was evenaccused of purchasing his semikhah See ibid p140 Thesource for this is R Elijah ha-Levi Zekan Aharon(Constantinople 1534) no 184

The Golem of Prague in RecentRabbinic Literature

The Golem of Prague in Recent Rabbinic Literature

by Shnayer Z Leiman

In a recent issue of המאור ndash a rabbinic journal of repute ndash ananonymous notice appeared on the Golem of Prague1 Apparentlya rabbi in Brooklyn had publicly denied the authenticity ofthe Maharalrsquos Golem claiming that R Yudel Rosenberg (d1935) ndash in his נפלאות מהרל (Piotrkow 1909) ndash was the firstto suggest that the Maharal had created a Golem According tothe account in המאור the rabbi based his claim in part onthe fact that no early Jewish book records that the Maharalhad created a Golem In response to the denial the anonymousnotice lists 6 ldquoproofsrdquo that the Maharal of Prague in factcreated a Golem Here we list the 6 ldquoproofsrdquo in translation(in bold font) and briefly discuss the weight they should beaccorded in the ongoing discussion of whether or not theMaharal created a Golem

1 How could anyone imagine that a [Jewish] book writtenthen [ie in the 16th century] could include a descriptionof how Jews brought about the deaths of numerous ChristiansAt that time the notorious censors censored even morefundamental Jewish teachings Fear of the Christianauthorities characterized every move the Jews made from theyoungest to the oldest The argument is presented as a justification for the lack ofan early account of the Maharal and the Golem Only in the20th century could the full story appear in print as itappears in מהרל נפלאות Apparently the author of theanonymous notice has never read נפלאות מהרל The volume doesnot depict how ldquoJews brought about the deaths of numerous

Christiansrdquo If the reference here is to the punishment metedout by the Golem to the Christian perpetrators of the bloodlibel נפלאות מהרל never depicts the Golem as bringing aboutthe death of anyone whether Christian or Jew If thereference here is to the blood libel itself מהרל נפלאות describes only how Christian criminals plotted against Jews(by means of the blood libel) and subsequently needed to bebrought to justice by the Christians themselves Nowhere areJews described as bringing about the deaths of numerousChristians This argument of course does not prove that the Maharalcreated a Golem in the 16th century 2 The Maharalrsquos creation of the Golem is alluded to onhis epitaph in the line that reads ldquoIt is not possible torelaterdquo More proof than this in not necessary The full line on the epitaph reads as follows ldquoFor himpraise best remains silent for in any event it is notpossible to relate the full impact of his many good deedsrdquo2See Psalm 652 and cf Rashi to b Megillah 18a דה סמא דכולאמשתוקא Nothing is said ndash or hinted ndash here about a GolemAlas more proof than this is necessary indeed 3 If this was an invention of the author of נפלאות מהרלhow come a storm was not raised up against him when hepublished his book a century ago Although one solitary voicewas raised up against him the majority of Gedolei Yisraelgreeted his book with esteem especially since its author wasthe noted and respected Gaon author of numerous works RabbiYehudah Yudel Rosenberg First it should be noted that R Yudel Rosenberg did notinvent the notion that the Maharal of Prague had created aGolem Evidence for the Maharalrsquos Golem dates back to 1836(before R Yudel Rosenberg was born)3 If the rabbi inBrooklyn claimed otherwise he was mistaken Thus the claimin 1909 that the Maharal of Prague had created a Golemoccasioned little or no surprise Second R Yudel Rosenberg ascribed the book to R Yitzchok b

R Shimshon Katz the son-in-law and contemporary of theMaharal R Yudel described in great detail how he had managedto come into possession of this rare manuscript4 There was noimmediate reason to suspect that this was a literary hoaxespecially coming from the hand of R Yudel Rosenberg Third had the book contained pejorative material about theMaharal a storm would surely have been raised against itInstead the book presented the Maharal as a master kabbalistwho created the Golem in order to stave off the notoriousblood libel accusations against the Jews Why should anyonehave protested against this heroic image of the Maharal In any event even if one concedes that ldquothe majority ofGedolei Yisrael greeted his book with esteemrdquo (a dubious claimthat cannot be proven) it surely does not ldquoproverdquo that theMaharal created a Golem A book published in 1909 is hardlyproof that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16th century 4 Chabad Hasidim relate in detail how R Yosef YitzchokSchneersohn visited the attic of the Altneu shul in Prague andsaw what he saw He wasnrsquot the first to do so ndash as reported byvarious elders ndash in the last 400 yearsIndeed a long list of the names of the famous and not-so-famous who visited the attic of the Altneu shul can easily bedrawn up That the sainted Rebbe R Yosef YitzchokSchneersohn visited the attic of the Altneu shul isestablished fact It is recorded in contemporary documentsie in the Sichos and Letters of his successor the Rebbe RMenachem Mendel Schneerson5 Exactly what the Rebbe saw in theattic is less certain According to one account when askedR Yosef Yitzchok chose not to respond6 According to anotheraccount he reported that he saw rdquowhat remained of himrdquo ieof the Golem7 For Lubavitchers this may be unassailableproof that the Maharal created a Golem and perhaps that is asit should be But for historians dust ndash or even a bodily formndash seen in an attic early in the 20th century hardlyconstitutes proof that the Maharal created a Golem in the 16thcentury As a matter of fact it should be noted thatextensive renovation took place in the attic of the Altneushul in 1883 No evidence of the Golem was discovered then8 Afilm crew visited and filmed the attic in 1984 No evidence of

the Golem was discovered then9 5 No one disputes the fact that the Maharal put an end tothe blood libel accusations that the Jews had suffered forgenerations And even this was not fully spelled out in thebook [ie נפלאות מהרל] Can someone explain how the Maharalaccomplished this The rhetorical question at the end of the fifth ldquoproofrdquopresupposes the existence of the Golem Only by means of theGolem was the Maharal able to counter the blood libelaccusations No one disputes that the Maharal put an end tothe blood libel accusations Quite the contrary no one hasever discovered a shred of evidence that links the Maharal tostaving off a blood libel accusation Nowhere in his writingsnowhere in the writings of his contemporaries (Jewish and non-Jewish) and disciples is there a word about the Maharalrsquosinvolvement in staving off a blood libel accusation That heput an end to the blood libel accusation is historicallyuntrue While the blood libel charge became less frequent inthe Hapsburg lands after the 16th century it hardlydisappeared10 From the 16th through the 18th centuries theblood libel accusation largely shifted to Eastern Europe InPoland alone between 1547 and 1787 there were 81 recordedcases of blood libel accusation against the Jews11 The Beiliscase is a sad reminder that the blood libel accusationcontinued into the 20th century as well12 Needless to say this argument hardly proves that the Maharalcreated a Golem in the 16th century 6 I saw in אש מליצי to 18 Elul13 a citation from amanuscript copy of a letter by the Maharal from the year 5343[=1583] addressed to R Yaakov Ginzburg describing how he[the Maharal] was directed by Heaven to create a Golem inorder to save the Jewish people See there for details The manuscript referred to here is a notorious 20th centuryforgery of a letter ascribed to the Maharal itself based uponR Yudel Rosenbergrsquos מהרל נפלאות The Munkatcher Rebbe RHayyim Eleazar Shapira (d 1937) apparently was the first ofmany to expose this forgery14

II

In a subsequent issue of המאור R Hayyim Levi added 4 newldquoproofsrdquo that the Maharal created a Golem15 A brief summaryof each of the new ldquoproofsrdquo is followed by an even brieferdiscussion of the weight they should be accorded in theongoing discussion of whether or not the Maharal created aGolem

1 The חידא in his 16שם הגדולים cites a responsum fromthe 17חכם צבי who in turn cites a letter by R Naftoli Ha-Kohen of Frankfurt18 who mentions his ancestor the Maharalldquowho made use of the Holy Spiritrdquo The חידא adds that heheard an awesome story about the Maharal and a revelation hehad which led to a private conversation between the Maharaland the King of Bohemia Not a word about the Golem of Prague appears in any of thesesources Indeed where we can examine the available evidence(in the case of the awesome story heard by the (חידא itapparently had nothing to do with a Golem19 2 R Shimon of Zelikhov משגיח of Yeshivat HakhmeiLublin said ldquoEveryone knows that the Maharal made use of theSefer Yetzirah and created a Golem I donrsquot claim that oneneeds to believe the tales in the storybooks about theMaharal But it is clear that the Maharal used the book ofYetzirah and created a Golemrdquo20 R Shimon of Zelikhov a great gaon and zaddik died as amartyr in 194321 His claim in the 20th century howeverweighty does not prove that the Maharal created a Golem inthe 16th century 3 In the book 22אלף כתב the author writes that he heardfrom the Spinka Rebbe23 in 1922 that he saw an original letterof the Maharal that described how and why he created theGolem This is the same notorious 20th century forgery listed as aldquoproofrdquo above section I sect6 For the refutation of this

proof see the reference cited in note 14 4 See 24סיפורים נחמדים which records a story in the nameof R Yitzchok of Skvere25 about the Maharal the Golem andthe double recitation of מזמור שיר ליום השבת at the קבלת שבתservice This story first published in 183726 is one of the oldest ofthe Maharal and the Golem stories It was retold by RYitzchok of Skvere and published in Yiddish (in 1890) andHebrew (in 1903) Wonderful as the story may be it cannot beadduced as ldquoproofrdquo for an alleged event that occurred some 300years earlier

mdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdashmdash

Even aside from the dictates of rationalism what militatesagainst the notion that the Maharal created a Golem is thefact that nowhere in his voluminous writings is there anyindication that he created one More importantly nocontemporary of the Maharal ndash neither Jew nor Gentile inPrague ndash seems to have been aware that the Maharal created aGolem Even when eulogized whether in David Gansrsquo 27 צמח דודor on his epitaph (see above) not a word is said about thecreation of a Golem No Hebrew work published in the 16th17th and 18th centuries (even in Prague) is aware that theMaharal created a Golem28 In this context it is worth noting that R Yedidiah Tiah Weil(1721-1805)29 a distinguished Talmudist who was born inPrague and resided there for many years ndash and who was adisciple of his father R Nathaniel Weil (author of the קרבןand of R Jonathan Eibeschuetz both of them long time (נתנאלresidents of Prague ndash makes no mention of the Maharalrsquos Golem

R Yedidiah Tiah Weil

R Nathaniel Weil

This despite the fact that he discusses golems in general

and offers proof that even ldquoclose to his timerdquo golems existedThe proof is a listing of famous golems such as the golemscreated by R Avigdor Kara (d 1439) of Prague30 and REliyahu Barsquoal Shem (d 1583) of Chelm31 Noticeably absent isany mention of the Golem of the Maharal of Prague32 Note too that the first sustained biographical account of theMaharal ndash by a distinguished rabbinic scholar from Prague ndashwas published in 174533 It knows nothing about a Golem ofPrague The deafening silence of the evidence from the 16th17th and 18th centuries needs to be addressed by those whoare persuaded that the Maharal created a Golem The cumulative yield of the ldquoproofsrdquo put forward in המאור insupport of the claim that the Maharal created a Golem isperhaps best described as an embarrassment of poverty In thelight of what passes for historical ldquoproofrdquo in המאור it wouldseem that המאור ndash a reputable rabbinic journal ndash wouldprobably do well to focus more on halakhah and less on Jewishhistory

III

Whereas המאור commemorated the 400th anniversary of theMaharalrsquos death by focusing on the imaginary accounts of theMaharal and the Golem scholars in the Czech Republic are tobe congratulated for commemorating the 400th anniversary bydesigning a magnificent exhibition of the Maharalrsquos life andworks and displaying it at the Prague Castle The exhibitionwas accompanied by an even more magnificent printed volumeedited by Alexandr Putik and entitled Path of life (andreferred to several times in the notes to this posting)Despite the many excellent studies in the book devoted to theMaharalrsquos life and thought much space ndash some will argue toomuch space ndash is devoted to the history of the Golem in artsculpture film and theater In contrast to המאור the essaysin Path of Life assume that the Golem of Prague was legendarynot a fact Here we reproduce one of the many imaginarypaintings of the Maharal and the Golem displayed at theexhibition and included in the volume It was done by KarelDvorak in 195133

Not to be outdone the Czech post office issued acommemorative stamp to mark the 400th anniversary of thedeath of the Maharal It features an imaginary portrait of theMaharal wearing a European casquette reminiscent of the onethe חיים חפץ used to wear in Radun The first day coverincludes an imaginary portrait of the Golem as well

One wonders if the Maharal prescient as he was ever imaginedthat this is how he would be remembered on the 400thanniversary of his death

Notes

1 Anonymous ldquoהילולא קדישא הארבע מאה של המהרל מפראג זיע Ha-Marsquoor 624 (2009) p 95 rdquoיצירת הגולם2 The Hebrew original readsהישרים מעשי[ו] כח לרוב מספרים אין כי תהלה דומיה לו See OMuneles בפראג העתיק היהודי מבית-העלמין כתובות Jerusalem1988 p 273 Cf K Lieben עד גל Prague 1856 Hebrewsection p 33 See S [the author asked that I not reveal his name] ldquoAnEarlier Written Source for the Golem of the Maharal from1836rdquo at On the Main Line November 4 2009 Cf S LeimanldquoThe Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in Londonrdquo JudaicStudies 3(2004) p 20 n 34 and see below n 32 forevidence from 1835 that may link the Maharal and the Golem Piotrkow 1909 pp 3-4 נפלאות מהרל 4 5 See eg R Menachem Mendel Schneerson מנחם תורת Brooklyn 1992 vol 1 p 6 התוועדויות 6 See previous note 7 Copy of a hand-written note by R Menachem MendelSchneerson published in the periodical חבד כפר issue 798

1998 The Hebrew reads in partבנוגע לעיקר הענין (שהמהרל עשה את הגולם) בעצמי שמעתי מכק

מוח אדמור שראה הנשאר ממנו בעליית בית הכנסת דמהרלפראג

The full text of the letter is also available online athttptheantitzemachblogspotcom entry ברוך שמו נקרא למה דוב Tuesday April 27 2010 in a comment by Anonymousposted on Wednesday April 28 2010 at 1228 AM I amindebted to Zalman Alpert reference librarian at the MendelGottesman Library of Yeshiva University for calling myattention to the online version (and to many other importantreferences over the many years we have known each other) Yet a third account drawn from a conversation with RebbetzinChana Gurary a daughter of R Yosef Yitzchok Schneersohnprovides even more detail Rebbetzin Gurary reportedI then asked him [her father the Rebbe] to tell me what hehad seen there My father paused for a moment and said ldquoWhenI came up there the room was filled with dust and shemus Inthe center of the room I could see the form of a man wrappedup and covered The body was lying on its side I was veryfrightened by this sight I looked around at some ofthe shemus that were there and left frightened by what I hadseen

Special thanks to Rabbi Shimon Deutsch for providing me with acopy of Rebbetzin Guraryrsquos testimony as reported to RabbiBerel Junik

8 See N Gruen Der hohe Rabbi Loew Prague 1885 p 39 9 See I Mackerle Tajemstvi prazskeho Golema Prague 1992Cf his ldquoThe Mystery of Praguersquos Golemrdquo December 12 2009 athttpenmackerlecz 10 See eg R Po-chia Hsia The Myth of Ritual MurderNew Haven 1988 pp 203-209

11 See Z Guldon and J Wijaczka ldquoThe Accusation of RitualMurder in Poland 1500-1800rdquo Polin 10(1997) pp 99-140 12 For basic bibliography on the Beilis case See S LeimanldquoBenzion Katz Mrs Baba Bathrardquo Tradition 424 (2009) pp51-52 n 1 13 Rabbi A Stern אש מליצי Vranov 1932 In the threevolume Jerusalem 1975 photomechanical reproduction of מליצי the passage appears in vol 2 p 87 אש 14 For discussion and references see S Leiman ldquoThe Letterof the Maharal on the Creation of the Golem A ModernForgeryrdquo Seforim Blog January 3 2010 15 R Hayyim Levi זיעldquo rdquoהמהרל Ha-Marsquoor 631 (2009) p84 16 R Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (d 1806) שם הגדולים השלם Jerusalem 1979 vol 1 p 124 17 R Zvi Ashkenazi (d 1718) שות חכם צבי סימן עו edJerusalem 1998 pp 183-4 18 Loc cit R Naftoli Ha-Kohen Katz of Frankfurt died in1719 Cf below n 32 19 See Rabbi AS Michelson שמן הטוב Piotrkow 1905 pp118-120 20 R Avraham Shimon of Zelikhov נהרי אש Jerusalem 1993p 173 21 See M Wunder גליציה מאורי Jerusalem 1978 vol 1cols 238-243 Jerusalem 2005 vol 6 cols 105-106 22 Rabbi Y Weiss (d 1942) אלף כתב Bnei Brak 1997 vol2 pp 47-48 23 R Yitzchok Eizik Weiss (d 1944) On him see TZRabinowicz The Encyclopedia of Hasidism London 1996 pp

534-5 24 Y W Tzikernik נחמדים ספורים Zhitomir 1903 pp13-14 Tzikernikrsquos hasidic tales were reissued by G Nigal inJerusalem 1994 In Nigalrsquos edition סיפורי חסידות צירנובילthe story about the Maharal and the Golem appears on pp128-130 Tzikernik who died circa 1908 was a follower of RYitzchok Twersky of Skvere (see next note) and recorded hisstories for posterity 25 On R Yitzchok Twersky of Skvere (d 1885) see YAlfasi אישים לחסידות אנציקלופדיה Jerusalem 2000 vol 2cols 339-40 26 The 1837 version appears in B Auerbach SpinozaStuttgart 1837 vol 2 pp 2-3 See above note 3 for asimilar version of the story published in 1836 But the 1836version makes no mention of the double recitation of מזמור שיר service קבלת שבת at the ליום השבת 27 See David Gans צמח דוד Prague 1592 entry for the year5352 (= 1592) In M Breuerrsquos edition (Jerusalem 1983) thepassage appears on pp 145-6 28 It is noteworthy that in 1615 Zalman Zvi Aufhausen aJew residing in Germany published a defense of Judaismagainst a vicious attack by the apostate Samuel Brenz In theintroduction to his defense Aufhausen writes that he wasencouraged by the great Jewish scholars in Prague and Germanyto undertake his defense of Judaism In the list ofaccusations Brenz accused the Jews of engaging in magicalrites and creating golems out of clay Aufhausen admitted thatJews created golems out of clay in the talmudic period (see bSanhedrin 65b) but only by means of Sefer Yetzirah and theDivine Name and not by engaging in magical rites After thetalmudic period according to Aufhausen Jews no longer hadthe ability to create golems out of clay especially in theGerman lands Aufhausen concludesליימן אויש ניט מיר מכין לאנדן דיזן אין גולמיים אונזרי אביר

זונדר אויש מוטר לייב ווערין זיא גיבורן

In these lands however our Golems are not made fromclay but rather they are born from the bodies of their mothersSee Zalman Zvi Aufhausen טירייאק יודישר [second edition]Altdorf 1680 pp 7a-b Given the apologetic nature ofAufhausenrsquos defense it is difficult to assess how much stockshould be put in his claim But surely if the MaharalrsquosGolem had been strolling the streets of Prague a decade or twoearlier than the appearance of the first edition ofAufhausenrsquos work he could hardly claim openly that Jews nolonger had the ability the create Golems out of clay after theTalmudic period 29 See L Loewenstein Nathaniel Weil Oberlandrabbiner inKarlsruhe und seine Familie Frankfurt 1898 pp 23-85 30 See the entry on him in Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem1971 vol 10 cols 758-759 In the 17th and 18th centuriesit was widely believed that he was the author of ספר הפליאה akabbalistic work that describes the creation of a Golem ProfMoshe Idel (in a private communication) suggests that this mayhave led to the belief that R Avigdor Kara of Prague createda Golem In any event the fact that a distinguished Talmudistin 18th century Prague was persuaded that R Avigdor Kara hadcreated a Golem suggests the possibility of a transfer inPrague of the Golem legend from R Avigdor Kara (who by theend of the 18th century was relatively unknown) to the Maharal(who by the end of the 18th century resurfaced as a majorJewish figure whose works were being reprinted for the firsttime in almost 250 years) For other suggestions regardingthe linkage between the Maharal and the Golem see V SadekldquoStories of the Golem and their Relation to the Work of RabbiLoew of Praguerdquo Judaica Bohemiae 23(1987) pp 85-91 H JKieval ldquoPursuing the Golem of Prague Jewish Culture and theInvention of a Traditionrdquo Modern Judaism 17(1997) pp 1-23Kievalrsquos updated version in his Languages of Community TheJewish Experience in the Czech Lands Berkeley 2000 pp95-113 B L Sherwin ldquoThe Golem of Prague and hisAncestorsrdquo in A Putik ed Path of Life Rabbi Judah Loewben Bezalel Prague 2009 pp 273-291 and J Davis ldquoTheLegend of Maharal before the Golemrdquo Judaica Bohemiae

45(2009) pp 41-59 31 On R Eliyahu Barsquoal Shem of Chelm see J Guenzig DieWundermaenner in juedischen Volke Antwerpen 1921 pp 24-26G Scholem ldquoThe Idea of the Golemrdquo in his On the Kabbalahand its Symbolism New York 1969 pp 199-204 M Idel ldquoREliyahu the Master of the Name in Helmrdquo in his GolemAlbany 1990 pp 207-212 and idem גולם Tel Aviv 1996 pp181-184 32 R Yedidiah Tiah Weil בדים לבושי Jerusalem 1988 p37 The passage comes from a sermon delivered in 1780 Yet another 18th century witness R Saul Berlin (d 1794)was apparently ignorant of the Maharalrsquos Golem In his כתב יושר (written in 1784 but published posthumously in Berlin1794) p 3b Berlin writes

ואולי דבר סרה על הנסים הידועים לכל בני הגולה כאותם שעשהמוהרר לוי [קרי ליוא] בהזמינו את הקיסר רודאלפוס למשתה ועישם הוריד בירה מן השמים או בגולם שעשה מוהרר נפתלי זצל אשר

עפרו עודנו טמון וגנוז Did [Wessely] speak disparagingly about themiracles known throughout the Jewish Diaspora [Did he speakdisparagingly] about those miracles performed by Rabbi Livawhen he invited Emperor Rudolph to his party and when bymeans of a Divine name he caused the Prague Castle to descendfrom heaven Or regarding the Golem created by Rabbi Naftoliof blessed memory whose dust still remains stored away Clearly R Saul Berlin knew legends about the Maharal Butwhen he needed to adduce a sample of the Golem legend he hadto turn elsewhere Interestingly the legend about the PragueCastle descending from heaven onto the Jewish quarter ofPrague was first told about R Adam Baal Shem and not aboutthe Maharal It first appeared in print in Prague in the 17thcentury By the 19th century the very same story was told inPrague circles with the Maharal as its hero Once again (seeabove note 30) it would appear that we have a sample of thetransfer in Prague of a legend from one hero to another withthe Maharal as the recipient In general see C Shmeruk

Jerusalem 1981 pp 119-139 ספרות יידש בפוליןEven more interesting is the reference to the Golem of RNaftoli otherwise unrecorded in Jewish literature Thereference is almost certainly to R Naftoli Ha-Kohen Katz(1645-1719) distinguished halakhist and master of thepractical kabbalah whose amulets ndash apparently mdash didnrsquot alwayswork From 1690 to 1704 he served as Chief Rabbi of Posen(Note too that the Maharal served as a Chief Rabbi of Posen)Recorded in Jewish literature (though I have never seen itcited in any discussion of the Golem of Prague) is an oraltradition from 1835 that the Maharalrsquos Golem was created inPosen and that the remains of the Golem could still be seen inthe 19th century in the old synagogue of Posen ldquounder theeaves lifeless and inactive like a piece of clayrdquo See S MGollancz Biographical Sketches and Selected Verses London1930 pp v and 50-55 and especially p 54 It is at leastpossible that R Saul Berlin heard about the legend of theGolem of Posen and assumed (wrongly) that the Golem wascreated by the famed practical kabbalist and rabbi of PosenR Naftoli I am indebted to S of the On the Main Line Blogspot (seeabove note 3) for calling my attention to the יושר כתב passage Apparently reports about the remains of Golems in attics werea rather widespread phenomenon in the early modern periodAside from the reports about Prague and Posen see the reportabout the Great Synagogue in Vilna (where the Vilna GaonrsquosGolem rested in peace) in HL Gordon The Maggid of Caro NewYork 1949 p 176 A similar report about a Golem in Beshtiancircles is recorded in R Yosef of Tcherin החיים דרכי Piotrkow 1884 Introduction pp 14-15 33 R Meir Perels (d 1739) מגילת יוחסין appended to RMoshe Katz מטה משה Zolkiev 1745 It was reissued separatelyin Warsaw 1864 and is available in L Honig ed חדושי מפראג מהרל אגדות London 1962 vol 1 pp 17-32 Perelsrsquois riddled with inaccuracies and needs to be used מגילת יוחסיןwith caution See A Putik and D Polakovic ldquoJudah Loew benBezalel called Maharal A Study of His Genealogy and

Biographyrdquo in A Putik ed Path of Life Rabbi Judah benBezalel Prague 2009 pp 29-83 Putik and Polakovic citesignificant earlier studies by Y Yudlov DN Rotner SSprecher and others See also NA Vekstein lsquos importantanalysis of Perelsrsquo מגילת יוחסין entitled ldquoהמהרל מפראגrdquo inSeptember 4 2009 המודיע In the light of the discussion in notes 30-33 mdash and until newevidence is forthcoming mdash it seems evident that the linkagebetween the Maharal and the Golem originated after 1780 andbefore 1835 almost certainly in Prague but perhaps in Posen 34 See A Putik ed Path of Life pp 398-399

Sefer HaNer on Mesechet BavaKamma Sefer HaNer on Mesechet Bava Kamma A Review byRabbi Yosaif Mordechai Dubovick Not everyimportant work written by a Rishon is blessed withpopularity[1] While many texts were available throughout thegenerations and utilized to their utmost others wererelegated to obscurity being published as recently as thiscentury or even this year Nearly a month doesnt passwithout a new Rishon being made available to the public andoften enough in a critical edition While each work must beevaluated on its own merit as a whole every commentaryevery volume of Halachic rulings adds to our knowledge andTorah study[2] From the Geonic era through theRishonim North Africa was blessed with flourishing Torahcenters Kairouan in Tunisia (800-1057)[3] Fostat (Old Cairo)in Egypt and many smaller cities as well Perhaps the crownjewel of pre-Rambam Torah study was the sefer Hilchot Alfasi

by R Yitchock Alfasi (the Rif)[4] Many Rishonim focusedtheir novella around the study of Rif[5] the Rambam taughtRif in lieu of Talmud[6] and a pseudo-Rashi and Tosefot weredeveloped to encompass the texts used and accompany itsstudy[7] In Aghmat a little known city in Moroccocirca the Rambams lifetime rose up a little known Chachamwhose work is invaluable in studying Rif and by correlationthe Talmud Bavli as a whole Yet this Chacham was unheard offor the most part until the past half century R Zechariyab Yehuda of Aghmat authored a compendium of GeonimRishonim and personal exegesis on Rif Spanning a period of200 years of Talmud commentary of the first order this workwas also unique in its approach Various editors have justlycompared it to a work of similar nature and provenanceShittah Mikubetzet by R Betzalel Ashkenazi Howeverthis source of Talmudic material from an almost blank periodremained unknown until HaRav Prof Simha Assaf publishedseveral leaves on Mesechet Berachot[8] This followed by asemi-critical edition of a complete manuscript by Meir DavidBen-Shem bearing its rightful title Sefer HaNer[9] Later JLeveen published a facsimile version of a manuscript in theBritish Museum[10] on the three Bavot along with an Englishpreface indexes and a brief critique of Ben-Shems edition ofBerachot Since many articles have been written about thework[11] and the Torah world has been blessed to see severalvolumes in print To date we are in possession ofSefer HaNer on Berachot[12] Shabbat[13] Eruvin MoedKatan[14] and Mesechet Nezikin namely the three Bavot[15] Ingeneral R Zechariah complied his work from the followingsources most of which were unknown as a work and sometimeseven the author was unknown These Pirushim include GeonimRav Hai in particular Rabbeinu Chananel[16] R Yosef ibnMigash R Baruch Sefardi (RBS)[17] R Yitzchok Ghiyyat RavNatan author of Sefer ha Aruch Rashi[18] Rambam[19] as wellas material of unknown authorship[20] Further a notableportion of the material is in Judeo-Arabic of that periodincluding Geonic response and commentary citations from RY

ibn Migash the Rambams commentary on Mishnah and even shortremarks within other commentaries as well Accuratelytranslating the material is a handicap limiting the sefersuse and perhaps played a part in its falling into disuse atthe decline of a Judeo-Arabic speaking Talmudist audience[Much like the loss of many (non-translated) Judeo-ArabicGeonic works over time] Recently a new edition ofHaNer on Mesechet Bava Kamma has been published this articlewill attempt a comparison between the two printed editionsfocus remaining upon the newer edition While parts of thematerial of the manuscript (British Museum OR 10013) have beenutilized in the past[21] never has the manuscript beenpublished as a whole with critical notes In 5761 as a partof Ohel Yeshayahu a compilation of works on BK R HillelMann published the relevant portion of Sefer HaNer from thismanuscript While this edition was surprisingly accurate tothe mss (the facsimile published by Leveen is available onOtzar HaChochmah) his notes are exceptionally lacking withonly the barest citation to what could be best described asyeshivishe reid the common knowledge on the topic asdiscussed in the Yeshivot of today Certainly not the optimalchoice when editing and annotating a work based on Geonic andearly Rishonic material with many variant readings in theTalmud as well novel commentaries hithertounutilized Upon perusal of this edition one cannothelp but notice that in sharp contrast to the remaining ninechapters the first chapter seems well edited and thematerial in the footnotes is richer The answer to this oddityis found in Manns preface in 5752 an article containing acritical edition of the first perek was published by RYehoshua Hutner of Machon Talmud Yisraeli[22] This materialhad been meticulously edited by R Dov Havlin shlita and RYosef haKohen Klien obm Mann made use of the extensivenotes gleaned what he felt valuable and ignored what hedeemed he could[23] According to Mann R Tzvi Rotstein[24]copied the mss and R Yosef Kafich translated the Arabictext Several months ago a new edition of this work

graced our tables R Dov Havlin the editor of the TalmudYisraeli article and his family[25] received permission topublish the work in its entirety[26] Using the materialpreviously assembled and R Kafichs translations a prefacewas added and the book printed A mere glance at the firstfootnote to the preface shows the thoroughness and care takenwhen approaching a Rishon As opposed to an on-the-jobtraining attitude displayed by some authors here theappropriate material was gathered and made use of in order toassess the task at hand The preface offers theuninitiated a preacutecis of the academic papers written on RZechariah and deals with the author his era and his worksAlongside a chapter is devoted to R Baruch Sefardi if onlyfor the sake of providing the public exposure to Abramsonspamphlet[27] In one paragraph the editor explains hisdecision to title the work Shitta MiKubetzet Kadmon althoughthe author R Zechariah named it HaNer I must confess I wasnot persuaded to concede to the change and regret the licensetaken[28] Another liberty taken is the exclusion ofthe abbreviation Pir short for Pirush This nomenclaturehas been edited out and replaced with a dash although nomention was made of this in the preface[29] This is not thecase in the original article and it would appear that thiswas done solely by the new editor(s) In addition Arabicpieces be they ever so brief are replaced with thetranslation and while the replacement is noted the originaltext is lacking Manns edition reproduces the original andrelegates the translation to a footnote as the originalarticle By way of comparison the original sports 261footnotes on the first perek the newer model 98 and Mannsversion contains 102 Clearly editing has been done andwhile citations previously footnoted are now in the body ofthe text (parenthesized and font size lowered) one wonderswhat else has been omitted and at what cost[30]Diacriticsfound in the mss are sorely lacking in all three editionsand HaShems name typically written as three letters yudis modernized to two[31] Further abbreviations have been

expanded Mann remained true to the text Many of Mannsmistaken readings are especially accurate in the new editionyet typographical errors (as is wont) remainAs the work isbased upon Rif and collates many authorities attempts tocorrelate the work to the Talmuds present pagination isdaunting Many times R Zechariah will continue to copy acommentator covering material spanning several folios onlyto backtrack in order to begin a parallel commentary Specialattention need be given to this and often Mann has rearrangedmaterial to fit within the parameters of one page Havlin etal reproduce the original order[32] The mss while largelylegible has many additions in different hands Some addendaare written perpendicular to the text as marginal glossa in asmaller hand Mann has lost text in this fashion as opposedto the Havlin edition wherein they are preserved Publishingany edition of a manuscript reverts at some point to becomeeclectic The editor is forced to decide on punctuationplacement and sentenceparagraph breaks causing differinginterpretations While I cannot agree to the many changes madein the new edition[33] this treasure trove of valuablematerial has now been made available to the public and ourthanks due The text is highly accurate to the manuscript thenotes offer useful information cross references and variantreadings This new addition to the Talmudic bookcase is mostwelcome and while the implication given by the publisher thatthe next two meschtot are not on the agenda may anycontinuation of so worthy a project be expediently brought tolight[1] See Zohar Bamidbar (3134a) everything is dependant uponfate even the Sefer Torah in the Heichal[2] See ESoloveitchik Al Pirush Kadmon lMesechet Sukkah Tzfunot 18(5752) pp 9-13 See also Prof R S Z Havlin Sefer VaadlChachomim Yerushalayim 5763 p 13-35[3] Home of the Yeshivaof R Chananel and R Nissim Gaon among others See M Ben-Sasson Tzemichat haKehillah haYihudit bArtzot haIslamYerushalayim 5757 [4] See Ta-Shma Sifrut Ha-parshanit le-Talmud vol 1 Yerushalayim 5760 pg 156-159[5] See E Chwat

Doctoral Dissertation Bar-Ilan University Ramat Gan 5750See also S Gottesman Yeshurun 9 (5761) and Nitzutzei AishMemorial Volume (Newhouse) Israel 2004[6] See E ChwatYeshrun 20 (5768) MA Friedman Tarbiz 62 (4) (5752) [7]Chwat ibid see also TaShma Klitatam shel Sifrei haRifRach vHalachot Gedolot bTzarfat ubAshkenaz bMaot 11 v12(Knesset Mechkarim 1 Yerushalayim 5764 previously KiryatSefer 54 (a)) See also Prof Shamma Yehuda FreidmanMiTosefot Rashbam lRif Kovetz al Yad 8 (5736)[8] S AssafChelek miPirush Kadmon liMesechet Brachot liEchad miBneiZemani shel haRambam in LZichron R Z P ChayyesYerushalayim 5693[9] Yerushalayim 5718 [available here athebrewbooks][10] A digest of commentaries on the tractatesBabah kamma Babha mesirsquoa and Babha bhathera of the BabylonianTalmud compiled by Zachariah Ben Judah Aghmati reproduced infacsimile from the unique manuscript in the British Museum OR10013 edited with an introduction by Jacob Leveen London1961[11] C Z Hirschburg Tarbiz 42 (5733) Ta Shma SifrutHaparshanit pg 156-159 [12] Ben-Shem ibid[13] S EidisonYerushalayim 5770[14] N Sachs Harry Fischel InstituteYerushalayim 5726[15] BM in Kovetz Sakosah lRoshi Bnei Brak5763 BB (ch 1-3) R Yekutiel Cohen Yerushalayim 5748[16]One of the more problematic references in HaNer is toMiktzat see Abramson Pirush Rav Baruch br ShmuelhaSefardi lTalmud who offers a possible theory that Miktzatmeans R Chananels pirush brought in part as opposed tosome [commentators] at least in some instances [17] See SAbramson Pirush Rav Baruch br Shmuel haSefardi lTalmud BarIlan Annual 26-27 (YD Gilat Jubilee volume) 5754[18] See YMalchi R Zechariah Aghmati haIsh Yitzirato haParshanitvYachasah lPirushei Rashi Shanan 14 (5769) pg 65-73[19] See Abramson Mechkarei Talmud 3[20] See AbramsonPirush Rav Baruch br Shmuel haSefardi lTalmud[21] R MYBlau Shittas HaKadmonim BM BB (2 volumes) and Three BavotSee also TaShma Kovetz al Yad 10[22] Sefer Zikaron le RYitzchok Yedidyah Frankel Tel Aviv 5752[23] This explainsthe unintelligible note no 81 citing Rav Nissim Gaon on BK

After searching through Prof Abramsons work on RNG thepassage (then) existed only in a re-creation of RNG basedupon Prof Abramsons hypothesis Comparison to the article inthe Frankel volume revels not only the true source material(Abramson) but also an additional citation to Abramsons workInyanut (Yerushalayim 5734 p 300) wherein a fragment of RNGis published verifying Abramsons earlier thesis All this islacking in Manns note leaving the reader at a loss[24] OfRif reknown It was Rotstein who brought the fragmentmentioned in the above note to Abramson under the impressionthe material was Rif Additionally R Rotstein is listedtranslator of the Arabic material in HaNer Bava Metziea(Sakosa lRoshi) R Eliezer Brodt once mentioned to me in thename of R Shmuel Ashkenazi that R Rotstein was not fluent inthe language and had others translate the Rif material forhim Assumedly one can rely on the accuracy[25] I am notclear as to the involvement and responsibility of each partyThe preface is unsigned R Havlins daughters are creditedwith copying the mss and notes and at the close of thepreface one R Bunim Shwartzs passing is lamented beingcited as with the acronymic usage of father One tends tounderstand that R Havlins son in law was instrumental in theultimate publishing This is corroborated by the disclaimer onthe inside of the title page[26] The publication was doneprivately and mention of the Machon is due to having usedmaterial penned under their auspices and ownership Howeverthe volume does not bear the logo nor name of the Machon andcarries a private publisher (HaMesorah) on the title pagesreverse[27] While the original publication was in the Gilatvolume [see above note no[17] Abramson re-published thearticle (privately) as a pamphlet with corrections andadditional material I have only a photocopy of it andwelcome any information towards procuring an original[28]Similarly is Chochmat Betzalel R Betzalel of RensburgMossad HaRav Kook The author had titled the book PitchayNiddah and the manuscript owner and publisher R Maimon tookthe liberty of changing the name[29] The dash has been

implemented as a punctuation tool as well I am unclear whythis was done at all[30] From the outset it seems notesdetailing textual emendations based on the text of the Talmudhave been omitted and the reader is required to infer fromthe standard [hellip] that the text has been altered with someself-evident basis It is noteworthy that the editors choseto revise the text of R Chananel in this fashion by use ofparentheses Even in the case where the mss (Add 27194) usedby the Vilna Shas is identical with the print variantreadings of Rach are common between mss and may be based uponprovenance See J Rovner An Introduction to the Commentaryof Rav Hananel ben Hushiel of Kairawan of Tractate BavaMetzia Accompanied by a Reconstruction of the Lost Commentaryto the Second Part of the Tractate based upon Cairo GenizahFragments and Citations in the Rishonim (1993) PhD[31] SeeY S Spiegel Amudim bToldot Hasefer HaIvri vol 2 pg565-632[32] Cf 42b However on 94b Havlin transfers textas well[33] It escapes me the need for semi-colon usage inTalmudic text especially enmass

Benefits of the InternetBesamim Rosh and its History

Benefits of the Internet Besamim Rosh and its HistoryBy Dan Rabinowitz amp Eliezer Brodt

In a new series we wanted to highlight how much importantmaterial is now available online This first postillustrates the proliferation of online materials with regardto the controversy surrounding the work Besamim Rosh (ldquoBRrdquo) [We must note at the outset that recently a program has beendesigned by Moshe Koppel which enables one via variousmathematical algorithims to identify documents authored by

the same author We hope using this program to provide afuture update that will show what this program can demonstrateregarding the authorship of the BR and if indeed the Roshauthored these responsa]Background

Before turning to the BR and discussing its history weneed to first discuss another work R Raphael Cohen thechief rabbi of triple community Altona-Hamburg-Wansbeck(ldquoAHrdquoWrdquo) [1] published a book Torat Yekuseil Amsterdam1772 regarding the laws of Yoreh Deah Torat Yekuseil is astandard commentary and is unremarkable when compared to otherworks of this genre While the book is unremarkable in and ofitself what followed is rather remarkable Some years later in 1789 a work with the putative authorlisted listed as Ovadiah bar Barukh and titled Mitzpeh Yokteil[2] was published to counter R Raphael Cohenrsquos Torat Yekuseil(ldquoTYrdquo) Mitzpeh Yokteil (ldquoMYrdquo) was a vicious attack bothagainst the work TY as well as its author R Raphael Cohen R Raphael Cohen was a well-known and well-respected Rabbi Infact he was the Chief Rabbi of the triple community of AHrdquoW The attack against him and his work did not go unanswered Indeed the beit din of Altona-Wansbeck placed the putativeauthor Ovadiah and his work under a ban The Altona-Wansbeck beit din could not limit the ban tojust Altona-Wansbeck as the attack in the MY was intended toembarrass R Raphael Cohen across Europe Indeed the end ofthe introduction to MY indicates that copies were sent to alist of thirteen prominent rabbis across Europe Specifically copies were sent to the Chief Rabbis of PragueAmsterdam Frankfort AM Hanover Bresslau Gloga Lissaetc ldquoas well as The Universally Know Goan haHassid REliyahu from Vilnardquo Thus the intent of the book was todiminish R Raphael Cohenrsquos standing amongst his peers The Altona-Wansbeck beit din recognizing the intent ofthe book appealed to other cities courts to similarly ban theauthor and book MY ndash the ban entitled Pesak mi-Beit DinTzedek the only known extant copy was recently sold atSothebyrsquos (Important Judaica Nov 24 2009 lot 136)[3]

These concerns lead the banrsquos proponents to the Chief Rabbi ofBerlin R Tzvi Hirsch Berlin and to solicit him to join theban Initially it appeared that R Tzvi Hirsch would go alongwith the ban But as he was nearing deciding in favor ofsigning the ban someone whispered in his ear the verse inKings 2 65 שאול והוא אדני אהה ndash which R Tzvi Hirschunderstood to be a play on the word ldquoשאולrdquo in the context ofthe verse meaning borrow but in this case to be a referenceto his son Saul That is the real author of MY was SaulBerlin Tzvi Hirschrsquos son Needless to say R Tzvi Hirschdid not sign the ban [4] Not only did he not sign the ban he also came to hissonrsquos defense Aside from the various bans that were issueda small pamphlet of ten pages lacking a title page was

printed against MY and Saul [5] Saul decided that he mustrespond to these attacks He published Teshuvot ha-Rav Saul le-haRav [] Moshe Yetz[6] which also includes aresponsum from R Tzvi Hirsch Saulrsquos father Saul defendshimself arguing that rabbinic disagreement in very strongterms has a long history Thus a ban is whollyinappropriate in the present case

R Tzvi Hirsch explained that while MY disagreed with RCohen there is nothing wrong with doing so The author ofMY as a rabbi ndash Saul was at the time Chief Rabbi ofFrankfort ndash Saul is entitled to disagree with other rabbis Of course Saulrsquos name is never explicitly mentionedMoreover in the course of R Tzvi Hirschrsquos defense hesolicits the opinions of other rabbis including R EzekielLandau R Landau as well as others noted that aside fromthe propriety of disagreement within Judaism the power of anyone particular beit din is limited by geography Thus theAltona-Wansbeckrsquos beit dinlsquos power is limited to placingresidents of Hamburg under a ban but not residents of Berlinincluding R Saul Berlin the author of MY[7] The controversy surrounding the MY was not limited toJewish audiences The theater critic HW Seyfried publishedin his German newspaper Chronik von Berlin translations ofthe relevant documents and provided updates on thecontroversy Seyfried agitated on behalf of the maskilim andeditorlized that the Danish government should take actionsagainst R Cohen It appears however that Seyfriedrsquos pleaswere not acted upon[8] The Publication of Besamim Rosh

With this background in mind we can now turn to theBesamim Rosh Prior to publishing the full BR in 1792 SaulBerlin published examples of the responsa and commentary foundin the BR ndash a prospectus Arugat ha-Bosem This small workwhose purpose was to solicit subscribers for the ultimatepublication of BR It appears that while Saul may have beentrying for significant rabbinic support the majority of his

sponsors were householders

In 1793 the BR was published The BR contains 392responsa (besamim equals 392) from either R Asher b Yeheil(Rosh) (1259-1327) or his contemporaries This manuscriptbelonged to R Yitzhak di Molina who lived during the sametime period as R Yosef Karo the author of Shulchan Orakh Additionally Saul appended a commentary of his own to theseresponsa Kasa de-Harshana

The BR contains two approbations one from R Tzvi HirschBerlin and the other from R Yehezkel Landau R Landaursquosapprobation first explains that Roshrsquos responsa need noapprobation With regard to R Saul Berlinrsquos commentary hetoo doesnrsquot need an approbation according to R Landau Thisis so because R Saulrsquos reputation is well-known R Landaursquosrationale R Saulrsquos fame appears a bit odd in light of thefact that among some (many) R Saulrsquos reputation was verypoor due to the MY

R Tzvi Hirschrsquos approbation also contains an interestingassertion Saulrsquos father explains that this book should put torest any lingering question regarding his son

In addition to the approbations there are twointroductions one from di Molina and the other from Saul DiMolina explained the tortured journey of the manuscript Heexplains that while in Alexandria he saw a pile ofmanuscripts that contained many responsa from Rosh that hadnever before been published He culled the unpublished onesand copied and collected them in this collection What isworthy of noting is that throughout the introduction di Molinarepeatedly asks ldquohow does the reader know these responsa aregenuinely from Roshrdquo

R Saul in his introduction first notes that the conceptof including introductions is an invention long after Roshand is not found amongst any of the Rishonim

As mentioned previously the BR is a collection of 392responsa mostly from Rosh or his contemporaries Additionally R Saul wrote his own commentary on theseresponsa Kasa diHarshena [9] This commentary would containthe first problem for Saul and the BR In responsum 40 Roshdiscusses the position of Rabbenu Tam with regard to shavingduring the intermediate days (ho ha-moad) While Roshultimately concludes that one is prohibited from shaving onhol ha-moad R Saul in his commentary however concludesthat shaving on hol ha-moad is permissible In so holding RSaul recognized that this position disagreed with that of hisfather Almost immediately after publication R Saul printeda retraction regarding this position allowing for shaving onhol ha-morsquoad This retraction Morsquodah Rabba explains thatSaul failed to apprise his father of this position and asSaulrsquos father still stands behind his negative position Saultherefore retracts his lenient position [Historically thisis not the only time a father and son disagreed about shavingon hol ha-moad R Yitzhak Shmuel Reggio (YaSHaR)and hisfather Abraham disagreed on the topic as well As was thecase with Saul and his father the son YaSHaR took thelenient position and his father the stringent Not only didthey disagree after YaSHaR published his book explaining histheory his father attacked him in an anonymous response Formore on this controversy see Meir Benayahu Shaving on theIntermediary Days of the Festival Jerusalem 1995]

This retraction while may be interperated as evidence ofSaul humbleness in his willingness to admit error and notstand on ceremony others used this retraction against him The first work published that questioned the legitimacy of BRis Zersquoev Yetrof Frankfort drsquoOder 1793 by R Zersquoev Wolf sonof Shlomo Zalman (This book is very rare and to myknowledge is not online Although not online a copy isavailable in microfiche as part of the collection of booksfrom the JTS Library and on Otzar Hachomah see below) Theauthor explains that eight responsa in BR are problematic

because they reach conclusion that appear to run counter toaccepted halahik norms In addition the author states in hisintroduction ldquothat already we see that there is somethingfishy as it is known that the author [Saul Berlin] hasretracted his position regarding shavingrdquo It should be notedthat no where does R Zersquoev Wolf challenge the authenticity ofthe manuscript for internal reasons ndash it is incorrectly datedincorrectly attributed etc Apparently Zersquoev Yetrof was notwell-known as it is not cited by other contemporaries who toodoubted the authenticity of BR Samat theorizes that eitherwasnrsquot printed until later or was destroyed[10]

The second person to question the legitimacy of BR was RRafael Hamburgrsquos mechutan R Yarsquoakov Katzenellenbogen Inparticular he wrote to R Cohenrsquos student R MordechaiBenat As was the case with Wolf R Katzenellenbogen located13 responsa where he disagreed with the conclusions RKatzenellenbogen indicated that R Benet shold review the BRhimself and apprise R Katzenellenbogen regarding R Benetrsquosconclusions R Katzenellenbogen also wrote to Saulrsquos father TzviHirsch and Tzvi Hirsch eventually responded in a smallpamphlet R Tzvi Hirsch first deals with the predicatequestion is the manuscript legitimate That is prior todiscussing the conclusions of particular responsum regardingthe manuscript R Tzvi Hirsch testifies that he is intimatelyfamiliar with this manuscript He explains that for 11 yearsthe manuscript was in his house In fact R Tzvi Hirschcreated the index that appears in BR from this manuscript Additionally he had his other son Hirschel (eventual ChiefRabbi of London) copy the manuscript for publication ThusR Tzvi Hirsch argues that should put to rest any doubtregarding the authenticity of the manuscript R Tzvi Hirsch then turns to the issue regardingconclusions of some of the responsa He first notes that atmost there are a but a small number of questionableresponsa Indeed it is at most approximately 5 of the totalresponsa in BR That is no one questions 95 of the responsa(at least not then) Second with regard to the conclusionsthemselves that some conclusions are different than the

halahik norms that can be found in numerous books none ofwhich anyone questions their authenticity Thus conclusionsprove nothingLeaving the history and turning to the content of BR One ofthe more controversial responsa is the one discussingsuicide In particular according to the responsum attributedto Rosh the historic practices that were applied to a suicidendash lack of Jewish burial no mourning customs ndash are notapplicable any longer This is so because suicides can beattributed to the poor conditions of the Jews and notphilosophical reasons Thus we can attribute the motivationsof a suicide to depression and remove the restrictions thatapplied to suicides This responsum was what lead some including R MosheSofer (Hatam Sofer) to conclude that the entire BR was aforgery Indeed this responsum was one of the two that wereremoved in the second edition Others however point outthis responsum and its conclusions are not in any conflictwith any accepted halakhic norms And instead whileproviding new insight into the current motivations of asuicide the ultimate conclusion can be reconciled with allrelevant laws [11] This particular example illustrates the problematic nature ofmerely relying upon a particular conclusion to demonstrate theauthenticity or lack thereof of a work Although R Sofer wascertain this responsum ran counter to a statement of theTalmud others were easily able to reconcile the Talmudicstatement with the conclusion of the responsum Another controversial responsa deals with someone who isstuck on the highway as the Shabbat is fast approaching Thetraveler is thus faced with the following dilemma stop in acity where he will require the charity of strangers orcontinue on and get home The BR rules that the traveller cancontinue and is not required to resort to charity This likethe responum above was similarly removed from the secondedition These are the only two responsa removed from thesecond edition Of course this removal isnrsquot noted anywhereexcept that the numbers skip over those two In fact theindex retains the listing for the two responsa Other controversial responsa include one dealing withbelief in the afterlife and messianic era kitnoyot ndash BR would

abolish the custom and issues relating to mikvah Today common practice regarding suicide appears for the mostpart to conform with the position of BRStatus Today

After its publication in 1793 it would be almost onehundred years before the BR would be reprinted In 1881 theBR was reprinted in Cracow This edition was published byldquothe well-known Rabbi Yosef Lazer from Tarnowrdquo R Lazerrsquos waspart of a well-known Hassidic family His grandfather RMenachem Mendel Lazer was the author of Sova SemochotZolkiov 1845[12] It appears that the BR was the onlycontroversial book that R Yosef Lazer published Although hepublished approximately 30 books the are mainly run-of-themill works Machzorim haggadot as well as some standardrabbinic works It is unclear what prompted R Lazer torepublish the BR Lazer provides no explanation AlthoughLazerrsquos publishing activities are difficult to reconcile withhis publication of the BR the printers Yosef Fischer andSaul Deutscher other publications indicate that they weremore open to printing all types of books For example thesame year they published BR they published a translation ofKant Me-Korsquoach ha-Nefesh Cracow 1881 In all events itappears that Lazer (or perhaps the printers) was aware of thecontroversy surrounding the BR as he removed Saul Berlinrsquosintroduction as well as two of the more controversialresponsa one discussing suicide and the other allowing one tocontinue to travel home after sunset on Friday to avoid havingto rely upon the charity of strangers In addition oneresponsa was accidentally placed at the end of the volume notin its proper order[13] Although the two responsa wereremoved in the text they still appear in the index A photo-mechanical reproduction of this edition was published in NewYork in 1970 and a copy is available on Hebrewbooks In 1984 the BR was reprinted for only the third time This edition edited by R Reuven Amar and includes anextensive introduction Kuntres Yafe le-Besamim about BR Additionally commentary on the BR by various rabbis isincluded The text of this edition is a photo-mechanicalreproduction of the first edition This edition contains twoapprobations one from R Ovadiah Yosef who in his responsa

accepts that BR is a product of R Saul Berlin but R Yosefholds that doesnrsquot diminish the BRrsquos value The secondapprobation is from R Benyamin Silber But R Silberprovides notes in the back of this edition and explains thathe holds the BR is a forgery and that he remains unconvincedof Amarrsquos arguments to the contrary

In his introduction Amar attempts to rehabilitate theBR Initially it should be noted that Amar relies heavilyupon Sametrsquos articles on BR but never once cites him Samethad complied a bibliography of works about BR as well as wherethe BR is cited Amar also provides the latter in a sixty fourpage Kuntres ריח בשבמים in the back of his edition In hisintroduction Amar relates the history of the BR and attemptsto demonstrate that many accepted the BR and those that didnot Amar argues that many really did accept BR Thisintroduction contains some very basic errors many of whichhave been pointed out by Shmuel Ashkenazi in his notes thatappear after the introduction Difficulties in Authentication Today various theories have been put forth to demonstratethat the BR is a forgery Specifically some have pointed toldquohintsrdquo or ldquocluesrdquo that R Saul left for the careful readerwhich would indicate that BR is a carefully created forgery For example some note that the number of responsa 392 theHebrew representation of that number is שצrdquoב which can be readto be an abbreviation of Saulrsquos name ndash Saul ben Tzvi Otherstake this one step further and point to the was R Asher(Rosh) is referenced ndash ראrdquoש ndash which again can be read RSaul Obviously these clues are by no means conclusive Inthe academic world the BR is written off as a ldquotrojan horserdquointended to surreptitiously get R Saulrsquos masklik positionsout in the masses or something similar All of thesepositions however rely upon a handful of responsa at bestand no one has been able to conclusively demonstrate that theentirety of BR is a forgery At best we are still left withthe original criticisms ndash that a few of the responsarsquosconclusions espouse positions that appear to be more 18thcentury in nature than 13th century [14] R Yeruchum Fischel Perlow aptly sums up much of what hasbeen written regarding the question of authenticity of BR

Just about all who have examined [the question of theauthenticity of BR] walk around like the blind in the darkand even after all their long-winded essays they are leftwith only their personal feelings about the BR without everadducing any substantive proofs in support of their positionAnd on the rare occasions that they actual do provide proofsfor their positions it only takes a cursory examination todetermine that their is nothing behind those proofs [RYeruchum Fischel Perlow ldquoRegarding the book lsquoBesamim RoshrdquoNoam 2 (1959) p 317 For some reason this article islacking in some editions of Noam]

Assuming that one discounts the testimony of Saul and hisfather regarding the manuscript it is not easy to determineif the BR is authentic or not For example responsum 192according to R Moshe Hazan one of the defenders of BR thisresponsum ldquois clear to anyone who is familiar with thelanguage and style of the Rishonim from the RishonimrdquoResponsum 192 is attributed to R Shlomo ben Aderet (Rashba)and discusses the opinion of Rosh that allowed for capitalpunishment for pregnancy out of wedlock Thus according toR Hazan 192 is conclusive proof that BR is authentic Simcha Assaf however has shown that responsum 192 is aforgery ndash or there is a misattribution Assaf explains thatif one looks at the date of this incident responsum 192 couldnot have been written by Rashba Rashba died 10 years priorto this event Simcha Assaf Ha-Onshim Ahrei Hatemat ha-Talmud Jerusalem 1928 pp 69-70 Thus the very sameresponsum whose ldquolanguage and stylerdquo demonstrated that it wasfrom the times of the rishonim has attribution problems Tobe sure Assaf isnrsquot saying this responsum isnrsquot necessarilyfrom the rishonim period however it surely isnrsquot fromRashba[15] Or to take another example Talya Fishman argues thatldquo[halakhic literature of the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies climbed to new (and fantastic) heights oftheoretical speculation creating in effect a body of nonapplied lawrdquo Talya Fishman ldquoForging Jewish Memory BR andthe Invention of Pre-emancipation Jewish Culturerdquo in Jewish

History and Jewish Memory ed Carlbach et al Hanover andLondon 1998 pp 70-88 Based on this understanding ofseventeenth and eighteenth century literature as contrastedwith literature from the period of Rosh she turns to the BRand finds such speculative responsa This according toFishman implicitly demonstrates that BR is a product of theseventeenth or eighteenth century Indeed Fishman concludesldquo[i]n short [BR] has an unusually high concentration ofeyebrow-raising casesrdquo Id at 76 But if one subjects Fishmanrsquos argument to even a minimalamount of scrutiny her argument as presented isunconvincing First in support of Fishmanrsquos ldquohighconcentrationrdquo of odd responsa Fishman provides threeexamples That is Fishman points to three out of 392responsa that contain ldquoeyebrow-raising casesrdquo and concludesthis represents ldquoan unusually high concentrationrdquo I thinkthat most would agree that less than 1 does not represents anunusually high concentration Second of the three examplesFishman does provide one is from Kasa deHarshena whicheveryone agrees is a product of the eighteenth century Third one of the examples no 100 it appears that Fishmanmisread the responsa Fishman provides that responsa 100 is aldquobizarre question about whether a one-armed man should dontefilin shel yad on his forehead alongside tefilin shelroshrdquo Id at 76 Indeed responsa 100 is about a one-armedman and whether because he cannot fulfill the arm portionof tefilin if that absolves him of the head portion Nowherehowever not in BR or Kasa de-harshena does it mention thepossibility of putting the tefilin shel yad on onersquosforehead Thus if we discount these two responsa Fishman isleft with a single responsum to prove her generalization aboutBR[16]

Regarding the manuscript that too is an unsolvedmystery We know that a manuscript that may have been thecopy which R Hirschel made is extant but the manuscript fromdi Molena is unknown Additionally although we know that theLeningradSt Petersberg library had Tzvi Hirschrsquos copy withhis annotations the current location of that book is unknown

See Benjamin Richlerrsquos post regarding the manuscript here The BRrsquos most lasting effect may be in that this was to bethe first of many newly discovered manuscripts to be accusedof forgery because of the conclusions reached Subsequent tothe BR responsa or works in other areas of Jewish literaturewere tarred with cry of forgery because of their conclusions[See Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel Chapters in the History of theJewish Book Writing and Transmission Ramat-Gan 2005244-75 (ldquountil the publication of BR there were no questionsraised regarding the authenticity of a bookrdquo) Spiegel alsodemonstrates that we now know that in many instances that thecharge of forgery was wholly without basis and today there isno question that some of the books that are alleged forgeriesare legitimate]

Other Works by Saul Berlin

One final point While we discussed Saulrsquos work prior toBR there was another book that he wrote that was publishedposthumously This work Ketav Yosher defended NaftailWessley and his changes to the Jewish educational system Indeed Ketav Yosher is a scathing attack on many traditionalsacred cows [17] Ketav Yosher like MY was publishedwithout Saulrsquos name but again we have testimony that Saulwas in fact the author In light of the position Ketav Yoshertakes it is no surprise that this book doesnrsquot help Saulrsquosstanding among traditionalists Saul may have written additional works as well howeverlike the BR itself there is some controversy surroundingthose additional works R Saulrsquos son R Areyeh Leib recordsan additional 11 works that Saul left behind after he died The problem is these very same works ndash although all remainingin manuscript ndash have been attributed to someone else Butbefore one jumps to conclusions it should be pointed out thatthis story gets even more complicated The book whichattributes these works to another is itself problematic Indeed whether this list attributing the books to anothereven exists is a matter debate And while that sounds

implausible that indeed is the case Ben Yaakov Otzar ha-Seforim (p 599 entry 994) says there is a 1779 FrankfortOrder edition of Sharsquoar ha-YihudHovot ha-Levovot thatincludes an introduction (and other material) that listsvarious manuscripts which the editor according to BenYarsquoakov was a grandson of Yitzhak Yosef Toemim ascribes tohis grandfather ndash and not Saul Weiner in his bibliographyKohelet Moshe (p 478 no 3922) says that Ben Yarsquoakov iswrong ndash not about the edition Weiner agrees there was a 1779Frankfort Oder edition just Weiner says there is nointroduction and Toemim wasnrsquot the editor (and other materialis missing) Vinograd Otzar Sefer ha-Ivri lists such a book ndash1779 Frankfort Oder Hovot ha-LevovotSharsquoar ha-Yichud butthere is no such edition listed in any catalog that we haveseen including JNUL JTS Harvard British Library etc Itappears that Samat couldnrsquot locate a copy either as althoughhe records the dispute between Weiner and Ben Yaakov hedoesnrsquot offer anything more Thus Saulrsquos other writings fornow remains an enigma

It is worthwhile to conclude with the words of RMatisyahu Strashun regarding Saul and the BRldquoAfter all these analyses even if we were able to prove thatthe entire BR from the begininning to end is the product ofR Saul one cannot brush the work aside as the work isfull of Torah like a pomegranate and the smell of besamim isapparent it is a work full of insight and displays greatbreadth the author delves into the intricacies of the Talmudand the Rishonim the author is one of the greats of hisgenerationrdquo Shmuel Yosef Finn Kiryah Nersquoamanah notes ofR Strashun p 93

The Internet

As hopefully should be apparent most of the booksdiscussed above or referenced below are available online These include the rare retraction that R Saul published

regarding his position on shaving on hol ha-marsquood KetavYosher the prospectus for BR as well as the BR itself Indeed not only is the BR online but both editions areonline And the BR exemplifies why one should be aware ofmultiple internet sources Hebrewbooks has a copy of BR whichthey indicate is the first edition ldquoBerlin 1793rdquo however inreality it is the later 1881 Warsaw edition of the BR Asnoted above that edition however is lacking two responsa This highlights an issue with Hebrewbooks the bibliographicaldata is not necessarily correct The JNUL has the firstedition Indeed in the case of the JNUL the bibliographicalinformation is much more reliable than Hebrewbooks Thus oneneeds to use both the JNUL as well as Hebrewbooks if one wantsto get a full picture of the BR Or another example Boththe JNUL site as well as Hebrewbooks has MY online but theJNUL version was bound with two rare letters at the end andthose appear online as well Additionally when it comes toHebrewbooks one must be aware that they have removed booksthat someone presumably finds objectionable so although MY andKY are there now there is no guarantee it will be in thefuture Similarly although not online and unlike the MY theJNUL has Otzar haChomah has the Zersquoev Yitrof with additionalmaterial bound in the back Besides for all these rare seforimmentioned many of the other seforim quoted in this post asis apparent from the links can now be found on the web in amatter of seconds instead of what just a few short years agowould have taken a nice long trip to an excellent library

Saulrsquos Epithet he was buried in the Alderney Road Cemetery inLondon next to his brother Hirschel Chief Rabbi

Notes

[1] For more on R Raphael Cohen see the amazinglycomprehensive and insightful bibliography by the bibliophileR Eliezer Katzman ldquoA Bookrsquos Luckrdquo Yeshurun 1 (1996) p469-471 n2 See also R Moshe Shaprio R Moshe Shmuel ve-Doropp103-110 especially on the BR see 108-09 C DembinzerKlielas Yoffee 1134b 278b writes that the work on TYcaused R Saul to lose his position as Chief-Rabbi ofFrankfort and his wife divorced him because of it See alsoS Agnon Sefer Sofer Vesipur p337 On R Raphael Cohen andhis connection with the Gra and Chasidus see D KamenetskyYeshurun 21 p 840-56 As an aside this article generatedmuch controversy for example see the recent issue of HeichalHabesht 29 p202-216 and here[2] Regarding the correct pronunciation of this title seeMoshe Pelli ldquoThe Religious Reforms of lsquoTraditionalistrsquo Rabbi

Saul Berlinrdquo HUCA (1971) p 11 See also R ShmuelAshkenzirsquos notes in the BR Jerusalem 1983 ed introductionnp ldquoNotes of R Shmuel Ashkenzi on Kuntres Yefe le-Besamimnote 6 Additionally MY was not Saulrsquos first literary production norwas it his first that was critical of anotherrsquos book Instead while he was in Italy in 1784 he authored akunteres of criticisms of R Hayyim Yosef David AzulairsquosBirkei Yosef See R R Margolis Arshet pp 411-417 MosheSamat ldquoSaul Berlin and his Worksrdquo Kiryat Sefer 43 (1968)429-441 esp pp 429-30 438 n62 On Chidarsquos opinion of theBR see for example Shem Hagedolimעתה מקרוב נדפס ספר זה בברליןhellip ועוד יש הגהות כסא דהרסנא ואשמעאחרי קול רעש כי יש בספר זה קצת דברים זרים ואמרו שהמעתיק הראשוןבארץ תורגמה מכrdquoי הרב יצחק די מולינא זrdquoל יש לחוש שהוסיף וגרעולכן הקורא בסיrsquo זה לא יסמוך עליו דאפשר דתלי בוקי סריקי בגדולים(שם בזהhellip ודי ניכירים אמת ודברי הדברים ויברר יחקור אשר עד

הגדולים ערך בשמים ראש וראה שם ערך מר רב אברהם גאון)See also the important comments of RYakov Chaim SoferMenuchas Sholom 8 pp 227-230 about the Chida[3] Eliezer Landshut Toldot Anshei Shem u-Puolotum be-AdatBerlin Berlin 1884 89-90 for the text of the ban as well asits history Additionally for the proclamation read in themain synagogue of Altona see id at 90-1 This proclomationhas been described as ldquoone of the harshest condemnationsrdquo ofthe time See Shmuel Feiner The Jewish Enlightenment in theEighteenth-Century Jerusalem 2002 p 310 [4] Id at 91 Samat however notes that neither Saul norhis father ever admitted Saulrsquos authorship of MY SamatldquoSaul Berlin and his Worksrdquo p 432 4 [5] According to A Berliner the author of this pamphlet isR Eliezer Heilbot See Samat id Saul and MY were not theonly ones attacked The publisher of MY Hinukh Nersquoarim wasalso attacked and not only MY but all the books theypublished were prohibited by some The publishers howeverdefended their decision to publish MY They argued that thewhole point of MY was to ascertain if R Raphael Cohenrsquos bookwas riddled with errors or the author of MY was mistaken The publishers pointed to the above mentioned introduction toMY wherein the MYrsquos author explains that he has sent copies ofthe book to leading rabbis to determine the question regarding

R Cohenrsquos book Thus MY is either right or wrong but therecan be nothing wrong with merely publishing it See id at92-3Additionally it should be noted that according to some Saulauthored a second attack on R Raphael R Raphael publishedMarpeh Lashon Altona 1790 and was soon after attacked inthe journal Ha-Meassef by someone writing under the pen-nameEMrdquoT Many posit that this is none other than Saul KatzmanYeshurun 1 471 n3 disagrees and points to internal evidencethat it is unlikly that Saul is the author of this critique According to Feiner these attacks were not one-sided Feinerargues that R Cohen criticizes Saul albeit in a veiledmanner in Marpeh Lashon See Feiner Jewish Enlightenmentop cit 314-15 [6] Landshuth id suggests that Moshe is a non-existentfigure like MYrsquos putative author Ovadiah See also SametldquoSaul Berlin and his Worksrdquo 432 n4 who similarly questionsthe existence of Moshe Carmilly-Weinberg makes theincredible statement that his Moshe is none other than MosesMendelssohn Carmilly-Weinberg Sefer ve-Seiyif New York1967 p 215 (Carmilly-Weinbergrsquos discussion about both MYand BR are riddled with errors) As Pelli notes this isimpossible as the letter is signed 1789 the same year MY wasprinted and Mendelssohn died three years prior Pelliresurrects Moshe and links him with a known person fromAmsterdam Saul brother-in-law See Pelli HUCA (1971) p 13n75 Ultimately however Pelli rejects this anddemonstrates that Moshe is indeed a pseudonym but a well-selected one See id [7] See Landshuth 93-9 Pelli 13-15 See also R AlexanderSender Margolioth Shurdquot ha-RArdquoM Lemberg 1897 no 9 [8] See Feiner The Jewish Enlightenment op cit 312-13 This newspaper is online here and Feiner provides therelevant issues which are 1789 pp 484-88 520-24 574-81680-82 768-74 791-802 867-92 932-72 One of which includes this portrait of R Cohen

Which is a very different portrait both in time and look tothe one appearing in E Duckesz Ivoh le-Moshav Cracow 1903

[9] For the deeper meaning of the title Kasa de-Harshena seeMoshe Pelli The Age of Haskalah University Press of America2006 183 n51[10] See Samat who discusses the exact progression of theban

[11] See Yechezkel Shrage Lichtenstein Suicide HalakhicHistorical and Theological Aspects Tel-Aviv 2008 pp438-44 See alsoYeshurun 13570-587 especially pp578-581Marc B Shapiro ldquoSuicide and the World-To-Comerdquo AJS Review182 (1993) 245-63 On the issue of suicide there are others who similarly reachthe same holding as the BR see Strashun in his מתת-יה pp72a-72b (this source is not quoted by Samet or Amar)[12] Biographical information on R Yosef Lazer is scant Forinformation on his father and grandfather see Meir Wunder

Mersquoorei Galicia Israel 1986 vol III pp 456 462-3 Seealso TI Abramsky ldquolsquoBesamim Roshrsquo in the Hassidic MilieurdquoTaggim (3-4) 56-58 [13] Samat only notes the removal of one responsum he failsto note that exclusion of the second He does however notethe misplaced responsum Additionally Kuntres ha-Teshuvotha-Hadash fails to record that any are missing or that oneresponsum was moved to the end [14] See Pelli Age of Haskalah pp 185-89 comparing a fewresponsa with 18th century haskalah literature[15] Assaf was not the first to use this responsa and note itshistorical anacronisms Leopold Zunz also highlights theissues with this responsum (as well as others) Leopold ZunzDie Ritus des Synagogalen Gottesdienstes GeschichtlichEntwickelt Berlin 1859 226-28 Zunzrsquos critique is quotedalmost in its entirety by Schrijver but Schrijver appears tobe unaware of Assafrsquos additional criticisms of the responsum(and others)Assaf provides one other example where he shows throughinternal data that there is a misattribution Assaf concludesthat he has other examples of historical anacronisms in BR butdoesnrsquot provide them here or to our knowledge anywhere else[16] For another critique of Fishmanrsquos position see Emile GLSchrijver ldquoSaul Berlinrsquos Besamim Rosh The MaskilicAppreciation of Medieval Knowledgerdquo in Sepharad in AshkenazNetherlands 2007 pp 249-259 esp pp 253-54 [17] Regarding Ketav Yoshor see Pelli Age 176-79 See alsohere and here

Additional BibliographyM Samet has two articles on the topic R Saul Berlin and hisWritings Kiryat Sefer 43 (1969) 429-41 ldquoBesamim Roshrdquo ofSaul Berlin Kiryat Sefer 48 (1973) 509-23 neither of whichare included in the recent book of Sametrsquos articles

To add to Sametrsquos and Amarrsquos very comprehensive lists ofAchronim who quote BR (I am sure searches on the varioussearch engines will show even more) Malbim in Artzos Hachaim941 (in Hameir Learetz) Shut Zecher Yosef132b KeterKehunah p 30 Matzav Hayashar 12a Pischei Olam 2218228Birchat Yitchcak (Eiskson) pp 61424 Maznei Tzedekp2645254 RYakov Shor Birchat Yakov pp212 Sefer

Segulos Yisroel pp116b R Rabinowitz Afekei Yam 214 RLeiter Zion Lenefesh Chayah 43 Shut Sefas Hayam OC siman14 R Meir Soleiveitck Hameir Laretz 45a 45b 54b 55aEmrei Chaim p26 R Sholom Zalman Auerbach Meorei Eish p108 bIn general on BR see RYakov ShorEytaim Lebinah (on SeferHaeytim) p 256 Pardes Yosef Vayikrah 220b Pardes YosefShelach p 517 RYakov Chaim Sofer Menuchas Sholom 8 pp222- 230 Shar Reven p 54 A Freimann HaRosh Y RafelRishonim Veachronim pp 123-130 B Lau MeMaran Ad Maranpp133 S Agnon Sefer Sofer Vesipur pp337-339

R Pinhas Eliyahu Horowitz writes

ולפעמים תולים דבריהם באילן גדול וכותבים מה שרוצים בשם איזהקדמון אשר לא עלה על לבוhellip כספר בשמים ראש שחיבר בעל כסא דהרנסא

לא הראrdquoש וזקני ישראל תופסי התורה יעלו על ראשםhellip (ספר הברית עמrsquo(232

The Steipler was of the opinion in regard to the BR thatהרבה שם שיש כנראה רק זrdquoל מהראrdquoש שהם תשובות מהרבה ניכר שבאמת תשובות מזויפות שהמעתיק הכניס מעצמו כי ישנם שם דברים מאד מזורים

ואיומים (ארחות רבנו א עמrsquo רפה)

R Zevin writes in Sofrim Veseforim (Chabad) p354 וגמרו נמנו ושכידוע להראrdquoש המיחוס ראש בשמים שבתשובות אלא

שמזוייף הוא

R Yakov Kamenetsky said ldquoDo you think Just we (he meantpeople of his own caliber) were fooled Even R Akiva Eigerwas fooledrdquo (Making of a Godol pp183-184)About Rav Kook and the BR seehttpwwwbiuacilJSJSIJ5-2006Gutelpdf

R Avigdor Nebensal writes

מהספר חריפות מסתייגים שיש להזכיר ראוי ראש הבשמים את כשמביאם הזה (השתנות הטבעים עמrsquo 16)

R Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg writesאכן בעיקר הענין אם להביא דברי בשמים ראש בודאי צדק הגrdquoא נבנצללמזייף שהוחזק אלו בענינים ובפרט בהסתייגות להביאו שיש שליטrdquoא

ולמביא עקומות וכוזבות (השתנות הטבעים עמrsquo רסד)

More on Chaim BlochMore on Chaim BlochBy Marc B Shapiro

In a previous post I mentioned how the non-Jewish Austrianminister Leon Bilinski was descended from the rav of Posen RSamuel ben Moses Falkenfeld the Beit Shmuel Aharon Moreinformation about Bilinskirsquos Jewish roots is found in ChaimBlochrsquos Ve-Da Mah she-Tashiv (New York 1943) p 74 n 1 Ingeneral I have found that when Bloch is reporting about otherpeoplersquos biographies and history in general he is veryreliable It is only when he is somehow involved in the storythat he is full of lies1 His Ve-Da Mah she-Tashiv is a goodexample Here is the title page

In this book he makes up an entire story that he was asked byan important Catholic figure to answer questions from theVatican dealing with Judaism The whole story is a fiction as

is so much else he writes about himself As for BilinskiBloch tells us that he is in possession of Bilinskirsquos 1146page () unpublished diary As Bloch himself notes heprovided various scholars (eg N M Gelber) withselections of this diary which they then used in their ownworks thus misleading the world In these selectionsBilinski comes off as a strong anti-Zionist who even warnsHerzl about how the Arabs will never accept a Jewish state inPalestine2 In an article in the Herzl Year Book Blochpublished what he claimed was an 1893 letter from Herzl anduses this to prove that Herzl was interested in the Jewishproblem already in 1893 a year before the 1894 Dreyfus trialwhich is usually cited as having turned Herzl to Jewishmatters3 Various scholars have cited this letter as theyunderstandably regard it as significant in understandingHerzl but of course it is a forgery Another way Bloch misledscholars in particular Gelber is with regard to an anonymousbooklet that speaks of a return of the Jews to the Land ofIsrael and the establishment of a state4 According toBillinskirsquos diary so Bloch tells us the author of thisbooklet was Benjamin Disraeli Bilinski would certainly havebeen in a position to know this information and therefore anumber of people have been misled by this thinking the diaryauthenticLook how Blochrsquos forgeries were able to have such an impact Ithink in the end this is what gives the forger satisfactionwatching everyone taken in by his creation In 1948 no onewould have believed that Bloch was capable of this In factif not for his blatant forgeries in Dovev Siftei Yeshenimsome people today would still assume that he is reliable Asthe Talmud tells us tafasta merubah lo tafasta Bloch shouldhave stuck with his smaller forgeries because when he decidedto publish complete volumes of forged material thatrsquos whenpeople really began to take notice It is therefore verysurprising that no less a scholar than Robert S Wistrich whois aware of the accusations of forgery against Blochnevertheless cites material from Blochrsquos Mi Natan li-Meshisahand states that in his opinion at least some of the materialmust be considered authentic Why he thinks this he doesnrsquottell us The truth is that this book like Dovev SifteiYeshenim is full of Blochrsquos forgeries and not only of rabbis

but also of political leaders (including summaries of supposedletters from Bismark about Zionism)5Just to illustrate that you canrsquot judge people by appearanceshere is a picture of Bloch which previously appeared in DrShnayer Leimanrsquos post on the Seforim Blog6

Throughout Blochrsquos various books he quotes numerous lettersfrom gedolim who were no longer alive and none of theseletters are found in his archives currently kept at YIVO andthe Leo Baeck Institute In other words he simply made upthese letters as he did with the entire volumes of anti-Zionist letters of gedolim that he published The rule is thatwhenever Bloch cites a previously unpublished letter fromsomeone either addressed to himself or to another and theauthor of the letter is no longer alive you can assume thatthe letter is forged We know this now after ShmuelWeingartenrsquos exposeacute of Dovev Siftei Yeshenim7 Yet theevidence was there all along had people paid attention Butpeople had no reason to assumed that Bloch was not reliableR Joseph Elijah Henkin however who was involved in aterrible dispute with Bloch did accuse Bloch of dishonestyand pointed out that he would attribute quotes to rabbis whowere no longer alive so that he couldnrsquot be contradicted Inthe late 1930rsquos Bloch published a letter from R Kook R ZviYehudah Kook was very skeptical of its authenticity andrequested that Bloch send him a copy of it Bloch replied thathe was unable to do so since he had lost the original8 Thiswas Blochrsquos pattern and I assume that all of the many lettershe published from leading rabbis and hasidic leadersbeginning in the early part of the twentieth century areforgeries9Here is another example of Blochrsquos tendency to fabricatethings It comes from his Heikhal le-Divrei Chazal u-Fitgameihem (New York 1948) p 9 Everything he reports hereis a fantasy As with some of his other forgeries Bloch isobviously motivated here by good intentions but it is allcomplete nonsense

Ve-Da Ma she-Tashiv also contains forged letters I am certainthat the letter of R Chaim Ozer Grodzinski on pp 52-53 is anexample of this Anyone can look at the style of R ChaimOzerrsquos many letters and see how he consistently used certainformulas in concluding his letters Nowhere does R Chaim Ozerconclude a letter with

ונזכה כולנו לראות בישועת עמנו במהרהHe does use the expression

ועיניהם תחזינה בישועת עמנו במהרה

and this is found in a letter that Bloch would have had accessto the letter of R Chaim Ozer to Agudat ha-Rabbanim aboutthe Louis Epstein proposal10 I assume he used the concludingportion of this letter to help him create his forgery But inother areas he wasnrsquot so careful For example in the supposedletter of R Chaim Ozer to Bloch he refers to the latter as ayet this expression does not appear in R Chaim צנא מלא ספראOzerrsquos other letters (based on Otzar ha-Hokhmahrsquos databasewhich only has the first edition of R Chaim Ozerrsquos lettersnot the expanded Iggerot R Chaim Ozer)We should assume the same for all of the other letters in thisbook from people who were not alive when the book was writtenIt is fascinating that on p 44 n 1 Bloch refers to the anti-Zionist letters he would later publish in Dovev SifteiYeshenim Ve-Da Mah she-Tashiv was published in 1943 and thefirst volume of Dovev Siftei Yeshenim didnrsquot appear until1959 meaning that this forgery was very long in the makingand Bloch was setting the stage for it many years priorThere is more to say about this book in particular hisargument that there are passages in the Talmud that wereinserted by heretics ndash a viewpoint earlier mentioned by RJoseph Zvi Duenner as I have pointed out elsewhere see hereI will leave that for another time but to give you an exampleof what I am referring to here is a passage from p 39(emphasis in the original)אופינית היא ldquoהמעשיהrdquo ברrsquo שמעון בן גמליאל ldquoשהיה על גב מעלה בהרכ (עrdquoז דrdquo מעשיך רבו מה אמר ביותר נאה אחת נכרית וראה הבית עrdquoא) המאמר הזה זיוף לא יעלה בדעתנו שרrsquo שמעון בן גמליאלהביט על אשה היינו הך נכרית או ישראלי ndash לשם יפיה ומצאתי עודנבוכדנצר שבקש ldquoבשעה ספק לכל מחוץ עומד שזיופו רב בשם מאמר לעשות לאותו צדיק (צדקיהו) כך נמשכה ערלתו שrsquo אמה והיתה מחזרתוהערלrdquo אתה גם שתה מכבוד קלון שבעת שנאמר כולה המסבה כל על יתכן ולא טעם חסר הוא זה שבמאמר הנבול מלבד עrdquoב) קמט (שבת

שמפי רב יצאו הדבריםI donrsquot know which position is ldquofrummerrdquo To defend the honorof the sages and therefore deny that these ldquoobscenerdquo passagesare authentic or to defend the Talmud as we have it and thushave to deal with these passagesYet whatever the answer to this is if Bloch were alive todaythe haredi world would put him in herem for another reasonHere is what he writes on p 38 with regard to how to view

Aggadah in contrast to the halakhic sections of the Talmud(What he says is nothing other than the Geonic and Spanishtradition which is largely unknown in todayrsquos yeshivaworld)היא אינה נחשבת ליסוד קיומה של היהדות ויש לה אופי של ספר עם לחלק האגדה נכנסו דברי מוסר ודרך ארץ מליצות ובדיחות סגולותורפואות אזהרות ועצות פתרון חלומות ואגדות שלהרבה מהם יש ערךמהעמים בזה התלמוד בעלי הושפעו שהרבה יתכן להיהדות מחוץ גם

שכניהםAlso interesting is that in Ve-Da Mah she-Tashiv p 44 n 1 he refers very positively to R Henkin something that wouldlater change when their great battle beganBloch claimed that he had a close relationship with the greatR Judah Leib Zirelson of Kishinev (Speaking for myselfZirelsonrsquos greatest achievement had to have been standing upto the extreme anti-Zionist elements in Agudat Israel led byR Elhanan Wasserman and R Aaron Kotler They wanted theAgudah to officially oppose the creation of a Jewish stateZirelson as president of the 1937 Kenesiah Ha-Gedolah inMarienbad was able to convince the Moetzet Gedolei ha-Torahto agree with his own position which was not to oppose astate but to attempt to bring Torah values into it See Ha-Pardes Oct 1937 p 8) In this book Bloch cites a numberof things from Zirelson of which again I have no doubt thathe has made them up For example can anyone imagine thatZirelson would offer the following Haskalah-Reformistinterpretation that Bloch puts in his mouth (p 34)במקרא יסוד בחפשו יוחאי בן שמעון רrsquo של כוונתו שהיתה יתכן תואנות הרומיים ימצאו שלא כדי באוהל מטמאים אינם שהנכרים

ואמתלאות חדשות על ישראל ומאימת המלכות הורה כןAlthough I canrsquot go into it in any detail now the truth isthat we do on occasion find Haskalah-Reformist types ofinterpretation even in traditional sources11 but since theseare very rare and we have no evidence that Zirelson ever saidwhat is attributed to him I assume it is another of Blochrsquosforgeries In other words as he did so often Blochattributed his own understanding to one of the great TorahsagesIn chapter fourteen of Ve-Da Mah She-Tashiv where he stressesthe need for honesty in onersquos dealings with non-Jews heclaims that Zirelson told him about a Zoharic passage in

parashat Lekh Lekha that statesכל מאן דמשקר בהאי עלמא בערל כמאן דמשקר בשמיה דקובrdquoה

This is a beautiful thought The only problem is that itdoesnrsquot exist anywhere in the Zohar I am certain thatZirelson would never have misquoted the Zohar and that themistake is Blochrsquos I assume that the mistake isunintentional perhaps quoting from memory since a greatforger like Bloch would never have dared falsely attributeanything to the Zohar the accuracy of which could easily becheckedHere is the actual Zohar text (vol 1 p 93a)

דכל מאן דמשקר בהאי כמאן דמשקר בשמיה דקבrdquoהIf you examine the entire passage you will find that it hasnothing to do with being honest and the word משקר here doesnot mean ldquoto lierdquo but ldquoto betrayrdquo The text is actuallyspeaking about berit milah and how one is obligated to treatit properly especially אחרא ברשותא ליה עייל דלא whichcertainly refers to refraining from having sex with non-Jewishwomen What the text is saying is that if you have illicit sexyou betray the mark of the circumcision and this is likebetraying Godrsquos nameSince I mentioned Haskalah-Reformist interpretations intraditional texts let me note one of the most famous ofthese In Shabbat 140b R Paparsquos states that if one can drinkbeer but instead drinks wine he violates the prohibition onbaal tashchit Maharsha explains that R Papa said thisbecause he was a beer salesman What this apparently means isthat R Papa lied about the halakhah in order to drum up morebusiness for himself How else to interpret Maharsharsquosexplanationורב פפא לטובת עצמו אמרה שהוא היrsquo עושה שכרThis explanation is to be sure quite shocking If you wantto stretch things a bit you can say that according toMaharsha R Papa didnrsquot consciously alter the halakhah tobenefit himself but since he was a beer maker he wasunconsciously led to this position as it would benefit himThis explanation ndash which could easily have been offered byJacob Katz ndash is suggested by the noted Yemenite posek RYitzhak Ratsaby12והנה כל העובר ישום וישרוק היתכן כדבר הזה שרב פפא יפסוק הלכהמשום ריוח ממונו ובודאי גם לדעת מהרשrdquoא לא יתכן שרב פפא

יאמר פסקי הלכה רק מתוך נגיעה חלילה לו אלא היה זה כעין ldquoשוחדסמויrdquo שלא הרגיש בו הוא עצמו שמתוך כך בא לידי טעות בהלכה זופקחים יעוור השוחד ldquoכי ח) כג (שמות ואומר צווח שהכתוב כמו ויסלף דברי צדיקיםrdquo ועל דרך שמצינו בכתובות (קט ב) בגדולי עולם

שאמרו על עצמם שהשוחד היטה את ליבםI think most people will tell you that this sort ofexplanation which points to unconscious factors influencinghalakhic decisions was not how people thought in the days ofthe Maharsha I myself do not see this as an anachronisticexplanation as the Talmud Ketubot 105b already discussesprecisely this sort of unconscious influence13 I believethat this is also how we are to understand all the discussionsabout בדבר נוגע and how it applies even to the greatesttzadikim It is not that these people will consciously twistthe truth but that unconsciously this is what can happenPresumably this is also the meaning of Hullin 49a ישמעאל כהנא מסייע כהני

I think this is also how we are to understand R MosesIsserles Yoreh Deah 24236שומעין אין לדידיה השייך בדבר הלכה דבר שאמר חכם תלמיד

לדידיה דלמא מדמי דברים להדדי שאינן דומיםSee also Ritva Yevamot 77aאמר דבריו את לקיים כדי בהלכה ונותן שנושא מתוך שמא דחיישינן

בדדמי כסבור שקיבל מרבוI am not going to analyze the Maharsha in any depth becauseeither way you explain him this is the exact sort ofexplanation that according to the Rav is heretical as it fallsunder the Rambamrsquos category of מגידה14 מכחיש And it is notjust the Rav who would be shocked by what Maharsha wrote RYehoshua Heschel of Monistritch15 states

ועל מאמר המהרשrdquoא הזה צווחי קמאיR Abraham Vengrober16 says concerning the standardexplanation of Maharsha (before offering a differentunderstanding of his words)ופריצי עמנו מצאנו בקעה לדבר סרה על רזrdquoל גם רבינו המהרשrdquoאזrdquoל לא כיוון בזה חrdquoו להכוונה אשר העולם סוברים שבשביל זה שהיrsquo

מסחרו שבח את הדבר לטובת עצמוR Samuel Strashun in his commentary to the passage takesstrong issue with Maharsha and R Hayyim Hezekiah Medini17 isastounded by what Maharsha wrote

הדבר תמוה לפרש דנחשד רב פפא לדבר שקר חלילה לטובת עצמוI assume it is only a matter of time before this explanationof Maharsha is deleted from a future printingHere is another example (Tarsquoanit 14a-14b)

In the time of R Judah the Prince there was distress Heordained thirteen fast days and their prayer was notanswered He thought of ordaining additional fasts but RAmmi said to him ldquoDid not [the Sages] declare we shouldnot trouble the community undulyrdquo Said R Abba the son ofR Hiyya b Abba ldquoR Ammi [in saying this] was studyinghis own interestsrdquo

Rashi explains R Abbarsquos declaration

לעצמו דרש דלא אמר אלא לפי שהוא לא היה רוצה להתענותIf anyone other than Rashi wrote this wouldnrsquot it be regardedas an example of מכחיש מגידהHere is another example from the Jerusalem Talmud Shabbat61

R Abbahu in the name of R Yohanan ldquoIt is permitted fora man to teach Greek to his daughter because suchlearning is an ornament for herrdquo Simeon bar Ba heard andsaid ldquoIt is because R Abbahu wants to teach his daughtersuch that he has assigned the teaching to R Yohananrdquo

R Abbahu responded quite sharply to Simeon bar Baproclaiming ldquoMay a curse come upon me if I did not hear itfrom R Yohananrdquo But I am more interested in Simeon bar Barsquosaccusation He assumed that the great R Abbahu would falselyattribute a halakhic ruling to an earlier sage in order thathis daughter would benefit When Geiger and Graetz said thingslike this no one was surprised and the Orthodox condemnedthem for these type of interpretations Yet here you have aHaskalah-Reformist type of interpretation offered by one ofthe SagesReturning to Bloch another example where he deceived theworld is found in his Heikhal le-Divrei Hazal u-Fitgemeihempp 591-592 In line with his apologetic approach to Jewishsources he claims that he saw an old version of the Passoverprayer Shefokh Hamotkha that went as follows

שפוך אהבתך על הגוים אשר ידעוך

Even a great scholar such as Naftali Ben-Menachem was taken in

by Bloch (and if you search online you will find a number ofothers who assume that Shefokh Ahavatkha is a real textrather than another Bloch forgery18) Ben Menachemrsquos articleappears in Mahanayim 80 (1963) and here is the page where herefers to Blochrsquos version

Incidentally in Heikhal le-Divrei Hazal Bloch claims that hewrote about this version at length in his 1935 book DerJudenhass im Spiegel der Jahrtausende and also printed a copyof the manuscript there (In 1935 Bloch was living in Vienna)Although he mentions this book in a couple of his other

writings there is no evidence that any such book everappeared Now we have the internet which allows us to checkall the greatest libraries in a minute yet in a prior erasimply mentioning that he had published such a book and thatit contained a copy of the manuscript would have been enoughto convince everyone After all it was not like people in theUnited States England or PalestineIsrael could easily checkthe holdings of libraries in Austria and GermanyMeir Hershkovitz in his fine book on R Zvi Hirsch Chajesalso quotes Bloch a number of times Bloch claimed to haveseen unpublished material from Chajes and he included some ofit in his Heikhal but everything he mentions is fraudulentand some of the comments are really outrageous For exampleon p 565 he quotes Chajes as saying as follows about RabbiAkiva19רrdquoע מבני בניו של סיסרא היה ולמרות קדושת התורה ששלטה בו נשאר בו

משהו מאופיו של סיסרא(Some are probably wondering why I didnrsquot underline the firstpart as well which states that R Akiva was descended fromSisera After all in a few weeks Daf Yomi will reachSanhedrin 96b and there you find the following with nomention of R Akiva ldquoDescendants of Sisera studied20 Torah inJerusalem descendants of Sennacherib taught Torah to themultitude Who were these Shemaya and Avtalion Descendantsof Haman studied Torah in Bnei Brakrdquo Yet numerous texts21record a version of this passage that identifies R Akiva asamong the descendants of Sisera)What motivated Bloch to invent this negative comment about RAkiva I think that this too can be attributed to anti-Zionistmotivations (an anonymous commenter on Soferim u-Seforimoffered a similar explanation see the link in n 1) R Akivawas associated with Bar Kokhbarsquos rebellion and in the popularmind at least this was a matter of pride for twentieth-century Jews The thrust of the comment attributed to Chajesis to see this ldquowarlikerdquo aspect of R Akiva as a throwback toSisera In other words this is not something good We seeanother example of Blochrsquos anti-Zionism in his attempts toargue that a passage in Maimonidesrsquo Letter on Astrology is notauthentic In this passage Maimonides states that the Templewas destroyed and the Jews exiled because instead of focusingon ldquothe art of military training and conquering landsrdquo they

involved themselves with astrology thinking it would helpthem (Iggerot ha-Rambam ed Sheilat vol 2 p 480) Thispassage was too ldquoZionisticrdquo for Bloch and not surprisingly heargues that it is a forged interpolation See his article inHa-Pardes 34 (April 1960) pp 39-42 where once again it isBloch who is the forger citing a supposed letter from aChristian scholar to Dr [Daviid] Kaufmann and also tellingus about the support he supposedly received from theTchortkover Rebbe (This Rebbe incidentally happened to be aone of the leading Agudah supporters of settlement in the Landof Israel) One of Blochrsquos major proofs that Maimonides couldnot have written this passage is his assumption thatMaimonides was not impressed with R Akivarsquos support of BarKokhba He bases this argument on Mishneh Torah HilkhotMelakhim 113 Yet Maimonidesrsquo viewpoint in this matter is notenough for Bloch and to achieve his purpose he has toactually find fault with R Akivarsquos character somethingMaimonides would never do Bloch even attacks some modernwriters (such as Aaron Zeitlin and Hillel Seidman) who hadstressed the contemporary significance of Maimonidesrsquo wordsIn Blochrsquos mind by doing so they were showing the non-Jewsthat the Protocols of Elders of Zion were correct namelythat Jews really did want to conquer the world BlochrsquosNeturei Karta side comes out very well in this articleAs a way of covering himself so that people will believe themanuscripts of Chajes are authentic Bloch states that heassumes that the material he is quoting from has survived inIsrael either with the family or at the National Library(Heikhal pp 520 560) Yet in Hershkovitz this suppositionis stated as fact (Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes p 438) It isquite surprising that Hershkowitz who wrote such acomprehensive biography of Chajes didnrsquot attempt to trackdown these manuscripts Had he done so he would have realizedthat they donrsquot exist

This is a blog about seforim but with Danrsquos permission in afuture post I am going to write about the various blogs andnews sites both haredi and Modern Orthodox that focus onJewish matters (halakhah hashkafah etc) In the last sixmonths I have visited them a good deal left a number ofcomments (some quite provocative and opposed to my own outlook

[eg dealing with sexual abuse Zionism Daas Torah Torahmi-Sinai etc] and always under a pseudonym) and gatheredthe reactions I also corresponded with people I met on thesites and with various anonymous baalei ha-blogs I tried tobe a bit of a reporter gathering information and just like areporter sometimes has to hide his identify I felt that inthis circumstance it was permissible especially as almosteveryone I was dealing with was also anonymous We all knowthat the ability to be anonymous is basic to the internet (andthere has been a good deal of discussion recently aboutwhether this is a good idea) I also felt that if I gotinvolved in a debate on a haredi or Modern Orthodox site myname would be recognizable to some of the people and theymight respond differently than if I was some anonymous personMost of the information is publicly available (as are mycomments) but I wonrsquot cite any names as I am not interestedin individuals but in some of the thought processes that Iobserved As always I will tie this in with seforimespecially the phenomenon of anonymous and pseudonymous (asopposed to pseudepigraphal) seforim and articles and alsodiscuss the modern anonymous halakhic questions that R YuvalSherlow has written about (He has also published a couple ofvolumes of his answers to these questions) How is Judaismperceived and portrayed when people can live in two worldsthe public one and the private anonymous world of theinternet What does it mean when most people who comment aboutcontroversial topics choose to do so under a pseudonym Ithink that what I found also has implications to an issue Ihave been concerned with for a long time namely the value ofprivate letters and conversations vs published word inseeking to evaluate the personality of an individual Thisdirectly relates to David Holzerrsquos book on the Rav and wasalso a topic that became a dispute between the late ProfTwersky and myself when writing my dissertation on RWeinbergndashmore on that to comeI mention all this because I have a request If anyone isaware of a similar study with regard to Christian or politicalblogs and websites please let me know As a friend commentedto me when I told him about my project ldquowe all know thatthere are registered Democrats on the Upper West Side whosecretly vote Republican but in order not to scandalize their

friends will only post their true opinions anonymouslyrdquo Yethas anyone written about this There are seriousmethodological issues that must be dealt with in any suchinquiry

My new Torah in Motion class begins this Monday I invite allwho are free on Monday nights at 9PM Eastern to join us Thissemester we are covering R Eliezer Berkovits R Chaim OzerGrodzinski R Elijah Benamozegh and R Joseph Messas You cansign up for it hereIf you want to watch or listen to previous classes to get asense of how they work you can download them hereNotes1 For a recent discussion of Bloch see here which contains anumber of informative comments2 See Bloch Mi Natan li-Meshisah Yaakov ve-Yisrael le-Vozezim(Bronx nd) pp 54ff3 ldquoHerzlrsquos First Years of Struggle Unknown Episodes andPersonal Recollectionsrdquo Herzl Year Book 3 (1960) pp 77-904 The booklet is found in N M Gelber Tokhnit ha-Medinah ha-Yehudit le-Lord Beaconsfield (Tel Aviv 1947) pp 35ffGelberrsquos book is devoted to this booklet5 ldquoZionism and its Religious Critics in Fin-de-Siegravecle Viennardquoin S Almog et al eds Zionism and Religion (Hanover1998) pp 150 157 n 456 See here7 Mikhtavim Mezuyafim Neged ha-Tziyonut (Jerusalem 1981)8 See Weingarten Mikhtavim pp 164-165 In Ha-Posek 11(1950) p 802 Bloch published another letter from R KookIt is also found in Heikhal le-Divrei Hazal u-Fitgamehem p614 Again he tells us that he only has a copy of the letteras the original was lost and here too the letter inunquestionably a forgery Bloch had R Kook sign the letterקדוש לעם עבד which he knew is found in numerous authenticletters But the letter also contains the phrase כל יקר ראתהעיני and this does not appear in any of the almost 2000letters and responsa of R Kook as can be determined from thenew database of R Kookrsquos writings9 I donrsquot know whether this also applies to halakhic writingseg the supposed manuscript from R Shalom Schwadron thatcame from Bloch and is published in R Isaac Liebes Beit Avi

vol 3 no 157 Incidentally a few responsa after this inno 161 Liebes discusses whether a rabbinic organizationcould publicly advocate the institution of the death penaltysince it might happen that a Jew would also be sentenced todeath (sound familiar) Liebes begins his replyלא רק שמותר להתריע בכיוון זה רק מצוה לעורר את דעת העם את חומרהסכנה המרחפת על תושבי הארץDuring the discussions about the Grossman execution I lookedat some of the haredi websites (until the comments made mesick) What I found interesting was the incredible level ofignorance of most of the writers all of whom had been inyeshiva and many of whom had studied there for years Theywere able to declare that a murderer canrsquot be executed unlesshe was observed by two kosher witnesses and was given warningwhich they thought settled matters Had these people known abit of responsa literature there would have understood howthings worked in the real world and especially what was donein the days of the rishonim Do these people think that if aguy stood up in shul and opened fire with a machine gunkilling 20 people that a Jewish court couldnrsquot execute himbecause he was never given a warning Letrsquos continue with RLiebesבכל אפילו מות עונש לענוש השעה צורך שרואין בזמן להביrdquoד כח יש יום אפילו אם מן התורה פטורין הם כדי שעל ידי זה כל העם ישמעו

וייראו ולא יזידון עודAs for the possibility that a Jewish man will be executedמצוה וחיוב לעורר את דעת הקהל להתריע את בתי המשפט שיראו להעבירואת והפושעים הרוצחים החומר בכל ולענוש מות משפט המדינה בכל אותה לשכנע יכולים בתנrdquoך מאמינה אשר הברית ארצות מדינתינו חיוב בתור הארץ רשעי את לבער מקפידה תוהrdquoק היכן עד לה ולהראות ומצוה ומשrdquoכ כתrdquoר לחשוש דלפעמים ימצא רוצח יהודי אrdquoכ אנחנו נהיהעפldquoי מיתה דהמחוייב מזה מוכח כלום אינו זה במיתתו אשמים שכל ממילא מובן דמלכותא דינא מטעם להם למסרו מותר המלכות דין דברינו מוסבים רק על המדינות שיש להם שוויון הזכויות לכל אזרחיהבלי שום אנטישמיות ושנאת ישראל ולכן אם חrdquoו יהודי נתפס באיזה עון

ופשע הרי הוא נידון כמו כל אזרחי המדינהMany who commented on the various sites were people who neveropposed the death penalty before and do not oppose it now yetthey were anti-death penalty in this case because quitesimply they think the death penalty is just fine except whenit is a Jew being executed They vote for all the right wing

candidates and then have the chutzpah to complain when theirman actually follows through on his support of capitalpunishment and doesnrsquot share their view that a supposed baalteshuvah (whose last meal on earth was a non-kosher chickensandwich bought from the prison canteen) should not beexecuted Some of them cited Sanhedrin 17a כולן שראו סנהדרי אותו פוטרין לחובה as if this had any relevance First ofall this passage only means that he is not executed in thenormal fashion but he can certainly be executed as anemergency measure In addition some understand this passageto mean that if on the first day of deliberations all concludethat he is guilty he is not condemned to death immediatelybut the case is revisited on the next day If then all findhim guilty he is executed None of the commenters whomentioned this law quoted the view of R Meir ha-Levi Abulafia(cited in many sources) and the Tosafot Hakhmei Anglia thatthe meaning of אותו פוטרין is להורגו אותו ממהרין Thisunderstanding is praised by the Reisher Rav R Aharon LewinHa-Derash ve-ha-Iyun Deut no 1195 and R Baruch EpsteinTorah Temimah Ex 232 Epstein is convinced that thisunderstanding is correct because otherwise גדול חוטא לך היש מזה ונשכר For more on the subject see Zorach WarhaftigldquoRov u-Miut be-Veit ha-Dinrdquo in Itamar Warhaftig ed Minhahle-Ish (Jerusalem 2001) pp 100ff See also R ReuvenMargaliot Margaliyot ha-Yam Sanhedrin 17a no 19 who citesthe Tashbetzשהם זrdquoל לא אמרו בrdquoד שהסכימו כולם לחובה פטור חלילה להם שיאמרוויותר טוב ויותר כולם עrdquoפ שכן כל הורגים הרוב פי על ואם ככה

משובח הוא שיהיה הפסק דין מוסכם מהכל ולא שיהיה שום חולקThere is a good deal more to say on this topic but in theinterests of space I will leave it for another time Sufficeit to say that as in all such matters one can find a varietyof viewpoints See eg R Yair Hayyim Bacharach Havot Yairno 146 Some poskim have even ruled that when a murderer hasbeen sentenced to death it is forbidden to try and save himSee R Nathan Leiter Tziyun le-Nefesh Hayah no 121 (Othersdisagree see eg Teshuvot Hatam Sofer vol 6 no 14)Obviously such a ruling has no relevance to people who opposethe death penalty on principle but it does speak directly tothose who normally support itmdashas I daresay includes most ifnot virtually all of the people who were commenting so

outrageously on the haredi sites Let me close by citing aresponsum of R Meir Zak in Teshuvot Eitan ha-Ezrahi no 45What he said in the seventeenth century in a case involving aJewish murderer is just as relevant today and it isincredible how this responsum speaks to the Grossman case (heeven uses the term ldquohillul ha-shemrdquo) Notice how he alsoincludes the manhigei ha-dor in his criticismמאחר שניתן ביד גוים ערכאות הם יעשו בו משפט וידינו לא תהיה בו ואפשר שעל נדון דידן נאמר מורידין מאחר שכתב הרב מהרrdquoד הrdquoלהאבrdquoד דקrdquoק הrdquoל שדעתו לעשות כפרה והיה כל ימיו חוטא גדול ופושעולפי תשובה לעשות שרוצה יאמר אם ואף רבא גודא ביה לישריrsquo נאמר דעתי על אלו אמרו חזrdquoל אין נחת רוח בתשובתן של רשעים להקבrdquoה כיראה עצמו ביד גוים רוצה לרמות אותנו אבל להפריז ממון לפדות אותובשביל שאומר שרוצה לעשות תשובה זה הוא חילול השם שיאמרו אין עונששפיכות דמים אצל יהודים נחשב חטא והיה אם גוי יהרוג חrdquoו ליהודיגrdquoכ לא ידונו לעשות נקמה ותמיד אני צועק ככרוכיא על מנהיגי הדורשכל גנב או חוטא שבא למאסר עושין השתדלות לפדות אותו עrdquoי שחדיםורבו חפץ שלבו מה עושה אrsquo כל וגניבות פשעים מרבה בעוrdquoה זה דבר פריצי הדור כאלו אנחנו רואים בעוrdquoה רוב גנבי ישראל עrdquoכ שלא לתת

פרוטה לפוטרו ממותIsnrsquot it amazing that hundreds of years ago he was condemningthe leaders who think that every thief or sinner who goes tojail should be the focus of pidyon shevuyim From thisresponsum we learn that the warped values we have seen theselast few years go back a long time And what is one to makeabout his statement that the majority of thieves are Jewish(using the language of Avodah Zarah 70a) I pray we neverreach this point although we probably have to do keriah overthe fact that the Agudah spokesmen have been insistent inletters to the editor and in interviews that Orthodox Jews arenot more dishonest than anyone else In other words no oneneither Jew nor non-Jew even assumes anymore that being anOrthodox Jew means that you hold yourself to a high ethicalstandard Their goal now is to convince the public that whenit comes to obeying the law Orthodox Jews (and theirinstitutions) are simply no worse than everyone else If thatis not an indictment of our entire educational system I donrsquotknow what isFor those interested in pursuing further the topic of Jewishmurderers here is a nineteenth-century responsum by theMoroccan R Joseph Berdugo (Divrei Yosef no 381)

10 Le-Dor Aharon (Brooklyn 1937) p 36 In this letter RChaim Ozer uses the expression בברכה חותם והנני and thisalso appears in his supposed letter to Bloch11 In my Studies in Maimonides I tried to show thatldquoacademicrdquo interpretations of Maimonides can also be found inthe most traditional sources The same thing can be done withregard to the Talmud and Prof Halivni has cited manyexamples of traditionalists who offered explanations of thesort he focuses on (Higher Criticism) When ldquoacademicrdquoexplanations are found in rishonim even the most conservativewill be hesitant to attack them But that was not always thecase a few hundred years ago For example R Nissim writes asfollows in his commentary on the Rif Megillah 26a sv zodivrei R Menahem

ודאמרינן במעמדות לאו דוקא ומשום אשגרת לישן נקטיה(This same view is actually advocated by Ramban as noted inGilyon ha-Shas Megillah 26a) This was too much for R DavidPardo Mikhtam le-David Orah Hayyim no 14מלבד הלחץ זה הדחק שסובל הדבר בעצמו לומר דהשrdquoס וכל הפוסrsquo מעתיקי

השrdquoס נקטו באשגרת לישן מלתא דשקרא ממש דבר זר ורחוק12 Parsquoamei Yaakov Adar II 5768 p 10813 The Talmud deals there with how even the desire of one ofthe parties in a dispute to give a gift to a rabbi who willrule on the case impairs his objectivity This talmudicpassage provides all the explanation one needs to understandhow so many learned rabbis remained silent as the Tropperscandal played out If amoraim admitted that they couldnrsquotproperly judge a matter if they had only been offered a giftcertainly one in our day who actually received such a gift isnot capable of judging the case of his benefactor TheSteipler refused to take as much as a cigarette from one ofhis admirers whose case he was to judge and continued torefuse gifts from this person even after the case wasconcluded See Avraham Yeshayahu Kanievsky Toldot Yaakov(Bnei Brak 1995) p 208With regard to the more troubling (and I believe rare)circumstance of rabbis who will actually lie to benefitthemselves I have a number of sources on this For now letme just cite the words of the Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 3141

הכהנים חשודים להטיל מום בבכור אפילו אם הוא חכם ויושב בישיבהAs for the sordid details of the Tropper scandal itself and

those who refused at first to believe what they heard withtheir own ears (not to mention the Elon scandal as well asothers) here is what the hasidic master R Meshulam FeivishHeller (died 1794) had to say in an earlier era a presumablyholier era as yet uncontaminated by television and theinternet (Yosher Divrei Emet [Jerusalem 1974]) p 113והלא ידוע ומפורסם שיש בעוהrdquoר כמה לומדים שהם בעלי ניאוף רחrdquoל

ובעלי עבירות ידועיםR Hayyim Eleazar Shapira Divrei Torah 582 writes aboutהרבנים ובפרט האדמוריrdquoם הגונבים דעת ולבות הבריות וכל כונתם אך

לטובתם בעצמם בגופם ובשרם וממונם ותאותםThis is what the Ropshitzer is reported to have saidיסע העיר שרב עד בעולם השקר כrdquoכ יתרבה המשיח ביאת קודם כי דעו יחדו עם אשה נכריה בעגלה אחת ורבים מבני העיר יאמרו אחריו אין

קדוש כמוהוR Isaiah Asher Zelig Margulies Ashrei ha-Ish (Jerusalem1927) p 49 who records the saying assumes that the Gentilewoman spoken of really means ldquoheresyrdquo but I donrsquot know why itshould not be understood literally It is not like theRopshitzer was confronted with many secularly educated rabbisthat he would need to make such a statement (I assume thatMargulies was led to his assumption by Maimonidesrsquo famousletter to R Jonathan of Lunel where he speaks of non-Torahstudiesmdashwhich for Margulies equals heresymdashas being נשים נכריות See Iggerot ha-Rambam ed Sheilat vol 2 p 502)Since a concern with kavod is also so often present in thevarious scandals the following comment by R Elimelech ofLizhensk is noteworthy (quoted in Or Elimelekh [Jerusalem2003] no 75)

מצוה עם כבוד גרוע יותר מעבירות ניאוף רחrdquoל14 See the text of the Ravrsquos lecture here15 See R Aharon Perlow Margaliyot ha-Shas al MasekhetShabbat (Jerusalem 2005) p 47116 Likutei Avraham (Jerusalem 1976) p 31917 Sedei Hemed marsquoarekhet lamed kelal 10818 See also Alan Brillrsquos recent post here19 For an example of genealogy in the reverse direction ndashie from righteous to wicked see Rashi to I Kings 101where it very strangely states that Nebuchanezar was the sonof Solomon and the Queen of Sheba This only appears in thelater printed editions of Rashi and is cited in the name of

R Isaac Luria It is difficult to know what to make of thisI find it hard to believe that the passage ever could havebeen meant literally since Solomon lived some three hundredyears before Nebuchadnezar Even legends if understoodliterally have to make chronological sense Perhaps it meansthat the origin of the later disaster involving Nebuchadnezarcan be traced to Solomon involving himself with foreign womensuch as the Queen of Sheba In other words not that Solomonis the literal father of Nebuchadnezar but rather he is hisldquoultimate causerdquoAs for the ultimate origin of the notion that Solomon wasNebuchadnezarrsquos father I have been unable to find any othersource that records that this was stated by R Isaac Luria RMenahem Azariah de Fano (1548-1620) Asarah Marsquoamarot(Jerusalem 2005) pp 412-413 (Marsquoamar Eim Kol Hai 223)states that Nebuchadnezar descended from Solomon Two pointsare significant here First he does not say that Solomon ishis father and second he does not attribute this to anysource which presumably means that it was a well-knownkabbalistic idea R Jehiel ben Solomon Heilprin Seder ha-Dorot year 2935 states that according to a Midrash Solomonfathered a daughter with the Queen and Nebuchadnezar was herson R Hayyim Joseph David Azulai Midbar Kedemot marsquoarekhetyod no 47 claims that Nebuchadnezar was descended from thisdaughter See also R Joseph Palache Yosef et Ehav (np2005) marsquoarekhet bet no 1720 תורה למדו This should probably be read as תורה לימדו ldquotaught Torahrdquo since in the parallel text in Gittin 57b ithas תינוקות למדו which means ldquotaught childrenrdquo See alsoDikdukei Soferim Sanhedrin 96b21 To give just one here is a page from R Nissim GaonrsquosSefer ha-Mafteah to Berakhot 27b

Note how Jacob Goldenthal the editor assumes that it isactually Haman from whom R Akiva is descended Jacob Reifmanagreed with this See Iggeret Bikoret ed Ben Menahem(Jerusalem 1969) p 17 Louis Finkelstein Akiba p 321speaks of the R Akiva-Sisera connection as a ldquolegend widelyrepeated in medieval worksrdquo He doesnrsquot seem to realize thatthe medieval works were citing from their texts of the TalmudSee also Dikdukei Soferim Sanhedrin 96b which cites one suchmanuscript

א צפנת פענח $15

ב יעקב דרידרמן- תמימי דרך 140 עמ $12

ג מנחם ציטרין ndash שבחי צדיקים 142 עמ $12

ד יעקב קידנר- סיפורים נוראים סיפוריו של איש חבד- 167 עמ $13

ה ישעיה וולף ציקרניק סיפורי חסידות צירנוביל -202 עמ $14

ו יעקב סופר- סיפורי יעקב 216 עמ $14

ז מחקרים בחסידות ג נגאל בחלקים 460 עמ $33

ח ממלכת החכמה על חסידי ראפשיץ יצחק אלפסי שעו עמודים $15

ט בנתיבי חסידות איזביצא ראדזין ש שרגאי תשלג 193 עמ כריכהרכה $10

י הסיפור החסידי יוסף דן 275 עמ $16

תימןיאמשא תימן חיים צדוק 304 עמ $11

יב פקודי תימן 355 עמ $15

יג ארחות תימן תשמד 456 עמ $15

יד היהודים והמלך בתימן שלו בר גמליאל ב חלקים [חלק א 463עמ חלק ב 186 עמ] $25

מגנסמקרא

טושקיעי חכמה בספר תהלים $11

טזהמקרא בין טעמים לפרשנות $16יזמחקרים בלשון המקרא $17

יחספר בראשית ומבנהו $19

יטמאמר על תיקון השכל $11























מהגליל $9
























































































































by Shnayer Z Leiman






II







R Nathaniel Weil



III




Notes

























































The Internet




Notes









































































































מהגליל $9
























































































































by Shnayer Z Leiman






II







R Nathaniel Weil



III




Notes

























































The Internet




Notes




























































































































































































by Shnayer Z Leiman






II







R Nathaniel Weil



III




Notes

























































The Internet




Notes



















































































Seforim for Sale, List III

Documents

Transcript of Seforim for Sale, List III