צנזורה1

) holds the Harry and

J('Hlldle Weinberg Chair inJudaic Studies al Ihe University ofScranton, Pennsylvania. A graduate ofBrandeis and Harvard IIniv 'rsities, he is the author ofBetween Ihe Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works ofRabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, 1884-1966 (1999) and The Limits ofOrthodox Theology: Maimonides' Thirteen Principles Reappraised (2004),

both published by the Littman Library.

HANGING THE IMMUTABLE

focuses on how segments ofOrthodox society have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the past by covering up and literally cutting out that which does not fit their own world-view. For reasons ranging from theological considerations to internal religious politics to changing religious standards, such Jewish self-censorship abounds, and Marc B. Shapiro disousses examples frqm each category. His analysis is illusb'ated by a number ofimages ofthe original texts next to their censored versions, together with an explanation ofwhat made them problematic and how the issue was resolved.

Shapiro considers the concepts ofhistory that underlie such changes, looking at how some Orthodox historiography sees truth as entirely instmmental. Drawing on the words ofleading rabbis, pruticularly from the haredi world, he shows that what is important here is not historical tmth, but a tmth that leads to observance and faith in the Sages. He concludes with a discussion ofthe concept oftmth in the Jewish tradition, and when this tmth can be altered.

Changing the Immutable also reflects on the paradox ofa society that regards itself as traditional but at the same time is uncomfortable with some ofthe inherited tradition, and thus feels the need to create an idealized view ofthe past. Shapiro considers this in context, detailing precedents in Jewish history dating back to talmudic times. Since the obj ·ts of • n or hip have included s).1Ch figures as Mnfmonid ,

Bahya ibn Pakllda, Rashi, N pht Ii H rz

O'~\('/'"l'!l "'"l!l)l1"l fl"'t:1"l!l'lU-tfl

)..,:1\:)"1'" ~")1 ~1I'nt:3 o't""")3'''~ ~"M't:l

111111111111111111111111111111 NS3" :r~

7 90160 10074

r.

TIHt I.ITl'MAN I.lItHAHY 011

'I~WIS" CIVII,II',A'J'ION

Ikdjmtl~d to lilt' 1IIt'lIIOI'Y (~r

I.OUIS TIIOMAS SIDNEY I.ITTMAN

who founded the Littman Library jor the IOllf oIGod and as an act ofcharity in memory ofhis jather

JOSEPH AARON LITTMAN

and to the memory of

ROBERT JOSEPH LITTMAN

who continued what his father Louis had begun

lnJ 01:Jl Ni1'

'Get wisdom, get understanding:

Forsake her not and she shall preserve thee'

PROVo 4: 5

:pte Littman Library ofJewish Civilization is a registem! 1I K charity , Registered charity no. Iooo7X4

The Littman Library ofJewish Civilization ChiefExecutive Officer: Ludo Craddock Managing Editor: Connie Webber

Dedicated to my children

PO Box 645, Oxford OX2 OUJ, UK www.littman.co.uk

Published in the United States and Canada by

Aliza, Yael, Danielle, Joshua, andJacob

The Littman Library ofJewish Civilization c/o ISBS, 920 NE 58th Avenue, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon 97213-3786

© Marc B. Shapiro 2015

except Chapter 4 © Bar·Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

All rights reserved.

No part ofthis publication may be reproduced,

stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by

any means, without the prior permission in writing of

The Littman Library o!Jewish Civilization

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library ofCongress cataloging-in-publication data

Shapiro, Marc B.

Changing the immutable: how Orthodox Judaism rewrites its history / Marc B. Shapiro.

p.em.

Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. Orthodox Judaism-History. 2. Orthodox Judaism-Philosophy.

I. Title.

BM197·6,S5252014 296.8']2-dC23 2014022624 ISBN 978-1-904113-60-7

Publishing co·ordinator: Janet Moth Copy.editing: Lindsey Taylor-Guthartz Proofreading: Philippa Claiden . Index: Sarah Ereira Design, typesetting, and production by Pete Russell, Faringdon, axon. Printed in Great Britain on acid:free paper by IJ International Ltd., Padstow, Cornwall

PREFACE

ON 2 MAY 2011 Osama bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALs. This signifi­cant event was memorialized in an iconic photograph in which Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, and Hillary Clinton are receiving an update on the assault (Fig. r(a)). Later in the week, a Brooklyn Yiddish newspaper, Di Tsaytung, republished the picture (Fig. r(b)). As can be seen, Clinton (as well as another woman) were removed from the image. While this exaggerated concern for 'modesty' is standard fare in hasidic newspapers and books, it llsually goes unnoticed outside their communities. This time was different, however, as the action of Di Tsaytung was picked up by numerous news ()utlets.1

Figure I. The White House, May 20n; Hillary Clinton has been removed from the image below, which appeared in Di Tsaytung (Brooklyn), 6 MaY20n

(a)

(b)

TIll" tilNI III I ~II ~lh'lIlllll1 III Ihl' .1,,1,,111111 uflh" fl'lIIul" IIIlUH"M "PP"lHH III luovl' 1l!'1'1I Ihl' hllll( F~llr.1 MrNNlah. , May mil.

PREFACE

ON 2 MAY 20II Osama bin Laden was killed by us Navy SEALs. This signifi­cant event was memorialized in an iconic photograph in which Barack Obama, Joseph Biden, and Hillary Clinton are receiving an update on the assault (Fig. I(a)). Later in the week, a Brooldyn Yiddish newspaper, Di Tsaytung, republished the picture (Fig. I(b)). As can be seen, Clinton (as well as another woman) were removed from the image. While this exaggerated oncern for 'modesty' is standard fare in hasidic newspapers and books, it usually goes unnoticed outside their communities. This time was different, however, as the action of Di Tsaytung was picked up by numerous news

utlets.1

, '1'11"1" 1111' .,1I"Ii,·" IIII" III II,,· 01,·1,'1111" 111111,,1"11,,11,,1"" '11'" .11'1"',11 1111 IL'v,' III'"" 1111' 111111\ I",d,,'\ M,' I.d,." tvl.' Y 'II "

PREPACE

For many, learning about this particular act of' c(,lIsorship was the first exposure to what is part and parcel of a larger plH'IIOttll'1l01l in the haredi world, namely, the altering and conscious rewriting of' Il'wish history and thought. I was well into this book when the action of' Di 'Euytung became public knowledge. However, its discussion, which included commentary and criticism, highlighted for me the need for a detailed investigation of how some in the Jewish world have chosen to rewrite the past to serve the needs of the present.

Milovan Djilas, the famous Yugoslav writer, memorably commented that the hardest thing about being a communist was trying to predict the past. How could people live normal lives when what they knew to be true could be changed the next day, and all evidence ofit made to disappear? As a historian, few things are more important to me than preserving the historical record. Yet this book focuses on the actions of those who see nothing sacrosanct about historical memory. Rather, their viewpoint is that history in all its forms, including halakhic history, is to be altered to accord with, and be sub­sumed into, the current Weltanschauung oftheir segment ofOrthodoxy. As in the communist empire, those who want to avoid controversy are best advised to forget that which they once knew and adopt the new version ofevents, until it is time to trade that in for an even newer version.

This work, while it focuses primarily on books that have been censored, is not intended to be a study in bibliography, but rather a work of intellectual history.2 I do not cover all the significant examples of censorship. To do so would require a book much larger than the present one, especially as new examples are being produced all the time. My goal is to understand the phe­nomenon, the mentality that stands behind the ever-increasing censorship, by using representative examples. Together with this, I hope to illuminate many other issues in the pages that follow, not least ofwhich is the concep­tion(s) oftruth in traditional Jewish thought.

Those I must thank include Dan Rabinowitz, who runs the Seforim Blog/ a venue where much material of interest to this book has appeared. Dan's own w~gs have also been of great assistance. Menachem Butler and Eliezer Brodt, both of whom are also involved with the Seforim Blog, have each happily shared their vast storehouses of knowledge. Chaim Rapoport, Avinoam Rosenack, Yehudah Mirsky, William Gewirtz, and especially Shimon Steinmetz and Zalman Alpert were helpful to me at various times in

, Because I have cited numerous rabbinic fiKurrs, I thouKht it hrlpl"ul. whrrr pOHHihlt', to provid(, th(' dat(,s lilr thoSl' who an' 110 100IKI'r alivl', In rrlrl'l'in~ to wI'lI-known I';lhhinit fij.(lIn's, I havI' ;cddl'd' R: hrlim' thrir narnt'H tht' lirHt tllnt' thry urr dtrcl,

, • www.NrliJl·illl.hloK .. pot.lIIln "

my research. I must also express my appreciation, as I did in the preface to The Limits of Orthodox Theology, to an outstanding scholar who wishes to remain anonymous and who was always generous with his time and know­ledge. I further thank the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America for graciously permitting me to include images ofmaterial found in its collection.

My greatest debt of gratitude actually goes to dozens, if not hundreds, of people whom I have never met and indeed have no idea who they are. I refer to the numerous anonymous writers and commenters on internet sites such as the Seforim Blog, On the Main Line,4 Behadrei Haredim,5 and the Otzar HaHochma forum,6 who over the years have posted much important material relevant to this book, from which I benefited greatly. You know who you are and I just want to say that I am grateful.' I also thank the Lucius

N. Littauer Foundation and the University of Scranton's Weinberg Judaic Studies Institute for providing me with financial assistance during the writ­ing ofthis book.

As always, my parents were full of encouragement, with my father con­slantly enquiring about the book's progress. My in-laws have likewise been a slrong source of support. This book could not have been written without my wife Lauren's understanding and patience, and I cannot express my gratitude ill words. She has given me a perfect home in which to raise our children. 1~;lCh ofthem is special in his or her own way, and it is to them that I dedicate Ihis book.

, <www.onthemainline.blogspot.com>.

, <http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?whichpage=I&topicid=585306&forum_id= , \('4> as well as elsewhere on this site. 6 <www.otzar.org/forums/index.php>. : III a few cases the internet sites, and the comment sections of blogs, where I first saw a

,1'I.'n·nce were no longer in existence when I checked them in the course ofwriting this book.

CONTENTS

List ofIllustrations xii

Note on Transliteration and Translation xv

List ofAbbreviations xvi

1. Introduction 1

2. Jewish Thought 56

3. Halakhah 8r

4. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch II9

s. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook 142

6. Sexual Matters and More r84

7. Other Censored Matters 212

8. Is the Truth Really That Important? 239

Bibliography 287

Index 333

4.1       R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, Igerot tsaJun, with his criticism of 126

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Maimonides deleted

4.2       R. David Tsevi Hoffmann, Melamed leho'il, vol. ii, no. 56, 134

censorship ofhis discussion ofhead covering I The White House, May 2011, images with and without Hillary vii Isaac Breuer, with and without head covering 136

4·3

Clinton

Israel Brodski, with and without head covering 1364·4

1.1       R. Abraham ben David, Katuv sham, encoded and uncensored 14

R. Leon Modena, with no head covering            1374·5editions

4.6       R. Moses Gentili, with and without head covering 138

1.2       Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy magnet, displaying the motto 23 R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, with 139

'The Truth and Nothing but the Truth' 4·7

and without head covering

1.3       Title page ofR. Michel Zalman Shurkin, Harerei kedem, 29

5.1       R. Abraham Samuel Tsevi Zilberstein, Korban shemuel, with 156omitting reference to R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik's association with

R. Abraham Isaac Kook's haskamah whited outYeshiva University

5.2       R. Isaiah Joseph Margolin, Hama'aseh vehamidrash, with and 158

1.4       R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik, R. Aaron Kotler, and Irving Bunim at a 31 without R. Abraham Isaac Kook's haskamah

Chinuch Atzmai dinner in 1956, original image and as cropped Letter from R. Tsevi Yehudah Kook, showing censorship ofhis 180

5·3 reference to Tolstoy

2.1       Moses Hyamson's translation ofMaimonides' Mishneh torah, 62

showing sections left untranslated

6.1       Title page ofMaimonides' Mishneh torah, 1702 edition, censored 186

2.2       Maimonides, Guide ofthe Perplexed, uncensored and censored 72 and uncensored versions

editions 2·3 R. Joseph Karo, Shul~an arukh, uncensored 1806 edition, 76

6.2 Title page ofR. Joseph Karo's Shul~an arukh, 1577/8 and 1698 188 showing the Vilna Gaon's comment attacking philosophy

editions

6·3       Title page ofR. Mordechai jaffe's Levush, 1603 edition and 189R. Joseph Karo, Shul~an arukh, 1564 edition, with his comment

J.I         84 that kaparot is a foolish custom censored reprint

6·4       Title page ofR. Joel Sirkes' She'elot uteshuvot haba~ 190 (Frankfurt, 1697)

3.2       R. Solomon Ganzfried, Kitsur shul~an arukh, censorship of201: 4 86

3·3 R. Abraham Danzig, I;layei adam, censorship of144: 20 100 (,·5 Haggadah (Prague, 1526) 192

R. Moses Sofer, I;lidushim: seder mo'ed, with uncensored

3·4 103 comment on the time ofsunset

6.6 Haggadah (Venice, 1603) 193 Placar~testing against R. Moses Stern's censorship ofR. Moses

R. Menahem Abraham Rapa Porto, Min~ah belulah, variations 194

6·7

Sofer's c ,mentary

3·5       105 on the coat ofarms

3.6       R. Moses Sofer, She'elot uteshuvot ~atam sofer, 'Oral:ll:layim', 108

6.8 Title page ofR. Jacob Pollak's Vayakem edut beya'akov, original 194 censorship of responsum no. 101

and censored versions

Censorship ofR. Moses Feinstein's responsum on the us(' ora 110

7. 1 Entsiklopedyah talmudit, with and without a passage from 214 walking stick on the Sabbath 3·7 Maimonidt's

3.8       Ct·nsorship orR. IOS('ph Hayirn, Rav pr'alim, vol. iv, 'Sod YC'sharirn',

7.2 R. Mos('s Ila~i:.~, Mishnat ~akhamim, sh()win~ his n'ft-n-net' to J.16 no. ~, p(·rrnillinj.4thr trimrnillj.4 ofhr.mlH tht' ChriNti:UI IIt'hrulNt lohulIlI ChriNtoph Wolf

"5

s 

'·3  Partial translation ofEsther 9 in Morris Silverman (ed.), The  218 

Complete Purim Service (1947) 

'·4  Autograph manuscript ofR. Moses Sofer's ethical will  221 

'·5  R. Naphtali Tsevi Judah Berlin, Meshiv davar, vol. ii, no. 6r, original 226 

and censored versions 

,.6  R. Pinhas Shapiro, Midrash pin/:las (Lemberg, 1872), showing his  23 0 

negative comment about R. Nahman of Bratslav 

,.,  R. Israel Meir Hakohen, Shemirat halashon, 'Sefat tamim' 4Ia, with  232 

and without reference to the Ba'al Shem Tov 

,.8  R. Joshua Joseph Hakohen, Ezrat kohanim, showing censorship of  23 6 

discussion on offering sacrifices in the absence ofthe Temple 

NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION

AND TRANSLATION

THE TRANSLITERATION of Hebrew in this book reflects consideration of the type ofbook it is, in terms ofits content, purpose, and readership. The sys­tem adopted therefore reflects a broad approach to transcription, rather than the narrower approaches found in the Encyclopaedia Judaica or other systems developed for text-based or linguistic studies. The aim has been to reflect the pronunciation prescribed for modern Hebrew, rather than the spelling or Hebrew word structure, and to do so using conventions that are generally familiar to the English-speaking reader.

In accordance with this approach, no attempt is made to indicate the dis­tinctions between alefand ayin, tet and taJ, kafand kuJ, sin and samekh, since these are not relevant to pronunciation; likewise, the dagesh is not indicated except where it affects pronunciation. Following the principle of using con­ventions familiar to the majority of readers, however, transcriptions that are well established have been retained even when they are not fully consistent with the transliteration system adopted. On similar grounds, the tsadi is ren­dered by 'tz' in such familiar words as barmitzvah. Likewise, the distinction between /:let and khafhas been retained, using /:l for the former and kh for the latter; the associated forms are generally familiar to readers, even if the dis­tinction is not actually borne out in pronunciation, and for the same reason the final heh is indicated too. As in Hebrew, no capital letters are used, except that an initial capital has been retained in transliterating titles of published works (for example, ShullJan arukh).

Since no distinction is made between alefand ayin, they are indicated by ;\ n apostrophe only in intervocalic positions where a failure to do so could lead atl English-speaking reader to pronounce the vowel-cluster as a diphthong­as, for example, in ha'ir-or otherwise mispronounce the word.

The sheva na is indicated by an e-perikat 01, reshut-except, again, when ('stablished convention dictates otherwise. The yod is represented by i when it occurs as a vowel (bereshit) , by y when it ()nllrS as a consonant (yr.sodot) , and by yi when it occurs as both (yisra'el) . Names have generally been left in their familiar forms, even when this is itl(,()lIsislt'tlt with the oVl'rall systl'lll.

1lt'!>n'w NOIlr(,('N of" ~t'r\('r;11 i,,!c'n'st haV!' ht't'll tr""sI;Itl'd, whil(' thoNt' of a lIlort'lc'rhllinllllatllrt' haVl' IIOt.

EJ HUCA

]]S JQR JSI] JSQ

PAAJR

TUMJ

ABBREVIATIONS

Encyclopaedia Judaica Hebrew Union College Annual Journal ofJewish Studies Jewish Quarterly Review Jewish Studies Internet Journal Jewish Studies Quarterly Proceedings ofthe American Academy ofJewish Research

Torah u-Madda Journal

Mishnaic and Talmudic Tractates

AZ  Avodah zarah 

BB  Bava batra 

Beits.  Beitsah 

Bekh.  Bekhorot 

Ber.  Berakhot 

Bik.  Bikurim 

BK  Bavakama 

BM  Bava metsia 

Eruv.  Eruvin 

Cit.  Citin 

Ifag.  Ifagigah 

Ifal.  Ifalah 

Hor.  Horayot 

Iful.  Ifulin 

Kel.  Kelim  

Ker.  Keritot 

~

Ket.  Ketubot 

Kid.  Kidushin 

Mak.  Makot 

Meg.  Megilah 

Men.  Mena~ot 

MK  Mo'edkatan 

Naz.  Nazir 

Ned.  Nedarim 

Pes.  Pesa~im 

RH  Rosh hashanah 

San.  Sanhedrin 

Shabo  Shabat 

Shev.  Shevuot 

Sot.  Sotah 

Ter.  Terumot 

Yev.  Yevamot 

INTRODUCTION

T

HE REI SOFT EN ATE N S 10 N between the quest for historical truth and the desire ofcommunities offaith to pass on their religious message. This is because lifestyles and outlooks often change drastically over the genera­tions, while the traditional religious mindset views itself as carrying on the values ofthe past, the latest link in a lengthy chain. Before the rise ofmodern historical scholarship, this was an issue that rarely ifever came to the fore. Yet now, when we are so much more attuned to the past, and the study ofhistory is an important part ofour lives, there is no escaping the fact that 'tradition' and history are often at odds with each other.

Jacob Katz put the matter bluntly when as a young student in Germany he declared that 'there is no Orthodox history'.l One who studies the Jewish past and wishes to be taken seriously as a historian cannot for dogmatic reasons declare ahead of time what his research will reveal. Yet in the eyes of many Orthodox religious leaders, this is precisely the type ofhistory that is needed, and it is what the masses must be indoctrinated in. Call it 'Orthodox history', 'haredi history', or any other name, recent decades have seen a virtual ex­plosion ofworks of this nature. They all diverge, some drastically, from how history is approached in the academy, and can be seen as a counter-history?

Haym Soloveitchik has described the genre as follows:

Didactic and ideological, this 'history' filters untoward facts and glosses over the d;Hker aspects ofthe past. Indeed, it often portrays events as they did not happen. So does memory; memory, however, transmutes unconsciously, whereas the writing of II i story is a conscious act. But this intentional disregard offact in ideological history is no different from what takes place generally in moral education, as most such illstruction seems to entail misrepresentation of a harsh reality. We teach a child,

, Katz, With My Own i:'yr.s, 112.

, I pn'l('1' 'Orthodox history' to 'han'di history', since much of what we deal with in this book h;IS nothilll( to do with tht' harl'di colTllTlunity. Lt'st th,' reader misunderstand me, let me clarify Ihat I do lIot 1111'0111 that Orthodox JI'WN rallnotlllNO hI' al'atlc'mil' or 'ohjcctive' historians. The issue 11I1I11'U1I1'I'rtlI'd wllh IN N(Hulll'd 'Orthodox hiNtnry', lIot Orthodox hiNtorlans, alld not all Orthodox JI'WN wrltr '( )rtllll(]ox hlNtllry' (lhuliMIi 1111 'Ortllll(]ox hlNlory' i. writtl'1I hy Orthodox Jew.,.

for example, that crime does not pay.... Yet we do not feel that we are lying, for when values are being inculcated, the facts of experience-empirical truth­appear, somehow, to cease to be 'true'.J

This so-called 'Orthodox history', which insists in viewing the past through

the religious needs ofthe present, is, as we shall see, only the latest manifesta­

tion of a lengthy tradition. It is a tradition that long pre-dates our current

assumptions about the need for objectivity in telling the story ofour past and

the importance ofabsolute truth in our writing.

Jacob J. Schacter was the first to examine this matter in detail, in a lengthy

article written in response to the controversy that broke out over my publi­

cation ofletters from R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg (1884-1966) to Samuel Atlas

(1899-1978).4 In his article, Schacter called attention to a fascinating essay by

David Lowenthal, which is very helpful in understanding the phenomenon of

'Orthodox history'. Lowenthal distinguishes between 'history' and 'heritage'

(and ifwe adopted his terminology we would speak of'Orthodox heritage').

Heritage should not be confused with history. History seeks to convince by truth, and succumbs to falsehood. Heritage exaggerates and omits, candidly invents and frankly forgets .... Heritage uses historical traces and tells historical tales. But these tales and traces are stitched into fables closed to critical scrutiny. Heritage is immune to criticism because it is not erudition but catechism-not checkable fact but credulous allegiance. Heritage is not a testable or even plausible version ofour past; it is a declaration offaith in the past. ... Heritage diverges from history not in being biased but in its view of bias. Historians aim to reduce bias; heritage sanctions and strengthens it.s

Elsewhere he writes: '[H]eritage is not history at all; while it borrows from and enlivens historical study, heritage is not an inquiry into the past but a celebra­tion of it, not an effort to know what actually happened but a profession of faith in a past tailored to present-day purposes.'6

Lowenthal is speaking about the creation of myths in all sorts ofcommu­nities, and what he says resonates just as powerfully when looking at parts of Jewish society. Yoel Finkelman has also recently discussed how the American haredi commun~ascreated a history ofeastern Europe that is both nostal­gic and inspirational. However, as he also remarks, for this community and for others like it, 'what happened may be less important than what stories we

'I

Soloveitchik, 'Rupture and Reconstruction', 1'15.

• M, B. Shapiro, 'Scholars and I'ril'nds' ; Srharlt'r, 'I'adllil II ... 'Ihllh" of IIiMlory',

, I.ow(·nlhal, 'Fabrkalillllikritalll" . 7·-lt SdulI'll'l' IlulllrM IhlM JlIIMMIIIII' Itl 'Flllltllllhl' 'II-lillis', "'14, Sri' alNo Shall., 'NolhhlM hilI Ihr 'Ihllh~', I" I, \.owrllllu,I'. hook-lrllMlh 111'1111111'111 IN 'I'llr Ilrrilllllr ('rluud~ und IlIr ,IIpll/h Ilrlll~I""y, • '/'It, II,rllU/j' ('ru~"l/r ,,"d llir ,'ip"lI., ,,/I IIdol')l, 1', _,

tell one another about what happened'.7 As Finkelman notes, occurrences are invented, or covered up, all in the effort to create a tangible group identity, that is, 'for teaching members about what it means to be part ofthe group'.s

Defending the haredi perspective, R. Shimon Schwab (1908-95) fam­ously explained matters as follows:

What ethical purpose is served by preserving a realistic historic picture? Nothing but the satisfaction of curiosity. We should tell ourselves and our children the good memories of the good people, their unshakeable faith, their staunch defense of tradition, their life of truth, their impeccable honesty, their boundless charity and their great reverence for Torah and Torah sages .... Rather than write the history of our forebears, every generation has to put a veil over the human failings of its elders and glorify all the rest which is great and beautiful. That means we have to do without a real history book. We can do without. We do not need realism, we need inspiration from our forefathers in order to pass it on to posterity.9

7 Finkelman, Strictly Kosher Reading, 99. In the recent anonymous biography of R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (1910-2012), Hashakdan, i. 12, the author acknowledges that some ofthe stories he repeats may not be true, but adds that 'they don't tell such stories about me and you', For him, this is reason enough to include the stories, as their purpose is to inspire the reader so that one day 'it will be possible to tell such stories about us'. See also R. Baruch Shmuel Deutsch's preface to Asher Bergman, Toledot maran harav shakh, where he mentions the great spiritual value of knowing the history of the gedolim (great Torah leaders), especially when the stories told can be verified. In other words, even stories ofquestionable veracity can have spiritual value.

• Finkelman, Strictly Kosher Reading, 99. For a recent study ofhow great rabbis are portrayed in haredi literature, see Hakak, 'Holy Amnesia'. Hakak notes that some figures in the haredi world have begun to criticize the dominant haredi approach to historical writing. For criticism from the J,wrdal world, see E. Melamed, Revivim: nisuin, 94. l;lardal is a neologism formed from iJaredi­lr'umi (lit.: 'fervently Orthodox-nationalistic'), and refers to an ideology that combines Zionism wilh trends usually identified with the haredi world, such as a conservative approach to halakhah ;\lIt] the attribution ofgreat authority to rabbinic leaders in communal life.

I~ . Isaac Hutner's (1906-80) criticism of hagiography is often quoted; see his PaiJad yitsiJak, .'.17, See also R. Leopold Greenwald, Matsevet kodesh, 138, which criticizes R, Moses Sofer's (1 7()z-1839) grandsons for omitting all mention ofthe difficulties Sofer encountered when he first I,,'ramt' rabbi in Pressburg. See also Greenwald, OtsarneiJmad, 69ff. R. Abraham Isaiah Karelitz, IIII' Ila7.0n Ish (1878-1953), stated that it is important to know the truth about great Torah sages. I'" lilrtll('r noted in this regard that one need not worry about leshon hara (gossip and slander). Illst as then' is no issue of leshon hara when one asks about the quality of a workman, since it IS I\('('('ssary knowlt'dlolt', so too il is nt'ct'ssary to know about the nature ofgreat Torah sages. See KOIII'Iilz, Kovrts igrmt iJuzon i ,~h, vol. ii, no, lB. Yet dt'spite this, we will see that when it came to fl , SalllSIHI H:lph:\C'1 Ilirsl'lI, thl' Ilazon Ish did not want th(' harcdi public to know all of Hirsch's Ii'll!' vic'ws; sc'C' hc·low, pp. I},}, 1, SC'e' also H, Jamb Saphir, fiv(l1 sapir, introd.. pp. 1-2 (unpalolinated), who 11MI'M thl" !Iihlr and rahhink lilrralurr 10 drffond hiH :lpprn:ICh ofl('lIing Ih(' lrulh ahoul peopll' ,mel mlllllllllllllrH, rvrll 1f'lIIH nol Ho fllIttrrinll,

• Srhwllh, ,'irlr"'r" Wrll/""~. ..11'1, In 1I11 Itllrrvlrw wllh Elliol RrHnlrk, H, NOHHon Srhrnnun, Ihr IIrllrrul rdllm or ArISnoll, WUN IINkrc\ U\1I1111 hlN c'lIl11pllnY'M whllrwlINhhlllllf hlMlllry, III' rrpllrd:

If we accept the judgement ofYosefHayim Yerushalmi, Schwab's position is actually quite biblical. As Yerushalmi put it, 'The biblical appeal to remem­h('r thus has little to do with curiosity about the past. Israel is told only that it must be a kingdom ofpriests and a holy people; nowhere is it suggested that it become a nation ofhistorians.'lo Even a biblical book supposedly dedicated 10 history, the book ofChronicles, is actually far from a detached recording of what happened in the past. This was sensed even in the medieval period, and the commentary attributed to Rashi (I040-II05) points out a number of tilllPS that the book ofChronicles has as one ofits goals the portrayal ofKing David in a positive fashion.1I Rabbinic literature is little different when it rom('s to r('cognizing the value offactual history. In the words ofM. D. Herr: 'II apr('ars that the Sages understood clearly the superiority and benefits ofa fictitious d('scription. In this, they are no different from other great moralistic wrill'fs in various timps and places.on

Tradilionalist scholars, including R. Tsevi Hirsch Chajes (I805-55) and It Yt'llIldah I krzl Henkin, have also recognized the Sages' efforts at white­washing misu('eds by biblical figures. \3 It is with clear ideological motives

'Our goal is to incrl'asl' 'Ibrah learning and yiras shamayim [fear of Heaven]. If somebody can be inspired by a gadol "'yi~ruelloutstanding Torah leader], then let him be inspired. Is it necessary to say that he had shortcomings? Does that help you become a better person?'; see Jewish Press, 6 June 2007. See also my Seforim Blog post, 17 May 2012, where I demonstrated how a translation of a letter by R. Ovadyah Bertinoro (c.[44S-C.ISIS), published by a haredi press, had deleted Bertinoro's comment that most of the young Jewish women in Palermo were already pregnant at their weddings. 'The motivation of this censorship was obviously to shield the masses from the knowledge that even in pre-Reform Europe violation ofhalakhah was a common phenomenon in some places.

10 Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory, 10. On p. 6 he writes: 'For those reared and educated in the modern West it is often hard to grasp the fact that a concern with history, let alone the writing ofhistory, is not an innate endowment ofhuman civilization.'

II See Y. H. Sofer, Berit ya'akov, 13; Kalimi, Retelling ofChronicles, 203-4; Viezel, Commentary on Chronicles (Heb.), 24S ff. (called to my attention by Yitzhak Berger). R. Isaac Abarbanel (1438­Is08) also noted that Chronicles has an agenda. See Lawee, Isaac Abarbanel's Stance toward Tradi­tion, 176-7. A prime example of this is that Chronicles does not mention anything about the David-Bathsheba epi~de. See also Najman, 'Rewriting as Whitewashing'.

12 Herr, ''The Sages' Concept of History' (Heb.), 139. See also Rubenstein, Rabbinic Stories, 12, which describes the nature of rabbinic 'history' as follows: ''The [rabbinic] storytellers were not attempting to document "what actually happened" out ofa dispassionate interest in the objective historical record, or to transmit biographical facts in order to provide pure data for posterity. This type of detached, impartial writing ofa biography is a distinctly modern appro,u:h. Nowadays we distinguish biography from fiction ... . In pre-modern cultUrt'S, how('vl'[, till' distillliioll belW('l'n bioKraphy and fiction was blurred. Ancient authors Haw thl'fIIHl'lVl'1I 1111 11'..,hNN, 1Ilid IIII'Y Wl'r!' IIlml' (,(lI1t'ernl'd wilh thl' didllt'lir poilll tllOl" with hilltorlclllaITurat'y.'

" SrI' Chlljl'Il, K,I/ JI/rr/ m"h"ral~ ,,"yr..I, I. I;U-~, 111111 hi. IInlr nil 11'1' SuI, ,hll; Y. II, I '1'IIklll, IInlri v,,"/m, vol. Iv, "UMY 110. " , SrI' 1111111 Hlrllt'hrllllllhll, Nlmuk~1 r"./lI, II, nu; It MIHllllliynt, IIubllYllvlm

that ambiguous figures in the Bible are drawn more sharply in the aggadah.

This is not merely in the direction ofpiety, but also to stress the wickedness of

those figures, such as Esau, who do not appear so evil in the biblical text

itself.14 The modern hagiographies follow in this path, at least with regard to

the focus on piety.

One should not assume that the contrast between realistic history and

hagiography is something only discovered in modern times. We have plenty

of examples of medieval scholars who were aware of the rabbinic concern

with saving the reputation ofbiblical figures, but still expressed their prefer­

ence for the simple reading of Scripture. For example, in commenting on

Genesis 35: 22, which mentions that Reuben slept with Bilhah, his father's

concubine, R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (I089-u64) states: 'Our Sages explained

this beautifully, for "a prudent man concealeth shame" [Provo 12: 16].'

In this comment, Ibn Ezra is alluding to the interpretation ofR. Jonathan (cited by R. Samuel ben Nahmani), who rejects the literal meaning of the verse and instead declares that Reuben's only crime was in moving Jacob's bed from Bilhah's tent to that ofLeah.15 By citing the verse from Proverbs, Ibn Ezra lets the reader know that he understands and sympathizes with this defence of Reuben's honour, even though it is not historically accurate and the 'shame' is quite reaP6 R. Jonathan elsewhere absolves David ofthe sin of adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam. II), claiming that Uriah had issued her a divorce.17 Despite R. jonathan's claim, a number oftraditional authorities do not accept his approach (which R. Jonathan also uses with reference to a few other biblical figures18), and regard David as having sinned in this matter. This, of course, is the plain sense of the biblical story as well as that of Nathan's rebuke (2 Sam. II_I2).19

bamikra. Regarding the reverse phenomenon, that of the Sages pointing to negative aspects of biblical heroes even where there is no apparent support for these judgements in the biblical text, see A. Y. Chwat, ''Those Who Are Innocent' (Heb.).

'4 Regarding Esau, see Kugel, How to Read the Bible, 138ff. 15 BT Shabo SSb.

,. Ibn Ezra is more explicit in Yesod mora, T 9, where he speaks of the 'defilement' of Bilhah, which was the reason Jacob would no longer sleep with her. From the Talmud itself, BT Shabo 55b, we see that not all the Sages agreed with R. jonathan's defence of Reuben. His approach is also rejected by R. David Kimhi, Commentary on the Torah, Gen. 3S: 22, and R. Joseph Bekhor Shor, Commentary on the Toruh ,G.'n. 35: 21.. BT Shabo s6a.

17

'M

See BT Shah. 55"-56". It Moses Kunitz ([774-[837), HametsareI. vol. i, no. 2, assumes that It Jonathan's vil'wpoint was not shart'd by the' other Sages.

.. S('t' Abarhalll'l. Commmlary on J, S<lIII. IJ.: 1\; R. Judah bar Nathan in Teshuvot /:Iakhmei provans, no. 71: I'M "lM nl,n 1l"11 1"01ll1l nm" "on .,., "ml'lI 0")lM1 tl'''o, '70' Vl1ll nl I'lVl 1M"" "1"]111 1"11110 "T'll "lI1' M'PIl; R. 1111111111 IIf'1hllti. (.'ommmtaryoll I'll. ~1: 1 (hut N('" hiN oppoNiliM view in 2 SO/Ill. [.I: 4. lIotll IIf It 1""lah',, ('(IIIIIIII'IIIIIrll'II lIJ1pl'lIr III Ihr 'I',,"h,,"' IIlId 'SlIlIIurl' vlllull1rN of till' Mlk"",,, "rall/'" "uk,,'rr, puhlt"hrtl hy 11111'·111111 IIl1lvl't"lty); Ihll Kllllri. Aa"r/ kt'.It'I,1.1111 " SIIJII. ,, : h;

The issues I have discussed in the preceding paragraphs also resonate in general discussions of historiography. To mention only a few sources from antiquity, Cicero declared that there are two rules obligating a historian. The first is that he 'shall not dare to advance a falsity', and the second that 'there is no truth that he shall suppress'.20 Yet these goals were often not met. Thus, Plutarch presented his Parallel Lives 'in a rather idealized fashion, with the intention of conveying moral examples to imitate or avoid'.21 The other ancient historians acted similarly, for they shared the view 'that the point of history is to celebrate the past ... and to provide examples ofbehaviour for the present'.22 Even Cicero himself, despite his insistence on telling truthful history, 'believed that the past could be-and should be-manipulated and embroidered in order to bring out important moral or exemplary points'.2J

History as written in the medieval period became even more fanciful and was indeed very similar to 'Orthodox history'. As Ruth Morse has docu­mented, medieval writers did not think that there was a contradiction between telling the truth ofwhat had happened in the past, and altering and recreating aspects of this past, all at the same time. In this conception, the writer is not a passive recorder ofthe past but one who helps create our image ofit. As Morse puts it, 'to ask why medieval writers claimed that what appears to us obviously "invented" material was "true" is another reminder of the incommensurability ofour cultures'. 24 She continues:

Maika, Mikveh hamayim, vol. vi, 'Even ha' ezer', no. II; Peniri, Kol sason, 260-1. I learnt ofR. Isaiah of Trani and Ibn Kaspi from Angel, 'Abarbanel: Commentator and Teacher', 20. See also BT Ket. 9a (and Rashi, s.v. ukhema'aseh), which assumes that Bathsheba was still a married woman when she was with David, and according to one opinion, that she was 'compelled' to have sex with him. BT AZ 4b-Sa also assumes that David sinned (though his action was predestined); cf. Tosafot, BT Yoma 66b, s.v. mahu. A good discussion ofthe issue can be found in Medan, David and Bathsheba (Heb.).

:ro De Oratore, book 2, ch. IS.

21 Kelley, Faces ofHistory, 46. See ibid. 65, where with reference to Roman historians as a whole, Kelley writes: '[FJor all their professions of truth, none of these historians were "objective" in a modern sense; all were eager to celebrate the moral virtues which had made Rome great and to decry the decline whic~sthreatening its eternal claims.'

22 Morse, Truth and Convention, 94. See also Struever, Language of History, 24 (referred to by Morse).

23 Morse, Truth and Convention, 97. It has long been recognized that .. ncit·llt historians invented the speeches they put into the mouths of various fiRures. SI'(' Ml'tzR<'r. 'l.itl'racy Forgeries', 9. See also Veyne, Did the Greeks Believe in Thdr Myth.\?, p. xi: Tht'f(' was a tilTH' wht'll poets and historians invented royal dynaHti('s all of a pi!"(,I', ('olllpll'tr with tilt' 1I~IIIt' of radl pot('ntate and his Kf'nealoKY. They Wt'rr not filfK!"f", noc WI"r!" Ihl'Y al'tillll Itl had f~lth. Th!"y WI'C!" simply fi)lIowinR what waH, at th!" tillll', thl' Ilnrrll~1 wily nf~trlvltlllilt thl' trllth.'

" MUfMr, '/~ulh UI1IJ Convm/ltln, ;&.

'Historical' ... might be thought of as an exemplary narrative based upon events which had occurred at some point in the past, told in order to move and persuade its audience to imitate the good and eschew the evil, a 'true tale about the past' which included a vast range of what modern readers would regard as invented material and inappropriate, if implicit, moralizing .... In the different conceptual space of the Middle Ages, 'true' might mean 'in the main' or 'for the most part' true, or even, 'it could have happened like this'.25

Although the writing ofhistory in Western culture has, ofcourse, moved beyond this, 'Orthodox history' still carries on this medieval tradition, a tradi­tion that found expression in numerous pre-modern Jewish historical works.2 Yet 'Orthodox history' also has other characteristics which are paral­

•

leled in modern times by 'Soviet history', where 'truth' was entirely instru­mental and what was accepted as fact one day could be entirely rewritten the next.27

Historical Truth and Communal Memory

What I am attempting to do in this book is to show how common 'instrumen­tal truth' has been, in particular in the last century. My focus is not primarily on works ofhistory, which is where people usually look for this type ofinfor­mation, but rather on all sorts of texts that are the lifeblood of traditional Jewish communities. We must not forget that for these communities, in par­ticular the haredi community which to a significant extent is a community of scholars, the written word is central. Even the masses in the haredi world are avid consumers ofthe written word, which is not usually the case in commu­nities where television, sports, or any ofcountless other pursuits are available for non-intellectuals. In fact, it is precisely because the written word is not reserved for the elites that Orthodox writers and publishers worry about how certain texts will affect those who perhaps cannot 'handle them'. When it is only intellectuals who are doing the reading, ideological censorship is not a pressing concern. However, since the masses are now at risk ofbeing exposed to 'dangerous' material, this has created a phenomenon that as far as I know

" Ibid. 6 . '" This was so not just in historical works, but even in their translations. See Stanislawski, 'The Yiddish Shevef Yehudah'.

21

Soviet history was, of course, at the service of the state, which is a completely different pht'nollwllon from that which I alll discllssing. With the return of Jews to self-rule in their own land, this typt· ofhistorit'al appro:H'h was also St't'll. I think in particular ofthe creation ofthe myth, widl'ly Jrl'!"plt'd in Ihr ('arly dr(adt'H uf tht' Stal!' of Israt'l :Hld promo\('d hy the Kovernment for rt'aHom of r!"alpolitik, that thrrr wrrr 110 ('xplIl"ioIlH u/'Ionil ArahH. i{atllt'c. tht,y alllt,n IHral'! of thrif own Ic!"!" will. !"1l(,(lIlrUlIl'd In thiM hy Aruh II'~dl'r", with plllllN to rl'tllfll anl'c thl' lalld waH tllnqlll'rrtl hy thl' Afllh furn' •. SrI' MurriN, /IIrlh Il/lkr ltu/,dlnlun HrlulI~r I'mblr", Hr.vl~I',.J.

is not to be found in other religions. I am referring to pious guardians of the faith, usually self-appointed, who take it upon themselves to alter sacred texts, the texts written by great rabbis of the past and cherished by all traditional Jews.28

How should a community that prides itself on following the great figures of the past and a treasured historical tradition deal with texts and ideas that reflect a Weltanschauung at odds with the current religious climate? As we will see, it is vital for such a community that the events, actions, texts, and ideals of the past be made to conform to the present ideological moment. This book attempts to document how this phenomenon has played out in Orthodox Judaism, in particular in the branch known as haredi Orthodoxy. One can, on occasion, find similar manifestations in the other Jewish denominations and I will refer to a few ofthem. Yet, as we will see, the motivating factor is entirely different.29

The tension between historical truth and maintenance of a communal myth, what Lowenthal has called 'heritage', is seen in a fascinating letter of

R. Jacob Israel Kanievsky ('the Steipler', 1899-1985), one of the most out­standing haredi sages of the second half of the twentieth century. He was approached by someone who wanted to write about the Haskalah movement and its devastating effect on traditional Judaism. However, he was not sure how he should deal with the notorious Saul Berlin (1740-94), who forged a volume of responsa and attributed it to the medieval R. Asher ben Yehiel (c.I250-1327). Known as the Besamim rosh, this volume contains a number of reformist res pons a and was clearly designed to undermine rabbinic Judaism.

Kanievsky told him that he should not include anything about Berlin, giving four reasons. The first was the honour due to Berlin's forefathers: he came from an important rabbinic family and it would detract from its honour if Berlin's story became known. Kanievsky's second reason was that perhaps Berlin's soul had already received its punishment and was now cleansed. Therefore, bringing up this episode now could have brought harm to his soul in the world to come.

The last two reasons Kanievsky offered are, I think, the most important and certainly the ~trelevant for our purposes. Kanievsky wrote that discus­sion of the episode would be humiliating to those sages who had stood by Berlin, having been taken in by the forgery. In other words, since revealing

:III Schacter, 'Facing the Truths of History', was thl" first ul'tail,'d In'alnu'lIl of id,'olo!(ical censorship. Recently, Shmuel Glick has dOlll' SOfll,' illilial w(lrk (III illtrrnOlI l'rllsorship of responsa; see Glick, 'On Alt,'ratiollH' ,I-It'h.).

M

I havt' already nolrd how" rrrrlli hh1llrllphy uf SllIIll.Irhrmlllll ,1/1.)/1 '1<)/11) rrllHorN HlnHlj( nllhtNIIl of ConNrrvullvr rllhhl •. SrI' Illy S"ull.l~""rm",. "nd ,k, (JrllwdllK, "" II. "".

Ni

the mistake made by these sages would reflect poorly on their judgement in this matter, the historical record needed to be covered up. Kanievsky's final reason was that some people's faith would be weakened by the knowledge that someone who was regarded as a great Torah scholar had become a heretic. He concluded by saying that an article could be written about the destructive influence of the Haskalah without mentioning the names of the Torah scholars who had been led astray.30

Kanievsky's last reason is particularly revealing. From his perspective there is no reason for the masses to know about the whole Saul Berlin episode. They are supposed to believe that the more Torah knowledge one has, the greater one becomes. It would damage their faith to read of a great talmid h-akham who abandoned traditional Judaism. Most Torah scholars know about Saul Berlin, and all are well aware of similar people such as the talmudic figure Elisha ben Avuyah, that is, learned men who abandoned the tradition. However, among the masses there are some who cannot handle this information, and it should be kept from them.

Doesn't Everyone Have a Bias?

It hardly needs to be said that all historians have biases. Gershom Scholem famously spoke ofthe Wissenschaft des Judentums scholars' portrayal ofJewish history, which had no room for kabbalah, hasidism, messianism, and anti­nomianism, not to mention the study of Jewish criminals and the like, as nothing less than 'a form of censorship of the Jewish past'.31 While nine­teenth-century Jewish historians had, to their minds, justifiable reasons not to dwell on such matters, today all responsible historians recognize that this is not the way to approach history, and they are careful not to allow their precon­ceptions to slant the evidence consciously. Obviously, unconscious bias and distortions abound. However, 'Orthodox history' is in an entirely different category, and as already noted, resembles the 'official' histories found in the Soviet Union, or those commissioned by other communist governments or dictatorships.32 What all these histories have in common is that certain conclusions are disqualified from the start.3]

'" ). I. Kanievsky, Karyana de'igarta, vol. i, no. 81. See also Horovitz, Or/:lot rabenu, i. 285 , that Kanievsky assumed that many ofthe responsa in Besamim rosh were authentic, and that Berlin had insl'rted his f()r!(eu responsa among them. I believe it is more likely that all the responsa are It)r!(l'u, anu Ihal Ihl' nOlI·conlroVl'rsial OIlI'S w('re ('ft'atl'u by Berlin to giv(:' 'cover' to the radical I'l·spollsa. " St't' Scholt'm, Mr.ssianic Idea. ~05, 309.

" A fimllt'l' l·dilor oj'lh!' lillj(lis!t.laIlHllaj(1' 1I1'wspaprr Yalr.a tl('r.mun lolu 1It(·, ill all srriollsm'ss, l!till hiM job WilH likl' Ihill oj' I'ruvdu, illlhilt hI' urlrrlllillru whallhr 'hilrrdi) lIIilMsrM woulu rrild. 1'01' 11101'1' Oil rrll"ol'""lplll hlll'rdlllrWNpllprrN, Nrr Lrvy, Ilul.lliredlm, I'h. II).

01 1101' pl'rvlollN NltllllrN oil Ol'IIIInioH IItNhllluMlllplty, Nrr 11111'1111, 'It V,,'lIkuv I.lIil1I111.'N Zlkhrt>n

10

'Orthodox history' also differs from its academic counterpart in that there is conscious recognition that the history being written is part ofan ideological agenda, designed to instil the proper education and 'outlook' in the reader. Thus, not only censorship but even outright distortion is permissible, all in the name ofa higher truth. One ofthe most common examples ofrewriting, or distortions, we will see is when 'kosher' books, in order for them to remain kosher, need to be 'improved' a bit. I am not talking about books viewed as heretical, which even if not officially banned are regarded as forbidden read­ing. Rather, I am referring to standard books, part of the traditional Jewish library, which need to be altered in order to remain acceptable in the current religious climate. The point is to fool people into thinking that what they are reading or seeing is authentic, and to prevent them seeing things that would be problematic in the eyes ofthe censors. In most cases, the alteration is done in such a way that readers do not realize that anything has been changed in the text, for if they were to know it would defeat the whole purpose of the censorship. The acts of censorship, of which we will see many, and telling a story which one knows to be false are simply different stops along the same continuum, all ofwhich have the goal ofpreserving the faith and self-image of a community.14

The altering ofthe past does not occur simply because people are fearful of what will happen if the masses are exposed to certain things; there is also a more activist outlook. We did not need the totalitarian states to teach us that if you control the past, you have a much easier time controlling the present and the future. 35 This alteration of the past is openly acknowledged by some haredi writers. Thus, on the Dei'ah veDibur website, which carries articles from the haredi newspaper Yated ne'eman and advocates the Lithuanian yeshiva worldview, the following appears: 'A related complaint that is some­times made is that we leave out information. This is true, but the reason is that in our Torah-based scale ofvalues, the harm or embarrassment that can be caused to someone-perhaps a family member or bystander-rates much higher than the needs ofthe historical record or journalistic objectivity.'36

ya'akov' (Heb.); id., '~imon the Heretic' (Heb.); id., 'True Knowledge and Wisdom' (Heb.); Rapoport-Albert, 'HagiOgraphy with Footnotes'; Etkes, Gaon of Vilna (Heb.), ch. 4; Karlinsky, 'Dawn'; Assaf, Caught in the Thicket (Heb.); on p. 22 n. II, Assafcites some other relevant studies.

14 See the earlier comments ofAssaf, Caught in the Thicket (Hf'h.), 12, 100, and ~5 II:. whf're hf' provides a few examples ofcensorship ofthf' sort to which this hook is dl'voh·d. " Cf. G('orge Orwf'II, Nineteen Fighty-Four, vi: "'Who ('Olltrois tilt' p;lsl". rail 1111' Parly slo~all, "mntrols Ihl' flltllrl': who controls thl' pn'sl'nl ('Olltrois till' P"~t."·

., 'On Writin!! HioJ.lr:lphi"N of G,'dolim', .:www.rh..rridl.U1R-. ontIIl.IIOIII.· P"!!I'. Tltl' artkl,' llriHinally appl'al'rd in 1>1'1',,11 vrl >lhm . ... ~ May J.OO~, .hll.. :llwww.dlurrltll.III·H/.. rrlllvl."r7(.~1 h.., IlIlk"M"l/lIhloWphllt'k(,~ .lttlll ·"

The problem with this formulation is that the family member might be embarrassed that his relative attended Yeshiva University or thought highly of

R. Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935).37 Thus, the door has been opened to cen­sor and alter history for any subjective reason.38 The quotation above also refers to potential harm caused to a bystander as a valid reason for censorship. For example, from the haredi perspective the bystander might be harmed spiritually by seeing that a certain sage thought highly of Zionism. So again, we have a justification for not revealing the truth.

The concern with the honour of rabbinic figures can also explain many examples of censorship, and it is basic to the contemporary haredi mindset that matters that do not reflect well on rabbinic leaders should be covered Up.39 What this book hopes to show, however, is how fluid these types of judge­ments are, and how in one generation a story, halakhic decision, or philo­sophical viewpoint can be regarded as 'acceptable', while in a later generation that is no longer the case.

The great value that haredi society places on the reputations of rabbinic leaders can be seen in how haredi leaders reacted to R. Nathan Kamenetsky's Making ofa Godol. In this book, Kamenetsky attempted to portray great rab­binic figures (gedolim) in a realistic fashion. He obviously knew that he was moving into dangerous territory with this book, and in his introduction justi­fies his adoption of the realistic approach, rather than writing hagiography.

R. Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-88) had earlier defended such an approach when it came to examination ofbiblical figures:

The Torah never hides from us the faults, errors and weaknesses ofour great men. Just by that, it gives the stamp of veracity to what it relates. Were they without passion and without internal struggles, their virtues would seem to us the outcome ofsome higher nature, hardly a merit and certainly no model that we could hope to emulate... . From our great teachers of the Torah . .. we would accordingly learn that it may never be our task to whitewash the spiritual and moral heroes of our past, to appear as apologists for them. They do not require our apologies, nor do such attempts become them. Truth is the seal ofour Torah, and truthfulness is the principle ofall its true and great commentators and teachers.40

37 Regarding Kook, see Ch. 5 below. What has happened in regard to Kook can be seen in smaller measure with many othf'r rabbis associated with religious Zionism. One example is

R. Isaac Herzog (IRRR-1959). S(,C' C'.g. Breisch, Helkat ya'akov, which has an approbation by Hf'rzog; this was rl'tnoved in the Tel Aviv, 1992 edition publish('d by Breisch's sons.

I. Se(' my Sl'filrilll Illog post, 25 Ort. 200'). on l'Clv"ring lip IIH' facts that R. Shlomo Wolbe (191~-200S) 1':11111' frOlI! ;111 irn'ligiolis 1;lIl1ily alld that I~ . Aaroll Kotler's (IR')I -I')(>.l) sisler ahandOlIl'd tl'aditioll:Ji /llllaiNIII ,

,., W,' :IIKO liml 1101I·lIar .."i liWtrl," who Klwr!' th.. 11:0'..,11 ("(lllr..1'11 with rahhink rrpllt:ltioll~. Sr!' " ,j.!. S. /. ~upoJlort. /~rn't ,~hll', II. IJO. 011 thl' pllbll, ullllll 01 ~, 1....,,11 M"d..llu'" allh,hlow·aphy .

•, IIIINlh. /'mllllmdi. 10111111..111 011 (;1'11. 1..1: IU II. (lll lIilMlh'M III'Plllillll. Mrr JlliN"I.

R. Yonah Merzbach (1900-80), a haredi rabbi ofGerman origin, adopted a similar approach when it came to a great twentieth-century Torah scholar,

R. Abraham Elijah Kaplan (1889-1924). Kaplan wrote an essay expressing a very positive attitude towards Herzl and Zionism, concluding: 'As my faith in God increased, so grew my connection to Zionism.'41 Needless to say, such an essay is bound to be uncomfortable reading for today's haredi world.

This essay was later included in a collection of Kaplan's writings pub­lished by his son. When asked about the essay, Merzbach replied that he had opposed its sentiments when it originally appeared. Nevertheless, he insisted that it be republished and that Kaplan's 'son and students have no permission to conceal this article'. In words that stand as a challenge to much that we will see in this book, Merzbach further declared: 'We are not to be censors of gedolei yisra'el and their holy words.'42

Yet despite any such sources that could be cited in support of Kamenet­sky's 'realistic approach' to biography, and in opposition to censorship ofthe life and opinions ofgreat Torah scholars, the response from the haredi world was fast and furious, and resulted in the ban of Kamenetsky's Making of a Godol.43 Yoel Finkelman has summarized the matter quite well:

Haredi writers ofhistory claim to know better than the great rabbis ofthe past how the latter should have behaved. Those great rabbis do not serve as models for the present. Instead, the present and its ideology serve as models for the great rabbis. Haredi historiography becomes a tale of what observant Jews, and especially great rabbis, did, but only provided that these actions accord with, or can be made to accord with, current Haredi doctrine. The historians do not try to understand the gedolim; they stand over the gedolim. Haredi ideology of fealty to the great rabbis works at cross purposes with the sanitized history of those rabbis.44

The same concerns that haredi leaders had when it came to Kamenetsky's book were also present in an earlier dispute. This one focused on a comment of R. Israel Lipschutz (1782-1860) in his famous commentary on the Mishnah.45 Lipschutz records a legend whose upshot is that although people

'R. Samson Raphael ~sch's Interpretation' (Heb.); id., 'Sins of the Patriarchs', 269 ff. In his

commentary on Gen. 9: 24, Hirsch speaks ofthe need for the younger generatIOn to place a cloak

over the lapses of the older generation. However, here he is speaking about how the younger

generation should not gloat 'over the "nakedness" of the father', and should take from the elders

what is good and noble. He is not talking about creating a mythical righleous pasl lilT previous

generations.

" A. F.. Kaplan, Be'ikvot huyiruh, (jl.

•• St'l' Mt'rzhal'll'K h'Urr in IlalllhurKt'r, Ilumv yo"ull ItIrrlnukll, J.III .• .11.

•• Srr Illy 'of Books and BIIIIK'. •• JllllkrlrllulI, ,'i/,l, Ily I(II.llIrr HrIllJiIIK, IJ.J..

•• I.IPNlhIl11., '/l/;rr, yl.lru',I, 'KltllINhltl' ,.: ,..

are accustomed to think ofMoses as naturally righteous, in truth, he was born with a terrible nature and only through great effort was able to attain a state of holiness. Although no notice seems to have been taken ofthis passage during Lipschutz'S lifetime, or even in the first decades after his death, some later rabbis were outraged by his inclusion ofthe legend. In some editions of the commentary, this passage was even deleted.46

We find a similar concern with rabbinic honour in many other cases as well. How else is one to explain the fact that the complete autobiography of

R. Jacob Emden (1697-1776) has, as of2015, not yet appeared, though there have been three censored editions? When the complete autobiography does appear, it will be an academic publication, not one designed for the masses. This is because Emden's brutal honesty about both his own life and feelings (including sexual matters), as well as his judgements of other rabbinic lead­ers, makes this a very problematic book for many in the Orthodox world.

Another example ofconcern over the honour ofrabbinic figures leading to censorship is seen in the Katuv sham ofR. Abraham ben David ofPosquieres (Rabad; c.1I25-98). This book was directed against R. Zerahyah Halevi (twelfth century), who himself had written criticisms of the talmudic codi­fication of R. Isaac Alfasi (1013-1103). Rabad's scholarly battle against

R. Zerahyah was long-standing, and the language used most vituperative. In an earlier work directed against R. Zerahyah, Rabad even felt the need to justify his language, stating that he chose to adopt the Spanish approach which, he claims, allows disputants to appear as enemies on the field ofTorah battle, while in truth they love each other.47 Whether Rabad actually can be said to have loved R. Zerahyah, I will leave for others to decide. However, in the first publication ofKatuv sham, edited by M. Z. Hasidah,48 one finds a very strange passage, seen in Figure I.I(a).

Isadore Twersky had this passage in mind when he noted that 'Hasidah's manuscript concealed much of this vituperation in code.'49 Yet Twersky apparently did not realize two important points: first, it is not Hasidah's manuscript that concealed the vituperation, but Hasidah himself. No doubt the reason for this was the concern that in the modern climate Rabad will

.. See Leiman, 'R. Israel Lipschutz and the Portrait of Moses Controversy'.

.7 See Twersky, Ranad oj'l'osquirm, 42 .

.. Publishrd ill inslalnlt'nls in lhl' Wl't'kly I/U.1tllulull, IWKinning in 1(j33. The various inslalmrnls wl'n' rollr(\t'd in a onr·vollllllr pholo.oflill'l of lh,' work, puhlisht'd in /"rtJsalt'm in 1(j6(j. Thr pOissal(rs rrprodlll'rd III Ihr lrxl arr frolll p. 41 III Ihr 1')(,9 rdition (rditrd by M. 7.. IlaMldllh), lind p. 71111 Ihr 1')1)0 rdilion Ill' Ahnlh"III hrll D"vlll, Kuluv sllum.

.. TwrrMky, Hubuu (~rJl(l'l/uj;'I'f!., 1.11 II. "'4.

H

'Ut'M "0 'I""" .",")W M' n, ~, ", "'M1:)~

(:" 'I' nlWn WM"I)

< l1»'pn" n~"I~ ", rM nDM~ '1::nc :1:111 :nn:;)

. :19 ('~~~ :'I'DI' '1w n"'::l I('IC 'l'm::»,] "::I'D

'I( ."':'1:'1' l'»D 'l~ 1U):'I TN::I IV' • D:1':lN '~K'''I O'l'N:ln ,::I nND nmen "', ,~» 1" :n a'V)'w" O'D::I", a"":l :'11)::1 nMD' O'W "'D» aw:'I ow mm "mc ,::1" :'11:'1 li"TlD::I um 'WN "nllnD' "'ji'1V ;::1 ,y m,y mm ."1)::1 'i'V) "', nl»n:'l" a',i'1V N:lln; "lD"::1 "" 'lDI( 'WI( 0:'1::1 ,,,»m 'WM D""M "U::I O';::IDm o"nDn

,~p ", ~, ·M.M'~~> '~,'-oo~ ,,~~ lM~

-o'o~n' o·>"~ ~D~ nMo'.~~~Z_>"!_g:!2~~~ nMO

-"~3 2'3-D~~ D~~ D~ ~J~','nM '~'>.~'~ l~JO~ 'l~J '~M D·~·.·'

.·~l'~ M~l~> "JDn3 "" ~DM '~M ~~M~"D'~ 'Dl'~ >~ >v n"p nM"

DD-"Dl~'S-'DD Dn~ ,opnJ '~M D·'nM-",p:l.C'>~D~' D"non-n1vnn>1 40

O:'l'l'~ nw In n'ID 'w DM' ."TlD) I:lW D"lllC •

,~~1':l n'>l> 'J"",,'"" nit ,'pn','J"nn '~M ' •• "'~"'3" ,CM

D-lnJ '~M "~It-n,'n :lTP M>'.~~'P~~ ~3·~1~>'.~J~"> ~,ev "'n~>' 'W ,.,~,~, .r" C)'PDD'D lC;m n'::l :n'~Y :1D'1

->v '3'> :l'~M ~np1.~nD'. 1~>3 n,pn~~,Dn3 n,pnn>;'D~on> "3,'J>

'1Vji'" pm", ~ ,,~ VI/',)WD/',) 'DMW WDD I'K nl

0""-"', '3 '~M "'It >~> 00,1I)Z!I '3' MHTl!7 ~"PM1,11C~3 :In::l '~M 1,:aS

a-'IC:l'"SP P:lDO~:l n> l'M~ n,so 'M~ »::10 " n1SD ~ItS' ,'M '::I 45 l'N :'In,,, ,VIae," '111 ";"1 n~'~ 1'~D' ,n", ,'1w

DO.'D'~-n'so> 1~ n~':l n',o,~, n1l"::Il' n"::I>D ·J'.'D~n n~'l "

;;, 64.1:I1C ~, '::I' n;::IplV .wln "V1~ D'nVl llC~

DO n,p'pn~~,""M>' O'J~> lnD ~. 1C>~"n,p'pn> 'l1P on ,'M :"p,

;I·3rp,n, n ,,0 1I!' ,vp,n, n, l1.,::IT ........m'~n~r.'r"n'"':::"I,,·.iiiTi~~:+:,,.r;M...;;'ft.'~...~r=,;,;::-=--:T 1'''" [.'D '\' :"I::m») '''::ID '"::1 '9DW"'" nD'1C

l-38.~Ol· -M6.M~~ nl.-'3.­

'l 3r" .1DeD >'Me 1 ;QI~ D'nVl ae;, "') ,. ~W::I D'nVl ae'1 lae~ rae

3'J -"21.nD">

"M nac l'YpvI 11117 ..nln. 'D"," nwYl "I)' ....an

(al (b) .","" ,m 11)1'

FIRUre J.J R. Abraham ben David, Kollw.hom: (a) the encodlcl vmion in M. Z. H..ldah'. edition

(leN.atem: no publl.her alven, 1969): (II) the uncenlortd vtrtion In the 1990 Hilton U.Nlllem:

Hatam lofer Inltitute for Manulcrlpt RI..arch)

not come across very well among readers who see his harsh language.50 Secondly, while there is a code here, it is not that hard to break, as it is written in at-bash.51 In Figure I.I(b), from a I990 edition ofthe work, one can see how

the passage looks when decoded. Let me offer a few other examples ofthis tendency to cover up matters that might reflect poorly on rabbinic leaders. In I937 Abraham Isaac Rabinowitz published a small book ofhasidic tales. Despite Rabinowitz's good intentions, some felt that he was not careful enough in what he decided to include. One of his stories describes how some of the sons of R. Shneur Zalman Fradkin of Lublin (I830-I902) 'did not behave properly'. After the wife ofhis eldest son died, the widower remarried. Under the wedding canopy 'R. Shneur Zalman placed his hands on his son's head, and in a weeping voice cried out: "My son, God will help you to become a penitent." And his blessing was fulfilled, because he later travelled to the land of Israel and there he became a great ba'al teshuvah and almost a tsadik.'52 When this book was reprinted in I966, this story, which many would find moving, was omitted.53 It was not thought proper for the masses to know that a great man like R. Shneur Zalman had children who did not follow in his footsteps, even ifat least one ofthem later mended his ways.54 While the instance just mentioned deals with possibly embarrassing family history, we find cases where the embarrassment shielded by censor­ship relates to the rabbinic sages themselves. Disputes between great rabbis have not bee~ncommonin Jewish history, yet in the midst ofthese disputes, accusations have often been made that many in the Orthodox world would

50

On pp. 2-3 ofHasidah's edition of Katuv sham, he notes that he was very troubled by some of Rabad's harsh language and consulted with two sages in Jerusalem about whether he should delete these comments. They instructed him not to alter or omit any of Rabad's words. It is unknown why Hasidah later rejected what these two sages told him.

51

In the at-bash system, the last letter ofthe alphabet, tav, is substituted for the first letter, alef, the penultimate letter, shin, replaces the second letter, bet, and so on. See Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, 263. 52 A. 1. Rabinowitz, Ma!akhei elyon (1937 edn.), 40 (no. 4)·

53 See A. 1. Rabinowitz, Ma!akhei elyon (1966 edn.), 39. This edition also omits the passage,

p.

40 in the original edition, which describes how certain quarrelsome people made R. Shneur Zalman's life miserable, which led R. Shneur himselfto move to the land ofIsrael.

A.

1. Rabinowitz, Ma!akhei e!yon (1937 edn.), 24, also reports that R. Tsadok Hakohen of Lublin (1823-1900) crossed out the first comment ofTosafot in BT AZ, and that this volume is still to be found in R. Tsadok's beit midrash. Rabinowitz states that he does not know why R. Tsadok crossed it out. The editor of the 1966 edition did not regard this story as som(·thing the masses should see, and it was therefore deleted. For another examplC', NeC' A. Morgrnsll·rtl, Mysticism and Messianism (Heb.), 259-60, who notrN that in thl' puhllMhC'd Vl'nlOlI of thl' Vlllla Gaon's wand­son's introdurtion to hiM grllndfllthrr'M nmllnrlliury 011 Ihe Zohllr, rrlllllrk. thut drpkl Ihr (;:lon as

54

IUlvllllllltllr nlllrrTII with hi. fiunlly wrrr t\rlrlrtl,

now prefer to be forgotten. A good deal ofcensorship and rewriting ofhistory thus focuses on this area.55

A~other exam~le when some feel censorship is called for is if a sage egregIOusly erred m .what he wrote; the desire is therefore to cover up this error. I am not refernng to a case where the sage is thought to have erred in a theological matter, although there are examples of that as wel1.56 I am rather referring to a basic historical error. One instance of this relates to R. Eliezer David Gruenwald (I867-I928), who served as rabbi of the Orthodox com­~unityin Satm~r in the early part ofthe twentieth century. His responsa were gIven to R. DaVld ~atz~urg (I8~6-I937) to prepare for publication. Katzburg was a ~ne schola~ m hIS own nght and edited the Hungarian Torah journal Tel talp£yot. In gomg through Gruenwald's writings, Katzburg came upon a respons~m in which Gruenwald took another author to task for pointing out an error.l~ the?orah's chapter divisions. Gruenwald saw this as a unaccept­able pOSItion smce these chapter divisions go back to Moses at Sinai and as with everything else given to Moses, contain all sorts ofTorah wisdom. '

Katzburg was not sure what to do with this responsum, since to print it would show that the author was ignorant of a pretty basic matter, namely, that the chapter divisions found in the Pentateuch are of Christian origin. He therefore turned to two leading Hungarian scholars, R. Samuel Engel (I853-I935).a~d R. Mordechai Winkler (I844-I932), asking them how to pro­c~ed. Surpnsmgly, Engel too was unaware of the history of the chapter divi­SlOns, and .expre~s:d agreement with Gruenwald's view that the chapters were ofJeWIsh ongm (although unlike Gruenwald he was unsure ifthey went back to Moses). Winkler was more careful and suggested that the respon­slim should not be published before the matter was investigated. However,

" ThiS is th: ~otivation ofAharon Sorasky, who in 1991 published a volume, Yesod hama'a!ah, ,onla~nmg hasldlC letters from the land ofIsrael, but omitted documents that focused on an early lIasldlC ~Ispute. He justified this omission by citing Provo 2f 2: 'It is the glory of God to conceal .1 IlIltlg. See Assaf, It IS the Glory' (Heb.). See also the preface to the Jerusalem, 1987 edition of It Menahem Mendel ofVitebsk's .Peri ha'arets. R. Hayim Hezekiah Medini (1833-19°4) wrote to s'l1nl~el Abba Horodetzky protesting the latter's inclusion, in one of his works, of R. Solomon 1.11na S (1510-74) ~trong w~rds of criticism against certain figures (among them R. Joseph Karo (14XX -1575)). Medml al~o Cited Provo 2S: 2. See Medini, Igerot sedei /:Iemed, vol. i, no. II. In the 17th "·IIL..th~ rabbiS ofVemce .or~er~d that a .page of R. Meir of Lublin's (1558-1616) posthumously IHlhllslH d responsa, Manhlr emel /:Iakhamlm, be replaced with a new page because it contained an .• II.lrk Oil .;t. de~eased rabbi from Mantua and the latter's children had lodged a protest. See M,ult'l1:I, Zlknrl yrhudah, no. 28; Rivkind, 'Dikdukei sefarim', 427-8; Adelman, 'Success and 1'.111111 t· , 4tJ7-X. I h·hn·whooks.orR has two mpies of this work; one has the original page (I4a) and lilt' olhrr IN thr rrl1Norrd vrrsiol1.

.. Fur rxuflIplr,a srrtioll from 01 HrrmOIl of It Ezrkirll.andOlIl (171~-9~) in which he questioned Ihr ulllhrllllrily 01 Ihr Zohur WUN drll'lru from II pOMlhllrnflllNly pllhliNhl'd vollirnr. ThiN NC'dion h~N Irc rlilly hrrll )lllhllMhrcilll KllhlllllllllHl Silher, '\)rIHIN, SlIhhllllllllN,lInd KllhhullNIN' (11C'h.~.

Katzburg did not need to investigate anything, as he knew the history of this matter quite well. His only question was whether it was proper to publish a responsum that makes an obvious error. Since Winkler agreed that ifGruen­wald was mistaken the responsum should not be published, this is the path Katzburg followed.57

A similar example appears in a volume of commentary on the Torah by

R. Judah Leib Diskin (1818-98) that first appeared in 2008. Not long after the volume was published, someone noticed that Diskin, who identified with Jerusalem's extremist Orthodox community, quotes from the work Hakorem. This was written by the notorious maskil Herz Homberg (1749-1841), who by the end ofhis life had 'incurred the nearly universal hatred ofhis Jewish con­temporaries'.58 Needless to say, once it became known whom Diskin was quoting, the volume was embargoed and the objectionable passage removed. The people responsible for this censorship acted on the assumption, which I believe is probably correct, that Diskin did not know who Homberg was, and thus mistakenly quoted from his work. By removing the reference to him, the censors felt that they were saving Diskin embarrassment. 59

Those who practise this sort of censorship would in no way agree with Shaul Stampfer's judgement that their actions show that they presume that they are wiser than the author of the text being censored.';I) From their per­spective, it is not at all incongruous to be both a loyal student and a loyal

" See G. Oberlander, 'On the Division of the Torah into Chapters' (Heb.), 150-1. Oberlander quotes other leading rabbis who also assumed that the chapter divisions have a Jewish origin. See also Y. H. Safer, Menu/.lat shalom,vol. xi. ch. 67·

58 EJ, viii, s.v. 'Homberg, Naphtali Herz'. In contrast to this negative judgement, Rachel

Manekin has used archival research to argue that Homberg has been unfairly caricatured. See

Manekin, 'Naphtali Herz Hamberg' (Heb.). According to Manekin, the negative view of Homberg

dates from the 1860s, so it is possible that Diskin's commentary dates from before this time.

59 For more details of this incident, see my Seforim Blog post, 25 Oct. 2009. For a similar

example, see the introduction to EY~Schuetz, Sar ha'ele/. where R. Aryeh Leib Zuenz (1768-1833)

writes that in publishing the work omitted certain things that he was sure could not have been

said by R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz (16 0-1764). In one ofhis famous letters against the Reformers,

R. Moses Safer was mistaken in some ofhis historical points. When this letter was later reprinted in Safer's res pons a, the section with the errors was removed. Presumably, Safer's sons were informed about the errors and this led to the omission. See Goldhaber, "'Come, Let Us Go'" (Heb.), 130 n. 36. In an unpublished critique of Dov Eliach's Sefer hagaon, p. 27, R. David Tsevi Hillman (1926-2010) requests that publishers delete R. Solomon Kohen's (1828-19°5) final comm!'nt on tractate Sukah in his glosses on the Talmud, l;leshek shelomoh (printed in th!' Vilna Talmud), s. v. hashmatah to 2a, since its obvious error reRects poorly on Kolll'll . •

,.. Stampfcr, l.ithuani"n Ye.~hivas, lin. 20. Cf. D. I\I'fKrT, ("ul'urr.s in ('u/lisi'lII urleJ ("llIwrmi/icm. IS: 'Thr ohHt'rvrr who "fliflllH untrammrlrd rt'Hprd tilT Ihr rahhlllh" fill.... r, NllhNlillllrH hiN OWII IlIdlllllrlll")r Ihul "flhr r"hhi, alld Ihrll uppl'ulN 10 Ihlll f"hhl'M ""111111.rll 1IIIIIIIr "" ~ IlIlKlrllclI' IllI'

pUNlllrl' ufwhkh hr IIppwvrM.'

censor. This is because a completely innocuous passage in 1900 could be regarded as embarrassing or religiously problematic a hundred years later. Many ofthe censors act on the assumption that the authors themselves, were they alive today, would agree with the censorship. Indeed, this is not always a false assumption, and R. Abraham Mordechai Alter (1866-1948), the Rebbe of Gur, even wrote in his will that his successor 'should burn that which will not be good for me'. 61

Yehoshua Mondshine has described hasidic censorship as follows:

The phenomenon that hasidim omit things from the writings of their rabbis is not at all rare. They do not see in this any contradiction to the holiness of the words of the rebbe, as long as they are certain that their intentions and actions are proper and correspond to the true outlook of their rebbe, or when the omission is done out of a concern of damaging the rabbi's honour.62

Yet I think that most readers, while understanding what motivates the cen­sors, will nevertheless conclude that the instances ofcensorship that we dis­cuss in this book are examples ofwhat the Talmud describes as 'a generation that judges its judges'.6]

Keeping Information from the Masses

The notion that information even from canonical texts should be kept from the masses was, as is well known, an important issue in the medieval and pre-Reformation Church, and was responsible for opposition to translation ofthe Bible into the vernacular.64 Jews often think that this was an exclusively Christian phenomenon, and that Jewish thinkers were always in favour of Torah knowledge for all. Yet this was not the case. Just as the Church's concern with vernacular Bibles had to do with the heresy that could come from individuals approaching the sacred texts unmediated, so too there were concerns ofa similar nature among Jewish scholars.

I am not speaking here about the study ofphilosophy or kabbalah that was always viewed as reserved for the elites,65 but ofthe Bible itself. With the rise

61

See Tavyomi, Eve! kaved, 2I.

',2 Y. Mondshine, 'Authenticity of Hasidic Letters' (Heb.), 89. The second reason offered would apparently explain why the discussion of Robinson Crusoe was deleted from the English trans­lation of R. Zallllan Sorotzkin's (IXXI-190o) (ornrnentary on the Torah. See On the Main Line, (, Oct. 2010. ., BT BB Ish.

... DI'alll'sly, .,.hr l.IlI/"reJ /lih/t. SI'" alsn lI~rOlI, SIl,i,,/ and Religiuus History, ix (1965), SS-6. The IIntiollllial "II C;rlhlllk rl'lillin"H liKllrrH wl'rr IIppllNrd IlIlrlillHI;llioliH iH, howrvt'r, an l·x;l~I!t'r;llioli . SrI' WAMIIIIlI, 'UlldilNplrllllhr nook?', 1~7tr.

•• Tlrl' '1"llIIllIiIlNl'll rrNlrirlM Ihr Nlllliy olll"l'IAillllly"11t IIII1IAllrrM . Srl' liT I.I'IIl' Ilh.

ofthe Haskalah, the Jewish Enlightenment movement, in the late eighteenth century, and the prominent place it gave to Bible study, one sees a counter­reaction from the Orthodox.66 R. Solomon Kluger (1789-1865) was even asked whether it was permitted to study the Bible intensively. He answers in the affirmative, but his permission is limited to adults. Children are not to be exposed to such study for fear that it will lead them into 'the web of the heretics'.67

R. Moses Sofer is reported to have expressed the same attitude with regard to the study ofHebrew grammar: whereas in earlier generations its study was completely proper, once the heretics had begun focusing on it the pious were to keep away.68 Even the basic study of Jewish law by laymen was frowned upon by some. Thus, it is reported that R. Hayim of Volozhin (1749-1821) refused to give an approbation to the Hayei adam, a halakhic handbook by

R. Abraham Danzig (1748-1820). He did not believe that the masses should have easy access to texts of Jewish law, and thus no longer be dependent on a rabbi.69 Likewise, R. Hayim Sofer (1821-86) opposed vernacular translations of the halakhic code Kitsur shul/:wn arukh by R. Solomon Ganzfried (1804­66) .70 A few generations before, in the late eighteenth century, Elhanan Kirch­hahn's Sim/:l.at haneftsh was burnt by the rabbis ofVilna. The book's 'crime' was that it discussed Jewish laws and customs in the vernacular.71 In an earlier era, R. Jacob Moelin (c.I365-1427) also expressed his opposition to halakhic works in the vernacular.72 These viewpoints, while no longer popular, have not completely disappeared. Thus, one opponent of the ArtScroll translation of the Talmud offered as his reason the notion that Talmud study is supposed to

.. In medieval time~ome rabbis were concerned about teaching the Bible to children.

R. Tsemah Gaon (9th c~nt.) even thought that it could lead to heresy. See M. Breuer, Asif. 237ff. For more discussion on the place ofBible study, see M. Breuer, Ohald terah, 123 ff.

67 S. Kluger, Ha'eleJlekha shelomoh, no. 259. Kluger's attitude was adopted by many, and was the focus ofHaskalah criticism. See Parush, ReadingJewish Women, 65-6. See also R. Simon Glazer's Hebrew introduction to his translation of Maimonides' Mishneh torah, 35; J. T. Sofer, Toledot

soJenm, 103 n. 68 See A. J. Schlesinger, Lev ha'ivn, 16 (section 'Yad ha'ivri'). Cf. the almost identical formu­lations of S. Kluger, Ha'eleJlekha shelomoh, no. 257 and R. Tsevi Elimelekh Shapira of Dynow, Ma'yan ganim, 98. See also Schneebalg, Shraga hame'ir, vol. vii, no. 122. 69 See Shmukler (Shapiro), Life ojR. Hayim oJVolozhin (Heb.), ch. 10 (p. 44) . In his note on this passage, at the beginning of the volume, Abraham Elijah Harkavy cal1~ attention to R. ludah Minz's (C.1408-1506) comment that there were rabbis who did not us(' R. larab ben Asher's (1270-C. I340) halakhic code, Arba'ah turim (Thr), explainin~ Ihal Ihis was hC'(;II ISC' it was IIsc'd hy the masses. See Mintz, RespilIIsa (H!"h.), no. 15· 7<, SC'!" II. Sur!"r, Kan sofr.r. Ip.. AN hr pllt il: \"IMn 'Ily') D'l"n D""lll ,'n M".. 'M'''". " SC'I' (~rlllilly-Wl'lnhl'rMrr, ('rn.\orshlp anrl/1rrrdmtl f1fll"prmllln, 1111. Srr IIIMn Zlnlll"rM, Ilh/ory of/rllll .• " 1.llrraIUI'I' (1II'h.),lv, 107, "'~(" .. MIIt'ilII, H"twmll (1II'h,), nn. 'Ir I.

be restricted to the elites, and that ArtScroll frustrates this goal by allowing the masses to participate in this study.73

This division between the elites and the masses, so much at odds with modem understandings ofhow knowledge is to be disseminated, is related to a talmudic concept known as halakhah ve'ein marin ken, meaning, 'This is the halakhah, but we do not teach it.' This concept appears a number oftimes in the Talmud (not to mention in numerous post-talmudic sources)/4 and in one talmudic passage it is given biblical justification from Proverbs 25: 2: 'It is the glory ofGod to conceal a thing.'7s According to Nahmanides (II94-1270), the concept can even be seen in the Torah itself.76 What it means is that although something is technically permitted, the rabbis do not inform the masses of this because of a fear that using this heter (permission) could have negative ramifications.77 As in the case ofcovering up historical events ofthe past, here too the elite has the information, yet they make a choice not to allow the masses to have this knowledge.78 At times, this means that no one avails themselves of the heter, but on other occasions it is only the masses who are not given the heter, but the elites are free to make use ofit.79

7J Gorelik, 'On Printing the Talmud' (Heb.), 39-40. Regarding opposition to the translation of aggadic literature into the vernacular, see Eleazar Mennelstein's articles in Pinat yikrat, 5 (Av 5761), 72-90, ibid. 27 (famuz 5763), 84-7.

,. See Entsiklopedyah talmudit, vol. ix, s.v. halakhah ve'ein morin ken; Fogelman, 'Practical Halakhah' (Heb.); R. Tsevi Hirsch Chajes' note on BT Shabo153b; R. Meir Mazuz's introduction to vol. iii of the Ish Matsliah edition of the Mishnah berurah (Benei Berak, 2007), 17. The very first mishnah, Ber. I: I, contains an example where the Sages did not reveal the true halakhah 'in order to keep a man far from transgression'.

75 See BT Shabo153b. 76 See his commentary on Num. 30: 2.

77

According to R. Joseph Messas (1892-1974), the Sages forbade women being called to the Torah to prevent male sexual arousal. Fearing that the masses would be insulted that the Sages thought so little oftheir capacity for self-control, the Sages provided them with a false reason for the prohibition. See Messas, Mayim /;Iayim, vol. ii, 'Drab bayim', no. 140, and my Seforim Blog post, II June 2012.

7. See R. Vidal ofTolos a, Magid mishneh on Maimonides, Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot isurei biah'

21: 10, who states that Maimonides did not record a certain halakhah in the Mishneh torah: 'V'D'Vl"I ~mllD i"M1n" "'. See also Brand, 'Principles ofOmission' (Heb.), 53.

79 See Schachter, Mipeninei harav, 153-4, recording that R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik (1903-93) told his students that it was permissible to eat non-Jewish cheese if the rennet had a vegetable base, but that this information was not to be revealed to the masses. See also Yosef, Ma'yan omer, ii. 26o, that one is permitted to turn on an electric light iffor some reason it went offon a festival, but that this should not be made publk knowledge. R. Isaac Herzog writes that those who believe that electricity is only rabhinirally fc)rhidden 011 Ihc' Sabbath must keep this information from the masses. SC(' Hl'rZ(% I'r.sukirn ukhr.lavim, vol. ii, 'Orab llayim', 110. (,7. For an ('xample oJhulakhuh ve 'ein marin kr.n whrll dC'alhlM with 'lIIollll'r Nrhol..... Nrc' M. Sofi-r, Shr.'r.lol ulr..lhuvot ~atum so);,r, vol. ii, 'Yorl'h dr'wh', IIU, 1\11 (rlld). Ill'rC' It MUMrM 5utrr IrUN UN Ih"l hI' W;IH not rntirt'ly frllnk with It 'Ikrvl IlIm'h ChiliI'M, tClt 1I'lir ot wlllll Ihr IIIIIN would do with Sull'r'N NII""C'NIl'd Irnil'lIry. III Ilnll'lliOllu I'lIlhlltrllu ( :hlllrM, Ihl' \lllltli.hN IIcllllllly Irlllllvrd hiM nllllir 11M Ihl' rl't'ipll'1I1 otSufi-r'M

We find one talmudic example, in Mena/:l.ot 36b, which shows that even telling an untruth was permitted as part ofhalakhah ve'ein morin ken: 'Ravina related, I was once sitting before R. Ashi when darkness had already fallen and he put on his tefillin, so I said to him, "Is it my Master's purpose to guard them?" "Yes", he replied. I saw, however, that his purpose was not to guard them. He was ofthe opinion that that was the law,80 but one should not rule so [in actual practicej.'81 Here we see that in order to prevent others from knowing what the law was, R. Ashi resorted to lying, and this is regarded as acceptable.82

Halakhah ve'ein morin ken is a matter that requires its own detailed treat­ment, and I mention it here because ofits relevance to the issue under discus­sion. If rabbinic leaders are entitled, indeed sometimes called upon, to hide the true halakhah because of fear ofthe consequences were this information to get into the hands of the masses, it makes perfect sense that this outlook would also be found in non-halakhic matters. In fact, we see from the Talmud that it is not merely with regard to matters ofhalakhah that there is a distinc­tion between the scholars and the masses. The Mishnah states: 'The story of Reuben [and his father's concubine] is read but not translated.'83 The intellec­tuals do not need a translation to understand what the text is saying, but the masses are deliberately kept in the dark in order that Reuben's reputation be preserved.84

Another example is mentioned by Rashi, who states that the Torah alters the order of events of Abraham leaving his home and the death of Terah, Abraham's father, in order that 'the matter should not be publicized'. This was done so that people would not conclude that Abraham did not honour his father properly, as he left home before the latter's death.8S Those with some learning, that is, those who can read Rashi, are let in on the truth, while every­one else is left with a mistaken impression.

letter. That he was indeed the recipient can be seen by examining Chajes, Darkhei hahora'ah, part 2 , no. 6, in his Kol sifrei maharats ~yes, i.

80 That tefillin are to be worn at night. 81 Lest one..f~ll asleep while wearing the tefillin.

82 See similarly BT Reits. 28b. ' ., Meg. 4: 10.

.. It is also possible that the text is not translated so that the masses do not take it literally. Yet there is no evidence that the non-literal interpretation of this episode, advocated by It Jonathan (see BT Shabo 55b), was shared by the Mishnah.

85 Rashi on Gen. II: 3Z (based on Bereshit rahah 39: 7, but not i(kntir:II). SI't' alHo liT .'IllIlh. ,/,h where R. Akiva reveals that thl' man who ~atlll'rl'd HtickH on thl' SlIhhatll (NIIIII. IS: \/.) was Z<'lophehad. R. Judah b. Bathyra r<'marked: 'AkivlllllI rltllrr I'MHr y\lu will hllvl' t\llllvr all an 011 lit Ifc)1' your Htatrmrnq. IfyulI:!rr ri~ht, thr 'Ihrllh Hhlrltlrd 111111. williI' YUII rrvrlll 111111. IIndUllut, YOII fut II ~tt~II1M IIponll rl"htrollM IIIMII.'

Is Truth a Value?

As people go through this book and see the many examples ofcensorship and distortion, they are bound to wonder: what happened to the value oftruth, in particular historical truth? The importance of being truthful is certainly something that Jews regard as significant and teach their children. Here, for example, is a magnet handed out by my children's school some years ago (Figure 1.2).

People might be surprised, therefore, by the evidence brought in this book that when it comes to truth, matters are much more complicated than usually thought. As we will see, for many, the value of truth is seen in a somewhat utilitarian light, and absolute truth may be set aside in many cases. I will post­pone a detailed analysis ofthe role oftruth in Jewish tradition, and when false­hood is permitted, to the last chapter. For now, I want to deal with the educational aspect, which is the focus of an essay by Mordechai Breuer enti­tled 'Concerning Truth in Education'. 86 In this essay he deals with the value of truth in pedagogy, and asks ifat times 'educational lies' are acceptable. One of the sources he discusses is by R_ Elijah Dessler (1892-1953), who offers a new understanding of 'truth'. According to Dessler, truth should not be under­stood as identical with certain facts. Rather, 'truth is that which advances the good and brings people to do God's will'.87 Dessler cites Jacob's lying to his father in order to get the blessing intended for Esau. Since Jacob was doing this entirely for selfless motives, in order to advance God's will, his action must also be regarded as 'truthful' .88

Figure 1.2 Joseph Kushner Hebrew Academy magnet, displaying the motto 'The Truth and Nothing but the Truth'

Many will claim that Dessler's perspective is not helpful, for all he has done is engage in a semantic game. One could just as easily argue that truth must sometimes be set aside in the name ofsome more important considera­tion. Indeed, that is exactly what Dessler is justifYing, so why does he insist on holding on to the word 'truth'? Presumably, he does so because ofthe gener­ally great significance and value oftruth in the Jewish tradition. Rather than countenance the rejection oftruth, even as an emergency measure (as we will see many do), he is more comfortable redefining what 'truth' means.

It is also possible that Dessler was influenced in his approach by William James' pragmatic theory of truth. Dessler is known to have read non-Jewish writings, and I have noted elsewhere that one of his sermons is lifted from Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People.89 It is not unlikely that he was aware of William James' famous formulation: 'On pragmatic principles, ifthe hypothesis ofGod works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, it is true.'90 With this statement, James defines truth in a utilitarian fashion. For Dessler, truth is also to be understood in this manner, yet the focus for him is not on whether something benefits humans, but whether it is in the service ofGod.

Returning to Breuer, he does not reject the notion of 'pedagogical truth'. Thus, in another essay91 he cites an article by R. Shlomo Wolbe that speaks of 'hundreds of thousands' of yeshiva students in pre-Second World War Europe, who were entirely devoted to Torah study without any secular learn­ing.92 The point ofthis text was to encourage students in Israel to also devote themselves exclusively to Torah study, since they had to replace that which was lost in the Holocaust.

From the standpoint of historical accuracy, the statement is entirely with­out basis, and indeed, for many years now there have been more young men studying full time in Israel than ever studied in European yeshivas. Yet Breuer sees this as an example of 'pedagogical truth', and he finds this entirely acceptable, as its purpose is not to establish a historical fact, but rather to influence students in a positive direction. In other words, there are different types oftruths and 'historical truth' need not be preferred over other sorts of truth (e.g. pedagogical truth, moral truth, etc.). As Breuer puts it: 'It is pos­sible to tell yeshiva students things whose truth is only pedagogical, and as mentioned there is nothing wrong with this. But for the readers of Hama'yan, and this includes the yeshiva students among them, one must speak the factual and historical truth.'91

.., M. R. Shapiro. Saul I.ieb"man and thr Orthodox, 40'1. \ .., /lIl1lrM, "nll/mllliml . .1.1)1).

•, Srr M. IIrrurr, A.~if:I~l) 1I . .l.. •• Srr Wulhr:WIIII rill I'IlrIlI'Y YrMhlvlI' (1Irh.), IX.

•, M. Brrurr, ANi,: ,61.

In other words, when Wolbe tried to pass off 'pedagogical truth' as histor­ical truth on the pages of a journal with which Breuer was involved, that was crossing the line. Typical yeshiva students can be treated in a paternalistic manner and fed all sorts of fraudulent notions, but Breuer regards those who are sophisticated enough to read the semi-academic Hama'yan as an elite, and 'pedagogical truth' is no longer acceptable when speaking to them. Although Breuer intended his approach to be supportive ofthe special 'truths' of the yeshiva world, it would not be surprising if members of this society would regard his approach as incredibly insulting, as people often do when they learn that they have been treated in a paternalistic fashion by those who thought they knew what was best for them.

For his part, Breuer cites biblical passages that seem to support his approach. For example, when Abraham is taking Isaac to Mount Moriah and Isaac asks where the lamb is, Abraham replies that God will show it to them.94 Breuer sees this as an example of 'pedagogical truth', a truth that gives an answer in accord with the mindset and sophistication of the ques­tioner. Although Breuer does not cite him, R. Azariah de Rossi (c.1511-c.1578) develops a similar idea in discussing the fantastic story told in the Talmud of how a gnat lived in the emperor Titus' head for seven years, eventually grow­ing into some sort of bird with a brass beak and iron claws.95 According to de Rossi, the talmudic sages knew that this story was not factual, but was created to impart spiritual lessons. As I will discuss at length below,96 one is allowed to alter the truth for 'the sake of peace', and based on this de Rossi asserts that certainly one can do so in order to establish peace 'between us and our Father in Heaven'.97 In other words, falsification of the historical record, or what Breuer calls 'pedagogical truth', is permitted in the name ofa higher purpose. As with similar examples in rabbinic literature, de Rossi under­stands the story about Titus to be a case where the masses will take the tale literally, while the intellectuals will understand that it is merely a pious myth.

What Breuer calls a 'pedagogical truth' was termed a 'necessary belief' by Maimonides (1138-12°5). In Guide of the Perplexed, iii. 28 Maimonides dis­cusses the difference between what he calls 'true beliefs' and 'necessary beliefs'. 'True beliefs' are those which teach, in a literal fashion, some truth about God, such as His existence, unity, eternity, and omnipotence. Their pur­pose is to enable om' to attain intellectual perfection. 'Necessary beliefs', the l>;Jsis of which is tr;Jdition ;Jnd not philosophy, ;Jre expressed in a figurative 11I;Jllner and fulfil ;J political functioll in that, by instilling obedience to the 'Ibrah, they rt'~ulatt' tht· sodal rt·latiOlls of human beings. I n addition, they

.. Grll . .l..l.: '/ X. .. 11'1' c;it. 5(,". .. Srr Ch. X. ... tlr I.uol. Mr'olfilwyim, I()'~ (I h. 1(" . Srr !(INrll, 'Mllhllllll'M II,',dw-c;ol,lh', IX., .

('nable people to acquire noble qualities. For example, the Torah teaches that God is angry with those who disobey Him. Although in truth God does not have the characteristic of anger, the Torah found it advantageous to use this concept for the effect that it would have. It is 'necessary' for the masses to believe that God is angry ifthey disobey Him, in order for them to keep their behaviour in line. In addition, it is 'necessary' for the masses to believe that God responds instantly to the prayer ofsomeone who is wronged or deceived. For them to believe otherwise would be damaging to their faith.

This notion of 'necessary beliefs' is a basic facet of Maimonides' religious outlook, and a complete discussion of its particulars would go beyond the confines of this study. Suffice it to say that not only does Maimonides iden­tify 'necessary beliefs' in the Torah, but there are also 'necessary beliefs' in his own writings.98 Maimonides actually tells us right at the beginning ofthe Guide that he will say certain things that do not reflect his true opinion. For the masses, who are not able to see beneath the surface of this work, the 'truths' that they believe in are sufficient to ensure their attachment to the Torah and Jewish life without causing difficulties to their religious faith. The conventional teaching is the 'necessary belief' of Maimonides, while

the hiddenteaching is the true message. What is important for us is that Maimonides sees this as an acceptable approach, that is, outwardly advocating a position that will be religiously help­ful for many, even though it is not his true opinion. This approach ofreligious esotericism was popular with numerous medieval thinkers, and even contin­ued in later centuries. To give one modern example, R. Kook writes that one should not publicly express ideas that one believes to be true if they can have negative consequences on those with a different outlook.99

Types ofCensorship In speaking of censorship, we must also note that there is a difference be­tween deleting passages when reprinting a text, and not allowing passages to appear when the text is first published. In Orthodox publishing there has long been an assumption that negative personal comments directed against renowned sages should be omitted when publishing a deceased author's work from manuscript.lOO The assumption is that the author would not have

9' See my Limits ofOrthodox Theology, II9 fr. , and Studies in Maimonidr,~ and l/is fntrrprrtm, 85·

T plan to elaborate on this point in a future article. ... A. I. Kook. Shemonah kevatsim , vol. vi, no. S7. Cf. alHo " Irtlt'f hy Sallllwi 1);lvid I.lIzzalto

(1800-6S), published in Otsarne/;lmad, 4 (1861), 1;&9.

II..

Oc('aHion;!lIy ()III" lilldH '·KrrplioIlH to thlH, r.". III lit Irll.~wolIlthr work. of \{ . Imjah 1);lvi,1 l~uhlllowlt:f,:Trolllllll (IX41 II)O~). Srr Illy Srliu'llIl "'"11 (lIINt, A0MII. AIIO'I, 111111 1>1111 1{lIhhlllwlt'l.'s

1"'Nt, Ihld " J'l MIlY .lOin,

wanted this to see the light of day. This explains the common use ofellipses when individuals are criticized.

In speaking ofhow to present the past, there are also clearly distinctions to be made between leaving out information and fabricating falsehoods. Yet, as we shall see, both paths can find solid support in traditional sources. David Assaf calls attention to the two approaches in his discussion ofthe apostasy of the son ofR. Shneur Zalman of Lyady (1745-1812) , the founder of Habad

h. as,'d u.t 101 Th'IS was, 0 f course, a s hocking event, and not something that Habad historians would want to record. Thus we find Hayim Meir Heilman covering up the story in his classic history of Habad, Beit rabi. It is the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Joseph Isaac Schneersohn (1880-1950), who engages in a full rewrite of the apostasy, which Assaf assumes must be a conscious fabrication. This may be correct; ifthe Rebbe thought that knowledge ofthis information would have a negative impact on his hasidim, he certainly could have found justification for creating a 'counter-history'.

Yet perhaps Schneersohn was really convinced ofthe truth ofwhat he was writing. After all, he strenuously defended the authenticity of the notorious forgeries ofhasidic letters found in Kherson, Russia (and his son-in-law and successor, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-94), did likewise).102 Here is an example where the forgeries are so obvious that under normal circumstances one would have to assume that his erroneous defence was motivated by some higher goal. Yet what could that goal possibly be, as no important Habad cause is served by the defence of these letters, and other hasidic leaders had no problem declaring them to be forgeries?

Since there is no apparent reason why Schneersohn had to create a 'neces­sary truth' in this matter, it is possible that he really believed what he was writ­ing (and Habad hasidim, who generally cannot assume that their rebbes erred, are now locked into defending the Kherson archive).103 All this goes to show that just because an academic historian sees something as obvious, it does not mean that the Lubavitcher Rebbes would come to the same conclusion. In other words, one must be very careful before assuming that such a figure is purposely distorting the truth for some higher cause.

101

Assaf, Caught in the Thicket (Heb.), 30. See also ibid. 67, 69, 108.

"" Regarding this forgery, see Hillman (ed.), Letters of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady (Heb.), 2.40-72; Rapoport-Albert, 'Hagiography with Footnotes'; Assaf, Regal Way (Heb.), 202-3; Havlin, ' NI'W I.ight' (!-Ieb.); Hillman. 'On the Kherson Letters' (Heb.); Katzman, 'R. Haim Liberman and Iltl' Kitl'rson Ll'tlers' (1II'h.) .

"', One "Kl'I'ption was 11;lilll 1.ilwrl1l;lII, who '·VI'1l assllml'd that Schnef'rsohn knew that the Il'IirrH w('rr hlr(.lrd, drHpltr hlH pllhlk drlrlll"r or thrill. S,·,· \{osl'nhaum (I'd.), Mr.morial Book (1Irh.), 140. A Irlldlll" Illurdl Nt'hlllur told 1111' tlillt ill hlH opinion Sdlnrrr~()hn himsrlf was rrNpolINlhlr Ii,r Ihr li,r"NY, rltitrt ~. thr ~rtllill li,t(.lrl' or III lilldllll( Nllmronr to prriilrm IhlN IlIlIrtloll ,

can relate a similar instance that I experienced personally. The last Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, had a brother, Yisroel Aryeh Leib, who was not religiously observant, even keeping his store open on the Sabbath. One would think that this would not be a matter for contro­versy. After all, we are not dealing with ancient history and there are many alive who knew him, including several in the Habad community.l04 In addi­tion, his daughter is alive and well and can testify to this. Yet there is a Habad 'Research Institute' named after 'Rabbi' Yisroel Leib, and on its website he is described as a great tsadik and Jewish thinker. lOS

I was certain that this was another example ofhasidim consciously cover­ing up uncomfortable facts about their leader's family because they felt that knowledge about the brother would reflect poorly on the Rebbe. After corre­sponding with the man in charge ofthe website, in the course ofwhich I pre­sented him with the facts, I came away convinced that he really believed everything he put on his site, and that no facts were going to change his mind. A search ofthe internet will find other adherents ofHabad who have the same perspective, which again should demonstrate that what an outsider might view as a conscious distortion of the facts for ideological purposes can very often be an authentically held belief There are, to be sure, all sorts ofpsycho­logical reasons that prevent these people from recognizing the truth, but this does not change the fact that from their perspective the reality they are affirm­ing is a genuine belief.

Examples of distortion and censorship are also seen with another well­known rabbinic figure, R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik (I903-93). As part of the effort to render him 'kosher' for the haredi world, one publication of his novellae describes him on the title page by the honorific title ofgaon av beit din ofBoston, with no hint that he had anything to do with the non-haredi Yeshiva University (see Fig. 1.3).106

For those who have no interest in seeing Soloveitchik become accepted in the haredi world, but who still want to make use of his writings, one

104 See S. S. Deutsch, Larger than Life, vol. ii, ch. 7, and my Seforim Blog post, 25 Oct. 2009; <www.mentalblog.com>. 21 Mar. 2006.

105 'Rabbi Yisroel Aryeh Leib Research Institute on Moshiach and the Sciences', <www. ryal.org>. According to the biographical section of the website, 'many times he [Yisroel Aryeh] would be the first thosid in Israel to receive the newest publications of Chassidus from New York and other chassidim would get them from him' <www.ryal.org/h.html>.S(·(·alsoSilman.Scientijic Thought in Messianic Times, 138 fT., for Yisroel ArY('h l.cib's (fictiollal) biol!raphy. whidll!ol's so far as to say that he 'became known for a special Ntylc' of stlldyillK ChaNNidlls' (p. 14.1.). Sillllan is the director ofth(' Rabhi Yisroel Arydl!.('ib Re'He'arrh ItIHtitute' OI , MONhllll'h IIlId the' Sd('fl(,N.

".. Shurkin, Ilarer,,; kr.dr.m . Re'l(lIrdlllK Ihr IlIrKC'I' IMMllr of ~Ml.c.)Vrlhhlk'. 1I1I1I1(r. Ne'e' I.. K:Jpl;lIl. '1{('vINloIIINllIlilld Ihe' I{!lv' ,

Figure l.J Title page ofR. Michel

Zalman Shurkin, Harerei kedem

(Jerusalem, 2000), omitting any reference to R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik's association with Yeshiva University

approach is to attribute anec~otes he recorded from his father and grand­father (R. Moses and R. HaYlm) to 'writings of the students'.lo, A similar phenomenon is the series of anonymously published volumes of talmudic novellae,Ios focused on '1}idushei hamasbir', in which it is never explained that the masbir (elUcidator) is none other than Soloveitchik.109 For some, even this

107 Hagadah shel pesal; mibeit levi (brisk), 67-8, 129-30. See also the discussion of this ph~nomenon on the Beh~drei Haredim discussion forum at <www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp? t~p~ud-92932~&forulQ..ld""771>, and <www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic...id=2572392&forum _~d-I9616> (thIS las~ source was called to my attention by Yehudah Mirsky). In the anonymous blOgra~hy.0; R. Yehlel Michel Feinstein, Sar hatorah, there is no mention that he taught in Soloveltchlk ~ Boston yeshIva, Heichal Rabbenu Hayyim Halevi. Regarding his teaching there, see

Farber. Amencun Orthodox Dreamer. 41. 'flO ~h"s(, volume'S ;lre' rntitll·d /.Iidu,~hei halra, and it is known that their author is the late

R. HaYlm Dov AItUHky.

,... Onr hint to ~:)lovrlt('hlk·H Ide'ntity IN Ilullthr 111M I finn 1e't\e'rH of "ltlr:ln apprar 10 Htand for thr InlllllllrllrrM uf Mllhhl 'u.l'ph Bllrr Suluvl'llrhlk·. wllh Ihe' mr.m lind Iht' hrh ""rhllp" Nlimdln fur m"N!nu harav. 'UIIT 1".l'hrr. till' nlhlll',

is not good enough, and they are strongly opposed to any efforts that might imply that Soloveitchik has something to offer them. The effort to eliminate Soloveitchik from any contact with their world has even led to one egregious example of censorship that brings back memories of how Soviet pictures would be constantly 'updated' to reflect who was no longer in the good graces ofthe Communist party.110

A famous picture ofSoloveitchik shows him together with R. Aaron Kotler (1891-1962) and Irving Bunim (1901-80) (Fig. I.4(a)) . The meeting took place in 1956 at a dinner to raise funds for Israel's haredi school system (Chinuch Atzmai). Soloveitchik, as a leader ofthe Mizrahi movement which was involved with the religious Zionist school system, might not be expected to be involved in such an endeavour. Yet this was not the case, and in the pre­vious years he had attended meetings together with Kotler in order to help support Chinuch Atzmai.111 As a mark ofrespect for Kotler he even acceded to the latter's request that he serve as honorary chairman ofwhat was the first Chinuch Atzmai dinner in the United States. At the dinner, Soloveitchik spoke about the importance ofthe haredi school system as well as the great­ness of Kotler.1l2 It is no secret that Soloveitchik and Kotler had strong differ­ences of opinion in various matters, yet their differences did not stop them from having a respectful relationship.

A biography of Kotler was recently published by his student, Yitzchok Dershowitz.l13 Dershowitz does not want people today to know that Kotler had any relationship with Soloveitchik. What then to do about this famous picture with them appearing together? Here is how it appears in Dershowitz'sbook (Fig. I.4(b)). By cutting Soloveitchik out, the author does not need to worry that some readers will conclude (correctly) that Kotler could have a respectful relationship with Soloveitchik, even with their strong ideological disagree­ments.114

110 See King, The Commissar Vanishes. 111 See Rosensweig, 'Unique Phenomenon', 48.

112

See the text ofhis speech in A. Bunim, A Fire in His Soul, 365-73'

113 Dershowitz, The Legacy of Maran Rav Aharon Kotler. Dershowitz's animus towards Soloveitchik is long-standing. On 17 Kislev 5736 (ZI Nov. 1975), Light, a haredi publication, reproduced Soloveitchik's strong criticism of R. Emanuel Rackman's proposal to revise Jewish marriage law. In the issue of z9 Tevet 5736 (z Jan. 1976), 16, Dershowitz wrote to protest at Soloveitchik's comments being published 'with the name ofthe author'. He continued: 'How do you introduce into yeshiva and heimishe circles a man who has been intentionally kept (and has kept himself) outside ofthese very circles for years because ofdefinite past and prt'St'nt damag!' to the Torah cause through his being the mentor of, and pillar UpOIl whom rest "orthodox nation· alists" (Mizrachi) and "orthodox haskalists" (rrprrst'lltrd hy Y.U. ~lIti itN Itlroln"y of"HYllthrHiN")I?1'

11< Lawrrll("1' Kaplow callrd my llttrntloll tn thlM urI oft'rll.t~hlp. A plt'turl' of Solovrllt'hlk dOt,S "1',)(,lIr In Ihr hook, 1111 p. 4H, hilt hrrt' hr 1M IOllrlhrr with ulIl'II\qI ululhrr fuhhlM, IIIlIIr olwhotll 111'1' Itlrlllllirli. MO Ihrrr WUN ~pp"lrlilly 1111 INNOII III ntlltllll IIUt. TItIN IYI'" III (I'IlKIIUhlplIl phlltrrK

Figure 1.4 R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik,

R. Aaron Kotier, and Irving Bunim at a Chinuch Atzmai dinner in 1956. The original version appears in (a), while (b) shows the cropped version that appears in Yitzchok Dershowitz, The Legacy ofMaran Rav Aharon Kotler (Nanuet, NY, zooS)

Even when it comes to substantive issues, one finds criticism in Orthodox circles for publishing certain material from manuscript. For example, my publication of some of the correspondence of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg was assailed by some. This was not because of any personal comments about others that were included, but because Weinberg was shown to have had a very close relationship with Samuel Atlas, a professor at Hebrew Union College. In addition, in these letters Weinberg expressed moral difficulty with certain aspects ofhalakhah concerning relations between Jews and non-Jews. Weinberg did not reject these halakhot, but was honest enough to acknow­ledge that they troubled him. For some, Weinberg's sentiment was problem­atic and reason enough to ({'nsor the letters, while for others, it was important to publish the letters precisely so people could see that even a great sage is not

iN hOirdly Ulli111lt", ~IId hOiN OIIrNdy ht"t"11 IIIt"lIl1ollt"1I ill Iht" I'rrliKt". Ht"Kilrdill" th,' dt'lt'lioli oflhr

Juul'li hurt"dl polltklull Mrlluhrlll POrlINh'N IlIIullr, ul'l)('ul'lIIII uloll".ldt" Ihr Grrrrr Hrhhr ill Ihr orl"III"1 pklul'r, Nrr YIII" hcuhhll/, III Adul r/h.l (.1.1 l'I'h. "'00"').

authors were deleted, the preface informed the reader that the new edition are permitted to agonize over these questions, that we are not defying God's

above questioning. As David Berger wrote, 'R. Weinberg has taught us that we

'reflects the traditional approach as represented by the Rabbis and the Jewish will in doing SO.'115

exegetes from the Middle Ages to Modern Times'.122

All the issues that have been described in the previous paragraphs are .~ I The publishers ofother new editions are often not so honest in describing dealt with in this book. I do not focus on examples of authors censoring or what has been done with the original. One such example is Irving Bunim's 'correcting' their own writings, however, as this is a different phenomenon. book, Ethics from Sinai, first published in the 1960s. When it was reprinted in

,

Sometimes this is done precisely because ofthe sort ofpressures that are the 2000, all references to secular works ofliterature were removed. In the pref­

motivation for the various types ofcensorship that will be discussed, but since it is the author himselfwho makes the change, it is not my concern here.ll6 In fact, in many ofthese cases the author no doubt regretted what he origin­ally wrote, and used the opportunity of a second edition to set matters straight. For example, in the first 'edition' ofhis Commentary on the Mishnah117 Maimonides cited the mystical work Shiur komah. Later, when he concluded that the work was a heretical text, he crossed out the reference.ll8

Another example appears in Derekh /:J,ayim by R. Menahem de Lonzano (sixteenth-seventeenth centuries). In the first edition,119 he speaks very sharply against certain earlier figures, especially R. Bahya Ibn Pakuda (elev­enth century). When he republished this work,120 he removed these words, which he perhaps regarded as the rash comments ofa young man.121

I am also not generally concerned with instances when editors tell the readers that they have altered the text. This is interesting from a sociological perspective, but in these cases there is no deception of the reader involved, that is, no attempt to create a fraudulent text. To give one example of this phenomenon, when in 1984 Soncino Press published a revised edition of its Five Megilloth, in which all references to non-traditional and non-Jewish

115 M. B. Shapiro, 'Scholars and Friends'; D. Berger, 'Jews, Gentiles and the Modem Egalitarian Ethos', 89.

116 A famous instance ofthis is R. Yehoshua Yeshayah Neuwirth's Shemirat shabat kehilkhatah. Certain leniencies found in the first edition are missing from subsequent editions. In ch. I of the first edition, for example, Neuwirth permits one to use water heated by solar power on the

Sabbath. In the second edition he recommends not doing so (tov lehimana, 'it is good to refrain'). See also Eliezer Brodt's Seforim Blog post, I Nov. 20II, recording that R. Jacob Meklenburg (1785-1865) referred to Samuel David Luzzatto and Julius Fuerst (1805-73) in the introduction to the first edition ofhis Haketav vehakabalah, but not in the second edition.

117

Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, vol. ii, San. ch. 10 (p. 142, seventh principle). 118 See ibid., n. 42. For sources on Maimonides and Shiur komah, see Gurfinkel, 'Maimonides and the Kabbalah' (Heb.), 458-61. 119 Constantinople (c.1575), 20b-24a. ,~, Venice, [618.

121 See D. Kamenetsky, 'The Gaon R. Menasheh ofIlya' (Heb.), 737 n. 12. I say 'perhaps', since it

is possible that he removed this section because he was presHurrd to do so. This would explain

why, despite taking it out, in the second edition ht, still rl'frrN thl' rl';l(ll'r to hiN r~rli('r (tHtllIIl't1tS.

See also Hacker, 'Controversy OVN Philosophy' (Hrb.), und Id.\'Slxtrrtlth,Cl'nlury Il'wlMh Intl'rnal

CrtlMorNhlp', III~-Il). Lon:r.ano'll work waN rl'(,l'tltly rrpuhll.hrd Wub IIddlllotllll P ..UIIIII'. ('rtlMorl'd.

Sl'l' Ihmll, 'I.IIWN of IIirkuI kurr'lyuk' (1Il'h.l, l)~6 11. 10.1,

ace, the publisher explains that 'with the massive changes in the English­speaking Jewish community over the years, the need arose for an updated edition'. We are never told exactly what kind ofupdating was done. What this sentence really means is that because of the turn to the right in American Orthodoxy, references to secular works of literature are now regarded by many as unacceptable in Torah volumes.

What About Pictures?

The issue ofpictures is also an important part ofour story, in particular with regard to the issue of women's dress, known as tseniut (literally: 'modesty'). As anyone middle-aged or older can attest, and as numerous photographs prove, the standards of tseniut in the haredi world have increased in strin­gency in recent years, and are continuing in this direction.l2J

There is a large book by Rabbi Pesach Eliyahu Falk ofGateshead that pre­sents what are probably the most extreme views oftseniut in dress and behav­iour ever to appear in English.124 It is accompanied by a booklet ofdiagrams showing in minute detail how high a woman's shirt buttons must be, how long the sleeves, how she must carry her handbag, etc. R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin has observed that the ideology ofthis book is such that it 'prohibits a woman from standing out-and from being outstanding'.12s

The difficulty, from a purely traditional standpoint, with books like Falk's is that anyone can look at the numerous pictures of rabbis' families in years past and see that their wives and daughters were not dressed in accordance with Falk's prescriptions. For example, you will find women in these pictures

'" Regarding the updated Soncino books of the Bible, see my Saul Lieberman and the Ortho­dOX,4·

'" To give jllst one example of this phenomenon, in 2007 R. Avraham Arbel published his hook A~oti kalah. Anoording to him, when women Irave their homes they are forbidden to wear j('well('ry and should be dn'SK('d in worn-oul dotlws so as not to appear attractive to men. See ibid. 110 ff. ThiN book h;!N approbOltionN frolll iI lIurnbN of \l'ading rabbis, including R. Ovadyah Yosef, nonr ofwhoNr WiVI'H fllllllw(rd) thl' pr~dkl'N IIdvoflllrd by Arbl'l. RrgOlrding a rl'cl'nt harl'di book Ih..1 fllrhldN 11I1I1hN" 10 IIttl'lId I'lIl'rlll.' IIll1hl III Mlhllo\' Nrr Illy Sl'fill'llIIlIllIlI pONI,.l.~ lunr lOIO,

, .. JI..lk, Oll'rhlllJIII' Irl'lukllh. "' V. II. Ilrnkln, 'CulllrtllpOTIHY '1111'111'111', 17.

whose top button is open. This is so even with R. Eleazar Shakh's (1899­2001) wife,t26 and Shakh was the leader ofthe non-hasidic haredim in the last two decades ofthe twentieth century.

The problem is obvious. People will see pictures ofhow the great rebetsins ofthe past dressed and will assume that they can imitate t~em. After all, the ultimate validation in traditional society is that great rabbIs of the past per­mitted something. According to this approach, Falk's book. with its new

standards, would be severely compromised. . Falk recognizes the problem and discusses it under the headmg "'non­kosher" photographs of chosheve ['important'] women'.127 As he e~l~,i~S: 'These books are likewise very detrimental as they appear to contam hve evidence" that in pre-war years the general frum public and even chosheve people were not careful with aspects of dress that are considere.d nowadays to be essential:128 Seemingly unsure of what to make of these pICtures, Falk says that in most cases the picture was taken when the woman was in a private garden, out of the eye of the public. Yet he certainly kn~ws that mos~ of these pictures were taken as family portraits, often at weddm~s and t~e hke. It is also not uncommon for there to be non-family members m the pICtures

as well. That perhaps these 'chosheve' people had different views.of tseniut matters is not even considered, and instead the author advocates a dIfferent approach, that of removing the pictures from the public eye. 'Hopefully, as a result of this and similar protests, publishing houses whorl] reproduce photographs will in the future either omit inappropriate pictures altogether, or "doctor" the pictures beforehand, thereby ensuring that harmful parts of the pictu~es are not reproduced:l29 All I would say is that ifyou are going to start tou~hmg up pictures, you have a lot of work ahead of you. For starters, the. typI~al no~­hasidic rabbi's wife in the United States did not even wear a Sheltt (Wig) until the 1970S or later.

Another Type ofCensorship I must also briefly mention the other type ofcensorship in Jewish history for, as we will soon see, it too connects to the focus ofthis book. This form ofcen­

'26 See her picture in M. Horowitz, Sh,hamafte'a~ beyado. alit'r p. 64· Ikr hair is also not covered in the picture. If, during this period orher lilt', NI\(' did 1101 nlvt'r h('r hair II would ~Ol ht, surprising, as this was the case with Ihe wives of mo/f1y L.ithllillli"f1 rO/hhlM. Iluwrv('r, Dr ~'.fraltll ShOlkh insiHtrd 10 mc Ih"l hiM rnolhl'r did wvrr hrr hlllr, ~II(I 10 ~I'pl'~r 11I1l'uVl'rrd lor IhlN

otlil'illll'lIlrNtinC' 1«l'ntlly nml. '" 1'11111, Ol vth"d"rI~vu.• hah, 1'17. '" Ihhl . , .. Ihld. 17K.

sorship is the one most people are aware of, namely, non-Jewish censorship

of Jewish books.130 This is a complicated subject because there are times

when we are not sure whether it was Jews or non-Jews who were respon­

sible for the censorship. One such example is found in R. Ezekiel Landau's

talmudic commentary, Tsiyun lenefesh /:r-ayah. In the first edition, published in

the author's lifetime,l3l Landau tells his readers that young students should be

kept from involving themselves too deeply in Bible study, 'because the

heretics also study it for the sake ofthe language, just as they study other lan­

guages'. Landau further explains that it is possible that a boy might have one

ofthese heretics as a Bible teacher and be led astray by him.

This passage was omitted in subsequent editions, of which there were

quite a few. Who was responsible for the censorship? R. Joel Teitelbaum

(1887-1979), the Satmar Rebbe, placed the blame on the maskilim, and

thought that subsequent editions were unknowingly based on the censored

version.132 This is not an impossible scenario, yet there is no evidence for it.

It is just as likely, if not more so, that the text was altered because of govern­

mental censorship.133

Although I will not concern myself in this book with non-Jewish censor­ship, I would be remiss in not noting that we still suffer from this phenom­enon. For example, there are a number of passages in the Talmud that were removed by Christian censors in various editions because they were thought to be insulting to Jesus and Christianity.1l4 Many of these censored passages have been printed in an anonymous book called Hesronot hashas,135 and are often found in the Soncino translation and the Steinsaltz edition. It is some­

130 A great deal has been written on this. See the bibliography in Raz-Krakotzkin, 'From Safed to Venice', 93 n. 5· See also id., The Censor, the Editor, and the Text. For standard works on the subject, see Popper, The Censorship ofHebrew Books and Berliner, Selected Writings (Heb.), ii. 9-79.

III Prague, 1791, on BT Ber. 28b.

132 Teitelbaum, Vayo'e! mosheh, 416-17 ('Ma'amar leshon hakodesh', ch. 13).

III See D. Kamenetsky, 'Approbations' (Heb.), 739 n. 46. Another example where I am not sure who is responsible for the censorship appears in R. David Kimhi's commentary on Ps. 104: 30. Here he mentions both the beliefin reincarnation and the philosophers' view that after death the soul does not return to the body. He then records the traditional view of resurrection. In the standard edition of Mikraot ged%t the first section of Kimhi's comment has been deleted, and I have not been able to determine when this censorship first occurred. (This example was called to my attention by R. Yisroel Gottlieb.) In Kimhi's commentary on Ps. 91: 6 he denies the existence ofdemons. Yet this has been deleted from the standard edition of Mikraot ged%t. (This example was called to my attention by R. Mordechai Friedman.) The uncensored commentary of Kim hi can be seen in Mikraot gedolot hake/a, published hy Bar-I1an University.

.... Regarding the'Nt' paSHaMI'M, S('(' IlIONI rt'rrntly Sch~I('r..Ieslls illlh,. Talmud. For selkensorship OfpaNN;/I!('S Ih;11 wOllld hI' illNllltillM lu MIIHliIlIN. NI'I' my 'INI:IIII ~lId Ihl' HO/IO/khO/h', l041 n.n. wnd my Stlldir..~ i" Mai,"r,"idr.~ "lid lIb IlIlrrprrtm, p. x; Nrr ~I~o WrhlWIHlrll, "Irlllpll' MOlinI' (1II'h,), I~K II. w14· '" SrI' "INII AIIIIIl., ()m,.r hll.d'ikh~~"h.

what surprising that the ArtScroll edition ofthe Talmud, in both Hebrew and English, has not put these passages back. This means that even the ArtScroll Talmud, which has been praised as the pinnacle ofTalmud translation, is still a defective edition.l36

By not reinserting the censored passages, ArtScroll is engaging in self­censorship, not for ideological reasons, which are the focus of this book, but for the sake of good relations between Jews and non-Jews. This sort of self­censorship has a long history, in some places even from an era when books were still in manuscript.137 There are important rabbinic figures who call attention to such self-censorship. For instance, R. Simeon ben Tsemah Duran (1361-1444), who lived in the pre-printing era, states that R. Jonah Gerondi (C.1200-63) altered a passage in one of his books for fear of governmental reaction.l3B R. Joseph Karo assumes the same thing about a passage in the Arba'ah turim, the law code by R. Jacob ben Asher (c.1269-c.1343).139

Referring to an earlier era, R. Reuven Margaliyot (1889-1971) suggests that the reason why the Mishnah did not discuss either Hanukah or the future messianic redemption was fear that the Romans would regard such matters as politically subversive.l40 Richard Kalmin even makes the unlikely sugges­

136 R. Leopold Greenwald claimed that Jews should be grateful to the censors for having removed these passages, which generated so much hatred against the Jewish people. See his letter in H. Bloch, Anthology (Heb.), 8. (See Hoffmann, Der Schulchan-Aruch und die Rabbinen, 175, for a related point.) Bloch refers to the unpublished writings of a number of prominent 19th-cent. rabbinic scholars who expressed themselves similarly to Greenwald. Yet Bloch's prodigious forgeries are already well established, and these supposed rabbinic writings are without question also fabrications. See my Seforim Blog post, 22 Apr. 20IO.

137 See e.g. M. Kahana, 'Midrashic Manuscripts' (Heb.), 60-1; Rafter, Netivei me'ir, 379-80. For an analysis of a 19th-cent. example of internal censorship, see Petuchowski, Studies in Modern Theology and Prayer, 193-219.

138 See Duran, Magen avot, I02 (on Mishnah Avot 2: 3). Some have argued that R. Menahem Meiri's (1249-1316) writings expressing religious tolerance can also be explained in this way. See Zini's note, ibid. I02; M. Sofer, Kovets teshuvot /:Iatam sofer, no. 90; Hillman, 'Statements of Meiri' (Heb.); Bleich, 'Divine Unity', 245-6; Kasirer, Shemitah kemitsvatah, 93-4. See also Mazuz, 'Article on Shemitah' (Heb.), 305-6, who suggests that Nahmanides wrote something in his Torah commentary because offear ofthe government. M. B. Lerner has argued that a couple oftalmudic usages ofthe term kidush hashem (sanctification ofGod's name) are actually examples ofinternal censorship, designed to avoid the term /:Iilul hashem (desecration of God's name). See Lerner, 'Formulation' (Heb.), 109-10.

139 See Karo, Beit yose! 'l;Ioshen mishpat' 266: I. In this case Karo was mistaken, as only the printed version of the Arbu'uh turim that he us('d had been (('nsM!'d. SI'!' thl' t('xtllal note in th(' Makhon Yerushalayim edition. Cf. Rabbinovicr., Mu'umar al hadpuml halulmud, 7 II. I, 2X n. 25, that copyists in m('dieval Spain (rnsorrd tt'xts of thr 'Ialrnll<l in OII'('IJrlJ:lI1rr with 01 WlVI'rnrnent drnrr. SrI' ~I~o l.~nKrr, Omi"g Ihr Chrl,~'lum, III. ""­

'41' R. Mllrllllliynl, lI,ul.~ 'if'hr MI.,hllah (1Irh.), J.J.. AN Iilr liN fllllOW, III' ollr hu mlldr thiN Nort 01 ufMIIIIl!'1I1 rrMllrdhl1i MIiMlldlillol hrlllllll'ltit'"1'11 III thl' ·11I!r11l1l1. MONt UUIIIIII' thut thl' IIIlIlNNlolI

tion that the reason the Jerusalem Talmud, unlike the Babylonian, records so few disputes between rabbis and heretics was to 'avoid insulting the Bible­reading non-Jews and heretics who were prominent in the Roman world'.141

It appears that we even have examples ofinternal censorship deSigned to prevent publication of things that could be used to assist Christian argu­~~nts. For e~ample, R. Bahya ben Asher (d. 1340) states, following a kabbal­IStlC perspectlve, that in the 'Time to Come' the prohibition on mixing milk and meat is to be abolished.142 Yet in three early editions,l43 this passage has been altered, so that the word 7Ul (,abolished') has been removed from the phrase 7Ul l7nl '\!)l "O'N jPi'I' P\!) ('thus the prohibition on meat in milk will be abolished'). It is unlikely that the word was removed accidentally, with the two subsequent editions copying the error. Rather, it is more plausible that these are examples of internal censorship so as not to give the Christians 'ammunition', as R. Bahya is speaking about a time when an important bibli­cal commandment will no longer be binding. This could obviously be ofuse in Christian arguments against the binding nature of the laws of kashrut. In fact, this internal censorship is really no different from what we often find in Jewish apologetic and polemical literature where, in order to 'win' the argu­ment, the authors take liberties with the truth_ . Another possible example ofthis type ofinternal censorship is the follow­

mg: there are piyutim (liturgical poems) that record negative comments about important biblical figures, including the Patriarchs, and these are censored in some manuscripts. The assumption always was that these were suppressed because it was deemed improper to point out the faults of great biblical fig­ures. But Ophir Mintz-Manor has recently argued that the censorship arose out of the Jewish-Christian debate. In an era when Christian writers were criticizing figures in the Old Testament, Jews did not want to give them any

more 'ammunition'.l44 Another example ofcensorship, and also of self-censorship due to fear of the non-Jews, is found in the Amidah for weekdays. The twelfth blessing is called birkat haminim, and focuses on heretics, asking God to uproot them. According to the Talmud, Berakhot 28b, this prayer was composed by Samuel Hakatan at the request of Rabban Gamaliel II, who flourished at the end of the first century CEo Although Rashi assumed that the blessing was directed

is because the rabbis were not sympathetic to the defenders and/or their suicide. See Ben-Yehuda, The Masada Myth, .l.lX-<). Set' also l.. Fl'ldm;III, 'Masilda, A Criti(lue of Recent Scholarship', 226 ff.

. '" Kalrnill, Thr Sug' in Jewish Spe:iely, 74. KilllIlin hilllsl'lf Jrknowlt'dges that this suggestion is Improbable. ". Cummetllary on Exod. 2.~: 1<). '" Vl'lIkr, IH(I; HivlI <II 'ITl'lIto, I~N; Kruk(,w, I~<).I. SrI' ChilvI·I'N 1I0tl' ill hiN rditiOlI of

R. flllhYII'. wlIllllrlllliry. ". Mlrll~· Mlillor, 'Why l;lvl' Ihl' Ilrrl'tk. uCh~lIrr?' (1Irh,) .

against the early Jewish-Christians,145 contemporary scholars dispute whether it has any connection to the rise ofChristianity.146

Early prayer books (sidurim) have this blessing directed against the meshu­madim (apostates) and minim (heretics). Maimonides' prayer book reads: '1lN' )m:l 1J'l'Y.ln 7:l i11i'n 'iln 7N 1J'1m1VY.l7 (,there will be no hope for the apos­tates, and the heretics will perish')/47 and virtually all other geonic and early medieval texts also begin similarly, with many also adding 'Christians' to those who are cursed.148 Yet very few Ashkenazim ever stop and wonder why the prayer supposed to be directed against the minim actually says nothing about them (or about meshumadim, for that matter). Instead, it only refers to the malshinim, the 'slanderers' or 'informers' .149 The answer is obvious, and is another example ofa change in the sidurthat originated either in non-Jewish censorship or in self-censorship (depending on the time and place). It might surprise some to learn that there are no Ashkenazi sidurim, even among those

14' See Rabbinovicz, Dikdukei softrim (2002 edn.), 'Megilah I7b' (p. 98), n. 8.

1<6 See van der Horst, Hellenism-judaism-Christianity, ch. 8; Basser, Studies in Exegesis: Christian Critiques, 6Iff.; Teppler, Birkat haminim; Langer, Cursing the Christians, ch. 1. Langer's book is the most complete study ofthe blessing, dealing with its history from ancient times until the present. Daniel Boyarin has recently presented a new approach. See his Border Lines, 67 fr. He assumes that the talmudic account involving R. Gamaliel and Samuel Hakatan is without

historical basis, and that the prayer should be dated two centuries after R. GamalieL

'47 It appears at the end of Mishneh torah, 'Sefer ahavah'.

'48 See Hillman, 'Wording of Birkat haminim' (Heb.); Y. Y. Weiss, 'Wording of Birkat haminim'

(Heb.). Weiss reports that a search of hundreds of manuscript prayer books, from all over the

Jewish world, turned up only a few Italian manuscripts that begin with velamalshinim in place of

lameshumadim. These are obviously internally censored texts. Langer found some other manu­

scripts that begin the prayer similarly. See her Cursing the Christians, 202, 208, 275 n. 24· Hillman,

'Wording of Birkat haminim' (Heb.), 59, refers to an internally censored manuscript ofR. Amram

Gaon's prayer book. See also Langer, Cursing the Christians, ch. 2 and p. II4, appendix 3; Sh. Sofer,

Sidur, ii. I38ff.; Elbogen, jewish Liturgy, 45 ; Emden, Lua1,l eresh, 62; E. Chwat, 'Responsum' (Heb.);

Zelcer, 'Shemoneh Esreh in Eretz Yisrael', II8-I9·

'4' The word malshinim, while not original to the blessing, is found in a few early versions, not

in place of meshumadim, but in addition to it. See Y. Y. Weiss, 'Wording of Birkat haminim' (Heb.),

108; Langer, Cursing the Christians, 62. Many current Sephardi versions read: "N 0'"10''D0'" 0')'0"

mj7n 'nn. Regarding developments in the Sephardi version, see Langer, Cursing the Christians,

140 ff. , 237ff. R. Jacob Emden's prayer book begins the first line with velamalshinim, but instead

of harish'ah in the next part of the sentence, he substitutes haminim. See his Amudei shamayim,

i. I33 b.This is also found in some versions of the Ashkenazi nusal,l sefarad. Habad's Tehilat hashem prayer book has, in the second part of the sentence, o',m "Jl o')'on ?Jl. When SarTll 1('1 Iioldheim was rabbi of the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Srhwerin, he rhanW'd Ihl' vI'rsiOIl so Ihal instC'ad of velamalshinim (,slanderers'), the prayer read ve/umul.lhinut ('HI~ndrr'). SrI' A. D. II. lIakoIlI'll, Teshl4vat ud"k, no. 2.4. For tIl(' saml' approarh in David Frlc'dl~l1Ilrr'" "/IH, {;I'I'IIlall II'~nNllIt i()n of Ihl' pruyrr hook, Hrl' l.anMrT, CIminI! the (,hrhtlun.I, 1~7. SI'I' UIMH 1(111'1.1" IJllIllNhlll'M 11011' ill

HdrlmulI, 11~1I)'lm /rv, l'u .

published in the State of Israel, that have returned a more authentic wording to this blessing.150

Another famous example ofcensorship and also self-censorship is found in the Aleinu prayer.l5l The original version reads i'''' "ln7 1J'1nn1VY.llJil1V V'1V1' N" 7N "N 1J'''''onm ('For they bow to vanity and emptiness and pray to a god that does not help'). Leaving aside the issue ofwhether Jews should still be saying this line, since it is clearly not applicable to many people, such as Muslims and perhaps also Christians/52 we must note that it was originally removed from the prayer book because of the understanding that it referred to Christians. In fact, this line became an important feature ofChristian anti­Jewish polemics/53 and was commonly discussed by the Jewish apostates who wrote 'exposes' about Judaism.l54

Itdid not help matters that some Jews were accustomed to spit after saying the word varik ('emptiness'), as it indeed happens to be very similar to the Hebrew word for 'spit'.155 In 1703 a Prussian royal edict forbade the recital of

150 See M. T. Jacobs, Bimel,litsat rubenu, 50-I, who records that R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky, when praying privately, said the version ofthe prayer recorded by Maimonides. In explaining the word velamalshinim (slanderers) , and not realizing that the word is not part of the original prayer, the Complete ArtScroll Siddur (ed. Scherman and Zlotowitz), 107, explains that the Sadducees, Boethusians, Essenes, and early Christians 'used their political power to oppress observant Jews and to slander them to the anti-Semitic Roman government'. Quite apart from the improper adjective 'observant' used to distinguish different types of Jews in Second Temple days (as if the Essenes were not observant), or the false claim that Essenes and early Christians had political power, the prayer was certainly not directed against Sadducees, Boethusians, or Essenes, and no one has ever claimed otherwise. The expression birkat hatsedukin ('Blessing of the Sadducees') that appears in the standard edition ofthe Talmud, Ber. 28b-z9a, is a censor's corruption of the original birkat haminim. See Rabbinovicz, Dikdukei softrim, ad loc. A. Davis, Complete Metsudah Siddur, 129, also does not realize that the word velamalshinim is not original, and states that the blessing 'is directed against the early Christians who informed against Jews to the Roman authorities after the destruction ofthe Second Temple'.

151 See Berliner, Selected Writings (Heb.), i. 46 ff.; Langer, 'Censorship ofAleinu'.

152

As regards Christians, this gets us into the sticky issue of whether Christians worship the same God as Jews, a point that was central to the dispute over the document Dabru Emet. See

D. Berger, Persecution, Polemic, and Dialogue, 392-8. 153 See Scheinhaus, 'Alenu Leschabeach'. '54 See Kalir, 'Jewish Service', 78-9. On these apostates, see Carlebach, Divided Souls.

155

The earliest source to mention spitting is Moelin, Mahari!: minhagim, 'Hilkhot tefilah', no. 3

(p. 438). See also Eisenstein (ed.), Otsar yisra'el, viii. 81, II3; Mahler, Hasidism and the Jewish Enlightenment, 150. The practice is defended in D. Halevi, Turd zahav, 'Yoreh de'ah' 179: 5, but criticized by Bacharach, Mekor 1,Iayim, 97= 2, 132: z and A. Horowitz, Emek haberakhah, section dealing with laws of prayt'r, no. 40 (there is no pagination). The Reformer Aaron Chorin abolished the spitting in his conl(T('gation. Set' Greenwald, Jewish Grol4PS in Hungary (Heb.), 14. For some, IIII' spitlilll( collli'"I1'd ('VI'II afh'r Ihl' phrase ~hehem mishtal,lavim was no longer recited. See e.g. Iiirs("howit:t., Minhu"r.i yr.~hl4r14n, flO. Cil). It I~mh IHrae! Kanievsky (Iht' Striplrr) would spit alld lIdd 'rn;,y Ihl'tr II aIIII' hI' hIottI'd Ollt'. SrI' A. Y. KllIIll'vMky, '/o/"dot yu'ukov, '77. Harry Jir('undrl !'('rall. fToIII hIM YOllth Ihr Yhldl.h r_I"'rMMh", Ii,. kr""t 1.111111 lIy.~,~hpllYrll, whit II IIlNIIN 'III' mlllrM

this line. In order to ensure that it be omitted, the edict required that the text ofAleinu be recited out loud so that the recital could be monitored by agents of the government,156 The edict also specifically forbade Jewish spitting dur­ing the prayer.157 In fact, even before any such restrictions, we know that some Jews would recite this line quietly, and this was obviously done so as to pre­vent conflict with Christians.ls8 As late as 1846 Moravian synagogues were forbidden to recite any prayers that inspired hatred against non-Jews, and Aleinu-the entire prayer, and not just the problematic line-was specifically

forbidden. l s9 When, in 1777, an official in Konigsberg charged that the Jewish commu­nity was not reciting Aleinu aloud, implying that they were quietly adding the offensive line, the community requested that Moses Mendelssohn (172 9-86) get involved. He testified as to the antiquity and significance of AI~in~, and that 'only the heathens and their idolatrous worship are referred to m It, and not, as some enemies and slanderers ofthe Jewish nation falsely contend, the Christians, who like ourselves worship the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He' .160 While Mendelssohn told the truth in this statement, it was not the complete truth. Obviously, a prayer that pre-dated Christianity could not be said to refer to it in any historical sense, and in this Mendelssohn was correct. But he certainly knew that many of his coreligionists nevertheless saw an allusion to Jesus in the prayer, and for obvious reasons he omitted mention ofthis. When the problematic line was first removed from the prayer book, people still recited it by heart. Yet over time the objectionable passage was simply dropped from the standard Ashkenazi liturgy.16l Only in the twentieth cen­tury, with the creation ofthe State of Israel and the printing of sidurim there, did large numbers of Ashkenazim once again start saying the line.~62 In the ArtScroll Siddur this sentence is included with parentheses around It. These

at the spitting'. This refers to someone who arrives at synagogue at the very end ofthe morning prayers. See Freundel, Why We Pray What We Pray, 234· '36 Perhaps this is the origin of the widespread practice of singing the opening paragraph of Aleinu aloud. See Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, 307; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 72

1S7 .

,.. See Hagahot haminhagim, in Tyrnau, Sefer haminhagim, 12 n. 14 (regarding the authorship of

these notes, see ibid. 17, introd.); Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, ch. 5· 159 See the report printed in On the Main Line, 8 Nov. 2009. '60 Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, 308. . .

'M It remained in the Habad liturgy, even if not in print. but lilr sorn(' !t'asoll ollly the hrst half

ofthe line is recited (with the alternative version ".,',,). ,•• Wh!'n R. Moses FrinKtrin (1!lt)S-It)!l6) waN ;aMkt"u ahollt HllyillM thl' Ihll', hI' 1"I'I'II1'u that hI' did 1101 '11111.1 0111' should 1101 :lltrr Ihl' prllrlkr of our iilrrlillhl'rM' . SrI' Shurklll, MellrtJ "iv'lll ilium,

I).l.

parentheses are a recognition ofthe fact that the line is not generally said, and I have not seen any widespread efforts in the Orthodox world to ensure that people recite the prayer as it was originally intended to be said. There prob­ably is a feeling among many that whatever the reason it was removed, it is preferable in our times that it should not be reinserted.

Concerning shehem mishta1:r,avim lahevel varik, it is not just that this is a negative way ofreferring to one's non-Jewish neighbours. There is something even more significant in this text, which led to its condemnation by Chris­tians and indeed to its becoming an important element in the anti-Jewish propaganda that asserted that Jews mocked Christianity: the numerical value (gematriyah) ofthe word varik equals yeshu (Jesus).163

In its comment on the first appearance ofAleinu, the ArtScroll Siddur says ,the following (based on R. Elie Munk's The World ofPrayerl64):

The inclusion of this verse follows the original version of Aleinu. In the year 1400, a baptized Jew, no doubt seeking to prove his loyalty to the Church, spread the slander that this passage was meant to slur Christianity. He 'proved' his contention by the coincidence that the numerical value ofp'", emptiness, is 316, the same as l"IV', the Hebrew name of their Messiah. This charge was refuted time and again.165

In thinking about how to understand this passage, there are only two possi­bilities. One is that the editors of the ArtScroll Siddur are entirely ignorant about the history of this prayer, and how it was a standard view in medieval and early modern times that the word varik referred to Jesus. That is possible, but doubtful.

I think it is more likely that they know full well what previous generations of Jews thought, and they know that what was alleged was not 'slander'. However, in an effort to create good relations with non-Jews, and perhaps knowing that many ba'alei teshuvah (newly religious Jews) and even some non-Jews use the ArtScroll Siddur, they have engaged in a bit of falsehood, quoting something they know is incorrect for the greater good.

In doing this, ArtScroll takes its place in a long line of Jewish apologetic works that misrepresent the truth, all in order to protect the honour (and in earlier times, the property and sometimes even the lives) ofJews!66 Rabbinic

'6'j

See Wieder, Formation of Jewish Liturgy (Heb.), ii. 453-68, which remains the most compre· hensive study of the anti-gentile themes in Aleinu. See also Y. Elbaum, 'Concerning Two Textual Emendations' (Heb.); Yuval. Two NutiollS in Your Womb , 192 IL 198 fT. tr" Vol. i, p. 190.

'6' Scherman ami Ziotowitz (·ds.), Complete ArlSallll SidtJur, 1St). Munk's information aboul Ihe apo~tal(' in 1400 W~H lakl'n, withoul ~rkIIClWI(·dl(l·IIII·III, from Ismar Elbol(C'II's classic book on the liturMY, IirNt l'uhliHhrd III 1<)1\ . SrI' HII>I >ICI' II, .Irwi~k l.iIul'IIY, 71 . lo .

,.. Srr r.M. ZUIl1., lJie IWu.1tJr.I .IYIIUIl11IlUlrll (;cl/ltl .• tJlrll.llr .• , .l.l4 -~. SUlllrtilllrs it iN 1101 drllr il.llI ~poloMrlk IrKIM, WI' IIrr fClllftCIlltlllM drlihrrlltr ,IiMtlllthllllll IIUthl'lIlillilly hrld hrlirl•. Thl' 1II0Mt

40 . .... . f~lT~J)U£TlION

this line. In order to ensure that it be omitted, the edict required that the text , I ofAleinu be recited out loud so that the recital could be monitored by agents

I

of the government.156 1be edict also specifically forbade Jewish spitting dur­ing the prayer.157 In fact, even before any such restrictions, we know that some Jews would recite this line quietly, and this was obviously done so as to pre­vent conflict with Christians.15s As late as 1846 Moravian synagogues were forbidden to recite any prayers that inspired hatred against non-Jews, and Aleinu-the entire prayer, and not just the problematic line-was specifically for bidden.159

When, in 1777, an official in Konigsberg charged that the Jewish commu­nity was not reciting Aleinu aloud, implying that they were quietly adding the offensive line, the community requested that Moses Mendelssohn (172 9-86) get involved. He testified as to the antiquity and significance of AI~in~, and that 'only the heathens and their idolatrous worship are referred to m It, and not, as some enemies and slanderers ofthe Jewish nation falsely contend, the Christians, who like ourselves worship the King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He'.l60 While Mendelssohn told the truth in this statement, it was not the complete truth. Obviously, a prayer that pre-dated Christianity could not be said to refer to it in any historical sense, and in this Mendelssohn was correct. But he certainly knew that many of his coreligionists nevertheless saw an allusion to Jesus in the prayer, and for obvious reasons he omitted

mention ofthis. When the problematic line was first removed from the prayer book, people still recited it by heart. Yet over time the objectionable passage was simply dropped from the standard Ashkenazi liturgy.16i Only in the twentieth cen­tury, with the creation ofthe State of Israel and the printing of sidurim there,

162

did large numbers of Ashkenazim once again start saying the line.In the

ArtScroll Siddur this sentence is included with parentheses around it. 1bese

at the spitting'. This refers to someone who arrives at synagogue at the very end ofthe morning

prayers. See Freundel, Why We Pray What We Pray, 234·

156 Perhaps this is the origin of the widespread practice of singing the opening paragraph of

Aleinu aloud. See Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, 307; Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy, 72•

157

158

See Hagahot haminhagim, in Tyrnau, Sefer haminhagim, 12 n. 14 (regarding the authorship of

these notes, see ibid. 17, introd.); Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, ch. 5·

159 See the report printed in On the Main Line, 8 Nov. 2009.

''''' Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn, 308.

'b' It remained in the Habad liturgy, even if not in print, but for some reason only the first half

ofthe line is recited (with the alternative version p"",)·

'b' When R. Mos('s I'('instt'in (J!~l)S-Il)X6) W:lN ilNkrd :lhout NllylnM thl' linl', hI' rl'plil'd thilt he

did not 'lind onl' "hould not IIJtN thl' prurtkl' of our fnrrf"thNN', Srr Shurkln, Mr,/lr,cJ /liv'", ,,114m,

').1.

parentheses are a recognition ofthe fact that the line is not generally said, and I have not seen any widespread efforts in the Orthodox world to ensure that people recite the prayer as it was originally intended to be said. 1bere prob­ably is a feeling among many that whatever the reason it was removed, it is preferable in our times that it should not be reinserted.

Concerning shehem mishta1;avim lahevel varik, it is not just that this is a negative way ofreferring to one's non-Jewish neighbours. 1bere is something even more significant in this text, which led to its condemnation by Chris­tians and indeed to its becoming an important element in the anti-Jewish propaganda that asserted that Jews mocked Christianity: the numerical value (gematriyah) ofthe word varik equals yeshu (Jesus).'63

In its comment on the first appearance ofAleinu, the ArtScroll Siddur says ~he following (based on R. Elie Munk's The World ofPrayer'64 ):

The inclusion of this verse follows the original version of Aleinu. In the year 1400, a baptized Jew, no doubt seeking to prove his loyalty to the Church, spread the slander that this passage was meant to slur Christianity. He 'proved' his contention by the coincidence that the numerical value of P"', emptiness, is 316, the same as ''11>', the Hebrew name of their Messiah. This charge was refuted time and again.'65

In thinking about how to understand this passage, there are only two possi­bilities. One is that the editors of the ArtScroll Siddur are entirely ignorant about the history of this prayer, and how it was a standard view in medieval and early modern times that the word varik referred to Jesus. 1bat is possible, but doubtful.

I think it is more likely that they know full well what previous generations of Jews thought, and they know that what was alleged was not 'slander'. However, in an effort to create good relations with non-Jews, and perhaps knowing that many ba'alei teshuvah (newly religious Jews) and even some non-Jews use the ArtScroll Siddur, they have engaged in a bit of falsehood, quoting something they know is incorrect for the greater good.

In doing this, ArtScroll takes its place in a long line of Jewish apologetic works that misrepresent the truth, all in order to protect the honour (and in earlier times, the property and sometimes even the lives) ofJews.'66 Rabbinic

'6J

See Wieder, Formation ofjewish Liturgy (Heb.), ii. 453-68, which remains the most compre· hensive study of the anti·gentile themes in Aleinu. See also Y. Elbaum, 'Concerning Two Textual Emendations' (1Ieb.); Yuval. Two Nutiom in Your Womb. 1')2ff.. 198ff. ".. Vol. i, p. 190.

'M Scherman and Zlotowitz (l'ds.), Complete ArlSm)ll Siddur, IS'). MlInk's information about the apostate in 1400 was takl'n, without OIrknowlt'dl(('llll'lIt, hom IHmar Elbol(en's classic book on the IihHMY, firMt (lllhIiMht'd ill 1')1\. SrI' HlhoMt'II, /rwj.lh UturllY, 71--J..

,.. SrI' r.M. ZUlI1" LJjr, Hjlu,1 dr.1 ,Iynu/lll/lulrll GolI~,lcJjrmlr,l, .I.14-~. SOllll'tllllrN It IN not dl'ur if, III upllluMrtlt trxlN, WI' IIrr ('lInftllntilIM t1l'lIhrrlllr t1INttlrtiUlI lit IIIIthl'IItl4lllly hl'ld hrlll'fil. Thr IIIIINt

leaders were in agreement that to accomplish this goal, outsiders were not to be allowed knowledge of certain details found in Jewish texts, and they even permitted falsifying these texts if necessary. As R. Moses Feinstein pointed out, the obvious proof for this is found right at the beginning of countless books published in Europe, where there is a 'clarification' that states that all mention of non-Jews in these books does not refer to Christians but rather to depraved pagans in some far-away place. All Jews knew that this comment was not to be taken seriously. Presumably, this is the reason why, with almost no exception/67 rabbinic figures never protested this distortion, since it was only the non-Jews who were being deceived.168

This last point is one ofthe major themes ofthis book, that is, the issue of falsehood in the name ofa greater cause. While the cause here is the need to preserve good relations between Jews and their neighbours, there are many other important causes that, as we will see, can be brought to bear in justifica­

tion ofcensorship and outright falsehood. Where is truth in all ofthis, and does truth have any inherent value? These are important questions, especially since the Talmud states that the seal of God is truth.169 The issues raised by these questions are among the themes of this book, which focuses on the continuing tension between a commit­ment to truth and the needs of one's faith community, as the two are some­times diametrically opposed to one another.

famous example ofthis is Nahmanides' rejection ofthe binding authority ofaggadic statements in his debate with Pablo Christiani. Quite apart from any academic scholars who hold that Nahmanides was not being frank here, but only expressed himself in this way in order to 'win points' in the debate, this position is also held by a number oftraditional scholars. See Eliasburg, Shevil hazahav, 27; Medini, Sedei ~emed, vol. vii, 'Pe'at hasadeh', alef, no. 70; Y. Kamenetsky, Emet leya'akov, 219 n. I. R. Solomon Elyashiv (1841-1926) claims that one can find this approach with one of the talmudic sages; see S. Elyashiv, Leshem shevo ve'a~lamah, 'Sefer hade'ah', vol. ii, 8sb-86a. For an example of Kalman Schulman, the Hebrew translator of Heinrich Graetz's Geschichte der Juden, omitting something that non-Jews might have found objectionable, see

E. S. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, 2IS-I6, 233 n. 76, 261-2. Schulman also censored his translation of Graetz, with the latter's permission, so that the Orthodox would not be offended. See Shavit and

Eran, The Hebrew Bible Reborn, 137; On the Main Line, 30 June 2010. 167 One exception I have found is R. Meir Auerbach (I8IS-78) of Jerusalem. See Hirschensohn,

Malki bakodesh, iv. 98. '6' See R. Dovid Cohen, He'akov lemishor, 33-4. R. Isaac Herzog agreed that distortion of lewish

law was permissible for the sake of good relations Iwtwet'n lews and non·ll'ws. Ilowever, since

R. Solomon Luria had a different opinion (and presumably would also opposc' Ill!' 'clarificatioll' al Ihl' b('loIinninlol ofso many books), Hl'rzololtholllolht that Ill!' 11I'st sh'p would Ill' 10 olllil 'prohlc'lTlali<" hll/llkhol frulll ;IIIY lIIodl'\"II SUlTllIUlry of ll'wlsh I;lw, rathrr than al'lllally dlsltlllllllol Ihl'lll. Sl'r Ihl' dlscussioll of hlN vlrw III Wlilhafllll, 'Ruhhlllrr:r.oll'M Apprlla,h', "XX 11'. I.III"III'N opllliOIl IN lillUlI1 III hiM Yuttllhr/,kr/llmllh, 11K ,,: II. ,.. liT .~IHI". WI 111111 fllll'lIl1rlN

Jewish Self-Censorship

Whe~ did Jew~s~ internal censorship begin? It is impossible to answer this questlOn defimtIvely, but from early on the Bible itself was censored, By this I m~an th~ p~enomenon of kere ukhetiv (a word is read differently from the way III :~IC~ It appears in the text).170 R. David Kimhi (c,II60-C.I23S), among others, IS hk:ly correct in claiming that most examples of kere ukhetiv are due to confUSIOn about which word should appear,172 and thus both were r:corded. Yet there are some places where it is obvious that other considera­tIons were responsible, and the change ofreading is quite ancient.

Although the Bible often uses euphemisms to describe sexual intercourse and other 'touchy' matters,173 this is not always the case. Thus, Deuteronomy ~8: 30, 'A woman shall be betrothed, but another man shall enjoy her', reads III Hebr~w i1)7~~' ,nN "I!1'N) "I!1'Nn il"l!1N; the last word was not vocalized in the MasoretIc tradItIOn, since it was later seen as too explicit, and instead of i1)~l"l!1'174 the word i1)l:>"I!1' ('will lie with her') was read. The Talmud175 mentions thIS kere ukh~tiv, n~ting that i1)7l"l!1' was thought to be too sexually explicit and th.us a more tam~ word, the root ofwhich means 'lie down' (l:>"I!1), was sub­st.Ituted. ~erbs WIth the problematic root 7l"l!1 also appear elsewhere in the BIble and III each case a verb with the root l:>"1!1 is read instead.176

This instance is only an example of censorship in reading, but we also have examples where at least according to some authorities the biblical text was actuall: chang:d. I refer to the phenomenon oftikun soforim, which liter­ally means correctIOn ofthe scribes'. The unifying characteristic ofalmost all of these passages is that before the 'correction', the biblical verse could be regarded as offensive to God or grossly anthropomorphic.

[70 Th

' e. most rece~t study ofthis phenomenon, including references to all earlier discussions, is

ofier, KetIvand Kere (Heb) 171 S ..

172 • .'•

ee my LImIts ofOrthodox Theology, lOI.

l~trod~ctIO~ to hIS comme~tary on the Prophets, and commentary on 2 Sam. IS: 21 and I Kgs 17. 14. ,Klmh~ d~es not mentIOn anything about the kere ukhetiv sometimes being used for reasons of propnety , as explained in the next paragraph, yet since this reason is offered in the Talmud, I assume that he too accepts it.

[7J

In some of these cases it is likely that the original biblical text was more explicit than what has been preserved III the Masoretic Hebrew text. See Tov, Textual Criticism oifthe Hebrew Bible 63

272. ' ,

::: The exact meaning ofthis word is unclear, but can h(' understood from the context. AT Mr.g. 2Sh. [7f, Nahmanidl's assuTII(,(j Ihat Ihl' rool 'mil re'li'rs 10 thl' sl'xlnl act 'lI1d thl' f . t d

Maimo 'd ,. C'I ... II I .. , . , rl' orr r('l<'c ('

nI .('S VIt'W, ,/lI1 rill. ,I lOll Ihl' n'aHOII Ilrlm'w iN (;111.. " tIl!' holy lorllolw' is Iwcausl' it has 110 word lor NI'XIW\ InlrrmurNr. SrI' N~hlllllllldrH. mllllllrlll~ry 011 I\xod. 10: II. M;lifllollidrH' 1IIIIIrrHllllldhill 1M ohvlollNly rrlllirel 10 hlN vlrw, Itl IIl(rrl'IIII'II I with AriNtolll', Ihal Ihl' NrllNI' ol'lolI("'h IN II '1I\Nllrlll 1'10 11M'. SrI' (;"/llr II. \11, II. "II, III. X, IIi. "I), 111111 Illy lim/II ,,/1 ),'kllltll.... '1'llrll/flHY, I~ Ill,

44

I have dealt with this elsewhere, so there is no need to repeat matters here.l77 The only point I will note is that in mentioning one of these tikun sofenm, Rashi adds that the Sages 'reversed' the passage.178 There is little doubt that Rashi understood tikun soferim literally, and these words of Rashi are authentic, even though not all manuscripts contain them.179 The words appear in all the standard editions of Rashi, though sometimes in paren­

theses. I do not think anyone will be surprised to learn that in the ArtScroll edition ofthe Pentateuch,l80 as well as in its edition of Rashi,t81 these words are not to be found, not even included in parentheses.182 Since the passage was regarded as too radical, as it indicates that the text of the Torah has been altered since Moses' day, ArtScroll engaged in a bit oftikun soferim ofits ownP83 Pious Jews study the Torah portion with Rashi every week, and thus have always been exposed to this comment of Rashi. With ArtScroll now the Bible ofchoice for so many, it is likely that Rashi's comment is now unknown to thousands of otherwise learned Jews, and as with all acts of censorship, that is exactly the

point. Another style of censorship common in the haredi world today is the refusal to mention someone by name who is not regarded as religious enough. One can find plenty ofrabbinic precedent for this. Tosafot records an opinion that while R. Meir would cite the insights of his teacher, Elisha ben

l84

Avuyah, he would not refer to him by name, for Elisha had left the fold.Thus, no matter how negatively one views a certain individual, this source can be understood to provide justification ofthose who benefit from his writings without acknowledgement. Similarly, the medieval Sefer lJasidim writes that a

177 See Limits ofOrthodox Theology, 98-9, for authorities who assume that tikun soferim means

actual changes to the original Torah text. For other traditional authors who hold this position, see

Pinfer, Masoret hatorah vehanevi'im, 6 (see, however, p. 18); I. Epstein, Judaism, 195-6.

178 Commentary on Gen. 18: 22.

179 See my Limits of Orthodox Theology, 98 n. 52. See also Maori, 'nkun softrim and kinah

hakatuv' (Heb.); Avrohom Lieberman, Tikkunei Soferim', 231ff.; A. Mondshine, 'Rashi, Rashbam,

and Ibn Ezra' (Heb.). 180 Scherman (ed.), Chumash: Stone Edition.

181 Herczeg et al. (eds.), The Torah with Rashi's Commentary.

18l

They have also been removed from Mihaot gedolot hamaor, Metsudah Chumash/Rashi, and

the Ariel edition of Rashi hashalem (Jerusalem, 1986), though in the notcs to the lattcr source it is

explained why the passage was omitted. 101 In ArtScroll's new translation of Berr..lhir rabah in 1111' Mi(lra.lh Habllah. Klrinman liuiti(ln, ii . J:\, thl' li)llowing appt'arM: 'Thl' word" 0"010 l'l"n, a ~",ibal mrreflj(l», (,;lIl11ot, I h';IVI'1i li,rhid. 1)(' takl'lI at tilrl' valuc', Thrrt' rail hr no douht that thl' 'Ii/fllh 11M WI' hllVI' it WIIM IIlvrll to MOMr" at MOlilit SllIlIllIml tillthfully IraliMmlltrd rvrr .hll'l': VI'I Mrr IIhovl', n. 1'1'/,1111 trllcllllclIIllllllllhurltirH who clo 111111'1'11 lIIulrrMllillu Ilkun ,Ic'lrrim to 1111'1111 ,hllllllr. III Ihr '111I1Ih IrKI. 1.. 11'1' ,'ill/. I ",a., v. u~rrjm,

good Torah insight which is repeated should not be cited in the name of one who causes others to sin.lss

In a completely different context, but one which also speaks to the issue of using someone's work without mentioning him by name, the Talmud records: '[R. Simeon said:] Who are those whose waters we drink but whose names we do not mention? Rabbi answered him: These are men who wished t~ uproot your dignity and the dignity of your father's house.'l86 On the pre­VIOUS page, the Talmud refers to an incident where, as a punishment for rebelling against R. Simeon ben Gamaliel, both R. Meir's name and that of ~. Na~an were removed from their teachings, with R. Meir being termed

others and. R: N~than referred to as 'some say'.l87 Despite this talmudic pas­sa?e, R. Melr.ls oted numerous times in tannaitic literature, especially in the MIshnah. ThIS shows that any attempted censorship with regard to R. Meir (or perhaps just his namel88) was not successful. With reference to this, Tal Ilan has remarked, 'We may expect that if Rabbi Meir was not censored out, o~er people or other topics probably were, and unfortunately such censor­ShIp must have been effective, since it left no trace.'189

Regarding the Talmud, although it is true that internal censorship was usually successful, this was not always the case. R. Tsevi Hirsch Chajes cites examples of texts he believes were removed from the Talmud. His proof is that these texts are cited in early rabbinic works, such as Ein ya'akov, R. Ahai Gaon's (eighth century) She'iltot, and R. Simeon Kayara's (ninth century) Halakhot gedolot, yet they do not appear in our edition of the Talmud.l90 Among the texts he mentions is the famous story of Beruriah' s end, recorded ~y ~ashi,191 Commenting on a talmudic passage that speaks of a cryptic 'modent about Beruriah', Rashi records a tale that after Beruriah criticized the. rabbinic notion that women are light-headed, her husband, R. Meir, deCIded to teach her a lesson. He therefore instructed one of his disciples to

185 186

Seftr I;lasidim, no. 977. BT H

m' ~~ BT H.~r. 13b. See the discussion in Bmll, Mevo hamishnah, 216-18; I. H. Weiss, Dor dor vedoreshav, n. 137 (These sources are referred to in a note by Samuel Abba Horodetzky in Hagoren (Berdichev) 1 (1897), 62.)

188

In other words, it is possible that there was no attempt to conceal R. Meir's identity, but rather that he was to be mentioned in an indirect manner in order to punish or humiliate him. See als~JTosafot" BT Sot.. I2a, s.v. al;lerim. . 18. Han, Mine and Yours Are Hers, 52-3­

ChaJes, Ko~ sifm maharats I;layes, I. 342. One text he does not mention is BT San. I04b, which records R. Judah ~ ~talt'mt'nt that tht· Sa~es wished 'to add another' to the three kings mentioned IT1 the Mls~nah, Sa~, 10: 2, who h;IV(' no share· .in IIIC' world to come. In Bamidbar rabah 14: I and Tan~u.ma, MctNora I, I{ . Judah IN lJuotrd aN follows: "('hc'y wallt(,d to include Solomon amon~ thl'lII. It wlluld "rrlll Ihut thr Irxt In thr lIuhylcllliilll 'llIllIIud hUN hC'('11 C'C'lIsorc'd alld that till' orllllnlli vi'rHlolI IN prrNrrvrtll1i Ihr.r mlclrllNhlr Nllllrc rN. SrI'S, I.Irhr r 11111 11 , ·Nllt!'" Oil Chllpt!'r I' (IIrh,), I(I IlL 'It ,. InUb '11." I

11'1' A'I N,V, 1'( ",a u( amr,

,",,".

seduce her. The student was successful, and when Beruriah learnt the entire story,192 namely that the seduction was R. Meir's idea, she committed suicide and R. Meir fled the land ofIsrael in disgrace.

There are a number ofstrange stories in the Talmud, some ofwhich do not reflect well on the Sages. Yet this is a truly shocking tale, particularly since it is hard to imagine R. Meir attempting to lure his wife into sin.!93 Chajes assumes that in order to spare the honour of R. Meir this story was removed from the Talmud, although it survived in an oral form until it was written down by Rashi.!94 There are also a number ofother stories only hinted at in the Talmud which are elaborated upon by Rashi, and it is reasonable to assume that most, ifnot all, ofthese elaborations are long-standing traditions.!95

While Chajes is no doubt correct in most of the examples he gives, not everyone agrees when it comes to the Beruriah story. While Rachel Adler!96 and Daniel Boyarin197 concur with Chajes that the story dates back to rab­binic times yet was intentionally kept out of the talmudic text, nan, David Goodblatt, Dalia Hoshen, Yehudah Herzl Henkin, and Eitam Henkin dis­;Igree, assuming that the story is nothing more than a medievallegend.!98

,." According to one manuscript reading: 'when the matter became known'. See E. Henkin,

'Mystery' (Heb.), 149. 191 See ibid. 140-59; Eleff, Shirat miryam, ch. 20.

,.,. See Chajes, Kol sifrei maharats ~ayes, i. 342. There is also another midrashic tale about how a , ..rlain R. Meir, while drunk, was intimate with a married woman. R. Yehiel Heilprin assumed that tltis man was none other than R. Meir the tana, husband ofBeruriah, and he recorded the story in Snirr hadorot, s.v. rabi me'ir, no. 8. In one recent reprint of Seder hadorot, the story has been rt'tnoved. (R. Solomon Aaron Wertheimer assumes that the R. Meir in this story is not to be Idl'ntified with the famous tana; see id., Batei midrashot, i. 184 n. 1.)

"" Sec R. Heilprin, Rashi (Heb.), i. 248-53, ii. 489. R. Adler, 'Virgin in the Brothel'.

1%

,'n Iloya rin, Carnal Israel, r84 fT. Luis Landau might also agree, as he speaks of the story as a

Ir;ldition Ihat pre-dates Rashi, although he does not specify how old he thinks it is. See id., 'Stories'

(lkh.),117·

",. lIan, Mine and Yours Are Hers, 70ff.; Goodblatt, 'Beruriah Traditions', 8r-2; Hoshen, Bernria

1111" '1i~lI/lait, rh. 4; y. I·jenkin, Benei vanim, iv. (04 n. 3; E. Henkin, 'Mystery' (Heb.). E. Henkin also

,ISSlIlIIt.S that the story post.dates Rashi and was mistakenly interpolated into his commentary.

Itl addilional comments on his article on his website, <www.eitamhenkin.wordpress.com>.

1'. 11"tlkiti tlOtt'S that Hodes. Al harishonim, 17, claimed that the story was a forgery inserted into

Itl.~lti. In llan's more recent book, Integrating Women, 189ff., she adopts a new approach to the

"'illY n·,,,rd,'d hy Rashi. She now claims that it is 'Rashi's personal contribution to the Beruriah

Ir;uliliotl'. lian aSSlltlH'S that Rashi 's 'obvious misogyny' did not allow him to ,,('('pt a learned

WlIttlatl and 'lilt is to Hashi 111:11 we OWl' Ill(' blt'rnisllt'd Irails of Ikruri:lh's (·har:l('l('r' . i.eaving aside

11;1II'N :tNStltlll'lion aholll Ibshi's alleged misogyny (n'rlaitlly al "dds wilh how Iradilioll has

porlrayt'd him), H:INhi was nol in II,,· hUSitH'SN of making ul' slnri"N filt' ith'ological I'lirpoNc's inlh('

wily IIlIti itlHll-titlC'N. HC'gal'llitll-t Hashi ami WOttlC'tI, NC'C' A. (;mNNmlln, Ami 1/, S"IIII H'41r ()vrr Yot4?

(1Irh.), «h . .& . SrI' IIINO 11m Ilahih, Shr'rlflt 14tohlwflt hemdllll/I, tlo, \C, (p. .&\11), who ttlak,'s IIH'

followlliK ItllrrrNlirlK l'tttlllnrtli rrll"rcllllll 1111 UIIIINIIIII IUII"khh "ppm"c'h "dVllllllrti hy l(aNhl:

~,~ 1""" ,on "u~n ~M' .,., ',n., nM'Il .

INTROD.UCTI

If it is a medieval legend, then what is the original meaning of the 'incident about Beruriah' mentioned in the Talmud? Unfortunately, we do not know, and according to nan it appears that the original story was itself censored by the Talmud.l99

nan has also identified other examples ofcensorship in classical rabbinic texts, focusing on the representation ofwomen. She points to early layers of texts that contain references to women that were subsequently removed or altered so that a later reader would have no inkling that women were once mentioned. We simply cannot know how many texts were dealt with in this way, since the result of a successful censorship is precisely that all relevant evidence is removed. nan makes the following important point:

Censorship of women from the text is not an institutional action, undertaken by an official body, and it was not necessarily even a conscious one. Many scholars who obliterated women mentioned in texts they handled believed they were emending the text and restoring it to its original, more authentic form.zoo

As an example of the censorship she has in mind, Ilan cites a ToseftazOi where a halakhic opinion of Beruriah is recorded. Yet when the issue is dealt with in the Mishnah,202 the attribution ofthe opinion to Beruriah is omitted. Instead, it is attributed to R. Joshua, who in the Tosefta was the recipient of Beruriah's teaching. According to Ilan, 'it is next to impossible to imagine' that a later editor would attribute something to Beruriah that was originally stated by R. Joshua. 'Thus we clearly see the editor ofthe Mishnah censoring a tradition in which a woman plays too significant a role.'203

Ilan cites other examples of this phenomenon where mention of women has been deleted, and this includes halakhic topics as well, Examples of the latter are when the Tosefta deals with women and both the study ofTorah and the wearing oftefillin, two passages that have been altered in the Babylonian Talmud.z04 In other words, the editors ofthe Talmud changed those passages because they either did not fit with their view ofwhat the halakhah permits or with their conception ofthe place ofwomen in Judaism. It is also possible that they were altered because they did not fit social reality. In fact, one need not be an academic scholar to come to such a conclusion. As Daniel Boyarin points out, R. Eliezer Waldenberg (1915-2006) also states that since the Babylonian Talmud assumed that women are forbidden to study Torah, it emended the Tosefta to bring it into line with this viewpoint.1O~

1')<) lIan. Mint and Your\",Arr Ilr~r,\". 72.-"i. lUll Ihid.54. lUI Tosefta Kdim (BM), J: 3.

"" MishnahKd. II : 4. '''' Ilatl,Mjllrandy(lur.~A,.rllt'rs,sX. ",. Ihid . SlJft

"" Carnell Isra"', IXO -' I; WilldC'nhrrK, 'loW.1 r/i'fur, vol. ix, tlo.\. I would 1,,'silOlIt', howc'wl', 10 allrihllir 100 t111lC'h NIKltitil'Ultl'r 10 IhlN rXllmplr, Hlltn' WI' (lilt vlC'w II tlol liN 'l'uNorNhlp, hilI liN rolltlllr IlIhltlltik rclitluK, Ih"IIN, hrlltlilltli NOllllrN 11110 IIltr wllh lIn I'plrcl hlll"khi« 1'111 II IIiN .

R. Meir Mazuz calls attention to what he thinks is another example of internal censorship in the Talmud. BT Sanhedrin 96b and Gitin 57b state that descendants of Haman studied Torah in Benei Berak. Yet the version of Sanhedrin recorded in Ein ya'akov continues by identifying a descendant of Haman, R. Samuel ben Shilat. According to Mazuz, this is the original text, which was later removed from the Babylonian Talmud. This was done so that

R. Samuel and his descendants not be put in danger by someone seeking to fulfil the commandment to destroy Amalek, and who did not know that a Jewish descendant ofan Amalekite is to be left alone.206

Returning to the Talmud's comment that some people's teachings are cited without mentioning them by name, Maimonides follows this path as well. In his Introduction to Shemonah perakim, in explaining why he will adopt insights from non-Jewish philosophers, Maimonides famously states, 'Accept the truth from whoever says it.' Yet immediately following this Maimonides also says that he will not mention these philosophers by name, since doing so 'might make the passage offensive to someone without experi­ence and make him think that it has an evil inner meaning ofwhich he is not aware. Consequently, I saw fit to omit the author's name, since my goal is to be useful to the reader.'207

This passage in Maimonides offers carte blanche for Orthodox writers to omit any specific acknowledgement ofthe sources they are using, as long as there is a possibility that certain readers will find a source objectionable. In my book Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox I gave numerous examples ofthis with regard to Lieberman and other figures associated with non-Orthodox streams of Judaism, and there is no need to repeat myself here.208 In this book, we will also see examples ofthis phenomenon with regard to Orthodox figures, in particular R. Abraham Isaac Kook.

206 Mazuz, Sansan lcya'ir, 18. I think it is more likely that R. Samuel b. Shilat's name was taken out to protect his reputation. Mazuz also notes a textual problem with the talmudic passage, and regarding this see my Seforim Blog post, 22 Apr. 20ro. Concerning the dispute as to whether converts from Amalek can be accepted, see O. Yosef, 'On the Issue' (Heb.).

?IY7 Translation in R. L. Weiss and Butterworth, Ethical Writings of Maimonides, 60-1. One of Maimonides' sources was Alfarabi's Fusul al-madani. See Davidson, 'Maimonides' "Shemonah Peraqim'''.

208 Among the examples I found after Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox was published is the mention ofZechariah Frankel, with elaborate titles attached to his name (n'~T.l"'mn DJ"n luun :I,n), in Rabbinovicz, Dikdukei softrim, 'Zera'im', 62 (unnumbered page at the end of tIll' volume). This has been deleted from the Jerusalem, 2002 photo·offset edition of [)ikdukri .~(l/rrim. Rl'l(ardillg an approbation by Frankel that was later delrtt'd, SCI' On thl' M:lill LillI', rX M:If. :toro. Similarly, Immalluc·II.()('w's naml' was dt'lt,trd from Ihr EIlKIiNh trallNIAticm of !'llIhuN Krhwtl'" mnlllll'lIlary on thr MINhllah, l.Ial. I: I; KI'I' ... www.ml'lulrhl'mmrlldl'l.lIrt ·., 17 Muy.lOo('. Thrrl'arl'a Ii-w "111111111' hlMtllll('rN of IhlN Nurt of (,I'IINorNhlp III lIoll·llIlrrdl wllrkN 11M wrll. 1'111' r~lIl11pll', Ihl' ]!rllyrr

To give another example from medieval times to illustrate the point,

R. Jacob Anatoli (c.II94-I256) had a close relationship with the philosopher Michael Scot (II75-c.1232). He quotes him in his Malmad hatalmidim and refers to him as 'the sage I befriended'.209 No doubt sensing how some might react to this, he defends his citing the words of wisdom of a non-Jew, 'for one ought to examine any statement on its own merit, without regard to its

author'.21o Yet not all were willing to take Anatoli's message to heart. It has been recently noted that when R. Yeruham (C.1290-I350), a prominent Provenc;al halakhist who wrote Seftr meisharim, cites a passage from Anatoli referring to Scot, 'the sage I befriended' becomes, in R. Yeruham's retelling, 'the philo­sophical sages' (iJ.akhmei hame/:r.kar) . In fact, R. Yeruham's 'first statement in

his legal work about his governing method is borrowed indirectly via Anatoli from a Christian scholastic!'.Z11 This is the sort of thing that would be cen­sored in modern haredi editions, and we see that already in medieval times

R. Yeruham did not feel comfortable letting his readers in on what his source actually said. Despite the fact that the inSight originated with Michael Scot,

R. Yeruham still felt that it was important and worth citing. Yet, as we will see so often in this book, he took it upon himself to shield his readers from the complete truth.

As we have seen, Maimonides tells us that he is not going to mention the source of his statements because of some people's anticipated reactions. In this book we will see examples where the author does cite the source, seeing no reason for concern about how some readers might respond, even though later editors and printers were indeed very concerned. One example ofthis is

R. Abraham Danzig's ijayei adam, one of the most popular halakhic hand­books ever published. In the first (1810) and second (1819) editions of his

book edited by Simeon Singer, which for over a century was the standard prayer book in synagogues in Great Britain, had, in its earlier editions, an acknowledgement ofthanks to Claude Montefiore (r858-1938) , one ofthe founders ofLiberal Judaism in the United Kingdom. This was removed from later editions, where instead an anonymous 'accomplished scholar' was thanked. See Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, 307. Similarly, early printings ofPhilip Birnbaum's sidur, Ha­Siddur ha-Shalem, which was the standard prayer book in Orthodox synagogues in the United States, included words of thanks for non-Orthodox figures such as Louis Ginzberg, Abraham Joshua Hesche!. and Simon Greenberg. These too were removed from later editions. One other form of Ct'nsorship that I do lIot deal with in this book is the removal of material because of p('fsonal animosity. For an ('xarnp!c' of this, see Leiman, 'Censored Approbations' (Heb.), for R. Judah I.e·ill MailllOll'N de'mallli that It Isaar I h'rzoH's approbation be removed from a book.

.... Srot iN me'litiolll'd hy 1I~1I11' III Ihl' IIl1p:l"III~h'd ilitrodlll'tion, p. 12.

"" ""011011. M"lmt4CJ hu/almldlm, 1.1 III thl' 1lll]lllWhliltl'd illtrodudioll. TIll' Irallslatioll comes hOIll GUliliNky ulull~ohlllNOII, '~"hhl JrnlhullI h. MrMlrlllllllll', 4')') II. 41. JII Ihid.4')<).

work, right at the beginning ofthe book, there is a reference to Kant and one of his ideas.212 This citation was excised from the book, beginning with the third edition (1825), which appeared after Danzig's death. Until recent years, when new editions ofthe ljayei adam appeared based on the first edition, no posthumous edition ofthe work contained this passage.

In this case, it is not merely that a reference to Kant in a halakhic work was thought to be improper. Unlike contemporary times, I doubt that in the nine­teenth century this alone would have been reason to censor a text. However, the context of the censorship is that the Haskalah had just begun to raise its head in Russia,213 and I think it is this fact that was responsible for the censor­ship. In other words, it was unacceptable for Danzig's ljayei adam to be pub­lished in a way that could be used by the maskilim.214 This text, which referred to Kant, could have been used by them to portray Danzig as a maskil, or 'mod­ern' Jew, and to show that the study ofphilosophy was to be welcomed. It was thus dangerous and needed to be removed.215

The rise ofHaskalah helped end the feud over hasidism. Recognizing that a greater threat was now upon them, the non-hasidim were happy to have the hasidim as allies in upholding the authority of Jewish law. Since then, although there have been some ups and downs, for the most part these two segments of what is today known as the haredi world have got along quite well. So well, in fact, that some do not even want people today to know about the great conflict that hasidism engendered, and how at the end ofthe eight­

212 Danzig, I;Iayei adam I: 5. Kant is not mentioned by name but is referred to as 'a great and famous non·Jewish philosopher'. Malbim (R. Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Mikhel Weiser, 1809-79), in his commentary on Lev. 19: 18, refers to D'l"VDil D'~101"~il. which in context is clearly a ref· erence to Kant. Although Malbim never mentions Kant by name, he deals with Kantian ideas and refers to the titles of Kant's books. See Rosenbloom, Hamalbim, 175 fT. As L. Jacobs, Tree of Life, 58 n. 17. has noted, Schmelkes, Beit yitsl;tak. 'Oral:ll:layim', 'Petal:l habayit', p. 1 (unnumbered), also refers to Kant and his Categorical Imperative, yet here too he is not mentioned by name. P. E. Horowitz, SeIer haberit, II7a (ma'amar 20, ch. 25), does refer to Kant by name. So does Haver, Magen vetsinah. I2b. This source is cited by Brill, 'Writings ofthe Vilna Gaon', 33. For more recent Lithuanian sages who deal with Kant, however briefly, see Karelitz, Kovets igerot /;lazon ish, vol. ii, no. 171; J. I. Kanievsky, I;Iayei olam. ch. 24 (the last two sources were called to my attention by Benjamin Brown); Nadel, Betorato she! r. gedalyah, 53 n. 3·

213 See Raisin. Haskalah Movement in Russia, noff. 214 For the battle between traditionalists and maskilim concerning the image ofthe Vilna Gaon, see Etkes, Gaon ofVilna (Heb.), ch. 2.

m In Danzig's original introduction to his l;Iokhmat adam, he mcntiofl('d Ihal many were upset because in his Hayei adam he had criticized various positions oflhl' Vilna Gaon. This inlrodullion was not included in the puhlished version of l.Iokhmal adam, alld all ,lltt're'd v('rNioll of it was plan'd at tl1l' ill'ginning ofhiN Ilinal adam (thl' Ml'wnd pilrt of I.Iokhmal ",Jam). S('r I.il>l'I"nlilll, Ohrt ral;trl, I. 471 -J.. ThiN offurrrd dllrillH [)iln:f.IH'N 1I1i-tllllr, umll"lIntrilry to I.Il>rl"lll"n, I would "NNIIII\(' Ihlll 1>11111.1" hhllNrl1 WIU rrNpolIMlhlr lilr thr IIltrrrd IlItrndllrtion.

eenth century the Vilna Gaon (1720-97) and other great rabbinic leaders ordered the persecution ofadherents ofthis new movement.

This explains how Betzalel Landau could publish an entire book about the life and teachings of the Vilna Gaon with no mention of his opposition to hasidism, which was such an important part of his later years.216 This would be unimaginable for someone writing a work of'pure' history. However, mat­ters are different when an author intends his book to inspire people by means ofthe Vilna Gaon's life and piety. With such a goal, an author will look differ­ently upon omitting important facts. Thus, ifhe concludes that reading about the Gaon's persecution ofthe hasidim could lessen one's opinion ofeither of the two parties, he will feel justified in omitting this aspect ofthe Gaon's life.

In contrast to Landau's censorship, and probably motivated by the mitnagdic-hasidic tensions that have arisen anew in Israel, Dov Eliach published a book on the Gaon which discusses his opposition to hasidism in detaip17 Yet this very author, in an earlier book devoted to R. Hayim of Volozhin, has a chapter purporting to list all of R. Hayim's approbations (haskamot). One ofthese haskamot was given to Solomon Dubno (1738-1813) for his edition of the Pentateuch. Dubno is best known for having earlier worked together with Moses Mendelssohn on the Biur, the latter's German translation ofand Hebrew commentary on the Torah. However, such an asso­ciation would be troubling to those in the haredi world, where people have been indoctrinated into opposing anything having to do with Mendelssohn. The fact that numerous great Torah sages used Mendelssohn's writings is simply unknown to them.218 Eliach, who feels it is very important to be honest

l l6

B. Landau, Hagaon hel;tasid mivilna. N. Kamenetsky, Making ofa Godol,vol. i, pp. xxvii-xxviii, slates that his father, R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky, agreed with Landau that he should not discuss the Gaon's battle against hasidism. This testimony is contradicted by Zev Low, who claims that Kamenetsky was very upset with this 'cover·up', as well as with the fact that Landau had not given a mrrect presentation of the Vilna Gaon's positive attitude towards secular studies. See Low, 'Answer to Criticism' (Heb.), 48-9.The Gaon's support ofsecular studies is seen in his oft·quoted <omment, cited by his student R. Barukh ofShklov: 'To the extent that one lacks knowledge ofthe other types ofwisdom, he lacks a hundredfold in Torah wisdom, since [secular) wisdom and Torah ;\\"(' intertwined: See R. Barukh's introduction to his translation ofEuclid's Elements, where he also 1I'IIs us that the Gaon r('quested him to translate works of I;tokhmah ('wisdom') into Hebrew. 1.;llIdaH. lIaga()n h(,~asid mivilna, 217. 225-6, for obvious ideological reasons, attempts to show liI;11 R. lIarukh's tl'StilllOIlY is 1I1Irl'lhlhle, ('Vl'n Ihough it was published seventeen years before the Villi" G;tOIl'S d""th. Nol ollly was II)('J"(' 110 proh'SI from th(· Gaon or any of his followers, but it is illlpossil>ll' 10 illl;lgil)(, that It lIanlkh would haVl' pllhlishl'd sorrH'thing like this in the Gaon's lili,timr if it w"rr not tnII'. S('(' Y. MondHhlnr, Kr,.rm ~"jhljd, iv. 15S 11. X. Th(' sort of ideological "iNtortion in whirh 1.~IHlau rnHilHr~ ollly WorkN wltrn tltr prrNon WhON(' vic'ws ;rre' I>('ing distortt'd IH 1IIII00IHrr UIlIOIIH thr IIvlll!!IIII" 1M tfillM IIl1l1hlr to MrllllultrrN rlHltl.

II? 1\11,,1 h, ."r/i-,./r"",,,,,1. II. Srr I ttltlrMllrhllrr, 'MONrN MrIHlrIMNollIl'.

when discussing the Vilna's Gaon's opposition to hasidism, is not so forth­right when it comes to Dubno. Instead, he takes it upon himself to 'protect' his community from this information, and therefore simply omits R. Hayim's haskamah for Dubno from his list. 219

What I have just described is hardly unique, and we will see many exam­ples of it from different segments of the Orthodox world. The motivation always seems to be the same, namely, that the current generation is not able 'to handle' the truth. As mentioned previously, the censors also often assume that had the author been alive today, he too would have agreed with the cen­sorship ofhis writings. In a later chapter I examine in detail how followers of

R. Abraham Isaac Kook have tried to stop his unexpurgated writings from seeing the light of day. The same phenomenon is also found with regard to Kook's haredi counterpart, R. Abraham Isaiah Karelitz, the Hazon Ish (1878­1953). After his death, a small book he had written entitled Emunah uvitaJ;wn was published. Yet three chapters of the book that contain sharp criticism of certain manifestations of the musar movement were not included.220 Only in 1997 did the censored passages appear.221 As is usually the case with such matters, one can assume that there was someone who had access to the Hazon Ish's manuscript and did not believe that the master's writings should be kept hidden from the public. It is likely that such a person was responsible for 'breaking the embargo'.222

The censorship ofthe Hazon Ish was due to the fact that the musar move­ment is very much accepted in the Orthodox world and public criticism ofit is thought to be improper. There are many similar examples where a person who is originally assailed later becomes very well known and respected. Therefore, when the book with the criticism is reprinted, it is thought best to remove the negative comments. An example of this is that in the first edition of Vikuah-mayim h-ayim by R. Hayim ben Betzalel (c.I520-88), there is strong criticism of R. Joseph Karo and R. Moses Isserles (1520-72) for

21. See Y. Mondshine, '''Silent Approbations'''(Heb.). For another recent book which is also not honest with its readers, see Goldwasser, Comrade. This is supposed to be a translation ofa Yiddish book. However, the author censored references to Habad and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, both of which are very important in the original. See <www.goldwasserstory.blogspot.com>.

220 The musar movement was a religious and ethical movement founded in the 19th cent. by

R. Israel Salanter (1810-83). Regarding the Hazon Ish's criticism ofthe movement, see L. Kaplan, 'Hazon Ish', 157 ff. Kaplan's essay was written before the appearance of the new material in Emunah uvitai;wn. See also Brown, The Hazon Ish (Heb.), 3R-<.y.

m See Avni (pseudonym) (ed.), tlazon ha'ish, 70 fl'. Only Iwo of' IIII' Ilm'(' «'nson'd rhapll'rs appear in Karclitz, Faith and 'Trusl, trans. Yaakov GoldHtrin, .loSO If. W Arrordinll In I{. Ilayilll I)nv nrr GlllrvNky, thr Iluwn hlh'~ rtllldHIlI~ of I{. Ilayilll Solovrllrhlk (IXB I') IX) wrrr illHn rrlrllNrllln thl .. li..hlllll. SrI' hi" ',1""" /,J"~JI II/IIHI'h",,,kh~', ~ c"

their codification ofJewish law, This criticism was removed from subsequent editions,223

Another form of censorship relates to translations, where the translators take liberties with the text for various reasons.224 It is, ofcourse, a truism that every translation is an interpretation. However, even in our post-modern age it should be clear that not every interpretation is correct. Sometimes, the translation is so blatantly inaccurate that we have no choice but to regard it as a conscious alteration.225

We will see some examples of this in later chapters. For now, let me offer one case which provides a good illustration of censorship in translation, although I do not believe it is of the ideological type that we will examine later. Rather, it follows in the tradition already mentioned, that of altering the truth because of concerns regarding how it will be viewed by the non­Jewish world-'for the sake of peace', to use a talmudic expression. In this case, it is actually the author himself, Elie Wiesel, who made the changes to his memoir.

Wiesel's Night is the most popular ofall Holocaust memoirs. It played an enormous role in his rise to fame, which reached its pinnacle in Wiesel being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Since then, Wiesel has used his worldwide fame as an ambassador ofconscience, speaking out against religious persecu­tion and human rights abuses. In addition to being chosen as part of Oprah Winfrey's Book Club, Night is also read each year by thousands ofhigh school and college students.

Until 1996, when Naomi Seidman published 'Elie Wiesel and the Scandal of Jewish Rage',z26 no one had pointed out that there were some significant differences between the Yiddish original, Un di velt hot geshvign, published in Ruenos Aires in 1956, and the 1958 French translation (and abridgement), La

UI

See Elon, Jewish Law, iii. 1376 n. 26 (called to my attention by R, Ysoscher Katz). R. Joseph S;1l11 Nathanson (r808-75) was responsible for the deletion; see his approbation in the Z61kiew, IXS') edition. R. Hayim ben Betzalel's uncensored introduction appears in Tchernowitz, Toledot IltlIJ(),~kim, iii. 93-100.

'" Regarding the issue of translations in general, and the different audiences addressed in the origillal as mmpared to in a translation, see Seidman, Faithful Renderings.

'" For anl'xalllpll' of this from the Reconstructionist prayer book, see Kol haneshamah, 54. This I" ils 'Irallslalion' of I's. 14T I') .w: 'God lells IfJ(' words of tale to Jacob, law and judgments to the !,"Clpit-Isr;1I'1. lias God 1101 dOlle' so fC,r allllaliolls? An'lfwTl' any who do not know such laws?' This IN a ciislllllH'sl Irallslalion ;as IIII' lasl Iwo SC'lIh'llt'C'S ;11'1', ill 1111' original, not questions but rather IIClIl -lllliVl'rsalisl slah'lIl1'lIlH ftlUIHilig elll (;,,<I'H HI'e-'( i'll fOlllWdioli wilh Isra('1. This was lIoh'd hy

A. J. Wolf, 'The-' Nc'w UIIII·"lrK', .lo-4l. wllllt'ullN ul\rllllollio olhrr rXlllllple·H.

... Thr I'MNUy WUN Il'l'rllllrd III Sl'ldlll~lI, ".,f,k/ld H~/lJrrhlll'" .u('IL. unci I hilVl' dtrd it frolll Ilcrlr,

54

Nuit, done by Wiesel himself. This was soon followed by the 1960 translation into English. One of Wiesel's great achievements was to show the dignity of the sur­vivor, who is able to go on with his life and join the high echelons ofliterary and cultural circles. Wiesel is not obsessed with feelings of revenge, and he attempts to show that it is not just he who is able to overcome vengeful thoughts. We see this at the end of Night where he describes the first survivors

who ventured out of Buchenwald after liberation: 'On the following morning, some of the young men went to Weimar to get some potatoes and clothes­and to sleep with girls. But ofrevenge, not a sign.'227

What would it have done to readers' images ofthe liberated Jews had they seen what appeared in the Yiddish original, which was only designed to be read by other Jews: 'Early the next day Jewish boys ran off to Weimar to steal clothing and potatoes. And to rape German girls [un tsu fargvaldikn daytshe shikses]. The historical commandment of revenge was not fulfilled [i.e. the robbery and rapes were not sufficient revenge].'228 Seidman writes:

To describe the differences between these versions as a stylistic reworking is to miss the extent of what is suppressed in the French. Un di velt depicts a post-Holocaust landscape in which Jewish boys 'run off' to steal provisions and rape German girls; Night extracts from this scene oflawless retribution a far more innocent picture of the aftermath of the war, with young men going off to the nearest city to look for clothes and sex. In the Yiddish, the survivors are explicitly described as Jews and their victims (or intended victims) as German; in the French, they are just young men and women.229

There appears to be no escaping the fact that Wiesel altered the historical record-which he presumably portrayed accurately in the Yiddish version­for what he would have no doubt argued is a 'greater cause'. In this, his actions are very much in line with the larger story I tell in this book. Were he writing Night today, I doubt that Wiesel would take any creative liberties with the original text. Rather, he probably would simply omit the passage I have referred to. I say this because it is precisely the sort of discrepancy just seen that gives ammunition to Holocaust deniers, who were an insignificant phe­nomenon when Night was first published. Not unexpectedly, Seidman's essay became grist for their mill, as can easily be seen by an internet search?Hl

227

Night, trans. Stella Rodway, 109. "'. Seidman, Faithful Renderings, 221. The words in th(' St'WlHI s('1 of squ:Irt' hrackt'ls an' mill('.

ll'l Ibid .

...., For mort' rt'l(anlinl( Wit'lirl ;lnd Night, and wh:!1 Kt'nrr !hr hook "hoult! hr (·akKmi7."t! as

(r.K.      'mrmoir', '"rrnl·firlionalmrllloir', 'aulohhlKruphkulnovrl', rh." Nrr Jlrullklill, A ',·l1ml.Wl/II}

i>lJrhlrnr,I, .. h, \'

N

With regard to the Holocaust and the 'creation' ofhistory, it is important to note that the Orthodox have also played their part. The best-known example is the story ofhow ninety-three Beit Ya'akov girls committed suicide rather than become prostitutes for German soldiers.2J1 This story, which we know to be false, first made its appearance during the Second World War. We cannot be sure about the motives of the person who invented it,232 but I assume that it was designed to raise Jewish awareness of what was happening in Europe. Since then, many gullible people in the haredi world have continued to repeat it.2JJ While the story is a complete fabrication, and is known as such by haredi leaders and educators,234 as far as I can tell no effort has been made in that community to disabuse people of this myth, undoubtedly because of its in­spirational message.235

2J1

See Garber, 'The 93 Beit Yaakov Martyrs'.

232 Hillel Seidman claimed that he knew who made the story up. See Schacter and Joseph, 'The 93 Beth Jacob Girls', 104 n. 49. In conversation with me, Seidman would not reveal who this person was.

233 R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg was even taken in by it, and dedicated his Das Yolk der Religion to the memory ofSara Schenirer and the ninety-three martyrs.

214 The haredi Holocaust historian, Esther Farbstein, does not even mention it in her book, Beseter ra'am. P. Benisch, To Vanquish the Dragon, which tells the story ofthe Beit Ya'akov girls of Krakow, also does not mention the episode. This was noted by Schacter and Joseph, 'The 93 Beth lacob Girls', 127 n. lIO.

115

After describing the story in detail, and showing why it is a fiction, Schacter and Joseph, ibid., conclude (p. 127): 'Maybe it did happen. But, maybe again, it didn't. Could it have happened? Ofcourse.' This makes no sense to me. If, by the word 'could', they mean is such a story a physical possibility, then obviously the answer is yes. But according to this logic, Franklin Roosevelt 'could' have given Hitler the idea to open the extermination camps, and Joseph Stalin 'could' have gone to church every day. Yet this is not how historians operate. The only relevant question is whether Ihere is any evidence that ninety-three Beit Ya'akov girls in Krakow committed suicide. On this point, the evidence collected by Schacter and Joseph demonstrates that the event never took place.

JEWISH THOUGHT

I

N AN EARLIER BOOK, The Limits ofOrthodox Theology, I probed the outer

reaches oftraditional Jewish thought and discussed a number ofideas that have made some people very uncomfortable. The phenomenon that this present book documents is also relevant to matters of Jewish thought. It is sometimes hard for people to imagine great figures ofa previous era holding vastly different opinions from those that have become commonplace in the Orthodox world. Rather than challenging or explaining unusual views, for some, simply removing these views from the public eye remains a real option. There are also cases where the censor is convinced that the earlier author could not possibly have said what appears in his book. Instead, the objection­able passages are attributed to an 'erring student' or even to a heretic attemp­ting to undermine traditional Judaism. With such a conception, censorship becomes a religious obligation.

A good example of this was seen in the 1975 publication of the com­mentary on the Torah by R. Judah Hehasid (c.II50-I2I7).1 R. Judah, a famed pietist, was one ofthe major figures of medieval Ashkenazi Jewry. While his commentary contains a great deal of noteworthy items, there are also a few passages that would not be expected from a medieval scholar. Recognizing the radical nature ofthese passages, Y. Lange, the editor, mentions in his intro­duction that he never had any thought ofcensoring the text, even though the passages could create confusion for some.2 He wrote this precisely because he knew that there were those who did indeed want him to delete sections ofthe commentary.

What was so problematic with this work is that R. Judah Hehasid shows himself as a proto-biblical critic, as he asserts that some verses in the Torah are post-Mosaic.3 For example, he claims that Genesis 36: 31-9, which con­tains a list ofthe kings of Edom 'before there reigned any king over the chil-

I Judah Hehasid, Torah Commenturie.\ (1II'h.). ' Ihid. I J. 1\. I

Ibid. 64. I·\X. J()X (unn't1H(lfI'd vl'rHioll). It Jud~h Ill'haHid'H vil'w iN "iHIUNNl'd hy IIrill. 'Thl'lIlt'H' (1II'h.); I.. JambN. Ilrymu) Hru.\onuhlr P(IIlhl. "\ ~; Solovf'lh hlk. 'Two NolrH' . .1.4 1/1.; II. '/.. K1I11.. A/1lI1rnry 1/11'01111/1 '/iJruh. ,Ii. '/,

dren of Israel', post-dates Moses and was added by anshei keneset hagedolah (the men ofthe Great Assembly).4 R. Judah Hehasid makes another fascinat­ing remark in his commentary on Numbers 21: 17 (,Then sang Israel this song'). He claims that the 'song' referred to is the 'Great HalleI' (Psalm 136). I t was only in a later generation that King David removed it from the Pentateuch, together with all the other anonymous psalms written by Moses, and placed them in the book ofPsalms.5

Having been told about the various 'problematic' passages before publica­tion, R. Moses Feinstein declared that the book contained heresy and could not have been authored by R. Judah Hehasid. It was therefore forbidden to publish the work.6 Although Lange did publish it, the pressure on him was such that, in opposition to what he originally wrote in his introduction, he now felt forced to publish a second, censored, edition of the commentary.7 In this new edition, the passages dealing with the Torah's authorship were deleted. This censorship is actually different from most other examples that appear in this book. In the other cases, the censors were aware ofthe author's views, and for their own reasons chose to censor them. In this case, however, Feinstein really believed that the passages he pointed to were not written by

R. Judah Hehasid.8

Another medieval scholar who held controversial views regarding the auth­orship of the Torah was R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, who also believed that the Torah contains post-Mosaic additions.9 Unlike what happened with R. Judah Hehasid, Ibn Ezra's opinion, which is only hinted at, was never censored. However, R. Joseph Bonfils1o and R. Samuel Motot,l1 two fourteenth-century commentators who explained Ibn Ezra's cryptic words, were censored when

• Judah Hehasid, Torah Commentaries (Heb.), 198.

: Ibi~. 184.-5.. . 6 Feinstein, Igerot mosheh, vol. vi, 'Yoreh de'ah' 3, nos. II4-15.

This actIOn, InCIdentally, could not have satisfied Feinstein, who insisted that the entire commentary was off-limits, since other heretical passages were bound to exist. Feinstein himself pointed to what he regarded as a heretical forgery in that R. Judah Hehasid, Torah Commentaries (I feb.), 147-8, asks why homosexuality is forbidden, and then explains that the prohibition is to ('II S II re that men procreate. According to Feinstein, even asking such a question, and offering such " weak explanation, is a sign that the passage could not have been written by R. Judah Hehasid hilI must have been inserted by a gay· friendly subversive. Yet as R. Chaim Rapoport points out, I{. Judah Hehasid is quoted as saying the same thing in another medieval source, and the C'Xplanation Feinstein fiHlIld so weak is also found in Nahmanides, SeIer ha/:linukh and R. David Ihll I.irma (Radhaz. Ll47()-ISn). Set' C. Rapoport . .Illduism und lIomo.lexuality, 155-6 .

• It Judah Ilt'huNid is hardly Ihl' oilly IIIl'dil'val'llllhOl'ily 10 hav!' a lion-traditional view of the ~lIlhUl'Nhip alld Il'xl o/'Ihr 'Ibrah, SrI' Illy l.imih o/"Orthlldox ThelllllllY. dl. 7,

• SrI' Illy I./mlt,\ ofe )rthodox 'f'hflll(/jfy. 10'1 II.

111 lIullfil•• 'f.~u/nul punt·u~. (;1'11. 1..1: (, • ..1..1: I". 1(,: \1.1>1'111. I: ..I.

II

Mulul. !luprrlflmmrnllll'Y (1II'h.). Drul. I: .I.

their works appeared in a collection of supercommentaries on Ibn Ezra pub­lished in Amsterdam in 1722.12

Bonfils' commentary had not previously appeared in print, but Motot's had been published in Venice in 1554. It is worth noting that, unlike Bonfils, Motot disagreed with Ibn Ezra and asserted that one must believe that Moses wrote all the apparently anachronistic verses prophetically. In the version of Motot published in 1722, we find not merely censorship but even forgery. While Motot's view was originally offered in opposition to that of Ibn Ezra, in the 1722 edition his view is turned into an explanation of Ibn Ezra that removes the radicalism ofIbn Ezra's position.13

In this case, the publisher might have even had some justification for his forgery. In his commentary on Deuteronomy I: 2, Motot reports that there are those who explain Ibn Ezra against his authentic intent in order to bring him into line with traditional views. He concludes that God will reward these (false) interpreters. Thus, by altering Motol's comment regarding Ibn Ezra, the publisher was actually following through on what appears to be Motol's suggestion!14

Another theologically based censorship can be seen with the important medieval sage R. Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam; c.I085-c.II58). His Torah com­mentary is very strongly oriented to the peshat, the literal meaning ofthe text. In line with this, he does not hesitate to offer explanations at variance with the talmudic understanding of certain verses, even in matters of practical halakhah. This does not mean that he rejects the halakhah, only that he regards the halakhah that was passed down from Sinai or that the Sages derived from the verse as not identical to the peshat. In other words, there are two truths: halakhic truth and peshat truth.1S

An example ofthis appears in his commentary on Genesis I: 5/6 where he famously explains how, according to the peshat, the beginning of day is the morning. This is at odds with the traditional approach that sees the start of

. 2 Lazi (ed.), Margaliyot tovah.

\3 See my Limits ofOrthodox Theology, 108 n. lI5; Simon, The Ear Discerns Words (Heb.), 440.

•• This point was called to my attentioni by Leor Jacobi.

IS

For a detailed discussion of this topic, with examples from many medieval authorities, see Kasher, Torah shelemah, xvii, 286-312.

16 See also his commentary on Gen. I: 4,6,8, 3I. Until recent years, Mikraot gedolot Pentateuchs only included Rashbam's commentary from Genesis ch. 18 on; the commentary on Genesis ch. I was only printed in the 19th cent. (The commentary on Genesis chs. 2-17 has I)('('n los!.) Prof(.ssor Martin Lockshin has pointed out to me that the omission of Rashbam's romllll'lIlary on Ih(' firsl chapter ofGenesis has nothin~ to do with cl"mlOrship. aH pt'opll' ofll'lI ~HHllmr. Ralhrr. II\(' Hinl(ll' almosl rompl('lI' manusrript ofR:lshham's Wltlltll'lltllTY, IIpOIl whkh prlnll'd I'llitllllI" wl'rl' haHI·d. only hl'l(illH ul Gl'lIrHiH IX. Thr mtnlllrlll~ry 011 (;1'111'.1" 1 WillI'. frnlllllllolhrr lII~nll.lrlpl Ihul W~H 1101 uVIIII~hlr 10 Ihr firNI \llIhll.III'I'. of MlknHllllrlJ../III.

each day in the previous night. This interpretation of Rashbam was strongly attacked by Ibn Ezra in his [geret hashabat.17 In the preface to this work, refer­ring to Rashbam's view, Ibn Ezra wrote, 'The arm ofthe scribe who writes this commentary to Scripture should wither and his right eye weaken. '18

This curse, enough to frighten away most scribes, has been thought by some to explain why there is only one manuscript in existence that contains Rashbam's commentary on Genesis, chapter 1.'9 Although Ibn Ezra himself often disagrees with the rabbinic understanding ofverses, including halakhic matters/a in this case he saw Rashbam's explanation as very dangerous to tra­dition, stating, 'This interpretation will mislead all of Israel, those in the east and those in the west, those near and those far, both the living and the dead. '21

It should therefore not surprise us that a recent edition of the Mikraot gedolot (Rabbinic Bible) Pentateuch simply removes one of Rashbam's com­ments explaining his novel view.22 This came about after pressure was brought to bear upon the publisher. However, not all of Rashbam's 'problem­atic' comments were removed from this edition. This in turn led to another protest, asserting that the objectionable comments in Rashbam are a heretical interpolation.23 I assume it is just a matter of time before an edition is pub­lished where all traces ofRashbam's position are made to disappear.

One might have thought that the great Maimonides would emerge unscathed from the censor's knife. After all, his books are so well known, as are his views, that it is much more difficult to fool the readership. It is perhaps

.7 See Goodman, Sabbath Epistle, which also includes a new edition ofthe Hebrew text. English translations ofthe work are taken from here.

.8 Ibid. 4. Regarding what Ibn Ezra saw as so dangerous in Rashbam's interpretation, see Fleischer, 'R. Abraham Ibn Ezra' (Heb.), 164ff.; Kasher, Halakhic International Dateline (Heb.), ch. a" ; Yosef Cohen and Uriel Simon in the appendix to their edition of Ibn Ezra, Yesod mora vesod torah, 222 ff. I am following the generally accepted assumption that Ibn Ezra's ire is directed against Rashbam and not at other interpreters, as some have argued. See A. Mondshine, 'On the Relationship between Ibn Ezra's and Rashbam's Commentaries on the Torah' (Heb.); Ta·Shma, Keneset mel;lkarim, iv. 195; Goodman, Sabbath Epistle, preface. For an alternative perspective, see Rottzoll, 'Kannte Avraham ibn Ezra Sh'mu'el ben Me'ir', 98ff.

") See e.g. D. Kahana (ed.). Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra (Heb.), ii. 45 n. 4 (second numbering). The problem with this view is that we also know of only one manuscript (lost in the Holocaust) ofthe n·~t ofthe commentary on the Torah. For some reason scribes were not interested in copying any "fRashbam's commentary.

'" S('(' ('.~. l.ockshin. 'Tradition or Contc'xl'; Strickman. 'A~raham Ibn Ezra's Non-Literal Inter· p",·laliolls·. ;

II (;oo(\rnall . .'iuhhulh 1:·l'i.~/If. 4. Ikspih' 11111 I:zra'~ wonk R. Ya'akov Kaml'nl'tsky citf'S Rash­hillll'H opillioll ami nlllrilldC'N Ihat II W~M oilly wilh Ihr I(ivilll( ollh(· 'Ihrah Ih"l Ih(' day ran hI' said to hq(ill wllh darkllrHH . SrI' III .. limrl/ryu'"ktwoll <:1'11. I: 4.

" SrI' I.rv~lIoli. 'Thl' .'i14/1/114,/I lil'hl/r' (1II'h.). ~.

1I A1Ill'Y of Ihl.ll'lIrl of prolrNI I. III Illy 1'001'••1011.

for this reason that a recent edition of the ethical will attributed to Maimon­ides tells the reader up front that it has omitted a passage 'that will not bring [people] to fear [of God], nor to love [of Him], and it is possible that it will be injurious'.24 This passage is so famous that it is not the sort ofthing that could have been cut out unnoticed.

In the passage, Maimonides writes:

They [the French scholars] do not appear to recognize the Creator, blessed be He, except when they are ingesting boiled ox meat, seasoned in vinegar and garlic, a condiment that they call 'salsa'.... Also [they feel near to God] by making of Him a mat for their tongues [to step on], mentioning and speaking about God at all times in anthropomorphic terms .... Generally, they have two wives. so that their minds are invariably fixed on sex. eating. and drinking. and on other sensual pleasures. And they believe that in this fashion God is in their presence and that He is listening to them!25

This is hardly respectful to the (northern) French scholars, to put it mildly. It is also in marked contrast to Maimonides' letter to the sages ofLunel in south­ern France. In this letter. he not only extols their learning, but also tells them that the future ofTorah study is in their hands, as 'the study of the Torah in our communities has ceased. Most of the bigger congregations are dead to spiritual aims, the remaining communities are facing the end.'26

Those who are upset that Maimonides has been censored here can. how­ever, rest at ease. Although the letter has been quoted by numerous rabbinic figures, beginning in the sixteenth century.27 there is no question that, as with a number of other works attributed to Maimonides,2s it is not authentic. Rather, the first part. which contains words of ethical advice, is by an un­known Italian author and was only joined to the second part some centuries after Maimonides' death.29 The second part, which is directly addressed to R. Abraham Maimonides (n86-1237), is an obvious forgery,JO as was noted already by R. Jacob Emden (1697-1776).31

'" Anon.. The Igeret hamusar Attributed to Maimonides (Heb.). 37. Abrahams. Hebrew Ethical

Wills. vol. i. ch. 5. also omits the second section ofthe letter. though he acknowledges that it was not

written by Maimonides.

25 Maimonides. Kovets teshuvot harambam. iii. 40. I have used Jose Faur's translation (with

slight changes). from his The Horizontal Society. i. 367 n. ISS·

,. Maimonides. Igerot harambam. ii. 559 (translation in Kobler. Letters ofJews. i. 216).

17 See Anon.. The Igeret hamusar Attributed to Maimonides (Hch.). introo.

,. See Maimonides. Igerot harambam. vol. ii. appendices I ;md 2; Kaslwr, Muimonidrs UIIIJ thr

Mekhilta, 223-32.. For the attempts of R. JORt'ph Kalill .. nd othl'TN to .. c.Id I'vrll IIlOrr works 10 this

list. Sl't' my Studies in Muimonide.1and Ilis Interpreters. 76 -7.

.. Sr'!' M;limollldrN, IJ{uot hurum"um, ii. h')I).

•, SrI' Ihld. ('')7 I). " Srr 1(111111'11. MII,'",lId .,/,ntIII , IIlI J ..

There are other instances where authentic writings by Maimonides. and texts written about Maimonides, have been censored for a variety ofreasons. Let us begin by looking at Maimonides' great law code, the Mishneh torah. Moses Hyamson (1862-1949), a well-known Orthodox rabbi as well as a teacher at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, published the first two volumes ofthe Mishneh torah. This edition is based on the Oxford manu­script, which contains Maimonides' hand-written attestation and which Hyamson supposedly copied carefully. He also provided an English trans­lation. The first volume was published in Hyamson's lifetime, while the sec­ond volume appeared posthumously.

Although this is a twentieth-century work, Hyamson still felt the need to refrain from translating Maimonides' negative references to Jesus.32 He also engages in censorship for puritanical reasons, of the sort we will see again in Chapter 6. The section 'Hilkhot tefilin' (,Laws of Tefillin') 4: 20-1 con­tains halakhot concerning someone who enters the lavatory or has sexual rela­tions while wearing tefillin. Hyamson was apparently embarrassed by these halakhot and refused to render them into English (Fig. 2.1).

While not an example ofcensorship, it should be noted that Hyamson also took liberties with the Mishneh torah in another place. According to Hyamson, his edition 'follows closely the [Oxford] manuscript, line by line and page by page'.33 This is generally, but not always, true, and in the case to be discussed at present Hyamson was most unfaithful to the text: he actually altered the Hebrew original, and thus misled countless numbers of people who have used his volume. His action, which can best be described as forgery, was part ofa much larger tale, although Hyamson did not know this at the time.

For centuries the Ben Asher Codex of the Bible had been preserved in Aleppo. Before arriving there, it had been in Egypt where it was used by Maimonides, who regarded it as authoritative.34 However, not everyone was convinced that the Aleppo Codex was indeed the one used by Maimonides. The great biblical scholar Umberto Cassuto (1883-1951) went to Aleppo in 1943 and examined the Codex. His conclusion was that it was not the text used by Maimonides. One ofhis main reasons was simple, and apparently in­controvertible: whereas the Aleppo Codex has the so-called Song of Moses (Deut. 32) in 67 lines, Maimonides in the Mishneh torah35 states that it should he written in 70 lines. If, At least, this is how it apwears in the standard printed ,'ditions of the Mishnr,h torah. However. all the good manuscripts read

" S"r MailllOllidl's. Mi~hnrh t(lmh . 'Ililkhot ;IVCKI;lh 1.arah' 10: I; 'lIilkhot Il'shuvah' r 19,4: 2.

" MaimollidrN, Mi~hneh 'lhmh, rd. I I yllIIIMOll , prrfiu'r to vol. Ii.

.. SrI' MlllmonhJrN, MMIn,It tllruh, '1lIIkhol Nr/rl 11I11Ih' 14: 4,

.. Ihhl. .. Srr Olrr, 'M. ]), CIIUtttll'. Nlllr.· (1Irh,). 1,t.~K.

1...

II.'IWWdI thepllb1ie~leitpaasel'$"by Qla1 take them, How should he _1 Kvell if he needa to relieve the. blachier. 'While he.i$ .at ...di$tance of fOur ettbiiS from the lmtory,. he sboutd_ the ph~~es,.rolI them ~in bia gantICIIIt. ... a. acroll i$ rolled·,,!>, .gtasp.~ m ~ng~hand opposite bia heart, tIIkiDg fllfe that not .. tboag projects outside his haw:1 as .DlW:b" ".hand breadth; then he enterS, reli_ bhnaeIf, .aud, ~

ba'viug left, goes &_y to .. ctistance.. of four cubits from the Illvatoly, and pIStS on bia phy~

18.. This rule OIIiy ..ppties to the caae of a pemaoeot I.a.vatoIy. But one _y not enter an ~:ted.lavatoly -with pbylacteries even rolled tip. They shoui4 be removed and given to another .~fOr ..

keeping.

21. Translation omitted.

Figure 2.1 Moses Hyamson's translation ofMaimonides, Mishneh torah, vol. ii (Jerusalem: Boys Town Jerusalem Publishers, 1962), p. I26a, showing sections left untranslated

'67 lines'?7 It is obvious that the printed versions of the Mishneh torah. (and some manuscripts too) were corrected to agree with the AshkenazI and Sephardi traditions, according to which the Song of Moses is indeed written

in 70 lines.38 ., .. When we examine the Mishneh torah passage m Hyamson s edItIOn, we also find '70 lines'. This is nothing less than forgery as the Oxford manuscript

17 Set. th(' textual not(· in the hankd ('ditioll ofthr Mi~h"rh turuh, '1lllkhot Ht·lrr torah' X: 4·

" St.(. COHh('II·(;oIlHlc'ill, 'AlIthl'lltirity', niL 04(, 11'. Thr Yrmrllltr tnulltloll lolloWH Malllloll­ItlrN' IIIMtrut'tlollN IUltiltH 'Ibrllh N(foll. huvr ('7 1111 I'H.

has '67 lines', After mentioning that there are 67 lines, Maimonides lists the first word ofeach line, and Hyamson copied this part exactly, even though he had just 'corrected' the opening line to read '70" This created a problem for Chaim Brecher, who assisted Hyamson, because it was his job to add the bib­lical and talmudic references. He notes that although Maimonides says that there are 70 lines, only 67 'first words' are listed. Apparently not realizing that '70' had been inserted by Hyamson, Brecher assumed that there was a mis­take in the manuscript in listing the first words, and he therefore took it upon himself to 'correct' this section.

Why did Hyamson alter the text? Although I assume it was because he thought that the Oxford manuscript contained a scribal error, Samuel Loewinger believed that dogmatic reasons were involved. He also thought that Brecher was part ofthis 'conspiracy'. Yet as I have noted, it is more likely that Brecher too was taken in by Hyamson. (Therefore, in the following passage, where Loewinger speaks in the plural, I have changed this to the singular). In Loewinger's words, '[he] deliberately changed the reading of the manuscript of the Mishne Torah because of [his] exaggerated fear of the possibility of the existence of any differences in the traditions concerning the Torah. It is to be regretted that [he] did not realize that such an approach undermines the faith in "research" ofthis kind.'39

Another example of the censorship of Maimonides relates to his Treatise on Logic. In the original Arabic, Maimonides uses the figure ofJesus in giving an example oftemporal priority, stating that Moses existed before Jesus. Yet in the three early Hebrew translations that we possess, Jesus has been removed and another name substituted.40

The censorship ofthe Treatise on Logic took place centuries ago, before the invention of printing. However, as we have seen with the example from Hyamson, censorship of the 'Great Eagle' has continued into recent times. We will now examine an example from the second half of the twentieth

.'. Loewinger, 'Prolegomenon', p_ ix_

.., See Davidson, Moses Maimonides, 319. Davidson's argument, based on the reference to Jesus, is that Maimonides could not have authored this work. On the topic ofJesus, Hillel Zeitlin (187I­1942) wrote some passages that were sympathetic to him, as well as to Christianity as a whole. When Zeitlin's son reprinted his writings, these were removed (as well as some other passages). Set' Zeitlin, Rabbi Nahman <!f'Bratslav (lIeb.), 42. and the edi~rial notes throughout the book. For what could be takl'lI as criticislII of R. Nahlllall of Bratslav all~ his followers, and was deleted, see 1'1'. 'is II. X4. 56 II. X'/, (Il. 11.141. For n'lIsorship ofIt 1~lijah 1\to1l;lInozq~h's (ilh2-1900) comments III his hook.lrwi.11I and Christiall I:·tllil.l, wlIIp;,,·,'lh('photo·olTiil'l eoilioll published in Jerusalem in .1.000 hy III(' KI'NI-I.t'ilOvitH Jt'wiHh 1ll'lil~l(l' and l{ootH Lihrary wilh IIII' Sail FrallriH(,() IX71 ('dition (Ir,IIIHlilll'tllrollllhr Jlil'lIlh), SI, S'), ('I, ')(, 7, lOS. Wllh thlH hook, ralll('rihall whilr pilHN;II(C'S Ollt, Ihl' IIrw rdltloll Nilllply IlINrl'lrd Irwlitlrll ~lIlllrNrl p~HNulirN.

century. Since this instance relates to the place of women in society, it is necessary to say something about Maimonides' attitude in this matter, espe­cially since many assume that his view ofwomen was quite negative.

Among medieval writers one can, to be sure, find all sorts ofterrible state­ments about women. Misogyny was common in non-Jewish literature and there are plenty of Jewish counterparts to this. Yet Maimonides is not to be placed in this category. It is true that he often places women together with children and the ignorant, and in some ofthese passages it is clear that he did not think women had much religious sophistication.41 When it comes to the study of Torah, he writes: 'Our Sages commanded that one should not teach his daughter Torah, because most women cannot concentrate their attention on study, and they transform the words ofTorah into nonsensical matters due to their lack of understanding.'42 Nevertheless, Maimonides should not be placed with other medieval figures who speak negatively about women. In fact, he is actually one ofthe most progressive medieval Jewish writers when it comes to views on women.

As is well known, Maimonides was greatly influenced by Aristotle and followed his outlook in numerous ways. In Aristotle's opinion, a woman is defective by nature. It is the man who provides the 'form', while the woman is left to provide the 'matter'.43 This viewpoint was, it need hardly be said, quite influential in medieval thought. For most medieval thinkers, women were naturally defective, both intellectually and spiritually, and R. Isaac Abar­banel (1437-1508) goes so far as to claim that women are not created in the image of God! After all, the Bible states that God created man in His image (Gen. I: 27). Abarbanel reads this literally, to mean man and not woman, 'for only man can comprehend the secrets of divine wisdom and therefore man alone was the aim ofcreation'.44

Maimonides, however, broke with Aristotle when it came to the latter'S view ofwomen. For Maimonides, any judgement to be made about the intel­ligence of women is due to their social circumstances, living in what was a Taliban-like society. However, they are not inherently inferior to men. Mai­monides, in fact, asserts that women too are required to obtain knowledge of

41 See the list of passages in A. Melamed, 'Maimonides on Women', Jl9-22. Melamed overlooked Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot avodah zarah' II: 16, where Maimonides states that women and children have 'undeveloped intellects'. ., Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot talmud torah' I: 13.

.] See the Aristotelian sources and secondary literature cited in KC'lInl'r, 1ilruh in thr Obsrr­vatory, 284. See also M. C. Horowitz, 'Aristotle and Woman'; AII('n, ('()n~rrt or WomeHl, rho 2; Maloney, 'The Argument for Women's DifTerI'IK(", 4411'.; 1'11011101, Th( I.n~ NIlb/r Srx, »(, .

.. Netanyahu, Don huac: Abravanel, 11(" Se(' Aharhanl'l'N mllllllrnt;ary on (;rn. I: 'J.7 . It Jamh Anatoli hOld l"lrlil'r d.limrll that wOll1rn arl' 1101 ('frutrd III Go(I'" hnuMI'. Sl'r Annloll, Mellmllli hlllellmiellm, l,~b, 71el.

God and that this is necessary to fulfil various commandments.45 They are

inferior because they have received no education, but this is not something

'hardwired' into them. In the words of Menachem Kellner, according to

Maimonides the position ofwomen 'was a function ofsociology, not ofontol­

ogy'.46 Seen in the context ofmedieval times, when negative views ofwomen's

nature were standard, Maimonides' alternative perspective can be seen as a

'radical egalitarian stance' .47

However, the way Maimonides expresses himself could sometimes still be

problematic for those who wish to see him as thinking in line with modern

ideas. That is the only way I can explain the following example. In his Letter on

Martyrdom, Maimonides states that the foolishness of the arguments of his

opponent is apparent even to 'light-headed women'.48 Yet when Leon D.

Stitskin published a translation ofthis letter in 1977, at a time when feminism

was on everyone's mind in the United States, he removed the reference to

women. In its place, he substituted 'the unenlightened'.49

While this seems to be a clear example ofa politically correct 'translation', Aryeh Newman has defended Stitskin's approach, which he sees as 'judi­cious'.50 Although he acknowledges that scholars must have exact transla­tions, he does not believe that this is a requirement for everyone else, for whom a footnote can explain what was removed. He explains the problem

45

See Maimonides, Sefer hamitsvot, positive commandments nos. 1-6, and his words at the end of the positive commandments, Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot yesodei hatorah', chs. 1-4; Harvey, 'Obligation ofTalmud'.

46

Kellner, Torah in the Observatory, 293. R. Joseph Kafih held the same view. See S. P. Cohen, 'Maimonides' Relation' (Heb.). See also Rudavsky, 'To Know What 15',192 ff.

47

A. Melamed, 'Maimonides on Women', 100. I find the argument of Kellner, Kafih, and Melamed convincing, yet it has been challenged, most recently, by Tirosh-Samuelson, 'Gender and the Pursuit of Happiness'. According to Tirosh-Samuelson, 'Maimonides did not exclude women from the pursuit ofhappiness, but he maintained that women as a class are incapable of attaining the ultimate end of human life, which is the contemplation of necessary truths' (p. 57). She cites Maimonides' exclusion ofwomen as witnesses (Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot edut' 9: I) as an example of how he regarded women's cognitive inferiority (p. 69). Yet this is a complete non sequitur since Maimonides is bound to talmudic law, which had already established that only men can serve as witnesses; see BT Shev. 30a. .. Maimonides, Igerot harambam, i. 30.

.. Stitskin, Letters of Maimonides, 41. I first saw this example years ago, and it was later also noted by Newman, 'Women, Saints, and Heretics', 78 n. 15. All versions ofthe Hebrew translation available to Stitskin refer to women, although their wordings are slightly different. (Newman, 'Women, Saints, and Heretics', 711 n. 15, is incorrect in st~ting that Ibn Tibbon translated this 1('lIer.) Howl'v('r, il is int('r('slilll( 10 1101(' thai in 19R4 Yitshak Sheilat published the surviving portion of a hitlll'rto unkllowil nll'di('val translation of Maimonides' I.rlter on Martyrdom (the oril(inal Arahi(" iN 10NI). S('(' SllI'ilat, 'Urrknown 'Ji'arrslatioll' (Ill'll.). hI this version, the translator durN intlrl'd h~vr amel ku'urr.h ('thl' 1j(llOr~lIt') il1Ntl'~d of 'IiMht·hr~dl'd wornI'll'. /iowl'v('r, as IIIrllllollrll, SlllHklr1 did nol h~vr lin 1''' til tlrl~ Il'xl.

~I NI'WIIIIlII, 'WOrtll'II, S"lnl~, "lid Ilrrl'lIu', 711 II. I~ .

with exact translations as follows: '[Ils Maimonides' message transmitted authentically to persons living in the twentieth century, where women have achieved greater equality than before, receive schooling similar to that of males, and regard attributing any disabilities to their alleged lack ofresponsi­bility, intellectual inferiority, or absence of education as unacceptable?'51 In other words, for the reader who is engaged with the text in other than a detached, academic fashion, sometimes a literal translation ends up distort­ing Maimonides' overall message.

Stitskin's embarrassment at Maimonides' words regarding the intelli­gence ofwomen, and thus his motivation to censor, was shared by Hyamson, who also translated R. Sahya Ibn Pakuda's lfovot halevavot into English.52 In the introduction to this work (p. 29 in Hyamson's translation), R. Bahya states:

I once questioned a man counted among the learned in the law concerning some of the topics that I have mentioned to you as appertaining to the Science of Inward Duties; and he replied that, on this and like subjects, tradition takes the place of independent thought. 'This', I rejoined, 'can only apply to those who, on account oftheir small powers ofperception and intelligence, lack the capacity for reflection; as, for example, children and feeble-minded persons:

Anyone who looks at the Hebrew text Hyamson was translating (and of course also the original Arabic) will find that the last sentence should actually read 'women, children and feeble-minded persons'.S3 Since, as we have seen, Hyamson apparently thought that he could do whatever he wished with a text, we probably should be grateful that he refrained from censoring the Hebrew version as well.

One final example ofcensorship in translations ofMaimonides regarding the position of women appears in Eliyahu Touger's new translation of the Mishneh torah. In 'Hilkhot talmud torah' (Laws ofTorah Study) I: 13, Maimon­ides quotes the Sages that if one teaches his daughter Torah, it is as if he taught her tijlut. Tijlut means 'folly' or 'obscenity'. Yet Touger translates the word as 'tales and parables', which is certainly incorrect. Furthermore, it is hard to believe that the translator actually thinks that this is the proper trans­lation, especially as later in the same halakhah he translates tiflut as 'idle things'.54

51 Newman, 'Women, Saints, and Heretics', 79.

" Unlike Menahem Mansoor's translation hom thl' oril(inal Arothic Ilyalllson tr;lIIslatl'd from the medieval Hebrew version.

,., Yaakov Ft'ldman's translatioll is ~Iso lIpoloMc-tic ~N illNtrad of 'wolllrn' hr has 'IInlt'arnrd wOlnrn'. Srr IMlya 11111 I'lIklldll, I)ulir.~ Cl{lltr Ilrurl, p. MMxvll .

.. ThiN point WlIN IlIadr hy M. S. IIrrHrr, 'M"lnlOllldrN 011 Srx "'111 MIHI'I"Mr', 1M".

Let us now turn to an act of censorship, not of Maimonides, but of one of the standard commentaries of his Guide of the Perplexed. This particular instance is relevant to Orthodox biblical studies as it relates to the historicity ofevents described in the Bible. Maimonides famously declared that some of these occurrences actually only happened in a dream or prophetic vision. One of these is the visit of the 'men' (angels) to Abraham in Genesis 18.55 Nahmanides was outraged by Maimonides' opinion, declaring, 'Such words contradict Scripture. It is forbidden to listen to them, all the more to believe in them:56

In this case, Maimonides had to take this view because he did not accept the notion that humans could have any sort ofpersonal dealings with angels, which he identified with the 'separate intellects' rather than as beings whom God sends on various missions. 57 In Maimonides' words: 'Know again that in the case ofeveryone about whom exists a scriptural text that an angel talked to him or that speech came to him from God, this did not occur in any other way than in a dream or in a vision ofprophecy.'s8

Nahmanides was concerned about what such a view does to the historicity of the Torah. If the angels never really visited Abraham, then they never came to Lot either,59 meaning that he did not host them in his house, and they did not blind the Sodomites or send Lot out ofthe city. The entire story ofthe destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah would also be part ofthe vision, mean­ing that the city was never really destroyed. If so, Nahmanides notes, 'Lot could have remained in Sodom: While this approach would have the virtue of consistency, Nahmanides states that Maimonides incongruously does believe that the events described took place, apart from the conversations with angels, which occurred in visions. It is with reference to this understanding of Mai­monides that Nahmanides declares that his words contradict the Torah.

In his commentary on Guide ii. 46, R. Profiat Duran (c.1350-C.I415), also known as Efodi, explains that according to Maimonides, the biblical episodes that only 'occurred' in visions or dreams include the story of the Akedah,

" See Guide ii. 42. In this chapter, Maimonides also states that the stories of Jacob's wrestling with an angel (Gen. 32) and Balaam and the ass (Num. 22) were not historical events. In Guide ii. 46 he includes in this category God telling Abraham to count the stars (Gen. 15: 5) and Hosea being told to marry a harlot (Hos. I: 2) . The anonymous medieval Ava! nefesh (a supercommentary on Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch) claims that Ibn Ezra alSf> understood the story ofthe angels lOrning to Abraham as a vision . St't' Avut nefr.~h, Num. 22: 28, ayailable as a typescript on the Otzar Iiallochma wl'bsit,' «www.otzar.orlr». '

", COlllnll'ntary Oil G'·II. IX: I. ~. Ahr;lll;lIn II ..yim Vitt'rbo (17tll ('('III.) liSt'S almost idt,ntiral lalll!ual!t' wllt'll n'li'rrinH to thiN vil'w of Militllollidrs. SrI' IIIN limlmat "ukltwnill1, Hu-h.

,., S"e' K,'lh,l'l', Muj/JIollidn' ( '<l/I/;wllu,iml willt My.,t..t..m, J,'/J, II. Fur M..illullliclrN' ulliN illlrTJ)r~llItloIIN of '""KrIM', Mrr 1'lnkrlMchrl'rr, Mo.r Mulmlmb !."IIIHlN, '/") II.; A. AItIll""I1 , 'AllllrlN ;Uld AIIMrluluHy' , lif I, ",I. ')'J~ . .. (;'11,1, II. ,., . " <:1. (;IIIII~ II . c..

6,8:

Abraham's attempted sacrifice ofIsaac, as well as the incident ofJonah being swallowed by a great fish. Viewing the Jonah story as non-historical is not par­ticularly radical. 1be story itself seems artificially constructed in at least one obvious way: many have pointed out that the name Nineveh is related to 'fish'.60 1be irony, which would have been immediately appreciated by the ancients, is that while Jonah refused to go to the 'fish place', the fish came to him.61 Since the story is structured to a large extent around this play on words, it is unlikely that it was intended to be taken literally.62 Indeed, it has been claimed that no less a figure than R. Elijah ben Solomon, the Vilna Gaon, independently concluded that the entire tale (not merely the part with the fish) is an allegory.b3 Efodi states his opinion about the Jonah story in one other place, and this appears in all editions ofthe commentary.64

Whether Efodi is correct in claiming that Maimonides regarded the Jonah story as non-historical is not at all clear. Had Maimonides thought this way, I see no reason why he would not have stated as much. After all, this is hardly more radical than asserting the non-literalness of other biblical events, a claim that he makes quite openly. Furthermore, in Guide ii. 48, Maimonides writes as ifhe does take the story literally:

When speaking of things the cause of which lies with the volition of animals and their being set in motion by their animal impulses, it says: 'And the Lord spoke unto the fish' [Jonah 2: II]. This means that it was God who aroused in it that particular volition, not that He turned the fish into a prophet and sent it a prophetic revelation.65

60 See e.g. Interpreter's Dictionary ofthe Bible, iii. 552 (s.v. Nineveh) .

61 See Elyakim Ben-Menahem's introduction to Jonah in the Da'at mikra edition, 6.

62 For other arguments in favour of a non-literal understanding, see Uriel Simon's intro­

duction in id., j P 5 Bible Commentary: jonah, pp. xv-xxi.

6J See Shashar, 'Should the Book of Jonah be Interpreted Allegorically?' (Heb.). R. Aharon Lichtenstein and R. Avraham Rivlin understand the Vilna Gaon in this way. See the excerpt from Lichtenstein's lecture at <www.aishdas.org>. AvodahDigest.vol.iii. no. 155 (6 Aug. 1999), and

A. Rivlin,jonah (Heb.), 43 If. What makes this interpretation appealing is that, unlike other biblical books explained by the Vilna Gaon, in his commentary on Jonah he only olfers an allegorical interpretation, without even implying that there is a literal peshat. Others have assumed that the Vilna Gaon's allegory is intended to be an additional interpretation, rather than taking the place of the literal meaning. See Y. Rivlin, 'Vilna Gaon's Commentary' (Heb.), 920-1, and Mazuz, Kise hamelekh, 66.

... Commentary on Guide ii. 32. R. Zerahyah ben Yitshak ben She'alti'el Hen also states that the story of Jonah and the fish is not to be understood literally. See Otsar ne/:lmad, :J. (IX57), I~7. This was also the opinion of R. Tanhum Yerushalmi. S('!' Srhussrnan, 'Alh'~ory' (I h'h,), <)0 IT". In his commentary on Jonah I: I, R, Joseph Ibn Kaspi wrih's (wilhoul 1lIl'lIli()lIill~ MailllOlli(h's): 'SOIiIl' say that it Itll(' storyofJonah and th(' fillhl took plal'r ill a IIrrOlIllOlli1i prop/WIit' Villioll.' Sc'c' iii .. Adnd k(,~el; ii. 102.. S('(' alHo A. Rivlill, Jonah (IIrh.), 141r.

.' S('r ~IH() Gl4ltlr Ii. 1<) whrrr M~ilTl(Jllldr" i'llI'M ~ p~""~lIr fmlll /lrrr~hlt mhull Ihlll IINHlIlIlrN Ihr hlHlorldly of JOlluh hrlilll Hwullowrd hy thr liMh .

As far as Efodi is concerned, however, the fact that Maimonides cites a verse from the book ofJonah that seems to be describing a historical event does not mean that he thinks the event actually occurred in 'real time'. In Guide ii. 32, Maimonides writes:

However, we shall find many texts, some of them scriptural and some of them dicta of the Sages, all of which maintain this fundamental principle that God turns who He wills, whenever He wills it, into a prophet-but only someone perfect and superior to the utmost degree. But with regard to one of the ignorant among the common people, this is not possible according to us-I mean, that He should turn one ofthem into a prophet-except as it is possible that He should turn an ass or a frog into a prophet.

In his commentary on this passage, Efodi understands the last words to be an allusion to Balaam's ass and the fish that swallowed Jonah, to whom God spoke.66 Just as Maimonides tells us that the story with Balaam's ass only took place in a dream, so too, according to Efodi, this is how one is to understand the story ofJonah and the fish,

Had Maimonides written 'fish', then Efodi's point would be well taken, but what does the mention ofa frog have to do with the Jonah story? R. Meir Mazuz points out that the key to understanding Maimonides are his words earlier in the chapter: 'It is not possible that an ignoramus should turn into a prophet, nor can a man not be a prophet on a certain evening and be a prophet on the following morning, as though he had made some find: According to Mazuz, and I believe he is correct, this is an allusion to Muhammad, who, according to traditional Islamic belief, was an illiterate to whom Gabriel appeared and commanded 'Read' (or 'Recite'). This is what turned him into a prophet. Mazuz concludes: 'It is this sort of"prophet" that Maimonides refers to as an ass or frog. '67

1be Akedah is in an entirely different category than the Jonah story. Long before Kierkegaard, this was regarded as a central tale of the Bible, focusing as it does on faith in God in the face of an unthinkable demand. 1be Sages of the talmudic period recognized the centrality of the story, and during the medieval persecutions of European Jewry, Jews turned again and again to the Akedah, drawing all sorts of messages from it.68 Maimonides himself describes the stor: as 'the most extraordin~ry th.i~g that could happen in the world, such a thmg that one would not Imagm~ that human nature was

", Sc'C' ~Iso ShPIII'Ii,v hC'1I Josc'ph 11m ShC'lI1 'Iilv, rollllllc'lIl~ry 011 Guide ii. l2., who ofTers Efodi's ;Ipproarh ~s OIlC' posHihlc' illh'rpn'I~lioll, (Sc'r, llOwc'vc'l', his rollllllC'lIt~ry 011 Guide i. 2, wlwTt' this oplioll i"1101 olli-rrd.) 1~loc.ll'M virw iH rrjrl"lrd hy Ah~rh:lllri. ~CJ 10('.

.'/ M1I1.II1., K(lvrl,~ ttlU'tllHurllH, J.'1o. TillN rKUIIII'Ir IN 1101 lIolrcl hi SII~lIIir, 'AlhlMiollM In M1111111111111111' , .. SrI' Splrllrl. 'I'lIr I,Iut mul,

capable of it'.69 Thus, Efodi's assertion that, according to Maimonides, the story of the Akedah never really happened would be regarded by traditional­ists as radical and unacceptable.

Efodi was not the first to understand Maimonides as teaching that the Akedah was not a historical event.70 He was preceded in this by R. Isaac Ibn Latif (1210-80),71 R. Zerahyah ben Yitshak ben She'alti'el Hen (thirteenth century),72 R. Abraham Abulafia (thirteenth century),73 and R. Joseph Ibn Kaspi (1279-1340).74 Efodi's contemporary, R. Eleazar Ashkenazi ben Nathan Habavli (fourteenth century), also understood Maimonides in this fashion and agreed with this interpretation.7s According to him, if the Akedah had actually happened, one would have expected Abraham to question the com­mand, much as he questioned God when informed of Sodom's coming fate.

R. Jacob Anatoli/6 R. Moses ben Joshua of Narbonne (commonly called Narboni; d. 1362)," and R. Nissim of Marseilles (fourteenth century) also appear to have held that the Akedah was not historical. R. Nissim thought that Ibn Ezra accepted this position as well.78 The thirteenth-century R. Samuel Saporto feels compelled to reject this view, which presumably means that it was held by more than a few intellectuals.79 Abarbanel also notes that many scholars held that the Akedah was not historical, a position he rejects.80

Although there are a number of interpreters who understand Maimon­ides to be rejecting the historicity of the Akedah, for at least one person it was too much to have Efodi's commentary, expressing such a view, publicly available. While most ofthe examples ofcensorship we examine in this book

69 Guide iii. 24. See also Maimonides, Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot beit habel)irah' 2: 2, where Maimonides refers to the Akedah as a historical event. 70 Among modern scholars, Maimonides was understood in this way by Nuriel, Concealed and Revealed (Heb.), 154-7, and Y. Leibowitz, Discussions (Heb.), 80, 86, 662.

71 See Ibn Latif, 'R. Isaac Ibn Latif's Epistle ofRepentance' (Heb.), 62.

72 See Otsar nei;r,mad, 2 (1857), 125, 127, 138, 14I.

73 See Idel, 'Writings and Teachings' (Heb.), 186-9. It appears that Abulafia agreed with this interpretation. See Idel, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics, 62-3 .

7. See his commentary on Guidei. 8 (p. 25).

" Eleazar Ashkenazi b. Nathan Habavli, Tsafnat pane'a/;!, 71-2.

76 See Anatoli, Malmad hatalmidim, 18a; M. L. Gordon, 'Rationalism of Jacob Anatoli', 170-1;

Ravitzky, 'Thought' (Heb.), 276-7 n. I.

77 Commentary on Guide iii. 24. See Senior Stern's note in Hate/;!iyah, 2 (1857), 62.

78 Nissim ben Moses, Ma'aseh nisim, 284 ff.; Kreisel, 'Philosophical.Allegorical Torah Commentary' (Heb.), 3°7-8. Ibn Ezra, in his commentary on Jonah I: I, does appear to be saying that the Akedah story is not historical. For others who understood th!' Ak('llah ill :1 lIoll·literal fashion, see D. Schwartz, Amulets, Charms, and Rationalism (Hl'h.), 71 '-1, 7~ n. 14.

,.. Ginzr.i nistaral, 4 (11\7/1), 61.

•• COlllltll'ntary on Cuidr i. /I: ,'')v lD')O' 11':1' n:1' 'nVD., . III' <lIMPIIII'" IhiN tll,llllolI III hiM ('0111· IIIrllt~ry 011 (;uidr i. /I ~1Il11l. ,poIII hI. l'Illlllllrllllll'y Oil (;1'11 . ,loA : II , hI' <lrHl'I'ilK'N IhlN vlrw aN 'hrrr~y'. Ilor It Mnrclrlhlll '1I11;"HIIIIIII k Oil IhlM vlrw, Hrr hlH Irl'll\/r I,/tlll' ylkm, 1111 (;II/,Jr II. ~h.

are fairly recent, this instance dates from the nineteenth century.8t Efodi's

commentary was printed in its entirety a number of times, beginning with

the Venice 155! edition of the Guide. It was only in the Warsaw 1872 edition,

published by Isaac Goldman, who was himself a learned man, that Efodi's

explanation ofMaimonides and the Akedah was regarded as too dangerous to

appear in print. It was therefore deleted (together with his remark on Jonah

which, as mentioned, also appears elsewhere, even in the 1872 edition).

This censored edition ofthe Guide, which also contains the commentaries

of Shem Tov ben Joseph Ibn Shem Tov (fifteenth century), Asher Crescas

(fifteenth century), and Abarbanel, has been reprinted numerous times and is

a standard work for anyone engaged in serious study of Maimonides' philo­

sophy. Yet its readers are unaware ofhow nineteenth-century censorship con­

tinues to deprive them of what Efodi wrote. In other words, the censorship

accomplished that which it set out to do, namely, completely hide Efodi's

words from the public and do so in such a manner that no one has any idea

that this has happened.82

If Efodi had such a radical view, why did Goldman not simply omit the commentary in its entirety? That would have been impossible, since Efodi is a standard, and valuable, commentary on the Guide, occupying a place similar to that of Rashi's commentary on the Bible. As such, the commentary had to stay, but that which was too radical was to be removed. This is the pattern we see again and again. Works that are viewed as heretical will be banned. But what is to be done with an 'accepted' work that contains some comments regarded as improper? The answer is to cut these comments out, thus allow­ing the work as a whole to be saved.83

Here is the uncensored page (Fig. 2.2(a)) from the Venice 1551 edition together with the censored Warsaw 1872 edition (Fig. 2.2(b)) .

8' Lawrence Kaplan was the first to call attention to this censorship. See his 'Rabbi Mordekhai Jaffe', 282 n. 19. Kaplan incorrectly states that Efodi's comment was deleted from all editions after that of Sabbioneta ISS3. As mentioned in the text, the comment appears in every edition until Warsaw I872. I checked the editions published in Jassnitz, I742, Pressburg, 1856, :l61kiew, 1860, and Lemberg, 1866, all ofwhich were typeset anew. (I was not able to check the Lemberg 1855-6 edition, but since the Lemberg I866 edition is not censored this was no doubt the case for the earlier Lemberg edition.)

., Had people known of Efodi's comment, he would have H~en cited during the controversy over Nosson Slifkin's books (see below, Ch. 4 n. 35). !

•• Here is another example: R. Yehid Mikhel Epst('in (d . 170("), in th(' introduction to his Kitsur shdah, includl'd an allusion 10 Shah!'l:.i lH('vi as thl' mrHHiah . This was firsl noted by R. Jacoh Emden. SrI' Naor, Post·Subbullun Sabbuljunj.~m, dl. ~. Whllr ~dllllrrrH of I\pNtl'in mi"ht not hOlvl' hrlirvl'd InIH, Ihr IN""1' waH Hn pwhlrtnalk thAI In 11111'1' rdlllnnH Ihr IIlhl.lnn WIIN IIltrrrd. In onr prlnllnM Ihr Inlrodlll'll"n WIIM I'ntlrrly rrllluvrd, '1111N I'rniurlhlplllluwrd Ihr huuk lu rrlllllin pllrl of Ihr Irlldltlul1l1l/rwl.h IihrAry: I"" Dillt R.hllluwll,,'. ""fI,rllll iliUM pc'II, I Nuv, .Ioo(), SrI' .11"

Maimonides. Guide oftke Perplexed: (a) Venice. 1551 edition. showing Efodi's unt.enaOllCU comment about Maimonides' understanding of the stories ofJonah and the Akedah as nOll-maIO) (courtesy ofthe Ubrary ofthe Jewi,h Theololical Seminary); (&) the Wanaw, 18,a edition, in which Bfodt', comment baa been de1eWd

: ;--. ,;,'

!'--', l ·t·

'''i)N

.".,tlEi,"";

.»tEi' ="~~~II ~JI:I"'II ~~"",{!tIII'P~l"1     "'m',~'0;1 ;'I»'"''fI" 01, O'''':D;'IIi''''~ ;'I'''''P 1~',n ~~p : II"-;Jr.l ",:> to,:-fill':> ,~''',." 1/1~" JIa1"'~

Pl""'IJ'»"7'CII!!II tiP.",'~"'IJ"'t" 1"»'".,11'"'~""., Cf~p.7'lJ'lfo

orli""~~,,,.,;'11";> llJrn,I'fo'XlIl ",,1tim' 0,,,.,,;1 ')0 1''''

itof' rl:.",Jl{II"l!,fo I"~P'CG."foll"M>,fo~"~'Jl!)I);IU'I"

~,,, )l,l'rnV~~;'I !l';'I'''''J.l)""!P"",,~'';'I,,~,,l~ll''jI'

"'" "'rEi""~~PI'~ 111'1" foIC'''~'' ~.,':III '"""~

"".,,,.,, ;!!)I'l"" fIXI":JI-,,:I "111'~ "r.P,',,'I!CPPItO ~l~",~."," !If'!l JU""'" tllII' .,.""".,."., 0/lII'''Iifol,,'"'VI"'~~r'I't" J1Il'I" 'SlIP 1t'J" ~tIO""""""'J,,!,ll,

l!_tl),""'~'".,,,,,11~p(o_"

t'P'l! jI~ 1JI{t'''1I o'(o';J)lIl,jp II/)It

.".,." ~'J'l'JI"'lil''I!' 'm,,'" OIl"",

"II op', O''''.3JlIO\Pl1ill''f' "llitil'

CP' l,p' c'pmll "I'fol tiP,,,!' tlfmIl

~llrO'J'''IOI'/lI:DI''I''''''''''''''

f"'tI"I'Cl7b11i I'IIl,F" """"

: '7111''1(1", O'plJlJ) 0'''''' II'" l' f!I{I, "p~'p ,pfo Ii''''' , 1:) p'"1"'''I'I'I'''o'fo 1,~ '11'lm C'" I)~ "1" JII'" "~.!I) \"-'1' .,"'tI,pp" I'I"7ptlP,"1" CPPlfIl:Dt'I

~I'JlII~'.ll7l'11J'!lJ""ftli,(lPll"'t'QII'P O'!!~P" 1,.,11 '0'(1 kli D'»f> !~,,,,,,lll,,,,titi'"1)/0 ,'fol rut,!'" p;, 'l)'~" ""1' '1).(1 h"t>,,,,,, ~" 1""'~',.,,"ll (!r.t "Ii" 07/1.. "'Dll t:) r.PllO .I'll''' "'I' I""''',PIlIP 1= Irdtrt l,1'" Q11'tl I" ,,.,,,{I,I' p,p., ;71"""",,,1> 1i,I>"""""'J>"" po"lo'7r.) "eI" tit "l .,,,,l, l"'ll 'OOP ~, Cli l~"ft,l'tI r:nf> C~!'lif>.,.. 0""

1"''''' m"" ,,," OPI"'fi ,,,,, 1')71' ,'.l)~1?P" tt'IPI)"I1',,,pm o,fo;> 0,,",' (lit' Pll,.,ft;I.1''''''0""" 01"1 '7:DJI' p/t"",1tflfo fo"\l" I'''' I'~~~".",II''''''''' m "'Jl"ti 'lI'~' .,., "m

l"1)1i "f>., P 1'f'!! ''''f> k :n""p"

0''''.7)1'' ~, 1''''' ,l.l'7I' ':I>1>f>,,)1/ " o'f>''''''»''''I''1Jl'./I)~'' "I"'ll'1 ,'", ,~f> ""Jl' ~, !u1 to,,,,, "p1".

,,,, "J17P tIP":>:> I'fo, ")1>1>, (>"'1' f'?{t~ 1~1' 'XXi DIll" 1;)1/1 1Ip.,,0 '~')I 1''''1-'»1 'Mi{tD~ f>~'P"'!"" ~'I'Otl" D'WP""\II ':»~!lI"'PP'~ III»' If> ,/>" .,eft 0'1":D':' ,!~" P ft,;'I1) ~Illl'll 11""1) II", ;'1ft""" ':Ifr'JJ!3 QlJI~ ~l)' C'")'" O'tal":> II! ~r4'''

(a)

nz:r'1I),'1 n::rum'HU1 !J1ItIMt"1C' P 1"JJ7M ")1"1 ""C1~~1l\IC -,:" allm\11fJ~'DDt ~'n"

n"1Cn~t:n~,,"11~U'!I,nWl nK':lJ nD"IDn ~n=n~n,,,t;!lD D':21-on'JI:1I'!lD tt'mnanlJn ,"nYIm1J'l nJrJD.:l 'IJ"*:l "I:Cl

'U"~":l-':"Mnll"KMQl'J.V'J""'Il' ,~1'K' ~,ru';:,,", m ",," 'iI}"1iN~'K : "IDKJ "I:Ct.1 i'ID !111m"

''''M~'L,y n'ton np~n,nttn ~'Nt" 1JCD"'K" ru1::1n nft.1 ]'11" f'Cn 'l1::m., Ie ':I'etto,., nYl 1MrIK '~l ".v "'M' npl'm D'K'::U" n1"Un nm:3l"1tl nnKn M,VlMJ'lMf"1l"1Ml Klnnl'tl!! "'IlI:7atnmnn':I ~"-hn'U!l"al'~C1K Man'" '0:3 ':I;nn I!!" .,"m JDT 1D,P1 M\!'N or: N"ll n'l""n ,~pnm:r noU"J,PtI n'm 'll'" 1K'?' MMl::un '~1l'.V"N1ton' '''Klr.,.r., ilKl::1J"

':>Ii' .l'Il;'l 1':Il' 1" ")IIl;1""".,''''11'P""""lilP:t' .,~"""~O;!''',.,;);I

:,~,';I' '/>;"'OIiI'I I"~''I'J 1I"Ur.l r'~t!1 10 p"UJ ':>'o:l:l" 1"" PI7IDS OI'l'Ii 1~ WIi"*')"':'I';lf>~P'~J~ ,.,:> f.:n ;'I" 1"»1' II~ ~. f>1 ,of,':D OI~'" If>1Iito:>1" 1I""J13 Ol'D l~'~rr1?',(I""ftI:'I;I '~~"'l'''

Ii'f'!ll ;n;t f>,,',~'" 1ft ;'I""'" 0,"~:rPu" "P"P F" -,{t,:Jl'CI II' .c!u1,;1

,~"rt',p" "1"f:"U'I"~"")1)f".~r."l" T" ~"Ii 1'l»" ll"'~ lP';! !,p, oP,.. !P ?.PI'P":lPl' I'~ P"J I'~;:I II""'''''' ", ":J\'I I~" PI' 1'~11'11 ~!Ii "PI'" "'1I1i Ilr.j NI'l'lPl' C'~I"'P t''''''''''''~ I'll" I~ n.. JW'~' l'lPI 'J'IIl" P ,(I ,.,.If> "."., ,.,.. 'I'? ,r;,t. tI'1'~:'I :"". tl)li'lIf.7 ~~"'FPI'

'" r'7l)

D'lDY JT1t11 N'::!J" on'K i.vll' 01"U" D~.vtln~l'W"VtllC1nn,wn"",.,~ MK1!IlI' l'\K,t:l.l tt," ~.ln Dlpei 01pCC "1J1'tm ,r:cn"1J~';:1'i;;!l I'.l NT' D'~'mtlcnrp nM'::IJ""IIDl c"\:)t N.l'1 "N"'IJn D'."n' D'tu1JJ 0'1v1l 0""K' P''',"1 p'n~" ",,::1 :J'~niTIl,n N' nK'.lJ" nN'~"'n'=.,eo;'",Jr:"We" "IN.:!; "1.11'" N" I'K'""'IQK'1 K':lln "'\ON'''' ,tl;:) ilK1!).)n l'\K"'\O::I n'n'" ~r:on ID n'ni:l.., C'J,PtIm miN"'" ,,'!V'Oli'l' onn r\1''lVDn~ I,enn 1.lr:n'l o,,~n'l"111 C'K p!lO'N'l'mtl nTtl,' "'Il:31N 'IN'i,N'.lJn iIK"'ID.lllti o'",nnrur:n !".]V::I 1'n-01 lit'"no';"\IIt!!n' 1It,"n m'F"ID '-l'ce N'"'" nc t'lIP 1I~N"'I;:)nN1 1::1 n,,.,, 'Jpn 'n':1::1 ::I.,,' 'IN 'Nptn' ",\:NO'.l o,IItj'!lO' K~''N1Xl Nm&' i1OO1 MC;r;.,"'I"nlN N.lnl O'CI:1" i'l' y""\Nt' 1'::1 n" ',,'K N"'" "'I:J1l1 ',IIi 0'::1"" "ICNJ\'.I '0;:) n1tc,:):! "'TI OlCN n,vp::Inlone K~N' Cli'K"'1tlN I;:) o'n~NnlN1O:! :-"IJ1p::ln 11m'Jn'J'1 "ON p nmo::l M'M nn "'ICN'1 ~'nn,n,t-: tal" C~ '0' 0''"''''''' n:l tOm "'I~N"j"\j"\ nK"'\O::I ~p'n'~'C'n":N nUt-O:1 il'n C;a(''IJ'lMN' 'l'P!! NJ "'Imn O~!l '~N "'\OK'1 "P:2 ,nN "n MJi11 iIN'N' 1J1~~;;r DJ"'t7 iV"1':'.1 'tnn~M,r" n'N"IC.l nK' N,n" 1tl:'.I, 'm ,nK ron" run, "P:l n::!l'\K" "n.,'JO OJ", i:)'n~K l'11N"lO::l "I::1t]'''' '0:'.1 ".,n, 01:1 O'.:"~ t:i1 iI:J nae"'l"

p l'\Kl::lJt' i1N"'\O::I i1f';:)1 "ae'"

Figure 2.2 Maimonides, Guide ofthe Perplexed: (a) Venice, 1551 edilion, showing l~fodi's uncellsor('d comment about Maimonides' understanding orlhe Sioril's or Jonah ancill\(' Ai<!'tlah ;IS Iloll·hislol i! 111 (courtesy orthe I.ibrary orllw J<'wish Theological S!'IIJiIl.1I y); (/') Illc' W.l1 NOIW, IX'!', !'dil ion, ill wld!1i

Efodi's COnlllH'll1 Ii.ls hC'!'1I dc'I!'I!'d

,Q MC i',m 'I:Jrli P'" C'I!)'!l:J M'W~

n"l1"101 ,l"1Kl:ll ~IV Cl~n:l U,H '1!l' ClVl'IlV )le1V' ClOM N'MIV l'IO'ml"1 n::r."l Nt" l'Ir.'1 '~MIV 1;:) ,',,:ll'l m~i1lt.ll!:l:'.l1l"'lM::1 "1::1::1, I MO'mil rc::1It'CM!Vi\ 'n~.lo O'::I''1!lM ,~tv r::lo (,) mW!ll'l ~J1Q !) ,nl"::In, I ill n~'n , 'iI"., ~M It"M ,::1,., '1tvM;:)' ,,:1 '1!l'M ill) ~M M!) roll' UWI'J)1 ,N'l'In nK,!):!n

: '1!.:IMl ~IV J"'It) ::I'tvn, ""tt rN' CIUQ "lWNl ,,~o ~M ~:l M:lI'I n11V Jm" , ron '!VIM ;;:, ')1 n'M., np;n inN:'! 1t"Kl'\ to '0 P"1!) :"I'M' np~n C'N'::Iln n"ln nm:lJ'\l!) MKn Ml,;:,l'b" Ie ':'.I ,.,ONQiI nt::l 'IrnMM '~i1 "I::I:W , Cl~n::l C'M nNi'W '0::1';:' ,lMn n}1l'iln nNt "1MNl , NW, 1'0::1 'WN ""lnn ;;:, ~11

1:l I n'nw no U'lVO n'M' I 'l'~!) 1M";" , 1::1 ,c, "131 , Jet 'D)11 ,neoM Otv Klt'.l'I I n'.l'I;E3n r"IK? C'W110i1 10 nwl10 I M,nn ;wcn i1"1"W MC::1 MM'I::Iln nN.,O::l i11Vl1' 'M ,Joe,' .,WM "Kl'\ MNl::lJn ',wc

0''\:1'' '''11Im '1)'»6tll ,6~» 1'>11)5D6, ""0 O'I)D\~ "0 0"1)''')11 T,l)

• OI','Xl')IlI';» 1")"'0 ~ll» :l : 0»'7n~ D"" 61~ 6,~0 '~'1l0 DXl 0011 1ll,,'0 ')11 1"1l ~1l'0 tlall'lI 1l6"'!:j Y., ~I:IP" ,~, I ~"I:DO blltl tI'O' 1'.,"'0 ~I))I "ClPIlO "'0' "'0 00 0'''",,0 "II' '~'1ltI "'0 11) y., 1")"'0 ~I)D

: 'II" 01'6 ll'" oeol 1~1l'C;D:'I IlIDO' "Il"I)::J .,11)1)11 11'" 1ll"l1:)~ o~m 0"1)0 p',o or it 'C p';) ~l)llJ tI'tlCl 1')1)0 gil!)) op" "'Oel tl6~0

'P Ot>,,)O 1:16'1l' ~Cl Il'~» "" 6J1 , Oil 11»))1) Oelll) ))' 1l0)~ Till r,,6'511 b,oo I')ll~ O'O'1i 6~ "b", c,~'" JD O~Il):'I el'jlO~ "0 P" ,CU""t> OP'II' co ~'Ii ,"P' P) "lI1l" 1'»)" ,0')1)1 Ilelt>,~ Dp I')ll', 'D"1I0 1'»)" I 1l'~bDIltI ,,5 ~I) "Ii I'))" I tl)'~ ,~ Di' 1')Il" I tlD'IlCO Ii) P!JO 1')Il" ; IP'o ~l)' 1:)6'0 ~ll 'llD 111'»0 ClP)~ T'D 1"IlO 0':'1 P~I:) ,6"" liloC I lum Dr') r)ll" : '1)1' Oel II' 013 fiS,'" I Ol~'" 16 Ob.,D' 1"

c'!);rlJ)n I'"'' 'c'6 ;'Ii O"llP " , 1'1)" " ))"7\' 1'1)01) '7116 Ii't> Pll'7" " 6'", , pllD o"'i'0 rm,., 0.1' 1"""'" "'I~010 'Il" e,t;" 1)'0" p." '0';1l r"o 'c,t; ~" IDS", " ;" ;,,, ,,',n; "DI'1i c'6 O'li 1'6' Op'i'D ep~i' Ii,t; Ill"" P.I"7" I' 06 ,0'c)60 ~, 1" r.l'1lC I",,,n "'0 1"0' " p1l1l1i 1'1:'11) 0'0 1:)\6, m"I) '''='.1' ,I"1l60 ,,, OJ')!Il,C Ill" ,\'''0 eli ;!r\:J "'''Ii e76 eli' PIi6,,, 076 6,j'l' "go '" ,); '''';1 1'''0 'Ii'P ;, D71' '1)" 71lD

",Un

t'p!tl"lp             ~Nl!1~

mD ~ MlD,'1I'I "" 011' n'~l1 'II'M M=z:JM 1" ,,:I,::a .",,, II",') 611 tI'l~,," 1l",,"1Il~ 6'lj!) 1'h "l i)!lr'l) "1,,,116 ,:, ,,:," '~ll," 1!1 ItS'"'''' "C':''''" 'JII' l'::II:l (.) : nIDn 1I",n III'l'D 'o} Il11T1111l' = 1I'}I:J)l)I:,fliI 1') "CI~IDJ)l) lI:1l1'1n '11'11 nlln~' ElnlM;:n ,;l/1lln "11':1 n1p::,nl' DII Illmll 1'0' 11"l1l&.o I:I"'~O ~, 'Il'll ''lC "ItlKI • "'~'mt I)'»>}"'i' ",l'I lit ,;l/IIIl'I ToIlr.! nl)llleM!I ul1"l 'C!I "1I'l113 I»''''' ,';:>,", 'J ,', ,'b ~1 D'~/l:I~ mil }'., ,:ll~ll I:Ih 06",0 : r, »,.m.., ,,::a," r, I~'" Uee'II'K Dill" 'II~ K"I!Il ":111' ""Illl" ofl~1l,l'l'UI fl'o 1I')'llCOl , ,,:mil ,~, , " , 'I II'" lDll.,,' "Din ,Ot;l'l:i 11116;)1 .r" O~ O()')11 ~1I1'O) 0')11 1116, '}'D ofl'lll' }'jlO 1l1l'1l~ Il.n'll!" J ''10'" n) ~1&" ')III) G'I "ol}flol 1f1}D:lII l",n6o» ~'ll 'lIlI' Ol.,,1l 11':111 'l!ID &} ,,}I" ",& ~Il) ll'll' OI)\) 11»11 "'0 cne }I? DII'Il11 l1'Df.D "DO 0' '"I: O)ICllOl • !:l'nO Iln&'l!I 0)1011 1i"'1l"'11!0 ''DD mlD ClOt:; C''''''O ), }SI OIlD) 1l'1I1'1lO 0)1lIlO OIOn 0' '1)'11 ')1''))0 )n" • I:IUII ODSD "'0 ., el}/l:ID ~'}II /i"'D I:lCilII ';'111 "I'}fl "'11 )~ lib IIIlD'1 ')lllil , 01111 }6 &"ljI" 'lllfll! 1ll"Il) fl~ ofl'D) !l'Il, ""'" '1l),1l c"" lillII'D 06'l!1' },II II" IIlII "'II! I:IIlt! llli) O&",}ll CI~'" 0&"11 1l'1I')1lt! ;)l."" Cl}"'1l on"~ IIU."II):n1lll 1'611 (,,~ "'1Il "'layl) '}II 0'0 lillll'" "s:= &t;l1l 1l'1I')Ilt!D Ii) ,f»1lOIl1: ll'llllt! Dn'II!OD I';) ll1m.ml }, "6, ,1Iilll"l1 1I'fl:JlIl 1'0 0'11')11 D)" D'D'110 ~ll~ U'" 011111 11)11 ",Il III:l) I~D) Oll'l' fJID~ ;:IlI'mO "'0 &10 'IlSllD;,lll l"lllO mo 1'1: "0 "~ • CIlD"" ""., ~IlD DI:l) ')'Il 111)) fl:J1lI 1:1'0 '~I!rn ,;)Il'1lO ",;) fm) "!6}~J: Il'Ill' ~,~ cho • 1&' "lIl1) ,.,~ os, 0" 00 ~hCl} 11"1 • CI,,,.,XI 'lll I"" 11.,0'0 ., 11111 • 0Ci'J)l) 1;11:'"'' &} on ~'II!O IlXl bIll ',SllflOI: ')11(", OD'DO Il)l:l nl~ 1f1}J)l) J)D I' '1"IlOI:l 117 ')liD Ii) "& Oll}, • )Illl tiD 'D' qD I chllli)"'''' (~II) 'nll'~1: In' 0)')l1 IInl Pllll 1:1& , :)D'1lO n,) 6:IID tI'" OJ:\!l qnll )1" )')l1 01) Il"" ~Il 0'::0' om ,OIl'IIlO 1l)0 II} I 0' 'l!Snno flI;) }1l1D:1 )'co h ,nJD:t1 I ;)nl:») ~mo,e Dl0 "co ~IO ,1I1mn, 0}1I1l} 'I'II:"~I:I omll o}l" &,~ " 06"l1l:O I}" 111"1)1:\ ,nlllO II"D' 0':0 cfI F-' ~l:i'~ 0J:lil1lO1l 01 1'1'''::"' 'n'IDltl : Oft) "'D~ )')l1 1I11" ,'6 omll litO' 0&'lJ)l) emil' el, O'D"D l'oe 0'6',,;) ,flt: OOI"D Il1lco Il'" ;lpn "6", ,'" 1I'}'Dl 01131 , "11: Ill' "l) II"D 0,6'''0 l' I, O"'D DOl) ~l7"t: }', ,/lIO 1'" h';) 0' " .. ""CIl' ,c'&"~ 'Dll l~. o'lI':!!l 't:flll'l1l~ ovli! , II}" 1l})1" OIl) IInti ,Illlll IlIlIl llllnc'c 1111 :.:J'lt! "no pnlle'I' D'" C'll :)D'1lO 11)1:1 /110 0' }ll 01 1I'6p)~ P'lIl' ".,Il/i '!ljMOPl ,111 ,~., II&C ,n', , ,),co Il):> lllll O'C'DDO 00 "P' , O''''XI 'lll l'JO ""D'O }lln h')D 0':> 0'11 'r" ocnl ,m.,llolll"1jlD:> ojl"Il hi:! Il' ,",h, I ":1" Plllnnco, (mil 0'0 o,~p ,nl} hlo , om ", 16 ,,:> 1") n}c ,I 01i,))1 • 01l1DOl "enne nXl coc 0"",0 'l~ 1'3111 , 01,& l:ItI'lD' o'm" on1JlO 1111' 1'0 ., l' 0,h'3)o ,filll':> lill ,fllO;l c"~no OIpn:l1l lill'" l!jlO »D1D tI':> " "PD' 'II 1111'0)1

: liP DtI'I') P'P D'}"OO "PJ '"' "", ,mb, I"" "0 ,'C"" pll ,0mDO n)o 1l111IM) 106m "O'll b)g O'lIDO Iill1l

I It'nll/:J ~1U:l':JH tIIl1'1I p,x,

!1'1!I1:I1tI ceoc l'nc' C'DP PIOel omno "'" 610 !l'jl)Pllli' I' CIlOIi 0i'''' el~'" \P"O, OD'7~1i ~b, C~Il' IIlD ",

610 ~P' 6~0)o 71"01 POIA' IPID Ojill" ,np "" 1"1). mo,o ;lll) P'o o"p,n PO", ;,P ,O~lm' eCl\' n,., D'OIi mp,,, ~PI) "" m,,, "" 0""'0 "Ii ~D ';7" " omnOI ,'c""" "'0 0""'0 ')C' ,~,Cl\' oC" "'''1')' I ,IlD 0"1' "cn' 0"'1i 0)) m", !)Cl\' '\)Ii 6;" 0""1' 6~' 'PI T'P'" ")\'''' ;,po I)!)'I)C' ;IPO 1'6 ""Il" 7PII) ;06 ~D "iiI) 6", ,,,b) I'~I ;;, II'lb",C 0'0,,)0 ;, ;ll OIiD .,;llP) 0'''' ,1'~b '''1) ";.1:\ 01) """ ;'i''' llnlC 0'''' OI,P'" c,Sc", 0'0 ,,;

I'" ,,; "6",,, "",." "" e" "O'D"'O O'llDlli "0:;10'''' ~I!, O'l'll'li ""m,, "",." "0 0'" ;,p O'llDlC " C'Ii ~o i',oo "" ,~ "';.lC "n ;, 1'01 I "7'1l:ll : tfm 70." e'!'lIlll 0""

• I'no ,c'b ;, ;11 O'D' "p;p' 7116 J:;'6n'~ P"1!)',pon e'" I); "" .1"71' 0;0' i"OO Of

Let us now tum to some examples of censorship, not of Maimonides' words or of those of one of his commentators, but of criticism of Maimon­ides. Maimonides declared that all who believe that God has a physical form are heretics with no share in the world to come.84 R. Abraham ben David (Rabad) harshly criticized this judgement ofMaimonides: 'Why has he called such a person a heretic? There are many people greater and superior to him who adhere to such a belief on the basis of what they have seen in verses of Scripture and even more in the words of those agadot which corrupt right opinion about religious matters.'85

R. Joseph Albo (c.I38o-1444) preserves an alternative, and much softened version of Rabad's comment: 'Even though the essential belief is such [i.e. that God is not corporeal], one who believes that God has a form based on his literal understanding ofbiblical and rabbinic texts is not to be called a heretic.' Missing from this version is Rabad's biting remark that some of the cor­porealists were even greater than Maimonides. Yet there is no question that Albo's version is not the original text,86 and I assume that the censoring was done by a follower of Maimonides who was understandably upset by Rabad's comment.87

After the early years ofcontroversy over his writings, Maimonides came to occupy a central position in Jewish tradition. It is therefore understandable that harsh criticism ofhim would be viewed as improper. Even when the criti­cism was tempered, there were times when it was not allowed in print. For example, some kabbalists taught that as a punishment for what Maimonides wrote in his philosophical writings he was condemned to be reincarnated as a worm. R. Joseph Karo-or rather the magid who appeared to him--claimed that although this was indeed Heaven's decree, Maimonides' Torah learning and good deeds protected him so that he was not forced to become a worm, although he did have to go through one reincarnation before reaching heaven. This passage from Karo's Magid meisharim was not included when the volume was published.88

Naor, Limit of Intellectual Freedom, 167-8, regarding the possible alteration of a passage in the Zohar ~adash in order to remove an antinomian·sounding comment.

... See my Limits ofOrthodox Theology, ch. 3.

85 Abraham ben David, hasagah on Maimonides, Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot teshuvah' r 7; translation in Twersky, Rabad ofPosquieres, 282. .. See D. Kaufmann, Geschichte, 487-8.

87 Jose Faur assumes just the opposite, that the censorship was carried out by the opponents of Maimonides: 'Shocked by his tone, and the harm in terms or pllblk n'btions that it may cause to the anti· Maimonidean crusade, pious hands rewrote IIit's(' words' (id.. //orizemtu/ Soc:ir.ty, 41X n, 340). I find this suggestion very unlikt'ly.

.. SrI' Wt'rblowsky,JlIseph Kum, 11,170 n, 1., Thl'rl' iN rl'u"olilo hl'lil'vl' IlIill wll"t rl'lII01illH 01'111(, Mugid mri.lhurim iN ollly II Nmilll porlioll nf Ihl' oriMillill. ulul Mo"lIr hlrl UUlllllr" IlIilllhr lIIiNNillM "rl'lioll" wrrr ""pprl'""rtl hy kilhhilll"l" IlIrlllMrlvr", SrI' 111. /(uhh,"ull: Nrlll "rr.~/'rlljvr,I, 11)'/'0,

One ofthe few figures in recent centuries who had the standing to criticize Maimonides was the Vilna Gaon. While he is often described as a strong opponent of Maimonides' philosophy, Eliyahu Stern has recently argued that his viewpoint on this matter is much more nuanced.89 One remark of his that led to the assumption that he was unremittingly opposed to Maimonides' philosophy appears in his commentary on Karo's Shul/:J,an arukh,90 In this work, Karo noted that an incantation recited over one who was bitten by a snake does not have any real effect, but is permitted since it can calm the person. The Vilna Gaon comments:

This is the view of Maimonides.... But all subsequent teachers disagree with him since numerous incantations are referred to in the Talmud. He [Maimonides) followed the accursed philosophy and he therefore wrote that magic, the use of divine names for magical purposes, incantations, demons, and amulets are all false, but they smote him on the head since we find many accounts in the Talmud ofthe efficacy of divine names and magic. , .. Philosophy, with its many words, misled him to explain all these passages figuratively and to remove them completely from their plain meaning. God forbid, I believe neither in them [i,e. the philosophers) nor their followers . All these matters are to be understood literally, but they also have an inner meaning. This is not, however, the inner meaning given by the philosophers, which we throw to the trash,91 but ofthe masters oftruth [the kabbalists].92

What I have just quoted are the words ofthe Vilna Gaon as they appear in the first edition of his commentary, published in Grodno, 1806 (Fig. 2.3). This edition was published by two of the Vilna Gaon's sons, thus testifying to its authenticity.93 One would have thought that the towering significance of the Vilna Gaon would prevent his words from being tampered with,94 yet this was

89 See E. Stern, Genius, 127ff. 90 'Yoreh de'ah' 179: 13.

91 Eliyahu Stern offers an alternative, and in my opinion incorrect, translation, and I have italicized where we differ. 'Rather, [what I mean) is that everything written follows according to its sensus literalis but all ofthese things have within them a hidden essence [that must be interpreted), Not the meaning of the philosophers who toss [the sensus literalis ofthe text) into the refose, but the [inner essence) ofthe masters oftruth.' See E. Stern, Genius, 128. Alan Brill's translation is slightly different from Stem's: 'Not the inner meaning of the philosophers who toss [the true meaning) to the refuse' (emphasis added) . See Brill, 'Writings ofthe Vilna Gaon', 9.

., Most of this translation is taken from L. Jacobs, A Jewish 'fheology, 111-12. Jacobs, as with so many other writt'rs who have quoted this passage, did not kno~ that the standard Vilna text was rt'nsored, Allan Nadlrr was also unaware of this and assumed that Dov Eliach, who cited the original vt'rsioll in SeJrr nugaon , ii. ~XX, had all(·n·d th(' Vilna Gaon's words, See Nadler, 'The "R;lmham Rrvival''', 51 11. II), ., SI'(' SrlliNdla, 'Order of Pllhlicalion' (Heh.), 6X2 ff,

o. Thl' Vilna Gaon'N itllporlullrr waN Nllrh IhUI filr tn.my yrill'N Ihr Ilahad movl'llll'nl ('n~aMl'd ill Nrlf:rrllNilrNhlp Nn UN In ilvold Jlllhlldy nillrh:II1M him, IlIlhl' lir"1 rdillull uflhl' 'limyu , PllhliNlIl'tl hy It Shlll'lIr ZUIIllUII nf LYlitly III 17()CI, IIIIIllhr III1I11Y ""h.rlllll'lIl rtlilioll. 1IIIIIlII)O(), u "'1111111'111

',' ( ," ,. ",', .. ,." , ",.' "lT1:1''''''

.. . '" o"llh, (l')· 'I) ~m"" h '" C'7CI c':nl, Illnc, c'oe,o j", pI' "1,"16" h'OlOllII" 1m 1C»' h,,,, "1»lJ ,1nh, c'l,,1 "J"'~ '1:>1) ,'1, ;>l\")Ch, hlll·D '."", "1~n h1DlJ lll'calD ;>"" "'$" '1;>C '7jl7jll» rill" "" ,,, I", 'jlC h,,, I,,, l\\J)'Iljll np,'j'l hll'll ,')j'''' "'" n"., PI ;>"j'l) P' "" " " 67J'V 01) '"lc"'JI ",,,'n ,"OOj, ,,~c '" "Dh ")',,~.,) O'l:~' rr.c h"jl) ,,", ,'nh, Ml'J ;>,,:>, "',')$ p 'I)'JIi 1" "11"" "'"C I'j "'njl'''' oc ,"", PC'''' '" 3'''' 'I'l::> O'O'~~D~' . ")bO~" ",o'cIII, "'»'jlIl ~"") 1'\)'",., I" at ';>11 '1)1 0')')" """ "''II'' ".",,'"

': :: (;~:=l't~.'!l~"~l:,,:,    tI·,,,,, \) hlh O)lD"» hI) o,,~ b), o.~) r'nnll I"" "'0' IIlC~" cillh ";"111, 11$\" ""I,,, ",m" C1DI "njll(<.') : rm"" 'Ill) lc hlh ;10:'" II"" I'P")\1C "'0'0,10" 'lp) \; IlI'D',O hl /)\'))"00'" C'C hi" rIlCO) C" ?tn 7nIPI) 'P7 10(17 ":1 'i'IlII» (10) : '" .. fI1I)1XI' '" 1)11 ell, (1\1) : 'I) pp'''' II"'! OC .,~., • ,'~ ~\l') :l:,,,.,,·~Oc.r.'!~)~ "e') •~" ~"! <",) :'I) "D~,.Ct" Del )0111' ." C' ~I (tl) t C"II ''') , )"D

Fipre a" R, Joaeph Karo, Skull)cln aNlck (Crexino, 1806), thowinl the vUna Caon'. uncen.orecl comment attaddnl pbOolopby

CoIInIIyol..UMtyol..,.."".rI•••'....

not to be the case. When the ShuliJan arukh was published in Vilna in 1880 by the Romm family,95 an edition that would soon become standard, the Gaon's description ofphilosophy as 'accursed' was removed. Furthermore, the refer­ence to throwing the philosophers' meaning 'to the trash' was also changed to something softer: 'Not, however, the inner meaning given by the phil­osophers, which is in reality only an external meaning [iJitsonim).'

This censorship was perhaps prompted by a claim made by R. Tsevi Hirsch Katzenellenbogen (1796-1868) that the Vilna Gaon's student,

R. Menasheh of Ilya (1767-1831), told him that the Gaon's comment was not authentic, but was inserted during publication by someone else. (If this was the reason for the censorship, we can only speculate as to why the entire comment was not deleted.) The maskilim jumped on Katzenellenbogen's report, for they too were anxious to claim the Vilna Gaon as one of theirs,96 a task made more difficult by his harsh attack on Maimonides and defence of 'superstition'. The fact that Katzenellenbogen was himself an adherent of the Haskalah (in its moderate form) is reason enough to cast doubt on his report. Furthermore, his words are contradicted by R. Samuel Luria's eye­witness testimony from the nineteenth century that the autograph manu­script of R. Elijah's commentary corresponded exactly to the text of the first printed edition.97

Ifthe Vilna Gaon was censored, we should expect that R. Israel ben Eliezer (c.I700-60), the Ba'al Shem Tov, would be given the same treatment. According to a tale recorded in Shiv/:J.ei habesht,98 when the Ba'al Shem Tov's wife died his followers wanted him to remarry. He replied: 'Why do I need a wife? For the last fourteen years I refrained from sleeping with my wife, and my son Hersheleh was born by the word [al pi hadibur).'99 It is not clear what 'by the word' signifies. It certainly does not mean divine impregnation, for immediately following this the Ba'al Shem Tov tells his son: 'I know that I gave you a holy soul, for when I joined in union with my wife the heavens shook.'

pointing out the error of 'some scholars who are wise in their own eyes, may God forgive them' was omitted. The reason for the omission is that the viewpoint being criticized, that tsimtsum is to be understood literally, was thought by Habad followers to have been held by the Vilna Gaon. See Y. Mondshine, Likutei amarim, 15; Moskowitz, 'How is Hasidism "Researched"?' (Heb.), 206

·n See J. II. Levin. Aliyot diyuhu, 41; Diensla!!. Did Ih,' Vilna Gaon OppOSI' Mairnonides

n. 74; Naor, Limit C?f1ntellectual Freedom. 202-3.  ; 

..  See Berliner, Aus dem /,ehrn. ' .11 -4.  'N,  See f:tkes, Gaon oJVilna (Heb.), ch. 2 . 

'  · 

Philosophy?· (1Il'Il.), .1.55. J.57; D. Kanll·'ll'l~ky. "I'll,· C;;IIJ11 R. MI'l1asl1t"h ofllya· (I "·h.), 715 '(' 11. 10.

TIlt" mONI n'u'nll111NI1nrNNfui altr1l1pll0 itl1pl1ll11lhr' OIl1lhrl1lirily oflhr Vill101 (;0I011'S 101111111'111 is

Ilalpl'rin, "<:OI1NIIItOillol1' (1II'h.), ~o I 11. ~'/.

.. KOPYN, IlIt~. I'. l(lII. .. IIl'u-AutoNlltlll M11111,(1IIIl1N.). In /'1'l,1~, ( ~III1( IlIlIIlSh'III '1111', ""II,

JEWISH THOUGHT

77

not to be the case. When the Shul/:r-an arukh was published in Vilna in 1880 by the Romm family,95 an edition that would soon become standard, the Gaon's description ofphilosophy as 'accursed' was removed. Furthermore, the refer­ence to throwing the philosophers' meaning 'to the trash' was also changed to something softer: 'Not, however, the inner meaning given by the phil­osophers, which is in reality only an external meaning [/:r-itsonim].'

This censorship was perhaps prompted by a claim made by R. Tsevi Hirsch Katzenellenbogen (1796-1868) that the Vilna Gaon's student,

R. Menasheh of Ilya (1767-1831), told him that the Gaon's comment was not authentic, but was inserted during publication by someone else. (If this was the reason for the censorship, we can only speculate as to why the entire comment was not deleted.) The maskilim jumped on Katzenellenbogen's report, for they too were anxious to claim the Vilna Gaon as one of theirs,96 a task made more difficult by his harsh attack on Maimonides and defence of 'superstition'. The fact that Katzenellenbogen was himself an adherent of the Haskalah (in its moderate form) is reason enough to cast doubt on his report. Furthermore, his words are contradicted by R. Samuel Luria's eye­witness testimony from the nineteenth century that the autograph manu­script of R. Elijah's commentary corresponded exactly to the text of the first printed edition.97

Ifthe Vilna Gaon was censored, we should expect that R. Israel ben Eliezer (c.I700-60), the Ba'al Shem Tov, would be given the same treatment. According to a tale recorded in Shiv/:r-ei habesht,98when the Ba'al Shem Tov's wife died his followers wanted him to remarry. He replied: 'Why do I need a wife? For the last fourteen years I refrained from sleeping with my wife, and my son Hersheleh was born by the word tal pi hadibur].'99 It is not clear what 'by the word' signifies. It certainly does not mean divine impregnation, for immediately following this the Ba'al Shem Tov tells his son: 'I know that I gave you a holy soul, for when I joined in union with my wife the heavens shook.'

pointing out the error of 'some scholars who are wise in their own eyes, may God forgive them' was omitted. The reason for the omission is that the viewpoint being criticized, that tsimtsum is to be understood literally, was thought by Habad followers to have been held by the Vilna Gaon. See Y. Mondshme, Likutei amarim, 15; Moskowitz, 'How is Hasidism "Researched"?' (Heb.), 206

n. 74; Naor, Liml/. ofIntellectual Freedom, 20 2-3-1 .5 S B rlin ' I', AilSdw li.cbcrl, I 3-4. '" cC' ~lkC'~ , Caolt ofViiria (II b.), ch. 2. '7 C'C' ). II. I.evin, II liyo/ l'iiy(~IIII , '1.\; I i(,IIKlal'.. 'I id Ille Vil11:! ,:lOll ppo~C' Mail11ol1 id('~' Pllilosopllyr' (1It'I>.). }. " ';: n. I<:l1l1l'III'lllky, ''J'I,,· C:ICI 11 R. MI 'II:IHIIC'II 01 lI yol' (I II-Il.) , 'I\~ 0 II. I . 'J'II(' IIlosl !'t'l 1'111 II 11 til II 1 I'''H IIII "lIt'lIlpl 10 1111 jllIl\l1 II", ,11 11111'11111II Yli lli it' VII 11, 1 :,ICI 11 '1l 11111111 1('111 i

I l.ilPI·IIII,·( :1111 1111.11111 11' (111,11.), 'I \ I" " ~I ." 1"'flY , 1/1 1'" " \10/1 ... ""11 All III ,"1111\11111 (1/ ,"1 ), /11 /'1111 11 11/1/11 1111111 ',/11111 1111 ', ", X

Presumably, 'by the word' refers to a directive from heaven to cease his asceticism and resume marital relations. It could also refer to some sort of supernatural element that was present when the Ba'al Shem Tov was 'joined in union' with his wife.1OO Yet whatever the story's original intent, when a sec­ond edition ofthe work appeared in Berdichev in 1815, this story ofthe 'word' was removed.101 It appears that the publisher felt that the story could be under­stood in a Christian fashion, and therefore decided to omit it. Also worthy of note is that the Berdichev edition of ShivJ:r,ei habesht omits the later passage in which the Ba'al Shem Tov speaks of 'joining in union' with his wife, no doubt because the publisher was uncomfortable with the description oftheir heaven-shaking sexual relations.

In this chapter we have seen examples of censorship of uncomfortable texts that date from medieval times until the eighteenth century.102 What about earlier material? It is indeed possible that a passage in the Talmud was censored because the idea it expressed was thought to be too radical. Berakhot 63a states:

Bar Kappara expounded: What short text is there upon which all the essential principles of the Torah depend? 'In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He will direct thy paths' [Provo 3: 6). Rava remarked: Even for a matter of transgression.

A version of this passage is preserved in the sixteenth-century aggadic compilation Ein ya'akov/03 as well as in at least two talmudic manuscripts and one medieval source that adds another sentence to this passage.104 It records a popular saying that even thieves, when they steal, call upon God (to assist them in their thievery). What happened to this passage? Nahum Rakover sug­gests that this is an example ofinternal censorship. lOS In other words, the very mention ofa saying that thieves pray for success in their nefarious work was viewed as problematic, and thus was simply deleted from manuscripts.106

I know of another example where an ancient text was censored for theo­logical reasons. This time the censorship was carried out by R. Solomon

100 I assume this is also what is meant when it is reported that the hasidic master R. Yehiel Mikhel Rabinowitz ofZlotshov (d. 1786) was born from 'a spiritual drop, not a physical one'. See Anon., Beit zlotshov, ii. 22. I do not think this means a divine impregnation without any sexual intercourse by his father. JOI See Y. Mondshine, Shiv/:lei habesht, 49.

102 As for 19th-cent. texts, in recent years many editions ofthe Mishnah with the commentary of

R. Israel Lipschutz (Tiferet yisra'el) have removed lipschutz'S Dcrush or hu/:luyim (f(llllld in the Vilna edition, Seder Nezikin) because he accepted tI1odl'rn sdentifir rondllsions about til(' existence ofdinosaurs and a universe much oldl'r than /I'WS Ir;,dilion;,lIy blolit'VC'd illo k.

1111 AT fin 61u. ,,~ SrI' I~..hblnovlr:r" I )Ikdukri ,11!frrim, ad 101'.

"" U"kovl'r, lind,1 Ihul}lI,IIify Ihr Mrun,1 (1II'h.), ~~ fl.

" .. SrI' JlJI, Ie, 7, 4~ I! uhovl' fi,r olhrr Jloulhll' I'Xlllllpll'M Ilf 11111'111111 Il'lIMOfMlilp of'tlil' '11IIiIlIIII.

Aaron Wertheimer (1866-1935), famous for his publications of numerous

midrashic, geonic, and medieval texts, including material from the Cairo

Genizah. He also wrote two volumes of responsa.107 One of the midrashim

he published is named Midrash ale! bet.lOS Since Wertheimer thought this

midrash worthy ofpublication, one would have assumed that everything in it

would be regarded by him as Torah-true. Yet Wertheimer found theological

problems in the text, and therefore 'assumed the mantle ofofficial censor'.109

For example, in one passage in this midrash, Satan is having a conversa­

tion with God. He tells God that he is like Him:

For You created heaven, I created earth, You created firmaments, I created deeps, You created animals, I created demons ... You created good things, I created bad things, You created the Garden of Eden, 1 created Gehenna .... The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, 'Fool who is in the world, you say to Me, "I created Gehenna", so pass into the midst of Gehenna.'

This passage reflects a dualistic conception in which Satan assisted God in creating the world. Wertheimer was obviously not comfortable with this, but not so uncomfortable that it led him to disqualify Midrash alefbet as a whole. Instead, he chose to excise the objectionable portion, continuing the pattern that we will see again and again. In this passage, he cut out the dialogue that showed Satan as a co-creator, yet kept the final sentence. However, in order to make this sentence theologically acceptable, he made one small alteration. The 'theologically correct' Wertheimer version reads: 'Fool who is in the world, you say to me, 'You created Gehenna,' so pass into the midst of

Gehenna.111o

The fact that the 'new' text does not make any sense was not so important for Wertheimer. What was important is that with this slight alteration, and the excision ofthe previous section, the text was ready to be published. In truth, even from Wertheimer's perspective there should have been no reason to engage in censorship here, since in the end the midrash itself rejects the notion that Satan has any power. As Deborah F. Sawyer puts it, Wertheimer 'felt so threatened by these ideas, even though they are consequently demol­ished, that he emended the text to exclude them'.11l

Another example ofWertheimer's theological censorship is seen when the rnidrash describes God as placing the children of)lsrael 'each one upon His neck, each one upon His shouldt'r, mch orlt' upon/His throne, each one upon Ilis glory'. Thl' anthropomorphisms w('n' too ('xtreme for Wertheimer, so he

"'" WI'I'I IH'it 111'1', .'llir'r/"/Ilir/omoll. "10 Wl'I'lhrillll'l, /lillri milJmlhol. Ii. 411) ~I).

liN S;.Jwyrr, '1Irtrrndn)(y utl(1 C~II"(JI'~hlp', 1)'1,

1111 Wf'll IiI'I 1111'1, /I,,'ri 11111/114.111"" Ii. 414, III Suwyrr. '11rlrrllllllHY ulIll (:rIlMIII~hll", III!.

excised these descriptions. Another example cited by Sawyer is Wertheimer's censorship of a passage that discusses the sexual activity of the righteous in the world to come.l12 These examples are taken from just one of the many texts that Wertheimer edited, meaning that we should suspect that similar censorship exists in the other texts as well.

I do not want to leave the impression that it is only the Orthodox who take liberties with texts in the name of a proper theology, although they, in particular the haredim, are indeed the major 'culprits' in this a.rea. In the Conservative prayer book Siddur Sim Shalom,113 we find the followmg transla­tion for the blessing in the Amidah that ends meh-ayeh hametim (,Resurrector ofthe dead>114): 'Praised are You, Lord, Master oflife and death.' The Conser­vative Rabbinical Assembly'S earlier Sabbath and Festival Prayer Book has 'Who callest the dead to life everlasting'.115 Conservative Rabbi Ben Zion Bokser (19°7-84), in his translation of the prayer book,116 rendered the pas­sage as 'Who callest the departed to life eternal'. .

All ofthese translations make for very nice blessings. The only problem IS that they are not what the blessing in the Amidah is speaking a?out, and the translators knew this.ll7 Yet in order to present congregants Wlth a text that would not violate their theological outlook, an outlook that rejects resurrec­tion, the correct translation was altered, so that God is now 'Master ofLife and Death', etc., instead of God the 'Resurrector of the dead'. Similarly, in the prayer for the State of Israel118 there is a line that reads reshit tsemih-at ge'u­latenu which means 'the first flowering of our redemption'. Uncomfortable with ;scribing any messianic significance to the State of Israel, Siddur Sim Shalom 'translates' this line as 'its promise ofredemption'.

h·, 8

112 Sawyer, 'Heterodoxy and Censors lP, II -20. 113 P. 107.

114

This is the correct translation ofthe phrase; see my Seforim Blog post, 27 June 2012.

115 p.22. 116 P.52•

117

The Reform Gates ofPrayer avoids the problem by changing the Hebrew text to read 'nn n'no, which is translated as 'the Source oflife', p. 38. P.417.

118

HALAKHAH

H

ALAKHAH is the central feature of Jewish life, the warp and woof of traditional Judaism. Precisely because of this one should not be sur­prised-indeed one should expect-that censorship is found here just as in all the other areas I am discussing. In fact, since we are dealing with Jewish law, one would expect there to be more censorship here, in order to prevent what the censor regards as halakhic violations that can be caused by 'problem­

atic' texts. Let me begin with one of the most famous examples ofhalakhic censor­ship. The first edition ofR. Moses Isserles' responsa was printed in Krakow in 1640. In this volume, Isserles included a fascinating responsum defending the Jews in Moravia who were accustomed to drink non-Jewish wine.1 Isserles was not dealing with run-of-the-mill sinners, concerning whom there would be no reason to try to come up with a justification. Rather, the question con­cerned otherwise halakhically observant people who nevertheless ignored the prohibition against non-Jewish wine. Isserles had previously found it neces­sary to permit (or at least not protest) when Jews did business with non-Jewish wine, since this was vital for them to make a living.2 Since, in pre-modern Europe, water was not generally safe to consume, beer and wine became the basic drinks. We can easily imagine how difficult it was at that time to abstain from non-Jewish wine, a point mentioned by Isserles. The halakhists first confronted this problem in medieval times, and Haym Soloveitchik has described how, despite possible halakhic openings to void the prohibition, the medieval Jews' ritual instinct refused to go that far.3 Yet a few centuries later things had changed and otherwise pious Jews were indeed violating the prohibition.4

I

The responsum can be found in Isserles, She'dot uteshuvot /:Iarama, no. 124.

, See Meir of Lublin, She'elot uteshuvot maharam lublin, no. 5~.

I

See Soloyeitrhik, 'Yeinam' (Ht·b.), 104 fl'. Howeyer, R. Solorrlon ben Adret (Rashba, 12.35-1310) do{'s spt'ak of Jews who W('I!' suspI'\'Il'd of drillkill~ II<)O·/ewish wine. See id., Torat habayit hu'arokh, 5: I (p. X1h). Se(' also R. Jamb bl'll A"hrr, Arhu'uh turim ('fur), 'Yorl'h de'ah' "4: 2.

R. Ash!'T brn Yrhirl. She'dot utr.~huv(lt ham.~h, 110. It): Ie), provldrH II pl'tlatlrr filr ollr who miN' l<lkrtlly drink" nOIl·/rwINh wlnr.

• Slrll'r Ihr p,·..,II,rH ollhr IIIUMHrM ulr 1101 IlIfillrlllrd hy h.. l.. khh 101lh, 11111/ VrJY "frpl"'"lnf