צנזורה2

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

In order that the communities whose members consumed non-Jewish wine not be regarded as wilful sinners, with all the halakhic consequences this would entail, Isserles was able to find some justification for their behav­iour, which he tells us was a continuation ofthe practice of previous genera­tions. His argument has a few points, the most fundamental ofwhich is that there is no longer a concern that the wine would have been used in an idola­trous ritual. He acknowledges that despite his justification, which is known in rabbinic literature as a limud zekhut, what he has proposed is not in accord with the settled halakhah and should not be relied upon.

He is more certain, however, when it comes to one who is ill (but not in any danger (/:toleh she'ein bo sakanah)). In such a case, Isserles has no problem affirming that it is permitted to drink non-Jewish wine. This permission, as well as his justification of those who were healthy and drank such wine, was quite shocking to later halakhists. Many of them feared that Isserles' responsum would weaken the taboo against non-Jewish wine and lead to its consumption.s Understandably, there were those who thought that this responsum was too dangerous for publication. Itwas thus censored from the Amsterdam I7II edition of Isserles' responsa, published by the renowned scholar R. Aryeh Leib ofAmsterdam (c.I690-I755).6

If a figure as renowned and important as Isserles could have his opinion censored, then it should come as no shock that the same thing happened with

Jacob Katz's argument that it was not the difficulty in observing the prohibition that led to it being ignored. According to Katz, 'Laxity of practice spread in this case because the logic by which permission had been given to trade in wine could be extended to drinking it. . . . [W]hen the legitimacy oftrading in gentile wine was broadly accepted, the demands oflogical consistency had the expected effect.' Katz, Tradition and Crisis, 22.

•

This is exactly what happened, as R. Israel Silverman, who wrote the Conservative ruling permitting non-Jewish wine, cited Isserles' responsum. R. David Novak responded to Silverman as follows: 'Since he [Isserles) refuses to allow anyone to use his arguments as precedents [10 lismokh], I cannot see how anyone after him can legitimately do what Isserles himself said ought not to be done in his name.' See Novak, Law and Theology in Judaism, 182. While Novak's point is well taken regarding this case, I must add that the responsa literature is full of examples where halakhists state that their opinions are not to be applied in practice. Yet later authorities routinely ignore this caveat, regarding it as merely an expression ofthe author's modesty. See Medini, Sedei 1;emed, ix. 3687 f. (Arabic numerals (= 'Kelalei haposekim' 16: 47)) . In this case, however, it is obvious that Isserles did indeed wish to prevent others from relying on his opinion, and Silverman is guilty ofmisrepresentation.

•

See editorial note in Ets l;Iayim, 9 (2009), 20. R. Jacob Saphir's note in Hulevanon (,Kevod halevanon'section) (II Mar. 1869), 85, reports that a manuscript responslirn of It Judah Miller states that R. Tsevi Hirsch Ashkenazi (Hakharn Ts('vi. 1(,(,0-17IX), was n·spollsihlt' fi)r the censorship. (Hakham Tsevi was appointed Ashkt'na1.i rahhi 01' Allls!t'rJalll ill 1710.) This responsurn does not appear in) . Mill("f. Shr'r./u/ u/r~huvol mbi yrhulluh milrr, SrI' Spt·rhrr. Millhu~ti yi.\fu·rI. ii. ,X. who 1IOIt'S lIlt' slIKKrslioll Ih~1 H. Mosrs 111I1Ii1. (1("1" · t'.1 '1~1) WliN Illvolvrd with tht' IrllNllrMhip,

R. Joseph Karo, whose Shul/:tan arukh, together with Isserles' additions, has played such a central role in Jewish life since its appearance. The issue here was kaparot, a ceremony on the day before Yom Kippur in which one's sins are symbolically transferred to a chicken, the propriety ofwhich is a dispute going back to medieval times.7 No less a figure than R. Solomon ben Adret regarded it as a pagan practice and thus forbidden.8 Karo was not so extreme in his ruling, as he only wrote that one should refrain from the practice, with­out bringing in the spectre ofpaganism. Yet the heading he gave to this sec­tion in the Shul/:tan arukh9 states that the practice is a foolish custom (minhag shel shetut; see Fig. 3-1, taken from the first edition of the Shul/:tan arukh, Venice, 1564).

The words minhag shel shetut appeared in the first eighteen editions of the work, four of them published in Karo's lifetime. Beginning with the Amsterdam 1708 edition these words were omitted. In the new Makhon Yerushalayim edition of the Shul/:tan arukh the heading is omitted, but is included in a note. Before taking this step, the publishers received the approval of a number of leading Torah scholars.tO From their perspective, since the current practice is to perform kaparot, there is no reason to include Karo's description in the body of his work. R. Yitshak Zilberstein, one of those who urged the censorship, explained that common practice has 'voted' against the Shul/:tan arukh, 'and Israel, ifthey are not prophets they are sons of prophets'. Zilberstein also suggested that the censorship that began in Amsterdam was God's will, since in our time there is perhaps no reason to fear a connection between kaparot and paganism. After noting that R. Isaac Luria (1534-72) had profound things to say about kaparot, Zilberstein refers to a responsum by R. Samuel Aboab (I6IO-94t who states, without any evidence whatsoever, that the words minhag shel shetut were added by the printer. Aboab felt comfortable in saying this, even though the Shul/:tan arukh appeared four times in Karo's lifetime and he never requested that any changes be made. If Karo is not safe from censorship, and this censorship ('ven received rabbinic approval, I daresay that no text is safe.12

In terms of practical halakhah, after the Shul/:tan arukh the most popular I('xt in Jewish history is R. Solomon Ganzfried's (1804-66) Kitsur shul/:tan

7

See G. Oberlander, Minhuguvoteinu beyadeinu, vol. i, ch.? , Solomon hen Adrt'l, Shr. 'r/o/ u/r.~huvo/ harashba. vol. i, nol 395. 'Orab b;lyirn' ()o~: I. III S('t' Iht· Holon annllailZekhor le'avraham (2000-1), 11I-I9.

II

St.t. Morrur~o, Shrmrsh /"rtlllktlll, 'Orall bayilll', IU). ).\ . St·t· also Iknayahu, Yo~efbe/.liri, 373 .

II

In privalt· ('orrrHptlndrn('(' a ('ollt·aWlr. who prrli'rH 10 n'lIIaili aIlOIlYIlIOUS, has arl(lIt'd that 1111' "xarnplr of Makholl YrrllNhulOlylrll IN 1101 aN Nlllllllinllll ~N I havr iliadI' it 011110 hI', as thr iSNIIt· IINrlN nol rrllily IIho,,1 1111 111'1 of I'r"MurMhll" hilI IIhOll1 rrlrlNrrllnM II IrNI Ihlll hlld alrrlldy hrrn rrll\ovrd,

HALAKHAH

O''lm,:)", 0)'" O;1I~ ;1il)'lNj )1))).1) , 1'll;J");'))1 0'''l!4)\10J'j"lJ)'~"(,~.,)",, ~ ')"fl" )0' ,,:)., )'.!in 0",)>> ;1'ti f,)) 'l:U>li : :liUlt:) :,0;-"-'»Jl)'ltJ1,,1) :;1r ;J1J)J 0;1',.!i ll> Ol),!))) 1''' . ,J

),f, O''llro;1 01' :>'1.lI ~n'" )1).!i)1:) . ,n

: iI'1r>,,1j"i''''Qilin I,U~'SlO ~mtJ :l 'j1:J rT'l!),:)'lilJt) ~ J'l~Jl"fl~\)):j")f>)1)r)"O'P')~"P;1h :1

NI.'J'J.'D 1:J1 : ~m

JlJ")'.ll1P .:no) O,,)f> (.1"1' ltJ1)'1P ;-.ml'v

: ]"7'.:>1:;

0)' J1l1;J "')1):> jllW) C'Ji');[j i''' l( 1m)) 1:>l p h )l1:tmpmndO'll'''il : nl\1i' J"''''',J;)P) P' O'r'~.!: "iii

JlIPI'P\'l 1" O'71r O'P'pDPJ O,~;:))f, ~

•.:l',V:l ,i:ln C,~ O"D't'

t'P \'1.1':!'OU"I PilP\lW ~ml' ~'OJ\1~ l'")J1j \\ +~;.. ~)f, '.,~",p JllPPP:') I'J 01lP f>~f, ")W'p " O'D)10 '1 ,:1, £, lm"~'PliI)1'").1 \1~')v Oilp t'lpf> PPI . : \1J.,."P p.vp PiJp" 'l!l,p \111'0 )'liJfl~ 0,)(' t'JP},)I'l'J.:) N

O',)J'lJ f,Sf, )p"r\l P) l)'.DnlljplID'fj l' PiP" 1v ~mp ~'Plv) ""PO jl1l17)' I"" ,))fIl' ""tiP.,;J P",!)jlP",f>OPIlP"-") 1"'" :11'" JlI!)))) 1"'0' f»1J ";111'J I'fl)'l"I'f> J,tijf>:' )))1) flP' O))D )"JI\I'jfj O.vD -Il"

~O'}11J b)'viUl-' U"~"(,P P'P!l" of> l I~ r'pr ,,'P tilp.I),!) \1P~fjJ P",!)jlP 1)'0 ef» \1'1"»)1\1 ll~,;l'P ti}p 1"'~")Of,~, 'lIm> ill O'".I)!) \l)?:ll~ .p,~ 1'').1 lJ,) O)\) O~I {,)n ~0(!1 ) I'n O'")I'!)':)t'l Oll Yl,l)j , , :P"-"Jl'1l .l)jp O\l' f,)P "" ~Jitl) o'~r o,b(,,, OiP ;,,',)f.j,V (,'-')) I~ pp" ,)OOJl)) of, :l :)>>.n,p.:> \lhotnm bul '\1~n~ '.I",OP)'l')PIPl ''''P~0"",,))/11 . : I) '.I",t.tmli \lJ '»))'!)~' CP P'J"'~ p~1I. o')m I»)I))'P NPf 1 : 0111""~,l) In tl'tllpr-;"j",(111)))1)r}~1 >1:l0) ~o, "

1tl) \1"OI'lP il> Jl1TlIPI )1));lI(,P O'P) !l

C"'.P"tI CI' ,,,,1)" 1'''''PPPv~'l1'I)) N :v)':lPD ~.p l'):m·')lnlv)l~il OjlP:o'')w.» 01' 'NIP'

Figure J.I R. Joseph Karo, Shull;!an arukh (Venice, 1564), with his comment that kaparot is a foolish custom

arukh. It has been reprinted so many times that it is hard to imagine that anyone would attempt to censor something in it, yet this has indeed hap­pened. It is one of the ironies of Jewish history that Ganzfried, whose reli­gious views were quite extreme, produced a work that became incredibly popular among all sections of the Orthodox world. One example of what in modern times would be regarded by some as extr m is found in 201: 4, where Ganzfried writes:

All thos wh d viot from Ihe COJl1l1llJllily by (:JHlilll', off III(' yoke of' pn'C(' pl s,

s('v('rill g Il wir bOllds willi III\' Iwopl,' of' 1~II,iI ' l ,I t! 1"I',,1ld IllI' '111t/"IV:!II, " 01 lill'

i)ivilll' COIIIJIl:llldN, :111<1 ,II I' ill ,I ( 1.11N il 1III'IIIIII,Ivc'I, ,di ll ,11"11 1.111'11, lilllllllC'lll, .llld

HALAKHAH

heretics-for all these the rules ofan onen and ofmourners should not be observed. Their brothers and other next of kin should dress in white, eat, drink, and rejoice that the enemies of the Almighty have perished. Concerning such people, the Scripture states (Psalms 139: 21) 'Do not I hate them, 0 Lord, that hate Thee?'. Also, (Proverbs II: 10): 'And when the wicked perish, there is joy.'13

In the Lublin 1904 edition of the Kitsur shullJan arukh (and a number of other editions), the halakhah appears, but the words 'apostates, informers, and heretics' have been removed.14 In the Vilna 1915 edition, the entire halakhah, which simply records that which appears in Maimonides' Mishneh torah15 and the ShullJan arukh/6 is omitted, so that there are only six sections in the chapter, not seven.17 In the years following the Second World War, in both the United States and Israel, editions of the Kitsur shullJan arukh have appeared that substitute an entirely new halakhah for what originally appeared in 201: 4.18 Here are images of (I) the uncensored Kitsur shullJan arukh (Fig. 3.2(a)), (2) the Vilna, 1915 edition, where the halakhah has been deleted (Fig. 3.2(b)), and (3) the Mosad Harav Kook vocalized edition, where the original halakhah has been deleted but a new halakhah substituted in its place (Fig. 3.2(c)).19

Why was the original halakhah censored? Jewish literature is full ofnega­tive passages against sinners, and unlike similar passages against non-Jews and apostates, there was never governmental censorship of these sorts of texts. I think what we have here is an early example ofpolitical correctness in the Orthodox world. The Kitsur shullJan arukh is a work for the masses. In fact, with the expansion ofTorah education for girls, they too were taught from this text. The original text in the Kitsur shullJan arukh is not the sort ofpassage that would be 'helpful' to schoolchildren, and many would regard it as hateful,

IJ I have used the translation (with slight changes) ofGoldin, Code ofJewish Law, 201: 4.

14

When the halakhah is recorded in R. Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, Arukh hashulhan, 'Yoreh de'ah'

4S: 7, instead of'apostates' (which for the Arukh hashulhan would mean apostates to Christianity) il has D'?NYY.J\!.I'? D'JmnY.Ji11 ('those who become Muslims'). This formulation is obviously intended 10 prevent Christian enmity, but it cannot be taken seriously,

IS Maimonides, Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot avelut' I: ro.

If.

Karo, Shulhan arukh, 'Yoreh de'ah' 34S: 8.

" There may be earlier editions ofthe work that also omit the halakhah, but I have not found li lly.

" 'I'h substitu te halJkhah was lifted from Karo, Shulhar arukh, 'Yoreh de'ah' 34S: 5, and at IC'(Isl 011(' Iii ion or :Jnzrricd, Ki.t,~ur shul(~an Clrukh subsJitutes Shulhan arukh, 'Yoreh de'ah' 11\.5: 8. I ~ISSllIl'(' Ihal 11.(' slibslilul (' hG"' (~kl'lf) l W('r(' firsl insl'rl d in various PI' -$ cond World War IIIIIOIW;III ediliolls, 1>111 II<:,v,' 1101Yl'II()lIlId a'IY"diliollHorlhis Iyp,'.

p, 'I'll(' «("IXII"HIIi" ill 1111' MOlldll IIIII,'V 1(1)01, ,'(1111011 W.' iI lIol"d ill nil 1IIOIY"'OIiS ('0'1111'('111 11 11 11<1' 1",1,.,11,,·111.11,'<1111' wI'hll lll', .,1 www.ltlll.l l.I II/III.IIIII/I/I.II.i( . 'IIJI~ II1"i( ill ~X~ll) I/('wl<k l, ".11\" 11,/0:. /11 '11111 III ' \(' 1 III II', 1'11/ "'1',1111111 1

1111111' M'I/',IIi l illI ,' v I III ,! ,'dil lilll , 11 11" " 11/111'

Iii " 110' 1"'/'11 , III 11 '1 11'.1

Figure J.I R. Joseph Karo, Shull;an arukh (Venice, 1564), with his comment that kaparot is afoolish custom

arukh. It has been reprinted so many times that it is hard to imagine that anyone would attempt to censor something in it, yet this has indeed hap­pened. It is one of the ironies of Jewish history that Ganzfried, whose reli­gious views were quite extreme, produced a work that became incredibly popular among all sections of the Orthodox world. One example of what in modern times would be regarded by some as extreme is found in 201: 4, where Ganzfried writes:

All those who deviate from the community hy (astill~ ofr the' yok(' of prt'Cl'pts, severing their bonds with the p('oplc' of IHrad aH rt'l(.mIH Iht' ohHc'rvallu' of tht' Divim' COtll ilia miN, alld arc' ill a d:INN hy Iht'IIlNt'IVt'N; UINO upoNIUIrN, illfi".,IINN, alld heretics-for all these the rules ofan onen and ofmourners should not be observed. Their brothers and other next of kin should dress in white, eat, drink, and rejoice that the enemies of the Almighty have perished. Concerning such people, the Scripture states (Psalms 139: 21) 'Do not I hate them, 0 Lord, that hate Thee?'. Also, (Proverbs II: 10): 'And when the wicked perish, there is joy.'13

In the Lublin 1904 edition ofthe Kitsur shullJan arukh (and a number of other editions), the halakhah appears, but the words 'apostates, informers, and heretics' have been removed.14 In the Vilna 1915 edition, the entire halakhah, which simply records that which appears in Maimonides' Mishneh torah15 and the ShullJan arukh/6 is omitted, so that there are only six sections in the chapter, not seven.17 In the years following the Second World War, in both the United States and Israel, editions of the Kitsur shullJan arukh have appeared that substitute an entirely new halakhah for what originally appeared in 201: 4.18 Here are images of (I) the uncensored Kitsur shullJan arukh (Fig. 3.2(a)), (2) the Vilna, 1915 edition, where the halakhah has been deleted (Fig. 3.2(b)), and (3) the Mosad Harav Kook vocalized edition, where the original halakhah has been deleted but a new halakhah substituted in its place (Fig. 3.2(c)).19

Why was the original halakhah censored? Jewish literature is full ofnega­tive passages against sinners, and unlike similar passages against non-Jews and apostates, there was never governmental censorship of these sorts of texts. I think what we have here is an early example ofpolitical correctness in the Orthodox world. The Kitsur shullJan arukh is a work for the masses. In fact, with the expansion ofTorah education for girls, they too were taught from this text. The original text in the Kitsur shull;r.an arukh is not the sort ofpassage that would be 'helpful' to schoolchildren, and many would regard it as hateful,

II

I have used the translation (with slight changes) ofGoldin, Code ofJewish Law, 20r: 4. " When the halakhah is recorded in R. Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, Arukh hashul/:tan, 'Yoreh de'ah'

145: 7, instead of'apostates' (which for the Arukh hashul/:tan would mean apostates to Christianity) il has D"NVT.l'D" D"01i1T.lnl ('those who become Muslims'). This formulation is obviously intended 10 prevent Christian enmity, but it cannot be taken seriously.

" Maimonides, Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot avelut' r: IO.

u, Karo, Shul/:tan arukh, 'Yoreh de'ah' 345: 8.

17

There may be earlier editions ofthe work that also omit the halakhah, but I have not found

;llly.

" The substitute halakhah was lifted from Karo, Shul/:tar arukh, 'Yoreh de'ah' 345: 5, and at I.·ast Ofl(' edition of Ganzfried, Kit.lur shul/:tan arukh subsJitutes Shul/:tan arukh, 'Yoreh de'ah'

145: X. I assunw that tlw substitute hulukhot WI'T!' first ins('rtt'd in various pre· Second World War 1:lIropt'an c'ditions, but I havt' not yt·t fillll1d ;lI1Y ('ditions ofthis tyPt'.

,. Th(' l'e'nsorNhip in the' Moslid II"fliV Kook ('dition w~s rlotc'd in an ;ltlOnymous wmmt"nt Oil thl' l\('hlldrl'lllllrl'dlrn We'hNlt(',lIt o<www.hhol.rn.ll/fimIIllN/lopiLlINp?topirid-SXSI06&whkh PUI(('Mlo&fi,rulII .Id-I iCI.P. In rl'l'('nl rl'prllltlll"N 1I1'lhl' MON"d II"rIlY KOllk ('dillon, the' l'I'I1Nnr· Nhlp hUM hrrllwrrl'(lrd.

t"

., ~,,~ n ., n r t:

<II. ::-E Ii ~ r ~ ~" n.. .!'5

r: x 0 ~ , U ..r" "';.lII:' 0" p 0 IJ

a-rr ~ .-II r: ~'-" ~ r r: ­

'. .-t: J' -, r ~ Z rt

~~:o.D~ ~~r:xD 2z n­

fl

rt U D X. ,-u ~ n.. r= r r-..r­

r~~r:? -Z!)b "'r:Jr:~b

h. -~..I" ...1';::' II r ...,

~ ...",. -~ x a r ~ D !'" r ~ r: 1~

,.. #~" X _ . "'-J'''..I''­

;..{

OJ-.. 0 ?! ~ 0 % -n 1'1 x~ ~ 2!

'-"r: r:xc·-() r .­

, ..J' ~ Z .= r: • n ,. , D-" b

-p r: Il .-U ~~ r ~ != b x r: ~z ., !I

~rJ'> a r ~~il () x ~~ r: -­

e ... ri; r: z iJ r:.F r;? c c

r­

rt "r n. ~ ,: r: r: J. r :.. x !:j

~~r~r p ~~b ~r"Db

x -" -f, ~ .-r: 0 r: n i-r: r:

r: Z _ n _ rt ;,. 'r: c ~-" r: ,:: () ;-£

r • -r x J.. -_ .,. r

u~~r;!' !J~'p z 0 i n r: z E~

:,. D ~ " !".I' ~~~ ~~~ IS -D fi

t-. .-~r: a:: F . x ~ _ ,-() " ~j. n

pn no, ~-·... z ~ .... r:x ~ ...£ ••

~....... -raJ' err; :::; .... r: "n

:-J' n &'_"..1'::-'_ II ~:-~ r n ~ sl;

..r-r: Z r ~. -~,~ n n ~_ ..r-n...r.> 01: !~

o -" rt ~. ·-x x '?'-x

a z 0 • r.· x t'l J: n-" .-C P

~nCn r:u!Jfi~~tirQC~

i: r ~~9 ... r: -b ~ z r ~.-!, ~ 'Ii • •

-"J' _ ... -l" f' .. ., ~ _ Q r: 11 ,-• r: x "i.­

...... 1:

1...

O~~bb~~ !=hrtbC-~xz I Q ••

gb:...I'[' ..r-r:,...o!= .-!ita I: IJ ~

.Ii

r-¥;.I' ,... ~ x. x. r: r: OJ'

b' ~~r-C DCr."iS:; ~'-a

Xr:~

~O'-r~ ~ ... r:-"r~ ~r:r:

.. ,'=(; I

o~~n~ ~ rr~ 0 o~· l)g."o

r ,---" "x" r~ ,-..1'" ~

.-~O X r-~ro 'O z ... -ii~tx J

x~nbb c ~o C no

.-o~~ ~ ~r:p x .e e" -..I-Q r

-r: c~..f..

xc

xxrxo ~ bn~ ~ ~.-~

r: ,.. f_: _ r: r;" .. r ., 11 Jaa!l";;

QDr:oP

;rze~ P I:~D ~ r:~~ l

enri!.

t;;noCr

g ~[; Ii[' 0 ~ ar: ~ ~•• "" .... ,. c ..

0-{i n ,: ,-ill '" ;: l:i ,~ 11 c'· ~& t ~o~B~ ~ gr-~ C 0 C ~>nno~ ~!il!=. -!!. I:• e­

,....1'.1' r b 0 r: S -r-_ x· r:n

!! z ~r: t; x ~ 0 n b ~

1:1'; ~ aa., x p

r" "·ilI • c~ ~

!4.F ,q:.-,~ J: i-~" ~-, c~~"

"",",p .. ex ~ ~ .-Q ..... "'1; ~ ~

g

_-_0.. ,-o­

x ~~~n n p.r ~i r. -­

I: n ~ f: 3£ it~ 0 .F L ~fl :§ ~ 9~it Ii x 1

~b~o ~~ bn r-r~b "Db n r.: ti.1 I~

.r---i

rt n-" J' n.0 ~ li ~ fJ Q~ 0 il F.F!= X ­

r..J.r!J!:""X~!:. F ~ "ZI:"b P ~ 1­

~~rt~b~Dn-~ ~giF rt0~~2 C. ~~ IX

~ F-r ~?' Z ~ r~.F Q !l ~D ~r:J. D -

Ia~ i~

~ n· Z CI f 0 0 r E"" ,,".,J' ~ P .... I)

J"

'F p~ ~ 2 ~ f r: £1 F 5 ~ r-F t E£1 z ,r. "P C

~ ~ !~ g-r: t= :\ J: {} iJ~ • ....

n... ~ ~ !' " Xr:-F E

~ Fnu-~p~r-~~c r"~r:o C.

~ ;c-" L~ Q rr: ~-I' ~ .~ ~.F.F ~r: !J f-~ r: s .... ij

r: ~~ r 0 Z ~ b 0 r: 0-" :0. " n u!

r ~.F :-,-.,.l~ n x ~ F r f: b ~ l' E~ p r-J' ~ "

i)nX ~Pintb EIjD~ x~x~r ,-n 2n ,.. ~J tl

~.J' o~'J--~ J: b r: 0 0 nJE J: ~ !J ~ ? ;;~ 0,. -.r­

~ r: f.-I' r ~. x n x x -., J' D .-~s -'G"

'ki;

~ ~ ~ ,... 9 ~~ Z n ' ~:."' ~ 0 ;1-" r ~, Z P ~~

-OJ' f) Q... -F -~0 ., J: Z ;c r :."' 2 n...x n ~.

J' r ~b ~ r:;:,. x £1 CI f.l ,... ~ ~ n -r-" ~ ~ '-~n -e~

o -..J'-,,'-'r x ' o ~P II

~a~rDn~CDn~D~Dhrt I:FI:~

-" b' rt ---~~ b b-" -".-F,. x -~tS

?Ji

1:' :: r ::: z n fl.!) r: £i Q ~ ii 0 ~ x ~ f: i1 £.rR ..­

O~~"~Dt"I:Q ~Cll'~b~ ~~ a _~~: :~ ·1 _ 0

"---0

o 0 --" ,-a'· J: z.1) :; .-~ 0 ~' 0 n ~ b I:

J'iS s

~~Clb'~ -"~~r~n~~cl: ~x'-~ ..

:'lOr: z x x r: ' •• ~ -J. ' Z ~ .. c~:~ ~J!

br~~b u· D -"r:n,,-r: D~2

nX!:"" x :;n 1:0,1:"0 -i!1-~ !l

e~ .-Oxb&J: xo~ ~r Ji r x.,~ ~cSZ ..... 6 J:

~.,J' -0 [) , ? ,-r Jj fi Ij 0 ~ 0 ..r--.e x no

~ ;t :::-.

Z z ~ fi .-fi. r: J: a ~ D-{:: ~o E 2 ' rj... lfl

.-n.-n.. 0 rt~ r. _!:r ', JI"

rnJ' ';'

z~. n~n~ ~~F REbi x E x 11

~~~" b~r ..J'90,-n -~ teff1" f:

r11 z r .. r: r-" f; ,.. P P -!' n_ '

o n ~J' -0 ~ -" -~ -~~~.'~: ~ "'~

no-"r:-~ r:b Z ~bQr: ~ 5 ~ >~)~',jt .~ I ~­D~ ~-f ~'n pF ~ 0;: c~ ~ -~ jR "'Y"'l'" =­

-" n r:J r J: .--0 *

Q-r~~fi x z~_o r -~

i)-fl~-rr: oor ~~ub !' ,::; ~";;':'fi C !~I

:}L!J1:"Fi(:i J, ,r

~ -z ~ r -~ ~ a ... ~f;.;Z ::.. ~

~.£'­

~. r-E:::-r-n ere; nrnr-il ~ CJnl"h ~

n .-;.:!~ J"o ~ X ~ V Cit " ~i\+,~j li: "~

D 0 _. ~ b J: 0 ~ b [) r-F ~ P--:~-,::~,-::;;;F, -~,tf~ ;':1-ltt§8~c~ c~n n~~X " ~ 0F-f:.-!'~ &~~ n~~f) !J "

~:-_;::';:'i-r: b ~ ~~b ~ r 1:. 'Mi\,frrn;'ii ~

J~

especially as by the early twentieth century it would be referring to some of their own relatives who had 'cast off the yoke ofprecepts'.20

When it comes to examining censorship, we are usually confined to look­ing at different editions of the same work, because unless we are able to see the original manuscript we do not know what has been left out of the pub­lished version. R. Shlomo Dayan, the editor of the second volume of Mayim I;!,ayim, the responsa ofR. Joseph Messas (I892-I974), admitted to me that he regrets including Messas' controversial responsum21 in which he ruled that there is no obligation for married women to cover their hair. How many other responsa are there which, because oftheir unconventional conclusions, never saw the light ofday?22

Israel M. Ta-Shma calls attention to one such example where, in a manu­script responsum, R. Hayim Eliezer ben Isaac (Or Zarua, I3th cent.) offers an extremely liberal view of the prohibition against eating from new grains (I;!,adash). Yet this was not included in his published responsa, and indeed was even deleted from one of the manuscripts. Ta-Shma is convinced that this was intended to cover up R. Hayim's liberal opinion, which went against the standard halakhic understanding.2J

Another such example relates to the binding nature ofthe Shull;!,an arukh.

R. Hayim of Volozhin records that the Vilna Gaon told him that in matters of halakhah one should not give up one's independent judgement, even if that means opposing a ruling of the Shull;!,an arukh. This was recorded by

R. Hayim in a responsum, but when the responsum was finally published, some sixty years after his death, what the Vilna Gaon had said about disputing with the Shull;!,an arukh was deleted.24 In other words, the publisher thought

'" For another example ofremoving words from an edition ofthe Kitsur shull;lan arukh, see the lIotes by Yehiel Domb in Hama'yan, 47 (Nisan 5767), 55-6, and Yoel Catane, ibid. 48 (Tishrei S7(8), 96. However, in this case the editor apparently erroneously assumed that the deleted words Wt'I"(' not authentic. 21 Messas, Mayim I;layim, vol. ii, ·Oral:1l:Iayim'. no. HO.

II

I am not referring to instances when the author himselfdecides not to publish something, as was the case with R. Aaron Kotler's responsum supporting the heter mekhirah (,sale' of land III Israel during the sabbatical year). See Glick, 'On Alterations' (Heb.), 72 ff. Sometimes the , ,'lIsor comes to regret his action. See Gantz, Reshumim beshimkha, 293 (called to my attention hy It Baruch Oberlander). Here it is recounted that R. Moses Gruenwald (1853-1910) wrote a I "spoTlsum permitting machine matzah. His son, R. Jacob Gruenwald (1882-1941), who was also ,I Krt'al s(holar, omitted Ihis rt'spotlSUrtl wht'n prinlinlot his dither's Arugat habosem. He later con­I"ssl'd, 'All my lifi'l havl' f(·Iotf/·III·d doilllot litis, alld rlly ht'.. r(p.. ins mt' for deleting this responsum 11111111111' pllhlisht'd work,' ""ppl'~rN III~I 110 topil's 011111' n·lIs()f(·d f('sponsum survive.

" St'(' 'Ill-Shill", 11"'"kh"1i. CU.d(lm, "lid HruUty (1II'h,), .J.r7 II". For nlhl'r ('xampl('~ of Much 11I;IIII1Nnipl \'I'IIAUfNhlp, HI'I' 'lla·SlloaM, 'Hl'vll'w' (1Irh,), nor: Id " KrMrsrt mr/:lk",im, i. 1.p: Id ., ( 'mdlvlty ""d 'Ir"dllllln, H ~ (filIII'd 10 lilY a1l1'1I1"11I hy HiliIIIII' Murrl_),

.. IIMyl1ll of'VollI',.hlll, l.Iulltllmr"ltu"HIt, 1111, I),

that the Vilna Gaon's words were too radical to be made public. Fortunately, this responsum is quoted from the manuscript in Aliyot eliyahu by R. Joshua Heschel Levin (1818-83),25 without which we would not know about this particular instance ofcensorship.26

The examples of censorship just mentioned are motivated by a desire to 'protect' people from ideas that the censors regard as dangerous. For some­one committed to halakhah, nothing could be more dangerous than halakhic antinomianism, and this concern would therefore be a virtual invitation to censorship. Certain elements of the hasidic movement have had limited antinomian tendencies,2' although these have been sublimated. With the exception of the practice in certain hasidic courts to ignore the statutory times of prayer,28 I do not think that the antinomian stream survives as any­thing more than a theoretical element of study, even among the followers of Izhbitz-Radzin, one ofwhose leaders authored some ofthe most radical sen­timents in this regard. R. Mordechai Leiner ofIzhbitz (1801-54) went so far as to claim that for the righteous, sins are actually predetermined. When such a person struggles mightily to overcome his evil inclination and is unsuccess­ful, this failure is itself a proof that his action, while in conflict with halakhah, is nevertheless in line with God's will. The positing ofGod's will in opposition to halakhah is the essence of antinomianism. To show how subversive this can be, one need only look at how the Izhbitzer understands the biblical nar­rative of Phineas and Zimri (Num. 25). He turns the story on its head and regards Zimri as a holy man whose 'sin' was actually in accord with God's will. Phineas was not on a level to recognize this and thus killed Zimri.29

With this background we can appreciate a comment made by a hasidic thinker, R. Meir Yehudah Shapira (1846-1908}.30 Exodus 18: 13 states: 'And it came to pass on the morrow, that Moses sat to judge the people: Rashi quotes 'the Sifrei'31 that this was the day after Yom Kippur, and that Moses had

25

J. H. Levin, Aliyoteliyahu, 90-I.

26

R. Aaron Kotler reported that the Vilna Gaon told R. Hayim of Volozhin that 'until [the generation of] R. Moses Isserles you can dispute with logic, and until [the generation of] R. Asher ben Yehiel you can dispute ifyou have [talmudic] proofs'. See E. M. Bloch, Rual;! eliyahu, 90-I. See also E. Rivlin, RabbiJoseph Zundel ofSalant (Heb.), 140 n. 8, for a different version ofthis tradition.

'" See Y. Mondshine. 'Fluidity ofCategories ' , 301-20.

28

See L. Jacobs, Hasidic Prayer, ch. 4; Wertheim, Laws and Customs in Hasidism (Heb.), 88 fT.

2. M. Leiner, Mei hashUo'al;!, i. 54a. For detailed discussion of thl' antinomian aspect of the Izhbitzer's theology, see Faierstein, All [s in the Hands of Heaven, ('h . j; Gl'llrnan. The Fear, the Trembling, and the Fire, 47 ff.; Magid. Hasidism on the Margin, ch. 7.

"'" M. Y. Shapira, Orlame'ir, 'Yitro', ~.v. vayehl mlma~aral (II)"-.loa (N('('(Jflc.lll1l1llhNhIM)).

II

It ~(·tu~\Iy ~pp('arH ill Mekhilla derah' yl~hma'd, 'AnUlIrk (Vitro)', para~hah "'; th(' Irrrn .'iUrel WIIN IIIMO l1Mrd filr Mrkhilla In mrdlrYli1 MounrM, SrI' J. N, IIpMtl'ln, 'Mrkhilla lind SI/rfl' (1Irh.), 11.1.

descended from Sinai on the previous day. Yet as the Tosafists point out, this

would seem to mean that Exodus 18: 12, where Jethro greets Moses, takes

place on Yom Kippur.32 The problem with this is that the verse states that

Jethro brought a sacrifice and that he, Aaron, and the elders ate together.

Since one would assume that the commandment of fasting on Yom Kippur

was already in force,33 how is this possible?

The Tosafists solve this problem by placing events in a different chrono­

logical sequence, so that no one is eating on Yom Kippur. R. Jacob ben Asher

recognizes the problem and attempts to solve it by arguing that when the

Mekhilta (referred to by Rashi as the Sifrei) refers to Yom Kippur, it should not

be understood literally as the festival on the tenth ofTishrei, but rather as the

day that Jethro brought an atonement offering and converted to Judaism.34

He also claims that the word kipurim is a scribal error.35

Shapira offers another approach, which he connects to an event said

to have occurred with the famed hasidic master, R. Menahem Mendel of

Rymanow (1755-1815):

One time he prayed [ma'ariv after Yom Kippur] so early that it appeared to the people around him that it was still daytime. He commanded that they bring him some honey syrup to drink, and this was a wonder to them. The Holy Rabbi said that they should not be astounded by this because he sees in heaven [begavhei meromim] that the [heavenly] gates have already closed, and there has already been appeasement through forgiveness of sins. It is now a different time, belonging to the following day.

In other words, R. Menahem Mendel was able to drink on the fast day since he saw that even though there was still daylight, Yom Kippur had really ended.

R. Menahem Mendel's action, and explanation for it, is ofcourse shocking, ;md deserves further analysis by scholars ofhasidism.36 It certainly is related 10 the notion expressed by some hasidic leaders that the tsadik (hasidic

" See Da'at zekenim miba'alei hatosafot, Exod. 18: 13.

n Both R. Elijah Mizrahi (C.1450-1526) and R. Judah Loew (Maharal, c.1520-1609), in their lornmentaries on Rashi, claim that the Yom Kippur prohibitions only came into force the following year. Yet as pointed out in the Ariel edition of Rashi's Commentary on the Torah, ad loc., Midrash tan/:luma, Exodus. 'Ki tisa' 31, states explicitly that Yom Kippur was commanded im­IIIt'diately upon Moses' dt'scent from Mount Sinai. Nahman,ides, commenting on Exod. 18: 13, , billls that tht' words 'tht' morrow of Yom Kippur' are not td be taken literally to mean the very ""xl day. " For others who adopt this rxplanatior!. see Kasher. Torah shelemah, xv. 129.

" );I("oh hrn Asfl('r. l'r.rr4,~h hatur ha 'amkh ul hulClrah, Exod. IX: 13.

.. It SOIOIllOI1 'li-ilrlhaulIl folc.l ~ Hlmy of' H. Mrl1~hrlll Mrnc.lrl of' Ryman6w ordering that huvd~l~h hr rrdlrd on thr lIf1rrnoon of' YOIII KIIIJlur. Srr hlN 1t'lIl'f JluhllHhrc.lln IIr.ithal haheshl, ~ (KINirY '76X), 117-14. Wllllr thl' drlllil. olthr Mlurll'M dlflrr, It I.llkrly Ihllt Ihry hnth mlMI"lIll' In Ihr "illl1r rpl"mll'.

communal guide) stands above time as reckoned by mere mortals, an idea that was used to justify his praying after the rabbinically ordained times.J7 As for R. Menahem Mendel, suffice it to say that he is reported to have uttered a number ofother strange things. To begin with, he is said to have declared that he heard a heavenly pronouncement that he was the tsadik ofthe generation, 'and all that he wishes or requests ofGod will be fulfilled'.38 In discussing his previous incarnations, R. Menahem Mendel is recorded to have stated: 'I have already been in the world one hundred times. I am the author ofall the true philosophical works, I am Maimonides:39 In another incarnation, so he stated, he was the High Priest. Because of this, when R. Menahem Mendel prayed on Yom Kippur he did not say, in describing the Temple service, 'And so he [the High Priest] would say [vekhakh hayah orner], "I beg ofyou, Lord, I have erred, been iniquitous, etc.'" Rather, R. Menahem Mendel would recite: 'And so I[!] would say [vekhakh hayiti orner] . . :.40

Returning to the incident with R. Menahem Mendel drinking on Yom Kippur, the justification offered, that even though there was still daylight the next day had already begun, enables Shapira to explain how Aaron and the elders also ate on Yom Kippur: 'They saw that the time when they ate was part of the following day: If R. Menahem Mendel was able to see that a new day had begun even though all outward appearances said otherwise, then one should not be surprised that Aaron and the elders also had this power. In a recent reprint of Shapira's book, published by the author's family in 2002, this entire passage has been omitted. The reprint is a photo-offset, so the omission by whiting out is apparent to all, and shows how uncomfortable his family is with the antinomian potential ofhis comment.

Another example ofa hasidic master altering time appears in R. Abraham Petrokovsky's Piskei teshuvah.41 He reports the following story, which came from his great-uncle:42 'One time the holy admor [hasidic leader], the kohen of Alexander [R. Hanokh Henekh Levin (1798-1870)], sat with him and spoke to him the entire night until it was daylight. He then took the clock and moved the hands back a few hours, and prayed the evening service: The meaning

37 See R. Israel of Ruzhin, quoted in David Moses of Chortkov, Divrei david, 24a-24b; Menahem Mendel of Kotzk, Amud ha'emet, 82-3; Leifer, Ma'amar mordekhai he~adash, 135;

R. Noah ofLechovit2, quoted in Jacobs, Hasidic Prayer, 53. 38 Menahem Mendel ofRyman6w, Ateret mena~m, 34a. ... Ibid. 21b. "" Ibid. It is reported that R. Abraham Joshua Hesdll'l ofA(lt;J (174X-1X.l.Sl would do the samr

thing. See I. Berger, Eser orot, 57b.

., Vol. iii, no. 265. The Htory also appears in A, M. RllhlllllWItZ, ,'Iha'arri aryeh, 74.

OJ Thr Hrbrrw iN ~rnhiKuuUN ~lId nlll ,,1.11 1111'1111 IIrrul·lIrr.HHldr (If N"llIrunr rvrll lurthrr

IlIlIk III tilllr.

Petrokovsky derives from this story is in line with what we have already encountered: 'From here we see that it is not that this holy one prayed after the proper time, but rather through his action he rearranged the heavenly struc­tures [so that his prayer now corresponded to the correct "celestial time"]:

The fact that hasidim in recent years have been uncomfortable with some examples ofantinomianism in their tradition is also seen from the following case. R. Menahem Mendel Rabinowitz wrote Ma'aseh ne/:l.emyah, which is devoted to the life of R. Nehemiah Yehiel of Bychawa (1808-52), the son of

R. Jacob Isaac of Przysucha ('The Holy Jew'; c.1766-1814). This work was first published in Warsaw in 1913 and was reprinted in Jerusalem in 1956. In section 54 of the 1956 edition there is a fairly innocuous story about how

R. Nehemiah told his assistant to take a particular fish from the water and bring it to his home, and that it was a matter oflife and death to remove this fish which had for years been attempting to reach this place.

However, this version is significantly shortened from what appears in the original text from 1913.43In the original text, the story with the fish happened on the second day of Rosh Hashanah. R. Nehemiah's assistant is surprised by the request and responds, 'Today is yom tov, and it is forbidden to catch [the fish]: Itis to this response that R. Nehemiah comments, 'I also know this, but it is a matter oflife and death: The matter oflife and death is not explained, but it is clear that a person had been reincarnated in the fish,44 and by its con­sumption the soul was able to be perfected. While for R. Nehemiah this made it a matter of'life and death', for a non-hasid (and also for many hasidim) this was an egregious halakhic violation.4s

Before hasidism arose, antinomianism was a major feature of Shabatean­ism, the seventeenth-to eighteenth-century messianic movement. R. Elijah

" This example was noted in an anonymous comment on the Otzar HaHochma website, <http://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?whichpage=I&topicid=585306&foruIIt-id=I364>, s.v. Isrnzorah toranit besifrei kodesh. Ma'aseh ne~myahwas reprinted again in Jerusalem in 1987, yet in this edition section 54 appears uncensored.

... Hasidim believe that the righteous are often reincarnated as fish. See Nigal, Magic, Mysticism, fltld Hasidism, 58-9.

., For another example, see Kattina, Ra~amei ha'av, no. 50, s.v. ra~amim (p. 15a). Here Kattina I .. lls a story of how one Sabbath Elijah the prophet came ~o the door of Eliezer, the father of It Israel Ra'al Shem Tov. EVl'n though hI' showed himself t9 be a Sabbath violator, nevertheless, Eli..zN invitt'd him in fur a m('al alld said nothinR about the Sabbath violation so as not to 1'lIlharrass his visitor. II was 11I'(,:lllsc' oflhis killdrwss that Eliezer merited having the Ba'al Shem 'li,v;aH a Hon. PrrdHt'ly hrnlUHr thiH fl~MN~Mt' iN 100 'lihrrOil', it was del('tc'd from the Jerusalem, 1950 l·tIilion of thiN hook, flllhliNhrd hy Kllllillll'N KrlllulNolI. It WOlN ;lINO drlrlrd from th(' Yiddish IIUIINlutioll pllhllNhrd III KlrYIlN Yorl III .&001), Fm IhlN IlIltrr (10IrII , Nrr MOMhr WrIN"'N IrllN in Ilrlkhui ha"r,~h', 1..& ('I'IMhrri ~7/.&1. .&1(' 7 (1 '.lIrd 10 my 11111'1111011 hy V. Nruwlrllt).

ben Solomon Abraham Hakohen of Smyrna (d. 1729), the outstanding preacher and author of Shevet musar and Midrash talpiyot, was himself an adherent ofShabetai Tsevi, long after the latter's apostasy in 1666. This is the subject of a ground-breaking article by Gershom Scholem, who shows that

R. Elijah was one ofthe 'moderate' Shabateans. The 'radicals' believed that the commandments ofthe Torah were to be entirely revised, since the messianic Torah is different from the Torah ofthis world. Most famously, this meant that sexual prohibitions were abolished. The 'moderates', on the other hand, argued that while Shabetai Tsevi's apostasy was necessary in order for the messianic drama to play out, this was not to be imitated by others.

The Jew was expected to remain a Jew. True, a new world·era had undoubtedly been ushered in, the spiritual worlds had undergone tikkun, and their structure was now permanently altered; nonetheless, as long as the redemption did not manifest itself outwardly in the realm of objective events in history, as long as the external bondage continued and the phenomenal world remained unchanged, no aspect or commandment of the Torah was to be openly tampered with except for the small number of innovations, such as the cancellation of the fast of Tish:ah be·Av. ... On the whole, it was the view of the 'moderates' that during the transitional period under way, the kelipot still retained a good deal of their power, which could only be eliminated by continued performance of the mitzvot: the 'fa~ade' of rabbinic Judaism must be allowed to remain temporarily standing, although great changes had already taken place within the edifice.46

In Midrash talpiyot R. Elijah writes: 'In the Zohar, in a few places, it implies that in the future the messiah will do things that appear repulsive [devarim nir'im mekho'arim].'47 Needless to say, this is a strange passage.48 As Scholem notes, only in Shabatean literature is the Zohar explained in this way.49 In his approbation to Midrash talpiyot, published in the Lemberg 1875 edition,

R. Joseph Saul Nathanson notes this passage and, since he cannot imagine that R. Elijah was himself a Shabatean-he refers to him as a 'tsadik who

.. Scholem, Messianic Idea, 101-2. Scholem notes that not all ofthe moderates agreed on the continued cancellation ofthe Tishah Be'av fast. ., s.v. otiyot mashia/.l (p. nb).

... Just as strange is that in the great dispute between the hasidim of Sanz and Sadegora, the latter were suspected by at least one author of forging this text in order to justify the rebellious actions ofR. Israel ofRuzhin's son, R. Dov BaerofLeovo (c.1821-76), who abandoned his hasidim and became a maskil. See Zelikovitch, Shever posh'im, 62 (printed in id., Yalkut haro'im). Only someone who had never looked at the first edition of Midra.~h talpiyot, whkh prp·dated the rise ofhasidism, could make such an accusation. (Even, Di.lputr (III-h.), z7-X, apparl'lltly nl'vl'r saw

R. Joseph Saul Nathanson's approbation. as hI' writl'N that NllthlillNOll ;I(TIINrd thl' Sadt'l(ora h..sidim of forging the text. wh('n ill lact Nathllnlol1 hl~IlII'N thr Sh~hlltrllllN lilT thiN.) Rl'l(ardinM

R.         £Jov Harr. "I'e ANNaf. Hell"i/ed hy Knowledge (I Il'h,). .. Sl'holl'lII, Hrmurh,.1In ....ahhu"un/Jm (I Il'h,). 'UK,

stands in his righteousness'-he assumes that even in the first edition, the Shabateans had already inserted their heresy into the work.50

Since Nathanson had declared that R. Elijah could not have written devarim nir'im mekho'arim, the publishers ofthe Lemberg edition of Midrash talpiyot altered the text slightly so that it says that the messiah would do 'astounding' or 'frightful things' (devarim nora'im). The fact that Nathanson's approbation refers to a text that, after the 'updating', no longer exists, appears not to have bothered the publisher. Indeed, he must have been quite proud of his speculative emendation, and convinced of its accuracy. This can be deduced since by including Nathanson's approbation, which allowed every­one to see what appeared in the original text, the publisher showed that he was different from the other censors who intended to fool the readers.

Nathanson's approbation is significant for another reason, and brings us back to the beginning ofthis chapter. In addition to the supposed Shabatean forgery in Midrash talpiyot, he also calls attention to R. Hayim Lifshitz's Derekh h-ayim. This work contains a prayer by Nathan ofGaza (1643-80), the Shabatean prophet,51 which Nathanson assumes must also be a Shabatean interpolation. His final example ofa Shabatean forgery is that 'in the responsa ofR. Moses Isserles, printed in Hanau [1710], there is a responsum concern­ing non-Jewish wine, and in the res pons a of Isserles printed in Amsterdam [1711] this [responsum] is not found.' Not having the first edition of Isserles' responsa, printed in Krakow in 1640, or the edition printed in Hamburg around 1710, he was able to assume that the Amsterdam edition was authen­tic and that Shabateans interested in undermining halakhah had gone to the trouble of inserting a forged responsum into the Hanau edition.52 It was incomprehensible to Nathanson that Isserles, the defender of halakhah par excellence,53 was capable offinding any leniency in the matter of non-Jewish wine. Itwas similarly incomprehensible to R. Abraham Danzig, and he stated that the responsum must have been written by a Moravian troublemaker who slyly inserted it among the authentic manuscript responsa ofIsserles.54

.~,        Nathanson was unaware that this section of Midrash talpiyot was actually printed in

R. Elijah's lifetime. See Hezekiah Sofer's note in Datche, 12 Nisan 5768,5. " See Tishby, Paths (Heb.), 43-4. " Sperber, Netivot pesikah, 104 ff., notes some of the confusion Isserles' missing responsum

( r('ated among halakhists.

" III Shul/.lan arukh, 'Yoreh de'ah' 123; 26, Isserles even quotes an opinion that one who drinks lIolI'jt'wish wine by accident should last It)r live days. Regarding this passage, see Ehrenreich, '( )111' Who Drinks Gl'lltih' WilH" (I "'h.).

,. IJallzil(. Nhhmut udum. 'lIi1khol shahil!'. krlul (1<); i (ill id .. 1:luyei adam venishmat adam /111 mr/il'ur, ii. 11.7. Ill-i). H. IHrilrll.il'Ndllll1. rrml(lll1.rN thilt thr rl'SpOnSllII1 is ..uthentic, but he I'l'l'omml'lId" thut It. I'xI.trlllr hI' krpt hlddl'll Irlllll till' IIII1NNI'"; ''l'lIl1~ "~" m," ,,"Ill "",. Sc'c' id.. 'n/flr' yjm,'~l. 'IIrr~khol' (,: I (Yakltln INtlml) .

In addition to Moravia,55 we know that in Italy many Jews ignored the prohibition against non-Jewish wine, leading R. Joseph Karo and others to condemn the Italian practice.56 R. Leon Modena (1571-1648) testified that consumption ofsuch wine had been going on for many years before his time, and that great rabbis were among those who drank this wine or did not protest when others did.5? In his Historia de' riti hebraici Modena explained that the prohibition against such wine was only applicable when dealing with idol­aters, a category that did not encompass Christians.58

Although consumption of non-Jewish wine was opposed by most of the Italian rabbis,59 a few ofthem, including R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen of Venice (1521-97), the leading Italian halakhist of his time,60 were able to provide some justification. Katzenellenbogen even drank this wine himself.61 Another Italian halakhist, R. Shabetai Be'er (seventeenth century), ruled that

55

See J. Davis, Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller, 83 ff. R. Solomon Luria, She'dot uteshuvot maharshal, no. 72, mentions Jews who drink non-Jewish wine. He also refers to places where, 'due to our many sins', the practice has become 'completely permitted' (heter gamur) . See Falk, Perishah, 'Yoreh de'ah' II4: 2; D. Halevi, Turei zahavon Karo, Shull;lan arukh, 'Yoreh de'ah' 114: 3.

56

See Ya'ari, Mel;lkerei seier, 427. " See Modena, Letters (Heb.), no. 90. See also Modena, Ziknei yehudah, 49; Toaff, Love, Work, and Death, 74ff.

58 See Modena, Shull;lan arukh, 47 (the Hebrew trans. of his Historia de' riti hebraici). It is possible that this statement was made for apologetic reasons and did not reflect Modena's true opinion, for when directing his words to Jews he strongly opposed drinking non-Jewish wine, and did not drink it himself. See G. Cohen, 'History ofthe Controversy' (Heb.), 82; Adelman, 'Success and Failure', 9. For evidence ofwidespread drinking ofnon-Jewish wine in the Verona ghetto, and a letter ofprotest from Venice against this (along with an acknowledgement that all was not well in this regard in Venice either), see Modena, Works (Heb.), no. r6. For a r6th-cent. Alsatian Jew's report ofJews consuming non-Jewish wine, see D. Kaplan, Beyond Expulsion, 61. See also Da Silva, Peri l;Iadash, 'Oral:t l;1ayim' 496: r6.

S. R. Samuel Aboab, Seftr hazikhronot, section 4, chs. 2-3, responds at length to the justi­fications offered by those who were lenient regarding non-Jewish wine. See also E. S. Horowitz, 'Early Eighteenth Century', ror-2, who calls attention to a responsum of R. Moses Zacuto (c.1620-97) regarding the reliability ofa certain Torah scholar who would drink non-Jewish wine when he was travelling. See Zacuto, She'dot uteshuvot haramaz, no. 50. See also the non-Italian sources cited in R. Judah Ashkenazi's commentary Be'er heitev, 'Ora):l ):Iayim' 272: 2, and R. Hayim Mordechai Margoliyot's commentary Sha'arei teshuvah, 'Ora):l l;1ayim' 196: I (in the standard editions ofthe Shull;lanarukh).

60 See Siev, 'R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen' (Heb.). 61 See K. Schlesinger, 'Controversy' (Heb.); Benayahu, Relations (Heb.), 174 ff.; Safran, 'Leone da Modena's Historical Thinking', 398 n. 77; Bonfi!. Rabbis and Jewish Communities, 109:

G. Cohen, 'History ofthe Controversy' (Heb.), 62-9°, esp. p. 76. As Soloveitchik, 'Ydnam' (Heb.), 108, notes, there were Jews in Spain and Germany who also drank l1on-Jl'wish win!', hut it is not known if any rabbis defended this practice. Th!' same can he H;!iu about Rhours: H('(' Sp('rb('r, Minhagei yisra'el, iv. 277, R. Hayim Joseph David Azulai (17104"'11106) W~H tuld thilt R. Murde-dl;!1 Tama drank non-Jewish wine, S('r A:tullii. Ma'Ral "IV hcuk,ilrm, 1,/,.1., '1II1n" WII. Irolll Ilrhron, lind whilr ill AllIHtrrdulII JlllhllHhrd Ihr vululIIl' of MultI will dr.' tr.pUIIU klluwlI u ''''rdIlIlJor.

it is permissible to use non· Jewish wine for kiddush and havdalah (but not for general consumption).62 The official communal rules of Pisa and Livorno from 1637, while forbidding Jews to eatin non-Jewish inns or taverns, specifi­cally permit Jews to drink non-Jewish wine in small shops,63 This Italian prac­tice continued, and in a book published in 1872 R. Nahman Nathan Coronel (18IO-90) advised those who travel in Italy and see the local Jews drinking non-Jewish wine notto protest.64

Apart from Italy, I have found other permissive opinions as well_ R, Netanel Wei! (1687-1769) of Karlsruhe writes: 'In our time it is not forbid­den to drink non-Jewish wine, since those who do not offer wine to idolatry were not included in the decree. '65 In the nineteenth century there were North African rabbis who also declared that in contemporary times there is no pro­hibition against drinking non-Jewish wine.66

Laxity with regard to non-Jewish wine also spurred a backlash, which not only reaffirmed the binding nature of the prohibition, but attached new significance to it and expanded its parameters. One example of this is the view, already in existence in late medieval times, that a non-Jew is not per­mitted to even look at a Jew's wine,6? as this will somehow contaminate it.68 R, Yair Hayim Bacharach (1639-1702) assumes that a pious person will not drink wine seen by a non-Jew, just as he would not drink wine seen by a menstruant, since both individuals can contaminate through their gaze,69

62 Be'er, Be'er esek, no. 109. Abraham Berliner reports that as a result of his opinion regarding non-Jewish wine, Polish Jews mockingly referred to Be'er's book as be'er esik (esik is Yiddish for 'vinegar'). See Berliner, Selected Writings (Heb.), ii. 157. (For another of Be'er's controversial opinions, see Margoliyot, Sha'arei teshuvah, 'Ora):l l;1ayim' 33: 2.) R. Nathan Spira (d. 1662) laments how people who ignored the prohibition on non-Jewish wine recited kiddush and havdalah over it. See Spira, Yayin hameshumar, I (unnumbered). R. Israel Lipschutz, Tiferet yisra'el, 'Berakhot' 6: I (Ro'az section), implies that if one does not have kosher wine or bread upon which to recite kiddush, it is permissible to use non-Jewish wine. See R. Mattathias ben Meir, Matat yado, vol. i, 110.45, who responds to Lipschutz. 63 See Cooperman, '''Trade and Settlement''', 402.

.... Coronel, Zekher natan, I06a. Professor Ariel Toaff, who comes from a rabbinic family (his !;Ither was chiefrabbi ofRome for many years), informed me that until the 1970s, 'my family and almost all other rabbinic families [in Italy) used to drink normally stam yeinam [non-Jewish wine) ;lIId not kosher wine'.

,., Wei!, Korban netanel, 'Beitsah', ch. I, 5: 9. This liberal position is not found in his responsum Oil the topic in Torat netanel, no. 8. ", Messas, Mayim ~ayim, vol. ii, 'Yoreh de'ah', no. 66. See also Messas, Otsar hamikhtavim, vol. i, no. 454. ;

0.7

It is tirst rC'corcl('d by R. Mt'nah('rn ht'n MOSt'S R('cana(i (d. 1571), who refers to it as a minhag 10IIIikin (l()n~-t'Slahlisllt,u prartin'). S('t' his 'fa 'amri hamit.~vot, nn. ,60, and Barda, Revid hazahav, ii.

J.II        '), ,.. Sl'r Sprrhrr, MlnhuKei yl..,a',l, lv, ".1.77, lind R. Dnv IIrrlNh Wrldrnli-Iu, [)ovrv mrishurim, vol. i,

1111.   1.1:,., whrrr Wrlurllirld dl.nlur. thr .111111. uf'wlnr .rrll hy II nUII·Jrw thrllllMh MhINN. .. IIl1rhurlltll, MrNur h'lylm, 'KIt.1II hlll_kllut', 1111, III, (I'. ,.III), With rrw_nl tu II IIIrllMlrllllnt,

R. Judah Loew of Prague (Maharal; 1525-1609) is most famously identi­fied with the increasingly severe approach to non-Jewish wine.70 He even instituted a special prayer (mi sheberakh) for those who abstained from such wine.71 This action itself shows the problems he had in ensuring observance, since one does not give special recognition to those who observe a law that is taken seriously by all. Indeed, the Maharal specifically mentions that in Moravia not only did the masses drink non-Jewish wine, but so did rabbis.n It is probably due to the Maharal's influence in this matter that the prohibi­tion assumed ever more extreme parameters. For example, R. Leib Pisk of Nikolsburg published his Dimyon aryeh in Prague in 1616,73 in which he goes so far as to say that one must accept martyrdom rather than drink non-Jewish wine.'" A more recent work records the ruling of R. Sheftel Weiss (1866­1944) of Nagysimonyi, Hungary, that given a choice of eating pork or drink­ing non-Jewish wine, one should consume the pork.'s

The significance of this issue is demonstrated by its appearance in the late eighteenth century in Saul Berlin's notorious forgery, Besamim rosh.'6 In this work, 'R. Asher ben Yehiel' (or another supposed medieval sage, as the responsum is unsigned) states that R. Jacob ben Meir Tam (Rabbenu Tam; c.IIoo-71) declared that the scholars should assemble in order to void the prohibition against non-Jewish wine since it no longer has any connection to idolatrous ceremonies (obviously excluding the Eucharist ritual from any idolatrous connection). The responsum reports that Rabbenu Tam was con­vinced to shelve his idea since 'R. Simeon' pointed out that wine could once again become central to idolatrous ceremonies. By portraying Rabbenu Tam as retracting his suggestion, on the surface the responsum does not appear radical. However, the basic idea that the prohibition could be voided has been raised. Hundreds ofyears after 'R. Simeon', when it is obvious that the latter's concern has not materialized, the only logical result would be to return to

Bacharach refers among other sources to Nahmanides' comment that 'ifa menstruating woman at the beginning of her issue were to concentrate her gaze for some time upon a polished iron mirror there would appear in the mirror red spots resembling drops ofblood ... just as a viper kills with its gaze' (commentary on Lev. 18: 19).

70

See J. Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance, 23; Sherwin, Mystical Theology, 94 ff.

71

See I. Heilprin (ed.), Takanot medinat mehrin, 89 n. 8.

72

See his letter at the beginning of Spira, Yayin hameshumar.

7)

Regarding the controversy that led him to publish his work, see ). Davis, Yom-Toy Lipmann Heller, 83 ff. " Pisk, Dimyon aryeh, ch. 7. 7.' See Tausij.l, /leil yisra 'e/ hashalem, vi ii. I ;to.

7. No. 36. For censorship of R. Abraham Bornstl'ill of Sorhalrhoy'N (111,11-1910) Ilt·j.l;ltiv~ judgement of Besamim rosh ('it should be burnl t'vt'n 011 Yolll Kippur Ililil lilllN Ull Ihe SlIhhath'), ~rt'

Z. Y. Abr;lmowitz, 'Be.~amim r(lsh in ;I H;lHidk Mirror' (IIrh,), ~(" IIlId IJIlIl Hllhllluwlt:r.'H St'lilrlllI RioI' pOMt, J.7 Nov, ;too6,

Rabbenu Tam's first opinion." In other words, through this responsum Besamim rash has subtly undercut the prohibition against non-Jewish wine, which was exactly Saul Berlin's point.'8

Let me return to the issue of Shabateanism which has already been mentioned, as the concern about it explains an example of censorship in

R. Abraham Danzig's popular Ijayei adam. In the laws of Yom Kippur (144: 20),'9 Danzig refers to a prayer that appears in the anonymous multi-volume work, Ijemdat yamim, which was published in Izmir in 1731-2. An enormous amount has been written about this book, and virtually all academic scholars and many traditionalists are convinced that it is a Shabatean work.80 Some printers of Danzig's Ijayei adam were also convinced ofthis, which explains why this reference has been deleted in many editions of the Ijayei adam.81 Figure 3-3(a) shows what the text is supposed to look like, while Figures 3-3(b) and 3.3(c) show two examples ofcensored versions.

Although many people continue to regard Ijemdat yamim as a 'kosher' work, those who see it as 'unkosher' have a problem when it is mentioned in a book they are reprinting. Since the author ofthe book in question was oblivi­ous to Ijemdat yamim's origin, the motivation for censorship in these cases is also to protect the author's reputation, by preventing people from know­ing that he had studied Ijemdat yamim. An example of this concerns the eighteenth-century kabbalist R. Alexander Susskind ben Moses (d. 1793), who in his ethical will urges his sons first to study his own writings, and then to begin study of Ijemdat yamim.82 In the Zhitomir 1848 edition of the ethical will, Ijemdat yamim is no longer mentioned, and it is now the Reshit /:I.okhmah of R. Elijah de Vidas (1518-92) that is the first work to be studied after

R. Alexander's own. In other editions of the ethical will,83 Ijemdat yamim is abbreviated as nun, and (mistakenly) as n"'ln, and the abbreviations are never explained.84

77 Rabbenu Tam actually had a very stringent view on non-Jewish wine. See R. Reuven Margaliyot's note in his edition ofJacob ofMarvege, She'elot uteshuvot min hashamayim, 59 n. I.

1M

See also Berlin, Besamim rosh, no. 280, that a sick person is permitted to drink non-Jewish wi ne and eat non-Jewish cheese int will help him get better, even ifhe is not in any serious danger, since 'they [the Sages] did not decree against these things in the case ofsickness'.

7" In the first edition ofthe work, published in Vilna in 1810, this passage does not appear. It is, however, found in the second edition (Vilna and Grodno, 1819). The latter edition was published in I l;Jnzig's lifetime and contains many additions. :

*' Sec Ya'ari, Ta'alumat sefer; Tishby, Paths (Heb.), chs. 6-7: Scholem, Researches in Sabbatean­1\1/1 (I leb.) , 250-88; Fogel. 'Sabbatian Character' (Heb.); BenlDavid, 'E;femdat yamim' (Heb.); Y. H, Mizrahi. ~/r.mdal y().~rj; Goldhab('r, Ta'alumah YI"ayin kora lah'. \

" Srt' M, Mt'ir, 'On thr "Trlil;lh zlIkll"'" (1Irh,),

OJ Alrx:lndC'r SUHHkllld ben MIINC'N, 'Huvu'uh, Nt'l'IlulI \. ., r,M, WlIrN;lw, 191\ ;1110 VillI;I, 19;t9,

·'lie'lr II Mllllillir C'xlllllpir III Ihl' writ hili. of thl' 1","1011 IIII1.tl'r It 'Ikl'vl I IirN!''' Ekht'nNtl'hl of I.ldkhuv (1761 IHII), .C'I' Y. Mlllld.hlnl', 'I,I,mdu/ yumlm IIlId th" 1111.111" MII.ll'r.' (1II'h.).

"1:11" !l ·JhD mil IlDlill 0'1' ml)I,c .' 1)1)'" '"IGII nDljlI'l 'I) PI)Il PI)Il mIlO" ''''0 I) ")()o I'P')'" 5 ~"o 40 ~Dli'"l! " Iljll IlDlrr' O"i' mPljC '," • 6 1/) Pl)'ll 10 0"";' nflS ,,,, ~P'jlc" III )"i'7 n])7) nfln .")."fl 5 cr·,fl I'PI)'n p) . /)'lll1l) /I,;., "'mp) ",., "7:11) ])'\l'll .,") !II Il')'ll ,., nn\p) 'l1ll ~l':> n,",\, 1"'\ 'CDI'I oil IlISll\ O'll 11)'hc 1"' "hS "P'Cll "CO' /II .", ,,/lc" IP"'ll 7"" ,"no ')')'P" .,lll'l" nflj ''' . ",,~., P")Dlll WIl"\)) .,", 1m Ill'''' )':),"1 0""" D)'I)I 1'l; •.,1 ,.")jc C'I)' ,,")Il! n,ej Ill")) Ilpl,,, I';"~' . O'j"~ 0'»';1 nflS 07'i' IP"')'ll :>'1) O"p ')":>' :",,,:> (t'jlC rmr

: I")" !"en 'O~ ," ";1'"

~

'O.,~ o~,:Ih dI, M;t .'Il' J'D':t Tp~ tu,

~0''''''' io',' CIC»'" 1'~\)"'C'''' .Cl)C .

MID'l ~~ crf)'~ »'~., COI'I~..q, P'*' CI'O:M.J1IGl'I ..... 1" q~ r;o ."" CI'I'»> c~ ~»"I I"'D C.,j'C! II)",)>> · Ct"CI)f

.,., "* rI'D "'»D"» ,'Yc I'~. ,,~'" ~'ll)>> ",)nXl ~J'

..CD "".,. " i'D) D~2'" CI'm rimKI. _ ",.""", CI')C» 'e, D')lDDI ''"' ;II :." """"",'""' .• .,. 'nOD ....,.... L ......,ll'....,.,........(JIruIIIa,!IM).with unctnIONCl

comment • the dint olilUlllft '. . ., .. i

R. Moses Sofer was another great figure whose writings were censored. According to a text included in his commentary on the Talmud (see Fig. 3.4),85 which is actually a citation from his teacher R. Nathan Adler (1741-18°°),86 sunset in Frankfurt am Main, for purposes ofwhen the Sabbath starts, occurs 35 minutes before darkness (the same would be true in other parts ofCentral Europe). To put it another way, this means that the Sabbath ends 35 minutes after sunset, a position that is not in line with the more stringent view identi­fied with Rabbenu Tam, according to which the end ofthe Sabbath (i.e. dark­ness) occurs a good deal later than this.87 How do you ensure that this opinion remains unknown when it appears in Sofer's work? The best solution, as we have so often seen, is simply to omit it. This is exactly what happened in 1954 when Sofer's commentary was reprinted in photo-offset by R. Moses Stern (d. 1997), a well-known Hungarian rabbi. Only in 1997, after Stern was no longer alive, did R. Meir Amsel (1907-2007) reveal that Stern had told him that R. Joel Teitelbaum (1887-1979), the Satmar Rebbe, had 'commanded' him to delete this section.88

Yet Stern's action did not go unnoticed. When it was discovered, a group of Brooklyn men who called themselves anshei yere'im ve/:r.aredim deviliamsburg ('the God-fearing and pious men of Williamsburg') launched a very strong protest, seeing it as the height ofchutzpah (insolence) to tamper with Sofer's writings (see Fig. 3.5).89 They even connected this with the actions of the Reformers who thought it proper to omit material from the prayer book.

85 See the end ofhis l;lidushim: seder mo'ed. 86 See Plaut, Likutei !}aver ben I;ayim, iv. 3b.

87 It is perhaps strange that Adler's opinion does not distinguish between different times ofthe year. See A. M. Sofer, Minhagei raboteinu vehalikhoteihem, 93. A different perspective is offered in Sofer, She'elot uteshuvot I;atam sofer, vol. i, 'Orab. b.ayim', no. 80. For interpretations ofSofer's and Adler's views, not all ofwhich agree with what I have written, see Halberstadt, 'The Time of the End ofthe Sabbath' (Heb.); H. P. Benisch, 'An Explanation of the Calculation' (Heb.); Pozna, 'An Explanation of the Hatam Sofer's Time Calculation' (Heb.); Y. G. Weiss, 'An Explanation of the Times of Day and Night' (Heb.); Levinger, 'Concerning the Time' (Heb.); Gewirtz, 'Zemannim',

168-7° · ss See the editorial comment in Hamaor (Sept.-Oct. 1997), 26. Cf. Harfenes, Yisra 'el veha­zemanim, 873. When the censorship was first discovered, Stern claimed that he had nothing to do with it. He placed the blame on an unnamed individual whom he said had access to the volumes and carried out the censorship on his own. This information appears in Stern's 'open letter' dealing with the issue, a copy of which Professor Shnayer Leiman was gracious enough to send me. In this letter, Stern also states that regardless of what the practice was in Pressburg (Bratislava), Budapest, and Vienna, in the name of Orthodox unity it is best if all those in the United States adopt Rabbenu Tam's view as to when the Sabbath ends . .. Despite what appears in the placard (seE' Fig. 3-5), WI' hOlv!' ('vid!'nn' that ill the 20th (('Ill. the Sabbath in Pressburg ended later than thl~ time giVl'1I hy Sofi-r. Scc II . 1'. 1I1'1I1Nl'h, lluumunim bukulukkuk, i. 213, Ii. 442 fl'. (According to R. I.l'opold Grc!'nwllld, who Nhulil'u hI I'rl'NNhur", III the Unitl'd SllIII'N Ihr SlIbhlllh !'lIdrd lO mlllllt!'11 IInrr 111111111'1, SrI' C;rrrllwllld, Mukurll uzemullo,

"7-K.)

C'l'lV "V C'lCtit n1~ li"iI 'v'c ill: t)1C'::1 .I:-t:: ';'~ -,1)'1: r:::nn 't:lMn V1nt:) olm :I'-II"Q nirlM' 0'I1l't:) "Nl'l'~' ....;, m,Qn" ."'it'l .i>~'t:)1 n:ltV ~

1'\""''' It:)T it:lW, C'l1W'

= ",~ ;In .··.,0011 1'Il"0:1 nI'TI",' nI;np, .n1'·;,·:'! "'1ll':,\' "P~'?OJ II~ .,.." l'\1)n'I!I ,.,~ um m """ .p-I" 1'1 ''lI) D'l;l"" 'IlT\' "T' ;, ~1IC "11:1111

mI'T1II .~ 111'P1I1n ..,nlC 1'O\1'C .)"J 11:11I1n III 111111; .IIW 1ICI'W 1nl'ZIo'..,IIIft 1:1.'3 1IC; D'1I1ll1 1IC!I :l1'PC <.

C~'n:lVo'1'M M:I~ C"'"t:) c., '11M nC1I1 lIP, "' ;:111 ~'D"\:l D/1';' ~.D"f' ." .=VC'D ,112"'"

71:172 1f':IC nn " J'i'Vo1 ~1'0\1'11 11'" 11:1am IIlI '1I1C; ':1.11 110' .'V·~ '''lMN ~ M"C"r'lIl:l . it::lM'C

D':nnc on "11'\ .\'I1"1r.1:'I 11':1; "'''Il'II:1' ',.,1.1:1 IQ nl ; ;glln? ~. mt> 1111112 ';' .o'TIrm ~1\1»;:,\. ""0' n1IIIII'I

l:"l"\i"I'nC-., 'lIl= C'~ me'" 'ac1 .ot::' i'ilt:! C1pc.., ''''C1M "'V C'lilll. -:un" iW1= ni1n:;l " n1'~" D1I1DlD lJ'm", .lIlT'11J all;.) ,' .1 "n .,..,., "\010 onn 'tmn T''''''' ~IMPlI 1M ~ =I' '~l," n"nNl'l 1:\"" "",

em

,.,~ P -,';" p';'r-50 mCt'Tr!~ rr.:~ :"O'j"'>(\"\ "1t'l"',r rtlj"" r'r"): " :ij'" "r"~ 1m:" r~"'('= ~: J:I": r ... ·...,.... _ ;' 6 "(f'I, t\)'''' "f\\~';,'1 r' 'fC') no'i"'ll" O'1'~ r""D')t ',,: :")":" ;J"~ C'~l:"~ i-'i ~): h:,,":,,'~ ,I-< ::'~~;:.;';':-;"dl ;:-.; rr',~-c-'­1 0 C'''' :'~) :-,~ rf-I :"'O'i!":--'10 P'''~ :":J: r'l~ '1'~I:",,!' ;.,~'f' 7 '1"fl ;rp·;'~ [,0 e:~'~:-l"';" I,:" , I:'; r~':":-: : -:, ~:.;: :."~~ ~,f't »f'o rtrJr r,'Lt" 07'j r11"" ''m, .,~," 7 ,m t)1j'" C"rf\.'::" j~'':-' ::c: ...... r::.,~ ~ ... ;'" i:',-."': ' ',~ t,_, ;~ _.' ""IU' I"Cli'f" ~r: t"" cpr r 'r"lf'1' ~\~ 9 "'Ii'-o r'C':'l" fi q',f: : .. :-~Jl r"r::"I ~rr~ '1:"'~ ':"!~ :.... :"' -.. , .. fJ ~ .... ~".'~ . 40 :Cli'N'I " rJO I"(;'~r, ~"i" r 1t'1)c. 'in. 6 1fl' 01)'1': 10 X'): b::. '~I~' rr'c: !f" ... : :'" r::':~ ::: -, . i":"": -1'--~ ... ::

~ "\;'1'''' 5 'l....iII ro:';":'"            rl!.~,:: ;"I'fo.' ...,:-\,.. 7 ~.. : 1:"';'; ';-":.:li :-,-''':: ; ... :-,.. :; r:'" ;­:"'-"r'r'J:' ',,:,-,r =';". !!! ... ~:.,~ :;'Je ~: : :-.... : :"~' .-~ --~

II!it at , 11 1 n.",) it Il~,n it n 111 01'/1 'u n-nm ",.., In'l" 1'1') l1/' ~'I /II) IM1II:I'1I •-mo.'1l ~n1lID." !l"U" ,.,., _ 'IV '1lJI:I u'1,r

•."" ~~:I'I ~"" 11':111'7 ."." :m ,,..,.,/1 '1"1' 111 1)'1.1111' 1I"Tr.I n:I'nI PlIC nt'II tnII1I 'II~ tl:n~ ""'., DII ~ .,!), ~iI~,. rTI"n" Crill: 'Q"MTIW ,,"n il1"=Ilo., I.,1l1:ll"ll'1 .,!): C'~ llrl 1!):'1 l~~1M", ~"lie ) .'IIC"M 1J7CrI" 'M"IrI" ~=

Flwurr J.5 I'I00nmJ prOII'NtllI~ LI~LlirINI It MONI'N Slrm'N n'lIsorship of

It MOMrM SIII"!"M I 1I111111rlll,HY

HALAKHAH

R. Moses Sofer was another great figure whose writings were censored. According to a text included in his commentary on the Talmud (see Fig. 3-4),85 which is actually a citation from his teacher R. Nathan Adler (1741-180°),86 sunset in Frankfurt am Main, for purposes ofwhen the Sabbath starts, occurs 35 minutes before darkness (the same would be true in other parts ofCentral Europe). To put it another way, this means that the Sabbath ends 35 minutes after sunset, a position that is not in line with the more stringent view identi­fied with Rabbenu Tam, according to which the end of the Sabbath (i.e. dark­ness) occurs a good deal later than this.87 How do you ensure that this opinion remains unknown when it appears in Sofer's work? The best solution, as we have so often seen, is simply to omit it. This is exactly what happened in 1954 when Sofer's commentary was reprinted in photo-offset by R. Moses Stern (d. 1997), a well-known Hungarian rabbi. Only in 1997, after Stern was no longer alive, did R. Meir Amsel (19°7-2°°7) reveal that Stern had told him that R. Joel Teitelbaum (1887-1979), the Satmar Rebbe, had 'commanded' him to delete this section.88

Yet Stern's action did not go unnoticed. When it was discovered, a group of Brooklyn men who called themselves anshei yere'im ve/:!-aredim deviliamsburg ('the God-fearing and pious men of Williamsburg') launched a very strong protest, seeing it as the height ofchutzpah (insolence) to tamper with Sofer's writings (see Fig. 3.5).89 They even connected this with the actions of the Reformers who thought it proper to omit material from the prayer book.

.5 See the end ofhis l;:lidushim: seder mo'ed.   86 See Plaut, Likutei ~averben ~ayim, iv. 3b.

.7 It is perhaps strange that Adler's opinion does not distinguish between different times ofthe year. See A. M. Sofer, Minhagei raboteinu vehaUkhoteihem, 93-A different perspective is offered in Sofer, She'elot uteshuvot ~atam safer, vol. i, 'Oral;J.l;J.ayim', no. 80. For interpretations of Sofer's and Adler's views, not all of which agree with what I have written, see Halberstadt, 'The Time of the End ofthe Sabbath' (Heb.); H. P. Benisch, 'An Explanation of the Calculation' (Heb.); Pozna, 'An Explanation of the Hatam Sofer's Time Calculation' (Heb.); Y. G. Weiss, 'An Explanation of the Times of Day and Night' (Heb.); Levinger, 'Concerning the Time' (Heb.); Gewirtz, 'Zemannim',

I68-7°·

•• See the editorial comment in Hamaor (Sept.-Oct. I997), 26. Cf. Harfenes, Yisra'el veha­zemanim, 873. When the censorship was first discovered, Stern claimed that he had nothing to do with it. He placed the blame on an unnamed individual whom he said had access to the volumes

and carried out the censorship on his own. This information appears in Stern's 'open letter' dealing with the issue, a copy of which Professor Shnayer Leiman was gra iOtls nough to send me. In this letter, Stern also states that regardless of what th pro li was in PI' ssburg (Bratislava), Budapest, and Vienna, in the nam of Orthodox unity il is b('sl if" all thos' in Ih(" United States adopt Rabbenu Tam's view;l . Lo when the S;lbbalh (·lltiS.

.. Despitcwhotapp ars in the pia ard (s(,t' Fig. 1.5), w(· llaVl'I·vicl" IIt'(' III:II IIIIIIt' .I.OII, ('\'111.111(' Sobl al'h ill Pr('ssbtlrg (' II(kd 1:11('1' Ih:111 Ih(· lillI(' givc'll by SO lC'l, S,',' II. I'. 1II',tiNcI" //(lTI'IIIIIII;1I1 /UI./IfI,lllk/III/I, i. 1.1 \' ii. ~ 'I,)' ''~ (1\<<() Idit'i~ 10 1(. I ,l'Clpoid ( ; "'I'IIw,t1d, Willi II "1,,,,1 III 1',,' III II 1\, III IIII' lI,tllc,d SI.III Ihl' ,',Ihll,dlt 1"I(II,d \11 ,111,1,11,' ,lilt" 1111 c'l '"" (;" '1 IIw.tld, fll,illIlIlI,1 ,'111111111,

1'1 II)

HALAKHAH

O'l'lV '5V O'l~m n,';' ij?'n 'V,t:l 'i"1~ :m::l' .r::uc' ':'j; ·,!m:: onn 't~.."n :.71n~ O~'l :l''ii,t:l l1~N' . C'il't:l "Nl',''j.loI.i N'n nm~nn ;om .j?"t~:~"t:l' n:l~ ,l nj?''''' l~l il:l,n:l' O'l'tt!-" ," :n:l~ OEl'lW

1':'1'r' !l jt:o ft~r rC'ir Oil~ 1'll",C ''1n .':'1'" 7 1" tm'n r'p',,: '7 Ci~)' 'r\l~ Im~ r-'''Ir: ~: !J'r.;: rh'"'~ jrf :" -';".~' '1tr /'IP'~r "1' \:lln evr. moe,' '~1h 9 ,~o ),0')'" fi q',fl C\'r:1~ i'~j V'';; b" ;~'r. H~'~f' F\:~;';~ rIO J::') i'::'~'" c-· ~ -JO :-~\Lj':"l .,'" jl,': rpy-J'l O"j) mPt)c 10m , 6 1fl) t:)·p 1(I 7 q',h 1:;1)I)'n f,O oil"n:' j:'lf;;'l ":'" jC'; ie'Ii): -:-:: :--:.:: !.,=.~ ::;');;:-rt~ i~ :"t'(r;~ it. ~"~i rp,~ nr." ,="t 5 ~"II' j't:';'T! :";'~\.~~ F'~I:'I ~~li'r::'l iC I':-"r ,c'l-r i;~'! ,'"":'"':.::; '-.. ~-,­i" . h~'d f;:~' fI"')r.rr~ ,,;:" 1",,1' Pt)"r ~") If, 1.")')? i",

r~!:.') 'r~ CJ"'l=' n,h;1 1'1;; ~coft ~f, r\jn~ c'n l'J'f,:. lr.t. ~::: ~;, r~;~~'~r~~;~)lr:c:-::r~f;;,:;~~~~~,~'~_,;,~~'f;~:~"~:.~~I

ih ":O;:':.r. J'::r' f'\~ 't>1 j'rc" 11:" -1': ,tl" ,urr ~;')'lm :'rm:'l rh' -:;~ j\r:;" P"':!;))} 1I:1",'n Z"" jnr tr'", .11:;:: O''''~ ~~~~~,~,f~:',;~: :,;:;~ :~~~\~:~t~.~~~i~~~:--r~,l;~ ;:~;>;~~~~~: D~\r~ r"':-~ 1'''!: ::'~:. :-O;')F')l n):, rni)J"lr!1:-i';:;~\ • ::;':1':;;'1

:';,;~:-i't! ;:'7'~ iCP1;'t :"~ :7tjl ';":'1' :"r.:'!:, n.:'j= ci'i ~~\~~;~~~~:~~ 7:::~~,:1~~;~;~.~I:~~~~~!~~~'~::~3~t", ~'~'~.~;.;;

: ~";;'l JI):r· '!:~ tr ,,~)::" 1 0 e~j: ~+~ :"';'1 Ii'I :C'i;';" -:1' J.:"':':::S ~:.': :"':.-:;':''''

1D' "Y:l ~" ."'ceK nJ"DJ ","'n~ ",'mp, ,m,',,'o ",ll'O11 "PJ1,e:l ",'mp ,KlIn l"J;vy,~ "YJ ll~l 111 m,,,.v"" "l "'Y) O'l:l,ii "fV\i1 'i' '31 'l~r,) TN,!) tlnJtu

iI:l"l< i1S'i''l1o ',nK l't)U't) l"Y n:lvm T1;) nN:i' .OWl;) ~l'tt' Cly1;)o ""," U:1lW' 110' D'lt'lN 'N:l :l"P1.l (.

O'~1V' n:lv" '5N N:l' C''''pt:l cn ')..,n '310111 MPY 111 ':lK .:1"J OI1',Y KJn .D" 'Y ::I:)YIO '!) ,nJ"ltl

"':!?J K'J)') 1111 ·:1Y'PlII:1 D"!'P 1'0')').) n" n'lIm nK ,nD' '):'1 ) IN"             .iV'i't.:1" ',n~ ili N':::"~:l il~N'5t:l

c':nnc cn ,'X' .rn'c~ n'J" 'm1,eJ, "PJ:lJ K' m "'cn~' ItS,' mlll nyw, " ,C"'"11 I" ",:I"n 'T'I,'C' m"tl11 l-np"ntlil 'lEl~ O,~ i1l~' 'N' ,oCt, i,nC' O'j?t:lM '1t:l,n ,"V O'Jn'J. -111W~

~t:l n"n: " n'''~' ClllDl:l ':I'111m .01"lJ ax,: ~l "11 "')11        ,c,e ann 'lII1'm l"Do" "'"".1111:> :MPY K'I 'P'~' ::"I' i":,n';', '-lsi mnNn l:1,n V''''

em

"."" Il <rtl! »,,'p 50 rfI ~Jl:' In,., :OP'j>I>:' ", ",p "»'i''' 1'I'",'C " o,i'" ,n',=, 1"'~ J')...." ;: Dm: rf"'"Ii' jm ""Y~'

6 1i') P')'P 1"\'~'~ r' ]0') IlO'!'I' O"i' 1\I1"'~'7 ~~'I~ 1m o'7i'~1 1.-,j P1'~ )", ,~,~ 8 q'\~ I"P"'" 50 IC" ),>p'i'n 07'i'

1 0 o,~ ~\oo) ~,~ !fI, :>o'r"~ 7P J),,~I ~p~ P'" q'l).m ,,~,~ 7 t}',tt J%'C)\)'Tl 50 O'iHn:'lll")9\1 1,\'1' It)\; n~'vr:lc i:; ;:"IJ)c. :J'J"'l

'I:\'~ II JI>D 1'0111 I>P',n 07'j> n'p,,, 'm. ,~.~ 7 "., Ill"" o'i""';;'1 rm::t :'IOti''':'' '71' nnn ~CTi"l'I C"'I' 1'!tl)lJC 'i~ ::'nr

'"IG/I f\D'fI" " PPP Dim "'1lO'I1 'I:\'~ {) ,iIIr !'1l"'P 5 q'l/I cr." '7» m'l'!c:'t -0,,,,, 1cm \II' l:1t:Sl ",!:"It 6 'i'\f'l1)l;'~ ;;0

40 ~D'~"~ .,. ",0 lID'"" e7'i' "'1m, "P. 6 1~' ""'P 10 lP"C ;" 1)1\11 1'1"'0 ffn ''')::1''1 r.!;'~r. C,\~ fI'r'j:; :'ll'fl 1'r-:

: '\:ll~ 5 'l"~ rOil'" "'J)1,~ :"ptn "~'fI 7 1'" I~Ol)'" 20 C"\1tn~ l"'l1:'! ''''icr. r~'i"l")

Oil;' n'D1JC " "7D tm'r. 10 "l'!) 1;1" bJ nl'l'!:i :"It:~ij~ .... :-f' ~

!!!ilN,n, .",,'" Mlnnn iln

'M D"~ '" n'nlIIC" n1111' ln'llll 11" 1111' "'J~ 11C 11"K'''' ",.,0110 n1;'Dn 'DJ:llll1 0"1l1ll '1IIlI111 o'lIII)n:! ;y m»o ", !II'

.1II"Ipn '~nJ ", I"'" It':!:!' "''')1 11n .)1"'1111'1 'I"l' 'K D't)W' 1I"~ .""., ~OD 11I'!C IC1mll 't)o, p:n; ',." !Co, clle "m!)

,~, In~t:l m,n:l " n'''~'' O~lll:l ':l'il'"nt.:1 ,,'5n n''5cll,.,l"m l:1i',n '5~: O'Nnt:l m • ., l~~' J .'IM'" ')7t:1~' "N,tu-'l:l

J":CtlW"',,, 0"'" O'N,' 't.:1lM

FIIIIII(' I,'; Pl,lI,lIeI J1' l1lc' 11111\ "I\,III1 !11 Il MIIIII'II, 'IC" II'fl (C'IIII1I1I1IIiJi (If

Il M" I' :'''/1'1 ' '''"I11'''lll.ly

Pointing to the terrible consequences ofactions like that of Stern, they stated: 'Today or tomorrow ifsomeone does not like a ruling in the Shulh-an arukh, he will omit it or forge the Shulh-an arukh.' They also accused the recent arrivals in New York, by which they meant the Hungarian hasidim who ended the Sabbath later than others, of performing labour after sunset on Friday

evening. To many, this will sound like a shocking accusation. After all, Jews assume that the Sabbath begins at sunset, so how could these pious Jews have been working after this time? Yet the truth is that in previous centuries it was stan­dard practice in many places in Europe for people to continue to perform labour well after sunset on Friday. In some areas, this practice continued into the twentieth century,90 and the placard against Stern is evidence that even in the post-Second World War years there were still some who started the Sabbath after sunset. The post-sunset start to the Sabbath, in accord with Rabbenu Tam's view and adopted by the Shulh-an arukh,91 assumes that shekiah ('sunset'), for the purposes of when the Sabbath starts, takes place a good deal later than what is usually regarded as sunset.92 To give one example of many,

R. Solomon Ganzfried's Kitsur shulh-an arukh states that the Sabbath candles can be lit until a half hour before darkness (i.e. night).93 Since his definition ofdarkness was in accord with Rabbenu Tam's view,94 halfan hour before this is well after sunset. R. Jacob Lorberbaum (1760-1832), in his popular Derekh

95

hah-ayim, states that work must stop only 15 minutes before darkness.

90 See H. P. Benisch, Hazemanim bahalakhah, vol. ii, ch. 46. In the Vienna Schiffshul, founded

by Sofer's son·in law, R. Solomon Spitzer, candle· lighting was after sunset, even in the years

following the First World War. See R. Avraham Ya'akov Bombach's testimony in Otserot hasofer, 16

(2006),74-5. See also R. Shmuel Wosner (b. 1913 in Vienna), Shevet halevi, vol. i, no. 47·

" Shul/:lan arukh, 'Ora\;! \;!ayim' 261: 2. Elsewhere in the Shul/:lan arukh Karo seems to reject the

opinion ofRabbenu Tam. See Greenwald, Maharil uzemano, 49;Ajdler, 'Talmudic Metrology VII',

28ff. 92 See H. P. Benisch, Hazemanim bahalakhah, vol. ii, chs. 46, 51; Harfenes, Yisra'el veha·

zemanim, 872 ff. See also William L. Gewirtz's series of Seforim Blog posts, 3 Feb. 2010, 7 Apr.

2010,10 July 2010, 3Aug. 2010 .

• 3 Ganzfried, Kitsur shul/:lan arukh, 75: I. See also E. Gruenwald, Keren ledavid, 'Ora\:! \:!ayim',

no. 79· .. See Braun, She'arim metsuyanim bahalakhah, 75: I. •• Lorberbaum, Derekh ha/:layim hashalem, 19a (zeman hadlakat nr.rol). R. Abraham Combiner

(c.r 637-83) , Magen avraham, 'Ora\:! 1;Iayim' 331: 2, also writt's that soml'timl's tlll'Y would not start the Sabbath until 15 minutes before darkness. This position is qucltc'd without ohjc'clion in Danzig 1;lokhmat adam, 149: 6. In Magcn avraham, 'Oratl b:lyllll' J.\~ : \, It (;tlIllhlnN Itivrs a dillrrrnt lilfllllllation, st:ltinl( that proplr would pNlilflll I:lhour 1I1llilllpproKillllltrly h:llf ~Il hour 11I'li,r!' dOlrkllrsM. Sr!' :lINO Rahlllowitl' . .'lhllllllll, .'irllrr rllyu/w, 71), lill hi" !'r]llll't of hi" VINIt to (;l1l1l'1a, whrrr thry did lIot IIlIbt thr SlIhhllth 111111111'" IIlItll n~'''~ mp \)"12) .

The practice of beginning the Sabbath after sunset is pretty much extinct today, and had become significantly less common by the beginning of the twentieth century. There is no need here for me to examine how this came about, and why the viewpoint ofthe ge'onim (later adopted by the Vilna Gaon and R. Shneur Zalman ofLyady), which claims that the Sabbath begins at (or very close to) sunset and ends somewhat earlier than the time advocated by Rabbenu Tam, emerged victorious.96 Suffice it to say that of all the develop­ments in Jewish religious life in the past few hundred years, this is certainly one of the most important, as it involved a significant alteration of how the most significant aspect ofJewish life was practised. As Shlomo Sternberg put it: 'We are in the strange situation that as far as one ofthe most fundamental issues of Halachah is concerned, the onset of the Sabbath, universal Jewish practice today is contrary to the explicit ruling of the Shulhan Aruch. We also know that universal practice today is contrary to the common practice in Eastern Europe in the last [nineteenth] century.'97 Acceptance ofthe ge'onim's opinion about when the Sabbath begins and ends is also significant from another angle, as it means that today 'most people perform melakha [work] on Motza'ei Shabbat [Saturday evening] at a time when, according to most Rishonim [medieval rabbinic authorities] and the Shulchan Arukh, doing so constitutes a Shabbat violation, punishable with sekila [stoning]. '98

I am aware of another example of Stern's censoring of Sofer's writings.99 In Sofer's responsa on 'Oral) l)ayim', first published in Pressburg in 1855,100 he refers to the Vilna Gaon as having emended a text, 'as was his wont' (kedarko) (Fig. 3.6(a)). In 1958, Sofer's responsa were reprinted by Stern, and as one can see in Figure 3.6(b), the word kedarko has been removed, no doubt because it was thought to be disrespectful to the Vilna Gaon.

Since R. Moses Sofer was censored when what he wrote was thought to be problematic, we can expect that the same thing would happen with his lead­i ng student, R. Moses Schick (1807-59). We have the testimony ofR. Issachar

'No

See H. P. Benisch, Hazemanim bahalakhah, vol. ii, chs. 44-6. N. Kamenetsky, Making ofa (;odol, i. 657, quotes his father, R. Ya'akov Kamenetsky, as follows: 'Only the popularity of Mishnah Ilt'rurah [first published in 1892 (5652), ninety·six years after the Gaon's demise!] which ruled that "Ill' must be very carefull'ND 1m'" 1V'J to refrain from all work immediately after sunset, led to the IlIliversal embrace ofthe Gaon's psaq' (brackets in original). See I. M. Hakohen, Mishnah berurah, .'.(ll: 23. 'I

,,, Sternberg, 'Brin haShernashot', IX. Contrary to otheri who have written on the topic, SIt'mherg argul's that Rahhl'nu 'nun's opinion, I"ter advocated by the Shul~an arukh, was never ,..Iopll'd ill pral'lkl' ill any Il1l'dirval cOImllllllity. lit' hc·lic'vc·s that it was only in the second half of Ihl' 16th ('(·nl. th:!t proplC' hrllan to do work "nd IIlIht SlIhhllth r:llldlC's allc'r sunsc'!.

.. Rirnon, ""lbN!'I"t Slulhhllt": "ddltlM '1'11111' Olltu Shllbhllt' .

.. ThiN rrl1NnrMhlJl WIIM lintI'd hy MIIWt'., ""'m "1.11: ytvum(ll, ~("

"" ,""r'rllll ul,~"uvlll ~ulu", ~1~/'r, vol. I. 'Orllb lIlIyhll', no, 1(,11.

Solomon Teitchtal (1885-1945) that his father-in-law, R. Jacob Joseph Ginz (1854-1925), possessed the manuscripts of Schick's responsa. (Schick had been his teacher.) In one of these responsa, Schick explained that he did not recite the hymn 'Shalom aleikhem' on Friday night, because he followed the example of his teacher R. Moses Sofer, who also did not recite it. Schick offered the same reason to explain why, when his wife gave birth, he did not hang 'holy names' designed to protect her on the walls. When R. Jekutiel Judah Teitelbaum (1808-86), the rabbi of Sighet, saw these responsa in manuscript, he told Ginz that since the general practice was not in accord with what Schick wrote, these responsa should be omitted in order to pro­tect Schick's honour, and that is what was done.101 R. Meir Stein (d. 1933) further reports that he was shown twenty-two responsa from Schick that were not included with the responsa published after his death. The reason for this was that in these responsa Schick expressed a more tolerant attitude towards the Hungarian Status Quo communities than appears elsewhere in his writings.102

Turning to the Sephardi world, we find an example of censorship in the writings of R. Joseph Hayim of Baghdad (1832-19°9). R. Joseph Hayim remains one of the most influential Sephardi halakhists, and is unusual in that he also wrote a halakhic work in the vernacular (Arabic), designed to be read by women.103 In this book (ch. 17), he discussed the matter ofwomen cov­ering their hair, a practice whose obligatory nature has been the subject of some dispute in recent years.l04 The fundamental issue is whether there is an obligation for married women to cover their hair at all times and places, or only in a society in which this is the norm. According to the latter assumption,

101 See J. H. Schwartz (ed.), Zikaron lemosheh, 173. For another example of censorship of Schick's responsa, see N. Ben-Menahem, 'Mai:laloket-Beregsas'.

1112

Status Quo is the 'term applied to those communities in Hungary which after the sehlsIil Ihat occurred at the Hungarian General Jewish Congress of1868-69 ... did not join the Neologist organization or the Orthodox communities', EJxv, col. 347, s.v. 'Status Quo Ante'. See Weingarten, '/l('sponsa That Were Concealed' (Heb.), 97. R. Solomon Tsevi Schlick (1844-1916) had previously ;lIgued that R. Moses Schick's strong negative comments about the Status Quo communities (e.g. Schick, She'etot uteshuvot maharam shik, 'Orai:l i:layim', no. 307) were dictated by the needs ofthe hour, but were not permanently applicable. See Schlick, She'dot uteshuvot rashban, vol. i, 'Orai:l I.• ayim', no. 62. In support ofthis assumption, Schlick could have noted that in 1875 Schick sent a lI'sponsum to R. Jonah Tsevi Bernfeld (1834-91), the Status Quo rabbi of Debrecen (Schick, Sh,.·r/ol uteshuvol maharam shik. 'YorC'h dt"ah', no. 170). " is dear from this letter, and especially lIorn til(' titles ~ivC'1I to AI'rnlc'ld, that Srhkk r«"l~;tr<h'd him as a (oll('agul' 110 different from his otl\('r rabbinic nllh'a~u(,N, SI'I' alNo ficrzi~('f, 'Thl' ~oad Not lllk('n'.

10' Kan"n al-ni.~a. Thl' tltll' plll'1' HWYH that It waN prlntl'd In l.iYorno, hUI thiN iN not wm'rl. S('(' II"yim, l.aws./il' Wllmr.n, 04 (ullllulllhl'rl'd), whrrr thl' IlUIt\rl' 1M I'xplwlllrd. "" SrI' llruydl', '111111' CUYI'rir1lllllld )I'WINh l.IIw', l)'l-I'll).

.IbM~"''''· lCm''''' .

'Inn; ac;ac ",;:1;

at;~ ,,,,., ;,,.., l'''

'l'ac, ,n'nm ,nMD :oMn :mac,;

.011 ran~ W"Dll' M:.rI1n :1'"1" 0';J2D" 'M) i1~'O 11"K " nDnD ,po~ ,'7t., ,., ~., ·U"'. m ~~~.,

(41) n:M'~ \lC II'" "'nc D"Jm ac'12 ,'7"1 'V'" \'1 "n".,.. •• cMJm.

~';)' 13'1t' 'l"I'nn, ",M ,,"7.ln n,..,' Iti'l '?::lit

,It::l'IP" n',., C',,3=' C1I7'!1It", "pelt'?:! ,." ,,,,

'. II'''' O'''31!)' ='lwnn'It' ""I!) .ell 1P''It''Q 1P'1'IIIZl::I

"l'O 'IT'1t ~,_,,,, ,., l'~ ~nm ,.llPl

,m' ,,, .".2." 'lit .~I: C''''=-'/VT Iy.., .Ie'''''

, ,"",,,,, 1"'TO """= ...",. It'" .c''''2C Il'r.l ,.,..,

,ft!,""ao'mlnDWD 1m. na""",....u

, ,."", .,. .~'r.D ,~ 1M '"""" ,.. ...'"

,. Ie" 'IS:s '""" ,.._ ~""~"'_ 'G ,.

nvo 'l'1 n""" 'i?1!"l] '"1W 1':Ik ~l D'1Pl~ ",'':0 'mil'! ,,'Tl'1!Z:l TmC '1'W 1C':o "R.'1 J "ln R.'I) It":lon I'IV1~C'

C'lPlIt ?IP :'I1'1"Ib' ,"".,,. .........

"M'n n.'1!) ="'Y.l1P n". 1" .a"!"\' 1"1,,,-0,.,.,,,

rlt '?:lit .C'TIt '2l 'IP :TI'M i'T'n CIt ,C'l~ I"IV"

,.".n ".." ,."." n'lV"l7.l ,zmc '3= "IP nnrJ ~ TIl nwJlI "II' .'" n.., ac'll IY':IftI arR ,'I:n'I • .,. .~... ,.,., ",.:1,."" ""'.11" m'I~ MI"m '" ., .., • ." ,PoI"I'I ",..,,, ",~ """11 r="

""" ..... -'"" .... 'IIC'I .t'''" ....

l"UWl"!) ilWll ::l'il pll Q~'In" n'lClln len::'nc, Z).,

N~'O' U"", n:1111:1 'P~:1 :1~"rr l'l~:1 ,n"T "" " :1lt'Plt' O'N"

nW/).,,, 0:" ;'IW;) 'X Q'~

IC"~~'W 'YTUYO ~;:)'1D ,",ml';) 1"':'n;'1 ~ltWD)' 1t:1~n 'i";'1 "'1'

.0""" ;'1,,:1, I:,,'W "::l'D

l"l1t'D' :"I' n;w' ';'1 ,P1ltD-K':I:1 ItD'O l"lWIt :"IT'K nn'K ,",ltW l'lY:l

.n:lW:1 ''';'1':1 'i'~:1 ,~, mm~ Cit ,;'11.)~'nu

mvpw 'wrac, u ..", n:1W:l 'y1;):1 :"I;:),lm 'W ''';:);'1 T'lJ:1 1"31' W' :"11:"1

'WDMW 'u'n:l yOD'M lIt, '1'310 MH Wl1;)'O n"uc 31"W:1' "yD M':I n;:)" C:"I; It?:l ''';'1 'Vl'ti':I p1Vl 'lit IOiTVl ,,'WD' ,',0M 'PD K;:I U";'1 ,n;n ",; " ,; iTVlyVl '1K, ac?1t ,O,1t ;" K'iT ...,m acu~!) i' It; 'In ,'Olt ~1.)1 'PD ,?PD:1 ,;,; "OIC ;PD X,:1 0:1 ,,,,,, ",.. o",n P" 'P7:) X;:1 iT,',iTiT ",WD' ,"OX 'i'D K':I 'l""iT ,""t ,;,; " 'WDltW 11'n:1 POD'K n"" '1'YO:1, M'l"l '1m 1tt1'WD 1::l K' 'IC' "Olt 'D) 'i'D 1t;:I ,,,iT 'T'1i':I i"W 'lit K'iTW X;:1 01 ".,; "::l' ON::l31' l1':l ;P7:) K':ll"l:l"l"l:'1 " l"lWj'U' 'lit, X;K ,O,1t ;::l:l

n lf

,;PI';):1 Ml; '\; "OK ItmoVl 01 POD'K , '1'YO:l' ,'P1.):I ,,,, "OK 'P1;) "n 1" "l"l' '''11)1D' "i'1.):1 Kl'1' KD'Ol"l rK ,"n' :'1"::l 'I' l"l1':1 '~11.) K,m 'y1;)' ",J " 1'tK K1.)'O:'1' 01W1.) X"'K ow Vl"lt1:1' ,K':'1 ~..", Itm,," K1;)'O "O~IC CY1:):I ::m;:) n";:) i"'o cw X"l1.):I' ,'T':lY K'l'O 'lnn, K'IC "":'1' lCiT ;:l1t .CV"M'iT CYU ;, vn"D K,m :'1K,n •'p1.) 1t;:I ",; tn", l1':l I:nw1.) 1t,:'1 'p1.) K;:I ", ,,,; .,,,, ,rK' .,n':'l:'1' ,nM1.) :"\'1.)n m,IC;:); 0';'31;):1::1 C1 ':10n"' K' 1)"1;) ,CW W"IO:I Vl"01.);:) It:l'wn :'1'1'1 0';31)1.):;)' 'iT) ,1C'iTlt' :'1:1'0 U'lt ':l "7.'"D ;P1.):1 ,,,., " :1'1:) 'm~ m ~1t':I ~"

(a) n,...,j:1 '1( 'In' IC;IC C';»l1;) 1C;:1 ,,,,,; "tn" " ICn'llt';) '1M Vl1;)1.) C"Yl1;)W

Figure 3-7 R. Moses Feinstein's responsurn on the use ofa walking stick on the Sabbath:

(a) version published in the journal Am hatorah (1986) in which the words 'Boro Park' appear; (b) version in Igerot mosheh, vol. viii, 'Oral;!l;!ayim' 5: 19, in which the words 'Boro Park' have been deleted (Jerusalem: Rabbi D. Feinstein, 1996)

~'t i7:)'tC

h:ltl1:l ?P~:l n~l? in~ O~ ~7:)'C

when women generally go around with uncovered heads, there is no such obligation.

R. Joseph Hayim states that in Europe married Jewish women generally did not cover their hair. lOS He quotes the justification offered by European Jews that since all women, Jewish and non-Jewish, go about with uncovered hair, this does not arouse sexual thoughts in men. He concludes: 'These are their words which they answer for this practice, and we do not have a reply to push offthis answer oftheirs.'l06 In other words, R. Joseph Hayim acknow­ledges that the practice of European Jewish women to go around with un­covered hair can be justified, and is not to be regarded as sinful. When

R. Joseph Hayim's book was translated into Hebrew,lo7 the sentence just quoted was deleted. By doing so, a significant halakhic opinion was removed from the public eye-exactly the aim ofthe censor.lOS

R. Sofer, R. Schick, and R. Joseph Hayim were among the leading halakhic authorities in the nineteenth century, with R. Joseph Hayim also continuing into the first years ofthe twentieth century. R. Moses Feinstein and R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (19IO-95) held these roles in the second half ofthe twenti­eth century. As with their predecessors, both ofthem were also to suffer from censorship. Feinstein is known for his refusal to countenance the establish­ment ofan eruv in any part of Brooklyn, although there is a great deal ofdis­pute over how strong this opposition was. The main argument ofthose who see Feinstein as an uncompromising opponent is that he regarded Brooklyn as a real reshut harabim (public thoroughfare), meaning that an eruv cannot be established there.109

Yet in a 1984 responsum, concerning the use ofa walking stick by a blind woman in Boro Park, Brooklyn, Feinstein explicitly states, in his conclusion, that today there is almost no real reshut harabim. From here we see that, at least in this responsum, when it came to carrying on the Sabbath he did not regard Brooklyn as a reshut harabim. The beginning of the responsum is shown in Figure 3.7(a), as it appeared in the journal Am hatorah.l1O When it was reprinted in a posthumously published volume of Igerot mosheh, the collection of Feinstein's responsa,111 the reference to Boro Park was omitted (see Fig. 3-7(b)). This was apparently done in order to create the fiction that Feinstein was adamant about Brooklyn being a reshut harabim. The appear­

105 What follows is taken from Sasson, 'The Ben Ish Hai and Women's Hair Covering'.

106 Translation ibid. (with slight changes). '07 Ilayim, I.lukci hlma.lhim.

108 Sasson also calls attention to ideologically based additions to tilt' It'xt ill tht' Enl(lish trans· lation ofthe book, Laws for Women.

'0'1 Feinstein himselfstated on a numbrr ofol"l"3slolIs th~t Brooklyn Is ~ rr~hul huruhlm. St't' the sourl"t'S in IRerClI mCl~heh dtrd in thr Eiruv Onllnr bloM, lit .:rruvonllnr.bloMNPOI.("()ttI>, .1.\ J~II. .1.006. 1111 Am hul"ruh, II (1t)1!(1). III Vol. vIII. 'Orllb bllyllll'~: II).

ance of 'Boro Park' in the responsum would have created problems for this position, but these disappear once 'Boro Park' is deleted.ll2

R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is reported to have said that if a person is troubled by something, he can tell his spouse all the details, including men. tioning other people by name. According to Auerbach, in such a case one need not be concerned with the issue of leshon hara (malicious gossip), The 'problem' with this ruling is that no such leniency was ever mentioned in earlier sources. Furthermore, R. Israel Meir Hakohen (1838-1933), the Hafets Hayim, whose formulation ofthe relevant halakhot has achieved widespread acceptance, explicitly forbids leshon hara between spouses.ll3 Rather than point out that in this matter Auerbach differed from the Hafets Hayim, it was easier to simply censor Auerbach's viewpoint when the work it originally appeared in was reprinted in a new edition.114

Since I have just mentioned the Hafets Hayim, the following point is also worth noting. In his son R. Aryeh Leib Cohen's biography of the Hafets Hayim, he describes his own involvement in the writing ofthe Mishnah beru. mh, a work that became the most influential halakhic text in modern timf'II,II~ He also notes that this explains some contradictions in the work, sim:e whilt

112

This example was noted by Eruv Online, at <eruvonline.blogspot.com>, 10 0('1. .1.00,. SrI' also ibid., 23 Jan. 2006.

I\J

1. M. Hakohen, Haftts /:Iayim, 49,153-4,156 ('Hilkhot leshon hara' I: II (In the IIt',r mayl'" /:Iayim section), 8: 10, 14). Much ofwhat the Hafets Hayim includes in his halakhk codltil'Ntioll 01 ["shon hara was not regarded by earlier sources as having real halakhic standing. Srr Brown, '''rulll Principles to Rules'. Not noted by Brown is R. Jacob Emden's view that you can sprak le~hon huru about someone who has 'sinned' against you. See his note on Mishnah Avol I: 17 In thr Vllml I{omm edition ofthe Talmud, and the complete version ofthis note (from manuscript) pllhllNhrd in Emden, Megilat seftr, 6 (first pagination). For R. Abraham Isaac Kook's rejection of Iill1drn'. point, see Kampinski, Bein shenei kohanim gedolim, 137.

'14 See Baris, 'Place and Identity' (Heb.), 299 n. 62; Eliyahu, 'Leshon hara betw("rn IIUKhNlld ;Ind Wife' (Heb.). R. Mordechai Gross accepts Auerbach's view. See Gross, Om ani ~o",ah, vol. II, 110.87· Gross reports that the Hazon Ish also held this opinion. See also R. Hayim Rabl'" Irttrr III Y. Cohen, Ukeneh lekha /:laver, 632-4. Even the Hafets Hayim held out the possibility that some examples ofleshon hara between husband and wife (and even others) might be perrnlNNlhlr, .IS he writes: Nln,"v n"v1n" 1'1:l0:l 'm ,1l"01nlN1 nN lon" mO'Ol1nl1:l 'ON 1'1n N1m '1110"1, In 1. M. Ilakohen, Hafets /:Iayim, 180 (,Hilkhot leshon hara' 10: 14 in the note). This means that Allrrhll(-Il'N 1"lIil'nt position is not that distant from the Hafets Hayim's, since Auerbach hirnHrlf crrtillnly IlI"v('r permitted purely malicious leshon hara. See Y. Cohen, Ukeneh lekha /:laver, 640 .

For a responsum by Aurrbach that was altered by the family because it apprarrd too 'ZIOIIINt', pia( illl( the State of Israrl in the halakhic catrgory of malkhut ylsra'e/ (Jewish soverrlgnty), Nrr M;lshiah, Rabhi ShlClmo Zalman Auerhuch'.~ Ilulukhk Phi/Cl.lOphy (Ht'b.), .61. II: HegardlllM rrllMm· Nhlp In Auerbach's writings deillinM with thr laWN of thr sabbAticAl yrar, In partkuillr thl' h'I" mrkhlrah, Nt'r Guttel. 'Ilnven f/orbld ThiN Should Br Done' (Ilt'b,): Chalm Rllpoport'. Se/orlm IliUM pONt,1o) O("t. :i007; Yltzehllk Jlwhovltz'. Selorlm Bloll po.t, )1 luly ..Jool!.

'" I ntroductlon to I, M. II.kohl'n, Mlkkl'VlI kutuv ~".fol. ~uyj"" ,.a-J .

he wrote did not always agree with what his father had written. Not only was this passage removed from at least one printing of the biography,116 but after it had appeared in the first edition ofR. Yehoshua Yeshayah Neuwirth's (1927-2013) classic Shemirat shabat kehilkhatah, Neuwirth deleted it from all

subsequent editions.ll7 Earlier I mentioned the responsa volume Besamim rosh. While the book's responsa are attributed to R. Asher ben Yehiel and other great medieval schol­ars, the work actually has a Reformist tendency and is aimed at undermining traditional Judaism. However, this was not apparent to all, which explains how the book became accepted by much of the rabbinic world.us Even with the book's acceptance, two responsa stood out as particularly shocking, so that when the volume was published for the second time in Krakow in 1881, they were removed.1l9 The first responsum is no. 345. Here we learn that it is no sin to commit suicide ifone feels that life is too difficult or even because of poverty, as these circumstances could lead one to sin. The Jewish opposi­tion to suicide, we are told, is only directed against 'philosophical' suicides. The other responsum, no. 375, offers guidelines on when travel in a carriage is permitted on the Sabbath. It is actually not as radical as a number ofother responsa in Besamim rosh that one might have assumed would also have been excised.120 Yet this topic was very relevant at the time of the censorship, and religious laxity in this area would have had significant consequences. As we have seen throughout this chapter, there are those who censor halakhic positions they find objectionable. While they sometimes do this by actually deleting material from books, the most common way is simply not to mention these opinions in halakhic discussions. However, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach felt that this too was unacceptable, and he stated that articles on halakhic topics should not omit lenient opinions.l2l Similarly,

R. Hayim Kanievsky instructed the publisher of a new volume of writings

116 See Benayahu, Yosefbel;iri , 376 n. 24· 117 See Schacter, 'Facing the Truths of History', 225. There were many halakhically substantive changes between the first and later editions of Neuwirth's book. See the references at <www.menachemmendel.net> in the blog entry for II June 2013. 118 I hope to discuss Besamim rosh and the rabbinic reactions to it in a future article. In the meantime, the relevant secondary literature is referred to in Fishman, 'Forging Jewish Memory'.

11. It is said that the hasidic leader R. Ezekiel Halberstamm of Shinova was responsible for thiN. See Z. Y. Abramowitz, 'Besamim rosh in a Hasidic Mirror' (Heb.), S8. '''' To give just one example, see no. 348, which totally rt'jl'(ts tilt' prohibitioll of kitniyot on

Passover and suggests that it arose due to Karaih' illUm'lIlt'. Rt'M~Hlilllol K~railt's OIlId lIalOlkhlc censorship, see Glick, Window (Heh.). 268. which notI'll that a r(,lIpolIlIlIlII of It David Ihll 'I.lmra waN d,'lded from ~lI edition of R. Jll'tKall'1 AHhkl'nOl'l.I'M (1.1~.I0 ·r.I~')") r(,!lpOIINa hl'(~II!11' of III lIIudl'r:lll' (lIlNilloll rl'Milnlhl1ol thr KllrilileM. III SrI' Stl'JlYIIMky, Vr'ulrhu III yi''''', II. .I1(),

,.. .... __'o __1!1

,.) "/J ......

CI ,...--.

.,.,.".~ ... '"

.

.,..,,..

(Q ".,.. 'tft' M' "lID "Pt h ...

"'" ,.. ""* .,.,. ICO

tn Itt)....... -..... ,.......

(II) .•• •

Plaure ),8 R. JOleph Hayim, oRav Pf'aUm, vol. iv, 'Sod yelharim', no. 5, in which he permitl the trimmina of~:(.) J~I'laedi~on, uncensored; (b) (on pap 116) undattclnprlDt,. Itlo tdittoIl (Do publlaber .¥Ift), . . ' __

HALAKHAH

he wrote did not always agree with what his father had written. Not only was this passage removed from at least one printing of the biography,116 but after it had appeared in the first edition ofR. Yehoshua Yeshayah Neuwirth's (r927-20r3) classic Shemirat shabat kehilkhatah, Neuwirth deleted it from all subsequent editions.ll7

Earlier I mentioned the responsa volume Besamim rosh. While the book's responsa are attributed to R. Asher ben Yehiel and other great medieval schol­ars, the work actually has a Reformist tendency and is aimed at undermining traditional Judaism. However, this was not apparent to all, which explains how the book became accepted by much of the rabbinic world.uS Even with the book's acceptance, two responsa stood out as particularly shocking, so that when the volume was published for the second time in Krakow in r88r, they were removed.u9 The first responsum is no. 345. Here we learn that it is no sin to commit suicide ifone feels that life is too difficult or even because of poverty, as these circumstances could lead one to sin. The Jewish opposi­tion to suicide, we are told, is only directed against 'philosophical' suicides. The other responsum, no. 375, offers guidelines on when travel in a carriage is permitted on the Sabbath. It is actually not as radical as a number ofother responsa in Besamim rosh that one might have assumed would also have been excised.120 Yet this topic was very relevant at the time of the censorship, and religious laxity in this area would have had significant consequences.

As we have seen throughout this chapter, there are those who censor halakhic positions they find objectionable. While they sometimes do this by actually deleting material from books, the most common way is simply not to mention these opinions in halakhic discussions. However, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach felt that this too was unacceptable, and he stated that articles on halakhic topics should not omit lenient opinions.121 Similarly,

R. Hayim Kanievsky instructed the publisher of a new volume of writings

116

See Benayahu, Yosefbe/:l.iri, 376 n. 24.

117 See Schacter, 'Facing the Truths of History', 225. There were many halakhically substantiv changes between the first and later editions of Neuwirth's book. See the references at <www.menachemmendeLnet> in the blog entry for II June 2013.

118 I hope to discuss Besarnirn rosh and the rabbinic reactions to it in a futur artide. In tli ' meantime, the relevant secondary literature is referred to in Fishman, 'Forging J wish M mory'. 119 !tis said that the hasidicleader R. Ezekiel Halberstamm ofShinova was r sponsibl for llii ~, See Z. Y. Abramowitz, 'Besamim rash in a Hasidi Mirror' (II b'), S8.

120 To give just one example, se no. 48, wlii Ii lolally 1'('jl'(IS llie prohibi lioll or ki /lliyol Oil Passover and suggests that it arOR du(' 10 Kar:lil(" il1l"ll'II\(". Rq\,IIdillll Kal.lil,' :Il1d 11:lIak"i, C(,IIHOI"S"ip, sr(' ,Iirk, Wi,nt/olll (I "'b.), ;.()/l, wlli!" 1101,'11 111:11:, /I'IIjUIIIIIII1II oilL Il,'V!<I 11111 /,illll,' W.11l <I,'I"I,'d !'I 011 I :111 "dilioll 01 Ilo 11,'111,111·1/\ Ilk"I1,,:tt' (11'1'11 I "1') I) ". 1'"11 .t 1"",111 ",,1,1 IIlIldl'l.ll,' po 11111111 11'1\,11 dill,'. III!' 1(,11,111,"1 '" ~;I' ~;'I 1'11

11 1y, \'1',,/i/III/lIl't/III/,11 ,tI,

');l'l ')OlIt 0'1/1 rEt,~ ,..., ~)):'I pm Il)~ ~J; 1)" i~)t ~» CI\ 'D\l)~ \j':)t I~)l 1~J l)'b~.,cb, ,),[s '''n~! 'loh) \)'11 1'I'Ot;,,~ ',> ~,..,t' '1'),) C-", b''''' 1:.,>;({l1I1)l!) O~UJ ,,,,, I" fI~~1 "'D,," ,)1, 'm~'1 1\)' M') IIt),b ..,..m:9~ f' l'~ },f ~ u'{! e·»:.J ~a: )"~) 1fI))1>S1 f"OJ :It>>>t>l -")(It)! ~ '1lQ~ ofiltll) (I)

'T JO'C

0'1) ~"'I o,,~ O'P"i'Q I)'mnb M'tottU

'I) f'~ "'lJ) ~~ I» 11m \'~~

'1)' II~ M "m \1)'1' I)~ '& ~01»)

~..., ''»1., 6» 0'10') tt·d 'F ")J'lb)~,

b'"", ,':' o~"'~"lm lpl)' ~~ C>'t1j'\'J ~'»

~f\) ~.~ }"c,6, o..,,~ I')"'~ ')':I'~ O'l)Wl

m" CUI ,l~ )e 1p~II' ;1';11'1 "~t: ~~I 1\}>III'>D

')b COl':''' ~~ ~'tll /,),,~ ,;)'11 :'.l)~ :7P»' ,.., 1;11';)

"~ 'I) )'/ll l~~ O'~'" ~l) :>''10 nIb».,!! ~'IItt

;lInl ~~0» ~.,. ~1n t»M"» ,S·} p.,)~

O"?J» ~,60 O'h" I"~C M'>' 1M' M,.,.

: n,~ \n" J)#Il DlJ)~ ." O'p'1S ,,),,,,

&m\'" "'1)0' 9) /;'I~ ..,)U~ M:"~'n

Cl'»>tl) ),t> q,,1'1 ",1)1 ~I"I,\»)

.". '1'" p';l~'),) 1')'»1 I'l"~:t 1" rCl·~1t1l IlW ,"Ill .1)1:1) l~~»l ~)'P" In~~ p·~ft '1'" ","\ 1/1'») M::Ism c:NI»h ')':\J O'l~ '; t' ~~ 00..) f)f) ~,t>}., M7~S: l~"m n~ i'1P OI~ .,)~ ~~~fI\ ." ~>'X ~"' i':'" C'~l)))0'1 'r;:J ).. """IIi" I)'" -=..» '(1'1 DI'll) ,'>/", (j'IID tI·~~ ';111:1 'O)~ hpu' fllN! ~';I I~l .P')~l' (l1)~'~ 1."l"~~' :l~I/); ')01) "'ill!)>>I) fo~l Sm t»f) ~':I~ ~J) 11'));$ ~b)j)~ ~ l~:I'~ vii,)>> ~:h)") pi ,\'I61l!)\ o·~ 'M C\'~» ~»,'It.: ~ZllI>~ '~b ~ )};n OI>~ ~~ ~'{\ p,.1f>J> t\I~\') ~;'0. ez»» OtT.» 011":'" ;:I6M~ D1Ift 'f)' 111)..'" :1»,1 ,: t"»& :'I'll: ~.~ pI I·»~ 0'11':' 1'.1 P:lC:~' ~1)':Ir; ",,»11 ;t'Dh tlDlb ll"'~ '111')6 (),,:: 0'1/1" \)"J" C\~'') !~" '''' OM;~ rle17i' ".Ill: .,~») ~", >~h II'~ I" 1'0\ '". 101M/! om'»(J, '»") otI~pJ) p-~,~ I" ')II .w1dl,n ~,~ I'~ !r; lP»'" 0'»»

4 0l)~1 ~\.)h ~1»" It)l o»}, \\\'1 C'U',\ C~} ~'11 >1111>'1 ph ,"»II ') 1''''1 oc P"~ I~'C:"I 'fj' 1l)ltI)/i I'I"~:I ~ ;:II),)PI .,"~ MI ':'10 1,>>>h1) 1'1', ;<1"'1:\ \';11 ~'I ",(lTt ,~.,., ~,,)I O"'~~ g; flY, ')'C;I )11.,. TIM 1-:1) '»}"h ~} /)I~I)~. '"1) O:"I\)

(II)

')1)>>\ b)! ~J)")O'l CJ"~ 'lt1l '~I Yt» ; bOnpn')' '1:1» 'I)~ C't.e )r; 1;")~:t 'liN

'M 10"0

~').\)\t ,,') ,~ 1~> ~,~ 0'l6 ~NrI

»,~ ';'l1 1)l)t) ~ C>~l»)J

c· ~~lI' ."., .,~~ "1~ l')l) ~r;i'k ')M

: :t"nn.' ».,,, .M I~ '1~ ,~» c;n tIa 'I)"),\'e!! )~, "~Ii~ l)'n ")'1) ~':lJ)tJ 'n"M III~ )\'7) "0'11, e't"p 1lL\"I)~ ,,1,}7),.'1 0\'1» »> '1;;3 'f, .,'" "flh \-'1" 't)~ 1h .,!~~ fI)G »al~ Ol~ 1''" p}' ~tm",i Q;I ~ ~»'1 ")lPil> "~r: ." ~ ~.,;r» "PI' 11' ~ "J:p~~ )'lie II'w £')j)J) itw '";n) ,,~~

.",::. SP~I'I} ;1I'~ ")::$;I> ,'>tJj lb ~t'I'''~

~G \'P\~ ")h~) oil ~'h "IJIX'I 'Plli~ Cbl')D

""t>~ 1') l)/:i ",11" ,1"" bl;\ P'" un.,." .,~~

~I") I'h ~"";t~\lt "I>!l~ ",111, Q\"~JI,) 1,,'mI ll)-,:t

! ,..,f, lI>">lb ~Ifo »~'» ~'Il' n#'Cl)1 •~t'3 on

, ~"C

I" ~}m I) :'I'." t'lj'1m ~')"I) 1:I,f) ii~W

m)>>J) til} /11)1.1 ;"1';1 Jt~, 1111'" ;IrI'

.'r.J:; 11>,6) 'MJ 0)lIl) ~~,m ~ :a"P /1.)6

WDl~ p\ •'m~) nlr .,.,~ iJ "':1 ,wI V).'.

6), J:'Q ~r») ~~jet: Co·,., ",.,., Ilr>n \)I\~ ttl ~;> o~ ~IDbt 1I'n;, ,,, ~'')\> plnl~\ 0'1:)1' ",,» '1'1>';1' i''l~l ':6, ,PIP"!)) ,,~.» }b.,~,} >'~I "I't~> J:lr:?"~' ~..} 1)'1\~ (1)1 Q/)l/!l ,~; 1);{I; 1M ~t; e~', j'h: ~6n~ ~ ~1O') ft~ ;-!lI", ,.~ OJ,, 1M;') "'II'; M1 \)J ~'tC, O~l p~m " ~orIfJ:

I ~~VI" »')1' D) ~)l~, I6Jprt 1 ;It>'''Pl ~*)1;;1 1» ~m> n) rclW~,'U'" D'~~ OP~ ,'6

lill;) It"""

cpu~ ..,1>1} ;t)100'I "6 "" O.nhr.~)1 I."!! ,,~, tI~l~ 111)1.)) ,11:(1 ;0::1' ~ It>fl .0$1 '" f..,,,~~ tl">1C; ltllh bIn o,"~::a ~h»IQ )r; ')')1''2''~ \~ em» ~t" om} 0"Ih~ )>> 'Mn_ J'):) nt~

,)IC'M If) »> Ml' \)'fIt ~1Jt) oWl .h~ SJ)~) ~~fun) t) ~}U l'b t;Q, h "}lOfu, ~, 11'1& ):h oh ,,, ~'lf::) k:I ~o ;.lImJ)ts 1'1) In,ft om."I)!) ~':ll:o' f» ~»J);I! ~>I I~ :::I»'~ ;lh"l'I)tI 1'0) mao") l'bl .", ttl ,,,ht ~. ~" .,»h~ til.) lISt'" .1) J»)l) ,,\~ lit') '111/1 ~ I)}) fI)e CI'~!) "»" \~ ~,..,.,

Figllr(' }.8 R. jmH'pii 1l,lyiltl, Nov W'(I/i/ll, vo l. iv, 'Sod y!'sh:1J il1l', no. 5, in whi h he p"llIlils III(' Ilillllllilll\ olllC',lIdH, (II) JI'IIII.d"III, 11)1 ,('dlllllll, IIIH('IIHClI'('ci; (/I) (011 P:lg(' 11(,) IIIltI"I,'d /I'PIIIII" C"PlllIc'd VI'I HIli, (I) (WI P''1:C' 11'/) )1"111' ,tlC'III, I"XI) C'dtilOIl (110 pllhltHlwl II IVC 'II), wilc,lt, It ' 1'''" 11111 IIC! iI.1 Iii" II ,,"tlllc·.I ,111.1 II", I' 1"'"' ,I 1'·lIlllIdll'lI'.I

by R. Yehiel Mikhel Epstein (1829-1908) to include everything, including his permission to turn on electric lights on festivals.122

Let me conclude with a case that has been cited as an example ofhalakhic censorship, but which does not really fall into this category. Here are images from R. Joseph Hayim's responsa, Rav pe'alim (Fig. 3.8(a-c)), showing both the first and two later editions.12J On the face of it, what we are confronted with here seems no different from the many other examples we have seen. In the first edition, R. Joseph Hayim states that there is no prohibition against trimming one's beard, a potentially problematic assertion for a kabbalist. Furthermore, this position is contradicted by what he writes in his pseudony­mous Torah lishmah.l24 We can thus easily understand why some people would want to censor what R. Joseph Hayim wrote in Rav pe'alim.125

Yet in this instance, a strong case has been made that the responsum in question, which was included in a volume published after Hayim's death, is not authentic. A number of Baghdadi scholars reported that this information came from Hayim's son,126 and while it is possible that he was mistaken, or even lying, it appears that those who omitted the responsum were indeed con­vinced that it was not authentic. In the words ofR. Mordechai Eliyahu (1929­2010): 'If there was some chance, even the most far-fetched possibility, that this responsum was written by R. Joseph Hayim, they would have decided to leave it in, as it was already printed.m7 This example is therefore different from most other cases we have seen, in which the censors are aware of the truth, but nevertheless decide that their goals are best served by removing material from the public eye.

I2Z

See Y. M. Epstein, Kitvei ha'arukh hashuli,lan, preface, 'Orab bayim' , no. 7·

123 In one of the later editions, shown in Figure 3.8(c), the publisher has replaced responsum

no. 5 with what used to be no. 6, no. 6 with what used to be no. 7, and no. 7 with what used to be

no. 8. On the following page in the responsa volume (not shown here) responsum no. 8 is omitted

and the numbers begin with no. 9·

I,. No. 215. There is no longer any doubt that R. Joseph Hayim is the author. For the most recent

discussions, see Zohar, 'Halakhic Work' (Heb.), 40-2; Ben-David, Shevet miyehudah, 213-36;

O. Yosef, Yabia orner, vol. ix, 'Orab bayim', no. 96; M. Koppel, Mughaz, and Akiva, 'New Methods';

R. Avraham Motze's comments in Vaya'an shemuel, 9 (2006), no. 50; Zabihi, Ateret paz, vi. 43-4; Deblitzky, 'Responsa ofR. Joseph Hayim' (Heb.); Hillel, Ben ish i,lai, 410ff. m For an example of recent censorship of R. Shabetai Be'er's testimony that there were great kabbalists who cut their beards, see the Bein Din Ledin blog, I July 2010. \26 See R. Mordechai Eliyahu's letter in Hayim, Hod yose!. 97·

127 Ibid_ See also Hillel, Vayashav hayam, i. 286-7. On the other hand, Yoser, Yabia orner, vol. ix, 'Yoreh de'ah', no. 10: 5; Y. H. Sofer, Kmeset ya'akov, 152; Abba Shaul. Or lel.~iyon, vol. iii, no. IT 6;

Y. Yoser, Ein yitsi,lak, iii. 214; and R. Meir Mazuz. note in Peninr.i hapara.lhah (5771).111'. 57o. Ilt'lirvt' that the responsum is authentic.

RABBI

SAMSON RAPHAEL HIRSCH

T

H~RE IS NO DENYING the enormous impact of R. Samson Raphael HIrsch on Orthodox Jewish life and thought. However, notwithstanding the great admiration for Hirsch among all segments of Orthodoxy, for some this admiration was mixed with ambivalence. On the one hand, Hirsch saved German Orthodoxy-or at least this was what many thought. This alone entitled him to a great deal of respect among all segments of Orthodoxy. On the other hand, his torah im derekh erets philosophy, which required Jews to take part in Western civilization while remaining faithful to Judaism, was dia­metrically opposed to the ideology oftraditionalist Orthodoxy as it developed in eastern Europe and Hungary.

With few exceptions, the rabbinic leaders in these lands, most notably

R. Moses Sofer, wanted their followers to remain far removed from the cul­tur~ ~nd civilizat~on ~f the wider 'non-Jewish' world. They saw the oppor­tumtles ofemanCIpatIOn as a recipe for religious disaster, and viewed a more secluded Jewish life as the most religiously secure.1 Hirsch, on the other hand, perceived the ghetto as something that the Jews had been placed in against their will, and he therefore welcomed emancipation. For him, the greatest sanctification ofGod's name was the pious Jew who also worked as a doctor, lawyer, government employee, and the like_2

As mentioned, due to his success in strengthening German Orthodoxy, one finds great respect for Hirsch in all circles, including among east Euro­p:an rabbinic leaders.'! For instance, R. Abraham Mordechai Alter, the Rebbe of Gur-a staunch antagonist of secular studies-would not allow himselfto

The original version of much of this chapter, an essay entitled 'Samson Raphael Hirsch and (hlhodoxy: A COlltl'stl'd I.(·galy'. was writtt'n Ii,r publication in The Paths of Daniel: Studies in i",Jaism .and .lewisii L'ullllrr. I'rr..~r.ntr.d tu Hubbi I'n>f;'".~or /)anid S",.rhr.r. I'ditl'd by Adam Fcrziger for 1'III>II1'atiOlI hy 11011'-110111 UlliV<'rHlty I'n'HH 0 lIar·llanlJllivNHity. Hamat (;;111. IHrael.

, SI'I' M. IIl'rlirr. As/I: 1(1411'.

o SI'I' Ihld . 1('711. \ SrI' Illy 'SlIm.url "lIphlll'lllIr.lh .uIII Ortlio<loxy'.

pen a criticism ofthe torah im derekh erets philosophy. As he put it, 'one must be very careful to protect the honour of Rabbi Hirsch'.4 This is one of many examples oftraditionalist admiration for Hirsch which was combined with a repudiation of his educational philosophy. Even the extremist R. Hayim Eleazar Shapira (1872-1937), the Rebbe of Munkacs, was able to see some­thing positive in German Orthodoxy's system ofeducation, since, as with the red heifer ofold, though it contaminates the pure, perhaps it can also 'purifY

the impure'. 5 For some east European rabbinical figures, admiration for Hirsch was not always accompanied by an appreciation ofwhat his philosophy was all about.

R. Barukh Ber Leibowitz (1864-1939), the famed rosh yeshivah (head of the academy) in Kamenitz, is the best-known example of this. In 1934 or there­abouts, he was asked by a young German rabbi, Shimon Schwab (1908-95), ifthe Hirschian approach was still valid.6 Leibowitz's reply assumed without question that Hirsch's philosophy was a hora'at sha'ah, an emergency meas­ure designed to save German Orthodoxy. As he saw it, German Orthodoxy was so intertwined with German society and culture that Hirsch could not ignore this. It was, however, incomprehensible to Leibowitz that this engage­ment with the non-Jewish world could actually be something that Hirsch had desired.7 Never having read Hirsch's writings on torah im derekh erets, it is not surprising that he would say this. Leibowitz's position in this matter was also shared by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Joseph Isaac Schneersohn,8 and

R. Yekutiel Aryeh Kamelhar (1871-1937);9 presumably they too had neverread Hirsch's writings on the topic.

Hirsch and Post-Second World War HarediJewry

In thinking about haredi attitudes towards Hirsch, the first thing to observe is that he has entered the pantheon of gedolim in the haredi world. The strongest proof ofthis is that Hirsch is the subject ofa biography published in

4 See Grunfeld, Three Generations, 48-9; Sorasky, History (Heb.), 147; Levi, 'Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch', II.

5

M. Goldstein (ed.), Tikun olam, 14+ See also H. E. Shapira, Divrei torah, 4: 93· Regarding Shapira, see Nadler, 'War on Modernity'. Numbers 19 describes a ceremony in which the ashes of a red heifer are mixed with water and sprinkled on an individual who is ritually impure. This person is thereby rendered pure, while the one who performed the sprinkling becomes impllTl".

•

Regarding Schwab's question, which he posed to a numb!'r of east Ellrop('all SOlI<lI'S, ser my 'Torah im Derekh Eretz', 85-6. 7 See R. R. Lribowi!l, narku' .vhrmurl, vol. i, 'KidllShill', no.17·

•

Schnerrsohn, 'Critiqur' (Hrh.). For R. Mrnarhrm Mrndrl Sdllll'I'rMOn'N 1ll'I<l1ltlvl' ('vullIlI!ion of IHrNdl's writinKN, whlrh hI' r('l<lllrdN UN '''polONl'tkM', NI'I' hiN //lrrut kod,~h, vol. XX, 1111. 'lHII. PP.IIO -1. • SrI" KalllrllulT, /)clrcJ,'uh,1. I. SrI' IIINO Y. MOllllNhltll', lIut~o/rh lrcloru, 11(1.

the ArtScroll series of 'significant Torah personalities' ,10 which in America is the ultimate haredi stamp of approval.ll In fact, due to this acceptance in the haredi world, it has become standard to refer to him as 'Rav Hirsch'. This is ironic, because in Germany itself the German Orthodox often referred to him as simply 'Hirsch'.

Like the American haredi community, the Israeli haredim have also ac­cepted Hirsch. On the one hand, this is understandable, as Hirsch's family and followers were among the founders of the anti-Zionist Agudat Yisra'el. Many ofthem also remained supporters ofthe organization when they came to Palestine/Israel. Yet by the mid-1960s Mordechai Breuer-the great­grandson ofHirsch-called attention to the changing ideological winds in the haredi world, and published what can best be described as an open letter enti­tled 'Agudat Yisra'el and Western Orthodoxy'. There he spoke about how the German Orthodox torah im derekh erets outlook was no longer welcome in Agudat Yisra'el circles.

Even with the development at which Breuer pointed, however, it was not a matter ofthe Agudah simply rejecting the Hirschian ideology. Matters were more complicated than this, as the Agudah wished to keep Hirsch in its pantheon of sages, even as it rejected a basic facet of his outlook. Yet how could a rabbi who advocated torah im derekh erets be considered a gadol by the wider Agudah population, which was opposed to this ideology?

Before even looking at this question we must remember that there were two other aspects of Hirsch's thought which were of great importance to the nascent haredi ideology. The first was Austritt (i.e. religious separatism and, where possible, formal secession from the general community in order to avoid any connection with non-Orthodox rabbis and institutions). This­together with torah im derekh erets-was one of the foundations of Hirsch's ideology. It is true that Agudat Yisra'el in eastern Europe never adopted a policy ofstrict Austritt vis-a-vis the non-Orthodox, and this was also the case in the State of Israel (unlike the approach of the Edah Haredit,12 which in pre­state days was aligned with Agudat Yisra' el), Yet the fact that Hirsch advocated creating Orthodox communities that were independent ofthe broader Jewish population was very useful in establishing his legitimacy among the haredim. As might be expected, both Hirsch and his Austritt ideology are often cited in haredi polemics against non-Orthodox (and insufficiently Orthodox) forms of Judaism in tht' Stat(' of Israel and th(' Diaspora,

'" SrI" <www.artKnoll.com/ClIt(.KoriI.N/hiil.htrnl>. Tltr hook iN KluNITl'Ul. Rubbi Sumson Raphuel llir.~c:h, " HrMIHuhlM ArtSnull, "1'1" Stolow, ()rllwcJox by De~iKI1,

" 'I'hl' Hclllh Ilumlit IN U NI'PlltuIINt ulltll',iulllNt ol'lhmJux l'llllllllllllity hI INI'III'I.

Another element of Hirsch's thought was his proto-anti-Zionism, seen most prominently in his famous letter to Jacob Lifshitz. Here he writes that what R. Tsevi Hirsch Kalischer (1795-1874) saw as a great mitzvah, that is, encouraging mass settlement in the land of Israel, he regards as not a small sin.13 This too was, in the pre-Second World War era, very much in line with a segment of Agudah thinking, and helped solidifY Hirsch's reputation in

haredi circles. Yet despite the elements of Hirsch's thought that supported haredi ideo­logical positions, for those who wished to place Hirsch in the pantheon of haredi sages, the problem remained: what should be done with the other pillar of his thought, torah im derekh erets? It is not as though this could be ignored, especially as there were plans, in the early days ofthe State of Israel, to translate Hirsch's writings into Hebrew. In addition, there were other com­ments in his works that would create great problems on the 'haredi street' if they appeared in Hebrew. In Letter Eighteen of his Nineteen Letters, for instance, Hirsch sharply criticizes Maimonides, using a style that is not acceptable within haredi society when relating to a venerable rabbinic sage ofthe past. 14 The Nineteen Letters (also known as Igerot tsafon) had already appeared in Hebrew in 1890, but had long been unavailable. In 1948 the Netzah pub­lishing house released this work in a new translation. This was the first step in Netzah's plan to publish the collected writings ofHirsch in Hebrew, and thus introduce the wider Agudah world to his thought. In this edition, Hirsch's criticism of Maimonides appears, but the following sentence was deleted: 'Therefore, many conclusions could be and were drawn, but before drawing them, people should have asked themselves, "Is Moses the son of Maimon, or Moses the son of Mendel [Mendelssohn), really identical with Moses the son ofAmram?,,'15 This was thought to be too strong an attack on Maimonides, especially as he was lumped together with Mendelssohn, and that is why it had to be removed. In fact, Netzah did not take this step on its own but received the encouragement of R. Abraham Isaiah Karelitz, the Hazon Ish, who was the most authoritative haredi rabbinic figure in the decade after the Second World War. We learn the story from R. Joseph Abraham Wolf (d. 1979), a graduate of the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary who was involved with Netzah. Although his

See Hirsch, Shemesh marpe, 216. Srr also ibid. 211 lilr hiM Irltrr to KaliKl'lIr!'.

I. For rt'ct'nt diMfUMHionH of' HirRl'h'R niticiNnI (If' Mlllnlonldl'M, NI'l' Gottlll'b, 'Collntl'r·

Hnllllhtl'lIrnl'nt', 279 fr.; Kohltr, Reading Malmonldt..,' I'hUII""phy, \1111.

" IlirNI II, Nlnr.lr.,n I .t.lltr~, tflillM. II. Dfllfhnum, 11)\.

background was that ofGerman Orthodoxy, upon settling in the land ofIsrael he became a prominent haredi educator who was very close to the Hazon Ish.

According to Wolf, he had been asked to translate the Nineteen Letters. He consulted with the Hazon Ish because he was not sure what to do with a very harsh comment by Hirsch against Maimonides. Wolf felt that the harshness of Hirsch's comment was due to the fact that the Reformers in Hirsch's days had taken to viewing themselves as the spiritual heirs of Maimonides.t6 Wolf added, however, that the Jewish world had changed greatly since the time when Hirsch made his comment. He also noted that Hirsch never again returned to such criticism of Maimonides, or for that matter, any early auth­ority. The implication of this, according to Wolf, is that Hirsch must have regretted what he wrote and in his mature years he would not have approved ofsuch strong language.17

It thus appeared to Wolf that the passage should not be translated. However, not wishing to make such a decision on his own, he turned to the Hazon Ish. The latter told Wolf that he was 'obligated' to alter passages such as this, or to omit them entirely. The Hazon Ish added that if anyone were to criticize Wolf for doing this, Wolf should state publicly whose instructions he was following.1s

When Netzah reprinted the Nineteen Letters in the late 196os,19 it was felt that even more text had to be censored. Thus, all criticism of Maimonides including three whole paragraphs devoted to this theme, were cut out.20 Her~ is an example of what was regarded as 'acceptable' just twenty years earlier, but had now come to be deemed unsuitable in a book written by a gadol such as Hirsch:

This great man, to whom and to whom alone, we owe the preservation of practical Judaism to our time, is responsible, because he sought to reconcile Judaism with the difficulties which confronted it from without, instead of developing it creatively

I.

Regarding this phenomenon, Hirsch himself wrote: 'True that Maimonides' 'Guide' was hurnt. He would have been the first to consign his book to the flames had he lived to see the manner in which it has been-and still is-abused.' See Hirsch,Judaism Eternal, ii. 240.

17

A. Wolf, 'From His Holy Words' (Heb.), 4. See my Seforim Blog post, 6 May 2010.

I. Although in the end it was Hayim Weissman, not Wolf, who translated the volume, I assume Ihat it was the Hazon Ish's reply to Wolf that guided Netzah in the censorship. An introductory ('ssay by Wolf appears in Nt'tzah's second edition of the Ninetun Letters.

• I"

The volumt' does not record thl' .yt·ar of publication. The National library of Israel catalogue lists It as havlIIR appI'an'd III 1<)67. lol\owl'd by a qUl'stion mark. This edition was reprinted in I\I'nl'i Bl'fak in 19119.

•, SI'I' pp. <)2-1 In thl' ol'illinul (filII. 4.1(")) lind ('(lIllP"1'1' to p. IO~ in thl' n'print (Fig. 4.I(h)). For unothrr rXlllllpl1' of how nltidNIII III' Mlllrll()l1ldl'~ WIIN dl'll'tl'd, NI'l' pp. ()(1-7 in thl' orillinullilld IUlIlpUfl' til p. 10111111111' rl'prillt.

from within, for all the good and the evil which bless and afflict the heritage of the father. His peculiar mental tendency was Arabic-Greek, and his conception of the purpose oflife the same. He entered into Judaism from without, bringing with him opinions of whose truth he had convinced himself from extraneous sources and-he reconciled.21

What this deletion means is that the reader of Letter Eighteen in Netzah's updated translation of the Nineteen Letters will be completely unaware of Hirsch's strong criticism of Maimonides. This, ofcourse, is the point. Only a careful reader might note that on page 105 the space between the second para­graph and the third is a little larger than it should be, and that the first two words ofthe third paragraph have been altered (Fig. 4.I{b)) . Otherwise, there is no way to know that anything has been removed, and that is what makes it a successful censorship.

Netzah also carried out other acts of censorship in the Nineteen Letters. These were thought to be unnecessary when Netzah's first translation appeared, but were later regarded as essential in order to prevent the haredi readership from being scandalized. The Hazon Ish's recommendation to cen­sor was stated with regard to Hirsch's criticism of Maimonides, but we have no evidence that he said anything about the other examples of censorship carried out by Netzah. One of these is also found in Letter Eighteen of the Nineteen Letters, and focuses on Hirsch's critical view of Jewish mysticism. Hirsch does not seem to be criticizing kabbalah per se, but rather what kab­balistic learning had become for many.22 Yet by the I960s even the following was viewed as too radical and had to be deleted:

A form of learning came into existence concerning which, as a layman, I do not venture to express a judgment, but which, if I comprehend aright the little that I know, is an invaluable repository ofthe spirit of Bible and Talmud, but which has been, unfortunately, misunderstood, and what should have been eternal, progres­sive development, was considered a stationary mechanism, and the inner signifi­cance and concept thereof as extra-mundane dream-worlds. This learning came into existence, and the mind turned either to the external ingenious development of the Talmud, or to this learning, which appealed to the emotions as well. Practical Judaism, which, comprehended in its purity, would perhaps have been impregnated

Hirsch, Nineteen Letters, 181-2.

" See Munk, 'Rabbiner Hirsch als Rationalist der Kabbala'; I. Gnlllfi'IJ 's illtrouut'lioll 10 hiM Iranslation of Hirsch's Horeb, pp, cxx-cxxix; M, IIn'ul'r, M()(.Irrnily wilhill Hlldili,,", ('7"/\; O;!n· :li~I'f, 'RI'disCllvt'rinK the Hirsrhian l..eK;!l-y', on IOMI'ph EII;!M'M Ir;!II"lulloll of Ihl' Nitlr.ltr.n /.rlttr~, liliuM'N reNponNe ~nd DallliKN'N rejolllllt'r up!'t';!r Ill/ewl," A~'lcJ", ~7 (1IulIll)l)l>l, (l() IL lJlllikt' Iht' IIlhrr UlllhOl"" IiiI'd, D.U1:r.II(rt' IIl1drl'MlulldM IlItHlh III hllvr hud u 111',,11 II VI' vll'w lI1'kuhhuluh,

with the spiritual, became in it, through misconception, a magical mechanism, a means ofinfluencing or resisting theosophic worlds and anti·worlds.23

Any negative comments ofHirsch with regard to east European Jewry had to be covered up as well. Therefore, although in the first letter ofhis Nineteen Letters he refers negatively to Torah knowledge 'acquired from Polish teach­ers',24 in the Netzah translation, including the first edition,25 this passage becomes a criticism ofTalmud study carried out 'with lack ofunderstanding and depth'. The passage was even softened a bit in Jacob Breuer's reworking ofBernard Drachman's 1899 translation, and here the passage refers to study carried out 'in an old-fashioned Cheder'.26 This is, of course, what Hirsch meant, but it is telling that there is no mention of 'Polish', which, incident­ally, has been reinserted in Joseph Elias's edition of Drachman's translation (,Polish-Jewish teachers'), along with a note by the editor explaining that Hirsch did not mean to belittle east European Jewry,

Mordechai Breuer called attention to a further example ofNetzah's censor­ship. Here, in a passage dealing with Jewish education from another of Hirsch's works, Hirsch's mention of torah im derekh erets is deletedF7 Let us not forget that torah im derekh erets was the central value of Hirsch's life. One can only wonder at the absurdity of trying to keep Hirsch 'kosher' by nullify­ing his entire educational philosophy. This is so even if the 'nullification' is accomplished by arguing that times have changed and Hirsch's views are no longer applicable, or even that Hirsch himself only intended torah im derekh erets as an emergency measure without any permanent validity.

This latter notion is a central feature ofthe haredi myth ofHirsch, and for many it is what allows him to be accepted.28 I have already mentioned its appearance in the writings of R. Barukh Ber Leibowitz, and Leibowitz's understanding is actually quoted in one of the translations of Hirsch pro­duced by Netzah.29 Although in this example the publisher does not actually

" Hirsch, Nineteen Letters, 187. Ibid. 2. The original is 'unter polnischer Leitung'.

24

" There is no evidence that the Hazon Ish gave his approval to this particular alteration.

'" Hirsch, Nineteen Letters, trans. Breuer, 23.

" M. Breuer, 'Review ofRecent Books' (Heb.), 68.

'" See Swift, "'External Books'" (Heb.), 207; Wolbe, Alei shur, i. 296: Jakobovics, Zekhor yemot "lam, ii. 132. Unlike the authors just mentioned, R. Yoel Schwartz, a leading haredi writer, presents all accurate description ofwhat Hirsch meant by torah im derekh erets. See his Life ofRabbi SamsOtl Uaphael Hirsch (H!'b.), 3/\ fT. VI'I h!' mnc\ud!'s his discussion as follows (p. 42): 'Despite what has Ill'l'Il writt!'n ahout Ihl' vil'wpoinl of Rahbi Samson Rapha(" lllirschl, one must be aware that for IIlany M("nt'rationN thiN h:!N not b("("n Ihl' outlook of Ih(" lbrah Krl'alH.' Set' also Ihe publisher'S prl'fac(' 10 Ihe Nl'lzlIh ("dltlon 01'80111(" 1If1l1r.ch'. ("duflltiollal ("MNaYII: IlIrHch, Ye~odot hal;li"ukh,

,. S("("' thl' publl"hrr'. nllir on R. IC'hIC') Illwh Wl'lnhrrll'lI rMlllly on Hlrllrh, prlllird lit thr hrMlnl1ltlM of Nrlzllh'lI rdllioll ofIHr.('h, Hmll~'/lI",j .11",""It, 111.16,

'DR :l"n ,'1"1:1 ,~ ~ ~m~ (gT ,""' atmMlI n3Je ,,,.., m:n.,p a.mll

,mac "an 'lH mun ap\Q IPDIII'rW 1S~ ,.• •-=:Z n."vm m mn DlItII ". '*' 1IP1' ,n.,~

(0) ."" ,,*,, 1:1'" .rI'IP ""'1M ~ ,":arm "

Fipre ...IR. Samson Raphael Hil'lCh, Iprot &Mfo": (ca) the 19..8tdltlon ~1Aviv: Netzah):

(b) the 196'7(?) edition (Benet Serak: Netllh), with thret paraFlPhl deltted

rmv:n MV~ 1.2MnitW ,M1,.,HtI ;y~ tQ~H m';,n H~nn nanpnn .

t:IilP M'M ";V .!l"lY n~:ln ":I'~ ;Y' MDMJn n"n'ln ':l~ ~y nnH

. ,:l'ti1 n~~ 'nN~' ;10331 1,n!l ~PM nN n,nN? ',:1 n.,rQD N'3Q; ?:l

nt ", ?y, ,1:I~!l'" n'rJ? n"Q'I1Eln 'n~n,~ n'3pCC nN N'rlM ,'''I'll

.nQn;Cn Mn'N~ 1::J'~3W n;N ;:1; ,n."Q; n'ln

M'WVCM· rmit'n mQWl ,,~ rmm p" nTn ';I1l'1n ttI"N; M",n

"''$'" J"l1nM!lnn N;1 ,n., \1 D nn"it ,mpcclb' '3!17~ ~!lN .ll'lQ'I '31

'.:s'c ,,:, n:l1M!;) '33 .,n,wm M"~ "~!lt:,), ,Mt:l3Y "nc mm'ln ;w

.ni'l;'I'1W, n1'~"n M'LN~'n

t:"Mii ?V mmplb'n Cl nn'l'l 1:1' ,'m'-'ll.,Y it'n ,; ml'1t:ln 1n" In:;,

i'; TnN N!l1 ","'C n1!1i'ttln 1MH H'!ln ,l'1nc nl'I'l'" 1'111; "n -",n

pl'l'!l N'Iil n31';l1 n,mc ,nCNn n,,:,n '"T' ~V n'c:rpn M1C;Wit .it"~!1

.'1'3CN.N;1 ,,; N'n n,IOC -'''I M3)',' .n? 1:I''l~3)'tlIC tI'I'Itt'pcn o"'nn,

le3'~:l 1MlO'W 'III? ""rvp n""'it1 ,''l mite ;11 n,,'pn -iN':'C

.tI':J'"Q:I i" lnro'lU:l MlWQWQ nmrcn .n;Nn n"'i'nn n1N~'''; "'nc'

M"'l'lOQ 13"'3) ,'CW; ",:, ,"3),n "'!l ,0';'1"01 I:I'S1nl 1:130N

;"'111100 U'~ .,'OW; ""I':' p., ,'1"13)'; ,;~eN 1'13)13 Tnc M"nN1 ­

mnii nlll'wn ~m '3' .n"lOC'NM\'nen M.1'~Nn nlO!Q!l n'D;m,. n,'pm

,nlN,,!ln \77:1; -D~p1nn ,MQ,:,nn 'I;;!); n11St:)"' C'l!lmWQ" 1':'9M3

""3t:1C p;n iTO'" 'p'Mpn '311t:,) 13'7P jlM;' Wlu' nH "'3)~ cn,100W

"0; T'N 'MIIl'Ib'; .'~::J' n,~pn? 0":1 wew; ",,!I~ M''13)'~C -n,..rpn

nWl'l ""!t:ln T'N ,o'l3'lpn ;'1 M'n~ln OM~'M c33)!l lmson ;,j

M'SolM? n"l'1"t~ Tn l'Nl "l' ·'0'np7 "'P'Q, O'NM 'IN 'n33 cn' i,rit3.

~t:)tQl MT "" ;p ?:IN iT:I'''!) "!Nn i'''3),n l'IN 'I;t:)c n='l'O ", ;!i

'nro't,:I TlnK!) "1'1U '";I"ln ""l:In ,N,n, .nmrl:)M ;ru 'I;;:IM "o"n

"'Ill'''''" .'1110"'11" ~'IIC ;W t"nNn l';n::3 l'~!)n ",c;nM 1'I':I;n l'IN

advocate Leibowitz's interpretation, the fact that it is quoted signals to readers that this is an acceptable interpretation of Hirsch.30

There are other examples that can be brought to illustrate the difficult rela­tionship between the haredi world and Hirsch. For instance, Hirsch advo­cated the creation ofa religious laity, and he insisted that not everyone needed to devote his life to Torah study or become a rabbi. Yet the notion that one could, as a first choice, serve God by having a profession, rather than exclu­sively through Torah study, is not something that fits in with the haredi Weltanschauung ofrecent decades. The following note appears in the Netzah edition ofHirsch's writings:

These words of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch need to be understood against the background of his era. They were stated in order to save the youth who had separated, or whose parents had separated them, from the study ofTorah, and who were almost in the arms of Haskalah and assimilation. This is not the case today when we have been worthy ofa new generation of youth whose soul longs for Torah precisely in a yeshiva setting. There are many parents whose ideal is to see their sons advancing in the study ofTorah and intensively pursuing this. There are also numerous young women ofvalor who place upon themselves the burden ofearning a livelihood, precisely in order that even after marriage their husbands will not be disturbed from their studies.31

The ambivalent haredi view of Hirsch can be seen with regard to his understanding ofthe binding authority ofaggadic literature and the extent of the Sages' scientific knowledge. From geonic times until the present there has always been a 'school' oftraditional thought that argued that aggadah did not have the same binding authority as halakhah, and that individual agadot could therefore be rejected. This 'school' also claimed that talmudic passages dealing with scientific matters do not contain any special knowledge received from Sinai. In other words, when the Sages spoke about science, they were simply expressing the most advanced knowledge oftheir time. Hirsch shared these positions and strongly defended his stand in two Hebrew letters addres­sed to the mystic and German Orthodox activist R. Hile Wechsler (1843-94).32

These letters to Wechsler, however, are absent from the book Shemesh marpe, which appeared in 1992. This volume contains a wide range ofHirsch's writings that were either penned originally in Hebrew or translated into Heb­rew from German. Referring to the omission ofthe Hirsch-Wechsler letters from this volume, Lawrence Kaplan writes:

., See also R. Yehudah Leih Oriean'M eMMay, printed as an introduction to Hirsch, Bema'gelei .,hunuh, vol. iv. " Ibid. i. 180.

u The .It'tterl appear In M. Rreut'r, I,,!!; "'79-5. ReMardlnA Hirsch lind alliladah, lee alao Dal1ziller, .Rt'dIMl'Ovt'rlnll' IIlld rt'jolndt'r, IIhovt', 11. U.

In my memorable phone conversation with Rabbi [Shimon] Schwab ... our conversation at one point turned to the recent important collection of writings of Rabbi Hirsch, Shemesh Marpeh, edited by Rabbi Eliyahu Klugman and published by Rabbi Schwab himself. ... I took-the opportunity to express my surprise that these two letters of Rabbi Hirsch to Rabbi Wechsler were not included in the volume, which purports to include all of Rabbi Hirsch's major Hebrew writings, published and unpublished. Rabbi Schwab replied-and I am citing him practically verbatim -'Yes, you are correct. The editor [Rabbi Klugman] consulted with me, and I advised him not to publish them. I told him that the letters are controversial and likely to be misunderstood, and that his publishing them would just bring him unnecessary grief [tzoros].>33

In recent years an attempt has been made-completely without merit, it must be stressed-to impugn the authenticity of these letters. With Hirsch now a part of the haredi world's pantheon of sages, it was unacceptable for him to diverge so sharply from current haredi da'as torah.34 This came to the fore very clearly in the so-called Slifkin Affair, in which the books ofthe young scholar Nosson Slifkin were banned. One ofthe reasons offered for the ban was his approach to scientific errors in the Talmud, in which he adopted the very same view as that advocated by Hirsch.JS

Confronted by Hirsch's clear statements, R. Moshe Shapiro, an influential Jerusalem haredi rabbi, declared that there is no evidence that the letters were indeed written by Hirsch.J6 He based this conclusion on the fact that we do not have Hirsch's original letters, only copies made by someone before the let­ters were sent to Wechsler. We do, however, have Wechsler's original letters, in which he responds to Hirsch. Based on his answers it is absolutely clear that he is responding to the very letters of Hirsch ofwhich copies still exist. 37

In truth, it is very difficult to imagine that even Shapiro believed the posi­tion that he was advocating. Rather, it is more likely that he was engaged in another form ofcensorship. Since he found it impossible to cover up Hirsch's views as expressed in his letters to Wechsler, the next best choice was to declare the letters inauthentic. Just as the censor knows the truth and still chooses to cover it up, so too we should not be surprised ifpeople go even one

3J L. Kaplan, 'Torah u-Madda', 28 n. 25. 34 Da'as torah refers to the authoritative opinion of haredi sages on both halakhic and non· halakhic matters. ,. Complete details of the so·called 'Slifkin Affair' can be found on Slifkin's website, <www. zootorah.com/controversp. .. See M. Shapiro, Afikei mayim, 68 n. 87. This section or till' hook is writtrn by (111(' of hiN students, but reflects Shapiro's viewpoint. 17 See Mordechai BrI'Ut'r'N mmmt'ntH quaII'd III SlIfldn'M rl'MpmlMI' to Shuplru, UII SlIfldn'N wl'hHitr, <www,lcKltorah.rum/l'On!mvrrHy/RrMpotlMr'lbRllvMClMhrS hllpl ru, pdf:',

lIZ

step further and disingenuously claim that a text is falsely attributed or even forged in order to destroy its authority and thus remove it from the public eye, This, ofcourse, is exactly the same goal as that ofthe typical censor.38

Another example ofcensorship concerning Hirsch is seen with regard to the issue of head covering for men. While today this is a basic sign of an observant Jew (the Syrian community being perhaps the one exception to this statement), it was not always the case. No less a figure than the Vilna Gaon believed that it was only a custom to cover one's head,39 and there are sources for this view in talmudic and medieval literature as well.40 In modern Ger­many, Orthodox Jews did not regard head coverings as essential, except dur­ing prayer and when reciting blessings and eating. German Orthodox Jews also often wore a hat when outside, which was a common manner ofdress in wider German society.41 Some covered their heads at home, but others saw no need for this,42 and heads were never covered at the university or places of work43

Today, however, this is exactly the sort of thing that some in the haredi world do not want their followers to know about, as it destroys the illusion ofreligious uniformity among Orthodox Jews in this matter. The problem is that R. David Tsevi Hoffmann (1843-1921), the leading halakhic authority in Germany in the early twentieth century, describes this phenomenon in his responsa.44 He was a teacher at Hirsch's school in Frankfurt, and writes that for the non-Torah subjects the students did not cover their heads. In other words, Orthodox students at an Orthodox school sat bareheaded in class!S Let us also not forget that this was not simply any Orthodox school, but the school

38 Slifkin reports that Shapiro later changed his tactics. Instead of denying the authenticity of the letters, he asserted that 'Rav Hirsch is not from our Beis HaMidrash'. In other words, Hirsch's opinion on these matters does not carry any weight. See <www.zootorah.com/controversy! ResponseToRavMosheShapiro.pdf>.

J9

See his commentary, Be'ur hagra, on Karo, Shul/,lan arukh, 'Ora1).1).ayim' 8: 6. 40 See Zimmer, 'Men's Headcovering'; Laderman, 'What Do Jewish Artistic Findings Teach Us about Head Covering for Men?' (Heb.).

" See Deshen, R. Shimon Kohen ofFrankfurt (Heb.), the picture after p. 38, which shows a group ofOrthodox Jews in Frankfurt posing outside for a wedding picture. The women are wearing wigs and the men are bareheaded. See also M. Y. Schlesinger, 'Young Men Wearing a Talli!' (Heb.), II2.

., See M. Breuer, Modernity within Tradition, 9: 'He [R. Selig Aviezri Auerbach] did not like it when we covered our head with a skullcap or a hat at home, except for prayers or meals:

'" This was also a common practice in the United States. Schachter, 'Pearls' (Heb.), 320, records Ihat R. Joseph H. Soloveitchik recornmendt'd to his son·in·law, R. Aharon Lichtenstein, that he not wt'ar a kipah at his interview filr admission to Ilarvard. I h' was conn'rned that the intl'Tvirwt'r llIi!(ht harbour antis('lIIitk s('ntirnrllts. .. I I ofhnoulfl , Melamrd lr.hCl'il, vol. ii, no, S6.

., ThiN waH alNo thl' rUHI' with It Vlrtor Srhonfiold'H (lrthmlox Day Srhool ill I.ondon. St'r 'tllylor, .'i"lomCln ScilCln/r.ld, 17, On p. ~'" 'tllylor frpurlN, wlthollt donUllrlltlitioll, thllt Chll'f Rllhhl JONrph Itrrll OIlt'r IIttrmlruII lIoll,'rwhdl rVI'II! witholll ~ hl'lld cOYl'riIlM.

run by the separatist community of Frankfurt, the same community that was regarded by many ofthe other German Orthodox as extremist.46 The practice Hoffmann describes continued into the Nazi era. Mordechai Breuer wrote to me as follows:

I left the Hirsch school in Frankfurt in 1934. The rule of uncovered heads while studying 'secular' subjects (a concept which should not have actually been used at a school adhering to the principle of Torah 1m Derech Eretz) was enforced without exception (it was not enforced upon teachers who served as rabbis in one of the local synagogues). However, during the last years of the school's functioning, when the impact of the Nazi regime became increasingly palpable, pupils and teachers reacted by covering their heads in 'secular' subjects as well!'

Hoffmann further reports that the first time he came to Hirsch's home, Hirsch requested that he take off his hat, leaving him bareheaded.48 Hirsch explained that in Germany it was regarded as disrespectful to visit an impor­tant person without removing one's hat. Thus, if a non-Jewish teacher saw him enter the home wearing his hat, he would assume that Hoffmann had failed to display his respect for the director of the school. This information was provided by Hoffmann as part of a responsum focused on the issue of taking an oath in court while bareheaded.49 He concludes that while it is better to have your head covered while taking an oath, which after all, is a religious matter, if the judge forbids this one is permitted to take the oath without a head covering. In his responsum, he also discusses the general issue ofcover­ing one's head, notes that in Hungary the rabbis were very strict about this, and quotes the Vilna Gaon, whom we have mentioned already, as saying that even when dealing with religious matters, covering the head is not a com­mandment but merely a commendable practice.

Hoffmann's Melamed leho'il was reprinted in 1954 without any changes to the original text. Yet when it was reprinted in Israel in the late 1990s, the responsum regarding head covering was thought to be problematic because of the information it revealed. This was particularly so as the new edition of Melamed leho'il was published as part ofthe Leibowitz-Kest edition of Jewish books. This was an endeavour to reprint hundreds of important works cheaply so that yeshiva students could have access to them. As Melamed leho'i/

.. Fred Margulies, who was a student at the Berlin Orthodox Adass Jisroel school from [934-8, informed me that there too the students only covered their heads for religious subjects. He also recalled going to R. Alexander Altmann's ([906-87) hom!' to a~k him a halakhit: qll('~tion, Altmann was one of the leading Orthodox pulpit rahhis in Brrlin, yrt hr ;Itlswrrrd thr door without a head covering. " SrI' my Srlilrlm 1\1011 pONt, II IUllr 2.007,

.. I aRRumr thallhlM rl'ferR 10 Ihe moml'nt whl'n hr IIrrrtl"d Hlruh IIlId rnlrrrd hi" homr, hul nol that hI' would rrmaln h~rrltr~drd m\('e In.tdr, .. l'ollhIlUIII, M~'"It\~d '~k()'j/, vol. II, lin, ~("

is one of the most important works of twentieth· century responsa, it was included in the project.

What then could the publisher do with the 'problematic' responsum, espe­cially as the new edition was simply a photo reprint? The solution was to white out the responsum in question and to 'correct' the heading at the top ofthe page (see Fig. 4.2). The responsum was also removed from the table of contents, so that it skips from number 55 to 57.50 The irony ofthis particular example of censorship is that it is likely that many people who owned the uncensored Melamed leho'il skimmed through it without even bothering to read the responsum in question. In the case of the new edition, however, those who see the blank space will certainly be motivated to locate an un­censored edition in order to find out what is missing.

Another example ofcensorship in the area ofhead covering can be seen in a picture ofIsaac Breuer (1883-1946).51 Breuer was Hirsch's grandson and a leading figure in Agudat Yisra'el. He was also a lawyer by profession and wrote a very interesting autobiography which, among other things, describes his growing disillusionment with the Agudah and its lack of recognition of the enormous significance ofJewish settlement in the land ofIsrae1.52 In 1988 this autobiography appeared, entitled Mein Weg. It is in German and contains a picture of Breuer which is by now well known, since it had earlier appeared in the Encyclopaedia Judaica (Fig. 4.3(a)).5J An academic collection of Hebrew essays devoted to Breuer also appeared in 1988.54 Here, however, the picture we have just mentioned appears with a kipah (skullcap) placed on Breuer's head (Fig. 4.3(b)). It is not known who was responsible for this 'touching up', but the motivation was probably that Orthodox Jews in Israel would find it difficult to relate to a bareheaded religious thinker.

Here is another example of a photograph touched up to add a head cover­ing, and in this case it is not from Germany. It shows Israel Brodski (1823-88, Fig. 4.4(a)), a member ofa wealthy Russian Jewish family known for its phil­anthropy. Brodski himself donated money so that the Volozhin yeshiva could

"" The censored reprint has a preface by a descendant of Hoffmann, also named David Tsevi Hoffmann. Another family member claims that R. YosefShalom Elyashiv recommended to this David Tsevi Hoffmann that the responsum be deleted. While I cannot say whether this report is true, it must be noted that when this descendant reprinted Melamed leho'i/ in a new edition in 2010, nothing was censored.

" This example was railed to my attention by Lipman Phillip Minden.

" Sec I. Breuer. Durki. (·h. 14: M. Mor~t'nslt'rn. From Frunkfurt to Jerusal~m, 231 ff .. 299 ff.

" EJ iii, wI. 1364. 'I'll(' pkturr alsu ;Ipprars ill I. IIn'uN. Wei/wende, bark mv!'r, and in Anon., Dir. Slimson·Rapklle/./ /jrsc:k·Sc:hu/r., 1111­.. Horwlt7. (rd,), hlillC: Rreuer (I Irh,), I hllYr no dUlIhl thllt Ilurwlt:r. WII" unIlWIIU' tlUIl tht' pklllrl"

Mhr puhllMhrd hlld hrl'lI IIltrrl'd,

, 51      "l ,'I'l 1~'O

)1:1"'; ~"lDll' . 1<?rI ,mrl C'JOlJ I,"' '"lp "C ,..., 'nn n'XI III 1~l/1

.4         J'"l'DnD J"1IOJ1N nlJ"~ C'H,'n C'~'n I'lHtn n)r.I nJm .tIN"l '1~'\D "0 J'O'~ l1;nJ 1'1"1!11:l C'pC'l1I1 C"W "ll"l'~n j"]1 ,!IIN"l 'I;l I'J]I~ 'Ne H"lI'Im I;'CIt "llD'iol /'NrI m]lM ':l poe 'n PO; ,'mrulD N"")ln nJm .,., ~J'O'~ n;nJ IDllil'lD CItI lil'"el .0l''DM m'D N7N "l"~ n~IN IIIM'l IllI'"lD:l Np" :l"'; rj'"li ;N"l1'1' ""]1-pin; lDEI 1lJn IT':lJ N7 cn'mpllDI Cllil'D "DJ "l10'l< nl ,n'lln _"ll Ci'l'=lN '"11 P )'e'Il/1 JlIVDII " )lNJi'lD ,c'nJIiI' lu'nn n'JJ C""lDD"l C'N"l' p·PJ nJn .1';1'1 1M'D7n., C'=lln' ('11M! C'JItI 'J CItI mID 'n,," 'JNII') ;"lI' ltI"l'n 7ND"l ann ~m10 "llD'; n]1!II:l p" ,rlN' I'1]1"lDJ O']I'Dn "lNll' "0'; n]1!II:l J"lTli'l rupn '"£1]1 DEI i'1IiI']1~ Mn (l"l~nJ "lDC., n'=lJ Jmo., 111M P') 1tI"l," "l"ll' J"n'M 7IiI' 10':1'> 'nNJrI )'!rlN' Cl/I)Jl .;'1I1 1tI"l" "l·II n.,c1I'N"If' ;lID ]lJl!lM "l'D/'!o, }'"IN ", 1'110 INjIil' ,; 'ON ,'rlN"l ;]1 lIJIJ:I III /lII l'J'I'IM n'=l:l 1'1') 'MN n"llC 1'lH"l' ",111 ,.":IIliI'n D"lN 7N j'IO!II:l "Jl.1'nl'l rr:l rlN"l 'lEI; !IIN"ln ;]10 ]lJIJ., "l'DO 'J'N 'lNIiI' ('"N C'"11C nJ"ln lJ J'K no NII'!':II m:l1 .1MIM mJD 'lI'! I;'NJ m JIIr.tl M"n ("l\!op]1"1") nm'I mltl"l ImJ Oll1r1n OM )"1" JI-"~ P 0Nl ~ .c.-r'mp,nJ C'lW ~., 1'"111 mnMj; 'H'~ 'MN ;" ,:lui nD M!I1Jrln n]1!II:l !tIN"ln'lJ' ;,J IrlN"l me,; nllie N1M " "lOM'I lliI'I" n1OJ; CDlrlnD lJ'It CD,.,n OM OJOM .i'lIn'P~' pDC 'n7:J ,; WIn M!I1Jllm i'lIn,pJrI "''''lJ l'1>DN ]1JI'1'~ ;lJ'I)1DO 11M ''CIt 1';]1 ;Jp; 1I"N mltl"l I; nn; MII'I' ~1'I1JI"'1' I'1"1Ii1' ']I ,J*") '.0; C'=lMjl D'poDJ '"N"lnD pCD pi ,!tIN, l'WPO "Jlt1D nN"lJltl N:l'm :1"]1 n·'p '1' ID"" "11 "llXl 1~l/1 '1'1 p;n DIII"'I) 1'1"; "0 :I'M ;NII' D"n n"!II:l ']II .,,, OM'mp," C'lW IN;' ~;]1 I; iii'" '101 CItI "l::!"ll) OJI · IIIt"l '1;'l:l j"lJ; 'NItI"l 'N (NJ"lm 1M'! ""'lJ ]1:11'1'; "l'!lD l"1 ''0 '"N"lnD;II C'=ln::Jl D"pOD ,]lPP'"lllD

rm;, IIClC 111m ,;:l.llD I'IQIU1 rm;, plN"l I'lH ~YnI) DIe ,/I]r\I)

.(D"JD:l CItI l"']I; ..., ,.,11 lit)

·,'l :il?"

JO'; mllD CI'C 0'>"" JI]leIf'} ::I"'n ):IlN"l ::I~n l:!II1r1MI (mNj"l]l:l) l:!II1lm 7N Dn'JII IrlllI JOI '1P ;:lllCo"l OlIO lJIIJ'1I IIJ~D i'1IiI'Dn 0)1 .n':l"l C'lW "lICIt IN ,1l/1l" Imlt ;::IP;

:il:l,,,n

D'W Ell'M Il/1l'l1DDJ1~llItI, "lONI N"l'n"" Itn::!:l n":lC nnDII no

tn nn m             ;l/1 )I:Im."lC "IIX)n; ~'IJ IJJ'N plN"l nTn::!M CJ'I ,I'J')I:I

CIt '1"> 'IC"P lJ'It m ;:1 ,n'=l"l rul'lIp iNj rNI ,)JIIJ'lIn 'I:n'D ;]1 1t71

'"I'D NIl' It7 ..." 0lDIt .i'1II'!lIp rr::l"l nl'N1II N7N (1M~Q "., 1tlJ'i'l'

:v .,. l'mJD '.lDD 1T':l"l ::I"'MM ;]1 1;'1:11'1 D'i:lDlIil'i'l "li'1IiI' ml'l\NCl ll':I"l

,., I'1Il lit _ ~, >e ;]1 1T':l1M IOU DIe ..., ntlI ,I;' m'ND l'i'1I!I

.n.. M\lIEI :D'lIW ~runD VV1D

!II         -:~

·,'1

: il ,       ."

a,.; jIUlC MInI ,;Jlle JO" nlllD OlJP o;rn 11vcrr':> :I~n plN"l . 1'AJIDo' a,.; pllt"l I'lH :I~n 00lrl1ll :mNj']1J) CDlrTn '>It o.1'lII/ IlIIlll l1JIDII'l '010 CIt . ,IUI'D 10) 1]7 ;:lllCo' 01'0 11l)J"1I Oll'~D i'lIIrCM 0)1

.n':), 011!1C "CIt IN ,)JIlJ'll JlT.1t ,7:JP;

: n :l      , " n

C'W Cl'N )JI1J'!lDC)I~DM&\ "lOMI 1I,'n\'"l NM,;' n·~o nnDII no m m, MI ;)1'1 ]1JlMMO "lOll"" ON ~ 1ll'N P'N' ~nn ClI ,1'l')r.l CIt 'JII) 'N"lJ IJ'N· 111 ;, ,n'J' ru.~.p jlQ rHl ,pm'lIM '1l1"l!! ;]7 N'n '"I'D ItII' It'> 'N"ll ClON .nII'!lIP 1'1':1, Oil'lIlII ";It (In'JO "" MlJ'M' :v .,., l'nl)lO 'lOt! n'IJ' J~nM ;11 I;'OM C'ClD1rm ',nlll n1Ol1tO rrJ' I; lOll IN CDlIIIM "1::1.' '0 ;)1 n';,,,,,, Inll OM ,; MOl ,1;lIIt m;.oJ I'MIt('

.I'>lIM l'm]1tl J~'l1II ""1tIJ :tlno In]1'U)

Figure 4 showing the

,'~ii1? ,7;l??J

50

'il'l :il'.1'

.0'Oilll/ 0..,;111 )"]1 ;111 O';:lNC 1'0;11 11':1, ,1l 01;:1; ,nlo 'N

: n ::I , " n C"l:tl:l MJ."ll .N;'CO III O.,:>l '"II O'i'll 'N In'>NII':l 1tI"l>e II; M"l'JP '"II C'lJltn I;O:lnJ Ib'I:OC'li'll "'D." ,;0:10;' Nl:!'1I:/D D'"lJl· '''JI I"OF' "D 1'1*0"1 :ll'O'1 "l0 rI-el .'n '1']10 I-CP ''0 '"':1 III~ ;11'1'1''>

,",)I ;1:):1; ~l:I' Cl'N 1")1)1 Ol'NlII O"nt)llllll'l 117E> mClN ;"ll 'n 'l'JIC Cl'NII O''notIlOI'1' p"l wo, :lMj 1'1'> i'1CIt:l' N"C'l ":I~ 17 IC'l1J 0'0 I"M Nil" " :I" p"O '-"P ''0:1 ,"IIIn p' ,'>0:1; ~", Wilt '".JI)I1J7E> O'll' ,"IIIn 1';'10 I:ntm II: 0'0 ,1-)llI lJ'NlII " pplmo IlNEI 'IJ ;, IIj>'I' ll~n ,In l"JIlI 1M; nti'l 101:1 O'lJ' 'I:) p"O 011 "III 'lltl ,'lOJo, r'I~' o-nn III-OJI 1*11; j~ j':JOll: j .... , C'l1!IC nNlnJ "lION p~ 1'N"l ,'C'l I'l]l; '::Ir1 cn,,,n r:>'"lIII/ O"I:I"lJ .",no:> j'o,'PD"I 0110.' OJ .'n::Jl, nOJ:I "1:1" C'DII 011 J'IlI'lW O",l, 'IN' 1M'; rJ]I Il'N 'I 1'"0 It"lP ''0 ,"IIIn ".,., "1]1"1 :"DO:l nl:l '1'0.....,111 10::>1 'l,n'lIIn 'Ill J"IUIO IJ'N ITlJl'I ,MN 'li'llil'Dm .,"lICl I"JI 'l,n'ltl 'In 'not"l"'; 0"0 (ll'IIIN )1&07:1) 'Ijl "']7 o'cnw 11;, '")I ;111,:) j'J]lJ ,,1l1 1;1'111 tNI"lntt."l ;, 'In plDI ;0::1; ;'j' I''N' lJ"CIt 'II "l/1 ,;0:1; C';'" CJ'N IJ;rI O'"1:IJ' '0'0'> Ill"'l,!) ,n _I) CII!IC "lION lJ'N 0:-;;11 ",,'lin em ,"It I"JI)I P'N" 'lDD ;0:1; r'1~' '"lno, '"lDln ',n 'In i'11"l I"JllI 0;;-' p"CIt N"101M;' "leI; j'N'I .''']1 .nnDnN ,I"I1Ji P'It, C'lrlO ;0:1':> I'~'" I"'N ~·!)J/N\ 1-]lJI 'In, '"nll no,NEI no,NElJlC' "·111 'U'NP ;':J/I: n.,o pNJn 11 nJI"lC ;J/ :l1'1' ':I:ll nMJnJ rmo 1011'1 I,nDII .t:!:-;o,rI n;.,n I1';J ;111 O'lJNI D'lI]7 'M "l.,; 'IN,1;1:1::11'1;' OlEIC 1.,010' no,lIm nol,n n';:! r'::l ,"Ill." j',mo on OMI

'

0"01 .o."lC "O'Nl'i lIPD i'= pr.!plC' 'U'ltl '"lI C"C 0'1010 nlllO ,'111;' 0"0 "lnlO 1<J'1OI!/ 'IN l"J.":l ';nlJ:I O'l:llt lnIM lIl::IP; nrlllD;' DII '~ N7IiI' MlIJI 0111 lOll N'lM ~*lI O'/lI)1II 01'" 110'1'1 ,:1'::1 tiM' C71)1M 'l']l:l Nlm C"NJJn IIIM'l 0]1 ("I:IPPt!) i'1lI'lIP 1111]1" N;N O'l:lNn ;npn "p' ';"'l "lDC::I 111""')1 I" ;)1 :I::In I~'"l. J'l<1 1*)1 n':lC O'l::>Nnl D'lI)In n.np

-.," "0 n"i!ll:l "'1'10,'1117 IJ'N Q';m,,,, nln1p 1:) J'I< ","l:lpn 11'.:1' ,n\' ;'P "'lJ rom ,,'""" ;.J . '")I tl'/lI)rI nu~ IN', 1'1011 m':lpn OlpO "llDrl'> p"l mlI1J

.nll''ItID::J

"*l

: n ? It '" .rlN' '1;'lJ 0";111 MlNj"l)l:l )1:lrM '1I1tI"l ...

:il:l,,,Zl

;1"0' I"lp "0 ,..., l"T1J~:I 1~]I ;:IN .ll]I:l ,.,Nl'i'> ....JD ..., rN n"'lIll~)I .IC'I" I'll IN'::!1lItI C'"1DN ''Iln n'b'i' en; rr:':l )'")1'1 .pn'M n]1!ll:l

·n'l :n , • '"

.C'l:tllll cn'IlII '"]I 7IiI' C'J:lNC: ro'>]7 rro:o;· ",J mlJ; '010 'N

: n ::1'1 '" n

O"1:tl:l :tlnl .1t7'oo IN C'1JJ '"11 O'i'll '101 In'not!ll:l 1tI"l>e ..; m,=,o '"11 C'~Ito'; I;O::!N N'I'CC C'l:tl "_, ,;OJi'1l"1 NO'IIlI C'1Jl IN» 1"01' "C N"C"I JI1:l, ,e rI"CI .'n 'l'JIC 1"Op "0 '"':1 rI~ o,lt"l"'; ;"]1 '10:1; c"nJ' Cl'N "JI)/ Cl'ItI!I ~r1l;1I mOlIl ;-n '.1 '1'l1O

, CJ'IIII C'71tl/C1'1' 1" It"C'l :1Il:l til note, H*D"I . ''':'"1:1 ,I; Jl:!'1ll C"O 1'"' .."" '~ :I*' POt,. ''':lP ''OJ ,"1111 1" .,'10::1'1 0",,. Cl'N '''JIll

~

u7111 C'lJ"l ,"1111 n"l) .cncn IC c·c ,1*]7)1 IJ'NItI " rptmo IlNI!I 'll ;:1

~          "P" I~n ,In I"P]7 IN; ron p::t:I O'IJ., '0 )1"0 DII "rI 'JIll ,'10::1; J"!?'. C"n" II"CJI I"; i" J'XIlC J'N'I DlIID Ntlrc ."OM \l" J'M'1 11P"l rlll'!

~ , "III CIl'1l:Il1'I "'~ C'1J"lJ mIMe:' r7'pc"I C!Il:!I1 D) •'l"Cl' MD:IJ ':1" C'IlI1 ar l'CnIIIC tI"'I~l' 'JI" JICI' rJII U'lt 'I P"D It"Jp "0 ,-.m

~,         I""" ']1"1 ="IJI):I "'J '""""'''III '\I)" 'l'll'llll '1)1 J'IllIC JJ'H O"'t:)~ ,n..

'"

~; 'l11l!/Oo'1l mIl» '*)I 'l,n.. ."" ~,,,.; C"C (1JJII/IC , )1m) ~ "'11

~          O'cnItIC N;' 1"11 ;11)':) .rJpJ I'DI I;PrI D'''"l1\ltn ;, 'In pIDl 'lCt:l; ;';"

f;~

1"1t"l 1'''CIt 'lit ")11 ,7r:r:J'J C'7'" Dl'H U;rI C'"lJl'I "1C~ I""JlO "1n

;~\        '\tICItIC ClI!IC "bN Il'tt cn'IlI mn 11':1 ~*iI . 1"JIII 1'_ 'JIlI3 ;11:1; r'>~'

i:~         ....nO"1 "Dln ."n '1M i'11"l I"I1P c:rn"Ir.CIt II'Dln;, "C'I; I'Hl .1"]1 .n."1CnN,'"I1)1 JJ~N"l ClII.D ~, J"'!!" 1l'N :I"DJ/Ni· '''JI]I ,,,m "'MN

11:;

1'1"'" n;ltlllllll ;"l.1 ')J"iNP ;'))10 1l"l0 ~Nlo' " rcl"lC ;1/ :1111" "I:lJ! l'lHlnJ )"lmo 11'1111 l"l1lCll t:.';111 n'>Dn 11'.:1 ;111 C'lJN'I 0'lI]) 'N 'I'l"; 'JIll ,I;o:InJ' ClI!ID 1',nIO"1 M;pm . nDJ:ln It';:! r":l ,"llll'l rnlC c., DNl C*Ol .t:."!Il ",0",,'" lIPC r= )JIJPII 'll'fl '"]I C"O 0'1010 mlI1J ,,15'>, C"O '1'110 Itl"ar 'IN nrrJ ';m::IJ C'l::IIt lnlN )11::1P; i'1It/lIt:m .DII 'J ";111 1'1.11 ce' Inu IIIn '-]I Q\I'l!)II n,,;, ··ItQ'n "lJ"lJ II"; c'rIlIn 'l'v;i HIM'! C'H.l:I.' lIN" C]I ("I:IPPI!) nS'1IP lItl)1' N'lN C'.i:lNn ;1'11'1'1 UP'

,

';I"J "lDC::! II""P '" ;]7 :lJlI'! "'..... )"Nl 1*)1 I1':IC C'J:lNm D'S)Ill' =1'

.           -•.,.., ''D nrllf.J :-nne

1.

"lS'I Il'N o';m,m MimI' " j't< nl"lJpn rr.:l' ,m' ;'1' '-J:I rom

,

"110'" ;'l ~'lI C'1lDII nn; IN' 1"'" 1'1"1'1'1'1 011'0 "om p"l n1IIO

.1lI0'&'1l::J

Figure 4.3 Isaac Breuer: (a)

photograph published in the

Encyclopaedia judaica, with no

head covering (Jerusalem: Keter,

1972); (b) the same picture as it

appears in Horwitz (ed.), Isaac

Breuer (Heb.) (Ramat Gan:

Bar-Han University, 1988), with

a kipah added

Figure 4.4 Israel Brodski:

(a) photograph with no head covering, from Leoni (ed.),

Volozhin: The Book ofthe City and

ofthe Ets Hayim Yeshiva (Heb.)

(Tel Aviv: Organization ofVolozhin

Alumni in Israel and Abroad,

1970); (b) the same photograph as

it appears in Plato, Bishevilei radin

(Petah Tikvah: Makhon 'Bishevilei

Hayeshivot', 2001), with a kipah

added

establish its kolel for young scholars.55 This kolel, known by Brodski's name, remained open even after the yeshiva was closed in 1892.56 Should it surprise us that when this picture was recently included in a haredi work, a kipah was placed on Brodski's head (Fig. 4-4(b))?57

Another instance of censorship dealing with head coverings relates to Italy, where just as in Germany, it was common for men not to cover their

55 A kolel is an institution that supports a group of men so they can devote themselves to full· time study ofTalmud and rabbinic literature. 50 See Leoni (ed.) , Volozhin (Heb.), 146. The picture comes from Ihis pa~(' as wt'll. For mort· on the Brodski kolel, see N. Kamenetsky, Makingofa Godol. ii. 1219 -20.

" The picture comt's from Plato, Bishevilei radin, )1. I thllllk l>~11 I{.hlnowit:r. fcn (011111114 my attention to this exampll'. R. /ehlel/acob Welnbt-rll recenlly IIIMc) hlld II kll'uk pillfrd on hi. hrlld: ~ee my Srfortm Bloll poII,.&l) AUII. .&01.&.

Figure 4.5 R. Leon Modena with no head covering, originally on the title page ofhis Historia de' riti hebraici (Venice, 1638)

heads.58 This practice is described and defended by R. Leon Modena, who mentions how he would sometimes go about without a head covering himself59 There is also a famous picture of Modena which shows him bare­headed (Fig. 4.5).60 R. Moses Gentili (Hefets; 1663-1711), author ofthe biblical commentary Melekhet ma~shevet, was another rabbi whose pictorial image (Fig. 4.6(a)) appears to show him bareheaded (although this is not entirely certain). He is also beardless, which again was a common practice in Italy, even among rabbis.61 This picture appeared at the beginning of the first edi­tion ofhis book (Venice, 1710).62 When the book was reprinted in Konigsberg in 1860, the ambiguity about the head covering was unacceptable, and an obvious kipah was put on his head. The new picture also aged him, and this was because the printer misunderstood what is written under the original pic­ture. There it states is that he is n"NlJ years old, and the double apostrophe signals that the meaning ofthe Hebrew letters is 'forty-six'. Yet the printer in

,. See Delmedigo. Matsreflel;wkhmah, ch. 22. p. 26a.

59 See Modena, Ziknei yehudah, nos. 21-2; Safran, 'Leone da Modena's Historical Thinking'.

383.

fiO

This picture first appeared on the title page of his Historia de' riti hebraici. 'He is depicted bareheaded, reflecting Modena's statement in his responsum on head covering that he uncovered his head when speaking to noblemen. Since this book addressed a king, Modena has shown respect by baring his head.' Mann (ed.), Gardens and Ghettos, 247.

61 See E. S. Horowitz, 'Early Eighteenth Century', 95-II5. From a later period. pictures of Samuel David Luzzatto and the one surviving picture of R. Elijah Benamozegh show them bare­headed.

., D. Rabinowitz, 'Yarmulke', 230 n. 29, writes: 'So Y. Agnon, in his autobiography [A Simple Storyj, recorded that he was shocked as a child in Galicia to see this portrait of R. Hefetz. a Rabbi . harehead('d, Ilt'ardlt·ss. with shouldt'r.ll·n~lh hair.' Thl'f(' ;If(' Iwo rnistakt's hert'. First. A Simple Story is • work of fictioll, 1I0t .. utohio~rOlphy. Srwlld, IhNr iN nothin~ in tilt' Nlory ahout Gt'ntili Ilt'ill~ b.rrhr.drd. Thr rrlrv~1I1 "rlllrller rl'lIdll: 'l{lIbhl MOHI'II Ilrli-lz, hili 1IIolir ullrllhbiniclilly IOIl~ lind hill chin unrllhhlnlrully brllrdl!'IIII .. :. Sl'r AMIIUII, A ";Iml"~ S/Ilry, I,. (1lIlhr urlMlllllllrbrrw. Ihl' wurtI'lIl1f1lhhllllrlllly'llllrllllolllpprllr.)

RABBI SAMSON RAPHAEL HIRSCH

Figure 4.3 Isaac Breuer: (a)

photograph published in the

Encyclopaedia Judaica, with no

head covering (Jerusalem: Keter,

1972) ; (b) the same picture as it

appears in Horwitz (ed.), Isaac

Breuer (Heb.) (Ramat Gan:

Bar-Ilan University, 1988), with

a kipah added

(a) (b)

Figure 4.4 Israel Brodski:

(a) photograph with no head covering, from Leoni (ed.) ,

Volozhin: The Book ofthe City and

ofthe Ets Hayim Yeshiva (Heb.)

(Tel Aviv: Organization ofVolozhin

Alumni in Israel and Abroad,

1970); (b) the same photograph as

it appears in Plato, Bishevilei mdin

(Petah Tikvah: Makhon 'Bishevilei

Hayeshivot', 2001), with a kipah

added

(a)

establish its kalel for young scholars.55 This kalel, known by Brodski's name, remained open even after the yeshiva was closed in 1892.56 Should it surprise us that when this picture was recently included in a haredi work, a kipah was placed on Brodski's head (Fig. 4-4(b))?57

Another instance of censorship dealing with head coverings relates to Italy, where just as in Germany, it was common for men not to cover th j r

55 A kolel is an institution that supports a group of men so they can devote th ms Iv s to filII· time study ofTalmud and rabbinic literature. ,. See Leoni (ed.), Volozhin (Heb.), 146.The piclur I11r~ rl'()ll1 lh is p:W' "s w('il. 1101' mOl'l' Oil the Brodski kolel, s N. Ka l11 n tsky, Maki/'lgoJa :orJol, ii. Lld() ~,() .

" Thr pi lul'c OIlI('H fro II , 1'1:,10, Bis/wvi/I'i rlullll, \ ,. I 11,,1111 1),11' 1{.,blllllwlll, Ill, r:lllll1f1 I1IY ,1I1('IIIiOlllo IbiH('X:llllpl(', H. }I'IIi('1}.Iw li WI'illlli"f1'I'I"lIlly ,II 11 1" 111,, Utili/I 1'1,11 I''! ,.1111 11

111',1(1, fl('(' II'Y,'"I()1II1III1I1K 1'1111, ") All f' , 'til' ,

RABBI SAMSON RAPHAEL HIRSCH

Figure 4.5 R. Leon Modena with no head covering, originally on the title page ofhis Historia de' riti hebmici (Venice, 1638)

heads.58 This practice is described and defended by R. Leon Modena, who mentions how he would sometimes go about without a head covering himself.59 There is also a famous picture of Modena which shows him bare­headed (Fig. 4-5).60 R. Moses Gentili (Hefets; 1663-17II), author ofthe biblical commentary Melekhet ma1:r,shevet, was another rabbi whose pictorial image (Fig. 4-6(a)) appears to show him bareheaded (although this is not entirely certain). He is also beardless, which again was a common practice in Italy, even among rabbis.61 This picture appeared at the beginning of the first edi­tion ofhis book (Venice, 1710).62 When the book was reprinted in Konigsberg in 1860, the ambiguity about the head covering was unacceptable, and an obvious kipah was put on his head. The new picture also aged him, and this was because the printer misunderstood what is written under the original pic­ture. There it states is that he is il"NY.l years old, and the double apostrophe signals that the meaning ofthe Hebrew letters is 'forty-six'. Yet the printer in

58

See Delmedigo, Matsrefle/:lokhmah, ch. 22, p. 26a.

59

See Modena, Ziknei yehudah, nos. 21-2; Safran, 'Leone da Modena's Historical Thinking',

383.

60

This picture first appeared on the title page of his Historia de' riti hebraici. 'He is depicted bareheaded, reflecting Modena's statement in his responsum on head covering that he uncovered his head when speaking to noblemen. Since this book addressed a king, Modena has shown respect by baring his head.' Mann (ed.), Gardens and Ghettos, 247.

61

See E. S. Horowitz, 'Early Eighteenth Century', 95-II5. From a later period, pictures of Samuel David Luzzatto and the one surviving picture of R. Elijah Benamozegh show them bare­headed.

", D. Rabinowitz, 'Yarmulke', 230 n. 29, writes: '5. Y. Agnon, in his autobiography [A Simple Story] , r cord d that h was sho k d as a hild in Gali io to s this portrait ofR. Hefetz, a Rabbi, bar h adccl, b "rcll ~~, wil'II ~IIOlllcl('r. 1 nglh II,lir.' ""er(':l 1' Iwo mislak s hr . First, A Simple ,'lory is a work of' Ii( lioll, 1101:lIlloiliog":!plly. SI'«()I,d, 11 1('1'(' iN1I0lllilll\ 111 111 (' Hlory ~bolll ,('Illili hrlng b:Il'1'iI(':!(lt-d,'I'lli' 1'l,lt'VoIll1 "IIIt'II11' "',HIM: 'll-dlill MIIM('H III'II'IZ, 111 /1 11.1 11 Illll':lhhl,ll(,Illy IlIllf: II lid llil (1';'IIII1I1"lIhlll l,dly 111'.1,, 111' I 'SI'(' "fI'II III , ,'iltll fllr SIIII)', '" (111111"(111/11,1,11 1II'II,,'w, !I". wll,d " II",lhhlll i! ,dl ' .11/1' 111.1"1'111"" )

RABBI SAMSON RAPHAEL HIRSCH

(a)

Konigsberg mistakenly understood il"~Y.l to mean me'ah, 'one hundred', as if there were no apostrophes (Fig. 4.6(b)). Therefore, in addition to adding the kipah, he aged Gentili by more than fifty years!G3

My final examples regarding head coverings appear in the biography of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, written by Shaul Shimon Deutsch.64 Deutsch was able to locate a picture of the Rebbe from his student file at the University of Berlin, which he subsequently pub­lished. This photo had never before been seen publicly, and in it the Rebb is bareheaded (Fig. 4.7(a)). This should not be surprising considering whal we have already seen about German Orthodoxy. Deutsch also published a

63 This mistake was first pointed out by Samuel David Luzzatto; see his not in I',ralevanol'l, 2. (1 Tishrei 5627, 301-2. See also D. Rabinowitz, 'Yarmulke', 230-r; A. Ilakoh n, 'R. Mos sll('r('I:I' Melekhet ma/:lshevet' (Heb,), 271 n. IS ; On th Main Line, 18 M:lI', 20 ; <nolrikol1,llogspol.('OIIl , 31 Dec. 2012.

"" S. S, D utsch, I.a, ,.w~,. th(~1t I.ife, vol. ii, II. II, 1)(' III~cll :IINo HIIOWN0111," :111/'1'1,1 iUIINill pi! 1111 "I orl+, (' Rebbc,slI'h :,s III I'll i"1\ lIis liglll·rulollITd 1,:,1 illio hlllll! ,11111 11,111<"1111111 1/11'1111

1111 111II1HIIIIII 'I'll(' pi! I'll I' of II", IlI,1I111' flllill Irillltillill'lIl 1111' 1t"1 II" 1'1/1 Iy 1""'111'"1111111 .. ,11 willi ,I "'IIItI I III 1',I,'d 1111 IIiH11t',ld S,'.' W"IIII'I" I, III/W,t/" I" ~ \

Figure 4.6 R. Moses Gentili: (a) apparently with no head covering, from his Melekhet

maf,lshevet (Venice, 1710); (b) with kipah added, from Melekhet maf,lshevet

(Konigsberg, 1860)

RABBI SAMSON RAPHAEL HIRSCH 139

(a)

Figure 4.7 R. Menachem Mendel

Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe:

(a)

and (b) with no head covering;

(e)

with a kipah added (arrow inserted

by Deutsch). These pictures appear in

Deutsch, Larger than Life (New York:

Chasidic Historical Productions,

(e)

1997)

picture of the Rebbe's United States passport, and here too he is bareheaded (Fig. 4.7(b)). A third picture he included is of the Rebbe's previously pub­... 1ished naturalization photograph, but this time a kipah had been added to his

head (Fig. 4-7(c)).r.s Ifwe return to th N tzah publishing house, we can observe that while it was is uin G rman Orth dox w rks it al so b ame quite expert in the art of

I,' For alloll'I'" pi! 1/11'1' 0/' 11", Ill'hl)(' ill willi I,:. kiJlII11 WI! 1,<I<k<l, N!'!" I:lil('<i11 1('ssi:li1.C0I11 , ,./ III'\) , J, l' J.. '1'111' IIIII',III,1i pll ill II' ,"lpl'.l1 H"I www.lily."I."I1./III.IlII.II·. SI·.·:II:lOlll(.pl!II ..·. ·ll .. 1.111(. Ill-IIII,,h"II' www,II",...lIl l1'l>lIl1l ,'''II 1,1 III,' M M~i 1"'1111'1,11 tllIl' iii" " ~'I'IIj11 1 'II "I kil'''' pI.li 1·11 '"' 1I·l.illvl' III IIII' /11'111 11', 1'1' WWW IIII'III,""IIII ,"" I ,', 111'11 'I ,.,'

(b)(a)

(a) (b)

Figure 4.6 R. Moses Gentili: (a) apparently with no head covering, from his Melekhet

ma1;lshevet (Venice, 1710); (b) with kipah added, from Melekhet ma1;lshevet

Figure 4.7 R. Menachem Mendel (Konigsberg, 1860) Schneerson, the Lubavitcher Rebbe:

(a) and (b) with no head covering;

Konigsberg mistakenly understood il"Nr.l to mean me'ah, 'one hundred', as if

(c) with a kipah added (arrow inserted

there were no apostrophes (Fig. 4.6(b)). Therefore, in addition to adding the

by Deutsch). These pictures appear in

kipah, he aged Gentili by more than fifty years!63

Deutsch, Larger than Life (New York:

My final examples regarding head coverings appear in the biography of

Chasidic Historical Productions,

the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson, written by Shaul

(c)

1997)

Shimon Deutsch.64 Deutsch was able to locate a picture of the Rebbe from his student file at the University of Berlin, which he subsequently pub­lished. This photo had never before been seen publicly, and in it the Rebbe picture of the Rebbe's United States passport, and here too he is bareheaded is bareheaded (Fig. 4.7(a)) . This should not be surprising considering what (Fig. 4.7(b)) . A third picture he included is of the Rebbe's previously pub­we have already seen about German Orthodoxy. Deutsch also published a ~ lished naturalization photograph, but this time a kipah had been added to his

head (Fig. 4.7(c)):s

63 This mistake was first pointed out by Samuel David Luzzatto; see his note in Halevanon, 2.6

Ifwe return to the Netzah publishing house, we can observe that while it

Tishrei 5627,301-2. See also D. Rabinowitz, 'Yarmulke', 230-1; A. Hakohen, 'R. Mos('s Hef('IH'

was issuing German Orthodox works it also became quite expert in the art of

Melekhet mal;shevet' (Heb.), 271 n. 15; On the Main Line, IX Mar . .1.00<); <lIolrikon.blo~spot.("()rn>, 31 Dec. 2012.

.. S. S. Deutsch, Larger than I.ifr., vol. ii, ch. II. [)('uts('h also shOWN olh"1" alle'ralions ill pklllrf'" ,,' For .11101111'1" pi("fllrc' 111'1111' R .. hhl' ill whidl .1 kipaH W;IN add('d, s(·(· <failedrnrssiah.mlTl>, 17 ofthe Rebbe, such as turnin~ his lil(ht-wlollrrd hat into hlafk ;1I1t1 d:lrkrllllll( Ihr ""lour ofhiM HUIt. h ·b. 1.011.. Thl' mil(i"'11 pklttn· appr;tl"s al .rwww.llnyurl.nllll/nhhlo\j·.>.SI·.·ahlolhrpi<"tllrl·Hofthl· Thr pil"IUrt· oflhr R..hhr from hiM "IlId.."I fil.. h:!H r ..f.."Ily hrrllllllhllNhrd with u lei/ill It Itl"rrlrd 011 R..hhr hrrr <"www.lhrrrhhrhook.IIIIII·11I Ihr M M S I'rrNllllul Filf'N. For rUIIII,lrN 0/ kl,,,,, pltllrllllll hiM hrad. SrI' W..ltll1orl , IlilHill/ilH , ~ \. r..lallvrN uflltr Rrhhr. Nrr .·www.lllrlllulhloll.(tlIll •. ••lIlIrJ.llI>·•.

censorship. This means that one cannot rely on any ofits editions or transla­tions without examining the original. The unstated rationale behind its acts of censorship is always the same, namely, to ensure that almost nothing from the German Orthodox world is published that reflects a different Weltan­schauungfrom the post-Second World War haredi worldview.66

A typical example of this may be seen in how Netzah dealt with one of Jacob Rosenheim's (1870-1965) essays. Speaking about Hirsch, Rosenheim wrote that he showed 'tolerant, cautious reserve (if judged by the moral rigour ofthe divine Law and ofrabbinical teaching) towards those very objectionable forms of conduct of the sexes on the parquet floors of the salons, towards O'1VlN 0)) 0'1V1 n1,,))n 67 [and] towards in1)) i11VN1'"p68 at public examinations in the higher grades'.69 Rosenheim's point was that because ofthe mindset of his community, Hirsch was forced to compromise on these issues. Yet the very notion that such compromises are possible would not reflect well on Hirsch in the haredi world. This passage was therefore simply excised in the Netzah translation.'o

Other examples of Netzah's censorship appear in its publications of the writings ofR. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, Isaac Breuer, and Ahron Marcus (1843­1916). In one of Weinberg's essays on Hirsch, he points out that the notion that Hirsch advocated secular studies for professional reasons alone is 'a dis­tortion of the historical truth'.'1 When this essay was reprinted (without acknowledgement of where it first appeared),72 Weinberg was made to say­in direct opposition to his authentic comment-that the notion he criticized 'is not the entire historical truth'. 73

Later in this essay, Weinberg mentions that Hirsch showed a certain sym­pathy for Moses Mendelssohn.74 Despite the fact that many great sages wrote

.. Discomfort with German Orthodoxy is found throughout the haredi world. For example, in the obituary ofR. Joseph Dunner in the LondonJewish Tribune, no mention was made that he was a graduate ofthe Berlin Rabbinical Seminary. Instead, it stated that he attended 'the beis medrash of Harav Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg' . See Menachem Butler's Seforim blog post, 13 Apr. 2007. To my knowledge, this is the first time in history that the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary has been referred to in this way. Weinberg was himselfquite upset when one of his students attempted to downplay his relationship with the Seminary. See Weinberg, Kitvei hagaon, ii. 354.

67 The mixing ofthe sexes.

68 'A woman's voice is considered nakedness [i.e. licentious)' (BT Ber. 24a).

69 Rosenheim, Samson Raphael Hirsch's Cultural Ideal, 60. (I have corrected thr punctuation til agree with the original German, Das Bildungsideal S. R. Hirsc:h~, 65.)

70 7\

Rosenheim, Rabi shimshon rafa'e/ hirsh. W('inl}('rt-t, "lill';lt hal.layilll' , 1<)1.

71 See Breuer, 'Review of Recent Books' (Heh.), 71.

7' Introductory ('ssay to lIirHch, Uemu'gr.lei ~h"nuh, Ii. I().

" Ihid . 1l)2. WrinherH IIddH that JlrrhllJlM thlM WUN (lnly II lIIutter III I lIerliry JlulltrnrM •. In ht. lurHrr rHHlly lin IlIm'h, Itl Wrllll>rrM' .'irrlrlrl r..lh, tv. \c,'l, Wrllllll'lM I"rlllllvrli tht_ -IJrlllllllllln.

positively of the man and his works,'5 in the haredi world Mendelssohn has been elevated into one of the worst enemies of traditional Judaism.76 Weinberg's comment about Hirsch and Mendelssohn is therefore simply excised, as is a complete paragraph that discusses the relationship of Hirsch and Mendelssohn (and which criticizes Isaak Heinemann (1876-1957) for blurring the difference between the two). A final example from this essay is that in discussing how to enable traditional Judaism to thrive among those who are living in a modern Western society, Weinberg criticizes the solutions offered by those whom he characterizes as being of 'small mind and limited vision'.77 This disparaging judgement of certain haredi ideologues was also excised.

Weinberg also wrote an essay on the talmudic historian Isaac Halevy (1847-1914),78 which was reprinted by Netzah,79 and here too we find the same pattern. For example, on the very first page Weinberg compares Halevy negatively to R. David Tsevi Hoffmann, pointing out the problems with Halevy's harshly polemical style. In the Netzah reprint this is censored from Weinberg's essay, and that is just from the first page. Much more falls by the wayside in subsequent pages, wherever Weinberg chooses to criticize Halevy. While some of the censored material might perhaps have been acceptable, even for Netzah, in a volume not intended to honour Halevy, most ofwhat was removed could never have been printed in any haredi work, simply because Weinberg's objective and critical style is not what haredi readers have come to expect.

7S See Hildesheimer, 'Moses Mendelssohn'.

76 See A. B. Rosenberg, Tsava'at aba, 8a, no. 40, in the name of R. Shalom Roke'ah of Belz (1781-1855), that Mendelssohn was even worse than 'the known evil one' (Jesus?). While the latter'S soul will eventually receive a tikun (rectification), this is not the case for Mendelssohn or anyone who studies his works. R. Levi Yitshak of Berdichev (1740-1809) supposedly said that Mendelssohn has to spend over eighteen million years in hell. See On the Main line, 26 June 2012. 77 Weinberg, Torat hal;tayim', 199. 78 See Weinberg, Seridei esh, iv. 249-66.

79 M. Auerbach (ed.) , Memorial Book (Heb.), Il9-30.

RABBI

ABRAHAM ISAAC KOOK

'l AJH E NIT COM E S to Orthodox rewriting ofthe past so as to align it with

V V the present, the figure ofR. Abraham Isaac Kook stands out. During his lifetime, and especially after his assumption ofthe Chief Rabbinate of Eretz Yisra'el in 1921, Kook was regarded by most of the Orthodox as one of the world's leading rabbinic figures. In Palestine, there were those who even regarded him as the pre-eminent figure, the gedol hador (,greatest scholar of the generation') par excellence.

There were, of course, some who did not look so kindly upon Kook, and their opposition was long-standing. Not long after Kook's arrival in Palestine in 1904 he began making waves with his tolerant attitude towards the non­religious lJalutsim (pioneers). Indeed, it soon became apparent that not only was Kook tolerant ofthem, but he even regarded the lJalutsim as having a sig­nificant role, in both a physical and theological sense, in the building up ofthe land ofIsrael.

The opposition to Kook was centred in Jerusalem, where some members ofthe Old Yishuv,l anti-Zionist in the extreme, stopped at nothing to defame him.2 Matters got so bad that the British authorities put two of his leading antagonists in jail.) The campaign against him was also pursued by the extreme anti-Zionists in Europe, most ofwhom were in Hungary.

What was it that created such animosity? The fact that Kook was willing to work with the non-religious Zionists would have been enough to tarnish his reputation in certain circles. Yet, as indicated, Kook did not merely work with the non-religious, but even provided a theological raison d'€tre for their

1 The Old Yishuv was the community of Ashkenazi Jews in the land of Israel that originalt'J before the first great aliyah at the end ofthe 19th cent. , For details, see Schatz, 'Beginning ofthe Campaign' (1Ieb.); M. hieJ,tlan, .'ioridy unti RrlillilJ/l (Hcb.); Bezalel Naor's introduction to his translation orA. I. Kook. Orol. I See M. ~riedlllall, Socidy Ullti Religion (I h'h.), J.J.') ~(). Oil(' of lirosl' illlPl'isOIlI't1 wors Ml'il' Ilell,'I'. SOIll" itolh'rs trOll! hilt! fix \IS iIII( 011 his oppositioll 10 Kook ;tPI)(,1I1' ill T. II . Fril·,IIIlall. 'Hrl'l

,'(llIrr/, 4'/11'.

very existence, explaining how they had an important contribution to make to the rejuvenation of the Jewish people in the pre-messianic era, The contro­versy really heated up after publication ofhis book Orot (,Lights') in 1920. In a work full ofprovocative formulations, the most controversial was the famous chapter 34 (in the section 'Orot hate.b.iyah', 'Lights of Renascence'), where Kook claims that the exercise ofthe young lJalutsim raises up the Shekhinah, the divine presence, 'just as it rises through songs and praises uttered by David, king ofIsrael, in the book ofPsalms'.4

Kook's 1925 speech at the inauguration of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem also became a cause celebre.s What was reported in the anti-Zionist Orthodox press-and it is impossible to know whether the original reports were purposeful distortions-was that he declared, with reference to the new university, 'For Torah shall go forth from Zion, and the word ofthe Lord from Jerusalem' (Micah 4: 2). Kook's clarification ofwhat he had actually said did little to change the minds of those who had already decided that he was a heretic, but it was not without any impact. For example, R. Joseph Messas, rabbi ofTlemcen, Algeria, had seen a vitriolic attack on Kook in the Hungar­ian periodical Beit va'ad lelJakhamim, which focused on what Kook was alleged to have said at the inauguration. Finding the report difficult to believe, Messas wrote to Kook. After learning from Kook what the latter had actually said, Messas turned his sharp pen on the editor of the Hungarian journal, who in Messas's eyes was now guilty of the terrible sin of defaming a Torah scholar.6

Most ofthe leading sages in the land ofIsrael, such as R. Tsevi Pesah Frank (1873-1960)," R. Yehiel Michel Tukatchinsky (1872-1955), R. Isser Zalman Meltzer (1870-1953), R. Moses Mordechai Epstein (1866-1934), R. Hayim Ychudah Leib Auerbach (1883-1954, the father of R. Shlomo Zalman Auer­klCh), and numerous others were on Kook's side during the raging disputes. This does not mean that they shared all, or even most, of Kook's opinions, hut they still regarded him as the rav of Jerusalem and many viewed him as Ille most distinguished scholar in the country. Even the famed R. Solomon 1,:liezer Alfandari (c.I822-1930), while strongly opposed to Kook's ideas,S

• On the controversy, including discussion of Orot, ch. 34, see Naor's introduction to his 'Llllslation of A. I. Kook, Orot. One source he does not mention is R. Hayim Hirschensohn's II X';'j I()~S) Jell'n«' or Kook in id., I./itiushri hural' ~uyim hir.~henson, vol. iii, no. 23.

, St't' killla II , '){ahhi Abraham Isaac ha·Kolll'lI Kook: Illvocatioll'; Naor, When God Ekcomes l/i~I"ry, ,>X IL •. SI'(' AII,ar .... , /.ikhl'otiuh shd toruh. 4'-' S(,. , SI'" his 11'111'1' illllirsdu'IINIlIIII, M,dki /Jukotirsil, iv. 4~-4.

• SrI' A. ){osl'lIlx'I'I(, Mi.lhkrlllll hurtl'illl, III. Ill/h) II. AII'llldOiti WOIN Itlollzrd hy 11111' of KOllk'" II'Jdirll( ,h-lIil(l'uloI'H, It Iluyilli 1\11'01,01, ShOlplt II. SrI' M. (;III<1Nlrlll, Mlu'o/ yrrrulllllllyltll,

nevertheless wrote to R. Jacob Moses Harlap (I883-I95I) that economic sanc­tions should be enforced against those who were defaming Kook.9

As the years passed, Kook's reputation underwent changes. For the first few decades after his death he was regarded as a somewhat other-worldly figure, and his vision of religious Zionism had hardly any influence. This changed with the I967 Six Day War, which saw the emergence of the mes­sianic wing ofreligious Zionism under the leadership ofKook's son, R. Tsevi Yehudah Kook (hereafter, 'R. Tsevi Yehudah', I89I-I982). After I967 the aca­demic world also began to take a great interest in Kook, and many previously unpublished works ofhis began to appear in print. By a few decades after the Six Day War there was little question that Kook was the most studied, and influential, Orthodox Jewish thinker ofthe twentieth century.

Part of the great attraction of academics to Kook is precisely his radical ideas, which are now focal points of research. The growing awareness ofthe contents ofKook's writings has been one factor making it difficult for many in the haredi world to relate to him in a positive fashion. It is also no accident that as Kook began to assume great importance for the religious Zionist com­munity, especially the settlers-for whom he became the central religious thinker-his reputation began to suffer in the emerging haredi society. With the exception of certain extremist groups in Jerusalem and Hungary, almost all Orthodox Jews regarded Kook as one ofthe gedolim in the first half ofthe twentieth century, even if they did not share his philosophy. This is why he was invited to attend the I9I4 Agudat Yisra'el convention in Germany, which due to the outbreak of the First World War never took place, leaving Kook stranded in Europe until the end ofhostilities. However, by the last quarter of the twentieth century it was obvious that Kook did not belong to the canon ofgedolim ofthe haredi world.

It is interesting that two of the most important figures in haredi society during the lastthirty years, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and R. YosefShalom Elyashiv, came from the community that supported Kook, and never wavered in their positive feelings towards him.to Yet despite this, the strength of the anti-Kook sentiment was too strong to be beaten back, even by these two lead­ers ofthe haredi world. The fact that Kook had become central to the religious Zionist enterprise meant that haredi ideologues, who put a great deal ofeffort

9 A copy of the letter appears in Y. Harlap, Shirat hayam, 434. See also Naor's translation of

A. I. Kook, Orot, 230 n. 89.

10 For Auerbach's relationship with Kook, see Kinarti, Or shelomoh. Elyashiv supported the firing ofa Makhon Yerushalayim editor who refused to include passag('s from Kook's writings. SI'I' the interview with R. Yosef Buxbaum, the director ofMakhon YeruMhalllylm, in Ile~hevu, no. 104 (5 Aug. 2004), available at <www.inn.l·0.iI/ReMheva/Artlde.upx/114;&)o. Ser 111.0 Anon.. Ilu~hukcJa",

i. 47; Anon., YI~1I ~klliom (n.p.. 1.01;&).

into the delegitimization ofreligious Zionism, now needed to distance them­

selves from Kook as well.

This change in perception of Kook created an enormous problem for the haredi world. Because in the past Kook had been regarded as a prominent sage, he had written numerous approbationsll for works of leading Torah scholars. Even R. Abraham Isaiah Karelitz, the Hazon Ish, when first arriving in the land of Israel, addressed a halakhic question to Kook, referring to him by the honorific title hod kevod maran, shlita.12 He is also known to have stood up for the entirety of Kook's lengthy speech when the latter came to Benei Berak to speak at the cornerstone-laying ceremony of the Beit Yosef (Novardok) yeshiva.13 Although the Hazon Ish's view of Kook became more negative after this/4 widespread recognition of his earlier, more positive view, not to mention the great esteem in which many other sages held Kook, challenged the recent haredi Weltanschauung. To counter this, the censors in haredi society have been very busy. In fact, Kook has been the victim ofmore censorship and simple omission offacts for the sake ofharedi ideology than any other figure.

When books are reprinted by haredi and anti-Zionist publishers Kook's approbations are routinely omitted.ls In the Hebrew introduction to my Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, I told of meeting one such publisher in Harvard's Widener Library. He had come there in order to find rare books to reprint. Upon looking at one of the books he had published, I immediately noticed that there was a blank space where one would have expected an appro­bation. Quickly finding a copy ofthe original in the Harvard stacks, I saw that it was Kook's haskamah that was removed. I approached the man and told

II

Haskamot in Hebrew. The singular is haskamah.

Il

See B. Z. Shapira (ed.), Igerot lare'iyah, 448-9, and see p. 591 for pictures ofthe Hazon Ish's I,·tlers. Both of the Hazon Ish's letters to Kook have recently been reprinted, but the phrase hod ~,,.v()d maran shlita, which appeared in one ofthese letters, has now been deleted. See A.I. Karelitz, (:muzim ushe'elot uteshuvot /;Iazon ish, i. 126.

II

See Kohen, Pe'er hadar, ii. 32; Horovitz, Orl;ot rabenu, v. 172; Neriyah, Bisedeh hare'iyah, 247.

" See Horovitz, Or/;lot rabenu, v. 172; Brown, The Hazan Ish (Heb.), 220 ff. The Hazon Ish 'listructed a book dealer not to carry Kook's philosophical writings. See Kohen, Pe'er hadar, ii. 34; Brown, The Hazan Ish (Heb.), 227. Yet even with regard to Kook's philosophical works, the Hazon Ish sometimes expressed a more positive view, depending on whom he was speaking to. See 1:ll'ati. Two Visits' (Heb.). The way in which the Hazon Ish referred to Kook changed considerably J,I'Iwl"'n his arrival in Palestine and a few years later. For example, in a letter from 1937 the Hazon INh uHlSpiCUOIISly avoids IIsing the normal phrases of praise for great rabbis, and writes simply 'J" pIp J1n. Thr oth('r rabbis lI1l'ntiOl1l'd in this I('ltl'r have' tilt' title guon attached to their names. See

II. I. Karrlitz, Grnazim u~hr'rlot uteshuvot /;luzon ish, Ii. 100.

" AH a Higll oflnneaHln" rxlrrmlNlIIl1I thr h~rr(lI world, I'velllhr n:lmr ofthr rrvrrrd R. 'IKrvi I'I'Nuh flrllllk hliN hrrn rrlllllvrd from 1111 ~pprnhlltlllll. SrI' IlII" Rllhlnowit1.'. Srfilrhn IIloM JlllNI. .n 11111 • ..1007.

him that I understood that he regarded Kook as a heretic. However, the author ofthe book thought that Kook was a great man, which is why he had solicited his haskamah. 'What then gives you the right to take it out?', I demanded to know. The publisher's reply left me speechless. He told me that the author is now in heaven where he knows the truth about Kook, that Kook was not a righteous man but in fact a heretic, 'and he is therefore happy with what I have done'.16

Sometimes, the censorship of Kook is nothing less than comical. For example, in 1994 the family ofthe late R. Isaac Kossowsky (1877-1951) pub­lished a volume ofhis writings.17 Kossowsky, who lived in Johannesburg from the 1930S, was a brother-in-law of R. Hayim Ozer Grodzinski (1863-1940). Like his brother-in-law, Kossowsky had a great deal of respect for Kook, as did the Lithuanian sages in general. Upon Kook's death Kossowsky delivered a very long eulogy, and he referred to Kook as 'the high priest among his brothers' (c£ Lev. 21: 10). Right at the beginning ofhis talk, he speaks of the great importance of eulogies, and how the speaker must make the listeners aware of the great loss they have suffered, and the special nature of the one being mourned.

Incredibly, in direct contradiction to these very words, the eulogy as it is printed does not mention who its subject is. It is entitled 'From a Eulogy for One of the Rabbis'. Throughout the eulogy, Kook's name, or anything that could identify him, is removed, leaving us with a wonderful eulogy for an unnamed rabbi. It is hard to imagine a greater undermining of the role of a eulogy, as elaborated upon by Kossowsky. Yet such is the environment in the haredi world that the editor, a descendant of Kossowsky, thought that censor­ing the eulogy was appropriate.1s

In addition to removing all identifying references to Kook, the editor took other liberties as well. For example, when Kossowsky mentions how the great rabbis who supported the return to Zion-Mordechai Eliasberg (1817-89), Samuel Mohilever (1824-98), Isaac Jacob Reines (1839-1915), as well as the Mizrahi movement as a whole-battled against the secular Zionists, this too was removed, replaced by generic 'great rabbis' who are now the battlers against the secularists. The original eulogy contains a few pages discussing Kook's greatness, following which Kossowsky notes that although Kook was

16 There are hasidic stories with similar themes. See e.g. Sorasky, Murbitsri toruh, vi. :..170-1 (called to my attention by Gershon Buchinger).

17

Kossowsky, She'elat yitsl;iak. The eulogy discusst'd aJlJl('ars on JlJl. :..Ii'i -x. II was d(-I(-I!'d entirely from the 2006 edition of She'r./at yitsf;J.uk. Sf'!' Glkk, Kunlm, Ill, no. iC,,)O. to The uncensored ('uIOMY, publisl!!'d frortl lIIanuNnlpt, "1'1l!'lrH In A. I\lhlllllll and A. IHhuIIlII, /)(~hurlrdor, P,-CII.

the subject of attacks, 'even his strongest opponents had to admit' his great righteousness. All this is omitted in the censored version, which, however, does include these words: 'And now that he is no longer with us, Orthodox Jewry is orphaned and with a hurt heart we cry out: who will bring us his replacement? ... When a righteous man dies, he dies only for his generation.' The last sentence comes from the Talmud, Megilah 15a, and its meaning is that even though the righteous man is dead, his soul and name survive. Yet today, as we see in this censored eulogy, while the soul might survive, the name certainly does not!

The fear ofassociating with Kook, and ofshowing how great rabbis ofthe past who today are regarded as mainstays ofthe haredi world were on friendly terms with Kook and even admired him, is a reflection ofthe extremism that has taken root in haredi Judaism. In the case just mentioned, and this is a pattern that is constantly repeated, it is a descendant or other family member ofthe deceased rabbi who made the choice to censor his writings. In many of these cases ofcensorship, an outsider would not have the courage to do such a thing. However, family members, who are presumed to have the best inter­ests of the author at heart, have often concluded that in our day and age, in order to spare the author (or his family) embarrassment, they must distance him from Kook. Others are worried that the author will not be 'accepted' in haredi circles ifhis relationship with Kook is known, or that people might not understand the original context of the author's relationship with Kook and I herefore use this information 'improperly' .19

I have already noted that during Kook's lifetime there was strong opposi­Iion to him on the part of some members of the Old Yishuv. What is often overlooked is that the majority of the Old Yishuv was actually in R. Kook's lorner during the great dispute. One need only look at the list of those in­dividuals and yeshivas that welcomed Kook's appointment as rav of Jeru­salem to see the support he commanded in the Old Yishuv.20

R. Tsevi Pesah Frank was one of the leading rabbinic figures who stood with Kook. In a letter to R. Hayim Hirschensohn, we get a glimpse of his ;lllger at the opposition Kook was confronting:

Tilt' Gaon, our Master RAY [Rabbi Abraham Isaac] Hakohen Kook was accepted Il('re as Rav [rabbi] by the majority of the Holy Community here. It is well known Iklt the members of the Kolle! Ungarn [Hungarian kolel] are envious ofour Russian

,., S('(' [)avid Glasllt'r's SI'I()rilll BloM post. l'i h·h. :..IooX. For censorship of Glasner's grand­';.llu'rs IWllt· {It Akivil Glasl!!''' (IXXC, 11))(1)) hl-I'aus!' of his :t.ionism, S('(' Glick, Kuntre.I, iii. 1111. I('\)"

." SI'!' II, I.. Shapl ..11 (rd.), Illtroliurr',yuh, I~(l C,K. Thr yrHhlvlIH wt'lr IiIH IllIyllll, IllIyrl Olanl, Mr'ah Shr'lIrlm, 'lbl'lIt IllIyhll,lIlHI Sllll'lif IIIINlllllllllyllll.

and Polish brethren .... They write and sign tens of thousands ofletters to America and the entire world in the name of all the Ashkenazim in Jerusalem ... that

R. Hayyim Sonnenfeld is the Rav here, when all see and know that R. Hayyim Sonnenfeld was never, and will not be, the Rav, for he is an old, frail man for whom it is not possible to get involved in the affairs ofthe town .... The Gaon, our Master RAY Kook is the Rav here. All the largest institutions are under his presidency.21

There is a good deal more in this letter, in which he blasts the Jerusalem extremists for their activities, but even from this short excerpt one gets a sense ofhow a figure revered by the hare dim regarded Kook. I do not mean to imply that the entire Lithuanian Torah world related positively to Kook, as this was not the case. Two notable figures who were strongly opposed to Kook, viewing him as nothing less than an enemy ofTorah Judaism, were R. Joseph Rozin (1858-1936) and R. Elhanan Wasserman (1874-1941).22 As can be expected, their statements are often reprinted by the anti-Zionist Orthodox. What the latter are not prepared to reprint are the letters sent to Kook by his good friend, R. Zelig Reuven Bengis (1864-1953), who after Kook's death became chief rabbi of the anti-Zionist Edah Haredit, the same group that caused Kook so much pain.23

One aspect of the haredi response to Kook has been to write him out of the Torah world completely. Sometimes this is hard. For example, what is one to do with the fact that the renowned R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim (the Aderet) was Kook's father-in-law, and that Kook wrote a volume dedi­cated to his memory?24 The biographical introduction in one of Rabinowitz­Teomim's posthumously published books simply refuses to mention that Kook was his son-in-law.25 Another haredi biography of Rabinowitz-Teomim quotes from Kook's volume but never mentions the author's name.26 This

"           Hirschensohn, Malki bakodesh, iv. 43-4 (trans. Naor inA. I. Kook, Orot, 224-5).

22

For Rozin's attack on Kook in which he characterizes him as a heretic, see A. Rosenberg, Mishkenot haro'im, iii. II09. Wasserman called Kook a rasha (evil man). See his Yalkut ma'amarim umikhtavim, 152. A photograph of the handwritten letter appears in the back of the volume. Wasserman's attack was provoked by false information. He mistakenly believed that Kook encouraged financial support ofthe Zionist Keren Hayesod. See E. Henkin, 'Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook's Relationship with the Keren Hayesod' (Heb.), 75-6.

23 See B. Z. Shapira (ed.), Igerot lare'iyah, nos. 143, 192, 358. See also ibid., no. 142, for a letter 10 Kook from R. Pinhas Epstein (1889-1969). Epstein later became rash beit din ofthe Edah Haredit. Both Epstein and Bengis address Kook as av beit din ofJerusalem.

24

A. I. Kook, Eder hayekar.

25 Rabinowitz-Teomim, Over oral;. Speaking of Rabinowit7.-Tl'omim. in 1<)114 his autohin~. raphy, Seder eliyahu, was published. In 2010 il was rl'printt·d. hut this tillll' it was hl'avily (('nsorrd to remove all sorts of commt'nts abollt his f;lmily and asprrls of Ihr rahhinic' world. St·(· Dun Rabinowitz's Seforim IIlo~ post, 27 May 2010.

M,

Rahinowit:r..Tromim, 1.lill/uhri hllgll()n ku'/IIJrrrl. Thr Ponnvr1.h yrNhlvii hild l11i1ny lIIill1ll' snipts wrillrn hy l~ilhill()wiI1 '1(",,"illI, yrl tllry IIrvrl' I'lIhllNhrd Ihrl11. 'I'IIIN l11i1y lIi1vr hrrll dllr 10

approach ofnot mentioning Kook by name, and only referring to his books, is also followed in various haredi halakhic works.27

The same 'problem' mentioned with regard to Rabinowitz-Teomim also occurs with R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who became an enormously influ­ential figure in the haredi world. Yet both he and his father, R. Hayim Yehudah Leib Auerbach (1886-1954), were great admirers of Kook, with the younger Auerbach referring to Kook in 1979 as 'our rabbi, may the memory of the righteous be a blessing' (""~T Ul,).28 Yet one will not find any mention of this in the haredi biographies of Auerbach, nor do they mention that Kook officiated at Auerbach's wedding in 1930.29

Kook's followers have not been silent in the face ofall the distortions ofthe historical record. One important thing they did was to publish the volume Igerot lare'iyah (,Letters to Rabbi A. I. Kook'), which contains over five hun­dred pages ofletters from leading rabbinic figures to Kook, showing how they related to him. Amihai Kinarti has also performed a valuable service in pub­lishing four booklets documenting the close and respectful relationships with Kook enjoyed by four outstanding sages ofnearly unimpeachable credentials in the haredi world: Rabbis Hayim Ozer Grodzinski, Isser Zalman Meltzer, Tsevi Pesah Frank, and Shlomo Zalman Auerbach.30

fear ofhow certain extremists would react in view of the close relationship between Rabinowitz­Teomim and Kook. See E. Melamed, Revivim: gedolei yisra'e/, 70.

27

For an example, see Kasirer, Shemitah kemitsvatah. When R. Yitshak Ratsaby has to refer to Kook, he writes p"N1n, standing for 'Rabbi Abraham Kook'. Many examples of this can be seen hy doing a search of his books on Otzar HaHochma. See also Ratsaby, Olat yitsl;ak, ii. 440. Most people would have no idea who this is, which is exactly the point. The anonymous Shemitah kemitsvatah (n.p., 2006), written against the heter mekhirah (the temporary sale of farmland to a non-Jew during the sabbatical year, thus allowing a Jew to work the land), refers numerous times 10 Kook's responsa volume, Mishpat kohen, but refuses to mention him by name. This refusal leads 10 the following bizarre wording: 'And so wrote the Mishpat kohen in his book Shabat ha'arets'

(p.        16; called to my attention by David Zilberberg). '" See his 1979 letter in Neriyah, Likutei hare'iyah, iii. IOI.

1'/

See Neriyah, Likutei hare'iyah, iii. 99-IOO; Kinarti, Or she/omoh, 18; Y. Eliyahu and R. Eliyahu, Ilutorah hamesamal;at, 41. Kook was the shadkhan (matchmaker) for Elyashiv's marriage, and IIfliciated at it as well. See Anon., Hashakdan, i. 47; Anon., Yisa shalom, 20. The latter source has a picture of Elyashiv's ketubah, the particulars of which were filled in by Kook himself. See also Melamed, Revivim: gedolei yisra'el, '3I. For another example of how Kook is ignored, see Rosen­blum, Reb Shraga Feivel, who neglects to mention that R. Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz (1886-1948) W;IS a great admirer of Kook and even taught a class on Kook's teachings. See Low, 'Answer III Criticism' (Ilt'h.). 4t). Ros('nhluTlI's i~noring of Kook is also mentioned by Mendlowitz's ~:ralldson, MI'nadH'TlI MI·ndlowitz. ill his I('<lun' 'Thl' Complexity ofGrt'atnt'ss: My Grandfather, Il;IV Shra~a I:('iVl'I M('ndlowit~.', availahll' al . http)Iwww.t()rahinrnolion.or~/storl'/produrts/ I<1111 plrxity·~n';llnrNs·rny·~r;lndlalhN·ruv·NII ru~u-frivl'l •.

" I~,'sprrtivrly lIurr'iyuh vr~ItI'lll;l'orr. A.p nltlhrm ylr'r/ h,,\hrm. Alrrrl Im'i. alld (lr _,kd()mtlh. Sr(' aiNU KillllplnNkl, IIfln .llIrnrl ktlkuHlltlllrtJtllhtl, whll II drulN with Ihl' Il'lUllulINhlp hrtwl'rll Kook ~lId It INfllrl Mrlr Ilukuhrll (thr 1IIIIrtN.llllyllll).

What about R. Jacob Moses Hadap? He was a saintly figure who was also Kook's leading disciple and, with the possible exception ofR. Tsevi Yehudah, there was no one who was more attached, both emotionally and intellectually, to Kook.31 From the moment that Hadap was introduced to Kook in 1904 while on a visit to Jaffa,32 his entire personality became subsumed into that of Kook. In fact, Hadap's entire approach to Judaism can be seen as a set offoot­notes to the teaching he received from his master, Kook. It was Harlap who came to Kook's defence when the controversy over Orot heated up, publishing his Tovim me'orot, which attempted to explain some of the controversial pas­sages. This latter publication led to him becoming an object of attack in Kot hashofar,l3 an anonymous and infamous pamphlet that blasted Kook. Hadap also sent two long letters in defence ofKook's ideas in Orot to R. Hanokh Tsevi Levin (1870-1935), with the intention ofinfluencing Levin's brother-in-law, R. Abraham Mordechai Alter, the Rebbe ofGur.34

Yet the popular haredi biographer Aharon Sorasky, in discussing Harlap, describes how he was an outstanding student (talmid muvhak) of R. Joshua Tsevi Michel Shapira (1840-1906), without even mentioning one word about Hadap's connection to Kook, whom he regarded as his primary teacher. Sorasky also neglects to record that Hadap succeeded Kook as rosh yeshivah of Merkaz Harav, Kook's yeshiva.35 The problem Sorasky had to confront is obvious: if Hadap was a great Torah leader (gadol) , how can it be that he revered Kook? This would, understandably, lead people to think that they too should share Harlap's reverence. Sorasky's solution was therefore simply to omit any mention of Harlap's connection to Kook. In this case the problem was made more difficult for Sorasky because his discussion ofHadap appears in his biography of R. Yisrael Alter (1895-1977), the Rebbe of Gur. Sorasky informs us that in the eady years of his 'reign', Alter would study kabbalah every Friday with Harlap. It would not help Alter's image in the haredi world if it were known that he was influenced by the outstanding disciple of Kook who, at the time the two studied together, was serving as rosh yeshivah of Merkaz Harav. Therefore, Sorasky is careful to inform the reader that Har­lap's kabbalistic knowledge came from Shapira, without any indication that Kook's influence, kabbalistic and otherwise, was the primary force in Harlap's life.

Another great follower of Kook was R. Yitshak Arieli (1896-1974), author ofthe talmudic work Einayim lamishpat. He was appointed by Kook to serve as 11 See e.g. H. Lifshitz, Shiv~ei hare'iyah, 2.77.

'Il

See T.~()rer. /.ije of Rav Kook (1It·h.), II'). It waN R. 'llirvi !'rNall Frank who m;ldl' thr intro·

ductioll.

II PP.7 'T. .. '111r IrtlN" 111'1' prlntrd hI Mr'!!I'"rl hl4ml~klllll, 1\ ("'001), fIC, 7J.,

" SCII'IiNky, l'r'rr yi.lr/I'rl, I, J,'/1l I, P·I. SrI' Mrl~lIIrll. H,.,II,I,": ",111,1" ylm~',I, n h, J, \c,.

mashgiah-ru/:r.ani (spiritual guide) ofMerkaz Harav. Yet in the 2006 reprint of one ofthe volumes of Einayim lamishpat, published by Arieli's grandchildren, a paragraph in his preface in which he speaks about Kook36 and Merkaz Harav has been omitted?' Furthermore, in the biographical introduction there is no mention ofArieli's connection to Kook or his yeshiva.38

Seeing what has been done with Kook's followers, Harlap and Arieli, one can only imagine the lengths that people go to blot out any connection between Kook and those rabbis who, while friendly with him, were not in Kook's 'camp'. One energetic soul, Moshe Maimon Alharar, has published a volume devoted to refuting the newspaper Yated ne'eman's slanderous distor­tion ofwhat Kook said at the dedication ofthe Hebrew University.39 The book also deals with Alharar's attempts to get the paper to issue a simple retraction. These attempts failed, even after those in charge ofthe paper were shown that what they had printed was false. As in so many other cases, the truth was not as important to this newspaper as making sure that Kook is seen as a figure who is outside the Torah world. If it is necessary to repeat falsehoods and destroy Kook's reputation in order to achieve that goal, then this is a price that Yated ne'eman is willing to pay, and which it believes is halakhically warranted.

The delegitimization of Kook can be found throughout the haredi world, in newspapers, works ofTorah scholarship, and children's books. Let me offer an illustrative example. Over the last generation a wonderful new edition of Maimonides' Mishneh torah has appeared, known as the Frankel edition. An enormous amount of work went into its production, as may be seen in the many commentators referred to in the index, as well as in the significant manuscript work undertaken to produce a high-quality text. Conspicuously a bsent from the commentators referred to in the index is Kook, who often dis­clIsses Maimonides in his many volumes ofresponsa. The editors even chose

U,

He refers to Kook as "~I P'P InJn pn~' omlN 'l' Nll" Nl,n 'V"PI"N"/)t I'N].

" Yitshak Avi Roness informs me that this volume (on Berakhot) was reprinted earlier by Arieli hi III self without any omissions. The matter is somewhat complicated by the fact that before "'printing the volume on Berakhot, Arieli also reprinted his Einayim lamishpat on Kidushin, and 111'1'(' he did remove a positive reference to Kook. Details on this will appear in a forthcoming article hy Roness.

'" See Melamed, Revivim: gedolei yisra'el, 87. Melamed notes that in 1998 another edition of hlluyim lamishput was also censored to remove mention of Kook. R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv I'xpn-sst'd his displeasure at the most recent censorship, leading the publisher to recall the books ,11111 !'Orr('rt lIIattl'rs hy r('illsl'rtill!( till' del('t('d mah-rial. Srr M('lamrd, Rr.vivim: gedolei yi.lra'el, 1\9, SI'I' also Anoll .. lIu.~/l(IktlIHl , ii. 10(,; Anllll.. Yi,WJ .I/wlom , IX '), Mrlaml'd also points out that a Irtf'lIt hio~raphy of R. !Hij.. h Romrn (IX72 ' 11)11); ROHrnt11Ol1. 'Tit'u/i,' rr'rm) ;Ivoid~ allY diNt"lI~Hi()n of IIIIIIIIII'H dOHI' rrlatloll"hip with Kook , Sl'r Ml'lulIIl'll. HrvjJljm: MrJllllrl yj.~ru"',lh·· I. For r(,IlNorNhlp "I !! , Aryrh I.rvln'" (I XK~ , II)CIl») 1'111"1' mnnrl'tlfltl to KIKlk, .1'1' Ihld , f)f) · 101.

.0 Alh~rwr, 1,lklwmluk.krl '(lmh,

to ignore Kook's book, Shabat ha'arets, which is a commentary on Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot shevi'it' (,Laws ofthe Sabbatical Year').40

Other efforts at delegitimization are more pernicious, and here I refer to the issue ofKook's haskamot (approbations), referred to earlier in this chapter. For hundreds of years it has been the practice for traditional authors to request great rabbinic figures to write a haskamah for their book, asserting, in essence, that it is a valuable work and that scholars would benefit from study­ing it. While most ofthe earliest haskamot were designed to protect the finan­cial interest of the publisher, by forbidding anyone to reprint the book, the genre was later transformed so that haskamot became almost exclusively testi­monies to the religious acceptability ofthe author and his book.

Understandably, many rabbis wished to adorn their books with haskamot from Kook. He is known to have written some 283 of them during his life­time, which I believe makes him the most prolific writer ofapprobations until the late twentieth-century explosion of printing allowed other figures to pass this mark with ease.41 The problem for opponents of Kook is that these haskamot show him as a great sage respected by the Torah community at large. The way to counter this is by removing his haskamot, thus rewriting his­tory in the process. Although it is probably the case that some printers who remove the approbations are not motivated by anti-Kook extremism, but by business considerations-the reprint will not sell in certain places if it con­tains Kook's haskamah42-the damage to Kook's legacy is the same. If the

.. R. David Tsevi Hillman, who was very involved with the Frankel edition, justified the omission of Kook by noting that the Hazon Ish and R. Hayim Kanievsky also do not refer to him. See his letter, which I published in the Seforim Blog, II Jan. 2008. In response to the Frankel edition, the followers of Kook issued their own, much larger, index: see Kahana, Ra'anan, and Blum (eds.), Index oJthe Commentaries (Heb.), and R. Aryeh Stem's preface to vol. i. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach criticized an author who wrote about the laws ofshemitah and did not refer to Kook. See Neriyah, Likutei hare'iyah, iii. 98.

41 See the list ofhis approbations in Kook, Haskamot hare'iyah, 129-39.

42 Business considerations of this sort are nothing new. For example, in the 19th cent. the comments of the maskil Hayim Zelig Slonimsky were removed from an edition of the Mishneh torah, but only for those volumes that were to be sent to Poland. See Dienstag, 'Maimonides' Mishneh torah' (Heb.), 53. The publisher of the 19th·cent. Vilna edition of the Talmud refused to include at least one of R. Jacob Emden's negative comments against hasidim. This was presum· ably done so as not to hurt sales. See Yeshayah Asher Zelig Miller's letter in Or yisra'd, 42 (Tevet 5766),249, (See also M. M. S. Goldstein, 'Studies' (Heb.), 205, who claims that the passage waN omitted because Emden's comment against the hasidim was not harsh t'llough!) A responslltII critical of Agudat Yisra'el was removed from mallY ropil's of H. Judah GrtU'lIwald's Zikhrcm yehudah, i, no. 200. This was done so that the VOIIlIllI' (olIld hr Hold ilt thr 11).1] Agudilh 1OIIvrntioll in Vit'IHlii. Se'I' Schischil, 'He'SpOnNi/' (IIrb.), ,.H--I). III .I00~ Mukholl 1I1uilv MutHliah in Brllel Brrilk pllhliNhrd Nrparlltr rditlollN of H. Hlllllh l.e'vltll'. Ilull.•hhi. Ollr of the' rdlliUlIN ollliltrd th" lIotrN of' It SolOilloll'lkrvl SrllIII k, who IN lIot III (,e'ptllhlr IIIIIIO.t IhllIMIII'11I1I Orthodox I IrdrN.

book in question is newly typeset then it is quite easy to omit the haskamah, and no one will be the wiser. One example of this is seen in R. Joseph Patsanovsky's classic Pardes yosef This work, the first volume of which appeared in Piotrk6w in 1930, contains a haskamah from Kook.43 In various subsequent editions, including one titled Pardes yosef hashalem ('The Com­plete Pardes yosef'!) ,44 the haskamah has been removed. This latter book, since it is reset as opposed to being photo-offset, has no difficulty in creating the illusion that nothing is missing.45

I mentioned earlier how a reprinted book had a blank space where Kook's haskamah appeared in the original edition. This is a problem that arises with cheap photo-offset printing. Here, the only way that the haskamah can be removed without affecting the rest ofthe work, and without calling attention to the omission, is ifit occupies an entire page all by itself A good example of this is seen in R. Reuven Margaliyot's (1889-1970) Nefosh IJ,ayah, a commen­tary on the ShullJan arukh.46 He sent the book to Kook for a haskamah, and Kook replied not only with an approbation, but appended a series oflearned notes. His letter was given its own page, and his name was adorned with abundant rabbinic praise.47 Yet when this valuable book was reprinted in approximately 1980 (no place or date is given), Kook's haskamah was re­moved, leaving the haskamot of R. Meir Arik (1856-1926) and R. Moses Babad undisturbed, as they appear on another page. The reader has no way ofknowing that anything has been removed, which is exactly what the censor hopes for.48

However, what can be done when Kook's haskamah does not occupy its own page but appears together with haskamot by other rabbis? When R. David Tsevi Kamin's Beit david49 was reproduced by photo-offset in the late 1960s,

., Patsanovsky, Pardes yoseJ, i. 333-4.

44

Professor Shnayer Z. Leiman has quipped that it should rather be called Parcks yoseJhelJaser (shalem means 'complete', while lJasermeans 'deficient'). ., Another newly typeset edition of the work, Pardes yosefhashalem vehameJo'ar, does include Kook's approbation. See Dan Rabinowitz's Seforim Blogpost, 23 Nov. 2011.

<t, Margaliyot, a legendary scholar and bibliographer, was fortunate to meet Kook shortly before Ihe latter died. It was then that Kook encouraged him to publish his edition of the Zohar, which soon became the standard edition. See his introduction to this work.

" "H'1II'1 H))'H' H'D '"'n lnJn pml' Dn1lH I'D 'l'D'n "D)) ,1II"P' 7H'1II' I'Hl ""m 1)'l'. '" These are some other books from which Kook's haskamah was removed: Shochet, Beit ynJiuyuh, in the Brooklyn, 1<)<)2 reprint; Amram Gaon, Seder ruv amram hashalem, in the Jeru·

sall,tn, I<)<)~ r('prillt; M. Goldstc'in. Yahiu omrr, in an undated reprint (no place of publication listc'd); W:llk, Ilin eli'au, ill tht'Brooklyn, 1990 n'prillt; WilMtrill, l,Iayei hamishnah, in the undat('d Il'rusilll,lt\ rrprillt (H.laroh MONrN Ilarlap'N hu.~kumuh WIiN IIINO !'rillovrd); Ye'loz, Yrsh me'uyin, il, in thr BrooklYII, ;100;1. rrrrlnt; Rlppm"lI, Ktltr krk.IN.lh, III thl' Je'rlINlIlrlll, Il)H!) rl'prilit.

.. Thr dutr oil thr title' PIlKI' 1.11)11), hilt Ihr h.ukU»Io/IIl'r dlltrd II I ollJllr 01 yrllr.llltrr.

the simplest approach was taken, namely, leaving out the entire first page of haskamot. While this meant also omitting the other rabbis' approbations­including those of R. Joseph Hayim Sonnenfeld (1848-1932) and R. Isaac Yeruham Diskin (1839-1925)-it was obviously thought that this was the price that had to be paid to keep Kook out. In the original edition ofthis book there was a second page of haskamot, but presumably since it would be regarded as disrespectful to include these haskamot while omitting those by Sonnenfeld and Diskin, all the approbations were removed. 50

The same thing happened with one ofR. Aaron Kagan's books. Kagan was the son-in-law of R. Israel Meir Hakohen, the Hafets Hayim, and a great admirer of Kook, whom he refers to as maran ('our master'). In 1928 he pub­lished an open letter in opposition to those heaping abuse on Kook. He begins by noting that until then he had never protested against the attacks because his father-in-law, who also thought highly ofKook,51 believed it was best not to give the extremists any publicity. Kagan further reports that since the Hafets Hayim's feelings for Kook were well known, the opponents ofKook would not dare to say anything against him in the Hafets Hayim's presence. 52 Yet the dis­respect for Kook had become so bad that Kagan now felt that he was required to speak out. He also noted, with regard to those defaming Kook, that one who insults a Torah scholar has no share in the world to come, and must be placed under a ban. 53

In 1923 Kagan published the second volume ofhis Avodat hakorbanot, and it was reprinted in Tel Aviv in 1928. This work is devoted to the sacrificial laws, a subject near to the Hafets Hayim's heart,54 since as a kohen (priest) he hoped to be personally involved with it in the imminent messianic era.55 In both the 1923 and 1928 editions Kook's haskamah appears on one page together with the approbations ofR. Raphael Shapiro (1837-1921), the head of the Volozhin yeshiva, and R. Hayim Ozer Grodzinski. The approbations also

50 The book was reset and republished in Jerusalem in 1997 and 2001. The publisher took advantage ofthis and put all ofthe haskamot back in, with the exception of Kook's. This book and the omission ofthe haskamot are discussed by Rafter, Netivei me'ir, 435-6.

51 According to R. Tsevi Yehudah, the lengthy approbation of Kook's father-in-law, R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim, for the Hafets Hayim's Likutei halakhot was actually written by Kook. See Linetivot yisra'el, ii. 17; Neriyah, Sil)ot hare'iyah, 123-4. This information would appear to bl' contradicted by Rabinowitz-Teomim, Seder eliyahu, 100.

., See also Neriyah, Si/:Iot hare'iyah, 126-7, for two stories regarding how tht' Haft'ts Hayim

reacted when meeting those who attacked Kook.

" See Kagan's letter in B. Z. Shapira (ed.), Igerot '"re'iyah, 565-6.

... Set' hiR introduction to Kagan. Avc>d"t h"korb"not.

" SI't' whl/llhl' IlafrtN Itaylm told R. OAvid Cohrn (thr NA:r.lr: IKK'/ '11)7;,&), rrmrtlrd In Cohrn,

Mi.lhnul hanu:ir, Inlrod., 10,-11.

appear in the 1979 and 1984 photo-offset reprints. Yet in both the undated and the 2001 reprints of Kagan's book, Kook's haskamah was removed. In fact, the entire page of approbations was removed, since the publishers did not want to delete Kook's haskamah (i.e. white it out) and leave the others in. By cutting out the entire page the other haskamot have been lost. But as already mentioned, by adopting this approach people will not suspect what has been done to the book, which is obviously not the case when everyone can see a blank space on the page. The only haskamah that remains in these cen­sored editions is that ofthe Hafets Hayim.

Kagan's book was reprinted in Jerusalem in 2002 with beautiful new type, and this will become the standard edition. Here too the haskamot by Kook, Shapiro, and Grodzinski are missing. With this new edition, one would have expected a publisher who chose to omit Kook's haskamah to include the approbations of Grodzinski and Shapiro. Undoubtedly, the publisher used one ofthe censored editions for his new edition, and assumed that other than the Hafets Hayim's letter no other haskamot had been received. Such is the effect ofcensorship that even the 'innocent bystanders', in this case Shapiro and Grodzinski, are condemned to have their haskamot lost to posterity along with that ofKook.

Other printers were not prepared to pay the price described above, namely, cutting out the 'acceptable' haskamot in order that Kook's should not also appear. I have already mentioned the cruder tactic in which the haskamah is taken out, leaving a blank space in its place.56 An example ofthis may be seen in the Brooklyn, 1992 reprint of R. Abraham Samuel Tsevi Zilberstein's Korban shemuel (see Fig. 5-1).57 Further examples of this way of removing Kook's haskamot appear in a number ofother books, ofwhich I will mention a few.

In the second volume ofR. Elhanan Jakobovitz's Even shimon, a letter from Kook is included at the beginning of the work. The author refers to Kook with elaborate titles of respect_58 Yet anyone who examines the Brooklyn,

", Yonatan Meir called my attention to the following interesting point: the writings ofR. Joseph Isaar Schneersohn contain a number ofletters to Kook, complete with the ftowery titles one would ,·xp,'rt. For one ofthe letters, however, someone had access to the computer file and removed all of iiII' lilies, so that now the letter is addressed to P'P, no more and no less. I have no doubt that this W;IS 1101 donI' hy the ('ditors responsible fiJr publi[ation, but by a troublemaker. See Schneersohn, 'Wro/ kodr.~h, vol. xiii . 1.17 (110 . 471~).

'" TIlt' huskumo/lhal :t.iIlJt'r~tt'ill prillit'll illlhiN VUhllllt' weT!' ~rllI..lly Kiv\'n fiJr his ('arlit'r work, ~flnll)/ humj:lbr'u~. Till' Mlnry I It'll ilhuvl', PII, 14~ (', I'I'ICilfl1i1l1C Ihl' rt'lllnvl/1 of Kouk'M hU.lk"mah Il'vulvrd ilTOllnd ZlIhrr"lrln'" Ktlrban ,.htmurl.

\II '''Pnll '"'11' '11 ,""D, "1'1' 'Ikuhuvltl, Ilvm _/tlmrm, ;& .

,,,,, OD'''OO '~b !jlO»'jl31 q"" ~'7l" ,,/ll:> "M il"73/l "'"c K".fD"\~~ .:>''In i)'~' ~'/1 ~'ll 1":)" ~"":) "., ,'n", :)'P"\l!l'.

."M!).., ,,... "'"::0"""11'

.1',/>,)', jl"~ '"."In.iI1>l .P"tll "', ,/>, o"nl '1'31 q',,,,, 11bl" J,,, 7"'~ .U"'t C.'''\:)M ""I" nOt' POt, 0"'" '»Ii" ">1 O'tl1j'11'

il""b D"'~Jl />"\l'~t l''I:lIV'lV:)''l ';)1 ~=fD " 1W:>l l')'"I"l:lIV'" jloU/ll ,)'fDl!)V'''':; .1ITO»''"lI\l!l:)

'J7m)~ lD'1"')li" ,., 'i'tt'l ')3 ~ "..,\' \VII' \"5

'nl> ~»t>"\l3.. m)))", l.,,,/l '/I'MI n:)ltYI nu"l' O"lp,l ~"~"" lII>OP\ .llnt' pmOl /ll/!'i'Jl 11"'11> • MIll '')'''t 1m U)"Il'l ~lI'l 'l!l ~l> "" " o""i;r; ' IlSo .. 1"'7 Il't/l, 'lI'h lD11.»1p)>> 1!l'»'~31 "'~lII 'It'lm ,"f'NCM ',N 11"11:3 11m '1l1,'I>:>, COt ", 0'" "I~ N.) 1)/,.., '""11' Ill> ClZII"I "" "1''' 'h)l1" O!If'r,

.1l0

tll n"7' 1;)"1)1 "'''11'','' tl'!1~

N"f'te' "f'NC 'Pit

(l';l\'1:.:r<rnu) )'fJ.,.,t. ,If~

~l) 0')'" '')'J) 001"),)~ qt"m~ p\'J)\"\'J l,tJJ~ ,'cm l"1t~C'''lHl'I ' 1'"7JfI "',,r; D'ilDllO.'" O"tl:> 'jf',fj ,'l!)Vl'CY'C 1'"'To> Ill>" .~I:) "V'Dl'''111O;)1n',»t .hot») ,J°:>f>3 C'l;)"" n'TI1K' '''\'1 ,J-,,/l3 'M"l!Z1'

"'Dl"1llC l-Il"ln 1l3U t71l~ ., 01' 1>"'C..11T.I .i''''~ ·tm) \'In' u.. .0I:»tC

p70 O' tl11' )C 1)3 pl>l>' "" '7'7' 7\)) ~Il fD"f'n ':!'ll C1't"\;)M "",,, lI"t' "1 ~" )')1!lm .01)1:1 ,,:m ./lou'~t l"lOW"l)l!1"1

:U"tml>

'»0 .omv 'n',,) ..Olif'JJi ' 0'))' ,'tn'3) 'n\l~, ' ''} qm O'01UlIJ'l" .m n~I)"\I)VI1,,'mllfj· '"» ,\17\311) n11i'.:1 '1111'1>1 .'/l)"»~ oel \l111 .'m"lC>/>"» 7» J'" '11n/!. '/1'/11 oel ""b't1j1.~ om '1Ij1'1 .'11'1.:111) .... WI.. l.. "'0>1 .1>"",,1>1 '~"~" O'J»)!)ll -"m .0"7'" IlJUJ Iv ",)v;"!1 '1ht>l .tul>,,1 Illltn;"!

I)'r>~ll' 0";-11 'O""t~ '1. t' 'I'f>l" ' 1'lImo' ~1Il.

'1'01' .1>"711 1>/l"11f>1 1)'11 P ~l> ,ml>, .7ll> O'P'l : \lIp 3\U~" "'l'''~' " mill) J'l01l> """~

,;"!"llI!" 71l,1 omlll 3P1'" \7'1'

."\!1''1 )'ll 1m' om ~ J."('!,,,, "1IV"N

/» 1')1>3 11m 1i" ",1>" ~" OO i'''llIl''ll/>J\I '" ~" 0"1)1 .M;)IIb., n1J"ip!1 P",.In",·f>/l" ",m 3'~") "ml ')31 ?II> 1ll'~ll)O'JP?/l" "~P3 'Illll'

L-___ _ ___ ____.._ _ . ____._.__.

tllllJ"q'"lP 0')11>.1\1 ll/>J lill !>rolOO ]lI>.h'lYI\I) ""11 II'~' O't>'ll" I"'P "ltVJ »Il C'»DP"~' mullS )"" 3' So" V",,'V"\'I' TVIlt QM"\:)K 0'1>")1 D')m o"'c ""It» ,,"nOli) 1'"l."I'l)!1 Ill)l')'l\l 'l:>l .:1101 VTl ""Ol ..:1M n'.:1Il"lt ''ltD

llt>J "",, ,/lell») 01l,1P' ll')l>7~7' 113, .ll"'{\III) o'l'S r>'lllm 1!i~I~nl 7.""" . q',11 ",,.. JJt)I"~l>. /l1l'731)'''' ""1" .tnll. • emIID':)! 1ll":>3 .0'1>"9' " "'\1 .l>1I''lJ<b"M'v) I>S'I>~ .1'1'''111>1 '1l1;;l>t;J ~)It"'IMl!)!1 . " l" ut'V)~'1 '.:1:t 'l(';t)fD CI'l"'!1M

lV .• """ Ul7 .») 0'''1>'' I,SI U 0' \1' .)1"')/"

.D~I)

n!1I1:l"l'lUi" l'lOtm 0"'" .'·"I>tl u"tn'" S7U 'p'f>, ,0.."" 't>'j'lJ ') \I'" .l)lVl Il") ", ,')II'JII

< 

I" D'jl'roP\ ,D''')t 1'l'l'lJD ,IIlI"'" Tmill 11'1"'" ' »)7) tj'l' 1ch, ,\)'1) hr:.' 7·nf~" ,~ '·'u::." ,0')'''' Ml'!1' M)'0'\1" .'IlUll ,/> tn.,... I"C )l> MI:l:lCIM ,,)~n ':,,1> ,,"~I \Ill W 1'1' /lll )"t' "11 '1""1!1' Int> rlJ)I:) .!) ,,/l'!' 1')'11' ...,m .,,, r!1' ,eI> t'/>'" ))'m ,I:>',"UI "'i" '/>"01 \lP,,,, mllC "UIIl U" "1" '''1~ ~lM ..,!) nD!1' ,'",t), '7"~ ,',j /l'llt 'lltll /1\0' "''''1 .nt!) .:1.,' n'!)!" Mtl2N"I'I 3,,\1> T,m IS,,,, ,,',Il 7l1l)'1 .1>", /1),,/1 \I't" P"., .Ult '33l"~ "I '1l")1 ,,',11 'J"",~ I"'"

,.""V'" 1"1'1" lYNN 'Pri DIIlI

• ", :III "'3 "",. 1"'.." ''''I' "."" ,.~,~,.,. J'

(1'0"" "",~ ..,.. m,,\ "",* '"1''' IH,) ~

Figure ) .1 R. Abraham Sallllwi TNI'vi l'.illll'rNh'ill, Kurhu" .~hrmur.l (IIrookIYII: Cupy CUrllC'r, I()!)),) , wilh Kuuk'" hlukumuh whllrJ oul

I993 reprint of this volume will have no way of knowing to whom these words ofreverence refer, since although Kook's letter is included, his name at the beginning (in the letterhead) and at the end (the signature) has been removed, leaving two blank spaces.

The publisher who reprinted R. Eliezer Tsevi Zigelman's NalJalei emunah in Brooklyn in I98359 also wished to avoid cutting out an entire page ofappro­bations, of which Kook's was the very first. Fortunately for him, he did not have to leave a blank space, since he was able to lift the approbation from

R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron (I835-I9II), which appeared at the end of the volume and took up roughly the same amount of space,60 and substitute this for Kook's haskamah. By means ofphotographic alteration, the publisher also ensured that there is no evidence ofany missing lines in the place where Schwadron's haskamah originally appeared.

The same method was used in the London, I967 reprint of the commen­tary by R. Yehudah Ashlag (I885-1954) on R. Hayim Vital, Ets halJayim, vol. 2. In the original Jerusalem, 1930 edition, Kook's haskamah appears on the first page, with R. Joseph Hayim Sonnenfeld's haskamah on the second page. In the 1967 reprint, Kook's haskamah is nowhere to be found, and that of Sonnenfeld takes its place.6 1 In R. Isaiah Joseph Margolin's Hama'aseh vehamidrash, Kook's haskamah is the very first, and under it come those of Sonnenfeld and R. Elijah Klatzkin (1852-1932; Fig. 5.2(a)). However, in the Brooklyn, 1992 reprint, Kook's haskamah is missing and Sonnenfeld's is at the top (Fig. 5.2(b)). In reprinting the volume, all the publisher had to do when he removed Kook's haskamah was move Sonnenfeld's up, and the empty space at the bottom is filled by a haskamah from R. Moses Mordechai Epstein which originally appeared on the following page. In other words, with Kook's haskamah gone, everyone 'moves up' and no one is the wiser, since the haskamot on the following page end in the middle, leaving the remainder of the page blank.

These examples are obviously of a different sort from those in which the author himself removes Kook's haskamah. A famous instance ofthis is found with R. Isaac Hutner (I906-80). After studying in the Slobodka yeshiva in

,., The book originally appeared in Lublin, 1935 , and was reprinted without any censorship in "'rllsalf'm, 1968 .

,,, I say 'rollghly' silln' tl1l' pllhlisl1l'r also had to ins('rt fairly large gaps between the paragraphs III or"..r to ('lIahl(' th .. approhatioll to lillilp tIll' span'. 111 additioll. th .. pag(, ofhaskumot that lIsrd to .IPlwar lirst Iws ''''('11 IIIOV(·J. alld tIll' lirst 11IIs/wm(l' a .... 1I0W thos!' Kiv!'11 hy hasidi.. ligur('s.

hi

III tIll' 1.01111011 , 11)(17 rrprlll' ufvul . 1 of AMhl:'I!''' l"Clllllllrlltary un Vital's I:'ts hu~uyjm, Kook's "/Uk,mlllh W~H IIIMO rrlllovrd. III'rrrNlIIIMly, Ihrrr IN ~t II'MNt ollr rlllllll)1lr whrrr Sonnrnli-ld'N '1Il .~kcmlllll WUN tukrll IIIIt. SrI' A. 1%11"''', 'Allrr~tlllllN' (1Irh.). r/.

, .'n F" • .n.ac ' .l ,···ac ~ ", ~:.>an

..... .Mft·...., ~1m .In

..,.. :r\ .,.,., .......... "'...,. 'II» .., am •." .... _ ....., "'" filii

.......... ~IrW ...... '= ............ ..,.,............. .....,.,. ""'"

......... ..." .... '"' .. ..,........," ...... .rNID nu ft'tI_'" ... .....__ P'ftII --,.. 1#f ..... ""'" .,-...,., ".".., ....1ItNI ......... ..,.,""" ..... .....". ... "..,...,....",.. 'WID ~.~

"" " ..>.......... .., toll ,.... ."........". np '=1ft) ~

......,,.l'0III

" i""" .,.""......'\lIIaI ...... "" """.

....'

'''''IIQ ..,.PIn!. "rtIpt.. ,...,..,.

..... ....., .........,. ..,.,.. '"".... ...,.." "'" ........ ~. .... ,..,.,..,." II"M ."""" .II'UID .... _ ...... IRtJIr ", ....."... '" ..... 1I:t'fn:a w... ....,...,............., .....,.",...,. "'" "'lID

rt,.pen.pnI' .aJn* '.''P/''I

(....., .........,

n."'" ,.... ...", ,. ",....." "1m ....,i..

!

...... :r'IIJ...., ..,... fto Ir.l ......... .,...JUI .......... ",,"In ... _". __ ....·WI ... '=""11""'-1""'''' IIDI...."...,"" .... ' ...". ... ....... nil m:IIt IDI' ..,,"PIa.., ..... ,. "'WI ,...,.,,~ ..., "',. ...,....., .,., .... 'b IJDIIft'Il~ • .n'\ ... ".., NCi ........

.......... ",.., ,.".....,..at .ne··

·

...

"'". ....,.....~

-n,.,.mt 1"" """

(1"It ............... ~,...~

.:l"n\ ,. ""...." ., ,.., .........In

nit. ,...,...".,...,. ......... D'Dt................. ...., .. ....

..... I"Pn:D ,..,,, ••"' .r:-w .... ..,... ............. JUI

... "."' ........ aw::n ~"'" .,. ........ .., !Nt ..... ".. ri... ;.....I'" JD -..,..,. ,..." ,..,..

.-t» IIInIII """TWi""'""" '"'" """" "'" ~ .

..• 1',..-" ...

".,.,.•..•...••...•.••........•.•..... ·.i.'

fi'!a .........................1JIDiI)

(a)

Figure 5.2 R. Isaiah Joseph Maq~()lin, 1lama'aseh vehamidrash: (a) /l'rllsall'III, I<H7 l'dition with Kook'" origin..1haskamuh; (h) Il)l);l vrrllioll (BrookIYII: COllY COrllrr), with IIII' hu.~kamuh rrlllovrd

,.,. a""'" p-IIp. -.,,, NW '''" 1M"' If en' .n":I 11"10')111" .... ="",·· -=Dnl """CI'ti).~::I cmll"'1pi::lIlOllJ1lUn .... CI'D'IIU1P'1 ."..., 11·:1 pun'. ':!Ir .' ~.. ' ":1,":1 ...• II"",•. ,IIM''*'<'::I:n .':rIP .·10·"" 'Jlll "'""XI lID' Dn"" '"2 JO't '1D'I! ,""",'l1li NClI!:I ....:. CI':MI1n1:1" '1\:m r:IP"p 11:1 rp l/ICI'WCI ,.."• .•~1'",'" ,:J/ICI/I 0'0",,,, ,,,, g'P"ClOlll 12"11 CI'I~Ii')"'CIfVI'1 :111:1'\ UCICI 0':1'\ ,~, .".., 1'IID /lllS1n: '"N

..,.., ",,", n~., 1I"II1!IC .. I\lIfhD"p1IICIl CI':ne

J'I:lnp •nJllR' n:lftQ/l .~ ~ 1I1'J!D:I

'~'DlIl»tt tI''m '10,'

(,.1'1 Q1""p'~ lI'Ie••. m'mpIP ,",., 2'>

~NI!"''70' IMn, ',,..,,., en• .n~:I

:nnCll·lIp~n.,· dmI" CII'WI""''''' Cli:>' iP'll"IID>O~:Ip .'n'I! ..,. "'" Nn ,..p,,~" r~:I":lltl:t1~"'" ..r""~1CI1)CI" .,,,,,,""'CI CIO'nICIIIJ1IUft l1li "'IID1 ~O',,....,.., '2'''':1'\ "1::1'1:11 """ •~&:I",.,.. DIiI' ",....n ":IW:I,:tIn )l1:l:I1 ~~nu;po I••' rI 10''=n' /I"It:IP"1l1,,",' n~ .:I1D':I)m)'!:IIIJtIM:I

Ti:III'1 m..."" ""n """"""",.' ~)prnn .ew..'DIm nnon wm """,,:I

rpll~' 'i'1'~lt

';<, , ( (,,"~,. , '1I"n /!t) ' t'm'1!t "':IlL,)

..p-I'J •• 1I"lIMII .fII'ICIII"'l ·I""•. WJ.. ""'.••'P';.wrn•• CIl.~i ~

1jQ1'''''''"''' ,&:I~~ CIf111C111f1"'" .:tIn ·"'""CI. ;~""Q') ":IIIIID O'enlmp .""'.., ...~•••••"\:11101\ ••••~••••~. "'~i .~:1011.•. CI1:1 .II1/I·:I·~~~'I1>.r1p!'l:l:l ''':11!1 :I'I~' .I"'~ ;'lI:ll J'I:» ~~~" ~'1:I1CI D',')II n'PC,,,,pCl1J',:I'II1~' . "'al,O'''''''''' &:I'l1"'" '1"1:1'1 • .1m:Ip" .,1'1""" n1:l~ "" '''PD ...,,,.

,It,.., .'1:I':ll,n~", IMJlCln'.,•

~.•mt'I"',,:IIIa ;

IICI') ",:xl CI,"~," CI'O:Ift ,,'D'M • .,..., .1"""'" lZ1r I'" JD ~ ~'•. CI'I'IJ" "'II'UIC M:tI'I

.11"""'n"""·"~ ":If"' ,I'ICIl:I 1I':I'J.l""':If~ n':I'J JIP1I11 rrMII 1JICI' VlQrI .~

T"".,D' ""7:) Mft

.~....11-112''' .·on ,·1IIIl

I,'" r'nn" ,-,rn II"

.._.__......__.__._-------------'

(h)

Lithuania, Hutner went to Palestine to study at the yeshiva's Hebron branch. While there he came under the influence of Kook. Yet after coming to the United States in 1934 and later becoming head ofthe Chaim Berlin yeshiva, he moved in a different ideological direction. He even stopped hanging a picture ofKook on the wall ofhis sukkah.62

In 1932 Hutner published his Torat hanazir, which carried a haskamah from Kook together with approbations from R. Hayim Ozer Grodzinski and

R. Abraham Dovber Kahana Shapiro (1870-1943), the chief rabbi of Kovno. When he reprinted the book in 1965 Hutner removed all the approbations. It is obvious that the issue was Kook's haskamah, but so as not to be seen as insulting his memory, he removed the others as well. Torat hanazir was reprinted by photo-offset in 1980, supposedly without Hutner's permission.63 This time Grodzinski's haskamah was put back in, occupying a complete page. It appears underneath the original heading that reads 'Letters of the Ge'onim', even though now only one letter appears. The haskamot of Shapiro and Kook shared a page in the original edition, so short ofwhiting out Kook's haskamah, it was easiest to omit this page in its entirety. This same procedure was followed in the 2003 reprint that appeared in Israel.

The 1965 printing ofHutner's book is not the sort ofcensorship I am con­cerned with, as Hutner, whose views continued to develop, certainly had the right to remove Kook's haskamah from his own book. Yet despite Hutner's removal ofthe haskamah, I would be remiss not to note that he still retained his great love for Kook and remained under his influence. This can be seen from his 1962 letter to R. Tsevi Yehudah, where he writes that he regards himself as a student of Kook and that his appreciation of him only grows with age.64 As far as I am aware, however, despite what he wrote to R. Tsevi Yehudah, Hutner does not mention Kook even once in his writings.

As already mentioned, the controversy over Kook originated not merely in his actions, namely his support ofthe Zionist movement, but also in what he wrote. It is important to note that the conflict would have been even more bitter had Kook been entirely open about his ideas, ideas that would have led to more loss of rabbinic support. Kook was aware of this and was frank in acknowledging that while on the one hand he felt the need to speak his mind, that is, to proclaim the truth, at the same time he was hesitant to do so.

See Hillel Goldberg, Between Berlin and Slobodka. 76.

" Another version claims that Hulner sold the rights to n'print the hook.

M

Neriyah, Bisedeh hare'iyah, 437 (pp. 419-3R an' devolt'd 10 1IIIIIIdN wl ..liollNhip wilh Kook);

B. Z. Shapira (<,d.), Igerot lare'iyah, SRS. Hlilner CIIlfr viHiled YrHhivat Ilakolri ill jrruHalrlll. Whilr Ihrrr he lold R. YrHhayahlllladarllhal if nllr wrrr 10 rrmnvr Kook'" influrlll'r UpOIl him, hr wOlild IOHr halfnfwhal hr waH (hrard frolll Iladad).

Whether this was because he did not want to create controversy, or because he was concerned with the negative effect some of his ideas might have on the masses-throughout his career both considerations are present-it is clear that he was conscious of his self-censorship. In fact, after meeting with R. Abraham Mordechai Alter, the Rebbe of Gur, he agreed to put into words his regret that he had not adequately explained his more provocative formulations in Orot.65 This agreement shows that Kook recognized that some ofhis formulations were not suitable for the masses. Yet you can never please everyone, and R. Hayim Hirschensohn was among those who were disappointed by what they regarded as Kook's caving in to Alter's pressure. Kook, for his part, attempted to reassure Hirschensohn that although he had perhaps compromised too much in order to create peace, nothing was lost in terms ofthe substance ofhis ideas.66

This recognition that even Kook engaged in self-censorship is important to the story ofwhat became ofhis writings after his death. It is only in recent years that a number of groundbreaking articles have appeared that give us great insight into the process of editing Kook's writings, and the different forms ofcensorship that have been applied to them.67 Much ofwhat we know in this area is only due to the uncensored publication of Kook's Shemonah kevatsim. This work created great conflict among Kook's followers, with many opposing any release ofKook's writings that would show him differently from how he appears in the works edited by R. Tsevi Yehudah and R. David Cohen, the famed Nazir. Since many ofKook's published philosophical works origin­ate in Shemonah kevatsim, its appearance is an opportunity finally to see what Kook wrote without, as it were, going through his gatekeepers.

65

Kook's letter about this appears in Tsuriel (ed.), Otserat hare'iyah, i. 404-Alter actually misunderstood Kook's intention. He assumed that Kook was 'nullifYing' his problematic words, as Alter put it in his famous letter describing his meeting with Kook. See Alter, Osef mikhtavim, 70; Shabat hare'iyah, 92 (2009), 4, see <http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?id=I2264>· The suggested texts of how Kook's clarification should be worded, in both Alter's and Kook's handwriting, have survived and were recently offered at auction. See the Asufa Auction House catalogue (Torah works), Dec. 2009, no. 5IS.

66 See Hirschensohn, Malki bakodesh, iv. I3oa-b; A. I. Kook, Igerot hare'iyah, iv, no. rrS4. Hirschensohn defended Kook's equation ofphysical exercise carried out for the sake ofthe nation with the recitation ofpsalms. See Hirschensohn, I;lidushei harav /:Iayim hirshensan, iii. 33a.

• 7

See Rosenack, 'Who's Afraid ofRav Kook's Hidden Writings?' (Heb.); id., 'Hidden Diaries';

Y. Meir, 'Lights and Vessels' (Heb.); U. Abramowitz, 'The Mission, the Monopoly, and the Censorship' (Heb.); Silht'r, 'lla'araf<'1 hl'lahOirato'; Munitz, 'Editing' (Heb.). This latter article is derived from Munitz'H doctoral disHl'rtatioll, 'It Kook'H Circle and the Editing of His Works' (1Ieb.). An allalYHiH of thr ('rIlHOI'Hhip uf Kuok'H writiJlK" within thr lilrKrr mntrxt of 'fr('{'dnm of infilrlllation' alld thr 'puhlk'. rlIChl tu kllow' IIpprlHM III '1: Jlrirdman, 'DorM Ihr I'uhlk Hllvr w MIICht 10 Know?' (1Irh.).

The hesitation to publish Kook's writings in an 'unedited' fashion did not arise after his death. We know that even in Kook's lifetime R. Tsevi Yehudah preferred that certain material not appear in print.68 Udi Abramowitz has called attention to the fact that Kook published Rosh milin without tell­ing R. Tsevi Yehudah about it beforehand, wishing to present him with a fait accompli.69 The Nazir, who was appointed by Kook to edit Grot hakodesh, tells us that certain passages were kept out ofprint because R. Jacob Moses Harlap, Kook's senior disciple, was afraid ofthe criticism that would ensue were these provocative theological musings to be published.70

As can be seen from articles by Yonatan Meir and Udi Abramowitz, Kook clearly harboured great ambivalence about the activities of his 'censors'.

R. Tsevi Yehudah, in line with his fearful attitude, suggested to his father that the material in Grot, chapter 34, about the spiritual value ofexercise be omit­ted, obviously sensing its explosive character. However, Kook replied to him that his suggestion was 'not due to fear ofheaven, it is due to fear offlesh and blood'.71 When R. Yitshak Arieli also suggested that the passage be omitted, Kook was adamant in his refusal, regarding this suggestion as akin to a prophet suppressing his prophecy.72 In fact, ifchapter 34 was to be censored then chapter 33 would presumably have to be 'edited' as well, since in this chapter Kook also speaks ofthe significance ofa healthy body, going so far as to say:

We dealt so much in soulfulness, we forgot the holiness of the body. We neglected physical health and strength, we forgot that we have holy flesh, no less than holy spirit. . . . Our return will succeed only if it will be-with all its splendid spirituality-also a physical return, which produces healthy blood, healthy flesh, mighty, solid bodies, a fiery spirit radiating over powerful muscles. With the strength of holy flesh, the weakened soul will shine, reminiscent of the physical resurrection.73

The most R. Tsevi Yehudah could do to soften the impact ofchapter 34 was to declare that his father did not have yeshiva students in mind when speaking ofthe value ofstrengthening oneself physically. 74

.. See U. Abramowitz, 'The Mission, the Monopoly, and the Censorship' (Heb.), 137ff.

6. Ibid. 139. 7. David Cohen, Mishnat hanazir, 91.

71

T. Y. Kook, Si/:wt harav tsevi yehudah al sefer orot, 34. See also Agnon, Seftr, sofer vesipur, 352, citing R. Tsevi Yehudah; Hoch, 'The Politics ofRedemption' , lI8.

71 See Carmy, 'Dialectic, Doubters, and a Self· Erasing Letter', 227 n. 2.

7J Translation in A. I. Kook, Orot, trans. Naor, 189. Regarding Kook and tht' human booy, Het'

Shasha, B'A Burning Spirit"' (Heb.). / ,. Remer, Gadol shimushah, ~6. Theft' IUt' Iwo t'dltiu"N oftill. work. Tilt' 11)84 I'dltlull hll" a Hfelll dt':l1 of lIullNial from It 'Ikt'vi Yt'hutlllh Ihlll WIIN 1101 ludlldl'd III Ihl' 11)1)4 rdlllclJl. AllloIIM thr

Some years after the publication of Grot, Kook gave an interview to the newspaper Do'ar hayom.75 Here he states that his positive view ofexercise has not changed. He also speaks ofthe value ofsports, which he regards as a holy matter (davar shebikdushah), and in particular the Maccabi sports organiza­tion. 'We must return to our nation the strength of the warriors of Judah, which is vital for the building ofthe people and the land .... We say that "the King [i.e. God] desires life" ,76 therefore we must fight against the obstacles in our path, we must build up our strength, and channel it to building the nation.'"

Although, as mentioned, Kook was hesitant to censor his own writings, he was well aware ofwhy R. Tsevi Yehudah was uncomfortable with publishing his works 'unedited'. According to the Nazir, on occasion Kook himself would, in the same breath, state that it is impossible for him not to express his ideas, but then add that he did not want to create disputes.'s It is reported that on another occasion Kook was asked ifcertain texts should be excluded from Grot hakodesh. He replied that in his opinion everything should be printed, 'but you must ask my "censors'''.79 In at least one case, the censors' fear of

deleted passages is the following (p. 68): 'The Hazon Ish was not the gedol hador. The gedol hador and halakhic decisor par excellence was my father, of blessed memory. In Vilna there were other laymen who were ge'onim, R. Shalom David Rabinowitz, R. Yerucham Fishel Perla, R. Moses Kreines, and others.... Even ifhe [the Hazon Ish] was a gadol[!], he was not the halakhic decisor for this generation and generations to come: A source in the Merkaz Harav yeshiva informed me that

R. Avraham Shapira (1914-20°7) was responsible for this particular deletion. 75 30 Tishrei 5687 (no. 22). The interview is reprinted in B. Kluger, Min hamakor, 89 (unnumbered). As far as I can tell, none ofthe many discussions of Orot, ch. 34, have noted this interview. See ibid. II9 (unnumbered), for a placard signed by both Kook and Sonnenfeld in opposition to Saturday soccer matches. See also Kook's letter in Anon., Afikei torah, 285, where he

responds to a false rumour that he permitted such matches, and Wasserman and Henkin, Striking Root (Heb.), 98fT.

7<.

Melekh I;tafots baJ;ayim. The words come from an addition to the Amidah during the Ten Days of Penitence. In a recently published letter to H. Ansbacher ofGermany (see Naor's introduction to his translation of A. I. Kook, Orot, 41 ff.), Kook writes that his words about exercise were not directed to his own generation, but to a more spiritually refined future era. This strikes me as an .Ipologetic answer that does not reflect Kook's real sentiments and goes against the plain sense of IIII' text of Orot. Furthermore, in the dispute over this chapter, Kook and R. Tsevi Yehudah had plenty ofopportunity to promote this defence publicly, yet this was never done. Kook also does not .Idopt this approach in other private letters in which he deals with the controversy over Orot.

n A placard, signed by Sonnenfeld and R. Elijah Klatzkin, describes Kook's view-actually, a ',olllt'what distortt'd porlrayal ofK()ok's outlook-as heretical and arising from non·Torah sources. It rOllrludt·s: Tht' Kinl( dt·sirt·s lilt', ht· dOl'S not dt'sirt' tht' wicked. who in their lives are called d{·~(I.· Arcordilll( 10 thl' plarard. Ihl'MI' rahhi" ~"IO prohibih-d allt'ndanct' at soccer matches. See B. Khll(l'r. Min kume/mr, iv. 7~ (tllllllllllht'rl'd). (Jlur It B(' II Zillli U7.it'I's (188o-19~1) spet'ch OIt the WmltlMII(Tllhl Hpml. fUmpl'tlllmt hrld itll'lIll'Nlittl', .1'1' lJ7.irl, Mikhmu"ei uzi'rl, -481-1 .)

" Illlvttl COliI'll, Mt.~h"u' hUl1Cutr, 1)1. II II . 1.II"hll1., .'I"tv);,t hurr'tyuh, <1,,(,.

publishing even continued after the book was printed. I am referring to Kook's Arpilei tohar, ofwhich the first eighty pages (five-sixths ofthe complete work) were printed in Jaffa in 1914; with the outbreak ofwar, publication was halted. The pages were hidden from view, and Kook was prevailed upon not to complete publication.80 There were, however, copies that circulated, and many years later R. Tsevi Yehudah gave a complete copy ofthe manuscript to Professor Rivka Schatz-Uffenheimer. This is what enabled the later 'editing' ofArpilei toharto be exposed.81

As noted previously, the issue ofhow to publish Kook's writings has led to great controversy among his followers. There are those who have pushed for release of everything. Others have argued that some of his works are not appropriate for this generation, and that which is published must go through careful 'editing', which usually involves a good deal ofcensorship.82 I t is ironic that followers of Kook, who (justifiably) complain so much about how their teacher is censored and distorted in haredi works, have actually done the same thing to him. It is true that there are times when it is possible that Kook himselfwould not have wanted certain information publicized, such as when he spoke ofthe 'wickedness' ofhis adversary, R. Joseph Hayim Sonnenfeld.83 Yet almost all of the censorship relates to the realm of ideas. It focuses on Kook's philosophy, especially its antinomian elements,84 or his inner­most struggles and self-perception, which sometimes shows him in near (or perhaps even actual) prophetic rapture.85

As mentioned, some of Kook's followers thought that his ideas were too radical. not necessarily in themselves, but that in this day and age-one of limited spiritual achievements-if these ideas were to get out they could be spiritually dangerous. As the Nazir put it, explaining why he felt obligated to

80 See Y. Meir, 'Lights and Vessels' (Heb.), I70ff. There is little doubt that in this case it was

R. Tsevi Yehudah who convinced Kook not to publish the volume. See Meir, ibid. .. See Segal, 'Orot be'ofel', 20-r. 81 According to Munitz, 'R. Kook's Circle and the Editing ofHis Works' (Heb.), 5, today there is

actually a committee ofrabbis that determines which parts of Kook's writings are to be censored and altered. .3 See Rosenack, 'Who's Afraid ofRav Kook's Hidden Writings?' (Heb.), 26o. .. The most complete study of antinomianism in Kook's writings appears in an unpublished

article by Ari Chwat, which he kindly shared with me.

S> See Rosenack, 'Who's Afraid of Rav Kook's Hidden Writings?' (Heb.), 26I ff., 273: id.. Prophetic Halakhah (Heb.), I82 ff.; Garb, 'Prophecy, Halakhah, and Antinomianism' (Heb.), 267-7; S. Cherlow, Tsadik (Heb.), chs. 6, 8; Bin·Nun, 'Inspiration ofthe Holy Spirit' (Heb.), 356 fT. Bin-Nun argues that, in speaking of Kook, the proper category is not prophecy but rua~ hakodesh, a lower level of divine inspiration. R. Tsevi Yehudah and R. Shalom Natan Ra'an;lI1, Kook's ~on· in·law, believed that Kook had supernatural knowiedKe. Set' Remc'r, Gadol ~himu~hah (I<jX4), IP,; id" Gadol shimushah (1994 116; notl' in Iturr.i k()hanim (1:'111117. ~7(1I), 4~; II , Ulilhit7., Shivl,!el hare'iyah, ~I\I; A, Sh~plra, /.lag ha"uk()I, 106, R, Iliwh Mo"r" IllIrlap IhollRh! IIkrwlNr; Nr'r' I\, MI'I~mr'd, Rrvlvlm: Ilr.d"ld yl.~ra'"" 17.

censor a passage in Drot hakodesh, 'The generation is not yet ripe:86 While it is also possible that the censors were-and continue to be-afraid of renewed attacks on Kook. which in tum may lower his rabbinic status, the first explanation is the more significant one. As Rosenack puts it:

At first, R, Kook's disciples sought to protect him from the rage of the Old Settlement rabbis and his other adversaries. Little by little, however, as his image grew more distant and became more established following his death, the editors began to try to protect us-the readership-from R. Kook's revolutionary ideas ... [and) the revelation ofhis thought in all its grandeur,8?

A good example ofwhat I have just described can be seen in Kook's Arpilei tohar, mentioned above, This work finally appeared in 1983, under the im­print of the Rabbi Tsevi Yehudah Kook Institute. There are many interesting things in this text, and perhaps the most provocative is when Kook discusses how Jewish law can be updated. He writes:

At times, when there is need to transgress the way of the Torah, and there is no one in the generation who can show the way, the thing comes about through breaching. Nevertheless, it is better for the world that such a matter come about uninten­tionally. Only when prophecy rests on Israel is it possible to innovate such a matter as a 'temporary measure', Then it is done with express permission. With the dam­ming of the light of prophecy, the innovation comes about through a long-lasting breach, which saddens the heart with its externals, but gladdens it with its inner content,88

In other words, when continued adherence to a certain halakhah will have negative consequences, and there is no formal mechanism to abolish the law, Providence ensures that people begin to violate this halakhah. Looking at matters from the outside, at the 'externals', people are ofcourse saddened by the violation, since it appears to be a rebellion against halakhah. Yet those who can see what is really happening, who recognize the 'inner content', realize

H6

See Rosenack, 'Hidden Diaries', u8. The passage referred to by the Nazir appears in

A. I. Kook, Shemonah kevatsim, vol. iv, no. I7, and here Kook refers to himselfin prophetic terms. The censored version is in A. I. Kook, Orot hakodesh, i. I57. In the preface to Orot hakodesh, the Nazir tells us that all changes in the text until p. 320, which includes the passage just mentioned, were done in consultation with Kook. Yet there is reason to believe that even in the first 320 pages Kook was not as involved as the Nazir suggests. See D. Schwartz, Religious Zionism (Heb,), 200, for a passage from the Nazir's diary where Wt' set' that only on a few occasions did Kook have any input ill Ihl' ('JilinK of Orol hakode.~h, Sl'C' also Hosl'nark, 'Who's Afraid of Hav Kook's Hidden Writings?' (1Ic'h,), J,Xl),

., lto~l'na(k, '1IIJol'n Diaril'lI', 147, .. A, I. Kook, Shrmonah krvalslm, II, 110, iO. MilO Ihl' IirNI pl'illlillM 01 ill.. Arpilri Illhar , Thr 11'1111_1111\0111" itlld" 0",', trllllM , Nllor. ~(I .

that matters are being directed by the Divine, in what is a necessary adjust­ment to halakhic practice. In time, what used to be regarded as a violation becomes accepted, even among the halakhists.

This is exactly the sort of passage that makes the conservative followers of Kook very nervous. Thus, when Arpilei tohar was published in its entirety in 1983 a couple of slight changes were made which do not simply soften the text, but actually give it a completely opposite meaning. No longer does the long-lasting breach sadden the heart with its 'externals' and gladden it with 'its inner content'. Rather, in the censored version 'the breach' ('long­lasting' has been removed) saddens the heart with its 'essence', but gladdens it with its 'purpose'.59 While the second change is not so significant, to state that the halakhic breach saddens the heart with its 'essence' is the exact oppo­site of what Kook actually wrote, which is that it is only the externality of the halakhic violation that brings sadness. What the censors have done is 'dis­tance the essential nature ofthe outbreak from any substantive connections with its beneficial effects'.9O

The chief editor ofArpilei tohar was none other than Yitshak Sheilat, later to be known as a great Maimonidean scholar. He defended the propriety ofhis censorship, which was guided by senior rabbis ofthe Merkaz Harav yeshiva. He saw his actions as simply part ofhis job as an editor. As he put it, 'Ifa word is added or an expression is improved for the sake of clarification, or due to respect, what sin is there in this? Isn't there a concept of tikun soferim men­tioned with regard to our Holy Torah? See TaniJ,uma, "BeshalalJ", chapter 16 and the commentators there.'91

This is quite an amazing statement, tying his 'editing' to tikun soferim. In fact, the Midrash taniJ,uma cited by Sheilat is one ofthe sources that under­stands the concept oftikun soferim literally, namely, that the Men ofthe Great Assembly actually changed the words ofthe Torah.92 Sheilat sees himself, and other editors, as following this path in that they have the freedom to alter the original text when this is done for the right reasons. In this case, Sheilat tells us that the reason is so that people should not be led to the false belief that vio­lation ofthe Torah can be justified. 'If one is looking for religious legitimiza­tion for sins, let him go to the false prophets, to Shabetai Tsevi and his sect, but do not touch the anointed ones of God.'93 In other words, the religious needs ofthe present provide the justification for altering a text ofthe past.

The only regret expressed by Sheilat is that he did not note in the introduc­

... A. I. Kook, Arpiki tohar, 15.

.. , Ross, 'Can the Demand for Chilll"r ill 'ht, StatuI! of'Wolllrn hI' 1I0010IkhirOilly l.rllitirmltrd?', 490 n. 20. St'e OIIHU rOld., lixpundinR Ike I'al""" o,.,hmll, J.OS. Shrllut, "'Om'" IIIr'ulc-I', 47,

'0

., SrI' Illy I.imilw/,Orlhoul)x 'InfolollY, o)H fl. .. Shrllul, "'Om'" mr'olrl', 47.

tion that changes were made to the text. As he explains, he was persuaded not to do so by those who were assisting him in the editing,94 These men understood better than he that telling people up front that you are giving them a censored text completely undermines the censor's goal. I do not know if Sheilat was aware of the irony of his censorship of Arpilei tohar, as it was with regard to this very work that Kook wrote to R. Tsevi Yehudah, telling him that he wanted Arpilei tohar to appear without any editing or reworking, and that this would be very beneficial to readers.95 In another letter to R. Tsevi Yehudah, he mentions that he corrected some ofthe wording in this book, but did not find anything that should be deleted.96

Another example of censorship in Arpilei tohar is the following: in the original version, Kook spoke of the great value of intensive study joined with menuiJ,ah (rest) and tiyul.97 The latter term appears to mean wandering, walking, or even hiking. That is, it refers to a physical pursuit connecting one to nature, which is the dialectical counterpart of the intensive intellectual activity inside the beit midrash.98 This, of course, fits in very well with Kook's advocacy of physical exercise, discussed above. This model is also a standard component of religious Zionist youth groups in Israel, in which hiking trips around the country also have important historical and spiritual components.99

These hiking trips are not a new thing, as we see from the Nazir's diary. Here he describes a lengthy, and quite dangerous, multi-day hike that he and two fellow students at Merkaz Harav yeshiva undertook in 1926, with the goal ofvisiting various historical-spiritual sites.1oo The Nazir even hoped that this would lead to his attaining divine inspiration (ruaiJ, hakodesh).101 It would seem, therefore, that Kook's advocacy oftiyul should not be a cause ofconcern in the censor's eyes. Yet in the 1983 edition of Arpilei tohar, tiyul has been altered to read tiyul ruiJ,ani, which means 'spiritual wandering' .102 I do not deny the possibility that this conservative understanding is what Kook had in mind, even though it is not entirely clear what 'spiritual wandering' is sup­posed to mean. It is also possible that tiyul could mean free-floating medita­tion, as opposed to study.I03 Yet precisely because the matter is ambiguous,

.. See Segal, 'Orot be'ofei', 25. g, Kook, Igerot hare'iyah, vol. ii,no. 687.

... Ibid., no. 693. See above, n. 80, regarding R. Tsevi Yehudah convincing Kook not to publish this work. In Kook's eyes, it was better not to publish it than to alter the text to make it more 'acceptable'. ., The passage is also found in A. I. Kook, Shemonah kevatsim, ii, no. II2.

... See Silbt'f, 'Ha'arafl'1 hl'taharato', 295 .

.... Sec Fri('dft'ftilo\, Kum hithulr.kh lIu'urrts, I') Ir., and also A. I. Kook, [gerot hare'iyah, iv, no. 1205 .

'''' David Cohen, Mishnal hanazir, Xo 11'. IU' Ihid. Xo. ,., A. I. Kook, Arpilei tohar, 43 ·

,., Dr lonathall Garh ot1rrrd thiN NIIMMrNtinll. Srr ~l"n A. I. Knok, Iider haye"ar, IS, who rrferA to

')I"IM ",:1 an:1 aOI"I'D'II ,"'1) "DD, In Id.. I"erot k",,,,'/yak, III, nn.,,)I, hI' rrlrn In ''IIDI ''IIl,n 'n'l' 'PI)0" 0,,,,, und In ,o.;k,mlmak k,v,,' .• /m, 1. nn, 711, hI' NI"'lkN nl' Ihr NUIII'N 'D'UU' ""'1),

inserting the word ruh-ani prevents readers from drawing their own conclu­sions as to what Kook had in mind.104

Let us turn to some other writings by Kook. Since he was a great spiritual figure, it is not surprising that he had some affinity for other such powerful personalities. In one ofhis early works, Kook even wrote that Jesus had great charismatic power. lOS While he also criticized Jesus, the simple mention of anything positive regarding the latter was too much for his opponents, and his supposed love of Christianity became one of the points on which they attacked him.106

Kook also had some interesting things to say about Spinoza. According to Kook, Spinoza had 'admirable power', and 'his soul was infused with the notion ofdivine unity'. He added that it is possible 'to extract from this thick­rinded fruit a substance oflasting worth, once cleansed and refined' .1117 Yet the most provocative things Kook said about Spinoza have only recently appeared in print. Based on a newly published text we can even say that Kook 'embraced certain elements of Spinozism, which he felt came back to life in a purified form in Beshtian Hasidism, especially Habad'.los

The relevant passage begins as follows: The Spinozist system, with all its dross, is the complete opposite of the light of Israel. Therefore, it was the hand of God that fell upon the righteous rabbis of Amsterdam to remove him from Israel. It [Spinoza's systemj engendered the mod­em age with all its evils, including antisemitism, so that Spinoza and Bismarck are comparable to Balaam and Haman.

This passage appears in three editions of Kook's recently published writ­ings.109 It continues with a section that deserves to be quoted in full, since it is omitted from two ofthe three editions, with no indication ofthe censorship.no

104 See Segal, 'Orot be'ofel', 25. Sheilat, "'Orot" me'ofel', 47, insists that his addition clarifies the meaning of the passage, and the fact that people disagreed with him in this regard shows how important such a clarification is. Yet intellectual honesty requires that such a clarification be placed in brackets or in a note, rather than altering the reading ofthe text. As early as the Middle Ages, Rabbenu Tam strongly criticized those who altered a text because ofa difficulty, rather than offering their 'correction' as a suggestion while keeping the original text intact. See my Between the Yeshiva World and Modem Orthodoxy, 193. See A. I. Kook, Ma'amrei hare'iyah, 5-6.

105

106 See Naor's introduction toA. I. Kook, Orot, 50-I; id., When God Becomes History, 40ff., 122ff. 107 A. J. Kook, Ikvei hatson, 134-5, trans. in Yaron, The Philosophy ofRabbi Kook, 47.

l OS

Naor, 'Plumbing Rav Kook's Panentheism', 87 n. 22. In his recently published Kevatsim miketav yad kodsho, ii. 73-4, Kook points to the positive in Spinoza's pantheism. while acknow· ledging its limitations.

109

A. I. Kook, Kevatsim miketav yad kodsho, i. 146; id., I'inku.~ Ij, X~; iltld id., I'inke.~ri hurr'iyah, i.

292. The latter two censored editions wl'rr publishrd by thr It '1Iu'vi Yrhud~h Kook IIINlitutl'.

lIn Only in A. I. Kook, Kevut.~im mikelull yud k(l.~ho, i. 1.4(" dorM Ihr JlIINNIIMr IIpprllr. Itl MrllN1l1. "i"ku~ 'I h~N hrrn Nt'vrrfOly (·fOIlMore-d . The-Mrdlml" Imlll thlM IIIH,k thllt Wrf'r rrllluvrdllPIIC'.H III

In addition to its value in helping us understand Kook's view of Spinoza, it shows us that Kook was well aware of the process whereby theological views are rendered acceptable in the Orthodox world-ifa recognized authority fig­ure (gadol) advocates a position, then it is 'in' -and the dangers this presented in his eyes.

Ifhe had not been expelled, he would have mingled with the totality of Israel and written major compositions that would have been accepted like the Guide [of the Perplexed of Maimonidesj, the Kuzari [of Judah Halevij, and the like. And certainly, along with this, he would have composed some Torah novellae [~idushimj on halakhah or aggadah according to his ability. These would have led to the acceptance ofhis theological views, and would, heaven forbid, have exploded the foundations of Israel. But these consequences would have been revealed in days to come and in many circumstances. Since, with all this, he was ofthe seed ofIsrael, there is in his inwardness some fundamental principle that after much refinement should enter the camp. Mendelssohn began to refine him, but did not complete his tikun. But the Ba'a! Shem Tov refined him, without knowing whom he was refining, because he did not need his [Spinoza'sj source, because he drew the knowledge from its inner source and refined it. The work is not yet done. It is gradually being done, and when it is finished he [Spinozaj will emerge from accursed and become blessed [barukh, punning on his first namej.111

This censorship of Kook's ideas regarding Spinoza followed the earlier action of the Nazir, who excised Kook's mention of 'Spinozist' from Grot hakodesh, replacing it with 'pantheistic'.112 The Nazir recognized that Kook was treading a fine and dangerous line in his attraction to Spinoza. He actually claimed that 'his own approach can "rescue" Kook's thought from the "dangers" of the Spinozian pantheism latent within it'.113 Because of this provocative assess­ment of Kook's relationship to Spinoza, the Nazir's comment, which Dov

Kevatsim miketav yad kodsho, i. 93 (no. 35a), 95-7 (nos. 38a-c) . 124-6 (no. 87a), 127-8 (no. 88a), 129-}1 (nos. 89a-b), 132-7 (nos. 9Ia-b) , 143 (nos. lIoa-d), 146 (no. II7; this is the section on Spinoza that I have quoted) . For some of these passages it is not clear what the censors found problematic. In Pinkesei hare'iyah, i, Pinkas 13 is included. Here, all ofthe passages censored earlier, with the exception ofthe one dealing with Spinoza, now appear in full. In 2010, Pinkesei hare'iyah, ii, was published by the R. Tsevi Yehudah Kook Institute. This contains a heavily censored version of a work by Kook known as Linellokhei kador, which was mysteriously placed on the internet in WIO. See my Seforim Blog post, 29 Oct. 2010; E. Ilenkin, ' Rav Kook's Linevokhei hador' (Heb.), ;lIld I knkin's posl al <ravtzair.hlogspot.mlll>. \0 JIIII(, .1.010.

"' Kevulsim miketuv yud kCld,~h(l, i. 14(" MONI of' Ih(' tr~IINliitioll Wtlll"N Irom S. ROHt'nbl"rg and INh·Sh~l()rn (edH .), 'I'he World CljHuv Kook'~ 'I'houllhl, 44l).

II. COlTlplirr A. I. K(Klk, Orol hakodrJh, II. Il)'). with Id .. .'Ik,mlllluh krvah/m, 1. 1111. ,)c"

"' n. SthWllrll .. lia/lk al,k, C'rtlurclUdl, 64,

Schwartz published from the manuscript ofthe Nazir's diary,114 was omitted when the diary appeared in print in 2005.

Yoel Elhanan points to what he regards as an example of censorship by Kook's followers, related to Herzl.115 Before discussing this, I must note that among Orthodox thinkers there were different views as to how to relate to Herzl. Some, such as R. Abraham Elijah Kaplan (I899-I924), R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, and Dr Isaac Breuer wrote about him in a very positive way, believ­ing that any religious defects were due to his background and not something he could be blamed for.ll6 Weinberg actually saw him as something ofa peni­tent. Needless to say, this was also the view ofthe Mizrahi movement. On the other hand, for the Hungarian extremists Herzl was the epitome ofevil. For them it was no longer the issue of Herzl the man, but what he represented. That this negative view of Herzl did not remain solely the possession of Ashkenazi extremists is seen in the fact that R. Avraham Yosef, chief rabbi of Holon and the recipient of a salary from the Zionist state, ruled that parents must not name their children Herzl, as this name was held by an 'evil man'.117

Returning to Kook, in his famous eulogy for Herzl, Kook characterized him as the one who helped usher in the era of the messiah son of Joseph, which will precede the coming of the messiah son of David and with it the ultimate redemption.1l8 However, despite this very public eulogy, in the fourth volume of Kook's letters, published in I984,119 we do encounter something interesting with regard to Herzl that led to Elhanan's assumption of censor­ship. This volume was edited by R. Ben Zion Shapira, the son ofR. Avraham Shapira, who succeeded R. Tsevi Yehudah as rosh yeshivah of Merkaz Harav,

114

D. Schwartz, Faith at the Crossroads, 64-5. 115 See Elhanan, 'How to Build Herzl's Temple' (Heb.). 'Yoel Elhanan' is actually a pseudonym.

116

See my Between the Yeshiva World and Modem Orthodoxy, 147-8. 117 Sela, 'R. Avraham Yosef: Do Not Name a Son "Nimrod" or "Herzl'''. Yosef is the son of