מן הגורן ומן היקב: צנזורה3

R. Ovadyah Yosef (1920-2013), who used to hold the highest rabbinic position in the State ofIsrael.

118 See Naor, When God Becomes History, 3ff. (also containing a translation ofthe eulogy). The original appears in A. l. Kook, Ma'amrei hare'iyah, 94-9. See also Gerber, Enlightenment Revolution (Heb.),64 ff.

119 R. Tsevi Yehudah did not publish any more volumes of Kook's letters after vol. iii, which appeared in 1965. Vol. iii ends with Kook's return to Palestine after the First World War, which began a period ofgreat conflict with the extremist Orthodox. His private correspondrncl' from thiN time would be very illuminating, but perhaps because of his harsh jlldgrm{'nts against hiN opponents, R. Tsevi Yehudah did not wish to publish thl's{' letters. There is 110 qllestioll that vol. iv, published after R. T.qevi Yehudah's df';lth, omittf'd many It'tt('rN. I Nhollid alKo tlOt(' that while thr second ('dition of R. 7.. Sharira (('d.), Iwmt larr'iyah (It'ttrrH to Kook), h~H m~lIy mort' It'ttt'rH than tlU' jertIHalt'tll. II)X(, t'ditinn, in ~t Ir~Nt 0111' r~Nr thr Hrwt1(1 rdilioll ('rllHorrd lIlatt'rial that appt';lrH illlhr lilKI rdilioll. SrI' Illy Ifftlllfftl tll( Y(IIII"" WI,d,1 atlll MfIIJrrll (),.tllflll(l~y, ~~ II. 'J.

and who was known to be less enamoured of the mystical path of Kook and his students.12o

As is the case with a number of other examples of censorship, Elhanan felt confident in identifYing this one because the relevant letter121 was also published elsewhere in its entirety, in R. Hayim Hirschensohn's Malki bakodesh.122 Writing to Hirschensohn, Kook mentioned that a great synagogue should be built right next to the Western Wall. He envisioned it as being under the authority of great sages and without any party affiliation. When Kook's missive appeared in the fourth volume of his letters, the following sentences were omitted:

This would complete the vision of Herzl in Altneuland concerning the temple [hatempilJ to be erected not exactly on the site of the Holy Temple. He prophesied and knew not what he prophesied! There should be such a house close to the location of the Holy Temple until the Lord appears in His glory and there will be fulfilled all the good promises concerning His people and His world that were conveyed through the prophets of truth and righteousness.123

According to Elhanan, this passage was removed from the version of Kook's letter included in his collected letters because Kook's followers were once again trying to protect his image. Yet, in this case, it turns out that Elhanan is incorrect and there was no censorship involved. At my request,

R. Ari Chwat, director of Beit Harav Kook in Jerusalem, checked the text of the letter in their possession (which is not in Kook's handwriting), and it too is missing the passage just quoted, as is an alternative copy of the letter he located. In other words, when the volume ofKook's letters was published, the editors did not have this passage before them.l24 Eitam Henkin plausibly suggests that the passage Hirschensohn printed was added by Kook shortly before the letter was sent, and was therefore not included in the transcription that had already been made for the archive.125

Despite Kook's eulogy for Herzl, it must be noted that, as with much else, his view of Herzl is not simple. For example, in one letter published in Igerot hare'iyah we find Kook agreeing that a religious school should take part in a celebration of Herzl's birthday, but only because 'we must not increase

'''' Shapira's outlook, which some regarded as a complete abandonment of the religious philosophy of both Kook and R. Tsevi Yehudah, was part of the reason a group broke off from MI'rkaz Harav and formed til{' yeshiva Har Ilatllor IInd('r th(' direction orR. Tsevi Tau. See Sheleg, I'lir New Rrligiou.~ (11('h.), 4X 11'.; Ros('n-T,,('vi, . EtIl('r!!('nt M(,taphysics' (I h-b.), 4;,>, 1-4S.

'" A. I. Kook, Igrrot hurr'iyah, iv, no. 1)1)4. '" Ilirsriwnsohll, M/.Ilki nuk(ldr.lh, iv. 1a.

,n I havr IIK('d thr tr;ItlHlationln Naor, Whrll (;(1'/1/(, I'Hlr.1 11i.~I"ry, lIS, with Nlil!hl (han!!r".

". Thrnll!!h un rxumillutlnll of tht' IrttrrN, I!. 1 Irllkln ul'I'lvrd al thiN l'utUIIiNlon Intirprndrlltly. SrI' 1(, 1 I"llklll, 'WaN a Conllnrllt nholll 111'11,1 (:rIlNllI'rd?' (I Irh,), "' Ihltl.

discord'. This is hardly an endorsement of Herzl. Yet in the very next letter Kook speaks of Herzl as one 'whose memory is sanctified, as with his spirit he raised up the flag of the nation'.l26 In another letter, which Kook wrote to his father-in-law, R. Elijah David Rabinowitz-Teomim, and which R. Tsevi Yehudah refused to publish,127 Kook justifies his appearance at a memorial event for Herzl. In this letter he does not argue for Herzl's great significance. Rather, he claims that because ofhis position as rabbi ofJaffa he felt obligated to speak at the event, for to refuse to do so would have created a great deal of controversy. He also notes that in his remarks he did not say anything positive about Herzl himself.l28

Why would R. Tsevi Yehudah not publish Kook's letter to RabinowitzTeomim? I think it is because his own view of Herzl did not have any of the nuances or complications found in the writings ofhis father. When R. Tsevi Yehudah looked at Herzl he saw only the positive. He also placed a great amount ofsignificance on Herzl, going so far as to say that 'our existence and the structure ofour life [in the State ofIsrael] all come from Herzl'.129 R. Tsevi Yehudah even had a picture of Herzl in his home, which hung next to that of the Hafets Hayim.130 With this in mind, we can understand why R. Tsevi Yehudah refused a student's request that he elucidate Kook's eulogy for Herzl. As the student explained, and this viewpoint is generally shared by

R. Tsevi Yehudah's followers, even the significance granted to Herzl in this eulogy does not represent Kook's final 'erets yisra'el' outlook. Rather, and in contrast to Grot, the eulogy is a reflection of Kook's diaspora thought, which had not yet been revised.l3l

126 A. I. Kook, Igerot hare'iyah, i, nos. 295-6. See also ibid., no. 294, and vo!' ii, no. 571, for other positive references to Herz!' 127 He did, however, give a copy of the letter to Yossi Avneri, who discussed it in his article 'Rabbi A. I. Hakohen Kook' (Heb.), 56-7.

128 See A. I. Kook, Ginzei re'iyah, iii. 16-18; Filber, Kokhvei or,170-4-On one occasion Kook even forbade a synagogue to recite a memorial prayer for Herz!' See Ogen (ed.), Asher hayah, 82. This source is referred to in <www.yoel-ab.com/katava.asp?id=III>.

129 See his lecture 'Herzl' (Heb.), 35. See also T. Y. Kook, Linetivot yisra'el, i. 15, ii. 533;

H. A. Schwartz, Mitokh hatorah hago'elet, ii. 286-7. R. Tsevi Yehudah's words ofencouragement to those attending a special ceremony at the grave of Herzl appear in a note in Iturei kohanim (Tamuz 5762), 25.

130 See Remer, Gadol shimushah (1994), 54; note in Iturd kohanim (Tamuz 5762),46; Aviner, Tsevi kodesh, 152; Iturei yerushalayim (Kislev 5769), 89; Wolberstein, Mashmia yeshuah, 252-3; Melamed, Revivim: gedolei yisra'el, 299. R. Tsevi Yehudah even spoke positiv!'ly about thr intermarried Max Nordau, who in his eyes was a ba'al teshuvuh. St'(' T. Y. Kook, I.inetivot yi.~ru 'r.l, ii, no. Il5 (pp. 593-4); id., Si/:Iot harav tsevi yehuduh: bamidhur,11.4-S; 1lUIt' ill /turd kohunim pamu:f. 5755),37-8.

III

Hemrr, Gadol ~himu.~huh (1994), 59. It iN rrpurtru th"t H. 'Ikrvl Yrhuu,,1r hrllrvrd Ih:ll Oldy "uvlllll'l'd HllldrlltN Nhoulll Mludy IhlM rllloMY, SrI' IIlItr III Ihmi k"kunim (Slv,," rlS'/) , "I). H. 'I"rvl

I want to return now to the issue ofthe alteration of Kook's words in Grot and other texts edited by R. Tsevi Yehudah, as well as in Grot hakodesh, edited by the Nazir.132 While some have attached the label ofcensorship, with all ofits negative connotations, to the actions of R. Tsevi Yehudah and the Nazir, I question whether this is proper. This is because Kook himself gave the job of editing his writings to these two who, together with Harlap, were his closest disciples.133 When the Nazir met with Kook a few days before his death, the latter specifically mentioned that if Harlap says 'to take out three words' this could be done, and that he relied on the two ofthem.l34

Even if Kook would not have agreed with every one of the changes-and since he mentioned 'three words' apparently this pointed to his desire that the changes be very minor-the fact remains that R. Tsevi Yehudah and the Nazir were given authority by Kook to make changes. It is therefore difficult to speak ofthe books they published as having been censored, as opposed to 'edited'.135 In fact, we must even speak ofGrot as 'edited', although it appeared in Kook's lifetime, because even if Kook agreed with the changes made by his son, it was R. Tsevi Yehudah who was the moving force in this area.136 Furthermore, there is no evidence that Kook concerned himself much with his son's editorial decisions in Grot. Having been granted editorial authority by his father, it makes perfect sense that R. Tsevi Yehudah would refuse to permit another of Kook's disciples, R. Moshe Gurwitz, to publish any of Kook's writings.lJ7 In reflecting on R. Tsevi Yehudah's editing, Udi Abramowitz has

Yehudah's interest in not disseminating Kook's diaspora thought, which would later be superseded by his more advanced vision, is no doubt the reason why he instructed his students not to include three of Kook's earliest essays in id., Ma'amrei hare'iyah. See the editor's introduction to Ma'amrei hare'iyah, 14 n. These essays originally appeared in the rabbinic journal Hapeles, and while friendly towards Zionism, were not in line with the dialectical position vis-a·vis Zionism later adopted by Kook. See T. Y. Kook, Or linetivati, 281; id., 'Explaining' (Heb.); U. Abramowitz, 'Ideology' (Heb.), 69; Ben-Artzi, '"The Old Will Be Renewed'" (Heb.), II n. 10; id., 'First Teaching' (Heb.), 75. Kelner, Milon hare'iyah, 388 ff. , offers an alternative perspective.

on One interesting example from A. I. Kook, Orot hakodesh, iii. 297, is the deletion of Kook's explicit reference to homosexuality (mishkav zakhar). See Naor, From a Kabbalist's Notebook, 168

n. I2.

m Regarding Kook's relationship with R. Tsevi Yehudah, see U. Abramowitz, 'Ideology' (Heb.); id., 'The Mission, the Monopoly, and the Censorship' (Heb.), 129 ff. For examples of R. Tsevi Yehudah's editing, see Rosenack, 'Who's Afraid ofRav Kook's Hidden Writings?' (Heb.), 268ff.;

U. Abramowitz, 'The Mission, the Monopoly, and the Censorship' (Heb.), 142. Regarding the Nazir's editing, see D. Schwartz. Religious Zionism (Heb.), 198-233; Dison, 'Orot hakodesh ReI'dited' (Heb.). David Cohen, Mishnat hanazir, 95.

114

,., As N!'riah Gllttl'l has shown, I'v('n thl' halakhir work Shubat ha'arets, which appeared in 1<)10, was hl'avily rditrd. SrI' Gulll'l. 'CrOlfllll:lIIship and Arl' (I h'h.) .

... SrI' Munil7., . Edltlnlf (1Irh.),11\ II. \:.1..

111 H. 'IMrvl Yl'hlld"h wroll' Ih~1 "Urr hlN tillhl'r'N dr~lh hI' hllli l'~dllNlvl' ""Ihnrlly whl'lI II nlml'10 I'tI It I"11 Ihr 1"ltrr'N wrltIIlMM. SrI' II IN 1I'III'r III ()ml h,l'flt1IHWk, 14K: ~'" ,"IIIMM". "D'P"" '"'"'M "I"

concluded that 'by concealing thousands ofphilosophical passages written by his father, Rabbi Zvi Judah exerted a more powerful influence on the interpretation ofRav Kook's writings than any form oftextual emendation could have given him'.138

It is of course interesting to examine what editorial changes R. Tsevi Yehudah and the Nazir made, as this enables us to get a sense ofhow they felt they needed to protect Kook and perhaps of how their ideas differed from those of their teacher.139 For example, there is the famous chapter 45 of Orot (,Orot hatel:;1iyah') where Kook begins: 'Just as wine cannot be without dregs, so the world cannot be without wicked people.' Kook continues to elaborate on this point, writing, in the original: 'The exile weakened the life force ofthe nation and our dregs decreased greatly, to the point where the survival of the nation is endangered because of so few wicked people, and for lack of a broad grasp oflife.' When Orot was published, R. Tsevi Yehudah cut out the words 'so few wicked people'.I40 In this example, the essential message of the chapter remains even without the words that R. Tsevi Yehudah omitted. Yet it is obvious that R. Tsevi Yehudah did not want this message to be unduly emphasized.141

Kook also wrote ofthe righteousness of the righteous (tsidkat hatsadikim) being supported in each generation by the wickedness of the wicked (rish'at haresha'im), 'who in truth are not wicked at all, as long as they cling with their heart's desire to the collectivity ofthe nation' .142 Yet when this text appeared in Orot (,Orot hatel:;1iyah'), chapter 20, gone was any reference to the resha'im as not being really wicked. The 'edited' formulation describes how the righteous are supported by those who, despite their wickedness, still have an attachment to the nation. In this case, R. Tsevi Yehudah's 'correction' entirely inverts what

en) 'n!]",;,) e')n:m ''''0\1} nn'n H~n ,m 1l0~lV) '\I}H 1"" ):100 ll'~VO m1p"nen 'l!]~ ,n1l1'"Hn l'nlV\I}) ~"lr' n) "pn~ ")T.) nllV ~)) "V n,,,l0 nH'lln 11 m11p!] nl',nH1 ,'~\I} nlP'!]) ", ~V HP" ;)';)'. Yet as we have seen, this is not entirely accurate, as Kook also gave Harlap and the Nazir a role in the editing.

138 U. Abramowitz, 'Ideology' (Heb.), I (English section).

139 In addition to sources cited throughout this chapter, see also D. Schwartz, Challenge and Crisis (Heb.). 140 The original text appears in A. I. Kook, Shemonah kevatsim, iv, no. 25. 141 This is noted by Ari Chwat in his unpublished article, 'Question ofAntinomianism' (Heb.). 142 A.!. Kook, Shemonah kevatsim, ii, no. 283 (trans. in A. I. Kook, Orot, 285 n. 129).ln a passage published after R. Tsevi Yehudah's death, Kook writes that 'there is no sin and iniquity in the world that does not also have sparks of holiness'; see A. l. Kook, Me'orot hurr'iyuh, 67 (cited in

U. Abramowitz, 'Ideology' (Heb.), 66). In Shemonah kevut~im, v, 110. l). Kook wril('s: 'Evt'fy Nin and transgression of a tsadik goes to slrengthen the pOWI'r of' IIII' holy.' This p;assalll' was ahl'rl~d when the text was puhlislll'd hy R. 'liwyi y,·hlldah ill A. I. Kook, ()/'(,'ltult.~llIlVUh, II: Ct. For H. 'l'lIrvl Yl'IlUdah's l'Olllllll'nt 011 H. 'I~~duk II.. kohrll of' l.uhlin'N Nilllilill' 1I111i1IUlllilili 1011111'10111'" Hrr

U. AhrllllIowitz, 'ldruluI(Y' (1Irh.), 1>0.

Kook intended when he declared that those who attach themselves to the

nation are not really wicked at all,143

Speaking of sinners, Abramowitz has noted that R. Tsevi Yehudah, when he published Orot hateshuvah, omitted the antinomian-like passage that 'all the sins ofIsrael strengthen the holy in the world'.I44 Another example worth noting is that Kook wrote of 'sparks oflighf that can be found in Christianity, Buddhism, and even paganism.145 Yet when this text was published in Orot, all that appeared were general comments speaking of sparks of light in all the 'various beliefs'.l46 In this case, as in many others, the meaning remains the same even after the 'editing'. However, lacking the explicit references in the original version, it is hardly as powerful.147

Let me cite two additional examples, which Avinoam Rosenack has already noted, as further illustrations of how R. Tsevi Yehudah and the Nazir were indeed prepared on occasion to alter Kook's text so that it came to mean something entirely different from what he originally intended. 148 Kook wrote as follows: 'Prophecy and divine inspiration come from the inner core of man,149 and from within him they emanate to all that concerns the entire world. This is the case ofaggadah, for it flows from the soul ofman, presenting itself also in the external aspect ofthe world.'l50 In other words, prophecy, divine inspiration, and aggadah 'remain in the domain of absolute subjectivity'.l5l When the Nazir published this text in Orot hakodesh,152 a couple of slight changes enabled him to alter the meaning of the passage entirely, According to the edited version, Kook writes: 'Prophecy and divine inspiration come, by word of God, to the inner core of man.'153 This change was made in Kook's lifetime, and according to the Nazir had the approval of Kook.154 Even ifthis was so, we

'" See U. Abramowitz, 'Ideology' (Heb.), 26. In the same chapter of Orot, R. Tsevi Yehudah softened Kook's criticism of religious separatism. In A. I. Kook, Shemonah kevatsim, ii, no. 283, Kook refers to those who support separatism as 'doing the work of Amalek'. In Orot, ch. 20, this was altered so that the criticism is only ofthe ideology ofseparatism, which is referred to as a 'deed ofAmalek'. See my 'Samson Raphael Hirsch and Orthodoxy'.

,.. A.1. Kook, Shemonah kevatsim, v, no. 9. See U. Abramowitz, 'Ideology' (Heb.), 72-3.

,•., A. I. Kook, Shemonah kevatsim, i, no. 167. 146 A. I. Kook, Orot, 131.

'47 For many similar examples, see Munitz, 'Editing' (Heb.). Munitz argues that R. Tsevi Yl'hudah's changes to Orot almost never involve a complete alteration of meaning, but tend to slress certain matters and tone down others. He too, however, acknowledges that there are occasions when the meaning is indeed changed by R. Tsevi Yehudah. See ibid. 140.

,•• See Rosenack, 'Who's Afraid orRay Kook's Hidden Writings?' (Heb.), 267 n. 65.

,•., e1H ~1!I1nl'T.)'IDD (ilalics <lddl'd).

'''' A. I. Kook, Shrmo"uh k(I'ut~im, v, 110. I J.7: 1hay,' ;.Ih'rt'd Ih,' Ir:lIIsl"lioll thaI dpprars in Ish· Shalolll, Hllv Al'rIlhllltl /llh"k IlllCohrn K .... k. ~~. '" Ihill. ... Vol. i. Sl'l'liolll() (p. :1.1). '" D1M~1!Ilnl'0'ID':' 'l'l ,D'Ml ,,"Iml "MIll (Ihl' N1I111"N rhllnl(rM 111'1' lIolrd illlhr IrKI hy 111I1I1'N,. '" Srt' IIhovt', n. XC), whrl'r I nllir Ihlll IhlM IIMMrI'ticllliM I'l'IIhlrtlllltlt.

must also realize that in cases like this it is not that Kook changed his view, but that he acceded to the wishes of others who wanted to shield him from assault.155

Kook wrote: 'Literature, painting, and sculpture156 aim to bring to realization all the spiritual concepts impressed deep in the human soul.' These words were published by Kook in 1903.157 Yet when R. Tsevi Yehudah republished this text as part of Kook's commentary on the Song of Songs/58 the beginning of the passage was altered to read: 'Literature, its depiction and sculpting'.159 The reason for the change is clearly to cover up Kook's positive feelings for the visual arts.l60 This was done even though R. Tsevi Yehudah would later publish Kook's very encouraging letter to the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem. In Kook's mind, the pursuit of art in the land of Israel shows that the spirit ofthe people of Israel has been revived. This in turn will 'nurture the sensitivity for beauty and purity with which the precious children ofZion are so blessed, and it will uplift many depressed souls, giving them a clear and illuminating view ofthe beauty oflife, nature and work, and the honor oflabor and diligence'.l6l

Itis precisely this sort of'editing' that has left people wondering whether Kook would have agreed with what his followers have done. Ithas also fuelled the demands to publish the actual writings of Kook, rather than edited versions, so that people can examine his unvarnished words. Regarding R. Tsevi Yehudah's role in the editing, it is hard to see how this is in line with the message of a dream he reported in which Kook appeared to him. In this dream,

R. Tsevi Yehudah asked his father ifperhaps the generation was not yet ready for his teachings. He replied, 'There is no need to cover up and restrict the light. It will not cause any harm, and there is absolutely no need to fear or be anxious.'162

155 See Rosenack, 'Who's Afraid ofRav Kook's Hidden Writings?' (Heb.), 290.

156

:mml11 ,,,~ m'lltm. 157 A. l. Kook, Teviat ein ayah', 352. The passage also appears in Lewin (ed.), Alumah, 43 and A.

l. Kook, Kevatsim miketav yad kodsho, i. 40. My translation comes from Mirsky, 'Intellectual and Spiritual Biography', 390. 158 A. l. Kook, Olat hare'iyah, ii. 3. 159 ill''''nl il",::1 ,m'lltm. 160 Regarding Kook and art, see Zuckerman, 'On Art' (Heb.); Tseviali, 'Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook' (Heb.).

161 A. l. Kook, Igerot hare'iyah, i, no. 158 (p. 204), trans. in Z. Feldman, Rav A. Y. Kook: Selected Letters, 193. In this letter, Kook also calls attention to the halakhic problem ofsculpting a complete human face, and offers a suggestion on how this difficulty can be overcome. For a series ofquotes from Kook on art, including his evaluation ofRembrandt, see <www.orot.com/art.html>. Sec also the series 'Exploring the Role of Art and Creativity Through the leachings of Rav Kook', at <http://www.atid.org/resources/art/ravkook.asp>. For R. THevi Yrhudah's rnnlllrag('mrnt of art, see Remer, Gadol shimushah (1994), 78.

,., T. Y. Kook, Or linetivati, 117. Srr alNo U. Almllnowltz, Thl' MINMlolI, thl' MOllopoly, lind th .. CI'IlHorNhip' (1II'h.), 11711.; WolhrrMlrlll, Ma .•km/u ytNnl4ldl, (11. ThrJ'1' WrJ'1' ulhrJ' lilliI'M whl'lI Kunk

In thinking about how R. Tsevi Yehudah edited his father's writings, we must also bear in mind that while he regarded himself as the 'absolute continuation' ofhis father/63 R. Tsevi Yehudah actually differed from Kook in a few significant ways. I say this even though Kook himself wrote that R. Tsevi Yehudah 'is virtually one with me' and thus understood him better than anyone else.164 There is no question that Kook's and R. Tsevi Yehudah's relationship was not merely that ofa father and son, but also a deep spiritual kinship. Yet despite this, Kook and R. Tsevi Yehudah did not see eye to eye on all matters. For instance, Kook had a much more positive view ofsecular culture than his son, who envisioned a Torah-only culture.165 They also differed when it came to hasidism and in particular on the role ofthe tsadik, which found a very sympathetic ear in Kook. R. Tsevi Yehudah, however, had a much more negative view of this and therefore did not publish his father's many comments dealing with the tsadik.166

Although I am sure that R. Tsevi Yehudah understood his father better than anyone, it must also be acknowledged that he was not always correct in matters relating to Kook. For example, he suspected that Kook's early essay, 'Afikim banegev', which appeared in 1903 in the rabbinic journal Hapeles/67 had been tampered with by the editor.168 The fact that Kook himself, in the thirty years after he published this essay, never mentioned anything about it having been altered did not dissuade R. Tsevi Yehudah from making his claim, but it is certainly reason enough for the dispassionate observer to disregard the accusation.169

The censorship carried out by Kook's followers is designed to preserve his reputation in the Orthodox world. Yet R. Moshe Tsuriel, a great follower of Kook whose Otserot hare'iyah is an indispensable collection of Kook's

appeared to R. Tsevi Yehudah in a dream. See Remer, Gadol shimushah (1994), II5; Wolberstein, Mashmia yeshuah, 54-5, 63, 336, 407. R. Tsevi Yehudah stated that even after his father's death he continued to consult him about how to run his yeshiva. See Iturd yerushalayim (Kislev 5770), II. It Tsevi Yehudah also kept a notebook in which he mentioned the various souls he met in his dreams. See Iturd yerushalayim (Adar 5770),5.

... See Neriyah, Bisedeh hare'iyah, 295.

1104 See A. l. Kook, Igerot hare'iyah, i, no. !o2. The letter is from 1907 and pre-dates Kook's ,,'!ationships with Harlap and the Nazir. '''' See Rosen-Tsevi, 'Emergent Metaphysics' (Heb.), 428. ",. See U. Abramowitz, 'Ideology' (Heb.). ch. I. According to Abramowitz (p. 35), there are 'hundr('ds' ofsuch texts that w('r(' kept 'under wraps' by R. Tsevi Yehudah.

II., The essay is reprinted in TSllril'i (ed.), Ots•• rot hare'iyah, ii. 77-130.

II,' S('(' T. y, Kook, 'l\xplaininH' (I h'b,); tltr artiti(' also app('ars in Weinman, 'Mishnah rishonah'.

If," S('!' Ravitzky, Mmiani.lnl, Zionism, and .ltlvi.ln Hrligiou.l Hadicalism (flrb.), IJllt; Wrinman, 'MiHltllOlh riHltOlIOllt', 71, III OIll'lIl'r wrlllrll III 11)01) to hiM MOII·III·hIW, Kook rl'('()t11t11l'lIdN thOit hI' 1I'00d hlN rNN~yN III II"p,Ir.I, SrI' Kook, (11.1,,..,, hflrf'/yun, I. I/ln,

writings, has engaged in another sort of censorship, one designed to enable Kook's ideas to enter the haredi world unannounced. In his Otserot ha'agadah, which collects comments on talmudic passages from a wide range of scholars, one finds ideas cited in the name of 'Rabbi A. Hakohen'.170 This is not a household name, as are the other scholars Tsuriel quotes. Tsuriel explained to me that this R. A. Hakohen is none other than Kook. Similarly, R. Shmuel Brazil quotes Kook's saying that 'the righteous do not complain about wickedness, but increase righteousness. They do not complain about heresy, but increase faith.' Yet rather than mention Kook as the source, the passage is attributed to 'a certaingadol'.17l

In adopting this approach, Tsuriel and Brazil could point to Maimonides as a precedent. In Shemonah perakim, Maimonides states that he will not mention non-Jewish philosophers by name, since doing so 'might make the passage offensive to someone without experience and make him think that it has an evil inner meaning ofwhich he is not aware. Consequently, I saw fit to omit the author's name, since my goal is to be useful to the reader.'172 In other words, it is more important for the ideas to be spread, even ifthe originator of these ideas has to go unmentioned.173

The censorship carried out by Kook's followers also extends to the writings of R. Tsevi Yehudah. In the following example we are fortunate that two groups were working on the same text, otherwise we would never have known that anything was amiss, since the censors were not helpful enough to add an ellipsis to alert the reader that something had been taken out.

In 1989 R. Tsevi Yehudah's Or linetivati was published.'74 This is modelled after the elder Kook's Orot, and includes selections of R. Tsevi Yehudah's ideas, culled from various sources. The following year the first volume of his collected letters, Tsema/:t tsevi,t75 was published. Only with the latter pub

"0 See pp. 468, 481, 485, 493. The passages are all taken from A. I. Kook, Ein ayah on BT Ber. Additional references to 'Rabbi A. Hakohen' appear in Tsuriel (ed.), Otserot hamusar, 236, 1344, and id., Derishat tsiyon, 28. In id. (ed.), Otserot hatorah, 46, he refers to 'Rabbi Tsevi Hakohen', and this is R. Tsevi Yehudah Kook. Tsuriel informed me that the source of the passage is T. Y. Kook, Si~otav she! harav tsevi yehudah hakohen kuk al perek kinyan torah, 59. Another reference to 'Rabbi Tsevi Hakohen' appears in Tsuriel, Leket mehegyonei hatorah, 927. Tsuriel informed me that the source ofthis passage is Anon., Erets tsevi, 202.

171 Brazil, Besha'arei hamo'adim, 249. Kook's saying appears in id., Arpilei tohar, 39 (= id., Shemonah kevatsim, ii, no. 99). This was called to my attention by R. Moshe Weinberg. 172 Translation in R. L. Weiss and Butterworth, Ethical Writings of Maimonidn, 60-1. For othl'r relevant sources, see S. A. Fish, Davar, 144 fT.

171

See above, pp. 28-9, regarding R. Jo~eph n. Solnvt'itdlik.

". The text to which I will reli.'r appt'arH 011 p. <&11.

,,, Tlw h'xt to whidl I will rrfrr apprlHH Oil p . .1.4,

lication was it possible to recognize the censorship that had occurred in Or linetivati, Both the complete passage, from Tsema/:t tsevi, and the censored text from Or linetivati, appear in Figure 5,3. In the original letter, written in 1910, R, Tsevi Yehudah speaks of Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) in a very exalted way. He describes him as growing ever closer to God, a 'true saint among the nations of the world, full of holiness and righteousness and closeness to God'. He even puts the acronym shlita after his name. This acronym, signifying that the bearer of it should live a long and good life, is only attached to important names. Yet here, R. Tsevi Yehudah inserted it after mentioning a non-Jew. I do not know of another example of this in the whole of rabbinic literature.176 Obviously, the editors of Or linetivati were troubled by R. Tsevi Yehudah's effusive praise for Tolstoy, and that is why they took out the entire section.

What the editors did not know, or perhaps knew and chose to ignore, was that in an era when so many ofthe Russian populace, including the intellectuals, were expressing antisemitic feelings, Tolstoy spoke out against the 1903 Kishinev pogrom. He also penned these words, in his 1891 essay 'What is a Jew?': 'The Jew is that sacred being who has brought down from heaven the eternal fire and has illumined with it the entire world. He is the religious source, spring, and foundation out of which all the rest of the peoples have drawn their beliefs and their religions.'177

Salo W. Baron comments that Tolstoy'S essay 'achieved wide circulation several years before his death in 1910'.178 R. Tsevi Yehudah's letter dates from a few months before Tolstoy'S death, in other words, from a time when Tolstoy'S reputation in the Jewish community was at its height. As can be seen from the extract that appears in Figure 5-3(a), R. Tsevi Yehudah's admiration for Tolstoy focused on his general approach to life, rather than his connection to Jewish matters (or the fact that he had studied Hebrew with a rabbp7l However, this admiration would not have been so profound ifnot for Tolstoy'S reputation as a philosemite.l80 Many years later R, Tsevi Yehudah continued

'7. R. Tsevi Yehudah also attached zikhrono livrakhah ('may his memory be a blessing', the phrase that accompanies the name of someone who has died) to Arthur Balfour's name. See lisheloshah be'elul, I: 64, included in T. Y. Kook, Nefesh hare'iyah, 56.

'77 Hertz, A Book ofJewish Thoughts, 135.

'7' Baron, Russian Jews Under Tsars and Soviets, 164. "9 See Noyes, Tolstoy, 268.

,.., Tolstoy'S attitude was actually mort' complt'x. See Schefski, 'Tolstoi and the Jews'. As Sdlt'fski puts it, Tolstoy hao 'all illl"Onsish'lIt polky on ttl(' Jewish religion, vacillating between praisl' and mtlOI'tlInatioll' (p. 5). II mlilit hr noh'd, howI'vI'r, that tht, 'cotlol'mtlatioll' is f(lUnO in IlI'rsotial diary rnlrirll and IrttrrK. Wr hllvr "lIl11y rXlunplrK of hllltorlr,,1 fi"url'lI whollr privalr rrllrrvllllolIN almlll IIN(X'rlN ofjutilll.l11ll11d/or JrwN did nol IIIli-fl Ihl'lr I'xrlllpiliry pu hi It" IIIlItl'mrnlN ~tllt ilrtiortll.

Klzm ,n1K']t1.):1-n'~:1' O"Y:1-n£lplU:1::1 n,,,O':"I1.) ,O'11"Y ,n1':"1 O'llUl1.):,!1.) 'IU ":'!:nlUn m~'i1" '110:n "i1"n:1 -'''0' n1~':1"::1 'K1.) ::11IUn l£1K::1 K1:1 'M i1::11IUn:1 'O'1.):1-n~'1U "0' K,m ,''''T1~'::11 "D'~'::11-:1"1.)"::1' 0"::11.)':"1 :11U1'P::1 K?11.)1.)i1 ,Y":1'K::11U 'nDKi1 "On:1 ,K'£I1m '1'1:"1 01K:"I ,n'K 'IU n1.)I1.)111.) :"In':"I 11'"K:"I i1T::1 ,01DK .K"~"IU 'W7T;1 O':1'K n::1'i"I mpn, 11.) n~lU£ln1.):"I :"I::1:"1K:"I m';;~ n1.) :1':1 :"IT 01' "n1"::1M n::1:"1K" 'Y :1"nn1.) '!I" " :"IK'l:"l '!I' '::1K ,0"'1':"1 '37 :"1"1':"1 11.)' O'K"::1:"1 'Y :"IK"::1:"1 01' -n"n 'lPT 1"~ -01.)"n1.)' :1?Yn1.)' ''':''1 K'i1 '11.)1.) 'n'::1plU n'37"':"1 . '1K"::1 ", .::111U1' "'K 'n-'K'-,1K1.)]t' ,:"11"'31 ',-n::1:"1K' :"In'Ynl ",n::1:"1K"

,:it";::1:"1 nK ,n"ln "K ,Q"l""">tr~J~:i~Q~'~!Q'fJ)'W"b cn ~ ,,=, ;:1Tn D71J::1 ,n"l:"I . K?1 ~ ""1.) KPl" .C:1"n 11K 0"101.)' "0'2'''-''':"1 """,l""",~ "mil? tIJ1.T'lnn "Im KPl" ,""~ c"n Dl'K C"':"I?K ,,,m, ::nrnt? I:MQ E:I:1 ,:1111:1 "PD me ,'1'1':"1 "K Dla:"lta an~n ""zn

(0) me m'IK mnr:m :,.,., ,,,,,.,. mnac ~"n:m mm 'It'" .lM1Jn nK ,

Flaure S.3 Letter from R. nevi Yehudah Kook: (A) •• pubu.hed In n.""'~ bIv'. (lfN •• lem. 1990) referrlnll to 1bl.toy; (b) •• pubU.htd In 0, II",,'WI" UeNlllem. 1989). with the PI.....on Tolltoy rtmOYtcl

:...~.

l~nl "'''In:l 1:;) Cl n:lnNn "))1 n9' "'Nl:lO ~O) "''''1''n . .. nnnpDn ~~:l .1lVl 'n't)N '"t) ,"P'V ,'D')!) ,1")V . n:lnNn l~lt) nN Nl!:Ct))' povnn", '~'V) 'D' D'~tln

(b)

to speak very highly about Tolstoy, going so far as to refer to him as a ba'al teshuvah (penitent) .181

I have no doubt that ifasked, the censors would reply that it is not that they have any problem with what their teacher said, God forbid. Ifhe said it, then it must be true. However, they obviously believe that the public will not understand how he could have spoken in this way about Tolstoy, and this will tarnish his reputation. So by censoring him, they are actually doing him a favour, by helping to preserve his reputation. While this does not make the censorship any more acceptable, it does show that not all censorship comes from a bad place. While most censorship is designed to keep 'dangerous' views and personalities out of the public eye and is motivated by opposition to these things, there is a different form of censorship. As we have also seen with Kook, this censorship is motivated not by opposition to the figure being censored, but out ofreverence for him, and a desire to ensure that this reverence is shared by as many as possible.

This approach is elaborated upon by R. Ya'akov Ariel. a leading student of

R. Tsevi Yehudah, with reference to Kook's writings. In justification of the refusal by some of Kook's followers to publish certain of his writings, Ariel claims that it is important to allow Kook's already-published works to achieve wide acceptance, thus establishing his place in the Torah world. Only then, he states, should his writings be the subject of no-holds-barred academic

'" T. Y. Kook, Judaism and Christianity (Heb.), 25. For more words ofadmiration for Tolstoy, see id., Si/:Iot harav tsevi yehudah al seftr orot, 158. See also id., Linetivot yisra'el, i. 19; Anon., Lezikhro, 40; T. Y. Kook, Si/:lot harav tsevi yehudah: bamidbar, 122; H. A. Schwartz, Mitokh hatorah hago'elet, ii. 132; Remer, Gadol shimushah (1994), 64. R. Tsevi Yehudah often noted his father's comment, stated with regard to Nietzsche, that there are great souls among the non-Jews. See T. Y. Kook, Si/:Iot harav tsevi yehudah, 133-4. See also T. Y. Kook and David Cohen, Dodi litsevi, 61, where

R. Tsevi Yehudah speaks of the value of reading the works of 'the wise and pious of the nations'. See, similarly, T. Y. Kook, Bama'arakhah hatsiburit, 124 (which mentions Tolstoy). (Regarding Tolstoy, see also Greenwald, A/:Iletsarah, 6-7, who blasts a 'Modem Orthodox' rabbi for discussing Tolstoy during a funeral eulogy. He notes that in previous years 'everyone knew' that only a secularist or a Reformer would do such a thing.) While Tolstoy was a great admirer ofthe Jews, the opposite was the case with Dostoevsky. See D. Goldstein, Dostoevsky and the Jews. Yet Hillel Zeitlin was so impressed with Dostoevsky that he compared him to R. Nahman of Bratslav and even referred to him as 'the Russian gaon', though the term gaon is usually reserved for Torah scholars. Zeitlin's son, Aaron, deleted this passage when he republished the text. See Zeitlin, Rabbi Nahman of Bratslav (Heb.), 48 n. 25. While the elder Zeitlin saw similarities between Nietzsche and

R. Nahman, his son Aaron wished to cover this up, and thus deleted his father's identification of the Obermensch (ha'adam ha'e!yon) with R. Nahman's tsadik; see ibid. 59 n. "7. Another m('ntion of ha'adam ha'elyon became ha'adam hayehudi ha'e/yon in A. Zeitlin's ('dilion; H(,(' ibid. 61 n. 12.9.

A. Zeitlin also exci5ed his fatht>r's mention ofthC' grC'al PoliHh port JuIlIlH7. Siowarki; HI'I' ihid. 72. n.

2.7. For IlIOrt' rC'g'lrding A. Zl'illin'H 'eoiting' ofhiH Iilthl'r'" work. "1'1' Y. Ml'ir, 'The I/Ill,k 1~"VI.dl'm' (1II'h.).171-J .

research. He compares this to earlier scholars who were criticized in their lifetimes (no doubt referring to Maimonides, R. Moses Hayim Luzzatto (I70746), and R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz, among others); after their authority had been accepted, no amount ofscholarly research could alter their standing. As for the natural desire of scholars to write about all that interests them, Ariel states: 'Researchers are also commanded to be careful. and therefore it is permissible for them to overcome their healthy and natural intellectual curiosity for the sake ofpublic responsibility.' Ifthese reasons are not enough to deter scholars, Ariel adds the following: 'Every gadol in Israel only published a selection of his writings. There is no value in publishing all the writings.'lB2 Needless to say, these sentiments are rejected by all academic scholars, who are adamant that in seeking to understand someone's thought, everything he wrote is valuable.

Contrary to Ariel. R. Yoel Bin-Nun, another student of R. Tsevi Yehudah, has recently argued that while R. Tsevi Yehudah's reluctance to allow his father's 'unedited' manuscripts to appear in print was justified at the time, there is no longer a reason to adopt this approach today. He adds that Kook's opponents will never recognize him as a religious authority. Therefore, any new publication of theologically daring material has no relevance to them. As for the religious Zionist world, Kook's position there is so strongly established that access to his entire uncensored writings, 'the complete truth', as Bin-Nun puts it, will in no way damage his image.183

,.2 Ariel, 'Conquering Curiosity' (Heb.), 44. To get a sense ofwhere Ariel is coming from, the following is also noteworthy. He sensed that in Hagai Segal's article in Nekudah, 'Orot be'ofel', subtle criticism ofR. Avraham Shapira was expressed for his role in preventing the publication of Kook's writings. Ariel writes: 'One asks questions of a rabbi. This is the way ofTorah. However, one does not criticize. This is the way ofcheap journalism.'

183 Bin-Nun, 'Inspiration ofthe Holy Spirit' (Heb.), 374.

SEXUAL MATTERS

AND MORE

HROUGHOUT HISTORY, one of the prime considerations leading to censorship has been the issue of sex, namely, what is and what is not allowed to be shown and said. Since Judaism has a very conservative sexual ethic, Jewish history has also seen its share ofcensorship in the sexual realm. While it is probably true that the impact of Christian society has had some influence on the development ofpuritanical attitudes, this is hardly the entire story. Furthermore, the haredi world has developed in such a way that its standards of modesty are far removed from anything that is found even in the most conservative Christian circles.

For example, Israeli haredim have a difficult time in bringing awareness of breast cancer to their communities, because the word 'breast' will never appear in their publications. This is the sort ofextreme fastidiousness when it comes to language that, as far as I know, has no parallels outside this community. Similarly, in all the controversies over gay pride parades that have taken place in Israel, the words 'gay' or 'homosexual' have never appeared in the Israeli haredi press! (The American haredi press has different standards in this regard.) The Israeli haredi media use euphemisms to name the events, but never actually tell the readers who organizes these parades. Rape and other sexual crimes are also not mentioned. In fact, someone whose only source of news was the Israeli haredi papers would never have learnt exactly what precipitated Bill Clinton's impeachment or the resignation and prison sentence ofIsrael's President Moshe Katzav.2

In many ways, contemporary Orthodox society, and not just the haredi world, is much less comfortable with images ofthe human body than was the case among Jews in the past. For example, Figure 6.I(a) is from the beautiful

A friend comments: ') think the explanation for this is (also) rooted in the fact that the written language (Hebrew, with biblical paraphrasing throughout) i~ lIloT!-l'irnuIlSpt·l'I .. lid litt·r.. ry thlltl the spoken one, so there is an automatic seilSI' that Oil(-dot-N 1I0t wrih' ~N t'xplititly 'I~ Oil!' Npt'ak.:

• Rt-garding an EnMIiNh dictionary plibliHhrd fill' hurrdl Nl'hoolN, frolll whlrh 'illllppl'Oprilllr' wordH hllcJ ht't'll rt'lllovt'ti, Ht't' AIdt'1'I 1111 II , 'Thr Chlll'rtil CIINtoll1 of Ext INr' .

edition of Maimonides' Mishneh torah published by Immanuel Athias in Amsterdam in 1702. This was an important edition because there was no censorship in Amsterdam, meaning that the book was 'complete'. One could never imagine this Mishneh torah title page being reprinted by any traditional press today, as it would be regarded as lacking in modesty. In fact, when a set ofthis Mishneh torah recently came up for auction, the picture ofthe title page printed in the catalogue was censored (Fig. 6.I(b)) .3 Similarly, a reprinting of Karo's Shul1:tan arukh with a title page like the one that appeared in the Venice edition ofI577-8 (Fig. 6.2(a)) or the Amsterdam edition ofr698 (Fig. 6.2(b)) would also be unimaginable today.

In recent years, many excellent editions of important books have appeared. In the introductions the editors include pictures of the title pages of previous editions, as part ofa discussion ofthe history ofthe work's printing. This is done to give the reader the impression that the new edition is 'scientific', and that the earlier editions have been examined, When R. Mordechai Jaffe'S (I530-1612) classic Levush4 was recently reprinted the same model was followed. The problem was that the title page ofthe first and second editions5 of one of the sections, both ofwhich appeared in Jaffe'S lifetime, had 'problematic' images (Fig. 6.3(a)). In the new edition's introduction,6 the page is represented thus (Fig. 6.3(b)).7 Needless to say, anyone who sees this will only wonder about what is being covered up.

There are many such 'immodest' title pages, printed by a variety of publishing houses by both Jews and non-Jews, as anyone who peruses a Judaica auction catalogue can attest. Although any publisher who put these images on a title page today would never be able to sell his books, that was not the case in earlier years. Publishers, always concerned about sales above all else, would never have added these pages if they had thought it would hurt their sales. In fact, I am unaware of any evidence that rabbinic leaders ever expressed opposition to the appearance offemale images on these title pages.s

Judaica Jerusalem, auction catalogue, 15 Mar. 2001, 69. For another example of 'immodest' i mages censored from an edition ofthe Mishm:h torah, see my Seforim Blog post, 25 Mar. 2012.

• While each section of the work has a different title (e.g. 'Levush hatekhelet', 'Levush ateret zahav'), it is commonly referred to as simply the Levush.

, Lublin, 1590 and 1603. The title page in the text is from the 1603 edition. The images in this woodcut had earlier appeared in the Prague 1526 haggadah, a Pentateuch published in lehen· hallsen in 1545, and a Seder sdi~()t pllhlisht-d in Heddernheim in 1546. See Wengrov, Haggadah und Woodcut, figs. 1<)(.1, 19h. " Jafk l.evush pinat yikrat, published in 2000.

, This rXOImple w~~ notrd hy Dall Rlibinowitz ill hiN Srfi>rim RloK post, 2.3 Nov. lo05,

• MOiny yrllrH latN, R. AhrllhllllIlNUUf Kook rxprrMNrcJ "tmllK 0ppoNltlon to IncludinK picture'S of womrll III ~ m"~:t(lr (fl'Mtivwl prllyrr honk), SrI' A. I. Kook, ()ru~ milk"",, 'Orlltl bRylm', no. 2.1: l (tliIlNI 10 my ultrlltioll hy It lIul'IlI'h Ohl'l'illlltlrl·).

SEXUAL MATTERS AND MORE

Figure 6.1 Title page of Maimonides' Mishneh torah (Amsterdam, 1702):

(a) original; (b) censored version in the Judaica Jerusalem auction catalogue (Jerusalem: Agudat Hovevei Yuda'ikah, 2001)

(b)

The elaborate title pages disappeared, not because ofany rabbinic decrees, but because styles of book publishing changed. The only example of a title page that I know of that was controversial is that of the responsa of R. Joel Sirkes (1561-164°), published in Frankfurt in 1697 by a non-Jewish printer (Fig. 6-4). In this case Menahem Mendel Krengel reports that the leading rabbinic scholars of that generation condemned the title page. He does not say th at this was b cause ofth topless women on the lower right corner. After all, os m ntion d, th r ar num r us books that hav title pages showing wom n in various slales or1IIlcirC'ss. RolilC'r, he loims lh:lt th rabbi.s'ir was nrolls('d by III(' i lolalrolls (i.I'. IlIYIIIOlol',ic li) sYlllbols said 10 appC'~lr hC'r ."

" i\~,lll.d , S/I r lJl IJlI/I/''/pIlJlI /1111/111/' 111.1. V /"I),II/illil/II/I, III I " '" Wl' '101 ,' 'l'lli WOld" ,'xlIl,tili wily ,IIIClI I11'1 v,,, lillll 111 1111/ "dlll'"11 11111.1111 1.1111,," 1111111, 1'''11'

Figure 6.1 Title page of Maimonides' Mishneh torah (Amsterdam, 1702):

(a) original; (b) censored version in the Judaica Jerusalem auction catalogue (Jerusalem: Agudat Hovevei Yuda'ikah,200l)

The elaborate title pages disappeared, not because ofany rabbinic decrees, but because styles of book publishing changed. The only example of a title page that I know of that was controversial is that of the responsa of R. Joel Sirkes (1561-164°), published in Frankfurt in 1697 by a non-Jewish printer (Fig. 6.4). In this case Menahem Mendel Krengel reports that the leading rabbinic scholars of that generation condemned the title page. He does not say that this was because ofthe topless women on the lower right corner. After all, as mentioned, there are numerous books that have title pages showing women in various states of undress. Rather, he claims that the rabbis' ire was aroused by the idolatrous (i.e. mythololotical) symbols said to appear here:'

• A7.lIl~1. .%em kUJlrd"l/m ku,.ku'~m. II. N,V, huy" hudu~k. hI Krl'lIl1rl'. 11011', ThiN would I'x(lI~11I why IIlIuthl'r Vl'ululI "flhl. rdlll"n WIIIAI"•• !I11li-rrllltlllr 1'11111',

(0)

Figure 6.3 Title page ofR. Mordechai jaffe's Levush: (a) Lublin, 1603 edition; (h) 2000 reprint (Jerusalem: Zikhron Aharon), showing the censored image

(a)

Figure 6.2 Title page ofR. Joseph Karo's ShullJan arukh: (a) Venice, 1577/8 edition with details enlarged to right;

(h) Amsterdam, 1698 edition

Courtesy ofthe Library ofthe Jewish Theological Seminary

(h)

-_P~')iJ CYOC'Jpt ",j£) cp'n:J 1j1l~t:J' i,iir.J~ j~p " ~;J:J' .nv.: ':l.:l 1:J .nUj1~ ')70' 1N '!l~' ';':"N;:) Clj.'tl

, ...::I, (>';1' ~P";')'1;) ''''If :1H~I1"f>p t/"!l{l . . t ~"l)"j') Onl' ":I))))') JW,," ')P:l.n~P'j, oj,:n {"J''' P.tl7!1

N"l"J" ill \5"7$

(a)

Figure 6.2 Title page ofR. Joseph Karo's Shul~an arukh: (a) Venice, 1577/8 edition with details enlarged to right;

(b) Amsterdam, 1698 edition

Courtesy ofthe Library ofthe Jewish Theological Seminary

-,';. ~:>"ru :i1b~'HVlWI:rr\n"\"'l:"'r.)~'1"""'.. ~

• : QI!lC:?K"\.' itV::InJ .:~:>teJUt, mvi:l Olonv " ·rJ:I:l1Ob'lc·::Iruno...'~ i:ml':)t',:r,o't(1."U:;'1!J "

, . "'~n>' "l<'I<?> ""'" """ b'onj!n ""''''<'v ..

:. .<,.,j,i,y'~""."':n\.'" lj1"""""~\"' .

"} ~~;,,:iJiN., l'l$Ol ~,~,'s,:h U -v:n1:l .-': '1l17 :~'n)"\O'lCiI":{' I:I.IU nvnV'.;rll U"11:J'i

. ' 00:>111""'" 1ll"""""I,n",,,,, r.o,\",> I'"

-n~~""'olC\ mltn':n:,"n ,,'tt'.l'tn.c.,o· . 'lp~ J'1l.'d. T::?\.;~"rt?\, :nln~'tln'#U~ : ZIllO'T'll":J:;"" :.rn:n;>."tnlKl.:"rt9D:JJ '::: ~ ~ >;:r7h;i'" "".~,'"",pno j."11:-:'1 <,' . .. : If1I";"';) r'l1o~~N<:"''l.' t)tltrO ' '' .

. "", """"",\ocn :tlXl."'1'''''''' '. .

.. ,~"""""t' p!'Jtnrn'i:1 _::r" .

" .... ':(I'I'MfIU!IIof """"mlUI')'.. '..... ,,~

" '·"'..,~oru""'~D)I~ .

, ','..>l""l'I1!l'O P'"""

, ,.!IN' ,

",;"/..,,Iri ...... ~"',&........ rb.\'r'r ... rm

.' ' .»/>0;0:.,.,.......,.

fOj,-.:"""" Q'lflo(.,.,.\"/"flnWW

, ,.,,..,rr' ....

tT'rten I ~·,n''''l1'\O'~IH~''''''I'''')P

!.. .,' .1' "t/'.'.<4, '

Figure 6.3 Title page ofR. Mordechai Jaffe's Levush: (a) Lublin, r603 edition; (b) 2000 reprint (Jerusalem: Zikhron Aharon), showing the censored image

'1:1 ;;:) ~" t=I"l "l'''In 1'1£)11:) 00"£)01'1 11\,)1'1 :I"IM W"1nn'~'Unr:m:l' )"lIWP"l'O ,,,,, "I'''I1'1'IC) 1'1~W'l•• o,,'''I'ib ;n"lMIlI'1 "T,m ''In "I,;):lP O;,pl"l "MM "I111/c "I'll' . 111'1'1 11':1 nl:l ow, /CoJl' "jllf'P P"P ~M'fV':I nm '11 o'ml 1'1" "l11::nwn:ll ,'m~"~:1 '''I' ":1:1 IIllc . MI)cnC 1'1'1:1'1'1 n"On1'1 n"l':I~1'1 "if 0111'~ 11'1:311'1\7 I"lVOll/ "I'MO "I"1'1'p) ;,,)., ,lICtl 00"110., I'N'''I MW1'P I'I',V::I O,'ClI/l:l1'! 1"1':1 ,'1;1:1 1:1"0 1'1'nlV ~'lf "I,"P CO"llon T'MlM I'I:l M';') y'C?' :l"l' rN, C'lJ:ltIItt

IIPII'lP p'po ,'lC1 0:1 1~'lllQ '·'nlC) ;"m

":IM? t)"I,51Pl"lll p'p I"'Il ,nm, 1'1'1'1W

'El,'1'1 n';:Jn:l OD"I1l r'o'" P'"

;1lml1'1mllfnJ

~ .C·WJi'~~

, ,

Fiv,lIrt' 6,4 Tille P:IIW of'lt )0('1 Sil'k(,I;' SIll' '1'101 111 1'1 /1111'111/1111/(111 (I :I.tltldllll , r(,I),/ )

l 'till 1 h '~jy III till' I 1111 11

y 1111111 ' k wh. l. 1111 t 1

11, I. II In 11111 11 11 V

SEXUAL MATTERS AND MORE

This no doubt refers to the figures on the right and left, which are representations of the Greek gods Zeus and Poseidon (the latter even holding his trident!).lo At the bottom of the picture one can also find two small crosses, something that escaped the notice ofthe Jews involved in the publication.ll

Although the way the women are dressed in this title page was not the reason for its removal, this does not mean that some people did not think it improper to display women in this fashion. Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi has called attention to the fact that there is an image of a topless woman in two haggadahs (Prague, 1526 and Mantua, 1560).12 Yet in a haggadah published in Venice in 1603 the woman has been turned into a man. In case anyone might be confused, the words above the picture actually state that this is a man (see Figs. 6.5 and 6.6).13 This change was made for reasons of modesty, even though, it must be noted, Venice editions had plenty of 'immodest' pictures. In more recent reprints of the Prague 1526 haggadah, the problematic pictures have simply been deleted.14

Here is an example of modern puritanical sentiments. The book Min/:r.ah belulah, by R. Menahem Abraham Rapa Porto (d. 1624), was published in Verona in 1594. At the end ofthe volume he printed his family's coat ofarms (Fig. 6.7(a)). Here is how the coat of arms looked when the book was reprinted in Benei Berak in 1989 (Fig, 6.7(b)). When the coat of arms was again reprinted in 2010 (Fig. 6.7(C)) ,15 the women (apparently mermaids) had been turned into men.16

10 Another pagan image found on a number of16th-and 17th-cent Jewish title pages is that of Venus rising naked from the waters on a seashelL See M, J,Heller, Printing the Talmud, 25 n. 1. For Mars and Minerva on title pages, see M. J. Heller, Studies, ch. 1.

11 Dan Rabinowitz explains how this woodcut, produced by Christians, found its way to Sirkes' responsa; see D. Rabinowitz, 'Two Versions' (Heb.). Rabinowitz disputes Krengel's report that that the title page was condemned by the rabbis. He also denies that there is any Christian symbolism on the page. 12 Yerushalmi, Haggadah and History, pL 41.

I have used the images that appear in Dan Rabinowitz's Seforim Blog post, I Dec. 2005.

14 The Venice Haggadah ofr629 was recently reprinted by a haredi outreach organization, and here too one finds censorship of the puritanical sort, such as lengthening women's sleeves and filling in cleavage. See <www.holyhyrax.blogspot.com>. 10 Apr. 2008. See also E. S. Horowitz, 'Between Cleanliness and Godliness', 39 n. 37; Horowitz's Seforim Blog post, 22 Mar. 2013, and Dan Rabinowitz's Seforim Blog post, 14 Mar. 2013.

" Hamburger, Hayeshivah haramah befiorda, i. 390.

II, S my erorim Blog pOSl, 25 Mar. 201 ,wher' I r dit Micha I Silb I' and the blog 'On the M:lill I.ille', who fil'sl r:dkd allt'lIlioli 10 Ill('s("(·x:llllpl('s. 11(' 'x ("pliolllOalilhe nsorship orlitl (lalll's is Pollak, VI/Yllk,., 11 rtllli IW)I(f 'l/kllll, (lld,lIlllu'd by III(" brolll('rs MOst·s ~!1d SOIOlllO ll 1(:lI z ill I ~()'i (Iql\. 6.X(I/)}. WII("II Ildll VOIIIIIlI' Wdtlll'ptillll'd ily pllllio olllwlill Illollldyll 11011 lI"illl II" Itl 1111" ")')tJt!, til(" 1111,· P"II" W;I 11'11 It I1.11 I I"i II W,I 'l'IIIIIII'd wllI'lI ,,1.11 l·tl lIlI (!l/,II 11 .11 1111 1111 /,1 (1 11n (, X(lI)}

Here is an example of modern puritanical sentiments. The book Min/:r-ah belulah, by R. Menahem Abraham Rapa Porto (d. 1624), was published in Verona in 1594. At the end ofthe volume he printed his family's coat ofarms (Fig. 6.7(a)). Here is how the coat of arms looked when the book was reprinted in Benei Berak in 1989 (Fig. 6.7(b)). When the coat of arms was again reprinted in 20IO (Fig. 6.7(c))/5 the women (apparently mermaids) had been turned into men.16

10 Another pagan image found on a number of16th-and 17th·cent. Jewish title pages is that of Venus rising naked from the waters on a seashell. See M. J. Heller, Printing the Talmud, 25 n. 1. For Mars and Minerva on title pages, see M. J. Heller, Studies, ch. 1.

Dan Rabinowitz explains how this woodcut, produced by Christians, found its way to Sirkes' res pons a; see D. Rabinowitz, 'Two Versions' (Heb.). Rabinowitz disputes Krengel's report that that the title page was condemned by the rabbis. He also denies that there is any Christian symbolism on the page. 12 Yerushalmi, Haggadah and History, pI. 41.

n I have used the images that appear in Dan Rabinowitz's Seforim Blog post, I Dec. 2005.

14 The Venice Haggadah of 1629 was recently reprinted by a haredi outreach organization, and here too one finds censorship of the puritanical sort, such as lengthening women's sleeves and filling in cleavage. See <www.holyhyrax.blogspot.com>. 10 Apr. 2008. See also E. S. Horowitz, 'Between Cleanliness and Godliness', 39 n. 37; Horowitz's Seforim Blog post, 22 Mar. 2013, and Dan Rabinowitz's Seforim Blog post, 14 Mar. 2013.

" Hamburger, Hayeshivah haramah bejiorda. i. 390.

If.

See my Seforim Blog post, 25 Mar. 2012; where I credit Michael Silber and the blog 'On the Main Line', who first called attention to these examples. One exception to all the censorship oftitle pag('s is Pollak. Vayakrm edut heyu'ukov, publisll!'d by tIll' brothrrs Mosrs and Solomon Katz in 1595 (Fig. 6.X(u)). Wht'n IhiH volutnr WOlH rrprlnlrd by pholo-oflHrl in Brooklyn sOll1rlirnr in thl' 1,)90H, Ihl' 11111' pOII'I' WIiH Irll Inlll('l. VI'I II WUH (I'nHurrd wlll'lI plll('rd 011 Ol:l:OIr IIOIllodulIli (FIK.

6.II(b)).

' ,'t1.,.,,~

~.. _

.+~,~~~"/~,I!.~.!':=.'l:~ ~"!;:'-on",,=

......~

1~'~1J~~j~'=~

~=~'.

~"~;~:O~l~'~l~~"'j,

'~j~,~,~;C:,~C:~

IM!!~!c'~~T\~b~

t C~.,nT:-t'~'~.,~~

Mj'~~,:~~.,~~,~~

,~~~,,,~~'t j~

ren(Q~M~C""!rQM '

m~~!~~~~,Sn'd~6~~ :'~~MQt\~~~j\?~

"= r---------,.,---I--

\1,l'ml~!3ll'l'I"1\... "'I"'I:t"!"'::IW"l'\."<:i'I:I

t n,v;y,tr'::I·'''I!n'r..I:l''»:l~tl'''M+lII

• CM,=ll"~'1!C:Itot::oj.l'l\'l.

~"'I'm<"1:\c:lrC''m''..,,:<:I

c:mnn"I~

Figure 6,5 Haggadah (Prague, 1526)

Courtesy ofthe Library ofthe Jewish Theological Seminary

r.1:.d;1TI'~t '1l rl. lIJ'lf "l'·.",.l"'~:1I':1..n It:' O"l~ 1"1 ,..",. ;r"',"lJ,. ""PlIO m!Mt,.,. '~"'" :t~'",""11'111 tl'll~,,"\:I(u:ar.:::t·thfu ".:0:11P"'nl 'UII",.~,.."'Utf,,:,~. ,.",1~H'Q1.1U~IIttrl'''t''''''J"''T03II·'Il~J

f:'ll'·r.a:l"l Jr"IIINJ~m:'l"'l·.""lnJ"'fIQ

'. ~~l,,;o.lI"~~II:.f'rr.,"""1I"1nI ~~'111"~"'1 -1lI:I~lil'W111~l""'

WJ""'" p)Ju~ n~.""", JI(wtnrrUI lut:dro"1.it-n'1Il'Nff;~~'\It'Jwtratl""'1\. bD.r.,,"n"lt"ll'~ft"4vmJftlJ»' • .tb "Olt:l·-t.m."'Irl"_llIlil:n""'~

: D'''''~taJl'r")l1

~lI1l1ibl'l"'Dte"lJ

(b) ~======================: ~2:'-d;; Tlh·':"'IlrJ.. "'T~"I''':'l'(I~f' Ill;';."

ttl) 0:.)U':I T'~,..hlo"dIlf~1iRnr",,,,·~:t 'l'''''J :I!:r~"o»,n" '\."UJ :rn :w"Q{w.;g'';Jf!2" "n;tl Jl"'~ ,Ib I1Ir."I$UU,IIfJO,pW'" ~tl. ~·i~'''lqU-~1mfUt·'~r1T''''anJ 1·:"I!'·r~~"I-!1W'''~ttt.''IJttr'»''tf,u",,,,».a

•. p:o-' 1:'1:, ~t'''''':1 ;!)J;.P,l 'l'.I,,,~jrJ\lI':mi fI;:f.»" plgqlJ 1iJIllU m»l'l\'M\I ~"lInl~q(, l"l1'<"1tIi1 p).llJ ';'M ~ttl"Utff prLU ~\'.I.l.",r

~~i!";'i......,.,.,.,."""lif,·rml·ho'" ""... P"n1t'b'\n.mt-iJpt6-"'lJ~~Jl'""II).:·l~~»n!ri~1 ~IJ.I:J.'''~~

P"II;., -=UI ltr,:t .

Figure 6.7 (left) R. Menahem Abraham Rapa Porto, Min/:r.ah belulah: (a) Verona, J594 diIi011 showing the original coat ofarms; (b) 1989 reprint (Ben j B Tak: SLA), with 'm rmaids' covered up; (c) version reproduced in Hamburg T, r-rayeshivah haramah befi.ordu (13('II('i Ikr:1I : Ashk nazi Heritag Institut ,2010), wilh I'he '111('l'Il1aids' Il'allsrOllllcd ililo 111('11

Figure 6.8 (rif-hl) Till,' paf'.(' of' It Ja coil Pollak'H V{/)llIkl'lll I'dlll /11' )'11'(/"011 (1'I'IIPI\', I~'H) :

(II) 0 1 i,:ill:1I v"I'Hioll: (II), \' 11 111)"'" v('l/d,)1I (III (>1 :'-.11 II ,d lo( 11111.1

SEXUAL MATTERS AND MORE

In recent years, it is not simply immodestly dressed women but the very presence ofany woman, or even young girl, in pictures that has become problematic in certain circles. Thus, as mentioned in the Preface, images of women are deleted from pictures, even in the case ofimportant female political figures.17 This is in line with recent haredi conceptions ofmodesty. In fact, in some haredi publications a woman's first name is never mentioned, which explains why R. Hayim Kanievsky told the author ofa biography ofthe Hazon Ish not to mention the names ofthe Hazon Ish's sisters.1s

The parallel to these haredi efforts to ensure modesty in visual images is Catholic efforts to cover human genitalia in art. Girolamo Savonarola (145298) is remembered as a prime mover in this, and the movement later picked up steam in the Counter-Reformation with the so-called 'fig-leaf campaign'. Michelangelo's sculptures were shielded from view and a later painter covered up 'indecent' parts of both his famous Last Judgement and the ceiling frescoes in the Sistine Chapel,19

In Chapter I I mentioned the phenomenon ofkere ukhetiv, and how words with the root 'mv were thought to be too explicit, leading to the substitution of a 'tamer' word when read aloud. In line with this approach, the Sages were also puritanical in their own discussions about sex and used a variety of euphemisms. What is significant, however, is that despite this general tendency, one finds exceptions and there are some very explicit, almost obscene, sexual references. Thus, while we find the fastidious use ofthe words 'eat'/o 'speak', 'talk',21 and 'do work'22 to designate sexual activity, we also find the following passage:

R. Johanan said: The limb [ever] of R. Ishmael son of R. Jose was as a bottle ofnine kabs capacity. R. Papa said: R. Johanan's limb was as a bottle containing five kabs, others say, three kabs. That of R. Papa himself was as [large as] the wickerwork baskets ofHarpania (BT Bava metsia 84a).

See the Ishim ve·Shitos blDg, 26 June 2008, which shows how a famous picture ofthe Hafets Hayim sitting near two women has been altered in this fashion.

18 See T. Yavrov, Ma'aseh ish, iii. 5-6. Kanievsky also reports that the Hazon Ish and his own father, the Steipler, never called their wives by their first names. For criticism of Kanievsky, see Hen, Haketav vehamikhtav, 226-7, who makes the point that both the Bible and Talmud show no hesitation in mentioning women by name.

'" S e Carmilly-W inb rger, Fear ofArt, IS fT.; Stollhans, 'Michelangelo's Nude Saint Catherine';

onnor, The Last Judgment, h. 12. Wh n th iSlinc Chap I wa restored, Pope John Paul IT

in~tru t Ithat sevcr~) orlhc POSI-Michdallgl'loIoili IOlhs be removed. ,II ('C'l1oyarin, ·a.I'i'lIIl/s/'{II'I,II'7. " Set' MiNIIII:!h KI'I. I: II (lC AN,Ii '" opi,d(II I): III1Y;\I II, ,'111111111\1111'1.1).1: 1':1111. /liv,d Sillt/fltll,

,''/ IX. " .'" ,' 1'.11" , 'All Aid .)(lId" I~ ,,""IIIII :;" ~ ,, II fi ll pi ",,,II 1111' :;"" ," II II I M,·I"",,·" . ' 1/'/11'" 1111"11/)11

,",,1 kllll')'" ,"/,11111111 ""1111 1111, 11 11 1111111' (11,·11), ' IH IJ

(h) ;==================;

(e) '-----_ _ ~____ _______' Figure 6.7 (left)

Figure 6.8 (right)

In Chapter I I mentioned the phenomenon ofkere ukhetiv, and how words with the root "lUJ were thought to be too explicit, leading to the substitution of a 'tamer' word when read aloud. In line with this approach, the Sages were also puritanical in their own discussions about sex and used a variety of euphemisms. What is significant, however, is that despite this general tendency, one finds exceptions and there are some very explicit, almost obscene, sexual references. Thus, while we find the fastidious use of the words 'eat' ,20 'speak', 'talk' /1 and 'do work'22 to designate sexual activity, we also find the following passage:

See the Ishim ve·Shitos blog, 26 June 2008, which shows how a famous picture ofthe Hafets Hayim sitting near two women has been altered in this fashion.

'" See T. Yavrov, Ma'aseh ish, iii. 5-6. Kanievsky also reports that the Hazon Ish and his own lather, the Steipler, never cailed their wives by their first names. For criticism of Kanievsky, see Hen, Haketav vehamikhtav, 226-7, who makes the point that both the Bible and Talmud show no hesitation in mentioning women by name .

.. See Carmilly·Weinberger, Fear ofArt, 15 fT.; Stollhans, 'Michelangelo's Nude Saint Catherine'; Connor, The Last Judgment. ch. 12. When the Sistine Chapei was restored. Pope John Paul II instructed that several ofthe post·Midlt·lalll(t'loloindolhs hI' removed.

~) See Boyarin, Curnul Isruel. "7.

" Se(' MiHhnOlh Kef. I: X (I{. AK~i'K opinion): IloyOirin. ('urnul I ,~rurl. 1.1.1; Paul, IJivrei shu10m. ..!17-IX.

U Srrl'MlI1, 'An Akkudillll-l{lIhhillir Sl'xlIlIl IIIIphl'lIliM'"', Srr MIMII Ii. 'I.. Mrilllllrd.•Um"U mr'ulyu MI1II klnu)'f'1 ~(l/'rlm In'llIlIIllldlr I.lIrtllh.tr' (1Irh.), IIK-I).

While the Soncino Talmud translates ever as 'waist', this appears to be a puritanical rendering, as it appears obvious that the meaning of ever in this passage is 'penis'.23

Another example of the Soncino translation's prudishness appears in Avodah zarah 44a. Here the Talmud speaks ofQueen Maccah, mother ofKing Asa. She is said to have made an 'abominable image', and the Talmud explains that this was an object that intensified licentiousness: 'It was a kind of phallus that she made and was vaginally penetrated by it [nive1et 10J every day.' The Soncino translation has: 'Itwas a kind ofphallus with which she had daily connection.' Elaine Chapnik notes:

Translating niv'e/et as having 'daily connection' betrays the translator's prudish discomfort with the Queen's masturbation. The Soncino Talmud's implication, that she was engaging in ritual idol worship with no sexual overtones, is utterly inconsistent with the text.24

If twentieth-century writers felt constrained in how they could translate texts, this was certainly the case during the Victorian era, whose name is synonymous with prudishness. Here is what a nineteenth-century English translation ofthe Mishnah tells us about its policy; in reading it one must remind oneself that we are dealing with a translation designed for intelligent adults, not naive schoolchildren.

The Treatise Nidda not being suited to the refined notions ofthe English reader, has not been printed; and for the same reason the Hebrew in some places has been substituted for the English. In Treatise Yebamoth it has been deemed necessary to omit, for similar reasons, Chapters VI. and VIII., as well as several sections in the same Treatise; the omissions being indicated by asterisks.25

There are numerous examples that could be cited where a refined sense of propriety affected the translation, and these do not always have to do with sex.

See the ArtScroll translation and note, ad loc.; Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 197; id., Socrates and the Fat Rabbis, 182. Shimon Steinmetz called the following to my attention: BT MK I8a states that Pharaoh's parmashtak was a cubit and a span. Soncino relies on a speculative etymology to trans· late this as 'shock ofhair'. This translation is offered even though the standard understanding (e.g. in the Arukh, Rashi, and Jastrow, Dictionary) is that the word means 'penis'.

Chapnik, "'Women Known for These Acts"', 87. See also ibid. 85-6, where Chapnik points to another example. Shimon Steinmetz called my attention to the Soncino translalion or BT Yomu I9b. The Talmud states Nv"ml Nm~nl nil' ~'VlN', and Soncino translat<'s Ihis as 'how lIIany virHins were embraced in Nehardea!' (emphasis added). ArtS('fo]J moJ'(' accuratr'ly Iranslatrs: 'a nUIIII)('r of virgins werr bedded in Nl'llardl'a' (I'rnphasis addl'd), bul a 1lI0rt' l'x~1I Iransl'ltioll is 'wrrt' drHowI'J'('d'. SrI' Sokolofl, Dirtionur'Y, 1.0.1.

" Dr Sola alltl IlaplHll1. IiilliJlml 'l~etllile,l/hltllliJf MI,llIntl, jll'rfulr, p, 11111, I.

For example, Philip Birnbaum (1904-88), whose translation of the prayer book was the most popular Orthodox sidur in the pre-ArtS croll era, was unable to write the word 'urine' (which appears in 'Pitum haketoret', a talmudic texf6 recited every Sabbath and by some people every day). Instead, he just kept the Hebrew words mei rag1ayim, knowing that most people would not know what this means.27

One finds a similar lack ofcomfort with words that appear in the Tahanun prayer: veshiketsunu ketum'at hanidah. R. Joseph H. Hertz (1872-1946) translates this as 'They held us in abomination, as ofutter defilement.'28 Birnbaum translates: 'They utterly detest US.'29 R. Jonathan Sacks, in his new translation ofthe sidur, renders it as 'They abhor us as ifwe were impure.'JO One can find similar renderings in almost all other translations, the intent of which is to blur the correct meaning, which is: 'They abhor us as the ritual impurity ofa menstruating woman.'Jl

This concern with propriety is also seen in M. Rosenbaum's and A. M. Silbermann's popular translation of Rashi on the Torah. In his commentary on Genesis 49: 24/2 Rashi writes:

Our Rabbis interpreted 'His bow remained in strength' [Gen. 49: 24] as referring to his [Joseph's] vanquishing ofhis evil inclination concerning his master's wife. [The evil inclination] is called 'a bow' because the semen is shot like an arrow. 'His arms were bedecked with gold' ["1' 'Y1T 'TD"], [ibid.]: [This means that] they [his hands] sent forth ['Y'D"], that is, the semen [Y1tn] went out from between his fingers

["1' nlYJYN )'J))].

BT Ker. 6a.

27 Birnbaum, Ha-Siddur ha-Shalem, 32, 408. See On the Main Line, 16 Oct. 2007. R. David de Sola Pool's search for an 'acceptable' word led him to mistranslate mei raglayim as 'refuse water'. See id. (ed. and trans.), Traditional Prayerbook, 120, 329. As early as medieval times we find the apologetic notion that mei raglayim means water from a spring named raglayim! See Anon., Kol bo, ed. D. Avraham (Jerusalem, 1990), ii. 228 (perush pitum haketoret). The Bible actually preserves a crude word for urine; see 2 Kgs 18: 27 and Isa. 36: I2. In these instances meimei ragleihem is substituted for the word that appears in the Bible (i.e. it is the kere). Judg. 3: 24 and I Sam. 24: 4 contain euphemisms for relieving onesel£ See BT Yev. !03a.

:III Hertz, Authorised Daily Prayer Book, 179. Birnbaum, Ha-Siddur ha-Shalem, II4.

10 Sacks, Koren Siddur, IS0. Scherman and Zlotowitz (eds.), Complete ArtScroll Siddur, I3I, translate: 'They abhor us like menstrual impurity: This too is an incorrect (apologetic?) trans· lation, as the focus is not on menstruation per Sf, but on the menstruating woman. The phrase ketum'ut haniduh comes from Ezek. Ie,: 17, In Scherman (ed.), Tanach, ArtScroll's HebrewEnlo!1ish Bible, Ihl' verSt' ill EZI'kil'i is trallsl.. t,'d propl'r1y: 'Iikt· thl' rontamination ora menstruous woman',

[)ani,'1 SpI'rlll'r has rt'\"rnlly aTj~lIl'd lor n'lI\uvill~ IhrNt' words from thl' pruYI'r hook, SrI' id" ()n C:h"nllr,~ in lrwi,~h WurllY, 4CJ "7, .. 1tillUIIIY I'tlltlollN, IlaNltl'N <lllIllIlrlit 111'1'1'111" lit Iltr rlld 01 v, Ae"

Rashi's interpretation is apparently that ofthe midrashic work Bereshit rabah, which states that the semen went out from his fingernails.33 This could mean that Joseph masturbated, and that this is what enabled him to resist Potiphar's wife. Although it does not cite the Joseph story, the medieval pietistic work SeJer lJasidim states that one should indeed masturbate ifthis is the only way ofpreventing oneselffrom engaging in forbidden sexual relations.14

R. Tsadok Hakohen ofLublin cites this view ofSeJer lJasidim and adds that this explains Joseph's behaviour.35

Alternatively, Rashi is simply summarizing a passage in Sotah 36b, where the Talmud records R. Meir's comment on the words "" 'V,t H!l": 'He stuck his hands in the ground so that his semen came out between his fingernails.'36 The element of sticking his hands in the ground does not appear in Bereshit rabah and may be a different understanding ofhow Joseph overcame his lust (although many traditional commentators assume that the stories in Bereshit rabah and Sotah are describing the same occurrence, perhaps wishing to disabuse people ofthe notion that Joseph might have masturbated). In addition, it is not clear whether in Sotah the semen and the fingernails are supposed to be understood literally.3? Perhaps the entire passage is just a poetic way of describing Joseph conquering his lust. If the passage is to be understood literally, it presumably means that Joseph's spilling ofseed is not to be regarded as intentional.38

The M. Rosenbaum-A. M. Silbermann translation of Rashi, which began to appear in 1929, apparently understood Rashi to mean that Joseph mas

33 Bereshit rabah 98: 20: "l'!l~ ", 17 N~'11V'1 1T!lnl. See similarly JT Hor. 2: 5. Note, however, that while the midrash uses the word "l'!l~, 'his fingernails', Rashi uses 1'1' n1VJ~N 'his fingers'. ,. Sefer 1;Iasidim, no. 176. For authorities who agree with Sefer 1;Iasidim, see C. Rapoport,Judaism and Homosexuality, 140 n . II.

T. Hakohen, Yisra'el kedoshim, 148 (10: 27): ,1J1ln V1 ,~, D1j70J 1mn, n7"J7 V'l nN~1i1J p Dl \I)'

P n'i1 NonDO ~01" Ni11 .0'1) I"» 1»j7 1r.l'O O'1>on 1!lOJ 110N1I) 1D'. 36 This understanding ofRashi is found in Tosafot hashalem, v. 74. 37 See Teshuvot hage'onim, no. 26. 31! That is how the passage has been understood by a number of commentaries. See e.g.

R. Samuel Edels (Maharsha; 1555-1631) on BT Sot. 36b, who feels the need to stress that 'certainly Joseph was careful not to touch his member'. See also Azulai, Peta/:r. einayim, 'Nidah' 13a; Kunitz, Ben yo/:r.ai, 71. Some guilt, however, is attached to Joseph by R. Isaac Luria. R. Hayim Vital quott'" Luria, in the name of R. Kalonymos, as stating that Joseph sinned in his mind, and the drops of semen went out from his fingers. Because Joseph did not consummate the sexual ad wilh Potiphar's wife, his bones could be buried in the land oflsrael. bUI not his body. SCI' Vital. Sha'ar hapesukim, Numbers, ch. 12 (p. 34a). From another lext by Vital. WI' set' Ihat l.uria lTleant thaI Ihl' semen literally came out through the fingers; SCI' Vital. l.ikutei toruh I1rvi'im ukhrtuvim, 'VaYI'bi', p, 52a, See also Hayim, Ben yehoyada, 'Sotah' 36", It MON"N Villi" (d, 1777), a Il'adilllCllll'lllbrr orR MOSt'N Ilayirn l.u7.7.allo'" tirdr, Nlah'N rxplidtly thut lo"rph '"piliI'd hiN NI't'd 1It'l'dlt'uly', IhnulCh h.. alNo omitN ilny ilnOllnt oflaow thiN 1'111111' IIhout. SI'I' VailI', Or ilium, 7(11).

turbated. This explains why this section of Rashi is not translated, even though the Hebrew text is complete. Another example of the RosenbaumSilbermann edition's prudery appears in Genesis 25: I. Commenting on the verse recording that Abraham took Keturah as a wife, Rashi states that Keturah is Hagar but was called Keturah 'because she bound up her opening, for she did not have sexual relations with any man from the time she separated from Abraham'.39 While Rosenbaum and Silbermann translate the beginning of Rashi's comment, that she was named Keturah because her deeds were as beautiful as incense (ketoret) , the second option, mentioned above, is simply omitted in the translation.40

In his commentary on Genesis 3= I, Rashi states that the serpent saw Adam and Eve 'naked and engaging in sexual intercourse before the eyes ofall, and he desired her'. Rosenbaum and Silbermann 'translate' this as 'he saw them naked and unashamed and he coveted her', once again sparing the reader a sexually explicit comment. In Genesis 25: 26 Rashi states that Jacob was formed from the first drop of Isaac's semen and Esau from the second. In Genesis 49: 3 Rashi comments on the words 'Reuben, you are. , , the first of my vigour': 'This is his first drop, for Jacob had never had a seminal emission.' These last two passages are not translated in Rosenbaum-Silbermann.

Other examples of 'uncomfortable' comments by Rashi that remain untranslated in Rosenbaum-Silbermann are those on Genesis 18: 8, II, which refer to Sarah's menstrual cycle, Genesis 19: 5, which states that the Sodomites wished to have homosexual sex with the visiting angels, and Genesis 24: 16, which tells us that Rebecca was not merely a virgin, but had also not engaged in unnatural sex, unlike 'the daughters of the gentiles who would preserve their virginity but were promiscuous in unnatural ways [lit. 'elsewhere', i.e. anal sex]'. One final example: in his commentary on Genesis 32: 14

(32: 15 in other editions), Rashi discusses the frequency ofthe sexual act for various people and animals, and this too is not translated in the RosenbaumSilbermann translation.41

Another interesting text, which from the standpoint ofsexual propriety is absolutely shocking, appears in Rashi's commentary on Genesis 2: 23. The verse states that after Eve was created Adam said: 'This time, it is bone ofmy bones and flesh of my flesh.' The Talmud quotes R. Eleazar on this verse:

I" I n this I'xample, as in all others ml'lItioncd Iwlow, Rashi is quoting comments ofthe talmudic sa~I's. ~I This was railed to my attention by Nathan Lamm.

.. A fi'w oftht'NI' t'x3mplrN urI' nott'u hy l.awt'I', 'Fmlll Srpharad to Ashkenaz', 423 n. 14K. I have lIot rhl'rk('d th(' ('ntin' ({oNrllh.llulI -SlIhrrlllallll trallNlation of ({uMhi, hut baMI'd upon what I havl' nlltl'd alrrady, I auumr thllt othl'l' MI'XIIIII rrfrrl'llIrN hllvr aiNU hl'rn IImittl'(1 frllm thrir lI·aIlNlllllnll.

'This teaches that Adam had intercourse [sheba adam all with every beast and animal but found no satisfaction until he had intercourse with [sheba all Eve.'42 This text was notorious in medieval times, and both Nicholas Donin (thirteenth century) and Jeronim de Santa Fe (fifteenth century) quoted it in their attacks on the Talmud as a particularly obscene rabbinic passage.43

Rashi lived well before these attacks and thus had no reason not to cite

R. Eleazar's explanation, but it should not be surprising that some translations of Rashi share Donin's and de Santa Fe's abhorrence-or at least fear that their readers will have this reaction-and refuse to provide a literal translation of the passage. Thus, in A. J. Rosenberg's translation44 the passage is rendered as: 'This teaches us that Adam came to all the animals and the beasts [in search of a mate], but he was not satisfied until he found Eve.' In order to spare sensitive ears, the reader is not informed that there was any sexual activity taking place. The same blurring of meaning is found in Rosenbaum and Silbermann's translation (,Adam endeavored to find a companion among all cattle and beasts'), as well as in two other popular translations of Rashi.45

It is true that there is a whole series of supercommentaries on Rashi that reinterpret Rashi's aggadic explanations (and thus the Talmud and Midrash as well) in a non-literal fashion. Yet in this case, only considerations of prudishness can explain such a step in a translation, especially as even among many traditional commentators Rashi's words have been understood literally. One such commentator is pointed to by none other than the ArtScroll translation of Rashi,46 with the explanation that the prohibition on bestiality 'did not come into effect until after the creation ofEve'.

As Eric Lawee has shown, the literal understanding of Rashi's (and the Talmud's) comment was standard in medieval Ashkenaz, while 'to a one, Spanish supercommentators urged a reading according to which Adam's intercourse with beasts was cognitive, not carnal'.47 By the seventeenth century it is almost impossible to find any interpreter who takes the passage literally. Lawee also points out that while R. Elijah Mizrahi (C.1450-lp6), in his

42 BT Yev. 63a. .3 See Lawee, 'Reception of Rashi's Commentary', 46 II

.. A. J. Rosenberg (trans.), Mikraotgedolot: bereshit.

"'" Metsudah Chumash/Rashi; Ben Isaiah and Sharfman (trans.). Pentateuch and Ra.~hi·s Com·

mentary.

.. Herczeg et al. (eds.), Torah With Rashi's Commentary. As "ril" I.IW('(' has nol('d. in thl' ArtScroli English Talmud only the non-literal inll'rpn'tatioll iN Ilwntioru,d. S('(' IOIW('(', 'ErnharraHMment and Re·emhranmlt'nt', :1.06"7.

" IOIWI'I', '!'rolll Srph;ulId to AHhkI'III1:t.'.I'l04 ~. Dill' Nour('(' lIot IIIrllllolird hy l.lIwl't' i.

II . I>~vld Marilita Murliitu. who IIvrcl llil IlItrr thall thl' I~th ('rllt. SrI' M~rtiku, Irk/1I4t II,/IIm, Ie..

2QI

commentary on Rashi, does interpret the text literally, in the 1862 Warsaw edition ofthe work, which until recent years was the standard edition, this passage was excised.48 By this time the only acceptable reading ofthis passage in Rashi was to treat it like the Song of Songs, where the words must be understood allegorically, Mizrahi's literal understanding was simply too scandalous and thus had to go.

When the Church censored this passage, seeing it as blasphemous, no less a figure than Johann Reuchlin (1455-1522) came to Rashi's defence. Reuchlin interpreted Rashi to mean that 'Adam came to each beast and animal but his sensuality was not aroused until he saw his wife'.49 Presumably unaware of those Jewish interpreters who understood Rashi literally, Reuchlin claimed that 'Rashi's words had been twisted by devils[!] to incite Christians against Jews'.50 It is ofcourse most ironic that Reuchlin defended Rashi against what he believed to be devilish misinterpretations, when, in fact, these interpretations were offered by outstanding rabbinic scholars who would have been more than a little piqued that a non-Jew was telling them that they were distorting Rashi's words.

The fact that the Church chose to censor this comment of Rashi shows that it was not only anti-Christian texts that were subjects for deletion. One can also cite other passages ofa sexual nature that offended the Christian censors and were therefore removed. Examples include halakhot in Maimonides' Mishneh torah and R. Jacob ben Asher's Arba'ah turim recording the permissibility of 'unnatural intercourse'. It is possible that these halakhot were also found in the original version of R. Joseph Karo's Shull:z,an arukh, but since the first edition was also subject to censorship, we can only assume as much. It was left to R. Moses Isserles to add the missing halakhot.51

Until now I have dealt with post-biblical texts that created problems, but the difficulty is as old as the Bible itself The Song of Songs presents a great challenge for those who are uncomfortable with references to female anatomy and romantic relationships. But it is also an opportunity for translators to use all sorts of euphemisms and circumlocutions. Those who can read the Bible in its original Hebrew see what the text actually says, but those who rely on translations are subject to the whims ofthe translators.

The ArtScroll edition of Song of Songs translates it in accordance with the midrashic understanding.~l For example, 'your two breasts' (4: 5, 7= 4) become either 'Moses and Aaron' or th(· 'Tablt,ts of the Law'. This is exactly

.. l.ilwt't', 'From St'pharad 10 AHhk.'IIOIZ', 411) . It h~N \>("'11 n'illNI'rl('d ill E. Miuahi, t.lumusll hurr.'em. •• W~ltOIl ~lId W~ltoll, '11Ii>rfiou"(,.,ltlw Churl'll Milit;IIIt'. 1<)',. ~I Ihid,

" Srr K~I'U, ";hul~/m "'''kll, 'Iivrll hll'r:t.rr' ,,~: .I; Kil1.·Krllkllt:t.kit" ' Frolll SilI"tI III Vrllitr', III.

'4 S,hrrrrlillllllld ZI.,towlt:, Irtl~,~, .'illir lIu ·.'IIII"m.

the approach adopted by the Targum in its 'translation' ofthe Song ofSongs. In ArtScroll's commentary the literal meaning is also given. Yet in the ArtScroll Siddur, Chumash, and Passover Machzor only the interpretative meaning is offered. The reason given for this is that 'The literal meaning of the words is so far from their meaning that it is false.'53

The ArtScroll Siddur and Machzor are, I think, the first ones in history to adopt such an approach, but the sentiments expressed by ArtScroll are not new. This can be seen from what happened when the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) published a sidur in 1960.54 This prayer book, translated by

R. David de Sola Pool (1885-1970), was placed under a ban by the Agudas HaRabbonim (rabbinical association) ofthe United States and Canada. One ofthe reasons given for the ban was that the Song ofSongs was translated 'in a secular and vulgar fashion' and even included 'obscenities' (nibul peh).55 Since the so-called obscenities are actually just translations ofthe Hebrew, I assume that Agudas HaRabbonim wanted the translator to use euphemisms. (As far as I know, no one has ever suggested the publication of an 'updated' Hebrew version of the Song of Songs, so that Hebrew speakers are not exposed to the original words.)

Although the RCA translation was attacked for being too explicit, even this version engaged in subtle censorship for puritanical reasons. For example, Song of Songs I: 13 states: bein shadai yalin. This means 'he lies between my breasts'. ArtScroll, in the literal translation that accompanies its midrashic 'translation', softens the passage a bit, but still writes 'bosom'. Yet in the RCA sidur, gone are the 'breasts', and instead the lover rests 'on my heart'.

Another example of puritanical sentiments influencing a biblical translation can be seen in Joseph Magil's Linear School Bible.56 Magil's Pentateuch

" Gold (ed.), The Complete ArtScroll Machzor: Pesach, 567. See my Seforim Blog posts, 14 Nov. 2011 and 20 Nov. 20II. ,. De Sola Pool (ed. and trans.), Traditional Prayerbook.

S5 See Hapardes (Feb. 1961), I (unnumbered). Another reason given for the ban was the presence of faulty translations, including translations that contradict both halakhah and the accepted peshat, as well as translations that could lead people to heresy. The reference to heresy refers to the translation of the Berikh shemeih prayer (p. 241) , which translates bar elahin not as 'angel' but 'son ofGod'.The RCA sidur translates the opening words ofthe Kaddish as 'Exalted and hallowed be God's great name in this world of His creation. May His will be fulfilled: This has some similarity to the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6: 9-10, King James Version): 'Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name ... Thy will be done in earth .. . '. The RCA sidur translation' May His will be fulfilled' is a clear error, as the Aramaic simply means '[[n the world that he created] according to His will'. The similarity between the RCA sidur's translation ofthl' Kaddish and the Lord's Prayer is hardly an accident. De Sola Pool. in his hook Thr Kaddi~h, },I Ir.. III IT'., had C'arlil'r discussed the relationship bt"tw('('n the' Kaddish and the' [Alrd'" I'r,lyN, ('()ndlldill~ Ihal 'Ihco a~r{'ement hetween tht"m is so dOMe ;lIId HO ,'xa,·t in main lfoatllfC'N and III almoNI all d"tails, that tlll'ir t'HHt'lIti:llullity oforlKin iN IIndt'l1hlhle' (p. 11..1).

,. I thallk Dr Salll Kllhallli)[ hrllllllllil thiN IIlhll' to Illy 11111'1111011.

was first published in 1905 and was followed by similar linear translations of other biblical books. In the preface to the work, Magil writes that his intention is to have his edition used as 'a school book and a companion to all those desiring to study the Bible in its original language without regard to age or sex'. What then to do about certain 'problematic' passages? Magil tells us that he has left untranslated those passages 'not suitable for translation from the modern stand-point of nicety. For the same reason, a word was sometimes purposely rendered incorrectly[!), the correct rendering being given in the footnotes. '

The passages which Magil does not translate, giving us only the Hebrew, are Genesis 38: 8-30 (the story of Judah and Tamar), 39: 7-18 (Joseph and Potiphar's wife); Leviticus 15 (physical secretions including menstruation),

18: 6-23, 19: 20-2, 20: 10-21 (sexual crimes); Numbers 5: 11-31 (the sotah (adulterous woman); Deuteronomy 22: 13-29 (accusation that a bride is not a virgin), 23: 1-3 (sexual crimes, the law ofa mamzer,57 and one whose private parts are maimed), and 23= 10-15, 18-19 (nocturnal emissions, hygiene in the war camp, harlotry).

Magil's concern with propriety is also seen in other verses that speak of sexual relations. For example, Genesis 29: 30 speaks of Jacob 'going into' Rachel, and Magil turns this into Jacob marrying her. While the translation is not exact, one could argue that it expresses the sense of the verse. Yet this puritanical approach also leads to (intentional) error. An example of what Magi! has in mind when he speaks of giving 'incorrect' translations appears in Numbers 31: 17, where the Israelites are commanded to kill the Midianites, including 'every woman that hath known man by lying with him'. Magil's translation refers to 'every woman that has ever been married', and, as promised in the preface, gives the correct translation in the footnote.58

One final example is worth noting, since it appears not only in Magil but also in many other translations, both earlier and later, up to the present day. This illustrates well the continuing concern with 'propriety' and the feelings ofthe reader. I Samuel 25 describes David's confrontation with Nabal, and in verse 22 David speaks of not leaving anything with Nabal, even a mashtin bekir. The typical English translation renders this as 'one male'. Anyone desiring an accurate translation can turn to the King James version, where the words are correctly rendered as 'any that pisseth against the wall' .59

" The' oflsprinl! ofn'rtain lorhiddt'n s,'xllal n·!alionships. ,. Sincl' the' footnoll' appt'ars unthl' saIIII' pall,';es the' Il'xl, I wnnd,'r why Mallil saw any valut· in hiR approach. ... It 1M rIOt IItNt )l'wlNlr tr~IlMI~lnrN whn Nhnwrd Iltrlr puritlllllnil Ml'llNr. Ilnr rx~ltIplr, Itl M~[I'IIN IlndN'N rlUIi Ir~IINlatlnll or AUIlIINtllll"N C'lty fIr(;,"1, whlrh w"_ Ihr Mt"rulflnl 1~IIMIINh vrrMlnn 1m

Before moving on, let me also note that we have at least one famous exam

ple ofself-censorship regarding the matters ofwhich we have been speaking.

This comes from R. Jacob Emden, who must have realized that one of his

comments was too much, even for him. In the first edition of his Migdal oz,

Emden quoted a Jewish man who had had sexual relations with a non-Jewish

woman, and the woman told him that she had more sexual pleasure with a

circumcised man than with one who was uncircumcised.GO This passage,

which Gershom Scholem described as 'near obscenity, especially in a prayer

book',61 was deleted by Emden himselffrom most ofthe copies ofthe first edi

tion ofthis work, and the uncensored copies are now a collector's item.62

Let us now turn to some examples where texts dealing with personal matters were altered. While the authors were prepared to share these stories, later publishers, and even copyists of manuscripts, were more reticent. For example, a passage in R. Joseph Karo's Magid meisharim that mentions his sex life was deleted from manuscripts, obviously for puritanical reasons.63 In the hasidic work Malakhei elyon, edited by Abraham Isaac Rabinowitz,64 there is a description of what led R. Tsadok Hakohen of Lublin to divorce his wife. According to the tale, his wife 'extended her hand' to a non-Jewish military figure who came to drink wine in her father's establishment. This probably means that she gave him her hand to kiss, as was the custom in those days. This entire story was removed from the second edition ofthe work,65 no doubt because it was thought that it provided 'too much information'.

There is also another passage regarding R. Tsadok that was censored. This text is interesting because it illustrates how certain hasidic disciples thought it

many years, a section of book 14, ch. 26, dealing with the sexual relationship ofAdam and Eve, is left untranslated. In Clement of Alexandria's The Instructor, a large section of book II, ch. 10, dealing with sex in marriage, was not translated in the Edinburgh 1867 edition. An editorial note informs the reader that 'for obvious reasons, we have given the greater part ofthis chapter in the Latin version' (p. 244). In the Edinburgh 1869 translation of Clement's Stromata, the entire book III remains untranslated. (My colleague Dr Eric Plumer brought these examples from Christian literature to my attention.) Another example of Christian puritanical censorship is seen in the Venice, 1574 edition of Maimonides' Mishneh torah, where references to unnatural sexual inter· course (shelo kedarkah) were deleted. See the Frankel edition's lengthy textual note on 'Hilkhot melakhim' 9: 7, which lists all the examples.

60 Emden, Migdal OZ, 2b. See also p. 3a, for another comment about non·J(,wish women preferring intercourse with a circumcised man. ., Scholem, Researches in Sabbateanism (Heb.), 657. Migdal (lZ is rq;ardl'd as parI I of' Emd!'n's prayer book.

'" See Kestenbaum's audioll <.:atalol(lII', St'PI. LOO(), p. I~, wilt'n' all tlllu'nstm·d t'dilioll of'llIr Ihrl'l'·voltlnw pray!'r hook was t'xl't't'lt'tllo lit' sold fin' h<'lwrc'n SJO,0UO ;tlltl S.L~,ooo. 1Il'IIllc'd tip sl'lIilll! ji,r S4I,Cl(,O. Srr lilt' ;lIIdiolll'('Ntllt OIl. www.krHlrllhulIIlI.nrl/Jlrt (ll)oll'JliIp '.

," Srrll.l..(iorlinll,MlllUlillu/('urll,IICt. ., )1,11)(110,1.01), ., /rnINull'III,I')('C"

was important to record everything about their master, even ifthey could only allude to certain matters. From the standpoint ofcontemporary mores, some of what they recorded is precisely not the sort of thing that should be preserved for posterity. According to the story, R. Tsadok was observing yahrzeit, the anniversary ofthe death ofa close relative, and was leading the prayers for the congregation. 'Something happened, which I am not able, and I do not want to tell, and those who were there certainly remember what happened then. He was terribly distressed by it, and in the Amidah he was groaning and sighed greatly.'66 Apparently, what this means is that R. Tsadok broke wind, and those who were praying with him were aware of this.67 It is no surprise that this strange text was removed when the work was reprinted.

In the previous two cases moderns might assume that the original text included too much information and that the later censorship is understandable. The next example, however, is just the opposite, and it is the original text that is more in line with contemporary mores. In a published letter from

R. Elhanan Wasserman to R. Eliezer Silver (1882-1968) describing the death of R. Hayim Ozer Grodzinski, Wasserman writes: 'A short while before his death ... he said: "You know that it is not good."'68 The first thing to notice is that an ellipsis is provided. This is significant, as usually haredi censorship does not provide any indication that words are missing. So what has been deleted? In the original letter it mentions that Grodzinski held his wife's hand.69 Although the haredi world is opposed to all public displays of affection, one would think that even in that world this particular act ofcensorship would be regarded as downright cold-hearted. For what could possibly be objectionable in recording that in his last moments, Grodzinski reached for the hand ofhis wife, with whom he had shared some fifty-seven years?70

There is another fascinating text to which I would like to call attention. It too deals with a woman although, again, the context is not sexual. This example is particularly interesting since it shows that even in the early nineteenth century, the publisher was troubled by something that certainly would bother a modern reader. I refer to the phenomenon of a husband striking his wife, which unfortunately is not unknown in Jewish history.71

'''' A. I. Rabinowitz, Malakhei elyon (Warsaw edn.), 24 (no. 29).

., See Karo, Shul/:J.an arukh, 'Orab. b.ayim' lOr 3: 'Ifone has an eruption [of air] while he prays, if

il is from below it is a bad omen for him.' •• Wasserman, Kovets ma'amarim ve'igerot, ii. 97.

,," I thank Chaim LandE-r('r for this information. The letter is preserved at the Agudath Israel

i\ rchivt's in New York.

' I>

ror (('Ilsorship ofa SOrlK hy Ihl' lilillOUS hasidir mmpos('r Yom Tov Ehrlich, see David Assaf's hlol(, Ont'l( Shahhal . .1.1 SI'PI. 0101;1.. A!IIoliK olhc'r 'prohll'llialic' Vl'rs('s , Ehrlkh had writtt'n of It Akiva's lovl' lilr his wi/i·.

n Sl't' i\vr~II>1111 C;ro"HIIIUII, 'Mrlllrvill Hllhhhik VlrwN' ; lei .. /'11114 ,111111/ HrhrlliCll4N (111'11.),.-)). 10; (;r~rt:t, Siltn( r h I'flHl/y; 'I rJlt'I'U III, Altlwlrl mhltp"', t. 1.1'/ II,

Today, such behaviour is regarded with abhorrence, as it would have been by most Jews throughout the generations. There are numerous halakhists, from medieval times to the present, who speak of the utter horror of wifebeating. Yet for the sake ofhistorical accuracy we must note there were also some authorities, a minority to be sure, who thought that at times a husband was permitted to hit his wife ifhe thought this was necessary in order to keep her 'in line'.

Even when permission was given to hit one's wife, it did not mean that the woman was ever regarded like property, and that she could be abused at will for any reason at all. Those who permitted wife-beating generally saw this as a way of forcing her to follow religious law.72 Viewing a wife as subservient, much as one views a child vis-a-vis a parent, opened the door to 'corrective' measures, which for some included physical violence. For example, both

R. Israel Isserlein (1390-1460) and R. David Ibn Zimra explain that a husband can beat his wife ifshe behaves in a sinful way because 'she is under his control'.73

12 See e.g. R. Jonah Gerondi, [geret hateshuvah, ch. s: 'He who beats his wife transgresses two negative commandments, unless he is striking her to reprove her for her sins'; and R. Eliezer of Metz, Seftr yere'im, no. 21T 'A man should be very careful not to raise his hand against his fellow, even his wife, but ifhe intends to chastise her or to guide her, or to chastise or guide his fellow in the right way, it is permitted, as it is said, "A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back" [Provo 26: 3].'

73 Isserlein, Terumat hadeshen, no. 218, and Ibn Zimra, She'e/ot uteshuvot haradbaz, no. 888: lnl'D1l N'i1111 Il" l"'0' m'tn." .,n".", mo', nl1l11 " 111' ll'mln 'lI, c'm., >n'l C'1l1 n1l11Y IN'n) ON . For a simi· lar justification, see R. Elijah Capsali (C.1483-1555), Me'ah she'arim, ch. 43, who thinks that one is obligated to hit one's wife ifthis is the only way to stop her from cursing one's parents. We see that this is his opinion because he states that in this case, if the husband does not hit her he will be punished (i.e. heavenly punishment). Virtually all those who permit husbands to beat their wives are speaking ofcases where the wife is guilty ofsome specific sin. However, there are exceptions. For example, R. Samuel Hanagid (lIth cent.) writes that a husband should beat his wife 'if she dominates you as a man and raises her head'. See A. Grossman, 'Medieval Rabbinic Views', 55; id., Pious and Rebellious (Heb.), 38r. (R. Samuel Hanagid's words appear in his Ben mishlei, II7 (no, 419), which is a poetic wisdom text, modelled on the book of Proverbs, not a halakhic work.) In Magen e/okim, 64, the author (apparently R. Isaac Aboab (15th cent.)), as part ofhis marital advice, recommends not speaking too much to one's wife, showing her an angry face, and hitting her,

R. Samuel Jaffe (16th cent.), famous for his commentaries on the Jerusalem Talmud and Midrash, states that by virtue of the husband's authority, he has the right to strike his wife (and children) with a stick and strap. See S. Jaffe, Yefth mar'eh, on JT Bik. 3: 5 (p. 93a). Because this viewpoint is so extreme, R. Nissim Abraham Ashkenazi (d. 1860), Nel;lmad lemar'eh, 197b, assumed that Jafie must only be referring to a case when a wife curses her husband, and that he could not possibly ll<' giving the husband carte blanche for such behaviour. See also Adelman, '''Law and Love"', 295-6: 'Archival materials from the sixteenth-century Roman Jewish comnillnity collfirllllhese lindil1l(H with descriptions ofwife-beating as a sometimes acceptabl(' part of J(·wish f;lIl1i1y lifl', "hitting her in tht, manner in which women, mooest virgifls, ami IhoNI' who OhNI'lvr till' rlll('11 'Hr dlalltist'd", Om' wif" was warned Ihal if Hh" WOlH 1101 ui>rdil'1I110 hrr hUMhafld hr would h" 011>1" "10 do wilh hrr ~II Ihr 'lbrOlh prrlllitH",'

It should have been apparent to all that even limited permission given to hit wives would lead to terrible abuses, but that is not how everyone saw matters. A responsum from the geonic period even states that ifa woman is beaten by her husband she should remain quiet, as this is the way a modest women behaves.74 (R. Eliezer Papo (1785-1828) also offered this advice many years later, adding that by accepting upon herself the 'judgement of heaven'(!), the wife can look forward to reward in the world to come.75)

Maimonides writes that if a woman does not fulfil her household duties, for which she is religiously obligated, she can be beaten.76 Upon this ruling,

R. Abraham ben David (Rabad, Maimonides' great critic), exclaims that he never heard of such a thing, that it is permissible to beat a woman,77 According to many, Maimonides means that the court can beat the woman, not the husband. Yet this is hardly clear and does not appear to be how Rabad78 or R. Vidal ofTolosa (fourteenth centuryf9 understood the ruling. Meiri and

R. Solomon Luria state explicitly that Maimonides means the husband. Luria explains that Maimonides sees this case as parallel to the way in which a master can physically discipline his slave_SO Yet he adds that unlike a slave, according to Maimonides a wife can only be treated this way when her misbehaviour also constitutes a religious infraction, as, for example, refusing to perform her household duties.81

R. Nissim Gerondi (1320-76) quotes an unnamed gaon who also stated that a husband could beat his wife in the circumstances described by

,. This responsum also states that a wife must feed her husband, even from her hand to his mouth, and stand up when he enters the room. See Lewin (ed.), Otsar hage'onim, 'Ketubot', no. 428, pp. 169-70. The responsum is attributed to R. Yehudai Gaon (8th cent.), but Grossman doubts that this is accurate. He assumes that the text is part ofthe genre ofnon-normative Jewish literature that was influenced by Muslim writings. See A. Grossman, Pious and Rebellious (Heb.), 377-8.

" Papo, Pele yo'ets, 6b (letter alef, S.v. ahavat ish ve'ishah). Shockingly, Papo's advice is even repeated by contemporary rabbis in their books on shelom bayit (domestic peace). See Zakai, Shelom bayit, 1I8; Y. Hakohen, Shalom ohalekha, 27; Ayash, Beitkha shalom, 136.

7. Maimonides, Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot ishut' 2I: IO.

R. Menahem Meiri, who like Rabad was from Provence, does refer to beating one's wife, and discusses whether it is permissible to hit her with a stick when she is a nidah (menstruant). See Meiri, Beit habel;lirah, 'Nidah', 279, 'Ketubot', 24. See also Tosafot, Ketubot 63a, s.v. rav. Rabad's own solution to a 'misbehaving' wife is also not in line with modern sensibilities. He states that olle can cease sustaining her, including feeding her, until she submits.

'" See A. Grossman, Pious and Rehelliou.1 (Heb.),~84.

See his Magidmishneh, 'lshul':lc 10. *' lnVlM" 'lIll''ll n'M,on l"llll nYll." "PllllllY nN l1n nD"VI Ill'. S. Luria, Yum shrl shdomoh, 'Bava billa' 1: 21. For M('iri's slah'IIII'III, 111'1' IIdl !1U!Jr!linlh, 'KI'llIhot', :l~')·ho, " Ihid, \.uri;! hilllMrlf rl'jl'I'I" MllhllUllldrN' OJllllluII, Sr" IIIMo 1(, SlIlIllirl IHlruI. M~lrkhrl IhmlHrl,l)X I), who ~HHrrIH Ih~1 MllllllolillirN IIII'UIiN Ihlllll1r hll.hlliltl hrlltN 1111' will', 1101 thr 101111.

Maimonides,82 and Maimonides' ruling could well be reflecting this viewpoint.83 Centuries after Maimonides, R. Moses Isserles ruled that a man may not beat his wife, adding that this is sinful and not a Jewish trait. However, he also stated that ifshe needlessly curses her husband or degrades his parents, actions which are both halakhic violations, and does not heed his rebuke, it is permissible to hit her if this will stop her improper behaviour.84 Isserles' ruling will cause people great discomfort today, and it is almost impossible to find a modem halakhist who adopts this opinion.8s As early as the nineteenth century, R. Hayim Palache ofIzmir (1788-1869) understood the danger of Isserles' position, since any man who wished to beat his wife could use Isserles' reason as a pretext. In other words, as long as beating one's wife is permitted in any circumstances, it leaves all women vulnerable. Therefore, Palache concluded that 'in our day' it is never permitted to use physical force against one's wife.86 While Palache's outlook is certainly admirable, one would assume that even in Isserles' day there were men who were prepared to beat their wives for all sorts of reasons, and if challenged would claim

82 See his commentary on BT Ket. 63b (p. 26b in the Alfasi pages).

83 See A. Grossman, Pious and Rebellious (Heb.), 385. In Igeret hakodesh, in Nahmanides, Works (Heb.), vol. ii, p. 336, the author writes 'lI'o'lln plY ~Y ilnml~ N~I ilOY l"~ 'IN' I'NI. This language seems to imply that there is no actual prohibition on hitting one's wife, only a moral imperative to refrain from doing so. Charles Mopsik claims that this work was written by R. joseph Gikatilla (1248-c.I325). See Mopsik, Lettre sur la saintete, 13 ff.

84 Isserles' gloss on Karo, Shulhan arukh, 'Even ha'ezer' 154: 3. See also Isserles' gloss on Shulhan arukh, 'Boshen mishpat' 421: 13. His ruling is based on Isserlein, Terumat hadeshen, no.

218. (See also Solomon ben Adret, She'elot uteshuvot harashba hameyuhasot leramban, no. 102,)

R. Moses Provencal agrees with Isserles that a wife can be beaten to stop her improper behaviour, See Provencal, She'elot uteshuvot rabenu mosheh provintsalu, vol. i, no. 77. However, an early copyist was uncomfortable with what Provencal wrote and inserted a few words, bracketed in the pub. lished edition, that do not reflect Provencal's outlook: 'P ~'J'lIJl il1:)\)j7il n~l'O iln'il N'il'll ''In' DN D~l"' l'~N ll'lln'll 1Y ilN:t"DO "nmID m'O~il ('NV11l'N'lI ~")INJ ilmN il'O '>n. Some authorities rule that ifyou see a man sinning it is permitted to beat him as well, if this will stop his sinful action; see M. jaffe, Levush ir shushan, 'Boshen mishpat' 421: 13; S. Luria, Yam shel shelomoh, 'Bava kama' r 9.

., There are some exceptions. See e.g. H. j. D. Weiss, Vaya'an david, vol. iii, 'Even ha'ezer', no. !O2, where R. Hayim joseph David Weiss concludes that one can beat one's wife to prevent her from sinning, but only ifshe is going to violate a biblical prohibition. See also R. Shlomo Korah, Teshuvah kahalakhah, no. 38, who permits a man to beat his wife if she curses him to his face,

R. Aharon Yehudah Grossman claims that since women and children do not have completely developed intellects, 'therefore sometimes both ofthem need to be hit in order to educate them', See A. Y. Grossman, Vedarashta ve/:lakarta (2008), vol. v, part 2, p. 529. He also points out, ibid ..

p. 528, that while Maimonides permits using a ~hot (which ml',IlIS 'whip' or 'rod ') on om-'s wilt-, hI' forbids doing this with a student, with whom one can ollly IIN(" ;1 small slrap. SI'(' Maimollidl'H, Mishnr.h torah, 'Hilkhot talmud torah' 2 : 2 .

.. I'alal'hl', Ka(ha/;myim, I; II; id., '/hkha~' /:Iayim, 'Hlllnr' (p. lob). SrI' 111"11 Me-dill!' SrJrj /:IrmeJ, vo\. v, 'M~';lrl'khI'I hl'h', IIC/, ~ (p, II)CIA).

that they were provoked by their spouses' misdeeds, the very misdeeds that

Isserles rules are sufficient grounds for beating one's wife.

What does all this have to do with internal Jewish censorship? In 1806 the commentary on the Torah by R. Jacob ben Asher (c.I269-c.I343) was published for the first time, and was reprinted a few times after this. Yet it was only in 2006, when the commentary was published in a critical edition, that readers learnt that the 1806 edition had omitted something that appears not only in the manuscript used for this edition, but also in the two other existing manuscripts ofthis commentary.

When Leah gave birth to her first son, she called him Reuben, 'Because the Lord hath looked upon my affiiction' (Genesis 29: 32). She called her second son Simeon, 'Because the Lord hath heard that I am hated' (Genesis 29: 33).

R. Jacob ben Asher explains that before Reuben was born, Jacob used to beat Leah, and this is what she meant by God looking upon her affliction. Once Reuben was born he no longer beat her, but would still scold her, which is why with Simeon's birth she spoke of God hearing that she is hated.87 Seeing the patriarch Jacob portrayed as beating his wife was so troubling to the editor in r806 that the easiest way to handle the problem was simply to omit it. 88

Itis interesting that a similar passage by R. Jacob ben Asher appears in the standard Ba'al haturim commentary by him on Genesis 3: 12.The verse states: 'The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' According to R. Jacob ben Asher, this means that 'she hit me with [a branch of] the tree until I acquiesced to her [and ate the fruit]'.89 Unlike the previous example from R. Jacob ben Asher, this explanation is not unique to him, as it also appears in works by the Tosafists90 and R. Jacob of Vienna

. 7 Jacob ben Asher, Perush hatur ha'arokh al hatorah, Gen. 29: p .

88 David Assaf called attention to I. Berger, Eser orot, 36b, no. 22, who quotes R. Israel ben Shabetai Hapstein (1733-1844), the Maggid ofKozienice, concerning a strange practice ofhitting a hride until her tooth falls out. See Assaf, Caught in the Thicket (Heb.), 37. While it is hard to know what to make of this report, it is noteworthy that in all subsequent editions, and even in some <Dpies of the 1907 edition, this section has been deleted. Regarding beating one's children, in some manuscripts of the Vilna Gaon's famous letter to his family, he states that at times children should be beaten 'with cruel blows'. These words were removed from other manuscripts. See '~Iiezer Brodt's Seforim Blog post, 3 Mar. 2013. Another possible example ofcensorship is found in Sfler hasidim, no. 274. The early editions state that if a man touches his wife he should wash his hands before touching a Jewish book. By the 19th cent. we find editions where 'his wife' is no ((llIger mentioned, and instead it states that ifa man t()\\('hes his own skin he should wash before I(lilching a book. It is possihll' Ihal Ihis was ;111 illl\'lItion,,1 all('ralion of the text of Sejer /:Iasidim. This poinl was O1adl' ill an allonymous 1'OIII001'nt on Ih(" harl'di w('hNitc 'B(-hadrl'i Han-dim' al . www.hhol.l.O.iI/limllll"/Iopk.aNp?Iopk id-~X~106&whkh PII"I'-II)&lorlI01 id-116.p.

.. Thl' hliNIN lilr Ihl' I'xr"I'NIN 'N Ihr (lhrll"1' '.hl' "IIVI' IIII' of Ihr Irl'l", III.Il'lid of '.hl' "IIVI' IIII' of 'hI' frull of,h.. Irl'r'. 'I' MII.lllIlv ukmlm Id kah,ruh, (;1'11 . I: 1.01 ; '/11'1'"'' h,uh,drm, i, (;1'11 . r 101 .

(fourteenth century),91 and is also reflected in a poem by Immanuel of Rome (I261-1328).92 Ibis is such a strange comment,93 even more than the previous one, that I find it hard to believe that any medieval authority would have offered it on his own. Presumably, there was some midrashic source, since 10st.94

Another example of censorship with regard to the position of women is seen in R. Elhanan Wasserman's famous Ikveta dimeshi/:l-a (Footsteps of the Messiah). Ibis work was first published in Yiddish,95 and as the title suggests, offers Wasserman's musings regarding what he thought was the era before the arrival of the messiah. A major theme is the need to hold on to Torah in the traditional sense, in an era in which the irreligious have achieved great power and their lifestyle poses a great threat to Orthodox Judaism.

In this book, Wasserman also gives advice on how to create a happy marriage. He writes:

The Sages said, 'Come down a step in choosing your wife.'96 [This means] that one should marry a woman who is on a lower level than him, for the world is based on 'And he shall rule over you' [Gen. 3: 16], [and] 'that every man should rule in his own house' [Esther I: 22]. If she will be on a higher level than him, then she will rule at home, and the Sages already said, 'One whose wife rules him, his life is no life.''17 This is counsel for all times, how to live a happy life.

Ibis text appears in section 27 of Ikveta dimeshi/:l-a, which has been printed a number of times. However, in all but a few of the Hebrew editions this pas

91 Jacob ofVienna, Peshatim uforushim, II. 92 Immanuel ofRome, Mal;lberot, 400 (no. 22).

In his edition ofJacob ben Asher, Ba'al haturim al hatorah, 19 n. no, Ya'akov Koppel Reinitz refers to Jacob Reifman's comment that R. Jacob ben Asher's explanation should be deleted, as it was inserted by those intending to mock the Torah. See Reifman, 'Some More Flowers' (Heb.); Sulam, 'Supplements' (Heb.), 145-6. This is a variation ofthe often expressed apologetic notion that various controversial statements in rabbinic writings are products ofan 'erring student'. Yet as Reinitz points out, all manuscripts contain the passage in question. In addition, Reifman did not know that this explanation also appears in other early texts. See also Yehudah Hershkowitz, 'Note' (Heb.). R. Joseph Hayim, ad yosifl;lai, 'Ki tetse', no, was obviously troubled by the passage, and therefore suggests, without any supporting evidence, that the text should be emended so that insteadof'ln:ll111>, 'she hit me', it should read 'In)lll1l>, 'she touched me'. See also S. Ashkenazi, Alfa beita tinyeta dishemu'elze'ira, i. 210-13.

94 R. Israel Meir Hakohen, Shem olam, part 2 (Nefotsot yisra'el) , ch. 5 (p. 67), mistakenly states that the passage appears in the Midrash. Another strange comment by R. Jacob ben Asher appearH in id., Ba'al haturim al hatorah on Gen. 29: 31. Here he states that Jacoh SlJsp('('ted that l.eah had been sexually promis(uolJs before their marriage. For R. Elijah David Rahinowitz·Teornim'. shocked response, see ibid. 42-'\ (s('((md pagination) .

•, A reprint of the original YiddiNh ilppeilfN in WIiKNerrmlll, Valkut mll'amar'm um.khllwlm, 12· 7(l. .. liT Vrv, (lW, ., Ser liT /lril~. Ilb,

sage is missing.98 Ibe reason is obviously because Wasserman's words would appear incredibly sexist to contemporary readers, even among many in the haredi world.99

Let me conclude this chapter by returning to the subject of sex, and pointing out that had it not been for an act of censorship, Israel Najara's (c.1555-c.1625) Ya-h ribon, one of the most beloved Sabbath hymns, would probably never have achieved popularity. R. Hayim Vital (1543-1620), in his Sefor ha/:l-ezyonot, records that while drunk Najara engaged in homosexual acts. He also mentions that Najara had sexual relations with a non-Jewish woman. Because ofthis, Vital wrote that 'the hymns that he has composed are in themselves good, but whoever speaks to him and whatever leaves his mouth is forbidden, because he always used foul language and was a drunkard his whole life' .'00

In early editions ofthe book, Najara's name was deleted, and it is possible that it was even deleted from the manuscript used for the first edition. It was only with the 1954 publication ofSefor ha/:l-ezyonot, from Vital's own autograph manuscript, that the report about Najara became known. Had this information been public knowledge in earlier years, it is unlikely that Najara's hymn would ever have been adopted, even though, as we have seen, Vital asserted that his hymns are without objection. Yet even after the publication of the uncensored Sqer ha/:l-ezyonot, we should not be surprised that a 2002 edition of the work published by a Jerusalem yeshiva continues to omit Najara's name.101 To do so is a lot easier than explaining to people why such a man's hymn should still be sung.

The passage is even censored in Wasserman, Kovets ma'amarim ve'igerot, which reinserts other passages that had been censored.

This point was made in an anonymous comment on the haredi website Behadrei Haredim at <www.bhol.co.iljforumsjtopic.asp?topicid=58S306&whichpage=2&topicid=I364>. 100 Vital, Seftr hal;lezyonot, 34, trans. in Faierstein, Jewish Mystical Autobiographies, 71.

101

See Dan Rabinowitz's Seforim Blog post, 3 May 2006. R. Ya'akov Moshe Hillel knows ofthe ac(Usations against Najara but refuses to elaborate. See id., Vayashav hayam, ii. 145-6: ill' N'll Dl '1nN 'J il~' ili"n1l>i1l .m,,, "", ilm,m illmJil "llJ il~"nil n"i"lil 10 "'Ol N" ,'1I>nil 10 'i'l NY' N7 ilon"" 1mN D'1I>"i' mo. On the general issue of Lurianic kabbalah and homosexuality, see Magid, 'Con. structing Women from Men'. For censorship of Jiri Langer's work dealing with homoeroticism, set' Halper, 'Coming Out ofthe Hasidic Closet', 190 n. 3.

OTHER CENSORED MATTERS

Non-Jews

Texts dealing with non-Jews are an area where internal censorship, and of course non-Jewish censorship, has abounded. Usually the motivation for internal censorship was because the texts in question speak negatively about non-Jews, and Jews rightly feared how non-Jews would react. Often, the original text can be found in manuscripts, but when the book was printed the publisher deleted the anti-gentile comments.! At other times, the changes were even made to the manuscript. 2 There were also occasions when changes were made between one edition and another. Here is an interesting example, where in the first edition of the Entsiklopedyah talmudit (Talmudic Encyclopaedia')3 a passage from Maimonides was included that from a modern perspective is terribly immoral (Fig. 7.1(a)).4 It was not long before the passage was replaced. Here is how it appears in the current edition of the Entsiklopedyah talmudit (Fig. 7.1(b)).

There have also been times when certain texts have been censored or altered, not because of concern about how non-Jews will react upon seeing how negatively they are portrayed, but for almost the exact opposite reason, The texts were originally quite 'universalist', but confronted with non-Jewish persecution, universalist notions became very problematic to many Jews, and this is what led to the alterations.

The most famous example of this comes from the Mishnah, Sanhedrin

4: 5, which states: 'Only one man was created, to teach that one who destroys a

See e.g. Spitzer, 'Was Sefor maharil Censored?' (Heb.), 84. 2 See pp. 36-7 above. 3 Entsiklopedyah talmudit, iii, col. 297.

This censorship was noted in an anonymous comment on the haredi website Behadrei Haredim at <www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?caLid=38&topicid=2752360&forum_id=19616>. Maimonides wrote in Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot isurei biah' 12: 10:

Ifan Israelite has intercourse with a gentile woman, whpthpr sht, is a minor thrl'l' years and Of(('

day old or an adult, whethpr shp is marripd or unmarril'd. ('Vl'n if tIl(' Isra('litl' is only lliTH' y('arH

and a day old, oncp hp wilfully has interroursl' with h"r, sll(' is liahll' to 111' put to dl'ath, IwrauHe

an offence has been rommith'd hy an Isr'lI'lih' thrOlIHh 111'1', illst ;IS ill thl' (asl' OLIIl allilll.li. It Jl'hil'l Jawh WI'inhrrH had alrrady l'xprrHHrd diHtllllY ovr.-thlH vlrw of MallllOnidrH. SrI' my Iktu'fOl tflr Yf.llliv,1 WIII't,J ,m,} MII,Jft'1I (),·tkll,JIIXY, III~ 11. 4'/. -

single Jewish person is regarded by Scripture as ifhe had destroyed the entire world, and one who saves a single Jewish person is regarded by Scripture as if he had saved the entire world.' Ephraim E, Urbach showed that the original version ofthis mishnah referred to 'a single person', and that 'Jewish' is a later insertion.s It is almost certain that the addition of 'Jewish' was ideologically based, designed to limit the universalist message found in the original version.

Along these lines, in the chapter on R. Abraham Isaac Kook we saw how

R. Tsevi Yehudah Kook's very positive comments about Tolstoy were censored. The 'problem' in that case was that certain individuals thought that

R. Tsevi Yehudah's reputation would suffer ifpeople learnt that he so admired a non-Jewish personality. Even the published works of such an open-minded scholar as Samuel David Luzzatto suffered in this regard. Thus, while in an Italian work he spoke of all humans as brothers, in the Hebrew translation this became 'all Jews'.6

The same 'problem' is seen in other texts. For example, in manuscripts of a work by R. Jacob Moelin (c.1365-1427), a passage was deleted that records that Moelin greeted the non-Jews he met upon leaving the synagogue.7

R. Moses Hagiz, who is most famous for his relentless assaults on the Shabateans, was also a friend ofthe great Christian Hebraist, Johann Christoph Wolf (1683-1739). He even mentions Wolf in the introduction to his Mishnat h-akhamim,8 where Wolf's name appears in large print followed by the wish 'May the Lord in his mercy lengthen his days' (Fig. 7.2). As Elisheva Carlebach remarks, 'Hagiz made no secret of his pride in his relationship with Wolf.'9 When Mishnat h-akhamim was reprinted in 1864, an alert publisher removed the mention of Wolf, thus 'leaving the impression that Hagiz was praising some Jewish scholar!'.!O

We find something similar with Hatishbi by R. Elijah Levita (1469-1549), first published in Isny in 1541. In the introduction, Levita speaks glowingly about his Christian printer (and scholar in his own right), Paul Fagius (1504-49), going so far as to say 'From Paul to Paul there has arisen none like Paul.' Levita also expresses the ecumenical hope that each will call 'to his God'. This type oflanguage is not unexpected coming from Levita, who had close relationships with many Christian scholars, even living for ten years in

, Urbach, Me'olamam shd /.tukhumim, ,61-77. For the earliest textual witness to support Urbach's (()nriusion, S('I' Kt'l\tH'r, 'Nt'w alld UIl('xr('(h'd I~vid('l\('t" (Ikb.).

• See Gorin, 'An Orthodox Ern!>ra('r ofGrlltlll's?', li('.

, Set' Spit:l.N, 'WaH Srlrr mufTurll CrnHClrrd?' (1Irh.), 114.

P.4u. • (:lIdrhlll h, 'I'hr l'Ur.ll41t ,,/II(my, "'('4. '" Ihld. 11'1". ",~. SrI' Olllhr Mllltll.lllr, II 111111' "'1l01). .

ID "tI D"~ 'l2lD11 'b1M '1P nl' ',D'..n ""''in. :1.,1, ,'IOD "," ,.,,,•

•J' :1:1 l1'\li" :117 .IVI·n 'I" .'" n\ll1M 'II1I':I

""':I "111'. a-:un I'"'" ...", • 'Nt n'tI:I' 118

.n"t! , "11\ ••'11 , "D ,-",. "11'111 I II"" n"•• I Ntnn "":11 .." .lId' ...., DIP "l1l:I' 'D1I\ UI ." 111\1 ..,, .'IfIII '1Il10

...., ••• .II''"' "'.'•

.11 1ft ".:1' '" .!I ""m' SIO ""'"

n,IlW "WI ".., .1tP' In.·.·I"'..... ,.., 11&

n·, :a " I"'" ...N\ I!I • ,.... "''I'" ,.., I •

.,.'., "., -» ,. ... ,,. ',," .,., ,l1li,

r:l ;rUt' ." N:lt' O'))Il'"' 1W ;"I'mi I') ,M"" 1':1 '1l'1H I:"" O·)ItI 1tI'ltI n!I 1'IllDf" 0')1,.'1 )llt'l1 1:1 I~ n", "~ ,l1JI/t m!'at I'l. ;'.,N"'" n I", ,1'"11) n'U, '11 at)" 1'" ,"Imt \:tM; '.: .

.,:1" ,:'~n:l' ,iM' "11 n'pn 'M1lViIN:lV# ,}t)/;) ";, ;

'll' '\' I'I~ 11'1 : '~N)I,.'1 ,,"'11'1:1 \!I"n£)I;) hh , l1J'N nll'" m,"N ", l7tlm DY":I ,)" 'M1\!;1" ;

" "D I·.'a 'I'" I .

""". r ... ,..... ",' . II1I'I:111 "I'" lIP "D , ... ".'

I'" .","\:1 11:"111 "''111 n-,r.a ""lIlI,: .'J!".) "D""" .'.. mn """'" •

"'''I' '" '.'IIn Dr, " ''III 111'1

III "'..,..'

."""" ""'ID'M ,:I .''12' tm ""'12'111 'lnl r'" oiI_ It''"' ,

Joe .lM1I n"". .... 211 .,.." I'" ,., 1M .II' n!:l""

"" ...., ,... .,.. I"'" .... " In ...'" .......... ".., II " I""IND 'DII'II' • ....., .",." .,.., II , .••• • If? ••••, ",. a1l .,·an ,.." (ca) .,..", 11''''1 _ :I 'ill ... ,)I' 'lin ••" .11'" If' ......,.. ........." .'''11 .",. I·.......,.

'D'nD "." .""11' "".'11 I"'.. "" ,.., lOt

FIpII ,.1 1JIUIWo,.",.,. • ....,..lU, col, ,191: (.)oripa1 tat with the PURl' from Malmonklll; (., 'clorrIctId'" ~ttM.,....10m1*

nm l'W'M ~ ~K

",:I\!I 'I); ,n'lUl., II.) "p,r, r""'l'P ar,)

,~N'WJ' n)') ~b"1'1t)N 0"1)':"1 lIN p.~'p ,.7'P ", "II)Mltt' nc;n '*'!I 1'Il'N I'I'U ':IN ,tfI.~ 11'1.):11;) l'IVI'p .":"111 tf., "I/;)Ml tvl'~:lVI ":111 ;:lIt ,nun" ,." ~ m,n moN 16,

mu ,o"ltlW "')'1.1) ""'IN ,nm ,." n'U, ~ ;rMl1 1'"" ntW\ 'm .,JTalnnn.'" m)' IU)V1m:t." ,.,;,) nut) I'IM':I. nrnp., n~:"I l1'1U') an., n,"1l',' ''.b'~ ,0''1C'IO "1)"It),11.,.,,., r".) Dl1I' ,r, T'KVI 'U"11 :lw"

K\,' ''DIM., 'P'»VI 0.",)'10 O,,'llt/K'\'U) Ill"

O'MlYltt'n ~ I"~ n':llll N;N ,,'n'IJ'1.'

!I~!'/t'

.",,,

''':' '"' 111 • •

" ''lUI' ,. ,\D''''' ."

...., ,., 1ft ""'12'" 'a'll _ "" .,.. :a,'/\

mm.... ., """'" :rIP "' ,'7"11 ... " ....

rIP • I'''' 1N """'.. 111.. l1li III ..

,Ie .. ,. 11"11 I·" ....'J ,,.... ..., 1"

·,1'..... ...... '."," '" -II.... ... It.

'-------"-~~----------------.---.-.-.-...•--.---.-.--.. ---. Figure 7.2 R. Moses Hagiz. Mishnat f,takhamim (Wandsbeck. 1733). showing his reference to the Christian Hebraist Johann Christoph Wolf

the home of Cardinal Egidio da Viterbo (1469-1532). Levita also publicly defended his teaching of Torah to non-Jews.11 In a later edition of Hatishbi, produced bra publisher uncomfortable with such relationships between Jews and non-Jews, the passage dealing with Fagius was omitted.12

As mentioned, the more normal form ofcensorship when it comes to nonJews is the removal of things that could create problems in Jewish-gentile relations. We see this also when dealing with translations. It is certainly true that every translation incorporates interpretation, but there are cases where it is obvious to every reader that the translator has moved beyond his assigned role and has actually entered the text by significantly altering the original version_ Often this is done for apologetic purposes and is of a piece with the examples ofcensorship on which this book focuses, in that the translator does not want the readers to know what appears in the original. Unlike other examples of censorship, when it comes to alterations in translation there is an inner crowd and the outsiders. Those who can read the original are allowed full entry to the author's intention. Those who do not know Hebrew, who have not earned their admission, as it were, are regarded by the translator as not worthy ofreceiving all that the author had to say.

Many ofthe alterations in translations concern the portrayal of non-Jews. Yet we should not exaggerate in this area. For example, Ran HaCohen goes too far when he refers to Martin Buber (1878-1965), in his Hasidic Tales, as engaging in 'a drastic adaptation ofthe text ... to "politically correct" conventions'.13 What Buber did was translate the Hebrew/Yiddish arel (literally 'uncircumcised') into German as 'peasant'. For HaCohen, the use of arel in the original 'represents the non-Jew by reference to his body-to his genitals-[and] stresses instead his (spiritual) impurity, notto say filth'.

While HaCohen claims that the term 'peasant' 'could be non-Jewish but didn't have to [be]', and that this is an example of Buber's blurring of ethnic and religious identity, it is obvious that when one of Buber's hasidic tales speaks of a 'peasant' without any further identification, that a non-Jew is meant. The 'peasant' is the classic example ofa simple non-Jew, and it is nitpicking to suggest that in a workofthe type Buber was publishing that the text has suffered any distortion by having 'peasant' instead of 'uncircumcised'. Even in an academic translation it is acceptable to render arel as 'a gentile', as that, and nothing more, is its typical meaning in Hebrew and Yiddish, and

" See Aranol1: 'Elijah l.evila'. 2.1.

" Mar'lIl1aroHHlil(rt (11)IO?); thiN waH lall'r rrprilllr'd with additiollal notl's ill 1I"llI'i tkrak, 197(,. TllI'sl' "(litlonH 1I1HO 'llliit lA'vlla'H IlIrlltioll 01 'thr (:artlillal' (l\l(idill till Vilr'rho) s.v. melul",", yrt thrydl'"lIt IImll hllll .,v. nil/uri'",".

to I IIIC"hrll, ''('111'1 hlY WIIIIIIJI MuvrN ttl thr WrNt', '/. AlllllltlhltlclJlN IHr hUIJI thl. JI"llr,

even a circumcised non-Jew is referred to this way. (I would, however, recommend an explanatory footnote the first time the term appears.)

In the following example, from an American Purim Megillah,14 the censorship in translation is not motivated by concern about how non-Jews will react, but is an early example of political correctness before the term even existed. The year ofpublication was 1947, right after the Holocaust. The problem was chapter 9 ofthe book of Esther, which describes the killing of Haman's sons and thousands ofother Persian enemies. These mass killings might have suggested some similarities to what had just occurred with the Jews of Europe. Since the book of Esther is read in synagogue, the Hebrew could not be removed, but the English omits material that might trouble the Jewish conscience (Fig. 7.3)"~

.. Silvrrlllan (ro.), ('/lmplrtr "/4";m Srrvi<r.

" I 1IIIIIIk Shrlolltl 1I0lllln fill' hl'lnMlnM IhlN In lilY ~lIrnllnll, (Thrl'r ~r~llJt.wnlhrr IIIINNIrIM

Haskalah

Texts regarding the Haskalah and hasidism, two ofthe major Jewish developments in modern times, were understandably also subject to censorship. Let us begin with Moses Mendelssohn, the man who is often regarded as the founder of the Haskalah. R. Moses Sofer famously referred to Mendelssohn by the abbreviation '''01, which stands for Rabbi Moses Dessau (Dessau being Mendelssohn's birthplace). This appears in his ethical will, in which he tells his children not to use Mendelssohn's writings.16 He also referred in this way to Mendelssohn in a letter,17 and in another letter twice refers to him as '''01 tJ:Jnn, 'the wise man Rabbi Moses Dessau'.18 In other words, despite his negative feelings about Mendelssohn, he was still willing to grant him titles of respect.19

Sofer's negative view of Mendelssohn is hardly a secret, yet it is also well known that a number of Sofer's students, in particular R. Moses Schick, did not follow their teacher in his condemnation of Mendelssohn.20 For those who saw Mendelssohn as the embodiment of evil, the title 'rabbi' which Sofer assigned to him was difficult to stomach. R. Akiva Joseph Schlesinger (1837-1922) even wrote-and it is difficult to imagine that he intended this seriously-that the resh stood for rasha (evil one)!21

In a pattern that is all too familiar, some member ofthe family-as only he would have had access to the actual manuscript of Sofer's ethical willaltered the text so that the resh was lengthened into a h-et. This h-et stands for h-akham ('wise man'), which has less significance than the Hatam Sofer calling Mendelssohn 'rabbi'. As Professor Michael Silber has put it: 'It is clear

passages, but it is not clear why they were deleted.) In the preface we are told that this translation comes from the Abridged Bible published by the Jewish Publication Society UPS). (It was actually published by the United States government, using the JPS translation, under the title Readings from the Holy Scriptures.) In this abridged Bible, however, the book ofEsther appears in its entirety. For two earlier Jewish bowdlerized versions ofthe book ofEsther, see E. S. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, 2 4,43-4, and also 106, 133

" A. J. Schlesinger, Tsava'at mosheh, 2a.

M. Sofer, She'elot uteshuvot I;.atam sofer hal;.adashot, no. 6. " M. Sofer, She'elot-uteshuvot I;.atam sofer, vol. ii, 'Yoreh de'ah', no. 338. I" A colleague suggested that the, in 1"0' does not stand for 'rabbi' but 'reb'. I find this most

IInlikely, but even ifthis were so, the title reb also implies some measure ofrespect.

~I See Hildesheimer's comprehensive article, 'Attitude of the Hatam Sofer'. R. Mordechai Benet was Sofer's senior and greatly respected by him. In an 1832 biography, Benet's son reported Ihal his falh!'r 'kn!'w Ih,' hooks of I{. Mos,'s Ikssau very well', but this line was omitted when the hiography was [('prinh'd in I')J.'). St'C' M. Milll'r, RI,bbi~ und Rrvolution, 370 n. 89.

.. A. I. SrhlrNlnl(t'r, '/.~uvu'ul mCl,lkrk, lOb. In Ihr tirNI C'ditlon ofthiH work, aN wrll ~N in olhN works, S('hlrNinl(rl' MhowrtJ Ih~1 hr WIIN ~wulr Ihlll Ihr rr,~k Nlo()(1 liH 'r"hhi'. Srr' IIl1orNhrlmrr . 'AlliI utJr oflhr II~I~III Sufi-I", IH II. ,0.

that a clumsy line was drawn down a resh of RMD to make it look like a J:r.et. The Hatam Sofer's ryets are in the shape of a tent, this one is rounded off.'22 The truth of Silber's observation can be seen by examining the autograph manuscript (Fig. 7.4).23

Naphtali Herz (Hartwig) Wessely (1725-18°5) is another early maskil concerning whom there has been great dispute in the Orthodox world. R. Ezekiel Landau (1713-93) is famous for condemning him and his writings,24 though a number ofequally well-respected sages quoted Wessely approvingly. Many of these citations are referred to in the introductions to two recently published volumes ofWessely, one ofwhich was actually banned.25

With this difference of opinion regarding Wessely, it should not be surprising that when the writings of the great musar personality, R. Simhah Zissel Ziv of KeIrn (1824-98), were published/6 references to Wessely were deleted.27 Similarly, the first edition of Ahavat david by R. Eleazar Fleckeles (1754-1826) contains a letter from Wessely, which has disappeared from the photo reprint of this volume recently published in Brooklyn.28 It could be that the simple mention ofWessely was enough to bring about this particular censorship. However, it is also possible that something else was problematic. In this letter, Wessely cites R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz as stating that if people do not want to believe in kabbalah this is not objectionable, since it is not part ofthe foundations ofJewish faith. 29

Solomon Dubno (1738-1813) was one of Mendelssohn's collaborators

Private communication. See also Hildesheimer, 'Attitude ofthe Hatam Safer', I54 n. 45.

23 The image comes from Strasser and Perl (eds.), Mosheh alah lamarom, 62. For further evidence thatthe proper reading is resh, see Hildesheimer, 'Attitude ofthe Hatam Safer', I43 fT. See also On the Main Line, 30 Mar. 20n, for a German version ofthe ethical will that was published a month after Safer's death: it reads 'R. Mose aus Dessau'. Some also mistakenly claimed that the proper reading was 10n "~OJ' , meaning that Safer was telling his children not to read romantic novels. See Hildesheimer, ibid. 146 fT. See also I. H. Weiss, Zikhronotai, 58 n. 27. Yet substituting the word 10n for 1"ll1 destroys the rhyming sequence of the passage, since 1"ll, should be pronounced Ramad (like other acronyms such as Rambam, Tanakh, etc.): .1' m"~n "N .1"ll' "~t1l1 1))0' N" 1'm TN ,1)) '0"')). I thank R. Moshe Maimon for this point. See also Schischa, 'Bibliographi. cal Notes' (Heb.), 78, and R. Joseph Naphtali Stern's letter in Yeshunm, 29 (2013),758-9.

:u See Flatto, Kabbalistic Culture, 7f£

2S Wessely, Sefer hamidot, id., Yein levanon. For the ban on Sefer hamidot see Dei'ah veDibur, 4 Sept. 2002, 'Book Written by Haskalah Figure and Disguised as Mussar Distributed Among Chareidim', <http://www.chareidi.org/archives5763/roslLyk/index.htm> .

:u; Simhah Zissel ZivofKelm, Hokhmah umusar.

27 See the introduction to Wessely, Ydn halevanon, 28 (citing R. David ']sl'vi Hillman, who has seen the manuscript essays).

" A friend who spoke to the p\lblishl~r (lfthl' nl'w photo n'priflt iflfimflnf 1111' th.. t til(' pllblislll'r claimed that hI' was nol n'spoflsibl,' hlr IIIl" n·IISUTship. aN ill lilt' ((lPY oi Ih., bonk II(' Ilsl·d tilt' 'problrlllalk' pa~rN Irad alrrady hrrl1 rrlllOvrd. .

... 1:01 Ihr Iwo (rnMorrd p~~rM. Mrr ()l1lhr Malll 1.1 Ill', .I.~ Frb. '/'010.

Figure 7.4 (a) Autograph manuscript of R. Moses Safer's ethical will;

(b) R. Moses Safer's reference to 'Rabbi Moses Dessau' (Mendelssohn) enlarged with the resh having been turned into a ~et

(a) (b)

on his Torah translation and commentary, being responsible for most of the commentary on Genesis and part of Exodus. Dubno later broke with Mendelssohn and returned to eastern Europe, where he made plans to publish a commentary on the entire Torah. Among the approbations he received was one from R. Hayim of Volozhin. In 1991 Dov Eliach published a biography on R. Hayim, with a chapter that purports to list all ofR. Hayim's approbations.30 After all we have seen so far, it should come as no shock that one haskamah is missing (the one given to Dubno). Yehoshua Mondshine sees this act of censorship as a perfect illustration of a generation that judges its judges." In other words, instead of following the lead of its sages. the current generation attempts to f(list its own ideas upon them. '1

.> EIi;lt'h . Avi 'lIIyr.~"iv"'. (1).7 'f). " <:1. 11'1' 1I111~".

"Y. MOIllIMhlllr. '''SlIrlll Al'l'roblltiUlIM'" (111')'.,. IH . ~rWllltllrlW IIII' Im~. h IrllNofNhlp. Mrr ~INO ANNII!. ("11111'" /" ,lIr 'I1IHrl (1Irh., ...111.;111111 NrrulHlVr, I'p. ~I .I.•

Similar examples abound, ofwhich I will mention a few.

We know that R. Moses Sofer sent letters on Torah matters to R. Solomon Judah Rapoport (179°-1867), and yet these are not included in Sofer's responsa. Shmuel Weingarten argues quite reasonably that because, after Sofer's death, Rapoport became strongly identified with the maskilim, and was thus seen as an enemy by many ofthe Orthodox, Sofer's family would not permit his correspondence with Rapoport to be published.33

Abraham Elijah Harkavy (1835-1919) was a maskil who nevertheless had close relationships with a number ofleading Torah scholars, in particular

R. Naphtali Tsevi Judah Berlin (1816-93). When, in 1909, R. Moses Samuel Shmukler (Shapiro) published a work devoted to R. Hayim of Volozhin, he included material from Harkavy, and even referred to Harkavy's contribution on the title page.34 However, all references to Harkavy have been removed from a recent edition ofthis work.35

Te'udah beyisra'el by Isaac Baer Levinsohn (1788-1860), considered by many to be the 'manifesto ofthe eastern European Haskalah', 36 appeared with the approbation of R. Abele Poswoler (1764-1836), av beit din (head of the rabbinical court) in Vilna. This approbation only appeared in the first edition. Since it is unlikely that Levinsohn himself would have removed such an important addition to his book, what probably happened is that after Poswoler's death people put pressure on the printers not to include the approbation in subsequent editions.37

An example of a maskil's commentary that 'sneaked' into a traditional work, and has only recently been taken out, is the anonymous commentary on Shul/:!.an arukh, 'Yoreh de'ah', known as Miluim. This commentary was first published in the nineteenth-century Vilna Romm edition of the Shul/:!.an arukh, and on the page identifying the commentaries it states that the author ofthis work wishes to remain anonymous. Today, virtually no one knows who the author was, although when the commentary first appeared we are told that the rabbis were very upset.38 That is because its author was Mordechai Plungian (1814-83),19 a mashl who worked for the

Weingarten. 'Responsa That Were Concealed' (Heb.), 94-5. For the removal ofChaj<'s' name from Sofer's published responsa. presumably on account of his Haskalah sympathies. se(' below, Ch. 8, n. 10."Shmukler (Shapiro), I.ifi: ofR. Iluyim ofVolozhin (Hell.).

" See Dan Rabinowitz's Seforim Blog post. zo Nov. zooe..

No Levisohn, 'Early Vilna Ilu.~kuluh'. 5z. " St·t· ihid. 5~ II. 17.

I. S('(' I. A. Z. Marl(lIlirs, IImlldri urClzim, 41U.

to S('(' M~lllInll, Mldrl ~(ldr~h '''~(l,MHI, v. Ilot; A. D. I.rvltl, ()/~,,,. lllm./ km'r"., 110, (,(, (wht. rrfi-I'N to PIIIIII(IulI hy tllr drroWlitory trllllN mmlll'III 111111111/ .. 1I,,,",,r),

publisher.40 R. Jacob Israel Kanievsky was one of the few in recent times who did know about Plungian's authorship,4! and I think that it is due to his strong opposition to its inclusion in any new editions that the Miluim has been removed in the newly typeset editions of the Shul/:l.an arukh. In some of the previous photo-offset editions this commentary was whited

out.

The first edition of Sedei /:!.emed by R. Hayim Hezekiah Medini (18331904) had references to articles that appeared in the '~nlighten~~' newspapers Hamelits and Hatsevi. These were taken out m the edItIOn that appeared after the author's death.42

I cite this next example because the explanation that was later altered sounds as though it could have been offered by a maski!. Yet it was actually stated by R. Moses Sofer, as we are told by none other than his grandson,

R. Solomon Sofer. In answer to the question ofwhy there is no mention of the Hanukah miracle in the Mishnah, the Hatam Sofer said that it was because R. Judah the Prince, the editor of the Mishnah, was from the Davidic line and was upset with the Hasmoneans for improperly seizing

the monarchy. This explanation appeared in the first edition of R. Solomon Sofer's Hut hameshulash.43 However, when Sofer later issued a second edition ~f this book,44 he added something that did not appear in the original, and removed the maskilic flavour from the Hatam Sofer's explanation.

According to the 'new' elucidation, R. Judah the Prince's omission of the Hanukah miracle was based on his rua/:!. hakodesh (divine inspiration), which was also how the Mishnah as a whole was composed.45

40 Plungian was also responsible for a section ofthe abridged Yefth to'ar commentary that wa~ included in the Vilna Romm edition ofthe Midrash rabah. Regarding him. see Werses, 'Mordechal

Plungian' (Heb.). . . . 41 See J. J. Kanievsky, Karyana de'igarta, vol. i, no. 253. He records the wntten testImony of hIs father-in-law. R. Shemariah Karelitz (the father of the Hazon Ish). See also Anon. (ed.), Zekhor

ledavid, ii. 120.

See Benayahu, 'R. Hayim Hezekiah Medini' (Heb.), 196 (brought to my attention by Chaim Landerer). Here are some more examples: R. Hanokh Zundel Luria's very respectful refer~nce to Moses Mendelssohn was remov.ed from the Pressburg, 1859 edition of Luria's KenaIrenamm; see Perl. Pillar oJVolozhin, 84 n. 12Z. (See also ibid. 37, for an apparent censorship ofMen~elssohn's name in a work by R. Naphtali Tsevi Judah Berlin.) In R. Jacob TseVl Meklenburg s Haketav vehakabalah. publisht'd in his lifi·time (Leipzig. (839), there is a preface in which he praises Wcssely and Samuel David I.uzzat!o. Wlw!1 tht· book was rt'printed after his death, the preface was removed. po~sibly dUI" tn tlll'HI' rrfi-rl'lll'rH. SrI' PONt'lI, "'Whl'n Torah Scholars are Engaged III a Halakllk DiHpute. Whu Arl' You to Intl'rf!'rl'?'" (1Irh,), ho II. III.

" I'lIkH, 111117, p. il14, .. MunktIl'H,IIIl)4· .. Srr 1,111/ hllltlr~hulll"h, .l.Ial rlln .. p, tc,,,; AYr~h"1II KilN 111 lUI , 'IM Thrl'l' ~ 'Ir~tllIll' "llunuk.II"?'

In the 1989 reprint of volume 2 of R. Judah Leib Krinsky's Me1;okekei yehudah, originally published in 1928, numerous letters at the beginning of the book are omitted, including those from R. Judah Leib Fishman (Maimon; 1875-1962), Nahum Sokolow (1859-1936), Samuel Posnanski (1864-1921), Baer Ratner (1852-1917), and Abraham Elijah Harkavy. A few letters from traditional rabbis and scholars were also omitted, because they had the unfortunate fate ofbeing printed on the same page as the objectionable letters. For this example, and many others, the copy ofthe book that has been included on the Otzar HaHochma website is the censored version. Since we are in a new technological age and Otzar HaHochma has become the library for many, one can only hope that in the future Otzar HaHochma will make the effort to ensure that the books it places online are uncensored. Fortunately, in this instance the copy on HebrewBooks.org has not been altered.46

While the instances just mentioned have to do with the Orthodox censoring references to maskilim, we also find the reverse. For example, the standard edition of R. Hayim Joseph David Azulai's Shem hagedolim47 omits certain kabbalistic passages. This was done by the publisher, Isaac Ben Jacob, in order to make the book appear more 'enlightened'.48

Hasidism

With regard to censorship in the history ofhasidism, abundant examples can be cited. I quoted Yehoshua Mondshine's comments in this regard in the introduction, and they bear repeating here:

(Heb.), 13; and Eliezer Brodt's Seforim Blog post, 25 Dec. 20n. One source Brodt neglects to mention is M. Adler, A Hasmonean and His Sons (Heb.), IIIff.

In an example where Otzar HaHochma itself was responsible for the censorship, Yosef Avivi's article, 'R. Hayim Vital's Ets i)ayim' (Heb.), was deleted from the version of Tsefunot that appears on Otzar HaHochma. 47 Vilna, 1853.

48 See Vaknin, 'Ben Ya'akov's Deletions' (Heb.); E. H. Koppel, 'Concerning Ben Ya'akov's Deletions' (Heb.); Anon., 'Maskilic Changes' (Heb.). In his talmudic commentary, first published in Prague in 1791, R. Ezekiel Landau spoke ofthe danger offreethinkers and self-styled kabbalists. See Tsiyun lenefesh i)ayah on BT Ber. 28b. This passage was omitted in the next (posthumous) edition (Z61kiew, 1824), and subsequent editions were based on the censored one. I cannot entirely explain this act ofcensorship, since ifthe problematic part ofthe passage was the criticism of self-styled kabbalists, why would the criticism of freethinkers be omittrd too? For a similar censorship of one of Landau's sermons, see Kahana and Silbt'r, 'J)l'ists, Sahhatians, and Kabbalists' (Heb.). Regardingn'nsorshipofR. Mos('s Kunitz'H 'I'nllKhtl'lIl'd' hloKraphyofR. Judah the Prince, see my Srforim 111014 post, 14 Nov. .1.011. For Il'lIHOrHhlp of It Naphtali 'Ilil'vl Judah Ill'rlin'N pONltlvl' rl'lrrl'lIt'I'N In It Yl'hll'l Mlkhl'l pltll'M, NI'I' It 11I'ltklll, 'lIan' (11I'h.), ,010·1.

The phenomenon that hasidim omit things from the writings of their rabbis is not at all rare. They do not see in this any contradiction to the holiness of the words of the rebbe, as long as they are certain that their intentions and actions are proper and correspond to the true outlook oftheir rebbe, or when the omission is done out of a concern ofdamaging the rabbi's honour.49

Some ofthe censorship was due to a change in the outlook ofnon-hasidic Jews. While it was acceptable among this group to attack hasidism and its leaders in the first years ofthe new movement, once hasidism became mainstream and an integral part of traditional Judaism, such attacks made for uncomfortable reading and were prime targets for censorship. One example is R. Jacob Emden's attack on hasidism in the first edition ofhis Derush tefllat yesharim.50 This was omitted in the Krak6w, 1911 edition.51 Halakhic criticism of hasidic leaders was also censored. For example, R. Naphtali Tsevi Judah Berlin expresses himself strongly in opposition to a viewpoint of R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady, stating flatly that it is not true and can be ignored, as his arguments were only intended to intimidate the scholarly reader (Fig. 7.5(a)).52 Here is how the page looks in certain editions, where the offending comment has been removed, as well as the name of the responsum's recipient (Fig. 7.5(b)).

Yet even as hasidism became more mainstream, family members were sometimes still embarrassed by their relative's connection with the movement, and this also led to censorship. For example, R. Tsevi Hirsch Horowitz

(d. 1817), who succeeded his father, R. Pinhas Horowitz (1730-1805), as rabbi of Frankfurt, was an opponent of hasidism. Multiple sources report that because ofthis he took out all references to hasidic leaders in his father's writings, in particular those citing R. Dov Baer ofMezeritch (c.17IO-72), who had a significant influence on R. Pinhas.53

A famous example ofhasidic censorship relates to a sermon ofthe Belzer Rebbe's brother, R. Mordechai Roke'ah (1902-50), delivered in January 1944 on the occasion of the emigration of the Rebbe, R. Aaron Roke'ah (18801957), and his family from Hungary. In the sermon, R. Mordechai reassured anyone who might be thinking that the Rebbe was leaving them because he was fearful for the future. According to R. Mordechai, this was not the case at

•• Y. Mondshine, 'Authenticity of Hasidic Letters' (Heb.), 89. Mondshine's article was a response to Haran, 'Praises of the Rebbe' (Heb.). Haran responded to Mondshine; see his 'Atarah Iryoshnah'. See also Karlinsky, Altrrnativr. History (Heb.).

~, P.23h. " p. 2Sh. Sl'e Srhacter, 'Rabbi Jacob Emden', IS.

" N. '1: J. 1Il'rlin, Me.~hjv /Javar, ii, 110. (ll. ThiN I'xlilupll' iN noted in Glil'k, Kunlrr.s, iii, no. 40112. For all()thrr !'xalllpll' ofl I'IIMOI'NItlp Itl IIrrlill'N Mr.~hlv Javar, MI'I' 1(Ji!'ll'r IlrutIt'N SI'f(lrllll 111014 pONI, ~ Mal'. .10(114. .. SrI' Y. N. III'MI 1t1'1, '011 tit!' Iioly Wmk /lunlm yu.!,," (111'11.), I 1'/ II.

(a)

Figure 7.5 R. Naphtali Tsevi Judah Berlin, Me~hivduvur, vol. ii, no. 6.: (u) oriKlnal t('xt (WarMaw, .X94), r('('ordIIlK hiM oppoMltion 10 R. Shlll'lIr 7.ullllun ofl.yudy'H oplnloll

(h) lN1Nor('d Irxl with Ihr Ulll11111'11 I (lI111lllddrrNNrr) r(,1l10VI't\, froIII II !'I'l ('Ill !'rprllll

(b)

ruwn n"""," r6un 'It ')""

•"'1/ !:pi' '0 "'-~"'n\ l'Il'C Z_ .:l"n 'TI.:l.:l Mh:""""'OO)1I.'''l'Io'lCl>l.~'''''lI>~

.. ,..., ....... o}."_,,.,.., """",l1li

",,,,,,,,m_ p/f!l"oon.~.IIlII""'.~

..... '" oIc!l/'Dl$;>I1IlI,."on)!ol ,""*",.,,,.1>1>' "'," ....... ,., W':m ..... ,., ... l1li_ 'lim> '" foli ~:PJ ram ~.,.""",., lJl "."", t'n

q'l\I~r.noO'lC""",~,",)!oI __

.... """' .... ~.Y= -.."'" >lIn:onl ..

;r;:~"-')l~ ,,,._"""\";>13

~I\h ",.., fIrnobI _ >'PI 1m» ""

'1m' ~ll"., """'" ... h'p ...n ."" "'1"''' 'NC' """""I'hll''''''''''''''1''''1r)·'''·''''''q1Ol

I'MI t. r"'~ ""CI<!':on " .... .,..0"»,., 'lIhl

~, ptD ~J1?'In .'1) frrJ)n ....",,, ~jm'J ...."

,.., "'... "" ... ,,,. "., "' ..""",.""" I"mo 'Ill! .,..",.,., ""I", nl .'01\, hll> l'lr> hi ""'lIO' .1\) II'! .,.lpllVlll """ ..... 'P »l>o 'In ''00.,..,..,..."\l» •..",,., om"" l',"I> ~t·,., p1l:OOIl 0(0 .1»", • ..,.. .... ~"'rd>..,'lp1...",f'o • .".~

J'Il''' ....",.~ .. _ 61,,,... eI>O 001, ",..,0(0 1I)'»O~".,."".F\1·1l·D..",..., ..'1», •..." "...

:~'C»0»'XIt

~"II """"P ..,.. 1'106 ",,'>'0 .", ...... 'Q~":I

"...",JI"'''lIO.,.,,' .... '''·61.J'I''lI''''

:6",,~""'1IO

He JC'Q

• WtI;II''I\ *"'tn JOl) ,~ rI'!1

.:l'V1'1\l~

oIrlG .. ,.• ."., vrr 'lCI>I ••',. .., m ::In:xl ;';:>1''': JJ,"":.'.~~~J~~m ."

*",(1\1>,,,,",,,,,,.l"t..,,,. """0'mIl""".1llo

...." ,." '''' ,..., ".. "l"U .1"• ..",." "..• ."""",

~'''''1'''C'lO>"",.'"Il ... ,..-.OII'''''

,." ""''''I'",,...,.,.,,,,,,~l'l''''''''''''

.'" 'C'J$O> 011' h.. me"~"" >'h 1>6.~

~,.......,. 01'1" JIll<> 1lI>'».",,...,.,.,,,,.. 1\)6 ...' ... D.,,'O\lnjO'Dc__ hl6 ••""""''' ",.,. "'" ."'"" 01'1" hlc 1IJm."... 1>6 .JMo 1'" ""'" ".,_ 101m -JflI>.""" '''' h,rcl

,.. ~.Y/t..,..""" 6)"'.0./10> _,.,.,.~)

P"'''''''I'''''''''''''~hll>''''''''''''r.... 1\)6

1f'c;I, .... .,.,."",.,""'.".... ..." ... COC'''''''''c_

.JIII<>IlIIC»l:"""I>'oI.J!i>Io .... O'lIIohllol/rllofllco

..... "".., _ .", m» ....., NIl 1m ,.". O>I!I 'i""'" """,,""'''''0 JIll<> 1>loI>xo ..""",.....

rt> _ .,.,.,., IN ~ooJa> lo.1 r._.pt>• .,..,_r=Im.p!IID>Il'G",,,,,,,,",,,,, ...>l

"",_,__""_'I>lIlf>_q~.6)

*"l'D'p!IID>.,.,.,.,."l"In ....... ..",.oD\",.

~>6."" ",. ... ,l'l '1f>loJI/I,.1lIl'I) 1>'01.", ....

Jc\noll\)6b6) "., ......, _)r. ol'lr>.,

.m,.m /I<I __rIoD -.",....., ",..,.", /1<1 'O\l n reo IfC'!O 0'lII .p •• ".".,

:.'::::':::..=.'":":;:::=

.."",0106>"." fiIoID.",." ........ '",.;>I) ...

......'" _ l'l "I6lo JII!lO 10 I ..,.. I •

=:t:J )!j'" :6'»1 :",rye,. ::iI1'»> 1')$-, tjM ')'OO~ h,XI p~6'», .01)..'" ~,tt;,"1 r.~1?) #~.J '0'11'0') nrmc to,., -m.~ "~u."",, ~l'~ n11m': v~?6> ~, t)lt;) Yo I1Jm'I'm,"'" mO' • \7l" h» m_pI";'; .,"'''' *' I'""

"l:»~ h..'1 "J) ~)00} t/"=' rrnm) ~,,~~ ~CPO lob; "no ..",., DO'; ol",'" """ l" .",,,,,I p",,, ::0 "'Pi) ~,,:n ~~"" .O'f)\')!)f) \XII) irlQ> M1 C')X! '.0» >"" .mll)'XS:t'br:n ~qUl)'~ •p!<~ P'm111

...... i".1 ""',. ,Ill I .... '... .;,,;, rfu> )"cl pI"

•'o~.,f,) f,I}».-"»1 O»n> IP j1?b ty"'1 Pll>' ~")\bj,)1 .;,~

,f»"" u;" 00> ""ill' '''' ".~,>')0 ,.an ~,I "101"11

Db O~'" :0» rO :0»1 0"'" ",." to ,...

~~)l»"" htnl1 :rrl)Cj ,1)1)')') '""}~ 1m l>illl.U rb l'lI ..,.. ~""J "", r>o ,." """.,.. Mul, ~, I,llfn:, If'3l) 'a r''XJOl rl'm ~, nxm '" .,6J:n :t"r» "" '"Im>''''' ",I. """'."'''''' ~ •{(;I.... "'" or.>.:001 .'Pm, 'lIM """" 'om ... tOjll'1 :Y.", r"~

•bo'. 6)f. .'1> "0. "'." .PlO' /1"1:0 1>0;', "." ,.,;

u~ ~ 6~6 .~s·:» CIlO 6rI'h tI~\Xl1PJ Ol txi f:lJ;31 01> 01,>" "''" -,,,,, ".. J)'lpm ~,.06 :00 rwh -"pm ....'" ,In> rl> w"" """ .".,., I'll """" r»"" Nrlrl 60 ',~ 6,. ,.., ."'" •., .,."" In:> 0'_ """'rI.m:,~)l)~) hu m~ t)~, *' 0t, tOJ) _I .,., ."" .•~'po ".,1 o-m ,j", I>n'i> "',. 'IX! l"'~';'1. J/PI ~·t'" NQ ~')U)!frn W..3;m:" ~.>*f

h» m_ ,I"""" r.,.....,..", ,l!;.,. ~'"Pm .,,"""

r.o. ')m>'.",,,,,, oY.l. '" roo "-"';"\ ~o'lo:l

'1» b.3Z ~., lrA1l} 1?) bnl/J'T1J m:JlXl ~} om 'm> ~ .~~'b ~.,., bID ~~)J) p>un.~ frfl1 .,., • ~ "... ,.,."".,.. ,." ",b,;"; flO'I ""'.. m ...

e?,};» .,0." ..."".,." ,.., I'll ~l<! P' .,,,,, '0""

r>o '" """, ''''.• >lp", ,..,., 0' "'" ""'''''; h-;,;,I

1mMm~i'»» »6.r""" m ptlp'o, lf~" ..., '0» I, Ill"""" i" ~r.o, ","oJ 'loG ~.", 61 ~ u!;oc m", r-t;ll ~hl U')W ,/» ti» .~\')V) (1'", tm"li" ~:n;~)~O~'?~ ~"',",''Wl~ ,,'C,

tn:1) m~tlrm~ ~)~ fno j) tW, t;» t)'~ ,0'~~1)j# ~\7pJ Cll'MmJ) i"'. ftpm ~!fI1W>PJ ~,m: m:n • otin O"~,)~ 1~}'lfx; ,-,,{n. ~PO 011» 01) :mh 't)wtI ;r)'7p:l i''',," • 7,»t·" fm, ~nOD'~.,.. i'~ CltiJ) rn.-t co

""'"' n6 c""", '""" "'." ,."", .W 1'" """" .",V>l>

~®~1 .1lD'b '1)"1) ~1h '':XIIi '., ~;'I,o·,!)'):J ;",Pm'l •\).lIP tn1j)P ~, )1:) V»)')J): ~f) ~:mD Oll h.,y,pI,. '-'¥ ,;"., ', ""'''1'71 ....

.::lO lO'!) mn~)'*':»"n ~ 'In-.)

• "1J "P" 'b 'nllo '1"'"' l''''' :mltt>, ~'" 1I!l:!

:;::~,:;)~~'~~:~D'~ '!l~

1'1hV, :nn "7:11'> pm ;>'\lU hID f;l • »,P p, V> ~ c:oo ~I!T)' ¥ 00 O'm» ot )m l'D' IW'1>M PfPl!PD tw PI):J ~h"l '~I) b.."'1 P*,r; • 'm» )f)~ ~\'IWl:!)' ,~t'I 3f) 1m, tho~) »t'om ,..,; D1C)'\m'1 6t;:,n '" 11)')931 ,*s.,q"»} t'1 ~~.eM 'u>:fPl m;~l't I»'»:mn ptl»:n

".,,» 1:j1:!' "nD q~~ ~~ ~Q:)J).""lD ,}o, :.Il')~ {'If ~fi":»~) n\l')3 '*3) t'ln "'~'l ~D\'l~ '1M1 >-~ )) p~hn ."...., """") ...... "I'D I»n) "..""

(a)

..,.,. r» »M """'" "'" It!> "',." '1m ..,."", 'l-~1

"'1> "'li' .1 V"'" OP''''' P'"P" WI • "'., ~"')

pry)' )'.~ ~u-» tb '1~ tm o"~ l"mJ> If")S uo .",~ ~#1»? VCD M) Il?!fn •'e 61'00 ,*')6:;'1 ~.,.", "',»"I" c;"'1;t Oll • P :lD) pi!, 0) ~jmrro 1.» V)'l'm

'00 .,.... ,'01> ,,,,1.,., .,..,; ,.""',, .)6"'" .) """'"

.6) tn) ~~" ~.",. t.'>Xt ~" ~~~" "" ~1'Q')~1) """ll»'_"';"~l'h'""""""p""",, ;"

••, 1117 '''''. ,'\Il' "" """ "'l," """" ,.•.•,. 1"0\

rll'.b"""",.,." .. f>;»;.:" 6>, ..",,,,,,,,..,;,,,,,,,,.,,

~::Q'Qt~v;.'" p}) .~lh tf.:;m\)1 tl»'P)1 .pD'l) ~ :O»~)l tI"");)1

... 6l1''''''P:''''' rW> '1>\>'\'11 ~)' ~", 't:l"51tn"l':l

60!1", jl»'" l!:..., .'l:l,., 0,. 1""'.'"

, /1"", >bell "., );l

NO )C'Cl

•rue"", l"tnn ~'..t rfl

,N'lI' !If'llll1'i"'~ ¥l?lClC!lf?!II"C ,,'11) ,'>,""",

.",. '" .,.. ~"" ." >06, •0'lt1 ~, :>'01> '::In.:lC

• ,~Q1Il f" 1', ~r»o r", .. 1~lt1 ">I'> O'''P' lP'b.,'?bOl1."7?~J) bJ ~'f'~~J:.QJ:I'" ,."" ole .", ",0671 •1', 116.. ,."", O'WI/> """ •>}):o

_, .,." '''' ,-.. '\lC!> "".1', ~.,.. '\lC!» 'll1uIl" '0 vllio ,"" """":-or .m C·.., ''l! IWJt:I» tOp In:> 1'"' ="'1"" 1""'''''''' p" "6",,\"'1""""""

•"" '"''''''' tOp"'" .lI:. ,>. W» In:> ,.1> >>6 •1[1/<1=::u~;':l~~ :~';:rx;~ ~~~:~

~\)0' • "',,, 011"" oil' ~'''''' 1>6 .1M. 1""

on;,:Jr 'm)3 ~~ r;.h.",. MUD trh • nrn» 't>:J t':tIl tc) ,'••"",t>l Y6 """""",r» .....,.., .."""~""

f" ;nu oe. rbloi cux:o ph'),~~ .roll\.' ~., r=v Ol bYJ

~;;'~':":'Id,"'t":~~~

"!!t'.ttd>JP 'J)~'1 "1.'1),tmt)' 'I*!;') ~fir..., m~l

'P' 'l!)' '", l"'" '!Ill> fu:>o I'1Iio ,.loI>", .,PO In:> r"" r6 """ ""'I'D l!>D \mo' """"" '\0, ... ""'" 'i'liio

"''''' .\>0. ro> I'1Iio p."" ...om I"f1O rftrirJ-", "",>I

~ V») • "m:).lt:; om tOl ~~5Db ~tr:J1> fI} fu:>o ',,", PI'~"'"6l1'o ) .... f ..I""' ..",..;,; m

\,•• "" "'" r.,)", 1161. \'M> Ill'" mm.", T""

!,,>rno.I6l1>6,r» In:> "" .. Of) .,.'l>l ....-.l.;.)o ..., .~)U' ";,, t».., b\I"JCXI'7 1l»'mJ)'1 p1hJO ~')11 ..",

vom,,,,In:>"'V""" "pO 'I'll!" ""co.pll'fi"",,,,, "V'" fu:>o I"'" "',,, fit'" .... }..",. 1""'l>r.1"f1O

::f';ml) 01 I"m ."".'X:IC)t 00'Q'!~} IUl .l:I6,»

~Xi:J 'l!X> tlLm C!rn t6f»1t ']1)6 ,,, '?»'lQ WI .:Q ~ "co... "'" •• """', 1', 11610...,., \II • .",.. 10 ..h l:lI> 0"1» hlb .,; .;.,;", ••"'" ""'" O1'k"" j1b., : ll>",) .,,' " ..PI'!>

_ 0,..,'" pmD'~~~.C1 fp; ~ ~

I)»"~ ~3f, • ~ ~~ fS)\ Ys • JI6~ Sl»'l) ~r.;, •,,~ 1'»' lD D'»} "y, ",6~ 60 0» •OD wI» fd Q}>>> rm/l3 .tI3Ul 1»)" 6~ ~~~~.,,~ "J;')

pmD' "n,a m;t ~" fPO ~1:fr::D •P _" ."

0,,,, * ~ 'bb ~

.,6pn J)p:t; h'))V) ~

~J) 01 ~.)');I"'" .'XlD); Oil) '1:1'7 OXlI» f»'I •M,» O.,~ .,.co ::len, t)!)'7) r»mc 'D6 ,., ')1)"'" ."" • .", """'"m .. ')!'..l:)~ 0" '~!it ~"l "fi)J) 1163:1 ~ \f oth\;) ~J) 1)16 ~3f, tl..p~ "~fI~'h ,;·:X))) 01)'')'" ;:l"~" l>l'h",,, pt;l:' : )~';If) 1iV>~ I'''' ,m:6

-~)-f 0')r>M;t J).",1t) 't'» ')tl' ..) CI~ C')'I!:i MOl ~" fm, "t)f; . bDJ))'DJ') J)~:M:I ;In.'''''~ "J1!) ,'W 0»:>' p~'" "') ::-m!)C "~m ,TM I)h1/I;I "~U)'X'

", ~;) ,,, ~::J:J C'JD t.; tn.' l~m • I)~ ~",." jl~'" r:;' t'!~» l:l"C;»1 ..., "\')'»3 Im'fm 1':;;31 'Dun ~10 "~1':' \:i-I" "J)~' ~'!) fl't'! t'!~' :>"f,:'!l • ;l~':"" ~" "1::!h~ 'T":IJ: 't;) Ym I'D'" ~, .~."., oil!: 0"1' T'J)'J ~J) 'elM

Figur 7.5 R. Narhlali'T.~cvi Jlldah I'll-ri in, MI'~llivrh/lI("' , v()l. ii, II(). (lI; (II) 01 il~ill:llll'x l (WarN;lw, 11\<)'1.)' "('cordilil', lilN oppoIIIIIIl III(1 It ,' 11111'\ 11 f,.dlll.lll lIl I.y.lciy' oplilioll (")II'"fll)ll.d I!'XI wlllllill'lllIlIlIll'lll (.Il1d,lIldll' U'I') 1I'lIlIlVl'd, llIlIlI,llI'll 'l1! 11'(111111

all, and he reported that the Rebbe foresaw that 'rest and tranquility will descend upon the inhabitants ofthis land [i.e. Hungary]'.54 A few months after the publication in February 1944 of this sermon, which was one of the last Jewish works printed in Hungary, the deportations to Auschwitz began. Not surprisingly, when this sermon was reprinted in 1967 as part ofa biography of the Belzer Rebbe,55 the section showing how hopeful the Rebbe was for the future of Hungarian Jewry was deleted. As Esther Farbstein comments, 'It was difficult for the authors ofthe biography to admit that the Rebbe erred in his assessment ofthe situation.'56

Sometimes descriptions of hasidic life, especially its unconventional or even antinomian aspects, were thought not fitting to be reprinted. 57 This explains why Ahron Marcus's German work on hasidism was not completely translated into Hebrew,58 why a reprint of a book on the Chernobyl dynasty deleted six chapters on the Maiden ofLudmir, the only female hasidic rebbe,s9 and why posthumous editions of R. Yekutiel Aryeh Kamelhar's work on hasidism, Dar de'ah, removed a section dealing with the antinomian views of

R. Simhah Bunim ofPrzysucha (1765-1827). According to Yehoshua Mondshine, this latter censorship was 'largely as a result ofthe remarks by R. Meir Jehiel Halevi of Ostrowiec, to the effect that Przysucha hasidism had long abandoned the practice of"digression" and was now toeing the line advocated by R. Isaac Meir ofGur (author of Hidushei harim), urging a return to the full rigour ofthe Shul/:r-an arukh'.60

In Or lashamayim by R. Meir of Apta (d. 1831),61 we are mysteriously told that due to a 'hidden reason', the 'righteous ones ofthe generation' had commanded that an explanation in the commentary be removed. In the approbation ofR. Menahem Mendel, R. Meir's son-in-law, he states that he removed the comment himselfbecause ofthe 'hidden reason'. The fact that we are told that something was removed is itself significant, and goes against the general pattern. But what was the reason for the passage being deleted? Ahron Marcus reports a hasidic tradition that R. Meir of Apta had explained, based on a hint in a biblical verse, that the messiah would arrive in the year 1962.62 Presumably, the deletion was so as to not depress the people who would learn

54 Trans. in L. Kaplan, 'Daas Torah', 59. Kaplan's discussion ofthe episode is based on Piekarz,

Polish Hasidism (Heb.), 373-434. ss B. Landau and Ortner, The Holy Rebbe ofBelz (Heb.).

56 Farbstein, Beseter ra'am, 97 n. 149. Farbstein's judgement is actually too soft, as it is not

merely that the authors refuse to admit that the Rebbe erred in his 'assessment', but that the future

developments showed that his rua~ hakodesh was faulty. For a dele-nce of the Belzer Rebbe, set'

Ortner, Devar ~en, 304 If. '" S,·,· ahove, p. 90 If.

,. Set' Assaf, Cal~ght in thr Thickrl (Il,·h.), lS-6. Ill' notl's that wht'n tht· Ilt·hrt·w translation was

reprintl'd, f'Vt'f1 mort' matt'Ti:11 W~N t!l'lt,trd. Sl't' :IINO KItNIN, 'A. M~I,(IlN'H I IIHid',~m' (1II'h,),

,. SrI' N, IklltNlh, Tllr Muiurn 0/ I,IIIJmi,., ~X. .., Y. MUllliNhllll', 'fllllhllty ofCutrHIlIII'N', II (j,

•, 'lIulllk', N,V, "wh. •• MUI' liN, 111I,~lul\", (1Ir",), ~(),

from the book, published in 1860, that the redemption was still so far off.

In the early nineteenth century we find another example of internal censorship in a hasidic text. In a letter, R. Shneur Zalman of Lyady wrote that while 'according to the Torah, the [material] needs of a man's wife and children take precedence over others, they do not take precedence over the needs ofthe tsadikim and especially the tsadikim in the Holy Land'. This outlook was regarded as too extreme, and in 1814, when this letter was reprinted by R. Shneur Zalman's own hasidim, the passage just quoted was removed.63

Internal hasidic battles also led to censorship. The conflict between

R. Hayim Eleazar Shapira, the Rebbe of Munkacs, and R. Issachar Dov Roke'ah (1851-1926), the Rebbe of Belz, is well known. In one responsum, Shapira even attacks Roke'ah by writing that there was no need for the halakhic authorities to deal with a certain issue, because all they needed to write was 'let him go to Belz, and everything is permitted'. In certain editions, the words 'to Belz' are simply whited out. 64

Another example of censorship relates to the figure of R. Nahman of Bratslav (1772-1810), who was controversial even among hasidim. In the first edition ofMidrash pin/:r-as, which records the teachings ofR. Pinhas Shapiro of Koretz (1726-91), there is a negative comment about R. Nahman's character (Fig. 7.6),65 which has been deleted from later editions.66

There is a very interesting example where the censorship, ifwe can call it that, was carried out by R. Israel Meir Hakohen (the Hafets Hayim), the author of the work involved. His volumes on personal morality and proper speech became classics in their time. Attached to one of these volumes is a work entitled 'Sefat tamim'. In chapter 4 the Hafets Hayim records a story that took place in the days ofthe Ba'al Shem Tov about a man who was reincarnated as a horse in order to payoff his debt. This is noteworthy, as the Hafets Hayim was one ofthe leaders ofthe non-hasidic segment ofJewry, and yet in this case he did not shy away from mentioning the Ba'al Shem Tov. The text appears in Figure 7.7(a).67

63 See Loewenthal, 'Women and the Dialectic ofSpirituality', 13 n. 20.

04 See Glick, Kuntres, ii, no. 2309. See M. Goldstein, Mas'ot yerushalayim, 87b-88b, for Shapira's criticism of Slobodka students and his negative view of R. Moses Mordechai Epstein. This was removed in subsequent editions ofthe book. This is another example where followers, in order to protect their teacher's reputation, take it upon themselves to act as censors.

<,' The book is not paginated. The passage appears as no. 10 in the third numbering. As

R. Pinhas Shapiro died in '791, when R, Nahman was still a young man and before he had much of a following, the negative (omna'llt attributed to him is apparently apocryphal. .., For an example wh('re v('ry stroJlg rritidslII ofs('(·lIlar stlldi('s was d,'let('d from a hasidic text, s!'(' AJlolI .. 'CoJln'l'IIillH 1.lfrr muyilll (Illyim' (111'11.),

., I. M. Ilakohl'JI, ,%mlil'lll '1Il1'HllolI, 'S(,lilt t'lIl1hll' 4'11, Tltt, Ilall,tN Ilayilil rrtrllN till' sallll' Htory, imlutlhll( till' IIlrJltloll of till' 1I!l'ul SlIrlll 'Iilv, III hI., MU~'lIIr" ylml'rl, II. ,II ( ..

Figure 7.6 R. Pinhas Shapiro, Midrash pin~as (Lemberg, 1872), showing his negative comment about R. Nahman of Bratslav

The story that the Hafets Hayim refers to appears in the anonymous ShivIJei habesht,68 but as Yehoshua Mondshine has noted,69 the Hafets Hayim's source is R. Eliezer Papo's Pele yo'ets, which also records the tale.70 Neither ShivIJei habesht nor Pele YO'ets is the sort of text to which the Ashkenazi nonhasidic world would generally refer. In Figure 7.7(b) we can see how the text of 'Sefat tamim' looks in the standard reprinted version. Here, instead of mentioning the Ba'al Shem Tov, the story quoted by the Hafets Hayim is said to have occurred 'in earlier times'. In order to make sure that the page ends on the same word as the original, which is crucial in a photo-offset, the printer had to make some alterations, starting as early as the third line of the paragraph. This was done in order to allow him to add an ('xtra line, which is the

.. JI. lUi· .. Srr Y. MllmlNhlllr, 'SIPlirllII vrl'III'lIlrlhrlll', lin. c. ... "" P.ioh, N.V. /{r.zrl.

only way the additional Hebrew letters would fit. The original edition has twenty-five lines and the altered edition has twenty-six. Inserting the new letters was easy, as they could be taken from anywhere else in the book. Yet even with all this preparation he still did a sloppy job, as the inserted word (hanshonim) does not remain within the left margin. A careful reader would notice this and realize that something is not right with the text.

Many have assumed that what we have here is an example of anti-hasidic censorship of the Hafets Hayim's work.71 Yet as Shmuel Ashkenazi has shown,n we find this change in two editions that were produced in the Hafets Hayim's lifetime. Since one cannot imagine that the printer would have made this change on his own, we must assume that it was the Hafets Hayim himself who did so. Ashkenazi is presumably correct in suggesting that the Hafets Hayim originally thought that the \!)"l" referenced was, as is usually the case, R. Isaac bar Sheshet (1326-1408). When he later learnt that it referred to the Ba'al Shem Tov, he did not want such a reference to appear in his work and made the change.73

Zionism

The issue of Zionism provides another opportunity for the rewriting ofhistory and for the censors to go to work. This is especially the case as attitudes towards Zionism have split the Orthodox world in modern times unlike any other matter.74 While there were Orthodox Jews and rabbinic leaders who supported political Zionism, and many of these were supporters of the Mizrahi movement, it appears to me (and others) that the majority ofthe rabbinic elite was opposed to Zionism in its early years.7S Because so much was at stake in this dispute, unsavoury tactics were often used. If R. Meir Bar-Ilan (18801949) is to be believed, this included even tampering with the text ofa letter of

R. Hayim Soloveitchik so that his condemnation of the Zionists was made even stronger. 76

In addition to the sources mentioned by Ashkenazi (in his Seforim Blog post, 2 June 20IO) and Mondshine ('Sipurim vegilguleihem', no. 62), see also M. Katz, 'An Alteration' (Heb.).

See his Seforim Blog post, 2 June 2010.

Regarding the Hafets Hayim's attitude towards hasidism, which though generally positive was also critical. see R. Aryeh Leib Cohen (the Hafets Hayim's son), 'Ways and Opinions' (Heb.).

,. See Luz, Parcdlr.l.~ Mrr.t.

" I say this with filII cOl(ni1,ann' of till' 1;lrI that R. Tsrvi Yrhudah Kook famously opened the holy ark and in front of till' 'limtll s('I'olis dr·dan·d Ihat 1lI0si of the I(reat rabbis had not been oJlposrd to '/.ionIHIIl, hilt r~thrr wrrr slIrnt IHI liar Isstlr. Srr Rrmrr, Gad,,' .~hjmu,~hah (1C)c)4), ),1) \0; WnlhrrNlrlll, Mluhmlu yr.lhuah, II)",

fA nUl IIUII, Ilmna V"IIII""II1'/rru,llIlrm tllrh.), I ~.....

81 1\1.)

0"Ib> 1> tl'lltil fl,oo 1":1 'Ib~ Il''' ~\.)r.; 7'rll 3"ll)!) " ,m:. ')I)I l'~I'1 \:IJ'mO) hi::; ::;~1 r'n~ l!~ D' Ill> P OO'lll ~l) ~"O''':IO ""jl)~I"'») I)'fll Vl~)~'D1 ~'P I" 3~I)PP ~\:>:; IJP'I "\l'Jlin ll);) P''')!)':; 1Il "')!I) )~), r'~:;) pI)~)omo i,,' omll: hi" r",'lU.'ro ~~~:'() 01'0 fllo ,.;.w~ Ill" fl)~o )r);)l v:~~ j'~ r.h ~>"D "~CltOb,OI "'~) 1''OC J1~Mo m/r)11O l'nCoD Il11'M "l1ll1 U'[lI)1l) 0':0,,, u~ I'IlUl)) i'm) IV))) 0' ~mh ;:'»1 ~I'l» r.:'n bl~ li'h ,,,,:;.\ ,,;);) r,./)::J 1)"n' til \::.'l "1)'" : I")) '''' I'll» \" xm

: ~IXlI'Il 'mWlW 1l '111::', p~

CJ)I)I II) ll)\l) n~' Il'lb') m~c C'i'~' MlM' Jl)1IlO ;'\)1) liSP)) ~~) epPI ' r"ow' "~}U"07 I"'" IIlX' ril JilPi ~/)" r,; c5 i'r)))1" 0)0 • Il ),nJ)'Il1:lll:)"P) III ;\l)":) ~m) ph

I,,3D; 07b 1'3li P\lW », l'oJ 1" it)~ Ill: ~:; tlI' ''tIb1 ' "'3D rn eS"D'p 'l!l>ll ":>1' 1'~ (r" """" "l"llJ (lP"'T.ll) ::>tl ,~'" l>h en'lX'

0'''' Ot:>ll ,m> c" 11 ll13ne;1) i~ ~';r>I tm 'P'o U mJ)\b1 wi 01l;:lD\ Pl1"; 1:'~' ,1Il!itl P)1) lOllS ')))l} 1'1)\J,; ell:I P7J)I)1 olllG '''PC l"m() 0) [0l)1l 00" C'ptli'~ " ';llm P1,Jij) 00')'1:1 P'O)\Il Oil 'PIb I';'~DI1!lO l)r O'll' 0>''' 00~1 O,,'C O'Pll' ')'G ?r./)ll \l~' o'),m on"o", Plm o',i'O o:>i """ l"r.}

;:, ')1)0 ''Ilill • OJ'!)' jlm" 0'0 r'OIl:' }f) i1~») )1;'1) 1:l O'lllll i:>lJ'l"l Ii ~,~, /:; C'C)I:l" ~'OW ,,);,) ~.c~" C'~C) 1D'h." -~;:~;, ::p:~; I" 7311> 0'01 01;;: }W~) 'mD n~~ :;'3'" 'Il') 0'1110 1)'1,,)), i" ""',,"Ill rfl c::) ", I~' "",S O>WO mllJ) C\lt:I ',!) flu; i'~5' r:1Il~:1 0))33 b:l1DC Ill' mJ'fl Ph lm~> ", plfl~Je!l;1$" jllOP:l)1l .)!)))) b',lO JPJ pI PlDljlO

1:)'''' o~rs 'ri> 0-')" ~)>>O ~P,) ,:,::m ~r.~;:~~

0» 'P'O ~ p.,mbt t:rIi> P")Ctt), p~')" l=~

.,' :lit: ), :l'

"C= "~,, ~D,,"pi~'Ul]'~ ~~, n'7M1 C)~)CI

')1)= Ylnb 0) [eM 00" O'~,'t\ I, .~~",

m"l'W> ot\')'!:1\ P'70 ~", OC; '1'>"" I';',n" bpno or O'S" C»'b 00=' """ei C)!J)/j" ,,'C; ,,,,,,,, ,"'

Ot~,16 Cn"OD' l"'m ~;li'O CO~ ).t;J) ~1";; ~ ."", ''Ob, • 0)'''' pm" 0'0 r'o~, ;,} ~»3tti'l:i '7» ~'") 0:'''1') t 0'0' b> e'c:)!:;:') O'O!:l D»~ ~l:i!m C',,}J:e) 'p'b" . ;:'~I.lO )'::~~ ,,, '7)ll) 1)'0' 0'0 ~"~!:I 'r.lD fl:3~ C",'-,:l 'PI) O'tptl O')I.l~)O ~ ,~n .m" to d::) . '7' ,r".,,,,,S o5~ ",y,> Ol'CO ,e n,,; j',,$' r,lIW:'

0»» b"»1i "" W'fl ml-''''~ '';' n1b-"e~,

;tS» P1OPO)%I ')C») f>-.,X' Xl' 1" ""mp" ;p n~3!j"t» 'n'j)') til" • rm" 'm n':o~ ') P'n 'U\ ,,~ 1"D'1 ""\'~') "n, nDe P,:!)O ""D ,rm;);» t)£)C'" C'i'~ 1>-" o~n )' ;p

')1)))

1m,," 00 "001 " 'WIll ~ll)~ n~ll' 1>'S" j:>':;:::11 1'm, mu:> 610 tpJ:~D 'lP" enS","i" lo c'tr.m PI)'r),5 I,,, ),lbl ci1l:C> I;, 005\;3 lm1111 m ";::>1 ~l"1l) pi D""" ,,,1 1MlIl 0;1} 31"1'" 0')li3 r;"fllln)Jlbll :)""J hb Ii») I')l:> ::>r 0)01 ' M:ln:o))O mP'" ''""'11:)1 :)'~; lI' "" l)'li;' ., Irlt) pm~1m T';>llti ji'~ \," I,»i ~b.,. n), i:')~' 6;1 " "31D)b 1>5' t;"iOJ) ,':)\)" C) , 0)1):) "'11' III cb ll5jlli' :l, flI~::: e';, II rllll 0':l)1O " J"ll I'O"" 'ill OJ) I, l'rIln~ m, ", )l) 1)1m ll,,)!)') UllD 0Pt', ,p m;llm /)51' 1;'0 ,',)IllJ cmll! iro om..

fllOti tiro «130 0)1 ',,' "I'" mill I~l" 1:"lIlo'lc Inbo "mr.'c, ,'ll) el " ,:~, 1))1:)0 ",~r; ~~Vl ~;;::'\ mm 0:. O'~" e~p") O:l!j Ott," o·,~nS»1 n;\)" :>Ill I)\~ if1 n"flJ ti:~ '''CllJ Imo C~ ,~i nt::b,;~ '~, O'r.!J ,;t ~ ODS;:I rJf')f) :1:> 1'Jr."> ,', llJ C'1 ' I~l~' ]'!lUll)) q\el );)) ')1)1' I;" 'lI) 00 omnll I'>ll I" ~I~) 6) 1:1:\' 'l"/l 0..., 1"7:rnl3 p"lpl17 "" PU1l:C> m~;"ro ,,1 'm COO ill ~1m 0"' ::6" 1I), ce',' Il)J:~;; 1~ ::)'1 iI) om) fl~ }'" ill P'J~ !~ r,ro::>ll ' 'm 'l~)", 'l:!; ;, Til 1M:;:; :,::: C"i'l'l» i\~~ }f;~~ 1'"" m»; C1~ Q'))w COOl lI, o"m iflP' " Pill» Ir.!' ill 07') C"'C;:Ol "ll) )!:l rn~l') ;",1Oti lIb "ll C>111' 0.."; fl'" 0';1 C»1ll)) = 1'f)'Sml jt)",,,, ill 1:>1~-::>:i '-:dl 'l:i' 1"'))::>til pc",;; 0;10' "Il 'PII) I'll:: '':I:D 1m) it) r.>! nr-f),)3O Of; )'11)0 ~I' ;>~t> :I"P~);; ,,'lll bl~c O·\ltPDl I;)"~ Pr.O:> I'D ~"m':o 't' ;:0 v:Sl)' P'J";i'1:»;I ,.1) .~ i:: lOll' I'D)) n'SIo; )1:)' 610;; p' I!lfl j'lll:l\ in n~I" llh jWllll nl)' r.~~"ll:;"~ nll'oln '''" U C'P ':'0 \)Ill)) Pb C) II,> ,~ !if>::J ;\!: ), '7 ':~i p!}:>~", I'D l'Ol)!)'') Cl ' Y'" I:" ~"r";~n n.i'Pl ,,1!l!l::O onl/); \1" it).'lO

p. I" (," JI'5) :::1 'Il;!l!ll p,ct:;! ;p Yrnflt; o;m /)'0 11 ;1) OJ I'rill o:~P;' bin 01"ll ::>lliP Ill' O)I~I O~ll *P n'O I! ill 0) C'DI "" O'lr."..o !;~, Ii;: ~:">'1DD Oil 01'~0'3D

(a)

., l p"m Q~t'\ l'\W

q6 O'I)tl 6~ 1"~ oil, ,,.,, ~Dl)} 1')1l1 m"Ol)I I) ,1ll;i:i IJIllO nll" ,"5" l::l' i)D:! .,c> ~'111 ;:l)'!"lO> ~~I mil!) 0,61 ,."" D", blo IJUlOc "'D OP\I)' mp'lIDI' OJ)lDI (lI)'1i)" O"lD~ 'p:o)'lIlf))" )b C'CDDlllll"l 11 )'" >:IIlI 0)1IlO I" QJ)1 ~0)'11 i" '')l)Dll blOC iI:o "' JIll Illb')ll1 Ilb ''QOI 'Db, 'P) D"l)tJ .») )"lIl' 'ill " "'" )'i'I"')I Plilllln'll) """ mmp, )'1''' ,""II» CI)~D p>"flD OD:!) }:lb onSll)

ilI')')1ll1lO 0"l!lQ0 """ ., IIlb" iI~ C''lC'C ~JIll M PI3D:l} omo ;", ,",)llllll fl)f» 1''IZ lm/lo 01'0 bltl)"b\'!l Ill,. bloD \11Ol C'~~l) I)C ~~~)D)lD:! 01'0 b1tI1 o)lloi .,ioIl 610 PIb'll)O''PIioIl PD'llD 'lll' "'fll)1I) )'D • ".,. i'C1Pl)"," )1)1» 0' 'lUll) 0'" 0}1l))

tn, i» 11m 7/'h 'lIllll'1 ,~~P''''' 01 : I"Il 'I» »

I It;, CCII'II 'II) ...", 1:1 '11\)' ., 1"

Qll!)lirl il)IP Illp I)"'" mv.l 0'J"lI') :"1l"

~\IlC) )mp ""~D ."", tJIlln ,"OW)

1)"t\1 ,..", I'D:! rIl lr'" ob" /)1 eh )*J»

. Ii IIDD'!! 71' \I)"~> 1h iIPo JIll!) M "~ l)" 'fll' 1)"1 "l rIl

1')0 Illl'~ I"~ )*0' I" >1:0 J1P )llIl P17' (l)O

,,.,.'" rIl ~'l'lI '!ll 'lC'!) "0" rft \"",1 07b

"-D) btl.".,,,) bI} 'lC)D rb \ll)tJ)CJ 01t "t61

'lD6) P"))" II llPl)O ~l) " 'lllll>1 (,.. rnp.,

mDlbl (lI) Jl'lC)1ll\ 11ql» \I)"" 0''''' ori>t

'lll) )""J ,> /lIl)1 mlllll n;llll Oll ,"0 Ii

00" C'llll'l ." " .>t", 211>30 Il'" 101ll

.",., 1')',h]) "\)/)0 01 ")1lC l"mb 0) [cDn

.)1Il ,])b", I])' 1ll1J!;) 00')'IlI P'0 ~D OIl

I)O~ )'CD ~~bl 0'\" O)ID 0l)1l" ",,'C o'l.'tl,

·O>i;! "Olll' \1) c'i"p ClIl>'::>~' lll711 t)":l)~

0'0' b} C'IIllllO)' 'lD6 "I>m , O"l») plllD

• 0)(:0 )'ttl) >I»" )It'C 71) O')lD) 01~ II C"l/lf1'J:l C'D"::>'OIl bl!» 0Ill)]) C"lElC' 'D'fl"ll ." ID'),) ""Ill 0'0' 1)10 iJ))» 71lb /)311 I!\DD~ o'llp;:! C'lul~ 1]) I~n , "'D ril oil» '1b'»oI1'l11n; tli1Po In\fl; Ol.'DO "l1ll hIl) 't'1il' P1DI!'ll ;)l)) ")lll!i lP' m).1J ril ll7)!) ."

01:>" ~'!)l ,

,.)ti", ::n"'D I",' lorD 'I" I"

" , "Ph1!) .",,) DIlC

1M 1';""" D""O 0' .,,,~ YmD =, [1:>"" ~

'f!"J' olb I,

')'" ""b~t; ,,,, "l.,)C) C~'Cn l"'lC ),,, = 00> "t;XI ~~.,,) 0'5,., o~'b ~,".,,~ Otl.1:i"

.0'0 r"0U" ;,,, o'>!I1b ~ttOD' 1:Il'7ll 0",,"0 O~, D; O'C)'~;' 'mb "Elm • 0''1)' PI''' • O)~X) ,~~ )'~)' :n~ '2) O')'''l 0,."" U C,)l/:lD,,);) 0'"'' O'~ D~ otl2)n O'~' ,"'"."", ,,,, ),:s .'1:SU' 0'01 ell:> ~'~13 'Db "", ",""~ O'tjj'O O'~~X) In 'Dn • 1)11') M O~) ""'))O~ "*,;~1:)>= ,m(» C~7U' f>ts) ~. J'J'WIPD 0]))' ",1J)f:; ,»:> lD~tl M",.,,) ", mil» 1JSn i',CDO )1) t;fj", ff"))t) "" 1" P.DO ~mop' JrrllX' ,.m" Of" • """"2)»." Jm 'ut 1» "",.,~}t)."", ",=

".., 'mf» =~ ~,. o~ )'

~ 11 N'

I ~

, tJIl"Jl:) 1'0 M p,O)~ 'lDfuD 0)"

i, ., l"fO Dll"P" rrtC b ~'ll) 01 0l0I b}, o},· h>1 "~)I" Cl' hi /) 17') COl:l "x~ 'l'lD' b} 0/) l)lpC' lTlII ;)6 '1)\) ri>'It " t)":lj1O" "'l' I'O))!) '1') 65'/)10» "011') '"

1)])]) P')I)') Ill))) Ollpl l)l blOD ll'b Ii I'lli'

Pll1D1 >nl mflD 0])' Ylnb/l 11), ". ~p

m\h r,m o'')I)flD 1l) IlliIPD b\" "'b "OW)

bIOti J!il~ blOC tJ1\) 11\30 Oll '", )'P)"!

/IS])' 1000 b)DD"" "}l) Ol ;, '») 1ll\1IO

"'"~ \)1)1) 0) tJ'Ci" 0'1)') JlOtI o'C)/i tr:Jpo

Il),»,l ob, mo IJb Pl3O, Ii)~ "",~ 1mIi OJ

,. r.D))/)7 ill "" OIlX' '» I» :>ole: rob

NO ~llO 7') Il' 1)'1 , p!)1P' ')'11"\)]) IjlP1

Olm» I'ID 1'7 ~ 6, 1)1)" 'f" t)"jl 1"'0)0) 1'''001 ,ll) b1lUlCl "'l))\3110 'lI7'~ Pm> >t II" ~17l Oll' ofrlI 0:>'7' IP:lIC 7ll 0)"1 ", OP/)) b>1 >'0 III pllb ;HI , 'UI "'" b) 1!iJ I, Til ,Ph", Ir» rflC lo1l' lID" pli,} 01',",' O'lll P\3I1O JD o"lll) ., 1ll)\D Illll p' 07" C'CP O"jlIlD Illh'~, 1""OD liD "'1) oi\p) CDDI lr, 0)")1)) Oll])]) 1)0» r"'ll", 10'''''' )ll o'l'!!lll1 l"'lll)a IIll]) on; ~ClDll c}lb,,.l' 1)0> h>'l) .,,;, 101 IlM' ;b tID )"IIlO ~t')I)/) 'Xl) moD O'll!lCllI 0= 'P'll rtc t')I)/) 'l\J)l\1l 1171'C 71ll ;, "ll Qli 0'='0]) t)"3j'l: )!) illS, i" lIlb ill!:>1 IlDflo rb 0= 'I> IlllllD\I)) 1)\) 1m'C)" ", ill lOP' rill) flollQ) I\:» mOD " llf>::J lD D'lW lib !lDDD n,,' PlbnllC! , y", "'l) Ii Il'II 'lIlXI \)II!!) ril OJ II" ltlOll"l1ll ;, '7 '»} m))Ii'D rb,,1lIitlIl Cl YrnbrllP' 07\:)1) !:lieD rIl",." 'l!l1lQ ::>mIll) "" o~co '" ('*' "",) O:lf 'l'>iIlPt 1"_ )2) olen fro y ill 0' )'flD o»n »hlh trl\:)I) lP' 0I1!)\lI 0'lDZI olliP fro v Xl 0' D'Cl o:Jt

C"»)CO 1ntI\' hlo ,.., O"JlC C~ ~~D'3I!

(b)

Fir,ur(' 7,7 It IHr:H"1 M("i, 11..1 0111'11, '<-;/'1"11 ri I II/ "1I11I ~//{)/1 , 'S("/,III.IIIIIIII' '1 III: (1/) Villl,l, IX'/ ,) l'dllio'l, /IIIIIWIIlI\ III(' 11' 11 ' 11 '11 1,' 111111" IId',1I ~III1 ' III " l ilv; (1/) 11111 ' 1 .. .11111111 , willi 1111' 11'11''''111 I' dl,II"II,d ,llId 1IJ"II'~ll1 '''I' 'IIIJ :I 'd : W; I#n "'" _

m'IM\:'., p-1I =mlo" nlplril?rmc; 0v= rc.."

~7nlD • -= OI)DI .~, .. ,'!:It!) \)'10'7"'" .l='rIl ~;.m,..}\lfJ >"t) lm' ~.' j) ~Cll»I:I~ .'b~. ~rlIl ~cn6.1"0 ftI)III It» m PIli» Ill: = CII',,,·,,,,,,, .m""""'IIl"""~rD <t"o""., '1'D:J flrr/mI) m'lIln)f'6~ \)!IlI' . • ~nl ~:P"~::I'I \:lI'l~ 0 .,.,mfl\ ~1I"A:iIi\.~ )'IIllC) c»r>.'CIIII,w );Ml~ CC»1 ~IllrJII 'lI:IIICll"ll6 C) (tm~C'PIn '1:'1 ' '!J;:Il:I 1lI'D~ ~.P'Jl' m\lO ~r~fJa»Or ~Ol'b c:lOCI'In'G CI'III!'I'I" ..= 0'))'11 ~lI1'ISI. ~~~"GI>.!dl; )) "III "IIfn • ~~0'0 r'elI:3~)h»u'lQ'CI'IIl tm))) ~~tI'tl' ~> ~ 00tC 61!:0 :a:l')C"lCC) ' pob;i • • ~)\!. ~ )))'1:11:1 ~I =hl}» 'lI'iJ fl:.I:; I:')~ om .C'~p:; ltlIl ·"." r:fl ;::~. '" '"

_ C~",*,5 . . -n; btl) ~.~ I:IJ!:I) fl:.I\IlO . ~." ~:Je~

3m ~

m::Dl

(a)

Figure 7.7 R. Israd M"ir Ilakoht'lI, Skcmir"t h"'",~hc,", 'Sc'fallatllilll' 41": (") Viltla, tX79 c·t1ilioll, showin~ tilt' rc·lrrrlHl· to thr II~'~I Slu,ttl 'Ibv; (h) IlIlrr rtlltlon, with thr rrlrrrlll'r e1rlrtr!1 umlthr tr~1 rrurnltl~rel

(h)

With the creation of the State of Israel there was a lot of excitement in much of the rabbinic world. Many rabbis expressed themselves in ways that would later bring embarrassment to their families, as the state never developed in as religious a fashion as was hoped. For instance, shortly after the establishment of the state, R. Eliezer Waldenberg published his threevolume Hilkhot hamedinah (,Laws of the State'). This work deals with all sorts of halakhic issues relevant to running a modem state, and bears witness to Waldenberg's great optimism and joy in the new State ofIsrael, which he regarded as the 'beginning of the redemption'.77 After his death, when it became obvious that Waldenberg's family would never republish this work, an anonymous person took it upon himself to do so. Rather than being thankful that Waldenberg had an admirer willing to shoulder the publishing expenses, the family attempted to stop publication with an appeal to the beit din ofthe Edah Haredit.7s

Another example concerns R. Isaac Meir Patsiner (1888-1960), the sonin-law ofthe famous R. Isser Zalman Meltzer. In 1956, the same year that he was appointed to the Israeli Chief Rabbinate's beit din hagadol,19 he published the second volume ofhis Parashat hamelekh. In his introduction to this work he speaks very positively about the State ofIsrael, stating that it is the 'beginning ofthe redemption'. When this book was reprinted in 1983, these sentiments were no longer to be found.so

The great fear of Zionism also led to censorship of R. Tsadok Hakohen's classic Tsidkat hatsadik. This work was originally published in a censored version in 1902, a couple ofyears after his death, and it was only in 1968 that the complete text was published.St In one originally censored passage, R. Tsadok elaborates on the importance in Judaism of identifYing with the nation of IsraeP2 He notes that a person can convert to Judaism knowing nothing

77 Waldenberg, Hilkhot hamedinah, i. 8. 78 See Anon., 'Mystery' (Heb.).

79 See Yitshak Goldschlag's obituary ofPat siner, Shanah beshanah (r96r), 370.

80 This was noted by Shaul Shiff in an article in the online Hatsofeh. (This newspaper, which ceased publication some years ago, no longer has an internet presence.) Another example worth noting is that the name of R. Judah Kowalsky (r862-r925), a well-known Mizrahi rabbi, was deleted from the responsa ofR_ Abraham Bornstein. See Don-Yihye, Anshei torah umalkhut, 395; Katzman, 'The Gaon R. Judah Leib Gordon' (Heb.), 664 n. 27·

81 Those passages censored from the first edition of Tsidkat hatsadik (r902) were preserved in a copy of the book, having been handwritten by one of R. Tsadok's students. See Borschel-Dan, 'Visiting Gershom Scholem'.

82 No. 54. It is not always clear what was regarded as problematic in other censored passages.

I think no. 69 was censon-d berallse in this text It 'Isadok poillts to sOllu·thil1H positivI' that

accrues when 'wkk(-d J('ws' aSllimilah'. Also ('('nsof('d w!'l'r no. 16\. whkh rxprrllsrs antil10llli;1Il

srntim('lIts. ;!nd no. 14(" prrhups hr(;lIlsr it illlplirs th;!t It Joshll~ hrll Ilallulli~h did lIot IOlItrol

his srxllill IIrlirN UN 111111 h UN It I(fIr:t.N.

about the religion, to the extent that he still worships idols, but as long as he regards himself as a member of the people of Israel, the conversion is valid.S3 Similarly, R. Tsadok explains that despite any sins one may commit, one remains in the fold as long as one does not tum one's back on the Jewish people. Following a view earlier advocated by R. Yom Tov Ishbili (Ritva; C.1250-1330), R. David Ibn Zimra,84 and R. Jacob Emden,s5 R. Tsadok disagrees with Maimonides' well-known opinion in his Igeret hashemad that one need not give up one's life ifforced to convert to Islam. R. Tsadok claims that one must indeed suffer martyrdom in such a circumstance, since adoption of Islam means abandonment of the nation of Israel and the assumption of a different identity. He contrasts conversion to Islam, which is not an idolatrous religion yet entirely removes a Jew from his people, with those Israelites in earlier times who worshipped idolatry but still identified with the nation of Israel. Unlike the convert to Islam, the ancients were not severed from their people. All ofthese comments were problematic in that they could lend support to the secular Zionist perspective that put the stress on national, rather than religious, identity. They were therefore omitted.

Here is an example where we see an act ofcensorship in R. Joshua Joseph Hakohen's Ezrat kohanim, which appeared in Warsaw in 1873. The original text appears in Figure 7.8(a), while the 1971 censored version is shown in Figure 7.8(b). The censored passage relates to the permissibility of offering sacrifices even without the existence of the Temple. While this is a halakhic matter that was discussed by great sages before the existence of the Zionist movement, in later years discussions ofthis sort became identified with religious Zionist figures. I have no doubt that this is the reason why the passage was censored in the reprinted version, which happened to be produced by a man in Monroe, New York, a centre ofthe Satmar hasidic sect.86

The haredi 'problem' with Zionism is also visible in the way in which the ArtScroll publishing house dealt with the writings of R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin (1888-1978). Although an adherent of Habad hasidism, Zevin was also an unabashed religious Zionist.s7 In his classic Hamo'adim bahalakhah

83 "?N'IV' DIV nN"i'J i"; ibid., no. 54.

.. See Ibn Zimra. She'elot uteshuvot haradbaz, nos. 344, rr63. Ibn Zimra quotes Ishbili.

85 Emden, Migdal oz (r874), 28b.

.. The introduction to vol. i of the work. 'Mevo hamikdash', pp. 3b-4a, is also censored, removing the author's argument that the Temple will be rebuilt before the coming ofthe messiah. The Jerusalem, 2002 edition. which was reset. is also missing the passage seen in Figure 7.8(a). However. this rdition indudrs the compll,tr introdudinn. whkh. as nntl'd. is missing in Ihe censorrd vrrsion.

., Zrvln'H HlIhlld Im'kllTllllnd WAN 111111 oflhl' lIohrlllMk hrllnl'h, nnt I.lIhIlVII('h. Wllh Ihl' I'nd (If Bohrul_k, Zrvln Irlll1Mfrrrl'd hiM 11111'1&11111('1' In l.uhllvlll'h, hUI hI' nrVl'f IIduPll'd Ihl' l.uh_vll"'l Inll·

O'I:)IPi .

' , b,)I:!%l'7"" t:I}1 • ~'i"D ,'" . ,,10., 1m' " ~·C) O~ I:!C,'i' 0'1:1' D1~'''p 3'''",P l''' ol'b3 01"'00 ",,, 1" ol'b, 31." ''''0'0 ,> tIP"", 'j ""'1'0> 0''''' 3'''P~> ."",00 ml,b lPi' on o,'~ O~D "l1l0 I'll"" ",mI' 3'''1'0) "b 0'3"11))) 'rn P"3"li'

l""'i'''' 010 o'~o~ ., . D'Tp"O 0,"")1) 01'::'1 ')ntJ 0"::; 0'" ., 1)'" o~, . "'3 rOD "!)pb ""0' "P, . C'7p"l:I O'PY.l3 Im"p ,,'iPO 1',,,,:;1 1)',1" • 0", i'" ,'>') "0 , ' " 1"" ')£)10 01')/) 1'I"~'I.., 'i )" , "0" I'P)oD ',p O' p "')1"0) '0", DOll 1""

,<."\

"')1'0) mSi ilob

')l)D

O)D)i)

•bi!)>>" =OJ:) )1:1

be.,.» 0')')0 )., ,-,-,0 ",) .bom»a OXl"'"

(0) .. (h)

FIpre'1.8 R. JOlhua JOleph Hakohen, i%nat koM",,,.: (.) Warllw, 18" eclition, Ihowina

the dtlCUl.ion ofth. poI,tbility ofofferin, .acriftCli in the .bltnet ofthtTtmple; (If) 19'11

tdition (Monroe, NY: I, Lowy), with thI pain..rtmovtd

• £, GJ C2., «.a I., CI,\ C'ltU9 CIa C(Inl • acauaJ cSQll ,"a.~· lC,C er.. • lCUCc.cn'!,,(, ~,ac. . I.c.d accat <e.:c.a ~ ·cca d&.ll .~ ~QWl ~C~ .,,c~\U caacIJ .CWCI ~~ C'4IQ c( Ma d(.o uC4l=' gI. cdctZ aca """"

.~~''< cau.l.1., c,\ tZ.~ \(Llla, L~ -. GIQ ~CC s:IC~Q (alaGC 9'; CU4Q' c.e .fIIIWIUCI ca.c.a CJb CLC.\Q caJC.Q ,~d. cdcCl (QQ , c~ ~"( dL~ d~'Q ~CQC.Q' If ~a=lU' clk4 cl eI.a aa ulAq.l

~CIt CI!:I,e. :

&.I«f" CIt.<*" (,,~ a~ 1:1«'" 1.(,«.'1) GeM.!' 1aGe., ~,

WCh. <cc 990 cacmr CJ~CJ aUla q<l(.\Q' LCJ"'-'

co G( !Sex.. ecJ ~ac~ •. alia« LC.~ I.eC.,.<.

acrr..o CJ\l • lCCac GQ """ ~CAa'CJ\\ cacrt..Q_Cla c.c< CI.C a,t e'l Cl;J CCICI t,c caw III CG.CQ ~,CI «j(IQ "-CIa qua' ~Ga.tg <em,.: • CI.IICl a,e u,,:a· l&, eel", a.a co)·· lQ., c.U\d QC.C}CI.(J '.~ QlCCJ £<&.<1 GQ\(J erA ClC\ «"fI,lga. CI,t wC<.a a.C( lUCO.C ,tCl Q(.q.a ,,~. flC~ ICy (CO <cat., (c.c CClGc.a cUUtt. I.,.C,l LQ(,(l.c QC. CI"O ccc.!c.q dlGltla • at a.«(, !Sc., aeal ~L

(l~ <<<<<COCCI 1.t1 G«. aacrc.c. UJmc:t.\.LCI, actc. CII.(d •cc:!c.q ct tZ,~ CIa CZC:lqa CCfI(,Q' "a.a <dcd CQ"c "'C\qt. co caao : II~ "Cla' ~acre...~•~CJ CCK!I.!:J' cdt.I~CI

IoCI(j Cr.,CCJ«$Ct 'llc,o £I< CVJ( QCUtCl • LNUL. cwe.a· QlCj acre. c.dcIc; CClC\(j(. «Icd

(CfJl' ....... I

CJG.Q' q,e <9 ,a., «t WIWIoaQ • ,~d ~tLaQ ca fALc! c..a <9 4, ClII. '"'9 &(9 GCQI.c..l cu. "CJC! ("9 (}l accL"'" CJ(~ «ItoCJ .t.« cCClQQ ague. L£c.CJeJ CUtq .Q\,"", ca'9 'I, crc< Cj(L • 9' /WI .ell, "'< ~dc.aa acu.a c«sea • "'I"".r.¢ !l4C ao ~I(.d \(,~ ~dua.' lCJQ .(.eI au c.qa CJ<.1 .oc.qC CK.C (14\((, \t2C' 19,c ~q 4, CIt. ~ G.LCI · CCCLCJQ C!(j(Ic.w.cl ''JOlt .c., ¢La .ca (a.(: 'QCCIQ cJl ~ I.QUI q~CI 11Lq. c:r.c ca,a r.ccuca LW 'SCI a~ClQ UqUI. "'( q~\ 'C9 co "CCQ Qll'~ ~l ~

q~ CIC\ a.u w.q. W.CI &.CICI. cu..b c, q~L Lei, ,Cl( ¢La ~ct.~· r..p" a.r. LCI,~ ''I, IK<. to ~CI.~· c.u c.u.. ~((Q aCl; 9J ~ q(L \lLq, UlC\4\U' Q..Cl a,l. ICJV•.a unClt.a· el,,~(dLa 09 qo uCJ ~q C.\ ~'4\ c~ g~1 cc:.ta..a ca.c 1ILq.. Lca '~~ Q.Q &CI\' ¢4C1 ~CI~. ".a

('I)

A GCClacc a«Ut4' (qI. QC.tZ,C It( 'QC.C.CI (tl"CKI!:J, uacctlccac.q· ICq\ ~q (CCle C:(~ C,,", QC.c.csc,

...

"acc Clcaa",u (Coe CIl!Jc.w CS4' CQ Qt,c.a9 ad!.Q Ckd u~ c.c.aq cJ c.cccc G«'""l "" "a.a a.C" ca.~ ,J ~<Ja CULCIO • ~CI~CJ t.CC:\ aGClI (,toCl" QU~Qcaac.lG ell. ,"""ar.cu:lCla. &Q<SCC4CI c.c~ 'CJI' let ca.·CI'~ 0, 4"l O(Q ~• (jC~ QUC1<.4 UICA,C ~I.,cs .~

g.t. .wi ClC ocr.< I~, "I ·ac. QaCI.!.CI.cq(L c.l ~~a ceCle c.c: cqt CI((t. Q(.lt.cl •qcl CI,("Jeer.ere" cr., "''1.a <diA-CCl.C" u:I ~,a:.clC'.,Q CS'CoQ CCl tee. cu"", ~'" w. (}lea • IQ cacrt. 91Ql caac. Quu.&..l. .,CI ~L(jCC.IXI flU .sad ('It acu. cdc.d. ..:, ~ IQ u.( aaQ(J4l uJ. cae c((t. Qdc.d. IC1 ~G aCC09.r::I ~UUOO· aca.l «,a ~ lCICKI CI(!(,,, cc.< CLCW aaA &dc.9' \C1 cc.~ QCSlCIG\O C~QcJ " d" CI,,9 (LA a«crc.q· (<11 cc.a'~ Qt.aCIQ"~ a QC~)atG",dl' 19.(19 GQ c,.c CiA LCc.a.cl C(lace \Cl «(1(,9 L,Uo((j ..r., ..CI c:r.q ""9 CIQ (lace A ac~ w.t aa r.JCfI ,~cCI(J ~CIGQ aacrc,.QIQ actc. accKJU' "J,c<".. u.ga ~lC.Q "<.ClCIa

(1,\ CLet.. qcq ,l(I. ct ad (t.cw.t cacrc. Ie ti,C. l.£qaU· cc.~d cql GO ClClt. ·Qdc.cl· (J«CQ ca.c ca.1l 'QlI.cn~ caacQ Oct'"'9 .a ~~J 'ccu., • <K.~\ (§Q 9QI. .ck.9\' uo 9.'" qd. CJ(& .a Galla" CJQL a«,\<J aac. cdc.d • lQ.C ~

I.CIICL acre. C:CC"-lU • CCC£ICQ Qlgu. lee.. c~ ,ILeI <.0 (erQ (CI d:JI' Qlea Aq\ cqt cacq eI~ _ IQ q.1l c,CI ~accc. Qdc.ct. .&q.c.

19.a Q(lt~ CCCllU). I~cs.u. Qt«c,q ~ c.\ .lac. aaqc..· ckCI.o .d~.. " Ie <1.(" .<C< ~ &.Qlq "d c, CIlCW' &GUo ~Lcra.. «.<JO ClCCIC,lU ~d,.a. ",~c., v.J«l (dc4 G«t. cc=.\Q "'" (esc. <!lei.' aaI.CI I.Q\Q sc..L (C.bcA acre..

""g.L Ltol !!Icu' CJQ • UH.9 ~«kl.ccq ca«c. ClIO' l(LCICh qa &.~ dl.l21Q 'd~.o Qr&=CCQc.La wi CCIlJCI (QUMc~ c.L uc.g.l. Cl«k.Clc.l "a~ qwa aaa· (u.~ cca..cs CI."Q ca. CI\t. (dal caac. cc!c.d U«Cft.CkQCl QCaa\U toe• .CQcqQ aa el, Cj:. udu:I CCI(k(1Q' ""' !:So QaClC. QIQ • ~g fQ .cr< • cawl~cdc.q a~a <lWa aero • 14~L(~ cr(· QOcqo ~~ 1.aQd\ qlQC auCl CI'~· 14,< t.CCKl.LIU 0.\ .cd .qat. .c(6Cl Cl 9CI CCI"'<I QCCIllCI c4f.CClQ

I I.J~""I" I ,:11'" 1'.1 lip '111 .\1 (HIli I I ~N "'""I~~) " " 1111 '"

11,(11 ('0' '1.11" .1 1. " '111 " I'" .. ,I I" " 111"1 .. I IIIII I I ·~ lilill 'II" I" .... lIl1ql ~I.1 1I 1 "1I1"III I'lh lllhlll ,lip

HIIiMclIl~ ' 111 11111 1.1 I /'W I 'MI~t"I~h\ (tI) 1I1I11/I11Cl ~ /III if '1I,IIIOlP'llljd,INOr 1'''IINOr '~I ~fL.)m:I!:1

(v)

Qe.a.c \QaQc.o I., CtlalL I., C.' a,C' 1,l.atll r.qb II

~Clc. QIQ ,QIL.CI ~c~e.,o ,011.100 gb CL.C.IO· c.e: ClcClcec Clctac.g· (gL Oe.CI.C I~~ OC.',Q CCIe.oq

CClUlct(JO e:CIc.a gLJ (1.e.10 oem.o l~cL ,dcCl ,00 ali II.CCO aetac.g· LC91 lig ~CCle c" qLI oc.e.og

CC:IC.ICJ IC~ clL.C,O d,lo ,ClIC.Q· "Clce CCClaC,lc.I ,cCJe (((CC,ICJ C)"I co QC,e.oq

N PJl1:l.. OCCIC.lc.I· cde.g d CI.C ClC~ '''I'lll adlo cia Cl'lil~ t,c.a9 cil "oco 0""e.9 \C.l

cc.,!:l'l 0\1 et::M. : \Cet"d 0.01, OCL\ c.l de.'9CI !:!"I<lO • ~cCi,q !.CC:,

1.l\0c., a'~II, (e..~ O~ OCle.. L.e.\o) Go.a ~aGc., ~" elGOI ',e.OJ Q"oc.;) ac,,!:!c.lel cgl letClCCI'O~ "OCJee.

N 01, ~oo g,i COCHCJ g~g Cla~o guc.,o· Lg..L., 10CJCC,eJ e,eli cell, let (cc, QC,e Gi, ct,l CI~O

CO CI~ O(.'le.1 ccil CI"O etC,~' a!:!ccet L.e..\ I.CC."t. a"IClIOO • gc, CC(CM \QC,Ct.c ICell.act iCOCO,C

OetC.IO g\~ • ~cCc.!C ClO C~II.~ L.::IeclC.! g\\ CCett.IO q.cl Ill.ct ac OCI., 10., c.t ce. ccae.lo c'l,1 ell

IQCJCCICI o.(!~ d.C G.I 01, ec.U oClg '.C O"lO . Oe:I,~CJ (celC Cllc e:gl aae. ode.ct •qc:l a.a ge:CI,

al OG.co \.ct ':IecQ IC.CICI gao' ,Ga.o ~I;(CI,~ • Cle:.,· ct" c,"guc \cM ca"c' Ie:! 'SIIe.1 O""~uQ C~It.~

QL..lct CI.' ctJC(.I· · Let., CO.I allc CIO)' 101, e.elld ceL cee. cale.I, CLIiIe:1 I.e.L glen cecllO IQ oa('(e.

Qe.gcl.g j.~ o~cg CQIl,ct COIC) et"C oel ClC.qlt qc 9101 eaClc. oel",'ll· InCC cco,L gcc.QQ gCJ I~Cld

~::l.' ~QCC.CI O,C\ IUCO.I: ~,O 0e.C).0 III,' gc\ c:gl C<le. cc.!c.c!. lC, a, 10 11.\ cacigil I.c.L

10., ~oo ,Cete.· «(!IIe: oaGe.CI COCCI!. L, C.I 10C.et"C tOO cae. odc.c!. "I ctaact ,ct, ClI:le.q.o III' l..m.c

oe. QCICl ocde.g clIG\CLd· al o,etc. 0~" o,uL \' ceClo cella' IGOel ceCe.1l1 ClC., Ct.CC.1 oellla lde.g\

(t~,o ,aae.cc I.t.l OCle. occae.c. c~ le:! c(,o. OCJIOGLC.! CCeltCiC.l !., d.1 cc.g CL.a

t.'1t"L.I..LC Cete. Ol.,d •cdc.C) d et.ll CC~ '''''1.1 accae.g • (gel Ct"CI J., QCIQ CQ 1.)11\ !:lac. OCe:le.iCJ)

Oetle.O· ICecn'.l ,a,,1 CG,e ,acLge. 00 odeto : ctG.c.dl· iq.Clq 00 c,e e:.;c\. L.~(.Qlcl caccc

\ac\11 "«a aI, Oete. calC:\ • ~,g codl.!:I CaL.IOC.l Icl cc"e.g 1..lccg I., ••et CI.'l CI'I'1 00 acco II

ICLg 0., cg">CI ':I1e.CI 0, :~CJ~ O"M! • CIC(j I.,L! ClO gct.} I~OI tctCI! cle.lgel 00 QCCle. 'lIQLNUI. l:alc.Cl· CLg CCle. c.dcle. aaclge. ,dell o('(e. OCCle.iCJ· Igue: ,Gul cc.gQ ,CgLC.C L.c:i,ICI CIQ etd.eg g,'e. 001, e.~IC~ ,cd""e de.d etG1i1 e.CI,\1 : "ui C'L.Ce..1 'leg ,~Ol ct ud (t.o.et tCCte. IC eHe: dc.cl GOU alCJe. ,0ae..1: C't.':! CC, CQCglt aOL, ", L.cgCl" Ce.OIC! e:gl co cCte.. ode.ct· gaco CG,C ClCJO OIGe. (.I,a ,LIIL. 01, e.\.L L..ce. cue' LetC.Ci 'lClIll iOU,CiiC ccecco occ"c.g IC ,0\,1 CC'tL.I· cCI~e.d Ode.ICl de.eclc.! I:ccd\o cadL.a •Let" 'CI.e! Cle..UIIOI coo '.101. Ide..gl· IJO '.IRq' ge:! gCle. gaG,. Clgil Clc.!· \CO II.ICI c. c:ao I:C,O gCle. 10 co cae. quI. Qccle.q !:letc. c:cle.el • i'l"C ,f.ee.li CI~O (t\ adLo OCldL.c, c. co,CO OLg tack.c.1 iQlleL oce(' c.CC:le.ic.l • cCC!cco 01C)0' iCe.. C~Gil cle.CCiCI gil "UI..C.O gel ,ode.lc de.e(LCJ ClL\:~Cl ,Il..a ,e'llto liceo ,q c.!~gL ,tI"~ aae..'ll 'gl QCJcq OGe. CtO ClIO go Ie.CL g\c.lCL OgLcncJ \ode..c CI~ Ccce. '0 C~.Lt enet idt.9l aa" Qcle.cl. igl<~ lel\,o ,odc.,e· CI C:"!.LCCO \1 oe.g.CJ, eC!iC cg.lo Ig,o oac,,~ 'Qa~(J)· lc!~C..\ c~.'t. O,"C,g ~\ll ,,\ CC,C:, ogll;(~CI CgllO Jell oede.lc de.c~lC.I CCIO Oil ,LCle. "Clqe.1 d~alQ d\,o. C. iQ C~'L. \C~ g.c ,ct,\' '''CI,o dlL.~o co ,all~ e, .gl\. I~Ot e.OIC.! LQtCj Cod C, ".C~CI· \C1l1. !.~Lctel. ce.go OCCle.'O a'MI' g.e ,g 101, "I !:I.dL.oO • i~cl d.L.!:lo ,0 dL.c.o d~,Q' idSe.t tClCCi ,cle.Q' scce. Ct::CIC.lel u~c.d c,.a ,g 10., etlL. cClg ~N ocoLe.11 aL. c,gC.! lC!.1 ~cl~e. ~Oiei' ecCIQ LCIQ ~e.IL ,"'C,WI aae. ce.g gL OCOLe.,!· gc\ etle.g ,I.CI CCCLgC cgCle. "c.g.1 !.(.L aCl(. QJO • \1.1"'.1 "(\,0\ (det cCJcq !.(ClgCI Clle.g ,CI, ClC,G c,,~g q, etC, g,L • gi co:te. Ole· 1,I.Ctel. ce.CjQ f.C~ dL.cle d,IQ 01\ Ctle.g 101, ICL~ ~al.co "ClI.CI CC't~al' ilgCI Il.ct CCle. C.CC:\C,ICI "c,d eCte.ICJ \ClII.I;O\ 01\ ac,qll c.de.c 00 de.d I~,,~ ,dl.~ol • LgO 1M C'tCI cigel OCde.C\Cl L,ClCJctl glCJO ll"Q' (iL.aCJ C.('IL••C1 Ct.,O ge.l .ce.g~ CJe.c aClICe. IClC· Lg.C ,g 10'1 al ca. CI\!. ,d"l coae. ocle.d C"""OIO Ci QcoalU ,GI C.I.C't C'CLgO ague. CliC.c! e.'lOLt ,0., !.cadlo CQ~gQ co Q./ 'He "a~o OCCllet~· IC/IC ~df.a co ~CI",' \OC\('(o C,,' ~i"," I.Q~'J CO 00C'te. 010 • g,g (Q CI, at/lo Q:lCJlet~ cde.q g~g Llf.g. ('(HC e:(;('/.:I !.OCLLCO L.,g qc CIi"'l ClOct.O g~elQ CCCQ • \(."\ t..,g ('(, OOC,:/Q ,CI. ccle.Q "qClL. ae:, 'JIiL !'Qg CO C.CCII OLi C, g,i' LICClctl glCJO cao etc.,' ie..\ L.CCJ",L.leJ 01\ g~~ CJet ",II. \\L41 "ll.Q LelG. ClL.lb e:, g~i IClI gae. .c:c.o~ c\ ga Ce:le.\e1 OCO"iel Qde.cClC.t 1.0" Ie:i, ,dL.C ~ct",' I.gCil, (;(I/~ L.o., t'l, etc:, OGe. C, GnS 0., a.C! L., ct.\. '.1.<19 CIO O,i:lil • co ~C't.\' '''~ clal o,ao COl, gJ C, glil UL.C}. acoCJetll cSGII ietao.,· ".e: 11.1' U:;CII':c.a ole, L.C!CIClLCl· 0.1(\ Cl,L Igle.IO IClICl.Q· e" lei, ~dl.CI ,we. L.c••! oCc.l11 ,C:':C,O Oil e:Q:I dL.':J1 dL.clQ Olg go rue.g aliI.} 01\ CICC,I e, g~L CCJ::e.IO CG.t ,CIL,a ~c:\ l..gGI, CCle.ICJ cauct.l CLtoiO ,C, c<tae llLo'l1 L.tQ c,a'l OIQ .C:lli ,al.a \a,,~· lc.a c, cl!.~IQ d,lo C!(lq,l de ' gL cd(e'( 00 c~c.t"

H I:t', aL.~1J dLI..U C:1.!~"C CI.N a liI.. "-QU Q

11 C\', QI.U.T &IJ .C:L.'r~ ,~ QJ" .u:N C2

Zevin discusses the obligation to tear one's garment upon seeing the desolate cities ofthe land of Israel. He assumes that this is no longer required, as the cities are now under Jewish rule. In his discussion, Zevin refers to 'the rise ofthe State ofIsrael (how happy we are to have merited this!),.88

Such an expression of happiness with regard to the state, the creation of which brought much ofbiblical Israel under Jewish control, was regarded as too Zionist by those involved in the translation commissioned by ArtScroll, and was therefore omitted from the English translation.89 Here again we see the pattern we have seen so often. Recognizing the great value of Zevin's Torah writings, ArtScroll desired to translate them. However, in order to keep Zevin 'kosher' in today's haredi world, it was thought that the only feasible approach was to delete problematic passages. By censoring Zevin, ArtScroll presumably feels that it is 'saving' him for those benighted individuals who would want nothing to do with Zevin were they to know of his Zionism. Preserved from this peril, they can now benefit from his writings (and ArtScroll can also make money from the books). 90

Zionism. Significantly, Zevin's descendants have never tried to hide his Zionism. See e.g. the biographical introduction to Zevin, Le'or hahalakhah, 37. 88 Zevin, Harno'adirn bahalakhah, ii. 442 (end ofthe chapter on 'The Destruction').

The Festivals in Halachah, translated by Shlomo Fox-Ashrei_ The editor was Uri Kaploun, and the 'contributing editor' was Meir Holder. See ii. 294. 90 For further details on the censorship ofZevin, see my Seforim Blog post, 14 Oct. 2013.

IS THE TRUTH REALLY

THAT IMPORTANT?

H E READ E R who has made it this far and seen all the examples ofcensorship and distortion is probably wondering, what ever happened to truth? Isn't this an important value in the Jewish tradition, and ifso, how do so many people, many of whom are quite pious, justifY their actions? It is to these questions that we now turn in this concluding chapter, and we will see that the matter is not a simple one at all.

We must begin by emphasizing that under normal circumstances truth is indeed a very important value in Judaism.1 Numerous talmudic passages speak ofthis, and I will cite only four: Mishnah, Avot I: I: 'The world stands on three things: on justice, on truth, and on peace'; Talmud, Shabat 55a: 'The seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, is truth'; Sanhedrin 92a: 'Whoever dissembles in his speech is as though he had engaged in idolatry'; Sanhedrin I03a: 'Four classes will not appear before the presence ofthe Shekhinah .... The class of liars, as it is written, "He that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight" [Psalm 101: 7]:

The thirteenth-century anonymous work Sefer ha/:l-inukh regards lying as 'abominable'/ and generally speaking, no traditional Jewish thinker would disagree.3 After all, there is an explicit biblical verse that states 'Keep thee far from a false matter' (Exodus 23: 7). Another verse states: 'Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord' (Proverbs 12: 12). However, as we shall see, rabbinic

See J. Gerondi, Sha'arei teshuvah, section 3: 178-86; Anon., Or/:lot tsadikirn, ch. 22; I. M. Hakohen, Sefat ernet, ch. 6; M. N. Friedman, On Truth and Falsehood (Heb.); Scheinfeld, Olam hasheker; Aratan, Torat harnidot, part 3; Karelitz, Ernunah uvita/:lon, ch. 4, no. 13; Tobolski, Midevar sheker tir/:lak; Y. H. Fish, Titen ernet leya'akov; N. Yavrov, Niv sefatayirn; Silver, Ernet keneh; Littwack, Midevar sheker tir/:lak; Y. H. Sofer, Hadarya'akov, vol. vi, no. 17. z No. 74.

3 R. Nahman ofBratslav has a very unusual position. According to him, 'Falsehood is only with the mouth, but not in writing.' See id., Sefor harnidot, s.v. ernet, no. 50. R. Nahman's opinion is also shared by Zilberger, Atsei zayit, vol. ii, no. 23 (end): nl'nJl ""J "O'H I'H. Abulafia, Yad ramah on BT BB 172a (no. 108), and Tosafot, BT nn 94b, s.v. hakhi, statl' ('xplidtly that writing is also included under 'Keep ther far from a falNe mattrr'. Src·11. S. Abrilham, {)rvartorah, ii. 15:1.; WlIldC'nbrrg, 'Hih eli'cur, xv, no. I J..

literature also leaves us with a number of exceptions to the strong affirmations oftruth.4

Ibn Ezra mentions that on occasion even prophets will tell untruths.s One example he gives is that Abraham says to those who accompanied him when he intended to offer Isaac as a burnt offering: 'I and the lad will go yonder and we will worship and come back to you' (Genesis 22: 5).6 Abraham was not yet ready to tell Isaac and the others the truth, and thus uttered this falsehood. Ibn Ezra further notes that had Abraham told the truth, 'Isaac would quite possibly have fled.'

The issue oftruth-telling in a halakhic context came to the fore in a dispute between R. Moses Sofer and R. Tsevi Hirsch Chajes. The issue that precipitated it was the question of delayed burial. In 1772, Duke Friedrich of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, responding to the possibility of burying people prematurely when they were still alive, issued an order requiring the Jews in his realm to wait three days before burying their dead. We know that a Jewish apostate had influenced the duke in this matter, convincing him that the practice of early burial was not of great importance in Judaism. The local Jewish community, believing that this ordinance violated Jewish law, wrote to both

R. Jacob Emden and Moses Mendelssohn, requesting their expert opinions. The plan was to use these opinions in their efforts.to have the law revoked.'

Emden replied that one could not abandon the traditional Jewish practice of immediate burial because of a far-fetched concern that someone who appears dead is really alive. In his German letter to the duke, Mendelssohn agreed with Emden that delaying burial was in opposition to Jewish law. This letter was sent for the sake of Jewish solidarity, but did not reflect Mendelssohn's true view, which appears in a Hebrew letter he sent to the community leaders. Here he said that the duke's requirement was not against Jewish law. After calling attention to the various times when it is permitted to postpone a burial, Mendelssohn added that if in these cases the rabbis permitted a body to lie unburied overnight, 'then certainly ifthere remains the slightest doubt that he may still be alive [he should not be buried]'. 8

Mendelssohn also argued that the contemporary practice of immediate burial was actually opposed to ancient Jewish tradition. The old Jewish

For an analysis of the differences in this regard between Jewish and American law, see Resnicoff, 'Lying and Lawyering'. The complexity ofour topic is seen in R. Judah Leib Margaliyot'N formulation, Tal orot, 6b: 1" N'1I1n, "~v D"1nlllO Dn1l>' I"N '\)0111>' ""0 ,mM1 ,'1'11>" 10' Jvmo 'J1 ""' mnON' nON. ' Comml'nlary on C(·n. 2.T H),

• See also Gen. 2.2. : 8 where, in responsl' to Isaac askilll( about tIll' lamh to 1)(' ofli-rl'd, Ahraham replied, 'God will see to the shrep lor !fiN hurnt ofli-rillK,'

, My dl'~rriptioll or I'Yl'lltH iN h:m'd on AItIll~III1, MII~r..~ Mr.ndr.h~lIk", ;1117": Sf'1' alNo Silmf't. Ilr~udtuh, Ih. 7. • SrI' SleHlrl, Ilrktldtuh, I(I~.

practice was to place the dead in caves and catacombs where the body waH watched for three days in order to see if there were any signs oflife.9 In other words, according to Mendelssohn, what the duke wanted was nothing morl' than that the Jews return to their old way ofdoing things.

In the decades after Mendelssohn, there were many reform-minded JewN who supported this step and viewed it as in line with modern medical science, I t was in response to these reformist sentiments that Sofer took a strong stand in opposition to any altering of the traditional practice. He expressed thiH opinion in a letter to Chajes, who appeared to think there was nothing wron~ with delaying burial ifit was thought medically necessary.lO In this letter, Sofer asserted that one who does not bury a corpse immediately has violated two Torah commandments, one positive and one negative.

In Chajes's reply he claims that Sofer is mistaken in his assumption that one would violate two Torah commandments, as the only violation is ofa nl'~' ative prohibition. 11 To this, Sofer responds that according to Nahmanides ont' does indeed violate a positive commandment. Therefore, he was within hiN rights in claiming so. Furthermore, Sofer notes, since there is no practkal dif~ ference whether or not a prohibited act is in violation ofone or two Torah COllimandments, 'it is good to raise [i.e. intensify] the prohibition'.1l Itl olht'r words, in order to discourage halakhic violation, it is advisable to makt' tl\(' Hill appear worse than it really is, or at least worse than most authorities rl'~ard it to be,

This notion ofintensifying the level ofa prohibition has already IWl'1I (.!t'all with by Moshe Samet and Jacob Katz, both of whom stress this poilll as all important aspect of Sofer's battle against nascent Reform Judaism.1I I will have a good deal more to say on this, but first we must note Chajes's r('ply 10 Sofer.14 He insists that it is not proper to 'raise the prohibition' in the fashion done by Safer. He acknowledges that the talmudic sages would sonH'linll's exaggerate the level ofa prohibition, for instance, stating that one is slllljed II) the heavenly death penalty for certain violations. Yet this was only by way of

See the post.talmudic tractate Sema/.lOt, ch. 8.

III M. Sofer, She'dot uteshuvot ~atam sojer, vol. ii, 'Yoreh de'ah', no. nX. Chajl's' nalll<'. ;IN IIIl' n'cipient of the responsum, was removed when Sofi' r's respOTlsa wert' posthumously pllhlishrd. This was presumably because of his sympathit's f(,r the Ilaskalah.

" Chajes, Kol sifi-r.i mahurat.~ ~rlYfs, i. 2.6,-6. " I hid . .I.(}() '10.

II Same!, l/e~udu.~II, 21X fL, 4SX fl.: I. Kalz, I/rilukllulJ i" c:,.i.~i.~ (I "'h.) , '1<). S"t' ;llso KOMIIIIIII. .( :1'1111'011 ({oil" (Hl'h.), 7(' fL, who discussI's Soft,I"S USI' of IhiN apl,roa( h ill (1111' art'a oflhl' SlIhhlllh laws. SaHl<'I , 11r.~udu~h. 2111, aSSllIIll'N that Soli-r'H Hl'lOlId rl'NpOIINlI1II to Ch~lrH, wh!'r!' h!' IIlrlltiollS 'raiNIIIM thr pruhlhltiOIl', waN rnllltll'll h01i1 S .. lrl'N poslhlllllously (lllhU.hrtl 1'1'"1"111_11 .1111'10 '1I·IIMloli. I ortrl'llIr".' . " (:11"11'., KII/ .,I/;·rl nlllkul'Ul.I ~IIY(,', I. "'/0 II,

threats to put the fear of sin into people, as had already been pointed out by Maimonides.15

Chajes understands Sofer to be including in his 'raising the prohibition' the notion that one can also say that something is biblically prohibited when in reality the prohibition is only rabbinic. Chajes sees this as a violation ofthe prohibition against adding to the Torah, as well as a violation of the biblical commandment to keep far from a false matter. The fact that one might have a good reason for the deception is not sufficient in his eyes to sanction any distortion. He concludes: 'The Sages were always careful to clarify which matters were from the Torah and which were rabbinic, even when there was no practical legal distinction. '16

Regarding Chajes's objection that Sofer's approach violates the biblical command against telling a falsehood, this chapter will show that the prohibition is far from absolute. Since Sofer's false statement-assuming it was indeed false-had an important purpose, this would make it permissible in the eyes of many authorities. Furthermore, it is most unlikely that Chajes is correct in assuming that Sofer believed that one can describe something as biblically prohibited when this is not the case. In fact, Sofer is careful to point out that his description ofdelayed burial as a violation oftwo commandments is not technically incorrect, since Nahmanides did,-after all, hold this opinion.17 Had Sofer thought that telling a falsehood about a commandment was acceptable when it came to influencing the masses to follow religious law, he would not have had to justifY his position by citing Nahmanides.

Yet even if Sofer did not hold the position attributed to him by Chajes, there were others who did. We can thus speak ofa fundamental dispute about

15 Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, ii, San. T 4 (pp. 121-5). See also id., Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot teshuvah' r 14, where the version in most manuscripts is: li10 1mi1"li10 pm"i1' '"T'. Another relevant example is Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot sotah' 3: 2. Here Maimonides states that the court tells the suspected adulteress the story of Reuben and Bilhah (Gen. 35: 22) according to its literal meaning, namely, that Reuben had sexual relations with his father' s concubine. According to one approach in BT Shabo 55b, however, this never actually happened. In order to encourage the woman's repentance, the court is permitted to speak falsely in this case. (However, see above, Ch. I

n. IG, for the Talmud's recording ofthe view that Reuben indeed had sexual relations with Bilhah. Perhaps Maimonides accepted this view.) R. Simeon ben Tsemah Duran notes that the Sages exaggerated when describing sins that cause a person to lose his share in the world to come. See id., Ohev mishpat, ch. 10. On the Sages' exaggerations, see Israeli, Mitsvot zemaniyot, S07; Isaac bar Sheshet, She'dot uteshuvot harivash, no. 171; D. Halevi, Turei zahav, 'Yoreh de'ah' ,,6: 4; Dehall, Dibrot ya'akov: ketubot, 2 ff.; Y. H. Sofer, Hadar ya'akov, v. 29-30; Wn'sdllH'r, Seeler yu'ukov, J.I II: (first numbering); Y. Yoser, fin yits/:lak, iii . ISl 11'. Sec also Katih, Commt'ntary on Mi.~hnrh toruh (Heb.), 'Hilkhot shabat' 17: 10 (p. lSS) : lll1'0 07'V'" ,m,on", ,1"n1 011110 n'''v I'l"" "014111 no, 14"14 H'n :"'01' 101"'. ,. CluljrH, Kill ~ilrri maharut~ /:Iayrs, i. .1.70 II,

17 ThiN poinl iN Nlrl"NN,'d hy I{ , MOHI"N F"hINII'III; Nrr hlN 111/".." /lllIIhrh:krtullllt, 1047,

whether rabbinic figures are obligated to tell the truth in their halakhic decisions, or whether, on the contrary, the most important thing is to keep the people in line. According to the second approach, ifa rabbi feels that the only way to secure religious stability in his community is to tell the masses falsely that something is prohibited, even biblically prohibited, then this would be acceptable.

This dispute has great contemporary relevance as well as historical interest. For example, in the controversy about the halakhic validity of women's prayer groups, there were some who thought that the prohibitions issued against these groups, while formulated in halakhic terms, were actually 'pub. lic policy' prohibitions. In their classic article on the topic, Dov and Aryeh Frimer cite many sources related to this issue, concluding that 'the consensus of codifiers maintain that public policy considerations, no matter how jU!ltified, do not entitle the rabbinic authority to misrepresent halakah'. IN

Yet the Frimers also cite sources, including R. Solomon ben Adrt't,lq ;lIId from more recent times, R. Ovadyah YosefW and R. Hayim Kanievsky/I who disagree with this, believing that it is permissible to 'misrepresent thc' rc'aNon for or source of a prohibition'.22 Some authorities they cite ;Jl!lo hold Ilttll 0111' may 'upgrade' a rabbinic prohibition to a biblical one,ll whith, il!l W(' Nnw, Willi how Chajes (apparently) misunderstood Sofer's intent. Tht' FrimNH illHO 1'1'1(,1' to many sources that claim that just as one is permitted 10 dt'viah' 1'1'0111 Iltr truth in order to maintain peace (as we will soon see), Ihe sault' I()~k applirM to 'misrepresenting halakha in order to maintain peace betwt,t'll kelu/ Yi,\/·u,.1 [the Jewish people] and the Almighty'.24 In other words, there is a stroll~ tn'lId in the tradition that would permit misrepresentation and olltright ,aIHili('u. tion ofthe halakhah ifa good purpose were served by doing so. W(' will NOOlI confront a number of explicit talmudic examples in support of tlti!l positioll, I will also present a number of cases from post-talmudic authoriti('s th'lt do likewise. In contrast to the Frimers' claim, it is apparent to mt' that tht' (011sensus is that one is indeed permitted to misrepresent halakhah fClf impol" tant reasons.25 Those authorities who have a different perspcctiv(' <Jpp('ar 10 1)(' contradicted by the talmudic passages we will see.

1M Frimer and Frimer, 'Women's Prayer Services', 39. Arnon!.: IIII' SOIH(,('S IIII'Y do 1101 ,Ih', mention should be madc of R. Moses Schick's responSUln, prilll,'d ill l~rlim"', (, (~/So), 1)\ (rt'gardinH why Schick would nol siH"llw IX(;(, Mihalowilz d''lTI'I's) ; I krw!.:, l'r.Wlkimllkhrltll'lm , iv, 'Yorch de'ah', no. 20. ,. Si,IOInOIlI"'1I Adr('I, .%,.'r.I('/ll/r.~huv,,/lrllm.l'hhll, vol. I. 110. " \.

SC(' his 1('lIer ;lllh,' h('lo:i rill i"10: ofY. YOS('!: Yulklll yowI lIi/kh,,' I>ikur/:l"lim vr'lIvrlut, '7 11 . " St'" hilllC'r and Jirirtll'l', 'WOIIII'n's "rayC'!' S,'rvin'N', (,7. u Ihld . .. SrI' Ihid, (,~. •• Ihld, c,,/, " III NlIl'porl of Ihrlr d~illl, firllllt'l umllll'lr""1 (Ihiel. (, I), I III' MullllllllldrN' I'llIi"11 III MM",rlt

I(lwh, 'lIi1khlll lIIumrlm' .& : I), Ih~1 ~ 1111111 III~I NI~lrN 111111 II I'~hhlllh Jlwhlhltlllll IN hlhllnll hll.

It is true that for some of these passages there are alternative interpretations, and it would be a worthwhile project to examine them. However, this is not my intent at present, as I am interested in the strand of Jewish tradition that countenances falsehood. As for the alternative explanations, some of them twist the sources beyond recognition, all in order to avoid the conclusion that the Sages would countenance any form offalsehood, especially in halakhic matters. The fact that some commentators went to such extremes is itself illustrative of the importance of truth in the tradition, and I see this as a good thing. Yet all of their mental gymnastics cannot obscure the fact that there is another tradition as well, one that will undoubtedly make many uncomfortable. Nevertheless, this approach deserves to be understood in a sympathetic manner as well, and to be recovered, as it were, from wellintentioned attempts to explain it away.

Returning to the issue of attributing biblical authority to rabbinic laws,

R. Menahem Meiri claims that the Talmud itself sometimes does SO.26 Although Meiri does not explain why this is done, he undoubtedly assumes that the Talmud wished to strengthen rabbinic laws that were not being sufficiently observed. Meiri notes that the Talmud states that honouring a stepparent is a Torah law, when in reality it is only a rabbinic command. Human psychology being what it is, one can assume that step-parenting in a~cient times was as difficult, and often thankless, as it is today. Thus, accordmg to Meiri, the Talmud 'raised' the prohibition to encourage people to offer the proper respect to a step-parent. .

The same motive would also apply to another example he offers: the prohIbition of work on hoi hamo'ed. Meiri assumes that this is only rabbinic, although from the T~lmud one could conclude that it is a Torah prohibition.27 According to Meiri, the reason the prohibition was 'raised' must have been in order to encourage its observance. This was necessary, for as we see from the following passage in the Jerusalem Talmud, /:I-ol hamo'ed was not taken as seriously as the Sages would have liked.

Said R. Ba bar Marnel, 'Ifthere were someone who would be appointed with me for the stated purpose . .. I would permit people to do work on h-ol hamo'ed. .. . Have

violated the commandment against adding to the Torah. No one would dispute this. Yet the authorities who assert that it is permitted to lie would either claim that MaimoniJes is only referring to a court, not an individual decisor, or they would make an exceptioll lilr ('xl..erne rases in which religious standards need to be supported. AIlN all , th(' exalllpk's W(' Will S('(' lrolll Ihl' Talmud do not intend to say that Ont' lIIay IiI' ai>out halakhah as a lIIail('" 01 I'OIIIIIU', hili only Ih;11 aUlhorities hav\' Ihis oplion in ('xln'III(' ras('s. Thl'n' is 110 n'as"" 10 aSSIII"" Ihal Maimo"ili,'s would disa!(rI'(' .

... Srr his Ikit 'ltIhr!l;m/l , 11'1' Krl . lOll.!. " Mrlrl ( IIrN 11'1' MK 1111 , Srr ~I~o 11'1' 1./1111. IK".

they not prohibited doing work on h-ol hamo'ed only so that people will eat and drink and labour in the Torah? But they eat and drink and squander their leisure.'lH

To see how this notion that one is permitted to misrepresent the halakhah in the name of a higher cause played out in more recent times, let us look at an interesting responsum by R. Elijah Rusoff, a twentieth-century Amf'ric:m halakhist.29 The case is as follows: a person was sitting shiva and the last day of his mourning was on the Sabbath, Not knowing much about Jewish law, he asked Rusoff if he had to sit shiva on that day. He explained that h(' waN anxious to get back to his shop, since his wife did not know how to rtlll it properly. After seeing how the man regarded shiva more seriously than tllC' Sabbath, and seeking to prevent him from working on this day, RusofTf:lhwly told the man that he must also sit shiva on the Sabbath and observ(' all mourning practices, with the one exception being that he could wear I('ath('r shot's,

Rusoffinforms us, however, that after giving this answ('f h(' Iwgan to <11\('''' tion whether he had acted properly. He wondered if he had violall'd tIll' (0111 mandment to keep far from a false matter, even though th(' bls(' inlilflllatillll he had provided was in order to prevent the man from d('s('naliIlH tIl!' Sabbath. Among the sources he cites to defend his action is Avodlll, flU'III, 59a, where R. Yohanan declares something forbidd('n felr 1'('01'1(' 'wllo .U'r IIl1t students of the Torah', even though in truth th£'re is no prollihilion, TIIIN brings us back to the issue of halakhah ve'ein morin kl'.n that was disl'IHIHrd III Chapter 1.30 As we saw, there are certain matters that. althollgh p('l'Illissihlr, the Sages did not wish the masses to know about. On occasion, tl\(, Sal-WH I'VI'II lied to prevent this knowledge from getting out." In Iin(' with Ihis, 1111'1'1' Is another important talmudic source which Rusoff does not citt', I'YI'II IhollHlIl1 speaks to this issue. In Gitin 62a we are told that one may lie to an am l,u'/-IIrl., (one who was not careful with the laws of purity) about a cl'ftain halakltit consequence since that is thought to be a good way to pn'vI'nl him fro II I spreading his ritual impurity.1l

Rusoff quotes another important passage in dcf(onn' or his atlioll, from

R. Eliezer of Metz's (twelfth century) Sefer yere'im.n R. Eli('7.('r ('xplaills Iltal the commandment of keeping far from a false matt('r applies (lilly wlll'lI till' lie will damage one's neighbour, as in court procl'edillgs. Y!'I 'f:t!s(,ltood Ihal does not have rH'galiv(' n'pt'rcussiorls was nol fClrbiddl'1I hy thl' '1C11:tIt'.

OM IT M K J.: \. Tiris IMSS;'W'ls 1101, ill'd hy M('il i. '" \lllsol!. (J1l'" r/if'''''U, I"" '" S,'" p, J,I. " s,'" "hov,', p, J.J" wir"I!' I 11'11'11011'1' Mrll, \(,,,, " Thi~ is II", silllpl,' IIIt'OI"'''1-I ollirt' It'MI, lirClUl-lir It MCI~"M Sult'! hOi"" dill,'n'I\II"lrl'Jllt'I~III1I1,

,II (01111111-110 wiri. h 11I11~IN,'irood IN illvlllvrd . Srr M, Solrl, I,IiIJiu/tr, 11",,,,,, ,\(I/r, ; 11";'1, iltl 1111,

Nil, "'\\.

Thus, according to R. Eliezer, white lies are permissible,34 though obviously not recommended because of the bad character traits they would encourage. However, in the example discussed by Rusoff, there was no reason to be concerned about this since there was a good reason not to be honest. Based on the sources he quotes, Rusoff's conclusion is that one need not tell the truth if one has the opportunity to save another from sin.35 Rusoff further declares that had he not lied to the questioner, and thus saved him from desecrating the Sabbath, he would have violated the commandment not to put a stumbling block in front ofthe blind.36

Returning to the dispute between Sofer and Chajes, even Chajes, who opposed 'raising the prohibition', admitted that there were times when the Sages would not tell the masses the actual halakhah, but rather give them a more stringent ruling.3' Chajes cites Ifulin 15a as an example ofthis. Here we see that Rav would teach one halakhah to his students, but when speaking to the ignorant masses he was cautious and told them the more stringent opinion as a precautionary measure. Chajes is certainly correct in this, but it then follows that his criticism of Sofer is only about the latter's words. That is, had Sofer simply advocated a strict ruling without any explanation there would be no reason to object. What Chajes finds problematic is only the misrepresentation ofthe source ofthe prohibition.

Any discussion ofthe permissibility oflying for a good purpose has to take into account Maimonides, who, I believe, provides good support for this position. In the introduction to the Guide, Maimonides tells us that at times he will contradict himself, and the contradictions will be such that the masses will not sense them. He did this, no doubt, so that the masses should not be confronted with issues that would create religious difficulties for them. In other words, Maimonides tells us that he will say things that are not true because certain people 'can't handle the truth' (to use the famous phrase from

34 Those who find this conclusion problematic might be inclined to say that there is still a rabbinic prohibition against white lies, though R. Eliezer does not do this. See below, n. 62.

J> R. Yitshak Zilberstein discusses the same sort of case as Rusoff and comes to an identical conclusion. See Goldschmidt, Zikaron basefer, lO6, who disagrees. For another example where a rabbi permits one to lie in order to lessen somebody else's halakhic transgression, see Rudnik, Sedeh yits/:lak, '49 ff.

36 For an earlier example oflying in order to keep people from sin, see my Seforim Blog post, I I Jan. 2008. There I discuss how R. Isaac Grishaber (d. 1815) falsely claimed that R. Ez('kiell.andau had retracted his permission to eat a type of sturgeon. Regarding this, se(' also Srhnitzker. 'Revealer of Secrets' (Heb.); Sinclair, 'Fictitious Retractions'. S('e also Y. Yoscf, Yu/kut y(),~rI ,~()vu sema/:lot, ii. 141-2 n. R, that ifa father will violate thl' Sahhath Oil ;It'('ollnl ofhis SOil'S drnJmcisioll, the mohel should tl'lI him that the hahy is lIot Ilt'althy l'noul{h fi,r;1 Saturday drnlfndsioll, ;lIId that it mllst he' postpone'd until SUlld;IY, Se'r alsll ]Iamam!. Mln~II' IlVmllllm, 1111, II (1', 1)('),

" ChulrM, K(l/ ,~lfrrl ml,/lIImh ~lly"', I. I \I (Mrl'o Iwhi/mlll/, I hAt,) ,

..." ."

the film A Few Good Men).38 Determining exactly what the esoteric teachin~s

of Maimonides are has been central to the study ofthe Guide since medieval

times, and the existence ofan esoteric level has also been recognized by tradi.

tionalist scholars.39

Maimonides can thus be seen as in line with the position that absolutt'

truth can be waived in the interest ofreligious conformity. In fact, if Maimon.

ides wished to cite a precedent for this, it could have been R. Sa'adyah Gaon

(882-942), in particular his explanation ofthe Jewish calendar. The standard

approach is that originally the new moon was proclaimed every month on

the basis ofwitnesses' testimony ofits sighting. When this became too diffi.

cult, a permanent calendar based on calculation was established. How('vf'r,

R. Sa'adyah claims that the original system was indeed based on a calculatf'd calendar, and that when witnesses testified that they had seen the new moon this was only done to blunt Sadducean criticism about the proper dal!,.4I'

38 We almost certainly see this approach elsewhere in Maimonides' writin!(s UN wrll, lIul example, Maimonides' claim in the introduction to his Commentury on the Mishnuh, i. II, Ihullhrlr are no disputes with regard to halakhot lemosheh misinai, is virtually impossihll' 10 jllNllly, (fiol " discussion ofhalakhot lemosheh misinai, see Ej, vol. vii, col. 1l67.) I.l'vinw'r, Mlli"'<lllil/n' 'I" /"'/l/ur> ofCodification (Heb.), 63 ff., cites this as an example ofMaimonides f('spon<iinl{ 10 IIII' IIr"d. ullhr masses by presenting them with an understandingofJudaism that would hl'sl he' ahlr III wllll.tumi the onslaught oflslamic polemics (or possibly Karaite assaults; see MailJlolliti('s, '11(/'1)1 hll/(IIII/I/IIII,

ii. 442; Baron, Social and Religious History, v. 22), See also my I,imits ofOrt/lOl/oX 'f'hr<l/"IlY, 1111 II.. and my Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters, 85, 109-10.

The assumption that certain rabbinic sages were not frank in ('v('rythill~ IIIl'Y Hultl ulNo appears elsewhere. For example, R. Hayim Joseph David Azulai, Shnn hUllrd()/im, 'M,,'ul'rklll'l sefarim', s.v. 'Zohar', states that R. Jacob Emden did not really believe wllal Ill' wmll' III hi. Mitpa/:lat sefarim, namely, that the Zohar is in large part a medil'val work. A(,l'lIrdill~ III 1'1'1111,11. the reason Emden attempted to disprove the authenticity of the Zohar was to ulILlrl'llllll1' Ihl' Shabateans, who were relying on certain zoharic passages. This understal1din~ of Elllllc-1I hl'l UIIII' quite popular in traditional circles, and is also shared by D. Luria, Kudmut ,~rlr,. hl,:"/IUI, 10; Nathanson, Sho'el umeshiv, 7th series, 'f:loshen mishpat', no. 54; A. I. Kook, Ot.~cml hurr'iyuh, .1(,,,,;

Y. Leiner, Ma 'amar zohar harakia, no. 16. Leiner claims that we should view Ellltil-ll's til'llial 01 Maimonides' authorship of the Guide in the same way as his denial of till' Zohar's ,,11111...1111< Ily, lIamely, as something he did not really believe but thought necessary to a flinil ill IIis hall II' ;1~uIIlHt ('('rtain heretics. See also Arbel, A/:loti kaluh, 150, who claims that the Ila:wn Isli wmlt' SOIlII'IIIIIII{ III' did not really believe (namely, that Torah scholars are never improperly infhH'lIll'd) hl·lalls ... II .. kit the times required thai people should haY(' this mnviction. Thl' sallll' ar~III1Il'1I1 hUN h..rll Illade with regard to R. Joel'!i'ilelbaum's allti·Zionisl 'prools' frollll'arlil'r rahbinil lilt'r;IIIIIT, SrI' tlVilll'r, A/()h nu'u/"h, 17.1. ' \ (ritill~ a han'di sOlin 1').

~, tdl Ihl' rl'll'vant SOIlITl'S ;111' fi,lIl1d ill Kaslll'r, 'Iilmll s/Irlrlllllli, xiii, th, \' SI'I' ;,Isu Jull"M, "u/()mh vrhu(lIlkhllluh, .1.0,/ fL; 1'0W;IIISki, 'i\IIIi·K;araih' Wrililll{s', .1.'/0 fL All Arahi< It'xl hy It Sa'adyall Gaollllil thl' lIIalln uPlx'als ill 'I.lIlk .. r, ' h;I~llIrllts' (1Irh,). I'/t, II. 17, SrI' ul.o S, II, l.irht'rlll;III, 1Ii,~hrvilri hU~I,Jr~", rh, \; A, StNII. 'I{ulilli Su'uLly..h (;..llll'. 'Ihl/hlll'" (1Irh,); VIlIi"r, 'I{:.hhi S:.'atlyuh CUIIII'. Vlrw' (1II'h,); 11,,1111'1111, 'Why Dltl Mllhhl SII'II<lYlih (;11011 Dr!,url frolll lite' 'II litIt?' (1Irh,),

In other words, according to R. Sa'adyah the authority for the date ofthe new moon was always a calendar established by calculation.

This is such an astounding position that Maimonides denies that R. Sa'adyah actually believed it. Maimonides apparently did not know that

R. Meshullam ben Kalonymos (tenth-eleventh centuries) and R. Hananel ben Hushiel (d. G.roSS) also held this position,41 but no doubt he would have explained their claims in the same way that he explained R. Sa'adyah's words: 'His purpose was to attack his opponent [i.e. the Karaites] in any possible way, whether it was correct or not, since he saw no other escape from the pressure of the dispute. '42 During the geonic period there were great disputes between the Rabbanites and the Karaites about the proper dates of the holidays, and the Karaites claimed that the Rabbanite calendar was fraudulent.43 Thus, by asserting that the calendar was not something developed by the Sages, but went all the way back to Moses at Sinai, R. Sa'adyah was able to neutralize the Karaite assault.44

Maimonides presumably knew of R. Sa'adyah's justification of his position, yet he cannot have taken what R. Sa'adyah wrote seriously.45 It is significant that Maimonides thought that R. Sa'adyah would say something he did not believe in order to defend a Rabbanite position more effectively against Karaite assaults.46 R. Hai Gaon (939-1038) also thought that R. Sa'adyah's explanation was a flimsy excuse made for the moment, which did not reflect his true opinion.47

See Hananel ben Hushiel, Migdal /.lananel, 32 ff.; Bahya ben Asher, Commentary on Exod. 12: 2; and Y. H. Lifshitz, 'Secret ofIntercalation' (Heb.). For R. Meshullam ben Kalonymos, see Moses ofCouey, 5efer mitsvot gadol, positive commandment no. 47.

42 Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishnah, i, RH 2: 7 (p. 209).

See e.g. Olszowy·Schlanger, Karaite Marriage Documents, 249-50.

.. See Messer Leon, Kevod /.lakhamim, 57ff.; Naor, Limit ofIntellectual Freedom, 152. In the 19th cent. R. Solomon Judah Rapoport felt obliged to deny that he accepted R. Sa'adyah's position. See Greenwald, Otsar ne/.lmad, 84.

• 5

Interestingly, R. Sa'adyah's position is advocated in the commentary on BT RH attributed to Maimonides. See Fixler, 'Polemical Language' (Heb.), 188-90. Fixler sees this as an example ofan opinion that Maimonides would later strongly reject. However, most scholars do not share Fixler's assumption that this commentary was written by Maimonides. See Davidson, 'Authenticity', I14 fT.

46 When Solomon Zeitlin made the same point, Saul Lieberman reacted strongly. See his letters to Zeitlin published in my Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, 19 fT. (Hebrew section), and also

S. Lieberman, 'Mishnat rishonim'. See also A. Stern, 'Rabbi Sa'adyah Gaon's Position' (1Ieb.), 37-8, who argues that R. Sa'adyah did indeed believe in his position.

47 O"'i"~N nN nm1ll Nm mi'. See Teshuvot hage'onim, no. I (= Lewin (I'd.). O/sur hugr'ol1im, 'Beitsah' 4b (p. 4)). R. Hai's commenl is based on AT 1./141. 1.7". 11('f(' il tll'snilws lIow Oil" of 1111' Sages admitted 10 his sludents Ihat ' I brushc'd asitl(· Illy 0PPOIII'1I1 with ;1 slr;lw.' S('" al~o Nat·hshoni. IluRid h,:/imhiyo/ 11tI/('mli, 1\7 ('V;lyi~hlall'), who ~11~~('sl~ Ihal It IOllalhall liyh.· sl'IlI1<'lz wroh' ~ollJ('lhlll~ Ihaillt' kll('w 10 h.· f:IIN(', hi orel.... lo IIl1l1'<' "aNlly ...·fillt· NOll 11'011<' who wa~ 1 h;tlll'll~ill~ all a. "'pll'd h~lakhah. AIlhot1~h Nal hNIIIlIlI'N pollli IN 1111011.·, I wilh "'lluIII to III<' IaNI'

Certainly, this is not the only case we have oftwisting the truth-if that iN what R. Sa'adyah did48-in order to blunt the Karaites. Gerald Blidstein haN pointed to a similar example in which he claims that R. Samuel ben Hofni

(d. 1034) was not being truthful. R. Samuel ben Hofni claims that when drOll. ing with a talmudic dispute, the accepted halakhic position is the one thiAl was given at Sinai.49 As Blidstein notes, while this type of argument makt'N sense in an Islamic context, where determining the reliability ofa tradition iN crucial, it is out of place in a Jewish context where halakhah is decided in iA completely different fashion.50 Indeed, contrary to what R. Samuel ben Hohli writes, Jewish sources never assumed that the settled halakhah reflects Cod'N 'original intent',51 It therefore appears that R. Samuel ben Hofni was not frank in his presentation, and he likely intended to provide his coreligionists with an approach that could best withstand Islamic polemical assaults, ('wn if'il

I was not entirely accurate.

None of what I have just described will be surprising to IhoN(, who iUt' aware of the history of Jewish apologetics in Christendom. Thc'sc' wrilill~N also contain numerous examples of shadings of truth and sonu'liltH'N I'Vt'1I outright lies. However, for Jews living in the Christian world, stKh a Nlrilh'~y was often essential to the security of the Jewish communily, WilC'/NN III

R. Sa'adyah's and R. Samuel ben Hofni's cases we are d('alill~ wilh a I'llIc'ly spiritual conflict.

When Can One Lie?

A good deal has been written on the subject of when Otl<' ran dc'parl frolll

truthfulness, and I do not wish to repeat what has already b('('11 disl'ltss('d hy

others.Instead, I will focus on some issues that are particularly n'I"villIl 10 the theme ofthis book, as well as citing texts that are not well known .

he discusses, the fact that Nachshoni himselfthought that this was an Jcn·pl;,hlt· apP"';1( " IN 111<'''' important for our purposes .

... While Maimonides and R. Hai lind R. Sa'adyah's position inl'Olllprcht'lIsihl.·, It II.Ihya IlI'lI Asher, in his comment on Exod. 12: 2, quotes it without objt~ction.

4')

See the Introduction to the Tulmud, attribuled 10 R. SaflllJ('lllallagid (')')! ,.I()~()), alllll' "lId of tractate Berakhot in the Vilila Rornrn ('dilion of Iht' 'TlIlrnud, p. 4111. WI' 1I0W kllow 111;11 II iN .111 abridgemenl of a work by R. Samucl bell Ilofni. SCI' Ahralllsoll, 'Fro 11 I Ih.. ·Ii·;" hilll!s' (l1e'1o .). a'-I· ~) IIlidsl(·ill, SII4,Jj,·., (I 1<-10.), 11'1" 1'/,1'1'

" Thai is Ilu' IIIt'ssag(' ofllu' slory oflh.. 'OVI'II o"Akhll;li' (liT /1M )1)11). FVI'II wlu'lI Cod hilliNI'll n·v..als his illh'lIlioll WI' do 1101 lish'lI 10 hilll, fill' II,,· 'li,r;"1 W;IS giv"11 10 lu' "xpbill<'d tillollll" 1111111;1/1 illl"''''r!. S.·" N. CI'l'OlIdi, 111'111.,111,/11",.,1/1. 'H ~,X-j , 11 J" II)X I); 1\;1( 1i;1I;" h. 1.1,,/ '"1.",",,1, 'Ill. )\; A. I.. 11;,kolll'lI. Kr/so/ '1fI~/(l."lrII, illln,.!. S," -alNo 1'11111;11'11. 'M;ljority 1>••( 1~loli VM. IlItllvhlllul

·Ihllh'.

" For 1''''ViOIiN tllNI UNNlolI~, N.·.· Iluylin, '/1",,11 /h/II'"I11, 110. \('4 ; Slrlll, 'IIrhulullllllll';

N. 111I1I1<'1.'A MI,Ie~Nh Oil MOluIIlV:; Ihul< Ie. 'No/lelllll hllllh,. 'Ihllh~'; 1.lvlllllfHkv. 'f'..... IIr. ttV"N '111

The locus classicus for discussions oftruthfulness is Ketubot 1Gb-17a:

Our Rabbis taught: How does one danceS] before the bride? Beit Shammai says: 'The bride as she is.' Beit Hillel says: 'Beautiful and graceful bride.' Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: 'If she was lame or blind, does one say of her: "Beautiful and graceful bride?" Whereas the Torah said, "Keep thee far from a false matter" [Exod.

23: 7].' Said Beit Hillel to Beit Shammai: 'According to your words, ifsomeone has made a bad purchase in the market, should one praise it in his [the purchaser's] eyes or deprecate it? Surely, one should praise it in his eyes.' Therefore, the Sages said: 'A man's disposition should always be pleasant with people.'

The most obvious understanding ofthis passage is that while Beit Shammai demands absolute truth, Beit Hillel does not. 54 In other words, while Beit Hillel would permit one to say that a bride is beautiful, even if she is not, Beit Shammai sees this as a violation of the Torah's command to keep far from a false matter. It is not that Beit Shammai requires one to sayan unpleasant truth, just not to speak an untruth. Beit Shammai would also permit one to describe the bride as a 'beautiful person', in the way this expression is used when people are not speaking about someone's physical appearance. 55

Beit Shammai thought that the verse 'Keep thee far from a false matter' was an actual command to avoid falsehood in all circumstances, while Beit Hillel disagreed. How do post-talmudic authorities regard the verse? Some important figures regard telling the truth as an obligation, and cite this verse as the prooftext.S6 R. Simeon ben Tsemah Duran sees this as obvious, for, as he puts it, 'How is it possible that there would not be a positive commandment to speak the truth?'57

Truthfulness'; Hanokh Goldberg, 'Is It Halakhically Permissible to Lie?' (Heb.); Y. Cherlow, 'Keep Away from Falsehood' (Heb.); D. Z. Feldman, The Right and the Good, chs. 5 and 6; Bar Shalom, Vayitsbor yostf vol. ii, no. 86;Y. Yosef, Yalkut yosef hilkhot kibud av va'em, 477ff.; Rosenfeld, 'When is Lying Permitted?' (Heb.); Y. H. Fish, Titen emet leya'akov; H . H . Friedman and A. C. Weisel, 'Should Moral Individuals Ever Lie?'; Frimer and Frimer, 'Women's Prayer Services', appendix, part 6.

'What does one say before her?' (Rashi).

See e.g. Isaiah of Trani (the Younger), Piskei hanaz, 124; Yom Tov Ishbili (Ritva), Hidushei hantva: ketubot, ad loc.; Hayim, Ben yehoyada, ad loc.; Yellin, Derekh tsadikim, 13a-b; M. N. Fried· man, On Truth and Falsehood (Heb.), II; Anushiski, Matsav hayashar, i. 16b, 2Ja: 'In short, in order to praise a bride before her groom (after the actual marriage ceremony), it is permissible to lie in order to make him happy and to strengthen their relationship.'

" See Dratch, 'Nothing but the Truth?', 221.

"" See e.g. Moses of Couey, Sefer mil.wol gadol, posilivi' wlIIlllalldllll'lIl 1°7: Illaal' or Corbeil, Sefor milsvol kalan, IlO. 227; Azikri. Srjer !Iarrdim, 4: 2(1 (pp. ,/2 I): "1l~}r1'~'1l1 '~'OM nllM 11'~ mI,1I mllll MIl~1I1 1'1' p' M"~ '~'DM 1I1l.,1l pn1n ,p., 11'1l 'IlMI'CI Mllllll' M'" 1n1 Ml'~'.

" ()lIr~ll, Zohar harakla, ..&lIa, 1111. ~t).

Yet there are others who disagree and do not recognize a specific biblical

command to tell the truth. As for 'Keep thee far from a false matter', tht'y

see this verse as only applicable to legal proceedings.58 As Mark Dratch haN

pointed out, neither R. Simeon Kayara (author of Halakhot gedolot; ninth

century), R. Sa'adyah Gaon, Maimonides, Nahmanides, nor Seftr ha~inukh

records a commandment to tell the truth in non-judicial matters.~9

There is a separate issue known as geneivat da'at, which means leavinM

someone with a false impression. An example given in the Talmud is when

you urge someone to dine with you knowing that he will not accept, and in

this way get 'credit' for the invitation.60 This does not refer to a white lie, by

which I mean a lie of no consequence. It is true that Maimonides says that

'One shall not be one thing with his mouth and another with his hear!.' Yet

this formulation appears to be more in the way ofgood advice than a prohihi

tion,61 and even if it is a prohibition, it does not have biblical authority.OI For

those halakhists who do not identify speaking falsely as a biblical prohibitiotl,

it is obviously easier to set the truth aside when confronted by otllt'r vahlf'pj,

As for Beit Shammai's objection to Beit Hillel that t('llinK all IIlltl'lIth

violates a biblical commandment, R. Tsevi Hirsch Chajes l'Iahorall'pj Oil 1It'lt

Hillel's reply. He asserts that the prohibition against lying wall d('p('lIdt'tll IiII'

its details on the Sages. They were therefore able to decide thaI illthjpj (OINt' (UN

well as others), where another person's feelings would be hurl, tilt' ~t'lIt'I'ul

biblical prohibition against speaking falsely does not apply.'"

Without such an approach, it would be very difficult to fUllrtiotl III Iht' rrul

world. If one assumed that absolute truth was always requin'd, what ('ollid

you do ifyour friend gave you a present that you did not like? YOIl wOllld lIot

be able to say, as we all do, 'I love it.' Similarly, if your friend ask('d you how

her new haircut looked, you would be obligated to say that it mak(·s Iwr look

'" See above, p. 245, where it was noted that R. Eliezer of Metz applies Ill!' VI'rSI' III .IIIY ItullUlllr caused to one's neighbour. ,. Dratch, 'Nothing but the Truth?', 22S. ... liT /.lui. ')~tI .

Maimonides, Mishneh lorah, 'Hilkhot de'ot' 2: 6: il'nn N~' ',no, mp~n "111 'llllIl1'nln~ !nM~ "OM J,J nnN' nOJ nnN. It is not clear ifthe word "ON, 'forbidden', whieh appears in thr IirNI purl of Ihr sentence, applies to the underlined passage as well. Even if it does, thl' prohibilion iN Nprll/il III one who accustoms himselfto such behaviour (lDlIV l'mn'). See Rai>inovilrh, YwJ 'Ir,~hll"lh, ~d 1111. Thus, an occasional white lie would nol he tl'chnieaJly fori>iddl'n, ,l('wrdinll 10 M;llmollldr".

R. Jonah Gerondi. however, assUllIt'S Ihal ('v('n while lit'S ar(' filrhiddl'll. III' illdmlrN IIlukhlll lip slories or ('wn chanRinlllhl' (1I'lails of 3111 111'111 it' slllril'lI in Ihis jlldlll'lIlrlll. SrI' hI .. Shu'furl Irshuvah,r 1111, IX '\ .

Io' Sr'l' ahovr', II. 14. It Yl'I'lIlialll Jiisthrl I'I'rl;1 aNNtIIHrN llial tlirrr iN 1111 Tilhhlllk pruhlhllintl :tj(OIinNI whitr IirN. SI'f' hlN rliilioll of SII';juYllh (;"011, Srlrr hilmI/Will, f. I ~lIa "(pIlNltlvr 1'1111111111111. IIIrnl u): M~M ,II'" Il'"~ ", 'IIOn In1 I'"' MI!I~lIl ','Il '1l1UD M"M ',n "~, " nIl "liM ""1l'M Il," M""'M "lin,p.," "'n "}r111l' nmll n'IlIl"D, "'M ,lll"1l "OM .,." ""'" " I'" . . . Iln"l'" "OM ",,., M""'" ,:»I ,M'" "ma u." 1'111'" ,,"". ., (:hlllrM, KI~ MI/"I naukara ... ~a)ll'., I. ,M,.

terrible. Beit Hillel's approach, on the other hand, establishes that not hurting people's feelings is a greater value than absolute truth. As Ritva comments, 'anything [said] due to the "ways ofpeace" is not in violation of"Keep thee far from a false matter".'64

Another talmudic text supporting this approach appears in Eruvin 53b, where R. Joshua ben Hananiah is described as lying to his hostess about why he would not eat her food. While the real reason was that it had been overseasoned with salt, in order not to hurt her feelings he claimed that he was not hungry, having eaten earlier in the day. This excuse continues to be used by even the most pious when trying to avoid eating something they do not like. Fortunately for them, they are often able to point to the sumptuous synagogue kiddush to explain why they are not eating more ofthe Sabbath lunch meal.65

Despite what we have just seen, it is fascinating that some commentators were reluctant to interpret Beit Hillel's words, that one praises the beauty of all brides, in accordance with their plain sense. Thus, R. Samuel Edels claims that Beit Hillel is not really countenancing lying, since while it might be clear to those in attendance that the bride is no beauty, 'she is beautiful and graceful in his [i.e. the groom's] eyes, for if not he certainly would not have married her.'66 R. Netanel Weil also denies that Beit Hillel sanctions lying. According to him, all Beit Hillel had in mind was to speak with equivocation, so that when one says 'beautiful and graceful', one has her actions in mind.67 According to this understanding, while Beit Hillel would approve ofequivocation, that is, using words that can be understood in more than one way, Beit Shammai would require that one's language reflect the common meaning of

&4 Yom Tov Ishbili (Ritva), lfidushei haritva: ketubat, I7a. See similarly Moses of Couey, Seftr mitsvat gadal, positive commandment I07; Isaac ofCorbeil, Sefer mitsvat katan, no. 226. Based on the principle just enunciated, R. Ovadyah Yosef ruled that a child whose father is mistreating his mother is permitted to tell the father (falsely) that he heard from a great rabbi that the father's behaviour is forbidden; see id., Ma'yan amer, iv. I23.

For another example oflying related to food, see BT Shabo I29a, where R. Nahman ben Isaac tells his disciples: 'I beg ofyou, tell your wives on the day of blood-letting, Nahman is visiting us.' As Rashi explains, the purpose ofthis falsehood was so that their wives would prepare substantial meals. In other words, this was a good enough reason to permit the disciples to lie to their wives.

Edels (Maharsha), ad loe. R. Judah Loew ben Bezalel (Maharal) adopts the same approach. See id., Netivat alam, 'Netiv ha'emet', ch. I, p. 200: This is not called falsehood ... even if"the bride is not really beautiful, nevertheless she is beautiful in the eyes of" the groom.'

Weil, Karban netanei, 'Ketubot', ch. 2, I: 4-See also II. Ashkl"lIazi, Shj/<lh mrkllilf/sd, ad lor.; Wosner, Shevet halevi, vol. v, no. 2; Palk, l'rri"hah, T,Vl"1l ha','zl"r' (,e;: '''WII Ihollgh il is wrilll't1. "Keep thee far from a false matler", W(' ('all say Ihal whal Ill' IIll'allS is Ihal silt' is I)('allliflli III Ilt'r dceds.' SCI' also I{. loseph Salll Nalhallsoll, /)ivl't'i slltl'ul, 'K"llIhol' I'la, who adv'IIllt·S ,III allt'lIIal iw ('xplallation Ihal 1111' praisl" fill' Iht' hlid,' iN a W'III"1,II pralN" 011111111 111/ hlid"N, hili 1101 ;11 1II'IIIy dil'l'(h'J allhiN IMltil IIlallllll', hll 1111111' "III'III"V"1 all,IIIIlIl,IIlI'. ~"I'llt'llIw, 11,111,1

words and phrases. According to Beit Shammai, since 'beauty generally

relates to physical traits rather than to character, this quality should not 1)('

applied to one who lacks physical beauty'.68

Elsewhere in the Talmud, Yevamot 65b, an opinion is quoted that ont' is permitted to deviate from the truth (i.e, lie) in the interests of peace, and I{, Nathan states that one is obligated to do SO.69 In other words, the value of peaceful relations is more important than truth.70 One ofthe proof texts cited in this discussion is Genesis 50: 16-17. After Jacob died, Joseph's brotht'rs sent a message to him: 'Thy father did command before he died, saying, So shall ye say unto Joseph: Forgive, I pray thee now, the transgression of thy brethren, and their sin, for that they did unto thee evil.' Yet the Bible does not record Jacob making such a request. The Talmud understands this to mean that the brothers invented Jacob's statement in the interests of peace. Sinn' this is recorded in Scripture without further comment, we are supposed to assume that their action was pleasing to God.71

In commenting on this biblical story, Bereshit rabah quotes R. Simcon Iwn Gamaliel as follows:

Great is peace, for even the tribal ancestors resorted to a fabrication in ordl'r 10 Illak(' peace between Joseph and themselves. Thus it says, 'And they sent a Ill('ssal(' 111110 Joseph saying: Thy father did command', etc. Yet when did he command Ihlls? Wc'

do not find that he did so.n

A parallel midrashic passage is more direct, going so far as to illcllldc' Scripture itself as party to the falsehood: 'Reish Lakish said: Great is p('au', fell' Scripture gave fictitious reasons in order to make peace between Jos('ph alld his brethren.'73 This permission to lie for the state ofpeace is the basis fill' tilt' following common-sense ruling by R. Yitshak Yosef, the curn'nt Sephardi chief rabbi of Israel: if someone does something at his mother's reqw'st, alld

". J. S. Cohen, 'Halakhic Parameters ofTrllllJ'. XC,. S('I' also D. '/Oo Fddlllan, rh,. I~igh/ ,w,1 IIIr Gaod,78ff. "" According to R. Israel Meir Hakoh('n, II", 1I;I"'khah is ill a((on"'",,' wilh Il. Nalh;III'" opinion. See I. M. Ilakohen, ',fa/jots hayim, 'lsllI<'i I<'kilillll' I: X(/k"Tlllllyj," (llIl,jlll. II '1). S,',· ai,,,,

I'alache, rev hayim, vol. i, no. S· Basing his Opillioll Oil Naillnallid,'s', olllllll'nLny Oil (;1'11. IX· II, It Moses Sofl'r claims that NaJlIlIanitl"s was nol 'Wllliorlahl," wllh IIII" ollllnolllllHlnsl;lIl1lillll 01 IIII' lalrlllldic passa~(' Ihal Iyill~ is 1)("l'IlIilll'<I 101 III<' sakI' of 1'1';\, ,.. s",· M. SOII'I, .<;1'1""''''11'1'11"",,,/ lill/am "o/i'r, vol. vi, nil. 'i'). S,'" AlI11shisk i, M,I/.'111' IIIlI"I,IIII/, I .',l.h, who "'Spill Ills sh,lIply III SOfl'1 '" 1II1<1('rsl;IIHlillg.'" S,',· ;>lso 11'1' II,.;/<, .',IIl1. wi",,,' I lill,.J II"" III oldl'l 10 1"I's"IVI'I""1t I',

'II

SI'" also IT 1',.',,11 I: I, It 11;lIlokh '/,lIl1d,'IIII'1i los"ph, 1,,/\ Y"'''/' '"I Ilfl'II/;/li ",i",1J ~: I.t WI ill'" 01'IIIn nlllpl 'lOO n1)III' ,mo n'n Ie, ON on'lII 'pllln 11m n'n Ie, 11nlnlll, " /trrr,llill'llilJli1 1(l1l: K,

" /)(('lIri," ,."hllil 5: 1'1 '1'111' 1I11<11ash is ol>VlolIHly Np,'~klnH IrHflruIIVI'Iy whrll II HlulrN Ihul 'S'I ipltl\l' H,WI' Ild!HoIIH IraHolIH', ~H Ihr irlfllllllllllllll HlvI'II10 lo.!'ph (UIII!' h01llhiN hmlhrrN, 1101 1111111 S, Ilplllll'

his father asks him who told him to do this, ifhe knows that his father will be angry at his mother ifhe tells the truth, he is permitted to lie.74

Another famous talmudic text is Bava metsia 23b-24a, which states that pious scholars are permitted, indeed expected, to lie in three matters: 'tractate, bed, and hospitality'. When asked ifthey are familiar with a tractate ofthe Talmud, they will conceal their knowledge.7s When asked about their sexual life, they will also not be truthful, in order to preserve their modesty.76 They will also not tell others what a fine host someone is, in order to prevent people from descending upon his house and demanding hospitality.

I do not know of any biblical examples where God himself speaks falsely, but we do find that he did not always tell the whole truth. Immediately following the example of Joseph and his brothers mentioned above, the Talmud, Yevamot 6Sb, states:

At the school ofR. Ishmael it was taught: Great is the cause of peace, seeing that for its sake even the Holy One, blessed be He, modified a statement. It is first written, '[After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure,] my lord being old also' [Gen. 18: 12] while afterwards it is written, 'And I am old' [Gen. 18: 13].

In other words, when God repeated Sarah's statement to Abraham, he left out her comment on her husband's age. To give a modern example of how this might be used, if your friend asks you what someone said about her, rather than telling her that he said she was 'pretty stupid', it would suffice to tell her 'He said you were pretty.'

Steven H. Resnicoff sums matters up as follows: The Talmud and later Jewish law authorities apply an expansive concept of'promoting peace' to permit dishonest means for a variety of objectives, such as to make someone feel better, to avoid embarrassment, to prevent disclosure ofa confidence with which one is entrusted, to foil an evildoer's plot, to avoid the exploitation of someone's virtues, to persuade someone as to the proper interpretation of the law, to cause someone to fulfill a commandment, or to enable someone to display personal humility.77

When it comes to the expansive concept of 'promoting peace' that was thought to be significant enough to permit lying, there are those who have adopted a somewhat conservative perspective. For example, SeIer J:r,asidim,78

7. Y. Yosef, Yalkut yosef hilkhot kibud av va'em, 9: 49 (p. 477). Yosef's source is SeIer ryasidim, no. 336.

75 See also BT Ket. 77b, which tells how R. Joshua ben Levi lied because of his modesty. Set· also Gombiner, Mugen avraham and D. Halevi, Turei zahav on Karo, Shulryan arukh, 'Orab bayim' 56s: 6; H. S, Abraham, Birkat shrlomoh, no. 4~.

n, ThiN t"xplOillation iN in a('('ordaIKr with HlIMhl. aM waN thr prrviollN r_ulllpir.

71 HrNllkotl", 'l.yhlK illIlll.ilwyrrhlK', ,)C,1. .,. No, 04.1.(1.

followed by R. Abraham Gombiner/9 states that the rule that one may Iir 10 promote peace only applies with regard to events that have already occurred, However, with regard to what is taking place at present, or will happen in the' future, one must tell the truth and deal with the consequences.80 Because' my purpose in this chapter is to chart the outer limits ofwhat has been viewed liN acceptable when it comes to falsehood and deception, I will be focu8in~ Oil the more 'liberal' positions. My aim is to show just how far some rabhlllk decisors were willing to go in sanctioning deviations from the truth, Ollf' must bear in mind, however, that there are often views in opposition to Ihr ones I shall be examining. Perhaps this knowledge can serve as a countt"rweight to the shock that many readers will experience upon learning of80m" ofthe positions I will mention.

One 'liberal' position was expressed by R. Moses Isserles, who went so f~r as to say that one can even slander someone for the sake of presl!rvinlolthr community.81 The particular case he was discussing concerned a terribl(' Will . munal dispute that had created the possibility that the Jewish populatioll would be expelled from the city. In what many will find a prol>ll,ltI:llk drd sion, Isserles offered the opinion, which was then put into a((ioll. Ihal it waH acceptable to provide false information about an individual whollt tltt' ~ovrrll' ment suspected ofwrongdoing, ifthis would alleviate the situatioll, Altltoll~1t the Talmud states, with regard to giving a man up for ex('cutioll ill rt'spolINr 10 a demand made by non-Jews, that this is not the way 0" th(' pious."A ISNrrirs defended his approach: 'Even if we did not act in accord wilh Iht' way of'111e' pious, nevertheless, we acted in accord with the law, I haw proV('1I tllill II Is permitted to speak leshon hara [slander] in order to preserve pl'an'.'

False Attribution

False attribution is another genre where a number oftalmudic sa"ws and lalrr rabbinic figures saw mendacity as justified in the name of a larg('r COlln'flt. (The decision as to when this 'larger concern' should be acted UpOII was a 1'1'1' rogative of the community of scholars, as the masses were Ilt'vt'r ~iv('11 IhiN leeway.) This type of falsehood is not acceptable in cont('rnporary sori,'ly, Undoubtedly, many modern rf'aders arl:' thus bound to fi.'pl quit<, lrolllll,," when seeing how a value-hotll'sty-that thl'Y lake to be sauosalld was 1101 rl:'garded as such by at I('ast SOrtH' gn'at ral>l>inic fi~\lrt's,

'/0

<';nlllhinrr, Mu"rn avruhum, Oil Kuru, Shlll~utl Ilrukh, 'Orub ltUyllll' I~h, ., For upilllonH thllt dlMilKtrr with thiN rrNtrktlvr ~(l(lmll(h, .rr 1'IIIIIIhr, /,rv ~ul'lm, VIII. I, 1111, " ., I••rrlr., ,%r"/II/ 1I/r.lhlll'fI/ '1 "/'tWill, 1111. II. " IT '/,r, K:,.,

R. Yair Hayim Bacharach acknowledges the difficulty of the passages we will examine, but advises readers, 'do not let your heart fall' upon seeing these sources. He concludes that the actions described are permissible when there is a 'higher purpose' (tsorekh gavo'ah), namely, to teach practical halakhah. In such cases, the sages did not feel bound by the normal requirements of honesty in attribution.83

The situation in rabbinic literature is complicated by the fact that in general the Sages regarded proper attribution as very important. 84 Indeed, the entire system of the Oral Law depends on authenticity in transmission, and virtually every page of the Talmud has examples of teachings recorded in the name of a particular sage.85 R. Hanina goes so far as to say that one who quotes something in the name of another brings redemption to the world.86 Furthermore, a dead person's lips are said to move in the grave when a Torah teaching is repeated in his name.87

By the same token, one is not supposed to cite something in another person's name ifhe never said it. Quite apart from the statement in Mishnah Avot 5: 7 that a wise man openly acknowledges when he has not heard something from someone else, according to the end of the post-talmudic tractate Kalah, one who falsely attributes a statement to a sage causes the divine presence to depart from Israel. According to the halakhic Midrash SijTei, one who falsely attributes an opinion violates the biblical prohibition 'Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark' (Deuteronomy 19: 14).88 Yet as we shall see, despite the vital importance of authentic attribution, many sages also recognized that there was indeed a time and place for false attribution.89

One other point must be noted. We know that the editors of the Talmud exercised a good deal offreedom in editing the various sugyot. As part ofthis 83 Bacharach, Ya'ir nativ, IJ.

See R. Shmuel Aharon Fish's comprehensive work, Davar beshem omro. See also M. Rabinowitz, Amirat davar beshem omro and R. Margaliyot, Shem olam, 9 ff. Regarding an apocryphal rabbinic saying that one who does not properly attribute a teaching violates a negative commandment, see S. Ashkenazi, Alfa beita tinyeta dishemuelze'ira, i. 454ff.

85 See e.g. M. Hakohen, Yad malakhi, no. 663. 86 BT Meg. 15a.

87 BT Yev. 97a. R. Levi Ibn Habib notes: 'From the great reward for one who says something in the name ofanother, that he brings redemption to the world, we learn the punishment ofone who falsely attributes something to another.' Ibn Habib, She'elot uteshuvot haralbalt, no. 31 (p. ISa).

88 Sifrei devarim, ad loe. See also JT Naz. T I where R. Aha states that a student who had (intentionally?) falsely attributed a teaching to him shoulcl be Aogged.

.9 False attribution in lewish literature certainly existed before the rabbinic period. I refl'r in particular to the pseudepigraphical works from bellm' Iht' COIIIIIIOIl Era Ihal piare words of prophecy and wisdolll in tht· moulhs ofanricnl tigun'H. ';1111 aHsuming Ihallhl'HI' an'I'x;lInp!t·s of lillsl' attrihulion, ~lth()llgh il iN also posNihlr Ihallll(' ~\llhurH 01 IhrHr Irxls W!'rr wllvillrrd Ihalllll' ~JlrirllIN Hpokr Ihrough Ihrlr PI'IIN,

editing, material thought to be illuminating was put in the mouths ofvarious

figures. While from a modern perspective these would be examples of false

attribution, from the talmudic perspective all that has been done is to expand

on an authentic position, with the assumption being that the expansion fol

lows from the original statement,90 or that the figure being quoted could have

said this, based upon what else is known ofhim.91 This type of 'false attribu

tion' is ofa very different character from the other examples we will examine,

where the intent is to deceive rather than to enlighten.

There are a number oftalmudic examples that support false attribution:J~ Eruvin 5Ia describes how Rabbah and R. Joseph were discussing a halakhic matter. In order to persuade R. Joseph to accept Rabbah's opinion, the latter reported that R. Jose also shared his viewpoint. The Talmud comments upon this: 'This, however, was not exactly correct. He attributed the teaching to

R. Jose with the sole object that he [R. Joseph] should accept it from him, since R. Jose was known to have sound reasons for his rulings.' Rashi explains that Rabbah did not attribute his own view to R. Jose. Rather, he knew such a halakhic teaching, which he felt was correct. Wishing others to accepl ii, h(' falsely attributed it to the great sage R. Jose. R. Paltoi Gaon (ninth c('nlury) also understands the text in this fashion, and stresses that before ('ngaging in such false attribution one must be certain as to the halakhah:1I

90 See Albeck, Mavo latalmudim, 504ff. Albeck cites the comment of R. Abraham bl'lI J);lvid of Posquieres (Rabad), quoted in R. Solomon ben Adret, I;lidushei harashba 011 IlT f:'ruv. 19": NOO :l'1:l ;'" ',n I' N1II'00 ;"1"01 1":>1 NOO :l, ":l10 I' N1II'001 Nm pN N'N n, 111'001 Nm n'01) NOO :l, 1H'). See also Tosafot, BT BK73b, s.v. amar: '0" ":lH' N:l"N P c'::I,no p;, n:l'1II'n 'J:l N'N C')1VO nr ":lH 'ON H'1 D":l1\:) "n1ll no; Ehrenberg, Devaryehoshua, i, no. 41: 3: '" ,""::IN N'1 C111101ll11'0:l n'OH N') ,)'':1''111 O''VH1 N'i"1II:> 'm'o N, l"n:>1 1'J:l1N7 '1N' ";'111 11':> ,'':I', ":l1:l T',,! Cl C'l:>n, 1"1:>' "0111 7"l:>.

91 See Frankel. Mevo hayemshalmi, 35a; Zweifel, Saneigor, 73;). Kaplan, Redaction ofthe Babylonian Talmud, 154ff.

92 For an exhaustive discussion of the texts I deal with from BT Emv. 5Ia and Pes. II2a, see Maged, Beit aharon, 402ff. Regarding the larger issue offalse attribution, the following articles are also helpful and do not always agree with my own perspective: L. Jacobs, 'How Much of the Babylonian Talmud Is Pseudepigraphic?'; S. Stern, 'Attribution and Authorship'; and Bregman, 'Pseudepigraphy in Rabbinic Literature'.

91 Lewin (ed.), Otsar hage'onim, 'Berakhot' 27b (p. 61): 1J:l1ll "v n'01N CH 1:l' '00 V01ll H')1II ':l1 '01Nn '1':l I'N CN1 1100 17:li"111 '1:> 1:l' C11110 i11J:l1N 1100 nn1N l',:li'0 l'N1 n:>"n:> Hm1ll nV1J:l1ll ;,nlH:l ":>0 CN .N') 'N 1:l':l n,n"N H'n n:>';,111 1'. Concerning the text from BT Eruv. 51a, it is important to note the following: while the Talmud stales that R. los(' never said that which was attributed to him (and Ihis halakhah indeed appt'ars wilhoul a flaml' alladu'd to it in Eruv. 50b), in Tosdta, h'ruv. r 16, J{. los("s name i.~ attach('d 10 it. III ollll'r words. the I'ditor who addl'd 'This, howl'v('r, was not I·xactly (()ff('t"! •. .' was unitwarr oflhl' 'lbNrlla Ihal J{abb"h was quoling. III" IIH'fC'lilrr ;ISNlITrlt'd, illmrrrrtly. Ih:lt Rabhah had pmvldrd ulitlNI' ulldhllllOfl. (III ;llrllrr 10 lilt', It Mrir Mu:w~. dlrd thiN p;(NNagr aN ollr of it nlllllbrr Ihul .how Ihlll Ihr 'lbNrll" waN nol knowlI by thr rdltorH of Ihr lIahylolllllll'llIlllIlId.)

This text, and its suggested explanations, could not be any more clear that honesty is to be sacrificed in the name ofa larger goal, namely, conformity to proper halakhic behaviour. In justifYing this approach from an ethical standpoint, R. Yair Hayim Bacharach writes that the originator ofa statement that is later falsely attributed to someone greater than he can be assumed to be amenable to this, in order to best achieve the important task ofproperly establishing the halakhah.94 Based upon what we have just seen, it is not surprising that a popular nineteenth-century work, which can be best described as an 'ethical code', writes as follows: 'Ifsomeone heard a law and it seems to him that the halakhah is in accord with this, it is permitted to repeat this law in the name ofa great man so that people will accept it.'95

While Rashi understands the Talmud to be referring to a case in which Rabbah was acquainted with a real halakhic teaching, and it is only the attribution that is false,% it is possible that this understanding is intended to soften the radicalism ofthe passage. Unlike Rashi, one can read the talmudic text as meaning that Rabbah himselfwas the originator ofthe halakhic teaching that he falsely attributed to R. Jose. Ifthis is so, then the meaning is that whenever one is certain ofa halakhah, even ifhe did not hear it from someone else he can falsely attribute it, in order that the halakhah achieve wide acceptance. This understanding was shared by, among others, R. Samuel Kolin (c.1720-1806)97 and R. Solomon Kluger.98 R. Aryeh Kaplan (1934-83) explains this position as follows: 'When a rabbi is positive of his conclusions ... [h]e may even, ifthe situation warrants, ascribe the decision to a great sage so that it will be generally accepted.'99

.. Bacharach, Ya'ir nativ, 13. A different perspective is offered by R. Jacob Shalom Sofer, Torat I;ayim, 'OraQ Qayim' 156, who states that one is only permitted to falsely attribute something to a great scholar when it is a non·halakhic matter, such as an ethical teaching.

., Trives, Oral; meisharim, 9: 5·

% See also R. David Fraenkel (c.1704-62), Sheyarei korban, 'Nazir' T 1 (34a) , that it is forbidden to attribute a ruling ofone's own to one's teacher, but there is no prohibition against attributing an anonymous ruling to him.

Kolin, Mal;atsit hashekel, 'OraQ Qayim' 156, s.v. im shama: 1J l'N1 ','J ,J, Nmn 'J1nl!l V11' ON ,n1O n'l'O l~Ji'''' 'J'n 'J om1/) 01/)~ mlllJ ON ntJJ "~i'O lPNI!I 1J'J V11~ 1N 'N', P~i'~"

.s S. Kluger, Seftr hal;ayim, no. 156 (who even recommends false attribution):nr ,J, 'Ol~ ',N', nJ~n ,J,J "30 l~Ji'~ '1J DJn 01/JJ. See also Tursh, Moznei tsedek, 230; A. D. Horowitz, Kinyan torah bahalakhah, vol. vii, no. 74 (p. 92); O. Yoser. Yabia orner, vol. ii, 'Boshen mishpa!', no. 3 (p. 270); Silver, Emet keneh, 35.

.. A. Kaplan, Handbook ofjewish Thought, 251. Can the passage in BT Eruv. 5ra bebrought into line with the passage at the end of Kalah that states that one who falsely attributes ~ st~t('ment to a sage causes the divine presence to depart from Israel? Many scholars havt' disulsst'd thl' apparent contradiction. According to R. Hayim Joseph David Alul"i, till' pt'Tll1ission givl'n ill Eruvin to attributt, soml,thin!! fillMI·ly only ilppli(,N to " II'''TIIl'd pl'rNOIi who iN "hll' to ~rrivl' OIt h"lukhic dl'l'iNionN illljl'pl'lIdl'ntly. 0111'1' ht· Ullivl'N ut NIII h UtiI'I iNlolI, Ihr fulNI' utlrihuliou IN dl'Nll(lIl'd to

R. Israel Lipschutz agrees with this approach, adding that one must be certain ofthe halakhah in order to attribute it to one's teacher falsely. Yet he addH that one does not have the same responsibility to another Torah scholar. Regarding the latter, it is permitted to attribute a halakhic teaching to him even if you are not certain that it is correct!lOO Surprisingly, while Lipschutz attempts to show why this will not reflect poorly on the scholar who is beinM (falsely) quoted, he never even raises the problem of other people who will hear the false attribution of this uncertain halakhah and be led to act incor. rectlyas a result.

Another talmudic text that is cited to prove that false attribution is accept.

able-although in this case there are a few different ways of understandinM

the passage-is Pesa/:lim II2a. Here R. Akiva instructs R. Simeon ben Yohai:

'Ifyou wish to be strangled, be hanged on a large tree.' As the Soncino TaIm lid

explains, this means: 'If you must depend on an authority, see that hf' is a

great one.'

It is unlikely that this passage refers to false attribution. In fact, R. Akiva's statement originates in a Greek proverb that has no connection to f;llst·ltood ofany sort.10l The statement probably means nothing more than if YOII Htlldy with a great scholar you will be able to pass on his teachings. lUl Altt~rt\atiVt'ly, it could be advising someone who wishes his opinion to be acc('ptt'd to find .. great authority who says the same thing. The text could also b(' IIl1dc'rst()()d UN a warning, that if you attribute something falsely you will be 'hanHt'd' (pun· ished). That is, this is a bad thing to do.103 Even Rashi, who seems to b(' adviN'

enable this ruling to be accepted. Tractate Kalak , which forbids false attribution. iN ['('frrrill!! 10 ~II other cases. See Azulai. Mal;azik berakhah, 'Orab. b.ayim' 156: 7; id., Kise ral;umim , 'K'II..h' (I'ntl). The same approach is followed by Najar, Siml;at yehudah, 'Kalah' (cnd). For other iltll'lIlptrd solutions, all ofwhich affirm the validity offalse attributions in certain cases, SI'C' E. ShapirO!, li/iY,l1l rubah, I56: 2; S. Kluger, Sefer hal;ayim, no. 156; H. Kanievsky, She'elat rav, ii. 16-'17; S. A. IIINh, {)uvar beshem omra, lSI; Attiah, Rov dagan, 'Eruvin' 5Ia. Attiah concludes: 'Everythillg dl'p"lIds Oil his intention, that his intention be for the sake of heaven and 110t for self:intl'TI'st.' SC'I' also It Malkiel Tsevi Tenenbaum, Divrei malki'el, vol. ii, no. 74, who claims that falSI' Jllrihillioll iN oniy il,rbidden with regard to one's primary teacher (rav muvhak).

"" Lipschutz, Tiferet yisra'e/, 'Avot' 5: 7 (Bo'az no. 2). R. Shmuel Wosnl'r note's that he is aWill'!' of iI lIumber of cases in whkh gn'at rabbis were upset that false tearhings had bl'l'lI allrihulrcl 10 Ihl'lII by people who thought that this was halakhically permissibll'. SC'I' id., SlIrvrlllulrlJi, xiv. 110. 't(' (railed to my attelltion hy R. Yonason Rosman).

1111 SI'C' S. I.i('hl'rrnan, Grr.rk in /(wish I'ulrslint:. qX· I) .

1111 SI'I' R. Sallluc·1 hl'lI MI·ir (R;lshhalll).I'OJlIllIt·lItilry Oil 11'1' IIrs.. ad 101.; TriVl's, (Iru~ mrishurim.

II : ~ II. C). It I1;11 IaIIt'I hl'lI IllIshit·l·s 101l1l1lc'lIlary, ad lor.. has ,I dillrn'lIl ill(('rprrt'ltloll. Sl't· alNo thl' Arukh, '1l1oll'd in Mu.~"rrlllu.~III4,~ (ill Ntalld"rcll'cirls. oflilt' '11I11IIIId), atlloe

1111 SrI' Ml'lulNht'h of lIy~, Ai/iol mrnu,~hrh, 11.,.11 <) (I ulll'tllo Illy :llIl'litloll hy It MONht' 'Ikllrlrl); JONl'ph JUNk(' of I.lIhllll, Yr.lCld y"u/llumrl'lI'uI'. ch. -+(', 1" ,lie.; ."irlrl·'lu~I,II"', 'Mrkm llrNl'd' !J'IT .A; Urlfill~lI . '1 (.l'hlll~tI."IN' (1Irh.), ,.1; IIII)lllvln. ·AIII~IIII~I'. 1<1

ing false attribution,104 is not entirely clear, and we cannot be sure that this is his meaning.

Yet there are a number of outstanding authorities, beginning with

R. Natronai Gaon (ninth century)/05 who do indeed interpret this passage in the same way as the passage from Eruvin already mentioned. That is, they understand it to be advising false attribution. Among those who adopt this approach are R. Abraham Gombiner,lo6 R. Yair Hayim Bacharach/o7

R. Hayim Joseph David Azulai,108 R. Barukh Teomim-Frankel (1760-1828)/09

R. Solomon Kluger,nO R. Moses Sofer,1ll R. Zechariah Isaiah Jolles (181652) ,112 R. Hayim Palache,113 R. Israel Lipschutz,114 R. Elijah Benamozegh,115

R. Naphtali Hertz Halevi (1852-1902),116 and R. Hayim Hezekiah Medini.ll7 Using this passage, and maintaining a distinction between scholars and the masses, R. Moses Kunitz concludes as follows: 'A scholar is permitted to lie in order to establish the truth[!] [to the extent that it is] in his power.us ... But a negative commandment of the Torah forbids an am ha'arets [uneducated person] from ever telling a lie.'u9 What Kunitz is saying-and the other

104 Rashi, commentary on the Talmud, ad loc.: ,'np', n1"l' VOUll ;1';1'Ul 'l1 '0" :pm', nUlpl DN ,m D1N DUll 'lIJN :,m l"Nl 1'1,n'1'1 .100.

lOS

Natronai Gaon, Teshuvot rav natronai gaon, vol. ii, nos. 223-4. He assumes that a halakhah quoted by R. Ya'akov Gaon in the name of R. Yehudai Gaon is not authentic: l' D'UlO 'Ol 'ON1' 'Nl11'1' l1 'Ol N',m 1'1'l'O 1'1"Nl 'll 1'11'lP N" 1'1" N'lnDN Nn,o N'N 'N111'1' l' '0 1'1'ON N'l '0'0' N"N 'N111'1' ,m l"Nl ;"nn pm', 1'1n1l1pl DN lll' (lJ 'ON1'.

106 107

Gombiner, Magen avraham, 'Orai) i,layim' I56. Bacharach, Ya'ir nativ, 13.

108

Azulai, Birkei yosef, 'Yoreh de'ah' 242: 29, 'I:Ioshen mishpat' 12: 13.

109 Teomim-Frankel, Ateret !,Iakhamim, 'Even ha'ezer', no. 29.

110

S. Kluger, Sefer ha!,layim, no. I5 6.

111

M. Sofer, She'dot uteshuvot !,Iatam sofer, vol. vi, no. 59. In this responsum, Sofer wonders ifa certain rabbi has falsely quoted something in the name ofSofer's teacher, R. Nathan Adler. Rather than be outraged at this possibility, Sofer shows himself to be quite understanding, since he assumes that the false attribution was done for a good reason: 'nvoUl N' '''YI ,''l:lN DUlO 'ON l'1'1Ul Ul''l:l' m "lV 11'10'1I1Nn 'N' ,m l"Nl 1'1,nn Pln1'1' n'y, ,"In "ON1I1 1")1 lIJYV' l';' ''"1'1 "'N' 1'00. It is in this context of false attribution that Sofer quotes, and agrees with, R. Jacob Emden's view of the Zohar (see below, n. I37). On the other hand, Sofer is also quoted as having said, 'I forgive you if you say my novellae [!,Iidushim]in your name, but I do not forgive you ifyou say your novellae in my name.' See Otserat hasoftr, 14 (5764),91.

112 Dover meisharim. In this book, Jolles shows that a work of talmudic notes attributed to

R. Mordechai Jaffe is actually a forgery. Apparently, this forger had no nefarious motives. He simply wanted people to read what he wrote, and therefore falsely attributed it to a great sage. Jolles states (p. 7a): 'We should not find the author culpable for attributing his notes to the Levush, because he relied on the saying ofR. Akiva: "Ifyou wish to be strangled", etc.' For a similar defence ofSaul Berlin and Solomon Friedlaender, who respectively forged the Besamim rosh and Jerusalem Talmud on 'Kodashim', see M. Abraham, EnD.lh ke~atsir, 46X.

.... Palache, I-Ie!,lafth i,layim , 19: IX. .., l.ips,hllt7., TUrnl yisTa'rl, 'Avol' 5: 7 (I/o'uz, no. 2). I" Rl'namo1.('l<lh, Tu'um le.dlud, \0. "10 SrI' Mc'dilli , Srdri ~rtlln/, ii. 'Ma';If('khl'l kat', III'. X. .., Ihid.. 'Ma'~rl'klll'll~lIIrd' , 110. lOX. ... In'l nDlln D'P" IVO' .'P"" 'MIV' Il,n "I)'n. ". Klillil~, Il,Hflrl.I'lI'rf II. I"

authorities cited in this paragraph agree with him-is that scholars haY(' Ihr

responsibility of making sure that the masses behave in accordance with

halakhah_ This is the highest 'truth', and in order to reach it, they are permit·

ted to tell the masses a falsehood.

In addition to the passages from Eruvin and Pesa/:l.im already dted, tht'rr

are a number ofother rabbinic texts that show a tolerance for false attribution,

A passage in the midrashic work Tana devei eliyahu focuses on Exodus 3J.:

26-7, in which, during the Golden Calf episode, we have the foIlowinM

description:

Then Moses stood in the gate ofthe camp, and said: 'Whoso is on the Lord's side,lrl him come to me,' and all the sons of Levi gathered themselves unto him. And he said to them: 'Thus saith the Lord, the God of Israel: Put ye every man hi" sword upon his thigh, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp. and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and l'vl~ry /IIall hiN neighbour.'

Tana devei eliyahu comments:

I call heaven and earth to witness, however, that the Holy OntO said 10 MONI'S flO Nllih thing as that he was to stand at the gate ofthe camp and ask. 'Whoso iN olllhl' I.onl·" side.. . .'. Moses, righteous man that he was, justified Ihis attrihlliiofl 10 Cotl 01 his command to the sons of Levi) in this way: If. on my OWfI. I WI'f(' 10 NUY 10 IHI'UI'I. 'Slay every man his brother and every man his companion, allli ,'v,'ry IIIIUI hi" neighbour,' Israel would say, 'Did you not teach us, "A Sanhl'drinthat plliH rVe'1I 0111' Illan to death in a week [of years) is called a tyrannical tribunal"?'lU Why. Ihl'lI, IIII' you about to slay three thousand men in a single day?' Then'lim', lill ord,'r 10 ;tvrll Israel's reproach of him, he attributed this command to th(' sons of I.('vi 10 slay lit" worshipers of the Golden Calf) to the Glory that is above, by 'Thus sailll Iltt, Lord 111(' God ofIsraeJ.,m

R. Yeruham Leiner (1888-1964) cites this passage and suggests thai I Ill' Saw's' permission to make false attributions is derived from this wry l'pismlt'.1U

..... See Mishnah , Mak. I: 10.

'" Tuna devei diyahu 4: I; trans. Braude and Kapstt'in, ~X-9. ror disl'llSsioll o"hiH p;AHH~l(r. Hl'r

II. ,. Ileschrl, /·/r.uvenly Tomh (Heb.), ii. 14~-); Hollerrrwn, Zr'rv yitrof ~6X; Fislll''', //irk,,' rlif·I'/III. .','j (); 'I\lrsh, Mozne; I,~rdek, 150. Amon~ Ihosl' who ('oTllIl'rl this rassa~,' 10 liT /:/'1/11. ~IU ~Ir li·olllill-I;rankl'l. Atart ~akhamim, 'EVl'1I ila'l'lt'r', 110. :1.<), and Iill' UlIIlllIt'lItary 011 '/,"111 .Ir.,r' t/iyullll "!llill"d Hamuluyim l,m/iIM (Warsaw, IXXI). (Thl' lill,' (la~c' says Ih;lllhis hook W;IH Wlllh'lIhy Ie Sa II It ",I or Si""iawa (f.17()(,IX74). Ilow,'v,'r, ill his ;Irlid,' 'lIio~raphy' (I h'h.), 4'/, It JOHI'(l1r 1."V(·ltsh'ill ;Idlllils Ihal h,' wroh' Ihl' hook hilI dll(, 10 ;1 'hidd"11 n';ISOII' did 1101 pllhllt I~." hi. .llIlhorship. I Ih;lIlk It SIIIIIII,'llIshkl· II;I~.i 101 (';IIIilll( Ihis III Illy ;llh'lIlioll. FOI' Hllltnl'H 011 I.I'VI'II· sh'''', s,',' AssaI. ( :"uRII, illlllr Tlli,.krl (I h'h.), 140 II. X.)

III

SrI' hiN III1\1'M prlllll'd ~N ~II ;A(I(lI'IUIiK 10 II.. yllll IIf'II SOltllllUlI, '//lr,,' ~uy/,". '/, AhMthYIII!1 IH.hIIH 10 allolhl'l' rxulllpll' whl'l'r Irr duilllN Ihlll MIINrM dltllllll Irlllhr Inrtt. wllrll NIH'lIkhlM til th .. 111111011 . S"" hlN rlllIlIlll'lIluly Oil Nil III . I j: I ((1.1,.1 hllhr NIIIIIClu/(1 r,IIIIIIII),

The Talmud records a case where Rabbah behaves in the same fashion. Shabat II4b-IIsa explains what actions can be performed on Yom Kippur that falls on the Sabbath, in order to have food ready as soon as the fast is over. These actions are only permitted in the afternoon but not before then. The Talmud then states: 'Rabbah's household scraped pumpkins. Seeing that they were doing this [too] early, he said to them: "A letter has come from the west in Rabbi Yohanan's name that this is forbidden.'"

Rashi explains that Rabbah's purpose in saying that he received a letter was to persuade his family to accept what he was telling them. In other words, Rabbah lied to his family in order to keep them from stumbling into sin.123

R. Hayim David Halevi (1924-98) notes, 'From here one can learn that even absolut~ falsehood is permitted if the intention is to keep people from sinning.'l24 Commenting on this passage, R. Moses Leiter writes: 'Regarding the fact that he testified falsely about something, apparently this was common among them [the Sages j, and they did not regard this as having anything to do with falsehood [sheker].'125

The same approach appears in Pesa/:!-im 27a. Here the Talmud explains that Samuel falsely attributed a stringent ruling of R. Judah to the Sages, in order that the people would follow this ruling. In Bava metsia 8b it states that Samuel ascribed R. Meir's viewpoint to the Sages, so that it would be accepted.u6 The amora (talmudic sage) Levi is described as doing the same thing in Gitin 2oa. According to Rashi, this approach is found in Kidushin 44b, where an opinion ofthe amora Kama is attributed to Samuel so that Rav should take it more seriously.127 These cases should be distinguished from many other examples in the Talmud where an individual tannaitic opinion is

123 See the discussion ofthis passage in Y. H. Sofer, Kerem ya'akov, 13: 10.

124 H. D. Halevi, Aseh lekha rav, iv. 303-However, in an unpublished responsum Halevi argued that a halakhic authority may not misrepresent halakhah, both because of the prohibition of avoiding falsehood as well as the concern that rabbinic authority will be undermined if the truth becomes known. See Frimer and Frimer, 'Women's Prayer Services', appendix, part 6.

125 Leiter, Beshulei gilyoni, 'Shabat' lI5a.

126 See Rashi, ad loc., s.v. umide'apikh: lll1:> N11UO nllj71N' "lnll, n:>ON 0'l1:> n:>,n 0'l11 ,'"" 01lDll1.

127

Rashi, ad loc., s.v. afthuhah. R. Samuel Strashun (1794-1872) is very surprised by Rashi's explanation: 'N1lllD1:I1' mm1'O:I N7ll O"lDn '1m mn lD' O'lO N1lDll ':>1 nll'n. R. Isaiah Berlin's (1725-99) language is much sharper, even suggesting that Rashi's explanation is a later interpolation. See his I;lidushei hashas, ad loc., also included in the Oz Vehadar edition of the Talmud: 1"n ':>1 "V1ll 'll10V P nlD1)) 1l'N 'l1l'l 01N ~N N7m nllNn ,::1 'V ll'NlD 111 Nl'17 1llN' 1:ImN' 'Olln, "llDl1 '1'l 1'on "nlD l1 'lDMl ''''D1l J"nN 00111 'm :In:> "07n m'N1 N"n 'l'!)nOO' "17Nl .. . 11N07 ,l1l "nlD l1 lD":!1. Cl('arly trollbled by this story, R. Elijah ben Samuel ofLublin (Illth cent.), Yad diyahu , no. (1I, qlll'stions wht,tl1('r thos(' who misattributed Kama's opinion actt'd propt'rly. For anothN ('xalllpl(' of (IIninh'lItional?) lillHl' allri· blltion, bllt without any halakhil" irnplkationH, H('C' 11'1' Shrv. II)a. For othN iIlHt:IIIl'(,H Hhowillil how th(' '1;,11111111 iN onc'lI lIot ,ur('lill with ullrihlltioliN. N"" Y. 11"lIl'dil . .'ifll,rltwillru/, IIItrllll.. 1'1'. 7J. If

attributed to the Sages.us In the latter examples the 'name change' was not designed to deceive. It merely signifies that the viewpoint of the individual tana (mishnaic sage) was regarded as the accepted halakhah, as it was agreed to by the majority ofthe Sages.l29

Bava batra lira describes how R. Huna b. Hiya was going to decide the' halakhah in accordance with a particular view. When challenged, he dec\are'd that he was relying upon what R. Huna had said in the name of Rav,

R. Nahman did not believe him and declared that he was going to ask R. Huna if he really held this position. Upon hearing this, R. Huna b. Hiya 'grew embarrassed'. R. Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) explains that he was embarrassed because perhaps R. Huna no longer held this opinion or did not rely on it in practice. Yet R. Gershom (tenth-eleventh centuries) explains that he was embarrassed because he had falsely attributed the teaching to R. Huna.

According to Tosafot,130 R. Joshua lied about his halakhic opinion, apparently in order to avoid getting into a dispute with R. Gamaliel. R. Hayitn Hezekiah Medini notes that according to Tosafot,1J1 R. Papa also prest'ntt'd false information in an argument in order to make it easier for Ahayt· to ahandon his opinion.1l2 Medini points to another talmudic passage that can hI' understood along the same lines. ljulin IIlb states:

121< These examples can be found by searching in the Talmud for tht' wordN man ~Ilkh",,,h,,. Spe also Judah ben Kalonymos, Yi/:lusei tana'im ve'amora'im, 324, 364. In RT Gi/. 77a WI' N"" Ihllt

R. Hiya altered the attribution of a teaching from R. Judah to the majority of Ihl' S~I!I'N, hilI th" Sages were not happy with this. Maimonides himself follows this approach 011 ;It INllt 0111' ,,('casion. Whereas BT Ber. 34b attributes to Samuel the view that 'the solt' difT('f('IK!' l)('tw('c'lI thl' lin-sent and the messianic days is delivery from servitude to foreign powt'rs', Maimolllcll'N attributes this view to the Sages, even though Samuel's position is disputed by R. /ohallall. S('(' ItI .. Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot teshuvah' 9: 2, 'Hilkhot melakhim' 12: 2; Benedikt, Collected E~says (1II'h.), 141, [56-7. See also Mishneh torah, 'Hilkhot melakhim' II: 3, where Maimonides stat('s that 'all the sages of his [R. Akiva'sJ generation' believed that Bar Kokhba was the messiah, thoullh thrrl' ;11'(' talmudic passages that contradict this. See Aviner, Aloh na'aleh, 273. According to R. Isaar Ikrechiah, R. Menahem Azariah da Fano's (1548-1620) son, Maimonides would on occasioll C'VC'II switch the names of disputing sages so that his own opinion would be in line with that of thl' oIlithoritative sage. See da Fano, She'e/ot uteshuvot harama mifano, no. 90. Azulai, Ahavat david, X4" (10th sermon), defends R. Isaac Berechiah's suggestion. (He is more sceptical in YoseIome!.I , 110.

t. \.) Nl'edless to say, this is a very radical proposal and, as far as I know, is not support('d by IIlodl'l'Il scholarship. In fact, if iI modern scholar made such a slIggt'stion, it would he rt'lI;lrdrd hy traditionalists as a disgrat'efill assault on Maimollidt's' integrity. Y('t hen' art' AZlllai's wordN: n'1l1l l1 lnlll' nJ'm l'NlD N110H IN Hlll n10N lnnOl 'D" OlM n'"'llN 1'l'Vl nH1llD H1lon, O''lll1n 'O~ Mllll

lmll' n"nlD H11T.1H 114 Hln, non'll Hln lllV" nllH H'nlD H1l01 nllllDn 1Dn'. ". For othl'r ('Xalllp"'H whc'f(' tIll' 'llJllIllltl, J(lr HtyliNti!' rl':lNOIIH allti with no illit'li.\. to dr(,l'ivl', illNNts wordN in Ihl' llIouths ofilitlivldu~IN, Nl'r M~I!I'(1. Uri/llh,wln, x. 14 II'. . ".

'MI III

liT IIrkh. ,c'a, N.V. hrl'ukh. 11'1' Nar. NU, N.V. lunar rav ';il)HA. "·.'irdrl /:Irm/ld, iii, 'MlI'lIrrkhl't Nhl"', IICI. J,7: (MOD ~1 "'~,,", "~M" M'"" M" "lM"'" "1"""'" ,,",p" ,~,,, '~III'~ ,,"".

מן הגורן ומן היקב

יום שישי, 10 באוגוסט 2018

צנזורה3

אין תגובות:

הוסף רשומת תגובה