- RSS Channel Showcase 3939672
- RSS Channel Showcase 5968263
- RSS Channel Showcase 9706796
- RSS Channel Showcase 9657794
Articles on this Page
- 02/23/07--06:55: _Rabbi Chaim Rapopor...
- 02/25/07--11:12: _Barukh Dayan Ha-Eme...
- 02/25/07--17:39: _New Book on R. Saul...
- 02/25/07--22:44: _To Adolf, from Cecil
- 02/26/07--19:34: _Adam Mintz -- The M...
- 02/28/07--11:32: _Eliezer Brodt - The...
- 03/01/07--23:41: _Judah Wistinetzky a...
- 03/04/07--22:02: _House of Goldman Ra...
- 03/06/07--06:31: _R. Avraham ben haGr...
- 03/07/07--20:33: _C.D. Ginsburg: Demu...
- 03/12/07--23:27: _Rabbi Adam Mintz: R...
- 03/13/07--07:06: _Upcoming Kestenbaum...
- 03/14/07--22:43: _Marc B. Shapiro: Ob...
- 03/14/07--22:54: _Second Annual Dr. A...
- 03/16/07--05:10: _Eliezer Brodt: Revi...
- 03/20/07--16:02: _A Behind the Scenes...
- 03/20/07--20:36: _Pesach Journals, Ha...
- 03/20/07--23:47: _New Books from Moss...
- 03/26/07--23:54: _Rabbi Eliezer Brodt...
- 03/27/07--06:52: _Haggadah and the Mi...
- 02/23/07--06:55: Rabbi Chaim Rapoport -- Open Letter to the Yated Ne'eman
- 02/25/07--17:39: New Book on R. Saul Wahl, King of Poland for a Day
- 02/25/07--22:44: To Adolf, from Cecil
- 02/26/07--19:34: Adam Mintz -- The Manhattan Eruv
- 02/28/07--11:32: Eliezer Brodt - The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature
- 03/01/07--23:41: Judah Wistinetzky and Mishloach Manot to his American friends
- 03/04/07--22:02: House of Goldman Rare Books [est. 1978]
- 03/06/07--06:31: R. Avraham ben haGra: A Victim of Plagiarism?
- 03/07/07--20:33: C.D. Ginsburg: Demuto Shel ha-Meshumad
- 03/12/07--23:27: Rabbi Adam Mintz: Rabbi Henkin and The First Heter Agunot in America
- 03/13/07--07:06: Upcoming Kestenbaum Auction and FREE sefer!
- 03/14/07--22:43: Marc B. Shapiro: Obituary for R. Yosef Buxbaum zt"l
- 03/14/07--22:54: Second Annual Dr. Asher Siev Memorial Lecture at YU
- 03/20/07--16:02: A Behind the Scenes Look at the Banning of HaGaon
- 03/20/07--20:36: Pesach Journals, Had Gadyah, Plagiarism & Bibliographical Errors
- 03/20/07--23:47: New Books from Mossad ha-Rav Kook AND Marc Shapiro lecture (online)
- 03/27/07--06:52: Haggadah and the Mingling of the Sexes
Rabbi Chaim Rapoport was born in Manchester, England, in 1963 where his father served as the Rabbi of one of the largest synagogues – Higher Crumpsall Synagogue – for some 40 years. After his school years, Rabbi Rapoport attended the Yeshivot of Manchester, Gateshead, Torat Emet in Jerusalem and the central Lubavitch Yeshivah in New York. After receiving his Rabbinic diploma (semichah) and his marriage in 1984 he continued his studies in the States. In 1987 he went with his wife Rachel Clara to join the community Kollel in Melbourne, Australia, where – in addition to his post graduate studies – he officiated and lectured in several communities, including the far flung Launceston in Tasmania.
In 1989, Rabbi Rapoport took up position as head of the Leeds Kollel, a position which he occupied until the end of 1994. In the years 1994 – 1997 Rabbi Rapoport served as Minister in Birmingham and the Head of the Birmingham Rabbinic Board. From September 1997 to February 2005 Rabbi Rapoport served as Rabbi to the Ilford Synagogue, Beehive Lane.
In 1998 Rabbi Rapoport was appointed as member of the Chief Rabbi’s Cabinet and Advisor to the Chief Rabbi on matters of Jewish Medical Ethics. In 2005 Rabbi Rapoport was appointed dean of the newly founded Machon Mayim Chaim - an institution that offers unique opportunities in Jewish learning.
Rabbi Rapoport is the author of several books and articles in both Hebrew and English. These include: (a) Kappei Chayim (a lomdisher sefer on Birkas Kohanim); (b) Dinei UMinhagei Rosh Chodesh (Kehot, 1990); (c) Judaism and Homosexuality: An Authentic Orthodox View (Vallentine Mitchell, 2004), with foreword by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, preface by Dayan Berel Berkovits (d) The Messiah Problem: Berger, the Angel and the Scandal of Reckless Indiscrimination (Ilford 2002).
to Yeshiva University and its ‘Torah Sage’
By Chaim Rapoport
I was shocked to read your article on the so-called 'Open Orthodox YCT' located in Manhattan, founded by Rabbi Avi Weiss. The article implies throughout that YCT’s counterpart, namely the organization known as 'Yeshiva University' - albeit 'modern' or 'centrist' - is actually deserving of the title 'orthodox' rachmana litzlan. Oy le-Ozneinu she-kach shomos!
This implied hechsher for the Yeshiva University and its 'Torah Sage' that the Yated article gives is in direct defiance of the rulings of the gedolim. Moreover the Yated's founder, the late Rav Eliezer Shach, stated repeatedly that 'Yeshiva University' is absolutely treif & that no recognition may be given to [what the YN describes as] its 'Torah Sage' rachmana litzlan!
Although both YU and YCT have departed from the derech ha-Torah as taught by our gedolim, it is clear le-chol mi she-yesh lo moach be-kodkodo [=to anyone who has a modicum of common-sense] that YU presents a much greater threat to Torah-true Yiddishkeit than does the YCT. For the non-traditional leanings of the YCT are mefursam [=well-known] and there is therefore less of a chashash [=concern] that people will be drawn after its heresy. Whereas YU, since it is perceived as being to the right of YCT and also projects, to a degree, a pseudo-charedi image, (‘a kosher chazir fissel’), is far more dangerous. Naive bachurim [ve-gam besulos] are far more likely to be fooled by the charedi veneer of YU and thus become ensnared by its mesisim u-madichim than by the representatives of the recently established YCT.
There have even been known cases (kevod Elokim haster davar) of boys from heimishe, even Torah’diker homes in NY and Monsey who have actually moved away from the Olam HaTorah and entered the academies of the YU. In contrast however, there is not even one alleged case of an ehrlicher Yeshivah bochur signing up for YCT.
Moreover, YCT does not even try to seduce our children to attend their rabbinical college. Yet YU and its agents clearly target even heimishe boys and girls and have succeeded in causing them to be poresh from the yeshivos ha-kedoshos and the charedi seminaries le-tarbus ra'ah - Hashem yerachem!
The fact that the Yated invites the leaders of YU to join them in the milchomoh against YCT and is mefalpel in the shitos of YU’s ‘Torah Sage’ [ke-ilu mi-piv anu chayim] suggests that YU is part of yahadus ha-Torah [=traditional Judaism]. The suggestion implicit in the Yated that YCT is beyond the pale whereas YU is still be-toch ha-machaneh can only add to the confusion that already exists (amongst those who are on the margins of the Olam HaYeshivos) about the true identity of Yeshiva University. My heart shudders at the thought of the many young and gullible yeshivish’e people who will become even more vulnerable to the severe sakanah of YU and Stern College as a result of the Yated’s ‘propaganda’ in favor of Yeshiva University.
Parenthetically, the fact that several gedolei yisroel allowed their talmidim to teach at YU can not be used as a proof that they held that it is essentially orthodox. Firstly, some gedolim such as Rabbi Yaakov Kaminetzky (and to a lesser degree Reb Moshe Feinstein) have written that it may be permissible for Benei Torah to teach even in reform or conservative schools – provided that they can teach their own syllabus. Secondly, since the time of the gedolim that may have given a heter to teach in YU, the circumstances have changed. Whereas in yester-year at least the ramim in YU did not teach kefirah mamash [=unequivocal heresy], nowadays some of the teachers of kodesh in YU unabashedly preach divrei minus u-kefirah be-farhesya [=heretical & blasphemous ideas in public] rachamana litzlan.
In Rav Shach's Michtavim UMa'amarim he says that even high school - needless to say university - education or for that matter any interest in secular literature or occupation with the arts or the sciences is forbidden by the Torah.
He says that there is no need – and no heter - to learn a trade before it becomes an immediate concern & that every single Yeshivah student has the potential and talent to become a Rosh Kollel, Rosh Yeshiva or Maggid Shiur at least in a Yeshivah Ketanah. Only if and when all else fails may one pursue a ‘mundane’ source of livelihood.
Moreover, Rav Shach states that secular studies come under the category of Seforim Chitzonim that the Talmud and the Poskim ban. He writes that History and Psychology are particularly heretical disciplines (vol. 3, page 39). High schools that expose their students to the Darwinian theory of evolution “transform their charges into heretics” at least for the duration of these studies. Human Biology lessons that include details of the function of the pro-creative organs are proscribed for high school boys. Such subjects come under the category of zenus and its attendant severity.
Surely these considerations alone suffice to define YU as an institution of Minus and Zenus. How much more so when we know that real minus [and abizrayhu of other toeivois] is a regular feature of YU. [One of the so-called 'ramim' at YU recently suggested - in a shiur which was broadcast bechol kitzvei tevel [=via the internet r”l] - that if a person feels compelled to say that all the events related in the Torah ha-kedoshah from Bereishis to Mattan Torah [including the very existence of the Avos and the Imahos] lo hayu ve-lo nivreu [=never existed or transpired] he may do so and he is not guilty of heresy!!! - afra lepumeih!
In addition, Rav Shach held that YU type institutions are an entirely negative phenomenon posing a threat to the very endurance of authentic Judaism. These modern conceptions, he said, were an absolute disaster “causing the destruction of our Holy Torah” (vol. 4 no. 319 pg. 35). Even the so-called ‘Touro College’ in the USA is a terrible disaster, a churban ha-das!
Rav Shach writes that the success of those people who were able to achieve greatness in Torah despite their involvement in secular studies is ma'aseh satan [=the doings of the satanic forces] for the existence of such role models will entice others to follow suit, only to be doomed (vols. 1-2, page 109, no. 53. See also ibid., page 128, no. 76).
[Rav Shach wrote that even the establishment of a Kollel designed to train potential community Rabbis and equip them with the skills necessary for their vocation is absolutely forbidden. No one dare support such an initiative (vol. 3, page 31). Such institutions are an unwelcome intrusion, threatening the viability of the Jewish People. Rav Shach opposes the establishment of any Rabbinical seminaries designed to prepare students for positions of leadership in Jewish communities. Nothing other than the traditional Kollel maybe supported (vol. 3, page 31)].
As for the YU’s ‘Torah Sage’ Rav Shach writes - in a lengthy & blistering attack on Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik, the mentor of centrist orthodoxy & YU - that Rabbi Soloveitchik was guilty of endangering the survival of Torah true Judaism r"l by indoctrinating the masses with minus ve-apikursus [=heretical shitos]! Rav Shach wrote that Rabbi Soloveitchik's views were so outrageous that those Rabbis who contributed to an anniversary volume dedicated to his honor were guilty by association. He said that by paying homage to a man who disseminated such anti-Jewish views, these Rabbis were also contributing to the tremendous harm caused on vulnerable Jewish students by works such as Soloveitchik’s 'Chamesh Derashot' (see at length Michtavim U-Maamarim 4:320. See also 4:370, page 107].
In light of all the above it is clear that the misleading nuances of the Yated’s recent anti-YCT article constitute a terrible ziyuf haTorah and an unprecedented Chillul Hashem that could easily mislead thousands of innocent yidden to embrace false hashkofos and even kefirah mamash rachmana litzlan!
Mr Editor! I believe that you have a chov gomur to do whatever is within your power to at least minimize the damage that has already been done. I urge you to publish a robust condemnation of the false hashkofos that have been conveyed between the lines of the anti-YCT article.
I plead with you: Please have rachmonus on the innocent neshomos of your young readers & declare: Tous hayesah be-yadeinu. Make it abundantly clear that YCT & YU and all similar institutions are all equally beyond the pale of True Yiddishkeit & that they are all responsible for the tremendous churban ha-das and denigration of kevod HaTorah that we are (ba-avonoseinu ha-rabim) witnesses to in our generation - Hashem yerachem!
There is only one consolation: The proliferation of colleges in the mould of YU & YCT which constitute an incredible & an intolerable manifestation of the prediction of Chazal that be-ikvesa di-meshicha chutzpah yasgei and smacks of ha-malchus nehepeches le-minus is clearly a sign that we are only a stone's throw away from the geulah sheleimah!
May the Ribbono shel Olam help you be mesaken what is essentially a me'uvas lo yuchal liskon and may we be zocheh to see the eradication of all minus ve-apikorsus, be-vias goel tzedek, amen!
Rabbi Chaim Rapoport
An appreciation to Rabbi Breuer and his work appeared in the Orthodox Forum volume, Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah: Contributions and Limitations (Jason Aronson, 1996), a project of Yeshiva University. He received the Israel Prize for Torah Studies in 1999.
Hamakom yenacheim etchem betoch shaar avelei tziyon v'yerushalayim.
Dr. Rosenstein, has now collected in English for the first time, just about everything there is about this legend and more generally about Saul Wahl (including Saul Wahl's library). He uncovered a document which has bearing on the dating of Saul Wahl's death date as well as much other primary material. Additionally, he includes an extensive discussion about how this legend developed, as well as an article (by Professor S. A. Bershadsky) about Saul Wahl, as recorded in Polish and Russian literature. As Dr. Rosenstein is an expert in Jewish Genealogy and on the Katzenellenbogen family, he includes an extensive genealogy of Saul Wahl and his family. The book also includes about the history of the some of the figures involved in the Saul Wahl king story as well as more general history of the time. Most everything in the book includes photocopies of either the relevant documents or materials.
While the book contains much fascinating material on Saul Wahl, I think that it is worthwhile to make note of a few things that Dr. Rosenstein was apparently unaware of their existence. Dr. Rosenstein notes the first mention of Saul Wahl being king, there were prior mentions of Saul Wahl and his standing, but not the king legend – and Rosenstein includes these earlier mentions as well – appears in the work Yesh M'Nechalin (previously touched upon at the Seforim blog here) authored by R. Pinchas Katzenellenbogen (no. 53-55), a descendant of Saul Wahl. But, Rosenstein appears to be unaware that this book is actually published; he notes that it remains in manuscript form, but never notes that in fact it has been printed in 1986! While obviously there is nothing wrong with going to the source – here, the manuscript - it helps the reader to know that they can also view the details somewhere for themselves.
Another omission is Dr. Rosenstein includes a discussion of the medical school in Padua but appears to be unaware that this school and its Jewish connection and graduates was discussed extensively by Prof. David Ruderman (Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe [Yale University, 1995], esp. pp. 100-118) and Dr. Ruderman's discussion would enhance Dr. Rosenstein's considerably.
The book is available at Beigeleisen, as well as here.
In the short official obituary for Dr. Cecil Roth in the London Jewish Chronicle following his passing in Jerusalem in June 1970, there is a short and peculiar reference to Roth's study of the famed Sassoon merchant family. The brief mention within the obituary refers not to the contents of his "comprehensive history" of the renown Bombay-born and London-based Jewish family,  where he dispels the notion that the Sassoon family were simply to be considered "the Rothschilds of the East," but rather to his unfathomable inscription of the work to Adolf Hitler.
The following is Cecil Roth’s inscription to The Sassoon Family:
Sources:To Adolf Hitler
Fuehrer of the German Reich
For two reasons I desire to inscribe your name at the beginning of this book. The first is, that I consider its topic to be a useful object-lesson to the unfortunate people whom you have misled into thinking themselves a pure and superior "race" (whatever that may mean). The most rudimentary political commonsense should make it obvious that the absorption of gifted foreign families cannot be other than an advantage for a civilized state. England and English life have in particular been enriched for centuries past by receiving fresh elements from other sources, and there can surely be no reason to regret a liberality that has endowed her with soldiers, philanthropists and poets such as the Sassoon family and many life it have produced. Germany under you guidance has deliberately set herself on the path not merely of self-destruction (which while her present temper lasts would be a peculiar book to humanity at large) but of self-dementation.
In the second place, I am happy to have this opportunity to express once again, as publicly as I may, my profound execration and abhorrence, not merely as a Jew and an Englishman but as a human being, of you, your ideals, your ideas, your methods and all that you stand for. Should God punish the sins of the world by allowing you a momentary victory, I trust that this declaration will bring upon me the honour of the most drastic attention of your nauseous tools, for life in such circumstances would not be worth the having.Cecil Roth
 Nahalat Avot: Teshuvot, Michtavim, Tefillot, Minhagim (Yad Samuel Franco, 2007); published on the occasion of Chanah Sassoon's recent wedding to R. Yehuda Michel Nissel.
 In 1968, a later work on the Sassoon family [Stanley Jackson, The Sassoons (London, 1968)] appeared and "superseded" the earlier work by Roth, as the author of this later work "had a clear advantage" as he had access to the personal papers of many Sassoon family members. See London Jewish Chronicle (May 3, 1968), 25. Notwithstanding this criticism, it was already noted in a 1941 review of Roth’s book that he had "not been granted access to 'family' records... [and] gathered a vast amount of authentic information, including many delightful stories, that has enabled him to present a comprehensive history of the Sassoon clan with his customary literary skill and thoroughness." See London Jewish Chronicle(May 30, 1941), 22.
 For early uses of this phrase, see, for example, London Jewish Chronicle (April 19, 1907), 21; ibid, (March 22, 1912), 16.
 "Obituary: Dr. Cecil Roth," London Jewish Chronicle (June 26, 1970), 38.
 The dedication appears in Cecil Roth, The Sassoon Family (London, 1941) and I thank Joshua Lovinger for kindly directing me towards this fascinating and little-known source.
In a previous contribution to the Seforim blog, Rabbi Adam Mintz discussed the significant roles of Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin and Rabbi Moshe Feinstein in the development of a unique halakhic response to the issue of the mehitzah in the American synagogue, based on a previous lecture delivered as part of his "History of American Poskim" series at Kehilat Rayim Ahuvim on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. The following historical and halakhic overview of the issues surrounding the Manhattan eruv is based on Rabbi Mintz's doctoral dissertation, "The Evolution of the American Orthodox Community: The History of the Communal Eruv" (New York University, forthcoming).
By Adam Mintz
The first Manhattan eruv was created in 1905 by Rabbi Yehoshua Seigel who was one of the most notable rabbinic scholars of the time. He was born in Poland and served as a rabbi in Sherps before immigrating to the Unites States. He maintained the title Sherpser Rav in America and quickly became the leader of the Polish community in New York. He described the eruv and his impetus for creating it in his volume Eruv ve-Hotza'ah (New York, 1907). Rabbi Seigel's eruv only encompassed the Lower East Side, utilizing the natural riverbanks of Manhattan on three sides and on the fourth side, the Third Avenue El. There was rabbinic opposition to Rabbi Seigel's eruv. This view is elaborated upon by Rabbi Yehudah David Bernstein in Hilkhata Rabta le-Shabbata (Brooklyn, 1910). Rabbi Bernstein, who studied at Slabodka, was one of the founders and early teachers at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Yeshiva in New York. This eruv was utilized by many within the Polish and Galician communities throughout the first half of the twentieth century.
Rabbi Henkin's first encounter with the rulings on the eruv related to Rabbi Seigel's eruv. In his volume Edut Le-Yisrael published in 1949, he wrote, "There are many observant Jews and especially those Hasidim from Poland who carry here on the street on Shabbat relying on the permission of Rabbi Yehoshua Seigel of Sherps." He went on to explain that this eruv is no longer valid due to changes that have been in the waterfront and in the Third Ave El. In addition, Rabbi Henkin explained that one of the requirements of the eruv is that the city be rented from the local authorities and that Rabbi Seigel had rented the city for only ten years which had long since expired.
The rejection of Rabbi Seigel's eruv by the Lithuanian community and the gradual relocation of the Orthodox community to the Upper East and West Sides led to an attempt to create an eruv around the entire borough. In 1949, the Amshinover Rebbe, Rabbi Shimon Shalom Kalish, asked Rabbi Tzvi Eisenstadt to explore the possibility of creating a Manhattan eruv. Rabbi Eisenstadt, who had studied at Slabodka and was recognized as a rabbinic scholar in both the Lithuanian and Hasidic communities, investigating the Manhattan waterfront and concluded that it was enclosed by man-made walls and that an eruv could be established. The eruv came into existence in the Spring of 1962 under the leadership of Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher, a well-known rabbinic scholar and author who lived on the Upper West Side. The long duration between the introduction of the concept and its realization was due in part to the fact that several adjustments had to be made to these man-made boundaries. However, it was largely caused by the opposition and uncertainty within the New York rabbinic community to the creation of a community eruv. While there had been eruvin in the large cities in Europe before World War II, there were very few, if any, functioning community eruvin at the time in North America. The rabbinic community was confronting an issue that would shape Shabbat observance to this day.
The first extensive treatment of this issue is found in Rabbi Moshe Feinstein's Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim vol. 1, nos. 138-140. In these teshuvot, written in 1952 and addressed to Rabbi Eisenstadt, Rabbi Feinstein outlined his belief that an eruv cannot be built around Manhattan. His arguments in these teshuvot were legal and elaborated upon in great detail and it is clear from them that he had a high regard for Rabbi Eisenstadt.
Rabbi Yosef David Moskowitz, the Shatzer Rav, was one of the strongest proponents of the Manhattan eruv. In 1954, he had taken over the leadership of the project following the passing of the Amshinover Rebbe. Five years later, in 1959, Rabbi Moskowitz published a volume entitled Tikkun Eruvim (New York, 1959) in which explained the halakhic reasons for the viability of an eruv around Manhattan. Both Rabbi Henkin and Rabbi Feinstein wrote haskamot for this volume. Rabbi Henkin began by praising Rabbi Moskowitz's scholarship and commenting on the pleasure he received knowing that there are great rabbinic scholars in America. He continued as follows: "I do not feel that we can criticize the lenient ones merely as a precaution." However, he does state that he remained uncertain as to whether the bridges and tunnels create a breach in the eruv. Rabbi Feinstein also complimented Rabbi Moskowitz on his work and wrote:
"Even though there are areas in which I believe there are other opinions, this is the way of Torah where God watches two scholars disagreeing for the sake of heaven and unquestionably Rabbi Moskowitz has written for the sake of heaven."
In the meeting of the Agudath HaRabbanim that took place on Wednesday, Parashat Beha'alotcha, the 18th of Sivan, 5762, it was decided to publicly announce the decision already made by the Agudath HaRabbanim that it is absolutely forbidden to establish an eruv in Manhattan and that it is forbidden to carry in Manhattan even after the repairs that have been made or that will be made by some rabbis. Whoever relies on the Manhattan eruv is considered a Shabbat violator.
Gedalia Halevi Schorr
Rabbi Feinstein mentioned his participation in this communication of the Agudath HaRabbanim in two places in his Iggerot Moshe. In an addendum to his responsum to Rabbi Jung, Rabbi Feinstein reviewed his earlier letter comparing the situation in Manhattan with the eruv in Brooklyn and Kew Gardens Hills. He concluded this addendum as follows:
However, shortly after my letter to Rabbi Jung, on the 18th of Sivan 5762 the rabbis of the Agudath Harabonim under the leadership of Rabbi Aharon Kotler and other heads of yeshivot met and decided to announce publicly that it is absolutely forbidden to establish an eruv in Manhattan and that it is forbidden to carry in Manhattan even after the repairs that have been made or that will be made by some rabbis.
Rabbi Henkin also remained involved with the eruv project. Rabbi Kasher described that on March 25, 1959, the rabbis who were involved with the creation of the eruv met in Rabbi Henkin's home. At that meeting Rabbi Eisenstadt reviewed his findings and discussed the bridges and tunnels explaining how each one could be incorporated into the eruv. Rabbi Henkin's position at this meeting is not discussed by Rabbi Kasher but the fact that he hosted the meeting suggests, at the very least, a strong interest in creating a halakhically permissible eruv.
On March 15, 1960, Rabbi Henkin signed as a member of the "Committee for the Sake of the Manhattan Eruv" on a letter written to the rabbis of Manhattan. In this letter, the committee reviewed the history of the eruv project and explained that the committee was ready to complete the project. They called on any rabbi or lay person with a comment either in favor or opposed to the eruv to respond within a month's time. In this communication, it is clear that Rabbi Henkin supported the creation and completion of the eruv.
Rabbi Kasher included two letters that Rabbi Henkin wrote to him. In the first letter, dated November 1, 1960, Rabbi Henkin expressed his support for the eruv while expressing some reservations especially about the bridges and the potential break they created in the eruv. At the conclusion of the letter, Rabbi Henkin wrote that he did not feel that he was the ultimate authority concerning this eruv as there were many worthy rabbis who were working on the project. In the next letter to Rabbi Kasher which is undated and which appears in the original at the conclusion of the eruv section of Divrei Menachem, Rabbi Henkin wrote that "I hang on the coattails of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein who does not criticize those who support the eruv even though he will not participate in this project." In this letter Rabbi Henkin seemed to retreat slightly from his previous view.
However, Rabbi Henkin wrote a final letter to the "Committee for the Sake of the Manhattan Eruv" which clarified his opinion. In a letter dated July 12, 1961, Rabbi Henkin outlined his position. He wrote that it is crucial to complete the eruv in Manhattan and that Manhattan is not worse than other cities where an eruv has been established. He explained that the committee was waiting for approbations from other rabbis and then would convene a conference of rabbis to finalize the eruv project. Rabbi Henkin disapproved of waiting for a rabbinic conference as he wrote, "For I know from experience that it takes much time to gather the rabbis. Rather, make the necessary repairs and then announce that the repairs have been made and that the rabbis are supervising the eruv." He noted that until the committee received the approbation of the majority of the rabbis, the eruv remained one that can only be relied upon in times "of great need." He then listed the situations he considered to be "of great need."
1. For the sake of women and children who want to go outside, especially in the summer months.
2. For the sake of doctors who need to carry on behalf of patients who are not in life threatening situations.
3. For the sake of those who need to carry on the Shabbat of Succot to the succah.
Rabbi Henkin never clarified whether he believed that this eruv had received the approbation of the majority of rabbis that he had felt was necessary. Due to lack of evidence, one can only conclude that he continued to believe that the eruv could only be relied upon in the situations he described in the July 12, 1961 letter. There was at least one Orthodox rabbi in Manhattan who advised his congregants that they could rely on the eruv as per the limitations in Rabbi Henkin's letter. However, these limitations allow us to understand Rabbi Henkin's view concerning the eruv. If the creation of an eruv was unacceptable, then carrying would not be permitted even in a situation of great need. The fact that he allowed carrying on Shabbat in a situation of great need showed that he was satisfied with the acceptability of the eruv. His problem revolved around rabbinic acceptance of the eruv and not its fundamental status. Given this consideration, it is understandable why Rabbi Henkin did not sign the letter of the Agudath HaRabbanim in 1962.
In conclusion, both Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin took active roles in the history of the establishment of the Manhattan eruv. While during the process they each expressed their approval of the project with certain hesitations, in the final analysis, Rabbi Feinstein opposed the eruv while Rabbi Henkin approved it with reservations. Neither of these great Torah sages explained what led them to follow the paths that they did. Why did Rabbi Feinstein follow Rabbi Kotler and the decision of the Agudath HaRabbanim and what was Rabbi Feinstein's role in that deliberation? Why did Rabbi Henkin ultimately sign with the members of the "Committee for the Sake of the Manhattan Eruv" and why did he not write a final conclusion concerning whether this eruv has received the necessary approbation?
The history of halakhah does not provide all the answers but it gives us a window into a fascinating and important process.
 The entire volume can be accessed here. His biography can be found in Moshe D. Sherman, Orthodox Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (Westport, CT., 1996), pp. 193-94.
 Sherman, pp. 30-31
 Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, Edut Le-Yisrael (NY, 1949), p. 151
 Rabbi Kasher described the entire eruv project in great detail in the second half of the second volume of his Divrei Menachem (Jerusalem, 1980). All subsequent references will refer to this section of his work. In 1986, a short thirty page pamphlet appeared in English edited by Shalom Carmy, entitled The Manhattan Eruv: From the Writings of Rav Menachem M. Kasher (Ktav Pub. House, 1986).
 For an extensive discussion of the history of city eruvin, see here (courtesy of EruvOnline).
 Divrei Menachem vol. 2, pp. 7-9.
 Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 9
 Hapardes 33:9 (June, 1959) reprinted in Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 31.
 Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim vol. 4, no. 89.
 This letter can be found here (courtesy of EruvOnline).
 Hapardes 40:8 (May, 1966)
 Iggerot Moshe, final volume, p. 428. It is interesting that in this responsum, Rabbi Feinstein omitted the final line of the Agudath HaRabbanim declaration calling all who rely on the eruv Shabbat violators.
 Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim, vol. 4, no. 86.
 For a discussion of Rabbi Kotler’s view on city eruvin, see here courtesy of EruvOnline).
 Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 38.
 Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, pp.10-11
 Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 14
 Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, p. 135
 This letter was printed originally in Hapardes 36:4 (January, 1962), and reprinted in Divrei Menachem, vol. 2, pp. 14-15; and Kitvei Hagriah Henkin, pp. 32-33.
 For a discussion of the erroneous claim that Rabbi Henkin signed on the 1962 letter of the Agudath Harabonim, see here (courtesy of EruvOnline).
A Historical-Culinary Survey
By Eliezer Brodt
Hamentashen. Those calorie-inflated, Atkins-defying, doughy tri-cornered confections filled with almost anything bake-able. The Mishpacha reports that this year in Israel alone, an astounding 24.5 million hamentashen will be sold, weighing 1225 tons, and yielding an approximate 33 million NIS in sales. The question that many will be asking themselves is "where did this minhag to eat hamentashen come from?"
Recently I started researching this topic; thus far (and I hope to find more) my results are as follows.
The earliest source I have located so far is in a liturgical parody from the seventeenth century, where it includes a reference to eating hamentashen. In an 1846 cook book called The Jewish Manual by Lady Judith Cohen Montefiore we find a recipe for “Haman fritters.”
R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, in his Mekor Barukh, relates the following interesting anecdote which highlights the importance his grandfather placed on eating hamentashen:
One year in the beginning of the month of Adar he [my grandfather] noticed that the bakeries were not selling hamentashen. When he inquired as to why this was so, he discovered that there was a shortage of flour. He promptly went ahead and gave the biggest bakers in the city a large sum of money to enable them to buy flour to bake hamantsashen.In a Nineteenth Century Lithuanian memoir again the import of hamentashen is apparent. The author recalls that “my sister spent the day preparing the baked delicacies of Purim. Most important were the hamentashen.” A. S. Sachs in his memories on shtetl life notes that his “grandma would add a Haman-tash for the kiddies” in the meshloach manot. Professor Simha Assaf, in an article describing Purim, also writes that people made special foods called hamentashen. Shmarya Levin recollects in his autobiography with great detail the hamentashen:
The much-loved little cakes, stuffed with nuts and poppy seed, which are called ‘Haman’s ears’ – sometimes ‘Haman’s pockets’ – had been prepared for us in vast numbers. Their shape alone was a joy. They were neither round, like rolls, nor long, like the loaf; with their triangular shape they were like nothing else that we ate during the year. The stuffing was made of poppy-seeds fried in honey, but there was not enough of it, so we used to eat the cake cagily, in such wise that with every mouthful we got at least a nibble of honeyed poppy seed.We also find hamentashen being eaten in Amsterdam and Jews from Bucharia, as well, make אזני המן, similar to hamentashen.  לאה אזני המן מנין is a comedy listed in Avraham Yari's bibliographical listing of comedies.
As we can see, the custom of eating hamentashen is widespread and common from at least the 17th century. In fact, R. Shmuel Ashkenazi pointed to some sources which may demonstrate that hamentashen were eaten even earlier. Ben Yehuda in his dictionary claims that as early as the time of the Abarbanel (1437-1508), hamentashen were consumed. The Abarbanel, discussing the food which fell from heaven, the Mon, describes these cakes as:
וצפיחית הוא מאכל הקמח מבושל בשמן כצורת צפחת המים הנאכל בדבש והוא כמו הרקיקים העושים מן הבצק כדמות אזנים מבושלות בשמן ויטבלו אותם בדבש ויקראוהו אזנים
Irrespective when the custom of eating hamentashen began, the question we need to now explore is why hamentashen, what connection do hamentashen have with Purim? Hayyim Schauss explains that in actuality the origins of the hamentashen are not Jewish, rather, we originally appropriated them from another culture. He explains that:
“the hamentashen are also of German origin. Originally they were called mohn-tashen, mohn meaning poppy seed and tashen meaning pockets and also signified dough that is filled with other food stuffs. The people therefore related the cake to the book of Esther and changed the mahn to Haman [due to its similarity]. In time the interpretation arose that the three cornered cakes are eaten because Haman wore a three cornered hat when he became prime minister to Ahasuerus. The three corners were also interpreted as a symbolic sign of the three patriarchs whose merit aided the Jews against Haman.”Another reason offered for eating hamentashen also deals with the meaning (more correctly a pun) of the word – hamentashen, because Haman wanted to kill us out and Hashem weakened him, preventing him from doing evil to us. Thus, the treat is called המן תש (Hamen became weakened). Eating these pastries is representative of our faith that the same result will befall all our antagonists.
The next reason offered by Menucha u-Kedusha has to do with the pastry itself, more specifically, how the filling is hidden. Until the events which occurred on Purim, the Jews were accustomed to open miracles like those in their battle with Sisra, whereas the Purim miracle appeared to be through natural events – only Mordechai knew that this was a miracle. To remember this, we eat pastries that the main part – the filling – is hidden in the dough, similar to the miracle which was hidden in nature. The filling chosen was specifically zeronim (seeds – poppy seed - mahn) to remind us of Daniel having eaten only seeds (and not non-kosher food) while in captivity at Nevuchadnezar's court. Furthermore, according to this source the triangular shape also has meaning. The Talmud (Megillah 19b) records a three way argument from where to start reading the megillah. As the halakhah is to follow all three opinions and start from the beginning, we cut the pastries in triangular shape to symbolize our accordance to all three opinions. Another reason mentioned in Menucha u-Kedusha for the filling is based on the writings of R. Moshe Alsheikh, who states the Jews did not really think they were going to get completely wiped out until Mordechai finally convinced them so. The possibility arises that Mordechai was afraid to keep on sending out letters, so pastries were baked and the letters hidden therein. These pastry-letters saved the Jews; in turn we eat filled pastries. This reason is a bit interesting for itself, but what is even more interesting is that he never calls the pastries hamentashen. A possibility might be kreplach, meat filled pockets boiled in soup, but the theory is unlikely as kreplach are not something special eaten exclusively for Purim – we eat it other times such as Erev Yom Kippur and Hoshana Rabah.
R. Yaakov Kamenetsky offers yet another reason for eating hamentashen on Purim. As we eat the hamentashen and eating is a form of destroying the item being eaten. Therefore, in eating hamentashen, we are fulfilling the commandment (figuratively) of destroying Amalek we are eating Hamen.
Yom Tov Lewinsky and Professor Dov New both suggest that the reason for eating the hamentashen is because the custom in the Middle Ages was to cut off the ears of someone who was supposed to be hung, to remember that we eat pastries from which a part had been cut off. Another point mentioned both by these authors is an opinion that the filling in the pastries [this is specific to poppy seeds] is in remembrance to the 10,000 silver coins that Haman offered to contribute to Achashverosh's coffers.
Aside from the general merrymaking on Purim, there is also a long tradition of written fun. Specifically, since the famous Massekhet Purim of R. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus (1286-1328), there have been many versions of these type of comedies written throughout the ages. One such was R. Avraham Mor, Kol Bo LePurim (Lemberg, 1855), which is a complete sefer all about Purim written to be humorous. Included therein is a question regarding changing the way hamentashen should be made from a triangle to make them square shape! He answered that it would be terrible to make hamentashen square. If the hamentashen are square they would have four corners which in turn would obligate the attachment of tzitzet like any clothes of four corners.
One last interesting point in regard to hamentashen can be found within Prof. Elliott Horowitz's recent book-length discussion related to Purim where he notes that as recent as 2002, a Saudi 'scholar' Umayna Ahamad al Jalahma claimed that Muslim blood can be used for the three cornered hamentashen. Horowitz also notes that in middle of the Damascus affair in 1840, a work from 1803 was discovered which claimed that Christian blood was used in the ingredients for Purim pastries. Again in 1846, Horowitz writes that “on the holiday of Purim it was claimed the Jews would annually perform a homicide in hateful memory of Haman, and if they managed to kill a Christian the Rabbi would bake the latter’s blood in triangular pastries which he would send as mishloach manot to his Christian friend.” In 1938 the Jews were once again accused of murdering an adult Christian and drying his blood to be mixed into the triangular cakes eaten on Purim.
Thanks to Rabbis Y. Tessler, A. Loketch and Yosaif M. Dubovick, and the two anonymous readers, for their help in locating some of the sources.
 Mishpacha (27 Shevat 5767), 30.
 שתו אכלו אזני המן - Israel Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature (New York, 1907), pg. 193; Davidson also suggests eating twenty-seven dishes on Purim (see p. 22).
 Lady Judith Cohen Montefiore, The Jewish Manual (London, 1846)
 R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, Mekor Barukh (vol 1, pg. 974)
 Pauline Wengeroff, Rememberings: The World of a Russian-Jewish Woman in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Bernard Dov Cooperman, trans. Henny Wenkart (University Press of Maryland, 2000), pg. 29.
 A. S. Sachs, Worlds That Passed (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1928), pg 229.
 Simha Assaf, Sefer Hamoadim, p. 29.
 Forward from Exile: The Autobiography of Shmarya Levin, ed. and trans. Maurice Samuel (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967)
 Minhagei Amsterdam pg 149 # 12
 Yalkut ha-Minhagim, pg. 210
 Hamachazeh Ha-Ivri, p. 76 n.654.
 This source is also quoted in the Otzar ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit, however the editors simply describe it as a phrase from the Middle Ages (vol 1 pg 59).
 Parashat Beshalach, end of chap. 16; Though I was unable to pin-point the comedy, it might be the one called La Reina Esther; see Mark R. Cohen, The Autobiography of a Seventeenth-Century Venetian Rabbi: Leon Modena's Life of Judah (Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 235.
 Hayyim Schauss, The Jewish Festivals (Random House, 1938; Hebrew, 1933), pg. 270. The source for the first reason can be found in Judah David Eisenstein, Otzar Dinim u-Minhagim (New York, 1917), p. 336, and for the last reason in Yitzhak Lifshitz, Sefer Ma’atamim (Warsaw, 1889), p. 86.
 Avraham Eliezer Hershkowitz, Otzar Kol Minhaghei Yeshrun (St. Louis, 1918), p. 131.
 R. Yisrael Isserl of Ponevezh writes in his Sefer Menucha u-Kedusha (Vilna, 1864), pg 271-272.
 Yaakov Michoel Jacobs, Bemechitzas Rabbeinu: Hagaon Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky, zt"l (Feldheim, 2005), p. 142.
 Yom Tov Lewinsky, Sefer Hamoadim (153-154); Dov New, Machanaim # 43; See also the forthcoming post at the Seforim blog about Hanging Haman.
 R. Avraham Mor, Kol Bo LePurim (Lemberg, 1855), pg. 6.
 Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton University Press, 2006)
 Ibid, pg. 9.
 Ibid, pg. 218.
 Ibid, pg. 219.
 Ibid, pg. 228.
In honor of Purim 5767 , Ari has recently written about Judah Wistinetzky (1844-1908) and the latter's Ayelet ha-Shahar, given as mishloach manot gift to his friends. For those of us who have not yet seen a copy of Ayelet ha-Shahar, Kinsberg provides a description of the small volume and also provides some biographical background to Judah Wistinetzky, highlighting the latter's American connections. (For example: Did you know that he had arrived in America several years prior to publishing Sefer Hasidim in 1892?!?)
See here for Ari Kinsberg's "A Litvish Maskil and His Literary Mishlo'ah Manot," where he also provides a brief biography of Wistinetzky, based on Hebrew Printing in America (vol. 1, p. 376).
In several previous posts at the Seforim blog, I have discussed instances of plagiarism and, in this post, I would like to mention one of the more famous instances of plagiarism within Jewish literature. To be clear, the issues of plagiarism under discussion lack any ambiguity, these discussed are limited to when the entire book is republished with the only difference being the authors name at the beginning.
One of the smaller and lesser known Midrashim is one titled Midrash Aggadat Bereishit. This Midrash was originally published in a collection of other small works by R. Menachem de Lonzano titled Shetei Yadot (Venice, 1618).
This Midrash languished in obscurity until 1802, until it was brought to light by R. Avraham, the son of R. Elijah, the Gaon of Vilna. R. Avraham had an intense interest in Midrashic literature and published a bibliography on the topic, entitling the work Rav Pealim. R. Avraham decided to reprint this Midrash in its own edition, although he included other small Midrashim at the end, the focus is on the Aggadat Bereishit. R. Avraham includes an extensive introduction – the subject of a minor critique by R. Matityahu Strashun of Vilna -- where R. Avraham also quotes from his father, R. Elijah, the Gaon of Vilna.
It appears that R. Avraham did too good of a job. Not two years later, in 1804, R. Yaakov b. Naftali Hertz published Midrash Aggadat Bereishit. Now, obviously, the Midrash itself was not copyrighted and both note that they are merely republishing what originally appeared in Lonzano's work, but Hertz's work did not only republish the text of this obscure Midrash, as was common within Vilna rabbinic circles at that time, but Hertz also included with small exception (discussed below) the entirety of R. Avraham's introduction.
There are, to be sure, several additional problems with Hertz's 1804 reprint. On the most basic of levels, the title page is the same as that of R. Avraham's 1802 edition [reprinted below], including the sentence which implies that this is but the second printing and that it hasn't been republished since Lonzano. The title page (in both edition) reads:
נדפס פעם ראשון בעיר ויניציא שנת שע"ח וברוב הימים נתמעטו זו אבידה שאין לה שיעור וחליפין לכן קוי ה' יחליפו כח בהתחדש העטרה ליושנה ונדפס עוד הפעםThis book was first printed in Venice in 1618 and over time this has been lost, a loss which is difficult to quantify, therefore with the help of God who gives strength to the weak, I have renewed this old crown [to its glory] and reprinted it once more.
The second issue of plagiarism, however, is a much bigger one. As mentioned above, R. Avraham didn't just republish the text of Aggadat Bereishit itself; instead, he included an introduction quoting his father, R. Elijah, the Gaon of Vilna. In Hertz's edition the same introduction similarly appears, but with several differences. Instead of ending with R. Avraham’s signature, as it does in the 1802 edition, Hertz’s is unsigned although the introduction is the same. Additionally, R. Avraham, as mentioned above, quotes from his father noting "ושמעתי ממר אבא הגאון," (I have heard from my father the Gaon); as Hertz's father wasn't the Gaon, he needed to change this or otherwise reveal his plagiarism and thus his only says "ושמעתי" ("I have heard").
Finally, there is one additional distinction that is most indicative of the two personalities. R. Avraham finishes his introduction by minimizing his contribution he states
כי לא עשיתי פה מאומה רק קבצתי ברייתות איידי דזוטרא מרכסי' וחברתי לאחד בכרך הזאתIn Hertz’s edition, however, he decided to edit this sentence – this sentence which implies humbleness – out. Perhaps one can suggest that as Hertz's intention in plagiarizing from R. Avraham was to make it appear he had done something worthwhile, including such a statement would undermine his plan.
I did not do all that much, rather all I did was gather the small berisot and placed them together in this book.
To conclude, although one may assume that a plagiarizer would typically steal from someone lesser known to minimize his chances of being found out. This instance demonstrates that no one, even the son of the Vilna Gaon, is immune from this type of behavior.
 On R. Menachem de Lonzano, see the bibliography collected in David Loewinger, "Lonzano, Menahem ben Judah de," Encyclopaedia Judaica 13 (2007): 187-188; On his recovery of obscure Midrashic texts, see Isidore Epstein, "Books and Bookmen: A Lost Midrash," London Jewish Chronicle (March 9, 1934), 24.
 On R. Avraham, the son of R. Elijah, the Gaon of Vilna, see R. S.Y. Finn, Kiryah Neemanah (Vilna, 1905), 210-221; and, more recently, see R Shlomo Gottesman, "Kuntres Chomat Avraham," Yeshurun 4 (1998): 123-154.
 Published posthumously in Warsaw, 1894.
 See R. Matityahu Strashun, Mivchar Ketavim (Mossad ha-Rav Kook, 1969), 229-230. On the famed Strashun family of Vilna, see here and, earlier, Zvi Harkavy, "Rabbi Matityahu Strashun," Areshet: An Annual of Hebrew Booklore 3 (1961): 426; and Rabbi Shmuel Strashun mi-Vilna (Jerusalem, 1957).
 For an excellent and significant survey of nineteenth century rabbinic scholars who researched and published the Midrashic literature, see Gil S. Perl, "Emek ha-Neziv: A Window into the Intellectual Universe of Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin," (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2006), 145-146.
 As is too often the case, the individuals who republish works are unaware of the bibliographic history, this case is no exception. In the Warsaw 1866 reprint and photomechanical reproduction (Jerusalem, 2000[!]) with numerous commentaries on this Midrash, the editors reprinted Hertz's 1804 introduction with just the שמעתי with the proper attribution that in fact this comment is from the Vilna Gaon. For a listing of the various editions of this Midrash and commentaries composed on it, see R. Menachem Mendel Kasher, Sari ha-Elef (Jerusalem, 1984), 22-23.
By Adam Mintz
With the growth of the American Jewish community in the early part of the twentieth century, Jews began to assimilate and the predicament of the Jewish wife whose husband had abandoned her to live with a non-Jewish woman became an ever increasing phenomenon. Many rabbis attempted to free the Jewish wife to remarry, even though she was unable to find the husband and receive a get. Some of the solutions were based on broad institutional enactments, while others dealt with the problem on a case-by-case analysis. One of the principles underlying the foundation of much of this discussion is the halakhic status of civil marriages and of weddings performed by Reform rabbis. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed about the status of these marriages and this disagreement played an important role in their view of the agunah problem. Understanding their particular views is vital for the understanding of the agunah issue and for the appreciation of the important roles that these two American rabbinic giants played on this issue.
Rabbi Henkin discussed this issue in a number of articles and teshuvot. His earliest treatment of civil marriage appears in a series of articles in Hapardes in 1934, where Rabbi Henkin argued that a civil marriage is considered a marriage according to Jewish law and that a get would be required to terminate such a marriage. He explained that a couple is considered halakhically married even though they did not have a Jewish ceremony and do not intend to be married according to Jewish law. According to Rabbi Henkin, the validity of the marriage is achieved by the fact that the couple lives together as husband and wife. He added that the Jews who see them together as a couple satisfy the requirement of witnesses in establishing the halakhic status of the marriage. In an article in his book, Perushei Ibra, Rabbi Henkin explained the rational for his position through the comparison to a similar historical situation. He quoted a fascinating responsum of Rivash, Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet (1326-1408), communal rabbi in Algeria who had fled Spain following the anti-Jewish riots of 1391. Rivash described that he was approached by a woman who had been a converso in Majorca. After she had escaped to North Africa she asked whether she could remarry even though she did not have a get from her first husband. She explained that she had been married by a priest after both she and her husband had been forced to convert to Christianity. After the marriage they had lived together as a married couple. The husband was not available to give her a get. Rivash decided in this case that the woman could remarry and did not require a get. Rabbi Henkin argued that Rivash’s case is unique as this couple was married by a priest and no longer lived among Jews. This situation, argued Rabbi Henkin, cannot be compared to the American situation where a man and woman are married by a civil authority and live together among Jews.
Rabbi Feinstein responded to Rabbi Henkin’s decision in a number of teshuvot in Iggerot Moshe. In the earliest teshuvah, dated June 28, 1959, Rabbi Feinstein argued that a civil marriage does not require termination via a get. Rather, the couple can remarry even without a get. He explained that in the United States where people easily move in and out of relationships, the fact that a couple gets married in a civil ceremony and then lives together is not considered proof that they are married according to the halakhah. He relied on the precedent of Rivash and argued that American civil marriages can be equated to that situation of the fifteenth century. Interestingly, he wrote that even though the halakhah does not require a get, if it is possible for the wife to obtain a get she should follow the opinion of Rabbi Henkin and terminate the marriage through a get. It would appear that Rabbi Feinstein would agree that in a situation where the wife received a get she would not be able to marry a kohen.
Concerning a couple that was married by a Reform rabbi, Rabbi Feinstein wrote in a number of teshuvot that this wedding is not recognized according to the halakhah and a get is not required to terminate this marriage. He explained that the only time the wedding would be valid is in a situation where there are two observant Jew who witness the ceremony. However, he claimed that even in that case the Reform rabbi often does not perform the marriage ceremony properly so the wedding would not be valid. Concerning the question of whether the fact that the couple lives together as husband and wife is a factor, Rabbi Feinstein wrote that a Reform ceremony is worse than a civil ceremony. A couple that gets married in a civil ceremony understands that this ceremony is not a Jewish one and that the fact that they live together binds them as a Jewish couple. However, a couple that is married in a Reform ceremony believes that this ceremony is a religious one and do not have the necessary intention of consummating the marriage when they live together. Nevertheless, he believed that if possible the woman should arrange to receive a get.
In 1964, Rabbi Henkin wrote a letter to an unnamed rabbi who had ruled that a get is not needed to terminate a marriage when the ceremony had been performed by a Reform rabbi. Rabbi Henkin explained:
And the wonder of wonders, which makes one’s hair stand on edge, is that you are lenient regarding a marriage performed by a Reform rabbi. Is there really a need for an officiating rabbi? If a Jewish man says to a Jewish woman “you are mine” in front of witnesses, then she becomes his wife. And, if there are no witnesses at the ceremony, the fact that they live together as a married couple for many years is considered acceptable testimony. What difference does it make if the witnesses were Reform?Rabbi Henkin admonishes this unnamed rabbi that he must not allow other rabbis to rely on this incorrect lenient opinion.
Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed regarding both civil marriages and Reform ceremonies. While the issues are connected, they revolve around different considerations. Rabbi Feinstein looked at American society as a promiscuous one in which a man and woman living together did not reflect a relationship of commitment while Rabbi Henkin saw a more traditional society where relationships reflected commitment. It is fascinating that two Torah scholars who lived several blocks from one another could see American society so differently. The generation of rabbis and scholars who immigrated to the United States from Eastern Europe were forced to reconcile their recollections of the past with the realities of the present. That reconciliation took different forms for different rabbis.
It would appear that with regard to a couple married in a Reform ceremony, the differing rulings of these two Torah giants were based on their understanding of the Reform movement. Rabbi Feinstein believed that Reform rabbis were attempting to undermine halakhic Judaism and anything that they did was problematic and needed to be avoided. On the other hand, Rabbi Henkin, while rejecting the religious positions of the Reform movement, did not feel that the Reform rabbis were a threat to the Orthodox. Consequently he felt that whether a wedding was conducted by a Reform rabbi was immaterial. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin disagreed as to the extent to which the Reform movement created a risk to the Orthodox movement.
The positions of Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin had critical implications for the issue of agunah. According to Rabbi Feinstein, if a couple was married civilly or by a Reform rabbi and then the husband refused to give a get, the wife may remarry as this marriage is not considered halakhically valid. According to Rabbi Henkin, in such a situation, the woman would require a get. It would appear that Rabbi Henkin’s understanding of civil and Reform marriages stands as a serious impediment to the resolution of the agunah problem. However, in an article written in 1928, Rabbi Henkin alerted the community to the fact that he was very much concerned with the problem of the agunah and began by describing the current situation:
In the past few years the problem of the agunah has increased in Europe and here in America. This is a question that burns in the entire world as to what we can do for our sisters to save them from the chains of agunah when their husbands disappear…For this reason there have been leniencies suggested here [the termination of civil marriages without a get]. However, since we have proven that these leniencies have no basis in halakhah, these leniencies are really stringencies to destroy lives and such should not be done in Israel.According to Rabbi Henkin, since civil marriages require a get, to allow women to remarry without a get creates illegitimate children from the second marriage.
While Rabbi Henkin felt that this approach of terminating civil marriages without a get was not a legitimate one, he was deeply committed to trying to find an acceptable solution to the agunah problem. Accordingly, Rabbi Henkin was the first American rabbi to offer a proposal to solve the Agunah problem. This proposal was suggested in the above article written in 1928 soon after his arrival in the United States. Henkin noted that the problem of agunah, experienced by women whose husbands had disappeared or by women who were unable to receive the necessary halitzah, was “a daily occurrence,” and he made the following suggestion: at the time of the wedding the husband must authorize that a get may be written and delivered in the future. He must allow the get to be written to cover a number of situations including one in which the husband refuses to provide a get to his wife for three years. At that time, the claim would be brought to a central beit din (in the original proposal, he wrote that this should be the Jerusalem beit din) and, if the beit din agrees, then a get would be written even if the husband opposes the writing at that time. Rabbi Henkin called for this proposal to be discussed and voted upon in a meeting of rabbis and that if approved, it would remain the standard practice for fifty years.
However, in 1930 a development impacted on Rabbi Henkin’s proposal before it had the chance to be acted upon. Rabbi Louis Epstein, a leading Conservative rabbi from Boston and the president of the Rabbinical Assembly and its Committee on Jewish Law, suggested that prior to every marriage, the husband should appoint his wife as an agent to execute a divorce on his behalf. Thus, if the husband disappears or refuses to grant the get, the wife can, in effect, divorce herself. In that same year, Rabbi Epstein published a volume entitled Hatza’ah Lemaan Takanat Agunot that attempted to prove the halakhic foundation for this proposal. In 1935, the Rabbinical Assembly, the rabbinic body of the Conservative movement, initially voted to accept this proposal.
In his volume, Rabbi Epstein described how he sent copies of his book to close to 1,000 rabbis asking for their opinions on his proposal. He explained that he received very few responses. While one of the letters was critical of his work, most of the letters were complimentary but argued that he could not proceed without the consensus of the leading halakhic authorities. He seemed encouraged by the nature of these responses inasmuch as they were not critical of his halakhic reasoning. Among the letters that he received was a letter from Rabbi Henkin dated February 18, 1931. In this letter, Rabbi Henkin apologized for not having the time to study the book carefully. While Rabbi Henkin proceeded to make certain halakhic suggestions to Rabbi Epstein, the letter was in no way dismissive of his efforts. He even concluded the letter with the practical advice that if he wanted to send copies to all the rabbis of Europe as he proposed, it would become a very expensive undertaking.
The Orthodox rabbinate responded to Rabbi Epstein’s proposal with disapproval and the Agudath HaRabbanim convened a meeting of rabbis during which various halakhic presentations were made arguing that Rabbi Epstein’s proposal was both impractical and halakhically unsound. In 1937, a volume was published by the Agudath HaRabbanim entitled Le’Dor Aharon which included correspondence from leading rabbis around the world opposing Rabbi Epstein’s proposal. In 1940, Rabbi Epstein published Le’Sheelat Ha-Agunah in which he attempted to support his view in light of the strong rabbinic opposition. The Orthodox rabbinate did not respond to this second volume and Rabbi Epstein’s proposal was never actually adopted in practice by the Conservative movement.
Rabbi Henkin wrote an article that was included in Le’Dor Aharon. In his lengthy essay, he explained his halakhic opposition to Rabbi Epstein’s proposal. Among other considerations, he concluded that it is nonsensical for the husband to appoint his wife to serve as the agent to write the get as she is the one who will be receiving the divorce.
Then he added:
“And I have already written that the reason that I have become involved in this battle is due to the fact that he [Rabbi Epstein] mentioned my proposal for the freeing of agunot … and I must escape from this comparison…My proposal was merely a suggestion and not meant as a halakhic decision…and when the volume Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin was published, I retracted from my position for even the greatest scholar has to follow the majority view.”Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin is a volume published in Vilna in 1930 by Judah Lubetsky, an Eastern European rabbinic scholar who served for many years as a rabbi in Paris. The volume was published in response to a decision by the Agudat Rabbanei Tzarfat in 1908 to allow a Jewish woman to remarry after a civil divorce based on a condition made at the time of the wedding that if the couple where to be divorced by the civil authorities then retroactively the original marriage would be nullified. Rabbi Lubetsky collected letters from rabbinic scholars from around the world condemning this opinion and explaining that such a condition at the time of the marriage would not be valid and that the couple would still need a get.
Indeed, it would seem probable that in 1931 when Rabbi Henkin had written his initial letter to Rabbi Epstein he had not yet seen Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin and therefore did not reject Rabbi Epstein’s proposal at that time. By 1937, he had read Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin and felt compelled to both reject Rabbi Epstein’s proposal and to retract his own view. In the reprinted edition of Perushei Ibra, the pages that contain his initial proposal are bracketed with the words “hadru be” (I have retracted) written in the margin. While it is not clear whether this remarkable editorial decision was made by Rabbi Henkin or the editor of the later reprinted volume, it reflects both the seriousness and the sensitivity with which this issue was taken.
In the Iggerot Moshe, Rabbi Feinstein never made any reference to Rabbi Henkin’s proposal regarding agunot. While Rabbi Feinstein did not arrive in America until 1936 and may not have been aware of Rabbi Henkin’s proposal before it was retracted in 1937, Rabbi Henkin was well-known among Eastern European rabbis and his decisions would have been available to Rabbi Feinstein even before his arrival in New York. However, there is another variable that must be considered to explain Rabbi Feinstein’s lack of reference to this proposal. Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin took different approaches to the attempt to solve the agunah problem. Rabbi Feinstein tried to free individual agunot as they approached him with their unique situations. As a posek, Rabbi Feinstein responded to individuals on a case by case basis and did not look for institutional policies. As a communal rabbi, Rabbi Henkin dealt both with individual cases and broad policies. His position concerning civil and Reform marriages was important for American Jewish life but did not impact on his institutional proposal for the resolution of the agunah problem. His agunah proposal was never enacted but nevertheless reflects the rabbinic approach that Rabbi Henkin embodied.
Rabbi Henkin’s proposal, although "officially" retracted, has been cited in halakhic literature since 1937. Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits, the foremost disciple of Rabbi Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg and a leading Jewish philosopher of the American Orthodox community, offered a resolution to the agunah problem in 1967 in a volume entitled Tnai Be-Nisuin u-ve-Get. In this volume he reviewed the history of halakhic literature concerning the validity of a conditional marriage and argued for the introduction of a conditional marriage to prevent the tragedy of agunah. At the end of the book, he referred to Rabbi Henkin’s retraction of his proposal in 1937. Rabbi Berkovits wrote “We revere Rabbi Henkin’s greatness and piety. Yet, one is not permitted to sway from the truth as it appears to him.” Rabbi Menachem Kasher, in his critique of Rabbi Berkovits’ thesis, relied on the fact that Rabbi Henkin had rejected conditional marriages. Rabbi Henkin, thirty years after he retracted his proposal, is still being utilized for both sides of this argument.
Finally, in an article in The Edah Journal in 2005, Rabbi Michael J. Broyde, an Atlanta-area rabbi, professor of law at the Emory University Law School and dayan in the Beth Din of America, offered a theoretical proposal to help free agunot. He explained that for the proposal to have any chance of acceptance among the rabbinic community it would need to combine three mechanisms into a single document:
"The three elements would be: conditions applied to the marriage (tenai be-kiddushin), authorization to give a get (harsha’ah), and broad communal ordinance to void a marriage (taqqanat ha-qahal)… Indeed, in the twentieth century alone, one can cite a list of luminary rabbinic authorities who have validated such agreements in one form or another, including Rabbi Yosef Eliyahu Henkin…”While this proposal is still only in the theoretical phase, Rabbi Henkin’s argument plays an important role in its formulation.
In the introduction to Perushei Ibra, Rabbi Henkin explained that he wrote this volume to correct the mistakes that have arisen in America in the area of marriage and divorce and to restore “the law to its proper foundations.”
Rabbi Henkin’s innovation and courage continue to set a model in this difficult yet critical area.
 One rabbi who tirelessly dealt with issues of husband desertion was Rabbi Shaul Yedidyah Shochet, author of the Responsa volumes Sefer Tiferet Yedidyah (St. Louis, 1920), where nearly two-thirds of the first volume relates to agunot and gittin. See Jeremy Bressman, “‘Hurled into a World of Freedom’: Marital Breakdown in the American Jewish Immigrant Community,” (unpublished seminar thesis, Columbia University, 2006), 18. I thank Menachem Butler for providing this source.
 Hapardes 8:6 (September, 1934): 3-4; Hapardes 8:7 (October, 1934): 7-10 and Hapardes 8:8 (November, 1934): 10-12, reprinted in Lev Ivra (New York, 1956), 12-20. For an extensive and well-researched analysis of the disagreement between Rabbis Feinstein and Henkin concerning both civil marriages and Reform ceremonies, see Norman Frimer and Dov Frimer, “Reform Marriages in Contemporary Halakhic Responsa," Tradition 21:3 (Fall 1984): 7-39.
 Perushei Ibra (New York, 1943) pp. 87-117. Perushei Ibra was reprinted as the first volume of Kitvei Hagri’a Henkin (New York, 1981).
 Rivash, no. 4; For a brief discussion of this period, see Philippe Wolff, "The 1391 Pogrom in Spain: Social Crisis or Not?" Past & Present 50 (1971): 4-18.
 Iggerot Moshe (New York, 1961), Even Haezer I, no. 74.
 Iggerot Moshe Even Haezer I, no. 76.
 Iggerot Moshe, Even Haezer IV, no. 75.
 Hapardes 38:7 (October, 1964): 5-6 and reprinted in Kitvei Hagri’a Henkin vol. 2, pp. 123-125.
 Neither Rabbi Feinstein nor Rabbi Henkin discussed whether their decisions would be extended to a ceremony officiated by a Conservative rabbi. According to Rabbi Henkin there should be no difference. However, the question remains whether Rabbi Feinstein would have required a get to terminate a wedding officiated by a Conservative rabbi.
 Perushei Ibra, p. 110
 Perushei Ibra, pp. 110-117.
 Le-She'elat Ha-Agunot (New York, 1940), p. 16
 This letter can be found in Tzvi Gertner and Bezalel Karlinsky, “Ain Tnai Be’Nisuin,” Yeshurun 9 (2001): 888.
 See Moshe Meiselman, Jewish Women in Jewish Law (New York, 1978), 105-107, and Marc B. Shapiro, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox (University of Scranton Press, 2006), 11-13, for various descriptions (and full documentation [!] in the latter source) of the events surrounding -- and the Orthodox responses to -- the Epstein proposal.
 Le’Dor Aharon (Brooklyn, NY, 1937), pp. 105-110.
 Le’Dor Aharon, p. 109
 The events leading to the writing of this volume are described in the introduction to Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin (Vilna, 1930), 11-15. According to a letter in the London Jewish Chronicle written by a longtime rabbinical judge on the London Beth Din, Ain Tnai Be-Nisuin first appeared in 1928. The reissued 1930 edition appeared in an enlarged edition with a new forward by Rabbi Hayyim Ozer Grodzensky. See Dayan Harris M. Lazarus, "Liberalism and Orthodoxy: The Problem of the Aguna," London Jewish Chronicle (November 1, 1946), 11.
 Rabbi Aharon Kotler, who did not arrive in the United States until 1941, was aware and sharply critical of Rabbi Henkin’s proposal. See Mishnat Rabbi Aharon, vol 2 (Lakewood, NJ, 1985), no. 60. It is possible that Rabbi Kotler’s criticism influenced Rabbi Henkin’s decision to retract.
 Eliezer Berkovits, Tnai Be-Nisuin u-ve-Get (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 170.
 “Be-Inyan Tnai be-Nisuin,” Noam 12 (1970): 148. For a plethora of meticulous citations and a lucid description of the debate between Rabbis Berkovits and Kasher, see Marc B. Shapiro, Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy: The Life and Works of Rabbi Jehiel Jacob Weinberg 1884-1966 (Littman Library, 1999), 190-192, especially the extensively researched footnote 83.
 Michael J. Broyde, "Review Essay: An Unsuccessful Defense of the Bet Din of Rabbi Emanuel Rackman: The Tears of the Oppressed," The Edah Journal 4:2 (Winter, 2005): 17, available here.
 Perushei Ibra, p. 16.
by Marc B. Shapiro
The Torah world lost a very important figure earlier this month, with the passing of R. Yosef Buxbaum at age 62. In fact, I can’t think of anyone, in the entire history of Torah publishing, who achieved as much as he.
There is a lot that can be said about Rabbi Buxbaum, but for the purposes of the Seforim blog his relevant achievement is the founding, and directing for many years, of Machon Yerushalayim. While at one time Mossad ha-Rav Kook was the center for critical editions of the rishonim, this is no longer the case. Make no mistake about it: Mossad ha-Rav Kook deserves enormous credit for its wonderful Kafih and Chavel editions as well its the critical editions of the Ritva, Ran, Rashba and others. But in recent decades Machon Yerushalayim has taken center stage in this area and truly revolutionized Torah study. This is an amazing achievement that began some forty years ago with Otzar Mefarshei ha-Talmud.
Who can learn today without the Machon Yerushalayim edition of the Tur? Only in this editions has the Tur been restored to its pristine glory. Much like the Frankel Rambam -- finally completed earlier this month -- is now the only acceptable edition for those who are serious about Mishneh Torah, so too the Machon Yerushalayim edition of the Tur has become a requirements for serious Torah scholars.
The Machon Yerushalayim edition of the Shulhan Arukh is also indispensable (although in this case, other publishers are also involved in producing what will be, when complete, the only reliable edition). It is possible to go on about the numerous other important works, from rishonim and acharonim, published by Machon Yerushalayim, as well as the groundbreaking journal Moriah. However, I would like to call attention to what I think is Rabbi Buxbaum’s most lasting achivement, and it has to do with sociology.
It was Rabbi Buxbaum who brought a central tool of crtical scholarship, namely, the ability to edit manuscripts, to the haredi world. He also who taught the haredi world at large how to appreciate a critical edition. It is now no longer regarded as “maskilish” to produce, or use, a critical text. In fact, to repeat what I have already said, those serious about learning know that when they need to examine a responsum of the Rosh, Rashba, Rivash and so many others the Machon Yerushalayim edition is the only place to turn.
Another great achievement — and it remains to be seen if it will last — was that he was able to preside over a unity in Torah scholarship in a way not seen in the last fifty years. Much like his teacher, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l, was unique in that all segments of the Torah world related to with the greatest esteem, Machon Yerushalayim was also able to achieve this rare feat. Rabbi Buxbaum did this by inviting gedolim from all the different camps, and from both the Ashkenazic and Sephardic worlds, to be involved with Machon Yerushalayim. Many of them were given honorary positions in the various sections most suited for them and there was a section devoted to Sephardic Jewry, German Jewry, Hungarian Jewry, etc.
Who else but Rabbi Buxbaum would have been able to bring together in one undertaking, gedolim with such different hashkafot as R. Yitzhak Yaakov Weiss (author of SHU"T Minhat Yitzhak), R. Ovadiah Yosef (author of, among other works, SHU"T Yabia Omer and SHU"T Yehave Da'at), and R. Avraham Shapira, Rosh Yeshiva of Merkaz ha-Rav (who edited Machon Yerushalayim’s edition of Zekher Yitzchak by the gaon of Ponovezh, R. Isaac Jacob Rabinowitz).
Machon Yerushalayim, at one and the same time, has projects with the Edah Haredit, various haredi yeshivot, Yeshivat Shaalvim and Yeshiva Beit El, among others. Where else but under the auspices of Machon Yerushalayim can you find yeshiva bachurim with such divergent hashkafot engaged in the holy work of editing the writings of rishonim and acharonim?
Machon Yerushalayim’s wings extend to the Diaspora as well, and let me just note one example: The R. Yitzhak Elhanan Spektor project is being carried out together with Yeshiva University and when completed will include ten volumes.
To learn more about this incredible man whose loss must be mourned by the entire Torah world, see here (Hebrew).
 Some might wish to compare Moriah with Yeshurun, and indeed they do have a lot in common. But note that while Yeshurun is more liberal than the typical haredi journal, and will thus publish writings by R. Kook, articles by contemporary gedolim of the religious-Zionist camp, not to mention leading figures of Yeshiva University, are still regarded as off limits by this publication.
A Non-Orthodox Traditional Approach:
Reflections on the Authority
of the Moroccan Rabbinate
Rubin Shul - Yeshiva University Wilf Campus
Refreshments will be served
Sponsored by the Torah u-Madda Lecture Series,
Center for Jewish Future
For more information, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
By Eliezer Brodt
Another such person, who has had a similarly prolific posthumous literary output – although he did publish Torah novella in his own life time – is R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995). After his death there has been a printing explosion of his writings covering all topics, including reprints of everything he has ever written! The only works of his not to be reprinted are two amazing works: the Meori Aish – a classic study on electricity and muktzah – and his Madeni Aretz on Shevi'it, as these two works have connections to one of the more controversial gedolim of the past century, R. Avraham Yitzchak Ha-Kohen Kook. As the Meori Aish has a haskamah from Rav Kook and the Madenei Aretz deals at great length with Rav Kook’s views on Shevi'it.
For this post, however, I would just like to limit my focus to one of these recent works on R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach -- Halikhot Shlomo.
A few years ago R. Aron Auerbach and R. Y Terger started to print this work. It was printed by Feldheim for a rather low price. The first volume began with Hilkhot Tefilah and Berakhot. After that, they published a second volume discussing the Yom Tovim starting with Rosh Hashana until and including Purim. (Last year they released a limited edition of the Pesach section.) And this year, the third volume has just been published, completing the Yom Tovim, on Pesach and the rest of the year. The goal of this work is to collect everything spanning the gamut of R. Shlomo Zalman’s halakhic interests related to these topics of Tefilah, Berakhot and the Yom Tovim. These volumes are all well organized, culled from all the printed sources and from incidents recorded by his various students. Aside from these sources, they used many manuscripts and notes of R. Shlomo Zalman which have remained unpublished until this point. They try to reference exactly where everything came from; but, at times, this too becomes a bit confusing. The sefer has a nice layout the top part contains the statement of R. Shlomo Zalman, as well as his reasoning for the various pesakim. In the extensive footnotes, the editors demonstrate the breadth of where everything comes from. Sometimes they cite other sources on the topics under discussion. They also include many interesting stories, statements, and anecdotes of advice that R. Shlomo Zalman gave to different people. In addition to all this they include many interesting discussions of R. Shlomo Zalman on Aggadah. At the end of each volume, there is a collection of some lengthier pieces on relevant topics. Besides for all this they included a very thorough index assisting the interested reader in finding almost anything mentioned throughout in the sefer.
I would just like to quote a few interesting discussions from each volume for examples of what makes this work so special as there are literally thousands of gems scattered throughout this work.
While talking about having perfectly squared tefillin, R. Shlomo Zalman says that its good enough if, according to viewing it with your eyes and that you do not have to measure the tefillin with a ruler. He than goes on to say - at great length - that the Torah goes according to ones eyes for everything including examining for bugs and checking etrogim (Halikhot Shlomo 1:53, and the footnotes therein).
On the topic of chumrot he writes that one should not just be machmir because he feels like it. Instead, such a position should be reached from one’s own understanding of the topic and that, in this instance, it is in fact the correct position. He contrasts this with the tendency, which can be attributed to many chumrot, which is a result of only utilizing secondary sources and not focusing on the primary sources. He goes on to write that he was very bothered when he would see people walking on shabbat and their wives would be pushing the baby carriages because the man held for himself it was prohibited to use an eruv. He writes that when he was young he was machmir and did not rely on the eruv but, when he got married, he was mater neder (annulled his vow) to be able to help his wife (Halikhot Shlomo 1:55).
Elsewhere they record, that R. Shlomo Zalman once met a chattan walking to shul without a shomer so he accompanied him until he got a shomer. R. Shlomo Zalman explained his actions that already the motzei shabbat before one gets married he is already called a chattan in regard to this that he needs a shomer (Halikhot Shlomo 1:63 [note 26]). He writes that a matmid is not one who learns many hours in the day but rather it is someone who learns set times carefully keeping them everyday (Halikhot Shlomo 1:67 [note 56]). He writes that a mourner can learn hilkhot aveilut in-depth during the week of shiva (Halikhot Shlomo 1:75 [note 11]). Also included is an interesting and in-depth step-by-step teshuva process (Halikhot Shlomo 1:77 [note 23]).
At the end of this volume, the editors printed a very interesting piece on the topic of saying ר' פלוני בן ר' פלוני – specifically the use of the Rabbi appellation – when calling someone up for an aliya at kriyat haTorah. R. Yosef Zechariah Stern writes that one should not say the title Reb because it is a problem of גבהות in front of God. R Shlomo Zalman, however, defends this custom at great length as we find everyone uses this title. He explains that the reason for its usage was because there are many different prayer customs that Chazal made to go against the tzedukim (צדוקים) to show that we have the Torah - both written and oral. So too, in the times of the Rishonim, there were people who denied the historicity of torah shebal peh, and these individuals were called Karaites; whereas the more-traditional sect of Jews were called Rabanim, and this is why when we call someone to the Torah we say “Reb” to show that he is not a karaite (Halikhot Shlomo 1:370-373; also included, in short, in the third volume, Halikhot Shlomo 3:33- 34).
Some interesting points from volume two include: The famous topic of the prayer Machniseh Rachamim and how can it be said as it appears that we are praying to the angels. R. Shlomo Zalman responds to this concern and explains that one can pray to an angel if it is his job to carry the prayers – that is his job! Further, this is why one can sing the song Shalom Aleichem on Friday night as we are only asking them to do their job. However, he said the nussach which appears in kiddush levanah "כשם שאני רוקד כנגדך וכו' כל לא יוכל כל אויבי לנגוע בי לרעה" makes it appears as if we are praying to the moon and is a mistake! Instead, it should read כשם שאני רוקד כנגדה (Halikhot Shlomo 2:4). When asked which kavonot one should have during the blowing of the shofar he said just that the Torah simply says to blow shofar! (Halikhot Shlomo 2:24). Another interesting idea is that R. Shlomo Zalman did not bless people with sticking out his hands except on very infrequent occasions. He quoted R S Alphandrei that there is no source for giving ones hand in chazal but rather its chukat hagoyim! (Halikhot Shlomo 2:10). At the end of the sefer include, as well, is a very interesting selection as to why the holiday of Hoshanah Rabbah, as a day of judgment or not, is not mentioned in the Torah (Halikhot Shlomo 2:428-434).
The third volume of Halikhot Shlomo is the largest thus far, comprising over six hundred pages with many, many interesting and fascinating pieces.
Just to list a few: R. Shlomo Zalman writes that it’s very important to learn Masekhet Moed Koton and Hilkhot Aveilut as well, even though the Hatam Sofer (and others) said that one should not learn it (Halikhot Shlomo 3:439). On Tisha B’Av, R. Shlomo Zalman would read books about the Holocaust (Halikhot Shlomo 3:440). There is also an interesting discussion about the reason of the Mishneh Berurah as to why we eat dairy on Shavuot (Halikhot Shlomo 3:380-381). In regard to Pesach there is an amazing original piece as to why the bechorim (first born) fast on Erev Pesach. R. Shlomo Zalman writes that if it is solely due to the fact that the bechorim were saved from death, then all of the descendants of the bechorim should also fast – not just bechorim! (The answer is a bit more complex and includes several other components to this answer, as well.) To this, R. Shlomo Zalman says that the reason for the fast is not for the fact that they were saved but rather it was because the bechorim were supposed to do the avodah in the Beit Hamikdash, but that they lost it due to the sin of the Golden Calf. So on the fourteenth day of Nissan when they came to the Beit Hamikdash and they saw the kohanim and levi’im doing the beautiful avodah they felt very sad so they did not eat. So they decided to make a day to remember this as there was one time they were able to do this – when Hashem skipped over the houses and to atone for the Golden Calf which caused them to lose this great job (Halikhot Shlomo 3:179-180).
In sum, the Halikhot Shlomo is an excellent work and all in all, I feel that this is a beautiful work and well worth the money.
 Upon hearing this aphorism, one cannot help but reflect on the passage in the Talmud: "R. Yohanan said in the name of R. Shimon bar Yochai: Any talmid hakham whose teachings are recited in this world, his lips move in the grave" (Yevamot 97a).
 Although the Hatam Sofer is the most popular target of posthumous publishing, in fact he did publish one work in his lifetime – although this is not well known. This is probably because his most famous work, his responsa volumes SHU"T Hatam Sofer, were published after he died. The Hatam Sofer died in 1839 and his teshuvot were not published until 1855. But, in the 1826 edition of the Hiddushei R”I Megash on Masekhet Shavout, there was appended a "Kuntres" which contains two Torah pieces and six teshuvot from the Hatam Sofer.
 For a discussion of the famous 1799 ruling of the Vilna beit din where they officially prohibited the ascribing any work to the R. Elijah, Gaon of Vilna which had not been personally sanctioned by that rabbinical body, see Gil S. Perl, "Emek ha-Neziv: A Window into the Intellectual Universe of Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin," (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 2006), pp. 219, 226. Notwithstanding this prohibition, works ascribed to R. Elijah, Gaon of Vilna continued to appear for over two centuries. See also the introduction Yeshayahu Vinograd, Ozar Sifre ha-GRA (Jerusalem, 2003) for an extensive discussion surrounding the 1799 ruling of the Vilna beit din.
The first issue -- see below for two excerpted pages -- contains, inter alia, the text of the various bans on the book. The editors also claim - according to the ban they reproduce - that R. Chaim Kanievsky issued a ban on the book. On the other side of this particular claim is an article which appeared in Dei'ah veDibur which states that the book was done with R. Kanievsky's approval. For an earlier discussion (circa August 2006) at the Seforim blog of the BaDaTz herem against R. Dov Eliach's HaGaon, see here; and for pictures of burning copies of HaGaon, see here. Aside from the various bans and the like, the magazine also contains examples where they attempt to show R. Eliach distorted sources or took out of context.
Additionally, I am unsure if the book is even available anymore, from my admittedly unscientific survey of Seforim stores, the book appears to be out-of-print.
Two journals have put out special collections devoted to Pesach. The first, Moriah, has continued their holiday specific journals and collected their third volume of articles devoted to Pesach. Yeshurun, for the first time has also collected choice articles related to a specific holiday and published a volume devoted to Pesach as well.
Yeshurun’s effort, being their first, is the focus of this post. This volume is much smaller than their typical volumes. Usually, each volume of Yeshurun is huge – over 700+ pages – with this volume, however, the articles comprise a “mere” 300+ pages. Aside from articles related to Pesach, this volume contains an index to the first 10 volumes of Yeshurun.  The index contains indexes of persons, books, topics, and sources (Bible verse, Mishna, Talmud etc.). Although any index is most welcome (especially in light of how large the volumes are) and this index is pretty comprehensive but I am unsure why they decided to leave out an index of authors. That is, the index of persons is limited to persons discussed in articles, not those who actually wrote the articles. So if one wants to look up all the articles written by person X, they are out of luck for now.
Aside from the issue of lack of an author index I found a much more glaring problem in this volume. The volume includes an article discussing the song Had Gadyah. This article has numerous flaws. First, the author of the article is Tuvia Fruend. Tuvia Fruend has authored a series of books on the holidays “Mo’adim l’Simcha.” These books contain articles related to the holidays. Fruend’s modus operandi for Mo’adim l’Simcha is to find a good article on the topic and then repackage it – or at times – just plagiarize it. What is particularly surprising in this context is that one article he is clearly guilty of plagiarizing is one which appeared in Yeshurun – by one of the editors of Yeshurun! As I have previously shown, Fruend copied it verbatim, without citation, and even repeated typographical errors. Why then, Yeshurun would give Fruend a forum is difficult to understand.
Second, the article itself is problematic. This article appears in Fruend’s Mo’adim l’Simcha and this is a reprint of that article.  This time, however, all the footnotes are removed. Additionally, even though there are no footnotes, there are also almost no citations in this article. Instead, we have statements such as this “according to many scholars”  – without saying who those scholars are or where they can be found. Further, Fruend, in one of the few actual citations, says “in the journal Machnim issue 54, 1961 there appears” where he notes the article in Machnim records a different version of this song. Fruend doesn’t tell us who the author of the article was – A. M. Habermann. Additionally, Fruend makes it appear that the only value of this article is the alternative language. But, if one looks up the article, the article discusses not only the alternative reading but includes other sources which shed light on Had Gadyah, sources which Fruend uses in his article.
Further, Fruend’s reliance on Habermann’s article are apparent in the last part of Fruend’s article. Fruend lists (and discusses some) of the books devoted to explaining Had Gadyah. Fruend, although never notes that Habermann had complied a list previously – in an article that Fruend had already noted he had seen.
Finally, there are some bibliographical errors which appear in the article. First, while minor, Fruend, for the number of Haggadah published uses Ya’ari’s bibliography. Although Ya’ari’s bibliography of the Haggadah is a fine bibliography it is significantly incomplete. Yudlov’s, more recent, bibliography ("The Haggadah Thesaurus") contains almost double the amount of Haggadahs. Second, the bibliographical information Fruend provides for some of the books devoted to Had Gadyah are in error. The first book on the list is Mogen David by R. David b. Meshulam. Fruend gives the date 1745, this, however, is incorrect. The actual printing date is 1755.  The second bibliographical error is according to Fruend the commentary on Had Gadyah, Pesach Tikvah, was published in
 The editors note that the index to the balance of the volumes is in process and will be published in due time.
 It may be that Fruend also previously published this article in Yeshurun as well, but as they have no author index I was unable to confirm that this article appeared in Yeshurun before. Even if this the first time he published in Yeshurun, I don’t understand why some of the errors below were not corrected by any of the editors of Yeshurun.
 This statement also appears in the original article in Mo’adim l’Simcha without citation there either.
 In order to figure out the date one must add up the bold letters which appear in the legend בשנת ליל שמורים הוא לה' which adds up to 515 i.e. the year 5, 515 which converts to 1755. Perhaps Fruend’s date was due to a mathematical error.
 The date of publication may not actually be this date. This is so as included on the title page is a legend which reads “to know the week and the year [of the printing of this book] when it was finished completely.” Yudolov admits that he is unable to figure out what the publisher meant by this line. Yudolov, however, bases his dating on C.D. Friedberg. Although there may be some question about the exact date, the date offered by Freund is impossible. This is so, as the printer was Johann Kelner. Kelner printed between the years 1708-1730. Thus, Fruend’s date of 1785 is impossible – at least if Kelner printed this book.
 In truth there is a more troubling error to the whole article. Fruend fails to discuss the significant evidence that Had Gadyah is merely a popular folksong which was borrowed and converted for use at the Seder. While Fruend does discuss those who downplay this assertion, he doesn’t discuss any of the counter-evidence or fully explain the issue.
Mossad ha-Rav Kook is publishing volume eight of Prof. Daniel Sperber's Minhagei Yisrael and also reprinting the late Prof. Meir Hershkovics' biography of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes (Maharetz Chajes); both will be available next week in Jerusalem. Copies of these volumes will be available at Mossad ha-Rav Kook (02-652-6231) starting the end of this week and should be arriving in America at Biegeleisen in Boro Park (718-436-1165) within a week or two of being published.
Additionally -- earlier tonight, Prof. Marc B. Shapiro delivered the second annual Dr. Asher Siev Memorial Lecture at Yeshiva University, entitled "A Non-Orthodox Traditional Approach: Reflections on the Authority of the Moroccan Rabbinate." The lecture was very well received by those in the audience and the lecture is available for download here [17 megabytes].
Reflections on the Past and Present
by Eliezer Brodt
Every year, besides for the new Haggadahs being printed, old ones are reprinted, some in photo off-set editions, others with completely retype set. One such Haggdah that has been reprinted and retype-set is the Haggadah Marbeh Lesaper. The author is R. Yididiah Tiyah Weil the son of R. Nesanel Weil, the author of the well-known commentary on the Ro”SH – the Korbon Nessanel. This Haggadah was first printed in 1791 and until 2002 it was never reprinted. See Yudolov, The Haggadah Thesaurus pg. 32 #355). Others point out an interesting bibliographical note, specifically that there is no mention of the author on the title page. There is, however, a haskamah (letter of approbation) from Reb Yididiah Weil to the sefer. However, we know that aside from giving a haskamah, he is also the author. R. Eliezer Fleckeles in his sefer Teshuva MeAhavah (vol. 2 siman 239) writes that Reb Yididiah Weil is the author. R. Fleckeles points out that in the Haggadah, the author cites from his father the Korbon Nessanel. Additionally, today we can be certain that R. Yididiah is the author as we have the original manuscript of this work in R. Yedidyah's handwriting is sitting at the Jewish National and University Library on the Givat Ram campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Ms. Heb. 8°2744).
A bit of biographical information about R. Yedidiah. He was born in 1722 and died in 1806 at the age of 84. He was a student of both his father the Korban Nesanel, and R. Yonason Eibyshutz, and served as the Rav of Karlsruh, and as the Rosh Yeshiva. He wrote much, however, aside for this Haggadah nothing else of his was printed until 1977. And, although some has been published, much of his work remains in manuscript as is apparent here.
The style of this Haggadah is not limited to peshat, rather he includes much in the style of derush and remez. It has many original and interesting explanations on the Haggadah. He also quotes a few things from his father the Korbon Nessanel. Additionally he cites to “old manuscripts” which he found as well.
I would like to give a few samples of the many interesting points I found throughout this Haggadah not specifically related to Pesach. He brings that he heard Jews have one more tooth then non-Jews, 16 on top and 16 on bottom (pg. 33). While discussing if there was the plague of lice afflicted even the Jews, as it appears from the well known Midrash that Yaakov did not want to be buried in Egypt as he didn’t want his body affected by the lice plague. R. Weil wants to suggest that in fact the lice did enter even Goshen, however, this was limited to the animals and did not affect the people themselves. (pg 58). He has an interesting explanation regarding the Midrash that says Yishai, the father of Dovid haMelech, had planned a relationship with his handmaid which supposedly should have resulted in Dovid haMelech's birth; Dovid's mother having switched places with the handmaid resulted in Dovid haMelech being a suspect mamzer in his father's eyes.  (pg 100) He brings from an “old manuscript” that the author of Nishmas was ר' שמעון בן כיפא . (pg 114). Another point which he cites to an “old manuscript” is that Shlomo Hamelech wrote ישתבח.(pg 121). He writes that on Yom tov there is a נשמה יתירה although we do not make a מיני בשמים after Yom Tov (pg 115). He also says there are two types of נשמה יתירה on shabbos, although not everyone gets them (pg 115). He brings an interesting discussion from his uncle R. Avraham Brodie about the possibility that Sarah's pregnancy with Yitzchak lasted 12 months (pg 124- 125). He says that he heard the פיוטים חד גדיא ואחד מי יודע were found on a manuscript from the Beis Medrash of the R. Elazar Rokeach (pg 140 and pg 151). He writes that many do not like to say הרחמן הוא יקים לנו סוכת דוד הנופלת on Shabbos and Yom tov because the Beit Hamikdash can not be built on shabbat and Yom Tov. However he writes they are mistaken because Rashi and Tosafot both write (see Rosh Hashanah 30a) that the third Beit Hamikdash will be built by Hashem Himself, which could be even on shabbat and Yom Tov (pg 138). He poses an interesting question in regard to the minhag brought down in the Shulhan Arukh. On Pesach the custom is to use fancy flatware as well as other fancy utensils. The rest of the year, however, we refrain from doing so due to zecher le-churban. Why then, on Pesach can we ignore the concept of zecher l’churbon. He answers from his father that this is the hidden meaning behind חד גדיא, that we remember the churban of both batei mikdash. He then goes on to explain exactly how it is hidden (pg 148).
Feldheim Publishers is to be commended for their choice in investing to reprint this valuable Haggadah, and making it accessible to the Torah community. I heard the sefer has recently gone out of print; my hopes are that Feldheim will see to make the sefer available once again.
 See the Introduction to R. Weil’s Hiddushe Rabbi Yedidiah Weil: Masekhet Niddah (Machon Ahvat Shalom, 2003).
 Yalkut Mechiri 118:28. See also Birkei Yosef O"Ch 240:4, Siddur HaYaavetz; Siddur HaShL"H to Hallel, and Pesach Einayim to Sotah 10b and Shivli hamaneuh pg 61; Sefer Kushiyot pg 115 and the notes there and Alpha Bet Kadmitah D’Shumuel Zeira from R. Shmuel Ashkenazi pg 239 and onwards.
 See also Elbogen, Ha-Tefillah b’Yisrael, pg 86- 87; M. Bar Ilan, Sisrei Tefilah pg 84 and onwards; Mo’adim l’Simcha volume 5 pg 206 – 209 and the Mispacha, Kulmos, issue 34.
 See also the Siddur Rokeach pg 233; Siddur R. Shlomo M’Germazia pg 75 and Abudraham (with pairush Tehilah l’Dovid) pg 153 who say the same thing. See the Sha’ar HaKollel (chap. 6, no. 13) and Siddur Tzlusa d’Avraham (vol 1 pg 238) who bring others that argue. However I found that R. Yitzchak Sagi Nohar (the blind) who was the son of the Raavad writes in his pamphlet titled Sod HaDlakas Neros Chanukah at the end (printed in Sefer Zicharon to Rav Yitzchak Hunter and reprinted in back of the Shvut Yitzchak on Chanukah) that Avraham Avinu was the author. See also Ha-Tefillah b’Yisrael pg. 67 and Mo’adim l’Simcha volume 5 pg 210.
 see also the lengthy discussion in the recently printed Sefer Amaros Tohros Chitzonis U’Pnimis from R. Yehuda Ha’Chasid in the miluim at the end of the sefer from R. Stal, #6, pg 328-332.
 see also R. Yosef Zechariah Stern in his Haggadah Zecher Yosef (pg 30) who writes that he did not find this piut printed before the Sefer maseo Hashem. See also the Haggadah Shelaimah ad. loc.; Assufot, vol 2 pg 201-226; Mo’adim l’Simcha volume 5 chapter 11; Y. Tabory, Pesach Doros, pg. 341-342 and the note on pg 379.
While many of the illustrations which appear in the haggadah are directly related to the text of the haggadah, some also pre-date the haggadah and seder service. That is, although searching for hametz (leaven) happens the night prior to the seder service many times an illustration of cleaning out the hametz and, in turn, searching for it, appears in many haggadahs. Another such illustration is that of the matzo making. There are five basic steps in this process, mixing the flour and water, kneading the dough, rolling out the dough, putting little holes in the dough, and then actually baking it.
In the Mantau, 1560 haggadah, an illustration presenting all these steps appears. As you can see, to the far left the process begins with the mixing of the flour and water. This continues through the far right, where the matzo is being put (taken out?) of the oven. An interesting facet of this illustration is the combination of the sexes. That is, both men and women are involved in this process. If one looks closely, (you can click on any of the pages below for a larger image) at the baking stage, a man and a woman are actually jointly operating the oven.
This mixing of the sexes was actually highlighted in the next edition which used this illustrations. In the Mantau, 1568 haggadah the same illustration appears. In this edition, however, there is one addition which does not appear in the original. On top of the illustration appears a legend. It says,
"צורת אנשים המסרקים ונשים עשות חלות זקנים עם נערים בחורים גם בתולות"
“this is an illustration of the men making holes [in the matzo] and the women rolling the dough, the old with the young, both the bachelors and the virgins [unmarried women]”
The editors of this edition felt that the inclusion of the sexes in this mitzvah, was a fulfillment of the verse from Psalms 148:12 “the old with the young, both the bachelors and the virgins.” Thus, the combination of a man and a woman at the oven may actually be by design to further highlight this point. It is worthwhile to note that in the
It is not a minor point that the editors of the Mantau, 1568 haggadah used this verse to explain the mixing of the sexes. The interpretation of this verse and specifically the use to justify the mixing of the sexes is the subject of some controversy.
R. Yosef Steinhardt  (1705-1776) records that soon after he became the Rabbi of a town in Alsace it was brought to his attention that it was “customary” to have mixed dancing on the Holidays. The only restriction on the mixed dancing was a government tax was required to engage in mixed dancing. R. Steinhardt, however, refused to allow for the dancing to proceed. As the government lost some of its revenue he was called to account for his actions. In an effort to convince the official of the correctness of his decision to prohibit mixed dancing, he appealed to the Bible. R. Steinhardt noted that the official was also fluent in the Bible and thus it was appropriate to use in this instance. He cited the verse in Jeremiah 31:13 “Then shall the virgin rejoice in the dance, and the young men and the old together.” He noted that it only says the young men and old engaged in dance together but not the virgin. He went on to cite other verses as well. Although he does not cite the above verse from Psalms, one can safely assume that he would explain this verse in a similar fashion to that of the verse in Jeremiah. Namely, it doesn’t state explicitly that the men and women were together only that they both took part in the praise of god.
 Shu”t Zikrhon Yosef, Fuerth, 1773, O.H. no. 17, it can also be found in Mishna Berura, Biur Halacha, no. 339. This work also contains an interesting introduction. He quotes his wife, Kreindal, who offered the well-known explanation as to why Yosef lost 10 years of his life for listening to his brothers referring to his father, Ya’akov, as Yosef’s master. For each time Yosef heard this inappropriate title used, he lost a year of his life. But, in the Torah, this title only appears five times. Kreindal explained that as Yosef, to keep the charade that he did not understand his brothers, used an interpreter, Yosef heard and understood it ten times, five times from his brothers and five from the interpreter.
Additionally, the introduction to the Shu’T Zikrhon Yosef is also well known for his scathing comments about Hassidim. According to most auction catalogs, this introduction was ripped out by Hassidim. But, in every edition that I have seen, and every time it has come up for auction it always includes the introduction leading one to question whether this is merely apocryphal.