Moshe Idel — KabbalisticManuscripts in the VaticanLibrary

Professor Moshe Idel is Max Cooper Professor in JewishThought, Department of Jewish Thought at HebrewUniversity, Jerusalem, and Senior Researcher at theShalom Hartman Institute.

This post at the Seforim blog by Prof. Moshe Idel,about Kabbalah manuscripts kept in the BibliotecaApostolica Vaticana (Vatican Library), is an expansionof remarks delivered at the February 2009 symposiumhosted at the National Library of Israel, in Jerusalem,to honor the publication of the catalog by BenjaminRichler, ed., Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library(Città del Vaticano, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana,2008); 791 pages, available here.

This is his first contribution to the Seforim blog.

On Some Unique Kabbalistic Manuscripts in the Vatican Libraryand Their Contribution to the Scholarship of Kabbalah in

JerusalemProf. Moshe IdelThe Hebrew University, JerusalemI. The Beginnings of Christian Kabbalah and the VaticanLibrary In the summer of 1280, Abraham Abulafia (1240- c.1291), a Kabbalist who founded the special prophetic orecstatic version of the Kabbalah, attempted to meet PopeNicholaus III in Rome. This special effort came as the resultof a revelation he had ten years earlier in Barcelona, whichpresumably consisted in a command to go to Rome at the eve ofthe Jewish New Year, in a mission reminiscent of Moses’encounter with Pharaoh: namely to discuss issues related to

redemption. From the scant information we have, it seems thatthough Abulafia was not shy to compare himself to Moses, hewas more interested in discussing his belief about the natureof authentic Judaism with the Pope, than in the nationalrescue of the Jews from the burden of Christendom, or in anattempt to convert the Pope, as some scholars have claimed. He believed Judaism to be a mystical religiosity based onpronouncing divine names in order to reach a mysticalexperience, understood in spiritual redemptive terms. He tooka spiritualized Judaism — constituted by inner experienceswhich are achieved by a mystical technique – to be a higherform of religion than any of the three monotheistic religions.The Pope was reluctant to see the Kabbalist and retreated fora rest to the beautiful family castle of Soriano nel Cimini,north of Rome. The stubborn Abulafia, who was informed hewould be burned if he insisted on following the Pope,nevertheless arrived at the castle, only to learn that thePope had died of apoplexy that same day. This non-encounter of a Kabbalist actually eager to see the Pope, and aPope who otherwise took a keen interest in the spiritualFranciscan faction known as the Minorites, is however not theend of this story. After two weeks of arrest in the house ofthe Minorites in Rome, Abulafia was released and made his wayto Messina, Sicily, then part of the kingdom of Aragon. Therehe remained active for more than a decade, writing a varietyof Kabbalistic books and teaching several Jewishintellectuals, and probably also some Christians, hisKabbalah. This openness by a Kabbalist, who deliberatelyignored the interdiction against revealing the Kabbalah evento most Jews, is an important development that should be takenseriously when discussing Jewish esotericism and itsvicissitudes. The prophetic Kabbalistic trend remained partand parcel of the Jewish mystical literature in Italy, and asignificant component of the nascent Christian Kabbalah inlate 15th century Florence. The translation of some ofAbulafia’s writings from Hebrew to Latin by FlaviusMithridates was one of the most important factors in the

impact of ecstatic Kabbalah on the Italian Renaissance.Mithridates, who called himself inter alia also GuillelmusRaimundo Moncada, was a convert to Christianity, who delivereda lecture in the presence of Pope Sixtus IV. Of Sicilianextraction, Mithridates, the son of a Syrian Jew called NissimAbul- Faraj, presumably studied Abulafia’s Kabbalah in hisyouth in the island. The special place the ecstatic Kabbalahenjoys in his Latin translations must have something to dowith his ability to fathom the rather difficult Hebrewtreatises he so skillfully translated. However, hisconcentration on Latin translations of books of Kabbalahstarted in a later period of his life — in 1486 in Florence,years after he left Rome — and after his visit to the HolySee. Those translations are the fountainhead of the first mostimportant piece of Christian Kabbalah, Giovanni Pico dellaMirandola’s Conclusiones, which include dozens of theses basedon Kabbalistic views. Those 900 Conclusiones were condemnedimmediately by the Pope, and the young count had to fleeItaly. He returned to Florence only when the next Pope,related to the Medici family, was elected. However, most ofFlavius Mithridates’s Latin manuscripts, which played such animportant role in the emergence of Christian Kabbalah, andthus Abulafia’s Kabbalistic treatises (in Latin and in aslightly Christianized form) have found their way to theVatican Library, arriving more than two centuries after theircomposition. Today they are catalogued as MSS 189-191,together with the Hebrew manuscripts, and a fourth one, asVatican, Cod. Chigi A. VI.190. Those are uniquemanuscripts, autographs of Mithridates. They testify to hissophisticated translations, mistranslations and deliberateglosses and interventions which sometimes change the intentionof the Hebrew original, in order to look closer at Christiantenets. They remained there for more than four centuries,before a serious study of their content and an analysis oftheir impact on Giovanni Pico was undertaken by Prof. ChaimWirszubski, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Hisgroundbreaking inquiry, Pico della Mirandola’s Encounter with

Jewish Mysticism (Harvard University Press 1987), opens theway for a much more profound understanding of the precisesources of some important aspects of Pico’s thought.Wirszubski’s fine scholarship (done in Jerusalem under theauspices of the Israeli Academy for Sciences and Humanities)brought some of Abulafia’s Kabbalistic visions as mediated byMitridathes to the attention of the scholarly community. Infact he discovered in the Latin translation an Abulafia work,that had been preserved only in a poor and quite fragmentaryform in the original Hebrew. Let me point out that inaddition to the rich material belonging to Mithridates’s Latintranslations from Abraham Abulafia and his circle, the Vaticancollection contains several important treatises of thisKabbalist in their original Hebrew (e.g., Sefer ’Or ha-Sekhel,Sefer ha-’Ot, Sefer Hayyei ha-‘Olam ha-Ba’). Even moreimportantly, the collection houses the lengthiest extant partof one of Abulafia’s earliest books, Sefer Mafteah ha-Re‘ayon,(Heb. 291), a book not found in this form in any othermanuscript. This fragment, written originally in 1273, isquite important for understanding the earliest phase of thethought of this ecstatic Kabbalist. In this sense it issimilar to the above-mentioned Latin translation thatpreserved another book of Abulafia’s written in the sameyear. If we add to the presence of these manuscripts inthe Vatican Library the fact that Abulafia’s prophetic books,(some containing quite enigmatic forms of spiritualapocalypses, found in very few manuscripts) are found in theAngelica library – which is outside the scope of BenjaminRichler, ed., Hebrew Manuscripts of the Vatican Library (Cittàdel Vaticano: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2008) – it seemsthat the written voice of Abulafia’s Kabbalah found its way tothe Vatican libraries in quite an impressive manner. Therecent project of a critical edition of those translations,undertaken by Giulio Busi and Saverio Campanini among others,brings scholarly attention to the basic sources of earlyChristian Kabbalah.II. Vatican MS Heb. 202 and the Beginning of Jewish

KabbalahThe Vatican collection contains an important andunique manuscript compiled sometime in the 14th century andcopied in a Spanish hand. This manuscript contains a varietyof Kabbalistic material stemming from several schools:Provencal, Catalonian, and Castilian forms of Kabbalah. Someof the traditions found there are related to the beginnings ofsome historical phases of Kabbalah (especially in earlydecades of the thirteenth century) and served as buildingstones for the scholarly edifice regarding this period byProf. Gershom Scholem of the Hebrew University, the famedpioneer of the study of Kabbalah. In this codex Scholemdiscovered quite early in his career an epistle that was themost important single document supporting his reconstructionof the relations between the Provencal school as representedby Rabbi Isaac Sagi-Nahor, the so-called “father of Kabbalah,”and two important younger Rabbis, active in the Catalan cityof Gerona, Rabbi Moses ben Nahman (Nahmanides) and his cousinRabbi Jonah Gerondi. The exchanges between these rabbisconcern the disclosure of Kabbalistic issues by otherKabbalists; and the scant data found in the epistle areindispensable testimonies in any attempt to describe thedissemination of Kabbalah from Provence to Catalonia and fromthere to Castile. This epistle exists in a unique manuscript,and since its publication by Scholem in the thirties and itsmore detailed analyses in the forties and sixties — especially in his Origins of the Kabbalah, trans. R.J. ZwiWerblowsky (Princeton University Press, 1989) — no othersimilar manuscript of this epistle has been identified. As inthe case of the beginning of Christian Kabbalah, here too ourunderstanding of the beginning of the Jewish Kabbalah owesmuch to unique Vatican manuscripts.III. Rabbi David ben Yehudah he-Hasid’s Hebrew Translations ofthe Zohar The most important documents of Kabbalisticliterature are indubitably the Zoharic literature. The Zoharicliterature, which was written between the late seventies ofthe 13th century and the early decades of the 14th century inCastile, mostly in Aramaic, was immediately canonized and

became the cornerstone for a variety of Kabbalistic schools,especially the mid-16th century Kabbalists who were active inSafed. The processes involved in the emergence of thisliterature, its authors, its canonization and its variouskinds of reception still need extensive research. The Hebrewmanuscripts found in the Vatican library may help illuminatesome aspects of those processes. Let me offer a major examplein this direction. Two anonymous manuscripts in theVatican collection, Heb. 62 and 168, contain a Hebrewtranslation of some Aramaic parts of the Zoharic commentarieson the Pentateuch. Though similar in many ways, each the twomanuscripts is also unique. An analysis of the style of thetranslation and a comparison to segments of other Hebrewtranslations of Zoharic passages found in the Hebrew writingsof Rabbi David ben Yehudah he-Hasid, led me to identify theanonymous translator as this Kabbalist. A late 13th or early14th century Kabbalist, Rabbi David may well be not only oneof the first commentators on this book, but quite plausiblyits first translator ever. This means that these two codicescan aid us to conjecture about the Aramaic versions underlyingthe translation. We thus have here the earliest extensivetestimonies about the nature of the text of the third mostimportant book in Judaism. Moreover, in some cases in thosetwo manuscripts, the version of the Hebrew translation isaccompanied by lengthy Aramaic passages, which may constitutethe earliest extensive excerpts from the Zoharic literature tohave reached us in the original language. Though some shortquotes from this Hebrew translation are found in 16th centuryKabbalists, it is only in the two above-mentioned manuscriptsthat dozens of pages are found. However, let me point outthat there are also other codices in the Vatican collectionwhich may turn into a mine of important information related tothe history of the text of the Zohar. Two examples are theanonymous Hebrew translation of the Zohar in Heb. 226 and thetexts found in the first part of MS Heb. 203. Both of thesedeserve special attention by the scholars of the Zohar. IV. The Byzantine Kabbalah in the Vatican Library

We mentioned above the main Kabbalistic codices in the Vaticanthat represent developments that in Sicily, Italy, and theWestern Europe. However, several important manuscripts foundin this library, may contribute to a future history of arather neglected center of Kabbalistic literature, theByzantine one. Compared to the Provencal and the Spanishcenters, the Byzantine Empire was a relatively late center;and, from the mid-14th century a different form of Kabbalahemerged there.. Its precise conceptual contours, as well asthe treatises that were written there, slowly emerge as thescholarship of Kabbalah is advancing. It has become more andmore plausible in the last decades that important Kabbalistictreatises were written in the Empire, rather than in Spain orItaly as scholars previously believed. This is the case ofsome classics of Kabbalah like Sefer ha-Temunah, Sefer ha-Peliyah and Sefer ha-Qanah but there is a plethora of relatedsmaller treatises that were also written in the ByzantineEmpire. The Vatican holds several important manuscripts thatmay fruitfully serve as the starting point for a study of thisKabbalistic center. MSS Heb. 188, 194, 195, 218, 220, 223, areoutstanding examples of the arrival of all the major pieces ofByzantine Kabbalah to Italy and the impact this arrival on thenature of Italian Kabbalah during the late 15th century, andalso of the Christian Kabbalah since the beginning of the 16thcentury. In this context, let me mention two other uniqueKabbalistic manuscripts. These relate to a dispute regardingthe belief in metempsychosis that took place in the city ofCandia, in Crete in the second part of the 15th century. Twolengthy codices, MSS 105 and 254, contain the documentslisting the pros and cons of this belief and against it, asreflecting the views of, respectively, Rabbi Michael ha-KohenBalbo and Rabbi Moshe Ashkenazi. The vast majority of thearguments in this sharp controversy are unknown from any othermanuscript. Thus only the Vatican manuscripts may enable areconstruction of the various debates related to thisimportant type of Kabbalistic belief. This reconstruction wasdone by a third important Hebrew University scholar, Prof.

Efraim Gottlieb. It has been continued more recently in a Ph.D. thesis of Dr. Brian Ogren at The Hebrew University ofJerusalem. We may conclude that the variety of thevarious manuscripts found in the Vatican collections reflectsthe variety of Kabbalistic literature since its inception upto its peak in the mid-16th century. In short, Ioffered above several examples for the indisputablecontributions the Kabbalistic manuscripts found in the Vaticancollection did contribute in the past for understanding majorphases in the history of Kabbalah. The present Catalogue, anexcellent example of what a catalogue of Hebrew manuscriptsshould be, will certainly facilitate the study of additionalmanuscripts and will enrich our understanding of the evolutionof the various forms of this vast literature. We may hope, inan era less interested in philological studies than earlier,that the tradition of close reading of manuscripts in aserious manner, which was a vital part of scholarship at theHebrew University, will remain a vital component of the futurestudies of Kabbalah; and the Vatican codices will continue toyield new findings for a better understanding of a vitalaspect of medieval Judaism. V. Thanks for the Free Access Let me turn to anotherdimension of the Vatican collection, which is not related tothe content of manuscripts but with the politics of access tothe Hebrew manuscripts found in this library. When theInstitute of Hebrew Manuscripts — whose researchers were themain contributors to the Catalogue that is celebrated here —was founded at the Jewish National and University Library inJerusalem, many libraries over the world agreed to have theirmanuscripts microfilmed and consulted free by scholars.However, most of them required researchers to requestpermission in writing before allowing their manuscripts to becopies or published. Only three libraries out of dozens — theVatican in Rome, the Escorial in Spain, and the CambridgeUniversity Library in England — were ready to give scholarsfree automatic permission to microfilm, photocopy or publishtheir manuscripts. For persons acquainted with the inevitable

vicissitudes involved in correspondence with libraries ingeneral, (including to be sure the Italian ones), thisautomatic permission constituted a special act ofencouragement to engage these manuscripts. This kindrenouncement of the legitimate rights of these librariesfacilitated a much easier access to some Kabbalisticmanuscripts. That in turn was especially helpful for scholarswho — like myself in the initial stages of my study ofKabbalistic manuscripts — did not live in Jerusalem,. Thisexplains why in some of my writings I relied upon Vaticanmanuscripts, even when there are also other manuscriptscontaining a certain Kabbalistic treatise. Abulafia’s majortreatise Sefer ’Or ha-Sekhel, found in the Vatican LibraryHeb. 233 is one case in point. I take this opportunity tothank the Vatican Library, late as these thanks may be, forthe generosity that contributed not only my modest studies ofthe Kabbalistic material, but also of many other scholars, whoalso benefited from the liberal approach of the directors ofthe that Library.

Tu be-Shevat SabbatianismSee here for our earlier post discussing the potential linkagebetween Tu be-Shevat (or Tu B’Shevat)customs and Sabbatianism.See here, here, and here for other customs that may havesimilar likages. And, finally, see here for a collection ofarticles on Sabbatianism generally.

R. Flensberg, Donkeys,Antelopes and Frogs

R. Flensberg , Donkeys, Antelopes and Frogs

Recently, a book, Aggadata de-Ve Rav, Machon Limud Aggadah,Ashdod, 2010, pp. 50, 176, 56, collecting various worksattempting to explain the difficult and, on their face, ratherodd stories (aggadot) that appear in Baba Batra (73a-74) manyof which involve odd animals do odd things. In addition tothese passages, there is another odd passage in Bechorot (7b)which also involves an animal, a donkey also engaging in oddbehavior. This passage was too was also the subject of manyworks attempting to explain it. This new book reprints four ofthe many works attempting to decipher the stories in BabaBatra, R. Elyakim Getz, Redfunei be-Tapuchim, R. Zev WolfeBoskowitz, Le-Binyamin Amar, R. Eliyahu Guttmacher, TzafnatPanach, and the fourth is Aggadot Soferim, which a collectionof materials on the topic from Ritva, Gra, and R. EfrayimLunschutz (author of Kli Yakar, among other works). Whilethree editions of Redfunei be-Tapuchim are available onHebrewbooks (here, here and here) Le-Binyamin Amar andTzafnat Panach are not. The book also provides biographicaldetails about these authors (56 pp.). Additionally, a list ofothers books devoted to the Baba Batra stories which are notreprinted herein are included. The list provides over 25 suchworks devoted to the stories in Baba Batra. Regarding thedonkey of Bechorot there are almost as many books on thattopic. We have found 23 such works. One of those discussingthe donkey of Berchorot is an important, little-known andrecently reprinted book on that topic. Specifically, R.Hayyim Yirmiyahu Flensberg’s Nezer ha-Nitzhon, Vilna, 1883(reprinted Machon Mishnas Rabbi Aaron, Israel, 2001).* Amongst the many who praised Flensberg’s book, was histeacher, the Netziv. And, it was not only the Netziv, butFlensberg received a request from his alma mater, Volozhin,that his book was so popular could he please send tenadditional copies. Thus, in light of this book discussing,what is arguable similar aggadot, we provide background onthis little-known Lithuanian rabbi, his works and children.

Flensberg was born in 1842. And, as many great rabbis, thereare both miraculous stories told of his conception and birthas well as how bright he was. Indeed, it is said that he knew300 pages of Talmud, with Tosefot, at his bar-mitzvah. Whilethose stories are not unusual, what is unusual was the bar-mitzvah gift he received from his rebbi, R. Ya’akov TuviaGoldberg, a copy of Avraham Mapu‘s Ahavat Tzion, perhaps thefirst Hebrew novel. As his rebbi saw that Flensberg expressedan interest in studying Hebrew, his rebbi decided this bookwould be appropriate. Apparently, this gift was so important,

that in the biography of Flensberg, written by his son YitzhakYeshayahu Flensberg, some seventy years later, records this. It is worth noting that, although this biography appears atthe beginning of the second volume of Flensberg’s Torahcommentary which was reprinted in 2000 by the Lakewoodpublisher, Machon Mishnas Rabbi Aaron, this fact remains inthis edition.

It should also be noted that, while on its face, it isquestionable how much one can read into a single bar-mitzvahgift, Shaul Stampfer views this gift as highly significant. Stampfer writes, that although the policy of the Volozhinrabbinic administration was to prohibit haskalah literature,Flensberg is used as an example to prove that “not all thestudents viewed reading haskalah literature as conflictingwith torah study.” Shaul Stampfer, The Lithuanian Yeshiva,Jerusalem, 2005, 171. Stampfer cites the story of the bar-mitzvah gift and notes that although Flensberg received thisgift “he still went to study in Volozhin.” Id. at 172. Indeed, it is even more questionable to use the bar-mitzvahgift to understand the Volozhin students’ views on haskalahliterature when one considers the timing. Flensberg didn’t goto Volozhin immediately after his bar-mitzvah, rather it wouldbe over a year and a half before he went to Volozhin. [1]During that time, Flensberg stopped studying with R. Goldberg,the bar-mitzvah gift, giver and began studying with R. LeibCharif (eventual Chief-Rabbi of Tytvenai and RietavasLithuania). (Also relevant for our purposes is that R. Leib authored a book on the donkey Gemara inBechorot called Eizot Yehoshua.) Thus, there are twosignificant factors that may sever any ties betweenFlensberg’s bar-mitzvah gift and his ultimate decision to goto Volozhin.

In all events, Flensberg thrived at Volozhin. He studied inthe Netziv’s group and was close to the Netziv. Additionally,he was selected for the highly prestigious position at theVolozhin Yeshiva as the Purim Rav of Volozhin. Hisappointment to this position took place sometime before heleft Volozhin in 1859, making this the earliest, and perhaps

one of the only, recorded mention of this custom fromVolozhin.[2] In fact, there are those who doubt the existenceof the custom of Purim Rav at Volozhin.[3] This appears toundermine that position. Additionally, the description of thePurim Rav position is of interest. According to Flensberg,the position was fairly innocuous. For the two days of Purim,the Netziv would cede his position to the best student. Thestudent would wear the Netziv’s hat and use the Netziv’swalking stick. All the students would give the Purim Ravgreat deference. They would also pepper him with questionsboth about Purim and more comical questions. The Purim Ravwould answer in the Purim spirit. Nowhere is there anymention of lack of respect or, seemingly anything that isobjectionable.

After leaving Volozhin, he married Itta, whose father was R.Mendel Katz, who would eventually become a rabbi in Radin. After his marriage he went to study in a bet midrash inKovno. Although some refer to this place as “the KovnoKollel,” it cannot be referring to the famous Kovno Kollel asthat did not begin until 1877 long after R. Flensberg leftKovno and entered the rabbinate. During his time in KovnoFlensberg became friendly with R. Yitzhak Elchonon Spektor.After leaving Kovno in 1869 to his first rabbinic position,and, in 1889, after a few other employment changes, Flensbergended up in Shaki as the chief rabbi.

Flensberg found the rabbinate a good fit and focused on derashand philosophy. But, before publishing any of his books, hepenned a number of important articles in various newspapersincluding Ha-Levonon, Ha-Melitz, and Ha-Maggid. In general,he took a rather novel views towards newspapers. At the time,many viewed newspapers as a threat to Orthodox Judaism as itexposed people to different views that they otherwise wouldn’tbe exposed to. Thus, many took the position that reading anewspaper was prohibited. Flensberg, however, recognized thatmerely ignoring the problem is ineffective. Instead, heproposed that the Orthodox start their own newspaper so thattheir views will be available to all. This view echos that ofR. Yaakov Ettlinger, who started the Orthodox journal ShomerTzion ha-Ne’eman. (And, it appears, the same debate ishappening, again, today with regard to the internet and

related technologies.) In addition, Flensberg also penned aseries titled Moreh Neukei ha-Zeman he-Hadash, which some viewan indirect attack against Nachman Krochmal‘s similarly titledwork. Flensberg wrote this essay during a time that he wassuffering from headache and prohibited from Torah study. Thus, turned his focused to producing essays for newspapers.

After his wife died in 1882, he published his first work,Nezer ha-Nitzhon. As mentioned above, this book contains alengthy explanation of the talmudic story regarding the famousdonkey. Additionally, he includes two derashot at the end. In the introduction, he credits his wife for the publicationand explains that this book is in her memory. In 1897, hepublished his next books, She’alot Hayyim, Divrei Yirmiyahu inVilna. The first titled portion is comprised of responsa andthe second titled portion is comprised of dershot. The secondpart also contains a lengthy introduction regardingFlensberg’s view on derush, and a eulogy for R. YitzhakElchonon Spektor and the Godol of Minsk.

It appears that not everyone, including those who normally arevery well-read, were familiar with R. Flensberg’s works. Katzman explains that R. Zevin, in Ishim ve-Shetot (p. 71),confuses R. Hayyim Flensberg with another R. Hayyim – R.Hayyim Soloveitchik. The statement R. Zevin attributes to achild R. Hayyim Soloveitchik, and which R. Zevin himselfdoubts it comports with what we know about R. HayyimSoloveitchik’s manner of deciding law, actually appears in R.Hayyim Flensberg’s She’alot Hayyim, no. 14.[4]

In 1905,[5] he published his commentary on Hasdai Cerscas’ OhrAdonay.[6] This is one of the very few commentaries on thisvery difficult work. Flensberg prefaces the book with an in-depth introduction regarding the work and its author. R.Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg wrote a glowing review of the book. Weinberg expressed surprise that no one else, with oneexception, had seen fit to review such a worthy book. Weinberg notes that to write such a commentary requires notonly “an ish ma’adai” but also one must be a “rav ve-goantalmudi.”[7] Flensberg includes a few pages of comments onMoreh Nevukim at the end of the book, and there are two

letters one from Abraham Harkavey and the other from R. Dr.Abraham Berliner, at times, taking issue with some ofFlensberg’s conclusions. This was intended to be the firstpart of two of Flensberg’s commentary on Crescas. Accordingto Flensberg’s son, in 1909 the second portion was publishedbut languished at the printer. And, after World War I brokeout in 1914, the Flensberg’s were under the impression all thecopies were lost. In 1925, they learned that EsterRubinstein, Flensberg’s daughter, had saved the plates as wellas other manuscripts. It is unclear if the second portion wasever actually reprinted. The JNUL appears to only have a fewleaves from the second volume.

In 1910, Flensberg published his commentary on Shir ha-Shirim,Merkevot Ami. And, that same year, he also published his firstvolume of commentary on the Torah, Divrei Yirmiyahu, coveringGenesis.

In 1914, Flensberg died, his full epitaph is included in hisson’s biography which appeared in the second volume ofFlensberg’s Torah commentary which was published posthumouslyin 1927. This version of the epitaph is the only complete oneas the one on his headstone accidentally left out a line “forsome [unnamed] reason.”

He was survived by his son, Yitzhak Yishayahu, and hisdaughter, [Haaya] Ester Rubinstein. Yitzhak Yishayhu lived inPilwishki the town where R. Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg served asRabbi. When Weinberg describes the learned people inPilwishki, one of the ones he singles out is YitzhakYishayahu.[8] Flensberg’s daughter, however, was more well-known than his son. She married Yitzhak Rubinstein, whosubsequently became Chief Rabbi of Vilna – the first in over200 years – and she was heavily involved in Vilna communityaffairs and was an ardent Zionist. This is in contrast to herfather who compared Zionists to “the Berlin group . . . ofmaskilim.”[9] She was also very learned and R. Weinbergprovides that when her father couldn’t remember a source, hewould ask Ester who could always provide it.Ester was also involved in woman’s issues. She started agirls school in Vilna and wrote why woman’s suffrage is

allowed under Jewish law.[10]

Ester died young, at age 43, in 1924. A Sefer Zikhron waspublished in her honor and, among others, R. Weinberg wrote abeautiful article describing Ester in the most honorificterms. An English translation was published by Dr. Leiman.Additionally, a memorial service was held in the GreatSynagogue of Vilna, according to Leiman, “this was the onlywoman ever accorded this honor.”

Yitzhak, after Ester died, was involved in a bitter fight forthe Vilna rabbinate that pitted him against R. Hayyim OzerGrodzenski, and the Mizrachi versus the Agudah. In the end,Rubinstein was elected by a majority of the vote. This wasviewed as untenable, and the chief rabbi position was splitbetween the halakhic and administrative, giving bothRubinstein and Grodzenski positions.[11] This controversy wasmemorialized by Chaim Grade in his Rabbis and Wives, where he“resurrects” the dead Ester and imagines her as the drivingforce in her husband’s push for the Rabbinate. This part isuntrue. However, Grade’s story of how Rubinstein was almostshouted down during his first speech (and his supportersforcibly ejected the shouters) after his election is true.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pMThEC2GbeY/VJNZLdY_6DI/AAAAAAAACtQ/2YWcEE1RMTM/s1600/image01.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-lBgfiUMRCPc/VJNZMJDGNyI/AAAAAAAACtg/CPA_ONPTWb0/s1600/image02.jpg

Two Broadsides Attacking Rubinstein and Urging Voters to PickNumber 18, R. Hayyim Ozer’s NumberThese may have been penned by the Hazon Ish as he was heavilyinvolved in the campaign to elect Grodzenski.

From a private collection.

Yitzhak would leave Europe to the United States to teach inYeshiva University in 1941. On May 23, 1944, the day Belkin isinaugurated president of Yeshiva University, Rubinsteinreceived an honorary doctorate of divinity from YeshivaUniversity. See also, N.Y. Times, May 23, 1944 p. 21. Rubinstein died on Oct. 30, 1945 [23 Marchesvan 5706] and isburied in Mt. Carmel cemetery in Queens.In conclusion, R. Flensberg’s books from the one, Nezer ha-Nizhon, on the odd donkey passage to his more run of the millresponsa to his philosophy and derush are all of interest.Additionally, his children were no slouches either.

Notes[1] Katzman asserts that Flensberg didn’t go to Volozhin untilhe was 16 or 17, which makes any connection between a bar-mitzvah gift and Flensberg’s entrance into Volozhin even moretenuous. See Eliezer Katzman, “A Biography of the Rav fromShaki – The Goan Rabbi Hayyim Yirmiyahu Flensberg ZT”L,” inHayyim Yirmiayahu Flensberg, She’elot Haayim, Machon MishnasRabbi Aaron, Israel, 2001, 1. Katzman, however, provides nocitation in support of his dates. We rely upon Flensberg’sson’s biography for our chronology. See Yitzhak Flensberg,“In Place of an Introduction,” in Hayyim Yirmiyahu Flensberg,Divrei Yermiyahu al ha-Torah, Vilna, 1927, vol. 2, V-VI. [2] This has been noted by Katzman, “Biography” p. 2 n.2. Itis odd that in Stampfer’s discussion of the Purim Rav inVolozhin, he fails to note Flensberg’s importance inestablishing the existence of this custom even though thesource is the same biography that contains the bar-mitzvahgift story. Cf. The Lithuanian Yeshiva at 165-68. Indeed, itis on the very next page after the bar-mitzvah gift. See “InPlace of an Introduction” at VI. [3] See this excellent article by Yehoshua Mondshein whichdemonstrates that the most well-known story regarding the

institution of Purim Rav is likely more legend than fact. Additionally, Mondshein collects those who doubt the existenceof the Purim Rav custom. But see Stampfer, at 168 where heprovides that the Purim Rav custom was abolished at Volozhinbecause of the Netziv’s second marriage after his first wifedied. At the time of the marriage the Netziv was in hissixties, and his new wife was in her twenties.(The exact age difference is unclear, Stampfer’s source, MeirBerlin, Rabban shel Yisrael, pp. 124-31 states that the Netzivwas 50 and that there was “only” a thirty year age differenceand not forty.) She was a divorcee who had divorced her firsthusband because she felt he wasn’t a world class “lamdan.” And, she was extremely protective of her husband’s honor. Itappears that she or the Netziv or both became the butt ofjokes and she insisted that the Purim Rav custom end. Basedupon her insistence, the custom died. For additional sourcesregarding the Purim Rav, see Mondshein’s article cited aboveand Eliezer’s post in note 23. See also R. Nosson Kamenetsky,Making of a Godol, Jerusalem, 2002, vol. 2, p. 1062 regardingNetziv and Purim Rav. [4] See Katzman, “Biography” at 3 regarding Flensberg’s pleafor an Orthodox newspaper and id. at 5 regarding R. Zevin.Regarding R. Ettlinger’s journal see Judith Bleich, JacobEttlinger his Life & Works, unpublished doctoral dissertation,NYU, 1974, 291-321.[5] It should be noted that there is some confusion regardingthe publication date. According to the title page thatappears on the soft outer cover, the book was published inElul 5,667 [Sept./Oct. 1906], according to the two virtuallysimilar title pages that follow the soft cover, the book waspublished in 5665 [1904/1905]. In Weinberg’s review, he firstrefers to a 1901 publishing date which appears to be atypographical error and then, later, mentions that he waswriting his review over four years after Flensberg’scommentary was published. Weinberg’s review was written in1912 and if he was being exact, that would give it apublication date of 1908. We have used the 1905 date as it isthe date given by Flensberg’s son in his biography. It isclear, that whichever year it was published, Flensberg’scommentary was not composed that year as Flensberg had beenworking on this commentary for some twenty years. See “In

Place of an Introduction” at VII-VIII. [6] Regarding the propriety of using of god’s name in titlessee R. Hezkiyah Medini, Be’ari ba-Sadeh in his Sedei Hemed.Medeni was forced to defend the title of his magnum opus,Sedei Hemed, even though he didn’t use god’s name, only aword, that in this context refers to god only if readincorrectly. See also Ya’akov Shmuel Spegiel, Amudim be-ToldotSefer ha-Ivri: Ketivah ve-Hatakah, Bar Ilan Univ. Ramat Gan,2007, pp. 608-10; R. Moshe Hagiz, Halachot Ketanot, Jerusalem,1981, no. 314 (sedi). [7] The review originally appeared in Ha-Ivri, Jan. 26, 1912,p. 47 and is reprinted in Collected Writings of Rabbi YehielYaakov Weinberg, Marc B. Shapiro, ed., vol. II, Scranton,2003, 115-18.[8] See Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg, “Introduction,” in R. AbrahamAbba Resnick, Keli She’aret, Netanya, 1957 reprinted inShapiro, Collected Writings, vol. II, pp. 388-402. For anoverview of Weinberg’s time in Pilwishki see Marc B. Shapiro,Between the Yeshiva World & Modern Orthodoxy, Littman Library,1999, 18-50.[9] Kaztman, “Biography” at 3. [10] See Leiman, n. 4.[11] See Gershon Bacon, “Rubinstein vs. Grodzinski: TheDispute Over the Vilnius Rabbinate and the ReligiousRealignment of Vilnius Jewry. 1928-1932,” in The Goan ofVilnius and the Annals of Jewish Culture, Izraelis Lempertas,ed., Vilnius Univ., 1998, 295-304; see also the endof Menachem’s very comprehensive post, for additional sourcesregarding the election.

*In 2001, Machon Mishnas Rabbi Aaron republished all of R.Flensberg’s works with the exception of R. Flensberg’scommentary on Crescas.

Review: Or Hayyim Commentaryהרב מוסד הוצאת – בראשית חומש על החיים אור ספרים: ביקורת

קוק[1]מאת: רב צעירלאור שיצא ראיתי האחרון ניסן בחודש קוק הרב מוסד הוצאת ביריד חומש עם פירוש אור החיים בצורה ערוכה ומהודרת. עד לחודש ניסן יצאלאור הפירוש לחומשים בראשית, שמות, ויקרא. מכיוון שתכננתי להתחילללמוד את פירוש אור החיים לקראת תחילת ספר בראשית השנה, החלטתילרכוש את הספרים מתוך תקווה שעד ליריד בניסן הבא יצאו שני החלקיםאור בהמשך).פירוש בקצרה עליהם ונעיר לאור, יצאו (שמאז האחרונים החיים בהוצאה זו הוגה והוכן לדפוס על פי דפוס ראשון בתוספת הערותנכתב (כך פרידמן יוסף ישראל הרב ידי על מקומות ומראי ביאורים בשמם חתומים פרידמן, יוסף ישראל הרב המהדיר, מלבד השער). בעמוד מרדכי הרב הלחמי, נחום שמואל הרב העורכים: כצוות אלו כרכים על את כשרכשתי לויפר. נתן והרב טורק אליעזר הרב קצנלנבוגן, ליב הספר, לא בדקתי תחילה שאכן מדובר בספר איכותי כי סמכתי על הוצאתמוסד הרב קוק ועל עורכיו שהוציאו בעבר ספרים איכותיים מאד בתחוםהפרשנות כמו חומש “תורת חיים”, הגדת תורת חיים, מגילת אסתר תורתכך, מהם. נהנה מאד שאני ועוד, ראובן” “משנת אבות פרקי חיים, של שהמטרה הנחתי איכותית. בהוצאה מדובר כאן גם הסתם שמן חשבתי את טוב יותר ללומד להסביר הוא וביאורים הערות בתוספת מהדורה לקבל במקום התבדיתי. לצערי, בפירושיו. החיים האור של כוונתו פירוש מדויק ופשוט לדברי האוה”ח המתבסס על דבריו, בספר זה ניתןלמצוא דרשנות ופירושים שאינם קשורים לדבריו של האור החיים. ניתןוחוסר ממש טעויות של הן הראשונות הדוגמאות שתי דוגמאות. מספר הבנה מוחלט של דברי האור החיים. הדוגמא הראשונה היא אולי הדוגמאהבוטה ביותר שנתקלתי בה והיא מופיעה בפרשת תולדות. שם כותב האורהחיים (בראשית כה ל):”על כן קרא שמו אדום” פירוש הוא עשו קרא שמואדום, והטעם לא לצד שקרא שם האדום האדום שני פעמים, אלא לצד שהיההולך למות ובו החיה נפשו קרא שמו אדום בשמו ועשו בדיק בשמא היהיצא כאן פעמיים”.המהדיר זה ויעקבני יעקב שמו קרא “הכי כאומרו מגדרו וחידש דבר שלא מופיע בשום מקום:ר”ל עשו קרא לנזיד ‘אדום’התוס’ לבעלי זקנים דעת ועי’ הוא… לשון על נופל לשון כי שמו על ולדברי אדום… שמו יקראו עדשים מעט של הלעטה בשביל וכי שהקשו רבינו לא דבאמת כינו לעשו בשם אדום עוד קודם אכילת הנזיד, ועשוהוא הקורא לנזיד עדשים בשם אדום על שמו, ובזה יתיישב גם מה שאמר[דאז רבים לשון ‘קראו’ אמרו ולא אדום’ שמו קרא כן ‘על הכתוב אור- דברי בהבנת המוחלטת הטעות מלבד לעשו]. כן שקראו הכוונה החיים, כאילו שאור-החיים הבין ש”על כן קרא שמו אדום” פירושו שעשומדוע שיטתו, עפ”י להסביר, ליבו שם לא המהדיר אֶדום, לנזיד קרא שהתורה תספר לנו איך קראו לנזיד? האם זו קושיא פחותה מזו של בעלי

האור דברי של מוחלט הבנה חוסר כן גם היא הבאה הדוגמא התוספות? ב) לז (בראשית בצאן” אחיו את רועה היה “יוסף הפסוק את החיים. את רועה ‘היה הדרך זה על היא הכתוב כוונת החיים:אכן האור מפרש אחיו’ בעניין הצאן, פירוש בדרך אכילת הצאן. ברור מהמשך דברי האורהחיים שהכוונה היא שיוסף היה משגיח על אחיו בעניין הדרך שבו הםהיו אוכלים צאן – שהוא חשד בהם על אבר מן החי, שכן כך כותב האורהחיים רק מספר שורות לאחר מכן:וממוצא דבר אתה למד מאומרו ‘רועהאת אחיו’ בדין הצאן, הא למדת שנחשדו אצלו בפרט זהאך למהדיר היתהשאמרו דרך על כוונתו אפשר צאן- אכילת ממש:בדרך של הברקה כאן ויקחהו עבדו בדוד “ויבחר תתכג]: רמז תהלים שמעוני [ילקוט במדרש ממכלאות צאן. רבי יהושע הכהן בשם רבי חנינא בר יצחק מהו ממכלאותראשי ומאכילן הגדיים מוציא אלו מפני אלו כולא דוד שהיה צאן עשבים, מוציא את התישים ומאכילן אמצען של עשבים, מוציא את הזקנותומאכילן עיקרן של עשבים”. וזה יורה על הכשרתו למלכות כמו שאמרווירעה יבא הצאן את לרעות ויודע “הואיל הקב”ה שאמר דוד על (שם) משגיח היה שיוסף כתב החיים שהאור הבין המהדיר כלומר, צאני”. האור- שהתכוון מה לא בודאי זה הצאן. של האכילה הרגלי בעניין החיים.עוד דוגמא למה שבעיני היא טעות בהבנה מופיעה בפרשת בראשיתצריך – וגו'” אלקים החיים:”ויברך האור כותב שם ג), ב (בראשית שהעולם להיות כי הוא הכתוב במשמעות והנכון הברכה… היא מה לדעת הזה צריך הוא לשפע המקיים והיא בחינת האכילה והשתיה וצורכי האדם,וכולן מושגים על ידי טורח ויגיעה הגשמית וחולין היא, וה’ כשרצהלקדש יום השביעי קדם וברכו שלא יחסר בו דבר, הגם שאין טובת העולםהשפל מושגת מהפרישות והקדושה אלא מעסק חול, אף על פי כן ברכו שלאסעודות שלש משנה לחם הימים שאר על יתר שהוא לו ועוד טוב, יחסר ותענוגים יתירים, וזו היא ברכתו והוא דבר הפך הסדר.כלומר, מכיווןמכל להינזר האדם מן שיידרש מצפים היינו לה'” “שבת היא שהשבת בעניינים רק ויעסוק חול, ענייני שהם הגשמיות הזה העולם הנאות רוחניים – כמין יום כיפור של פעם בשבוע. אך במקום זאת אנו מוצאיםשדווקא בשבת האדם יותר נהנה מענייני העולם הזה מאשר בימות השבוע– הוא אוכל שלש סעודות במקום רק שתיים, הוא אוכל לחם משנה, ישןיותר וכד’. זהו הברכה שברך אלקים את היום השביעי – על אף שזה יוםבהנאות חסר שאיננו רק לא השבת יום החול, מעסקי פורשים שאנו המילים על רגיל. מיום גשמיות הנאות יותר בו יש אלא הגשמיות האחרונות “והוא דבר הפך הסדר” מעיר המהדיר:כי הסדר הטבעי הוא שאםאינו מתעסק במלאכתו ביום השבת יהיה חסר ויפסיד מממונו חלק השביעיבכל שבוע, ואעפי”כ נתברך יום השביעי שלא יהיה חסר מאומה, ויותרמכך שמרבים בו בתענוגים וכמ”ש חז”ל ‘לוו עלי ואני פורע’.אך האמתנכתב מדוע הפרשנית השאלה עם מתמודד הכל סך החיים שהאור היא “ויברך… את יום השביעי ויקדש אותו” – לכאורה היה נכון יותר לומריום את “ויקדש… כלומר קדוש, כבר שהוא לאחר היום את שמברכים

כך ואחר ברך קודם שהקב”ה הוא הסדר” “היפך אותו”. ויברך השביעי קידש את יום השביעי. עוד מקום שהמהדיר טעה בו, לדעתי, זה בתחילתפרשת וישלח. שם כותב האור החיים: “ויירא יעקב מאד ויצר לו” פירושוכנגד מאד, ירא ‘ליהרג’ כנגד לזה ליהרג, או להרוג בגדר נכנס ‘להרוג’ וייצר לו, ולזה לא אמר הכתוב ‘מאד’ אחר ‘וייצר’.עוד ירצהכי לצד שהודיעוהו כי עשו מערים להראות אחוה והוא שונא, ירא יעקבכלי יעקב של בידו ואין יהרגהו עשו שמא למלחמה עצמו להכין שלא קרב, והכין עצמו בכלי קרב “ויצר לו”, כי אפשר שלא יעשה עשו רע,ובזה רעה דורש הוא יעקב הלא עשו יאמר קרב בכלי מוכן וכשיראהו העם חצי העם, חיצה פירוש וגו'” “ויחץ נתחכם ולזה שנאתו, יחדש כך ומזויין. מוכן מחנהו וחצי לאחיו כאח וחיבה אהבה פני מראים הכתוב אמר האור-החיים:”לא דברי של הראשון החלק את המהדיר מסביר מאד אחר וייצר” וכמו שאמרו חז”ל “בתורתו של רבי מאיר מצאו כתובוהנה טוב מאד והנה טוב מות” כי לצדיקים טוב הוא המות שהם מזומניםזכויותיו שנתמעטו חשש כי ירא יעקב היה מקום מכל אך שכרם, לקבל בשביל הנסים שנעשו לו, וכמו שאמר “קטנתי מכל החסדים”, וכמו שפירשרש”י שם, אבל היה מיצר על שיהרג עשו, וכמש”כ רש”י שהיה מיצר שמאיהרג ושמא יהרוג הוא את עשו. זאת, כאשר ברור שכוונת האור החייםלומר שליהרג יעקב פחד “מאד” ולהרוג הוא לא פחד “מאד” וחס ושלוםאוה”ח דברי של השני חלקו על המות”. הוא טוב לצדיקים “כי לומר וייצר נכתב כאילו דגושה שויצ”ר יו”ד – לו כך:ויצר כותב המהדיר האדם” את ה”א “וייצר לעיל שנאמר מה דרך על וזה רבינו, וכמש”כ ואמרו חז”ל “וייצר שתי יצירות” אף כאן שני צרות היו לו אם עשו באלהלחם עמו הרי אין לו כלי קרב, ואם יכין כלי קרב והוא בא לשלוםתתעורר אצלו השנאה בראותו יעקב מכין עצמו למלחמה. זאת, כאשר דבריהדגש על ולא – ו”ויצר” “וירא” של הכפל על מסובים החיים האור ביו”ד של “ויצר” כמובן (ובודאי שאין שום קשר ל”וייצר ה’ אלקים אתנח פרשת מתחילת להביא ניתן הזה מהסגנון דוגמא עוד האדם”). “נח” המילה על החזרה בשאלת החיים האור דן שם ט’), ו’ (בראשית כך:עוד מסביר החיים האור צדיק”. איש נח נח, תולדות “אלה בפסוק יתבאר כל הכתוב על זה הדרך, “אלה תולדות נח וגו'”, פירוש אלה סדרדרך על והוא ‘נח’, אחד באמצעותו, מהטובות שהוליד מה תולדותיו אומרם ז”ל: ‘…ריש לקיש אמר: קודם נח היו המים עולים ומציפין אותםמקבריהן כיון שבא נח ננוחו וכו” ע”כ. זה הוא שמונה בסדר תולדותיובאומרו פעם שנית ‘נח’.כלומר האור החיים מפרש את הפסוק כך: “אלהתולדות נח: [א.] נח – שהאנשים נינוחו. [ב.] איש. [ג.] צדיק. [ד]תמים. וכו'”. וכאן מסביר האור החיים מה פירוש ש’נח’ הוא מעשה טובשעשה נח. ואיך הבין המהדיר? כך:”מה שהוליד מהטובות באמצעותו” פי’מה שחידש נח טובה לבאי עולם באומרו פעם שנית ‘נח’, כי תיבת ‘נח’נינוחו.כמובן בקבריהן והיו שמתו שאלו המנוחה על תורה הראשונה פירוש הראשונה. ולא השניה, ‘נח’ ממילת שנינוחו למד החיים שהאור

למילים הסבר פשוט זה באמצעותו” הטובות שהוליד “מה האוה”ח דברי “אלה תולדות נח” שעיקר תולדותיהם של צדיקים מעשים טובים, והפירוטמה הם המעשים הטובים הוא: נח, איש, צדיק, תמים וכו’ כפי שהסברנולעיל, ודבריו של המהדיר הם מוטעים לחלוטין. לעומת מקומות שבהםבספקולציות מדובר שסתם פעמים בהבנה, מוחלט באופן טעה המהדיר האור לדוגמא, החיים. האור לדברי קשר כל וחסרות בסיס כל חסרות בנו” תמשול משול אם עלינו תמלוך “המלוך הפסוק את מסביר החיים (בראשית לז ח) באופן הבא:טעם כפל “המלוך” “אם משול” להיות כי ישוהנה ממשלה. והשני ממש, מלכות האחד דרכים, שני החלום בפירוש תרגם ולזה מוחלט… בגדר הממשלה אבל בפתרון ספק בגדר היא המלכות אונקלוס במלכות-את מדמי, ובממשלה-את סביר. המהדיר מנסה להסביר מהמוילנא הגר”א בשם כתב אליהו ממשלה:בקול לבין מלכות בין ההבדל וכ”ה באבן עזרא שמלך הוא מי שהעם ממליך אותו מרצונו, ומושל הואהראשונה בדרך רבינו נתכוין שלזה ואפשר בכח, מעצמו שמושל מי זה שהוא מלכות ממש דהיינו שהעם ממנים אותו, ודבר זה הוא בגדר ספק כילפי שנאתם אותו ודאי לא ימליכוהו מרצונם, והדרך השני הוא החלטיי-בהמשך הזרוע. בכח עליהם ממשלתו שיטיל היחידה הדרך זאת כי ודאי מביא המהדיר גם את דעת הרמב”ן ש”המלוכה והממשלה שניהם ענין אחד,רק שהממשלה דרגה נמוכה מהמלוכה”. אעפ”כ הוא ממשיך להסביר את דבריבדבריו בתחילה, הביא שהוא והאבן-עזרא הגר”א בדרך האור-החיים בהסבר הראיה מתרגום אונקלוס:במלכות את מדמי- ‘מדמי’ פירושו מדמהודאי כי בנפשו, מדמה שהוא לו אמרו ספק שהיא המלכות ועל בנפשו. אין הדבר יתכן, שהם ימנוהו למלך עליהם מרצונם. ובממשלה את סביר-למושל שתהיה בדעתך הדבר ומוחלט סבור אתה שכך פירושו ‘סביר’ עלינו. יש להדגיש שבשום מקום באור החיים אין ראיה או סיבה להסבירכתב שהוא מזה ודווקא לממשלה, מלוכה בין החלוקה על דעתו את כך “מלכות ממש” משמע שהוא סובר כרמב”ן ש”המלוכה והממשלה שניהם עניןזה מעניין נוספת דוגמא מהמלוכה”. נמוכה דרגה שהממשלה רק אחד, מופיעה בתחילת פרשת לך-לך (בראשית י”ב א’), שם שואל האור החייםאודות:שדיבר אליו ה’ קודם הראות לו מה שלא עשה כן בכל הנבראיםאתדבר השאלה הסביר המהדיר באופן פשוט מאד:שלא נאמר ‘וירא אליו’ אלאיותר השאלה וכו’].לענ”ד ויאמר אברם אל ה’ [וירא ז’ פסוק לקמן שהיתה ושמואל גדעון למשה, השוואה מתוך נובעת והיא מזה, מורכבת התגלות שום אין וכאן אליהם דבר שה’ הראשונה בפעם התגלות אליהם כהסבר המהדיר של הסברו את הזה, במקרה לקבל, מוכן אני אך כזאת. לגיטימי. האור החיים עונה על השאלה כך:להיות שהוא [-אברהם] עליושנים חמש ובן זולתו, אדם עשה שלא מה בוראו בהכרת נשתדל השלום אלא אליו להגלות הוצרך לא לזה בהתחכמותו, מעצמו בוראו את הכיר אמר אליו דברותיו וכבר הוכר אצלו המדבר. כדי להסביר את דברי האורהחיים, המהדיר ראה צורך להביא את דברי חז”ל:”נשתדל בהכרת בוראו”תאמר אומר אברהם אבינו שהיה ‘לפי א) לט רבה (בראשית כמשאחז”ל

בעל הוא אני לו ואמר הקב”ה עליו הציץ מנהיג, בלא הזה שהעולם העולם’. “בהתחכמותו” …ששאל ‘וכי יש בירה בלא מנהיג’.אבל משום מהלא “לזה החיים האור דברי סוף על משפט. עוד להוסיף בחר המהדיר אליו שנגלה אמרו במדרש המהדיר:ובאמת כותב אליו”, להגלות הוצרך ואמר לו ‘אני בעל הבירה’. מה ראה המהדיר לכתוב משפט זה? מה הוארצה ללמד בזה? לי אין תשובה. הדוגמא האחרונה מהסגנון הזה שבחרתירוחי ידון לא ה’ “ויאמר הפסוק על החיים האור מדברי הוא להביא המעון החיים:ומשחרב האור כותב שם ג’), ו’ (בראשית לעולם” באדם אין ישראל עיני וכשנסתתמו הקודש, רוח בחינת ונשארה חזון נסתם אתנו משיג ריח הקודש ואין צריך לומר רוח הקודש, וזו היא צרת ביתותחי שבשמים אבינו ריח להריח הצמאים ממנה למעלה שאין ישראל חיים ר’ לגה”ק חיים דברי שו”ת כך:עי’ המהדיר מעיר כאן רוחינו. מצאנז (ח”ב יו”ד סי’ רה) שאלה אודות אחד שפגע בכבוד רבינו האוה”חהקדוש ואמר שלא עשה ספרו ברוח הקודש, ומסיים שם את תשובתו שודאירבינו אוה”ח הק’ חיבר את ספרו ברוח הקודש, ולפי”ז מ”ש כאן הוא רקמחמת ענתנותו (- כך במקור). קשה לומר שזה פשט דברי האור החיים,וקשה עוד יותר לומר שניתן לפרש כך את דבריו כאן. אמנם, בודאי שישעל המהדיר של התוספת אך הדברי-חיים, של דבריו את להזכיר מקום על דבר שום לכתוב שלא בחר המהדיר לספר, בהקדמה גורע. רק דבריו תולדותיו של רבי חיים בן עטר, בעל האור החיים (מלבד זה שהוא ילידשיטת על משהו לכתוב לנכון מצא לא גם הוא כן, כמו מרוקו). ספר אינו התורה על החיים” ה”אור אחת:חיבור פיסקה מלבד פרשנותו, דרושי, עיקרו הוא ביאור על התורה בדרך הפשט, חדירה לעומק השיתיןשל פשטי הכתובים, עמידה על קוצו של יוד בביאורי הכתובים ובלשונותאת מוצאים הם גם הכתובים סדרי אף בהם, נוקטת שהתורה השונים של למשמעותן ודורש חוקר כשהוא רבינו, של החודרת בהבנתו ביטויים פירושים בהם מוצאים אנו דבריו כדי ותוך הכתובים וסדרי המאורעות מילה שום נכתב תורה.לא של לאמיתה מדבש מתוקים וביאורים מחודשים אחר דבר שום או הספר נכתב בו האופן על הספר, נכתב בו הזמן על נעזר הוא ספרים באילו הלומד בפני שטח לא גם המהדיר זה. בסגנון במהלך עבודתו. מוסד הרב קוק הם בעלי הזכויות על חלק גדול מכתביושל הרב ראובן מרגליות ביניהם ספר “נר למאור” ובו ציוני המקורותמעיר הוא בקודש וכדרכו החיים אור שבדברי חז”ל ולמאמרי לפסוקים ומפרש ביטויים קשים בדברי האור החיים (ראוי לציין כאן גם לעובדההרבה העבודה את החיים). האור תולדות ספר כתב גם מרגליות שהרב לבצע מאד קל היום החריף, מוחו בעזרת בזמנו מרגליות הרב שעשה השתמש לא שהמהדיר ייתכן שבהחלט כך במחשב, פשוטים חיפושים בעזרת שהעיר הקצרות מההערות חלק אך מרגליות. הרב שכתב המקורות בציוני בתוספת המהדיר דברי לתוך כלשונם הועתקו דבריו בתוך מרגליות הרב נר מרגליות, הרב של ספרו את מכיר שאיננו אדם בסופו. “(נל”מ)” שהמהדיר נוספים ספרים יש נל”מ. זה מה לדעת דרך שום אין למאור,

מפנה אליהם באותו צורה: שפ”ח, ברכ”ש. כמו כן גם כאשר המהדיר מפנהבפירושיו לספרים נוספים בשמם המלא הוא איננו מציין מי מחברם שלספרים אלו, היכן בדיוק (פרק, עמוד) נמצא המידע אליו הוא מפנה, עלמ”א פרק בבראשית מופיעה לכך דוגמא וכדומה. מדובר, הוצאה איזה פסוק א’ ד”ה “עד ששלמו” בו מפנה המהדיר “כדאיתא בספר צפנת פענח”,וכדומה. זה בספר איתא היכן זה, פענח” “צפנת מיהו להזכיר מבלי כותב בו הם” “והיכן ד”ה ב’ פסוק ל”ז פרק בבראשית נוספת דוגמא ראיתי לאחרונה כנ”ל. להזכיר מבלי משה” בסגולת הקשה “וכן המהדיר באתר של מוסד הרב קוק שלפני כמה חדשים סיימו להדפיס גם את פירושחומש על שלפירוש לציין מעניין ודברים. במדבר לחומש החיים האור המהדיר דברים ובחומש פרידמן, הרב על נוסף מהדיר התווסף במדבר בעקבות התרחשו אלו שינויים אם לדעת דרך לי אין לחלוטין. הוחלף טיב העבודה שהודגמה לעיל מחד, או אם שינויים אלו שיפרו במשהו אתבשבועות פניתי כך או מאידך.כך ודברים במדבר על העבודה איכות האחרונים למוסד הרב קוק בנוגע לספר זה ושטחתי בפניהם את טענותישהוצאתי כספי את לי שיחזירו וביקשתי הספר, של הירוד טיבו על כליל הספר את ויורידו איכותי בספר שמדובר מחשבה מתוך בטעות מהמדפים למען שמם הטוב. נעניתי על ידי יו”ר הנהלת מוסד הרב קוק,התקבל בהוצאתינו החיים” “אור פירוש הבא: באופן רפאל, יהודה הרב על לחלוק לך ישראל.מותר גדולי של שולחנם על רבה ובשמחה בברכה הערותיו של המהדיר ולפרש את דברי האור החיים בצורה שונה.אין מושגשמקבלים כסף בחזרה מסיבה זו שאינך מרוצה מפירושו של המהדיר.תמידמפליא אותי איך אנשים מכובדים מוכנים להעליל על גדולי ישראל שהםשמשתמע באופן מתנסחים שהם תוך שטויות, מיני לכל ידם את נותנים מבזים בעצם הם בפועל אך ישראל, גדולי אותם את מכבדים הם כאילו כאן). ראו זה מסוג להתנהגות דוגמא (עוד זה מסוג בטענות אותם מאידך, אם יש מישהו שחושב שהאור החיים הקדוש יכול לכתוב שהתורהמה אין אולי “אֶדום”, בשם אדום למרק קרא שעשו לנו מספרת בהוצאת החיים” “אור בספר מלימודי שהעליתי ממה להתפלא.לסיכום, סדרה זו. ספרים סדרת לרכוש ממליץ אינני היום, עד קוק הרב מוסד זו, המכילה ששה כרכים, בודאי איננה מצדיקה את עצמה. להוצאת מוסדחכם לתלמיד ולמסור מהמדפים זו סדרה להוריד ממליץ אני קוק הרב המלאכה את בפרט החיים האור ובפירושי בכלל המקרא בפרשנות המבין

להוציא מחדש את פירוש האור החיים על התורה. דברי[1] רוב על שעבר לסקר י. דניאל פרופ’ למו”ח להודות ברצוני .ועזר בהערותיו להכנת המאמר לפרסום

Woe Is Unto Whom?Woe Is Unto Whom? Christian Censorship of a Sugya in Berachos

3a (or What Was Bothering the Censor II)

By: David Zilberberg I. A Censored Text in Berachos 3aThe Vilna Edition of Berachos 3a states as follows:אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל משמי’ דרב ג’ משמרות הוי הלילה ועל כל משמרומשמר יושב הקב”ה ושואג כארי ואומר אוי לבנים שבעונותיהם החרבתיאת ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתים לבין אומות העולםThe identical statement is cited by R. Yose in a Braisa thatfollows the above-cited section. The Braisa records the storyof R. Yose’s visit to a ruin in Jerusalem to pray and hissubsequent conversation with Eliyahu HaNavi upon leaving theruin. At the end of the conversation, Eliyahu haNavi asks R.Yose whether he heard a “kol” in the ruin. R. Yose respondsas follows:לבנים אוי ואומרת כיונה שמנהמת קול בת שמעתי לו ואמרתי שבעונותיהם החרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתים לבין האומותThe meaning of the statement reported by R. Yitzchak barShmuel and R. Yose seems straightforward: God is expressingthe magnitude of the Jewish people’s loss. And, byattributing this loss to the nation’s own sins and repeatingthis statement on a regular, thrice-nightly, basis, thestatement serves as a constant reminder to the nation thattheir loss is their own fault.[1] While an element of rebukeis not explicit in the statement, it dwells right beneath thesurface. However, as noted in Dikdukei Soferim, the version of thestatement appearing in the Vilna edition is incorrect. Theversion of the sugya that appears in all extant manuscripts(at least those available on the JNUL online repository),[2]the earliest printings of the Talmud and various Rishonim whocite it, does not include the phrase שבעונותיהם“ .”לבנים Thus, in the Munich and the Firenze manuscripts and incitations to the sugya in the Menoras Hamaor (which is citedin the Dikdukei Soferim), and the Kuzari,[3] the statementreads:

אומות לבין והגליתים היכלי את ושרפתי ביתי את שהחרבתי לי אוי העולםEarly Talmud printings (e.g., Soncino, Bomberg), the Rosh, RavHai Gaon and Rabbenu Chananel have it slightly differently:

אוי שהחרבתי את ביתי ושרפתי את היכלי והגליתים לבין אומות העולם

The Paris manuscript follows the Munich and Firenze versionשהחרבתי“) לי (”אוי in the story of R. Yose and follows theSoncino version שהחרבתי“) (”אוי in the statement of Rav. Similarly, the Tosafist R’ Moshe Taku, in Kesav Tamim, citesboth versions.Either alternative has a profoundly different meaning than theVilna version.[4] A statement casting blame at the nation fortheir exile becomes a statement of divine mourning or regret.Dikdukei Soferim explains the change as follows:ובד׳ בסיליאה (של״ט) שינהו הצענזור וממנו בדפוסים האחרוניםThus, the original text was changed in the notorious Baseledition of the Talmud at the behest of the Christian censors,and this change was retained in subsequent versions.[5]Why was this statement censored? What did the censors findobjectionable about the original version?II. Overview of Christian Censorship of the Talmud andthe Basel EditionTo answer this question, it would be useful to briefly outlinethe history of censorship of the Talmud by the Church. According to William Popper’s The Censorship of Hebrew Books,from the time it was first committed to writing until the HighMiddle Ages, the text of the Talmud survived in manuscriptform relatively undisturbed by outside scrutiny. The firstsignificant efforts against the Talmud occurred in 13thCentury France. These efforts, spearheaded by Jewishapostates, culminated in the the burning of thousands ofvolumes of Hebrew books in the 1230s and 1240s. Similar butless extreme efforts were taken against the Talmud in Spain aswell.The Golden Age of Hebrew printing that developed in Italy inthe late 15th century was abruptly ended by a “golden age” ofcensorship. Within years of the invention of the printingpress, Italy quickly became the center of Hebrew printing. In1483, Gershom Soncino set up a printing press, and only a yearlater published Masekhes Berachos. While this volume was not

the first printed Talmud, it established the classic tzurashadaf that has become synonymous with Talmud study untiltoday. During the first half of the 16th century, otherItalian printers published volumes of the Talmud, includingDaniel Bomberg, who published multiple editions of the Talmudincluding at least one complete set. These early printededitions encountered little interference by the Christianauthorities. In fact, the Bomberg edition was printed with thepermission of Pope Leo X (this is not to say that the printersdid not engage in self-censorship). Starting in the end of 15th century, the Church, concernedabout the ease with which the written word could now bedisseminated unimpeded throughout the Christian world, beganto take measures to regulate the publishing industry. Thefocus of these efforts was initially on books designed forChristian readers. However, as these measures becamestricter, they ultimately focused on Hebrew books. In 1550,the events of 13th Century France began to replay themselvesin Italy. Accusations against the Talmud by several apostatesled to a renewal of anti-Talmud sentiment and ultimately todecrees directing the burning of the Talmud and prohibitionsagainst possessing it. The Talmud benefitted from a reprievein 1563, when the Council of Trent modified the ban againstthe Talmud to allow its printing as long as it was renamed (toGemara) and the “calumnies and insults to the Christianreligion” were removed. However, this limited dispensationwas not exploited for many years, most likely because the riskof printing even an expurgated Talmud was deemed too great tojustify the financial investment. Finally, in 1578, a printerin Basel, Switzerland decided to print a version of the Talmudthat would be acceptable to the Church and hired two wellknown figures with solid censorship credentials — MarcoMarino, the papal inquisitor of Venice, and Pierre Chevallierof Geneva — for the task.[6] The Talmud that produced inBasel was a thoroughly butchered work that was considered anutter abomination by the Jewish community. In the words of R.Rabinowitz in Ma’amar al Hadpasas Hatalmud:ובמגינת לב ודאבון נפש ראו היהודים את התלמוד אשר הוא חיי רוחםופרעות שמות בה שם אשר הצענזור ביד למרמם נתון בו מעיינם וכל ולזרה היה הדפוס הוה בעיניהםCertain words were systematically replaced, sections were

removed or changed and “explanatory” notes were added. Theentirety of Maseches Avodah Zara was omitted. Most shockingwere the notes added to Maseches Bava Metzia. An example isthe following amud:

The marginal note in the lower left hand corner is a commenton a derasha regarding the purity of a person upon entry intothis world. Although difficult to read in the image postedabove, Ma’amar cites the text of the note as follows:לפי ואמנם בעצמו חטא לא עדיין לעוה״ז בביאתו שהאדם לומר רוצה אמונת הנוצרים הכל נולדים בעון אדם הראשון כדכ‘ ובחטא יחמתני אמיThere you have it – the Christian doctrine of Original Sin on

a blatt Gemara.As unconscionable as these notes are, any harm they did wasshort term. These changes were both clearly gratuitous andeasy enough for printers to spot. Accordingly they wereremoved (for the most part) in later printings. The changes tothe text of the Talmud itself were more pernicious because notonly were they harder for printers to identify, printers ofthe 17th and 18th century were content with sticking with atext that passed muster rather than risking problems with thecensors by reverting to the pre-Basel text.III. Explaining the Work of the CensorsOur original questions remains: what did the censors findobjectionable about our sugya?It should be noted at the outset that it is impossible todetermine definitively the reasoning of the censors. Thecensors left no detailed notes explaining the basis for theirdecisions. In addition, the censorship of the Basel Talmud,and Hebrew books more generally, was not systematic orconsistent. Many have pointed out the almost comical examplesof censorship revealing the utter incompetence of certaincensors, who for example, indiscriminately replaced certain“buzzwords” such as ”גוי“ or ”אדום“ without regard tocontext. In addition, identical or near identical texts thatappeared in multiple places received different treatment bythe Basel censors for no apparent reason other then lack ofdiligence (or perhaps due to the use of two censors).[7] Thus, any attempt to divine why a particular change was madeinvolves a bit of guesswork.A. AnthropomorphismSome scholars have suggested that the censors objected to theanthropomorphic nature of the original version’s portrayal ofa sorrowful or regretful God, as it were.[8] However, thisreason appears to be incomplete. The first Chapter ofBerakhos is replete of anthropomorphic statements. God wearsTefillin, God davens and God asks for a blessing from theKohen Gadol. All of these statements escaped the scrutiny ofthe censors. Anthropomorphism, it would seem, didn’t alwaysbother them. While it might be argued that expressions ofregret or sorrow by God was a form of anthropomorphism moretroubling to the censor then other “garden variety” forms ofanthropomorphism, I find this reasoning unsatisfactory.[9]

B. SupersessionsismA hint at what I believe is the true reason for the change inour text is found in a book called Sefer HaZikuk. This bookwas printed in different versions at various times but itspurpose was the same: to provide the censors with Hebrewlanguage guidance (which, because the censors were apostates,for the most part, was the only language they could read) asto what kind of passages were considered contrary to Churchdoctrine.A. M. Haberman quotes a number of the guidelines printed inone of the versions of the book.[10] Among these guidelinesis:כל מקום שאומר, שהקב”ה מצטער על אבדן של ישראל, ימחק לגמריThe censored passage in Berachos 3a fits this guidelineprecisely.Note that this book was not used by the censors of the BaselTalmud – it was written after the printing of the BaselTalmud. However, Haberman states that this book was based onthe censorship standards used for the Basel Talmud. Accordingly, it provides a strong hint as to the kind ofconcern this passage likely raised with the Church and why itwas changed.While the Sefer Hazikuk doesn’t answer our original question,it certainly points us in the right direction. Why would anexpression of divine “pain” over the Churban beobjectionable? The answer would appear to be supersessionism.Supersessionism is (or at least was) a central tenet of Churchdoctrine. It aims to explain the status of various Divinepromises to and covenants with the Jewish people contained inTanach in light of the New Testament. The basic idea is thatthese promises were superseded by a new covenant with thefollowers of the Christian faith because the Jews failed tolive up to their obligations. Thus, the destruction of theTemple and the exile and persecution of the Jewish people is afulfillment of Church teachings.The notion of Divine lament or pain over these events istherefore a direct affront to this brand of Christian theology– if God “replaced” the Jews due to their failures with a newpeople and a new covenant why would he lament or feel painover the rejection of the Jews or the destruction of theTemple that facilitated His relationship with them?

Supersessionism not only explains the “offensiveness” of theoriginal text, but the rationale for the revised text aswell.[11]While many cases of censorship merely show the ignorance ofthe censor, the censorship of the passage before us shouldactually deepen our understanding of it. What set off alarmsin the minds of Medieval Church officials should likewisesignal to us that the sugya is not merely a puzzlinganthropomorphic statement attributing emotions to God but, butan implicit affirmation of God’s relationship with the Jewishpeople.[12] In fact, this is the precisely the interpretationoffered by R. Avraham Yitzchak HaCohen Kook in his commentaryon our sugya in Ayn Ayah:

III. A Note Regarding Recent Talmud PrintingsIt’s troubling enough that censored passages continued to be

retained in nearly all printings of the Talmud over theseveral hundred years after the Basel Talmud. But what iscompletely unconscionable is that many of the “Mifuar”reprintings of the Talmud in recent years have retained thesepassages as well, including certain editions that boast ofteams of editors exerting painstaking effort to fix thetext. Most puzzling is the English Schottenstein edition ofBerachos which not only retains the censored text and fails tonote the correct original text, but includes a note providinga commentary on the censored text:

Accordingly, the statement “Woe to the childrenbecause of whose sins I destroyed My Temple…” maybe meant to convey that since it is only becauseof our sins that the Temple was destroyed and ourpeople were scattered among the nations, it isonly because of our failure to repent them thatthe Temple continues to lie in ruins and weremain scattered among the nations. God,however, yearns for our repentance and if only wewill cry out to Him in anguish and repent overour sins and return to Him, He will surelyrestore us to our land and rebuild the HolyTemple.

While the notion that we can extract important lessons fromtexts written by medieval Christian censors is somewhatpeculiar, it is ironic that the explanation somehow manages toretain the hopeful message of the original uncensored text. Thankfully, the Hebrew Schottenstein edition, as well as theOz v’Hadar and Steinsaltz editions, include the original textsin footnotes.We are blessed to live in a society where we benefit fromnearly absolute freedom of religion. All sorts of expression— even the most vile, hateful and offensive sorts – receivebroad protection under law. Why do we continue to print andstudy editions of the Talmud marred by the fingerprints of the16th Century Catholic Church?Notes[1] The statement is echoed a third time later in the sugyabut with somewhat different wording. This post does notdirectly address this statement, although much of what is saidhere may apply to it.

[2] The JNUL repository shows three manuscripts of the sugya: Munich, Firenze and Paris. [3] Saul Lieberman notes that this version of the text alsoappears in several anti-Talmud polemical texts by Christiansand Karaites. Shki’in at 69-70. Lieberman demonstrates that(contra other scholars) these polemic works are valuable andtrustworthy sources of Hebrew texts.[4] More about the difference between the two alternativesbelow.[5] Notably, the Firenze manuscript itself reflects the workof the censor. Here is the relevant portion of our sugyabelow.

As you can see, a censor sought to remove the text underreview and a later scribe apparently sought to reinsert it. According to this, this manuscript was censored in Florence in1472. See below for another example of the expurgation of thepassage:

This is an image of an expurgated version of the first page ofEin Yaakov (renamed “Ein Yisrael” due to the listing of EinYaakov on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum) taken from thePrinting the Talmud website.[6] See Stephen G. Burnett, The Regulation of Hebrew Printingin Germany, 1555-1630: Confessional Politics and the Limits ofJewish Toleration (available here) for background regardingthe printing of the Basel Talmud.[7] Although not quite a parallel text, Chagiga 5b includesidentical themes to the uncensored version of our sugya,namely, God mourning, as it were, over the persecution of the

Jews and nonetheless appears in the Basel edition unscathed.[8] Popper, Censorship at 59; Nehemia Polen, Modern Judaism,Vol. 7, No. 3 (Oct., 1987), “Divine Weeping: Rabbi KalonymosShapiro’s Theology of Catastrophe in the Warsaw Ghetto” at n.18.[9] While I am no expert on Christian censorship or Christiantheology, I don’t understand why the Catholic Church wouldfind expressions of anthropomorphism a basis for censorship.In fact, the use of the uncensored version of this passage andothers like it in anti-Talmud polemical texts discussed byLieberman would seem inconsistent with this argument. Presumably, these texts sought to ridicule and belittle theTalmud based on the anthropomorphism of the passage. Whywould anthropomorphism become a reason for Christians tocensor these passages a few centuries later? [10] A. M. Habermann, The Oral Law During the Manuscript Eraand the Publishing Era, available here.[11] Credit for this insight goes to my clinical psychologistwife Penina whose prowess apparently extends to long deadchurch officials.[12] Significantly, the Rosh and Rabenu Chananel, both of whomhad the version of the sugya without the word “לי”, interpretthe expression of woe as applying to the wicked (i.e., thatdue to the their misdeeds, God is compelled, as it were, topunish the Jewish nation) rather than God Himself. This lessradically anthropomorphic interpretation brings the originalversion of the text (at least the version that the Rosh andthe Rabenu Chananel had) closer in line to the Basel text. One can speculate that this line of interpretation provided arabbinic basis for retaining the Basel text. However, thisunderstanding cannot explain the version of the sugya in theextant manuscripts, which employ the word ,”לי“ therebyclearly attributing the expression of woe to God Himself.It should be noted that Lieberman asserts that the “correct”version of the text includes“לי” based on the prevalence ofthis version in the manuscripts and in anti-Talmud polemicaltracts. He speculates that the removal of the word “לי” is anexample of Jewish self-censorship resulting from discomfortwith the radical anthropomorphism of the original text. Shki’in at 70.

What Was Bothering theCensor?

WHAT WAS BOTHERING THE CENSOR?

by Eli GenauerThe invention of the printing press in the 15th century was agreat boon for Torah study. Manuscripts which had to belaboriously copied one by one could now be set to type andhundreds could be produced at one time. One of the earliestJewish treasures to be set to print was the Talmud. Scatteredvolumes of it were printed in the late 15th century and earlysixteenth century, but the first complete set was printed from1519-1523 in Venice by Daniel Bomberg. He followed this withprinting two more sets, and was joined by Marco AntonioJustinian who printed a complete set from 1546-1551.

The competition between Justinian and another gentile printernamed Bragadini, led to one of them denouncing the other tothe Pope for printing items which were against the Church.This led to the public burning of the Talmud throughout mostof Italy starting in 1553.[1] The Talmud was listed in theChurch’s first Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1559.

There still was a possibility to print the Talmud but onlyunder the watchful eye of a censor who would excise alloffending passages. The consequences of having to deal with

censored texts, both from the outside and from selfcensorship, is one of the tragic outcomes of our Galus.

The first attempt to print the Talmud under the Papal ban wasin 1578-1581 in Basel by the printer Ambrosius Froben who wasallowed to print the Talmud under the lead censorship ofFather Marco Marino.

Regarding the censorship efforts, Marvin J. Heller notes this

was the most censored edition ever printed.[2] Stories aboutthe founder of Christianity were deleted, and many referencesto anything remotely connected to Christianity were changed.When it came to Aggadic material, Raphael Nathan NataRabinowitz in התלמוד הדפסת על writesמאמר that regardingmaterial which was either a bit strange or against theChristian concepts of reward and punishment, the censor wouldprint a short explanation about it on the page.[3]

I would like to focus on one piece of the printed Talmud whichis Aggadic in nature, the comment that was made on it by oneof the classic Jewish Meforshim, and the comment made on thatcomment by the censor. I am vexed by the following question,“what was bothering the censor?”

The piece in question is in מסכת אבות- פרק ו’-משנה י’

חמשה קנינים קנה לו הקדוש ברוך הוא בעולמו, ואלו הן, תורה קניןאחד, שמים וארץ קנין אחד, אברהם קנין אחד, ישראל קנין אחד, בית

המקדש קנין אחד.מפעליו קדם דרכו ראשית קנני יהוה ח), (משלי דכתיב מנין, תורה

מאז.

There is a commentary on Avos in many of the early printededitions of Mishnayos and of the Talmud. This commentary isattributed to the Rambam in the Soncino Napoli edition of theMishnayos, in the Bomberg editions, in the Basel edition, andin the 1721 Frankfurt edition amongst others. It turns outthat the commentary on the sixth chapter of Avos was notwritten by the Rambam as noted by the Romm 1880 edition of theTalmud, which attributes it to Rashi.[4]

Be that as it may, this Peirush as printed in the Mishnayos byYehoshua Shlomo Soncino, Napoli 1492, states the following:

קדמה שבריאתה דרכו ראשית קנני השם דכתיב מנין אחד קנין תורה בשביל יתקיים אמר עולמו לבראות לפניו במחשבה שכשעלה מפני לעולם

התורה

The creation of the Torah preceded the creation of the world,

because when Hashem imagined creating the world, He said thatthe world should exist because of the Torah

This is what it looks like there: ( from JNUL digitized books)

In the Bomberg Edition of 1521, it looks like this (from JNULDigitized Books)

In the Basel edition of 1580, (from JNUL)

The censor seems to have a problem with the comment and put ina הג”ה on the side of the text which looks like this: (Alsofrom JNUL)

הדבר הזה קשה מאד לשמוע, וצריך באור להבין מה זאת התורה אשר קדמהלעולם

“This thing is very difficult to understand and needs anexplanation what it means when it says that ‘the Torahpreceded the world'”Rabinowitz states that this הג”ה of the censor found its’ wayinto the Benveniste Amsterdam Shas of 1644-46 , (which I saw

recently in the JTS Library) and from there, it was mistakenlyincluded in many editions afterwards.[5]

I have an edition of the Talmud printed in Frankfurt in 1721,which is the model for almost all editions that followed. [6]

In the volume which contains Maseches Avodas KochavimU’Mazalos, we find Maseches Avos at the very end. Not only isthis comment included in it, but it now made its’ way frombeing on the side of the page, to being right in the text ofthe Peirush (albeit in parentheses).

Here is what it looked like in 1721:

I saw the censor’s comment in the Sulzbach 1755 edition andthe Amsterdam 1763 edition. It appears as late as theCzernowitz edition of 1843, 200 years after being mistakenlyincluded in the Benveniste Amsterdam edition.

By the time we get to the Romm Vilna edition of 1880,thankfully the comment is gone.

The censor does not seem to have a problem with the idea thatthe world was created in the merit of the Torah, rather thatthe Torah preceded the creation of the world. Rabinowitz hadstated that the censor commented on Aggadic material if it waseither strange or against Christianity. The comment of thePeirush did not seem at all strange (especially when comparedwith other Aggadic statements) so I was curious to find out ifthere was anything in it that was against Christianity.

Whom to ask? I turned to a real expert, someone who wears abig black Yarmulkah, sports a Rabbinic beard, and learnsMishnayos every morning at 6:30 AM with our neighborhoodhematologist/oncologist. His name is Dr. Martin Jaffee, aprofessor of comparative religion at the University ofWashington in Seattle, and until recently, the co-editor ofAJS Review. He is so good at explaining Christian theology,that one of his students once remarked to him “I wish myminister were able to explain out beliefs as well as you did”

Here were his comments:What bothered the censor is the parallel of the primordialTorah and the Primordial Logos (Word)–Gospel of John 1:1–“Inthe beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with G-d, andthe Logos was G-d.” Your censor was probably upset by theparallel. He probably wasn’t a classicist, though, or he’dhave known that this Neo-Platonic idea was all over theMediterranean and had been for several centuries. In fact,Chazal’s idea of the Torah that precedes Creation is anexample of their own exploitation of Neo-Platonism in serviceof Torah. Surely you know the Medrash about HaKadosh BaruchHu looking into the Torah for instructions for creating the

world, “like an architect consults a plan?

That seemed simple enough. The Christian censor’s comment thenmade its’ way into many editions of the Talmud, to be perusedby many, and discussed by some, without realizing its’ origin.I imagine a scholar in the mid 18th century who acquires a setof the Frankfurt Talmud and studies this expensive edition tohis library from cover to come. He learns Maseches Avos whichhe finds in the back of the volume which contains מסכת עבודתומזלות כוכבים and is happy to have the Peirush on Perek Vavwhich is ascribed to the Rambam. He is quite curious about aהג”ה he finds in parentheses within one of the Rambam’scomments. Who wrote this comment and what exactly was hisproblem? He should only know.

Notes:

[1] I have simplified this quite a bit to what most considerthe immediate cause for the burning of the Talmud at thattime. For a more complete discussion of this matter, I wouldsuggest reading chapters XI and XII in Marvin J. Heller’sPrinting the Talmud: A History of the Earliest PrintedEditions of the Talmud (Brooklyn 1992 ).[2] Id. at p. 255[3] Maamar alHadpasat ha-Talmud with Additions, ed. A.M.Habermann (Jerusalem 2006) p. 78.On that same page Rabinowitz writes about the Basel edition: “The Jews looked with broken hearts on what had been done totheir Talmud which had been trampled upon by the censor” (myparaphrase).[4] In the Vilna Shas, this comment appears at the beginningof Perek Vav of Maseches Avos on Daf 15A. Maseches Avos can befound in the volume that contains Avodah Zarah. I have alsoseen that this commentary is attributed to the Beis Medrash ofRashi.[5] Maamar alHadpasat ha-Talmud with Additions, p.78. at theend of footnote 10.[6] Id. at p. 111