Category: Biographies

Rav Yitzchak Halevi Herzog

The yahrzeit of Rav Yitzchak Halevi Herzog (1888-1959) is on the 19th of Tamuz. As I have already written articles on aspects of his life, this article will discuss neither his election as Chief Rabbi of Israel nor his research on techeiles.

Rav Herzog was born in Łomza in Russian Poland, the son of Rav Yoel Leib and Liba Herzog. His father was a talmid chacham of note, and very Zionistic. He had intended to attend the first Zionist conference called by Theodore Herzl, but at the last minute, he was unable to attend because of illness in his family. The Herzog family moved to Leeds, in the United Kingdom, where Rav Yoel accepted a rabbinic position. Many decades later, Rav Yoel Herzog was appointed rav of the largest and most prominent Ashkenazi community in France.

The younger Rav Herzog never attended yeshiva. His early Torah learning was with his father, and, from that point on, he was self-taught. After mastering Shas, Shulchan Aruch etc. at a young age, he corresponded with many of the gedolim of his time, including Rav Chayim Soloveichek of Brisk (after whom he named his older son), the Ridbaz (whom he considered his greatest rebbe other than his father, and after whom he named his younger son, Yaakov), Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (the Ohr Somay’ach), Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer (the Even Ha’ezel, Rosh Yeshiva of Slutkz and later Eitz Chayim in Yerushalayim), Rav Chayim Ozer of Vilna, and many others.

When Rav Yoel Herzog moved to Paris to assume his rabbonus, the son accompanied his parents and attended the Sorbonne. He later returned to the United Kingdom to complete his doctorate at the University of London. A brilliant linguist, he was proficient both in many ancient languages and in numerous modern languages. His multi-disciplinary doctoral dissertation, which has since been published, was on the source of techeiles, which he felt was a sea snail.

Upon completing his academic studies in 1916, Rav Yitzchak Herzog assumed the position as rabbi of Belfast, Ireland. During his years in Belfast, he had occasion to travel to London for a rabbinic meeting where he met Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohein Kook, Rav Shemuel Hillman (his future father-in-law, then a dayan in London) and his future rebbitzen. In 1919, Rav Yitzchak and Rebbitzen Sarah Herzog moved to Dublin, still part of the United Kingdom, where he had been appointed the Chief Rabbi. Rebbitzen Herzog, a well-respected askan and baalas chesed and tzedakah in her own right, was later honored with the naming of Herzog Hospital, a highly regarded rehab hospital in Yerushalayim.

The Herzogs had two sons, the older of whom, Chaim, became a general, politician, ambassador to the United Nations and president of the State of Israel. Two of Chaim’s four children also became famous in Israeli government: Michael served as ambassador to the United States and Yitzchak (named for his grandfather) headed the Labor party in the Knesset, was leader of the opposition, chairman of the Jewish Agency and is the current president of the State of Israel.

The younger son, Yaakov, was a musmach of Machon Harry Fischel and at one time was offered the position of Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom. Professionally, he was a member of the Israeli diplomatic corps, where he served with much distinction. He was an advisor on foreign policy to the Prime Minister (chief of the United States division), minister at the Israeli embassy in Washington D. C., and was the Israeli ambassador to Canada and, later, the director-general of the Prime Minister’s Office. He held secret talks with King Hussein of Jordan in a London clinic that opened the way to peace between Jordan and Israel, established secret contacts with Lebanese Christians and became a personal friend to President Kennedy and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. While ambassador to Canada, he became most famous for his public debate with the highly anti-Semitic but well-respected British historian, Arnold J. Toynbee, who had called the Jewish people a “fossil” and compared Israel’s actions in the 1948 Arab–Israeli War to the actions of the Nazis against the Jews in the Holocaust. After he demolished Toynbee in the debate, Toynbee’s wife, who had witnessed the debate, publicly rebuked Toynbee for having participated in the debate to begin with, so poor was his showing. Unfortunately, Yaakov Herzog passed away prematurely of a stroke at the age of fifty.

Let us return to when the two Herzog brothers, Chaim and Yaakov, were still little boys in Ireland. Rav Herzog supported the Irish republican cause during the Irish War of Independence. He personally befriended and sheltered Eamon de Valera (later to become President of Ireland) when he was a refugee from the British army and police. When the Irish Free State earned its independence, Rav Herzog became the first Chief Rabbi of Ireland, a position he kept until he moved to Eretz Yisrael.

During his twenty years as a rav in Ireland, Rav Herzog was offered numerous prominent positions, including the Chief Rabbi/Chacham Bashi of Saloniki, then the largest Jewish community in the world; the presidency of Yeshiva University; and the Chief Rabbi of France. He turned down all the offers, saying that he wanted to leave Ireland only if he could move to Eretz Yisrael.

When the senior Rav (Yoel) Herzog passed away in 1935, he had left a tzava’ah requesting that he be buried in Eretz Yisrael. Rav Yitzchak Herzog followed his father’s wishes and personally conveyed his father’s remains to Eretz Yisrael. This was the younger Rav Herzog’s first visit to Eretz Yisrael, and it was at this time that the position of Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv was open. While he was in Eretz Yisrael, Rav Herzog was interested in the position, and his son Chaim, then still observant, advocated strongly on his father’s behalf. Rav Herzog gave many shiurim while visiting Eretz Yisrael and met many of the country’s great talmidei chachamim and gedolei Yisrael, but did not get the position. The position was awarded to Rav Moshe Avigdor Amiel, at the time the rav of Antwerp, Belgium, who was the candidate of the organized Mizrachi party. (By the way, the candidate who placed third in the election was Rav Joseph Ber Soloveichek of Boston and, later, of Yeshiva University.)

Shortly thereafter, Rav Avraham Yitzchak Hakohein Kook, rav of the new yishuv, passed on, and his position was up for election. I have previously written at length on this election and the fact that Rav Herzog won the election (over Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlap, theRosh Yeshivaof Yeshivas Merkaz Harav) by only a few votes. The Herzogs moved to Eretz Yisrael at the first opportunity, although their younger son, Yaakov, remained in England where he completed his secular education.

By 1936, Rav Herzog was well established in Eretz Yisrael. He testified in front of the Peel Commission in London and participated in the London Conference of 1939 between Jews and Arabs from Mandatory Palestine, convened by the British government. During the Arab Revolt, he, together with other rabbonim, called for avoidance of acts of revenge. Rav Herzog also acted to unify the Jewish settlers in Eretz Yisrael. He attempted to mediate between Chaim Weizmann and Zeev Jabotinsky, encouraging them to cooperate, and took measures to establish unity among the religious leaders in Palestine.  He visited Irgun prisoners who were being held by the British in Eritrea (Africa), in order to encourage them.

From 1936 until his death in 1959, he was Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of the British Mandate of Palestine and of Israel, after its creation in 1948. He was deeply disappointed that the new state did not follow halacha as its basic civil law, something that he had assumed it would. He was the author of the prayer on behalf of the State of Israel currently recited weekly by many congregations the world over, and was also instrumental in many now-assumed aspects of Israel. His responsa have been published as Shu’t Heichal Yitzchak and he authored two books (of a planned five) entitled Main Institutions of Jewish Law.

In May 1939, shortly before the Second World War, the British issued the White Paper of 1939, restricting Jewish immigration to Palestine. After leading a procession through the streets of Jerusalem, on the steps of the Hurva Synagogue he turned and said: “We cannot agree to the White Paper. Just as the prophets did before me, I hereby rip it in two.” Thirty-six years later, on November 10th 1975, Chaim Herzog, then Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, repeated his father’s gesture, physically ripping up the UN resolution that Zionism is racism.

During World War II, Rav Herzog travelled the world in attempts to have the allies do something to save Jewish lives, including meetings with politicians throughout Europe and with U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. After the war, Rav Herzog set out on a rescue mission to find Jewish children who survived the Holocaust by being placed with Christian families and to return them to the Jewish people. He also entered abandoned Jewish homes throughout Europe, collecting genizah and other items of Judaica that had survived the war. The Central Committee of Polish Jews gave him a Torah scroll found under the ruins of the Warsaw ghetto, to bring to Eretz Yisrael.

Rav Herzog travelled throughout devastated Europe meeting with religious and state leaders, requesting their help with his mission. He even met with the not-so-pious pope (known as Pius XII), who turned a cold shoulder, refusing to return any Jewish child who had been baptized, even if forcibly or by adoptive Christian families. Rabbi Berel Wein often told how moved he was as a teenager when he heard Rav Herzog tell the story and then break down into uncontrollable crying over the neshamos lost to Yiddishkeit forever. Rav Herzog authored a kinah (lament), which he penned after witnessing the ruins of the Warsaw Ghetto. He began his return to Eretz Yisrael from Poland via a Red Cross train traveling to Prague, bringing with him 500 orphaned children whom he had managed to save from both Holocausts, physical and spiritual.

In 1947 and early 1948, Rav Herzog worked diligently to prepare a comprehensive program for the institution of halacha as the civil legal system in Israel. Throughout his lifetime, Rav Herzog wrote many articles and books, in addition to the above-mentioned Main Institutions of Jewish Law, discussing what should be the judicial system in the Jewish state.

Rav Herzog, described by one journalist as no less than a “phenomenon of knowledge,” had a broad range of interests and areas of expertise. “So great was the scope of his activities that to the outside observer it may seem as though they were accomplished by many different people in different fields, not by one.” He attracted an eclectic group of friends and acquaintances — rabbonim such as Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinski; prominent secular Jewish leaders; politicians, such as Mayor Fiorello La Guardia of New York and Eamon de Valera, leader of the Irish Revolution; and even the catholic Archbishop of Ireland.

Notwithstanding his own prominence as a Torah scholar and his position as Chief Rabbi of the nascent State of Israel, he often suppressed his own halachic position in order to create consensus and avoid machlokes. (This is in noted contrast to some later holders of the august position.) For example, when the Chazon Ish opposed introducing zebu cattle to Eretz Yisrael, Rav Herzog rescinded his psak accepting them, notwithstanding that such prominent chareidi authorities as Rav Vosner agreed with Rav Herzog.

Rav Herzog passed away in 1959 and is buried in the Sanhedria Cemetery. He was succeeded by Rav Issar Yehuda Unterman. Thus, the first three rabbonim of the new yishuv were, in order, Kohein, Levi, Yisrael.

Halachic Writings of Rav Itzele Peterberger

Question #1: When and where to daven?

If all the minyanim in my town daven shacharis after zman keri’as Shema, is it preferable for me to say all three paragraphs of kerias Shema and then daven with the tzibur, or should I daven shacharis bi’yechidus before zman kerias Shema and join the tzibur to answer borchu, kaddish and kedusha?

Question #2: Lending without proof

May I lend someone money without witnesses or without the borrower signing an IOU note acknowledging the loan?

Question #3: Acceptable resentment (Tar’omes)

At times, the Gemara states that I can be upset at someone for what they did to me. Are there halachic guidelines as to what type of resentmentI may have?

Question #4: Shocheit

My town has a shocheit who may not be up to snuff. Can we get rid of him?

Foreword:

The eleventh of Av is the yahrzeit of one of the greatest of the ba’alei musar, Rav Yitzchak Blaser, commonly called Rav Itzele Peterberger. Aside from being a highly respected talmid chacham, as evidenced from his halachic writings, he is considered the most prominent of the disciples of Rav Yisrael Salanter and is the source of most of the writings attributed to Rav Yisrael. Rav Itzele wrote several works, Ohr Yisrael, Kochavei Ohr and Nesivos Ohr, which he states are completely quotations of what he learned from Rav Yisrael.

Aside from many articles that Rav Itzele published in various rabbinic journals, his primary published work is called Pri Yitzchak. At the time he published the first volume of this work, he had no children, and he was the only surviving descendant of his father. Rav Itzele had two brothers, both of them prominent talmidei chachamim and rabbonim. Unfortunately, both of them passed away as young men and without progeny.

When Rav Itzele turned 50, his rebbitzen insisted that they get divorced so that he might be able to have children from a different wife. He refused her entreaties, until she took him to a din Torah to force him to divorce her. After their divorce and his subsequent remarriage, he continued to support her financially, the true ba’al musar that he was.

From Rav Itzele’s second marriage, he had a son and three daughters.

I have a personal reason to write about Rav Itzele. His first rebbitzen, this unbelievably altruistic woman, was a sister of my great-grandfather, which makes Rav Itzele my great-great-uncle – and makes me the closest his first rebbitzen had to descendants.

Rav Itzele Peterberger was born in Vilna in 1837; he studied under Rav Yisrael Salanter in Kovno. While yet in his 20’s, Rav Itzele reluctantly agreed to become the rav of St. Petersburg (at different times in history also known as Leningrad and Petrograd), then the capital of the Czar’s Russian Empire. Of course, being the rav of the capital city was a position both of great prestige and greater responsibility, and his position enabled him to assist many Jews living under the Czar. At this time, perhaps the majority of world Jewry lived under the thumb of the viciously anti-Semitic Czar’s regime.

Because of this position, he was called Rav Itzele Peterberger.

Rav Itzele held the position for sixteen years, and he then returned to Kovno, where he was the head of the famed Kovno Kollel. He was also involved in the creation of both Slabodka yeshivos, Kenesses Yitzchak and Kenesses Beis Yisrael, and the yeshiva in Kelm, called the “Talmud Torah.” (At this time, Slabodka was a suburb of Kovno, the two cities located on opposite sides of the Neiman River, now called the Nemunas. Slabodka is now incorporated within the city of Kovno, currently called Kaunus.)

In his late 60’s, Rav Itzele left Europe and moved to Eretz Yisrael, where he lived out his last years in Yerushalayim. He passed away in 1907.

Since this is a halachic column and not a presentation of biographies of gedolim, the rest of this article will focus on various points in halacha that Rav Itzele wrote about in his seforim, Pri Yitzchak and Nesivos Ohr. As mentioned, the latter was written by Rav Itzele as the opinions and thoughts of Rav Yisrael Salanter.

When to daven?

The first question with which I opened our article is: “All the minyanim in my town daven shacharis after zman kerias Shema. Is it preferable for me to say all three paragraphs of kerias Shema before davening and then daven with the tzibur, or should I daven shacharis by myself before zman kerias Shema and join the tzibur to answer borchu, kaddish and kedusha?”

The very first responsum that Rav Itzele wrote in Pri Yitzchak is devoted to this topic. In his lengthy teshuvah, he analyzes passages in the Gemara, rishonim and early acharonim on the topic. First, he quotes the various opinions regarding how much of kerias Shema is required for one to fulfill the mitzvah min haTorah. He notes that some authorities require that we say only the first pasuk; others require reciting the first paragraph; still others contend that the mitzvah min haTorah requires that we say all three paragraphs, including parshas tzitzis. However, Rav Itzele contends that this dispute among halachic authorities should not affect what we do. Regardless of how much of Shema must be recited to fulfill the mitzvah min haTorah, the rabbinic mitzvah requires that we recite all three paragraphs of Shema before sof zman kerias Shema.

Based on his analysis, Rav Itzele concludes that if a minyan will daven after zman kerias Shema, the individual should daven bi’yechidus before the tzibur does. He rules that one should recite Shema with its berachos in the correct time rather than reciting Shema earlier and then davening after zman kerias Shema. His reason is that Chazal wanted us to fulfill mitzvas kerias Shema while reciting Shema with its berachos, notwithstanding that the berachos that surround the Shema are not categorizedas birchos hamitzvah, berachos recited immediately before fulfilling a mitzvah. Whether these berachos are categorized as birchos hamitzvah or not is the topic of a dispute among the rishonim, with most rishonim contending that they are not birchos hamitzvah. Many proofs can be rallied to this approach, among them the fact that these berachos are not structured like birchos hamitzvah. If they were, their text would be Baruch Attah Hashem Elokeinu Melech ha’olam asher kideshanu bemitzvosav vetzivanu al kerias Shema.

Notwithstanding his conclusion that birchas kerias Shema are not birchos hamitzvah, Rav Itzele still maintains that Chazal intended that we fulfill mitzvas Shema while we recite the birchos kerias Shema, and that reciting Shema before davening should be done only when one is uncertain whether the tzibur will miss the zman of kerias Shema. He notes that his position appears to disagree with the majority of later halachic authorities on the subject, yet he is absolutely convinced that this is the correct halachic position. (By the way, there is evidence that the Vilna Gaon and his disciples also held this way.)

Lending without proof

At this point, let us analyze the second of our opening questions: “May I lend someone money without witnesses or without the borrower signing an IOU note acknowledging the loan?”

The Gemara (Bava Metzia 75b) teaches that it is forbidden to lend money without proof that can be used afterward to demonstrate that the loan took place. Its actual words are: “Rav Yehudah said in the name of Rav: Whoever has money and lends it out without witnesses violates the prohibition of lifnei iveir lo sitein michshol, ‘you may not place a stumbling block in front of the blind.’ Reish Lakish said: He brings a curse upon himself.”

The Gemara understands that the prohibition of lifnei iveir includes causing someone else to violate a mitzvah of the Torah. In this instance, as Rashi explains, the concern is that, with time, the borrower will realize that the lender has no proof that a loan was ever taken out, and that if he, the borrower, denies having borrowed the money, he can avoid paying it back.

Although the ruling of this Gemara is recorded in all the standard halachic authorities, including the Rif, the Rambam, the Rosh, the Tur, the Shulchan Aruch and all its commentators, widespread practice was that people ignored this passage of Gemara and loaned money without any proof. Examples of appropriate proof that a loan transpired include lending the money with witnesses present or having the borrower sign an IOU note. Another way to avoid the problem of lifnei iveir is to require the borrower to provide collateral such that if the borrower defaults or denies the loan, the lender simply sells the collateral as payment.

When people lend money without proof, although they are performing a great mitzvah of lending money, they are transgressing a dictate of the Gemara while doing so. Several authorities attempt to explain why the Gemara’s prohibition does not apply.

Rav Itzele shares some approaches of the Acharonim that attempt to justify the practice, but demonstrates why he is dissatisfied with their rationales. He then presents his own approach to explain why people’s actions were justified. I have chosen not to explain in this article the finer erudite reasons that he presents in this venue; suffice it to say, his conclusion is that one should not lend money without proof, as the Gemara states. However, he created what is called a limud zechus, a reason to explain why people do what they do, notwithstanding that one should not rely on this heter.

Question #3

The third of our opening questions is different from the previous two, in that its source is from Nesivos Ohr, one of the works that Rav Itzele states are quotations of lessons he learned directly from Rav Yisrael Salanter. Thus, this halachic discussion is not only from Rav Itzele, but from Rav Yisrael himself!

Tar’omes

According to halacha, wronging someone financially does not always mean that the aggrieved party is entitled to financial compensation. There are situations that are categorized as grama, indirect damage, that are ruled chayov bedinei shamayim yet beis din cannot demand payment. In these instances, the damager should pay or the heavenly tribunals will punish him for not having paid. However, should the aggriever refuse to pay, the aggrieved party has no halachic recourse whereby he can force collection.

Complaints, complaints

There are also situations in which Chazal rule that an aggrieved party may have tar’omes, a complaint that someone dealt with him unethically, although he has no claim to compensation for damages. Several examples appear in Chazal where this is the ruling. Here is one:

An employer engaged a foreman to hire daily workers for whom he was willing to pay forty dollars per diem. For whatever reason, the foreman hired the workers for only thirty dollars; they were willing to be hired for the lower amount and did not know that the employer was willing to pay them more. The workers now discover that, had they known, they could have earned more daily bread for their work. Do they have any financial claim against either the employer or the foreman?

The answer is that they do not. Since they agreed to the price quoted by the foreman, who was the party with whom they negotiated, they have no financial claim against either the employer or the foreman. However, the Gemara states that they have a non-financial grievance against the foreman, which is called a tar’omes. This is one instance in which the Gemara refers to someone as having a claim that is not financial but he can be upset at the person who caused him loss. Are there halachic guidelines as to what type of resentmentI am permitted to have?

Rav Itzele quotes Rav Yisrael Salanter as noting that there is a legal claim called tar’omes. This means that the employees cannot sue the foreman for money, but they have a halachic right to be upset at him should he not apologize to them or make amends in a way that satisfies them. If they reach an agreement with him and/or they forgive (mocheil) him, even without his having made any amends, they can no longer have any tar’omes against him. After all, they were mocheil him for any claims they may have.

Problematic shocheit

At this point, let us discuss the fourth of our opening questions: “My town has a shocheit who may not be up to snuff. Can we get rid of him?”

There are several other fascinating halachic issues discussed by Rav Itzele in the second volume of Pri Yitzchak, which was published posthumously by one of his sons-in-law, Rav Chizkiyahu Mishkovski, in 1913. One teshuvah (Pri Yitzchak II #22) involves a shocheit regarding whom concerns have been raised about his knowledge of the laws of shechitah and bedikah, the checking for tereifos. He appears to be an observant Jew, and he has a kabbalah on shechitah, the halachic equivalent of a shocheit’s license.

(The fact that such a shocheit had a kabbalah is astonishing, since it usually requires that a recognized, respected shocheit test him on his skills, oversee him perform shechitah successfully several times and check that his shechitah was kosher. In addition, kabbalah requires that a rav tested him on his knowledge of the laws of shechitah, on his ability to check a shechitah knife properly and to repair a nick on a shechitah knife in a nick of time. The assumption is that if he is not skilled enough to repair his knife quickly under the pressure of having a rav watch his work, he will be unable to sharpen his knife properly and quickly while working as a shocheit, if it will become necessary to do so. To receive kabbalah as a shocheit ubodeik, which is what is required for virtually all such positions, he also needs to pass testing on his abilities both as a bodeik penim,who checks whether the animal is a tereifah while the lungs are still bifnim, “inside” the animal, and as a bodeik chutz, who checks them after they have been removed.)

As a true ba’al musar, Rav Itzele is concerned about destroying the reputation and livelihood of this “shocheit,” but, of course, neither can the kashrus rules be violated one iota.

Rav Itzele rules that he may not work as a shocheit without full supervision; however, Rav Itzele does not exclude him from ever being a shocheit. Rav Itzele rules that this “shocheit” must learn all the laws and skills of a shocheit and undergo testing until he demonstrates that he has mastered the skills and knowledge required. He also insists that the “shocheit” accept that he is not competent to rule on the laws of shechitah, but must refer any question to a competent rav.

Non-kosher fish in your meat!

Here is another responsum from Rav Itzele Peterberger (Pri Yitzchak II #25). A piece of non-kosher fish fell into a pot of kosher meat. Obviously, if the quantity of kosher food is less than sixty times the volume of the non-kosher fish, the pot and its contents are all non-kosher – the food can be sold to a non-Jew or disposed of and the pot requires kashering. But what is the halacha if there is sixty or more times the kosher food relative to the amount of non-kosher fish?

There is a major dispute among halachic authorities regarding whether the practice of not eating fish and meat together applies when the fish is less than one-sixtieth of the food. The Rema (in Darkei Moshe, Yoreh Deah Chapter 116) and the Taz (Yoreh Deah 116:2) prohibit the food, whereas the Mordechai and the Shach (in Nekudos Hakesef ad loc.) permit it. Rav Itzele cites Talmudic sources whereby he demonstrates that non-kosher fish is certainly nullified one part in 60; the dispute among the earlier authorities can only be regarding small amounts of kosher fish that became mixed into meat.

Conclusion

We know most of the details of what Rav Yisrael Salanter bequeathed to us only from the writings of his talmidim, and the foremost writer among his disciples was Rav Itzele Peterberger. Thus, much of the invaluable lessons that have been handed down to us from Rav Yisrael Salanter, the unbelievable gadol, the founder of the musar movement, is known from my great-great-uncle. It certainly behooves us to study the Torah of this great leader, even if we are not his great-great-nephews.

The Bostoner Rebbe, ztz”l

When I moved to Brookline, Massachusetts, Rav Levi Yitzchok Horowitz, better known as the Bostoner Rebbe of Boston, had a shtiebel-type shul on Beacon Street, right near the border of Brookline (which is a separate municipality) and the Brighton neighborhood of the city of Boston. At this time, the rebbe himself no longer lived in the shul building but in an adjacent house. The shul building still contained the room where the rebbe held his seudos (today they would be called tishin), had his sukkah, was where he baked matzohs (using a firewood oven in the basement) and had numerous hachnasas orchim rooms upstairs. The shul part of the building on the main floor still had all the appearances of a partially converted house.

The rebbe himself was the attraction of the shul. There was no community to speak of at this stage. The shul had a few gabba’im to make sure that the daily minyan was somewhat organized. There wasn’t much of what we would call an organization. All of that would happen later.

The rebbe was an incredibly warm and caring individual. And he was also very, very astute. He understood people, understood what their concerns and fears, where they needed their confidence bolstered, when and how you could push them to accomplish more of themselves, and when (and for whom) it was best to say nothing. He was very accepting of who you were and what you were doing. It was never his role to judge, to indoctrinate or to demand. And it made no difference whether you were looking for a chassidish approach to Yiddishkeit, were a stubborn ba’al habayis or a classic misnageid. He was there to help and share with you of his vast understanding and erudition.

And he was extremely honest in his evaluations. He never whitewashed a situation to pretend that a problem did not exist. On the contrary, he amplified it. He made sure that you knew full well what you were up against. He was not going to convince you that everything would be easy and rosy. He explained to you what problems you were going to face and told you how to navigate them. And he gave you very straight answers. Answers that were built on the love he had for everyone.

Although the shul was officially a rebbe’s shtiebel, the “chassidus” as such was hardly existent. There was a hodgepodge of various frum baalei batim with a wide range of minhagim, personal observance levels, styles of dress and Torah knowledge. Some were various “survivors” from Europe, most were American. Some were professionals, others were manual laborers. There was also a handful of students (most of them graduate students at Harvard or MIT) who enjoyed the rebbe. This latter group probably became the most famous of the rebbe’s later chassidim. At this time, aside from the rebbe, I do not remember a single shtreimel – perhaps there was one or two.

Later, the rebbe’s different chesed projects would grow into various organizations, perhaps the best known was a large medical referral service (now called ROFEH), but at that time, this “organization” was the rebbe, his persona, and his contacts. Because of the incredible warmth and caring that he exhibited for everyone, when the rebbe asked a physician he knew for a favor, the doctor was hard pressed to turn him down. It  would be a rare instance that a doctor would want to turn the rebbe down. By the nature of who was calling him (and the rebbe always found the time to take care of everything himself – no one to this day knows how), they were all eager to help – regardless of whether they professed any religious beliefs or interest and regardless of their ethnic origin.

We might say that the rebbe was charismatic – but most charismatic people I have met are artificial. Although the charisma can create a vast following – think of Napoleon – it is a self-interest whose purpose is to create power for its possessor. The rebbe had no interest in himself on any level. His single job was to serve Hashem, and his interest in loving people and helping them was one manifestation of this. When he called to ask for assistance in any matter, it was clear to whomever he called that he was offering them to help someone. And it was clear that he had no other motivation; no vested interest; no personal agenda. This came across so clearly that it was virtually axiomatic that they would help the rebbe – meaning help the person on whose behalf the rebbe had called.

With time, the rebbe’s programs, communities, shullen expanded. They now included large communities on both sides of the Atlantic, numerous organizations, shullen, activities and programs.

Once, when we still lived in Baltimore, my wife and I were visiting Israel when a personal matter needed immediate attention. Someone aware of our predicament recommended we go discuss the matter with the rebbe. I was not aware that the rebbe was in Eretz Yisrael at the time, nor did I have the slightest idea how one could possibly gain an audience with him. I knew that innumerable individuals clamored for a few seconds of the rebbe’s precious time and that the rebbe was no youngster anymore. My friend arranged that my wife and I could go talk to the rebbe together. Yes, you read that correctly: an admor who sat on both moatzos gedolei Hatorah of Agudas Yisrael – the American one, which predominantly reflects the Litvishe yeshiva world, and the one in Eretz Yisrael, which is exclusively rebbes of very large chassidiyus –was willing and available to meet with a married couple of American litvaks who happened to be visiting and represented no political group and were not noted askanim in anything. The rebbe met with us, gave us all the time in the world to hear us out, and explained to us how to deal with the issue involved, and why it was nothing that we should be shaken up over or afraid of. He did not whitewash any problems, but explained, presented and encouraged. To this I will always be grateful. Yehi zichro baruch.

The Rosh Hayeshiva, Rav Ruderman

In commemoration of my Rosh Yeshiva’s yahrzeit, which is this Thursday, the 14th of Tamuz:

For clarity, I included the Rosh Yeshiva’s family name in the title, but, because of the way I always call him and because of my relationship with him, I will refer to him throughout this article simply as “the Rosh Yeshiva.” I cannot bring myself to refer to him any other way.

As a very American high school graduate, raised in a frum, New York family, I arrived in Ner Yisrael planning to stay one year in full-time yeshiva. My life was all planned out. I already had a scholarship to a good college in New York City and was the winner of a New York State Regents Scholarship, which would provide me with extra money while attending college. I planned to combine my daily college attendance with some yeshiva education while I achieved my B.A. degree, probably with a major in psychology, and then I intended to pursue my professional career, either to attend graduate school to become a psychologist or, more likely, to attend a top law school and become an attorney.

I had accepted my high school menahel’s suggestion to spend a year in yeshiva full-time before starting college. He suggested that I attend Ner Yisrael for a year, which did not pose any conflict with my long-term plans, either for myself or for my father, because of the yeshiva’s reputation for not being opposed to “college.”

Having arranged that my slot in college and the scholarship wait for a year, I arrived in Ner Yisrael. After one year in yeshiva, I decided to stay for another year and extended my slot in college and my scholarship for another year. After two years, I was told that my New York State’s Regents Scholarship would not be renewed anymore. I decided to spend another year in yeshiva, and then another. Now, decades later, I presume that there is still a place for me in the college I was supposed to attend but never did. Instead, extensive reading supplied my secular education, whereas learning, teaching and spreading Torah to Klal Yisrael became my life’s aspiration and commitment. Clearly, my vision for what I wanted to do with my life changed very significantly, albeit highly gradually.

How did this happen? Certainly not overnight. As a high school senior, I remember questioning the study of Bava Basra, a mesechta whose halachic issues discuss whether it is my financial responsibility to provide a neighbor privacy in his yard and whether using a field for three years enforces claiming ownership of the property. Obviously, these reasons would not establish a legal claim in today’s world, so why devote time to arcane, non-practical matters? Shouldn’t we be studying only practical topics like Shabbos or Berachos? This was the perspective of a senior from a frum background in a quality yeshiva high school. Yet, somehow the yeshiva changed my entire life’s priorities without my ever feeling that I was threatened. To understand how the yeshiva accomplished this, we need to understand the greatness of who the Rosh Yeshiva was.

That the Rosh Yeshiva was one of the greatest talmidei chachamim of his era is an undisputed fact, but provides little understanding of his brilliance as an educator. That he had absorbed the wellsprings of the Slabodka approach to mussar and personal development from its original proponent and builder, Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, the Alter of Slabodka, is also true, but does not convey to us anything of meaning. Nor does the fact that his head stored the collected knowledge of tens of thousands of seforim explain the success of the yeshiva he founded. And noting his regal comportment does not clarify our perception of his pedagogic genius. Instead, I will attempt to show how I, as one young talmid, was influenced on a daily basis, without my noticing that it was happening. Others will have different stories but, the results were usually parallel. Parallel, but not identical, because the Rosh Yeshiva developed our latent, individual abilities far greater than I have seen by any master of the literature of contemporary educational theory.

Furthermore, the cultural difference between the Rosh Yeshiva and us American boys should have been overwhelming. The Rosh Yeshiva was the age of our grandfathers (the few of us who had grandfathers), he spoke only Yiddish (which none of us did), had grown up in the poverty of eastern Europe and had been raised from the cradle in a culture in which Torah study was the highest, and perhaps only, goal. We were all baseball playing, typically spoiled, middle-class American kids, interested in eventually developing a comfortable, professional lifestyle. Of course, the most important part of the daily newspaper was the sports section. How did the Rosh Yeshiva bridge this gap to be such a successful educator and role model!

Let me mention some specific observations and anecdotes about the Rosh Yeshiva’s method of teaching and the yeshiva he built. The Rosh Yeshiva, who had a serious case of phlebitis, was medically required to go for walks to the extent that he could. As talmidim, we would often take the Rosh Yeshiva for walks. (I note that this was done, officially, during the time that, according to the usual yeshiva schedule, we should be in the Beis Medrash studying with our chavrusos.) If you did not prepare questions to ask the Rosh Yeshiva, he would ask you where you were up to in the Gemara, and ask you questions that demonstrated your level of absorption of the material. These were usually inquiries that did not have obvious answers. He would ask you what you thought the correct approach was.

It was not until many years later that I realized the humor of the scenario. The Rosh Yeshiva knew thousands of seforim by heart. There was nowhere in Torah that we would have any information that he did not know. Yet, rather than bamboozle us with his chiddushim, his novel approaches, or his massive Torah knowledge, as many roshei yeshiva would do, he asked us, as if he did not know the answer to the question. Was it possible that we might think of an answer that he had not seen or thought of? Highly unlikely. His goal was to build confidence in us to think independently and seek answers to Torah questions from within ourselves.

Over the years, I have been able to write many articles and full-length works on Torah topics. Many have asked me, where did I learn to think so independently? Initially my answer was incredulous. Is there any other way to learn Torah? This is the way I was taught how to analyze Torah sources. And then I realized that in Ner Yisrael we received an education that included how to use our own best resources – that blessed brain that G-d gave us – and lots of sweat – to plumb the original Torah material until we were satisfied with the approach at which we arrived. And that approach would remain with us as the truth of Torah until such time as we realized that we may not have understood the sources correctly. At that moment, our need for absolute intellectual honesty would teach us to review and potentially revise our understanding.

I will include a few anecdotes that I witnessed during the Yom Kippur and Sukkos season of holidays. I note that these stories indicate very different aspects of the Rosh Yeshiva’s greatness: His skill at molding people to serve Hashem and how to be a mentsch, not by force of personality, but by example.

The machzor

There is a famous story, which I personally witnessed, about the Rebbitzen’s machzor. One Rosh Hashanah musaf, we saw that the Rosh Yeshiva had davened his quiet shemoneh esrei near the doorway of the Beis Medrash, instead of at his usual place in the center of the front of the Beis Medrash. Why had he davened there?

The Rebbitzen was homebound in those days (her health had been failing; she predeceased the Rosh Yeshiva by several years). When the Rosh Yeshiva was about to begin the musaf shemoneh esrei, he realized that when he had left home (after making Kiddush before the shofar blowing), he had mistakenly taken the Rebbitzen’s machzor with him. Realizing that the Rebbitzen would want to use her familiar machzor, the Rosh Yeshiva immediately walked home (not an easy walk for him at his age) to make sure that the Rebbitzen had her machzor, and then returned to yeshiva to join the davening of the quiet shemoneh esrei in progress. This became his uppermost concern prior to the musaf shemoneh esrei of Rosh Hashanah, a prayer that he told us annually was of utmost importance. A lesson in respect for one’s wife that you never forget.

Prior to a Yom Tov, the wife of one of the prominent chavrei hakollel had given birth to twins, and they had one other child, about three years old, at the time. Because of the timing, no extended family was available to help out at the house. This yungerman understood that his responsibility for Yom Tov was to help his wife at home and not to attend davening in shul. Apparently, at the time that kerias haTorah would occur, things at home were quiet, and he came to the Beis Medrash, three-year-old in tow, because, after all, he could daven at home, but he could not hear kerias haTorah at home. Immediately, the Rosh Yeshiva called him over and sent him home. Your mitzvah for this Yom Tov is to take care of your wife and children, not to hear kerias haTorah or come to the Beis Medrash. A lesson in family responsibility that you never forget.

On the longer winter Friday nights, I would often visit the Rosh Yeshiva and his rebbitzen at their house on the yeshiva campus. The conversations were always about what life was like in Eastern Europe, in the town of Slabodka and similar matters. The rebbitzen participated in the conversations very freely, and the Rosh Yeshiva was very forthcoming with information, stories, insights and observations. It was completely natural and informal. I had no sense in the slightest that I was wasting his time or preoccupying him with matters when he would rather be studying Torah. He was too great for that. This is a lesson that I have thought about, although I admit to falling far short of his abilities in this area also.

One insight of mine is that the Rosh Yeshiva would answer any question that I asked him about any matter – with one major exception. When I asked him about the greatness of the Alter of Slabodka and his abilities to create so many gedolei Yisrael from his disciples, the Rosh Yeshiva would not answer. All he would do was allude to the incredible greatness of who the Alter was. Anything more than that was sacred territory on which the Rosh Yeshiva would not tread.

Perhaps I should follow his lead and refrain from discussing the greatness of the Rosh Yeshiva. But I feel this would deprive future generations of an appreciation of who he was, and, perhaps by some extension, a sense of the greatness of his rebbe, the Alter.

Rav Yitzchak Halevi Herzog and His Influence on the Medinah

Rav Herzog wrote and lobbied extensively to make choshen mishpat the system of law in the modern State of Israel and that its court system should be in the hands of recognized dayanim. For the week of parshas Mishpatim, here is an article about his unique contributions to Klal Yisrael.

Contrary to what many people think, the first Chief Rabbi of the modern State of Israel was not Rav Kook, but Rav Yitzchak Isaac Halevi Herzog. Rav Kook was the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of the new yishuv, but he passed away in 1935, thirteen years before the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel. After Rav Kook’s passing, the search committee for a new rav placed two candidates before the body in charge of selecting a new rav, and Rav Herzog, then serving as the Chief Rabbi of the Irish Free State, was chosen over Rav Yaakov Moshe Charlap, the Rosh Yeshivah of Yeshivas Merkaz Harav, now located in the Kiryat Moshe neighborhood of Yerushalayim.

Rav Herzog was born December 1, 1888, in Lomzha, where his family had lived for several generations. His father, Rav Yoel Herzog, was a well-known talmid chacham in the city and served as one of the dayanim alongside the city’s rav, Rav Noach Yitzchak Diskin (a brother of Rav Yehoshua Leib Diskin, one of the main unofficial rabbanim of the old yishuv of Yerushalayim and the rebbe of Rav Yosef Chayim Sonnenfeld, the first rav of the Eidah Hachareidis), and Rav Malkiel Tzvi Halevi, the author of the Divrei Malkiel, one of the greatest poskim in Lithuania in his generation. In contrast to most rabbonim of the time, Rav Yoel Herzog was a “fiery Zionist” – he was a strong supporter of the Chovevei Zion, a forerunner to the Zionist movement. As a young man, he met Rav Shmuel Mohaliver, one of the early founders of religious Zionism, who invited the much younger Rav Yoel Herzog to the first Zionist Congress, where Rav Mohaliver planned to introduce him to Theodore Herzl. At the last minute, Rav Yoel Herzog was unable to attend because his son Yitzchak became seriously ill. Most fortunate for the history of klal Yisrael, the young Yitzchak recovered.

The younger Rav Herzog grew up in an environment that believed very strongly in the building of a modern Jewish presence in Eretz Yisrael and had no difficulty cooperating with non-religious elements to bring about the creation of a Jewish state in the Holy Land.

The senior Rav Herzog left Poland, first to become Chief Rabbi of Leeds, England, and then to be the Chief Ashkenazi Rav of Paris. There were no significant yeshivos in England or France in this era, yet the young Rav Yitzchak Herzog became a tremendous gaon in learning, first by learning bechavrusa with his father, and then on his own. He pursued his secular education at the University of London and the Sorbonne, eventually earning a master’s degree equivalent from the Sorbonne and a Ph. D. from the University of London. During this time, he continued growing in Torah learning by studying on his own and corresponding with the greatest of the Torah world at the time, including the Ridbaz, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, and Rav Meir Simcha of Dvinsk (the Or Somayach). He later named his two sons for Rav Chayim Soloveichek of Brisk and the Ridbaz, gedolim whose acquaintance he had developed via correspondence from London, Paris and, later, Ireland, where he served first as the Chief Rabbi of Belfast (1916) and afterward of Dublin (1919).  He became the Chief Rabbi of the Irish Free State when it achieved its independence (1922).

Rav Herzog was offered positions at many larger, more prestigious and wealthier communities, all of which he turned down, stating that his intention was to move to Israel and nowhere else. When his father passed away in 1933, he was beseeched to take his father’s place as rav of Paris, but he replied that he would not relocate anywhere other than to the Holy Land. He was also offered to become chacham bashi, or Chief Rabbi, of Salonika, at the time the most prestigious rabbinic post in the Sephardic world, with the understanding that whenever any post of chacham bashi anywhere in Israel would become available, he would be virtually guaranteed the position. He turned down this offer also, saying that he did not want to assume any position outside of Israel, even on an interim basis. He was the only person in history who might have become either the Ashkenazi or the Sefardi Chief Rabbi of Israel!

When the position of rav of Tel Aviv-Yaffo became vacant in 1933, he became a candidate for the position, alongside Rav Joseph Ber Soloveichek, Chief Rabbi of Boston. However, the organized Mizrachi community in Eretz Yisrael backed Rav Moshe Avigdor Amiel, who was selected for the position.

As mentioned above, two years later, in 1935, Rav Herzog was elected Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Palestine, and when the state was founded in 1948, he became the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel.

Rav Herzog’s tenure was during a time of tremendous turmoil for the Jewish people in general and particularly for the yishuv in Israel. This is the period of the growth of the Nazi regime, the Arab riots and the British issuing repeated white papers restricting Jewish immigration to Israel when it was needed most. Rav Herzog, an eloquent and native English speaker, a tireless worker and an ego-less communal activist, used all of his considerable talents to help Klal Yisrael in every imaginable way during this difficult period. We can single out his traveling in the middle of the war from Israel to the United States to personally lobby President Roosevelt to help the plight of Jews being massacred by the Nazis, and his considerable efforts after the war to locate Jewish children who had been placed in Christian orphanages during the war and reunite them with their people.

Well before the founding of the State, Rav Herzog was probably the first one to write on how the new state should be run, envisioning an integration and application of halacha to the legal system of a modern new country. He published, lectured and lobbied that the new state and its entire legal system should be run according to halacha. He felt that its criminal justice system should use dayanim as its judges, and that Choshen Mishpat should be its legal foundation – not Anglo-Saxon common law, as unfortunately happened. He opposed the State having capital punishment, contending that the requirements mandated according to halacha would not be kept.

He even advocated certain “adjustments” to the way batei din and halacha traditionally operated and was usually interpreted, so that it could be used in a modern setting. For example, he wanted to adjust the system of yerusha so that daughters would inherit equally with their brothers, and he introduced the idea of fathers paying child support for their children until society considers them adults. Although he was, by and large, unsuccessful in introducing most of his ideas to Israeli jurisprudence, these last two are currently practiced in the official batei din of the State of Israel. And, although Israel officially has capital punishment, it has been carried out only once in the history of the state (Adolph Eichmann).

In closing, it is fair to say that, unlike Rav Kook, Rav Charlap and others, who built their belief in the medinah upon philosophic and kabbalistic foundations, Rav Herzog emphasized practical matters, such as what structure the legal system would have and how would the courts work, although this aspect of his life’s goals was only moderately successful.

Chumash and the Fall of the Ghetto

The yahrzeit of Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch,  a man to whom each of us owes a personal debt of gratitude, is on the 27th of Teiveis.

From the time of the French Revolution and continuing into the nineteenth century, the ghetto walls that had kept the Jews isolated from the world around them gradually fell all over central Europe. A result of this was that, no longer required to be part of their insular and observant Jewish communities, many Jews began to assimilate into the world environment now open to them and to throw away their Judaism.

In Eastern Europe, although the Jews were still kept isolated from full advancement into secular society, different forces, most notably the haskalah, accomplished similar purposes of distancing many Jews from the observance of the Torah. Among the challenges posed by some of the more intellectual who had abandoned Judaism, was their misunderstanding that the Torah as presented by Chazal bore differences from that of the written Torah.

At this time, several new and highly original commentaries on Chumash appear. Among these are Hakesav Vehakabalah, by Rav Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, the commentaries[i] of the Malbim to Tanach, the commentary of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, and the Ha’ameik Davar, the commentary of Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin, known by his acronym as the Netziv. All four of these commentaries show the impact of the tumultuous times in which they were written, although there are major differences between their treatments of Chumash.

Hakesav Vehakabalah

Rav Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, born in 1785, a disciple of Rabbi Akiva Eiger, became the rav of the city of Koenigsberg, then in Prussia, in 1831 and remained in that position until his passing 34 years later. Koenigsberg was within Germany but far to the east, and therefore Rav Mecklenburg saw both the problems of assimilation and reform that were happening in Germany and those of the haskalah and other non-religious movements of Eastern Europe. Hakesav Vehakabalah was intended as a response to attacks on Chazal’s understanding of Torah. In his introduction, he discusses the issues concerning the writing down of Torah shebe’al peh, quoting both the midrashim and the explanations of the commentaries on this question.

The explanations of Hakesav Vehakabalah are based on careful analysis of the root meanings and grammar of the words of the Chumash, using them to provide a clear interpretation of the pesukim, at times providing a Yiddish translation for a term. Although frequently he is highly original in his approach, he also often mentions the different approaches of the earlier commentaries and chooses the one that he demonstrates is the most accurate.

The first edition of Hakesav Vehakabalah was published in 1839. In his lifetime, three more editions were published, each including additional commentary or translation. He continued to add more to the work, and a further edition, including the author’s additional notations, was published posthumously in 1880.

The Malbim

Rav Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel, who became known by his acronym, Malbim, served as the rav of many different communities in Eastern Europe. A brilliant talmid chacham, a warrior against the haskalah, and a prolific author, he is remembered to posterity primarily because of his commentaries on Tanach and the essays that accompany those commentaries.[ii] His commentary on Yeshayah, which is the first volume that he produced, includes an introduction in which he elucidates the principles that form the basis for his commentary on most of Tanach. These include that there are never two terms in Tanach Hebrew that mean the exact same thing, and that there are no repeated phrases or clauses. Each word in Tanach was chosen meticulously to provide a very specific nuance of meaning and that one must delve into the depth of this meaning. His works on Vayikra and Devorim are original commentaries to the midrash halacha on these seforim,in which he demonstrates how Chazal proved the correct halachic interpretation of each verse.

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, born in 1808 in Hamburg, Germany, held rabbinic positions in Oldenberg and Emden, Germany, prior to becoming the Chief Rabbi of Moravia. Thereafter, he returned to Germany and established a Torah-committed community in Frankfurt. Towards the end of his life, after he had built a strong Torah community, he produced his commentaries to the Chumash, Tehillim and the Siddur. As he writes in his introduction, his commentary on Chumash was based on lectures that he had given on the subject, and he used the notes of attendees to those shiurim as the basis for his written commentary.

The Netziv

Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin was born in the village of Mir, then in czarist Russia, in 1817. At the age of 16 he married the daughter of Rav Yitzchak of Volozhin, the son and successor of the founder and Rosh Yeshivah of the famed yeshivah in that city, Rav Chayim of Volozhin, the esteemed disciple of the Vilna Gaon. From that time until his very last months, the Netziv was associated with the yeshivah of Volozhin, where he eventually became Rosh Yeshivah, a position he held for almost forty years until the yeshivah was closed in 1892, because of the insistence of the czarist government that it secularize its curriculum. The Netziv authored many works, including a commentary on the She’iltos of Rav Achai Gaon, commentaries to all the halachic midrashim, a commentary on Shir Hashirim, responsa, and his commentary to the Chumash, called Ha’ameik Davar.

Of the four authors we are discussing, the Netziv is unique in that his primary role was that of a rosh yeshivah, whereas the other three were communal rabbonim. All four of these gedolim were renowned poskim. But the Netziv was unusual as a rosh yeshivah in that he not only taught a daily Gemara shiur in which he went through the entire Shas (not only the so-called “yeshivish mesechtos”), but he also taught a daily class in the week’s parshah. His discussion and his commentary were based on his personal analysis of the pesukim or from ideas that he heard orally from talmidei chachamim such as his father-in-law, Rav Yitzchak of Volozhin.

The differences among these commentaries

Notwithstanding the similarities of purpose among these commentaries, each reflects its author’s unique contributions to Torah; thus, there are major differences among them. For example, the Malbim’s commentaries to the book of Vayikra and to most of Devorim are not devoted to explaining the pesukim, but to demonstrating how the halachic droshah of the Torah shebe’al peh is based on a particular way of understanding the Torah shebiksav. He developed an extensive system that provides the underpinning of all of the halachic derivations. In his introduction to Vayikra, he writes that he had initially intended to write his commentary explaining this derivative approach to every droshah of Chazal. However, he discovered very early in the writing of his commentary that the length of such a work would become unrealistic. Instead, he wrote a separate essay that explains the principles with which Chazal operated, and in his commentary he referred to the appropriate part of this essay when necessary.

Rav Hirsch also maintained that proper study of Torah shebiksav will leave you with the conclusions of Torah shebe’al peh. He noted that the Torah shebe’al peh was actually taught to the Jews first.[iii] Moshe received all the laws of Torah shebe’al peh at Har Sinai and taught them to the Jewish people gradually. The completed Torah shebiksav was not received by the Jews until the very end of Moshe’s life, immediately prior to the Jews entering Eretz Yisroel, or forty years after they had received the Torah shebe’al peh. This explains numerous passages in the Torah, including the commandment to slaughter animals ka’asher tzivisicha “as you were instructed,” meaning the sets of regulations that had been transmitted to Moshe at Har Sinai and previously taught to the Bnei Yisroel.

Comparing Torah shebiksav to Torah shebe’al peh

Both Hakesav Vehakabalah and Malbim mention that a major purpose of their commentaries is to demonstrate that Torah shebiksav and Torah shebe’al peh are one. In the introduction to the first volume of commentary he wrote on Chumash, Vayikra, the Malbim mentions specifically the tragedy of the reform convention that took place in 1844 in Braunschweig (called Brunswick in English), a city in Germany about 40 miles southeast of Hanover. The Malbim writes that when he heard of what had happened at the reform convention, he decided that klal Yisroel required a new commentary on Tanach written according to the mesorah. He notes that among the points he will be demonstrating is that Torah shebiksav and Torah shebe’al peh are one.

Although Rav Hirsch’s very brief introduction to his commentary does not emphasize this relationship between Torah shebiksav and Torah shebe’al peh, this foundation shows up literally hundreds of times in his commentary.[iv]

Uniqueness of Ha’ameik Davar

Of the four authors we are discussing, the Netziv’s commentary is actually quite original in a surprising way, which requires that we explain a bit of history concerning traditional Torah commentaries. Among the early classic commentaries on Chumash, the Ramban, Rashi and many others assume that any explanation of the written Torah must fit the conclusions of our Chazal and the Oral Torah. This approach accords well with the approaches of Hakesav Vehakabalah, Rav Hirsch and the Malbim.

However, among the rishonim this approach was not universally held. The Ibn Ezra, for example, often explains pesukim unlike the halachic conclusion. He certainly felt that the concept ein mikra yotzei midei peshuto,[v] no verse is interpreted without its most literal explanation,means that the Torah can be understood on many levels, and that the most basic understanding, pshat, does not necessarily require that it be consistent with the other levels. Many later authorities and commentaries criticize the Ibn Ezra for his approach.[vi] Yet, the Netziv also utilizes the same method, at times explaining a pasuk in a way that does not appear consistent with the halachic conclusions that we find in Chazal.[vii] Such an approach was anathema to Hakesav Vehakabalah, Rav Hirsch and the Malbim.

Uniqueness of Rav Hirsch’s commentary

The most obvious difference between Rav Hirsch’s commentary and those of the others is, of course, the language. Whereas the other commentaries are written in traditional rabbinic Hebrew, Rav Hirsch published his commentary on Chumash, and, indeed, all of his other works, in German. Using the vernacular to present the Torah was not an original approach of Rav Hirsch. Rav Sa’adiya Geon’s commentaries to Chumash, as well as all his other writings, were written in Arabic, as were the Chovos Halevovos, the Kuzari, and many other writings of the early Sefardic rishonim. Similarly, the Rambam wrote all of his works, with the exception of the Mishneh Torah, in Arabic. However, using the vernacular as a vehicle for presenting Torah had fallen by the wayside in the hundreds of years since the era of the rishonim With very few exceptions, Torah works were all published in Hebrew. As a young rabbi in Oldenberg, Rav Hirsch recognized the need to present the Torah in German. He certainly understood that he had a personal mission of providing Torah education to his generation, and to demonstrate that a proper understanding of Torah demonstrates its primacy over all of man’s endeavors.

In Rav Hirsch’s commentary there are instances when he wrote a comment in Hebrew. Invariably, these are the comments of a Torah scholar on a Talmudic discussion point that was not appropriate to the general audience for whom his work was intended. Yet, he was concerned that posterity should not lose the important halachic point he had realized. To accommodate this, he chose to write these points in scholarly, rabbinic Hebrew.

Aside from his use of German, there are many other ways in which Rav Hirsch’s approach is different from the other commentaries that we are discussing. Rav Hirsch’s commentary is not simply an interpretation of Chumash. He uses his commentary to demonstrate how the Torah should be used as the primary educational tool for man to grow as a human being. There is virtually not a comment of his on the Torah that is not explained as a moral lesson, what we call in our day a musar haskeil. It appears that Rav Hirsch deliberately restricted his commentary to topics that provide us with a musar haskeil. There are many occasions where he did not comment upon questions about pshat in a verse where it would appear appropriate for him to have done so. Apparently, he refrained from providing commentary where the conclusion would not provide any lesson one can utilize for personal growth.

Thus, Rav Hirsch viewed his commentary as a means of showing how to use Chumash as a lesson guide in what we usually call musar and hashkafah. In this, his commentary is very different from the other three works we are discussing, all of which are devoted to providing a commentary on Chumash and not focused specifically on being works of ethical and moral development.

From a mussar perspective, Rav Hirsch’s Torah commentary can provide a complete life-instruction manual on its own. We understand well why Rav Shraga Feivel Mendelowitz told his students at Yeshiva Torah Vadaas that it would be worth their investment of time to learn to read German just for the sake of being able to read the writings of Rav Hirsch. (At the time that Rav Shraga Feivel advised his students to do this, no translation existed of Rav Hirsch’s Chumash commentary in any language, nor were most of his other writings available in Hebrew or English.)

Rav Hirsch called his Torah hashkafah by the term Torah im Derech Eretz, the details of which he developed at different places in his commentary.[viii]Although the expression is often misunderstood and misinterpreted, Rav Hirsch used this term to mean that Torah and its observance is always the primary focus of a Jew’s life, and that this can and must be done in all places, times and situations. Everything else that this world has to offer, including livelihood, education, culture, and social mores, must be subsumed within a Torah framework.

Reasons for mitzvos

One of Rav Hirsch’s most innovative approaches is his explanations of the ta’amei hamitzvah. Of course, we all realize that a human being could never claim to understand why Hashem commanded that we perform a certain activity or prohibit a different one. Nevertheless, while performing the mitzvah, there are lessons that we can derive that may help us appreciate to a greater extent our role in fulfilling Hashem’s mission for us on earth. The Sefer Hachinuch explains that the term ta’amei hamitzvah should be translated not as reason for a mitzvah, but as taste of a mitzvah. While observing or studying the laws of the mitzvos, an educational reason that we can utilize should assist the experience of the mitzvah.

The concept of deriving educational reasons for mitzvos certainly did not originate with by Rav Hirsch. In one place in his commentary,[ix] Rav Hirsch quotes dozens of sources where Chazal discuss what lesson one can derive from the observance of the mitzvos, and we have several rishonim, most notably the Rambam in his Moreh Nevuchim and the Sefer Hachinuch, who devote much time to this study. However, Rav Hirsch added several dimensions to the concept of ta’amei hamitzvah. One dimension is that Rav Hirsch’s explanation of a mitzvah must always fit every detail of the halachos, the laws of the mitzvah. In this detail, his approaches vary from those suggested by the Rambam and the Sefer Hachinuch, whose reasons often do not fit all the details of the mitzvah.

Based on this approach, Rav Hirsch first develops and explains all the details of a mitzvah according to the halachic conclusion, and then weaves an explanation for the mitzvah that fits all those halachic details. At times, he must first take controversial positions regarding details of the laws of the mitzvah, something he is not afraid to do.

Frequently, Rav Hirsch presents approaches to ta’amei hamitzvos that none of the major mitzvah commentators suggest. For example, Rav Hirsch presents brilliant approaches to explain mitzvos such as arayos, keifel, arachin, and tumah and taharah, and why we disqualify blemished animals and blemished kohanim from the service of korbanos. In the case of tumah, he notes that the foundation of most religions is the fear of death, and this is when the priest assumes his greatest role. Quite the contrary, the kohen, the Torah’s priest, is banned from involvement with the dead. This is to demonstrate that the Torah’s goal is that we grow and develop throughout life – when we are in the heights of our best health. To emphasize this, we need to distance the kohen, whose role is to educate how to live as a Jew, from death.

Rav Hirsch uses the same concept to explain a different, seemingly baffling area of mitzvos. Why is a kohen who has a physical blemish or injury forbidden to serve in the Mishkan or the Beis Hamikdash? Similarly, why is an animal with a similar impairment prohibited as a korban? This emphasis on physical beauty or selectiveness seems to run counter to the Torah’s idea of equality. Everyone is equally responsible to develop a relationship with Hashem through His Torah.

Rav Hirsch explains that religions in general become the home of those who are challenged by society and cannot find their place. The Torah needs to emphasize that everyone’s goal is to grow and develop in his relationship with Hashem. The only way to convey this message fully is to demonstrate that the physically impaired cannot perform service in the holiest of places.

Rav Hirsch develops an extensive analysis of the reasons for korbanos in general, and the different korbanos in particular. Based on the nature of its species, its age and gender, each variety of animal is used to explain the message and concept of each type of korban.

Rav Hirsch explains beautifully why someone who is caught stealing is required to pay back double, keifel, whereas a robber is not. One who steals when no one is looking undermines a basic understanding that a society needs in order to function – that I can rely on a degree of trust among my neighbors. Thus, his sin undermined not only the trust of the individual whose property was stolen but also that of society as a whole, thus requiring a double act of compensation.

Ta’amei hamikra

Rav Hirsch emphasized that his commentary is based on a careful understanding of the Chumash text. Read the verse very carefully and see what it teaches. Include in the study the ta’amei hamikra, what is colloquially called the trop, according to which we read the text and which includes rules how to break a pasuk into smaller units to understand it correctly. To Rav Hirsch, any interpretation of the verse must include a proper understanding of the ta’amei hamikra.

Grammar — Dikduk and shoresh

There are several other ways in which Rav Hirsch’s commentary is different from other approaches to study Chumash. People often note his original use of dikduk, particularly his development of understanding Torah ideas based on the principle of shorashim that are phonetic cognates. This idea, used by Chazal and by rishonim,[x] is that different consonants that are articulated by using the same part of the mouth are related to one another.[xi] Thus, there is a relationship among the guttural consonants (ע ה א ח) that can be used to explain the meaning of related roots that use these or the labials (ב ו מ פ).[xii] Based on similar roots, Rav Hirsch develops a philosophic underpinning of the comparative roots, and then creates an associative meaning for each root. Often included within this system is a relationship pattern between similar consonants. For example, the tzadi often reflects a more intense version of other similar sounds, such as the sin. Thus, there is a conceptual relationship between יצר, which means to limit something for a specific purpose, and יסר, which educates, shapes and disciplines the spirit. In literally hundreds of applications of these ideas, Rav Hirsch demonstrates an entire world of educational themes, each of which teaches a Torah perspective on the world.

The shoresh of a word can often explain to us not only why a specific term is used, but may sometimes provide educational and religious lessons. For example, when mentioning that Avraham Avinu moved his followers from Shechem to the mountain, the Torah uses an unusual word ויעתק vayateik, which Rav Hirsch translates as He gave orders to move on.[xiii] Rav Hirsch there notes that this root is used in various places in Tanach for apparently different ideas, but whose common thread is that someone or something is moved unexpectedly or forcibly to a setting where it did not belong originally. Rav Hirsch thereby explains that Avraham realized that his followers needed to be isolated from the society around them for him to succeed in educating them, but he needed to overcome their resistance in doing so. Thus, from the proper study of the root of the word used, we gain an insight into Avraham’s pedagogic approach.

Rav Hirsch later notes that Avraham Avinu indeed took his followers with him to rescue Lot. This is seemingly an abrogation of his previous decision to have his followers live apart from society. The answer is that this was an emergency, and one cannot maintain separation under those circumstances. Again, we are provided with an education on how to run one’s life according to Torah standards.

Germane to this discussion, I would like to take issue with a comment made by the late Dayan Dr. Isaac Grunfeld in his beautiful essay written as an introduction to the first English translation of Rav Hirsch’s commentary to Chumash, by Dr. Isaac Levy. Dayan Grunfeld’s writes that the Hirsch Commentary is devoted to presenting “the unity of the Written and Oral Law as one of the fundamentals of authentic Judaism.” In this introduction, Dayan Grunfeld makes the following statement, “When Samson Raphael Hirsch began his commentary in 1867, he had the works of Mecklenburg and Hatorah Vehamitzvah of Malbim in front of him.” I presume that Dayan Grunfeld has some mesorah that this is true. However, from my work on Rav Hirsch’s commentary, and my comparison to the other two works, I personally am not convinced that this statement is accurate. My reasons are as follows:

When Rav Hirsch felt indebted to an earlier commentator, he always quoted his source. In the course of his commentary of Chumash, he quotes a wide variety of sources, including his rabbe’im, Chacham Bernays and Rav Yaakov Ettlinger (the Aruch Laneir), the highly controversial Naftali Wessely, and such late works as Harechasim Levik’ah. Yet, there is not a single reference anywhere in his commentary on Chumash to either Hakesav Vehakabalah or Hatorah Vehamitzvah.

The answer is simple: Rav Hirsch’s thrust in his commentary was different from theirs. His goal was not to demonstrate that Chazal’s understanding of Torah was the most accurate. His goal was to show that the Torah can be used as a basis for all of man’s growth in Torah, his proper personality development, and his hashkafah or world outlook.

There are places that Rav Hirsch leaves us with no explanation, whereas Hakesav Vehakabalah presents approaches that lend themselves perfectly to Rav Hirsch’s style of commentary. I will give one example: Rav Hirsch has almost no commentary to the lengthy list of travels that the Benei Yisroel made through the desert. Yet, Hakesav Vehakabalah has a beautiful explanation of the names and travels, which lends itself perfectly to Rav Hirsch’s use of Chumash to teach musar haskeil. Rav Hirsch himself uses other similar passages to teach musar haskeil, most noticeably the list of names of the decendants of Sheis. If he was in the habit of reading Hakesav Vehakabalah as part of his weekly reading, as Dayan Grunfeld implies, I cannot fathom why he did not use the opportunity to include these lessons in his Torah commentary and attribute them to Hakesav Vehakabalah, as he so often attributes explanations to earlier commentators.

Conclusion

Most of the innovations that have kept Torah alive in the last century are directly attributable to Rav Hirsch. Although Sarah Shenirer is the founder and basis of the Beis Yaakov movement, the originator of organized chinuch for women was Rav Hirsch, and his influence on everything related to the beginnings of the Beis Yaakov movement is axiomatic.

In most countries of the world, the majority of our Torah elementary schools and high schools include secular studies in their curriculum. This approach to Torah education is completely based on the framework of Rav Hirsch’s education system.

The extensive use of the vernacular for teaching Torah is another gift to us from Rav Hirsch. Certainly, the success of the numerous publishing houses that print and distribute Torah literature written in English, French, Spanish, Russian and other languages is completely based on Rav Hirsch’s producing his material in German.

The existence in the modern marketplace of highly trained professionals, as uncompromising in their professional standards as they are in their Torah observance, is directly attributable to the teachings of Rav Hirsch.

Rav Hirsch was the quintessential borei’ach min hakavod. Clearly, he saw his mission in life as educating the Jewish world with the beauty of Torah and its mitzvos. Leaving Moravia for what appeared to be a moribund Frankfurt may have been a disastrous move professionally, but for Klal Yisroel it has been the savior, not merely of the central European Torah world, but of virtually the entire contemporary Torah world. Yehi zichro boruch.

[i] I refer to the commentaries of the Malbim because, although he wrote on the entire Tanach, a rare accomplishment, his treatment of the different parts of Tanach is so varied as to make it difficult to refer to it as one commentary.

[ii] On Chumash, the Malbim follows two different styles. As I mention in the article, his work to Vayikra and parts of Devorim is an explanation of the midrashei halachah, the Sifra and the Sifrei, in which he delves into Chazal’s method of understanding Torah Shebiskav. On the other hand, his commentaries to other parts of Chumash bear close similarity to the commentary of the Abrabanel – he presents many questions on the topic at hand, and then weaves an explanation to answer them. Yet another style is presented in his commentaries to Esther and Shir Hashirim, in which he presents his own midrashic-style approach to these works.

[iii] Commentary to Bereishis 1:19

[iv] This point is the main thrust of Dayan Isaac Grunfeld’s introduction to Rav Hirsch’s commentary, which I will quote later in the article.

[v] See Yevamos 28a

[vi] See, for example, the second introduction of Yam shel Shelomoh of the Maharshal to Tractate Chullin.

[vii] For examples of this, see his explanation of the law of shifchah charufah, Vayikra 19:20 and of the pasuk velo setamei es admasecha, Devorim 21:23. See there how the other three commentaries we discuss deal with this topic.

[viii] See, for example, his commentary to Vayikra 18:4.

[ix] Devorim 24:18

[x] For example, see Rashi, Vayikra 19:16, where he explains that the word רכיל stems from the word רגל.

[xi] A language specialist calls these words homorganic consonants.

[xii] Those interested in seeing a systematic dictionary of Rav Hirsch’s work in this area are referred to Matityahu Clark’s Etymological Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew, Feldheim Publishers, which Rabbi Clark writes is “based on the commentaries of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.”

[xiii] Bereishis 12:8. Translation is from the Haberman edition.

The Literary Legacy of Horav Shlomo Wolbe

The seventeenth yahrzeit of Rav Shlomo Wolbe, the most published mussar and hashkafah author of our generation, falls on the 17th of Nissan. I would like to share with our readers what I wrote at the time:

Rav Shlomo Wolbe passed on to the yeshivah shel ma’alah during Chol Hamo’eid Pesach, leaving the following tzava’ah:

“I request and command that I not be eulogized in any format whatsoever. Furthermore, I should not be described by any title or honor, not as a gaon, and not as a tzadik, not even by initials such as zt”l.”

In keeping with the Rav’s wishes, we are providing a brief sketch of his life, followed by a description of part of the rich legacy of writings he left behind, but we are omitting the appropriate hesped.

Born in Berlin shortly before the outbreak of the First World War, Rav Wolbe’s early education was in Berlin, in the Frankfurt yeshivah, and then in Rav Botchko’s yeshivah in Montreux, Switzerland. In the 1930’s, he attended yeshivah in Eastern Europe, spending several years in Mir, Poland, where he became a talmid of the mashgiach, Rav Yerucham Levovitz, and, after Rav Yerucham’s passing, of Rav Chatzkal Levenstein, his successor. Throughout Rav Wolbe’s life, he viewed himself as a talmid muvhak, a disciple, of Rav Yerucham and as a transmitter of the mussar tradition that traces back to Rav Yisroel Salanter.

THE WAR YEARS

When the Soviet armies overran the town of Mir in the opening weeks of World War II, the yeshivah fled to Lithuania. Rav Wolbe, who was a German national, was forced to separate from the yeshivah and spent the war years in neutral Sweden. While in Sweden, Rav Wolbe lectured to the local Jewish population, in essence creating what may have been the first kiruv rechokim program in the modern world. He and Rav Wolf Jacobson, who was the rav there, became the Swedish contacts for the Vaad Hatzalah. They created a seminary for young women, who were often the only members of their families that survived the inferno of Europe. During this period of his life, Rav Wolbe authored hashkafah sefarim in both Swedish and German for outreach purposes.

After the war, Rav Wolbe moved to Petach Tikvah, Eretz Yisroel, where he married a daughter of Rav Avraham Grodzinsky, Hy”d, the last mashgiach of Slobodka. Through his rebbitzen, Rav Wolbe was a nephew of Harav Yaakov Kamenetsky, zt”l, and a brother-in-law of Harav Chayim Kreiswurth, zt”l.

AS A MASHGIACH

In 5708/1948, Rav Wolbe joined Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapiro in opening the Yeshivah Gedolah of Be’er Yaakov. Rav Shapiro was the Rosh Yeshivah, and Rav Wolbe was the mashgiach, a position he held for over 35 years. Later, he served as mashgiach in the Lakewood Yeshivah, in Eretz Yisrael, and he opened Yeshivas Givat Shaul. Rav Wolbe gave “mussar shmoozen,” “va’adim” (more informal lectures, usually to smaller groups) and lectures in many public and private forums. He also created batei mussar, where he delivered shmoozen and va’adim to long-standing talmidim, seasoned talmidei chachamim who developed into great gedolim and mussar experts themselves.

Rav Wolbe published the substance of many of his lectures in several sefarim on a wide variety of topics. In each volume, he wrote a forward, explaining the purpose for that particular sefer and the place and context in which he had delivered the original lectures, shmoozen, or va’adim. His name does not appear in any of his sefarim.

DERECH HALIMUD – LEARNING STYLE

Rav Wolbe, himself, points out a key component to much of his teaching: “One must learn how to approach a statement of Chazal – to study the depths of its peshat and to experience it, until the hidden light of Chazal’s statement illuminates you” (Alei Shur, pg. 9).

What did he mean? This sounds very confusing.

Often, the simple meaning of Chazal’s statement is unclear. Yet, if we review the statement over and over, suddenly we realize a deeper and truer understanding of what Chazal meant. At this point, the meaning of the statement illuminates us – whereas before, it had eluded us.

ALEI SHUR

Rav Wolbe published his first Hebrew work, Alei Shur, to provide today’s yeshivah student with a basic guide to assist him in becoming a ben Torah. This book, which the author spent thirteen years writing and revising, clarifies the basic areas to develop for someone to ascend to higher levels in his personal service of Hashem. It swiftly became a classic and is a standard, studied text.

Alei Shur defines a yeshivah as a place where one learns to live, not just to study (pg. 31). Based on sources in Chazal, Rav Wolbe contends that learning Torah with bad midos, such as hate, competition, or jealousy, is not considered learning Torah. Learning Torah must assist in the development of one’s midos, or it is without value.

In the same context, Rav Wolbe quotes the Rambam who notes that the word “chaver” carries two different meanings. It means a close friend, but it also means a talmid chacham (see Rambam, Peirush Hamishnayos, Demai 2:3). This is because talmidei chachamim become the only true, close friends, since their bond to others is based on their essence as giving people. Thus, someone intensely involved in learning Torah will be extremely careful that all interactions he has with people are pleasant.

WHY DO WE KEEP MITZVOS

Rav Wolbe points out the following anomalous problem that sometimes afflicts Torah Jews. Many people observe mitzvos because of habit – that is how they grew up – but not because they enjoy observing the mitzvos. If you ask them, “Why do you keep mitzvos?” their true answer is, “Because that’s how I was brought up.”

Rav Wolbe notes that this is equivalent to asking someone, “Why are you eating lunch?”, and he answers, “Because that’s how I was educated.” This answer is obviously ridiculous. We eat because we are hungry.

Similarly, we should be observing mitzvos because we are hungry for these mitzvos. Therefore, we should perform mitzvos with enthusiasm, because we enjoy them (Alei Shur, Pg. 51).

ALEI SHUR AS A GUIDE

Rav Wolbe felt a yeshivah bachur must develop expertise in four basic areas, aside from the regular Gemara curriculum of the yeshivah.

1. He must know the halacha that affects him. In Rav Wolbe’s interpretation, this means he should learn all of Mishnah Berurah.

2. He should know Chumash with Rashi and Ramban. This forms the basis for one’s hashkafah on Yiddishkeit.

3. He should know Pirkei Avos, with the commentary of Rabbeinu Yonah. Chazal gave us Mesechta Avos as a basic primer in midos, and Rabbeinu Yonah’s commentary on Avos is the best method for internalizing this primer.

4. He should be conversant in Mesilas Yesharim, which Rav Wolbe calls “the dictionary for midos.”

Rav Wolbe contends that one who devotes a small amount of his yeshivah learning to each of these pursuits, consistently, will complete all four projects within four years.

This assumes, of course, that the person is highly organized. Rav Wolbe believed strongly in being structured. In his own words, “The greater the person is, the more organized is his life” (Alei Shur, Pg. 68).

TEFILLAH

In the second chapter of Alei Shur, Rav Wolbe discusses the importance of tefillah to a human being. “The ability to pray defines a human being. Animals also wage war, construct homes and live social lives. But only mankind can relate to the Ribono shel Olam and daven” (Alei Shur, Pg. 27). Thus, someone who does not pray properly performs daily activities no differently than does an animal. Only one devoted to tefillah demonstrates the uniqueness of the human being.

“Each davening performed with understanding is a qualitatively different experience and has its own unique feeling and quality. It is indeed impossible that two tefillos should be identical — even though the words are identical. One can compare this to riding a train watching a beautiful landscape. Although the scenery may appear the same, the experience is different from moment to moment. At each moment, one sees the scenery from a different perspective.

Similarly, someone davening should constantly see himself and his relationship with Hashem from a different perspective — just as the traveler is looking at the scenery with a different, fresh perspective.”

UPS AND DOWNS

Alei Shur even addresses the emotional ups and downs of the typical yeshivah bachur.

Chapter 6 consists of a correspondence with a yeshivah bachur going through a difficult time, where he sees no success in his learning — he is not remembering what he learned, nor is he focusing enough to understand the shiur or the sugya.

Rav Wolbe points out that a person goes through cycles. Sometimes a bochur is not learning well, and his davening and midos also suffer. Rav Wolbe notes that the source of this difficulty is usually because he is comparing himself to others. Instead, acknowledging my one’s skills and qualities and recognizing my shortcomings is a much better approach. Although I may not remember a sugya as well as others do — if I need to review it many times to retain it, I will have a much greater kinyan on the information than those who absorb the information quickly. (Apparently, Rav Wolbe wrote thousands of such chizuk letters during his lifetime!)

Rav Wolbe focused on his talmidim’s needs, both individually and as a group. He directed his topic and the intensity of his delivery to his audience. One talmid, who returned to Yeshivah Be’er Yaakov many years after he had studied there in the ‘50s, noted that Rav Wolbe’s shmooze was less intense. When he asked the mashgiach about this, Rav Wolbe answered: “You belong to a different generation. The generation born before the war received shmoozen that were very intensive experiences. Today’s generation cannot tolerate this type of shmooze.”

Yet, when Rav Wolbe published the second volume of “Alei Shur,” thirty years after the first, he notes that the style of the second volume is more intense — since the audience for these shmoozen were his older, more seasoned talmidim. Thus, there is a vast difference between Volume 1 of Alei Shur, which is general hadracha for a ben Torah, and volume 2, which reflects the result of “workshop va’adim” for developing elevated midos.

A talmid once asked Rav Wolbe how long it takes to prepare a shmooze. He answered: “It takes five years to learn how to give a shmooze, five years to learn how to give a va’ad, and five years to learn how to talk to someone.”

This was, indeed, another facet of Rav Wolbe’s personality – the ability to empathize with the suffering of another. Someone bringing him a problem could see the intensity and anguish on his face, as he identified with the questioner’s difficulty. Recently, someone related that he was unable to discuss a personal matter with Rav Wolbe, because of the latter’s weak condition, and, instead, discussed the matter with one of Rav Wolbe’s talmidim. He described how he witnessed the same intensity and anguish on the talmid’s face that he was familiar with seeing on Rav Wolbe’s. Thus, Rav Wolbe had successfully trained a new generation of leaders of mussar for Klal Yisrael.

EDUCATING A GENERATION

Among his many works, Rav Wolbe authored two very important guidebooks: one to teach chassanim how to be good husbands, and the other on the Torah’s fundamentals of childrearing. In both instances, the purpose of the sefarim was to teach principles to a larger audience.

Rav Wolbe noted that sometimes people think they are giving their children proper chinuch, but, in reality, just the opposite is happening.

He provides the following examples:

(1) Insisting that a child remain at the Shabbos table, when he is too young to do so.

In this instance, although the parents feel that this is important for the child’s chinuch, it is totally counterproductive to force a child to do what he is not ready for. The expectations for a child must always be appropriate to his age.

(2) Parents who grew up in impoverished homes often raise their children by spoiling them- to “make up” for their own origins. However, this is counterproductive for the child’s needs.

(3) Often parents say, or imply, that their child should achieve what the parents accomplished, or what the parents aspired to accomplish – even when this may not be within the child’s capabilities or inclinations. The parents may want their son to be a rosh yeshivah or at least to be involved in full-time learning, but the child’s personality is more appropriate to being an elementary school rebbe, an outreach professional, or a frum businessman!

The result is that the child never learns to serve Hashem in his own, unique way. He is being forced to be what he cannot be, and, therefore, will not be successful at it — while, at the same time, he is being hampered from developing to his own, greatest potential. Eventually, he ends up becoming a non-success.

Timing is everything in child-rearing. One should neither start too early nor wait until too late. Also, there must be a tremendous balance between too much involvement in the child’s growth and too little.

Rav Wolbe was opposed to hitting children, both by parents and by mechanchim. He had his own original way of explaining the passage from Mishlei (13:24) “Chosech shivto soneh beno,” “One who withholds the rod, hates his child.” To fully appreciate Rav Wolbe’s explanation of this passage and his approach, I refer you to read what he writes, himself. (The book is available in English translation.)

OUTREACH MANUALS

Possibly the most unusual of Rav Wolbe’s writings are his books “Bein Sheishes Le’asor” and “Or Lashav,” which are based on lectures he gave to non-observant audiences, after the Six Day War.

During the Six Day War, a new teshuvah movement began, as many secular people recognized the miracle of the war. Rav Wolbe asked a shaylah from Rav Chatzkel Levenstein, who was at the time the mashgiach in Yeshivas Ponevitz, whether he should become involved in outreach, in addition to his other responsibilities. Rav Chatzkel ruled that whoever is capable of being involved in kiruv rechokim is obligated to do so, and that Rav Wolbe should be involved to the extent that it did not disturb his responsibilities in the yeshivah.

As a result, Rav Wolbe gave lectures on the basics of Jewish belief at army bases, in secular Kibbutzim and to academic audiences. Rav Wolbe began his first lecture with these words, “You invited me to tell you about Judaism, and why the religious parties often create problems for the general public.” (Bear in mind that non-observant audiences in Israel are, unfortunately, often hostile to Torah and observant Jews.) Another lecture began, “Many ask, is it possible to change halacha to accommodate the modern world, and how can a modern world be run according to halacha?”

Notice that he was unafraid to deal with controversy and felt that he could convince his hostile audience of the beauty of Torah. As a well-known mechanech once told me, “I doubt that there is a ba’al teshuvah today who is not influenced by his teachings.”

In these lectures, Rav Wolbe blended halacha and hashkafah in such a way that someone who was totally non-observant would be drawn to the beauty of Yiddishkeit, while, at the same time, someone halachically committed would suddenly gain new insights into his observance of mitzvos. A secondary purpose in publishing these lectures was to teach frum people how they could influence others and be mekareiv rechokim.

Rav Wolbe’s scientific knowledge of the world shows through in these lectures, as well as the importance he placed on being able to communicate the beauty of Torah in a sophisticated manner. Indeed, a talmid told me that he once gave a va’ad in the yeshivah on the correct way to write a letter!

BECOMING A “BAR DA’AS”

Personally, I have found one of Rav Wolbe’s smaller sefarim to be even more powerful. A few years before his passing, he published a volume entitled “Pirkei Kinyan Da’as,” “Chapters on Acquiring Da’as.” (I have intentionally not translated the word “da’as,” because translating it defeats the purpose of Rav Wolbe’s work.) This book is based on seventeen lectures (shmoozen) given over a period of 40 years.

Rav Wolbe notes the following:

To grow as a Torah Jew, a person must have da’as.

Most individuals do not have a natural sense of da’as and need to be taught. Our generation is particularly short on da’as. This can be demonstrated by the following:

1. The rampant problem today of lack of self-confidence, which he contends is a modern phenomenon.

2. People being frozen into indecision by their “feelings.”

3. Accepting certain realities that we should endeavor to change, while at the same time attempting to change things that we should accept.

4. Overreaction to frustration.

5. Lack of marital stability.

What is da’as, and how does one achieve it? This is the subject of the sefer, which is a “must read.” But then, all of Rav Wolbe’s writings are “Must Reads!”

יהא זכרו ברוך

Rav Lazer Shach – the Transmitter of Mesorah

In honor and memory of Rav Shach, whose yahrzeit is on the 16th of MarCheshvan, I am sending this article.

The yahrzeit of Rav Elazer Menachem Man Shach falls on the 16th of MarCheshvan. Rav Shach was the last surviving member of his generation of gedolei Yisrael, and as such was the link to gedolei Yisrael of over 100 years ago, whom he knew well and whose approach to Yiddishkeit he taught.

Rav Shach’s birth date is usually reported as Erev Rosh Chodesh Shvat, 5655/1895, although the exact year of his birth is uncertain. He was born in the village of Vaboilnick, Lithuania, at a time when all of Lithuania and Eastern Poland were under the rule of the Russian Czar. His family was wealthy in yiras shamayim, but destitute in worldly possessions.

Rav Shach would often point out that the gedolim of his generation developed because of the tremendous sacrifice they had for Torah and their lack of material wealth. Indeed, his early years are reflective of the tremendous difference between his generation and ours.

HIS FIRST YESHIVAH – PONEVITZ

Rav Shach developed a deep attachment to Torah at a very young age. When he was eleven years old, Rav Shach left his home and his hometown to go to the Yeshivah Ketanah in Ponevitz. At this period in history, it was very common for eleven-year olds to be apprenticed for work. Poverty among Jews in Czarist Russia was rampant; government anti-Semitism made it almost impossible for Jews to earn a living. They were banned from most professions and trades, and generally tried to eke out a living from manual labor, small trade or farming, although a fortunate few had small businesses.

Out of necessity, children as young as eleven and twelve were commonly apprenticed to skilled and semi-skilled craftsmen. There was often not enough food at home to feed them, and if they were apprenticed, at least they were fed and clothed, albeit poorly. A lucky, young apprentice might even earn enough money to buy a pair of shoes to help him through the harsh Russian winter.

Some dedicated youngsters ignored the relative security of apprenticeship and left for yeshivah at a very young age. This usually meant going to the nearest large town or city, where a prominent talmid chacham headed a yeshivah that was conducted in a local, unheated shul building.

The conditions that Rav Shach and the other young talmidim endured in no way approximated current yeshivah conditions. These yeshivos had no kitchens, dining rooms, or dormitories. The student body was comprised of bochurim learning in a shul or beis medrash, guided and taught by a local rav when he was not occupied with his communal responsibilities.

Many yeshivah bochurim came from very poor families that could not afford to send them any money. With no funds, they slept in the beis medrash where they learned day and night, or found work as night watchmen in unheated factories or warehouses. This at least provided a roof over their heads during the bitterly cold Russian or Polish winters and a little money to buy food.

Bochurim with no money to buy food usually ate “teg.” Every day (tog) of the week, they were assigned to eat with a family, who often did not have sufficient food for themselves. As a result, many bachurim went days on end without a proper meal. Rav Shach used to describe the embarrassment and deprivation he suffered during his yeshivah days.

STORIES FROM PONEVITZ

Rav Shach often told stories from his years in Ponevitz, thus preserving for our generation the mesorah of Ponevitz Yeshivah and the gedolim who lived and visited there. (The Ponevitz Yeshivah in Bnei Braq was founded by Rav Yosef Shlomo Kahaneman, who was the last rav of Ponevitz before it was destroyed by the Nazis.)

When Rav Shach arrived in Ponevitz Yeshivah Ketanah as an eleven-year old, Rav Itzele Rabinovitch, who was known as Rav Itzele Ponevitzer, was the rosh yeshivah and the rav of the town. Rav Itzele was famous as the genius of his generation, a rather impressive title, considering that it included such Torah luminaries as Rav Chayim Brisker, Rav Dovid Karliner, the Ohr Somayach, the Divrei Malkiel, the Rogatchover Gaon, the Avnei Neizer, Rav Chayim Ozer, the Chofetz Chayim, and the Aruch Hashulchan.

Rav Itzele’s hasmadah (diligence in Torah study) was legendary. He would learn until his last ounce of energy was exhausted and, invariably, fell asleep with his boots on, even when they were covered with mud. (The streets of Ponevitz were as yet unpaved.) As Rav Shach expressed it, if Rav Itzele had enough energy to take off his boots before falling asleep, he would not have used the strength to remove his boots, but to learn more Torah!!

Rav Shach illustrated Rav Itzele’s tremendous fear of sin with the following story. When a Jew opened his business on Shabbos in Ponevitz, Rav Itzele resigned from his position as rav, explaining that he was petrified to go to the Beis Din shel Maalah (the heavenly tribunal) as the rav of a community where Shabbos was publicly desecrated. Eventually, the chevrah kadisha forced the storeowner to close on Shabbos, by refusing to bury his father until he agreed to close the store on Shabbos!

Rav Shach quoted this story to point out the awe of Hashem of earlier generations. How many modern day rabbonim would resign their position because someone in their city desecrates Shabbos?

Another aspect of Rav Itzele’s righteousness that affected Rav Shach was his tefilah. Rav Itzele would daven with a burning passion. This made a tremendous impression on the young, budding scholar.

Rav Shach pointed out that Rav Itzele’s innovative style of learning was praised by some and criticized by others. He quoted Rav Chayim Brisker criticizing Rav Itzele as being expert in three Talmuds, the Talmud Bavli, Talmud Yerushalmi, and Talmud Rav Itzele. In other words, Rav Chayim considered Rav Itzele’s approach to learning as more conjectural than analytic. Others disagreed with Rav Chayim, contending that Rav Itzele’s shiurim were total brilliance.

Unfortunately, very few of Rav Itzele’s brilliant chiddushei Torah were saved for posterity, other than a small sefer titled Zecher Yitzchok. Rav Itzele’s talmidim included Rav Naftoli Trop, who later became the rosh yeshivah of the Chofetz Chayim’s yeshivah in Raden, and Rav Boruch Horowitz, who later became a magid shiur (Talmud Lecturer) in Slabodka.

SLABODKA

After several years, Rav Shach left the Ponevitz Yeshivah Ketanah for the Yeshivah Knesses Yisrael in Slabodka, which was the “mother of yeshivos” in those days. Most of the gedolei Yisrael of Rav Shach’s generation were educated in Slabodka.

Slabodka was a suburb of Kovno and stood on the opposite bank of the Vilaya River from Kovno. Although Kovno was politically and economically far more important (between the two world wars, it was the capital and largest city of Lithuania), Slabodka was clearly the Torah capital of Eastern Europe. It was the home of not one, but two major yeshivos, at a time when there were very few large yeshivos. Surprisingly, both these yeshivos were created by the same gadol, Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, always referred to as the “Alter from Slabodka.”

The older of the two yeshivos, Yeshivas Knesses Beis Yitzchok, (named after Rav Yitzchok Elchanan Spektor, the rav of Kovno and the posek hador when Rav Shach was born) was a non-mussar yeshivah. The yeshivah schedule was devoted exclusively to learning, and no official time was set aside for mussar and personality development. The yeshivah’s hashkafah (philosophy) was that a student immersed in Torah did not require structured mussar, and that, on the contrary, it might even stunt his growth in Torah learning.

When Rav Shach arrived in Slabodka, the rosh yeshivah of Knesses Beis Yitzchok was Rav Boruch Ber Levovitz. In addition to being a tremendous gaon in learning, Rav Boruch Ber was also a tzaddik who never looked up when walking in the street and was completely unconcerned with the mundane world.

The other yeshivah in Slabodka was the mussar yeshivah, Knesses Yisrael, which was named after Rav Yisrael Salanter. Its rosh yeshivah was Rav Moshe Mordechai Epstein. (It is interesting to note that both Rav Boruch Ber and Rav Moshe Mordechai had studied under Rav Chayim Brisker, when he was a magid shiur [a lecturer] in the yeshivah of Volozhin. Thus, Rav Shach absorbed Rav Chayim’s methodology through them.)

The two yeshivos of Slabodka were in excellent rapport with one another, as one would expect when the yeshivos are run by great tzaddikim. Students of one yeshivah attended shiurim at the other and sought out its magidei shiur and roshei yeshivah to “talk in learning.” Thus, although Rav Aharon Kotler officially studied in Knesses Yisrael, he and others regularly attended Rav Boruch Ber’s shiur at Knesses Beis Yitzchok. The attitude of the great luminaries running these yeshivos was that the more Torah institutions there were, the more Torah would be learned. This attitude influenced many of Rav Shach’s later decisions about opening new yeshivos.

Rav Shach attended Knesses Yisrael, the mussar yeshivah, whose guiding spirit was its mashgiach, Rav Nosson Tzvi Finkel, the famed “Alter of Slabodka.” (His title, the “alter” [the older mashgiach], distinguished him from the other mashgiach, Rav Ber Hirsch Heller, who was his junior by a few years. Rav Heller later became the father-in-law of Rav Yaakov Kaminetski, one of the yeshivah’s many talented students. Many decades later, Rav Yaakov and Rav Shach, who knew one another from their Slabodka days, renewed their acquaintance as gedolei and manhigei klal Yisrael, when they met in Yerushalayim to discuss community concerns.)

The Alter held that a rosh yeshivah or mashgiach must devote all his energy to his talmidim. A wealthy man once brought his only son to study in Slabodka. As he presented his son to the Alter, he begged him, “Please take good care of this boy. He is my ‘ben yochid’ (only son).” The Alter replied, “Every talmid of the yeshivah is my ben yochid.” This was not mere rhetoric, but the Alter’s way of life. For example, Rav Shach related that the Alter fasted when a bochur failed to learn or grow in his Yiddishkeit. This approach to chinuch influenced Rav Shach’s leadership not only of his talmidim, but also his relationship to people who came to seek his advice.

To appreciate what Rav Shach absorbed in Slabodka, we need to understand the Alter, who was an indirect disciple of Rav Yisrael Salanter, the founder of the Mussar Movement. The Alter developed the teachings of Rav Yisrael and his early disciples to meet the challenges of his time. Furthermore, he was brilliant at understanding talmidim and nurturing them to their greatest potential.

The Alter’s original contribution to the Mussar Movement was his emphasis on “Gadlus Ha’Adam” – that a person should develop with his own unique abilities in order to serve Hashem to the maximum.

The Alter nurtured an impressive list of gedolei Torah including Rav Shach, Rav Aharon Kotler of Lakewood, Rav Yaakov Kaminetski of Torah Voda’as, Rav Reuvain Grozovski of Beis Medrash Elyon, Rav Yaakov Ruderman of Ner Yisrael, Rav Yizchok Hutner of Chayim Berlin, Rav Moshe Chevroni of Yeshivas Chevron. As Rav Shach used to say, an entire generation of gedolei Yisrael, both in America and in Eretz Yisrael, was trained by one man: the Alter from Slabodka.

Each of these gedolim was a tremendous talmid chacham and a gadol in learning, leadership, and mussar. The Alter developed each one of them in his own unique way. Thus, Rav Hutner was a brilliant leader of men, and his talmidim also excel in hashkafah, Torah machshavah (Jewish thought), and the writings of the Maharal. Rav Yaakov Kaminetski’s greatness as a gadol manifested itself in his unusual expertise and perception in giving advice. Furthermore, he was especially gifted in poskim, Tanach, and dikduk. Rav Ruderman was a person who could quote verbatim virtually every early sefer ever published – and at the same time train a young talmid to think for himself. In addition to his lightning-fast mind and brilliance in learning, Rav Aharon Kotler became the community leader who motivated people to work for the kahal (community) in areas where no one else was successful. He has been described as “fire on earth.”

A common thread of the talmidim of Slabodka was that, although they were totally committed to learning, when the need arose, they involved themselves in community responsibilities. Rav Shach, too, would happily have spent all his time learning and teaching Torah, but he unhesitatingly assumed community responsibility when it became necessary.

Following the Alter’s teachings, Rav Shach developed into the proactive leader of klal Yisrael, both collectively and individually. When the time came, he was totally willing to render decisions on any issue – political, religious, educational, kashrus, organizational. Although he always emphasized and demonstrated that nothing is more valuable than learning Torah intensely to the best of one’s abilities, he assumed the mantle of communal leadership and made crucial decisions when it was necessary.

Slabodka had a tremendous effect on Rav Shach, although he was able to remain there for only two years, until the outbreak of World War I. The eastern front of the war, between Russia and Germany, raged through the areas of heavy Jewish settlement in western Russia. All the yeshivos fled, most of them deeper inside Russia.

RAV ISSER ZALMAN AND RAV AHARON

Details of Rav Shach’s travels during the war are unclear, but we know that he found his way to Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer’s yeshivah in Slutzk. Rav Issar Zalman had also studied under Rav Chayim Brisker in the yeshivah of Volozhin, and he then proceeded to develop his own style of learning. Rav Shach used to quote Rav Chayim as saying, “Had Rav Isser Zalman followed completely in my footsteps, he would have become the master of my style of learning. Instead, he became the master of his own style of learning.” Rav Shach approved highly of this approach and never insisted that talmidim should absorb his style of understanding Gemara. It was far more important to him that they develop their own derech in learning.

In Slutzk, Rav Shach became the chavrusah of Rav Aharon Kotler, who had married Rav Isser Zalman’s daughter, Perel. Eventually, Rav Aharon became a magid shiur in the yeshivah and later the rosh yeshivah.

In 5684/1923, Rav Shach married Gittel Gilmovski, Rav Isser Zalman’s niece. For the next five years, he continued toiling in Torah day and night. In the meantime, the Communists seized power in Russia and Rav Aharon moved the yeshivah to Kletzk, Poland, which was free of Communist rule.

In 5689/1929, Rav Shach became a magid shiur in Kletzk and began his lifelong career as a Torah teacher. Until the Second World War broke out ten years later, he was a magid shiur or rosh yeshivah of several yeshivos, , first in Kletzk, next in Novardek and afterward, for four years as rosh yeshivah of the chassidishe Yeshivas Karlin in Lunenitz. Subsequently, he returned to Kletzk.

Rav Shach related that, shortly after the Second World War broke out, the invading Soviet army was approaching Kletzk from the east. It was obvious that the yeshivah needed to relocate quickly, and Rav Shach went looking for potential sites. In one town, he met an old Jew who was a grandson of Rav Yisrael Salanter. Rav Shach asked him whether the town had an appropriate beis medrash or shul large enough for the yeshivah, whether the local people would help support the yeshivah, and whether they could provide lodging for the talmidim.

Turning to Rav Shach, the old man retorted, “Why are you delaying? First, bring the talmidim here, and set up the yeshivah. Do you think that the people will allow the talmidim to sleep in the street? You don’t need extensive planning, but you do need quick action!”

“From that yid,” said Rav Shach, “I learned a tremendous lesson. In times of emergency, don’t raise questions. Act!”

It was characteristic of a baal mussar like Rav Shach to tell a story in which he himself was the target of the message.

THE CHOFETZ CHAYIM

After Rav Isser Zalman moved to Eretz Yisrael in 5685/1925, he often sent inquiries to Rav Shach to bring to the Chofetz Chayim. Rav Shach used these opportunities to become well acquainted with the Chofetz Chayim’s way of observing and understanding the world.

Years later, when important communal matters came up, Rav Shach often said, “I don’t know anything about this subject, but I understand from the Chofetz Chayim that this is what should be done,” or “I have not heard anything about this matter, but I have no doubt that the Chofetz Chayim would decide such-and-such. Since the Chofetz Chayim is no longer alive, I must make that decision for our generation.” Thus, by sending Rav Shach to the Chofetz Chayim with his questions, Rav Isser Zalman was grooming a future gadol hador.

ERETZ YISRAEL

In 5701/1941, Rav Shach escaped the inferno of Europe for Eretz Yisrael. Before he found his position as rosh yeshivah in the Ponevitz Yeshivah, he was a magid shiur in several yeshivos in different cities, including Petach Tikvah, Rechovot, and Yerushalayim. During this time, he lived in Yerushalayim and developed a relationship with the Brisker Rav, Rav Yitzchok Ze’ev Soloveichik (the son of Rav Chayim Brisker), who transferred the mesorah of Brisk to Yerushalayim. (The current rosh yeshivah of the Brisk Yeshivah in Yerushalayim, Rav Avrohom Yehoshua Soloveichik, is the Brisker Rav’s grandson, while Rav Meshulam Dovid Soloveichik, rosh yeshivah of another very prominent Brisk yeshivah, is a son of the Brisker Rav. The “Brisk”-type yeshivos are headed by descendants of Rav Chayim Brisker or by their talmidim.)

The Brisker Rav was known for his meticulous observance of mitzvos. Rav Shach noted that while many people purchase new suits in honor of Pesach, the Brisker Rav would buy a new jacket to use at the table, in order to be absolutely certain that his clothes were chometz-free!

In 5711/1951, Rav Shach was invited by the Ponevitzer Rav, Rav Yosef Shlomo Kahaneman, to become rosh yeshivah of Ponevitz Yeshivah in Bnei Braq, and he held this position until his passing, fifty years later. During this time, he gradually became acknowledged as the gadol hador. Thousands of people sought his guidance, dozens of yeshivos asked him for direction, and he was the active leader of the chareidi world, making decisions on the many challenges that affect Torah life in a modern world. He charted the Torah path in dealing with a secular, modern state. Never hesitant to issue decisions and opinions on public matters, whether popular or not, Rav Shach ruled according to the mesorah he had received from gedolei Yisrael. Torah was not to be a public relations tool, but the seal of truth.

AVI EZRI

In 5708/1948, Rav Shach published the first volume of his sefer, Avi Ezri. This sefer is organized according to the order of the Rambam, although in many places it contains his chiddushei Torah (original ideas) on Gemara. His approach is to answer difficult questions on the rishonim in a clear, deceptively simple way. Although the sefer is relatively easy to read, it should be used only by someone who has studied the subject matter in depth. Otherwise, he will fail to see the sefer’s greatness.

Unlike many other authors, Rav Shach did not collect numerous haskamos (approbations) for his sefarim. His first volume carried only one haskamah — from his wife’s uncle, Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer. His second volume, published in 5716/1956, also has only one haskamah — from the Brisker Rav (Rav Isser Zalman had passed away by then).

The sefer is built on intellectual honesty. Sometimes, in a later volume, Rav Shach will contend that what he wrote in an earlier volume isincorrect. In his hakdamah (introduction) to thefirst volume, he describes the extreme honesty that one must apply to learning — a manifestation of the training he received in Slabodka and from Rav Itzele.

In the hakdamah, Rav Shach questions whether one has the right to publish sefarim if he is not convinced that he has researched the subject thoroughly. How can one claim that he has studied the subject to its greatest depth? Furthermore, if one republishes a sefer (the first volume of Avi Ezri was published four times in Rav Shach’s lifetime), one should ostensibly relearn each sugya, to see if one still agrees with what one wrote before  – just as a rav may not pasken a shaylah that he has ruled on previously, without reviewing the question once again.

Rav Shach closes his hakdamah with a realistic conclusion. If we published only those sefarim written totally lishmah, exclusively for the sake of Torah, we would never produce any sefarim at all, and Torah learning would be severely hampered. We are permitted to produce sefarim that increase Torah learning, which is our goal. Hesitating to publish a sefer would minimize Torah learning and leave more opportunity for the intrusion of non-Torah hashkafos.

A FEW VIGNETTES

Everyone finds much to identify with in Rav Shach’s stories and mussar. I will share with you some of the stories that I find particularly touching.

A well-known talmid chacham was offered the position of magid shiur in a yeshivah where the previous holder of the position had been unsuccessful. Before taking the position, he came to ask Rav Shach for advice and a beracha. Much to his surprise, Rav Shach recommended that he turn down the position. Rav Shach explained that, although it is permitted to accept the position, it is inadvisable to accept a position that will cause a talmid chacham to feel bad because someone else replaced him.

Rav Shach was annoyed at the common practice of yeshivah students setting aside time for a daily nap. “When you get tired,” he said, “put your head down for a few minutes. But there is no reason to devote a specific time in the day for this purpose.”

He was once asked to be the sandek for one baby of a set of twins, while the grandfather was to be sandek for the other twin. Rav Shach insisted that he either be sandek for both twins or for neither. He pointed out that later in their lives, the two twins might compare themselves, and one would point out that Rav Shach had been his sandek and not his brother’s. He did not want to be party to something that could lead to ill feeling between two brothers.

Often, Rav Shach pointed out that the pace of learning in the European yeshivos that produced gedolim was much quicker than is common today. He noted that in Slabodka, they regularly studied ten blatt of Gemara a week. Rav Shach remarked, “Even if we did not understand the sugya properly at first, we would understand it better the next time around.”

Through Rav Shach, a generation of yeshivah students was connected to the mesorah of the Chofetz Chayim, the Alter of Slabodka, Rav Chayim Brisker, Rav Itzele Ponevitzer, Rav Yisrael Salanter and the Mussar Movement. Ye’hi Zichro Baruch.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

The subject of this article is Rav Shlomoh Levitan, whose yahrzeit falls out this week.

Question #1: May a Mechalel Shabbos Duchen?

“The only kohen in our shul operates his business on Shabbos. Until recently, he had never duchened, and the rav was comfortable with that. Recently, the shul’s chazzan encouraged the kohen to duchen, and he began doing so. Should we stop him?”

Question #2: The Strength of a Rock

How did a tremendous talmid chacham, a correspondent of the Rogatchover Gaon, a close talmid of both the Chofetz Chayim and Rav Itzele Ponevitzer, become the Rosh Av Beis Din of the thriving Jewish metropolis that included Rock Island, Illinois, and Davenport, Iowa?

Answer:

Our opening question was asked of Rav Moshe Feinstein by a first-class talmid chacham, Rav Shlomoh Yehudah Leib Levitan, then rav of Rock Island, Illinois. Rav Moshe’s response is published in Shu”t Igros Moshe, Volume 1, Number 33. Igros Moshe does not include the full correspondence on the topic, for which one needs to find a copy of Rav Levitan’s teshuvos, Yeri’os Shlomoh, where it is included as Siman #6.

Who was Rav Shlomoh Yehudah Leib Levitan, and what was he doing in Rock Island, Illinois?

Rav Ben Zion Levitan

Rav Shlomoh Yehudah Leib Levitan’s father, Rav Ben Zion Levitan, was one of the foremost poskim in Lithuania in his time. The older Rav Levitan had been the rav of Tzitavian, the tiny Lithuanian shtetl that, at different times, boasted several prominent gedolim as its rav, including, much later, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky.

Rav Shlomoh Yehudah Leib Levitan studied in the Chofetz Chayim’s yeshivah in Radin. His entire life, he viewed the Chofetz Chayim as his primary rebbe. While a student in Radin, he was appointed as a rebbe to younger students. He also studied in the famed mussar yeshivah of Kelm (which, later, was the main yeshivah where Rav Eliyahu Dessler studied).

Rock-solid lamdus

Subsequently, Rav Levitan studied in the yeshivah of Ponevitz, Lithuania, under the famed tzadik and gaon, Rav Itzele Rabinovitch, who was known as Rav Itzele Ponevitzer, because he was also the rav of the city.

To illustrate Rav Itzele’s tremendous yiras shamayim, Rav Shach used to tell the following story: When, for the first time in Ponevitz, a Jew opened his business on Shabbos, Rav Itzele, whose sole income was from his position as rav, resigned from the position, explaining that he was petrified to go to the Beis Din shel Maalah (the heavenly tribunal) as the rav of a community where Shabbos was publicly desecrated. (Eventually, the chevrah kadisha forced the storeowner to close on Shabbos by refusing to bury his father, until he agreed to keep the store closed!)

Rav Itzele’s hasmadah (diligence in Torah study) was legendary. He would learn until his last ounce of energy was exhausted and, invariably, fell asleep with his boots on, even when they were covered with mud. (In his era, the streets of Ponevitz were unpaved.)

Rav Itzele was considered by many to be the genius of his era, a generation that included much competition for that distinction since it contained such luminaries as Rav Chayim Brisker, Rav Dovid Karliner, the Ohr Somayach, the Rogatchover Gaon, Rav Chayim Ozer, and the Aruch Hashulchan. Indeed, Rav Itzele and Rav Chayim Brisker had been chavrusos (study partners) for a few years, shortly after their marriages (in the 1870’s). Rav Itzele was a discipleof Rav Chayim’s father, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichek, the Beis Halevi. Unfortunately, very few of Rav Itzele’s brilliant chiddushei Torah were saved for posterity, other than a small sefer entitled Zecher Yitzchak.

Thus, Rav Levitan’s two main rabbei’im, the Chofetz Chayim and Rav Itzele Ponevitzer, were both renowned gedolim, known both for their tzidkus and theirlomdus.

The rock of the yeshivah

After his years of study in these yeshivos, Rav Levitan taught in the yeshivah of Brisk, at the same time that Rav Elchonon Wasserman was also a magid shiur there. (This was prior to Rav Elchonon opening his yeshivah in Baranovitch.) Rav Levitan then became a magid shiur in the yeshivah in Shavel. Eventually, Rav Levitan became rav of Tver, Lithuania. Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky used to say that, in the Lithuania between the wars, the period of time that we are now discussing, there were at least 200 shtetlach and towns, each of which boasted a rav who was a complete baki in shas and poskim. The difference between the highly respected posek and one who was considered a rav of “ordinary” status was the depth to which the highly respected posek understood shas!

Between a rock and a hard place

Where is Rock Island? How did it get its unusual name? And, germane to our article, how did a gadol of Rav Levitan’s stature become rav there?

Rock Island is in western Illinois, across the Mississippi River from Davenport, Iowa. Although a visit there today would never reveal this, there was once a strong frum community there of immigrant Jews from Eastern Europe. It was a shul in this community, Bnai Jacob Congregation, that hired Rav Levitan as its rav after his arrival in the United States in the 1920’s. He remained the rav of the community for 38 years, until almost his last days, eventually becoming the rav of the other shul in the city, Beis Yisroel, and also of Congregation Anshei Emes of Davenport. He retired in 1965, two and a half years after his rebbitzen had passed away on the seventh day of Chanukah, 5723 (December 28, 1962). He was respected as one of the top rabbonim in the United States.

In 5724 (1964), Rav Levitan published a sefer, Siach Chein, droshos on the parshios, yomim tovim and special occasions. His sefer halachah, Yeri’os Shlomoh, from whose introduction the biographical information for this article was gleaned, was published posthumously by his children, and contains dialogues in halachah between Rav Levitan and a Who’s Who of gedolei Yisroel, including the Rogatchover Gaon and Rav Moshe Feinstein. Rav Levitan passed away on the sixteenth of Elul, 5726 (September 1, 1966).

On the rocks

Why is the city named Rock Island? Rock Island was the original name of what is now called Arsenal Island, the largest island in the Mississippi River. One of the largest employers in the area is a US-government-owned weapons’ manufacturing facility, which gave Arsenal Island its new name, but Rock Island remained the name of the city on the eastern side of the Mississippi. The metropolitan area of Davenport and Rock Island includes several other cities, and the current population estimate of the metropolitan area covering both states and both sides of the Mississippi is 380,000.

Rock bottom

Although the core of the community of Rock Island was solidly frum when Rav Levitan arrived, with time, the older generation of committed Jews passed on, and the younger people either moved away or did not remain staunch in their Yiddishkeit. Several of Rav Levitan’s teshuvos reflect the sad reality of being rav in a community that is slowly disappearing. Among these questions is a teshuvah concerning whether one may build a mikveh in a boarded-up, no longer functional shul.

Rock kohen echad

The halachic question that opened this article reflects another manifestation of this problem. In 1949, when Rav Levitan sent this question to Rav Moshe, the shul no longer had any shomer Shabbos kohanim, and there was no longer any duchening. There was one kohen who came to shul on yomim tovim, a man who owned and operated a store on Shabbos. He had not been duchening until the chazzan of the shul encouraged him to do so. The question was whether it was permitted to allow the kohen to continue duchening or whether Rav Levitan must insist that the kohen stop. He wrote a lengthy missive detailing the aspects of the question and mailed it to Rav Moshe Feinstein for the latter’s opinion. Here is the halachic background:

Rocky conflict

At first glance, whether a sinner may duchen appears to be a dispute between the two Talmudim, the Bavli and the Yerushalmi. The Talmud Yerushalmi (Gittin 5:9) states: “Don’t say, ‘this man violates prohibitions like arayos’, or ‘he is a shedder of blood –and he should bless me?’ The Holy One, blessed is He, said: ‘Who is blessing you? I am blessing you.’” This passage of Yerushalmi implies that even someone violating the most serious of crimes may recite the duchening.

However, this Yerushalmi seems to conflict with a ruling of the Talmud Bavli (Brochos 32b), which states that a kohen who killed someone should not duchen. The Kesef Mishneh (Hilchos Tefillah u’Birchas Kohanim 15:3) clarifies that the Yerushalmi may be understood in a way that it does not conflict with the Bavli. He explains that the Yerushalmi refers to a case where we do not know for certain whether the kohen actually sinned, but that there is a persistent rumor of his violating very serious sins. Even according to the Yerushalmi, the halachah is that were we certain that the kohen killed someone or worshipped idols, he would not be permitted to duchen, as stated in the Bavli.  However, definite knowledge that he committed other sins does not preclude his duchening, nor do rumors that he committed violations such as arayos or murder.

This approach is supported by the ruling of the Rambam (Hilchos Tefillah u’Birchas Kohanim 15:3, 6): “A kohen who killed someone, even if only through negligence, and even if he subsequently did teshuvah, should not duchen… a kohen who worshipped idols, even if he did so under coercion or negligently, may never duchen again, even if he did teshuvah… However, other sins do not prevent him… A kohen who does not have any of the things that prevent him from duchening, even if he is not a Torah scholar, is careless in his mitzvah observance, has a scandalous reputation, and his business dealings are dishonest, should nevertheless duchen. We do not stop him — because it is a positive mitzvah for every kohen who may duchen. Do not say to an evil person, ‘add more iniquity by not observing mitzvos.’”

Thus, the Rambam rules that a kohen who killed someone or worshipped idols may not duchen, but a kohen who violated any other mitzvos of the Torah may and should still duchen, even if his sinning was intentional and he has as yet not done teshuvah.

All of this does not present any reason to exclude a kohen who desecrates Shabbos from duchening. Although he performs heinous sins, even sinners, with very few exceptions, are encouraged to duchen. However, to understand Rav Levitan’s question, we need to do some more research.

Worshipping rocks

The Gemara (Chullin 5a) says that we accept korbanos from Jewish sinners, in order to encourage them to do teshuvah. One can infer that these sinners are treated just as the sinning kohanim whom we allow to duchen – even though they sin intentionally and have no thought of doing teshuvah!

Notwithstanding this “liberal” attitude to treating sinners, the Gemara makes two exceptions whose korbanos are not accepted — someone who worships idols and someone who desecrates Shabbos openly. We do not accept the korbanos of these two categories of sinners.

On the basis of this Gemara, the Pri Chodosh (Orach Chayim 128:39) explains that just as an idol worshipper is not permitted to duchen, so, too, a mechalel Shabbos in public may not duchen. In other words, although sinners are both permitted and encouraged to offer korbanos and to duchen, there are certain sins that place a perpetrator beyond the pale of permitting him to duchen. Since we see that a Shabbos breaker may not offer korbanos, because he is compared to an idol worshipper, so, too, he is prohibited from duchening. This position is shared by several other prominent acharonim (Pri Megadim, Mishbetzos Zahav 128:39; Rav Shulchan Aruch 128:52; Mishnah Berurah 128:134; Kaf Hachayim 128:217).

Thus, Rav Levitan was in a predicament. Now that the storeowner had begun to duchen, it would create a major ruckus to stop him. If the halachah requires that he be stopped, then there is no choice. On the other hand, if this kohen may duchen, there would be no reason to turn the situation into a battleground.

Rock of Gibraltar

This was the question that Rav Levitan sent to Rav Moshe, including an analysis of the sources in halachah on the topic. In his response, Rav Moshe noted that although the Gemara compares a Shabbos desecrater to an idol worshipper and rules that, in both instances, we do not accept their korbanos, there is, nevertheless, a qualitative difference between the gravity of these two aveiros. The possibility exists that, although someone who committed idolatry may not duchen, a blatant mechalel Shabbos might be permitted.

Rav Moshe then notes that this distinction can be proved. The Rambam rules that an idol worshipper may not duchen, even after he has done teshuvah, whereas Rav Moshe contends that a former Shabbos breaker who has done teshuvah may duchen. There is a qualitative difference between idolatry and desecrating Shabbos.

Rock of ages

Here is an even stronger proof that a Shabbos desecrator may duchen. The Mishnah (Menachos 109a) rules that “kohanim who served in the Temple of Chonyo may not serve in the Beis Hamikdash in Yerushalayim, and certainly those who once served avodah zarah may not… They are treated like blemished kohanim, who may receive a portion of the meat of the offerings and eat it, but they may not offer korbanos.”

What was the temple of Chonyo? Chonyo, who had been passed over as kohen gadol, built his own altar in Alexandria, Egypt (Menachos 109b). Constructing this place of worship was a clear violation of halachah, although the Mishnah concludes that Beis Chonyo, as it refers to this structure, was not a house of idol worship. Nevertheless, any kohen who ever served in Beis Chonyo was forever banned from serving in the Beis Hamikdash, even if he subsequently did full teshuvah for his sins.

Rock Gornish

Notwithstanding the Mishnah’s statement that anyone who served idols may never again serve in the Beis Hamikdash, the Gemara draws a distinction between how he served idols. Although slaughtering for an idol is a sin that merits capital punishment (Sanhedrin 7:6), the Gemara (Menachos 109a-b) rules that a kohen who slaughtered an animal for avodah zarah, but never performed any other idol worship, and who then did teshuvah, may perform the service (avodah) in the Beis Hamikdash (see Rashi). Slaughtering for idols is treated more leniently than other violations of idolatry, such as offering to the idol, which invalidate the kohen forever from serving in the Beis Hamikdash or duchening. Certainly, a kohen who slaughtered for avodah zarah and did teshuvah may still duchen, just as he may still serve in the Beis Hamikdash, in spite of the severity of his sin.

Rav Moshe notes that although flouting Shabbos publicly is as sinful as venerating idols, not all forms of idolatry invalidate the perpetrator from ever again offering korbanos or from duchening. Thus, although desecrating Shabbos is a grievous sin, we cannot prove that it invalidates the perpetrator from duchening. It may be parallel to slaughtering for idols, which does not invalidate the perpetrator from duchening. Rav Moshe notes that this ruling of his runs against the consensus of the acharonim on the subject.

Rav Moshe then adds another logical reason why a Shabbos desecrator may still duchen. The Gemara states that someone who brazenly desecrates Shabbos is treated like an idolater. The halachah is that only someone who desecrates Shabbos openly has this status, not a person who defiles Shabbos only behind closed doors. Why do we draw a distinction between violating Shabbos overtly and doing so clandestinely? The transgression is the same, and, truthfully, transgressing covertly is a more serious offence since it implies greater concern about what people think than about what Hashem knows!

Rav Moshe explains that someone who is mechalel Shabbos openly is considered an idolater because public chillul Shabbos is a colossal chillul Hashem. Rav Moshe suggests that perhaps it is such a colossal chillul Hashem only when the reason for the sin is his disdain for mitzvos, not when his motivation is for profit. Although Shabbos desecration for monetary gain is grievous, it may not be tantamount to idol worship, even when performed blatantly.

Rocking the boat

Rav Moshe then rules that, although it is permitted for the recalcitrant storeowner to duchen, the rav has the right to ban him from duchening in order to discourage chillul Shabbos, even when this ruling will discontinue duchening in shul. Nevertheless, Rav Moshe concludes that the rav should not ban a mechalel Shabbos from duchening if the chazzan recited the word kohanim aloud, or someone invited the kohen to duchen, since now it might be required min hatorah for him to duchen. In any instance, Rav Moshe suggests that one not “rock the boat” should a mechalel Shabbos want to duchen.

In conclusion – Falling from the rock

When I was a rav in a Buffalo, New York, suburb, I often had occasion to drive through the small towns in the area. In most of the towns, there was a building that one could easily identify as having once been a frum shul. Unfortunately, none of these towns has any frum presence anymore, and few have any recognizable Jewish presence, although, at one time, there may have been prominent rabbonim and talmidei chachamim living there.

The main reason that these cities disappeared Jewishly was the lack of chinuch. In the 1950’s, Torah Umesorah was created, with the mission of creating Jewish day schools in every town possible. Largely, the cities that today have frum communities are those that had day schools created in that era. We see how Torah education is of such paramount importance. The communities that flourish today survived because of their commitment to chinuch.

The Torah of Rav Yehosef Schwartz

Since this parsha, Re’eih, discusses the different species of kosher animals, a topic that will be included in this article, it provides an opportunity to learn about a very unique talmid chachom and tzadik, Rav Yehosef Schwartz.

The Torah of Rav Yehosef Schwartz

Question #1: Which minyan?

“In the minyan factory shtiebel that I often attend, it sometimes happens that most of my minyan has already heard the entire Chazoras Hashatz and answered Kedushah and Kaddish before we assemble to daven. Does this present us with any halachic questions?”

Question #2: Which chayah?

“A gnu is not listed in the Torah among the seven chayos, kosher wild animals, although it has split hooves and chews its cud. Why is it not listed?”

Question #3: Which borders?

“Where exactly are the borders of Eretz Yisroel?”

Question #4: Which question?

“What do the preceding three questions have to do with one another?”

Answer:

Rav Yehosef Schwartz, an outstanding talmid chochom and oveid Hashem, was also probably the greatest cartographer of Eretz Yisroel in history. We will study some background of this very unusual personality, and learn some of his Torah.

Rav Yehosef Schwartz was born in 1804 in a small Bavarian village where his antecedents had dwelled for many generations. A contemporary of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, he shared many of Rav Hirsch’s characteristics. Both men identified themselves as having a very specific, particular mission in serving Hashem, and pursued it despite living among people who neither shared nor necessarily understood their vision. Both maintained total humility, notwithstanding their considerable accomplishments, personal and communal. Both ended up becoming prolific and original authors on Torah subjects, in spite of the fact that neither had intended to do so early in life. Both married women whom they recognized would assist them in fulfilling their life’s goals, notwithstanding the difference in age between them. Both attended German universities with the specific goal of attaining knowledge they felt was necessary for them to fulfill their mission, yet neither one of them completed the requirements for the coveted doctoral degree. Both were involved extensively in providing chesed for their brethren, both journeyed widely to execute this goal, and both relocated to accomplish what they saw as their specific mission in fulfilling Hashem’s will. Both studied kabbalah, yet couched their knowledge in ways that their readers would not realize that they had drunk from those springs. Neither was always understood by the great halachic authorities of their generation, but both were highly respected gedolim, whose original contributions have withstood the test of time.

Early Life

Rav Yehosef Schwartz was born in Flos, a small Bavarian town, where, already as a youth, he distinguished himself for his hasmodah and sincerity. After studying in yeshiva, he attended the University of Wurzburg for several years, studying the subjects he felt he needed to augment his Torah knowledge: astronomy, mathematics, natural sciences and classical languages. He had already become an exceptional talmid chochom with extensive knowledge of Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi, poskim, and midrashic literature. Rav Schwartz is known primarily for his encyclopedic and original work in mapping out Eretz Yisroel, but as we will soon see, this reflects only a small aspect of his greatness.

While quite young, he had already developed a profound love for Eretz Yisroel. At age 24, in 1829, while still living in Germany, he published his first map of the Holy Land. He revised this map twice before he left Europe for Eretz Yisroel.

Go East, My Son

When he was in his late 20’s, he had become convinced that his personal tikun was to move to Eretz Yisroel, no small endeavor at the time, which he proceeded to do despite strong family pressure. Because of various wars and other difficulties, the trip from Germany to Eretz Yisroel took him two years to complete. He finally arrived in Eretz Yisroel on the 13th of Nissan 5593 (1833).

He had originally planned to settle in Tzefas, presumably because of the kabbalistic orientation of the community, but upon arriving in Eretz Yisroel, he was invited to visit Yerushalayim. Once he arrived there, he decided to take up residence there, and he remained there for the rest of his life.

As was not uncommon among Ashkenazim who lived in Eretz Yisroel at this time, he adopted the local Sefardi dress and many of their customs, yet he maintained his very Ashkenazi family name. He never became a member of any of the various kehillos to the exclusion of the others, but considered himself part of all communities.

Upon after arriving in Eretz Yisroel, he taught himself two more languages, Ladino and Arabic, both of which would help him in his future research.

Personal Life

Shortly after moving to Yerushalayim, he married a twelve-year-old orphan. He was 29 years old at the time. They had eight children, four sons and four daughters; unfortunately six of their children perished during Rav Schwartz’s lifetime from the rampant diseases that plagued the country. Rav Schwartz merited taking only one daughter of his to the chupah; a younger daughter married the year after his passing. Although only two of his children survived him, a large number of his descendants are living today.

For the rest of his life, his livelihood was provided by his family, particularly by his older brother, Rav Chaim Schwartz, a rov in Europe who eventually even provided for Rav Yehosef’s widow after his passing. Rav Yehosef kept an active and lengthy correspondence with this brother, who often published the letters he received from Rav Yehosef in various periodicals in Europe. Rav Chaim Schwartz encouraged Rav Yehosef to write and publish his seforim, and arranged that many of Rav Yehosef’s works were translated into German and published in Europe, shortly after they were written.

Rav Yehosef, himself, was known as a great provider of tzedokah, notwithstanding that he and his family always lived in dire poverty and that he, personally, followed a very ascetic lifestyle. He fasted frequently and slept little. He and his wife were heavily involved in many chesed projects, including much hachnosas orchim and providing for widows and orphans.

His Mussar

Many of the observations shared by Rav Schwartz show us his perspective of “mah rabu ma’asechah Hashem.” For example, he notes the tremendous chesed that Hashem provides for us daily by having night very gradually turn to day, and having day so gradually darken to become night. If the day were to change suddenly, we would find the results blinding.

His Travels

Rav Schwartz devoted much of his life to traveling extensively throughout Eretz Yisroel, although we see from much of his correspondence that this travel involved a great deal of danger. We also know that, on at least one occasion, he traveled to England and the United States to attempt to raise funds for the yishuv in Yerushalayim.

His Research

Despite his fame for this area of research, it represents only a small part of Rav Schwartz’s published material. One of his areas of extensive study was to accurately determine the halachos of halachic daybreak, sunrise, sunset and nightfall, a topic to which he devoted an untold number of trips to check how long it took to get light and to get dark. He writes that both in Eretz Yisroel and in chutz la’aretz, he checked the physical features of sunrise over 4000 times in order to understand the topic well. He noted that calculating how much time it takes from dawn to sunrise and from sunset to nightfall depends on one’s location. He also demonstrates that one can prove, by observation, that the earth is round.

He was original in his approaches. In numerous places, he quotes great earlier halachic authorities such as the Ibn Ezra, the Radak, or the Gra, and then rallies proof to show why he feels that their interpretations of the halachic sources or their mathematical calculations were inaccurate.

His Published Works

For many years after Rav Schwartz arrived in Eretz Yisroel, he did not write or publish anything, despite his brother’s entreaties that he do so. Eventually, he produced numerous works, some published in Hebrew and printed in Eretz Yisroel, others printed in various European languages, mostly translated abridgments of his Hebrew works. Rav Hirsch quotes Rav Schwartz in his commentary to Devorim Chapter 11, Verse 29. Some of Rav Schwartz’s published material was used during his lifetime to produce educational materials for religious schools in Europe, particularly in Germany.

In his lifetime, Rav Schwartz published seforim on the following topics:

Tolodos Yosef, on astronomy and the halachos of zemanim. This work is full of charts and other demonstrative evidence.

Tevuos Ha’aretz, on the details of the land of Israel. This work places particular emphasis on its borders, and it is replete with many of his own original maps and drawings.

Ma’asei Ha’aretz, a history of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisroel from the time of the churbon to his time, in which he divided the history into various eras. He included highly detailed descriptions of the different rishonim who lived in Eretz Yisroel and the communities in which they lived. He includes all his sources.

He also wrote on linguistics, philology and phonemics, but always with a Torah perspective on how this research demonstrates the correctness of one halachic practice over another, or how we can thereby understand a passage of Gemara or Midrash.

In addition, he published a volume of his own responsa, called Rosh Hashoni, on a very eclectic list of topics. For example, he wrote a teshuvah discussing whether someone traveling through several dangerous areas, as was the situation in Eretz Yisroel in his day, bentches gomel only upon arriving at his final destination, or whether each day he should bentch gomel upon safely arriving for the night at a different community (#58). He explains why we find no dispute in Chazal regarding when the day begins, although we find much dispute when the day ends (#19). He asks if someone who says his prayers in a vernacular may say the name of Hashem in Hebrew while doing so (#35). In another teshuvah, he discusses whether the Rambam changed his mind about the fact that Judaism has 13 ikorei emunah (#57). The basis of this question is that although the Rambam devotes much discussion to this topic in his commentary on the Mishnah, which he wrote in his youth, he makes no mention of this basic topic in the Mishneh Torah.

Some of Rav Schwartz’s responsa answer contemporary questions. For example, he was asked the following shailah about a shul that has several daily Shacharis minyanim: The people who daven at the later minyan have already arrived in shul while the earlier minyan is still davening and thus, they have already answered Borchu, and answered Kedushah. Do they still have a minyan to daven the regular Shacharis? Is it considered that they have already fulfilled the requirement of tefillah betzibur by listening to Chazaras Hashatz and therefore cannot repeat Shemoneh Esrei for that davening (#55)?

Mussaf Before Shacharis?

Here is another, even more contemporary, question that Rav Schwartz addresses. Someone arrives late for shul on Shabbos, and the tzibur is ready to daven Mussaf. Should he recite Mussaf together with the tzibur, so that he has the merit of tefillah betzibur, and then daven Shacharis, or should he daven in the proper order, Shacharis and then Mussaf (#30)? He concludes that someone in this scenario should join the minyan for Mussaf and then daven Shacharis.

Several of the questions he talks about are discussed extensively by other authorities of his time. For example, he discusses the situation of a gentile in the process of conversion who has undergone bris milah, but did not yet have the opportunity to immerse in a mikvah to complete his geirus. Is he still required to break Shabbos?

An interesting question Rav Schwartz discusses that I have found in no other responsa work is as follows: There are two people; one is a perfect tzadik, whereas the other was born with very bad traits and is striving to improve. Which of the two will be rewarded in greater measure by Hashem? (#34)

When Rav Schwartz passed on, he left behind, in addition to his published works, extensive notes, notebooks, and even several works ready for publication.

The Four Questions

At this point, we can now address our opening four questions:

Question #1: Which Minyan?

“In the minyan factory shtiebel that I often attend, it sometimes happens that most of my minyan has already heard the entire Chazoras Hashatz and answered Kedushah and Kaddish before we assemble to daven. Does this present us with any halachic questions?”

Question #2: Which Chayah?

“A gnu is not listed in the Torah among the seven chayos, kosher wild animals, yet it has split hooves and chews its cud. Why is it not listed?”

Question #3: Which Borders?

“Where exactly are the borders of Eretz Yisroel?”

Question #4: Which Question?

“What do the preceding three questions have to do with one another?”

As I am sure you surmised, the first three questions are discussed in Rav Schwartz’s writings. He devotes one of his responsa (#55) to the first question. Apparently, already in his day Yerushalayim had a shtiebel in which minyanim took place in different parts of a large beis medrash. Frequently, a group of people would have heard the entire repetition of Shemoneh Esrei before a section of the beis medrash was available for them to conduct their minyan. Can one still conduct Chazoras Hashatz, when every member of the assembled group has already heard a repetition of Shemoneh Esrei, albeit without having yet davened themselves? Rav Schwartz concludes that if the minyan assembled does not have six people who did not yet hear the repetition of Shemoneh Esrei, they cannot have a Chazoras Hashatz for their minyan. If you are faced with the same question, I suggest consulting your rav or poseik.

What’s Gnu?

The gnu, also known as a wildebeest, is a variety of antelope native to Africa. Since the gnu both chews its cud (ruminates) and possesses split hooves, seeming to be a kosher animal, Rav Schwartz was asked as follows: The Torah lists only ten varieties of kosher animals: three beheimos and seven chayos. Which one is the gnu?

Rav Schwartz answers that the gnu is the yachmur. He writes that he has correctly identified the nine other kosher animal species mentioned by the Torah, and writes which species they are. The only one left unidentified is the yachmor, which, by process of elimination, must be the gnu.

(Personally, I would suggest a different approach to answering this question, since there are, according to my information, 91 species of antelope known to mankind, all of which ruminate and have split hooves. One is probably forced to say that some of the terms of the Torah include far more than what we would consider to be one species.)

Responsa from Early Nineteenth-Century America

Rav Schwartz wrote several teshuvos based on questions he was asked during his trip to England and the United States. One question was whether a citrus fruit native to the West Indies qualified as an esrog. He first writes that there was no question that this fruit had never been grafted onto another species, since such fruits grow in the wild in an area where the local native population has no interest or knowledge about grafting, nor do they have related species on which to graft it. The remaining question was whether this fruit, which looked very different from any esrog he had ever seen, qualified as an esrog. He ruled that it did qualify, and reports that he used it to fulfill the mitzvah during his stay in North America.

The End

Based on our contemporary understanding of the report of Rav Schwartz’s physician, he contracted scarlet fever, which developed into meningitis and took his life when he was 61 years old. Thus ended the life of an intense oveid Hashem, who devoted himself to becoming a master of areas of Torah that had been completely untrodden before him. Yehi zichro boruch.

 

 

image_print