September 21 and 22, 2023 Trip to Florida September 25, 2023 Yom Kippur Generosity of Sarah and Joel Miller Open Heart Surgery of Joel Miller Rabbi Zev Saunders, Rabbi of Delray Orthodox Synagogue Purchasing Hoshanos from Rabbi Ben Sugerman Doing Tzadakkah on behalf of Joel Miller Shemini Atzeres and Simchas Torah
Sarah and Joel Miller graciously let us use their condo in Delray Beach, FL. My kids in Boynton need our help and in desperation I asked Sarah Miller for use of her condo. She said yes. On September 21st, loaded up the car and drove down to Florida. We spent the night at a Quality Inn at Monteagle, TN. We made it to the condo in Delray Beach at 10:00 PM. The next morning I drove Tiferet to school. It worked out beautifully. My son in law’s auto needed repairs and was at the mechanic for a week. I did almost all of the driving. We also took the kids out for lunch and dinner. We also had them over the condo to relax and for swimming.
For Yom Kippur I was at the Delray Orthodox Synagogue. The Rabbi, Zev Saunders is excellent. He learned at Gateshead and is also a student of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, TZL. A rare combination. Speaks very inspired.
The first days of Succos we were also in Delray Beach. The second day of Succos, I left the condo at 5:45 AM and walked 5.5 miles to Chabad of Boynton Beach, arriving there at 7:30 AM. I davened and walked over to my kids house. I had the Yom Tov meal there. In the afternoon I walked the six miles back to the condo. My two grandchildren, Tovan and Aryeh Moshe walked with me. I did not tell them how grueling it would be. We all made it. They had a great time with us.
On Yom Kippur Joel Miller was having chest pains and was taken to the hospital. He needed open heart surgery and it was done on Monday October 9, 2023. It went well and he is recovering.
On Thursday, October 4, 2023, I went to Rabbi Sugerman’s house to purchase Hoshanos. After purchasing my own, I emailed Rabbi Saunders to see if he needed more Hoshanyos. There was someone in his Shul who was worried he would not have Hoshanos. He wanted 10. I purchased and dropped it off at his home. B’Zchos the upcoming open heart surgery of Joel Miller, I paid for the Hoshanos. The next day, as I was entering the elevator at the condo and a Mrs. Ritter asked if she could have one of my Hoshanyos. I gave her one and she told me that it was a miracle that she was able to obtain Hoshanyos for Hosahna Rabah.
Friday October 5, 2023. Joel Miller had his surgery and it went well. He is recovering.
October 6 and 7, 20223 – Shemini Atzeres and Simchas Torah We stayed by the Levys for the last days of the holiday, Shemini Atseres and Simchas Torah. I made a decision Friday night of Shemini Atzeres not to eat in the Succah. It was too hard for the kids. The next day I made Kiddush and made Hamotzi in the Succah. The night of Simchas Torah we all went first to Rabbi Billet;s Shul and then went to Chabad of Boynton Beach with Rabbi Viment, the Rov. It was nice. They had a meal after the sixth Hakafah which was cold cuts. Perfect. My grandkids also ate. The next morning I went to Chabad and about 11:30 AM my grandkids came along with my wife and Chani, my daughter. MY grandkids and I davened with Rabbi Ciment and I hugged Rabbi Ciment. We left at 2:00 PM after Aryeh Moshe and Zechariah received their Aliyos.
On the morning of Simchas Torah, we heard the news about the massacre in Israel. Rabbi Ciment spoke beautifully. He received a call that morning from his kids in Israel as to whether or not they should leave Israel. He told them that the safest place is in Israel. Hashem always watches over Israel and the Israeli people.
Rabbi Zev Saunders and myself. I am so not photogenic.
Rabbi Ben Sugerman and myself while I was purchasing Hoshanos.
Amazing Rashi – Rashi explains the events that resulted in the Akada. Rashi quotes the Gemara in Sanhedrin that lists two reasons:
Number 1:
א”ר יוחנן משום רבי יוסי בן זימרא אחר דבריו של שטן דכתיב (בראשית כא, ח) ויגדל הילד ויגמל וגו’ אמר שטן לפני הקב”ה רבונו של עולם זקן זה חננתו למאה שנה פרי בטן מכל סעודה שעשה לא היה לו תור אחד או גוזל אחד להקריב לפניך אמר לו כלום עשה אלא בשביל בנו אם אני אומר לו זבח את בנך לפני מיד זובחו מיד והאלהים נסה את אברהם
Number 2:
ר’ לוי אמר אחר דבריו של ישמעאל ליצחק אמר לו ישמעאל ליצחק אני גדול ממך במצות שאתה מלת בן שמנת ימים ואני בן שלש עשרה שנה אמר לו ובאבר אחד אתה מגרה בי אם אומר לי הקב”ה זבח עצמך לפני אני זובח מיד והאלהים נסה את אברהם
Number 3 – not in Rashi:
The Rashbam has a third explanation that Rabbi Charles Kahana explains in his Toras Yesaurah, a translation on the Chumash, as follows:
“After Abraham had made the covenant with Abimelech, the Almighty was angry with Abraham for this, since the land belonged to the descendants of Abraham. The Almighty was angry and tested Abraham. He said to him: “Abraham,” and he replied “Here I am, ready to serve.” (רשב”ם.)
Rashbam:
ויהי אחר הדברים האלה – כל מקום שנאמר: אחר הדברים האלה מחובר אל הפרשה שלמעלה. אחר הדברים האלה שהרג אברם המלכים אמר לו הקב”ה: אל תירא אברם מן האומות. ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, שנולד יצחק ויוגד לאברהם לאמר כו’ ובתואל ילד את רבקה. וכן אחר הדברים האלה שהגיד מרדכי על בגתן ותרש גדל המלך אחשורוש את המן שרצה להרוג את מרדכי והועיל לו מה שהציל את המלך ונתלה המן. אף כאן אחר הדברים שכרת אברהם ברית לאבימלך לו ולנינו ולנכדו של אברהם ונתן לו שבע כבשות הצאן וחרה אפו של הקב”ה על זאת, שהרי ארץ פלשתים ניתן לאברהם וגם ביהושע מטילים על ערי חמשת סרני פלשתים גורל בכלל גבול ישראל והקב”ה ציוה עליהם לא תחיה כל נשמה לכן –
The first two reasons have to be understood. The first reason of Avrohom not offering a sacrifice to God, happened when Yitzchol was born, 37 years before the Akedia!.
What is the big deal that Avrohom did not bring an animal offering to God. Avrohom discovered God and was God’s emissary in this world. Avrohom was a man of God, did kindness and goodness in this world.
The idea of animal sacrifices is a question that I have had for years. How did the world starting with Cain and Hevel know that you have to bring offerings to God. Why isn’t faith enough? Now we have the Satan creating problems for this seemingly nonsense complaint?
The second reason is that Yishmael bragging to Yitzchok happened when Yitzchok was 14 and Yishmael 27. This conversation took place 23 years before the Akediah!
For both of these reasons It is odd to say ויהי אחר הדברים האלה, that one event followed the other. Only the third reason of God’s displeasure with the treaty was in time proximity to one another and you can say ויהי אחר הדברים האלה.
The answer is that when someone does something wrong or otherwise, and there is a price to pay, it can take 24 years or even longer for that action to have an effect, to the person who made the first action, to him when the result happens, it is as if it was the next day. In our minds we see the cause and effect as if it happened simultaneously.
I have seen this in my lifetime. Although two events can be separated by years and years, the thread that links them together is always there and the time lapse between them melts away. It feels as if the events happened simultaneously. Once time passes, it is gone and at times it feels as if we never lived it. This is the meaning of the last 17 years of Yaakov’s life. I worked for 33 years at Peterson Bank/Manufacturers Bank/MB Financial/5/3, and am now retired. The 33 years of having my head beat in at work are all gone and it is almost as if I never lived through them. In life I do have to deal with the results of past decisions, good and bad; but it is as if I never lived through them. This is because we live in the present and look to the future.
Question on the Rashbam:
The first two explanations we get the linkage between the transgression and test. However, according to the Rashbam, what is the link? I do not have an answer for this and have to think about this.
Location of Be’er Lachai Roi
Verse 16:7 says that the well where the angel found Hagar was on the road to Shur. Shur is the same location mentioned in Shmos 15:22 that after the Jews crossed the Reed Sea they entered the desert of Shur and traveled for three days. The end of Gensis Verse 16:14 locates Be-er Lachi Roi as between הִנֵּ֥ה בֵין־קָדֵ֖שׁ וּבֵ֥ין בָּֽרֶד. Odd that the Torah gives us two descriptors for the location of the Beer Lahai Roi.
Sforno – בדרך שור. הוא חגר כמו שתרגם אונקלוס והיא עיר בגבול ארץ ישראל או חוצה לה כמו שאמרו ז”ל בגיטין הודיע כי היתה בדעתה לצאת אז מארץ ישראל:
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan:
road to Shur – This was a well known road to Egypt, some 50 miles south of the Mediterranean coast. It is obvious that Hagar was returning to Egypt, her homeland (Verse 16:1)
The Targum translate Shur as Chagra, a city on the border of the holy land, possibly on the “
“River of Egypt” (Wadi el Arish see above 15:18 – some 90 miles east of the present Suez Canal.)
This would place it near the present Al Qusayma, approximately 100 miles southwest of Hebron.
Onkelys describes Shur in both places Bershis 16:7 and in Shmos 15:22 as Chigra and describes Kodesha and Barad in verse 16:14 as between Rekem and Chigra. The Gemora in the first Mishna of Gittin says that if one brings a Get from Rekem and Chegar to Israel propeller, the person bringing the Get has to say it was written and signed before me. Rashi says that this Rekem and Chegar is the same location mentioned in Bershis 16:7 per Onkelys. However, the Ramban says that the Kadosh and Barad is a different location than the Mishna’s cities of Rekam and Chigar. The Ramban says that Kodesh and Rekam in Bershis by Hagar are in Israel proper.
At this time Avrohom was living in Chevron.
Email to Rabbi Shmuel Wasserman, head of manuscript acquisition for Seferia.
Rabbi Shmuel Wasserman:
Gmar V’Chisma Tovah.
In the following Perkei DeRabbi Eliezer 30:4, the Hebrew and the English translation do not fit.
This Pirkei is the source of Rashi 21::14 – ותלך ותתע. חָזְרָה לְגִלּוּלֵי בֵית אָבִיהָ (פרקי דרבי אליעזר פ’ ל’):
When I learned Rashi, I assumed that Rashi is saying that when she left Avrohom, she lived a life of idol worship and no longer was a believer in God. However, we do not find that she actually went back to Egypt, rather she lived in the desert of Paran.
After I read the Pirkie, I now understand that she was starting to go back to idol worship, which makes sense because she was kicked out of Avrohom’s house. I believe that after she saw the angel
and the promise that her son will be a great nation, she did not actually go back to idol worship and stayed loyal to the God of Avrohom. That is why 23 years later when Yitzchoks’s mother died,
Yitzchok, according to Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, went to Be’er Lachai Roi to bring Hagar back and re-marry Avrohom. In fact, it says in Genesis verse 25:1 that after divorcing Avrohom her deeds were beautiful and she did not attach herself to any other man. Seemingly, she waited and probably was hoping that she would remarry Avrohom. This is what happened and this is what Yitzchok helped facilitate. This also brought Yishmael back into the family and Yismael was now on his path to becoming a Tzaddik.
The Yavam – Henry XIII: June 28, 1491 – January 28, 1547
The other Woman – Anne Bolyen – 1501 or 1507 – 19 May 1536
Mary Tudor – daughter of Henry XIII and Catherine of Aragon. Known as Bloody Mary. December 8, 1542 – February 8, 1587
Elizabeth I – daughter of Henry XIII and Anne Boleyn. September 7, 1533 – March 24, 1603
Henry VIII, Oxford’s Hebraists and the Rabbis of Venice in the 16th Century
NEW Essay by Rabbi Eli – Oxford University Chabad Society
One of the most transformative periods in British history is the reformation – the break away of the British crown from Rome. This took place after Henry VIII was unable to receive annulment of his marriage from his sister-in-law Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn and produce a male heir to the throne. This issue preoccupied England between 1527 and 1535. In this essay, we will present an in-depth analysis of the issues relating to Henry’s troubled levirate marriage and the Levitical argument that marrying one’s brother’s wife is in violation of the laws of incest. We will look at this through an overview of the key rabbinic texts on this subject, which would have likely been sought and studied by Henry’s Oxford Hebraist scholars, among others, in support of his divorce. In conclusion, we will offer insight into the reasoning of both sides of this dispute and demonstrate how they may both in fact be found in the classic sources pertaining to levirate marriage in Jewish family law.
Brief history
Catherine of Aragon married Arthur Prince of Wales in 1509, which considerably raised the stature of England in Europe during the 16th century.[1] After a few months Arthur passed away and Pope Julius II gave a dispensation for the younger brother Henry VIII to marry his brother’s widow. Henry and Catherine had five children, but only one survived, Princess Mary (b. 1516). By 1527, it was clear that Catherine had passed the age of having more children while Henry desired a male heir to secure the Tudor dynasty. Henry desired Anne Boleyn, a member of Henry’s household, and thought to have a child with her. As the pope sanctioned the marriage, however, only the incumbent pope Clement VII was able to annul it, which he was unwilling to do, despite having done so for Henry’s brother-in-law the Duke of Suffolk a short while before.[2] The difference was that after 1527 Rome and Pope Clement VII had become subject of Charles V, Catherine’s nephew.
At that time Cardinal Thomas Wolsey (1515-1529) was Henry’s first minister, Lord Chancellor and Chief Councillor. He was superior ecclesiastical authority in England and a commission was granted in April 1528 by the pope to be administered jointly by Wolsey and Lorenzo Compeggio. The court opened on 31 May, 1529, and heard the case put forward by Henry VIII and Catherine on 21 June. Other scholars from Oxford and Cambridge were also commissioned to support the annulment of the marriage.[3] As Wolsey was appointed by the pope to serve as legate of Rome to England he could not go against Rome. The commission was destined to fail also due to the lack of Compeggio’s support for Henry and on the appeal of Catherine the commission was recalled to Rome in July.
Henry replaced Wolsey and appointed in his place Sir Thomas Moore in 1530. Moore however was also reluctant to be involved in the annulment of the marriage.[4] After enormous effort in trying to persuade Rome to support the annulment of his marriage, Henry summoned parliament and removed England’s allegiance to Rome, abolishing the pope’s ecclesiastical powers in England through a number of statues.[5] Henry appointed Protestant Thomas Cranmer as Archbishop of Canterbury and on 23 May 1533, Thomas Cranmer declared Henry and Catherine’s marriage annulled. Five days later, he declared Henry and Anne’s marriage valid, after she was already pregnant and Anne gave birth to Elizabeth I on 7th September 1533. Disappointed that it was not a boy, however, and following a subsequent miscarriage in May 1536, Henry orchestrated a palace coup and had Anne executed for adultery. He subsequently married Jane Seymour, who died in surgery after giving birth to Prince Edward VI.[6]
Levitical argument
The strategy of Henry VIII to marry his second wife Anne Boleyn was to prove that the pope’s dispensation for him to marry his brother’s widow was invalid. This would automatically terminate his marriage as if it never existed, allowing him to marry another woman. Henry was also aware there was a minority opinion in Western Christendom that agreed with his view that the marriage of his brother’s widow, Catherine of Aragon was in fact invalid.[7] As part of the work of the commission, diplomat and humanist Richard Pace recommended Henry VIII to approach Oxford Hebraist Robert Wakefield (d. 1537/8) to help find support for his divorce from Rabbinic sources.[8] Wakefield began Hebrew studies in Tudor England and was appointed Regius Praelector of Hebrew[9] at Oxford in 1529, later becoming canon of Henry VIII’s college, now Christ Church College.[10] Wakefield was knowledgeable in Jewish teaching and held the works of Ibn Ezra, David Kimchi, Maimonides, Nachmanides and Rashi in high esteem.[11] He therefore suggested to Henry that ‘the best learned and most excellent authors of the interpreters of the Hebrew’ could defend him.[12] Thomas Cranmer, then a young tutor, also suggested that a body of evidence should be gathered from scholars from across Europe to support the Leviticus case for the annulment of the marriage. This included asking the Jews in Italy for their opinion of the laws of Leviticus.[13] The new Bishop of London John Stocksley seems to have been the person to suggest around November 1529 that the Italian rabbinical authorities should indeed be consulted. This began the process to consult and obtain support from the Jews of Venice for Henry’s divorce.
Henry VIII and the Jews of England
We will first present the state of the Jews in England during the reign of Henry VIII to understand why Jews in England were not in a position to be consulted. Between the years 1290 when Edward I expelled the Jews from England and 1656 when Jews were re-admitted under Oliver Cromwell, there were officially no Jews in England. There were however Jews living in secret, as marranos. After the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, many Jews continued to live under Spanish and Portuguese rule, adopting Christianity in the open while observing Jewish practice in secret. Some of these Jews settled in England, establishing the early Sephardic community in London and Bristol. This community was however broken up by Henry VII as part of the negotiation of his son Arthur Prince of Wales’ marriage to Catherine of Aragon in 1501.[14] Jorge Anes, progenitor of the distinguished British family Ames, had been living in London with his family since 1521.[15] Jewish business families were involved with finance and loans with the English government in 1532. When Diogo Mendes, the head of the Antwerp branch that conducted also business in London, was threatened with prosecution on the charges of Judaising, Henry VIII intervened to have him released.[16] By 1536 a small secret Jewish community was already established in London. By 1550, the community was about 100 people.[17] The community however came to the attention of the government by its discovery by the Inquisition and Henry VIII was compelled to break the community up and most left the country while those remaining made sure to conceal their Judaism.[18]
After a few years, a new community became established in London, though much smaller than its predecessor, with a larger one in the port city of Bristol. This lasted until the accession of Queen Mary in 1553 and the return of England to Catholicism, when the Jewish community was broken up again. The Bristol community was completely dispersed while the London community went into further hiding until the accession of Elizabeth who brought the country back to Protestantism.[19] The community, some of whom arose to prominence, was subsequently maintained until 1609 when it once again came to an end under James I. This was due to the trial of Rodrigo Lopez, Queen Elizabeth’s trusted Jewish physician, who was accused of a plot against the queen, and was hung. This caused anti-Jewish sentiment to spread, forcing the Jewish community to disperse, though some families, like members of the Anes family became absorbed in the local population.[20] Jews were officially allowed to return under Oliver Cromwell through the effort of Menasseh ben Israel in 1656. As there was no English Jewish community to consult regarding Henry’s divorce attention was turned to one of the most prominent Jewish communities of Europe at the time in Venice.
Venice’s Rabbis
Richard Croke who was in Bologna at the time travelled to Venice to consult the rabbis. It appears that this would have been also the time when Henry procured his 9-volume original set of Daniel Bomberg’s Talmud, subsequently deposited at Westminster Abbey, to assist his scholars with the effort to find original Jewish legal sources to support the annulment of the marriage.[21] Richard Croke wrote back that the Jews confirmed that while Deuteronomy allowed for levirate marriage the law is not obligatory and not observed in practice.[22] This was conveyed to Henry in the name of two Venetian Jewish figures: Jewish convert and professor of Hebrew Marco Raphael and physician Rabbi Elijah Menachem Halfan.[23] Raphael first argued that if Henry wants, he may marry a second wife according to Jewish law. When that view was rejected, Raphael suggested that based on the laws of levirate marriage the marriage was invalid. The rationale was since the purpose of the marriage was to sustain the offspring of his brother, the fact that Henry did not have a male child from Catherine, the marriage in the first place was evidently not to continue his brother’s line, thus invalidating the marriage in the first place.[24] This opinion was included in the collection of opinions presented to Parliament.
Henry however requested to receive their opinion in writing stating that the Levitical law has always been holy and intact, and never abolished or weakened. On the other hand, the law of Deuteronomy was never in force except when the conditions therein expressed were present, thus permitted by the Levitical Law, but was never observed, even by the Jews themselves, since the destruction of Jerusalem, except in matters concerning inheritance.[25] The Jews in Venice were however divided. Mark (Marco) Raphael[26] and Rabbi Elijah Menachem Halfan supported Henry, while respected physician and Rabbi Jacob Mantino (d. 1549), despite loyalist John Casale referring to him as ‘his very great friend and a most learned man’,[27] did not.[28] Rabbi of Modena Jacob Raphael ben Yechiel Chaim Peglione also did not support Henry, writing in a responsa that both Leviticus and Deuteronomy were valid and the latter was applicable when the brother had no children. In addition, the supporters of Henry were not willing to put their support in writing so as not to be seen as rebelling against the established authority.[29] Finally, the overall seeking for support of Italian Jews for Henry’s position came to an end when a Roman Jew was compelled to marry the widow of his brother, who died without children.[30] Without the support of the Jews of Italy, in June, 1530, the strategy changed to challenging the jurisdiction of the pope over England.
Substance of the argument
In light of the importance of the subject of levirate marriage in Jewish law to the settlement of Henry’s marriage, we will present a study of the laws of levirate marriage in Jewish Biblical and rabbinic tradition, which would have no doubt been part of the deliberations of Henry’s Hebraist scholars and the rabbis of Venice. The main argument presented in support of the divorce is that Henry had no intention to carry his brother’s name; on the contrary it was to produce his own heirs to the throne through Catherine of Aragon. This he argued put him in violation of Leviticus:[31] “Do not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is the nakedness of your brother.” And:[32] “If a man marries the wife of his brother, it is indecency. It is the nakedness of his brother that he has uncovered; they shall remain childless.” A further development of this argument came from Richard Wakefield, that the verse prohibiting marrying one’s brother’s widow promises that the transgressor will be without children. Wakefield suggested that the translation should be consulted in the original Hebrew and not in the Vulgate and the word ‘ariri indeed means without sons thus applying directly to Henry’s situation as punishment for having violated Leviticus. Let us look at this argument in detail and evaluate its validity from the perspective of Jewish teaching.[33]
Natural law
The first[34] mention of the performance of levirate marriage in the Torah is in the Biblical story of Judah and Tamar:[35] “Then Judah said to Onan: Join with your brother’s wife and do your duty by her as a brother-in-law, and provide offspring for your brother.” The Midrash states: Judah observed the Torah before it was given.[36] Rabbi David Kimchi (1160-1265) suggests that the practice of levirate marriage was common practice long before Sinai. Ancient Near Eastern laws mention the practice, including the Hittite laws, as Indo-European and Melanesian cultures.[37]
Jewish law contradiction & reconciliation
While Jewish Biblical law clearly sanctions levirate marriage, an underlying tension exists due to a contradiction in the text that came to the fore in Henry’s times. In Deuteronomy it states:[38]
When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a stranger, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall cohabit with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty. The first son that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel.
In Leviticus however it states the opposite:[39] “Do not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is the nakedness of your brother,” and[40] “If a man marries the wife of his brother, it is indecency. It is the nakedness of his brother that he has uncovered; they shall remain childless.”
This contraction was dealt with in a number of ways in various rabbinic works. In the 9th century work Pesikta Rabati[41] it observes that the law of levirate marriage is part of a section of Jewish law that remains beyond reason (chuka). This is also reflected in the 5th century Midrashiccomment[42] that this is one of the places in the Torah where two conflicting sources were uttered in unison at Sinai.[43] A logical reconciliation of this contradiction is however presented by anonymous 13th century Spanish compendium of Jewish law Sefer Hachinuch[44] that argues that the prohibition against having relations with one’s brother’s wife is applicable except in a case where the brother died childless, in which case Jewish law requires levirate marriage. To deal with the contradiction in a more legalistic manner, the Tosafot applies the principle that when you have a positive injunction (levirate marriage) in contradiction with a negative prohibition (not to marry one’s brother’s wife) the positive overrides the negative.[45] In summary, the tension between Deuteronomy and Leviticus is acknowledged, though, in the final analysis, the basic permission of the Deuteronomy source to perform levirate marriage remains intact, despite the Leviticus source.
Beyond the basic permission of the Deuteronomy source, however, Jewish law develops along a legal trajectory that goes from permission to perform levirate marriage to in fact discouraging and according to some prohibiting the performance of the ceremony altogether, as is the custom nowadays in Israel and Jewish communities across the world. The development of this law is similar to other areas in Jewish law that sets out with a basic law but then develops due to the circumstances or interpretation to a degree that allows for the law to end up quite different than its original simple reading.[46] For the purpose of our study to understand the use of the rabbinic works to sanction Henry VIII’s divorce, I will aim to outline this trajectory of the law from the Biblical period to contemporary Jewish law. We will then be in a position to apply this to the 16th century debate in defence of Henry’s position.
Biblical law – levirate marriage preferred
In Jewish law there are two options when faced with the death of one’s married brother without children: one is to perform levirate marriage. Another option is to issue a release called chalitza (lit. the removing of the shoe) that releases one from the obligation of levirate marriage. These two options are outlined in the Biblical text.
Option one – levirate marriage (yibum):[47]
When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married to a stranger, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall cohabit with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty. The first son that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother that his name may not be blotted out in Israel.
Option two – release (chalitza):[48]
But if the man does not want to marry his brother’s widow, his brother’s widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir.” The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. If he insists, saying, “I do not want to marry her,” his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house! And he shall go in Israel by the name of “the family of the unsandaled one.”
From the framing of the law as first and second alternative options, there is clearly a preference for levirate marriage: “not to blot out the name of one’s brother.” This was in fact the custom in many ancient cultures, practised, as mentioned, among the Israelites before Sinai, as with the family of Judah and Tamar, and incorporated in the Biblical law for posterity. The rationale behind the law is an act of kindness for the deceased brother who left no children in his memory.[49] According to the Zohar it is a kindness to the deceased that allows his soul to rest in peace.[50]
1st dispute – Abba Saul and the Sages
While the Torah prefers levirate marriage, rabbinic law disputes the application of the law of levirate marriage in practice. I will present an overview of this change in attitude first articulated in the mishnaic period in the 2nd century, continued in the amoraic period in the 5-6th century, deepened further in the medieval period and continues until the modern day. The basic text that articulates the divergence from the Biblical law is a dispute quoted in the tractate of Bechorot between 2nd century sage Abba Saul[51] and his contemporaries (chachamim), as to whether the option of levirate marriage should precede chalitza or chalitza should precede levirate marriage – essentially weakening or revoking the levirate marriage law:[52]
Abba Saul said: If a levir married his sister-in-law on account of her beauty, or in order to gratify his desires, or with any other ulterior motive, it is as if he has infringed the law of incest; and I am even inclined to think that the child from such a union is an illegitimate child (mamzer). But the Sages say: levirate marriage is acceptable however he cohabits with her, regardless of intent.
Both opinions deduce their views from the Biblical text. For Abba Saul, the statement:[53] “He shall take her as his wife and perform levirate marriage”, points to the requirement to have intent to fulfil the duty of levirate marriage when marrying.[54] Without such intent, the marriage infringes on the Leviticus law of incest against marrying one’s brother’s wife. For the sages, the text:[55] “Her yavam (brother in law) shall cohabit with her,” implies cohabitation may be regardless of intent. The Talmud proceeds to present three texts that side with the opinion of Abba Saul, opposing levirate marriage due to intent. The first text is in tractate Bechorot:[56]
The mitzva of levirate marriage (yibum) precedes the mitzva of chalitza. At first they were intent on fulfilling the mitzva, now that they are not intent on fulfilling the mitzva, they said, the mitzva of chalitza precedes the mitzva of levirate marriage.
A further two texts are more semantic based on the mention of the option of chalitza before levirate marriage, unlike the Biblical framing of chalitza as the second option. One is from tractate Yevamot:[57] “Fifteen women exempt their co-wives from chalitza and from levirate marriage (yibum). The Talmud mentions chalitza before yibum reflective of the opinion of Abba Saul that chalitza precedes yibum.” A second text is from the Tosefta:[58] ”A woman who cannot have children, an elderly woman and all other women may perform chalitza or levirate marriage.” The mention of chalitza before levirate marriage in the latter two cases implies the preference of chalitza over levirate marriage. The conclusion of the 2nd century rabbis thus appears to be that post destruction of the Temple levirate marriage should not be performed.
2nd dispute – Talmudic sages
A similar dispute can be found among the later Talmudic rabbis (amoraim). The main proponents to follow Abba Saul against levirate marriage are Shmuel and Bar Kapara who issued the following statements:
The first text is from tractate Ketubot:[59]
Rav Tuvi bar Kisna said in the name of Shmuel:[60] we do not issue a writ of rebelliousness (igrot mered) on a woman awaiting (refusing) the levir. The reason for this is since nowadays they do not have intent for the sake of a mitzva. The mitzva of chalitza is therefore preferable to the mitzva of levirate marriage.
A second text is from tractate Yevamot:[61] Bar Kapara (3rd century) taught: A person should always cleave to chalitza (rather than levirate marriage). Despite the conclusion of the earlier sages to follow Abba Saul against levirate marriage, an overwhelming number of texts point to the opposite, reflecting a retraction of the endorsement of the view of Abba Saul for the view of the sages that levirate marriage is preferable. Due to the interest of Henry’s Hebraists to analyse the original Talmudic text to gain insight into this issue, we will present six key texts that are utilized by the medieval legalists to formulate their view on this dispute:
1. Rami bar Chama (4th century) said in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak:[62] They went back to saying that the mitzva of levirate marriage is preferable to the mitzva of chalitza.[63] For originally they agreed with Abba Saul but later they came to agree with the sages who maintain that levirate marriage is preferential regardless of intent.[64]
2. The law of the rebellious woman who may be penalized applies even pertaining to a woman who is waiting to marry the levir, indicating the preference is the mitzva of levirate marriage as opposed to chalitza.[65]
3. He may acquire her through levirate marriage even against her will or if performed against his will.[66]
4. There was a levir who came before Rabbi Chiya bar Abba (3rd century) with his sister in law. Rabbi Chiya bar Abba said to her: My daughter, stand up and perform levirate marriage. Upon the woman refusing, Rabbi Chiya bar Abba persuades the brother-in-law to perform chalitza to release her to remarry. [67] Rabbi Chiya bar Abba, in this case, shows preference for levirate marriage over chalitza.
5. A daughter of Rabi Papa’s father-in-law fell to the lot of a levir who was unworthy of her but who insisted on contracting with her levirate marriage. When the levir came before Abaye, he tricked him by saying: submit to her with chalitza and you will thereby wed her. This story implies that had it been an appropriate marriage, levirate marriage would have been recommended. [68]
6. A certain man, who lived in the land of Israel, fell under the obligation of marrying a sister-in-law at Be Hozae.[69] He came to Rabbi Hanina and asked him if it was proper to go down there to contract levirate marriage with her. Rabbi Hanina replied: His brother married a heathen (a term for a Jewish woman from Be Hozae) and died, and this one would follow him! In this case, had it not been for the need to leave Israel Rabbi Hanina would have instructed him to perform levirate marriage.[70]
In all the above six texts, in particular the first text stating the retraction by the rabbis to follow Abba Saul, there is an assumption that levirate marriage is preferred according to Jewish law. Despite this, the sources are mixed leaving open for protracted dispute amongst the legalists who to follow: Abba Saul who is concerned about lack of intent and prefers chalitza to prevent infringement of incest or the sages who are not concerned about intent and prefer levirate marriage
3rd dispute – French versus Spanish rabbis in medieval period
As the sages of the Talmud were divided on this question, so were the rabbis of the medieval period: some followed Abba Saul while some followed the Sages, each drawing their conclusion from the above texts respectively. The following is a lengthy list of twenty six rabbis from Spain, France, Germany and Italy, between the 11th and 16th century who supported levirate marriage over chalitza:[71] Achai Gaon, Isaac Alfasi, known as the Rif (1030-1103),[72] Simcha of Vitry (d. 1105),[73] Joseph ibn Migash (11th century – c. 1141), Samuel ben Meir (1085 – c. 1158), known as Rashbam,[74] Isaac the Elder (c. 1115 – c. 1184), known as the Ri ha-Zaken,[75] Zerachiah ha-Levi of Gerondi, known as the Rezah (c. 1125-c. 1186), Abraham ben David, known as Ra’avad (c. 1125 – 1198), Maimonides (1135-1204),[76] Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi of Bonn, known as Ra’avyah (1140–1225), his father Joel haLevi of Bonn, Meir Abulafia, commonly known as the Ramah (1170-1244), Isaiah di Trani ben Mali (c. 1180 – c. 1250), Jonah Gerondi (1180-1263), his cousin Nachmanides (1194-1270),[77] Shimon Hameili, his disciple Efraim, Yehonasan Milunil, Aharon ha-Levi (1235 – c. 1290), known as Ra’ah, Shlomo ben Aderet (1235–1310), Yom Tov ben Avraham Asevilli (1260s – 1320s), known as Ritva,[78] Vidal of Tolosa, known after his work Magid Mishneh (14th century), Nissim of Girona (1320 –1376), his disciple Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet, known as the Rivash (1326–1408),[79] Ovadiah ben Abraham of Bartenura (c. 1445 – c. 1515), and David ben Solomon ibn (Abi) Zimra, known as the Radbaz (c. 1479-1573).
The following is a list of twelve rabbis from Germany, France, Austria and North Africa between the 11th and 13th century who followed the view of Abba Saul: Kairouanan Rabbi Chananel (990-1053), [80] Shlomo Yitzchaki, known as Rashi (1040-1105),[81] his son-in-law Ezriel ben Nathan, known as Rivan (c. 1065-c. 1105), Eliezer ben Nathan of Mainz (1090–1170), known as Ra’avan,[82] Jacob Tam (1100-1171), Judah ben Isaac Messer Leon (1166–1224),[83] Samson ben Abraham (c. 1150 – c. 1230), also known as the Rash of Sens,[84] Moses ben Jacob of Coucy, known as the Semag (d. 1260), Isaac ben Moses of Vienna (1200-1270), [85] Isaac of Corbeil, known by his work the Semak (d.1280), Perez ben Elijah of Corbeil (d. 1295), and Mordechai ben Hillel HaKohen (c. 1250 – 1298).
Countries
To provide a clearer geographical context for the period prior and around the 16th century when Henry tried to consult the rabbis about his levirate marriage, we will present a few testimonies found in rabbinical works by countries between the 13 and 15th century: 13th century French Tosafist Rabbi Peretz of Corbeil (d. 1295) writes that the custom in Germany in his day was to perform levirate marriage, while the custom in France was not to.[86] In the 15th century, Italian Rabbi Joseph Colon, known as Maharik (c. 1420 – 1480), testifies that the custom in all the German lands (b’chol eretz Ashkenaz) was to perform chalitza and not levirate marriage. In the 16th century Radbaz (c. 1479-1573) testifies that while some had the custom in Germany to perform chalitza, as testified by Rabbi Joseph Colon,[87] he clarifies that the custom in all of the Sephardic lands, Provence, Catalan, the majority of Germany, the Middle Rhine communities of Mainz, Worms and Speyer, known as Shum, Egypt, Israel, Damascus and Turkey was to perform levirate marriage. Clearly, at the time of the 16th century, then, the majority of Jewish communities besides France and parts of Germany were performing levirate marriage.
England
It is not clear what the practice would have been in England. This was of course not relevant for the time of Henry in the 16th century as the Jews were still forbidden to live in England openly until the 17th century, 1656, under Oliver Cromwell. Nevertheless, the question may be asked about the 13th century before the expulsion in 1290. The only source that addresses this is the 13th century English compendium on Jewish law Etz Chaim[88] (published 1279) by Rabbi Jacob ben Judah Chazzan of London. As he states in his introduction, his work is largely modeled on Maimonides and this can be seen in his laws of levirate marriage where he first cites the view, as does Maimonides, that the primary mitzva is to perform levirate marriage:[89]
It is a positive commandment of the Torah for a man to marry the widow of his paternal brother, whether betrothed or married, if he died without leaving children, as it states:[90] “And one of them dies childless…her husband’s brother should cohabit with her.” If the levir or the yevama (widow) does not want to perform levirate marriage, it is a positive commandment of the Torah to perform chalitza and she is permitted to marry another man, as it states:[91] “She shall… remove his shoe. Nevertheless, the mitzva of levirate marriage takes precedence.
After stating this position, however, he cites the opinion of Rabbi Jacob Tam:
But Rabbeinu Tam rules that the mitzva of chalitza takes precedence in today’s times because the halacha follows Abba Saul. This may be deduced from the language of the first mishna in tractate Yevamot. Furthermore, Bar Kappara taught that one should always follow chalitza, like Abba Saul.
The general rule in Halachic compendiums is that when two views are brought the first is the primary opinion.[92] This would suggest that the practice in England followed the medieval German custom to practice levirate marriage as opposed to chalitza, as was the custom of France.[93] A short analysis of the opinion of Maimonides might however prove otherwise pertaining to determining the custom of medieval England. Maimonides also first states levirate marriage is preferable[94] but in laws of divorce,[95] he appears to contradict himself by quoting the view of Bar Kapara: “One should always be closer to chalitza.” This question is posed and remains unanswered by Rabbi Abraham Hiyya de Boton (c. 1560 – c. 1605) in his commentary on Mishneh Torah, Lechem Mishneh.[96] Rabbi Mas’ud Chai ben Aharon Rokeach (1689– 1768) in his commentary Ma’aseh Rokeach,[97] and Rabbi Abraham ben Judah Leib (1788-1848) in his commentary on Mishneh Torah, Nachat Eitan,[98] answers that while Maimonides follows the view that ulterior motives don’t render levirate marriage incest, unlike Abba Saul, and for this reason when there is uncertainly whether there is ulterior motives (stam) we don’t obstruct levirate marriage, he, nevertheless, is in agreement that when there are evident ulterior motives, levirate marriage is undesirable, hence the second statement by Maimonides discouraging levirate marriage in such cases. This view may be interpreted to be also the custom as presented by Jacob ben Judah Chazzan of London. In principle, he follows the view that levirate marriage takes precedence in an ideal setting, however is in agreement that nowadays one should follow Rabbi Jacob Tam who follows the view of Abba Saul, when the norm is to have ulterior motives in marrying one’s sister-in-law either for financial reasons or pleasure. According to this reading, England would have followed the customs of nearby France not to practice levirate marriage in the 13th century.
4th dispute – 16th century-today
The divergent views of the Jewish community on this subject became more delineated according to Sephardic and Ashkenazic lines in the 16th century. This was due to the landmark codification of Jewish law Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi Joseph Karo (1488-1575) that reflected in principle the view of Sephardic heritage. Added to the text were the glosses by Rabbi Moses Isserles, known as the Rema (1520-1572), intended to reflect the Ashkenazik customs. Both were combined into one volume by printer of Hebrew books Yitzchak Prostitz of Krakow, who was the first to print the Shulchan Aruch with the glosses of Rabbi Moses Isserles in 1570 (Orach Chaim) and 1578 (the remaining sections).[99]
In the laws of levirate marriage[100] Rabbi Joseph Karo cites the opinion of the sages that levirate marriage is preferable, while citing a second opinion that chalitza is preferable. His bringing the opinion that prefers levirate marriage first and the opinion of Abba Saul second indicates that Rabbi Joseph Karo follows the first opinion that prefers levirate marriage over chalitza. In the glosses of Rabbi Moses Isserles[101] he quotes the view of Rabbi Jacob Tam that one should not practice levirate marriage due to ulterior motives, following the view of Abba Saul. With this statement Rabbi Moses Isserles standardizes the Ashkenazic view that levirate marriage should not be performed nowadays. Rabbi Yechiel Michel Epstein (1829-1908) testifies in the 19th century that in Mizrachi(lit. Eastern) lands levirate marriage is performed, while in Germanic countries, France, Russia, Poland and Austria levirate marriage is not practiced at all (lo nohagu klal).[102] This dispute however appears to have been finally resolved in favour of the Ashkenazic custom whereby nowadays the Jewish community completely shuns levirate marriage. It has been outlawed in Israel by the chief rabbinate since 1950.[103]
Venice
We will now apply this dispute to the courting of Henry VIII and pope Clement VII of the rabbis of Venice in the 16th century to support their views for and opposed the annulment of Henry’s marriage. As the views of the French and German rabbis were divided on this matter it is of no surprise that the view of the rabbis in Venice was also divided. This was unlikely due to personal gain or political fear to support either side, although Mantino and Raphael were both rewarded respectively for their stand on the issue. Mantino, who was born in Spain, and came to Italy after the expulsion of the Jews in 1492, would have certainly followed the view of the Spanish rabbis who supported levirate marriage, as did the Italian rabbis as expressed by Italian Tosafist Isaiah deTrani in the 13th century and Rabbi Obadiah Bartenura in the 16th century. A possible reason why Raphael and Halfan supported Henry may have been due to their view that Jews of England were not subject to the customs of Italy and Spain and but rather the view of the French rabbis who did not practice levirate marriage.[104]
Ex post facto
While the prevailing view of the Ashkenazic rabbis was not to perform levirate marriage, would this have been sufficient to invalidate a consummated levirate marriage, as in the case of Henry? The validity of a levirate marriage for ulterior motives ex post facto is subject to dispute. This question depends on how one views the weight of the concern of ulterior motives as expressed by Abba Saul. If the concern were actual incest this would invalidate the marriage. If it is merely of rabbinic concern bordering on incest but not actual incest it would not have the power to invalidate the marriage. There are three opinions regarding this matter. Nachmanides argues that the opinion of Abba Saul is that levirate marriage is not valid when done with ulterior motives and is in violation of the Leviticus law against incest, not to marry one’s brother’s wife.[105] 17th century Polish Rabbi Samuel ben Uri Shraga Feivish argues that even if the concern of ulterior motives is Biblical in origin and one is committing incest, nevertheless, ex post facto, the levirate marriage is a valid marriage.[106] Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet (1235–1310), suggests Abba Saul is merely stating that levirate marriage for ulterior motives is bordering on Biblical incest ( k’pogea b’ervah) but not actual incest.[107] Spanish Rabbi Joseph ibn Habiba, who flourished in the 14th and 15th century, comments[108] that the concern of Abba Saul is rabbinical in origin and if performed with ulterior motives the marriage would remain valid.
Based on the above opinions regarding the view of Abba Saul, one may have a better understanding of the deliberation pertaining to Henry’s divorce. If one is to assume the maximalist view of Nachmanides pertaining to Abba Saul’s opinion that intent is fundamental for the consummation of levirate marriage – otherwise one is committing incest – Henry was correct in his argument that his marriage to his sister-in-law Catherine of Aragon was indeed invalid and violated the Levitical law against incest. Likewise, one can find support for the view of Clement VII who was opposed to annulling the marriage of Henry stating that the levirate marriage was valid. This view was supported by the majority view that firstly rejected the view of Abba Saul in 16th century Italy, and secondly even if there was concern for intent, as argued by Henry, the majority view is that this does not carry sufficient weight to annul levirate marriage retroactively.
Conclusion
We began by presenting the story of Henry VIII’s levirate marriage and his desire to have it annulled based on the Leviticus law against incestuous relationship with one’s brother’s wife. While at the onset his argument seems preposterous from the perspective of Jewish law and out of sync with basic Jewish teaching on the subject of levirate marriage, clearly sanctioned by Deuteronomy, after a lengthy in-depth analyses of the post-Biblical rabbinical development of the law and its fractious dispute that lasted for almost two thousand years, one can in fact find support for Henry’s position from the perspective of Jewish law. Although Henry of course was not subject to Jewish law, he clearly desired to live a life consistent with Jewish law on this subject, as evident by following the Oxford Hebraists to consult the rabbis on this subject that changed the course of British history for almost five hundred years.
____
Footnotes
[1] History of Britain, Ed. Kenneth O. Morgan, p. 271.
[2] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 15.
[3] The Reign of Henry VIII: Politics, Policy and Piety, ed. Darmian MacCulloch, p. 146 & p. 153.
[4] History of Britain, Ed. Kenneth O. Morgan, p. 282.
[5] Act of Annates (1532), the Act of Appeals (1533), the Act of Supremacy (1534), the First At of Succession (1534), the Treasons Act (1534) and the Act of the Pope’s Authority (1536).
[6] His other wives are Anne of Cleves, whose marriage was never consummated, Catherine Howard, who was executed for adultery, and Catherine Parr.
[7] History of Britain, Ed. Kenneth O. Morgan, p. 281.
[8] The Oxford History of Classical Reception in English Literature: Volume, edited by Rita Copeland, 1 p. 523.
[9] A position established by Henry VIII that preceded the Regius Professorship of Hebrew.
[10] The Regius professorship in Hebrew was established at Cambridge in 1540 and Oxford in 1546.
[11] Fronda, Rahel “Jewish Books and their Christian Readers – Christ Church Connections” p. 13. His extensive annotations in the margins of his copy of Rashi’s commentary made its way to Corpus Christi College (ibid, p. 24).
[12] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 21.
[13] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 15.
[14] Hyamson, Albert M., The Sephardim of England, p. 3.
[15] Sigal, Phillip, The Emergence of Contemporary Judaism, Volume 3: From Medievalism to Proto-Modernity in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Pittsburgh Theological Monographs), p. 162.
[16] Hyamson, Albert M., The Sephardim of England, p. 4.
[17] Ibid, p. 5.
[18] Ibid, p. 6.
[19] Ibid, p. 7.
[20] Ibid, p. 9.
[21] An early reference to this set of Talmud located at Westminster Abbey is from 4thJuly, 1629 when John Selden wrote to Sir Robert Cotton asking to borrow a Babylonian Talmud from the Abbey. He wrote: “NobleSir, Your favors are always so great and ready upon all occasions to me that I take upon me the confidence to trouble you in all kinds. I have much time here before me and there is in Westminster Library the Talmud of Babylon in divers great volumes. If it be a thing to be obtained, I would beseech you to borrow them…” In 1956 an exhibition was on display at the Victoria Albert Museum celebrating the return of the Jews to England, for which Westminster Abbey submitted a volume of this Bomberg edition of the Talmud, together with two other volumes: a volume of the Babylonian Talmud and Akeidat Yitzchok. Jack Lunzer who attended the exhibition discovered that the Bomberg volume was wrongly covered by the 16th century Oxford binder as Biblio Rabinica. Lunzer subsequently arranged to visit the library at Westminster Abbey where the librarian Mr. Nixon showed him that the Abbey had in fact the full nine-volume set of the Bomberg Talmud, albeit covered with a thick layer of dust. Many years later, in 1980, Mr. Lunzer was able to procure on behalf of the Abbey through Sotheby’s the Abbey’s title deed in exchange for them granting Lunzer’s Valmadonna Trust the set of the Talmud. It was sold in 2015 to an American businessman.
[22] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 24.
[23] Son of astronomer Abba Mari Halfan, and grandson of Joseph Colon.
[24] Yaakov Bar Yosef, H Schonfield, History of Jewish Christianity, p. 98.
[25] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 30.
[26] Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4, 1524-1530 – see 14 citations in the index: Raphael, Mark, a Jew, 6156, 6236, 6239, 6240, 6250?, 6266, 6300, 6375, 6398, 6414, 6541, 6656, 6786. Raphael, p. 1395. By 4th March, 1531, Marco Rafael, who had renounced Judaism, was resident in England, and was in great favour with the King for having written against the dispensation granted by Julius II. He was employed by the Signory as a secretary in the cypher department (Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Vol. 4, 1527-1533, pages vii-xxxvii. www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol4/vii-xxxvii . Accessed 25 August, 2017). He was subsequently also rewarded by being granted a license to import six hundred tons of Gascon and two woads in 1532 (Gardner, Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, v. 485). It’s not clear if he converted before giving his opinion about the divorce or after, thus allowing him to move to England.
[28] Mantino, born in Spain, left with the expulsion of the Jews 1492, graduated in medicine from the University of Padua in 1521, and practiced first in Bologna, then Verona in 1527 and Venice in 1528, where he lived with special privileges exempted from wearing the Jewish hat (Judenhut). In 1529, he was consulted by Clement VII regarding the divorce and in reward for opposing Henry’s supporters, who also sought his support, was appointed lecturer in medicine in Bologna. In 1533 he was invited to Rome and in 1534, Pope Paul appointed Mantino as his personal physician, while serving in Rome as rabbi with the title Gaon. Between 1539-41 he was appointed professor of practical medicine at the Sapienza in Rome. In 1544 he returned to Venice and died in 1549 while accompanying, as physician, the Venetian ambassador to Damascus (Encyclopedia Judaica).
[29] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 35.
[30] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 41.
[31] 18:16.
[32] 20:21.
[33] See Scarisbrick, J.J., Henry VIII, p. 165 (Yale University Press) where it lists five main arguments, including the one mentioned in this essay: 1. Levirate marriage is a ceremony, like circumcision, that is only relevant to Jews but not to Christians. 2. Levirate marriage is only permitted when the dead brother’s marriage was consummated, which there was no evidence that was the case with Arthur (see Maimonides, Laws of Yibum 1:1 that states the laws of levirate marriage applies whether betrothed or married). 3. The law of levirate marriage in Deuteronomy should be interpreted allegorically, not literally. 4. Deuteronomy does not refer to a brother, which is prohibited, but rather a relative (as per the Karaite interpretation, forcefully rejected however by Ibn Ezra in his commentary on Deuteronomy 25:5). See also: Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 19.
[34] According to Ibn Ezra (Deuteronomy 25:5), the marriage between Ruth and Boaz in the Book of Ruth is not a case of levirate marriage, as Boaz was not a brother of Mahlon, Ruth’s deceased husband. See Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews (5:9). See also Yale Ziegler, Ruth: From Alienation to Monarchy pp. 395-403 for a detailed study of this subject.
[37] See Edward Westermarck, The History of Human Marriage, vol. 3, (New York: Allerton Book Co., 1922), pp. 207-29, 261-63.
[38] 25:5-10.
[39] 18:16.
[40] 20:21.
[41] 14:1.
[42] Exodus Rabbah 28:4.
[43] The same is the case regarding ‘remember’ the Sabbath and ‘observe’ the Sabbath.
[44] 202:1.
[45] Tosafot, Yevamot 4a. Another rationale is that the case of levirate marriage whereby something is initially prohibited and then becomes permitted is a concept in Jewish law summarized by the legal statement: The Torah forbids and the Torah permits (Sha’alot U’teshuvot Radbaz vol. 4:108).
[46] The laws of capital punishment, polygamy, divorce without consent, indentured slaves, annulment of loans during the Sabbatical year, the wayward child (ben soreh umoreh), among others, are examples of this process taking place within Jewish law.
[47] 25:5-6.
[48] 25:7-10.
[49] Sefer Hachinuch 598. By the child performing mitzvot in this world it serves as a merit for the soul of his father’s brother.
[50] Chukat. The performance of levirate marriage and the birth of child acts as a body for the reincarnation of the deceased to come back in the world to fulfill the commandment to procreate. The release of chalitza allows for the release of the soul to rest in peace under the Divine presence (Shechinah) without immediate reincarnation.
[51] Another well-known teaching of his is the concept of imitatio dei, found in Talmud Shabbat 133b: Abba Shaul says: Ve’anveihu (“and I will glorify Him”, from the verse in Exodus 15:2: “This is my G‑d and I will glorify Him”) should be interpreted as if it were written in two words: Ani vaHu, me and Him [G‑d]. Be similar, as it were, to Him, the Almighty: Just as He is compassionate and merciful, so too should you be compassionate and merciful.
[52] Bechorot 13a; Yevomot 39b and 109a (the view of Bar Kapara that one should follow Abba Saul); Ketubot 64a.
[53] 25:5.
[54] Rashi’s commentary to the Talmud Yevamot 39b.
[55] 25:5.
[56] 13a.
[57] Yevamot 2a. See 3a.
[58] Yevamot 2:4. Compiled by Rabbi Chiyya, disciple of Rabbi Judah the Prince. Sha’alot U’teshuvot Radbaz vol. 4:108.
[59] Ketubot 64a.
[60] Shmuel was a disciple of Rabbi Judah the Prince (Introduction to Mishneh Torah).
[61] Yevamot 109a. Bar Kappara, as Shmuel, was a disciple of Rabbi Judah the Prince (Introduction to Mishneh Torah). Sha’alot U’teshuvot Radbaz vol. 4:108.
[62] The Rosh has the version “in the name of Rabbi Yochanan.”
[63] Yevamot 39b.
[64] There is a general rule that when the Talmud writes that they retracted, the halacha follows the retraction. Similarly is the case when the Talmud states an opinion without dispute. See Sha’alot U’teshuvot Radbaz vol. 4:108. Similar retractions in Jewish law can be seen in Mishna Eduyut 1:12 and Yevamot 16:7. Or Zorua argues however that Halacha does not always follow a retraction in the law, as can be found in the Talmudic dispute regarding the trustworthiness of a butcher to remove the Gid Hanasheh or sciatic nerve that is forbidden to eat in Judaism (Chullin 93b). See Or Zarua 443 and Nimukke Yosef commentary to the Rif, Yevamot 13a.
[65] Ketubot 63a & b.
[66] Kiddushin 14a. Yevamot 8b &19b. Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer 166:6. Hagahot Maimoniyut, Hilchot Yibum veChalitza 1:1. Intention for the purpose of levirate marriage is not necessary for the consummation of the levirate marriage; the act of cohabitation alone if done consciously is sufficient. This source is utilized by the Riva to support the view of the sages that levirate marriage is preferable despite possible lack of intention for the sake of the mitzva.
[69] Capital of the Persian province of Khuzistan.
[70] Ketubot 111a.
[71] See Sha’alot u’Teshuvot Radbaz 108, Hagahot Maimoniyut, Hilchot Yibum veChalitza 1:1 and Encyclopedia Talmudis (Yibum) for the extensive list of rabbis on both sides of this debate.
[75] Or Zarua 443. Radbaz (ibid) mentions he follows the view of Abba Saul.
[76] Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yibum veChalitza 1:2. See also Pirush Hamishnayot, Bechorot 1, and Sefer Hamitzvot, positive commandment(aseh) 217. In Hilchot Gerushin 10:16, Maimonides appears to contradict himself by quoting Bar Kapara: “One should always be closer to chalitzah.” This question is posed and remains unanswered by Rabbi Abraham Hiyya de Boton (c. 1560 – c. 1605) in Lechem Mishneh. Rabbi Mas’ud Chai ben Aharon Rokeach (1689– 1768) in his commentary Ma’aseh Roeach, vol. 2 (Hilchot Gerushin 10:16 and Hilchot Yibum veChalitza 1:2) and Rabbi Abraham ben Judah Leib (1788-1848) in his work commentary on Mishneh Torah, Nachat Eitan (Hilchot Yibum veChalitza 1:2), answers that while Maimonides follows the sages’ view that ulterior motives don’t render levirate marriage incest, unlike Abba Saul, and for this reason when there is uncertainly whether there is ulterior motives (stam) we don’t obstruct levirate marriage. He, nevertheless, is in agreement that when there is evidently ulterior motives, levirate marriage is still undesirable, thus the second statement by Maimonides discouraging levirate marriage in such cases.
[77] Commentary on the Talmud Yevamot 39b.
[78] Nimukke Yosef commentary to the Rif, Yevamot 13a.
[79] Responsa 509. He cites the opinion of the Rif and Maimonides and then says this opinion is the correct one, unless the man is married already – chalitza then should come first.
[80] He first ruled like the Sages and then retracted like Abba Saul (Tosafot Yevamot 39b). His second opinion is his conclusive view (Hagahot Maimoniyut, Hilchot Yibum veChalitza 1:1).
[81] Teshuvot Rivash 209; Tur Even Haezer 165.
[82] His maternal grandfather Rabbi Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi of Bonn (Ra’avyah), followed the view preferring levirate marriage.
[83] Or Zarua 443.
[84] Or Zarua 443.
[85] Or Zarua 443.
[86] Hagohat haSemak 286. It writes: In Ashkenaz the custom to ‘also’ perform levirate marriage.
[87] Sha’alot u’Teshuvot Radbaz 108.
[88] Section 52, Hilchot Yibum veChalitza, in the Leipzig manuscript.
[89] Beginning of chapter and beginning of chapter 2, folio 473 & 475 in the Leipzig manuscript.
[92] Beit Yosef commentary on the Tur, Even Haezer 165.
[93] While there was a close relationship between the great rabbis of England and Northern France, the work of Etz Chaim was influenced by the teachings of the great rabbis of England that included the illustrious rabbinical family of Rabbi Moses of London, and his sons Elijah Menachem of London and Berachia of Lincoln, whose family originally came from Mainz, Germany, where the practice was to perform levirate marriage, as testified by French Tosafist Rabbi Peretz of Corbeil (d. 1295).
[94] Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yibum veChalitza 1:2. See also Pirush Hamishnayot, Bechorot 1, and Sefer Hamitzvot, positive commandment(aseh) 217.
[95] 10:16.
[96] He says this a kushya atzumah (a mighty difficulty) in Maimonides.
[99] See Akiva Aaronson’s “People of the Book: Five Hundred Years of the Hebrew Book from the Beginning of Printing to the Twentieth Century” (Fedheim).
[100] Even Haezer ch. 165:1.
[101] Even Haezer ch. 165:1.
[102] Aruch Hashulchan 165:15. In 165:14 he writes: We have never seen levirate marriage practiced in our country (Lo rainu yibum b’mdinoseinu). He concludes however if both the levir and the widow request to marry, one may perform levirate marriage even if there are ulterior motives.
[103] Daykan, Dinei Nissiun veGeirushin, p. 153; Schereschewsky, Dinei Mishpacha, p. 213; Klein, Isaac, A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice, The Laws of Marriage, p. 389. Israeli law allows for imprisonment to compel a man to perform chalitza (Menachem Elon, Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles, p. 831.
[104] Although 13th century English Rabbi Jacob ben Judah Chazan appears to follow the Spanish custom by citing the view that supports levirate marriage first and then mentions Rabbi Jacob Tam’s opinion. See Beit Yosef commentary to the Tur, Even Haezer 165. See however footnote 71 regarding the reconciliation of the contradiction in Maimonides, whereby commentaries argue that the view that levirate marriage is preferable may refer to a case where the levir intends to do it for the purpose of the mitzva. This would not negate the preference for chalitza, as per the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, when the premise is that people don’t have correct intentions. This would imply that Jacob ben Judah Chazzan’s citing of Rabbeinu Tam is in fact reflecting that the practice in England of the 13th century was not to perform levirate marriage, as was the case in France.
[105] Yevamot 39b. This is based on the reading of the mishna, Yevamot 5:1: “One who had intercourse with his yevama, whether whether due to coercion or willingly; or…intentionally, i.e., he knew she was his yevama and nevertheless had intercourse with her without intent to perform levirate marriage…has thereby acquired his yevama.” Nachmanides argues that Abba Saul, who says intent of the mitzva is necessary for levirate marriage, must be of the opinion that the marriage under coercion is not valid. See also Beit Meir 165 who suggests that the marriage without proper intent would not take hold due to it being an incestuous relationship. The reasoning of Nachmanides is that the woman only becomes permitted, in his view of the opinion of Abba Saul, when the act of levirate marriage is performed. Accordingly, the opinion of the sages (or those who have a more minimalist of Abba Saul’s opinion) the permission of the woman takes place with the death of the husband without children. Encyclopedia Talmudit 21:350, footnote 940.
[106] Beit Shmuel commentary to Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer, 166:5.
[107] Sh’alot u’Teshuvot Harashba 1:1165. Unclear, according to Rashba, whether this is Biblical or Rabbinica in origin (see Encyclopedia Talmudit 21:351, footnote 941).
[108] Nimmuḳe Yosef commentary to the Rif, Yevamot 18a. He proves this from the mishna Yevamot 5:1: “One who had intercourse with his yevama, whether…intentionally, i.e., he knew she was his yevama and nevertheless had intercourse with her without intent to perform levirate marriage…has thereby acquired his yevama.” Nimmuḳe Yosef Concludes that since the Talmud does not point out that this mishna must exclusively follow the view of the sages who are not concerned about intent indicates that this also follows Abba Saul in a case when the act of levirate marriage had already been consummated albeit without proper intent. Abba Saul’s view must merely be in the first instant and rabbinic in origin but not applicable ex post facto. This view is also the understanding of the Ritva in the opinion of Abba Saul.
HENRY VIII and YEVAMOS
BY YITZCHOK ADLERSTEIN · PUBLISHED JUNE 24, 2007 · UPDATED JUNE 24, 2007
If you think you are having trouble with Daf Yomi these days, read what happened when both Henry VIII and the Pope tried to support their positions with citations from rabbinic treatment of yibum. Which shows, I suppose, that neither Neturei Karta nor the far-left Orthodox invented the art of mangling Torah sources. (What follows is excerpted from a weekly mailing by the Mir- and Cambridge-trained, often very independent-thinking British rabbi and educator, Rabbi Jeremy Rosen.)
Marriages between royal families were matters of alliances and balance of power! Katharine of Aragon was the daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, the nasty fanatics who expelled the Jews. At the age of three, she was betrothed to Prince Arthur, the elder son of Henry VII of England. He became king after a long, divisive Civil War and needed to consolidate his position in a world dominated, at the time, by Spain. In 1501, shortly before her sixteenth birthday, Katharine married Arthur. But after less than six months he died. Henry needed to keep the alliance alive. So Katharine was then betrothed to Arthur’s younger brother, Prince Henry. When he became king in 1509, at the age of eighteen, he married Katharine.
Their marriage produced just one living daughter, Mary Tudor. Henry was desperate for a male heir and he was a notorious philanderer. He wanted Anne officially. In a religion where divorce was not allowed, the only option was an annulment. But as the Pope had sanctioned the marriage in the first place he had to be the one to annul it.
Henry tried all sorts of ways of getting the Pope to agree but the Pope was under political pressure from other quarters ( otherwise Popes usually found ways of giving rich people what they wanted, for a price). After several years of fruitless negotiations Henry declared religious independence. He set up the Protestant Church of England with him as the supreme religious head and got his way, at the expense of not a few clergymen who remained loyal to Rome and lost their lives.
Where’s the Jewish angle here? According to Leviticus 18, a man may not marry his brother’s wife and if he does they will be childless. That, thought Henry, was why he had no sons. But the Pope had sanctioned his marriage based on the Levirate Marriage described in Deuteronomy 25. In the event of a brother dying childless, his brother would marry the widow and have children to carry on the dead brother’s name. Henry realized that where texts contradict each other, then interpretation and tradition come into play. If the Pope was not willing to play Henry’s game and annul the marriage, he’d have to show the Pope didn’t know his Aleph from his Beth. The obvious people to turn to were the Church scholars except they themselves were split. So who else do you turn to but the Jews? Of course nowadays we know the Jews can’t agree on anything and certainly not on matters of Jewish Law. But Henry hadn’t spent any time in Yeshivah and knew no better.
He sent his men to Italy where a Venetian rabbi, Isaac Halfon, wrote an opinion saying that since the end of the Talmudic period, the biblical law of Yibum, requiring a brother to marry the widow of a childless brother, had fallen into abeyance and only Chalitza was used. Therefore the marriage contacted with Arthur’s widow was against Jewish law, regardless of whether it had been consummated or not. Furthermore the same rabbi who had banned polygamy, Rabbeinu Gershom (960 –1028) and the later Rabbeinu Tam (1100 -1171) both undisputed authorities of European Jewry, had banned the levirate marriage on principle. More good news came from a contemporary responsum to the same effect by Yaakov Rephael Ben Yechiel Chaim Paglione of Modena supported by other Italian rabbis. Henry wanted the sympathetic rabbis to come to his court to reassure him and his bishops of his case. But Jews, despite Oliver Cromwell’s support, weren’t allowed back into England officially (and not without heavy opposition) until the reign of Charles II. They couldn’t or wouldn’t come. Instead Henry had to use a Jewish convert to Christianity one Marco Raphael to come over on a generous expense account to persuade the local opponents that Jewishly speaking Henry was in his rights. Henry incidentally acquired a copy of the Talmud to do his own checking. Some years ago it was discovered in a British library and returned to Jewish ownership when the Valmadonna Trust swapped it for a copy of the Magna Carta.
The Pope knew that Sephardi Jews had other customs. Indeed Sephardi Jews had not been bound either by Rabbeinu Gershom or Rabbeinu Tam. They could have several wives and divorce much more easily and they had never banned Yibum at all. The Pope got his own rabbis to say so. Poor old ‘Enery had wasted his time and money and found himself back at square one. And that, my dears, was why he broke with Rome, established the first Protestant Kingdom and how the reigning monarch to this day is also the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
In the end, Henry didn’t find that the Jews were of much use to him, which may or may not explain why the Anglican Church today doesn’t do Jews much good at all. Of mainline Protestant denominations, they rank near the bottom in their fairness and balance towards Israel, and open anti-Semitism flourishes within their ranks. It is a far cry from the position of the immediately preceding Archbishop of Canterbury (the Primate of the Anglican Church), the heroic Lord Carey.
About forty years ago, while a medical student in London, I had the good fortune of visiting the Valmadonna Trust Library, then the finest private library of Hebrew books in the world. (How I got there is another story for another time). And while there, I held the Talmud that once belonged to Westminster Abbey. It also may been owned by Henry VIII, who had brought it from Venice in order to help him end his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, the first of his many wives. The story of Henry VIII’s purchase of the Bomberg Talmud – the first complete printed Talmud – actually hinges on Yevamot, and whether the rules of levirate marriage, or yibum, applied to him.
HENRY VIII PERFORMED YIBBUM
Catherine of Aragon was actually a widow, having first been married to Henry’s older brother Arthur. About six months after Catherine married Arthur he died childless, and in 1509 his younger brother Prince Henry married his widow. (Is this beginning to sound familiar?) One more thing to know: Catherine claimed that her marriage to Arthur had never been consummated; this is important later in the story. (And here is an interesting historic footnote: it was Catherine’s parents, Ferdinand and Isabella who had expelled the Jews from Spain.)
Fast forward to 1525. Henry is now King Henry VIII, and has had one daughter with Catherine. He wanted a son, and now wished to marry Ann Boleyn, but what was he to do with Catherine, his existing wife? Divorce, remember, was tricky for this Catholic King. And here is where the Talmud comes in.
Henry argued that his marriage to Catherine should be dissolved since it was biblically forbidden for a man to marry his sister-in-law. (Henry claimed years earlier that he could marry her because the marriage to his brother had not been consummated. See, I told you that was important information…)
But as we all know from the last several weeks of study, the Bible commands a man to marry his widowed sister-in-law if his brother died without children. Since Arthur died childless, it could be argued that Henry was now fulfilling the biblical requirement of levirate marriage – known as yibum.
“quando habitaverint fratres simul et unus ex eis absque liberis mortuus fuerit uxor defuncti non nubet alteri sed accipiet eam frater eius et suscitabit semen fratris sui”
How was this conundrum to be resolved? Let’s have the late great Jack Lunzer, the custodian of the library, tell the story.
Adapted from Dailymotion.com
As Lunzer tells us, the Talmud was obtained from Venice to help King Henry VIII find a way to divorce his wife (and former sister-in-law) Catherine, and so be free to marry Ann Boleyn. In fact, it’s a little bit more complicated than that. Behind the scenes were Christian scholars who struggled to reconcile the injunction against a man marrying his sister-in-law, with the command to do so under specific circumstances. In fact the legality of Henry’s marriage had been in doubt for many years, which is why Henry had obtained the Pope’s special permission to marry.
John Stokesley, who later became Bishop of London, argued that the Pope had no authority to override the word of God that forbade a man from marrying his brother’s wife. As a result the dispensation the Pope had given was meaningless, and Henry’s marriage was null and void. In this way, Henry was free to marry. But what did Stokesley do with the passages in Deuteronomy that require yibum? He differentiated between them. The laws in Leviticus, he claimed, were both the word of God and founded on natural reason. In this way they were moral laws; hence they applied to both Jew and Christian. In contrast, the laws found in Deuteronomy, were judicial laws, which were ordained by God to govern (and punish) the Jews – and the Jews alone. They were never intended to apply to any other people, and so Henry’s Christian levirate marriage to Catherine was of no legal standing. There was therefore no impediment for Henry to marry Ann. As you can imagine, this rather pleased the king.
THE ORIGINS OF THE VALMADONNA TALMUD
It is unlikely that the Valmadonna Library Bomberg Talmud was indeed the very same one that Henry had imported from Venice. According to Sotheby’s and at least one academic, it actually came from the library of an Oxford professor of Hebrew, who bequeathed it to the Abbey. In any event, the Bomberg Talmud lay undisturbed at Westminster Abbey for the next four hundred years. How Lunzer obtained it for his library is possibly the greatest story in the annals of Jewish book collecting. In the 1950s there was an exhibition in London to commemorate the readmission of the Jews to England under Cromwell. Lunzer noted that one of the books on display, from the collection of Westminster Abbey, was improperly labeled, and was in fact a volume of a Bomberg Talmud. Lunzer called the Abbey the next day, told them of his discovery, and suggested that he send some workers to clean the rest of the undisturbed volumes. They discovered a complete Bomberg Talmud in pristine condition, and Lunzer wanted it. But despite years of negotiations with the Abbey, Lunzer’s attempts to buy the Talmud were rebuffed.
“Mr. Lunzer, we at the Abbey consider our Babylonian Talmud to be part of the Abbey itself.
— Howard Nixon, Librarian of Westmisnter Abbey (as remembered by Jack Lunzer)
Then in April 1980, Lunzer’s luck changed. He read in a brief newspaper article that the original 1065 Charter of Westminster Abbey had been purchased by an American at auction, but because of its cultural significance the British Government were refusing to grant an export license. Lunzer called the Abbey, was invited for tea, and a gentleman’s agreement was struck. He purchased the Charter from the American, presented it to the Abbey, and at a ceremony in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey the nine volumes of Bomberg’s Babylonian Talmud were presented to the Valmadonna Trust. It’s a glorious story, and it’s so much better when Lunzer himself tells it, as he does here: (You can also see the video here, and end it at 14.35. We continue to apologize for those ads.)
In December 2015, the Westminster Abbey Talmud was sold at Sotheby’s in New York $9.3 million. The buyer was anonymous, and so, in a flash, the magical Talmud I had once held in my hands moved to a new private collection. I hope the owner enjoys his (or her) new treasure.
Walked the six miles to Chabad of East Lakeview. On the way there I stopped off by Eli and Xi. I go to Shul at 10:50 AM. They were at Shilshi. The Kiddush was great. I just love the Cholent. I spoke about the Mitzvah of Yibum. I also told them the speech by Rabbi Meir Yaakov Soloveichik, the Yibum of Henry the 8th. See my blog posit of September 4, 2023
When two brothers live together and one of them dies, and he has no child, the wife of the deceased may not marry outside to a strangman; her brother in law shall come to her, and take her to himself as a wife, and perform levirate marriage..
Rabbi Charles Kahane:
When brothers from one father live together at the same time, and one of them dies childless, the wife of the deceased may not marry one outside of the family, a stranger. Her husband’s brother must marry her; take her to be his wife, and take the place of the former husband.
(רמב”ן, רש”י, א”ע.)
Silverstein
When brothers dwell together [i.e., when they had dwelt concurrently in the world (This excludes from yibum (levirate marriage) the wife of one’s brother who had never been “in his world”). They must also be “together” vis-à-vis inheritance (This excludes from yibum the wife of one’s maternal brother)], and one of them dies, and he has no son [or daughter, or son of a son or daughter of a son, or son of a daughter or daughter of a daughter], then the wife of the dead one shall not be outside to a strange man. Her levir (her husband’s brother) shall come upon her and take her for himself as a wife, and he shall have her in levirate marriage.
We see that the Mitzvah of Yibum applies to a couple who had a child and that child dies. Thus when the brother dies, he is childless and his wife falls to Yibum.
To understand this Pasuk the following four separate phrases that have to be understood.
וְהָיָ֗ה הַבְּכוֹר֙
אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֵּלֵ֔ד
יָק֕וּם עַל־שֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו הַמֵּ֑ת
וְלֹֽא־יִמָּחֶ֥ה שְׁמ֖וֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל׃
There are two main explanations. The A Pshat which is the plain meaning of the text and the B Pshat which Drush as stated by the Sefrei and the Gemora in Yevomes 24A.
What does וְהָיָ֗ה הַבְּכוֹר֙ mean?
A – Either the oldest son
B – The oldest brother is first in line to perform Yibum.
What does אֲשֶׁ֣ר תֵּלֵ֔ד mean?
A – Either it goes with the oldest son that is born. “And it will be when a son is born”
B – The Yevamah has to have the ability to have children in her lifetime. It excludes an Aylones
What does יָק֕וּם עַל־שֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו mean?
A1 – The son born to the Yavum and Yevamah takes on the same name as the deceased brother
A2 – The son inherits the deceased brother.
A3 – The son is a continuation of the soul of the dead brother
B – The brother who performs Yibum inherits the deceased brother’s property
What does וְלֹֽא־יִמָּחֶ֥ה שְׁמ֖וֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵֽל mean?
A – Not sure
A3 – by taking on the soul of the dead brother, the dead brother will not be wiped out from this world.
B – Inheritance
The following is how the various Meforshim learn this Pasuk. What is very interesting is that only Rashi learned the text like the Gemora. The Gemora in Yevamos 24A clearly learns the explanation like the Drush. Rava totally rejects the plain meaning of the text.
Onkelys – A, B, A, not sure. According to Avrohom Morgenstern
it is A, B, A3, Not sure
Targum – A, A, A2, not sure
Ibn Ezra – A, A, A1, B
Rashbam – A, A, A1, not sure
Ramban – A, A, A3, B Also Rabbeinu Bachya and the Tur HaArych
Sforno – A, A, A, A3
Rashi – B, B, B, not sure
Group 1 – follows the plain meaning of the text. You name the kids after the deceased brother. This is said by Onkleyos, Tragum Yonasam Ben Uziel, Ibn Ezra, and the Rashbam.
Group 2 – Kabblistic Pshat that the Neshama of the deceased brother goes into the firstborn child (son or even a girl?). Ramban, Rabbinu Bachya and Tur HaAruch. Rabbi Avrohom Morgenstern in his Sefer on Onkelys says that Onkelys agrees with the Ramban.
Group 3 – The child is considered the child of the deceased brother. This is the Sforno. Slightly different than the Ramban.
Group 4 – The Drasha’s that Rashi quotes are from the Gemara in Yeovms 24A. It appears that Rashi holds like Rava in the Gemara that we do not use the plain meaning at all, not for Pshat and not for Halacha.
There are a number of questions. Rava in Yevamos 24A clearly says the explanation of the Pasuk does not at all go like the plain meaning of the text. The plain meaning is that you call the son born of the Yavam by the name of the deceased brother. How can the four under Group one use the plain meaning of the text. Onkelyos and Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel were Tanium and predated Rava by 300 plus years. Maybe they simply argue on Rava and say that we do explain is based on the plain meaning and also on the Drashas. Perhaps. Rava is so adamant that we do not follow the plain meaning.
Reb Moshe Solovecichik wants to explain Rava that in Pasak Halacha we do not use the plain meaning, although in most other instances we will Pasken like the plain meaning and like the Drasha’s Chazel. Here we do not. Perhaps because of Rus and Boaz not meaning their kid Machlon. However, this is not proof because perhaps they did not want to use the name Machlon because he was a traitor to the Jewish people. Reb Moshe Soloveichik speculated perhaps there would be a Mitzvah Kiyumos to name the eldest son by the name of the child born to the Yavam and the Yevamah. Like Matza after the first night of Pesach.
Where does the Ramban get his Pshat and say it has a Kabbalistic explanation. Could be that he feels that to say the Pasuk in means that you give the same name to the newborn child cannot be, because we do not see this by Boaz and Rus. The Ramban felt that there has to be a plain meaning to the verse, so he said the plain meaning is the Kabbilistic meaning, which fits in with the words.
This is difficult because even if it does mean you name the child after the name of the deceased brother, thi is only Lechatchilah, B’dieved you can name the child a different name. And perhaps by Boaz and Rus they did not want to use the name Machlon because he betrayed the people of Israel.
It shall be that the firstborn, when she is capable of bearing children, shall be established in place of his deceased [father’s] brother, so that his name may not be obliterated from Yisroel. Avrohom Morgenstern in the Artscroll translation in footnote 12 page 268 that Onkelyos is referring to the idea that the first son born to the Yavum and Yevama in a spiritual sense is the son of the dead brother.. Meaning he is the Neshma of the brother.
Avrohom Morgenstern in Artscroll says that Onkleys agrees with the Ramban and Rabbinu Bachya.
And the first-born whom she beareth shall stand in the inheritance in the name of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel.
Ibn Ezra:
הבכור אשר תלד. יקרא בשם אחיו:
ולא ימחה שמו. על הנחלה ידבר. וכבר פירשתי אשר תלד בפסוק לעם נכרי:
Rashbam: יקום – הבן על שם [אחיו] – לפי הפשט.
יקום הבן על שם אחיו, he will arise in the name of his brother (deceased). This is the plain meaning.
Group Two:
Ramban:
וטעם והיה הבכור אשר תלד יקום על שם אחיו המת איננו כפשוטו שיקראו הבן הראשון בשם המת ראובן או שמעון כמוהו שהרי בבעז נאמר כן (רות ד י) ולא יכרת שם המת מעם אחיו ומשער מקומו ולא קראו אותו מחלון אבל הכתוב הזה על דרך האמת הבטחה והנה הוא כפשוטו
וסמכו בו רבותינו (ספרי קנו יבמות כד) מדרש שיהא גדול האחים מיבם ושהאילונית אינה מתיבמת וכן אשת הסריס ששמו מחוי וזה כולו אסמכתא כי האילונית ואשת הסריס מגופיה דקרא נפקי:
Rabbeinu Bachya:
והיה הבכור אשר תלד יקום על שם אחיו המת. ע”ד הפשט בכתוב הזה הוא דרך הקבלה, כי
הבכור אשר תלד אשת המת יקום על שם אחיו המת, ואין זה שם ממש שיהיה שמו כשמו, אלא יקום על שם אחיו המת בנפש ידבר הכתוב, זהו שאמר ולא ימחה שמו מישראל, שאם לא יקום ימחה שמו מישראל סבא, וזה מבואר. ומה שפירשו בו רז”ל, והיה הבכור אשר תלד, אמו של מת, הוא יקום בנכסים על שם אחיו המת ויזכר שם המת בנחלתו, אין זה פשוטו של מקרא, אבל הוא מדרש לרז”ל ומשם הוכיחו שמצוה בגדול ליבם, וזהו שהזכיר לשון בכור.
Tur Haruch also learns like the Ramban.
Group 3:
Sforno:
ולא ימחה שמו מישראל. שיהי’ הולד נחשב אצל ה’ יתעלה קיום פריה ורביה למת שהרי נולד ע”י קדושיו של מת ואין היבם צריך לקדשה קדושין אחרים וזה מאס אונן בשנאתו את אחיו ובזאת הי’ עליו קצף:
ולא ימחה שמו מישראל, in that the child born from this union will be considered by G’d as if the deceased had fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful. This is easily understood when we consider that this child is the product of a legal marriage entered into by the deceased husband of his mother. The fact that the deceased’s brother did not have to go through a marriage ceremony with the widow of his brother makes this clear to everyone. This explains why G’d would be angry at the brother who refuses to marry his sister-in-law, as he thereby deprived his deceased brother forever from fulfilling the mitzvah of being fruitful
Group 4:
Rashi:
והיה הבכור. גְּדוֹל הָאַחִים הוּא מְיַבֵּם אוֹתָהּ (ספרי; יבמות כ”ד):
אשר תלד. פְּרָט לְאַיְלוֹנִית שֶׁאֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת:
יקום על שם אחיו. זֶה שֶׁיִּבֵּם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ יִטֹּל נַחֲלַת הַמֵּת בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו:
ולא ימחה שמו. פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת סָרִיס שֶׁשְּׁמוֹ מָחוּי (יבמות כ”ד):
[קנו] והיה הבכור אשר תלד הפסוק הזה אם כמובנו הפשוט שהבן הראשון שתלד היבמה יקרא על שם המת. למשל אם נקרא ראובן יקרא הבן ראובן, אינו מתקבל על הדעת כי ענין היבום נאמר גבי ער בכור יהודה. ושם נאמר שהזרע יהיה לאחיו ולא שיקרא בשמו גם לא הזכיר שם בכור. וכן נזכר בכתובים גבי רות ושם אמר להקים שם המת על נחלתו. ב’ שבכ”מ שנאמר והיה יבא או על הדבר המובטח או על דבר הרגיל, וכאן אולי לא תלד כלל ואם תלד אולי נקבה וגם אולי לא יהיה בכור כי יתכן שכבר ילדה. ואם הדין הוא רק בבכור היה לכתוב אם תלד או אשר תלד בכור יקרא ע”ש אחיו, ג’ שאם מוסב על הבן הנולד היה לומר יקום על שם אחי אביו, ואף שיש ליישב בדוחק כדאיתא בגמ’ דהצווי על הב”ד שיאמרו להיבם שיקרא את הבן בשם אחיו, אבל הוא רחוק שהלא לא נזכר בפסוק זה היבם כלל, ולכל הפחות היה לכתוב ועל שם אחיו המת יקום הבכור אשר תלד שהיה סמוך שם אחיו המת לויבמה, ד’ שאם בבן הנולד מדבר למה הזכיר שני פעמים יקום על שם אחיו ולא ימחה שמו מישראל, ואף שחז”ל דרשו מזה פרט לסריס ששמו מחוי זאת הוא דרש, וגם היה לכתוב אשר לא ימחה שהוא נתינת טעם, ומדאמר ולא ימחה משמע שהוא ענין בפ”ע, ולכן ההכרח לפרש כדברי חז”ל, אף שאמרו בגמ’ שבכ”מ אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו, רק כאן ההלכה עוקר את הפשט אבל לא את הפשט שהוא על דרך ההגיון, וזה, כי ענין הקמת שם מצינו על ב’ אופנים. א’ הקמת שם בנחלה, שהנחלה תקרא על שמו כמ”ש על שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם, ב’ הקמת שם ע”י הבנים שהבנים נקראו על שמו. כדמצינו בבנות צלפחד שאמרו למה יגרע שם אבינו מתוך משפחתו שאין פי’ על הנחלה שלא יקרא על שם אביהם דא”כ היה כתוב למה יגרע שם אבינו מנחלתו, אלא הפי’ הוא כך, למה נגרע אנחנו אשר אנו שם אבינו בשביל שאנו זרעו, מתוך משפחתו תנה לנו אחוזה בתוך אחי אבינו, ואחרי שמצינו ב’ עניני הקמת שם. וזכר ב’ פעמים בפסוק א’ יורה על שניהם, בזרעו כמו גבי יהודה, ובנחלה כמו גבי רות, והמייבם הוא הקם על שם המת בנחלתו ולא הבן אשר יולד, כמו שנאמר שם ביום קנותך השדה גם אשת המת קנית וכדפי’ רש”י מפני שאשת המת נכנסת ויוצאת בנחלת המת ותזכר הנחלה ע”ש המת, ועתה נבא לבאר את הכתובים, כי מליצת הכתוב כך היא, אחרי שאמר הכתוב מצות היבום ובאר לנו התועלת שיוצא מזה, ואמר כי ע”י היבם שהוא בענין הזה כבכור שיורש את נחלתו, וע”י היבמה שראויה להוליד בנים מהיבם יהיו שני הקמות, הקמת שם בנחלה שזה נקרא הקמת שם אחיו כמ”ש על שם אחיהם יקראו בנחלתם, וגם הקמת שם ע”י זרעו שיקרא הקמת שם בישראל. שע”ז אמר קודם להקים שם אחיו בישראל (שהוא ענין רוחני וע’ ברמב”ן ורבינו בחיי) וכה יתפרש הכתוב “והיה הבכור” ר”ל ע”י הבכור שהוא היבם שכנה אותו בכור מפני כמה דינים כדאיתא בגמ’, “אשר תלד” ר”ל וע”י אשר תלד, היא היבמה, וכנה אותה בשם אשר תלד להורות שאם היא אילונית אינה מתיבמת, ועתה מבאר התועלת שיהיה ע”י היבם שקראו הכתוב בכור “יקום על שם אחיו המת” שפי’ הקמת שם בנחלה, והתועלת שיהיה ע”י היבמה “ולא ימחה שמו מישראל” שהוא הקמת שם בזרע כנ”ל:
How do the English translations translate Verse 6:
Artscroll:
“It shall be that the firstborn son whom she will bear shall stand in the name of his dead [father’s] brother, and his name shall not be blotted out from Israel.”
Rabbi Charles Kahane:
“The first son that she bears will perpetuate the deceased brother’s name and estate, so that his name will not be extinct from Israel.”
(רש”י, א”ע.)
Rabbi Kahane explains it as the first son that she bears. After I saw this I believe Artscroll meant the same thing, although confusingly. Rabbi Kahane stated that Rashi is one of his sources. This is not Rashi at all.
Silverstein
And it shall be, the first-born [i.e., the eldest of the brothers] (in an instance) where she can bear [(a woman who cannot bear is excluded from yibum)], he shall be invested in the name of his dead brother [with the latter’s inheritance in his father’s property], and his name shall not be wiped out of Israel. [(This excludes from yibum the wife of a saris (one who is impotent), whose name is already “wiped out.”)
Second Analysis – not sure if this has any value. I wrote this up initially before I spoke to Reb Moshe Solovecihik on August 29, 2023:
This is a very difficult Passuk to translate. The Gemora offers two interpretations, one literal and one using a Gezra Shava. The Gemora in Yevamos 24A clearly explains this verse that the words״וְהָיָה “הַבְּכוֹר means the oldest brother has the priority to perform Yibum and the one who performs Yibam gets the deceased bother’s land. The son born of the union between the Yavam and Yevama has no status at all. It is the Yevam who gets the inheritance.
The literal Pshet according to the Gemora is that the first born (oldest son) is called by the dead brother’s name. What about inheritance? It does not say. It may be that all of the brothers get the inheritance or since the name of the first born is the same as the deceased brother, the kid gets the inheritance.
Rava said that we do not use the plain meaning because we have a Gerrah Shava. Why can’t we use both the plain meaning and the Gezerah Shave meanings? I do not know why.
Using this as a backdrop, Rashi is going like the Gemara. The Ibn Ezra and the Rashbam interprets the Pasuk like the plain meaning, which was rejected by Rava. The Ibn Ezra adds that when it says the first born son will be called by the deceased brother’s name, this first born son also gets the inheritance.
It seems that Onkelys and Targum Yonasan ben Uziel translate ״וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר״ as the son, however, at least Targum Yonasan ben Uziel translates שֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו as inheritance.
The Ramban offers an interpretation not like the Gemora. The שֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו is referring to the eternal soul, the the soul of the dead brother enters the child.
Rashi chooses not to translate the Pasuk in its simple plain meaning. Rabbi Shraga Silerstein and the Gutnick Lubavitch translate like Rashi.
But if the man will not wish to marry his sister-in-law, then his sister-in-law shall ascend to the gate, to the elders, and she shall say, ”My brother-in-law refuses to establish a name for this brother in Israel, he did not consent to perform levirate marriage with me”
Rabbi Charles Kahane:
But if the man does not want to marry his brother’s widow, his sister-in-law will go up to the judges who sit at the gate and say: “My husband’s brother refused to perpetuate his brother’s name in Israel; he will not take his place by marrying me.”
(רש”י, רמב”ן.)
Silverstein:
And if the man does not desire to take his yevamah, then his yevamah shall go up to the gate [of beth-din] to the elders, and she shall say: My yavam does not desire to invest for his brother a name in Israel; he does not desire to have me in yibum.
Then the elders of the city shall summon him and speak to him and he shall stand and say, “I do not wish to marry her.”
Rabbi Charles Kahane:
The judges of the city will summon him, and counsel him in the right course he should follow. But if he takes a stand and says: “I do not want to marry her,”
(רש”י, ספורנו.)
Silverstein:
Then the elders of his city shall call to him and they shall speak to him; and he shall stand up and say [in the holy tongue]: I did not desire to take her.
Then his sister-in-law shall approach him before the eyes of the elders; she shall remove his shoe from his foot and spit before hom; she shall speak up and say, “So is done to the man who will not build up the house of his brother.”
(רש”י, יונתן.)
Rabbi Charles Kahane:
his brother’s wife will approach him in the presence of the elders, pull his shoe from off his foot, as a sign of acquiring the deceased estate from him, spit on the ground in front of his face, and call out and say: “So must it be done to a man worthy of contempt, for refusing to build up a family which his brother began to form.”
(רש”י, יונתן.)
Silverstein:
Then his yevamah shall draw near to him before the eyes of the elders, and she shall remove his shoe from his foot, and she shall spit before his face [on the ground], and she shall answer and say [in the holy tongue]: Thus shall it be done with the man who will not build [(he may not perform yibum at a later date)] the house of his brother.
Then his name shall be proclaimed in Israel,: “The house of the one whose shoe was removed.”
Rabbi Charles Kahane:
And his name will be known in Israel as: “The house of the stripped shoe.”
(רש”י.)
Silverstein:
And his name shall be called in Israel: “the house (of him) chalutz hana’al” (“whose shoe was removed”). [It is a mitzvah for all who are standing there to say: “chalutz hana’al.”]
In the Sefaria copy they also copied a personal note dated March 13, 1978 written in the book’s inset, a personal note to Boruch from his grandmother, Sonia Kahane. Sonia was the wife of Charles Kahane and when she gave the Chumosh to her grandson, Charles Kahane had just passed away. It is touching. Boruch Kahane is the son of Meir Kahane. Shmuel Weissman is Manager of Text Acquisition & Text Quality. Rabbi Weissman told me that the text of the Sefer came from Boruch Kahane. It is appreciated that Seferia kept this personal note from a Bubi to a grandson.
In 1963 there were basically four translations of the Chumash. JPS 1917, Soncino 1935, and Silberman/Rosenbaum. There was the very popular Linear Chumash Rashi translation copyrighted in 1950. However, Jay Orlinsky told me that if you look in the opening pages of the Chumash it says, In cooperation with Dr. Harry Orlinsky, who was the editor in Chief of the JPS. The linear translation follows JPS 1917.
I saw Rabbi Charles Kahane’s translation and asked myself who was this Rabbi Charles Kahane, why would he translate the Torah, and why didn’t I know about this work. I discovered a Blog post for Yosef Lindell dated March 2023. Read Yosef Lindell’s fascinating article about the Torah Yesharah in a March 13, 2023 blog post answers these questions. When Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Father Translated the Torah – The Seforim Blog
WHEN RABBI MEIR KAHANE’S FATHER TRANSLATED THE TORAH
When Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Father Translated the Torah
By Yosef Lindell
Yosef Lindell is a lawyer, writer, and lecturer living in Silver Spring, MD. He has a JD from NYU Law and an MA in Jewish history from Yeshiva University. He is one of the editors of the Lehrhaus and has published more than 30 articles on Jewish history and thought in a variety of venues. His website is yoseflindell.wordpress.com.
In 1962, the Jewish Publication Society published a new translation of the Torah. The product of nearly a decade of work, the new edition was the first major English translation to cast off the shackles of the 1611 King James Bible. Dr. Harry Orlinsky, the primary force behind the new translation and a professor of Bible at the merged Reform Hebrew Union College and Jewish Institute of Religion, explained that even JPS’ celebrated 1917 translation was merely a King James lookalike, a modest revision of the Revised Standard Version that “did not exceed more than a very few percent of the whole.”[1] This new edition was different. As the editors wrote in the preface, the King James not only “had an archaic flavor,” but it rendered the Hebrew “word for word rather than idiomatically,” resulting in “quaintness or awkwardness and not infrequently in obscurity.”[2] Now, for the first time, the editors translated wholly anew, jettisoning literalism for maximum intelligibility. More than sixty years later, JPS’ work remains one of the definitive English translations of the Torah.
The new JPS may have left the King James behind, but it didn’t satisfy everyone. In addition to making the Torah more intelligible, the editors incorporated the insights of modern biblical scholarship, both from “biblical archeology and in the recovery of the languages and civilizations of the peoples among whom the Israelites lived and whose modes of living and thinking they largely shared.”[3] So when asked by Rabbi Theodore Adams, the president of the Rabbinical Council of America, whether the RCA could accept an invitation from Dr. Solomon Grayzel, JPS’ publisher, to participate in the new translation, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik demurred. He wrote in a 1953 letter to Adams, “I am afraid that the purpose of this undertaking is not to infuse the spirit of Torah she-be-al peh into the new English version but, on the contrary, … to satisfy the so-called modern ‘scientific’ demands for a more exact rendition in accordance with the latest archeological and philological discoveries.”[4]
Just one year after JPS released its volume, in 1963, R. Soloveitchik’s wish for a more “Torah-true” translation was answered, but likely not in the way he expected. The two-volume Torah Yesharah published by Rabbi Charles Kahane (1905-1978) relies heavily on traditional Jewish commentary in its translation.[5] But as we’ll explore, because of its lack of fidelity to the Hebrew text, it can hardly be called a translation at all.
The strategically placed dots on the title page indicate that Yesharah is an acronym for the author’s Hebrew name—Yechezkel Shraga Hakohen. R. Charles Kahane was born in Safed and received semichah from the Pressburg Yeshiva in Hungary. After immigrating to the United States in 1925 and receiving a second semichah from Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, he served as rabbi of Congregation Shaarei Tefiloh in Brooklyn for most of his professional career, a shul which drew over 2,000 worshippers for the High Holidays.[6] He was a founding member of the Vaad Harabbanim of Flatbush and helped Rabbi Avraham Kalmanowitz re-establish the Mir Yeshiva in Brooklyn. Today, however, he is known as the father of Meir Kahane, the radical and controversial Jewish power activist and politician who needs no further introduction. The father does not seem to have been directly involved in his son’s activities, but he took pride in Meir’s accomplishments and was a staunch supporter of the Irgun in Palestine, Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionist movement, and Jabotinsky’s youth group, Betar.[7]
R. Kahane told the New York Times that Torah Yesharah was inspired by Bible classes he gave to his adult congregants where many people did not understand the text even in translation.[8] (Recall that the new JPS translation was not yet available, and other English translations relied on the archaic King James.) He wanted to rectify this problem; indeed, the title page states that the work is a “traditional interpretive translation,” suggesting that it was intended to be more user-friendly. But calling it user-friendly does not do justice to what Kahane did. Here is most of Bereishit 22—the passage of Akedat Yitzchak:
Most translators try to approximate the meaning of the Hebrew. Not so R. Kahane. Nearly every single English verse here contains significant additions not found in the original. The first verse, for example, which states that the Akedah was meant to punish Avraham for making a treaty with Avimelech, follows the opinion of the medieval commentator Rashbam, who, notes that the words “and it was after these things” connect the Akedah to the previous episode—the treaty with Avimelech (Rashbam, Bereishit 22:1). But it’s hard to imagine that Rashbam, famous for his devotion to peshat—plain meaning—would have been comfortable with his explanation being substituted for the translation itself. Many other verses on this page provide additions from Rashi and other commentators.
Pretty much every page of R. Kahane’s translation looks similar: Hebrew on one side and an expansive interpretive translation drawn from the classical commentators on the other. Kahane makes no effort to distinguish between the literal meaning of the Hebrew and his interpretive gloss.[9] Dr. Philip Birnbaum, the famed siddur and machzor translator, criticizes this aspect of the work in his (Hebrew) review, noting that Kahane’s interpretations are written “as if they are an inseparable part of the Hebrew source, and the simple reader who doesn’t know the Holy Tongue will end up mistakenly thinking that everything written in ‘Torah Yesharah’ is written in ‘Torat Moshe.’”[10]
To be fair, R. Kahane cites sources for his interpretations, but only at the back of each book of the Torah and only in Hebrew shorthand:
Thus, a reader not already fluent in Hebrew and the traditional commentaries would have little idea where Kahane was drawing his “translation” from and might not grasp how much the translation departed from the Hebrew original.[11]
Yet perhaps this was the point. R. Kahane considered literal translation to be illegitimate. In the preface to Torah Yesharah, Kahane contrasts Targum Onkelos, which is celebrated by the Sages, with the Septuagint translation of the Torah into Greek, which the Sages mourned. Kahane suggests that a Targum, which is an interpretation or commentary, is superior to a direct translation. Targum Onkelos, he writes, was composed under the guidance of the Sages and based on the Oral Law, and therefore it was “sanctified.” According to Kahane, “The Torah cannot and must never be translated literally, without following the Oral interpretation as given to Moses on Sinai. … It is in this spirit that the present translation-interpretation has been written.”[12]
Kahane was not the only Orthodox rabbi of his time to criticize translation unfaithful to rabbinic interpretation. We’ve already noted R. Soloveitchik’s concerns about the new JPS.[13] Similarly, the encyclopedist Rabbi Judah David Eisenstein reported that in 1913, when JPS was preparing its initial translation, Rabbi Chaim Hirschenson of Hoboken, NJ, convinced the Agudath Harabbanim to protest JPS’ efforts so the new work should not become the “official” translation of English-speaking Jewry the way the King James had become the official translation of the Church of England. The Agudath Harabbanim noted the Sages’ disapproval of the Septuagint and explained that only Targum Onkelos and traditional commentators that based themselves on the Talmud were officially sanctioned.[14]
R. Kahane’s approach also harks back to a series of articles in Jewish Forum composed in 1928 by Rabbi Samuel Gerstenfeld, a rosh yeshiva at RIETS (a young Rabbi Gerstenfeld is pictured below), attacking the original 1917 JPS translation. Gerstenfeld labeled the JPS translation Conservative and sought to demonstrate its departure from Orthodoxy by comprehensively cataloging all the places where the translation departed from the halakhic understanding of the verse. So, for example, he criticizes JPS for translating the tachash skins used in the construction of the Mishkan as “seal skins,” because according to halachic authorities, non-kosher animal hides cannot be used for a sacred purpose.[15] He believed that the word tachash should be transliterated, but not translated.[16] Gerstenfeld concludes that the JPS translators “missed a Moses—a Rabbi well versed in Talmud and Posekim, who would have been vigilant against violence to the Oral Law.”[17]
Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet remembers Rabbi Gerstenfeld from his early days in Yeshiva University.
Still, R. Kahane’s interpretive translation with additions goes far beyond what R. Gerstenfeld was suggesting. To give one example: Gerstenfeld quibbles with JPS’ translation of the words ve-yarka befanav in the chalitzah ceremony (Devarim 25:9). The 1917 JPS translates that the woman should “spit in his face” (referring to the man who refuses to perform yibbum). Gerstenfeld notes that rabbinic tradition unanimously holds that the woman spits on the ground. He suggests that “and spit in his presence” would be a better translation.[18] Gerstenfeld’s suggestion is reasonably elegant—it gives space for the rabbinic reading without negating the meaning of the Hebrew. Kahane makes no such attempt to be literal, instead translating that she will “spit on the ground in front of his face.”[19] As we’ve seen, Kahane had no compunctions about adding words.
Thus, there is no English-language precedent for Torah Yesharah of which I am aware. As the preface suggests, R. Kahane was inspired by the Aramaic targumim, but it would seem more by Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel than Targum Onkelos. Onkelos translates word-for-word in most circumstances, typically departing from the Hebrew’s literal meaning to address theological concerns, such as a discomfort with anthropomorphism. Targum Yonatan, on the other hand, seamlessly weaves many midrashic additions into its translation and looks more like Torah Yesharah. For example, at the beginning of the Akedah passage, Targum Yonatan goes on a lengthy excursus suggesting that God’s command to sacrifice Yitzchak was in response to a debate between Yitzchak and Yishmael where Yitzchak boasted that he would be willing to offer himself to God. This digression is akin to Kahane’s addition of the Rashbam into his translation. If anything, Targum Yonatan is more expansive than Torah Yesharah.
Torah Yesharah received a fair amount of press upon its publication. It was even reviewed by the New York Times, which called it “[a] new and unusual translation” that was intended to make the Torah “more meaningful to Americans.” The article quoted Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits, then the rabbi of the Fifth Avenue Synagogue in Manhattan (before he became Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom), as calling it “an original enterprise” and “a most specifically Jewish rendering of the Torah.” While the Times was noncommittal about the work, a critical review in the Detroit Jewish News found Kahane’s language confusing and inferior to the new JPS translation published the prior year.[20] As for Dr. Birnbaum, he praised Torah Yesharah’s reliance on traditional Jewish interpretations and lamented the fact that most other biblical translations “were borrowed from the Christians from the time of Shakespeare,” but criticized the format (as noted above) and some of Kahane’s more tendentious translations.[21]
Despite the interest Torah Yesharah generated, its unique approach was not replicated. One might see echoes of R. Kahane in a better known translation—ArtScroll’s 1993 Stone Edition Chumash. As its editors explained in its preface, the “volume attempts to render the text as our Sages understood it.”[22] To this end, ArtScroll famously follows Rashi when translating “because the study of Chumash has been synonymous with Chumash-Rashi for nine centuries,”[23] even when Rashi is at variance with more straightforward readings of the text. Thus, for example, ArtScroll translates az huchal likro be-shem hashem (Genesis 4:26) based on Rashi as, “Then to call in the name of Hashem became profaned”—a reference to the beginnings of idol worship.[24] However, a more literal translation would run, “Then people began to call in the name of God,” which sounds like a reference to sincere prayer—the opposite of idolatry. It’s also well-known that ArtScroll declines to translate Shir Ha-Shirim literally, adapting Rashi’s allegorical commentary in place of translation.
On the other hand, ArtScroll’s overall approach is different than Torah Yesharah’s. ArtScroll is typically quite literal, translating word-for-word even when the syntax of the verse suffers as a result. An example from the Akedah is again relevant: va-yar ve-hinei ayil achar ne’echaz ba-sevach be-karnav (Genesis 22:13). ArtScroll’s translation, that Abraham “saw—behold, a ram!—afterwards, caught in the thicket,”[25] is awkward, but it preserves the word achar in the precise location that it appears in the Hebrew. When ArtScroll wants to highlight more traditional interpretations of the text in line with Chazal and others, it does so in the commentary, not in the translation itself.[26]
Two recent works—the Koren Steinsaltz Humash (2018) and the Chabad Kehot Chumash (2015)—are much closer to Torah Yesharah in that they insert commentary directly into the English translation. But they still differ in an important respect. Both the Steinsaltz—which is a translation of a Hebrew Humash based on the classes of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz—and the Kehot “interpolate” a good deal of commentary into the translation (the former is more peshat based and the latter leans more on Rashi and Midrash). Nevertheless, they distinguish between what’s literal and what’s added by using bold font for the literal translation. This approach still has its downsides, as it can still be hard to read the English cleanly without the added gloss getting in the way of the literal meaning.[27] But it’s preferable to Torah Yesharah, where R. Kahane did not provide the reader any means of distinguishing between the text and his additions.
Today, Torah Yesharah is but a historical curiosity. Yet its existence highlights the fact that some mid-20th century Orthodox Jews felt a real need for a translation that followed in the footsteps of Chazal and other traditional commentators. To them, JPS’ translation did not embrace an authentic Torah approach. Before ArtScroll came on the scene, Torah Yesharah filled that niche for a time, but its unusual format blurred the line between the Word of God and the words of His interpreters.
Yosef Lindell is a lawyer, writer, and lecturer living in Silver Spring, MD. He has a JD from NYU Law and an MA in Jewish history from Yeshiva University. He is one of the editors of the Lehrhaus and has published more than 30 articles on Jewish history and thought in a variety of venues. His website is yoseflindell.wordpress.com.
[1] Harry M. Orlinsky, “The New Jewish Version of the Torah: Toward a New Philosophy of Bible Translation,” Journal of Biblical Literature 82:3 (1963): 251. [2] The Torah: The Five Books of Moses (The Jewish Publication Society, 1962), Preface. [3] Ibid. [4] Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Community, Covenant, and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications (Nathaniel Helfgot, ed., KTAV, 2005), 110. [5] Charles Kahane, ed., Torah Yesharah (Torah Yesharah Publication: Solomon Rabinowitz Book Concern, NY, 1963). [6] To the New York Times, Kahane described the shul as “progressive Orthodox,” and it likely lacked a mechitzah. See Robert I. Friedman, The False Prophet: Rabbi Meir Kahane (Lawrence Hill Books, 1990), 20. That, however, was not unusual for those times. [7] The biographical information in this paragraph is drawn from Friedman (see previous note) and Libby Kahane, Rabbi Meir Kahane: His Life and Thought (Institute for the Publication of the Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane, 2008). [8] Richard F. Shepard, “Rabbi Publishes New Bible Study; Works on Early Scholars Are Reinterpreted,” New York Times (June 21, 1964), 88. [9] Here is another example of a large interpretive insertion concerning God’s decision that Moshe and Aharon would not lead the people into Israel because of their sin regarding the rock (Bamidbar 20:12):
That’s quite a few more words than are found in the Hebrew! [10] Paltiel Birnbaum, “Targum Angli be-Ruah ha-Masoret,” in Pleitat Sofrim: Iyyunim ve-Ha’arakhot be-Hakhmat Yisrael ve-Safrutah (Mossad Harav Kook, 1971), 75. [11] Of note, Kahane’s translation is available on Sefaria, but with modifications that obscure its radicalness. For one, the format is different: the Hebrew and English are not juxtaposed in the same way. Second, the sources for each verse are cited directly below the translation in parentheses. This is not the way Kahane presented his sources in the original. [12] Torah Yesharah, xviii-ix. [13] Among the most intriguing critics of the new JPS was Avram Davidson, who wrote in Jewish Life in 1957 that because the translation was being prepared by non-Orthodox scholars who intended to depart occasionally from the Masoretic text in light of new archaeological discoveries, it was not “being prepared on the Torah’s terms” and was unacceptable. A.A. Davidson, “A ‘Modern’ Bible Translation,” Orthodox Jewish Life 24:5 (1957): 7-11. Davidson later became a science fiction writer of some renown but by the end of his life had become enamored with a modern Japanese religion called Tenrikyo. [14] J.D. Eisenstein, ed., Otzar Yisrael vol. 10 (New York, 1913), 309. See also the criticism of the 1962 JPS translation and the discussion of Eisenstein and R. Gerstenfeld’s article in Sidney B. Hoenig, “Notes on the New Translation of the Torah – A Preliminary Inquiry,” Tradition 5:2 (1963): 172-205. [15] Samuel Gerstenfeld, “The Conservative Halacha,” The Jewish Forum 11:10 (Oct. 1928): 533. [16] Indeed, ArtScroll’s Stone Chumash leaves tachash untranslated. Interestingly, R. Kahane just translates “sealskins” like JPS. [17] Samuel Gerstenfeld, “The Conservative Halacha,” The Jewish Forum 11:11 (Nov. 1928): 576. [18] Ibid., 575-76. [19] Torah Yesharah, 331. [20] Philip Slomovitz, “Purely Commentary,” Detroit Jewish News (Aug. 21, 1964), 2. [21] Birnbaum, 76. It’s interesting that Birnbaum was far more critical of non-literal translations of the siddur. When the RCA incorporated the poetic translations of the British novelist Israel Zangwill into its 1960 siddur edited by Rabbi Dr. David de Sola Pool, Birnbaum wrote a scathing review in Hadoar, accusing Zangwill’s efforts as being “free imitations,” not translations, and of having Christian influence. Paltiel Birnbaum, “Siddur Chadash Ba le-Medinah,” Hadoar 40:6 (Dec. 9, 1960): 85. Birnbaum may have been jealous of the RCA’s siddur, which was a direct competitor to his 1949 edition. Also, he was unimpressed with Zangwill in particular, who had married a non-Jew and was not halakhically observant. For more about this, see my article in Lehrhaushere. [22] Nosson Scherman, ed., The Stone Edition Chumash (Mesorah Publications, 1993), xvi. [23] Ibid. [24] Ibid., 23. [25] Ibid., 103. [26] Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s 1981 Living Torah translation also bears some resemblance to Torah Yesharah in its tendency to follow Chazal, but it too, despite its exceedingly colloquial approach to translation, does not insert large interpretive glosses into the text. [27] R. Steinsaltz calls the commentary “transparent” and “one whose explanations should go almost unnoticed and serve only to give the reader and student the sense that there is no barrier between him or her and the text,” but I am not sure I agree. See The Steinsaltz Humash (Koren Publishers, 2015), ix.
I found this statement from the Agudas Harabonim in the February, 1963 edition of the Jewish Press. The Agudus Harabonim put out a statement about the JPS translation. In bold letters at the end of their statement they write , “ THE NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE PENTATEUCH IS A FALSE TRANSLATION.
When the 1962 version came out, the JPS put out a marketing sheet with praise from various scholars and Rabbis. Dr. Samuel Belkin, President of YU, is listed with the following statement:
“The translators have faithfully followed the Masoretic text and at the same time have made full use of the latest results of Hebraic scholarship and research in their work. This is a significant contribution to Jewish scholarship and the Jewish community.”
Rabbi Kahane’s preface to his Sefer talks about his motivations and indirectly refers to JPS 1962: It lays out what we Frum Jews believe in.
PREFACE TO THE INTERPRETATIVE TRANSLATION OF THE TORAH
When the Eternal Almighty revealed Himself to Israel on Mount Sinai, giving them the Torah, the people heard His Words pronounced in the Holy Tongue – Hebrew. Forty years later Moses and the people of Israel reached the borders of Israel; there, in the land of Moab, Moses expounded the Torah also in languages other than Hebrew. Likewise, when Joshua brought the people into the Holy Land he fulfilled Moses’ instruction to inscribe the words of the Torah in various languages on tablets of stone set up on Mount Ebal.1 Later, when Ezra the Scribe, whom the Sages honored with a dignity and praise like that of Moses in Jewish history, led the exiles, in Return from Babylonia into the Land of Israel, in the year 458 B.C.E., the Torah was again promulgated to the people. Ezra introduced the custom of publicly reading the Torah in Aramaic, the vernacular of the Jews in Babylonia; this was recited side by side with the text in the Holy Tongue.2
The best known and most sanctified Torah translation extant and accepted is that which was edited by the pious and aristocratic proselyte Onkelos. This translation was commonly read in the Synagogue for centuries by a specially appointed official after the reading of the Hebrew text by the rabbi had been rendered.3 Yet, we find that the rabbis looked askance at the translation of the Bible. Very harsh criticism is recorded in the Talmud against translations. Thus “the world shook when Jonathan Ben Uziel translated the Books of the Prophets.”4 About the year 275 b.c.e., Ptolemy II, the Egyptian Hellenistic King, summoned seventy Jewish elders to translate the Torah into Greek. Hence, this translation is known as the Septuagint, “the Seventy.” The Jews traditionally rejected it, and the Talmud compared the day of this translation to the day of the worship of the Golden Calf; the sages also tell us that immediately after the completion of this translation, darkness came upon the world for three days, and that day was to be observed as a fast day.5
Superficially, there appears to be a contradiction in the talmudic passages. Was the translation acceptable or detested? After close examination of the texts we find a true interpretation based on the terminology. The talmudic word “Targum” is erroneously explained by many as “translation.” In reality, this word means: expounding, interpretation, or commenting. Translation in Hebrew is Ha-atakah.6 Thus when it is related that Moses conveyed to the young generation the Torah in languages other than Hebrew, it does not mean that he recited it thus or as a verbatim, literal translation. Rather, it means that he interpreted the Written Torah, i.e. he expounded the Oral Torah which he had received on Sinai fully unto the people. Concerning Ezra’s reading of the Torah to the returnees from the Exile, it is said: “And they (Ezra and the Levites) read in the Torah of the Almighty Meforesh, expounding.” The Talmud translates the word Meforesh, as Targum, meaning Perush, interpretation. The Torah cannot and must never be translated literally, without following the Oral interpretation as given to Moses on Sinai.7 Jewish tradition therefore is opposed to translations of the Torah for the purposes of displaying to other nations that we, too, possess a literature… Likewise a translation done because of fear, as in the case of the Ptolemy incident, results in unnecessary and erroneous renditions. Also, a translation which is done with the intent to please the Bible critics is not acceptable. To us the Torah is not solely a book of wisdom, a work of art or a philosophical treatise. To the Jew Torah is the guide and the direction for life. Jewish generations therefore recognized and sanctified the Onkelos translation; for it was definitely based on traditional Oral Law and was done under the guidance and direction of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, the exponents of the Oral Law — based on the teachings which they received from their teachers, traced back to Moses.8
The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uziel is still another translation-interpretation venerated by our people, for it too was traditionally received from the Latter Prophets. Moreover, because of Jonathan’s piety and sanctity it was acceptable.9 Jewry only accepts as authoritative that translation which is done by a faithful believer in Revelation. We believe in perfect faith that the Torah was given to us directly from the Eternal, — He who had revealed Himself on Sinai; consequently, to us the Torah is divine. Just as the Eternal had created the sun, the moon and the stars, which can never be removed or changed, so, too, the laws of the Torah, given to us from Heaven, cannot be removed or changed. No rabbi, nor group of rabbis, nor any founder of a new religion can dismiss the sanctity of the seventh day as the Sabbath, for we believe faithfully that the Eternal created the world in six days, and desisted from work on the seventh day. Similarly, no one can reject the dietary laws, for we believe implicitly in the sanctity of the people of Israel, and therefore abstain from the food the Torah has forbidden. Likewise no one can discard circumcision, which is the basic sign of a covenant between the Eternal and the people of Israel. All this is also true of the other laws of the Torah, as well as of the historical facts contained therein. We believe in the story of Creation as interpreted in the Talmud; in the prophecy of Moses as explained by our sages; in the coming of a Messiah as enunciated by the Talmud but founded on the words of the Torah; and finally we believe in resurrection as expounded by the sages of the Oral Law.
Therefore, only that person or persons who believe in these fundamental principles can be authorized to translate the Torah for those who do not understand it in the original Hebrew. Every Hebrew word is impregnated with implications, and is imbued with the connotations setting forth the traditional Oral Law, as given to Moses on Sinai by the Almighty.
In short, Judaism holds a Bible translation sacred only when it is interpreted according to the spirit of the Talmud which is the Oral Law. This must be in the spirit of the devotion and holiness and recognition of the sanctity of the Divine Word.
It is in this spirit that the present translation-interpretation has been written. The translator has probed into the commentaries, ancient and medieval, as printed in the Rabbinic Bible and has culled much from them. Onkelos, Jonathan Ben Uziel, Rashi, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Rarnban, Sforno and others speak through these pages; he consulted also the modern commentators: Dr. J. H. Hertz and Rev. Dr. A. Cohen. It is recordted that “everything which a diligent pupil may teach is derived from Sinai through Moses.” As one who has devoted his life to the study of Torah, I respectfully present this work to the Jewish public with the hope that it will serve to teach all who thirst for “the word of the Eternal” that sacred heritage which is “our life and the length of our days.”
Finally I wish to express my appreciation for the kind and devoted assistance of my dear wife Sonia Kahane who has borne the burden of typing, re-typing and re-typing yet again with patience, intelligence and loyalty, while at the same time encouraging me in this holy work.
Rabbi Chas. Kahane
Note: The English used in the translation is of modern usage so that it should flow smoothly. It is prepared for all — the average reader as well as the student and scholar.
The Divine Name of the four Hebrew letters — the Tetragammaton — is translated “The Eternal” throughout, since it is derived from the Hebrew words, meaning: He was, He is, He will be.
The name “Elokim,” which denotes the Divine attribute of might, is translated throughout as “Almighty.”
The Author
1 Sotah 35b, 36a.
2 Nehemiah 8; Yerushalmi Megillah 1.11. B. Megillah 3a. (See Gilyon ha-Shas where apparently an error occurs).
3 Megillah 3a; Yer. Meg. 4.1.
4 Megillah 3a.
5 Soferim 1.10; Tur Orach Chayim, 580.
6 Rashi Sotah 36b.
7 Rashi Deut. 1.5 “in seventy languages it was expounded”.
The summer is moving by and it is now the first week of August. On Thursday Aaron Chase came with his two friends, Nadler from LA and Israel, and Tzvi Eliezer Katz from Far Rockaway. Aaron Chase is named after my brother, his grandfather Aaron Chase or as we called him Arela. He is Avrohom Shmuel and Malka Chase’s son. He is 20 and he is learning with his friends in the Passaic Yeshiva by Rabbi Meir Stern. They were all in Indianapolis this summer for a SEED program. Every summer Yeshiva students go to small communities to learn Torah with the community.
Motzei Shabbos at Ritas.
Nadler, Tzvi Eliezer Katz, and Aaron Chase (Avrohom Shmuel”s son)
I had a great Shabbos with them. Nadler’s father, Asher Nadler, was in my class in Denver for high school. The son looks exactly like his father. At the Shabbos table I went through Rabbi Meir Yaakov Solovechik’s speech on “Rabbinic Roots of the Gettysburg address”.
I purchased my new home just so I can have guests sleep over. These are the first guests that have slept over and I am full of joy. I love to host people, especially family.
The fulfillment of the covenant with your forefathers will be that He will bestow His love upon you, bless you with riches, and increase you. He will also bless your children and the products of your land: your corn and your wine, your oil, your cowherds, and your sheepherds in the land which He affirmed to your forefathers to give you.
My Torah this week focuses on these 4 words of Verse 7:13 – שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶ֙יךָ֙ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת צֹאנֶ֔ךָ. What do these words mean? For שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶ֙יךָ֙ there are two explanations; Onkelys and Rashi. For עַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת צֹאנֶ֔ךָ there are also two; one in Onkelyos and Rashi 2 who quotes Onkelyos and the second explanation is Rashi 1.
Onkelos:
בַּקְרֵי תוֹרָיךְ וְעֶדְרֵי עָנָךְ – Artscroll translates שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶ֙יךָ֙ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת צֹאנֶ֔ךָ. as the herds of your cattle and the herds of your flock. I do not understand why he uses בַּקְרֵי and עֶדְרֵי to describe the same thing, but I guess that this is a language issue. Herds of cattle in Aremac are בַּקְרֵי and herds of sheep are עֶדְרֵי
One thing for sure is that the words שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶ֙יךָ֙ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת צֹאנֶ֔ךָ by themsleves do not by themselves translate to herds of cattle and sheep. They are metaphors.
ועשתרות צאנך – Menachem ben Seruk explains this expression to be parallel to אבירי בשן, which means: “the strong rams of Bashan” (Psalms 22:13), i.e. the choicest of the sheep, similar to (Genesis 14:5), “Ashteroth (עשתרות) Karna’im”, where also it is an expression for “strength” (so that עשתרות denotes “the strong ones”).
Rashi continues and says a second Pshat -” Onkelos however translates it: “and the flocks of thy sheep”. Our Rabbis said: Why is their name called עשתרות? Because they enrich (עשר) their owner (through the sale of their wool, etc.) (cf. Chullin 84b).”
Rashi’s first Pshat is confusing. Is it the choicest or the strong ones? Does he mean that the choicest are the strong ones?
Second question – Rashi quotes the Pasuk in Bereshis 14:5. There it is clearly the name of a place and there Rashi makes no comment that the place of עַשְׁתְּרֹת קַרְנַיִם is a place of tall peaks and mountain terrain, a harsh and strong place. Rashi expects us to know that the reason for the name of the place of עַשְׁתְּרֹת קַרְנַיִם is that it is one of tall peaks and mountain terrain.
Third Point – Devorim 26:4 uses the same 4 words שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶ֙יךָ֙ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת צֹאנֶ֔ךָ . Rashi explains עַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת צֹאנֶ֔ךָ only his second Pshat that it means herds of sheep and mentions the Rabosanu who says that the word itself means riches. A) why does Rashi repeat the explanation and B) if necessary to repeat, why didn’t he repeat the first Pshet rashi used in our verse 17:13? C) For שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶ֙יךָ֙ Rashi does not repeat his translation.
To sum up the differences between Onkelys and Rashi:
שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶ֙יךָ֙
Onkelos – herds of your cattle
Rashi – offspring of your cattle
Perhaps Rashi and Onkelys could be the same and they agree on Pshet using slightly different terms.
עַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת צֹאנֶ֔ךָ
Onkelos – herds of your sheep
Rashi 1 – Choicest or the strong ones
Rashi 2 – like Onkelos
How do the English translators translate these four words of שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶ֙יךָ֙ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת צֹאנֶ֔ךָ
Group 1 – Onkelos
Chas Kahane 1963- your cowherds and your sheepherds
Group 2 -שגר אלפיך like Rashi and ועשתרת צאנך like Onkelos which is second Peshat in Rashi
Artscroll 1995 – the offspring of your cattle and the herds of your flock
SR Hirsch – the litter of your cattle and the abundance of your sheep
Mesudah 1999 – the offspring of your cattle, and the herds of your sheep
Group 3 – שגר אלפיך like Rashi and ועשתרת צאנך like the first explanation in Rashi – Menachem ben Seruk.
Judaica 1985 AJ Rosenberg / Mesoras Harav – the offspring of your cattle and the choice of your flocks.
Lubavitch Gutnick 2006 – Your cattle’s offspring and the best of your flocks
Group 4 – שגר אלפיך like Rashi and ועשתרת צאנך is not known their source. I guess that they evened out the Pshat for it with שגר אלפיך. There is logic to it.
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan 1981 – the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks
JPS 1985 – the calving of your herd and the lambing of your flock
JPS 1917 – the increase of thy kine (cattle) and the young of thy flock
Soncino 1947
Clearly the words שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶ֙יךָ֙ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת צֹאנֶ֔ךָ are very expressive and meant to invoke imagery. The Torah does not want you to read these words and just say herds of cattle and sheep. The Torah purposely uses poetic words to describe mundane objects. Do not just see mundane animals, but picture the grandeur of a green valley under a bright blue sky with a wisp of a cloud, full of cattle and sheep. See the richness, the strength, the best. It is to bring out feelings and emotions.
What is the imagery of שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶ֙יךָ֙? I think it is that when you gaze upon your flocks,you feel a sense of pride. Just like a calf is born after much labor and pain, so too it is when you gaze upon your pastures full of cattle and sheep, you see the result of your labor; the pre-dawn mornings you woke, the late nights, and all your efforts. It is as if you birthed this wealth. You feel a sense of great pride and accomplishment.
If one is translating these 4 words of שְׁגַר־אֲלָפֶ֙יךָ֙ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹ֣ת צֹאנֶ֔ךָ one would have to say offspring/herds of cattle and sheep. However, in English you miss the beauty of the Torah. One must read it in Hebrew with Rashi’s explanation of the words and see the pageantry.
When Ben Yehudah developed modern Hebrew, he was very careful to get precise meanings of words using Jewish sources from the Tanakh and Chazel. There is a story in Simcha Raz’s book on Rav Kook, An Angel Among Men, of Ben Yehudah visiting Rabbi Avraham Yitzchok HaCohen Kook on a Shabbos to discuss the meaning and sources of a Hebrew word. They discussed it and afterwards, Rav Kook said, nu, Ben Yehuda, time to do Tshuva. Ben Yehuda passed away the next day. This Is from memory, the book does not have an index and I could not find the story
Similarly, Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah ZTL of Boca Raton, FL, my Rebbe in Chmush and especially Rashi, once was stuck on a word. Someone gave him an English Chumash. He said “Fe” and in his mind went through Tanach to see how that word is used.
It is important that when one reads Hebrew, they fully realize the depth, the imagery of the words.
How can I carry alone your troublesomeness, your burdensomeness, and your contentiousness?
Got a late start walking to Anshe Sholom and Chabad. I left my house at 8:45 AM. Serka walked me for two miles. Got to Anshe Sholom at 10:45 AM. Listened to the new Rabbi’s Shabobs Drasha. He is Rabbi Aaron Finkelstein. Speech was good, although it is two days later as I am writing this and I do not recall the content of his speech. I just looked at the sermon to remember it. Devarim-TheBreakdownandRebuildingofCommunity5783-GoogleDocs.pdf (shulcloud.com)
Walked over to Chabad and got there as they were finishing leining. Kiddush was good. Eli came for the Kiddush. The Shiur started at 1:15 PM. There was a big crowd. Paul, Batya, Herb, Ray, Marcel, Tamar, Avigail, Henry, Aaron, Jeff, Mial, and others. Shiur was over at 3:45 PM. I walked past Wrigley Field and the Cubs were playing the St. Louis Cardinals. I did watch a half an inning on their big screen. During the walk home it rained and I had to stop under a canopy for 30 minutes.
I really did not have a good Torah thought, but I asked questions. On Tuesday, July 24, 2023 I worked on the Torah and think I have the answer.
I would like to divide the first 21 verses into three separate groupings:
Grouping 1 – The introduction to Devorim
Verses 1 and 2 Gives Moshe’s first purpose in speaking and that is to rebuke children of Israel
Verse 3 When? On the 1st day of Teves, 36 days before Moshe’s death
Verse 4 Happened after war with Sichon and Og
Verse 5 Second purpose of speaking at this time, which was to explain the Torah,
especially the laws that will be important entering the land of Israel.
Grouping 2 – Verses 6 -11 and Verses 19 – 21
Moshe picks up the story from Behaaloscha in Bamidbar when God told the Jews that we are going to Israel. This happened 38 years earlier. Moshe is rebuking the Jewish people.
Grouping 3 – Verses 12 – 18
Moshe rebukes them for events one year earlier when Yisro came to Moshe.
Verse 19 -21 – Returns to Grouping 2
Verse 22 continues the storyline and is about the spies.
Explanation:
Grouping 2
Verses 6 – 8 sets up the time period and it corresponds to Bamidbar Verse 10:11.After being at Har Sinai, Hashem tells the people that it is time to go into Israel.
Thereupon I said to you, “I cannot bear the burden of you by myself.”
When did Moshe say this? In Bamidbar 11:14 by the incident to the מִתְאֹ֣נְנִ֔ים – complaining that we have no meat. Moshe said – לֹֽא־אוּכַ֤ל אָנֹכִי֙ לְבַדִּ֔י לָשֵׂ֖את אֶת־כׇּל־הָעָ֣ם הַזֶּ֑ה כִּ֥י כָבֵ֖ד מִמֶּֽנִּי׃. This Pasuk took place in the second year after leaving Egypt, right as they were leaving Har Sinai. Here Moshe was very upset when he said this Pasuk.
Devorim continues and Moshe says in verses 10 and 11 despite your inappropriate complaints we still have a future, we will go to Israel and we will become a great nation.
At this point in Moshe’ narration, it is still before the sending of the spies which changed everything.
Dvorim Verses 12-13-14 diverge and bring an earlier similar response of Moshe to the Jewish people. Moshe references a year earlier when Yisro came and Moshe was judging the people morning to night. Yisro said you must have a court system. Two important questions. A) Here Moshe does not say that all this was Yisro’s advice. B) Moshe introduces this time period in Verse 12 – אֵיכָ֥ה אֶשָּׂ֖א לְבַדִּ֑י טׇרְחֲכֶ֥ם וּמַֽשַּׂאֲכֶ֖ם וְרִֽיבְכֶֽם׃ . Moshe did not say the Jews were the problem back in parshas Yisro?
Rashi explains this Pasuk differently than what we would think and we do not see this dialogue happening. Therefore you must say that this dialogue did take place at that time, a year earlier. Yisro said you need a court system. Moshe goes to Hashem and says I am okay with no court system to which God replied, Yisro is correct, appoint judges and develop a judicial system.
What about the Pasuk where he calls them troublesome people. Perhaps looking back, Moshe now realizes that the people caused the need for an expanded court system because they were troublesome, Apikorsim – undermined me, and were quarrelsome. Additionally, Moshe is rebuking them that they had ulterior motives in agreeing to the court system and nothing to do with proper justice.. .
Rashi famously says that they were troublesome and would never admit defeat in a court case even if they were wrong, they were Apokosim – they talked evil against Moshe and tried to undermine him.
In Verses 13 through 18 Moshe recaps the setting up of a judicial system. Rabbi Aaron Hoch added that perhaps this is one of the necessary items for the Jews being in Israel, a functioning and impeccable court system, so this is why these Pesukim are received here.
Fascinating that in Verse 12 Moshe severely criticized them, calling them troublesome, burdensome and quarrelsome. Rashi says that this means they were litigious, Apikorsim, and quarrelsome. Yet in Verse 15 Rashi says you are fortunate. Huh! You can answer that yes there are problems with them but they are the sons of great people who were called brothers and friends “to God:” a portion and an inheritance of God. I think that you have to add in Rashi either A) therefore it is worthwhile just to please the Avos or 2) that the Jewish people because of the Avos have great potential. With proper leadership, things can change.
Verses 19 – 21 picks up the original narrative timeline of Moshe and in Verse 22 Moshe brings up the sin of the spies.
Questions:
Why does Moshe in the middle of his timeline from the second year from Bamidbar interrupt with an incident a year earlier and at that time there is no criticism of the Jeiwsh people? Additionally, why doesn’t he give credit to Yisro.
Answer:
I believe that Moshe is saying to the people, don’t think that only recently you were difficult, it goes back to when you had just left Egypt and we were on a high, even at that time you were difficult. Because you were litigious, I had to set up an extensive court system. You also worked to undermine my authority by being Apikorsim. I should not have had to do this. I assume that Moshe did not criticize them because they were on a high and through the giving of the 10 commandments and going into Israel they would change. Once the people proved to constantly complain, he saw that this is a problem and a major one.
As to why Yisro is not mentioned, the Ramban deals with this question.
Now Moses did not mention Jethro’s advice here, nor did he attribute to him anything that Jethro proposed. It appears to me that Moses did not want to mention it [the fact that he was following his father-in-law’s advice] in the presence of all Israel because of his humility, *For people would think that, were it not for Jethro’s counsel, Moses would not have needed any assistance from the other judges. But would he have brought in Jethro’s name into this affair it might have appeared that Moses himself never thought that he would need assistance of other people. Moses humility is thus made apparent when he states his own inability to cope with all the problems of the people (Keseph Mezukak). See further in my Hebrew commentary p. 349. or it may be that it would not be to his honor to mention to that generation that he had married a Cushite woman. *Numbers 12:1. — Since in the case of Zimri the son of Salu they chided Moses about the Cushite woman [that he had married before the Torah was given — see Rashi, Numbers 25:6], he therefore avoided referring to it in order to prevent them from stumbling into evil speech (see my Hebrew commentary, p. 533). It is also possible that the reason [for not mentioning Jethro’s name] was because he had consulted the Divine Glory and this matter was done at the command of the Almighty. *Mechilta, Yithro 2: “And Moses hearkened to the voice of his father-in-law and did all that ‘amar’ (he, [i.e. G-d] had said” Exodus 18:24). The Mechilta thus explains the word amar as referring to G-d, and not to Jethro.
Maskil L’Dovid
The Maskil L’Doivd may disagree with my whole explanation.
איכה אשא וכו׳. ק״ל דהא כבר כתיב לעיל לא אוכל לבדי וכו׳ ומה בא כאן להוסיף. ומשני דכאן בא לפרש לאמר שאמר לעיל
בְּרִיתִ֖י שָׁלֽוֹם – What is this Covenant of Peace
I walked to Chabad of East Lakeview today. Left my house at 8:45 AM and got to Shul at 10:50 AM. They were right before leining and I was able to say a Kaddish for my mother in law.
There was a Shabbos Sheva Brochos for Sarit & Daniel Dorman. They got married last Sunday in Akron, Ohio. Sarit Weinstok is from Toronto and her parent’s live just North of Steeles, behind the Bali Laffa strip center. They met on Saw You At Sinai. Dylan was there without his new wife. Dylan got married in Madison, WI last Sunday. Tzvi went to the wedding. Tzvi looked very handsome. We are looking forward to his wedding.
Sholem came to the Kiddush. It is always great to see him at Chabad.
I spoke at the Dr. Leonard Kranzler Memorial Shiur. I started by mentioning that tonight is the 119th Yahrzeit of Theodore Herzl, Binyamin Zev Ben Yaakov. Mother was Jeanette. I gave this speech on Shabbos Parshas Pinchos 2020. I talked about the repentance of Theodoe Herzl that he did not kiss the Pope Pius’ X’s hand despite Theodore Herzl desperately trying to find a solution to save the Jews of Europe. 15 years earlier Theodore Herzl proposed converting all the Jewish children to catholicism. This was his Tshuva – repentance. Look at the end of the blog post for Herzl’s diary entry about his meeting with the Pope.
Torah #1:
In each of these three Pesukim there is an anomaly.
A – 25:11 – The Yud of פִּֽינְחָ֨ס is written as a small letter
B – 25:12 – The Vav of שָׁלֽוֹם is split in the middle
C – 27:5 – The Final Nun of מִשְׁפָּטָ֖ן is elongated.
These three letters are the shape except for their lengths. Perhaps it is telling us that we have to read the situation and know how to act. Sometimes we have to make ourselves small, the small Yud, sometimes to just behave normal and fit into the crowd – the Vav and at times we have to extend our full prowess, become elongated like a final Nun; we have to be warriors, strong men. Above all we have to be straight. Yashrus is critical. There has to be a better Pshat.
They also spell out Greece. I do not know what to do with this thought.
1 – Verse 25:11. The word פִּֽינְחָ֨ס is written in the Torah with a small Yud
פִּֽינְחָ֨ס *(בספרי ספרד ואשכנז נהוג לכתוב פִּֽינְחָ֨ס ביו״ד זעירא) בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָ֜ר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹ֣ן הַכֹּהֵ֗ן הֵשִׁ֤יב אֶת־חֲמָתִי֙ מֵעַ֣ל בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל בְּקַנְא֥וֹ אֶת־קִנְאָתִ֖י בְּתוֹכָ֑ם וְלֹא־כִלִּ֥יתִי אֶת־בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל בְּקִנְאָתִֽי׃
“Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest, has turned back My wrath from the Israelites by displaying among them his passion for Me, so that I did not wipe out the Israelite people in My passion.
Say, therefore, ‘I grant him My pact of friendship.
3 – Verse 27:5 וַיַּקְרֵ֥ב מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מִשְׁפָּטָ֖ן לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃ – Moshe brought their case before Hashem
Answer for the small Yud in Verse 25:11
The Yud is hinting to us that zealotry is only a virtue if there is fear of God and humility, otherwise it is just corrosive behavior. As Rabbi Efrim Goldberg put it – zealtory without Godliness and humility is just someone who loves chaos.
The Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel may be backing this up.
Phinehas the zealous, the son of Elazar bar Aharon, the priest, hath turned away mine anger from the children of Israel, in that, when zealous with My zeal, he hath slain the sinners who were among them; and for his sake I have not destroyed the children of Israel in My indignation.
Notice that the Targum spells Pinchos without a Yud – פִּנְחָס. He then adds the word קַנָאָה . Perhaps he is saying that if one is zealous without turning to God, he is a lover of zealotry, fighting, a lover of chaos.
How do we know that Pinchos lived with God within him and humility? Pasukim 25:6 and 25:7 in last week’s Sedra describe Pinchos’s reaction to the desecration of Zimri and Cozbi. Rashi provides color and explains it like Rav from the Gemor in Sanhedrin 82A.
AND THEY WERE WEEPING — the law (decision on this matter) escaped him and therefore they all burst out into weeping (Sanhedrin 82a). — In the case of the golden calf Moses successfully resisted six hundred thousand men, as it is said, (Exodus 32:20) “And he ground it to powder [and he made the children of Israel drink of it]”, and here his hands were weak (he did not know what to do)?! But this was intentionally caused by God in order that Phineas might come and receive that which was meant for him (Midrash Tanchuma, Balak 20).
The next Pasuk 25:7 says – וַיַּ֗רְא פִּֽינְחָס֙ בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָ֔ר בֶּֽן־אַהֲרֹ֖ן הַכֹּהֵ֑ן וַיָּ֙קׇם֙ מִתּ֣וֹךְ הָֽעֵדָ֔ה וַיִּקַּ֥ח רֹ֖מַח בְּיָדֽוֹ׃
Rashi says that Moshe forgot the Halacha what to do about the immoral actions of Zimri and Cozbi. Pinchos remembered and said to Moshe, you told us that the Halacha is קַנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ – zealous people may attack him. Pinchos did not just go and take a spear and kill Zimri and Cozbi, but first spoke to Moshe about it and Moshe answered, you are correct, and since you reminded us of the Halacha, you are the one to kill them.
I looked up the Gemora in Sanhedrin 82A and there are three explanations of what Moshe saw; Rav, Shmuel, and Rav Yitzchak in the name of Rav Eliezer. Rashi explains the Pasuk like Rav. Rav says that Moshe and his students were sitting in the Bais Medrash and they forgot the Halacha. Pinchos reminded Moshe of the Halacha, that קַנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. Moshe told Pinchos, you are the one to kill Zimri and Cozbi. Pinchos then picked up a spear and killed Zimri and Cozbi.
According to Rav, Pinchos did not Paskin by himself, he did not act until he received the approval from Moshe. This is how we know that Pinchos and the fear of God in him and had humility because he did not do things on his own. He asked the leader of the generation.
Shmual and Rav Eliezer seem to argue with Rav and say that Pinchos acted on his own. Rashi chose to explain it like Rav and not like Shmuel or Rav Eliezer.
Sanhedrin 82A:
מה ראה אמר רב ראה מעשה ונזכר הלכה אמר לו אחי אבי אבא לא כך לימדתני ברדתך מהר סיני הבועל את כותית קנאין פוגעין בו אמר לו קריינא דאיגרתא איהו ליהוי פרוונקא
ושמואל אמר ראה שאין (משלי כא, ל) חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה נגד ה’ כל מקום שיש חילול השם אין חולקין כבוד לרב ר’ יצחק אמר ר”א ראה שבא מלאך והשחית בעם
The Gemara asks: What did Pinehas see that led him to arise and take action? Rav says: He saw the incident taking place before him and he remembered the halakha. He said to Moses: Brother of the father of my father, as Moses was the brother of his grandfather Aaron, did you not teach me this during your descent from Mount Sinai: One who engages in intercourse with a gentile woman, zealots strike him? Moses said to him: Let the one who reads the letter be the agent [parvanka] to fulfill its contents.
And Shmuel says: Pinehas saw and considered the meaning of the verse: “There is neither wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the Lord” (Proverbs 21:30), which the Sages interpreted to mean: Anywhere that there is desecration of the Lord’s name, one does not show respect to the teacher. In those situations, one need not consult his teacher, but must immediately proceed to right the wrong that is transpiring. Therefore, he took the spear and took immediate action.
Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Eliezer says: He saw that an angel came and destroyed among the people in punishment for the sin of Zimri, and he realized that he must take immediate action to ameliorate the situation.
I explained how per Rav’s explanation. Pinchos’s actions and the small Yud work together. How would I explain the small Yud according to Shmuel and Rav Yitzchok. Maybe more so, less you think that Pinchos wanted chaos; he was acting for Hashem’s sake or to save the Jewish people and all the more so he did fear Hashem and have humility.
There is another fascinating point in the Gemara. When did Moshe tell Pinchos this Halacha? The gemara says “did you not teach me this during your descent from Mount Sinai:”. Why would Moshe specifically teach Pinchos this Halacha at this time? The Ben Yehoyada says that Moshe only told this halacha to Pinchos. Pinchos understood that in the future he will need to know this Halacha and act on it.
Ben Yehoyada
לֹא כָּךְ לִמַּדְתַּנִּי בִּירִידָתְךָ מֵהַר־סִינַי (במדבר כה, ו). כך הגרסה בגמרא דידן לִמַּדְתַּנִּי ולא לִמַּדְתָּנוּ לשון רבים, ונראה דטעמא טעים בדבר זה לצורך הענין שאומר כי נזדמן דרק לי למדת הלכה זו בודאי לאו על חנם אתרמי מילתא בהא דרק אלי תגיד הלכה, אלא ודאי זה היה מן השמים להורות דהלכה זו שייכה לעצמי שאני עתיד לקיים אותה! ואמר לו משה רבינו ע”ה כן דברת דזה הוכחה שהלכה זו שייכה לך שעל ידך תתקיים בפועל לכן אמר לו ‘קַרְיָנָא דְּאִגַּרְתָּא אִיהוּ לִיהֲוֵי פַּרְוַנְקָא‘ כי הואיל ואין מורין לו לעשות בפירוש נתחכם משה רבינו ע”ה לומר משל דאמרי אינשי בלבד והוא יבין מדעתו לעשות מעשה.
However, why, when Moshe was going down the mountain, was this Halacha told to Pinchos? Perhaps that sometimes the greatest lessons a Rebbe imparts to a Talmid is not during Shiur. It is in the “small” moments of time; walking together, being in a car together, being at a wedding.
On a personal note, I always like sharing my Torah with people. I want to make a connection through Torah. I feel that if these Torah thoughts are going through my head, it must be important to tell anyone I meet my thoughts. One of my reasons is that up until I was 50 I never had any Torah to repeat to someone and felt stupid. Chazal say that if you meet someone, always leave off with a Torah thought. Now that I do have some Torah, I want to share,especially, when meeting someone.
The Vav that is broken in the middle is explained in the Daas Zekeinim:
ובקידושין פרק האומר מסיק וי”ו דשלום קטיעה היא למדרש כשהוא שלם ולא כשהוא חסר מכאן לכהן בעל מום שעבודתו פסולה:
In the Talmud, Kidushin, folio 66, attention is drawn to the fact that the letter ו in the word שלום is written with a break in the stem of that letter, to indicate that when a priest is not totally whole in all of his limbs, he is not fit to perform the service in the Temple. His service would be rendered invalid retroactively.
All the english Chumoshim translate בְּרִיתִ֖י שָׁלֽוֹם as My Covenant of Peace. Only JPS 2006 translates it differently as My pact of friendship. JPS 1917 translates it as My Covenant of peace like all the other translations. It is interesting that the JPS updated in the 2006 version changed the translation..
JPS translates it as Rashi’s explanation: Rashi on Verse 25:12 says
את בריתי שלום [I GIVE TO HIM] MY COVENANT — PEACE — This means: I give him my covenant that it should be to him as a covenant of peace; just like a man who shows gratitude and friendliness to one who has done him a kindness. So here, too, the Holy One, blessed be He, expressed to him His feelings of friendship towards him.
Rashi continues in the next Pasuk,Verse 13 and says that this pact of friendship, the בְרִיתִי זֹאת is that Pinchos and his descendants will be Cohanim.
When I read the Rashi of את בריתי שלום I learned that this covenant was a covenant of friendship. Meaning friendship itself is a reward. To be a friend of God is info itself a reward. Rabbi Efrem Godlberg quoted the Rov on Parshas Vayera:
It does not say Vayomer. Hashem did not talk. Just the mere presence of God visiting Moshe, not saying anything was comforting. There was a sense of friendship. Page 114 of the Rov’s Chumash, Mesoras Harav.
Rashi kind of ruins it when he says on the next Pasuk הָ֤יְתָה לּוֹ֙ וּלְזַרְע֣וֹ אַחֲרָ֔יו בְּרִ֖ית כְּהֻנַּ֣ת עוֹלָ֑ם תַּ֗חַת אֲשֶׁ֤ר קִנֵּא֙ לֵֽאלֹהָ֔יו וַיְכַפֵּ֖ר עַל־בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃. Rashi says on the words – והיתה לו. בְרִיתִי זֹאת – this this Bris is that Pichos will be a Cohen forever. Meaning that this is the reward for friendship. I want to explain the Pesukim that God gave him two rewards. The first being friendship and the second is priest hood. Friendship alone is a valuable reward. Rashi seems to be saying that there was only one reward.
The other Miforshim say that Pinchos received two rewards. 1) that the בריתי שלום is either ling life, eternal life, or that the relatives of Zimri will not pursue Pinchos to kill him. Only Rashi seems to say there was only one reward,
Different Miforshim on what the covenant of peace was:
Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel says that Pinchos received eternal life.
Swearing by My Name, I say to him, Behold, I decree to him My covenant of peace, and will make him an angel of the covenant, that he may ever live, to announce the Redemption at the end of the days.
Pirkei D’Rabbi Eleizer 47 – Picnhos never died and re emerged as Wliyahu Hanavi
Ibn Ezra and Tur HaAruch say that Hashem gave him peace, that there will not be any avengers from Zimri and Cosbi’s family. There was also a reward that Pinchos will be Kohanim and some say that the High Priests will come from Pinchos.
Ibn Ezra:
את בריתי שלום. טעמו את בריתי ברית שלום כמו כסאך אלהים ורבים כן והטעם שלא יגור מאחי זמרי כי הוא נשיא בית אב ושכרו שתהיה לו ולזרעו אחריו ברית כהונת עולם ונצח כי הכהנים הגדולים היו מבני פינחס ויתכן שהיו בנים אחרים לאלעזר:
MY COVENANT OF PEACE. The meaning of beriti shalom (My covenant of peace) is: My covenant, a covenant of peace. Compare, Thy throne God (Ps. 45:7). There are many such cases. Its meaning is that Phinehas should not fear the brothers of Zimri for Zimri was a prince of a father’s house (v. 14). Phinehas was rewarded with the covenant of priesthood for himself and his seed forever, for all the high priests were descendants of Phinehas. It is possible that Eleazar had other sons.
Tur HaAruch:
לכן אמור. לבני ישראל והודיע להם שהוא כהן לעולם:
הנני נותן לו את בריתי. לפי הפשט הבטיח שלא יפחד מאחי זמרי וקרוביו אף כי הוא נשיא וגדול בישראל והיה לו רבים שינקמו נקמתו. ושכרו יהי’ שיהי’ לו ולזרעו ברית כהונ’ עול’:
Da’as Zikanim says the same as the Ibn Ezra::
לכן. שעשה דבר הגון לפני הנני נותן לו את בריתי שלום ואם ישנאוהו ישראל לא יחוש ואין לו לירא לא מקרובי זמרי ולא מקרובי כזבי שהיתה בת מלך
4) Ramban – Pinchos was to become the high priest after Eliezer and Itamer dies.
Diary entry of Theordore Herzl’s meeting with the Pope.
THEODOR HERZL: Audience with Pope Pius X (1904)
On January 26, 1904, Theodor Herzl had an audience with Pope Pius X in the Vatican to seek his support for the Zionist effort to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. He recorded his account of the meeting in his diary. Source: Raphael Patai, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, translated by Harry Zohn (New York/London: Herzl Press, Thomas Yoseloff, 1960), 1601-1605. The “Lippay” to whom he refers is Count Berthold Dominik Lippay, an Austrian papal portraitist, whom Herzl had met in Venice and who had arranged the audience with the pope.
Yesterday I was with the Pope. The route was already familiar since I had traversed it with Lippay several times.
Past the Swiss lackeys, who looked like clerics, and clerics who looked like lackeys, the Papal officers and chamberlains.
I arrived 10 minutes ahead of time and didn’t even have to wait.
I was conducted through numerous small reception rooms to the Pope.
He received me standing and held out his hand, which I did not kiss.
Lippay had told me I had to do it, but I didn’t.
I believe that I incurred his displeasure by this, for everyone who visits him kneels down and at least kisses his hand.
This hand kiss had caused me a lot of worry. I was quite glad when it was finally out of the way.
He seated himself in an armchair, a throne for minor occasions. Then he invited me to sit down right next to him and smiled in friendly anticipation.
I began:
“Ringrazio Vostra Santità per il favore di m’aver accordato quest’udienza” [I thank Your Holiness for the favor of according me this audience].”
“È un piacere [It is a pleasure],” he said with kindly deprecation.
I apologized for my miserable Italian, but he said:
“No, parla molto bene, signor Commendatore [No, Commander, you speak very well].”
For I had put on for the first time—on Lippay’s advice—my Mejidiye ribbon. Consequently the Pope always addressed me as Commendatore.
He is a good, coarse-grained village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican.
I briefly placed my request before him. He, however, possibly annoyed by my refusal to kiss his hand, answered sternly and resolutely:
“Noi non possiamo favorire questo movimento. Non potremo impedire gli Ebrei di andare a Gerusalemme—ma favorire non possiamo mai. La terra di Gerusalemme se non era sempre santa, è santificata per la vita di Jesu Christo (he did not pronounce it Gesu, but Yesu, in the Venetian fashion). Io come capo della chiesa non posso dirle altra cosa. Gli Ebrei non hanno riconosciuto nostro Signore, perciò non possiamo riconoscere il popolo ebreo [We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people].”
Hence the conflict between Rome, represented by him, and Jerusalem, represented by me, was once again opened up.
At the outset, to be sure, I tried to be conciliatory. I recited my little piece about extraterritorialization, res sacrae extra commercium [holy places removed from business]. It didn’t make much of an impression. Gerusalemme, he said, must not get into the hands of the Jews.
“And its present status, Holy Father?”
“I know, it is not pleasant to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with that. But to support the Jews in the acquisition of the Holy Places, that we cannot do.”
I said that our point of departure had been solely the distress of the Jews and that we desired to avoid the religious issues.
“Yes, but we, and I as the head of the Church, cannot do this. There are two possibilities. Either the Jews will cling to their faith and continue to await the Messiah who, for us, has already appeared. In that case they will be denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot help them. Or else they will go there without any religion, and then we can be even less favorable to them.
“The Jewish religion was the foundation of our own; but it was superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity. The Jews, who ought to have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ, have not done so to this day.”
It was on the tip of my tongue to say, “That’s what happens in every family. No one believes in his own relatives.” But I said instead: “Terror and persecution may not have been the right means for enlightening the Jews.”
But he rejoined, and this time he was magnificent in his simplicity:
“Our Lord came without power. Era povero [He was poor]. He came in pace [in peace]. He persecuted no one. He was persecuted.
He was abbandonato [forsaken] even by his apostles. Only later did he grow in stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had time to acknowledge his divinity without any pressure. But they haven’t done so to this day.”
“But, Holy Father, the Jews are in terrible straits. I don’t know if Your Holiness is acquainted with the full extent of this sad situation. We need a land for these persecuted people.”
“Does it have to be Gerusalemme?”
“We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—only the secular land.”
“We cannot be in favor of it.”
“Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?”
“Yes, from my Mantua days. Jews live there. And I have always been on good terms with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. After all, there are other bonds than those of religion: courtesy and philanthropy. These we do not deny to the Jews. Indeed, we also pray for them: that their minds be enlightened. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who, on the road to Damascus, became miraculously converted to the true faith. And so, if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we shall have churches and priests ready to baptize all of you.”
Count Lippay had had himself announced. The Pope permitted him to enter. The Count kneeled, kissed his hand, then joined in the conversation by telling of our “miraculous” meeting in Bauer’s Beer Hall in Venice. The miracle was that he had originally planned to spend the night in Padua. As it happened, I had expressed the wish to be allowed to kiss the Holy Father’s foot.
At this the Pope made une tête [a long face], for I hadn’t even kissed his hand. Lippay went on to say that I had expressed myself appreciatively on Jesus Christ’s noble qualities. The Pope listened, now and then took a pinch of snuff, and sneezed into a big red cotton handkerchief. Actually, these peasant touches are what I like best about him and what compels my respect.
In this way Lippay wanted to account for his introducing me, perhaps to excuse it. But the Pope said: “On the contrary, I am glad you brought me the Signor Commendatore.”
As to the real business, he repeated what he had told me: Non possumus [We can’t]!
Until he dismissed us Lippay spent some time kneeling before him and couldn’t seem to get his fill of kissing his hand. Then I realized that the Pope liked this sort of thing. But on parting, too, all I did was to give him a warm hand-squeeze and a low bow.
Duration of the audience: about 25 minutes.
In the Raphael stanze [rooms], where I spent the next hour, I saw a picture of an Emperor kneeling to let a seated Pope put the crown on his head.
That’s the way Rome wants it.
I love this last line, “That’s the way Rome wants it” is perfect.
Herzl’s Diary entry on his meeting with the Pope January 1904
Herzl’s Reburial on Mt. Herzel on August 18, 1949
Shabbos Day July 11, 2020:
I spoke today before Krias Hatorah at the Bais-ment and the following is my speech:
On Thursday was the fast of the 17th of Tammuz and the beginning of the three weeks, which are times of great sadness in the Jewish calendar when the two Temples were destroyed. It is a time that we talk about Moshiach. Even the Chicago Community Kollel this year had an article about Moshiach. All the years I worked these were not easy weeks. Even though I did try to minimize the feelings of depression to do my job, I still felt the weight of Jewish history on my shoulders. Once my associate presented a loan for Frum people on Tisha B’av and I thought about how when the customer is fasting, his loan is being presented for approval.
At the same time it is a time of great hope that the Jews will overcome all hardships and Moshiach will come. We have come very far as Jews being privileged to have the State of Israel and as for myself, living in America. However, the journey is not yet over. I consider this time a very Zionistic time.
There are three Yahrzeits of great people in the Zionistic movement during the three weeks.
Binyomin Zev Ben Yaakov, known as Theodore Herzl, died at only 44 years old during his struggle to get the Jews out of Europe and establish a country in Eretz Yisroel. I have said in the past that the Imrei Emes who in 1903 criticized Herzl and the movement back to Israel is now learning B’Chavrusa with Herzl.
What was Theodore Herzl’s repentance?
Early on Theodore Herzl proposed to the Archbishop of Vienna a mass conversion to Chirtianity of Jewish children. Herzl was laughed out of the church.
Fast forward about 15 years later to early 1904. Herzl’s dream of establishing a State in Israel was not going well. His friend, Count Lippay, got him an audience with the pope. Pius X at the Vatican. Herzl had wanted an audience with the pope for years to request the Church’s help in settling the Jews in Eretz Yisroel. Herzl was told by his friend that protocol is to kiss the Pope’s hand. Herzl refuses to kiss the Pope’s hand. Despite Herzl’s fight to establish a Jewish state in Israel, he refused to humble himself in such a way to the pope. The pope would never have agreed to help Herzl and the Jewish people even with the kissing of his hand. Herzl stood as a proud Jew, aware of his role representing a proud and noble people, and that he is an equal to the pope. He represents a proud people, entitled to live freely and openly as Jews. Wow. Similar to Mordechai who refused to bow to Haman.
This was Herzl’s repentance. Years earlier, Herzl thought the answer to the “Jewish problem” was mass conversion. Herzl changed, he understood the holiness of the Jewish people. Despite the major roadblocks and seeing his dream of Israel in his lifetime fading, Herzl refuses to kiss the pope’s hand. As you read the below, Count Lippay who got Herzl the audience with the pope, said to Herzl to impress the pope, reminded Herzl, Herzl himself said he wanted to kiss the pope’s foot.
Throughout Herzl’s writing he writes about the specialness of Jewish people.
At the end of his audience with the pope, Herzl writes, “ Then I realized that the Pope liked this sort of thing. But on parting, too, all I did was to give him a warm hand-squeeze and a low bow.”
I have copied a little background and text from Herzl’s diary at the end of this speech.
Admor Dovid Morgenstern was the son of the Kotzker Rebbe. He was my grandfather’s great grandfather. He is second generation and I am seventh with the Kotzker rebbe being the first generation. Admor Dovid Morgenstern was a Chosid of the Rebbe, Reb Bunim of Peshischa. His Chasuna was on the day Reb Bunim of Peshischa passed away. He was more of a calmer nature than his father, the Kotzker. It is tragic that he nor his father wrote anything down, so the world does not have a legacy of his Torah. His legacy is the Torah of his children. Bourch Gutter put out a Sefer on Admor Dovid called Ahavas Dovid, however, there are few first person stories or life stories.
In the Sefer Bais Kotzk from Yehuda Leib Levin, there are eleven pages on Admor Dovid Morgenstern. After the Kotzker’s passing in 1859, most of the Chasidium became aligned with the RIM, the first Gerrer Rebbe. There is little known about Admor Dovid Morgenstern. I read page 282 in Yehuda Levin’s Bais Kotzk, which is a story when Admor Dovid’s nephew, Reb Yechiel Moshe Greenwald, came to visit his uncle. Rabbi Yechiel Moshe Greenwald is the sole source of stories about Admor Dovid Morgenstern. He lived until around 1920 and remarried into his 80’s. He has a grandson in Toronto bearing his name. Reb Yechial Moshe has family living in Chicago.
Page 282 says the Admor Rabbi Dovid did not push away any man. He was willing to purify sinners from their sin, and to cleanse their body. He could not tolerate people with false piety and arrogance.
What was Admor Dovid Morgenstern’s Zionism? As I spoke over the last three weeks, the essence of Kotzk was Ahavas Yisroel. Admor Doivd’s son, Reb Chaim Yisroel Morgenstern, known as the Pilaver Rebbe, in 1885 wrote a Sefer Shalom Yerushalayim that it is time for the Jews to go back to Israel. I read the first Chapter a number of times. Around the 5th time, I read it with Ahavas Yisroel and it was a different Chapter. This to me is one of the unknown legacies of the Kotzker Rebbe and his son Admor Dovid Morgenstern.
Pages from Bais Kotzk.
Ze’ev Jabotinsky – 29 Tammuz 1940 (July 21, 2020)
Ze’ev Jabotinsky, despite being born into an assimilated family in Odessa, Russia, became entwined with the Jewish people and his legacy continues to benefit the Jewish people. He was born and not given a Jewish name, and later in life took on a jewish name. He was a prophet and in the 1930s saw the holocaust coming. He worked tirelessly to awaken the Jews about the nazi threat. My friend Eliykum Schwartz told me that despite not being Frum, when he traveled throughout Europe. insisted on Kosher food, as he understood that he represented the Jewish people. His great student was Menachem Begin.
I met Rabbi Naphtali Jaeger of Shaarei Yoshuv, in Far Rockaway, New York. He told me that his father was from Alkush in Poland. I said, wow, the first position of the Sochachover Rebbe in the 1860s was Alkush. I asked Rabbi Jaeger when did his father leave Europe? Upon hearing that it was in the early 1930s, I asked why did your father leave Europe? He answered that his father heard Ze’ev Jaobtinsky speak, came home, and said we are leaving Europe. He took Jabotinsky’s words to heart.
THEODOR HERZL: Audience with Pope Pius X (1904)
On January 26, 1904, Theodor Herzl had an audience with Pope Pius X in the Vatican to seek his support for the Zionist effort to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. He recorded his account of the meeting in his diary. Source: Raphael Patai, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, translated by Harry Zohn (New York/London: Herzl Press, Thomas Yoseloff, 1960), 1601-1605. The “Lippay” to whom he refers is Count Berthold Dominik Lippay, an Austrian papal portraitist, whom Herzl had met in Venice and who had arranged the audience with the pope.
Yesterday I was with the Pope. The route was already familiar since I had traversed it with Lippay several times.
Past the Swiss lackeys, who looked like clerics, and clerics who looked like lackeys, the Papal officers and chamberlains.
I arrived 10 minutes ahead of time and didn’t even have to wait.
I was conducted through numerous small reception rooms to the Pope.
He received me standing and held out his hand, which I did not kiss.
Lippay had told me I had to do it, but I didn’t.
I believe that I incurred his displeasure by this, for everyone who visits him kneels down and at least kisses his hand.
This hand kiss had caused me a lot of worry. I was quite glad when it was finally out of the way.
He seated himself in an armchair, a throne for minor occasions. Then he invited me to sit down right next to him and smiled in friendly anticipation.
I began:
“Ringrazio Vostra Santità per il favore di m’aver accordato quest’udienza” [I thank Your Holiness for the favor of according me this audience].”
“È un piacere [It is a pleasure],” he said with kindly deprecation.
I apologized for my miserable Italian, but he said:
“No, parla molto bene, signor Commendatore [No, Commander, you speak very well].”
For I had put on for the first time—on Lippay’s advice—my Mejidiye ribbon. Consequently the Pope always addressed me as Commendatore.
He is a good, coarse-grained village priest, to whom Christianity has remained a living thing even in the Vatican.
I briefly placed my request before him. He, however, possibly annoyed by my refusal to kiss his hand, answered sternly and resolutely:
“Noi non possiamo favorire questo movimento. Non potremo impedire gli Ebrei di andare a Gerusalemme—ma favorire non possiamo mai. La terra di Gerusalemme se non era sempre santa, è santificata per la vita di Jesu Christo (he did not pronounce it Gesu, but Yesu, in the Venetian fashion). Io come capo della chiesa non posso dirle altra cosa. Gli Ebrei non hanno riconosciuto nostro Signore, perciò non possiamo riconoscere il popolo ebreo [We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem—but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people].”
Hence the conflict between Rome, represented by him, and Jerusalem, represented by me, was once again opened up.
At the outset, to be sure, I tried to be conciliatory. I recited my little piece about extraterritorialization, res sacrae extra commercium [holy places removed from business]. It didn’t make much of an impression. Gerusalemme, he said, must not get into the hands of the Jews.
“And its present status, Holy Father?”
“I know, it is not pleasant to see the Turks in possession of our Holy Places. We simply have to put up with that. But to support the Jews in the acquisition of the Holy Places, that we cannot do.”
I said that our point of departure had been solely the distress of the Jews and that we desired to avoid the religious issues.
“Yes, but we, and I as the head of the Church, cannot do this. There are two possibilities. Either the Jews will cling to their faith and continue to await the Messiah who, for us, has already appeared. In that case they will be denying the divinity of Jesus and we cannot help them. Or else they will go there without any religion, and then we can be even less favorable to them.
“The Jewish religion was the foundation of our own; but it was superseded by the teachings of Christ, and we cannot concede it any further validity. The Jews, who ought to have been the first to acknowledge Jesus Christ, have not done so to this day.”
It was on the tip of my tongue to say, “That’s what happens in every family. No one believes in his own relatives.” But I said instead: “Terror and persecution may not have been the right means for enlightening the Jews.”
But he rejoined, and this time he was magnificent in his simplicity:
“Our Lord came without power. Era povero [He was poor]. He came in pace [in peace]. He persecuted no one. He was persecuted.
He was abbandonato [forsaken] even by his apostles. Only later did he grow in stature. It took three centuries for the Church to evolve. The Jews therefore had time to acknowledge his divinity without any pressure. But they haven’t done so to this day.”
“But, Holy Father, the Jews are in terrible straits. I don’t know if Your Holiness is acquainted with the full extent of this sad situation. We need a land for these persecuted people.”
“Does it have to be Gerusalemme?”
“We are not asking for Jerusalem, but for Palestine—only the secular land.”
“We cannot be in favor of it.”
“Does Your Holiness know the situation of the Jews?”
“Yes, from my Mantua days. Jews live there. And I have always been on good terms with Jews. Only the other evening two Jews were here to see me. After all, there are other bonds than those of religion: courtesy and philanthropy. These we do not deny to the Jews. Indeed, we also pray for them: that their minds be enlightened. This very day the Church is celebrating the feast of an unbeliever who, on the road to Damascus, became miraculously converted to the true faith. And so, if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we shall have churches and priests ready to baptize all of you.”
Count Lippay had had himself announced. The Pope permitted him to enter. The Count kneeled, kissed his hand, then joined in the conversation by telling of our “miraculous” meeting in Bauer’s Beer Hall in Venice. The miracle was that he had originally planned to spend the night in Padua. As it happened, I had expressed the wish to be allowed to kiss the Holy Father’s foot.
At this the Pope made une tête [a long face], for I hadn’t even kissed his hand. Lippay went on to say that I had expressed myself appreciatively on Jesus Christ’s noble qualities. The Pope listened, now and then took a pinch of snuff, and sneezed into a big red cotton handkerchief. Actually, these peasant touches are what I like best about him and what compels my respect.
In this way Lippay wanted to account for his introducing me, perhaps to excuse it. But the Pope said: “On the contrary, I am glad you brought me the Signor Commendatore.”
As to the real business, he repeated what he had told me: Non possumus [We can’t]!
Until he dismissed us Lippay spent some time kneeling before him and couldn’t seem to get his fill of kissing his hand. Then I realized that the Pope liked this sort of thing. But on parting, too, all I did was to give him a warm hand-squeeze and a low bow.
Duration of the audience: about 25 minutes.
In the Raphael stanze [rooms], where I spent the next hour, I saw a picture of an Emperor kneeling to let a seated Pope put the crown on his head.
That’s the way Rome wants it.
Herzl’s reburial in israel from the JTA:
Moving Ceremony Marks Reburial of Herzl’s Remains; Israeli Cabinet in Full Attendance
The remains of Dr. Theodor Herzl, father of political Zionism, were brought today to their final resting place on Mt. Herzl here after being interred in Austria 45 years. Present at the ceremony at which Herzl’s coffin was lowered into the grave was the entire Israeli Cabinet, all members of the Israeli parliament, the Jewish Agency executive and more than 6,000 persons invited to attend the rites.
Army units presented arms when the coffin arrived from the courtyard of the Jewish Agency to the burial place at Mt. Herzl. The chiefs of the military services carried the coffin to the grave where it was put on a special platform from which it was slowly lowered into the grave. The casket was then covered with small blue-white sacks of soil brought by delegations from 380 Jewish settlements from all parts of Israel.
The blowing of a military trumpet, accompanied by the roll of drums, signaled the conclusion of the ceremony. Earlier, the traditional Kaddish prayer was chanted by a cantor while the choir of Tel Aviv’s Great Synagogue sang verses from the Book of Psalms as well as a special song composed in memory of Dr. Herzl.
THOUSANDS FOLLOW CORTEGE ON ROAD FROM TEL AVIV TO JERUSALEM
Thousands of Jews followed the cortege of 64 vehicles which brought the coffin from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The convoy reached the premises of the Jewish Agency here at 8:15 A.M. after passing dense crowds of settlers and Army units lined up along the entire road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The cortege slowed down when it passed Jewish settlements along the route.
The procession made its first stop near the Mikveh Israel settlement in exactly the same place where Dr. Herzl, in 1898, met with Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany to whom he appealed for support of his idea to acquire Palestine for the Jews as a Jewish state. It then proceeded to the Rishon L’Zion colony where Dr. Herzl spent his first night on his only visit to Palestine. The settlers at each colony met the cortege with placards and banners, most of which carried the excerpt from Dr. Heral’s diary, “When we arrive, Jerusalem will be the most beautiful city in the world.”
When the convoy reached the Jerusalem suburb of Romema, it was met by thousands of Jerusalemites who lined up on both sides of the streets. It proceeded to the premises of the Jewish Agency where it was met at the courtyard by Premier David Ben Gurion, members of his Cabinet, the Jewish Agency executive and all the members of the Jerusalem Municipal Council. The chiefs of the Army services then carried the coffin from the black-draped vehicle to a specially-erected platform surrounded by 45 Israeli flags symbolizing the number of years that Dr. Herzl was buried abroad.
A proclamation on behalf of the Jewish Agency was then read by Berl Locker, chairman of the executive, which said: “We are now bringing to their final rest the remains of the creator of the Zionist movement, a great visionary whose dream is now fulfilled. But the Zionist movement has not as yet fulfilled its task and will continue its endeavor until the final goal–the ingathering of all dispersed Jews–is reached.”
Approximately 20,000 people filed peat the coffin while it lay in state in the courtyard of the Agency. Jerusalem has not been as crowded since the 1948 siege. Hotels are full and for several days visitors have been sleeping on cots in schools or in hotel corridors. The city is beflagged and traffic through many of the main thoroughfares has been rerouted since early this morning to avoid congestion.
Thousands of members of the Jerusalem population sought in vain to enter the courtyard of the Agency to witness the coffin of Dr. Herzl during the several hours it lay on the special platform. Members of the “Neturei Karta” extreme Orthodox sect boycotted the funeral despite the fact that Agudah leaders, including Cabinet Minister I.M. Lewin, joined in the rites.
Three red flags were hoisted amid an ocean of blue-white banners along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem route which the cortege followed this morning. Not a single untoward incident was reported throughout the day. Police Inspector-General Yeahezkiel Shauher told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the behavior of the crowds was exemplary, with not a single complaint lodged with the police.
The funeral of Dr. Herzl’s parents and sister, whose coffins were brought here together with the leader’s casket yesterday, is scheduled to be held Friday. They will be reburied in a gravesite near that of Dr. Herzl. (See P. 6 for other observances of Herzl’s funeral.)
Walked to Chabad of East Lakeview. It was over 70 degrees when I left the house at 8:30 AM. I made it to Shul at 10:30 AM before Shemona Esra. I leined the Haftarah. Eli, Sholem, and Tzvi came for the Kiddush. It was a pleasure to see them. The Rabbi asked that I say a few words about my father and boy did I say a few words. I spoke about my father, his life before the war, the war years, the Chicago years and the LA years. I also mentioned that he married my mother, a marriage that should never have happened. I said that my family says it is always about me and I will talk about me. I disrespected my father. When I got to yeshiva at age 14, I was embarrassed to tell people that my father had a feather business and that he drove a cab. I barely understood it. I remember the big bales of feather that had large vacuums, vacuuming up the feather. My father went to farms and also purchased old pillows and comforters for the feathers. My first mistake was that any job performed with honesty, where someone went to work to provide for his family is one to be proud of. I also did not realize that in Europe, in the city of Kielce, my father’s wife’s parents had a feather company from which they exported throughout the world and were very wealthy. My father saw the potential of turning his company into what he saw in Europe. This was my immaturity and took me many years to understand my father in this aspect of his life.
At 2:00 PM I gave the class at our Dr. Leonard Kranzler Memorial Class and spoke over Rabbi Meir Yakov Soloveichik’s lecture on “The rabbinic Roots of the Gettysburg Address.”
At 3:40 PM I walked home and got home at 5:40 PM. It was over 80 degrees and very humid. It drizzled lightly most of the way and I came home soaked.
At 7:15 PM I learned the first Medresh in Balak. I thought about it and tied it into President Abraham Lincoln and Rabbi Soloveichik’s lecture.
Hashem did not give the non-Jews an opening to say in the future “You have distanced us.” What did Hashem do? Just like He set up kings and sages and prophets for the Jews, He set these up for the non-Jews. He set up Shlomo as a king over the Jews and the entire earth, and He did the same for Nebuchadnezzar. This one built the Beit Hamikdash and said “How many praises and supplications there are!” and this one destroyed it and scoffed and said (Isaiah 14): “I will ascend to the heights of the clouds.”
All the greatness that the Jews took, you find that the nations took. Another example: He set up Moshe for the Jews and Bilaam for the nations. Understand what the difference is between Jewish prophets and non-Jewish prophets? Jewish prophets exhort the people about their sins, as it says (Ezekiel 3): “And you, son of man, I have appointed you as a watchman etc.” And the prophet from among the nations caused a breach to drive the creations from the world. Not only this, but all the prophets were [given prophecy] from the attribute of mercy on the Jews and the non-Jews, as Yirmiyah said (Jeremiah 48): “My heart to Moav is as pipes moan.” And as Yechezkel said (Ezekiel 27): “Son of man, lament for Tyre.” And this cruel one stood to uproot an entire nation for no reason. Therefore the passage of Bilaam was written, to make it known why Hashem took away the holy spirit from non-Jews, for this one was from them and see what he did.
Analysis:
The below Medresh tells us that God gave kings, prophecy and riches to both the Jewish people and the non-Jewish people. Shlomo Hamelech built a place to worship God, to bring blessing to the world. The non-Jewish king, Nebuchadnezzar, destroyed the temple. Jews built, non-Jews destroyed. Understand what the difference is between Jewish prophets and non-Jewish prophets? Jewish prophets exhort the people about their sins, as it says (Ezekiel 3): “And you, son of man, I have appointed you as a watchman etc.” And the prophet from among the nations caused a breach to drive the creations from the world. Not only this, but all the prophets were [given prophecy] from the attribute of mercy on the Jews and the non-Jews,
It is true that there were bad kings and false prophets in Israel. In fact when corruption became rampanet and the people did not live up to Jewish ideals as espoused by the Torah and its righteous men, God destroyed both temples and exiled its people. The DNA of Jews and the Jewish leadership is rooted in faith in God and to do righteousness. The Jewish people’s DNA starts with King David and Shlomo. Both were rooted in justice. As it says about King David that he ruled with justice for forty years. The Israeli government and its people’s DNA goes back to Dovid Hamelech and all of its great leaders who promote justice and fairness. Israel just wants to do good. In 1948 Israel was willing and able to export its know-how in agriculture and other industries to third world countries. Israel does have to protect itself in a world where being nice and conciliatory is viewed as a weakness, so it has to be harsh. However, Israel is a leading country in improving the world with its cutting edge technology, research, and an open society.
The DNA of the non Jewish world are kings who were dictators, evil people. Look at the kings and queens of the dark ages.
Today we have three basic forms of government in the world; democracy, Communism, and dictatorships. Democracy in America is rooted in our founding fathers and Abraham Lincoln. They were religious men who believed in following the goodness of God and the creed that all men are created equal. They were wrong about slavery and it took a courageous President in Abraham Linoch and a civil war with over 550,000 dead Americans to get it right and we still have work to do. Despite everything, America is a great country.
The next system of government is communism rooted in the evil Stalin. Their DNA is death and destruction. There is nothing redeeming and there will be nothing redeeming about communism.
The third is dictatorships, military control, and despots. Their DNA is the worst in human nature. Their willingness to exercise raw naked power, kill or torture anyon who gets in your way.
Look at the Arab world. The Arab world which wants to destroy the world and uses their billions not to improve their own people’s lives, but in attaining weapons to control their own people and to destroy others. Be a woman or a gay person in the Arab world. Be a regular person in the Arab world.
This is the lesson of the medresh. We have to tap into our righteous DNA, the DNA of justice, freedom. This Is the DNA of America brought to its ultimate by President Abrahm Lincoln.
One of the most transformative periods in British history is the reformation – the break away of the British crown from Rome. This took place after Henry VIII was unable to receive annulment of his marriage from his sister-in-law Catherine of Aragon to marry Anne Boleyn and produce a male heir to the throne. This issue preoccupied England between 1527 and 1535. In this essay, we will present an in-depth analysis of the issues relating to Henry’s troubled levirate marriage and the Levitical argument that marrying one’s brother’s wife is in violation of the laws of incest. We will look at this through an overview of the key rabbinic texts on this subject, which would have likely been sought and studied by Henry’s Oxford Hebraist scholars, among others, in support of his divorce. In conclusion, we will offer insight into the reasoning of both sides of this dispute and demonstrate how they may both in fact be found in the classic sources pertaining to levirate marriage in Jewish family law.
Exploring Kotzk 