Chabad of East Lakeview

Dr. Leonard Kranzler Memorial Shiur

Small Yud, Broken Vav, Elongated Final Nun = יון

Torah #1

Torah #2

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.

2 – verse 25:12   לָכֵ֖ן אֱמֹ֑ר הִנְנִ֨י נֹתֵ֥ן ל֛וֹ אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י שָׁלֽוֹם׃ *(בספרי ספרד ואשכנז וי״ו קטיעא)

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.  

פִּנְחָס קַנָאָה בַּר אֶלְעָזָר בַּר אַהֲרן כַּהֲנָא אָתֵיב יַת רִתְחִי מֵעַל בְּנֵי יִשְרָאֵל בִּזְמַן דְקַנֵי יַת קִנְאָתָא וְקָטִיל חַיָיבָא דְבֵינֵיהוֹן וְאַמְטוּלֵיהּ לָא שֵׁיצְיַית יַת בְּנֵי יִשְרָאֵל בְּקִנְאָתִי

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.

Verse 25:6:

הִנֵּ֡ה אִישׁ֩ מִבְּנֵ֨י יִשְׂרָאֵ֜ל בָּ֗א וַיַּקְרֵ֤ב אֶל־אֶחָיו֙ אֶת־הַמִּדְיָנִ֔ית לְעֵינֵ֣י מֹשֶׁ֔ה וּלְעֵינֵ֖י כׇּל־עֲדַ֣ת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל וְהֵ֣מָּה בֹכִ֔ים פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃

Rashi says – והמה בכים. נִתְעַלְּמָה מִמֶּנּוּ הֲלָכָה, גָּעוּ כֻלָּם בִּבְכִיָּה; בָּעֵגֶל עָמַד מֹשֶׁה כְּנֶגֶד שִׁשִּׁים רִבּוֹא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר “וַיִּטְחַן עַד אֲשֶׁר דָּק” וְגוֹ’ (שמות ל”ב), וְכָאן רָפוּ יָדָיו? אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁיָּבֹא פִינְחָס וְיִטֹּל אֶת הָרָאוּי לוֹ (תנחומא):

 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 explains what Pinchos saw.    

 – וירא פינחס. רָאָה מַעֲשֶׂה וְנִזְכַּר הֲלָכָה — אָמַר לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה מְקֻבַּלְנִי מִמְּךָ הַבּוֹעֵל אֲרַמִּית קַנָּאִין פּוֹגְעִין בּוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ “קַרְיָנָא 

דְּאִגַּרְתָּא אִיהוּ לֶיהֱוֵי פַּרְוַנְקָא”, מִיָּד ויקח רמח בידו וגו’ (סנהדרין פ”ב

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.

Torah #2:

Verse 25:12 – (לָכֵ֖ן אֱמֹ֑ר הִנְנִ֨י נֹתֵ֥ן ל֛וֹ אֶת־בְּרִיתִ֖י שָׁלֽוֹם׃ *(בספרי ספרד ואשכנז וי״ו קטיעא 

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. שֶׁתְּהֵא לוֹ לִבְרִית שָׁלוֹם, כְּאָדָם הַמַּחֲזִיק טוֹבָה וְחַנּוֹת לְמִי שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ טוֹבָה, אַף כָּאן פֵּרֵשׁ לוֹ הַקָּבָּ”ה שְׁלוֹמוֹתָיו:

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.

  ברית כהנת עולם. שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכְּבָר נִתְּנָה כְהֻנָּה לְזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, לֹא נִתְּנָה אֶלָּא לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו שֶׁנִּמְשְׁחוּ עִמּוֹ וּלְתוֹלְדוֹתֵיהֶן שֶׁיּוֹלִידוּ אַחַר הַמְשָׁחָתָן, אֲבָל פִּינְחָס שֶׁנּוֹלַד קֹדֶם לָכֵן וְלֹא נִמְשַׁח לֹא בָא לִכְלַל כְּהֻנָּה עַד כָּאן; וְכֵן שָׁנִינוּ בִזְבָחִים (דף ק”א) לֹא נִתְכַּהֵן פִּינְחָס עַד שֶׁהֲרָגוֹ לְזִמְרִי:

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:

Verse 18:1 –  וַיֵּרָ֤א אֵלָיו֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּאֵלֹנֵ֖י מַמְרֵ֑א וְה֛וּא יֹשֵׁ֥ב פֶּֽתַח־הָאֹ֖הֶל כְּחֹ֥ם הַיּֽוֹם׃

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.

בִּשְׁבוּעָא אֵימַר לֵיהּ מִן שְׁמִי הָאֲנָא גָזַר לֵיהּ יַת קְיָמִי שְׁלַם וְאַעְבְּדִינֵיהּ מַלְאָךְ קְיַים וְיֵיחֵי לְעַלְמָא לִמְבַשְרָא גְאוּלְתָּא בְּסוֹף יוֹמַיָא

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.  

Shabbos Parshas Pinchos – July 11, 2020 – 19 Tammuz 5780

The Three Weeks – Very Zionistic Period

Hertzl’s Yahrzeit – 20 Tammuz 1904 (July 12, 2020)

Herzl’s Repentance

Admor Dovid Morgenstern – 22 Tammuz  1873 (July 14, 2020)

Zev Jabotinsky – 29 Tammuz 1940 (July 21, 2020)

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.

• Hertzl’s Yahrzeit – 20 Tammuz 1904 (July 12, 2020)
• Admor Dovid Morgenstern Yahrzeit – 22 Tammuz  1873 (July 14, 2020)
• Ze’ev JabotinskyYahrzeit – 29 Tammuz 1940 (July 21, 2020)

Hertzl’s Yahrzeit – 20 Tammuz 1904 (July 12, 2020)

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 – 22 Tammuz  1873 (July 14, 2020)

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

August 18, 1949

SEE ORIGINAL DAILY BULLETIN FROM THIS DATE

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.)

Linda Kahn

Yoel Petashnik

Rabbi Yehuda D. Goldman

Donnies and Susan Kates

Rabbi Alex Goldman

Judy Mendelson

In the afternoon I cut down a tree in my backyard.  I fell off the ladder when the tree was cut and landed on my backside.  Boruch Hashem nothing happened.

At 5:00 PM, I picked up dinner from Tel Aviv Kosher Pizza for Linda Kahn.  Linda had her right foot amputated.  She is in great spirits but in pain.  I picked up excess food, thinking that Linda could have the food for tomorrow.  Boruch Hashem this thought was put in my mind. I bought three portions of eggplant parmesan, a whole falafel, two halves, and a large salad.

I arrived at her place at 5:50 PM at 336 W. Wellington, of course, an hour late.  Her sister Susan Kahn was there along with their cousin’s kid, Yoel (Joel) Petashnick.  The Kahns are from Milwaukee and his family made Aliyah in 1978, when Yoel was 10 years old.  Linda and Susan Kahn are first cousins to Bert Kahn, who I sat with in Daf Yomi for years.  Bert was a dignified person.   

I spent a delightful hour with Yoel.  He is interested in the writings of the Ishbitzer, Rabbi Mordechai Yosef Leiner, 1801-1854, and the Radzin dynasty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordechai_Yosef_Leiner.

Dr. Yoel Petashnik is a PHD professor at Bar Ilan University and lives in the Golan.

We touched upon many subjects, talked history, talked about Kotzk and I told him about my ancestors.  We played Jewish Geography.  His wife is a Kates (daughter of Donnie and Susan Kates).  Donny’s mother, Eileen Kates,  was the daughter of Rabbi Yehuda D. Goldman.  The Kates family was one of the first families to make Aliyah to Israel in the 1970s,  Rabbi Goldman and his wife, Sarah Esther nee Rubenstein lived in East Rogers Park.  

I used to take my grandfather, Sholem Sklar, to Rabbi Yehuda  Goldman’s Shul at Devon and Damen.  We lived at that time at Rosemont and Western a 5 block walk from the Shul. Zedi and Rabbi Goldman would schmooze about the west side  and Europe.  For a few years, I took Rabbi Goldman to the Brisk Dinner.  I found the below book written by Rabbi Alex Goldman, the son of Rabbi Yehuda Goldman and a great uncle of Yoel Petashnik’s wife, Sari Kates (named for Rabbi Goldman’s wife). Yoel’s first son, Yehuda David, is named after Rabbi Goldman.

The book My Father, My Self: “ A Son’s Memoir of his father Rabbi Yehuda D. Goldman, America’s Oldest Practicing Rabbi” has Chicago Jewish history and great history of the Jewsih world.  He brings alive some of the HTC Rabbis of the 1940’s.  The book came out in 1996.

I think the late Judy Mendelson is part of their extended family.

Boruch Hashem I am able to bring alive the past and present while involving Linda Kahn.

1981 HaPardes

The next page is a book given to Judy Mendelson when she recovered from an  illness in 1980.  I found this book at Beth Sholem Agudas Achim, Reb Moshe Soloveichik’s Shul at 5655 N. Jersey.  I took the book for the people who signed the page below and not for the book itself.  I started reading the book and I did a study of Tanach because of this book, In the Footsteps of the Prophets. It was written by Moses Perlman.  In my website Kotzk.com, I have an entire write up of this book.

A Debt Repaid – The hand of Hashem is Revealed

“Cause Mama Didn’t Raise No Fool”

Mother on Motzei Shabbos April 28, 2018 at her 94th birthday with her three “favorite” grandsons, Eli Morgenstern, Mattityahu Schwartz, and Eliyahu Sholem Glenner.

2010 picture of Mother (86 years old) with Eliana Tovah Bernstein, now from Nahariya, Israel.

On Monday night and Tuesday is my mother’s fourth Yahrzeit.  Jean Morgenstern,  Shayna Bas Sholem and Chana Feigl Sklar.  I offer the below story in a merit and memory of my mother.   My mother was great.  

This past Friday, January 5, 2023 I received a call from George.   Years ago I lent him over $30,000.  He had a business which initially did well but over time he could not meet payroll.  Sometimes he asked me to approve his overdrafts which I did and when he couldn’t cover, I would cover his account out of my pocket from my home equity credit line.  Other times I would put money into his account without being asked.  

When he was struggling, I tried to get him business from my customers.  It was a Tuesday afternoon, it may have been a fast day,  I was in my car and had a splitting headache.  I was driving on Peterson Avenue, right past the Shul that Yosef Davis had in the ground floor of his building. The Rov was Rabbi Bechhoffer or Rabbi Henoch Plotnick.  I just wanted to go home, daven, and go to bed.  I forced myself to stop and go to daven.  As I was walking down the three steps that led into the Shul, I thought about a customer who possibly would purchase product.  Right after davening I called Eddie and Eddie told me that Gershon should call him and he will use his services.  The next day Gershon went to Eddie’s place of business and Eddie’s bought $1,600 worth of advertising time.  He cut a check and paid Gershon on the spot.  He did not have to bill him and wait for his money.  Because of this Gershon met payroll and survived another week.  That Shabbos as Gershon walked into his house, he was a hero.  He felt good about himself.  Who knows what that Shabbos meant for him and his family, who knows what bad was prevented.  Eddie by paying immediately did a great action.   If he had said, bill me and I will pay in 30 days, it would have been a huge Chesed.  By paying immediately this one business transaction out of millions of transactions that day went before the Kisa Hakovid.    

Gershon closed his business.  He felt terrible and told me that I should find solace in the fact that five people became Orthodox from his business.  This was solace for me.   I thought to myself, did I do the guy any favors? Had I not covered his overdrafts, his business would have folded three months earlier.  It was clear that he was not going to make it, but now he racked up my debt, and other debt.  Was I a sucker, an easy mark, a fool with money I did not have?  This was not the only time this happened when I covered overdrafts and paid out of my pocket.  I would like to believe that while I suffered internally and felt foolish; ultimately, Hashem would reward me.

He did tell me that he will pay everyone back.  At that time he had no money.   His wife worked and made maybe $40,000.  He had a side hustle which brought in a few dollars.  He needed a real job with a growing family.  He eventually got a job managing a local office for an east coast successful businessman.  Gershon started paying me back at  about $500 monthly, paying the debt down to $23,400.  However, he stopped paying years ago.  I wondered and assumed that with his growing family he just did not have left over money to repay me.  We did speak to one another over the years and to his credit he did try to refer business to me.  The last deal he referred to me before I retired in 2020 was one company that I was trying to get as a customer and was excited.  However, the bank was turning down almost every deal coming from our Healthcare department, so after expressing my excitement on the deal, I had to turn it down.  To my bosses credit, she called Gershon and was honest with him that the bank just was not lending money. She supported the loan.   

Over the years when  I met him and never asked for the money.  I knew that he was not able to pay me back.  A few years ago I found out that he lived in a very nice house and wondered if he forgot about the money.  Rabbi Zev Cohen told me that he recently gave a Shiur on a lender who knows the borrower is not in a position to pay back, is the lender forbidden to ask for the loan to be repaid.  I do not recall how Rabbi Cohen paskened but B’Siattah Dismaya, I did not ask him for the money back.  Not that I am very Frum but because it is not in my nature.

Today he called me and said he is repaying the $23,400.  Wow.  I told him that now that I am living off my retirement money, I would have to take out $30,000 to get $23,400 net of taxes.  He legally did not have to pay me back as I put the money into his corporate account.  But he did pay me back and at the right time as I am about to withdraw money from my retirement account.  

On Shabbos Parshas Shmos, January 14, 2023, Rabbi Shmuel Lesher, assistant Rabbi of the BAYT in Thornhill, Ontario spoke at the Hashkama minyan on the topic of why did Moshe refuse Hashem three times. The answer he gave is because Moshe owed gratitude to Yisro, Hakoras Hatov, and did not feel he could leave Yisro. At the conclusion of his speech, Rabbi Lesher mentioned Mishna 2:9 in Perkei Avos and discussed the following saying of Reb Shimon.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, הַלֹּוֶה וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם. אֶחָד הַלֹּוֶה מִן הָאָדָם, כְּלֹוֶה מִן הַמָּקוֹם בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים לז) לֹוֶה רָשָׁע וְלֹא יְשַׁלֵּם, וְצַדִּיק חוֹנֵן וְנוֹתֵן.

Rabbi Shimon said, one who borrows and does not repay for he that borrows from man is as one who borrows from God, blessed be He, as it is said, “the wicked borrow and do not repay, but the righteous deal graciously and give” (Psalms 37:21).

Reb Shimon says that what defines an evil person as someone who does not repay his loans. Gershon was never someone who does not repay his loans. I never told him it was a loan. He told me at the time and that he will repay me and all debts. It is great that Gershon has fulfilled that words of Reb Shimon, the holy Tanna. In the next world Gershgon will go to Reb Shimon. They will dance and Reb Shimon will kiss him and then they will learn together this Maamer. I can only hope that I will be Zocah.

 Boruch Hashem that I had a mother whom we loved. She overcame obstacles and gave support.

January 3, 2023

The Soncino Chumash vs. the Hertz Chumash vs. Artscroll Stone Edition vs. Lubavitch Chumashim

I keep a collection of English translations of the Chumash for reference purposes.  

This past Shabbos I picked up a Soncino Chumash and compared it to the Hertz Chumash. I rarely used these Chumoshim and I was curious as to their differences.   My cousin in LA uses the Hertz Chumash and quotes from it.  I occasionally used it but never for its commentary until Martin Brody praised Rabbi Hertz and his Hertz Chumash

 I read the introduction to the Soncino Chumash and was amazed by what I saw.  I have new-found respect for it and will use it every Shabbos.   While the Hertz Chumash contained Christian commentaries, the Soncino’s comments are a condensed version of the Mikraos Gedolos.  They use seven Reshonim, as follows:

Rashi – Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchoki    1040-1105

Rashbam – Rabbi Shmuel Ben Meir.   Grandson of Rashi    1085-1174.  

Avrohom Ibn Ezra  1092-1167

Redak – Rabbi Dovid Kimchi           1160-1235

Ramban – Rabbi Moshe Ben Nachman  1194-1270

Ralbag – Levi Ben Gershon known as Gershonides             1288 -1344

Sforno – Obadiah Ben Yaakov Sforno      1475-1550

What I like about the Soncino is that they bring down the 7 commentaries, identify them, and summarize their comments. They do not try to mix the Reshonim together and make a cholent.  The people who compiled the comments were scholars and loyal to the Torah.  It is basically an english Mikraos Gedolos.

Soncino Chumash:

The Soncino Chumash is best summarized by David Olivestone in 2017 as follows:

In his recounting of “The Story of the Hertz Chumash” (June 22, 2017), Mitchell First writes that “another English option did not appear until 1981 when the Reform movement published its own Chumash.”  Mitchell First’s article is below.

Inexplicably, he overlooks the hugely popular “Soncino Chumash,” first published in 1947 and edited by Rev. Dr. Abraham Cohen. Cohen was the general editor of the entire set of the Soncino Books of the Bible, and also participated in the Soncino translations of the Talmud and the Midrash.

Unlike Chief Rabbi Hertz’s “Chumash,” Cohen’s commentary is based solely on traditional rabbinic sources, such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Radak and others. In the latter decades of the twentieth century, “The Soncino Chumash” replaced “The Hertz Chumash” in many Orthodox congregations in Great Britain and the Commonwealth, as well as in the USA.

David Olivestone

Jerusalem

David Olivestone is Rabbi Jonathan Sacks’s son-n-law and an acquaintance of our own Martin Brody of Los Angeles.

Hertz Chumash:

Rabbi Joseph Hertz published his English translation and commentary originally in 1936.

Rabbi Joseph Herman Hertz – 1913

Born 9/25/1872  died 1/14/1946  – 73 years old. 

Chief Rabbi of Great Britain And the Commonwealth   1913 – 1946 – 33 years

Hertz Chumash

from Wikipedia:

Hertz edited a significant commentary on the Torah (1929–36,^[17] one volume edition 1937). Published as The Pentateuch and Haftorahs and popularly known as the Hertz Chumash, this classic Hebrew-English edition of the Five Books of Moses, with corresponding Haftorahs, is used in many synagogues and classrooms throughout the English-speaking world.^[18] The work – through its commentary and essays – is noted for its stance against Higher Criticism. ^[19]

It is also referred to as the Hertz Pentateuch, and it includes the following features:^[20]

• “extensive essays on … perceived conflict between science and religion”
• comparisons of “Torah’s laws and those in the Code of Hammurabi“
• comments from and source references to Christian sources,
• The initial English translation of Hertz’s Chumash dated May 10, 1936 was the English Revised Version of the King James Bible.     However, when the five volumes were combined into a single volume and published by Soncino Press, the English Revised Version translation,were replaced with the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation.^[23] Both translations were lightly edited by Hertz (e.g., at Lev. 27:29 RV and Num. 10:33 JPS).  The Soncino version was published on October 15, 1937.

It also includes views of the most important medieval Jewish commentators, such as Abraham ibn Ezra, Rashi, Ramban, Radak, Sforno and Ralbag (Gersonides).^[21][22]

The actual writing, which produced five volumes, was done by four other people,^[23] but “Hertz recast their material into his own style.”

The Hertz Chumach was revised in January 1960, primarily adding the Haftoorasfor the Holidays and other special days.

I found this fascinating article on the Hertz Chumash form 2017 by Mitchell First.

“The Pentateuch and Haftorahs” of Rabbi Dr. J.H. Hertz is one of the most important works of the Jewish religion in the 20th century. To quote one scholar, it “almost single-handedly [gave] shape to the way in which English-speaking Jewish laymen the world over have understood their Judaism over the course of the past two generations.” I recently came across a book that told the story of this work. The book is “A Vindication of Judaism: The Polemics of the Hertz Pentateuch,” by Harvey Meirovich (1998). I learned much from this book, and I would like to share some of it.

First, a bit of biography. Joseph Herman Hertz was born in 1872 in Slovakia. He was brought to the U.S. in 1884 and grew up in New York City on the Lower East Side. He attended City College and Columbia University. He received his rabbinic ordination from the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1894, as part of their first graduating class of eight students. After serving congregations in Syracuse (1894-98), Johannesburg (1898-1911) and New York City (1912), he was appointed chief rabbi of England in 1913. He held that position until his death in 1946.

Hertz began work on his commentary in 1920. But it was not until 1929 that the first volume came out. The last volume, Deuteronomy, came out in 1936. He did not produce this monumental commentary on his own. He had four Anglo-Jewish collaborators: Joshua Abelson, Abraham Cohen, Gerald Friedlander and Samuel Frampton. Periodically, these men submitted their initial drafts of the sections assigned to them. R. Hertz recast their material into his own style.

What was the background to this work? The author explains it all. In England, in 1901, one year before his move to New York, Solomon Schechter wrote: “[T]he new century does not open under very favourable auspices for Judaism…[O]ur Scriptures are the constant object of attack, our history is questioned, and its morality is declared to be an inferior sort…[T]he younger generation…if not directly hostile, are by dint of mere ignorance sadly indifferent to everything Jewish, and incapable of taking the place of their parents in the Synagogue…” Schechter argued that an English commentary on the Five Books (and the rest of the Bible as well), written under Jewish auspices, was needed to respond to these challenges.

There were already English commentaries on the Five Books before that of R. Hertz, but since they were almost always written by non-Jews, they would typically have an anti-Jewish bias. R. Hertz once remarked about such commentaries: “It is as if a version of Shakespeare were made into Spanish by a Spaniard who had but an imperfect acquaintance with English…and who was filled with hatred and contempt for the British character and the entire British people.”

In his preface, R. Hertz mentions the few and limited English commentaries written by Jews before him: a commentary published in 1844 by De Sola, Lindenthal and Raphall, of which Genesis alone appeared, and commentaries by Marcus Kalisch on Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus, which appeared over the years 1855-72. He also mentions some glosses in English on the Five Books published by David Levi and Isaac Delgado in 1796.

Schechter repeated his plea for a Jewish commentary again after his move to New York in 1902 (when he came to head the Jewish Theological Seminary). The commentary of R. Hertz was a response to the need expressed in Schechter’s plea.

The author explains further that traditional Judaism at the time of R. Hertz was threatened by the late 19th-century biblical criticism of Julius Wellhausen and by its reconstruction of history, which characterized Jewish law as anachronistic, as compared with Christianity’s emphasis on faith and morality. Also, R. Hertz was troubled by the mounting self-confidence of liberal/Reform Judaism. The work of R. Hertz should be read as a reaction to these challenges.

In his preface, R. Hertz makes the following remark: ”[T]he criticism of the Pentateuch associated with the name of Wellhausen is a perversion of history and a desecration of religion.” Using archaeology and philology, R. Hertz crafted a sophisticated work that attempted to underscore the Divinity and unity of the Torah, and the integrity of Judaism and its moral superiority to Christianity.

Aside from the need for a commentary on the Five Books written under Jewish auspices to defend and promote traditional Judaism, there was the more practical need for a commentary that could be used in the synagogue. Before the commentary of R. Hertz, if an English-speaking Jew wanted to follow the Torah reading in shul with one work in his hand that included a Hebrew text of the entire Chumash, an English translation and any kind of English commentary, there was no such work! As we walk into our shuls with hundreds of ArtScroll and Hertz Chumashim, this is hard for us to imagine! (On the very unlikely chance that there was such a work, the commentary would have been written by a non-Jew, and it certainly would not have been divided into parshiyot, let alone include haftarot!)

While R. Hertz’ work was completed before the Holocaust, it became even more useful thereafter, as the destruction of European Jewry shifted the center of gravity in Jewish life to the English-speaking world. As one scholar wrote: “Hertz had forged in advance for the Jews of England and America a tool to sustain their fortitude and faith.”

The two most interesting discussions in the book are the story of the complaint of his collaborators, and the story of how R. Hertz’ work did not sell well initially, despite the tremendous amount of work that went into it.

With regard to the collaborators, on July 8, 1929, after Genesis came out, three of his four collaborators (the other one was already deceased) wrote a letter of complaint about how their names were not included on the title page, even though he did acknowledge their assistance in the introduction. They wrote: “On the title page of the Commentary the names of your collaborators do not appear. In all similar works, proper tribute is paid in this way to those who have collaborated, as for instance in Kittel’s ‘Biblia Hebraica.’ Accordingly, we feel strongly that following the words: ‘Edited by the Chief Rabbi’ some such phrase as ‘With the collaboration of…’ should certainly follow. We do not consider that our point is covered by the bare reference in the Introduction. We submit that in the subsequent volumes, and also when a new edition of Genesis appears, we should be favored in the way indicated.”

1. Hertz wrote back: “[N]othing is further from my nature than to deprive others of the honour which is justly their due….Your complaint, moreover, is unjustified. The English usage in regard to any collective enterprise of a literary nature is that only the editor’s name appears. (The example of Kittel’s Bible is not an analogous case). An absolute parallel case is…..Such is the rule when the contribution of each man is reprinted as it is, without any recasting on the part of the editor. How much the more should it apply in a case where the contributions have been recast and often altogether rewritten by the editor!”

Genesis sold very poorly initially, causing R. Hertz extreme disappointment. He even considered canceling the publication of the remaining volumes! But people were hesitant to buy the single volumes in view of the anticipated publication of the entire five books in one work. In 1936, the Soncino Press approached him, as they understood that tremendous sales would result by combining the five volumes into one. Also, a large donation by a friend of R. Hertz enabled the work to be sold at a much lower price. (The Soncino edition also changed the text used for the English translation at the top. Instead of the revised King James version, the more readable 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation was chosen. I admit that, until I prepared this column, I had always assumed that the translation was by R. Hertz himself!) With the Soncino Press edition, sales took off and the work became the mainstay of English-speaking synagogues of every denomination for decades. (Another English option did not appear until 1981 when the Reform movement published its own Chumash.)

For another interesting article on the Hertz Chumash, see the article by Yosef Lindell, of May 29 2017, at www.thelehrhaus.com.

By Mitchell First

 Mitchell First is a personal injury attorney and Jewish history scholar. His most recent book is “Esther Unmasked: Solving Eleven Mysteries of the Jewish Holidays and Liturgy” (Kodesh Press, 2015). He can be reached at MFirstAtty@aol.com.

For more articles by Mitchell First, and information on his books, please visit his website at rootsandrituals.org.

David Berger on the Hertz Chumash:

“I still regret the eclipse of the Hertz humash, which, for all its drawbacks, introduced a generation of Jews to a humane and uplifting vision of Judaism.”–

Artscroll Stone Chumash:

The English translation is excellent.  I feel that the commentaries are a Cholent and compromise the integrity of the individual Reshonim.

Lubavitch:

There are three Lubavitch translations.  The Gutnick version 2008, the Chaim Miller version 2011, and the Kehot Version 2015.

All the Lubavitch translations put in Rashi’s Pshat either in brackets or in lighter print.  They are good but are hard at times to get the literal translation of the words which are important to me.

A – Gutnick Version – 2008

Contains great Torah from the Lubavitcher Rebbe on the Torah, analyzing Rashi and other Reshonim.

B – Rabbi Chaim Miller – December 7, 2011

From the Amazon web site:

:This Torah tells a story… your own. It invites you to discover yourself within its pages.

With a charming, colorful presentation, multiple strands of commentary and groundbreaking, interactive features, the Lifestyle Books Torah transforms the text into an experience-personalized, engaging and happening now. Its goal is to uncover the spiritual potential and human relevance in every line.

C – Kehot Version – October 28, 2015

The english translation gives one a running commentary based on Rashi.  You get a deeper understanding of the Parsha when you read the english.  However, I do not want to read the narrative based only on rashi.  I want to put in my understanding of the narrative based on Rashi and other Rishonim.

From AMAZON – The Synagogue Edition of the Kehot Publication Society Chumash was formally released and will be available in stores next week, in anticipation of the International Conference of Chabad Shluchim (Nov. 5).

The single-volume edition includes the five-volume interpolated translation Kehot Chumash acclaimed for the new Torah study experience it had brought to its users. The interpolated translation renders the text of the Chumash intelligible to the reader with an explicated Rashi commentary including the Rebbe’s exposition on Rashi.

Hundreds of Chasidic insights culled from the works of the Rebbe and his predecessors supplement the lucid translation. Each parsha (Torah reading) is preceded by a concise introduction highlighting its particular theme as it considers the Torah’s message. Helpful introductions precede each haftarah, designed to provide the reader with historical and literary background as an aid to study of the prophetic lessons of the haftarot and their relation to the weekly parsha.