259) CREATING A PREHISTORY FOR THE ZOHAR?

Transcription of a section of the Aleinu Responsum of Rav Hai Gaon which is believed to be a forgery.

RAV HAI GAON’S ALLEGED TESHUVA (RESPONSUM) ON ‘ALEINU’:

INTRODUCTION:

CONTROVERSY OVER THE AUTHORSHIP AND DATING OF THE ZOHAR:

There is a bitter controversy over just who authored the primary Kabbalistic work known as the Zohar:

1) According to some, the Zohar was written by R. Shimon bar Yochai, a Tanna (from the Mishnaic period) who passed away in 160 CE. R. Shimon was a student of R. Akiva.

2) According to others, the Zohar was written by the Spanish Kabbalist R. Moshe ben Shem Tov de León (1240-1305), who - in their view - falsely claimed to have found R. Shimon bar Yochai’s thousand-year-old manuscripts of the Zohar.

While the first view is the more traditionalist one, most scholars and some rabbis take the second view that the Zohar (or, according to some, parts of it) was a forgery by Moshe de León from around 1280.

This controversy over the authorship and dating of such a pivotal work is no small matter because over one thousand years separate between each extreme view. A thousand years in Jewish history has a huge implication in terms of textual authority.

Two facts, however, are certain:

1) Whoever wrote it and whenever it was written, the Zohar was published for the first time around 1280.

2) Prior to 1280, there are no references to the Zohar during that thousand-year period in any authoritative works; including the Talmud, the writings of the Gaonim and the early Rishonim.

[See Mysteries Behind the Origins of the Zohar.]

THE ALLEGATIONS OF FORGERY AGAINST MOSHE DE LEÓN:

This article is based on the groundbreaking research of Professor Elliot R. Wolfson[1] from whom I have drawn extensively. In the interests of full disclosure, Wolfson believes that Moshe de León was either the author - or part of the editorship circle - of the Zohar.

Our focus here, will be on another allegation of forgery that has been levelled against Moshe de León and that concerns a fascinating Responsum (a Teshuva or written answer to a Halachic query) attributed to Rav Hai Gaon.

THE RESPONSA OF RAV HAI GAON (939-1038):

Rav Hai Gaon is regarded as the last of the rabbis of the Gaonic period (589-1038). He was the head of the Talmudic Academy of Pumbedita (modern-day Fallujah). He is best known for his Teshuvot or Responsa literature, where his decisions informed much of the Halachic practices which were followed and accepted by the Jewish world. Questions were sent to him from all over the Jewish world, even as far as Ethiopia; and his collection of Responsa numbers around eight hundred.

SPURIOUS WRITINGS ATTRIBUTED TO RAV HAI GAON:

For some reason - probably because of his widespread Halachic authority - many spurious writings have been attributed to Rav Hai Gaon, especially by later Kabbalists. This was an effective method of retroactively transposing Halachic authority on later mystical teachings.

R. Ezriel Hildeshimer wrote about such Kabbalistic material falsely attributed to Rav Hai Gaon.[2]

These spurious writings include Responsa as well as entire books which have been forged or completely misattributed to earlier authors.[3]

THE ‘ALEINU’ RESPONSUM:

Our interest is specifically in one Responsum in the form of a letter attributed to Rav Hai Gaon endorsing the custom of reciting Aleinu on a daily basis in the prayers. The letter also contained a section which was effectively a Kabbalistic interpretation of, and commentary on the Aleinu prayer.

The mystics were evidently bent on showing a Halachic ‘paper trail’ and authoritative provenance supporting the daily incorporation of Aleinu into the prayers. This was because they held this prayer to be ideologically vital in that it incorporated two important elements: Firstly, it unquestionably distinguished between the spiritual status the Jew and the gentile; and secondly, it expressed a plea for an imminent messianic awakening which would eliminate all evil.

Wolfson describes this letter which he believes was falsely attributed by Moshe de León to Rav Hai Gaon:

“Both parts [of this letter][4], but especially the second, have striking parallels to the ‘Zohar’ as well as to the other writings of de León...

[T]he zoharic style and technical kabbalistic terminology are apparent in the text...

In sum, the letter and commentary on ‘Aleynu’ provides us with an early sample of de León's pseudepigraphical [falsely attributed][5] activity in which he tried to place kabbalistic ideas in the context of halakhic issues.” 

Moshe de León was born 202 years after Rav Hai Gaon passed away and, according to Wolfson, by forging this letter, he was trying to show some prehistory and Halachic authority and provenance for his later mystical teachings.

Wolfson is not the only one to suggest that Moshe de León forged not just the Zohar, but other works as well. Gershom Scholem also maintained that it was Moshe de León who was active in forging a host of other books.[6] In fact, the zoharic style was so evident in these forged works that some even used these as proofs for the antiquity of the Zohar.[7] But Scholem was quick to point out that it was indeed Moshe de León who was often the first to quote from these ‘old’ works which had not been known until then.

According to Professor Neil Danzig, who examined the Rav Hai Gaon Responsa literature, one version of these Responsa collections shows Moshe de León’s second attempt to rewrite the material in his first collection; to which he then proceeded to append the title: “These are the Responsa of R. Hai Gaon.”[8]

Furthermore, according to Professor Israel Ta-Shema, parts of 12^th-century She’elot uTeshuvot min haShamayim were also ‘contributed to’ by Moshe de León (who was only born in 1240).

R. Yisrael Moshe ben Eliezer Hazan, in his commentary Iyey haYam, also raised some textual and historical issues regarding the Aleinu responsum attributed to Rav Hai Gaon, and “almost concluded that the work was a forgery.”[9]

Aryeh Leib ben Shlomo Gordon, in his commentary Iyun Tefillah published in Otzar haTefilot, claimed that one who examines this Aleinu responsum will realize that “it is not [a work] of R. Hai Gaon but rather one of the great [rabbis] in the generation of Rashi...and was erroneously attributed to R. Hai Gaon.”[10]

Regarding this alleged Responsum of Rav Hai Gaon on Aleinu, Wolfson writes:

“[I]t is clear that both traditional and critical scholars have expressed doubt about the authenticity of this text.”

Wolfson, however, is the first to do an in-depth analysis of the text of the Aleinu Responsum, which is extant in six (possibly seven) manuscripts housed in libraries around the world.

A BRIEF LITERARY ANALYSIS OF THE ALEINU RESPONSUM:

1) RAV HAI GAON RULES ACCORDING TO RABBEINU GERSHOM:

The Aleinu Responsum, as mentioned, is composed of two distinct sections. The first is a letter purportedly sent by Rav Hai Gaon to various rabbis and deals with Halachic issues of the Aleinu prayer. The second section is a Kabbalistic commentary on the Aleinu prayer.

Wolfson explains that, based on the consistency of style, it is clear that both sections were written by the same hand.

In the Halachic section, Rav Hai Gaon rules according to the opinion of Rabbeinu Gershom Meor haGolah (960-1028 or 1040):

According to the text, Rabbeinu Gershom held the view that the practice of reciting the Aleinu prayer was already very old and well established, dating back to very early Talmudic times:

“In truth Joshua composed [Aleynu]...it was the reform of R. Yohanan ben Zakkai to make it obligatory [to recite Aleynu] every day in order to establish the pillar of faith...”

Accordingly, although the biblical Joshua (around 1 400 BCE) originally composed Aleinu when he entered the Land of Israel, it hadn’t yet been instituted as part of the daily prayer service until R. Yochanan ben Zakkai introduced it (in the 1^st -century CE). R. Yochanan ben Zakkai was an early Tanna (Mishnaic sage), and the first to be called by the title ‘Rabbi’. The reason why he instituted Aleinu into the liturgy, was to inspire and encourage faith (lekayem kiyum ha’emuna).

The Responsum claims that this opinion of Rabbeinu Gershom is correct - as opposed to the opinion of R. Alfasi (also known as the Rif) who holds that the reason why we recite Aleinu on a daily basis is because it was a decree of the more recent Gaonic rabbis (takkanat haGaonim).

Accordingly, Rabbeinu Gershom held that the recitation of Aleinu was instituted in the daily prayers from as early as the 1st-century, while R. Alfasi held it was only a more recent institution.

Thus far are the purported views as put forth in the Aleinu Responsum.

Wolfson writes:

“Obviously the conclusion that the custom to recite the Aleynu daily began in the tannaitic period and not in the time of the Geonim strengthened the effort to establish the custom in a community where it was not yet established.”

However, these alleged views of Rabbeinu Gershom and R. Alfasi - as well as the conclusion by Rav Hai Gaon that we rule according to the former, which makes Aleinu a much more ancient custom - are questionable for a number of reasons:

a) Hai Gaon died in 1038 and R. Alfasi was born in 1013. It is unlikely (although not impossible) that the two were able to communicate on technical Halachic matters during that 25 year period as Alfasi was growing up and Rav Hai Gaon was in his declining years.

b) On the other hand, Rabbeinu Gershom was indeed a contemporary of Rav Hai Gaon, however, besides this text, there is no other compelling evidence that the two ever communicated.[11]

c) There is no other evidence of either R. Alfasi or Rabbeinu Gershom ever dealing with the matter of Aleinu in any other texts.

d) Wolfson maintains that the literary style of the letter attributed to Rav Hai Gaon is distinctly that of Moshe de León:

One example is the expression ‘to inspire and encourage faith’ (lekayem kiyum ha’emuna) as mentioned above (in the view of Rabbeinu Gershom).

This unusual expression is frequently used by Moshe de León in his other writings and it also parallels (the Aramaic version lekaima kiyuma) as found in the Zohar.

2) PSEUDO-TALMUDIC SOURCES:

Another anomaly of this document that is also typical of Moshe de León is what Wolfson calls the ‘citation of pseudo-talmudic sources’- or to put it more bluntly - referencing Talmudic sources which do not exist:

The alleged author, Rav Hai Gaon, quotes two passages apparently from the Babylonian Talmud which are not found in the specified tractates or anywhere else in the Talmud either.

One passage is very interesting because it makes use of a phrase that really sounds as if it was lifted directly from the Talmud. In response to the question as to why Moshe did not recite Aleinu while outside of the Land of Israel, is the answer ‘because a person does not give praise to something that has not come into his hands.’

Referring to this tendency of Moshe de León to ‘quote’ from non-existent sources, Wolfson writes:

“It is known that in his Hebrew theosophic writings de León was prone to either cite a zoharic passage in the name of classical rabbinic sources or invent things in the name of the rabbis which resemble the Zohar stylistically and thematically, even though the exact parallels cannot be found in the printed versions of that work.”[12]

3) ZOHARIC EXPRESSIONS IN THE ‘PSEUDO-HAI’ RESPONSUM:

Many terms, expressions and concepts which are found in what Wolfson calls the ‘pseudo-Hai’ text are paralleled in the Zohar. This ties into the idea that both were authored by the same person.

For example, the novel zoharic notion of sefirot or ‘spiritual gradations’ are referred to in the letter as ‘madreigot’ in Hebrew, and in the Zohar similarly as ‘dargin’ in Aramaic. Although the sefirot are mentioned in the ancient Sefer Yetzirah, the names and definitions of the sefirot were later introduced and elaborated upon in the more recent Zohar.

4) THE ‘DOGS AT THE TABLE’ IMAGERY:

In the text of the commentary section of the letter attributed to Rav Hai Gaon, there is a reference to the distinction between Jews and the nations of the world. The unflattering imagery is that the Jews sit at the ‘table’ while the nations enjoy the scraps as ‘dogs’, sustained by the ‘overflow of the Land of Israel’.

The same mystical imagery is to be found in the Zohar where the nations await “the gift from above like dogs before the table.” [13]

5) A ‘CHARIOT’ IN EACH WORD AND LETTER:

Another reference in the letter is to the words of Aleinu which are said to be very powerful because “in each and every word there is a chariot.” This too is a common theme in Moshe de León’s other writings and a similar idea is also found in the Zohar: “Each and every letter is in a chariot that is appropriate to it.”[14]

6) THE ‘PARUSHIM’:

The commentary section of the Responsum states very mystically:

“[T]he matter of Aleynu was a tradition from our rabbis, hidden and concealed. When R. Yosiyah ha-Parush came from the Land of Israel and passed among us, he said that Abraham ha-Parush, his relative, found this matter in many books and other matters which we do not have...”[15]

Thus two ascetics are said to have come from the Holy Land, namely Avraham haParush and Yosiyah haParush. Whether or not these personalities actually existed, the title ‘parush’ means ‘saintly’– someone who conducts himself in an extremely disciplined manner usually involving some degree of abstention.

It is interesting to note that descriptive terms and honorifics such as ‘parush’, ‘nazir’ and even ‘chasid’ – even though they existed before – became popular only from the 12^th-century.

Wolfson writes that it was only during the 12^th-century that:

“...parush designates a member of a well-defined social group which had a vocation for the ascetic and contemplative life, somewhat detached from mundane affairs.”

These ‘parushim’ and ‘chasidim’ were associated with members of esoteric and mystical circles of that time.

Considering that Rav Hai Gaon passed away in 1038, it again is unlikely that during his time such ascetics would have been known by such designations as ‘parushim’. The Chasidei Ashkenaz or German Pietists, as another example of these new mystical movements, only flourished between 1150 and 1250 – also more than a century after Rav Hai Gaon.[16]

A PARTIAL MANIPULATION OF ANOTHER RESPONSUM OF RAV HAI GAON:

According to Zev Farber, Moshe de León apparently also added some text to a genuine Responsum of Rav Hai Gaon:[17]

A questioner asks whether the practices of hand washing and eruvin originated with King Solomon.[18] Rav Hai Gaon confirms that that indeed was the case. They were established by King Solomon.

Then suddenly there is a section thrown in about Aleinu being composed by Joshua. It continues to say that Aleinu was to serve as a ‘tikkun’ or Kabbalistic remedy. Immediately after this insertion about Aleinu, the previous topic about King Solomon is repeated and resumed.

Note how the underlined sections are repetitions of each other to create the impression of one continuous flow.

Farber writes that this was a common technique, often used by a forger who wished to insert a fake text within an original one:

“A better example of a Wiederaufnahme (resumptive repetition) masking a later insertion could hardly be envisioned.”

This highlights, once more, the obsession that Moshe de León had with instituting the daily recitation of Aleinu, and making it appear authoritatively older than it really was.[19] This was because, according to Farber, there were two main themes prevalent in the Aleinu prayer:

“...distinguishing between Israel and its God and the nations and their gods, and the future establishment of God’s kingdom on earth, with all the nations bowing to God’s will.” [20]

This would tie in with the theme of the ‘dogs at the table’ which we saw earlier on.

CREATING AN OLDER HALACHIC CONTEXT FOR THE EMERGENCE OF THE ZOHAR:

Wolfson reiterates that what motivated such frequent pseudepigraphic attempts on the part of some mystics, particularly Moshe de León, was the need to substantiate and justify the emergence of the new mystical literature (including the Zohar). This could be achieved by falsely showing some Halachic authority to new ideas making them seem as if they ‘originated’ from a much earlier time:

“At this juncture it appears that one of his [Moshe de León’s][21] main interests was placing kabbalistic ideas within halachic contexts...”

And this Responsum attributed to Rav Hai Gaon is really not even an extreme example of such pseudepigraphy, because:

“What is lacking here is any direct citation from the Zohar in the fictitious guise of an ancient midrash, a common trait of de León...”

A ‘REASONABLE ARGUMENT’:

Wolfson remains adamant but not dogmatic about his research into the authorship of the letter attributed to Rav Hai Gaon. He writes:

“Other examples could be adduced to support my claim, but I think that what I have already cited is sufficient to prove the point or at least to present a reasonable argument.”

MORE INFORMATION IS WAITING TO BE FOUND:

Wolfson concludes with a plea for further study into the literature surrounding the composition of the Zohar:

“The continual study of texts such as the one discussed in this paper, some of which may still be buried in manuscripts, remains a desideratum [i.e., a priority][22], for only such study will help clarify with more accuracy the unresolved problem of the process of literary composition of one of the most intriguing books in the history of Jewish spirituality.”

ANALYSIS:

Amongst the many other forged works of some of the mystics is one which even attempts to show how Rav Hai Gaon was opposed to the rationalist and philosophical writings of Aristotle.[23] 

Opposition to Aristotle was often used as a veiled reference to opposition to Maimonides (who was only born 97 years after Rav Hai Gaon passed away).

This indicates that some mystics were so consumed with creating a prehistory which favoured them at the expense of rationalists like Maimonides who were perceived as a real threat to future Judaism. The mystics, therefore, felt justified in involving themselves in such revisionism because it was for the greater good.

These nefarious pseudepigraphic practices need to be evaluated against the backdrop of the Maimonidean Controversies which plagued the Jewish community for more than a century after Maimonides passed away in 1204. Some would argue it continues to this very day.

Interestingly, the custom to recite Aleinu is not found in the writings of Maimonides. Nor is it found in any contemporary Sefaradic Halachic literature. Furthermore, even as late as the 16^th-century, R. Yosef Caro does not mention in his Shulchan Aruch that Aleinu is to be recited at the end of the daily services.

[For more on other techniques employed during the Maimonidean Controversies, see: How Rashi Was Used as ‘Leverage’ During the Maimonidean Controversies and The South Will Rise Again? and The Maimonidean Brotherhood and R. Yosef Kapach – The Suppression of a Rationalist Tradition.]

---

[1] Hai Gaon’s Letter and Commentary on Aleynu: Further Evidence of Moses de Leon’s Psuedepigraphic Activity, by Elliot R. Wolfson, New York University.

[2] E. E. Hildeshimer, “Mystik und Agada im Urteile der Gaonem R. Scherira und R. Hai, pp. 275-276, n. 8.

[3] These include Kol Hashem Ba’Koach, Pitron Chalom and Sefer Refafot. (See: Moses Botarel commentary on the "Sefer Yeẓirah," p. 10a, Grodno, and: Steinschneider, Cat. Bodl. p. 1029; idem, Hebr. Uebers. p. 893; Harkavy, Studien und Mittheilungen, iii. 14.)

[4] Parenthesis mine.

[5] Parenthesis mine.

[6] These include Orchot Chaim, attributed Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, as well as Sha’arei Teshuva which also contain forged Responsa of Hai Gaon. (See: G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York 1956) pp. 183, 200.)

[7] See the Introduction to the 1858 Leipzig edition of Sha’arei Teshuva, by David Luria.

[8] Danzig, The Collection of Geonic Responsa, pp. 26-32, 41-48.

[9] Teshuvot haGaonim im haggahot Iyey haYam (Livorno 1869) 20a.

[10] Otzar haTefilot (New York 1966), p. 433.

[11] There is a 13^th-century source which Wolfson calls ‘evidently spurious’ that Rabbeinu Gershom received instruction from Hai Gaon. This is included in a Responsa (no. 29) of Shlomo Luria, known as the Maharsal (1510-1574).

[12] For more on Moshe de León’s tendency to forge rabbinic sources, see I. Ta-Shema “Ha-Pores Sukkat Shalom,” pp. 188-189.

[13] Zohar 3:197a. This, interestingly, as Wolfson citing Richard White points out seems to parallel a reference in Mark 7:28.

[14] Zohar 2:132a.

[15] MS Oxford 1565, fol. 4b.

[16] Wolfson does not cite the Chasidei Ashkenaz as a support for this notion. It is my own conjecture.

[17] Sha’arei Teshuva 44.

[18] Eruvin 21b.

[19] Moshe de León was not the first to do this as it seems, based on the siddur of R. Eleazar of Worms, to have been a feature of Chasidei Ashkenaz.

[20] Farber, Images of Joshua in the Bible and Their Reception, p. 379.

[21] Parenthesis mine.6

[22] Parenthesis mine.

[23] Monatsschrift, xi. 37; Grätz, Gesch.vi., note 2; Geiger, in Wiss. Zeit. Jüd. Theol. i. 206.

258) WE DON’T NEED A REAL HISTORY:

INTRODUCTION:

Should historical facts and truth matter to the Torah Jew?

Surprisingly to some, yet clearly to others, the answer is very often ‘no’.

In this article, we will look at how various segments of the Torah community have gone out of their way to deliberately prevent well-documented information about numerous Torah leaders from being published – even in instances where the leaders themselves were open and happy about sharing their views and practices with others.

I have drawn extensively from the work of Rabbi Professor Jacob J. Schacter[1] from Yeshiva University, who holds a PhD from Harvard University and ordination from Yeshiva Torah Vodaas.

R. ELIYAHU ELIEZER DESSLER (1892-1953):

YATED NE’EMAN:

Some years ago[2], in the Chareidi (ultra-Orthodox[3]) publication, Yated Ne’eman, there appeared a short biography of R. Eliyahu Eliezer Dessler which was authored by one of his most devoted students, R. Aryeh Carmell.

[Yated Ne’eman (a ‘firmly secured peg’ – Isaiah 22:23) is a Chareidi publication which was founded in 1985 by R. Elazar Shach and R. Yaakov Kanievsky. Its ideology is anti-Zionist (both secular and religious). The paper is well-known for not publishing pictures of even modestly dressed women. For example, on April 3, 2009, it published a manipulated picture of Israeli cabinet ministers. Two female cabinet ministers were digitally removed and replaced instead with two other male ministers. See Writing Women out of Judaism.]

This particular biographical feature discusses the influences the young ‘Elya Leizer’ Dessler was exposed to while growing up. His father R. Reuven Dov was a student of R. Simcha Zissel Ziv who, in turn, was a student of R. Yisrael Salanter, the founder of the Mussar (Ethics) Movement.

R. Yisrael Salanter wanted to establish Jewish learning institutions based on Torah and Mussar. His student R. Simcha Zissel, however, felt that the students needed something more than just ‘Torah and Mussar’ so he opened a yeshivah in Grobin where they studied Russian language, history, geography and other secular subjects in addition to Torah.

R. Reuven Dov studied in that yeshivah, and when he later taught his son who was to become the renowned R. Eliyahu Dessler, he introduced his child to amongst other secular literature, Uncle Tom’s Cabin in Russian translation.

This fairly benign piece of biographical information (which the author had heard directly from R. Eliyahu Dessler himself while studying under him) soon erupted into an outrage by some of the readership.

In a letter to the editor, one reader expressed the sentiment that by including the information that R. Dessler had read Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the author was doing nothing to strengthen ‘emunah, Torah and yiras Shomayim’ (faith and fear of G-d); and that “special care should be taken to insure that such errors shall not be repeated in the future.”

Credit, though, must be given to Yated Ne’eman for not retracting the story.

R. ARYEH CARMELL:

Schacter points out that this seemingly innocent piece of information about Uncle Tom’s Cabin was actually omitted in another biography of R. Dessler, in the introduction to Sefer Michtav meEliyahu also authored by R. Aryeh Carmell. In that biography, however, he makes no mention of his teacher, R. Dessler, involving himself in any secular studies.

However, in R. Carmell’s English translation of sections of the same work (probably intended for a different audience) which he called Strive For Truth, he does mention that R. Dessler underwent secular studies.

In Strive For Truth, R. Carmell actually offers even more information about the secular influences on R. Dessler. He writes that R. Dessler’s brother-in-law, R. Daniel Moshovitz, who was the Rosh Yeshiva in Kelm between the two world wars, was very interested and familiar with the works of Immanuel Kant and he would quote sections of it by heart to his students. R. Carmell suggests that this was how R. Dessler himself was indirectly influenced by Kant - which is why his views on free will and determinism in Sefer Michtav meEliyahu are similar to those of Kant.[4]

AHARON SURASKI:

Schacter mentions another author, Aharon Suraski in his Marbitzei Torah uMussar,[5] who also omitted any reference to R. Dessler’s secular study curriculum.

This selective writing of the history of revered Torah leaders is commonplace and has actually become a norm and standard:

VILNA GAON (1720-1797):

The Vilna Gaon was known to have had a positive view on secular studies. He told his student, R. Baruch of Shklov, to translate Euclid’s Elements into Hebrew. In the introduction to that translation, R. Baruch writes that he heard from his teacher that “for each measure of secular wisdom a person lacks, so will he lack a hundred measures of Torah, as Torah and secular knowledge are inextricably connected.”

However, in a popular biography of the Vilna Gaon the assertion is made that R. Baruch was mistaken and that the Gaon would never have made such a statement.[6]

[See Secular Education – A Great Divide?]

Schacter refutes this notion outright because this was not the only statement of the Gaon’s positive view on secular wisdom. There was no compelling reason for R. Baruch, a highly respected judge and member of the Polish rabbinic elite to have misrepresented his teacher’s position. Until now, for two hundred years no one had questioned the authenticity of his statement. 

Furthermore, this statement was made seven years before the Gaon passed away so there would have been plenty of time for the Gaon himself to have set the record straight if he felt it necessary.[7] And there is no evidence that any contemporaries of R. Baruch ever question the authenticity of his statement.[8]

R. SHIMSHON REFAEL HIRSCH (1808-1888):

The same thing happened to R. Shimshon Refael Hirsch who established the Torah Im Derech Eretz system where Torah study is to be accompanied by secular study as well. The opponents of this system, who believe in Torah study alone, maintained that R. Hirsch only intended this system for a short and specific period in history (hora’at she’a) and not as an ideology for the future.

R. BARUCH HALEVI EPSTEIN (1860-1941):

R. Baruch Halevi Epstein, author of Torah Temima, wrote in his memoires[9] how Mrs Rayna Batya, granddaughter of R. Chain Volozhiner, studied Mishna and other works. In a 1988 English ‘translation’ of these memoirs, her studying the Mishna is conspicuously absent. This was intentionally omitted because women, in some circles, are discouraged from studying the Talmud. [See Women Studying Torah?]

R. NAFTALI TZVI YEHUDA BERLIN - THE ‘NETZIV’ (1816-1893):

The popular perception is that the Netziv closed down his famed Volozhiner Yeshiva rather than allow secular studies as part of the curriculum, as then demanded by the Russian authorities under influence from the Enlightenment Movement. Schacter, however, shows that “There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the Neziv allowed secular studies in Volozhin,” although he did so begrudgingly.[10]

R. SHRAGA FEIVEL MENDLOWITZ (1886-1948):

R. Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz was one of the primary founders of Orthodoxy in America in the early 20^th-century. He was involved in the founding of, amongst other institutions, Torah Umesorah, Beis Medrash Govoha in Lakewood, Telshe Yeshiva and he headed Yeshiva Torah Vodaath in Brooklyn.

In a biography of R. Mendlowitz, there is a section entitled ‘Against Going to College,’ where his strenuous opposition to attending college is meticulously laid out. The biography asserts that R. Mendlowitz felt that one attending college could never become a great Torah scholar and the heretical views prevalent at such institutions would be too much to overcome.

But, the biography continues, when it became apparent that some students were indeed attending college, it was decided to open a new institution which would offer controlled secular programs under careful scrutiny and oversight. R. Mendlowitz consulted with R. Aharon Kotler who rejected outright the notion of any secular studies whatsoever. Acting on his advice, apparently, R. Mendlowitz dropped the idea entirely.[11]

Schacter, however, shows that in fact, a very different story took place. According to the archives of the Board of Regents of New York State, which contain the original records of this new institution which was to be called the American Hebrew Theological University, it would ordain Orthodox rabbis and offer a high standard of secular studies. A prerequisite for admission into this school would be a B. A. degree.

The records show that R. Mendlowitz together with R. Yitzchak Hutner were original members of its Board of Trustees.

The abovementioned biography also omitted the fact that R. Mendlowitz gave a lecture in Mesivta Torah Vodaath on the teachings of (the ‘Zionist’) Rav Kook.

And, to add ‘insult to injury’, it further omitted the fact that R. Mendlowitz celebrated the founding of the State of Israel with the recitation of the blessing ‘Shechchiyanu.’[12]

R. PINCHAS HIRSCHPRUNG (1912-1998):

Schacter does not bring this example, but R. Pinchas Hirschprung, from whom I was fortunate enough to get my ordination, wrote about how while running from the Nazis and after being completely fatigued, he had contemplated suicide. [See A Tribute to R. Pinchas Hirschprung.] 

His biography is recorded in a book about great rabbis but there is no mention whatsoever of this piece of critical information which could serve as a source of inspiration and hope for those at the depths of despair - and which he himself was even prepared to share in his own written memoirs.

Most people are unaware of that he too had a vast knowledge of secular wisdom, including Spinoza, Heine, Shakespeare, Kant and particularly Freud.

THE PROBLEM WITH HISTORY:

To go back to our first example of R. Dessler’s misrepresented biographies: Although, ironically in his adult life, R. Dessler took an absolutely negative view of combining Torah with any secular study, this does not change the fact that he had studied such literature himself. Yet we see that across the board, the issue of R. Dessler having studied secular literature as a child was a thorny issue for many of those who recorded and read his biographies.

Why is such information about reading Uncle Tom’s Cabin and undergoing secular studies considered to be such a contemptuous issue which certain authors and publications feel the need to hide from their readers?

The answer, as Schacter sees it, is that:

“...historical ‘truth,’ per se, as an independent value in and of itself, has not fared well in Jewish tradition.

It has already repeatedly been noted that the entire enterprise of history as we understand it today was not valued by Hazal [our Sages of blessed memory][13].”

THE VALUE OF HISTORY:

R. OZER GRODZENSKI (1863-1940):

R. Ozer Grodzenski writes (translation mine):

“The great Torah [scholars] from time immemorial never paid attention to delve into the history of the Jewish people...

And even those small numbers of great [scholars] who did busy themselves with history did so only occasionally and in passing.”[14]

R. YAAKOV EMDEN (1697-1776):

One notable exception to the rule was R. Yaakov Emden who did believe in the value of history and openly disagreed with the view of R. Ovadiah Bartinoro (1445-1515) - best known for his commentary on the Mishna - who considered the study of (gentile) history to be sefarim chitzonim or external books which deprived the reader of his share in the world to come.

But R. Emden wrote:

“[T]he scholar is obligated to know at least those [historical][15]works composed in Hebrew. It cannot be otherwise. It has significant implications for the explanation of biblical verses and rabbinic statements as well...”[16]

THINGS BEGIN TO CHANGE:

Schacter explains, however, that in the 19^th-century, due to the anti-traditionalist agenda of some secular historians of the Enlightenment Movement, a new ‘traditionalist’ history began to emerge, in order to counter the secular alternative.

In the world of the 19^th-century, almost every Jewish ideology including Zionism, Chasidism, Reform and Orthodoxy, had to show some historical authority as justification for its emergence.

Schacter writes:

“In fact, the greater the perceived danger posed by this new emphasis on [Enlightenment][17] history, the greater was the effort expended to present a version of the past more in keeping with traditionalist values. The result was that historical writing which hitherto enjoyed, at best, only a secondary status in traditional Jewish life was catapulted, for purely defensive purposes, into a position of some prominence and significance.”

SUBJECTIVE PORTRAYAL OF HISTORY:

Of course, the difficulty was in assessing which group told the most objective history. Schacter quotes his teacher Professor Isadore Twersky, who cited his teacher, Professor Harry Austryn Wolfson, who said that:

“Scholarship is not what you happen to know about a subject; scholarship is what there is to know about that subject.”

Schacter cites the British historian Edward H. Carr who wrote:

“The facts are really not at all like fish on the fishmonger’s slab. They are like fish swimming about in a vast and sometimes inaccessible ocean; and what the historian catches will depend partly on chance, but mainly on what part of the ocean he chooses to fish in and what tackle he chooses to use—these two factors being, of course, determined by the kind of fish he wants to catch. By and large, the historian will get the kind of facts he wants.”[18]

BASIC FACTS ALWAYS REMAIN FACTS:

While this indeed is true of the inevitably biased process of recounting history, Schacter is quick to point out that:

“Even if a story can be explained in multiple ways, each reflecting the particular bias and orientation of the storyteller, the facts of the story that can be known and are verifiable must be told as accurately, honestly and truthfully as possible...

Differing interpretations of various historical events...is one thing...[but][19] to engage in conscious overt lying and distortion of reality is quite another.”

Our concern, in this article, is with how the ultra-Orthodox community views its relationship to (not the interpretation, but rather to) the indisputable facts of the history they record.

DISTORTION OF FACTS:

Whether R. Dessler, for example, read Uncle Tom’s Cabin is not subject to the vagaries of interpretation because it is a fact! By intentionally withholding that information it becomes, no longer a matter of interpretation, but an act of intentional distortion instead.

This tactic of intentional distortion is not infrequent and has become part of the strategy of the ultra-Orthodox style of retelling history.

R. AHARON FELDMAN AND ‘GEDOLIM BOOKS’:

Some time ago, R. Aharon Feldman - Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Yisrael in Baltimore - criticised what he called the ‘Gedolim Books’ which are the biographies of the great Torah personalities of our times. He wrote:

“All gedolim are presented in a stereotyped fashion, their lives all following the same trajectory from child prodigy to precocious[20] adolescence to marrying a pious woman and, finally to Torah greatness...

They often overlook the fact that certainly these men must have surely had their moments of self-doubt, error and human frailty . . . . Great men are, of course, humans as well; on the contrary, they are great because they overcame their human shortcomings...”[21]

R. YITZCHAK HUTNER (1906-1980):

R. Yitzchak Hutner similarly wrote (translation mine):

“Everyone talks excitedly about and exemplifies the pure speech of the Chafetz Chaim. But who knows about all the battles, struggles, terrible hindrances, failures and regressions until the Chafetz Chaim found his victory over the evil inclination.”[22]

R. AHARON LICHTENSTEIN (1933-2015):

R. Aharon Lichtenstein wrote about how a listener at the funerals of two very different people, R. Aharon Kottler and R. Moshe Feinstein, would have walked away thinking that there was little difference between them:

“It is astounding that talmidei hakhamim who were habituated to noting the finest distinctions in a halakhic sugya could so utterly fail to delineate and define persons they had known and admired; and it seemed unlikely that this was simply because they were now overcome by grief.”[23]

Schacter points out that the problem is even greater because;

“Not only do they present a stereotypical portrait of their subjects and ignore descriptions of their struggles, they actually make statements that are not true.” 

R. SHIMON SCHWAB (1908-1995) ON RECORDING HISTORY:

In defending the deep state of the ultra-Orthodox style of recording history, R. Shimom Schwab (although, ironically, a product of the Torah Im Derech Eretz approach) remarkably wrote:

“What ethical purpose is served by preserving a realistic historic picture? Nothing but the satisfaction of curiosity.

We should tell ourselves and our children the good memories of the good people, their unshakable faith, their staunch defense of tradition, their life of truth, their impeccable honesty, their boundless charity and their great reverence for Torah and Torah sages.

What is gained by pointing out their inadequacies and their contradictions?

We want to be inspired by their example and learn from their experience...

Rather than write the history of our forebears, every generation has to put a veil over the human failings of its elders and glorify all the rest which is great and beautiful.

That means we have to do without a real history book...

We do not need realism, we need inspiration from our forefathers in order to pass it onto posterity.”[24]

DR. HAYM SOLOVEITCHIK ON ‘ORTHODOX’ HISTORY:

Dr. Haym Soloveitchik writes about how some within the ultra-Orthodox camp write their own history:

“These works wear the guise of history...

This historiography weaves features and values of the present with real and supposed events of the past...

[T]his ‘history’ filters untoward facts and glosses over the darker aspects of the past.

Indeed it often portrays event as they did not happen...

Yet we do not feel that we are lying, for when values are being inculcated, the facts of experience - empirical truth – appear, somehow, to cease to be ‘true.’”[25]

PLAYING WITH HISTORY IS PLAYING WITH FIRE:

Schacter characterises the seriousness of the issues at stake when we (re)write history in this manner:

“What is at stake here are no less than the hotly contested and sharply debated issues which go to the heart of contemporary Orthodoxy, i.e., attitude to secular studies, Zionism, and women and Torah study.

In such circumstances, ignoring the truth, and certainly distorting it, is fraught with much more serious implications...

In a real sense, to consider this entire matter as relevant merely to ‘history’ is to trivialize it significantly.

For, indeed, distorting the words of a gadol [Torah leader][26] is not just distorting history, it is distorting Torah.”

ANALYSIS:

The Halachic process essentially allows for a spectrum of permitted possibilities under any given set of circumstances. This is because the legal language is so carefully structured that Halachic decisors are able to make use of every subtle nuance to determine an appropriate outcome.

No one would suggest that we limit our classical sources to narrow the material from which the skilled Halachic practitioner can draw on.

Why then are we so persistent to sever and restrict possible future outcomes when it concerns our living personifications of Halacha, the Torah scholars; and why do we choose to misrepresent in such a wholesale fashion the facts surrounding them until they fit with our personal and contemporary paradigm constructs?

This surely precludes the possibility of us ever being able to learn from them.

---

[1] Facing the Truths of History, by Jacob J. Schacter. [The Torah u-Madda Journal, vol. 8 (1998-1999): 200-276.]

[2] January 7^th 1994.

[3] Schacter does not use the term ‘ultra-Orthodox’ but I have because although he refers to the ‘Orthodox’, it is clear that he is referencing the more conservative segment of that community.

[4] Strive for Truth 3 (Jerusalem and New York, 1989), 172-73.

[5] Marbizei Torah u-Mussar 3 (Tel Aviv, 1976), 52-55.

[6] Bezalel Landau, Ha-Gaon he-Hasid mi-Vilna (Jerusalem, 1978), 217, 225-26, n. 16.

[7] As to the assertion that R. Baruch of Shklov was an enthusiastic member of the Enlightenment, Schacter maintains that recent scholarship has shown that not to have been the case.

[8] On the other side of the scale, the Vilna Gaon’s harsh statement in his commentary on Yoreh De’ah, that he couldn’t understand why Rambam was so preoccupied with his ‘cursed philosophy’ (and hence didn’t believe in sorcery, demons, amulets etc.) was called into question by some of those within the Enlightenment. They maintained that such a statement was a forgery because the style does not match the rest of his writings which are usually more cursory. Schacter, however, shows that original writings in the Gaon’s own hand indicate them to be authentic. Thus both sides of the religious-political isle showed distrust towards each other.

[9] Sefer Mekor Baruch.

[10] Schacter writes: “To my surprise, my article has been cited in support of the very proposition it sought to disprove... See, for example, Jonathan Sacks, One People?: Tradition, Modernity, and Jewish Unity (Oxford, 1993), 61 and Shaul Shimon Deutsch,Lar- ger Than Life: The Life and Times of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson 2 (New York, 1997), 71 and p. 309, n. 2. Both write that the Neziv closed Volozhin rather than introduce secular studies into its curriculum and cite my article as supporting evidence for that assertion.”

[11] A. Suraski, Shluha de-Rahmana, pp. 173-74.

[12] Hillel Seidman, R. Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz (New York, 1976), 106.

[13] Parenthesis mine.

[14] See his approbation to R. Yehudah Halevi Lipschitz’s Sefer Dor Yesharim, which was a traditionalist response to Dor Dor veDorshav by Isaac Hirsch Weiss.

[15] Parenthesis mine.

[16] From R. Emden’s personal notes in the margins to his Talmud set. These were later printed as Chiddushin veHagahot.

[17] Parenthesis mine.

[18] E.H.Carr, What is History? (New York, 1961), 26.

[19] Parenthesis mine.

[20] Precocious is defined as showing mental development or achievement much earlier than usual.

[21] A. Feldman, “Gedolim Books and the Biography of Reb Yaakov Kamenetzky,” The Jewish Observer 27:8 (November 1994): 32-33.

[22] Sefer Pachad Yitzchak: Iggerot uKetavim (New York, 1991), 217-19, #128.

[23] “Torah and General Culture: Confluence and Conflict,” in Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, p. 288.

[24] R. S. Schwab, Selected Writings (Lakewood, 1988), 234.  

[25] H. Soloveitchik, “Rupture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” Tradition 28:4 (Summer 1994): 84-85.

[26] Parenthesis mine.