056) The Nonexistent Memorial...

I draw once more from the writings of Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz[1] whose compelling arguments are difficult to ignore. He believes that the post-war generation of Jews (particularly the religious communities) have never done enough to acknowledge the Holocaust. Sadly, the less religious communities are more respectful at commemorating the Shoa than their religious counterparts, who in many instances seem to ignore it completely.

He contrasts this ‘callous and cruel silence’, with historical (halachik) reactions to earlier tragedies, and wonders why an event which suffered far more deaths than any previous catastrophe, has been so discounted.

After the Chmielnitsky massacres of 1648-49, known as Gezeiros Tach veTat, the great commentator on the Shulchan Aruch , the Shach, composed Selichos to be recited on the twentieth of Sivan, a day chosen as an annual fast day commemorating that event. The Shach writes that the number of Jews killed was around 100 000, and referred to it as the ‘Third Destruction’, following that of the First and Second Temples. 

The Taz[2] also endorses this fast and mentions that it was observed by all the Jewish population of Poland, because most families were affected by the massacres. 

One hundred and thirty years later, the Pri Megadim[3] writes that the fast was still being observed, and taken even more seriously than all the other fast days of the year.

Yet the Holocaust, which saw sixty times more that number, has been largely ignored by our religious leaders.

As is commonly understood, the halachic justification for this inaction is simply that there is no person in our times great enough to ‘innovate’ a new practice. 

This is amazing. 

Take a look at the list of things, in the last few decades, that have been commented on, banned, or restricted in some way by our leadership. We have had people ‘great enough’ to tell us what to do with television, the internet, and smart phones. We have input on appliances and time switches on Shabbos. We know how to kosher a microwave. At least three ‘gedolim’[4] have told us that women are not permitted to drive cars. 

Yet no one is ‘great enough’ to apply their minds to the issue of halachically commemorating the most terrible death tragedy in our history!

There is in fact a source substantiating the belief that no one is ‘great enough’ to introduce a new ‘innovation’ such as a new fast day. It is the Mateh Levi, a commentator on Kinot for Tisha BeAv, who draws our attention to the persecutions perpetuated by the Crusaders in 1096. He explains that the reason why the Crusaders are remembered on the already established fast of Tisha BeAv, although their attacks technically took place over Shavuot, is because we lack the authority to ‘add an extra holiday’.  

Rabbi Schwarz’s response to this is quite simply “Can the comments of one who annotates prayer hymns ...supersede...the Shulchan Aruch, Magen Avraham,the Taz and the Shach, who enacted precisely such an extra day of mourning...for the persecutions of 1648?”[5]

The Radbaz[6], writing about someone who never shed a tear on the passing of a loved one, says that this “is indicative of hardheartedness, and an evil quality of the soul. It is a trait of cruelty...” Rabbi Schwarz asks “how much cruelty does one reveal” when we fail to remember millions of people who were brutalised?

Basing himself on the Rosh[7], he says that if any congregation agrees to undertake a fast, it becomes as binding as any other ta’anit tzibur (public fast). In other words, halachically, a fast does not require ‘great people’ to determine its veracity.  All it needs is acceptance by a community. And by community is meant any group of ten or more men, even if they are unlearned! 

Such a fast day is considered binding to the extent that they say Aneinu and read Veyechal, as they would on any of the other fast days.

If this is the case, why have more people not even suggested a discussion about the establishment of an annual day of fasting (or even something else, like halachically endorsing some form of symbolism) to reaffirm our humanity, in the aftermath of the ‘Fourth Destruction’, where the degree and magnitude of our suffering was unimaginably greater than we have ever experienced before?

---

[1] See Kotzk Blog 55 for a description of Rabbi Schwarz. See EYES TO SEE – Recovering Ethical Torah Principles Lost In The Holocaust,by Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz, published by Urim, 2004.

[2] 566, 103.

[3] Mishbetzot Zahav 566,3.

[4] See Update to Kotzk Blog 42.

[5] Rabbi Schwarz actually refers to the ‘no one is great enough today’ theory, as “nonsense’.

[6] Vol.3, 585.

[7] Ta’anit ch.1, siman 20.

055) The Holocaust Didn't Just Kill Jews...

Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz

One of the less known Torah giants of our generation must be Rabbi Yom Tov Schwarz. He is a holocaust survivor, who seems to have made it his mission to point out how the Torah world we know today, has dramatically changed in comparison to the pre-war Judaism he remembers. He studied at Yeshivat Chachmei Lublin, and at the age of 16 was asked to check his Rosh Yeshiva’s[1] halachik responsa prior to publication.

After his inhuman suffering in the concentration camps, he became an expert at the then very important question of aggunos[2], for whom special courts were created. He later settled in America but shied away from public office and religious/political affiliation, a trend which had become popular in the rabbinical world at that time. 

Although he kept to himself, in 1958, Rabbi Yaakov Kemenetsky referred to him as one of the ‘gedolei doreinu’ or greats of this generation. 

In 1974, when he published his Ma’aneh LeIgrot, which fearlessly criticised many of Reb Moshe Feinstein’s halachik rulings, people began to take notice of him. Since then he has been consulted by many leading rabbis on important issues of halacha that many other authorities were reluctant to get involved with[3].

In his book, Enayim Lirot[4], he recalls how before the war, a European city may have had different religious communities each with different synagogues and customs. But a single rabbi acted as the Rav of the community which was essentially united in its diversity. Also, and perhaps more importantly, there was non-sectarian Torah education for all the children. Students from all ‘denominations’ generally went to the same school. The fact is that throughout most of our history, Jewish communities never even had elementary schools.  Typically, a melamed or tutor was hired privately to teach small groups of younger children.

“After the Shoah, however, a new social order – unlike any other in our nation’s history – began to evolve as our nation became splintered into different factions, each of which functions almost like a separate nation...”

Now, for the first time in Jewish history we have a separate school for each religious sect. This sows seeds of division which is subliminally inculcated into our young children from the moment they are able to learn. I go to this school but you go to that school. One of us must be better than the other. This creates an illusion of elitism in Torah education, something which never existed before.

   

 “And when these children grow up and become eligible for marriage, they will hardly ever marry someone from another group. In the Holy Land, each sect even has its own neighbourhood, led by a rabbi whose entire upbringing and education took place within the confines of that sect’s yeshiva system.”

Now the factionalism is perpetuated into the next generation, consolidating the misleading impression that this is how Jewish communities were always structured.

In times gone by, if a person wanted to become an expert scholar, he would never just study under one rabbi. Instead he would travel to a variety of teachers to be exposed to a variety of views[5]. This ‘cross pollination’ is severely discouraged in modern Torah society. But Rabbi Schwarz believes this ‘new practice’ which encourages students to only study at one ideological institution, has a detrimental effect on scholarship in general, because a gifted student is led to believe that all meaningful learning can only take place within his present environment. The student thus insulates himself from further potential spiritual and intellectual growth.

 “It has also become customary for all members of a particular group to follow a unique dress code – marked by subtle distinctions in various articles of clothing such as a hat or overcoat – which identifies them as being members of that group and no other.”

Rabbi Schwarz then goes on to explain that while it is true that in Egypt, the Jews dressed differently from their Egyptian counterparts. - that was in order to differentiate them from the Egyptians. We are now differentiating ourselves from our fellow Jews! 

Although dress codes obviously pre-dated the holocaust, by analysing photographs of those older communities, it was clearly nowhere near the extent that it is today.

“Thus, in the ultimate of ironies, the very means used by our forefathers in Egypt to keep the Jews united...is now being used by these groups to separate themselves from all other Jews... We should not be inventing new practices that perpetuate division...”

He traces this new thirst for factionalism directly to the generation surviving the holocaust which was young, orphaned and had no fixed tradition or long lines of links with the past. Whatever they had absorbed before the war was quickly forgotten, and only the major milestone observances were remembered without the subtle nuances of meaning and ethics that were once so tangible. When they transmitted these external demonstrations of faith to their children, it was much like a body without a soul. In a sense this was an unprecedented break in the mesora of Torah transmission, in that unlike earlier times where “a segment of the population in each new generation will have lived half their lives in the outgoing generation”, this did not happen after the war.

Although we have suffered many horrific calamities in our history, we were always defiantly quick to recover, and often experienced periods of great growth afterwards.  After the terrible persecutions of 1648, for example, the great commentators to the Shulchan Aruch[6] wrote their monumental works. Amazingly these works abound not just with legalities, but with amazing ethical insight and with respect for interpersonal relationships.

The difference was that in the past there were always surviving elders who had grown up in the spirit not just the letter of the Torah, and they were able to transmit that spirit to the next generation. Not so with the generation surviving the holocaust, where even those who did survive were “old, shattered and broken.”

It is no wonder then, that “hardly a week goes by without some story appearing in the non-Jewish media about yet another case of corruption, or some other shameful act committed by an observant Jew, causing a tremendous chillul Hashem...as the Talmud declares...the non-Jews will then say ‘This person has learned the Torah and its commandments, yet his conduct is more corrupt and shameful than that of a descent gentile.’[7]”

Like a modern day Kotzker, Rabbi Schwarz daringly argues for the religious world to re-evaluate their insular view of non-religious Jews, as well as of non-Jews. He pleads with religious Jews to become kinder, more compassionate, and conscious of creating a kiddush Hashem by their unconscious public behaviour. And he strongly advocates for a re-appraisal of fundamentalism and factionalism which he says has become a hallmark, plaguing the modern religious world. This never existed in pre-war Judaism, on the scale that it does now. As a result, the common cultural religious Judaism practised today, is in his view, skewed - notwithstanding the unprecedented growth of yeshivas and other learning institutions that abound.

Maintaining and growing the status quo, will not course correct us back to how we used to be. That can only be achieved through a powerful re-injection of the value of ethics back into the scholarly curriculum. For that we need massive buy-in from all our leaders, who would first have to become aware of the problem... 

In short, he believes the holocaust killed not just Jews, but sadly some of the most important aspects of Judaism as well.

---

[1] Rabbi Frommer, known as the Kozhiglever Rav.

[2] The sad predicament of many women whose husbands were ‘missing’ during the holocaust, and were still considered to be legally married, and therefore unable to remarry as they did not have a divorce.

[3] A case in point is kidushei ketana, where an unpleasant divorce led a man to ‘betroth’ his eleven year old daughter to an undisclosed man. Rabbi Schwarz was able to invalidate the ‘marriage’ and remove this cruel manipulation of law from becoming a precedent.

[4] EYES TO SEE, published by URIM in 2004, p36 – 54.

[5] The original ‘chareidim’ who would ‘tremble’ in order not to make a mistake in halachik rulings, would travel from sage to sage until they were satisfied they had explored every conceivable angle of a concept in question. See Bava Metzia 33b and the relating Rashi who says they ‘studied under many chachamim...since they were not all expert in all subjects.’

[6] These included the Shach, Taz, Be'er HaGolah and Magen Avraham. The Chmielnitsky uprising of 1648-49 (known as the Gezeiros Tach veTat), saw Cossaks murdering tens of thousands of Jews and displacing hundreds of thousands of other Jews, in Poland and Lithuania.

[7] Yoma 86a.

054) What You May Not Know About Your Yarmulka

The story of the yarmulka is indeed a very intriguing one. Being perhaps the greatest universal symbol of religious Judaism, the journey from its simple halachik origins to the status it enjoys today is remarkable, though little understood. Much of this article has been taken from Dan Rabinowitz's brilliant research in his 'Yarmulka: A historic cover up?'

300 - 400's CE:

We start in Talmudic times with a Gemora[1]  singling out Rav Huna for his exceptional pious behaviour, as he never walked a distance of four cubits without a head covering. From this it is evident that his practice was rather unusual and not the norm for that era.

Another Talmudic source[2] tells of mother who was concerned about raising her son to be G-d fearing and not to develop a propensity for stealing. She was advised to encourage her child (who turned out to be Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak) to pray, and also to keep his head covered. This too, indicates that head coverings were surprisingly not common, even in Talmudic times.

1200's:

                                         

Centuries later, the Rambam writes that; “Our great sages were careful to prevent their heads from being uncovered”[3], the implication is that this was the practice of ‘great sages’, and not necessarily the practice of the masses[4].

What is certain is that there is no Torah imperative to wear a head covering, nor is there any indication of a halachik obligation to do so in any of the early sources we have mentioned.

1500's : 

                                                                                                  

Rav Yosef Karo writes in his Shulchan Aruch[5] that one should not walk four cubits without a head covering[6] - implying that he was not intending to write a head covering into law. He did, however, encourage it as a ‘should’, but not as a ‘must’.

1600's :

Surprising, in the mid 1600’s, the Taz wrote in his commentary on the Shulchan Aruch[7], that in his view the wearing of a head covering may actually be in keeping with a Torah command ‘Do not follow in their ways’. The Taz draws our attention to idolaters who, when sitting down to eat intentionally removed their hats. Not wanting to follow their practices, he suggests that Jews specifically needed to cover their heads, and he gives this practice the status of a biblically ordained law[8].  His view certainly stands out from all the others as being exceptional.

Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh of Modena[9], an interesting character in his own right, used to go bare headed, as was the custom of Italian Jews at that time. When one of his books was published in 1637, it had a portrait of him on the cover, clearly without a head covering.

 

The author of the Torah commentary Melechet Machashevet, Rabbi Gentili[10], similarly had his portrait on the front cover of his book when it was published in 1710.  However, in the second edition which was published a hundred and fifty years later, a large yarmulka suddenly appears on his head.

1700's:

In a landmark ruling, the Vilna Gaon, or Gra, maintained that there is never an obligation to wear a head covering, even when reciting a beracha[11]. Of course this does not mean that one shouldn’t wear a head covering, it’s just that we need to understand its halachik status is one of laudable but not obligatory. For some reason, the Gra, who usually makes use of short responses, is particularly long winded in support of his thesis in this regard.

1800's:

Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann[12], who taught in the academy of Rabbi Shimshon Refael Hirsch, noted that the students sat bareheaded for secular classes and only wore head coverings for Torah study. This section of his book was censored[13] in subsequent publications. He writes (in the uncensored version) “that today, amongst the Hungarian rabbis, they are extremely strict with regard to covering one’s head. However the Gra in his notes says that there is no prohibition to cover one’s head even when saying G-d’s name, and that doing so is only a midat chassidut, or pious custom.[14]”

[The responsa of Rabbi Yehudah ben Asher[15] records the question; “Does one need to wear a head covering while studying?” To which he responds; “It is best to cover one’s head...but, because of the heat, I do not do so.”[16]  About five hundred years later, Rabbi Hildesheimer pointed out that according to one manuscript in his possession, the correct version should have read; “I myself sit with a lighter linen head covering during the heat.”  This is another example of a text being censored one way or another to push for or against the necessity to wear a head covering.]

1900's:

R Yisrael Brodsky was a wealthy supporter of the Volozhin kollel. In a photograph of him, which is probably the only one in existence, he can be seen without a head covering. However, in a recent publication of that same picture, he can be seen with an added yarmulka adorning his head.

An amazing picture of the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, apparently taken during his official registration at university, shows no yarmulka.  (I am not saying he never wore one at the time, it’s just that no yarmulka is visible. It may have been official policy to have no head coverings on registration photographs.) But in a later publication of the same photograph, a large yarmulka is now evident.

A lovely example of censoring gone too far, is a recently published illustrated Mishna, showing a cohen with his hat removed. This was done as part of the lottery process which took place in the Temple.  In the illustration, the cohen has his hat off, but underneath is a yarmalka. In the publisher’s enthusiasm to promote head coverings, an embarrassing oversight was made – namely, that by wearing a yarmulka, that cohen would have been guilty of the capital offense of altering the priestly garb.

THE ACCEPTED HALACHIK PRACTICE TODAY:

Generally, when not specifically in shull, the vast majority of sources do not ascribe any legal obligation to the wearing of a yarmulka other than the fact that is only a minhag chassidut, a pious custom. However, when entering a shull, or when about to say a beracha or study Torah, there may be a rabbinic requirement to wear a head covering[17].

In a question put to Rabbi Moshe Feinstein[18], about whether someone should refuse a job offer in a place where it was policy not to allow head coverings. He responded that since a yarmulke is only a minhag chassidut, he may accept the job and work without a head covering.[19]

An interesting distinction as to whether and when one may use one's own hand as a head covering is as follows:
If the yarmulke falls off in the street and blows away, one may cover the head with one's hand (even though it is not technically a 'covering' as it is a part of the same body), and continue walking.
However, if one is reciting a prayer (which may require a head covering by rabbinic law) and while doing so looses the yarmulke, one's own hand would not suffice.

CONCLUSION:

The Maharshal[20] writes five hundred years ago (as if it were today); “Come and see the hypocrisy of the Ashkenazim. If he is wealthy, he can drink wine in a non-Jewish tavern, eat non-kosher foods, and people will show him respect. But one who keeps kosher and does not wear a head covering is considered as if he has left the fold.”[21]

Notwithstanding all the sources we have looked at, the fact remains that the Yarmulka has become one of the most powerful symbols of religious Jews today.  Why this is so remains a mystery. Was is by design, or did it just evolve so over time? Perhaps it shows our commitment by taking something that is only a pious custom, and elevating it to the level of a non- negotiable.

Whatever the reason, it is a most visible sign to the outside world (although unfortunately not to ourselves, as no one can see his own yarmulka) – yet we need to intentionally become especially conscious of it, so as not to let the rest of our people down by bad behaviour or chillul Hashem. 

On the contrary, a Jew who wears his yarmulka and makes a positive contribution to society, becomes a proud ambassador of our people and makes a kiddush Hashem.  

One thing is certain, no observer sees a yarmulka and walks on by without making a call one way or the other.

---

[1] Shabbat 118b. See also Kidushin 31a.

[2] Shabbat 156b.
There is however, a source in Sofrim 14, where a view is presented requiring one to cover the head whilst reciting G-d's name. Rabbenu Yerucham, one of the leading Rishonim, ruled according to this view. See also Peninei Halacha, Likuttim 1, p. 169. 

[3] Moreh Nevuchim 3,52.

[4] The Zohar also says that a Torah scholar may not walk four cubits without a head covering. Zohar Parshat Pinchas p.245.

[5] Orach Chaim 2,6.

[6] His word choice is significant because in the same sentence, he uses the words ‘asur leylech bekoma zekufa’, it is forbidden to walk with an arrogant posture – and then ‘velo yelech daled amot begiluy harosh’, one should not walk four cubits with an uncovered head, in relation to a head covering. The juxtaposition of both terms shows that the first was meant as law while the second, although laudable, was not.   

[7] Orach Chaim 8,3.

[8] The Taz does preface his comment with ‘venireh li’, it appears to me. But he also says that it may be an ‘issur gammur’, a serious prohibition to go bare headed, under a general Torah prohibition to be separate from idolatrous practices. The Neta Sorek, however, is surprised by the Taz’s ruling and believes he was only referring to a Jew who intentionally removes his head covering when performing a Jewish religious practice, such as davening. He takes this view because he says we have no precedent for a head covering to be a religious requirement as say, tzitzit.

[9] 1571-1648. He wrote a commentary on Ein Yaakov, and sat on the Beit Din of Venice. See the brilliant article; ‘Yarmulke: A Historic Cover-up?’ by Dan Rabinowitz, who points out that at the age of just 13, Rabbi Modena wrote a book against gambling, entitled Sur MeRa, but who ironically became a gambler himself later on in life.

[10] 1663-1711.

[11] See Biur HaGra Orach Chaim 8.6. He does say, however, that a head covering should be worn in the presence of great rabbis, but that even so only as midat chasidut.

[12] 1843-1921. Author of Melamed LeHoil.

[13] See Kotzk Blog 52.

[14] See Melamed LeHoil vol.2, 26.

[15] 1270-1349

[16] Dan Rabinowitz points out that in the Middle Ages, head coverings were elaborate and uncomfortable, as opposed to the smaller yarmulkas of today.

[17] See Rambam, Hilchot Tefillah 5. See also Peninei Halacha, Likkutim 1, p 169, who writes that the source for the rabbinic imperative to cover the head in shul or while reciting prayers, is in Masechet Sofrim 14. A view is brought there that it is forbidden to say Hashem's name without a head covering. Rabbenu Yeruchum, a Rishon, brings this view as Halacha.

[18] Iggrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 4,2.

[19] Rabbi Feinstein explains that although, nowadays, the yarmulke has assumed an ‘obligatory’ status, the threat of financial loss would push aside that status. (Fascinatingly, the threat of financial loss even sometimes can be applied to a Torah obligation, such as Lulav, where one is not required to spend more than one fifth of his wealth on the mitzvah.)

[20] Rabbi Shlomo Luria 1510-1573.

[21] She’elot Uteshuvot 92.

053) Hey, Teacher Leave the Text Alone!

I was taught and I used to teach that Am Yisrael is a monolithic structure - albeit with diverse branches - yet each respectful of the other’s differences, while united with a singular mission. I believed that as long as I kept halacha I could keep my hashkafa, theological approach, and so could you - even if yours differed from mine. And I was taught that Torah-true Judaism had no need for ideological one-upmanship, or for pushing sectarian agendas, as we were all respectfully part of the different ‘tribes’ of Israel. I certainly never believed there could be textual tampering with traditional transcripts, in an attempt to sway one ideology over another.

I was wrong.

Sample of a 'revised'text

Historically, censorship of Jewish texts, was one of the great specialities of the old Catholic Church. Interestingly, even the church had enough respect to refer to those tasked with emending the objectionable texts, as ‘revisers’ instead of ‘censors’.[1] 

This does not mean that Jewish censorship of our own texts never occurred in the past. It certainly did. The Ramo for example, back in the 16^th Century, held what were considered by some to be unconventional views[2], and these were removed from certain later publications.

In our times, however, we are witnessing what is probably the most unprecedented form of textual manipulation by factions of the Torah world itself, against other writings also within the Orthodox community. Usually (if not exclusively) it is directed from the more extreme right towards the moderate right and the centralists. And they often get away with it because religious people generally have more reverence for those on their right, than the right have for them. Surprisingly the extreme left is not the target of such tampering, as it is not perceived as a real and present danger, having long since been written off as a viable alternative for religious Jews.

The expunging and censoring of Torah texts has become widespread and in some circles quite acceptable. Yet, as Rabbi Jeremy Rosen a graduate of Mir Yeshiva,  writes; “The pressure in the ultra-Orthodox world is so great, the fear of being humiliated, marginalized, or even assaulted is so pervasive that few people have the guts to stand up to current convention.”[3]

ARTSCROLL’S CENSORING OF THE RASHBAM:

The ArtScroll series is the indisputable flagship of modern day Torah publications. But, as Rabbi Rosen points out; “...it is known for excluding anyone or any idea that does not conform to ultra-Orthodox norms.” Besides altering some of its translation to the Song of Songs[4], it has also, in a recent publication of its Chumash, removed part of the Rashbam’s commentary to Genesis.  

The award winning scholar and author, Professor Marc Shapiro[5], wrote to ArtScroll who responded that they “...have never deigned to tamper with their sacred texts”. He wrote back and said:

“Here we have an explanation from Rashbam that has been discussed and dealt with by some of the greatest Torah scholars for well over a century, yet ArtScroll feels...it...has the authority to simply delete passages from the commentary....Rashbam’s brother, Rabenu Tam, famously attacked those who deleted or emended passages in the Talmud based on their own understanding. Rabenu Tam realized that if everyone had the freedom to do with the text as he wished, it wouldn’t be long before the Talmud was irrevocably damaged. As such, anyone who has a suggestion about a mistake in the text is free to add it in the form of a note or in a commentary, but he is not permitted to alter the text itself. The only honest thing would have been for ArtScroll to have included the ‘objectionable’ passages and then explain why they feel these texts are not authentic.”[6]

Rabbi Rosen concludes that this is not just petty academic infighting, but is “...an example of the serious battle for the integrity of the Torah”, and serves to “preserve intellectually honest Judaism for the Orthodox community.”

CENSORING RABBI DAVID ZVI HOFFMANN:

Rabbi David Zvi Hoffman was a leading halachic authority in Germany, about a hundred years ago. His Responsa entitled Melamed LeHo’il, although republished a number of times, was always offset from an original copy. This meant that any tampering with the text could be easily picked up.  In one publication, there was a rather suspicious blank space where it was quite evident that something was missing. 

The obviously censored section contained a memoir of how as a young man, Rabbi Hoffmann went to work at the school of Rabbi Shimshon Refael Hirsch, and recalls how the students sat without head coverings during secular studies, and only donned them during their Torah classes. He used this, in answering a question put to him, as an illustration to permit a Jew to take an oath in a non-Jewish court, if the judge would not allow him to cover his head.

This piece of information, although historically true, was deemed too sensitive for readers, and was therefore simply and dishonestly omitted.[7]

EXPURGATION OF TORAH DATABASES:

Thanks to the information age, today we can find on the internet, almost any Torah sefer we may need. Take Otzar HaHochma for example. They have over 47 000 books available in their database. Then, for a cheaper rate, they offer what’s called the Bnei Torah edition, with about 2 000 less books. We must remember that these 2000 odd books that have been removed, are also seforim written by Torah scholars. They are not anti-Orthodox seforim. Although the database is being transparent, the message it sends out is that any traditionally Orthodox Torah view that is not in line with certain modes of contemporary right wing religious thinking, is not considered to be part of the Bnei Torah camp.  Furthermore, it wrongly implies that this type of exclusive thinking was always the only way of Torah thinking.

In the magnificent Hebrewbooks database, which is funded by donations, some Torah literature was uploaded only to be removed at a later stage, without any reasons being offered as to why those books are no longer there.

CENSORING IRVING BUNIM ON PIRKEI AVOT:

Irving Bunim[8] , an assistant to Rabbi Ahron Kotler, wrote a well known three-volumed commentary on Pirkei Avot.  I purchased my original copy of this work many years ago from a reputable Torah bookstore, after seeing it on the bookshelf of my teacher’s library.  The latest version, however, has some sections completely removed. Some of these contain references to Shakespeare. Not being particularly partial to Shakespeare myself, it is still disconcerting to see that texts that were once considered inoffensive, have now been tampered with, because suddenly they have become offensive.  This creates a new and unnecessary polarization and distortion of Torah thought.

Rabbi Kamenetzky's book

CENSORING RABBI NOSSON KAMENETZKY:

At the beginning of this century, Rabbi Nosson Kamenetzky published a well researched book that was fifteen years in the making, about the great rabbis of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, entitled ‘Making of a Gadol’.  Soon thereafter it was banned by some leading chareidi rabbis. The book contained accurate historical insights into the lives of some of our Torah giants, sometimes even showing their human sides. He also wrote, for example, that his father, Rabbi Ya’akov Kamenetzky, had a love for foreign languages, something considered too secular for such a great man.  Such ‘discrepancies’ caused Rav Elyashiv and nine other rabbis to ban this book. Interestingly, Rabbi Kamenetzky noted that of the ten rabbis, only one of them could read English. Then again in 2005, Rabbi Kamenetzky tried to re-publish an ‘improved’ edition which met with the same fate and was also banned. Rabbi Kamenetzky said that he originally wrote the book because he; “did not want their unique world to be lost to oblivion.”[9]

CENSORING RABBI JOSEPH B. SOLOVEITCHIK:

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik[10] expounded some of his views in his classic work Hamesh Derashot. This led Rabbi Eleazar Shach[11] , a leading ideologue of the Lithuanian chareidi world, to forbid reading his work, because it was ‘mamash divrei kefirah’, really words of heresy[12].

THE BANNING OF RABBI ADIN STEINSALTZ’S BOOKS:

The ban.

In 1989, Rabbi Eleazar Shach and others, banned three works by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, who besides his acclaim in the mainstream Torah world, was also hailed by Time magazine as a ‘once-in-a-millennium scholar’.

These books were said to be kefira, heresy, and not fit to be brought into a Jewish home. In one ruling, R. Steinsaltz himself is classified as a heretic[13].

CENSORSHIP OF RAV AVRAHAM YITZCHAK KOOK:

By all accounts, Rav Kook, the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, was an extraordinary individual, although some may have felt that he held radical views. He supported secular education, was positive towards both non-religious Jews as well as non-Jews, and he even encouraged sport.  Some of his views have been surprisingly and intentionally obscured by followers of his son, Rav Tvi Yehudah Kook.[14]  By comparing the original manuscripts with the printed version, it is apparent that much has been censored.[15] 

Sometimes the censorship is so dramatic that a completely different view is presented. This is even more outrageous than censorship, as it is clearly fraudulent.

A shocking example of unabashed manipulation occurs when Rav Kook writes about the significance of a beard. In the uncensored version, he says that the reasons for the mitzvot, should change with every new generation. Modern generations require modern reasons. The beard was originally a sign of freedom in the generation of the Exodus from Egypt, where Jewish slaves were not allowed to grow beards. But today, thousands of years later, modern man regards a clean shaven face as a sign of dignity. However, in the ‘new’ version, it says that it is good to have a beard because it connects us back to earlier times when beards had great significance. 

Whatever position one takes on the beard is immaterial, because the issue at hand is the authenticity of Rav Kook’s recorded writings. 

And in the uncensored version there is a small paragraph which says that the rabbis of the Talmud knew that a time would come when beards would no longer be the vogue, hence they found leniencies to use a scissors to cut a beard.  This information is omitted in the ‘new’ edition.

Here is another example of his thinking that has been censored: “There are people who think that a person can only have perfect faith in Moses’ true Torah so long as one also believes that other faiths are all false and foolish...But it is not true...This... sometimes strengthens Jewish faith in the hearts of fools, for they cannot understand the lofty value and the holiness of our Torah without thinking of other faiths as mistaken and completely useless.”

This teaching does not appear in the censored edition.

Regarding the distancing that is required between Jew and non-Jew, Rav Kook writes; “...the distancing, that is appropriate for every Jew... to distance himself from...the ways of other religions, should always be weighed in the same way as the chaste distancing from his fellow’s wife, which shouldn't come from...meanness, rather from the purity of the soul.” In other words, Jews should realize that non-Jewish religions are like ‘their (the non-Jew’s) wives’, and are important relationships that Jews should respect and not disturb or ridicule.[16]

This too does not appear in the censored edition. 

     

It should also be pointed out that many books that originally carried approbations from Rav Kook, have had them removed from subsequent publications. 

One such example is the Pardes Yosef commentary to the Torah, by Rabbi Yosef Pazanavski. He was certainly happy to have Rav Kook give his approbation as he prefaced it with a reference to Rav Kook as ‘the true Gaon.’ Since its publication in 1931, it has been re-published three times by photo-mechanical means. It is thus easy to see the blank spaces where Rav Kook’s approbations were removed.

'RECALLING' OF A MESORAH PUBLICATIONS BOOK:

Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein, author of the famed Torah Temima commentary, also wrote Mekor Baruch, which contained insights into the life of the Netziv[17]. Part of this work was translated into English by Rabbi Moshe Dombey, and in 1988, ArtScroll printed his book, entitled ‘My Uncle the Netziv’, edited by Rabbis Scherman and Zlotowitz. It contained an approbation by Rabbi Nachman Bulman, and received wide acclaim in the Torah world.

The book was then used as part of a fund-raising programme by the Lakewood Cheder School. Soon afterwards, however, the school’s Executive Director wrote to all those who had received the book: “Upon consultation with Gedolei Torah, we recommend that the book not be read. It you wish, the Cheder will reimburse you for any donation you may have sent. Mesorah Publications joins us in sincerely apologizing for this error...”[18]

What was it that the anonymous ‘Gedolei Torah’ objected to, in the writing of the author of the Torah Temimah? Some say it may have been this sentence; “...my uncle’s habit of reading the weekly newspaper even on Shabbat and discussing current events at the Shabbat table...” Or perhaps the mentioning that the Netziv had secular books in his library. Or possibly the recollection that his uncle once mentioned that had the Rambam studied with a community of scholars instead of by himself, then he would not have made some of the (alleged) errors in his Mishna Torah. Or (as actually mentioned in the letter) the objection to the suggestion that at some time the Netziv did permit secular studies in his Volozhin Yeshiva, to prevent the government from closing it down. The counter claim was that the Netziv would have rather closed the yeshiva, than introduce secular studies.

Whatever the truth was, the views and recollections of Rabbi Baruch Epstein were declared too radical for public consumption, and even the publishing house offered its apology.

A new Chumash?

CENSORING OF THE TORAH ITSELF?:

The Skvere Hasidim have now published a censored Chumash for girls. It removes sections that deal with ‘immodesty’, such as the story Adam and Eve, Yehudah and Tamar, and Yosef and Potiphar’s wife. 

Some defend the emended edition, saying it is only a school ‘workbook’ for a girl’s school, but if you see the actual copy it really is presented as a Chumash.

I stress again that that we may all have different reactions to some of the censored content in the above examples. And so we should. But our emotional responses are absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the truthful portrayal of what an author wrote. We read their teachings because we are thirsty for their ideas. If we have our own ideas, we can write about them ourselves. What we dare not do is write our ideas into theirs, no matter which rabbis we follow. This is not only dishonest, it is criminal.

The sad irony is that it is usually those who purport to dedicate their days and nights to the study of the Torah, who seem to be the most afraid of it.

---

[1] See Censorship of Hebrew Books – JewishEncyclopedia.com
[2] He permitted business partnerships with non-Jews and the drinking of their wine because they were no longer considered to be like the pagans of old.

[3] See his article; Marc Shapiro and Confronting the Ultra-Orthodox, published in the Algemeiner Journal, March 15 2015.

[4] For example ‘bnot Yerushalayim’ (daughters of Jerusalem), becomes; ‘Nations destined to ascend to Jerusalem’.

[5] Marc Shapiro received his Ph.D from R. Soloveitchik’ s son-in-law Professor Isadore Twersky of Harvard. He is the author of Changing the Immutable.

[6] See note 3 above.

[7] I was delighted to read, as Rabbi Gill Student points out, that R. Hoffmann’s great-grandson (going by the same name, R. David Zvi), recently published a new edition with the original ‘offensive’ text back where it belongs, and makes a note to that effect in the table of contents.

[8] 1901-1980.

[9] When asked from whence does this blind obedience to rabbis in the Lithuanian world come from, R. Kamenetzky said; “You’d be surprised to hear that Hitler, may his name be erased, is responsible for this. Most of the Jews who survived the Holocaust were from Hasidic areas, and this was their approach. If there is a change in the upbringing of the Lithuanian Jews of today, it is this, that we teach them to be Hasidim of the Lithuanian Rabbis – that is my opinion. I, in any case was not raised this way. I was raised in the best Lithuanian fashion. Healthy scepticism, respect for wisdom....But that was my problem – I wrote from that perspective.”

[10] 1903-1993.

[11] 1898- 2001.

[12] See Michtavim uMa’amarim, Bnei Brak, 1990.

[13] Michtavim uMa’amarim, vol 4, p 65-67.

[14] See Lovers of Humanity, Rav Kook, Christianity,and the Ongoing Censorship of His Writings by Aryeh Sklar in Kol HaMevaser.

[15] See Profesor Marc Shapiro on SeforimBlog.

[16] See Kol HaMevaser above.

[17] R. Naftali Tvi Yehudah Berlin 1816-1893, head of Volozhin Yeshiva.

[18] See The Torah Umadah Journal, Dr. Jacob J Schacter; Haskalah, Secular Studies and the Close of the Yeshiva in Volozhin in 1892.

UPDATE 29 July 2015
See Emes Ve-Emunah by Rabbi Harry Maryles

The phenomenon of putting ideals ahead of the truth is not a new one. It was articulated by Rav Shimon Schwab; accepted and perpetuated by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, publisher of Mesorah Publications (ArtScroll). Here is what R’ Schwab said - as quoted by Ezra Glinter in a  Forward review of Professor Marc Shapiro's new book, Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History :

Shimon Schwab, a prominent 20th-century German Jewish rabbi who argued that “a realistic historic picture” is good for “nothing but the satisfaction of curiosity.” Rather, he claimed, “every generation has to put a veil over the human failings of its elders and glorify all the rest which is great and beautiful.” If that means doing without factually accurate knowledge, he continued, “We can do without.”

Professor Marc Shapiro has gone to great lengths to uncover and publish these truths which have been omitted by the right for purposes of furthering their agenda.  He has in fact written a few books demonstrating how agendas have caused lies of omission to be promoted as truth. Even in a book as sacred as R’ Yosef Karo’s Shulchan Aruch: 

In discussing the pre-Yom Kippur ritual of kaparot , in which one’s sins are symbolically transferred to a chicken, Karo refers to the practice as a “foolish custom.” (Other authorities went further, calling it a pagan practice.) Although that comment appeared in the first 18 printings of the work, it disappeared in the 18th century and is still generally omitted — a decision based on the fact that kaparot is now a normative Jewish observance.  

Lying by omission was clearly intended to forward an agenda. One that strives to defend a practice now observed by many –mostly Chasidic Jews. One which was clearly labeled by the Shulchan Aruch as foolish at the minimum. 

“If Karo is not safe from censorship,” Shapiro writes, ”I daresay that no text is safe.” 

  

---

---