The Boldness of a Halakhist: An Analysis of the Writings of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein’s "The Arukh Hashulhan" 9781618111142

Citation preview

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST An Analysis of the Writings of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein The Arukh Hashulhan

JUDAISM AND JEWISH LIFE Editorial board Geoffrey Alderman (University of Buckingham, Great Britain) Herbert Basser (Queens University, Canada) Donatella Ester Di Cesare (Università “La Sapienza,” Italy) Roberta Rosenberg Farber (Yeshiva University, New York), Series Editor Associate Simcha Fishbane (Touro College, New York), Series Editor Meir Bar Ilan (Bar Ilan University, Israel) Andreas Nachama (Touro College, Berlin) Ira Robinson (Concordia University, Montreal) Nissan Rubin (Bar Ilan University, Israel) Susan Starr Sered (Suffolk University, Boston) Reeva Spector Simon (Yeshiva University, New York)

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST An Analysis of the Writings of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein The Arukh Hashulhan SIMCHA FISHBANE A collection of social-anthropological essays

Boston 2009

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Fishbane, Simcha The boldness of a halakhist : an analysis of the writings of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein the Arukh Hashulhan : a collection of social-anthropological essays / Simcha Fishbane. p. cm.—(Judaism and Jewish life) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-934843-03-1 1. Epstein, Yechiel Mechel Halevi, 1829–1908—Teachings. 2. Jewish law. I. Title. BM755.E76F57 2008 296.1’8092—dc22 2008006146

Copyright © 2008 Academic Studies Press All rights reserved Book design by Yuri Alexandrov Published by Academic Studies Press in 2008 28 Montfern Avenue Brighton, MA 02135, USA [email protected] www.academicstudiespress.com

Dedicated to the memory of

TAMARA ERLICH ‫זכרונה לברכה‬ by her family and three children

CHANA, AVRAHAM, AND RIVKA

Contents

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Introduction by Ira Robinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

1. Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein: His Life and Works . . . . . . . . 1 2. “Long Live the Tsar”: Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein and the Russian Political System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3. “Today Not Yesteryear”: Rabbi Y.M. Epstein’s Adjudicative Process as Expressed in the Arukh Hashulhan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4. “In Any Case There Are No Sinful Thoughts”: The Role and Status of Women in Jewish Law as Expressed in the Arukh Hashulhan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5. The Courage of a Religious Adjudicator: Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein and Modernity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

6. “Mercy is Vouchsafed From Heaven”: Halakhah’s Response to Violence as Expressed in the Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim—Sections 560 and 576–8 . . . . . 89

7. “Secular Studies are the Supplement of Torah Studies”: Kol Ben Levi—The Homilies of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein—The First Sermon . . . . . . . . . . . 109

8. Recurrent Themes in the Homilies of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

9. Social Reality or the Written Word: Minhag as Expressed in the Arukh Hashulhan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Appendix: A Graphologist’s Report by Graphologist Batya Cohen . . . . . . . . . 165 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Preface Following the completion of my book, The Method and Meaning of the Mishnah Berurah, a study of Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen Kagan’s of Radin (The Hafetz Hayyim, 1838–1933) Mishnah Berurah, I decided to examine the work of another leading halakhic rabbinical authority of nineteenthcentury Eastern Europe, the Arukh Hashulhan. This compendium of Jewish law was written by Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein (1829–1908) while serving as Rabbi of Novogrudok, Russia. An examination and analysis of his code of laws was accompanied by research into available biographical, oral and written data and sources. In Chapter 1, a short biography of Rabbi Epstein is followed by a discussion of his writings. An introductory essay in Chapter 2 serves to acquaint the reader with Rabbi Epstein’s worldview, including his attitude toward the Russian government during the second half of the nineteenth century, and includes a translation of the preface to the Arukh Hashulhan entitled “Kvod Hamelekh.” Chapter 3 contains an essay devoted to Rabbi Epstein’s innovative and scholarly approach to Jewish law. Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 9 deal with additional topics from the Arukh Hashulhan such as women, modernity, violence and custom. In 1991 I had the privilege of discovering and publishing missing sections from the Arukh Hashulhan. During a stay in Israel, I contacted Dr. Meir Bar Ilan, the great-grandson of Rabbi Epstein. Even though he was departing the following day for a year-long sabbatical in the U.S., he was kind enough to bring me to his parents’ house to examine the documents of Rabbi Epstein they still possessed. It was there that I found two handwritten workbooks from the pen of Rabbi Epstein. The first was a volume of Rabbi Epstein’s Arukh Hashulhan Leatid published by the Mosad Harav Kook. Though the second workbook was lacking a cover page, after close examination I was able to identify it as the missing section from Arukh Hashulhan on Yoreh Deah concerned with the laws of vows. The family generously allowed me to photocopy this material, and granted permission for publication. An analysis of this section of the volume, concerning ritual customs, forms Chapter 9 of my study. After receiving the manuscript from Meir, I contacted his brother, Rabbi Naftali Berlin and his scholarly son Shaul. They gave me free access to a collection of Rabbi Epstein’s homilies which they owned, as ix

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

well as permission to publish it. A comparison of this manuscript with other documents from the hand of Rabbi Epstein thus ascertained that he was indeed the author. An analysis of these homilies is included in this volume in two essays in Chapters 7 and 8. During the course of my research I encountered a professional graphologist, Ms. Batya Cohen, and gave her for examination one randomly chosen photocopied page of the manuscript in Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein’s handwriting. She had no prior information regarding the author or the time and place of writing; having no background in rabbinic literature, she was not familiar with the genre of halakhah. Her results are presented in Appendix. Additional research was conducted in the archives of Hebrew University and Shoken Library, both in Jerusalem, Most of these documents have only been recently published by Rabbi Horovitz in a volume entitled Kitvei HaArukh Hashulhan, and the author acknowledges my contribution. An important aspect of my methodological approach to the analysis of the writings of Rabbi Epstein is that of comparison, whenever possible, of the Arukh Hashulhan to Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah. Both Rabbis were prominent leaders and adjudicators of Jewish law. They lived in the same geographical area. Rabbi Kagan served as a head of the Rabbinical Academy in Radin, while Rabbi Epstein was a pulpit Rabbi and Rabbinical judge in Navordock. A comparative contrast of the two legal decision-makers reveals an ideological approach to Jewish law, and therefore to Jewish life. The Hafetz Hayyim viewed the law through the lens of earlier rabbinic authorities. Even when using the terminology “in our times,” he would generally quote an earlier source from generations past. Rabbi Epstein, clearly, was looking out the window. His consideration was the reality of his time, not of the past. These different approaches highlighted an additional difference between the two Rabbis. Rabbi Kagan is stringent in his rulings, while Rabbi Epstein is considered to be a lenient adjudicator. Moreover, in analyzing Rabbi Epstein’s writings my theoretical framework was anthropological, focusing on the theories of Emile Durkheim and Mary Douglas to understand the hierarchal and legal cosmology of the society of interest to Rabbi Epstein. In studying Jewish ritual of concern to Rabbi Epstein, the works of Fred Bird and Catherine Bell on ritual studies have served as guidelines. During the preparation of the various essays in this collection a number of scholars and friends have been of great assistance. They were always there to listen, encourage and help, sharing their knowledge and x

PREFACE

assisting in the analysis of each topic under investigation. I am most grateful to Professor Herb Basser of Queens University, Canada, Professor Ira Robinson of Concordia University, Canada, Professor Elazar Hurvitz of Yeshiva University, New York, Professor Meir Bar Ilan and Professor Nisan Rubin of Bar Ilan University, Israel, and especially Dr. Lynn Visson of Hippocrene Books. Professor Ira Robinson, an outstanding scholar of Jewish studies, graciously agreed to write the introduction to this book. I thank him and am honored that he accepted this task. Many of these essays were prepared while serving as executive assistant to the President of Touro College, Dr. Bernard Lander. I thank Dr. Lander for his assistance and moral support that allowed me to pursue my research and writings. Special thanks go to Ms. Miriam Gutherc for her editorial assistance in preparing this document. Lastly, I wish to thank my brother Rabbi Zvi Fishbane both for his valuable work on the homilies and for his unfailing willingness to discuss the writings of Rabbi Epstein. On a personal level, my special gratitude goes to my wife JoAnn, whose help through her patience, support, encouragement and editorial assistance has been beyond words. Parts of this book were originally published in “Judaism,” “Proceedings of the World Jewish Congress,” “The Annual of Rabbinic Judaism” and “The Interaction of Scientific and Jewish Cultures in Modern Times.” I am grateful to the editors of all these publications for their permission to use the material. I would also like to offer specials thank the Moscow Center for University Teaching of Jewish Civilization, “Sefer,” for the opportunity of presenting many of these essays at its annual International Interdisciplinary Conference on Jewish Studies in Moscow, and for having published these presentations in their proceedings. Lastly I am grateful to Academic Studies Press for believing in and supporting the publishing of my work.

Introduction by Ira Robinson Like Islam, and unlike Christianity, Judaism, as a religion, has historically placed relatively more emphasis on actions than on faith. Any understanding of Judaism as it has historically developed, therefore, must encompass its legal system, called halakhah [“the way”] through which the laws and norms by which Jews have lived their lives are expressed (Elon, Tchernovitz). Even in modern times, when the majority of Jews no longer live their lives in strict conformity with the dictates of halakhah, a comprehensive understanding of Judaism requires any investigator to take into account the myriad ways in which halakhah has influenced the ways in which Jews of all varieties have understood themselves (Katz). Nonetheless, as Gerald Blidstein has pointed out, “the academic study of halakhic thought in general” remains in an “uncultivated state” (Blidstein, 64). Prominent among the neglected areas in the study of modern Judaism are the popular halakhic codes. In any attempt to understand halakhah and its role in Jewish history, one of the most important, though relatively underutilized, bodies of literary evidence to be consulted consists of halakhic codes (Elon). The process of codification of the vast corpus of rabbinic halakhah was the task of generations of medieval Jews, beginning in the geonic period. The major codes, beginning with that of Isaac Alfasi in the eleventh century, and ending with Joseph Caro’s Shulhan Arukh in the sixteenth century have become standard elements of rabbinic education (Twersky). They have, however, not yet become an integral past of the consciousness of historians of the Jews and Judaism, certainly as compared to the responsa literature (Haas; Soloveitchik 1990; Soloveitchik 1999). One reason for this state of affairs is that responsa seem to be much closer to life “as it was lived” than codes, and thus seem to be easier of access, and more relevant as historical documents than codes. Though it is indeed true that codes tend to describe ideal rather than actual behavior, it is equally true that the very act of expressing an ideal in the form of a constitution or a code of laws is in itself a significant factor in understanding any society (Elazar, Brown and Robinson 1985). Of all the attempts at codification of halakhah, the most generally accepted by Jews in the past several centuries has been Rabbi Joseph Caro’s sixteenth century work, Shulhan Arukh, which deserves much more scholarly attention than it has up to now received, particularly with xiii

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

respect to its use in the nineteenth century polemic between Orthodoxy and Reform (Twersky). Even less well studied, but nonetheless quite significant for an understanding of the social dynamic of Jewish communities are the numerous attempts, after the general acceptance of the Shulhan Arukh, to distill the halakhah in a form which could be approached and assimilated by Jews without advanced rabbinic training for the purpose of personal guidance and study (Elon, 1207–1208). The early and midnineteenth centuries saw two significant attempts in this genre which achieved considerable popularity and readership. Thus Rabbi Abraham Danzig (1748–1820) wrote his Hayyei Adam (Vilna, 1810), and Hokhmat Adam (Vilna, 1812) for just such a purpose. A similar attempt was that of Solomon Ganzfried (1804–1886), who published his Kitzur Shulhan Arukh in 1864 (Friedman). Nonetheless, it is generally accepted that the greatest and most influential attempts to create a cogent and accessible halakhah in the modern period are Mishnah Berurah [A Clear Teaching],1 a commentary on Shulhan Arukh by Rabbi Israel Meir ha-Kohen Kagan (1838–1933),2 and Arukh Hashulhan, by Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein, the subject of the present book. However, despite these works’ prominence, and their significant influence on contemporary Orthodox Judaism, their intellectual origins have hitherto not been dealt with sufficiently. It is therefore of great importance that Simcha Fishbane, after devoting serious work to Mishnah Berurah earlier in his career, has devoted intensive study to the Arukh Hashulhan. In his analysis of Rabbi Epstein’s halakhic magnum opus, Fishbane rightly devotes much effort to comparing Arukh Hashulhan and Mishnah Berurah in terms of their respective halakhic methodologies, and responses to the needs of the Jewish community in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. While I am unable to add to Fishbane’s most useful social anthropological analysis of Rabbi Epstein, I would like to add, in the spirit of Fishbane’s work, some additional perspective on Rabbi Kagan. It is my contention that situating the intellectual origins of Mishnah Berurah becomes much easier and clearer after a close examination of two halakhic works written by Rabbi Kagan which have achieved less lasting prominence, but which chronologically immediately preceded 1

2

xiv

It was originally published in six volumes between the years 1883 and 1907. On the character and significance of this work, see Fishbane 1991. Fishbane has concentrated his study, which was originally a Concordia University doctoral dissertation, on the rhetoric of Mishnah Berurah. Rabbi Kagan has not to date been well served by his biographers, whose work has tended toward hagiography. See Yoshor, Eckman. Cf. also Robinson 1985.

INTRODUCTION BY IRA ROBINSON

the composition of his Mishnah Berurah. They are his Mahane Yisrael [The Camp of Israel] (1881),3 and Nidhe Yisrael [The Dispersed of Israel] (1893).4 These two works were not addressed by Rabbi Kagan to all faithful Jews, as was Mishnah Berurah. They were rather targeted at two groups of “anomalous” Jews: those who found themselves drafted into the Russian Army, and Jewish emigrants from Russia to America and other far off lands, respectively. In attempting to address the halakhic situation of these two groups of Jews, whose situation was common insofar as both groups found themselves separated from Jewish communities with established rabbinic leadership, Rabbi Kagan found that he had to address numerous complex legal issues with a simplicity and clarity which would become the hallmark of his later, more comprehensive halakhic work. Rabbi Kagan, like Rabbi Epstein, wrote these two halakhic works in the context of a Russian Jewry caught up in the throes of modernization (Stanislawski 1988a; Zipperstein). Later than in Western Europe, but for many of the same reasons, Russian Jews in the latter part of the nineteenth century found themselves facing two powerful forces: a government which had ceased supporting the traditional autonomous Jewish communal structure and its halakhic basis, and a rejection, in part or in whole, on the part of many Jews, of the traditional Jewish lifestyle and its halakhic basis, in favor of various (and sometimes conflicting) modes of westernization. The result was that those Jews who, like Rabbis Kagan and Epstein, supported the traditional Jewish communal structure and lifestyle, often felt themselves literally besieged. Torah, a term which symbolized all that was sacred and precious to them in their culture and lifestyle, had become weakened, even, as Rabbi Kagan stated, “to certain people who are in their own home” (Kagan 1943, 7). How much more so was Torah in trouble among those whom force and circumstance had severed from their home moorings. Therefore, as Eliezer Schweid comments, Rabbi Kagan felt he needed to erect “an embankment and wall in order to prevent [Torah’s] collapse, or at least to delay it . . . Every moment of postponement [was] precious for at any moment, he was convinced, salvation will arrive from the heavens and the community will be firmly established” (Schweid, 14). 3

4

It was also published under the name Mahane Yehuda (Vilna: Mats, 1881). This paper utilizes Kagan 1943. This paper utilizes Kagan 1893. There is an English translation, entitled The Dispersed of Israel (New York: Aaron Kagan, 1951) as well as a French translation Nid’hei Israel (France: ADET, 1994). All translations found in this article, however, are mine. xv

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

As part of its program to deal with the problem it perceived in its Jewish community, the Russian government had, in the nineteenth century, embarked on a policy of drafting Jews into its army, initially with clearly assimilationist and conversionist motives (Stanislawski 1983, 13ff.). Though by the latter part of the nineteenth century the conversionist motive of the Russian government was less prominent, and Jewish soldiers were, at least in some times and places, given some facilities for observing their faith,5 it was still clear that a significant number of young Russian Jews had been, and would be taken from their homes and thrown into a milieu which militated against their observance of Jewish law and tradition. As well, partially as a result of Russian governmental policies which discriminated against Jews, and partly due to the extraordinary economic opportunity which existed in other countries, Jews in the Russian Empire as well as the other Eastern European countries were driven to emigrate in huge numbers in the four decades prior to the First World War.6 Those Jews who left their established communities for either cause were by no means the best equipped to deal with the challenges to their faith and way of life inherent in their new surroundings. Moreover, they faced their legal and moral dilemmas with little or no rabbinic guidance. It was a situation which seemed to Rabbi Kagan fraught with danger to the continuity of Judaism as traditionally understood. His response was to create an halakhic guide that was accessible and authoritative; that would answer burning questions and restore faith. The results of his work were Mahane Yisrael and Nidhe Yisrael. While it is true that the situation of Jewish soldiers in the Russian army and Jewish emigrants to exotic locales was not exactly the same, it was sufficiently so that Rabbi Kagan was able to recycle a large amount of material from Mahane Yisrael in Nidhe Yisrael.7 We may therefore examine the two works in tandem. The basic premise that both works share is that contemporary Jews were facing an unprecedented challenge to the basic structure of Judaism as it had been known and practiced in Eastern Europe because of the removal of large numbers of Jews from their previous communal moorings. 5

6

7

xvi

Stanislawski 1988b. It should be noted that Rabbi Kagan in Mahane Yisrael throughout assumes that Judaic observance in the Russian army may be difficult, but far from impossible. On the nature of this immigration, and particularly the religious context, see Gartner, 25–43. Gartner discusses Nidhe Yisrael on pp. 33–34. Cf. also Sarna 1981. Rabbi Kagan acknowledges this in his introduction to Kagan 1893, p. 11.

INTRODUCTION BY IRA ROBINSON

Soldiers were being stationed away from established Jewish communities8 (Kagan 1943, 7, 183), while large numbers of Jewish emigrants were settling in “far off America” (Kagan 1943, 7), Africa, Argentina, and other lands having no established Jewish community.9 In analyzing this phenomenon, Rabbi Kagan, though he was no sociologist, had a firm grasp of the influence of peer pressure causing the decline of Torah in his world. He correctly pointed out that in previous generations, when he considered religious observance in the community as a whole to have been at a high level, it was even difficult for those Jews who had “corrupted hearts” to defy such basic things as the Sabbath laws in public (Kagan 1893, 36–37). He was equally correct in his observation that in the present day Jews were not being forced to abandon their Torah by cruel taskmasters (Kagan 1893, 8). The Jews were instead being mocked and shamed (Kagan 1893, 88) into non-observance of Torah norms, mainly by other Jews (Kagan 1943, 40–41, 226, 273). Under such conditions, only specially motivated “God-fearing” Jews could resist the pressure and remain true to their traditional lifestyle (Kagan 1893, 288; Robinson 1985). This situation was exacerbated by a moral breakdown among the Jews. Rabbi Kagan meant this, first of all, in a very literal sense. Jewish young men away from home and its influences and restraints were, he felt, naturally subject to temptations of a sexual nature. At home, as Rabbi Kagan put it, “there is no need of much moral exhortation [musar]” to avoid sexual transgression (Kagan 1943, 120). But given the conditions surrounding Jewish recruits into the Russian army, Rabbi Kagan was of the opinion that they would be better off married before they joined the army because “his [evil] inclination will not dominate him so much [if] he has one [in relation to] whom to be ashamed” (Kagan 1943, 180). Rabbi Kagan thus chose in his moral exhortation to emphasize the factors which would connect those “disconnected” Jews to the established Jewish communities they had left. However, even in these communities, walls that had long kept ordinary Jews within the parameters of tradition had been breached. In particular, Rabbi Kagan pointed to factories as institutions in which the sexual mores which had traditionally kept Jewish men and women apart had broken down. For Rabbi Kagan, the mingling of the sexes in these factories had led to sexual promiscuity, to couples 8

9

There is a clear implication that even should the soldiers desire it, contact and aid from established Jewish communities would be at times difficult to establish. Kagan 1893, p. 21 speaks of “the ends of the earth.” Cf. also pp. 5, 7, 13. xvii

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

living together unmarried and, ultimately, even to infanticide (Kagan 1943, 130, 148). The collapse of the traditional structure of Jewish marriage also led to a growing, and disturbing, phenomenon of intermarriage (Kagan 1943, 152). Even for those individuals who retained their faith in God and His Torah, and who had thus not as yet progressed so far as these dissolute Jews in their moral decline, there was, for Rabbi Kagan, evidence of a widespread halakhic laxity.10 In Rabbi Kagan’s depiction, this laxity stemmed from several sources. Jews entering a new and strange environment naturally desired to establish a closer relationship with the people of their new country, especially since so many of them made their living peddling goods from door to door (Kagan 1893, 6). This meant that many of them might feel embarrassment at performing Judaic rituals, such as wearing their tefillin, in non-Jewish homes (Kagan 1893, 54, 57). This did not mean that such people had completely left the fold. On the contrary, Rabbi Kagan expected that there would be some residual fulfillment of the commandments of the Torah in the immigrant generation (Kagan 1893, 79). Despite this residual observance, however, the children of this generation of immigrant Jews would not adhere to even this level of residual observance (Kagan 1893, 8, 79). That is because succeeding generations of Jews in far off lands harbored a new attitude toward the fulfillment of the Torah’s commandments. Some would feel that the fulfillment of the commandment of giving charity enabled them to ignore the rest (Kagan 1893, 9). Others felt, in a similar way, that the commandment to make the Torah beautiful, fulfilled by actions such as building ornate synagogues, obviated other forms of observance (Kagan 1893, 29). Still others would not entertain the idea that the system of halakhic commandments was absolutely binding upon them because God had so ordained. Rather they took the view that the commandments were either simply an essentially voluntary Jewish custom, or else understood them as rabbinically-imposed stringencies which could be ignored if there was a need to do so (Kagan 1893, 10, 170–171). As Rabbi Kagan pointed out, this was particularly true in the case of women’s obligation to immerse themselves in a mikveh, which was being nearly universally ignored.11 10

11

xviii

Kagan 1893, 26. For a description of the sort of compromises referred to, see Morawska. Kagan 1893, 256, 258. On this issue as discussed by a North American Orthodox rabbi, see Rosenberg.

INTRODUCTION BY IRA ROBINSON

Another reason for Rabbi Kagan’s fear for the future of the Jewish emigrants was that he discerned major and fundamental changes in the traditional pattern of Jewish education in these far off communities (Kagan 1893, 108). These changes meant that, at best, boys would advance in their Jewish education only to the study of the Pentateuch, with no serious study of rabbinic texts (Kagan 1893, 102). At worst, the Jewish education received by the younger generation would not even advance to the level of reading the Bible, but rather contented itself with mastering the skill of reading the prayer book, and hearing Bible stories (Kagan 1893, 106, 119). Even worse, this sort of Jewish education was considered far inferior by both parents and children to the mastery of secular studies in general schools, which involved as a corollary friendships with gentile children.12 What solution, if any, did Rabbi Kagan offer his readers? While his call to his readers to either not emigrate to these places, or, if already emigrated, to attempt to return home to Eastern Europe are the best known of his statements on the subject (Kagan 1893, 288, 290; Gartner), they are far from the sum total of his suggestions. First of all, he called for a renewed, vigorous rabbinical leadership for these communities. In an “open rebuke” [tokheha megula] he challenged the Jewish communities of the far off lands to appoint qualified rabbis to leadership posts, and not merely cantors and ritual slaughterers as hitherto (Kagan 1893, 121, 167–168). Secondly, he called for the establishment of new Jewish schools [Talmud Torah], which would enable their students to study rabbinic texts (Kagan 1893, 119). Finally, and most fundamentally, he offered his books. They offered their readers, whether in Hebrew or Yiddish, access to both moral exhortation and relevant halakhic knowledge in a format which was designed to be both authoritative and accessible. Most importantly, it is clear that Rabbi Kagan had written both Mahane Yisrael and Nidhe Yisrael because he had been convinced that the Jews whose difficulties he was describing were not going to find the help they required in the halakhic sources hitherto available. For Eastern European Jews of this era, the halakhic code which was most authoritative was Rabbi Joseph Caro’s sixteenth century Shulhan Arukh as emended for Ashkenazic Jews by Rabbi Moses Isserles and interpreted by generations of learned commentators. However, as Rabbi 12

Kagan 1893, 261. On this issue as reported by an Eastern European immigrant to Canada, see Robinson 2004. xix

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Kagan baldly stated, it was not practical for the average Jew to use it as a guide to halakhic observance. As he stated in Mahane Yisrael, “For it[s utilisation] one needs great investigation [skills] to examine the sources of the law and the [opinions of the] latter[-day halakhic authorities].” “That is why,” he went on, “I found myself obliged to arrange the laws from scholars and books” (Kagan 1943, 8), especially in matters of frequent practice (Kagan 1943, 39). The idea that the Shulhan Arukh did not represent a practical guide to Jewish law for ordinary Jews was not new. It had been recognized for some time prior to Rabbi Kagan’s late- nineteenth century attempts to create such a practical guide. He was preceeded in the nineteenth century by two notable attempts to create a genuine halakhic guide for laypeople. They were, as previously mentioned, Hayyei Adam and Kitzur Shulhan Arukh. Rabbi Kagan, in both Mahane Yisrael and Nidhe Yisrael, positively recognizes Hayyei Adam, and recommends its study to his readers (Kagan 1893, 199; Kagan 1943, 44), inviting them to study it in groups (Kagan 1893, 11). He passes over Kitzur Shulhan Arukh in complete silence.13 Though it is difficult to argue from silence, it is inconceivable that a halakhic scholar like Rabbi Kagan, preparing a popular halakhic guide, would be unaware of Rabbi Ganzfried’s popular work. It is more likely that this lack of mention is a function of his critical disapproval combined with the principle, which he took pains to inculcate in numerous works, to avoid comments which would be harmful to fellow Jews (Kagan 1973). Rabbi Kagan does not formally recommend group study of his own works. However, if his own modesty perhaps prevented him from doing so, he certainly allowed the printing of a rabbinic letter of approbation introducing Nidhe Yisrael which recommends the study of that work by groups of Jews since it contains an ideal combination of both halakhic information and moral exhortation (Kagan 1893, 3–4). Indeed, the reason that Nidhe Yisrael did not in the end become a more popular and wellknown book which was widely adopted for group study, is indicated in another of the printed rabbinic approbations for Nidhe Yisrael, which makes a play on the words Mishnah Berurah, the title of Rabbi Kagan’s halakhic 13

xx

In this context, it is perhaps significant to note that there exist several editions of Kitzur Shulhan Arukh Ganzfried’s which are corrected according to the rulings of Mishnah Berurah. One, edited by David Dablitsky, was published in Bnei Brak in 5738 [1977], and another, by an anonymous editor, was published in Jerusalem in 5759 [1999].

INTRODUCTION BY IRA ROBINSON

popularization which he had began publishing in 1883, shortly after he had published Mahane Yisrael. It was, in fact, the immense influence and popularity of Mishnah Berurah which eclipsed Rabbi Kagan’s former attempts at halakhic popularization. In conclusion, having understood the context in which Rabbi Kagan was writing and researching his Mishnah Berurah, we are in a better position to appreciate his statement in his introduction to that work (Kagan 1979, volume 1, 5). There, he states that the essential part of a Jewish man’s daily study should be halakhah, because it is the observance of the laws of the Torah that will enable him to merit the life of the world that is coming [‘olam ha-ba’]. Few, however, engage in this study because the Shulhan Arukh is like a sealed book. In contemporary times, Rabbi Kagan felt, it is too difficult to engage in this research while, moreover, the zeal to do so has lessened [nitma’atu ha-levavot]. Rabbi Kagan firmly believed that he lived in the immediate premessianic generation (Kagan 1893, 36–37). He further felt, however, that the coming of the messiah was dependent upon the observance of the Torah even by those Jews who were going to the ends of the earth. It was therefore incumbent upon him to do his utmost to ensure that Torah was strengthened and preserved. All of his many and varied books seem intent upon fulfilling this task. Part of the hagiography surrounding Rabbi Kagan is a story which has him state that, if he were younger, he himself would have taken the responsibility of going to America and providing it with rabbinic leadership (Yoshor, 342). Though he did not do so personally, it is a fact that his writings and reputation for saintliness did ultimately arrive there to constitute a discernable formative factor in contemporary Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox society.

References Blidstein, Gerald 1995. “R. Menahem Ha-Meiri: Aspects of an Intellectual Profile,” Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 5. Eckman, Lester 1974. Revered By All: the Life and Works of Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan B’Hafets Hayyim (1838–1933). New York: Shengold. Elazar, Daniel, Michael Brown and Ira Robinson 2003. Not Written in Stone: Jews, Constitutions, and Constitutionalism in Canada. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Elon, Menachem 1978. Jewish Law: History, Sources, Principles [Hebrew] second, enlarged edition. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. xxi

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Fishbane, Simcha 1991. The Method and Meaning of the Mishnah Berurah Hoboken: Ktav. Friedman, Jack E. 1997. “Rabbi Ganzfried’s Two Million Kitzurs,” Judaism 46. Gartner, Lloyd P. 1987. “Jewish Migrants en Route from Europe to North America,” in Moses Rischin, ed. The Jews of North America Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Haas, Peter J. 1996. Responsa: Literary History of a Rabbinic Genre. Atlanta: Scholars Press. Kagan, Israel Meir 1893. Nidhe Yisrael. Warsaw. 1943. Mahane Yisrael. New York. 1973. Hafetz Hayyim; Shemirat ha-Lashon. Jerusalem. 1979. Mishnah Berurah. Jerusalem: Mekhon Mekor ha-Halakha. Katz, Jacob 1998. Divine Law in Human Hands: Case Studies in Halakhic Flexibility Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Morawska, Ewa 1996. Insecure Prosperity: Small Town Jews in Industrial America, 1890–1940. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Robinson, Ira 1985. “Those Who Fear the Lord: An Elite Within Orthodox Jewry,” unpublished paper presented at the Canadian Society for the Study of Religion. 2004. “The Jews in Canada (in North America): an Eastern European View of the Montreal Jewish Community in 1884,” Canadian Jewish Studies Chapbook Series No. 1. Montreal. Rosenberg, Yudel 1913. Mikveh Yehuda. Toronto. Sarna, Jonathan 1981. “The Myth of No Return: Jewish Return Migration to Eastern Europe, 1881–1914,” American Jewish History 71. Schweid, Eliezer 1977. Orthodoxy and Religious Humanism [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Van Leer. Soloveitchik, Haym 1990. The Use of Responsa as a Historical Source [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Mercaz Zalman Shazar. 1999. “Responsa: Literary History and Basic Literacy,” AJS Review 24. Stanislawski, Michael 1983. Tsar Nicholas I and the Jews: the Transformation of Jewish Society in Russia, 1825–1855. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society. 1988a. For Whom Do I Toil?: Judah Leib Gordon and the Crisis of Russian Jewry. New York: Oxford. 1988b. Psalms for the Tsar: A Minute-Book of a Psalms Society in the Russian Army, 1864–1867. New York: Yeshiva University Library. Tchernovitz, Chaim 1946–1947. Toldot ha-Poskim New York: 3 volumes. Twersky, Isadore 1967. “The Shulhan Arukh: Enduring Code of Jewish Law,” Judaism 16. Yoshor, Moses 1952. The Chofetz Chaim: the Life and Works of Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan of Radin. New York: Mesorah. Zipperstein, Steven 1999. Imagining Russian Jewry: Memory, History, Identity. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST An Analysis of the Writings of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein The Arukh Hashulhan

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

xxiv

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

1.

RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN: His Life and Works A. THE FORMATIVE YEARS

Prior to the midtwentieth century, biographies and autobiographies of leading rabbinical authorities were not common in Jewish literature. Not only were few rabbinic biographies written, but most of the documents and much of the oral history required to prepare these works has been forever lost. Although the data to formulate an empirical study of Rabbi Epstein’s life is no longer available, a number of brief sketches of his life (hagiographies) have been written. His son Barukh, in his book Mekor Barukh, interpolated amongst his halakhic and rabbinic discussions episodes from his father’s life. A grandson of Rabbi Epstein, Rabbi Meir Berlin, in his memoirs Me-Volozin ad Yerushalaim, devotes a short chapter to the life and works of his grandfather. Rabbi Y.L. Maimon (Fishman), who was a student of Rabbi Epstein1 and who received ordination from him, writes a brief account of his teacher’s life in his biographies of rabbinical authorities, Anashim shel Zurah (reprinted in his Midei Chodesh b’Chodsho and in his Sarei Hame’ah). Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin devotes five pages to a discussion of Rabbi Epstein’s books of law, Arukh Hashulhan and Arukh Hashulhan Leatid. These cursory sketches of Rabbi Epstein’s life, all in Hebrew,2 were summarized in one chapter by A.Z. Tarshish in his biography of Rabbi Epstein’s son Barukh. The following discussion of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein’s life and works is based primarily upon these works. Since essentially the same facts are repeated in the different biographies, I will not footnote each specific fact. Moreover, Tarshish has already done this accurately. Where I have been 1

2

I have in my possession a copy of Rabbi Epstein’s rabbinical ordination of Rabbi Maimon. In addition to the Hebrew documents, in the Encyclopedia Judaica (page 832) there is a short biographical sketch of Rabbi Epstein. In Pinkas Novoredock Memorial Book (1963, 30–32), an additional short biographical essay appears in Yiddish. 1

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

able to discover additional data concerning the life of Rabbi Epstein, I will so specify.3 Four additional biographies have been published or brought to my attention after I presented my discussion of the life and works in the introduction to the Arukh Hashulhan, volume 9. There is a short essay that appears in a recent edition of the Arukh Hashulhan, primarily based upon the Mekor Barukh. A short piece in Shana bShana (1980), by Nisan Vaksman, reproduced it in its entirety and also fleshed it out by adding materials between the paragraphs in Yeshurun 15 by Yaacov Kosofsky-Shachor, it was then reproduced almost in its entirey by Horovitz in a book entitled Kitvei HaArukh Hashulhan.4 On January 24, 1829,5 or, as the Jews reckoned time, 20 Shebat 5579 a son was born to Aaron Isaac Halevi Epstein and his wife Roshka (Mikhale) Freilander (Berlin). At his circumcision, he was given the name Yechiel Mechel. To this was affixed Halevi attesting to his reputed descent from the tribe of Levi. Yechiel Mechel was born into a society which was extremely classconscious. A male’s status within this society depended to a large extent upon three factors: lineage, wealth and the possession of rabbinic learning. Although only a minor factor in the reckoning of lineage, the name “Halevi” was a first declaration of a preferable stock. The Epstein family took great care to trace its ancestry to the aristocratic HispanoJewish family, Benveniste. This family, in turn, traces its pedigree back to those exiled from Jerusalem by Titus. It was also known for its wealth and its rabbinic scholars. Members of the Epstein family served as rabbis in the prestigious congregation of Frankfurt, Germany and in the Lithuanian centre of Brisk.6 The author of the rabbinic book Pardes, Rabbi Aryeh Halevi Epstein, the Rabbi of Koenigsburg (died 1875), is listed as a relative of Yechiel Mechel. 3

4

5

6

2

I would like to thank Professor Ira Robinson for the permission to use concepts and terminologies in my essay that will appear in his forthcoming book A Kabbalist in Montreal: The Life and Times of Rabbi Yudel Rosenberg. I have chosen to quote the latter publication because of the minor additions Horovitz included. Horovitz’s 2007, biography although based primarily on my writings has included new data which I will try to incorporate into my work. The biographers of Rabbi Epstein are not in agreement to his date of birth. Tarshish (1961, 41) cites a source that claims the birth to be in 1830. On the back of his picture which I obtained from the Berlin (Bar Ilan) family appears the year 1829. This was Rabbi Avraham Halevi Epstein who died in 1636.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

Yechiel Mechel’s father’s association with Torah was also emphasized as part of the son’s status. The family biographers highlight Aaron Isaac Halevi’s fulfilment of the rabbinical dictum likvoah itim l’Torah (to designate time [to study] Torah). Although most of the day he was involved in his business as a contractor for the Russian government,7 he always set aside time each day to study Torah. Moreover, he supported needy rabbinical students. Rabbi Aaron Isaac would not wait to be approached but would seek out such students of the Torah. This type of charity was considered by the rabbinical world to be on a par with studying Torah oneself. Rabbi Aaron Isaac’s family could thus be classified as one comprised of Torah scholars, thus enhancing Yechiel Mechel’s pedigree. On his mother’s side, Yechiel Mechel could also point to an old aristocratic family, the Freilanders, who stemmed from the city of Prague. This family, like the Epsteins, could display a distinguished list of rabbinical scholars. Among them was Rabbi Natan Freilander, the leader of the Bohemian Jewish communities. In addition to its rabbinical leaders, the Freilander family could also boast of its wealth. Like Aaron Isaac Epstein, they too were involved as contractors for the Russian government, particulary in road and railroad development. They were known for their honesty and their charity. No doubt this further contributed to Yechiel Mechel’s status. Thus both lineage and wealth were factors of which Yechiel Mechel could be proud in the Jewish society of the day. But as will soon become clear in our discussion of Yechiel Mechel’s life, his own merits were sufficient in themselves to deserve the respect of the Jewish community. Yechiel Mechel’s childhood and youth is portrayed quite stereotypically in the different accounts and is typical of the genre of biographies of rabbinical authorities from Eastern Europe. Indeed, a student of this period, H. Klepfisz, in his discussion of the Jewish society, comments in a with tongue-in-cheek: “Upon reading the life story of a rabbi or spiritual leader of that period, one can discover that at five the subject had already displayed qualities of genius; at nine he had stunned everyone with his piercing questions; and of course at thirteen, when he was Bar Mitzvah, he already thoroughly mastered the entire Talmud and commentaries, and his fame was spread all over the land.” 7

From the different biographies it is not clear if this was his business, the exact type of government in which he was involved or if there were no additional business enterprises the father was involved in. 3

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Though Klepfisz did not have Rabbi Epstein specifically in mind, his description reminds us of Yechiel Mechel. In Rabbi Y.M. Epstein we have a model East European rabbi. Since all the information we have concerning Rabbi Epstein’s early youth is supplied by either his family or his close students, it is likely that the picture given was rounded off to fit the pattern. Yechiel Mechel was born and grew up in the town of Bobruisk, Belorussia,8 a region known for its harmony between Hasidic and Mitnagdic Jews. In an era of tension between these two communities, the situation in Bobruisk was almost unique. For young Yechiel Mechel, the opportunity to mature and study Torah in such an atmosphere would have an everlasting influence upon his philosophy of Judaism as well as on his attitude towards all streams of orthodox Jews. Rabbi Epstein’s biographers argue that this milieu had a direct effect upon his future (and first) appointment to the rabbinate of Novosybkov (in 1862 at the age of 33), also a community containing both hasidic and mitnagdic communities. In addition to his family wealth and lineage, Yechiel Mechel excelled in Talmudical studies and at a very young age made his impression upon the rabbinical world. Furthermore, his high moral character and special approach towards rabbinic adjudication received prominent recognition within the Torah communities of Eastern Europe. Rabbi Maimon (1947, 173) reports that he met people in the city of Bobruisk who had been acquainted with Yechiel Mechel during his youth, and who told him that already at the age of 9 the youngster had been looked upon as a future great rabbinical teacher and leader. A story is told that one Sabbath, at the age of 10, young Yechiel Mechel entered the rabbinical study halls in his home town. The adults studying the weekly Torah portion were perplexed by a problem in their studies. Only the young prodigy, Yechiel Mechel Epstein, was capable of offering an acceptable solution.9 Little more is reported about his rabbinic studies during these formative years. It seems that Rabbi Epstein studied in his home town of Bobruisk. It was not uncommon for children of rich families, like Yechiel Mechel, to have private tutors to receive the level of education desired by their families, thus eliminating the need to be sent to other towns, or to 8 9

4

In the Minsk region. Horovitz 2007 writes (p. 186) that he had the opportunity (or actually did study) in the study hall of Rabbi Altshul upon the request of to study Rabbi Chaim of Volozin who opened the Study Hall, a place of Torah learning in 1827.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

study with any local teacher, or, having to be educated with potentially less desirable children. It is reported that Yechiel Mechel attended the renowned rabbinical academy in Volozin for one year between 1842 and 1843.10 During this brief period of Yeshiva education, he was under the influence of the academy’s head, Rabbi Yitzchak of Volozin. But like other great rabbinical scholars, he preferred to study by himself. The formal educational framework then extant was not a sufficient challenge for him and he felt it merely curtailed his scholastic advancement. Moreover, his town of Bobruisk had more to offer the young scholar than merely a place to study. There he was under the direct tutelage of its chief rabbi, Eliyahu Goldberg, a student of the renowned Rabbi Chaim of Volozin. Rabbi Goldberg not only served as a mentor for Yechiel Mechel, but was also the major influence in his decision to become a community rabbi. As with many other great rabbinical figures, Rabbi Epstein’s first preference was not to use his “Torah as a shovel to dig with” (Mishnah Avot 4, 5), i.e., not to employ his rabbinic studies to acquire his livelihood. As a son of a wealthy father, he was first encouraged to try his hand at business. It is not clear if he succeeded or failed in that endeavor, but it is reported that through the influence of Rabbi Goldberg he chose to devote his life to serving the Jewish community as a spiritual leader. It is worthwhile to point out that, in contrast with other rabbinic figures, Rabbi Epstein did not choose a position in a rabbinical academy but rather took one as a community rabbi. In addition to Rabbi Goldberg’s influence in choosing this path, it seems that his family experience contributed to this decision. His father and his father-in-law, Rabbi Yaacov Berlin of Mir, were very active in communal affairs. Furthermore, Yechiel Mechel had knowledge he had acquired at home in which most other Russian Jews were lacking. He could read, write and speak Russian. This was likely because it was considered necessary because of father’s his commercial dealings with the Russian government. This offered him tools that were sorely needed in order to represent the Jewish community before the Russian government.11 Thus, his Torah knowledge and his righteous personality were an ideal combination for a community rabbi. 10 11

Horovitz 2007, 186 argues that Rabbi Epstein studied in Volozin for two years. The interaction between his family and himself with the Russian government seems to of had a direct influence on his halakhic attitude towards the Russian government. See the section of the introduction that deals with this issue. 5

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

B. IN BUSINESS The period of Rabbi Epstein’s life as a businessman did not detract from his Torah study. To exemplify this point, the following story is ascribed to his wife: They owned a store where they sold cloth. As in the case of many other rabbis, the wife ran the store while the husband studied Torah. This was the case with Rabbi Epstein. However, the license for operating the business was in his name. There was an instance when a government inspector came to inspect the store and Rabbi Epstein, the licensed owner, was required to be present. Rabbi Epstein, constantly involved in his Torah studies, did not know how to find his store and was found wandering aimlessly in the market place. He needed to ask for directions to his own store. Although it is not reported when Rabbi Epstein was married to Roshka, the above story would suggest that he took his wife before he completed his studies and received his first appointment as the rabbi of Novosybkov. Normally a wealthy family with a groom who was a potential rabbinical scholar sought a suitable bride from beyond the confines of his home town. A suitable match was found in Roshka Freilander, the daughter of Rabbi Yaacov Judah Berlin from the city of Mir. As mentioned above, the bride’s family possessed wealth, lineage and Torah. In addition, it could point to the bride’s brother, the renowned Rabbi Naftali Zvi Judah Berlin (popularly referred to as the Netziv) who was the head of the Rabbinical Academy of Volozin (later to become Rabbi Epstein’s son-in-law, when he took as his second wife Yechiel Mechel’s daughter Batya Merel). In accordance with the Biblical observation that “a man must leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife,” Yechiel Mechel moved to his bride’s city and most probably the home of his father-in-law. Only after a financial reverse which affected his dowry did Rabbi Epstein take his wife and move back to his home town to try his hand at business. It is important to point out that Rabbi Epstein, because of his family wealth, never in financial difficulties. His career choices were not the result was of financial necessity. Horovitz 2007 (p. 188) writes that Rabbi Epstein, because of his great Torah and Talmudic knowledge, was appointed as the head of Rabbi Akiva Altshul’s Study Hall. In this atmosphere he was able to grow and develop as a serious rabbinical leader. Yechiel Mechel’s biographers do not mention any other place in which he lived before his first rabbinical post. At the conclusion of the introduction to his first book Or Leyesharim (published Zhitomir 1868), 6

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

he gives as his place of residence Zibkai, in the county of Tashrinyagove in the State of Small Russia. Zibkai is the Jewish (Yiddish) name for Novosybkov.

C. HIS BEGINNINGS AS A RABBI As we have mentioned, Rabbi Epstein’s business career was short lived. The same Rabbi Goldberg who was so influential in Yechiel Mechel’s decision to devote himself only to the world of Torah and to enter into the rabbinate also accorded him smichah (ordination). Although Rabbi Epstein is reputed to have been ordained by several leading rabbinical figures, the only other rabbi specifically named is Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavich, popularly referred to as the Zemah Zedek, the leader of the Habad Hasidic movement. Rabbi Epstein met Rabbi Menachem Mendel in the early 1860’s, when at the age of 27, he was serving as the rabbi of Novosybkov. (He was appointed to this position in 1865.) This town contained a large community of Habad Hasidim. No doubt his originating from a community where both Hasidim and mitnagdim lived peacefully side by side contributed to Rabbi Epstein’s candidacy. Possibly because of the influence of this community as well as his own personal interest, though he himself was a mitnaged, Rabbi Epstein decided in the first years in his new position to travel to the court of the leader of the Habad movement and to meet him. It is not clear how long the young Rabbi Epstein remained in the court of the Zemah Zedek, but during this period there developed an attachment between the rabbis despite their significant difference in age: the elderly Zemah Zedek in his seventies and the young Rabbi Yechiel Mechel in his thirties. Rabbi Epstein’s biographers speak of the Habad leader’s influence on Rabbi Epstein in the area of rabbinical leadership. These influences included areas such as how and when to receive congregants seeking advice and/or halakhic decisions. They also included other administrative functions such as how to organize one’s day. In great depth, the elderly rabbi instructed Yechiel Mechel in Jewish mysticism, the importance of clear adjudication, and when to rule stringently or leniently. It is also claimed that Rabbi Epstein learned his negative attitude towards the study of philosophy from works such as those of the Zemah Zedek. Philosophy here includes books as Maimonides’ Moreh Nevuchim. I find 7

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

this argument12 problematic, especially since Rabbi Epstein does not hesitate to quote Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed both in his homilies and in his Arukh Hashulhan.13 An examination of Rabbi Epstein’s compendium of Jewish law, the Arukh Hashulhan, will reveal that the form and structure of both its format and content are modeled after the Shulhan Arukh Harav, the code of laws of the Сhabad movement. Only a detailed analysis of the content of this code, as well as the adjudications of the Zemah Zedek can reveal if there was any direct influence upon Rabbi Epstein’s halakhic rulings, but there is an explicit correlation between the form and structure of both works of law.

D. ON TO NOVOGRUDOK After almost ten years of serving the community of Novosybkov, Rabbi Epstein accepted a position in 1874 in the small town of Lubitz, a community on the outskirts of Novogrudok in Lithuania. There is no information as to why Rabbi Epstein left Novosybkov, but it would seem that it was his own decision and not because of political or social constraints dictated by his community. Rabbi Epstein had by now established a name for himself as a Torah scholar with the publication of his first book Or Leyesharim, a commentary on Rabbi Jacob Tam’s Sefer Hayashar.14 A published rabbi was usually sought after. I suggest that Rabbi Epstein realized that to remain in such a small community, there would always be certain financial restraints (and his personal stable financial status was not guaranteed). For example, to receive the financial backing to publish his books, he would need a larger and wealthier community. We find that when he accepted the new position in Novogrudok, the only request he made—at least as far as our information goes—was to publish his Arukh Hashulhan. Rabbi Epstein’s appointment as rabbi of Lubitz was short lived. When the Rabbi of Novogrudok suddenly decided to leave his community, a vacancy for a rabbi was created in that very prestigious Jewish community. 12 13

14

8

This argument is discussed in detail by his son in Mekor Barukh (1586–1613). Furthermore, Rosen 2007, shows that the Arukh Hashulhan is strewn with the use of kabbalh as a means of adjudication. A 13th century book of ethics attributed to Rabbi Tam the Tosafist. See Encyclopedia Judaica vol. 14, 1099.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

Previously famed rabbis such as Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (later Rabbi of Kovno) had served as the community’s spiritual leader. Moreover, in Novogrudok there were approximately five thousand inhabitants and it enjoyed the status of a district town. By 1888, there were fifteen study houses. Its central synagogue was reported to have been built in 1618.15 When the Novogrudok community leaders became aware that Rabbi Epstein had arrived in Lubitz they immediately took action. After less than a week in Lubitz, Rabbi Epstein was induced to take the post of Rabbi of Novogrudok. It seems that not only Rabbi Yechiel Mechel’s Torah scholarship attracted the Novogrudok leadership but also his secular qualifications. For example, Rabbi Epstein’s knowledge of the Russian language apparently made a profound impression upon the community heads. In an era when proper Jewish representation with the Russian government was critical for the stability of the Jewish community, a leader with the linguistic attributes Rabbi Epstein possessed could only be an asset. Although we do not have reports of precise instances of his direct contact with Russian officials, Rabbi Epstein’s biographers repeat this as be fact. For example, they report that he frequently attended meetings in the major communities of Warsaw, Vilna and St. Petersburg along with other leading rabbinical leaders of Russia. The purpose of these meetings was to deal with Jewish representations to the Russian government. Rabbi Epstein served on committees and delegations together with rabbinical leaders such as Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spector (Kovno), Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik (Brisk) and Rabbi Chaim Meisel (Lodz). One topic dealt with by these commissions was an attempt to persuade the government officials not to close the doors of the Volozin rabbinical academy. (They did not succeed and the Yeshiva was closed in 1892.) Furthermore, the reports we have affirm that the rabbi, due to his prestige as well as his language skills, could also appeal or intercede directly with the Russian bureaucracy when the situation required. Although Rabbi Epstein was atypical in this respect among the community of Russian rabbis, he remained part of this group. His knowledge of the Russian language would have permitted him to become an “appointed rabbi,” a Russian government position. Such a position held certain financial benefits as well as prestige with the government. How15

For the history of Novogrudok see Nekritz 1956; Pinkas Navoredok Memorial Book, 1963. 9

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

ever, Rabbi Epstein chose the officially unrecognized (by the government) position of community rabbi, although this created certain financial and bureaucratic difficulties for him. Even in this “unofficial” capacity, the influence and respect he enjoyed with the Russian officials was decisively in evidence. Rabbi Epstein made his impression upon the Novogrudok Jewish community almost upon his arrival. A story is told that in the first week of his incumbency he ruled that the community should commence the Sabbath at an earlier hour than the traditional time.16 Thus, even if a Jew in Novogrudok would be late accepting the Sabbath, he would not be transgressing the law that forbids any type of work after sunset. The community’s lay leadership, shocked by the new, young rabbi’s innovation, disapproved the decision. What was good enough for the revered rabbis who occupied the position previously should be proper for Rabbi Epstein, they felt. The young rabbi stood firm on his ruling. After the Sabbath prayers in the synagogue had been concluded, he would not permit a later prayer service to be held. The Jews who were “late” were compelled to pray individually. Rabbi Epstein maintained his position as rabbi of the community of Novogrudok for forty-three years, until his death to in 1908. Most of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi’s biographers are not especially interested in portraying his life and activities in Novogrudok. The majority of their concern with Rabbi Epstein had to do with different attributes of his personality. From various sources such as responsa, letters, proclamations, circular and newspaper articles, I have succeeded in identifying some incidents that transpired in this phase of the rabbi’s life. There is evidence from Rabbi Epstein’s correspondence that his fame was international as early as 1893. Jews turned to him for support and guidance from as far away as London. A group of East European Jews had organized a community which they named Machzike Hadath.17 This community entered into conflict with the Beth Din of London over different Jewish issues. One of these concerns dealt with the kosher status of the meat sold by the Machzike Hadath butchers. This community sought the endorsement of leading rabbinical authorities from Eastern Europe. Among the rabbis solicited was Rabbi Epstein. Two letters published 16

17

10

While the Sabbath commences automatically with sunset, it is permissable to begin already in the early afternoon on Friday. See Homa 1913 for the history of this community.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

(Homa 1913, 139–141) in a collection of reponsa on this dispute by leading rabbinical figures testify to Rabbi Epstein’s status. The first letter offers support for the community’s cause in the dispute over the level of kashruth of meat. The second letter (rather a postcard) offers tactical advice to the committee on whom to solicit to further its cause. In 1899, Alexander Tertis, who referred to himself as the chief mohel of London, turned to the leading East European rabbis for their support. Rabbi Tertis had “invented a apparatus that would make ritual circumcision hygienic.” In a book that he published, Dom Bris, Rabbi Tertis described his discovery and attempted to justify his change in the halakhic process. He also published the letters of the rabbinical authorities who supported his view. These rabbis included the prominent individuals such as Rabbi Michel Berlin, Rabbi David Katzelenbogen (Suvalk), Rabbi Meir Atlas (Salant) and Rabbi Shmuel Salant (Jerusalem). Also included was Rabbi Epstein’s letter of support. An additional letter to England from Rabbi Epstein concerning ritual circumcision was published in 1904.18 His responsa to rabbis in the United States are extant. Although the centre of rabbinical Judaism remained in Europe, the mass beginning in 1903 immigration of Jews to the United States required that this new group be taken seriously. In an American rabbinical journal, Beit Vaad Lachakhim (1903, 5), there appears a reponsum from Rabbi Epstein to the United States concerning operating electricity on holidays. Again, in 1903 we find that Rabbi Epstein was called upon by the Jewish community in the Land of Israel for support. Once again he was ranked with the leading rabbinical authorities of the world. In a pamphlet entitled Gevul Olam (1903, 4–5), calling on the Jews to restrict their donations to the Rabbi Meyer Baal Hanes charity fund of Jerusalem, Rabbi Epstein’s response appears together with that of the most prestigious rabbis. In 1907, Rabbi Epstein issued a responsum concerning an issue in France. The issue was the proper prerequisites for a halakhic marriage. Rabbi Epstein, along with other prominent rabbis, protested the prevalent halahkic behaviour in France. Also in 1907, a question came to Rabbi Epstein from Rabbi Aaron Gordon of New York. The problem dealt with divorce. Rabbi Epstein was asked to rule in a case of a writ of divorce where the husband was in New York and the wife remained in Europe. 18

See Mishnah Yavetz pages 4–5. 11

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

One doesn’t have to travel far from Novogrudok to ascertain Rabbi Epstein’s status. Already in 1890, correspondence reached him from Rabbi Shreibman in Rumania (1908, 108–188) concerning various halakhic matters, from kosher foods to family issues. The monthly rabbinical journal, Shaarei Torah, published in Warsaw, in its Shevat 1902 issue, prints a letter concerned with the possible “illegitimate” status of a baby. The author of this article considers Rabbi Epstein’s decision sufficiently important to cite it in its entirety within his work. In 1904, from Shilal, Lithuania Rabbi Katznelbogen (1989, 162–163) requested advice from Rabbi Epstein in a divorce case pertaining to a woman whose husband was in Chicago. In another matter (1989, 143) he was consulted pertaining a halizah case in the United States. An additional factor that testifies to Rabbi Epstein’s popularity and acceptance by the international orthodox community as a rabbinical authority was the demand for his approbation (haskamah) of new books. A prerequisite for the success of a rabbinic monograph is a respectable number of approbations by other rabbinic scholars. These endorsements are usually published at the opening of the book. The more prestigious the approbation and the greater number there are, the higher the status of the book in the eyes of the rabbinical community. The number of approbations from Rabbi Epstein attests to his prestigious status. Rabbi Epstein’s letters of approbation in many instances go beyond permission to print the book. In many cases he discusses the content and comments on specific points discussed in the work. (The normative approbation praises the author and states that the work is worthy of publication.) In 1895 he wrote a letter of approbation for Efraim Stanles’ work Same Dechaye. After stating that he has read the book “from cover to cover,” he writes “and certainly there is place for a dialectic discussion on some of the points that [the author] brings, such as . . .” Rabbi Epstein then continues to discuss these points, citing chapter and paragraph. Additional examples of approbations Rabbi Epstein issued are in David Tshachinavitzy’s Bet David (1901). Other approbations found in this book on ritual slaughter include the prominent Rabbi Haym Soloveitchik and Rabbi Chaim Meisel. In Simcha Yona Volantonovki’s Kol Simcha, Rabbi Epstein’s letter is published along with that of Rabbi Shalom Mordechai Schwadron (1908). Furthermore, I have a handwritten letter of approbation dated 1906 written to Yehudah Leb Tzirlson 12

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

for his book Geviah Yehudah, a commentary on Rabbi Joseph Caro’s Shulhan Arukh.19

E. THE NOVOGRUDOK RABBINICAL ACADEMY In 1896 Rabbi Epstein published a manuscript proclamation (Kol Koreh) to the Jews of Russia soliciting funds for the rabbinical academy in Novogrudok. Included in this 35 page proclamation are letters from thirty-one leading rabbinical figures whom Rabbi Epstein had succeeded in persuading to join him in his quest. These included letters written by such leading rabbinical figures as Rabbi Shmuel Zanvil Klepfish (Warsaw), Rabbi Yosef Shlopper (Slonem), Rabbi Yitzchak Levi (Lubitz),20 Rabbi Yosef Zachariah Stern (Shovil), Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Hacohen Kook (Boisk), Rabbi Yitzchak Yaacov Reines (Lida), Rabbi Meir Noach Levin (Vilna), Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Sander Shapiro (Meltz), Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Shapiro (Sharshov), Rabbi Shimon Ber Bamharra (Shedlitz), Rabbi Eliyahu Halevi (Prozna), Rabbi Yisroel Levin (Shaad), Rabbi Zevulin Leb Bret (Plongeon), Rabbi David Tabil Katzenelenbogen (Suvalk), Rabbi Benyamin Sternfeld (Biyalisk), Rabbi Katriel Aaron Natzik (Sepetkin), Rabbi Yaacov Meir ben Shlomo Zalmen (Minsk), Rabbi Binyamin Sternfeld (Bilsk), Rabbi Avraham Ashkenazi (Saalib), Rabbi Shlomo Shemaryu Margolith (Brynsk), Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Shapiro (Bobroisk), Rabbi Shmuel Natan Bukentz (Helsingfors), Rabbi Meir Atlas (Salant), Rabbi Chaim Leib (Stovisok), Rabbi Yaacov David (Slutsk), Rabbi Yitzchak Blazer (Petersburg), Rabbi Meir Michal Rabbinowitz (Vilna), Rabbi Dov Ber ben Mordechai (Zhitomir), Rabbi Chaim Meir Halevi Green (Gravin), and Rabbi Moshe Bezalel ben Shraga (Seini).21 Rabbi Epstein concludes the proclamation with a short statement in his own handwriting that states: “This is to certify that all thirty-one letters from the [rabbinical] scholars of our time were transcribed letter by letter without any changes.” This is followed by his signature and seal. 19

20

21

Although only samples of Rabbi Epstein’s halakhic correspondence and approbations are available, Maimon testifies that there were many more letters that he had in his possession but which were destroyed by the Turkish authorities in Palestine. (Maimon 1959, 165) Horovitz 2007, published most of the available correspondence of Rabbi Epstein that is presently available. This is most probably Rabbi Yitchak Levi Weiss, a former student of Rabbi Hurwitz. See Katz 1963, 198. These letters are published in Horovitz 2007, 135–137. 13

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

The purpose of these letters was to solicit funds for the controversial Novogrudok rabbinical academy and its leader, Rabbi Joseph Yosel Hurwitz,22 a student of the renowned leader of the musar23 movement, Rabbi Israel Salanter. Rabbi Hurwitz was considered an extraordinary and controversial figure. He is supposed to have spent nine years in isolation in a forest, fasting and studying Torah (Eckman, 1975, 132). Another account of his eccentric behaviour asserts that he locked himself in a room, not permitting anyone to approach him. His food was served to him through two holes. Milk products were delivered through one opening and meat and its derivatives through the other (Berlin 1939, 220). After his return to society, he was involved in the establishing of kolelim (rabbinical institutes for married men) and later, yeshivoth (rabbinical academies). In 1888, he located his first yeshiva in Novogrudok. These academies, provoked great animosity towards themselves by many rabbinical and lay leaders because of the demands of musar study upon the students as well as the outlandish behaviour of the movement’s members. Rabbi Epstein did not regard either the students or the leader of this academy as a threat or danger to his community and orthodox Judaism. On the contrary, he felt them to be genuine and sincerely God-fearing Talmudic students. Toward Rabbi Hurwitz he felt great warmth and esteem. D. Katz (1963, 196) and M. Berlin (1939, 223) contend that Rabbi Epstein was extremely impressed with Rabbi Yosel, due to his sincerity and righteousness. As a result of this, although not in entire agreement with the musar movement’s ideology, Rabbi Epstein offered his patronage to the rabbinical academy. He welcomed the Yeshiva to Novogrudok, supported it and even supplied it with its first home in the courtyard of the city’s synagogue.24 I suggest that Rabbi Epstein also identified with this movement, which propounded very overtly the concept of “God-fearingness.” Through the influence of Rabbi Chaim of Volozin25 22 23

24

25

14

See Eckman 1975, 131–132 for a brief biography of Rabbi Hurwitz. Musar is traditionally translated ethics or superagoratory. There is in English no good translation of this concept. Horovitz 2007, 192 argues that Rabbi Epstein even delivered the opening Talmudic letter in the Yeshiva every semester. In addition for a period of time would visit the Academy regularily to discus with the students Talmudic issues. See Etkes 1982, 41–58. There he describes Rabbi Chaim’s philosophy of “Godfearing” and its part in the educational program of the Volozin Rabbinical Academy.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

and Hasidic ideology, Rabbi Epstein would clearly identify with the doctrine of the musar movement. Furthermore, as we shall see, his homilies testify to his agreement with the ideology professed by the musar movement. Some of the adversaries of the musar movement asked the communal leaders of Novogrudok to revoke their financial support of Rabbi Hurwitz and the rabbinical academy. In the Russian Hebrew newspaper Ha-Tzfira (1897, no. 136), Rabbi Epstein replied: Here there is no organization, no sect, no new school of thought, rather Talmudic scholars engrossing themselves in the study of Talmud and its commentaries and excelling in their studies. If the facts were contrary, we would not have supported them. We also approve of the curriculum of study, which is geared to educate outstanding scholars and righteous men. Their straight path leads them directly to the teachings of God. They shy away from money and materialistic benefits, and all their deeds are noble. We are well-informed of their high standards in learning and character-building and we find that it is our duty to tell the truth to everybody.26

Thus we learn of Rabbi Epstein’s high regard for the academy’s students and administration. In another instance, when a certain rabbi demanded that the rabbinical academy’s doors be closed and its leader Rabbi Yosel be expelled from Novogrudok, Rabbi Epstein responded: The lips of a man who slanders Talmudic scholars shall become speechless. Woe to the generation that indulges in spreading evil tongue. Woe to a man who occupies the chair of the rabbinate, who speaks words of heresy and atheism . . . Such Talmudic and God-fearing scholars should multiply among Israel, and those who indulge in evil words against them should be excommunicated. (ibid.)

Rabbi Epstein stood firmly behind this venture. He received the support of his community as well as of many leading rabbinical authorities. Subsequently, the academy flourished. It became center for Torah learning and musar. It served as a model for other developing academies. Meir Berlin (1939, 222) asserts that many of the rabbinical figures who endorsed Rabbi Yosel were not cognizant of his disposition and true goals. They also lacked knowledge concerning the musar movement. 26

I have used the translation that appears in Eckman 1975, 134. 15

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Accordingly, when an apparently respectable rabbi approached them with a request to support the establishment of a rabbinical academy, who could deny such a entreaty? Moreover, Berlin argues that the divergence between the rabbis over support of Rabbi Hurwitz was geographical rather than ideological. The opposing rabbis were from the Kovno district, while the endorsing rabbis stemmed from the Minsk and partly the Vilna regions. In these latter areas, writes Berlin, little was known concerning the musar movement and its leadership. I suggest that it would be too naive to believe that the rabbis were not aware of such activities. Communication and travel were sufficiently developed at the turn of the century to keep people informed of developing events in the Jewish world. Furthermore, the Russian Jewish periodicals did not hesitate to report these events (as we have seen above in Ha-Tzfira). Moreover, the proclamation issued by Rabbi Epstein in 1896 (see above) testifies to the diverse geographical locations of the supporting rabbis. Although Rabbi Epstein’s petition was no doubt supported because of his reputation and status in the rabbinical community, the rabbis who responded would not have done so if they had opposed such a movement. Rabbi Epstein’s support of Rabbi Yosel and the academy was so profound that upon his death in 1908, a predominant concern of many of the Novogrudok community and the yeshiva students was whether his successor would continue to support the yeshiva. The appointment of Rabbi Aaron Bernstein, who did not give unconditional patronage to the academy, caused further unrest in the community. Rabbi Yosel contributed immensely to the brevity of Rabbi Bernstein’s tenure. He was replaced by Rabbi Moshe Karkoski only after the latter came to an understanding with Rabbi Hurwitz.27

Attitude towards Zionism and the Land of Israel Rabbi Epstein’s biographers are all in agreement that he was not a supporter of the Zionist movement, which had just recently become active in Eastern Europe. Although he was closely identified with the Berlin family, who were among the founders and organizers of the religious Zionist movement, Rabbi Epstein was identified with anti-Zionist religious groups. M. Berlin and Y. Maimon, two of the principal biographers of 27

16

This incident is discussed in further detail in Katz 1963, 202–203.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

Rabbi Epstein, themselves staunch supporters of religious Zionism, find it difficult to accept that Rabbi Epstein completely opposed their cause. Therefore, in their discussion of the Rabbi, they attempt at least to show that he had positive attitudes towards the Land of Israel as well as towards immigration to that country. Rabbi Maimon (1959, 166) writes that Rabbi Epstein “was not inclined towards Zionism, but even so he treated the bearers of the flag of the Zionistic movement and their members with all honour.” However, Rabbi Maimon mentions (159, 149) a letter that Rabbi Epstein published condemning the religious Zionist movement, the “Mizrachi.”28 He concludes his discussion of Rabbi Epstein’s anti-Zionistic letter and writes, “as he [Rabbi Epstein] later told me many times—he was very regretful about that letter.” While discussing with Rabbi Epstein the possibility of a Jewish state and government within the framework of halakhah, both Maimon (1959, 166) and Berlin report a positive response. For example, Berlin writes that Rabbi Epstein was asked concerning the need for a Jewish state to operate trains and transmit telegrams on the Sabbath, with the potential that the state would desecrate the Sabbath. The Rabbi replied that he was not concerned about such difficulties. For two thousand years the Jews had found solutions through halakhah for difficult questions such as interest and disposing of leavened bread before Passover, and undoubtedly in the Land of Israel a solution according to the rules of the Torah would be attainable (1939, 245). Thus Maimon and Berlin suggest that Rabbi Epstein foresaw a Jewish state in the Land of Israel as a positive happening. Evidence to Rabbi Epstein’s love for the Land of Israel is to be found in a letter he wrote concerning etrogim grown in Greece.29 He writes, 28

29

I have not succeeded to find where this letter has been published. Maimon 1959, 149 claims that it was published in a journal of anti-Zionists. A letter was published in 1905 in a monthly Hebrew periodical Hapeles and reprinted in Horovitz 2007, 138–139 that states Rabbi Epstein’s discontent with the Zionist movement. The writer of Rabbi Epstein’s life in Arukh Hashulhan 2006, 13, cites this letter as proof of Rabbi Epstein’s anti Zionistic stand. In an interenet resonse to the overall publication of Arukh Hashulhan 2006, Rabbi the author takes exception to his stance and argues that only a very limited number of sources were examined. A total overview of the materials available will portray a more positive view to Zionism. This letter was also published in the Sdei Chemed (section 30, rule 141, letter 32). 17

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

. . . Even if there was not any doubt concerning [the kosher status of] the Corfu fruit, is it proper for a Jew not to choose the fruit of our Holy Land over the fruit of the foreign lands? Where is the honour of God, where is the honour of the holy Torah that many of its verses exalt the praises of the Land of Israel? Where is the reverence for Moses our Rabbi who pleaded: “Let me please go over and see the good land”? What difference is there in our ways of behaviour from that of our rabbis the sages of the Talmud at the end of [Babylonian Talmud] Ketubot [that state] that Rabbi Abba kissed the rocks of Acre, [and] Rabbi Hiyya adorned himself in its dust, as it states: “For her servants hold her stones dear and cherish her very dust,” these are the persons that luxuriate in the dust of foreign lands and kiss their fruit and they abandon the fruit and the good of the Holy Land for an empty instrument . . .

This same perspective on the Land of Israel is expressed in the Arukh Hashulhan (Orakh Hayyim, section 648, paragraph 29) where he again discusses the purchasing of etrogim from the Land of Israel and not from other lands such as Greece. He writes: Thus a Jew whose heart is touched by the fear of God will only take etrogim of the Land of Israel. How are we not ashamed and disgraced when we have the opportunity to fulfil a commandment from the fruits of our Holy Land and we specifically chose [fruit] from lands of other nations? Woe to that shame, woe to that disgrace, for on this it is said, “They despised the pleasant land.”30 Therefore one must be very careful [in this commandment].

In this, Rabbi Epstein supports the normative rabbinical view toward the Land of Israel as a religious experience and dream, but does not commit himself to the developing Zionistic platforms. Only in a passing remark in the laws of embarking on a boat on the Sabbath (Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 248, paragraph 14) do we find a suggestion of assent to the religious Zionist platform. This ideology perceived living in Israel as a halakhic commandment. A segment of the opposing rabbinical leadership argued that this obligation is in force only when the Messiah arrives.31 Rabbi Epstein wrote, 30 31

18

Psalms 106, 24. A collection of letters written by nineteenth century rabbinical authorities that express this anti-Zionist stand was published in Landau and Rabbinowitz’s Or Yeaharim (1900).

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

And for the fulfilling of a commandment (mitzvah), for example one who immigrates (ha’oleh) to the Land of Israel to settle there, even with the intention to return, it is also a commandment to live even a short time in the Land of Israel. [Therefore,] even if he finds a caravan [going to the Land of Israel] on the eve of the Sabbath he can embark with them.

It may be contested that the view that walking four cubits in Israel is a commandment had been enunciated by other non- Zionistic rabbinical authorities. However, for Rabbi Epstein to proclaim these rulings in an era in which the orthodox leadership was reticent with regard to the beliefs of Zionism involved implicitly stating a facet of his worldview. (This is in addition to his independent mode of adjudication which I will discuss below.) Thus, Rabbi Epstein, although identified with the anti-religious Zionist groups, expressed in his works positive sentiments towards aspects of religious Zionist ideology.

System of Adjudication The nineteenth century was filled with new Jewish political and social movements as well as ideologies which were primarily anti-religious in character. These doctrines were perceived as a threat to the orthodox community by the majority of the orthodox rabbinical leadership. One mode of response to this new phenomenon was to strengthen the halakhic boundaries with stringent adjudication to Jewish law,32 especially in areas that concerned new technical and scientific innovations. For example, Rabbi Moses Sofer (1762–1839) adapted a phrase that became a slogan in the Orthodox community “hadash asur me ha-Torah”33 (new is forbidden from the Bible”) to mean that any innovation is forbidden from a halakhic perspective simply because it is new. (Encyclopedia Judaica 1972) Rabbi Yosef Shaul Halevi Nathanson (1810–1875) in his book of responsa, Sho’el U’meshiv, writes that a halakhic ruling should “not be made according to new modern innovations, for if this is done, the paths of Torah will alter on a daily basis” (section 103). Furthermore, Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen Kagan (1838–1933), who was considered a leading spokesman of orthodox Judaism in nineteenth and early twentieth century Eastern Europe, in his code of Jewish law, Mishnah Berurah, takes 32

33

See Katz 1979 for a discussion of a traditional Jewish society confronted with the challenges of modernity. This statement is first stated in Mishnah Orlah chapter 3 mishnah 9. 19

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

a stringent position on the majority of modern issues that confronted the Jewish community of his era.34 Rabbi Epstein, on the contrary, chose the course of leniency in his halakhic rulings.35 His biographers portray this adjudicative pattern primarily in a descriptive manner, reporting anecdotes of lenient rulings.36 An examination of his legal writings will further substantiate this assertion. This inquiry reveals that Rabbi Epstein perceived halakhah as an ongoing process. While he examined a halakhah and its development, Rabbi Epstein frequently proposed an explanation for the law in question. As a result of the explanation, the Rabbi was prepared to determine that there are statutes that were only pertinent to previous eras, such as the period of the Talmud.37 The modern era had created a new reality. New technology was being introduced. The social behaviour of the individual in matters such as dress, language, and communication had taken on new forms. For Rabbi Epstein, modernization and new innovations were now to be recognized and incorporated into the process of halakhah. Furthermore, the plight of the individual Jew was to be a primary consideration.38 Rabbi Epstein’s biographers attribute this attitude to the influence of his early education, especially that of Rabbi Eliyahu Goldberg. I suggest that his position as a community rabbi, brought him in constant touch with the Jewish common people, and made him more sensitive to their needs and the reality in which they functioned. Thus, while not deviating from the rabbinic law, Rabbi Epstein reveals himself to have an independent and unique approach to halakhic adjudication. This can be attributed to his background, societal role and personality. 34

35

36

37

38

20

In my work Fishbane 1991, I have clearly shown this trend in his system of adjudication. Horovitz 2007, 193 quotes a letter from Rabbi Epstein brought in his volume in document 39 where he states: It is always my approach to search when needed for the leniency.” Horovitz 2007, in his biography (p. 194–195) offers a greater detailed proof of his leniency. When Rabbi Epstein desires to perpetuate an existing custom or law he will develop and emphasize the halakhic development which requires this law to be sustained. For example in Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Chaim section 269 he discusses the laws of blessing the wine (kiddush) in the synagogue. Although stating that the social reality is today different from talmudic times, he presents the different views that would require this law today. Rabbi Epstein’s son in his discussion of his father’s life emphasizes his emphasis upon leniency. See Epstein 1954, 588.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

Rabbi Maimon offers an illustration of this approach from Rabbi Epstein’s code of Jewish law, Arukh Hashulhan Yoreh Deah, section 37, paragraphs 12–19. There Rabbi Epstein discusses certain basic principles of the laws of ritual slaughter and develops concepts which lead to lenient rulings. This approach opposed the accepted stringent halakhic views. Four years later, in a book entitled Mezikenim Etbonen, Rabbi Ben Tzion Katz presents the same view as Rabbi Epstein (although he does not refer to him) and readily received the rabbinical authorities’ support. It is not our place here to discuss Katz’s work. What is clear is that Rabbi Epstein, even when it meant opposing the normative halakhic rulings, approached his decisions independent of social and religious pressures, while at the same time taking into consideration the needs of his community. Not only in its content but also in its literary structure is this perspective on halakhic adjudication manifested in the Arukh Hashulhan, through phrases such as “in our times,” “our custom is,” “in our country,” almost routinely succeeded by a lenient ruling. Moreover often, in order to explain or illustrate a contemporary item, Rabbi Epstein, concerned with his community’s understanding exactly what he means, employs a Yiddish term, Yiddish being the principal language of the Eastern European orthodox community. An additional perspective of Rabbi Epstein’s realistic approach to the community’s life style is illustrated in his discussion of the woman’s role in cleaning for Passover.39 After citing earlier halakhic sources which viewed women as lazy and simpleminded and therefore not to be trusted to check for bread, Rabbi Epstein declares: “Today, our women inspect even better and probe after even a particle of bread and they wash and clean every spot and they scrutinize more than the men” (Orakh Hayyim, section 437, paragraph 7). A second instance where Rabbi Epstein recognizes the pragmatic role of the woman is expressed in his code’s laws of Passover (Orakh Hayyim, section 473, paragraph 6). In his discussion pertaining to washing the hands at the Passover seder, he writes: The head of the household should not pour for himself [the water over his hands] but rather another [should pour], for this is the expression of freedom. We are not prudent about this for it appears as great deception 39

See Chapter 4 for a detailed discussion of Rabbi Epstein and his attitude towards women. 21

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

[for a husband] to order his wife to pour [water over her husband’s hands]. For the husband is not preferred over her . . .

A third instance pertaining to Jewish law and women is found in Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 75, paragraph 7. In the discussion concerning the obligation for married women to cover their hair when the man is reciting the Shema prayer, since the “sight of a woman’s hair is impropriety,” (B.T. Berakhot 24a) Rabbi Epstein writes, “As to the law, it seems it is permissible to pray and bless in front of their bare heads since now most go this way and their is no dissimilarity from the other visible sections of her body . . . A virgin who normally goes with exposed hair we do not fear for there is no [sinful] thought. Since with us the married also do this [go with uncovered hair] in any case there is no [sinful thoughts].”

In contrast to most rabbinical authorities of his era, Rabbi Epstein was aware of his reality and of the fact that halakhah is an ongoing process. He was thus prepared to rule that woman’s exposed hair is not an impropriety. Rabbi Epstein was prepared to recognize that halakhah cannot be sequestered from social reality. He therefore incorporates his worldview into his adjudicative procedure. It would be inaccurate to classify Rabbi Epstein as a fighter for the “female cause.” He was interested in his social reality according to halakhah, and not in crusades. To illustrate this point, I would like to cite a ruling where he places the woman in the kitchen to free the husband for other activities. This ruling, stated in Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 250, paragraph 4, is concerned with a man’s duties in the preparation of the Sabbath.40 After citing the sources that obligate the man to partake in these preparations, Rabbi Epstein rules that the woman in his times is the one who prepares the Sabbath, hence the man is released from the obligation. Reality was Rabbi Epstein’s concern, and not abstract equality. Furthermore, in Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 262, paragraph 4, in his discussion concerning Sabbath preparations Rabbi Epstein writes: Also the custom of the women is to wash their faces and hands and to dress in Sabbath clothes before candle lighting. Thus they should be 40

22

See also section 251, paragraph 3.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

cautious that possibly the sun will set. [Therefore] they should first light candles then wash and dress in Sabbath clothes, especially during the winter days. If they do not obey their husbands [in this law] the husband should light the candles, for women are simpleminded (i.e. uneducated) and cannot differentiate between the glorification of a commandment and a complete prohibition.

It was reality as he saw it that directed Rabbi Epstein, and not the aspirations of any twentieth century movement. An additional illustration which portrays Rabbi Epstein’s concern for the welfare and reality of his community is found in the Arukh Hashulhan, Orakh Hayyim, section 640, paragraph 2, where he seeks to explain why the laws in his society and era are different. In his discussion concerning a child’s obligation to dwell in “booths” (sukkot), he cites the adjudicators who argue that a child should be fed in the booth. Rabbi Epstein continues, “I don’t know why [Jews] are not cautious about this in our time. It may be because in our country the majority of the time it is cold in the booths and it is difficult for the child to eat in the booth.”

For Rabbi Epstein, halakhah is not a theoretical or stagnant cannon of law but rather an ongoing process that deals with the reality of society. A further orientation to be recognized in Rabbi Epstein’s halakhic perception is his view and recognition of technological innovations. Part of Rabbi Epstein’s social reality was the influence of the industrial revolution. This revolution not only created a society that made great use of machinery in industry and commerce, but also introduced into the household new gadgets which changed their life styles. As mentioned above, “change” or “new” were considered a threat to a highly religious legal society41 such as orthodox rabbinic Judaism. An analysis of Rabbi Epstein’s halakhic writings reveal three categories of affirmation of the scientific and technological phenomena of his time. The first category I suggest is the recognition and acceptance of these innovations. In his code and homilies he refers to such new gadgets as an accepted occurrence without any need for halakhic dialogue. For example, cameras (homily 5) are accepted by him as a part of the community’s life style without question.42 41 42

For a discussion of the characteristics of this type of society see Douglas 1978. See chapter 5 for a detailed discussion of this topic. 23

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Second, technology can be placed in the service of religion. This is when technology does not intrinsically change the behavioral patterns of the orthodox Jew, but contributes to the functioning of the halakhic process. For example, in his discussion of the type of non-leather shoes that are permitted to be worn on the fast of Tisha B’av (Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 544, paragraph 15) Rabbi Epstein refers to “koloshim.” These were made of material that resembled leather but were a type of glue and rubber. A new commodity is discussed in the ruling about leather shoes on Tisha B’av, but the law remains unchanged. A second example comes from the laws of Hanukkah (Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 673, paragraph 1). Rabbi Epstein reports about a new type of candle manufactured from a new substance at the time, paraffin, that it is “clearer than wax.” This new class of candles is a fitting way to perform the obligation of lights on Hanukkah. The new innovation does not reconstruct the halakhic obligation, but rather enhances it. Third are the ntechnological discoveries that imply change in the intrinsic halakhic behavioral pattern of the nineteenth century East European Jew. Two examples will illustrate these in Rabbi Epstein’s halakhic approach. The close of the nineteenth century saw the introduction of electricity into the homes of Europeans, a phenomenon which initiated change in their life styles. In response to a question posed to him concerning the use of the electricity on holidays (Abromowitz, 1903), Rabbi Epstein writes that it is permitted. Employing normative halakhic reasoning, he explains his lenient position. Thus, although in content concerned with a halakhic question, his responsum on electricity confronted possibilities for transforming the ritual and behavioral processes of Jewish life on the holidays. Rabbi Epstein was nonetheless not apprehensive to permit the utilization of these innovations. An additional instance of change in the halakhic process is found in his attitude toward a new device introduced into the ritual of circumcision. This device eliminated the necessity of withdrawing the blood of the circumcision with the mouth (metzizah). Rabbi Epstein first refers to this device in Arukh Hashulhan, Yoreh Deah, section 264, paragraph 19. He quotes the sources that prohibit its use and concludes: “Our rabbis, the Sages of the Talmud, were erudite and more intelligent than they [those who do not want to use the mouth] . . . it is not for us to innovate innovations as these and we should remain as our forefathers.” Rabbi Epstein completes the paragraph with “in our country we have not heard of this [device].” 24

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

In 1900, six years after the publication of his volume on Yoreh Deah, Rabbi Epstein sent a letter of approbation to Reverend Abraham Tertis permitting this device (1900, 34). As long as it was not a realistic issue for him, it was not necessary to take a halakhic stand. It was sufficient to state that it was not part of his reality. However, when the question became an actuality for his community, Rabbi Epstein advanced an opinion even though it contradicted the rabbis quoted in the Arukh Hashulhan. An added perspective on Rabbi Epstein’s outlook on halakhah is found in his rulings concerning factories. As mentioned above, the industrial revolution which had reached the Russian Empire by the end of the nineteenth century introducing production on a large scale. Work that had been done in homes and small shops was now being done by new machines on a large scale. Rabbi Epstein saw in this change in the structure of society a positive contribution to the needs of Jewish ritual process. For example, in his code of laws, Orakh Hayyim, section 463, paragraph 15, concerning the laws of chametz he writes, It is known that as far as sugar in our times is concerned, there is no suspicion of chametz for it all made by steam [machines] . . . but the way is to specify that Passover sugar is made for Passover under the supervision of a rabbinical scholar (who is) overseer in the factory . . . Today all [sugar] is made in large factories by steam and there is no suspicion of chametz.

Thus Rabbi Epstein’s adjudication system implies that he was prepared to deal with new issues that challenged his community. His approach to the predicaments that confronted his society suggests regard and cognizance for them. His attitude toward halakhic decision-making on contemporary issues can be summed up in a statement he made concerning the four species (Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 658, paragraph 21), “There is a reality [today] which was not so in previous generations.”

His Last Years Rabbi Epstein remained Rabbi in Novogrudok until his death. During the final years of his life, he had achieved great popularity and respect as a rabbinical authority. His code of Jewish law Arukh Hashulhan was published in several editions. It was primarily in these years that he was solicited by Jews throughout the world to respond to their halakhic queries. Moreover, among halakhic adjudicators, his code of Jewish law 25

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

received primary consideration in comparison to other contemporary halakhic works, such as Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah, which is considered today as the primary contemporary source for halakhah. Thus Rabbi Herzel Henkin writes in the name of his grandfather Rabbi Y. E. Henkin,43 So said my grandfather, may the memory of the righteous be blessed, that the power in halakhah of the Arukh Hashulhan is greater than the Mishnah Berurah. Thus in a place of dispute one is to rule according to the Arukh Hashulhan. (1981, 22)

This same approach, attributed to Rabbi Epstein’s knowledge and interaction with the Jewish community, was orally repeated to me by students of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, in his name. His responsa offer evidence of ill health during his last years, especially with difficulty in seeing. In a letter to Aaron Gordon in New York, dated in the fall of 1907, he writes “My eyes are dark and painful; this [ache] should not be upon you . . .” (Gordon 1909, 3). Some sources state that in his latter days he was blind.44 Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein died in Novogrudok on the twenty second of Adar 4268 (March 25, 1908),45 at the age of 79.

F. HIS WRITINGS In 1869, at the age of forty years, while still rabbi of Navosybkov,46 Rabbi Epstein published his first work, titled Or Layesharim, a commentary on the Sefer Hayashar of Rabbi Yaacov Tam. The publication was made possible through the financial backing of his congregants.47 The Or Layesharim (at least the edition we have available today) deals with a portion of 43

44

45

46

47

26

Rabbi Y. E. Henkin received one of his rabbinical ordinations (smichot) from Rabbi Epstein. See Encyclopedia Judaica volume 8, 324. I heard this assertion from a rabbi who had heard from his teacher who sat with Rabbi Epstein and had to read to him because of his blindness. In his Mekor Barukh (1954, 1675) Rabbi Epstein’s son Barukh writes that the death was on 29 Ab 4253 (August 7, 1893). The documents from Rabbi Epstein attest to 1908 as the correct date. In Or Layesharim when he signs his name he adds his place of residence using the Jewish word for Novosybkov, Zibaki. See the introduction to Or Layesharim.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

Rabbi Tam’s work.48 The commentary is concerned with the tractates of the Babylonian Talmud Yebamot, Kiddushin, Ketubot, Gittin, Nedarim and Niddah. In his introduction to his work, after the normative praise of the Czar, Rabbi Epstein notes a threefold intent in writing Or Layesharim: first, to clarify the textual errors that have made parts of Rabbi Tam’s work incomprehensible. Rabbi Epstein is careful to emphasize that none of his changes have been placed in the body of Rabbi Tam’s existing texts, for that would contradict Rabbi Tam’s instructions in his introduction where he warns the reader against such an endeavour. Second, where there is an ambiguous statement made by Rabbi Tam, there is an attempt in the Or Layesharim to clarify the statement. Third, where other commentaries argue with Rabbi Tam, Rabbi Epstein endeavors to resolve the dispute. Or Layesharim, although it attained rabbinical acceptance, did not attain popularity among rabbinical scholars and students. This lack of interest was due to Rabbi Epstein’s choice of topic. Rabbi Tam’s work, because of its complex content, was not a widely used text. Rabbi Epstein’s commentary did not overcome this obstacle. Moreover, the majority of the printed copies were confiscated and destroyed in a raid by the Russian censors. Although Rabbi Epstein’s book was no threat and had the necessary imprimatur from the government censors, his work was seized with others found at the publishers. The significance of Or Layesharim was thus a result of its approbations and not of the book’s content. At the beginning of his book, Rabbi Epstein printed six approbations. The need for approbations was the accepted genre of rabbinic literature in Eastern Europe during the nineteenth century. The first two which followed Rabbi Tam’s introduction were letters from two Hasidic leaders, Rabbi Aaron of Czernobyl and his son Rabbi Menachem Nachum. (Both lived in the county where Rabbi Epstein was rabbi.) Subsequently, one had Rabbi Epstein’s introduction and approbations from four Lithuanian rabbinical authorities. These were: Rabbi Naftali Zvi Berlin (a member of the author’s family), Rabbi Meir Berlin (family), Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spector and Rabbi Yehoshua Leib Diskin. 48

It is suggested by Rabbi Epstein’s biographers that he completed more than one volume but they were destroyed. This was a result of a Russian government search and confiscation in the publishing house where Rabbi Epstein was an innocent bystander and thus a victim of fate, for his books carried no subversive materials. See Berlin 1939, 245. 27

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

The mitnagdic society, which Rabbi Epstein served and represented when he began his tenure in Novogrudok, had not completely ended its strife with the Hasidic community. It could not permit its spiritual leader, Rabbi Epstein, to be so closely and publicly identified with Hasidic leaders. It is thus claimed that these approbations were torn from all available copies of the Or Layesharim. In 1873 Rabbi Epstein, while serving as rabbi of Novogrudok published the first volume of his code of Jewish law, the Arukh Hashulhan on Hoshen Mishpat.49 This volume, as the subsequent volumes on the remainder of Rabbi Joseph Caro’s Shulhan Arukh, was readily accepted in the rabbinical community and achieved almost instant popularity, thus establishing for Rabbi Epstein an international reputation as an adjudicator. In his introduction, Rabbi Epstein clarifies the purpose of his code. He commences in the same manner as other major codes of Jewish law, with a cursory survey of the history of halakhah. This is followed with a delimitation of why and how his book was prepared. He writes: I arose and awakened, I the young man from the house of Levi, with the help of the Lord Almighty my Redeemer who gives strength to the tired; I composed this essay and titled it Arukh Hashulhan. I edited it with all varieties of wonderful considerations and I commenced with the section Hoshen Mishpat for the words of the latter rabbinical authorities [in this section] are in depth and complicated and the second section [of Hoshen Mishpat] is lacking their pleasant words. For all their interest was in the first section. Therefore, possibly, the Rabbis allowed me an opportunity to expand on it. The following is, with the help of God, the structure of this book: 1. In all the statements of our rabbis, the authors of the Shulhan Arukh, I explained their reasons and argumentation. 2. All the statements of our latter rabbinical authorities, when they argue with the Shulhan Arukh, I cited their opinions as well as their new rulings. 3. Where there is a dispute between the latter rabbinical authorities, I cited their views. If I had something to resolve, I did not hesitate to write my decision according to my humble opinion and the reader may make his own choice. 4. In many instances, when the opinions of the editors of the Shulhan Arukh are disputed, and God enlightened my eyes to settle the controversy, I wrote my opinion. 5. In a number of instances that the assertions of our great rabbi the Rambam of blessed memory were left 49

28

Horovitz 2007, 191 argues that he began to write this volume while still serving as the rabbi of Novizikov.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

unanswered by his commentators or the Shulhan Arukh commentators, I laboured and wearied to comprehend his holy path and I transcribed it in my book. 6. And many additional new laws that I found in the writings of former rabbinical authorities that have not yet been cited I have quoted. Furthermore, new laws that have been deduced from logic or from proofs, I have not avoided mentioning them . . .

Not only in theory but also in the text of the Arukh Hashulhan, Rabbi Epstein complies with the paradigm presented in the introduction. An investigation into this code will reveal additional traits; for example, his system of adjudication which was discussed above. Other characteristics of the book’s include Rabbi Epstein’s endeavour to avoid the rabbinical dialectic (pilpul). When he presents a rabbinical dialogue or even dispute, it is only for the purpose of background, clarification and exegesis of the halakhic decision. In the book, the author traces the halakhic development from its earliest source, whether it be Biblical or rabbinic. He acquiesces to employ both early rabbinic sources, codes and responsa, as well as works of his contemporaries.50 Ultimately, following the genre of halakhic adjudication, his decisions are founded upon the opinions of the latter rabbinical authorities. Rabbi Epstein employed a unique structure and method in compiling his code. In contrast to the accepted genre,51 he did not compile his paragraphs from quotations of previously accepted rabbinical authorities. He readily employed expressions as “in our time,” “our custom is” and “in our country,” which indeed referred to his society. This terminology is frequently employed as a formulary found at the conclusion of a ruling concerned with the rabbi’s reality. The structured form used in the Arukh Hashulhan is similar to that of Shulhan Arukh Harav written by the founder of Habad, Rabbi Shneur Zalman. Both documents trace the halakhic development of the case under discussion, proposing not only sources and rulings, but also explanations. An examination of the Shulhan Arukh Harav, which appears primarily on the section Orakh Hayyim, will reveal that for Rabbi Epstein it served as a skeleton or paradigm for his work. Using it as a basis, he developed the section’s paragraphs, adding additional sources and exegesis as well as his independent rulings. Considering the Habad movement’s 50

51

For example he quotes the Mishnah Berurah in Orakh Hayyim, section 245, paragraph 18. See Chapter 3. 29

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

influence on Rabbi Epstein, this might suggest an implicit identification with it. Any explicit proclamation of identification by the spiritual leader of the mitnagdic community of Novogrudok, however, would have been unacceptable. Moreover, this same community offered the financial backing to publish his code. The Arukh Hashulhan, in addition to an in-depth knowledge of Jewish law and sources, demonstrates the personality of a caring, independent and unique rabbinical authority. His belief in his work, and its message, as well as an implicit statement of self-sufficiency is expressed in the fact that he did not include approbations in the Arukh Hashulhan, almost an unheard of practice in the publishing of rabbinical works, especially for rabbis who were cultivating their reputation. Arukh Hashulhan Hoshen Mishpat was first published in 1883 in Warsaw. The section on Yoreh Deah was subsequently published in 1894, also in Warsaw. Even Haezer was published in 1903 in St. Petersburg and Orakh Hayyim in 1903 in St. Petersburg. Presently, there are numerous editions published. There is not a rabbinical library that is considered complete without it. In 1991, I published a newly discovered section of Yoreh Deah that Rabbi Epstein, for unknown reasons, did not include in his original monograph. I suggest that he completed writing it after the publication of the volume on Yoreh Deah, and like his other works, he did not have the opportunity or financial backing to publish it. In 1907, one year prior to his death, Rabbi Epstein signed his introduction to a completed new code of Jewish law, Arukh Hashulhan Leatid (Arukh Hashulhan for the Future). He explains that after the publication of Arukh Hashulhan on Caro’s Shulhan Arukh, he wrote an additional four volumes which he titled Arukh Hashulhan Leatid since they are concerned with issues only relevant to a rebuilt Temple and its society in the land of Israel. Thus the volumes are classified as kodshim (holiness), teharot (cleanliness), and a volume on zeraim (agriculture), and various themes that include kings, shekalim, sanctification of the new month, excommunications, contumacious rebellious elder, Nazirites, sanhedrin, and values (of sacrifice). All of these topics, as stated above, were entirely theoretical and not intended for Rabbi Epstein’s diaspora society. Rabbi Epstein stated once again in his introduction Arukh Hashulhan Leatid that the foundation of his work was Maimonides’ Yad Hachazakah and the Sefer Mitzvot Hagadol, both of which deal with these topics. In addition, he incorporated in his dialogue and rulings the views of other major rabbinical authorities, such as Rashi and Alfasi. 30

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

In contrast to his previous code of law Arukh Hashulhan which was structured in its chapter numbers and headings according to Joseph Caro’s Shulhan Arukh, his new work was novel in its organization. While the general themes were those of Maimonides, section numbers and headings are Rabbi Epstein’s own. Rabbi Epstein persevered in his system of adjudication in the Arukh Hashulhan Leatid as well. Rabbi Shlomo Zevin (1959, 33) substantiates this claim in the chapter that discusses this code. However, he points out an exception where the author chose a stringent approach rather than his customary lenient rulings. Section 15 in the laws of the Sabbatical year concludes in a footnote with a stringent decision, As a result of our many sins at present they have behaved leniently in the settlements in the holyland [to sell the land to a non-Jew] during the sabbatical year based only on a rabbinical dictum. It is an insult to our holy Torah and an insult to our holy land . . . as already our generations great rabbinical authorities have already cried, as explained in the responsa of my learned and righteous brother-in-law from Volozin . . .

Although this was a controversial issue in Israel at the turn of the century, Rabbi Epstein was in agreement with other authorities, Zionistic and non-Zionistic and chose to rule stringently. Moreover, as was discussed in his other documents, Rabbi Epstein continued to express his concern for textual and grammatical accuracy. Rabbi Zevin (1959, 34) lists selected examples to illustrate this exactness. For example, in the laws of terumot (section 50, paragraph 6), while discussing Maimonides’ analysis of the word “contribute” terumah, he writes, “Rightfully the language of the Bible and the Sages are each individualistic . . . and we do not know the depth of this language . . .” Rabbi Epstein continues with his own analysis. An additional trait in the Arukh Hashulhan Leatid, not found in his other previous works, is his aspiration to explain biblical edicts. This phenomenon is not found in his other halakhic writings. Rabbi Epstein did not succeed in publishing the Arukh Hashulhan Leatid during his lifetime. This code of Jewish law was published posthumously. The manuscripts were safeguarded by the Berlin (Bar Ilan) family, grandchildren of the author. Meir Berlin submitted them to Rabbi Maimon of Mosad Harav Kook for publication. Between 1938 and 1975, Mosad Harav Kook printed all of the manuscripts. In 1938, the first two volumes, which seemed most relevant to the Jewish society in Palestine 31

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

were published. They were the sections on laws of agriculture. A third volume concerned with this theme was published in 1947. In 1958 a volume of collected topics was printed. The final two volumes Mosad Harav Kook published were on Kodshim in 1968–1969 and Teharot in 1975. Mosad Harav Kook published Rabbi Epstein’s code under the title Arukh Hashulhan Leatid (Arukh Hashulhan of the Future). In the manuscripts that I examined the title is simply leatid (for the future). It has been suggested that the former terminology insinuates the immediate future while the latter implies a messianic future. The publishers of Mosad Harav Kook, identified with the Zionist movement, would have preferred the former terminology. In 1889 in Warsaw, Rabbi Epstein published a commentary on the Passover Hagadah titled Lel Shimurim (Protected Night).52 In contrast to his other publications the author does not state in his introduction why he composed his essay or the need for it. Rather, the introduction is a halakhic dialogue on the theme of Passover eve that commences on Sabbath. Rabbi Epstein opens his introduction, ”Since I saw that adjudicators were perplexed concerning the time of checking [for leavened bread] when the eve of Passover falls on Sabbath, I therefore sought to explain [this issue] with the help of the Lord.” Rabbi Epstein offers his readers no rationale for his commentary. Two additional short essays were published in Rabbi Epstein’s name posthumously. In 1928, in a collection of commentaries on the Jerusalem Talmud published in Vilna by Rom Publishers appears a two page commentary titled Michel Mayim (Container of Water). The publishers in their introduction state that Michel Mayim was printed from an original handwritten manuscript. In 1909, in a collection of homilies Masaf Derush, two of Rabbi Epstein’s homilies were published. The author of this collection states at the opening of Rabbi Epstein’s composition, “I found this in the writings of the Scholar Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein and this is what is written.” The homilies’ themes deal with the high holidays period. These homilies do not appear in Rabbi Epstein’s own collection of homilies Kol Ben Levi.

52

32

Horovitz 2007, 198 writes that the Passover commentary was published by his daughter Rabbanit Vibrinski.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

Kol Ben Levi—A Book of Homilies In his discussion of sermons and the Jewish society, Saperstein (1988, 1) states that one value of the rabbinical sermon is its capacity to reflect the society in which it is delivered. To add to Saperstein’s conclusion, sermons, possibly even more than other types of rabbinic literature, reveal the worldview of their authors. This world is communicated through the unique content of the homilies that discuss the plight, troubles and behavioral patterns of the congregants. The majority of extant published Jewish sermons stem from the era prior to tape recorders and videos. Moreover, since rabbinical sermons were customarily presented on Sabbath and holidays, few of them could constitute stenographic transcriptions of what was actually said. Rather they were frequently edited by the preacher sometime after their presentation and revised for publication. These editorial changes may encompass language and syntax as well as content. An example of such a work is Rabbi Epstein’s homilies. It would be doubtful if Rabbi Epstein delivered his sermons in Hebrew, the language in which they are published. His congregants spoke and understood Yiddish. Moreover, in the sermons he interpolated detailed rabbinic dialogue that the average congregant might find beyond his capabilities and educational background to be able to follow. In addition, the book’s first sermon is devoted to the praise of the Tzar, similar to the concept suggested at the opening of the Arukh Hashulhan (Hoshen Mishpat). I submit that this sermon is also an augmentation of the editor to secure the publication of his work (as I will explain in greater detail in a subsequent section of this essay). Furthermore, in the text of the sermons there is additional evidence to editorship. For example, in homily 5 he refers to homily 4 when he writes, “as we have written in homily 4.” Saperstein also points out (1988, 2) that the substance of the European rabbinical sermons denounced the ethical, religious and social shortcomings of the Jewish society in which they were delivered. These rabbinic grievances are symptomatic of most periods of Jewish history and are found in diverse geographical areas that housed Jewish communities. They include behavioral traits such as extravagance, ostentation, divisiveness, mimicry of Gentile conduct, inadequate dedication to philanthropy, insincere repentance, refusal to receive constructive criticism from rabbinical and spiritual leaders (as preachers), disrespect and audacity towards the rabbis, extravagant veneration of the wealthy and 33

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

powerful, idle conversation during prayer services, lack of devotion and piety during prayer, a failure to set fixed times to study Torah, and a decline in Torah study. Saperstein continues (1988, 2–3): “This does not mean that all rebuke is by its nature stereotyped, conventional, and therefore worthless as evidence for social history.” A close examination of each document of sermons can reveal distinctive traits of each society as well as its author’s worldview. Rabbi Epstein’s book of sermons reveals a unique structure and emerges as distinctive from the “normative” rabbinical homily described by Saperstein. Rather than reprimand his congregants, Rabbi Epstein aspired to solace and reassure them against their troubles and woes. In fact, in homily number 3, he addresses the problem whether it is proper for the Rabbi to reprove the Jews. He writes, In our generation most Jews suffer evil predicaments especially the distress of a want of a livelihood. Is it therefore right to reprimand them, to add additional pains to their suffering and distress to their agony . . . I say, that in our times considering our [difficult] situation, it is very difficult to rebuke.

Rabbi Epstein argues that if the Jew is chided, he will accept it as “love and truth.” Alternately, he explains that the main aspect of admonishment in his era is, that every Jewish person will fully believe that all our situations, communal as well as individual are [ordained by] Providence . . . and in this we will find comfort to our melancholy souls. It is in the hands of the Blessed One to revert everything for us to be good.

The predominant troubles addressed in the homilies are the political and economic plight of the Russian Jew.53 Primarily, the sermons consider the Jew’s quandary over his subsistence. Rabbi Epstein’s solution to the problem can only be spiritual. He complies with the traditional rabbinical explanation, that the Jews were exiled from their land as a result of their sins. He continues to explain that the reason for Gentile hatred of the Jews in the diaspora stems from the realization that two inherently opposed forces, the Jews and the Gentiles, must inevitably clash. The diaspora experience, with emphasis placed upon the problem of the Jews’ scarcity 53

34

I discuss the political situation in greater detail and offer a bibliography on the subject in chapter 2.

1. RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

of livelihood, is a component of God’s blueprint for rehabilitating the Jewish nation. This is because the Jewish nation and its plight are beyond the natural pattern of history and above nature in general. Rabbi Epstein (in homilies 4 and 5) compares the Jewish people to fermenting grain. This product must go through the sour and spoiled process to reach an absolute plane, this new status being the coming of the messiah. He says that what is “bad will turn to good.” Moreover, continues the Rabbi, the suffering is really good for the Jews. The situation is compared to a field of good crops saturated with weeds. One cannot detect the produce since it is obscured by the weeds. What could reduce the bitter sting of their affliction is the study of Torah, repentance and trust in the Lord. Rabbi Epstein commenced his sermons with popular verses from the Hebrew Bible. Primarily he employed verses from psalms and the weekly sabbath readings. These sections were well-known to the traditional Jew. Subsequent to the verses, Rabbi Epstein would frequently include a midrashic interpretation before proposing his own explanation. As stated above, this exegesis served as a point of departure in discussing the plight of the Russian Jew. Furthermore, if we ascertain these sermons to have been indeed delivered, at least in content if not in actual terminology, such an opening would succeed in captivating the audience. In a significant portion of the sermons Rabbi Epstein interpolates rabbinic dialogues and dialectics. The majority of these deliberations are concerned with Temple themes associated with Passover and the High Holidays. These two themes represent the times of year Rabbi Epstein presumably delivered these sermons. The times being Shabbat Hagadol, the Sabbath prior to Passover, and Shabbat Shuva, the Sabbath between the New Year (Rosh Hashana) and the Day of Atonement. The delivery of sermons on these days coincides with Rabbi Epstein’s statement in Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 429, paragraph 6, where he writes, “Today the custom is for the Rabbi to deliver a sermon on Shabbat Hagadol and Shabbat Shuva. He should speak on the topic [of the immediate holiday].” This custom for the rabbi to lecture on these Sabbaths on the topics of Passover and the High Holidays respectively was widespread amongst the Jewish communities of Eastern Europe. Rabbi Epstein the spiritual leader of Novogrudok was no exception. Thus, the sermons that appear in Kol Ben Levi would imply that Rabbi Epstein had delivered them throughout the many years he acted as a community Rabbi. The final redaction of this work can be dated as late as 1907, one year before his death. While other historical events are 35

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

recognizable in the homilies, the latest circumstance that is suggested is 1907, the year he edited the Arukh Hashulhan Leatid’s the division, Kodshim. In homily 7, while discussing the theme of “Second Passover,” he writes “. . . in our essay Arukh Hashulhan Leatid on the laws of Kodshim section 189, paragraph 4 we explained . . .” An examination of the Arukh Hashulhan Leatid substantiates the accuracy of this reference. In the introduction to this division of his legal, codex he concludes with his name and the date it was redacted, August 28, 1907 (Elul 11, 5267). Although in his last years of life, while suffering from bad eyesight, Rabbi Epstein succeeded in completing (but not publishing) both the Arukh Hashulhan Leatid and his book of homilies, Kol Ben Levi. The name of his book of sermons, Kol Ben Levi (The Voice of Levi), cannot be conclusively attributed to Rabbi Epstein. While I have authenticated the homilies themselves, which were written in Rabbi Epstein’s handwriting, the title page can not be verified. The name of the book was written in a different handwriting. Alternately, the name Kol Ben Levi does suggest that Rabbi Epstein did originate it. The expression “ben Levi” (son of Levi) or “bet Levi” (house of Levi) is found throughout his writings. For example, in the introduction to Arukh Hashulhan Hoshen Mishpat he writes “I arose and awakened, I the young man from the house of Levi . . .” In homily 14, when illustrating that his name is found in the Bible, he writes, “I . . . from the house of Levi . . .”54 In the cover letter Rabbi Epstein sent to the rabbinical authorities soliciting support for the Navogrudok rabbinical academy he concludes, “The soul of the voice of Ben Levi calls out to God . . .” Furthermore, this book would not be the sole instance Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein employs his name in the title of his essays. He called his commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud Mechel Mayim. Thus, while it cannot be confirmed that Rabbi Epstein named his essay Kol Ben Levi, the above information might suggest it. An additional difficulty that the manuscript of the homilies generated in its publication are its first and last pages. Time, weather and nature have taken their toll, and segments of these pages are beyond recognition and reconstruction. In conclusion, I offer the words of Rabbi Epstein, “May the Lord enlighten our eyes with the light of his Torah. Amen, Amen.”

54

36

This is further proof that Rabbi Epstein is the author of these homilies.

2. “LONG LIVE THE TSAR”

2.

“LONG LIVE THE TSAR”: Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein and the Russian Political System

I. In 1884,1 Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein (1829–1908), the Rabbi of Novogrudok, Belorussia, published the first volume of his Arukh Hashulhan, on Hoshen Mishpat. At the conclusion of his introduction to this compendium of Jewish law, the author signs his name and gives the date, Wednesday the 24th of Tevet, 5442 (January 3, 1882). This introduction is prefaced by a two page apologetic statement, written in rabbinic Hebrew and titled “Kvod Hamelekh” (His Honour the King2). Although the statement does not state so explicitly, it is addressed to the Tsar, his family and his agents. Rabbi Epstein does not date this document, but the content of the preface, which is concerned with the Russian political and social realities of 1881–1882, suggests that it was written during this period. Furthermore, the Tsar Alexander III, who began to reign on March 1, 1881, after the assignation of his father, is referred to in this document as the ruler of Russia. This places the preamble between March 1881 and January 1883. The “Kvod Hamelekh” differs from other similar prefaces found in rabbinic publications both in length and content. The normative foreword in Jewish publications during eras when censorship was enacted included a short statement stating that (1) “the law of the land is law” (dina dmalkhuta dina) and that (2) references in the publication to a Gentile (especially idol worshipper) do not refer to contemporary Gentiles. Both Y. H. Yerushalmi (1976) and D. Heilman (1989) have shown that it is an 1

2

Y.L. Maimon (162) states that it was first published in 1894. I have a copy of an edition from 1884. The translations of the “Kvod Hamelekh” are mine. The full translation of “Kvod Hamelekh” appears in section three of this chapter. 37

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

accepted genre in rabbinic literature to make such statements, even though the author might not believe them. These declarations were written to protect the author against accusations by Gentile government officials (in our case Christian). In certain cases, such prefaces prevented bodily attacks against its writer. These protective statements were required to avoid hinderance in the publication of a Jewish manuscript that might contain material appearing subversive to the Russian government. Rabbi Epstein makes such a declaration in the opening of his first publication Or Layesharim (1869, Zhitomir). The “Kvod Hamelekh” goes beyond the need to satisfy the Russian censor or any other threatening force. Even the fear for his position or his community did not require Rabbi Epstein to write this two-page apologetic. Rather, Rabbi Epstein is both explicitly and implicitly communicating a message and his worldview to his reader, the Jewish halakhic-observant community.3 This worldview, in addition to his political stand, can serve as a basis for understanding his adjudications that follow in the Arukh Hashulhan. In the body of what follows we shall document the relationship between the preface’s topics and the community’s expressed criticisms against Jews of Rabbi Epstein’s Russia. At the end of this chapter, we shall focus on the implicit goal of the preface which will also reflect its author’s view of the Tsar as well as his approach to halakhah.

II. The preface commences in the normative homiletic form,4 with interpretations of passages from scripture and especially with Talmudic statements. Chosen are quotations that can be made to praise the Tsar. These citations, taken out of context, are typical of the genre of homiletic literature. For example, the statement from the B.T. Berakhot 58a, “The Kingdom on earth is as the Kingdom of Heaven,” refers to the noise a king makes upon approaching. It does not mean that a Gentile ruler’s status is on par with God’s. Or, take the verse from Ecclesiastes 8, 2, at the opening of the preface “Keep the King’s command and because of your 3

4

38

Texts as a means of communication of explicit and implicit is discussed at length by social scientists. See for example Malina 1986. Rabbi Epstein uses this form of exegesis in his homilies which I am publishing with Ktav, 1990.

2. “LONG LIVE THE TSAR”

sacred oath be not dismayed.” In context it does not praise a human king.5 Even those traditional commentaries that interpret the verse to refer to an earthly king write that because of fear one should adhere to the commands of the king. This is altogether different from Rabbi Epstein’s explanation. Subsequent to his extensive praise of the Tsar and emphasis on the obligation of every halakhic observant Jew to love and fear the ruler, Rabbi Epstein is careful to point out that it is the halakhic observant Jew whose loyalty cannot be questioned. Rabbinic Judaism, as presented through the Biblical and Talmudic sources in the first segment of the preface is made to substantiate Rabbi Epstein’s claim. Thus, the Rabbi states that it would be prohibited and therefore impossible for an observant Jew to be involved in any type of rebellion or revolution against the Tsar. Even a cursory examination of late nineteenth century Jewish Russian history will reveal that the author of this preface is concerned with the Jewish-Russian political realities of his day.6 The years 1881–1882 in Russia have been termed in Jewish history as the “Southern Storms.” These years were a time when poverty, demoralization and pogroms with all their ramifications affected the great majority of Russian Jewry in significant ways. In 1869, a convert to Christianity, Jacob Branfman, published a series of newspaper articles which were redacted into a book entitled Kniga Kagala (The book of the Kahal). The articles and book’s content were reprinted a number of times during the years that followed. In 1871, it was published at the expense of the Russian government and distributed to government officials as a guide. Branfman charged that within the Russian empire the Jews had created their own internal state which was governed by the laws of the Talmud. The Talmud sought to exploit and enslave the non-Jewish population. It explicitly permitted Jews to cheat and swindle the Christian. Furthermore it instructed avoidance of the Gentile neighbour in every way possible: social, political and religious. In summary, the Talmud taught Jews not to consider themselves citizens in the non-Jewish state in which they lived. Jews were not to consider the 5

6

Although it can be argued that Rabbi Epstein is implicitly stating that he does not believe what he is writing I suggest that his “out of context” use of quotes is the accepted genre of homilies and he supports the rabbinical view that requires loyalty to the Tzar. The historical data used in this paper has been adapted from Dubnow 1918, Aronson 1973 (which is mostly based upon commission reports), Berk 1985 (which is mostly based upon the Russian press), Magaznick 1913. 39

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

state’s laws binding. According to Branfman, Jews exhibited no feeling of national loyalty or patriotism, and hence no common bonds with the Gentile citizens. In other words, an observant Jew could never be a loyal and patriotic Russian citizen. Branfman’s works were well publicized and served as a source for the anti-Semitic accusations that came in the form of new books, government reports and recommendations. The books also became a primary source for the anti-Semitic press. The first section of Rabbi Epstein’s preface is a direct response to these accusations. In addition to the quotes from the Talmud that require the Jew to be loyal to the Tsar and Russia, the author employs rabbinical sources and exegesis to trace the obedience and love of the Jews to their foreign rulers throughout Jewish history. For example, he writes, It is for this reason that our Rabbis, the sages of the Mishnah and Talmud had a very great love for the kings and their ministers. . . . Before the destruction [of the Temple] the father of the oral Torah, Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai, and his students, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehoshua, loudly exhorted [the Jews] to surrender Jerusalem into the hands of the Roman Emperor. Our sages of the Talmud referred to those people who disagreed with this, [giving] them the derogatory term ‘biryonim’, that is to say wild and evil persons, as explained in Talmud Gittin (56b).

Accusations such as Branfman’s did not lie dormant for long. They contributed significantly to new publications7 and essentially fed the press with anti-Semitic source materials. Newspapers greatly influenced the Gentile population’s thinking and actions during the year of crisis. The assassination of Alexander II on March 1, 1881, triggered the beginning of the 1881–1882 pogroms. Jews were accused of participating in the 1881 assassination of Alexander II and thus in the revolutionary movements. Although their role in this killing was minute, both in activity as well as in numbers, the anti-Jewish press and government officials jointly blamed Jewry as a whole. Rabbi Epstein reacted to the press’s allegations that Jews were revolutionaries by discussing both the press’s calumny and the illogical assertation that an observant Jew could not be patriotic to the Tsar. Rabbi Epstein’s rebuttal to the press was not only concerned with the assassination, for the press’ anti-Jewish publications did not stop with the theme of the assassination of the Tsar. The media’s hostility continued to 7

40

For example, H. Lutostanski’s The Talmud and the Jews, 1979.

2. “LONG LIVE THE TSAR”

grow; it lashed out at the Jews with fury and violence. Its close relationship with government officials both reflected the government’s views as well as influenced their attitudes towards the Jewish Russian population. For example, the semi-official, government-subsidized newspaper Novaya Vremya began to “speak of the Jews in a tone which suggested that they were in the possession of some terrible secret.” Topics such as blood libels8 and economic injustices towards the Christian populations were characteristic. Rabbi Epstein takes great care to reproach the authors of these slanderous articles. He portrays the Jews as defenseless against the writers of the anti-Jewish statements. Who is like the nation of Israel, prepared for the retribution from any bully who desires to attack people? [For he] has no better target for the arrows of his tongue than the unfortunate nation of Israel. For who will defend them? Or who will prevent the bullies from saying whatever enters their foolish minds?

Alternately, he beseeches the honest scholar and intellectual not to be influenced by false accusations and slander. They must put the facts concerning the Jews in the correct historical and social perspective. Rabbi Epstein’s concern for the slanderous stance of the Russian press was justified. The anti-Semitic orgy of the Russian Press had a weighty influence upon the Guberniia Commissions9 and consequently upon the Temporary Laws (popularly referred to as the May Laws). The anti-semitic attitudes resulted in unmerciful and corrupt treatment of the Jews, especially in the Pale region of Russia.10 In many instances this included expulsions. The subsequent topics discussed in the preface in addition to dealing with the anti-Semitic press can be directly related to the Guberniia Commissions and May Laws. These commissions were instructed to investigate such issues as the benefit of Jewish agriculture, an investigation of alcohol sales by Jews, and the Jewish perspective of military service, all items discussed by Rabbi Epstein. 8

9

10

Although the blood libels were a medieval fabrication they were again brought back to life. For example H. Lutostanski published a book in 1876 titled Concerning the Use of Christian Blood by the Jews. The Guberniia commissions were created by the Tsar in August 1881 to discuss the question of how to restrain the Jew’s pernicious activities. There members were composed of representatives of the local population, both urban and rural. Almost no Jews were appointed to these commissions. This is of course, where most Jews lived. 41

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

For a number of years the establishment of agricultural settlements was not an issue either for the Jews or the government. However the May Laws of 1882 forbade the Jews to settle outside the urban areas of the Pale. This eliminated the possibility of most Jews creating any form of rural settlement. Often Jews already living in the forbidden rural areas without specific documentation were ousted. Rabbi Epstein petitions the Russian government, “If only our exalted government would be gracious to permit all the Jews to purchase a small parcel of land, then they would see with their honest eyes how we would with joyful hearts farm the land.” In other words, allow the Jew to remain in the rural region of the Pale. The Rabbi’s request also suggests a response to the anti-Semitic, or what I. Aronson (1973) terms “anti-emancipation” groups. They believed that productivity is directly related to agriculture and that the Jews are therefore not productive. They are lazy as well as embezzlers of the peasant society. Thus Rabbi Epstein’s petition for land and apologetic statement, Truthfully, it is because we are denied the right to purchase land that we wander around aimlessly. There are hundreds of families wandering about [hungry] for bread. It is inevitable that because of the pressure of poverty they commit some deceitful and sinful [actions].

Thus, the Rabbi employs the denouncer’s own logic and demonstrates that a request for land exhibits productivity and national allegiance. Rabbi Epstein also concerns himself with the frequent condemnation of the Jews for draft evasion. Although, in 1874 the callous Jewish conscription law had been revised, the accusation continued to find a prominent place with Russian officials and in the anti-Semitic press. The modified law of 1874 required that from the monies collected from different Jewish taxes the new recruits would be allocated a stipend. It is questionable if these funds were indeed distributed. Rabbi Epstein in his apologetic response avoids the standard justifications proposed for Jewish draft dodging and chooses to focus upon this stipend law and the Jew’s destitution. It is for this reason that recruits are missing whenever there is conscription to the military in the month of November. This is because they are scattered and there are many amongst them who because of their poverty, do not have clothes for the cold [weather] to do the military service with. I swear that where in places there is [instituted] an effort to give charity . . . then they would go joyfully to serve in the armed forces of our master the Tsar. 42

2. “LONG LIVE THE TSAR”

Therefore, the Rabbi argued the Jewish draftee’s case employing a Russian edict which in itself would imply national loyalty. Amongst the most widely discussed and widely condemned commercial activities of the Jews were peasant exploitation and the liquor trade, themes which Rabbi Epstein did not neglect. These two topics were perceived as related since the chief form of perceived exploitation was in the sale of liquor. Jews were condemned for using liquor to incite immorality, crime and hooliganism among the peasants. Free liquor and excessive drinking was encouraged. In this way, the peasant was eventually accustomed to hard drinking, drunkenness, disorderly conduct and petty crimes. To pay for the drink, the peasant, it was alleged, was encouraged to commit felonies. At times this exploitation had a reverse affect, inciting pogroms against the Jewish populations. Rabbi Epstein, in addition to denying the charges, again chose to respond with a Russian argument. He writes, “It is far-fetched [to say] that people do not know and understand. The Gentile who dwells in the villages will not permit himself to be deceived.” Finally Rabbi Epstein refers to the content of his book and emphasizes its demonstration of loyalty to the Tsar and the observance of the Talmudic ordinance “the law of the land is law.”

III. As we have stated at the outset, Rabbi Epstein’s preface is atypical of such preambles, in content, style and length. In other words, it does not reflect the standard genre of 18th and 19th century prefaces to Jewish legal documents. Rather, the preface’s closest literary relation appears to be apologetic literature. Several literary traits characterize apologetic works: (1) They are addressed to persons, generally “outsiders,” who will in all probability never read the document. (2) Apologies may be shown to combat actual allegations “outsiders” make against the apologist’s community, but do not explicitly document the allegations themselves. (3) The audience of an apology remains the community it defends, (4) for whom the text provides a positive self-image which, as if by happenstance, exactly counters the negative image projected by the community’s critics. The community’s self-esteem is thereby bolstered.11 11

For an example of apologetic literature see Charlesworth 1985, 7–11. 43

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Read as an apologetic, the “Kvod Hamelekh’s” seemingly bizarre nature appears entirely intelligible. The fact that the preface addresses the Tsar and his officials in Hebrew belies its real readers, the Jews of Russia in the late 19th century. Moreover, the specific content of the preface becomes intelligible only in light of the commonly-made accusations Gentiles made against the Jews of the period. The use of such prefaces for apologetic statements appears a novelty in the rabbinic world. Most orthodox rabbis did not respond directly to the non-Jewish vilification of Jews. Rabbis called their flocks to prayer and fasting or simply resigned themselves to yet another manifestation of divine will. Rabbi Epstein’s homilies reflect the view of the halakhicobservant community that the Jews’ plight in the diaspora was an act of providence in response to Jewish sin and that only the messiah would bring salvation. While for most rabbis the response was passivity, Rabbi Epstein had chosen to make a public statement, first, in his preface and, second, in his book of laws and his sermons. All this is not to say that Rabbi Epstein feigned his belief that Jewish law demanded of the Jew loyalty to the Gentile, host government. An examination of his homilies and the laws of the Arukh Hashulhan substantiate the claim that he enjoined the Jews to be loyal to the Tsar’s government. In his homilies he devotes almost an entire sermon to the topic of loyalty to the Tsar. In the body of his laws, for example section 369, he chooses to rule in favour of the dictum “the law of the land is law.” Moreover, in section 203, sub-paragraph 1 (Laws of Vows),12 he writes, “And moreover an Israelite that pledges to his king to serve in the military or other federal matters that are required by the Tsar, may his name be exalted, may we never annul them. And no Jew should be mistaken in this matter.” In other words, even where he could have demurred on the issue, he chose to include the matter in his code; he rules on the side of adjudicators who believe that obedience to the Gentile ruler is a requirement and preferred stance of Judaism.13 Such an opinion was not unique to Rabbi Epstein. It is argued that already other leading rabbinical authorities, such as Rabbi Schneur 12

13

44

I am presently publishing the manuscript of this chapter of the Arukh Hashulhan. It is not available in the standard editions of this work. For a detailed discussion of dina dmalkhuta dina, see Shilo Shmuel 1974, in his book he shows that there was a dispute amongst 18th and 19th century rabbinical authorities as to the limit of this rule.

2. “LONG LIVE THE TSAR”

Zalman of Lyady, an 18th century rabbinical authority, held a similar view.14 Many Jews believed it was the not the Tsar himself who brought the cataclysms upon the Jews, but rather “wicked” government officials. Such a positive view of the Tsar and Russia was less complicated for a rabbi such as Rabbi Epstein. Rabbi Epstein lived in Lithuania, an area of Russia not directly affected by the tragic events of 1881–82. Furthermore, his position as a community rabbi, especially one who spoke Russian and therefore was alleged to have served as an intermediary for his community with the government, encouraged him to publicly state his view.15 Finally, the preface, which so skillfully treats the larger social environment of the Jews in Russia, suggests that Rabbi Epstein’s other writings, including the Arukh Hashulhan, will similarly exhibit a sustained, even if implicitly expressed, interest in the “real” or “historical” situation of the contemporary Jewish community, and thus will affect his legal adjudications. Further examination of the Arukh Hashulhan may substantiate such a hypothesis.16

IV. The King’s Honour “Keep the King’s command and because of your sacred oath be not dismayed”. (Ecclesiastes 8, 2) Man’s intrinsic nature attests to the need of having a king for a country. The human body is composed of many organs with each organ performing its specific function. Nevertheless all of them turn towards one source to draw on for their life spirit: the heart. Through it flows the force of life to all the organs. If the health of the heart fails, all the organs become sick and the spirit of life in them becomes torn apart and confused. So too a country, which is a whole composed of thousands and thousands of people is like a single person assembled from multiple organs. For man is political in nature and cannot live alone in the desert like the 14

15

16

See Levitats 1981, 41. It is claimed by Rabbi Epstein’s biographers that the Chabad philosophy had influenced him. (For example see Maimon 1959, 154.) Rabbi Epstein’s biographers report that his father was a government contractor, an additional factor that may have contributed to an attitude towards working with the state. I would like to thank Professor Jack Lightstone, Concordia University, for his assistance in developing this essay. 45

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

wild animals. Because of his many needs, each must help his friend. It is [therefore] a necessity for the country to have one organ from which to draw the energy of life for its needs and customs. This is the King. When the King sits on his throne and the all the people subjugate themselves to obey his will and decrees, then all the organs of the state, that is all the people, are healthy and strong and live in peace and security. God forbid the opposite [should occur]. May God protect us [from such situations]. How pleasant are the words of our sages, of blessed memory, when they say; “The kingdom on earth is as the kingdom of Heaven” (Berachot 58a). Just as in the kingdom of Heaven, if the fear of the Master of All dominates mankind and they refrain from transgressing His blessed will, then all mankind lives in prosperity and peace. So it is [when] the fear of the king dominates his subjects and they love to obey his decrees, then all the subjects [live in] peace and security. For us, moreover, the children of Israel, the Holy One, Blessed be He, has added a commandment, a warning and a strict oath, as is explained in the Talmud (Ketubot 111a): the Holy One Blessed be He enjoined Israel by oath not to rebel against the state. This means, even [if one has] rebellion in his heart, [he should] not entertain any thoughts of rebellion against the king and his ministers and the fear of the king should be upon them, for an oath would not be necessary were it only [speaking of] an actual rebellion. This is what the wise man [Solomon] said: “Keep the King’s command.” That is to say, that my very humanity commands me to fullfil the king’s command. For with my flesh I see the king and it is incumbent on me to fullfil the king’s command, just as it is incumbent on me to obey the heart. Moreover, [as to the remainder of the passage] “because of your sacred oath be not dismayed” He has sworn us to it as we will explain [later]. It is for this reason that our Rabbis, the sages of the Mishnah and the Talmud had a very great love for the kings and their ministers. Their fear of them was fear of their glory and awe of their exalted greatness. Even when there was also a [Jewish] government [in the era] when the people of Israel were in their country, our prophets and sages, blessed be their memory, exhorted [the people] to be submissive to the [foreign] rulers of the land, as the prophet Jeremiah commanded, “Serve the King of Babylonia and live” (Jeremiah 27). And to the Jews of the diaspora that were in Babylonia the prophet sent [the message]: “Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters etc. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile and pray for to the Lord on its behalf for in its welfare you will find your welfare.” 46

2. “LONG LIVE THE TSAR”

And thus taught our sages in Mishnah (Avot chapter 3) “Pray for the welfare of the government, for without fear of it, men would swallow one another alive.” During the time of the Second Temple our people were submissive to the kings of Persia and Greece and to the Emperor of Rome. Before the destruction [of the Temple] the father of the oral Torah Rabbi Jochanan ben Zakkai and his students Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehoshua loudly exhorted [the Jews] to surrender Jerusalem into the hands of the Roman Emperor. Our Sages of the Talmud referred to those people who disagreed with this, [giving] them the derogatory term “biryonim,” that is to say wild and evil persons, as explained in Talmud Gittin (56b). If our ancestors in their day acted this way, when kings did not yet have standard laws in the land and judged according to what occurred to them—despotically, how much more should our obligation be to love and revere the Tsar, may his name be exalted, and to fear him. Therefore, in all countries of our dispersion we pray with a pure heart, before God, on every Sabbath and holiday for the welfare of our master the Tsar, may his name be exalted, his wife, children and all his family. There is trustworthy testimony that all during the many years that we dwelled under the protection of the great Russian government there has not been found even one individual from the myriads of Israel who observe the religion of our Torah, who is involved in any rebellion, God forbid. On the contrary, we the sons of Israel have always given our lives for of the love of the Tsars of Russia and their well being. It is known to the historians what the Jews did in the 1812 war with the French and in the year 1830 during the [Polish] rebellion. [This loyalty was manifested when] Alexander I, blessed be his memory, and Nicholas I, blessed be his memory, expressed their gratitude to the Jews for their loyalty to their King. Our persecutors and accusers seek to cover us [with accusations] that are false. They slander us [by saying] that the Jew loves to be deceitful. It is known to the true scholars, those intellectually honest Gentiles, that only hatred, jealousy and evil nature is spoken from their [the accusers] throats. Who is like the nation of Israel, prepared for retribution from any bully who desires to attack people? [For he] has no better target for the arrows of his tongue than the unfortunate nation of Israel. For who will defend them? Or who will prevent the bullies from saying whatever enters their foolish minds? It is thus clear that this is not only [a matter of] bad nature. You can see [the example of] the abominable accusations in early times [concerning] the blood libel that the slanderers fabricated claiming that 47

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

we employ human blood for [the] Passover [ritual]. Time has already rejected in shame these wicked slanderers forever. Even so, you now [still] find [people with] wicked hearts who regurgitated these things. They are not embarrassed or ashamed to speak so. From this [example] you can test and judge all types of accusations about these lost sheep that the enemies of Israel are proclaiming and trumpeting in their newspapers to put the Jews to shame. They capture the hearts of the masses to read all this about a desolate and rejected nation. Any enlightened person will understand that the writers of these articles are merchants of slander. [They do this] to increase [newspaper] sales. This [is possible] since the hearts of masses tend to be more bad than good. Hark enlightened and honest [people]. Does not the mockery [fall] upon them? Is it not heartbreaking [ironic] laughter when one Jew is discovered to have committed a deceitful [deed] he is made an example? They will even loudly proclaim [this crime] [and thus] cause thousands of people to be held mutually responsible and his [the Jewish sinner’s] sin is attributed to the [responsibility] of all [Jews]. May the heavens be astonished and the earth tremble in its place concerning this. Moscow, St. Petersberg, Berlin, Vienna, Paris and London would indeed be pleasing if they cannot find amongst themselves a few deceitful persons. Is [the presence of a few such people] a sign of their wicked hearts? I swear by my life, that I live in the heart of the Jewish settlements in Lithuania and in my city and district there are approximately 16,000 Jewish people. My work is to instruct the people of Israel. [Therefore] most of their affairs are revealed to me. The majority of them labour day and night for a meager living. Hundreds are artisans who make a living from the labour of their hands. The majority of them live in poverty and are hard put to find bread to eat and clothes to wear. There is a small minority that possess land and gardens. I have seen with my own eyes how they, their wives and children work the land day and night. If only our exalted government would be gracious to permit all Jews to purchase a small parcel of land, then they would see with their honest eyes how we would with joyful hearts farm the land. Truthfully, it is because we are denied the right to purchase land that we wander around aimlessly. There are hundreds of families wandering about [hungry] for bread. It is inevitable that because of the pressure of poverty they commit some deceitful and sinful [actions]. For there are a great many, hundreds of individuals, in our country who are hungry, naked and barefoot. 48

2. “LONG LIVE THE TSAR”

It is for this reason that recruits are missing whenever there is conscription to the military in the month of November. This is because they are scattered and there are many amongst them who because of their poverty, do not have clothes for the cold [weather] to go to the military with. I swear that in places where there is an effort to give charity to any individual going to the military so he can dress himself [warmly] and have a few rubles for his substanence, then they go joyfully to serve in the armed forces of our master the Tsar, may his name be exalted. This is in spite of our enemies’ eyes who cover us with lies that Jews evade their military service. All this I have witnessed with my own eyes and not by hearsay. For in the end, our quota will be fulfilled during the year. It is only a matter for the dodger to acquire enough of the basics that he is lacking to go joyfully. Even as I write this I am surrounded by young men from here who have been chosen [to be drafted] asking for assistance [to obtain] clothes and all their other needs. [Moreover], all the Rabbis are making an effort to fullfil the orders of his majesty the Tsar, may his name be exalted. There are additional reasons for this [situation] but this is not the place to explain them. There are additional things that are thorns in the eyes of the governmental ministers concerning the nation of Israel, that they oppress Gentiles from the villages. By my life, what can we say if even the smallest portion of these words [are true]. Today is different than previous days, [their accusations] are only lies. It is far fetched [to say] that people do not know and understand. The Gentile who dwells in the villages will not permit himself to be deceived. Also the nation of Israel in our generation is far from wicked thoughts such as these. I know from many tavern keepers that if the tavern keeper sees that his customer is almost drunk he will not give him additional alcohol. Proof to this is that on market day there are not many drunkards. Besides all this, it is known to all that any Gentile who has any grievance towards a Jewish person will come to the rabbi to complain against the Jew. The rabbis are very careful that the [Gentiles] should not find reason for complaint. In public we preach that according to the religion of our holy Torah it is more prohibited to cheat a non-Jew than a Jew. For this desirable purpose we have discussed [this subject] in this book to explain the seriousness of the prohibition of stealing, robbing and cheating whether a Jew or a non-Jew. For the law of the land is law. It is forbidden to cheat on taxes and all other governmental obligations as I have explained in section 369. We have also explained the seriousness of the prohibition to think impure thoughts about the law of the land 49

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

and to be careful about the honour of the king as we explained in paragraph 1 sub-paragraph 26. We also explained additional useful things with the help of God. There is need to expand on this, but this is not the time to do it here. Long live our Master the Tsar, may his name be exalted, Alexander the third, his noble wife, daughter of the king, and their son the crown prince, and all the exalted royal household. May God command his generosity to his anointed one, our King, our Master the Tsar may his name be exalted and May he [reign] many years over his kingdom, Amen, Amen.”

50

3. “TODAY NOT YESTERYEAR”

3.

“TODAY NOT YESTERYEAR”: Rabbi Y.M. Epstein’s Adjudicative Process as Expressed in the Arukh Hashulhan

The rabbinic authorities of 19th century Eastern Europe produced distinct categories of halakhic writings. These included responsa such as the Netziv’s Meshiv Davar,1 Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Beis Halevi,2 and thematic discussions such as Daat Kedoshim3 on the laws of writing Torah scrolls. They also encompassed commentaries on the code of Jewish Law like Rabbi Israel Meyer Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah.4 Although offering halakhic rulings, the Mishnah Berurah appears to be a commentary on Joseph Caro’s Shulhan Arukh (1565–1566) and not a code. This era also produced new codes of Jewish Law. If we accept the definition of a “code” as a list of precise rulings,5 the 19th century East European Jewish community produced the Hayyei Adam,6 Kitzur Shulhan Arukh and Arukh Hashulhan. The codes Kitzur Shulhan Arukh and Hayyei Adam were structured and organized according to the writers’ individual determination. The Arukh Hashulhan, written by Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein Rabbi of Novogrudok (1829–1908), follows the model of Joseph Caro’s Shulhan Arukh.7 Thus the Arukh Hashulhan’s sections coincide with the Shulhan Arukh’s section numbers and titles. 1 2

3 4

5

6

7

Netziv is the acronym for Rabbi Naftali Zvi Judah Berlin 1817–1893. Rabbi Joseph Baer Soloveitchik 1820–1892 who is popularly referred to by the title of his book Beis Halevi. This book was written by Rabbi David Hacohen. The Mishnah Berurah was published by Israel Meir Rabbi Kagan (1838–1933) during 23 years between 1883–1907. For a discussion of the author and book see Fishbane 1991. This may be in contrast to the Mishnah, that is more of a teaching discussion rather than a code. Written by Rabbi Abraham Danzig (1748–1820). The first edition was published in Vilna 1810. Or similar section tiles and numbering of the code Tur Shulhan Arukh. 51

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

In this chapter I will examine the worldview of Rabbi Epstein as expressed in the structure, compilation and rulings of his nine volume code of law, the Arukh Hashulhan. This view, I will show, is developed and based upon consideration of the social, economic and political reality of the Jews of his period and geographical location, the latter part of the 19th century in Eastern Europe. Rabbi Epstein preferred considering his reality rather than basing his rulings solely upon the writings of earlier authoritative rabbinical authorities.8 This by no means implies that Rabbi Epstein rejected or even disregarded earlier or even contemporary authoritative rabbinical rulings. However, within the boundaries of rabbinical adjudication, he incorporated his reality into his halakhic decision making. It was precisely his dependence upon earlier rabbinic sources that gave the Arukh Hashulhan its endorsement and recognition.9 To examine Rabbi Epstein’s worldview from within his writings, I propose to explore the structure of the Arukh Hashulhan’s text. In contrast to the standard structural analysis of a written work, it is necessary to exercise a different approach. In interpreting a document, not only the well structured text with its lists of forms and formularies can convey or communicate the message; the lack of structured or patterned discourses will also communicate its intention. The author of the Arukh Hashulhan is doing just this. Through the lack of a consistent and uniform literary pattern, he is implicitly revealing his worldview. Rabbi Epstein’s message, implicitly communicated through the lack of a literary structure, concerns his reaction to the developing system of rabbinic adjudication in Eastern Europe. This normative system is exemplified in such works as the Mishnah Berurah.10 While the Arukh Hashulhan’s skeleton framework follows a developmental pattern, there is no formulaic structure to this work. In contrast to the Mishnah Berurah, one cannot identify a term or phrase that will repeatedly introduce a direction, opinion or ruling in the Arukh Hashulhan. Even a cursory examination of the text will demonstrate that the term mikol makom (even so) might refer at times to adjudication and other times to the form of rabbinical dialogue.11 This lack of structure 8

9 10 11

52

The Mishnah Berurah exemplifies a work almost exclusive based upon prior authoritative works. For a full discussion of the Mishnah Berurah see Fishbane 1991. See Fishbane 1990 and 1991. See my essay on the genre of code commentaries, in Fishbane 1992. I use this example since in the Mishnah Berurah this term is a primary illustration that communicates the Rabbi Kagan’s message. See Fishbane 1990 and 1991.

3. “TODAY NOT YESTERYEAR”

in itself conveys implicitly the author’s message. This “message,” as I have stated, reflects Rabbi Epstein’s reaction to the developing legislative system of his era, that is, the dependency upon the written word with little consideration for the underlying social reality. Thus, for the Mishnah Berurah, the woman’s status and role in halakhah is a consequence of the statements of previous rabbinical authorities even as far back as the Talmudic era. Rabbi Epstein cannot accept this concept and is concerned with the woman, even in the halakhic sense, as living reality, even if he differs from other rabbinical authorities (see my illustration below). It is not the organized written word that is the major consideration. It is not the weighing on the scale of who and how many rabbinical authorities support a specific ruling, but rather the individual and community, its customs and practices, that must be directly considered. Rabbi Epstein, a rabbinical leader of the latter part of the 19th century, like the Hafetz Hayyim (Rabbi Kagan), was challenged and concerned by the same social religious dilemmas of the Jewish community in Russia. But, there were some basic differences between the two rabbinical leaders. Rabbi Epstein was a community Rabbi who was confronted daily with the problems, queries and quandaries of his community. Rabbi Kagan served more in the world of the rabbinical academy, the ivory tower of rabbinic Judaism. Thus Rabbi Epstein was compelled to deal with reality, while Rabbi Kagan could allow himself the luxury of academic pursuit. Furthermore, a review of Rabbi Epstein’s background suggests that he was an individual who was very much part of the life of his social order. For example, his father was a successful business man who exposed his son to the reality of day-to-day life. Consequently, Rabbi Epstein learned the Russian language, an attainment uncommon amongst the Rabbis of the time. Literacy in Russian also permitted him access to world beyond the “four cubits of Judaism.” There is an additional consideration I want to put forward concerning influences upon the weltanschauung of Rabbi Epstein. My analysis of the texts of rabbis living in Russia-Poland at the end of the 19th century demonstrates that different geographical locations and rabbinical academies advanced dissimilar approaches to the halakhic adjudicative system. A study of the works produced in Lithuania, and especially the Rabbinical Academy in the city of Volozin, where Rabbi Epstein studied for a short period of time (as well as marrying into the family of its head), supports my argument. Their direction of halakhic rulings suggests the direct consideration of the individual concerned as well as 53

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

the behavior and customs of the community. Rabbi Epstein was a student of both this Rabbinical Academy and the Rabbis who practiced in this part of Eastern Europe.12 The Arukh Hashulhan manifests this approach to halakhah. As I introduced above, this is the converse of Rabbi Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah. The written statements recorded by the previous rabbinical authorities are deemed important.13 They serve as the basis and the developmental background for the halakhic decision, but for Rabbi Epstein, the final consideration must be the social reality, the individual and the behavior and custom of the community. I want to again emphasize that this does not constitute deviance from the accepted halakhic adjudicative methodology. Rabbi Epstein would only rule employing the tools of pesak (halakhic decision making). This is an important factor to be recognized for it is the basis of his authority and opportunity for personal halakhic initiative. To illustrate this, I offer an exaggerated case. In the laws of Sabbath (Orakh Hayyim, section 340, paragraph 23) Rabbi Epstein discusses the issue of erasing or cutting letters on a cake. He first quotes Rabbi Isserles (the Rama 1530–1572),14 who forbids it. Concerned with the fact that the majority of the community does cut, break or eat the letters, he devotes an extensive paragraph to justify their actions. But Rabbi Epstein concludes with the suggestion that one should not do it, but rather give it to a child to eat because the Rama explicitly forbids it (“because it came from the mouth of the Rama”). While the Arukh Hashulhan would weave between the rulings of later rabbinical authorities, he would not consider challenging the words of the Rama. One additional consideration I would like to propose is the influence of the grandson of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyady (Schneerson) (1745– 1813), Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitz (1789–1866) known as the Tzemach Tzedek.15 Rabbi Epstein’s biographers maintain that while serving as Rabbi in the city of Lubavitz (in the early 1860’s), Rabbi 12

13

14

15

54

See Fishbane 1991, 8–13. This hypothesis concerning the halakhic stance in Lithuania in the 19th century requires a more extensive analysis. Sperber 2007, chapter 5 argues that even when there was an explicit and known textual error, causing mistaken religious behavior, the original ruling must be adhered to since this is what was written. Rabbi Moses Isserles author of glosses to Rabbi Caro’s Shulhan Arukh. These glosses were preferred as accepted rulings by Ashkenazic Jewish communities. See chapter 1 page 7 for a further description.

3. “TODAY NOT YESTERYEAR”

Epstein spent a lengthy period of time with the Rabbi of Chabad, the Tzemach Tzedek. This relationship between the two rabbis had a significant influence upon Rabbi Epstein. This influence is apparent in that Rabbi Epstein structured the skeleton framework of his Arukh Hashulhan upon the Shulhan Arukh Harav of Rabbi Shneur Zalman. By this I mean that while the section’s paragraphs reflect uniquely the author’s judgment, the content employs the structure of Rabbi Schneerson’s Shulhan Arukh to serve as a skeleton paradigm for the Arukh Hashulhan. The developmental pattern of the Shulhan Arukh Harav is what primarily concerns Rabbi Epstein. This refers to his intent to trace the development of the specific law from its earliest sources until the period of the latter rabbinical authorities. In specific instances Rabbi Epstein will quote Rabbi Schneerson in his opening remarks. In clarifying Rabbi Epstein’s halakhic system, the primary issue to be concerned with is his emphasis upon the consideration of social reality. This factor constantly appears throughout the Arukh Hashulhan. For example, Rabbi Epstein is continually concerned with custom or the actual behavior or the physical realities of the Jew in his community. Even a cursory examination of the Arukh Hashulhan will reveal representative instances such as the following: In Orakh Hayyim, section 251, paragraph 4, he discusses the issue of not working close to the commencement of the Sabbath. He writes It is surprising that in our time the craftsman do not terminate their work until close to sunset. We have never heard that there is disapproval of their behavior. [This seems to contradict the gist of the halakhah— author’s comment]. Maybe we can explain this as a result of economic difficulties. Furthermore . . .

Rabbi Epstein then continues to offer other explanations based upon halakhic sources.16 It is the behavior that he knew and saw in the community that confronted him in rulings. 16

While Rabbi Epstein begins with the concerns of his society Rabbi Kagan perceives the issue of when to cease work on Friday before the Sabbath purely through the eyes of early Rabbinic authorities. It is interesting to point out that the Mishnah Berurah deviates here from his literary pattern and relates to this issue as a problem of his generation. He does not write on this issue in his popular commentary, the Mishnah Berurah, but rather in his second (supplement) commentary the Beur Halakhah addressed to Rabbinic scholars and not the layman. 55

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

In the laws of Yom Kippur, section 611, paragraph 8, he discusses the behavior of children as referred to in the standard codes of law. The laws discussed have no relevance to the behavior of children in the late 19th century. Rabbi Epstein emphasizes the fact “and now [in our time] we are not familiar with this custom.”17 For the Rabbi, reality shares equal significance with the written word.18 This train of thought even differentiates between geographical areas. For example, when discussing the customary foods eaten on the New Year (section 673, paragraph 2), Rabbi Epstein mentions the widespread custom of eating pomegranates. He then states: “pomegranates are not found in our country and our custom is to eat fatty meat and all sorts of sweets that we may receive a fat and sweet [good] portion [of the new year].”19 In the laws of Sukkot (Booths), section 629, paragraph 2, the problem of sukkah is discussed. The Arukh Hashulhan writes; “Know that there is a possibility in our northern countries that a number of times snow falls during the sukkot holiday. If a large measure of snow falls on the schach, the sukkah is null and void.” After a short halakhic discourse he concludes; “therefore it seems to me that when a great quantity of snow falls on the Sukkah one should not make the blessing to sit in the Sukkah.” The reality of life in Russia constantly stood in the forefront of his considerations.20 In the laws of Hanukkah, section 671, paragraph 24, the author of the Arukh Hashulhan discusses where to light and place the candles. It is stated that the preference is to place the candles outside on the doorstep. The Arukh Hashulhan writes: 17

18

19

20

56

Rabbi Epstein interjects this statement into the middle of his halakhic discussion. After stating that this custom is not relevant to his time he continues to discourage children from such a custom. Such a consideration would negate the literary pattern of the Mishnah Berurah. Hence such a deliberation is not an issue in the Hafetz Haim’s discussion. Rabbi Kagan instead chooses only to interpret the statements of the Shulhan Arukh. The Mishnah Berurah commentary on this section only relates to the discussion of the Shulhan Arukh. Even when referring to customs of different geographical locations he is quoting the Shulhan Arukh commentary on the Magen Avraham by Rabbi Abraham Gombiner (1637–1683). The Mishnah Berurah in this section and the following section in the paragraphs that deal with who is exempt from sukkah presents his rulings based upon the texts of earlier rabbinical authorities. He does not refer to the problems of his geographical location.

3. “TODAY NOT YESTERYEAR”

Now we do not light outdoors, even though there would be no danger here, nevertheless it is next to impossible since in all of our states the days of Hanukkah are rainy with snow and strong winds and it is impossible to leave them outside unless they are encased in glass. However the rabbis did not trouble people to this extent and furthermore such an arrangement would not permit the commandment to be noticed properly . . . therefore we light indoors and the commandment is noticed only by the household members and not by the public at large . . . And so the custom is to light the Hanukkah lights where they are not lit throughout the year, but best of all is to light at a window which is visible from the street so that there is promulgating the miracle, and so is my custom.

The custom, the reality, and the physical conditions of the practical world are the criteria for Rabbi Epstein’s rulings.21 In chapter 4, where I discuss women in the Arukh Hashulhan, I identify numerous examples concerning Rabbi Epstein’s unique attitude towards woman as a living entity, and a person who has a place in the world of the 19th century, and not only in Talmudic times in the Middle East or in texts from other societies and eras. An additional example concerning women which illustrates my argument in this essay is found in the laws of sewing the parchments of a sefer Torah (Yoreh Deah, section 279, paragraph 11 and 12). At first Rabbi Epstein quotes the rabbinical authorities who forbid women to sew the parchment sections of the sefer Torah. After a discussion of the halakhic sources he concludes: We see the custom of Israel that women sew the sections of the sefer Torah and rejoice in the mitzvah and the custom of Jews is legally binding (Torah). There is no legal basis to prevent them from this. It is great contentment for them.

He then amends the paragraph with additional rabbinical sources to justify his ruling and concludes: “There cannot be any hesitation in our custom that the women sew the parchment sections together and we do not vacillate in this matter.” Rabbi Epstein was aware of and concerned with the individual and custom; he was also concerned with the behavior of the Jewish community in general. He did not justify their actions when they negated or threatened halakhah. An example is the case of “tashlikh,” a ritual 21

The Mishnah Berurah is not concerned with this issues of the Arukh Hashulhan since it is not an issue for the Shulhan Arukh and its commentaries. 57

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

performed on the first day of the New Year when people go to a body of flowing water (usually a river) and hurl something into the water to symbolize the casting away of their sins. The Arukh Hashulhan writes (Orakh Hayyim, section 583, paragraph 4): Some have the custom to go on the first day of the New Year to the river and recite the verses . . . This is referred to as ‘tashlikh’. Women should be warned not to go. In our locations where the women go to (tashlikh) it is better for the men not to go at all since in any case there are those in our times who negate (tashlikh).

While the men could accept not going to tashlikh, to forbid the women to go to tashlikh would be problematic. Thus even when the community’s actions even seem to negate halakhah or halakhic ethical behavior, Rabbi Epstein sought a solution that would conform to the actions of the community.22 An additional representation of Rabbi Epstein’s attitude is found in his discussion of embarking on a boat before the Sabbath, Rabbi Epstein is concerned with the problem of modern day boats and the necessity of embarking on a journey on the eve of the Sabbath. After a halakhic analysis and presentation of the supporting views on the topic the Arukh Hashulhan writes: (section 248, paragraph 6) “In order to vindicate the Jewish community it seems to me . . .” (kdei lilmod zechut al am yisroel nire li l’aniyut dati). The deeds and behavior of the community are a prerequisite in the consideration of the adjudicator. Rabbi Epstein’s concern with his day and age is also represented in his perspective of history and its place in halakhah. Most rabbinical authorities would not explicitly differentiate between earlier rabbinical periods and their own eras. It was the reality of the Talmudic period which completely determined the response of the adjudicator. An halakhic ruling is for all ages. However, the Arukh Hashulhan continually and explicitly in almost every section of his code contrasts between periods. It must be emphasized that this is done only in cases that can be implemented into halakhah. Eating pig is not a problem of one generation. Rabbi Epstein’s terminology manifests his attitude. In addition to the quotations I have made above, we find phrases such as “in our times,” “for us versus for them” 22

58

As in the previous illustrations the Mishnah Berurah refrains from discussing the contemporary problem, even though it has strong ethical overtones, an important motivation for Rabbi Kagan.

3. “TODAY NOT YESTERYEAR”

(Orakh Hayyim, section 253, paragraph 25), “according to our custom” (paragraph 22), “this was for the time of the Talmud,” and “our . . ., is not like the . . . of the Mishnah” (paragraph 39). Thus, Rabbi Epstein’s independence as an adjudicator and his original approach to Jewish law is reflected not only in the content of the text but also in an analysis of its rhetoric and structure. I might add that this is not the perspective offered by his biographers who preferred (almost naturally) to view him as similar to other rabbinical leaders of his time. Furthermore, the Arukh Hashulhan cannot be described as a lenient or stringent legislative work, but rather a document that is concerned with the reality of its era. This almost naturally but not inevitably inclined it towards leniency. Rabbi Epstein always troubled himself “to look out his window” at his social reality before offering his rulings.

59

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

4.

“IN ANY CASE THERE ARE NO SINFUL THOUGHTS”: The Role and Status of Women in Jewish Law as Expressed in the Arukh Hashulhan Jewish woman, who knows your life? You come in the darkness and never see the light, Your woes and your joys, your hopes and desires, Are born within you and you die unfulfilled; Daughters of other people and tribes Enjoy some pleasure and comfort in this life But the fate of the Jewess is eternal servitude. (J.L. Gordon, “Kotzo shel Yod”) Translated by Michael Stanislawski in For Whom Do I Toil [Oxford University Press, 1988], p. 125)1

INTRODUCTION The female struggle for self-dignity in the latter part of the nineteenth century did not bypass Eastern European society. Indeed, the secular Jews of that era, seeking to adopt non-Jewish cultural traits and values, also sought to incorporate the changing status of women into their ideologies. This secular Jewish view is well represented by authors and poets of the Jewish East European Enlightenment such as J.L. Gordon and Y.L. Peretz,2 who argued for the emancipation of the Jewish woman. This developing advocacy for female emancipation confronted the halakhically observant community with a new challenge, although 1

2

60

See, for example, his poem, “Kotzo shel Yod” (1935), discussed in Stanislawski, Op. cit., and Brayer 1986, 71–2. See Peretz 1947.

4. “IN ANY CASE THERE ARE NO SINFUL THOUGHTS”

this was a predicament no different from other new secular issues facing the Jews of the time, such as the new technology manifested in the industrial revolution. The question of change in the Jewish woman’s role and status could not be isolated from the total Orthodox weltanschauung. The Orthodox community was forced to respond, although it did not cease to polemicize in favor of “the mythic structure of rabbinic Judaism.” The problem that challenged the halakhically observant community was whether the values espoused by modernity were to be incorporated into halakhic Judaism. The issue was whether the boundaries between the Orthodox community and the rest of society were to be demarcated more sharply, with a demand for even greater attention to traditional behavior, or whether it was possible to consider social and religious modification, in view of a changing reality. The resolution of this issue would have to be manifested through halakhah. More clearly demarcated boundaries would mean more stringent rulings and the disregard of new social realities in favor of halakhic decisions from earlier periods in history. On the other hand, the endorsement of the new social reality would be expressed by permitting it to be incorporated into the halakhic decision process as well as through halakhic leniency.3 Most rabbinical authorities of late 19th century Eastern Europe adopted a stringent halakhic position that, in most instances, ignored modern developments and innovations.4 Their traditional stance regarding the female role and status did not alter. Her place was in the home as an uneducated wife and mother. Women were considered “lightheaded” and not capable of dealing with issues relevant to the man’s world, especially halakhah and its logic. Women were considered physically inferior, even in areas such as hygiene. Brayer describes the observant East European woman as “usually referred to simply as the wife of her husband.” There were, however, rabbinical authorities who had the boldness, while not deviating from the normative Orthodox halakhic system of adjudication, to accept and incorporate the changing social reality. Representative of this view was Rabbi Yechiel Mekhel Halevi

3

4

See also Kuzmack 1986, 4–11, for a discussion of Jewish 19th-century feminism and related bibliographic sources, and Brayer 1986, 63–81—his chapter on women and the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment). See Robinson 1990. See Fishbane 1990b and Fishbane 1991. 61

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Epstein (1829–1908), the author of Arukh Hashulhan, an nine-volume legal text dealing with all sections of the Shulhan Arukh.5 This essay will examine the attitude of Rabbi Epstein toward the female role and status, as expressed in Arukh Hashulhan. Methodologically, in approaching the analysis of the issue of women in the Arukh Hashulhan, one cannot isolate this topic from the overall worldview of Rabbi Epstein. For example, Rabbi Epstein did not accept rulings that he felt ignored the prevailing time-dependent culture. In those instances where the halakhah discussed issues where social reality would make a difference, Rabbi Epstein differentiated between the conditions of “those” times and his era. In his rabbinic rulings, we find that his view of the role of the woman represents his understanding and attitude toward a community in a time of change. In addition to the ideologies of the Haskalah and socialism, which unquestionably exerted a liberalizing influence on Rabbi Epstein’s social outlook, his cognizance of, and sensitivity toward, women (representative of modern issues in general) appear to have been rooted to a large degree in his personal history.6 Although Rabbi Epstein did express a sensitivity to the status of the Jewish woman of his time, one cannot call him in today’s terms a “feminist.” Rather, he attempted to express his social reality within the strict framework of Jewish law, and not argue for theoretical issues that were not relevant to his time and milieu. Rabbi Epstein’s Weltanschauung concerning women is depicted in his writings—implicitly through the structure of his rhetoric, and explicitly from the content of the codes. To examine Rabbi Epstein’s teaching on women, I have selected representative cases, explicit and implicit, from his work, the Arukh Hashulhan. Furthermore, I have classified Rabbi Epstein’s rulings into two categories. First, there is his halakhic rationale, where he offers alternative interpretations for decisions, but does not differ from his rabbinical peers in his rulings as such. Second,

5

6

62

See Kuzmack 1986, 5, for a discussion of traditional Judaism and women. Kuzmack correctly points out that, although according to Jewish law women were expected to remain at home, 19th-century Jewish women always worked. The social-economic reality compelled them to bring in an income for the survival of most families. Op. cit., 52. This attitude is manifested in the writings of all his biographers. See, for example, Fishbane 1991’s introduction, where I discuss this in greater detail.

4. “IN ANY CASE THERE ARE NO SINFUL THOUGHTS”

there are those cases where he differs from other contemporary halakhic legislators not only in rationale, but in his rulings.7

A. RATIONALE The laws of tefillin (phylacteries) (Orakh Hayyim, section 38, paragraph 3) state that not only are women exempt from wearing tefillin, but if a woman desires to perform this ritual regardless, the rabbis object to it. The author of the Mishnah Berurah, Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen Kagan (1838–1933), a contemporary of Rabbi Epstein,8 whose decisions emphasize written rulings of earlier rabbinical authorities as a basis for his judgements rather than explicit consideration for his social reality as such,9 explains the prohibition (sub-paragraph 13) as follows: “One needs a clean body (a basic requirement to be permitted to wear tefillin10) and women are not sufficiently alert (zerizot) to respond with caution [to keeping their bodies clean].”11 According to the Mishnah Berurah, then, men are better able to safeguard their bodies against uncleanliness, and thus only men may don tefillin. Rabbi Epstein does not accept the rationale that in this case women are inferior to men. In paragraph 6, while not disputing the law that women are prohibited from wearing tefillin, he explains that it is 7

8

9

10

11

For example, in the issue of zimun (leading the prayer after a meal), although traditionally women had not been permitted to lead this ritual, today it has become an issue for debate. Since this was not a reality for Rabbi Epstein, he feels no need to deal with the question. He writes (Orakh Chaim, section 199, paragraph 2) that it is not an actuality in his society, and therefore he deals with the topic as a theoretical issue rather than a reality. Both Rabbi Epstein and Rabbi Kagan lived at the same time and in the same geographical area. The Mishnah Berurah citations are to the Lewin-Epstein edition, Jerusalem, 1971. It can be argued that Rabbi Kagan’s system of adjudication was his response to the changing social reality of his time (see Fishbane 1990, 203). This response ignores consideration of the individual’s needs in favor of combating foreign ideologies. Paragraph 2 explains the problem: namely, that while wearing tefillin one may not pass wind. Although Mishnah Berurah offers no source for this statement, it is based upon the previous law (paragraph 1) that states that one must have a clean body when he wears tef illin. He also represents earlier rabbinical authorities as Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyady, who states the same rationale (paragraph 3). 63

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

difficult for both men and women to comply completely with the proper hygiene required by the law of tefillin. While men also have difficulties with proper hygiene, they are required by Jewish law to don tefillin, so there is no choice in the matter. Even with men, the law reduced this obligation from all day to mere minutes during the morning prayer service, because of the problems of maintaining the proper hygiene. Rabbi Epstein argues further that since “women are in any event exempt, why should they place themselves in such a position [by wearing tefillin]?” A second example is found in the laws of Hanukkah (Orakh Hayyim, section 670, paragraph 1). There it states that it is customary for women not to work while the Hanukkah candles are burning. Rabbi Kagan in his Mishnah Berurah, commenting on this law (sub-paragraph 5), discusses the custom for women not to work the entire day (quoting an earlier rabbinical authority, Hakham Zvi), and explains that this is discouraged since “idleness is a sin which breeds boredom [and leads to immorality].”12 Rabbi Epstein also discusses this custom (paragraph 8). However, rather than proposing the traditional explanation, he states that “We have not heard of these customs, and our women do not work only during the time the candles are burning.” The Arukh Hashulhan preferred not to categorize the women he was acquainted with as inferior persons based on principles of another time and social order. In the next section (671), Rabbi Epstein discusses women’s obligation to light Hanukkah candles. Although he states that women’s obligations are the same as those of men, he hesitates to permit them to light candles. He states that he has never heard of a custom where women light candles and that, in reality, the father lights candles for the entire family. In contrast, Rabbi Kagan in his Mishnah Berurah (section 675, sub-paragraph 9), discussing the same issue, states that “women should not light [for themselves] for they are inferior (tefeilot) to men.” He further emphasizes his view in his parallel commentary, Bi’ur Halakhah, where he applies the halakhic principle that women should not light for their families, for “A curse (me’irah) on a man whose wife and children bless for him.”13 Thus, we see that the two poskim differ in their decisional approach regarding women. Rabbi Kagan is only concerned with the opinions of earlier rabbinical authorities, regardless of whether their statements are 12 13

64

This statement is quoted from the Babylonian Talmud Ketubot 59b. This is based upon a quote from Babylonian Talmud Berakhot 20a, that discusses a woman’s obligation to say Grace After Meals.

4. “IN ANY CASE THERE ARE NO SINFUL THOUGHTS”

relevant to the custom and behavior of women in his era. Rabbi Epstein bases his halakhic rationale upon the prevalent customs of his time and women’s personhood.14 We will bring another illustration that cannot be classified as merely a difference in rationale, but as an additional example of Rabbi Epstein’s sensitivity to his reality and women’s place in his religious social order. In the Laws of Shabbat, Orakh Hayyim 274, the rabbinical authorities state that two loaves of bread (lehem mishneh) are required by both men and women at the Sabbath meal.15 Although reasons are offered to explain why women have this obligation, no additional comments are offered. Rabbi Epstein (paragraph 4), commences with the emphasis that the obligations for men and women are “equal” in all Sabbath laws, and therefore women are also obligated in lehem mishneh. He continues by stating that even if it is possible to give everyone at the meal two loaves, women are not given them. His explanation is that, where it is not the custom to give the final participants two loaves (and it is preferable that they not be given such), only the head of the household should “break the two breads.” This act, thus, should take place only after everyone participating in the meal has performed the ritual of washing the hands and has been seated. Rabbi Epstein was aware that women were often excluded or ignored in questions of religious ritual, and were frequently overlooked by the head of the household during this ritual. The Arukh Hashulhan thus strongly emphasizes that the head of the household must wait for the women to also be seated before breaking the bread.

B. DIFFERENCES IN RULINGS An additional example of Rabbi Epstein’s realistic approach to the community’s life style is illustrated in his discussion of the woman’s role in inspecting one’s dwelling to ensure that it is clean of unleavened 14

15

One may argue that Rabbi Kagan is not degrading women, but considers them only secondary within the boundaries of law. Furthermore, the “curse to the husband” is not opposing women but rather encouraging the man to fulfill his religious obligations through his own personhood. An examination of Mishnah Berurah as a whole document, however, manifests the negative stance on women in Judaism. See, for example, Mishnah Berurah, section 274, sub-paragraph 1, and Schneerson 1978, section 274, paragraph 2. 65

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

bread (hametz) before Passover. Following his literary pattern, Rabbi Epstein first cites earlier halakhic sources which viewed women as lazy and simple-minded and therefore not to be trusted to check for hametz. He then declares: “Today, our women inspect even better [than men] and probe after even a particle of bread. Indeed, they wash and clean every spot and they scrutinize more carefully than do the men” (Orakh Hayyim, section 437, paragraph 7). Other contemporary rabbis, such as the author of Hayyei Adam and Rabbi Kagan, adhere to the first view cited in Arukh Hashulhan. For example, Rabbi Kagan writes (section 437, subparagraph 18): “Nevertheless it is preferable that one should not order them [women] to inspect [for hametz] for it is a lot of work, and we must be concerned that they will be lazy.” A second instance from the laws of Passover where Rabbi Epstein recognizes the role of women is expressed in his code (Orakh Hayyim, section 473, paragraph 6). In his discussion on washing the hands at the Passover Seder, he writes: The head of the household should not pour [the water over his hands] himself, but rather another [should pour], for this is the expression of freedom. We are not careful about this rule, for it appears as great deception [for a husband] to order his wife to pour [water over his hands]. Indeed, the husband is not preferred over the wife . . .

Although this implies that the accepted custom was for the wife to pour the water over her husband’s hands (based upon the statement of Rama, Rabbi Moses Isserles, 16th century Ashkenazi halakhist, that the head of the household should not pour the water himself), the other adjudicators were not bothered by the issue and ignore the subject of the woman’s “freedom.” Rabbi Epstein is concerned with this issue, and thus he suggests a difference in halakhic opinion.16 A third instance pertaining to Jewish law and women is found in Arukh Hashulhan, Orakh Hayyim, section 75, paragraph 7. In the discussion concerning the obligation of married women to cover their hair in the presence of men reciting the Shema prayer, because the “sight of a woman’s hair is impropriety” (B.T. Berakhot 24a), Rabbi Epstein writes:17 16

17

66

Rabbi Schneerson 1978 (paragraph 1), adds the words “as his servant,” but neglects the issue of women. Rabbi Epstein permits this law with reluctance. Only after stating his discontent with the fact that married women of his time do not cover their hair, does he state, “as to the law . . . (of al pi hen, le’dinah . . . )”

4. “IN ANY CASE THERE ARE NO SINFUL THOUGHTS”

As to the law, it seems it is permissible to pray and recite blessings in front of their bare heads, since now most go this way and there is no difference from the other visible sections of her body . . . with regard to an unmarried woman, who normally goes with exposed hair, we do not fear, for there is no [sinful] thought. Since with us the married also do this [i.e., go with uncovered hair], there are no sinful thoughts.

In contrast to most rabbinical authorities of his era, Rabbi Epstein was aware of his reality and of the fact that halakhah is an ongoing process. He was thus prepared to rule that exposed women’s hair is not an impropriety.18 In the parallel discussion in the Mishnah Berurah, Rabbi Kagan expresses the opposite view. Citing the opinions that forbid a married woman to expose her hair, he states, “Furthermore, even if it is the normative behavior of this woman and her friends in the same location to go with uncovered hair in public as do the wanton ones, it is forbidden” (subparagraph 10).19 Rabbi Epstein was prepared to recognize that halakhah cannot be removed from social reality. He therefore incorporated his worldview into his adjudicative procedure, and was prepared to take into consideration the reality that many married women appear in public with uncovered hair. His treatment of the laws pertaining to a woman wearing jewelry in a public domain on the Sabbath demonstrates Rabbi Epstein’s perception that social reality must be an integral component of the halakhic adjudication process. According to most rabbinical authorities up to the era of Rabbi Epstein, it is not desirable that women wear jewelry in public on the Sabbath.20 Arukh Hashulhan commences section 303 by clarifying the different arguments for prohibiting this practice. The basis of the earlier rabbis’ rulings was that women might, for instance, remove their jewelry 18

19

20

Whether or not Rabbi Epstein’s ruling in the case of women covering their hair is applicable not only to reading the Shema, but to the overall issue of married women covering their hair, is not the concern of this paper. See the discussion on this issue by Marc Shapiro and Michael Broyde in Judaism (Spring 1990): 148–54 and (Winter 1991): 79–94. Rabbi Kagan continues in the subsequent sub-paragraphs to articulate his opinion. He quotes a medieval kabbalistic work, the Zohar that portrays the terrible consequences to oneself and one’s family if the wife reveals her hair. See, for example, Mishnah Berurah and Shulhan Arukh Harav, section 303. See also following footnote. 67

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

in order to show it to others, and thus might carry the jewelry in a public domain. Rabbi Epstein first cites a principle that “since they [i.e., the women in this case] won’t abide by our [the rabbinical authorities’] decisions, it is preferable that they err unintentionally rather than to sin intentionally.” Therefore, the rabbis should remain silent on the issue. Not comfortable with this halakhic avenue, Rabbi Epstein cites other lenient views. Quoting the Rama, he writes that a different reason can be advanced. Since today jewelry is common, and [women] wear it in public even on the week-days, we are not afraid that they will remove and display the jewelry as in the [ancient] era, when it was the practice to wear it in public only on the Sabbath (paragraph 22).

Rabbi Epstein presents three other justifications for a woman to wear her jewelry in public on the Sabbath. Not persuaded that these are irrefutable, he advances his own rationale. In earlier times, it was only on rare occasions that women left their houses, and they would therefore not meet other women. This, says the Arukh Hashulhan, was because they seldom visited the homes of other women and they did not even have synagogues to visit. When they did go out, they would cloak themselves in sheets. Thus, the possibilities for social interaction were limited and, when they visited friends on the Sabbath, they might flaunt their jewelry to their friends or remove it to show others. “But now,” writes Rabbi Epstein, our women are more frequently outside in the streets and the market place. Furthermore, they [frequently] visit each other and have a women’s section of the synagogue, where they regularly see each other and display their jewelry in friends’ homes and in the synagogue. Certainly their practice is not to remove their jewelry in public to show their friends. Since they do not do this on weekdays and on holidays [when it is permitted to carry], why should we be concerned on the Sabbath? This ruling is accurate and clear.

While the halakhic basis for the law was dependent upon the woman’s behavior, for Rabbi Epstein it was not sufficient to rely only upon other prior, or even contemporary written sources. Social reality was an important factor in guiding his decision making.21 The laws (section 271) 21

68

The difference between the Arukh Hashulhan and the Mishnah Berurah is also manifested in the case of a woman wearing a signet ring outside on the Sabbath. The issue arises because such a ring, not being jewelry for men (jewelry being permitted to be worn outside), is forbidden. Rabbi Epstein (paragraph 23)

4. “IN ANY CASE THERE ARE NO SINFUL THOUGHTS”

concerned with the Friday evening kiddush (ritual using wine to sanctify the Sabbath) further elucidate Rabbi Epstein’s approach. In the various compilations of halakhah, the discussion is put forth whether women’s obligation to hear the kiddush is Biblical (de’oraita) or rabbinical (de’rabanan). A ramification of this deliberation is whether a woman can recite the kiddush for her family. Although on the surface there can technically be no objection to the female’s equal status in the laws of kiddush, the Mishnah Berurah (sub-paragraphs 3–4) recommends an alternate conclusion with sociological implications for the Jewish woman: “Nevertheless, it is initially preferable that one be stringent in not having a woman make [kiddush] for men who are not members of her family, for this is disgraceful (zila milta).” Rabbi Epstein (paragraph 5), opts to approach the subject differently. He stands on the premise that men and women have equal rights and obligations in the laws of kiddush. Furthermore, by employing earlier rabbinical authorities, he refutes Rabbi Kagan’s argument. Rabbi Epstein argues that the concept of zila milta (disgraceful) only applies to a public ceremony, such as the reading of the megillah in the synagogue. There is no disgrace for a woman to lead her family and others in the confines of her home in a Jewish ritual. In the subsequent paragraph (6), Rabbi Epstein emphasizes that a woman can only discharge the religious obligation of a man if their obligation is equal or if her obligation is greater than his. This latter possibility can arise when the man prays the Friday night prayers, thereby fulfilling his Torah obligation “to sanctify the Sabbath,” and the woman does not pray.22 In nineteenth century Eastern Europe, this type of

22

writes: “It is known that it is the custom for women to wear a signet ring on their fingers, but . . . they do not do it [wear the ring] for the sake of the signet, but rather for the purpose of jewelry . . . and it is permitted for them to go outside with them [rings].” Rabbi Kagan (sub-paragraph 27), although also admitting that rings are jewelry (and thus could be worn outside on the Sabbath), frowns upon a woman wearing a ring outside a private domain. The purpose of kiddush over wine is to sanctify the Sabbath day. This obligation of sanctification, as far as the Torah requirement is concerned, is also fulfilled through the prayers in the Friday night liturgy. It is only on the level of rabbinical law that, if one has prayed, he must still recite the kiddush over wine. Thus, a man who has prayed on Friday eve, comes to the Sabbath table with a lesser obligation to make kiddush than his wife. Given her greater obligation at this point, she can make kiddush and discharge his lesser, remaining rabbinical obligation of kiddush over wine. 69

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

situation was a common occurrence in the observant Jewish home. Rabbi Epstein, aware of the quandary in his society, writes: Under these circumstances, we nonetheless remain in a perplexing predicament (lo mazinu yadeinu v’ragleinu) in all the families where the head of the household makes the kiddush and discharges the obligations of the wife, daughters and daughter-in-laws.

Rabbi Epstein resolves the difficulty by applying the halakhic concept of one Jew’s responsibility for another, so that even if the man has fulfilled his Torah obligation, he can assist the other members of the family to fulfill their mitzvah. The above deliberation of Rabbi Epstein (in paragraphs 4 and 5), suggests two concepts held by him in regard to the woman in Judaism. First, he is not willing to dismiss women’s participation in religious ritual merely on the grounds of its being disgraceful. Second, the social reality in the home must be dealt with and justified. Between the holidays of Passover and Shavuot (Feast of Weeks), a male is obligated to ritually count the days. This is referred to as sifirat ha’omer. As in other instances of Jewish ritual, the question of the woman’s obligation is posed. Rabbi Kagan (Orakh Hayyim, section 489, sub-paragraph 3) addresses the topic in this way: Women and slaves are exempt from this law since it is a “positive commandment dependent upon time.” The Magen Avraham writes, “and women take upon themselves this obligation.” It seems in our country the custom is not for women to count at all. Furthermore, it is written in the Shulhan Shlomo that, in any case, they [the women] should not bless since without doubt they will err [in counting] on one day, and in general they don’t understand the meaning of the words.

The author of the Mishnah Berurah is here expressing his perception of women through the citation of eighteenth century Shulhan Arukh commentators.23 A woman, he suggests, does not have the intellectual ability to count accurately or the education to understand a blessing. He 23

70

It appears that the statement, “in our country the custom is . . .” deviates from Rabbi Kagan’s literary style which cites from earlier rabbinical sources. (See my book, Fishbane 1991, p. 199b, where I show that, to quote early rabbinical sources, the phrase, “our custom is,” is the genre of the Mishnah Berurah.) It is interesting to note that, although both Rabbis lived at the same time and in the same geographical area, they both presented different customs.

4. “IN ANY CASE THERE ARE NO SINFUL THOUGHTS”

even elects to refute the Magen Avraham, whereas in most cases he is dependent upon his rulings.24 Rabbi Epstein (paragraph 4), proficient in the same commentators as Rabbi Kagan, living in the same time and geographical location, writes: Women are exempt [from counting] because it is a “positive commandment dependent upon time.” But the women have the custom to bless and count, similar to all positive laws dependent upon time, such as shofar, succah and lulav.

While Rabbi Kagan chose to present women as not only less educated but intellectually inferior to men, Rabbi Epstein, seeing that women counting was the existing practice and not willing to perceive women simply as mentally subordinate to men, accepts and justifies the woman’s ritual behavior. It was not until the beginning of the twentieth century that the issue of women studying Judaism formally became a reality in Eastern Europe. Prior to this period, women were prohibited from engaging in Jewish studies, other than the laws needed to run a Jewish home or be a loyal Jewish wife. She did not “study” these laws either, but rather learned them informally. Women were considered intellectually inferior to men. Expressions such as “You can’t expect a woman to understand that!” were common rhetoric.25 The study of Torah belonged to men, and there was no parallel obligation for women. The codes of law explained the women’s exclusion from such study on the grounds that they are frivolous (datot kalot).26 Rabbi Epstein presents a different view.27 He commences his discussion with the views of earlier rabbinical authorities who prohibit women from studying Torah, since, “if one teaches his daughter Torah, it is as if he has taught her tiflut” (frivolity, obscenity). In other words, 24 25 26

27

Ibid. See Adler 1980, 22; Zborowski and Herzog 1972, 133. These laws and expressions are summarized in Arukh Hashulhan, Yoreh Deah, section 246, paragraph 19. Also see Shulhan Arukh Harav, Op. cit., on the Laws of Talmud Torah, chapter 1, paragraph 14. Although it may be argued that the statement of nashim datot kalot is a halakhic category and Rabbi Epstein is referring to this principle in his writings, I suggest otherwise in this specific instance. Since the system of adjudication in Arukh Hashulhan is often based upon his social reality without deviating from the normative decision-making process, the axiom, nashim datot kalot, cannot be solely understood as a halakhic category and taken literally. 71

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

explains Rabbi Epstein, “it is a sinful act [to teach women Torah], since they are frivolous and pervert the words of Torah into indecency, as their understanding is meager” (da’atan dalah). This terminology, dalah, differs from other rabbinical authorities. Shulhan Arukh Harav (Laws of Talmud Torah, chapter 1, paragraph 14), for example, employs the wording of the Tur Shulhan Arukh, “lefi aniyut datan” (their deficient intellect). Rabbi Epstein’s terminology suggests a lack of education or a deficiency in halakhic reasoning, rather than feeblemindedness. I suggest this interpretation because of the conclusion of the paragraph. After discussing whether the prohibition against teaching a woman applies to the “Written Torah” or the “Oral Torah,” he states: “The Rama writes: ‘Furthermore, she is obligated to study the laws related to a woman.’ “ Rabbi Epstein clarifies this statement: We have never taught our women from a text, and we are only familiar with the custom that a woman teaches her daughter and daughter-in-law the pertinent laws that apply to them. But recently the laws [for] women have been published in the vernacular [Yiddish] and they [women] can read them. Indeed, our women are diligent (zerizot),28 and in any doubtful [halakhic] instance they ask [a rabbinical authority] and don’t rely upon their opinion (datan) even in the most minor detail.

This statement of the Arukh Hashulhan does not suggest that he is concerned with women being deficient in intellect. Rather, in his society, women can read, understand and learn from their readings, while realizing their dependence on rabbinical authority in the area of adjudication. Furthermore, Rabbi Epstein argues for the acceptance of change in his society. Books had been published for the religious needs of women. There was no need to fear the consequences of this innovation, that women with knowledge from books would make their own halakhic decisions. Rabbi Epstein contends that women are intelligent enough not to rely upon their own judgment in halakhic decision-making. Thus, for the author of Arukh Hashulhan, on the one hand women were not considered educated or schooled, and their place consequently would 28

72

In the Laws of Sabbath, Orakh Chaim, section 260, paragraph 7, Rabbi Epstein employs the word zerizot (diligent) to describe the women of his time. Specifically, he refers to the fact that they do not require their husbands to remind them to prepare the three things for the Sabbath: tithe, eruv, and lighting the lamp (Mishnah Shabbat, chapter 2, Mishnah 7), for they are diligent.

4. “IN ANY CASE THERE ARE NO SINFUL THOUGHTS”

seem to be in the home in the role of wife and mother. Nonetheless, he had no objection to self-education through texts written specifically for their needs. While women could not be categorized as simple-minded, yet they did have a debility in halakhic reasoning. It is not clear why Rabbi Epstein embraced this view, but it seems that he stressed their need to look to rabbis for halakhic decision-making, perhaps to address the concerns of those who took a less lenient position.

Concluding Remarks An examination of the Arukh Hashulhan suggests that, for Rabbi Epstein, the system and principles of traditional halakhah were the basis for his adjudicative process. The author would not deviate from the tradition of halakhic decision-making if it contradicted the traditional system of halakhah. Thus, while coming to grips with the social and physical reality, people’s behavior and customs, he still ensured that his rulings remained within the framework of halakhah. Halakhah does not dictate whether the adjudicator’s decisions are to be based primarily upon the injunctions of earlier generations while according little consideration to the society’s reality, or whether such considerations should play a primary role in the rabbinical authority’s halakhic process. Rabbi Epstein chose the latter paradigm for his legal decision-making. This facet of the halakhic process of Rabbi Epstein has been demonstrated and manifested through the representative examples in this paper concerned with the laws of women. These illustrations depict both the physical and social realities of the lives and behavior of the women of his period. In the cases of phylacteries, wearing jewelry on Shabbat in a public area, and covering the hair by a married woman, contemporary female behavior becomes a primary consideration in the Arukh Hashulhan, and prevailed over rulings from prior generations and other Jewish locales. The laws and rationale of lighting Hanukkah candles and the suggestion that not working for a day will not cause idleness and sexual promiscuity on the part of women, as well as the cognizance that women are not feeble-minded (as in the case of Torah education and “counting the omer”) demonstrate that Rabbi Epstein did not view the Jewish woman as a socially or religiously inferior being. Furthermore, he argues that religiously they are not to be classified as inferior, and are not to be ignored. The case of washing the hands at the Passover Seder, kiddush Friday night, and lehem mishneh illustrate this argument. 73

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

It cannot be suggested that Rabbi Epstein was an advocate of women’s rights as understood in contemporary times. When the halakhah clearly states and requires women to be in a secondary, different or segregated status from men, he has no problem with accepting this. Rather, the differences between Rabbi Epstein and his contemporaries would suggest that the subject of women is one component of an overall approach to halakhah that emphasized the significance of integrating the social, physical and religious actuality of his time. A component of this was an enhanced sensitivity toward the status and role of the Jewish woman. It is not clear what motivated Rabbi Epstein to adopt this halakhic philosophy. One can only suggest different influences that stemmed from his family background, his rabbinical training, his interaction with the community during his rabbinical career, and the influence of the Haskalah movement.29 In addition, the paradigm of halakhah adopted by Rabbi Epstein may have been his means of combatting the secular threat to his Orthodox community.30 The issue of Rabbi Epstein’s motivation remains open and will have to be dealt with elsewhere in greater detail.

29 30

74

See Chapter 1. See Fishbane, “The Supra-Legal Materials . . .,” Op. cit.

5. THE COURAGE OF A RELIGIOUS ADJUDICATOR

5.

THE COURAGE OF A RELIGIOUS ADJUDICATOR: Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein and Modernity

We often hear the suggestion that modernization and its secularizing1 results are a direct threat to the halakhically observant Jew. On the one hand, it may cause a decline in the practice of religious law and custom and on the other hand it affects, as Peter Berger (1969, 107) points out “the totality of cultural life and of ideation and may be observed in the decline of religious contents in the arts, in philosophy, in literature and most important of all, in the rise of science as an autonomous, thoroughly secular perspective of the world.” There is little question that in the diaspora, there has existed such a threat for the Jews as a religious minority. The question that may then be asked is how rabbinical authorities regarded and responded to this perceived crisis and danger. The majority of nineteenth century European rabbis felt that stringency, and thus stronger boundaries, was the solution to guard the observant Jew from the dangers of modernity. In certain aspects, this was comparable to the extreme worldview and behaviour of the Amish community in contemporary North America.2 Other rabbinical authorities chose to incorporate the new innovations of the time within Judaism and halakhah.3 This chapter will explore a number of the rulings—and thus the worldview—of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein (1829– 1908) the rabbi of Navordok, Russia, that are concerned with modern and technological issues. Rabbi Epstein was considered a leading rabbinical authority of Eastern Europe of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. We will examine his code of Jewish Law, Arukh Hashulhan, 1

2

3

For a definition and discussion of secularization see Berger 1969, 106–107, Sharot 1990 and Deshen 1974, 151–172. For a description and analysis of the Amish society see for example, Hostetler 1963, Gingerich 1972. This view is what A. P. Cohen 1985, 63 terms symbolic reversal. 75

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

as well as responsa and letters he wrote,4 some of which were published in various books and periodicals. Through these adjudications, we will show Rabbi Epstein’s perspective on modernity.

Securalism and the community Peter Berger (1969, 109) has demonstrated that the modern industrial and technological economy is a major secularizing “carrier” in western society and that the spread of western civilization involves the spread of secularization. Secularization is the product of many factors, such as pluralism, industrialization, urbanization, growth of technology and political changes.5 These factors often cause changes in religious practices as well as in interpretations and adjudications of religious law. Shlomo Deshen (1974, 157–158) offers a fourfold typology to explain the concept of secularism. This comprises the following categories, 1) eradication, 2) creation, 3) innovation, 4) profanation. ‘Eradication’ and ‘creation’ are actions that pertain to the formal expression of the symbol. They are diametrically opposed: ‘eradication’ is an action whereby a symbol is eliminated; by an act of ‘creation’, a new symbol is wrought. In acts of innovation and profanation, the formal expression of the symbol undergoes no change; the acts, however, impinge on the meaning and content of existing symbols. For orthodox Jewish society, these typologies are best demonstrated in halakhic codes and responsa. They serve as a rich source for exploring change in society. Halakhah explicitly demonstrates the view of the adjudicator towards the role of modernity, and how modernity is permitted to play a role in the Jewish community.

Modernity and Judaism: Problematic and methodological considerations Such a modern, secular, pluralistic community was the type of society in which the Jews of Eastern Europe found themselves at the end of the nineteenth century, the period of the industrial revolution.6 At the time, 4

5

6

76

See Horovitz 2007, who collected and reprinted many of these letters and responsa. See Sharot 1990, 2–3. Berger 1969, 111–112, explains how the industrial society can cause the rejection of religion and the belief in sacred beings and forces. Berger 1969, 108, shows that “the impact of secularization has tended to be stronger on men than on women . . . in the cities than in the country, on

5. THE COURAGE OF A RELIGIOUS ADJUDICATOR

many of the rabbinical leaders feared that the change offered by modernity would threaten their religious social structure. Modernity, both in the form of new ideologies and new technological developments—borrowing the terminology of Mary Douglas—became equated with spiritual pollution and danger (Douglas, 1966). In order to protect the observant Jews and halakhic Judaism from these threatening forces, barriers that consisted of rituals, laws, decrees and stringent rulings were erected by the adjudicators of halakhah, based upon the rulings that had been decided throughout Jewish rabbinic history. The development of the halakhic legal system, with its rituals and religious practices, helped provide a clear distinctive boundary7 to keep insiders in and outsiders out.8 In other words, the process of modernization provided a congenial condition for the growth and strength of the traditionally stringent Jewish practice. Certain rabbis would therefore negate new technology. For example, Rabbi Moses Sofer (1762–1839) adapted a phrase that became a slogan in the orthodox community “hadash asur me ha-Torah” (anything new is forbidden by the Bible) (Encyclopedia Judaica, 1972 volume 15), accepted to mean that any innovation is viewed by halakhah as being forbidden simply because it is new. Similarly, Rabbi Yosef Shaul Nathanson (1810–1875), a leading rabbinical authority of nineteenth century Eastern Europe, in his book of responsa, Shoel u’Meshiv, (section 103) writes in reference to the appearance of motorized vehicles, which cut down tremendously the time needed to inform a person of the death of a relative, “We do not calculate the time [to deliver the message] according to new devices (machines) of our times. For if so, the ways of Torah will change daily.”9 For the author of Shoel u’Meshiv, “change,” including new technology, was a danger for

7

8

9

classes directly connected with modern industrial production (particularly the working class) . . . on Protestants and Jews than on Catholics, and the like.” His definition, as he later points out, is applicable to Europe. An examination of the sociology of the Jews at the end of the nineteenth century in Eastern Europe will portray an analogous picture. This type of social structure Douglas (1966) would classify as strong grid strong group. In this typology she lists and describes the typologies that create such a society. Sharot 1990, 6, argues that Judaism is a halakhic religion rather than a theological one. Furthermore, a scientific and secular ideology poses a greater threat to a conservative religion whose core is theology than to one whose core is practice. See Zohar 1986, 23, where he discusses this specific halakhic case in relationship to the rulings of nineteenth century Egyptian rabbis. 77

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

halakhic Judaism. A further example of such a view is expressed by Rabbi Israel Kagan (1838–1933), a leading rabbinical authority of the period in his commentary on Joseph Caro’s Shulhan Arukh Orakh Hayyim, Mishnah Berurah, one of the major Jewish codes of law written in the second half of nineteenth century Eastern Europe.10 In his work, Rabbi Kagan took a stringent position on the majority of modern issues that confronted the Jewish community of his era.11 This conclusion has to be deduced from the implicit meaning of his text, for modern and new innovations are rarely discussed in the Mishnah Berurah. The need to reject new as “new” is the opposite of the modern industrial society that attempts to even make the old new. In order to present innovations to the halakhic community, these had to be given a “face lift,” so as to make them more acceptable within this society. For the halakhically observant community, what can be attributed, incorporated into and related to the past is more legitimate and thus more acceptable. Therefore, the past and its traditions are what give life and legitimacy to the present. This opposition to and rejection of change was deemed necessary for the Jewish minority living in non-Jewish societies, especially nineteenth century Europe, at the period of the industrial revolution, where the non-traditional majority manifested secularization and change. Before the new could be sanctioned in the traditional Jewish society, (a term Katz, 1959, uses to identify the halakhically observant community) it was necessary that the boundaries of the old be blurred. The new therefore is not new, but a part of, or in service of, the old. Thus, for those adjudicators who were more open to the needs and reality of their community, the halakhic process required a new awareness of both the new and the old. One should not make the mistake of thinking that this orthodox community was naturally a static, non-changing society. Rather, as Jacob Katz correctly points out (1959, 156–157) although it did not want changes, did not seek revisions and up to a point resisted them, it did allow them 10

11

78

The other codes were that of Rabbi Epstein, Rabbi Shalom Mordechai Schwadron’s (1835–1911) Daat Torah and Rabbi Abraham Danzig’s Hayyei Adam (1810). In chapter 1, I have shown how Rabbi Kagan rules stringently in topics relevant and of concern to his era. My analysis of Rabbi Kagan’s work serves as a basis of comparison between two leading adjudicators at the turn of the century. As shown by scholars such as Katz (1969), Zohar (1981) and Schweid (1977), the dominant pattern of the period was to rule stringently when concerned with new issues and technologies.

5. THE COURAGE OF A RELIGIOUS ADJUDICATOR

to be assimilated. But, when these innovations were incorporated (usually more out of inertia than conscious desire), they had to be legitimized religiously. The extent and swiftness of the legitimized change and its incorporation into the corpus of Jewish law was dependent upon the perspective of each rabbinical authority. Rabbi Epstein, for example (as I will illustrate subsequently), perceived halakhah as an ongoing process, and thus was continually open to adaptation and change. In his code, he often discusses these new discoveries and issues ruling with the needs of his community in mind, these rulings being primarily lenient. Moreover, in contrast to Rabbi Kagan and many other adjudicators of his period, he repeatedly distinguishes, for the purpose of halakhic behaviour, between early periods of Jewish history and his time.12 What was appropriate to, for example, Talmudic times, is not automatically germane to the turn of the century in Eastern Europe. Even for the bold rabbi, just as for the restrained adjudicator, the new would not—or could not—always be explicitly identified. For example, in addition to employing the traditional normative halakhic dialogue in halakhic decisions, the language used in the literary structure of the codes of Jewish law often manifested necessity to obfuscate the “new” and the “old.” An illustration of this is found both in the Mishnah Berurah13 and Arukh Hashulhan, where terms such as “in our times” or “now,” which are quotes from adjudicators of a century earlier, are presented to the reader as contemporary issues.14 An additional instance of this is found in section 284, paragraph 4 of the Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim. Rabbi Epstein, when discussing the use of printed texts for the reading of the haftorah (a section from the Bible read after the Torah portion) on Sabbath and holidays writes, “Now [in our times] with the discovery of the art of printing, where books are inexpensive . . .” Here, Rabbi Epstein is quoting the Magen Avraham, an eighteenth century commentary on Rabbi Joseph Caro’s Code of Jewish Law. On the other hand, the author of the Arukh Hashulhan seldom employs the term “new” or “modern” or “discovery” when dealing with new 12

13

14

This I also found in the Rabbi S. Z. of Lyady’s Shulhan Arukh Harav. I have suggested in chapter 1, that this work served as a paradigm for the Arukh Hashulhan. See for example section 244 sub—paragraph 13, section 252 sub—paragraph 14 and section 246 sub—paragraph 8. In the Arukh Hashulhan, Rabbi Epstein is more careful to quote the source than is Rabbi Kagan in his Mishnah Berurah. 79

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

innovations. Instead, he generally uses the formulary etzlenu (with us [in our community]) or ha’idnah (today) when discussing a modern issue. While Rabbi Epstein retained the style of various Shulhan Arukh commentators when discussing new innovations and modernity,15 an examination of his code will reveal a unique perspective toward these issues. This view can be seen (not necessarily in this order), first, in his conviction of the changing needs of his community and thus his understanding of the reality of his era and society; second, by his choice of lenient rulings rather than stringency in issues related to change, modernity and technology; third, in the degree of his acknowledgment of modern innovations and his endorsement of these both in the “service of halakhah” and as a cause for change in the intrinsic halakhic behaviour patterns of the nineteenth century East European Jew; fourth, to discern his view on halakhah as an ongoing process.

Rabbi Epstein and his Society Rabbi Epstein’s halakhic writings reveal, as stated above, three typologies of affirmation of the scientific and technological phenomena of his time. The first category, which is found in the majority of rabbinic responsa, is, I suggest, the recognition and acceptance of these innovations. Alternately, when the topic is not specifically posed, contrary to responsa literature, (or if not, as a cry to avoid the specific invention, since it is, in the adjudicator’s eyes, a danger to Judaism—today it might be television) most rabbinical authorities did not recognize and employ innovations in their writings. In his code and homilies, a type of work that is solely the author’s initiative, Rabbi Epstein refers to such new gadgets as an accepted occurrence without any need for special halakhic recognition. For example, some orthodox Jews felt that cameras, developed in the nineteenth century16 were a threat to the Biblical law of “you should not make a statue or picture” (Exodus 20, 4),17 are referred to by Rabbi Epstein in his homily #5, where he accepts them as a part of the community’s life style without question. 15

16 17

80

Rabbi Epstein did not remain loyal to this in all areas of this type. I will illustrate this in this chapter. See Purves 1960, 101. See Zohar 1981, 27, who discusses this issue.

5. THE COURAGE OF A RELIGIOUS ADJUDICATOR

Second, technology can be placed in the service of religion, which Deshen categorizes as “innovation.” This is when technology does not intrinsically change the behavioral patterns of the orthodox Jew, but contributes to the functioning of the halakhic process. The rabbinical authority would not only identify it, but would usually rule leniently concerning its use. This also presented a problem for some adjudicators. For example, Rabbi Nathanson another leading rabbinical authority of the nineteenth century wrote concerning the use of trains and the laws pertaining to mourning. Although information could now be transferred rapidly with the development of trains, Rabbi Nathanson felt that one should not change the ways of nature with the incorporation of new innovations.18 This view rejected change and dictated that the past prevails. Rabbi Epstein took a different view of halakhah. For example, in his discussion of the type of non-leather shoes that are permitted to be worn on the fast of Tisha B’av (Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 554, paragraph 15), Rabbi Epstein employed the term etzlenu (in our community), which implies modernity, then refers to “koloshim” (boots). These were made of material that resembled leather but were in reality a type of glue and rubber, and therefore permitted to be worn. Shoes made of leather are forbidden to be worn on this fast day as well as on the fast of Yom Kippur. A new commodity based upon new technology19 is discussed in the ruling about this leather substitute on Tisha B’av, but the law remains unchanged. The koloshim were not ignored by other rabbinical authorities like Rabbi Kagan,20 but not discussed as a result of new technology. Rabbi Kagan, preferring a stringent view, described these shoes as made of gemi (reeds or rush), employing the same terminology, technology, and law found in the Shulhan Arukh written three hundred years earlier. Rabbi Epstein, who adopted a lenient approach, discusses and describes a shoe produced from a leather substitute, a product of the technology of his generation.21 A second example comes from the laws of Hanukkah (Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 673, paragraph 1). Rabbi Epstein reports 18 19 20

21

Sho’el uMeshiv section 3, chapter 103. See Encyclopedia Britannica volume 19, p. 606. Mishnah Berurah section 614 sub-paragraph 5. Also see Hayyei Adam, section 145, paragraph 19. Rabbi Epstein calls this material rubber using the Yiddish—Russian term. His description as to the process of making rubber seems not to be accurate. 81

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

about a new type of candle manufactured from a new substance (at the time, paraffin22), that it is “clearer than wax.” This new class of candles is a fitting way to perform the obligation of lights on Hanukkah. The new innovation does not reconstruct the halakhic obligation, but rather enhances it. This innovation, or similar new technologies for wax production, are not discussed in other Eastern European codes, like the Mishnah Berurah and the Hayyei Adam. A third illustration that concerns technology in service of the Torah is an instance where the technology is not employed for its specified use, but rather to serve the needs of halakhah and the community. This law concerns eruv, a border created around the community to permit the Jew to carry outside his home on the Sabbath. At the turn of the century, with the spread of telephones, it was suggested that telephone wires be used as a means of creating this eruv. Rabbinical authorities were hesitant to accept this suggestion as a result of different halakhic obstacles that stemmed from the use of these wires.23 Rabbi Epstein was also concerned with the problematics resulting from the employment of these wires. In a letter in 1905 to Rabbi Moshe Nachum Yerushalmski, the Rabbi of Kalitz expresses his concern over the use of these wires, but chooses to permit them. He writes; “The government does not permit us to make eruvim . . . and this results in much Sabbath desecration. You have been wise to make it [the eruv] with telephone [wires]. But be aware that . . . one is only permitted to rely on it in times of emergency . . . In our time, the emergency is greater than in theirs [that of the earlier rabbis] . . . for there is no greater thing than to rescue the public from desecrating the Sabbath, especially when there is no other alternative as in our times, may God have mercy.”24 Rabbi Epstein, conscious of his community’s needs, after presenting the normative responsa dialogue, seeks out the lenient ruling that utilizes modern technology. He does this not by modifying or amending the law, but by employing the new technology for his society’s stability. An additional instance where the manner of the Jew’s life style is not transformed involves the development of the match. This innovation was introduced in 1855,25 and rapidly became a common household 22

23 24 25

82

See Encyclopedia Britannica volume 4, p. 738 that discusses the development of rubber in industries such as boots in the nineteenth century. For a discussion of this topic see Lagane 1973, 52–53. The letter was found in the Shocken Archives, Israel, see also Horovitz 2007. See Encyclopedia Britannica volume 15, p. 46.

5. THE COURAGE OF A RELIGIOUS ADJUDICATOR

commodity.26 In Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 502, paragraph 6, Rabbi Epstein examines the prospect of using a match to create fire on the holiday, a time where halakhah permits one to use already existing fire (esh metzuyah), but not to cause a new fire. The question involved here refers to a case where the match head is to be placed on a hot substance, for to strike it directly is clearly prohibited. The rabbi, aware of various stringent views, commences his discussion by stating that “we are all careful pertaining to this [not to light with matches on the holiday].” He then immediately continues with a halakhic discussion explaining what is permitted and what is prohibited. In his conclusion, he emphasizes his own view, and writes that “the world is accustomed to permit this.” Although he commences with a cautious halakhic position, in an instance when the community has incorporated the new technology, Rabbi Epstein seeks to permit the new innovation, for when the community’s needs and reality are in the forefront of his worldview, he distinguishes halakhah as an ongoing process. The third typology where Rabbi Epstein reveals his boldness is in regard to technological discoveries that imply change in the intrinsic halakhic behavioral pattern of the nineteenth century East European Jew (similar to the typology identified by Deshen as eradication). The following examples will illustrate these in Rabbi Epstein’s halakhic approach. The close of the nineteenth century saw the introduction of electricity into the homes of Europeans, a phenomenon which initiated change in their life style. In response to a question posed to him concerning the turning on or turning off of the electricity on holidays (Abromowitz, 1903), Rabbi Epstein writes that it is permitted. Employing normative halakhic reasoning, he explains his lenient position. In subsequent years, Rabbi Epstein’s decision was not accepted by observant Jewry, which 26

It is interesting to note that Rabbi Kagan (sub—paragraph 4) departs from his normative motif and quotes a contemporary rabbinical authority, Rabbi Abraham S. B. W. Sofer (1815–1871), the author of Ketav Sofer. Rabbi A. Sofer was regarded as a stringent adjudicator, following the halakhic philosophy of his father (Rabbi Moses Sofer—The Hatam Sofer). While Both Rabbi Kagan and Rabbi Epstein come to the same conclusion regarding the use of matches on the holiday, Rabbi Kagan’s approach emphasizes the stringent viewpoint, while Rabbi Epstein seeks out the accommodation, as a result of his community’s reality. A technological issue in the Arukh Hashulhan is the norm, but for Rabbi Kagan this requires the necessity to refer to a approved stringent and demanding adjudicator. 83

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

chose to follow the stringent rulings and to forbid turning on or turning off electricity on holidays.27 For Rabbi Epstein, although the question is a halakhic one, his responsum on electricity confronts possibilities for transforming the ritual and behavioral processes of Jewish life on the holidays. Rabbi Epstein nevertheless shows no apprehension in permitting its utilization. An additional instance of change in the halakhic process is found in Rabbi Epstein’s attitude toward a new device introduced into the ritual of circumcision. This device eliminated the necessity of withdrawing the blood of the circumcision with the mouth (metzizah). Rabbi Epstein first refers to this device in Arukh Hashulhan, Yoreh Deah, section 264, paragraph 19. He quotes the sources that prohibit its use and concludes, “Our rabbis the Sages of the Talmud were erudite and more intelligent than they [those who do not want to use the mouth] . . . It is not for us to introduce innovations as these, and we should remain as our forefathers.” He completes the paragraph with “in our country we have not heard of this [device].” Yet in 1900, six years after the publication of his volume on Yoreh Deah, Rabbi Epstein sent a letter of approbation to Reverend Abraham Tertis permitting this device (1900, 34). As long as it had not been a practical issue for him, it had not been necessary to take a halakhic stand. It was sufficient to state that it was not part of his reality. However, when the question became an actuality for his community, Rabbi Epstein advanced a lenient and accommodating opinion even though it contradicted the rabbis quoted in the Arukh Hashulhan.28 A further illustration of this typology concerns the use of mail. A system of mail delivery was not new, but Rowland Hill developed a new system in the latter half of the nineteenth century.29 This system, which incorporated trains and steam ships, resulted in quicker mail delivery. For Jews scattered on different continents, this change was very relevant to their halakhic life style. For example, Rabbi Epstein, in Arukh Hashulhan Even Haezer, section 1, paragraph 24, discusses the case of a man who wants to remarry in a different country (or distant place), 27

28

29

84

As Rabbi Epstein states in his responsum the technology of electricity was not understood by the rabbis. The rabbinical authorities chose to forbid it when it became clear to them what it entailed. See Electricity on the Sabbath 1975. Rabbi Kagan, in Mishnah Berurah, section 331, paragraph 1 in the Beur Halakhah commentary, deviates from his normative pattern and discusses a similar type of device and rules leniently. See Encyclopedia Britannica volume 18, p. 307.

5. THE COURAGE OF A RELIGIOUS ADJUDICATOR

but does not have to take his children with him to the new location. Here there is reason for concern that his children from his new wife might not know the children from his second wife, and the children of the two sets might intermarry, which is forbidden by Torah law. Rabbi Epstein explains his lenient decision; “It seems to me that, since in our times, the post is swiftly delivered every day throughout the world . . . the children born in the different country will be known to their brothers.” Thus Rabbi Epstein employs the development of the mail delivery system and the technology related to it to permit a different life style. An additional illustration concerning mail delivery is found in Arukh Hashulhan Even Haezer, section 141, paragraph 62, and in a supplement (no section number) titled, “A Divorce Writ sent by Mail (Post).” The problem with mail delivery in the case of divorce involves whether the mail or the mailman can be considered to constitute the proper “messenger” required for the transmitting of a divorce, especially since we are dealing with Gentile mailmen.30 This problem was especially relevant to the mass Jewish emigration from Russia at the end of the nineteenth century to different continents. Husbands and wives often separated, and sending messengers with the writ of divorce was not practical. Rabbi Epstein summarizes his view at the opening of the supplement; “It is conclusively permitted (heter gamur) to send a get (divorce writ) through the post . . . Since the Jews are scattered from one end of the world to the other end and it is futile to send messengers to the ends of the earth . . .” Thus, again Rabbi Epstein continues to express his halakhic stance that permits technology to influence the Jewish life style of his era and community. With the needs of the community in mind, he views halakhah as an ongoing process. An added perspective on Rabbi Epstein’s outlook on halakhah is found in his rulings concerning factories. As mentioned above, the industrial revolution, which had reached the Russian Empire by the end of the nineteenth century, introduced production on a large scale. Work that had been done in homes and small shops was now being done by new machines on a large scale. The food industry and the problem of kashruth, both during the year and for Passover, was a major issue of concern. One specific example of these concerns the prohibition of chametz on Passover 30

See Sdei Chemed section 7, pp. 134–149, who presents the lenient and stringent views. Also see Zohar 1981, 14–15 who discusses the problematics of this issue. 85

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

and the production of sugar. Earlier systems of production, as expressed by the authors of earlier codes of law, were viewed as problematic because it was feared that chametz would mix with the sugar. The rabbis thus choose to rule stringently.31 Although living in Eastern Europe in the period of new technology in the food industry, Rabbi Kagan chose to ignore the current innovations in his code, and instead discussed the methods employed in earlier generations, and thus he ruled stringently. Rabbi Epstein, on the other hand, views this change in the life style of his society as a positive contribution to the needs of Jewish ritual process. In his code of laws, Orakh Hayyim, section 467, paragraph 15, concerning the laws of chametz he follows his adjudicative pattern that recognizes the new technology and rules leniently, writing, “It is known that as far as sugar in our times is concerned, there is no suspicion of chametz, for it all made by steam [machines] . . . but the way is to specify that Passover sugar is made for Passover under the supervision of a rabbinical scholar (who is) an overseer in the factory . . . Today all [sugar is made in large factories by steam] and there is no suspicion of chametz.” Technology and industrialization opened new avenues for Rabbi Epstein to observe the laws of kashruth.32

Concluding remarks The nineteenth century Eastern European orthodox rabbinical leadership perceived halakhah as a means of perpetuating the permanence of the Jewish nation. Thus, the majority of these rabbis, like Rabbi Kagan, asserted that the Jew must live in accordance with the halakhah as decided in prior generations, even if this resulted in difficulties and inconvenience. Halakhah, for these rabbis, could not acquiesce in transforming historical reality. For them, history is not only ignored but is stationary.33 What Deshen referred to as eradication cannot be accepted, and innovation and profanation can only be considerations under special circumstances. This resulted in a weltenschauung for these rabbinical authorities according to which the principal method to shield their communities against the 31 32

33

86

See Shulhan Arukh Orakh Chaim section 467 and the standard commentaries. See Zohar 1981, 32 who discusses a corresponding question both for European and Egyptian Jewry. This argument is discussed in Zohar 1981, Alon 1973, 1247–1248, and Summit 1969.

5. THE COURAGE OF A RELIGIOUS ADJUDICATOR

dangers of the time was to reject the incorporation of modernity and its technology, as well as to rule stringently in issues that disturbed them in their society. This concern for the community that was manifested in strict halakhic decisions strove to strengthen the boundaries of isolation from the outside threatening forces. This then included the negation of modernity and its technology.34 Rabbi Epstein’s writings testify to an alternate conviction and worldview. His adjudication system implies that he was prepared to deal with new and novel issues that challenged his community. His approach to the predicaments that confronted his society suggest regard and cognizance for the reality that encompassed them. His attitude toward halakhah is reflected in his view of history. It can be summed up in a statement he made concerning the four species (Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 658, paragraph 21): “There is a reality [today] which was not so in previous generations.” His reality differed from previous generations, therefore, the way to consider the halakhic problems had to correspond to the issue of modernity. Halakhah must constitute an ongoing process; new reality had to be considered and incorporated. The needs and reality of his society were primary considerations in his halakhic decision making. Thus, while not deviating from the principles of halakhah and its system of adjudication, Rabbi Epstein concerns himself with modern technology and, with the needs of his community in mind, seeks a lenient stand while even incorporating rituals and laws that change the life style of the Jew. The answer Rabbi Epstein offers to the foreign threats of his generation is what Cohen (1985, 63) terms symbolic reversal. This refers to reassuring and strengthening the boundary of the community by incorporating new existent norms. Rabbi Epstein first reassures the norm of halakhah through the normative halakhic dialogue. He understood that the symbolic expression and affirmation of boundary heightens people’s awareness of and sensitivity to their community. Repeatedly he traces the halakhah’s origin from its biblical law through rabbinic literature. But within this system he then introduces a new symbolic 34

Katz and Summet view this boundary in relationship to previous halakhic behaviour as a recreation or new phenomenon, for in previous generations prior to the modern, there was no need to react to modernity in the same fashion. Whether the phenomenon is new or not, the stance was to consider technology cautiously and to rule stringently. 87

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

boundary for a society whose religion and symbols are being challenged. Rabbi Epstein’s rulings suggest that he would not alienate his community by stringent rulings and a disregard for technology. Even when he was compelled to rule stringently in areas concerned with his “technological reality,” the rabbi expressed great anxiety. For example Rabbi Epstein prohibited one to wear spectacles in a public domain on the Sabbath (unless they were close to the face) (Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 301, paragraph 61). He concluded the paragraph with the words, “Those that are lenient in this instance transgress the Sabbath and will in the future answer [to God]. Fools have transgressed and were punished.” In the representative examples from the multitude of laws put forward by Rabbi Epstein, his view towards technology and his community are expressed. This weltenschauung that manifested a boldness on the part of the rabbi from Navordok became the guidelines and underlying principle for rabbinical authorities of contemporary Jewry in an age of modern technology.35

35

88

The question which results from my analysis is what considerations influenced Rabbi Epstein’s worldview to be distinct from his peers. Although this topic requires a separate essay, I suggest the influences to be considered resulted from the following factors: first, the influence upon his personality which stemmed fom his education, his rabbinical positions and his interaction with other rabbis as the Rabbi of Habad (the Tzemakh Tzedek); second the structure of his society, both Jewish and general.

6. “MERCY IS VOUCHSAFED FROM HEAVEN”

6.

“MERCY IS VOUCHSAFED FROM HEAVEN”: Halakhah’s Response to Violence as Expressed in the Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim— Sections 560 and 576–81

We are living in a period of history when the nation, the residents of Israel, and the entire western world are experiencing a new wave of violence, terrorism, and adversity. As for all issues of their lives, halakhic Jews turn for answers to the Jewish legal system, seeking in Torah and halakhah instructions in how to respond to these violent times. For an understanding of the specific halakhic response to violence required for the spiritual selves of these individuals and halakhic behavior, we turn to the halakhic writings. Though new books of adjudication continue to appear, they are always firmly based upon nineteenth-century works. It is, therefore, in the Arukh Hashulhan and the Mishnah Berurah, two latenineteenth century pillars of halakhah, that we seek these answers. Even a cursory examination of nineteenth-century eastern European Jewish life reveals a period fraught with violence, including pogroms, acts of anti-Semitism, attacks on persons and property, and natural disasters. What is the response of Jewish law? How is the Jew required to counter and confront violence? I will examine these issues in Rabbi Mechel Halevi 1

I would like to acknowledge and thank Professor Jacob Neusner, Research Professor of Theology, Senior Fellow, Institute of Advanced Theology, Bard College. Professor Neusner’s writings have been the major influence upon my methodological approach to the study of rabbinic texts. His development, a unique approach to the study of Judaism and employment of social science theories, especially the application of social anthropology to rabbinic texts, must be recognized by all scholars. Professor Neusner’s methodologies are also unique because they do not pose a problem for Jews from all walks of life. Whether you see yourself as an Orthodox observant Jew, Conservative or Reform, you do not have to be threatened by this system of analysis. 89

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Epstein’s Arukh Hashulhan2 and in Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen Kagan’s Mishnah Berurah,3 both of which were written in late nineteenth-century Eastern Europe. Webster’s dictionary describes violence as: 1. Physical force, so as to injure, damage, or destroy; 2. Intense, often devastatingly or explosively powerful forces of energy, as a hurricane or volcano; 3. unjust or callous use of forces or power, as in violating another’s rights and sensibilities.

I shall also include in the definition of violence such natural disasters as epidemics, fatal diseases and viruses. While the chapters in the books of halakhah examined in this essay discuss general categories of troubles (tzarot) confronting the Jew, our interest here focuses on types of violence directed against the Jew and/or his community. The writer of this essay seeks the halakhic approach to the issue of evil as expressed by Rabbi Soloveitchik,4 who writes The gist of my discourse was that Judaism did not approach the problem of evil under the speculative—metaphysical aspect. For such an inquiry would be a futile undertaking. As long as the human mind is unable to embrace creation in its entirety and gain an insight into the very essence and purposiveness of being as such, it would not succeed in its attempt to resolve the dilemma of evil. The latter is interwoven into the very fabric of reality and cannot be understood outside its total ontological configuration. Job was in error because he tried to grasp the nature of evil. Therefore, Judaism has recommended that the metaphysical inquiry be replaced by the halakhic ethical gesture. Man should not ask: “Why evil?” He should rather raise the question: “What am I supposed to do if confronted with evil; how should I behave vis-à-vis evil?” The latter is a powerful challenge to man to meet this challenge boldly and courageously. Suffering, in the opinion of Judaism, must not be purposeless, wasted. Out of suffering must emerge the ethical norm, the call for repentance, 2

3

4

90

Rabbi Epstein lived between 1829 and 1908. He published his Arukh Hashulhan between the years 1974 and his death. For a short biography of Rabbi Epstein and his writings, see chapter 1. Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen Kagan lived between 1838 and 1933. He published his Mishnah Berurah between the years 1883 and 1907. For a short biography of Rabbi Kagan and his writings, see Fishbane 1991. Quoted in a paper by David Shatz, “From The Depths I Have Called To You: Jewish Reflections on September 11th and Contemporary Terrorism,” Farber, Fishbane 2006.

6. “MERCY IS VOUCHSAFED FROM HEAVEN”

for self-evaluation. Judaism wants to convert the passional frustrating experience into an integrating, cleansing, and redeeming factor.

The overall presentation of these laws is found in Rabbi Joseph Caro’s (1484–1575) Shulhan Arukh, Orakh Hayyim, chapters 560 through 580. These laws are categorized under the theme of “Laws of Fasting,” and there also two chapters at the conclusion of the laws of “Tisha b’Av.” The latter (chapters 560 and 561) are concerned with reactions to the historical destruction of the holy land, in particular the Jerusalem Temple, the greatest act of physical and spiritual destruction, which devastated the nation of Israel. Chapters 562 through 580 are concerned with all aspects of fasting, including cases when disasters, violent acts and threats are directed against the Jew and/or the community. Sections in other books of the Shulhan Arukh also deal with reactions to violence, in particular those devoted to war and to defense against thieves and murderers. The issues in Orakh Hayyim have been selected both to examine the Arukh Hashulhan and to compare these laws with those in the Mishnah Berurah. The latter, though a major halakhic work of its period, is concerned only with the laws of Orakh Hayyim and was published during the same historical period and geographical location as Rabbi Epstein’s Arukh Hashulhan. At the opening of the Laws of Fasting,5 Rabbi Epstein sets the stage by quoting Maimonides (Mishnah Torah, Laws of Fasting, Chapter 1, Law 1–3): A positive Scriptural commandment prescribes prayer and the sounding of an alarm with trumpets whenever trouble befalls the community. For when Scripture says, ‘Against the adversary that oppresseth you, then ye shall sound an alarm with trumpets’ (Num. 10:9), it means: Cry out in prayer and sound out against whatever is oppressing you, be it famine, pestilence, locusts, or the like. This procedure is one road to repentance, for when a community, overwhelmed by trouble, cries out in prayer and sounds an alarm, everyone is bound to realize that evil has come as a consequence of his own evil deeds. As it is written: ‘Your inequities have turned away these things, and your sins have withholden good from you (Jer. 5:25). Repentance will cause the trouble to be removed. If, on the other hand, the people do not cry out in prayer or sound an alarm, but merely say that such is life—and that their troubles are a matter of pure chance—then they have chosen a cruel path which will make 5

The Mishnah Berurah inserts the same quote at the opening of his commentary to Chapter 576. 91

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

them persevere in their evil deeds and bring additional troubles upon themselves. For when Scripture says, ‘But walk contrary unto Me; then I will walk contrary unto you in fury’ (Lev. 26:27–28), the meaning is: If, when I bring trouble upon you to cause you to repent, and you say that this trouble is purely accidental, I will then compound your troubles with the fury appropriate to such ‘contrary’ behavior. On the authority of the scribes, fasting is required whenever trouble befalls the community, until such time as mercy is vouchsafed from heaven. During such fasts people should cry out in prayer and supplication, and should sound an alarm, but with trumpets only. In the temple, the alarm was sounded with both trumpets and the ram’s horn, a short blast from the ram’s horn and a long blast from the trumpets, since the commandment concerning the day specified only the trumpets. Only in the Temple were both trumpets and the ram’s horn sounded, in accordance with the verse, ‘With trumpets and sound of the horn shout ye before the King, the Lord’ (Psalms 98:6).6 The basis for the approach to suffering has been presented—it is your sins that brought on these acts of violence and tragedies.

Thus it is the opinion—and the underlining principle and point of departure—for the adjudicators of halakhah that the individual and the community bear responsibility (or demonstrate lack of responsibility) for whatever troubles and acts of violence befall them. Their actions must correct the misfortune, and the issue here is how to accomplish this goal, primarily through fasting and prayer. Rabbi Epstein emphasizes (paragraph 3) that, when, subsequent to the destruction of the Temple many of the Temple-related laws became inapplicable, in cases of tzara7 (distress, anguish, suffering, torment or misfortune), there continues to be a Rabbinical obligation to fast (not to sound the trumpets). This obligation is incumbent for the tzara inflicted both on an individual and on the community. Since misfortunes and suffering are primarily a result of one’s sins, fasting is considered a measure of selfimposed suffering that encourages repentance—the remedy for sin. The specific issues of why and when to fast will be discussed below. It is important to emphasize that within Judaism abstention from eating and drinking, accompanied by self-introspection, prayer and its rituals, are considered a legitimate and recommended path to repentance. 6 7

92

Maimonides’s translation was adapted from Gandz’s translation 1961. Rabbi Epstein, in his homilies (Fishbane 1991b), discusses at length the issue of community suffering from the homiletic perspective rather than as a legal issue. See also Fishbane 2001.

6. “MERCY IS VOUCHSAFED FROM HEAVEN”

The remedy for misfortunes and violence is, therefore, logically placed within the laws of fasting. Thus we find that the author of the Shulhan Arukh has devoted chapter 576 to the theme “The matters over which one should fast and sound a shofar (ram’s horn).” Shulhan Arukh8 (575:1) first presents examples of tzarot and violence, indicating when one should fast: Just as one should fast and sound /a shofar/ over rain9 [lack or abundance of it], so one should fast over troubles. For example, when non-Jews have arrived to wage war with Jews, to exact tax from them, to seize land from their possession or to impose an oppressive decree upon them, even where /the observance of only/ a minor mitzvah /will be affected/ they should fast and sound /a shofar/ until they have been shown mercy. / The inhabitants of/ all the towns around them should also fast but they should not sound /a shofar/, unless they blow /the shofar/, in order / to collect together to help /the town which is in trouble/. Even if /the non-Jews/ have only appeared /in order/ to pass through their land, as they are not at war with them, but with other non-Jews, and they /merely wish to/ pass through a Jewish locality, /the inhabitants of that locality/ should fast and sound /a shofar/.

Violent activities, such as war, the deprivation of freedom or the seizure of private property demand a response by the affected individual. An examination of these laws in the Arukh Hashulhan reveals the reactions of a concerned Rabbinic leader. In presenting the law of the Shulhan Arukh, Rabbi Epstein makes some noticeable changes. Opening paragraph 5 with a quote from Rabbi Caro, he stresses that cases concerning waging wars, tax collection, etc., refer to Temple times and not to contemporary social reality. Here Rabbi Epstein is following his literary agenda of not antagonizing the censor or the Tsar’s government. In contrast to many other rabbinical authorities, he believed in loyalty to the Tsar, the gentile host government. An essay titled “Kvod Hamelekh”10 in his introduction to his first published volume of the Arukh Hashulhan clearly makes this point. Consideration of the negative suggestions contained in the law 8

9

10

Translations of R. Caro’s Shulhan Arukh and the Mishnah Berurah have been adapted from the Orenstein edition 1997. A separate section in the Shulhan Arukh, 575, is dedicated to the topic of the need for rain, primarily in the Land of Israel. See chapter 2, where I discuss and analyze the essay “Kvod Hamelech.” 93

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

of waging war, or of tax collection as a contemporary issue, might have compromised the frail loyalty of the Jews of the period, something Rabbi Epstein chose to avoid. A similar suggestion may be seen in section 571, paragraph 2 (in the Shulhan Arukh, paragraph 3). Rabbi Caro speaks of a case when “a town is besieged by non-Jews (gentiles), subjects of the Tsar.” Rabbi Epstein chooses a less accusing term anas, referring to a bandit or a violent person.11 The law, as stated by both Rabbi Epstein and Rabbi Caro, stipulates that “individuals who are being pursued by a violent person, by robbers or by an evil spirit are not allowed to fast, to preserve their stamina. Instead, they should accept to fast so many fasts that they will be delivered.” Following the same principle of avoiding confrontation with the local government, however, Rabbi Epstein omits the remainder of Rabbi Caro’s law, which states: “Likewise, if an /evil/ decree was decreed /upon people/ and it was /also/ decreed that they should not fast because of it, they should accept upon themselves that they will fast so many fasts when the decree will have been revoked.” For Rabbi Epstein “the law of the land is the law,” even for the halakhic observant Jew whose life was guided by the laws of the Torah. Only in paragraph 6, where the law discusses natural disasters, diseases and plagues, does Rabbi Epstein turn from political sensitivities to explicit discussion of the social reality of his time. The natural disasters, epidemics and pestilence examined in paragraphs 6 through 12 of the Arukh Hashulhan fall within our definition of violence. How must one behave in such circumstances? Rabbi Epstein begins by quoting the Shulhan Arukh and elaborating on its definition; the qualifications for pestilence (dever) are discussed. A minimum of 500 strong men must dwell in the town, not including women and children. For the epidemic to be considered dever a minimum of one of these strong men must die every day for three successive days. Only then does the Shulhan Arukh require that a community fast be declared. Commentaries including the Mishnah Berurah and the Arukh Hashulhan,12 which quote earlier rabbinical Shulhan Arukh commentaries, argue that the above 11

12

94

The Talmud states that the anas is also considered an acum (gentile or idol worshipper). The literary pattern of the Mishnah Berurah, in contrast to the Arukh Hashulhan, is not to introduce contemporary changes unless stated by earlier rabbinical authorities, such as the Magen Avraham. See Fishbane 1991 where I discuss this at length.

6. “MERCY IS VOUCHSAFED FROM HEAVEN”

example of the need for fasting should be ignored. This is because “past experience has shown that when one does not eat and drink he succumbs to the change in air.” When an issue involved dangers to health, the Rabbis, including the text-bound adjudicators such as Rabbi Kagan, were prepared to make compromises distinguishing between past and present reality. In paragraph 11, Rabbi Epstein continues, in accordance with the Shulhan Arukh, discussing other fatal epidemics and diseases, and the obligation to fast when these affect one’s home and community. The reaction to this category of violence differs from the previous ones in that the three-day requirement is not necessary. If many persons have been stricken by the disease—even if there are no deaths—a fast should be declared. But for Rabbi Epstein, this concern is merely academic, for the focus of the author of the Arukh Hashulhan is reality. The Arukh Hashulhan at first implicitly conveys the message that the diseases dealt with in the Shulhan Arukh were not relevant to the author’s time, and then, in paragraph 12, presents a contemporary problem. The discussion opens with the issue of smallpox. While other rabbinical adjudicators have instructed their communities in the event of a smallpox outbreak to remove their children from the town, Rabbi Epstein argues that this issue is not relevant to his time. “Today it is not found,” he writes, “for it is already 150 years that the doctors have prepared for every child [a vaccine of] cowpox, and thus they are able to avoid this disease.” Rabbi Epstein continues with what he saw as a realistic issue: “Presently, children are susceptible to a disease called diphtheria; it is a type of askarah, a disease which blocks the throat. It seems to me, if this sickness, God forbid, becomes an epidemic in the city a fast should be decreed.” Rabbi Epstein is not willing to ignore contemporary reality. Other adjudicators, such as the Mishnah Berurah, take a different approach. Thus, in these paragraphs, the Mishnah Berurah again follows his literary pattern, showing primary concern for the text and the opinion of earlier rabbinical authorities while avoiding contemporary issues. Hence, there is no discussion of the fatal diseases and epidemics of Rabbi Kagan’s time. (One may wonder what Rabbi Epstein would suggest for a society such as ours that is threatened by an “anthrax” epidemic.) An additional circumstance calling for a response from the Jewish community is that of an earthquake or avalanche causing the collapse of a town’s buildings. The Arukh Hashulhan (paragraph 10) quotes the Shulhan Arukh (paragraph 4) verbatim. Rabbi Epstein felt that the issue 95

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

had been adequately discussed without requiring additional comments. “Likewise, one should fast over /the trouble of/ a collapse in the town,” he writes. The case /when it is necessary to do so/ is when there was a lot of collapsing in the town of sturdy walls that were not standing at the side of the river. This is trouble and one should fast and sound /a shofar/ over it. Similarly, one should fast and sound /a shofar/ over an earthquake or winds which tumble buildings and kill.

It is not clear why Rabbi Epstein chose not to comment on this law. The Mishnah Berurah adds, in the name of an earlier rabbinical authority, the Ritba,13 that “It may be that the number /of buildings which must have collapsed to be considered a lot/ is three buildings.” Such categories of natural disasters as tzarot and violence are clearly identified, and affect how the Jew must repent. Another form of violence requiring a halakhic response is that caused by attacks of wild animals, a common enough occurrence at the time. The law discussed attacks by wild animals, a part of the agricultural world, and these natural disasters would require one to fast in accordance with Jewish law. The theme of agriculture recurs throughout the Shulhan Arukh. Even if one argues that agriculture was a relevant issue for Rabbi Caro, or, alternatively, that he was basing his laws only upon the topics of the Talmud, it is clear that this was not the primary economic concern of the Jews of Eastern Europe. The author of the Arukh Hashulhan (paragraph 13) quotes the Shulhan Arukh (paragraph 7), and his comments emphasize that when the outward behavior of a wild animal appears to be a threat (in contrast to its normal behavior in its natural habitat), this is a decree or a sign from heaven, in particular when the animal displays no fear of man. These animals are categorized as and termed “sent” animals, and this requires repentance through fasting and sounding the shofar. The Shulhan Arukh, quoted by Rabbi Epstein, makes great efforts to differentiate between “sent” and not “sent” animals. For example (paragraph 14): On the other hand, over other kinds of /animals, etc., such as/ creeping creatures /which live/ on the ground or those that fly which were sent /to do harm/ and have caused harm, /the people/ should not fast or sound /a shofar/. For example, /this applies in the case of/ snakes or scorpions, 13

96

R. Yom Tov B. Avraham Ashbili 1250–1330.

6. “MERCY IS VOUCHSAFED FROM HEAVEN”

that do harm but do not kill, which have been sent /to do harm/ and it goes without saying /that it applies in the case of/ wasps, mosquitoes or similar /creatures which have been sent to do harm/.

In other words, if they do not kill, they are not considered as a threat or as being “sent,” concepts that would require fasting. Rabbi Epstein adds, however, that if such animals appear in areas where they are normally not found, they can be considered as “sent” and one should fast and blow the shofar. Concerned with his own environment, Rabbi Epstein adds at the end of paragraph 13, “All that is considered unnatural is not ‘sent’. In our country, wild animals are not found. There are only infrequent cases of a wild dog that will bite some persons. This is not to be considered ‘sent’ and the dog should be quickly killed.” Once again Rabbi Epstein is manifesting his concern for halakhic reality, and not only for textual Judaism. The Shulhan Arukh, which is concerned with the rulings of the Talmud, and therefore with issues of an agricultural society, goes on to discuss crops, diseases (paragraph 8) and agricultural pests (paragraph 9) that attack crops. The latter are discussed primarily in relation to the Land of Israel. Loyal to the Shulhan Arukh text,14 Rabbi Epstein quotes these laws (paragraphs 15 and 16), and gives interpretations of the different concepts without adding to them. Both an examination of all of the writings of the Arukh Hashulhan and the conclusion of his biographers15 indicate that the author of the Arukh Hashulhan had a special interest in and feeling for the land of Israel. The new era of European migration to Israel at the end of the nineteenth century and agricultural projects being developed in the Holy Land required specific halakhic attention, of which Rabbi Epstein was acutely aware. In addition to his desire to remain loyal to Rabbi Caro’s text, he expressed his real, nineteenth-century concern for agricultural issues vital to the Land of Israel. Economic dangers to his community,16 though not direct acts of violence, are a major subject in all of Rabbi Epstein’s writings. The 14

15 16

In most of his Shulhan Arukh writings, Rabbi Epstein followed closely the text of Maimonides’s Yad Hachazaka. In Orakh Hayyim, I have found that he chose to follow primarily the text of Rabbi Caro’s Shulhan Arukh. See, for example, Maimon 1947 and 1959. See chapter 7. 97

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

economic state of the Eastern European Jew has often resulted from persecution and anti-Jewish laws. The Arukh Hashulhan opens with a quote from the Shulhan Arukh and then follows his literary pattern in this section. Paragraph 10 of the Shulhan Arukh states: Similarly, /the people should sound a shofar if necessary/ over sustenance. This is /necessary/ if merchandise became cheaper when the livelihood of the inhabitants of the town is mostly /earned/ from /the sale of that merchandise/, for example, if linen garments in Babylon or wine and oil in the land of Israel /became cheaper/. If transactions /in such a town/ have reduced to the extent that the merchant must sell what is worth ten /dinarim/ for six /dinarim/ this is /regarded as/ a trouble of the community and /the people/ should sound /a shofar/ over it. On Shabbos /the people/ should cry out over this. However, they should not sound /a shofar/ over it on Shabbos.

This is not Rabbi Epstein’s reality. Therefore Rabbi Epstein (paragraph 17) clarifies Rabbi Caro’s law by adding that fasting, as cited in Rabbi Caro’s cases of business distress, is not relevant. Since this is a public issue, what one must do, even on the Sabbath, is to cry out in prayer. In light of contemporary reality, at the conclusion of this paragraph Rabbi Epstein declares that “in the next paragraph it will be explained that fasting is possible.” Through this last statement, Rabbi Epstein once again manifests his concern for his community and its primary concerns, specifically those of livelihood and basic sustenance. Here, prayer is not sufficient. In a society in which there was little opportunity for economic revival, other avenues, both physiological and spiritual (such as fasting), had to be opened up to enable the Jew to find assistance and hope, and the Rabbi sought them out within the halakhic framework allowed to him. The continuation of this theme is a discussion of rain, an agricultural concern of consequence, for too much or too little rain can cause ruin towns and economies. Thus, the following paragraph (18) of Shulhan for Arukh discusses an abundance of rain, an act of violence in the form of a natural disaster. In quoting the Shulhan Arukh (paragraph 11) Rabbi Epstein employs Rabbi Caro’s terminology, writing that “there is no greater trouble than the collapse of /people’s/ houses, with their houses turning out to be their graves . . . Nowadays, in Safed, collapse of houses because of the rain is common and /the people there therefore/ pray 98

6. “MERCY IS VOUCHSAFED FROM HEAVEN”

over /excessive rain/.”17 Rabbi Epstein explains that the reason for resorting solely to prayer without fasting and sounding the shofar is that these tragedies do not result from decrees from the heavens, but, rather, are a consequence of poor construction and of the shoddy building materials used in houses. He therefore concludes that, according to Rabbi Caro, only the opportunity to pray is provided, while fasting is prohibited. Alternatively, Maimonides writes that in all cases of trouble one may fast (also quoted by Rabbi Caro in paragraph 12). From this law, Maimonides concludes that in the case of economic hardships, fasting is permitted. Faced with the dilemma of why the Shulhan Arukh did not include fasting in its laws on economic suffering, Rabbi Epstein suggests that we should fast, to help the economically suffering Jew to find comfort and hope. Following his literary pattern, Rabbi Epstein continues to quote the Shulhan Arukh. He seems to have felt (as did the Mishnah Berurah18) that these issues had been substantively covered in the Shulhan Arukh. Rabbi Epstein quotes (paragraph 19) the Shulhan Arukh’s all-inclusive paragraph 12, which deals with the generic theme of tzarot, in its entirety. The concern of these halakhot is that the entire town, rather than the individual, might be afflicted by any of the troubles discussed. Here we read: If any town has any of these troubles, that the town should fast and cry out in prayer, supplicate and sound a shofar until the trouble has passed. /The inhabitants of/ all /the towns/ around it should fast, but they need not sound /a shofar/. However they should ask for mercy for /the troubled town/. One should not fast, cry out or sound /a shofar/ anywhere on Shabbos or on Yom Tov over any trouble other than the trouble of sustenance, over which one may cry out on Shabbos.

Both Rabbi Epstein and the author of the Mishnah Berurah added the Magen Avraham’s19 understanding that the statement “all the towns around it” meant the inhabitants of the towns in that dominion. 17

18

19

A separate section, 577, is dedicated to the topic of excessive rainfall. In this chapter, we shall see Rabbi Epstein’s concern for his community. The Mishnah Berurah, in contrast to the Arukh Hashulhan, has almost no additions of significance to his generation. The additions inserted by Rabbi Epstein were, as a rule, issues of relevance for his community. Commentary on the Shulhan Arukh by R. Avraham Abeli Gombiner 1637–1683, published Dyhernfurth 1692. 99

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Neither the Arukh Hashulhan nor the Mishnah Berurah chose to make any significant changes or additions to the Shulhan Arukh’s text. Rather, those select changes that were made represent the different methodological approaches of both adjudicators. Rabbi Kagan looks at the halakhic issues from the perspective of the decisions of earlier rabbinical authorities. Even his vision of those social and halakhic issues relevant to his generation is filtered through the eyes of the earlier adjudicators who, for the most part, had lived one hundred years earlier. We have seen such examples in the paragraphs cited above. Rabbi Epstein’s point of departure is the same. Halakhah has a structure and a basic system of rules and formulas. He then takes exception to this, taking the initiative when his reality differs from that of the earlier rabbinical authority (or the Talmud). These initiatives, however, are introduced only as long as they do not negate the basic rules and formularies of halakhah. The earlier discussion of the severity of the effects of rain did not suffice for the author of the Shulhan Arukh. Thus, in section 577, the author is concerned with the topic “How /the People/ Should Act if the Rain Became so Abundant that it Defaces the Earth.” Rabbi Epstein’s presentation of these laws differs from the previous ones. He first chooses to follow his literary pattern of the previous chapter by quoting Rabbi Caro, but in reality, he makes two additional assertions which present a view of his social and economic reality. In the case of abundance of rain that causes damages of any kind, Rabbi Epstein states: “As in our country where an abundance of rain destroys completely the grain. Our reality is that floods are a greater destructive force than drought.” The Arukh Hashulhan then follows with a discussion of cases when violence or tragedy strikes swiftly, and there is no time to declare and arrange the order of “fasts” and prayers; if the community were to begin to fast the number of days required, this would impose too great a burden upon them and thus would be exempt under the rabbinical principal “a decree that the community cannot endure.” Based upon the above halakhic discussion, Rabbi Epstein concludes that what is suggested—to pray and cry to God for redemption daily—is sufficient. The Shulhan Arukh (paragraph 13) and Rabbi Epstein (paragraph 19) informs us of violent circumstances affecting a town, and also add similar laws that would affect an individual Jew. If a town has been encircled by assailants or by a river or if a ship is being wrecked at sea, /in fact/ even if an individual is being pursued 100

6. “MERCY IS VOUCHSAFED FROM HEAVEN”

by assailants, robbers or even an evil spirit or is suffering from another disease because of which he is /already/ in danger that day, /the people/ should cry out and supplicate with prayer /even/ on Shabbos. However, they should not blow /a shofar on Shabbos/, unless the blowing is /done/ to gather the people to assist their brothers and save them.

Expressing his concern for the community, Rabbi Epstein reminds us that any action which will lead to the saving of lives justifies desecration of the laws of the Sabbath, and that, therefore, it is permitted to blow the shofar on Sabbath in this case. An interesting issue arises when more than one trouble is afflicting the community. The Shulhan Arukh (paragraph 15) and the Arukh Hashulhan (paragraph 21) both present laws stating that one then asks for mercy for only one of these difficulties. The prayers are usually all-inclusive. Even a prayer for one trouble will include other afflictions, as well. Rabbi Epstein therefore emphasizes (in the name of the Magen Avraham) that one should not forget the primary trouble about which one is praying. If there are in the community simultaneously problems of famine and pestilence, famine takes precedence. The Shulhan Arukh explains; “The reason is/ that when the All-merciful gives plenty He gives it for people who will live /and, therefore, if they will be answered over the famine they will be saved from pestilence as well/.” The final paragraph of this section (Shulhan Arukh 16, Arukh Hashulhan 22) is concerned with the behavior and actions of the community leadership, as well as with the schedule of prayer and shofar sounding for the community. It reads: On every fast day which was decreed upon the community because of troubles the Beis Din (court) and the elders would sit in the synagogue from after the Shacharis prayer /service/ until midday and investigate the deeds of the inhabitants. They would remove the impediments of transgressions /which interfere with Divine mercy/ and admonish/ the people/; they would inquire and search for corrupt people and transgressors, /in order/ to separate them from /their misdeeds/, and rough people /in order/ to humble them, and /they would correct/ similar /deviations from correct practice/.

After quoting the Shulhan Arukh, the Arukh Hashulhan writes, regarding the obligations of the community leadership, “The fact that we do not practice these rules today is a result of the fact that we do not know how to rebuke sinners properly.” The Mishnah Berurah sub-paragraph 36 takes 101

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

a different approach. Citing the Magen Avraham, the author writes; “See the Magen Avraham who wonders why this is not practiced by us /since/ this is, of course, the essential/ aspect of the fast.” To Rabbi Epstein, his community and the community of Jews must be understood in light of their social reality. A rebuke to a Jew suffering from economic and political despair is not a matter to be treated lightly. Since he believes that it is preferable not to engage in such a humiliating and degrading act, the Rabbi offers the legal incentive for an exception to the law. This exemplifies the different halakhic methodologies of the authors of the Mishnah Berurah and the Arukh Hashulhan. Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen Kagan understands the adjudication process as almost entirely based upon statements found in texts of early Rabbinical authorities. Here, the reality of the community is relevant only insofar as it relates to that expressed by these earlier adjudicators. The Rabbi of the Mishnah Berurah presented Judaism as a textually-based religion which did not allow much room for personal innovation. While Rabbi Epstein also understands the importance of the text, and employs early Rabbinical authorities to render his halakhic decisions, he does not close his eyes to surrounding social reality. He therefore states clearly that his world, which differs from that of his predecessors, requires a fresh examination within the parameters of halakhic adjudication. Issues directly relevant to our definition of violence are included in the discussion of the laws of fasting. The halakhah offers a virtually generic response: fast and pray. Since such tragedy is a consequence of one’s sins or those of the community, repentance through fasting and praying (calling out) to the Lord is called for. The Halakhah defines, in accordance with its principles, when one fasts, what prayers are to be said, and when. For example, there is a detailed list of instructions for the prayer service on the day of the fast. As the Shulhan Arukh concludes (paragraph 16): From midday /of the fast/ until evening, for a quarter of the day, /the people/ should read from the Torah and read the haftarah from the Prophets. During the last quarter of the day they should pray the Minchah /prayer/ sound a shofar /, confess /their transgressions/ and cry out as much as their strength /allows/.

The Arukh Hashulhan adds “We, in all our fast days read /the Torah/ in the Shacharit and Minchah the portion vayichal. During Minchah the maftir is read dershu.” The Jews’ response to violence and tragedy is clearly spelled out here as in all other aspects of daily life. 102

6. “MERCY IS VOUCHSAFED FROM HEAVEN”

Neither the Arukh Hashulhan nor the Mishnah Berurah choose to make any significant changes or additions to the Shulhan Arukh’s text. Rather, those select changes that were made represent the different methodological approaches of both adjudicators. Rabbi Kagan looks at the halakhic issues from the perspective of the decisions of earlier rabbinical authorities. Even his vision of those social and halakhic issues relevant to his generation is filtered through the eyes of the earlier adjudicators who, for the most part, had lived one hundred years earlier. Rabbi Epstein’s point of departure is the same: halakhah has a structure and a basic system of rules and formularies. He then takes exception to this, taking the initiative when his reality differs from that of the earlier rabbinical authority (or the Talmud), but does so only as long as such initiatives do not negate the basic rules and formularies of halakhah. Following discussion of tzarot inflicted upon the community, the author of the Shulhan Arukh decided to devote one chapter (578) to misfortune confronting the individual rather than the entire group. In this chapter, Rabbi Caro’s presentation is summarized in one short paragraph. “Just as a community should fast and pray over their trouble, so every individual should pray and fast over his trouble,” he writes. “This is / relevant/ when one has someone ill, is wandering in the wilderness or is imprisoned. /Then/ he should not fast on Shabbos, a festival, Chanukah, Purim or Rosh Chodesh.” In his Mishnah Berurah commentary Rabbi Kagan explains that since fasting is a form of repentance and submission, in times of both individual and community perils it is the proper response to troubles brought on by one’s own actions. Rabbi Epstein is concerned with other types of tzarot, troubles that could be an issue for his community, such as the case of sea travelers who could experience a very dangerous and violent encounter during their journeys.20 Rabbi Epstein makes a very clear distinction between selfimposed dangers and troubles and those inflicted upon an individual by outside forces. In the first case there is no need to fast. In the latter, however, repentance through fasting is required because it is the individual’s sins that have caused this tragedy.

20

One could only consider that Rabbi Epstein had in mind the great number of Jews emigrating from Russia to the USA and Israel at the end of the 19th century. 103

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Sections 569 through 575 deal with the required reactions to aggressive or assaulting acts of violence that befall the Jew and/or his community. Jewish law obligates ritually remembering and mourning the terrible acts of violence and tragedy that occurred in earlier periods of Jewish history. Jewish literature portrays the destruction of the Jerusalem Temples as the greatest catastrophe and act of violence to befall the nation of Israel. Days of fasts and periods of mourning are observed by halakhic Jews. Three of six yearly fasts are related to this tragedy, and three weeks of mourning are designated every year for which the concluding nine days almost parallel the mourning laws for a parent or close relative.21 This three-week period ends with a fast day equal in its restrictions and time frame to Yom Kippur. In addition to these calendar periods of fasting and mourning, the halakhah instructs the Jew on daily behavior designed to acknowledge and remember the tragic acts of violence that befell the Jewish people with the loss of its Temple and land. The Mishnah Berurah’s introduction to section 560 sets the stage: “The Sages ordained/ that on any occasion for rejoicing one must do something in remembrance of the destruction of the Temple. This accords with what is stated, “If I will not raise Jerusalem to the fore of my rejoicing.”22 21

22

104

For an understanding of Judaism’s approach to and interpretation of history, see Yerushalmi 1989. He correctly points out (p. 111) that “Only the history that was relevant to the value system of halakhah was remembered. The rest was ignored, ‘forgotten’.” For collective Israel, there is no real meaning for remembering history or the past unless it serves the Rabbinic, or in our case halakhic need. Thus its remembrance is not transmitted through the chronicle but rather the ritual. In order to receive a correct perspective and understanding of the laws concerned with remembering Jerusalem and its Temple, an examination of the Talmudic source (Baba Batra 60b) will help. Our Rabbis taught: A man should not stucco the front of his house with cement, but if he mixes sand or straw with it he may. R. Judah says: A mixture of sand makes the cement stony, and therefore its use is forbidden, but straw is permitted. Our Rabbis taught: When the Temple was destroyed for the second time, large numbers in Israel became ascetics, binding themselves neither to eat meat nor drink wine. R. Joshua got into conversation with them and said to them; My sons, why do you not eat meat nor drink wine? They replied: Shall we eat flesh which was used to be brought as an offering on the altar, now that this altar is in abeyance? Shall we drink wine which used to be poured as a libation on the altar, but now no longer? He said to them: If that is so we should not eat bread either,

6. “MERCY IS VOUCHSAFED FROM HEAVEN”

The halakhah in section 560, paragraph 1 manifests how Jews should perpetuate the memory of this tragic event in Jewish history. “When the Temple was destroyed the Sages of that generation ordained that one should never build a building which is limed and decorated like a regal building. One may only cover his home with plaster and lime it, leaving an area of a cubit by a cubit opposite the entrance without lime.” While because the meal offerings have ceased. They said: [That is so, and] we can manage with other fruit [they said]. We should not eat fruit either [he said] because there is no longer an offering of first fruits. Then we can manage with other fruits [they said]. But [he said] we should not drink water, because there is no longer any ceremony of pouring water. To this they could not find an answer, so he said to them: My sons, come and listen to me. Not to mourn at all is impossible, because the blow has fallen. To mourn overmuch is also impossible, because we do not impose on the community a hardship which the majority cannot endure, as it is written, “Ye are cursed with a curse, yet ye rob me[of the tithe] even this whole nation.” (Malachi 3, 9) The Sages therefore have ordained thus. A man may stucco his house, but he should leave a little bare. (How much should this be? Rabbi Joseph says.\, A cubit square, to which R. Hisda adds that it must be by the door). A man can prepare a full course banquet, but he should leave out an item or two. (What should this be? Rabbi Papa says: The hors d’oeuvre of salted fish). A woman can put on all her ornaments, but leave off one or two. (What should this be? Rab said: [Not to remove] hair on the temple). For it says: “If I forget thee O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I remember thee not, if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy.” What is meant by chief joy? Rabbi Isaac said: This is symbolised by the burnt ashes which we place on the head of the bridegroom. R. Papa asked Abaye: Where should they be placed? [He replied]: Just where the phylactery is worn, as it says, “To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give them a garland for ashes.” Whoever mourns for Zion will be privileged to behold her joy, as it says, “Rejoice ye with Jerusalem etc.” It has been taught: Rabbi Ishmael ben Elisha said: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple we should by all rights bind ourselves not to eat meat or drink wine, only we do not lay a hardship on the community unless the majority can endure it. And from the day that a Government has come into power which issues cruel decrees against us and forbids to us the observance of the Torah and the precepts and does not allow us to enter into the ‘week of the son,” we ought by rights to bind ourselves not to marry and beget children, and the seed of Abraham our father would come to an end of itself. However, let Israel go their way: it is better that they should err in ignorance then presumptuously. 105

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

the 19th century halakhists adapt their reality to this law, the early Rabbis required a visual declaration of mourning in recognition of the destruction of the Temple. The recognition of this catastrophic event is incumbent on the individual and the general public and visitors as well. This law, and those that follow, have not been accepted in the ritual practice of halakhic Jewry. While most rituals and customs once introduced are not discarded, the laws of painting and plastering one’s home are now virtually nonexistent. The Mishnah Berurah (quoting an earlier source) attributes negligence of this practice to lenient adjudicators, but ends “However, all these /explanations/ are forced and study is required to / determine/ the basis for practice permitting /this neglect.” Rabbi Kagan accepts the phenomenon, but does so grudgingly, while Rabbi Epstein immediately reflects on the problem but searches for justification in the halakhic behavior of the Jew. He analyzes the sources, and, based on contemporary painting practices, offers his halakhic conclusions as to why it is permissible to disregard this law in our times. I would like to suggest a non-halakhic explanation of why this law is not currently practiced in most Jewish homes. Rather than argue that the halakhah was discarded, it can be concluded that, since demographic realities made compliance difficult, the ritual was, in fact, never endorsed by all observant Jews. While it is true that a ritual, once endorsed and practiced, is rarely abandoned, even if its original intent no longer exists, this particular ritual was never really practiced. Judaism is a textuallybased religion, and, since the Talmud text, the primary source of Jewish law, pronounced the laws we have quoted above (footnote 20), they could not be ignored. As Talmudic rules, these laws required attention from the Rabbis. But, if we take into consideration the fact that these laws never became entrenched in the Jewish way of life, we can understand why and how it became possible and necessary for the adjudicators to seek a halakhic rationale allowing for the possibility of disregarding the law. In paragraphs 2 through 4, The Shulhan Arukh continues to list various rules to be observed in remembrance of the tragedy of Jerusalem. They include: 1. When setting a table to serve guests, one should omit one dish and leave a place empty. 2. A woman who arrays herself with jewelry of gold and silver should leave off one piece to which she is accustomed. 3. At a wedding, as a sign of mourning, the bridegroom should a. either put cinders on his forehead or break a glass or put a black cloth on his head; b. not wear a crown or headdress; c. Brides should not wear headdresses of silver. 4. Music should not be listened to or played at drinking parties. 106

6. “MERCY IS VOUCHSAFED FROM HEAVEN”

5. Singing is prohibited over the wine except in the case of religious rituals, as at a wedding. 6. One should not fill his mouth with laughter in this world. These rituals and practices were not solely a personal, individual remembrance and recognition of the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem. As in many of Judaism’s rituals, to avoid forgetting, there must be public assertion and recognition—and thus, participation in the ritual’s purpose. The Arukh Hashulhan reviews these laws. Regarding setting a table for guests, he argues that he cannot picture this scenario, and we simply do not know to what the Shulhan Arukh is referring. Rabbi Epstein does not reject the law of a woman disregarding one of her ornaments of gold and silver. In reference to the wedding, he states that our custom is only to break the glass. Concerning the other laws regarding weddings, Rabbi Epstein emphasizes we do not know the nature of the rituals and artifacts. The Mishnah Berurah (sub-paragraph 18) approaches our lack of observance of this law from a different direction. He writes; “Today the public ignores this /question/ and is lenient about it. The Eliyahu Raba23 writes that, here, there is reliance on the view of Maimonides, who believes that a /crown/ is allowed /to be worn by a bride when it/ is mainly threads, even though there is silver and gold in it.” While Rabbi Kagan recognizes that this law is not observed, he cannot render it completely null and void. Concerning joy and amusement, Rabbi Epstein permits joy, but not an overabundance of joy or joking and excessive laughter, for, even in the time of the Temple, this led to sexual promiscuity. This is not the case when an occasion is related to a mitzvah; then joy is permitted. The Mishnah Berurah explains the reason as (sub-paragraph 20): “/This is/ because excessive rejoicing causes mitzvot to be forgotten.” But, he adds, in the name of earlier adjudicators (the Taz24 and the Prisha25), that this includes mitzvah rejoicing (or rejoicing for the purpose of doing the mitzvah, which is to bring joy to the bride and groom) at a wedding or on joyous holidays such as Purim, when “one should not fill his mouth with laughter.” In reference to music, the Arukh Hashulhan states that, if 23 24

25

Written by R. Eliyahu Shapira 1660–1712 and published in Prague 1689. Commentary on the Shulhan Arukh by Rabbi David Halevi Lwow 1586–1667; published Dyhernfurth 1692. Commentary on the Tur Shulhan Arukh by Rabbi Joshua Falk (ben Alexander Katz), Poland, 1555–1614. 107

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

it is for religious purposes (a mitzvah), such as at a wedding, all music is permissible, but one should not exaggerate that happiness. (One can only wonder how these Rabbis would react to the Jewish weddings celebrated today in orthodox society.) Representing the halakhah and his own reality, Rabbi Epstein understood the importance of both remembering and limiting those rituals relating to one of the most tragic and violent periods of Jewish history. The Rabbi adhered to halakhah, and gave the suffering Jews of his time hope through identification with the past. He realized that excesses would not yield positive results for an already-suffering people. Yet, both explicit visual ritualistic manifestations of this historic catastrophe and affliction and rules for internal are required . . . These manifestations are also represented in the laws of section 561, “The law for someone who sees the towns of Judah, Jerusalem or the Temple in their destruction.” These laws discuss when, where, what and how a Jew who sees these destroyed areas in the Land of Israel must rend his garments (parallel to rending one’s garment for the death of a close relative or great rabbinical scholar). Here, we have an explicit public display of mourning, while, simultaneously, quiet prayers are uttered and personal feelings are expressed. The reaction to violence against the nation or the Land of Israel takes on different forms and shapes. While halakhah offers an immediate aggressive response to the attackers, it also requires that the sufferer respond and remember on a spiritual level. Since sinful behavior created the troubles, the spiritual response must be appropriate: hence, prayer, fasting, and awakening (blowing the shofar). Memorializing fits into this same pattern, and therefore, requires public manifestations. We have, thus, reviewed Rabbi Epstein’s and Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen Kagan’s views on how the halakhic observant Jew is required to behave and respond to acts of violence that befall both the individual and Jewish community. The additional examples shown here of the adjudication process of the Arukh Hashulhan show a willingness to go beyond the text and to consider social and economic realities.

108

7. “SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”

7.

“SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”: Kol Ben Levi—The Homilies of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein— The First Sermon

The development of Orthodox Judaism in Eastern Europe in the nineteenth century was marked by significant tension with respect to those Jews who had abandoned the Orthodox tradition, either wholly or in part. While scholars have begun to examine the ramifications of this phenomenon, much work remains before we can say that we have a good grasp of this important issue. In this chapter, I propose to contribute to the discussion of this issue through a translation and analysis of a sermon on this subject written by Rabbi Epstein, entitled Kol Ben Levi. Rabbi Epstein probably prepared it between the 1890s and his death in 1908, but it has only recently been published. There is insufficient evidence to determine the exact date that these sermons were compiled or edited for publication. However, an examination of Rabbi Epstein’s works would indicate that they were likely redacted near the time of his death in 1908. In his discussion of the “Second Passover” in homily 7, he refers specifically to his work Arukh Hashulhan Leatid, which concerns the sacrificial service, published in 1907. He also concludes the introduction to his legal codes with his name and date, August 28, 1907 (11 Elul 5667). Moreover, in his first sermon, he refers to his brother-in-law, Rabbi Naftali Zvi Judah Berlin, who died in the summer of 1893, with the notation “zt’l,” “his memory be blessed.” The manuscript appears to be a document that Rabbi Epstein had prepared for publication. The collection contains twenty-six edited homilies. Each is numbered with proper references to rabbinical sources as well as cross-references to his own works. The literary style is well organized and consistent almost throughout the monograph. Although 109

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

never published, the text of the handwritten manuscript was without corrections and would appear prepared for publication. Furthermore, as will be discussed below, the first sermon parallels in style the introduction to Arukh Hashulhan, again suggesting a completed monograph, ready for publication. No suggestion is offered as to why this work was not published. One can only surmise that lack of funds, the priority of publishing his legal works, or the fact that he died shortly after their completion may have been the obstacles. The fact that the sermons are presented as having been delivered to the community on Shabbat Hagadol (the Sabbath prior to Passover) and Shabbat Shuva (the Sabbath between the Jewish New Year and Yom Kippur) does not necessarily mean they were actually delivered in this form. An examination of the genre of drashot testifies to the phenomenon that published sermons were not necessarily presented in their entirety. In this case, the homilies for the most part open and conclude with issues of concern to the community. These topics include such problems as livelihood, education and the religious behavior of the individual and community. Commencing with a popular passage either from the Psalms or the Haftara, the rabbi propounded his thoughts. This aspect of Rabbi Epstein’s presentations does not necessarily differ from that of other sermons orally delivered by preachers. The middle portions of Rabbi Epstein’s sermons, however, do not conform to other known oral sermons. They feature a lengthy in-depth discussion of a Talmudic or halakhic issue, analyzing rabbinic texts on topics related to the season, Passover or the High Holidays. It would require scholarly expertise to understand these discussions. This theory is developed by Saperstein,1 who in his discussion of preachers and sermons from fifteenth century Spain writes: “Since the audience ordinarily includes Jews of different educational backgrounds and intellectual levels and since listeners had various ways of expressing displeasure at what they were hearing, the sermon had to be pitched at a level that would not exclude most of the congregants.” There would seem to be little difference in the listeners of the fifteenth and nineteenth century: both would demand an interesting speech. While the topic of the rabbinic analysis might have been briefly discussed during the oral delivery, it was presented in elaborate detail in its written form. 1

110

“Your Voice like a Ram’s Horn:” Themes and Texts in Traditional Jewish Preaching (Cincinnati, 1996), p. 76.

7. “SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”

In other words, these sermons fall into Saperstein’s category of “texts in which material originally part of a sermon is incorporated within another genre.” Thus Saperstein points out that,2 “A preacher preparing a selection of his sermons for publication might eliminate passages that were once of immediate concern to his congregants, but in retrospect seem dated and unlikely to be valued by a wider reading public; he might expand theoretical points insufficiently developed in this oral presentation.” The text orally delivered is thus only partially employed when written. In addition, the sermons were most probably not delivered in the Hebrew language but rather in Yiddish, the dominant spoken language of the Jews in Eastern Europe. Thus, while being prepared for publication and undergoing a linguistic transformation from a vernacular original (interspersed with quotations and phrases from the traditional Hebrew literature) to a complete Hebrew text, the sermon cannot be considered true to its original oral form. Saperstein addresses this issue in a discussion of fifteenth century preachers but his formulation may also be appropriate to our discussion:3 Consequently, certain literary investigations will be fraught with problems. For example, the diction or level of language in the original sermon will often be impossible to ascertain. The Hebrew text that has come down to us might be richly embellished with allusions to the classics of Hebrew literature, but what this tells us about the level of language in the vernacular original is anything but clear. The richness of the Hebrew diction may reflect an attempt to match a similar richness in the oral vernacular. But it is also possible that someone publishing a book of Hebrew sermons was expected to embellish the language no matter how simply he had spoken.

Editing and Publication of the First Sermon The first sermon, unfortunately, was partially destroyed; thus we have only a portion of its content available. The extant segment, however, is sufficient to demonstrate the similarity between it and the opening section of the Arukh Hashulhan entitled “Kvod Hamelekh,”4 thus identifying Rabbi Epstein’s literary style in his writings. I will discuss his 2 3 4

Ibid., p. 107. Ibid., p. 108. See chapter 2, for an analysis of “Kvod Hamelech.” 111

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

literary style at length in my examination of the first derashah (sermon). The extant portion of the first sermon differs from the other homilies of Kol Ben Levi in its literary style and content. In its entirety it addresses issues that relate to the concerns of the community. Intertwined with and based upon Biblical verses, Rabbi Epstein’s argument is developed to stimulate the mind and emotions of his listeners. The content and literary style might appear to indicate an orally delivered sermon. However, two matters can be noted that would suggest the first sermon was written and not spoken.5 First, it has no relationship to either Shabbat Shuva or Shabbat Hagadol, the theme of all the other sermons and the days on which, Rabbi Epstein states explicitly in his Arukh Hashulhan,6 a rabbi is expected to preach to his congregants. Second, the style of the first homily parallels Rabbi Epstein’s introduction to the Arukh Hashulhan. Both documents discuss a similar issue—the disposition of the Jewish community towards the Tsar. A declaration of loyalty to the Tsar (irrespective of the author’s personal view) was felt necessary in order for a Jew to publish a manuscript in Russia during the Tsarist period, thus suggesting that the first sermon was written as an introduction to a book of drashot rather than delivered orally. In a milieu of great economic poverty as well as political uncertainty, concern, and fear of the gentile population and government, Rabbi Epstein served as a rabbi and wrote and delivered his sermons.7 Although not a 5

6 7

112

As stated, the derashot were most probably prepared and delivered twice a year as was customary in Eastern Europe at the end of the nineteenth century. The content testifies to themes related to Shabbat Shuva and Shabbat Hagadol. This concurs with his statement in his Arukh Hashulhan: “Today it is the custom for the rabbi to deliver a sermon on Shabbat Hagadol and Shabbat Shuva. He should speak on a topic connected with the holiday” (Orakh Hayyim 429:6). Meir Berlin, Me Volozin ad Yerushalaim (Tel Aviv, 1939), p. 227, asserts that Rabbi Epstein fulfills this law and relates that although very involved in study and community issues, he was careful to deliver his sermons every Shabbat Hagadol and Shabbat Shuva. (See also Saperstein, Jewish Preaching, p. 13, where the categories of sermons are discussed. See n. 6. For a discussion of the economic and social positions of the nineteenth century Lithuanian Jew, see Salo Baron, The Russian Jew under the Tsars and Soviets (New York, 1964), Berlin 1939, S.M. Dubnov, History of the Jews in Russia and Poland (Philadelphia, 1918), Schneier Levenberg, The Enigma of Soviet Jewry (England, 1991), Isaac Levitas, The Jewish Community in Russia 1772–1844 (New York, 1943), Ezra Mendelsohn, Class Struggle in the Pale, The Formative Years of the

7. “SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”

professional preacher, his topics of discussion included issues of concern for his community and people.8 Throughout the homilies, the plight of the Jews of Rabbi Epstein’s community was addressed. Issues such as their economic status and relationship with the “secular” world of the Haskalah were a principal concern.

The Opening Sermon Unfortunately, in the manuscript, the first section of the introductory sermon is missing. Nonetheless, sufficient material remains to understand Rabbi Epstein’s message. The sermon deals with two primary issues: Rabbi Epstein’s attitude towards secular studies and the attitude of the Jews towards the Tsar. Both topics are intertwined with verses from the Bible and Rabbinic texts, which serve as proof texts for Rabbi Epstein’s arguments. A verse might be quoted and then, section by section, employed to develop the sermon’s thesis.

Text of Sermon9 (In this initial extant section, the author is concerned with the negative affect of the lack of Torah study on the proper conduct of the Jew. The wrong conduct is manifested through involvement in secular studies.) Accordingly we can attribute this (degraded state) to the fact that our holiness has been constantly decreasing for decades on account of our sins. This is a result of our (primary sin): neglect of Torah study. This is the meaning of what we say during the “al hanissim” prayer (on Hanukkah), “The Greeks came to make them neglect your Torah; namely, to make them transgress the laws of your divine will.” In short, neglect of Torah study invariably leads to transgressing the laws of the divine will. What is happening is an inevitable consequence of our preoccupation with secular studies which the secularists make us think is the essential factor

8

9

Jewish Worker’s Movement in Czarist Russia (Cambridge, 1970), Jonathan Porath, Jews in Russia, The Last Four Centuries (New York, 1973), and Mordecai Zalkin, “The Cultural Legacy of Lithuanian Jewry,” in Gesher, Winter, 1997. See Saperstein, Jewish Preaching and “Your Voice like a Ram’s Horn” for a discussion of the preacher, his role and direction in the content of their sermons. I want to thank Professor H. Basser, Toronto, Canada, for his assistance in translating this sermon as well as his valuable input and insightful contribution into the analysis of the text. 113

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

of life, although in reality the opposite is the case. So we now see the effects of these secularists who deprive their children in their early years of all sacred study or even of those who give their children a smattering, which of course is of little value. In my opinion this is the very thing Isaiah the prophet warned us about. “To whom shall he teach instruction and to whom shall he explain knowledge? To those who are weaned from milk? To those removed from the breast? . . . For tsav to tsav, tsav to tsav, qav to qav, qav to qav; a smattering here, a smattering there in order for them to proceed, and they stumble backwards and are broken . . .” (Is. 28:9–13).

Rabbi Epstein continues with an analysis of the passage from Isaiah. These verses are so difficult to comprehend they have baffled the commentators. In my opinion the interpretation is as follows: In every country there is an official book of statutes, which is called in our country “sud-zakon.” From time to time, additions are recorded to these laws in the bottom margin as an addendum, while the main body of text is marked by a line (Heb: qav) to indicate that at this point there is an addendum to see. In our country the asterisk is called “totska.” These additions are brief and occasional. Naturally the main text is the essential part of the book while the additions are only secondary and minor in comparison with the main body of the book. Anyone who would make the additions the essence and the main text the minor part would be totally mad. We can now proceed with the explanation of the verse. The prophet is complaining about those who would educate their young primarily with secular studies in their youth and give it primary importance. They make sacred study secondary. Now: “To whom shall he teach instruction?”— i.e., halakhah; “and to whom shall he explain knowledge?”—i.e., the dialectics of Torah study—”To those who are weaned from milk? To those removed from the breast?” This is, to say, that now as they begin to study Torah and grow a little they are (weaned away) and loaded with secular studies. The result is that Torah study remains at the level of those who are sucklings while the others are quickly weaned away from it.

While not negating secular studies Rabbi Epstein emphasizes it is only second to Torah studies. The prophet clarifies the process: tsav to tsav—the essential is the imperative (tsav) of the Torah, the secondary is the imperative (tsav) of secular study which are additions to Torah study as occasioned by some necessity for it. So “tsav to tsav, tsav to tsav.” The imperative of secular study is of minor import to the imperative of Torah study; and this (tsav to tsav) is repeated to indicate these (secular imperatives) are a few trivial additions (to the essential body). In this manner we explain “tsav.” 114

7. “SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”

And now we explain the phrase “qav to qav, qav to qav:” A line (Heb., qav) indicates an addition to what is essential and this qav to qav is repeated to indicate that occasionally one will be forced to pause on occasion from sacred study to engage in secular study; but “a smattering there, a smattering there”—i.e., very, very little and very rarely. But “What have they done?,” protests the prophet—”And the Word of the Lord became tsav to tsav; qav to qav, qav to qav; a smattering here, a smattering there. This means they made the mandatory matter secular studies. “And the Word of the Lord became to them tsav to tsav, tsav to tsav, etc.” This means the Torah of the Lord became to them as an addendum and the essential program became secular studies. Now with secular studies they marked “qav to qav, qav to qav,” that is, (like the readers of an asterisk marking a break in the text for an added note) they made some provision to interrupt their secular studies, out of necessity, for some paltry amount of sacred study and occasionally “a smattering here, a smattering there.” Indeed, a very tiny amount. Since they persisted in going in this direction the prophet warned them: “in order for them to proceed, and they stumble backwards and are broken.” Which is what we see with our eyes now that they have abandoned the study of the Torah and the deeds of the commandments. May God rescue us!

The author now offers the argument that secular studies cause and instigate Jews to rebel against the government of their land and therefore desecrate God’s name. In his case, although he chooses not to be explicit, he is referring to the Tsar. Therefore, it is no wonder that after they rebelled against the divine decrees they would of course rebel against earthly ones. Woe and alas for we have sinned! How very great is the desecration of God’s name in what we have done. I should think this is the meaning of the prophet Ezekiel. “Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt on their land and they contaminated it with their ways and deeds. Like the impurity of the menstruant woman was their way before me. And I poured out my wrath upon them, etc. . . ., they were scattered amongst the nations etc. . . . And they came to the nations—wherever they have come they desecrated my holy name in that people said about them: these are the nation of God and they had to depart from His land.” (Ezek. 36:17–20)

With a colorful illustration Rabbi Epstein explains the above passage in Ezekiel. And its meaning is that God complains to the prophet that it has not benefited God at all that he exiled Israel. Quite the contrary. The parable is that if a woman goes to the market and someone asks if that woman is 115

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

a menstruant or in a pure state, anyone will answer that there is no way of knowing. The husband might be approached because he is the only one who would know. Now we are in a position to appreciate the meaning of Ezekiel’s message from God. “Son of man, when the house of Israel dwelt on their land and they contaminated it.” I.e., there was a time when Israel dwelt in their land and there was no other nation but Israel there. When they polluted the land it was unknown to any other nation for of course they knew nothing of their sins. Only I the Lord did. Now this is the sense of “Like the impurity of the menstruant woman was their way before me.” Now just as no one knows the state of purity of a menstruant woman except her husband so the nations knew nothing of Israel’s impurity; only God did. Throughout all of Tanakh the image of Israel as bride and God as groom is a commonplace. It follows that there was no desecration of God’s name. “And I poured out my wrath upon them etc. . . . And they came to the nations—wherever they have come they desecrated my holy name.” I.e., for in the exile the nations certainly became aware of their impurity. This led further to desecrating God’s name. The prophet emphasizes this as he continues to attribute the desecration of God’s name to nations saying to them “these are the nation of God and they left from his land.” Now this means that when the Jews sinned against God and his holy Torah the nations said sarcastically, “These are the nation of God.” But once God had taken pride in them as Scripture says, “Israel, in you I have taken pride.” (Is. 49:3) And the gentiles also say, “Are they not now worse than any people or nation on earth?” And moreover the gentiles say, “and they had to depart from his land,” which means that when the Jews sin and transgress against earthly rulers the nations are appalled at how brazen are these people of Israel for did they not leave from their land. I.e., the Jews are not in their land and they sojourn amongst us and how dare they do such deeds which are in no way ever to be done.

Rabbi Epstein again accentuates his view against those Jews who are not loyal to their government. He argues that when Jews are loyal it is these governments who protect the Jews during their exile. Moreover, somehow it should be explained to these mad fools that in no wise should they harbor evil thoughts against the king and his ministers. Everyone is well aware that were it not for the king and his royal ministers who protect the scattered flock of Israel, the gentile throngs would already have planned to make an end of us. Never have the plans 116

7. “SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”

of hatred of the gentile throng managed to come to fruition against Israel in most countries. In all countries there are anti-Semitic societies who are out to wipe us out and we are suffering pogroms in recent years. Were it not for the heads of state and their ministers they would have already finished us off, God forbid. Now you might ask why has the biblical curse befallen us in our time: “And the Lord shall scatter you among the nations from one end of the earth to the other and there you will worship foreign gods, etc. And among those nations you shall have no calm nor shall you be able to rest your feet, etc. And your life will be insecure” (Deut. 28: 64–66). All this has indeed happened in recent days. For now that we are “scattered from one end of the earth to the other” the Torah has warned us not to worship foreign gods. The point is that when you worship foreign gods you cannot help but cast the holy Torah behind and end up serving that which was not yours to serve in the first place. The term “foreign gods” includes all that which is at odds with the path of Torah. Then we are told to take note that if we do deviate from Torah then “among those nations you shall have no calm.” That is to say, you shall have no rest because night and day you will be terrified. “And your life will be insecure.” For the unruly mobs of the gentiles in every nation shall persecute you and you shall have no confidence that you will live or earn a living. And this is true now that all persecute us. And some of our Jewish brethren are straying from the path of common sense in imagining that if they assimilate among the gentiles by casting off our sacred religion their lot will improve. Actually the opposite is the case. This is how the prophet Ezekiel summed up the situation for us when the Israelites assimilated into Assyria to adopt their customs: “And she doted on her lovers, the Assyrians, warriors wearing royal garments, governors and the deputies etc. . . . And she brought her whoredom to them etc. . . . Thus have I given her into the hands of her lovers into the hands of the Assyrians upon whom she doted, etc.” (Ezek. 23:5–9) And the end result is noted: “And they shall hold you in contempt and take away all the fruits of your labor and leave you naked and desolate, etc.” (Ezek. 23:29)

Rabbi Epstein continues to employ Biblical passages to emphasize the Jewish–gentile tensions. He now refers to the pogroms, their causes and results, and the need to be separate from the non-Jewish population. Now we can also understand the sense of the Vayishlach unit in which Esau approaches Jacob and says, “Let us travel together and let us proceed and I will go before you. But Jacob replied to him, “My lord knows that the children are tender and the sheep and the cattle-giving suck are a care 117

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

to me; and if they are over driven for a day all the sheep could die. So let my lord pass in front of his servant and I will proceed le’iti . . . ” (Gen. 33:12–14). And the midrash says: And I will proceed “le’iti”: I.e., with a squashed face for a similar word means “squashed or folded” in 1 Sam. 21:9: “squashed (‘luta’) into a cloth” (Gen. Rabbah 78:14). The sense of the midrash is obscure as are the biblical words “and if they are over driven for a day all the sheep could die.” Why should he care about the sheep more than the children? God forbid that anyone think Jacob was worried more about sheep than about children. According to my opinion, this is the explanation: In times gone by, all one’s wealth was dependent on sheep and cattle. Now it so happens when the gentiles carry out pogroms they claim that Jewish wealth is the product of theft and trickery So this is the sense of what Jacob said to Esau: “You want us to travel together, my children with your children so that there will be some togetherness between us.” But in fact Esau knows full well that the children are weak-minded so that “if my children assimilate with your children, the net result will be deathly hatred. And your children will invent libels and calumnies against my children. This is inevitable since my children do not have enough common sense to subdue themselves beneath your children. On the contrary, they lord themselves over your children so that your children invent accusations that all the wealth from our sheep and cattle belongs to them. But really, you, Esau, should know that the sheep and the cattle came to me through hard work, which is to say that I toiled to get any wealth that I have. If we assimilate together, the final end will be that your children will get so angry at my children, that they will kill off all the sheep and totally demolish all our wealth.” Scripture tells us: “Therefore it is best that my master pass in front of his servant.” That is, “that my children will not go together with your children. Only I would be able to go together with you. Because I would go slowly in submission when I walk before you. I could bend before you so that I would never be angry at you. That is not the case with my offspring and your offspring.” For this reason, Joseph specified that Jacob and his children were to live in the land of Goshen so that they would not intermingle with the Egyptians or have any connection to them. This is how my brother-in-law, the pious scholar from Volozin, may he rest in peace, once explained: “The Torah tells us that ‘Israel will dwell securely alone in the eyesight of Jacob’” (Deut. 33:28). He explained this to mean: when is it that Israel will dwell securely?—When she is segregated and not intermingled with the nations; and this was the “eyesight of Jacob.” Or in other words, this was 118

7. “SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”

the “insight” of Jacob in Egypt to keep the people from assimilating so they would not have much contact with the Egyptians.

Rabbi Epstein returns to the question of loyalty to one’s head of state. He maintains that the decisions of kings are initiated by God. So let us plead with our voices for divine mercy and let us pray for our brothers, the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and for our sisters the daughters of Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Leah. May they learn to emulate our holy ancestors. Our forefathers were bound with ties of strong love to God and at the same time they were subservient to earthly kings. All the kings loved them and gave them respect. For example, Ephron referred to Abraham as “my master,” and Abimelech went to see Isaac, and Pharaoh honored Jacob, and vice versa. We note the honor that Jacob showed to Pharaoh when he stood before him when he might have sat, as the Torah indicates, since his son Joseph was the principal governor in Egypt. All of us should also note that the Holy One (blessed be he) is commonly referred to as the “King of kings, the Holy One (blessed be he).” This presumes that an earthly king does not rule of his own accord but the Holy One (blessed be he) crowns him. A liturgical poet phrased this as: God is “The one who crowns kings and the kingdom is his.” Which is to say that kings rule not by the choice of human beings but by the choice of the Holy One (blessed be he). And likewise all the decisions of the king are really from the Holy One (blessed be he). It is written in Proverbs, “Like river streams is the heart of the king in the hand of God; He turns it wherever he desires: Every path of a person seems right in his own eyes but the substance of his heart is of God” (Prov. 21:1). The verse tells us that just as when you look at river streams, they divide off into several tributaries yet all of them originate from a single source. So it is that all deeds of the king, be they this way or that way, all derive from a single source. So the verse tells us that it is from the hand of God, that everything he wants, the Holy One (blessed be he) has turned his heart to that direction. Furthermore, when the verse tells us that “every path of a person seems right in his eyes,” it means if you think that the king was wrong to make some decision then you should know that you are a total idiot for, of course, it is human nature to make oneself upright in his own eyes. And whatever one reckons should be a certain way, someone else will reckon that it should be totally different. And as many people there are, so there are as many opinions. And it follows that they cannot all be right; for whatever one person thinks another thinks the opposite. But the fact is “and the substance of the heart is of God,” which is to say that God is the one who knows how things should be. And he brings His divine will to reality through the heart of the king. 119

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Therefore, reasons the author, it is the responsibility of parents to appropriately educate their young children not only in the fear of God but also in loyalty towards the king. From all of this it follows that a sacred responsibility is placed on every father and mother to instill in the hearts of the their sons and daughters while they are still in their infancy both fear of God and respect for the king. They should educate them along these lines and never waver at all from it. This is as it is written “Educate a child according to his nature for then as he grows old he will not stray from it” (Prov. 22:6). Upon us, the children of Israel, is placed this obligation more than upon anyone else. Has not the Holy One (blessed be he) chosen us among all of the nations! Therefore it is incumbent upon us to stand sublimely in respect to God and earthly kings.

Rabbi Epstein concludes with the assurance that Israel and the land of Israel are God’s preferred choice, and they will not be abandoned or destroyed. We can now understand the verses which are recited in the morning liturgical prayer which begins: “May God’s glory endure . . .” (Ps. 104:31); “For God has chosen Zion, He desired it for His habitation” (Ps. 132:13); “For God has chosen Jacob” (Ps. 135:4); “For God will not abandon His people” (Ps. 94:14). They are based upon the idea that in every country there are hundreds of cities and when people see that the king has chosen a certain city to be the capital, people of that city will naturally think they are better than people in all the other cities. But they might be mistaken. For it might be that the people are not so great in the eyes of the king but rather that the place is most suitable in the eyes of the king. If we see that the king first chose this city to be His capital and then later chased out all of the original inhabitants and then introduced others who were not the original inhabitants then it becomes clear and obvious that the new inhabitants are deemed more worthy in the eyes of the king than anyone else. With this in mind we interpret these verses in the Psalms to mean: See the love of God for Israel. For at the beginning it says, “God chose Zion to be His capital,” and then it says that “God chose Jacob, Israel to be His treasured one.” Indeed, he chased the Hittites and the Canaanites out of Zion, and He chose the nation of Israel and placed them in Zion. This is irrefutable proof that Israel is His preferred nation and therefore we are assured that God’s love for us is very strong and we are assured that God will not abandon His people forever. And our inheritance shall not 120

7. “SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”

be lost forever. (And the above prayer concludes with the idea that) even though we do sin, “He in his mercy forgives sin and will not destroy us” (Ps. 78:38). Amen, may such be His will. 10

It would appear that the first section addressing education, though it could stand alone, is actually the preamble to the second part—the Jewish attitude towards the Tsar. The sermon states that secular education not only shattered the Jew’s fear of God but was a cradle for anti-Tsarist activities. This follows the same pattern presented by Rabbi Epstein in his preface to Arukh Hashulhan titled “Kvod Hamelekh,” which called for loyalty and offered gratitude to the Tsar of Russia.11 The remaining pages of the first homily are concerned with the issue of secular education. The rabbis had struggled with the topic of teaching Jewish students non-religious subjects since early rabbinic times.12 Rabbinical opinions on this subject range from regarding these studies as heresy to deeming them indispensable within the proper framework. Rabbi A. Bloch,13 who lived in Lithuania in the first half of the twentieth century and served as the head of the rabbinical academy of Telz in Lithuania, summarized the halakhic quandary with respect to secular studies: In these matters it is extremely difficult to provide a clear halakhic response, because the issues involved are, to a large extent, based upon ideological viewpoints and opinions. These are connected with Aggadic sections of the Gemara which operate under the unique guidelines of Aggada, which has its own definitions of positive and negative commandments. It is, therefore, difficult to establish clear-cut principles and reach absolute halakhic decisions as is done in the halakhic sections of the Oral Law. As a result of this, the individual, as well as the conditions that exist in a particular place at a particular time [are relevant].14 10 11 12

13

14

Excerpted from Fishbane 1991b, 1–4. See Fishbane 1991b. An extensive survey of the Rabbinic view of secular studies can be found in Leo Levi, Shaarei Talmud Torah (Israel, 1981). Hamayan 1971. For a description of Telz and Rabbi Bloch’s participation, see M. Gifter, “Yeshivas Telz,” in S. Mirsky, Jewish Institutions of Higher Learning in Europe—Their Development and Destruction (New York, 1956), p. 169–189. Translation is from Moshe Weinberger, “On Studying Secular Subjects,” in Journal of Halakhah and Contemporary Society, XI, 1986. 121

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

In other words, the issue of secular studies is a result of the religious socio-political-economic reality of the Jewish community. In the milieu in which Rabbi Epstein lived, the leaders of the Volozin Yeshiva served as prime examples of the Orthodox view toward the issue of studying non-Talmudic materials. This Lithuanian Yeshiva, where Rabbi Epstein had briefly studied and which was headed by Rabbi N.Z. Berlin (popularly referred to as the “Netziv,” Rabbi Epstein’s relative),15 fought the inclusion of any type of formal secular studies in its curriculum.16 This does not mean that the Netziv or other Rosh Hayeshivot of the Volozin Yeshiva were not tolerant of extra-talmudic studies outside the official Yeshiva curriculum.17 Nonetheless, historians argue that the refusal to allow such studies in the Yeshiva proper finally caused its forced closing.18 While the Lithuanian rabbis understood the need to know the Russian language and other non-Talmudic topics, where did Rabbi Epstein, who dealt with the non-Yeshiva community, draw the line between the study of Talmud and other topics? The author of the Arukh Hashulhan, as a leading rabbinical adjudicator, based his ruling upon the reality of his community. He could not allow himself the luxury of the Rosh Hayeshiva, in the ivory tower of the rabbinical academy. He had to be concerned with economic suffering of the Jews in his community. If a secular education would not compromise Judaism or Jewish studies, yet would alleviate financial hardships, then there had to be place for it in the orthodox community.19 Interestingly, in the Arukh Hashulhan, Rabbi Epstein briefly discusses one aspect of secular studies. In the laws of Shabbat (section 307, paragraph 9) dealing with what is permitted and forbidden to read on Shabbat and in general, he writes:

15

16

17

18 19

122

See chapter 1 for the biographical relationships of the Epstein and Berlin families. For a further discussion on this issue see Berlin 1892, and Shaul Shtemper, Three Lithuanian Yeshivot in the 19th Century, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University, 1981 (recently published in Hebrew under the name Hayeshiva Halitait Bhithavutah, Jerusalem, 1986). For description and in depth discussion see J.J. Schacter, “Haskalah, Secular Studies and the Close of the Yeshiva in Volozhen in 1892,” in The Torah U-Maada Journal, vol. II (New York, 1990). See Schacter 1990 for a detailed analysis of the closing of the Volozin Yeshiva. This could mean, for example, studying the Russian language, in which most Russian Jews then were not literate.

7. “SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”

It seems to me that periodicals [newspapers and journals] are not included in this [prohibition] and are permitted during the week [not on Shabbat], for they inform what is actually occurring. This knowledge is essential for many individuals for they inform us of what is actually occurring relating to business and things in general. But for issues that have passed, what relevance are they for us, why are we required to know them? Also, included [in the prohibition] are nonsensical writings that include foolishness and light-headedness . . .

From this passage one could discern that Rabbi Epstein was against the study of history. I suggest this may not be so, because it does not jibe with his realistic approach to Jewish law and adjudication nor to his approach in his homilies discussed below. Rather, it would seem in line with the view represented by Rabbi Jacob Emden:20 One should only study these subjects during the week. Most of the material is found in the history books of the gentile kings who have died and is totally unnecessary. It is, therefore, forbidden to read such books on a regular basis, but rather one may look at them when he is taking a trip, when his “heart is weak” from deep concentration in the study of Gemara, or in order to learn from them clear and precise language . . .21

While the study of history is not appreciated by the rabbis, when it does serve a need, it is permitted. This attitude toward “need” is expressed in the first sermon of Kol Ben Levi as will be discussed below.22 As stated above, the primary issue in the sermon is that of secular education. An examination of the history of the period (briefly discussed in the opening paragraphs of this essay) testifies to attempts both by the Russian government and by movements within the Jewish community to further secular education among the Jews.23 This was part of the Russian 20 21 22

23

Other such views can be found in Levi 1981, who also summarizes the topic. Quotes in Weinberger 1986, 99, n. 23. This is less stringent then the view of Netziv, who, even though he favored the pursuit of secular knowledge, only did so when it did not involve taking time from Torah study. Otherwise it was totally and utterly rejected. See Schacter 1990, 103. Rabbi Epstein’s concern for non-religious education is clearly expressed in his Arukh Hashulhan Yoreh Deah section 246, paragraph 16. Quoting Maimonides, he writes: “It is permitted to study sparingly other (non-Talmudic) knowledge as long as it does not include the literature of heathens.” 123

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

government’s plan for the “Russification” of the Jews. The government of Alexander II, writes Dubnov,24 sought the civil and cultural fusion of the Jews with the general population. In the 1840s,25 the Jewish community of Russia was greatly affected by its government’s determined resolution to reform the existing Jewish system of education by enlisting the help of progressive elements. Although this reform was not accepted by the Jewish masses, it had its effect. Previously, the government had permitted Jews to enter its schools as well as to open their own. Vilna, in Lithuania, was one of the few cities that succeeded at that time in establishing a Jewish school providing a secular education. In June 1841, a decree was issued establishing state supervision of all Jewish educational institutions and providing for the convocation of a special commission on Jewish education. The Jews, and especially the Orthodox community, quickly understood the intent of the government’s educational program: Jewish assimilation into the Russian society including their conversion. The year 1848 saw the opening of two rabbinical schools in Vilna and Zhitomir. This was followed by the founding of a number of elementary “crown schools” for Jewish children that opened in various cities throughout the Pale.26 In 1857, the Minister of Public Instruction, Norov, submitted a document to the Jews in which he stated that “religious fanaticism and prejudice among the Jews” could only be exterminated by inducing the youth to enter general educational establishments, “which could only be obtained by enlarging their civil rights and by offering them material advantages.”27 Dubnov describes the further desire for the “Russification” of the Jews in 1862, the beginning years of Rabbi Epstein’s rabbinical career.28 The most efficient factor of cultural regeneration was the secular school, both the general Russian and Jewish Crown school. A flood of young men, lured by the rosy prospects of a free human existence in the midst of a free Russian people rushed from the farthermost nooks and corners of 24 25 26

27 28

124

Dubnov 1918, 174. See Levitas 1943, 69. See Dubnov 1918, 174–175, who also points out that “Only an insignificant percentage of Jewish children when to the Crown schools and even those children did only after having received their training at the Heder and Yeshiva.” Furthermore, the majority of those who did enroll were from the low economic strata of the Jewish society. Ibid., 163. Ibid., 209.

7. “SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”

the Pale into the gymnasia and universities whose doors were kept wide open for the Jews. Many children of the ghetto rapidly enlisted under the banner of Russian youth, and became intoxicated with the luxuriant growth of Russian literature which carried to them the intellectual gifts of the contemporary European writers . . . The heads which had but recently been bending over the Talmud folios in the stuffy atmosphere of the heder and yeshivahs were now crammed with the ideas of . . .

In 1873, the Jewish Crown schools were finally closed, but governmental encouragement of non-Talmudic education continued. A greater danger came from within the Jewish community, in the form of the Haskalah. Russian Haskalah (in contrast to that of Western Europe29) aimed at expanding the intellectual and social awareness of Russian Jewry from within. Dedicated to modernization and expansion of the intellect, the exponents of this movement utilized Jewish media, such as Hebrew and Yiddish language periodicals and literature to reach the Jewish masses. Vilna served as the most active center for this movement. In reaction, Orthodox Jewry emphatically opposed secular studies. Basing themselves on Jewish law, Orthodox leaders claimed it was bound to lead to heresy and even conversion. By the 1890s, there was a less formal threat from governmentrequired secular education, but damage had been done and the secular movements had made their inroads into the Jewish society of the country. Rabbi Epstein was concerned with the inroads made by the secularists. He viewed secular education as dangerous for the Jewish people and attributed its rise to the sins of his nation. In his opening sermon, Rabbi Epstein described a vicious circle. Those who engage in secular studies spend less time in Torah study and this leads to sin, which in turn leads to an even greater interest in secular studies. A synthesis of secular (or non-Torah) education and Torah studies was unacceptable to Rabbi Epstein, for then Torah becomes secondary and other studies become the primary emphasis of the student. However, if Torah retains a clear primacy then there would indeed be reason to permit non-Talmudic or non-Torah studies. Rabbi Epstein, who was deeply committed to the financial well being of the Jewish community, recognized that secular education would help alleviate its plight. While Rabbi Epstein understood the dangers of a non-Talmudic education, he chose to permit such 29

See Porath 1973, 50. 125

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

studies but only if placed in the proper learning context with Torah as the principle course of study. There is no clear evidence as to what motivated this particular issue or when (and if) this sermon was delivered or written.30 Situated in a Jewish society of great poverty, Rabbi Epstein’s concern in his homily was with the youth, just out of heder, seeking the possibility of a better economic life. His hope was “that they study Torah, since, as soon as they become slightly older, secular studies are loaded upon them.” In addition, his anxiety was for the physical well being of the Jews. This required, he felt, the loyalty of his people to the Tsar. We must ask the question: Was Rabbi Epstein sincerely concerned with tolerating secular studies or was he placating the Russian government and their censor? His introduction to the Arukh Hashulhan serves as a guide to the comprehension of the opening sermon. Both introductions, while apologetic and attempting to politically ensure the safety of the writer and his book, were explicitly concerned with the Jewish issues of his time and place. Both were clearly concerned with the presence of the censor. The introductions praise the Tsar and ascribe to him the role of protector of the Jewish people. Perhaps Rabbi Epstein really believed in absolute allegiance to the Tsar. He lived in Lithuania, an area not directly affected by the tragic events in Russia of 1881–82. Thus it may have been easier for him to take a positive view of the Tsar than it would have been for a rabbi elsewhere in the Pale. Rabbi Epstein, in the first sermon, also takes a strong pro-Tsarist position. He went so far as to state, “Besides, it should be explained to the fools and insane how they could have the audacity to think evil about the Tsar . . .” The Tsar and his ministers, wrote the Rabbi, are those who protect Jews against anti-Semites and their pogroms. Rabbi Epstein even argued that it is the sacred duty of parents not only to educate their children to fear God but also to fear royalty, which in his case meant the Tsar. If children learn to revere the Tsar, Rabbi Epstein argued, Jewish security would be improved and conflict avoided. This is an apparent allusion to Jewish university students’ involvement in the anti-Tsarist movement, a controversial issue in his day. 30

126

The evidence discussed above refers to the editing of the sermon but not necessarily when and if it was delivered. It might have been prepared solely as an introduction to the book of sermons.

7. “SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”

Rabbi Epstein’s fear of Jewish students participating in revolutionary and anti-Tsar movements is supported by Dubnov, who opens his discussion of “The Jews and the Revolutionary Movement:”31 The Russian school and literature pushed the Jewish college student head over heels into the intellectual currents of progressive Russian society. Naturally, enough of a portion of the Jewish youth was also drawn into the revolutionary movement of the seventies, a movement which, in spite of the theoretic “materialism” of its adepts, was of an essentially idealistic tendency. In joining the ranks of the revolutionaries, the young Jews were less actuated by resentment against the continued, though somewhat mitigated rightlessness of their own people, than by discontent with the general political reaction in Russia, that discontent which found expression in the movement of “Populism” [a democratic movement in favor of the down-trodden masses, particularly the Russian peasantry] of “Going to the People” and similar currents, then in vogue. Jewish students, attending the rabbinical and teachers institutes of the Government, or autodidactic from among former heder and yeshiva pupils, also began to “go to the people,” the Russian people, to be sure, not the Jewish. They carried on a revolutionary propaganda, both by direct and indirect means among the Russian peasants and workmen, known to them only from books.

Dubnov continues (p. 224): In Russia itself, the Jewish revolutionaries were heart and soul devoted to the cause. The children of the Ghetto displayed considerable heroism and self sacrifice in the revolutionary upheaval of the seventies. Jews figured in all important political trials and public manifestations; they languished in the jails, and suffered in the exiles to Siberia.

These revolutionary temperaments found their expression in Jewish participation in the assassination of Alexander II, on March 1, 1881. It was in this atmosphere that Rabbi Epstein called to his listeners and readers to be loyal to the Tsar. “It is, therefore, no surprise that they (students of secular education) will rebel against the kingdom of heaven as well as the kingdom on earth. Woe to us that we have sinned; how great the desecration of God (Chillul Hashem) is there in this.” Rabbi Epstein continued to develop his argument and related the anti-Semitic actions of the gentiles towards the Jews as part of the above 31

Dubnov 1918, 221. 127

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

described developmental process. He spoke of pogroms and anti-Semitism, events that had strong repercussions in this period of Russian-Jewish history. Why did the Rabbi of Navordock, the author of a major halakhic treatise, accepted as a revered Jewish rabbinical leader, speak in such positive terms of such Tsars as Alexander III and Nicholas II, whom we know to have been anti-Jewish and supporters of anti-Jewish pogroms? Were this written to appease the censor and government officials or to strengthen his rabbinical position, it would be sufficient to have prepared a paragraph or two similar to those written by other rabbis of the period. Rabbi Epstein offers us an extensive three pages of a call for loyalty to the Tsar. Rather, it is necessary to place the sermon in the historical context of the period. The people of Lithuania (which also housed great numbers of Poles) lived in a country conquered by the Russians. Both the conquered and conquerors had no love for each other, but what they both had in common was their hatred for the Jews. As stated above, institutionalized pogroms began during the reign of Alexander III. Although historians argue that the Tsars were not exempt from blame for the pogroms, a survey of the Jews in that period will testify to their belief that the pogroms were initiated by local governments. While many cities in the Pale suffered from the results of the pogrom policy, Lithuanian cities, such as Navordock, were less affected. This could possibly be attributed to a local governor who was more sympathetic to the Jews, or rather, preferred not to have the destruction and problems that resulted from the pogroms.32 Rabbi Epstein’s concern for pogroms and anti-Semitic actions by the gentile population was a psychological one. The fears of the pogroms were greater than the pogroms themselves. Berlin33 describes this phenomenon: “Truthfully, the fear of the pogroms, the preparations for the pogroms, were no less frightful and, at times, did greater damage than the pogrom itself.” Baron34 offers the same suggestion and supports this view as an historian of the period, “Psychologically, the impact of these pogroms was even greater than the physical and material damage.” 32

33 34

128

The local leaders also might have preferred not to accept Russian initiatives simply because they were Russian and not Lithuanian. Berlin 1939, 283. Baron 1964, 45.

7. “SECULAR STUDIES ARE THE SUPPLEMENT OF TORAH STUDIES”

Rabbi Epstein believed that the only true flesh and blood guardian against this anti-Semitic conduct could be the Tsar.35 It was the actions of his Jewish brethren that brought upon themselves the vengeance of the Tsar, and it was the Jews’ religious obligation to be loyal to the Tsar and educate their children in this path. For only the “fools and madmen would contemplate evil about the Tsar.”36

35

36

It is interesting to point out that the leaders of the Habad movement throughout their history in Russia advocated the same view. Rabbi Epstein is acclaimed to be influenced by the leader of Habad during his early Rabbinical days. See chapter 1 page 6. I want to thank Professor Ira Robinson for his helpful comments and editing of this essay. 129

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

8.

RECURRENT THEMES IN THE HOMILIES OF RABBI YECHIEL MECHEL HALEVI EPSTEIN

Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein (1829–1908), the Rabbi of Novogrudok, is widely known for his nine-volume Code of Jewish Law, the Arukh Hashulhan. During the years from 1874 until his death, while Rabbi of Novogrudok, he published eight of these volumes; the ninth was issued in 1991.1 In addition to his book of laws, Rabbi Epstein also redacted a collection of homilies (drashot) titled Kol Ben Levi that was published only recently.2 These homilies were generally expected from the community rabbi twice a year, on the Sabbath before Passover (Shabbat Hagadol) and the Sabbath between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur (Shabbat Shuva). To include both themes of practical concern to his community, as well as pilpulistic discussions of Jewish law pertaining to the period of the year in question, Rabbi Epstein gave his drashot a dual structure. In his discussion of community issues, Rabbi Epstein continued to return to specific issues, offering different approaches, encouragement and solutions. This chapter will examine these recurrent themes, Rabbi Epstein’s clarifications, and will attempt shed further light on the life, plight and suffering of Orthodox Jewry in 19th century Eastern Europe, and ways to both accept and resolve these misfortunes. The 19th century East European Jew lived in a milieu of great economic poverty, compounded by political uncertainty, concern and fear of the Gentile population and government. It was in such an environment that Rabbi Epstein worked, wrote, and delivered his sermons. Although not a professional preacher, he was known for his openness to the social reality of his time, and for his compassion for his fellow Jew.3 His discussion topics included issues of great concern for his community and people. Throughout the homilies, Rabbi Epstein addressed the plight and suffering 1 2 3

130

Published by Fishbane 1991b. Found in Fishbane Simcha 1991b and as discussed in chapter 7. See chapter 3.

8. RECURRENT THEMES IN THE HOMILIES OF RABBI Y.M. EPSTEIN

of the Jews of his community. Their economic status and relationship with the “secular” world of the Haskalah were principal concerns. The recurrent theme of the homilies could be summarized as Tzarot (suffering, distress and misfortune). The primary area is singled out as that of financial (parnasah) questions. To provide a better understanding of the social reality in which Rabbi Epstein lived, this paper will show how he understood these issues, what caused them, and how the members of his community were to understand and cope with them. It is important to recognize that these sermons were presented as a redacted document. Since the author was aware of the materials presented, we may view the sermons as one whole document rather than as individual presentations. Selected examples will be used in analyzing the misfortunes discussed in the sermons; a reading of the homilies will serve to further illuminate Rabbi Epstein’s concerns. Regarding Tzarot, Rabbi Epstein often referred to these in general terms, without specifically identifying them. Why, he asked, did his community members suffer and what could be done to free them from these Tzarot? Rabbi Epstein offers various rationales to explain the question of why the Jew suffers. First, there is the classic rabbinical answer: “because of our sins we have been exiled . . . ” In sermon 10 (p. 52) based upon a verse in Isaiah 1:4 “sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evil doers, sons who deal corruptly,” he states “since the nation is heavy with sin they attain great and evil misfortunes.” In sermon 11 (p. 63), he again elaborates on this theme. “It is true that also our forefathers had great tzarot, but since they were attached to God and his Torah they were confident that God would save them. But what can we depend upon? Even in spirituality we have dropped the last ten levels.” In sermon 19 (p. 119) Rabbi Epstein comes back to this theme, “It recurs in every generation, when Israel sins and leaves the path of Torah, the Almighty inspects (Israel) as rebellious wives that are given to drink the bitter waters, He tests them through the decrees that the nations pursue them. If they pass this test and retain their faith, then they will receive added love (from the Almighty).” In sermon 10 (p. 56) a discussion is presented concerning the two goats offered in the Temple on Yom Kippur, We will explain the topic of the two goats, one goat offered to God for the Israelites who require atonement for their sins, as Rashi comments, and parallel to this there is one goat (offered) to Azazel that suggests (that it) is parallel to Esau, a hairy man, and to the destructive elements that are called goats, as it is written . . . Both are encompassed by the bad, when 131

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

that is destined to punish Israel when Israel deviates from the path of Torah. Permission then has been granted [for this evil] to do as they wish to Israel, without any restraints. Therefore both [goats] must be equal, to show that just as the good is given the permission to do good, so the bad is given the right to execute bad. This will continue until all evil has been extinguished from the land.

The author of Kol Ben Levi further elucidates why his congregants suffer. He states that God created light and darkness, light representing the good, and darkness evil. In sermon 10 (p. 52) he elaborates on this theme: Why did the Almighty create darkness, wicked persons and troubles? This was necessary. For just as a fruit can not be without its skin (klipa4), good can not exist without evil, light without darkness, and redemption without exile . . . That is what Job referred to, that there would be an end to darkness. For it is man’s nature, that when misfortune comes he imagines it is his end, that he no longer will see light. It is a mistake, for there is an end of the darkness, the end of the misfortunes is near. A reason is offered . . . that the primary purpose of misfortune is for the purpose of future good, and that is the intention of creation. Thus it is necessary for the darkness to precede, just as the skin preceded the fruit.

Rabbi Epstein goes on to develop positive explanations of why the Jew suffers. In sermon 20 (p. 124) he writes that the suffering brought upon the Jew comes not from God’s hate, rather from his kindness, as a father would punish his son. For the Almighty loves his people of Israel, their souls are intertwined with His, and therefore His love is always connected to them. If You [God] love me, then why did You divorce me . . . do you [Israel] think that the suffering you have is proof of this divorce? It is not so, rather it is as a man who punishes his son and continues to do so until [the son] says, I will change my ways.

Rabbi Epstein further states in sermon 9 (p. 46) that we cry out and protest to God as a foolish son complains about taking medicine. “To this He answers, what will I do with you my children, you brought [these troubles] 4

132

Rabbi Epstein is alluding to the kabbalistic concept of klipa that is identified with the bad or negative of this world.

8. RECURRENT THEMES IN THE HOMILIES OF RABBI Y.M. EPSTEIN

upon yourselves . . . they are a required medicine for you, a very bitter and strong medicine.” This development of this concept of God’s love and concern for Israel as a basis for the tzarot of the Jew continues in sermon 7 (p. 36).5 After a lengthy discussion concerning Israel’s unique position as God’s chosen people, their role and the love God has for them, the Rabbi writes, In the time of the exile this love is hidden, for the Almighty has informed them via Moses, prior to receiving the Torah, of the main issues, the quality, quantity and characteristics of Israel. It is the obligation of every Jew to fully believe that the love of the Almighty for Israel has never ceased, and will not cease forever, and all the suffering is just to erase the sins, and to include them as a purifying measure.

Rabbi Epstein then compares the relationship of God and Israel to that of a bride and groom.6 It is compared to a bride and groom. For sure, the bride wants to live a luxurious married life, but if she would explicitly state this to her groom prior to the marriage, that she is willing to be his wife only in good times, but when things are bad, I am not willing to be your wife, there is no doubt he [the groom] would spit at her. As it is known, a husband and wife must live together in good and bad times, for otherwise it is impossible.

Rabbi Epstein is telling his congregants that we are married to God, and even if there is suffering and troubles, he will not desert us. For if God had not protected us we would have been destroyed by the world’s nations (sermon 9, p. 46). Even when suffering increases, argues Rabbi Epstein, God is watching over the people of Israel (sermon 12, p. 73). In sermon 23 (pp. 151–152) in his discussions of “plagues on homes” (neigai batim), he continues to argue that the Jews’ suffering is directly related to God’s love for them. First quoting Maimonides’ laws of Tumat Tzaraat (chapter 16, law 10), he write that, In the case of negai batim, Maimonides states that it is not natural but rather a sign for Israel, that when they began to sin the Almighty would immediately bring upon them torment from the unnatural, so that their sins would be forgiven. Also, this would be done to show Israel that as a result of His great love he caused them to suffer . . . 5 6

See also sermon 9, pp. 46–47. In rabbinic literature Israel is commonly compared to God’s bride. 133

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

What must a Jew do to alleviate his suffering? Rabbi Epstein offers the accepted normative response to the sinner and sufferer: repent! (sermon 21, p. 132). In sermon 8 (p. 39) he discusses this concept of repentance. Israel wants God first to remove the suffering, and then they will repent. But God says, first repent, and then I will remove the suffering. “In summary,” writes Rabbi Epstein, “the Almighty awakens us to repent through anguish.”7 How to repent? He summarizes this in sermon 25 (p. 162): “Repentance means primarily to be involved in Torah, for without it there is nothing.” Throughout the homilies Rabbi Epstein is greatly concerned with the issue of Torah study and the fulfillment of Torah laws (mitzvot). This, he believes, is both the primary reason for and solution to the tzarot of Israel. In sermon 8 (p. 42) he clearly states that, “Therefore, after we have personally experienced torment and sufferings we have no other path but to return to the bosom of our parents and strengthen the Torah study and good deeds (mitzvot) that through our sins we have neglected.” In sermon 9 (p. 50) he writes, “the highest level for the observance of our holy religion is through the study of Torah . . . Only through the study of Torah and [observing] mitzvot we will enhance the spiritual over the physical, and then be worthy to receive both worlds.” In sermons 12 (p. 72) and 22 (p. 142) the Rabbi writes, “and what we have stated, there is no other remedy in order to be redeemed from tzarot and poverty, other than to be involved in Torah.”8 The topic of Torah is primary in Rabbi Epstein’s demands on his listeners.9 In sermon 25 (167) he writes: Without the Torah there is no existence for the world. Parallel to this when Israel rejects the Torah, she destroys, and painful decrees are decreed upon them. For all the tzarot come from disregarding the Torah. As the prophet states. (Jeremiah 9:12–13) “Why is the land ruined and laid waste like a wilderness, so that no one passes through?” And the Lord says: Because they have forsaken my laws (Torah) which I set before them, etc. 7 8

9

134

This theme of repentance is also discussed in sermon 8, p. 44. For further examples of the importance of Torah study and fulfillment of mitzvot see sermon 12, p. 72, sermon 15, pp. 92–95, sermon 16, pp. 97–98, sermon 21, p. 131. In addition to discussing the topic of Torah throughout all the sermons, he dedicated sermon 25 specifically to this topic. He is dealing with a community in which the majority of members, primarily for economic reasons, could not and did not have the opportunity to study Torah..

8. RECURRENT THEMES IN THE HOMILIES OF RABBI Y.M. EPSTEIN

He continues on p. 170: Said Rabbi Yehoshua b. Levi, “every day a voice from heaven is heard from Mount Horeb,” in other words, we have caused through our sins the destruction of the world. [And the voice] “says, woe unto the people.” In other words, every woe that we deserve is a result of insulting of the Torah which results from not studying the Torah, and from not supporting those who study Torah.

In sermon 25 (p. 167) Rabbi Epstein summarizes this concept in one explicit statement: Without Torah there is no permanence to the world. In support of this, when Israel throws off the burden of the Torah she destroys herself and [evil] decrees are made upon her. For all the troubles stem from disregarding the Torah, as the prophet says (Jeremiah 9, 12–13) that they lost the land because they left my Torah.

In the homilies, however, repentance also focuses on other avenues. To repent it is often necessary to reprimand the sinner. In sermon 3 (p. 19) he poses the query as to why is it necessary to give a rebuke (tochacha) to the Jew who has great tzarot. “In a generation when the majority of Israel suffers great and bad hardships, especially from lack of sustenance, is it proper to bring upon them rebuke, and add further pain to their suffering, and despondency to their despair”? Rabbi Epstein maintains that the answer is yes, but there is also an action that will deal with the Jews’ suffering (p. 14): I say concerning our times: it is very difficult to rebuke [Jews], cognizant of the fact that our situation is so bitter. This was so in the generation of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaria, after the destruction of the Temple, when they were burdened with many tzarot. Alternatively, we can understand this situation if we portray it as follows. A doctor comes to an anguished person and informs him that he will ease his torment. There is no doubt he will be overjoyed. Therefore, if we find a way through the process of rebuke, which will soften for ourselves the misery of our times, it is certain there is an obligation to reprimand all of Israel. Then all Israel will receive it with love . . . It is true that the essence of the rebuke is that every Jew will believe entirely that his whole being exists through divine providence, and it is from His hand we have this. This will be a comfort for our desolate hearts, for it is in his blessed hands to reverse all to our good. 135

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Rabbi Epstein continues (sermon 6 p. 32) to emphasize that suffering is a sign of God’s love for Israel, and that it is a basic principle in the belief of the Jew. It is true that we have suffered much anguish during all of our exiles. Even so, it has been a great miracle that the nation of Israel for almost two thousand years is standing just as on the day the Torah was given [at Sinai]. Is there a greater wonder than this, especially since “in every generation they seek to destroy us?” You will not find anything similar to this on earth, in any nation or tongue as it is written . . . In summary we can conclude that all the sins of Israel, for which they are suffering great misery, in the end will reverse to their good . . . This is the quality of God’s love for his nation of Israel. Even though he torments them with sufferings, God forbid that his intention be for the sake of anguish, rather than to return Israel to the correct path. This is the meaning of the verse (Deuteronomy 8:5) . . . It is clear that when a father punishes his son, it is for his good, with the intention to put him on the correct path. Similar are the sufferings of Israel, and it is primary to basic belief in God, that all suffering is for our good.

Thus to alleviate misery, they must believe that it is an outcome of God’s love, and only then will their suffering be softened.10 For it is at the time of tribulations, and when we are completely in despair, that God judges our behavior and attitude. (sermon 19, p. 120) The author of Kol Ben Levi also maintains that since the tzarot are being greatly accelerated, I can answer to my heart that this is a sign that the redemption will arrive immediately. (sermon 11, p. 64)

He continues (p. 65): For all that has transgressed upon us, rest your thoughts, and do not despair because of the extreme pressure. Remember the holy Sabbath; that is the design of creation. Also, the more the suffering increases, it is a sign that the redemption is close to arriving. This is similar to what occurred during the exodus from Egypt. Prior to the exodus Pharaoh increased the burden upon us. Therefore, in regard to the exodus, we are required to remember it with the Sabbath kiddush [blessing on the wine] . . . For as the suffering and affliction grows, the redemption comes closer. The exodus from Egypt is a sign of the future redemption. 10

136

For a similar discussion see also sermon 7, p. 36, sermon 13, p. 76.

8. RECURRENT THEMES IN THE HOMILIES OF RABBI Y.M. EPSTEIN

When repeating the exodus example in sermon 18 (p. 112), the author emphasizes that even in the face of intense suffering, we should not let our spirits fall. For in Egypt, even though it seemed that this was the end for the Israelites, things turned out well: they were redeemed. So will it be for his community. Therefore, asserts the Rabbi, one must view this period of history which is so filled with suffering as a sign that they are living close to the final redemption. And this is a basic belief and a source of strength for every Jew. Though until now we have discussed tzarot as a generic concept, Rabbi Epstein also identifies specific topics of distress. A major recurring theme of all the sermons is the lack of sustenance and economic security (parnasah). The author of Kol Ben Levi maintains that the Jew is destined to be an economically destitute individual. It is only by the grace of God that he permits a small portion of wealth to enter the nation of Israel. He bases his argument (sermon 4, p. 14) on a verse in Psalms (9:21) “Place your mastery over them, O Lord, let the nations know that they are but frail men.” The Rabbi writes: At the conclusion of tractate Sota (49a) it states, “Rabbi Ila bar Yeverechyah said: Were it not for David’s prayer, all of Israel would be peddlers of stains, for it is written, ‘Place your mastery over them, O Lord, let the nations know that they are but frail men.’ Rashi explains that previously it states” (9:19) “For the needy shall not always be forgotten and hope of the poor shall not perish forever” [then the author of the Psalms continues] “Place your mastery over them,” in other words, give power to those desolate through wealth that they should be treated with respect by the nations, and the nations should realize that they are human and not all the honor goes to them [the nations].” From this [continues Rabbi Epstein] we can understand that from a legal perspective [God’s law] Israel was destined to be a nation of beggars but God has blessed them with a small portion of wealth.

That is not to say that since one is destined to be poor he should give up. There are other factors to be considered. The first, almost a simplistic explanation, is laziness (sermon 2, p. 4). Rabbi Epstein does not accuse his congregants of being lazy but rather refers to it as a parallel in discussing spiritual laziness. The Rabbi also offers the normative rabbinic rationalization (sermon 8, p. 38), that the Jew’s sustenance is decided in heaven. Discussing a verse in Isaiah (55:7–8) Rabbi Epstein writes: 137

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

In a situation when Reuben and Simon each have businesses in two separate locations. Reuben sits in his location and Simon sits in his location. Should we say that Reuben should oversee Simon’s business and Simon should oversee Reuben’s business? According to this we can understand [the verses]. It is as if God and man are partners in the dealings of mankind. Man does and the Almighty assists him. For man has two “businesses,” materialistic and spiritual, issues of parnasah and issues of Torah and mitzvot. Now it is written (Psalms 115:16) “The heavens are the Lord’s heavens but the earth he has given to the sons of man.” It would be correct that issues concerning heaven would be God’s domain and issues on earth would be man’s domain. In reality it is the opposite, issues of parnasah and sustenance is allotted to man [by heaven] and man’s power over this is non existent, but only what is decreed to him by heaven. Alternatively, concerning spiritual issues only man rules them, as it is written (BT Berakhot 33b) “everything is in the hands of heaven except the fear of heaven.”

Rabbi Epstein develops his approach and maintains that the issue of the Jew’s parnasah is really not in the realm of nature, just as the destiny of the Jew is not in the realm of the natural. In sermon 14, primarily dedicated to the theme of parnasah, Rabbi Epstein expounds as follows: In Midrash Genesis chapter 20 [9, it states11], ”he writes, “ ‘Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Samuel b. Nahman—Rabbi Eleazar said: Redemption is likened to the earning of a livelihood, and the reverse: just as redemption [requires the working of] wonders [by God], so does the earning of a livelihood require the same; and just as the latter must be earned everyday, so does redemption occur every day. Rabbi Samuel b. Nahman said: It is even greater than redemption, for redemption comes through an angel, whereas sustenance comes through the Holy One, blessed be He.” . . . These issues require an explanation. Also, what was said that the redemption comes through an angel, [must be explained] for it is written (Deuteronomy 26:8) [concerning redemption], “God took us out of Egypt not by an angel,” etc.

The author of Kol Ben Levi continues If we truthfully examine the situation of Israel’s livelihood during every generation we shall see that it is above the laws of nature. Israel’s sustenance has no basis in physical reality and is much restricted; it is 11

138

Translation based upon: Freedman, Simon eds., The Midrash, The Soncino Press, London, 1961.

8. RECURRENT THEMES IN THE HOMILIES OF RABBI Y.M. EPSTEIN

futile to expound on this topic. The costs resulting from Sabbath and holiday expenses are greater, and this is in addition to raising children with a Torah education. And all kosher food costs much more than nonkosher food as well as [the cost of supporting] the large charities that tend to the poor in every city. In addition, a large range of charities and charitable organizations [require support]. Any one can see that only through divine providence are we supported [financially], and not by the laws of nature.

Continuing his premise, the Rabbi maintains (p. 110) that Israel was destined to be poor. If it were not for the prayers of King David, all Israel would be poor peddlers. It was David’s prayer (Psalms 9:20), “Put them in fear Lord. Let the nations know they are but men,” which provides the interpretation that it was because He did not want the nations to disgrace us that the Almighty chose to allot Israel a small portion of financial wealth. This can only be understood, says Rabbi Epstein, if we understand that Israel is outside the laws of nature. Since God only performs miracles when necessary, were it not for King David’s intervention Israel was destined to remain poor. Rabbi Epstein then returns to his original quotation comparing livelihood and redemption: We now can understand what David said (Psalms 136:24) “and rescued us from our foes, for His steadfast love endures forever.” This [verse] would seem unnecessary for it is previously stated (Psalms 136:11) “and brought Israel out from among them, for his steadfast love endures forever.” The reason [why it is necessary to adjoin verse 24 to verse 25 is] “he who gives food to all flesh, for His steadfast loves endures forever.” This can be interpreted in a similar manner as the above verse. Just as being rescued from our foes is not natural, but occurs because “His steadfast love endures forever,” so too, “He who gives food to all flesh” is not a consequence of the laws of nature, but occurs because “His steadfast love endures forever.” And the hekesh [analogy] is reversed, for since every day [the nations] are attempting to destroy us, sustenance is just as much of a daily requirement as is redemption (a daily need). This is the intention of the Midrash that equates redemption to livelihood, and livelihood to redemption. Just as redemption is miraculous, in the sense that it transcends the laws of nature, for us, the children of Israel, sustenance is also above those laws. And just as sustenance is daily, so too is redemption. Do not say that the redemptions were only in Egypt and Babylonia, for every day the Almighty redeems us from those that come upon us. 139

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

The argument that God ordains Israel’s sustenance continues to be of concern to the Rabbi in his analysis (p. 111): In my opinion, it is for this reason that the Almighty sustained the Israelites in the dessert with manna that fell from the sky. Why did He not feed them by having them plant fields in the desert? If it is because the desert is barren, is anything not possible for God? Why was it necessary for the Blessed One to feed them from the heavens? Furthermore the Tosafot [commentary] 9BT Hulin 88b) writes “When the Israelites were in the desert, the land was fertile.” Since in front of the Blessed One it is revealed what will transpire with Israel in the future, and it was revealed to Him that many [nations] go against them [Israel] and take food from their mouths, the Almighty said (Exodus 16:4) “Behold I will rain bread from heaven for you.” These holy words stand and are relevant in every generation.

Rabbi Epstein concludes this homily (p. 115) with further words of encouragement: With this can be explained the last verses in the Hallel prayer, that is, primarily “His steadfast love endures forever” which we explained above. That is to say, every act of generosity that the Almighty does for us, even though only promised in an individual instance, that generosity functions in every generation and in every situation in which Israel finds itself. And that what we said earlier (Psalms 136:1) “Give thanks to the Lord,” in other words, He is the source of good, “for He is forever good.” And what we explained (ibid. 136:4) “to Him alone who does wonders” means that the Almighty does wonders in every time and every period. He commences12 with the creation of the heavens, the earth and the lights and then tells of all the occurrences of Egypt and the occurrences of Sihon and Og. Then, [it states in verse 23] “who remembered us in our low estate.” In other words, do not say that only in past days have we experienced great wonders. Now, in our low estate, He remembers us to do great wonders, because “for His steadfast love endures forever.” If you ask, who says that this is so, I will show you two possibilities. First, [verse 24] says, “and rescued us from our foes, for His steadfast loves endures forever.” In other words, in their hearts they want to destroy, but the Blessed One saves us from their hands. Second, [verse 25] “gives food to all flesh, for His steadfast loves endures forever.” That they [the nations] do all in their power against us and [the Lord] will not allow us to be embarrassed, as we explained. In all this the Almighty feeds us and 12

140

Rabbi Epstein is summarizing Psalm 136.

8. RECURRENT THEMES IN THE HOMILIES OF RABBI Y.M. EPSTEIN

gives us sustenance, since “forever He loves us.” Thus, you have two clear proofs that even in our downtrodden situation we will have the fulfillment of [verse 4] “who alone does great wonders, for his steadfast love endures forever.” This is a basic principle of our faith, namely, that every Jew is obligated to believe that the Almighty watches over the whole [nation], and over the individual, at every period and every time. He is the overseer who will rescue us from those that come up against us, and will furnish us with our sustenance, as when the midrash speaks of the jar of manna, when the Lord ordered Moses our Rabbi to place it as a witness, and that it be safeguarded for future generations. From this manna we feed in all generations, and this clearly refers to those who fear God.13

Rabbi Epstein does not simply leave the issue of parnasah in the hands of heaven. The Jew plays an important role in both achieving and losing God’s blessing for sustenance. In sermon 11 (p. 63), the Rabbi writes that the spiritual downfall apparent in our generation is also causing a material decline. The materialistic element is the heavy burden of parnasah placed upon the Jew. One must realize, maintains Rabbi Epstein (sermon 9, p. 49), that Torah brings a pleasant life, a life of joy in this world. For we see the appetite for money is great, but without following the path of Torah there is no joy [in the money]. For one will never be satisfied; if you have a hundred, you will want two hundred. But those who go in the path of Torah will be happy with their lot.

Based upon verses in Proverbs (3:5–8), the Rabbi also states in sermon 3 (p. 11), “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your eyes; fear the Lord and turn away from evil. It will be healing to your flesh and refreshment to your bones.” “In general, those who have strayed from the path of Torah say that the force of time and the struggle for a livelihood caused this. But in reality it derives from lack of faith and trust. This is what it says: ‘Trust in the Lord with all your heart;’ for you should be cognizant that all is wondrously supervised by the Lord. And realize that the strength of man is vane. [The verse continues] ‘In your 13

Rabbi Epstein presents his thesis of “above the laws of nature” in other sermons such as sermon 22, pp. 137, 138 and 141. 141

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

insight’—it is your opinion that the difficulties of making a livelihood bring this about? ‘Do not rely’, —and the opposite [you should consider] ‘In all the ways’—that you walk—’acknowledge Him’—know that only by following the path of Torah—‘and He will make straight your paths—He will find you paths of which you were unaware.”

In sermon 15 (p. 91), Rabbi Epstein returns to the same verses in Proverbs 3:5–8. These verses he maintains, “are directed against those who are dealing with sustenance, in the sense that each tried to the best of his capability to increase his income. Acknowledge Him in all ways that you walk,’’ he writes, in all you do act according to the Torah, and the Lord will straighten your path, that it will end with good. Perhaps you will say that according to the Torah you will lose income? To this it says “Be not wise in your eyes.” Don’t imagine to yourself that that the path that negates the Torah will succeed. It is not so; fear God and “turn away from evil.” from going in opposition to the Torah.

Furthermore, the author of Kol Ben Levi reminds us (sermon 10, pp. 50, 51) that parnasah is not a goal, but a required means. This means, that after [morning] prayers one moves to the necessity of making a livelihood. It is clear that though making money is not the primary purpose, it is essential. For that we say (in the morning liturgy, “A redeemer shall come”) “Blessed be the Lord, that created us in his honor and gave us the Torah.” The Torah is our true purpose and therefore “implanted eternal life within us.” And we pray, “May He open our heart through His Torah,” when we are free of the business of livelihood and we may plant in our hearts the love and fear of the Lord. Even during our work we must attempt to adhere to the way of the Torah, as in the case of weights, cost and payment, and not swear falsely, for all our labor will be in vain. For even if we sustain ourselves with honor and wealth it is without purpose.14

For, as Rabbi Epstein asserts in sermon 3 (p. 13), one who wants to acquire Torah cannot be obsessed with getting money. Rabbi Epstein takes another approach to the problem of his congregants’ financial destitution (sermon 23, pp. 141–143). This is not an issue of the Jew’s place in God’s world (as we discussed above), but rather 14

142

See also sermon 20, p. 128.

8. RECURRENT THEMES IN THE HOMILIES OF RABBI Y.M. EPSTEIN

something which would serve him better as a God-fearing Jew. The tribulations of being affluent are simply not worth the price. The author of Kol Ben Levi writes: There are two trials before the individual, the test of wealth and the test of poverty. Both are difficult as it is written (Proverbs 30:8) “give me neither poverty or riches.” But the test of wealth is greater than poverty. For affluence causes heresy, as it is written, (ibid. 9) “lest I be full and deny Thee’ and say, who is the Lord?” Furthermore, our Rabbi Moses, who loved Israel said [and refers to] (Deuteronomy 1:1) “Di-zahav,” silver and gold that influenced them to create the [golden] calf (BT Berakhot 32b). In my opinion this is what the Rabbi meant (BT Haggigah 9b): “poverty is becoming the Jewish people.” The meaning is not what it seems, for it suggests here the two tests, the test of wealth and the test of poverty. Poverty is becoming since in wealth there is the possibility of heretical doctrine . . . We have studied in Mishnah Abot (4, 11), “whoever fulfills the Torah despite poverty will ultimately fulfill it in wealth.” This, in my opinion, does not mean that one is forced to fulfill Torah only in wealth. There are those who fulfill Torah in poverty, and do not prosper. And it is the reward of those who study Torah [not to be rich]. Rather, this is its meaning, that it is in the negative. In other words, one who does not fulfill the Torah in poverty cannot fulfill the Torah when he prospers. For, as we have said, the test of wealth is greater than that of destitution. If one can not endure this minor test, it is clear that he will not stand the greater test. But one who fulfills the Torah from poverty and endures the trial can be confident that the test will stand the test of affluence, for he is experienced in the test [of poverty], and he will endure greater tests [of wealth].

The Rabbi continues (p. 144), In the state of prosperity you will not endure the test and depart from the path of Torah, and be exiled from the land. You will not have an eternal legacy. For this [problem] I have found for you a remedy. I have given you a malignancy in the house in your land. In other words, before I uncover to you the treasures of gold and silver I will inflict upon you disease. Therefore, when you confront the test of suffering, you will surely observe the Torah, even from wealth.

Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Epstein aspired to offer his congregants both an answer and comfort to their unfortunate plight. General tzarot which included issues and problems in the social, political, economic and 143

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

educational areas, dogged the life of the nineteenth-century Lithuanian Jew. The Rabbi, who had little but spiritual comfort to offer, chose this consolation as the implicit thrust of his homilies. And the words of Rabbi Epstein at the end of sermon 19 (p. 122) are an appropriate conclusion to this essay. [The verse says] (Hosea 3:3) “And I said to her, you must dwell as mine for many days; you shall not play the harlot or belong to another man; so I will be for you.” In other words, I request from you [Israel] to be in exile many years. Do not play the harlot, do not stray from the path of Torah. Furthermore [the verse continues in 4] “For the children of Israel shall dwell many days without king or prince.” In other words, I am informing you that the exile will endure many days, but know that in the end, after you repent and accept the yoke of Torah and mitzvot [the verse (5) will be fulfilled] “And they shall come in fear to the Lord and in His goodness in the latter days.” Or, good days are in store for the nation of Israel, and generosity will greatly increase.

144

9. SOCIAL REALITY OR THE WRITTEN WORD

9.

SOCIAL REALITY OR THE WRITTEN WORD: Minhag as Expressed in the Arukh Hashulhan

INTRODUCTION This chapter will examine the position of Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein (1829–1907) on religious custom (minhag), as found in his 9-volume halakhic treatise Arukh Hashulhan1 (A.H.). Rabbi Epstein frequently used Rabbi Joseph Caro’s Shulhan Arukh as his starting point, and also as his basis for his halakhic analysis.2 It is therefore through the exploration of the Shulhan Arukh’s division Yoreh Deah (Y.D.) volume 9 (of which section 214 is devoted to the theme of minhag as it relates to vows) that Rabbi Epstein presents his conceptual understanding of minhag. In addition, the Rabbi repeatedly uses the term minhag in its various grammatical forms throughout the entire Arukh Hashulhan. Analysis here will focus on two themes, the general approach to custom as found throughout the Arukh Hashulhan and Rabbi Epstein’s approach to minhag as manifested in Yoreh Deah section 214.

RELIGIOUS RITUAL AND VOWS Minhag, for the most part, can be categorized as religious custom or ritual. For the purpose of this paper, I choose to accept Bird’s understanding of ritual (1979, p. 389); “Rituals may be defined as culturally symbolic codes which are stylized, regularly repeated, dramatically structured, authoritatively designated, and intrinsically valued.” Bird later (1995, p. 23) added that, “as symbolic acts that are intrinsically valued and usually repeated, ritual actors trying to behave in keeping with expected characters and roles by using stylized gestures and words.” All the 1 2

Published between 1884–1907. See chapter 3. 145

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

variables cited by Bird are applicable to Jewish religious ritual, but the definitions of “authoritatively designated,” and “intrinsically valued” play a significant role in the definition of minhag. On the individual, community or overall ethnic group level, Minhag required the sanction of a rabbinic authority to give the ritual any kind of religious credence. Within the structure of smaller groups in particular, if there is to be real adherence to a religious ritual it must be revered by the actors who perform it. The difference between the various groups (individuals, small groups or the entire ethnic stratum) means that when a minhag becomes codified for the entire community, it receives the status of a legal ruling and is thus adhered to by the entire group (in our case halakhic observant Jews). When a specific ritual represents an individual’s or small group’s choice of behavior, and thus does not become codified, this is tantamount to an individual taking a vow with all its halakhic precincts. The individual’s choice of ritual performance might result from the social reality in a specific geographic area, or from the desire of a person or group to create safeguards for a halakhic ruling or even from a striving towards asceticism (prishut). The ritual then offers the “actor” a means to establish and maintain his relationship to what he considers to be sacred. It is through the performance of the minhag that the person seeks to affirm, develop, and perpetuate his relationship with those sacred realities which are founded on the law. Thus the rabbinical adjudicators’ definition of a non-codified minhag that has a status similar to a vow implies that it creates for the actor a halakhic defense mechanism, or allows him to engage in self-denial. In Jewish law the questions of vows received a great deal of attention. In addition to an entire Talmudic tractate devoted to this topic, the Shulhan Arukh dedicates 32 sections (Yoreh Deah 203–235) to rules pertaining to vows. They include the rabbinic formula on how to construct a vow, the scope of the vow, how to annul a vow and who can annul a vow. For example, in Yoreh Deah 228, paragraph 1, we are informed that only a rabbinic expert in the laws of vows or three laymen, who constitute a rabbinic court, and who are knowledgeable in the basic rabbinic laws of vows, can annul a vow.3 The minhag, whether codified or whether binding as a vow, is now placed under the domination and authority of the rabbis, for they control the application of the laws including vows. Judaism is a legalistic religion. Its social structure is based upon a model 3

146

This is clearly spelled out by the Shulhan Arukh commentators.

9. SOCIAL REALITY OR THE WRITTEN WORD

which Mary Douglas categorizes as “strong grid-strong group.” Douglas defines such a group “in terms of the claims it makes over its constituent members, the boundaries it draws around them, the rights it confers on them to use its name and other protections, and the levies and constraints it applies.” (1978, pp. 7–8) For Douglas the term grid “suggests the cross hatch of rules to which the individuals are subject in the course of their interactions.” (ibid. p. 8) For the grid to function in the most efficient way, and if it is to retain the cohesiveness of a strong group, it requires a strong set of rules. To control these rules a powerful authoritative leadership, and in particular one based on ancient endorsement, is essential. Minhag without the sanction of the rabbinical authorities as either a codified ruling or as laws of vows will have little credence. Rabbi Epstein was highly conscious both of the social reality of his time and of the growing influence of the nineteenth-century Haskalah movement in Russia.4 He realized that the critical attitude towards religious customs which was ascertained by the maskilim was the result of late additions and was the product of unnecessarily strict interpretations. For the Arukh Hashulhan customs that were rooted and codified—in contrast to the maskilim—were not erroneous or in need of reform.5 Rather than deviating from the traditional norm, Rabbi Epstein required that minhag be scrutinized and placed into the proper halakhic perspective. In section Y. D. 214 Rabbi Epstein defines the type of minhag which is binding as a vow. In paragraph 23 he clarifies his stance. Included in this category of minhag are issues relating to the fulfillment of a mitzvah, as well as safeguard (geder) and refinement (seyag) to Torah commandments. He does not explicitly refer to asceticism or piety, as cited in the Shulhan Arukh, but these can probably be included within the concept which Rabbi Epstein identifies as “seyag.” Rabbi Epstein is also very clear on what does not fall within the bounds of minhag. Examples concerning food and drink, even if a specific dish is repeatedly eaten, are not considered binding as a vow. He gives the example of places where a certain type of cuisine is prepared and eaten every Shabbat. Since everyone must always cook for Shabbat, this can not be classified as a minhag. The only exception, says, Rabbi Epstein, is during a time of “suffering,” as in the period before the fast day of 9 b’Av when certain foods and even fasts days are individually prescribed, and then types of food can be categorized as minhag. The 4 5

See Etkes 1987 for a discussion on this topic. Ibid., p. 23. 147

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

Rabbi adds one additional variable to the qualifications for a minhag to be binding as a vow. It requires the endorsement of a Rabbinical scholar (talmid chacham). He writes that since no talmid chacham sanctioned such examples as food for Shabbat, this could not be included in the category of minhag. Furthermore, any minhag that is not endorsed by a talmid chacham is not recognized as an important (or correct) custom, even if it is done for the sake of a mitzvah. In paragraph 21 Rabbi Epstein explicates the concept. For example, a mistaken custom: Perhaps “a phenomenon mistakenly termed a custom?” is that of women who refrain from working after the conclusion of the Sabbath, or on Monday and Thursday fast days, or on the eve of Sabbath and holidays, as this is not sanctioned by a rabbinic scholar. Alternatively, the notion of women who abstain from work on the first day of the Hebrew month is an accepted minhag because it is codified6 and thus sanctioned by a rabbinical scholar. An additional kind of behavior that is not considered as religious ritual is the custom of standing and sitting during prayers, except for specific prayers during which one is obligated by law to stand (e.g. Shmone Esrei, known as the Amida [the standing prayer]), and these are also not included in this classification of customs. Among the latter rabbinical authorities (achronim) two adjudicators (in addition to Rabbi Epstein) engage in extensive and in-depth discussion of the theme of minhag that is binding as a vow.7 These are Rabbi Chizkiya ben David SiSilo (1659–1698), in his commentary the Pri Chadash to Shulhan Arukh Orakh Hayyim section—and Rabbi Binyamin Zev haCohen Rappaport’s Simlat Binyamin (1754–1837) in his commentary on Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 214. While Rabbi Epstein draws on both these sources in his discourse on the section, in presenting his discussion he also uses Rabbi Rappaport’s topical organizational structure of the section. Although the contents of his arguments are somewhat different, he follows the Simlat Binyamin’s literary structure. Faithful to his literary style, The Arukh Hashulhan commences with citing the Shulhan Arukh: In regards to items that are entirely permissible and everyone knows that they are able to be used, should one act as if they are prohibited then 6 7

148

See Tur Shulhan Arukh. Orach Haim, section 417. Menahem ben Solomon Meiri (1249–1315) an early rabbinic authority (also compiled a book Magen Avot on this topic, but his writing were not made available until after the death of Rabbi Epstein.

9. SOCIAL REALITY OR THE WRITTEN WORD

it is tantamount to making a serious vow that one will prohibit its use for himself. In such a case the said items are not to be permitted to such an individual. For example if one undertook to fast on the day before New Year or between New Year and Yom Kippur, and likewise to refrain from eating meat or drinking wine from the first of Av or seventeenth of Tamuz [until after the 9th of Av] the following rules apply. Should he wish to change this behavior on account of ill health, he will need a court of three to permit his vow. Since he mentally undertook to act like this for his whole life and acted, even if only once, according to his wishes, then he needs to follow the standard ritual of vow annulment confirming that he rashly swore and acted in such regrettable haste without fully comprehending his actions. Therefore, if an individual wants to forbid some permitted items in order to be more serious and pious, he should state as soon as he undertakes his stringent custom that he is not accepting them upon himself as a vow. In addition, he should also state that he only intends to act this way only once or occasionally, and not on a permanent basis. On the other hand, those who mistakenly prohibit permitted items due to a belief that these really were prohibited, are not to be considered as having made a vow. There is a second opinion that mistakenly prohibiting an item that is permitted is tantamount to a vow. In order to undo such a mistake, the individual must explain his error and use the very same procedure of a court of three used for annulling vows. In this view, if someone knew that an item was really permissible for use and purposely acted as if it were prohibited [he is stuck]. No one, even a court of three which has the ability to invalidate vows, can ever allow him to use the item. The item he undertook to forbid becomes as forbidden for him as forbidden substances which the Torah prohibited. There is no process that can ever permit them to be used. Isserles:8 We follow the first opinion.

We have elsewhere demonstrated9 Rabbi Epstein’s consideration for his constituents when ruling on his halakhic decisions. While fully cognizant of the written word as found in the views established by the rabbinical authorities, the Rabbi took social reality into consideration. That social reality often swayed him to rule leniently in cases when his 8 9

Rabbi Moshe Isserles know as the Rama (Poland, 1530–1572). See for example Chapter 3. 149

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

colleagues would choose to rule rigorously.10 Following this conceptual approach, immediately after citing Rabbi Caro, Rabbi Epstein presents an argument that places the entire issue of minhag as a binding vow in a new perspective. The Shulhan Arukh (in section 214) would seem to suggest that in order not to be bound by a minhag one should explicitly verbalize the intention to perform this minhag only provisionally, and not forever. If this is not explicitly stated, the vow is activated and a quandary concerning annulment arises. Rabbi Epstein challenges this perception of the law. Employing both rishonim and achronim to substantiate his argument, he suggests that it is not necessary to verbalize one’s intentions. It is sufficient to assert that since the individual has no wish to continuously engage in performance of this ritual, (even if we cannot prove this intention we can assume it) he is not making a vow and therefore is not bound by his action. Even if the religious ritual is repeated numerous times, action alone does not automatically lead to the creation of a vow. Rabbi Epstein (paragraph 4) suggests that this was the intent of the Shulhan Arukh in the statement, The upshot is that if one wants to forbid some permitted items in order to be more serious and pious, then he should state (verbalize) as soon as he undertakes his stringencies that he is not accepting them upon himself as a vow. In addition, he should also state that he only intends to act this way once or occasionally as he wishes and not forever.

This statement is to be interpreted, says the Arukh Hashulhan, as meaning that only if the individual intended in his heart to perform the minhag ceaselessly is he then required to explicitly state that that this is not his intention; otherwise it is sufficient for him to ponder his intent without verbalizing it. The Rabbi goes further, and states that when the individual did not explicitly think in his heart that he would initiate and continue this behavior on a permanent and uninterrupted basis, the minhag could not be classified as a binding vow. Basically, Rabbi Epstein has deflated the intensity of the issue. As a rule, the economic status and living conditions of the Jew in nineteenthcentury Eastern Europe were poor, and their lives were extremely complex. Difficulties with earning a livelihood and with political discrimination 10

150

This is especially evident in Rabbi Israel Meir Hacohen Kagan’s (Chafetz Chaim) Mishnah Berurah. See Fishbane 1991. This issue is also discussed in Soloveitchik 1994.

9. SOCIAL REALITY OR THE WRITTEN WORD

were the norm in the Jewish community. It was not uncommon in such a social-political atmosphere for people to seek stringency in their religious behavior, and to add on new religious rituals that were often manifested through asceticism11 and piety. Such behavior would provoke halakhic dilemmas similar to those discussed above. The perplexed Jews felt that their carefully regulated conduct and strict rules of behavior would bring them closer to the sacred, and thereby help to alleviate their grueling predicament. The Arukh Hashulhan reduced this halakhic tension among his constituents by relieving the individual of the need to explicitly state his intention, thus eliminating the need to annul or invalidate the minhag. After establishing the above ruling, Rabbi Epstein continues to discuss the laws which are relevant to minhag that becomes binding. His discussion is only concerned with those issues in which he emphasizes the lenient components of the laws concerning minhag. The Arukh Hashulhan reviews each point of the Shulhan Arukh, clarifying any opinion that would challenge the less stringent opinion. For example, in paragraph 12, he discusses the argument that is concerned with an illustration in which there is a general consensus that a protective ruling is issued to safeguard the community (geder) or to ensure preventive measure (seyag) in cases when one, if not careful, could bring upon oneself severe repercussions. These instances or decrees are as vows that cannot be annulled. This would seem to contradict the lenient view accepted by the Shulhan Arukh that permits all ritual customs, such as personal fast days to be annulled and discarded without the ritual of vow annulment. Rabbi Epstein differentiates between the individual and the community. When the concern is the community or the collective, the stringent view of halakhah is adopted.12 Alternatively, in the case of the individual, the vow can be annulled in accordance with the ritual procedures indicated by the lenient opinions.13 Thus the principle of the lenient rulings still stands, but with a disparate approach to the collective. In paragraph 13 the Arukh Hashulhan is concerned with the topic of personal or individual fast days (in contrast to the six public fast days14), 11 12 13

14

Similarities can be found in the black American’s history. The topic of community stringency will be discussed below. The discussion concerning Rabbi Epstein’s approach to the collective vs the individual will be discussed in greater detail below. They are Yom Kippur, 9 of Av, Tzom Gedalia, the Fast of Esther, 10th of Tevet and 17 of Tamuz. 151

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

on which the Shulhan Arukh rules that if a person does not feel physically well on days when he is accustomed to fast,15 he can exempt himself from fasting by annulling his minhag in front of a court of three judges. The Arukh Hashulhan quotes a Shulhan Arukh gloss from section 568 in Orakh Hayyim stating that it is permitted to eat on such a fast day, without requiring an annulment of the ritual custom. For example, when a circumcision occurs, it is considered a mitzvah to eat at the (circumcision) festive meal and one therefore does not fast. Since it is also not customary to fast when one is ill, the ritual custom of fasting should automatically be discarded. This would seem to be a contradiction in the Shulhan Arukh. Rabbi Epstein purports that from the psychological perspective, this is a matter of one’s intention. As it is generally accepted that at festive meals, as in the case with circumcision, people do not fast; thus there never really was any intent of the person to fast on this day. Consequently, the minhag is automatically discarded. In the case of illness, however, people usually do not think about being sick. And then, fear arises that the individual might wish to discard his fasting entirely, and in this instance an annulment would be required. Rabbi Joseph Caro concludes his ruling in paragraph 1 concerning the annulment of the practice by writing, “then he needs to follow the standard ritual of vow annulment confirming that he rashly swore and acted in such regrettable haste without fully comprehending his actions.” In paragraph 14 Rabbi Epstein challenges this opinion. In reality the Arukh Hashulhan argues the observance of a minhag is not legally considered a vow, so that there is no cause for the individual to “be remorseful.” Rabbi Epstein offers a different approach. He suggests, for example, that if the person states that if he knew that a time would come when it would be difficult to fast he would have stipulated that fasting should not be considered as a vow. Without exploring the halakhic meaning of this statement, what is clear is that by extracting minhag from the legal connotation of vows, Rabbi Epstein, reduced the stringency of the law. In addition, taking ritual custom out of the formal category of vow allows for a lenient ruling when and if additional problematic questions may arise. In paragraph 15, Rabbi Epstein commences his discussion of the Shulhan Arukh’s second paragraph in which Rabbi Caro writes,

15

152

This is referring to a case that he was cognizant that it was not an obligatory fast but chose to fast on certain specific days.

9. SOCIAL REALITY OR THE WRITTEN WORD

When the public at large undertakes to practice certain stringencies they and their descendants are bound to keep these [stringencies]. This is so even if they did not formally agree to enact the prohibitions but found reason to accept them based on their functionality in helping them [the observant Jews] observe the letter of the Torah’s law.

The author of the Arukh Hashulhan assumes a novel stance in his halakhic thinking. While in the first part of section 214, leniency and the individual’s needs were the underlying motivation in the Rabbi’s adjudicative process, stringency now becomes the principal guideline for his rulings. Rabbi Epstein was acutely aware of the organizational needs of the Jewish community. To keep the cohesiveness of the society intact, unified religious behavior is required. A community that practices conflicting minhagim would endanger its own social stability. Therefore, states the Arukh Hashulhan, a custom adapted knowingly by the members of a community can never be abandoned by that generation, and a community minhag established by their forefathers can under no circumstances be annulled. Later, in paragraphs 28, 29 and 30, the Rabbi writes extensively to support his own view and rebuff contrary opinions. In paragraph 20, in discussing the concluding section of paragraph 2 of the Shulhan Arukh Rabbi Epstein emphasizes his stringency approach in a collective setting. The Shulhan Arukh states in paragraph 2: By the same token anyone coming to live in a city must respect all the rules of its inhabitants and must obey their enactments. Should it happen that the city from which one departed practiced stringencies and his new city did not act the same way, one is free to drop the former practice as long as he does not intend to return to his former city.

The Arukh Hashulhan is concerned with the Talmudic debate16 about a person who relocates to a new city that practices different customs than those common to his former city.17 Does the individual then adhere to the ritual he practiced in his prior place of residence, or does he adopt the customs of his new locale? Rabbi Epstein emphasizes the Shulhan Arukh’s view that even in the case of stringency, if you are relocating, you must follow the customs of the new location. If your intention is only to remain 16 17

See BT Pesachim chapter 4, for the Talmudic discussion. The geographical boundaries of a city begin from 2000 amot (.6 of a mile or .97 kilometers) from the official city limits. 153

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

in the new locality as a temporary resident you can practice the customs of your first city, but only in private. If the individual is unsure of whether he will remain in the new locale or return to his previous city, in contrast to the rabbinic principle18 of leniency, he must follow the stringent custom. In other words, in paragraph 24 Rabbi Epstein argues that all ritual custom is only a rabbinic law (in contrast to a Biblical law) and therefore the principle when in doubt behave leniently does not apply to a community situation in which one is required to adhere to the stringent custom. Although not included in the text of section 214 of the Shulhan Arukh, the Arukh Hashulhan includes in his discussion of vows and customs the principle “custom abrogates (supersedes) the law.”19 This expression is a popular maxim, often quoted when one desires to discard a law in favor of a custom. Rabbi Epstein insists that if a custom contradicts even a rabbinic law, the custom must be aborted. The Arukh Hashulhan goes so far as to state that if the people do not permit the Rabbis to do away with the undesirable custom, it is preferable to ignore this and to be silent about their incorrect behavior. This can be justified through the application of the principle “it is preferable to err than to deliberately transgresses the law.“20 If the custom contradicts a Biblical law the Rabbi must “protest with all his strength.” Although Rabbi Epstein understood the importance of unity in the community, he did not ignore his concern for the individual Jew. He therefore chooses to apply the principle, “it is preferable to err than 18

19

20

154

According to rabbinic law, in contrast to biblical law, when in doubt be lenient, as the A. H. discusses in paragraph 5. This principle is based upon the statements in the Jerusalem Talmud Baba Metziah 7:1 11b and Yebamot 12:1 12c. The Talmud uses the expression minhag mivatel (abrogates) halacha while Rabbi Epstein writes oker (uproots) the law. The principle is discussed at length by Roth 1986, 211–217, and Elon 1994 volume 2, pp. 713–767. This principle is discussed in the Arukh Hashulhan Orakh Hayyim, section 608, paragraphs 4–7. In these paragraphs Rabbi Epstein, based upon Talmudic statements and developed by the early rabbinical authorities, presents the parameters for applying this principle. If a person errs in law and thinks something is permitted when it is forbidden and if it is not specifically cited in the Pentateuch we can apply the principle. Also, you must be certain that your attempt to get the individual to change his behavior is futile. In our discussion in 214, the Arukh Hashulhan does not differentiate between explicitly stated in the Bible and a general Biblical prohibition. Rabbi Epstein in quoting the language of the Simlat Binyamin (paragraph 11) that only states if it is Biblical law.

9. SOCIAL REALITY OR THE WRITTEN WORD

to deliberately transgresses the law” when other adjudicators are silent. Alternatively, in a case when even a minority of adjudicators support a custom that abrogates a rabbinic law, it is permissible to follow the custom. While practice (minhag) of the community is important for Rabbi Epstein, he does not lose perspective—law is law, and custom is custom.

Summary At the outset I defined ritual as primarily “authoritatively designated and intrinsically valued.” We have seen that rabbinic authority plays a significant role in the sphere of minhag. Adding ritual custom to the laws of vows, with all its requirements and rabbinic intricacies, would clearly suggest enormous control by the Rabbi adjudicator. In his discussion of the theories of sociology of power (1977, p. 18) Martin quotes Talcott Parson’s definition: “Power then is generalized capacity to secure the performance of binding obligations by units in a system of collective organization when the obligations are legitimized with reference to their bearing on collective goals . . .”21 By virtue of their rabbinic adjudicator status,22 the Rabbis, through the power of halakhah, have both the authority and ability to secure binding obligations and to legitimize their decisions. Continuing the analysis of Parson’s statement, Martin writes that “legitimized with reference to their bearing on collective goals” can be understood as “it is collective and not individual goals which are important.” In other words, if we examine the social process of the collective, it is the group’s and the community’s rather than the individual’s needs that must be constantly scrutinized under the microscope. Rabbi Epstein applied this theory (in the Mary Douglas sense) to communal issues relating to ritual custom that were subject to stringent rulings. Stringency suggests tighter control, leading to greater cohesiveness and consolidation of the Jewish community. However, when only the individual’s needs are involved, and when such needs do not affect the unity of the community, the Rabbi will seek out lenient rulings even when this requires reinterpretation of the Shulhan Arukh. 21 22

He is referring to a conventional understanding of power. The status of rabbi and adjudicator requires to be recognized by the collective. One is not voted into this position but the status is acquired by recognition of ones scholarship. 155

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

As a final point, the different topics as well as the manner in which Rabbi Epstein approached the subject matter have been discussed by many rabbinical authorities in their responsa and commentaries to the Talmud throughout the history of Halakhah. My purpose in this essay is not to review or discuss these works of the Rabbis. Rabbi Shmuel David (1984) in his admirable presentation of minhag has presented a summary and analysis of this literature. Rather, my intent is to show Rabbi Epstein’s attitude towards the individual and community as expressed in his halakhic compendium. While there is no doubt that the Arukh Hashulhan was well acquainted with rabbinic literature regarding minhag, his choice of laws and their interpretations serve to reflect and express his worldview.

Minhag In his discussion of religious rituals, Rabbi Shmuel David (1984, p. 79) differentiates between the use of the terms minhag and nahagu in rabbinic literature; Minhag, he suggests, refers to cases in which custom is sanctioned by the rabbis, what he terms a kosher minhag. Although it does not have the force of halakhah, the rabbis rule in accordance with its practice. Nahagu, he argues, does not adhere to the law, but if the custom is so practiced, the rabbis do not raise any objection. The Arukh Hashulhan takes a different approach to the term minhag and to its application. Even a cursory examination of the nine volumes of the Arukh Hashulhan reveals continuous use of the word minhag in various grammatical forms, as well as within various rabbinical phrases. I suggest that Rabbi Epstein did not indicate different definitions for the use of the term, but in point of fact he used the word in different meaning and with different connotations depending on the specific context. The term serves diverse functions and has varying connotations. For example: 1. It is found as a term used in the resolution of a conflict between two rabbinical views. I suggest that the majority of the applications of the term fall within the scope of this category. 2. The term is used to designate the practice followed by the community. In the context of 1 and 2, the Arukh Hashulhan repeatedly states “this is the custom and it should not be altered.” 3. The expression is also used simply to refer to custom that has little halakhic empowerment but is ritually observed by individuals or the community; it is a kosher minhag. The fact that the term falls under a category that is considered to be of a status superior to that of secular custom creates an independent halakhic echelon (minimal as it may be) to 156

9. SOCIAL REALITY OR THE WRITTEN WORD

be controlled by the Rabbinical authorities. In the Arukh Hashulhan, Rabbi Epstein also discusses instances of ethnic and community customs, as well as misguided and erroneous minhagim.23 What is important for the purposes of this essay is the Rabbi’s primary concern with his community, and the need to impose order and social unity amongst its members. His intent (in analyzing Jewish law) was to avoid disputes or quarrels and, wherever there was some leeway, to justify even an erroneous custom. When this was not possible, he placed the ritual custom into the category of erroneous minhagim. The bulk of customs and the term minhag reflect Rabbi Epstein’s worldview, as discussed above. To cite selected examples of each definition (for the sake of clarity and using the above numbers to identify the categories): 1. In Orakh Hayyim, section 70, paragraph 3, when discussing the obligation of a parent to educate a minor son to recite the kriyat shema prayer, the Rabbi states: “It is proper to act [practice] as Rabbi Tam’s opinion, [to educate the minor to recite the prayer] and this is how we direct our children to pray every day.” 2. In Orakh Hayyim, section 2, paragraph 8 the Arukh Hashulhan, quoting the Shulhan Arukh, discusses how to don one’s shoes. After citing different opinions he states, “This is the custom and it should not be changed.” 2b. Orakh Hayyim, section 58, paragraph 13 discusses the time of day that the kriyat shema prayer may be recited. Rabbi Epstein writes that one should recite the prayer (perform the practice) according to the time zone in which the individual resides. He should not be concerned with other time zones where, for example, it is night time when it is day for him. The minhag or correct practice should follow the region in which the individual lives. 3. In Orakh Hayyim, section 4, paragraph 20 discussing how a Jew should conduct himself when waking in the morning, he writes, The practice is to say [the following prayer] immediately when rising from his bed [in the morning] ‘I gratefully thank you O living thing and Eternal King, for You have returned my soul within me with compassion— abundant is Your faithfulness’24even if his hands are not [ritually] clean since he does not recite the name of God [in the prayer text]. 23

24

For a discussion of erred ritual customs see Soerber 1991, 76–125 and David 1982, 29–135. Translations from the prayers in this essay are adapted from The Complete ArtScroll Siddur, 1984. 157

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

3a. In Orakh Hayyim, section 57, paragraph 1 the Arukh Hashulhan states that while citing the prayer “Blessed is God the blessed One for all eternity” it is the custom to bow slightly. He concludes by saying, “This is the minhag for all (pashut).” 3b. In Orakh Hayyim, section 60, paragraph 9 while discussing the laws of kriyat shema and the prayers adjacent to the Shema, Rabbi Epstein writes, “It is customary to gather the fringes together when reciting the prayer bring us in peacefulness from the four corners of the earth.” There are those whose custom is only to grasp two [of the four] fringes, and on reaching [the verse] ‘that you may see it’, it is customary to gaze at the fringes and it is traditional to kiss them. All these issues are for the sake of affection towards the mitzvah, but legally they do not stand in the way of fulfilling the commandment.” The unique weltanschauung of the Rabbi’s stance and feelings towards his fellow Jew is reflected in his discussion of minhag. If the custom is to perform a specific ritual even though it might cause halakhic tribulations, the Arukh Hashulhan will seek out a justification for the dubious behavior.25 This attitude is clearly articulated in the Shulhan Arukh Orakh Hayyim, section 338, paragraph 8. Rabbi Epstein is concerned with the behavior of cantors in the synagogue on the Sabbath.26 In order to perform adequately during the prayer service, they hold a tuning fork between (or against) their teeth to enable them to hear the musical note and thereby reach the proper key while singing. This, he states, is a violation of the Sabbath rule which prohibits the use of musical instruments on the Sabbath. He ascribes this incorrect behavior of the cantors to the sins of the generation, and says it should in fact be prohibited. However, he states, “it is out of our hands for there is nothing we can do about it for the majority of 25

26

158

The justification of ritual customs is found throughout the history and development of rabbinic literature. For a review of this literature see David 1982, 77–79 and 99–106 and Katz 1998, 88–127. Rabbi Epsteins’s frustration and disapproval of various actions by Cantors is expressed elsewhere in the Arukh Hashulhan. In Orakh Hayyim, section 66, paragraph 11 Rabbi Epstein states that when reciting the “shema” prayer the cantors prefer to repeat the concluding word emet twice. This he writes is on their part a great sin. Also in Orakh Hayyim, section 53, paragraph 6 when discussing who is worthy to lead the prayer service Rabbi Epstein writes that “as a result of our sins in our time the power of the masses is too strong especially in the area of Cantors and it is not in our power to impede them, ‘may the Lord have mercy on them etc.” See also paragraph 13.

9. SOCIAL REALITY OR THE WRITTEN WORD

the people support the cantors’ behavior.” Rabbi Epstein would not abandon even a problematic custom practiced by Jews for decades. He would seek a halakhic justification for the Jewish people’s behavior. One must justify the actions of the Jews, since they cannot be sinners and “we cannot say that Jewish people are transgressing the Sabbath, especially when they are standing before the King of Kings [in prayer].” Through the use of legalisms (pilpul), the Arukh Hashulhan then elucidates why this type of action does not fall under the category of prohibitions of musical instruments. Immediately following this discussion, in the form of a gloss, Rabbi Epstein broaches another additional problematic, and perhaps even intolerable, custom practiced by the cantors while leading the prayers. To enhance their musical performance, they repeat words and phrases two or three times. In addition, they spread their music sheets on the podium or table at which they stand while leading the prayers. Rabbi Epstein argues that both these practices are halakhically not acceptable. Although Rabbi Epstein would have preferred to halt these kinds of actions by the cantors carried out during the prayer service, he realized that this would be a losing battle. The Arukh Hashulhan explains, first of all, that the cantors are obstinate on this point arguing that their musical performances contribute to the joy of the Sabbath and holidays. Following his literary pattern, Rabbi Epstein continues to find a halakhic justification both for the repetition of words from the liturgy as well as for spreading music sheets on the podium during the prayer service. Not completely at ease with his decision and with this clarification, he concludes the paragraph by using the Rabbinic phrase, “It is preferable to act unwittingly than to sin purposely.”27 In Orakh Hayyim, section 128, paragraphs 63 and 65, the Arukh Hashulhan is concerned with the fact that the priests only bless the congregation on certain holidays. Based upon earlier rabbinical adjudicators, he argues that the priests should perform the ritual of blessing the people on a daily basis. He writes that the fact that the ritual is not performed thus is a dismal custom. “It is as if a voice from heaven forbids us to bless the congregation all year long.” To justify our behavior, (with a heavy heart) Rabbi Epstein reverts to Rabbi Isserles’s argument in paragraph 63 that priests only bless the congregation on holidays—days when we are all joyful. 27

Tractates Shabbat 146b and Betza 30a. 159

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

In addition, to seek out justification for actions that would seem to negate the law, Rabbi Epstein makes a great effort to explain why many minhagim are practiced. Although other rabbinical authorities might offer elucidations of a custom, it is the combination of the reason selected and the approach to the individual which distinguish Rabbi Epstein’s writings. To cite a few examples: In Orakh Hayyim, section 3, paragraph 1 and 2, the Arukh Hashulhan discusses the laws concerning relieving oneself. According to the instructions of the Talmud (BT Sabbath 119b, BT Berakhot 60 and BT Haggigah 16a), and in accordance with the ruling of the Shulhan Arukh paragraph 1, one should recite specific prayers before entering the toilet. This is so that the two angels who accompany each person during the day will wait for him until he emerges from there. Rabbi Epstein elucidates why in our times we do not recite these prayers. Do we not also have these issues? For us, he argues and explains, since we are not conscious of the angels’ presence, it would be arrogant to recite the prayer. He concludes with the words “this is the principle; this is the minhag.”28 This explanation is also found in Rabbi Caro’s commentary on the Tur Shulhan Arukh (section 3, sub-paragraph 1), but he offers the additional rationale that since we are not God-fearing, it is not proper for us to recite these verses. Rabbi Epstein cites only the first of these explications, in which he refuses to see the Jew in a negative and demeaning light. In Orakh Hayyim, section 299, paragraphs 20–21, the Arukh Hashulhan discusses the ritual required of women at the close of the Sabbath. A man will typically recite the evening prayers, and on Saturday night these prayers will include the ata chonantanu. The havdalah ceremony is then recited accompanied by wine, candles and spices. This ritual is usually performed by the head of the household for all its members. Women, who by and large do not pray, developed the custom of lighting candles (as well as performing other household chores forbidden on the Sabbath) as soon as the Sabbath ended, and before participating in the havdalah ceremony. This behavior by the women disturbed the Rabbis. How can they work before ritually taking leave of the Sabbath? Rabbi Epstein quotes the gloss of Rabbi Isserles, who wants to differentiate between types of work, permitting some, such as lighting the candles and prohibiting others, such as weaving. The Arukh Hashulhan argues 28

160

The Mishnah Berurah in sub-paragraph 1 chooses the second reason that Rabbi Epstein avoided.

9. SOCIAL REALITY OR THE WRITTEN WORD

that one cannot differentiate between forms or categories of work; they all should be prohibited. Rabbi Epstein offers a different approach. He divides the process of exiting from the Sabbath into two categories. The first is a time factor. When the designated times arrive, the Sabbath is concluded automatically and no ritual is mandatory to achieve this closure. Secondly, just as there is a mitzvah to symbolize the arrival of the Sabbath, so too there is a mitzvah to symbolically indicate its termination. This latter ritual does not deter one from performing weekday activities; it is rather a failure regarding the symbolic recognition of the end of the Sabbath. The Arukh Hashulhan concludes in paragraph 21: This answers the minhag [that women light candles immediately after the conclusion of the Sabbath without any formal prayer or ritual]. It is preferable that every head of the household instruct his family that when they light candles after the Sabbath they should first recite the words ‘that separates between holy and profane.”

Rabbi Epstein has succeeded in justifying the custom while explaining why the women’s behavior is not halakhically inappropriate or sinful. Though one may work, one still should recite the necessary verse to exit the Sabbath. In Yoreh Deah, section 265, paragraph 10, the Arukh Hashulhan discusses the process occurring when the mohel (individual who performs the circumcision ritual), does the cutting of the foreskin, the priya (separation of the foreskin) and when he recites the appropriate blessing. He is troubled by the protest and objection of a major halakhic adjudicator, Rabbi Abraham Danzig,29 the author of the Chachmat Adam (Principle 149, paragraph 19), to the practice and custom of the mohel of cutting the foreskin while reciting the blessing for the circumcision ritual. The grievance is based upon a halakhic principle, over laasiyatam. In other words, the ritual must be performed only after the blessing is recited. In our case in point, the mohel is not reciting the blessing before cutting the foreskin. Rabbi Epstein offers two explanations30 to not only justify the custom and the actions of the mohalim, but also to establish it as the 29

30

Germany, Born 1748 and died 1820. The Chachmat Adam was first published in Vilna in 1814. A similar discussion of this issue can be found in this section of the commentaries to Rabbi Caro’s Shulhan Arukh. 161

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

correct method of performing the ritual. He suggests that the case of circumcision is comparable to bread cutting. The blessing is to be recited while cutting the bread, and only after conclusion of the consecration is there finalization of the separation of the slice from the loaf. Thus the performance of the ritual follows the blessing. In the case of circumcision, too, the completion of the cut occurs after the blessing is recited. A second elucidation offered by the Arukh Hashulhan suggests that the cut does not comprise the entire mitzvah. The commandment is only fulfilled after the priya is concluded. The blessing is said before this portion of the ritual begins, and thus the query of over lasiyatam is irrelevant. Rabbi Epstein concludes by declaring, “We therefore find that the manner in which the mohalim [perform the ritual] is appropriate and is built upon the foundations of the law.” Rabbi Epstein’s discussion of religious ritual is symbolic and representative of his halakhic philosophy. For him, the individual Jew who has the best religious intentions should not be classified as a sinner and reprimanded. If there are customs that are dubious or disputed they must be (if possible) vindicated, and explained so as to place the behavior of the observant Jew in a positive context. The Rabbis from earlier times elucidate this approach when they write31 “that if the Jews are not prophets, they are at least the sons of prophets.” In other words, since this is what a Jew does, there must be validity in most of his ritual behavior. The Rabbi also understood the power of minhag. In his discussion of kapparot (O.H 206, 5) he writes that people give more credence to the custom of kapparot than to the Biblical commandment to take an etrog on the holiday of Sukkot. The Rabbi understood that to retain the cohesiveness and stability of the community, and to retain the Rabbinical religious authority, it is preferable (when halakhically possible) to legitimize disputed customs and to place them under the authority of the Rabbi. In conclusion, we may view the stance of the Arukh Hashulhan in a social theoretical perspective. Bell (1997 pp. 22–29) in her discussion of ritual and society suggests that32 Durkheim’s explanation of the ritual process was contained in his conclusion that religion as a social phenomenon is a set of ideas and practices through which people sacralize the social structure and bonds of the community. In this way, religion or 31 32

162

Tractate Pesachim 66a. This sociological discussion is adapted from Bell 1997, 34–60. The sources for the scholars cited are cited in her work.

9. SOCIAL REALITY OR THE WRITTEN WORD

religious ritual functions to ensure the priority—albeit an unconscious one—of communal activity. Durkheim further states that “ritual is the means by which individuals are brought together as a collective group. Ritual functions to strengthen the bonds attaching the individual to the society of which he is a member.” Durkheim’s student, Alfred RadcliffeBrown, took up his theory of the importance of its social role in securing and maintaining the unity of the group. Radcliffe-Brown used an organic metaphor to explain this social understanding of ritual and society. He argued that each custom and belief plays a particular role in the social life of the “primitive” community in the same way that every organ of a living body plays some part in the general life of the organism. Therefore, for these social scientists and their students, “ritual is a means to regulate and stabilize the life of this system, adjust its internal interactions, maintain its group’s ethos and restore a state of harmony after any disturbance. As such, religion and ritual are mechanisms with a particularly vital role to play in maintaining the system.”33 Rabbi Yechiel Mechel Halevi Epstein, the author of the Arukh Hashulhan, was not a social scientist; he was a great traditional Rabbi and adjudicator who had a deep feeling for his community and people. The Rabbi grasped both the power of minhag, and the deep need for it. Notwithstanding the lack of any formal secular training, he was able to apply these sociological theories to the pursuit of an ideal Jewish society.

33

Bell 1997, 28–29. 163

THE BOLDNESS OF A HALAKHIST

164

Appendix: A GRAPHOLOGIST’S REPORT by Graphologist Batya Cohen

The writer has an interesting combination of opposites, between his external and internal expression, where the external shows modesty, shyness, and a desire to remain out of the spotlight, whereas the internal expression shows tremendous stability, a very wide range of knowledge, and a very high level of spirituality, to the extent that there is a certain difficulty in reaching him—in being able to really understand him. The writer is full of power and energy—but he utilizes these only intellectually. A person who thinks unceasingly, analyzes, researches, examines thoroughly and in depth. He is very careful in anything related to reaching conclusions. His control and confidence are by means of his great knowledge. He does not flaunt at all his level of ability, and evidently everything related to material life—such as the pleasures of food, sex and sleep—is rejected by him. He is like a man who does not live his life in the world as we understand it. His intellectual ability is very high and is expressed in his amazing analytical ability, his thinking which encompasses the smallest of details, thoroughness, profundity, an exceptional memory and the ability to concentrate. He has the ability to discern among people and a very high logical ability. What is especially prominent in this area is his exceptional intuitive ability, which is derived from an inner light, to the extent that he has the ability to see a number of steps in the future. He is unceasingly involved in spiritual matters. He has very great willpower. He shows diligence (hatmadah) and an ability to stick to a goal. He has the proper balance and proportion of qualities, this being expressed in a certain sublimation. A person with an intellectual and cold approach to life rather than an emotional and warm one. He is pragmatic, responsible, and has tremendous control over himself; self-criticism, restraint, the intellect controlling emotion, objectivity and profound deliberation. A great deal of restraint and suppression of the negative qualities of man, such as aggression, laziness, haughtiness, anger, as well as suppression of material passion and desires. A striving for absolute justice— 165

APPENDIX: A GRAPHOLOGIST’S REPORT

a person who does not compromise on matters related to morals, to justice and to truth. One with a great deal of faith, a very great feeling of responsibility to be involved in unceasing construction. A person who honours all sorts of people even if they are simple and not scholars. He knows to find the good that can be drawn from every person. The writer has a great deal of patience for those different from him and a very great deal of readiness to learn from others while analyzing what he sees, so as to adopt the important and reject the dross. In summation: Most of the energy of the writer is invested in a continuous preoccupation with spiritual matters. He has unceasing tendencies of progress and development on the plane related to analysis, studying new things, arriving at conclusions and building interesting theories based on the thorough investigation of the facts. As the writer is enriched internally, he becomes more modest externally. It appears very clearly that the writer is a person who has worked on his qualities in the direction of balance by suppressing his negative qualities and developing, increasing and fostering the good, while ascending spiritually, as he employs strong will power and strong efforts to this.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography

Abramowitz, Dov Ber (editor). 1903. Bet Vaad Lachachmim, Year 1 No. 1. New York. Adler, Ruth. 1980. Women of the Shtetl: Through the Eyes of Y.L. Peretz. Farleigh Dickinson University Press. Aronson, I. 1973. Russian Bureaucratic Attitudes Towards the Jews. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Northwestern University. Baron, Salo. 1964. The Russian Jew under Tsars and Soviets. New York: Macmillan. Bell, Catherine. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. . 1997. Ritual: Perspective and Dimensions. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Berk, S. 1985. Year of Crisis, Year of Hope. Connecticut, London: Greenwood Press. Berlin, Naftali Zvi Judah. 1892. She’lot u-Teshuvot Meshiv Davar. Warsaw. 2 volumes. Berlin, Meir. 1939. Mevelozin ad Yerushalaim. Tel Aviv: Yalkut. (Hebrew) Berger, Peter. 1969. The Sacred Canopy. New York: Anchor Books. Bird, Fredrick. 1979. “The Nature and Function of Ritual Forms: A Sociological Discussion” in Studies in Religion 9, 1:387–402. . 1995. “Ritual as a Communicative Action” in Ritual and Ethnic Identity edited by Jack Lightstone and Fredrick Bird. Waterloo, Canada: Wifred Laurier Press. Brayer, Menachem M. 1986. The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav. Brown, Benyamin. 2007. “Soft Stringency in the Mishnah Berurah: The Jurisprudential, Sociological and Ideological Aspects of Halakhic Formulation” in Contemporary Jewry 27, pp. 1–41. Caro, Yosef. Shulhan Arukh. Standard Edition. Charlesworth J.H. (editor). 1985. “Letter of Aristeas” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. New York: Doubleday & Company. Cohen, Anthony. 1985. The Symbolic Construction of Community. London and New York: Tavistock Publications and Ellis Horwood Limited. David, Shmuel. 1982. Ner Lezrah Volume 3. Israel. (Hebrew) Deshen, Shlomo. 1974. “The Situational Analysis of Symbolic Action and Change” in The Predicament of Homecoming. Deshen Shlomo and Shokeid Moshe editors. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Douglas Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger. First Edition. London, Boston, Melbourne and Henely: Ark Paperbacks. 167

BIBLIOGRAPHY

. 1978. Cultural Bias. London: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. Dubnov, S.M. 1918. History of the Jews in Russia and Poland. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America. . 1918. History of the Jews in Russia and Poland, Volume II. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society. Eckman, Lester Samuel. 1975. The History of the Musar Movement:1840- 1945. New York: Shengold Publishers. Electricity and the Sabbath. 1975. Jerusalem: The Institute for Science and Halacha. (Hebrew) Elon, Menachem. 1994. Jewish Law. Philadelphia, Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication Society. Encylopaedia Britannica. 1958. Chicago, London, Toronto: William Benton Publishers. Encyclopedia Judaica (volume 6). 1972. Section on Epstein, Jehiel Michal ben Aaron Isaac Halevi. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing. . (volume 15) section on Moses Sofer. Epstein, Barukh. 1954. Mekor Barukh. New York: Mop Press. Epstein, Yechiel Mechel. 2006. Arukh Hashulkhan. Friedman edition, Machon Oz Vhadar, Israel. Etkes, Emanuel. 1987. “Immanent Factors and External Influences in the Development of the Haskalah Movement in Russia” in Toward Modernity edited by Jacob Katz. New Brunswick and Oxford: Transaction Books. Etkes, Immanuel. 1982. Rabbi Israel Salanter. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. Farber, Roberta Rosenberg and Fishbane Simcha. 2007. Jewish Studies in Violence. USA: University Press of America. Fishbane, Simcha. 1990. “Method and Form in Halakhic Literature: A Different Approach to the Study of Modern Jewish Law,” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion, No. 1, Vol. 2, Spring 1990. . 1990b. “The Supra-Legal Materials in Rabbi Israel Mayer Hacohen’s Mishnah Berurah,” Essays in the Social Scientific Study of Judaism and Jewish Society. S. Fishbane and J. Lightstone, eds. Montreal, Canada: Concordia University Press. . 1991. The Method and Meaning of the Mishnah Berurah. Hoboken N.J.: Ktav Publishing. , editor. 1991b. Arukh Hashulhan. Volume 9. Hoboken N.J.: Ktav Publishing. . 1992. “The Genre of the Shulhan Arukh Commentators—Mishnah Berurah” in Journal of Rabbis in Academia. Volume 2, Number 1, Jan. 1992. . 1993. “In Any Case There are no Sinful Thoughts:” The Role and Status of Women in Jewish Law as Expressed in the Arukh Hashulhan.” Judaism Volume 42, Number 4. Fall 1993. . 1994. “Today, Not Yesteryear—Rabbi Y.M. Epstein’s Adjudicative Process as Expressed in the Arukh Hashulhan,” in Proceedings of the 11th World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem. 168

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ganzfreid. Kitzur Shulhan Arukh. Standard Edition. Gevul Olam. 1903. Jerusalem. Gifter, M. 1956. “Yeshivas Telz,” in Mirsky, S., Jewish Institutions of Higher Learning in Europe—Their Development and Destruction. New York: Ogen Publishing House. Gingerich, Orland. 1972. The Amish Of Canada. Waterloo: Conrad Press. Heilman, D. 1989. “Leshonot Hamiri Shenictivu Leteshuvat Haminim” in Tzfunot, vol. 1, no. 1. Bnei Brak. Homa, Bernard. 1913. A Fortress in Anglo-Jewry. Saint Ives, London: Latin Press. Horovitz Yehuda Aharon. 2007. Kitvei HaArukh Hasulchan: Jerusalem, Oholei Sefer. Hostetler, John. 1963. Amish Society. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press. Kagan, Israel Meir Hacohen. Mishnah Berurah. (Hebrew) Kagan, Israel Meir Hacohen. Mishnah Berurah. Standard Edition. Katznelbogen, Shaul. 1989. Responsa Magen Shaul. Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalaim. Katz, Dov. 1963. Tnuat Hamusar. Tel Aviv: Avraham Zioni. Katz, Jacob. 1979. Jewish Nationalism. Israel: World Zionist Organization. (Hebrew) . 1986. Jewish Emancipation and Self-Emancipation. Philadelphia, New York, and Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society. . 1998. Divine Law in Human Hands, Case Studies in Halakhic Flexibility. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. Kosofsky–Shachor, Yaacov, 2005. “Toldot Hagaon Baal Haaruckh Hashulhan” in Yeshurun. Volume 15. Kuzmack, Linda Gordon. 1986. The Emergence of the Women’s Movement in England and the United States, 1881–1933: A Comparative Study. Ph.D. thesis on file at George Washington University. Landau, Shlomo Zalman and Yosef Rabbinowitz, editors. 1900. Or Lesharim Warsaw: Halter Press. Lendge, E. 1973. Hilkhot Eruvin. Israel: Keren Lhantzachat Kedoshim. (Hebrew) Levenberg, Schneier. 1991. The Enigma of Soviet Jewry. England: Glenvil Group. Levi, Leo. 1981. Shaarei Talmud Torah. Israel. Levitas, Isaac. 1943. The Jewish Community in Russia 1772–1844. New York: Columbia University Press. . 1981. The Jewish Community in Russia. Jerusalem: Posner and Sons Ltd. Lightstone Jack. 1988. Society, the Sacred and Scripture in Ancient Judaism. Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University Press. Maagaznick M. 1913. Hayehudim B’Rusyah. Warsaw. Maimon, Yehudah Leb. 1947. Anashim shel Tzurah. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) . 1959. Medei Chodesh b’Chodsho. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) . 1961. Sarei Hameia. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook. (Hebrew) Malina, B.J. 1986. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox Press. 169

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Martin, Robert. 1977. The Sociology of Power. London, Henley and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Medini, Chaim. Sdei Chemed. Israel: Bet Hasofer. (Hebrew) Mendelsohn, Ezra. 1970. Class Struggle in the Pale, The Formative Years of the Jewish Worker’s Movement in Czarist Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nathanson, Y.S.H. 1829. Shoel uMeshiv. Levuv. (Hebrew) Neusner, Jacob. 1992. Talmudic Thinking. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press. Peretz, Y.L. 1947. Stories and Pictures. Helena Frank, tr. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society. Pinkas Novoredock Memorial Book. 1963. Published by Alexander Harkavey Navaredecker Relief Committee in U.S.A. and Navardocker Committee in Israel. Israel. Porath, Jonathan. 1973. Jews in Russia, The Last Four Centuries. New York: United Synagogue Book Service. Purves Fredrick, Editor. 1960. The Focal Encyclopdia of Photography. New York: Macmillan Company. Robinson, Ira. 1990. “Literary Forgery and Hasidic Judaism: The Case of Rabbi Yodel Rosenberg.” Judaism. Vol. 40, No. 1. Winter 1990. Rosen, Michael. 2007. “The Interaction of Kabbalah and Halachah in the Aruch Ha Shulhan.” Internet publication: http://www.maqom.com/journal/paper22. pdf Roth, Joel. 1986. The Halakhic Process. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America. Saperstein, Marc. 1988. “Sermons and Jewish Society: The Case of Prague,” a paper delivered at a conference on Jacob Katz’s Tradition and Crisis. Harvard. . 1988. Jewish Preaching, 1200–1800—An Anthology. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. . 1996. “Your Voice is like a Ram’s Horn:” Themes and Texts in Traditional Jewish Preaching. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press. Schacter, J.J. 1990. “Haskalah, Secular Studies and the Close of the Yeshiva in Volozhen in 1892,” in The Torah U-Maada Journal, Vol. II. New York. Schneerson, S. 1978. Shulhan Arukh Harav. New York: Ozar Hasidim. Sharot, Stephen. 1991. “Judaism and the Secularization Debate,” to be published in Sociological Analysis. Scherman N. and Zlotowitz M. editors. 1984. The Complete ArtScroll Siddur. New York: Mesorah Publications Ltd. Shneur Zalman of Lyady. Shulhan Arukh Harav. Standard Edition. Shreibman, Mordechai. 1908. Minhkat Mordechai. Rumania: Yaacov Vieder Press. Stampfer, Shaul. 1981. Three Lithuanian Yeshivot in the 19th Century, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University. (Recently published in Hebrew under the name Hayeshiva Halitait Bhithavutah, Jerusalem, 1986). Shweid, Eliezer. 1977. Orthodoxy and Religious Humanism. Jerusalem: Van Leer Jerusalem Foundation. (Hebrew) 170

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Soloveitchik, Haym. 1994. “Rupture and Reconstruction: The Transformation of Contemporary Orthodoxy” in Tradition. Volume 28, No. 4. Summer 1994, pp. 64–130. Sperber Daniel. 1989. Minhagei Yisrael Volume 1. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook. . 1991. Minhagei Yisrael Volume 2. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook. Stanislovska, Efraim. 1895. Samma D’chaii. Berdetchev: Shtempel Press. Tarshish, A.Z. 1967. Rabbi Barukh Halevi Epstein. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook. Tertis, Alexander. 1900. Dom Bris. London: Ginsberg Press. Vaksman, Nisan. 1980. “HaGaon Baal Arukh Hashulhan” in Shana bShana Israel (Hebrew). Weinberger, Moshe. 1986. “On Studying Secular Subjects,” in Journal of Halakhah and Contemporary Society, XI. Yerushalmi, Y.H. 1976. The Libson Massacre of 1506 and the Royal Image in the Shebet Yehudah. Cincinnati: H.U.C. Yonah, Simcha. 1924. Kol Simcha. Romania: Kadimah Press. Zalkin, Mordecai. 1997. “The Cultural Legacy of Lithuanian Jewry,” in Gesher. Winter 1997. Zborowski, M. and E. Herzog. 1972. Life is with People. New York. Zevin, Shlomo. 1959. Sefarim v’Sofrim. Tel Aviv: Avraham Zioni. (Hebrew) Zohar, Zvi. 1981. Halakhah u’Modernezatzah: Darkhei Heanut Rabane Mitzraim Letgarei Hamodernezatzah 1882–1922, A Masters Thesis submitted to Hebrew University. . 1986. “Hora’at Halakhah Be’idan shel Temurah: Teguvot Rabane Mitzraim Lemoderizatyah” in Machatzit Ha’umah. Deshen Shlomo, editor. Israel: Bar Ilan University. (Hebrew)

171

INDEX

Index A Aaron of Czernobyl, 27 abrogates [mivatel] (the law), 154–55, 154n19 academies see Rabbinical Academy achronim, 148, 150 actions vs. faith, xiii acum, 94n11 adjudication, 4, 7, 19–25, 28, 43, 66, 67, 72, 89, 92, 95, 100, 123, 146, 155, 155n22, 161 audacity of a religious adjudicator, 75–88 Berlin’s process of, 102–3, 106, 107 Kagan’s system of, 63n9 leniency in, x, 20, 20nn35,36,38, 21, 59, 68, 79, 81, 84, 84n28, 85, 106 process as expressed in Arukh Hashulhan, 8, 29, 31, 32, 38, 44, 45, 51–59, 71n27, 73, 108, 122, 153, 159, 163 use of kabbalh, 8n13 affluency, tribulations of, 143 Alexander I (tsar), 47 Alexander II (tsar), 40, 124, 127 Alexander III (tsar), 37, 41n9, 50, 128 Alfasi, Isaac, xiii, 30 Altshul, Akiva, 4n9, 6 Amida [standing prayer], 148 anas, 94, 94n11 Anashim shel Zurah (Maimon), 1 anti-Semitism, 40–42, 41n9, 89, 117, 128, 129 anti-Zionism, 16–19, 17n28, 18n31, 31 apologetic works, 37, 38, 42, 43–44, 126 approbations, xx, 12–13, 25, 27–28, 30, 84 army see Russian army Aronson, I., 42 172

Arukh Hashulhan (Epstein), ix, xiv, 1, 8, 8n13, 17n28, 51, 57n21, 89 comparison to Mishnah Berurah (Kagan), 52–54, 55n16, 63–64, 68–69n23, 79, 79n14, 94n12, 99n18, 102–3 Even Haezer, 30, 84–85 Hoshen Mishpat, 28, 30, 33, 36 on Russian political system, 37–50 “Kvod Hamelekh,” ix, 37–43, 93, 121 actual text of, 45–50 as an apologetic work, 43–44 censors and, 37–38, 93 first sermon paralleling, 109–29 Orakh Hayyim, 18, 21–25, 29, 35, 55– 56, 58, 63, 64, 66, 72n28, 81–82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 157–58, 160 blessing the wine, 20n37 letters on a cake, 54 on violence, 89–108 volume 9, 2 Yoreh Deah, ix, 21, 24–25, 57, 84, 124n25, 161 minhag [religious customs] in, 145–63 newly discovered section, 30 Arukh Hashulhan Leatid (Epstein), ix, 1, 30–31, 36, 109–10 asceticism [prishut], 146, 147, 151 Ashbili, Yom Tov b. Avraham, 96, 96n13 Ashkenazi, Avraham, 13 Ashkenazic Jews, xix, 54n14, 66 askarah, 95 assimilationism, xvi, 124 Atlas, Meir, 11, 13 Av (9th of) see Tisha b’Av Avot (in Mishnah), 5, 47, 143 Azaria, Eleazar ben, 135

INDEX

B Baba Metziah (in Jerusalem Talmud), 154n19 Babylonian Talmud, 18, 27 Berakhot, 22, 38, 64n13, 66, 138, 143, 160 Gittin, 27, 40, 47 Hagigah, 143, 160 Hullin, 140 Ketubot, 18, 27, 46 Kiddushin, 27 Nedarim, 27 Niddah, 27 Sabbath, 160 Yebamot, 27 Bamharra, Shimon Ber, 13 Bar Ilan family members Bar Ilan, Meir, ix Bar Ilan, Sahul, ix see also Berlin family members Bar Ilan, Naftali see Berlin, Naftali Zvi Judah Baron, Salo, 128 b’Av, 9th of see Tisha b’Av Beis Halevi (Soloveitchik), 51 Beit Vaad Lachakhim (journal), 11 Bell, Catherine, x, 162 Benveniste family, 2 Berakhot (in Babylonian Talmud), 22, 38, 64n13, 66, 138, 143, 160 Berger, Peter, 75, 76 Berlin family members, 31 see also Bar Ilan family members Berlin, Meir, 1, 14, 15–17, 27, 31, 112n7, 128 Berlin, Michel, 11 Berlin, Mikhale see Epstein, Mikhale (Berlin) Berlin, Naftali Zvi Judah, ix, 6, 27, 109– 10, 122, 123n24 Berlin, Yaacov Judah, 5, 6 Bernstein, Aaron, 16 Bet David (Tshachinavitzy), 12 Beth Din of London, 10 Beur Halakhah (Kagan), 55n16

Bird, Frederick, x, 145–46 biryonim, 40, 47 Blazer, Yitzchak, 13 blessing the congregation, 159 Blidstein, Gerald, xiii blindness, 26, 26n44 Bloch, A., 121–22 blood libels, 41, 41n8, 47 Book of the Kahal, The (Branfman) see Kniga Kagala (Branfman) boots [koloshim] see shoes boundaries and borders, 87, 87n34 Branfman, Jacob, 39 Brayer, Menachem M., 61 bread, 65–66, 162 Bret, Zevulin Leb, 13 Bukentz, Shmuel Natan, 13 business dealings of Epstein family, 3, 3n7, 5, 5n11, 6–7

C Camp of Israel, The (Kagan) see Nidhe Yisrael [Nidhe Israel] (Kagan) candles, 24, 56–57, 64, 73, 81–82, 160 cantors, Epstein’s opinion of, 158–59, 158n26 Caro, Joseph, xiii–xiv, xix, 12, 28, 30, 31, 51, 78, 91, 93–103, 145, 150, 152–53, 160 censors and “Kvod Hamelekh,” 37–38, 93 Chabad philosophy, 45n14 Chafetz Chaim (Kagan), 150n10 Chaim of Volozin, 4n9, 5, 14 chametz, 25, 85–86 Chanukah see Hanukkah children, behavior of, 56, 56n17 Chillul Hashem, 127 Christianity, xiii, 76–77n6 circumcision, 11, 24–25, 84, 152, 161–62 cleanliness and cleansing rituals, 63–64, 63n11 teharot, 30 Clear Teaching, A (Kagan) see Mishnah Berurah (Kagan) 173

INDEX

codification of custom see minhag [religious customs] Cohen, Anthony, 87 Cohen, Batya, x, 165–66 commandments [mitvot/mitzvah], 107–8, 134, 134n8, 138, 144, 147, 158 community Rabbi, 5, 8, 10, 20, 35, 45, 53, 130 community suffering, 92, 92n7 “Container of Water” (Epstein), 32 conversionism, xvi cowpox, 95 creation, 76 customs see minhag [religious customs]

D Daat Kedoshim (Hacohen), 51 Daat Torah (Schwadron), 78n10 Dablitsky, David, xxn13 Danzig, Abraham, xiv, 78n10, 161 David (king), 139 David, Schmuel, 156 David, Yaacov, 13 Day of Atonement, 35 derashah [sermon], 111, 112n7 first sermon of Epstein, 109–29 see also homilies Deshen, Shlomo, 76, 81, 83, 86 Deuteronomy, 117, 119, 136, 138, 143 dever [pestilence], 94–95, 101 dialectics, 29, 35, 114, 159 see also pilpul diaspora, 30, 34, 44, 46, 75 diligence [zerizot], 63, 72, 72n28 “disconnected Jews,” xvii Diskin, Yeoshua Leib, 27 Dispersed of Israel, The (Kagan) see Mahane Yisrael [Mahane Yehuda] (Kagan) distress and suffering [tzara/tzarot], 90, 92–93, 96, 99, 103, 131–37, 143–44 divorce, 11, 12 see also marriage “Divorce Writ sent by Mail (Post), A,” 85 174

Dom Bris (Tertis), 11 Douglas, Mary, x, 77, 147, 155 drashot, 110, 112, 130 Dubnov, S. M., 124, 127 Durkheim, Emile, x, 162–63

E earthquakes, 95–96 Ecclesiastes, 38, 45 economic security, 131, 136–43 education, Jewish, xix Torah studies and secular studies, 109–29, 123n24, 124nn25, 28 Elazar, Rabbi, 40, 47 Elchanan, Yitzchak, 27 Eleazer, Rabbi, 138 electricity, use of on holidays, 11, 24, 83–84, 84n27 Elisha, Ishmael ben, 104–5n22 Eliyahu Raba see Shapira, Eliyahu Emden, Jacob, 123 emigration to America, xv, xvi–xix, xviii, 11, 85, 103n20 epidemics see dever [pestilence] Epstein, Aaron Isaac Halevi, 2, 3 Epstein, Aryeh Halevi, 2 Epstein, Avraham Halevi, 2n6 Epstein, Barukh, 1, 26n45 Epstein, Batya Merel (Mechel), 6 Epstein, Mikhale (Berlin), 6 Epstein, Roshka (Frielander), 2 Epstein, Yechiel Mechel Halevi, ix, xiv, 1–36 birth of, 2n5 confiscation of Or Leyesharim, 27n48 death of, 26 family involvement with Russian government, 3, 3n7, 5, 5n11, 45n15, 53 graphologic analysis of, 165–66 language abilities, 9, 33, 53, 122, 122n21 and modernity, 75–88 see also “our time” vs. “those times”

INDEX

see also Arukh Hashulhan (Epstein); Arukh Hashulhan Leatid (Epstein); Kol Ben Levi (Epstein); Or Leyesharim (Epstein) eradication, 76, 83, 86 eruv, 72n28, 82 etrogim, 17, 18, 162 Even Haezer see Arukh Hashulhan (Epstein) evil persons, 132 Exodus, 80, 140 Ezekiel, 115–16, 117

F factories, 25, 85–86 faith vs. actions, xiii famine, 91, 101 fasting, 96–99, 102, 147, 149, 151–52, 152n15 Fast of Esther, 151n14 Laws of Fasting, 91–92 Feast of Weeks see Shavuot Feinstein, Moshe, 26 feminism, 60, 61n3, 62 see also women First Sermon of Epstein, 109–29 First World War, xvi flooding, 100 For Whom Do I Toil (Stanislawski), 60 Freilander, Natan, 3 Freilander, Roshka see Epstein, Roshka (Freilander)

G Ganzfried, Solomon, xiv, xx, xxn13 geder [safeguards], 147, 151 Genesis, 118, 138 gentiles, 34, 37–40, 43, 44, 49, 116–19, 128, 130 acum, 94n11 see also anti-Semitism Geviah Yehudah (Tzirlson), 12 Gevul Olam (pamphlet by Epstein), 11 Gittin (in Babylonian Talmud), 27, 40, 47

Goldberg, Eliyahu, 5, 7, 20 Gombiner, Abraham, 56n19 Gordon, Aaron, 11, 26 Gordon, J. L., 60 graphologic analysis of Epstein’s characteristics, x, 165–66 Green, Chaim Meir Halevi, 13 Guberniia commissions, 41, 41n9 Guide of the Perplexed (Maimonides), 7

H Ha-Tzfira (newspaper), 15, 16 Habad Hasidic movement, 7, 8, 129n37 Hacohen, Israel Meir see Kagan, Israel Meir Hacohen Hafetz Hayyim see Kagan, Israel Meir Hacohen Haftara, 110 Hagadol (Shabbat), 35, 110, 112, 112n7, 130 Hagigah (in Babylonian Talmud), 143, 160 hair, covering of, 22, 66–67, 66n17, 67nn18~19, 73 halakhah, x, xiii–xiv, xiii, xxi, 26, 75, 77, 80, 82, 86, 89–90, 92, 106, 151 Epstein’s views of the process of, 20, 22, 23, 25, 38, 54, 55, 57, 58, 62, 67, 73, 74, 79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 103, 108 framework of, 17, 19, 100, 102, 104–5, 104n21, 155, 156 survey of history of, 28, 104–5 and women, 53, 61, 69, 74 Halevi, Eliyahu, 13 halizah, 12 Hallel prayer, 140 handwriting see graphologic analysis of Epstein’s characteristics Hanes, Meyer Baal, 11 Hanukkah, 24, 56, 64, 73, 81–82, 103 Hapeles (periodical), 17n28 Hasidic Jews, 4, 7, 8, 14 Haskalah, 125, 131 Hatam Sofer see Sofer, Moses 175

INDEX

Hayyei Adam (Danzig), xiv, 51, 66, 82, 161, 161n29 Hebrew language, 33, 111, 125 Hebrew University, x heder, 124n28, 125, 126, 127 Heilman, D., 37–38 Henkin, Herzel, 26 Henkin, Y. E., 26, 26n43 Hill, Rowland, 84 “His Honour the King” see “Kvod Hamelekh” in Arukh Hasulhan Hisda, Rabbi, 104–5n22 history, study of, 123 Hokhmat Adam (Danzig), xiv holiness [kodshim], 30, 32, 36 homilies, ix, 8, 32, 33–36, 38, 38n4, 39n5, 80, 92n7 as apologies, 43–44 Kol Ben Levi (Epstein), 109–29 recurrent themes in, 130–44 reflecting a Rabbi’s worldview, 109n2 Horovitz, Yehuda Aharon, x, 2, 4n9, 5n10, 6, 14n24, 17n28, 28n49 Hosea, 144 Hoshen Mishpat see Arukh Hashulhan (Epstein) Hullin (in Babylonian Talmud), 140 Hurwitz, Joseph Yosel, 14–16 hygiene, 63–64, 63n11

marriage of God and Israel, 133, 133n6 Isserles, Moses, xix, 54, 68, 72, 149, 160

J Jeremiah, 46 Jerusalem Talmud, 32, 36 Baba Metziah, 154n19 Yebamot, 154n19 Jerusalem Temple, 91, 92, 104, 104– 5n22, 105–7 jewelry, wearing of see Sabbath Jewish Preaching, 1200–1800: An Anthology (Saperstein), 109n2 Joshua, Rabbi, 104–5n22 Judaism, xiii, 80 and evil, 90–91 as a halakhic religion, 77nn7~8 interpeting history, 104n21 women and, 62n5 see also women see also Ashkenazic Jews; Hasidic Jews; Mitnagdic Jews; Orthodox Judaism; Reform Judaism; Russian Jewry

K

kabbalh, 8n13 kabbalistic concepts, 67n19, 132n4 Kagan, Israel Meir Hacohen, ix, x, xiv– xxi, xivn2, xvin5, 19, 26, 51, 55n16, 56nn18~20, 63, 65n14, 67n19, 69, I 70–71, 70n23, 78, 86, 150n10 illegitimate children, 12 system of adjudication, 63n9, industrial revolution, 23, 25, 61, 76–77, 78n11, 79, 83n26, 84n28 78, 85–86 on violence, 89–108 innovations, 23–25, 75, 76 kapparot, 162 inscription law of 1874, 42–43 Karkoski, Moshe, 16 intelligence of women, 71–72 kashruth see kosher status [kashruth] intermarriage, xviii Katz, Ben Tzion, 21 Isaac, Solomon ben see Rashi Katz, Dov, 14 Isaiah, 114–15, 116, 131, 137 Katz, Jacob, 78, 78n11 Islamic religion, xiii Israel, 11, 16–19, 97, 103n20, 104, 104– Katzelenbogen, David Tabil, 11, 13 Katznelbogen, Shaul, 12 5n22, 104n21, 108, 120 Ketav Sofer (Sofer), 83n26 God’s love of, 136 176

INDEX

Ketubot (in Babylonian Talmud), 18, 27, 46 kiddush, 20n37, 69–70, 69n22, 73, 136 Kiddushin (in Babylonian Talmud), 27 King/Tsar, Epstein’s views on, 37–50 Kitvei HaArukh Hashulhan (Horovitz), x, 2 Kitzur Shulhan Arukh (Ganzfried), xiv, xx, xxn13, 51 Klepfish, Shmuel Zanvil, 13 Klepfisz, H., 3–4 klipa, 132n4 Kniga Kagala (Branfman), 39 kodshim [holiness], 30, 32, 36 Kol Ben Levi (Epstein), 32, 33–36 First Sermon, 109–29 recurrent themes in, 130–44 Kol Koreh (proclamation by Epstein), 13 Kol Simcha (Volantonovki), 12 kolelim, 14 koloshim [boots], 24, 81, 81n21, 82n22 Kook, Avraham Yitzchak Hacohen, 13 Kook, Mosad Harav, 31–32 kosher minhag, 156 kosher status [kashruth], 10–11, 12, 18, 85, 86, 139 Kosofsky-Shachor, Yaacov, 2 “Kotzo shel Yod” (Gordon), 60 kriyat shema, 157, 158 “Kvod Hamelekh” in Arukh Hasulhan see Arukh Hashulhan (Epstein)

L land ownership and Jews, 42, 48 languages Hebrew language, 33, 111, 125 Russian language, 9, 53, 122, 122n21 law, the see halakhah; mitvot/mitzvah [commandments]; mivatel [abrogates] (the law); Torah codification of see Arukh Hashulhan (Epstein); Arukh Hashulhan Leatid (Epstein); Hayyei Adam (Danzig); Hokhmat Adam (Danzig); Mahane Yisrael [Mahane

Yehuda] (Kagan); Mishnah Berurah (Kagan); Nidhe Yisrael [Nidhe Israel] (Kagan); Shulhan Arukh (Caro) laws inscription law of 1874, 42–43 Laws of Fasting, 91 laws of Sabbath [Shabbat], xvii, 54, 65, 72n28, 123 May Laws, 41, 42 laziness, 137 legalisms [pilpul], 29, 159 Leib, Chaim, 13 Lel Shimurim (Epstein), 32 leniency, x, 20, 20nn35,36,38, 21, 59, 68, 79, 81, 84, 84n28, 85, 151, 153–54, 154n18 Levi, tribe of, 2 Levi, Yehosua b., 135 Levi, Yitzchak, 13 Levin, Meir Noach, 13 Levin, Yisroel, 13 Leviticus, 92 loyalty to the Tsar, 37–50, 112, 116–20, 121, 126, 129 anti-Tsar movements, 127 Lyor, Dov, 17n28

M Machzike Hadath, 10 Magen Avot (Ha Meri), 148n7 Magen Avraham (Gombiner), 56n19, 79, 94n12, 99, 101, 102 Mahane Yisrael [Mahane Yehuda] (Kagan), xv, xvi, xix, xx–xxi, xvn3, xvin5 Maimon, Moses ben see Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon) Maimon, Y. L., 1, 1n1, 4, 16–17, 17n28, 31 Maimonides (Moses ben Maimon), 7–8, 30–31, 91–92, 97n14, 99, 124n25, 133 Malachi, 104–5n22 Margolith, Shlomo Shemaryu, 13 marriage, 84–85, 106, 108 collapse of traditional Jewish marriage, xviii 177

INDEX

divorce, 11, 12 of God and Israel, 133, 133n6 prerequisites for halakhic marriage, 11 Martin, Robert, 155 Masaf Derush, 32 maskilim, 147 matches and fire, 83 May Laws, 41, 42 Me-Volozin ad Yerushalaim (Berlin), 1, 112n7 Mechel, Batya Merel see Epstein, Batya Merel (Mechel) “Mechel Mayim” (commentary by Epstein), 32, 36 Mechel, Yechiel, 6 Meiri, Menahem ben Solomon, 148n7 Meisel, Chaim, 9, 12 Mekor Barukh (Epstein), 1, 26n45 Mendel, Menachem, 7–8, 54–55 mercy, 89–108 Meshiv Davar (Berlin), 51 Method and Meaning of the Mishnah Berurah, The (Fishbane), ix Mezikenim Ethbonen (Katz), 21 Midei Chodesh b’Chodsho (Maimon), 1 Midrash, 118, 138, 139 mikveh, xviii minhag [religious customs], 145–63 definition of, 155 justification of, 158, 158n25 kosher minhag, 156 stringency and, 75, 80, 153–55 see also rites and rituals Mishnah, 40, 46, 51n5, 59 Avot, 5, 47, 143 Shabbat, 72n28 Mishnah Berurah (Kagan), ix, x, xiv–xv, xx–xxi, xxn13, 19, 26, 51, 52n8, 56nn18~20, 57n21, 63n11, 64, 65n14, 67, 70n23, 78, 82, 89, 150n10 comparison to Arukh Hashulhan (Epstein), 52–54, 55n16, 63, 68– 69n21, 79, 79n14, 94n12, 99n18, 102–3 178

Mishnah Torah (Maimonides), 91–92 Mitnagdic Jews, 4, 7, 28 mitvot/mitzvah [commandments], 107–8, 134, 134n8, 138, 144, 147, 158 mivatel [abrogates] (the law), 154–55, 154n19 “Mizrachi” see Zionism modernity, 75–88 see also “our time” vs. “those times” mohel, 10, 161, 162 Mordechai, Dov Ber ben, 13 Moreh Nevuchim (Maimonides), 7–8 Mosad Harav Kook, ix musar, xvii, 14n23, 15 musar movement, 14, 15, 16

N Nachum, Menachem, 27 nahagu, 156 see also minhag [religious customs] Nahman, Samuel b., 138 nashim datot kalot, 71n27 Nathanson, Yosef Shaul Halevi, 19, 77, 81 Natzik, Katriel Aaron, 13 Navordok [Novogrudok] (Lithuania), x, 8–26, 28, 33, 36, 75, 88, 128, 130 Nedarim (in Babylonian Talmud), 27 neigai batim [plagues on homes], 133 Netziv see Berlin, Naftali Zvi Judah New Year, 35, 56, 58, 130, 149 Nicholas I (tsar), 47 Niddah (in Babylonian Talmud), 27 Nidhe Yisrael [Nidhe Israel] (Kagan), xv, xvi, xix, xx, xvn4 non-Talmudic materials, 122, 124n25, 125–26 non-Torah studies see secularism Novaya Vremya (newspaper), 41 Novogrudok (Lithuania) see Navordok [Novogrudok] (Lithuania) Novosybkov [Novizikov], 4, 6, 7, 8–9, 26n46, 28n49

INDEX

O oker [uproots] (the law), 154n19 “open rebuke” [tokheha megula], xix Or Leshaim (Landau and Rabbinowitz), 18n31 Or Leyesharim (Epstein), 7, 8, 26–28, 27n48, 38 Orakh Hayyim see Arukh Hashulhan (Epstein) Orthodox Judaism, xiv, 19–20, 61, 77, 108, 124, 125, 130 and innovations, 80–81 Torah studies and secular studies, 109–29 see also Russian Jewry “our time” vs. “those times,” x, xxi, 21, 25, 34, 58–59, 62, 68, 77, 79, 82, 85, 106, 118, 135, 160 over la-asiyatam, 161, 162

P Pale region of Russia, 41–42, 41n10, 124 Papa, Rabbi, 104–5n22 Pardes (Epstein), 2 parnasah [economic security], 131, 136–43 Parson, Talcott, 155 Passover, 21, 66, 70, 73, 85, 110, 130 Epstein commentary on, 32n52 Passover Hagadah, 32 Second Passover, 36 Shabbat Hagadol, 35 patriotism and Judaism, 39–40, 42, 44 see also Tsar, Epstein’s comments on Pentateuch, xix, 154n20 Peretz, Y. L., 60 pesak, 54 pestilence [dever], 94–95 phylacteries, 63, 73, 105 pilpul, 29, 130, 159 see also dialectics plagues on homes [neigai batim], 133 pogroms in Russia, 40, 43, 89, 128 power, 155, 155n21 Pri Chadash (SiSilo), 148

prishut [asceticism], 146 priya, 161, 162 profanation, 76, 86 Protected Night (Epstein) see Lel Shimurim (Epstein) Proverbs, 119, 120, 141–42, 143 Psalms, 120, 121, 137, 138, 139, 140 Purim, 103, 107

R Rabbinical Academy of Navordok, 13–16, 36 of Radin, x of Telz, 121 of Vilna, 124 of Volozin, 5, 5n10, 6, 9, 53–54, 122 of Zhitomir, 124 Rabbinowitz, Meir Michal, 13 Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred, 163 rainfall, 98–99, 99n17, 100 Rama see Isserles, Moses ram’s horn [shofar], 71, 93, 96, 97, 98–99, 101, 102, 108 Rappaport, Binyamin Zev haCohen, 148 Rashi, 30, 131, 137 refinement [seyag], 147, 151 Reform Judaism, xiv Reines, Yitzchak Yaacov, 13 religion, rejection of, 76n5 religious customs [minhag], 145–63 definition of, 155 justification of, 158, 158n25 kosher minhag, 156 moving to a new city, 153–54 stringency and, 75, 80, 153–55 see also rites and rituals repentance, 29, 35, 90, 91, 92, 96, 102, 103, 134, 135 responsas, xiii, 10, 11, 19, 26, 29, 31, 51, 76, 77, 80, 82, 156 rishonim, 150 Ritba see Ashbili, Yom Tov b. Avraham rites and rituals, ix cleanliness and cleansing rituals, 30, 63–64, 63n11 179

INDEX

definition of, 155 ritual blessing, 159 ritual circumcision, 11, 24–25, 84, 161–62 ritual slaughter, 12, 21 rituals at close of Sabbath, 160–61 “tashlikh,” 57–58 see also minhag [religious customs] Robinson, Ira, xiii–xxii Rom Publishers, 32 Rosh Chodesh, 103 Rosh ha-Shana, 35, 130 Rosh Hayeshivot, 122 Russian army, xv, xvi, xvii, xvin5, xviin8, 42–43, 49 Russian government, ix, 93–94, 124 appointing rabbis, 9–10 confiscation of Or Leyesharim, 27n48 Epstein family’s involvement with, 3, 3n7, 5, 5n11, 45n15, 53 Epstein’s views on political system, 37–50 see also Tsar, Epstein’s comments on Russian Jewry, xv–xxi, 113 emigrating to America, xv, xvi–xix, xviii, 11, 85, 103n20 Jewish-Russian political realities, 38–43 ownership of land, 42, 48 political and economic plight of, 34–35, 124–29, 130–44, 150–51 in the Russian army, xv, xvi, xvii, xvin5, xviin8 Russification of Jews, 124–29 see also Orthodox Judaism Russian language and Yechiel Epstein, 9, 53, 122, 122n21

S Sabbath, 32, 65, 82, 88, 98, 158 ceasing work, 55n16 commencing earlier, 10 desecration of, 17 180

embarking on a boat on a Sabbath, 18, 58 kiddush, 20n37, 69–70, 69n22, 73, 136 laws of, xvii, 54, 72n28 man’s duties, 22 rituals at close of, 160–61 starting time of, 10n16 wearing jewelry, 67–68, 68–69n21 women and, 148, 160–61 see also Shabbat Sabbath (in Babylonian Talmud), 160 Sabbatical years, 31 safeguards [geder], 147, 151 Salant, Shmuel, 11 Salanter, Israel, 14 Same Dechaye (Stanles), 12 1 Samuel, 118 Saperstein, Marc, 33–34, 109n2, 110–11 Sarei Hame’ah (Maimon), 1 Schneerson, S., 54, 55, 66n16 Schneur Zalman of Lyady, 29, 44–45, 54–55, 63n11, 79n12 Schwadron, Shalom Mordechai, 12, 78n10 Schweid, Eliezer, xv, 78n11 scientific phenomena, 23–25 secularism, 76, 76–77n6, 123n24 secular education supplementing study of Torah, 109–29, 123n24, 124nn25,28 see also modernity Sefer Hayashar (Tam), 8, 8n14, 26–27 Sefer Mitzvot Hagadol (Maimonides), 30 sefer Torah, 57 self-sufficiency, 30 sermons [derashah], 109n2, 111, 112n7 first sermon of Epstein, 109–29 see also homilies seyag [refinement], 147, 151 Shaarei Torah (journal), 12 Shabbat and food and drink, 147 laws of, 65, 123 Shabbat Hagadol, 35, 110, 112, 112n7, 130

INDEX

Shabbat Shuva, 35, 110, 112, 112n7, 120, 130 see also Sabbath Shabbat (in Mishnah), 72n28 Shana bShana (Vaksman), 2 Shapira, Eliyahu, 107, 107n24 Shapiro, Moshe Shmuel, 13 Shapiro, Shlomo Zalman Sander, 13 Sharot, Stephen, 77n7 Shavuot, 70 shema, 22, 66, 67n18, 158n26 kriyat shema, 157, 158 Shlopper, Yosef, 13 Shmone Esrei, 148 Shoel u’Meshiv (Nathanson), 19, 77 shoes how to put on, 157 leather vs. rubber koloshim, 24, 81, 81n21, 82n22 shofar [ram’s horn], 71, 93, 96, 97, 98–99, 101, 102, 108 Shoken Library, x Shraga, Moshe Bezalel ben, 13 Shulhan Arukh (Caro), xiii–xiv, xix, xx, xxi, 8, 12, 28, 30, 31, 56nn18~19, 57n21, 62, 70, 78, 81, 91, 93–103, 106, 145, 146, 150, 151, 152, 158 Shulhan Arukh Harav (Schneerson), 55 Shulhan Arukh Harav (Zalman), 29, 55, 72, 79n12 Shuva (Shabbat), 35, 110, 112, 112n7, 120 Sikkot, 56 Simlat Binyamin (Rappaport), 148, 154n20 SiSilo, Chizkiya ben David, 148 socialism, 62 Sofer, Abraham S. B. W., 83n26 Sofer, Moses, 19, 77, 83n26 Soloveitchik, Haym, 12 Soloveitchik, Joseph Dov, 9, 51, 90 “Southern Storms,” 39 spectacles, 88 Spector, Yitzchak Elchanan, 9 standing prayer [Amida], 148

Stanislawski, Michael, 60 Stanles, Efraim, 12 Stern, Yosef Zachariah, 13 Sternfeld, Benyamin, 13 stringency and minhag, 75, 80, 153–55 “strong grid-strong group,” 77n7, 147 suffering and distress, 135 suffering and distress [tzara/tzarot], 90, 92–93, 96, 99, 103, 131–37, 143–44 sugar and Passover, 25, 85–86 Sukkot, 23, 56, 56n20, 162 symbolic reversal, 87

T talmid chacham, 148 Talmud, 3, 14n24, 38, 39, 40, 43, 46–47, 84, 94n11, 96, 97, 104n22, 106, 125, 146, 153, 154n20 and Epstein, 4, 6, 14, 15, 18, 24 non-Talmudic materials, 122, 124n25, 125–26 Talmudic times, 20n37, 53, 57, 58– 59, 79, 100, 103, 156 see also Babylonian Talmud; Jerusalem Talmud Tam, Yaacov [Jacob], 8, 8n14, 26–27, 157 Tamuz (17th of), 149, 151n14 Tarshish, A. Z., 1 tashlikh, 57–58 technological phenomena, 23–25, 81, 88 see also “our time” vs. “those times” tefillin, xvii, 63–64, 63nn10~11 teharot [cleanliness], 30 Temple of Jerusalem see Jerusalem Temple Temporary laws, 41 Tertis, Abraham, 25, 84 Tertis, Alexander, 11 Tevet (10th of), 151n14 “those times” vs. “our time,” x, xxi, 21, 25, 34, 58–59, 62, 68, 77, 79, 82, 85, 106, 118, 135, 160 time zones, 157 Tisha b’Av, 24, 81, 91, 147, 151n14 tokheha megula [“open rebuke”], xix 181

INDEX

Torah, xv, xvii–xviii, 17–18, 47, 49, 51, 104–5n22, 105, 133, 134n9, 136, 149 and Epstein, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 36 mitvot, 107, 134, 134n8, 138, 144, 147, 158 oral Torah, 40, 41, 72 and Orthodox community, 19, 31, 77 path of Torah, 117, 131–32, 141–44 sefer Torah, 57 study of, 3, 4, 4n9, 6, 14, 15, 34, 35, 71–72, 73, 102, 134–35, 137 Torah studies and secular studies, 109–29, 123n24, 124nn25,28 as topic of homilies, 130–44, 134n9 Torah law, xxi, 85, 89, 94, 134, 147, 153 Torah obligations, 69–70, 69n22, 71, 82 written Torah, 72 Tosafot [commentary], 140 Tsar, Epstein’s comments on, 37–50, 112, 115, 116–20, 121, 126, 129 anti-Tsar movements, 127 Tshachinavitzy, David, 12 Tumat Tzaraat (Maimonides), 133 Tur Shulhan Arukh (Caro), 160 tzara/tzarot [distress and suffering], 90, 92–93, 96, 99, 103, 131–37, 143–44 Tzemach Tzedek see Mendel, Menachem Tzirlson, Yehudah Leb, 12 Tzom Gedalia, 151n14

U uproots [oker] (the law), 154n19

V Vaksman, Nisan, 2 Vibrinski, Rabbanit, 32n52 violence, 89–108 definition of, 90 Voice of Levi, The (Epstein) see Kol Ben Levi (Epstein) 182

Volantonovki, Simcha Yona, 12 Volozin see Rabbinical Academy (Volozin) vows, ix, 145–63

W waking, 157 “way, the” see halakhah Weiss, Yitchak Levi, 13n20 wine, blessing of see kiddush women covering of hair, 22, 66–67, 66n17, 67nn18~19, 73 Epstein’s views of Jewish law about, 53, 57, 60–74 feminism, 60, 61n3 and Judaism, 62n5 Kagan’s views of Jewish law about, 53, 63–65, 65n14, 67, 67n19, 69, 70–71, 70n23 obligations of married women, 22 role in Passover, 21 and the Sabbath, 148, 160–61 worldview of Epstein, 38, 52, 71n27 in Kol Ben Levi, 109–29 modernity, 75–88

Y Yad Hachazakah (Maimonides), 30–31, 97n14 Yebamot (in Babylonian Talmud), 27 Yebamot (in Jerusalem Talmud), 154n19 Yehoshua, Rabbi, 40, 47 Yerushalmi, Y. H., 37–38, 104n21 Yerushalmski, Moshe Nachum, 82 Yeshiva, 9 Yeverechyah, Ila bar, 137 Yiddish language, 33, 111, 125 Yitzchak of Volozin, 5 Yom Kippur, 56, 81, 104, 110, 130, 131, 149, 151n14 Yoreh Deah see Arukh Hashulhan (Epstein) Yose, Rabbi, 16 Yosel, Rabbi see Hurwitz, Joseph Yosel

INDEX

Z Zakkai, Jochanan ben, 40, 47 Zalman, Schneur see Schneur Zalman of Lyady Zalmen, Yaacov Meir ben Shlomo, 13 Zemah Zedek see Mendel, Menachem zeraim, 30 zerizot [diligence], 63, 72, 72n28

Zevin, Shlomo Yosef, 1, 31 Zibkai see Novosybkov [Novizikov] zimun, 63n7 Zionism, 16–19, 31, 32 “Mizrachi,” 17 Zohar, Zvi, 67n19, 78n11 Zvi, Hakham, 64

183