Do We Rewrite History?

I was once asked if traditional Jewish scholars rewrite history. My answer was that we did in the past, we no longer do it, thus we never did it.

Among the many Torah scholars and luminaries who guided the people of Israel throughout the ages, few reached the stature of Rabbi Elijah ben Shlomo Zalman, known as the Vilna Gaon. The impact of the Gaon on Jewish practice, philosophy, lifestyle and thought since his passing in 1798 is immense. In the decades following his passing many of his Torah insights were shared taught and published. Unfortunately in many instances teaching were attributed to the Gaon incorrectly. It appears that Torah scholars, with a desire to make an impression, would attribute their personal insights to the Gaon. Thus not every Torah thought “in the name of the Gaon” is actually from the Gaon.

At the same time there are teachings that are undoubtedly of the Gaon, that some agenda driven individuals allege, that he never said them. I am referring to the story of Rabbi Baruch Schick. Schick was born in 1744 in Shklov Belarus. After studying Talmud and gaining a reputation of being a scholar he developed an interest in science. In 1777 he composed a work about human anatomy and physiology which he published in the city that symbolizes enlightenment the city of Berlin. The following year he visited Vilna and had a meeting with the Gaon. After sharing some of his publications Schick informed the great rabbi that he is planning to translate and publish Euclid's Elements into hebrew. Schick, in his introduction to the work published two years latter shares with us the reaction of the Gaon to his endeavor;

I heard from his (the Gaon) holy tongue that for every deficiency of knowledge in the sciences, he will have a hundred deficiencies of knowledge in Torah, for Torah and science are closely related. He commanded me to translate everything possible of the sciences into our holy tongue in order to spread knowledge among our people.

It is quite clear from the gaon's words that he valued general studies and did not believe that one should focus solely on the talmud and Jewish traditional text. Yet as the Jewish world progressed  over the two centuries after his passing, some had difficulty with the words attributed to the Gaon by Rabbi Schick.

In 1965 a pseudo-historian by the name Betzalel Landau published a biography on the Gaon. In a chapter dealing with Gaon’s attitude towards secular studies he quotes the word from the introduction to Schick’s work, however he adds “I doubt if these words actually came out of the mouth of the Gaon. I surmise that the listener (Schick) did fully understand the intention of the great master.”

The Gaon lived for 18 years after the publication of the hebrew edition of Euclid's Elements by Schick. Thus, if indeed he was misquoted, the Gaon would of have an opportunity to expressed himself on the issue and we would  have a record of it. The lack of such evidence makes it clear that until the second half of the twentieth century, no one had a problem with the Gaon stating that a deficiency in sciences, can cause a great deficiency  in Torah.

We might ask why a contemporary author would decide to rewrite the history of such a luminary. The answer can be found in the associations that Schick had with members of the Haskalah movement, the European Jewish enlightenment, including Moses Mendelssohn while in Berlin. For many traditional thinkers, Mendelssohn and all individuals associated with him are not welcome in the halls of Torah studies. Thus the author of the biography on the Gaon felt a need to distance the revered luminary from a man connected to the enlightenment.

Thus at times we do indeed rewrite our history.

The Odessa Chalitzah Controversy

Concern for the welfare of a person in crisis and a desire to do whatever possible to alleviate the plight, is something we would expect from all decent human beings. Many of us have heard and read about the the plight of the Agunah, a woman who is “chained” to her marriage, and desires freedom from her husband, but cannot. In Judaism there is no greater Mitzvah than trying to find a way, within the Halakhic system, to free the Agunah. Despite the fact that most cases are solved, many instances are not. The anguish of the chained woman is never to be ignored or forgotten and every singly case must be treated with utmost seriousness.

When rabbis try to resolve Agunah cases, they face challenges. Sometimes the challenges are circumstantial, other times they are Halakhic. Unfortunately it seems that there were some situations where politics became the great impediment. Such was the sad story of the Agunah of Odessa in 1884.

A thirty six years old man, described at the time as a person who suffers from madness, died of typhus. His name was Michel Alter Genner. After the period of mourning, his young wife Sarah began the process of rebuilding her life. A local rabbi informed her that since they were childless, if her husband had a brother, she was required to get a Chalitzah before she can marry anyone else. The Chalitzah itself  is a ritual that involves the taking off of a brother-in-law's shoe by the widow, through which she is released and becomes free to marry whomever she desires.

Sarah informed the rabbi that she is confident that her husband was an only son. She noted that when they got married she heard rumors that Philip Duptchak, a well known converted to Christianity, is Michel Alter's brother. After approaching her fiancé regarding her concern that Duptchak would never release her, if indeed he is a brother, Michel Alter guaranteed that he is not.

Sadly, after some research it became clear that Duptchak was indeed a brother. Thus for Sarah Genner to gain her freedom she would need to get a Chalitzah from him. She turned to the local preacher and the official rabbi of the town, Rabbi Dr. Shimon Aryeh Schwabacher for help. After listening to Sarah and recognizing her predicament he got actively involved. He contacted Philip Duptchak who in turn informed Schwabacher that he cannot participate in a Jewish ritual without permission from the governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church. Schwabacher followed by contacting the officials of the church for permission to be granted to Duptchak. He  was informed that since Duptchak is now a practicing Christian he cannot perform any ritual associated with another faith.

Believing that trying to get the Chalitzah from the apostate, was an exercise in futility, Schwabacher turned to a learned rabbi by the name of Avraham Yoel Abelson who was at the time living temporarily in Odessa.

Abelson after doing a few interviews and some research on his own, came to a conclusion that Sarah Genner is free to marry without a Chalitzah. Abelson rested his ruling on two consideration. 1. There is a minority opinion that the bond that prevents a woman from remarrying without Chalitzah does not exist when the living brother is an apostate. 2. Since at the time of Marriage Sarah made it clear that she does not want to enter into the relationship with her husband if indeed he has a brother who is an apostate, if indeed Philip Duptchak is a brother, the marriage to her husband was a “mistaken acquisition” and retroactively null and void.

Rabbi Abelson recognized that his ruling was a novelty and sent it to other great scholars for concurrence. The most recognized among the recipients was the rabbi of Kovno, Lithuania Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor, who was considered the pre-eminent Halachic authority of his time.

In late 1885 Abelson informed Schwabacher that he had received several letters from prominent rabbis, including the most significant one from Rabbi Spektor, agreeing with the ruling and thus Sarah Genner is free to marry. Unfortunately our story does not end here.

Although Schwabacher was the official rabbi in Odessa, being that he originated from Germany, he was viewed with skepticism by the more traditional elements in town. When they got word of the lenient ruling regarding Sarah Genner, they were quite agitated. They claimed that prior to Schwabacher’s involvement they made contact with the apostate Philip Duptchak, who was willing to perform the Chalitzah if paid appropriately. Thus they argued that there is no need to seek leniencies when the issue can be solved with a few rubles. In addition they were unhappy that Rabbi Abelson, a rabbi with no local jurisdiction, was taking charge of an issue that was none of his business.

As a result, letters were sent from a group of rabbis in Odessa to all the great rabbis who agreed with Rabbi Abelson, demanding that they retract their decision. Their written communications argued on some of the legal matters presented by Rabbi Abelson and also questioned a few of the facts that he presented.

From published letters sent back to Odessa from rabbis responding to this group, it seems that several threats were included as well. For example; one of the recipients of the letters was Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin dean of the reknown Volozhin Yeshiva. Rabbi Berlin himself was willing to free the woman, provided that other great legal authorities concur. When responding to Odessa, regarding the view of the dissenting rabbis, he notes that he was threatened by specific parties, that if he does not reverse his view, he should expect financial repercussions on future fund-raising excursion for the Volozhin Yeshiva in Odessa. Rabbi Berlin noted that nothing external would ever stop him from sharing his legal opinion.

Those who disagreed with Rabbi Abelson were not satisfied with mere letters. Sources indicate that Abelson suffered verbal and even physical abuse from the parties who were against him. Yet the most significant blow to his cause was a letter of retraction from Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spektor. The letter itself is addressed to Abelson colleague Schwabacher. Rabbi Spektor expresses his pain over the feud and hostilities that developed in Odessa over the issue. He goes on to explain that since the majority of rabbis do not agree with his ruling, he has no choice but to retract. He ends his letter with a prayer that the community of Odessa ends its bickering and settles in peace.

It appears that after getting conflicting reports regarding the case, coupled with harsh letters of objection from Odessa, Rabbi Spektor decided to reverse his involvement and recall his letter of approval.

At the end Schwabacher, in his capacity as the official rabbi, granted Sarah Genner a letter permitting her to remarry without a Chalitzah. The dissenting rabbis reacted by declaring publicly in the synagogues of town that according to Jewish law Sarah is prohibited from marrying. The saga continued with the differing rabbis being charged in court, and found guilty, for proclaiming a ruling against Rabbi Schwabacher the only recognized authority of Odessa.

Reviewing a sad chapter in history serves no purpose if we do not learn from it. Hopefully by looking back and being appalled by the fights of the past, we can inspire ourselves not to repeat such history.

The Right Time To Count

For Klal Yisroel the freedom of Pesach ought not stand alone, but rather must be linked to the acceptance of the yoke of Torah. Consequently, at the beginning of the second day of Pesach we begin the Sefiras Haomer count where we commence our journey to Shavuos.

Rabbi Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulchan Aruch, asked the following question;[1] In halacha we try to avoid a Tartei Desasrei- a contradiction within one action. For example on Shemini Atzeres after stating in the Kiddush that it is Shemini Atzeres we do not make a Brocho on the Sukkah, since identifying our presence in the Sukkah as a Mitzvah would indicate that we view ourselves as still celebrating Sukkot, a clear contradiction to what was said in Kiddush. Thus wondered Rabbi Yosef Karo, Jews living outside of Eretz Yisroel, when counting the Sefiras Haomer for the first time, they are in essence declaring that day one of Pesach is over. Yet when they get home they have the Seder Pesach, implying that it is day one of Pesach again. Why are we not worried about the Tartei Desasrei? Rabbi Karo answered that since, after the calendar was established, we undoubtedly know that we are in the second day of Pesach, a time that the Torah commands[2] us to count the Omer, we cannot allow external concerns stop us. Hence in the Shulchan Aruch we are told that on day two of Pesach immediately after Maariv we count the Omer.

Many years ago I noticed some old Hagados Shel Pesach that place the Sefiras Haomer count after the Seder. For example an Hagadah printed in Amsterdam in 1712, places the Omer count right before the well known poem of Echad Mi Yodeah, stating that on day two of Pesach the Omer is counted at this point. It seems that not all agree with what is stated by the Shulchan Aruch.

A source that expresses the variant opinion is a Sefer published in Izmir Turkey, about three hundred years ago, about Minhagim and Halacha, based on Kabbalistic teachings, by the name of Chemdat Yamim[3].  

As the book gained popularity so did several of the practices mentioned in it. Among them was the Minhag that on the second night of Pesach the Omer count is not to be said until after the Seder. However the reason presented was not Halachic, but rather based on mystical teachings. Thus what we find here is a change in practice based on Kabbalah. Alteration of custom rising from the hidden and esoteric elements of tradition did not sit well with some great Halachic Authorities.

The passionate warrior of truth Rabbi Yaakov Emden, did not mince his words when discontent. When asked about the practice of some to delay the Omer count until after the second Seder, he responded with firmness [4]. He noted that Halachically one should not eat once the time for the  Sefiras Haomer begins. Thus having the Seder Pesach before the Omer count was erroneous. He added that a book that recommends to delay the beloved Mitzvah of Sefiras Haomer is guiding the masses on a path of darkness. After criticizing the specifics, Rabbi Yaakov Emden stated that the whole book is flawed since it is the handwork of Nathan of Gaza known as the prophet for the false messiah, Sabbatai Zevi. He bemoaned the fact that people were abandoning the holy Talmud which serves as “our light and happiness for our soul that guides us to serve Hashem” and instead turn to external books written by mockers of our faith that follow Sabbatai Zevi.

Despite Rabbi Yaakov Emden cautionary statements, Chemdat Yamim gained popularity and acceptance in many communities especially among the Chasidic and Sephardic communities. The contemporary practice that some have to make a “Tu B’shvat Seder” is mentioned first in Chemdat Yamim.

Rabbi Chaim Joseph David Azulai, known for his acronym as the Chida, in his responsa [5], disagrees with Rabbi Yaakov Emden regarding the Sefiras Haomer count on the second night of Pesach and notes that the tradition of saying it after the Seder dates back to the great Halachic authority and renowned Kabbalist, Rabbi Menahem Azariah da Fano. It is interesting to note that the Chida himself on his commentary to Shulchan Aruch [6], after mentioning the Kabbalistic practice, states that according to the law one should not eat before the count of the Omer, and in addition, due to the length of the Seder, it is probable that one will forget to count altogether.

Even among the Kabbalist there are those who do not agree with the delay. A contemporary of the Chida, Rabbi Shalom Sharabi, known as the Rashash and author of the "Siddur Ha-Kavvanot", is quoted by Rabbi Yaakov Chaim Sofer in the Kaf Hachaim [7] that “even according to the ones who follow the secrets of the Torah, the Omer blessing outside of Israel on the second night of Pesach must be said immediately after Maariv since the Omer is a Torah law and second Seder is only rabbinic”.

Obviously, like in so many areas in Halacha and Minhagim, one should follow the tradition observed at home or learnt from a teacher.

May we all merit to the coming of Moshiach and return to Eretz Yisroel where we will have only one Seder Pesach.

_______________

1. Kesef Mishneh, Sukkah 6:13
2. The Rambam viewed it as Torah law. See Beiur Halacha 489
3. Published by Rabbi Yisrael Yaakov Algazi circa 1731
4. Sheilas Yavetz 2:83 and Mor Uktziah 489
5. Chaim Shaal 2:10
6. Birchei Yoseh 489
7. 489:6