Leiman Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschuetz and the Porger

8/14/2019 Leiman Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschuetz and the Porger

1/16

dudaic Studies1. The Baal Teshuvahand the Emden-Eibeshuetz

Controversy.2. Yn iR Z ~ Y K w x '72 nxt.

3. The Adventure of th e Maharal of Prague in London.4. Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschuetz and the Porger.

#

-

Shnayer Z . Leiman s Professor of Jewish History and Literature inthe Department of Judaic Studies at B rooklyn College of the City Universityof New York, and Visiting Professor o f B ible at th e Bernard Revel GraduateSchool of Yeshiva University. He earned his rabbinical ordination fromMirrer Yeshiva in New York, and h is doctorate from the Department ofOriental Studies at th e University of Pennsylvania.

Judaic Studies

Shnayer Z. LeimanRABBI JONATHAN EIBESCHUETZ

ANDTHE PORGER

I No. 4 Fall 2004


2/16

y o 5 o-wn a w n ~ ~ 7 7K ~ 1 ' D D I-----I------Morris and S#rah Landesman

who devoted th eir lives

i11McKeesport, Pennsylvania

Judaic Studies is dedicated to the serious study of Jewishhistory, literature, and thought as they relate to traditionalJudaism. It seeks to encourage the study and stimulate thediscussion of the full spectrum of Jewish teaching, whetherfrom the biblical, talmudic, medieval, or modern periods. Itsonly aprioricornmitment is to a teaching aptly expressed bythe rabbis of yore: n m -V"'?;I?IU ~ m n ,

Judaic Studies

RABBI JONATHAN EIBESCHUETZAND

THE PORGER:

A Study in Heresy, Haskalah, and Halakhah


3/16

1. Introduction

Copyright O 2004by

S.Z. LeimanKew Gardens Hills, New York

The clistinguished eighteenth ceIi1ui.y rabbi, tal n~u dis t, nt1kabbalist, R. Jonathan Eibescliuetz (lG90-1764), is 1-elnem-herecl mostly fo l - his seilli~lal oiitribuiion to rabbinic litera-ture , ancl rightly so. v i m ?ni3 on ~ Y - Im15 i n y ]n'7w),nSbini V ~ K(o n UDOnTwin : l l i Y ~n'm), rXl;rK1g onMairnonides' Code), miv3W x t (a collection of ser mons) , and fnli;17 n>nx (o n thc niiw;r)ale, perhaps, his most famous works. There were rilany others.A comprel~ensive ibliography (puhIished in 1964) lists 119separate entries - epresenting sorne 35 different titles - ofpublished edition s of books by R. Jonathan ~ibeschuetz.~nesuspects that if the list were compiled today, the nuniber ofentries and titles .cvould, at the very least, be doubled. Other\vritiligs o:SR, Jonathan, whether talll~udic r kabbalistic, arestill in tna~luscript orm, awaiting pub li ~a tio n. ~

1 NaFt.ali Ben-Mcnallcm,cd., anxn? m2ln :a-~ ~i~135r2nym, erusa-1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ,964, pp. 13-24.

2Virtually al l the major libraries ofJudaica contain ma~luscripts ftalnirldic fcct.ure notes recordcd by K. onathan Eibeschuetz' disci-ples. A WN-I fvr some 50 years, ;~n d popular orlc at that, Ilcprol~ahly auglit tl~oilsaridsof studctlts, almost all of whotn tooknotcs. CLI R. Jonathan Eibescliuetz,nnu nm?, Altona, 1755, pp. 4%ancl 50h. Much of the material rcil~airis npublished, despite theoccasion;ll excerpts that 1i;lve ;rppeax.ed n Torah periodicals, such as??la ancl na5w ~ 1 2 . ;tbbalistic nianuscripls by K. (>lii~thit~lihc-s c h~~c t .~ ,'c~vcrn numhei-, cat1 hc found - lltorig otl ~cribraries- t


4/16

Su cl ~ rich al~c l ariega ted literary legacy presr.lppuses ;lifct in~c lcvotcrl cntirely t o stutly. One imagines a j~ious cc-luse, stu-roundetl by books, wllo clicl nothing but study andrvrite. IJI tllc case o f K. ollathan, nothing could be f~trtllei-St-0111 he truth . Bold a nd im agi~ lat ivc , ..Jot lath an Eiheschiretzwas not one to shy away from [he exigencies of real life. Inl'ragr~e, hc conf'l-otlted missionaries an d pr iests atltl was in-vvlvetl in Jewish-Chi-istian d i s p i~ te s . ~n Vienna, he cultivatedI-elationships with caul-tiers and Royal officials - n orde r t.oaclvance the cause or the .]ewish con in~u nit y.~'et-sonal. ac-c.~uaintallces ncluclecl the Sabbati an rog ue, Nehenlia HiyyaI-fayon (d. circa 1750);~he conlroversial kabbalist? K. kIosheHayiln 1,uzzatio (d . 1'746);~nd the founcler of the Haskalah,Moses Melldrlssohn Id. 1 7 8 ~ ) . ~recisely because llr wasperspicacious, witty, and politically well-ccrnnccted, he madePriends - ant1 enenlics - easily. His char-ismatic ~>erso tlali tyattr;icted admirers and disciples, even as liis evcry success11ec;unc a target fc~r is en emies, often fueled by lnisdirectect

the liodlcia~iLibrary in Oxford arrd at thc Jnstitutc of Orienti~lStutliesof thc Russiati Acadcrny of Scicr~cesn St. l'etersbitrg."See, c.g., (':crsho~iiScholcrn, "ov~> i~onaQ O ~ 7NnIw;I 5~ n l Y Tn-2 ;INXI,"1 - ~ (1!)44), pp. 34-35. On K. otlathan a~l dh e JesuitFi~Lhcr Frar~cisco llascll)aucr, sec D;~vitl1,cib Zinz, Trill? n j l i l ,I'iotr.kow, 1930, vol. 1, PI). 12-(3.011e riissiollary had t 1 1 ~ i~llowiriglo say about R. Joiiathar~: This J o r ~ a t l i ; ~ ~ ~s thc only rcid scholar inI'rague; 1)cposes dilficulr.qucsliot~s. he Fathers solilctimrs rlcod toengage in 2 to 3 tl;~ysof ~.cscal-clrt1 ordcr to provicic I i i t i ~witl t ; i t ]i~tlswe~~"Scliolcln,p. 34, 11. 42).

'1 7,inz, oP c ~ I . , p 14-15.sl'hey met ir i Hatribur-g n 1713.See Ziriz, oj,, c i l . , p. 1 I .6l'licy 111et ll I't.;lgue it1 1736. See li . acob Rmdelr, ]ltt;I nlni) t n71w,

121~.o~l;r,7515, 1). 4011. C:f: Mcir 13cr1ayahi1, '~unm~ tvlb2," n l l l D 05(1'361),p. SZJ.

5111cy met in Altona il l 1761. Scc Istrrar- Elbogell, el ul, eds.,Afosc~si21r1lrb lssol11 1 :esccm??rellr S ' C I ~ Y ~ J L C ~ L, / Z L / J ~ E ~ L I ? ~S ( I ? ~ . ~ ~ ~ C I ~ ~,


5/16

RflJ3ul JON,Z-I'I IA N EIBESC:I-IUFI'Z 7

Mountains suspencled irom a hair, for they have littlesupport in Scripture yet many laws.I2

Th e prohibition appears onIy once in all of Scripture, in anarrative passage and not, as expected, in a legal one. Theterse foxmulation at Ge n. 3 2 3 3 ,

That is why to this day the Israelites do not eat the gidltn-msheh which is on the socket of the hip,

leaves much unsai8. Is the verse rlescriptive or nornla~ive?That is , is the verse describing a voluntary 111-acticeor is itlegislating a pl-ohibition?What is the 7 ~ 1 3r7a?Does an animal have one or 111orethan o ne? Does the practice apply to dornestic anilnals (ma>>),to non-clomestic animals (n17n),or both? Does t he ;rwl;l 7v ,haveio be I-emoved from sacrificial offel-ings that are no t e aten?Does the prohibition apply to the 3wn l l x of a non-kosheranimal? May a Jew derive benefit from the ;Ittrl;l 71, i.c. mayhe sell it to a Gentile? If rlol for the O ral Law, we would notknow how to respond to any of these questions.I3 Indeed, onecall salely assulne that Jewish sectarians, c.g.,Sarnaritans, tlleDead Sea sect, and Icaraites also proffered responses to thesecptestions - esponses that differecl considerably TI-om thoseof rabbinic ~ u d a i s m . ~ ~

12M. I-lagigah 1:s.13 In gcncr;~l,cc 1.11~111.r.y awl;r 731" il l nv-rin5n ~ ~ - I D I S ~ Y I K ,crusa-

Icn-I,1065,cols. 1-21.'"Gal-aite dietary I i l~vs , or cxanlple, made i t i~npossibleor Kara-

i1.e~ o ~~a tron izeabhanite butcher shops. Simil;irky, Kabbanitesfouiacl it iti~possibleo patl.o~lizcKal-;tile butcher shops. Sc c Zv iAt~kori,(nrczites zil1 i~yzm~ztizinz, ew York, 19.59, pp. 285-289.

IL is therefore not surpris ing ti-iat medieval15 and early~~loder-n ' (~abbinic autl~oritieswere quick to ban deviantpractices by posgers (liebrew: n ? p ) and labelled them asn11% 7 ~ 53Dll , i.e., as smacking of heresy. Apparently, therewas an inherent relationship between deviant porging andIleresy.

3. R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz: Master PorgerAside fro111 mastering all of the Torah, R. .Jonatha11

Eibesclluetz was also a master porgel-. When in 1'750, theprofessional porgcr, R. David Ileitsch, published his 711 rn9y-;I landmark volume 011 the laws of deveixling (ilp31m>5;l), withspecial focus on the porging- of the Ilind cparters - hereceived a warm letter of approbation from R. Jonathan~ i b e s c h i i e t z . ~ ~. Jonat han wrote in part:1N

He requested a letter of approbation from me, for I anrexpert in this profession, a master of all the [anirrial]parts and their names. I reacl what hc wrote, conversecfwith him personally, and went with him to the abattoirand saw that he was flawless.

II Orie of' the other IVI-iters f a letter of approbation to tllei sarne volume, R. Zvi Hirsch Auerbach (d . 1788) of Wosnns,writes that when he saw the letter written by 13'111 iI7l1n1111TK,"II l5Sec -ma 19D 10 b.Hullin 89b, $65'3, ed: Vilna, 1886, p. 8.

If,K.Jacob Keischcr, 2j?P1n13W Wliv, I.vov, 1897, vol. 1, 557.17111 arr, Fuerth, 1750.laOj , . ci t . , inlmediately followir~ghe Introcluc~ion.I


6/16

-]mi1 "I P0115n;l 11xan thcre was no need for- T L I ~ hor investiga-tion and he simply followed stlit wit11 an appn~priateetter of1ecotnmendatioti.

Whatever cloubts allyone may have entertained about K.Jonath an's expertise as a por ger were surely dispelled by K.Jonathan's z~ccountof a confrontation hetwee~i im and anitinerant porgcl ill Prague, published during R. Jonathan'slifetirnc in his 'n591 'nil, (Altona, 1763).The passage reads:I9

In my day there was a porger, le arned in Torall and quiteexper t. Nonetlieless, 11e xnistakenly proclaimed that adifferent sinew wa s the true gid ha-nasfzeh,,:and hat tothis very day we and our forefathers liave erred, remov-ing a sinew that in fact was not the one prohibited by theTorah! He travelled through all the Gertnan lands, cl-e-ating an uproar, until he reached Prague - where hepresented his algument before me ancl the great ta11m1-dic sages of' the city. I investigated the matter andcliscovered that what lle identifi ed as the gid [ha.-~lasheh]was round otdy in male animals, not in female aninlals.1 111en s1lowed him a passage from the ~ e r n a ~ , * ( 'ho

writes tl~athe gid ha-ttnsheh neecls to be re~no ved romtllalc ant1 female animals. With that, his a~gument assilenced. The upshot is that with regarcl to devei~iing,one sllould rely only 011 an expert who is also a God-fearer of long standing.21 Indeed, fi-om the day I i m atured intellectually arid learned the Iarvs of deveining,becoming expert it) them and in the names of all theirparts, I never relied on a porger. Rather, I ate only whatI myself deveinect arid "the fruit of the labor of my hand sdid I eat."

In brief, R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz was Cllief Rabbi, ItUiy,;1;3lw7W N ~ , nd rnaster porger-.

4. R. Jacob Emden's PerspectiveThe distinguished Gaon, R. Jacob Ernden ((1. 1776), K.

Jonathan's bitter adversary, readily admitted that R. Jo~iaillanwas a master pol-ger. But wllat everyone else saw as vit tue, wasviewed by K. acob Eniclen as vice. I11 his lp y7 2 n17Y Dp'l( , l l~ona, 755-6), after issuing a call for the expulsion of R.Jonathan Eibeschuetz and his followers from the Jewish com-munity, R. Jaco b Emclen writes:22

i w x nSl>x11 inlz ,nnYitS 51wm mn ixvr)n;li iNunw m b i ~ ~XY ' i w x TY ~5'3x75n m unn n b i lntx i p ~ w75 ~ B K W v31inNl712n11 ,35n x5a 025 n5 iww zS;l 1~712 n w ~ n iINT~ 7 ~ 5 1DS)ND(imn P ~ P I I ~yvi inNnw)1w3;1 7'3. 5w 115n3 xp1- 3 ~ - r i 1S~w3:15

21Scc Nth. 7:2 a11dR~ s h i ' s O ~ I I I I I ~ I ~ ~tl I r ~ r .222i)yr3 nil^ 071, Altona, 1755-56, p. 4Yb.


7/16

2wnw 'Ixiv77'117an 175~YI;IW in3 23,3fra wn7yr13wawva in2l wnw 79'7 ,272 inww 1-n n 5y inut3w ; l ~ i n )24,'717alipnL, 37S ~ n x wla $ 7 tto> wl,a sl a ~ 1 7 ~ 1>i)y7 7 - 1~i)nli nlwn ~2 iri3w;lWl;1 7?17113 3"Vl 2 5 , it 3 ~ ~ ;l"DW 7333 03 D7N3W 111?3, ;l"DWn*Iin x gr2 'I3x. RS Y Y >in31 tai11 ,;1573~3>fru iox 13 1 2 ~7.1 ~5nxu ~ ' 7 3 1 ~K War 53 ,tz+n x;rz ~ 7 7m ; IYW~xWu2 13u> ~ ~ ~ 1 1 9i7nnw n m i 26,1v;137m; r t b ni;lw31 ,nwm~ x 7 n inn n9n c.mrn5 ~ 7 ' 7wm ; l m x , lJfm a ~ n 5ni;l ~ 5 ? n n?nL,>w ~ Y S~111nirm ; mn $ 1 ~i7-n~1 5 5 ~ ~ Y W ~Iw onnw~;1-;1 2 7 , ~ 1 ~ 3 31 x 3 Y ~3 D I ~ I 14w ~ ~ ~ i i n xv 3 O Y B ~ nxn 53xw

.imx o r v n n> ai5 nw i vis aln , ~ 3 1 ~ 1 2K'I~inx5a)

This is particulally necessary because they sinned, andcaused othets to sin ancl stumble. This is especially thecase regal-cling he l ~ i ~ l duai tels, which lle [R.Jonathan]infornied thein that he had deveinecl. I-Ie sent them1101 tions or it which hc fed the m with rillti1 it came outof tlleir nostrils. Accorcling to what has heen seen andh e a ~ d ,he rneat he sends them is full of fat. Doubtless,he iil ~eii ded o cause them to stumble by having themconstmle the fat of the gld ha-aasheh (whose blood ves-sels ~ ~ o u ~ i s hhe lrind quarters) just as Shabbetai Zeviclid, may his name an d memor y be blotted o ut asFor gleat rabbinic scl~olars zave testif icd con cer i~i nghim [Shabbetai Zevi], that he co n~i der cil his a greatrec t i f ica t ior~.~~It would seem that his reason for- thispat-tice is consistent with his oveiall view. For he be-lieves that the Messiah has come and thc [wenched

2 3 0 1 1 Shahl~etaiZcvi's ritual consun~ptio~~f the foi-bidden Cats,set:C;er-showS.Scholcrn,SaDDrrtai Sevi, Princctor~, 973,pp. 242-243,387, arid 459.

24Sce, c.g., the rabbinic test i~no~lyecorclctl i n K. oscpll Yr;regcs,o j ) . it. [above, 11o1c101, vol. 1, Sol.2%-322.

socket of the] thigh ofJ aco b has been rectified. Also wellki~owns the passage in the Zollar relating to tile talmu-tlic saying that h u ~ na n eings have 565 veins whichparallel the 36 5 days of the Jieal-.25 he gid fin-~zashehparallels Tish'ah be-Av, which is why one is forbidden toeat on Tish'ah be-Av. This is alluded to i n Scrip ture bythe verse: The Cljildren afIs?-ael d o not ent kt [ n ~ ] ,et [ n ~ ]being the abbreviation of Tish'ah Av. The one is depend-ent i ~ j ~ o nhe other. When one is not permitted to eat on'I'ish'ah be-Av, one may not eat the gid ha-?znsh.elL.Whenit is permissible to eat or1 Tish'ah be-Av, it is also permis-sible to eat the gid h n - ? z n s ~ e h . ~ ~ince the flagrant viola-tors have ruled that it is permissible t.o eat on Tish'ahbe-Av, it follows that it is also permissible to eat the gidha-nnshefz- ndeed, they consider it obligatory!) Regarcl-irlg these wicked ones who cast off t he yoke of the Tor-ahand the commandments, may their spirits be ex~in-guisl-ied and may their souls pine away. It is publick~iowledge,egarding anyone who ate from his meat ancltastecl the hind quarters [he cleveined], that what heconsruned entei-ecl his body like snake He then

'5Sec la m 1Z)b to Gen. .72:33, ed. Ma~gulics,erus;~lem, 964, vol.1 , p. 1'70b.Cf . h.iVIvlakkot2317. For R.lonath;tn Eibeschuctz' analysisofthe %r)ll;lr assage, sec v37 nnY7 , ecl. Or LI~I-S~L'CI;erusalem, 1988,vol. 2, pp. 1 1 -1 12.

2tiTliis, o f course, is ;I Sabbatian j~ilcrprctationof the Zohar pas-sage; t ! ~ohar does not. state that when it is perinissible to cat on'Tis11'ah he-Av, it is also permissible lo eat thegin l~ct-nnskelt.ee, c .g . ,1,eopold Loew, "Zur Gcschichte dcr ungarischen Sabballiaeer-," n his(;esamazclteSchrqte?~. zegedin, 1898, vol. 4, p. 446. Cf. ,however, the"tsarli~ional" ources citecl in R. Pinhas Zclig Schwartz, onla nYu,Brooklyn,2004, pp. 135-137.On the Sabb~ti annnuhncnt 01. the fastof -l'ish'ali l~e-Av,ee SclhvIcn-I, il, c i l . , pp. 628 f.

77C;f. b.Sh;tbha~2b .


8/16

fell ovcl- backwar-cls, 11vt ibl-wards. I'llus rlirl 11e sprcad ar~ct t tlieir feet; lle causctl the111 to fall over backwarcls.

R. Jacob E~ilclen epeated this accusation tlll-ougl~outiiswritings.28 Here we have a striking example of the inherenrrelationship between alleged deviant V ~ Ind heresy. Interest-ingly, if R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz was a lifelong Sahbatian (asR. Jacob Eniclen claitncd), K. Jonath an woulcl have don e bettcrby remaining silent when challenged by the porger in l'rague- or better yet - hc should have suppoltecl his argulnent.Sabbatians ~va ntedews to eat the forbidden fats and thc true;IWI> TI.y refsting the porger's argument, K. onalhal~guarant eed that a11Jews would continue to remove the t rue 7'1;rw~;l ~lc l efrain fro111 eat ing it.

5.The Perspective of the Haskalahli . Ezekiel Feivel 11. Zev Wolf (d. 1833) woulcl serve with

distinction as D'lW3b 7'Ib and p7r mln of Vilna from 1811 untilliis Prior to that, he served as o?wln -r71n nd 3 7 ~ nof Del-etschin, a town northwest of Slonim, in what is todayBelarus. While a1 Ileretschin, in 1809,he published volunle 2of his mx nnj i n , a moralistic work in the form of a biographyof' K. Shlolno Zalman of Volozhin (cl. 1788). R. Shlomo

Zaltnan, affectionately called R. Zclmclc, was a youngerI)ro[lier o f R. Hayyi~rl f Volozhin (tl. 1821) anct a favoriteciisciple of the Gaon of Villia (cl. 179'7). Ostel~sib ly biogra-1111y of K. Slilon~oZa11~1a11, ~ N ib was in fact a classicvolume of Jewish thought that tells as much about R. EzekielFeivel as it does about R. SIlIolno Zalman. Modern scholarlyinvestigation has shown that R. Ezekiel Feivel appropriatedpassages fa-om the writings of Azariah tie Rossi (d . 1578),Moses Me~~delssohnd. 1'78G), Naftali Hertz Wessely (d.1805), ancl others, often without proper attribution, and in-sel-ted tI1en1 into his am n i ~ $ l n . ~ )or our purposes, it isimportant to note that the Maggid of Deretschin - an d laterof Vilna - elt quite comfortable reading, an d appropriatiugpassages from, works that played a formative role in establish-ing the agenda of the Maskilirrl in ~ e r l i n . ~ ~At one point, l i . Ezekiel Feivel gathers the evidence forrabbinic error. Rabbis too are mortals and are prone to err o noccasion. The ~n ora lesson for us, explains K.Ezekiel Feivel,is that no one should be overconfident. Rather, everyoneshoulcl be open to criticism and correction. Among his sam-pIes of rabbinic error, K.Ezekiel Feivel adduces the ' n 5 ~ 1 rn3passage cited above, and then adds the I' ol l~ wi ng :~ ~

( D " L / ~ n ~ f 55n IJfam hz n n v i x ~ ; lpn i n K 11n5 v x 5 iln>m;1117371 1b l DW 13NYb ~ 5 1W llWPl 33,;1~~;t-1 " I T 1NlnI PW 1WN

ZxSce, e.g.,R.J;lcob linldcn,np s3pY,Altonil, 1'753,pp . 91)-10a;cf. ]]is 1ma;l Imla3 n71,Altona, 17(iJ, p. 1 lit-b. Sec also R. Jos ephI'raegcr, oj). c i t . [above, note 101, vol. 3, fol. 57;~-58b, 36 .

2 g 1 ~ ~cncral, Ply mln was l l~ciilc givcrr lo anyone appoi~ltedoserve as all ofciciill ]"l of thc .le\vish co~~l~r~unily.'hc Dsltu7D -T31h,oiicn aside f1.ot11 cl-vingas ;Ir7,was ~ h cfficial W> T an d n 9 x noftheJcrvish cu~nlnl.mily. ee, e.g., Ilillel Noah S~ci~lschneide~.,I > ~ I I 'y,Vilr~a, 900, pp. 8% nd 102.

soSce Isaac Raer I-,evir~sohn, H Y ~ I ~ , 1903, pp. 32-43. Cf .Sllr;~gaAbramson, "5?r39 5#pm3 113 P?Hrnl51ni 53 ~ noi n 1 ~ 1 ~ 7 , ' '1 3 ~72(1973), pp . 100-143.

SlSee lrn~nanuelEtkes, " ; lw l vK rnm3 n53wa;l ? i w m n5uwS," y33in57(1987) , pp . 102-104.Cf. Edw;trd Rrer~er, The Haskal:~h ll Vilna:R.Ychezkel Feivel's 7bldol Ada???.,"omhU-iCInddq oz~r~lnl7(99'7),pp .15-40.

3 2 0 7 ~ 17hn,Jerusalem, 1987, vc~ l . , chapter 16, p.237."See abovc. note 20.


9/16

nlwn 35ix in n x , y n ~ 2 w5i wi725 IY~ .ni2pn a7i3ra~312-1i3r7 x5 ?3 115 min x5 DW n l 3 4 , y n ~i p 1 X ~ ~ Din i ~ i bwD i*i nw w p5 n 1115 a y s ~ ' 7 7-72 n12i)11o-131~ I Y nw i i ) ~ ~5i~ ' 7 11Yl' ,11K1 13 11358 1WKI) 5 2 ~37 WlDnl 23 1 3Y*J7DY D7i)D13;1D W ~ n ~ p n mn a7737 nrn nx 3x1nwm TX 21 liw5 i ~ x ~ nnixnn -1505~>*I 11x1;1 mi3 nn-;1 +ix 33 inxu5 7y nnm 5~ DIDniy n na;113i :;1111~521~1;1-1 -1~7115wvi 1 7 ~ 1n3w l i m n 5wn313w in2wnn 5~ ;1nSyi 35 .ni3p~31 7 x 3nr 5 3 ~i p h 2 r;IN-lw o41x .n ix?] n113;12x1n7131ninii22 nana n nlrnw xin iiJ7nnD~WII D~UIK ~ S K xm r nirnw xin li17nnnn, 71 ,7xn NV ;r'?nl711~nn w i3niawnn~ i x m m n n x>i , D ~ K IX n i qx i n lix 1 ~ ~ n - 1niyn 53 ~ S K Y ~i;1w ninnz m3pn n7i3r3 m i] nr l v w la15o w n r ; l i~ n ~n11nl 1iw5 zrn3 a;rin:, m i n i nl w i yan in3 n+

. m > p

Mre lurned our attention toward locating the source ofthese words in the Semag (list of negative commancl-tllenls, $ lYY), where th e lawis of gid Izu-?aasltehare expli-c a ~ e c l . ~ ~e scarched there but could find no reference10, 01 - mention of, "males and fe~nales."We exertedoulselves and sea~c hect n th e Semak, for we said: Pel-haps this is a sclihal eiror, "Semag" being printed in

9 . saac:oK Cor-bcil l 3 1 h entury), Tapnirn YDD.55lll3n;r790 13th century), ed. Ck~avcl,orusalcr~~,977,pp . 57-58.36 Cf . b.bloed Ratan 2511.37 Sce Mainionides, a7ps r~lnvlnu nmn5 nnlpn, Itltrotlnction (ed.

Iialah, l7j77r1 1?b :nn>hl;r v1lYo nlwn, Jerusalem, 1964, p. 247).3C Jcn 9:23.

place of "Semak."34 13ut there too no mention is made01 "nlales ancl females" with regard to this law. We didnot refrain from making extensive search in the books ofthe halakl~ic ecisors. But we retri1.11eclas we Itat1 left,empty-handed. Despite tnuch effort, we searched in vainamon g the halakllic decisors for- the ph rase "th e g idIan-lamheh needs to bc removed from rnale and femaleanimals." Bu t the tr-uth testifies on its own behalf: theGaon, perhaps, had in mind the book of command-tnents by the i-lirs~clrh.111 the section Va-Yishlnl~., helldiscussing the laws o f gid Iim-ltasheh, he writes: "Thiscommandment applies in all places and all tinies f'ormales and fe~nales."~~. Jonathan ttlougllt that l t ~ eIIimtlth meant to say that this coil~lnancltnelits applieclto male and female anirnals. But this is an egregiouserror, for the intention of the Hi?2zdkh is that this corn-trlanclmenr applies to men and women, i.e., humanbeings. What the GaonJonathan understood - hat thisIatv is applied to male and female animals - s hardlywhat the Hint~lzlt11ad in 11-lind.For in virtually all thcnegative commandments, such as the prohibitionagainst cating leavened bread 011 l'assovel., or doingwork o n the Sabbath, and many others like them, it washis practice to write: "This comlrlarldrnent applies tomales ancl females."'Tbercfol-e, let evelyone apply to himsell un it fort?ot?argument. If giant fish [in the sea], such as these, gctcaught up on t he fish-hooks of error, whal possible hop eis there that ordinary fish in the pond, like me, willescape from them?36 t is appropriate indeed to c h e ~s11the saying oi t he sage who said: "I accept the truth flo111whoever says it, ancl I detest falsehood."37 May the Lordlead me in the paths of t ruth a nd justice, "for in these 1~ l e l i ~ h t . ' ' ~ ~


10/16

R. Ezekiel Feivel's concern was with trut h and llurnility.But by bringing h e ?n i> nSai passage to the attelltion of abroacl readership, lie f ~ ~ e l e dhe fires of the Haskalah. A majorobjective of the Haskalah was the unclerrnining of rabbinicauthority. What bette r way to advance this cause than th epublication of a list of egregious rabbinic errors made by thegreatest of the rabbis? It was with great relish, one suspects,that th e Maskili~n nnouncecl that riot only do rabbis e rr, theycrr p~orou~lcily.

One of t be founding fathers of' the Haskal al~n Russia wasIsaac Haer 1,cvinsolln (tl. 1860). I n his writings, he adducesthe * n h i 7rn3 passage and refers the reader to K. EzekielFeivel's discussion. He c o i ~ c l u d e s : ~ ~

It is truly astonishing that such world class rabbis coulderr in texts they study clay and nigl~t.They erred inmatters that even a child who studied one day in ayeshiva would know how to rea d correctly.A Iesser Maskil, Nehemiah Satnuel Libowitz (d. 1939),

emigrated to the Unitecl States in 1881 and published acollectioil of shal-p-witted jokes and anecdotes, airangecl asc o r ~ ~ ~ n e n t sn the biblical books. At Cen. 32:33, he cites thevn'7~i?m3 passage together with Levinsohn's coxrlinents, ascited above.$O

s(J011. ~t.(ahove,otc 30), p. 79.. 'opn~?Yawil, New Y~ I - k , 907,p. SO (second, revised eclirion:New

York, 1934, p. 43). R.Jorlat l~all iibcschuelz's "crlor" was duly notcdby G. Klcn~pei-er,Rabbi Jonathatl Eibel~schuetz,"r ~W. Paschelcs,erl., Srj~/,ul-z?n, 'ragur, 1856, vol. 4, pp. 226-227; and by J.11. Eisc11-s~ein, d., Sr~iv7YIK, New Mlotk, 1909, vul. 3 , p. 272.

6. In Defense of R. Jonathan EibeschuetzSuch mockery, of course, begged for rebuttal , and it wasn't

lo~ ign coming. The attenipts to defend R. Jorratlian beganwith R. Moses Sofer (d. 1839) and continue to this very day.Rasically, the attempts to defend R. Jonat han fall undertwo categories:1. no e~riendation equired.2. elllendation required.Under- the category "no clnendation ~equii-ed,"we will

present two samples (one fi-om the 19th ceiltury and one fi.omthe 20th century) of the kinds of argun-tents that have beenpu t forward.A. No Erne?tdation Required.

1.11.Moses ~ o f e r : ~ ~

4 1 l D l D nnnn-iw, Pressburg, 1841, lY 7 mi7, 69 (ed.Jerusalem,2000,;IYT ;m7,vol. 1,p. 70). Th e responsum, dated 1830,was addressed toan olhcrwise unidentified "R. Abrallatn." (For the varivus rabbisi~ainedR. Abraharn" who received resporlsa from thc 1310 onn, seeM.A. I(inslJicher,1910 Dnn nil iwn l DW'K,Bnei Braq, 1993, pp . 19-49.)In th r first paragraph of thc responsurn, the 'ID10 nnn presents asunr~nlaryf R. Abraham's query.


11/16

5 ~ i w l - 1 2 f1-5p7 * irpn5 w- l ~ n ~oln*lp 07n3n -117 i ~ i x1x1n1381~x NSX -ui7 71 ;ma7 11x 7 5 ~ j 3 * r ~ i2,5xiw- m n x h;rwp YN ,nu2 ~ 5 1n wi-r7 P-'T~Dtw34 2 ~~ I D D ~ 1 ~ xN nlwillDIK 11;115 X51 ,?N~w' n113 ~ 5 1 ~ 1 ~ 112 Kn71NS *NnK *Dl ;1"3?WYl Dlp2 N>N 13 1I2W77 ~ 5 ' 7t??'->1';llK3h ,L /N~w? M1p32 nJf3II*S~ xn 7x ,minm ]W~Y 135 W ~ K Swx 2inx1mw; w t h 52x43,~3n?h~KDDnW 12X Ill13 ~ 5 1l>X -12 t151;13;1VX 1173N W"'3 Dlt ) 31 3 ~1 ~ Q ~ a ~DI ;1"~tl "xi ,o-WI 1l1t5Ynn n1#521 5 . ~ ~in7 5 ~ 3*DK nYi3t~1 pjn5 ;1ui1 xi>a;17 n73;13 -31 -NW 5 3 1 n i~ l p~ inwx niwn nu$vixw3 r r xwn ;111n> nwnp I~JYS m2pl rn 71mn

,5-r2 rnn x5 i -1112w i i x'Ii w w 5

I received your volurne, ancl 1 hereby respond lo the twomatters that you called to my attention. First, regarclingthe passage in the Kereti at th e end of [S1z1~21za~~~Andth:I'a,sh DecahY!,l65 concerning a porger who "shook upthe wol-Id" by claiming that the gzd I~n-nasl1e1~,s not theaccepted one, but rathel- a sinew that is foullc1 ollly inmale - an d not. female - animals. The sages of Prague

,12C;(. h.1-1agig;lll1Gh.43CL'. b.Kiddushin S5b.~ ~ ~ ~ ? ' h cs l o ann scems to have bcelr ~ulawar-e f' 11teT;lct thar h e

Senlag passilgc is inlagin.iry. t is possible t h ; ~ ~e si~rlply -epcatctl hc"f i~c- IS"is tlrcy ~vcl-cpr-cscnrcclby tllc tjucstioner.

were unal>le to defend their position unti l the Gaon,author of the Pektz, showed 11im the Sernag, w h o writesthat the co~nrnandlrlent ertaining to the gid /?.a-nashehapplies to tnales and females. It followed, then, tliat thegid An-nashclt could not he identified with the sinew [putfol-ward by the porger]. Many have expressed arnaze-ment at this major blunder that has emanated from themasters, for the Se ~na g eant to say that the command-ment of gid hn-7znshelt applies to Jewish ltlales and fe-males, as it is his pr-actice to write regarding all thecommandments. He w a s not discussing whether or no tthe sinew is found in male an d fen ~al e nimals. Nowsince the gaonirn {in PI-ague] were confron ted by anerroneous identification [of the gid ha-?zaslzelt], nd theywere able to reject it only with a specious argument, theporger's clairn stands. Should it not follow tliat one maynot consume the hind quarters unless both sinews [i.e.,the traditional girl ha-7znshelz and the one identified bythe porger] are removed?1 say: th e words of th e sages stancl vindicated. We rule:the sous o Israel (Lev. 1:2), and not the daughters of1srae1.~~t follows that R. Judah an d R. Jose disagreeonly I-egardingwhether ~ l l eaying of hands by w0Iner-r isoptional or prohibited. B ut all agree that the biblicalverse obligates men and no t woinen [to lay hands on t heanimal]. If so, regarding the gid ha-rzasheh as well, whydon't we read: the sons o j Israel (Gen. 32:33),an d not thedaughters of Israel, so that the prohibition against con-suming the gid ha-nasiteh would not apply to women? Intheo~y,t is possible to ~eplyhat such a n exclusionaryreading of the verse only applies to positive command-ments. Regarding the negative commandments, Scrip-ture Elas made women a nd nlexl equal [in obligation and ]in pui-rishment. But we find even regarding the negativecolnn~andments:j)enlt to the f~r ies t s ,he sons of Anrorz [ c n t ~ t l


12/16

soy t o l l te~n .Nonr r l ~ c r l lcl~/ris r~~rrrc!/or r l u y (lrrrtl j~rrsoun l ~ z o ~ glr k t t ? ] (Lev. 21:1), a~ l d ot tlie ctaughteis ofAal on. l'hcy niay defile tl~emselvccor the dead!43Thus,ciren tegarclit~g he tlegativc cotnal aiitl lilem , womenale [sonietitncc] exch~clecl. f so, why in the case of thegtd lzu-17osheh does the p~ ohi bit ion pply to males ant1females? One Inust s ~ yhat tlie case of 111est? is cliffel--ent. Reason suggests that we clif fe~en tiatc etween males(even blernisllecl oncs) and females regarcling the sanc-tity O F the priesthood. Not so ~cgarding ll the othernegative ~oinmandmcnts,whcl-e Scliyture 11as maclewomen atlcl ~ n e n qual, aritl we d o not expountl theverse in an exclusional y mannel, "sotls" and n ut "daugh-Ytels."It follows, then, illat if one assrulles illat t l ~ einew thatwas wrenched li-olnJacob's thigh is not fonr ~dn femaleanimals, there would he reason to difkrentiate hetweenrnalc ancl fenlalc ,Jews [with l-csgarcl to t l ~ e rollibitionitself]. If so, how coultl the Setnag write tllat the prohi-bition applies equally to male ancl female . [ ~ e w s ] ? ~ ~otoo the hlishnah in I-lullin ['7:1] does not sta1.e l.11al.urornen are exclltded fror r~he pl-ohibition. It can only bebecause the sinew is found in nlale and fernale animals.Therefore the prohibition also applics to all [~nalent1femal e Jews]. 'I'hus, thc wortls of t he sages stand vincli-catccl.

15 i l in; l ni7w im nim , Bnci 131.ac1,li)8!),v ( J ~ . , p. 137.

When the book Kewti u-l'eleti appeared in print, thispassage shocked all those knowledgeable in Torah. Forthe words "it applies to rrlales and females" refer toh ~u n anobligation: all must heed this prollibition,whether men or women. It does not refer to animals.The later authorities have occupied tliernselves with thisp~oI>le rn. he Hatarn Sofer, Yote12 De'nh, $69, attemptedto solve this problem Ily Inearis of a pal,hI, I do notpresently have a copy of the Kereti 71-Peleti at hand toexamine. But it scelns possible that the "Rebbe"K. ona tha n simply wanted to expose t he ignorance ofthe porger. He therefore set a tt-ap for him with theseWOI ds or t he ~ e r n a ~ . ~ ' ;

One can otily admire th e 1 9 1 ~nn for his ingenious defenseol'a bcleaguered rabbinic colleague. This is all the more admi-rable , given his obvious bias in favor of K.Jacob Emd en, an d hiscohort, R. Jacob Joshua Falk (d. 1756), the two leading oppo-lients of K. onathan Eibeschuetz in the Ernden-Eibeschuetz

46Nahshoni, folloxvir~g he sumnlary of the account as i t appear-edin the m i a nnn, assumed - t this point in his discussion - hat t l~cSetriag passage was real rather than imaginary.


13/16

r o n t ~ o v e r s y . ~ ~o~~etheless ,hilc Ilis intentions were surelyaclmirablc, Setv were pe l-s ~ia ded y his arg utn eni . 111 11452, R.Solornc~nKlugci- (d . 1869) of Brotly published a respoxisunl.He nlas askecl specil'ically what lie tlloug llt al,c)ul the 7910 ann'sdefense of R. Jonathan. He I-eplied n part:4"

;t19b12 1275 l ll n x 111 SK ' I ,111R 51 ~5 9 172 7 l l nK T I 7 ~ 1 9 5Xm 5 n ,5195~1T ~ D P-17m-t3736 pin i>iw73wn;l wNnl. . .

.tv17ga 135%1 h D313-i 7XY7 Dx rI?>fll 0 6 ;17nllX T l 27One should not interpret the words u l a later authorityhy means of a lengtliypiI/)wl, For it is no t t he practic e ofthe later a uthq -itie s to speak in ricldle5. . . 'I'he HatamSoPcr's clel'ense, aside fro111 its verl>osity and pt / /~rt l , ~pel-])Icxingon the following grout .1~ 1~s well . . . 1 wonderif t hes e ~vor-clseally enlanatctl Ikoln his holy lips!

K. Solomon IUuget coultl not account l or R. Jonatllan'slespotise to the po1g;cr (tlespite a br.illianr, liltel at tem pt to doso - n the same 1852 ~responsuln , bu t after furtl-rel- ref-lec-tion lie wa5 folced to reverse hin~se lf]. Instead, he :~cIilucetltlcw cviclcncc that R. .Jon atha n wils right ahour thc fact t h ; ~ ~the ;rt?l;l7 neeclcd t o be renioveclI1-om bot1i male ant1 female

'17 0 1 1 the imp onn's attitude to~vard he I-abbismentioxlcd, sce I'l>;K. Eliezcr. Mischel, x131n uii-fan 1 1 ~ 7 5 ~lwb, [lacks placc of p~rblica-tioil], 1924,o-nm n~w n?n, pp. 32-32;R. Moses Grcenwald, n m u nrllwDWJ?, Szilagysomlyo, 15126, ;YT nil', $644; R. Pinhas Zelig Schwartz,Dnln nvl x, Kisvarda, 1927, pp . 32-33 [ed. Brooklyn, 2004, pp. 131-1321;R. Yissakhar I h v Babad, 07-n;1 i"v i y lx , l,emberg, 1934, $34; R. SaulMalin, o5wa i1p1;l n i n , 13ialystuk, 1936,p. 87; and the sources listed il lDavid I,eih Zinz, 01). il . [above, note 31, vol. 2, p. 233; in R. YissaldiarDov Goldstein, 7 0 1 ~nn nr?w 5~ nnya ? alp> , erusalem, 1976, Fly7 ;n13,vol. 1,1111.118-1 9; and in R. Joseph Pacllanovski,U S W ~ Dl70719, BlieiBr;tq, 1993, vol.2, pp. 614-615.

5'1I.ater in his discussion, Nal~slioni ecame aware of the fact that(he Se~na gassage is imaginary.


14/16

I! . I: ',n~~zdariow ~qztrrrri.I n 1875, R. Abraliam Simon TI-aub (cl. 187F), Cliiel Rabbi

ol'Kaidan i11 I,itliuania, publishetl a new eclirio~r o l i335;rrnhin, ; 9tl1 century halakllic code cvhicl~ ~lcluclcs scc ti n~l nnml-w nain. In it, there is an Aramai c passage that. seellls toimply t h a t th e ;lWl;l 7.1 was removed fi-o~n rlale nt1 fcrrl;lleanimals." R~ahl~irauh llotcd this, and i~olnediatelyuggestedthat this was the very passage cited hy th e nh i m ~ . slighte l l r cnda l in~~olves c~ur l-ohlem;all we need to was, in fact,referring to the 7lpll;l 17P as it appeared i l l th e W71b ; I Y n X , allcltllat i s \vllat 11e sho wed he porgei-. Rabbi Gross suggested thatin the manriscript of the ~ n 5 nIn13 K. Jonathan Eibeschuetzhad written ;lnD (= 11jFJ;l T~D ) , liich was misl>rintecl as ~"BD.~ '

--51 R. Al~rahatri irrlon ?.I-sub, etl., nt3l-n ni>h D D ,W~rs;nv, 875, ,

257. Irl the contcxl of a clcscriptior~ f the dcvciniog process in r . 1 1 ~gctrcrill ar-caor the nv1;1 7l1, thc passage r-e;~clsin pal-():UDUY7 lj)i l~au~ i151?iwni . . N ~ Y T5 3 2 ~~~)~IITXIIp 7 i ~ i nV~II In nu7 i n v;r any.uqin -1215 n75pwrn52'li-aul~,j). r i t . , 11. 2Wi. For tllc ni517J nl>>;lpassage in cluesrio~r,ccr ~ t n vEzrjel IIildcshcirne~; tl., nih.rn no5a 19D,Jerusalenl , 198'7, vol.3 ,pp. 155-157.Cf: i h i t l . , 111). 226-232.

55Tlic pass:tgc in the 03iiU lY>irt cf . I~cltm, ole 58) rctads ( it) p:t~- t ) :nii>r; 1 nini ,;rwm 71 i l w D Y Y ~ i31awlw oipnx 1902 piaai inxnlil;l~ i ~ imi u la1 , I ~ W 25ni alwin 7~1ana :lgl 11p1h p - r t r xw i w ~; n ,i ~+w n i i ~ p ~ m.?YY~U;I DYYJ OWIU ;1w1;1 711 1ni ,N+T? r i i ~ vniln

5'' 11. Iqayyirn llov GI-oss, ]nlia' llti DiUlip," pr-intecl t1 lhc apperltlixt o R. tcopolcl Crcctrrvald, ]mia7 n12, h,I;tranlarossziget,, 1908, pp .!.)I>- 1oa*

In 1930, the matter was apparently laic1 to rest by R.S o l o n ~ o t ~1ich;iel Neclles ((1. 1957), wl-ro at the tinie served asa rabbi in I,os Angeles, California. Ne ck s announcecl that Ilellad in his possession a copy of the first printed eclition uf 717737n>ni (Altorxa, 1'763). It contained several corrections andmarginal notes in the autlior's own hand . At our passage, theautho r crossecl out the word xuao atlcl wrote in it s place: I~;~D.Th e evidence aciduced by Neclles seemed to pr-ove that, forthe lnost part, 11.Hayyinl Dov Gross had been right o n target.A n emen dati on was calletl for by our erxiglnatic text. Wha t K.Jotlathail Eibeschuetz really had in m ind was the i ip7m170,presumably to be iclcntified with the i7p71;r 17D of th e Z Y ~ K0~7113.55

Nonetheless, t he matt er is hardly settled. The first of thesuggested emendations, l";lb (= rn5l-n m35;l I~D),efers to anAra~na ic assage on n p n n l j n l n'l35;r "tio. Th e passage bearsno title, neither npi11~or 77F3 n135; 770. It see ms unlikelythat K. Jonathan Eibeschrretz woultl cite and refer to thepassage as I Y T D . ~ ~ revised version of th e m5nx r n 3 h passage- n Hebrew - was it~cludeclt1 R. Isaac b. Abba Mari's (cl.1193)~ l t 3 ~ ~ ; r9 ~ . ~ ~here it is referred to as: l l i 7 v 3 ; 1 71D*. F I O I ~

5517. Solomon hlichacl Ncclres, "p71~; 1 u lp77Xal," ljlr l1Yw($1i3ani l in) IO(I930), 11. 1-4, pp. 5!1-(50. Tlrc Ncchcs essay also iIp-[,carcd un dc~ lrc title " a ~ i a 3IIY~" i l l b ' n ~ ; ~: 1(1930), pp. 18-19.

""i~lrtlcecl,K.KliczcrWaldcnl~erg, 7~95~.r nffiw, e~~usa lc~n ,965,vol. 8, $25:1, wllo Car- a variety of reasons prekr~rd llcirst of thes~ggcstcdcmcndations, lWao = ni511~m353 DO), suggested thatNeches crrcd in his reading of R. onalhan Eibeschuctz' I~mndwrittericorrection. R. Jonathan liad written Y"'D,which Neches ~nisi -cad sJTU. For eviclcncc tlrilt argues against such a tllis~~eadingy Ncches,see I~elow, lotc 62.

571Cd. Warsaw-Vilna, 1874-5,vol. 2, p. 15-16, It resurfaced ir ~aterDsnWX1,e.g., R. /\alr)n oi Lullel (latc 13th-cal-ly14th century), nlnlKn51n, n153un 111~3~ib , g93, cd. M. Sclllesitlgcr, Berlin, 189!1, pp .345-34'7.


15/16

tllc 1 ? t l z Y ~9D, tile passage wiis incorporated i ll to t l ~ e Y27K13711t3.58There it. is entitlccl for- the first time: 11i~1;l70 . EStit il lnone of the above passages is i t stated unequivocally that t henwm 7'1 is ~ ~ ~ n o v e dorn tnalc ancl remalc ani~nals.At best,there is a11 an~ bigu ous eference to the removal of thc rnaleand female organ s duri1.1g the deveining PI-ocess. Nor is itapparent that this has anything to do with the ; lw~ ; l5x. Indeed,several halakl~ ic uthorities have conclude d that th e passagesin questioll are speaking about interlocking "n ~ale " nt1 "ie-~n a l e "membt-anes or ~~lusclearts of bulls, not cows.5o Ac-cordingly, the passages prove nothing about whether the 13;1w1;1 is r-emoved frotn ~ n a l e nd female anirnals. It scernshig1:ly unlikely th at the po rge r - or anyone else present -

I~voulrl ave been persuaded by such a tenuous argulllet~t.Another possibility is suggestive. In (hacow, 157'7, a rare

treatise on 71p71n13L/;1 was publishecl its a11 appendix to a workentitled nig3-r1 by R. Jacob Weil, d. b e f o r e 1 4 5 6 ) . ~ ~h e

A shorter vcrsiori of thc Hcl~t-civ assage inclr~dert n thc ~ I U * Y ,asct-ibcd to Rashi, circt~l atetlviclely in the unedicv;ll p ctiod. E~ltit lcd"*ST 3'r~ 7'7 tol;l lip 17i," if WIS o f i e ~ ~ppen~lcci o c ditior~sof' R.Jncoh Wcil's nli;17-r1e.g., Manrua, 1571). O J ~ CL' tlic 16111 centurycdi t io~~svns phofol~neclii~nically-ept.ocluced, )rwidcclwith ;in iinzrg-inary title - 3"~75r1liFI;l 170 - nd inclurled in a711nlj, a7poo 79D p i ,in7 ;rl lD3K m3'7z2,Jcr.~si~leln,5182.

5H;1~7n17 Tts, $65 (ctl.Jcrus;~lcm,000, ;?Yf ;ill7,ol. 2, 11) 4 1-45).S!)Sec, c . g . , R. Solornon Freidus's note in R. A h r a l l ; ~ ~ ~ ~orlAbclson, cd . , '7??1w3??33nno],, Oclessa, 1896, p. 100, 5118, note 91: K .

Sholc~rl~losclechai Schwadron, ;lYT 7717 ?Y nu 7 -15.1 , S;riuma~.c,!)] 0,$(i5:7;R. Mena11ct11M. ](asher, n~'7to n , New York, 1952, vol. 5, p.1298,n . ItiS; and i.hc sot1rces cited above, note 49.

'j0hlp37>, C;racow, 1577. 7 ' 1 1 ~ t i~lepage is I-eproctr~cedn I


16/16

'The c11t oftn eilt calletl "t he knJ" which is also callecl "t l~ egicl Ern-itaslleli."01- the yrrd" neecis to I)e scraped off wid1a knil'e at ttre t.oj> . . This is true only regi~rcfing ows.fi)r i t clraws sustena nce fr.0111 thc ucltler. It is thereforeforbidtlen t>ecause o f the prohibition of tnixing meati~ nd i lk . 11. i.)llo~vs,hen, thitt this shoalcl not 1,e neces-sary regarcliag hulls, for this reason tloes not apply toI~ulls.But our p~-;lctice s to scrape off for 1,ulls as well. . . .:\tier the sct-apingoff. oiie searches 1vit1.1 the handfol- tj veins prohibited ~rlicler11e I-ul~ricf gid Irn-rrn.rheh.

ticte, the cut of 111eai col~ tai nin gIle~?(l'lransheh is clea~ylitlkecl t o male atit1 female animals, the ilnplicatiotl bein g tlxaltllc g? d Ira iroslrcli needs to I)e remo\;ed fro111 bntll male andfelnale animals. By citing this passage, or a late1 (let-ivative of

I

Leiman Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschuetz and the Porger

Documents

Transcript of Leiman Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschuetz and the Porger