dudaic Studies

1. The Baal Teshuvahand the Emden-Eibeshuetz

Judaic Studies
Controversy.

2. Y n i R Z ~ Y Ki w x '72 nxt.

3. The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London.

4. Rabbi Jonathan Eibeschuetz and the Porger.

Shnayer Z. Leiman
#

RABBI JONATHAN EIBESCHUETZ

- AND

THE PORGER

Shnayer Z . Leiman is Professor of Jewish History and Literature in

the Department of Judaic Studies at Brooklyn College of the City University
of New York, and Visiting Professor of Bible at the Bernard Revel Graduate
School of Yeshiva University. He earned his rabbinical ordination from
Mirrer Yeshiva in New York, and his doctorate from the Department of
Oriental Studies at the University of Pennsylvania.
I No. 4 Fall 2004
 Judaic Studies

y o 5 o-wn a w n ~ ~ 'K ~
7 1~'7D D I
- - - - - I - - - - - -

Morris and S#rah Landesman RABBI JONATHAN EIBESCHUETZ

who devoted their lives AND

THE PORGER:

i11
McKeesport, Pennsylvania A Study in Heresy, Haskalah, and Halakhah

Judaic Studies is dedicated to the serious study of Jewish

history, literature, and thought as they relate to traditional
Judaism. It seeks to encourage the study and stimulate the
discussion of the full spectrum of Jewish teaching, whether
from the biblical, talmudic, medieval, or modern periods. Its
only a prioricornmitment is to a teaching aptly expressed by
the rabbis of yore: n m ;-V"'?;I ?IUi ~ m n ,
 1. Introduction

The clistinguished eighteenth ceIi1ui.y rabbi, taln~udist,ant1

kabbalist, R. Jonathan Eibescliuetz (lG90-1764), is 1-elnem-
herecl mostly f o l - his seilli~lalcoiitribuiion to rabbinic litera-
ture, ancl rightly so. v i m ?ni3(on ~ Y - Im15: i n y ]n'7w),nSbiniD V ~ K
(on UDtOn Twin : l l i Y ~n'm),;rXl;rK1g(on Mairnonides' Code), miv3
W x t (a collection of sermons), and fnli;17 n>nx (on thc niiw;r)
ale, perhaps, his most famous works. There were rilany others.
A comprel~ensivebibliography (puhIished in 1964) lists 119
separate entries - representing sorne 35 different titles - of
published editions of books by R. Jonathan ~ i b e s c h u e t zOne .~
suspects that if the list were compiled today, the nuniber of
entries and titles .cvould, at the very least, be doubled. Other
\vritiligs o:S R, Jonathan, whether talll~udicor kabbalistic, are
still in tna~luscriptform, awaiting p u b l i ~ a t i o n . ~

1 NaFt.ali Ben-Mcnallcm,cd., anxn?m2ln :a-~~i~135r2n ?ym,Jerusa-

1 ~ 1 ~ 1964,
1, pp. 13-24.
2Virtually all the major libraries ofJudaica contain ma~luscriptsof
talnirldic fcct.ure notes recordcd by K.Jonathan Eibeschuetz' disci-
Copyright O 2004 ples. A WN-I fvr some 50 years, ;~nda popular orlc at that, Ilc
prol~ahlylauglit tl~oilsaridsof studctlts, almost all of whotn took
by notcs. CLI R. Jonathan Eibescliuetz, nnu nm?, Altona, 1755, pp. 4%
ancl 50h. Much of the material rcil~airisunpublished, despite the
S.Z. Leiman
occasion;ll excerpts that 1i;lve ;rppeax.edin Torah periodicals, such as
Kew Gardens Hills, New York ??la ancl na5w ~ 1 2 .K;tbbalistic nianuscripls by K. J(>lii~thit~l Eihc-
s c h ~ ~ cf'c~vcr
t . ~ , in numhei-, cat1 hc found - alltorig otl~crlibraries - a t
 S u c l ~a rich al~clvariegated literary legacy presr.lppuses \; zeal and angel-, ancl by petty jealousies. Chief Rabbi, 1 ~ 1 7aud ,
lifctin~cclcvotcrl cntirely t o stutly. One imagines a j~iousrcc- ;~J~w' R. J o ~ ~ a t h awoultl
WKI I~crrrxr~~llr~tce, u spend a lifctin~e
luse, stu-roundetl by books, wllo clicl nothing but study and defending hi~nselfagainst his e ~ l e r n i e s It
. ~ conics as n o sur-
rvrite. IJI tllc case of K.Jollathan, nothing could be f~trtllei- prise, thcn, that during his lifetirne, his enemies even accused
St-0111the truth. Bold and imagi~lativc,K..Jotlathan Eiheschiretz l ~ i t nof Ilcresy: some suggested that he was a secret believer in
was not one to shy away from [he exigencies of real life. In ~111-istianit).;!'others that h e was a closet ~abbatiai1.l~) Still
l'ragr~e, h c conf'l-otlted missionaries and priests atltl was in- o~her- s illcredible as it may seem - accused him of being an
vvlvetl in Jewish-Chi-istian d i s p i ~ t e s In
. ~ Vienna, he cultivated Y7N;1 DY, literally an ignoramus, but. in context the insult was
I-elationships with caul-tiers and Royal officials - in order t.o intended to convey the ~nessage that h e was a less than
aclvance the cause or the .]ewish c o n i n ~ u n i t y .I'et-sonal.
~ ac- lear-nccl ral)l,i ~ I I Owas prone to gross rabbinic erx-or.ll MTliat
c.~uaintallcesincluclecl the Sabbatian rogue, Nehenlia Hiyya follolvs is an analysis of one sucll episode of false sccusatiotl
I-fayon (d. circa 1 7 5 0 ) ; ~the conlroversial kabbalist? K. kIoshe against R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz.
Hayiln 1,uzzatio (d. 1'746);~ and the founcler of the Haskalah,
Moses Melldrlssohn Id. 1 7 8 ~ ) Precisely .~ because llr was
perspicacious, witty, a n d politically well-ccrnnccted, he made 2. The 8W2;r 772
Priends - ant1 enenlics - easily. His char-ismatic ~>ersotlality
attr;icted admirers and disciples, even as liis evcry success I)oubtless, the biblical cornmandl~lentconcerning the 1-3
11ec;unc a target fc~rhis enemies, often fueled by lnisdirectect - the prollibilion against the consumptioti of the sciatic
;1wz;1

nerve - is properly subsurned uncler the Mishnaic category of:

the liodlcia~iLibrary in Oxford arrd at thc Jnstitutc of Orienti~l
Stutlies of thc Russiati Acadcrny of Scicr~cesin St. l'etersbitrg.
"See, c.g., (':crsho~iiScholcrn, "ov~>i~ona ? Q O ~ n7NnIw;I 5~ n l Y T
n-2 ;INXI," 1 1 - ~9(1!)44), pp. 34-35. On K. Jotlathan a ~ l dthe Jesuit Eibeschuelz, 'n'7~1-m3, Altonn, 176.7, 1ntt.oduc-
8Scc R . .]ot~;~tIiar~
Fi~Lhcr Frar~cisco llascll)aucr, sec D;~vitl 1,cib Zinz, Trill? n j l i l , tion.
I'iotr.kow, 1930, vol. 1, PI). 12-(3.011erriissiollary had t 1 1 ~Li~llowirig !)Src, c.g., K. Jacob Elnden, WDIW O "I U, Altori;~[clespite the title
lo say about R. Joiiathar~:"This J o r ~ a t l i is ; ~thc~ ~ only rcid scholar in p;lge, ~vliicliI-cads:12mstel-d;run],1758-62, pp. IXb, 19b, ancl 2tia. CI.
I'rague; 1)c poses dilficulr.qucsliot~s.The Fathers solilctimrs rlcod to David Fr-iderich Megerlin, C:~heit~re Z P I ~ ~ J L I LVOT
P . Tdie
S G I / l { ~ , h ~ hde7
~it
engage in 2 to 3 tl;~ysof ~.cscal-clr it1 ordcr to provicic I i i t i ~witlt ;it] C:/cri.tllic.l~.c?~
R~I1gioitnzts virr 1111d irunil.~lg,tzelteit 101d ~ P ~ ~ P ~ E C I ? ~ ~ ? L ~ ~ I . F C I ~ . P I I
i~tlswe~~" (Scliolcln,p. 34, 11. 42). A m v l ~ ~ rFrankfi~rt
?~, and Leipzig, 1756.
'1 7,inz, oP c ~ I .p, p 14-15. losee, e.g., R. Moshe Hagiz' (d. ca. 1749)Ictl.cr oL' 1725 to K.Arye11
sl'hey met i r i Hatribur-g in 1713. See Ziriz, oj,, cil., p. 1 I. 1,cih of Kcisha, printed on the bruaclside nu7 1 ~ ~Amsterdam, 5 , 1753.
6l'licy 111etill I't.;lgue it1 1736. See li.Jacob Rmdelr, ]ltt;I nlni) tn71w, Cf. liis letter of 1725 ;iddi-essed to li. Michel Hasid o f Berlin, in IZ.
121~.o~l;r, 17515, 1). 4011. C:f: Mcir 13cr1ayahi1,''~unm5~ tvlb2," n l l l D 0 Joseph Pracgcr, vx -5na (11-1s.Michael 106 at the I%oclleianLibrary,
5(1'361),p. SZJ. Oxfor-d Uriiversily), vol. 1, Sol. 62h-63a. For- an account of R. Most~c
51'11cy met in Altona ill 1761. Scc Istrrar-Elbogell, el ul, eds., Afosc~s Hagiz' attiluclc toward R. .Jotiarhar~ Eil~eschllet~,sce Elishcvi~
i21r1lrblssol111 C:esccm??rellr. S ' C I ~ Y ~ J L C ~ L , / Z L / J ~ E ~ L I ? ~ S ( I I<erliti, ~ , vol.
? ~ . ~ ~ ~ C I ~I%?!), Carlebach, The Airsuit ojf$erc,r~~, New York, 19t10, ~ 1 )177-179. .
I ti, pp. 2-3. 1 IScc, e.g., K.Jacob Enideti, 11Nn nlnl5 n112W,pp. tcib arid 3811.
 RflJ3ul JON,Z-I'I I A N EIBESC:I-IUFI'Z 7

IL is therefore not surprising ti-iat medieval15 and early

~ ~ l o d e r - nrabbinic
'(~ autl~oritieswere quick to ban deviant
Mountains suspencled irom a hair, for they have little
practices by posgers (liebrew: n ? p ) and labelled them as
support in Scripture yet many laws.I2
n11% 7 ~ P3Dll,
5 i.e., as smacking of heresy. Apparently, there
The prohibition appears onIy once in all of Scripture, in a was an inherent relationship between deviant porging and
narrative passage and not, as expected, in a legal one. The Ileresy.
terse foxmulation at Gen. 3 2 3 3 ,
3. R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz: Master Porger

That is why to this day the Israelites do not eat the gid Aside fro111 mastering all of the Torah, R. .Jonatha11
ltn-msheh which is on the socket of the hip, Eibesclluetz was also a master porgel-. When in 1'750, the
professional porgcr, R. David Ileitsch, published his 711 rn9y -
leaves much unsai8. Is the verse rlescriptive or nornla~ive? ;I landmark volume 011 the laws of deveixling (ilp31 m>5;l), with
That is, is the verse describing a voluntary 111-acticeor is it special focus on the porging- of the Ilind cparters - he
legislating a pl-ohibition? received a warm letter of approbation from R. Jonathan
What is the 7 ~ 1 3'r7a?Does an animal have one or 111ore ~ i b e s c h i i e t zR.
. ~Jonathan
~ wrote in part:1N
than one? Does the practice apply to dornestic anilnals (ma>>),
to non-clomestic animals (n17n),or both? Does the ;rwl;l 7v, have
io be I-emoved from sacrificial offel-ings that are not eaten?
Does the prohibition apply to the 3wn l l x of a non-kosher
animal? May a Jew derive benefit from the ;Ittrl;l 7'1, i.c. may
He requested a letter of approbation from me, for I anr
he sell it to a Gentile? If rlol for the Oral Law, we would not
expert in this profession, a master of all the [anirrial]
know how to respond to any of these questions.I3 Indeed, one
parts and their names. I reacl what hc wrote, conversecf
call salely assulne that Jewish sectarians, c.g., Sarnaritans, tlle
with him personally, and went with him to the abattoir
Dead Sea sect, and Icaraites also proffered responses to these
and saw that he was flawless.
cptestions - responses that differecl considerably TI-om those
of rabbinic ~ u d a i s m . ~ ~ I
I Orie of' the other IVI-itersof a letter of approbation to tlle
sarne volume, R. Zvi Hirsch Auerbach (d. 1788) of Wosnns,
i writes that when he saw the letter written by 13'111 iI7l1n1111TK,"
12M. I-lagigah
13 In
1:s.
gcncr;~l,scc 1.11~c111.r.y"awl;r 731" i l l nv-rin5n; ~ ~ - I D I S ~Jcrusa-
YIK,
I
Icn-I, 1065, cols. 1-21.
'"Gal-aite dietary Iil~vs,for cxanlple, made i t i~npossiblefor Kara-
I l5Sec - m a 19D 10 b.Hullin 89b, $65'3, ed: Vilna, 1886, p. 8.
If,K. Jacob Keischcr, 2j?P1 n13W Wliv, I.vov, 1897, vol. 1, 557.
i1.e~to ~~atronize Rabhanite butcher shops. Simil;irky, Kabbanites
fouiacl it iti~possibleto patl.o~lizcKal-;tile butcher shops. Scc Zvi 17111 arr, Fuerth, 1750.
laOj,. cit., inlmediately followir~gthe Introcluc~ion.
At~kori,I(nrczites zil1 i~yzm~ztizinz,New York, 19.59, pp. 285-289. I
-]mi1 "I P0115n;l 11xan thcre was no need for- TLI~thor investiga-
tion and he simply followed stlit wit11 an appn~priateletter of
1ecotnmendatioti.
Whatever cloubts allyone may have entertained about K.
Jonathan's expertise as a porger were surely dispelled by K.
Jonathan's z~ccountof a confrontation hetwee~ihim and an
itinerant porgcl ill Prague, published during R. Jonathan's
lifetirnc in his 'n591 'nil, (Altona, 1763).The passage reads:I9
In my day there was a porger, learned in Torall and quite
expert. Nonetlieless, 11e xnistakenly proclaimed that a
different sinew was the true gid ha-nasfzeh,, :and hat to
this very day we and our forefathers liave erred, remov-
ing a sinew that in fact was not the one prohibited by the
Torah! He travelled through all the Gertnan lands, cl-e-
ating an uproar, until he reached Prague - where he
presented his algument before me ancl the great ta11m1-
dic sages of' the city. I investigated the matter and
cliscovered that what lle identified 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 ~ , *who
('
writes t l ~ a tthe gid ha-ttnsheh neecls to be re~novedfrom
tllalc ant1 female animals. With that, his a ~ g u m e n was
t
silenced. 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 a
tured intellectually arid learned the Iarvs of deveining,
becoming expert it) them and in the names of all their
parts, I never relied on a porger. Rather, I ate only what
I myself deveinect arid "the fruit of the labor of my hands
did I eat."
In brief, R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz was Cllief Rabbi, ItUiy,
;1;3lw7 W N ~ and
, rnaster porger-.
4. R. Jacob Emden's Perspective
The distinguished Gaon, R. Jacob Ernden ((1. 1776), K.
Jonathan's bitter adversary, readily admitted that R. Jo~iaillan
was a master pol-ger. But wllat everyone else saw as vit tue, was
viewed by K. Jacob Eniclen as vice. I11 his l p y 7 2 n17Y Dp'l
( , l l ~ o n a ,1755-6), after issuing a call for the expulsion of R.
Jonathan Eibeschuetz and his followers from the Jewish com-
munity, R. Jacob Emclen writes:22
i w x nSl>x117 i n l z ,nnYitS 51wm imn ixvr)n;li iNunw m b i ~ ~
XY' i w x TY ~ 5 ' 3 x 7 5n m unn n b i ,lntx i p ~ wu75 ~ B K WDv31inN
l712n11 ,35n x5a 025 n5iww zS;l 1 ~ 7 1 2~ n w ~;INT~ n i 7 ~ 5 1,DS)ND
(imn P ~ P I IuyviinNnw)
~ ;1w3;1 7'3. 5w 115n3 xp1i-i 3 ~ - r i~1S ~ w 3 : 1 5
21 Scc Nth. 7:2 a11dR ~ s h i ' sC O ~ I I I I I ~ntl
I ~Ir~r.
~
222i)yr3 nil^ 071, Altona, 1755-56, p. 4Yb.
 socket of the] thigh ofJacob has been rectified. Also well
2wnw 'Ixiv77'117an 1 7 5 ~~YI;IW in3 23,3frarwn7yr13wawva in2
ki~ownis the passage in the Zollar relating to tile talmu-
lwnw 79'7 ,272 inww 1-n .n 5y inut3w ; l ~ i n ) 24,'717alipnL, 37
tlic saying that h u ~ n a nbeings have 565 veins which
~ 1 7-1~
S ~ n x w;la $ 7 atto> wl,a sla ~ 1 7 ,>i)y7 li)nli nlwn ~2 iri3w parallel the 365 days of the Jieal-.25The gid fin-~zasheh
;lWl;1 7?17113 3"Vl 2 5 , i t 3 ~ ~ ;l"DW 7333 03 D7N3W 111?3, ;l"DW parallels Tish'ah be-Av, which is why one is forbidden to
n*Ii n x 7gr2i'I3x. RS Y Y >in31 tai11 ,;1573~3>fruiiox 13 12~ eat o n Tish'ah be-Av. This is alluded to in Scripture by
7.1 ~5nxyu ~ ' 7 3 ~1 ~K Tar
W 53 ,tz+n x;rz ~ 7 ,7m ; I Y W ~ , [n~]
the verse: The Cljildren afIs?-ael do not ent kt [ n ~ ] 'et
1 1 9 i n m i 26,1v;137m;l r t b ini;lw31
xWu2513u> ~ ~ ~ >i7nnw ,nwm being the abbreviation of Tish'ah Av. The one is depend-
~ x 7 nonn
i n9n c.mrn5 ~ 7 ' 7
3wm ;lmx ,lJfmoa 5 ~5?nn
~ n 7ni;l ent i ~ j ~ the
o n other. When one is not permitted to eat on
?nL,>w ~ Y 7S~ 1 1 1,nirm ;mn $ 1 'i7-n~ ~ 1 5 5 ~D ~ Y W 'Iw~ onnw~ 'I'ish'ah be-Av, one may not eat the gid ha-?znsh.elL. When
;1-;1 2 7 , ~ 1 ~ ~
33 3 Y 13~D I ~ I 14w ~ ~ ~ ii v
1 xD i 3n OxY B ~lnxn 53xw it is permissible to eat or1 Tish'ah be-Av, it is also permis-
sible to eat the gid h n - ? z n s ~ e hSince
. ~ ~ the flagrant viola-
.imx o r v n n>ai5 nwi vis aln , ~ 3 1 ~ 1 K'I~
2 iinx5
tors have ruled that it is permissible t.o eat on Tish'ah
a)
be-Av, it follows that it is also permissible to eat the gid
This is particulally necessary because they sinned, and
ha-nnshefz- indeed, they consider it obligatory!) Regarcl-
caused othets to sin ancl stumble. This is especially the
irlg these wicked ones who cast off the yoke of the Tor-ah
l d tels, which lle [R.Jonathan]
case regal-clingthe l ~ i ~quai
and the commandments, may their spirits be e x ~ i n -
infornied thein that he had deveinecl. I-Ie sent them
guisl-ied and may their souls pine away. It is public
1101 tions or it which hc fed them with rillti1 it came out
k~iowledge,regarding anyone who ate from his meat ancl
of tlleir nostrils. Accorcling to what has heen seen and
tastecl the hind quarters [he cleveined], that what he
h e a ~ d the
, rneat he sends them is full of fat. Doubtless,
consruned entei-ecl his body like snake He then
he iil~eiidedto cause them to stumble by having them
constmle the fat of the gld ha-aasheh (whose blood ves-
sels ~ ~ o u ~thei s hlrind quarters) just as Shabbetai Zevi
clid, may his name and memory be blotted out as '5Sec lam 1Z)b to Gen. .72:33, ed. Ma~gulics, Jerus;~lem,1964, vol.
For gl eat rabbinic scl~olarslzave testif icd conceri~ing 1 , p. 1'70b.Cf. h.iVIvlakkot 2317. For R.lonath;tn Eibeschuctz' analysis of
him [Shabbetai Zevi], that he con~idercilthis a great the %r)ll;lrpassage, sec v37 nnY7, ecl. Or LI~I-S~L'CI; Jerusalem, 1988,
rectificatior~.~~ (It would seem that his reason for- this vol. 2, pp. 111-1 12.
pat-tice is consistent with his oveiall view. For he be- 2tiTliis, o f course, is ;I Sabbatian j~ilcrprctationof the Zohar pas-
lieves that the Messiah has come and thc [wenched sage; t ! Zohar~ does not. state that when it is perinissible to cat on
'Tis11'ah he-Av, i t is also permissible lo eat the gin l~ct-nnskelt. See, c.g.,
1,eopoldLoew, "Zur Gcschichte dcr ungarischen Sabballiaeer-,"in his
(;esamazclte Schrqte?~.Szegedin, 1898, vol. 4, p. 446. Cf., however, the
2 3 0 1 1 Shahl~etaiZcvi's ritual consun~ptio~~ of the foi-bidden Cats, "tsarli~ional"sources citecl in R. Pinhas Zclig Schwartz, onla nYu,
set: C;er-show S. Scholcrn, SaDDrrtai Sevi, Princctor~,1973, pp. 242-243, Brooklyn, 2004, pp. 135-137. On the Sabb~tianannuhncnt 01. the fast
387, arid 459. of -l'ish'ali l~e-Av, see SclhvIcn-I,oil, c i l . , pp. 628 Sf.
24Sce, c.g., the rabbinic testi~no~lyrecorclctl in K.Joscpll Yr;regcs, 77C;f. b.Sh;tbha~62b.
oj). it. [above, 11o1c101, vol. 1, Sol.2%-322.
 fell ovcl- backwar-cls, 11vt ibl-wards. 'I'llus rlirl 11e sprcad a
r~ctat tlieir feet; lle causctl the111 to fall over backwarcls.
R. Jacob E~ilclenlepeated this accusation tlll-ougl~outliis
writings.28 Here we have a striking example of the inherenr
relationship between alleged deviant V ~ andI heresy. Interest-
ingly, if R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz was a lifelong Sahbatian (as
R. Jacob Eniclen claitncd), K. Jonathan woulcl have done bettcr
by remaining silent when challenged by the porger in l'rague
- or better yet - hc should have suppoltecl his argulnent.
Sabbatians ~vantedJews to eat the forbidden fats and thc true
;IWI> TIHy . refsting the porger's argument, K. Jonalhal~
guaranteed that a11Jews would continue to remove the true 7'1
;rw~;la~lclrefrain fro111 eating it.
5. The Perspective of the Haskalah
li. Ezekiel Feivel 11. Zev Wolf (d. 1833) woulcl serve with
distinction as D'lW3b 7'Ib and p7r mln of Vilna from 181 1 until
liis Prior to that, he served as o?wln -r71nand 3 7 m ~ n
of Del-etschin, a town northwest of Slonim, in what is today
Belarus. While a1 Ileretschin, in 1809, he published volunle 2
of his mx n n j i n , a moralistic work in the form of a biography
of' K. Shlolno Zalman of Volozhin (cl. 1788). R. Shlomo
ZxSce, e.g., R.J;lcob linldcn, np ns3pY,Altonil, 1'753, pp. 91)-10a;
cf. ]]is 1ma;l Imla3 n71, Altona, 17(iJ, p. 1 lit-b. Sec also R. Joseph
I'raegcr, oj). cit. [above, note 101, vol. 3, fol. 57;~-58b,$36.
2 g 1 gcncral,
~~ Ply mln was ll~ctiilc givcrr l o anyone appoi~ltedlo
serve as all ofciciill ]"l of thc .le\vish co~~l~r~unily. I'hc Dsltu7D -T31h,
oiicn aside f1.ot11scl-vingas ;I r7,was ~ h official
c IW>T and n9xn ofthe
Jcrvish cu~nlnl.mily.See, e.g., Ilillel Noah S~ci~lschneide~., N I > ~ I Il'y,
Vilr~a,1900, pp. 8%and 102.
Zaltnan, affectionately called R. Zclmclc, was a younger
I)ro[lier o f R. Hayyi~rlof Volozhin (tl. 1821) anct a favorite
ciisciple of the Gaon of Villia (cl. 179'7). Ostel~siblya biogra-
1111y of K. Slilon~oZa11~1a11,D ~ Nnib was in fact a classic
volume of Jewish thought that tells as much about R. Ezekiel
Feivel as it does about R. SIlIolno Zalman. Modern scholarly
investigation has shown that R. Ezekiel Feivel appropriated
passages fa-om the writings of Azariah tie Rossi (d. 1578),
Moses Me~~delssohn (d. 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 is
important to note that the Maggid of Deretschin - and later
of Vilna - felt quite comfortable reading, and appropriatiug
passages 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 for
rabbinic error. Rabbis too are mortals and are prone to err on
occasion. The ~norallesson for us, explains K. Ezekiel Feivel,
is that no one should be overconfident. Rather, everyone
shoulcl be open to criticism and correction. Among his sam-
pIes of rabbinic error, K. Ezekiel Feivel adduces the 'n5~1lrn3
passage cited above, and then adds the I ' o l l ~ w i n g : ~ ~
(D"L/~ n~f5p5n IJfamnhzn n v i x ~ npn
; l i n K 11n5 vx5 iln> m;1
117371 1bl DlW 13NYb ~ 5 OW ; t " I T 1NlnI PW 1WN
1 llWPl 3 3 , ; 1 ~ ~7-1
soSce Isaac Raer I-,evir~sohn, ~ H Y ~ I ~ , 1903, pp. 32-43. Cf.
Sllr;~gaAbramson, "5?r39 5#pm3 113 P?Hrnl51ni 5 3 ~ nloin 1 ~ 1 ~ 7 7, '1'3 ~
72(1973), pp. 100-143.
SlSee lrn~nanuelEtkes, " ; l w l v K rnm3 n53wa;l ? i w m n5uwS," y33in
57(1987), pp. 102-104. Cf. Edw;trd Rrer~er,"The Haskal:~hill Vilna:
R.Ychezkel Feivel's 7bldol Ada???.," Tomh U-iCInddqJoz~r~lnl7(199'7),pp.
15-40.
3 2 0 7 ~n17hn, Jerusalem, 1987, vc~l.2, chapter 16, p. 237.
"See abovc. note 20.
 nlwn 35ix innx , y n ~ ww5i 2 wi725 IYI~ .ni2pn a7i3ra~312-1 place of "Semak."34 13ut there too no mention is made
i3r7 x5 ?3 115 min x5 DW n l 3 4 , y nn~i p 1 X ~ xin ~ i D~ i nwDi
b 01' "nlales ancl females" with regard to this law. We did
* i n w wp5n 1115 a y s ~ T'I;. 7 7-72 n12i)11o-131~ I Ynnw i i ) x5i ~ ~ not refrain from making extensive search in the books of
the halakl~icdecisors. But we retri1.11eclas we Itat1 left,
~'71 11Yl' ,11K1 13 11358 1WKI) 5 2 ,37
~ WlDnl 231 3Y*J7DY D7i)D13;1
empty-handed. Despite tnuch effort, we searched in vain
D W ~r n ~ p m n m n a7737 nrnnx 3x1nwm TX 21 liw5 i ~ x ~ n
among the halakllic decisors for- the phrase "the gid
nixnn -150 5~>*I 11x1;1mi3 nn-;1+ix 33 inxu5 7y nnm 5~ DID Ian-lamheh needs to bc removed from rnale and female
niyn na;113i :;1111~52;1~1;17-1 -1~711 n5wvi 1 7 ~ 2n3w
1 l i m n 5w animals." But the tr-uth testifies on its own behalf: the
n313w in2wnn 5~ ;1nSyi 35.ni3p~31 ~7x3 inr 5 3 n~i p h 2 i r Gaon, perhaps, had in mind the book of command-
;IN-lw o41x .nix?] n113;12x1n7131ninii22 nana n nlrnw xin iiJ7nn tnents by the i-lirs~clrh.111 the section Va-Yishlnl~.,whell
D~WII D~UIK ~ S nxm K i r nirnw xin li17nnnn, 71 ,7xn NV ;r'?nl discussing the laws o f gid Iim-ltasheh, he writes: "This
711~nn5w i3niawnn~ i x m mmnn x>i , D ~ K?IX niqxi nlix 1 ~ ~ n - 1 commandment applies in all places and all tinies f'or
niyn 53 ~ S KD Y ?i;1w ~ ,ninnz m3pn n7i3r3 mi] nr l v w la15 males and f e ~ n a l e s . "R.
~ ~Jonathan ttlougllt that l t ~ e
o w n i r ; l i ~ nn~n11,nl 1iw5 zrn3 a;rin:, m i n i nlwi yan in3 n+ IIimtlth meant to say that this coil~lnancltnelitis appliecl
to male and female anirnals. But this is an egregious
.m>p
error, for the intention of the Hi?2zdkh is that this corn-
trlanclmenr applies to men and women, i.e., human
beings. What the GaonJonathan understood - that this
Iatv is applied to male and female animals - is hardly
what the Hint~lzlt11ad in 11-lind.For in virtually all thc
negative commandments, such as the prohibition
Mre lurned our attention toward locating the source of against cating leavened bread 011 l'assovel., or doing
these words in the Semag (list of negative commancl- work on the Sabbath, and many others like them, it was
tllenls, $ lYY), where the lawis of gid Izu-?aasltehare expli- his practice to write: "This comlrlarldrnent applies to
c a ~ e c lWe
. ~ ~scarched there but could find no reference males ancl females."
10, 01- mention of, "males and fe~nales."We exerted 'Tbercfol-e, let evelyone apply to himsell un it fort?ot?
oulselves and sea~chectin the Semak, for we said: Pel- argument. If giant fish [in the sea], such as these, gct
haps this is a sclihal eiror, "Semag" being printed in caught up on the fish-hooks of error, whal possible hope
is there that ordinary fish in the pond, like me, will
escape from them?36It is appropriate indeed to c h e is11
~
9 R. Isaac:oK Cor-bcil( l 3 1 hcentury), Tap nirn YDD. the saying oi the sage who said: "I accept the truth flo111
55lll3n;r790 (13th century), ed. Ck~avcl, Jorusalcr~~,1977, pp. 57-58. whoever says it, ancl I detest falsehood."37 May the Lord
36 Cf. b.bloed Ratan 2511. lead me in the paths of truth and justice, "for in these 1
37 Sce Mainionides, la7ps;r~lnvl n n u nmn5 nnlpn, Itltrotlnction (ed. ~leli~ht.''~~
Iialah, l7j77r1 1?b :nn>hl;rIv1lYo nlwn, Jerusalem, 1964, p. 247).
3°C. Jcn 9:23.
 R. Ezekiel Feivel's concern was with truth and llurnility.
But by bringing h e ?ni>7nSai passage to the attelltion of a
e d fires of the Haskalah. A major
broacl readership, lie f ~ ~ e l the
objective of the Haskalah was the unclerrnining of rabbinic
authority. What better way to advance this cause than the
publication of a list of egregious rabbinic errors made by the
greatest of the rabbis? It was with great relish, one suspects,
that the Maskili~nannouncecl that riot only do rabbis err, they
crr p~orou~lcily.
One of tbe founding fathers of' the Haskalal~in Russia was
Isaac Haer 1,cvinsolln (tl. 1860). In his writings, he adduces
the * n h i 7rn3 passage and refers the reader to K. Ezekiel
Feivel's discussion. He c o i ~ c l u d e s : ~ ~
6. In Defense of R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz
Such mockery, of course, begged for rebuttal, and it wasn't
l o ~ i gin coming. The attenipts to defend R. Jorratlian began
with R. Moses Sofer (d. 1839) and continue to this very day.
Rasically, the attempts to defend R. Jonathan fall under
two categories:
1. no e~riendationrequired.
2. elllendation required.
Under- the category "no clnendation ~equii-ed,"we will
present two samples (one fi-om the 19th ceiltury and one fi.om
the 20th century) of the kinds of argun-tents that have been
put forward.
A. No Erne?tdation Required.

1. 11. Moses ~ o f e r : ~ ~
It is truly astonishing that such world class rabbis could
err in texts they study clay and nigl~t.They erred in
matters that even a child who studied one day in a
yeshiva would know how to read correctly.

A Iesser Maskil, Nehemiah Satnuel Libowitz (d. 1939),

emigrated to the Unitecl States in 1881 and published a
collectioil of shal-p-witted jokes and anecdotes, airangecl as
n t sthe biblical books. At Cen. 32:33, he cites the
c o r ~ ~ ~ n eon
vn'7~i?m3 passage together with Levinsohn's coxrlinents, as
cited above.$O
41lDlD nnn n-iw, Pressburg, 1841, i l Y 7 mi7,$69 (ed.Jerusalem, 2000,
s(J011.c~t.(ahove, notc 30), p. 79. ;IYT ;m7,vol.1, p. 70). The responsum, dated 1830, was addressed to
.'opn~?Yawil, New Y ~ I - k1907,
, p. SO (second, revised eclirion: New an olhcrwise unidentified "R. Abrallatn." (For the varivus rabbis
York, 1934, p. 43). R. Jorlatl~allIiibcschuelz's "crlor" was duly notcd i~ained"R. Abraharn" who received resporlsa from thc 1310 onn, see
by G. Klcn~pei-er,"Rabbi Jonathatl Eibel~schuetz,"i r ~W. Paschelcs, M.A. I(inslJicher,1910 Dnn niliwnl DW'K,Bnei Braq, 1993, pp. 19-49.)
erl., Srj~/,ul-z?n,I'ragur, 1856, vol. 4, pp. 226-227; and by J.11. Eisc11- In thr first paragraph of thc responsurn, the 'ID10 nnn presents a
s~ein,cd., Sr~iv7~YIK, New Mlotk, 1909, vul. 3, p. 272. sunr~nlaryof R. Abraham's query.
 were unal>le to defend their position until the Gaon,
author of the Pektz, showed 11im the Sernag, who writes
that the co~nrnandlrlentpertaining to the gid /?.a-nasheh
irpn5 w- l ~ ,olnn*lp~ 07n3n -117 i ~ i -1x1
5 ~ i w l - 1 25f1-5p7]I*:, x
applies to tnales and females. It followed, then, tliat the
n1381~l x NSX -ui7 '71 ;ma7 11 1 x 7 5 ~x j 3 * r ~42,5xiw-
i mn x h
gid An-nashclt could not he identified with the sinew [put
;rwp YN ,nu2 ~ 5 . 1n 7wi-r7 P-'T~D I nlwi
1tw3 4 2 ,~~ I D D ~1 1 ~ N
x
fol-ward by the porger]. Many have expressed arnaze-
llDIK 11;115 X51 ,?N~w' n113 ~ 5 51 ~ 1 l12 ~ 1Kn71NS *NnK *Dl ;1"3 ment at this major blunder that has emanated from the
?WYl Dlp2 N>N 13 1I2W77~ 5 ' 2t??'->
7 1'';llK3h ,L/N~w? M1p32 nJf3 masters, for the Se~nagmeant to say that the command-
II*S~ xn 7x ,minm ]-WI~Y 135 W ~ K Snwx 2 i n x 1 mw;l w t h 52x ment of gid hn-7znshelt applies to Jewish ltlales and fe-
43,~3n?h D~KDDnW112X Ill13 ~ 5 ]l>X
1 -12 t151;13;1 VX 1173N W"'3 Dl males, as it is his pr-actice to write regarding all the
t)313~1 X ~ vQ ~ ~DI ~ 3"xi ,o-WI 1l1t5Ynn n1#521 5 . ~?in
a ;1"~tl ~ commandments. He was not discussing whether or not
7 5 ~ 3'*DK nYi3t ~1 pjn5 ;1ui1 xi>a;17 n73;13 -31 -INW 5 3 1 .ni~lp~i the sinew is found in male and fen~aleanimals. Now
since the gaonirn {in PI-ague] were confronted by an
nwx niwn nu$ vixw3 rrxwn ,;111n> nwnp I~JYS m 2 p l rn 71mn
erroneous identification [of the gid ha-?zaslzelt],and they
,5-r2 rnn x5i -11 712wii x'Ii w w 5
were able to reject it only with a specious argument, the
porger's clairn stands. Should it not follow tliat one may
not consume the hind quarters unless both sinews [i.e.,
the traditional girl ha-7znshelz and the one identified by
the porger] are removed?

1 say: the words of the sages stancl vindicated. We rule:

the sous of Israel (Lev. 1:2), and not the daughters of
I received your volurne, ancl 1 hereby respond lo the two 1srae1.~~ It follows that R. Judah and R. Jose disagree
matters that you called to my attention. First, regarcling only I-egardingwhether ~ l l elaying of hands by w0Iner-r is
the passage in the Kereti at the end of [S1z1~21za~~~
'Andth: optional or prohibited. But all agree that the biblical
965 concerning a porger who "shook up
I'a,sh DecahY!,l verse obligates men and not woinen [to lay hands on the
the wol-Id" by claiming that the gzd I~n-nasl1e1~,
is not the animal]. If so, regarding the gid ha-rzasheh as well, why
accepted one, but rathel- a sinew that is foullc1 ollly in don't we read: the sons o j Israel (Gen. 32:33), and not the
male - and not. female - animals. The sages of Prague daughters of Israel, so that the prohibition against con-
suming the gid ha-nasiteh would not apply to women? In
theo~y,it is possible to ~ e p l ythat such an exclusionary
reading of the verse only applies to positive command-
,12C;(. h.1-1agig;lll 1Gh.
43CL'. b.Kiddushin S5b. ments. Regarding the negative commandments, Scrip-
~ ~ ~ ~islo c scems to have bcelr ~ulawar-eof' 11te T;lct thar h e
? ' hann ture Elas made women and nlexl equal [in obligation and]
Senlag passilgc is inlagin.iry. It is possible t h ; ~he
~ si~rlplyI-epcatctlthc in pui-rishment. But we find even regarding the negative
"fi~c-IS":is tlrcy ~vcl-cpr-cscnrcclby tllc tjucstioner. colnn~andments:Sj)enlt to the f~riests,the sons of Anrorz [cnt~tl
 soy to llte~n.Nonr rl~crll cl~/rislr~~rrrc!/
/or r l u y (lrrrtl j~rrsou
n l ~ z o ~hgl r k t t ? ] (Lev. 21:1), a ~ l dnot tlie ctaughteis of
Aal on. l'hcy niay defile tl~emselvccfor the dead!43Thus,
ciren tegarclit~gthe tlegativc cotnalaiitllilem, women
ale [sonietitncc] exch~clecl.If so, why in the case of the
gtd lzu-17osheh does the p~ohibitionapply to males ant1
females? One Inust s ~ that y tlie case of 111jest? is cliffel--
ent. Reason suggests that we cliffe~entiatcbetween males
(even blernisllecl oncs) and females regarcling the sanc-
tity OF the priesthood. Not so ~cgardingall the other
negative ~oinmandmcnts,whcl-e Scliyture 11as macle
women atlcl ~ n e nequal, aritl we do not expountl the
verse in an exclusional y mannel, "sotls" and nut "daugh-
Y
tels."
It follows, then, illat if one assrulles illat t l ~ esinew that
was wrenched li-olnJacob's thigh is not fonr~din female
animals, there would he reason to difkrentiate hetween
rnalc ancl fenlalc ,Jews [with l-csgarcl to t l ~ eprollibition
itself]. If so, how coultl the Setnag write tllat the prohi-
bition applies equally to male ancl female . [ ~ e w s ] So ?~~
too the hlishnah in I-lullin ['7:1] does not sta1.e l.11al.
urornen are exclltded frorr~the pl-ohibition. It can only be
because the sinew is found in nlale and fernale animals.
Therefore the prohibition also applics to all [~naleant1
female Jews]. 'I'hus, thc wortls of the sages stand vincli-
catccl.
15 ;ilin;l n i 7 w i m n i m , Bnci 131.ac1, li)8!), v ( J ~ .1 , p. 137.
When the book Kewti u-l'eleti appeared in print, this
passage shocked all those knowledgeable in Torah. For
the words "it applies to rrlales and females" refer to
h ~ u n a n obligation: all must heed this prollibition,
whether men or women. It does not refer to animals.
The later authorities have occupied tliernselves with this
p~oI>lern. The Hatarn Sofer, Yote12 De'nh, $69, attempted
to solve this problem Ily Inearis of a pal,hI, I do not
presently have a copy of the Kereti 71-Peleti at hand to
examine. But it scelns possible that the "Rebbe"
K.Jonathan simply wanted to expose the ignorance of
the porger. He therefore set a tt-ap for him with these
WOI ds o r the ~ e r n a ~ . ~ ' ;
One can otily admire the 1 9 1 onn
~ for his ingenious defense
ol'a bcleaguered rabbinic colleague. This is all the more admi-
rable, given his obvious bias in favor of K.Jacob Emden, and his
cohort, R. Jacob Joshua Falk (d. 1756), the two leading oppo-
lients of K.Jonathan Eibeschuetz in the Ernden-Eibeschuetz
46Nahshoni, folloxvir~gthe sumnlary of the account as it appear-ed
in the m i a nnn, assumed - at this point in his discussion that tl~c
-
Setriag passage was real rather than imaginary.
 r o n t ~ o v e r s y .N~o~~ ~ e t h e l e swhilc
s, Ilis intentions were surely
aclmirablc, Setv were pel-s~iadedby his argutneni. 111 11452, R.
Solornc~nKlugci- (d. 1869) of Brotly published a respoxisunl.
H e nlas askecl specil'ically what lie tllougllt al,c)ul the 7910 ann's
defense of R. Jonathan. He I-eplied in part:4"
;t19b121275 l l l n x 111jSK'I ,111R 51~597172 7llnK T I 7 ~ 1 9 YX
5
m 5 n ,5195~1+TI ~ D 7-17 P m-t 3736 pin i>iw73 wn;l wNnl
.tv17ga 135%1l h D313-i 7XY7 Dx rI?>fll 6 0
O n e should not interpret the words ul a later authority
hy means of a lengtliypiI/)wl, For it is not the practice of
the later authq-ities to speak in ricldle5. . . 'I'he Hatam
SoPcr's clel'ense, aside fro111 its verl>osity and pt//~rtl,i~
pel-])Icxingo n the following grout.1~1~ as well . . . 1 wonder
if these ~vor-clsreally enlanatctl Ikoln his holy lips!
K. Solomon IUuget coultl not account lor R. Jonatllan's
lespotise to the po1g;cr (tlespite a br.illianr, liltel attempt to d o
so - in the same 1852 ~responsuln-, but after furtl-rel- ref-lec-
tion lie wa5 folced to reverse hin~self]. Instead, he :~cIilucetl
tlcw cviclcncc that R. .Jonathan wils right ahour thc fact t h ; ~ ~
the ;rt?l;l 7
1 neeclcd to be renioveclI1-om bot1i male ant1 female
' J o s c ~ hZundel Hutner, ;IY~ 'iin, Warsaw, 1903, nub Tn3unlo?u nl>'l>;
'17 0 1 1 the imp onn's attitude to~vardthe I-abbismentioxlcd, sce I<.
Al,rnham Judalz Sch~vartz,i ~ 1 ; 1 111, Satulnare, 1928, p. 59. On K.
J;~cobJ O S ~ ~Falk's
L I R rolc irl the controversy, scc S.Z. Lcillian, "When
a Rabbi is Accused or Hcresy: 'The Starice of Rabbi Jacobj o s l l ~ ~Falk
a
in the Etrlrlcrl-Eibcsckit~c~z Colltroversy," lo appear in the Olrio State
University Confcrencc Volume on: Rabbi~zic('?cll?ire carrd its C:ritlcs:
,lclu.5 I$er~tic.i,Aj~ostcttcs,n)7,(1O!he?s in h.len'ievn/ rind Early 1V4orlorn 7'inre.i
(in prcss).
'lsnu'n oua mu ntfiw: Len~berg,1852, vol. 1, $100.
animals. In this respect, R. Solomon Kluger initiated a series
or lesponsa by other rabbis, all of wllom found adrlitional
rviclence for the satne fact.49 Noile of them, however, sur-
ceeded in clarifying K. Jonathan's enigmatic exchange with
the pol-ger.
K.Yehiidah Nahshoni's solution cannot b e taken seriously.
13y li. .Jonathan's own adinission the porger was not an igno-
... ramus. He was "learned in Torah and quite expert." Thris,
6 ;17nll X T l 27 there was neither need for, nor the possibility of, exposing his
ignorance. Nahshoni assuinetl - at ~ l l i spoint in his al-gument
- that tlie /Ifno passage But since there was n o such
passage ill the 3-no, why did R. Jonathan refer to the passage
as corning from the /%a? And if this was a n errol- for the lusn
(as suggested above by R. Ezekiel Feivel), how is it that he
porger (and apparently all the others present at the confi-on-
tation) failed to point out that the passage refel-red to persons,
nor animals, and thel-cfol-e p roved nothing? After all, R.
Jonathan showed him the very text! T h e confrontation de-
scl iljecl in the ~SPI l n v was ha1clly a case of sleight of hand.
We lllove to the second category of defense: "emendation
tequit ecl."
,+oSce,c.g., K.Judali Aszod, ;1L/a3 ;171i1' nwiw,Lcinberg, 1873, s102;
I<. Isililc Aaro~lEttirigcl-, 3158 Nqr3innnnlw, l,cnlbel.g, 1899, S3ti; R.
K. Eliezcr. Mischel, x131n uii-fan 1 1 ~ 7 5nlwb,
~ [lacks placc of p~rblica-
tioil], 1924, o-nm n ~ w np?n, pp. 32-32; R. Moses Grcenwald, n m u nrllw
DWJ?, Szilagysomlyo, 15126, ;IYT nil', $644; R. Pinhas Zelig Schwartz,
Dnln nvlx, Kisvarda, 1927, pp. 32-33 [ed. Brooklyn, 2004, pp. 131-1321;
R. Yissakhar I h v Babad, 07-n;1-i"v iylx, l,emberg, 1934, $34; R. Saul
Malin, o5wa i1p1;l n i n , 13ialystuk, 1936, p. 87; and the sources listed i l l
David I,eih Zinz, 01). cil. [above, note 31, vol. 2 , p. 233; in R. Yissaldiar
Dov Goldstein, 7 0 1 onn~ nr?w 5~ nnya ?alp>,Jerusalem, 1976, Fly7 ;n13,
vol. 1,1111. 118-119; and in R. Joseph Pacllanovski, U S W ~?Dl70719, Bliei
Br;tq, 1993, vol. 2, pp. 614-615.
5'1I.ater in his discussion, Nal~slionibecame aware of the fact that
(he Se~nagpassage is imaginary.
 I!. I:',n~~zdariowR~qztrrrri. In 1930, the matter was apparently laic1 to rest by R.
S o l o n ~ ok1ich;iel
t~ Neclles ((1. 1957), wl-ro at the tinie served as
I n 1875, R. Abraliam Simon TI-aub (cl. 187F), Cliiel Rabbi a rabbi in I,os Angeles, California. N e c k s announcecl that Ile
ol' Kaidan i11 I,itliuania, publishetl a new eclirio~r o l i335;r llad in his possession a copy of the first printed eclition uf 71773
rnhin, ;t 9tl1 century halakllic code cvhicl~i~lcluclcsa scctin~lon 7n>ni (Altorxa, 1'763). It contained several corrections and
nml-w nain. In it, there is an Aramaic passage that. seellls to marginal notes in the autlior's own hand. At our passage, the
imply that the ;lWl;l 7.1 was removed fi-o~n~rlaleant1 fcrrl;lle author crossecl out the word xuao atlcl wrote in its place: I~';~D.
animals." R~ahl~i Trauh llotcd this, and i~olnediatelysuggested T h e evidence aciduced by Neclles seemed to pr-ove that, for
that this was the very passage cited hy the nhi l m ~ A. slight the lnost part, 11. Hayyinl Dov Gross had been right o n target.
e l l r c n d a l i n ~solves
~ c ~ u pl-ohlem;
r all we need to <lois read 1 1 7 D A n emendation was calletl for by our erxiglnatic text. What K.
(= ni5i-1~ ni35;l ma) ill pIi1ce of I ? ! D D . ~ ~ Jotlathail Eibeschuetz really had in mind was the iip7m 170,
111 1!)08, the issue was revisited by K. Hayyi~uDov Ciross presumably to be iclcntified with the i7p71;r 17D of the Z Y ~ K
(ti. 1938), Chiel RaI$i cof l'etriva in h4armarosh. H e lioticed 0~7113.55
that a Hebrew vcrsion of t h e rn?i-rl r n h passage was incot-po- Nonetheless, the matter is hardly settled. T h e first of the
ratecl into R. Jacol:, b. Asher's ((1. 1340) D711r;l;lY3lK uncler the suggested emendations, l";lb (= rn5l-n m35;l I~D),refers to an
title i171;1 7 7 0 . ~H~e surmised that the vn5a7 ?rn> was, in fact, Ara~naicpassage o n n p in n l j n l n'l35;r "tio. T h e passage bears
referring to the 7lpll;l 17P as it appeared i l l the W71b ; I Y n X , allcl no title, neither npi 1 1nor ~ 77F3 n135;l 770. It seems unlikely
tllat i s \vllat 11e showed he porgei-. Rabbi Gross suggested that that K. Jonathan Eibeschrretz woultl cite and refer to the
in the manriscript of the ~ n 5 n'In13 K..Jonathan Eibeschuetz passage as I Y T D . ~A~ revised version of the m5nx r n 3 h passage
had written ;lnD (= 11jFJ;l T ~ D )wliich , was misl>rintecl as ~ " B D . ~ ' - in Hebrew - was it~cludeclit1 R. Isaac b. Abba Mari's (cl.
. ~ ~it is referred to as: lli7v3;1 71D*. F I O I ~
1193) ~ l t 3 ~3~ ;9r ~There
--
5 1 R. Al~rahatriSirrlon ?.I-sub, etl., nt3l-n ni>h~ D D ,W~rs;nv,1875, 1,.
257. Irl the contcxl of a clcscriptior~of the dcvciniog process in r.11~ 5517. Solomon hlichacl Ncclres, "p71~;1nu lp77Xal," ljlr l1Yw
gctrcrill ar-ca or the nv1;1 7l1, thc passage r-e;~cls(in pal-():UDUY7 lj)il~a ($1i3anilin) IO(I930), 11. 1-4, pp. 5!1-(50. Tlrc Ncchcs essay also iIp-
u~i15 . ..
;1?iwni N ~ Y ~T5 3 N~~~)~IITXII
2 n In .nu7 i n ,v;r any
p 7 i u ~ i NV~II [,car cd undc~[lrc title " a ~ i a 3;IIY~" i l l b ' n ~ ;4:~1(1930), pp. 18-19.
.uqin -1215 n75pwrn ""i~lrtlcecl,K.KliczcrWaldcnl~erg,77~95~ y.r nffiw,J e ~ ~ u s a l c1965,
~n,
52'li-aul~, oj). rit., 11. 2Wi. For tllc ni517J nl>>;l passage in cluesrio~r,scc vol. 8, $25:1, wllo Car- a variety of reasons p r e k r ~ r d~ l l cfirst of the
r ~ t n vEzrjel IIildcshcirne~;etl., nih.rn no5a 19D,Jerusalenl, 198'7,vol. 3, s~ggcstcdcmcndations, lWao (= ni511~m353 DO), suggested that
pp. 155-157.Cf: ihitl., 111). 226-232. Neches crrcd in his reading of R.Jonalhan Eibeschuctz' I~mndwritteri
55Tlic pass:tgc in the 03iiU;lY>irt (cf. I~cltm,nole 58) rctads (it) p:t~-t): correction. R. Jonathan liad written Y"'D, which Neches ~nisi-cadas
nii>r;1jnini ,;rwm 7'1 i l w D Y Y mi31a
~ wlw oipnx 1902 piaai inxn lil; p l~ i ~ i JTU. For eviclcncc tlrilt argues against such a tllis~~eading by Ncches,
m i u la1 , I ~ W 25ni alwin 7~1a 'na :lgl 11p1h p-rtrxw iw~;n,i~+wni ni~p~m see I~elow,xlotc 62.
.?YY~U;I DYYJ OWIU ;1w1;1 711 1ni ,N+ITI? r i i ~ uniln
v 571Cd. Warsaw-Vilna, 1874-5, vol. 2, p. 15-16, It resurfaced i r ~later
5'' 11. Iqayyirn llov GI-oss,"]nlia' llti DiUlip," pr-intecl it1 lhc apperltlix DsnWX1, e.g., R. /\alr)n oi Lullel (latc 13th-cal-ly14th century), nlnlK
t o R. tcopolcl Crcctrrvald, ]mia7 n12, h,I;tranlarossziget,, 1908, pp. n51n, n153un 111~3~ nib, g93, cd. M. Sclllesitlgcr, Berlin, 189!1, pp.
!.)I>- 1 oa* 345-34'7.
 tllc 1 ? t l z Y 19D,
~ tile passage wiis incorporated illto t l ~ e7Y27K
author, K. Zvi Bochtner (d. 1592), was the head poi-ger of
13711t3.58 There it. is entitlccl for- the first time: 11i~1;l
170. EStit ill
Cracow and a close associate of R. Moses Issel-les (d. 1~;72).(~I
none of the above passages is i t stated unequivocally that the
Essentially, h e reprinted the np;l n o of the na3Y;l 79D, to-
nwm 7'1 is ~ ~ ~ n o hornv e d tnalc ancl remalc ani~nals.At best,
gether with his own critical comments. O n the title page of
there is a11 an~biguousreference to the removal of thc rnale
the M F 7 3 volume, o n e reads (in part): iia3~;l'rum Ti/?]ni3'/;1
and female organs duri1.1g the deveining PI-ocess. Nor is it
'33 7"T;l I b K w P'W'i'll7;ll nl;lX;l;l OY h.0 1 1 the opening page of
apparent that this has anything to d o with the ; l w ~ ; i5x.
l Indeed,
the treatise 011 11p73 n13?;1, o n e reads: 1lb9Y;l 5 ~ DY 3 T1i771;17 7 ~ .
several halakl~icauthorities have concluded that the passages Each page that follows has a heading that reads: 1 1 ~ n~ ~1 > ? ; l . ~ ~
in questioll are speaking about interlocking "n~ale"ant1 "ie- At the laws of 733, B o c h t ~ e writes:63
r
~ n a l e "membt-anes o r ~ ~ l u s c parts
le of bulls, not cows.5o Ac-
cordingly, the passages prove nothing about whether the 13
;1w1;1 is r-emoved frotn ~ n a l eand female anirnals. It scerns
hig1:ly unlikely that the porger - o r anyone else present -
I 01-iginal letter of reconi~nendatio~-I (in ncwly set type) ;~ppcaring
~voulrlhave been persuaded by such a tenuous argulllet~t.
separately on pp. 11-13 of the book itself. See also the photomecllan-
Another possibility is suggestive. In (hacow, 157'7, a rare ical wprotlt~ctionof thc treatise in K. Sholom Yehudat~Gross, cd.,
treatise o n 71p71n13L/;1 was publishecl its a11 appendix to a work a3pn21nn1 1 ~ ~ 1'73 ~ 70Brooklyn,
~ ~i 2 ~ . 1985, VOI.1 , book 2. Gross allegcs
entitled nig3-r1(by R. Jacob Weil, d. before 1 4 5 6 ) . ~T ~h e (on the in~;~gi~lary title page hc crcated expressly for the reproduc-
tion) that 11c rcpl-oduced t l ~ cCr:~cow,1580 cdirion of IJle treatise. Irl
fact, Ile I-eproduccd thc Cracow, 1577 editioll.
A shorter vcrsiori of thc Hcl~t-civpassage inclr~dertin thc ~IU*Y, filO11the author, see R. Joseph Mordecai Dubewick, " n l 9 ~ l u
asct-ibcd to Rashi, circt~latetllviclely in the unedicv;ll pctiod. E~ltitlcd KPNlp i)"p7 3"lW Yfr1;l)3 lDD2," 1711WT 14(2004), pp. 74-78.
"*ST 3'r~7'7 1tol;l lip 17i," if WIS o f i e ~appen~lcci
~ to cditior~sof' R. @We stress t.llese details because they may shed ligllc on another
Jncoh Wcil's nli;17-r1(e.g., Manrua, 1571). O J ~ oC L' tlic 16111 century aspect of the erlign~alicpassage in the ~ 1 5 9n1i 3 . Based on Neches, we
cditio~~s ivns phofol~neclii~nically I-ept.ocluced,1)rwidcclwith ;in iinzrg- know that R.Jonathan Eibeschuetz corl.ected the printed erlitivn to
inary title - 3"~75r1liFI;l 170 - and inclurled in a711nlj, a7poo '79D p i , rcid ID instead of lonD. It has generally been assulned that the
in7;rl llD3K m3'7z2,Jcr.~si~leln, 15182. rcfcl-enccwas to the 7ii)'ln 17b o f tile ~IU. But Neches was carefill to
5H;1~7 ;n17 Tts, $65 (ctl.Jcrus;~lcm, 2000, ;?Yf ;ill7 , 2, 1'1). 4 1-45).
vol. pliicc it1 cjuotatiou marks t11c c~~t.il.c corrcclioil it1 R . J o ~ l ; ( t l ~ 11;111tl,
i~~'s
S!)Sec, c.g., R. Solornon Freidus's note in R. A h r a l l ; ~Jorl ~~~ which ]-cad:"llp'] nn5n 7 7 n~M N171 i I"zD,'~ 1'11" I;tst five words arc not
Abclson, cd., '7??1w3??33nno], Oclessa, 1896, p. 100, 5118, note 91: K. p r e w ~ t e das Neches' decipher~nentof Y"'b, but I-ather as the very
Sholc~rl~ hlosclechai Schwadron, ;lYT 7717 ?Y nu7 -15.1 , S;riuma~.c,I!)] 0, ~v01.d~ recorclc11by R.Jonatl~ariEibeschuetz ill his cort-ection. But no
$(i5:7; R. Mena11ct11M. ](asher, n~'7ton n , New York, 1952, vol. 5, p. trea~ise\vith the title lli;r'~n135;l VD is recordecl irl all of Jewish
1298, n . ItiS; and i.hc sot1rces cited above, note 49. Iiterat~lre!The collfluence of titles, Iiowevei-, in the 1577 volume -
'j0hlp37>, C;racow, 1577. 7 ' 1 1 ~ ti~le page is I-eproctr~cedin I<. 11i)'3 h 1 3 h on the title page and 11~3117D at the start 01thc treatise
Avr;rl\;~tilXvi (.:~cAln~an and I<. Yisracl Mcir Weintl-auh, eds., mlo;?, itsc1i'- may well accounl for R. Jonathan Eibeschuetz' I-eferenceto all
11p73;r,I,o~~don, 1!18fi, ir~troductoryp;rgcs, p. 5. Two sil~nplcp;lgcs arc otherwise unattested 71p33rn3frn i7D.
rept-oduccrlas wcll (to~vasdthe end of the ir~rl-orluctol-y pages). More t j : $ i 7 p 1mion, iritroductory pages, p. 28. It1 Cross' photomechani-
irliport;~~itly, 1 1 . 1 ~~reatise ilsellrv;~~
rcp~.it~ted (in r~crvlyset typc) on PP. cal reproduction oi Uochtner's treatise (see above, note GO), i t ap-
-
/-;r2
9 o l tlio intrclrI~rci.ory pages, wit11 tlic title page, itltrocluctioir, al~cl pears on p. 36.
 111sum, there tvas n o ~ h i n gin the confi-onratio11 with the
pc)~gcithat lcPlcctec1 poorly o n R. J o n a t h a i ~ Eil>eschiiet7.
Nc)tliing said 01-done by K. Jonatlian smacked of heresy. Nor
clid R. Jonathan - a rabbinical figule of mythic proportions
'The c11t oftneilt calletl "the knJ" which is also callecl " t l ~ e - commil an egregious err o r that called for celebratio11 by the
gicl Ern-itaslleli." 01-"the yrrd" neecis to I)e scraped off wid1 Haskalah. The confi-ontation was entirely a Iialakllic one,
a knil'e at ttre t.oj>. . . This is true only regi~rcfingcows. itldeed "a ~nountainsuspended ii-om a hair, with little support
fi)r i t clraws sustenance fr.0111 thc ucltler. It is therefore ii 0111 Scripture, yet Inany I ~ W S . " ~ ~
forbidtlen t>ecause o f the prohibition of tnixing meat
i ~ n dmilk. 11.fi.)llo~vs,then, thitt this shoalcl not 1,e neces-
sary regarcliag hulls, for this reason tloes not apply to
I~ulls.But our p~-;lcticeis to scrape off for 1,ulls as well
. . . .:\tier the sct-aping off. oiie searches 1vit1.1 the hand
fol- tj veins prohibited ~rliclerr11e I-ul~ric of gid Irn-rrn.rheh.

ticte, the cut of 111eaicol~tainingtIle~?(l'lra wnsheh is clea~ly

litlkecl t o male atit1 female animals, the ilnplicatiotl being tlxal
tllc g?d Ira iroslrcli needs to I)e remo\;ed fro111 bntll male and The ~~arallcls to the pilssitge cited fi-clln R. Zvi Ilochtncr ate
ol~vious.Mrrreovcr, [he I'erlcs passagc - identified as colnirlg fi.0111a
felnale animals. By citing this passage, o r a late1 (let-ivative of
l l p ' ~ ?1 ' 1 ~- surely would have sufficcd to silence thc purger. Tlie
I<. Jonaihan E i b c ~ c h u e teffectively
~ silented his oppo- I'cr-lcs 11-catisc~ y a sI-eissucd i t 1 1'1-nguc, 1731. Wl~etlicror 1101 it was
Iienr, w1lo litel ally had ~zothillglrlole to say. the V C ' I - ~ t t ~ i ~ ~show11
i s c 1)y I<. J ~ n i i ~ l i i1.0
~ l ltlic porgcr i l l l'tag~lc
rlcpcnds it1 1):~-1o11 1vhc11tlic col~li.on~;ttion took place. 1'11~ Icr-rrrirztts
",II.;~tcl-lip3 nl;rnuals c;tlnt: unrlcr the il-ifl~~ence 01 R . %vi o quo isl7110, when K.Jonatll;t~~ Tirst came to I'ri~gr~c; thc lariniil~rstrd
ISochtnel.'~1577 tre:~tiscor1 M>~;I ;iricl its later ~~rintirigs.
'I'hus, quevi is 1742, ~vlicllI<. Joliatllall ~ S S L I I Ithe I ~ Chief
~ R a b b i ~ ~ of
a ~Me C~T
c.g., I<. ftnron l'erlrs, Tl7N nl;lD, Ofli.rtbach, 1722, statcs on its title - a l t l Ilevel- 1.ctu1.1icc1 to I'rague. 'I'hus, the conProntatiol-,tvuk place
p;lgc tlial. i t presents: somctilnc het~veetl1710 and 1742. 1t'it ~.ookplace in 1722 or later., K.
13211D1llDIYZ 5 ~ 111;l 1 n91D j1RXI 213 1-TIDV 1'1D DrJY 12x1 13K 53h 1lFl;l 170 Joli;ithan coulcl well have ac1duccc.l ;I copy of Yerles' book in orcler to
. ~ ~ n ~blii)ln
i l m71n~1i 115373 alx;llni alpm l ~ i p ?an ~ 15 1 1 w7p~ ~ ~ silc~~r:c [.he porgcr.
0 1 i I)]). ITtt,-l(ia, t.llc author w~itcs: (i5I ; I I I ~ tlceply grateful ro I'l.ofessor Kici~ardC;. Si.einer for his
ninv '3 7 1 15~ v7v i 11'131 ~ 1,,33 553 117 ;Iwm 7-2 K-I~II 17;1 i~q3a KID nwln 7.x carefill ~.eadingof all carlier drali of this s~udy.His sourld advice is
' m ~~ i pnix11
l , ( ~ 5 r i nilia ~ ~ $N2~ )P 0I ~3 m13 mnn ;IVI;T 7.1 iniw 71nn 1mt-i (.he c;~uscthat tlier-c is wisdonl in ottiers. As iisiial, rhc members of
5nm nnn IK (a-~NF) F a n ) nnnv l a 3 ni>lnn v97 1 ~ 1, 7 n ~DW i;lr ( i ~ x*,531)
~ ~ x the librnr y seafI' aL ~ l i cMclldel Gotlesn~arlLibl.ary of Yeslliv:~Univcr--
.;~wJ;Iilli v n~ i ~ n n 5nihv nv5w Ftml ;m DV ar c'l~uui~ ~ ~ ~l?ipw
5 2 ) sity exterlcled caul-tesics eve11beyond ~ I i ecall of duty: D>Y~II Pn3 1w77.