| | Feature
Yerushalmi Found And Lost: The Story Of A Forgery
By Yisroel Holland
The Real Yerushalmi
Part III
This series was first published in 1992, or, 24 years ago.
For Part II of this series click here.
A Career as a Forger
The forgery enterprise shifted into high gear with the publication of Lahiss' Sefer HaTikkun, described for us by HaRav Meir Dan Plotzky: "It is full of unparalleled mockery and imitates the Shulchan Oruch with its dinim and commentaries. It also mimics the language of the Zohar in some foolish phrases. Anybody who has not seen this piece of fraud for himself would never believe that a ben Torah could say such outrageous things.
"What is especially conspicuous is his mockery of chassidus in general, and of their conduct since the time of the Ba'al Shem Tov z'l. Believe me, I could not contain my disgust for long enough to finish looking at all of it."
The author's name as it appears on the title page is, Leibish'l chossid, third gilgul after Zusske Rachel Lahiss and Shlomo Yehuda Leib, Av Beis Din of Milhausen. Later on, in 5649 (1889), his commentary on the Tosefta appeared.
The following thirteen years provided a long enough break for all the meticulous planning necessary for his forthcoming project, which this time would be on a massive scale. Lahiss suddenly became transformed into a Sephardi, Shlomo Ya'uda, of the Algazi family. His father: HaGaon MaHaRa"M zt'l. His brother: Morenu HaRav Eliyahu S'T, friend of Rebbi Yaakov Kobi.
Later on, he had a brilliant idea: when he would be forced into giving over the addresses of the aforementioned fictitious Sephardim, he would sit shiva for his "brother zt'l," who had gone up to shomayim taking their addresses with him. A wealthy Jew was even prepared to set aside a huge sum of money in order to track down the two elusive Sephardim, but all efforts were in vain.
The new Sephardi spoke only Hebrew, in the Sephardic pronunciation. He adhered to all the Sephardi minhagim, the most noticeable perhaps being the laying of two pairs of tefillin, Rashi and Rabbenu Tam, at the same time.
Later on he would visit Sighet, Hungary, and ask to speak to the assembled kehilla in the shul to promote sales of his Yerushalmi. One member of his audience raised his eyebrows in surprise at the scheduled talk, for six months previously, when word of the new Yerushalmi had spread, it had been said that the publisher was a Sephardi who could speak only Hebrew. However, there is a solution to every problem and the Sephardi provided it, explaining that when he passed through Germany, he picked up the Yiddish in which he was about to address the crowd. What remained unresolved though was how he had managed to pick up Litvishe Yiddish in Germany.
HaRav Meir Dan Plotzky zt"l
Part Six: "Once The Mistake Has Arisen..."
The fiasco still had a long way to run. As the debate over the Yerushalmi raged, word of Lahiss' earlier outrages slowly spread. The story of the kameiya was publicized in the kovetz, "Tel Talpiyos" by HaRav Tzvi Halevi Horowitz, Av Beis Din of Hermanstadt. Lahiss was not easily put off however and continued to try to convince people that the Yerushalmi had not been his own fabrication.
He managed, for example, to manipulate HaRav Yehuda Greenwald of Satmar, who had decided to retract the haskomo he had given to the first volume, and had written to inform another of the original maskimim, his colleague from Banihad, the Pri Hasadeh, of the step he had taken. One of HaRav Greenwald's talmidim sent a copy of this last letter to HaRav Meir Dan who was well known as one of the major opponents of the Yerushalmi.
A few days later though, the talmid was summoned to the Rav, who vigorously demanded that the letter to HaRav Meir Dan be retrieved. His wishes were fulfilled. What had happened was that Lahiss was not in town when HaRav Greenwald had written to the Pri Hasadeh. Upon his return, he had gone over to the Rav's house and cunningly persuaded him to change his mind.
A further volume of the Yerushalmi appeared in 5669 (1909), on masechtos Zevochim and Arachin. Here was the perfect platform from which to pour fire and brimstone over the heads of his adversaries. In a lengthy article entitled "Kedushas Kodshei HaYerushalmi," one of the publisher's friends, HaRav Refoel Gordon, author of Nachal Eden and Av Beis Din of Vashilkov, unloads a barrage of insults without providing any concrete answers to the questions that were still outstanding.
HaRav Meir Dan investigated in order to ascertain whether this rav was a partner in the forgery, or simply a friend of the true villain of the piece. Thirteen years later, HaRav Gordon had four of his chidushim on the Yerushalmi included in the Vilna edition. Three out of the four are based on the forged Yerushalmi: "And now, thanks to G-d I have merited seeing the Yerushalmi Menochos in manuscript, and I saw there..." and, "It should be publicized that in that Yerushalmi, the girso is correct" (in our Yerushalmi, these chidushim can be found after maseches Megilla).
The publisher himself did not remain idle and also replied to his detractors with abuse, while again not providing any answers.
How did gedolei Yisroel react to the episode? Below are extracts from some of their letters, portions of which were devoted to their findings after having subjected the text of the Yerushalmi to lomdishe scrutiny.
HaRav Meir Yechiel of Ostrovstze was opposed to disqualifying the Yerushalmi on the basis of difficulties and discrepancies in the text itself. "The gates of answers have not closed" he declares. It would always be possible for someone else to come and resolve the difficulties; this after all is the way of Torah. This was therefore not a reliable method of defusing the Yerushalmi's power. Its authenticity had to be undermined by other methods.
It is worth mentioning in this connection that in Otzar Yisroel which was published at that time, under the heading "Yerushalmi," it is suggested that even if the manuscript were not forged, the compilation may not be the work of the amoroim who gave us the rest of the Yerushalmi, but perhaps of one of the rishonim, who had collected all the statements of the Yerushalmi that were relevant to seder Kodshim. As an example of another work done in this style, he cites the sefer of the Radziner Rebbe, the ba'al Hatecheles, which was patterned on maseches Keilim: if that sefer had been written in earlier years, it would have sparked a debate over the Yerushalmi Taharos. (Interestingly enough, there was an uproar in the Torah world when the Radziner's sefer was published.)
The Rogatchover Gaon zt"l
Part Seven: Gedolei Yisroel Give Their Verdict
In spite of all the conjecture, the gedolim of the time concluded that the Yerushalmi Kodshim was the handiwork of the publisher himself. They based their decision on the many strange, inexplicable problems in the text, as well as the widespread testimony about the publisher's eventful past.
The Ridvaz (of Slutsk-Tzfas) was the first to support the position of the Rotterdam Rav. Later he was joined by the two giants of Dvinsk, the Ohr Somayach and the Rogatchover.
HaRav Meir Simchah writes, "I tender my thanks and blessing for his having started to publicize (the news of) the forgery of the Yerushalmi, which will soon become irreversibly accepted ... it is not at all the way of the Yerushalmi to engage in examining the mishna in the style of the Bavli ... and it is known to us that the publisher is a native of Bishankevitz in the Vitebsk district, and it is from Russia that this (golden) calf has come."
In a further letter he writes, "I justifiably say to my friend the rav that from the time I have become acquainted with him, I am loathe to look at him for as far as wisdom goes, he is very small, and he does not know how to make a forgery."
Writing to HaRav Meir Dan, he says, "The fake coin minted by the fake Sephardi of Bishankevitz, Vitebsk which every expert in Yerushalmi can recognize as a forgery, I have distanced from my home, because of (the admonition) `do not let any iniquity dwell in your tent,' and this crime is more severe than that of false weights, which are forbidden to be kept in one's home."
The Rogatchover writes, "I have seen your comments concerning that fearful volume and anyone with a brain in his head can see that they are correct, unless he is one of those who contradict what they see with their own eyes."
Writing to HaRav Meir Dan, the Rogatchover says, "I took some time last night to study the volume and I am very confused ... when the post office opens I will return it for there is a question here of `do not let any iniquity dwell in tour tent,' and it contains things which should not have been written. ... It is certainly fitting to publish (material) opposing this volume so that people will not be led astray by it." (The Rogatchover's letters appear in full in "Shu"T Tzofnas Pa'aneach simanim 113, 114, 115.)
We have mentioned the opposition of HaRav Meir Yechiel of Ostrovtze to proclaiming the Yerushalmi a forgery purely on the basis of the difficulties it contained. He suggested instead that the publisher be forced to let it be examined by experts.
The Gerrer Rebbe, however, disagreed. The Rebbe's brother writes in his name, "What would be gained by managing to simulate in a manuscript the appearance of old age? The main thing was to see who were the people mentioned in the introduction from whom he had obtained the manuscript, and where they lived."
The Sochatchover Rebbe decreed, "Nobody should buy the sefer until the publisher has clarified its sources before the gedolei hador, in our country and outside of it, (and if) they will confer their authority on it, then may we enter its portals."
In his Sha'alu Shlom Yerushalayim, HaRav Meir Dan brings further letters from the Chelkas Yoav and from HaRav Avrohom Binyomin Kluger. The latter retracted his haskomo in the light of HaRav Meir Dan's proofs.
One of the forgeries
Part Eight: Into Obscurity
It is hard to say when the affair died down. HaRav Yekusiel Yehuda Greenwald, who had been a colleague of the publisher, published Lema'an Ha'emes in 5673 (1913). Shortly afterwards HaRav Yaakov Tzvi Yanovsky from Kiev brought out his pamphlet "Tzayid Remiah" in Poltova. The two clearly demonstrated what the sources had been for the Yerushalmi Kodshim.
HaRav Yanovsky divided these into four categories: first, excerpts from the Yerushalmi brought in the Yefei Eiynayim at the end of the Vilna Shas. Second, excerpts from the Bavli which had been altered in language and names. Third, rulings of the Rambam and other Rishonim whose source was either not known or had been questioned by the acharonim, and which now, thanks to the publisher's kindness, had been consigned a place in the Yerushalmi, (this is how Rabbenu Tam's opinion of the positions of the parshiyos in the tefillin became the opinion of the Yerushalmi). And fourth, "when he had emptied his vessels of all the provisions he had taken from other quarters, he composed his own fictions." (No wonder then that the publisher had been able to point as a proof of its authenticity, to the "fact" that his Yerushalmi served as a "source" for hitherto obscure rulings of the rishonim.)
Lahiss-Friedlander returned fire in his pamphlet "Letz Hayayin" which was full of insults and abuse, accusations and libels, but again, without providing answers. HaRav Y.Y.Greenwald — referred to in this pamphlet as "a chick whose eyes have not opened" — set about preparing a further work on the subject, in the spite of the threats from his one-time friend. His plans did not come to fruition because of the First World War which broke out in 5674 (1914), effectively putting an end to the whole sad affair.
*
By way of an interesting postscript, we find the following in the 5674 Vilna edition of the Yerushalmi, under the heading "Publisher's Notes On The Printing Of The Yerushalmi":
"We have not printed the Yerushalmi on the masechtos from seder Kodshim which were published from manuscript ... by HaRav Shlomo Ya'uda Friedlander in Varahl because many protests were issued concerning it, claiming that it was a forgery, and it is not for us to take sides in this argument and certainly not to resolve it. Our Torah is the Torah of truth and the stamp of truth can only be given to something over which there is not the slightest doubt. For this reason, Hakodosh Boruch Hu is named truth, and in the same way, our Torah is the Torah of truth. Anything even slightly doubtful is deemed foreign and cannot gain entry to its quarter."
Gradually, the episode was forgotten and the two controversial volumes which had shaken the Torah world, disappeared from the bookshelves. The term "Yerushalmi Kodshim" lives on as a sad legacy of a superbly gifted, eccentric talmid chochom, whose Torah had changed into poison.
HaRav Meir Dan Plotzky, The Iluy From Kuttno: A Biographical Note
HaGaon Rav Meir Dan Plotzky zt'l was born in 5626 (1866) in Kuttno. When he was three, he fell seriously ill and the doctors despaired of his life. The Aleksander Rebbe however gave the infant a brocho, telling his father, "You will see a lot of nachas from your son when he becomes a Rav in Yisroel."
At the age of nine, he travelled to the yeshiva of HaRav Eliezer Wachs, author of the Nefesh Chayo, where he was known as "the iluy from Kuttno." In 5651 (1891) he became Rav and Av Beis Din in Dwahrt, Poland. Twelve years later he brought out his first sefer, Chemdas Yisroel, on the Rambam, which included haskomos from Rav Chaim Brisker, the Aderes and HaRav Eliyohu Chaim Meisel of Lodz.
He began to publish his Kli Chemdah on the Chumash in 5666 and from then on, has been known by the name of that sefer. Sha'alu Shlom Yerushalayim appeared in 5670. He travelled for a year with Dr. Nosson Birnbaum and other personalities through Belgium, England and the United States, on behalf of Agudas Yisroel. Upon returning, he left rabbonus and spent his time teaching in the Mesivta in Warsaw. He was niftar on the sixth of Nisan 5688 (1928).
Part of his tzava'a states, "I exhorted my colleagues about the manuscripts of the second volume of my sefer Sha'alu Shlom Yerushalayim, which I once sent to the late Rav and gaon, the editor of HaPeles zt'l, and they were even ready for printing. There are many letters there from gedolei hador and especially from the Chofetz Chaim, with whom I discussed these matters."
What became of these writings? We do not know for sure but it seems likely that they went lost in the Second World War together with thousands of other seforim and manuscripts.
The Chofetz Chaim's son relates that his father did not rush to proclaim the Yerushalmi a forgery, only agreeing to do so once he had heard about the publishers past history. "Then his stand was weakened, and he said no more about it". (From Toldos Chofetz Chaim at the beginning of the book of his letters, pg.27)
|
