Hatam Sofer: Introduction to the Great Torah Commentators Week II

Hatam Sofer: Yoreh Deah 338

Pressburg, Friday, 12 Adar II, 5597 (1837)

Peace and all the best to my close friend, the great, eminent, renowned and outstanding rabbi, the prince of Torah, Rabbi Zevi Hirsch Chajes, the head of the rabbinical court and yeshiva of the holy community of Zolkiev.

Your precious letter reached me just as Shabbat arrived. Before I set my eyes on your pleasant and lengthy words, I will respond immediately, to dispel from your pure heart regarding what I wrote in my previous letter[1] that “the new (hadash)[2] is forbidden by the Torah.” I did not write that orlah,[3] kil’ayim,[4] or pigul that is not accepted.[5] Rather, only hadash, for I have understood from the elders that it is proper to be among the upholders of the Torah. They were cautious about making openings and seeking leniencies on behalf of the rogues amongst our people, who they seek to appease. Yet if they find a crack the size of a beading needle, they will break open breach upon breach.[6] Your exalted honor should see Part 4 of Responsa Maimonides, in the laws of mourning, regarding the simple matter of marrying a woman before three festivals have elapsed since his wife’s death. He writes: “Take these words to heart, lest fences are breached as a result, and every man will do what is upright in his heart, basing the matter on great people. Thus, foxes will make breaches.”[7] I wrote that delaying burial involves the violation of a positive and a negative commandment because, at the very least, Nachmanides wrote thus. There is no practical difference nowadays, and it is best to elevate the prohibition.*

Yet you, sir, rely on the rejected opinion of Havot Yair (§139), which states that the entire root [of this prohibition] is only rabbinic. But we do not reveal this, because, due to our sins, in our times there has been a proliferation of such people who go so far as to say that we are not concerned about the words of the rabbis that God did not command. In our manifold sins, even the eminent author of Noda BiYehuda stumbled on this matter when he appeased and granted permission, under pressing circumstances and in cases of major loss, for a non-Jew to write in a store on Shabbat, basing his support on a rejected opinion of Rema [Orah Hayim], in §306 of the Laws of Shabbat, where he wrote that the writing in a non-Jewish script (lit. “the script of the priests”) is not a Torah prohibition. He decided well in relying on this opinion in a case of rabbinically-prohibited instructions to a non-Jew (“amira le-nokhri”). See Noda BiYehuda II, Orah Hayim 29 and 33. However, begging pardon from his great honor, the bathers[8] write on Shabbat based on the opinion that it is a rabbinic law, and they are not concerned for rabbinic laws that God did not command. It is about such cases that it was stated (Avot 1:11): “Sages, be careful with your words.” Nowadays, those who come later will certainly drink, and many have already drunk.[9]

In his earlier responsum, your exalted honor brings the words of R. Isaac b. Sheshet in [responsum] §94, where he wrote one small line and minor hint—that we do not impose a fine (on one who disrespected the sanctity of a member of the hereditary priestly class), for he can claim, “Prove to me that you are a kohen”—and nothing more. If one wishes to base a leniency on this, there has already been a hundred barrels worth of protest in Responsa Maharit §§148 and 149, and they screamed like roosters and made a tumult.

And regarding that which your exalted honor cited from Responsa Maharashdam: he only wrote in favor of relying on a hearsay witness (“eid mi-pi eid”) in the case of a captive woman, since it is a double uncertainty (“sefek sefeika”); yet your exalted honor added a leniency even in a case of levirate divorce (“halitza”), which is not mentioned in their words. Perhaps it is indeed mentioned in the work Masa Moshe which your exalted honor cites, for this book is not currently in my position. Yet if we do not find likewise in a single latter-day authority (“aharon”), we do not live by the word of his mouth. So why should we pile up leniencies and publicize them?**

I have instructed that what I recently wrote on this matter to my master and father-in-law R. Akiva Eger, the head of the Posen (Poznan) rabbinical court, regarding the statement of Caftor Va-ferah that your exalted honor touched upon in his first response, be copied over.

Regarding your exalted honor’s comment based on the eminent author of Beit Efraim (Orah Hayim) §6, which prevents kohanim from ascending the platform [for the priestly blessing] throughout the year, I have already responded to all of the statements of the eminent author of Beit Efraim (=R. Efraim Zalman Margulies, d. 1828) in that righteous man’s lifetime. The rabbi, author of Pri Hadash himself, though he cited Sefer Ha-miktzo’ot to the effect that anyone who has a menstruating wife at home may not ascend the platform, he concluded that this should not be publicized.

Note, your magnificent, exalted honor revealed the hidden in his earlier precious letter on the matter of feeding [one who needs to eat on Yom Kippur] the lowest possible level of prohibition, that we can say on Shabbat that since it is permitted [to cook] for someone who is gravely ill, then on every Shabbat, where there is a new birth or circumcision in every city, we can say [according to your logic] that “since [(‘ho’il’) it was permitted for a need, it is also permitted for other purposes]”—he should guard yourself from such thinking. In the chapter “Mi She-hehshikh” (Shabbat 153b) it is stated that there was another that the Sages did not wish to disclose. Your exalted honor should study Noda BiYehuda II, Yoreh De’ah 80: the words of the questioner are plagiarized from the book Besamim Rosh, and Noda BiYehuda’s response is insufficient. It would have been better had he not printed this responsum, so as not to lend support to those sinners who destroy [their beards] with a razor. With thanks to God, I have written a long responsum on this issue, and it was successful, with God’s help. My words bore fruit in my city and in places where my voice is heeded. This is [the meaning of] “the new is forbidden by the Torah” in all times and all places, and even more so nowadays. One who wishes to beautify himself before God and amongst the upstanding members of the congregation of Israel, who stand guard in their stations with faith—and I count your exalted honor among them, as your purpose is to place safeguards and stand in the breach—shall renew (“yithadesh”!) his youth like an eagle, and no evil shall come into his domicile. May God raise up his throne and the radiant glory of his splendor. May it be His will that I can be an agent in this matter, for I avail myself to your benefit at any time or season. He will call me, and I will answer him.[10]

Who esteems him and loves him,

The insignificant Moshe Sofer of Frankfurt

[Translation by R. Eli Fisher]

[1] Responsa Hatam Sofer, Yoreh De’ah 338. Though this responsum is addressed to an anonymous correspondent in the printed editions, it was indeed addressed to R. Chajes. See Bruria Hutner David, The Dual Role of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Chajes: Traditionalist and Maskil, Ph.D. diss., Columbia University: 1971, p. 443 ff. and n. 270.

[2] Technically, the term refers to the new season’s grain, which are not permitted until the omer offering on Passover. Hatam Sofer borrows the term and applies it to anything “new.”

[3] Fruits from the first three years after a tree is planted, which the Torah forbids.

[4] Grafted or hybrid crops, which the Torah forbids.

[5] Sacrifices whose time has expired, which is not accepted as an offering; see Lev. 19:7.

[6] Job 16:14.

[7] Responsum §20 of those printed after Maimonides’s Book of Judges.

* Comment of R. Chajes: In my opinion, his decision, namely, that it is permissible to elevate the prohibition and to stay of a negative commandment alone that it is a positive and negative commandment, is incorrect. We see that even though the Sages permit threatening language, see Maimonides, Commentary on the Mishna (seventh chapter of Sanhedrin) regarding the punishments on forbidden sexual relations, where he wrote in the middle of his commentary: “The Sages have cautioned against sinful thoughts and distanced people from things that lead to them, and they spoke at length to threaten and strike fear… but no lashes are incurred for any of these things or anything like them.” Similarly, when they say, ‘It is as though he killed someone,’ ‘It is as though he worshipped idols,’ or their statements about many things that they incur the death penalty, these are only threat, intended to strike fear. However, to say of a rabbinical prohibition that it is a Torah prohibition, of this Maimonides states in chapter two of the Laws of Rebellious Elders, this is what the prohibition of ‘do not add to it’ (bal tosif) is said about. If one says that fowl meat and milk are forbidden by the Torah, he violates bal tosif. Since it is only rabbinically forbidden, it is forbidden to say that it is forbidden by the Torah. This is also included in the caution: ‘Distance yourself from words of untruth,’ even though he does so for a reason and purpose. The Sages were always careful to clarify what matters are Torah law and what are merely rabbinic law, even where there is no practical ramification.

[8] It seems to be a reference to a well-known metaphor for those who wish to make changes the first to jump into a bath tub gets burned, but he cools the water for everyone else. See Rashi on Deut. 25:18.

[9] The mishna just cited uses “drinking from waters” as a metaphor for students imbibing a master’s poorly-chosen words.

** Comment of R. Chajes: Regarding the prohibition on publicizing, namely, that it is only prohibited to publicize before the people, but not before a scholar who is engaged, as part of his study, in halakhic discourse, I have written at length above.

[10] Psalms 91:15.

Responsa Hatam Sofer 6:84

Praying publicly in a language other that the Holy Tongue is completely impermissible. Even though Shemoneh Esrei is included among those things that may be recited in any language, this refers to a temporary situation. However to do so regularly, and to appoint a public prayer leader to pray in the

vernacular regularly? If [this were permitted], the Men of the Great Assembly, would not have ordained prayers in the clear and poetic Holy Tongue, since in their days half of [the Jews] already spoke the Ashdodite language

Responsa Igerot Moshe. Orah Hayim 2:42

Regarding a bimah that is not in the middle of a synagogue. 21 Adar I, 5719 [1959] to my Dear Friend, Rabbi Nahman Meir Bernard, shlita, rabbi in Wichita, Kansas.

Regarding the issue of a bimah in the middle of a synagogue, certainly it should be placed in the middle, but as to the question of whether one may pray in a synagogue that does not have the bimah in

the middle – it is not appropriate to forbid based on this. And regarding that which was said in Hungary that it is forbidden – I do not fully understand the basis for that. It must have been something limited to

that time and place as a measure to combat Reform. For in those places this was the beginnings of Reform. But in other places, where the intent of moving the bimah was not for Reform, rather so that there would be more seats or for other similar reasons, there is no reason to forbid praying there. For [bimah location] is not one of the essential rules of the sanctity of the synagogue, rather it is for the

purpose of making sure that all worshippers can hear the Torah reading as is explicit in Rema 150. And this is also mentioned in Rambam Hilkhot Tefilah

11:3. And the Kesef Mishnah is lenient, even ab initio in small synagogues – see there. Therefore, even though it is obviously preferable to place the bimah in the middle so as not to change the custom of our land, and see too Hatam Sofer Orah Hayim 23 who gives a new reason from his own thinking for why to prohibit a bimah not in the middle. And even though is reasoning is not conclusive, nonetheless it is certainly appropriate to be sensitive to his concerns

when possible. However, to prohibit prayer – even according to his reasons – there is no place for this. And the truth is that the rumors that in some places it

was prohibited that was only a temporary decree in their land because of Reform and if there are two synagogues one with the bimah in the middle and one with the bimah at the end, one should make his settled prayer location in the synagogue with the

bimah in the middle since that is the correct and appropriate location.