Heretic hunts and children's literature

The Yeshiva world says that in the Torah one can find everything. Talmud study, in particular, prepares an individual for any sphere of activity. A great Talmid Chacham, who is experienced with the pathways and byways of the Talmud can advise, counsel, teach, administer...even write children books. Chaim Nachman Bialik testified that people used to say, "if you want to learn about the world, go to Volozhin". A person like Rabbi Yakov Yosef Reinman is an argument for this viewpoint. The former publisher of CIS, the author of the widely respected Shufra D'Shtara and Destiny, he is the chavrusa of the Lakewood Mashgiach R. Mattasiyahu Solomon Shlita, and the writer of many popular children's books, under the pen-name Avner Gold.

R. Reinman was also the central player in a recent book banning controversy. The details of the incident are well documented. R. Reinman co-wrote “One People, Two Worlds: A Reform Rabbi and an Orthodox Rabbi Explore the Issues That Divide Them” (Schocken, 2002) with the  Reform Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch. He had obtained approval and encouragement from R. Mattasiyahu Solomon, basing himself on the guidelines that R. Elyashiv expressed to the leaders of Arachim. However when R Reinman prepared to go on a book tour with Rabbi Amiel Hirsch, the opposition struck. Moetzes Gedolei issued a proclamation against the book and the tour was cancelled. R. Reinman wrote an apology and a justification in the Jewish Observer for those who issued this ban . He continued to justify the detractors, in an interview in Mishpacha (which is available through its site and posted below, in which he thanked several opponents by name) while also expressing that those who crossed the line into dishonorable opposition are destined to stand in judgment.

But what does R. Reinman really think? Of course we don't know, but we now know what Avner Gold, in a 2008 volume, thinks of a similar situation. Here is how Wikipedia describes this book: "

This book is a direct continuation of ″Scandal in Amsterdam", In this book Sebastian, Amos and Immanuel go to America. On the day before Chanukah in the year 1684, a shocking event takes place in the Bais Medrash in Amsterdam. The event leads to private accusations and confrontations and a public uproar that threatens to change the course of many lives. The complications that arise send the central characters on a hair-raising story across the Atlantic Ocean and into the wilds of Indian country on upstate New York. The story in the Bais Medrash [Chapter 2] is based on an event that the author actually witnessed."

More specifically, Immanuel, a recent Marrano arrival from Portugal and a university graduate is publicly and loudly rebuked by Shammai Cohen (remember that name, Shammai?!), the Talmud teacher in Rabbi Sassportas ( an excellent book on this great man's opposition to Shabtai Tzvi was recently published, entitled Moshian shel Yisroel) Beis Hamidrash for saying that Rambam was more trustworthy in halachic matters that deal with medicine than Rashi, because Rambam went to a university. Shammai publicly calls Immanuel an Apikores. Shammai is called to task by R. Sassportas and made to apologize publicly in the Esnoga (synagogue) but words his apology an such a way as to leave doubts and questions. He also refuses to clarify what he said, thus creating an impression that while Immanuel may not technically  be an apikores, he is very close to being one. When Immanuel's shidduchim and his acceptance by the community dry up, he goes to America. At the end of the book, Shammai realizes that he allowed the dark side of his nature to take over, and that as a result of his actions he himself has descended in melancholy and depression, and he goes to Americal, where he finds Immanuel and apologizes to him.

Although R. Reinman does not cite him, Immanuel's opinion is, in fact, the view of Maharshal. I think that projecting an opposition to such a view into 1600's is an anachronism, for I do not believe that anyone  at that time would seriously consider this view heretical, although some would have certainly disagreed with it.

So what does this book represent? The redemptive fantasy of the author, a veiled commentary on the Slifkin controversy, or on his own treatment by his opponents, an innocent and unrelated twist of the plot? I don't know. I don't presume to know. I do find it interesting and significant and so, I share these facts with you. Judge them as you will.

Download Mishpacha interview

 

Comments

[Yehonasan]

Re: Reform ideology: Have you read R. Antelman's polemic work "To Eliminate the Opiate"? He submits that the founding of Reform was an Illuminati scheme to overthrow Judaism and the old world order. He is given to invective and hyperbole but if even only a small percentage of his claims are true, it is on the one hand quite dismaying, but on the other hand helps explain so much.

[osoavakesh]

I did not and thank you for pointing me to that. Professor Scholem did claim that Sabbateans were behind Haskala and Reform. His speculations about possible influences between Sabbatean and Reform Judaism in Hungary were criticized by Jacob Katz for lack of historical evidence. I understand that some more recent research based on archival research confirms that many of the founding Reform families in Prague were from Sabbatean families.

[Yehonasan]

Yes, R. Antelman also cites those sources. He also claims, though, that the Sabbatean/Frankist cults themselves were developed by the Illuminati as part of their plot, as was the communist movement. Maybe he is overreaching. However, the links between these various utopian subversive movements were interesting. For example, Abraham Geiger, a founder of Reform, had his salary and the costs of running the first Reform seminary in Breslau paid for by the Bund, a political party which later became known as the International Communist Party. Geiger's brother-in-law was Heinrich Oppenheim, one of the leaders of the failed Communist revolution in Germany in 1848.

[steve mcqueen]

If your reading is correct it is not a good reflection of our community that the only way a serious talmid hacham can make statements on issues of public concern is through the medium of childrens literatue!

[S.]

>"[Pinchos Lipschutz's] concern for a fellow Jew he was about to attack was touching."

I don't know about you, but this sounds like sarcasm designed not to sound sarcastic. I know R. Reinman goes on to condemn others who he feels are asid litein es ha-din, but I can't help the feeling that he was not quite so touched by Lipschutz heads-up that he was going to publish an "attack" on him.

[Natan Slifkin]

"Although R. Reinman does not cite him, Immanuel's opinion is, in fact, the view of Maharshal"

Also Chassam Sofer (in his chiddushim to Maseches Niddah p. 18a) concerning a discussion by the Rishonim about an aspect of human anatomy. He writes that “after investigations in books and from scholars in the field of anatomy, it is impossible for us to deny that the reality is not in accordance with the explanation of Rashi and Tosafos and the illustration of Maharam Lublin, and we have nothing other than that which the Rambam wrote in his compendium… and therefore I have not bothered at all in explaining the words of Rashi and Tosafos in this topic, because it is impossible to sustain them according to the reality, and you – know this!”