Urim ve-tumim (The Urim and Thummim)
Jonathan Eybeschütz
1775
Introduction
This preface represents not a collated anthology but is rather the result of forgetfulness on my part, insofar as I have been terse in the words I have written, which place on record that I participated in a disputation with the sages and the princes of the Christians in order to remove their taunts from us, they who allege concerning us that we mock and blaspheme against them and their religion in our literary works. Yet truth may serve as a witness on its own behalf that this stumbling block, which appears in our literature, is due to the fact that such was the norm, to follow the ancient texts with precision, and whatever they found to be the text there, they retained, regarding it as a sin to effect any alteration or omission in it, without taking into account the fact that everything changes in accordance with the times, and with the nature of the matter in question. There were such sentiments expressed in ancient texts, and similarly, evil things were to be found concerning the gentiles at that time, and in particular, concerning idol worshipers, alien nations, since the root of such matters is based on the Amalekites, in relation to whom we are commanded in the Torah to blot out their name and to destroy their memory [ . . . ]. From there it extended also to other nations who hold fast to the deeds of Amalek and say: “The Almighty does not see, nor does the God of Jacob possess discernment”—they deny Divine Providence and the existence of God, and ascribe all things to nature and to the stars of the heavens, as we find in several instances that they celebrate festivals associated with the planets and the heavenly constellations, such as Kalendia and Saturnalia [ . . . ]; but in actual fact such disparaging remarks are not directed against the Christians of our own era; for the Christian nations in whose midst we dwell have in general observed the ways of justice and righteousness; they believe in the creation of the universe and in the existence of a deity and in His providence, and in the law of Moses and in His servants the prophets, and they persecute and set themselves in opposition to the Sadducean-type groups who deny the resurrection of the dead and the survival of the soul after death. That being the case, it is fitting to wish the Christian nations well and to praise and to glorify them and to shower blessings upon them rather than curses, Heaven forbid—and in particular, since they deal benevolently with us and treat us graciously by providing us with the opportunity to earn a livelihood within their lands. It has indeed already been declared by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah that we are “to pray for the welfare of the city, for it is through its welfare that you live.” In like vein, our sages of blessed memory have stated: “Pray for the welfare of the government.” Accordingly it is an obligation devolving upon every single community, wherever printing presses are to be found, to remove the stumbling block of taunts and blasphemies from our sacred texts [ . . . ] and duly take note; I pray for the welfare of the government in general, for the monarchs and dukes of Christendom who offer protection to our entire nation beneath the shadow of their wings. May the Almighty bless them and increase their power, and in particular that of our Lord, the great and gracious King of Denmark, Frederick the Fifth, together with the Queen and his children, his family, and his counselors and ministers, chieftains and deputies. He is the kindly ruler who acted as my shield and was a light in the darkness to set my feet straight, directing my steps; and he rebuked the devilish adversary. And behold, the king shall rule in righteousness, to muzzle all mouths uttering base words. May God remember this to him for his good!
amen! amen!
Kitsur tokfo kohen1
For we do not know what the majority is, as we are not experts on all the opinions of the sages of the various generations, or on their reasoning or their statements. By way of illustration, if we were to say: The opinion of the R”if [R. Isaac Alfasi] and that of Moses Maimonides are identical in any particular case: hence, we have two mutually supportive views here! That is fine, but who knows how many sages of the generation living at the time of the R”if, and similarly, how many sages of the generation living at the time of Maimonides may have disagreed with them, to the point where the views of the R”if and of Maimonides would become nullified by reason of their having been in a minority against the majority view? And if the views of such other authorities have never seen the light of day, that is on account of the troubles we have experienced and the heavy burden of forced apostasy and the yoke of the Exile, and incessant migrations, by reason of our many sins—as a result of which many sages failed to commit their words to writing, to serve as “a memorial in the Sanctuary of the Lord,” and numerous works were lost, and many works still extant in manuscript were confiscated and are currently hidden away in the abodes of various private individuals, and have not been scrutinized by the eye of the reader; for, as one might say, fresh works are appearing in print each morning, and light thereby shines forth for the upright—works of early authors that have been hidden away until now, such as the novellae of Rashb”a on numerous themes, novellae of Re”ah and Ritv”a, and an anthology of the views of venerable sages collated in Shitah mekubezet to a number of Talmudic tractates. By this means we have discovered and realized that what was originally regarded by us as merely the view of an isolated individual actually enjoyed a great deal of additional support from other authorities. Because this is the case, a single individual may be able to argue that his view should be accepted as halakhah, for how can we legitimately remove the matter from the sphere of doubt, as it is by no means clear to us that it does indeed represent only the view of a single dissident individual, as I have stated above? This seems to be what one might advance as an argument on behalf of those who say that one can claim that a person’s minority view can still stand against that of the majority. [ . . . ]
In particular, regarding a law that is mentioned in the Shulḥan arukh, where the author and the Rem”a [R. Moses Isserles] have left out the view of any dissenting authority, it is a tradition transmitted to me, and I have witnessed conduct to similar effect on the part of expert religious judges and so too do I myself conduct judgment and proceed without arguing that the halakhah may legitimately be established as being in accordance with the dissenting view, since the Master, the Bet Yosef [R. Joseph Karo], and the Rem”a placed the memory of the dissenter “behind the door”; accordingly we have no obligation to take it into consideration. The sages of succeeding generations have firmly accepted upon themselves to observe and do according to everything stated in the abbreviated format of the Shulḥan arukh and the supplementary remarks of the Rem”a thereto. In my view, there can be no doubt that everything that is written down was vouchsafed to them by way of enlightenment from the hand of the Almighty—for there are numerous difficulties that the later authorities raised against them and resolved in an acute and profound manner, and likewise, the many laws that they incorporated within their sweet, pleasant, and succinct phraseology—and yet, there can be no doubt that they did not think of every single point, for how would that have been possible given the heavy labor—Heavenly labor—devolving upon them? Indeed is there any man in existence who is capable of authoring a work on the entire Torah, drawn from all the statements of the earlier and later authorities without such labor—Heavenly labor—being too burdensome for him? Hence we have to conclude that the spirit of the Almighty [resided] within them, so as to make their words accord perfectly with the halakhah, albeit without the specific intent of the author; and the desire of the Almighty came successfully to fruition in their hands. Accordingly, Heaven forbid that one should say: Establish the halakhah against the ruling of the author of the Shulḥan arukh and of the Rem”a. Now I recall that upon the death of my father-in-law’s father, the most distinguished, righteous, and upstanding rabbi, R. Mikhel Shapira of blessed memory, he had, prior to his passing, bequeathed all his belongings verbally by the method of “gifts made by a person on his death-bed”—and when he died, an alternative document emerged in which a specific sum was recorded, and over which there were numerous disputes; and my father-in-law, the most illustrious rabbi, R. Isaac Shapira [his son], whose light still illuminates us, sought to contend: “Let the halakhah be established in accordance with the view of the Ra”avad and his supporters, that where there is a verbal loan, the lender cannot make a monetary claim from a gift made verbally by someone on his deathbed, since even without that verbal gift one would not think that the alternative document was authentic”; the contemporary sages, the great men of Israel, sat in convocation to consider the correct halakhah in that case. Despite the fact that I was disqualified by reason of my relationship to the parties, they nevertheless discussed the matter back and forth with me, and together they arrived at a consensus that since there was no mention of such a law in the Ḥoshen mishpat of the Shulḥan arukh or in the Rem”a, there was no room for an argument that the halakhah may be established [as agreeing with the view of the Ra”avad]. Hence they ruled that the money must be paid to the lender out of the gift, down to the very last farthing. Such is the appropriate course to be followed, without any cavil.
Translated by
.
Notes
[An abbreviation of the work on Talmudic laws of possession, whose original author was Shabetai Kohen.—Ed.]
Credits
Jonathan Eybeschuetz, “Introduction,” in Ḥoshen ha-mishpaṭ: ha-urim ṿe-et ha-tumim, by Joseph ben Ephraim Karo and Jonathan Eybeschuetz (Carlsruhe: Ernst Lebrecht Schniebes, 1775), https://hebrewbooks.org/8581. Republished as: Jonathan Eybeschuetz, “Kitzur tokfo kohen,” in Sefer Urim ṿe-tumim, by Jonathan Eybeschuetz (Jerusalem: Mekhon Maʻaneh śimḥah, 2010), sec. 123, pp. 136-137.
Published in: The Posen Library of Jewish Culture and Civilization, vol. 6.
You may also like
Sermon of Ethical Rebuke Preached . . . during the Penitential Period Preceding the New Year’s Day, 5505 [1744], to the Congregation of Metz
Ketubah
Jerusalem and Athens: The Congruity of Talmudic and Classical Philosophy
You may also like
Sermon of Ethical Rebuke Preached . . . during the Penitential Period Preceding the New Year’s Day, 5505 [1744], to the Congregation of Metz