6761 —הערות על מהדורות "בית הבחירה" למאירי: תיאור כתב היד, תולדות המחבר, והערות על ב"ב ומקואות

B"H, 12 Adar II, 5719^[1]
Brooklyn.

The veteran Chassid, a G‑d-fearing man, distinguished and honored, a basket full of books^[2], etc., Rabbi Avraham, may he live long^[3]

Shalom u'Vrachah!

Following our conversation^[4], I took time close to it to go through, at least cursorily^[5], the book – your gift – Beis HaBechirah on tractate Bava Basra^[6]; and, in the usual phrase in these books, "by way of rolling on", I went through also the second book that you published^[7], which is in my library: Beis HaBechirah on Mikvaos. And as is my way in all such cases, I come below with some remarks, out of fondness for the subject^[8].

I wish to make a general remark even before the closing: our generation has become accustomed to "making handles for the basket"^[9], etc., not only with regard to the content of books but also with regard to the authors of books and what concerns them. Therefore, begging your pardon, I wonder that in the two books mentioned there is no description of the manuscript from which the book was printed; and further, a major point: whether this manuscript was compared with other manuscripts^[10] (as you mention in your introduction to Beis HaBechirah^[11] on Bava Basra, that there is a manuscript in the Vatican). This bears on the attitude to this book – whether it is possible to be exact in every single word, etc. Also, it is customary to give a photograph of at least one page of the manuscript, and in addition, the main points^[12] of the author's biography and of his method of study, and who his teachers were – the last two details being^[13] also essentials with regard to the book.

It is possible, and close to certain, that all of the above has already been printed, whether by you^[14] or by others. But it is well known that our generations are not like the earlier generations, and very few are those who will search out other books printed in the field of this book, especially when they are not well known; and all the more so when the introduction gives no hint where, in which book, details on all the above are to be found. [Although in my opinion, even had there been a reference to other books, this is not the way in our generation, which lacks the alacrity required for searching and studying books like these; and to establish the attitude to the book, it would suffice to add two or three pages with just the conclusions on the above points, with a reference, for one who wishes to know the discussion^[15] of it, to such-and-such a book and such-and-such a periodical.]

The importance of the above information surely needs no explanation to one like you^[16]; and it is many times greater in the books of Beis HaBechirah, whose intent apparently is rulings of law, unlike his book of commentaries and novellae. And although surely in our time no one will rule halachah from the Beis HaBechirah, nevertheless, for researching the course of the halachah and its foundation in these rulings that came after the Meiri, knowledge of the above is important.

A further general remark: since a number of the books of Beis HaBechirah have already seen the light of print, surely, when one compares the anonymous titles^[17] cited in them, many doubts would clear themselves up as to whom the author means by this or that title. For example, the title "the first of the Geonim" or "the Geonim of the Rishonim" (and "the Geonim of Spain"), where it seems^[18] simple that the intent is Rav Hai Gaon (and R. Yosef ibn Migash^[19]); and R. Kalman Schlesinger apparently inclines to the view that the intent is Rabbeinu Chananel, although he did not decide on this, as is evident in the Beis HaBechirah on Bava Kamma in his edition^[20].

I hope that you will not take offense at my remarks that follow the above, and may it be G‑d's will that you receive them as they were written – with a friendly countenance^[21].

With respect and with blessing to spread the light of the Torah of the Rishonim, who are like angels^[22], illuminating the earth and those who dwell upon it^[23], for generation after generation.

And with blessings for a happy Purim.

Enclosed with my letter are the books^[24] in the teachings of Chassidus about which we spoke in our conversation: the Tanya, and the Sefer HaMitzvos of the Tzemach Tzedek^[25].

Ch. 1, Mishnah 1. Page 5. Note 2.^[26] "Our master specified ‘locking and fencing’ to exclude, etc."

– It would seem that you should rather^[27] have learned that the Meiri means to exclude the view of the גמי"י from the fact that the Meiri changed and omitted the word "and went" which is in the Gemara^[28]. Apparently you explain that "locking and fencing" is an explanation of the preceding words, "that they took possession, this one of his portion and that one of his portion".

But according to this, the Meiri would disagree with all those who wrote that with locking and fencing it suffices that one take possession of his portion – Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, beginning of siman 157, and the sources noted there^[29]; Shitah Mekubetzes^[30] here; and Tosafos Yom Tov^[31]. And it is forced to say that this is what he means by "that they took possession, this one etc. and that one", namely, that this one locked and that one remained silent. Moreover, there would still be a difficulty from what he writes^[32] below, "and for example that they said" – for it suffices if one said. (And here it is impossible^[33] to answer that it means "either one or the other", and that he used the language of the Gemara.)

And if you will say^[34] that a word was omitted here by the young typesetter^[35] or by the copyist of the manuscript, and that in the Meiri it was written – in the language of the Gemara – "that they went and took possession": one can explain^[36] that he means possession by walking, as the inference of the גמי"י; and he adds another way – "and locked" – specifically in the singular; and all the above inferences fall away of themselves.

Ibid. "For there is no doubt, etc. there is no custom, etc." And in note 5.

One may further say^[37]: according to what the Meiri writes, one understands why even in partners who bought it together, one cannot claim that it was bought with the intent that they should be partners in it – see Beis Yosef, Choshen Mishpat, siman 171, se'if 33, s.v. "The Rashba wrote"; Rosh, Bava Basra ch. 1, siman 51^[38]; Chiddushei HaTzemach Tzedek on Bava Basra.

Ch. 10, at its end. Page 732. Note 1.^[39] So holds also the Rashba (cited in Darkei Moshe, siman 129, se'if katan 3^[40]) and the Ritva (New York 5714).

Ibid. Note 3. "The Ramah^[41] is cited, etc." It needs study^[42] why you did not remark on the discussion of the Ramah's view in the Bach and the Drishah there^[43]. Especially since from the continuation of the Meiri's words it seems that he speaks here of one who signs after the signing of the documents^[44]. And if so, according to the Bach, etc., this is not the Ramah's view.

The Meiri on Mikvaos.

Ch. 1, Mishnah 1. Page 4. Note 3, וא"ו: "I toiled greatly, etc., and it needs great study"^[45].

Were I not afraid, it seems to me in my humble opinion^[46] clear to say (especially since apparently only one manuscript of the Meiri was used) that above this, after the passage "and there is no difference in this between drawn water and undrawn water, since they are not in the category of a mikveh", some words were omitted, whose content is that there are those who distinguish, that undrawn water אמק"ט like a mikveh.

– And the copyist confused one "mikveh" with the other^[47] –.

According to this^[48] it will be resolved: a) why the Meiri here omitted the view of the Rash and the Raavad^[49] (who differ with the Rambam in the explanation of all four mishnayos), although in this tractate he usually brings it in many places^[50]; b) the "needs great study"; c) the phrase "and this is what was explained in the Tosefta" is understood (on which you remarked in note 3).

And regarding^[51] the above omission – it must be said also on page 6, note 2.

Ibid. Note 5. Also in the Commentary on the Mishnah^[52], "by the hand of the impure one". And apparently it is like the expression "through so-and-so".

Ibid. Page 5. Note 1. "The Raavad" – apparently it should read "the Rambam".

At its end, page 116^[53]: "thirty elders". He opened with thirty-two elders! And in the Rash and in the Tosefta in the Vilna Shas, at its conclusion too, thirty-two elders^[54]. And if you will say that there is no printing error^[55] here, one can explain that in his words Rabbi Tarfon^[56] did not count himself, out of his humility, nor Rabbi Yosi HaGelili, since he explains this in the style of the verse, that the elders brought it about that there was none to save the ram from the hand of Rabbi Yosi HaGelili^[57]. – Several variants in the text of the Sifrei, Chukas^[58].

And in both, the reading needs study, where Rabbi Tarfon calls Rabbi Akiva^[59] and Rabbi Yosi HaGelili – with the addition of "Rabbi".

Publisher's notes

Printed in part: Partly printed in Likkutei Sichos vol. 17, p. 483, and completed from the secretariat's copy.

Rabbi Avraham (הרב אברהם): Sofer (Schreiber).

Notes

1. 12 Adar II (י"ב אד"ש): The twelfth of Adar II (5719 was a leap year): Sunday, 22 March 1959.

2. The veteran Chassid… a basket full of books (הוו"ח אי"א נו"נ צנמ"ס): הוו"ח = הוותיק וחסיד; אי"א = איש ירא אלקים; נו"נ = נעלה ונכבד; צנמ"ס = צנא מלא ספרי, "a basket full of books", a title for a scholar learned in many books.

3. Rabbi Avraham (הרב אברהם שי'): Sofer (Schreiber), per the publisher's note. R. Avraham Sofer (Schreiber; 1897–1982), a great-grandson of the Chasam Sofer, served as a rabbi in Italy and in 1939 settled in Jerusalem; from 1930 he published from manuscripts the volumes of Beis HaBechirah of R. Menachem HaMeiri on the Talmud, followed by other works of the Rishonim, and in those years he spent part of each year in the United States. Later the Rebbe wrote to him about his work "in publishing the Torah of the Rishonim" and recalled their conversation "regarding his ancestor… the Chasam Sofer, of blessed memory, who also occupied himself with the inner dimension of the Torah" (vol. 25, letter 9422), and thanked him for his efforts in publishing the Tanya in Italian translation (there, letter 9434).

4. Our conversation (שיחתנו): The Rebbe's conversation with the recipient; so too below: "the books in the teachings of Chassidus about which we spoke in our conversation".

5. At least cursorily (עכ"פ מקופיא): עכ"פ = על כל פנים; מקופיא (Aramaic) = superficially, in a quick reading.

6. Beis HaBechirah on tractate Bava Basra (בית הבחירה על מס' ב"ב): Beis HaBechirah is the work of R. Menachem HaMeiri on the Talmud; ב"ב = Bava Basra. This volume, and Beis HaBechirah on tractate Mikvaos, were published by the recipient.

7. That you published (שהו"ל): שהו"ל = שהוציא לאור.

8. Out of fondness for the subject (לחביבותא דמילתא): Aramaic: out of the dearness of the matter.

9. Making handles for the basket (עושים אזנים לקופה): Based on Eruvin 21b: בתחילה היתה תורה דומה לכפיפה שאין לה אזנים עד שבא שלמה ועשה לה אזנים – "At first the Torah was like a basket without handles, until Shlomo came and made handles for it." That is, making a thing easy to grasp; the Rebbe writes that our generation is used to such aids not only in the content of a book but also in information about its author and the manuscript from which it was printed.

10. Manuscript… other manuscripts (כת"י… כ"י): כת"י = כתב יד; כ"י = כתבי יד.

11. Beis HaBechirah (ביה"ב): ביה"ב = בית הבחירה.

12. The main points (ר"פ): ר"פ = ראשי פרקים.

13. Being (ה"ה): ה"ה = הרי הם.

14. You (כ'): כ' = כבודו, i.e. the recipient.

15. The discussion (השקו"ט): השקו"ט = השקלא וטריא.

16. One like you (לדכוותי'): Aramaic: to one like him.

17. The anonymous titles (הכינוים הסתמיים): The titles by which the Meiri refers to scholars without naming them.

18. It seems (שלכ'): שלכ' = שלכאורה.

19. R. Yosef ibn Migash (ר"י מיגש): R. Yosef HaLevi ibn Migash.

20. R. Kalman Schlesinger… in his edition (הר"ק שלזינגר… שבהוצאתו): R. Kalman Schlesinger, who published the Beis HaBechirah on tractate Bava Kamma (ב"ק).

21. With a friendly countenance (בספ"י): בספ"י = בסבר פנים יפות.

22. The Rishonim, who are like angels (ראשונים כמלאכים): Based on Shabbos 112b: אם ראשונים בני מלאכים, אנו בני אנשים – "If the earlier ones were like angels, we are like men."

23. Illuminating the earth and those who dwell upon it (מאירים לארץ ולדרים עלי'): From the blessing Yotzer Or in the morning prayer: המאיר לארץ ולדרים עליה ברחמים – "Who in mercy gives light to the earth and to those who dwell upon it."

24. The books (הס'): הס' = הספרים.

25. The Sefer HaMitzvos of the Tzemach Tzedek (ס' המצות להצ"צ): The Tzemach Tzedek's Sefer HaMitzvos, also called Derech Mitzvosecha (as the Rebbe writes in vol. 15, letter 5467).

26. Ch. 1, Mishnah 1. Page 5. Note 2 (פ"א מ"א. ע"ה. הערה ב'): Chapter 1, Mishnah 1 of Bava Basra; page 5 of the book (and so below, the page numbers on which the Rebbe comments); note 2 of the editor there, which reads: "Our master (the Meiri) specified ‘locking and fencing’ to exclude, etc."

27. Should rather (טפי הו"ל): Aramaic: it would have been more fitting for him.

28. The Gemara (ש"ס): In the Gemara (Bava Basra 3a), on partners who wished to divide a courtyard too small for compulsory division: כי רצו מאי הוי? נהדרו בהו! א"ר אסי א"ר יוחנן שקנו מידן... רב אשי אמר כגון שהלך זה בתוך שלו והחזיק וזה בתוך שלו והחזיק – "If they wished, what of it? Let them retract! R. Assi said in the name of R. Yochanan: where a kinyan was made… Rav Ashi said: for example, where this one went into his portion and took possession, and that one went into his portion and took possession."

29. Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, beginning of siman 157 (טושו"ע חו"מ ר"ס קנ"ז וש"נ): Shulchan Aruch there, 157:2: וכן אם הלך זה בעצמו והחזיק בחלקו וזה בעצמו והחזיק בחלקו אע"פ שלא קנו מידם אין א' מהם יכול לחזור בחבירו. י"א שאפי' החזיק שלא בפני חבירו ולא אמר לו לך חזק וקני קנה ואפי' לא החזיק אלא א' זכה הלה בחלק האחר – "And so too, if this one himself took possession of his portion and that one himself took possession of his portion, even though no kinyan was made, neither can retract. Some say that even if he took possession not in his fellow's presence… he acquires, and even if only one took possession, the other has acquired the other portion." וש"נ = ושם נסמן, "and the sources noted there".

30. Shitah Mekubetzes (שיטה מקובצת): By R. Bezalel Ashkenazi.

31. Tosafos Yom Tov (תויו"ט): The commentary Tosafos Yom Tov on the Mishnah.

32. What he writes (מש"כ): מש"כ = מה שכתב (the Meiri).

33. It is impossible… "either one or the other" (א"א… דאו או קתני): א"א = אי אפשר. "Either one or the other": that "this one… and that one" is not exact but means "either this one or that one". So Nimukei Yosef (Bava Basra, p. 2a in the Rif's pages) writes in the name of others on Rav Ashi's words: והא דקאמר וזה בעצמו לאו דוקא אלא או זה קאמר – "and when he says ‘and that one himself’, it is not exact; he means ‘or that one’." The Rebbe writes that in the Meiri's own words, "and for example that they said", one cannot answer so.

34. If you will say (את"ל): את"ל = אם תמצי לומר.

35. The young typesetter (הבחור הזעצער): Yiddish זעצער: the typesetter in the printing shop.

36. One can explain (יל"פ): יל"פ = יש לפרש; ל' = לשון.

37. One may further say (עוי"ל): עוי"ל = ועוד יש לומר; דעפמש"כ = דעל פי מה שכתב.

38. Beis Yosef… Rosh (ב"י… רא"ש): ב"י = בית יוסף; סקע"א סל"ג = siman 171, se'if 33; ד"ה = s.v.; פ"ק = chapter 1; סנ"א = siman 51. The Rosh there: "R. Yosef HaLevi wrote that the rule of ‘divide or I divide’ (gud o agud) applies only to heirs or recipients of a gift; but if two bought a house that is not large enough for each, neither can say gud o agud, for they both bought it with the intent of being partners in it"; and the Rosh disagrees: "his words do not seem right to me in this". The Beis Yosef there cites the Rashba's responsum: "if they bought or rented together, it is clear that from the start each one pledged his portion to the other, to remain so in partnership forever".

39. Ch. 10, at its end. Page 732 (פ"י בסופו. עתשל"ב): Chapter 10 of Bava Basra, at its end; page 732.

40. Darkei Moshe, siman 129, se'if katan 3 (ד"מ סקכ"ט סק"ג): ס"ל = סבירא ליה; ד"מ = Darkei Moshe on the Tur, Choshen Mishpat 129:3, which reads: וכתב ה"ה פכ"ו מה' מלוה דכן דעת הרמב"ם אבל הרשב"א הסכים לדעת הראב"ד – "The Maggid Mishneh wrote (ch. 26 of the Laws of Lending) that this is the view of the Rambam; but the Rashba agreed with the Raavad."

41. The Ramah (הרמ"ה): R. Meir HaLevi Abulafia.

42. It needs study (צ"ע): צ"ע = צריך עיון.

43. The Bach and the Drishah there (ב"ח ודרישה שם): The Bach (Bayis Chadash) of R. Yoel Sirkis and the Drishah of R. Yehoshua Falk Katz, both on the Tur; "there" = Choshen Mishpat 129.

44. One who signs after the signing of the documents (יוצא לאחר חיתום שטרות): A guarantor whose name is written in the document after the witnesses signed, as in the Mishnah (Bava Basra 10:8): ערב היוצא לאחר חיתום שטרות. The Tur, Choshen Mishpat 129: כתב הראב"ד ז"ל שהוא משתעבד בלא קנין לגבות ממנו מבני חורין דהוה ליה כמו מנה אני חייב לך בשטר שהוא משתעבד לו וכן כתב הרמב"ן והרמ"ה כתב שאינו משתעבד – "The Raavad wrote that he is bound without a kinyan, to collect from his free property, as it is like ‘I owe you a maneh by a document’; and so wrote the Ramban; and the Ramah wrote that he is not bound." The Bach there: "According to the Raavad… here, since it is written in the document, it is like ‘I owe you a maneh by a document’… and according to the Ramah it is like an oral guarantee… and he is not bound, when not at the time the money was given, except by a kinyan."

45. Ch. 1, Mishnah 1. Page 4… it needs great study (פ"א מ"א. ע"ד… וצע"ג): Chapter 1, Mishnah 1 of Mikvaos; page 4; צע"ג = צריך עיון גדול.

46. Were I not afraid… in my humble opinion (לולא דמסתפינא נלפענ"ד): לולא דמסתפינא (Aramaic) = were I not afraid; נלפענ"ד = נראה לפי עניות דעתי.

47. Confused one "mikveh" with the other (ובין מקוה למקוה נתחלף להמעתיק): The copyist's eye jumped from one occurrence of the word "mikveh" to the next, and the words between them dropped out.

48. According to this (ועפ"ז): ועפ"ז = ועל פי זה.

49. The Rash and the Raavad (הר"ש והראב"ד): The Rash = R. Shimshon of Sens, in his commentary on the Mishnah; the Raavad = R. Avraham ben David.

50. In many places (בכ"מ): בכ"מ = בכמה מקומות.

51. Regarding… it must be said… page 6 (וע"ד… צ"ל… ע"ו): וע"ד = ועל דבר; צ"ל = צריך לומר; ע"ו = page 6.

52. The Commentary on the Mishnah (פיה"מ): The Rambam's Commentary on the Mishnah, there (Mikvaos 1:1): לפי שאלה המים נטמאו ביד הטמא בעת שתייתו – "for this water became impure by the hand of the impure one as he drank." פ' = פלוני.

53. At its end, page 116 (בסופו עקט"ז): At the end of the book, i.e. the end of tractate Mikvaos; page 116.

54. Thirty-two elders (ל"ב זקנים): The Rash at the end of Mikvaos (10:8) cites the Tosefta: "A cow that drank purification water and was slaughtered within twenty-four hours: this was an actual case; Rabbi Yosi HaGelili declared it pure and Rabbi Akiva declared it impure; Rabbi Tarfon supported Rabbi Yosi HaGelili… This was an actual case, and thirty-two elders in Lod voted on it and declared it pure."

55. Printing error (טה"ד): טה"ד = טעות הדפוס.

56. Rabbi Tarfon… Rabbi Yosi HaGelili (ר"ט… ריה"ג): ר"ט = רבי טרפון; ריה"ג = רבי יוסי הגלילי.

57. None to save the ram from the hand of Rabbi Yosi HaGelili (לא הי' מציל את האיל מידו של ריה"ג): The Rash there: "At that moment Rabbi Tarfon read this verse (Daniel 8:4): ‘I saw the ram goring westward and northward and southward, and no beasts could stand before it, and none could save from its hand, and it did as it pleased and became great’ – this is Rabbi Akiva… ‘and it cast it to the ground and trampled it’ – this is Rabbi Yosi HaGelili; ‘and there was none to save the ram from its hand’ – these are the thirty-two elders in Lod who declared it pure." So the elders who did not save the ram (Rabbi Akiva) from Rabbi Yosi HaGelili are other than Rabbi Yosi HaGelili himself; and Rabbi Tarfon did not count himself – leaving thirty.

58. The Sifrei, Chukas (הספרי חוקת): Sifrei Bamidbar, piska 124, which reads: "Rabbi Tarfon said: I saw the ram goring westward and northward and southward… and it did as it pleased and became great – this is Rabbi Akiva… and there was none to save the ram from its hand – this is Rabbi Yosi HaGelili."

59. Rabbi Akiva (רע"ק): רע"ק = רבי עקיבא. In the Rash and in the Sifrei Rabbi Tarfon refers to them with the title "Rabbi" ("this is R. Akiva… this is R. Yosi HaGelili").

Summary

The Rebbe thanks the recipient, editor of the Meiri's Beis HaBechirah, for his edition of Bava Basra, and urges that such editions describe the manuscript used, compare it with other manuscripts, and give the author's biography and teachers; comparing the editions could also identify the scholars the Meiri names only by title. He adds detailed notes on both volumes, Bava Basra and Mikvaos, and sends him the Tanya and the Tzemach Tzedek's Sefer HaMitzvos.