By Tovia Preschel
Heker Veiyun
Following the untimely death of Benjamin Mintz, Kalman Kahane has been elected leader of Poale Agudath Israel.
One need not be a follower of this particular group, and the writer of these lines is not, to regard Kahane as one of the most colorful personalities in the public life of the Jewish State.
Born and brought up in Galicia, he studied at German universities and at the Hildesheimer Seminary in Berlin. After his settling in Eretz Israel, where he was one of the founders of the Kibbutz Hafetz Hayim, he became an intimate pupil of the Hazon Ish.
In addition to this manifold activities as Kibbutznik in the full sense of the word, as Rabbi of Hafetz Hayim, as a leader of his party and as one of its representatives in the Knesset, his is also the studious life of a scholar.
He divides his time between public appearances and scholarly seclusion. You may find him, soon after having participated in a vital discussion in the Knesset, buried among Halachic volumes in the large reading room of the Hebrew University Library.
He is the author of numerous studies and articles and of a number of books. Among the latter are scholarly editions of the “Seder Tannaim Vaamoraim,” of the “Maase Nissim” (Daniel Hababli’s criticism of the Sefer Mamitzvot and Abraham Maimuni’s replies) and of the “Sefer Zikaron” by Yom Tob Isbili. Other books of his include compilations of the laws of Nidda and Shemitta, a study on commentaries of the Gaon of Vilna and “Haish Vehazono,” a fine portrait of the Hazon Ish.
In many of his studies Kahane has defended the traditional views and conceptions with regard to the Oral Law, and in this respect he may be truly regarded as a worthy successor of the small group of Orthodox Rabbis in Germany, who had gathered around Yitzchak Halevy and wanted to promote modern Jewish scholarship in a traditional vain.
Kahane’s writings are always worth reading. They display in addition to wide knowledge and deep penetration of the subjects he treats of, also a freshness of approach and conscientiousness to the highest degree.
His most recent book “Heker Veiyun” is a collection of essays and studies on a variety of problems and topics. They include an exposition of Maimonides’ views on the Oral Law; an enumeration of all the “Halacha Lemoshe Misinai” mentioned in Talmudic literature and by early authorities; an essay describing the views of some later authorities on the relation of the hermeneutical interpretations to the Halacha; studies on the calculation of the Shemitta year and on the problems of the re-establishment of the Sanhedrin and the introduction of capital punishment in the Jewish State. Among other articles are chapters on the personality of the Hazon Ish, on methods of Mishna interpretation and a host of exegetical notes to a variety of texts. In a study on “Omer Ani” contained in Rashi’s ecommentary on the Pentateuch, we find the following delightful and characteristic note by Kahane: “This Rashi has been brought to my notice by Hayim Pinhas Benish, a pupil of the Talmud Torah of Kfar Atta, and I wish to thank him for this.”
Unable to list here all the studies contained in the book or to describe even a few of them, I wish to summarize their general character. All the essays, whether they treat of subjects about which much has already been written, or of topics which hitherto had not attracted much attention, are crammed with the fine and original observations.
Let me conclude with a small note on a shorter study in the volume. Commentators of the Targum Onkelos have pointed out that the Targum contains in some places “double translations” for the same word or phrase. Kahane points to a double translation in the Targum Yonathan to the beginning of Haazinu. According to Kahane such a double translation is also found in the Targum Yonathan on Ge. 3, 22. The Targum Yonathan reads there in part: “Man is unique on the earth as I am unique in the high heavens, and from him will come forth such that would know to differentiate between good and evil.” In the view of Kahane, this version combines two different translations which correspond to two different Tannaitic opinions cited in the Mechilta. The two divergent opinions are based on different interpretations of the word “Mimenu” found in the Pasuk. According to one, it is a personal pronoun of the first person in plural, according to the other, the third person in the singular.
We beg to differ on this point. The above quoted Targum does not contain a double translation. The second part of the version is based on an interpretation of “Mimenu” as the third person singular. The first part is not identical with any view quoted in the Mechilta, but with one found in Bereshith Rabba. It is based solely on the words, “Hen Haadam Haya Keahad” (reading it as Keechad), and not derived from any interpretation of the “Mimenu”.
May I also add that the existence of double translations in the Targum Yonathan has already been pointed out about one hundred years ago by David Oppenheim in notes on the Targumim, which he published in “Beth Mamidrash” (Vienna 1865).