Several months ago I reviewed in this column a book on the “Noda Biyehuda” by A. L. Gelman. The following lines will be devoted to another book on Yeheskel Landau, which appeared recently. It was written by S. Wind, a member of the faculty of Yeshiva University.
In my articles on Gelman’s book, I had pointed out that a full biography of the “Noda Biyehuda” giving us a complete picture of his life and teachings is still wanting. In addition to Landau’s writings, which have never been fully analyzed or described, there is available much biographical material, which has not yet been exploited by this biographer.
I will mention only one example: In the time of Landau a controversy occurred between the printers Propes of Amsterdam and the printers of Sulzbach with regard to the printing of the Talmud. Many of the leading rabbis of the period took part in the controversy, and Landau was among those who sided with the Amsterdam printers and prohibited the Sulzbach printers to print the Talmud. As far as I know, Landau’s part in the controversy has never been fully discussed in any of the studies on the “Noda Biyehuda.” (Material on the subject is found in M. Weinberg’s treatise on the Hebrew printing presses in Sulzbach).
The small book before us was not intended to be an extensive biography. According to the author himself, it represents only a contribution to the characterization of the “Noda Biyehuda” and his teachings.
It is divided into two parts. The first part gives biographical details, while the other is an attempt to elucidate some of the Halachic views of Landau, through the analysis of part of his response.
In the first part the author has, naturally, based himself in a great measure on books written on the subject before him. In the second part he had to tread a path of his own.
As every serious study on one of our great spiritual leaders deserves our attention, I will permit myself to mention some minor inaccuracies which I came across in the first part of the book. In another article we will deal with the second part.
Speaking of the proposed appointment of Rabbi Arye Leib of Amsterdam, a brother-in-law of Yaakov Emden, as rabbi of Prague, Wind states that the intervention of the followers of Yonathan Eibenshuetz wit the authorities prevented the appointment. In the source which Wind indicates for his statement, nothing of this kind is found. Almost the contrary is said there. The community of Prague took action against those who opposed Rabbi Aryeh Leib, and the authorities concurred with this action.
Wind’s description of the contents of the Ktav Rabbanut contains a minor inaccuracy with regard to the salary of Landau. However this might be due to an omission by the printers. Incidentally, Wind says that Landau’s Ketav Rabbanut of the community of Prague was first published in Haassif no. 2. This is not correct. It was published in “Haeshkol” vol. 1.
Speaking of the ordinances against luxury which Landau introduced in his community, Wind states that whoever invited more persons or served more food at a Simcha that was permitted, had to pay as punishment a certain sum of money for each additional person invited or food served. May we remark here that the ordinances do not say this. The ordinances provide different limitations for different classes of tax payers. They also provide for the imposition of a punishment of ten Reichsthalers upon the offender and in addition thereto, if necessary, imprisonment and public disgrace. However, nothing is state therein about the imposition of payments in accordance with the number of people invited or foods served in contravention of the ordinances.
Writing of the organization, which Queen Maria Theresa wanted to establish for the Jews of Galicia, Wind writes that the plan was never realized. It was. It existed for more than ten years, and after Yeheskel Landau had declined the offer to serve as its chief rabbi, Rabbi A. Bernstein served as its head.
The second part of Wind’s book consists of two larger chapters devoted to a description and analysis of part of the Noda Biyehuda’s response.
One chapter contains many specimens from Landau’s Halachic vies and decisions, while the other presents material on the life and social conditions of the Jews in Eighteenth century Europe, found in the response.
Wind has spent much effort and time on these chapters, which undoubtedly present his major contribution to the biography and characterization of Rabbi Yeheskel Landau. In these the reader is given an insight into the social conditions of the Jews at the time of the Noda Biyehuda and into the many problems he had to decide.
A few minor inaccuracies should be noted here.
Speaking of a well-known “affair” mentioned in Landau’s response, Wind asserts that because of his decision in the matter the Noda Biyehuda had to leave his position in Yampol. Though Wind follows therein a writer who preceded him, his assertion is not justified.
In two places in his book, Wind makes mention of an enquiry addressed to the Noda Biyehuda on the permissibility to ask a non-Jew to mark documents on Sabbath by means of stamp bearing the Jew’s signature. According to Wind, the enquirer was a Jewish member of the municipal council of legislature. Without knowing the particular responsum, one could have assumed that in the time of the Noda Biyehuda, no Jew served on a municipal council. Moreover, a glance at the mentioned responsum shows that the man who turned to Landau for a decision worked or had relations with an “Amt”—perhaps some municipal or state department. (In the index of the response the person is referred to as “appointee over the business of the king”—which might mean a court agent. However, as the person is mentioned by name in Landau’s decision, his office could perhaps be established from historical studies on that period.)
It also seems to this writer that in two instances the author has not quite accurately described the decisions of Landau. I refer to his remarks regarding the response Kamma, Orach Hayim 4, and Tinyana, Yoreh Deah 178.
May I make here a remark not directly concerned with the review of the book. Among the Halachic views of Landau cited by Wind, is also one regarding the taking of Halla. According to Landau the taking of Halla consists of two different Mitzvoth. The Halla taking which enables one to partake of the food from which it had been separated, and its presentation to the priest. Landau himself regards this view of his as original and novel. I would like to remark thereto that some time ago Rabbi Yeruham Leiner, the Radziner Rebbe, in a series of brilliant articles in “Sinai,” containing notes on early and later authorities, had pointed out that this particular view of Landau had been advanced earlier by other athorities. Among others it is to be found in the Tosafoth Ri”d on Kiddushin (at the end of the second Perek) and in the “Mishne Lamelech” (Matenoth Aniyhim 6:7).
A final note on Landau’s bibliography. To his main works mentioned by Wind, should be added the Zelah on tractates of Kodashim, and the more recently printed Zelah on Nezikin.
By Tovia Preschel
Jewish Press
11/16/61, 11/24/61