Here are some interesting notes relating to Lord George Gordon, infamous 18th century English convert to Judaism (please see these earlier posts: I, II and III).
First, here is an engraving of Lord George (and a woman he was associated with), which appeared in Town & Country, June 1786. Although it is not known for sure why he was nicknamed Lord Crop, it has been speculated that it was because he was circumcised. However, if so, then it becomes clear that it was widely known that he had become Jewish by 1786, while for other reasons the date when he converted is not clear.
The gossip associated with the images is directly below:
Here's an account of what happened when he was apprehended (emph. mine):
“When the officers waited upon him, he did not deny himself, but told them he was a Jew, and whatever might happen, should continue one; and when he learnt that it was ordered he should be in London on Saturday evening, he expressed much concern thereat, as it would oblige him to travel on the Sabbath-day of the religion he had embraced. Lord George, we understand, first became a Jew while he was in Holland, and ever since he has resided in this place has been a very strict and rigid observer of every rite, ceremony, and custom of the Jews except that of attending the Synagogue, where he feared to appear lest he should be discovered. His beard he has suffered to grow to a considerable length, which, together with his dress, contributed so much to disguise him that he frequently went out in the daytime, though most of his hours were spent in his lodging-room in reading, writing, and learning the Hebrew language.”
His friend Robert Watson, MD, published his Life of Lord George Gordon: with a philosophical review of his political conduct in 1795. He discusses why Lord George converted to Judaism, at least as much as he far as he could guess:
Most interesting of all is the following exchanges between Lord George and a Jew named Angel Lyon. Gordon would only allow bearded Jews to visit him in prison. It seems that the latter was a poor Jew who had wanted to visit him for some assistance, but was refused entry because he did not have a beard. He sent him a letter:
“My Lord,—Although I was unfortunate, not to meet your Lordship’s approbation, on account of my beard being short; yet, I trust, your Lordship, when you consider the sending of Samuel to the house of Jesse, to anoint a king, and his being surprized that seven of the finest princes should pass before him unapproved, that God told Samuel, ‘ People see with their eyes, but I see the heart.’—Just so, my Lord, is my situation— a true Jew, the son of misfortune, having seen better days in many parts of the world; but am now hardly able to maintain myself, wife, and children, with all our endeavours united.—Your Lordship’s charitable disposition numbers of our tribe speak daily of, and I hope God Almighty will put it into your heart to add to the number of your good works by relieving the troubled mind of, My Lord, your Lordship’s most obedient and most humble servant,
Angel Lyon.
now humbly waiting your Lordship’s answer, AT No. 17, NORTHUMBERLAND ALLEY, FENCHURCH-STREET, June 15,1789.”
-- and this is Gordon's reply; as you can see, after explaining his point of view, placing the blame for British Jews being shaven on rich Jews, etc., he advised him to grow his beard, and then he'd be glad to receive him (printed in the Public Advertiser October 16, 1789):
Apparently this was quite persuasive, as Angel Lyon wrote the following letter back (and see how he signs it now!):
“Gar-Zadak, My Lord, The letter which your Lordship thought proper to honour me with, will for ever merit my best acknowledgments, as I am thereby made superlatively happy, in finding that the solid reasonings therein perfectly agree with my heart, and are conformable to the directions of Almighty God, and to the sacred writings of our prophets.
“I beg leave to declare for myself, that owing to your Lordship’s few words and personal example, on the tenth of June, when I had the honour of waiting upon you, I took the resolution not to shave any more, which the bearer can personally testify.
“The whole of your Lordship’s letter is so just and strictly true, it will not admit of any reply, especially from one who is overwhelmed with trouble. Yes, my Lord, I will tarry readily, in the hope of seeing your Lordship, unless it shall please God to relieve me from it before the time cometh.
“I beg leave to subscribe myself with the greatest respect, your Lordship’s obliged,
Ashur Bar Judah.
“June 24, 1789."
Blake's Jerusalem (1804) included many beautiful engravings. This is the frontspiece, and it is assumed to have been inspired by the dress of Lord George Gordon
Finally, here are three clippings from the Jewish Chronicle. The first is from 1867:
The second concerns a Jewish friend of George Gordon. Lord George made his acquaintance because of the curious --and noble-- inscription on his home, which read כל דכפין ייתי ויכול, dated 7.03.1896:
The third concerns a point I once made about time. The correspondent, writing in 1905, remembers that his grandfather told him all about the Gordon Riots of 1780.
Below is part of the English text from his tombstone:
In Memory of
Signor Yitzhak Leonini Azulay, M.A.
22 years Professor Regius to the Institute of Noble Cadets
in Berlin, Tutor to H.R.H. Princess Royal of Prussia
Member of several Learned Societies, etc., etc.
Born at Leghorn, 2nd day of Succoth
Died 16th day of Tamus, 17th July, 1840
and his last words were להגיד כי ישר ה’ צורי ולא עולתה בו
The portrait was made in 1790, which would make him about 23 years old. His name Giuseppe, or Joseph, would seem to indicate that he was named for his grandfather, but actually his שם קודש was יצחק ליאן.
Do I see a facial similarity with his grandfather? Compare and decide for yourself:
The information from this post was obtained from R.D. Barnett's paper "Isaac Leonini Azulay," ("in collaboration with Gertrude Azulay, A. Schischa and Jacob Jacobson") in the JHSE 19. Incidentally, Barnett shows that he probably wasn't born in Livorno (i.e., Leghorn, as on the tombstone) but in Jerusalem. He quotes "Dr. Johnson that ‘a man in lapidary inscriptions, is not upon oath’."
Here's an interesting letter to the Jewish Chronicle, sent by Bondy Yomtob Azulay, the subject of our post's son:
Here's the explanation as printed in a Haggadah with the commentary of the Vilna Gaon:
However, the February 21st issue of that same year printed a response, which defends the Vilna Gaon:
I'm not precisely sure who "N.L.D. Zimmer" was, however he seems to have been one of the founders of the Federation of Synagogues, as well as an inveterate letter-writer of the period. It is supposed that the character Karlkammer in Israel Zangwill's Children of the Ghetto was based on him. Here is a passage from that book which would give a flavor of him:
Near the central raised platform was a group of enthusiasts, among whom Froom Karlkammer, with his thin ascetic body and the mass of red hair that crowned his head like the light of a pharos, was a conspicuous figure.
"Peace be to you, Karlkammer!" said Pinchas to him in Hebrew.
" To you be peace, Pinchas!" replied Karlkammer.
"Ah!" went on Pinchas. "Sweeter than honey it is to me, yea than fine honey, to talk to a man in the Holy Tongue. Woe, the speakers are few in these latter days. I and thou, Karlkammer, are the only two people who can speak the Holy Tongue grammatically on this isle of the sea. Lo, it is a great thing we are met to do this night — I see Zion laughing on her mountains and her fig-trees skipping for joy. I will be the treasurer of the fund, Karlkammer — do thou vote for me, for so our society shall flourish as the green bay tree."
Karlkammer grunted vaguely, not having humor enough to recall the usual associations of the simile, and Pinchas passed on to salute Hamburg.
I saw elsewhere that on the occasion of Moses Montefiore's 100th birthday, "Mr. N. L. D. Zimmer sent a long letter in Hebrew, which contained innumerable quotations from the Bible, all commencing with the letter ק."
Below is a letter of his printed in Notes & Queries in 1881, regarding the origins of the cry "Hep!" or "Hip, hip hurrah!":
He seems to have had quite a גמרא-קעף:
Below is an amusing letter from someone who didn't like him very much, where he is accused of having pretensions of being Rabbenu Zimmer, trying to keep everyone married to two יקום פרקןs:
However, does anyone have the complete explanation as to why the Gaon would seem to state that as a rule לילה is לשון נקבה?
When Jews thought of trying to hire a Chief Rabbi for New York in 1879 they first thought of Malbim (1809-9.18.1879). Abraham J. Karp's article "New York Chooses a Chief Rabbi," AJHS 44 (1954-55) included as an appendix a circular written by supporters of the idea of bringing a Chief Rabbi to New York City. It reads, in part, "We believe that such a leader can be found in the eminent Rabbi Dr. Mayer L. Malbim, who possesses all the qualifications for the position; and arrangements are now in progress to have him assume control of our spiritual affairs." It goes on to say that 24 congregations, as well as many "good men, earnest in the cause" support this, with 25 more congregations promising their support as well. (The circular was printed in Philadelphia's Jewish Record on 8.22.79.)
Below is how the New York Herald reported a meeting about it on August 4, 1879:
And a New Orleans newspaper picked it up as part of a column of New York gossip:
As I indicated by including the date of Malbim's death, he died before he could even respond to the offer which, I believe, was formally extended.[1] Instead, New York got the Vilner Maggid, Rabbi Jacob Joseph.
As you can see, the newspaper calls Malbim "Rabbi M. L. Malbini." Although I suppose it's possible that the reporter misheard the name, I think it more likely that he or an editor later misunderstood his notes, seeing the cursive "m" as "ni."
UPDATE:
Here are some clippings from London's Jewish Chronicle:
August 22, 1879:
August 29, 1879:
September 19, 1879:
November 7, 1879:
As you can see, according to the report of September 19, by the beginning of September he had already accepted the post as rabbi of Kromontschau. However, by the date of this newspaper he had already died.
[1] It has been called to my attention (see comments) that there isn't a strong basis for saying that the offer had been formally extended. Rather, it seems that an informal offer had been made prior to the meeting of August 4th, such that it was known that the Malbim was amenable to making the move to the United States, and therefore funds were being raised to make it a firm possibility. Presumably then a formal offer would have been extended, assuming otherwise that one had never been.
Here's an interview with R. Nosson Scherman (link ; the interview was conducted by Yair Hoffman for the 5 Towns Jewish Times).
What follows is an interesting quote, requiring a correction and perhaps some clarification:
Y.H.: I imagine it was hard, initially, to get haskamos for the project. Can you tell me what was involved?
N.S.: We went around to gedolim and discussed it with them and showed them samples of the proposed work. Some felt it was a very good thing. Others asked some very probing questions. The result was that all of the gedolim we spoke to gave us letters of approbation. In Israel, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt’l, and Rav Elyashiv, yb’lct, both gave us tremendous encouragement. Both said that they could not write a haskamah, but that we could use their names and that they were behind it.
Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita, didn’t write a written haskamah because he said, “Who am I to give a haskamah when my father-in-law, Rav Elyashiv, has lent his support to it?” He did say that 150 years ago, the gedolim supported a German translation of Shas called the Goldschmidt translation in order to combat the anti-Semitic notion that the Talmud was filled with hateful remarks about others. He continued that years ago gedolim supported such a translation for goyim, but now we need it for Jews. Rav Shach did have difficulties with it. He said, “It would make learning Gemara too easy.” Privately he said that he was troubled by it. Several gedolim communicated with him, and he said, “If they are taking responsibility for it then I won’t say anything publicly against it.”
The first elucidated Schottenstein Gemara was the Makkos volume, which rolled off the press in May 1990. This incident must therefore have occurred around that time or a year or two earlier. 150 years before then gives the approximate date of 1840. The Goldschmidt translation refers to the complete translation of the Talmud made by Lazarus Goldschmidt (1871-1950), between 1897 and 1935.
Clearly this is not the Talmud translation which was intended. Although it is possible that R. Chaim Kanievsky did say the Goldschmidt translation, which means he simply misspoke, more probably it is R. Scherman who misspoke, which is understandable because the Goldschmidt translation is quite famous. In any case, the translation referred to must be that of Moses Ephraim Pinner (1800-1880) who tried to bite off more than any one man can chew.
--he planned the following project: he would translate the entire Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud into German. In addition, it would include a translation of the commentaries of Rashi, the Tosaphos, Maimonides on the Mishnah and the Rosh. If that wasn't enough, the Hebrew text of the Mishnah would be fully vocalized, all commentaries would receive new punctuation, and etymological commentary in German would be appended on every page, corrections of the text and a new Hebrew commentary in addition.
In 1832 he was able to produce an impressive prospectus of what his Talmud translation would look like (see it here). He then shopped it around, looking for support from leading rabbis, scholars and European nobility. Indeed, he found a financial backer in an odd place, namely the Russian Tsar Nicholas. Evidently the Tsar felt that a German translation of the Talmud would shed light where there was darkness and help convince the Jews that Judaism and the Talmud were very awful. For his part, Pinner felt that the Tsar's money was as good as anyone's and would help this ambitious project reach fruition. In all, 28 volumes were projected (still only about 1/3rd of the size of the Schottenstein edition!).
What was the immediate cause of this translation project? As R. Kanievsky said, the Talmud was in very ill repute in Europe. Around the same time an Italian priest named Luigi Chiarini also planned to translate the entire Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds into French (see here for Berachos, 1831). I won't pretend that I know much about the nature of his translation, but I know that it was very much disliked and poorly received by Jews. The Encyclopedia Judaica (2nd ed.) writes simply: "In his Théorie du Judaïsme (1830), Chiarini slandered the Talmud and the rabbinate in the style of Johann Eisenmenger , and tried to revive the blood libel . He considered that the state should assist the Jews in liberating themselves from the influence of the Talmud. He began a French translation of the Babylonian Talmud under the auspices of Czar Nicolas I, of which two volumes were published (1831), despite protests from both Jewish and Catholic quarters. "
Here's a sample, which probably gives a hint as to the orientation of Chiarini:
But that isn't the only reason for the translation. In Pinner's words, a translation is needed because:
In any case, Pinner secured approbations from several rabbis and scholars, including his real coup, that of the Chasam Sofer in Pressburg. Apparently the Chasam Sofer saw the project as worthy, but expressed skepticism as to how it could be completed. Pinner replied that he had collaborators lined up, naming one of them, R. Nathan Marcus Adler of Hanover (who would later be the Chief Rabbi of Great Britain). Satisfied, he wrote his approbation. Unfortunately it seems that Pinner had no collaborators, especially not R. Nathan Marcus Adler, who denied that he had even been asked. As a result, the Chasam Sofer withdrew his haskamah. According to the Jewish Encylopedia, none of the rabbis from Russia gave him their approbation: "The volume contains approbations from several rabbis, none of whom lived in Russia, in which country only representatives of Haskalah, like Abraham Stern, Isaac Baer Levinsohn, Jacob Tugendhold of Warsaw, and Abraham b. Joseph Sack of Wilna, favored the undertaking. Their approval was given in signed eulogies, which follow the approbations of the non-Russian rabbis."
Here is the text of the approbation:
בעזה"י. ה"ה המפואר ומהולל מהו' אפרים משה פיננער ני' חכם משובח ומפורסם נשאו לבו ונדבה רוחו אותו להעתיק תלמוד בבלי כלו בלשון אשכנזי צח בגופן שלהן ולמען יראו העמים והשרים את יפיה כי ט[ו]בת שכל הוא עמוק מי ימצאנו ומשפטים ישרים ונאמנים וכל דבריהם מדבש מתוקים פנים מסברות להלכה ולעבודה רוכבים מצומדים ודברי דודים וכל רואיהם יכירום כי הם זרע ברך מבריכה העליונה ומאלקי קדם מעונה ויראוה עמים ויהללוהו מלכים ושרים וישבחוהו – והן היות לי שעשועים עם החכם המחבר זה ימים וגם ראיתי בחבורו אשר כבר יצא מתחת ידו קרוב לענין הנ"ל ומצאתיו לפי ראות עיני כשר אדם שיש בו יראת [!] ובבחרותו שמש חכמים גדולים מגאוני ישראל בק"ק ליסא וגם ראיתי הרבה מכתבים מגאוני זמנינו מעידים עליו כי הוא תם וישר ביראת ה' וביום מצאתיו עוד רד עם אל ועם קדושים נאמן, גלל כן ידי תיכון עמו וזרועי תאמצו להעתיר בעדו בכל מקום מדרך כף רגלו לתמכו ולסעדו לבוא עהחתום ליקח ספרו לכשיגמריהו בעדו, יהי כן ה' עמו, להרים נר לתורתו ועוסקים בה לשמה. הכ"ד פק"ק פ"ב מש"ק ה' אדר תקצ"ד לפ"ק
משה הק' סופר
And here is his retraction (which I will also include as text, albeit in small type size, so that anyone can copy it if they want to):
חנוני חנוני שמעוני שמעוני! רבותי גאוני הזמן, חכמי דור ודורשיו המיחלים לחסדי ה' ומצפים תפארתו, ושאר אחינו בני ישראל הנפוצים, המצפים להיות קבוצים.
כבר פרסמתי חטא מפורסם ומכשלה אשר תחת ידי אשר נתתי מכתב הסכמה לדאקטער פינר על העתקת ש"ס בלשון אשכנז וכבר נדפסה אגרתי בהמבורג, שם הודיתי ולא בושתי לומר בוש אני על כי בעונותי טחו עיני מראות, כי מלבד הטעם הנאמר שם, שכחתי מעיקרא המכשלות את הרבים היוצאות מהעתק הלז הא לן והא להו, ולא רציתי לפרש ולבאר הלא כבר קדמוני רבותי ועוררוני על כל פרטי דברים אשר יש לחוש ויש בזה איסור גמור, ועל כן דברים שאמרתי טעות הם והנני חוזר ועוקר הסכמתי מעיקרא, והי' כלא הי' וכאפס ואין יחשבו דברים ההמה וישימו לאל מלתי.
אמנם זולת כל הנ"ל אשר היה בהעלם עין ממני בראשית מלאכתי הנ"ל, אזכור ברבים את אשר זכרתי ולא שכחתי אז, ואמרתי אל המעתיק הנ"ל איך אפשר לעמוד על תוכן ופירוש וכוונת כל דבר, הלא כמה פעמים על דברת רש"י המבאר נחלקו גאוני עולם בכוונתו, וכמה דיות נשתפכו וכמה ניירות וגוילים מלאים על דבור א', ואיך ימלא ידו יחיד להסכים על פי דעתו כוונת הענין, והוא השיב לי כי הוא איננו אלא המקבץ חתומים, ויש חברת גדולי עולם צדיקים ואנשי מעשה אשר יחלק להם הש"ס מסכת מסכת, ואח"כ יתקבצו ויעיינו הדק היטב, והזכיר לי אחד מהם אשר לו נמסר להעתיק מסכת עירובין ויבמות הוא הרב הגדול הצדיק מוהר"ר נתן אדלער כ"ץ אב"ד דק"ק הנובר, ולהיותי יודע כי הרב הזה מוחזק לצדיק ותלמיד חכם אמרתי החלק יעיד על הכל, ובעו"ה לפי שעה הייתי כמאמין לכל דבר, ועתה מכתב שלוח אלי מהרב המאה"ג הנ"ל כי חלילה וחלילה לו, לא עלתה על לבו מעולם, ואפילו מכתב מליצה לא נתן להנ"ל. וא"כ ממילא נתבטלו דברי הסכמתי לגמרי כי הטעוני המעתיק הנ"ל, והריני אוסר באיסור גמור להדפיס הסכמתי על ש"ס המועתק ללשון אשכנז והעובר ישכנו נחש.
ועתה כלפי דאקטר פינר אני אומר, כי באמת לולי הנ"ל לא מצאתי בו עול בכל התנהגותו ימי היותו פה בגבולינו וכן מעידים עליו שאר גדולים, ע"כ ישכיל ויבין, כי לו יהא שכוונתו זאת כלו לשם שמים כאשר טעיתי גם אנכי, הנה הוא רואה כי כל חכמי ישראל ממקומות מושבותיהם קוראים מלא ואין מעשיו רצוים בעיניהם, הלא מחויב לחזור בו מדעתו ולא עדיף מר"א הגדול שלא רצה להודות לרוב החולקים עליו וברכוהו, וכן אם ח"ו לא יחזור מדעתו ולא ישוב ידו, הרי הי' ראוי אלו הי' רשות מהמלכים, לנדותו לאררו ולקללו, אך באשר אין רשות נתונה לעשות כן עכ"פ ידע כי החטא כרוך בעקבו והאלוקי' יביא במשפט, ואם יחזור וישוב ידו יתברך ויתרומם ויתקדש שם שמים על ידו, ויתברך ויתעלה ויקבל שכר על הפרישה והי"ת יקדש שמו על מקדישי שמו, ואשר לא אקוה שלא ישמע ולא יחזור ולא יחוש לנדוי שמתא וחרם הנ"ל, אנו מקוים להי"ת המרחם עמו ודתו ותורתו, יהרוס בנינו ממקום אחר ולא יעשו ידיו תושי' ולא יחרוך צידו, או אם אולי יצליח מעשה שטן ה' יצילנו, לזה אני מבקש מגאוני הזמן להטיל גודא רבא על היושבים תחת דגלם שלא ידפיסו ולא יקנו הספרים ההמה ולא יקראו בהם כלל וכלל ויהי' כספר החתום לא יזכר ולא יפקד ולא יעלה אל בית ישראל כלל, והנותן תורה לעמו ישראל בקדושתו יברך וירומם ויעזור שומרי תורתו ויגביהם לנצח ויושיבם.
הכ"ד ק"ק פרעשבורג, יום ה' כ"א טבת תקצ"ה לפ"ק משה"ק סופר מפ"פ דמיין
One of the approbations he tried, but failed to receive, was that of Samuel David Luzzatto, whom he visited in Padua. His detailed, specific objections to the quality of the translation, along with more general ones, were written in a letter which was printed in Kerem Chemed vol. I, 1833.
Here's a general problem:
And here's the entire letter, for your interest and pleasure:
In any event, one volume of Pinner's Talmud (Berachos, 1842) was completed. I haven't seen it, but I'm told it is quite impressive. Evidently the Tsar caught on that Pinner's intention was not to bury the Talmud, but to praise it, and he withdrew his support. Thus, ended an interesting chapter apparently alluded to by R. Chaim Kanievsky and marshaled in support of Artscroll's Schottenstein translation of the Talmud.
Interestingly, I myself recall hearing Scherman speak just after the entire 73-volume Artscroll translation was completed (which would have been about 5 years ago?). I remember him recounting R. Chaim Kanievsky's reaction, which was along the lines of how he presented it in his 5TJT interview. However, somehow I remember him stating or connecting it with a Talmud translation projected by R. Yisrael Salanter. I can't be 100% certain, but I am certain enough that I have a hard time doubting myself about it. I really am pretty sure it's what I remember. Now, it's possible that R. Chaim Kanievsky somehow thought that a Talmud translation supported by R. Yisrael Salanter was connected with the Pinner or Goldscmidt; alternatively, R. Yisrael Salanter's name came up, and R. Scherman somehow combined it into what I remember hearing. Alternatively, R. Scherman's memory may have failed him then. Or now. Or mine may have. Either way, the "facts" of the Salanter translation seems to be something like the following (from Rabbi Adam Mintz's version of an article on Talmud translations which can be found here):
The Scherman interview also contains a sort of bizarre statement:
Y.H.: Do the Judaic Studies departments in the major universities order from you?
N.S.: Yes, many of them do. If they want to instruct their students in the Talmud, they really have no choice-the students are not equipped to use the Vilna Shas.
It's either the Vilna Shas or the Schottenstein? You can still buy a Soncino Talmud (which the late Saul Lieberman referred to when he wrote of "responsible translations of rabbinic texts (like those of Soncino Press)". I assume you can buy a Neusner Talmud. Rabbi Scherman knows all about Steinsaltz:
However, as it happens to be I have personally seen many a student/ researcher using the Schottenstein Talmud. It certainly is more user-friendly than Soncino. It is certainly more available these days than other alternatives.
Here's a good quote I quite agree with:
Y.H.: I have encountered a number of choshuva maggidei shiurim, roshei yeshiva, and rabbanim who use the ArtScroll Gemaras. Yet it is kept out of sight-in an upstairs bookcase, in an inner shelf. Do you have any thoughts or comments on this?
N.S.: There are plenty of roshei yeshiva who say it out in the open that they do use the ArtScroll Gemara. There is one rosh yeshiva who says, “I have very limited time to do the daf hayomi, and I do use it. I also look at it to help prepare my shiurim.” He says it quite openly.
Rav Elyashiv goes through the ha’aros in the Hebrew edition when he is learning on his own to see if he missed anything and to jog his memory. He is not ashamed of it. He even keeps it on his desk. Rav Shteinman says a shiur in the Yerushalmi. He is saying his shiur on Yerushalmi from the ArtScroll Gemara itself. Big people are not ashamed to say that they rely on something. Small people hide it. It is like women ask for directions; men are too proud to ask sometimes.
Please see my two earlier posts on the Pinner Talmud (here, and here). See as well Dan's post, which has copies of the original prospectus, as well as the Chasam Sofer's retraction of his haskamah, and Dr. S. Leiman's notes to that post.
My thanks to Avrohom, who inadvertantely prompted this post.
Ishim ve-Shitos once showed another picture of R. Moshe Kunitz, namely this one:
He wrote בן יוחאי, in which R. Ya'akov Emden's aspersions on the age and authorship of the Zohar are attacked and the traditional attribution to Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai is defended.
"In fact, R. Simeon Sofer (1842-1906) writes that his father, R. Moses Sofer (Hatam Sofer) had wistfully hoped the authorship of these two works could have been reversed, i.e., with R. Emden defending the Zohar from the attacks on it by R. Kunitz."
I am not sure where to [sic]; either the dates are wrong, or it was another son, or a grandson who reported this, since the father died in 1839, the son was neither born in 1842 nor died in 1906 (I believe the correct dates are 1821-1883 ). Unfortunately the source, "M.M. Krangel, Shem haGedolim haShalem, Shearit Tzion, Podgorze 1930, s.v. Zohar" is not accessible to me at the moment.
Posts
