LINK: Your book is filled with examples of historical revisionism and omission. Let’s go through a number of them. First: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s position on lashon hara between a husband and wife.
He thought if someone is having a bad day and has to get something off his chest, he can mention a certain individual to his wife. Under normal circumstances, that would be lashon hara, but he thought among spouses it is permissible because they’re like one person.
This p’sak, though, was removed in a later edition of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s work because it’s not in accordance with the Chofetz Chaim’s position.
The Vilna Gaon’s comments on Greek philosophy.
The Vilna Gaon states that the Rambam was led astray by “accursed philosophy.” But the people who published the Vilna Shulchan Aruch – the Romm publishers – were enlightened Jews and they were troubled by the phrase “accursed.” So they removed it. And until the recent Machon Yerushalayim printing, that’s the way it appeared in standard editions of the Shulchan Aruch.
Rav Yosef Karo’s view of kapparos.
He calls it a “minhag shtut.” That was removed for obvious reasons – because it was thought to be offensive to those who practice the custom. It appears in the first edition of the Shulchan Aruch, but it’s not in the Vilna edition or any of the other standard editions.
The Chasam Sofer’s position on the beginning and end of Shabbos.
There was a practice in Europe that Shabbos began after sunset, in accordance with Rabbeinu Tam’s position. This is an old practice that has pretty much fallen out of favor, but for much of Jewish history Shabbos started after sunset.
What I quote in the book is a protest [letter] that criticized Jews in Williamsburg who still were observing this custom. [The main point of that letter, though, concerned] the end of Shabbos. When Rav Moshe Stern published a volume of the teshuvot of the Chasam Sofer, it was censored because the Chasam Sofer doesn’t rule like Rabbeinu Tam. The Satmar Rav didn’t want that to be known.
The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch’s comments about non-observant Jews.
In the original text, he says that you don’t mourn for irreligious Jews, and you don’t really have anything to do with them. They’re wicked people, and we should rejoice when the wicked die. But if you look in later editions of this work, those comments are completely removed.
The Rema’s teshuvah on yayin nesech.
The Rema [confronted] a situation where Jews were drinking non-kosher wine in Moravia. The water was not very healthy, so people started drinking wine. The question was: Can this be justified? In his responsum, Rav Moshe Isserles is very upset that they’re drinking the wine. However, he attempts to justify them ex post facto so that they would not be viewed as sinners.
The censors, though, were worried that people would see the teshuvah and say, “We can drink non-Jewish wine,” so they removed it. It was a valid concern because Israel Silverman from the JTS actually used Isserles’s responsum to justify drinking non-Jewish wine today. He was attacked for that – and rightly so – because this was only an ex post facto justification.
The speech of the Belzer Rebbe’s brother in 1944 when the Rebbe and his family escaped Hungary.
He said the Rebbe wasn’t leaving because there was anything to be afraid of, and that the people don’t need to be worried. When the drasha was reprinted in 1967 that was cut out – for obvious reasons, because the Nazis did move in to Budapest and destroyed as much of the Jewish community as they could.
Last question: Your critics argue that many of your books make one cynical and disillusioned with Judaism. What’s your response?
If that’s what they feel, they shouldn’t read them.
But I’m not writing as a yeshivish-type person or spiritual leader putting forth a vision. I’m writing historical books. If certain people find them troubling, that’s fine; they shouldn’t read them. I don’t take any offense at that. Not every book is for every person.
