FRIEDMANN, DAVID BEN SAMUEL (also called "Dovidel" Karliner; 1828–1917), Lithuanian rabbi and posek. Friedmann was born in Biala and lived for a time in Brest-Litovsk after 1836. On the advice of Leib Katzenellenbogen he moved to Kamenets-Litovsk where he studied under the supervision of his older brother Joseph until 1841. In that year he made the acquaintance of the philanthropist Shemariah Luria of Mohilev, who entrusted to him the education of his brother-in-law Zalman Rivlin of Shklov. Friedmann later married Luria's daughter. From 1846 to 1866 he devoted himself to concentrated study in the house of his father-in-law, where he compiled his Piskei Halakhot. After the death of his father-in-law in 1866 he accepted the rabbinate of Karlin near Pinsk (in 1868) where he remained until his death.
Friedmann's renown rests upon his Piskei Halakhot (pt. 1, 1898; pt. 2, 1901), an exposition and summary of matrimonial law, with a commentary entitled Yad David, an appendix entitled She'ilat David containing responsa on the laws of *mikva'ot ("ritual baths"). The text of the Piskei Halakhot follows that of Maimonides. In his comprehensive exposition, Friedmann endeavors to establish clear-cut decisions. His work is distinguished by the fact that he relies to an overwhelming extent on the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds and on the *rishonim, disregarding the *aḥaronim. He eschewed casuistry and tried to penetrate to the essence of the halakhah by a logical approach. Among the rabbis who turned to him with their problems were Menahem Mendel *Schneersohn, the head of the Lubavitch (Chabad) dynasty, and David *Luria. When religious extremists in Jerusalem excommunicated the bet midrash of his brother-in-law, Jehiel Michael *Pines, because he supported the establishment in Jerusalem of an orphanage "where they would also learn a foreign language," Friedmann attacked them in his Emek Berakhah (1881). It consists of four essays in which he discusses the question of a ban and the regulations and conditions under which it should be imposed, emphasizing that a handful of rabbis of Jerusalem had no right to impose such a ban. Pines wrote a long introduction to the book. Even though he tended to view with favor secular knowledge and the study of languages, Friedmann was opposed to compromise with regard to Torah education and the character of the traditional *ḥeder and in 1913 vehemently opposed the plan of the society Mefiẓei Haskalah be-Rusyah ("Disseminators of Secular Education in Russia") to change the accepted curriculum of the ḥeder.
During a certain period of his life, Friedmann participated actively in the Ḥibbat Zion movement. From 1863 he published articles in the Levanon which reflect his favorable attitude towards this movement, and he thus influenced many observant Jews to join it. He debated with Ẓ.H. *Kalischer on the problems of the movement and, together with L. *Pinsker and Samuel *Mohilever, participated in the *Kattowitz conference of 1885 as a delegate of the Pinsk branch of the Ḥovevei Zion. In a letter to A.J. Slucki he stressed that the noble idea of the nationalist movement deserves to become dear to "our brethren who are anxious for the word of God," and he testifies of himself that "the fire of love for our holy land burns in my heart" (ed. by A.J. Slucki, Shivat Ẓiyyon, 1 (1891), 18–19. In the course of time, however, he changed his attitude and following the decision of Zionist parties to include national secular education among their activities became an opponent of the Zionist idea. His grandson shmuel eliashiv (Friedmann, 1899–1955), jurist and author, served as first ambassador of the State of Israel to the U.S.S.R.
bibliography:
S.N. Gottlieb, Oholei Shem (1912), 172–4; Masliansky, in: Hadoar, 17 (1938), 455f.; Toyzent yor Pinsk (1941), 87, 93, 171, 269–71; Zinovitz, in: Ba-Mishor, 6 (1945), no. 255 p. 4f.; Yahadut Lita, 1 (1960), 250f., 344, 494, 513; 3 (1967), 79; S. Eliashiv, in: Sefer Biala-Podlaska (1961), 334–6.
Rabbi David Friedman of
Karlin (1823–1917), born in Poland, was a leading posek.
The Babylonian Talmud nowhere prohibits a father from teaching his son the
vernacular. To the contrary, it would appear that it is obligatory for a father
to teach his son the vernacular, just as it is obligatory for him to teach his
son a trade. Similarly, we find that Rabbi Judah the Prince said: "Why use
Syriac in the land of Israel, either Hebrew or Greek should be employed?“ So
too R. Jose said: “Why use Aramaic in Babylonia, either Hebrew or Persian
should be employed?” Clearly, it is obligatory to master the vernacular.
Indeed, the Jerusalem Talmud states: “Therefore choose life (Dt. 30:19)--this
refers to learning a trade.” The one passage in the Jerusalem Talmud that
prohibits a father from teaching his son Greek refers to a specific period in
the past when Jewish informers collaborated with the Greco-Roman authorities.
The latter had banned the observance of the commandments; thus, they could only
be observed underground. Jewish informers—consisting of heretics and disciples
of Jesus—informed on those Jews who secretly observed the commandments. The
rabbis therefore prohibited a father from teaching his son the vernacular, lest
the son communicate with the governmental authorities. Indeed, the rabbis
warned: “Seek not intimacy with governmental authorities.” The ban was issued
against teaching young children who in their innocence could reveal damaging
information to the governmental authorities. Thus, the ban was against teaching
children the vernacular, and not against individual study of the vernacular. In
our day, we have nothing to hide from the governmental authorities and nothing
to fear. We participate with Gentiles in all our business affairs. Every child,
as he matures, will have to master the vernacular in order to make a living.
Thus, in our day there isn’t the slightest prohibition against teaching
children the vernacular, mathematics, and whatever other scholarly disciplines
they need to master in order to succeed in business and in life. The only
constraint is that these studies be pursued under the guidance of God-fearing
teachers who will know how much time to devote to such study, at what age, and
at what level. in general, one needs to distinguish between different types of
students. For some, Torah study will be primary and secular or professional
study will be secondary; for others, secular or professional study will be
primary and Torah study secondary. In this manner, they will fulfill the
rabbinic teaching alluded to above: Therefore choose life (Dt. 30:19)—this
refers to learning a trade.
In the light of the above, it is clear that the ban issued in Jerusalem
was not valid. The Jerusalem ban was issued without constraints or
qualifications. The study of all foreign languages was banned, even the
vernacular. Moreover, the ban was issued for all time, to be applied to future
settlers in Jerusalem. Regarding this last point, those who issued the ban had
no authority to do so, without first receiving the approval of the majority of
the diaspora Jewish community. All Jews in the diaspora aspire to settle on
Jerusalem, all laws in the diaspora pray facing Jerusalem, and all Jews in the
diaspora are regarded as residents of Jerusalem. It was inappropriate for one
group of Jews to issue a ban that the rest of Jewry finds intolerable. Indeed,
the ban discourages Jews from settling in the land of Israel and is, in effect,
an enactment designed to prevent Jews from fulfilling a mitzvah. Indigent Jews
in the land of Israel will be forced to seek employment outside the land of
Israel. Worse yet, they will be forced to settle in distant lands, such as
America and Australia, where they will assimilate and ultimately become
extinct.
Now those East European rabbis in the diaspora who banned the study of
languages and secular study, never issued a blanket ban, to be applied under
any and all circumstances. They kept secular study at a distance so long as
circumstances warranted it. Even in this guarded approach, they were not
successful, for many students could not cope with the ban and were led astray
when exposed clandestinely to secular study. Far more successful were the West
European rabbis, leaders of the Orthodox Jewish community, who were zealots for
the Lord and His Torah. They established educational institutions that provided
Torah study on the one hand, and secular study on the other. Nonetheless, as
indicated, the East European rabbis never issued an unrestricted ban against
secular study. Moved by the Divine spirit, they understood that at certain
times and under certain circumstances the majority of Jews would find it
necessary to combine Torah study with secular study. Indeed, even those who
would ordinarily engage in Torah study alone will have to engage in secular
study. Some will be forced by circumstances to engage extensively in secular
study. God, however, will come to their aid so that they will not forget their
Torah study or abandon the commandments. “Let the clusters pray for the leaves,
for if not for the leaves, the clusters would not exist.”
[1] “R.
David Friedman of Karlin: The Ban on Secular Study in Jerusalem,” Tradition,
26:4, 1992. Translated by Rabbi Dr. Shnayer Z. Leiman. This is a response to an
inquiry from R. Yehiel Michal Pines (1849–1913), brother-in-law of R. Friedman,
after R’ Pines was excommunicated for establishing an orphanage whose curriculum
included secular studies. It is found in the book Emek Bracha (1881). Rabbi
David Friedman of Karlin (1823–1917), born in Poland, was a leading posek.
His two volume She’elos u-Teshuvos She’elas David and two volume Piskei
Halahkos remain important halachic works.
No comments:
Post a Comment