For a shiduch

Q: Where should one take a girl for  a date?
A: I imagine he means for a shidduch. You don't go for dates! For a shidduch. The best place that costs the least money is Grand Central Station. That's not private, it's a kosher place, and there's no admission, it doesn't cost anything (R' Avigdor Miller, #486 in Q&A 2, p. 88)

Advocated grammar study

About Rabbi Shabtai Sofer of Przemysl(According to Professor Avraham Berliner, Professor David Kaufman, and Reb Yosef Kohen Tzedek.)
Rabbi Shabtai Sofer, who was mentioned by Professor Schorr by the name of Moshe the Grammarian [Mosze Gramatyk in Polish – ed.] – apparently due to an error with respect to his first name – was a native of Przemysl. He became known as a scholar and a writer throughout Poland, and even outside its borders, especially in Czechoslovakia, due to his literary activities. His birth date and death date are not known, but we know some dates from his life. He wrote a poem as an introduction to the important book “Mateh Moshe” of the famous Przemysl rabbi, Rabbi Moshe the son of Avraham “Met”, which was published in 1591. It is also known that he composed the large, 45 stanza Selicha in memory of the martyr Reb Moshe Szmukler who was burned in Przemysl in the wake of the religious libel of the year 1630^[iii]
However, the major literary activity of Rabbi Shabtai Sofer was not expressed in the writings of Selichot or poems as introductions to books but rather in scientific research according to the methodologies of the times. These were research works into the theory of grammar, and glosses on the works of the great grammarians Rabbi Moshe and Rabbi David Kimchi (the RaDaK). His glosses were accepted by the scholars of Prague who used them in their works.
In addition to this, Rabbi Shabtai dedicated himself to research into the version of prayers of prayer books, especially in the Siddur (prayer book) that was in common use in Poland, in order to determine the errors and inconsistencies that crept into it throughout the generations. He inspected every dot and dagesh^[1], compared them with old manuscripts, and explained them according to his grammatical theories. His stylistic notes on every letter and dash in the Siddur served as the foundation of his valuable research book. He also authored an emended Siddur with explanations. After the publication of the Siddur, the Council of the Four Lands (in 1617–1619), in a circular to all the communities of Poland, requested to obtain at least one Siddur of Rabbi Shabtai for the entire community, so that the prayer leader could use it to conduct services and according to which all the members of the community would be able to emend their Siddurim. This Siddur won the approbations of the greats of that generation. The Siddur was first published in Prague. Due to its great value, it sold out ten years after its publication. At this time, there are apparently no remnants of that edition. The Siddur was published for a second time in Lublin many years later.
There was no follow–up to this historical research work into the formulas of the Siddur. After the death of Rabbi Shabtai Sofer, there were several unsuccessful attempts to publish his work in Western Europe by those who appreciate it. The book found its way to England in some unknown fashion, and is found in the library of the Rabbinical Seminary of London. At the beginning of the 20th century, Professor Dr. Abraham Berliner, one of the great Jewish scholars of Germany, took it upon himself to publish this manuscript, which consisted of 450 folio pages. Berliner published the book in 1909 in Frankfurt am Main, and added a preface in German, with details on the life and literary activity of Reb Shabtai.
Even before this he was held in esteem by Rabbi Yosef Kohen Tzedek, Professor D. Kaufman, and the great expert in manuscripts, M. Neubauer. From the aforementioned preface of Professor Berliner, we learn, among other things that Rabbi Shabtai, even though he did not occupy himself with deciding halacha, wrote several responsa of questions that came to him on matters of religion. These earned great acclaim. He also published a
[Page 39]
book on religious law and jurisprudence. This man is apparently also worthy of esteem in this area, for Rabbi Meir (the Maharam) of Lublin agreed, despite his own busy schedule with questions and responsa, that he could turn to him in any case of doubt, and he promised to give him an answer.
The relations between Rabbi Shabtai and the great rabbi of Przemysl, the Mateh Moshe, were good. He knew Rabbi Shabtai from his youth and held him in great esteem. According to Professor Berliner, there was a certain case where Shabtai publicly expressed an opinion contrary to that of the Mateh Moshe.
Rabbi Shabtai apparently went blind after the year 1630. 39 years had elapsed from the time he wrote the introduction to the book Mateh Moshe until he composed the Selicha, and then he lost the sight in his eyes in his old age.

---

Original Footnotes

1. That are not included in the article on the rabbis. Back
2. See the chapter “Sources”. Back
3. See the chapter “Sources”. Back

Translator's Footnote

1. A ‘dagesh’ is a dot in the middle of some Hebrew letters that can change the pronunciation of the letters. Back

Coordinator's Footnotes

1. An extensive pilpulistic commentary to the Hagadah.
   Rabbi J.J. Halberstamm, the late Grand Rabbi of Klausenberg was often wont to refer to this Hagadah and saw to it that it was reissued in order that “youth will appreciate the complete their husbands, resulting in children absorbing a disdainful atmosphere. He also chides women for their maltreatment of those in their domestic service. Throughout, the author reproves and castigates those “who Talmudic mastery and acuity of the sages of the 18^th century.” (Silberman edition, Brooklyn, 1980). The composer of the Brith Mateh Moshe often digresses to bemoan improper social behaviors of his time (he expresses shock of the satiric parody Masechet Purim); he criticizes women who insistently harangue cause many of the social ills of (the) time, a result of a haughty bearing and slothfulness over ethical behavior.”
   R. Moshe, a disciple of Rabbis Moshe of Horodna and Mordecai Ginzburg of Brisk, states he was originally a member of the Chevra Kadisha of Yehudah Chasid. This fact, as well as his interesting, descriptions of the personalities in this fellowship, has escaped the notice of recent scholars. See Z. Shazar (Rubashov), Reshumoth, Vol. II (1927) pp. 461–93; G. Scholem, Beit Yisrael Be–Polin, Vol. II (1949) pp. 36–56; A.Yaari, Shluchei Eretz Yisrael, pp. 322–3; E. Carlebach, Divided Souls (2001) pp. 84–85. (https://www.kestenbaum.net/docs/Auction_29.pdf) Back
2. see also: https://books.google.pl/books?id=EAiwCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=MET+MarbitzeiTorah&source=bl&ots=FiGUkfRC3E&sig=gIlZE0avdSXOvblo94AwvQRaQ4E&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwA2oVChMIqt2OnL2txwIVY6ZyCh1Z3QAX#v=onepage&q=MET%20Marbitzei–Torah&f=false Back

---

[Page 40]

https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/przemysl/prz037.html
===========================

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/kargau-menahem-mendel-ben-naphtali-hirsch

KARGAU, MENAHEM MENDEL BEN NAPHTALI HIRSCH (1772–1842), German rabbi and author. Kargau was born in Prostibor (Bohemia) and studied under Nathan *Adler and Phinehas *Horowitz in Frankfurt, Ezekiel *Landau in Prague, Joseph Yoske in Posen, and Herz Scheuer in Mainz. For some time he engaged in commerce in Paris, later returning to Germany and settling in Fuerth, where he devoted himself to the study of Talmud. He became friendly with Abraham Benjamin Wolf *Hamburg, in whose works Simlat Binyamin (Fuerth, 1841) and Sha'ar ha-Zekenim (ibid., 1830), many of his halakhic statements are quoted. Kargau wrote hymns and poems, including a hymn in Hebrew to celebrate Napoleon's coronation (Shir u-Mizmor (Paris, 1805) with a free translation into French by Michel Berr). In 1840 he commemorated Moses *Montefiore's return from Damascus in another Hebrew hymn. Kargau died in Fuerth. His commentary on Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh De'ah, 201 (dealing with the laws of the mikveh) together with 41 of his halakhic responsa, was published after his death by his pupil Jonah Rosenbaum and by Asher Anschel Stern, later chief rabbi of Hamburg, under the title Giddulei Tohorah (Fuerth, 1845).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

S.M. Chones, Toledot ha-Posekim (1910), 135; D. Hoffmann, Der Schulchan-Aruch (1894²), 39; Loewenstein, in: JJLG, 6 (1909), 212–4, 230–3; 8 (1911), 118f., 204–6.

Laws of Torah Study 4:2

The Shulchan Aruch Harav says that Torah study is a commandment even when not leading to action. And it's impossible to fulfill other mitzvos without Torah. (See chap. 5 and 37 of Tanya for the advantages of study). Therefore study takes precedence unless a mitzvah cannot be done by someone else. Study is the greater mitzvah. However, it is equal to all the others only because study leads to doing them.

The suggestion here I believe is that when you do a mitzvah the study is behind it. Therefore the study leads to its own mitzvah plus the one it lead to. Therefore it will be equal to all the others because in each one there is study. It's simple math. I study 10 mitzvahs. Then I perform 10 mitzvahs. In each one of these sits the 10 acts of study. My study yielded 10 mitzvahs of study and 10 mitzvahs of action. So my study is equal to all of my action.

They come to learn, but not to teach.

Question is ha-Kodesh Baruch Hu according to this gentleman stated that He did not want the Erev Rav. Now, to tell you the truth. I have to admit, I don't recall this statement, so I'll take your word for it but it's only a figure of speech. Because the Gemara does say that we want geyrim. But it means that there are two attitudes. You should have taken them with great caution and once you accepted them you should have made certain that they exercised no authority. They come to learn, but not to teach. If a ger comes in to teach, then that's the wrong kind of ger.  (Rabbi Avigdor Miller, "The Keg and the Serpant." #052, 1:02:38)

[You can argue the same with BTs from highly assimilated homes]

Go Easy on the BT

What's meant by the posuk: בְּלֵ֣ב נָ֖בוֹן תָּנ֣וּחַ חָכְמָ֑ה . (Proverbs 14:33)

בְּלֵ֣ב נָ֖בוֹן in the heart of an understanding man
תָּנ֣וּחַ חָכְמָ֑ה the wisdom is at rest. It rests. 

Wisdom rests in the heart of an understanding man.

"וּבְקֶ֥רֶב כְּ֜סִילִ֗ים תִּוָּדֵֽעַ." But in the midst of fools, the wisdom becomes known. 

What does that mean? Wisdom in the heart of understanding people rests. It's in repose. But in the heart of fools, wisdom becomes known. What does that mean? 

Explains. בְּלֵ֣ב נָ֖בוֹן תָּנ֣וּחַ חָכְמָ֑ה

In the heart of understanding man, wisdom rests. Zeh talmid chocham ben talmid chocham. It's a man who is learned in the Torah and his father also was a talmid chocham. So the son is not excited. He's accustomed to Torah. He's not conceited about it. There's nothing so exceptional about it. He was born in that house. That's the atmosphere he breathed since he was a child. So the chochmah reposes in his heart. 

And the truth is it's a virtue. He is more rooted, more well-founded in Torah. A chocham ben chocham. The chochmah there is well grounded in him. But וּבְקֶ֥רֶב כְּ֜סִילִ֗ים תִּוָּדֵֽעַ, In the heart of fools, the chochmah is known. It means a fool, zeh talmid chocham ben am ha'aretz. His father is an am ha'aretz. But he became a talmid chocham. And the son is excited about Torah. And he talks about it all the time. Whatever he learned, even a little bit, he likes to advertise it. It's spectacular, still new to him. 

Now, there's a benefit here and a disadvantage. In the heart of the talmid chocham ben talmid chachom, we are more guaranteed that it will remain תָּנ֣וּחַ חָכְמָ֑ה because he's brought up that way. There's no other way of life except Torah. And therefore the Torah in his heart will always be in his heart. 

But if he's a baal teshuvah, let's say he came from a house where there was no Torah. Doesn't mean his father was a sinner. In those days you didn't have any sinners. But his father wasn't a talmid chocham. And he became a learner. So it's not so certain that it will remain with him. It could be sometimes in his life, chalilah, a tragedy that'll upset him, he might stop learning cause learning is not the breath of his nostrils. He saw a house without learning.  So it could be he might reverse. 

That's why you have to be careful, the Sefer Chasidm says, when you are dealing with a son of irr-religious parents. Be careful with him because sometimes if you are too strict with him he might go back to the ways of his parents. Whereas the son of frum people you can be more strict with him because his model is his home. A frum home. 

Rabbi Avigdor Miller, Tape # 698, 1:25:23 see also E21