[Page 157]

In Chapter Six, we talked about the first rabbis in Bialystok. Now, we will move on to Rebbe Leib, the author of Sha'agat Aryeh [The Lion's Roar] on the Talmudic tractate Makkot. He served as a rabbi in Białystok after Rabbi Shloyme-Zalman, son of Rabbi Chaim.

R' Leib was the son of Rebbe Baruch Bendet, the Zabludover Rabbi and a prominent Gaon of his time. He was the author of Ner Tamid [Eternal Light], which contains expositions on the Talmudic tractates Tamid and Keritot.

His son, R' Leib, succeeded him as rabbi in Zabludov (according to his haskama^[c] in the book Mei Niftoach), and in Krinek, (according to his haskama on his book Sha'agat Aryeh and also according to the rabbinic haskama on Sha'agat Aryeh in Krinek).

After the death of R' Shloyme Zalman, son of Rabbi Chaim, on the 18^th of Adar 5574 [1814], R' Leib became the rabbi in Białystok [in the year 5575]. He signed his haskama on Mei Niftoach in the year 5577:

The Rav Av Beit Din [Head of the Rabbinical Court Chairmen] of Białystok (in the year “הוצאת להם מים”)^[d].

Indeed, in his haskama it says: “The endorsement and commendation of the renowned Gaon Rabbi Aryeh Leib, Av Beit Din [Head of the Rabbinical Court], teacher and rabbi of the holy community of Zabludow, and currently Head of the Rabbinical Court of the holy community of Białystok.” However, it is difficult to imagine that he allowed himself to be demoted from a רב אב”ד in Krinek and Zabludov to a ראב”ד in Białystok, or that he gave himself the title “Head of the Rabbinical Court Chairmen” despite not actually holding the position.

A halachic responsum in the book Mekor Chaim [Source of Life] written by the Brisker Rav, Rabbi Yaakov Meir Podoy, and appearing at the end of a book authored by his grandfather, the Rebbe Aharon – Minchat Aharon [Aharon's Gift]- is presented under the title Anaf Etz Avot and concerns our R' Leib:

“Peace to the master and to his Torah–his Torah is his true calling, a teacher of righteousness to his congregation. The esteemed, beloved–my in-law and cherished friend–the eminent and great Rabbi, praised for his might and stature, sharp-minded and well-versed, as befits our teacher, the Rabbi Aryeh Leib, may he live and be well, the אב”ד [Av Beit Din] of the sacred community of Białystok, and author of the book Sha'agat Aryeh on Tractate Makkot.”

The Jewish judges in Tiktin called their rabbi אב”ד, just as they had also called Rabbi Velvele, ראב”ד.

The rabbis of his time held him in high esteem. The Bialystoker Rav, R' Shloyme Zalman, son of Rabbi Chaim, wrote of him in his haskama on the book Sha'agat Aryeh: “A lion rose from Babylon, steeped in Gemara, Poskim, and Talmud – deeply rooted in the teachings and rulings of the early and later rabbinic authorities.”

In his haskama on “Shuk Zelva” [Market Zelva], R' Leib Katsenelboygn, the Brisker Rav, writes about him:

[Page 158]

“One of the distinguished figures of his generation, a lion from the heavenly heights, ascending in the loftiest realms of scholarship.”

The latter title truly confirms his eloquence in Hebrew, which is evident in the introduction to Sha'agat Aryeh and in the justifications at the end. These demonstrate that he was a well-versed rabbi and Jewish scholar in poetic Hebrew literature. Such fine Hebrew style is not found among the rabbis of his time.

Many of R' Aryeh Leib's novellae and halachic insights are preserved in his father's book, Ner Tamid on Tractate Keritot – specifically on folios 19b, 21b, 22a, 26b, and 27b.

The inscription on his tombstone reads:

” Here lies our teacher and master, Rabbi Aryeh Leib of blessed memory, author of the book Sha'agat Aryeh^[1], son of the author of ניית^[2]. He passed away on Motza'ei Shabbat, the second day of Chol HaMo'ed Pesach, in the year ואתה תבוא אל אבותיך בשלום^[e]. May his soul be bound in the bond of life.”

Accordingly, he died in 5580; thus, he was rabbi in Białystok for no more than five years, from 5575 to 5580 [1815-1820].

Author's footnotes:

1. A book with new halachic insights. Return
2. Abbreviation for Ner Tamed. Return

Translator's footnotes:

1. Contents in [ ] are from the translator. Contents in ( ) are from the author. Return
2. “Rebbe” = Chassidic rabbi. “Aryeh” = Hebrew word for “lion.” “Leib” = Yiddish word for “lion.” Return
3. Haskama or haskome = Approval of a religious book by a respected rabbi. He confirms that it contains no religious errors and is consistent with Jewish tradition. Often, the author is praised and his book is recommended. The rabbi signs the date, place, name, and titles. Return
4. A poetic paraphrase – a chronogrammatic date – for the Jewish year 5577, literally “You provided them with water” , from Book of Numbers, chapter 20, verse 8. Return
5. A poetic paraphrase – a chronogrammatic date – for the year of death with a quote from Genesis 15:15, “And you shall go to your fathers in peace.” Return

While R' Moyshe-Ze'ev was serving as the rabbi in Tiktin [Tykocin], he delivered the eulogy for the Bialystoker rabbi R' Shloyme Zalman, son of HaRav Chaim. And 10 years later, in 5584 (1824), he became the rabbi of Białystok in his place.

This shows us how much Tiktin had already lost its prestige at that time. The city was no longer of any significance among the Jewish communities of the area after its great, world-famous, and outstanding Gaon [sage] had left it at the first opportunity in favor of Bialystok. For long before that, Bialystok's rank had been much higher than that of Tiktin.

Rabbi Moyshe-Zev Margolis signed his works with “haKatan ba'Ezov Moyshe Ze'ev” (a play on words with “Ze'ev-Ezov” ^[c], which he also used as the title of his major religious book Agudas-Ezov ^[d]).

He was known by the title R' Velvele Mar'ot haTzov-ot, which referred to the name of his first famous religious book.

His own signature [in his books] was בעמ”ח (author) Mar'ot haTsov-ot. He was the greatest Jewish scholar and rabbi in Białystok to this day and one of the greatest Gaons of his time.

He was the son of the Halusker rabbi HaRav R'Eliezer, who, together with his wife, was of great rabbinical descent^[3]. Even as a child, Moyshe-Ze'ev distinguished himself through his great abilities and diligence.

[Page 159]

From 5558 (1798) to 5573 [1812/1813], he was the head of the yeshiva as well as the “Judge and Teacher of Justice” in Horodne (Grodno), as he notes in 5573 in his introduction to his book Ketzui Eretz, published in Horodne.

There, in 5570 (1810), with the support of his wealthy family, R' Velvele had his first book, Mar'ot haTzov-ot, printed, which deals throughout with the question of “agunes”^[e], a topic that has always been one of the most painful, difficult, and interesting issues for great rabbis.

The situation of exile and migration of the Jews, who, to put it briefly, were also subject to various forms of persecution, brought this question to the forefront. On the one hand, the topic concerned the strict virtue of women [regarding the halachic purity and sanctity of the family]. And on the other hand, it was about the particular economic hardship experienced by Jews, since the entire family was dependent on the sole breadwinner: the father and husband. If he died while travelling [in search of or in the course of work] and the cause and place of his death were unknown, the lonely, defenseless widow was plunged into misery for the rest of her life.

However, the question that now arose regarding permission to marry a second man was one of the most complicated and difficult. The greatest rabbis, with the sharpest minds and the best argumentative skills, exchanged views on the matter. And one of them was R' Velvele. He wrote about the agunes with particular mercy and compassion.

For example, in question 32 of the second part of his book Agudas-Ezov, he describes the story of an unhappy agune in an elevated, refined Hebrew style:

A man had left his home, that is, his wife, and moved far across the seas, and as her days grew long and her soul sighed over her [passing] youth, she longed for him greatly and set out to search for him. And her feet carried her far away, by ship across the sea, until she came to the place….

In many places [in the book] he writes in this style.

He felt happier when he found a way to grant an agune permission [to remarry]. He used to exchange questions and answers with his friends, the great rabbis of his time, such as R' Shloyme-Zalman Poyzner [from Poznan], called the Warsaw Rav [Rabbi Shloyme-Zalman Lifshitz].

The latter also dedicated a special religious book to this topic, Chemdas Shlomo (see Agudas Ezov and Chemdas Shlomo, responsa), together with R' Akiva Eiger and R' Chaim Volozhiner. In his peface to Agudas Ezov, R' Velvele proudly recounts that R' Chaim Volozhiner told him that his book Mar'ot haTzovot was an “honorable book for the wise.”

[Page 160]

He once strongly advocated giving permission [to remarry] to a young, still childlike woman who had been abandoned by her husband and “whose virtue had been dishonored by a young man while she was fast asleep” . He wrote a halachic responsa^[f] about this incident, consisting of 26 sections on seven pages, demonstrating great acumen and profound scholarship. This shook society to its core. He actually wrote to R' Akiva Eiger, the greatest Jewish authority at the time, and since Eiger agreed with him that the young woman should be granted a get so that she could remarry, he was very happy^[4].

In 5573 [1812/13], R' Velvele became the Tiktiner Rav, and in 5584 [1824], he became the rabbi of Bialystok. There, he had his second book, Agudas Ezov, a collection of sermons, printed. Once again, his family's support made the printing possible. In the introduction to his book, R' Velvele expressed his hope of also living to see the publication of his remaining responsa.

However, his wish did not come true during his lifetime. They were only printed after his death. One work, called Chidushei Mahari-MZ, Be'ur al Rabbeinu Yehonatan al Massechet Eruvin^[g], was printed in Warsaw in 5619 (1859)^[5]. And his reponsa, Agudas Ezov, were printed in Vilna in 5646 [1886], containing three parts on the “Oyrekh Khayim” [Orach Chaim], “Yoyre-Deye” [Yoreh-Deah], and “Even-Hezer” [Even-Ha'ezer]^[h], with new thoughts and comments by his son, “The honorable and eminent Rabbi, our Teacher and Rabbi, Shmuel Yitskhok Yavetz” .

R'Velvele consulted the most esteemed rabbis of his time regarding these responsa, and they wrote back to him with great respect. R' Akiva Eiger referred to him as: “The great Rabbi, the genuine Gaon, the Prince of Israel and the Glory of the Land” .

[Page 161]

Rabbi Ephraim Zalman Margolis wrote to him: “To the outstanding, astute, and learned rabbi, a miracle of our generation, famous in the farthest corners of the world.^[6]

It is important to note that people were very precise and stingy with titles back then. An average rabbi and Jewish scholar was not usually referred to as a “Gaon.” The title HaRav haMa'or haGadol [The Rabbi, the Great Light] was already a magnificent title. In a response, R' Velvele writes to the author of the book She'elot uTeshuvot Bigdei Yesha [Responsa: Garments of Salvation], Rabbi Shmuel Safra veDayana, in Bialystok:

” To the outstanding, astute rabbi, our teacher and master, the scribe and judge Rabbi Shmuel, who is respected throughout the community.”

(Nowadays, even the lowest-ranking rabbi is addressed with the title “ HaRav haGaon,” which makes the title seem ridiculous).

While working on his responsa, he interchanged with Rabbi haGaon Hillel Frid, rabbinical judge of Horodna and son-in-law of haGaon Rabbi Chaim Volozhiner – regarding the latter's book, Chut haMeshulash [The Triple-Braided Cord], specifically its responsa section, chapters 2 through 6.

At the end of the book Zera Chaim [Seed of Life] in the responsa's section “Even haEzer,” chapter 154, by HaGaon R' Chaim Ben HaGaon R' Binyamin Broyda–who was the last head of the rabbinical court in Horodna – there is a response from him [R' Velvele] to his [R' Chaim] objections to his book Mar'ot haTzov-ot (see there, page 7, second column, page 9, second column).

The following story illustrates R' Velvele's charity, fairness, and conscientiousness in not taking sides with wealthy individuals. Once, two wealthy “podryatshikes” [entrepreneurs with public contracts], Kopl Heylpern from Białystok and Shimen-Ziml Epshteyn from Warsaw, entrusted R' Velvele with a legal case and asked for his judgment.

When they came in to see him, he did not shake their hands or invite them to sit down. He also addressed them informally. After hearing their complaints, he instructed them to leave. After consulting with his religious judges, he called them back and asked if they would accept the verdict. When they agreed, he shook their hands, asked them to take a seat, and addressed them formally.

In doing so, he fulfilled the 19^th Mishna Avot [in continuous counting], which states: “When the parties to a lawsuit stand before you, they should appear guilty in your eyes; and when they leave you, they should appear innocent in your eyes, once they have accepted the judgment.”

[Page 162]

Rabbi Baruch Epshteyn recouts this story in Mekor Baruch (Fountain of Blessing). He adds that the two litigants wanted to give R' Velvele a large sum of money for his ruling on the case because the disputed amount was substantial. However, R' Velvele did not want to accept the money. Instead, he instructed them to give alms to the lonely Talmudist who studied with him. Shimen-Ziml Epshteyn was amazed by his keen intellect and ability to empathize quickly in such a complicated case involving large entrepreneurs.

Kopl Heylpern of Białystok and Shimen-Ziml Epshteyn of Warsaw conducted the trial together. Shimen-Ziml was also enthusiastic about R' Velvele's charity and sense of justice. He decided to entrust his youngest son to R' Velvele for Torah study, asking him to assign a good teacher.

This son became R' Yehuda Yudl HaLevi Epshteyn, author of the book Minchat Yehuda [The Gift of Yehuda], which contains halachic answers and new interpretations of the Shas [entire Talmud]. The book was printed in Warsaw in 5637 (1877).

(I still remember R' Yehuda Yudl HaLevi Epshteyn from my childhood in Warsaw because I used to meet him at the Lithuanian Chevra Shas on Nalewki Street).

The Author's Insertion:

R' Velvele was also a joker, as we can see from his response to Heshl Medalshtshik, which we mentioned earlier.

It is said that once, when he was presenting a khilek [a halachic differentiation] in the bes-medresh, he noticed two learned young men standing there smiling.

When they approached him laughing after the sermon, he asked them, “Are you still laughing at my khilek?” They told him that they were laughing at an old uneducated man who had stood there with his head rocking throughout the entire khilek. And when they asked him, “How did you like the rabbi's sermon?” , he replied: “He also quoted from the Gemara (Tractate Pesachim, page 49): ‘Whoever studies the Torah in front of an am-ha'aretz [uneducated person] is as if he had intercourse with his fiancée in front of him’–well, it wasn't that bad!”

As the rabbi in Białystok, he was also responsible for public affairs. We find his signature in the Pinkas [register] of the talmetoyre [Talmud Torah] in 5586 [1826], which still exists today at Linas Hatzedek. It shows his great initiative, his warmth, and his compassion for the poor situation of the Jews in Białystok at that time. His warm words and his writings in the register books also bear witness to this.

In Białystok, he was considered a saint. Even today, various legends about him circulate in the city. It is said that the horses with their carts would jump aside to make room for R' Velvele when he came to teach and pray in the Old Bes-Medresh on the shulhoyf [synagogue's courtyard], where peasants' wagons used to fill the market.

[Page 163]

People once complained about a Jewish informer who was causing the city great distress. R' Velvele ordered that this man be brought before him. When the informer was brought before him, R' Velvele glanced at him and raised his long eyebrows. The informer died a sudden death when he returned home.

Tovia Burkhovitsh, the editor of his [R' Velvele's] new halachic insights on the Shas and Agudas Ezov, recounts similar legends about R' Velvele:

Once, a tailor came to him for a court case. He lost. As he left, he said angrily, “I will not give up yet, I will continue to go into the orchard!” When he heard this, R' Velvele called him back and said to him, “But you should know about the great punishment for those who do not listen to the judge's ruling!” When the tailor got home, he died. R' Velvele sat shiva for him for one hour (” Vegam anosh la-tzadík lo tov”) [Mishlei 17:26, “Even punishing a righteous person is not good” ].

Once, a message arrived that had been written en route by a Jew from Białystok to his household members, and which was signed by him with סגל [“Segal” ]. The members of the household were puzzled because he was not a “Levi” [the name Segal indicates Levitical descent]. So they went to ask the rabbi, who replied: “He writes to you סכנה גדולה לי – I am in great danger! Send someone to him to save him!” And so it was.

There is a legend in Tiktin that R' Velvele had disputes within the Jewish congregation when he was the rabbi there. When he traveled from Tiktin to Białystok, he raised his hands to the sky and cried out, “ Riboyne-Shel-Oylem [Lord of the World], have mercy on me, for I have been grieved by this congregation!”

From that time on, Tiktin lost its status and became a small, poor shtetl. Białystok, which was once closely tied to me, became a large, wealthy community because the city accepted R' Velvele as its rabbi with great respect.

These legends demonstrate how revered he was by the people as a saint. He died in Białystok on the 4^th of Tevet, 5590 (1830), at the age of 62. He began writing a responsa on 21Kislev 5590, 24 days before his death (see Agudas Ezov, volume 2, question 16). He was unable to finish it.

Many eulogies were delivered for him. In Mincha Chadasha, Volume 2, Minchat Zikaron, the second sermon is the eulogy that R' Gershon Chen Tov delivered in Bialystok. In Gilia Masechet, Volume 2, Section Drash [Sermons], there is the eulogy that R' David Novaredker delivered for him. In it, he recounts what was said when R' Velvele, the Mar'ot haTzovot, was accepted as the rabbi of Bialystok.

“Rejoice and sing, O dweller of Białystok, for the Holy One of Israel is great in your midst.”^[i]

Back then, Białystok was called:

” עיר כלילת יופי, משוש כל הארץ”

[A city perfect in beauty, the joy of all the earth].^[j]

[Page 164]

This was because the city had been blessed with such a great Gaon and Tsadik as its rabbi. Now that he had died, however, “the joy of their hearts had fallen silent and turned to mourning like the sound of a lyre”^[k], and the Białystok community felt it.

When Rabbi Velvele arrived in Białystok, all the wealthy and distinguished people came out to greet and welcome him with horses and carriages and elegant coaches. And he was led into the city amid singing and joy.

When he died, the Jewish community was decreed to fast, and the whole city fasted on the day of his funeral.

[At his funeral], people said that the only consolation for Białystok is that “their portion lies there; veiled is the lawgiver”^[l], meaning that his grave is in Białystok and they were fortunate to be present at his passing because, as the Gemara says, “Anyone who was present at the passing of the rabbi is destined for life in the world to come” (Tractate Ketubot, page 113b).

His grave with the gravestone is located in the old Jewish cemetery.

The wording of his epitaph is:

“Moyshe, servant of the Eternal, the adornment of Israel – his exalted name was known in the gates. Many walked in his light; he was a radiant beam amid the glory, splendor, and majesty of Israel.
Righteous and pious, a crown upon his people – he was their adornment.
In his shadow they found refuge; he shielded his generation through prayer and through his supplications, the innocent found deliverance. When he departed, glory withdrew from Israel–its strength faded with him.
The venerable and revered rabbi, spiritual master, crown of distinction, a miracle of his generation. May his light shine on; peace be upon him, may his memory be for a blessing.
He was the true Gaon, like a ministering priest.
The revered Rabbi Moyshe Ze'ev, of blessed memory –
author of Mar'ot haTzov-ot and Agudas Ezov, head of the rabbinical court in Tiktin and spiritual leader here in the sacred community of Bialystok.
Son of the esteemed Gaon, Rabbi Eliezer, of blessed memory.
He passed away on the 4^th of Tevet, in the year 5590.

May his soul be bound up in the bond of eternal life.”

He is mentioned in the Tiktin memorial brochure under the name:

The Gaon, our teacher, Rabbi Moyshe Ze'ev, son of the Gaon, our teacher, Rabbi Eliezer, head of the rabbinical court in Tiktin.^[m]

Author's footnotes:

3. see: Dembitser, Kelilat Yofi, Krakau, volume 1, page 72 Return
4. A similar story took place in Tiktin [Tykocin] during Shmuel Mohilever's time. A journeyman working for a Jewish shoemaker boasted that he was having an intimate relationship with his master's wife. The Tiktiner Rav, a religious fanatic, declared the woman's marital relationship with her husband [unclean and therefore] forbidden based on the journeyman's testimony. However, Jewish law permitted it. This caused great discord between them. The Rav sent inquiries about this matter to the highest rabbinical authorities at the time: the Rav of Kovno, R' Yitskhok Elkhonen, and R' Heshele Kutner.
   They both replied that they could not interfere in the district of the great Gaon, R' Shmuel Mohilever. So, the matter was brought before him. The great Gaon arranged for the journeyman from Tiktin to be brought before him and interrogated him. The Gaon discovered that the journeyman was a depraved lout who boasted about shaming the woman, who was actually a chaste and pure Jewish woman. Therefore, he allowed her to resume marital relations.
   He told me at the time, when he had already been a rabbi for fifty years, that he had often been asked such rabbinical questions, and he had always found them to be malicious suspicions and that, according to halachic law, he had not found any real witness statements that would have allowed him to forbid women from having relations with their husbands.
   As is well known, already the Talmud strongly rejected such testimonies, meaning marital relationships could not be prohibited lightly. Return
5. The extent of his abilities is evident from the fact that, in the introduction to his book Chidushei Mahari-MZ, he writes that he composed it–including the research and writing–within a week and a half. Return
6. According to the account of Naftali Maskil Le'Eytan in Toldot haGaon Seder haDorot [History of the Gaon: Chronicle of Generations] and as handed down by R' Shloyme-Zalman Hurvitz from Vilna, HaGaon R' Moyshe Ze'ev, the author of Mar'ot haTzov-ot from Białystok, had a handwritten volume of responsa by the author of the work Seder HaDorot.This volume later became the property of Rabbi Shmuel, a judge and scribe from Białystok and the author of Bigdei Yesha. However, he lost the volume. Only a single response [from the responsa] remained with his grandson.
   This shows that the author of Seder HaDorot had sent him [R'Velvele] the volume of responsa to read through and give his [halachic] approval. However, R' Velvele passed away during this time. This illustrates how widespread his great authority was among the rabbis of his time. However, in Agudas Ezov, section “Even haEzer” (Vilna, in the year 5648), chapters 10-12, he [R'Velvele] says:
   “Regarding whether concern must be given to the matter of borrowed vessels (in context of halachic issues related to agunah), it is stated: From the elders I have gained inside that recently, in the holy Jewish congregation of Białystok, among the writings of the Gaon, our teacher Rabbi Yechiel, the author of Seder HaDorot, three responsa were found that he addressed to the revered and pious Gaon Rabbi Moshe Ze'ev, of blessed memory.” Return

Translator's footnotes:

1. Contents in [ ] are from the translator. Contents in ( ) are from the author. Return
2. מראות הצבאות= The term “Mar'ot haTzov-ot” comes from the Torah, Exodus 38:8. Literally, it can be translated as “Mirrors of the Hosts” or “ Mirrors of Sacred Legions.” In biblical tradition, it refers to a bronze water basin that was made for ritual purification and was to be placed at the entrance to the holy Tabernacle, or Tent of Meeting. The women who performed their duties in front of the entrance brought their bronze mirrors to be used in the construction of the basin. When Moses refused, considering the mirrors to be instruments of vanity, God disagreed and instructed him to use them. They were more precious to Him than anything because through them the women had set up many legions in Egypt. According to Midrash [see Exodus 38:8 with Rashi], they used mirrors as “sacred tools” to make themselves beautiful for their husbands, who were suffering under harsh forced labor. They inspired hope, affection, and the will to live, keeping the Jewish people alive under the most adverse circumstances and giving birth to new generations.
   The term “Mar'ot haTzov-ot” is ambiguous. It is used here as a kind of honorary title, referring to the title of the book written by R' Velvele. Given the symbolic nature of the term, I think that an interpretive translation such as “Mirrors of Sacred Endeavor” is also possible. Return
3. haKatan = the small one, baEzov= among [the plant] hyssop, Moyshe Ze'ev= Moyshe Wolf. Return
4. Agudas-Ezov [Agudat-Ezov] = literally “Bundle of Hyssop” appeared in the 19^th century. According to tradition, the hyssop plant has a ritual, cleansing, and purifying meaning and is mentioned as such in Psalm 51:9, among other places. Return
5. Agune [agunah], plural agunes [Agunot] = Agunes are Jewish women who remain halachically bound to their marriages because they have not received a get – a religious divorce document–from their husbands. In many tragic cases, their husbands have disappeared, refused to grant the get, or perished without clear evidence of death. According to Jewish law, without a get, these women are not permitted to remarry, leaving them in a state of painful limbo.
   This plight has led countless women–and often their children–into emotional, spiritual, and financial hardship. Support from the community has sometimes fallen short, compounding their suffering.
   In response, compassionate rabbinic leaders, including figures like Rabbi Velvele, took bold halachic initiatives. Through thorough investigation and legal deliberation within a Beit Din–a rabbinical court–they sought pathways to release these women. The Beit Din could evaluate the case, verify the circumstances, and–where permitted under Jewish law–issue a ruling that dissolved the marriage, thereby freeing the woman to begin a new chapter. These rulings were not taken lightly. They balanced the sanctity of tradition with the urgent need for justice and mercy. In doing so, they offered these women not just legal freedom, but dignity, hope, and a return to community life.
   In the case mentioned later, the rabbinical decision also considered whether the woman had violated the family's purity and sanctity through immoral behavior. Return
6. “Shayles-uTshuves” [Sche'elot uTeschuwot] = A Jewish book in which a rabbinical authority publishes his analysis of certain questions, also known as “responsa.” Generally: Term for questions addressed to rabbinical authorities and their answers. Return
7. “חדושי מהרימ”ז, באור על רבינו יהונתן על מסכת עירובין” . The title translates as: Interpretive Insights by Morenu HaRav Rabbi Moyshe Ze'ev on Rabbeinu Yehonatan's Commentary to the Talmudic Tractate Eruvin, see https://www.nli.org.il/ar/books/NNL_ALEPH990012791830205171/NLI ספר חדושי מוהרמ” ז : באור על רבנו יהונתן אשר סביב הרי” ף למסכת עירובין / אשר השאיר אחריו הרב הגאון … מו” ה משה זאב וואלף … וגם הגהות וחדושים על ש” ע אורח חיים .. | كتاب | מרגליות, משה זאב וולף בן אליעזר, 1767-1829 | المكتبة الوطنية الإسرائيلية Return
8. The titles mentioned are parts 1 to 3 of the “Shulkhn-Orekh” [Shulchan Orach], a comprehensive collection of halachic principles and laws. Return
9. Please note the references to Isaiah 12:6. Return
10. Please note that this expression, in relation to Białystok, is strongly reminiscent of the famous phrase in the biblical Lamentations [Eicha] 2:15, which describes Jerusalem in its former glory, see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Lamentations%202%3A15&version=NIV Lamentations 2:15 NIV – All who pass your way clap their hands – Bible Gateway Return
11. Please note the reference to Lamentations 5:15. Return
12. שם חלקם מחוקק ספון, a reference to Devarim, Deuteronomy, 33:21. Return
13. Further information about Rabbi Velvele, a descendant of the famous Rabbi Judah Loew ben Bezalel, the Maharal of Prague, can be found here https://jewishlibraries.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/LevyHandoutSeven2020.pdf Return

[Page 170]

When Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever came to Białystok as Rav in the year 5643 (1883), several years after the death of Rabbi Lipele, he was already a rabbi of world renown,

[Page 171]

known as a klal-Yisroel askn [a communal leader of all Israel].

He had already gained renown as the founder and disseminator of the Chibbat Zion [Love of Zion] movement, both as its theoretician and as its practitioner. He had already stepped beyond the narrow boundaries of rabbinic activity, beyond the dalet amos shel halokhe^[c], although he also impressed with his Talmudic genius and moral strength.

He was also a great fighter, but he could no longer content himself with, nor limit himself to, local matters, however important they might be. He already had a perspective on Jewish history and its past course, and a vision of its future. Above all, he possessed a sharp critical eye on the contemporary Jewish condition – its sorrowful moral, spiritual, and material state; and he had only a very faint hope for what lay ahead.

He therefore always envied the nations of the world, whose inner moral corruption he could not comprehend. He would constantly quote the poet of the selikhes [penitential prayers] and lament: “Kol ir al tilah benuyah, ve-'ir ha-Elohim mushpelet ad she'ol takhteha” [Every city is rebuilt upon its mound, but the city of G'd is cast down to the lowest Sheol]. All the ruined cities (states) have in modern times been rebuilt, materially and morally – only God's city, our nation, our material, moral, and spiritual condition, has sunk deep into the lowest Sheol. And it was not foreseeable that it could be rebuilt, because of our external dispersion and our internal division.

Although he was an old-fashioned, pious rabbi without any reservations and believed in the bi'as ha-go'el [coming of the redeemer], in the Messiah, he nevertheless held to the condition set forth in the Torah of Moses (Deuteronomy 15:18): “U-verakhekha Ha-Shem Elokekha be-khol asher ta'aseh” (The Lord will bless you in all that you do) – meaning that man, both the individual and the community, must first act through deeds, and only then receive God's help. Thus he maintained that the Messiah could not come until we ourselves first rebuild and thereby acquire the Land of Israel.

Rabbi Shmuel was a very energetic man, endowed with great abilities, with a sharp and penetrating mind, with deep feeling and an elevated spirit. In comparison with other rabbis he was a man of means: he had acquired a considerable sum of money. All his talents and capacities he devoted to realizing his life's ideal, from which he never diverted his attention for even a single moment of his life. He always maintained a wide correspondence and stood in connection with the entire Jewish world. He also traveled abroad for several months each year (under the main condition set with the Białystok community)

[Page 172]

to all the great European and Russian Jewish communities, knocking on the doors of the great Jewish gvirim [wealthy persons] and mefursemin [notables], klal-tuers [communal activists] and politicians, to move them to support the work of Yishev Eretz-Yisroel [settling the Land of Israel], until he finally succeeded in winning over the Parisian Baron Edmond Rothschild (the well-known benefactor) for his idea of Yishev Eretz-Yisroel and Chibbat Zion [Love of Zion].

It is told in his biographies (I give it here in brief): At the end of the year 5641 (1881), Rabbi Shmuel, returning from Bad Reichenhall, met in Frankfurt am Main with Rabbi Yehoshua Zeitlin, a well-known maskil [enlightened intellectual] and gvir [wealthy person], who told him that Peretz Smolenskin, who was also among the Chovevei Zion [Lovers of Zion], had reported⁽¹⁾ to him, upon returning from Petersburg, that Baron Horace Gintsburg had undertaken to establish a Jewish colony in the Land of Israel in his father's name, for fifty families. Hearing this, Rabbi Shmuel rejoiced, and in order to strengthen the matter he immediately traveled to Paris, where Gintsburg was then staying. But when he came to him, the latter denied it entirely.

Rabbi Shmuel, who was a great mamin [believer], thought that it was not for nothing that God had arranged his journey to Paris. He must therefore make efforts regarding the Yishev Eretz-Yisroel [settling the Land of Israel] with the Chevrat Kol Yisrael Chaverim – the Alliance Israélite Universelle (Hakh”ih). He turned to two of its distinguished members, pious and national Jews: Rabbi Tsadok Cohen, the French Chief Rabbi, and the well-known Rabbi Mikhl Erlanger, whom he immediately won over to his idea. They decided that Rabbi Shmuel should present to the society a memorandum concerning Yishev Eretz-Yisroel, according to his plan to establish a model colony in the Land of Israel from Jewish peasants of Russia, and that they both would assist him.

He did so, but the society rejected him. Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever then informed his two helpers that he would not return home empty-handed, and that he would therefore go to the Agudas Akhim [Alliance of Brothers] in London (a rival society to Hakh”ih).

They asked him to wait a few days; afterwards they informed him that they had won for his idea of Yishev Eretz-Yisroel none other than Baron Edmond Rothschild, and that he had appointed for Rabbi Shmuel an audience together with them on the first day of Sukkot 5642 (1882). At the audience he agreed to Rabbi Shmuel's plan as set forth in the memorandum to Hakh”ih.

[Page 173]

Rabbi Tsadok Cohen handed Rabbi Shmuel a written commitment in Rothschild's name⁽²⁾. R' Shmuel then selected Jewish peasants from the Rozhinoyer Jewish colony, and the Baron founded the colony Ekron. Later, in 5649 (1889), when the settlers of Ekron, against the heter [rabbinic dispensation] of the rabbis, refused to work during shemitta [the sabbatical year], and a whole revolution broke out in Ekron, and the Baron (i.e. his administration) wanted to expel them from the colony, Rabbi Shmuel wrote to him a petition on their behalf. He answered him with a letter (I have read it in the original) in anger, reproaching him that he had drawn him into this entire unfortunate affair of Yishev Eretz-Yisroel, and now he stood aside at a distance⁽³⁾. Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever was born in Haloboke עקאבאלאה] (Glubok), a small town in the Vilna governorate, on the 27^th of Nisan 5584 (1824). He came from a distinguished rabbinic lineage. His father, Rabbi Yehuda Leyb, was rabbi in the small town of Solok. Rabbi Shmuel was a child prodigy with phenomenal abilities. At the age of ten he was already known as the Gluboker ilui [prodigy of Glubok]; at fifteen he married.

In 5608 [1848] he became rabbi of Haloboke; in 1854 rabbi in Shaki; in 1860 he was appointed rabbi in Suwałki, succeeding the renowned gaon Rabbi Yekhiel Helir; in 1868 he became rabbi in Radom; in 5643 [1883] rabbi in Białystok. On Thursday, the 19th of Sivan 5658 (1898), he died, having served as Rav in Białystok for fifteen years.

Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever was among the combative characters. While serving as rabbi in Radom, a Chasidic town, he had great makhlokes [conflicts] with the Chasidim, whom he pursued with his sermons. To the people he referred to their rabbis as “prophets of Baal” and the Chasidim [i.e. their followers] as “worshippers of Baal.”^[d]

Once, on motza'ei Shabbos [the evening immediately following the Shabbat, traditionally marking the transition back into the weekday] after melaveh malka [the ritual “escorting of the Queen,” a meal held after the Shabbat], they threw stones into his house while he was sitting and studying, and they were therefore severely punished by the Radom governor.

[Page 174]

After he became rabbi in Bialystok – and even earlier, when he had already succeeded in winning Baron Edmond Rothschild for the idea of Chibbat Zion – he made peace both with the free-thinking maskilim and, on the other side, with the zealots and the Chasidim. For a long time he remained in contact with the last Kotsker Rebbe, who was himself a Lover of Zion and collected money to establish a Chasidic colony. He wanted to draw together all Jewish parties and unite them for this single purpose.

Once, in Marienbad, he met Professor Graetz, the famous Jewish historian. He strongly urged him on behalf of Chibbat Zion; but Graetz repelled him with the verse from Psalms (127:1): “Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain; unless the Lord guards the city, the watchman keeps vigil in vain.” Rabbi Shmuel answered him: “We have exchanged roles in our arguments: I, as an Orthodox rabbi, was obliged to say this; but you, as a historian, ought to have stood at the forefront of the Chibbat Zion movement in my place.”

No less than Rabbi Lipele, he was accepted as a Talmudic authority, and he impressed also with his great moral strength and purity. He was utterly opposed to dishonest gain. He continued to give charity with a generous hand. He conducted his rabbinate with pride and dignity; he showed no partiality where justice and truth were concerned. All major communal matters were decided under his presidency and with his consent; all religious questions – through him and his bet-din [rabbinical court]. No one opposed him, not even the powerful leaders of the community. Yet in Bialystok he was no longer a fighter, no longer a great activist; he left everything to the old, established order ⁽⁴⁾. His energy, his spirit of struggle, he reserved for his life's idea – for Chibbat Zion.

It was not without reason that other Białystokers murmured and said of him: “We have a world-rabbi, but not a Białystoker rabbi.” Indeed, on certain occasions he would sharply rebuke the leaders of the community for their negligent and poor governance. I once heard him in his Shabbat Teshuvah sermon, nearly fifty years ago, in that then pious and fanatical Bialystok, thundering from the pulpit in the presence of all the communal leaders, the gvirim, the greatest scholars of the city, and the fanatical pietists, saying to them:

[Page 175]

“Your children you strive to raise as educated men, so that they may become merchants, so that they may be fit for practical life; but all your fear of Heaven you leave only to the poor children, the unfortunate ones, not permitting them in the Talmud Torah even to learn the national language, so as to raise them for good-for-nothings, for idlers, matchmakers, brokers, sellers of lottery tickets.”

He would always renounce anything that concerned his own personal interests, so as not to disturb the general peace of the city. Though deeply pious, he was at the same time very tolerant. Characteristic is the answer he once gave to two members of the Mazhirei Shabes [Shabbat-watchers, a pietistic group that monitored others].

Coming to a baker late on Friday night, they found him standing and shifting cholent pots in the oven. One of them, a great zealot, began striking the cholent pots with his stick; the baker struck him instead and threw both of them out. They came to Rabbi Shmuel to denounce the baker. Rabbi Shmuel replied that the baker had been right. He told them: “Why did you not learn from the Talmud, which says (Shabbat 34a): Even though the Sages said that a man must ask three things in his house on the eve of Shabbat at twilight – 'Have you tithed? Have you set up the eruv^[e]? Have you lit the lamp?' – he must say them gently, so that they will be accepted. The Talmud instructs us to conduct ourselves mildly and calmly in such situations, so that people will accept it. And you went to beat poor Jews' cholents – the baker was right to treat you as he did.”

This was passed on to me by Rabbi Shloyme-Yakov Rabinowitz, who was present as the second witness to the whole story and heard these words from Rabbi Shmuel himself.

Rabbi Shmuel was not a modern maskil. He knew no foreign languages; his education consisted only of the ancient and medieval Hebrew literature. He was a fine Hebrew stylist and a mathematician⁽⁵⁾, yet he was an opponent of the so-called Khokhmes Yisroel [Wissenschaft des Judentums, the 19^th-century scholarly movement for the critical study of Judaism]⁽⁶⁾ and of every critical, scholarly illumination of Bible and Talmud. Nevertheless, he possessed great innate intelligence, a sharp critical eye for all Jewish affairs, an iron logic, profound thoughts, and lofty ideals. Above all, he impressed with his simplicity, seriousness⁽⁷⁾, and truthfulness, with his great moral strength

[Page 176]

and crystal-pure soul. For this reason, even the greatest intellectuals bowed before him. Everyone felt in him a great man and a great Jew. In this he stood above all his peers – the great rabbis of his time.

He also left behind two handwritten treatises – one on Kodashim [the fifth order of the Mishnah, “Holy Things”, dealing with sacrificial rites and Temple service] and one a collection of she'elot u-teshuvot [responsa] – which would have revealed his great genius in Talmud. During his lifetime he did not wish to publish any book, for a reason that is explained in my editions of the early activists of Chovevei Zion^[8]. With his grandson, Dr. Yosef Mohilever, rabbi of Białystok, the responsa volume was already prepared for printing, but during the pogrom the pogromists tore it into pieces.

At the grand funeral of Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever the greatest rabbinic luminaries of the region came: Rabbi Khayim of Brisk, Rabbi Yoshe of Slonim, the rabbi of Kamai, Mir, and many others, and they delivered great hespedim [funeral orations] over him.

The inscription on his tombstone in the new cemetery was as follows:

“Here lies our master Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever, of blessed memory, the gaon [great rabbinic genius], av bet din [head of the rabbinical court] of the community of Białystok, one of the outstanding figures among the sages of his generation, among its righteous and its holy ones. He was renowned as a leader of the movement of Chibbat Zion throughout all the Diaspora, and among the founders of the new settlement of the people of Israel in the Land of Israel. May his soul be bound in the bond of eternal life together with his people, his Torah, and his land.”

(First panel of the tombstone)

“Our master Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever, son of Rabbi Yehudah Leyb, of blessed memory. He served in the rabbinate for fifty years in the communities of, הלובוקי Haloboki [Haloboke], Shaki, Suwałki, Radom, and Białystok (from the year 5643 [1883]).

He was born in Haloboki⁽⁹⁾, district of Vilna, on the 27^th of Nisan, 5584 [1824]. He passed away in Białystok on the 19^th of Sivan, 5658 [1898].”

(Second panel of the tombstone)

After his passing two separate hespedim [funeral orations] were printed:

(a) Ramat Shmuel [The Elevation of Shmuel], by the then most pious and greatest maggid [preacher] of Dvinsk, R' Elyakum Getzel (Vilna, 5659). He expounded: “Even his family name, Mohilever, itself conveys meaning: it can be read as male ve-'er ['full and awake'] – full of Torah, reverence, and every proper quality, and awake to act for the good of all Israel.” (ibid., p. 9). Although he himself had not known him personally, he reported everything he had heard from Rabbi Meir Simcha Cohen, the Dvinsker Rav, who was originally from Białystok.

(b) Hesped Mar [Eulogy by the Master] (Piotrków, 5658/1898), by the Shishlovitzer Rav, Rabbi Mordechai Shotsh [Shochet?], son of the gaon Rabbi Meir Yonah, author of Ahavat Mordechai and Torat Mordechai. He had lived in Białystok and knew him well. He exalted him above all rabbinic sages of his time because of his truthfulness, patience, humility, and his self-sacrificing labor for the Settlement of the Land of Israel.

He applied to him the verse from Parashat Beha'alotekha (Numbers 8:2, the weekly portion at the time of his death):

“When you light the lamps, the seven lamps shall give light in front of the menorah.”

[He explained that] of the seven great geonim [rabbinic geniuses] who died in that period – his father R. Meir Yonah of Shishlovitz, Rebbe Hersh Leyb of Volozhin, Rabbi Yoshe Ber of Brisk, the eminent Rebbe Yerucham Leyb of Minsk, Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan of Kovno, and Rabbi Yehoshua Leyb Diskin – Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever was the seventh Jewish light, surpassing them all by virtue of his merit in the cause of the Yishev Eretz Yisroel [Settlement of the Land of Israel].

He portrayed him as truly great in his genius, righteousness, kindness, and in his kheyn [grace, charm] before all, with his power of attraction. And he applied to him the saying of the sages: “Shmuel is equal to Moses and Aaron”^[f] – in his Torah, in his wisdom, in his reverence, and in his good qualities, to benefit his people and to save them in their distress.

On the occasion of his 25^th yahrzeit [anniversary of death], Rabbi Yehudah Leyb HaKohen Fishman of Jerusalem published a special volume entitled Sefer Shmuel (Jerusalem, 1927, 187 pages). It included a booklet Divrei Shmuel [Words of Shmuel], (responsa and novellae), as well as an essay by Dr. Yosef Mohilever, “The Opinions and Outlooks of Rebbe Shmuel,” covering the years 1876–1885, based on his surviving manuscripts.

At the fiftieth jubilee celebration of the founding of Chibbat Zion (1882-1932), held on 11 Tevet 5692 [December 21, 1931], a great festivity took place with eulogies in the Beit Shmuel House of Study and a procession to the cemetery. There, a marble plaque was affixed to his tombstone, inscribed with twenty stanzas of a Hebrew hymn in honor of Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever.

Author's footnotes:

1. See my article “Types among the activists of Chovevei Zion” in Ha-Ma'asef for the thirtieth year of Ha-Tzefirah, Warsaw, 5663 [1903], pp. 102-123. See also: Rabbi Yehuda Leyb Ha-Kohen Fishman, Sefer Shmuel, Jerusalem, 5683 [1923]. Return
2. See: Yekhiel Bril, Yesod ha-Ma'aleh. I have read the original, which was written in German using Yiddish characters. Return
3. Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever, showing me the letter, said that he would instruct that the letter be laid at his head after his death, because it proves that he was the first who drew the Baron to the idea of Yishev Eretz-Yisroel, which the Baron later put into practice. The letter was later published by his grandson Yosef Mohilever in Jerusalem, both during the Baron's lifetime and after his death, in the Hebrew newspaper Haaretz. Completely false and tendentious was Nachum Sokolov's claim in Ha-Olam, (1935, issue 22), in his article “Ha-Nadiv ha-lo yadua” [The Unknown Benefactor], where he ridiculed and denied the influence of the rabbis – that is, of Rabbi Shmuel – upon the Baron to act for the Yishev Eretz-Yisroel. See also the response of Rabbi Yitzchak Nisenboym in Moment, 1935, no. 142. Return
4. Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever felt it. He once confided to me, explaining that had he allowed himself to be drawn into those petty, abandoned affairs, he would have been forced to relinquish his life's mission – the cause of the Land of Israel. Return
5. He published a scholarly brochure concerning a fixed meridian in relation to the determination of the Shabbat. Return
6. Once I shared with him a critical textual suggestion in the Talmud – a girsa [textual variant] in Gemara Megillah. He asked me: “Do not trouble me with such constructs of learning.” Yet later I discovered that very same girsa in the Rif [Rabbi Isaac Alfasi, 11^th century, one of the earliest and most influential halakhic codifiers, who systematized Jewish law by extracting rulings from the Talmud]. Return
7. The Lexicon of Jewish Scholars by Rabbi Yehoshua Zlotnik falsely attributes to R. Shmuel Mohilever a few coarse, jocular street-jokes. He in fact despised vulgar jokes. Once, in connection with the Yishev Eretz Yisroel [settlement of the Land of Israel], he met with R' Yoshe Ber, the Brisker Rav, who was a great jokester. At the very outset he made one condition with him: that he should not dismiss him with his jokes. At that time there was a well-known jest that R' Yoshe Ber used to make about the Chovevei Zion [Lovers of Zion], saying that they were like the vayse khevrenikes [rascals] in the small towns, who run to every wedding procession. Return
8. See my article, mentioned in note 15. Return
9. The tombstone engraver made a mistake here: בהלובגגי Return

Translator's footnotes:

1. Contents in [ ] are from the translator. Contents in ( ) are from the author. Return The term rebbe refers to a Chasidic rabbi or teacher and also serves as the honorific by which one addresses a spiritual leader. In English, the term is usually translated as “rabbi.” Return
2. The rabbinic phrase dalet amos shel halokhe (lit. “the four cubits of halakha”) refers metaphorically to the narrow sphere of rabbinic legal study and practice. To say that someone has stepped beyond “the four cubits of halakha” means that he has moved outside the strictly halakhic domain to engage with broader communal, social, or historical concerns. Return
3. When Rabbi Mohilever referred to the rabbis of the Chasidic movement as “prophets of Baal” and to their adherents as “worshippers of Baal,” he was invoking the biblical polemic against idolatry (cf. 1 Kings 18). In this metaphor he likened the Chasidic leadership to the false prophets who misled Israel toward the cult of Baal, and their followers to idol-worshippers. His intent was not a literal charge of pagan practice, but a sharp rhetorical denunciation of what he regarded as misguided religious authority and blind devotion within the Chasidic community. Return
4. Eruv or Eyrev (עירוב) – a symbolic enclosure of houses or even a city with wire or string, designating it as a “private domain” so that carrying objects there on the Shabbat is permitted. Return
5. The phrase Shakul Shmuel ke-Moshe ve-Aharon (“Samuel is equal to Moses and Aharon”) is a rabbinic saying found in the Midrash (see Midrash Rabbah, Shemot 2:6; also cited in Talmud Berakhot 31b). It expresses the idea that the prophet Samuel combined in himself the qualities and leadership of both Moses, the lawgiver, and Aharon, the priest. In the eulogy, this phrase is applied metaphorically to Rabbi Shmuel Mohilever, emphasizing his stature in Torah, wisdom, reverence, and good deeds, and his ability to guide and save his people in times of distress. Return

  Białystok, Poland     Yizkor Book Project     JewishGen Home Page

Copyright © 1999-2025 by JewishGen, Inc.
Updated 25 Nov 2025 by OR