Cherem on sefer “Pshuto Shel Mikra”

It’s on par with most of what gets published today. There isn’t a reason to single this sefer out. The press that is geared to the yeshivaliet today, has very little safeguards. All seforim are self-moderated by the authors and publishers. This cherem is not about content. It’s a spinoff of another chareidi schism.

Does the sefer have a haskamah?

In the matter of the Chumash “Pshuto Shekl Mikra”

We have come to reveal our opinion about the “Perush – Pshuto Shel Mikra” – “The Simple Interpretation of the Mikra”, which is an obstacle for the public, as it ignores the words of the Sages, and is a serious change in the form of studying the Mikra handed down to us by our Sages. And their intention is clear with the aim of replacing Rashi’s interpretation – which has always been the foundation of education and Judaism , and especially for the young people of the flock, and that all the foundations of faith and study of Torah Shebiksav and Torah Shebaal Peh are built on it – in this interpretation, R”L.
The aforementioned book also has strange and fake interpretations in the name of the Meforshim, and there is a spirit of Haskala in it. And it is not correctable at all.
And the great Torah scholars in the Land of Israel have already published their opposition in writing and by letter.
Therefore, it is simple and clear that this book must not be “Bo B’Kahal” and must be removed from homes and Shul’s and Beis Medrash’s and it is forbidden to trade in it.

Signed by
Rabbi Aryeh Malkiel Kotler
Rabbi Dovid Schustal
Rabbi Yitzchok Sorotzkin
Rabbi Yaakov Forchheimer
Rabbi Osher Lieberman
Rabbi Elya Ber Wachtfogel
Rabbi Yisroel Neuman
Rabbi Aharon Zuckerman
Rabbi Aharon Feldman
Rabbi Herschel Zolty
Rabbi Osher Eliyahu Kalmanowitz
Rabbi Shlomo Feivel Schustal
Rabbi Yerucham Olshin

Dear Nisht,

I never shared my views on mesorah. The reasons are generic, and the examples are unclear. I happened to have been in the room when one of the rabbonim was being briefed on this sefer. The OP asked if anybody knew about it. So I posted what I know.

IF you look at the haskama to the sefer, you will see that the hakama was given to the RASHI KIFISHUTOY, NOT PISHUTO SHEL MIKRAH.
The haskamos were copied from the sefer Rashi Kefeshutoy which was not banned.
Look at the haskama or look at the rashi kifishutoy and you will see. There was no haskama given just to peshuto shel mikrah

I must admit that the Sefer mentioned in the op is not the one I was thinking about. Indeed there is a Sefer Pshuto Shel Mikra by R Cooperman Ztl which has approval by R Weiss there is no ban for this Sefer. A number of years ago, the Leshem publishing company put out a Sefer, pirush on Chumash called Pshuto Shel Mikra which is under this ban. As it stands this Sefer of controversy is indeed alleged to not have legit haskamah.

This ban is honestly ridiculous לפי עניות דעתי.ֶ I would like to give an example from the beginning of this week’s parsha ויצא. The pasuk says ויקח מאבני המקום וישם מראשותיו and then it says ויקח את האבן. Rashi who usually will comment from midrashic literature in this case chullin 91b says that he initially took many stones and then they fought עלי יניח צדיק את ראשו and ה׳ subsequently made them all join into one large stone. We were all taught this midrash as kids. Tosfos on that gemara as well as ALL the pashtanim on the pasuk (rashbam, ibn ezra, bchor shor, radak etc) all say that pshuto shel mikra is that Yaakov took one stone from stones of the area. So the whole question never begins. Now according to these ban signatories, this pshat is kefira since it disagrees with Rashi and the gemara. Horrific. I’ve got news for you, Rashi and Ramban will sometimes dismiss the midrash and favor pshat. An example of Rashi doing that is on the words כברת ארץ bereishis 35:16 and Ramban does it on the words מערת המכפלה.ֶ should we ban Rashi and Ramban too??
I’ve read the sefer quite a bit and I don’t recall one controversial pshat; they purposely avoided them and there are quite a few of them from rishonim.

Now I have to buy a copy of it, since it will be valuable soon.

ymripat
“Could someone please clarify which are being consigned to the bonfire?”
The Leshem one.
There are two pirushim they have “Rashi kipshutio” this is explaining Rashi and not the subject at hand. And “Pishuto shel mikra” This is explaining the pesukim often differently than Rashi

red sock

Before calling it ridiculous you should understand it.

You say “Tosfos on that gemara as well as ALL the pashtanim on the pasuk (rashbam, ibn ezra, bchor shor, radak etc) all say that pshuto shel mikra is…”

Yes but Rashi says differently. The signatories feel Rashi IS peshuto shel mikra.

Just like you would ban a hashgacha that allows chicken and milk to be mixed together even though R’ Yosi holds that it can, as the halacha was decided not like him.
So too , they feel that pshat in chumash is decided by Rashi, not by the Ramban, and not by the author/editors of pishuto shel mikra

You can certainly argue and point to other chumashim that.

I grant the whole thing is a bit odd, since lots of chumashim have a running commentary that differs from Rashi at times, Artscroll has done this (eg their Stone commentary does not allways follow Rashi) . I’m not so sure why this one raised so much ire maybe the title “pishuto shel mikra” or maybe as N0mesorah suggested its a spinoff from something else

*should read chicken and milk

(and yes obviously the two are not directly comparable, was the first example that came to my mind point is just because a machlokes exists doesn’t mean all sides are always given equal weight)

The level of distance between basic mesorah and what is being spewed here makes me think that if chazal were around today, they would institute a bracha “shelo asani moderni”

@ aveira If חז”ל were here today, they would wonder what other immediate issues directly impacting the community have provoked similar announcements.

Though Acharonim offer a different Pshat than Rashi, none state that their pshat supercedes Rashi.

midwesterner: halacha has a methodology and that methodology tells us that beis shamaya “eina mishna” (see, e.g., berochos in the neighborhood of lamed vov). That has nothing to do with rishonim providing various pshat, drush, agada, etc on the mikra. eilu ve’eilu divrei elokim chaim but not all of them are pshat.

quite frankly, i do not understand how certain segments simultaneously tell us that mikra should not be taught and at the same time tell us how to study mikra. I am sorry but if your hashkafa tells you to ignore the study of mikra, then your opinion on how to learn mikra doesnt matter.

“they would institute a bracha “shelo asani moderni””

Can a person born moderni but who then converts to Torah True Judaism tm still make the beracha?

What about the reverse?

Who is asking my opinion? I did not read the book, thus
Making it difficult for me to comment. Although, out
Of the curiosity, looks like I would need to buy this one.
Gadol is asking whether we can rely on the names.

I know at least one example of a very decent book written by a reputable Rav that was banned for an inexplicable (for me) reason. I am glad I was able to read it.

Thanks to jackk for translating the letter. It is understandably generic. I wonder whether you guys can find a specific example and explain what is wrong there. Otherwise, everyone is talking to their prejudices.

It’s quite interesting that this issue started in EY a year-and-a-half ago and has been through several Battei Din there, yet the Lakewood Rabbonim issued a harsher condemnation than either of the EY Battei Din had.

The Eida Chareidis and Bnei Brak Battei Din were in personal contact with the authors of this peirush. Neither of the Battei Din disparaged the authors of this peirush personally. And neither of them said the harsh things that the Lakewood Rabbonim’s condemnation said.

The Eida Chareidis Beis Din said that their shaliach had reviewed the entire set of all five volumes and determined that peirush was “Kulo Kodesh.” They therefore ruled no changes were necessary and it could be used as is.

Incidentally, this publishing team’s newest work, Chok l’Yisroel, was just published and has current haskomos from this Beis Din.

The Bnei Brak Beis Din of Rav Sariel Rosenberg said that a revised edition should be printed, as replacement for the current one, and that the publisher could continue to sell the remaining copies of the present edition. They did not disparage the authors personally and said that the sefer needed to be “fixed.”

The Lakewood Rabbonim, however, were far stronger in their condemnation and even said — unlike the EY Battei Din that had fully investigated the matter, gone through all five volumes, and spoken to the authors — that no “tikkun” was possible.

I was wondering if any of the oylam here had spoken to any of the Lakewood Rabbonim and asked them what led them to sign a letter that was far more harsh and far-reaching than the EY Battei Din. Did they have information that was unknown to the EY Battei Din? If so, have they shared this information with the EY Battei Din?

The Lakewood letter is very similar to the attacks made on the sefer from the Eitz faction in EY several years ago, which led to the investigations by independent Battei Din, which, after doing their investigations, did not agree.

It’s therefore interesting that for the Lakewood signers, it’s almost as if the Dinei Torah by recognized Battei Din, which went through the matter thoroughly and systematically, had never occurred.

It’s almost as if the Lakewood signers aligned themselves with the Eitz attacks, rather than with the Battei Din.

I wonder why that would be and wonder whether anyone in the oylam has asked Lakewood Rabbonim for an explanation.

Forget about understanding subtle distinctions – at the very least, let’s be clear what the issues are, and avoid the straw man.

There are many claims mentioned in the letters, such as misquoting and attributing extra details, that are not benig addressed here at all.
But to stick to what IS being discussed –
No one has a problem with learning different Peshatim than Rashi, whether “pshat” or otherwise.
We learn Chumash Rashi. NO ONE ever learns Chumash/other pirush, disregarding Rashi. You might have learned Rashi in oast, and are now learning Ramban etc, but not to say, I’m learning Cumash/Rashbam, it’s the mehalech I use to understanbd Chumash. No one has done that. Therefore, to have a pirush that is being used as a basic explanation of the test disregard Rashi is a serious change.
Additionally, this pirush is being used by many to supplant Rashi. Many people are learning Chumash/pshuto shel mikra. That is a fact in many circles. This alone is a problem – Artscroll does not imagine that someone will use their pirush as “the” way they understand Chumash, as the main way to learn it, at the expense of leanring Rashi (unless they are incapable of reading the Rashi text, which is a different story). The placement on the page is not the problem per se, but illustrative of this issue. It also makes the earlier issue a bigger problem – if this is becoming “THE” pshat used, it cannot just offer any pshat they choose, especially disregarding Rashi.

Let’s remember that things that are overtly ‘treif’ are not nearly so dangerous to us, and often do not even require a harsh response, if any at all. It is precisely those things whose problems are more subtle that carry the danger of going undetected and creating negative change, and those require a strong response from those whom we trust and look to for guidance.

Not straw man but grasping at straws. Who is supplanting Rashi? It’s a wild claim. Why does their basic explanation require an earlier source if it just basic?

One widely touted example is the cooking of the lentils. Rashi quotes the Medrash that the lentils were to mourn the passing of Avraham Avinu. Obviously that is not the actual technical translation of the words of the Pasuk. And so, although obviously we’re aware of the back story given by the Medrash, there is room to express that the most basic reading is simply as someone cooking food.

Personally, I think they should have skipped that, since there is nothing to explain, but so be it.

This is perfectly in line with the Rashbam, who writes that the Drash is the main thing but the words do have a meaning without it, and it is worth devoting some time to understand that too. In fact, he writes that Rashi agreed surg him, and said that had he had more time he would have done the same.

Yeshivaguy45 said at 12:43pm on Nov 30, 2022:

“When the letter came out a few weeks ago, the oilam in shul asked the Rav of the shul (a major talmid chacham) why is this Chumash any different than the Emek Davar, as he also gives a pshat in Rashi. People were also wondering why this Chumash was any different than the Artscroll Rashi Chumash. The Rav answered that they ruined the tzura of the page. The tzura is Chumash and then Rashi underneath it. The pshuto shel mikra chumash first put the pasuk, then their pshat and then Rashi after that. The Emek Davar and Artscroll placed their pshat after Rashi.”

Not sure whether to laugh or cry.

Are you indeed Yeshivish? I don’t want to shock you, but the title of the Sefer is HaAmeik Dovor, which means “delve into the matter”, not “the Emek Davar”

If you can’t get the name right, I cant take your opinion seriously.

Are you indeed Yeshivish? I don’t want to shock you, but the title of the Sefer is HaAmeik Dovor, which means “delve into the matter”, not “the Emek Davar”

If you can’t get the name right, I cant take your opinion seriously.

This is immature. Deal with the substance rather than pouncing on a memory lapse.

Some guy is going all blitzkrieg on this random sefer. Dude, seriously. Did Peshuto Shel Mikrah hit you as a kid or something? I mean, there’s a million seforim coming out every year and I’m sure there are plenty that people can find fault with. Does this one sefer really warrant the number of Roshei Yeshivos this guy got to sign a petchkvil about?

It has no haskamas and the Ramban has a cherem to learn a sefer without them. It can be downloaded from hebrewbooks dot org. The author is Kuperman in two volumes The first volume tries to justify the second volume. I saw something in itself questionable that Hashem leads the world through emtzaim, agents. It is published by a Michlala College for Women. His name Yehuda is designated as a son of his father Avraham and mother Sara Zelate Kuperman which I have never seen before.