[By Rabbi Yair Hoffman for the Five Towns Jewish Times]

Today, the tenth of Nissan, marks the eighth Yartzeit of Moreinu HaGaon haRav Alter Chanoch Henoch Leibowitz zatzal.

In the past few weeks, newly rediscovered writings of Rav Leibowitz have been found and some of these writings are appended to the appreciation below.
Rav Leibowitz was the only son of his saintly father, Rav Dovid Leibowitz, zt’l, founder of Yeshiva Rabbeinu Yisroel Meir HaCohen, commonly known as Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim. Rav Dovid was the Rebbe of numerous Gedolim, including Rav Gedaliah Schorr zt”l, Rav Avrohom Pam, and many others. Numerous Talmidim learned by him as well, the fathers of Rav Yaakov Bender Shlita and Rabbi Pesach Krohn are just two examples.

The Yeshiva was first established in 1933 by Rav Dovid Leibowitz, a nephew of the Chofetz Chaim. Prior to that Rav Leibowitz was a Rosh Yeshiva in yeshiva Torah VoDaas. On December 7, 1941, Rav Dovid Leibowitz passed away, and his son would take over at the helm of the yeshiva.

Rav Henoch Leibowitz molded the yeshiva in the image of the great yeshiva of his father’s Rebbe, the Alter of Slabodka. Indeed, Rav Mordechai Shulman, zt’l, a rosh yeshiva in Eretz Yisrael who had intimate knowledge of the Slabodka Yeshiva, commented, “Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim is Slabodka.”

Slowly but surely, Rav Henoch Leibowitz shaped and molded his talmidim to be talmidei chachamim, Baalei Mussar, and mentchen. He further imbued them with a sense of mission to do and work for Klal Yisrael. The greatest achievement for one of his talmidim was to merit to be a marbitz Torah in Klal Yisrael.

And harbatzas Torah they did. Rav Henoch Leibowitz’s talmidim opened up high schools across the nation and beyond—in Miami, Los Angeles, Rochester, Milwaukee, and Ottawa, to name just a few. Rav Leibowitz nurtured his talmidim and the mosdos they had set up. Soon, Chofetz Chaim became a major force in American Judaism. Entire Torah communities were to spring up around the Chofetz Chaim branches. These communities yielded fruit. Many graduates of the Chofetz Chaim schools entered harbatzas Torah themselves, in every capacity.
The attitude of Rav Henoch’s talmidim created a major turning point and shift in the field and in the public perception of Jewish education, which affected all other yeshivos, as well. A career of harbatzas Torah became a lofty profession, something that the elite should aspire to achieve.

Rav Leibowitz focused his efforts on developing his students in three major areas.

He felt that mechanchim—indeed, everyone—should strive to achieve the highest level of iyun (in-depth study) possible. Toward this end, Rav Leibowitz spent countless hours with his students, teaching them how to unfold the latent processes of reasoning in a Talmudic text. He taught them to highly esteem the words of the Maharsha and to home in on the essence of an argument between the Maharam and the Maharsha. And he taught his talmidim to appreciate the words of the Acharonim, too.

He taught them to focus very closely on the shift between a text’s initial supposition and the turning point in its final conclusion. “What is the shift between the havah amina and the maskana?” was a question he often asked. Most importantly, he taught his students the notion that the Torah they say must be “muchrach” – that each and every piece of Torah they spoke had to be both textually and logically compelling. He eschewed the methodologies of baseless chakiros (logical inquiry and differentiation) and the standard use of “reid” when understanding Torah texts. The yeshiva was well known for the thorough manner in which the talmidim examined the texts they were learning. Shiurim were not just heard once; they were worked on for days and sometimes weeks, so as to understand and appreciate every nuance. (This slow pace, however, was limited to the morning iyun seder. Indeed, for the afternoon and evening bekiyus sedarim, the Rosh Yeshiva instituted a quota system, where a minimum number of blatt had to be learned each week.)

The second area in which Rav Leibowitz “grew” his talmidim was in the area of mussar thought and texts. Talmidim were taught how to develop a genuine mussar insight, either in psychology or midos or some other area of Torah growth. Such insight, of course, also had to be logically and textually compelling. The true “Slabodka shmuess” was not an exposition of drush comprised of any Torah thought that comes into the talmid chacham’s mind; no—it had to be derived and based upon a previous Torah text: a Ramban, a Seforno, a Rashi, a Midrash. Otherwise, the integrity of Torah could be compromised, if people’s own ideas were read into the text and represented to the world as Torah.

Thirdly, Rav Leibowitz imbued his students with a sense of mission toward Klal Yisrael. His talmidim were in the forefront of chinuch and the revitalization of Torah throughout North America. His students opened Torah institutions and branches in many cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego, St. Louis, Cherry Hill and Manalapan (New Jersey), Cedarhurst, Huntington, Monsey, New York City, Vancouver, Ottowa, Phoenix, and Dallas—and in places in Eretz Yisrael, too.

He personified the midah of emes, as well. Once, for example, a wealthy individual gave a $10,000 donation that was doubled by his corporation’s matching-funds program. The problem was that the donor’s check did not clear. Rav Leibowitz promptly refunded the corporation’s money. Any behavior otherwise was sheer anathema to him. He was a genuine Torah sage in every way, and he would never countenance any form of dishonesty, chalilah.

Rav Leibowitz had a warmth and a smile that conveyed his love for each member of Klal Yisrael. He also had a great sense of humor, which he utilized to connect with talmidim, baalei batim, and other members of Klal Yisrael. When I, a boy from California with no family in New York, had surgery during my first year in yeshiva, he and his rebbetzin put me up in their house to recover. His rebbetzin, zt’l, served me her nurturing kasha, chicken soup, and kosher jello, and Rav Leibowitz patiently sat and learned with me.

Rav Leibowitz personified the idea of sensitivity toward others and making sure that people realized what it means to cause anxiety to others. A typical shmuess of Rav Leibowitz involved examining Rashi’s comments regarding the person who cursed the name of Hashem, found at the end of Parashas Emor. The pasuk says, “Vayanichuhu ba’mishmar,” they placed him under guard. Rashi comments: “Alone—and they did not leave the person who gathered [sticks] with him.” Why? Rashi explains that even though they both committed their sins during the same time period, one of them, the gatherer of sticks, incurred the death penalty; they just did not know which particular death penalty. But regarding the one who cursed G-d, they did not know what his punishment was to be at all.

Rav Leibowitz asked, how does this difference explain why these two prisoners were housed separately? He answered that they were placed in separate locations to avoid the additional anxiety that the one who cursed G-d would feel if he observed that they housed him with someone who incurred the death penalty. How sensitive we must be to each tzelem Elokim, if even a criminal deserves this sensitivity. The lesson is even more profound when we examine the words of the Da’as Zekeinim. From there we see how particularly heinous the blasphemer who cursed Hashem actually was. And yet we see that we should be sensitive to his anxieties.

Rav Leibowitz, zt’l, was one of the gedolei ha’dor who personified the highest ideals of the Torah—in his words, deeds, teachings, and actions. His impact on Torah in America will be felt for centuries to come. The loss to all of us is most profound.

Below is a translation of a lost shiur that Rav Leibowitz zatzal wrote and submitted for publication in the May, 1938 Edition of HaMesilah.

Shiur From a Young Rav Henoch Leibowitz zt”l
Published in the May 1938 edition of HaMesilah
[Translation and annotations by Rabbi Yair Hoffman]

It was 1938.

A 22 year old Rav Henoch Leibowitz was studying in the Yeshiva that his father had established some five years earlier after his great uncle, the saintly Chofetz Chaim had passed away. The Yeshiva was located at 135 South Ninth Street in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Rav Dovid Leibowitz zt”l was to live another three years. The future Rosh yeshiva had submitted this Talmudic analysis for publication in HaM’silah, a Brooklyn-based Torah journal that was published between the years 1936-1942 under the editorship of Rabbi Nissan Telushkin, the well-known posek and Mikvaos expert. Below is a translation of the article.

– – – – –

THE SOURCES

The Rambam writes in Hilchos Nedarim (4:14):
האומר פירות אלו אסורין עלי היום אם אלך למחר למקום פלוני, הרי זה אסור לאכלם היום גזירה שמא ילך למחר לאותו מקום, ואם עבר ואכלן היום והלך למחר לוקה ואם לא הלך אינו לוקה.
One who says, “These fruits are forbidden to me today if I travel tomorrow to location X,” this person is forbidden to eat them today, as an enactment lest he come to travel to that place tomorrow. If he went ahead and ate them today and the next day he travelled [there] – he incurs lashes. If he did not travel there, he does not incur lashes.
The Radbaz writes:
רדב”ז הלכות נדרים פרק ד
הלכה יד
[יד] האומר פירות אלו אסורין עלי היום וכו’. פרק ואלו מותרין איתמר קונם עיני בשינה היום אם אישן למחר אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אל יישן היום שמא יישן למחר ורב נחמן אמר יישן היום ולא חיישינן שמא יישן למחר ומודה רב יהודה באומר קונם עיני בשינה למחר אם אישן היום שיישן היום כי לא מיזדהר איניש בתנאה אבל באיסורא מיזדהר ופסק כרב יהודה, והחליף רבינו לשון המימרא לפי שהשינה אין בה ממש ומוקי לה תלמודא באומר קונם עיני בשינה ולפיכך כתב האומר פירות אלו וכו’:

It says in the chapter of V’ailu mutarin (Nedarim 14b): It was stated: [If one says,] ‘Konam be my eyes sleeping to-day, if I sleep tomorrow’ — Rav Yehudah said in Rav’s name: He must not sleep that day, lest he sleep on the next day. But Rav Nachman said: He may sleep on that day, and we do not fear that he may sleep on the next day. Yet Rav Yehudah agrees that if one says, ‘Konam be my eyes in sleeping tomorrow, If I sleep to-day,’ he may sleep that day – because a person is not so careful in regard to a condition, but is very careful in regard to a prohibition.
He [the Rambam] ruled like Rav Yehudah, but he changed the language of the memrah. This is because sleep has no substance to it, and the Talmud establishes it as when he is saying Konem my eyes to sleep. Therefore, he changed it to, “One who says, ‘these fruits’ etc.”
RAV LEIBOWITZ’S QUESTION
It is yet difficult, because we may still ask why did he [the Rambam] change the language of the Gemorah? He could have written, “Konem my eyes from sleep” as the Gemorah actually writes.
RAV LEIBOWITZ’S ANSWER
It appears that this may be answered in the following manner: The Gemorah (Nedarim 15a) poses a question on Rav Yehudah who said that he should not sleep today lest he sleep tomorrow from our Mishna:
***[The editor recommends that the entire section of Nedarim 15a and b be learned with the commentary of the Ran..]
It was taught: If he says, “Konem if I sleep this person is in violation of “lo yachel dvaro – He must not break his word (Bamidbar 30:3).” Now, how is this to be understood? If you say that it is as it says simply – “I will not sleep” – is this a neder? Sleep is something that has no tangible aspect to it! Rather, it is where he said, “Konem my eyes from sleep.” But if he does not give a limit in regard to Nedarim, is it considered a Neder? Rather, it is clear that he said, “Konem my eyes from sleep today if I sleep tomorrow.”
This means that we cannot say that he just said, “Konem my eyes from sleep” in general without a condition of the next day. If so, what is the Mishna coming to teach us that when he violates the neder he incurs lashes of the violation of “Lo yachel Dvaro?” This is something that is quite obvious! Nor can we say that the Mishna is coming to teach us that when he sleeps for two days he incurs lashes for “Bal yachel” – for this is also obvious!
Rather, it must be that this is the explanation of the Mishna when he says, “Konem my eyes today from sleep if I sleep tomorrow” – he is in violation of lo yachel Dvaro. In other words, he should sleep the first day and we are not concerned that he will come to violate his condition. And it is a refutation of Rav Yehudah. And the Gemorah answers, ki katani d’ee nayim – the Misha means that if he sleeps [he subjects himself to the possible violation of the neder –so he shouldn’t sleep.]
The Ran writes that this is the understanding – On the contrary, in our Mishna ** this is how it should be understood – he should be careful not to sleep on the first day because if he sleeps he will come close to violating Bal Yachel since people are less careful in regard to matters of a condition. Afterward the Gemorah asks on Rav Yehudah from [the case of] “Konem that which you might benefit from me until Pesach if you go to your father’s house until the Chag [the next Sukkos]” which is in the latter half of the Mishna – for if she goes after Pesach, he gets whipped for violating “Lo yachel Dvaro.” And if she does not benefit before Pesach, is there a violation of “Bal yachel?”
Rather, it is clear that she did benefit, and we see that she may derive benefit and this is a refutation of Rav Yehudah! The Gemorah (15b) answers, that the intent is “if she benefits. [from her husband before Pesach then until sukkos] she is subject to bal yachel.”
The Ran writes, in other words it is this very thing that it is teaching us that she should be careful not to benefit beforehand, in order so that if she goes after Pesach she won’t come to violate bal yachel dvaro. And I have a great difficulty here. Because the Gemorah asks another question on Rav Yehudah:
The Braisa states: This loaf of bread is forbidden upon me if I go to location X tomorrow. The latter part of the Braisah states that if he went he is in violation of “lo yachel.” The braisah does not say that the vower may go [to the place the next day ] This is a question on Rav Yehudah.
In other words, how can we let him eat? Let us be concerned that he might go and violate his condition. And the Gemorah answers that the Braisah should have said, the vower may go [the next day], but since the beginning of the braisah said “if he ate” for symmetry the latter part of the braisah says, “if he went..”
And the Ran asked: And if you say that the kaivan dehalach of the latter part of the Mishna actually goes on the former part of the Mishna – why does it say, “This is a violation of Bal Yachel..”
[There is another section here that requires more translation, but we skip now to the answer of Rav Leibowitz zatzal – due to constraints of time and the imminence of Pesach’s arrival]

BACK TO THE RADBAZ
According to this we may explain the rationale of the Radbaz. The Rambam is coming to teach us two things. The first is the ruling of Rav Yehudah that we are concerned lest he violate the condition. Furthermore, [he teaches us] that the prohibition takes effect retroactively even though when the Neder took effect the prohibited item was not extant in the world.
And this is the explanation of the Radbaz. If we say that the Neder is effective on something that has no substance to it, then the Rambam can certainly teach us both things even in the language of the Gemorah – that is with sleep.
RABBI AKIVA EIGER’S QUESTION
And with this it would appear to me to answer a strong question that was posed by Rabbi Akiva Eiger on the question of the Gemorah on Rav Yehudah from our Mishna later on (57a).
But here, since she made her Neder dependent upon if she bathes and she did not say “Kone these fruits upon me from today, it is not indicative that the Neder would come into effect until after she violates the condition, and she would be forbidden in the fruits from the point that she bathed and onward. Therefore she is permitted to eat of the fruit the entire time that she had not violated the condition.”
According to the logic of the Ran, it is difficult to understand the question of the Gemorah on Rav Yehudah.
****
PROBLEM FOR THE RAN
But this is problematic according to the opinion of the Ran (29b and 30a). For according to the conclusion of the Gemorah there is no debate in the matter and everyone agrees that regarding Hekdesh it does work retroactively without [having recited the word,] “M’achshav.” If so the question arises once again.
For either way you have it, if Konamos are considered Hekdesh even in regard to [considering it like the recitation of the word,] “M’achshav” as we have written, then why are we not concerned for Rav Yehudah in the beginning of Perek Ailu Nedarim? And if we do not consider it such and the prohibition of Konamos des not take effect retroactively unless he explicitly said, “From this day” what then does the Gemorah ask here on Rav Yehudah, where there is no concern for anything?
ANSWERING THE RAN
According to what we have written above it appears that we may say that Konamos are compared to Hekdesh that without the word. “M’achshav” the prohibition does take effect retroactively as we have written. But this is only when at the time the neder takes effect the forbidden item is extant. However, when it is not extant – the prohibition does not take effect retroactively, and it is not as if he said, “M’achshav.”
For even when he explicitly said, “M’achshav” it is a novel idea that the prohibition is effective retroactively even though that at the time the neder took effect the item was not in existence.
Therefore, when he did not explicitly say “M’achshav” even though regard Konem and being Makdish items we do not require “M’achshav” [to be recited] because “Amira l’gavoah – a gift to Above” is much greater than “nesina l’hedyot – handing an item of a regular transaction to a regular person” and it is considered as if he had said, “M’achshav – from this point.” This is only when the item is extant in this world at the time the Neder takes effect. But when it is not extant, the neder does not take effect.
ANSWERING RABBI AKIVA EIGER’S QUESTION
According to this, Rabbi Akiva Eiger’s question is answered. For regarding the case of Konen that you may not benefit until the holiday if you go to your father’s house before Pesach, the Gemorah asks quite well on Rav Yehudah. For he forbade himself upon her. And that forbidden item is extant at the time that the Neder takes effect. Therefore the Neder takes effect retroactively without his having said the word, “m’achshav – from this point.” For Konamos are like Hekdesh where merely reciting that it is a gift to Above is greater than handing the item over to a hediot [and are effective] without having had recited the word, “m’achshav – from this point.” It is [thus] a question to Rav Yehudah that we should be concerned that perhaps she will violate the condition.
But the Gemorah later, of V’eilu Nedarim (80a) where he forbade upon her all fruits of the world if she bathes, we are not concerned for Rav Yehudah, as the prohibition does not fall retroactively upon fruit that she had already consumed before she had bathed. This is because they are not in this world when the neder comes into effect, that is at the moment that she bathed.
For even though in regard to Konamos we do not require the word, “M’achshav” [to be recited], that is only when the item is in the world at the time that the neder takes effect. But when it is not extant at the time that the Neder takes effect, we require that he say explicitly, “m’achshav – from this point.” If he did not state this, it does not take effect and is considered as nothing. The two sugyos are now adequately resolved.

Chanoch Henoch HaKohen Leibowitz
Student of Yeshivas Rabbeinu Yisroel Meir HaKohen in Brooklyn.
The Yeshiva at the time was located at 135 South Ninth Street. Later, the Yeshiva moved to Forest Hills, and is now in its present location in Kew Gardens Hills.

If anyone would like the original and complete shiur in lashon Hakodesh please email [email protected]