Notes on some Literary forgeries of Jewish works in the Late Modern Period (1756-1965)
A revised version of an article that was published on the Seforim Blog on November 11, 2022: “Ha’Rotzeh Lichanek, Hitaleh B’Ilan Gadol”: Notes on some Literary forgeries of Jewish works in the the Late Modern Period (1756-1965) – The Seforim Blog. See there for full footnotes and annotations. Also available at my Academia.edu page (requires registration)
Introduction[1]
A “literary forgery”, as I use it in this piece, refers to a writing which claims to have been written by a certain, usually respected, figure, while in fact written by a later, usually much lesser known, writer.[2]
A recent collection of articles on forgeries states: “There has been a growth in the number of publications dedicated to fakes and forgeries for around thirty years now, many of which have focused on books and literary works.”[3]
The classic source regarding literary forgeries in Jewish writing is that of the Talmud Bavli:
Pesachim 112a:
חמשה דברים צוה ר"ע את רבי שמעון בן יוחי כשהיה חבוש בבית האסורין [...] אמר לו אם בקשתליחנק היתלה באילן גדול.
Translation Koren-Steinzaltz, as appears in Sefaria website (bold in the original translation):
“Rabbi Akiva commanded Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai to do five matters when Rabbi Akiva was imprisoned [...] if you wish to strangle yourself, hang yourself on a tall tree.
Koren-Steinzaltz translation adds the explanation:
“This proverb means that if one wants others to accept what he has to say, he should attribute his statement to a great man.”
This interpretation is based on Rashi’s explanation:
"אם בקשת ליחנק- לומר דבר שיהיה נשמע לבריות ויקבלו ממך. היתלה באילן גדול- אמור בשם אדם גדול."
According to Rashi’s interpretation, this source permits fabricating a quote from an authority in order to be believed.[4]
Based on this interpretation, the term often used in rabbinic writing for “forging” in someone else's name is “תלה ב”, literally “hung on X”, meaning “ascribed (falsely) to X”.[5]
The great scholar of Mishpat Ivri, Nahum Rakover, devotes a portion of his book on intellectual property in halacha, to a discussion of the sources that permit fabricating a quote from an authority in order to be believed.6
Some recent historians seem to imply that the 19th century saw a relative uptick in Jewish literary forgeries. Golda Akhiezer, in a 2018 article on Jewish historical forgeries in the 19th century, writes:[7]
One of the paradoxes of European cultural life of the nineteenth century, especially in the Russian Empire, was a combination of two parallel yet apparently conflicting processes: the emergence and increasing importance of modern science and the rise of multifarious forgeries of historical documents.”8
It should be pointed out that this isn’t truly paradoxical. Anthony Grafton famously noted the deep relationship between critical scholarship and forgeries.9
Ira Robinson also implies an uptick in Jewish literary forgeries in the 19th century, and gives a somewhat different theory as to why this time period gave rise to so many forgeries: By the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries, the highly charged ideological atmosphere, as well as an ever-growing demand for Jewish books, engendered a situation in which there was great temptation to manufacture documents.10
However, it is remains speculative whether in fact there were a relatively larger number of Jewish literary forgeries in the 19th century. This question awaits a more quantitative study of the topic.11
List of Notable Forgeries
It’s important to note that this list is not to be comprehensive. Rather, it’s a collection of especially notable forgeries, and some notes on them. I hope to update this list at a later date, and of course happy to hear suggestions.
Divrei Gad Ha’Chozeh - Leopold Immanuel Jacob van Dort - 1756
Mishle Asaf (haskamot) - Isaac Satanow - 1783-1791
Besamim Rosh - Saul Berlin - 1793
Ramschak Chronicle - Marcus Fischer - 1828
Zekher Tzaddikim - Mordecai Sultansky - 1841
Sefer Avnei Zikaron - Abraham Firkovich - 1845-1872
The Roads of Jerusalem - Eliakim Carmoly - 1847
Sefer Ha’Eshkol - R' Zvi Binyamin Auerbach - 1863
Baraita de-Ma'aseh Bereshit - Lazarus Goldschmidt - 1894
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - series of articles in Russian newspaper - 1903
Goral HaAsiriyot (1904); Seder Hagada Le’Maharal (1905); Nifla’ot Maharal (1909); Refa’el HaMalach (1911); Tiferet Maharal MiShpoli (1912); Hoshen Mishpat (1913); Divrei HaYamim Asher LiShelomo HaMelech (1914); and more - R' Yehudah Yudel Rosenberg - 1904-1914
Yerushalmi on Kodshim - Solomon Judah Friedlander - 1907–1909
Genizat Kherson - - 1922
Der Prager Golem (1917); Kovetz Michtavim Mekori’im MiHaBesht VeTalmidav (1923); Heichal LeDivrei Chazal (1948); Sefer Dovev Siftei Yeshenim (1959-1965) - Chaim Bloch - 1917-1965
Kol Hator - R' Shlomo Zalman Rivlin - 1939
Forgers
There are two works whose genre can be described as “halachic”: Saul Berlin’s Besamim Rosh (1793) and R' Zvi Binyamin Auerbach’s Sefer Ha’Eshkol (1863).26
It is quite noticeable that perpetrators of literary forgery of Jewish texts were especially prominent outside of mainstream Orthodox Judaism, and created their forgeries for polemical reasons: Karaites (forgeries of Sultanski and Firkovich), Maskilim, and anti-Semites (Protocols of the Elders of Zion).
Forgery of tendentious works relating to history are especially common:27
1. Forged tombstone inscriptions and manuscript colophons (Firkovich)
2. Forged chronicles (Sultanski ; Ramschak Chronicle)
3. Forged travelogue (The Roads of Jerusalem of R’ Isaac Hilu)
4. Forged protocols of meetings (Protocols of Elders of Zion)
5. Forged letters (Genizat Kherson ; Bloch’s Kovetz Michtavim and more)28
6. Fake stories (Rosenberg ; Bloch)
Bloch and Rosenberg, who create forgeries for popular entertainment purposes, are closer to the end of the date range, and both made prominent forgeries about the golem of the Maharal:
Bloch’s The Letter of the Maharal on the Creation of the Golem (1923) and Rosenberg’s Nifla'ot Maharal. For Bloch, the polemical motivation of anti-Zionism played a role in other forgeries.
Isaac Satanow is the most playful, self-aware forger of them all. He even added fake “haskamot” to his Zohar Chibura Tinyana from well-known late 18th-century rabbinic figures (R’ Yosef Teomim and R’ Chaim Tzanzer of Brody),29 having the haskamot point out the possibility that Satanow himself wrote the works, but giving halachic justification for the permissibility of forgery.30
Rakover, in his book Zekhuyot Yotzrim (cited above), in his discussion of permissibility in halacha of false quotation and literary forgery,31 quotes the “haskamot” to Satanow’s as showing that forging is halachically permitted. He then points out what we mentioned, that the haskamot themselves may have been forged, which of course eliminates any adducing of proof from the claims of the haskamot.32
Two of the first forgers discussed here, Saul Berlin and Isaac Satanow, had similar ideologies, and. Satanow may have assisted in fabricating Besamim Rosh.33
Conclusion
The issue of Jewish literary forgeries has received further prominence recently in the scholarship of R’ Moshe Hillel. R’ Hillel has written a number of works exposing forgeries. His most famous work is on Divrei Gad HaHozeh, a work purporting to be from the times of King David, published from an 18th century manuscript by Professor Meir Bar-Ilan in 2015. R’ Hillel argues that it is in fact an 18th century forgery.34
Hillel also wrote a book earlier this year called Hazon Tavrimon devoted to R’ Yakov Moshe Toledano (1880-1960), dealing with various historical documents that Toledano “discovered”, demonstrating that they are fake.35
Computer algorithms have also played a role in detecting forgeries, or refuting allegations of forgery, most prominently in the work of Professor Moshe Koppel. Some of this work has been featured in the Seforim Blog.36 Hopefully this software will be further refined to shed light on additional works that have been accused of being forged, to supplement the traditional tools used for proving authenticity on the one hand, and uncovering forgeries on the other.
Footnotes
[1] Thanks to Eliezer Brodt for reviewing and providing very helpful comments on that previous version. I’d also like to thank my father for looking over that previous version.
[2] This is a relatively narrow definition of literary forgery. With this definition, I am excluding works published under a fake name. (For example, the case of Torah Lishmah, discussed in a footnote later: a work which is ostensibly written by an unknown figure, while in fact written by a well-known known authority.) This phenomenon is one that I believe is best studied separately, for at least two reasons: I believe that the colloquial usage of the term forgery is often closer to my narrower usage, and will reduce confusion. In addition, publishing under a fake name has different motivations than publishing under someone else’s name. (I’d like to thank L. Cooper for raising this issue in personal communication.)
[3] Cécile Michel, Michael Friedrich (eds.), Fakes and Forgeries of Written Artefacts from Ancient Mesopotamia to Modern China, (De Gruyter 2020), p. 1 (see further bibliography in footnote there).
[4] However, Rashbam there gives a different explanation of the gemara. He interprets that it’s not saying anything about deception. Rather, it’s simply giving advice that if you want people to listen to what you have to say, you should study from a master, so that you can then (correctly) quote him. The term “choke” is used simply because the term “high tree” is used.
For a wide-ranging discussion of sources discussing the interpretation of this sugya, see Marc Shapiro, Changing the Immutable, pp. 259-261.
[5] A commenter on the Seforim Blog post asserts an additional recent usage of תלה באילו גדול in rabbinic writing: quotes and stories becoming ascribed to famous people. For this general phenomenon, see Quotation - Wikipedia :
“Many quotations are routinely incorrect or attributed to the wrong authors, and quotations from obscure or unknown writers are often attributed to far more famous writers.”
And False attribution - Wikipedia :
“One particular case of misattribution is the Matthew effect. A quotation is often attributed to someone more famous than the real author. This leads the quotation to be more famous, but the real author to be forgotten [...] Such misattributions may originate as a sort of fallacious argument, if use of the quotation is meant to be persuasive, and attachment to a more famous person (whether intentionally or through misremembering) would lend it more authority.“
[6] נחום רקובר, זכות היוצרים במקורות היהודיים, תשנ"א, עמ' 25-36
See also Shapiro, Changing the Immutable, and bibliography there.
[7] “Historical Research and Forgeries in the Age of Nationalism:The Case of the Russian Empire Between Jews and Russians”, East European Jewish Affairs 48. 2 (2018): 101 – 102.
26 These are complete forgeries devoted to halacha. In addition to these, R’ Yudel Rosenberg’s forgery Seder Hagada Le’Maharal (1905) contains parts that may be described as halakhic (thanks to the commenter on the Seforim Blog post for pointing this out). 27 See on these Ahiezer at length.
28 Compare also Yosef Perl’s famous Megaleh Temirin. This a collection letters ostensibly written by Hasidim, and which is clearly a satire. Wikipedia describes it as follows: “Megalleh Temirin is an anti-Hasidic satirical composition
29 Not R’ Chaim Halberstam of Sanz, as claimed in an earlier version of this piece (thanks to the commenter on the Seforim Blog post for pointing this out).
30 Moshe Pelli p. 822, in footnote :
משה פלאי, "יצחק סאטאנוב ושאלת הזיוף בספרות", קרית ספר נד תש"ם, עמ' 817-824
31 who agrees with Zinberg that the haskamot themselves are most likely written by Satanow. Haskamot being forged by Satanow is also mentioned by Hamburger in his article on Satanow (ב נימין ש' המבורגר, "האם ניתן לסמוך על86-91 'יצחק סאטאנוב?", המעין, גליון טבת תשס"ט, עמ), p. 87 footnote 11, citing Encyclopedia Hebraica.
31 Rakover, pp. 29-31.
32 P. 32, citing Pelli, cited in previous footnote. (In the earlier version of this piece, in the Seforim Blog post, I incorrectly stated that Rakover wasn’t aware of the likelihood that these haskamot were forged by Satanow). Some of Satanow’s editorial practices were detailed by David Mirsky in The Life and Work of Ephraim Luzzatto (1987) (thanks to Y. Mirsky for pointing this out in a comment to the Seforim Blog post). 33 Pelli, p. 817 footnote 2.
34 ר' משה הלל, מגילות קוצ'ין.
See also Otzar Hahochma forum (July 2021 and on):חדש מאת ר"מ הלל - מגילות קוצ'ין | גד החוזה או פלוני ההוזה? - עמוד 2 - פורום אוצר החכמה
See there the attached PDF of Bar-Ilan’s response (March 2022), with a discussion.
35ר‘ משה הלל, חזון טברימון: תעודות מזויפות מבית היוצר של האחים טולידאנו מטבריה (תשפ"ב).
See Eliezer Brodt’s Seforim Blog post (March 2, 2022): Book Announcements: Five recent works – The Seforim Blog.
36 For example, see Moshe Schorr, Who Wrote the Late Volumes of Igrot Moshe? – The Seforim Blog (January 20,
2019).See also his work on Genizat Herson (cited in Koppel’s Seforim Blog blogpost, footnote 7):
מ. קופל, "זיהוי מחברים בשיטות ממוחשבות: “גניזת חרסון” ", ישורון כג (אלול ה’תש”ע), תקנט-תקסו.
Koppel’s program has also been used to indicate that Ben Ish Hai is the author of Shu”t Torah LiShmah, see Brodt here, item #33.
Not directly related, but see the announcement of exciting progress on Dicta, a suite of digital tools for traditional Hebrew texts spearheaded by Koppel, reported recently in the Jerusalem Post (August 4, 2022) : New AI technology hopes to change everything we know about Jewish texts - The Jerusalem Post