Citation of Non-Orthodox Scholars IV

An Addendum:

In 1940, Prof. Samuel Atlas of Hebrew Union College published in London the novellae of Ra'avad of Posquierres on Bava Kamma with his critical notes, along with some notes from his friend R. Yehiel Ya'akov Weinberg. In 1963, this was reprinted in Jerusalem and New York. In 1971, the question was posed to R. Menashe Klein whether one may utilize this commentary that was published and annotated by a non-traditional Jew. He responded by discussing two issues that were raised in previous posts (Mishneh Halakhos, 2:212-213).

He first begins by addressing the issue of confirming sectarians, presumably because he considers utilizing the written works of a non-Orthodox Jew to be a confirmation of his position, a tenuous argument at best. R. Klein cites a responsum of R. Ya'akov Sasportas (Ohel Ya'akov 68, cited by Gilyon Maharsha, Yoreh De'ah 246) in which the latter insisted that the Sabbatean practice of dukhening every day be stopped because it confirms the Sabbatean heretics in their practice. As proof, R. Sasportas quotes the Radbaz who rules that one may not quote Torah from a non-traditional scholar. If so, certainly one should not imitate his practices, even if they are inherently praiseworthy. R. Klein further cites R. Yehezkel Landau (Noda Bi-Yehudah 1:Hoshen Mishpat:16) who briefly rules similarly.

R. Klein then proceeds to directly address the issue of utilizing texts of non-traditional origins, which touches on the subject discussed in this thread. Interestingly, he quotes R. Ya'akov Reischer in his Iyun Ya'akov on Avodah Zarah (17a), where R. Reischer explains that R. Eliezer was punished for receiving pleasure from the halakhic insight of a sectarian. Evidently, one may not do so, which should preclude the utilization of the Torah insights of non-traditional Jews. However, that this aggadic insight should be halakhically binding is a difficult argument to accept.

R. Klein, a Hungarian, then proceeds to note a debate between two Hungarian halakhists of the 19th century - R. Moshe Schick and R. Hayim Halberstam's father-in-law - about Bibles with translation and commentary by non-traditional Jews (presumably, Mendlessohn's Bi'ur). According to R. Schick, one may use the Hebrew text of the Bible and Rashi while according to the latter, one must put the books in genizah (R. Halberstam disagrees and rules that one should burn the books). R. Klein rules that the books should be put in genizah but that one who wishes to be lenient may follow R. Shick and use the books without looking into the commentary (or, even better, to cut off or blot the commentary).

Interestingly, at no point does R. Klein point out that the commentary under question was published with the notes and support of R. Yehiel Ya'akov Weinberg, who presumably disagreed with this entire ruling. According to our analysis, R. Weinberg seems to be following in the tradition of R. Yosef Zechariah Stern and R. Klein in the tradition of R. Moshe Stern. They both might also agree with R. Shlomo Kluger, each one arguing over whether the time requires being strict on this matter.