Permission has been granted by the Project Coordinator Judy Wolkovitch to reprint the following article which has been translated for Jewish Gen. It was originally published in the Yampol yizkor book in Jerusalem 1963.

(E)
The elder Torah scholars in our town liked to talk about that great era; about the yeshiva that Rabbi Yechezkel maintained in his study house, and his method of teaching Torah. One of the older men would point to his seat in the study house. Such was the oral tradition he had heard. As an indication of the power these memories had for the scholarly crowd (which even in my day was dwindling,) is the existence of two closed bookcases which were kept locked. These bookcases housed the study books that had served the students in that golden era. As one of the regular students at the study house, I was once allowed by the sexton to examine the contents of the bookcases. There I found some Talmud tractates, Rav Alfas, books of morals and some Halacha books, etc.
Decades had passed since Rabbi Landau's office in Yampol, yet his influence was still felt in the curriculum of the schools and adult study groups. His method is well-known as it was laid out in his books. He strongly objected to empty intellectual acrobatics and he demanded that all discussion be directed toward determining the Halachic ruling. This method was adopted not only in Yampol but in all of Volhyn and the surrounding districts.

Rabbi Yechezkel's second son, Rabbi Shmuel Landau, who succeeded him in Prague explains his father's system in his introduction to 'Doresh Zion.' “The great and straightforward men devote their principal energies to extracting the Halacha from each topic and to resolve apparent contradictions. Even correct analyses and differentiations, which can enlighten the students in the correct methods of study, are proper to raise,” but not "empty sophistry which you may turn over and over and still remain with nothing worthwhile. Rabbi Horowitz (the Shelah) has already castigated those who study in this manner. They are in the category of `those who reveal false faces of the Torah. Their conclusions are based on weak and scanty evidence and their efforts are wasted. They are drawn away from the true path and use their intellect to develop incorrect ideas and at the end of the day they remain empty of Torah and do not arrive at a Halachic conclusion..."

Thorough investigation into the Talmudic sources and Halacha rules, in order to discover the Halachic ruling, - this was his method. Although all the paths of Aggada, the Zohar and Cabbalah were clear to him, he nevertheless refrained from writing on these matters. In his "Tslach [Ziun Lenefesh Chaya] on Berachoth page 33 he writes: "It is true that all our Rabbis' writings in Aggada are in code and riddles. Those who are capable will grasp their meaning, each scholar according to his level. My own feeling is that the revealed Torah was handed down to us and our children on Mount Sinai, but the hidden Torah was only hinted at, and even this only in part. But we hope that G-d will reveal His Presence before us once again and then He will reveal the hidden depths of the Torah's secrets as He did previously on Sinai."

In a Responsum sent to the Ga'on Rabbi Yeshaya Berlin (Yoreh Dei'ah 2:161) who wondered in his question why he does not respond in relation to Aggadic (homiletic) matters he replies:

“...Behold, I am surprised - what is the point of going on at length? Do the words of our Sages, then, require approval? Is there anyone foolish enough to darken the great light, to ascribe error to words of Aggadah? All the words of the masters of the Talmud, without exception, were “given by the One Shepherd,” and they do not contain anything which is empty or untrue. If anything appears empty, it is our fault, and a consequence of our lack of intelligence, and the weakness of our ability to clearly comprehend the deeper allusions of their words.

Of course, if a person has the spare time, he should try his best to probe the meaning of words of Aggadah as well. All I said was that it is not my custom to reply to inquirers on such matters, because all the words of our Sages in Aggadic matters are sealed and closed, and they are all difficult to understand (at first sight), and if we start trying to explain them, there is not end to the matter, especially for someone like myself, who is burdened by public duties - it is enough for me if I find the time to reply on practical issues.”

There is nothing which stands in the way of Halachah. This was his fixed and clearly-paved path, in which he guided thousands of students, who spread the teachings of their teacher throughout the Jewish Diaspora.

(F)
In the decades during which Rabbi Yechezkel lived in Yampol, he worked and achieved a great deal to spread the study of Torah, and he continued this holy task with greater energy and greater dedication in Prague, until the day of his death. In his Responsa he always excused himself for the delay in his replies, as a result of his constant distractions due to his students, whom he loved and cherished with all his heart and soul.
His timetable was such that he used to deliver four lectures every day, and on Fridays he would study with his students Chumash with the commentary of Rashi (he had a particular inclination towards the study of Rashi, because he held that he was himself a descendent of Rashi.) In a Responsum to one of his disciples he writes (Even Ha'ezer 1:56): “I received your letter, and I remembered how you used to stand before me in the community of Yampol, and your devotion to Torah, and I was pleased that you have achieved the status of being a true teacher to the community of the Lord. As for your complaint that you wrote to me twice, and that I have refrained from replying to you - this is not my custom to any learned man, let alone in relation to my student whom I reared and nurtured.”

Apart from the burden of the Yeshivah, which was placed upon him, he enacted various ordinances relating to affairs of the town, and he instituted order in the conduct of the Chevra
Kadisha (Burial Society.) The ordinances in the Register of the Chevra (which will be reproduced at the end of this book) were written in his own handwriting. I myself have looked through this Register many times, and I was astonished by his perfect handwriting, which was clear and free of corrections. The Register was copied out for me by the local rabbi, Rabbi Meir Shmuel Lerner, the son of the old rabbi, the Ga'on Rabbi Aryeh Leibush Lerner, who was the principal disciple of the Ga'on Rabbi Shlomo Kluger of Brody. The Ga'on Rabbi Aryeh Leibush Lerner served as Rabbi of Yampol for more than sixty years. The contents of the Register are similar to those of all such Registers, which record the ordinances of the Chevra and its decisions. Even though they have no particular historical importance as such, it is worthwhile saving them from oblivion, since they were written by the hand of one of the greatest of Rabbis, whose everyday conversation was imbued with holiness.

Apart from the ordinances in the Register, various other ordinances are mentioned in his work 'Noda BiYehudah.' In Orach Chayim 1 ch. 33 we find an ordinance concerning the lighting of candles by a non-Jew on Yom Kippur. He replied to the inquirer as follows: “Concerning your astonishment, that many communities have the custom that a non-Jew lights candles on Yom Kippur at the time of the Ne'ilah service - you should know that here in our community this custom has already been stopped, thank G-d, and also when I was in the community of Yampol, when I arrived there I found that this was their wont and I stopped it. However, I did allow a non-Jew to move the candles which had been lit before Yom Kippur, and to spread them out throughout the synagogue, and this is permitted because it is a rabbinic prohibition applied to another rabbinic prohibition [i.e. doubly light in severity] which occurs at the time of performing a mitzvah.

Another ordinance which he established relates to the chalitzah shoe [*1]. In his Responsum (what is a ... (Ever Ha-ezer 2:154) he writes: “When I came here (to Prague) I discovered that their chalitzah shoe was cut at the back out of three pieces, and I changed it to two pieces. And when I first came to the community of Yampol, I also found that they had a shoe made of three pieces, and I did not want to change it then, and I allowed it for a number of years until I saw the work Yamshed Shelomo on Tractate Yevamot, in chapter 12 paragraph 7, and I said it is sufficient to reduce the number of pieces and not to add a third one for no reason. There is no doubt that the more pieces you have, the more there is a problem of 'patchwork' shoes, especially since the third piece is superfluous and unnecessary. As far as winding the straps is concerned, the custom is to start from the front towards the back, and one starts winding it round behind the foot.

In the previously-mentioned Responsum regarding lighting candles on Yom Kippur, we see a glimpse of his powerful personality as a leading and decisive halachic authority. Which rabbi nowadays, however well-known, would dare to say publicly (Orach Chayim, ibid) “Who asked the community to do this, to recite piyutim (additional liturgical phrases on festivals)? Let them not say piyutim and selichot, but rather, listen to the cantor, and not do something which
is forbidden according to the opinion of most authorities.” The Noda BiYehuda was not afraid or intimidated, but rather, decided what he felt to be correct according to his understanding of Torah. Many of his rulings occasioned storms from time to time, and considerable disquiet in Rabbinic circles, but he, as a person who was firm in his views, took no account of his opponents and antagonists, since only the truth was his guiding light.

(G)
As soon as he arrived in Yampol, he became involved in a complicated problem, which required considerable research and a capacity for bold ruling. We find his Responsum about this in Noda BiYehudah (Choshen Mishpat 1:7) written “halfway through the month of Tammuz 5505 (1745) in Yampol.”
“It happened in our community that the deceased Reb Segal passed away to eternal life. Reb Aharon then produced a document signed by the deceased in the sum of 10,000 coins by way of capital, apart from profits. The heirs argued that, on the contrary, it is he who owed our father money, because we heard our father complaining vociferously that he did not know what to do about Reb Aharon, “in whose hands my money has been lying idle for a considerable time and which I cannot recover.” Now in the estate of the deceased we find two blank signatures of the above-mentioned Reb Aharon, and we have to settle this matter, because it seems to me that there are a number of uncertainties here.”

After clarifying the issue from all possible angles, he ruled that “We have to speak up on behalf of the orphans, and allege that their father had paid off his debts, even though he left the document in the hands of Reb Aharon, because he could have employed various stratagems to avoid liability. For example, he could have written out a deed for the stipulated amount. Therefore he did not bother to recover his deed, because this stratagem is better than selling all his property.”

Here we see the Noda BiYehudah sitting in his “Torah laboratory” dipping his hands deeply into the murky world of the halachic queries which engulfed the Jewish world of his time. He goes from strength to strength, from monetary matters to questions of life and death. He deals with questions of agunot [abandoned wives,] or, as he himself puts it in one of his Responsa “to save Jewish women from the chains of being an agunah.” Anyone who studies this section of his Responsa (Even Ha'Ezer chapters 312 - 315 etc.) dealing with a discerning eye, cannot but be impressed and moved by the brilliance of mind with which he was blessed.

In these Responsa - which are his first decisions and rulings - we see the power of his genius, penetrating to the depth and breadth (of a subject), drawing from ancient sources, analyzing with subtle logic the relevant issues, and reaching a conclusion - of a lenient nature. He constantly emphasizes that he is one of those people who are “hesitant to rule,” and in one Responsum (Even Ha'Ezer 1:32) he writes “I am one of those who are afraid to rule because I know the weakness of my abilities, lacking as I am in the power of a man, and especially in relation to a serious issue such as a marital problem, to untie and break the chains of a 'tied woman' - and this is something which should be placed on the table of princes - by which I mean Rabbis - who are familiar with the whole of the Talmud, from whose attention nothing escapes, and should not be asked of someone of such lowly status as myself (for what place is there for stubble together with pure wheat?) - but what option do I have, since the matter is one which has occurred within my sphere of jurisdiction, and I am therefore obliged to deal with it in the first place, to take pity on the misfortune of this poor woman and to heal her wounds.”

Despite this, we find another contemporaneous Responsum of his (Even Ha'Ezer 2:128) where he stands firm in his approach, and writes “The conclusion relating to this woman is that if my permissive ruling was written before you, Sir, ruled in the negative, I stand firm by my opinion that she is permitted, and just as I ruled then, so do I rule now, with the power of leniency.”

And the greatness of this giant of spirit reached such great heights that he could retract his previous opinion and admit “I was wrong.” In one of his Responsa (Even Ha:ezer 1:28) he adds in a footnote: “Says Yechezkel - this responsum I wrote whilst yet a child, about thirty six years ago and because I was very young, I was exceedingly fearful of taking decisions and I tended to strictness in most of my reasoning rather than to leniency ... but now I have changed my mind and that which I said (then) is in fact mistaken.”

Commensurate with his greatness is the degree of his humility. Nothwithstanding his great power of decisiveness, there are occasions when he stipulates in advance (ibid. chapter 29 towards the end) “that you should not rely upon me at all, unless you obtain the agreement of three leading authorities ... If they bestow their approval on my words and agree to permit it ... then I too will join 'the lions' since I am sure that their intention is for the sake of Heaven and that if they rule leniently, it is not because of any desire to benefit financially ... but in any event, they should not base anything they say upon me because it is possible that I have missed even a simple thing, which is not radical in any way, but rather, the great authorities of this generation should put forward their proofs and justify their positions as against me, for if I do not possess seniority (in age) how can I possess wisdom? And I am, after all, but an empty vessel, a new vessel, if it pleases them.”

(The continuation of this article can be found on the Historical Accounts Page 5)
CLICK ON THE ARROW

TO GO BACK TO THE HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS PAGE CLICK ON THE ARROW