Question:
Is Sefer Besamim Rosh authentically written by the Rosh, and what are the main reasons for questioning its reliability?
Answer:
The authenticity of Sefer Besamim Rosh is highly disputed. The work was published by R. Shaul Berlin, a late 18th century Rabbi, whose controversial background and involvement in the Haskalah Movement led many to doubt his credibility. Early critics already accused him of fabricating the work, and some rabbinic authorities claimed that the book is largely or entirely forged.
A major basis for this skepticism lies in the content of the responsa themselves. The book contains several unusual and controversial rulings—such as leniencies in Kashrus, questioning established practices like netilat yadayim, leniencies regarding prayer language, and leniencies on the obligation of dying Al Kiddush hashem martyrdom—which appear inconsistent with the known teachings of the Rosh and other Rishonim. Additionally, it presents surprising rulings such as suggesting that a person who is ill and not in danger may be exempt from mitzvot, a view that many authorities found difficult to accept and criticized as unfounded and contrary to standard halachic principles. These “strange” rulings were cited as strong evidence that the text could not have originated from a classical authority.
At the same time, some authorities adopted a more nuanced stance. The Chida, in Shem HaGedolim, records both sides: he reports that there were “strange matters” in the book and concerns that the copyist altered it, yet also testifies that others considered the work reliable and authentic. He himself cites it in places while also expressing caution and doubt about specific responsa.
Similarly, the Tzemach Tzedek sharply criticized certain responsa, stating that some are clearly not from the Rosh and contain many inconsistencies, and that their content contradicts the consensus of halachic authorities.
In contrast, the Lubavitcher Rebbe indicated that even if the book is not from the Rosh, its author was clearly a great scholar, and therefore the work was treated by many as a serious halachic source. Accordingly, he cites it in discussion, demonstrating that it retains value despite doubts about its attribution.
Accordingly, the book’s status remains unresolved: many view it as unreliable or forged due to internal inconsistencies and the publisher’s questionable background, while others allow limited use where its content can be justified.
Practically, a balanced approach has been accepted in the world of Hora’ah, which is to acknowledged the doubts and criticized problematic passages, yet still occasionally cite the work and engage with its reasoning. This reflects an approach of selective use rather than total acceptance or rejection.
Sources:
Ayin Tov and Shem HaGedolim (Chida – Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Azulai) Mareches Sefarim Beis 27; Responsa of the Tzemach Tzedek (Orach Chaim 5:2); Torat Menachem (Vol. 40, p. 1789) and Igrot Kodesh of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Volume 9 Letter number 2,648; Neria Gutel, “Rav Kook’s Attitude to Sefer Besamim Rosh” (JSIJ 5, 2006); Moshe Samet, Saul Berlin and His Writings; Parashat Mordechai (Rabbi Mordechai Bennet); Sefer HaBrit; Reuven Amar, Yafeh LaBesamim; articles in Noam (Y. F. Perlow); Yitzchak Raphael, Rishonim VeAcharonim; Reuven Margaliot; Yitzchak Tzvi Abramovitz; Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael; Yoel Katan;