Category: Day Schools Grapple with Ethical Challenges (Winter 2015)

Levi Cooper teaches at the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies and is a rabbi in Tzur Hadassah. He is a post-doctoral fellow at Tel Aviv University’s Buchmann Faculty of Law. Rabbi Dr. Cooper is Contributing Editor to Jewish Educational Leadership.

In 1973, a curious collection of responsa attributed to the unknown Rabbi Yehezkel Kahali was published for the first time. The collection was titled Torah Lishmah, “law for its own sake,” and covered a gamut of subjects in practical Jewish law and esoteric Jewish lore. The volume was printed from a manuscript transcribed by the illustrious Baghdadi scholar Rabbi Yosef Hayim (1834-1909).

The manuscript had been in the possession of Rabbi David Hayim (1887-1983) – grandson of the copyist Rabbi Yosef Hayim – who had immigrated to Israel from Baghdad a year earlier. The original collection supposedly contained 622 responsa, of which only 524 questions and 523 answers survived. In his introduction, the author Rabbi Yehezkel Kahali wrote that he began writing responsa in the year 1682 – almost three hundred years before the collection was published. No other copy of this manuscript has even been produced. Despite his apparent prolific output, no one had heard of a scholar by the name “Yehezkel Kahali” before 1903, when his name first appeared in print.

This is the story of an enigmatic Baghdadi manuscript, the mysterious Rabbi Yehezkel Kahali and his impressive Torah Lishmah.[1]

First citings

Rabbi Yosef Hayim of Baghdad was one of the premier authorities on Jewish law in the late modern period, a popular public speaker, and an acclaimed mystic.[2] In 1898 he published his Ben Ish Hai, which included ten references to an unknown work entitled “Torah Lishmah.” The references were all rather pale – the title of the book was mentioned without more detailed citation, the legal positions cited were not particularly controversial and there was little discussion about them. The author of Torah Lishmah was never mentioned. In one instance, Rabbi Yosef Hayim acknowledged that the work was in manuscript form.[3]

Three years later, in 1901, Rabbi Yosef Hayim began to publish his responsa, which he titled Rav Pe‘alim. The second responsum printed in this collection included a passage from Torah Lishmah and identified the author as “Y. Kahali.” Two years later, Rabbi Yosef Hayim published the second volume of Rav Pe‘alim, this time referencing Torah Lishmah a further four times. One of those citations nonchalantly revealed the full name of the author of Torah Lishmah – “Yehezkel Kahali.” All told, Rabbi Yosef Hayim cited the unidentified Torah Lishmah seven times in his four-volume Rav Pe‘alim.[4]

Rabbi Yehezkel Kahali and his Torah Lishma collection are known to us solely from the writings of Rabbi Yosef Hayim.[5] No one before the great Baghdadi rabbi had ever cited this scholar or his responsa.

Gematria proof

After the second volume of Rav Pe‘alim was published in 1903, Rabbi Avraham Hayim Ades (1859-1925) – a scholar from Aleppo who had moved to Jerusalem in 1896 – was intrigued by the faceless Rabbi Yehezkel Kahali whose name had just appeared in print for the very first time. After pondering the matter he suggested that “Yehezkel Kahali” was a pseudonym, and the real author had left a hint as to his identity in the pseudonym. The gematria of the Hebrew name “Yehezkel” (156) is identical to that of “Yosef” (156), and the gematria of the surname “Kahali” (68) is identical to “Hayim” (68). Thus – argued Rabbi Ades – “Yehezkel Kahali” is none other than the great Rabbi Yosef Hayim of Baghdad!

To test his theory, Rabbi Ades sent a number of halakhic questions to Baghdad to Rabbi Yosef Hayim and appended an extra question: Who is the author of Torah Lishmah? Rabbi Yosef Hayim duly answered each inquiry … except for the last question! Rabbi Ades saw this as proof that indeed the work was from the pen of Rabbi Yosef Hayim.[6]

Can we identify authorship on the basis of gematria calculations? Was Rabbi Yosef Hayim’s silence sufficient supporting evidence of authorship? Alas, the trail linking Torah Lishmah to Rabbi Yosef Hayim went cold …

A lost manuscript

Over forty years later, as the British Mandate in Palestine waned, a student by the name of Yosef Kachuri asked the director of Yeshivat Porat Yosef in the Old City of Jerusalem to send a letter to Baghdad and ask Rabbi Yosef Hayim’s grandson to forward some of his illustrious grandfather’s writings.

Porat Yosef’s director, Rabbi Ben Zion Mordekhai Hazan (1877-1951), had been a student of Rabbi Yosef Hayim, and was diligently publishing manuscripts of his esteemed teacher in addition to maintaining Porat Yosef.[7] Rabbi Hazan acquiesced to Ka churi’s request and wrote a letter to his deceased teacher’s grandson.

In reply, grandson Rabbi David Hayim sent six notebooks which included 120 responsa. The responsa had been copied by Rabbi David Hayim from his grandfather’s Torah Lishmah manuscript. Kachuri and his peers were overjoyed, and they began to make plans to publish the manuscript. Sadly, their joy was short lived. During the 1948 Battle for Jerusalem, the notebooks were destroyed by the Arab Legion – together with other books and manuscripts held in Porat Yosef’s valuable library.[8]

Publication

In 1972, Rabbi David Hayim arrived in Israel. Perhaps following up on his prior relationship with Kachuri, Rabbi David Hayim gave the Torah Lishmah manuscript to Kachuri for publication. The work was printed a year later and in the foreword to the volume Rabbi David Hayim announced with no hesitation that there was no scholar by the name of “Yehezkel Kahali.” Rather, “Yehezkel Kahali” was a pseudonym for his grandfather. The proof – according to the grandson – was in the gematria of the pseudo-author’s name.[9]

But why did Rabbi Yosef Hayim use a pseudonym? The grandson seemed to be at a loss – undoubtedly his illustrious grandfather had reasons that he chose not to share! Nevertheless, the grandson speculated: In Jewish tradition there is a dispute regarding authors’ names. Some scholars advocated hiding authors’ names, while others encouraged authors to publish their names clearly.[10] Rabbi Yosef Hayim published some works under his own name, and others without selfattribution – presumably trying to satisfy both opinions.

Immediately after the publication of Torah Lishmah, in December 1973, the rabbinic authority of Tunisian Jewry in Israel, Rabbi Meir Mazuz (b. 1945) jotted down notes about the authorship of Torah Lishmah. Rabbi Mazuz, it appears, was the first scholar to publish an article addressing the issue and his conclusion was decisive: Torah Lishmah was the work of Rabbi Yosef Hayim.

Three years after Torah Lishmah was first released, a second edition was printed in 1976. In his foreword to this edition, Rabbi David Hayim added a remark about the mystical valence of the number 622, as explained by Rabbi Yosef Hayim in one of his earliest writings.[11] Since the original manuscript allegedly contained 622 responsa, it would appear that Rabbi David Hayim was trying to muster further evidence to link the manuscript to his illustrious grandfather.

Alas, the Torah Lishmah manuscript is not so easily identified as the work of Rabbi Yosef Hayim. Gematria is hardly proof of authorship. Moreover, a lost manuscript copy, buttressed by an ignored question, and supported by a mention of the mystical valence of the number 622, hardly make incontrovertible proof. Most significantly, the paratext of the manuscript tells an entirely different tale.[12]

Paratextual narrative

Rabbi Shalom Messas (1908-2003) was the doyen of Moroccan Jewry. He came from an illustrious rabbinic family, and served in the Casablanca rabbinate and later as Chief Rabbi of Morocco. In 1978, he left Morocco to fill the position of Chief Sephardi Rabbi of Jerusalem. Four years later, Rabbi Messas responded to a question about Jewish purity laws. The question has not survived, but from the responsum it is apparent that the questioner sent a detailed legal analysis for Rabbi Messas’ approval. Inter alia, the questioner asked Rabbi Messas whether Torah Lishmah was written by Rabbi Yosef Hayim. In a succinct paragraph, Rabbi Messas responded by citing a few paratextual features of the collection and stating that Torah Lishmah could not be the work of the great Baghdadi scholar. Regarding the claim that Rabbi Yosef Hayim had piously hidden his name, Rabbi Messas pointed out that Rabbi Yosef Hayim had published numerous works under his own name, so why would he opt for a pseudonym in the case of Torah Lishmah.[13]

Rabbi Messas’ analysis was brief but accurate: indeed the paratext of Torah Lishmah speaks in no uncertain terms. The work is clearly presented as the writings of Rabbi Yehezkel Kahali, with a copyist serving as the intermediary. Though Rabbi Yosef Hayim’s name does not appear anywhere in the work, the handwriting of the copyist has been undisputedly identified as that of Rabbi Yosef Hayim, and by his own admission elsewhere in his published writings – the Torah Lishmah manuscript had been in his possession.

The title page – written in rhyme by the copyist – refers to another person as the author of the work who named the collection Torah Lishmah. Following the title page there is an introduction signed by Rabbi Yehezkel Kahali, where the author states that he began writing responsa in the Hebrew year 5442; that is, 1681/2. The author’s name and the year he began writing appear again as a heading before the first responsum of the collection.

When preparing the manuscript for print, Kachuri the publisher made two emendations in an attempt to link the work to Rabbi Yosef Hayim. First he placed the year 1681/2 in parentheses and added an alternative in bold brackets – following a rabbinic printing practice of using parentheses to indicate unwanted text and brackets to indicate the desired text. The correction gave the Hebrew year as 5642 – that is, 1881/2 when Rabbi Yosef Hayim was forty-eight years old. The second reference to the year was omitted. We might ponder the publisher’s integrity in partially retaining the original and honestly indicating to readers that he changed the text. Nonetheless, the basis for the emendation is unstated and the right to change what appears in the original manuscript is dubious. Indeed, subsequent editions of Torah Lishmah reverted to the original year with no emendation and did not excise the second reference to the year.[14] Thus the original manuscript dates the work long before Rabbi Yosef Hayim’s era. Kachuri also presided over a further attempt to broadcast that the responsa were written by Rabbi Yosef Hayim. Classically, Jewish law is divided into four areas of law. In his Rav Pe‘alim, Yosef Hayim adopted this division but added a fifth area which he called Sod Yesharim (“the secret of the honest ones”). Each volume of Rav Pe‘alim had a Sod Yesharim section that included responsa on matters of Jewish mysticism. The 1973 edition of Torah Lishmah is similarly divided according to this unique five-part division, with a running header throughout the work indicated the section. Alas, this unique five-part division is not present in the original manuscript, and must be considered part of the publisher’s paratext; not the author’s. Appropriately, it was not retained in subsequent editions of Torah Lishmah.

Following the author’s forward, there are additional introductory remarks under the heading “The Words of the Copyist” – once again distinguishing between the role of the copyist and that of the author:

The Copyist said: Miraculously this work has reached me, in an old manuscript, and the writing was difficult to read, and I vowed to copy it in my handwriting in order to do kindness for the author, of blessed memory, for it is likely that there is no other copy in the world except for this one. … And certainly this worthy deed [mitzvah] of copying that I have done for this book will be considered like the positive commandment of returning a lost article.[15]

If the copyist was the pseudonymous author then he might have declared unequivocally that there was no other copy of the manuscript in the world. The copyist, however, only presumed that it was likely that there was no other copy, thus distancing himself from privileged information.

Some of the responsa in Torah Lishmah have short glosses that begin with words like “The copyist, may God guard him and save him, said …” There are thirteen such additions scattered throughout the volume.[16] Once again, the copyist is clearly distinguished from the author.

Each one of the responsa in the volume is signed with the name Yehezkel Kahali, presented in a standard rabbinic form: “Thus the words of the insignificant one, Yehezkel Kahali, may the Merciful One guard him and save him.” The sum of the manuscript’s paratext is clear: Rabbi Yosef Hayim is not the author of the Torah Lishmah responsa. The paratext is indeed an important source of information that should not be overlooked by scholars. Yet a pseudonymous or pseudepigraphous author would presumably expend every effort to mask his or her identity and the paratext would be the starting point for the ploy. This makes the paratext – so important in other contexts[17] – a red herring in this case.

It couldn’t be!

A number of leading scholars found a further reason to reach the conclusion that Rabbi Yosef Hayim was not the author of Torah Lishmah, distancing the great Baghdadi scholar from the responsa because of a priori assumptions. The great Rabbi Ovadia Yosef (1920-2013) could be considered a spokesperson for this approach.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef published his first volume of responsa in 1954, which included a responsum that referred to the Torah Lishmah manuscript. Presumably, he had been privy to the manuscript that had arrived in Jerusalem in the late 1940s while he was studying in Porat Yosef. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef discussed and rejected an opinion that appeared in the manuscript. He did not, however, comment on the identity of the author.[18] Fifteen years later in 1969, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef published the fifth volume of his responsa and once again he cited from the Torah Lishmah manuscript. This time he cited Torah Lishmah approvingly. Once again there was no comment about the author of the manuscript, though he cited Rabbi Yosef Hayim’s Ben Ish Hai on the previous line and did not connect the two works.[19]

As we recall Torah Lishmah was first published in 1973, hence Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s subsequent volumes of responsa carried numerous citations and discussions of this newly printed collection. The references to Torah Lishmah are similar in that Rabbi Ovadia Yosef did not mention the author’s name, and the opinions are judged on their own merits; that is, they are not automatically favored, nor are they habitually rejected. One particular responsum, however, stands out.[20]

The responsum is entitled: “Regarding the author of the book Torah Lishmah, is it the G[aon] R[abbi] Y[osef] H[ayim]?” The responsum is dated 1947, though it was published over fifty years later in 2002. In fact, the responsum contains information that indicates that at least part of it was written after 1947. It would appear therefore, that the responsum reflects Rabbi Ovadia Yosef ’s position as it evolved over half a century.

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef recounted the gematria identification, but he flatly rejected the conclusion. Simply put – the paratext of the manuscript told another tale: Rabbi Yosef Hayim was the copyist not the author. But Rabbi Ovadia Yosef had a further reason to reject the identification.

In Rabbi Ovadia Yosef ’s mind it was impossible that the great Rabbi Yosef Hayim could be behind such a ruse: “It is extremely difficult to say – Heaven forefend – that [Rabbi Yosef Hayim] would lie in order to hide the name of the author.” The needle of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef ’s ethical compass would simply not point to Rabbi Yosef Hayim’s authorship.

Alas, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef ’s confidence unraveled when he heard from Rabbi Efrayim Zilka Hakohen (1885-1956) about the Baghdadi tradition linking Torah Lishmah to Rabbi Yosef Hayim. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef ’s responsum peters out: more indicators that Torah Lishmah was not authored by Rabbi Yosef Hayim trumped by testimony from an impeccable source. In a postscript that may have been added when the volume was being prepared for print, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef noted two scholarly assessments of Torah Lishmah – one that accepted Rabbi Yosef Hayim as the author and the other that continued to deny his authorship.[21]

Assessing Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s evolving position, it is apparent that he switched one a priori assumption for another. At first he assumed that Rabbi Yosef Hayim would not pose as another author; he then assumed that the oral testimony from those close to Rabbi Yosef Hayim was reliable. Either way, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef’s position – equivocal as it was – was fueled by a priori assumptions; not by paratextual or textual analysis

Analysis of sources cited

Beyond a close reading of the paratext and besides a priori assumptions, what research tools can be used to determine the authorship of Torah Lishmah? Source analysis and textual analysis both suggest that Rabbi Yosef Hayim was indeed the author of Torah Lishmah.

According to the author’s introduction, Torah Lishmah was written beginning in 1682. Perforce, works that postdated the lifetime of Rabbi Yehezkel Kahali could not be cited. A systematic look at the sources cited in Torah Lishmah demonstrates that this logical rule was maintained with a three-pronged approach. First, no contemporaries are mentioned by name, ensuring that Rabbi Yehezkel Kahali would not be bound to an era, a location, or a milieu. Second, works that were written before 1682 but published later were cited from manuscripts. Third, works written after the estimated lifetime of Rabbi Yehezkel Kahali were cited in the copyist’s glosses.

While this method of masking the author’s time period was theoretically sound, there were a few hiccups. For instance, in one responsum the author cited Kanfei Yonah by Rabbi Menahem ‘Azaryah of Fano (1548-1620). This work was first published in 1786, hence we would expect Rabbi Yehezkel Kahali to note that he had seen the work in manuscript. No such note exists. Alas a lone case, which could easily be chalked up to a scribal or copyist’s error, is hardly conclusive evidence.[22]

Yet the “copyist” came unstuck with a citation of a manuscript that he could not possibly have seen in the late seventeenth century: a forgery from the second half of the eighteenth century. Twice in Torah Lishmah, the author cites from a manuscript collection of responsa written by the medieval scholar Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel (1250-1327). These citations appear in a collection that was first published in 1793 and entitled Besamim Rosh.[23] It is now clear that the entire Besamim Rosh collection is a forgery perpetrated by Saul Berlin (1740-1794). Thus a seventeenth century scholar could not possibly have known about responsa that had yet to be forged!

The citation of a famous forgery exposes Torah Lishmah as pseudepigraphy. It does not, however, prove that Rabbi Yosef Hayim was the author. Perhaps the great Baghdadi scholar was indeed just the copyist? Perhaps he too had been misled by an “ancient” manuscript? No scholar to date has suggested this possibility. Indeed, textual scrutiny has provided incontrovertible proof of Rabbi Yosef Hayim’s authorship.

Textual analysis

Rabbinic scholars who analyzed Torah Lishmah pointed to similar language and turns of phrase in the two collections of responsa – the puzzling Torah Lishmah and Rabbi Yosef Hayim’s Rav Pe‘alim. These unscientific remarks are hardly proof of authorship; it is entirely possible that similar turns of phrase were used intentionally or unintentionally. Fortunately, with the development of digital analysis tools, these anecdotal observations could be precisely tested.

In 2004, a team led by Professor Moshe Koppel from Bar Ilan University’s Computer Science Department, put Torah Lishmah to a digital test of text categorization based on computerized statistical analysis. Using machine learning techniques, the team compared the two collections of responsa – Rav Pe‘alim and Torah Lishmah – in an attempt to ascertain whether the second corpus was written by the same author as the first corpus. It is beyond the current scope to detail their method for authorship verification, suffice it to point out that the research team convincingly concluded that Torah Lishmah was indeed written by the author of Rav Pe‘alim – indisputably Rabbi Yosef Hayim. The research demonstrated that stylistic differences between the two works are minimal and according to the researchers, they were “possibly deliberately inserted as a ruse or possibly a function of slightly differing purposes assigned to the works.” Thus the research laid this literary conundrum to rest.[24]

Troubling questions

The ineluctable conclusion to the authorship question is that Torah Lishmah is indeed the work of the great Rabbi Yosef Hayim of Baghdad. While identification of the author solves one problem, it opens up a slew of other issues: What is the historical value of the collection: to what extent does it reflect contemporary reality? What it the legal weight that should be according to these responsa? To what extent is it ethically malfeasant to present your work as a two hundred year old manuscript? In light of contemporary internet discourse, we might ponder whether the author has a right to anonymity? To my mind, the most perplexing question is that of motive: Why would a respected jurist and prolific writer pseudepigraphously publish his own responsa?

Endnotes

[1] Torah Lishmah has been published in five editions: Torah Lishmah (Jerusalem, 1973); Torah Lishmah (Jerusalem, 1976); Torah Lishmah (Jerusalem, 1989); She’elot U-Teshuvot Torah Lishmah (Jerusalem, 2012); She’elot U-Teshuvot Torah Lishmah (Jerusalem, 2013).

Torah Lishmah has been examined by rabbinic scholars, including: Meir Mazuz, “He‘arot Ve-ha’arot ‘Al Sefer ‘Torah Lishma’,” Or Torah (Ashkelon) 8, no. 4 (1975): 136-138; idem, “He‘arot Le-she[’elot] U-Te[shuvot] Torah Lishma,” Or Torah (Ashkelon) 8, no. 5 (1975): 159-170; Yehuda Lavi Ben-David, “She[’elot] U-te[shuvot] Torah Lishmah,” Tsohar 2 (1998): 205-222; idem, Shevet Mihuda (Jerusalem, 2002), 213-235; Avraham Motsa, “Zehut Mehaber Sefer ‘Torah Lishmah’,” Va-ya‘an Shemu’el 9 (2006): 677-684. I am indebted to the work of these scholars, though they did not lay out the story as it unfolded historically, nor did they address the historical, legal, and ethical aspects of their conclusions. This study begins to explore these issues by unfurling the tale. I hope to have the opportunity to offer a fuller presentation.

[2] Works by Rabbi Yosef Hayim include: Ben Yehoyada (Jerusalem, 1898- 1904); Ben Ish Hai (Jerusalem, 1898); Tikkunei Ha-zohar, with commentary entitled Benayahu, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1903); Benayahu (Jerusalem, 1905); Ben Ish Hayil (Jerusalem, 1901-1910); Rav Pe‘alim (Jerusalem, 1901-1912).

[3] Ben Ish Hai, I Purim 15; 16; Nitsavim 12; 20; 24; II Noah 17; Vayeitsei 10; 14; 25; Vayikra 17.

[4] Rav Pe‘alim I Orah Hayim 2; 4; II Orah Hayim 21; 46; 50; Sod Yesharim 5; III Orah Hayim 32.

[5] See also Rabbi Yosef Hayim’s posthumously published ‘Od Yosef Hai (Jerusalem, 1910), 10b second series (halakhot, I hayei sarah 3); 36b-37a second series (halakhot, I va’era 19).

[6] Recounted by the publisher Kachuri, Torah Lishmah (1973), [3].

[7] On Rabbi Hazan, see Nurit Vizer, Hazan: Ne‘im Zemirot (Jerusalem, 2012).

[8] Recounted by Kachuri, Torah Lishmah (1973), [3].

[9] Rabbi David Hayim did not mention Rabbi Ades and it is unclear whether he reached the conclusion on his own.

[10] See Yehuda Lavi Ben-David, Kara Ravats (Jerusalem, 1996), 16-22.

[11] Aderet Eliyahu (Livorno, 1864), 96b-97a.

[12] Regarding paratext, see Gיrard Genette, “Introduction to the Paratext,” trans. Marie Maclean, New Literary History 22 (1991): 261-272; Gיrard Genette, Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, trans. Jane E. Lewin (Cambridge, 1997); Marie Maclean, “Pretexts and Paratexts: The Art of the Peripheral,” New Literary History 22 (1991): 273-279.

[13] Shemesh U-magein I (Jerusalem, 1984), 159. In a subsequent volume, Rabbi Messas further noted that in Rav Pe‘alim Rabbi Yosef Hayim had referred to Torah Lishmah as the work of another author; see Shemesh U-magein II (Jerusalem, 1993), 311. Rabbi Messas’ position did not prevent him from discussing Torah Lishmah as a bona fide legal text worth reckoning; see Shemesh U-magein II, 97; Shemesh U-magein, III (Jerusalem, 2000), 110-111.

[14] Torah Lishmah (1976), [6], 17; Torah Lishmah (2012), 74-75; Torah Lishmah (2013), 4-5. The 1989 edition was a reprint of the first edition (with additions), and hence included the textual emendation.

[15] Torah Lishmah (1973), 7. My account is based on the printed editions; I have yet to be fortunate enough to examine the original manuscript.

[16] Torah Lishmah, nos. 168, 173, 203, 214, 218, 221, 224, 245, 246, 337, 384, 385, 425.

[17] For paratextual analyses of legal documents, see Iain Stewart, “Mors Codicis: End of the Age of Codification?” Tulane European & Civil Law Forum 27 (2012): 24-26; Levi Cooper, “Mysteries of the Paratext: Why did Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liady Never Publish his Code of Law?” Dinי Israel, forthcoming.

[18] Yabi‘a Omer, I (Jerusalem, 1954), Orah Hayim 35, para. 11-12, commenting on Torah Lishmah, no. 49.

[19] Yabi‘a Omer, V (Jerusalem, 1969), Orah Hayim 36, para. 3, commenting on Torah Lishmah, no. 67 and citing Ben Ish Hai, II vayeira 26.

[20] Yabi‘a Omer, IX (Jerusalem, 2002), Orah Hayim 96.

[21] Rabbi Ovadia Yosef cited Ben-David, Shevet Mi-huda and a 1999 article by Rabbi Ezriel Mansour, that appeared in a journal entitled Mishnat hakhamim and that cited Baghdadi scholar Rabbi Yaakov Mutzafi (1899-1983). I have yet to locate this article.

[22] Torah Lishmah, no. 455.

[23] Torah Lishmah, no. 117 citing Besamim Rosh, no. 158; no. 340 citing Besamim Rosh, no. 177.

[24] Moshe Koppel, Dror Mughaz, and Navot Akiva, “New Methods for Attribution of Rabbinic Literature,” Hebrew Linguistics: A Journal for Hebrew Descriptive, Computational and Applied Linguistics 57 (2006): 5-18.