How Jews of Yesteryear Celebrated Graduation from Medical School:
Congratulatory Poems for Jewish Medical Graduates in the 17th and 18th Centuries:
An Unrecognized Genre
Rabbi Edward Reichman, MD
… Read More...Edward Reichman, Professor of Emergency Medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, is the author of The Anatomy of Jewish Law: A Fresh Dissection of the Relationship Between Medicine, Medical History and Rabbinic Literature (Published by Koren Publishers/OU Press/YU
Psalms 117:1-2: Why Are the Goyim Praising God?[1]
By Mitchell First
MFirstAtty@aol.com
In Hallel, has only two verses:
1) Praise Hashem all goyim; Laud him all the umim.
2) For his ḥesed is great[2] עלינו and the emet of Hashem is forever, Halleluyah.
Why are the nations of the world to be praising God? Because his ḥesed is great on the Israelites? Does this make sense? I first read about this interpretive issue in Rabbi Hayyim Angel’s excellent article in Through an Opaque Lens (2006). I am writing this article to collect more sources and expand the discussion. I will also offer a different solution than the various solutions proposed by Rabbi Angel.
Admittedly it is possible to read the two verses as independent of one another. But in the simplest reading they are connected by that explanatory word כי (=for) and the author is asking the nations of his time to praise God because of the extravagant ḥesed that God has provided to the nation of Israel.
A Sage in the Talmud (Pes. 118b) realizes this difficulty and reads the verse as follows: “Praise Hashem all nations”- for the great acts and wonders which God does for the nations; how much more so should we praise Him, for his chesed is great on us…” In other words, this Sage suggests that the second part of the verse refers to Israelites praising God, even though that is not mentioned in the verse.[3]
How do our commentaries deal with our issue?
Rashi writes that we should reinterpret the word כי so that it instead means “even though.” This drastically changes the meaning of the verse. R. Angel explains: “Rashi intimates that the nations are generally unhappy about God’s distinctive relationship with Israel. The Psalmist…calls to the nations to rise above their initial antagonism.”
It is true that כי has multiple meanings and “even though” is one of them. But this is still far from a plain sense reading of the verse.
Rashbam has an interesting approach to our verse (found in his comm. to Deut. 32:43). The nations are being told to believe in and praise God. If they do, he will give them great ḥesed just like he gave to Israel. This is clever but it does not read well into the verse.
Radak solves the difficulty a different way. The verse is talking about the messianic era. He cites Tzefaniah 3:9: “Then I will turn to the peoples…that they may all call the name of Hashem to worship Him with one shoulder.”[4] Radak adds that the nations did not believe that God could liberate the Israelites from being subjugated. On seeing that he did, they will praise him.
Malbim suggests a specific context for the psalm. In the late 8th century BCE Sancheriv exiled the Israelites and exiled non-Israelites with them. Eventually, God will return the Israelites together with these non-Israelites. Since God’s rescue of the Israelites will benefit these non-Israelites, they will praise him. There are of course no clues to any of this in these two verses.
The Daat Mikra commentary (composed by Amos Chacham) takes the approach that when Israel is downtrodden, the nations mock the God of Israel. See, e.g., Ps. 115:2: “Why should the nations say now: ‘Where is their God?’.” Conversely, when Israel is succeeding, the nations are impressed and praise him. It cites Ezekiel 36:23: “I will sanctify my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, and which you have profaned among them. And the nations will know that I am Hashem… when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes.” Thus, Daat MIkra interprets the background to Psalms 117:1-2 to be that the nations have seen that God saved Israel.
Another approach is to deny the legitimacy of the question. It seems that there are many other verses in the book of Psalms where the nations of the world are called upon to praise God for saving Israel. This approach is taken by R. Feivel Meltzer in his Pnei Sefer Tehillim (1982), p. 332.[5]
For example, at Ps. 98: 2-4, we have: “Hashem has made His salvation known and revealed His righteousness to the nations. He has remembered His love and his faithfulness to Israel. All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God. Shout for joy to Hashem all the earth…”
Also, at Ps. 100:1-3: “Make a joyful sound to Hashem, all the lands. Serve Hashem with gladness. Come before His presence with singing. Know that Hashem is God: it is He that made us, we are His,[6] we are His people, and the sheep of His pasture.”
Finally, there is the approach that the word aleinu in the phrase: “For his ḥesed is great aleinu“ is broad enough to include the ḥesed performed for non-Israelites as well. In the time of the Rishonim, R. Moshe Ibn Gikatilah took this approach.[7] In more modern times, among those who took this approach are Rav S.R. Hirsch and the Iyun Tefillah commentary in the Siddur Otzar Ha-Tefillot.[8]
This is a simple way to read the phrase, but is this approach a sensible approach? Here is the weakness with it. If ḥesed is being performed for Israelites and non-Israelites- for example, God provides rain– why would the goyim praise the God of Israel? If the goyim are living in proximity to the Temple, we could understand that they would praise the God of Israel. But if the goyim are living anywhere else, it is hard to imagine that they would think that the God that they are supposed to praise is the God of Israel.[9] It seems evident that it is only ḥesed performed for Israelites that will trigger the goyim to praise the God of Israel.
I would like to offer a different approach, one that is not mentioned by Rabbi Angel.[10]
I know from my own extensive writings on the acrostics in the book of Psalms that the fifth book (chaps. 107-150) dates to the early Second Temple period. (Probably the fourth book does too.) See my Esther Unmasked (2015), pp. 207-230.[11] With this background, we can suggest that the author of chapter 117 viewed the Jewish worship in the Temple as beneficial to all the nations. That is why he may be asking the nations to praise God for his goodness to the people Israel. God let the people of Israel rebuild their Temple.
Something like this approach is mentioned in the Soncino: “If, as the modern commentators hold, it is of post-exilic date, it proves that universalism was strong in the heart of the Jews when they were struggling to rebuild a national life, and that this task was undertaken in no chauvinist spirit.” I am sure that others prior to the Soncino suggested something like this as well.
I have also thought of a way that could help us decide whether “For his ḥesed is great aleinu“ includes ḥesed to non-Israelites and I have not seen the following argument elsewhere.
We can look at the rest of the verse: “and the emet of Hashem is forever…” “Emet” has two possible meanings here: “truth” or “trustworthiness.” Many give it a truth-related meaning here.[12] But I think that it is more likely that it means “trustworthiness.” Let us look at Psalm 100. Psalm 100 ends: “Ki tov Hashem le-olam ḥasdo ve-ad dor va-dor emunato.” This verse is somewhat similar to 117:2, just that it has the word emunato, instead of emet. This suggests that “trustworthiness” is the meaning of the emet of 117:2.[13] A reference to God’s trustworthiness seems to me to be more suggestive of keeping promises to Israelites than it is of keeping promises to both Israelites and non-Israelites.
——
I will close with the fascinating (and obviously homiletical) interpretation of R. Isaac of Volozhin (d. 1849). I will present it the way it is summarized in the ArtScroll Tehillim commentary, in the comments to Psalms 117:2: “Once, a Russian prince asked Rav Yitzchak (Reb Itzaleh) of Volozhin to explain why non-Jews instead of Jews, are expected to praise God for his kindness to Israel. Rav Yitzchak replied without hesitation: ’You princes plan countless anti-Semitic schemes with which to destroy us, but our Merciful God always manages to foil your plots. Your secret councils are so well guarded that we Jews don’t even realize all the ways in which you intended to harm us, nor how God has saved us. Only you gentiles see clearly how God’s kindness to us was overwhelming[14]; therefore only you can praise him adequately!’ ”[15]
[1] I would like to thank Sam Borodach for reviewing the draft of this article.
[2] The implication of gavar here is that the ḥesed is so great that it is beyond measure. We see this from Psalm 103:11. See the Soncino and Daat Mikra there. I have seen the suggestion that because God’s ḥesed to Israel has been so great and beyond measure, the Psalmist believes that Israel cannot adequately discharge its responsibility to praise God by itself. He therefore invites the rest of the world to praise God as well.
[3] See also Midrash Tehillim 117:2 which splits our two verses into three different voices.
[4] The last two words are a metaphor for “together;” i.e., joined by a single yoke.
[5] He cites the earlier scholar Yechezkel Kaufmann who takes this approach and who laughs at those who think that 117:1-2 is an anomaly.
[6] I am translating according to the kri, not the ketiv.
[7] He is cited in Ibn Ezra. He writes that God’s ḥesed to all is that he keeps us alive and sustains us.
[8] P. 447. I am sure that others took this approach in modern times as well. This approach to verses 117:1-2 is also perhaps implicit at Midrash Tehillim 117:1 in the statement by R. Tanchum about rainfall: “rainfall brings joy to the entire world.” See Rabbi Angel’s article.
[9] A few centuries later, there were Gentiles known as “Godfearers” who lived close and far and who feared and praised the God of Israel. But there is little evidence that the book of Psalms is dated later than the Persian period and there is no evidence for Gentile “Godfearers” as early as the Persian period unless one gives this meaning to the “yirei Hashem” mentioned at Psalms 115:11, 118:4, and 135:19.
The Soncino commentary to 115:11 observes that many modern expositors understand the “yirei Hashem” references to be to “pious Gentiles who come to worship in the Temple.” But the Daat Mikra commentary mentions several possible interpretations: 1) Israelites who took on extra stringencies, 2) another term for all Israelites, 3) converts, and 4) ḥasidei umot ha-olam. Another suggestion is that ”yirei Hashem” are Israelites who serve God out of fear, in contrast to “Beit Aharon,” Israelites who serve God out of love. See The Complete ArtScroll Siddur, p. 635 (citing Maharal). I thank Michael Alweis for pointing out the interpretive issue of “yirei Hashem” to me.
[10] Of course, his article was limited to responses by traditional Orthodox sources.
[11] The title of the article I am referring to here is: “The Pe/Ayin Order In Ancient Israel and Its Implications for the Book of Tehillim.”Earlier than this, I had similar shorter articles in Biblical Archaeology Review (July-Aug. 2012) and in Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 38 (2014). Basically I concluded that the acrostics in the first book of Psalms (chapters 1-41) were composed with the older pe preceding ayin order and that the ayin preceding pe order (reflected in the acrostics of the fifth book) did not begin to be used in ancient Israel until the post-exilic period. (The acrostics in the book of Psalms are only found in the first and fifth books.) See in particular the Daat Mikra commentary to Psalms 34:18, n. 9. (Psalms 34:16-18 makes much better sense assuming an original pe preceding ayin order.)
Although Bava Batra 14b attributes the book of Psalms to David and others who lived earlier than him, Shir Ha-Shirim Rabbah 4:4 preserves the views of both Rav and R. Yochanan that Ezra was one of the ten figures involved in the composition of Psalms. A similar passage is found at Kohelet Rabbah 7:19. Also, the scholar Avi Hurvitz has shown that the Hebrew of the fourth and fifth books of Psalms is later than that of the earlier books. (Note that the word Halleluyah is only found in the fourth and fifth books.) In modern times, Malbim (intro. to Psalms) and Daat Mikra (intro. to Psalms, pp. 13 and 47) are willing to accept that parts of Psalms date to the early Second Temple period. The commentary of Rashbam on most of Psalms (discovered in the 1990’s in a library in Russia, but not yet fully published) takes this position as well. (For the passages, see the 1997 article by I. Ta-Shema in Tarbitz 66, p. 418. When Ta-Shema wrote his article, the identity of the author of this commentary was not yet known.) It bears emphasizing that at Psalms 126:1 we have the phrase “shivat Tziyon” and at 137:1 we have the phrase “al naharot Bavel sham bakhinu.” See also R. Hayyim Angel, Vision from the Prophet and Counsel from the Elders (2013), pp. 210-18.
[12] See, e.g., the 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America translation (included at the top in the Soncino): “And the truth of the Lord endureth forever.”
[13] At Psalms 146:6, we have ha-shomer emet le-olam. Here too emet seems to have a trust-related meaning. See Daat Mikra.
[14] In their translation in this work, ArtScroll translates the ki gavar phrase as “For His kindness to us was overwhelming.” That is why this phrase is used here. But see n. 2 above.
[15] The commentary is getting this story from Ḥiddushei HaGriz HaLevi on the Torah, Yitro 18:10. See similarly the Iyun Tefillah commentary in the Siddur Otzar Ha-Tefillot, p. 447.
—–
Is there any possibility that our two-verse chapter is only the remnant of a larger lost psalm? Daat Mikra rejects this. It points out that that there are three psalms that only have three verses: 131, 133 and 134. It admits that there are some Masoretic texts which join chapter 117 with either 116 or 118. But the texts that are generally more reliable (including the Aleppo Codex) have 117 as a separate chapter. In the Septuagint, it is also a separate chapter. Also, there is a Halleluyah at the end of 116 and another one at the end of 117. These words always indicate either a beginning or end of a chapter. Daat Mikra nevertheless concludes that Psalm 117 serves as an introduction to Psalm 118. This may be another way to determine the meaning of the aleinu of 117:2. But I will leave this potential direction to others.
Book week 2022
By Eliezer Brodt
Book week just began in Eretz Yisrael. Continuing with my now fifteenth year tradition B”h, every year in Israel, around Shavuos time, there is a period of about ten days called Shavuah Hasefer – Book Week.
Many of the companies offer sales for the whole month. Shavuah HaSefer is a sale which takes place all across the country in stores, malls and special places rented out just for the sales. There are places where strictly “frum” seforim are sold and other places have most of the secular publishing houses. Many publishing houses release new titles specifically at this time.
In my lists, I sometimes include an older title, from a previous year, if I just noticed the book. As I have written in the past, I do not intend to include all the new books. Eventually some of these titles will be the subject of their own reviews. I try to include titles of broad interest. As this list shows although book publishing in book form has dropped greatly worldwide, Academic books on Jewish related topics and Seforim are still coming out in full force. Note: Just because a book is listed bellow does not mean its on sale.
The second section bellow are titles that were printed in the past year, on a wide range of topics. These items are not specifically on sale at this time or easy to find. In addition, this is not an attempt to include everything or even close to that.
The purpose of the list is to help Seforim Blog readership learn about some of the seforim and Books that have been published in the past year.
To receive a PDF of the sale catalogs of Mechon Yerushalayim, Zichron Ahron, Ahavat Shalom and other non-academic distributors, e-mail me at Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com.
In the lists bellow I have not included everything found in these catalogs as some items are not out yet and are coming out shortly. Others items I have not seen yet so I have not mentioned them as I try to only list items I have actually seen.
A second purpose of this list is, to make these works available for purchase for those interested. As in previous years I am offering a service, for a small fee to help one purchase these titles (or titles of previous years). For more information about this email me at Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com.
Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the the Seforim Blog.
מגנס
מהדורה שנייה, איגוד
Littman
ביאליק
בר אילן
כרמל
אקדמיה ללשון העברית
בן צבי
מרכז זלמן שזר
הרצוג– תבונות
קורן–מגיד
אידרא
בלימה
בית מדרש לרבנים JTS
ידיעות ספרים
חב“ד
ר‘ זייני
אהבת שלום
מכון ירושלים
זכרון אהרן
מכון שלמה אומן
שאר ספרים שיצאו שונות
ראשונים
אחרונים
הלכה
קבצים
תפילה
תולדות
מחקר
שאר ספרים
ספרי ר‘ יעקב ישראל סטל
Book Week Sale 2022
By Eliezer Brodt
This Book list of one Hundred twenty-five titles, is a collection from many different companies. Most of these titles were printed in the past few years and are not found in regular stores.
סטים
מדרשים– גאונים– ראשונים – פיוטים
דקדוק– מסורה ועוד
אחרונים
מחקר ועוד
Tarnopol: A short-lived early 19th century Hebrew press
by Marvin J. Heller[1]
The blossoms have appeared in the land, The time of your song has arrived,
and the voice of the turtledove Is heard in our land.
The green figs form on the fig tree. The vines in blossom give off fragrance.
Arise, my darling; My fair one, come away!
“O my dove, in the cranny of the rocks. Hidden by the cliff.
Let me see your face, Let me hear your voice; For your voice is sweet And your face is comely.”
Catch us the foxes, The little foxes
That ruin the vineyards— For our vineyard is in blossom. (Song of Songs 2:12-15).
Tarnopol (Ternopol), a city with an established Jewish community, dates its founding to the mid-sixteenth century. The community had many positive aspects (blossoms have appeared in the land, The time of your song has arrived), and was home to a Hebrew printing press (The green figs form on the fig tree. The vines in blossom give off fragrance) for a brief time only in the early nineteenth century. Due, however, to the contentious relationship between conflicting segments of the community, that press, after publishing a variety of valuable works, was short lived and closed prematurely (The little foxes that ruin the vineyards).
Tarnopol is in Galicia, in the western Ukraine, approximately 227 miles (365 km.) from Kiev (Kyiv) and 73 miles (117 km,) from Lvov. Although there had been earlier residences in the area, credit for founding the city as a private town in 1540 is given to the Polish hetman, Jan Amor Tarnowski. Tarnowski permitted Jewish settlement almost immediately afterwards in what was his personal domain. The city charter permitted Jews to reside throughout the city, excluding the market place. Initially, the Jewish population was small, comprised of only a few dozen Jews, this based on the head tax paid, the revenues from it being, in 1564, 20 zlotys, rising to 23 the following year. Jews quickly became a majority of the population, with as many as 300 families resident there in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.[2] By 1765, the Jewish population of Tarnopol had increased to 1,246 Jews.[3]
In 1548, Tarnopol was granted the privilege of the Magdeburgian Laws, regulations concerning internal autonomy within cities and villages granted by the local ruler, developed by Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor (936–973). In 1566, Tarnopol received the Emporium Right, the duty of storing the merchandise of the merchants passing through the town, and the privilege of the residents of the town to be the first to purchase the merchandise. Tarnopol was fortified and strengthened during the Tartar invasions in 1575 and 1589. In 1621, it became the property of Chancellor Tomash Zamoiski.[4]
A fire in 1623 caused significant damage to the homes in the city, but Zamoiski allowed the Jews to rebuild their homes as well as a new synagogue, this constructed in citadel style, to replace the one destroyed in the fire. Jews could buy and sell goods, excepting some leather merchandise, this to protect the monopoly of Christian shoemakers. Jews could be butchers, but had to provide the owners of the city annually with ten milk stones
Tarnopol suffered, as did Jewish communities throughout Eastern Europe, from the Chmielnicki massacres of 1648-49 (tah ve-tat) and again in 1653 from the Tartar invasions. Until the ravages of the former occurred, the Jewish community was prosperous. At that time, however, most Jews fled, those remaining being massacred. Jews participated in the defense of the city in the Cossack and Swedish wars. The city, now the property of Alexander Konyetspolski, was reconstructed, but suffered yet again in 1672 when the town’s castles and citadels were bombarded by the Turks. Towards the end of the century the community began to revive, Jewish merchants being dominant in the grain and cattle trades.[5] In 1690, Tarnopol became the private property of the Polish royal family, Subiesky, and subsequently was transferred to the noble Polish family, Pototski, remaining in their possession until 1841 when private ownership of cities was abolished.
An early rabbi in Tarnopol was R. Gershom Nahum R. Meir ben Isaac Tarnopoler, who stated that “Our community is the capital (i.e it was important).” The rabbis active in Tarnopol in the eighteenth century included R. Joshua Heschel Babad, followed by R. Jacob Isaac ben Isaac Landau. Joshua Heschel Babad’s (Babad is an acronym of Benei Av Bet Din, “children of the av bet din,” 1754-1838) itapprobations appear in several of the titles described in this article and served as rabbi of Budzanow and, from 1801, of Tarnopol. He opposed the growing circle of maskilim in Tarnopol and polemicized against their patron, Joseph Perl (below), and, in 1813, of the teaching system in the school founded by Perl where secular studies were taught.[6]
Tarnopol suffered from an outbreak of the Black Plague in 1770, suffering many deaths. Finally, in 1772, Tarnopol was annexed to Austria and from 1809 to1815 was in the possession of the Russians, returning to Austrian rule until it became part of the Western Ukrainian Republic. Its status changed yet again at the end of 1918 when it became part of independent Poland.
In the early eighteenth century Tarnopol was largely Hassidic. Nevertheless, among the significant figures in Tarnopol was Joseph Perl, a prominent Maskil, active in that movement and an opponent of Hassidus.
A Hebrew press was established in Tarnopol in 1812. At that time Nahman Pineles and Jacob Auerbach, accomplished printers, obtained permission from the Russian authorities to establish a Hebrew press, this with the condition that the books to be printed would be approved by the censor. They acquired typographical equipment from the printer Benjamin ben Avigdor and employed two workers, Mordecai ben Zevi Hirsch and Aryeh Leib ben David. Ch. Friedberg informs that this was not an auspicious time to establish a press due to the Napoleonic wars. Nevertheless, it was established with the support of Joseph Perl, who not only provided financial assistance, but also space in his school for the press. He did so in the belief that the books published by the press would be in support of the Haskalah.[7]
The Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book records twenty-two entries, from 1812-13 through 1817.[8] These works are varied. We will describe a portion of them, several in some detail, others in passing, giving a sense of the press’ output.
I
Yeshu’ot Meshiho – Printing is reported to have begun with Don Isaac ben Judah Abrabanel’s (1437-1508) Yeshu’ot Meshiho (the Salvation of His Anointed) in 1812-13.[9] Abrabanel, a noted statesman, biblical exegete, and philosopher, traced his lineage to King David. He was the grandson of Samuel and the son of Judah Abrabanel, the former an advisor to three Kings of Castile, the latter to the King of Portugal. Don Isaac Abrabanel received a thorough Jewish education, studying Talmud under R. Joseph Hayyun (d. 1497), as well as instruction in philosophy, classics, and even Christian theology, this last useful in his defense of Judaism. Abrabanel succeeded his father as treasurer to King Alfonso V of Portugal, during which time he was instrumental in redeeming Jewish captives brought to Portugal. Upon the death of Alfonso in 1481, João II (1481-95) became king of Portugal. In 1483, João accused Abrabanel of participating in a conspiracy. Forewarned, Abrabanel fled to Spain, where he served as an official in the court of Ferdinand and Isabella. In 1492, they offered him the opportunity to remain in Spain as a Jew, but he chose to go into exile and left with other Jews.[10]
A prolific author Abrabanel wrote extensive and highly regarded commentaries on books of the Bible, philosophical works, and a three-part trilogy of consolation on resurrection and redemption. Yeshu’ot Meshiho is the third part of the trilogy. The first parts are Ma’yenei ha-Yeshu’ah (Wells of Salvation), first printed in Ferrara (1551) on the book of Daniel, followed by Mashmi’a ha-Yeshu’ah (Announcing Salvation), first edition published in Salonika (1526); the trilogy is completed with Yeshu’ot Meshiho. The text addresses redemption, the Messiah, and the end of days.[11] This is recorded as the first edition of Yeshu’ot Meshiho in bibliographies, but is extremely rare and was not seen by this writer. It is recorded as an octavo.
Rosh Amanah – Our second work by the Abrabanel, also printed in 1813, is Rosh Amanah, on the principles of faith. First published in Constantinople (1505) this edition was printed in the year “[From Lebanon, my bride, with me!] Trip [look] down from Amana’s peak תשורי מראש אמנה (573 = 1813)” (Song of Songs 4:8), a reference to the principles of faith (Emunah). It was printed in quarto format (40: 30 ff.). Abrabanel completed Rosh Amanah “in Naples at the end of Marheshvan, in the year, ‘The voice of rejoicing רנה (255=November, 1494) and salvation’” (Psalms 118:15), that is, two years after the expulsion of the Jews from Spain. The verso of the title-page has an approbation from R. Joshua Heschel Babad, av bet din of Tarnopol, immediately below it is verses from Judah Abrabanel, the author’s son, and below that a statement that wherever the phrases akum or goi appears it refers to ancient idol worshippers, not to contemporary non-Jews who are upright people.
1813, Rosh Amanah
Next is Abrabanel’s introduction, in which he explains that his purpose in writing the book is twofold, to clarify the confusion resulting from the many lists on the principles of faith and to defend Maimonides from his critics, most importantly R. Hasdai Crescas (c. 1340–c. 1410–11, Or HaShem), and Joseph Albo (15th century, Ikkarim). Stylistically, Rosh Amanah follows the same format as Abrabanel’s other works, that is, he poses a series of questions which he then resolves
There are twenty-four chapters. In the first twenty-two Abrabanel enumerates twenty-eight objections to Maimonides thirteen principles of faith, twenty taken from Crescas and Albo. Abrabanel subsequently resolves these objections, defending Maimonides from his critics, although he too, in chapter twenty-three, rejects Maimonides’ formulation of a dogma for Judaism. Rosh Amanah begins with a discussion of the thirteen principles, followed (ch. 2-5) with Crescas and Albo’s objections; then nine necessary propositions for the ensuing discussion (6-11); the refutation of the objections (12-21); criticism of Crescas’ and Albo’s formulation (22); Abrabanel’s contention that Judaism has no dogmas (23); and lastly, a discussion of the Mishnah in Sanhedrin (90a), “All Israel has a share in the world to come,” which might seem to posit a dogma for Judaism.[12]
Despite Abrabanel’s contention that Judaism has no dogmas he writes (ch 22) that if he were to, “choose principles to posit for the divine Torah I would lay down one only, the creation of the world. It is the root and foundation . . . and includes the creation at the beginning, the narratives about the Patriarchs, and the miracles and wonders which cannot be believed without belief in creation.”
Rosh Amanah has been published at least nine times to the present, excluding a questionable 1547 Sabbioneta edition, and translated into Latin by Guilielmum Vorstium (Liber de capite fidei, Amsterdam, 1638 and 1684), French by B. Mossé (Le princips de la foi, Avignon, 1884), and English twice, that is, the first five chapters by Isaac Mayer Wise (The Book on the Cardinal Points of Religion), serialized in The Israelite (Cincinnati, 1862), and more recently in its entirety as by M. Kellner (Principles of Faith, Rutherford, 1982).
Hamishah Homshei Torah – Among the other works published at this time were a Hamishah Homshei Torah, that is, a small rabbinic Bible (Mikra’ot Gedolot) with commentaries. Four volumes were published in 1813 and one volume, Bamidbar (Numbers) was published in 1814. The text of Hamishah Homshei Torah, on facing pages, is comprised of the biblical text in square vocalized letters on the right page, and below it in rabbinic letters, R. Aaron of Pesaro’s (d. 1563) Toledot Aharon, a concordance, brief citations to the places where each word or phrase in the Biblical text appear; the commentaries of Rashi; and Siftei Ḥakhamim (R. Shabbetai ben Joseph Bass, 1641-1718), a super-commentary on Rashi. On the facing page is Onkelos in square vocalized letters, the Ba’al ha-Turim (R. Jacob ben Asher, c. 1270-1340) and the continuation of Rashi and Siftei Ḥakhamim, all in rabbinic letters.
Likkuttei Shoshanah – Another very different work, published in 1813/14 is R. Samson Ostropoler of Polonnoye’s (Volhynia, (d. 1648) Likkuttei Shoshanah. Ostropoler, a kabbalist of repute, died on July 22, 1648, at the head of his community in the Chmielnicki massacres. At that time, Ostropoler assembled 300 members of his community into the synagogue and, dressed in shrouds and prayer-shawls, said selihot and prayers until they were slaughtered. R. Nathan Hannover, in Yeven Metsulah on the Chmielnicki massacres, informs that a magid (heavenly teacher) who frequently instructed Ostropoler in the secrets of the Kabbalah, warned him of the impending catastrophe, advising Ostropoler to call the community to repent, which he did but to no avail.[13] Likkuttei Shoshanah, a kabbalistic work, was published in a small format, 20 cm. (8 ff.).
II
Pa’ne’ah Raza – R. Isaac ben Judah ha-Levi’s commentary on the Torah, Pa’ne’ah Raza, built upon literal interpretations (peshaṭ) intermingled with gematriot and notarikon (numerical and abbreviated letters of words) is also an 1813 publication. Isaac ben Judah ha-Levi (13th cent.) was one of the Tosafot of Sens, and a student of R. Hayyim (Paltiel) of Falaise. Printed previously in Prague (1607), this edition was published as an octavo (80: 142, [2] ff.).
1813, Pa’ne’ah Raza
The title-page informs that the contents include, in addition to Isaac ben Judah ha-Levi’s commentary the insights of many other rishonim (early sages) who are then noted, and that Pa’ne’ah Raza, is novellae on Hamishah Homshei Torah and Megillah in veiled ways. Among the many virtues that the title-page lists are insightful forms of elucidation, all desirable, sharp, sweet peshat (literal interpretations), queries and responses, and much more. Also included are words of the sages through gematriot, as given at Sinai with sound and flame.
The title-page is followed by R. Joshua Heschel Babad’s approbation and then Isaac ben Judah’s introduction. He begins that “I am the youth of my mother’s house and of my people, ‘a worm and a maggot’ (Avot 3”1), I know my place . . . ‘I am but dust and ashes’ (Genesis 18:27).” The title alludes to his name Pa’ne’ah פענח and Raza רזא, both have a numerical value of 208, the numerical value of his name, Isaac יצחק (208). He has included what he has heard from his teachers, among them Ran, R. [Joseph] of Orleans, R. Joseph Bekhor-Shor, and some sayings of R. Judah he-Hasid, in gematriot and peshat. He also names R. Eliezer of Worms and others, stating that he has noted the name of every contributor where possible; for he does not, heaven forbid, wish to take someone else’s adornment. Where he does not know the name, it is left unspecified.
R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai (Hida, 1724-1806), notes the wonder (miracle) and foreknowledge in the heart of the author, that Pa’ne’ah Raza, the name given so many years before, standing for Isaac twice, represents both the author and, after many centuries, the editor.[14]
Although Pa’ne’ah Raza is noted for its gematriot and notarikon much of the text is literal explanations. An example is the following, from Exodus 40:35:
“And Moses was not able to enter [into the Tent of Meeting, because the cloud abode on it]. Rashi explains, “the cloud was removed and he entered and He spoke with him.” A difficulty, how if so did He speak with him. For all the days of their encampment the cloud was over it? Furthermore, if so, Aaron and his sons could not enter, in which case, how did they burn the incense, light the menorah, and arrange the lehem ha-Panim? It is possible to say that this was one (another) cloud and during the days of their encampment they were able to enter . . . and R. Eliezer of Worms explains that for one hour the cloud was on it and afterwards removed so that they could enter.
As noted above, Pa’ne’ah Raza was first published in Amsterdam in 1607. This is the third edition, followed, according to the Bet Eked Sefarim, by two additional editions, the last being Warsaw (1928). The National Library of Israel records more recent printings, the latest being Ann Arbor, Michigan (1974) and Jerusalem (2019) editions.[15]
Torat ha-Adam – A work, undated and lacking the place of printing attributed to Tarnopol, although that is uncertain, is R. Samuel ben Shalom’s Torat ha-Adam, an ethical work with kabbalistic content. It was published in c. 1813; measures 23 cm. and comprised of 28 ff.[16] At the top of the title-page is the statement, “Happy is the man who has not forgotten you, and the son of man who finds his strength in You.” The text of the title-page states that it was written by the holy man of God. All who will look into it with open eyes will see how a person has to serve the Lord with a complete and perfect service in order to acquire true completion, for this is why man was created in this world. It further informs that the author, R. Samuel ben Shalom, is a grandson of R. Moses of Ostrog, author of Arugat ha-Bosum on the Song of Songs. The title page is followed by R. Samuel’s introduction, where he writes that he entitled the book Torat ha-Adam because it is how a person should conduct himself all the days of his life in this world. Much of the text is taken from or influenced by the Mishnat Hasidim of R. Emanuel Hai Ricci.[17]
Imrei Binyamin R. Benjamin ben Meir ha-Levi of Brody’s Imrei Binyamin, discourses on the weekly Torah readings, was printed in the year “Of Benjamin he said: Beloved of the LORD, He rests securely beside Him ולבנימין[אמר] ידיד ה“ ישכן לבטח’ (574 = 1814)” (Deuteronomy 33:12). Imrei Binyamin was published as an octavo (80: [3], 92 ff.). Although the title-page describes Imrei Binyamin as being on all the weekly Torah readings the text is actually only from the beginning of Bereshit (Genesis) through be-Hukkotai (Leviticus). The title-page informs that these discourses were delivered on Shabbat by Benjamin when he was the maggid mesharim in Berdichev for seventeen years and afterwards in Brody. Imrei Binyamin was brought to press by R. Meir Eliezer ben Pinhas, the author’s grandson. He sadly begins the introduction, “I am the builder of the house of Benjamin, the father of my father.” Benjamin ben Meir had one son only, who predeceased him. In several instances, inserted between the columns of R. Benjamin’s commentary are annotations of Meir Eliezer. He hoped to publish other parts of this work but that, unfortunately, did not happen.[18]
III
Mishlei Shelomo – In 1814, the press published Menahem Mendel Lefin’s (Levin, 1749-1826) Mishlei Shelomo, a bi-lingual octavo format (80: [2], 91 ff.) Hebrew-Yiddish commentary on Proverbs. Lefin, born in Satonov, Podolia, was therefore known as Satonover, and was also referred to as Mikolayev, as he also resided in Mikolayev for an extensive amount of time; spending his last years in Brody and Tarnopol. Lefin received a traditional Jewish education, studying Talmud and rabbinic codes, but early in his life, reportedly by accident, came across and was influenced by Joseph Solomon Delmedigo’s (1591–1655) Elim, dealing with mathematics and physics, motivating him to study those subjects. Lefin subsequently went to Berlin for medical treatment where he was also influence by Moses Mendelssohn (1729–1786), becoming a strong advocate of the Haskalah.
Lefin was a prolific author, his titles including a Hebrew translation of Dr. Samuel-Auguste Tissot’s popular book on medicine; and encouraged by a friendship with Prince Czartoryski, Essai d’un plan de reforme, avant pour objet déclairerhis la Nation Juive en Pologne et de la rdresser par s4es moeurs (An essay upon a Plan of Reform with the Object to Enlighten the Jewish Nation in Poland and to Improve it in Accordance with its Customs); . Lefin’s Hebrew works include Iggrot ha-Hokkmah, Refuot ha-Am, Heshbon ha-Nefesh, which, among other ethical topics, also elaborates on Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanac, which R. Israel Salanter (1810-83), founder of the Mussar movement, considered an excellent handbook for moral development and had reprinted; a new translation of Maimonides’ More Nevuchim, this in Mishnaic Hebrew, and Alon More, Lefin’s only original work, this an introduction to the philosophy of Maimonides, and Mishlei Shelomo, all in “a delightful prose”.[19]
The brief text of the title-page of Mishlei Shelomo states that it includes a concise new commentary in Ashkenaz (Yiddish) for the benefit of our brothers Beit Yisrael in the lands of Poland. Below that is that it was printed with the permission of the censors. There are two approbations, the first from R. Joshua Heschel Babad, the second from R. Mordecai ben Eliezer Sender Margolious, av bet din, Satonov. Below the approbations is Lefin’s introduction, in which he notes that so Torah should not be forgotten from Israel, he has included commentators and transcribed books of the Bible into different languages. He notes that in later generations with the movements of Jews and forgetfulness, older commentaries are not always understood, particularly in the lands of Ashenaz. Therefore, he has undertaken to bring out a concise commentary for our brothers in those lands, beginning with Proverbs (Mishlei).
1814, Mishlei Shelomo
The text follows, comprised, on facing pages, of the text of Proverbs in vocalized square letters, below it Lefin’s commentary in rabbinic letters, on the recto page. On the verso is Lewin’s translation in square vocalized letters and below it the continuation of the commentary. Zinberg writes that Lefin disregarded the distinction between the spoken and written language, and that Ecclesiastes and Proverbs should not be translated “in the language that the market-Jewess speaks to her customer in the street.” Zinberg describes Lefin’s purpose in the translation putting,
an end to the standard style of the translations of the Bible that had been dominant for hundreds of years and according to which the children in the schools had the Biblical text taught and translated to them. He wishes to give ordinary Jews , worn out with toil, the “holy books” without embroidered covers, but in the simple, weekday garment of the colloquial language, with its homely concepts and images, including its Slavisms, as it is spoken at home and in the market place. . . .Mendel Levin-Satanow did not print his translation of Proverbs in the special “women’s type” customary for Judeo-German books, but in square Hebrew letters and with vowels. Levin’s spelling is also characteristic of his translation: he writes the words mainly according to their phonetic sound. Thus we find in his work rufikh, not ruf ikh: nemtzakh, instead of nemt es aykh . . .[20]
Mishlei Shelomo was part of Lefin’s translation of the Bible into Yiddish, of which only the volumes on Proverbs and Ecclesiastes were published. He was able to publish Mishlei Shelomo with the financial aid of Joseph Perl. As noted above, Mishlei Shelomo has approbation from two av bet din. It is rare, indeed unusual, for rabbis to give approbations to books by Maskilim, especially in this case where a sponsor was Joseph Perl, who was opposed to the orthodox establishment.
Waxman observes that Lefin’s translation into the Yiddish vernacular raised the objection, “a hue and cry” among Maskilim who regarded Yiddish as a jargon and wished to reduce its use as much as possible. Tobias Gutman, another maskil, even wrote a pamphlet against Lefin, branding him a traitor to the cause of Hebrew. Leaders of the Galician Maskilim intervened and the pamphlet was not published during Lefin or Gutman’s lifetime. All of this notwithstanding, Lefin’s books were generally popular.
IV
Luach (Calendar) – Three calendars are recorded for the Tarnopol press, that is, 1813,1814, and 1815, all credited to Joseph Perl. Each calendar is octavo in format, the 1814 calendar, our subject calendar, is (80: [9], [4], 1, 11, [1] ff).
Joseph Perl (1773–1839), already noted several times in passing, was a person of import in the Haskalah. He was born in Tarnopol to Todros. a wealthy wine merchant and for a time holder of the communal concession for the tax on meat. As a young man, Perl was attracted to Hassidism, but while a partner in his father’s business he travelled to various locations where he met Maskilim, among them, in Brody, Menahem Mendel Lefin, who inspired Perl. He was deeply involved throughout his life in education, founding a moderate Haskalah school in Tarnopol, one that continued to exist until World War II. Perl served as principal of the school, which initially gave lessons in Perl’s mansion taught in German, boys learning for eight years, girls for five. An opponent of the educational system established by Perl was Joshua Heschel Babad, av bet din of Tarnopol.
1814, Luach (Calendar)
Among his activities in Tarnopol, from 1813 to 1815, was the publication of these calendars, which cited rabbinic sources and popular science. Perl became an opponent of Hassidis, which he felt had left the path of tradition, authoring several anti-Hasidic satires, beginning with Über das Wesen der sekte Chassidim (On the Essence of the Hasidic Sect), written between 1814 and 1816. Next was a Hebrew-Yiddish parody of R. Naḥman of Bratslav, entitled “The Story of the Loss of the Prince,” which mocked Hasidism. His most important work was Megaleh temirin (The Revealer of Secrets; 1819), published under the pseudonym Ovadyah ben Petaḥyah, “harshly critical of Hasidic society, its leaders, and its customs its leaders, and its customs.” Perl wrote yet additional works in the same vein.[21] The activities of Perl and his fellow Maskilim resulted in a ban on the Maskilim by the admorim R. Jacob Orenshtein of Lvov in 1816 and by R. Zevi Hirsch Eichenstein in 1822, and R. T. Israel from Rejin, nicknaming “Joseph Perl ‘the second son of Miriam’” referring to the founder of Christianity.[22]
The cover of the calendar succinctly states that it is a calendar for the year 1814 and on the verso lists the contents, that is, the calendars and other material included within the publication. This is followed by a more detailed title-page that states that it is from the year five thousand תקע”ד ([5] 574 = 1814) from the creation of the world according to the accounting of the people of Israel, followed by its contents, which include the Roman (secular) calendar, other calendars as well as other virtues such as the eastern calendar, sunset, the days (history) of the Roman state, locations where places of justice are closed, concluding that added is a luah ha-lev (heart rest) in which all who read it will find calm for his soul, and, de rigeur, with the permission of the censor.
The verso of the title-page has a list of pertinent contractions for the year 1814 and below the order of Hoshanas (prayers said on Hoshana Rabbah, the seventh day of Sukkot). This is followed by several charts for the molad (appearance of the new moon), chronology of historical events, additional calendars, customs, and customs pertaining to the year 1814, and then luah ha-lev which encompasses such subjects as hospitality, loving thy neighbor, loving Torah and wisdom, charity, honoring one’s parents, and much more. Next is a section entitled examining nature, with subheadings, encompassing such subjects as five things are said about a mad dog (Yoma 88), and concerning products such as grapes and olives. At the end are ethical parables and eleven riddles, for example. who is it that is born a few days after his mother; what is the easiest of all things to do, concluding that the answers will be given in the next calendar.
Shevah Tefillot – Another prayer book, attributed by some to Joseph Perl. It is a small work (15 cm., [40\] pp.), designed for the use of students. The title-page informs that it is “Shevah Tefillot: for the seven days of the week, as the young boys pray daily immediately when they come to learn in the Beit ha-Sefer (yeshivah) which exists to educate the Benei Yisrael (Jewish children) of Tarnopol). Immediately below it is like text in Yiddish. The following page has the verse “He who turns a deaf ear to instruction. His prayer is an abomination” (Proverbs 28:29). The text is comprised of facing pages of prayers for each of the seven days of the week in square vocalized Hebrew letters and in Yiddish in square unvocalized Hebrew. The National Library of Israel (NLI) attributes Shevah Tefillot to the Beit Sefer ha-Hinukh Na’arei Benei Yisrael (Tarnopol), that is the school faculty. The Thesaurus attributes Shevah Tefillot to both the Beit Sefer and Joseph Perl, in contrast to the NLI description which states that the author compiler is unknow. However, given Perl’s involvement with education in Tarnopol the attribution to Perl appears reasonable.
V
Sha’arei Ziyyon – A very different type of work, in contrast to the works of Maskilim, is R. Nathan Nata ben Moses Hannover’s (d. 1683) Sha’arei Ziyyon, a collection of Lurianic kabbalistic prayers, particularly for Tikkun Hazot (midnight prayers in remembrance of the destruction of the Temple and for the restoration to the Land of Israel). Hannover’s birthplace and early background are uncertain. His residence in Zaslav, Volhynia, was apparently peaceful and untroubled, but came to an end with the Chmielnicki massacres of 1648-49 (tah ve-tat), witnessed and recorded by him in Yeven Mezulah. He is reported to have learned Kabbalah with R. Samson Ostropoler of Polonnoye (Volhynia) who died in those massacres (above). In 1683, Hannover, then dayyan in Ungarisch Brod, was murdered while at prayers by a stray bullet fired by raiding Turkish troops.[23]
Hannover was the author of several other important works, among them Yeven Mezulah, which chronicles the experiences of Polish Jewry during the Chmielnicki massacres, based on first person accounts, first edition published in Venice (1653) and Safah Berurah, a popular four language, Hebrew-German-Latin-Italian,, glossary for conversation and as a guidebook for travelers consisting of 2,000 words (Prague, 1660). Another work, Ta’amei Sukkah (Amsterdam, 1652) is a discourse on the festival of Sukkot. Based on a sermon delivered in Cracow in 1646; the work is incomplete. Lack of funds prevented Hannover from publishing the entire work; therefore, he writes, he is publishing one discourse only. No other parts were ever published.[24]
Turning to Sha’arei Ziyyon, it was published in 1815 in a small format, as a 14 cm. sextodecimo (160: 132 ff.). The title is from “The Lord loves the gates of Zion (sha’arei Ziyyon) more than all the dwellings of Jacob” (Psalms 87:2). The title-page informs that Hannover relied on the works of R. Hayyim Vital (1542–1620), the foremost student or R. Isaac Luria (ha-Ari ha-Kodesh, 1534–1572), whose teachings were based on R. Shimon bar Yohai (mid-second century C.E.). The title-page is followed by a description of the seven sha’arim (seven gates) comprising Sha’arei Ziyyon. They are Tikkun Hazot based on Etz ha-Hayyim; Tikkun ha-Nefesh, to be said after Tikkun Hazot with Yedid Nefesh; Tikkun ha-Tefillah according to Kabbalah; Tikkun Kriat ha-Torah; Tikkun Kriat Shema with the appropriate kavvanot; Tikkun shel Erev Rosh Hodesh; and Tikkun Malkhut on Rosh Ha-Shanah and Yom ha-Kippurim. Omitted are the approbations and Hannover’s introduction that appeared in the first edition (Prague, 1682).
Text is generally in a single column in square vocalized letters, occasionally accompanied by commentary in rabbinic letters. This too is in contrast to the first edition which was in a single column in rabbinic type with occasional headers, and some limited text in square letters. Sha’arei Ziyyon is primarily a compilation of existing prayers assembled into one work. Prayers currently recited on special festival days, such as Ribbono shel Olam, said prior to the removal of the Torah from the Ark and the Yehi Ratzon after the priestly blessing are taken from Sha’arei Ziyyon
1815, Sha’arei Ziyyon
Gershom Scholem, in describing the influence of Kabbalah on Jewish life, writes that one of the areas in which it had the greatest influence was prayer. Sha’arei Ziyyon is among the most influential books in this sphere, expressing Lurianic doctrines “of man’s mission on earth, his connections with the power of the upper worlds, the transmigrations of his soul, and his striving to achieve tikkun were woven into prayers that could be appreciated and understood by everyone, or that at least could arouse everyone’s imagination and emotion.”[25] Sylvie-Anne Goldberg describes as Sha’arei Ziyyon “one of the most widely read books in the Jewish world.”[26] The Bet Eked Sefarim enumerates fifty-four editions through 1917.[27] The National Library of Israel records an additional twelve editions through 2019.
Likkutei Zevi – Another liturgical work is R . Zevi Hirsch ben Hayyim Wilhermsdorfer’s Likkutei Zevi, a varied prayer book. Published in 1815 it too is a 14 cm. sextodecimo (160: 102 ff.). Zevi Hirsch was a scholar and printer in Wilhemsdorf, active there for almost three decades, beginning to print in 1712 at the age of twenty-nine. He was the was the author of annotations to a Selihot (1714), Darkei No’am (1724) and Likkutei Zevi (1738) published by him in Wilhemsdorf, as well as Likkutei Naftali (Fuerth, 1769).[28]
The title-page notes that Likkutei Zevi has been printed numerous times and has added prayers for the shelosh regalim, on teshuvah. Likkutei Zevi begins with prayers in large square vocalized letters, followed by prayers in smaller square unvocalized Hebrew and includes material in rabbinic letters. The text is comprised of selections form Psalms, to be said on different occasions and times of the year, such as Hodesh Elul (hafares Nedarim), Rosh HaShanah, and Yom Kippur, Mishnayot for tractates Yoma and Sukkah with the commentary of R. Obadiah Bertinoro, brief halakhot for Sukkah, material on Pesah, Iggerot Teshuvah and Rabbenah Yonah’s Yesod ha-Teshuuvah. Likkutei Zevi has proved to be a popular work, Friedberg records this as the twenty-sixth edition of fifty-eight entries for that work in the Bet Eked Sepharim through 1875, and notes further editions with supplementary material.[29]
VI
We began by noting that the Tarnopol press of Naḥman Pineles and Jacob Auerbach published a variety of valuable works “blossoms have appeared in the land, The time of your song has arrived, and the voice of the turtledove, is heard in our land. The green figs form on the fig tree. The vines in blossom give off fragrance,” this despite being “short lived and closed prematurely.” The examples of the titles issued by the press encompass philosophic, Hassidic (Kabbalistic), and Maskilic works, many clearly designed to be of communal value, such as prayer books, calendars, Hamishah Homshei Torah, and Mishlei Shelomo, others reflecting the diverse composition of the community. The varied works include books by Don Isaac ben Judah Abrabanel, Samson Ostropoler of Polonnoye, Nathan Hannover, and Menahem Mendel Lefin, and Joseph Perl.
Pineles and Auerbach were partners in the press until 1814. After that Friedberg informs that Pineles was the sole printer. He suggests that as Tarnopol was part of the Russian domain the press omitted the place of printing from some title-pages in order to mislead the Austrian censor, citing Yeshu’ot Meshiho, Hamishah Homshei Torah, Imrei Binyamin, Torat ha-Adam, Pa’ne’ah Raza, and others as examples. With the exception of Torat ha-Adam and Likkuttei Shoshanah (below) all of the titles seen and reproduced here give Tarnopol as the place of printing, which supports Friedberg that Pineles printed copies with variant title-pages for different markets. The only problem with Friedberg’s examples is that Friedberg stated that he did not see the title-page of Yeshu’ot Meshiho but included it as an example of work with variant title-pages.[30]
The press ceased printing in Tarnopol in 1817 due to a boycott of the press publications by the Orthodox community for supporting the Haskalah.[31] Prior to that, according to Friedberg, on July 6, (1 Sivan) 1816, after Tarnopol had returned to Austrian rule the press published Mekor Haim (1816) as well as educational works in German. The National Library of Israel lists a small a small number of later works, such as Ibacharta Bachaim (komentarz do Szulchana Arucha) by Hayyim ben Pinchas Schachter (1838) and Ma’aseh Ninveh (Prophezeiung Obadia’s, 1848), the latter also listed by the Thesaurus. The short-lived life of the Tarnopol press and the controversy over the nature of several of its works notwithstanding, in retrospect it can be said that the Tarnopol did press publish a variety of valuable works. Given the brief life of the press and its unfortunate end we might conclude “The little foxes. that ruin the vineyards— For our vineyard is in blossom.”
1813/14 Likkuttei Shoshanah
[1] Once again, I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to Eli Genauer for reading this article and for his general editorial suggestions. All images in this article are courtesy of the National Library of Israel excepting Likkuttei Shoshanah, which is courtesy of the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad Ohel Yosef Yitzhak.
[2] Nathan Michael Gelber and Aharon Weiss. “Tarnopol,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 19, pp. 516-518; Joseph Jacobs, Schulim Ochser, Jewish Encyclopaedia, vol. 12 pp. 63-64
[3] Jonathon Meir, “”Ternopil,” YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe 2 (New Haven & London, 2008), 855-56.
[4] Francine Shapiro, Project Coordinator, “Tarnopol,” Encyclopedia of Jewish Communities in Poland, Volume II (Ternopil, Ukraine), Translation of “Tarnopol” chapter from Pinkas Hakehillot Polin by translated by Shlomo Sneh with the assistance of Francine Shapiro, pp. 234-51, published by Yad Vashem, Jerusalem. https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/pinkas_poland/pol2_00234.html. The following description of Tarnopol is based on this Pinkas.
[5] “Tarnopol,” The Encyclopedia of Jewish life Before and During the Holocaust, editor in chief, Shmuel Spector; consulting editor, Geoffrey Wigoder; foreword by Elie Wiesel II (New York, 2001), III pp. 1291-93.
[6] Joshua Heschel Babad subsequently served briefly in Lublin (1828), but was compelled to leave the city because of his dispute with the Mitnaggedim there. He returned to Tarnopol serving there for almost forty years, until 1837. In 1830, Babad became ill and, in 1838, was replaced as rabbi, by the Maskil Shelomoh Yehudah Rapoport (Shir). Babad’s responsa, Sefer Yehoshu’a (Zolkiew, 1829), on Shulḥan Arukh, was considered a basic halakhic work. (Josef Horovitz, “Babad,” Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. III: vol. 3: pp. 14-15; Haim Gertner, “Babad Family,”; Yivo Encyclopedia, vol. I: pp. 102-03
[7] Ch. Friedberg: History of Hebrew Typography in Poland from its beginning in the year1534 and its development to the present. . . . Second Edition Enlarged, improved and revised from the sources (Tel Aviv, 1950), 148-49 [Hebrew].
[8] Yeshayahu Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book. Listing of Books Printed in Hebrew Letters Since the Beginning of Printing circa 1469 through 1863 II.(Jerusalem, 1993–95), 340-41 {Hebrew].
[9] Friedberg, History of Hebrew Typography, reports that the copy he saw lacked a title-page. He attributes this to the conditions described above.
[10] Benzion, Netanyahu, Don Isaac Abravanel: Statesman & Philosopher, (Philadelphia, 1972), var. cit.
[11] Ch. B. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sepharim, (Israel, n.d.), yod 1061 [Hebrew].
[12] M. Gaster, “Abravanel’s Literary Work,” in Isaac Abravanel. Six Lectures, ed. J. B. Trend and H. Loewe (Cambridge, 1937), pp. 48-49; and Menachem Marc Kellner, ed. and tr. Principles of Faith (Rosh Amanah) (Rutherford, 1982), pp. 11-50.
[13] Ada Rapoport-Albert, “Shimshon ben Pesaḥ of Ostropolye,” YIVO Encyclopedia 2: 1710.
[14] Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Shem ha-Gedolim ha–Shalem with additions by Menachem Mendel Krengel II (Jerusalem, 1979), p. 134 pe no. 123 [Hebrew].
[15] Ch. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim, (Israel n.d.), pe 575 [Hebrew].
[16] National Library of Israel; Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book, II, 340: 7. In contrast to the two previous citations Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim tav records Torat ha-Adam as Tarnopol, 1812
[17] Courtesy of Virtual Judaica.
[18] Bidspirit, Winners lot 102 (January 18, 2021). Imrei Binyamin had an estimated auction price of $300-500, price realized $130. Another copy, Moreshet lot 032 (August 26, 2020), was placed on auction, estimate $350. Not sold. Virtual Judaica (September 19, 2017), estimate $200-500, price realized $100.
[19] Meyer Waxman, A History of Jewish Literature (Cranbury, 1960), vol. III pp. 142-44; Israel Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature translated by Bernard Martin, VI (Cleveland, 1972-78), pp. 275-280
[20] Zinberg, vol. IX, p.216.
[21] Jonatan Meir, “Perl, Yosef,” YIVO Encyclopedia, vol. 1342-44.
[22] Francine Shapiro, Project Coordinator, “Tarnopol,” Encyclopedia of Jewish Communities in Poland, p.5.
[23] Concerning Hannover see Marvin J. Heller, “R. Nathan Nata ben Moses Hannover: The Life and Works of an Illustrious and Tragic Figure,” Seforim.blogspot.com, December 28, 2018, reprinted in Essays on the Making of the Early Hebrew Book, (Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2021) pp. 256-72.
[24] Concerning other such small books published as a prospective for larger unpublished see Marvin J. Heller, “Books not Printed, Dreams not Realized,” in Further Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2013), pp. 285-303.
[25] Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (NewYork, 1973), p. 193.
[26] Sylvie-Anne Goldberg, Crossing the Jabbok: Illness and death in Ashkenazi Judaism in Sixteenth through Ninteenth-Century Prague (Berkeley, 1996), p. 88.
[27] Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim, shin 2148. Given all of those editions it should be noted that the Bet Eked Sefarim does not include the Tarnopol edition, which, if it did, would be the thirty-ninth printing or Sha’arei Ziyyon.
[28] Concerning Zevi Hirsch ben Hayyim and his press in Wilhermsdorf see Marvin J. Heller, Printing the Talmud: A History of the Individual Treatises Printed from 1700 to 1750 (Brill, Leiden, 1999), pp. 118-52; Moshe N. Rosenfeld, Jewish Printing in Wilhermsdorf. A Concise Bibliography of Hebrew and Yiddish Publications, Printed in Wilhermsdorf between 1670 and 1739, Showing Aspects of Jewish Life Also seen Mittelfranken Three Centuries Ago Based on Public and Private Collections and Genizah Discoveries. With an Appendix ‘Archival Notes’ by Ralf Rossmeissl (London, 1995), var. cit.
[29] Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim, lamed 645.
[30] Friedberg, History of Hebrew Typography, op. cit.
[31] Gelber and Weiss, EJ, op. cit.
Guide and Review of Online Resources – 2022 – Part III
By Ezra Brand
Ezra Brand is an independent researcher based in Tel Aviv. He has an MA from Revel Graduate School at Yeshiva University in Medieval Jewish History, where he focused his research on 13th and 14th century sefirotic Kabbalah. He is interested in using digital and computational tools in historical research. He has contributed a number of times previously to the Seforim Blog (tag), and a selection of his research can be found at his Academia.edu profile. He can be reached at ezrabrand-at-gmail.com; any and all feedback is greatly appreciated. This post is a continuation. The first part of this post is here, the second here, and this is the third and final part.
Websites with open-access articles, written for a popular audience, with relatively high scholarly standards.
Newspapers and magazines can be a great source of scholarship, and they’re often available online. They are especially good for reviews of scholarly books, and interviews with scholars.[1] Israeli publications often have high-quality articles on Hebrew linguistics. Mostly behind paywall, with some articles not behind paywall.
Some of the best:
Blogs are generally not formally peer-reviewed and are generally written more informally and conversationally, but are often a great resource. With the shift from blogs to social media, many blogs have shifted to Facebook, and to a lesser extent Twitter and Reddit. (E.g., Mississippi Fred McDowel no longer posts on “On the Main Line”, but does on Facebook..) Blogs are far less active than they were. There are a lot of Facebook groups, which I’m less familiar with, and technically have to be added to and aren’t indexed by Google unfortunately (“walled gardens“, vs. “open platforms”).
YouTube has a lot of academic lectures. With the covid restrictions over the past two years, it has become especially common to live stream scholarly lectures (whether there’s a live component or not), and often the videos are then permanently publicly available on YouTube.[3]
Some channels:
Now requires registration (free) to view most content.
Essentially every organization focused on Jewish scholarship has a Twitter feed and a Facebook page. Most Twitter feeds and Facebook pages affiliated with organizations are focused on academic events, book launches, awards, etc., and so are less interesting for our purposes here. Here are the ones that especially caught my eye as having content relevant to this guide, especially bibliographical content.
There are some great forums dedicated to academic Jewish Studies.
It’s truly an exciting time to be a reader and producer of scholarship. Let me know what I’ve missed!
Halach Brura’s index is broken down by topic, such as works of Hazal, commentaries on Mishnah, commentaries on Talmud, etc. With links to other websites (mentioned above in section “Primary Texts”) where PDFs can be found.
Halacha Brura has an intro on their index’s main page, worth quoting in full, as it makes a lot of points very relevant to this guide.
As throughout, the translation is mine, and I have translated loosely. The breakdown into numbered paragraphs and bolding is mine as well:
Halacha Brura indexes seforim on the following websites, in order of number of seforim linked:[9]
Based on my analysis, at least 45% of Halacha Brura’s links are to HebrewBooks. In fact, one can view Halacha Brura’s index as essentially a kind of index of HebrewBooks.
As for the links to open-access books in Israel National Library, I mentioned earlier that all these links are now broken. I described earlier best way to now find these open-access books on the website.
As of 15-Feb-22, Halacha Brura has 36 webpages of indexes,[10] and based on my rough estimate over 40,000 open-access seforim have been categorized.
Halacha Brura’s system of symbols is not especially user-friendly. I have therefore rearranged their symbols in a more logical arrangement, see below.
I organized the order of the symbols based on the frequency of times the symbol appears in Halacha Brura’s index. I have also supplemented the symbols, based on other intros in the website:
Page names are mostly taken from the webpage “headers”, with some changes.
The number after the page name refers to the number in the URL, that differentiates pages. So, for example, the number for תנ”ך וחז”ל is 0: http://www.halachabrura.org/library/library0.htm. , and for ראשונים על התורה it’s 3a: http://www.halachabrura.org/library/library3a.htm.
The names of the categories and sub-categories are generally taken directly from the webpages, with small changes where deemed to be helpful. The ordering of the webpages is mine.[11]
תנ”ך
משנה
תוספתא ומסכתות קטנות
תלמוד
מדרשים כסדר התנ”ך
מדרשים שונים
זוהר
ספרים חיצוניים
מפרשים על התורה – ראשונים – 3a
ראשונים על התורה
ביאורים על רש”י
נ”ך כללי
לפי ספר
הפטרות
מפרשי המשנה ; מפרשי תלמוד בבלי – ראשונים – 8
מפרשי המשנה
מפרשי תלמוד בבלי – ראשונים
מפרשי אגדות התלמוד, ירושלמי, תוספתא, מדרשים ופרקי אבות – 8l
מפרשי אגדות התלמוד
מפרשי הירושלמי
מפרשי תוספתא
מפרשי מדרשים
מפרשי מסכתות קטנות
מפרשים על פרקי אבות
מפרשי תלמוד בבלי – אחרונים – שונים – 8m
חידושי סוגיות
כללי התלמוד
הדרנים
ריאליה
הלכה למשה מסיני
גאונים
ספרי רש”י
ספרי הלכה של שאר ראשונים
ארבעה טורים
שולחן ערוך
מוני המצוות
הלכה – אחרונים – על שלחן ערוך – אבן העזר, חושן משפט, ונושאים שונים – 8d
על אבן העזר
על חושן משפט
על קדשים וטהרות
סת”ם
הלכה ורפואה
מנהגים ותקנות
כהנים ולויים
כללי פסיקה
שיעורים וזמנים
הולכי דרכים
צבא
ספק
חזקה
נשים
גוים
תוכחה
שמירת הלשון
רמב“ם ומפרשיו ; ושאלות ותשובות – 8a
רמב”ם ומפרשיו
משנה תורה
ספר המצוות
מורה נבוכים
פירוש המשנה
תשובות ואגרות
חיבורים אחרים
מפרשים על משנה תורה
מפרשים על מורה נבוכים
מפרשים על חיבורים אחרים
ספר המצוות
פירוש המשנה
מלות הגיון
דרכו של הרמב”ם
שאלות ותשובות
גאונים
ראשונים
שו”ת אחרונים ששמם כשם המחבר – לפי סדר שמו הפרטי של המחבר
הספדים
מועדים – אגדה
מועדים בהלכה ובאגדה
שבת
גאולה ומשיח
לימוד תורה
שמירת הברית והעיניים
טעמי המצוות
צוואות
סגולות
י”ג עיקרים
לבר מצוה
חינוך
חלומות
צדקה וחסד
נישואין
ברית מילה
שמחה
תפילה
שמירת הלשון
נגד לא-אורתודוקסים (רפורמים, משכילים, ציונים, מתבוללים, כופרים, משיחי שקר)
נגד שבתאי צבי ונגד נצרות
קבלה – 6
כללי
פירושים על הזוהר
ספר יצירה ופירושים עליו
שירה
סידורים ותפילות ופירושיהם
סידורים עם שמות
סידורים בלי שמות – לפי סדר שנות הדפסה
מחזורים לר”ה וליו”כ ושלשה רגלים
מחזורים בלי שמות לפי סדר שנות ההדפסה
תפילות מיוחדות
סליחות
ברכת החמה – לפי סדר השנים
פירושים על התפלה
סידורי מקובלים
כללי
ברסלב
ר’ אשר שיק
ר’ שלום ארוש
בעל התניא
ר’ דובער
הצמח צדק
מהר”ש
ר’ שלום דובער
ריי”צ
ר’ מנחם מנדל
חיבורים שונים
מונקאטש
ויז’ניץ
הגדות – 3c
עם פירושים
בלי פירושים
לקט מקורות בעניין פסח ועוד
ביוגרפיות
היסטוריה
ביבליוגרפיה
ארץ ישראל בהלכה ובאגדה
דקדוק ולשון
טעמי נגינה
המסורה בתנ”ך
אסטרונומיה וחכמת העיבור
לוחות שנים
ספרי יובל וזכרון
אנציקלופדיות וספרים המסודרים בסדר א””ב
רפואה ומדע
גיאוגרפיה
שיעורים וזמנים
גמטריא וראשי תיבות
גורלות
חידות
שונים – 4 (“מדור זה כולל ספרים שלא היה אפשר להכניס לאחד המדורים האחרים, מפני שנושא הספר הוא ייחודי“)
שפות זרות (לא–עברית) ; לא–אורתודוקס ; סיפורים ; כתבי יד ; הומור – 4w
שפות זרות
אידיש
אנגלית
גרמנית
ספרדית
צרפתית
לאדינו
ערבית-יהודית
פרסית
רוסית
לטינית
הונגרית
לא-אורתודוקס
משכילים
רפורמים
שבתאים
קראים
שומרונים
סיפורים
כתבי יד
הומור
[1] For an interesting example of newspaper interviews and lectures on YouTube being used as evidence in scholarly discussion, see Prof. Bezalel Bar-Kochva’s critique of Prof. Rachel Elior: https://www.tau.ac.il/sites/tau.ac.il.en/files/media_server/imported/508/files/2014/10/elior-25.11.2013.pdf. However, it must be admitted that that’s an unusual case.
[2] Example of article on Hebrew linguistics, on the word “שחצן”: המילה שַׁחְצָן: מה הקשר בין אריות לנחשים וביניהם לבין יוהרה?: https://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/the-edge/mehasafa/.premium-1.2853618
[3] As for podcasts, many podcasts are also available on YouTube. For example, see below for the podcast “Channeling Jewish History”.
[4] See here: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities – YouTube > “Past live streams”. Recent example that showed in my email inbox of youtube being used for live streaming of a scholarly lecture:
When I was sent this link, Gmail even knew to attach the YouTube preview in the email.
[5] Introduction Show, Seforimchatter, https://seforimchatter.buzzsprout.com/1218638/4587641-introduction-show, July 15, 2020, Season 1 Episode 18. (Accessed 13-Feb-22).
[6] Admin of the Facebook group “Channeling Jewish History Group”.
[7] A few examples: R’ Dr. Ari Lamm’s podcast called “Good Faith Effort”; Michael Eisenberg’s YouTube channel.
[8] The Halacha Brura indexes indeed link to a nice amount of non-Orthodox works. A dedicated sub-category for non-Orthodox writings appears at the webpage indexing eclectic works (“ספרי קודש שונים”), together with “Foreign-language”, “Stories”, “Manuscripts”, and “Humor”. It should be pointed out that many of these non-Orthodox books have been removed from HebrewBooks, and are no longer available there.
[9] My analysis. I “scraped” a few webpages of Halacha Brura via relatively simple copy-paste and text manipulation in Google Sheets, to use as a sample.
[10] The number of webpages is always going up. When I started my research, there were 33 pages. They then split the page on “Journals” into 4 pages, due to indexing hundreds of additional links.
[11] As I’ve mentioned before, this index by Halacha Brura is a work-in-progress. They are still actively spinning off new pages. Therefore, this meta-index is likely to have some out-of-date info as time goes on.
Rashi BaMidbar 22:9- “Taut Sofrim” or “Agadot Chalukot?”
By Eli Genauer
Summary: Here we find polar opposite approaches to a Stirah in Rashi’s commentary to the Torah. One approach maintains that Rashi used two different Midrashic sources for his contradictory comments, and the other solves the Stirah by saying that one of the comments attributed to Rashi is actually a Taut Sofrim
There is a very perplexing verse towards the beginning of Parshat Balak
ט:וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹקים אֶל-בִּלְעָם וַיֹּאמֶר מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ:
Balak sent messengers to Bilaam asking him to curse the Jewish people. Bilaam retired for the night and Hashem approached him at that time. “Who are these men with you?”, Hashem asked. Certainly, the Omniscient One knew the answer to that question. We look to Rashi to explain the motivation for G-d’s question and surprisingly we find it all the way back in Parshat Breishit (Breishit 3:9). Adam and Chava had just disobeyed Hashem by eating the forbidden food and they heard Hashem walking in the Garden. Hashem asked Adam “where are you?”( איכה), the answer to which Hashem already knew. Rashi comments as follows
“איכה“. יוֹדֵעַ הָיָה הֵיכָן הוּא אֶלָּא לִכָּנֵס עִמּוֹ בִּדְבָרִים, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא נִבְהָל לְהָשִׁיב אִם יַעֲנִישֵׁהוּ פִּתְאוֹם (בראשית רבה),[1] וְכֵן בְּקַיִן אָמַר לוֹ אֵי הֶבֶל אָחִיךָ (בראשית ד), וְכֵן בְּבִלְעָם מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ (במדבר כ“ב), לִכָּנֵס עִמָּהֶם בִּדְבָרִים, וְכֵן בְּחִזְקִיָּה בִּשְׁלוּחֵי מְרֹאדַךְ בַּלְאֲדָן:
Hashem knew where Adam was, but He asked this in order to open up a conversation with him that he should not become confused in his reply, if He were to pronounce punishment against him all of a sudden……..Similarly with Bilaam, “who are these men with you?” — to open up a conversation with them.
Rashi in Breishis emphasizes that the reason Hashem asked Bilaam “who are these men with you” was to draw him into a conversation, thereby making him more comfortable in speaking to Him.
However in Parshas Balak (BaMidbar 22:9) Rashi seems to have a different take[2] on why Hashem asked “Who are these men with you?”
מי האנשים האלה עמך. לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא, אָמַר פְּעָמִים שֶׁאֵין הַכֹּל גָּלוּי לְפָנָיו, אֵין דַּעְתּוֹ שָׁוָה עָלָיו, אַף אֲנִי אֶרְאֶה עֵת שֶׁאוּכַל לְקַלֵּל וְלֹא יָבִין (תנחומא):
“Who are these men with you?” G-d’s question led Bilaam to conclude “Sometimes, not everything is revealed before Him, for He is not always omniscient. I will find a time when I am able to curse, and He will not realize it.” The words “ לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” with which Rashi begins, seem to indicate that Hashem was trying to mislead Bilaam into thinking that He was not all knowing, and not to draw him into a conversation . Here are a few attempts to translate לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא.
The Silbermann Chumash directs you to a footnote which reflects the approach of many of the Meforshai Rashi on the contradiction between the two comments of Rashi. “Rashi on Genesis 3:9 has already pointed out that sometimes G-d puts a seemingly superfluous question to a person to open a conversation. One of the instances he cites there is Bilaam. The heathen soothsayer did not understand the purpose of this question, and it suggested to him that G-d was not omniscient at all times”
The Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi does a much better job in encapsulating this approach by replacing “cause him to err” with “gave him room to err”.[3] Artscroll adds a footnote summarizing the approach of Gur Aryeh by saying that Hashem intended to gently open the conversation with Bilaam, but worded the question in an ambiguous way. Bilaam could have understood the question as Hashem’s way of entering into a conversation with him, but he instead chose to interpret it to indicate that Hashem was not always aware of all the details of a situation.
Professor Yeshayahu Maori Z”L in his book “Sugyot B’Nusach HaMikrah U’B’Parshnato”[4] advances the idea that the Stirah stems from the fact that Rashi accessed two different Midrashic sources, one for his comment in Breishit and one for his comment in BaMidbar.[5] This is based on the idea which was advanced by Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi that sometimes Rashi used “Agadot Chalukot”.[6] The author of “Tzaidah L’Derech” (Prague 1623) sees this case as one where Rashi used “Agadot Chalukot” and that is why Rashi’s comment on “מי האנשים האלה עמך “is different in Breishit and BaMidbar.[7] Here are the words of Rav Yissachar Ber Eilenburg (1570-1623) author of “Tzaideh L’Derech”
אלא מאי אית לך למימר שאגדות חלוקות הן ורש״י רגיל לפרש פעמים אחר אגדה אחת ופּעמים אחר אגדה אחרת כמו שכתב הרא״ם ז״ל בהרבה מקומות אין מספר
“But what can you say but that Rashi used different Aggadot here. Rashi is accustomed to explaining matters by using one Aggadah here and another Aggadah there as Rav Eliyah Mizrachi has stated in many places”[8]
Rav Yosef Ben Yissachar Miklish (1580-1654) is one who is very bothered by the fact that this comment in Rashi seemingly contradicts what he wrote in his commentary on Hashem’s question of “where are you?” to Adam ( Breishit 3:9).[9] He addresses this Stirah in a completely different manner. He maintains that he had a manuscript which was 315 years old in which the words “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” did not exist, nor did it contain the words that followed. Rather, it had a completely different Girsa in this Rashi. The website Alhatorah.org attributes a very similar Girsa to a manuscript called Berlin 1221[10] along with material from other manuscripts.[11] It also notes that Wolf Heidenheim attributed the comment to Rav Yosef Kara.
היידנהיים ייחס את התוספת לר׳ יוסף בר׳ שמעון ז״ל,[12] ואפשר שכך היה כתוב בכ״י שלפניו, אך בכל עדי הנוסח שבידינו, אין ייחוס מפורש לר״י קרא. והשווה רש״י בראשית ג׳:ט׳.[13]
The comment attributed to Rashi in this manuscript in general matches the words quoted by Yosef Daat for “his” version of Rashi. The main thrust is that Hashem addressed Bilaam in a way to engage him in the way one addresses someone to make them feel comfortable כשיבוא לתפוס את האדם מתוך דבריו, and not to delude him (ְלהַטְעוֹתוֹ)
Berlin 1221
Yosef Daat
The author of Yosef Daat even speculates that the words “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” are a Taut Sofrim inserted by printers “to cause people to err” as Rashi himself would never have written such a comment.
כי גירסת “לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא” היא גירסא בא בדפוס להטות את הבריות
However, the overwhelming majority of manuscripts contain the wording of Rashi as we have it today, something which the author of Yosef Daat would not have known.[14] Here is the important manuscript known as Leipzig 1.[15]
The three Defusim Rishonim (Rome, Alkabetz and Reggio di Callabrio) do not contain the Girsa cited by Yosef Daat. There is no indication in any early printed edition from the 1400’s and 1500’s that any other Girsa existed.
Avraham Berliner (Berlin 1867) normally notes the Girsaot of Yosef Daat but here completely ignores it.[16]
There was another approach taken a bit over 400 years ago in trying to explain what Rashi meant when he wrote לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא and that is to insert an explanatory remark in parentheses embedded into the text of Rashi. The first time I could find it in a printed edition was in one printed in Hanau 1611-1614. This is how it looks:
)ר“ל ישרים דרכי ה‘ צדיקים ילכו בם ופושעים יכשלו בם כוונת הש“י שאמר מי האנשים היתה לטובה ליכנס עמו בדברים כמ“ש רש“י בפ‘ בראשית בתיבה איכה אך בא לבלעם לטעות כי הוא טעה)
This portion in the parentheses is clearly not part of Rashi and it makes no attempt to hide it as it states clearly כמ“ש רש“י בפ‘ בראשית בתיבה איכה. It tries to explain what Rashi means by first quoting a Pasuk, (ישרים דרכי ה׳… ) something Rashi could have done himself if he so desired.
The Hanau edition contained many other comments like this. The Bibliography of the Hebrew Book notes that this was an edition which featured additions to Rashi from some of the Meforshai Rashi.
ככל אשר נדפס בויניציאה [ש”ן-שנ”א] -מעבר לשער הקדמה קצרה (“אל עין הקורא”) ובה רשימת “כמה מעלות” שבהוצאה הנוכחית. בין השאר נאמר שהחומש והתרגום ובפרט פירוש רש”י הוגהו “מתוך חומש של … רּ ישעיה הלוי” (הורוויץ, בעל השל”ה).
After the Hanau edition, the embedded comment in parentheses had a very strong run. I consulted my personal collection of Chumashim from the 1700’s and 1800’s and, beginning with a Chumash printed in Amsterdam in 1729 to one printed in Pressburg in 1868, 13 have the comment and 6 do not. The comment also appears in practically all the Chumashim from the 1900’s that I looked at. This might be because many of them are photo offset of what is known as the Netter Mikraot Gedolot of Vienna of 1859 which served as the model for many editions that followed.[17]
Vilna Netter 1859
It is included on the Chabad website for the portion of the week, but only on the English side!
However, many new editions such as Oz Vehadar, Mosad HaRav Kook and HaMaor (2005) do not include this parenthetical comment, a practice which returns this Rashi to its original form.[18]
[1] בראשית רבה י״ט: י״א
וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם וגוּ (בראשית ג, יב), אַרְבָּעָה הֵן שֶׁהֵקִישׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל קַנְקַנָּן וּמְצָאָן קַנְקַנִּין שֶׁל מֵימֵי רַגְלַיִם, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן, אָדָם, וְקַיִן, וּבִלְעָם, וְחִזְקִיָּהוּ. אָדָם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם הָאִשָּׁה. קַיִן(בראשית ד, ט): וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳ אֶל קַיִן אֵי הֶבֶל וגוּ וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא יָדַעְתִּי. בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר כב, ט י): מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ, וַיֹּאמֶר בִּלְעָם אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים וגוּ. חִזְקִיָּהוּ (מלכים ב ך, יד) (ישעיה לט, ג): מָה אָמְרוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה וגוּ.
[2] Medrash Tanchuma Parshat Balak Siman 5 (also BaMidbar Rabah 20:9)
The text of Medrash Tanchuma is as follows
כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ: מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה. אָמַר הָרָשָׁע, אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בָּהֶם. כִּמְדֻמֶּה אֲנִי, יֵשׁ עִתִּים שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ, וְאַף אֲנִי אֶעֱשֶׂה בְּבָנָיו כָּל מַה שֶּׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת. לְכָךְ אָמַר לוֹ: מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ, לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ.
[3]Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi, Brooklyn, NY, 2018, p.275.
[4] Yeshayahu Maori, Shaanan, Kiryat Shmuel-Haifa, 2020
[5] Ibid pages 137-139.
[6] Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi did not use the approach here rather he tried to address the Stirah in the following manner
מזרחי במדבר כ״ב: ט
מי האנשים האלה עמך? להטעותו בא שיאמר פעמים שאין הכל גלוי לפניו אין דעתו שוה עליו אף אני אראה עת שאוכל לקלל ולא יבין. אבל בפסוק איכה פירש יודע היה היכן הוא אלא ליכנס עמו בדברים שלא יהא נבהל להשיב אם יענישהו פתאום וכן בקין אמר לו אי הבל אחיך וכן בבלעם מי האנשים האלה עמך ליכנס עמהם בדברים ושמא י”ל דה”נ כדי להכנס עמו בדברים הוא כדפירש התם אלא ששם לא פירש הטעם למה נכנס עמו בדבור ופה פירש הטעם ואמר כדי להטעותו וכוּ וכן פירש שם גבי איכה ואי הבל אחיך שנכנס עמהם בדברים כדי שלא יהיו נבהלים מלהשיב חטאתי כדי שימחול להם שאם היה מתחיל להענישם פתאום מבלתי שאלת איכה ושאלת אי הבל אחיך היו נבהלים מלהשיב חטאתי והשם ברחמיו רוצה בתשובת הרשעים ואינו חפץ במיתתן:
[7] As mentioned before, the basis of the comment in BaMidbar is Medrash Tanchuma. The basis for the comment in Breishit 3:9 according to Mizrachi is Breishit Rabah.
בב”ר פי’ שאם היה מענישו פתאום בלתי שאלת איכה היה נבהל מלהשיב לו חטאתו
[8] This approach is noted in Rashi HaShalem – Mechon Ariel- Jerusalem 1986.
[9] Yosef Daat was printed in Prague in 1609- The author יוסף בן יששכר מיקליש writes that he wrote this book….
“לתקן המעוות והטעת[!] שנפלו מהמדפיסים … בפירוש … רש”י ז”ל על חמשה חומשי התורה”….”מאסף לכל הגירסות והנוסחאות שבכל החומשיּ חדשים גם ישנים בכלל, ובפרט רש”י קלף ישן נושן”
The Bibliography of the Hebrew Book writes as follows:
.המחבר כותב בהקדמה שמצא בלובלין “רש”י קלף נושן לערך שלש מאות שנה ויותר” וכן השתמש “בחומשים הישנים דפוס לובלין ודפוס פראג” להיגה בהם את פירש רש”י. המקורות להגהות מצויינים בגליון, בשולי העמודים
[10] State Library of Berlin, Berlin, Germany Ms. Or. fol. 1221 – 13th century – Ashkenazic script.
[11] Al Hatorah notes as follows:
.עם השלמות ותיקונים ע״פ כ״י וינה 24 וכ״י המובא בהבנת המקרא (היידנהיים), ועיין גם כ״י פיזרו 16. נוסח מקוצר בכ״י ברסלאו 11 (סרוול 5) ובגיליון בכ״י ברסלאו 102 (סרוול 12)
[12] Rav Yosef bar Shimon was ר׳ יוסף קרא . This is from the website Daat which speaks about the possible intermingling of his comments with those of Rashi.
[13] This is the beginning of the way it appears in הבנת המקרא by Wolf Heidenheim, Roedelheim 1860 – במדבר עם תרגום אונקלוס מדויק ע”פ כ”י לוונשטין, ליפמן הירש- היידנהיים, בנימין וולף בן שמשון.
[14] The comment of לְהַטְעוֹתוֹ בָא is found in the following 13 th century manuscripts:
Oxford UCC 165,
Munich 5,
Hamburg 13,
Oxford-Bodley Opp.34(Neubauer186),
London 26917 (Neubauer 168),
Casanatense 2848,
Paris 154,
Vatican Urbanati 1,
Parma 2708
The Nusach of Berlin 1221 is found in Hamburg 32:
But on top of the page is found the standard text:
[15] The website Alhatorah.org notes this about the importance of the Leipzig 1 manuscript: “the importance of the Leipzig 1 (Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, B.H.1) manuscript of Rashi can hardly be overstated. This manuscript was written in the 13th century by R. Makhir b. Karshavyah, who states that he produced it from a copy of the commentary transcribed and annotated by Rashi’s own secretary, R. Shemayah. MS Leipzig 1 is, thus, an extremely valuable textual witness which comes tantalizingly close to the original source.”
[16] The Bibliography of the Hebrew Book includes this information from the book.
[17] בשנת תרי”ט (1859) החלו להדפיס בוינה מהדורה חדשה של חמשה חומשי תורה עם תרגום אונקלוס, תרגום ירושלמי ותרגום יונתן, פירוש רש”י, אבן עזרא, רשב”ם, רמב”ן ועוד. מהדורה זו שנתפרסמה בהידורה וביופייה, הובאה לדפוס על יד שלמה (זלמן) נעטטער מירושלים
[18] Chumash Rashi HaMevuar 2015 (Oz Vehadar) cites Yosef Daat but without his comment that perhaps the normal Girsa is a Taut. In that same Chumash at the back of the Chumash they have a section called Nuschaot Shonot and they cite the Girsa of Yosef Daat but add that the Defusim Rishonim have it the way we do. Yosef Hallel (Brooklyn, 1987) records the words of Yosef Daat and adds that he found a similar Lashon in a manuscript.
New book Announcement
After being out of print for several years, a new edition of Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin z”l’s Shu”t Bnei Banim Vol. 1 was just published.
The volume remains as relevant, original, and significant as when written, 4 decades ago; and has haskamot from a first-rank lineup of gedolim: R. Gedalia Felder, R. Moshe Feinstein, R. Eliezer Waldenberg, R. Menashe Klein, R. Ovadia Yosef, R. Avram Shapira, and R. Mordechai Eliahu, all ztz”l. The new edition is annotated and punctuated, making it even more accessible.
Copies can be purchased in the US at Israel Mizrahi’s incredible book store via this link or via his email address bluebirds15@yahoo.com.
For information how to purchase copies in Israel contact Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.
To see sample pages of the new edition, send an email to Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.
For some recent write ups about R. Henkin: See here for an article from a close talmid of his and here for an article from Rabbi Shlomo Zuckier. Here is a link to a video presentation about his very productive life and legacy from December 30, 2020.
The Etymology of “Onah”
by Mitchell First (MFirstAtty@aol.com)
I thought it would be useful if everyone would have a better understanding of how the root ענה, occurring at Exodus 21:10 in the form “onatah,” can refer to the sexual obligation. I will offer several possibilities.
First I must provide a brief overview of this widely occurring root. It is typically viewed as having four meanings as a verb: 1) respond, 2) sing, 3) afflict, and 4) occupy oneself with.
It is hard to unify all these meanings. But it is easy to see that perhaps the first and second meanings have a common origin.
As to the third meaning, the word ענו, a submissive, humble individual, probably derives from this meaning and the word עני, a poor individual, also probably derives from this meaning.
The fourth meaning is a rare one in Tanakh. It is only found in the book of Kohelet.
It is also possible that ענה has a “time-related” meaning in Tanakh. We will discuss this below.
—–
Exodus 21:10 reads: “If he marries another, he must not diminish her food, her clothing, or ‘onatah’ (=her onah).” The person being protected is the Israelite slave who was the first wife.
The Mishnah at Ketuvot 5:6 understands “onah” (without any discussion) as referring to the man’s sexual obligation to his wife,[1] and then proceeds to delineate the obligation for various occupations.
Our first question is whether we can fit this meaning of “onah” into any of the first four meanings above. Note that Rashi on our verse explains the word as “tashmish” but does not provide any explanation.
We could connect our word with the “response” meaning above and suggest that “onatah” means “a response to her request for intimacy.” But it is hard to imagine that such an important obligation would be phrased in such a vague way.[2]
Here are a few better approaches:
1. There is a word מעון and other words related to it that appear many times in Tanakh and mean “dwelling.” Presumably, their root would have been עון. If the root of our “onatah” (which has no vav) would be עון with its “dwelling” meaning, we can interpret the word “dwelling” as symbolizing a main activity that goes on in a dwelling, i.e., sexual relations.[3] Our verse would be referring to sexual relations but doing it euphemistically. As a parallel, in English the word “cohabit” typically now has a sexual meaning, even though the word originated with a “habitation” meaning.
Of course, we can alternatively interpret our verse to be stating that a man may not diminish the living quarters of his wife and that the verse has nothing to do with sexual relations. Rashbam and Cassuto are among the many who take this approach.[4] But obviously we would like to avoid this interpretation.
2. It has been argued that Ayin-Nun-Heh has a meaning related to “time” in Tanakh. We know that it has such a meaning in early Rabbinic Hebrew. See, e.g., Mishnah Peah 4:8: “onat ha-ma’aserot.”[5]
If there was a root Ayin-Nun-Heh (or Ayin-Nun-Tav) with a time-related meaning in the era of Tanakh, “onatah” could be referring to a husband’s obligation to provide relations to his spouse at certain time intervals. R. Saadiah Gaon and Ibn Ezra are among the many who follow this approach. Daat Mikra offers it as its second interpretation.
But this is still not a simple way of reading the verse. As Luzzatto observes: “It does not stand to reason that the Torah would designate a man’s relations with his wife by the term ‘set time,’[6] besides the fact that nowhere in the Torah is there any timetable for this matter.”[7]
There is an alternative way of obtaining the relations meaning based on the “time” meaning of “onah.” We can say that “onah” means “her time,” and in the case of two competing women, as is the case here, it means “her turn.”[8]
——
We still have to address the issue of whether Ayin-Nun-Heh or Ayin-Nun-Tav really did have a time-related meaning in Tanakh.
There are three arguments to support this.
First, the word עת means “time” many times in Tanakh. Many believe this derives from a root [9]ענת, but many disagree with this etymology.[10]
Second, עונן and מעונן refer to one who engages in divination. Many understand this word as deriving from Ayin-Nun-Heh with a “time” meaning. I.e., perhaps these individuals made predictions as to what is a good time to do things. But others interpret these words with a different etymology altogether. E.g., perhaps these individuals made predictions by looking at cloud formations. Many other possibilities have been suggested for the etymology of עונן and מעונן. But the time-related etymology is a real possibility.
– Third, the fact that our word appears in early Rabbinic Hebrew with a time-related meaning is some evidence that this meaning already existed in Biblical Hebrew.
3. A third approach observes that there are many instances in Tanakh where Ayin-Nun-Heh occurs in the piel construct in a context of a man forcing a woman to have intercourse. See, e.g., Gen. 34:2 (Dinah), and Deut. 21:14 (woman captured in war).[11] We are used to translating these piel verbs with an “afflict sorrow or pain” meaning, or perhaps a “humbled” meaning.12 But perhaps Ayin-Nun-Heh in the piel in all or some of these cases is better understood as “rape.”[13] If Ayin-Nun–Heh in the piel construct can mean “rape,” that same root in the kal construct can mean “consensual relations.” Then we could utilize this meaning for our word at Ex. 21:10.[14]
To complete our discussion, I must mention two other Tannaitic passages about “onah”: one in the Mekhilta, and the other: a baraita in the Talmud.
As I mentioned at the outset, the Mishnah at Ketuvot 5:6 assumes that the “onah” of our verse means “relations” and does not offer any alternative view or any derivation.
The Mekhilta in Mishpatim offers three different interpretations of “onah.” The first is “relations” (“derech eretz”). This view is brought in the name of R. Yoshiah. The prooftext he cites is Gen. 34:2 (regarding Dinah): “va-yishkav otah va-ye’aneha.” This citation is surprising because it is usually assumed that “va-ye’aneha” here has the “afflict” or ”humbled” meaning. (This citation fits loosely with our third approach.)
A second view (in the name of R. Yonatan) interprets “onah” to be a reference to giving clothing that is appropriate to the season. A third view (in the name of Rebbi) interprets “onah” as food (giving a strange prooftext, Deut. 8:3). This third view interprets a different word in verse 21:10, one from the root שׁאר, as referring to “relations.”
At Ketubot 47b, there is a baraita very similar to the Mekhilta (although with different Tannaim) that also gives the above three views. In the view of the tanna kamma, the verse cited for the “relations” meaning is a statement of Lavan at 31:50: “If you will ‘ta’aneh’ my daughters and/or take other wives besides my daughters…” Yet in this verse, our root clearly means “afflict” and does not mean “relations.”[15]
——
To sum up, if one wants to interpret “onah” as “relations,” one approach is to relate it to the word מעון and its meaning “dwelling.” “Dwelling” can symbolize a main activity that goes on in a dwelling. Alternatively, the approach that “onah” simply refers to “her time” (=her turn) sounds plausible as well. Finally, we have the suggestion that Ayin-Nun-Heh in the kal construct may refer to consensual relations.
[1] The Mishnah does not cite our verse but is implicitly referring to it. Admittedly there are other interpretations of “onah” among the Tannaitic Sages. I will discuss them at the end of this article.
[2] Nevertheless, S.D. Luzzatto is willing to adopt something like this approach. S. Mandelkern takes it seriously as well. The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon mentions it as a possibility. In more modern times, M.Z. Kaddari, Millon Ha-Ivrit Ha-Mikrait (2006), p. 815, adopts it without any discussion.
For more on the view of Luzzatto and on this entire topic, see the article by Marty Lockshin from Jan. 27, 2022 on thetorah.com: “Onah: A Husband’s Conjugal Duties?”
Lockshin points out that Targum Onkelos merely renders the Hebrew term with an Aramaic equivalent, so we cannot determine how it was understood in this translation. He also discusses the views of the other early Aramaic translations. He also mentions the view of the Septuagint. It has “homilian,” which literally means “company” or “conversation,” but which many scholars think is being used euphemistically here for “relations.”
[3] Daat Mikra adopts something like this as the first of its two interpretations. Luzzatto mentions some who take this approach, even though he disagrees with it.
The scholars who view there to have been a root Ayin-Vav-Nun (=to dwell) view the vav as being vocalized with a shuruk. See, e.g., Brown-Driver-Briggs, p. 732 and Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (2000), vol. 11, p. 229. If the underlying meaning was “dwell,” then one can argue that our word should have been vocalized as “unatah.” Even if this is correct, probably most of us could live with the idea that there was an error in the vocalization of the vav by the post-Talmudic Masoretes.
[4] More recently, it is adopted in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 229. Prior to Rashbam, it was one of two interpretations offered by Menahem Ibn Saruq (10th cent.). It was also offered by Karaites.
[5] See also the baraita at Ketuvot 48a (view of the tanna R. Eliezer b. Yaakov) and the Mekhilta, Mishpatim (view of the tanna R. Yonatan). Other aspects of these passages are discussed at the end of this article.
[6] For further elaboration on this point, see Lockshin’s article. The passage itself is ambiguous as to what Luzzatto’s reasoning was.
[7] Translation from D. Klein’s edition.
[8] This view is mentioned in the Anchor Bible in the name of Arnold Ehrlich (d. 1919). It is one of many views mentioned in the long and very speculative discussion there.
[9] See Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language for Readers of English (1987) p. 489-90. See also Ibn Ezra to Ex. 21:10 and to Ecc. 9:11. See also the similar words at the end of Ezra 4:10, 4:11, and 4:17.
[10] See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 11, p. 229 and p. 437.
[11] The additional occasions are: Deut. 22:24 and 22:29, Judges 19:24 and 20:5, 2 Sam. 13: 12,14,22, and 32, Ezekiel 22:11, and Lam. 5:11.
[12] When you “humble” someone, you make them submit to your authority. This is a different meaning than “afflicting” them, even though the two meanings are related. The 1917 Jewish Publication Society of America translation uses “humbled” often in these sexual contexts. See also their translation of God’s statement to Pharaoh at Ex. 10:3: “How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself (לענת) before Me?.”
[13] What if we can argue compellingly that the piel of Ayin-Nun-Heh does not mean “rape” in at least one of these cases? For example, at Gen. 34:2, we have “va-yishkav otah va-ye’aneha.” Since we are already told “va-yishkav otah,”perhaps the next word has the “afflict” or “humble” meaning. Of course, this is not a strong question. Moreover, even if we can argue compellingly that, in one or more of the verses with the piel construct, ענה does not mean “rape,” that does not mean that it cannot mean “rape” in some of the others.
[14] I have seen this suggestion made by Ariella Deem. See her “The Goddess Anath and Some Biblical Hebrew Cruces,” Journal of Semitic Studies 23 (1978), pp. 25-30. This suggestion was probably made by others prior to this. Deem like this interpretation because she uses it to give a new meaning to the name of the ancient goddess “Anat” (a “sexual love” meaning). Deem also uses this idea to explain the third “anot” at Ex. 32:18. She suggests: “the sound of an orgy.”
[15] One can claim that the meaning is “afflict my daughters by withholding relations,” but this would not be a proper prooftext that the root Ayin-Nun-Heh meant “relations.”
New Books & Book sale 2023
By Eliezer Brodt
The post hopes to serve a few purposes. The first section lists some new interesting seforim and thereby making the Seforim Blog readership aware of their recent publication.
Second, to make these works available for purchase for those interested.
Third, the second part of the list are some harder to find books, for sale. (This is a continuation of this post.)
Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.
Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for more information about purchasing or for sample pages of some of these new works.
Part one
Part two
“Milta De’Bedichuta”: Some Playful Parodies of the Talmud in the Modern Period
By Ezra Brand
6-Mar-23
Ezra Brand is an independent researcher based in Tel Aviv. He has an MA from Revel Graduate School at Yeshiva University in Medieval Jewish History, where he focused his research on 13th and 14th century sefirotic Kabbalah. He is interested in using digital and computational tools in historical research. He has contributed a number of times previously to the Seforim Blog (tag), and a selection of his research can be found at his Academia.edu profile. He can be reached at ezrabrand@gmail.com; any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.
The origins of Jewish humor are debated, with some linking it to Eastern Europe and others to a more distant time and place. Recognition of Jewish humor as first-rate gained popularity at the end of the 19th century.[1]
I previously wrote on the Seforim Blog about humor in the Talmud.[2] In this piece, my focus will be on parodies of the Gemara written for Purim, known as “Purim Dafs”. Roni Cohen, at the beginning of his 2021 dissertation on Medieval Parodies for Purim, describes the earliest known parodies on the Talmud written for the holiday of Purim:
The first, Massekhet Purim (Purim tractate), is a parody of the Talmud written by the Provençal translator, philosopher, and writer Kalonymos ben Kalonymos, during the period he lived in Rome, between 1324 – 1328. The other two – Megilat Setarim (esoteric scroll), a parody on the Talmud and Sefer Habakbuk (the book of Habakbuk), a parody of the Hebrew Bible – were both written by the Provençal philosopher, astronomer, and bible commentator Rabbi Levi ben Gerson (Gersonides) in 1332.[3]
When written for Purim, the Talmud parodies are often known as “Purim Dafs”. This is something I tried my hand at when I was in yeshiva.[4]
In this piece I’d like to give a number of examples of modern parodies of the Talmud, collected from various locations on the web, listed in chronological order of date first published.[5]
_html_1956cd15.png)
A satirical discussion of the laws of drinking on Purim.
_html_43eb7366.png)
A satirical halachic discussion of laws of poverty.
_html_m70691d76.png)
A satirical halachic discussion of living in America.
_html_685ca41c.png)
A satirical halachic discussion of who can sign contracts.
_html_10ce0d97.png)
A satirical halachic discussion of living in America.
A satirical halachic discussion of the laws of merchants.
_html_m131802df.png)
A satirical discussion of the trivial differences between the socialist Bolsheviks (“red”) and the monarchic Mensheviks (“white”) in the Russian Civil War, which started in 1917.
_html_6c951194.png)
A satirical halachic discussion of the laws of drinking alcohol during the period of Prohibition in the United States, which started in 1920.
_html_m1b83e6c4.png)
A satirical halachic and aggadic discussion of Israeli elections.
_html_79c72dfe.png)
A satirical halachic discussion regarding Haman.
_html_6f47e0b5.png)
A satirical halachic discussion of wearing of gas masks during the Iraqi rocket attacks on Israel during First Gulf War in 1991.
_html_m777d6dfc.png)
A satirical discussion of the Trump wall.
_html_m856773d.png)
This parody is a satirical halachic and aggadic discussion surrounding coronavirus, during the COVID-19 pandemic.
_html_7b7bb68d.png)
[1] See Avner Ziv, “Psycho-Social Aspects of Jewish Humor in Israel and in the Diaspora”, in Jewish Humor (ed. A. Ziv), p. 48:
“Many of those engaged in research related to Jewish humor point to Eastern Europe as the place where it first developed and flourished. Other researchers claim that its origins are much further removed, both in time and in place […] Others […] are of the opinion that Jewish sources are not replete with humor [….] [W]ith the exception of the customs connected with the Purim holiday, the Jewish religion regards humor with suspicion […] [V]ery little attention was paid to Jewish humor until the end of the 19th century, so little in fact that the chief rabbi of London, Herman Adler, wrote an article (1893) in which he spoke out against the charge that Jews have no sense of humor […] From the end of the last century, Jewish humor became widely recognized as superlative humor […]”.
[2] Available also on my Academia.edu profile, a small bibliographic update in Sep-2021: https://www.academia.edu/51817737/Talmudic_Humor_and_Its_Discontents
[3] Cohen, “‘Carnival and Canon: Medieval Parodies for Purim’. PhD Dissertation, Tel-Aviv University, 2021 (Abstract)”. See also Cohen’s many other publications on his Academia.edu profile on other historical aspects of parodic Purim literature.
See also the National Library of Israel catalog comment on an entry of a scan of a book containing Megilat Setarim and Massekhet Purim:
” “מסכת פורים” (ובה ארבעה פרקים), שתיהן חיקוי למסכת מן התלמוד. ו”ספר חבקבוק”, שהוא חיקוי לנביא חבקוק. דוידזון Israel Davidson, Parody in Jewish literature, New York 1907 p. 115-118. מייחס “מגילת סתרים” ו”ספר חבקבוק” לר’ לוי בן גרשון (רלב”ג). עיין גם: א”מ הברמן, “מסכת פורים מהדורותיה ודפוסיה”, ארשת, ה, תשל”ב, עמודים 136-138. “מסכת פורים” היא מאת ר’ קלונימוס בן קלונימוס.”
[4] Replete with inside jokes: “Purim Daf (דף פורים), Yeshiva Shaar Hatorah 2011”.
[5] Dates are taken from the National Library of Israel online catalog. Some of the dates are noted there as uncertain. The availability and links to book scans online are often noted in that catalog.
Out of scope are the afore-mentioned Masekhet Purim . See also the מילי דבדיחותא לימי חנוכה, published in 1577, scan available at National Library of Israel website here, discussed by Davidson, Parody in Jewish literature, pp. 39-40.
Compare also the list here: פרודיות לפורים – ויקיפדיה
[6] Scan available at the National Library of Israel website here. According to the NLI webpage, although the date of publication stated on the title page is 1914, it was in fact published in 1814.
[7] Scan available at National Library of Israel website here. Also at Google Books here.
[8] Scan of 1894 Vilna edition available at the National Library of Israel website here. Scan of 1892 edition there as well, here. Mentioned in Davidson, Parody, pp. 100, 103.
[9] Scan available at the National Library of Israel website here.
[10] This parody is a satirical halachic discussion of living in America. Scan available at the National Library of Israel website here.
[11] High quality scan at Internet Archive here. Lower quality scan at HebrewBooks here.
[12] Scan available at HebrewBooks here, and Otzar HaHochma here.
[13] High quality scan at Otzar HaHochma here. Lower quality scan at HebrewBooks here. In Halacha Brura index of works of humor, the title is mistakenly given with one letter different: “בבלי”, which the title is of course a play on. (For a meta-index of Halacha Brura’s incredible index of scanned Jewish book, see my work here. I also discuss this index in my “Guide to Online Resources for Scholarly Jewish Study and Research – 2022”, p. 21 and throughout.)
[14] Scan available at Otzar HaHochma here. The title is the Hebrew date spelled out – תשט”ו.
[15] Scan available at Otzar HaHochma here.
[16] Scan available at National Library of Israel website here.
[17] Scan here. Linked to and discussed here:
ישראל כהן, “דף גמרא היתולי לפורים: “שיערו המתפרץ של הדאנאלד“, כיכר השבת, 16 מרץ 2016.
[18] Scan available at the Facebook page of “ דפי גמרא הומוריסטיים “ here.
When Rabbi Meir Kahane’s Father Translated the Torah
By Yosef Lindell
Yosef Lindell is a lawyer, writer, and lecturer living in Silver Spring, MD. He has a JD from NYU Law and an MA in Jewish history from Yeshiva University. He is one of the editors of the Lehrhaus and has published more than 30 articles on Jewish history and thought in a variety of venues. His website is yoseflindell.wordpress.com.
In 1962, the Jewish Publication Society published a new translation of the Torah. The product of nearly a decade of work, the new edition was the first major English translation to cast off the shackles of the 1611 King James Bible. Dr. Harry Orlinsky, the primary force behind the new translation and a professor of Bible at the merged Reform Hebrew Union College and Jewish Institute of Religion, explained that even JPS’ celebrated 1917 translation was merely a King James lookalike, a modest revision of the Revised Standard Version that “did not exceed more than a very few percent of the whole.”[1] This new edition was different. As the editors wrote in the preface, the King James not only “had an archaic flavor,” but it rendered the Hebrew “word for word rather than idiomatically,” resulting in “quaintness or awkwardness and not infrequently in obscurity.”[2] Now, for the first time, the editors translated wholly anew, jettisoning literalism for maximum intelligibility. More than sixty years later, JPS’ work remains one of the definitive English translations of the Torah.
The new JPS may have left the King James behind, but it didn’t satisfy everyone. In addition to making the Torah more intelligible, the editors incorporated the insights of modern biblical scholarship, both from “biblical archeology and in the recovery of the languages and civilizations of the peoples among whom the Israelites lived and whose modes of living and thinking they largely shared.”[3] So when asked by Rabbi Theodore Adams, the president of the Rabbinical Council of America, whether the RCA could accept an invitation from Dr. Solomon Grayzel, JPS’ publisher, to participate in the new translation, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik demurred. He wrote in a 1953 letter to Adams, “I am afraid that the purpose of this undertaking is not to infuse the spirit of Torah she-be-al peh into the new English version but, on the contrary, … to satisfy the so-called modern ‘scientific’ demands for a more exact rendition in accordance with the latest archeological and philological discoveries.”[4]
Just one year after JPS released its volume, in 1963, R. Soloveitchik’s wish for a more “Torah-true” translation was answered, but likely not in the way he expected. The two-volume Torah Yesharah published by Rabbi Charles Kahane (1905-1978) relies heavily on traditional Jewish commentary in its translation.[5] But as we’ll explore, because of its lack of fidelity to the Hebrew text, it can hardly be called a translation at all.
Here is the title page (courtesy of the Internet Archive):
The strategically placed dots on the title page indicate that Yesharah is an acronym for the author’s Hebrew name—Yechezkel Shraga Hakohen. R. Charles Kahane was born in Safed and received semichah from the Pressburg Yeshiva in Hungary. After immigrating to the United States in 1925 and receiving a second semichah from Yeshiva University’s Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary, he served as rabbi of Congregation Shaarei Tefiloh in Brooklyn for most of his professional career, a shul which drew over 2,000 worshippers for the High Holidays.[6] He was a founding member of the Vaad Harabbanim of Flatbush and helped Rabbi Avraham Kalmanowitz re-establish the Mir Yeshiva in Brooklyn. Today, however, he is known as the father of Meir Kahane, the radical and controversial Jewish power activist and politician who needs no further introduction. The father does not seem to have been directly involved in his son’s activities, but he took pride in Meir’s accomplishments and was a staunch supporter of the Irgun in Palestine, Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Zionist movement, and Jabotinsky’s youth group, Betar.[7]
R. Kahane told the New York Times that Torah Yesharah was inspired by Bible classes he gave to his adult congregants where many people did not understand the text even in translation.[8] (Recall that the new JPS translation was not yet available, and other English translations relied on the archaic King James.) He wanted to rectify this problem; indeed, the title page states that the work is a “traditional interpretive translation,” suggesting that it was intended to be more user-friendly. But calling it user-friendly does not do justice to what Kahane did. Here is most of Bereishit 22—the passage of Akedat Yitzchak:
Most translators try to approximate the meaning of the Hebrew. Not so R. Kahane. Nearly every single English verse here contains significant additions not found in the original. The first verse, for example, which states that the Akedah was meant to punish Avraham for making a treaty with Avimelech, follows the opinion of the medieval commentator Rashbam, who, notes that the words “and it was after these things” connect the Akedah to the previous episode—the treaty with Avimelech (Rashbam, Bereishit 22:1). But it’s hard to imagine that Rashbam, famous for his devotion to peshat—plain meaning—would have been comfortable with his explanation being substituted for the translation itself. Many other verses on this page provide additions from Rashi and other commentators.
Pretty much every page of R. Kahane’s translation looks similar: Hebrew on one side and an expansive interpretive translation drawn from the classical commentators on the other. Kahane makes no effort to distinguish between the literal meaning of the Hebrew and his interpretive gloss.[9] Dr. Philip Birnbaum, the famed siddur and machzor translator, criticizes this aspect of the work in his (Hebrew) review, noting that Kahane’s interpretations are written “as if they are an inseparable part of the Hebrew source, and the simple reader who doesn’t know the Holy Tongue will end up mistakenly thinking that everything written in ‘Torah Yesharah’ is written in ‘Torat Moshe.’”[10]
To be fair, R. Kahane cites sources for his interpretations, but only at the back of each book of the Torah and only in Hebrew shorthand:
Thus, a reader not already fluent in Hebrew and the traditional commentaries would have little idea where Kahane was drawing his “translation” from and might not grasp how much the translation departed from the Hebrew original.[11]
Yet perhaps this was the point. R. Kahane considered literal translation to be illegitimate. In the preface to Torah Yesharah, Kahane contrasts Targum Onkelos, which is celebrated by the Sages, with the Septuagint translation of the Torah into Greek, which the Sages mourned. Kahane suggests that a Targum, which is an interpretation or commentary, is superior to a direct translation. Targum Onkelos, he writes, was composed under the guidance of the Sages and based on the Oral Law, and therefore it was “sanctified.” According to Kahane, “The Torah cannot and must never be translated literally, without following the Oral interpretation as given to Moses on Sinai. … It is in this spirit that the present translation-interpretation has been written.”[12]
Kahane was not the only Orthodox rabbi of his time to criticize translation unfaithful to rabbinic interpretation. We’ve already noted R. Soloveitchik’s concerns about the new JPS.[13] Similarly, the encyclopedist Rabbi Judah David Eisenstein reported that in 1913, when JPS was preparing its initial translation, Rabbi Chaim Hirschenson of Hoboken, NJ, convinced the Agudath Harabbanim to protest JPS’ efforts so the new work should not become the “official” translation of English-speaking Jewry the way the King James had become the official translation of the Church of England. The Agudath Harabbanim noted the Sages’ disapproval of the Septuagint and explained that only Targum Onkelos and traditional commentators that based themselves on the Talmud were officially sanctioned.[14]
R. Kahane’s approach also harks back to a series of articles in Jewish Forum composed in 1928 by Rabbi Samuel Gerstenfeld, a rosh yeshiva at RIETS (a young Rabbi Gerstenfeld is pictured below), attacking the original 1917 JPS translation. Gerstenfeld labeled the JPS translation Conservative and sought to demonstrate its departure from Orthodoxy by comprehensively cataloging all the places where the translation departed from the halakhic understanding of the verse. So, for example, he criticizes JPS for translating the tachash skins used in the construction of the Mishkan as “seal skins,” because according to halachic authorities, non-kosher animal hides cannot be used for a sacred purpose.[15] He believed that the word tachash should be transliterated, but not translated.[16] Gerstenfeld concludes that the JPS translators “missed a Moses—a Rabbi well versed in Talmud and Posekim, who would have been vigilant against violence to the Oral Law.”[17]
Still, R. Kahane’s interpretive translation with additions goes far beyond what R. Gerstenfeld was suggesting. To give one example: Gerstenfeld quibbles with JPS’ translation of the words ve-yarka befanav in the chalitzah ceremony (Devarim 25:9). The 1917 JPS translates that the woman should “spit in his face” (referring to the man who refuses to perform yibbum). Gerstenfeld notes that rabbinic tradition unanimously holds that the woman spits on the ground. He suggests that “and spit in his presence” would be a better translation.[18] Gerstenfeld’s suggestion is reasonably elegant—it gives space for the rabbinic reading without negating the meaning of the Hebrew. Kahane makes no such attempt to be literal, instead translating that she will “spit on the ground in front of his face.”[19] As we’ve seen, Kahane had no compunctions about adding words.
Thus, there is no English-language precedent for Torah Yesharah of which I am aware. As the preface suggests, R. Kahane was inspired by the Aramaic targumim, but it would seem more by Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel than Targum Onkelos. Onkelos translates word-for-word in most circumstances, typically departing from the Hebrew’s literal meaning to address theological concerns, such as a discomfort with anthropomorphism. Targum Yonatan, on the other hand, seamlessly weaves many midrashic additions into its translation and looks more like Torah Yesharah. For example, at the beginning of the Akedah passage, Targum Yonatan goes on a lengthy excursus suggesting that God’s command to sacrifice Yitzchak was in response to a debate between Yitzchak and Yishmael where Yitzchak boasted that he would be willing to offer himself to God. This digression is akin to Kahane’s addition of the Rashbam into his translation. If anything, Targum Yonatan is more expansive than Torah Yesharah.
Torah Yesharah received a fair amount of press upon its publication. It was even reviewed by the New York Times, which called it “[a] new and unusual translation” that was intended to make the Torah “more meaningful to Americans.” The article quoted Rabbi Dr. Immanuel Jakobovits, then the rabbi of the Fifth Avenue Synagogue in Manhattan (before he became Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom), as calling it “an original enterprise” and “a most specifically Jewish rendering of the Torah.” While the Times was noncommittal about the work, a critical review in the Detroit Jewish News found Kahane’s language confusing and inferior to the new JPS translation published the prior year.[20] As for Dr. Birnbaum, he praised Torah Yesharah’s reliance on traditional Jewish interpretations and lamented the fact that most other biblical translations “were borrowed from the Christians from the time of Shakespeare,” but criticized the format (as noted above) and some of Kahane’s more tendentious translations.[21]
Despite the interest Torah Yesharah generated, its unique approach was not replicated. One might see echoes of R. Kahane in a better known translation—ArtScroll’s 1993 Stone Edition Chumash. As its editors explained in its preface, the “volume attempts to render the text as our Sages understood it.”[22] To this end, ArtScroll famously follows Rashi when translating “because the study of Chumash has been synonymous with Chumash-Rashi for nine centuries,”[23] even when Rashi is at variance with more straightforward readings of the text. Thus, for example, ArtScroll translates az huchal likro be-shem hashem (Genesis 4:26) based on Rashi as, “Then to call in the name of Hashem became profaned”—a reference to the beginnings of idol worship.[24] However, a more literal translation would run, “Then people began to call in the name of God,” which sounds like a reference to sincere prayer—the opposite of idolatry. It’s also well-known that ArtScroll declines to translate Shir Ha-Shirim literally, adapting Rashi’s allegorical commentary in place of translation.
On the other hand, ArtScroll’s overall approach is different than Torah Yesharah’s. ArtScroll is typically quite literal, translating word-for-word even when the syntax of the verse suffers as a result. An example from the Akedah is again relevant: va-yar ve-hinei ayil achar ne’echaz ba-sevach be-karnav (Genesis 22:13). ArtScroll’s translation, that Abraham “saw—behold, a ram!—afterwards, caught in the thicket,”[25] is awkward, but it preserves the word achar in the precise location that it appears in the Hebrew. When ArtScroll wants to highlight more traditional interpretations of the text in line with Chazal and others, it does so in the commentary, not in the translation itself.[26]
Two recent works—the Koren Steinsaltz Humash (2018) and the Chabad Kehot Chumash (2015)—are much closer to Torah Yesharah in that they insert commentary directly into the English translation. But they still differ in an important respect. Both the Steinsaltz—which is a translation of a Hebrew Humash based on the classes of Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz—and the Kehot “interpolate” a good deal of commentary into the translation (the former is more peshat based and the latter leans more on Rashi and Midrash). Nevertheless, they distinguish between what’s literal and what’s added by using bold font for the literal translation. This approach still has its downsides, as it can still be hard to read the English cleanly without the added gloss getting in the way of the literal meaning.[27] But it’s preferable to Torah Yesharah, where R. Kahane did not provide the reader any means of distinguishing between the text and his additions.
Today, Torah Yesharah is but a historical curiosity. Yet its existence highlights the fact that some mid-20th century Orthodox Jews felt a real need for a translation that followed in the footsteps of Chazal and other traditional commentators. To them, JPS’ translation did not embrace an authentic Torah approach. Before ArtScroll came on the scene, Torah Yesharah filled that niche for a time, but its unusual format blurred the line between the Word of God and the words of His interpreters.
Yosef Lindell is a lawyer, writer, and lecturer living in Silver Spring, MD. He has a JD from NYU Law and an MA in Jewish history from Yeshiva University. He is one of the editors of the Lehrhaus and has published more than 30 articles on Jewish history and thought in a variety of venues. His website is yoseflindell.wordpress.com.
[1] Harry M. Orlinsky, “The New Jewish Version of the Torah: Toward a New Philosophy of Bible Translation,” Journal of Biblical Literature 82:3 (1963): 251.
[2] The Torah: The Five Books of Moses (The Jewish Publication Society, 1962), Preface.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Community, Covenant, and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications (Nathaniel Helfgot, ed., KTAV, 2005), 110.
[5] Charles Kahane, ed., Torah Yesharah (Torah Yesharah Publication: Solomon Rabinowitz Book Concern, NY, 1963).
[6] To the New York Times, Kahane described the shul as “progressive Orthodox,” and it likely lacked a mechitzah. See Robert I. Friedman, The False Prophet: Rabbi Meir Kahane (Lawrence Hill Books, 1990), 20. That, however, was not unusual for those times.
[7] The biographical information in this paragraph is drawn from Friedman (see previous note) and Libby Kahane, Rabbi Meir Kahane: His Life and Thought (Institute for the Publication of the Writings of Rabbi Meir Kahane, 2008).
[8] Richard F. Shepard, “Rabbi Publishes New Bible Study; Works on Early Scholars Are Reinterpreted,” New York Times (June 21, 1964), 88.
[9] Here is another example of a large interpretive insertion concerning God’s decision that Moshe and Aharon would not lead the people into Israel because of their sin regarding the rock (Bamidbar 20:12):
That’s quite a few more words than are found in the Hebrew!
[10] Paltiel Birnbaum, “Targum Angli be-Ruah ha-Masoret,” in Pleitat Sofrim: Iyyunim ve-Ha’arakhot be-Hakhmat Yisrael ve-Safrutah (Mossad Harav Kook, 1971), 75.
[11] Of note, Kahane’s translation is available on Sefaria, but with modifications that obscure its radicalness. For one, the format is different: the Hebrew and English are not juxtaposed in the same way. Second, the sources for each verse are cited directly below the translation in parentheses. This is not the way Kahane presented his sources in the original.
[12] Torah Yesharah, xviii-ix.
[13] Among the most intriguing critics of the new JPS was Avram Davidson, who wrote in Jewish Life in 1957 that because the translation was being prepared by non-Orthodox scholars who intended to depart occasionally from the Masoretic text in light of new archaeological discoveries, it was not “being prepared on the Torah’s terms” and was unacceptable. A.A. Davidson, “A ‘Modern’ Bible Translation,” Orthodox Jewish Life 24:5 (1957): 7-11. Davidson later became a science fiction writer of some renown but by the end of his life had become enamored with a modern Japanese religion called Tenrikyo.
[14] J.D. Eisenstein, ed., Otzar Yisrael vol. 10 (New York, 1913), 309. See also the criticism of the 1962 JPS translation and the discussion of Eisenstein and R. Gerstenfeld’s article in Sidney B. Hoenig, “Notes on the New Translation of the Torah – A Preliminary Inquiry,” Tradition 5:2 (1963): 172-205.
[15] Samuel Gerstenfeld, “The Conservative Halacha,” The Jewish Forum 11:10 (Oct. 1928): 533.
[16] Indeed, ArtScroll’s Stone Chumash leaves tachash untranslated. Interestingly, R. Kahane just translates “sealskins” like JPS.
[17] Samuel Gerstenfeld, “The Conservative Halacha,” The Jewish Forum 11:11 (Nov. 1928): 576.
[18] Ibid., 575-76.
[19] Torah Yesharah, 331.
[20] Philip Slomovitz, “Purely Commentary,” Detroit Jewish News (Aug. 21, 1964), 2.
[21] Birnbaum, 76. It’s interesting that Birnbaum was far more critical of non-literal translations of the siddur. When the RCA incorporated the poetic translations of the British novelist Israel Zangwill into its 1960 siddur edited by Rabbi Dr. David de Sola Pool, Birnbaum wrote a scathing review in Hadoar, accusing Zangwill’s efforts as being “free imitations,” not translations, and of having Christian influence. Paltiel Birnbaum, “Siddur Chadash Ba le-Medinah,” Hadoar 40:6 (Dec. 9, 1960): 85. Birnbaum may have been jealous of the RCA’s siddur, which was a direct competitor to his 1949 edition. Also, he was unimpressed with Zangwill in particular, who had married a non-Jew and was not halakhically observant. For more about this, see my article in Lehrhaus here.
[22] Nosson Scherman, ed., The Stone Edition Chumash (Mesorah Publications, 1993), xvi.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid., 23.
[25] Ibid., 103.
[26] Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s 1981 Living Torah translation also bears some resemblance to Torah Yesharah in its tendency to follow Chazal, but it too, despite its exceedingly colloquial approach to translation, does not insert large interpretive glosses into the text.
[27] R. Steinsaltz calls the commentary “transparent” and “one whose explanations should go almost unnoticed and serve only to give the reader and student the sense that there is no barrier between him or her and the text,” but I am not sure I agree. See The Steinsaltz Humash (Koren Publishers, 2015), ix.
Special Italian Haftarah for the “Shabbat Kallah”[1]
By Eli Duker
Many communities in Europe and beyond had the practice of reciting a special haftarah from Isaiah 61–62 in honor of a groom on the Shabbat following the wedding.[2] Ashkenazi communities began the haftarah with 61:10 and read until 63:9,[3] which is also the 7th of the haftarot of consolation, which is which was read in most communities on the Sabbath before Rosh Hashanah, and in some others on the Shabbat between Yom Kippur and Sukkot in the event that there was one in a given year.[4]
As the practice to read the seven haftarot of consolation was universal outside in Italy in the late Medieval period, humashim and haftarah books had no reason to cite this practice, as the special haftarah for a groom was read during the calendrical cycle, and was in any event included in the humash for that purpose.
Italy is the exception. The practice in Italy was, and is, not to read special haftarot for the entire three-week period before Tisha B’Av or on the seven Shabbatot between Tisha B’Av and Rosh Hashanah.[5] Rather, a special haftarah is read on the Sabbath before Tisha B’Av and haftarot of consolation are read on the three remaining Sabbaths of the month of Av. The normal haftarah for Pinhas, a rarity in most communities, is read in Italy every year. Matot, Masei, Shoftim, Ki Tetze, Ki Tavo, and Nitzavim all have their own haftarot, which are found in the Cairo Geniza, Siddur R’ Shelomo B’Rabbi Nattan,[6] and in the list of haftarot in the Seder Tefillot of the Rambam.
The result is that in Italy, the haftarah from Isaiah is read only in honor of a groom. Out of the twenty-five Italian humashim and haftarah books in manuscript that I checked, the haftarah for the groom appears in twenty-three of them.[7] Out of the remaining two, one is missing pages at the end and likely had it in the original.
All twenty-three manuscripts have Isaiah 61:9 as the start of the haftarah. In all manuscripts besides one, the haftarah ends at 62:9, which is similar to the practice today in Italian communities, while in one manuscript it ends at 62:12.
One manuscript sticks out: Paris, National Library of France, Ms. hebr. 102. This is a book of haftarot and all of Ketuvim that was copied by Aryeh ben Eliezer Halfon for Rafael ben Yitzhak Malmassa of Voghera in northern Italy and completed on the 11th of Marheshvan 5242 (corresponding to October 4, 1481 in the Julian calendar).
The haftarot are similar to other manuscripts that follow the Italian rite (Jeremiah 1:1–19 for Shemot, Isaiah 18:7–19:24 for Bo, regular haftarot for the two weeks following the fast of 17 Tammuz and for the month of Elul, and the haftarah for the Sabbath of Hol Hamo’ed Sukkot is Ezekiel 38:1–23). There are slight differences concerning the haftarot for the parshiyot of Mishpatim,[8] Vayikra,[9] Tzav,[10] and Metzora.[11]
Interestingly, there is a note before the groom’s haftarah that reads, L’Shabbat Lifnei Hilula, indicating that the haftarah was read not during the “Sheva Brachot” week following the wedding, but before the wedding.[12]
What is unique is yet another nuptial haftarah. Afterward, a haftarah from Isaiah 60:1–19 appears, which is the same haftarah read in non-Italian communities on the sixth Sabbath of consolation, on the Sabbath of Parashat Ki Tavo. Beforehand there a note that reads “Lifnei HaKallah Koddem Hakiddushin.” Although there is no mention of the Sabbath here, the verse from Isaiah 47:4 appears at the end, which according to the practice in Italy was read after the reading of every haftarah. It is therefore clear that it is a haftarah, and highly unlikely that it was read on a weekday.
Evidently, two haftarot were read in honor of the nuptials, one before the “kiddushin” and the other before the “hilula,” as it is highly unlikely that the copyist here used two different phrases for the same event. Moreover, it does not seem likely that the marrying couple were in different synagogues on the Sabbath before the wedding, as towns generally had only one, and travel between different places took time.
The reason for the two haftarot has to do with yet another unique Italian practice. R’ Yosef Colon cites the practice of the native Italian Jews to perform an initial kiddushin privately in front of two witnesses “because they fear witchcraft.”[13] Later, at the nissuin, the kiddushin was performed again in the presence of a quorum of ten men.[14] This seems to be what the word hilula here means (the celebaration of the Nessuin along with the second Kiddushin) Presumably, the reason why Isaiah 60 was chosen to be read before the bride prior to the kiddushin is either that the haftarah addresses Jerusalem in the feminine form. Alternatively, we can suggest that the kiddushin, unlike nissuin, primarily affects the bride, as she is now forbidden as a married woman to all beside her betrothed husband while they would continue to live apart, with the mutual obligations of married life coming into place only after the nissuin, which was created by the “Hillula.
Bibliography
Genizah Fragments (All Cambridge TS B)
14.2, 14.65, 14.74 14.90, 14.105 14.119 16.5, 16.9, 20.1, 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, 20.8, ,20.9 20.11
Manuscripts
Library of the Alliance Israélite Universelle, Paris, France Ms. 11
The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, Oxford, England Ms. Can. Or. 75 Borja Library, Sant Cugat del Vallès, Spain Ms. C-I-1
Casanatense Library, Rome, Italy Ms. 2898
Casanatense Library, Rome, Italy Ms. 2919
The British Library, London, England Add. 4709
The British Library, London, England Harley 7621
The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, New York, NY, USA Ms. 571 The National Library of France, Paris, France Ms. hebr. 42
The National Library of France, Paris, France Ms. hebr. 50
The National Library of France, Paris, France Ms. hebr. 102
The National Library of France, Paris, France Ms. hebr. 104
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm. 1840
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm. 2015
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm. 2024
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm. 2127
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm. 2169
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm 2171
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm 2538
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm 2171
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm 2538
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm 2690
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm 2822
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm 2856
The Palatina Library, Parma, Italy Cod. Parm 2894
Trinity College Library, Cambridge, England Ms. F 12 107
Vatican Library, Vatican City, Vatican City State Ms. Ross. 478
Printed Books
(חמשה חומשי תורה. (תק“ב מנטובה
מהרי”ל. מנהגים (תשמ”ט ירושלים: מכון ירושלים)
משנה תורה לרמב”ם–יד החזקה. (תשל”ד ירושלים)
סידור רבינו שלמה ברבי נתן הסיג’ילמסי. ערוך ומתרגם מערבית. שמואל חגי. (תשנ”ה ירושלים)
פיוטי ר’ יהודה בירבי בנימן / יוצאים לאור בצירוף מבוא, חילופי נוסח וביאורים בידי שולמית אליצור. (תשמ”ט ירושלים: מקיצי נרדמים)
שו”ת מהרי”ק. (תש”ל ירושלים)
אנצקלופדיה תלמודית–כרך עשירי. (תשנ”ב ירושלים: מכון האנציקלופדיה התלמודית)
ברית כהונה. משה הכהן. (תש”א ג’רבא)
נישואין נוסח איטליה: על יהודי איטליה בראשות העת החדשה. ויינשטיין, ר. (תשס”ז)
עולם כמנהגו נוהג: פרקים בתולדות המנהגים הלכותיהם וגלגוליהם. יצחק (אריק) זימר. (תשע“ט ירושלים: מרכז זלמן שזר לחקר תולדות העם היהודי)
(סדר קידושין אחרי חתימת התלמוד: מחקר היסטורי דוגמתי בתולדות ישראל. פרימן, א. (תשכ”הירושלים: מוסד הרב קוק
Weinstein, R. (2004) Marriage Rituals Italian Style: A Historical Anthropological Perspective on Early Modern Italian Jews. Leiden: Brill.
Notes
[1] This article is written in honor of the upcoming wedding of my niece Chana Duker to Aryeh Mateh and in order to show the boundless gratitude I have to Chana and the entire family of my brother and sister-in-law R. Yehoshua and Shayna Duker for the devotion and loving care of our beloved Bubby Selma A”H in her last year. I would like to further thank my brother R. Yehoshua for editing this article, as well as R. Elli Fischer, Dr. Gabriel Wasserman, R. Prof. Jeffrey Woolf, Dr. Ezra Chwat and the staff of the National Library of Israel for their assistance.
[2] See S. Elitzur’s introduction to “Piyyutei R’ Yehudah Biribi Binyamin” p. 60, regarding the haftarah apparently appearing in piyyut of R’ Yehudah, who (according to Elitzur pp. 72–77) lived in the east (most likely Bavel) sometime between the mid-9th century and the end of the 10th century. 3 For a discussion of the medieval Ashkenazi practices concerning this haftarah and its relative importance in Western vs Eastern Ashkenaz, see E. Zimmer “Society and Its Customs” (Hebrew) vol. 2. pp. 273–280. The haftarah was read, along with the various piyyutim recited, on the Sabbath following the wedding. This is more reasonable, as that is during the period of the celebration mandated by the Talmud, while beforehand is prior to the kiddushin (outside of Italy, as will be discussed later on), making liturgical changes unlikely. The manuscript presented here is a clear exception to this.
The reading of the groom’s haftarah on the Sabbath following the wedding is explicit in the Maharil (Minhagim: Four Parshiot 7, p. 417), where it is stated that if wedding takes place during the week of Shabbat Shirah, one reads the normal haftarah.
[4] See Talmudic Encyclopedia (Hebrew) Vol X., p. 22 and footnote 367–378א.
[5] Unlike the Nusah Hatefillah, where Italian Jewry retained more of the nusah of Eretz Yisrael, when it comes to haftarot they are more in line with the haftarot listed in the Babylonian Genizah fragments than any other community. Outside of the four special haftarot that they read between Devarim and Re’eh, the only non Babylonian Haftarah they read is for Shemot, when they read from Jeremiah, as opposed to the original Ezekiel 16.
[6] Pp. 201-202
[7] This haftarah, with the length according the standard Italian rite (Isaiah 61:9-62:10), is cited in the Mantua humash from 1742.
[8] The haftarah finishes at the end of Jeremiah 34, while in the standard Italian rite it continues until 35:11. The shorter haftarah also appears in Ms. Paris BN 42.
[9] The haftarah is Isaiah 43:6–44:23, similar to most other communities today. In other Mss. and printed humashim with the Italian rite, the haftarah ends at 44:6, which is the ending of the haftarah in most Genizah fragments I have seen, as well in the Seder HaTefillot that appears in the Rambam and is the practice in Yemenite communities. Talmudic Encyclopedia (vol.10, pp. 447–448) cites Brit Kehuna, which claims that the Djerban practice is to read this as well, but in Brit Kehuna (p. 33) the standard haftarah until 44:23 is brought.
[10] The main part of the haftarah concludes at 7:31 and then continues with 9:22–23. I have found this haftarah in eight Sephardic humashim in manuscript. It also appears in the Mahzor Vitry, and I have found it in over forty Ashkenazi humashim and haftarah books in manuscript. In other manuscripts and humashim with the Italian rite, the haftarah is from Jeremiah 7:21–28 and then continues at 10:6–7.
[11] The haftarah begins at Kings II 7:1 (similar to other humashim and haftarah books in the Italian rite), and finishes at 8:2 (probably in order to avoid concluding with the death of the official at the conclusion of chapter 7). This haftarah appears in the Ashkenazi Ms. Parma 2005. The standard Italian haftarah (found in all other manuscripts I have seen) skips from the end of chapter 7 and ends with 13:23. This is the haftarah in the Seder HaTefillot in the Rambam and in most Geniza fragments that I have seen.
[12] The earliest mention of a celebration on the Sabbath prior to the wedding is in Maharil (Hilchot Shiva Asar BeTammuz VeTisha B’Av), concerning the possible suspension of the practice to refrain from wearing Sabbath clothing on the Sabbath before Tisha B’Av for a groom and his father due to the “Shpinholz” celebration the Sabbath before the wedding.
[13] Translation from R. Weinstein, “Marriage Ritual Italian Style” p. 163. His translation of the following words are “I am told they then repeat the ceremony in the presence of ten people and in company, and then recite the engagement blessing [again]. I believe that the words “I am told” are part of the previous sentence (regarding the initial kiddushin) as Maharik, as a rabbi and rosh yeshiva in the French/Ashkenaz community, would not likely be a witness in an extremely private ceremony, as opposed to at the subsequent kiddushin where many would attend, and no reason why he would have to rely on hearsay. Moreover, as the vast majority of communities would have kiddushin together with the nissuin at every wedding, a kiddushin at a wedding is not the type of matter that he would mention as having heard from others, as opposed to a rather strange obscure practice in another community.
For an overview of the Italian kiddushin during the time of the copying of our humash and afterward see ibid. chapter 3. For a general overview of the combination of the kiddushin and nissuin acts in general, see A. Freiman, Seder Kiddushin Aharei Hatimat HaTalmud, pp. 28–31. See ibid. 127–131 concerning Italy in general, where the approach is that by the 16th century Italians had combined the kiddushin and nissuin (as opposed to Marriage Ritual, which claims that separating the two was quite normative through the 17th century). This is beyond the scope of this article, which addresses a late 15th century book. Therefore, Maharik’s testimony concerning the Italian practice suffices, and accords with the custom of the two wedding haftarot.
[14] See Maharik for a justification of this presumably strange practice
New Book Announcement
Eliezer Brodt
The Minchas Chinuch on Pesach Volume One, A deeper perspective on the Mitzvos of Leil Haseder (31+268 pp.)
The Minchas Chinuch on Pesach volume Two, A deeper perspective on the Mitzvos of Chametz (34+283 pp.)
I would like to announce the release of two new volumes from Rabbi Moshe Hubner series devoted to the the Minchas Chinuch, in English.
The first volume, released right before Pesach last year, is devoted to the mitzvos of leil haseder, including the mitzvah of matzah and sippur yetzias Mitzrayim.
The second volume which was just published is devoted to the mitzvos of chametz. Topics include eliminating chametz; the prohibition of finding and/or seeing chametz in our domain (bal yira’eh, bal yimatzeh); the prohibition of eating chametz; the prohibition of eating chametz erev Pesach; the prohibition of chametz-mixtures; and the brachah of Shehechiyanu upon the arrival of Pesach.
One of the most famous and popular sefarim of the Torah world is R’ Yoseph Babad’s Minchas Chinuch, first published in 1869. Since then, numerous editions were published, including annotations of many Gedolei Yisrael alongside full-length works on the sefer. It is famous for bringing a whole level of depth to the sugya at hand.
Now, for the first time ever, the English-reading audience can appreciate the greatness and uniqueness of the Minchas Chinuch!
This new work is not a simple translation of the Minchas Chinuch, but rather an in-depth presentation. It incorporates all the background information necessary to understand the Minchas Chinuch in a clear, concise manner. It also includes numerous, beautifully designed charts (produced by Mechon Aleh Zayis) to help one follow the deep, “lamdushe” discussions.
In addition, many of the commentaries who analyze the Minchas Chinuch’s words (at times offering rebuttals or proofs) have been quoted, (collected from a few hundred sefarim, listed in a detailed bibliography) and scrutinized carefully.
It’s a crash course in lomdus within each page!
Currently, there is nothing similar available for the English-reading audience. High school students to post-kollel yungeleit can all enjoy the Yom Tov on another level with these groundbreaking new volumes.
For samples of the seforim email Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com
One can listen to a podcast interview with Nachi Weinstein on Seforim Chatter with R’ Moshe Hubner discussing his English adaptions of Minchas Chinuch on Pesach [here].
Copies of the work can be purchased at Mizrachi books via these links (here and here) or by sending him an email at bluebirds15@yahoo.com
Here is a Table contents of each work.
Volume 1:
Volume II:
The Longest Masechta is …
By Ari Z. Zivotofsky
As Jews, we are often intrigued with trivia about our holy books, and the more esoteric and harder to verify, the better. An example of such trivia is the longest masechta in shas. While it is relatively easy to verify that the longest masechta in terms of pages in the Vilna Shas is Bava Batra, with 176 pages,[1] until modern times it was much more difficult to determine which is the largest masechta in terms of words or characters. Once something is difficult to measure, rumors abound, and this topic is no different. To cite just three examples. Meorot haDaf Yomi on 23 Shvat 5770 (vol. 559), stated (in Hebrew) that if not for the lengthy commentary of Rashbam, Bava Batra would have considerably fewer pages and that the Gra had said that really the longest masechta in terms of words is Berachot, although it is only 64 pages. Rabbi Yaakov Klass in the Jewish Press (20 Tammuz 5777 / July 13, 2017) wrote: “as the Vilna Gaon observes, Berachos is actually the longest tractate”. Rabbi Aaron Perry in his “The Complete Idiot’s Guide to the Talmud” (2004) states in a section “the least you need to know” (p. 57): “Brachot (Blessings) is the longest tractate in words”.
As often happens with urban legends. once an assertion is accepted as “fact”, it is then claimed to have been verified. In the journal Ohr Torah (Sivan 5766 [465], p. 719) the claim is made that a computer check was performed and it was found that the largest masechet based on words is Berachot. But alas, it ain’t so and in the next issue of Ohr Hatorah (Tammuz 5766, p. 784) the error was pointed out.
In actuality, and before presenting the results from a computer count, it is worth noting that ambiguity regarding sizes of masechtot only arose when commentaries began to be put on the same page as the text of the gemara. In other words, until the era of the printing press there was no ambiguity as to which masechta was the longest. Prof. Yaakov Shmuel Spiegel (Amudim B’toldot ha’Sefer ha’Ivri: Hagahot u’magihim [Chapters in the History of the Jewish Book: Scholars and Annotations], 2005, 105-106) credits Prof. Shlomo Zalman Havlin in his monumental “Talmud” entry in the Encyclopedia HaIvrit with the idea that the relative size of tractates can be determined based on the number of pages they occupy in the Munich manuscript. This unique manuscript, completed in 1342, was transcribed by one individual and had the entire Bavli in one 577 page volume. Simply comparing the number of pages of the various tractates provides the relative length in terms of characters/words. This ranking may be more accurate that a computer count of the words or letters as the single author may have been more consistent in terms of abbreviations and other factors that can influence the count.
Using the Munich ms, the rank ordering is similar, but not identical to that obtained from a computer count, although in all cases it is clear that Berachot is far from the largest. Using the Munich ms, the top five (with number of pages) are:
Shabbat (55.5)
Hullin (51)
Yevamot (47)
Sanhedrin (45.5)
Bava Kamma (45)
…..
Berachot (36) is number 11.
A similar system can be used to estimate the size of masechtot using the monumental one-volume shas edited by Zvi Preisler (Ketuvim Publishers, Jerusalem, 1998). It is straight text of Talmud with no commentaries of Rashi or Tosafot and is a uniform font. References to biblical verses are included and thus sections with more aggadatah might appear slightly longer. The text is arranged in three columns per page. Counting pages in this volume, the longest mesechtot (and number of pages) are:
Shabbat (77⅓)
Sanhedrin (66⅓)
Hullin (58⅙)
Bava Batra (56½)
Pesachim (55⅓)
Yevamot (55⅙)
…..
Berachot (47⅓ pages)
The simplest way to answer this question today is with a computer count of the number of words. Using the Bar Ilan Responsa project for this, the number of words in all of shas is about 1.865 million. And the 5 largest tractates are:
Shabbat (118k)
Sanhedrin (107k)
Hullin (90k)
Bava Batra (89k)
Bava Metzia (86.5k)
……
Berachot (73k) is in 11th place
The 5 smallest tractates are Chagigah (19k), Makot (18k), Horayoat (13k), Me’ilah 8k), and Tamid (5k). Other computerized calculations yield slightly different counts, but they do not significantly alter the rankings.
So why might one have been (mis)led to think that Berachot is the largest? It is easy to understand because Berachot does indeed win the prize in one category – words/daf. Berachot is king, with over 1115 words/daf. The next 5 are: Krisos (975), Horayot (972), Megilla (934), Sanhedrin (932 – the last perek probably plays a big role in raising this number!), Taanit (890). What might interest some daf yomi learners are the bottom 5, and those are (from bottom up): Nedarim (383), Meilah (384), Nazir (431), Baba Batra (509), Tamid (512).
The rumor is that the Gra stated that Berachot is the longest tractate, and it is hard to abandon such a tradition. A noble effort was recently made to vindicate that tradition. The book Mitzvah V’oseh (Shmuel David Hakohen Friedman, 2015, ch. 44, p. 564) quotes the famous statement that the Gra said Berachot is the longest in words, corrects this by pointing out that Shabbat is longer, and then gives a clever reinterpretation – the Gra was referring to Yerushalmi. And in the Yerushalmi, the author avers, Berachot is indeed the longest tractate by words. In a collection[1] of “trivia” that Rav Chaim Kanievsky was wont to discuss with his grandchildren, it is quoted that he said Berachot is the longest mesechta in Yerushalmi. That assertion is indeed much closer to being accurate but is still not correct.
In the Bar Ilan responsa project there are two versions of the Yerushalmi, the Vilna edition with almost 795k words and the Venice edition with almost 815k words, both considerably shorter than the Bavli.
In the Vilna edition of the Yerushalmi, the four largest tractates with their word count are:
Shabbat (47,685)
Yevamot (44,369)
Sanhedrin (40,008)
Berachot (39,478).
Using the Venice edition, the top four are:
Shabbat (49,161)
Yevamot (45,293)
Berachot (41,030)
Sanhedrin (41,004)
In the Yerushalmi too, one can use the monumental one-volume Yerushalmi edited by Zvi Preisler (Ketuvim Publishers, Jerusalem, 2006) to estimate the size of masechtot. Counting pages in this volume, the longest masechtot (and number of pages) are: Shabbat (37) and Yevamot (32 ⅔). This is followed by Brachot (30), Sanhedrin (29 7/9) and Pesachim (26 ⅔).
While these numbers are clearly influenced by many extrinsic factors such as which ms text used, abbreviations opened or closed, etc, they demonstrate that although Berachot is much closer to being the largest tractate in the Yerushalmi than it is in the Bavli, it is still behind the unquestioned largest in Bavli and Yerushalmi, Shabbat, and behind Yevamot.
Did the Gra actually make such a statement about what is the largest tractate in shas? There are no early records of it and I have not been able to find any mention of such a claim earlier than the late 20th century. Irrespective, the rumor that he stated that Berachot is the largest is fairly “common knowledge”. Yet it is clear using both counting ms pages and computer tabulated results, Berachot is far from being the largest in either the Bavli or Yerushalmi. Berachot does have one claim to fame in regard to size; it is by far the most words/pages.
[1] It is actually 175 pages; it goes up to page 176, but like all masechtot it starts on daf bet. But that would ruin the beautiful symmetry that the longest parsha in the Torah is naso with 176 pesukim and the longest chapter in Tanach is Tehillim chapter 119 with 176 verses.
[2] In Gedalia Honigsberg, “HaSeforim”, 5777, ch. 10 is “tests” Rav Kanievsky would give and pages 199-201 is trivia for the grandchildren. On p. 200 it states that the largest mesechta in Bavli is Bava Batra followed by Shabbat. It then quotes in the name of the Gra about Berachot being largest in terms of words but that it is unlikely he said that because in reality Shabbat is larger. It then says that in the Yerushalmi the largest mesechta is Berachot.
Pesach, Haggadah, Art & Sundry Matters: A Recap of Important Seforimblog Articles
Among the more interesting aspects of the history of Haggados, is the inclusion of illustrations. This practice dates back to the Medieval period and, with the introduction of printing, was incorporated into that medium. Marc Michael Epstein’s excellent book regarding four seminal Haggadah manuscripts, The Medieval Haggadah: Art, Narrative & Religious Imagination, was reviewed here, and a number of those illustrations, were analyzed in “Everything is Illuminated: Mining the Art of IllustratedHaggadah Manuscripts for Meaning.” Epstein edited and wrote an introduction to the recently published facsimile edition of the Brother Haggadah, which resides in the British Library. This is the first reproduction in full color of this important manuscript. Another recent reproduction of a manuscript Haggadah is Joel ben Simon’s Washington Haggadah. This Haggadah is particularly relevant this year, as it contains an alternative text for Eruv Tavshilin blessing. Whether or not this was deliberate was the subject of some controversy, see “Eruv Tavshilin: A Scribal Error or Deliberate Reformation?”
The first illustrated printed Haggadah, Prague, 1526, introduced new illustrations and recycled and referenced some of the common ones in manuscripts (see here for a brief discussion and here for Eliezer Brodt’s longer treatment). That edition would serve as a model for many subsequent illustrated Haggados but also contains surprising elements, at least in some religious circles, regarding the depiction of women, and was subsequently censored to conform with the revisionist approach to Jewish art. See, “A Few Comments Regarding The First Woodcut Border Accompanying The Prague 1526 Haggadah,” and Elliot Horowitz’s response, “Borders, Breasts, and Bibliography.” The Schecter Haggadah: Art, History and Commentary, a contemporary treatment of the art and the Haggadah, (for Elli Fischer’s review, see here), that unintentionally reproduced a version of one of the censored images in the first edition. It was restored in subsequent editions. Women appear in other contexts in illustrated Haggados. The most infamous example is the “custom” that implies a connection between one’s spouse and marror (discussed here), but our article, “Haggadah and the Mingling of the Sexes” documents more positive and inclusive examples of women’s participation in the various Passover rituals in printed Haggados. Similarly, the c. 1300 Birds Head Haggadah has an image of female figures in snoods preparing the matza and a woman at the center of Seder table.
As detailed in chapter 8 of Epstein’s Medieval Haggadah, the early 14th Century Golden Haggadah is perhaps the most female-centric Haggadah and may have been commissioned for a woman. That manuscript emphasizes the unique, positive, and critical role women played in the Exodus narrative. Although it also depicts the practice of overzealous cleaning with a woman sweeping the ceiling. The 1430 Darmstadt Haggadah has a full-page illumination of women teachers, but its connection to the text is opaque. Finally, we argue that one printed Haggadah uses a subtle element in explicating the midrashic understanding of the separation of couples as part of the Egyptian experience.
One of the most creative contemporary Haggados was produced by the artist, David Moss. Moss was commissioned by David Levy to create a Haggadah, on vellum in the tradition of Medieval Jewish manuscripts. Moss worked for years on the project the result surely equals, if not surpasses, many of the well-known Medieval haggados, both artistically and its ability to bring deeper meaning to the text. The manuscript is adorned with gold and silver leaf and contains many paper-cuts (technically vellum-cuts). One of the most striking examples of the silver decoration is the mirrors that accompany the passage that “in each and every generation one is obligated to regard himself as though he personally came out of Egypt.” The mirrors appear on facing pages, interspersed with one with male and the other with female figures in historically accurate attire from Egypt to the modern period. Because the portraits are staggered when the page opens, each image is reflected on the opposite page, and when it is completely opened, the reader’s reflection literally appears in the Haggadah — a physical manifestation of the requirement to insert oneself into the story. The page is available as a separate print.
After completing the Haggadah, Moss was asked to reproduce it, and, with Levy’s permission, produced, what the former Librarian of Congress, Daniel Bornstein, described as one of the greatest examples of 20th-century printing. The reproduction, on vellum, nearly perfectly replicates the handmade one. This edition was limited to 500 copies, all of which were sold. From time to time, these copies appear at auction and are offered by private dealers, a recent copy sold for $35,000. President Regan presented one of these copies to the former President of Israel, Chaim Herzog, when he visited the White House in 1987. While that is out of reach for many, this version is housed at many libraries, and if one is in Israel, one can visit Moss at his workshop in the artist colony in Jerusalem, where he continues to produce exceptional works of Judaica and view the reproduction. There is also a highly accurate reproduction, on paper that is available (deluxe edition) and retains the many papercuts and some of the other original elements, that is still available. This edition also contains a separate commentary volume, in Hebrew and English. (There is also one other available version that simply reproduces the pages, but lacks the papercuts.)
While the entire Moss Haggadah is worth study, a few examples. One paper-cut is comprised of eight panels, each depicting the process of brick making, the verso, using the same cuttings, depicts the matza baking process, literally transforming bricks into matza. The first panel of the matza baking is taken from Nuremberg II Haggadah, which we previously discussed here, and demonstrated that it preserves the Ashkenazi practice of only requiring supervision from the time of milling and not when the wheat was cut.
The illustration accompanying the section of Shefokh, reuses the illustrations of Eliyahu from the Prague 1526 and the Mantua 1528 Haggados to great effect. In the original and vellum reproduction, the cup of Eliyahu physically turns without any visible connection to the page — an extraordinary technical achievement. This section and the illustrations were discussed by Eliezer Brodt in “The Cup of the Visitor: What Lies Behind the Kos Shel Eliyahu, and, in this post, he identified an otherwise unknown work relating to the topic, for another article on the topic, see Tal Goiten’s “The Pouring of Elijah’s Cup (Hebrew).” Eliezer revisited the topic in (here) his conversations with Rabbi Moshe Schwed, in the series, Al Ha-Daf. In last year’s conversation, he discussed a number of other elements of the history of the Haggadah, and three years ago the controversy surrounding machine produced matza. (All of the episodes are also streaming on Apple Podcasts, Spotify & 24Six.) Additionally, he authored “An Initial Bibliography of Important Haggadah Literature,” and two articles related to newly published Haggados, “Elazar Fleckeles’s Haggadah Maaseh BR’ Elazar ” and XXI. Rabbi Eliezer Brodt on Haggadah shel Pesach: Reflections on the Past and Present ,” regarding Rabbi Yedidya Tia Weil’s (the son of R. Rabbi Netanel Weil author of “Korban Netanel”) edition, and a review of David Henshke’s monumental work, Mah Nistanna.
In one of the first haggadot printed in the United State published in 1886 Haggadah contains a depiction of the four sons. Depicting the four sons is very common in the illustrated manuscripts and printed haggadot. In this instance, the wicked son’s disdain for the seder proceedings shows him leaning back on his chair and smoking a cigarette. According to many halakhic authorities, smoking is permitted on Yom Tov, nonetheless, the illustration demonstrates that at least in the late 19th-century smoking was not an acceptable practice in formal settings. (For a discussion of smoking on Yom Tov, see R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Mo’adim be-Halakha (Jerusalem: Mechon Talmud Hayisraeli, 1983), 7-8).
The cup of Eliyahu is but one of many Passover food-related elements. The identification of Marror with the artichoke in Medieval Haggados, is debated by Dan Rabinowitz and Leor Jacobi , while Susan Weingarten provides an overview of the vegetable, in “The Not-So-Humble Artichoke in Ancient Jewish Sources.” Jacobi also discusses the fifth cup in his article, “Mysteries of the Magical Fifth Passover Cup II, The Great Disappearing Act and this printed article. The history of the restriction of Kitniyot and the development of the practice of selling hametz is discussed in our article, “Kitniyot and Mechirat Chametz: Paradoxical Approaches to the Chametz Prohibition,” and was revisited on Rabbi Drew Kaplan’s Jewish Drinking podcast (and in an audio version on apple podcasts and spotify). Another guest was Marc Epstein, discussing his book on Medieval Haggados, and Dr. Jontahan Sarna where he gives an overview of the use of raisin wine for the kiddush and the four cups, based on his article, “Passover Raisin Wine,” as was the frequent contributor to the Seforimblog, Dr. Marc Shapiro. His interview, like many of his posts and his book, Changing the Immutable, discusses censorship and, in particular, the censored resposum of R. Moshe Isserles regarding taboo wine (also briefly touched upon in Changing the Immutable, 81-82, and for a more comprehensive discussion of the responsum, see Daniel Sperber, Nitevot Pesikah, 104-113). For another wine related post, see Isaiah Cox’s article, “Wine Strength and Dilution.” The history of Jewish drinking and Kiddush Clubs was briefly discussed here.
Whether coffee, marijuana and other stimulants falls within the Kitniyot category appears here. Marc Shapiro’s article, “R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Kitniyot, R. Judah Mintz, and More,” regarding Artscroll’s manipulation of R. Zevin’s Moadim be-Halakha regarding kitniyot. Another coffee related article explores the history and commercial relationship between the Maxwell House Haggadah. Finally, the last (pun intended) food discussion centers on the custom of stealing the afikoman.
The Amsterdam 1695 Haggadah was an important milestone in the history of printed illustrated Haggados, it was the first to employ copperplates rather than woodcuts. This new technique enabled much sharper and elaborate illustrations than in past Haggados. While some of the images can be traced to earlier Jewish Haggados, many were taken from the Christian illustrator, Mathis Marin. It also was the first to include a map. As we demonstrated that map, however, is sourced from a work that was a early and egregious example of forgery of Hebrew texts. For an Pesach related plagiarism, see “Pesach Journals, Had Gadyah, Plagiarism & Bibliographical Errors.” Kedem’s upcoming auction of the Gross Family collection includes, with an estimate of $80,00-$100,000, one of the rarest, beautiful, and expensive illustrations of Had Gadya by El Lissitzky published by Kultur Lige, Kiev, 1919. Eli Genauer reviews another number related edition, not in price, but convention, “The Gematriya Haggadah.”
Chag kasher ve-sameach!
New Seforim Lists, Seforim Sale, Highlights of the Mossad HaRav Kook Sale & Beta Version of My New Podcast Musings of Book Collector
By Eliezer Brodt
The post hopes to serve three purposes. The first section lists some new interesting seforim and thereby making the Seforim Blog readership aware of their recent publication. Second, to make these works available for purchase for those interested. Third, the last part of the list are some harder to find books, for sale. (This is a continuation of this post.)
Note: Some items are only available at these prices for the next 3 days.
Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog. Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for more information about purchasing or for sample pages of some of these new works.
In addition, this post features some highlights of the Mossad HaRav Kook Sale.
As I have written in the past:
For over thirty years, beginning on Isru Chag of Pesach, Mossad HaRav Kook publishing house has made a big sale on all of their publications, dropping prices considerably (some books are marked as low as 65% off). Each year they print around twenty new titles and introduce them at this time. They also reprint some of their older, out of print titles. Some years important works are printed; others not as much. See here, here, here and here, for review’s, of previous year’s titles.
If you’re interested in a PDF of their complete catalog, email me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com
As in previous years I am offering a service, for a small fee, to help one purchase seforim from this sale. For more information, email me at Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com.
Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.
The last day of the sale is, April 21. Orders for the sale need to be sent in by this Thursday morning.
Finally: Last night I recorded a beta version of a possible new podcast series called Musings of Book Collector. The first episode is about some of the recent seforim mentioned in this post. Based on feedback I will see if I will continue, try to improve the quality and style. If you wish to hear the episode, send me an email and I will send you the recording.
ספרים חדשים
שיעורי הגרי”ש זילברמן במסכת אבות, 372 עמודים
מחזור שפתי רננות לחג הפסח, מהדיר ר’ משה רוזנווסר, בהוצאת מכון מורשת אשכנז
מחזור ויטרי, חלקים ד-ו, השלמת הסדרה [פרקי אבות, סדר תנאים ואמוראים, מסכת סופרים, ועוד דברים חשובים]
ר’ יהודה זייבלד, בעל העקידה, רבי יצחק עראמה, תולדותיו, מפעלותיו משנתו, [מצוין], 763 עמודים, [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
קבץ על יד, כרך כח, הוצאת מקיצי נרדמים
שלמה גליקסברג, פנקסי קהילות אשכנזיות באיטליה מן המאה הי”ח, מקיצי נרדמים
החסיד יעבץ, על מסכת אבות, על פי כ”י, מכון שלמה אומן, [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
מגיד מישרים למרן הבית יוסף, כולל מבוא ומפתחות על פי כתב ידות, אהבת שלום, מבוא 131+ תשלא עמודי [מצוין]
מדרש רבה, במדבר, מהדיר: פרופ’ חננאל מאק
ילקוט מדרשים, חלק י, מדרשי עשרות הדברות [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
מנהגים לבעל הפרי מגדים, נועם מגדים, [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
דרישת הזאב על ששה סדרי משנה, לר’ זאב וואלף ממאהלוב, מהדיר: ר’ שלום דזשייקאב, 21+קעט עמודים
ר’ יהודה לירמה, לחם יהודה על מסכת אבות [נדפס לראשונה שי”ג], מכון אהבת שלום
אוצר הגאונים, נדה, הרב זייני
ר’ שמואל פרימו, דרשות אמרי שפר, אהבת שלום
גן המלך, פירושי זוהר לר’ נפתלי הרץ בכרך
ר’ אליהו גוטמכר, סוכת שלם, מכתב אליהו, [מצוין], מהדורה שלישית
יומן ליוורנו ד’ – החיד”א, מכתב יד
ר’ שלמה יוסף זווין, סופרים וספרים, ג’ חלקים [מהדורה חדשה]
יוחאי מקבילי, טהרה תודעה וחברה, תפיסת הטומאה והטהרה במשנת הרמב”ם
י’ קושטר, מילים ותולדותיהן (מהדורה שנייה)
ר’ יוסף מפוזנא, יד יוסף על התורה מכתב יד, יסוד יוסף
שדי חמד על התורה, כולל כת”י
ר’ חיים דובער הכהן, “המלאך”, אוצר אגרות קודש, תרכז עמודים
קונטרס ספדי תורה, הספדים על רבי מענדיל אטיק
דוד הלבני, מקורות ומסורות ביאורים בתלמוד מסכת זבחים, מנחות, חולין
מחשבת אליהו, שיעורים חדשים מאת רבי אליהו דסלר כולל מכתבים חדשים
גרשום שלום, מצוה הבאה בעבירה, מהדורה חדשה בעריכת יונתן מאיר
עשרה פרקים, מאת דאוד אבן מרואן אלמקמץ, תרגום שרה סטרומזה
מצות התכלת, 555 עמודים
מוסד הרב קוק
פירוש ר’ דוד צבי הופמן, ויקרא, ב חלקים, בעריכת ר’ יהושע ענבל
לכם יהיה לאכלה מהדורה חדשה עם הוספות ותיקונים מכתב יד של המחבר ר’ איתם הנקין, הי”ד
שיטה מקובצת, מעילה תמיד
ר’ מאיר קדוש, ממאורות הקבלה הקדושה, הלכות, מנהגים והנהגות, בספרות מקובלים ופוסקים, מסוף תקופת הגאונים ועד לסוף תקופת הראשונים, 963 עמודים
ר’ טוביה פרשל, מאמרי טוביה ז [כרך חדש] [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
ר’ יהושע ענבל, יורה משפט
אגרת ר’ שרירא גאון, בעריכת ר’ נתן דוד רבינוביץ [מהדורה חדשה]
פירוש המשניות להרמב”ם למסכת כתובות
מאירי על משלי
ר’ שלמה דיכובסקי, לב שומע לשלמה, חלק ג
הלכות גדולות חלקים א-ב
מדרש הגדול 5 כרכים, הופיעו מחדש
כתבי הגרי”א הרצוג, 13 כרכים, הופיעו מחדש
שו”ת מהר”ש מוהליבר, הופיע מחדש
ספר המנוחה, הופיע מחדש
חלק שני
ר’ דוד הנזיר, קול הנבואה מהדורה חדשה, $30
ר’ מאיר בר אילן, מוולוז’ין עד ירושלים, ב’ חלקים, $45
ר’ יצחק שילת, בתורתו של ר’ גדליה נדל, $31
פירוש על התורה מיוחס לתלמיד הר”ן, $36
אלמה, בעריכת ב”מ לוין (תרצ”ו), כולל חיבור מר’ יעקב ריפמן על תולדות רבנו בחיי, $25
ר’ יעקב עמדין, לחם שמים, סט משניות, דפוס צילום, $50
מעגל טוב, מהדיר הרב מנדלבוים, $40 [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
מ’ גינזבורגר, תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל, $33
קובץ זכור לאברהם, כרך חדש, עניני ספר תורה $21 [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
הלכות המדינה לבעל ציץ אליעזר, $32
ר’ יהוסף שווארץ, תבואות הארץ, [מצוין], $35
יאיר לורברבוים, מלך אביון, $20
שמואל שילא, דינא דמלכותא דינא, $45
אבן עזרא איש האשכולות, קובץ מאמרים בעריכת דב שוורץ, $29
הרב עוז בלומן, איש משורש נביא, הממד האתי בבקשת האלוהים של הלל צייטלין [ניתן לקבל תוכן והקדמה], $28
יעקב שפיגל, עמודים בתולדות הספר העברי, כתיבה והעתקה, [נדיר] [מצוין], $75
נעימות הכהנים, ויכוח באיטליה בענין ניגון ברכת כהנים ותקפו של מנהג, מהדיר פרופ’ יעקב שפיגל, [עותקים אחרונים], $26 [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
רש”י עיונים ביצירתו, בר אילן, $34
ר’ אורי טיגר, קונטרס משפט עשה, פירוש צח וקצר על שו”ח חו”מ, סי’ כו, בדיני איסור הליכה לערכאות, עם הגהות רבי חיים קניבסקי, $10
אברהם יערי, תעלומת ספר [על החמדת ימים], $36
משנה ברורה, ו’ חלקים, עם יצחק יקרא, פסקים של ר’ אביגדור נבנצל, $85
ר’ אברהם וסרמן, מסילה חדשה, הראי”ה קוק ואתגרי החינוך, $22
אברהם ברלינר, כתבים נבחרים, ב’ חלקים, [מצוין] $42
מור אלטשולר, חיי מרן יוסף קארו, $26
תורת המנחה, לרבינו יעקב סקילי תלמיד הרשב”א, $30
ספר מוסר, פירוש משנת אבות לר’ יוסף בן יהודה, תלמיד הרמב”ם, $26
הרב משה אביגדור עמנואל, לנבוכי התקופה, $19
ר’ יצחק שילת, על האחרונים $21
ש’ רוטשטיין, תולדות ר’ חיים עוזר גרודזנסקי, $8
ש’ רוטשטיין, תולדות ר’ מנחם זמבה, $8
ספרא דצניעותא עם ביאור הגר”א, עם ביאור מר’ יצחק הוטנר, $16
עוטה אור על אונקלוס, $25
באורי אונקלוס לר”ש ברוך שעפטל, $35 [מצוין]
דיני קניין במסחר המודרני, יעקב הילסהיים, $29
דוד רידר, תרגום יהונתן בן עוזיאל, $28
איטליה, משה דוד קאסוטו, $16
איטליה, שמואל דוד לוצאטו, $32
י.ז. כהנא, מחקרים בספרות התשובות [מצוין], $34
מאמר על הדפסת התלמוד, $32 [מצוין]
תורתן של גאונים, כרך א, מבוא, $24
שרגא אברמסון, בעלי תוספות על התורה, $22
תמר אלכסנדר פריזר, מילים משביעות מלחם, $20
ר’ יצחק ברויאר, הכוזרי החדש $27
אברהם כהנא, קורות היהודים ברומא, $14
ר’ יצחק שילת, על הראשונים, $22
אגרות מרום, מכתבים מאת הרב יעקב משה חרל”פ, $24
שמואל ורסס ויונתן מאיר, ראשית חכמה [פולמוס כנגד חסידים] $26
מאמרי הראי”ה קוק [מצוין], $18
אפרים אלימלך אורבך, רשימות בימי מלחמה $28
יצחק לנדיס, ברכת העבודה בתפילת העמידה, $24
שמואל וינגרטן, מכתבים מזוייפים נגד הציונות, $23
דרכי נועם, כולל הסכמת הגר”א מווילנה, $26
ר’ יקותיאל גרינוואלד, לפלגות ישראל בהונגריה, 17$
נחום רקובר, זכות היוצרים במקורות היהודים [במצבו], $33
מאיר רפלד, המהרש”ל וספרו ים של שלמה, 288 עמודים, $23
משה סמט, החדש אסור מן התורה , $65
יד אליהו קוק, חלק ב- נשים, $14
כסא רחמים להחיד”א, מסכות סופרים, אבות דר’ נתן, $17
ש’ ווזנר חשיבה משפטית בישיבות ליטא, עיונים במשנתו של הרב שמעון שקופ,$25
שר שלום, שערים ללוח העברי $26
חסדי אבות, פירוש מסכת אבות לרבי דוד פרווינצאלו, מכתב יד, בעריכת פרופ’ יעקב שפיגל, $21
יצחק בער לעווינזאהן, תעודה בישראל, $25
ישראל תא שמע, הנגלה שבנסתר – 21$
יוסף תבורי, פסח דורות, $21
New Book Announcement: Mesoras Torah Sheba’al Peh by Harav Professor Shlomo Zalman Havlin
By Eliezer Brodt
ר‘ שלמה זלמן הבלין, מסורת התורה שבעל פה, יסודותיה, עקרונותיה והגדרותיה ב–ג [ב‘ חלקים], 1048 עמודים
I am very happy to announce the recent publication of an important two-volume work, which will be of great interest to readers of the Seforim Blog. Mesoras Torah Sheba’al Peh by Harav Professor Shlomo Zalman Havlin, of Bar-Ilan University’s Talmud department.
There are various “agendas” in the following post:
The first: to further the Seforim Blog’s mission to inform its readership of new works and furnish them with a descriptive review; case in point these two incredible new volumes recently published.
Second: making some of the seforim mentioned and reviewed here available for sale; the proceeds help support the Seforim Blog.
Professor Havlin is one of the more prolific writers in the Jewish academic scene, having authored hundreds of articles and edited and published numerous seforim.
His articles cover an incredibly wide range of subjects in many areas of Jewish Studies; Geonim, Rishonim and Achronim as well as Bibliography, to name but a few. It is hard to define his area of expertise, as in every area he writes about he appears to be an expert!
He also served as chief editor of Bar Ilan University’s bibliographical journal, Alei Sefer for many years; in this capacity he also wrote numerous short but immensely insightful book reviews.
Over his career, RSZ Havlin devoted a lot of time and energy studying and analyzing various important Rishonim. Of note is the Rashba, he expended immense energy in publishing numerous manuscripts alongside his own in-depth essays regarding them. These were collected a few years back and published in two volumes by Mechon Even Yisroel.
He has edited and printed from manuscript works of Rishonim and Achronim, being firmly of the opinion, contrary to that of some other academics, that there is nothing non-academic about publishing critical editions of important manuscript texts.
His uniqueness lies not only in the topics he has taken up, but also in that his work has appeared in all types of publications running the gamut from academic journals such as Kiryat Sefer, Sidra, Alei Sefer as well as many prominent Charedi rabbinic journals such a Yeshurun, Moriah and others.
Another point unique to Havlin’s writings, besides his familiarity with all the academic sources, is that he shows prodigious familiarity with all the classic sources from Chazal, Geonim, Rishonim and Achronim, to even the most recent discussions in Charedi literature – this bekius was apparent well before the advent of search engines such as Bar-Ilan’s Responsa Project, Hebrew Books and Otzar Ha-hochmah. Alongside all this is his penetrating analysis and ability to raise interesting points.
A few years ago, my dear friend Menachem Butler made available dozens of RSZ Havlin’s publications online at his academia page available here.
About ten years ago, he published volume one of his writings, which contained fifteen chapters spanning from Chazal all the way until the Chazon Ish.
At the time, Professor Havlin mentioned to me that he hopes that he will find the strength and funding to publish the rest of his material. Over the years I reached out to him about it and he said he had no luck finding funding. To my great surprise, a few months ago he reached out to me and sent me the Table of Contents, saying the work has been finally published.
As one can see from the Table below, lots of material is devoted to the Rambam – to whom Havlin has devoted years researching all aspects of his writings from the manuscript to early printings. At one point, he published under Mechon Ofek the “Sefer Mugah (Authorized Copy) of the Rambam’s Yad and included an incredible introduction. This classic essay is included in this new collection alongside numerous essays of his on the Rambam many of which have also become classics.
These volumes have other important essays on Rishonim; included are his lengthy introductions to the Meiri’s Seder Kabbalah and his work on Avos, both of which he published critical, annotated editions through Mechon Ofek a few years back.
Some other essays in these volumes worth pointing out are his excellent introduction to the set Torasan Shel Geonim (published by Vagshal), and his essay on the authorship of the Kol Bo and Orchos Chaim.
There are also very important essays starting with the earliest Achronim to various essays on the Chazon Ish; sandwiched between are important essays on the Gra and others. One essay I enjoyed learning through a few times is his material on R’ Yechiel Ashkenazi from the time of the Rama. Another important essay of his which I enjoyed and use often is on Pilpul which was based on a talk in Harvard he gave many years ago.
There are also various book reviews of editions of seforim (some are rather sharp) all worth learning through carefully.
There is much more to say about the materials and essays in these two volumes but time is short.
Some of the essays were updated with new material or corrections from when they were published the first time.
Two minor complaints I would like to voice, one is there is no index to these works which makes it impossible to maximize all the nuggets all over in his various tangents. I imagine the reason for this is because indices costs lots of money to produce and the raising of funds for the publication was long, tedious and painful as it is so no index was included.
Another complaint which I have not come up with a good defense for is not every article has the original publication information included in the beginning of the chapter or at the end of the volumes. I imagine this too had to do with the budget.
Be that as it may, these two small complaints are negligible; these incredible volumes are worth owning and learning through carefully to gain from the research and discoveries of Havlin of over fifty years of learning.
I am the distributor of this work and I am selling copies of this work (currently it is not for sale anywhere else), so for more information about ordering\purchasing this work, contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com
Here are the Table of Contents of the book:
Vol. I:
Vol. II:
The Porto family: Eminent Sages, Scholars, and Prolific Seventeenth Century Authors
by Marvin J. Heller[1]
Among the illustrious families that have contributed to and enriched Jewish culture and history is the Porto (Rapa) family, comprised of sages and authors over the centuries. Known for their scholarship and valuable works, they also served in rabbinic positions in various locations. Originally from Lublin, the family came to Italy via Germany, settling in Porto in the vicinity of Verona. The family name Rapa stems from the German (Rappe in Middle High German), for raven. Rappoport is a combination of the Rapa, with Porto, done to distinguish this branch of the family from other Rapa branches. The Italian branch, our subject, providing eminent rabbis who authored distinguished works and served in the rabbinate in several cities in Italy.[2]
This article addresses the lives and works of several eminent members of the Porto family in the seventeenth century, describing a number of their diverse works. Entries are arranged chronologically.[3] A small number of Porto (Rapa) titles precede the works addressed in this article, also printed elsewhere. Among them are Kol Simhah (Prostitz, 1602) by R. Simhah ben Gershon Kohen, of Porto Rapa, on Shabbat zemirot; several editions of the Yalkut Shimonei with marginal annotations attributed to R. Menahem ha-Kohen Porto (Venice, 1566, Cracow, 1595-96, and Frankfort on the Main, 1687).[4] R. Abraham Menahem ben Jacob ha-Kohen Rapa mi-Porto (Rapaport)’s works, that is, the Minhah Belulah and Zafenat Pane’ah, are, as noted elsewhere, not addressed in this article, as having been described independently.
1608 Moses ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto-Rafa (Rapaport) – Our first Porto family publication is a compilation of responsa by R. Moses ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto-Rafa (Rapaport, d. 1624) concerning the prohibition by rabbis of the use of the mikveh in Rovigo. Moses ben Jehiel served from 1602 as rabbi of Badia Polesine in Piedmont, and afterwards as rabbi of Rovigo.
The dispute, a cause célèbre, concerned a mikveh built in 1594 by R. Jekuthiel Consiglio, then rabbi in Rovigo, in his home. Unable to obtain spring water, Consiglio dug a well and drew water with a pail, a halakhicly invalid procedure, as a mikveh requires free-flowing not drawn water. To resolve the problem, Consiglio used a pail with holes large enough to negate its status as a vessel. The mikveh’s validity depended upon whether the water passing through the bucket with holes was considered either drawn or pumped, thereby invalidating the mikveh.
After ten years possession of the house passed to R. Avtaylon Consiglio, Jekuthiel Consiglio’s older brother.[5] Among the first to invalidate the mikveh Avtaylon Consiglio, who upon studying the matter, found his brother’s position too lenient, the holes in the pail being too small to justify the leniency. Jekuthiel, however, found support for the halakhic appropriateness of his mikveh from several prominent rabbis from Venice. The dispute was widespread, in Italy prominent rabbis, such as R. Ezra of Fano, R. Moses Menachem Rapo, and R. Moses Cohen Porto, as well as R. Moses Mordecai Margalioth of Cracow responded. The dispute even extended to Prague and Safed, Eretz Israel, the respondent in the latter location there including R. Israel Galante in Safed.[6]
1608, Palgei Mayyim
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel
Three books are devoted to the subject of the Rovigo mikveh, namely Miḳveh Yisrael (Venice, 1607) by R. Judah ben Moses Saltero of Fano, Palgei Mayim (1608) by R. Moses ben Jehiel, both opposed to the mikveh, and Mashbit Milḥamot (Venice, 1606) by R. Isaac Gershon, this last in support of Jekuthiel Consiglio and his mikveh.
The title of interest to us is Moses ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto-Rafa (Rapaport)’s Palgei Mayim. It was, in manuscript, initially entitled Milhamot ha-Shem but was renamed. Palgei Mayim was published by Zoan (Giovanni) di Gara in quarto format (40: 78,[38\, [2] ff.) in the month of Shevat שסח (368 = January-February 1608). The title-page, which has a pillared frame, informs that it is responsa from rabbis from both Italy and elsewhere. The title-page is followed by Moses ben Jehiel’s introduction in which he informs that he has entitled this work Palgei Mayim (“rivers of water,” var. cit.) for a river of knowledge of Torah goes out of Eden. Moses ben Jehiel’s purpose in writing Palgei Mayim was to”
To defend the sage who prohibits [the mikveh] and all of us who agree with him, for this is our sole intention: to divert slanderous remarks from him, and if we do not succeed in getting people to stay away from the mikveh as we wished to do, what matter? At least we will have saved our souls.
Next is a lengthy forward preceded by a head-piece with several figurines which reappears towards the end of the book as a tail-piece (below). The text begins with a responsum from Avtalyon Consiglio, followed by a responsum from R. Ben Zion Zarfati, continuing with additional responsa.
Palgei Mayim is a compilation of the responsa of the rabbis who prohibited the use of the mikveh, quoting twenty-eight opinions in support of Porto’s position, followed by Mish’an Mayim, which is a refutation of the rejoinder of the opposition. As noted above, Porto originally intended to entitle Palgei Mayim Milhamot Ha-Shem (Wars of the Lord, Numbers 21:14) but, as he writes, reconsidered doing so to avoid creating a more combative environment. A collateral effect of this and other disputes at this time, which involved numerous rabbis, according to Robert Bonfil, was to weaken the authority of the rabbis involved.[7]
This is the only edition of Palgei Mayim, R. Moses ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto-Rafa‘s (Rapaport) only published work. (Seforim Blog editor’s note: Palgei Mayim and the other works mentioned about the Rovigo mikveh controversy was recently reprinted by Mechon Zichron Aron in their two-volume set Geonei Padua (2014).
1627 R. Menahem Zion (Emanuel) Porto Kohen Rappa – Our next member of the Porto (Rapaport) family, R. Menahem Zion (Emanuel) Porto Kohen Rappa was born in Trieste towards the end of the sixteenth century, serving there as chief rabbi, subsequently holding a similar position in Padua, where he died in about 1660. A multifaceted individual, Menahem Zion (Emanuel) Porto, a mathematician and astronomer, authored a variety of books encompassing several fields. His works on those subjects were highly regarded. Indeed, he was praised for his works by Italian scholars such as the mathematician and astrologer Andrea Argoli; and by Tomaso Ercaloni and Benedetto Luzzatto for his sonnets. Menahem Zion was recommended, in 1641, by Gaspard Scüppius, editor of the Mercurius Quadralinguis, to the renowned Protestant Christian-Hebraist Johannes Buxtorf (the younger), with whom Porto later carried on an active correspondence.[8]
1627, Over la-Soher,
Courtesy of Virtual Judaica
Over la-Soher, a treatise on mathematics, is Menahem Zion’s primary, best known Hebrew title. It was published in 1627 as a quarto (40: 22 ff.) at the press of Pietro, Aluise, and Lorenzo Bragadin. The title is from Abraham’s purchase of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite, concluding, “money current among the merchants (over la-soher)” (Genesis 23:16). The title-page has a pillared frame and simply states that it is a sefer ha-mispar (book of numbers).
The verso of the title page has verse encouraging purchase of the book, beginning, “hasten to acquire Sefer ha-Mispar, look into it . . .,” followed by Porto’s introduction (2a-3a) in square letters, extolling the great benefit and practical value of the subject matter and mentioning predecessors, particularly R. Elijah Mizrahi’s (c. 1450–1526) Sefer ha-Mispar, a deep and difficult work. However, Porto, while being concise, has added to and made his book more accessible to the reader. Having dealt extensively with merchants, Menahem Zion has entitled this book Over la-Soher. Finally, Porto greatly praises his patron R. Abraham ben Mordecai Ottiniger. There is a second introduction (3a-b) from R. Gershom ben Kalonymous Hefez, a student of Porto, who was responsible for publishing Over la-Soher.
The text follows in a single column in rabbinic type. Over la-Soher is divided into twelve chapters, dealing with practical arithmetic, multiplication, divisions and fractions. Numerous examples are given in Hebrew rather than Arabic numerals. This is the only edition of Over la-Soher.
Porto’s Italian works include Porto Astronomico (Padua, 1636); Breve Istituzione della Geographia (Padua, 1636); and Diplomologia, Qua Duo Scripturæ Miracula de Regressu Solis Tempore Hiskiæ et Ejus Immobilitate Tempore Josuæ Declarantur (Padua, 1643) reportedly translated into Hebrew by Porto and into Latin by Lorenzo Dalnaki.[9] Diplomologia, Qua Duo Scripturæ is dedicated to the emperor Ferdinand III. Originally written in Italian, it was translated by the author himself into Hebrew, who then sent it to Lorenzo Dalnaki of Transylvania who translated it into Latin.
Porto Astronomico di Emanuel Porto Rabbi Hebreo di Trieste (Padua, 1636), [10] is dedicated to Count Benvenuto Petazzo. In contrast to the favorable comments noted above, Cecil Roth is dismissive of this work, writing “The Porto Astronomico . . . is unimportant save as a curiosity.” Concerning Menahem Zion’s other books, Roth includes them in the category of “popularizing works” which “were published and seem to have achieved a measure of success.”[11]
1636, Porto Astronomico
Courtesy of Google Books
1628 Abraham ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto – A scholar of distinction, R. Abraham ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto, was active at the beginning of the seventeenth century. He resided in Cremona and Mantua, and afterwards in Verona. He studied under relatives and appears to have served as rabbi in Verona. Abraham Porto was the author of several works, most notably Havvot Ya’ir, rabbinic epigrams as well as several other works, still extant in manuscript.
Havvot Ya’ir, an alphabetical collection of Hebrew words with their cabalistic explanations, was published in 1628 in Venice at the Bragadin press by Pietro, Aluise, and Lorenzo Bragadin in quarto format (40: 40 ff.). The title-page is dated in a straightforward manner, as שפח (388 = 1688), but the chronogram in verse at the end of the book provides a completion date of Rosh Hodesh Sivan [5]388 (Friday, June 2, 1628). The text is enclosed by a pillared architectural frame and states that it is an appetizer based on the sayings of our sages “‘His speech shall flow as the dew’ (cf. Deuteronomy 32:2) for from one word shall come forth, flourish, and shine many words for the honor of ‘the desirable of the young men” (cf. Ezekiel 23:6, 12, 23) such as R. Samuel Hayyim Bassan of Verona, a student of R. Samuel Meldola.”
There is a dedication to “the desirable of the young men,” R. Samuel Hayyim ben Mordecai Bassan of Verona (2a) which concludes with lines of verse. Abraham Menahem’s introduction follows, in which he gives two further reasons for entitling the book Havvot Ya’ir. Firstly, as the villages provide provision for the large cities (Megillah 2b) so this small work will much illuminate and enthuse great rabbis to remember and briefly speak the words of our sages. Also, as one that does not have children, so is his “soul abased and languishes, this is my generations before the Lord.”[12] Abraham Menahem writes that the book is called,
Havvot Ya’ir to enlighten להאיר and to inflame the hearts of choice students such as yourself (Bassan) in the way of our sages, as to why the Torah is called “Etz Hayyim (tree of life)”, (Proverbs 3:18, 11:30, 15:4), for as the small trees ignite the larger ones so too my friend, the young ignite and inflame the hearts of those who are older, “He will magnify the Torah, and make it glorious” (Isaiah 42:21).
1628, Havvot Ya’ir, Venice
Courtesy of Virtual Judaica
There is an approbation from R. Judah Aryeh (Leone) Modena, R. Simhah Luzatto, and R. Nehemiah ben Leib Sarival. The text, assembled from the beginnings of his speeches, follows in a single column in rabbinic type.
Example of entries, which are arranged alphabetically, are כ kaf: beginning karpas, yahaz כרפס יחץ, the initial letters are כי for “For כי, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the people, but the Lord shall arise upon you” (Isaiah 60:2). The Patriarchs are an omen for their offspring. Jacob “divided ויחץ the children” Genesis 33:1). צ Tzadi:צחק “God has made me laugh “ (Genesis 21:6), and according to R. Pollack, Sarah said that she trusts that her offspring will be Talmudic scholars who will be experts in צ zizit and the ties of tefillin. This is the only edition of Abraham ben Jehiel Porto’s Havvot Ya’ir.
Among Abraham ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto’s other works are Gat Rimmon, a book of verse; Shimmush Avraham, a commentary on the Torah (below); and Hasdei David on the Psalms, all unpublished. He also wrote responsa, several published in the responsa of his contemporaries. Abraham’s brother was R. Moses ben Jehiel Porto-Rafa (Rapoport, d. 1624), and our Abraham also edited and printed the Minḥah Belulah (Verona, 1594) of R. Abraham Menahem ben Jacob ha-Kohen Rapa mi-Porto (Rapaport), a kinsman.
Shimush Avraham
Courtesy of the Russian State Library
1675 Zechariah ben Ephraim Porto: – This Porto, a seventeenth century Italian scholar, was noted for his learning and still more for his other virtues. A native, resident of Urbino, R. Zechariah ben Ephraim Porto (d. 1672) also resided in Florence and Rome, where, in the latter location, he officiated as rabbi, although he modestly refused to assume that title. Zechariah ben Ephraim was also a philanthropist; in his will, Zechariah Porto, who was childless, left all of his wealth for communal bequests for Talmud Torahs, dowries, and support of communities in Eretz Israel. His extensive library was dedicated to the Talmud Torah in Rome.
Zechariah Porto was the author of Asaf ha-Mazkir, a work containing a list of all the explanations and comments found in the Ein Ya’aḳov, R. Jacob ben Solomon ibn Habib’s popular and much reprinted collection of the aggadic passages of the Talmud. Zechariah Porto would not publish his book; it was printed after his death by the Roman community (Venice, 1688; according to Zedner, 1675).[13]
The title-page of Asaf ha-Mazkir has images of Moses and Aaron on the sides, cherubim above holding the tablets with the ten commandments, and at the bottom additional imagery. It is dated with the chronogram “It is ‘Asaph the recorder (Asaf ha-Mazkir) אסף המזכיר’ הוא (435 = 1675)” (II Kings 18:18, 37; Isaiah 36: 3, 22). Asaf ha-Mazkir was printed at the Bragadin press by Domenico Vedelago in quarto format (40: [4], 400 ff.).
The title page of Asaf ha-Mazkir has the Bragadin frame with Moses and Aaron, and a brief text that simply states Porto’s name and that it is being published for the public good.[14] It is dated, “He is ‘Asaph the recorder’ אסף המזכיר הוא (435 = 1675)” (II Kings 18:18, 37, Isaiah 36:3, 22). The colophon dates conclusion of the work to Tuesday, 13 Adar, “relief and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place ממקום אחר (435 = March 11, 1675)” (Esther 4:14), which in fact was a Monday that year.
1675, Asaf ha-Mazkir
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel
The title page is followed by the introduction of the Talmud Torah, which praises Porto’s piety, charity, and many other fine qualities; verse, also praising Porto and his work, beginning, “The wage of the righteous” (Proverbs 10:16, 18:11); and the introduction of R. Moses ben Jacob Levi from Vienna, the editor. He writes in the same vein, but adds that he should not be held responsible for errors for work was done on Shabbat by gentiles which could not be corrected.[15] He too concludes with verse. Next is the Italian Noi Reformatori dello Studio di Padoa, dated 11. Marzo 1675 and signed Gio: Battista Nicolosi Segret.
1675, Asaf ha-Mazkir
Courtesy of the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad Ohel Yosef Yitzhak
The text of Asaf ha-Mazkir is set in two columns, headers and text from the Ein Ya’akov in square letters, sources in rabbinic type. Tractate names are in a decorative frame, chapters in bold letters. Entries consist of the statement in the Ein Ya’akov, followed by sources addressing those statements. An example of an entry is the last chapter of Kiddushin 82a,
One should always teach his son a clean and easy trade, etc.
Lehem Shelomo no. 366 109 f. amud a.
Tosfot Yom Tov ch. 4 195 f. amud b
This is the only independent edition of Asaf ha-Mazkir, Zechariah ben Ephraim Porto’s only published work. It was included in later editions of the Ein Ya’akov, beginning with the Amsterdam (1725-26) edition. As Eli Genauer noted, “It was included in later editions of the Ein Ya’akov, beginning with the Amsterdam (1725-26) edition.) An example of something like this is Chochmas Shlomo which was printed a few times and then never again because it made it to the back of the Vilna Shas underneath the Maharsha. So even though it was only published independently three times, it was published dozens of times onward by being in the back of the Vilna Shas.”
1619 Allegro Porto – The most unusual entry in our collection of seventeenth century Porto imprints is Allegro Porto’s Nuevo Musiche, a collection of secular madrigals. This, our last Porto entry, is not in our chronological order, nor is it part of our description of the Hebrew works by members of the Porto family. It is included, however, assuming that Allegro Porto was a member of the extended Porto family, in order to show the great diversity and productivity, even outside of our subject area of Hebrew imprints, of the family’s accomplishments.
A madrigal is an elaborate multi-part song for several voices, without instrumental accompaniment. It is a genre popular in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Allegro Porto published Nuevo Musiche in 1619, followed by two collections of madrigals in 1622 and 1625, one lacking a title-page.[16] Shlomo Simonsohn credits Allegro (Simha) Porto with four collections of songs, but enumerates three only, all printed in Venice, Nuove Musiche, (1619), Madrigali a cinque voci (1625), and Madrigali a tre voci, libro primo (1619).[17]
Cecil Roth informs that although singers and instrumentalists were active elsewhere in Italy, it was in Mantua only that there was a “sequence of Jewish composers who published their works.” Among them was Allegro Porto whom Roth describes as prolific. His writings, according to Roth, also include four works, two collections of madrigals for five verses being published in 1625, one being dedicated to the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II, the daughter of the Duke of Mantua being his empress, Simonsohnn describes her, Eleanora Gonzaga, as the sister of the Dukes Francesco II, Ferdinando and Vincenzo II. Among Porto’s madrigals was a collection in the new style (Nuevo Musiche, 1619), this dedicated to Count Alfonso de Porzia, chamberlain to the Duke of Bavaria. Another collection of Porto’s madrigals, this for three voices “‘with some arias and a romanesque dialogue’ (the first part alone is recorded, but perhaps there were others), published first in 1619, was reissued in the nineteenth century.[18]
No image accompanies this entry, in comparison to the other book descriptions; it was not possible to find an image of Porto’s Nuevo Musiche. The reason is its great rarity, for as Roth explains “Musical publications of this age are prodigiously rare, many surviving in only a single copy – others perhaps were less fortunate, so that to state dogmatically that certain compositions were unpublished is hazardous.” He notes that in the famed musical collection of King João of Portugal, assembled in the late eighteenth century, destroyed in the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, were four works by Allegro Porto.
Finale: the Porto family in the seventeenth centuries: – The various branches and members of the Porto family in the seventeenth century provided the Jewish communities of Italy, and by extension, world Jewry, with several distinguished rabbis and authors, their diverse works encompassing Torah commentary, responsa, mathematics, astronomy, kabbalistic linguistics, Aggadah, and even musical compositions. Their books, despite their value, were, with exception, published once only, in single editions. Given that these works are viewed positively, it is unfortunate that they were not republished or are not better known. Perchance, the very diversity of these Porto publications, represent the eclectic views of Renaissance Italy. They are a rich contribution to Jewish literature, representing the contributions of the seventeenth Porto family to the Jewish society of that period and to our times as well.
[1] I would like to express my appreciation to Eli Genauer for reading the article and his several comments, in particular for his observation on the editions of Asaf ha-Mazkir.
[2] This is a companion article to a previous article on a single distinguished Porto, R. Abraham Menahem ben Jacob ha-Kohen Rapa mi-Porto (Rapaport) and his works, the Minhah Belulah and Zafenat Pane’ah. Concerning that article see Marvin J. Heller, “Abraham Menahem ben Jacob ha-Kohen Rapa mi-Porto (Rapaport) Ashkenazi: A Renaissance Rabbi of interest” Seforim.blogspot.com (March 17, 2021).
[3] Several of the background descriptions of Porto family are from Richard Gottheil, Isaac Broydé, and Ismar Elbogen, “Porto,” Jewish Encyclopedia X (1901-06), pp. 133-34 and Shimon Vanunu, Encyclopedia le-Hachmah Italia (Jerusalem, 2018), var. cit.
[4] The Yalkut Shimoni entries are from the book descriptions in the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad Ohel Yosef Yitzhak library catalogue.
[5] Shmuel Glick, Kuntress ha-Teshuvot he-Hadash: A Bibliographic Thesaurus of Responsa Literature published from ca. 1470-2000 (Jerusalem & Ramat Gan, 2006-07) II, pp. 839-40 no. 2982 [Hebrew].
[6] A. M. Habermann, Giovanni Di Gara: Printer, Venice 1564-1610. ed. Y. Yudlov (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 123-25 no. 257 [Hebrew]; Carmilly-Weinberger, Censorship and Freedom of Expression in Jewish History, pp. 160-61; Avraham Yaari, Unknown Documents concerning the dispute in Rovigo,” Studies in Hebrew Booklore (Jerusalem, 1959), pp. 420-29 [Hebrew].
[7] Robert Bonfil, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy, translated by Jonathan Chipman (London, Washington, 1993), pp. 107-08.
[8] Gottheil, Broydé, Elbogen, op. cit.
[9] Giovanni Bernardo De Rossi,. Dictionary of Hebrew Authors (Dizionario Storico degli Autori Ebrei e delle Loro Opere), ed. Marvin J. Heller, (Lewiston, 1999), p. 157
[10] Cecil Roth, The Jews in the Renaissance (New York, 1959), pp. 235-36; Meyer Waxman, A History of Jewish Literature: From the Twelfth Century to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century II (New York, 1933, reprint 1960), p. 487.
[11] Cecil Roth, op cit, p. 236.
[12] Meir Benayahu, “The Caleon Press” Asufot XIII (Jerusalem, 2001), pp. 194-95 [Hebrew].
[13] Ḥananel Nepi, Mordecai Samuel Ghirondi, Toledot Gedolei Yisrael (Trieste, 1853), p. 99 [Hebrew]; Joseph Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew books in the library of the British Museum (London, 1867), p. 788.
[14] Concerning the appearance of Moses and Aaron on the title-pages of Hebrew books see Dan Rabinowitz, “Aaron the Jewish Bishop,” ” Seforim.blogspot.com April 12, 2016).
[15] Concerning work done on Shabbat see Marvin J. Heller, “And the Work, the Work of Heaven, was Performed on Shabbat,” The Torah u-Maddah Journal 11 (New York, 2002-03), pp. 174-85, reprinted in Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2008), pp. 266-77.
[16] Willi Apel, Harvard Dictionary of Music (Cambridge, 1969), p. 446.
[17] Shlomo Simonsohn, History of the Jews in the Duchy of Mantua (Jerusalem, 1977), p. 676.
[18] Cecil Roth, The Jews in the Renaissance (1959, reprint New York, 1965), pp. 286-87.
Final Response
By Marc B. Shapiro
In response to Rabbi Herschel Grossman’s strong criticisms of my Limits of Orthodox Theology, I wrote four responses on the Seforim Blog. You can view them here, here, here, and here. I then stopped responding even though there are still many criticisms I could have commented on. Readers can compare Grossman’s arguments with my replies and draw their own judgment. Grossman has recently responded to my posts and offered further criticisms in an article published in Dialogue. See here.
I do not wish to respond to all of his points in his new article, but I feel I need to make some comments and then I will leave this matter and let the readers decide which side is more compelling. Because Grossman complains in his article that “the merits of the arguments are easily lost in the loose internet format and enthusiastic cheering of his online supporters,” I have decided not to allow comments to this post. I can only express my regret at the style that Grossman chose to adopt in his articles. Had he written in an appropriate fashion then it would have been possible to have had a constructive discussion and debate.
P. 161: “DIALOGUE editors offered the author, Dr. Marc Shapiro, an opportunity to respond directly in these pages. He chose instead to issue a response on his own blog, where he wrote a number of lengthy posts in his defense.”
Dialogue never offered me an opportunity to respond in the journal. The Seforim Blog is not my own blog. I am a writer on it like lots of others.
P. 162: “In his [Shapiro’s] view, the tenets of belief are Rambam’s innovations and are therefore disputable.” The word “innovation” implies that the Rambam invented the doctrines he includes in his principles. I never said such a thing.
P. 163: In giving examples of supposed distortions in my book, Grossman writes: “One example is when Shapiro cites Rivash in support of the statement that Christians believe in a three-part God while the Kabbalists believe in a ten-part God – a clear rejection of the Second Principle. A quick glance at Rivash reveals that he does indeed say such a thing as a quote from a philosopher, which he then proceeds to debunk.”
I would like readers to take a look at the relevant page of my book (p. 40) and see if what Grossman says is correct, that I cited Rivash in support of the statement that Kabbalists believe in a ten-part God.
Pp. 166-167. Readers should see my discussion here. I cite a number of sources that support what I say, and thus contrary to what Grossman states, I do not just insist on my right to offer an interpretation. In note 21 Grossman writes: “Dr. Shapiro attempts to salvage his theory by speculating that the Vilna Gaon may not have really meant what he wrote.” Readers can turn to my discussion here and will see that I never said that.
p. 173. We see here an example of how Grossman just talks past me, leading to nothing productive. I had questioned why in the Mishneh Torah the Rambam did not require that the convert be instructed in the Thirteen Principles. In his original essay, Grossman criticized this question which he said showed lack of understanding of the method of the Mishneh Torah. In my response here I cite rabbinic authorities who deal with this very question, thus showing that it is not an ignorant point, as Grossman portrayed it. One of those I cite is R. Chaim Sofer who writes [1]:
והדבר נפלא הלא יש י”ג עיקרי הדת והי’ לו לב”ד להאריך בכל השרשים
Grossman replies that while I quote R. Sofer, I neglect “to apprise [my] readers of R. Sofer’s subsequent words ‘Rambam didn’t add to the talmudic formula,’ exactly as I had written and directly in contradiction to Dr. Shapiro’s position.”
Here is the paragraph from R. Sofer.
R. Sofer says exactly what I quote him as saying. The final passage in the paragraph, which is mistranslated by Grossman, has nothing to do with my point and does not refute it in any way.
I would also note that in his fascinating Ha-Emunah ha-Ne’emanah, p. 142, R. Dovid Cohen offers an explanation as to why אין לומדים כל י”ג עקרים טרם שיתגייר הגר
P. 174. In Limits I discuss different approaches to the phenomenon of tikkun soferim. While the generally accepted approach is that tikkun soferim is not to be taken literally, I cite a number of authorities who did take it literally and assumed that Ezra or the Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah made changes to biblical texts (including the Torah). In a later post here (which has nothing to do with Grossman), I cited some other examples of sources that understood tikkun soferim literally. One of those I mentioned is R. Pesach Finfer.[2] He states as follows:
ראוי הי‘ עזרא שתנתן התורה על ידו . . . והוא ונחמי‘ עשו תיקון סופרים וכינויי סופרים
Grossman says that it is unclear what I see in this line. What I see is that R. Finfer states that Ezra and Nehemiah were responsible for tikkunei soferim. This is the same language that is used in other sources that take the notion of tikkun soferim literally. For those who don’t take it literally, Ezra has nothing to do with tikkun soferim. Following the sentence I quoted from R. Finfer, he refers in parenthesis to Radbaz’s comment which offers a different perspective, that tikkun soferim is halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai. Here is the page.
While on the topic of tikkun soferim, let me share something else that is relevant. In Limits I mentioned that the evidence points to Rashi understanding tikkun soferim literally, namely, that the biblical text was changed by the Scribes. There was some pushback to this assertion by those could not accept that Rashi would ever hold such a position. Yet subsequent to my book, Yeshayahu Maori also came to the conclusion that Rashi understood tikkun soferim literally.[3] Furthermore, R. Avraham Pessin also explains that Rashi understands tikkun soferim literally.[4] He states that according to Rashi the Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah had the authority to alter the text of the Torah:
ומבואר ברש”י שניתן הכח לאנשי כנסת הגדולה לשנות גם תורה שבכתב
I find this significant, because although one can point to numerous statements that such an approach in unacceptable, R. Pessin sees it as the clear meaning of Rashi (and among traditional interpreters he is not alone in this understanding[5]). Here are the pages from R. Pessin’s sefer.
Speaking of tikkun soferim, the most famous of which is Gen. 18:22: ‘ואברהם עודנו עומד לפני ה, I found something in R. Solomon Algazi’s Yavin Shemuah (Venice, 1639), p. 15a, which is fascinating and, as far as I know, unique in rabbinic literature. It is also in opposition to Maimonides’ Eighth Principle which establishes that the Torah in its entirety was delivered by God to Moses. In discussing ‘ואברהם עודנו עמוד לפני ה, R. Algazi claims that when God dictated the Torah to Moses, He said that God was standing before Abraham. But Moses on his own, out of respect for God, changed the verse to read that Abraham was standing before God. I guess we can say that this falls between the traditional view that the verse was never changed and the view that the Scribes altered the verse out of respect for God. For R. Algazi it was Moses who made the alteration, but as far as Maimonides is concerned, this is just as problematic as viewing tikkun soferim as an alteration of the Scribes. Here is R. Algazi’s surprising interpretation.
כיון דהב”ה היה אומר לו על כל מלה כתוב א”כ ודאי דהב”ה אמר לו וה’ עודנו עומד דלא איש אל ויכזב ומשה היה משנה על דרך כבוד וכותב ואברהם עודנו עומד א”כ מה שייך בזה הלכה למשה מסיני והוא על דרך המשל שדוד המלך יאמר לסופר מהי’ [מהיר] כתוב שדוד מצוה לפלוני והסופר משנה על דרך כבוד וכותב המלך דוד אבל המלך בעצמו אינו אומר כתוב המלך מצוה כך הב”ה יתעל’ לא אמר למשה שהיה סופר כתוב ואברהם עודנו עומד שהוא דרך כבוד אלא אמר לו האמת וה’ עודנו עומד ומשה שינה על דרך תיקון סופרים
Pp. 175-176. I wrote here: “Even when it comes to other basic ideas of Maimonides, which are not included as part of the Thirteen Principles, we find that scholars wondered why Maimonides did not include them in Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah.” I then cited Joseph Ibn Caspi in support of this statement. Here is the page from Amudei Kesef u-Maskiyot Kesef (Frankfurt, 1848), p. 113.
What I would add here is the interesting point that Ibn Caspi, Commentary on Guide 2:32, actually concludes that the Mishneh Torah’s formulation is in line with Maimonides’ true view, namely, that prophecy is a completely natural phenomenon which will of necessity occur if someone has both the ability and training. On the hand, he thinks that the view expressed in Guide 2:32 as being the “opinion of our Law and foundation of our doctrine”, namely, that God might prevent a prophet from prophesying, is not Maimonides’ true opinion, but is an example of the famous “seventh contradiction”.
Grossman is also mistaken when he writes, “In Moreh Nevuchim [2:32], Rambam argues—in opposition to the philosophers—that prophecy is only activated proactively by God, even if the requisite conditions are met.” Maimonides actually says the exact opposite of this. He states that the Torah view of prophecy is identical to the philosophic view except that God can choose, if He wishes, to prevent someone from prophesying even though according to nature he would be a prophet. This is the opposite of what Grossman states, that “prophecy is only activated proactively by God.”
Pp. 176-177: I stated that the notion that Maimonides changed his mind about including Reward and Punishment among the Principles was suggested by R. Solomon of Chelm. To this Grossman replies that Maimonides did not withdraw his belief in Reward and Punishment. It is just that in the Mishneh Torah he classified things differently. Again, Grossman misunderstands. I never said that Maimonides rejected the idea of Reward and Punishment. I was only referring to whether it should be included as part of the Thirteen Principles. As R. Solomon of Chelm explains, Maimonides’ later understanding is that Reward and Punishment is included as part of other principles and thus does not need to be listed separately.
Pp. 177-178. Grossman claims that I cite R. Avraham Hochman in an improper way, and in response R. Hochman states that the entire theme of his sefer “is to show that Rambam’s Principles are absolute and that he derived all of the Thirteen Principles from the Talmud.” He also is quoted as saying, “Academics often quote a question and forget that for the wise, the question is half the answer. But the professors stick to the question and don’t wait around for the answer.” Grossman then speaks of my “brazenness of citing a recognized authority to promote a position that the author himself openly rejects.”
I don’t know if R. Hochman reads English, and could see what I actually wrote, or if he only is responding to what Grossman told him. Either way, his letter, published at the end of Grossman’s article, is a complete distortion of my position. Leaving aside the particular examples that people can see, look at this characterization:
ולפי הבנה מוטעית זו שפך חמתו על הרמב“ם מנין לו לחדש הלכה שאינה במשנה . . .
Talk about describing a writer inaccurately!
And what is one to make of this statement from him?
אין שום חולק על עיקר מיסודי הדת אלא שנחלקו על מספר העיקרים
It is precisely against such a false view that I wrote my book in the first place. A typical response to the book has been that the opinions in opposition to Maimonides are “not accepted.” But here he denies that anyone actually disagrees with any of Maimonides’ principles. With such an outlook, we can’t even begin to have a dialogue.
The following paragraphs are what I quoted from R. Hochman. Nothing I quote here has any connection to what Grossman states or what R. Hochman writes in his letter responding to my supposed incorrect conclusions that I derived from his words. As the reader can see, contrary to what R. Hochman states, I mention not just his question but his answer as well. Of all of Grossman’s criticisms this one is very difficult to understand, because there is nothing at all controversial in what I write, and my summary of R. Hochman is accurate.
As for my wondering why the Principles are not listed together as a unit, which Grossman sees as an illustration of how I am unaware of the structure of the Mishneh Torah, let me begin by repeating what I wrote in my last post: R. Yaakov Nissan Rosenthal, on the very first page of his commentary Mishnat Yaakov to Sefer ha-Madda, also wonders about the point I made, that the Thirteen Principles as a unit are never mentioned in the Mishneh Torah. (Had I known this when I wrote my book, I certainly would have cited it.)
ותימא למה לא הביא הרמב“ם בספרו ה”יד החזקה” את הענין הזה של י“ג עיקרי האמונה, וצ”ע
R. Avraham Menahem Hochman writes:
מאחר וכל כך חמורה הכפירה, וגדולה החובה לדעת את י”ג העיקרים, כיצד זה השמיטם מספרו ה”יד החזקה”, ולא כתבם כפי שסדרם בפירוש המשנה
והנה אחר שהתבאר שהאמונה בי”ג העיקרים היא בסיס לתורה נשוב לשאלה הרביעית (בסוף פרק ה’) אשר לכאורה היא פליאה עצומה מדוע השמיט הרמב”ם ביד החזקה את החובה הגדולה להאמין בי”ג עיקרים, באופן חיובי, ולא סדרם כי”ג יסודי האמונה שחובה להאמין בהם
R. Hochman goes on to explain that most of the Principles are indeed mentioned in Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah in a positive sense (even if not as a unit of Thirteen Principles). He also notes the following important point, that when principles of faith are mentioned in the Talmud, they are never listed in a positive sense, that one must believe X. Rather, they are listed in a negative sense, that one who denies X has no share in the World to Come. Why Maimonides, in his Commentary on the Mishnah, chose to formulate the Principles in a positive sense and require active belief as a necessity for all Jews—something the Talmud never explicitly required—is an interesting point which we will come back to. Regarding some of the Principles the difference is clear. For example, according to the Talmud, denial of Resurrection is heresy, but one who has never heard of the Resurrection and thus does not deny it, or affirm it, is a Jew in good standing. For Maimonides, however, the doctrine of Resurrection must be positively affirmed. In a future post we can come back to which Principles even the Talmud implicitly requires positive affirmation of (obviously number 1, belief in God, but there could be others as well).
After reading these paragraphs, please look at Grossman’s article, pp. 177-178, and R. Hochman’s letter, pp. 188-191, and you will see that nothing there has any connection to what I actually say when referring to R. Hochman. I simply cite him to show that the question I asked is not an ignorant one, as Grossman stated. I also cite R. Hochman’s answer. So Grossman’s seizing on this and printing a lengthy letter from R. Hochman is nothing short of bizarre.
Pp. 178-179. Grossman writes:
Things really start to go “off the rails” when we examine Shapiro’s claim in the name of R. Shlomo Fisher, zatzal, that one need not accept Mosaic authorship, that the Rambam abandoned his principles, and that “Rambam’s formulation of the tenets of Jewish belief was far from universally accepted.”
Grossman responds that he found these attributions questionable so he checked with the family and students, and “they were horrified that anyone would be using R. Fisher’s name in this way.”
What exactly did I say that Grossman finds so objectionable? In Limits of Orthodox Theology, p, 126, I quote the following sentence from R. Bezalel Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism (Spring Valley, 1999), p. 8: “The truth, known to Torah scholars, is that Maimonides’ formulation of the tenets of Jewish belief is far from universally accepted.” R. Naor tells us that he heard this insight from his teacher, R. Shlomo Fisher. (Anyone needing any indication of the high regard that R. Fisher held R. Naor in can examine their published correspondence.)
Grossman sees this as a radical statement whose authenticity he cannot accept. I don’t think readers of this blog will find it radical at all. In fact, I have elsewhere mentioned that R. Fisher made this statement in discussing R. Judah he-Hasid’s view on the authorship of the Torah, which diverges from Maimonides’ Eighth Principle. Contrary to Grossman, in none of my posts did I quote R. Fisher as saying that one need not accept Mosaic authorship. I simply cited his view about R. Judah he-Hasid. I also quoted his opinion that medieval Ashkenazic authorities had a different view on the matter of complete Mosaic authorship than Maimonides in that they did not regard the assumption that there are post-Mosaic verses in the Torah as heretical (a view also argued by Prof. Haym Soloveitchik, see here). Grossman claims that R. Fisher could not have said this, even though students can testify to him having said it. In fact, I can state right here that I too heard him make this distinction.
The final point that Grossman can’t accept is what I mentioned in 2007 here, from a student who attended R. Fisher’s weekly shiur on Avnei Miluim. “Interestingly enough, he reported to me that a few weeks ago R. Fisher declared that he believes the Rambam abandoned his system of 13 Principles, the proof being that they are never mentioned as a unit in the Mishneh Torah. In my book, I noted that R. Shlomo Goren held the same view.” Grossman summarizes my statement as “the Rambam abandoned his principles,” which would lead the reader to think that I was saying that the Rambam no longer accepted the truth of his 13 Principles, which would indeed be a radical position. But what I was really talking about, and I refer to this approach in my book, is the notion that the Rambam no longer accepted a system of 13 Principles. This would mean that he adopted another model to categorize the essential dogmas of Judaism, or as R. Goren suggested, maybe he later advocated a conception of Jewish theology like that held by Abarbanel, that one should not distinguish between so-called principles of Judaism and other aspects of the religion, since all must be regarded as equal.
When all is said and done, nothing I have attributed to R. Fisher is strange, radical, or unbelievable. Why Grossman would be horrified by what I wrote is anyone’s guess.
Grossman quotes from a 2018 letter put out by R. Fisher (some might say, put out by his family). In the letter, R. Fisher writes that no one is to quote anything he said in matters of Aggadah and hashkafah without the approval of his sons. This was because in the past he had been misquoted. We all know that misquoting of gedolim is nothing new. There are numerous examples of particular great rabbis being quoted as saying contradictory things, and of these rabbis stating that no one should believe anything they hear in their names unless they hear it directly from the rabbi. Yet this has never stopped people from quoting the gedolim and never will. This is simply the nature of the world.
R. Fisher gave thousands of shiurim (a tiny percentage of them are online) and there are thousands of students who heard words of Torah from him. As with all students, they have repeated, and will continue to repeat, that which they heard from the rav, just like all students do. They have been doing this for at least fifty years. If R. Fisher’s letter means what it says, that no one is to repeat things that R. Fisher said, then this is simply an impossible request, and it also seems unprecedented in Torah history. It would mean that one who listens to a shiur from him dealing with non-halakhic matters, e.g., this one here, is not allowed to repeat any insights he heard. It would also mean that much of what was mentioned at the many eulogies, where people recalled things R. Fisher said, or on sites such as this and this, is inappropriate. It would mean that students are not allowed to repeat that which they heard from their rebbe. I don’t see how this is possible.
P. 179. Here is something that is really comical. Take a look at this page.
Grossman states that I mention that Shadal (Samuel David Luzzatto) claims that Ibn Ezra believed in post-Mosaic additions to the Torah. He writes: “Upon checking the source, we find yet another instance of Dr. Shapiro citing an author as believing something he actually vociferously denies. As Shadal points out, the primary source for this take on Ibn Ezra was the noted heretic Baruch Spinoza.”
I say this is comical since Grossman doesn’t have a clue as to what is going on here. The only way I can explain this is that Grossman merely skimmed the passage and thus misread it.
Shadal rejects Spinoza who (intentionally?) misunderstood Ibn Ezra to be hinting to the notion that Moses was not the author of the Torah.[6] This misinterpretation of Ibn Ezra is what Shadal rejects (and this is not mentioned in my book because it has nothing to do with what I was discussing). However, exactly as I said, Shadal also states that Ibn Ezra believed in certain post-Mosaic additions to the Torah. Here is the page in Shadal that I cited (as well as the subsequent page) so everyone can see it with their own eyes.
Shadal’s outlook in this matter is no secret, and he repeats this point elsewhere. See e.g., Mehkerei ha-Yahadut, vol. 2, p. 195:
מה שכתב ראב”ע ברמז, היות בתורה מקראות שנוספו בה אחר כמה דורות
In Iggerot Shadal, vol. 2, p. 246, he writes:
כי סברתו שיש בתורה מקראות נוספים קשה מדעת זולתו שקצת מלות מוטעות
In my book and subsequent posts I have identified around forty medieval and more recent authorities who share Shadal’s viewpoint in this matter.[7] Incidentally, R. Joseph Kafih, in his first work written when he was seventeen years old, attacks Shadal for attributing this view to Ibn Ezra. See Sihat Dekalim (Jerusalem, 2005), p. 90.
I must also note that Grossman does not simply miss Shadal’s meaning, but he also compares me to Spinoza in trying to ensnare the unsuspecting masses. If this wasn’t so comical, I might actually take offense. But I think readers should wonder how an author could say such a thing, and how a journal could publish it. It is simply beyond belief, made all the more absurd since Grossman is so mistaken about what Shadal actually states.
Incidentally, since we are talking about Shadal, it is worth noting that R. Elijah Benamozegh, whose commentaries on the Torah continuously dispute with Shadal, when it comes to Ibn Ezra and post-Mosaic additions, Benamozegh has the same position as Shadal. Here is what he writes in Ha-Levanon, July 3, 1872, p. 351, now easily available in the new edition of Em la-Mikra: Bereshit (Haifa, 2021), p. 114:
בראש ספר דברים ובמקומות אחרים רומז בעיניו מולל באצבעותיו ועל דלתות השער יתאו לרמוז שיש דברים בתורה נוספים ולא משה כתבם רק נביאים וצופים. ואני הפרתי את עצתו וקלקלתי את מחשבתו
P. 181. “Shapiro’s weakest scholarship appears when discussing kabbalistic matters.” I agree, which is why I try not to discuss these matters. If I do have to deal with them, I only rely on what recognized authorities have said,
P. 182. I wrote that according to Maimonides’ Seventh Principle, Moses was the greatest prophet who ever lived and there will never be a prophet as great as him in the future. Grossman says that I am mistaken, and that Maimonides does not declare that Moses was the greatest prophet, only that he was the “father of all prophets.” This statement is astounding. There are hundreds of discussions of the Seventh Principle in traditional rabbinic literature, and as far as I know they all agree with what I have written. The entire basis of the Seventh Principle is that Moses was greater than all other prophets. Maimonides states explicitly in the principle that “All are below him in rank . . . He reached a greater understanding of God than any man who ever existed or will ever exist.” This is so obvious that I do not want to spend any more time on it. It is only a mystery how Grossman could say something so wrong, and I do not know of anyone else who has ever written on this principle and made such a mistake (which Maimonides regards as heresy). Did no one from the editorial board of Dialogue read the article before publication? It is nothing short of incredible that an issue of Dialogue includes the false claim that there is no principle of faith to believe that Moses was the greatest prophet in Jewish history.
In addition to his explicit assertion that Moses was the greatest prophet, Maimonides does have an interesting formulation, stating that Moses is the father of all the prophets who preceded him and all who came after him. How can one be the “father” of those who came before him? R. Hayyim Dov Moshe Halpern explains it well[8]:
“אב” הכונה במעלה ולכן שייך לומר שהוא אב גם למי שקדם לו
Here are some passages from other authors whose books are found in my library. They all explain the principle correctly.
R. Yochanan Meir Bechhoffer writes[9]:
רבינו השווה את האמונה בעליונות משה רבינו על הנביאים הקודמים לו, לאמונה בעליונותו של הבאים אחריו. ואף כי אמת היא, שכך נחתמת התורה, לא קם כמשה וגו’, מ”מ יש לעיין מה הצורך בזה. נהי דהמאמין שאחר משה בא נביא גדול ממנו שיכול לבטל דבריו, כפר בנבואת משה, אך מה הסתירה לנבואת משה בחשבה שמי שקדם לו היתה גדול ממנו, הלוא הנביא הקדום לא יחדש דבר על פני משה
R. Ben Zion Epstein writes[10]:
ולכן נתנה למשה דוקא, כי היה דבוק כולו באין סוף ב”ה. ולכן היתה מדרגת נבואתו גדולה מכל הנביאים, ושכינה מדברת מתוך גרונו.
R. Avraham Menachem Hochman’s heading to his discussion of the Seventh Principle reads[11]:
להאמין בנבואת משה רבינו שהוא למעלה מכל הנביאים שהיו לפניו ולאחריו
And to mention one classic text (I could mention many more), R. Elchanan Wasserman writes[12]:
והנה בעיקרי הדת שמנה הרמב”ם בפירוש המשניות (פרק חלק) מנה שם עיקר אחד שכל דברי נביאים אמת, ועוד עיקר אחר שנבואת מהרע”ה היתה למעלה מנבואת כל הנביאים
R. Yaakov Weinberg in his Fundamentals and Faith, pp. 73ff. elaborates on Moses’ “prophetic superiority” (p. 81)
And finally, R. Yehudah Meir Keilson’s new edition of Kisvei ha-Rambam (which I encourage everyone to acquire), affirms my point (which as mentioned, is simply what Maimonides himself explicitly says, so it is not a question of how to interpret him).
Keilson, p. 82: “The Seventh Principle teaches that the nature of Moshe’s prophecy is unparalleled. . . . Rambam elaborates on Moshe’s prophetic superiority, which was the result of his moral and intellectual perfection.”
Keilson, p. 82 n. 1. “The title ‘father of all the prophets’ . . . Rambam takes this to refer to Moshe’s superiority in prophecy to that of all other prophets.”
Keilson, p. 154: “Rambam uses the expression that Moshe was the ‘father of all prophets’ to signify that he was the greatest of all prophets – that the level of his prophecy was superior to that of any prophet who ever was or who ever will be.”
Pp. 184-185. None of this makes any sense, and what Prof. Menachem Kellner writes has no relevance what I was referring to. I asked a simple question, which I later found that others asked as well (see here): Why does the Rambam not specify that future converts are to be instructed in the 13 Principles?
Coming next: Reviews of books by Benji Levy and Eitam Henkin, and an unknown article by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik.
* * * * * * *
הוא האיש אשר שם את הרמב”ם סיר רחצו, ועל הראב”ע השליך נעלו
