This is the third of four posts, from a draft of a forthcoming monograph by Dr. William Gewirtz that addresses the period of bein hashemashot, the most fundamental area of dispute in the area of zemanim. What is proposed is an astronomically accurate hybrid position between the diametrically opposed conceptual views of the geonim and Rabbeinu Tam. That position justifies, to varying degrees, the practice of countless generations of European Jewry that started Shabbat well after sunset on Friday evening. Though often ignored in modern times, practical equivalents of this hybrid position have had major adherents throughout the generations. Our goal is to demonstrate that such a position is not just plausible, but in fact the preferred reading of the gemara in Shabbat, the primary text concerning bein hashemashot.
The attached PDF (click here to download) contains the 9 main sections of the monograph. Sections 5, 7 and 8, focused on reading the text of the gemara in Shabbat consistent with observation, detail the core thesis. This post is a commentary on each of the nine sections; unlike the PDF, it takes much wider latitude for conjecture. The next and last post summarizes some major areas of suggested innovation, contrasting the approach taken with an illustrative example of contemporary psak (the various rulings on zemanim of R. Feinstein), before making some closing observations.
Commentary on the 9 sections:

1. How many mil does one walk during the period from sunrise to sunset? What is the time required to walk a mil? – 18, 22.5, 24 minutes, etc.

Except for Rambam and R. Ovadiah Bartenura, few maintain 24 minutes. Both of the other major opinions have significant support. Some geonim and rishonim likely maintained an 18 minute interval. However, many if not almost all later rishonim, particular those following Ramban, adhere to 22.5 minutes. Interestingly, by the time of the Shulchan Aruch most authorities are united around 18 minutes, with a small number of achronim strongly supporting 22.5 minutes.

When I started studying this topic, I was convinced by the overwhelming arguments presented by Prof. Levi based on both the text of the gemara and the opinion of many rishonim, that 22.5 minutes should be strongly preferred. However, 18 minutes also appears well supported. Geography (the distance from Modiin to Jerusalem, for example) seems to support more mil walked per day (even 40 being difficult.) As well, the assumed similarity of the fractions 1/10th and 1/6th used by the gemara in Pesachim would place the twilight period of either the time to walk 4 or 5 mil outside of the daytime period of the time to walk 40 or 30 mil; 5 mil external from 30 mil (1/6th) should imply that 4 mil is external from 40 mil (1/10th.) Arguments in favor of 18 minutes from anyone maintaining 72 minutes, almost all of R. Yosef’s examples, while not conclusive are highly likely. An assumed added vav in the text of the gemara in Pesachim (Our text of the gemara reads “teidah…“u”mealot hashachar” in the second such phrase addressing the interval between dawn and sunrise. The vav does not appear in certain older texts.) when referring to the twilight periods might have been intended to clarify or to lend further support to 18 minutes.

Since it is clear that many if not almost all rishonim supported 22.5 minutes, the change to 18 minutes is puzzling. As we demonstrated, a basic mathematical/logical error allowed many to misread the opinion of all chachmai sforad as not necessarily supporting 22.5 minutes. That error and the limited availability of many of their writings are certainly major contributors for the dominance of 18 minutes as the time to walk a mil. However, I suspect that this might also be an example of the impact on halakhic reasoning from the increasing availability of clocks beginning in the 15th century. Clocks made 90 minutes as the time that three stars appear untenable in central and southern Europe; as a result, perhaps, opinion shifted to a somewhat more reasonable 72 minutes and the associated time to walk a mil of 18 minutes. Prior to the widespread use of clocks, it is likely that observation of the skies, as opposed to either 72 or 90 minutes, was used to determine the end of Shabbat.

2. How long is the period from sunset to tzait (kol) hakochavim (or equivalently alot hashachar to sunrise) in the Middle East around the time of the equinox? – 72 minutes, 90 minutes, 96 minutes, 120 minutes, etc.

96 minutes, four intervals of 24 minutes, referenced in a number of tshuvot, is unsupportable since whoever would maintain a time to walk a mil of 24 minutes must also consider the period from alot hashachar to sunrise as the time to walk 5 and not 4 mil. 120 minutes, while theoretically possible, is rarely encountered in halakha and is inconsistent with the point at which total darkness occurs in the Middle East, approximately 80 minutes after sunset. While both 72 and 90 minutes intervals are good approximations to 80 minutes, I maintain a slight preference for 72 minutes for four reasons: (How adherents of Rabbeinu Tam’s approach reconciled the difference in the length of the interval between dawn and sunrise versus sunset and three stars is unclear. The former would suggest 90 minutes in Europe, the opinion of many later rishonim who lived there. On the other hand, the latter would support 72 minutes. I suspect that given the subjective nature of determining what constitutes the first light and the additional stringencies of three small, adjacent stars, the difference may have become less evident. With the advent of clocks, 72 minutes was perhaps easier to assume if one number had to be chosen for both. This in turn may have made observation yet less authoritative.)

1. The amount of light present at 72 minutes is so minimal that it was likely disregarded in halakha.
2. R. Saadyah Gaon and Rambam, who both lived in the Middle East, support 72 minutes.
3. The simple meaning of 1/10th of the (720 minute) day is 72 minutes; assuming 1/10th to mean 90/900 requires a unique variant of the notion of milebar adding two intervals of 90 minutes to 720.
4. Around the winter solstice in Jerusalem, using an adjusted (or even fixed) 90 minutes in calculating according to the Magen Avraham, results in plag haminkha after sunset. In the winter, when the daytime period is approximately 10 hours and the sun is 20 degrees below the horizon about 96 minutes after sunset, plag haminkha (1.25*66 ~ 83 minutes) occurs approximately 13 minutes after sunset.

3. How is the period from alot hashachar to sunrise or its equivalent from sunset to tzait (kol) hakochavim to be adjusted at different locations and during different seasons (if at all)?

Prior to the widespread use of clocks, latitude and season (and perhaps even altitude) based adjustments were made naturally. The invention of clocks and the subsequent growth of time based expressions of halakha reduced the dependence on observation as have been documented by Prof. Stern.( Time and Process in Ancient Judaism. )

Many calendars exhibit inconsistent behavior, defining misheyakir, for example, based on physical observation, while maintaining an unadjusted period for alot hashachar, a position that creates anomalies at most European latitudes.

In practical terms, the end of a day of the week, when defined either by a measure of darkness or the more common appearance of three stars naturally embed both latitude and seasonal adjustments. However, except for a few isolated exceptions, those who wait 72 minutes after sunset for the end of Shabbat never made upward adjustments. (To my knowledge, no major figure except R. Soloveitchik (and perhaps some family members) applied and practiced precise latitude and seasonal adjustments to lengthen the end of Shabbat when following the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam.) By waiting 72 minutes, they would naturally wait longer than those watching for darkness or the appearance of stars at least until the point that one is approximately 50 degrees latitude or greater from the equator, regardless of the time of year. At latitudes below 50 degrees, even a depression angle of 8.5 degrees, that exceeds the observance of (almost) all communities, would equate to less than 72 minutes. As a result, 72 minutes after sunset remained invariant. Given the location of the vast majority of Jewish communities between 55 degrees north latitude and the equator, those who observed 72 minutes had limited physical motivation to make either latitude or seasonal adjustments; three stars, most often even small ones, are visible by that time. (To the contrary, not just were intervals not adjusted upwards, those who maintained the position of Rabbeinu Tam, either waited exactly 72 minutes or less, not more. As noted previously and first mentioned explicitly by R. Avraham Pimential in the 17th century sefer Minkhat Kohen and practiced in many communities, those following the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam actually reduced 72 minutes (often to around 50 minutes) based on the observation of three stars. I have never read an explanation of how this was reconciled with the calculation for the time of alot hashachar for those following the Rabbeinu Tam. A more traditional view of the Rabbeinu Tam’s position was to wait until 72 minutes after sunset.) (Even for St. Petersburg and certain communities in Scandinavia, given significant variance in how to interpret three small stars, smaller depression angles (but still greater than that which would equate to three medium stars) would allow 72 minutes to remain viable. See Benish chapter 46 on European observance in a number of (very) northern European communities that used the equivalent of a depression angle of approximately 7.5 degrees for the end of Shabbat. In Vilna for example, using a depression angle of 8.5 degrees, the end of Shabbat occurs approximately 95 minutes after sunset in the summer, 40 minutes later than in the spring.)

On the other hand, unlike the end of Shabbat (or any day of the week,) the beginning of the daytime period, alot hashachar, should not have been left invariant, as was often the case. In Prague in June, for example, using a depression angle of 8.5 degrees, the end of Shabbat occurs about 70 minutes after sunset, while alot hashachar, specified by a depression angle of 16 degrees, occurs over three hours before sunrise. However, as it was often axiomatically assumed based on Rabbeinu Tam’s interpretation of the sugya in Pesachim, that the interval between alot hashachar and sunrise must exactly equal the interval between sunset and tzait hakochavim, either both or neither could be adjusted. Particularly in the age of clocks, adjusting one and not the other would visibly violate that assumption. Thus, I suspect that the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam may have contributed to a tradition of not adjusting the time of alot hashachar, in order to maintain similarity with the invariance of the evening zman of a fixed 72 minutes after sunset for tzait hakochavim. The amount of illumination that defines the point of alot hashachar was simply assumed to be greater. (The times for misheyakir may be reflective. The rulings of Middle Eastern poskim tend to equate to depression angles of 11.5 degrees and higher, while European poskim tend to a range between 10 and 11 degrees, as is clear from Benish vol. 1, pages 211 – 215. It is highly likely that a relatively short duration (6 minutes) between alot hashachar and misheyakir that is mentioned by some commentators in OC 58:1 is not the result of an early point of misheyakir but a later point of alot hashachar. As a result, combining such a psak with an accurate (adjusted) time for alot hashachar cannot be justified.)

In summary, three potential impacts of increased reliance on clocks have been suggested in this and preceding sections of the epilogue:

1. Reduced reliance on observation and natural skepticism about of its accuracy, particularly relative to a clock, eventually led to decreased practical knowledge of the meaning of specific physical entities further increasing reliance on clocks. (Arguably alot hashachar, misheyakir, and a medium versus small star have all been impacted .)

2. The clear preference for 72 over 90 minutes as the point at which three (small) stars appear, and the related preference for 18 versus 22.5 minutes as the time to walk a mil.

3. The invariance of the interval from alot hashachar to sunrise resulting from its assumed equivalence to the interval from sunset to tzait hakochavim according to the prevalent opinion of Rabbeinu Tam, created observational challenges. The duration of the interval from sunset to tzait hakochavim rarely exhibits any need for variation by either season or latitudes; the point of alot hashachar clearly does. The use of identical (fixed) intervals for both, weakened reliance on observation and trust in one’s ability to judge levels of darkness.

4. How are we to define the hours of the day – sunrise to sunset or alot hashachar to darkness?

The identification of the opinion of the Magen Avraham only as far back as R. Israel Isserlein as opposed to Ramban (See R. Schechter’s explanation that R. Soloveitchik was completely unconcerned about the opinion of the Magen Avraham because of an implication from Rambam that was a supporting source for the Gaon. It is puzzling that R. Soloveitchik would dismiss an opinion of all chachmai seforad. ) and his school who clearly counted the hours of the day from alot hashachar to darkness remains puzzling. (I assume that this was primarily the result of limited availability of the seforim of chachmai sforad.) Given that the position of the Magen Avraham was held by all chachmai sforad and was the accepted custom of Jerusalem, in spite of the influence of the students of the Gaon, coupled with a lack of any unambiguous reference to the position of the Levushim amongst rishonim, provides additional support to that alternative. The argument of R. Yaffe and the Gaon that time is defined by the angles of the sun, is compelling, but not entirely convincing.

As noted in the past section, current practice, that sets times for the Magen Avraham’s zman based on a fixed 72/90 minutes for both alot hashachar and tzait (kol) hakochavim, is a divergence from zemanim based on observation that was practiced prior to the advent of clocks. For those who wish to maintain the times of the Magen Avraham, their precise approximation / calculation would seem warranted. As hypothesized, the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam and the observance of a fixed 72 (90) minutes at the end of Shabbat might have contributed to a tradition of not adjusting 72 minutes (or 90) minutes in this context as well.

5. Of the three criteria given by the gemara in Shabbat – time, the appearance of stars, darkness (darkening / appearance of the sky / horizon), which if any are the definition of night and which are just approximations or an indication? How can opinions expressed using these three terms be compared?

I maintain a clear bias towards levels of darkness and light defining both the end and the beginning of bein hashemashot, as well as almost all other zemanim. What is not yet fully recognized is that relying on depression angles for defining the level of darkness is akin to relying on clocks to tell time.( I have seen calendars that while using depression angles choose to write three small or medium stars, presumably to make people more comfortable, avoiding marketing challenges and the need to explain.) More importantly, depression angles naturally incorporate adjustments based on season and latitude, something that clocks more than likely obscured. Clocks and even time is just an artifact; depression angles are a mechanism for accurately specifying the halakhic notion of darkness.

While both the appearances of stars and multiple levels of darkness vary naturally with seasons and latitude, clocks likely had impact with their introduction. As time became an easier and preferred method for specifying observance, it is likely that the meaning of darkness levels and the appearance of stars became less observed, relevant or understood.

Motivated by the desire to understand the observations and findings of R. Tukitzinsky more directly, I have carefully observed the appearance of stars and the darkening of the horizon at various latitudes and seasons of the year. As best as I can observe, the point at which the apex of the sky appears as dark as the eastern horizon slightly precedes the appearance of three or more stars. However, it is not yet as dark as the eastern half of the sky will become as one waits longer; the (eastern half of the) sky darkens further until sometime after a point in the evening comparable to the point in the morning of misheyakir. Even at that point, there is still some remaining illumination from the sun visible on the western horizon. Though this level of darkness is in all likelihood what is described in the gemara and has been the psak of generations of poskim for the end of Shabbat, it may well leave one feeling uncertain about the time at which Shabbat ends. Unlike alot hashachar where there is minimal (or no light) light, the end of Shabbat occurs when there is significantly more illumination. Without depression angles that point of chashecha is difficult to specify with precision even relative to three (small, adjacent) stars, perhaps influencing many to view stars as defining.

Assuming that the appearance of three stars and alot hashachar are equidistant from sunrise and sunset also makes it nearly impossible to regard darkness as defining; one would expect it to be equally dark at those two points. Instead, we end Shabbat when there is more illumination than at alot hashachar. This adds yet another reason why some doubted their observation of the degree of darkness, and preferred instead to think both of:

• stars as defining, and
• clocks as more reliable and precise than observation.

6. How is the duration of bein hashemashot to be adjusted at different locations and during different seasons (if at all)? Might this depend on whether bein hashemashot is

1. an interval of uncertainty that is its own unique halakhic category – either

1. a combination of both day and night, or perhaps
2. a category of its own, or

2. an interval with a definitive transition point that we are uncertain how to pinpoint – either

1. practically, or perhaps
2. because of some element of halakhic uncertainty, or

3. an example of the Rabbis establishing a fence?

In this and the following two sections, the approach of the geonim is assumed and options for the length, end, and beginning of bein hashemashot are discussed within their framework. It is easiest to begin with the length of bein hashemashot. This turns out to be a critical method to estimate the beginning of bein hashemashot given the assumption that the end of the bein hashemashot period is not in question. The interval of bein hashemashot can be specified using either of the following constructs:

• the interval between two precisely defined physical events / depression angles, and / or
• an interval of time prior to the end of the day.

Despite the potential dependence of these two constructs on the theoretical alternatives for defining bein hashemashot, I have argued that the issues are independent. The discussion that follows concentrates only on these two alternative constructs; others are either just variations or combinations.

One issue briefly outlined is the difference between safek chashecha and bein hashemashot. I assume that the period of safek chashecha is shorter than bein hashemashot and represents a period of real doubt about whether chashecha and the beginning of Shabbat at a biblical level has occurred. (The remainder of this section could be rewritten independent of this assumed relationship between bein hashemashot and safek chashecha if one were to feel that this assumption is not justified .) Bein hashemashot represents a longer interval, where Shabbat is mandated, but only at a rabbinical level.

The following discussion is not meant to identify a normative position, rather one that presents a preferred, or at least plausible, reading of the gemara and also (partially) justifies the practice of Jewish communities in Europe that started Shabbat well after sunset. Seeking to justify practice even at a rabbinical level requires a relatively short period of bein hashemashot. Using either sunset or even a minimal depression angle would mean that most communities who followed Rabbeinu Tam started Shabbat during bein hashemashot or worse.

Assume, as an illustrative example, that a community ends Shabbat 50 minutes after sunset with the appearance of three small stars. Assume further that while three small stars equate to a depression angle of approximately 8 degrees, three medium stars, the gemara’s end to both bein hashemashot and Shabbat, equates to a depression angle of approximately 6 degrees, and occurs 35 minutes after sunset. Bein hashemashot begins approximately 15 minutes before that, at 20 minutes after sunset. To justify practice, two elements must be considered:

• At the biblical level, the point of chashecha, slightly prior to three medium stars, and
• at a rabbinical level, the interval from the beginning of bein hashemashot until chashecha.

As detailed at the beginning of section 8, three alternative opinions, each to be adjusted by latitude and season advance the beginning of bein hashemashot by 4 to 15 minutes from sunset. At a minimum one would naturally maintain that a level of darkness computed for each of those alternatives must be achieved (to create an element of doubt that is required) to begin bein hashemashot. Additionally, one can maintain that the time to walk 3/4 mil is an absolute upper bound, invariant with respect to latitude and season. Thus, bein hashemashot cannot begin prior to the time to walk ¾ mil before the point of nightfall. If one would want to be as lenient as possible, one would take the later of these two potential times – counting back from chashecha the time to walk ¾ of a mil, while maintaining as well the requirement to reach a particular level of darkness. Thus, bein hashemashot begins at the earliest when a particular level of darkness is reached, (for example, a depression angle of three degrees) but at no time can the interval of bein hashemashot be longer than the time to walk ¾ mil. Using the minimum level of darkness is required slightly north of the latitude of the Middle East and further south approaching the equator. In those locations during certain periods of the year, subtracting the time to walk ¾ of a mil from chashecha might yield time X. However, the time at which a specific level of darkness, which must also occur prior to the start of bein hashemashot, is Y minutes later at time X+Y. For example, assuming that the time to walk ¾ mil is a maximum reached only in the summer, then the bein hashemashot period may begin only within ten minutes of chashekha in the spring and fall when the requisite level of darkness is achieved.

Moving from the Middle East to European latitudes, the focus of this discussion, reaching a particular level of darkness level always occurs at an earlier point than subtracting the time to walk ¾ mil from the point of chashecha. Thus, one obtains the latest (and most lenient) starting point for bein hashemashot by subtracting the time to walk ¾ mil from the point of chashecha, assuming that interval represents an invariant maximum for the period of bein hashemashot. Support for an invariant interval of bein hashemashot came from both R. Lorberbaum and R. Sofer, and in the case of R. Lorberbaum that was coupled with an 18 minute time to walk a mil yielding a period of bein hashemashot of 13.5 minutes. Problematically, in both of those cases the beginning of bein hashemashot was derived subtracting from an end of Shabbat that was determined by the appearance of three small stars. Although their practice was not as stringent as our current practice that equates to a level of darkness associated with a depression angle of 8.5 degrees, it was still one or more degrees greater than the level of darkness associated with a depression angle equating to three medium stars. It appears impossible to justify an overly lenient approach that subtracts from the time that three small stars appear of as opposed to an approach that subtracts from the earlier appearance of three medium stars.

To determine what was the practiced beginning of bein hashemashot requires a detailed historical analysis beyond that begun by Benish. It should be obvious that an early practiced chashecha and a long period of bein hashemashot is likely to avoid both biblical and rabbinic violation on erev Shabbat, while a later practiced chashecha and a short interval of bein hashemashot would create the highest likelihood of even a biblical violation on erev Shabbat. To the extent that the theoretical opinion of the Rabbeinu Tam was used, chillul Shabbat definitely occurred. However, more commonly the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam was equated to three stars with various stringencies, and bein hashemashot began some interval before that. That would make it much more likely that violations that occurred were only at a rabbinic level. Given a large body of evidence including:

• R. Pimentiel’s redefinition of Rabbeinu Tam to the earlier point of three small stars,
• the proposed times of bein hashemashot of both R. Lorberbaum and R. Adler,
• the question concerning the brit of a baby born about 25 minutes after sunset, posed to R. Moshe Sofer,
• the advice from R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi in his Siddur, and
• the natural stringencies that one would expect prior to the existence of clocks.

I doubt any communities (as opposed to individuals) ever started Shabbat as late as the theory of Rabbeinu Tam would have permitted.

While I have scant evidence, one can only assume that any three stars appearing would likely be taken as indicating that the Shabbat had begun. This, together with the halakhic literature only partially referenced above, would all seem to point to a beginning to bein hashemashot, absent tosefet Shabbat, at worse between 30 and 40 minutes after sunset, a point that likely avoided chillul Shabbat at least at the biblical level, particularly in northern European communities. Unfortunately, it is also probable that some individuals started Shabbat even later; the letter of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi on the beginning of Shabbat, included in all of the Lubavitch movement’s Siddurim, is particularly telling. (R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi suggested that maximal protest be restricted to those who go past approximately a seasonally adjusted 30 minutes, if they refuse to listen initially.)

7. When does the period of bein hashemashot end? How are the criteria specifying the end of the bein hashemashot period interpreted by various authorities?

Of course we assume latitude and season adjustments. We need to specify two points in time – the degree of darkness associated with the approximate appearance of three medium stars (the time given in the gemara) and the degree of darkness associated with three small, adjacent stars (what is now practiced). The former occurs at a depression angle of approximately 6 degrees, and the latter at about 8 degrees. Clearly, practice has many variants around those two points. Currently, a depression angle of 8.5 degrees suggested by R. Tukitzinsky and supported by R. Belsky’s interpretation of R. Feinstein is widely used.

I suspect some will find excessive the intensity with which the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam was found inconsistent with the combination of observation and the gemara’s description of the end of Shabbat. Many might perhaps prefer giving greater credence to difficult and forced efforts at reconciliation. However, current practice, including that of R. Y. Karelitz, which largely disregards Rabbeinu Tam’s opinion on the end of Shabbat, even for absolute biblical restrictions, encourage the conclusions reached. I do not know of another comparable instance where the uncontested opinion of the Shulchan Aruch was so completely overturned.

8. How does the beginning of bein hashemashot relate to what we call sunset? What alternatives might be considered for the beginning of bein hashemashot?

This most controversial topic, moving the beginning of bein hashemashot forward from sunset even according to Rabbah, a variant of the generally assumed opinion of the geonim, successively solves the following issues:

1. at 4 – 5 minutes, the minimal time reported as the custom of Jerusalem (See Minhagei Eretz Yisrael by R. Yaakov Gliss, pages 102 and 282.) as well as the opinion of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the point when the sun disappears from the highest elevations around Jerusalem, Shmuel is consistent at least in a limited sense with R. Yosef but completely inconsistent with Rabbah.

2. at 6 minutes, the opinion of R. Chaim Volozhiner and the appearance of a single star in the spring to an expert observer, Shmuel is more easily consistent with R. Yosef but only consistent in a limited sense with Rabbah.

3. at 7 – 15 minutes depending on a variety of factors, Shmuel becomes entirely consistent with Rabi Yehudah and the time to walk ¾ mil can be considered a practical upper bound. (See Zemanim Kehilkhatam by R. Boorstyn, chapter 2, section 3 where he summarizes different 19th and 20th century poskim in Middle East who supported times beyond 4 – 5 minutes and up to approximately 10 minutes after sunset. The rationale he and some of these poskim used is different from that addressed in this monograph, with heavy reliance on the notion of sea-level in addition to visibility from higher elevations. 15 minutes is the opinion of Rambam according to R. Kapach.)

As stated in the preamble to this monograph, sunset is the established time to start the Shabbat. Where there is a need for greater precision in various circumstances, a posek might consider a construct similar to that provided by R. Nosson Adler. Perhaps a posek can choose to adjust by season and latitude what equates to some point between 4 – 6 and 9 – 12 minutes after sunset in the Middle East around the spring and fall equinox, applying whatever resulting time is the greater chumrah in a d’oraysa and the greater kula in a d’rabbanan. (For a host of reasons, if forced to a single number, I would guess (11 or) 12 minutes. The numbers chosen are purely illustrative.) In cases of (extreme) need, one might also consider limiting the length of the bein hashemashot period to at most 13.5 minutes prior to the appearance of three medium stars, a depression angle of approximately 6 degrees. This area has significant halakhic ramification. (Even if one were to insist on bein hashemashot beginning precisely at sunset, the above zemanim might at least be considered as alternatives for defining the start of safek chashecha.)

Rabbeinu Tam’s late start to Shabbat is yet more troublesome if prior to its formulation, the start of Shabbat was precisely at or even before sunset. I find it highly implausible to imagine Rabbeinu Tam proposing, even as a purely conceptual position, a notion so fundamentally at variance with practice! Even if the practice was to start Shabbat at or before sunset, it would make more sense that the period was only considered a non-mandated interval of tosefet Shabbat. Emergencies that occurred would have clarified the nature of practice. This would lend support to my conclusion: sunset was viewed at most as a non-obligatory start to (tosefet) Shabbat. As Jews migrated to Northern Europe, Shabbat started to separate further from sunset; most likely the start of Shabbat remained at least 15 minutes prior to the appearance of three medium stars. It is for that practice that Rabbeinu Tam provided a conceptual framework. Increased reliance on clocks centuries later, may well have resulted in a (slightly) later start to Shabbat for two reasons. First, the opinion of Rabbeinu Tam could be formulated more precisely. Second, a clock reduced the period of uncertainty that observation of nature naturally introduced.

9. At what time (or within what interval) does one day end and the next day begin with respect to various halakhot? How do the two meanings of day – day as in “day of the week” and day as in “during the daytime” relate? Must the end of the daytime period coincide with the end of a day of the week?

It would be surprising if the different meanings of the term day in both Hebrew and English had no halakhic consequence. On the other hand, one might view this whole category as a modern innovation due to Brisker conceptualization and in opposition to the Gaon finding no halakhic significance to tzait kol hakochavim.

“While I am sure that there are many within the movement who are
dissatisfied with your treatment of the Rebbe as a human being effected [sic] by
his time and human emotion, I believe that the perspective brought by you both
has done a great service to those who wish to better understand the phenomenon
of Chabad generally and the Rebbe in particular. Rather than diminish the Rebe
[sic] and his accomplishments, you have magnified both by placing them in
context. The “Great Oz” has not been shown to be a mere mortal, but rather, a
mere mortal has been shown to be the “Great Oz” (L’Havdil).”

We think this reader of ours got it right, and we hope this will be the last word on the
subject here, as we have been promised by the Seforim Blog that it would be.

ספר הפעולות רבי חיים ויטאל, תש”ע, תלט עמודים כולל מבוא ומפתחות

As mentioned above, the author is R. Chaim Vital (1543- 1620). R. Vital is most well-known in the realm of kabbalah, and, specifically, as being the primary student of the Arizal entrusted with disseminating the Arizal’s works. R. Vital’s reputation, however, wasn’t confined to the Arizal’s teachings and kabbalah. R. Vital was well-represented in the niglah (revealed Torah) arena. R. Vital studied niglah with R. Moshe Alschich and R. Vital received (real) semikha during the time when such semikha was being given in Sefat.[1] Unfortunately, we do not have much of his writings in niglah with the few exception where his son quotes R. Vital in his son’s various works. For example, five responsa of R. Vital appear in Shu”t Baer Mayim Chaim (82-86) and the various pesakim scattered in his son’s works Chochmas Nashim, Chaim Shnayim Yeshalayim, and some of R. Vital’s other statements appear in Tosetos Chaim on Rashi. [2].

In Sefer ha-Chezyonot, R. Vital records R. Karo’s admonition to R. Alschich regarding R. Vital’s study in niglah:צוה מהר”ר יוסף קארו ז”ל למורי הר’ משה אלשיך בשם המלאך המגיד הדובר בו שיזהר מאוד ללמדני בכל יכלתו, כי אני הוא העתיד לישאר אחריו בדור ההוא ממלא מקומו של מהרי”ק (חזינות א:ג).

M. Benayhu in his work Toldos ha-Ari quotes R. Chaim Hakohen, a student of R. Vital, regarding R. Vital:וגם היה מקפיד מאוד שלא לכתוב קמיעות גם בתפילה לא הי’ מאריך כל כך רק אמר מלה במלה. והי’ אומר שאני רוצה ללמוד בשעה שאני זו שאני מאריך, וגם לא כאותן שמתפללין כל היום. והי’ לומד כל היום וכל הלילה (ספר תולדות האר”י, עמ’ 243)

For all the Kabbalah aspects related to R. Vital see Y. Avivi work’s Binyan Ariel, which caused great controversy, and his more recent three volume masterpiece Kabbalat ha-Ari. See also Lawrence Fine, Physicians of the Soul, Healers of the Cosmos.

Returning to the Sefer ha-Pe’ulot, it was first mentioned in brief by Gershon Scholem in Alchemie und Kabbala [recently translated into English by Klaus Ottman]. The alchemy section of this book was discussed by Raphael Patai in his book, Jewish Alchemists. Meir Benayahu discusses it in various places in his writings (amongst them in his book on the Ari and in two articles in Korot (9:3-17,9:91-111). Gerrit Boss, wrote an extensive article on this book called “Hayyim Vital’s Practical kabbalah and Alchemy; a 17th Century book of secrets” in the Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, Volume 4, pp. 54-112. In this article Boss reorders the book, as the book, as it is appears in the manuscript isn’t a model of clarity, doing an excellent job of putting each remedy into its proper categories. [Boss also criticizes the discussion of Patai on the topic of alchemy in relation to this work.]. Yosef Avivi briefly discusses in his catalog of the Musayif collection (Ohel Shem, pp.191-93) as that it where this manuscript came from. The whereabouts of the actual manuscript today are a mystery, rumors are that it is sold page by page for a segulah, and each page fetches a large sum of money.
More recently, Prof. Zohar Amar and Yael Buchman in published two articles in Sinai (121:231-38 and 125:202-215) they focus upon the various halachic aspects discussed in this work. Buchman also wrote her doctorate on this work of R. Vital, Aspects of Material Culture, Realia and Medicine in the works of Rabbi Hayyim Vital (1543-1620), Bar Ilan Univ., (Heb). Buchman’s main focus is not the kabbalah parts but rather the science and medical aspects of this work. She demonstrates, at length, that this is an excellent document to give us a picture of the medical world during that time period. She also has an additional article about this work based on her doctorate in Katedra (99:48-64). In 2007, Buchman and Amar printed part of this book, Refuah Ma’asiyot le-Rav Chaim Vital. But, they printed only the medical portion. This edition, however, is very useful in understanding the medical aspects of the sefer. They note that a volume on the realia part is being prepared.
What makes Sefer ha-Pe’olot especially interesting is that we see R’ Chaim Vital in a different light than previously known. In the first part of this work we see him as a doctor of sorts. He provides remedies to people for all kinds of illnesses, in all areas of health, asthma, infertility, headaches, toothaches and much more. Much of the advice was based on Segulos or the like. In this work he shows a familiarity with real medical procedures from that time period. He quotes various pieces of medical advice that he had had read in various medical works.
We already were aware of Vital’s interest in science as he wrote a work called Sefer ha-Techuna related to astronomy. But, in Sefer ha-Pe’olot aside from showing him to be very involved in medicine we also see him interested in other things. For example, Vital provides in-depth descriptions of how to make wine, various milk products and the making of honey. He has a lengthy discussions of how to remove stains from clothes, how to dye garments, how to make ink and reeds for writing. These discussions are a gold mind of information for those studying realia of various time periods of Eretz Yisroel. Realia is a prime topic of interest for Professor Amar and Bochman and they deal with that in their excellent introduction to Refuah Ma’asiyot le-Rav Chaim Vital. This is also the main focus of Bochman’s previously mentioned doctorate. As Bochman writes in her doctorate ”this manuscript… is the sole Hebrew source originating in 16th century EY still known today, which discusses directly and in detail different aspects of material culture, realia and medicine. He thus provides a rare insight into the daily routine of the Jewish community in EY during this period, of the problems it faced and the ways in which those problems were solved.” Gerit Bos in his above cited article (pp. 59-62) also touches a bit on this aspect of realia. Bochman suggest an interesting reason for R. Vital interest in writing about all these practical things such as wine making dyeing, cheese making etc. ”R. Chaim Vital’s purpose in writing about everyday issues is in fact a reflection of his Halachic world view. A study of his Halachic and practical teachings confirms that R. Vital preferred to make the goods he needed himself rather than buying them from gentiles. In order to do so he had to find ways of simplifying the manufacturing process of many products. He succeeded, and thus avoided the Halachic problems raised as a result form purchasing from foreign sources.”

She’elot Chalom – Asking Questions via DreamsHe includes many methods to find out information via dreams (pp. 11-12, 193, 250-51, 265, 276). We find many methods and instances for performing a dream question and answer from the Geonic period into the Middle Ages the process is generally referred to as שאלת חלום. One of the most famous works which was written utilizing this method is the Shu”t Min ha-Shamyim. Much has been written on this topic in general, as the use of such a procedure appears to run afoul of Rabbinic rule that Torah is not in heaven (Torah lav ba-shamayim). A nice collection of material on this topic has been collected by A. Heschel in a classic article printed in the Sefer Hayovel Lekovod Alexander Marx (see especially pp. 183-186, 195-208). R. Reven Margolis in his edition of Shu”t Min ha-Shamayim also does a great job of putting together the material on the topic. One should also read the introduction of R. Aron Marcus to his edition of Shut Min Ha-shmayim. Recently this topic has been dealt with in a doctorate by M. Goldstein called Histayos Begormim Min Hasmayim Be Hachras Halacha. See also the forthcoming article on this topic from Professor Kanarfogel called ”’For its not in heaven’: Dreams as a Determinant of Jewish Law and Practice in Northern Europe During the High Middle Ages”. See also Hagar Kahana-Smilansky, “Aristotle on Sleep and Wakefulness: A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation of an Unknown Latin Treatise,” Aleph 10:1 (2010): 67-118; (especially at the end of the piece); A. Kuyt, Hasidut Askenaz on the Angel of Dreams, in Creation and Re-creation in Jewish Thought. Yuval Harrari, “‘The Opening of the Heart’: Magical Practices for Gaining Knowledge, Understanding and Good Memory in Judaism of Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages,” in Shefa Tal: Studies in Jewish Thought and Culture presented to Bracha Sack, eds., Z. Gries, H. Kreisel, and B. Huss (Beer Sheva, 2004), 336-344. See also. M. Idel, Mekubulim Shel Leiylah. See also the manuscript of a sefer Segulot from Italy available here p. 8,12,14,19,21,24 (of the PDF).Shadal writes about his father:ומה תאמר אם אגיד לך כי גם אדוני אבי זצ”ל היה עושה לעת הצורך שאלת חלום על פי חכמת קבלה מתות מה שלמד בס’ הברית, והשיג לפעמים חלומות צודקים כוללים הגדת עתידות שנתקיימו (ויכוח על חכמת הקבלה, עמ’ 125 [על אביו וספר הברית ראה: פרקי חיים (שולוואס) עמ’19 ]).
Interestingly to note while looking for early sources that mention the Beshet, G. Scholem (The Latest Phase, (Heb.), p. 119) found one from the Shages Aryeh where he said:
ואמר כל מה שהבעל שם טוב ידע היה הכל על ידי שאלת חלום בכל לילה.And one quoted from manuscript by S. Dubnov:
זכרתי בהיות הרב המפורסם הבקי בחכמת אלקות מוה’ ישראל בעל שם זצ”ל עשה שאלת חלום והראו לו שנשמת אבי מורי ז”ל נשמת רב אלפס, ובעבור שלא חבור הרב אלפסי בסדר קדשים בא אדמ”ו לתקן זה (תולדות החסידות, עמ’ 484).Just for bibliographical purposes G. Scholem got the exact sources wrong it was the Gra who said it and not the Shages Aryeh – he misread the source. It says:
גם אמר שהגאון אמר על השאגת אריה שהוא מרבה אחר הפלפול והשאגת אריה אמר על הגאון זצ”ל שהוא מרבה בפשטות. ועוד אמר שהבעל שם טוב מה שידע הי’ על ידי שאלות חלום בכל לילהThis is from a list of statements that R. Chaim Volzhiner told a student of his printed in the Tosfos Maseh Rav (p.18b, #113). Scholem understood that the whole statement was from the Shages Aryeh, as R. Chaim Volzhiner also studied with him. But, the statement following the period is really a new piece and is going back to the Gra which is what most of the sefer is material R. Chaim heard from the Gra. Today we have other manuscripts which contain this statement and confirm that this statement was made by the Gra and not by the Shages Aryeh, see Keser Rosh, (last chapter #13); Eliach, Kol Hakosev Lechaim, p. 239. Be that as it may it is clear the Gra held that the Beshet used this method often. But, R. A. Kemlar in his work Dor De’ah (p. 29) writes that Beshet was very anti using such methods. The source for R. Kemlar was probably R. Aron Marcus who makes this claim in his Keses Hasofer on Shut Min Ha-shmayim (p.8) and he used his works extensively.
There is another possible source of the Besht using dreams and that is regards to eating Chadash:וסיפר שהבעל שם טוב שאל בחלומו על חדש בזמן הזה איך הדין. וענו לו שלאחר פטירת הב”ח צ”ל ציינו את הגהינם ארבעים יום מחמת שהיה צריך זה לכבוד הב”ח. ובבוקר עמד הבעל שם טוב זצ”ל ושלח להביא שכר מחדש ושתהו. ואמר כדאי הב”ח שמתיר לסמוך עליו (זכרון טוב, פיעטרקוב תרנב, דף יב ע”א אות יא).This story is very famous and has been dealt with at length by Y. Mondshine here. I will quote two sources from Mondshine’s article as this leads us into this next topic. He shows that how the story developed and to when this piece of the Besht and a dream was added to it. See also Pardes Yosef, Vayikra, p. 274; R. G. Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beyadnu, 2, pp. 512-24.Even if The Besht did not use dreams he used other methods such as השבעת עליית הנשמה as it is clear from the famous document אגרת עליית הנשמה. For the sources on this see Y. Mondshine, Shivhei ha-Besht, pp. 233-39; Shivhei ha-Besht (Rubenstein ed.), pp. 92-3; M. Rosman in Founder of Hasidism: A Quest for the Historical Ba’al Shem Tov pp. 99-113; E. Etkes, Baal Shem, (heb.), pp. 292-301.[Completely off topic but in light of tumult of two hundred and fiftieth Yarzheit of Beshet, Scholem in the earlier quoted lecture missed another early source about the Besht- in the Shem Hagedolim the Chida writes:אור החיים… ושמענו כי עתה בפולוניא הם מחשבים אותו הרבה ונדפס עוד שני פעמים ונתעורר זה על ידי שהרב החסיד קדוש מהרר”י הגיד גדלות נשמת מהר”ח הנזכר (שם הגדולים, ערך אור החיים).How To: Exorcisms
R. Vital brings methods to remove dybukim, shedim and/or reuach rah that may attach themselves to people (pp. 176, 208, 222, 258-59). For recent discussion, on this topic see: J.H. Chajes, Between Worlds Dybbuks, Exorcists and Early Modern Judaism. See also J.H. Chajes, Jewish Exorcism: Early Modern Traditions and Transformations, pp.386-398, in Judaism in Practice, Ed. L. Fine; D. Ruderman, Kabbalah, Magic and Science, pp. 55-58; G. Nagel, Sipurei Dybuk Besafrus Yisroel; Dybbuk and Maggid: Two Cultural Patterned of Altered Consciousness in Judaism, AJS Review, 21:2(1996):341-366; Nishmat Chaim, 3:10; Ish ha-Emunah, p.45; C. Hamberger, Three Worlds, (heb.), 3:69-70. There is even a story of the Gra and a Dybbuk, see Ha-goan, pp. 499-502. For an additional story with a Dybuk in Lita, see Y. Kotick, What I saw,(Heb.), ed. D. Assaf (end of chapter eight); Etkes, Baal Shem, (heb.), p. 290; See also Emet le-Ya’akov, p.264. On the Chasam Sofer and a Dybuk see Chut ha-Mishulash, pp. 38a-38b. See also this great article from Y. Mondshine here.
Some other well-known sources on dybukim:וכבר שמענו בזמננו זה מפי מגידי אמת הגדה מפורסמת שיקרה לאנשים נופלים נרדמים בבטול חושיהם ומפיהם יצא עתק לדבר ולהשיב ושפותותיהם בלתי נעות וקול דברים יוצא מגרונם שואלים ומשיבים כענין. וכן ראיתי כתב בא מצפת תוב”ב בשנה הזאת שנת ש”ס לפ”ק לענין אשה שהיתה נופלת כן (מעשי ה’ מעשה בראשית פרק ב, עמ’ יב .).The Simchas Hanefesh writes:

Rav A. Landau brings:

Another group of ideas mentioned in this work are methods related to helping ones memory (pp. 270, 299). Some of which are for Petihat Lev (pp. 270, 329, 348). One of the methods he mentions is eating baladur (p. 348, 343) which has been the subject of its own post:
פתיחת לב לחכמי צרפת וכך היו נוהגים לעשות לבניהם וכך היו נותנין להם בכל בוקר… ונקרא בלאדור קטן… (עמ’ שמח)The subject of Petihat Lev has been discussed much in recent literature. This concept of Petihat Lev is found in many different sources where people used to do all kinds of things to help with memory and understanding Torah enabling one to understand and recall the Torah effortlessly. One example something done for Petihat Lev of this are the customs relating to the educational initiation ceremony of young boys still done today in many circles.Professor Y. Ta Shema printed a piece from manuscript (included in his Kneset Mechkarim 1:154) from a work written in 1294 called Sefer Hamaskil which gives us a little insight into this Petihat Lev it says: ומאותו היום שאכלו אדם הראשון ניתנו לו חדרדים בלבו לקבל כוח רוח עץ הדעת, שהוא רוח מעורבב מטוב ורע, ויש לו לאדם כמה חדרים בליבו, כל חדר ממונה על ממשלת חכמה אחת, חדר זה ממונה על מלאכת החרש… ובאמצעית הלב יש חדר גדול המקבל רוח שכל עץ הדעת ושותין ממנו שאר חדרים כולו. נסתם חדר אחר או שנים נסתמים ממונים עליהם, כאשר אתה רואה קצת בני אדם שהם סכלים בחכמות העולם והם חכמים גדולים בחכמת המלאכים. ובזמן שהחדר האמצעי כולו סתום, ואין הרוח יכול להתפשט מתמלא המוח עשן ומשתטה”.Some general sources on Petihat Lev can be found in: Ephraim Kanarfogel, in his Peering through the Lattices, Mystical, Magical and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period (pp. 140-41,156, 237), Ivan G. Marcus, Rituals of Childhood, Jewish Acculturation in Medieval Europe (p. 28), and in the excellent article by Yuval Harrari, “‘The Opening of the Heart’: Magical Practices for Gaining Knowledge, Understanding and Good Memory in Judaism of Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages,” in Shefa Tal: Studies in Jewish Thought and Culture presented to Bracha Sack, eds., Z. Gries, H. Kreisel, and B. Huss (Beer Sheva, 2004), 303–347 (available here). See also in his recent book Ha-Kishuf ha-Yehudi ha-Kodom picture 20 (at the end of the book) and the very recent Yeruschatanu 4:48. See also the manuscript of a sefer Segulot from Italy available here pp. 7,20, 30 (of the PDF).
Remedies Against Lilith Another batch of remedies discussed by R. Vital are ways to prevent Lilith (p. 203, 140, 216). R. Vital writes that he used one particular procedure over two thousand times:בענין לילות… הנה פעמים רבות לאין קץ יותר מאלפים פעמים כתבתי אותם…”During the sixteenth century, many were concerned about Lilith. For example, R. Eliyahu Bocher [Elias Levita] (1469-1549) writes in his classic work Sefer Ha-Tishbi, in his entry for Lilith:לילת… נמצא כתוב, שאותן מאה ושלושים שנה שהיה אדם פרוש מחוה באו שדים ונתחממו ממנו והוליד שדין ורוחין ומזיקין. ובמקום אחר מצאתי ארבע נשים הם אמות השדים, לילית ונעמה ואוגרת ומחלת… ובספר בן סירה בשאלה הששית ששאל נבוכדנצאר אותו, וזה לשונו מפני מה הבנים מתים כשהם בני שמונה ימים? אמר לו, מפני שלילית הורגת אותם, והאריך שם הרבה, וקצתי לכותבם כי אינני מאמין בהם, אך מנהג פשוט בינינו האשכנזים שעושין עגול סביב כותלי החדר ששוכבת בה היולדת עם נתר או גחלים וכותבין בכל כותל אדם חוה חוץ לילית, ובפתח החדר מפנים כותבין שמות שלשה מלאכים אלו… כמו שהמסרה להם לילית בעצמה בשעה שרצו המלאכים האלו להטביע אותה בים, כל זה מבואר היטב בספר בן סירה, יעיין שם מי שמאמין בו. (ספר התשבי, ערך לילית).A little later R. Chaim Me-Friedberg (c. 1520-88), the Maharal’s brother, writes: “וכן המנהג לעגל את החיות בעת לידתם אחר שם שכובים על המטה, כדי שלא ישלוט בהם רוחין ולילין, וכל כן כותבים לילית חוץ בהזכרת שלשה שמות של המלאכים (ספר החיים, ספר חיים טובים פרק ח). R. Zev Rabinowitz offers a very different perspective on this custom, after quoting the words of the Tishbi, R. Rabinowitz writes:”ועוד בזמננו מצוי בינינו קמיע זה נדפס על נייר ותולין אותו למעלה מכל דלת שבבית היולדת. והמנהג למהר לתלותו תיכף אחר הלידה מפני חשש סכנה לדעת ההמון וגדוליו. וב”ה כי בטלתי קמיע זה (אשר לא ממקור טהור נובע) מביתי… והיולדת ובניה היו שלמים ובריאים, כי שומר ישראל ישמור מכל רע את כל הבוטח בו בלי שום כלי סגולה, תמיה תהיה עם ה’ (שערי תורת בבל, עמ’ 498)There are many articles devoted to the topic of Lilith see for example R. Reven Margolis in his Malechei Elyon. Additionally, Gershom Scholem wrote a few essays in which he collected a lot of the material on the topic and for recent updated versions of these essays see his work Shedim Ruchos and Neshmos edited by E. Leibes pp. 61-102 [also printed in his Mechkrei Kabalah, pp. 201-24] Although Scholem quotes many excellent sources including many from manuscript and he was aware of the manuscript Sefer ha-Pe’olot (as mentioned earlier) of R. Vital he does not quote with regard to Lilith. He also does not quote the source from Sefer ha-Chaim. See Mivchar Kitvei Mordechai Gimpel Shnaver, pp.4-6; Y. Stal notes to his edition of R. Y. Hachassid’s Amaros Tehoros. pp. 176-77; N. Rubin, Reshis ha-Chaim, pp. 56-59. See also D. Sperber, The Jewish Life Cycle, pp. 26-31; C. Hamberger, Three Worlds, (heb.), 3:7-9; Y. Dan, Toldot Torat ha-Sod ha-Ivrit, 2:532-37. See also this recent work which is devoted to the topic available here.
Bibliomancy Another interesting method found in this sefer is the method of gorel using a Chumash to find out what to do:
ואני הצעיר הכותב קבלתי שצריך לעשות הגורל הנז’ בחומש מכתיבת יד שאין בו כי אם חמשה חומשי תורה ואפילו לא הפטרות. והשלך שבעה שביעיות שהם מט, ומן שער החמישים יוצא כזה השלך ז’ עלין… (עמ’ קפט)This concept has been used by many and is more recently the subject of two books, Gorel Hagra and Hegyon ha-Gorel from E. Martzbach. See also Bromberg’s book, Me-Gedolei ha-Torah veha-Chasidut on the Marsham, pp. 129,144; Eliach in his book Ha-Goan, pp. 1110-1127; Alei Tamar, Shabbat, pp.83-4; R. Reuven Margolis, Mekor Chesed, p.214.

ודבר ברור ומפורסם לאנשי ספרד ומסורת בידם מאבותיהם כי מר נטרונאי גאון ז”ל בקפיצת הדרך בא אליהם מבבל ורבץ תורה וחזר וכי לא הלך בשיירא ולא נראה בדרך. וכמה ספרים מצויין אצלינו כתוב בהם מהשמות וכמה שמות מלאכים וצורת חותמות ואומ’ הרוצה לעשות כך והרוצה להגיע לכך יכתוב כך וכך כמו זה על כך וכך ויעשה כך ויתקיים לו המעשה (תשובות הגאונים החדשות, מהד’ עמנואל סי’ קטו, עמ’ 125).This Teshuva has been printed earlier in a few places amongst them in Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah Li-Ha-Ri Barcelona (p.103). It is worth reading the most complete version of this teshuva in S. Emanuel edition as it is the most comprehensive discussion of magic etc. in a Rabbinic source from that time period. Especially, as always it is worth reading, Emanuel’s excellent notes there (pp.121-46). See also R. Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture, Yale University Press 1998, pp.142-147 and Tzemichat ha-Kehillah ha-Yihudit be-Artzot ha-Islam 275-78; Yuval Harrari, Ha-Kishuf ha-Yehudi ha-Kodom, pp. 258-61; J.Tractenberg, Jewish Magic And Superstition: A Study In Folk Religion, p. 88; Louis Jacobs, Theology in The Responsa, pp. 18-21; Y. Dan, Toldos Torat ha-Sod he-Ivrit, 3:154-72. Another early source where we find kefisiot ha-derekh mentioned is in Megilat Achimatz (pp. 20-21). A later source for kefisiot ha-derekh can be found in R. Katzenelenbogen’s Yeish me-Nechlin, p. 65, 96. See also the manuscript of a sefer Segulot from Italy available here p. 13 (of the PDF). See also R. Margolis in the back of his edition of Sefer Chasidim pp. 586-89 and G. Nigal, Magic Mysticism and Hasidism, Heb. ,pp. 33-42,170-77. The Chida even brings in Shem Hagedolim (entry on R. Vital) a story of R. Vital himself doing kefisiot ha-derekh.For an amusing yet unsuccessful account of an attempt to do ‘Kefisios haderech’ see A. Ber Gotliber, Zikhronot u-Maseot, p. 120:אני וחברי אמרנו ננסה הפעם אחת מנפלאותינו הנה נא ידענו לעשות קמיע על קפיצת הדרך מה לנו לשבת בעגלה רתומה לסוסים נלכה ברגלנו והקמיע על צווארנו, ונראה מה יהיה, ונעש כן… ויהי העם רצים בסוסים אחרי מרכבת הרב, ואנחנו, אני ויעקב יוסף, רודפים אחריהם ברגל, כגיבור ששנו לרוץ אורח ברגלינו, לא הלכנו עוד כל ימי חיינ… ימים רבים הייתי כלוא אחר כך בביתי ולא יכולתי צאת ובוא כי רגלי בצקו, והכאב גדול מאוד, כי לא נוסיתי באלה,
R. Yakov Emden writes about kefisiot ha-derekh: