One explicit mention of a ghost appears in the Talmud Ketubot 103a. The Talmud records that every week Rebbi used to return to his house after he died. The Talmud, however, does not record what Rebbi used to do when he came back. The Sefer Hassidim states that Rebbi was different than other dead people in that he was considered almost fully alive. Rebbi, according to the Sefer Hassidim, would make Kiddush for his family.[1]

A much later instance of an interaction with a ghost is found in R. Pinchas Katzenellenbogen’s (1691-1765/1767) Yesh M’Nechalin. R. Katzenellenbogen happened across a man who had the last two of his fingers bent back and connected to his palm. R. Katzenellenbogen inquired whether the man was born that way. The man explained that he was not and instead this happened when he had attended a fair. There were hundreds of people in a large room preparing for the next day’s events. Suddenly, the door of the room opened on its own. Standing at the doorway was a women dressed in tachrichim (death clothes). One person, screamed that it was his dead mother. Someone got up and slammed the door shut only to have the door open by itself again with the woman standing there. This man then went and pushed the “ghost” and from that day on his fingers were permanently connected to his palm.

Continuing on the theme of dead or other beings which interact with those still alive, we come to a rather strange question which has occupied the minds of many people for the last 800 years. The question is what is the status of someone who has intercourse with a demon? The first to mention this question is R. Isaac of Vienna (1200-1270) in his work Or Zarua. He states that intercourse with a demon is halackically meaningless. He cites a midrash which has a hassid (pious one) who was seduced by a demoness on Yom Kippur. Afterwards he felt very bad about this, but Elijah the Prophet visited him and asked him why he was sad. After the hassid explained what happened Elijah said don’t worry it was only a demon. The Or Zarua therefore says as Elijah appeared to him and he told him it was ok, intercourse with a demon is not a problem.

Now, the Or Zarua was not addressed at an actual question, however, R. Meir of Lublin (1558-1616) was asked about an “actual” case where a woman had intercourse with a demon and thus could she remain married to her husband. Although R. Meir was unaware of the Or Zarua he independentally came to the same conclusion – she was still permitted to remain married as intercourse with a demon has no effect. Least one say this is all in the realm of theory or not followed, the Beit Shmuel the classic commentary on Shulhan Orach Even haEzer quotes this law of R. Meir of Lublin (Even haEzer 6:17).

The question of intercourse with a demon seems to have come up without respect to the local or time period. R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai (Hida) discusses “groups of women who go out to the forest” and conduct rituals with music and it seems they were visited or engaged in intercourse with demons. The Hida follows the ruling of R. Meir of Lublin and permits these women.

In Hungary in the 19th century there was a celebrated case where a woman became pregnant while her husband was away and she claimed the “father” was a demon. It appears the child was not deemed a mamzer (bastard) and the woman was allowed to remain married.

Now, there were some who questioned this whole line of reasoning and said that if one engages in intercourse with what appears to be human even if they are a demon it is of no moment. Thus, a married woman would be prohibited to remain married. The first to come to this conclusion was R. Yitzhak Binyamin Lipman (17th century) in his Nahlat Binyamim. Additionally, R. Yosef Zechariah Stern says if one follows the above rulings, what is stopping anyone who commits adultery to just claim it was a demon.

Moving on from demons, we now go to beings created via the Sefer Yetzirah. The Sefer Yetzirah (Book of Creation) is a work which allows via manipulation of various names of God to create things. Many have dealt with the halakhic status of such creations. For instance, R. Meir Leibush (1809-1879) in his work the Malbim says the reason Abraham was able to give the angels milk and meat together was Abraham did not give them meat from a born cow. Rather, the Malbim points to the verse which says “the calf which he [Abraham] made.” Malbim explains the words “he made” are literal, i.e. Abraham created the calf via the Sefer Yetzirah and thus was able to feed them both this meat and milk at the same time.

R. Isaiah Horowitz in his work Sheni Luchot HaBrit (Shelah) similarly understands the controversy between the brothers and Joseph. Specifically, Joseph, according to some Midrashic sources three negative things about the brothers – they at ever min ha-hai, they engaged in intercourse with Canaanite females and they embarrassed the children of the servants. The Shelah explains all three were based upon the Sefer Yetzirah. He explains that the Sefer Yetzirah was written by Abraham and passed on to Isaac and then to Jacob. The brothers, however, felt the sons of the servants were not worthy of such an important work (thus speaking ill or embarrassing them). Additionally, the brothers acted on the book and created animals which they ate from before killing them as there was no need being they were created via the Sefer Yetzirah. Further “it is possible that the tribes [the brothers] had created a woman” and it was these things Joseph saw and misunderstood to be regular beings. Again, according to the Shelah, intercourse or otherwise with beings from other worlds pose no halakhic issues. It is not surprising the Shelah took this position as the Shelah’s teacher was R. Meir of Lublin the one who permitted the woman who had intercourse with a demon to remain married.[2]

Perhaps the brothers were not the only ones to make women for this purpose, it is recorded (albeit much later) that R. Solomon Ibn Gabriol (1021-1058) created a woman to “serve” him. But, when the authorities found out he was forced to show it was merely wood and not a person.[3]

At the end of the forgery Niflot HaMaharal (the most comprehensive source for the false legend the Maharal of Prague created a golem) there is a discussion of various aspects of a golem. For instance, whether a golem would create impurity after it was “killed” (it would not) and the like. In regards to intercourse they state that “a golem can not reproduce nor does it have desires for the opposite sex.” It would seem that in the Paul Wegner 1920 silent movie classic “Der Golem” he disagreed with that premise. Part of the plot line is the Golem falling in love with the Maharal’s daughter; the nobleman’s son also does and she in fact runs off with him only to have the Golem rescue her. (It seems the Simpsons also follows with a similar plot line.)

As a final note, it is worthwhile mentioning that going the route of trying to connect with the other world does have it perils. R. Yaakov Ettlinger, in his Binyan Tzion describes a case where a woman met a man who told her he was Elijah the prophet and through their union the Messiah would be produced. The woman believed him, only to find out after the fact the person was con man. R. Ettlinger deals with whether in such a case she can remain married to her husband. So, ultimately one should make certain they verify the credentials of any demon, golem or ghost prior to engaging in any questionable acts.

Sources: Yesh M’Nechalin, 267-68; Hannah Sprecher, “Diabolus Ex-Machina: An Unusual Case of Yuhasin” in Jewish Law Association Studies VIII: The Jerusalem Conference Volume, 183-204; J.H. Chajes, Between Worlds: Dybbuks, Exorcists, and Early Modern Judaism (who although discusses the topic of intercourse with a demon appears to have been unaware of Sprecher’s article which contains many more sources than Chajes cites or discusses); Moshe Idel, Golem, esp. pp. 213-241 (which was reprinted almost in its entirety in a Torah u-Madda Journal 9 (2000) article by Dr. John Loike available here (PDF); R. Yudel Rosenberg, Niflot HaMahral (Pitrokav, 1909), pp. 71-74; R. Yaakov Ettlinger, Binyan Tzion, no. 164; Shnayer Z. Leiman, “The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London; R. Yudl Rosenberg and the Golem of Prague,” Tradition 36:1 (2002): 26-58; see also the account in Kav Ha-Yashar from R. Moshe Koidonover, translated by Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature, vol. 6, pp. 161-63.

[1] See the discussion in the R. Reuven Margulies edition how he could have been motzei them if he was dead. Sefer Hassidim, no. 1129.

[2] Interestingly, Idel in his book Golem, appears to have been unaware of the connection between the Shelah and R. Meir of Lublin.

[3] In the halakhic realm, most are already familiar with the well-known question first posed by R. Tzvi Ashkenazi and elaborated on by his son R. Ya’akov Emden, whether a golem could be counted for a minyan (quorum).

R. Jacob Emden, in his Torat haKenot claims a well known and fairly popular book is written by a Sabbatian (a follower of the false-Messiah Sabbatai Zevi). This book, Kitzur Shelah, authored by R. Yehiel Michel Epstein, which although its title implies is merely an abridged version of the Shelah (Sheni Luchot HaBrit) by R. Isaiah Horowitz, is much more than that. While the Kitzur Shelah does include some content from the larger Shelah it also includes much else which appears no where in the Shelah. Perhaps the most well-known custom to come out of the Kitzur Shelah is the custom to recite a verse which beginning and end letters of the verse correspond to the first and last letters of ones name. (Although this does have another source as well, the Kitzur Shelah is the first to include actual verses and it is those verses which appear in the siddurim.)

R. Emden claims that R. Epstein makes a reference to Sabbatai Zevi in the Introduction to the Kitzur Shelah. R. Emden’s exact language is “גם רמז על הצוא”ה בהקדמת קשל”ה” [R. Emden uses צואה (excrement) to refer to Sabbatai Zevi in that the numerical value of צואה is the same as צבי]. The Introduction is in fact but a single paragraph and at first glance it would seem to imply that the author was not a follower of Sabbatai Zevi. This is so, as the author expresses his hope that the publication of this book will be a merit for the coming of the Messiah. Such a line implies that the Messiah has not in fact come, which is counter to the idea of Sabbatai Zevi already coming and being the true Messiah.

But, with this, we need to start on our journey through multiple editions of the Kitzur Shelah. Although you will find it nowhere on the title pages of any of the editions, in fact there are at least four different editions of this work. (There was what is known as a מהדורה בתרא of the Kitzur Shelah, however, for our purposes that is irrelevant.) That is, there are at least four distinct versions.

First we need to understand where it is explicit in the Introduction that the author is a follower of Sabbatai Zevi, and for that we must turn to the early editions. In the early editions the very line which discusses the hope for the Messiah appears as follows, ” ויזכו על ידי הספר הזה לראות משי”ח האמ”תי וגם יזכו אל ימו”ת משי”ח.” If you note, you can see that four words contain quotation marks. These marks are the key to understanding R. Emden’s claim. These marks, generally, have two purposes one to signify the use of an abbreviation and the second to indicate that aside from the plain meaning of the word, one should also use the gematria – numerical value of the word. This device is extremely common on title pages of books where verses are used to indicate the date of publication. The words which the printers wish to use have the marks.

In this instance, it is the same. That is, the value of the four words or more specifically, the two sets of two words, are equal to 814 (משי”ח האמ”תי = 814 and ימו”ת משי”ח = 814). Sabbatai Zevi is also equivalent to 814 (שבתי צבי = 814). Thus, the “true Messiah” the author is referencing is in fact Sabbatai Zevi.

Now, in the later editions, these quotation marks were removed. Thus, there is no longer a signal to the reader to use the value of the words. But, it seems the removal was insufficient for some. In at least one edition (Frankfurt am Main, 1745) the entire Introduction was removed.

So we now have three different versions, the early ones with the quotation marks, the later with those removed and the final without the Introduction. In 1998 the Kitzur Shelah was reprinted with some additional notes and nikkud. In this edition it seems it was no longer good enough to just leave out the quotation marks, instead, the text itself was altered. In place of the line we have been discussing in this edition the line reads “ויזכו על ידי הספר הזה לראות ביאת משיח צדקנו.” I have been unable to locate this language in any edition I have checked, thus leading one to believe this change was deliberate to “address” the claim of R. Jacob Emden.

Thus, this is an example of why it pays to own (or at least have access) to multiple editions and that although subtle a minor change can have a major effect. All three versions appear on the side for the reader to see for themselves. The top is a copy of the Amsterdam 1724 edition (which is the same as it appears in the first edition). The second is a photo-mechanical reproduction of the Lember 1862 edition. And the final one is from the 1998 edition. You can click on the picture for a larger version.

Sources: Shnayer Z. Leiman “ספרים החשודים בשתאות: רשימתו של הגאון יעב”ץ זצ”ל” in ספר הזכרון לרבי משה ליפשיץ זצ”ל pp.885-894 esp. n. 12. On the topic of Sabbatianism in books see Naor, Post Sabbatian Sabbatianism

I have gotten multiple emails (and now S. has posted it on English Hebraica) in the past couple of days regarding an obituary which appeared in the New York Times for the Chofetz Hayyim. The email explains that after hearing someone mentioning the Times covered the Chofetz Hayyim’s death the person couldn’t believe it and decided to investigate the matter. He then went to the New York Public Library and poured over microfiche to finally locate the story on the Chofetz Hayyim’s death. The story, which did indeed appear in the Times, is merely a republication of a Jewish Telegraphic Association article.

There are two points I would like to mention about this whole email and story surrounding it. First, I am at a loss to understand why this person had to go the New York Public Library. While I am all for libraries, for this research he could have done it from the comfort of his home in under 5 seconds. All he had to do was go the New York Times website and search using the words Chofetz Chaim. He would have found the article he located as well as another one, this second one actually written by the Times describing the memorial services held in Brooklyn. This second article discusses the various eulogies held at Tifereth Israel and had Rabbis Simha Solovetchick, Israel Dushowitz and M. Somanowits in attendance and participating in various degrees. Anyone who has a Times Select subscription (if you subscribe it is free) can download the articles.

Second, according to both articles the Chofetz Hayyim was 105 years old when he died. His actual age, however, is in dispute. Some place him at a mere 94 when he died. R. Nathan Kamenetsky, in his Making of a Godol, attempts to prove how old the Chofetz Hayyim actually was. He does so in a rather ingenious manner. First, he attempts to figure out how old the Chofetz Hayyim was when his father father died during the cholera epidemic. Also, at age 70 there was a birthday celebration that R. Kahanneman (Ponivezher Rav) attended in Radin. R. Kahanneman was in Radin in 1909 thus putting the Chofetz Hayyim’s birthday in 1839. Finally, R. Kamenetsky points to the recently published request of the Chofetz Hayyim’s to emigrate to Israel and the birth dates used there. In the end, R. Kamenetsky concludes that in fact the Chofetz Hayyim was a spring chicken of 94 when he died. (See Making of a Godol, pp. 1106-1108).

It is also worth mentioning that America was not the only other country (outside of Radin or Europe) where there were eulogies for the Chofetz Hayyim. R. Elchonon Wasserman was in England when the Chofetz Hayyim died and participated in a service for the Chofetz Hayyim where Rabbi I. J. Unterman gave a eulogy. London Jewish Chronicle, October 6, 1933, p. 8. (Thanks to Menachem of AJHistory fame.)

When a Yom Tov falls out on Shabbat, we add additions to the standard Yom Tov shemonei esrei that relate to Shabbat. One of these additions is found in the V’haseanu והשיאנו blessing, where we add “elokenu v’lokei avosanu retzah bemunchatanu (אלקנו ולאקי אבותנו רצה במנוחתנו).” There is very little question about this addition is Shacharit.[1] The more complex question is the Mussaf. The reason for the complexity is that in the Shaharit there is no place where the formula of elokenu v’lokei avosanu appears, so one is forced to add the entire addition. But, in Mussaf there is an elokenu v’lokei avosanu, that is, right after one says the various verses relating to the offering of the day appears “elokenu v’lokei avosanu melk rachamun rachem alenu … (אלקנו ולאקי אבותנו מלך רחמן רחם עלינו)”. Because there already the alokenu v’lokei avosunu, thereby God’s name is already mentioned, R. Yitzhak Isaac Tyrnau (end of the 14th century) in his book on Minhagim (page 56 Makhon Yerushalayim edition) says to just add here the words, retzeh bmunuchatanu here. By placing this addition here one avoids mentioning God’s name later on. But the R. Mordecai Jaffe (1530-1612), in his Levush (Orach Hayyim no. 488), argues and says that just as in Shacarit one mentions this addition later on right next to “kadeshanu” therefore it is not proper to mention it here after the passages of the offerings as there is no mention of kadeshanu. Additionally, R. Jaffe argues we should be consistent between Mussaf, Shacharit, and Mincha/Ma’ariv. Just as in those prayers, this addition appears in v’haseanu so we should do the same for Mussaf. Therefore, according to the Levush, one has to say the entire formulation later on, including the elokenu v’lokei avosanu, a repetition of God’s name, because though God’s name appears earlier it is just not the right place to add this.[2]

What emerges from this is that there are two distinct customs, either one adds just the words “retzah bemunuchatun” right after the verses for the offerings and does not add anything later on, as that would defeat the whole purpose – avoiding repeating God’s name. Or one does not add anything different after the recitation of the offerings, instead just as in the Morning Prayer, one adds the entire formula at the end of the blessing. Both of these customs have support in older siddurim. What has NO support and makes no sense is what appears in the Artscroll siddurim. In the Artscroll siddurim, BOTH additions appear.[3] That is, Artscroll advocates saying both the retzah bemuchutanu after the offerings and including the entire formulation later on. It would appear that they are unconcerned with the unnecessary repetition of God’s name or custom. It seems that in an effort to conform to all the customs, they have conformed to none. What is rather bizarre, is that in the first edition of the Artscroll Siddur, only the second appears, it seems they altered it to include both?!

But, to be fair to Artscroll there is perhaps a bigger problem. Artscroll, while they print some nice books, are not a Rabbinic organization. The RCA (Rabbinical Council of America), as the name implies, is a Rabbinic organization. One assumes a Rabbinic organization would be tasked with getting something like this correct. Historically, the RCA did get it right. The original RCA commissioned siddur is edited by R. David de Sola Pool. In this siddur they only have the second mention (like the Levush). But, now the RCA has moved to a new siddur. This – the RCA edition of the Artscroll siddur – contains both (incorrect) mentions. In the introduction, the (then) president of the RCA states that part of the reason the RCA commissed a siddur at all was due to the many errors which had crept into the siddur. But, with this edition that does nothing other than slapping on an introduction by then-RCA president R. Saul Berman and adding the teffilah l’medinah, is the type that the RCA was claiming it was fixing.

Sources:

[1] Though there is some controversy about this, that is, R. Jacob Emden says that the elokenu v’lokei avosnu should always be recited even when it is not Shabbat. He claims that these words were bracketed by mistake and in early siddurim they are not bracketed. I have found that in the Prague, 1516 Siddur they are not bracketed. See Siddur R. Shabbetai Sofer, vol. 1, appendix. On the other extreme the Vilna Gaon who says that one never recites these words even when it is Shabbat.

[2] The Eliyahu Rabbah defends R. Tirna from the Levush and also asserts that all the older siddurim follow R. Tyrnau. In truth, the old siddurim are split between these two customs; see Additions to Siddur R. Shabbetai Sofer for page 522.

[3] In the new Artscroll Hebrew-only siddurim they say “Yesh Mosifim” (there are those that add) by the first one, i.e. the one following the recitation of the offerings. But they still fail to recognize that those Yesh Mosifim also don’t add the later one.

I recently received a sample of the new Artscroll work “A Daily Dose of Torah.” This work, which is more or less a modern-day Hok l’Yisrael, parcels out 18 minute learning sections covering Gemara, Siddur, Mussur, etc. But setting aside the content, in the introduction there is a very curious quote.

In the introduction the editors thank Reb Sheah Brander for his “graphics genius.” They explain “As someone once said in a different context, ‘I can’t put it into words, but I know it when I see it.'” They then apply the quote as “It is hard to define good taste and graphics beauty in words, but when one sees Reb Sheah’s work, one knows it.”

Now, the quote they have “I can’t put it into words, but I know it when I see it” doesn’t actually appear anywhere exactly as that. It is obvious, however, this quote is most likely taken from a well known Supreme Court concurrence authored by Justice Potter Stewart. The case, Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964), is about whether a movie was pornographic, or more correctly obscene. Justice Stewart said that although it was difficult to define or articulate what exactly fit the definition of pornography “I know it when I see it.” (Id. at 197.)

So, they are absolutely correct that “someone once said in a different context” but I am unsure if they knew exactly what context that was.

As I mentioned before, Elliott Horowitz wrote an excellent book on Purim and its connection with violence. But, as some are wont to do, instead of reading a book objectively they come into a book with all sorts of preconceived notions. This was typified by Hillel Halkin’s review of Horowitz’s book. In the June 2006 issue of Commentary Magazine, Halkin reviewed Horowitz’s book. I did not bother to mention this, solely because it was painfully obvious Halkin did not read the first half of the book, or chose to ignore it (as Horowitz points out in his response), and that Halkin was only interested in finding fault. Halkin takes issue with the very notion that Jews could be violent and thus can not believe (or address) most of Horwitz’s points. In fact, much of Horowitz’s thesis had already been published years ago in his articles on the topics. (Perhaps Halkin doesn’t read academic journals? Although he feels it fine to review an academic work).

Well in the October 2006 issue of Commentary Magazine, Elliott Horowitz responses as does Halkin. Halkin’s response, however, is so juvenile and void of content, he does more to undermine his position than anything Horowitz could have done. Halkin to buttress his position resorts to name calling and a general ad hominem attack. So, for example, Halkin starts by noting

As I stated in my review, Elliot Horowitz wrote an interesting but not entirely honest book. How he has written an uninteresting and thoroughly dishonest letter.

Setting aside Halkin’s vitriolics, Horowitz, as he is wont to do, uses the terrific image of the Godfather movies to prove his point. He notes that there is a distinction between the Godfather and Bonnie and Clyde, one which just has violence and the other which explores it. Horowitz, thus illuminates his purpose of exploring the sources and theological underpinnings of his thesis. [Now, there are not that many Jewish academics who cite to movies (or as he does in another of his articles compares the imagery in a haggadah to Bugs Bunny) so this somewhat is refreshing.] Halkin, of course, fails to note this (apparently he is not one for subtleties) and instead turns the movie quote into a childish retort of

If Horowitz wanted to write a Jewish version of The Godfather . . . he should have done a movie script.

Additionally, Halkin fails to address most of Horowitz’s most salient points. So, Halkin still ignores the entire first half of Howowitz’s book and fails to explain the rampent use of the term Amalek to this day. It is disappointing that Commentary publishes such drivel, but does demonstrate that one should not judge a book by its cover nor a review (or reviewer) by its inclusion in Commentary.

You can read the full exchange here for yourself until the end of October 2006.