ועשו להם ציצת – What to Make of Tzitzit

By Joseph Wertzberger [1]

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה
דבר אל־בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם ועשו להם ציצת על־כנפי בגדיהם לדרתם ונתנו על ציצת הכנף פתיל תכלת
והיה לכם לציצת וראיתם אתו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה׳ ועשיתם אתם, ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם
למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם
אני ה׳ אלקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלקים, אני ה׳ אלקיכם
במדבר ט׳׳ו, ל׳׳ז – מ׳׳א

And HaShem said to Moshe as follows.
Speak to the people of Israel and tell them they should make themselves fringes on the ends of their garments, for generations, and place on the end-fringes a techelet-thread.
And they shall serve you as glance-objects – when you see them you’ll recall all HaShem’s orders and do them, and you won’t follow your hearts’ and eyes’ explorations, after which you tend to stray.
So that you recall and perform all my orders, and are ordained to your god.
I am HaShem, your god, that took you out of the land of Egypt to be your god, I am HaShem your god.

Numbers 15, 37-41

_________________

Archeologists recently published[2] new findings regarding the history of Tel Shiqmona, a site near present-day Haifa that was a large-scale production facility for techelet and argaman,[3] the deep blue and purple dyes used in ancient Israel and throughout the Near East during the First-Temple period and later.

Understanding techelet and its role in the ancient world can help us better appreciate how it, together with tzitzit, may have been viewed in early First-Temple Israel, and to more clearly recognize some of the ideas presented in its parsha and in related parshiot in the Torah.

Techelet was produced from the glandular excretions of the Murex trunculus sea-snail using an elaborate production method, and was the most valuable dye in the ancient Near-Eastern world — by some sources it took two-hundred and fifty thousand shells to produce one ounce of dye, which was then worth, by weight, three times the value of gold.[4] Due to its prized status and high cost, it was used in priestly vestments and royal garments[5] across the ancient Near East, including in Israel’s temple vestments.[6]

Techelet’s role in tzitzit can be understood as a signifier that, in contrast to other ancient Near-Eastern religions, in which the priestly class served as intermediaries between the people and their gods,[7] in ancient Judaism the entirety of the Jewish people and all of its members were conceived as a semi-priestly class, with each individual given direct access and communion to God, and all people required to serve him,[8] with sexual, dietary[9] and clothing rules applicable to each of them and signifying their special status.

Like the Israelite priesthood itself, which utilized techelet extensively in its raiment, and also perhaps in similitude to royal garments, individual Jews wore an article of clothing that included a small amount of techelet as a miniature priestly or royal vestment, reminding the wearer that they belong to a class of people vested with particular rules, and requiring maintenance of a higher order of behavior.[10][11][12]

Tzitzit and techelet are not simply objects randomly chosen to serve as reminders to keep the mitzvot. Rather, they signify the wearer’s membership in an elevated class of people to whom the mitzvot apply as part of class membership.

______________________

The root-word ציץ refers to a bud or a blossom,[13] to fringes or tassels,[14] and to the act of peeking,[15][16][17][18] and in its variants can be used in both noun and verb format.[19]

Understanding this reveals the beautiful and poetic wordplay-based meaning of parshat tzitzit, which juxtaposes two conceptions of the root-word ציץ playing off each other to provide the fuller meaning of the word ציצת, and the message of the passage and of the מצוה itself.

In the word’s initial appearance in verse 38, the Jews are told to make ציצת, bud-like thread-fringes, at the ends of their garments. In the next verse, the meaning of the word based on its sentence-context changes to the noun version of the work peek – an object to peek at.[20] The tzitzit together with their techelet are symbols of Israel’s special relationship with God, and thus serve as reminder-objects to regularly look at — “They shall be for you glance-objects,[21] for when you see them, you’ll recall the commandments…”.[22][23]

___________________________

All of which adds color to our understanding of the story of Korach and his arguments against Moshe and Aharon.

The reason the incident of Korach is placed directly after the chapter of tzitzit in the Torah is because Korach’s arguments flow directly from the ideas presented in that chapter. The foundational concept in the parsha of tzitzit is that all Jews are a royal and priestly class, all are קדשים לאלקיכם – sacred and dedicated to God; that God took the Jewish people out of Egypt, להיות לכם לאלקים, to be directly a God of all of the Jewish people – אני ה׳ אלקיכם. Comes Korach and argues, if all Jews are uniquely members of a royal and priestly class in direct communion with God, then why are separate priestly and ruling classes needed to lord over them and to mediate between them and the divine. Korach notes, כי כל העדה כלם קדשים )based on והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם); ובתוכם ה׳ )paralleling אני ה׳ אלקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלקים, אני ה׳ אלקיכם) and therefore ומדוע תתנשאו על קהל ה׳. The words in Parshat Korach, and Korach’s message, directly address the words and the message in the chapter preceding it.

Many readers are now surely recalling the well-known midrash, a version of which appears in Rashi on the first verse in Parshat Korach, according to which Korach used tzitzit and techelet as a metaphor in his arguments against Moshe and the priesthood’s rule over Israel, contending that an article of clothing made entirely of techelet should not require tzitzit.[24] The meaning of the midrash is made clearer through our understanding of the parshiot. The crux of Korach’s argument is based on techelet’s inclusion in tzitzit as a symbol of priesthood and royalty, signifying the elements of priesthood and royalty carried by all Jews. The midrash elucidates this, and highlights the Korach story’s placement immediately after tzitzit, by elaborating on Korach’s arguments and their premises in the ideas behind techelet. Like a royal garment all of techelet should not need another strand of techelet to make it royal, the Jewish people, who are all part of a royal class, as signified by their own techelet, should not need another royal class to lord over them. Since all Jews have priestly status and are connected to God, what sense is there in adding another priestly appendage? Like a royal or priestly garment does not need an additional purple thread to signify and manifest its meaning, a nation that is itself entirely royal and priestly, should not need other superior and ministerial classes added to it.[25]

___________________________

To round out the discussion, let’s take a look at another midrash that discusses tzitzit and touches on many of the ideas and themes mentioned above.

ועשו להם ציצת על כנפי בגדיהם. זה שאמר הכתוב אור זרע לצדיק ולישרי לב שמחה (תהלים צ׳׳ז – י׳׳א), ה’ חפץ למען צדקו (ישעיה מ׳׳ב – כ׳׳א). זרע להם הקדוש ברוך הוא את התורה ואת המצות לישראל, כדי להנחילם חיי העולם הבא, ולא הניח דבר בעולם שלא נתן בו מצוה לישראל. יצא לחרש, לא תחרש בשור ובחמור, לזרע, לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, לקצר, כי תקצר קצירך בשדה… נתכסה בטלית, ועשו להם ציצת

תנחומא, שלח, סי׳ ט׳׳ו; רבה, במדבר, סי׳ י׳׳ז

“And they should make themselves tzitzit”: Regarding this it is written, “A light shines for the righteous, and there is joy for the straight-hearted” (Tehillim 97-11), “God desired the sake of his righteousness” (Yeshaya 42-21). God sowed Torah and mitzvot for Israel, in order that they inherit eternal life, and he did not leave a thing in the world regarding which he didn’t give a commandment to Israel. A person goes out to plow, “Don’t plow with an ox and donkey”; to sow, “Do not sow your vineyard mixed varieties”; to harvest, “When you harvest in the field”… [the midrash then mentions many other mitzvot that apply to various tasks, and ends with] he covers himself with a cloak, “they should make themselves tzitzit”.

Tanchuma Shelach 15; Rabbah Bamidbar 17.

To better understand the midrash and the significance of its two introductory verses, one needs to see the fuller context of those verses.[26]

אור זרע לצדיק ולישרי⁠ לב שמחה. שמחו צדיקים בה׳ והודו לזכר קדשו. תהלים צ׳׳ז, י׳׳א – י׳׳ב

A light is implanted for the righteous, and there is joy for the straight-hearted. Righteous, rejoice in God, and praise the recollection of his sacredness. Tehillim 97, 11-12.

החרשים שמעו והעורים הביטו לראות. מי עור כי אם⁠ עבדי וחרש כמלאכי אשלח, מי עור כמשלם ועור כעבד ה׳. ראות רבות ולא תשמר פקוח אזנים ולא ישמע. ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר. ישעיה מ׳׳ב, י׳׳ח – כ׳׳א

Deaf ones, listen, and blind ones, look and see. Who is blind, but only my servant, who as deaf as the messenger I send; who as blind as the wholesome, as blind as the servant of God. Seeing much and paying no heed, open-eared and hearing not. God desires the sake of his righteousness, let the directives be great, and more mighty. Isaiah 42, 18-21.

We can recognize numerous allusions and references to tzitzit, which help us understand the midrash’s message.

אור זרוע לצדיק – Mitzvot, of course, are Ohr Zarua because they are a light that guides our path, and were implanted into the activities of the world; but tzitzit, representing all of the mitzvot, are particularly so – titzit’s root-word includes an allusion to shining light, and to planted blossoms, and it protects the person from sinning, assisting to make him righteous.

ולישרי לב שמחה — In reminding the person of the mitzvot, the tzitzit assist to keep the person’s heart straight, protecting it from straying. (ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם)

שמחו צדיקים בה׳ והודו לזכר קדשו – That righteous person who thereby kept the mitzvot should praise and be grateful for the tzitzit, the reminders of sacredness – למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם.

Now on to the verses in Yeshaya…

והעורים הביטו לראות. מי עור כי אם⁠ עבדי… מי עור כמשלם ועור כעבד ה׳. ראות רבות ולא תשמר… – The midrash exposits these verses as a reference to the person who looks at and sees his tzitzit but whose eyes are at the same time blind to other temptations. As commanded in the verse in Bamidbar, he looks at his tzitzit, recalls and performs all of the mitzvot, is a servant of God, stays wholesome, and becomes righteous, while blind and paying no heed to the things that would otherwise lead him astray (והיה לכם לציצת וראיתם אתו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה׳ ועשיתם אתם, ולא תתורו אחרי… עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם.).

ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר – God desires the sake of righteousness,[27] and therefore he made the Torah and its commandments greater by making them more numerous and all-encompassing, so that they serve to protect us against sinning and keep us righteous.[28] And the tzitzit are what serve to remind us to keep all of those commandments – [29]למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי.

Looking back now at the verses in the chapter on tzitzit, one notices how many of its words and ideas are presented and cross-referenced in the two passages in Tehillim and Yeshaya as exposited by the midrash: the meaning of the word Tzitzit as a blossom, and as a shining light, tzitzit assisting their wearer and seer to remain righteous, to recall all of the very many mitzvot, to serve God and keep them, to remain wholesome and righteous, not to stray after one’s heart, and not to stray after one’s eyes.

והיה לכם לציצת וראיתם אתו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה׳ ועשיתם אתם, ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם. למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם

Almost everything in these two verses on tzitzit is cross-referenced somewhere in the passages mentioned in the midrash.

___________________________

Having said all of this one cannot help but end with the well-known Mishna that closes Tractate Makot:

רבי חנניה בן עקשיא אומר רצה הקב”ה לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות שנאמר ה’ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר. מכות ג׳ – ט׳׳ז

In light of the midrash just discussed, we recognize that the word לזכות as used in the Mishna means to purify (rather than to provide merit, the more common contemporary translation of the word as used in the passage). The numerous mitzvot serve to keep those who perform them pure, to help stay them from sin, and to maintain their righteousness.[30]

This also helps explain the Mishna’s placement at the end of the last chapter of Makot, which is comprised of lengthy lists of sins and descriptions of their punishments. In light of that, and also so as not to close the tractate with all of that negative material, the Mishna quotes this teaching regarding how mitzvot’s abundance serves to protect us from the many sins, and leads us in their stead to good.

[1] The author is the creator of the YouTube channel, Understanding Kohelet.
[2] Shalvi G., Sukenik N., Waiman-Barak P., Dunseth Z.C., Bar S., Pinsky S., et al. (2025), Tel Shiqmona during the Iron Age: A first glimpse into an ancient Mediterranean purple dye ‘factory’, PLoS ONE 20(4): e0321082 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321082); Shalvi, G., & Gilboa, A. (2023). Between Israel and Phoenicia: The Iron IIA–B Fortified Purple-dye Production Centre at Tel Shiqmona, Tel Aviv, 50(1), 75–110 (https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2023.2190283).

See also, Mihailo S. Zekic, The Secrets of Tel Shikmona, Let the Stones Speak Magazine, July – August 2023, (https://armstronginstitute.org/933-the-secrets-of-tel-shikmona); Lidz, Franz, In Israel, a 3,000-Year-Old Purple Factory, NYTimes, March 5, 2024, (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/science/archaeology-tyrian-purple-murex.html); Margolis, Andrea, Archeologists Uncover Ancient “Factory” Used to Produce Coveted Purple Dye Mentioned in Bible, Fox News Online, May 10, 2025 (https://www.foxnews.com/travel/archaeologists-uncover-ancient-factory-used-produce-coveted-purple-dye-mentioned-bible).
[3] Argaman is also known as Tyrian purple.
[4] Zaria Gorvett, Tyrian Purple: The lost ancient pigment that was more valuable than gold, BBC Online, November 24, 2023 (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231122-tyrian-purple-the-lost-ancient-pigment-that-was-more-valuable-than-gold#).
[5] E.g., Esther 8-15.
[6] E.g., Shemot, Chapter 28.
[7] See, for example, Ada Taggar-Cohen, Priests and priestesses, ancient near east (June 30, 2015), in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25085).
[8] ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש. שמות י׳׳ט ו׳

And you will be dedicated to me, a nation of priests, and a consecrated people. Shemot 19-6.
[9] רמב׳׳ם, משנה תורה, סדר קדושה.
[10] This is alluded to in וראיתם אתו… ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם, which expresses tzitzit’s role as a representative sign of the Jewish nation’s sacredness as a people dedicated to God and ordained to serve him.
[11] It may also be that fringes at the ends of garments themselves also signified royalty or the priestly class. See Stephen Bertman, Tasseled Garments in the Ancient Near East Mediterranean, The Biblical Archeologist, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1961); Jacob Milgrom, Hems and Tassels, Biblical Archology Review, Volume IX, No. 3 (May/June 1983). Turning the weft that remained at either end of a garment into ornamental tassels would have been a way of indicating the significance of the wearer, contrasting with ordinary garments which would have had the ends of their wefts sewn into a straight hem, to make the clothing more utilitarian and also more durable. See also, Kelly Olson, Fringed Clothing in Roman iconography and written sources, Chapter 11 in Textiles in Ancient Mediterranean Iconography (Oxbow Books, 2022), and Ancient Fashion: Fringed Clothing in Roman Iconography and Written Sources, at https://brewminate.com/ancient-fashion-fringed-clothing-in-roman-iconography-and-written-sources.
[12] Another area where a parallel exists between the service of Israel’s priestly class and that of the ordinary Jewish “semi-priesthood”, is the prohibition on leaven in the Temple (Shemot, 34-25, and elsewhere), which applies to all of the Jewish people during their Pesach sacrifice and subsequent holiday.
[13] והיתה ציצת נובל צבי תפארתו, אשר על ראש גיא שמנים כבכורה בטרם קיץ, אשר יראה הראה אותה, בעודה בכפו יבלענה. ישעיה כ’’ח ד׳

הבאים ישרש יעקב, יציץ ופרח ישראל, ומלאו פני תבל תנובה. ישעיה כ’’ז ו׳
[14] וישלח תבנית יד ויקחנו בציצת ראשי. יחזקאל ח׳ ג׳
[15] דומה דודי לצבי או לעפר האילים, הנה זה עומד אחר כתלנו, משגיח מן החלנות מציץ מן החרכים. שה’’ש ב׳ ט׳
[16] Consider also the interesting example of, .בפרח רשעים כמו עשב ויציצו כל פעלי און… ותבט עיני בשורי
[17] Of course the word ציץ‘s meanings of blossom and peek are related, since blossoms are the first peeks of a plant’s flower and color.

It’s interesting to note that just like the English word peek is used to refer both to the thing that is just barely seen peeking out of a crack, and to the person that is peeking and just barely sees something, the Hebrew word מציץ can have a similar dual use, as seen in the poetic utilization of the word מציץin the verse in Shir HaShirim referred to in note 15, where the lover peeking through the cracks in the verse can be understood as the lover looking at his beloved through the cracks (see, for example, Rashi, Rashbam and ibn Ezra), but also as the countenance of the lover just barely appearing to his beloved through the cracks (R’ Yosef Kimchi, Metzudat David and Ho’il Moshe, as well as Rashbam in Shemot 28-36) — the woman gets a glimpse of her lover, who then disappears, and later in verse 14 she beseeches him to appear again.

See also Me’or Eineyim, Bereshit and Pinchas, in the name of the Ba’al Shem Tov, that the concept of מציץ מן החרכים alludes to a person’s tendency to want to do the right thing due to the perception that people are watching and paying attention to them, and that this is in fact a manifestation of what in reality is the person’s desire to do the right thing due to their perception of God observing them. We feel and respond to our perception of human observation, but we are really perceiving God’s essence, so to speak, observing us; manifesting through our perception of humans’ perception – God is, so to speak, מציץ מן החרכים.

Here too, the Baal Shem Tov’s interpretation of the passage as reflected through this teaching can be understood as reading the word מציץ in the verse both as God observing us and watching us through the people that surround us, as well as God appearing to us through our sense of people’s observation.

The teaching contains a similar idea to the Baal Shem Tov’s well-known teaching regarding ה׳ צלך, that not only is God a shadow over the human, protecting them, but also a shadow of the human, appearing to the human as the human understands God; and is also typical of many of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings in that it contains several layers of meaning that are related to one another and nest inside each other.
[18] With regard to the ציץ of the High Priest, there are various interpretations regarding the source of the word, for example ibn Ezra interprets it as similar to ויקחנו בציצת ראשי (see note 14), while Rashbam says it was called ציץ because it was seen, similarly to מציץ מן החרכים. It’s also possible that the source of the word was due to the shine glancing off of the ציץ, and how it added aura to the appearance of the High Priest, and made it ‘pop’, similarly to ועליו יציץ נזרו in Tehillim 132-18 (see also Chizkuni with a similar explanation). Again, of course all of these meanings are related, and it’s quite possible that the source of the word יציץ’s usage as shine and glance is itself based on light’s bursting forth from the shining object. In a similar light, R.S.R. Hirsch explains that the root word ציץ signifies something that protrudes and pops out of a surface, and that this is the source of the word’s usage for blossoms, fringes, peeking, as well as for the High Priest’s ציץ. See also Sifri, Bamidbar, 15-32, אין ציצת אלא דבר היוצא, ודבר כל שהוא, which supports to R.S.R. Hirsch’s interpretation. See also Divrei Yirmiyahu on Rambam, Mishnah Torah, Tzitzit, 1-1.

Speaking of which, it interesting to note that the ציץ, just like ציצת, incorporated a פתיל תכלת.
[19] אנושׁ כחציר ימיו, כציץ השדה כן יציץ. תהלים ק׳׳ג ט׳׳ו
[20] Rashbam and Ri Bechor Shor also note this change in the word’s meaning between verses 37 and 38. Interestingly, Rashi notes both fringes and looking as possible meanings of the word in verse 37, seemingly not taking the view that the word has different meanings in the two sentences.

The interpolation of the instruction to put techelet on the fringes coming between the two mentions of the word tzitzit, meshes well with reading a change in the word’s meaning between its two appearances, because it’s the techelet that makes the tzitzit a symbol of the Jews’ elevated status, thereby turning it in it into a handy reminder of its associated status’ accompanying behavioral requirements. ונתנו על ציצת הכנף פתיל תכלת –> והיה לכם לציצת In this reading these are not two unrelated phrases in sequence, but are in fact intended to be meaningfully read together, one related to the other.
[21] Unfortunately there is no English-language word equivalent to this concept, so I coined the word glance-object, or alternatively, look-object, somewhat similar to the word looking-glass.
[22] See also Tanchuma Bamidbar 15, Rabah Bamidbar 17-5 – והיה לכם לציצית, שתהא נראית… וראיתם אותו, פרט לכסות לילה. The word tzitzit itself already includes in its meaning the concept of being seen, even without the addition of וראיתם אותו.

Interestingly, this interpretation is first provided by the midrash in verse 38, and not in verse 37, while the Sifri’s exposition of the word tzitzit as signifying anything that protrudes, mentioned in note 18 above (and which seemingly contradicts the continuation of the midrash here in Tanchuma that provides a minimum length for tzitzit based on the requirement for it to be seen), is provided in verse 37. This seems to lend support to the idea that the meaning of the word changes between the two sentences.

Reading the first two uses of the word as fringes, and the third as referring to a larger mitzva of tzitzit with a broader meaning that encompasses both the fringe element and the techelet element works very well with the Rambam’s reading of tzitzit as two elements of one larger mitzva. Rambam, Mishnah Torah, Tzitzit, Chapter 1, Sections 1-5. Furthermore, with this perspective in mind we can also posit that the fringe element of the mitzva does not require a particular length, in accordance with the Tanchuma, while the combined fringe-techelet full mitzva of tzitzit requires a particular length, in accordance with the Sifri, since it is predicated on being seen. And in fact we must reconcile the Tanchuma and Sifri’s two readings halachically, and cannot read them as conflicting opinions, since the Sifri cites the elders of Bet Shamai and Bet Hillel as concurring on the point that tzitzit can be of any length as long as they protrude, while the Tanchuma cites a disagreement between Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai regarding different required lengths for tzitzit based on the requirement for them to be seen. In consonance with the Rambam’s reading and the explanation provided here, the two readings do not in fact contradict each other, neither halachically nor as a literary reading of the text, both of which support each other.

Incidentally, this is a case where one can follow the thread of halachic development very well. The Torah itself simply states in straightforward terms that one should create fringes at the ends of garments, and place techelet on the fringes, to have it be seen and serve as a reminder of the mitzvot. Chazal then flesh out the parameters more precisely based on the passages’ words and contextualized meanings — explaining tzitzit’s baseline concept as a simple protrusion, while noting that fulfillment of the fuller concept and its service as a seeable reminder requires a minimum that can be seen. The Rambam then forms the mitzva into a categorical set of parameterized components and rules tracking the requirements and concepts set out by Chazal. At each stage the mitzva and its details are presented using the language and conceptualization familiar to the Torah and expositors of the particular period, while expressing the same underlying ideas.
[23] Another interesting bit of wordplay in the passage is the juxtaposition of the words tzitzit and mitzvot. Both are somewhat similarly-sounding, and indeed, the tzitzit stand in as a reminder of the mitzvot.

I recall noticing as a child in shul, that when we got to the end of Keriyat Shema, you’d suddenly hear a lot of tz’s, s’s and z’s in the room, which had an interesting sound and ring to it. I used to think it was just a kind of funny random thing a child notices, but it turns out that the particularly perfusive profusion of sound in the passage is not an accident but in fact a feature of the passage’s poetry and wordplay (not dissimilar, for example, to the line צבאות צאנך יצלצלו בקול in Hakalir’s אדירי איומה, recited by Ashkenazim during shacharit on the first day of Rosh Hashana, or the line אלו ואלו בצפצוף מצפצפים in the similarly styled כל שנאני שחק, recited in the same place in the service on the second day).

And if we want to stretch the exercise further we might even say that the ז׳ in זכרתם also serves as a poetic counterpoint to the ז׳ in זנים – the tzitzit pull one back to the mitzvot, acting as a reminder to keep the mitzvot and not wander after the temptations pulling one away.
[24] The midrash is as follows, “’And Korach took…’ What is written prior to this matter, “Speak to the children of Israel and tell them to make themselves tzitzit”. Korach jumped on this point and said to Moshe, “does a garment all of techelet require tzitzit?” Moshe said to him it requires tzitzit. Said Korach, “a garment all of techelet does not exempt itself, and four threads exempt it?” Tanchuma Korach, Siman 2. Another story with a slightly different spin on how Korach arranged talitot and tzitzit to illustrate the ideas behind his argument is presented several lines later in the same midrash.

Note that the midrash also seems to be explicating the phrase “Vayikach Korach”, which is anomalous in that there is no object connected to the subject and verb. The Midrash explains that Korach “took” the chapter and the ideas that immediately precede the word “vayikach”. See also Tanchuma at the start of Siman 3, which states “ויקח קרח – לקח טליתו”, which seems to be phrasing the idea in a similar way, explicating the word “vayikach”.
[25] This is a good example of how classic midrash analyzes and identifies the literary references, and the larger ideas, meanings and messages, that underlie the Torah’s words, phrases and narratives, and their relationships and connections; and explicates and illustrates them using memorable story-form, metaphor and allegory.
[26] This is often the case with midrash. Our written versions of a particular midrashic teaching may quote only a brief snippet of the relevant verse being analyzed, while the full breadth and point of the midrash’s teaching become evident only in the light of, and often apply to, a much fuller extent of the quoted verse(s).
[27] The word צדקו in this verse also serves as a cross-reference to the word צדיק in the Tehillim verses.
[28] An additional connotation of the teaching is that the greater the Torah is (יגדיל), and the more commandments and rules it has, the mightier it is, and the more effect it has (יאדיר).
[29] The verse ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו as exposited in this midrash can also be read as a reference to the verse regarding tzitzit in Devarim 22-12, where tzitzit are called גדלים. ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר – in order to increase His desired righteousness, God represented the Torah and mitzvot in the gedilim, so that their wearers may perform the many mitzvot in the Torah and become great. And in fact the verseגדלים תעשה לך על ארבע כנפות כסותך in Devarim 22 – 12 comes directly after several of the other verses quoted in this midrash regarding the many and various mitzvot – the four verses directly preceding גדלים תעשה לך are all directly quoted in the midrash.
[30] This Mishna’s teaching reflects very well Chazal’s own project of building and enlarging Torah shebe’al peh as a means of clarifying, sharpening and expanding the contours of mitzvot and of the Torah, so that they serve as a stronger spiritual lattice and framework for the Jewish people, particularly after the loss of the Temple and its symbolic and ritualistic role as an identifying marker and base for Israel and for its connection to God, and following the exilic loss of the Jewish people’s identity tied to a land and a governing nation. מיום שחרב ביהמ”ק אין לו להקב”ה אלא ד’ אמות של הלכה בלבד (ברכות ח.) – the laws and rules of halacha act as a framework on which the Jewish people’s relationship with God establishes itself and is based upon, thereby serving as a space for God in this world, so to speak, in place of the Bet Hamikdash which had previously served this role.

Book Week: 2025

Book Week: 2025

By Eliezer Brodt

Book Week has recently begun here in Eretz Yisrael. With gratitude to Hashem, this marks the eighteenth consecutive year that I’ve continued my annual tradition of highlighting noteworthy new titles during this time.

Each year, around Shavuos, begins Shavua HaSefer—Book Week—a ten-day celebration of books and publishing. Many publishers extend their sales for the entire month. Shavua HaSefer takes place across the country in malls, bookstores, and special venues set up exclusively for these sales. Some locations focus primarily on frum seforim, while others feature a wide range of general and secular publishers. Many publishers time the release of new titles specifically for this occasion.

As in previous years, my list may occasionally include an older title I recently discovered. Please note: I do not aim to present an exhaustive list of all new releases. Some of these books may receive full reviews in the future. I try to highlight works that I believe will be of broad interest.

For last year’s list, [see here]. As this list shows Seforim & Books are still being published in full force. [See here for statistics on new seforim and academic books on Jewish topics published this year].

If you’d like to get a taste of what Book Week is about, listen to this episode of my podcast Musings of a Book Collector, recorded back in 2023.

To receive PDFs of sale catalogs from Machon Yerushalayim and Ahavat Shalom, feel free to email me at: Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.

Please note: I haven’t included every item from these catalogs—some titles are not yet released, while others I haven’t seen in person and therefore did not feel comfortable recommending. I generally prefer to include only titles I’ve had a chance to review firsthand.

Important: A book’s inclusion on the list does not necessarily mean it is currently on sale.

The second section below based on subjects, features books published over the past year on a wide range of topics. These are not necessarily part of Book Week sales and may be harder to find—but they are still worth noting. Again, this is not a comprehensive list, nor is it intended to be.

The goal of these lists is threefold:

To help Seforim Blog readers discover significant recent publications in the world of seforim and Jewish scholarship.
To assist interested readers in purchasing these books. As in previous years, I am offering a book purchasing service (for a small fee), including assistance in locating current or past titles. For more information, email me at: Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.
Part of the proceeds from this service will go toward supporting the ongoing efforts of the Seforim Blog.

מגנס

דוד הנשקה, לבקש תפילה: תפילות הקבע בתלמודם של חכמים, שני חלקים, 1320 עמודים [מצוין]
בנימין בראון, המנהיגות החסידות בישראל, דוקטרינת הצדיק בין עבר להווה ובין רוח לחומר, 399 עמודים [מעניין]
יעקב צ’ מאיר וישי רוזן צבי, התלמוד בתולדות הלמדנות, 384 עמודים [מעניין]
צבי יקותיאל, בשני עולמות, זלמן שזר: ביוגרפיה
שירת ה’מאמינים’ השבתאים: פולחן, קהילה ומגעים בין־תרבותיים באימפריה העות’מאנית המאוחרת
מנחם יצחק כהנא, המכילתות לפרשת יתרו [מצוין]
לייב מוסקוביץ, המינוח של הירושלמי, המונחים המשניים [מצוין]
פיוטי שבת חתן ושבת ברית מילה, מהדורת יונה פרנקל וגבריאל וסרמן, 1026 עמודים
The Nuremberg Mahzor History, Codicology, Liturgy and Art
פיוטי רבי אלעזר בירבי קליר לחג הסוכות ולשמיני עצרת (מהם פיוטים חדשים הנדפסים כאן לראשונה), מהדורת פרופ’ שולמית אליצור, שני חלקים, יותר מ-1200 עמודים [מצוין]
קורות כז [כולל ספר הכיבוסים לרבי אשתורי הפרחי]
קובץ על יד, כרך ל [מצוין]
דברי הימים, כרך א-ב, מבוא ופירוש מאת שרה יפת
שולחנות ערוכים: אכילה, גבולות חברתיים ומעברים בין-תרבותיים, מרכז סכוליון
שמואל ספראי, בימי הבית ובימי המשנה, ב’ חלקים [חזר למלאי]
עמנואל אטקס, ר’ ישראל סלנטר וראשיתה של תנועת המוסר [חזר למלאי]
אביגדור שנאן, תרגום ואגדה בו, האגדה בתרגום התורה הארמי המיוחס ליונתן בן עוזיאל [חזר למלאי]

Littman Library

Yosef Levine, Hakham Tzvi Ashkenazi and the Battlegrounds of the Early Modern Rabbinate
Marc Shapiro, Renewing the Old, Sanctifying the New, The Unique Vision of Rav Kook

הרצוג

מדרש איכה זוטא, מהדירה: ענת רייזל נקר
נטועים כד-כה [חומר מעניין]
שם משמואל, ספר היובל לשמואל ויגודה
מגדים, גליון כרך סג, משאת ליואל, עיונים במקרא ובהוראתו לכבוד הרב ד”ר יואל בן נון, 494 +54 עמודים [אוסף חומר מעניין] [כריכה קשה]
דוב ברקוביץ, המשנה של רבי

ביאליק

נפתלי הרץ וייזל, דברי שלום ואמת, מהפכת החינוך היהודי המודרני, ההדיר והוסיף מבוא והערות: שמאול פיינר, 350 עמודים
יוסף פרל, יונתן מאיר, בוחן צדיק
שמואל אלכסנדרוב, מאמרים ואיגרות
אהרן אופנהיימר, מעשה ארג לאהרן, ארץ ישראל בתקופות המשנה והתלמוד
צחי וייס, ראשית הקבלה: חשיבה מחודשת
סימה בלאק, הן עדיין יושבות ותופרות, מעולמן של נשות חסידות תולדות אהרן
בנימין זאב קדר, הממלכות הפראנקיות של ירושלים ויפו
כרחל נעלמה? רחל מורפורגו (1790-1871) מבחר כתבים

ראובן מס

אהרן מוריאלי, מילון שמות המשפחה בישראל
כתבי קודש, ר’ פנחס שפירא מקוריץ, מהדיר: רפאל כהן
חשק שלמה, ר’ יוחנן אלימאן, ג’ חלקים מכתב יד, מהדיר: רפאל כהן

קורן–מגיד

אליהו עסיס, תורה כפשוטה, במדבר
ר’ אורי ליפשיץ, שיחה על השאלה, סיפורה של פסיקת הלכה, מיומנו של רב קהילה, 409 עמודים
The Koren Tanakh of the Land of Israel, Devarim
Rachel Auerbach, The Jewish Revolt, A Warsaw Ghetto Exhibition, 277 pp.
Rabbi Bleich, Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Volume 8, 632 pp.
Rabbi Yitzhak Issac Halevi Herzog, Collected writings: Judaism: Law and Ethics\ The Main Institutions of Jewish Law\ Constitution and Law In a Jewish State According to the Halakha\ Hebrew Porphyrology, 2 Volumes, 1192+ 1210 pp.
Jose Faur, The Horizontal Society and Political Thought, 1447 pp.

אקדמיה הלאומית הישראלית

כרוניקה, תעודה לתולדות יעקב פראנק ותנועתו, מבוא והערות, הלל לוין, הדפסה שניה
מנדלי מוכר ספרים: מבטים חדשים, בעריכת ישראל ברטל, אבנר הולצמן ויונתן מאיר

אקדמיה ללשון העברית

אלכסיי אליהו יודיצקי, מקורות עבריים קדומים: נוסח, לשון תעתיקים, 248 עמודים

האוניברסיטה הפתוחה

יאיר גרדין, פנים חדשות, פרקים בתולדות סיפורי החכמים בספרות הזוהר, 324 עמודים

בר אילן

Daniel Sperber, The Jewish Life Cycle, Volume Two
Daniel Sperber, The Jewish Life Cycle, Volume one (reprint)
Y. Berger, Radak on Genesis
ולריה ליאורה חייבי, מורה לחיים: עיונים במשל הרב והתלמיד בכתבי רבי שניאור זלמן מליאדי
ציונות דתית, בעריכת דב שוורץ, כרך יא
מאור ושמש, היסטוריה, הגות, סיפורת, מורשת
זאב קיציס, לתקון באנו: ספרות השבחים החסידית, ביבליוגרפיה חדשה ומוערת
ציונות דתית, יב
שרה שוורץ, אלה תולדות יצחק: סיפור יצחק בספר בראשית
אילה שקלאר, ולו רק הד: מחלקת החרדים בקרן הקיימת לישראל 1926-1945

מרכז זלמן שזר

יואב שורק, מפרשבורג לירושלים, הרב גלאזנר האורתודוקסיה ההונגרית והציונות, 408 עמודים
משה יגור, עוברים ושבים: זהות יהודית במצרים בימי הביניים
זלמן שזר, פגישה מחודשת: אוסף כתבים
מירב ראובני, מסמל למציאות: שיח על שפה מתחדשת
יוסף יובל טובי, רבי שלום שבזי
תהלה דרמון מלכה, נעדרים: חיפוש קרובים אחרי השואה

כרמל

יון מצולה, ת”ח ות”ט
מינקת רבקה, תרגום מיידיש: ימימה חובב
אפרים חמיאל, “הויית החכמה וגידולה” – פרקי מחקר ופרשנות – חלק ג
שיח שלום כהגות – עיונים בקבלה הלכה ואנטי פוליטיקה, בעריכת אבינועם רוזנק
האם יש עוד מקום לתיקון עולם? ספר גבורות לפול מנדס־פלור
מכתבים על יהודים ויהדות
אפרים חזן, ניצוצי פיוט, מנהג ופרשה פרשת השבוע בראי השירה, הפיוט והמנהג בספרד ובשלוחותיה
אריאל פיקאר, על הארץ ועל המזון: אתיקה יהודית
ז’אק שלנגר, על אמונות ועל דעות – דו-שיח עם סעדיה גאון
שאול וידר, רצוף אהבה – עיון ברצפים של שמונה מימרות בתלמוד הבבלי

בלימה

אלחנן ריינר, כהרף עין
יוסף וייס, תורת הדיאלקטיקה והאמונה לר׳ נחמן מברסלב
הלל צייטלין, עמקי תהום
הלל צייטלין, יחידים
שמואל פיינר, לתולדות החילון היהודי
פאבל מצ’ייקו, הסכנות והתענוגות שבסינקרטיזם הדתי
הלל צייטלין, רב נחמן מברסלב
הלל צייטלין, שירות ותפילות
חביבה פדיה, מסעות החכמה

בית מדרש לרבנים

לוי גינצבורג, פירושים וחידושים בירושלמי, ברכות, א-ה מהדורה שנייה עם הערות הגר”ש ליברמן, ג’ חלקים
טאבו ואיסורים בקבלת קסטיליה, טעמים המצוות לא תעשה לר’ יוסף הבא משושן, מהדיר ליאור זקס-שמואלי, מכתב יד

אוניברסיטת תל–אביב

עמנואל פרידהיים, הַבֹטְחִים בַפָסֶל: הפוליתאיזם בארץ ישראל וסביבותיה בתקופה הרומית ובראשית ימי ביזנטיון

יצחק בן צבי

ספר המצוות לרב סעדיה גאון, מקור ותרגום, בעריכת: ניסים סבתו, חיים סבתו, אייל פישלר, 414 עמודים [חזר למלאי] [עם הוספות ותיקונים]
דניאל בויארין, העיון הספרדי: לפרשנות התלמוד של מגורשי ספרד [חזר למלאי]
זהר עמר ואחרים, חוט וצבע באריגי ארץ־ישראל הקדומה, 352 עמודים
אביגיל מנקין-במברגר, סדר מזיקין, משפט ומאגיה בספרות חז”ל ובקערות ההשבעה הבבליות
מורה לרבים, אברהם אבן עזרא – שירים לימודיים, מהדורה מדעית, בעריכת: מאשה יצחקי, חביבה ישי
ספונות ל
סרג’ רוזר, כתבי הברית החדשה כספרות יהודית

רסלינג

אסתי אינדורסקי, מבעד לסורגים שקופים, נשים חרדיות לומדות גמרא
משה בנוביץ, זיכרונות ישעיהו בן אמוץ

קיבוץ המאוחד

דוד סורוצקין, לידתה של יהדות נורמטיבית, הנדסה חברתית, קאנוניזציה וצנזורה בספרד בימי הביניים
דן בן עמוס, תקשורת במסורת, מאמרים בפולקלור, 248 עמודים

ישיבת אור וישעוה

ר’ אליהו בן אמזוג, אימת מפגיע, על אמיתות חכמת הקבלה

יד הרב ניסים

המקח והממכר, חלק א, מהדורת יהודה צבי שטמפפר, משה גרוס [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
פרופ’ ברכיהו ליפשיץ, המאבק על דין התורה

אהבת שלום

ר’ אברהם אזולאי, חסד לאברהם, כולל הרבה חומר חדש מכתב יד, מפתחות, מבוא, הערות ועוד [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
ר’ דוד זכות, זכר דוד [חזר למלאי] [מצוין]
כתבי מהר”ן שפירא, דרשות, תורת נתן, ג’ חלקים, מכתב יד
ר’ חיים ויטאל, עץ הדעת טוב, ג’ חלקים, דרשות על התורה ועוד, אהבת שלום
נפש החיים עם ביאור נשמת היום מאת ר’ יעקב משה הלל, שער א
ר’ ראובן מרגליות, תולדות רבינו חיים בן עטר, נר למאור, ביאורים והערות על אור החיים הקודש, תמו עמודים, אהבת שלום [מצוין]
שו”ת זרע אמת החדשות, ד’ חלקים [הכל חדש מכתב יד], אהבת שלום
שיטה מקובצת, חולין, אהבת שלום [חזר למלאי]
שו”ת מהר”א אשכנזי, אהבת שלום, [חזר למלאי]
ר’ יעקב הלל, כתבוני לדורות, גדולת האר”י ונצחיות תורתו, שפז עמודים [מהדורה חדשה]
ר’ מאיר פאפרש, אור רב, על הזהר
ר’ יהודה טולידאנו, אמרי בינה, על רש”י על התורה, בראשית, אהבת שלום
שו”ת הגרש”א אלפאנדארי, ד’ חלקים, אהבת שלום
ר’ רפאל שרעבי, דברי שלום, אהבת שלום
מן הגנזים יט [חומר מעניין]
תומר דבורה, פרק א, עם פ’ של ר’ יעקב הלל

מכון עלה זית

אמרי משה המפואר [קונטרס מקוואות] עם הגהות יד משה
צפנת פענח על הרמב”ם משולב עם השמטות והוספות מכת”י, הרב יוסף רוזין – [יופיע בקרוב!]
ר’ הרב משה בונים פירוטינסקי, ספר הברית
הרב יעקב גוזונדהייט, תפארת יעקב – הל’ קידושין
Rabbi Reuven Wachs, Gluten Free in Halacha
אמרי אור, הרב אליה דוב וואכטפוגל
חידושי ושיעורי ר’ ברוך בער – הרב ברוך בער לייבוביץ, ד’ חלקים
תיקונים חדשים מאת רמח”ל, עם ביאור משולב
הרב יעקב קיר, תורת סלבודקה
ר’ ראובן קליין, שו”ת מטה ראובן, יו”ד ושו”ת
ר’ אריה גאנז, ספר אדירי התורה
אמת ליעקב על התורה, מהדורה חדשה, עם הוספות
ר’ צבי הירש גראדזענסקי זצוק”ל, טהרת ישראל, הלכות נדה, מכתב יד, תצג עמודים
ר’ נח חיים צבי ברלין, בעל עצי אלמוגים, מעין החכמה על תרי”ג מצוות, הדפסה שנייה
Kinyan Halachah
Traveling in halachah
מלבי”ם על מגילת רות מכתב יד קדשו, מהדיר: ר’ דוד שלמה ענגלאנדער
ר’ מאיר מיכל ראבינאוויץ, המאיר לעולם, א-ג, עם מבוא והערות
אוהבי יש, שיחות מרבי שמעון אלסטר

מכון ירושלים

ר’ יצחק אייזק חבר, סדר זמנים, כולל חומר חדש מכתב יד, מהדיר: ר’ יעקב טריבץ
שו”ת הרא”ש, ב’ חלקים, הוספות ותיקונים
שו”ת בית יצחק, או”ח, ב’ חלקים, מכון ירושלים
אוצר מפרשי התורה, ויקרא ב
שו”ת שואל ומשיב, רביעאה, חלק שני
מנחת חינוך, בשולי המנחה, כרך ז

זכרון אהרן

סידור ר’ יעקב עמדין, עם הערות
ר’ שלמה אלגזי, דרשות אהבת עולם
ר’ אהרן לפפא, שו”ת בני אהרן
ר’ משה הכהן, כהונת עולם, ב’ חלקים, על הלכות ריבית
שו”ת משפט צדק, ג’ חלקים, זכרון אהרן

מכון משנת ר‘ אהרן

כתבי הערוך לנר, החדשים, מכתב יד, ריז עמודים
שו”ת גליא מסכת, ב’ חלקים, כולל חומר מכתב יד,
ביאור הגדות למדרשים לרבנו ידעיה הפניני, מכתב יד, 43+ תקפו עמודים,
הדרת מרדכי, שמות א

מכון תלמוד הישראלי

אנציקלופדיה תלמודית, נב (כולל ערך ‘מנורה’)
אנציקלופדיה תלמודית, טיפולי פוריות לאור הלכה, 168+211 עמודים

אידרא

ספר המשיב לרבינו יוסף טאיטאצ׳אק, מכתב יד
לדרכי החשיבה של תורת כהנים, שרגא גולץ
כמעשה הספיר: הסיפור החסידי והמעשה החינוכי
יעקב ברנאי, בתקופה שנעשית היסטוריה, החברה ההיסטורית הישראלית (1924-2024)
משה חלמיש, משנתו העיונית של ר’ שניאור זלמן מליאדי
דב שוורץ, הציונות הדתית מאין ולאן
האור שמתוך שברי הלוחות עולם מתחדש ומתקדש: בעקבות משנתו של הרב שג”ר

ידיעות ספרים

תמיר גרנות, חולם ולוחם, פרקי יומן, סרן אמתי גרנות ז”ל
בנימין לאו, חכמים, ו
שלמה הכט, עתידין להתחדש: עולם ההלכה במבט על העתיד

מוסד רב קוק

בעל המאור, על מסכת ברכות
ר’ טוביה פרשל, מאמרי טוביה חלק ח [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
ר’ אברהם בן הגר”א, תרגום אברהם [על תרגום אונקלוס] ופירוש התפילה
ביאור הגר”א, עם פי’ בינה ודעת, או”ח, סי’ א-קכז, מהדיר: ר’ מנחם אדלר [מצוין] [ניתן לקבל תוכן ודפי דוגמא]
ר’ יהושע ענבל, המאבק על תורה שבעל פה, 588 עמודים [מעניין]
חידושי מאירי זבחים, [ליקט]
רבי תנחום הירושלמי, ספר הביאור, לנביאים ראשונים, מכתב יד
ספר תהלים עם פי’ רש”י עם מראה רחל, ע”י ר’ ישראל הרצג ור’ יוסף קמנצקי
שיטה מקובצת, כריתות
תהלים עם תוספות חיים, ליקוט על תהלים
ר’ חיים ברל, ר’ יצחק אייזיק מקאמרנא, הדפסה שנייה

Institute for Jewish Research and Publications

Milhemet Mitzvah: Volume 1-2: Halakhic Foundations, Religious Authority, and Military Service in Israel’s War of Independence, edited by Aviad Hacohen, Yitzchak Avi Roness, and Menachem Butler:
Avraham Grossman on the Cultural Dynamic of Medieval Jewish History and Thought, Edited by Menachem Butler and Jonathon Grossman
Mosaica Press
Rabbi Yehuda Halpert, Speaking to an Empty Shul
Rabbi Joel Padowitz & Rabbi Jonathan Sassen, The Science Behind the Mishnah
Rabbi Moshe Taub, Jews in the New World History Halachah and Hashkafah, 221 pp.
Michael Baxter, The Rhythms and Cycles of The Jewish Calendar, 419 pp.
Rabbi Friedman, Practical Lessons, Teachings, and Wisdom Inspired by Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz
Rabbi Yehoshua Kaganoff, Is Alternative Healing Kosher?
Yitzchok Aharon Pinkesz, Kosher Astrology
Rabbi Cohen, Nephilim:Giants and Fallen Angels

חז“ל, גאונים, ראשונים

חומש אונקלוס המבואר, במדבר, תקכד עמודים
תורה שלמה, כרך חדש, פרשת דברים, 64+שו עמודים, בעריכת נכדו, ר’ יעקב פרנקל
תורה שלמה, כרך חדש, פרשת דברים, כט +שיח +כח עמודים, בעריכת ר’ מיכאל פלג
תורה שלמה, כרך חדשה, פרשת ואתחנן, תשנט+ קנ עמודים, בעריכת ר’ מיכאל פלג
המקח והממכר, משפטי שבועות עם פי’ עמק השער לר’ מיכל יהודה ליפקוביץ [נדפס מחדש]
מקבים ב [מצוין] [מקבים א חזר למלאי] [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
עיטור השלם, מכתב יד, ב’ חלקים [ועומד להופיע עוד ב’ חלקים], מהדיר: ר’ יאיר חזן
האגודה, ג’ חלקים מהדורת ר’ דוד דבליצקי [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
ספר המנהגות לרבנו אשר מלוניל, על פי כתב יד
ר’ דוד צדוק, ביאור שמות קדש וחול המיוחס לרבינו הרמב”ם ז”ל, אגרת כוונת שמות הקדש, ריט עמודים
מורה נבוכים, ב’ חלקים [על פי כת”י], כולל פי’ האפודי, אברבנאל, שם טוב, קרשקש, הנרבוני, משכיות כסף, עמודי כסף
שיר השירים עם פי’ רבי מאיר עראמה
ר’ יוסף יעבץ, אור החיים עם מעין גנים לר’ צבי אלימלך שפירא, [מצוין] [על פי כת”י] כולל מבוא, והערות, תתק עמודים
ר’ חסדאי קרשקש, חסדי השם, מהדורת ר’ שלמה פישר, מהדורת צילום [חזר למלאי]
רלב”ג על התורה, 7 חלקים, מהדורה שנייה, וגם כרך מבוא, וכרך חדש של מפתחות, מכון מעליות
שו”ת ר’ אברהם בן הרמב”ם, מקיצי נרדמים, מהדורת צילום [נדפס לראשונה בשנת תרצ”ח], 231 עמודים
חזה התנופה, קיצור תשובות הראש, מכתב יד עם הערות, 38+רפג עמודים
ספרי זוטא, ב, שלח-קרח, עם פי’ באר אש מנחת אש, מהדיר: ר’ אהרן שליו, שמז עמודים
ליקוטי מדרשים, חלק שמיני, כריכה רכה

הלכה

ר’ מנחם די לונזאנו, אור תורה, על מסורת קריאת התורה וכתיבתה, עם הגהות מעצם כתב ידו, כולל תיקון סופרים בן משק, ומכתב מאליהו ועוד
שו”ת חזון נחום, רבנו אליעזר נחום, [מכתב יד] מכון שובי נפשי, [מצוין], 70+ תקצד עמודים [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
ר’ יחיאל מאיר, מעמקי ים, אורח חיים הלכה ודעת, תתרפט עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן ודפי דוגמא]
ר’ יונה ליברמן, בדיקת תולעים כהלכתה
ר’ מרדכי אהרן הלר, מניעה כהלכתה, דיני מניעת הריון, כולל נספח רפואי מקיף, קכה עמודים
ר’ ישראל מתתיהו אויערבאך, מקרא קדש, ליקוטי רימ”א, הלכות יום טוב וחול המועד, שמח עמודים
ר’ נחמיה וילהלם, דורון דרשה, אוצר ההלכה והדרוש לבר מצוה, רפט עמודים
וזאת ליהודה: פת לחם, ביאור ברכת המזון עם הערות שלחן שלמה לר’ רפאל רבין, קיז עמודים
חידושי מהר”י אבן צהל, וחידושים מר’ נתן קורוניל, [מכתב יד], תקיט+כו עמודים
ר’ יצחק יאקאב, הלכות ומנהגי נטילת ידיים המבואר, קסב עמודים
ר’ אפרים בוקוולד, קרית אריאל, בירורים בהלכות תחום שבת והמסתעף, שער אריאל, שיעורים על פרק מי שהוציאוהו, שלז,+סח עמודים [מהדורה שניה]
ר’ בנימין כהן, חלקת בנימין, הלכות מזוזה
ר’ מרדכי קוט, מים רבים, אכילה לפני התפילות וקיום המצוות [אוסף חשוב]
ר’ הדר יהודה מרגולין, הידורי המידות, [מהדורה שלישית עם הרבה תיקונים והוספות], תקעא + 30 עמודים
ר’ שאול וידר, ברא מזכה אבא השלם, חיוב הבנים והנהגותיהם לזכות הוריהם לאחר פטירתם, תקלד עמודים
ר’ יהודה שפיץ, פנינים משלחן יהודה, עניני או”ח וי”ד, קפז עמודים
ר’ יצחק דוד הלוי באמבערגער, אמירה לבית יעקב, על מצות הנשים, נדה חלקה והדלקת הנר, והלכות מליחה, עם חלק התשובות, 55+ שמט עמודים כולל הוספות הגהות ומדור ההערות, מכון אכסניא של תורה
ר’ מרדכי אבנסון, מגדל המאה, הלכות מאה ברכות, שעג עמודים
ר’ שלמה תווינא, כתבנו לחיים, חודש אלול והימים הנוראים, רפח עמודים
אהלי שם: שלחן המערכת, כללי וסדר שמות אנשים ונשים [חזר למלאי]
ר’ שלום מאסקוויטש, אב”ד שאץ, דעת שלום, ג’ חלקים על שו”ע ועוד
ר’ עקיבא מלר, הקריאה בתורה והלכותיה, 1310 עמודים
ר’ יוסף לרנר, שמירת הגוף והנפש, שני חלקים, מהדורה חדשה עם המון הוספות
ר’ יעקב בלויא, נתיבות השבת, [הוצאה ועירובין], ב’ חלקים
ר’ יוסף לורינץ, משנת פקוח נפש, האיר יוסף, ב’ חלקים, מהדורה תניינא, [שמירת הנפש, וחי בהם, לא תעמוד על דם רעיך, ועוד]
ר’ עמנואל מולקנדוב, תורת הקדמונים, ד, תרצא עמודים
ר’ משה קוטקס, שיעורי המצוות לליל הסדר, ושיעורים ארבעת המינים, שצה עמודים [מעניין]
זמני ההלכה למעשה, ב’ חלקים [מהדורה חדשה]
ר’ חיים פלאג’י קול החיים
מאסף לכל המחנות, ב’ חלקים
ר’ חיים ליב אויערבאך, [אבא של ר’ שלמה זלמן אויערבאך] חכם לב
שו”ת הרלב”ח והרד”ך ושו”ת קדמונים, בעניני סוגיות הכתב, תקעה עמודים
ר’ בצלאל זאב שפרן, משנת הרב”ז, הערות על שו”ע או”ח, תרלח עמודים
ספר פועה, חלק ה
נפש חיה השלם על ד’ חלקים שו”ע, ר’ ראובן מרגליות, מכתב יד, שפב עמודים, מכון עלה זית
ר’ שלמה גיסינגער, כתר שלמה, ב’ חלקים, פסקי הלכה וביאורים, גליוני משנה ברורה, ועוד, [מצוין] [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
משנת הגר, הל’ גרים
ר’ יצחק לאמפין, הזמנים בהבנה, מדבריך להבנת הגמרא והפוסקים בענייני עלות השחר, בין השמשות וצאת הכוכבים, עם תמונות, תקו+76 עמודים
ר’ דוד בריזל, משפט הנהנה, ב’ חלקים דיני הנהנה ממון אחרים ופעולותיהם, ביאורי הסוגיות-פסקי הלכות, משפט הרב קו, משפט זכויות היוצרים ועוד [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
כתבי הגרמ”א האברמן, חלק ב, תשובות ומכתבי תורה, דרשות והספדים מאת ר’ מרדכי האברמן [מכתב יד], בעריכת ר’ שמחה שכטר
סדר הדין בבית דין הרבני, ג’ חלקים, פרופ’ אליאב שוחטמן
ר’ אליהו ליפשיץ, תורת המשפט, כללי הכרעה בדיני ממונות, ג’ חלקים
עטרת זקנים, כתבי ר’ אברהם שמואל שפיטצער
זמן מוצאי שבת
ר’ ברוך רקובר, ברכת אליהו טו, חושן משפט
בן איש חי, עם ביאור מנחת משה
ספר הצומות, ב’ חלקים
עשרה זהובים, החוטף מצוה מחבירו, 640 עמודים
ר’ אהרן קושיצקי, טריפות העוף השכיחות בזמנינו, שכח עמודים
ר’ מיכאל פארשלעגער, קדושת מיכאל, שד עמודים
ר’ ישעיהו פייערשטיין, אסתכל באורייתא, דיני הסתכלות וראיה בענינים שונים בתורה, קפח עמודים
ר’ אהרן כהן, בגדי קודש, בירור מקום השוק ואורך הלבוש גדרי דת יהודית כהלכתה והמסתעף, שצג עמודים
ר’ זכריה הבר הי”ד, מנחה חדשה, אנציקלופדיה למדנית לתורה שבעל פה, חלק אורח חיים [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
ר’ עובדיה טולידאנו, משפט הירושה, ג’ חלקים
ר’ שלמה בניזרי, גרים גרורים, גירות [כנגד ספר ‘זרע ישראל’], 655 עמודים
ליקוטי הערות חתם סופר ה’ חלקים [חזר למלאי]
גט פשוט, למהר”ם חגיז, וגט מקושר לר’ יונה נבון, מכון אור הטוב
ר’ אריאל יצחק הלוי, קונטרס אור החמה, לוחות זמני היום, 368 עמודים
ר’ יוחנן גורארי’, חקרי מנהגים, במנהגי פיורדא ופרידברג
נמצאה התכלת, חוברת, מהדורה שישית
הארבה במסורת תימן
טלית מקופלת, חוברת
ר’ אריה כץ, שו”ת שאגת כהן, חלק ג
שדי חמד חנוכה [תשפ”ד] רטו+נו עמודים, כריכה רכה, כולל הערות
שדי חמד סוכות [תשפ”ה], שיא עמודים, כרכיה רכה, כולל הערות
שו”ת צפנת פענח, דוינסק, עם הערות ועוד, תתנ עמודים
תשובות הרב קאפח, כרך ח

תפילה

ר’ אברהם בן הגר”א, באר אברהם, על שמונה עשרה, על פי כ”י, רלט עמודים
אוצר התפילות, ב’ חלקים, מהדורה שנייה
ר’ אלחנן אדלר, עת לחננה, ביאורים לתפילת מוסף של שבת, שס עמודים [כולל ק’ טעם למוסף תקנת שבת לר’ יוסף הכהן, נדפס לראשונה בוינציאה שס”ד]
ר’ יוסף ווייסבארד, ביאורי תפילה, שיח יוסף, שמונה עשרה, אוסף מדברי ראשונים ואחרונים לברר וללבן פירוש המילים וכוונת התפילה, תתד עמודים
סדור רבינו הזקן, עם ציונים, מקורות, הערות ועיונים, ג’ חלקים [מצוין]
ר’ צבי הירש פרבר, שיח צבי, חלק ב תפילת שבת [כולל הוספות על פי כתב יד] [מצוין]
ר’ חיים אלעזר שפירא, בעל מנחת אלעזר, מאמר אדון כל על זמר ‘קל אדון’ לשבת קודש, נו עמודים
ר’ אברהם בורשטיין, מזמור לתודה, על פרק מזמור לתודה
ברכון שביט ישורון, מהדורה ביקורת, 119 עמודים
לדוד ברוך, ספר תהלים, כולל שימוש תהלים וחומר מכת”י
ר’ דוד פלק, תהלים עם ביאור בתורתו יהגה, תשפג עמודים

תנ“ך

חמשי חומשי תורה ועם ראשוני פרשני רש”י, מהדיר: ר’ משה פיליפ, מהדורה חדשה עם תיקונים
חומש תולדות אהרן, לר’ אהרן מפיסארו, בראשית-במדבר, ד’ חלקים + חוברת של דפוס צילום של מהדורה ראשונה משנת שמ”ג
חתם סופר על התורה ומועדים ודרשות מכתי”ק שנת תקצה, שכ עמודים, עם הערות מר’ משה שלאמיוק
רמ”ד וואלי, שופטים שמואל, מלכים, תניינא, מכתב יד, 874 עמודים
ר’ טוביה הלוי מצפת, חן טוב, ב’ חלקים, האוצר
דרשות וחידושי ר’ אליהו גוטמכר, דברים [מכתב יד]
מוסרי שערי חיים על התורה, ממרן הגר”ח שמואלביץ, ב’ חלקים [מצוין]
ר’ דב אליאך, הגר”א על התורה, ב’ חלקים [כולל כל החומר מתוך הסט של ה’ חלקים, גם הפנינים משלחן הגר”א (למעט על נ”ך וש”ס), ועוד הוספות חדשות]
ר’ צבי הירש, מרגליות התורה, מכון הגר”א, ג’ חלקים, [תלמיד הגר”א]
ר’ משה פיליפ, רמב”ן על פירוש רש”י, ביאור שיטת הרמב”ן בפרש”י על פי פרשני רש”י ורמב”ן בתוספת ביאורים חידושים והערות, 793 עמודים
ר’ חיים פאלאג’י ובחרת בחיים, על רש”י והרא”ם
ר’ משה אלקאים, תועפות ראם, על רש”י והרא”ם
ר’ בנימין שלמה שפיצר, תקון שלמה, דרשות, ועל התורה, ב’ חלקים
ר’ דוד מנחם רעגענשבערג, דברי מנחם על התורה
מתורתו של הצפנת פענח על התורה והמועדים, חלק ד, קמח עמודים, כריכה רכה
ר’ קלמן כהנא, עיונים בפירוש הרמב”ן לתורה, שסח עמודים
ר’ יצחק פוס, חמודי יצחק, שמות, האורת וביאורים על התורה, תתקכד עמודים [מצוין]
ר’ דוד בירדוגו, מי מנוחות, על התורה, ב’ חלקי
מנחת יהודה לרבי יהודה בן חנין, מלכים, מכתב יד, 319 עמודים
יצחק אורלן, ימי בראשית, קריאה חדשה ומקורית בפסוקי בראשית החושפת את ההתאמה בין הנאמר בתורה לממצאי המדע, 306 עמודים

ש“ס – רמב“ם

ר’ משה מפיזענץ, דרש משה על אגדות הש”ס, [נדפס לראשונה שנט], שפ+כד עמודים
ר’ שלמה קלוגר, חדושי אנשי שם, שמות אנשים ונשים, שני חלקים
ר’ יעקב ורשנר, סדר יעקב, על מסכת עבודה זרה, א-ב, מהדורה חדשה, 725+672 עמודים
יעקב מלבר, משה מלגאו, ר’ יעקב מולכו הגהות בספר משנה תורה לרמב”ם, מכ”י, מהדיר ר’ בצלאל נאור
ר’ דוד יואל וייס, מגדים חדשים, תענית [מצוין], תרכד עמודים
שיעורים של מהר”ם שיק על מסכת קידושין, מכ”י, מכון שם עולם
שיעורי בעל ה’מקדש דוד’, ג’ חלקים
ר’ שמואל הילמן, אור הישר, מסכת שבת, עם הגהות והערות בעריכת ר’ פינחס דונר, תסה עמודים
ר’ שרגא ניוברגר, לשונו הזהב, א-ב, ביאורים על לשונות הרמב”ם
שבת של מי, ב’ חלקים, על פי דפוס ראשון
אבן האזל, מהדורה חדשה
ר’ מסעוד חי רקח, מעשה רוקח, על ש”ס [מכתב יד], ברכות, שבת, פסחים ראש השנה ועוד
ר’ שלמה קלוגר, עבודת עבודה, על מסכת עבודה זרה מהדורה שנייה
ר’ אליהו לרנר, הדרת קודש, רמב”ם הלכות איסורי מזבח, שיד עמודים
ר’ שאול אלתר, נמלכין בסנהדרין, תקעז עמודים
סופרי המלך, מבית מדרשו של רבינו עקיבא איגר, ב, [הרבה חומר מכתב יד], תקי עמודים
ר’ חיים שטיין, ברכת חיים, חידושים, ומכתבים
צפנת פענח, גיליונות על מסכת שבת ועירובין
ארים נסי, הרב מאיר מאזוז על מסכת ברכות
צפנת פענח, גליונות על מסכת שבת עירובין, מכון המאור
ר’ אפרים בורודיאנסקי, בנין אפרים, כולל מכתבים ומאמרים [מצוין], תא עמודים

תולדות

לב נאמן: יומן הגאון הנאמ”ן, רבנו מאיר מאזוז זצ”ל, מסע חייו המרתק כפי שתיעד בכתב ידו, א, 437 עמודים [מצוין] [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
אוסף מילי דהספדא, שנשאו גדולי הדור אחר הסתלקותו של בעל מנחת אלעזר, רעח עמודים
עובדות והנהגות שמשמעו מפי מרן… הגר”מ שטרנבוך שליט”א, תקפו עמודים
מיכאל באחת, מהדורה שנייה עם הוספות, על ר’ מיכאל פארשלעגער [מצוין]
ר’ יוסף קורח, חיי שלום, פרקי זיכרונות מחיי הרב שלום קורח ותקופתו, 531 עמודים
הרב שלמה הופמן, המחונך המחנך, פרקי חיים ופרקי חינוך בצל רבו הגדול מרן הגאון רבי אייזיק שר זצ”ל, 548 עמודים
ספר זכרון אהל אברהם, לכבוד ר’ אברהם דוב אויערבאך זצ”ל [מלא חומר מעניין], תתשכג עמודים
הרב הדומה למלאך, תולדות רבי ברוך בער לייבאוויץ, מהדורה חדשה עם הוספות, 647 עמודים
איש אלקים קדוש, תולדות חייו, של ר’ נחום משאדיק, [נפטר תרכו] תקכ עמודים
גיבור כארי, תולדות ר’ יהודה אריה טרגר, ב’ חלקים
ר’ ישראל דנדרוביץ, היו דברים מעולם, חלק ב, הסודות הגנוזים של העולם התורני, 661 עמודים [מלא חומר מעניין]
ר’ גד יזדי, קצות דרכיו, על ר’ עובדיה יוסף זצ”ל, שיג עמודים [כולל חומר מתוך כת”י של ר’ עובדיה יוסף]
הרבנית רמה פינקל, האבא מסלבודקה, על ר’ חיים זאב פינקל, 664 עמודים [מעניין]
פרופ’ אהרן קירשנבאום, בין חדש וישן, חיים אמונה ומחקר באמריקה ובישראל [מהדורה שנייה], ]מצוין[
ראש צורים, תולדות חייו של הרב שמואל יצחק הילמן
ר’ דוד מנדלבוים, תולדות הגאון ר’ מנחם זעמבא הי”ד, 732 עמודים [מצוין]
ר’ מנחם מנדל פלאטו, מרן החזון איש, חלק ד
מסורת אליהו, הנהגות ועוד מר’ אליהו לופיאן, שנשמעו ע”י ר’ אליעזר דינר, קכח עמודים [יפה]
לב שלמה על ר’ שלמה פפנהיים
ר’ אביאל חיים חורי, ראשי ההרים, עובדות הנהגות סיפורים, זקני תלמידי חכמים מספרים מכלי ראשון על אבותיהם ורבותיהם, 550 עמודים
ר’ יהודה טאוב, נחלת יעקב, גדולי ישראל בונים את ארץ ישראל, 347 עמודים
ר’ מיכאל ביר, פני מלך, בעקבות שבעה ממאורי הדורות [רע”א, נצי”ב, ערוך השלחן, שפת אמת, ר’ חיים מבריסק, הראי”ה קוק, והתורה תמימה], 253 עמודים
ר’ חיים מינץ, זקניך יאמרו לך, פסקים עובדות והנהגות ממרן רבי משה פיינשטיין זצוק”ל ומעוד זקני גדולי הדור, רפו עמודים [מצוין] [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
ר’ מאיר צבי גרוזמן, הייתי תלמיד בישיבת חברון, זכרונות משנות תשי”ב-תשי”ח, [מצוין]

מחקר – שונות

בנימין קלוגר, פכים קטנים, ספרים סופרים וסיפורים: זכרונות ורישומים של ספרן וסופר הסוקר את עולם הספר, 534 עמודים
חיים צבי אלבוים, מסורת צמחי המשנה, 604 עמודים
גנזי יהודה, כרך שביעי, כתבי קודש משנות הק’ ר’ ש’ עד לערך שנת ת”ס, שנו עמודים [מלא וגדוש חומר מעניין]
זיקתו הפילוסופית של ר’ דוד קמחי (רד”ק) לרמב”ם ולאבן עזרא
פרופ’ יעקב שמואל שפיגל, שערי תפילה ומועד [מצוין] 662 עמודים
יצחק קליין, מבשר ישועה, כתבי האדמו”ר החלוץ הרב ישעיהו שפירא
ר’ מאיר ליכטנשטיין, מוסר אבי שיעורים בעקבי תורת אבי מורי הרב אהרן ליכטנשטיין
ר’ ירחמיאל בהר, פירוש לחיים, בבא מציעא, פרק אלו מציאות, עם עיונים וקונטרס תמונות, קכד עמודים [מאוד מעניין, פ’ על פי כ”י וראשונים]
ר’ חנוך טוביאס, סופה וסערה, חלק ה [מעניין]
ר’ אליהו מרגליות, דעת ללב, פיצוחו של עיון, על אינטואיציה, לוגיקה, ומתודולוגיה תלמודית והשקפת התורה, 325 עמודים [בעל ‘מבריסק עד קוסובה’]
ישראל שפירא, עזה מאז ולתמיד, תולדות יהדות עזה, [מהדורה שלישית], 168 עמודים
למען אחיי ורעיי, הרב מנחם הכהן, פרקי חיים [אוטוביוגרפיה], 360 עמודים
יוסף שטרית, הלכה ומאגיה, יסודות התרבות הדואלית של יהודי מרוקו והתמורות שחלו בה במאות הי”ט והכ’, שני חלקים
ר’ שמחה קאלימאני, תוכחת מגולה: מהדיר אלי שטרן
ר’ יהונתן דון, ערוך השלחן העבר, בראשית, שעח עמודים
ר’ רפאל רייכמן, חידושים והערות, ב’ חלקים
ר’ שמואל יפה, אגרות תורה, הערות חידושים ומכתבים על הרבה עניני יורה דעה, תקנג עמודים
ר’ מאיר מזוז, סלת נקיה, כללי העיבור לתלמידים, ועוד, מהדורה שניה, תקפא עמודים
זהר עמר, צמחי תימן
אברהם מיכאל קארדוזו דרוש בקר דאברהם, מהדורה מוערת, מכתב יד, נועם לפלר, מהי שבתאות?, ליאור הולצר, 256 עמודים
מנחם נאבת, חרדים על דברו, חרדיות בין מגזר לתנועה
ר’ ישראל אריאל, בית ה’ נלך, 729 עמודים [מאוד מעניין]
בנימין פורת, נקי כפיים ובר לבב: כשירות של מנהיגי ציבור המעורבים בפלילים בראי המסורת היהודית
ר’ אברהם וסרמן, היד השמאלית: הראי”ה קוק ותנועות הפועלים, 483 עמודים
שלום צדיק, קריאה לתחייתה של הפילוסופיה הדתית
כל ספרי ר’ עמנואל חי ריקי, יד חלקים
ר’ אבינדב אבוקרט, אחדים בידך: מסע בתורתו ועולמו של החיד”א
וידעתם כי אני ה’ – משיעורי הגרי”ש זילברמן זצ”ל, שיעורים באמונה ובטחון, קלא עמודים
ר’ אליעזר מלמד, פניני הלכה, אמונה ומצוותיה, ב’ חלקים
ר’ מאיר מאזוז זצ”ל, קובץ מאמרים חלק ג
חידושי מהר”ץ חיות, מכתב יד, ריג עמודים
ר’ יוסף חיים מסעוד, אוצרות אליהו הנביא, שישה ספרים
ר’ ישראל נאג’ארה, כלי מחזיק ברכה, 194 עמודים
אוצר ספרי קבלה, שמות ספרי הקודש שנכתבו בסודות התורה מחז”ל עד אחרונים, קמד עמודים
ר’ משה באראן, [סבא של ר’ אלישיב], מענה רך, תכא עמודים
ר’ אביעד נייגר, מצות ישוב ארץ ישראל, 202 עמודים
ר’ יצחק קלויזנר, אפסי ארץ, על גבולות הארץ, חוברת
כתבי הגרי”ש אלישיב, על מסכת אבות, ב’ חלקים
שירת ציון, שירת הלויים
ר’ יריב שמואלי, דורות האמוראים
ר’ אליהו ליפשיץ, תורת אמך – בין אדם לחברו: לשון הרע
פתוחי חותם, אוצרות חתם סופר, מהדורה שניה, בעריכת ר’ משה שלאמיוק, [מצוין], רנ עמודים
ר’ אליהו דושניצר, נחלת אליהו, דברי מוסר על סדר הפרשיות והמועדים, תצט עמודים
אוצר גנזי ש”י, אוסף כתבי יד גדולי ישראל, תשיט+קע עמודים
ר’ שמואל יעקב בורנשטיין, אורה ושמחה, חנוכה, תקצז עמודים
שער השירים, לסעודת שבת, ר’ משה שלמה מטאלאטשין, תלמיד הגר”א, קסט עמודים
מסכת אבות עם פירוש רבינו יונה וביאור יונת אלם לר’ אליהו מזריב, תרסז עמודים
ר’ יוסף מיכאל יוסקוביץ, למועד מועדים וחצי, סדר זמנים במקרא, שכד עמודים
תקוני הזהר, עם פירוש כסא מלך, ר’ שלום בוזאגלו, תתעח עמודים כולל שני קונטריסים, א’ דברי שלום ואמת {על הרמב”ם} וב’ מאירת עיניים, בנושא של הקמיעות של ר’ יהונתן אייבשיץ, [יח עמודים]
ר’ יהודה חיון, אוצרות אחרים הימים, ג-ה
ר’ יעקב חאגיז, אור מישור השלם, 39+ קלה עמודים
נחותי ימא, שיעורי ר’ משה שפירא על אגדות דרבה בר בר חנה, מהדיר: ר’ יחזקאל הרטמן, תקסד עמודים
ר’ דניאל וויינשטאק, הוראת לדעת, עניני אמונה ומלחמת היצר התלוי בו על פי דברי גדולי ישראל, תיט עמודים
מלחמה וגאולה, המלחמה הנוכחית וחבלי משיח על פי משנתו של מרן ר’ משה שטרנבוך שליט”א
יהודה שוחט ויוסף קלאר, מסכת יציאה, הסיפורים מאחורי תנעות היציאה מהחברה החרדית, 223 עמודים
עין לא ראתה, משנת הכוללים ופרנסת האברכים בימינו, תב עמודים
תיבת עץ נחלי עדן, מחקר מקיף ובלעדי לגילוי תיבת נח האבודה
ר’ דוד הנזיר, חוג הראיה, על אורות הקודש, ז
ר’ יעקב קאפל שווארץ, קונטרס שטרא דאירכסא, אודות פירוש רבי יוסף קרא המזויף על יהושע-מלכים, סה עמודים
ר’ בנימין טבדי, שבט נחלתו, בירורי הלכה בסוגיות הנוגעות לעם ולארץ [כולל השתתפות תלמידי חכמים במלחמות ישראל]
חזון איש, אמונה ובטחון, עם ביאור חזון נפרץ, רעב עמודים
חזון איש, אמונה ובטחון, עם ביאור נרחב מקורות אגרות ועיונים, מהדיר: ר’ שלמה קוסובר, רכא עמודים
אגרות מהרי”ץ, ר’ יוסף צבי דושינסקיא, תרפד עמודים
הלל ויס, ספר המעשים לשוחרי המקדש, [על נסיונות קידום המלכות המקדש והסנהדרין, תשכז-תשפד], 654 עמודים
ר’ יצחק אריאל, אבני אריאל, שלד עמודים
זמירות שבת, שלמי אריאל, מר’ יצחק אריאלי, קס עמודים
דרכי החינוך, מ’בעל בן מלך’, רנו עמודים

קבצים

רליגיה, גליון ח
המעין 250-253
אור ישראל
היכל הבעל שם טוב
קובץ בית אהרן וישראל [מלא חומר חשוב על ר’ אברהם בן הרמב”ם]
ישורון, מח [חומר מעניין]
שיננא א, 1023 עמודים [חומר מעניין] [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
תחומין, מד
מגילות, יז
ירושתנו, כרך יג, תשפה, תל עמודים
ישורון מט [מעניין]
שיננא ב, מאסף תורני, 1375 עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
האוצר, גליון המאה, כריכה קשה, תרסח עמודים

פורים

דרך ישרה, הנהגות ודקדוקי הלכה של ר’ שריה דבליצקי, [מצוין], שעה עמודים
ספר הליווי בגלות לר’ סעדיה גאון, אסתר, [מכתב יד] מהדורה שנייה
כתבי ר’ משה דוד ואלי, אסתר, מכון האוצר
ר’ חיים הכהן, בעל ה’טור ברקת’, עטרת זהב אסתר, ב’ חלקים, פשט ופרדס, מכון האוצר
אוצר מגילת אסתר, [ספר הביאור לר’ תנחום הירושלמי, חן טוב, אורה ושמחה, ועוד], מהדורה שנייה, מכון האוצר
קונטרס פורים המשולש ערב פסח שחל בשבת, ר’ יוסף חיים זוננפלד, עם ביאורים ומקורות
ר’ ראובן שווארץ, עמק המן טאשין, עיונים וביאורים בענין אכילת המן טאשין בפורים, [[תשפ”ד], שד עמודים

פסח

Rabbi Moshe Hubner, Legacy Hagadah, Fisher Family Edition, Insights from Gedolim whose Torah is Their Legacy, 32+261 pp.
הגדות חכמי צפת [חן טוב, צפנת פענח, סדר היום, מדרש שמואל (מכתב יד)], רלב עמודים
הגדה של פסח, משיב נפש, פי’ עץ יוסף וענף יוסף מכתב יד
ר’ חנוך טוביאס, הגדה של פסח, שואלין ודורשין [חומר מעניין],464 עמודים
הגדה של פסח, תפארת יוסף, אוסף של תורתו של ר’ יוסף ענגיל
ר’ אליהו מרגליות, הגדת ארץ ישראל, מסע ישראלי, על האמונה והפילוסופיה היהודית, על חרות וגאולה, 258 עמודים [בעל ‘מבריסק עד קוסבה’].

A Little-Known Rabbi Doctor and his Exceedingly Rare Medical Diploma Leon Cantarini- AKA Yehuda HaKohen Katz Me-HaHazzanim (University of Padua, 1623)

A Little-Known Rabbi Doctor and his Exceedingly Rare Medical Diploma
Leon Cantarini- AKA Yehuda HaKohen Katz Me-HaHazzanim (University of Padua, 1623)

Rabbi Edward Reichman, MD

Professor of Emergency Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine
Isaac and Bella Tendler Chair of Jewish Medical Ethics, Yeshiva University

“He obtained a degree in medicine and philosophy on 31 October 1623, as can be seen from his original diploma which has been perfectly preserved despite the destructive effects of time.” (translated from the Italian)

Marco Osimo 1875

Original Books and manuscripts of past centuries known to historians throughout the ages have sometimes been lost forever to the ravages of time or war. Every so often, these works disappear from the public eye and are preserved in an intentional or accidental state of hibernation, only to reappear centuries later.

In late 2024, Manfred Niekisch, a German biologist, nature conservationist, and former director of the Frankfurt Zoo, died at the age of 73. He left a vast archive covering a wide range of topics, including taxonomy, ecology, behavior and reproduction of reptiles, amphibians and birds, not a place one would expect to find any items of Jewish interest, let alone of importance.

In April 2025 I was contacted to assess the historical significance of a single item from Niekisch’s massive collection. A thematic outlier, it is a small leatherbound volume, the contents of which comprise a seventeenth century medical diploma, and for a Jewish student, nonetheless. I was enlisted to address whether this item has any unique value or contribution to Jewish or medical history. This article constitutes the substance of my response. We will attempt to breathe a little life into this comatose medical document, resuscitate some long-forgotten and little-known archives, and perform at least a preliminary examination of the life of a remarkable, if little-known, Jewish medical graduate of the Early Modern period.

The Graduate- Leon Cantarini

The name of our graduate is Leon Cantarini. Leon, the son of Shmuel Cantarini, was one of eight children and a member of a prominent dynastic family in Early Modern Italy. Leon was also known as Yehuda HaKohen Katz Me’ha-Hazzanim. The synonymous Italian and Hebrew family name purportedly derives from family members having led the synagogue services as the hazzan, or cantor. Standard literature searches, including main search engines, library databases (such as the National Library Israel), or archival records (such as Internet Archives and Haithi Trust) yield next to nothing about our graduate. The few brief biobibliographical entries for him are scant, inconsistent, and often error filled.

Much of what we know about Leon is found in a comprehensive nineteenth century Italian biography of the Cantarini family by Marco Osimo, himself a medical graduate of Padua centuries later in 1851. This work was seemingly inaccessible or unknown to many of Leon’s biographers. In this essay we draw on the work of Osimo, correct some earlier biographies (including Osimo), and add much important previously unknown archival material to flesh out the existing skeletal biography of Leon Cantarini.

Dates of Birth and Death

Confusion abounds regarding the dates of both Leon’s birth and death. We begin with his date of death, as Leon’s birth date is inferred therefrom. The Jewish Encyclopedia entry for “Cantarini, Judah (Leon) ben Samuel Ha-Kohen,” authored by Louis Ginzberg and Israel Berlin, reads, “Italian physician and rabbi; born about 1650 at Padua; died there April 28, 1694.”[1] While the description is clearly of our graduate, the dates are grossly in error. Perhaps they confused Leon’s date of death with his date of birth. These dates were unfortunately perpetuated by others.[2] Osimo, the definitive biographer of the Cantarini family, places Leon’s date of death in July of 1651 based on a decree from July 20, 1651, announcing the election of Leon’s pupil to a community position, replacing his mentor upon the latter’s death. While this proves that Leon had already died by this date, it does not pinpoint his date of death.

There is a single unexpected, unimpeachable source that states the exact Hebrew date of Leon’s death. Leon’s relative, Isaac Hayyim Cantarini, also a rabbi and graduate of Padua’s medical school, engaged in a correspondence with the Christian theologian Christian Theophil Unger from 1717 to 1719. The exchange was first published by Shadal in his Otzar Nehmad in 1860.[3] While scholars have studied these letters for obvious reasons, they also contain a wealth of biographical information about the Jewish Italian scholars of this period. In a list of the dates of death of a number of prominent members of the Italian Jewish community, we find the following

The date of Leon’s death is listed as 26 Nisan 5410, corresponding to April 27, 1650. He is buried in the ancient (Via Wiel) cemetery of Padua,[4] though his tombstone does not remain.

There is one non-Jewish source, published in 1728, which correctly lists the exact date of Leon’s death.[5]

This is because the Christian author was familiar with the letter exchange of Cantarini and Unger, unlike his Jewish counterparts who only learned of it through the journal of Shadal published over a century later.

There is no independent source confirming the day or year of Leon’s birth. What is known with certainty is that he died at the age of fifty-six, a fact recorded in multiple sources, including a memorial book for the Jewish community of Padua.[6] Since Osimo dated Leon’s death in 1651, he placed his date of birth fifty-six years earlier, “around 1595.” The year 1595 is widely quoted as Leon’s birth year, based on Osimo. Since we now know the exact date of Leon’s death as being in 1650, we would revise his date of birth to “around 1594.”

Leon’s Father’s Name

The name of Leon’s father was Shmuel. Yet, he is also referred to as Simon, including on Leon’s medical diploma (see below). Simon (or Simeon) today is the English name for Shimon. What is the origin of this alternate name. The answer is surprisingly found in the aforementioned letter exchange between Isaac Cantarini and Christian Theophil Unger.

Among the numerous questions posed by Unger to Cantarini is why, for example, Rabbi Menahem Porto is called by the first name Emanuel instead of his Hebrew first name.[7] Cantarini answers that while all Italian Jews have a given Hebrew name, many have an additional secular or vernacular “translation” or substitute for their Hebrew name. He provides two examples. One is the name Mandolin for Menahem. The other is the name of one of his own children: “In my home I have a young child whom I named Shmuel, but in la’az (vernacular) he is called Simon, which is (synonymous with the Hebrew) Shimon.” This analysis of Isaac Cantarini’s child’s name provides direct insight into the double name of Leon’s father, after whom this child was likely named. It appears that while today our English correlate for Shmuel is Samuel, and for Shimon is Simon, at that time Simon was the accepted latinized form for Shmuel.

Leon’s Relationship to Isaac Hayyim Cantarini

The historical record of Leon Cantarini is dwarfed by his more famous relative, Isaac Hayyim Cantarini,[8] whose writings contribute to Leon’s biography as well. Isaac, a physician, rabbi, poet and orator, is one of the towering figures of Early Modern Jewish history. How were Leon and Isaac related? Nepi and Ghirondi identify Isaac as Leon’s “nekhed.”[9] While this typically means grandchild, perhaps they were using the term to mean descendant. Leon was in fact Isaac’s uncle, the brother of Isaac’s father, Ventura Yaakov Yitzchak. Isaac, born in 1644, would have been only six years old at the time of Leon’s death, precluding any substantive personal relationship. Nepi and Ghirondi state that they viewed a eulogy written by Isaac for his uncle Leon.[10] It is unclear to me when this eulogy would have been written, given Isaac’s age at the time of Leon’s death, though perhaps he wrote some form of eulogy when he was older to commemorate his uncle’s yartzheit (anniversary of his death). Isaac clearly had great reverence for his uncle Leon, always referring to him in a highly praiseworthy fashion. In his historical work, Pahad Yitshak, Isaac refers to Leon twice describing him as expert in both Torah and medicine.[11]

Leon Cantarini the Rabbi

Leon obtained his rabbinic ordination in 1618, at the age of twenty-four.[12] Rabbi Judah Saltara, who would later serve as a witness for his medical graduation (see below), was one of the granting rabbis. In the Padua community archives (pinkassim) for the years 1603-1630, his name appears on two occasions (October 28, 1621, and October 31, 1625) in his rabbinic capacity serving as judge for routine community matters.[13] Leon founded a yeshivah in the Ashkenazi synagogue, where he taught Talmud. He also officiated as preacher and delivered sermons and eulogies in both Padua and Venice.

I am aware of only one published responsum from Leon,[14] which he penned to Yaakov ben Yisrael Levi dealing with a dispute between three sons regarding the disposition of their father’s estate after their father had left very explicit and equitable instructions. Leon was clearly well versed in rabbinic literature, citing multiple references to support his position, and dealt among other issues with the propriety of bypassing the biblical requirement to grant a double portion to the firstborn.

Osimo was in possession of numerous rabbinic related manuscripts of Leon in varying stages of completion, the whereabouts of which are unknown to me. These manuscripts include sermons, biblical commentaries, philosophical and theological treatises. As Osimo was not versed in rabbinic literature, he forwarded Leon’s Jewish related manuscripts to a Rabbi Benedetto Levi of the Rabbinical Institute of Padua for evaluation of their content.[15] The text of Rabbi Levi’s response is provided where he comments on Cantarini’s familiarity and facility with rabbinic literature and philosophy and the areas where his work may or may not have exhibited originality. Osimo bases his laudatory comments in his work on Levi’s analysis.

Leon Cantarini the Physician

Leon’s medical degree was from the University of Padua. This university, over 800 years old, plays a prominent role in Jewish medical history.[16] As the first, and for some time only, medical school in Europe to officially admit Jewish students, it was the hub of Jewish medical training from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries, during which some 400 Jewish students attended.

Leon graduated from Padua on October 31, 1623. We would be remiss if we did not mention that Leon wasn’t the only Cantarini to walk down the aisle of the Aula Augustiori (Grand Hall) that day to receive his medical diploma. Caliman, his younger brother by two years, graduated right alongside him. These two Cantarini brothers would be the first of a total of eleven members of the Cantarini family who would graduate from Padua over a span of some one hundred and twenty years. There is even an entry in the Padua University Archives which includes both brothers, Clemente (Latinized form of Caliman/Kalman/Kalonymus) and Leo, together.

Leon maintained a large practice among both the Christian and Jewish population of Padua. He is also recognized for his exemplary treatment of the poor, visiting them up to three or four times a day without receiving compensation.

Osimo was in possession of multiple medical manuscripts of Leon, the whereabouts of which today are unknown to me. The medical material he notes as summaries or comments on the works of Hippocrates, Galen and Avicenna, the latter explicitly mentioned in Leon’s diploma, as discussed below, and copies of his medical school lectures.

An entry in the archives of the Venetian Senate mentioning Leon reflects on the challenges and discrimination facing Jews and Jewish physicians at that time. Jews in Italy were obligated to wear distinctive clothing to identify them as members of the Jewish faith.[17] This included a specific color hat, sometimes red, sometimes yellow. This would preclude Leon, or any other Jewish physician, from wearing the black hat (biretta or cappello) which was granted them upon graduation from medical school and associated with the medical profession.[18] On May 15, 1643, Leon requested permission from the Venetian Senate to be exempted from the prohibition against wearing the black cappello on the basis of his medical degree. While Leon’s request was granted, and he was permitted to wear the black cappello both during the day and at night without any hindrance,[19] the Venetian Senate was generally conflicted about whether Jewish physicians should qualify for this exemption.[20] Other Jewish medical graduates of Padua often petitioned for similar exemptions.[21]

Leon Cantarini’s Marriage

On March 10, 1628 Leon married Mindele, daughter of Yosef Kohen Rofeh De Datolis (Tamari). They had three children.[22]

Impact of the Padua Plague of 1631 on Yehudah and the Cantarini Family

Any biographical discussion of Leon would be woefully inadequate, both literally and figuratively, without discussion of the impact on his life of the 1631 Plague in Padua. Indeed, this is exactly how Nepi and Ghirondi introduce his brief biography:[23]

The plague’s toll on the Jewish community of Padua was profound with around a fifty percent fatality. The plague was assiduously chronicled by Abraham Catalano, a physician and one of the administrators of the plague for the Jewish community, in his Olam Hafukh. One of the many remarkable aspects of this unique plague chronicle is Catalano’s scrupulous documentation for posterity of the names of all those involved, including each one of the victims. Catalano includes a passage about the Cantarini family where he singles out our graduate:

After recording the death of Leon’s brothers in the plague, Catalano writes, “May my mouth speak the praise of God[24] that their brother the physician, prominent leader (aluf), Rabbi Yehuda Katz was not present in Padua during the plague, having married a woman from Venice and settling there. He provided aid and assistance (during the plague).”

Though the impact of Leon’s family losses during the 1631 plague is inestimable, there is likely one loss that affected him differently than others. Leon’s brother Caliman was also a physician, having graduated together with him on the very same day. Caliman was living in Padua during the plague and served as a physician for the Jewish community. Acutely aware of the raging and highly fatal epidemic in Padua, and concerned for the welfare of his dear physician brother on the medical battlefield, on July 18, 1631, Leon penned a letter to Caliman, advising him of some effective remedies recommended to overcome the dreaded disease, as well as appropriate precautions to prevent the contracting or spread of the infection.[25] Leon specifically recommended the use of emeralds, which since the Black Death had been considered a cure for plague. Leon emphatically warned his brother to exercise extreme caution and diligence in order to preserve his health. It would be only twelve days after the writing of Leon’s letter, on July 30, that Caliman succumbed to the plague at the age of 38. Below is a record of Caliman’s death in the Libro De Morti, the Padua City Death Registry.

His death is recorded in the city death registry alongside his profession, which was unusual for these records. He is also identified as “ebreo.

In order to fully assess the nature of the impact of the plague on the entire Cantarini dynasty, one would need to carefully read every line of Olam Hafukh and to note every time a member of the Cantarini family is mentioned. It turns out that this work has already been done already, by none other than Isaac Hayyim Cantarini. Isaac painstakingly transcribed the entire manuscript of Olam Hafukh by hand. While this manuscript, housed at Columbia University, is well known to Jewish scholars and historians, there is one “key” factor which has gone overlooked. For every mention of a Cantarini family member in the work, Isaac added a notation shaped like a key, akin to an asterisk, referring the reader to the margin, where he noted how the individual was related to him. Below are some examples:

Shmuel Katz MeHazanim, Isaac’s maternal grandfather, died from the plague 8 Tammuz

Menahem Katz MeHazanim, Isaac’s paternal great uncle died on 22 Tammuz

During the plague Leon lost his father, three brothers and many additional extended family members.

Leon Cantarini and the Venice Plague of 1630

While Leon’s absence from Padua during the 1631 plague is recorded for posterity by Catalano, it is not as if he completed evaded the impact of the Bubonic plague. The impact on his life of the Venetian Plague, which preceded that of Padua by just one year, has gone unnoticed. It is unappreciated that the very same bubonic plague, on its way to Padua, devastated Venice in 1630,[26] where Leon was living at the time.

We know from other sources that a young Jewish physician by the name of Isaac Gedalia served as the physician for the Jewish community of Venice during the plague. This is the same physician who wrote a poem in honor of Leon’s graduation, and Leon would certainly have been in contact with him. Tragically, Gedalia met the same fate as Leon’s brother Caliman, and succumbed to the plague. Gedalia died in 1630 at the age of 32 and is buried in the Lido Cemetery of Venice. His epitaph, composed by Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh Modena, reflects his service as a physician to the Jewish community during that time.[27] Below is the epitaph in the autograph of Modena,[28] followed by the transcription of Berliner.[29]

We have not known, however, what medical role if any Leon played in the Venice plague of 1630. Was he simply a bystander, or perhaps worked side by side with Gedalia, his fellow Padua alumnus. Leon’s diploma, discussed below, sheds new light on this question.

Leon Cantarini’s Graduation Diploma

Leon Cantarini’s magnificently bound and meticulously calligraphed medical diploma was ceremoniously placed into his hands on October 31, 1623 accompanied by the traditional pomp and circumstance of the University of Padua graduation. He put it to good use during his lifetime. Over three hundred years later, we find Leon’s diploma in the possession of Marco Osimo, a Padua-trained physician. In his definitive history of the Cantarini family he writes regarding Leon: “He obtained a degree in medicine and philosophy … and his original diploma … has been perfectly preserved despite the destructive effects of time.” The renowned Hungarian Jewish historian David Kaufmann recalled that he had viewed Leon’s diploma at Osimo’s home.[30] The Cantarini biography was published in 1875 and Osimo died in 1881. As the family biographer, Osimo likely procured the diploma from members of the Cantarini family. While details of the journey from Osimo’s home to that of Professor Manfred Niekisch, whose collection contained Leon’s diploma, are unknown, it appears that no one, not Osimo nor Kaufmann, has previously carefully examined Leon’s diploma.

One of the archival items that reflects the unique historical chapter of Jewish medical training at the University of Padua is the medical diploma.[31] Prior to reviewing Leon Cantarini’s diploma, I had identified, in libraries, museums and private collections, eighteen extant diplomas of Jewish medical graduates of the University of Padua, the earliest of which was 1647.[32] One of these is the diploma of Gershon Cantarini (1703),[33] Leon’s grandnephew. Below we review the features found in our “new” graduate’s diploma, as compared to those of his fellow Padua alumni.

Form

Leon’s diploma is a bound quarto booklet with a red Italian tooled leather binding consistent with the typical Padua diploma of this period.

In its original form, a pair of wax seals would have been attached to the binding, as pictured in the diploma of Emanuel di Jacob (Del) Medigo de Dattolis (Menachem Kohen Rofeh Tamari)[34] from 1686,[35] a member of Leon’s wife’s family.[36]

The text is written in period calligraphy appointed with periodic gold leaf lettering. The text of the diploma, written with generous font size and spacing, as well as wide margins, occupies ten double sided pages. This is unusual, as the typical diploma text usually fills four to six sides.

Content

The diplomas of Jewish medical graduates of Padua contain some deviations from the standard issue. As the standard Padua diploma contained a number of Christian references, the university accommodated the Jewish students by allowing certain alterations or emendations:

The invocation was changed from “In Christi Nomine Amen” to “In Dei Aeterni Nomine Amen.” Leon’s diploma conforms to this pattern:

The convention for writing the year of the graduation invariably contained a Christian reference, such as anno Domino, anno Christiano, or anno a Christi Nativitate. In many Jewish diplomas this reference is omitted. Here we do not see an alteration of the date and it retains the Christian reference, Anno Christiano.

The graduation for the Christian student was held in the Episcopal palace, a religious venue. This is mentioned in the text of the diploma. The graduation for the Jewish student was convened in a non-ecclesiastical location, a fact reflected in the diploma text. Leon’s graduation was held in the “Aula Augustiori” (grand hall) of the university, the largest hall in the university at the time and not designated for religious use.[37]

Many diplomas contained ornate illustrations and images, typically of a Christian nature. If the Jewish student diploma were illustrated, it would be with flora and fauna and devoid of any Christian imagery. This diploma has no added illustrations.

The identifier “ebreo” or “hebreus” was added for Jewish students. This was a convention followed consistently in Padua, and less so in other European universities. This was not specifically requested by the student, nor was its presence a reflection of antisemitism.

Witnesses were required to attest to the graduation. Jewish graduates often enlisted Jewish witnesses. Leon’s three witnesses were Jewish.

The above changes are not found uniformly or consistently in every Jewish student diploma, and Leon’s diploma contains all but one of them.

General Diploma Observations

Chronological Precedence

This is the earliest extant diploma for a Jewish medical graduate of the University of Padua of which I am aware. Previously the earliest extant diploma of this type was from 1647.[38]

During the early centuries of the University of Padua Medical School, doctoral degrees were granted exclusively by the Sacred College of Philosophers and Physicians in a Catholic religious ceremony. Non-Catholics who received training at the university could obtain medical degrees through a different pathway outside of the university walls, granted by specific individuals known as Counts Palatine, who received their authority from the Holy Roman Emperor. These ceremonies were held privately before a notary and witnesses.[39] It was only in 1615 that the Collegio Veneto was established to serve the purpose of granting formal degrees to non-Catholic students and essentially replaced the Counts Palatine. Leon was the fifteenth Jewish graduate after the procedure changed.[40]

Faculty Support for Graduation

In order to graduate, a student required the support of a number of faculty to promote his candidacy. Names of the faculty members promoting the graduate are listed in the diploma. One such faculty member identified in the diploma maintained a unique relationship with Leon and the Jewish community regarding an important aspect of the educational experience of the Jewish medical students.

Caesar Cremonin was a Professor of Philosophy in Padua, as philosophy at this stage of history was an integral part of medical training. In fact, the medical diploma for each graduate, including Leon, certified a degree in “Philosophia et Medicina.”

We know from historical records of the Padua Jewish community that Professor Cremonin served as a university representative to the Jewish community on a matter of utmost significance. Since the expansion of the anatomy curriculum during the tenure of Vesalius in the mid sixteenth century, and the subsequent construction during the time of Fallopius of the first historical dedicated anatomical theater, the demand for cadavers for teaching at the university exponentially increased. The university turned to the student body, including the Jewish students, to provide cadavers from their respective communities. As this request ran counter to Jewish law, which prohibited the desecration of the corpse after death, the Jewish community negotiated a compromise arrangement whereby a fee would be paid to the university in exchange for an exemption to provide cadavers.[41] The following entry appears in the Padua Jewish Community Archives from April 19, 1624.[42]

In that the spirit of God has enlightened the esteemed philosopher Senior Caesar Cremonin to declare freedom (from dissection) for our deceased, through the continued annual designated payment to the College of Arts, generation after generation. As a result, they are obligated to allow us to properly bury our dead during the season of dissection. Any violators will be fined, and they have coordinated with us to obtain from the government permission for a required fine for all who violate this agreement in a way amenable and sufficient for our needs.

The continuation of the archival entry mentions the Jewish community member delegated to negotiate with Cremonin. It is none other than our graduate.

The aforementioned Master Caesar and Yehudah Katz have already spoken on this matter and have begun discussion regarding the amount the Jewish community is willing to pay for this privilege.

The archival entry is dated just a few months after Leon’s (Yehudah’s) graduation, and he was an ideal representative for the community given his preexisting relationship with Cremonin, one of his medical school professors and graduation promoters.

Curriculum

The diploma contains a list of the student’s professors and course subject matter. For example, Leon was taught the works of Avicenna by Professor Francisco Bonardo.

Avicenna (980–1037), known in Hebrew sources as Ibn Sina, was a Persian physician of great renown. His main work, The Canon, was considered the authoritative work on medicine for many centuries and is quoted extensively by rabbinic sources. The only extant Hebrew medical incunabula is a copy of Avicenna’s Canon (Naples, 1491). Many Hebrew manuscripts of Avicenna were found in the Cairo Geniza.[42]

The Identity of the Witnesses

Two of Leon’s witness were prominent local rabbis and are known to us from other sources.

Rabbi Jacob Alpron (also known as Helipron or Heilbronn)[44]

Alpron was a Talmudic scholar, author, and translator, most known for his popular work, Mitzvot Nashim,[45] a Hebrew translation of an Italian work on the three mitzvot specific to women, the laws of niddah, hallah, and lighting of Sabbath candles, which, if not observed, “are the three transgressions for which woman die in childbirth” (Shabbat 31b).

Rabbi Leon (Yehudah) Saltaro da Fano (1505-1629)[46]

Saltaro was one of the rabbis who granted Leon his rabbinic ordination five years earlier.[47] It must have been meaningful for him to serve as a witness for his student’s medical graduation.

Saltaro authored a work, Sefer Sha’arei Gan Eden, attempting to identify the location of the Garden of Eden.[48] In his Mikveh Israel on the laws of the ritual bath, inter alia, Saltaro provides insight into the Jewish education of students attending the medical school in Padua. He mentions Avtalyon miModena, the uncle of Yehuda Aryeh da Modena, who in addition to his medical studies at the University of Padua, learned Torah in the Yeshiva of Rabbi Meir Katzenelenbogen (Maharam Padua).[49]

In fact, the Jewish Ghetto of Padua was and remains mere steps from the University of Padua campus, and other students over the centuries pursued Torah study with the prominent rabbis of Padua while enrolled in the city’s famous medical school.

Addenda to the Diploma- New Evidence of Leon’s Medical Involvement in the Venice 1630 Plague

It is not uncommon to find handwritten records appended to Padua diplomas documenting subsequent academic or clinical experiences. Occasionally, a student would present his diploma as part of his application for a medical position and the institution would inscribe acceptance or approval on the diploma itself. We find such an entry in Leon’s diploma that sheds some light on his clinical role in the Venice plague. On the inside of the back cover appears the following entry dated August 1630:

The diploma was presented to the Officio di Sanità in Venice (Provveditori e sopraprovveditori alla sanità) and “admesso” (accepted). This was required in order for Leon to practice in Venice. Until now, we have had no evidence of Leon himself practicing medicine during the plague. These few lines reveal that Leon was indeed providing medical service during the Venice 1630 plague, and like his fellow Padua graduates, including Gedalia and his own brother Caliman, put his life at risk in the process. While the latter two succumbed to the plague, Leon was fortunate to survive and to live for another twenty years practicing medicine and teaching Torah.

Congratulatory Poems for Leon’s Graduation

In seventeenth century Italy it was common for Jews to compose celebratory or commemorative poems for a variety of occasions, such as weddings or funerals. One such occasion that precipitated a poetic response was the graduation of Jewish students from the medical school of the University of Padua. I have identified over one hundred such poems written in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, most of which are extant. Rabbi Yehudah Arye Modena compiled an entire book of collected poems in honor of Joseph Hamitz, a fellow graduate of Leon from Padua in 1623.[50]

Sometimes the poems were composed by fellow students or alumni. Isaac Gedalia, a Padua medical graduate of 1622,[51] composed two poems for our graduate, one in Spanish and one in Latin.[52] There is also a record in the Padua city medical archives from April of 1625 of Gedalia treating a number of Jewish patients,[53] one of whom was Jacob Alpron, a witness for Leon’s medical graduation.

April 20 1625
Giacob Alpron Rabi Hebreo di anni 85 in circa ammalato giorni 15 di mal di muchi visitato dall’Ecc.mo Gadilia Hebreo nel ghetto.

Giacob Alpron Rabi Hebreo aged about 85. He was ill for about 15 days with a sore throat [?]. His Excellency Gadilia Hebreo examined him in the Ghetto.[54]

A Diploma for a Rabbi Doctor

Leon was a rabbi by the time he graduated medical school and he is identified as such in his diploma. Just how rare is it find a medical diploma for a rabbi doctor? Throughout history there have numerous attempts to create institutions or formal curricula combining the study of both Torah and Medicine.[55] These initiatives, well intentioned as they may have been, were of only limited duration and success. It was thus left to the individual physician to navigate his Torah study independently, something most physicians did informally. Some however sought more formal training. The Haver degree, a lower and less rigorous form of rabbinic ordination, was one such option. Unlike rabbinic ordination, with its expansive requirements to master specific areas of practical Jewish law, there was no uniform curriculum for the Haver degree.[56] Each location designed its own program. The student would be required to spend a period dedicated to Torah study and display basic competency, as well as character traits consistent with Torah values. Those deemed worthy would receive the title Haver within a few short years or less, typically bestowed by local rabbinic authorities.[57] A number of Padua alumni chose the Haver option,[58] including Leon’s fellow graduate, David Morpurg.[59] We have record of one Padua graduate receiving his Haver degree on the very same day as his medical graduation.[60]

A select few physicians throughout Jewish history chose the more advanced and labor-intensive course of study to obtain rabbinic ordination. These physician-rabbis have garnered the attention of scholars such as Holub,61] Sergei,[62] Epstein,[63] Margalit,[64] Salah,[65] and Steinberg.[66] Of this elite group, a large number received their medical training through apprenticeship, especially prior to the sixteenth century, when, with few exceptions, Jews were barred from university training. There is thus no official diploma to be found for these rabbi doctors.

As the University of Padua was the first European university to officially admit Jewish students and remained a major center of Jewish medical training into the late eighteenth century, many of our rabbi doctors in this period are counted among its alumni.[67] Leon, though less known and not mentioned by the aforementioned scholars, was one of these university-trained rabbi doctors.

Even among this relatively small group of rabbi doctors from Padua, most obtained their rabbinic ordination after completion of their medical training. The average age of the Jewish medical students upon entry to medical school was late teens to early twenties. This would have been too young to obtain rabbinic ordination, which was not typically granted to students of this age.

In 1651, the community of Padua, set specific age requirements for both the Haver and Rabbinic degrees.[68] For unmarried men, the age requirement for Havrut was twenty-five and above, while for married men it was age twenty and above. Rabbinic ordination was restricted to those thirty and above irrespective of marital status, though I am unsure if these age limits were either in force or enforced prior to this date. It is thus rare to find a Padua medical graduate who was already a rabbi at the time of his graduation.

Leon Cantarini is one such example. Born in 1594, Leon obtained his rabbinic ordination in 1618,[69] around the age of twenty-four, and had already been an ordained rabbi for five years by the time he graduated medical school at the (atypical) age of twenty-nine. In his diploma, he is identified as “Rabbi” Leon Cantarini throughout the entire twenty-page text of the diploma.

Of note, in the university records of his graduation, maintained to this day in the archives, he is not identified as a rabbi.

Leo Cantarinius hebreus[70]

Leon’s own brother Caliman, two years his junior, also obtained rabbinic ordination, though we do not know when.[71]

While it was indeed rare for a medical graduate of Padua to have already been a rabbi, another example happens to be one of Leon’s fellow Class of 1623 graduates, Moises Uziel.⁷² We do not possess Uziel’s diploma, but in his archival record, unlike Leon, he is identified as a rabbi.

Rabi Moises Uziel hebreus

Leon’s however is the only extant Padua medical diploma for a rabbi, and I have not seen any other medical diplomas elsewhere where the graduate was identified as a rabbi.

Conclusion

In sum, I hope our resuscitative efforts have been successfully for both Leon Cantarini and his diploma. Leon’s diploma is the earliest known extant diploma of a Jewish medical graduate of the University of Padua, and I believe it is the only extant diploma (of any kind) granted to a rabbi who is identified as such in the text. Furthermore, it possesses nearly all the alterations, accommodations and features that can be found in the diplomas of the Jewish medical graduates of the University of Padua. Moreover, an addition later appended to the document fills an important historical lacuna in Leon’s biography and established his role in the Venice plague of 1630.

While Leon Cantarini’s diploma may be one of the least artistically adorned of the Jewish Padua graduates, it may also be one of the most historically noteworthy. A rare unicum of no mean significance, this diploma sheds light on one of the greatest chapters in Jewish medical history and its resurfacing has afforded us the opportunity to explore the life of a prominent Early Modern rabbi physician. I look forward to the reawakening of other diplomas and archives from their state of hibernation.

[1] This is all the more perplexing as in the bibliography to the entry they cite the letter exchange published by Shadal mentioned below, wherein we find the exact date of Leon’s death.
[2] Salah, who has only one line on Leon, follows Ginzberg and Berlin and includes the date of 1694, associating it with Leon’s medical education, which would thus have had to have been postmortem. See Asher Salah, La Republique des Lettres: Rabbins, Ecrivains et Medecins, Juifs en Italie au XVIIIe Siecle (Brill: Leiden, 2007), 120. Friedenwald also followed the JE Jews and Medicine (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1944), 606.
[3] Otzar Nehmad 3 (1860), 145.
[4] Meir Benayahu, Kabbalistic Writings of Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto (Hebrew) (Jerusalem, 5739), 303.
[5] Christoph Wolfii Bibliothecae Hebrae 3 (Hamburg, 1728). Shadal even mentions in his introduction to the Cantarini-Ungar letters that some of the material from Cantarini’s letters were incorporated in the “Bibliotheca shel Vulfius.”
[6] Marco Osimo, Narrazione della Strage Compiuta nel 1547 Contro gli Ebrei d’Asolo e Cenni Biografici della Famiglia Koen-Cantarini (Casale-Monferrato, 1875). 108.
[7] Otzar Nehmad 3 (1860), 144.
[8] On Cantarini, see, for example, H. A. Savitz, Profiles of Erudite Jewish Physicians and Scholars (Spertus College of Judaica Press, 1973), 25-28; C. Facchini, “Icone in sinagoga: emblemi e imprese nella predicazione barocca di I.H. Cantarini”, in Materia Giudaica, 7 (2002), 124–144. I thank Professor David Ruderman for this last reference. Cantarini’s Jewish legal responsa were published in both Yitzḥak Lampronti’s Paḥad Yitzḥak and Samson Morpurgo’s Shemesh Tzedakah. Cantarini authored a work, also entitled Paḥad Yitzḥak, in which he records an account of an anti-Jewish incident in the Jewish ghetto of Padua in 1684 relating the anatomical dissection at the University of Padua. For his correspondence with the Christian intellectual Theophilo Ungar, see Y. Blumenfeld, Otzar Nehmad 3 (Vienna, 1860), 128-50. For the definitive work on the Cantarini family, see Marco Osimo, Narrazione della Strage Compiuta nel 1547 Contro gli Ebrei d’Asolo e Cenni Biografici della Famiglia Koen-Cantarini (Casale-Monferrato, 1875). For a comprehensive bibliography on Cantarini, see Asher Salah, La Republique des Lettres: Rabbins, Ecrivains et Medecins, Juifs en Italie au XVIIIe Siecle (Brill: Leiden, 2007), 120-124.
[9] Hananel Nepi and Mordechai Girondi, Toledot Gedolei Yisra′el (Trieste, 1853),198-199.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Pahad Yitshak, 10a and 42a. Nepi and Ghirondi also mention another manuscript of Isaac’s, Lev Hakham, which mentions his uncle Leon. I have been unable to locate a copy.
[12] Osimo, 61.
[13] I thank Pia Settimi and Laura Roumani for their assistance.
[14] It is cited by Marco Mortara, Indice alfabetico dei rabbini e scrittori israeliti di cose giudaiche in Italia : con richiami bibliografici e note illustative (Padova: F. Sacchetto, 1886), 10, though the reference is incorrect. Yaakov ben Yisrael HaLevi, Shu”t Yaakov l’Beit Levi section 8, n. 68 (not 88).
[15] Osimo, 110. The letter appears in the appendix as document (z), but does not seem to be referenced in the text.
[16] Jacob Shatzky, “On Jewish Medical Students of Padua,” Journal of the History of Medicine 5 (1950), 444-447; David B. Ruderman, “The Impact of Science on Jewish Culture and Society in Venice (with Special Reference to Jewish Graduates of Padua’s Medical School,” in Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1995), 519-553; K. Collins, “Jewish Medical Students and Graduates at the Universities of Padua and Leiden: 1617-1740,” Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal 4, no. 1 (January 2013), 1-8; E. Reichman, “The Valmadonna Trust Broadside Collection and a Virtual Reunion of the Jewish Medical Students of Padua,” Verapo Yerapei: Journal of Torah and Medicine of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine Synagogue 7 (2017), 55-76.
[17] See Benjamin Ravid, “From Yellow to Red: On the Distinguishing Head-Covering of the Jews of Venice,” Jewish History 6:1-2 (1992), 179-210.
[18] See Benjamin Ravid, “In Defense of the Jewish Doctors of Venice, ca. 1670,” in M. Perani, ed., Una manna buona per Mantova: Man Tov le-Man Tovah: Studi in onore di Vittore Colorni per il suo 92 compleanno. (Leo S. Olschki: Florence, 2004), 479-506.
[19] ASV, Cattaveri, b. 248, reg. 15, 37v-38r, 15 May 1643 (cited in Ravid).
[20] Ravid, “From Yellow to Red,” 190.
[21] Edward Reichman, “From Graduation to Contagion: Jewish Physicians Facing Plague in Padua, 1631” Lehrhaus (thelehrhaus.com), September 8, 2020.
[22] Osimo provides a history of the children. Mindele’s father Yosef De Datolis died in prison in October 1632 and Leon subsequently served as guardian for his under-aged brother-in-law for a brief period of time.
[23] Nepi and Ghirondi, 198-199.
[24] Excerpted from Tehillim, a section of the Ashrei prayer.
[25] Osimo, 109.
[26] See Yaffa Kohen, The Development of Organizational Structures by the Italian Jewish Commnities to Cope with the Plagues of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Hebrew) (Ph.D. Dissertation, Bar Ilan University, 1979).
[27] See Abraham Berliner, Lukhot Avanim: Hebraische Grabschriften in Italien (Frankfurt a. Main 1881), p. 40, n. 59. Berliner erroneously lists the year for Leon Cantarini’s graduation as 1618 instead of 1623.
[28] JTS Library. MS 3551 JTS. Soave’s marginalia mention the poems written by Gedalia for Leon, citing Osimo.
[29] I believe Berliner erred in his transcription. In the second line, middle section, it should be v’tov avad (dalet instead of reish).
[30] Zeitschrift für die Geschichte der Juden in Deutschland 4(1890), 98. Kaufmann mentions other diplomas he had seen at Osimo’s home, including those of Leon’s brother Caliman and his nephew Isaac. These are not mentioned in Osimo’s biography and may have been acquired after 1875, the date of the book’s publication.
[31] I have catalogued and analyzed the extant Padua medical diplomas of Jewish students elsewhere. See Edward Reichman, A Catalogue of the Diplomas and Poems of the Jewish medical Graduates of the University of Padua, in Press.
[32] Edward Reichman, ” The Medical Diploma of Moses Crespino from the University of Padua (1647): The Only ‘Jewish’ Medical Diploma in History,” Tradition Online (July 24, 2022).
[33] University of Pennsylvania Library, Call number Mapcase CAJS Rar Ms 531, identifier 9978072224103681. I thank Arthur Kiron for bringing this diploma to my attention.
[34] Modena and Morpurgo, n. 104; Salah, n. 276.
[35] Private Collection of Dr. Aaron Feingold.
[36] Leon married Mindele de Dattolis.
[37] Correspondence with Francesco Piovan, Archivist at the University of Padua Archives (April 24, 2025).
[38] Edward Reichman, ” The Medical Diploma of Moses Crespino from the University of Padua (1647): The Only ‘Jewish’ Medical Diploma in History,” Tradition Online (July 24, 2022).
[39] On the Counts Palatine, see Paul Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, 2002), 183-186; Andreas Rehberg, “Le Lauree Conferite dai ContiP di Nomina Papale: Prime Indagini,” in Anna Esposito and Umberto Longo, eds., Lauree Università e Gradi Accademici in Italia nel Mmedioevo e Nella Prima età Moderna (Cooperativa Libraria Universitaria Editrice: Bologna, 2013), 47-76. For discussion of the Counts Palatine in a Jewish context, see Harry Friedenwald, “On the Giving of Medical Degrees During the Middle Ages by Other than Academic Authority,” in his Jews and Medicine 1 (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1944), 263-267; Benjamin Ravid, “In Defense of the Jewish Doctors of Venice, ca. 1670,” in M. Perani, ed., Una Manna Buona per Mantova: Man Tov le-Man Tovah: Studi in onore Vittodire Colorni per il suo 92 compleanno. (Leo S. Olschki: Florence, 2004), 479-506, esp. 480.; Debra Glasberg Gail, Scientific Authority and Jewish Law in Early Modern Italy, Ph.D Dissertation, Columbia University (2016), Chapter 3.
[40] Abdelkader Modena and Edgardo Morpurgo, Medici E Chirurghi Ebrei Dottorati E Licenziati Nell Universita Di Padova dal 1617 al 1816 (Bologna, 1967), 7.
[41] For a more expansive discussion of this historical chapter, see E. Reichman, “The Anatomy of an Auction: A Previously Undissected Body of Literature on the History of the Jews and Postmortem Dissection,” Seforim Blog (https://seforimblog.com), June 13, 2023.
[42] (entry #545) headlined “compromise with the students during the season of dissection.”
[43] Haskell D. Isaacs, Medical and Para-Medical Manuscripts in the Cambridge Genizah Collections (Cambridge, 1994).
[44] On Alpron, see Edward Fram, “Where to Turn? How One Italian Rabbi Understood Ashkenaz, ca. 1600,” Jewish History 37 (2024), 173-208; Marvin Heller, “Jacob ben Elhanan Heilbronn- A Multifaceted erudite scholar,” The Seforim Blog (February 8, 2022).
[45] On this work, see Edward Fram, My Dear Daughter. Rabbi Benjamin Slonik and the Education of Jewish Women in Sixteenth-Century Poland (HUC Press: Cincinnati, 2007).
[46] On Saltaro, see Nepi, Hananel and Mordechai S., Girondi, Toledot Gedolei Yisra′el (Trieste, 1853), 193; Andrew Berns, “The Place of Paradise in Renaissance Jewish Thought,” Journal of the History of Ideas 75:3 (July 2014), 351-371.
[47] Osimo.
[48] Berns, op. cit.
[49] Judah Saltaro Fano, Mikveh Israel (Venice, 1607) 35a-36b.
[50] B’leil Hamitz (Venice, 1623). On Ḥamitz and this collection of poems, see David Ruderman, “Padua and the Formation of a Jewish Medical Community in Italy” in his Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe (Yale University Press: New Haven, 1995), 100-117.
[51] See A. Modena and E. Morpurgo, op. cit., p. 4, n. 10.
[52] Osimo 61, 109. Osimo does not mention the location of the poems.
[53] Jacob Alpron (Heilpron), Jacob Aboav and Jacob Figlio. See Ufficio di Sanita, vol. 469 for April 20, 24 and 30 for the year 1625. I thank Pia Settimi for this reference.
[54] The scribe describes his illness with forgotten words. Muchi is the plural of Mucus, i.e., phlegm, and Mal di muchi can indicate a respiratory condition, such as a lung infection or bronchitis, with cough, phlegm, or breathing difficulties. I thank Pia Settimi for the transcription and translation.
[55] E. Reichman, “The Yeshiva Medical School: The Evolution of Educational Programs Combining Jewish Studies and Medical Training,” Tradition 51:3(Summer 2019), 41-56.
[56] The famous case of the non-Jew who received rabbinic ordination, was actually a Haver degree. See Shimon Steinmetz, “On non-Jews with rabbinic ordination, real and imagined: some notes on Dr. Leiman’s post on Tychsen,” On the Main Line Blog (September 20, 2011).
[57] While the title was intended as an honorific for religious purposes, such as when being called up to the Torah, it could be used at the bearer’s discretion. See Bunim Tausig miMatersdorf, Minhagei HaKehilos in the environs of Bergenland-Austria (Jerusalem, 5765), 210-218, for a lengthy discussion of both the origin and evolution of the term Haver, as well as a list of decrees from different European locations relating to its practice and application. I thank Rabbi Eliezer Brodt for the important reference.
[58] E. Reichman, “The Physician-Ḥaver in Early Modern Italy: A Reunion of Long Forgotten ‘Friends,'” Seforim Blog (https://seforimblog.com), December 4, 2023. The earliest Haver degree
[59] Abdelkader Modena and Edgardo Morpurgo, Medici E Chirurghi Ebrei Dottorati E Licenziati Nell Universita Di Padova dal 1617 al 1816 (Bologna, 1967); Edward Reichman, “From Graduation to Contagion: Jewish Physicians Facing Plague in Padua, 1631” Lehrhaus (thelehrhaus.com), September 8, 2020; S. Simonsohn, Zikne Yehuda (Mosad HaRav Kook: Jerusalem, 5716), 48. Simonsohn mentions the Haver degree but does not provide a reference.
[60] Edward Reichman, “Enhancing the Luster of HeHaver HaRofeh Solomon Lustro, an Illustrative Medical Graduate of the University of Padua,” Korot, in press.
[61] David Holub, Pardes David, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1880 and 1882).
[62] Menachem Mendel Leib Sergei, Meshiv Nefesh (Vilna, 1906).
[63] Rabbi Barukh Halevi Epstein, Mekor Barukh vol. 2 (Ram Publishers, Vilna, 1928), 1113-1130.
[64] David Margalit, Hakhmei Yisrael ke-Rofim (Jerusalem: Mosad HaRav Kook, 1962).
[65] Asher Salah, La République des Lettres: Rabbins, écrivains et medecins juifs en Italie au 18^th siècle (Leiden: Brill, 2007).
[66] Avraham Steinberg, HaRefuah Ke-Halakhah 6 ,2^nd edition (Jerusalem, 5782), 196-206.See also Edward Reichman, “Jewish Medical History in Barukh Epstein’s Mekor Barukh: When the Doctor’s Became Rabbis, the Jewish People Were Healthy,” Hakirah 38 (in press).
[67] Examples include Isaac Hayyam Cantarini, Isaac Lampronti, Samson Morpurgo, and Shabtai Marini.
[68] HM 3102 photo 811, folio 168b (for date Heshvan 5412-1651 and participants), photo 813 folio 169b decision 74 (for the decision).

ליל מש”ק ליל ראשון של ר”ח חשון התי”ב

הושמה פארטי מצד מעכ”ה שמכאן ולהבא לא יוכלו לתת סמיכה מחברות לשום אחד שאינו נשוי אשר לא יהיה מבן חמשה ועשרים שנה ומחמש ועשרים שנה ולמעלה ואם נשוי אשה יוכלו לתת סמיכה לו מחברות אם יהיה מבן עשרים שנה ומעשרים שנה ולמעלה, ולא יוכלו לתת סמיכה מרבנות לשום אחד אם לא יהיה מבן שלשים שנה ומשלשים שנה ולמעלה, ועל שאר מהפארטי על זה התקפה ובגבורתה תעמוד, ולא יוכלו לכשל פארטי זו אם לא יהיה נועד כל נועדי הקק”י חוץ משנים ושתשאר ע”פ שלשה רביעים מאשר ימצאו אז בועד. ונשאר ע”פ י”ז הן ח’ לאו

[69] Osimo
[70] It appears that at the time of the entry of the archival graduation records for Clemente (Caliman) and Leon, the scribe was not aware of the name of their father. A space for the name was left and the name Simeonis was later added in different ink for both of their entries.

In addition to their separate graduation records, there is an entry for both Clemente and Leon together.

[71] See Pachad Yitzchak 10a and Osimo 59. Caliman is not identified as a rabbi in the university archives.
[72] Abdelkader Modena and Edgardo Morpurgo, Medici E Chirurghi Ebrei Dottorati E Licenziati Nell Universita Di Padova dal 1617 al 1816 (Bologna, 1967).

R. Moshe Zuriel, the Aderet, Sonya Diskin, and ChatGPT

R. Moshe Zuriel, the Aderet, Sonya Diskin, and ChatGPT

Marc B. Shapiro

1. It is hard to believe that more than a year and a half has passed since R. Moshe Zuriel was taken from us. At the time of his passing, I intended to write a lengthy appreciation of him, but I was never able to get around to it. Still, I feel compelled to say something about R. Zuriel, if only to express my hakarat ha-tov for all that I learned from him. Although we never met, we exchanged numerous emails. It reached the point where, whenever I had a question about a passage in R. Kook, I would turn to him. I was also happy to arrange for three of his posts to appear on the Seforim Blog—see here.

Although R. Zuriel was my senior both in age and certainly in wisdom, he honored me by treating me like an old friend. Here is just one sample from an email he sent to me.

Your reference to Rabbi Hirsch’s praises for Schiller’s writings is a Godsend for me. I am elated at his words.

I myself was born in Frankfort am-Main, and consider myself an avid follower of his teachings, which strike a chord in my heart. The expressions in this Memorial Speech are something fabulous. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention. Rav Kook too speaks many a time about Universal Values, which are evident here and there in the Gentile Communities. We must have a link to our fellow humans.

Before we started communicating by email, we sent old fashioned letters. Here is one letter from December 2003. R. Zuriel followed Rav Kook’s approach—discussed by me in The Old Will be Renewed, the New Will be Sanctified—that the Sanhedrin will be able to actualize new moral and religious insights that have become apparent. These moral and religious insights should be viewed as Torah truths that were revealed gradually over time, meaning that we have advanced from the morality at the time of the giving of the Torah. The Sanhedrin will have the final say as to when we are dealing with authentic Torah values vs. non-Jewish values that people are trying to insert into Jewish life.

Here are two other letters from R. Zuriel where you can see his strong religious spirit.

Here is the final part of another letter he wrote me.

I first heard of R. Zuriel when I was a student at Beit Midrash le-Torah (BMT) in 1984–1985. I happened to find his sefer, Beit Yehezkel: Hilkhot Deot, on the shelf. I knew nothing about the author but found the book interesting and began to go through it. I never told R. Zuriel that this was the first sefer I ever went through. In school, we studied Chumash and Gemara, but I had never before picked up an independent sefer and tried to work through it on my own.

One day, while I was learning the sefer, someone noticed and mentioned that there was something controversial in it—namely, that R. Zuriel praises kippot serugot. Even then, I was interested in controversial texts, and I carefully combed through the book, unsuccessfully trying to find the page where he offered this praise. I later heard this story on other occasions as well, so I assumed that the volume I had been using had been censored and that the provocative passage had been removed. That was undoubtedly my first experience with what I thought was a censored text. Maybe that moment planted the seeds that would only come to fruition decades later in Changing the Immutable.

It was only many years later that I learned R. Zuriel had published two books under the title Beit Yehezkel, and lo and behold, I eventually found the passage about kippot serugot on p. 194 of the first edition.

Incidentally, I think many will be surprised to learn that R. Zvi Yehudah Kook—whose yeshiva and followers became such an important force in the kippah serugah world—actually preferred a black kippah over a kippah serugah, not just for himself but for everyone. It is true that he did not make a big deal about it, but we need to be honest about his opinion. Even when presented with two students, one wearing a small black kippah and the other a large kippah serugah, he expressed his preference for the black kippah.[1]

In fact, R. Zvi Yehudah would have even preferred that students at Merkaz ha-Rav wear a hat and jacket, though he never made an issue of it. He did, however, tell at least some of his students who became rabbis that they should wear rabbinic garb—which today generally means a black suit and hat. He wasn’t entirely consistent in this regard, and I suppose that explains the varied styles of dress among his rabbinic students: some look no different than haredi rabbis, others wear a kippah serugah along with a hat, and still others wear a kippah serugah without a hat.[2]

For those who want to learn more about R. Zuriel, his website can be found here. It is truly remarkable to see the vast array of books he published, covering so many different areas of Torah.[3] You will also find there the three volumes of writings by Naftali Hirz Wessely, including material from manuscript, which R. Zuriel published. Interestingly, his name does not appear in these volumes as the one who prepared them for publication. Instead, he used pseudonyms—likely to avoid becoming embroiled in controversy. Yet it is worth noting that, in the years before his death, he began writing about Wessely under his own name and openly defended his decision to publish Wessely’s works. See here.

Missing from his website is his first edition of Wessely’s Sefer ha-Midot, which was published in 2002. The site only includes the later edition, which incorporates previously unpublished material. Yet the first edition is extremely valuable and deserves to be uploaded as well. This is because it contains a lengthy introduction that establishes the religious acceptability of Wessely, citing numerous great rabbis who referenced him positively. (For examples of censorship involving Wessely in the reprinted works of R. Moses Schick and R. Samson Raphael Hirsch, see my post here.) This introduction is significantly different from the one that appears in the second edition. While most of it is also found in the introduction to R. Zuriel’s edition of Wessely’s Yein Levanon (written under the pseudonym Yaakov Segal), for some reason, the version of Yein ha-Levanon on the website omits this entire introduction. Also missing is R. Hayyim Druckman’s haskamah and a letter from Wessely that originally appeared in the first publication of Yein Levanon (Berlin, 1775).

What is particularly noteworthy is that the first edition of Sefer ha-Midot includes a haskamah from R. Zuriel himself, in which he seeks to establish the legitimacy of Wessely. I don’t know—and unfortunately never asked R. Zuriel—why, if he was willing to write a haskamah for Wessely’s book, he wasn’t also willing to identify himself as the editor. The haskamah is formally addressed to “Rabbi Hayyim Lifshitz,” the supposed editor of the book—but Lifshitz is a fictional figure, and the lengthy introduction attributed to him was, in fact, written by R. Zuriel.

When it comes to an author providing a haskamah to his own work published anonymously or under a pseudonym, we do have precedent. R. EliyahuDavid Rabinowitz-Teomim (the Aderet) did this with the only two, of his over 120 works, that were published in his lifetime. In 1889 he published Zekher la-Mikdash (on Hakhel). Here is the title page from the first printing (later printings include the Aderet’s name). In his autobiography, the Aderet mentions writing the book.[4]

On the title page, instead of an author’s name, it states: חובר מאת פלא“י. This is clearly intended to evoke Judges 13:18, where the angel says to Manoah, “Wherefore askest thou after my name, seeing it is hidden (פלאי)?” What’s puzzling is that the title page spells it as פלא“י—with an apostrophe between the last two letters—rather than the more straightforward פלאי. It has been suggested that the final three letters allude to the author’s name, “Elijah” (אלי), and that the פ stands for Pinhas, since Pinhas is traditionally identified with Elijah.[5] But to me, this interpretation feels far-fetched.

Here is the haskamah which is followed by the Aderet’s many notes to the book, as if he is commenting on someone else’s sefer.

In 1893 the Aderet anonymously published Aharit ha-Shanim (on the law of Vidui Ma’aser). Here is the title page of the first printing (subsequent printings include the Aderet’s name).

This book is also mentioned in the Aderet’s autobiography.[6] Unlike in Zekher la-Mikdash, in Aharit ha-Shanim there is a hint in the Aderet’s introduction to his authorship (emphasis added):

ע“כ העלמתי שמי והליטותי פני באדרתי לבל ישאו פני

Furthermore, anyone who looks up the biblical verse which is the origin of the expression והליטותי פני באדרתי will find that it is in 1 Kings 19:13 and describes Elijah wrapping his face in his mantle. The Aderet’s first name is Elijah, so this is obviously also an allusion to the author’s identity.

Here is the Aderet’s haskamah to this book. As with Zekher la-Mikdash, the haskamah is followed by many pages of notes to the book, under the heading Devar Eliyahu.

I assume the Aderet must have felt somewhat awkward referring to himself as ha-ma’or ha-gadol (המאוה“ג), yet everyone understands that such honorifics are expected in haskamot. In fact, had he not used this kind of language, he might well have been accused of failing to show proper respect for the author—since people did not know that he himself was the author.

In 2005, Aharit ha-Shanim was reprinted by Ahavat Shalom, and they were fortunate to have access to the Aderet’s own copy, which contains many additional marginal notes. These were included in the new edition.

I found another case where the author wrote a haskamah to his own book, but as you can see, the haskamah is not a typical haskamah.

Here is the title page of R. Yaakov Goldman’s Peret ve-Olelot (Jerusalem, 1930).

Here is the haskamah.

Speaking of the Aderet and haskamot, here is a chance to deal with a report that has assumed legendary status in the Merkaz ha-Rav world. R. Zvi Yehudah Kook claimed that the lengthy haskamah of the Aderet for the Chafetz Chaim’s Likutei Halakhot was actually written by R. Kook.

Here is the haskamah:

The story told by R. Zvi Yehudah and recorded by R. Moshe Zvi Neriah in Sihot ha-Re’iyah, pp. 123-124, is as follows: R. Kook visited his former father-in-law, the Aderet, while the Aderet was serving as the rav of the city of Mir. During this visit, a letter arrived from the Chafetz Chaim requesting a haskamah for his new book, Likutei Halakhot. He wished to have the haskamah sent as soon as possible, even on the very day his letter arrived, and included some portions of the book. The Aderet was very impressed and showed R. Kook what the Chafetz Chaim had sent. Due to his busy schedule, the Aderet was unable to write the haskamah that day, so he asked R. Kook to write it. R. Kook wrote the impressive haskamah that was later printed.

After R. Kook wrote the haskamah, the Aderet read it over and was ready to sign it. However, he stated that he could not take credit for a Torah explanation suggested by R. Kook, so he altered the text of the haskamah, attributing the explanation to R. Kook, the rav of Bausk. This haskamah is the very first one in Haskamot ha-Re’iyah (Jerusalem, 2017).

It is a very nice story, but is it true? Let me present a source that seems to contradict what R. Zvi Yehudah reported. In the Aderet’s autobiography, Seder Eliyahu, p. 100, the Aderet recounts how, due to a dispute in his city, the Chafetz Chaim came there to try to make peace. The Aderet then writes that a couple of weeks later he wrote the haskamah for Likutei Halakhot.

אז נתתי הסכמתי על ס‘ לקוטי הלכות להגה“צ בעל ח“ח שליט“א

Presumably, it was when the Chafetz Chaim visited the city that he gave the Aderet his work. If R. Kook had written the haskamah, wouldn’t the Aderet have mentioned it in his memoir? Furthermore, in R. Kook’s Eder ha-Yekar, p. 47, he says the following about his father-in-law:

כל הספרים הרבים שנתן עליהם הסכמתו, עבר עליהם מראשית עד אחרית וברוב העיר עליהם הערות

According to R. Kook, the Aderet would not give a haskamah unless he had read the entire book. However, the story as told by R. Zvi Yehudah suggests that the Aderet gave a haskamah without having gone through the book.

Based on the two points I have mentioned, I think it is legitimate to raise questions about the story told by R. Zvi Yehudah. It would make more sense to assume that the Aderet wrote the haskamah while R. Kook was in Mir and that the Aderet discussed the haskamah with R. Kook (which would explain the mention of R. Kook in the haskamah). But it is hard to reconcile R. Zvi Yehudah’s story with the Aderet’s own testimony in his memoir or with R. Kook’s description of how the Aderet would study a book before giving his haskamah.

A completely different version of the story involving the Aderet, R. Kook, and the haskamah was told by R. Kook’s nephew, R. Refael Kook. In his version, the haskamah was written by R. Kook for another book by the Chafetz Chaim, Nidhei Yisrael. Here is the story as found in Simcha Raz’s An Angel Among Men.[7]

When the Chafetz Chayim zt”l finished writing Nidchei Yisrael, he came to the Aderet (R. Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Te’omim) to receive a letter of approbation for the book.

The Aderet kept the book’s proof sheets in order to look through them before writing his approbation. Unfortunately, however, he came down with pneumonia and was quite ill for several weeks. During that time, the Chafetz Chaim came back to receive the approbation he so anxiously waited for. The Aderet’s doctor, however, forbade him to exert himself in any way; so he was unable to write the letter.

The Chafetz Chayim was very disappointed, having made the trip just for the approbation. Don’t worry,” said the Aderet. “I just married off my daughter to R. Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, who is greater than me in many areas. He will write the letter, and I will sign it.”

And so it was: The Rav wrote an approbation for Nidchei Yisrael and the Aderet signed it, thus forging a strong bond of friendship between the Chafetz Chayim and Rav Kook.

In this version, the Aderet says that R. Kook had just married his daughter. This is obviously incorrect as the Aderet’s haskamah to Nidhei Yisrael is dated 1894. Yet R. Kook married his daughter in 1886 and she passed away in 1889. In 1894 R. Kook was married to the niece of the Aderet, the daughter of his twin brother, R. Zvi Yehudah Rabinowitz-Teomim.

Here is the haskamah to Nidhei Yisrael.

In the Torah journal Me-Avnei ha-Makom 15 (2003), pp. 15-17, a section from the Aderet’s still unpublished 1878 work Oznei David appears. The Aderet notes that the Chafetz Chaim spent Shabbat with him and records some of their Torah conversations. One of the points he mentions is that the Chafetz Chaim asked him how one could eat at various Jewish inns, which were places where Jews would stay while traveling. The issue for the Chafetz Chaim wasn’t kashrut. In those days, people trusted other religious Jews, and the notion that an outside hashgachah was required in such circumstances had not yet been introduced.

What concerned the Chafetz Chaim was that most of the owners of these inns did not tovel their utensils. How then could people eat there? The Aderet explained—and he sees this as a novel view—that it is only forbidden for the owner to use utensils that have not been toveled. Yet there is no problem for others to make use of these utensils. What is of particular historical interest here is that we see that laxity regarding the toveling of utensils is not a recent phenomenon, but was even seen among religious Jews in nineteenth-century Lithuania.

Regarding the Chafetz Chaim and the Aderet, the tradition is that when the Chafetz Chaim writes, והעירני א‘ מחכמי הזמן, in his discussion about Birkat Kohanim in the Diaspora[8], the unnamed scholar he refers to the Aderet.[9] With one exception, the Chafetz Chaim never mentions contemporary scholars by name in the Mishnah Berurah. In Orah Hayyim 585, in Beur Halakhah s.v ve-tov, he refers to R. Meir Simhah of Dvinsk. The story here is that they had a dispute at a rabbinic conference and the Chafetz Chaim thought that his language was perhaps too sharp.[10] As an apology of sorts, he broke with his convention and mentioned R. Meir Simhah by name.

It is widely reported how the Chafetz Chaim admired Rav Kook and refused to allow anyone to speak negatively about him.[11] Among the various sources cited in all the discussions I have seen, no one has referred to R. Yosef Zussman, Mi-Behirei Tzadikaya, pp. 168, 176, that when R. Zvi Yehudah Kook was together with the Chafetz Chaim he was afraid to mention who his father was, out of fear that the Chafetz Chaim would express some criticism of Rav Kook. In the end, his fear was unfounded, and the Chafetz Chaim, upon finding out who he was, told R. Zvi Yehudah that R. Kook was a good friend of his.[12] This anecdote was included in two separate letters from R. Zussman to R. Moshe Zvi Neriah. While R. Neriah used other information from these letters in his own writings, he did not include the detail of R. Zvi Yehudah being worried that the Chafetz Chaim would criticize his father.

I know that it is difficult for opponents of R. Kook to deal with the fact that the Chafetz Chaim had such positive feelings for him. I wonder if they would adopt the approach of the Brisker Rav, R. Isaac Zev Soloveitchik. When asked why the Chafetz Chaim showed respect for a certain Zionist rabbi (not R. Kook), the Brisker Rav replied with the following critical comment: “This is what happens when you don’t listen to lashon hara!”[13] In other words, sometimes it is important to be aware of negative reports about certain individuals so you know how to properly relate to them.[14]

2. I recently played around with ChatGPT and found some incredible things. First, its translation ability is at a very high level. I put in some sentences from nineteenth-century Haskalah literature and the translations that came back are excellent. There are times that ChatGPT gets it wrong, and you always need to carefully review its translations. Yet it seems that we have entered a new era when it comes to translations. Going forward, should translators just insert Hebrew texts into ChatGPT and then check for accuracy and edit the translation? Perhaps this is already being done, which would be a major development.

I also became aware that you can put an article, even a PDF, into ChatGPT and it will give you a summary. Look what happened when I put Haym Soloveitchik’s “Rupture and Reconstruction” in and asked for a summary.

Summary of “Rupture and Reconstruction” by Haym Soloveitchik

Thesis & Central Argument:

Soloveitchik examines the transformation of Orthodox Jewish life in the modern era, particularly the shift from a mimetic (lived, experiential) tradition to a text-based halakhic culture. This shift, he argues, resulted from the sociocultural disruptions caused by the Holocaust and modernization.

I. The Loss of Mimetic Tradition

Traditionally, Jewish practice was absorbed through daily life rather than studied in texts. Children learned religious conduct by watching their parents and community rather than through legalistic study. However, this mimetic tradition began to break down due to several historical forces:

Modernity and Migration:

Jews who emigrated from Eastern Europe to America and Israel found themselves in new environments where religious life was no longer reinforced by communal structures.

In America, the pressures of assimilation and middle-class life further eroded informal religious transmission.

The Holocaust’s Impact:

The Holocaust annihilated the communities and individuals who had embodied and passed down the mimetic tradition.

The post-Holocaust Orthodox world was largely composed of religious survivors and their children, who lacked an organic religious upbringing.

As a result, Jews turned increasingly to written texts to reconstruct religious life, rather than continuing a naturally transmitted tradition.

II. The Rise of Text-Based Religious Life

With the breakdown of mimetic tradition, Orthodox Jews sought religious guidance in texts rather than communal precedent. Several key shifts occurred:

Stringency (Chumra) and “Maximum Position Compliance”:

Halakhic observance became more rigid, as Orthodox Jews increasingly sought the “most correct” way to perform rituals based on written sources rather than communal norms.

Practices that had previously been instinctual or lenient were now analyzed and subject to stricter interpretations.

Proliferation of Halakhic Literature:

The 20th century saw an explosion of halakhic texts, guiding every aspect of Jewish observance in meticulous detail.

Religious practice became more standardized and universalized across communities, rather than based on local custom.

The “Ritualization” of Daily Life:

Previously intuitive religious behaviors, like eating matzah at the Passover seder, were now measured and standardized (e.g., precise “shiurim” for halakhic measurements).

This shift emphasized precision and rule-following over natural, community-based observance.

III. Broader Sociological Implications

Soloveitchik argues that this shift reflects a broader pattern in Jewish history:

A Response to Cultural Erosion:

The disappearance of traditional Jewish life and the rise of middle-class acculturation created a need for stricter religious boundaries.

As Jewish life became more indistinguishable from non-Jewish life, Orthodoxy sought to reinforce distinctiveness through increased textual rigor.

The Influence of the Holocaust on Jewish Memory:

The Holocaust left Orthodox Jews without direct cultural transmission from past generations.

In response, they “reconstructed” an idealized version of pre-Holocaust Jewish life, one that was more rigidly text-based and uniform than the reality of Eastern European Judaism.

The Decline of Jewish Asceticism:

Historically, Jewish tradition included a strong ascetic streak, which emphasized self-denial and wariness of physical pleasures.

However, as Orthodox Jews became more integrated into middle-class life, this asceticism waned, replaced by an emphasis on ritual precision rather than self-denial.

Conclusion:

Soloveitchik describes a fundamental transformation in contemporary Orthodox Judaism: the replacement of an organic, mimetic tradition with a text-driven, rule-oriented religious culture. This shift has led to increased religious stringency, a focus on halakhic literature, and a reconstruction of Jewish memory that aligns with contemporary Orthodox practice rather than historical reality.

* * * * * * *

[1] R. Zvi Yehudah Kook, Piskei Rabbenu, ed. Aviner, Orah Hayyim, p. 31. R. Shlomo Aviner recently published a book titled Pesikah ke-Halakhah. It consists of “strange pesakim” by unnamed rabbis, and R. Aviner’s response. On p. 169 the “strange pesak” he records is that someone who goes to movies should do so in another city, not where he lives, and replace his black kippah with a kippah serugah. This “pesak” is obviously based on Moed Katan 17a: “If a person sees that his evil inclination is gaining control over him, then he should go to a place where he is not known. He should wear black, wrap his head in black, and do as his heart desires [in private] and not desecrate the name of Heaven in public.”

There are those, such as R. Chaim Kanievsky, who have ruled that it is preferable to pray by oneself with a jacket and hat, than pray with a minyan without these items. (E.g., if you are in a situation where if you run home to get your jacket and hat you won’t be able to pray with a minyan.) See R. Yair Yanai, Nekiut ve-Kavod bi-Tefillah, p. 208. Yet see ibid., p. 98, that R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv ruled that prayer with a minyan is more important than wearing a jacket and hat. See similarly R. Meir Mazuz, Makor Ne’eman, vol. 3, no. 151 and R. Yitzhak Ratzaby, Olat Yitzhak, vol. 3, Orah Hayyim, no. 36. See also here at minute 18 where R. Reuven Feinstein strongly rejects the idea that it is better to pray by oneself with a hat than pray with a minyan without a hat. The entire video is noteworthy. Following the exchange about praying with a hat, R. Reuven is asked at what age should a boy be taught to wear his tzitzit out. He responds, “at no age”, and elaborates on why there is no reason to wear tzitzit out. See also at 34:55 where the questioner wants to know what to do about students who are brought up with an ideology that leads them to want to join the IDF. R. Reuven replies that if they want to join that is fine, and the army will probably turn them into a mensch.
[2] See R. Zvi Yehudah Kook, Piskei Rabbenu, ed. Aviner, Orah Hayyim, pp. 31-32.
[3] I remember how surprised I was when R. Zuriel published his Masoret Seyag la-Torah. My surprise was due to how R. Zuriel chose to deny that Jacob ben Hayyim Ibn Adonijah, the masoretic scholar and editor of the first Mikraot Gedolot, later apostatized. See my Limits of Orthodox Theology, p. 93 n. 14, where I write that it is remarkable that a book could be published in modern times referring to Jacob ben Hayyim as one of the great scholars of Israel. For R. Mordechai Breuer’s harsh review of the R. Zuriel’s book, see Megadim 20 (Tamuz 5753), pp. 91-96, available here.
[4] Seder Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 1983), p. 82. On p. 106 he mentions it among the books he wrote. Moshe Reines on his own figured out that the Aderet was the author. See his Mivhar Ketavim, ed. Eliezer Brodt (Ramat Beit Shemesh, 2018), pp. 31, 605. I thank R. Eliezer Brodt for calling this to my attention. He also pointed out that R. Yisrael Dandrovitz discusses the Aderet’s haskamot in his book Hayu Devarim Me-Olam, vol. 2, ch. 22. The chapter is titled: מחברי ספרים שהסתתרו כמסכימים
[5] Akivah ben Ezra, Minhagei Hagim (Tel Aviv, 1963), p. 314 n. 7, cited in R. Yehudah Zoldan, Malkhut Yehudah ve-Yisrael, p. 451 n. 17. I write “Akivah” because the author spelled his name עקיבה. The standard way of spelling the name is עקיבא, yet Maimonides always spelled it עקיבה.
[6] Seder Eliyahu, pp. 102, 106 (including it among the books he wrote).
[7] Trans. Moshe D. Lichtman (Jerusalem, 2003), pp. 368-369.
[8] Mishnah Berurah, Sha’ar ha-Tziyun, Orah Hayyim 128 (following no. 136).
[9] See e.g., here.
[10] One version of the story is found in R. Elazar Shakh, Shimushah shel Torah, p. 159. In a future post I will discuss this incident.
[11] See e.g., here. Here is a letter from the Chafetz Chaim’s son-in-law, R. Aaron Cohen, which appears in Iggerot la-Re’iyah, pp. 565-566.

[12] More than thirty years ago I spent Shabbat at the home of the late R. Zev Neuman, who was a very close student of R. Zvi Yehudah and involved in the publication of writings of R. Kook and R. Zvi Yehudah. (See here for various articles about Neuman.) At one of the Shabbat meals, Neuman took out a manuscript of one of R. Zvi Yehudah’s talks and read it to us. R. Zvi Yehudah described how he stayed at the Chafetz Chaim’s home and the Chafetz Chaim personally set up the bed for him. This passage, which made such an impression on me that I still remember it vividly so many years later, has unfortunately not yet appeared in print.
[13] Zvi Yavrov, Ma’aseh Ish, vol. 2, p. 85. See R. Michel Zalman Shurkin, Meged Givot Olam, vol. 2, p. 78, who quotes his father that near Radin lived a great talmid hakham who was a member of Mizrachi. The Chafetz Chaim stood up for this rabbi even though he also spoke very strongly against Mizrachi. The city of Radin is close to Lida, so I wonder if the unnamed Mizrachi rabbi was R. Isaac Jacob Reines, who actually founded Mizrachi.

It is of interest that the Chafetz Chaim’s son, R. Aryeh Leib, who assisted him in writing the Mishnah Berurah and later became the rav of Radin, publicly supported the Mizrachi. This fact is never mentioned by Haredi writers. Yet it is also noteworthy that although R. Aryeh Leib was a member of the secret Hovevei Tziyon society in Volozhin, his public identification with Mizrachi only occurred after the death of the Chafetz Chaim. It seems clear that, out of respect for his father, he refrained from publicly identifying with Mizrachi during his father’s lifetime. See Entzyklopedia shel ha-Tziyonut ha-Datit, vol. 4, cols. 273ff.

See R. Michel Zalman Shurkin,, Meged Givot Olam, vol. 1, pp. 48-49, that R. Mendel Zaks, the son-in-law of the Chafetz Chaim, preferred the biography of the Chafetz Chaim written by R. Meir Moshe Yosher over the volume written by R. Zaks brother-in-law, R. Aryeh Leib. He explained that Yosher’s volume just gives the facts, while R. Aryeh Leib also gives reasons for various actions and practices of the Chafetz Chaim, “and we do not have permission to give reasons for the actions of gedolei Yisrael.”
[14] See also Yavrov, Ma’aseh Ish, vol. 7, p. 94, that the Chafetz Chaim wrote that there is no enjoyment from telling lashon hara, and the Hazon Ish commented that apparently the Chafetz Chaim never told lashon hara, or he would have seen that one can indeed get pleasure from this.

Regarding lashon hara, see also Yavrov, Ma’aseh Ish, vol. 5, p. 31, where the Hazon Ish is quoted as saying that it is not lashon hara to say that someone does not know how to learn, as we need to know who is learned and who is not. Since there is a purpose in knowing who is a gadol be-Torah, therefore it is permitted to say that someone is not a gadol. This approach explains how it is not uncommon to hear people saying about various rabbis that they are “not so great in learning”. But I assume that the Hazon Ish was referring to rabbis making these judgments about other rabbis, not that laypeople would offer such comments. See also ibid, vol. 7, p. 94, where it records that on Kol Nidrei night the Hazon Ish told the students that we will now speak “kosher lashon hara.” He proceeded to speak about a rabbi who imagined that the Hebrew University was the Third Temple. He then turned to heaven and declared:

נו, רבונו של עולם, מספיק בשבילו מה שכבר קלקל עד כאן!

This can only refer to R. Kook, but as is well known, the notion that R. Kook compared the Hebrew University to the Temple, or that he applied to it the biblical verse, כי מציון תצא תורה, are complete fabrications by the enemies of R. Kook which misled even many great Torah scholars. See Moshe Alharar, Likhvodah shel Torah (Jerusalem, 1988), which is devoted to the slander directed against R. Kook.

Ten Commandment Representations in Hebrew Manuscripts & Books: Artistic Approaches to Theological Issues in Judaism

Ten Commandment Representations in Hebrew Manuscripts & Books: Artistic Approaches to Theological Issues in Judaism

Dan Rabinowitz

Today, the Ten Commandments or Decalogue[1] are among the most prominently featured symbols associated with Judaism. The Decalogue is represented by two tablets, generally connected and rounded at the top. This representation occupies a central place within synagogue architecture, often displayed on the exterior or interior of the edifices and frequently above the ark itself, which is regarded as the most sacred element within the building. However, it is noteworthy that these practices only began to emerge in the 16th century. The exact origins of this practice remain unclear, but it is likely that they were influenced by the Christian adoption of the Ten Commandment tablets in art as representative of Judaism. Some scholars suggest that this may not be an instance of benign cultural exchange but might have its roots in anti-semitic legislation, which mandated that Jews wear badges shaped like the Ten Commandments with rounded tops. This imposition may have influenced Jewish consciousness, potentially resulting in eventual self-association with this symbol.[2]

Historical evidence indicates that the ancient Jewish community used of other symbols such as the lulav, shofar, menorah, ark, scroll, and etrog, but not the luchos. The absence of the luchos is unsurprising when one considers the inherent difficulties of accurately replicating them. There is substantial ambiguity surrounding the exact proportions and shape of the tablets. Consequently, accurate reproductions were improbable, preventing their adoption as a common, recognizable symbol. Apart from the Israelites in the desert who witnessed the Sinai revelation, the tablets were not publicly displayed but remained housed within the ark. The fact that the luchos were kept in the ark and never removed suggests that they were intentionally not intended for public display.

In contrast to other Temple implements that are meticulously described, the details of the luchos are only generally mentioned as being made of stone and numbering two. This lack of elaboration has resulted in uncertainty even regarding the inscriptions on the stones and their shape. Today, it is widely accepted that each tablet contained five commandments and can be sourced to the Mekhilta DeRebi Yishmael, Yisro (Horovitz-Rabin, 233-234); however, according to the prevailing opinion in the Talmud Yerushalmi (Shekalim 6:1; Sotah 8:3), each tablet contained the entire Decalogue. Additionally, Rav Saadia Gaon asserted that one tablet recorded the version given in Exodus, while the other contained the version from Devarim.

It was not until the early rabbinic period that there was an explicit discussion regarding the shape of the luchos. The two Talmuds are inconsistent as to the exact dimensions and shape of the tablets (and both versions appear in midrashic literature). According to the TY, the tablets were rectangular, six tefachim in length and three in width. The TB describes them as square, six by six. Some attempt to reconcile the two Talmudic versions, there is clearly no consensus are single traditional regarding the shape.[3]

Beyond the challenges in determining and reproducing accurate divisions and shapes, there is a theological concern with their display. The Mishna records that the recitation of the Decalogue was part of the daily service in the Beis haMikdash. Evidence of this practice is found in the Nash Papyrus, dating between the second and first centuries BCE. In that document, the Ten Commandments appear before the Shema. Although the Nash Papyrus is likely either tefillin or a mezuzah, it seemingly confirms inclusion in the liturgy even outside of the Temple.[4] Nonetheless, the liturgical practice was abolished by Rabban Gamaliel II of Yavne. The rationale for the abolition was that some sect, the Minim, had elevated the Decalogue above the rest of the Torah, and the continued public recitation might imply acceptance of that position.[5] It is worth noting that even when the Decalogue was incorporated into the liturgy, there is no mention of it being displayed.

None of these sources mention the most common shape, tablets with rounded tops. According to one theory, this shape was borrowed from the Roman writing tablet, the diptych, which consisted of two tablets hinged together. Regardless of the original source, the rounded-topped tablets became the standard in Christian art from at least the 12th century. Since Jews adopted the luchos as a symbol much later, roughly in the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries, they chose the most commonly recognized version, which features rounded tops.[6]

The earliest extant depiction of the luchos appears in the Dura Europos Synagogue fresco, where Moshe is holding a scroll. While Dura Europos does not settle the issue of the shape of the tablets, it does begin to reveal some details about how the luchos iconography has evolved over time to address what can be referred to as the “minim conundrum.” The conflict between the Torah recording God delivering just the Decalogue at Sinai, whereas Jews believe that the entire Torah was given at Sinai.

Illuminated Manuscripts and the Ten Commandments: Resolving the Issue of the Minim

Many manuscripts, including Haggadahs, prayer books, and Bibles, feature imagery related to the Decalogue episode. Beyond merely illustrating the text these illustrators intentionally depicted the scene to address and resolve the minim issue and link the delivery and reception of the Decalogue with the entirety of the Torah. For example, many Ashkenazic Haggadahs include the Decalogue scene, typically accompanying the Dayenu, although two include it later in the liturgy. [7] The earliest, known as the Birds Head (dating to the beginning of the 14th century), depicts two fingers emerging from the cloud, presenting two rounded-topped tablets to Moshe. Immediately below, Moshe appears again transferring the tablets, now five, to two figures, presumably Aaron and/or Yehoshua. The dual tablets have been converted into five, referencing the Five Books of the Torah.[8] The Birds Head Haggadah’s metamorphosis during the transmission process of the two tablets into five is the only example of this solution in any Jewish (or non-Jewish) manuscripts.[9]

Figure 1: Birds Head Haggadah, fol. 23r, Israel Museum

A similar rereading of the Giving of the Law occurs in the thirteenth-century Parma Machzor. Unlike the Birds Head, which transforms the two tablets into five in their delivery, the Parma Machzor, however, depicts God giving Moshe three tablets, presumably alluding to the three books of Tanakh, the entire corpus of the Torah.[10]

Figure 2: Parma Machzor (Biblioteca Palatina, MS Parm. 2887)

Beyond transforming the tablets into more than the two mentioned in the Torah, other forms of iconographical methods were used to address the minim issue. Writing material underwent significant changes throughout the centuries. It was initially etched onto stones, like the luchos, then papyrus (like the Nash), and eventually, using animal skins that are much more resilient than papyrus, it was transformed into scrolls. Finally, “the most revolutionary invention in the history of the book” – the codex – was created at the beginning of the Common Era and became commonplace by the third century CE.[11] The codex, which we recognize as a book today, consists of individual pages written on both sides and addresses the major limitations of the scroll: the difficulty of quickly moving from one section to another and the fact that only one side could be used. Christians were the first to adopt this form sometime in the third century CE. Jews, however, adopted the book or codex much later than most other cultures, likely only in the ninth century.[12] This is unsurprising, as the scroll was not merely a device for Jews, but was imbued with special holiness.

These two forms, the scroll and codex, were used to address the minim issue. In these instances, they assumed the role of the entire torah as contrasted with the tablets, recording just the Decalogue. Scrolls are substituted for the tablets in at least two Haggadahs from the late fifteenth century (c. 1470-1480): the Nuremberg II and the Yahuda.

Figure 3: Second Nuremberg Haggadah (Center for Jewish Art)

Figure 4: Yahuda Haggadah (Center for Jewish Art)

In both, Moshe holds up an open scroll with wooden poles in a manner familiar from the hagbah ceremony. Likewise, in the well-known illuminator Joel ben Simon’s c. 1470 Machzor, now referred to as the Rothschild Weill Machzor, Moshe lifts the scroll. In a later Haggadah, known as MS 1388 Paris (1583), Moshe is holding a partially open scroll, though it is not raised like the other examples.[13]

Figure 5: Rothschild Weill Machzor (Center for Jewish Art)

A similar image appears in the Ulm Machzor, c. 1430; however, Moshe is receiving it directly from God, echoing the approach of the Parma Machzor that there was no transformation, rather the delivery itself was the entire Torah.

Figure 6: Second Darmstadt Haggadah 9v (Center for Jewish Art)

The codex is similarly employed to address the minim issue. In the Second Darmstadt Haggadah (here), Moshe appears at the top right, beneath the shofar. He is holding two connected rectilinear tablets, hinged at the bottom. A man, dressed differently than Moshe and likely Aaron or Yehoshua, appears at the bottom right holding two separate rectilinear tablets, which are clearly sourced from Moshe. Finally, a group of Israelites appears in the bottom center of the page. The leader is now holding a book. This transforms the tablets into a book or Torah. The connection between the tablets becomes clearer as the person holding the book points to Aaron/Yehoshua and the tablets, indicating that the book’s source is the tablets and ultimately what Moshe received directly from God. Therefore, collectively, the page illustrates the transmission and transformation of the Luchos, from the ten into the Torah – received from God by Moshe, which was then handed off to Aaron and finally to the Jewish people.

Figure 7: Detail Second Nuremberg Haggadah (Center for Jewish Art)

There is perhaps another example of the codex that addresses the minim issue. In the Laud Machzor, c. 1290, the illustration for the piyyut recited on Shavous, Adon Ammani, the upper register has an angel delivering two separate rectilinear tablet while on the right side the Israelites receive a single item with a loop at the bottom. Unlike the Birds Head or other manuscripts that has the transformation into the Torah during the transmission stage; here, the only item the Israelites received was this single item with the loop. What is this unusual single panel with a loop? It may be a a codex. Manuscripts and codices were originally kept in cabinets, armaria, but in the late 13^th and early 14^th centuries they were more commonly placed on desks, and the practice of chaining books to prevent theft began (see here). Perhaps the loop in the Laud Machzor is a ring of a chained codex and another provides another example of using the codex to address the minim issue.

Figure 8: Laud Machzor 127r (Bodleian Library, MS Laud Or. 321)

Hebrew Book Illustrations & Anti-Jewish Representations

Illustrations in printed books, however, do not appear to be concerned with solving the minim issue. To the contrary, some iconography in printed books can be read to diminish or even undermine not only the torah’s transmission but even the continued applicability and viability of the Decalogue. Printed illustrated Hebrew books depict either Moshe receiving or transmitting the tablets or simply Moshe and the tablets without context. Of the four printed mother Haggadahs that served as models for nearly all subsequent printed illustrated Haggadahs, only one, Amsterdam 1695, depicts ma’mad har sinai. Unlike the other illustrations in that edition, which are modeled after Mathis Merian’s Bible, this illustration was borrowed from other Amsterdam Hebrew prints. As we have previously discussed, while the engraver clearly used Merian as a model he deliberately altered the images to suit the Jewish text rather than their original Christian source. Merian’s imagery for ma’amad har Sinai was entirely at odds with the Jewish view, and therefore, the illustrator sought an alternative source. Merian only depicts the sin of the Golden Calf and not the delivery or transmission of the Decalogue/Torah. That aligns with Christian theology that focuses on the sins of the Jews, rather than the monumental and exceptional example of God speaking directly to the Jews and imparting his Torah.

Figure 9: Amsterdam Haggadah, 1695 (Center for Jewish Art)

The Amsterdam Haggadah used the imagery that first appears on the titlepage of the 1679 Amsterdam Humash and reused on many subsequent editions of the Humashim from Amsterdam and other cities. Here, the mountain is in the middle and Moshe is still on top, receiving the tablets. They are square, and one is held in each of his hands. The illustration does not depict Moshe delivering the Torah or tablets; therefore, it does not address the tension between the Decalogue and the torah. Nonetheless, arguably implicitly, the inclusion of the image on a title page of a Humash, obviates the need to include additional imagery for the minim issue – Moshe receiving the tablets is literally attached and is the precursor to the entire Torah.

Figure 10: Humash, Amsterdam, 1679 (Gross Family Collection)

While the Decalogue scene does not appear in the other mother Haggadahs, Moshe with the luchos is used as one of the border figures in the Venice 1609 Haggadah. Moshe is carrying two connected round-topped tablets and has a light emanating from his forehead. This illustration of Moshe and the luchos is among the most common title page illustrations in Hebrew books.

Figure 11: Title Page Shu”t Rashba, Hanau, 1610 (Gross Family Collecdtion)

It first appears adorning the titlepage of Shu”T Maharil, Hanau, 1610. However, that image was clearly borrowed from a non-Jewish source. Moshe has horns, with rounded topped tablets, and is flanked by Aaron wearing a bishop’s mitre and holding a censer.[14] There is another nuance to the image that may also specifically Chrisitan, and more important theologically than whether Moshe had horns or light emanating from his head. Unlike the Jewish sources discussed above, Moshe does not hold the tablets aloft. Rather, they are standing on the ground, his hand on top. This aligns with the Christian view of the Decalogue; after Jesus, it was relegated to a secondary role or was even superseded by the New Testament. The depiction in Shu”T Hashiv R’ Eliezer, published in 1749 in Neuwied, Germany, presents a particularly striking variation. In this volume, Moshe’s hand is shown flat, seemingly serving to drive down the tablets into the ground rather than grasping them, as seen in the Hanua prints. Additionally, unlike other works that either show some of the text on the tablets or leave them blank, Hashiv depicts the tablets filled with lines, effectively obscuring or erasing any text.

Figure 12: Shu”t Hashiv Reb Eliezer, Neuwied, 1748

The unique nature of Hashiv’s title page is amplified when compared with to similar title pages, one may have even served as the a model for Hashiv. Critically, that title page includes subtle yet significant modifications. For example, David Gans, a disciple of Maharal, in his work Sefer Nitzahon, published in Altdorf in 1644, created one of the most exquisite Hebrew title pages. It features a similar depiction of Moshe as seen in Hashiv, with his hand resting atop the tablets that include some lines, resembling Hashiv. However, these tablets prominently display the Hebrew “Aseres ha-Dibros,” clearly underscoring their importance.

Figure 13: Sefer Nitzhon, Altdorf, 1644

Another contrary example is Yefeh Anaf, by R. Shmuel Jaffe, Frankfurt a.d. Order, 1696, which depicts a Jewish Moshe with rays emanating from his head, holding round-topped tablets with the beginning of each directive in Hebrew.

Like the three manuscripts discussed above, there is another title page that features Moshe with a scroll instead of tablets. This title page, which appears in a number of different Amsterdam books, for example, Sefer Shenei Luchos ha-Bris, Amsterdam, 1698, Yad Yosef, Amsterdam, 1700, and Eshlei Ravrevei, Amsterdam, 1711, is an amalgamation of four biblical figures, each symbolizing one of the four crowns: Torah (Moshe), priesthood (Aaron), kingship (Dovid), and a good name (Shlomo).

Figure 14: Shnei Luchos ha-Bris, Amsterdam, 1698

A later Amsterdam edition of the Humash combines all three Amsterdam illustrations on the title page. The 1827 Amsterdam Humash features Carl Christian Fuchs’s engraved title page. At the top is the image of Moshe accepting the two square tablets. Moshe appears below on the left, holding round-topped tablets with lines representing the text, and in the center is a crown of Torah. Fuchs includes another Amsterdam illustration at the bottom of the page, this one from the 1695 Haggadah, which depicts the temple.

Figure 15: Humash, Amsterdam, 1827

There is another unique depiction of the tablets on an early 19th-century title page. In the third edition of Mendelsohn’s Humash, Fürth, 1801-1803, Moshe and Aaron flank the title page. However, Moshe, with rays, holds only his staff. In the central image, the ark of the covenant is present, and the two tablets, with rounded tops, are superimposed in the foreground.

Figure 16: Derech Selulah, Fürth, 1802 (Gross Family Collection)

One printed book, however, R. Yosef Ergas’ Shomer Emunim (Amsterdam, 1736), may be a unique example that specifically addresses the minim issue. This work, which discusses the legitimacy of Rabbinic Judaism, includes a representation within a circular design surrounded by laurel leaves at the center of the upper register. Initially, the figure appears to be Moshe holding the luchos. However, the accompanying legend identifies the figure as “Rabbenu ha-Kodesh,” Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi, the compiler of the Mishna and a key figure in rabbinic Judaism. This suggests that the Mishna – Rebi Yehuda’s text – is synonymous with the luchos.

Figure 17: Shomer Emunim, Amsterdam, 1736 (Moreshet Auctions)

This interpretation is further supported when compared to the title page model for Shomer Emunim, David Nieto’s Matteh Dan, Kuzari ha-Sheni, (London, 1724). This work also defends rabbinic Judaism and depicts the figure labeled “Rabbenu ha-Kodesh” encircled in the upper register, but he is holding a book with the inscription “Mishna.” The printers of Shomer Emunim modeled the title page on Matteh Dan, yet went further in visually equating the Mishna with the Decalogue.

Figure 18: Matte Dan, London, 1714 (Moreshet Auctions)

Except for the Amsterdam prints, title page illustrations consistently show round-topped tablets, unlike Hebrew manuscripts where tablet shapes vary. This likely stems from printing developing after Christian art standardized the round-topped representation. Table 1 summarizes twenty-two manuscripts depicting the tablets, with no consistent shape linked to a specific era or region. In one instance both rounded and rectilinear shapes in the same manuscript.[15] In the Sarajevo Haggadah, the tablets appear on two separate panels (panels 30 and 32): once when Moshe receives and conveys the Decalogue, and a second time in the scene depicting what may be the Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple, or the Messianic Temple.[16] In the first instance, the tablets are rounded, while in the second, they are rectilinear. It is conceivable, though admittedly improbable, that the original designs were rounded and depicted in the first panel. However, in the second panel depicting the temple, when the decision was made to construct the ark with a square shape, the tops may have been removed to ensure a better fit.

The Ultimate Message of Har Sinai

One final manuscript illustration is notable not only for the shape or material of the tablets, but for the broader message it conveys. The entire nation was present at ma’amad Har Sinai, including men, women, and children. The Dresden Machzor, circa 1290, depicts Moshe receiving the tablets on the upper right of the panel. On the left side of the top register, Moshe delivers them to a kneeling woman, with no men depicted. This representation indicates that the Torah was given to and applies to everyone equally. The shape itself conveys a universal message. The luchos feature rounded tablets within a rectangular frame, symbolizing that everyone fits within Judaism’s broad parameters.

Figure 19: Dresden Machzor, c. 1290 (MS Dresd. A.46A, 202)

Table 1: Manuscripts & the Shape of the Tablets

	Square/Rectilinear	Rounded	Scroll
1.	Laud Machzor (Southern Germany, c. 1290, Bodleian, Laud Or. 321, fol. 127v)	Birds Head Haggadah (Southern Germany, c. 1300, Israel Museum, MS 180/57, fol. 23)	Nuremberg II Haggadah (1470-1480, Schocken Library, MS 24087)
2.	Rothschild Machzor (Florence, 1492, JTS, fol. 139)	Sarajevo Haggadah (Spain, 14^th Century, Sarajevo Museum)	Yahuda Haggadah (mid 15^th century, Israel Museum, MS 180/50)
3.	Tripartite Machzor (Southern Germany, c. 1320, British Library, MS. Add. 22413, f. 3r)	Parma Machzor (13^th century, Western Ashkenaz, Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, MS Parm. 2887, fol. 101v)	Rothschild Weill Machzor (c. 1470, NLI, MS 8⁰4450, fol. 203)
4.	Schocken Bible (Southern Germany, c. 1300, Schocken Library, MS. 14840, fol. iv)	Dresden Machzor (1290, Mscr. Dresd. A.46.a, fol. 408)	MS 1388 Paris (1583, Bibliothèque Nat., MS 1338, fol. 14r)
5.	Regensburg Pentateuch (Regensburg?, c. 1300, Israel Museum, MS 180/52, fol. 154v)	Ulm-Treviso Siddur (1450-1453, Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, MS Parm. 2895, fol. 271)
6.	Sarajevo Haggadah (Spain, 14^th Century, Sarajevo Museum)	Floersheim Haggadah (1502, Zurich, Floersheim Collection, fol. 15).
7.	First Leningrad Bible Egypt, (?) 929, fragment (Leningrad Public Library, MS II 17)
8.	Parma Bible (Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, MS Parm. 2710, fol. 3r)
9.	King’s Bible (Catalonia, Spain, 1384, MS King’s 1, f. 3v)
10.	Catalan Bible (Catalonia, Spain, third quarter of 14^th century, MS Add. 15250, f. 3v)
11.	Harley Catalan Bible (Catalonia, Spain, c. 1350, MS Harley 1528, f. 8r)
12.	Darmstadt Haggadah II (Universitäts-und Landesbibliothek, Darmstadt, Cod. Or 28, fol. 9v)

[1] Although these terms are inaccurate because the Torah does not refer to them as commandments, huqqim, mitzvos, or mishpatim, rather aseres hadivarim or aseres hadibros, nonetheless, as that is the most widespread description we use that term.
[2] See generally, Gad Ben-Ami Sarfatti, “The Tablets of the Covenant as a Symbol of Judaism,” in The Ten Commandments, As Reflected in Tradition and Literature Throughout the Ages, ed. Ben-Zion Segal (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1985)(Hebrew), 353-388; Ruth Mellinkoff “Round-topped Tablets of the Law,” Journal of Jewish Art I (1974): 28–43.

Almost immediately after the luchos were displayed in synagogues, some argued that their display contravened the injunction against elevating the Decalogue above the rest of the Torah. The first to raise this issue was Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller. He describes how one synagogue in Prague displayed them and equates the display with the public reading, subsequently banning the practice. Rabbi Heller, who served as the rabbi of the Altneu Synagogue (Old-New Synagogue), incorporated other symbols within the building. The walls bear various abbreviations corresponding to verses that describe the decorum and purpose of prayer. The ark is flanked by two lions at the top, and the luchos do not appear anywhere within the synagogue. Rabbi Heller was most likely referring to the Maisel’s Synagogue which, today, displays the luchos above the ark. This synagogue was originally built in the 1590s. However, since it burnt down in 1689 we cannot be certain that the design of the ark was the same during Rabbi Heller’s lifetime. Whether or not this was the synagogue Rabbi Heller referenced, it serves as an example of how his opinion never gained traction even in Prague. Indeed, the Maisel’s Synagogue also displays the Decalogue on the exterior of the building, as does the Baroque Synagogue (originally built in 1622/23, also destroyed in the 1689 fire). The Klausen Synagogue’s building was completed in 1694, and its ark is topped by the luchos. For more information, see Prague Synagogues (Jewish Museum in Prague: 2011), which includes photographs of the synagogues and descriptions of their respective histories.

For a discussion of the issue of Decalogue displays in synagogues see Yechiel Goldhaver, Minhagei ha-Kehilos, vol. 1 (Jerusalem: 2005), 45-48n1, who collects examples throughout Europe of synagogues with the luchos displays as well as sources discussing the propriety of the practice.

Regading contemporary sources that discuss what shape to use for the luchos, rounded, square or rectangular, see Reuven Chaim Klein, “Square versus Rounded,” available here. Of note is the opinion of R. Yisroel Yaakov Fisher, Chief Rabbi of Badatz Eidah Chareidis, who argues, the contra-historical position, that the original tablets were rounded. Indeed, according to Fisher, there were rounded at the top and bottom.
[3] See Chaim Kenefsky, Baraysa d’Melehes ha–Mishkan, Da’as (Beni Brak, 1996), 38, and Meir Ish Shalom, Beritah, 43; see also Menahem Silber, “Aron ha-Edus ve-Luchot ha-Bris: Tzurotom u-Tavnesam,” in Sefer ha-Zikhron le-Rebi Moshe Lifschitz, ed. Rafael Rosenbaum (New York: 1996), 236-42; see also, Midrash Devarim Rabba, ed. Saul Liebermann (Jerusalem: Shalem, 1992)122n2.
[4] See Ephraim Urbach, “The Place of the Ten Commandments in Ritual and Prayer,” (Hebrew), in Ten Commandments, ed. Segal, 128.
[5] See Urbach, “Place,” 132-136, 138-142; Von V. Aptowitzer, “Bemerkungen zur Liturgie und Geschichte der Liturgie,” MGWJ 74 (1930), 104-115. Both also attempt to identity of the sect of the minim.
[6] See Mellinkoff, “Round-Top.”
[7] See generally, Sarit Shalev-Eyni, “Receiving the Law: Visual Language and Communal Identity in Medieval Ashkenaz,” Gesta 55(2), (Fall 2016), 239-255. Shalev-Eyni discusses many of the examples below.
[8] See Marc Michael Epstein, The Medieval Haggadah: Art, Narrative, and Religious Imagination (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 2011), 90; Metzger, Haggadah, 303. Metzger demonstrates that the second figure is also Moshe. Id.
[9] Metzger, Haggadah, 303.
[10] Shalev-Eyni, “Receiving of the Law,” 246-249.
[11] Anthony Grafton, “From Roll to Codex: A Christian Initiative,” in Crossing Borders, Hebrew Manuscripts as a Meeting-place of Cultures, ed. Piet van Boxel and Sabine Arndt (Bodleian Library, Oxford, 2012), 15.
[12] Grafton, “Roll,” 20.
[13] Metzger, Haggadah, 305.
[14] Regarding the image of the horned Moshe see Ruth Mellinkoff, The Horned Moses in Medieval Art and Thought (University of California Press: Berkeley, 1970. For a collection of articles discussing the depiction of Moshe throughout history and reproductions of many examples, see Moïse Figures d’un Prophète, ed. Juliette Braillon, (Musée d’Art et d’Histoire du Judaïsme: Paris, 2015).
[15] The Sarajevo Haggadah is the only Haggadah manuscript from the Sefard tradition that depicts the Giving of the Torah. While the Sephardic manuscripts precede the Haggadah text with the Biblical Cycle from Genisis to Exodus, the remaining Haggadahs end before the episode at Mount Sinai. See Metzger, Haggadah, 302.
[16] See Shalom Sabar, The Sarajevo Haggadah History & Art (Sarajevo: 2018), 233-235; 239-241. Sabar only offers Solomon’s Temple or the Messianic Temple. Nonetheless, it is equally possible that this panel simply depicts what follows the Giving of the Law, the construction of the Tabernacle.

Review of Rav Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky’s Taharas Yisroel

Review of Rav Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky’s Taharas Yisroel

By Shmuel Lubin

Shmuel Lubin is a doctoral candidate in biology and creator of “The Rishonim” podcast.

ר‘ צבי הירש גראדזענסקי טהרת ישראל, הלכות נדה, לראשונה מכתב יד, ע“י מכון תפארת צבי, [נדפס ע“י מכון עלה זית], תקסח עמודים

The publication of a new sefer on Hilchos Niddah is not necessarily cause for celebration in the often-saturated world of halachic literature.[1] But when such a publication is based on an early 20th century manuscript from the American heartland, it at least merits a glance; if the author happens to also have a rather famous rabbinic last name, talmidei chachamim may take interest even without knowing anything about the sefer’s content. All this can be said about Sefer Taharas Yisrael on the laws of Niddah, written by Rav Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky zt”l. Born c. 1857 in Lithuania, where he learned be-chavrusa with his more famous second-cousin, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky zt”l, he then spent most of his adult life serving as the chief rabbi of Omaha, Nebraska for almost 60 years (1891-1947). [2] As intriguing as his biography is, once one begins studying Rav Grodzinsky’s Sefer Taharas Yisrael, such details quickly fade into insignificance, washed away by a torrent of Torah brilliance. This review will therefore focus first on judging the newly published work for what it is: a book on the laws of Hilchos Niddah (Family Purity).

Photo of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky from approximately the time he arrived in America. (From Rosenbaum and Wakschlag, 1994)

Probably the most succinct way to describe the style of the Sefer Taharas Yisrael is to say that it does for Hilchos Niddah what R. Avraham Bornstein’s (the “Sochatchover”) Eglei Tal does for Hilchos Shabbos: it is a book of halacha that also provides the background for the laws through detailed conceptual analysis of its sources. In the center of the page is the halacha, which is usually a direct quotation from Shulchan Aruch, Rama, or similarly standard halachic works. This main text is flanked by two sets of notes: “Mekoros,” or citations, and “Biurim,” elaborations.

Because the main body of the text is often an exact citation from a standard halachic authority such as the Shulchan Aruch or Rama, sometimes these formulations do not precisely reflect the halachic consensus as Rav Grodzinsky understands it. Despite its name, therefore, the “Mekoros” section not only provides citations for the main text, but also serves more generally as ‘footnotes’, including brief but important clarifications or qualifications of the cited halacha. Together, this allows for the Sefer Taharas Yisrael to be useful as a work of practical guidance, like so many other summary works on Hilchos Niddah available today, but at the same maintain the voice of the classic authorities such as the Shulchan Aruch.

The vast majority of the sefer’s text, however, is comprised of the Biurim, wherein Rav Grodzinsky engages in classical rabbinic interpretation of halachic texts, analyzing their language and logic, raising questions, proposing interpretations, and refining his (and his readers’) understanding of the earlier textual sources. These sources used in the Biurim focus primarily on the Gemara and Rishonim, as well as the major poskim throughout the generations both “on the page” of the Shulchan Aruch and in other classic (and sometimes not-so-classic) works of She’eilos u-Teshuvos and halacha. Despite his remote location, especially relative to the Torah centers of Europe and America, Rav Grodzinsky amassed an extraordinary library of seforim, as attested to by the roughly 200 books of She’eilos u-Teshuvos that he lists in the introductory pages of the reference work that he published during his lifetime, “Likutei Zvi.”

Part of Rav Grodzinsky’s library which was housed by Otzar ha-Poskim in Jerusalem. (From Rosenbaum and Wakschlag, 1994)

Nevertheless, in Sefer Taharas Yisrael, Rav Grodzinsky focuses more narrowly on the classical commentaries printed in now-standard editions of the Gemara, Rambam, Tur and Shulchan Aruch.[3] Of course, not all of these were always so “standard”; for example, Rav Grodzinsky makes use of the Tosafos ha-Rosh that had been “newly printed on the side of the Gemara” (p. 42), referring to the now ubiquitous Vilna Shas published by Mrs. Deborah Romm and her sons during Rav Grodzinsky’s lifetime (while he was still living in Eastern Europe).

A few other observations are worth noting about Rav Grodzinsky’s use of sources. Although he does reference the responsa literature, aside from references to the Noda BiYehudah and Chasam Sofer, the total number of those citations is probably only a few dozen (which is certainly impressive, but does not reflect the more extraordinary breadth of his reference work, Likutei Zvi). Rav Grodzinsky also quotes heavily from both the Chochmas Adam of R. Avraham Danzig, and from the Shulchan Aruch “HaRav” of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, whom Rav Grodzinsky invariably – and uniquely – cites as the “the Rav, the Gaon, the Chassid.” These seforim have become standard works of halacha that are frequently cited in the literature of the past century, but in several places, Rav Grodzinsky also quotes from another book of halacha that is rarely if ever cited today, the “Ikkarei ha-Dat” of R. Daniel Tirani (18th century Italy), which is noteworthy for also including what would be considered “medical” information along with the halacha (see p. 38).

Among Rav Grodzinsky’s many sources are also non-halachic texts, such as the Midrash Vayikra Rabbah or R. Eliyahu Mizrachi’s supercommentary to Rashi on the Torah. Another noteworthy reference is Rav Grodzinsky’s discussion of a comment by the “Besamim Rosh,” (p. 215) attributed to R. Asher b. Yechiel (“the Rosh”) but now widely accepted to have been forged by Saul Berlin.[4] This is especially interesting because among Rav Grodzinsky’s unpublished manuscripts is an expansive 11-volume work on the (authentic) responsa of R. Asher b. Yechiel. Given his expertise in the works of this particular medieval authority, it would be very valuable to know whether (or to what extent) he believed that positions expressed in the Besamim Rosh fit with other known statements of the Rosh. In an important responsum on the topic of annulling a marriage, published by Rav Grodzinsky at the end of his commentary to Maseches Berachos (published in 1923), he briefly mentions a “sevara meshubeshes” [distorted reasoning] quoted in the name of the Besamim Rosh, and says that the book was not available to him at the time. In Sefer Taharas Yisrael though, Rav Grodzinsky raises no objections to the book per se.[5]

Sometimes the “Biurim” are merely quotes from earlier compendiums, such as the Beis Yosef, or summaries of some of the major discussions of later commentaries such as the Chavos Daas and Sidrei Taharah (and those who have read through extensive comments of the Sidrei Taharah will acknowledge that extracting the main points from his lengthy pilpulim is itself a great service). In what may be the most difficult topic of Hilchos Niddah, Rav Grodzinsky excuses himself for deviating from his usual brevity to enumerate the various rabbinic positions and their halachic consequences for the benefit of someone struggling through the dense halachic details in question (p. 114-117).

Usually, though, Rav Grodzinsky goes far beyond mere quotations or summaries of earlier commentaries. Whether he is discussing the Gemara, the Rishonim, the Shulchan Aruch, or later commentators, Rav Grodzinsky’s novel elaborations upon these sources of the halacha are extraordinary in their clarity, profundity, and creativity. Most of these biurim are brief, consisting of a single question-and-answer, an additional proof to the position cited in the main text, or the like, but written in a lucid style that stands in stark contrast to other ‘short’ halachic commentaries such as the Shach and Taz.

The vast majority of Rav Grodzinsky’s novel contributions are in explicating a single, very precise detail of a halachic discussion. He does not engage in the type of high-level conceptual categorization (inventing ‘lomdishe chakiras’) that is common in contemporary yeshiva study.[6] Instead, his approach involves a close examination of the original sources, on occasion proposing alternative readings or explanations to resolve questions or demonstrate proofs to the halacha in the Gemara, Rishonim and early Acharonim.

Rav Grodzinsky’s creativity is especially evident in defending positions of Rishonim (and sometimes Acharonim) from the challenges of later commentators. As he writes (p. 257 and 343), “it is a mitzvah to resolve the words of the Beis Yosef from whose waters we drink constantly.” This tendency is not at all limited to R. Yosef Caro who, as the author of the Beis Yosef and Shulchan Aruch, is one of the main pillars of halachic decision-making. Rav Grodzinsky writes similarly regarding the authors of Knesses Yechezkel (R. Yechezkel Katzenellenbogen, p. 68-69), the Perisha (R. Yehoshua Falk Katz, p. 260), the Panim Meiros (R. Meir Poznan/Eisenstadt, p. 318), and many others. In fact, Rav Grodzinsky appears to be especially motivated to defend opinions that are rejected as erroneous by the majority of other commentators, saving them from potential dishonor.

As Eliezer Brodt discussed in his review of Sefer Beis ha-Yayin, Rav Grodzinsky is at times willing to attribute difficult passages to printers’ errors, but is wary of making such suggestions too frequently.[7] However, he sometimes solves difficult positions of Rishonim or explains why groups of Rishonim will disagree with each other by noting that they likely had different versions of the Gemara’s text.[8] In a similar vein, Rav Grodzinsky is adept at demonstrating how a dispute among Rishonim or Acharonim is dependent upon a dispute found in the Gemara (or at least earlier sources; e.g. on p. 185). He is particularly sensitive to rabbinic authors of differing opinions and has a keen eye towards finding a “le-shitaso,” explaining how deciding one particular halacha is dependent upon understanding a different halacha. He applies this method to many Amoraim, Rishonim, and Acharonim. These types of explanations demonstrate how Rav Grodzinsky was deeply attuned not just to nuances of the Talmudic sources, but also to the specific personalities behind each opinion voiced by the various commentators and authorities. Relatedly, Rav Grodzinsky will sometimes remark upon the general tendency or style of a Rishon, noting, for instance, “it is surprising to me that the Rosh did not mention that the position of the Tosafists diverges [from his own view] and dispute their words, as is his custom in every place” (p. 211).

Within the context of halachic discussion, Rav Grodzinsky is not averse to suggesting fresh and often creative interpretations of the Gemara that appear to be at odds with the major commentaries. Usually, his reinterpretations of primary sources are in response to some problem raised by the commentators, but this is not always the case. To take one relatively simple example, the Gemara (Niddah 9b) states:

וכמה עונה אמר ריש לקיש משום רבי יהודה נשיאה עונה בינונית שלשים יום ורבא אמר רב חסדא עשרים יום ולא פליגי מר קחשיב ימי טומאה וימי טהרה ומר לא חשיב ימי טומאה.

And how long is a typical cycle? Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: the average cycle is thirty days. And Rava says that Rav Ḥisda says: It is twenty days. [The Gemara clarifies:] And they do not disagree. One counts [i.e., includes] days of impurity and days of purity. And the other does not count the days of impurity [i.e., the seven days of niddah plus the three days of possible ziva sightings]

The Gemara is fairly explicit in saying that the two rabbis cited as opining upon the average woman’s cycle do not disagree with each other. Yet, Rav Grodzinsky (p. 130) believes that the Gemara would not have expressed their opinions in different ways if their positions were truly identical, and so he suggests that they do, in fact, disagree, but the Gemara simply means that they both hold that the average cycle is approximately 30 days, not that their opinions vary so widely as to differ by ten whole days.

Notwithstanding his frequently bold and creative suggestions, Rav Grodzinsky is very hesitant to utilize those innovations in practice. Instead, he writes, “I will permit the audacity of boldly writing what has come into my net [arhiv be-nafshi oz lichtov mah she-alah be-metzudasi], but I am writing only for the purposes of study and not le-halacha, considering only as a student considers before his master” (p. 20), or “for even if this [novel explanation] answers many questions, it is against many Rishonim and Acharonim who are so much greater than I” (p. 389). When it comes to the practical implementation of halacha, Rav Grodzinsky’s humility prevents him from issuing a pesak that is against what he views as the mainstream position of the earlier poskim.[9] His determination of this “mainstream” is complex; Rav Grodzinsky does not appear to be working within a rule-based system such that, for example, if there is a dispute between the Shach and Taz he would always decide in favor of the Shach.[10] Instead, Rav Grodzinsky takes all the commentaries into consideration and appears to decide according to his considered majority, but many times both opinions will appear in the main body of the halacha in the center of the page, as yesh omrim [some say] one way or the other.

Even without consciously pushing the boundaries of pesak halacha, however, sometimes Rav Grodzinsky’s assessment of the halachic consensus is nevertheless important where later or contemporary rabbinic authorities continue to dispute certain halachos. Hilchos Niddah may be a “well-trodden path” (much more so than, for example, the laws of yayin nesech, the subject of Rav Grodzinsky’s book published in 2011), but there are numerous issues where contemporary poskim differ, and Rav Grodzinsky can thus serve as an important source for deciding halacha. To take just one example out of many, Rav Grodzinsky believes that there is no reason to follow the stricter opinion of the Or Zaru’a in considering a veses [expected period] to last for 24 (instead of 12) hours.[11]

Most of Rav Grodzinsky’s responsa remain unpublished, but from the few that are available it is clear that he did not shy away from tackling even the most complex of modern issues. In an undated manuscript that was probably written around 1941, for example, Rav Grodzinsky wrote what may be the first full-length discussion of the halachic implications of artificial insemination.[12] Some of Rav Grodzinsky’s previously published works also include fascinating asides or observations pertaining to his role and experiences as a rabbi in early twentieth century America.[13] However, there is almost no topic in Sefer Taharas Yisrael that was not discussed in the older, classical works of halacha. As far as I could tell, there is no hint to the fact that the sefer was written in 20th century Nebraska instead of 18th century Prague, even though there are many instances where one would think that the different American context might have an impact upon halacha. Perhaps this is because Sefer Taharas Yisrael was written earlier in Rav Grodzinsky’s lifetime, or maybe he simply wanted to maintain its classical style without discussing new questions in this context.

If Sefer Taharas Yisrael were published in pre-war Eastern Europe, it would have undoubtedly been popular among rabbinic students who recognized Rav Grodzinsky as a fantastic talmid chacham.[14] In (nearly) all of his writings, Rav Grodzinsky’s intended audience was certainly his rabbinic colleagues in Europe and Israel (then British Palestine), not his own congregants in the city of Omaha, Nebraska. In terms of his vast Torah knowledge, Rav Grodzinsky must have been worlds away from his neighbors and community. It is hard to imagine what he knew or thought about the city of Omaha when he was 33 years old, living in Vilna, when he accepted the invitation to become its rabbi in 1891. By the time Rav Grodzinsky arrived, there were (at least) two main Orthodox synagogues – a “Litvishe Shul” (Congregation B’nai Israel, founded 1883) and a “Russishe Shul” (Chevra B’nai Israel Adas Russia, founded 1884), with a third Hungarian Shul dedicated a few years after. As Omaha’s Orthodox rabbi, Rav Grodzinsky gave weekly sermons, led daily Mishnah studies, counseled congregants, answered halachic questions, and supervised kosher slaughter, but it seems inevitable that a great chasm would have existed between him and his community. He refused to speak English, even to his children, and seems to have avoided participating in the committees and social obligations that were becoming typical of American rabbis (although he did participate in the founding of Agudas ha-Rabbanim in 1902).

The majority of even Rav Grodzinsky’s most devoted congregants who may have purchased their rabbi’s books as a mark of respect could probably hardly read them, and his neighbors surely had little appreciation of the talmudic genius living among them. The salary provided by the shuls of Omaha, initially a modest honorarium of $25 per month from each synagogue, was hardly enough to make ends meet. When the two larger Omaha shuls hired Rabbi Yechiel Michel Charlop in 1923 (who stayed for two years before moving to the Bronx), he was offered an annual salary of $3,500. Meanwhile, Rav Grodzinsky at the time earned about $200-400 and was forced to supplement his income by providing various other functions such as selling Matzah for Passover and traveling annually to Sacramento, California to certify kosher wines. A few decades after his death, nobody in the community even remembered where he was buried.[15]

Instead, Rav Grodzinsky poured unimaginably superhuman efforts into producing scholarly Torah writings. His first book, “Mikveh Yisrael,” a commentary on the laws of ritual baths, appeared in 1898 with the approbation of his rebbe R. Yitzchak Elchonon Spektor zt”l. Starting in 1896, he contributed numerous articles to respected Torah journals, engaging in scholarly debates on a wide range of halachic issues with the rabbis of Europe, Israel, and elsewhere in America. The vast majority of Rav Grodzinsky’s prolific output, however, remained in manuscript form at the time of his death (at about 90) in 1947. Shortly afterwards, his personal library and unpublished writings were shipped off to the Otzar ha-Poskim institute in Jerusalem, as per his instructions prior to his passing.

A newspaper article from 1945 reported that Rav Grodzinsky (then at the age of about 87) was “planning the publication of additional works in the field of Rabbinics,”[16] but the word “planning” is a woefully inadequate description of the amount of effort and care that Rav Grodzinsky put into preparing his writings for publication. Many seforim aficionados will be aware of R. Akiva Eiger’s directions to his sons that they should publish his responsa using large clear lettering on the finest paper available. Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky went quite a bit further, taking an unusual, perhaps even unique step towards ensuring that his halachic works would be published as beautifully as he imagined them to be: with his clear handwriting, he would copy over his ready-to-publish manuscript into bound notebooks in the precise page layout that he intended for it to be printed, with the main halacha in the center flanked by citations on one side and elaborations on the other.

Despite the incredible lengths Rav Grodzinsky went to in preparing his manuscripts, they languished in their boxes (and were even tied up in their original ropes) for many decades before any of these previously unpublished works were actually printed. The saga of their publication is the subject of a 2015 Mishpacha magazine article[17] with additional updates included in the Introduction sections of more recent publications. In 2011, R. Shalom Jacob zt”l published Rav Grodzinsky’s work on Yayin Nesech, and a few years later published a collection of his writings on the holidays under the title Mo’adei Zvi vol. 1 (2016). This newly published work, Sefer Taharas Yisrael on Hilchos Niddah, the third in the series of Rav Grodzinsky’s works published from manuscripts, marks a bittersweet occasion, coinciding with the first yahrzeit of R. Shalom Jacob, whose dedicated efforts in publishing Rav Grodzinsky’s seforim have been continued by Rabbi Myron Wakschlag through Machon Tiferes Zvi, a nonprofit organization dedicated to publishing Rav Grodzinsky’s works. This new volume includes tributes to R. Shalom Jacob by Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Schlesinger of Monsey, by R. Shalom’s father, and by R. Shalom’s friend and partner-in-publication, Rabbi Wakschlag.

The publishers have lived up to Rav Grodzinsky’s high expectations admirably; Sefer Taharas Yisrael is handsomely bound, typeset in large lettering, and with the sections clearly laid out and formatted according to the author’s handwritten notebooks (even if maintaining the exact pagination would have been impractical, if not impossible). As expected for a work of this size and complexity, it is not entirely without typographical errors, although these rarely impede understanding.[18]

Particularly helpful is the Source Index, which contributes to making Sefer Taharas Yisrael more user-friendly for someone studying either Maseches Niddah or Shulchan Aruch (although Rav Grodzinsky’s own sefer does mostly follow the organization of the Tur). Without this index, the sefer would be much more difficult to be studied by someone following a classic yeshiva or kollel curriculum. However, it should be noted that the index, while useful, is not entirely comprehensive, especially for sources beyond the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch commentaries. For instance, there is no reference to “Ra’ah” (R. Ahron ha-Levi of Lunel) or his work, Bedek ha-Bayis despite being quoted several times.[19] However, as it currently stands the index is already 49 pages long(!), and these minor deficiencies do not substantially detract from its overall utility (and certainly do not impinge upon the quality of the sefer as a whole).

There is no question in my mind that this work will be an invaluable resource for anyone engaged in serious study of Hilchos Niddah, as Rav Grodzinsky’s scholarship deserves a place on the shelf of every kollel beis medrash. Hopefully, this publication will serve as a catalyst for the financing of more publications from Rav Grodzinsky’s writings; a list of manuscripts being considered for future publication and other information about this project can be found on the publisher’s website. Aside from the benefit that this serves “le-hagdil Torah u-le-ha’adirah,” publication of his responsa and sermons in particular will likely provide fascinating insights into the rabbinic engagement with new technologies and social realities of early 20th century America.

Moreover, the quality and depth of Sefer Taharas Yisrael should further solidify Rav Grodzinsky’s place among the gedolim of his generation, and the sefer is a fitting tribute to this giant who was largely under-appreciated by his own congregants of Omaha, Nebraska. In the commentary to Maseches Berachos that Rav Grodzinsky published in his lifetime, he explained the rabbinic ‘blessing’ that “you should see your world in your life, your end in the World to Come, and your hope will be for generations” (Berachos 17a):

“That you should be recognized and desired in people’s eyes in this world… that is “your end in the World to Come,” and “your hope,” meaning, your hope that your lips will speak from the grave through others speaking your sayings in this world, as the Gemara says in Yevamos (97a), “will be for generations,” meaning, for many generations after you, people will continue to cite your teachings in this world. (Milei de-Berachos p. 187)

May this blessing be applied posthumously to Rav Grodzinsky as fulfilled through the further study and publication of his works.

For sample pages of this work Email Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

Note: The author of this review is closely related to a director of the sefer’s publisher, Machon Tiferes Zvi.

[1] This phenomenon was already discussed by Rav Grodzinsky in his introduction to Likutei Zvi on Even HaEzer, where he complains about the fact that too many seforim have already been published, saying that he therefore eschewed publishing his own writings except for his most unique contributions.
[2] All biographical details provided in this review, unless otherwise noted, are from Jonathan Rosenbaum and Myron Wakschlag. “Maintaining Tradition: A Survey of the Life and Writings of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky.” American Jewish History 82, 1994, pp. 263-288.
[3] In Sefer Taharas Yisrael, Rav Grodzinsky rarely cites Rishonim that are not either printed in the Vilna Shas or quoted by the Beis Yosef besides for Rambam (and commentaries) and Rashba. On p. 184, Rav Grodzinsky mentions that “after the time when I had written all this, the Hilchos Niddah of the Ramban came into my possession, and it says there…” On p. 190, Rav Grodzinsky corrects what he perceives to be a mistake in the Beis Yosef based on his edition of the Rashba.
[4] This topic has been discussed extensively on the Seforim Blog (and elsewhere). See references cited here: ‘Yikar Sahaduta Dipum Bidatta’ R. Tzvi Hirsch Levin, the Besamim Rosh and the Chida.
[5] His reference to the Besamim Rosh in Sefer Taharas Yisrael p. 215 is itself a reference from Sha’arei Teshuvah and does not necessarily indicate that Rav Grodzinsky had later obtained a copy of the original book.
[6] One of the most well-known Lithuanian critiques of the new methods of Talmud study can be found in the introduction to Sefer Marcheshes (published in 1931) by R. Henoch Eiges HY”D (1864-1941), who is referred to by Rav Grodzinsky as “my beloved friend from my youth,” in Rav Grodzinsky’s Mikraei Kodesh (New York, 1941) vol. 3, p. 168.
[7] In this newly published Sefer Taharas Yisrael, see p. 200 where he remarks that there is a mistake in his edition of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah and similarly on p. 357, but on p. 209 he rejects the suggestion of the Sidrei Taharah that there is a printer’s error in the Rashba.
[8] One interesting example can be found on p. 262-263, where Rav Grodzinsky demonstrates the consequences of two variant texts of the Gemara even though earlier commentators believed these variations to be of no halachic significance. Sefer Taharas Yisrael is replete with such examples.
[9] For just one out of dozens of examples, see p. 40, “but who can go against the Shach and Taz.”
[10] Specifically, in this example, Rav Grodzinsky sometimes decides like the Shach (e.g., p. 27, 81, 117, 140-141, 226) and sometimes against him (e.g. p. 97, 174).
[11] Unlike R. Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe 3:48) and Badei Hashulchan 189:7 quoting others who recommend following this stringency. Rav Grodzinsky, after discussing this position for several pages, concludes (on p. 48) by quoting from the Sidrei Taharah, אין לנו אלא דברי השו”ע
[12] “Be-‘Inyan Hazra’ah Melachutit.” Halacha u-Refuah vol. 5, edited by R. Moshe Hershler, Jerusalem, 1988, pp. 139-184. Additional responsa of Rav Grodzinsky are quoted in Otzar Ha-Poskim, Even ha-Ezer vol. 8, 17:58, p. 164, and vol. 9, 22:8, p. 66.
[13] For some examples, see the biographical introductions (“Toldos Rabbeinu HaMechaber”) to Sefer Beis ha-Yayin (2011), which was later expanded and enhanced in the version included in the front of Mo’adei Zvi (2016) and this new Sefer Taharas Yisrael (2024)
[14] Numerous references from Rav Grodzinsky’s rabbinic colleagues can be found in the article by Rosenbaum and Wakschlag as well as in the aforementioned biographical introductions to the newly published books.
[15] As discussed in the Mishpacha magazine article (see footnote 17). Today, Omaha does have an active Orthodox shul with a page dedicated to Rav Grodzinsky on its website.
[16] Jewish Press of Omaha (19 October 1945), cited in Rosenbaum and Wakschlag, p. 285 n. 61
[17] Kobre, Eytan. “Omaha’s Forgotten Sage.” Mishpacha Aug. 12, 2015. pp. 54-61. This was later republished by the author in Greatness: Portraits of Torah Personalities Past and Present (Mosaica Press, 2022), pp. 70-80.
[18] In a few instances, there are confusing errors regarding the name of an author; for example, on p. 24 (Biurim no. 2), “Ran” should be “Ram” (twice), and on p. 37 (Mekoros no. 5), “Rama” should say “Rambam”.
[19] Cited by Rav Grodzinsky, either directly or second-hand from the Beis Yosef, on pages 30, 54, 132, 167, 223, 227, and 253 (this last reference is especially important as Rav Grodzinsky clarifies a mix-up between Rashba and Ra’ah).