New Sefer Announcement

By: Eliezer Brodt

פירוש התורה לרבינו אברהם בן הרמב“ם, ספר בראשת, תרעח עמודים

פירוש התורה לרבינו אברהם בן הרמב“ם, ספר שמות, תתלב עמודים

מאמר על הדרשות ועל האגדות לרבינו אברהם בן הרמב“ם, מעיתיק השמועה, [בירורים בתולדות חכמי התלמוד] צז+צ עמודים

Recently the second volume of R. Avraham b. HaRambam’s perush on Chumash Shemot was released (832 pp.). This new edition was edited by Rabbi Moshe Maimon and was published in a beautiful edition by Machon Aleh Zayis.

Last Year Rabbi Maimon published the first volume (678 pp.) and the volume on R. Avraham’s Ma’amar Al Ha-Derashot.

What follows is a short description of the work. IY”H I hope to very shortly publish on the Seforim Blog an interview with the author where he describes more at length his work on R. Avraham b. HaRambam and his new edition of the Perush.

The Perush of R. Avraham b. HaRambam was first rescued from centuries of obscurity in 1958, when Dr. Ephraim Weisenberg of London translated into Hebrew the centuries-old manuscript owned by Oxford University, from its original Arabic. Weisenberg’s edition included the original Arabic along with a translation and commentary, accompanied with footnotes incorporating comments of other biblical commentators as well as works of the Rambam.

It has never been reprinted in full, and although the translated (but un-annotated) text has in fact been reprinted and marketed several times, these editions are also out of print and have long been unavailable to the public.

Among the highlights of this new edition of R. Maimon is that he has retranslated many hundreds of difficult words and passages from the original Arabic, utilizing advances made in the field by leading Judeo-Arabic experts.

In addition, since the initial publication of the commentary, amazing strides have been made in Genizah research which have transformed the field of Judeo-Arabic studies in general, and the Geonic-Andalusian tradition in particular. Many of the sources employed by R. Avraham in his writing of the commentary are now being made available in the form of critical editions of the works of R. Saadia and R. Shmuel b. Chofni Gaon. The result has been the identification of many obscure sources referenced by R. Avraham, as well as the clarification of untold number of passages in his commentary.

Both volumes are enhanced with essay length introductions (and copious and erudite footnotes) that trace the history of R. Avraham’s Perush, his commentarial style, and his particular contribution to the Maimonidean strain of the Andalusian tradition so prominently on display in his Perush. This new edition is a welcome addition to any serious student of Biblical commentary, and, together with the annotated edition of R. Avraham’s Ma’amar Al Ha-Derashot (Essay on Rabbinic Homilies) released by Rabbi Maimon last year, are a great contribution to Rabbinic studies in general and Maimonidean studies in particular.

Email me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for parts of the introduction and some sample pages of this special new work.

Copies are available for purchase at Beigeleisen (Brooklyn), Judaica Plaza (Lakewood), and Tuvia’s (Monsey) as well as through many other fine retailers.

On can purchase it online through Mizrahi’s Bookstore at this link.

In Eretz Yisrael, if you’re interested in purchasing copies contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

The Significance of Avraham Avinu’s Performance of the Mitzvot

By Michael Landy

Perfection for a Jew can only be realized through the performance of the mitzvot [commandments] of the Torah, which were given from G-d to Moshe on Sinai [Matan Torah]. Since man is finite, his thinking and understanding is limited and constrained to factors of time and space. Man is not capable, and it is beyond his intellectual reach, to calculate a finite system that can relate to the infinite ruchaniyut world—existence beyond time and space. Man needed a revelation from G-d that would give him such a system whereby in the physical world man could affect and achieve perfection in the ruchaniyut existence. Torah is this system given by G-d to the Klal Yisroel, and its function is realized through the performance of the mitzvot.[1] The mitzvot are an “interface” from finite physical existence to the ruchaniyut existence. It is our emunah [belief], and a rational deduction, that only through the performance of the mitzvot, given from G-d to Moshe on Sinai, that a Jew can reach completeness and perfection in this world and in his ruchaniyut existence.

The Talmud in Yoma 28b[2] states: אמר רב קיים אברהם אבינו כל התורה כולה שנאמר עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקולי וגו’ – Avraham Avinu (performed and) fulfilled all the commandments of the Torah.[3] In a responsum, the Rema (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) writes that this statement of the Talmud refers only to Avraham, to the exclusion of Yitzchak and Yaakov.[4] What is the overall intent of the Talmud stating and proving that Avraham kept the mitzvot? Since Avraham lived before Matan Torah, what would be the implication if Avraham did not observe all the mitzvot? Additionally, why is the emphasis on Avraham to the exclusion of Yitzchak and Yaakov

Early church theology dealt with a dilemma as to the status of Divine Law—Torah: the function of the mitzvot [commandments] as written in the Torah.[5] Historically, in order to counter judaization of the Galatian Church, then comprised of pagan converts to Christianity, and, as a general attack on Jewish converts who still kept to traditional Jewish observance of the mitzvot, Paul declared that belief in[6] ישוע הנוצרי [Jesus of Nazareth, the historical central figure in Christianity] alone was sufficient for man’s perfection.[7] As a consequence of this supposition, the observance and performance of Divine Law—the mitzvot of the Torah—would no longer be necessary for a person’s completeness or perfection.

The fundamental proof for this assertion was the Torah’s description of Avraham who lived prior to Matan Torah.[8] Avraham referred to as righteous (Bereshit 15:6) and his attainment to the level of navi [prophet] (Bereshit 20:7), all occurring before Matan Torah, were used as proofs that performance of the mitzvot was not essential and not necessary for man’s perfection. In their view, Matan Torah with the requirement of the performance of mitzvot, was a temporary necessity only for the generation exiting Egypt into a wilderness and for a number of subsequent generations, culminating with the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem and with the introduction of Jesus of Nazareth [יש”ו]. They postulated: with the appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, Torah Law and mitzvot became obsolete and were no longer necessary for a Jew’s performance. The basic requirement for a man’s completeness and perfection was only a type of identification with Jesus of Nazareth.

The Torah is completely opposed to this outlook. As stated above, perfection for a Jew can only be realized through the performance of the mitzvot [commandments], which were given from G-d to Moshe on Sinai [Matan Torah], and defined in the Torah she-ba’al peh. This is one of the main ramifications of Matan Torah for the world, that only through the performance (or non-performance) of mitzvot can a Jew’s ruchaniyut existence be affected. Any pronouncement of such a system existing outside the realm of the Torah and the function of its mitzvot is avodah zarah (עבודה זרה). (Therefore, the Chassidic legend that by whistling during Yom Kippur prayers the “gates of heaven” opened, and the prayers were elevated and accepted,[9] is in concept avodah zarah. The Torah gave man a mitzvah of Tefilla, and Chazal defined its structure and system.) Before Matan Torah one’s perfection was realized through observance of the seven Noahide commandments. According to the Talmud, the seven Noahide commandments were G-d given,[10] and before Matan Torah were communicated to mankind through a type of prophecy to specific individuals. What the Greeks and others refer to as Natural Law (or sometimes referred to in our literature as nemusi’im [נימוסים]) is in reality the seven Noahide commandments. Non-Torah philosophers throughout history have erred by denying the necessity that the seven Noahide laws also had to be G-d given.[11]

This supposition that man can achieve perfection through belief in Jesus of Nazareth, as well as the belief that Jesus of Nazareth became a prophet[12] lacking the necessary Halachic requirements, is an intentional distortion and outright rejection of the fundamentals of the Torah, as explained above. Their main proof from the Torah: the statement that Avraham was righteous, and the statement “All the families of the earth shall bless themselves by you” Bereshit 12:3), were used as examples of one who lived before Matan Torah, and yet had the ability to achieve spiritual completeness without the performance of the mitzvot. In a direct refutation of these distortions, the Talmud states emphatically: Avraham performed and fulfilled all the mitzvot in the Torah, which include the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The Talmud brings a proof for this assertion from the verse: עקב אשר שמע אברהם בקלי וישמור משמרתי מצותי חקותי ו [Because Avraham obeyed My voice and observed My mishmarti, My commandments, My decrees, and My Torah] (Bereshit 26:5). The achievement of completeness and perfection of Avraham Avinu would not have been possible without the performance of the same mitzvot given at Matan Torah. Since before Matan Torah the only obligation for man was the fulfillment of the seven Noahide commandments, Avraham’s knowledge of the complete Torah and the mitzvot could only have been realized through prophecy, as explained and defined by the Rishonim.[13] The Talmud specifically references Avraham because the proof offered for this antinomic argument only mentions Avraham, and does not mention Yitzchak or Yaakov. It is probable that this issue was a prevalent theological debate of that era.¹⁴ Therefore, besides being a testimony of Avraham’s religious devotion and adherence to the mitzvot, the Talmud’s statement as to Avraham’s fulfillment of the entire Torah was a theological declaration as to the necessity of Matan Torah and the function of the mitzvot. And, consequently to categorically dismiss and deny what contemporary and current detractors of the Torah were and are teaching.

[1] [HaRav] Dr. Chaim Zimmerman, Torah and Reason: Insiders and Outsiders of Torah (Jerusalem: Tvuno, 1979), 20.

[2] This statement of the Talmud is also found at the end of a Mishnah in Kiddushin 82a, with a text variant. Yoma: Avraham קיים the whole Torah. Kiddushin: Avraham עשה the whole Torah. Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer Eidlisz [מהרש”א] in Yoma unites the two texts: קיים refers to fulfillment of the negative commandments, and, עשה refers to performance of the positive commandments. Therefore, Avraham performed and fulfilled all 613 commandments of the Torah—positive and negative commandments—including the Torah she ba’al peh (תורה שבעל פה).

[3] The author of the Yoma 28b statement is Rav, or רב אבא בר איבו. There is no mention in Yoma of this statement having a Mishnaic source, even though it is referenced and included in the Mishnah in Kiddushin 82a. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (גליון הש”ס קדושין שם) references Perush Kuntarus at the end of Tractate Kinim stating that sometimes a baraita [ברייתא] will be inserted at the end of a Mishnah. Rav is referred to in some places in the Talmud with the status of a Tanna: רב תנא הוא ופליג. Rabbi Aaron Hyman in Toldoth Tannaim Ve’Amoraim [תולדות תנאיים ואמוראיים] (I:17) quotes Rabbenu Hai Gaon that there are three baraitot [ברייתות] that should be attributed to Rav.

[4] שאלות ותשבות הרמ”א סימן י’

[5] Antinomianism (Epistles: Gal 3; Rom 4).

[6] This Hebrew spelling is in accordance with the Rambam (משנה תורה הלכות עבודה זרה פרק י’ והלכות מלכים פרק י”א). There are examples in rabbinic literature where the spelling has been changed to יש”ו. These authors probably follow the Talmud dictum לעולם ישנה אדם לתלמידו דרך קצרה [one should teach in the most concise language] (Pesachim 3b) and Megillah 25b.

[7] Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1956), 69, 91.

[8] Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament, 89.

[9] See Shmuel Agnon, Ya’mim Nora’im (Jerusalem; Tel Aviv: Schocken Publishing, 1968), 369.

[10] Sanhedrin 56b

[11] See Rambam, Mishneh Torah: Hilchot M’lachim 8:11. According to what is written here, the text does not necessarily have to be amended. The correct text can be: “and NOT from their scholars” (ולא מחכמיהם).

[12] See also Alexander Altmann, “Maimonides and Thomas Aquinas: Natural or Divine Prophecy?” AJS Review 3 (1978): 1-19, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1486419.

[13] Concerning the specific level of prophecy of Avraham, the Ramban in his commentary on Bereishit 26:5 uses the term ruach ha-kodesh (רוח הקדש). The Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim 2:39 uses the term chazon (חזון). The Abarbanel in his commentary to Shmot 20 uses the term nevuah (נבואה).

[14] As seen by its explicit inclusion in Gal 3; Rom 4.

Parshanut in English: Rabbinic Bible Commentary in Translation

Revised updated edition

Yisrael Dubitsky

The following revises, expands upon and updates my previous effort on this forum. Originally it was meant as a ten year retrospective, to see not only which works were completed in that time span but also which commentators were first touched upon. Of course, in the course of my research, I found several errors of mine from the earlier edition, and many items I had neglected to include, or was not even aware of before. Technical difficulties have delayed its appearance until now but what better time to present it than at the beginning of a new Torah reading cycle?

In contrast to the first edition, I struggled with the criteria for inclusion. Ideally, and initially, I had wished to include only items which were

1)  Commentary on Tanakh or an individual book within it (but not a supercommentary upon a commentary);

2)  Rabbinic in substance (so, for example, not Samaritan, or Karaite, or based on modern scientific scholarship);

3)  Generally, from the High Middle Ages and later (thus not classical rabbinic midrash or targum; but medieval midrash compilations/anthologies such as: Midrash ha-Gadol; Midrash Lekah Tov; Midrash Sekhel Tov; Yalkut Makhiri; or Yalkut Shimoni would be eligible; and so would slightly earlier work such as Geonic literature if any existed);

4)  Where the work was an intentional and systematic commentary on the biblical book (meaning, not that every verse in a chapter is commented upon, but most are; not simply essays on “themes” or “issues” in the chapters or parshiyot);

5)  Where the translation was complete, not adapted, digested, excerpted, paraphrased, or selected from the original;

6)  Of significant length, meaning (subjective as the choice was) more than a chapter or two long (unless the entire biblical book was only a chapter, such as Obadiah);

7)  Where no matter in what language the original work first appeared, the translation was into English (meaning, original commentary – even in English — was not eligible);

8)  Appears in a separate monograph publication, either entirely devoted to the work, or even just a chapter within the book, but not simply an article in a periodical, which is more difficult for the average reader to access.

Unfortunately as I progressed in my compilation, I realized I could not stand by many of these requirements. There were simply too many less-than-ideal-as-above works, which a learned public would expect and/or require in such a listing. For example, Abarbanel or Hasidic commentary are not precisely verse by verse but are important, and perhaps expected, additions to a listing of rabbinic commentary. I think I retained fully requirements 2, 3 and 7 above, but the other requirements are less than perfectly observed. Thus, among other breaches, there are supercommentaries as well as some journal articles represented.

There were several items (especially theses from HUC or books at British Library) which I couldn’t examine personally. Nevertheless, I added them to the list. If it should turn out that the items were not actually relevant to this list (i.e. they don’t translate a text systematically, etc.), I will delete them in a later edition. In case they were relevant, however, it is important that readers are aware of them.

Clearly, as a delimited compilation, there will be some works that many will believe should not be included, and some that many may think should be included. Every reader may have a different perspective on what should or should not be included. However, a bibliographer must be granted privilege in determining which items to include. I welcome arguments, complaints, suggestions or recommendations and apologize in advance for inadequacies, deficiencies and/or errors in my compilation.  The nature of the beast is such that this is a work in progress (hopefully to be updated in less than 13 years’ time between editions).

Commentaries are arranged chronologically by author, and then by biblical book (standard Hebrew Bible order). For space and simplicity sake, works are identified only by their author’s and translator’s (or publishers’) names but, for fuller bibliographical data, also linked to a bibliographical record in a library catalog database (usually the National Library of Israel [NLI]; where a record didn’t exist there, or I was unsatisfied with it in some way, I linked to OCLC’s public international union catalog database WorldCat. When needed, I linked to other catalogs instead. Sometimes i recorded a newly published volume not yet represented on any of the WorldCat contributor records). This method of linking to a stable URL of a catalog’s bibliographical record could not be done in the previous edition, as JTS at that time had not provided permanent URLs for their records. Thus, clunky as it may have been, the only alternative to reach the bib records at JTSAL was to request readers copy and paste the Call Number I provided. Thankfully, this method is no longer required. I will expand a bit on my linking to library bib records, rather than standard bibliographical citation, below.

Where a title of an author’s work, rather than his name, serves more popularly as his principal identification, the title is used, with the author’s name appearing parenthetically. Otherwise, the author name is the primary identifier. Translations of entire works are listed before only parts of the same, and then by date of publication. As mentioned, links to online library catalog records (generally, NLI or WorldCat) for the item serve as the full bibliographic data. Publication years in parentheses following the link indicate only the first year of the edition. Generally, where possible, the first edition of the work is listed.

As mentioned, generally only significantly lengthy works (covering more than one or two chapters of Bible text) are included. There are several cases of introductions to works that are included here too. Unless delimited otherwise, items cover the entire book, number of volumes notwithstanding (e.g. 4 vols. on the five books of Torah). Items marked “currently…” imply a work in progress.

Again, as mentioned, adaptations, anthologies, digests, excerpts or paraphrases of translations, such as are found in the Hertz, Soncino Press, Judaica Press (except for Rashi), ArtScroll, Living Torah and Living Nach or Etz Hayim bible commentaries, are generally not included. However, this ideal could not always be observed. Perhaps contradicting the above, but condensed versions, as are sometimes found in Munk translations, are in fact included. The JPS Commentators Bible, in addition to its systematic translation of four major commentators, also occasionally includes selections from Bekhor Shor, Radak, Hazekuni, Gersonides, Abarbanel and Sforno. These latter have not been included in the list.

Further, as per requirement 2 above, academic or modern critical commentaries, even those written by rabbis, are excluded.

It is important to emphasize, no implication regarding quality of the translation (or the commentary itself!) should be drawn from inclusion in this list.

I have endeavored, where feasible, to include in addition a link to a digital copy of the work – whether as a simple PDF (from sites such as Hebrewbooks, Internet Archive, Google Books or the like) or via more sophisticated presentations such as on Sefaria or Alhatorah or the like. I only include links to sites that are free for all, not subscription or paid sites which would limit access. In addition, Sefaria or Alhatorah or other websites sometimes host a work before it has reached print status; as such, it is “online-only” or even “born-digital.” These I included by adding the word “online” in parentheses following the author name; if it wasn’t clear to me when the work was added to the site, it appears with a question mark in place of the year of publication. Moreover, Sefaria and Alhatorah are such wonderful sites that they often add new material so that my listing may be incomplete or obsolete very soon after it appears. Yet another reason for this compilation to be considered a work in progress!

Furthermore, I have colored items in red that are new or newly discovered by me since the first edition some 13 years ago. When the commentator’s name is in red, it means all works/translations beneath it are new. When a new work or an added volume of an already published work has appeared in that time period, that detail (e.g. biblical book name, volume number, publication year) is in red. Thus, readers will be able to spot new materials immediately. 

Romanization of Hebrew titles follows Mahler’s Library of Congress authorized system (e.g. no doubling for dagesh, etc.; except for inferior dots). Thus, for example, Hazekuni, and not Chizkuni. Authors’ names are based on the spelling in VIAF, but not always its form (thus, Rashbam, not simply “Samuel ben Meir”; or Joseph Kara, not “Kara, Joseph”). Further, where an added word (or different date) will make the identification more accessible (e.g. Rabenu Hananel and not just Hananel ben…), it is preferred. Bold-face is used to reflect more popular identifications. 

Finally, a brief word as to reasons for a bibliography linking to library catalog records rather than the standard format of a bibliographical index of works: While standard bibliography format represents the known literature of the subject in a very brief form, there is often little way for an average reader to access all the material, or even know where to turn to reach it. In these times, however, where much of the world is a click away, it is important for the average reader – one not necessarily associated with a university library or geographically near a large library – to have easy access to the material and the choice of whether to see further bibliographical data than the absolute minimum. A library catalog record provides the bibliographical data, and holding information for where the item is held; a particular library’s holdings information is an important gauge in evaluating its worth. Furthermore, a database like WorldCat is important for providing many different library possibilities in varying geographical areas. This helps the average reader access the item. A catalog may be a bit unwieldy, inasmuch as different titles on the different volumes of the same work may result in the work spread out over a few records (see the Sifte Hakhamim records as an example) – or even duplicate records for the same item (as happens often in WorldCat). Those varying details, however, are often covered over in a standard bibliography which may “normalize” all variations so as to be contained in one line entry. A more severe disadvantage of such a system is if/when the library catalog changes (permanent) URL details. However, this is a risk that seems to be outweighed by the advantages of such a system. Referring to a book via its library catalog record will prove beneficial to more readers than a standard bibliography.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF RABBINIC BIBLE COMMENTARIES

Medieval

1. Sa`adia ben Joseph Gaon [882-942]
2.   Torah

Linetsky [Gen 1-28] (2002)

1.     Job

Goodman (1988)

1.     Esther

Wechsler (2015)

         alhatorah.org

1.   Daniel

Alobaidi (2006)

2. Rabenu Hananel ben Hushi’el [d. 1055/6]

Torah

Munk (2006) 4 vols.

Sefaria.org

3. Rashi [Solomon ben Isaac, 1041-1105]

A.  Bible

Judaica Press (Hoenig/Rosenberg):

1. [All] CD (1998) / Chabad
2. [Gen] (1993) 3 vols.
3. [Ex] (1995) 2 vols.
4. [Nakh] (1969) 20 vols. in 24

    B. Torah

1. Rosenbaum/Silbermann (1929) 5 vols.

a. Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org

b. Alhatorah.org

2. Ben-Isaiah/Sharfman (1949) 5 vols.
3. Metsudah (Kleinkaufman) (1991) 5 vols.

Mnemotrix

4. Artscroll (Herczeg) (1994) 5 vols.
5. JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols
6. Lowe [Gen] (1928)
7. Doron [Gen 1-6] (1982)
8. Milstein [currently partial ?] (1993) 9 vols.
9. “Ariel Chumash” (Feldman et al.) [currently Gen] (1997) 2 vols.
10. Moore [currently Gen] (2002)

C. Joshua

1. See above: Judaica Press
2. Metsudah (Davis) (1997)

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

D. Judges

1. See above: Judaica Press
2. Metsudah (Rabinowitz/Davis) (1998)

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

E. Samuel

1. See above: Judaica Press
2. Metsudah (Pupko/Davis) (1999) 2 vols.

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

F. Kings

1. See above: Judaica Press
2. Metsudah (Pupko/Davis) (2001) 2 vols.

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

G. Isaiah

1. Turner [Isa 11; 52-53] (1847)

         pdf

2. See above: Judaica Press

H. Ezekiel

1. VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)
2. See above: Judaica Press

I. Psalms

1. See above: Judaica Press

2.     Gruber (2004)
3. Feldheim (Herczeg) (2009) 2 vols.

J. Five Scrolls

1. See above: Judaica Press

2.     Metsudah (Pupko/Davis) (2001)

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

1. Beattie [Ruth] (1977)
2. Schwartz [Esther, Song of Songs, Ruth] (1983)
3. Shute [Lamentations] (1998)
4. Anderson [Lamentations] (2004)

pdf

7. Herczeg [Esther] (2016)

K. Daniel

1. See above: Judaica Press
2. Shahar/Oratz/Hirshfeld (1994)

 

4. Joseph Kara [ca. 1065-1135]

  A. Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

  B. Lamentations

Anderson (2004)

1. Pdf
2. alhatorah.org

 

5. Rashbam [Samuel ben Meir, ca. 11-12th cens.]

A.  Torah  

5. Lockshin

           a.   [Gen] (1989)

b.   [Ex] (1997)

c .   [Lev & Num] (2001)

d.  [Deut] (2004)

alhatorah.org

2. Munk (2006) 4 vols.

Sefaria.org

3. JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols.

    B. Five Scrolls

1. Thompson [Song of Songs] (1988)

alhatorah.org

2. Japhet/Salters [Ecclesiastes] (1985)

6. Eliezer, of Beaugency [ca. 12th cen.]

Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

7. Menachem ben Simon, of Posquières [ca. 12th cen.]

Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

 

8. Abraham ben Meir Ibn Ezra [1092-1167]

   A. Torah

1.     Strickman/Silver (1988) 5 vols.
2.     Benyowitz (2006) 3 vols.
3.     JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols.
4.     Oles [Gen] (1958)
5.     Shachter [Lev, Deut] (1986) 2 vols.

a. Sefaria.org / Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org / alhatorah.org

6.     Linetsky [Gen 1-6] (1998)
7.     Lancaster [introduction] (2003)

   B.  Isaiah

1. Friedlander (1873)

Sefaria.org

2. Turner [Isa 11; 52-53] (1847)

pdf

C. Hosea

Lipshitz (1988)

D.  Haggai, Zecharia, Malakhi

Frazer (2017)

E. Psalms

Strickman (2009) 3 vols.

         alhatorah.org

     F. Five Scrolls

1. Mathews [Song of Songs] (1874)

a. Pdf

b. Alhatorah.org

2. Block [Song of Songs] (1982)
3. Beattie [Ruth] (1977)
4. Strickman (online) [Ecclesiastes] (2017)

a. Pdf

b. Alhatorah.org

5. Shute [Lamentations] (1998)

Pdf

6. Anderson [Lamentations] (2004)

a. Pdf

b. alhatorah.org

 

9. Moses ben Sheshet [fl. ca. 1190-1200?]

Jeremiah/Ezekiel

Driver (1871)

pdf

10. Shmuel ibn Tibbon [1150-1230]

Ecclesiastes

Robinson (2007)

11. Radak [David ben Joseph Kimhi, ca. 1160-ca. 1235]

  A. Genesis

Munk (2006) 4 vols.

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

     B. Isaiah

1. Turner [Isa 11; 52-53] (1847)

pdf

1. Cohen [Isa 40-66] (1954)

     C. Ezekiel

VanGemeren [Chariot chapters and passages] (1974)

D.  Hosea

Turner [Hos 1] (1847)

         pdf

    E.  Zechariah

M’Caul (1837)

pdf

   F.  Psalms

1.     Greenup [Pss 1-8] (1918)
2.     Finch [Pss 1-10, 15-17, 19, 22, 24] (1919)

Sefaria.org

3.     Baker/Nicholson [Pss 120-150] (1973)

G.  Ruth

Beattie [Ruth] (1977)

H.  Chronicles

Berger (2007)

12. Ezra ben Solomon, of Gerona [d. ca. 1238]

Song of Songs

Brody (1999)

13. Joseph ben Isaac Bekhor Shor, of Orleans [12th cen.]

Genesis

1.     Thompson (online) [Gen 1-2 :3] ( ?)

alhatorah.org

2.     Lockshin (online) [Gen 2 :4-9 :13] ( ?)

alhatorah.org

 

14. Unknown [Anonymous, late 12th cen]

Song of Songs

Japhet/Walfish (2017)

 

15. Ramban [Moses ben Nahman = Nachmanides, ca. 1195-ca. 1270]

  A.  Torah

1.     Chavel (1971) 5 vols.
2.     Artscroll (Blinder et al) (2004) 7 vols.
3.     JPS (Carasik) (2005) 5 vols.
4. Newman [Gen 1-6] (1960)
5. Bick [introduction] (online) (?)
6. Kanter [introduction] (In: Academic Journal of Hebrew Theological College, 1 (2001): 13–35)
7. Strickman (online) [currently Ex] (?)

alhatorah.org

    B. Ecclesiastes

Chavel (1978): vol. 1

 

16. Tanhum ben Joseph ha-Yerushalmi [ca. 1220-1291]

Five Scrolls

1. Alobaidi [Song of Songs] (2014) 
2. Wechsler [Ruth/Esther] (2010)

17. Shem Tov ben Joseph Falaquera [ca. 1225–1295]

(Torah)

Jospe (1988)

18. Zohar [ca. 1280]

Torah

1. Soncino (Sperling/Simon) (1931) 5 vols.
2. Matt (“Pritzker edition”) (2004) 12 vols.

19. Midrash ha-Ne`elam (Zohar) [ca. 1280]

Ruth

Englander/Basser (1993)

20. Hazekuni [=Hezekiah ben Manoah, 13th cen.]

Torah

Munk (2013) 4 vols.

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

 

21. Da`at Zekenim mi-Ba`alei ha-Tosafot [probably compilatory, 13th cen]

Torah

Munk (online) (2015)

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

 

22. Yalkut Shimoni [=Shim`on ha-Darshan, of Frankfurt?; compilatory, 13th cen]

  A. Jonah

Greenup (1922)

  B.   Nachum

Greenup (1923)

C.    Zecharia

King (1882)

         pdf

D.  Psalms

1. Narot (1940)
2. Fischer [Bk 1] (1962)
3. Waldenberg [Bk 2-3] (1962)

 

23. Unknown [Anonymous, probably compilatory, 13th cen]

Job

Hirsch (1905)

         pdf

 

24. Ba`al ha-Turim [= Jacob ben Asher, ca. 1269-ca. 1340]

Torah

1.     Artscroll (Touger) (1999) 5 vols.
2.     Munk (2005) 4 vols.

a. Sefaria.org

b. alhatorah.org

25. Ralbag [Levi ben Gershom = Gersonides, 1288-1344]

A.  Job

1. Lassen (1946)
2. Stitskin [introduction] (1963) In: Tradition, 6:1 (Fall 1963): 81-85

B.    Song of Songs

1. Weis (1983)
2. Kellner (1998)

 

26. Rabenu Bahya ben Asher ben Hlava [d. 1340]

Torah

Munk (1998) 7 vols.

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

 

27. Yalkut ha-Makhiri [=Makir ben Aba Mari, ca. 1335-1410]

Jonah

Greenup  (1911)

         pdf / pdf

 

28. Abraham ben Isaac ha-Levi Tamakh [d. 1393]

Song of Songs

Feldman (1970)

 

29. Midrash ha-Gadol [=Adani, David ben Amram, 14th cen]

Numbers

         Fisch (1940)

                     pdf

 

30. Avat Nefesh [Unknown, end of 14th cen]

Genesis

Gartig (1994)

 

31. Akedat Yitshak [= Isaac ben Moses Arama, ca. 1420-1494]

Torah

Munk (1986) 2 vols.

Sefaria.org

 

32. Isaac Abravanel [1437-1508]

A.  Torah

1. Tomaschoff [Gen] (2007)
2. Bar Eitan [currently Gen-Lev] (2012) 5 vols.
3. Lazar (2015) 5 vols.
4. Kasnett (2017)

  B.   Jonah

Werner (1979)

33. Tseror ha-Mor [= Abraham ben Jacob Saba, 1440-1508]

Torah

Munk (2008) 5 vols.

 

34. Obadiah ben Jacob Sforno [ca. 1470-ca. 1550]

Torah

1.     Artscroll (Pelcovitz) (1987) 2 vols.
2.     Munk (2006) 4 vols.

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

3.     Stahl [Deut] (1975)

 

(Pre-)Modern

35. Moses Alshekh [ca. 1520-1593]

A.  Torah

1. Munk (1988) 2 vols.
2. Rose [Gen] (2019) 2 vols.

B.    Jonah

1. Werner (1979)
2. Shahar (1992)  

C.    Psalms 

Munk (1990) 2 vols.

D.  Proverbs

1. Munk (1991)
2. Hirshfeld/Braude (2006) 2 vols.

E.    Job

Shahar (1996) 2 vols.  

F.    Five Scrolls

1. Shahar [Song of Songs] (1993) 
2. Shahar/Oschry [Ruth] (1991)
3. Hirshfeld [Lamentations] (1993)
4. Shahar [Ecclesiastes] (1992)
5. Honig [Esther] (1993) 2 vols.   

g.  Daniel

Shahar/Oratz/Hirshfeld (1994)

 

36. Eliezer ben Elijah Ashkenazi [1512-1585]

Esther

Brown (2006)

 

37. Keli Yakar [= Ephraim Solomon ben Aaron, of Luntshits (Lenczycza), 1550-1619]

Torah

1.     Levine [currently Gen-Ex] (2002)

1. Genesis
2. Exodus 2 vols.

2.     Kanter [Deut] (2003)

 

38. Tse’enah u-Re’enah [= Yaakov ben Yitzchak Ashkenazi, of Janow, 1550-1628]

Torah

1.     Artscroll (Zakon) (1983) 3 vols.
2.     Faierstein (2017) 2 vols.
3.     Hershon [Gen] (1885)

pdf

 

39. Shelah [Shene Luhot Ha-berit = Isaiah Horowitz, ca. 1565-1630]

Torah

Munk (1992) 3 vols.

Sefaria.org

 

40. Sifte Hakhamim [=Shabbetai ben Joseph Bass, 1641-1718]

Torah

Davis et al.

1. Genesis (2009) 2 vols.
2. Exodus (2009) 2 vols.
3. Leviticus (2012)
4. Numbers (2013)
5. Deuteronomy (?)

 

41. Me`am Lo`ez [= Jacob Culi, d. 1732, et al.; Shmuel Yerushalmi, d. 1997]

Moznaim (Kaplan et al.) (1977) 43 vols.:

1.                 Torah (1977) 20 vols.
2.                 Joshua (1990)
3.                 Judges (1991)
4.                 Samuel I (1991) Samuel II (1993)
5.                 Kings I (1994) Kings II (1997)
6.                 Isaiah (1999)
7.                 Jeremiah (1994) 2 vols.
8.                 Trei Asar (1997) 2 vols.
9.                   Psalms (1989) 5 vols.
10.                   Proverbs (1993) 2 vols.
11.                 Ruth (1985)
12.                   Song of Songs (1988)
13.               Ecclesiastes (1986)
14.                 Lamentations (1986)
15.                 Esther (1978)

 

42. Or ha-Hayim [= Hayyim ben Moses Attar, 1696-1743]

Torah

1.     Munk (1995) 5 vols.

1. Sefaria.org
2. alhatorah.org

2.     Artscroll (Herzka) (2016) 10 vols.

 

43. Moses Mendelssohn [1729-1786]

Ecclesiastes

Preston (1845)

pdf

 

44. Hatam Sofer [= Moses Sofer, 1762-1839]

Torah

Stern [currently Gen-Lev] (1996) 3 vols.

 

45. Ha-Ketav veha-Kabalah [= Jacob Zevi Meklenburg, 1785-1865] 

Torah

Munk (2001) 7 vols.

 

46. Shadal [Samuel David Luzzatto, 1800-1865]

Torah

1. Munk (2012) 4 vols.
2. Klein [currently Gen–Ex] 2 vols.

1. Genesis (1998)

alhatorah.org [only Gen 1-11]

1. Exodus (2015)

alhatorah.org [only Ex 1-5]

1. [Leviticus (March 2021)]

3.     Morais [introduction] (1926)

pdf

 

47. Samson Raphael Hirsch [1808-1888]

1.   Torah

1.     Levy (1956) 6 vols.
2.     Haberman (2000) 6 vols.
3.     Breuer [Gen] (1948) 2 vols.

 

1. pdf (v.1)
2. pdf (v.2)

     B. Psalms

Hirschler (1960) 2 vols.

C.    Proverbs

Paritzky (1976)

 

48. Malbim [Malbim, Meir Loeb ben Jehiel Michael Weiser, 1809-1879]

A.  Torah

Faier [Gen–Ex 12] (1978) 5 vols.

         alhatorah.org [currently Ex]

B.    Jonah

Werner (1979)

C.    Proverbs

Wengrov/Zornberg (1982)

D.  Job

Pfeffer (2003)

  E.   Five Scrolls

1. Kurtz [Ruth] (1999)
2. Weinbach [Esther] (1990)
3. Taub [Esther] (1998)

 

49. Netsiv [Naphtali Zevi Judah Berlin, 1817-1893]

Song of Songs

Landesman (1993)

 

50. Bet ha-Levi [= Joseph Baer Soloveichik, 1820-1892]

Torah

Herczeg [currently Gen-Ex] (1990) 2 vols.

 

51. Julius Hirsch [1842-1909]

Isaiah

Breuer (2015)

 

52. Joseph Breuer [1882-1980]

  A.  [Torah

See above: Hirsch (Genesis)]

B.    Jeremiah

Hirschler (1988)

C.    Ezekiel

Hirschler (1993)

 

53. Da`at Sofrim [= Chaim Dov Rabinowitz, 1911-2001]

Bible

Starrett [currently Jos-Jud; Sam; Kgs; Isa; Jer; Ezk; 12; Ps; Prov; Job; Dan-Neh; Chr]  (2001) 12 vols.

 

54. Da`at Mikra [=Mordekhai Zer-Kavod et al., 20th cen.]

  A. Psalms

Berman (2003) 3 vols.

B.    Job

Green (2009)

C.    Proverbs

Kanter & Cohen (2014)

Hasidic:

55. Levi Isaac ben Meir, of Berdichev [1740-1809]

Torah

Munk [currently Gen-Lev] (2009) 3 vols.

 

56. Menahem Mendel, of Rymanov [1745-1815]

Torah  

Levine (1996)

 

57. Me ha-Shiloah [= Mordecai Joseph Leiner, 1802-1854]

Torah

Edwards (2001)

 

58. Sefat Emet [= Judah Aryeh Leib Alter, 1847-1905]

Torah

Green (1998)

Don’t Oppress the Ger

Ben Zion Katz

The Torah in Motion blog by Rabbi Jay Kelman[1] discusses the daily daf as well as the parashah of the week. When reviewing Baba Metzia 59, Rabbi Kelman mentioned that the Talmud stated that there were 36 or 46 places where the Torah commands not to oppress the stranger/convert[2] (ger), but that he was not aware of any list of the verses in question.  This paper is an attempt to generate such a list.

We will begin with the Talmudic discussion itself, which is not completely straight forward. The gemara (Bab Metzia 59b) begins (my translation): “Our rabbis taught: One who oppresses a stranger/convert verbally (from the root aleph-nun-heh) violates three negative commandments, and one who oppresses a stranger/convert financially (from the root lamed-chet-tzadi)[3] violates two negative commandments.”

One would expect the Talmud now to bring three prooftexts for the former and two for the latter statement.  Instead, the Talmud brings three prooftexts for each, the third in each case not even using the word ger!

The three prooftexts for the first statement are Exod. 22:20, Lev. 19:33 and Lev. 25:17.  All three verses use the root aleph-nun-heh, but only the first two use the word ger; the third verse uses the word amito, which could be translated as his fellow citizen.  The Talmud excuses the latter anomaly by claiming that certainly a ger is a fellow citizen!

The three  prooftexts for the second statement are (again) Exod 22:20 (this verse uses the verb lamed-chet-tzadi as well as the root aleph-nun-heh, so it can be used as proof for both statements), Exod. 23:9 (which uses the root lamed-chet-tzadi) and Exod. 22:24 which again is missing the word ger (and also does not use the root lamed-chet-tzadi) – the verse simply states You shall not be a usurer to him, the Talmud again stating that the ger is included in the generic “him”.  The Talmud then concludes that with either type of oppression (financial or verbal) one is actually violating three negative commandments.

The Talmud then continues: “We learned in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer the Great stated: Why did the Torah warn us 36 times, and some say 46 times, about the ger?”  Before analyzing the verses referred to by Rabbi Eliezer the Great, we will conclude the Talmud’s discussion of the ger.  The Talmud answers Rabbi Eliezer’s question by saying “because their inclination is bad.”[4]  The most charitable way to explain this seemingly harsh response is that the convert has more temptations to sin because he or she wasn’t brought up with Torah values and/or has no religious family for support, so it is easier for them to backslide; consequently we must be especially careful in our dealings with them.  The Talmud then asks one final, obvious question: Why are we reminded not to verbally or financially oppress the convert because we were strangers in the land of Egypt?  Why is our being strangers in the land of Egypt thousands of years ago a reason for not oppressing a convert today?  The answer is taken from a baraita of Rabbi Nathan, which explains that one should not gloat about a past defect in yourself that is (still) present in another.  Presumably Rabbi Nathan felt that converts may feel like strangers even after their conversion.  The Talmud then concludes this discussion with a reminder not to offend anyone even inadvertently.[5]

Now we will analyze the purported 36 or 46 verses to which Rabbi Eliezer the Great (Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus – a second generation tanna[6]) referred.  The word ger appears in the Torah 68 times in 61 verses according to the Evan Shoshan concordance.[7]  Six verses can be eliminated from consideration because they are either referring to Israelites, they are in a narrative and not a legal context or there is simply no oppression of any kind mentioned or implied in the verse.  For example, when Abraham is attempting to purchase a burial plot for his recently departed wife Sarah from the people of Chet he says to them “I am a stranger and a sojourner with you” (Gen. 23:4).  A second verse using the word ger unrelated to Rabbi Eliezaer’s statement is when God says to Abraham that his children will be strangers in a land not theirs (Gen. 15:13)[8].  Moses says twice he is a stranger in a strange land (Exod. 2:22 and 18:3).  God warns us of strangers rising up against us if we disobey the Torah (Deut. 28:43).  Finally we are told not to sell property forever because all land belongs to God and we are merely strangers and sojourners before Him (Lev. 25:23).

Of the remaining verses, 9 specifically state to be good to the stranger/convert because we were strangers in the land of Egypt.[9]  These 9 verses (or sets of verses) are the three to which the Talmud already called our attention (Exod.  22:20, Lev. 19:33-34 [these two adjacent verses make a single point, so they will be counted as a single instance] and Exod. 23:9), as well as Deut. 5:13-15 (the Sabbath commandment in the second set of the Ten Commandments,[10] which commands that even the stranger/convert needs to rest on the Sabbath because we [lit. you] were slaves in Egypt), Deut. 10:18-19 (commands to love the stranger because we [lit. you] were strangers in Egypt), Deut. 16:11-12 (the stranger should rejoice on Shavuot because we [lit. you] were strangers in Egypt),[11] Deut. 23:8 (don’t hate the Egyptians because you were once strangers in his land) Deut. 24:17-18 (don’t pervert judgment against the stranger because we [lit. you] were strangers in Egypt), and immediately following, Deut. 24:19-22 (crops that should be left for the stranger [and others] because we [lit. you]  were strangers in Egypt.  (These last 3 verses list three types of crops to be left for the stranger, but give a single reason at the end, so are counted as a single reference.)

The next set of 6 verses or sets of verses parallel the ones just brought, but omit the reason (because we [lit. you] were strangers/slaves in Egypt) presumably because the rationale was already stated in the parallel verse.  For example, in the first set of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:10) the stranger/convert is also commanded to rest, but a different reason is given (because God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh day, although as Ibn Ezra points out [long commentary on Exod. 20:1] that is not a specific reason why the stranger/convert should rest; only the reason given in Deut. explains that part of the command.)  Another verse also commands to allow the stranger/convert to rest on the Sabbath (Exod. 23:12).  Lev. 19:10 mirrors Deut. 24:21, but again sans raison.  Lev. 23:22 parallels Deut. 24:19-21 in idea, but without the reason or the linguistic parallels of the previous example.  Two verses/sets of verses parallel Deut. 16:11-12 re the stranger being joyous on holidays: Deut. (16:13-14) command the stranger to be happy on Succot and Deut. 26:11 reiterates the command for the stranger to be joyous on Shavuot; in both of these cases, however, the reason (because we [lit. you] were strangers in Egypt) is lacking.  This brings the total number of verses or sets of verses warning not to oppress the stranger to 15.

Six more verses remind us to be good to the ger in different situations, or warn us not to oppress the ger, without the reason being given anywhere: Lev. 25:35 (do not lend money with interest even to a ger), Lev. 25:47 (redeem the property of a ger as you would a kinsman), Deut. 14:29 (regarding a tithe that includes distribution of benefits to the ger), Deut. 24:14 (you may not withhold anyone’s wages, including those of the ger), Deut. 26:12-13 (the declaration given when the tithe from Deut. 14:29 is brought to Jerusalem), and Deut. 27:19 (a curse for someone who subverts the rights of the ger).  This brings the verse count to 21.

The next set of 23 verses/sets of verses state that the ger should be treated the same as an Israelite and has similar obligations and punishments.  Exod. 12:19 forbids the ger from consuming leaven on Passover (Hag HaMatzot).  Exod. 12:48-49 commands that a circumcised ger can share in the paschal offering and then states more generally that one set of laws (torah achat) should apply to the circumcised ger and us (lit. you).  Num. 9:14 in the discussion of the second Passover, parallels both the specific command regarding the stranger celebrating the pesach offering and equality before the law (chukah achat), although the requirement for circumcision is lacking, likely because it is understood.  Lev. 16:29 includes the ger in the Yom Kippur commemoration.  Lev. 17:8 equates the obligations of two kinds of sacrifices (the olah and zevach) for the ger and Israelite, while verse 17:9 commands the ger too upon the proper, applicable sacrificial procedure.  Verses 17:10-12 enjoin the ger as well as the Israelite from consuming blood.  Verse 17:13 instruct the ger and Israelite how to hunt.  Verses 17:14-16 again forbid the consumption of animal blood but add prohibitions for both Israelite and ger about how the meat must be consumed and what to do if the meat is not consumed properly.[12]  Lev. 22:18 equates the ger and Israelite regarding freewill offerings.  Num. 15:14-16 in general equates the sacrificial laws for Israelites and gerim.  Lev. 20:2 forbids a certain kind of idolatry (Molech worship) equally for gerim and Israelites.  Lev. 18:26 and 24:22 again make general statements about equality under the law for gerim.  Lev. 24:16 enjoins both ger and Israelite from blasphemy.  Num. 19:10 and 35:15 equate Israelite and ger regarding the exculpatory ceremony of the red heifer (for an unsolved murder) and cities of refuge (for one who commits accidental homicide).  Num. 15:26 includes the ger in the communal sin offering ritual, while Num. 15:27-29 includes the ger in the individual sin offering ritual.  Num. 15:30-31 includes the ger in the punishment (karet) meted out for the willful violation of commandments.  Deut. 1:16 commands that judges treat gerim as they would their (Israelite) brethren.  Deut. 29:19 includes gerim in the second covenant between God and the Israelites at the end of the forty years of desert wandering, while Deut. 31:12 includes gerim in the obligation to hear the public recitation of the Torah every seven years on Sucot (Hakhel).

This brings the total verse/set of verses count to 44.  Presumably, there were some Rabbis who were “lumpers” and may have included some of the duplicate verses above as single instances when interpreting the list of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, making the list total 36, while others were “splitters” and divided some of the verses above considered a set, making the total 46.   In any event, I submit that the list of verses generated above is likely similar to the one compiled by Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus.

[1] TIM.org

[2] While ger (plural gerim) is usually translated as stranger or foreigner, in Rabbinic parlance it often means a convert.  I will use the term ger or translate as either stranger or stranger/convert unless it becomes obvious from the context (see below) that the Talmud is referring to a convert.  See also below, footnote 12.

[3] Probably because both roots are found in the same verse (Exod. 22:20 – see below) the Rabbis assumed they referred to different types of oppression.  These two definitions are already found in the Tannaitic literature (Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, ed. JZ Lauterbach, vol. 3, Jewish Publication Society, 1935, 1961, p. 137).

[4] Here it is obvious the Talmud is referring to a convert.

[5] The expression used in the Talmud is not to mention to someone to “hang something up” if someone in that person’s family had been hung.

[6] M Margolioth. Encyclopedia of Talmudic and Geonic Literature. Joshua Chachik. Tel Aviv. 1970. vol. 1. Pp. 92-101 (Hebrew).

[7] Avraham Even Shoshan.  A New Concordance of the Bible.  Kiryat Sefer, Jerusalem.  1990, 1997.  Pp 242-3.

[8] While clearly this verse provides the moral basis for not oppressing the ger, since it is referring to descendants of Abraham, it cannot be part of a list warning not to oppress the “other”.

[9] Based on the Talmudic discussion, it is surprising there aren’t more verses such as these in the Torah.

[10] Ten Statements is probably a better translation for the way the expression is used in the Torah (e.g., Deut. 4:13).

[11] Perhaps because the pilgrimage festivals all are tied in to leaving Egypt, strangers also need to rejoice on those festivals, for we too were also once strangers (although it is odd that this injunction is not found in relation to Passover, only for Shavuot and Succot – see below).

[12] Deut. 14:21 is not included in this list, because this verse allows a ger to eat certain types of prohibited meat, unlike Lev. 17:15, presumably because the two verses are dealing with different types of gerim.

The Haftarot for Behar and Behukkotai[1]

By Eli Duker

The old Babylonian practice was to read Jeremiah 16:19 as the haftara for Parashat Behar and  Ezekiel 34 for Parashat Behukkotai, and this is attested to in most of the relevant Cairo Geniza fragments. One of them, Cambridge T-S B15.4, aside from also indicating this, is written in the Oriental Hebrew script and vocalized with the Babylonian supralinear system, indicating its antiquity.  Moreover, these haftarot are listed by R’ Shlomo ben Natan,[2] and their verses are the basis for the Zulatot in the Piyutim of  R’ Shmuel  ben Hoshana[3] written for these Parshiyot.[4] 

It would seem that Jeremiah 16:19 was chosen for Behar because the prophet’s pronouncements of  “Cursed is the man who relies on people” and “Blessed is the man who relies on Hashem” echo the blessing, mentioned in Parashat Behar, that is given to the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle in anticipation of the Sabbatical year.

It is not clear to me why Ezekiel 34 was chosen as the haftara for Behukkotai, but it may be that its metaphor of a shepherd tending his flock (34:12) brought up immediate associations with the commandment to tithe the flocks and herds elaborated on in the Parsha.[5]

However, in Europe a new haftara beginning with Jeremiah 32:6 appears for Behar quite early on. Meanwhile, the original haftara for that parasha was “moved” to Behukkotai. These haftarot appear in R’ Shmuel Hanagid’s haftara list that is brought in Sefer Ha’eshkol,[6] and in R’ Elazar of Worms’s book on haftarot.[7] They are also listed by R’ Ya’akov Hazan in Etz Haim,[8] which serves as an account of the practices of Anglo Jewry on the eve of the Expulsion.

Abudarham lists only these haftarot for these two parashiyot,[9] and they are also the only haftarot in all of the Ashkenazic Humashim and haftara books in manuscript that I have come across,[10] excepting one[11] that reversed the two haftarot, placing Jeremiah 16:19 with Behar and Jeremiah 32:6 with Behukkotai. Moreover, they are the haftarot in the only humash[12] in our possession that is beyond a doubt from pre-expulsion Spain,[13] and all subsequent humashim that follow the Ashkenazic and Sephardic practices.

It is impossible to determine exactly why communities chose to change the practice regarding the haftarot for Behar and Behukkotai, or when and where this began to take place.

Nonetheless, Jeremiah 32:6 is an exceptionally appropriate haftara for Parshat Behar, as it describes how Jeremiah performed the commandment of redeeming the land formerly owned by a relative, a central part of the parasha.

As it is such an obvious fit, why did the Babylonians not choose it themselves? I believe that this is due to the fact that the old Babylonian practice was to read Jeremiah 32 as the haftara for Va’ethannan, beginning with 32:16. Later on, when communities that read the Torah according to the Babylonian annual cycle adopted the practice of reading “Nahamu”[14] (Isaiah 40:1) on the Sabbath following Tish’a B’av, when Parshat Va’ethannan is always read, Va’ethannan’s original haftara became “available” and thus was deemed very appropriate for Behar, while Behar’s original haftara was “moved” to Behukkotai.[15] The new haftarah for Behar – and the moving of its old one to Behukkotai – were accepted more than any other “new” haftara practice.[16] Only the Italian and Yemenite rites, most conservative regarding  retention of Babylonian haftarot, read the two hafarot as they were originally read.[17]

The practice in Poznań, interestingly enough, was to retain Jeremiah 32:6 as the haftara of Behar, while retaining the old Ezekiel 34 as the haftara for Behukkotai.[18]

Bibliography of Printed Works

 Avraham ben Yitzhak of Narbonne. ”Sefer Ha’eshkol”  Eds. Shalom and Hanokh Albeck.  Jerusalem: Wagshal, 1984.

Azulai,  Menahem. “Lifuyutam shel Yehudei Bavel -Kit’ei Geniza)” (Azulai, Ada. trans.)  Jerusalem: Azulai, 2010.

 Beukum, Walter Jaques van.  “Hebrew Poetry from Late Antiquity – liturgical poems from Yehudah” Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Biton, Eliyahu. “Or Yahudut Luv”  Biriah: Yeshivat Beit Yosef, 1982.

“Sefer Nahalat Avot -Minhagei Yehudei Luv”  Biria: Biton, 2007.

“B’rocho L’Mnachem – essays contributed in honor of Rabbi Menachem H. Eichenstein”   Ed.  Norman Paris. St Louis: United Orthodox Jewish Community – Vaad Hoeir of St. Louis, 1955

David Berabi Yosef Berabi David Ben Abduraham. “Abduraham Hashalem” Jerusalem: Osha, 1963.

Elazar of Worms. “Peirush Al Hahaftarot”  Warsaw: Zisberg, 1875.

Ginzburg, Christian D. “The Massorah”  Jerusalem: Makor, 1971.

“Hamisha Humshei Torah: Im haftarot Vihamesh Megilot” Eliezer ben Avraham Alaatansi, 1486.

“Humash Lima’an Shmo Be’ahava”  publisher and date of publication unknown.

 “Sefer Vayikra, Hamisha Humshei Torah Im Peirush Rashi,” V’im Da’at Mikra” Ed. Menahem Bula. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1991.

Jacob ben Jehuda Hazan of London. “The Etz Chaim” ed. Israel Brodie. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1962

“Machzor LiYamim Noraim” ed. Daniel Goldschmidt. Jerusalem: Koren, 1970.

Shlomo ben Natan. “Shlomo Ben Nattan Siddur Al Pi Hage’onim- Chibro Rabbenu Shlomo B’rabi Nattan.” Ed. Shmuel Chagai. Jerusalem: 1995.

Shmuel ben Hoshana, “The Yostserot of R Samuel the Third.” Edited by Joseph Yahalom and Noaya Katsumata. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi,  2014.

Simha of Vitry. “Mahzor Vitry.” Edited by Arye Goldschmidt. Jerusalem: Makhon Otzar Haposkim, 2009.

Talmudic Encyclopedia, Edited by Meyer Berlin (Bar-Ilan) and Shlolmo Yosef Zevin. Jerusalem: Talmudic Encyclopedia Publishing, 1961.

Zeruk, Refael. “Luah Dinim Uminhagim Kehilot Yotzei Luv”  Bat-Yam: Ginzei Refael, 2008

[1] I would like to thank Rabbi Avi Grossman for editing both the original Hebrew version article as well as my English translation. I would also like to thank my son Moshe Duker for assisting me in looking up haftarot in printed humashim.

[2] Shlomo Ben Nattan, Siddur Al Pi Hageonim, p. 201.

[3] “The Yotserot of R Samuel the Third.” Vol. 1, pp. 519, 528-259.

[4] In Fried’s list of haftarot that appears as an appendix to Volume X of the Talmudic Encyclopedia, Isaiah 1:19 is brought as an alternate haftara for Parashat Behukkotai.This was based on Zulay’s understanding in Zur Liturgie der babylonischen Juden, regarding a piyut  composed by “Yehuda” for “Im Behukotai” with verses beginning with Isaiah 1:21 Zulay believed Yehuda to be Babylonian,  that that was the haftara for this Parsha. However, evidence brought by van Bekkum in his introduction to “Hebrew Poetry from Late Antiquity: Liturgical Poems of Yehudah” shows that Yehuda was a Palestinian Paytan. In addition, Isaiah 1:24 was the haftara for Sedra “Im Behukkotai” in the Palestinian triennial cycle of Torah readings. See Ofer,  “Hahatfarot Al Pi Haminhag Hatlat -Shenati” (here). I would like to thank Prof. Yosef Yahalom for directing me to van Bekkum’s work.

[5] See Daat Mikra,  Vayikra Vol. 1, pp. 323-324. The other reasons given there seem less convincing, as this is not a haftara of rebuke.

[6] Albeck Edition, p. 181.

[7] “Peirush Al Hahaftarot”. p. 8.  The haftara for Behar  is missing in the Ginsburg-Moscow Ms.of Mahzor Vitry while it lists Jeremiah 16:19 as the haftara for Behokkotai. See Goldschhmidt edition, Vol.2, p. 579.

[8] Vol. 1, p. 54.

[9] P. 303.

[10] Mss. Breslau 9: Cambridge St. Johns A1: Vatican EBR 13 14 15 16:  Parma 1885 2046 2148 2818: 3083 3085:  British Library 9401 9403:

[11]  Ms. Vatican EBR 20.

[12] Printed in Hijar in 1486. Another humash with the same haftarot for these parashiyot is believed to have been printed in Spain as well. See the National Library of Israel website: here.

[13] The practice in Saragosa was to read the original Babylonian haftarot. See “The Massorah,” Vol. 2b, p. 486.

[14] The practice of reading Nahamu on the Sabbath following Tisha B’Av was much more prevalent than the practice of reading special haftarot in subsequent weeks. Rambam (Tefilla 13:19) writes that Nahamu was the “practice of the people,’ (Nahagu Haam) while he describes the practice of reading the other six haftarot of Consolation as a local custom.The Italian practice is to only read haftarot of Consolation for the remainder of Av, but this is not directly related to my main thesis, as Italians read Jeremiah 16:19 for Behar.

[15] Parshat Behar plays a unique role in the Ashkenazic liturgy for the Omer period. In the Western rite, R. Baruch of Mainz’s “Aharei Nimkar Geula Tihyeh Lo” is the zulat for that Sabbath, while in Eastern Ashkenaz the Geula “Yakush Ma’yano” is said. Both of these piyutim beseech Hashem, as our “close relative”, to perform the “commandment”of redeeming us. No other piyutim from the Omer liturgy are connected to the weekly parashiyot. However, in spite of the strong connection that Ashkenazic Jewry felt to the redemption commandments listed in Behar, is is unlikely that it is the reason for their choice of haftara, which appeared on the scene quite early, before the composition of these piyutim.

It is also worth noting that there has been a historical trend to eliminate haftarot of rebuke from the book  of Ezekiel,  but that doesn’t seem to be relevant to the haftara of Behukkotai as it is not a haftara of rebuke. See note 4.

[16] Unlike the old haftarot for Shemot (Ezekiel 16)and Bo (Isaiah 19) that were retained in some Spanish and Babylonian communities up to the present day. See the list in TE,  pp. 703-706.

[17] Humash L’maan Sh’mo B’Ahava claims that Libyan communities read Jeremiah 16:19 for Parashat Behar. No other sources back up this claim, and Luah Dinim U’Minhagim Yotzei Luv (2008, pp. 137-138) lists the “standard” haftarot for these parashiyot.

[18] See Mirsky, Shmuel K, in “Pinkas Bet Haknesset D’K”K Pozna” in “B’rcho L’Menachem”  p 262. The Poznan community preserved various customs with an Italian connection that either disappeared from the rest of Ashkenaz, or never got there in the first place.

For instance, they read Dirshu (Isaiah 55:6) as the haftara for the Sabbath between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur in years when there was a Sabbath between Yom Kippur and Sukkot long after that practice disappeared from the rest of Ashkenaz. See Mirsky, p. 264.
Moreover, during Minha of Yom Kippur they recited the kiklars of “Emunat Om Noteret” and “Efa’er L’Malki Bakodesh. The Kiklars come from the Kalirian kedushta “Odecha Bekol Areiv”, which is recited as the kedushta for Yom Kippur Minha in the Roman community. In Poznan they were inserted into the non-Kalirian Kedushta “Eitan Hikkir Emunatekha” which was recited in all Ashkenaz. (In Nusach Polin   only the  Koteret is inserted.) See Mirsky, p. 270, and Goldschmidt in the introduction to Mahzor L’yamim Nora’im, Vol. 2, pp. 45-46. I would like to thank Dr. Gabriel Wasserman for pointing this out to me.