Identifying Achashverosh and Esther in Secular Sources

Identifying Achashverosh and Esther in Secular Sources 
By Mitchell First 

This article is a summary of a longer article which will appear in his forthcoming book Esther Unmasked: Solving Eleven Mysteries of the Jewish Holidays and Liturgy (Kodesh Press), pp. 129-167.

     In this article, we will explain how scholars were finally able to identify Achashverosh in secular sources. We will also show that Esther can be identified in secular sources as well. Finally, we will utilize these sources to shed light on the story of the Megillah.Before we get to these sources, we have to point out that an important clue to the identity of Achashverosh is found in the book of Ezra.
Achashverosh is mentioned at Ezra 4:6 in the context of other Persian kings. The simplest understanding of Ezra 4:6 and its surrounding verses is that Achashverosh is the Persian king who reigned after the Daryavesh who rebuilt the Temple,[1] but before Artachshasta. But what about the secular sources? Was there any Persian king known as Achashverosh or something close to that in these sources?

     Until the 19th century, a search in secular sources for a Persian king named Achashverosh or something close to that would have been an unsuccessful one. Our knowledge of the Persian kings from the Biblical period was coming entirely from the writings of Greek historians, and none of the names that they recorded were close to Achashverosh. The Greek historians (Herodotus, mid-5th cent. BCE, and the others who came after him) described the following Persian kings from the Biblical period: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes.
    We were thus left to speculate as to the identity of Achashverosh. Was he to be equated with Artaxerxes? This was the position taken by the Septuagint to Esther. Was he to be equated with Cambyses? Or was he, as Ezra 4:6 and its surrounding verses implied, the king between Daryavesh (=Darius I) and Artachshasta (=Artaxerxes I). But why did the Greeks refer to him as Xerxes, a name at first glance seeming to have no relation to the name Achashverosh?
    It was only in the 19th century, as a result of the decipherment of Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions from the ancient Persian palaces, that we were able to answer these questions. It was discovered that the name of the king that the Greeks had been referring to as “Xerxes” was in fact: “Khshayarsha” (written in Old Persian cuneiform). This name is very close to the Hebrew “Achashverosh.” In their consonantal structure, the two names are identical. Both center on the consonantal sounds “ch”, “sh”, “r”, and “sh.” The Hebrew added an initial aleph[2] (a frequent occurrence when foreign words with two initial consonants are recorded in Hebrew), and added two vavs. Interestingly, the Megillah spells Achashverosh several times with only one vav, and one time (10:1) spells the name with no vavs.
     Thereafter, at the beginning of the 20th century, Aramaic documents from Egypt from the 5th century B.C.E. came to light. In these documents, this king’s name was spelled in Aramaic as חשירש, חשיארש and אחשירש. The closeness to the Hebrew אחשורוש is easily seen.
     How did Khshayarsha (consonants: KH, SH, R, SH) come to be referred to by the Greeks as Xerxes?
  • The Greek language does not have a letter to represent the “sh” sound.
  • The initial “KH SH” sounds of the Persian name were collapsed into one Greek letter that makes the “KS” sound. A tendency to parallelism probably led to the second “SH” also becoming “KS,” even though “S” would have been more appropriate.[3] Hence, the consonants became KS, R, KS (=X,R,X).
  • The “es” at the end was just something added by the Greeks to help turn the foreign name into proper Greek grammatical form.[4]
    (It was for this same reason that the Hebrew משה  became “Moses” when the Bible was translated into Greek.)

 

  Identifying Khshayarsha/Xerxes with Achashverosh thus makes much sense on linguistic grounds. Critically, it is consistent with Ezra 4:6 which had implied that Achashverosh was the king between Daryavesh (=Darius I) and Artachshasta (=Artaxerxes I).[5]
    We have an inscription from Khshayarsha in Persian which lists the countries over which he ruled. Among the countries listed are “Hidush” and “Kushiya,” most likely the Hodu and Kush of the Megillah.[6]
    Now that we have identified Achashverosh in secular sources, we can use these sources to provide some biographical information. Xerxes reigned from 486-465 BCE, when the Temple was already rebuilt. It was rebuilt in the reign of his father Darius I in 516 BCE. According to Herodotus, Xerxes was the son of Darius by Atossa, daughter of Cyrus. Xerxes was also the first son born to Darius after Darius became king. These factors distinguished him from his older half-brother Artabazanes, and merited Xerxes being chosen to succeed Darius. At his accession in 486 BCE, Xerxes could not have been more than 36 years old (since he was born after the accession of Darius in 522 BCE).
    The party in which Vashti rebelled took place in the third year of the reign of Achashverosh (1:3), and Esther was not chosen until the 7th year (2:16). Why did it take Achashverosh so long to choose a replacement? It has been suggested that Xerxes was distracted by his foreign policy. In the early years of his reign, Xerxes ordered a full-scale invasion of Greece. Xerxes went on the invasion himself, which took him out of Persia commencing in the spring or summer of his 5th year and continuing through part of his 7th year.[7] This invasion ended in defeat.
     From the secular sources and a solar eclipse that took place in the battles, it can be calculated that Xerxes did not return to Susa until
the fall of 479 B.C.E.[8] Tevet of Achashverosh’s 7th year, when Esther was chosen, would have been Dec. 479/Jan. 478 B.C.E. Accordingly, Esther was taken to the palace shortly after Xerxes’ return.
    Do we have any evidence in secular sources for the main plot of the Purim story, the threat to destroy the Jews in the 12th year (3:7)? We do not, but this is to be expected. No works from any Persian historians from this period have survived. (Probably, no such works were ever composed.) Our main source for the events of the reign of Xerxes is Herodotus and his narrative ends in the 7th year of Xerxes.[9]
    Interestingly, there is perhaps a reference to Mordechai in a later narrative source. The Greek historian Ctesias,[10] who served as a physician to Artaxerxes II, mentions a “Matacas” who was the most influential of all of Xerxes’ eunuchs. (Probably, “eunuch” was merely a
term used to indicate a holder of a high position in the king’s court.) “Matacas” suggests a Persian name with the consonants MTC, which would be very close to the consonants of the name Mordechai, MRDC.[11]  The information provided by Ctesias bears a significant resemblance to the last verse in the Megillah, which records that by the end of the story, Mordechai was mishneh (=second) to the king.[12]
(Perhaps we do not have to take mishneh literally; the import may merely be “very high official.”)
    Most interesting is what happens when we analyze the secular sources regarding the wife of Xerxes. According to Herodotus, the wife of Xerxes was named Amestris, and she was the daughter of a military commander named Otanes. (In the Megillah, Esther is described as the daughter of Avichail.) Ctesias records that Amestris outlived Xerxes. Moreover, in the further details that Ctesias provides, Amestris is involved in royal affairs even in the reign of her son Artaxerxes.[13] Neither Herodotus nor Ctesias use a term like “queen” for her, but their description of Amestris fits what we would call today the “queen.” Neither gives any indication that Xerxes had any other wife.
    Some postulate that Amestris is Vashti. But this is extremely unlikely since there is nothing in Herodotus or Ctesias to indicate any loss of
status by Amestris. Others postulate (based on verses such as Est. 2:19 and 4:11[14]) that Esther was never the main   wife of Xerxes, but was one of other wives of a lesser status. See, e.g., Chamesh Megillot, Daat Mikra edition (published by Mossad Harav Kook), introduction to Esther, p. 6. The problem with this approach is that the clear impression that one receives from the Megillah is that Esther was the Persian wife of the highest status from the time she was chosen in the 7th year of the reign of Achashverosh through the balance of the years described in the book. See, e.g., verse 2:17 (va-yasem keter malkhut be-roshah va-yamlikheha tachat Vashti).
    The approach that seems to have the least difficulties is to postulate that Amestris is  Esther and that Herodotus simply erred regarding her ancestry. Although Herodotus traveled widely in the 460’s and 450’s B.C.E., he probably never set foot in Persia. His information about Persia is based on what was told to him orally. Every scholar knows that he could not possibly be correct on a large percentage of the details he reports (whether about Persia or any matter). Also, the impression that one receives from the Megillah is that Esther did not disclose her true ancestry for several years. Whatever rumors about her ancestry first came out may be what made their way to Herodotus.[15]
    It is striking that the name Avichayil means military commander.[16] It is not so farfetched to suggest that Avichayil might have had another name which resembled the name Otanes.  The Megillah tells us that Esther had another name, Hadassah.
   Herodotus tells a story depicting the cruelty of Amestris. Amestris takes revenge on another woman by cutting off her body parts and throwing them to the dogs. Ctesias writes that Amestris ordered someone impaled, and had fifty Greeks decapitated. But scholars today know not to believe all the tales told by the Greek historians about their enemies, the Persians. (Herodotus, known as the “Father of History,” is also known as the “Father of Lies.” The reputation of Ctesias as a historian is far worse; he is widely viewed as freely mixing fact and fiction.)
    Although he never says it explicitly, one gets the impression from Herodotus that he believed that Amestris was the wife of Xerxes even in the first seven years of Xerxes’ reign. But it would be understandable that Herodotus might have had such a belief. According to the Megillah, Vashti was gone by the third year of Xerxes. Xerxes reigned 18 years after that. To Herodotus and his informants, Vashti may have been long forgotten.
    We have no Persian sources for the name of the wife of Khshayarsha. But close examination of the name “Amestris” supports its identification with Esther. The “is” at the end was just a suffix added to turn the foreign name into proper Greek grammatical form (just as “es” was added at the end of “Xerxes”). When comparing the remaining consonants, the name of the wife of Xerxes is recorded in the Greek historians as based around the consonants M, S, T, and R, and the name as recorded in the Megillah is based around the consonants S, T, and R. Out of the numerous possible consonants in these languages, three consonants are the same and in the same order! Probability suggests that this is not coincidence and that the two are the same person. Probably her Persian name was composed of the consonants M, S, T, and R, and the M was not preserved in the Hebrew. (One source in Orthodoxy that has suggested the identification of Esther with Amestris, without any discussion, is Trei Asar, Daat Mikra edition, published by Mossad Harav Kook, vol. 2, appendix, p. 3.)

—-   
    Once we realize that Achashverosh is Xerxes, it becomes evident that the asher haglah  of Esther 2:6 cannot be referring to Mordechai. King Yechanyah was exiled in 597 B.C.E. If Mordechai was old enough to have been exiled with King Yechanyah, he would have been over 120 years old when appointed to a high position in the 12th year of Xerxes. Moreover, Esther, his first cousin, would not have been young enough to have been chosen queen a few years earlier. One alternative is to understand verse 2:6 as referring to Mordechai’s great-grandfather Kish.[17] Another alternative is to view the subject of 2:6 as Mordechai, but to read the verse as implying only that Mordechai came from a family that had been exiled.
                                                                     —-
   The identification of Achashverosh with Xerxes does not fit with the view of the Talmud. According to the Talmud (Megillah 11b, based on Seder Olam chap. 29), Achashverosh reigned between Koresh and Daryavesh. In this view, the Temple had not yet been rebuilt at the time of the events of the Megillah. (In the view of Seder Olam and the Talmud, the Persian period spanned the reigns of only three Persian kings. This is much shorter than the conventional chronology. The conventional chronology is set forth in the Table below. For more information about this discrepancy, see my Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy Between Rabbinic and Chronology, Jason Aronson, 1997).
    That the king intended to be depicted in the Megillah was Khshayarsha/Xerxes is accepted by legions of scholars today, even if they question the historicity of the story. Within Orthodoxy, some sources that accept the identification of Achashverosh with Xerxes include: Chamesh Megillot (Daat Mikra edition), R. Isaac Halevy,[18] R. Shelomoh Danziger,[19] R. Avigdor Miller,[20] R. Adin Steinsaltz,[21] R. Yoel Bin-Nun,[22]  R. Yehuda Landy,[23] and R. Menachem Liebtag.[24]
    The Megillah (10:2) implied that we could search outside the Bible for additional information regarding Achashverosh. I trust that this
search has proven an interesting one!
                                                             ——
     Table: The
main Persian kings from this era and their dates (B.C.E.):
Cyrus              539-530
Cambyses [25]   530-522
Darius I         522-486
Xerxes           486-465
Artaxerxes I  465-424[26]
Darius II        423-404
Artaxerxes II 404-358
Artaxerxes III 358-338
Arses             338-336
Darius III      336-332
Mitchell First works as an attorney in Manhattan and lives in New Jersey, and is available to lecture on this topic. He can be reached at MFirstatty@aol.com
[1]
Admittedly, this is an oversimplification, since the Daryavesh who rebuilt the
Temple is mentioned both at Ezra 4:5 and at Ezra 4:24.  See further below, n. 5.
[2]
Both the Elamite and the Akkadian versions of the name Khshayarsha also had an
initial vowel. In Elamite,“i”, and in Akkadian, “a”. See Edwin M. Yamauchi, Persia
and the Bible (1990), p. 187.
The name of the king is found in Aramaic in
the panels of the Dura-Europos synagogue (3rd century C.E., Syria)
without the initial aleph.
[3]
That the transmission of foreign names is by no means an exact science is shown
by how the name of  the son of Xerxes
was recorded by the Greeks. The Greeks preserved the “Arta” of the first part
of his name, Artakhshaça, but then just tacked on “xerxes,” the name of his
father, as the second part of his name!
[4]
I.e., convert it into the nominative case.
[5] With regard to verse 4:24, the proper understanding of
this verse is as follows. The author of the book of Ezra decided to digress,
and to supplement the reference to accusations made against the Jews in the
reigns of Koresh through Daryavesh with mention of further accusations against
them in the reigns of the subsequent kings, Achashverosh (Xerxes) and
Artachshasta (Artaxerxes I). Verse 4:24 then returns to the main narrative, the
reign of Daryavesh. The role played by verse 4:24 is that of “resumptive
repetition.” This is the interpretation adopted by the Daat Mikra
commentary to Ezra (pp. 27 and 35) and by many modern scholars. See the
references at Richard Steiner, “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s
Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the
Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4-6,” Journal of Biblical Literature
125 (2006), p. 674, n. 164. This understanding of verse 24 only became evident
in modern times when it was realized that linguistically Achashverosh was to be
identified with Xerxes.
[6]
Roland G. Kent, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, p. 151 (2d ed.,
1953).
[7]
Many find allusions in the Megillah to the preparation for the invasion and to
the invasion. See, e.g., Esther 1:3 and 10:2.
[8]
See, e.g., William H. Shea, “Esther and History,” Andrews University
Seminary Studies 14 (1976), p. 239. In the Persian system of regnal reckoning,
485 BCE was considered year 1 of Xerxes. 486 B.C.E. was only the accession
year.
[9]
See Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander (2002), pp. 7 and 516. In his
narrative of events up to the 7th year, Herodotus does make some
tangential references to events after the 7th year. For example, he
refers to Artaxerxes a few times, and he tells a story about something that
Amestris did in her later years. (She had fourteen children of noble Persians
buried alive, as a gift on her behalf to the god of the underworld.) Later ancient sources write about the
assassination of Xerxes.
[10] The Persica of Ctesias only survives in quotations or summaries by others. For this
particular section of Ctesias, what has survived is a summary by Photius (9th cent.)
[11]
Another version of Photius reads “Natacas” here. But this difference is not so significant.
“N” and “M” are related consonants, both being nasal stops; it is not uncommon
for one to transform into the other.
[12]
See also Est. 9:4.
[13]
This means that Artaxerxes I (who empowered Ezra, and later Nechemiah) was
technically Jewish!
[14]
Est. 2:19 refers to a second gathering of maidens, after Esther was
chosen. Est. 4:11 records that Esther had not been called to the king for 30
days.
[15]
It is sometimes claimed that Esther could not have been the wife of Xerxes
because Herodotus (3,84) tells of an agreement between Darius I and his six
co-conspirators that the Persian king would not marry outside their families.
One of the co-conspirators was named Otanes. But Herodotus nowhere states that
the Otanes who was the father of Amestris was the co-conspirator Otanes. Briant
writes that if Amestris had been the daughter of co-conspirator Otanes,
Herodotus would doubtless have pointed this out. See Briant, p. 135. Therefore,
implicit in Herodotus is that Xerxes married outside the seven families.
[16]
I would like to thank Rabbi Richard Wolpoe who first made this observation to me.
[17]
That the name Mordechai may be based on the name of the Babylonian deity Marduk
also suggests that Mordechai was born in exile.
[18]
Dorot ha-Rishonim: Tekufat ha-Mikra (1939), p. 262.
[19]
“Who Was the Real Akhashverosh?,” Jewish Observer, Feb. 1973, pp. 12-15.
[20]
Torah Nation (1971), pp. 40 and 42.
[21]
Talmud Bavli, Taanit-Megillah, p. 47, ha-Hayyim, and p. 50, ha-Hayyim.    .
[22]
Hadassah Hi Esther (1997), p. 49, n. 8. (This work is a collection of
articles by various authors.)
[23] Purim
and the Persian Empire (2010), pp. 40-42.
[24]
For additional sources in Orthodoxy that accept the identification of
Achashverosh with Xerxes, see Jewish History in Conflict, pp. 178-79.
[25]
Cambyses’ name was discovered to be “Kabujiya” in Persian. His name is recorded
as כנבוזי in Aramaic documents from Egypt from the 5th
cent. B.C.E. He did not reign enough years to be Achashverosh. Nor did he reign
over Hodu. See Jewish History in Conflict, p. 167. Although he is not
mentioned in Tanakh, his reign is alluded to at Ezra 4:5 (in the word ve-ad).
[26]
Another king named Xerxes reigned 45 days after the death of his father
Artaxerxes I.


Quiz Runoff

Quiz Runoff
by Marc B. Shapiro

Written on 4 Shevat, 5773, the yahrzeit of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg

1. In the last post, as the quiz question, I asked for the name of the first Hebrew book published by a living author. The answer is Nofet Tzufim by R. Judah Messer Leon. As the Wikipedia entry for Messer Leon states, this work “was printed by Abraham Conat of Mantua in 1475-6, the only work by a living author printed in Hebrew in the fifteenth century.”
A number of people got the right answer, and as a few of them told me, and I confirmed for myself, it was not that difficult to find the answer using Google. There is nothing wrong with using Google or any other search tool, and it is my fault for not realizing that the answer could be found so easily.
Some of the material in the Wikipedia entry for Messer Leon comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia, but not the sentence I quoted above. The second part of the sentence is in fact incorrect, as there is at least one other work by a living author printed in Hebrew in the fifteenth century. I refer to the Agur, by R. Jacob ben Judah Landau (died 1493). This work appeared sometime between 1487 and 1492, so Wikipedia tells us, and in this instance Wikipedia’s information comes from the Jewish Encyclopedia. These sources also tell us that “The ‘Agur’ was the first Jewish work to contain a rabbinical approbation, besides being the second Hebrew book printed during the author’s lifetime.”
Why then did a number of those who contacted me think that the Agur was the first book to appear in the author’s lifetime, rather than the second? Perhaps because in the Encyclopaedia Judaica entry “Haskamah”, which is reprinted here, we find the following incorrect statement: “The first haskamah appeared in the 15th century, in the Agur by Jacob Landau (Naples, c. 1490), the first Hebrew book printed during its author’s lifetime.”
Starting now, I will try to make my quiz questions a bit harder (i.e., not so easy to find the answers via Google). Here are the names of those who answered correctly on the last quiz: Shalom Leaf, Alex Heppenheimer, Leor Jacobi, Eric Lawee, Moshe Lapin, Shimon S., Ari Kinsberg, Yonason Rosman, Peretz Mochkin, Yehudah Hausman, Dovid Solomon
Since I can’t reward all of them, there will be a runoff. The following questions are to be answered only by them and only by emailing me the answer. If you can only answer one of the questions please do so.
A. What is the first volume of responsa published in the lifetime of its author?
B. There is a verse in the book of Exodus (hint: we haven’t yet reached it this year) which has a very strange vocalization of a word, found nowhere else in Tanach. (The word itself is also spelled in an unusual fashion, found only one other time in Tanach). The purpose of this vocalization is apparently in order to make a rhyme.[1] What am I referring to?
I had thought to ask: What is the first Hebrew work to use modern punctuation including question marks, but via Google I found the answer in a few seconds. So hopefully the answers to what I have asked are not so easily found.
2. I have a good deal more to say on themes discussed in the last post, which I will get to in future posts. But I have one piece of information that I think is quite significant (a real “chiddush”) and I don’t want to delay passing it on. It turns out that R. Schachter was too quick to add the correction in Nefesh ha-Rav. Here is an email I received by someone who prefers to remain anonymous.
I am not into writing reactions (Israelis call them “talkbacks”) on blogs, since I have not become accustomed to the 21st Century. But I want to give you a bit of information that is relevant to your discussion of Metzitza. I attended Rav Aharon Lichtenstein’s shiurim at Gruss for a number of years, and I clearly remember what he said on the subject during what the guys called “a press conference.” He said very clearly that the Rav was against any Metzitza at all, and he expressed this view explicitly at the brit of one of Rav Aharon’s sons. To me such a view makes lots of sense, if one understands that it is required in the gemara only because it was then thought that the lack of Metzitza was dangerous.(כי לא עביד סכנה הוא (שבת קלג,
3. Many people have mentioned to me the problems with the commenting feature (at least for those using Chrome). When you click on it, you often don’t see the most recent comments. One way to fix this is after you click to see the comments, where it says “Discussion” check “Newest” or “Oldest”, and everything will come up. We will try to come up with a fix for this.

[1] I am referring to the level of peshat, as I realize that all sorts of explanations based on derush, remez, and kabbalah can be offered. 


Midrashic Exegesis and Biblical Interpretation in the Meshekh Hokhmah


Midrashic Exegesis and Biblical Interpretation in the Meshekh Hokhmah
by Yitshak Cohen
In honor of Yitshak Cohen’s just-published book, “Or Sameah” Halakhah u-Mishpat: Mishnato shel Ha-Rav Meir Simhah ha-Kohen al Mishneh Torah le-ha-Rambam, the Seforim Blog is happy to present this post in English, which is taken from a longer article to appear in the Jewish Law Annual.
Introduction
R. Meir Simhah Hacohen (henceforth: RMS) was born in 1843 in the village of Butrimonys, in the Vilnius district. Gaining renown as one of his generation’s leading scholars, in 1888 he was appointed rabbi of the city of Daugavpils (Dvinsk), a post he held until his death in 1926.[1] He was most active during the period spanning the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a period in which the Lithuanian yeshivot were ascendant in Eastern Europe.[2] His literary output was unique and varied as his writings fall into many rabbinic-legal genres. He spent most of his life writing a work on Maimonides’ Code of Jewish Law (henceforth: Code), the Or Sameah (henceforth: OS).[3] He also wrote a second literary work, published in Riga, approximately a year after his death, entitled Meshekh Hokhmah (henceforth: MH). In his one line introduction to MH, he characterized it as “elucidations and interpretations, insights and homilies, comments and novella on the five books of the Pentateuch.”[4] In addition to these, R. Meir Simha wrote novellae on the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds and a volume of responsa.
In my book I demonstrated that the rabbinic legal decisors (poskim) regarded OS not only as a collection of novellae but also as a halakhic work, containing legal rulings.[5] Should this also prove true of RMS’ commentary on the Torah, the MH, this would be an even more surprising and significant discovery, for RMS does not hint at this role in his introduction and since the closing of the Talmud there are almost no instances of halakhists offering midrashic exegeses of biblical verses as the basis for normative rulings.[6] If RMS took this path and the rabbinic decisors accepted it as the basis for establishing normative law, the roots of this phenomenon are worth exploring. Therefore, in this article, I will study RMS’ unique midrashic exegeses in MH and explore their legal status and the extent of their influence on later rabbinic decisors: Did these decisors attribute legal standing to MH in light of the midrashic exegeses it contains, or did they relegate it to the biblical commentary or novellae genres. Did they also rely on the conclusions RMS reached through his midrashic exegesis when the laws he deduced strayed beyond what were deemed the boundaries of the normative halakhic framework? Did they also rely on his novel interpretations when ruling on especially weighty matters, such as marital law, the release of agunot, and more? This article will present some of the findings RMS reached via his midrashic exegesis, and discuss the extent of their impact on the rabbinic decisors. Building upon this analysis, it will examine why RMS’ midrashic exegesis’ had such a remarkable impact on later decisors.
A. RMS and His Use of Midrashic Exegesis as a Legitimate Tool for the Development
of Jewish Law
A.1. The Traditional Reticence to Engage in Midrashic Exegesis as a Means for
Developing the Law 
Gilat wrote that in the post-talmudic period, we find almost no evidence of Jewish law being created through midrashic exegesis, not in the period of the Early Authorities (Rishonim, medieval authorities spanning the 11th-15th centuries CE) and certainly not in the period of the Late Authorities (Aharonim, 15th century CE and on).[7] Thus, legal creativity stemming from the Torah and the rest of Scriptures, as a rule, atrophied.[8] These sources were only used to provide a basis for laws already promulgated in the Talmud. Indeed, a decisor must display tremendous judicial boldness and courage to “skip over” or ignore the classical literary sources of antiquity, the Geonim, and the Early Authorities and create original, legal precedents based on the source text, itself. Indeed, it is natural that as time goes on and rabbinic decisors find themselves further and further from the “source”, those willing to turn their backs on the customary and the conventional, bravely opting to engage in midrashic exegesis to render new rulings will be few and far between.
Urbach[9] conducts a lengthy inquiry into the problematics of accepting midrashic exegesis as the basis for Jewish law. He quotes the opinion of Rabbi Yitzhak Isaac Halevy,[10] who contends that only masoretic transmission can function as the source for Jewish law; the Rabbis never relied on midrashic exegesis as the source for legal innovation. Epstein also adopts this approach.[11] In contrast, Albeck argues that when a case reached the High Court of Law (Beit Din Hagadol) on a point of law that had no extant tradition, the judges engaged in midrashic exegesis, plumbing the depths of the biblical text and deriving from it alone the legal verdict.[12] However, both Epstein and Albeck agree that the laws transmitted to us from the periods of the “The Pairs” (Zugot) and the Tannaim were only handed down in the following ways:  decrees, enactments (which derived from the authority invested in the established institutions), tales, testimony, and tradition (transmitted to us in the form of custom). In light of this historical background, the extraordinary boldness of a rabbinic decisor who innovates Jewish law based on his midrashic exegesis of the Bible becomes clear.
The rabbinic decisors’ reticence throughout the generations regarding deriving Jewish law from Scriptures stems from several fears: firstly, the stories in the Torah and even more so in the Prophets are told with a wealth of detail; they may unintentionally promote certain modes of behavior or action that the biblical “author” did not intend to teach; indeed, specific details may be mentioned merely to set the historical stage and possess no normative implications whatsoever. Secondly, there is an even more complex problem: even if the biblical author meant to impart halakhic rulings, the rabbinic decisors will have grave difficulty deciding which of the myriad details is relevant and foundational, crucial to informing the very nature of the law, and which is mere background, having no impact on the law’s formulation.[13] Therefore, RMS’ midrashic exegesis is a phenomenon demanding study in and of itself, and all the more so, if it influenced later rabbinic decisors.
A.2. RMS as Groundbreaker, Adopting Midrashic Exegesis as a Means to Develop the Law
Gilat cites four examples taken from the Late Authorities in which midrashic exegesis was used to develop normative Jewish laws, this, despite the traditional opposition to doing so. Surprisingly, three of the four examples were taken from RMS’ oeuvre. A thorough analysis of RMS’ work reveals that these are not the only instances. Some of these instances are widely cited in later works and by the academy as possessing original and surprising positions. Without a doubt, RMS’ work on the Bible, an unusual undertaking for a halakhist, presents us with ample opportunity for investigating this matter.
B. Creative Midrashic Exegesis: The Midrash, Its Rejection and Its Influence
In order to emphasize the complexity involved in creating Jewish law via midrashic exegesis, I have chosen to begin with three cases[14] where the rabbinic decisors reject RMS’ midrashic exegesis, instead of adopting it. RMS’ boldness will become even more evident, in the context of this rejection.
B.1. Rejecting Creative Midrashic Exegesis – One Who Murders a Person in his Death Throes
After the Israelites’ defeat in their war against the Philistines, a fugitive reaches David and tells the following tale:
I happened to be at Mount Gilboa and I saw Saul
leaning on his spear, and thechariots and horsemen closing in on him … Then he
said to me , ‘Stand over me, and finish me off, for I am in agony and barely
alive.’ So I stood over him and finished him off, for I knew that he would
never rise from where he was lying….[15]
The following dialogue ensues after David laments:
David said to the young man who had brought him the news, “Where are you from?” He replied, “I am the son of a resident alien, an Amalekite.” “How did you dare,” David said to him, “to lift your hand and kill the Lord’s anointed?” Thereupon David called upon one of the attendants and said to him, “Come over and strike him!” He struck him down and he died. And David said to him, “Your blood be on your head! Your own mouth testified against you when you said, ‘I put the LORD’s anointed to death.’ ”
Maimonides in Laws concerning Murder and the Preservation of Life (2:7) writes:
Whether one kills a healthy person or a dying invalid
or even a person in his death throes, he must be put to death on this account.
But if the death throes are humanly caused, for example, if one who has been
beaten to the point of death is in his throes, the court may not put his slayer to death.
Commenting on this section, RMS deduces a halakhic norm from the story about King David:
And note, that there was a dispute regarding whether one who killed a person in his death throes should be punished as a murderer. And our Rabbi [Maimonides] ruled in accord with the Rabbis to exempt him. It seems that in this case as well, he is liable by the
law of the king of Israel, so the king may slay him. And proof for this may be adduced from the case of David who killed the Amalekite proselyte based on his own admission of guilt; and this was authorized by the king’s law…even though he [King Saul] had fallen on the spear and [the Amalekite] stated “for I knew that he would never rise from where he was lying”… and so we learn that in the case of one who kills a person in his death throes, the murderer is punishable by death, by the king’s law.
RMS agrees that the court cannot execute an individual who killed a person in his death throes; however, he adopts the novel position that the king has the authority to do so. In doing so, RMS improves upon Maimonides’ code by adding a halakhic component that stems from midrashic exegesis.[16]
RMS strives to prove that Maimonides would also agree with this ruling:
And our Rabbi demonstrated sensitivity to this point
in his holy words: “and if the death throes are humanly caused … the court may
not put his slayer to death.” He inferred: the court, but by the law of the
king he is condemned to death,
It would be interesting to examine whether RMS’ success at finding support for his innovation in Maimonides’ language led later rabbinic decisors accept it. What did RMS hope to achieve by pointing out the consonance between Maimonides’ wording and the results of his own midrashic exegesis?
B.1.A. The Tzitz Eliezer’s Opposition to the Specific Midrash concerning the Law of the King
Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg (1917-2006), in his book Tzitz Eliezer, disputes the halakhic norm derived by RMS from Scriptures:
And so, apparently, we must study the source brought
by the OS [to establish the law] in the case of one who killed a person in
humanly caused death throes from the case of the Amalekite proselyte, from the
language used by Scriptures therein … and this implies that David condemned him
to death based on the authority of the special law delineating the punishment
due one who defaces and murders the LORD’s anointed one. So he invoked the law
of the king in this case wherein the murderer killed the LORD’s anointed one,
even though the victim was already dying from humanly caused death throes. And therefore
this does not provide proof that the law of the king would be invoked in a
similar case if an ordinary human being was slain.
The Tzitz Eliezer argues that the victim being “the LORD’s anointed one” was a crucial element in the Amalekite proselyte’s transgression, and, indeed, played a critical role in David’s decision to execute him. In his opinion, had the killing not fulfilled this condition, the murderer could not have been subject to execution by order of the king. RMS apparently believed that this detail was only of historical import and was not a factor in David’s legal ruling; therefore, he concluded that one who kills a person in his death throes – no matter what the dying man’s stature may be – is condemned to death by the authority of the king. This discussion highlights the complexity involved in deriving Jewish law from Scriptures and aptly demonstrates the fundamental reason underlying the Late Authorities’ reticence to do so. Implicitly, however, it also demonstrates RMS’ daring in utilizing midrashic exegesis as a legitimate tool for developing or innovating Jewish law.
B.1.B. Paving the Way for Sanctioning the Use of Midrashic Exegesis as a Tool for Developing the Law
Reading between the lines of R. Waldenberg’s ruling, an astonishing phenomon comes to light: while R. Waldenberg rejects the halakhic ruling innovated via this midrashic exegesis, he, himself, adopts such a methodology. That is to say, he is influenced by RMS. He does not disagree with RMS’ means but with the conclusion he reached, for he also engages in midrashic exegesis, but arrives at a different reading. RMS pioneered the use of midrashic exegesis as a legitimate tool for developing the Halakha and the Tzitz Eliezer followed in his footsteps; however, in this case, he disputed RMS’ conclusions and limited the ruling to apply exclusively to one who killed the LORD’s anointed one. The Tzitz Eliezer could have stood upon principle and issued a categorical denunciation of such a methodology, as we will see others do below. The Tzitz Eliezer did not do so. He looked and was hooked.
B.1.C. Creative Midrashic Exegesis: Amalekite Proselyte
RMS also understands the transgressor’s identity, as an Amalekite proselyte, to be of import and grants it legal weight. In the Torah portion of Ki Tetze, RMS notes the Mekhilta in which God swears that no Amalekite will ever be converted.[17] Ipso facto, there can never be an Amalekite proselyte, and the individual mentioned in the verse must be an ordinary Noahide. King David ordered his execution, as he would have for any Noahide; for Noahides are subject to execution based on self-incrimination. This in contradistinction to the law applying to Jews, who cannot be executed based on their own testimony: “no man may incriminate himself.”[18] This law which RMS seems to have innovated almost as an aside in the course of his pursuit of a greater innovation is not at all obvious; indeed, it is quite novel.
The Tzitz Eliezer objects to this midrashic exegesis offered by RMS.[19] In his opinion, Maimonides, himself, did not read the verse this way.[20] In fact, the opposite seems to be true; Maimonides seems to explicitly state that an Amalekite proselyte is a righteous convert who can be accepted into the ranks of nation of Israel. As proof of this, note that Maimonides finds it necessary to justify David’s decision to execute the proselyte based his own self-incrimination by explaining that it was either a horaat shaah (emergency ruling specific to that time and place) or stemmed from the authority of the king. Had the Amalekite proselyte been considered a Noahide, as RMS declares, there would have been no need to justify his execution.

 

[1]
B.Tz. Eizenstadt, Dor rabbanav vesofrav [no official English title], 6,
(New York: 5665) 39.
[2]
S. Stampfer, The Formation of the Lithuanian Yeshiva, (Hebrew;
Jerusalem: 2005) 12.
[3]
This work is generally classified as a commentary on the laws contained in
Maimonides’ Code; see, for example, M. Elon, Jewish Law: History,
Sources, Principles, 1-3, (Hebrew; Jerusalem: 1992), 930.
[4]
This work was edited and published in more than sixteen different editions and
was reprinted numerous additional times, including in expanded editions
produced by A. Abraham, S.H. Domb, Z. Metzger, and Y. Cooperman.
[5]
Doctoral dissertation cited above, p. 247ff.
[6]
Responsa Maharik, Root 139, p.156; R. Elijah Mizrahi in his commentary
on the Torah, beginning of Parashat Matot, s.v. vayedaber, notes
that the authority to do so was only granted to the mishnaic sages; Sedei
Hemed, Kelalei Haposkim 16, n. 50; Responsa Beit Avraham
remarks that we have not found this approach adopted by any rabbinic decisor,
neither the early nor the late ones; and for an academic perspective, see: Z.
Frankel, The Way of the Mishnah (Hebrew; Berlin: 1859), 18.    
[7]
Y.D. Gilat, Studies in the Development of the Halakhah (Hebrew;
Ramat-Gan: 1992), 389.
[8]
See B. Lifshitz, “Aggada and Its Role in the Unwritten Law” (Hebrew), Shenaton
Hamishpat Haivri 22 (2004), 233, 295, regarding the Written Law becoming a
canonical work that does not function as the basis for legal creativity, even
as it plays the role of authoritative source for all such creativity.
[9]
E.E. Urbach, The World of the Sages – Collected Studies (Hebrew;
Jerusalem: 2002), 50; Idem, “The Derasha as a Basis of the Halakha and the
Problem of the Soferim” (Hebrew), Tarbiz 27/2 (1958), 166.
[10]
Y.I. Halevy, Dorot rishonim (Berlin: 1923), part 1, vol. 3, 292; vol. 5,
467.
[11]
Y.N. Epstein, Prolegomena ad Litteras Tannaiticas (Hebrew; Jerusalem:
1957) 511; see too M. Halbertal, Interpretative Revolutions in the Making,
(Hebrew; Jerusalem: 1997) 14.
[12] H. Albeck, “Hahalakhot vehaderashot”, Alexander
Marx Jubilee Volume (New York: 1950), 1-8. S. Friedman appears to adopt a
similar approach in Tosefta Atiqta: Synoptic
Parallels of Mishna and Tosefta Analyzed With Methodological Introduction (Pesah
Rishon) (Hebrew; Ramat-Gan: 2002), 77.
[13]
Thus writes A. Grossman, The Early Sages of Ashkenaz (Hebrew; Jerusalem:
1988), 157: “There is no need to mention that usually such deductions from the
Bible are not necessitated by the plain sense of Scriptures and oftentimes are
not even required by the methods adopted by the halakhic midrashim; they are
only cited as asmakhta, to bolster the law.”
[14] [Only one
case is mentioned in this post. For the others, see the forthcoming article in Jewish
Law Annual.]
[15]
2 Sam 1.
[16]
In my article, “The Or Sameah’s Objectives and their Halakhic and
Jurisprudential Implications” (Hebrew) Shenaton Hamishpat Haivri  25 (2008), 97, I demonstrated that RMS’
primary goal in composing the OS was improving Maimonides’ code and expanding
its contents to include additional cases that had not been incorporated
originally. RMS performed this task by adopting a variety of methods described
in the article. Here, we witness RMS adopting another method that allows him to
innovate and improve the law; this time, innovations based on midrashic
exegesis.
[17] See M.I.
Kahana, The Two Mekhiltot on the Amalek Portion  (Hebrew; Jerusalem: 1999), 102.
[18] See
bSanhedrin 9b, Maimonides, Code, Laws concerning Evidence 12:2; A.
Kirschenbaum, The Criminal Confession in Jewish Law (Hebrew; Jerusalem:
2004).
[19] Responsa
Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 13, #71.
[20] Maimonides,
Code, Laws of Kings 6:1-4. Kesef Mishneh comments that if they
agree to observe the seven Noahide laws, they are no longer classified as
Amalekites and they are to be treated like any other kosher (ritually
unobjectionable) Noahides.


On some new seforim, Copernicus, saying Ledovid , Moses Mendelssohn and other random comments


On some new seforim, Copernicus, saying Ledovid , Moses Mendelssohn and other random comments
By Eliezer Brodt

Here is a list of recent seforim and books I have seen around in the past few months. This is not an attempt to list everything or even close to it; rather it’s just a list of seforim and books on many random topics, which I have seen while shopping for seforim. I enumerated a few titles which I have a Table of Contents for. Please feel free to e-mail me for them.

1.   רשב”ץ על מסכת ברכות, אהבת שלום, עם הערות של ר’ דוד צבי הילמן

In this work they claim to have double checked the manuscript, thereby fixing some mistakes in the earlier edition of Rav Hilman. They included all of Rav Hillman’s notes

2.    חידושי הריטב”א, מהדורא בתרא, על מסכת קידושין מוסד רב קוק
3.   מנחת יהודה פירוש לתורה לר’ יהודה בן אלעזר מבעלי התוסופת, מכתב יד, על ספר בראשית, מוסד רב קוק, מהדיר: פר’ חזוניאל טויטו, מבוא של 176 עמ’ ורכ עמודים טקסט
4.     אבן עזרא, קהלת, מוסד רב קוק
5.    ספר המחלוקות, ספר הפשוטים, ר’ יהושע בועז [בעל ה’שליטי גיבורים’] ג’ חלקים, נדפס לראשונה מכתב יד על הספר ראה כאן
6.    אגרות ותשובות רבינו חיים בן עטר, בעל האור החיים הקדוש מכתב יד, כולל תפילה, ליקוטי
שמועות, תשובות ופסקים, מכתבים, קינות, הספדים, רעה עמודים.

This volume is nicely done, and it contains many new pieces never before printed. One thing that I found strange is when citing the sources for the various pieces, he did not bother to mention that some of them were already printed many years ago by Binyomin Klar in various journals. Later on they were collected in a volume called Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar, printed by Mossad Rav Kook in 1951. Oddly enough they do quote some of the original places where Klar had printed the pieces first

7.    עטרת ראש לר’ לוי מקאנדי, על מסכת ברכות.
8.   יין ישן בקנקן חדש, על מסכת ברכות, מכון הדרת חן, תתקצב עמודים, אסופות חיבורים עתיקים מגדולי האחרונים שהיהו גנוזים מעיני הלומדים, בעריכה חדשה בתוספות מראה מקומות מפתחות ותולדות, [עשרים ספרים]. בין הספרים, ולא עוד אלא, בכור שור, גפן פוריה, ויאמר שמואל, לווית חן, מלך שלם, מירא דכיא, גנזי יוסף, למנצח דוד, זרע יעקב, ארץ החיים, איי הים, רוב דגן, מעיל שמואל, קהלת יעקב, צרור החיים, לשמוע בלימודים, ברכת דוד, מכתב לחזקיהו, ילקוט הגרשוני.
9.     מבוא המסורה, ר’ יוסף קלמן מקאסוויע, נדפס בווארשא תרמ”ט, 112 עמודים.

This work, first printed in 1862 and again in 1889 deals, with the subject of the Masorah by Rabbi Yosef Kalman. One of the points of interest to me about this work is that it received many different haskamot from gedolim of the time. This of interest because the first 15 pages of the work quotes many passages from R. Eliyahu Bachur’s classic work on the subject, including his controversial opinion about the post-Talmudic origin of the nekkudot. Now in the comments on the bottom of the page the author writes that this was already disproven (more on this shortly) but he had no problem to quote this controversial opinion in the main text of the work without arguing on it in the main body or censuring the Tishbi in any form. This is in sharp contrast to the work Nekudot Hakesef printed in 2001.

Now what is interesting is that the person who just printed this new work (someone from Bnei Brak) felt he had to add in one comment to this sefer, so right in the beginning of this long quote from R. Eliyahu Bachur he added in the following:

עיין בספר מגדל עוז מר’ יעקב עמדין בעלית הכתיבה ראיות מכריעות נגד דעת הנ”ל של רא”ב

What’s interesting is that on the next page the original author of the sefer writes:

אמר המאסף וכבר השיג עליו בזה בעל אמרי בינה מהזוה”ק והאידרא שהנקודות היו קודם חתימת התלמוד ע”ש באורך הביאו הרמבמ”ן בהקדמתו על התורה ע”ש

I am positive that the recent printer of this sefer did not realize who this was. The original author of this sefer is quoting the Meor Einayim from Rabbi Azariah Min Hadomim who is quoted by Moses Mendelssohn in the introduction to his Chumash, where Mendelssohn quotes him in regard to the origin of the Nekudot. Possibly we can see from this another piece of evidence that it was not considered so bad to quote from Mendelssohn at that time, and especially how well known Mendelssohn’s introduction was. Apparently the printer did not realize the initials הרמבמ”ן refers to Mendelssohn. For a recent case of someone not realizing what these initials are see he work on the Koheles falsely attributed to the Malbim by Oz Vehadar [See Yeshurun 25 pp. 724-735, (PDF available upon request)]

One more addition to all this, in 1870 Rabbi Yosef Kalman put out another sefer on the subject called Shaar Hamesorah which received haskamot from Litvish Superstars of the time. In the introduction he returns to the subject of the origin of nekkudot and again he quotes the Meor Einayim of Rabbi Azariah, who is quoted by Moses Mendelssohn. However here he makes a strange mistake of thinking that the Rabbi Azariah quoted by Mendelssohn was the Rama Mepano!

Returning to the work Mevo Hamesorah, one last discussion of his worth nothing is about Ibn Ezra and his opinion of the origin of Nekudot (pp. 104-105).
[For more on the subject of Nekudot see Dan Rabinowitz’s excellent article available here; Jordan Penkower, The Dates of Composition of the Zohar and the book Bahir (Heb.) Cherub Press; Rabbi Dovid Rothestein work available here. See also my Likutei Eliezer, pp. 71-72]

10. יד יהודה, ר’ יהודה לנדא, תשובות פסקים וכתבים, מכתב יד, קלו עמודים
11. חמודי דניאל עם פ’ רחבת ידים
12.  חמודי דניאל על הלכות נדה, נדפס לראשונה מכתב יד בתוך ספר מעין בינה על מסכת נדה
13. קשר תורה, [לקשר סוף התורה לתחילתה] נדפס פעם ראשונה ווילנא תרסז, ר’ יצחק מו”צ בעיר ריטווא, 112 עמודים.
14. קול חיים, סדרי לימוד ותפילות להגיע האדם לגיל שבעים שנה ואילך, ר’ חיים פאלאג’י, מכון אהבת שלום
15. הקללה לברכה, הלכות איסור קללה, ר’ מרדכי גרוס, קמה עמודים
16.  מנהג אבותינו בידינו, ר’ גדלי’ אבעלראנדר, ביאורים ובירורים במנהגי ישראל מקורותיהם ושרשי טעמיהם, שבת, נישואין שונות, תסד עמודים, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.

This volume is a collection of Rabbi Oberlander’s articles originally printed in the journals Or Yisroel and Heichel HaBesht as well as other places. These essays are very organized and well written on a wide range of interesting topics, all based on a nice collection of sources. I highly recommend this work. Of course one can always add to such collections of material here but לא המלאכה עליך לגמור .

17. אני לדודי, שיחות מוסר וחיזוק לחודש אלול וימים נוראים, ר’ שריה דבליצקי, קעג עמודים
18. ישא יוסף, אורח חיים חלק ב, ר’ יוסף אפרתי, רכו עמודים
19. הטבילה בהלכה ואגדה, ר’ משה סופר, תסד עמודים
20. ביד נביאך, בעניני הפטרות ונביאים, כולל אסופות תשובות ומאמרים בהלכה ואגדה, פרקי הלכה בעיני הפטרה וכתיבת נביאים, כולל כת”י של האדר”ת  על נביאים וכתובים בשם ‘נביאים טובים’, הלכות הפטרה להגר”ש דבליצקי, וס’ סימנים על עניני הפטרה  ונביאים, תרב עמודים
21. שעות שוות בהלכה, כולל מחקר וסקירה על תולדות הפחתות מדידית הזמן לאורך הדורות, ר’ יצחק זילבער, שצ עמודים
22. שמות בארץ, שמות אנשים, ממשנתו של מרן ר’ חיים קניבסקי, דיני וענייני שמות  אנשים ונשים ובשווי שמות בשידוכין, וקו’ שמות נשים, ר’ צבי יברוב, קלט עמודים
23.  ברכת הלבנה, הלכות ומנהגים, ר’ יוסף אדלר, קב עמודים
24.  בים דרך, מאמרי עולם חלק א, ר’ מיכל זילבר, שסז עמודים
25. גם אני אודך על ענייני ברכת כהנים, ר’ גמליאל רבינוביץ, תרלב עמודים
26. ספר פת שחרית כהלכה, ר’ יששכר דוב הופמן, צו עמודים

This is another work from the author of the now-famous recent work all about sneezing in Jewish law..

27. מאורות הגר”א, חלק ב, ר’ רובין, שפ עמודים
28. ר’ ראובן פרידמן, כי עת לחננה, הליה וישיבה בארץ ישראל, 490 עמודים, מוסד רב קוק
29. ר’ ישראל גארפינקל, כיצד מרקדין, בענין ריקודין של מצוה מצוה טאנץ, רמח עמודים
30. חזון עובדיה, שבת חלק ה, ר’ עובדיה יוסף הל’ צובע, קושר ומתיר, תופר צד ממחק כותב ומוחק, השמעת קול, בונה, אוהל, מתקן מנה, תד עמודים
31.הלכה ברורה חלק יג, ר’ דוד יוסף, סי’ רמב-רנב, תקלו +צ+נד עמודים
32. זהב לבושה, איסור פאה נכרית, הלכה הגות מחשבה, שכד עמודים
33. לוח ההלכות והמנהגים לשנת תשע”ג, 372 עמודים
34. קוטנרס האינטרנט בהלכה, קב עמודים
35. ישועות כהן, ר’ יהושע אדלר, ביאור סוגית קוי התאריך, צג עמודים
36. ספר תהלים עם פירוש מפורש, כולל ביאורים על תרגום כתובים ר’ לייביש דיייטש, תק”ח עמודים
37. שערי חג הסוכות, הלכות סוכה, ד’ מינים הו”ר שמיני עצרת ושמחת תורה, ר’ יהודה טשזנר, תקל עמודים
38. קובץ תשובות חלק ד, ממרן ר’ אלישיב זצוק”ל,  שכט עמודים, כולל מפתחות על לארבע כרכי קובץ תשובות, 73 עמודים
39. הערות במסכת ברכות, מר’ אלישיב זצוק”ל, תקמא עמודים
40.  כתבי הגרי”ש, בהלכה ואגדה, מכתבי יד של ר’ אלישיב זצוק”ל, ימים נוראים וסוכות, קס עמודים
41.  אשרי האיש, פסקי מרן הגרי”ש אלישיב זצוק”ל, יורה דעה, ב’ חלקים נלקט ע”י ר’ יחזקאל פיינהנדלר
42.  רישא דגולתא הספדים על ר’ אלישיב זצ”ל
43. שו”ת פוע”ה מניעת הריון, קובץ שאלות רבני פוע”ה ותשובות של פוסקים, 141 עמודים
44.  באמונה שלימה, ר’ יוסף בלאך, תרם עמודים

This work is written by Rabbi Yosef Bloch, who is a well-known Talmid Chacham from Monsey. In this volume Rabbi Bloch deals with many “hot” issues related to Emunah, bringing many interesting discussions to the table. Just to list a few side points of his: he brings that some say that the Chazon Ish’s work Emunah Ubitachon was never supposed to be printed (pp. 69-70) as the Chazon Ish never wanted it printed. He also deals with a piece that was censored from later versions of the Emunah Ubitachon (p. 39). He brings numerous sources against the Ralbag (pp. 140-141). He has a radical statement about what chazal mean when they say “there is wisdom by the Gentiles” (pp. 301-302):

דכל חכמת הגוים הוא בדברים גשמיים דוקא וכגון מכוניות סעלפאון כלי השחתה למלחמה וכדומה, שם ורק שם יש להם חכמה,… ברוחניות אין להם שום מגע והבנה כלל, ותיקון העולם הוא עצמו איבוד חכמיהם וזה כלל גדול בהבנת ענין חכמת האומות בברזל ובעצים ואבנים ובאלקטריק יודעים קצת, בצומחים יודעים פחות מזה בגופות בעלי חיים יודעים הרבה פחות מזה, בגוף האדם עוד הרבה פחות מזה, בחכמת התכונה השמיימית עוד הרבה פחות בנפשיות האדם
יודעים משהו ממשהו ממש , בחכמה עליונה אפס מוחלט לא כלום!

He has a radical explanation for the famous Gemarah about killing lice on Shabbas (pp. 305-307). Another very interesting discussion of his is about the sugyah of Elu Ve-elu Divrei Elokim Chayim (pp. 308-323).

A few years ago I wrote a few comments (here) about Rabbi Bloch’s work against Copernicus. I recently revisited the topic in the last issue in Hakirah. In this new volume Rabbi Bloch includes his anti-CopernicanEssay but with various updates. If one reads the essay carefully one can see many of these updates he is referring to points in my article. Hopefully in the future I will deal with all the issues he raises but for now I would just like to mention two points at one point he writes (p. 358):

ולא מצאתי אחד מגדולי ישראל מכל הדורות שיחזיקו אפילו במקצת דמקצת כדעת התוכנים ומה שהעידו בשם קדוש ה’ המהרי”ל דיסקין זצוק”ל דהיהו סבר ככה, שקר העידו בו דלא כך היה מעשה אלא שענה שלואל דאין הכרח נכד
התוכנים מלשון הברכה כמדומה ממה שנקראת ברכת החמה אבל מעולם לא יצא מפיו הקדוש דנקט איהו כהתוכנים.

I honestly have no idea what he is talking about but as I brought in my article (p.29) the source says as follows:

“וכן אמר לי ידידי הרב וכו’ ר’ אבנר נ”י בעל המחבר סי’ ציר נאמן, בתורת עדות ששמע מפי רבנו הקדוש רשכבה”ג מהרי”ל דיסקין זצוק”ל שהשיטה החדשה אינה מופרכת. ושאל לו מן הכתוב בקהלת א’ וזרח השמש ובא השמש וכו’ הולך על דרום כו’ וענה לו שהכתוב אמר לפי ראות עיני האדם”.

I also explained there (p. 31) why this sources is very reliable. But what bothered me even more was what he writes there on pg. 359.

 ומה שכמה מהמשגיחים וראשי הישיבות מהדור הקודם נ”ע כתבו דרך אגב בין הדברים בספריהם… כשיטת קופעריקוס, אין מזה שום הוכחה כלל לדעת התורה בענין הזה, דלא באו אותם הגאונים זללה”ה ליקח עמדה בהדיון הזה, דלא היתה זו הסוגיא שלהם ולא ידעו שיש בזה סתירה להשקפת התורה שלא ניסו בכגון אלו ולא עיינו בה, ונסתמכו דכיון דככה אומרים הכל מסתמא הוכיחו התוכנים דהאמת כן הוא, ולא ירדו לסוף דעתם של התוכנים לידע שכוונתם עקירת האמת ואין מדבריהם ז”ל הוכחה של כלום, וכאילו לא אמרו כלום בנידון הזה

Now besides for the haughtiness of this statement the only Rosh HaYeshiva I quoted in my article that wrote an essay very pro Copernicus was Rabbi Yonah Mertzbach someone who had a college degree in these areas so I am not really sure what he is talking about.

One last source related to this topic of Copernicus was brought to my attention in a collection of things by Rabbi Zerach Shapiro who was close with the Chazon Ish (part of this booklet was printed in Yeshurun volume 26) where he asked the Chazon Ish about Copernicus:

בענין מה מסתובב השמש או כדור הארץ, אמר שאין הכרעה בדברי חז”ל.

One last point in regard to Rabbi Bloch’s book is he prints an unprinted essay of his father’s, extremely anti Zionistic and the Mizrachi from 1943 (p. 115-116). I think the reason why he is printed this letter here, while it may otherwise seem out of place, is rather simple. In the same issue of the Hakirah where my essay about Copernicus appeared he saw another article froms Elazar Muskin, When Unity Reigned Yom ha’azmaut 1954 which deals with Rabbi Bloch positive attitude to Yom ha’azmaut.

קבצים
1  המעין גליון 203, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים
2. אור ישראל גליון סה, שפג עמודים, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים
3.  היכל הבעל שם טוב, גליון לד, קצב עמודים
4.  מוריה גליון שעג-שעד
5.  ארזים, גליון א, גנוזות וחידושי תורה, מכון שובי נפשי, תקפח עמודים [כולל רס עמודים של כת”י על ענינים שונים]
6.    קובץ בית אהרן וישראל גליון קסב, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.
This issue includes another attack on Rabbi Dovid Kamentsky (PDF available upon request].

7.  עץ חיים גליון יח, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים
8.   ישורון חלק כז,  תתקמ”ב עמודים, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים

One piece worth mentioning in this issue is the complete manuscript of the Meishiv Nefesh printed for the first time, edited by Rabbi Yehudah Hershkowitz (59 pp).

מחקר ועניינים שונים
1.  גאון ההוראה אחרי 50 שנה:  היסטוריה, הגות, ריאליה; קובץ מחקרים בעקבות יום העיון במכללת אפרתה על הרב צבי פסח פראנק / עורך – ישראל רוזנסון, קע עמודים, מכללת אפרתה.
2.  המסע האחרון, מאתיים שנה למסעו בעל התניא בעיצומה של מלחמת נפוליאון תקע”ב-תשע”ב, [לאור מסמכים ותעודות, חדשים גם ישנים, וגם סיפורים ושמועות דרושים ומאמרים], יהושע מונדשיין, 378 עמודים.
3.  נתיבי מאיר, אסופות מאמרים, מאיר רפלד, 456 עמודים ]ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים]

This is a beautiful collection of Dr. Rafeld’s articles on a very wide range of topics. Some of the articles relate to Rishonim on Chumash and many others relate to the world of minhag and Tefilah. There is also a nice collection of important articles related to the Maharshal and his generation (one of Rafeld’s specialties). All these articles show a great breadth and depth in each of their perspective subjects.
4.  הרב פנחס הירשפרונג, מעמק הבכא הנאצי, זכורנות של פליט, 215 עמודים
5.  ר’ יחזקאל סופר, במאי קמיפלגי, הפולמוס המשיחי בתנועת חב”ד, 408 עמודים
6.  הלבוש היהודי באירופה במהלך הדורות, הלכה, מנהגים, גזירות מאבקים, תקנות, מנחם מקובר, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.
7. אביר הרועים, קורות העתים הנהגתו ומשנתו של ר’ עובדיה יוסף, משנת תרפ”א-תשי”א,יעקב ששון, 320 עמודים
8.  רבן של ישראל, מראות קודש ממרן פוסק הדור הגרי”ש אלישיב זצוק”ל, 219 עמודים
9.  יש”א שלום, הערכתו של הגרי”ש אלישיב זצ”ל כלפי מרן הראי”ה קוק זצ”ל, 58 עמודים
10.  הדף היומי, ר’ דוד מנדלבוים
11.  רועה ישראל, על ר’ ישראל יעקב פישר, חלק ב
12. יהדות התורה והמדינה, ר’ אוריאל צימר, בירור רעיוני קצר בשאלת היחס לציונות ולמידנה עם קצת פרקי היסטוריה מן העבר הקרוב, 47 עמודים,
13.  מפיהם אני חיים, ר’ משה קנר, מאמרים על תלמוד בבלי וירושלמי, רב האי גאון, רבינו גרשום, רש”י בעל התוספות, מהר”ם מרוטנבורג וגדולי ספרד, 375 עמודים.
14.   משונצינו ועד וילנא, תולדות הדפסת התלמוד, ר’ יעקב לופיר, 310 עמודים,

I hope to review this book at length here shortly.

15.   משה אידל, שלמויות בולעות קבלה ופרשנות, ידיעות ספרים, 695 עמודים
16.   רשימת הפירסומים, יוסף דן, תשי”ח-תשע”ב, 205 עמודים
17.   יעקב לאטס, פנקס קהילות רומא, שע”ה-תנ”ה, כולל מבוא והערות, מכון יצחק בן צבי, 409 עמודים
18.   משנת ארץ ישראל, שמואל, זאב, וחנה ספראי, מסכת פאה
19.    משנת ארץ ישראל, שמואל, זאב, וחנה ספראי, מסכת כלאים

After recently completing Seder Moed they are now almost finished with Seder Zerayim.

20.  צדיק יסוד עולם, השליחות הסודית והחוויה המיסטית של הרב קוק, סמדר שרלו, 444 עמודים, אונברסיטה בר אילן
21.  דעת גליון 73
22.  מקראות גדולות – `הכתר`-שמות א`-מהדורה מוקטנת
23.  משה פלאי, עטרה ליושנה, המאבק ליצירת יהדות ההשכלה, 501 עמודים, קיבוץ המאוחד
24.  ללמוד את שפת המולדת, מאמריו של י”ל גורדון בשנים 1881-1882, [מאמרי ביקרות על ספרים ועוד], מוסד ביאליק, ספריית דורות, 367 עמודים
25.  כִּתַאבּ אַלנֻּתַף: פירושו הדקדוקי של ר’ יהודה חיוג’ לספרי נביאים בעיבוד עלי בן סלימן מאת אהרן ממן ואפרים בן-פורת, אקדמיה ללשון העברית
26.   פרקי עיון בעברית החדשה ובעשייה בה מאת משה בר-אשר, אקדמיה ללשון העברית  
27.  מקורות ומסורות, סדר ניזקין, דוד הלבני, מגנס
28.  ההלכה: הקשרים רעיוניים ואידאולוגיים גלויים וסמויים, מגנס
29.  סידור תפילות בלאדינו, סלוניקי, המאה השש עשרה, מכון יצחק בן צבי
30.  רעואל וחבריו פרשנים יהודיים מביזנטיון מסביבות המאה העשירית לספירה, גרשון ברין, אוניברסיטת תל-אביב
31.    רבי חיים בן עטר ופירושו אור החיים על התורה, אלעזר טויטו, 291 עמודים, מכללת אורות ישראל
32.  מחשבת ישראל ואמונת ישראל, בעריכת דניאל לסקר, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון, 293 עמודים בעברית, 186 עמודים באנגליש, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.

This volume has many interesting articles. Worth mentioning is Marc Shapiro’s Is there a Pesak for Jewish Thought and  David Shatz ‘s article Nothing but the truth? Modern Orthodoxy and the Polemical uses of History. In the first footnote Shatz mentions Marc Shapiro’s posts on the Seforim Blog. Much can be added to this essay but of note is footnote 28 where he writes:

To be clear, academics, I find, generally shun blogs that are aimed at a popular audience because the comments are often, if not generally, uninformed (and nasty). A few academics do read such blogs, but do not look at the comments. One result of academics largely staying out of blog discussions is that non-experts become viewed as experts. Even when academics join the discussion, the democratic atmosphere of the blog world allows non-experts to think of themselves as experts and therefore as equals of the academicians. Some laypersons, though, as I said earlier, are indeed experts in certain areas of history.

33. חקרי קבלה ותפילה, משה חלמיש, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון, 458 עמודים ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים

This work is a collection of twenty five articles by Professor Hallamish about tefilah and kabbalah. Some of these articles appeared in print in various journals, festschrifts and memorial volumes, others are supposed to appear soon, and some were written specially for this volume. They all share the common denominator that they are based on research of an incredible amount of manuscripts and rare volumes. I have no idea how he had patience to open up that many books! Based on these discoveries Hallamish shows the influence of Kabbalah on tefilah. One can also find wealth of information on nussach of Tefilah in these volumes. There is a lot to comment on different points on this volume.

Just to make one small comment as it relates to Elul and a subject I have written about. In chapter thirteen he deals with sources for the custom of saying Ledovid in Elul. He brings early sources for saying it all year around. He quotes the Siddur Shaarei Rachamim which brings this custom to say Ledovid. Now the importance of this find is that this siddur is based on R.Chaim Hacohen who was a Talmid of Rabbi Chaim Vital. If this source is reliable then we have an earlier source for this custom. The first person (not noted by Hallamish) to point to this siddur for an early source for saying Ledovid in Elul was Rabbi Yakov Rokeach in his work Shaarei Tefilah, first printed in 1870. Now it’s well known that the editor of this siddur, Chaim Abadi, added in lots from the Chemdas Yamim and other sources so it’s not so simple if one can consider this siddur a reliable source. However, recently Rabbi Goldhaber checked up the many manuscripts of the actual siddur of R. Chaim Hacohen and found that the custom of saying Ledovid does not appear anywhere in it. Recently part of this siddur was printed by Mechon Zichron Aharon and the custom of Ledovid does appear inside this siddur. So based on this new printed siddur Hallamish has a very early source for saying Ledovid.

First of all what is clear is this is not a source to say Ledovid specifically during Elul but rather an early source to say Ledovid the whole year around. Earlier in this siddur where R. Chaim Hacohen has various chapters of Tehilim to be said on special days he does not include Ledovid to be said during Elul. However at the end of davening Ledovid appears in this new siddur. But more importantly one has to be careful to read the fine print on the page as above where it is printed to say Ledovid in small print the editor adds in that saying Ledovid here does not appear in the original manuscript! Now all this is rather strange; why did he bother adding this in? This is not the place for it as it should be earlier in the siddur with the other chapters said on special days. Even more interesting is that the editor of this siddur says that they decided that four of the manuscripts are authentic but all others have parts added in so they are not going to print all added in pieces  so the question is why did they choose to add in Ledovid
and add nothing else in this printed version.

A few months back I mentioned that the new work by David Assaf Hazitz Unifgah appeared in print. I noted that a complete bibliography of the sources that were used for writing this book was printed in the recent volume of Mechkarei Yerushalayim 23 (2011) pp. 407-481. This was not included in this new work. Recently this bibliography appeared on line here.

English 

1. The Tent of Avraham, Gleanings from the David Cardozo Academy, edited by Nathan Cardozo, Urim Press. 232 pp.
2. Inside Stam, A complete buyers Guide, Rabbi Reuvain Mendlowitz, Israel bookshop, 440 pp.
3.Edward Fram, A Window on Their World: The Court Diaries of Rabbi Hayyim Gundersheim Frankfurt am Main, 1773-1794, Wayne State Univ Press, 653 pps.


What’s Wrong With Wealth and Honor?

What’s Wrong With Wealth and Honor? 
by Eli Genauer
                                                                    
Below, we will present some timely notes regarding an English/Hebrew Machzor for Rosh Hashana which was printed in England in 1807.  We will touch upon a variety of issues, and thus first present general backgrounds regarding Hebrew printing in London, the prayer for the state, and Kol Nidrei.  
Hebrew Typography in London  
The earliest use of Hebrew typography in England is sometime in the middle to the late 1520s.  Of course, at that time, Jews were banned from England and the earliest works containing Hebrew type in England were produced for non-Jews.  
The prize of first was thought to go to Thomas Wakefield’s publication of his address regarding “Three Languages” – Hebrew, Arabic and Chaldean (Oratio de laudibus et utilitate trium linguarum [link]). The type, as you can see, was quite primitive.
This lecture was given in 1524, and as the book itself is undated, it was assumed that the lecture was published soon after it was given.  Thus, many dated it to 1524/25.  Wakefield, a noted Hebraist, actually spends the majority of the book discussing Hebrew and the other two languages get short shrift.[1]   
Recently, however, the dating of this work has been challenged and been shown to likely incorrect.  The author, in the self-described “Holmesian manner,”[2]   highlights the various persons Wakefield claims to have tutored in Hebrew and the honorifics used to describe those persons.[3] Based upon some of the descriptions, it seems likely that Wakefield’s work was not published prior to 1527 and most likely in 1528.   [4] This conclusion, coupled with the dating of another work by a different author, unseats Wakefield’s book claim to first.  Instead, Richard Pace’s Praefatio in Ecclesisten, printed in August 1527, is the most likely candidate for the first use of Hebrew typography in England.[5] Here is a sample:
It took nearly two hundred years after the appearance of Hebrew typography for the first Hebrew book published for a Jewish audience in England.  The controversy surrounding R. David Nieto’s remarks and their affinity or lack thereof to Spinoza would produce the first printed Jewish Hebrew book in England.  The first was a very small one, only a few pages, of a responsum written by R. Tzvi Ashkenzi, in R. Nieto’s defense, and published in 1705. It included both Spanish as well as Hebrew (available here).[6]   For more on R. Nieto and this controversy, see the Seforim Blog’s earlier post here. 
The Prayer for the Welfare of the State
The prayer for the welfare of the king or ruler is ancient.  Many point to the statements of Ezra as well as the passage in Avot as early sources for the prayer.  A variety of rationales are offered for this obligation.  For example, Rabbenu Yonah interprets the need for these prayers as indicative of a Universalist worldview, which requires all humans to display empathy for one another.  In order to effectuate that goal, Jews therefore pray for not only the Jewish leaders but also the secular one.  R. Azariah di Rossi, claims that the prayer carries a pacifist message as he emphasizes the lack of allegiance to a specific ruler or country and thereby transforms the prayer into one arguing for peace among all nations. 
The earliest extant prayers are from the Geniza, and can be dated to between 1127 and 1131.  The prayer is for the “Fatimid caliph al-Amir bi-ahkam Allah who ruled Egypt and its regions during the years 1101-1131.” See S.D. Goitein, “Prayers from the Geniza for Fatimid Caliphs, the Head of the Jerusalem Yeshiva, the Jewish Community and the Local Congregation,” in Sheldon R. Brunswick, ed., Studies in Judaica, Karaitica and Islamica: Presented to Leon Nemoy on His Eightieth Birthday (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1982), 47-57.[7]   In this instance, the prayer includes not only a prayer for the secular ruler, but also a prayer for the local Rosh HaYeshiva.  Additionally, it blesses all of the Rosh HaYeshiva’s deceased predecessors, providing a nice genealogy. Goiten posits that these prayers may have been written in response to specific historical events and may not be indicative of the general practice in 12th century Egypt.  See id. at ___. 
The earliest sources, however, do not include the modern formulation of HaNoten Teshua.  Instead, early on there was a lack of conformity regarding this prayer.  Kol Bo records the custom but indicates that each community had its own practices.  But, none used the HaNoten Teshua formulation.  The first extant example of HaNoten Teshua is found in a Spanish manuscript dated between 1479-92.[8]   Ironically, this example was prepared for King Ferdiand V, who, in 1492, issued the expulsion order.  
It appears that with the expulsion and dispersion of the Spainish Jews, the HaNoten Teshua was disseminated throughout the Jewish world.  Indeed, the inclusion of this prayer in Yemenite rites, appears to undermine a major thesis of the noted Yemenite scholar, R. Yosef Kapach.  He asserts that the rite presents a pristine rite, unchanged over hundreds of years.  But, as the Yememite rite includes HaNoten Teshua, which is from the 15th century, indicates that the Yemenite rite is less pristine than Kapach would have it. [9]  
The prayer is also linked to the readmission of Jews into England.  Menasseh ben Israel in his plea  for readmission of the Jews to England (link) provides the full text – in English – of the HaNoten to demonstrate the Jews’ loyalty to their rulers.[10]
A English Hebrew Machzor Printed in London
The Jewish Encyclopedia notes “In 1794 David Levi published an English version of the services for New-Year, the Day of Atonement, and the feasts of Tabernacles and Pentecost, and thirteen years later gave a new version of the whole Mahzor. This second edition was “revised and corrected” by Isaac Levi, described as a “teacher of the Hebrew Language.”
The Machzor features a frontispiece with various engravings of the Jewish holidays. The engraving for Shavuos features Moshe Rabbeinu dressed in a manner probably unknown 3,000 years ago, and holding the Aseres HaDibros with the numerical sequence from left to right. Yom Kippur correctly shows two identically sized “Se’irim” as per our tradition.
If you look closely at the name of the engraver, you will see that it was done by an R. Gavey.
I tried to find out more about R. Gavey and finally came upon a website which dealt with his family. I sent an email to the address listed and waited and waited. Two years later, I received the following response from a fellow in Australia:

“Robert Gavey b.1775 London was my 4xGreat Grandfather. He is listed as an engraver. Both his father and grandfather were watch makers.  Robert Gavey’s daughter Harriot Angelina Gavey  married my 3x Great Grandfather whose son James Fletcher  emigrated to Australia 1852. The Fletchers were originally Huguenot silkweavers with the surname Fruchard and I believe the Gavey’s would have been Huguenots also.” 

It turns out that Robert Gavey’s Australian descendent had a copy of his certificate of indenture as an engraver to a goldsmith named William Norris. Robert was 15 years old at the time (1790) and his period of indenture lasted for seven years. He promised not get married during that time period or play cards or dice. He also was forbidden to frequent taverns or playhouses or engage in any act which would cause his master a loss of money. (Click to see a large, high-resolution image.)


The certificate of indenture was signed in May of 1790 which was noted as the thirtieth year of the reign of George III who is described as the king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland.
Speaking of George III, he received much better treatment in this Machzor than in our American Declaration of Independence. On our side of the pond, we know George III as a man who “ has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.” As part of the agreement by Cromwell to allow Jews back into England, the Jews promised to always pray for the welfare of the ruler. Accordingly, this Machzor blesses King George in this manner:

This is not the only edition that continued to praise the monarch.  Isaac Lesser, published the first complete machzor in the United States in 1837-38, for the Spanish and Portuguese rites with an English translation.  Lesser’s translation relies heavily upon that of David Levi’s translation.[11]   In an attempt to sell his machzor in both the United States as well in other English-speaking locals, he includes two version of the prayer, one asked that God “bless, preserve, guard, assist, exalt, and raise unto a high eminence, our lord the king.”  The other, replaced this phrase with the request that God “bless, preserve, guard, and assist the constituted officers of the government.”[12]  

The person who finally brought the prayer for the government more in keeping with American democratic values was Max Lilienthal (1814-1882).[13]   While some had been willing to change the prayer, they did so only in the vernacular but retained the Hebrew HaNoten Teshua.  Lilienthal, however, totally reworked the prayer, altering its tone and focus.  Lilienthal removes all mention of kings, focuses on the country more than its rulers, and seeks to bestow God’s blessing, not on the ruler but on all the inhabitants of the land.  This version was included in Henry Franks’s Teffilot Yisrael, a siddur containing the Orthodox liturgy. This siddur was first published in 1848, and reissued in more than 30 editions.  As Sarna notes, the acceptance of the prayer is somewhat ironic in that Lilienthal, later became part of the American Reform movement, was the author of a prayer that became the standard even in Orthodox siddurim.[14]  Id. at 436.

Aside from changing the text of the prayer to fit American sensibilities, how the prayer was recited was also changed.   Congregation Shearith Israel, in New York, after the revolutionary war, “ceased to rise for Hanoten Teshu’ah. According to an oral tradition preserved by H.P. Solomon, ‘the custom of sitting during this prayer was introduced to symbolize the American Revolution’s abolition of subservience.’”[15]

The United States was not the only country to undergo significant changes to its governmental structure.  France, in 1787, abolished (temporarily) the monarchy.   After which the prayer for the welfare of the government was radically changed.  Instead of praying for the benefit of kings and rulers, the French prayer focuses upon the Republic and its people.  All the biblical verses included bless the people and not the king.   [16] The prayer begins “Look down from your holy place on our land, the French Republic, and bless our nation, the French people, Amen.”

Other changes to the prayer, due to time and place, were common. For example, during the height of the Sabbati Zevi messianic frenzy, two versions of the prayer were produced, not asking to bless the secular ruler, but, instead, blessed Shabbati Zevi.

Today, the most significant change to this prayer has been the new prayer on behalf of the State of Israel.  The authorship of the prayer as well as its use is subject to controversy.[17]

In the most recent “Prayer For the State” news, French President François Hollande, specifically invoked this prayer when discussing French Jews’ relationship to the state.  He included in his remarks, translated in NYRB, commemorating the round-up of Jews at the Vélodrome d’Hiver: “Every Saturday morning, in every French synagogue, at the end of the service, the prayer of France’s Jews rings out, the prayer they utter for the homeland they love and want to serve. ‘May France live in happiness and prosperity. May unity and harmony make her strong and great. May she enjoy lasting peace and preserve her spirit of nobility among the nations.'” 

Kol Nidrei 
The Yom Kippur volume of this set contains a detailed “apology”for the Kol Nidre prayer. The Jews endeavored to incorporate themselves into general society and felt the need to emphasize that their word was binding on them. Kol Nidre was seen as indicating otherwise, so an explanation of the prayer was seen as necessary, both for Jew and Gentile. (See Y. Goldhaver, Minhagei Kehilot, Jerusalem: 2005, pp. 209-19 on the history of Kol Nidre and the controversy.) It concludes as follows.

Finally, I would like to focus on the special prayer said during the Yamim Noraim when the Torah is taken from the Aron Kodesh. It first appeared in the Siddur Shaarey Tzion of Rabbi Nathan Hanover and begins with the words “Ribbono Shel Olam”.

In it we ask Hashem to remember us for a long and good life, with everything that comes along with that. We include in our request that Hashem should provide us with “Lechem Le’echol, Beged Lil’Bosh, V’Osher V’Chavod”.  Let us see how David Levy translates these words.

As you can see, the request for “wealth and honor” is nowhere to be found in the English translation. I was curious about this and asked Dan Rabinowitz for his opinion. He offered that it is possible that this Machzor was printed at a time when the English community was quite interested in the Hebrew language. Non-Jewish scholars eagerly bought any books printed in Hebrew. As such, it could be that Levy decided to leave out the reference for our desire for wealth and honor because, well, maybe it was a bit too pushy on our part.

I hope all of you are blessed with a Shana Tova, even one that includes within it the promise of wealth and honor.

[1]  See Marvin J. Heller, The Sixteenth Century Hebrew Book, Brill, Leiden:2004, entry for Oratio and pp. 959-60 and the sources cited therein. But see Brad Sabin Hill, Incunabula, Hebraica & Judaica . . .” Ottawa:1981, #52 asserting that 1561 is the earliest introduction of Hebrew typography to England. It is unclear what the basis of that assertion is.

[2] Richard Rex, “Review: Robert Wakefield On Three Languages 1524,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 42:1 (Jan. 1991) 159.
[3] Richard Rex, “The Earliest Use of Hebrew in Books Printed in England: Dating Some Works of Richard Pace & Robert Wakefield,” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, Vol. 9, No. 5 (1990), 517-25.
[4] Id. at 517-18.
[5] Id. at
[6] See B. Roth, The Hebrew Printing Press in London, Kiryat Sefer 14 (1937), pp. 97-99.
[7] See also, Fenton,
[8] See Aaron Ahrend, “Prayers for the Welfare of the Monarchy and State,” in Aaron Ahrend, ed., Israel’s Independence Day: Research Studies (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1998), 176-200 (Hebrew). This date is contrary to Schwartz who incorrectly posits that there is no evidence of HaNoten Teshua prior to the 16th century, and none in pre-expulsion Spain. See Barry Schwartz, “Hanoten Teshua: The Origin of the Traditional Jewish Prayer for the Government,” in HUCA, 57, (1986) 113-20. Sarna appears unaware of Ahrend’s article as he continues to assert that HaNoten Teshua was not composed prior to the 16th century. See Jonathan Sarna, “Jewish Prayers for the United States Government: A Study in the Liturgy of Politics and the Politics of Liturgy,” in Ruth Langer & Steven Fine, eds., Liturgy in the Life of the Synagogue: Studies in the History of Jewish Prayer (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 207 & n.9 (link).
[9] See Ahrend, “Prayers for the Welfare,” at 183.
[10] See Menasseh ben Israel, The Humble Address to his Highness the Lord Protector, 1655.
[11] Leeser was not the first American to utilize Levi’s translation. The first Hebrew prayer book published in the United States, The Form of Daily Prayers (Seder Tefilot), New York, 1826, also includes an English translation by Solomon Henry Jackson. Jackson, who emigrated to the United States from London, also relied heavily upon Levi’s translation. Jackson, in the introduction, indicates that HaNoten Teshua was adapted for U.S. audience, in fact, the Hebrew remained the same, only the “translation” was altered. See Sarna, Jewish Prayers, 213.

Additionally, some time in the 1820s, there was an attempt to reprint Levi’s machzor in the United States. A prospectus was issued, but Levi’s machzor was never reprinted in the United States. See Yosef Goldman, Hebrew Printing in America 1735-1926, Brooklyn, NY, 2006, no. 33.
The first appearance of HaNoten Teshua in the United States is found in the first prayer book published in the United States. Isaac Pinto’s holds that honor. In his English only edition whose first volume was published in 1761 with the second volume published in 1766, he includes HaNoten Teshu’ah.
[12] Jonathan Sarna, “Jewish Prayers for the United States Government,” at 215.

[13] See Jonathan Sarna, “A Forgotten 19th-Century Prayer for the United States Government ,” in Hesed ve-Emet, Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, ed. Magness & Gitin, Atlanta, Georgia, 1998, 431-40.

[14] Today, however, the most widely used Orthodox siddur in the United States, Artscroll, does not include the prayer in any form in its standard editions. It is unclear why Artscroll omitted this very old prayer.

[15] Sarna, Jewish Prayers, at 210.

[16] Moshe Katon, “An Example of the Revolution in the Hebrew Songs of the French Jews,” Mahut 19 (1997) 37-44, esp. 37-8.

[17] See Aharon Arend, “The Prayer for the Welfare of the Monarchy and Country, in Arend ed., Pirkei Mehkar le-Yom ha-Atzmot, Ramat Gan: 1998, 192-200.



Introduction to The Song of Songs (An Excerpt) by Amos Hakham

Introduction to The Song of Songs (An Excerpt)
by Amos Hakham
Translated by David S. Zinberg

Amos Hakham passed away on August 2, 2012 at the age of 91.  The following is an unofficial translation of an excerpt from the Introduction to his commentary on the Song of Songs, published in 1973 by Mossad Harav Kook, in the Da’at Mikra series of Bible commentaries.  

The selection below is an outstanding example of Hakham’s distinct approach, in both his Introduction and commentary, characterized by uncompromising scholarship coupled with faithfulness to tradition.  Here and in his other writings, he displays a profound mastery of the Bible and the literature of the Sages, a keen eye for subtle literary and linguistic features of the text, a love of Jewish tradition, and a genuine religiosity that is never cloying.  His style is marked by a fluid, graceful clarity.  With courage and sensitivity, Hakham confronts one of the most challenging subjects in traditional biblical exegesis.   

Hakham’s presentation is transparent and honest rather than pedantic.  First, he cites a broad range of general approaches and specific theories, from both traditional and modern sources.  He then carefully and fairly evaluates each view, adds his own observations and, finally, offers a  conclusion.   

Biblical quotations are from the New JPS Version, except for translations inconsistent with Hakham’s understanding of the verse.  The translation of a passage from Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah is from I. Twersky, A Maimonides Reader (New York: Behrman House, 1972).  Where valuable, I have included Hakham’s original Hebrew in square brackets.  Hakham’s footnotes are not included in this translation.    

__________________________________________
The Content and Meaning of the Song of Songs in the Literal Sense
The Song of Songs, in the natural sense of Scripture [peshuto shel mikra], is about a man’s love for his beloved woman [ahavat ha-dod le-ra’eyato], and the woman’s love for him.
The question of continuity and division is critical for understanding the Song of Songs, and there are a variety of views on the subject.  Aggadists tended to interpret its verses independently, each conveying its own idea.  Opposing this method, Rashi wrote in his Introduction: “There are many aggadot on this book . . . but they are inconsistent with the syntax of Scripture and the sequence of the verses.  I have endeavored to follow the natural sense of the verses and to interpret them sequentially . . .”  Indeed, one who studies Rashi’s commentary on the Song of Songs will find that he attempts to interpret the entire book as a single, continuous poem.  For Rashi, the continuity of the Song of Songs lies mainly within its referent [nimshal], which is Israel’s history from its origin to the end of days.  R. Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted the Song of Songs in similar fashion, though Ibn Ezra also tried to find continuity within its literal sense.  In his commentary, the Song of Songs is a chronology of events taking place between two lovers.
A number of modern biblical scholars attempted to follow this approach to its logical conclusion; they maintained that the Song of Songs is a single, continuous poem written in the form of a dramatic dream vision.  But adherents of this view are forced to posit far-fetched interpretations and to take many verses out of context.  Other scholars held that the Song of Songs is an anthology of several poems (excerpts of poems, for the most part) — composed in various periods and provenances — which were compiled haphazardly at a later time.
The most plausible approach, I believe, is as follows:  The Song of Songs is not a continuous chronology of two lovers, and it is certainly not a drama.  But neither is it an anthology of poetic excerpts.  Rather, it is an anthology of complete poems written by a single author on a single subject, following a specific methodology and purpose.  The poems are sometimes brief and simple, sometimes lengthy and complex.  Nevertheless, for the most part they are self-contained units.  In the commentary, I have assigned a unique title to each poem and have also noted its division into sections or stanzas.  Often, the divisions are ambiguous; other commentators have split or combined the poems differently.  But these are merely details which do not undermine the central thesis that the Song of Songs is an anthology of complete poems.
As mentioned, the overall theme of the poems is the love between the dod and his ra’eyah.  However, there are several differing opinions regarding the circumstances in which the poems were composed.  Rashi (in the  Introduction to his commentary) says that the ra’eyah in the Song of Songs is a “widow of the living,” i.e., her husband has abandoned but has not divorced her, and she longs for him in her songs.  He consoles her, promising that he will yet return.  Ibn Ezra reads the Song of Songs as the story of a preadolescent girl, whose beloved is a shepherd, guarding a vineyard.  
Modern biblical scholars have suggested that the poems in this book do not describe events which took place between a particular pair of lovers but, instead, these songs were popular at wedding banquets.  As proof, some point to a statement of the Sages forbidding the use of lyrics from Song of Songs in drinking halls (Sanhedrin 101a; Tosefta Sanhedrin 12:5).  Because the Sages prohibited such a practice, their argument goes, this was in fact the original custom.  It was eventually forbidden, they say, due to deteriorating moral standards and out of fear that it might create an atmosphere of levity leading to the desecration of the sacred.  Among those who maintain that the Song of Songs comprises wedding songs, some suggest that the name “Solomon” — appearing seven times in the book — refers not to King Solomon, but to the groom, who is likened to a king.  In light-hearted humor, he is caricatured as “Solomon.”  Some have claimed that these songs were originally sung at festivals for Israelite girls, such as the dance festival at Shiloh recorded in Judges (21:21), and the festival mentioned at the end of Mishnah Ta’anit (4:8) as well as the Targum to Lamentations, on the phrase “her maidens are unhappy” (1:4).         
The most reasonable approach, I believe, is as follows: Although the Song of Songs does include dance songs (e.g., “Turn back, turn back, O maid of Shulem!” 7:1), one cannot claim that all the poems are dance songs.  It is likely that the poet borrowed phrases from dance songs and embedded them, as necessary, within his poems.  Likewise, some of the poems may have originally been wedding songs — at least one, ending in the words, “Eat, friends, drink deeply, beloved” (5:1), is an obvious example; it is a call to the diners at a wedding banquet to eat and drink — but one cannot generalize this to all the poems.  Most likely, the portraits of the lovers within the Song of Songs depict a variety of circumstances.  In some, the lovers may be formally unconnected; in others, they may be betrothed, at their wedding banquet, or already married.  Also, the notion that every “Solomon” is a metaphor for the groom seems far-fetched.  Sometimes, “Solomon” is simply King Solomon himself.  
The love portrayed in the Song of Songs is untainted and pure.  It is entirely within the bounds of that which is appropriate, permissible, and accepted.  No divine or human obstacle stands in the way of their love.  The ra’eyah brings her dod to her mother’s home; that is, everything is conducted according to custom and convention, and with the family’s approval.  The ra’eyah does have desperate moments.  But although she calls herself “lovesick” (2:5, 5:8), she is referring to an intense longing for her beloved rather than an emotional crisis.  At times, the ra’eyah refuses her dod, and the dod may elude her and disappear, but that does not mean that there was animus between them.  Instead, this dynamic should be understood as “a rejection with the left hand, and an embrace with the right.”  The ra’eyah is treated cruelly by her brothers, but they do not keep her away from her beloved.  They are intent only on increasing their possessions but, in  the end, they relinquish what is hers.
Whether the entire Song of Songs refers to a single pair of lovers, or describes multiple couples, is a significant question.  That is, can all that is said of the dod and the ra’eyah be conflated within the portrait of an individual man or woman?  There do not appear to be substantive contradictions between the different descriptions of the dod and ra’eyah; we may thus assume that the book intends to describe different circumstances or events in the lives of a pair of lovers who actually lived at some point in time.  
I do not mean to suggest that everything recounted in the Song of Songs should be taken as a narrative or that it only describes events that actually took place between two specific individuals.  The very nature of poetry is to portray circumstances more beautifully and more perfectly than they really are.  Here too, the primary goal of the Song of Songs is to present an ideal portrait of the innocent love between a dod and his ra’eyah.  But the descriptions are based on reality.  
The dod portrayed in the Song of Songs is a shepherd.  His sheep are never mentioned explicitly in the poems, but “shepherd” is used several times as his alternate name.  Although there appear to be instances where “shepherd” is used a metaphor for the dod, wandering the hills and tending his gardens like a grazing gazelle, he is initially depicted as a real shepherd, as implied by the verse, “Where do you pasture your sheep?  Where do you rest them at noon?” (1:7).  Possibly, because he would wander the countryside with his sheep, he mentions the names of several places scattered far and wide throughout the land.  It is also possible that because he was a shepherd, he compares his love’s beauty to flocks of goats and ewes.  But there is no hard evidence that compels us to interpret the text this way.  Nevertheless, we may infer from Scripture that he roamed the mountains (“leaping over mountains”; 2:8), which is consistent with shepherding.  The image of the dod is depicted with all the emotion and intensity of one who is “lovesick.”  Scripture suggests that he was tall (“preeminent among ten thousand,” “stately as the cedars”; 5:10,15), that his hair was “curled, and black as a raven” (5:11), his cheeks were ruddy and bearded (“his cheeks are like beds of spices”; 5:13), and he was a swift runner (2:9, 8:14).    
The ra’eyah is also tall, with an upright posture (“Your stately form is like the palm”; 7:8), her hair is black (“Your hair is like a flock of goats”; 4:1), and her complexion is dark as well (“because I am swarthy”; 1:6).  The white of her teeth, which “bear twins” (6:6), stands out against her dark face.  Her movement and her gait are full of grace (“How lovely are your feet in sandals, O daughter of nobles!”; 7:2).
She is called a “daughter of nobles,” and the poems imply that she was from a well-to-do family: She wears costly perfumes, and her brothers offer her a “silver battlement” (8:9).  They own vineyards, but she too has a vineyard of her own.  Her brothers direct her to tend the vineyards, and she also tends to sheep (perhaps at the advice of her dod, so that he might see her more easily: “Go follow the tracks of the sheep, and graze your kids by the tents of the shepherds”; 1:8).  The portrait in the Song of Songs suggests that her brothers treated her heavy handedly, forcing her to work in the vineyards.  She knew her dod previously and, unbeknownst to her brothers, fell in love with him; to them, she was still a child.  After much time elapsed, the brothers were finally inspired to provide for their sister’s upcoming marriage, only to discover that she had already found her intended.                                              
God is never mentioned in the Song of Songs.  This is likely one of the motivations for the Sages’ pronouncement that “every ‘Solomon’ in the Song of Songs is divine” (Shavu’ot 35b).  But the question remains why God is not mentioned explicitly.  Commentators and thinkers have said that the holiness of a text is not determined by tallying its divine names.  Just as there are texts whose sacredness is self-evident even without reference to God, so is the untainted and sacred love depicted in the Song of Songs.  Nevertheless, it seems that the poet deliberately excluded the explicit form of God’s name from the text.  Possibly, because the poems — in their literal sense — were originally meant to be recited as expressions of love between a groom and bride, it was feared that they might not always be recited in purity, and for this reason God’s name was omitted.  It is also possible the omission contains a moral statement, related to Rava’s comment (Mo’ed Katan 18b), that a lover may not solicit divine intervention in the hope of marrying his love.            
It is also worth noting that the dod and ra’eyah are nowhere mentioned by name.  They address each other not by proper name, but by pet name, like dodi, ra’eyati, and many others.  The ra’eyah’s friends are called “Daughters of Jerusalem,” and the dod’s friends are called “companions” [haverim], “friends” [re’im], and “beloved” [dodim].  This is a known biblical feature, in which male or female characters may remain anonymous for the duration of a lengthy and detailed narrative.    

The Song of Songs as a Parable of Divine Love
In the Midrash, the Sages offered many allegorical interpretations of the Song of Songs, taking its earthly love as a parable for the love between God and Israel.  This notion is based on prophecies in which God’s covenant with Israel is symbolized by the marriage covenant between a man and his beloved wife.  The great medieval Jewish exegetes interpreted the Song of Songs within this conceptual framework and objected strenuously to the idea that its meaning is limited to its literal, natural sense of the love between a man and woman.
It is well known that the term “parable” [mashal] in the Bible, as well as in Hebrew generally, has several different meanings.  Many types of parables are found in the Bible (and not all parables are explicitly termed “parables”).  The parable in the Song of Songs is apparently not the type in which the referent displaces the literal sense but, instead, adds a nobler and more sacred meaning to the natural meaning.  That is, although the natural, literal sense refers to the love between a flesh-and-blood dod and ra’eyah, by virtue of the fact that their love is wholesome, innocent, pure, and holy, it is worthy of serving as a representation and a model for a more exalted love.  Support for such an approach can be found in the statements of the Sages and Jewish scholars throughout history.  Indeed, while the Sages of the Midrash interpreted the Song of Songs’ love as that between Israel and God, they also interpreted it naturally, viewing the dod and the ra’eyah as two human beings.  For example, in R. Yohanan’s exegesis of the verse, “I have come to my garden, my own, my bride” (5:1; see the commentary, in the poem’s summary section) [In the summary of that poem, Hakham cites Vayikra Rabba (9:6): “The Torah teaches you proper etiquette: A groom may enter the bridal chamber only after receiving his bride’s consent. First, (the bride) says, ‘Let my beloved come to his garden and enjoy its luscious fruits’ (4:16); and only then (in the next verse, the groom responds), ‘I have come to my garden, my own, my bride’ -dsz].  This is linked to the idea, appearing frequently in the literature of the Sages, that all aspects of marital relations are rooted in holiness and allude to holy matters.  For this reason, the marriage blessings include the following: “The barren will surely rejoice when her children return to her joyfully.  Blessed are you, God, who brings joy to Zion with her children.”  From the formulation of this blessing, we may infer that the joy experienced by every bride and groom represents the joy associated with the redemption and the ingathering of the Diaspora.  There are many kabbalistic teachings which take aspects of marital relations as symbols of lofty matters.      
We should also draw attention to the mistaken notion that the Sages interpreted the Song of Songs allegorically because they considered its natural sense to be unworthy of the Holy Scriptures. It is not so.  Some of the greatest exegetes have noted that one must not even contemplate the idea that a prophetic text would employ something inherently offensive to suggest that which is holy and pure.  Rather, just as the referent is holy, so is the allegory.  The fact that the prophets compare the covenant between God and Israel to the marriage covenant suggests that the latter is sacred and noble.  The Sages have said, “If a married man and woman are worthy, God’s presence dwells with them” (Sotah 17a).
As noted, many exegetes interpreted the Song of Songs allegorically, viewing the ra’eyah as an emblem for Israel and the dod for God.  Thus, the love between the dod and the ra’eyah represents God’s love for his people and Israel’s love for God.  In the Midrash, the Sages followed this exegetical method.  Likewise, the Targum translated the Song of Songs allegorically and ignored its literal sense.  Many such midrashim are embedded in Jewish liturgical poetry [piyyutim].  On Passover, several communities once recited — some still do — piyyutim based entirely on the Song of Songs, from start to finish, on the subject of God’s love for his people and the promised redemption.  Many piyyutim for other occasions include phrases from the Song of Songs; such phrases were a quintessential part of the piyyut vocabulary and, subsequently, entered popular usage.  
The great medieval exegetes such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and others, were also of the view that the Song of Songs allegorizes God’s love for his people.  The difference between the approach of Rashi and Ibn Ezra and that of the Midrash is as follows:  The Midrash generally ignores the allegory entirely and exclusively addresses the referent.  The exegetes, on the other hand, also address the literal sense of the allegory.  Furthermore, they attempt to connect adjoining verses and to find context and continuity within the Song of Songs as a whole.  In their view, the Song of Songs includes hints regarding all of Jewish history, from its origins until the end of days.  The hints are not of a general nature; they refer to specific future events.  Thus, for example, Rashi interprets the verse, “Before I knew it, my desire set me mid the chariots of Ammi-nadib” (6:12) as an allusion to the civil war between the Hasmonean brothers John Hycranus and Aristobulus, which led to Israel’s subjugation by Rome.  They saw the Song of Songs as a prophetic or visionary work.  But there are those who do not accept — within the natural sense of the book — interpretations predicting future events.  However, this objection does not undermine the view which sees the love in the Song of Songs as emblematic of God’s love for his people.  
All the midrashim and the exegesis cited above view the ra’eyah as a “collective personification,” representing Israel as a whole.  However, some exegetes emphasize that God’s love applies to each Jew individually and they thus identify the ra’eyah with the devout soul, serving God out of love and longing for Him.  The Bible does contain expressions supporting the notion that the devout’s yearnings for God are represented by human love, e.g.: “We long for the name by which you are called” (Is. 26:8); “My soul thirsts for you, my body yearns for you” (Ps. 63:2); “My soul is attached to you” (Ps. 63:9).  See also Hagigah 15b where the verse “Draw me, let us run after you” (Song 1:4) is said to refer to R. Akiva, who “entered the orchard” of divine wisdom in peace, and left in peace.  Maimonides writes in the Laws Concerning Repentance (10:3):
What is the love of God that is befitting?  It is to love the Eternal with a great and exceeding love, so strong that one’s soul shall be knit up with the love of God, and one should be continually enraptured by it, like a lovesick individual, whose mind is at no time free from his passion for a particular woman, the thought of her filling his heart at all times, even when sitting down or rising up, when he is eating or drinking.  Even more intense should be the love of God in the hearts of those who love Him.  And this love should continually possess them, even as He commanded us in the phrase, “with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. 6:5).  This, Solomon expressed allegorically in the sentence, “for I am sick with love” (Song 2:5).  The entire Song of Songs is indeed an allegory descriptive of this love.
See also what Maimonides states in Guide of the Perplexed, Section III, at the end of chapter 51.
Many exegetes followed this approach by interpreting the details of the Song of Songs as allusions to the inner spiritual life of devout lovers of God; their feelings, longings, uncertainties, doubts, failures, and triumphs in attaining their goal, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord.  A number of them saw allusions to scientific and philosophical subjects — as they understood them — within the detailed descriptions of the book.  Among the adherents of this approach are R. Samuel ben Judah ibn Tibbon (translator of the Guide of the Perplexed), R. Joseph ibn Aknin (a disciple of Maimonides), R. Joseph ibn Kaspi (a commentator on the Bible and on the Guide), and R. Meir Malbim.  R. Abraham ibn Ezra and R. Isaac Arama (author of the Akedat Yitzhak) rejected this type of exegesis.  In their respective Introductions to the Song of Songs, they underscored the obligation to remain completely faithful to the Sages, and they rejected the conception of the Song of Songs as an allegory of anything other than the love between God and his people. Yet it appears that their statements were not directed at Maimonides.  His words stand firm, and we may take the yearnings of love in the Song of Songs as faithful expressions of the worshiper’s yearnings for God.  However, in Maimonides’ view, the allegory applies to the general theme of the book, but we should not attempt to draw  parallels between details of the allegory and details of the referent.       
We must also mention the kabbalistic approach to the Song of Songs.  Generally, “we are not to delve into hidden things”; as R. Isaac Arama writes in the Introduction to his commentary on the Song of Songs, he does not wish to address kabbalistic interpretations.  Still, it was the kabbalists who, in recent times, popularized its study — or, at least, its recitation — among the Jewish populace.  Based on their commentaries, the custom of reciting the Song of Songs before the Service for Welcoming the Sabbath has become widespread.    
In simple terms, the kabbalistic view is essentially this: The love in the Song of Songs represents the longing of creation for its Creator, the longing of worlds detached and distant from their origin to return and reunite with their Maker.  However, for our purposes we must emphasize that for kabbalists, that which takes place in the supernal realms is reflected in (or, casts a shadow upon) the events of our world.  The reflection is revealed in multiple stages and by various means.  Thus, we may conclude, a variety of hermeneutics of the Song of Songs are possible: The literal interpretation, describing the love between a man and woman; the midrashic, referring to God’s love for his people; the hermeneutic which speaks of the devout’s love for God; the mystical interpretation, which is about the love that permeates all of creation.  For kabbalists, each hermeneutic points to the same essential idea, even if revealed in a variety of ways and in different stages.