Mississippi Fred McDowell, has posted re: the Vilna Gaon’s Yerushalmi edition. However, I would like to discuss which edition of the Bavli the Vilna Gaon had. This is a rather important especially in light of the numerous emendations to the text the Vilna Gaon made. As when one is amending something it is important to know what exactly they have amended.

Every morning Birkat HaShahar are recited. Among these blessings are three anomalous ones. These there, as opposed to the rest, are in the negative. Specifically, these blessing are for ones legal status, gender, and religion. It is the last one, religion is the one we will focus on.

The Talmud has these blessing, however, there is some difficulty with the text of the religion one. Some editions have this blessing in the positive, i.e. “thank you for making me a Jew,” and some have it in the negative, “thank for not making me a non-Jew.” This confusion prevailed into the medieval period, with some texts containing one iteration of the blessing and some the other. What is unclear, however, is whether this change to the positive was wrought due to censorship or is there some reason this blessing should be in the positive.

R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller, in his Ma’adani Melekh, claims any passage which is in the positive (“thank you for making me a Jew”) is due solely to censorship. And with this, we get to the crux of our discussion here – the Vilna Gaon’s edition of the Talmud.

The Vilna Gaon, in his commentary on Shulhan Orach says that one should say this blessing in the positive form. He comes to this conclusion because “our editions of the Talmud have the blessing for ‘making me a Jew.'” In theory, the Vilna Gaon’s conclusion is dependent upon whether “our editions” are corrupted or not. That is, if “our editions” are censored then they prove nothing. This contention, that the Vilna Gaon used a corrupted edition is noted by R. Shmuel Feigenshon in the Otzar HaTefilot. Specifically, R. Feigenshon claims that had the Vilna Gaon seen the Amsterdam 1644 edition he would never made this mistake. [Additionally, based in part upon this, Y.S. Speigel notes the Vilna Gaon did not use manuscripts or earlier printed editions when he amended the text.]

It is worthwhile noting that R. Raphael Natan Rabinowich, in his Ma’amar ‘al HaDpasat haTalmud (which has just been reprinted by Mosad HaRav Kook) claims that the Vilna Gaon used the 1644 edition of the Talmud, the very one if he had used it would have avoid this error!!

In the end, we don’t know exactly which edition the Vilna Gaon used and according to Speigel, it is likely that the Vilna Gaon did not use one edition. Instead, it is likely the edition was dependent on the particular volume of the Talmud he had and for each volume it may have been a different edition.

Sources on the blessing: T.B. Menachot 43,b; Dikdukei Sofrim ad. loc.; Rosh, Berakot chapt. 9; Ma’dani Melekh id. at note 24; Tur Orakh Hayyimno. 46:4; id. Bach; Shulchan Orakh and Rama id.; see also, first edition of Rama Prague, 1588 for the proper placement of his comments available here; Biur HaGra id.; see also R. Y. Satnow, Va’yetar Yitzhak, no. 44; R. Jacob Emden, Luach Eres Toronto, p. 24 no. 64; Siddur Otzar haTeffilot, on the blessing in question; On the Vilna Gaon’s edition of the Talmud: Y.S. Speigel, Amudim b’Toldotha Sefer HaIvri: Haga’ot U’Magim, 404-405, 416 and the sources cited therein.

The names utilized for Seforim are rather unique. As opposed to most cultures who title their books based upon their content (think Da Vinci Code about a code Da Vinci did), Jewish book titles, for the most part, have no relationship to their content. Additionally, for many, the title of the books supersedes that of the actual author to such an extent that many authors are only known by their book titles. So while many are aware of the Shach and the Taz (shortened forms of the titles Siftei Kohen and Turei Zahav commentaries on the Shulhan Orakh most are not aware who actually wrote these works. Instead, one would say “(the) Shach says” etc. Now if we were to return the above titles, Siftei Kohen – the Lips of the Priest and the Turei Zahav the Pillars of Gold, from first glance one would assume the former is about Priests while the latter is about either metallurgy or perhaps some Indiana Jones like pillars.

Some have been critical of the use of such obscure titles for Jewish books. Isaac D’Israeli the father of Statesman Benjamin (Isaac was the one to remove himself and his family Benjamin included and convert them to Christianity after Isaac was angered over his synagogues dues) was highly critical of such titles, in his Curiosities of Literature he writes:

The Jewish and many oriental authors were fond of allegorical titles, which always indicate the most puerile age of taste. The titles were usually adapted to their obscure works. It might exercise an able enigmatist to explain their allusions; for we must understand by The Heart of Aaron,” that it is a commentary on several of the prophets. “The Bones of Joseph is an introduction to the Talmud. The Garden of Nuts, and The Golden Apples,” are theological questions, and The Pomegranate with its Flower,” is a treatise of ceremonies, not any more practised. Jortin gives a title, which he says of all the fantastical titles he can recollect, is one of the prettiest. A rabbin published a catalogue of rabbinical writers, and called it Labia Dormientium, from Cantic. vii. 9. Like the best wine of my beloved that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak. It hath a double meaning, of which he was not aware, for most of his rabbinical brethren talk very much like men in their sleep. Almost all their works bear such titles as bread,— gold, —silver, —roses, —eyes,— &c., in a word, anything that signifies nothing.

Isaac Reggio (perhaps it is the Isaacs) was equally critical, in his introduction to Delmigido’s Behinat HaDa’at. “Amongst the incorrect customs which has been exacerbated over time . . . when authors title their books with titles that do not speak to content, or at best they use titles which only hint to the books content which can only be decoded after reading the introduction . . . there are those who use titles which contain the authors name.” Reggio then proceeds to list some of thcategories those catagories. “There are those who use titles from the vessels in the Temple ארון עדות,מזבח הזהב, מנורת המאור, שלחן ארבע, זר זהב, קערת כסף or some use the clothing of the priest for titles שרשות גבלות, המצנפת, מעשה אפוד, משן אהרן, כליל תכלת,” and the list goes on.
Reggio mentions two catagories of interest, one the author placing his name (or hinting to it) and the other hinting to the content via an obscure title. As to the second there was such a book reviewed by the Jewish Chronicle (London)

Very wittily is the pun-title, City of Sihon (Heb: Ir Sichon), for a mathematical book by R. Joseph Zorphathi, alluding to Numb. xxi 27, “For Hesbon (reckonin [caculating]) is the City of Sihon.”

Jewish Chronicle (London), June 21, 1889, page 15

There are also similarly titled or pun titled books which are hinting at the name of the author. For instance authors whose name was Avrhom utilize puns on various verses relating to Avrohom. So we have the books Pesach haOhel (1691) which is referencing that Gen. 18:1; Yukach Na (1881); Sa’du Lebchem (1881) both referencing Gen. 18:4-5.
Then we have books which are not as creative and just use the persons name in the title. Perhaps the person to go wild with this theme was R. Hayyim Palaggi. Who wrote over 25 seforim and almost all carry the name Hayyim in the title. So we have Otzrot haHayyim, Genzi Hayyim, Darki Hayyim, U’Baharta B’Hayyim, Zechirah L’Hayyim, Huke’ Hayyim, Hayyim b’Yad, Hayyim V’Shalom etc. (you get the picture).
Asided from these we have other books which make reference to something that happened in the authors life, generally unrelated to content of the book. So we have Homat Aish (1799) a commentary on the Ibn Ezra’s song Tzama Nafshe which was written soon after the author lost his house and all to a fire. He decided to write this in the hope it would prevent a future fire. Or we have the various books written by blind people, Eynai Avrohom and the like which generally reference eyes or sight.
Aside from these curiosities, there is still the final one of substituting the authors name for that of his book. Menachem has a rather interesting story related to this practice here.

Perhaps the reason for this practice can be gleaned from the following story was told. There was a city which was filled with less than learned or interested people who were in need of a rabbi. However, when each candidate would come through they would be turned off by the populace. The town decided to do something about this and had commisioned tombstones with famous personages such as the Shach, Taz, Rama etc. and placed them in the graveyard. With the next candidate they made sure to tour the cemetary. Needless to say, although the rabbi had some misgivings he decided to take the job figuring if the Shach etc. were here it couldn’t be all that bad. After he accepted one of the townspeople took him aside and told him the truth immediately the Rabbi complained saying he was tricked. However, the town board explained he was not. As in the various cities where the Shach, Taz etc are actually buried they study their works and the Talmud says that when one studies the works their lips move – they are still alive. In this town, however, no one studies any of their wotrulyd they are truely dead here. Perhaps the idea that the Torah of the person is the most important thing and the authors derive life from that caused some to substitute their works.
Sources: Zlotkin, Shemot haSeforim and entire work devoted to the names of books; Y. S. Spiegel, Amudim b’Toldot HaSefer Haiviri, Ketiva v’Hataka, 384-428 discussing the use of the authors name in the title (Spiegel’s two volumes of Amudim are excellent and are a must read for anyone interested in the history of Seforim); for a list of books about various events, famine, jailing, blind people etc. see A. Yaari, Mekeri Sefer. [Thanks Menachem for the Jewish Chronicle (London) citation.]

When one discusses the “Jewish” date of the world, the source used is the book Seder Olam. In fact, this is the source where we get to our counting of this being the 5766 year of the world. There was a rather intriguing controversy about whether the edition we have of Seder Olam is a corrupted edition or not.

R. Moshe Hagiz, pehaps most well know for his campaign against R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzato, had a very interesting correspondence with R. Jacob Emden. R. Hagiz was incensed when a published siddur by R. Uri Lipmann in Sulzbach.

This siddur offered an explaination for the recitation of Tzedkaska (צדקתך) at Shabbat mincha. “As Moshe died on Friday, King David on Shabbat were therefore recite tzeduk hadin at Shabbat mincha.” R. Hagiz took issue with the statement that Moshe died on Friday. R. Hagiz first attacked this siddur in an wholly unrelated book. R. Hagiz added his comments to the book Birkat Eliyahu, Wandsbeck 1728. There, R. Hagiz claims that the publisher altered the death date of Moshe from the Shabbat to Friday in an effort to answer how Moshe could have written on the Shabbat. Thus, according to R. Hagiz, the publisher had Moshe die on Friday when writting is permitted.

This justification enraged R. Hagiz. He says

who is this person in todays day and age who calls himself a Jew . . . how terrible is it to change, to change even the dot of the letter yud of our perfect Torah. . . and this type of diesease which spreads among those lacking in faith and lacking in wisdom . . . god should pay back these comesurate with thier wickedness.

But R. Hagiz did not stop there. Instead, he wrote a long letter to R. Emden highlighting this terrible deed to have Moshe die on Friday. We now come to the issue of the book Seder Olam. R. Hagiz was faced with a problem. While it is correct that some sources have Moshe dying on Shabbat, others – specifically the Seder Olam – have Moshe dying on Friday.

R. Hagiz therefore decided that the Seder Olam must have been corrupted. “A wise person can see that is some places a later person . . . put in his own thoughts . . . as is common when persons write their notes on the side eventually printers incorporated these personal notes into the actual text of the book.” Thus, according to R. Hagiz, the statement that Moshe died on Friday is one that was not from the actual Seder Olam but was inserted erronously into the book.

R. Emden takes issue with this explanation of the Seder Olam. He first notes this idea that later additions were incorporated into the Seder Olam is really from R. Azariah de Rossi the author of the controversial Me’or Einayim. R. Emden then continues and notes that while it is true that numerous additions to our texts by later persons have been incorporated into the text, including even in Nach (he cites R. Kimchi (RaDaK) on Joshua 21:7). R. Emden says that the Seder Olam did not suffer such a fate and is “clean and pure.”

In the end R. Emden is satisified in admitting that there is a controversy amongst the midrashim about Moshe’s death date, and therefore R. Hagiz should accept that there are those who disagree with him.

This debate regarding the Seder Olam was not only between R. Emden and R. Hagiz but continues to today. Among most scholars the concensous is that although portions of the Seder Olam date to at least Talmudic times there were later insertions. Among others, the entirety of Seder Olam is attributed to the tanna R. Yose ben Halfta.

Sources: First, if one wishes to read more about marginalia which have become part of the text, see R. Yitzhak Zilber excellent article “Yedi maTikim Shaltu Bo” in Ohr Yisrael 41, 201-222. Additionally, Zilber discusses the above controversy and also includes an extensive discussion regarding R. Emden’s views on R. Azariah de Rossi and his Me’or Einayim. On the controversy discussed above see R. Eliyahu ben Yaakov, Birkat Eliayhu (Wandsbeck, 1728), 56b-57a; R. Jacob Emden, She’elot Ya’avetz, vol. 1 no. 33; see also the Ratner edition of Seder Olam.

The Vilna edition of the Shas printed by the Romm Press has become the standard edition of the Shas. This Shas had many important additions and corrections that prior ones did not. One of those was the inclusion of the comments of R. Jacob Emden.

However, it appears that one comment, a rather important one was left out. R. Emden in Gitten page 60 made a comment regarding the Hassidim, this does not appear in the Vilna Shas. In the Mozonim edition they partially rectified this by providing a partial transcription of the passage. But it seems they were unable to reproduce the entire passage and thus, even in their edition it contains numerous ellipses. Now, in the most recent volume of the journal Ohr Yisrael, R. M.M. Goldstein has provided the complete passage. As will be apparent, this is a very important passage. R. Goldstein got this from the manuscript of R. Emden’s comments which is now housed in the Oxford Library. In the article, R. Goldstein provides of copy of the original manuscript.

In it R. Emden discusses Kabbalah and that this subject is really only for a select few. (He also explains the term aggadah in relation to kabbalah). He then continues to explicate the limited distrubution of kabbalah and says

ואינו מתגלה אלא ליחידי סגולה לא עמוד איש בליעל ורע בסודה, ולהוציא גם ממה שנהגו מתחסדים חדשים מקרוב באו לעסוק בספר הזוהר ואר”י בקבע, ועשו תלמוד והלכות עראי וטפל, אין חפץ ה’ בהם, הלא מזקנים נתבונן שעיקר למודם ותורתם לא היה אלא בנגלה בלבד, וסתרי תורה לא היה נמסרים אלא ליחיד עמוד בחצי ימיו על פי תנאי פרישות הרבה כמו שאמרו פרק אין דורשין, ואף זה לא אשכח ותני רק למבין מדעתו וחכם, והללו עשו פומבי לדבר פתאים בל ידעו מה, כסילים נעדרי דעת, השה אלוה חכמה ולא חלק להם בבינה

[kabbalah] should only be given to a limited set of person, one who can understand its secrets, this excludes the new hassidim who spend their time reading the Zohar and the works of the AR”I, but only spend amount of time on the Talmud and the laws, God does not want them, from our ancestors we have learnt that the majority of ones time should be only in the revealed Torah, the seceret Torah was only for special ones, who where older [at the mid point in life] with conditions of ascetism as is described in the Talmud Haggiah, it is only given to those who can understand by themselves, however, these [the hassidim] they make public things which should be private to those who don’t know anything, idiots totally lacking in knowledge, God who gives wisdom did not give them understanding.

While this is not the only critique R. Emden had of Hassidim it is curious that the Romm printers did not inlcude it. Unfortunatly we don’t know why. It was not as if the Romm press was considered particularly friendly with Hassidim. In fact, one of the reasons Hassidim used the Shapira press was they viewed the Romm one as not in line with Hassidic values. This was so, as the Romm press printed works of maskilim. But, now that this passage has been printed one can hope that in future editions of the Shas this will be included, in it entirety.

Sources: R. M.M. Goldstein, Iyunim u’Biurim b’Mishnato shel Rabbenu haYavetz, in Ohr Yisrael vol. 43 (Nissan 5766) 203-215; for another passage in R. Emden’s writings discussing Hassidim see Wilensky, Hassidim u’Mistnagdim, p. 380; for more on what the Romm edition included see their Achrit Davar at the end of Niddah.

First, I want to post a bibliography of R. Margulies’s works and then I shall discuss some biogrpahical details in the next post. This bibliography is not a scientific one in that I do not attempt to list every edition. Rather, I am listing just the works and some bibliogrpahical information as I see fit. Most of this information comes from Naftali Ben Menachem’s bibliogprahy of R. Margulies’s books which was printed in Sefer Margolious.

1) Toldot Adam (Lemberg 1912) on R. Shmuel Edels
2) Kav Besamim (Lemberg 1913) 102 notes on Tosefot
3) Drush l’yom ‘alot ‘al kesi moshlim ‘adonanu haKeiser Karal haRishon (Lemberg 1918)
4) Kavi Ohr (Lemberg, 1921) laws pertianing to Israel as well as articles on history, including yesod hamishna among others
5) Yesod HaMishna V’Arikachto (Lemberg, 1933) on the creation of the Mishna
6) Sefer Hassidim with his notes (multiple printings)
7) Tolodot Rabenu Hayyim ben Atar (Lemberg, 1925), biography on the Ohr Hayyim includes the notes of R. Meir Dan Plotzki (Kli Hemdah)
8) Ohr Meir (Lemberg, 1926), biography of R. Meir from Perlmishiya
9) Margenuta d’Reb Meir (Lemberg, 1926), sayings of the above R. Meir
10) Shealot u’Teshuvot min HaShamyim, R. Margulies’s extensive notes on the teshuvot as well as a comprehensive introduction discussing Torah lo’ Bashmyim and other related topics (multiple printings)
11) Yalkut Margolious ([Lemberg], 1927), derashot of R. Margulies
12) Imrei Kodesh haShalem (Lemberg, 1928)
13) Vikuach Rabbanu Yehiel m’Paris (Lemberg, 1928), with biography of R. Yehiel
14) Shemot v’Kinuim B’Talmud, discussing names in the Talmud, including when two names started, (multiple printings)
15) Helulua d’Tzadika (Lemberg 1929), lifespan and death dates of Tzadikim
16) Vikuach HaRamban (Lemberg, 1928)
17) Yalkut Peninim (Lemberg, 1929), derashot
18) Butzna d’Nehora HaShalem (Lemberg, 1930), about R. Barukh of Metzerich
19) Gevurot Ari (Lemberg, 1930), biography of R. Leib Srhson
20) Toldot Rabbenu Avrohom Mimoni, biography of Rambam’s son, (multiple printings)
21) Rishimah (Lemberg, 193-) list of books in his bookstore
22) Mekor Barukh (Lemberg, 1931), biography of R. Barukh of Metzerich and other historical documents
23) Shem Olam, to reveal the anonymous people in hazal (multiple printings)
24) HaModiah journal
25) Nefesh Hayyia, on Shulchan Orakh multiple printings
26) Hagadah shel Pesach (Tel Aviv, 1937)
27) Shichot Chakhamim
28) Mekor haBerakha discussing blessing and why and when before one does something (recently reprinted)
29) Zohar with his extensive notes (multiple printings)
30) Sibah hisnaguto discussing R. Emden/R. Eybeschitz controversy (very controversial Scholem wrote a pamphelet against this) Tel Aviv 1941
31) Reb Saul Levin M’Ziaf haSefer Besamim Rosh, in Aresehet 1944
32) Malechi Elyon on angels in Hazel (multiple printings)
33) Ollalot various articles (multiple printings)
34) Tikunei Zohar notes, multiple printings
35) Sefer haBahir same as above
36) Zohar Hadash same
37) L’Toldot Anshei Shem b’Lvov, Jerusalem 1952
38) Milchmot HaShem (R. Avrohom ben HaRambam) (including the biography on him) (multiple printings)
39) haRambam v’Hazohar now reprinted in Penini Margolios
40) Sha’ari Zohar collecting relvant passages from the Zohar to Hazal (multiple printings)
41) Margolios HaYam on Sanhedrin (multiple printings)
42) Divrarim b’Itam dershot
43) L’Heker haMisparam beTalmud, Sinai 44
44) Tzioyunim Bibliographim a comprehensive biobibliography in Areshet 1-2,4
45) Tziyunim l’Ha’arot l’Seder haDorot, Sinai 46
46) HaMikrah v’Hamesorah multiple printings
47) Mekharim b’Darkei haTalmud v’Hidosov multiple printings

As some have already noted, there is a completely new edition of Boaz Cohen’s Kuntras HaTeshuvot. This edition edited by Shmuel Glick totally reworks Cohen’s work. Supposedly this new work benefited from many subsequent bibliographies as well as the Institute for Jewish Bibliography.

While this is an vast improvement in my quick read (I only received it today) I was amazed at what this lacked and in my mind errors.

The first is for the entry for the Besamim Rosh the famed possible forgery attributed to R. Asher b. Yecheil. In their entry they first note that examined the Krakow 1881 edition. Now aside from not looking at the first edition which is not hard to come by there is a greater error here. Specifically, they do not note that this edition is missing two teshuvot. So while they provide a bibliography listing articles discussing the Besamim Rosh they fail to mention the most important thing that if one gets the wrong edition they will not have the full text. Even though they comment there are 392 teshuvot they did not bother to count or to even read the articles they cite (which note this absence). This are not minor teshuvot either, in fact, the one on suicide which this edition leaves out is perhaps the most well-known and cited one from the entire volume.

The next error is in regards to the Hatam Sofer. Again they have a long entry about the various editions and then list the various editions. But here they totally missed out on the first edition of this work. The first time teshuvot from the Hatam Sofer appeared was not as a separate work but as part of another work. In Prague 1826 edition of the Ri Megash from pages 31b until 42a there is Kuntras Hiddushi Torah v’Gam She’alot v’Teshuvot m’admu HaRav HaGaon . . . R. Moshe Sofer. In fact, on the title pages it even notes that this includes teshuvot from Hatam Sofer. This is listed in the Bibliography of the Hebrew Book and a simple computer search would have revealed this information.

Additionally, the sources which are provided are rather uneven. Again, this is only from my limited viewing of it and I may revise but if one looks at the entry for Eleh Divrei HaBrit which deals with, among other things, the controversy regarding placing an organ in shul. In that entry they provide Haberman’s article on the topic but not Binayahu’s article or Samet’s which both appeared in Asuphot vol. 1 and 5 respectively. In fact, the book Ohr Nogeh which is Liberman’s book on the topic does not have an entry. While perhaps they considered this part of the work Nogeah HaTzedek there doesn’t seem to be a reason to do so. Also, they do not include the book Tzror Hayyim which was published a year after Eleh and is devote to the very same topics in their list of books and articles discussing the organ. This is so eventhough the first teshuva discussed the organ exclusively.