1

Legacy Judaica Auction March 6th: A Sampling of Forgeries and other Eclectic Lots

Legacy Judaica‘s next auction will occur on March 6, 2018.  The 220 lots include very rare books such as the first edition of the Yerushalmi and a letter from R. Tzvi Ashkenazi (Hakham Tzvi) (the entire catalog can be accessed here), there are many other interesting books and letters.
Conditional marriage has been applied since at least the talmudic period if not early.  The exact circumstances and necessary predicates have evolved over time and especially in the modern period when marriage and divorce were slowly wrested from the exclusive control of the clergy and the state began to involve itself permitting some to circumvent the religious process entirely, the issue of annulments became acuter.  Annulments were among the only methods that would free a woman whose husband proceed to receive a secular divorce but not a religious one.  In France, in the early 20th century a scheme to make conditional marriage the norm and avoid later issues was proposed.  But this met with fierce opposition from many rabbis, and to counter that proposal in 1930 in Vilna a book, Ein Tenie be-Nissuin, that contained signatures of 400 rabbis was published in protest.  The book also contains an introduction by the leading Posek, R. Chaim Ozer.  (Lot 21).  
Another contemporary controversy related to something much older, the Talmud Yerushalmi. In the first decade of the 20th century, Shlomo Friedlander published a few volumes from the Kodshim order that hereto had never been published (lot 47).  Allegedly these were from a manuscript, but many doubted their authenticity. R. Meir Don Plotski, the author of the biblical commentary, Kli Hemdah, devoted an entire book, Sha’lu Shelom Yerushalim, (lot 43) to disproving that Friedlander’s edition was legitimate. (Dr. Shlomo Sprecher Zt”L reprinted the book in 1991 with a new introduction and a biography of R Poltski).  Friedlander also published less controversial books including his commentary on the Tosefta (lot 48). 
Although not controversial, another attempt to link the present with the past is a curious book, Sefer ha-Brit ha-Hadash, written by Uziel Haga of Boston (lot 130).  He petitioned and received permission from President McKinley to accompany the U.S. military on a tour of China.  Haga’s purpose was to see first hand and document the lifestyles and customs of Chinese Jews.  Among other items, he asserted that the Jews Kaifeng in the Hunan Province are descendants of the Ten Tribes. If his identification is correct, that may explain Jews’ affinity for Chinese cuisine.  Haga never made it back from China, he was imprisoned and killed by the Boxers.   Although Haga’s book was printed in Pietrekov, one book, Mishberi Yam, (lot 131) was published in China.  
Returning to forgeries, the compendium of R. Zechariah Yeshayahu Yolles, Ha-Torah veha-Hayyim, (lot 24), includes his Dover Mesharim that disproves the attribution of a certain work to R. Mordechai Yaffa (Levush).  Yolles’ position was vehemently disputed by R. Moshe Sofer (although Yolles defended him in a different controversy) and Sofer’s letter appears in this volume.  The book is also noteworthy because it includes a portrait of Yolles in the frontispiece.  
Among the books with distinguished owners include a copy of Mishnei Torah that belonged to R. Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, (Beis HaLevi) (lot 151) and R. Hayim Volozhiner’s copy of Mesorot Seyag le-Torah. Most of R. Hayim’s library was destroyed in a fire, but this book had been on loan to R. Yaakov of Ivenitz, and thus was spared the fate of the rest of books.  (Regarding the two bibliographical topics of fire and lending, see Abraham Ya’ari, Mehkerei Sefer, 47-54 (discussing books printed after the author was saved from fire) and 179-97 (discussing book lending)). As an aside, the Mesorot Seyag le-Torah also likely contains material that is misattributed to its author.  See Wolf Heidenheim, Me’or Eynayim, comments to Exodus 27:17.



The Yiddish Press as a Historical Source for the Overlooked and Forgotten in the Jewish Community

The Yiddish Press as a Historical Source for the Overlooked and Forgotten in the Jewish Community
by Eddy Portnoy
Eddy Portnoy is Senior Researcher and Director of Exhibitions at the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research. He is the author of the recently-published (and much acclaimed, and fun) book, Bad Rabbi: And Other Strange but True Stories from the Yiddish Press (Stanford, 2017), available here (https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Rabbi-Strange-Stories-Stanford/dp/150360411X).
This is his first contribution to the Seforim Blog.
Sanhedrin 25 has this pretty well-known, somewhat rambling bit about what sorts of people are trustworthy enough to serve as witnesses in court. It’s pretty standard stuff. However, as part of this discussion, we get to learn about some early gambling practices among the Jews. While this topic is invoked mainly to denote the fact that gamblers may not be the most trustworthy folk, some of the details include a bit of haggling over whether people who who send their trained pigeons to steal other people’s pigeons can be considered as shysty as those who simply race pigeons for cash rewards. After a bit of back and forth, it is concluded that everyone involved in pigeon shenanigans are just as sleazy as dice players, who are banned by halakhah from serving as witnesses. The long and the short of it is that the Rabonim simply do not like the gambling.
When I first read Sanhedrin 25, I thought it was terrifically interesting, not because I had some investment in knowing whose testimony is considered worthy, nor because I’d just renovated the pigeon coop on top of my tenement. I was fascinated because it was an instance of the amoraim interfacing with the amkho. I have an abiding interest in the the amkho, those average, everyday Jews that make up the bulk of this freaky nation. These are the people you find on the margins of rabbinic discourse, those upon whom the rabbis meted out their rulings and punishments. Truth be told, I find these people much more interesting than either the rabbis or their fiddling with halakhah. Amazingly, in this discussion, the rabbis throw out some neat details about how pigeon racers would hit trees to make their pigeons go faster and how some people played a dice-like game with something called pispasin, a hardcore Jewish gambling habit that seems to gone the way of the dodo.
Unfortunately, Jewish traditional texts aren’t very amkho-friendly. The average Yosls and Yentas who smuggle their way into works produced by rabbinic elites generally appear because they somehow screwed up, did something the rabbis didn’t approve of and thus wound up being officially approbated, a fact they also often ignored. That fact notwithstanding, the amkho still appears to have retained a high regard for their rabbinic elites, in spite of the fact that they frequently disregarded rulings that interfered with anything they considered even remotely fun.
Take, for example, the body of rabbinic admonitions that trip their way from the gemara through 19th century responsa insisting that Jews refrain from attending theater and circus performances. Did any self-respecting Jew with tickets to whatever the 6th century version of Hamilton was ever say, “um, this isn’t permitted…we’d better not go.” This type of thing goes on for centuries. Sure, there’s a broad core of laws that most Jews stuck to, but, when it comes to matters of amusement or desire, the edges can get pretty fuzzy.
If you jump from the Talmudic period to the early 20th century (yes, I know this is ridiculous), one finds that the dynamic doesn’t change very much. The only real difference is that the rabbinic elite has lost much of its power and influence. Amkho still respects them, but they also still do what they want. One interesting factor is that there is now a forum where news of both the rabbis and the amkho begins to appear on a regular basis. This would be the Yiddish press, the first form of mass media in a Jewish language, a place where international and national news collided with Yiddish literature and criticism, where great essayists railed both in favor and against tradition, where pulp fiction sits alongside great literature, and where, among myriad other things, you can find a near endless supply of data on millions of tog-teglekhe yidn, everyday Jews who populated the urban ghettos of cities like New York and Warsaw. In a nutshell, the Yiddish press is a roiling and angry sea of words filled with astounding stories of all kinds of Jews, religious, secular and many who vacillate perilously between the two, aloft somewhere between modernity and tradition, taking bits of both, throwing it all in a pot and cooking it until it’s well done.
It is not at all uninteresting.
As a kind of wildly disjointed chronicle of Jewish life, Yiddish newspapers are an unparalleled resource on the pitshevkes, the tiny, yet fascinating details of Jewish urban immigrant life. Where else could one find out that Hasidim were a significant component of the Jewish audience at professional wrestling matches in Poland during the 1920s? Or that 50,000 Jewish mothers rioted against the public schools on the Lower East Side in 1906? Where could one discover that petty theft in Warsaw spiked annually just before Passover, when Jews were known to buy new clothes and linens? Is there a place you know of where one could find out that Jewish atheists antagonized religious Jews on Yom Kippur by walking around eating and smoking? Or that gangs of ultra-Orthodox Jews stalked the streets on Shabbos demanding people shut down their businesses? If you want to experience the knot of fury into which Jewish life was bound up, look no further than the Yiddish press.
Yiddish newspaper editors always knew where to find the juiciest stories and, for example, frequently sent journalists to cover goings-on in the Warsaw beyz-din. And it wasn’t because there were important cases being seen there, but because there was always some wild scandal blowing up in front of the rabbis that often ended up with litigants heaving chairs at one another. Whether it was some guy who thought it would be okay to marry two women and shuttle between them, or a woman who knocked out her fiancée’s front teeth after he refused to acknowledge that he had knocked her up. Like a Yiddish language Jerry Springer Show, brawls broke out in the rabbinate on a near daily basis during the 1920s and 1930s. The rabbis, of course, were mortified. But they kept at it. And the journalists of the Yiddish press were there to record.
Captions (top, middle, bottom):
“Gas masks as a security measure in the Rabbinate.”
“A woman poured vitriol on her husband in a divorce case” (from the Rabbinate Chronicle)
“Thus can we now begin the case. Call in the two sides.”
It may be that you don’t want to know that there were Jewish criminals, drunks, prostitutes, imbeciles, and myriad other types that comprise the lowest echelons of society. But these small, often inconsequential matters that litter the pre-WWII Yiddish press comprise the details of a culture that has largely disappeared. Moreover, one can find a wealth of information on the amkho, who they were, how they lived, how they thought and spoke. This of course, begs the question: what do we want out of history? Do we only want to know about the rabonim, the manhigim, the writers, the artists, and the businesspeople? Or do we also want to peek into the lives of the average, the boring, the unsuccessful, the dumb, and the mean? Do we want a full picture of the Jewish world that was, or do we only want the success stories?

 

For my money, I want to know as much as I can about how Jews lived before World War II. Not everyone’s great grandfathers were kley-koydesh. In fact, most weren’t and it’s sheer fantasy to think that most Jews had extensive yeshiva educations. Most Yiddish-speaking Jews were poor, uneducated, and sometimes illiterate. Many of them did dumb things, made bad decisions, and wound up in big trouble. Clearly a shonde, they may not have the yikhes we want, but, also, we don’t get to choose. They may not be the best role models, but they are nonetheless integral to the Jewish story.



Review of Kedushat Aviv: Rav Aharon Lichtenstein zt”l on the Sanctity of Time and Place

Kedushat Aviv:
Rav Aharon Lichtenstein ztl on the Sanctity of Time and Place
Rav Elyakim Krumbein
(Translated
by David Strauss)
Rav Elyakim Krumbein studied with Rav Soloveitchik at YU and made aliya in 1973. He has been a ram at Yeshivat Har Etzion since 1981 and heads its Tochnit Bekiut. He also served as a Pedagogic Advisor at Herzog College. Rav Krumbein’s guides for self-study on the Bavot, Ketubot and other tractates are widely used by Yeshiva students, and he has also written two volumes of study guides on Gittin and Kiddushin entitled Sho’el K’inyan. He is the author of Musar for Moderns and several courses on the Yeshivat Har Etzion’s Virtual Beit Midrash, as well as many articles on Talmud, Halakha, and Jewish thought, including seminal studies on the methodology of Brisk.
Review of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, Kedushat Aviv: Iyyunim BeKedushat HaZeman VehaMakom, edited and adapted by R. Shai Lichtenstein, asst. ed. R. Chaim Navon (Maggid and Yeshivat Har Etzion, 2017; Hebrew); 512 pp., available here.
Kedushat Aviv: Iyyunim BeKedushat HaZeman VehaMakom consists of previously unpublished writings and lectures of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein ztl. Rav Aharon would periodically carve out time from his enormous duties as a teacher of Torah in order to cultivate this scholarly endeavor, the study of the concept of “sanctity.” He had hoped and planned that the work would develop into a book of three parts, discussing the sanctity of time, place, and personalities. Unfortunately, this dream was not fulfilled during his lifetime. Now, however, Rav Aharon’s son, R. Shai Lichtenstein, has edited and published the present volume, with the help of family members, disciples, and generous donors. (The book’s introduction details which chapters were written by Rav Aharon himself and which are based on recordings and notes.) The volume covers two topics – the sanctity of time and the sanctity of place.
A Book of Thematic Studies
This volume belongs to the genre of thematic studies. It is not a collection of novella on the Talmud or the Rambam or the like, but rather an examination of the various aspects of a particular topic. Such works take upon themselves a formidable task – collecting passages from all across the Talmud in which a particular issue is discussed by Chazal, arranging the principles arising from the sources, and clarifying the inner relationships between the various parts.
These works can be classified according to their various approaches. Some authors attempt to turn an obscure topic into a “Shulchan Arukh” (e.g., the Minchat Kohen on the laws of forbidden food mixtures). Others strive primarily to deal
with the difficulties of the topic and to rule about matters that are subject to doubt (e.g. Shev Shemateta), and, in recent generations, the goal may be to define the concepts in depth (e.g. Shaarei Yosher). Rav Aharon, as a prominent scholar of the Brisker approach, belongs to the latter group. The author immerses himself in the depths of Halakha and takes advantage of his mastery of the Talmudic passages, the Rishonim, and the Acharonim (attested to by indices at the end of the volume).

We were already able to benefit from the essays published in Rav Aharon’s previous book, Minchat Aviv (here), which was previously reviewed at the Seforim blog by Professor Aviad Hacohen (here) some of which constitute comprehensive thematic studies in themselves (see, for example, his examination of the issue of “lishmah”).

The current volume, however, is an entirely new development. The scope is astounding, and the imagination and ambition are inspiring. Leafing through the main headings, most of which are dealt with at length, reveals that the book covers the major issues relating to the sanctity of time and place.

The first part deals with the sanctity of Shabbat and Yom Tov, Kiddush, the sanctity of Yom Kippur, the Sabbatical and Jubilee years, the sanctification of the months, and the intercalations of the calendar. The second part opens with the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael, and then moves on to the sanctity of walled cities, Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the Temple and its various parts.

In Kedushat Aviv, Rav Aharon applies the unique scholarly approach that characterizes all of his teachings in order to elucidate the topic of sanctity. We will note below several points relating to the author’s methodological approach.

The grand plan of the work allowed Rav Aharon to give free rein to the fullness of his originality. This originality stems not necessarily from flashes of brilliance, but rather from the author’s fundamental and thorough examination of the material under study.

To illustrate this, let us examine one small element of a discussion concerning the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael, a classic subject in Talmudic scholarship. The chapter opens with a review of some of the well-known doctrines, as taught by the sages of Brisk – first and foremost the distinction between the “sanctity” of Eretz Yisrael and the “name” of Eretz Yisrael. This duality regarding the unique status of the land has a number of practical ramifications, which are quite familiar to anyone at home in the beit midrash.

Thus, for example, the geographical scope of the “name” of Eretz Yisrael extends to the broad boundaries of the land conquered by those who came out of Egypt (as opposed to the narrower borders achieved by the returnees under Ezra). Also, it is never cancelled, even according to those who say that the initial sanctification of Eretz Yisrael did not hold for the future. Thirdly, it obligates only some of the commandments connected to Eretz Yisrael (for example, egla arufa, but not terumot and ma’asrot). Rav Aharon considers these classical matters and declares that “Heaven has left me room to illuminate another facet of the issue.” From here he continues with novel clarifications and further developments that greatly broaden the halakhic concept of Eretz Yisrael, as the traditional dichotomy is restrictive and there is no reason to assume that it is necessarily true.

Rav Aharon argues that in addition to the sanctity of the land of Eretz Yisrael (which obligates the setting aside of terumot and ma’asrot), we can speak of three different concepts that underlie the “name” of Eretz Yisrael:

  1. the chosen land in which the Shekhina rests;
  2. the place where the sanctity of the Temple spreads out gradually (as explained in the first chapter of Keilim), this being reflected in the laws governing the removal of the ritually impure from the camp;
  3. the land where the people of Israel become a united community and in which they fulfill their public duties (e.g., egla arufa).

It is, of course, possible to attribute all of these things to the “name” of Eretz Yisrael and assume that they all apply within the borders of the land conquered by those who left Egypt. But Rav Aharon writes, in his characteristic language, that “one can distinguish between the different aspects.” It is possible, for example, that the indwelling of the Shekhina sanctifies the land independently of any connection to the Temple. It is also possible that neither of these is necessary for regarding the people of Israel as a community dwelling in their own land.

This approach allows for a certain flexibility when we attempt to define the geographical entity of Eretz Yisrael. It may be argued that the covenantal boundaries of Abraham are the determining factor regarding a particular matter, but regarding a different matter, it is the boundaries mentioned in Parashat Mas’ei or the boundaries of the conquests of Yehoshua. This discussion is entirely independent of the idea of the “sanctity” of Eretz Yisrael regarding terumot and ma’asrot, which relates to the land settled by those who ascended from Bavel.

Thus, we are liberated from the fixed idea that anything unrelated to terumot and ma’asrot depends on the boundaries of the land conquered by those who left Egypt. The dichotomous approach is indeed convenient, and it may, in fact, be implicit in the words of the Rambam. However, dissociating from it is important, for example, when we discuss Transjordan. This area was certainly subject to the laws of terumot and ma’asrot during the First Temple period by Torah law, but it is referred to as an “impure land” in Scripture. From this, the Radbaz learns that in Transjordan there is “sanctity of mitzvot,” but no “sanctity of the Shekhina.” We see, then, that the sanctity of the Shekhina is not found in all places conquered by those who left Egypt, despite their possessing the sanctity of the land with respect to mitzvot. According to the conventional terminology, this situation is difficult to explain, to say the least. In this context, Rav Aharon cites the Sifre Zuta: “Transjordan is not fit for the house of the Shekhina.”

Another example relates to the sanctification of the month. It is generally assumed that the sanctity of time depends on human action, as expressed in the blessing, “Mekaddesh Yisrael veha-zemanim, He sanctifies Israel, who sanctify the appointed times.” In Rav Aharon’s chapter on the topic, this statement is treated thoroughly, systematically and in detail.

First of all, we may ask: Who is “Israel” in this context? Does it refer to a court of three, the Great Sanhedrin, the leaders of the people (“Moshe and Aharon,” according to Scripture), the nation of Israel as a collective, or the people of Israel as individuals? The fact that there are so many possibilities necessitates precision in definition, and, as mentioned above, a readiness for liberation from convenient dichotomous thinking.

The added value in this discussion is significant. Some of the options mentioned appear in the existing literature, usually in a narrower and more localized version. For example, the controversy about whether the sanctification of the month requires a Sanhedrin is well-known and has been amply discussed. But here it plays a role not in a “closed” two-sided investigation, but in an open inquiry: Who is “Israel” with regard to the sanctification of the moadim? The horizons of consideration and understanding have thus been greatly broadened.

As for the fundamental question, a distinction must be made between the law in practice and the law in principle; it is possible that in practice the mo’adim are determined by a court, but as representatives of the people. It must also be kept in mind that the process of establishing the mo’adim is complex and has stages that can be distinguished from one another – the deliberations, the final decision, and the actual sanctification. We may propose, for example, that in principle the decision is in the hands of the community, but the court acts on their behalf; regarding the actual sanctification, however, the court acts independently. The practical ramification is that the decision itself must be made in Eretz Yisrael (the place of the people of Israel as a national entity), whereas the actual sanctification can take place anywhere. The identity of the body that performs the actual sanctification is also a central question when it comes to exceptional situations in which human involvement is in doubt – for example, when the month is not sanctified at its appointed time, but is rather “sanctified by Heaven.” Is there still a role for the court in such a case? Rav Aharon demonstrates that this issue is subject to a dispute.

The proceeding discussion turns to the manner in which the calendar is determined in our times, in the absence of a Sanhedrin and authorized judges. Does this prove that in the end the human factor is dispensable? Once again, the answer depends upon differing opinions – whether the calendar in our day is determined in practice by the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael (Rambam), by an earlier decision made by R. Hillel II and his court (Ramban), or “in Heaven” (Ri Migash). The Ramban’s view is ostensibly the “conservative” one, as according to him, the mechanism for sanctifying the month remains in principle as it was throughout history, with one “slight” deviation – the matter was settled long in advance. Rav Aharon, however, with his penetrating observation, discerns a great difference between projective astronomical calculations and what took place during the time of the Temple. The latter was a direct sanctification of the current month in present time, whereas the court of Hillel established a calendar as a long-term directive, which dictates the mo’adim in advance based on how they fit the pre-determined framework. Thus, it turns out that, contrary to what we might have thought, the Ramban actually agrees with the Ri Migash, and not with the Rambam, that in our time the mo’adim become sanctified on their own, without any direct sanctification on the part of the court.

The volume under discussion is unique in its creative use of biblical verses. The window to this methodology was opened wide by the founder of the Brisker approach of Talmud study, who relied heavily on the idea of “gezeirat ha-katuv,” “Scriptural decree,” beyond what is generally found in the literature of the Acharonim. As a rule, this Brisker approach demonstrates sensitivity and precision with regard to the meaning arising both from the wording and from the context of the biblical text.

For example, we mentioned earlier that Rav Aharon distinguishes between two levels of human involvement in determining the calendar: establishing a system of dates, which can be done in advance, as opposed to immediate and direct sanctification. According to the Ramban, the calendar of R. Hillel II fulfills the first component, but it lacks the direct sanctification. R. Aharon identifies these two aspects in two different passages of the Torah. In Parashat Emor, we read: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord… which you shall proclaim in their appointed season.” This describes a “proclamation” of a calendar as a framework, which can be done on a comprehensive scale and even long in advance. In contrast, in Parashat Bo we read: “This month shall be to you the beginning of months” – the source for the sanctification of each month in its time based on a sighting of the new moon. Thus it may be suggested that in our time, according to the Ramban (as well as the Ri Migash), we fulfill the command in Emor, but we are unable to carry out what is stated in Bo. From this it may be concluded that this element is not indispensable. On the other hand, according to the Rambam, who maintains that even in our time, the sanctification of the appointed times is executed in a direct manner, we fulfill both elements – the proclamation and the sanctification.

Rav Aharon uses the same method in his comprehensive discussion of the sanctity of Shabbat and Yom Tov, with which the book opens. Here the recourse to biblical texts is more extensive and is consistently present in the discussion. This is already apparent at the beginning of the essay, which is devoted to an examination of the Torah passages dealing with Shabbat, to the distinctions between them, and to their halakhic ramifications.

Rav Aharon’s main argument is that the verses in the passage of “Ve-shamru Bnei Yisrael et ha-Shabbat” in Parashat Ki-Tisa constitute a change with respect to the discussions of Shabbat in Yitro and in Mishpatim. Parashat Ki-Tisa introduces the concept of desecrating the Shabbat, as well as the death penalty for that offense. Prior to these verses, the foundation of Shabbat lay in its being a reminder of the act of Creation, and this foundation gave rise to the melakhot as prohibited actions.

But in Parashat Ki-Tisa, the Torah presents Shabbat as a sign of the covenant and as a focus of the resting of the Shekhina, which is why these verses are found in the context of the commandment regarding the building of the Tabernacle. Only now does performing a forbidden action on Shabbat become its desecration – after it has been established that it has sanctity that is subject to desecration (just as the sanctity of the Temple is desecrated by the entry of something that is ritually impure). The liability for the death penalty is not for the performance of the prohibited labor itself, but for its consequence – the desecration of the sanctity.

Thus, there are “two dinim” regarding the sanctity of Shabbat, and the attribution of various details of the laws of Shabbat to one or the other aspect of the sanctity of the day has halakhic ramifications.

Rav Aharon further explains why the prohibited labor of kindling is mentioned separately in Parashat Vayakhel (on the assumption that there is no halakhic difference between it and any other prohibited labor, on the Tannaitic view that its specification is a mere illustration of separate culpability for each transgression of Shabbat law). Kindling is fundamentally a labor connected to food preparation, and such a labor is prohibited only because of the “covenant” aspect of Shabbat. Therefore, it could not have been prohibited before Parashat Ki-Tisa. Hence the difference in the definition of the sanctity of the day between Shabbat and Yom Tov.

We have presented here only a few fundamental ideas on which the author proceeds to expand and build entire edifices.

Much of the richness of Rav Aharon’s writings derives from his commitment to the truth. By virtue of this commitment, he avoids adherence to conventional ideas and often raises doubts about commonly accepted matters, and thus he entertains many varied possibilities. Some readers will be frustrated by the fact that so much is left in question. In their view, Torah novellae are measured according to their success in clarifying and proving from the sources the opposing sides of the various investigations – “there is no greater joy than the clarification of doubt.” However, from Rav Aharon’s point of view, the ability to maintain a conceptual space in which different possibilities are open is a source of satisfaction. According to the atmosphere of the book, successfully removing a threat to one of the options, thus “proving” that everything is still possible, is a source of relief. This tendency is expressed in phrases such as “it may be argued” or “it may be suggested.” The fact that these possibilities are not directly supported by the views of any of the Rishonim is not a reason to ignore them.

For example, according to the well-known position of the Rambam, the opinion that maintains that a gentile’s purchase of land in Eretz Yisrael cancels the sanctity of the land for the purpose of terumot and ma’asrot further argues that the exemption continues even if the land is bought back by a Jew. This is because the Jew’s purchase falls into the category of “the conquest of an individual,” as opposed to a national acquisition. Rav Aharon explains at length why this is not necessarily so, despite the ruling of the Rambam. It is possible that even according to the view that the gentile’s ownership cancels the sanctity, that sanctity returns when Jewish ownership of the land is restored.

First of all, the Rambam assumes that “the conquest of an individual” is a problem even in Eretz Yisrael itself, and not only in Syria, a matter that is subject to dispute. Second, it may be suggested that when all of Eretz Yisrael is in Jewish hands, the private purchase of a particular field joins the collective ownership and becomes part of the conquest of the community, despite the fact that the purchaser himself is interested only in his private ownership. It is further possible that even if the purchase is the conquest of an individual and it cannot sanctify the land directly, it is able to join the field to the part of Eretz Yisrael that is already holy, and thus is endowed with automatic sanctity. It is also possible that even if the gentile’s purchase of the land cancels its sanctity, it is not fully cancelled (as would be in a situation of destruction or of general foreign occupation), but is rather temporarily frozen, and it is therefore liable to reveal itself once again without another act of sanctification.

In a related matter, the author discusses the view of R. Chayim Brisker regarding the status of the laws relating to the sanctity of the land when the majority of the nation is not found in Eretz Yisrael. According to the Rambam, during the time of the Second Temple, there was no obligation to set aside terumot and ma’asrot, since there was no return of all (or most) of the people of Israel in the days of Ezra, “bi’at kulkhem.” R. Chayim explains that this deficiency is not an independent condition for obligation, but rather a deficiency in the sanctity of the land. In accordance with this understanding, he assumes that the criterion of “bi’at kulkhem” refers to the moment of the sanctification of the land (the time of Ezra’s arrival). If it fails at that point, the situation is irrevocable despite subsequent immigration.

Rav Aharon raises doubts about this in light of the Rambam’s statement, “The Scriptural commandment to separate teruma applies only in Eretz Yisrael and only when the entire Jewish People is located there,” which does not mention this limitation. Even according to R. Chayim’s fundamental assumption, Rav Aharon asks, why not consider the later joining of most of Israel to be a continuation of the conquest, despite the fact that they did not arrive in the days of Ezra? Rav Aharon then proposes a different understanding that undermines the position of R. Chayim.

It is possible that what was suggested above regarding gentile ownership is also true of gentile conquest. In other words, even at a time of destruction, the sanctity of the land is not totally cancelled, but only frozen. This is because the sanctity of the land stems from its designation as the inheritance of the people of Israel. When the people of Israel are not there, the sanctity exists in potential. The people of Israel’s realized possession of and control over the land actualizes this sanctity. It is therefore possible that what is referred to as an “act of sanctification” of Eretz Yisrael is in fact merely the fulfillment of a condition for revealing this sanctity in actuality.

Even if we do not accept this understanding concerning the sanctification of Ezra, it is possible to accept it with regard to the condition of “bi’at kulkhem.” And even if Ezra had to perform some formal act of sanctification, after him – and even in our time, when the second sanctification is still in force – we certainly do not need “bi’at kulkhem” as part of the act of sanctification, but, as stated, as a reality that actualizes the destiny of the land and reveals its full sanctity.

These musings and their like open many theoretical avenues regarding concepts of sanctification and the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael, as well as their application in practice.

What Is Sanctity

Thus far we have noted some of the scholarly qualities of the book, but attention must also be paid to its contents. Given that the book encompasses so many facets of the laws of sanctity, does it also have something important to say about the nature of sanctity in the eyes of Halakha?

The editors of the book have done us a service by appending an essay that addresses this question, and we will make use of it here to deal with the issue, however briefly. The chapters of this volume reveal a conception of sanctity that is not only multi-faceted in itself, but is the object and background for human activity that reciprocally alters its nature. The Torah does not view sanctity as a guest from another world that lands in the human-natural world and transforms its order. On the contrary, it is integrated into the life of the individual, who responds to it with reciprocity and creativity.

Sometimes a person will find himself reacting to the appearance of sanctity with a declaration and with recognition, this in order to receive and integrate it into his earthly life, but without creating a new dimension. On the other hand, a person often does add a new dimension to existing holiness, what Rav Aharon calls its human “stratum.” Another possibility is not to add a new dimension to sanctity, but to “deepen” the existing dimension. These two latter options are certainly distinct, and illustrate once again the author’s close attention to precise definition and classification.

Finally, of course, there are cases in which man’s activity is the primary source of sanctity – whether deliberately initiated or spontaneously generated. At the same time, on the negative side, we must examine the situations in which a person can cancel holiness, or desecrate and impair it without abolishing it altogether, and when existing sanctity is completely indifferent to human actions. The editors illustrate these various avenues using detailed examples from the book.

The pages of Kedushat Aviv faithfully reflect the image of the author, who invested his heart and soul in this work. The volume exemplifies his love of Torah and his passion for truth, and provides an inspiring model of personal creativity. These are the foundations of Rav Aharon’s heritage, now bequeathed to his disciples.



Ancient Jewish Poetry & the Amazing World of Piyut: Interview with Professor Shulamit Elizur

ANCIENT JEWISH POETRY & THE AMAZING WORLD OF PIYUT: Professor Shulamit Elizur explores the Cairo Genizah and other obscure places for hidden gems


BY BATSHEVA SASSOON


Just as the mountains surround Jerusalem, so G-d surrounds his people, from now to all eternity —Tehillim 125:2

This piece originally appeared in14 TISHREI 5778 // OCTOBER 4, 2017 // AMI MAGAZINE #337
Thanks to Ami for permission to publish this here.This version is updated with a few corrections and additions


Inside the Old City of Jerusalem one cannot see the mountains that surround it, only its many confining walls. Yet even for someone who has a phobia of confined places, as I do, this part of the Holy City is liberating. Many years ago, the great Jewish poet Rabbi Yehudah Halevi wrote longingly about Jerusalem, “I wish I could fly to you on the wings of an eagle, and mingle my tears with your dust.” Today, one can readily fly to Jerusalem, but to have a chance to explore its poetic and emotional underpinnings is a rare treat.


Professor Shulamit Elizur, whom I am visiting this morning in her book lined apartment, is not only one of the foremost experts in the world on piyut but she is also a talmidah chachamah and scholar, whose fear of sin precedes her wisdom.


“I was around 16 years old when I realized that if you want to learn something, it isn’t wise to try to absorb too much at one time,” she shares with me without a hint of pretension. “I decided to study the Mishneh Torah of the Rambam, so I learned one perek a day until I got to the end. I did the same thing with Nach, learning two perakim a day, and I’ve gone through the entire Shishah Sidrei Mishnah numerous times. The same applies to piyutim: If you divide them up and study them over time, you will eventually succeed in understanding all of them.”


She then asks me not to mention some of her other scholarly undertakings so that she doesn’t come across as if she were bragging. And she’s not; she is simply a brilliant scholar who loves to learn every spare minute, and the world has been tremendously enriched by that. As the head of the Fleischer Institute for the Study of Hebrew Poetry, a member of the Academy of the Hebrew Language and a member of the editorial board of the Mekitze Nirdamim publishing house, she has her hands full. But she still finds time to write books and study, as well as to talk to me this morning about her ongoing research. Indeed, her energy is laudable as she keeps on getting up to fetch one book after the other to prove a point.


GENIZAH


Anyone who is familiar with contemporary Israeli culture knows that there has been a revival of the singing of piyut. Jewish liturgical poems that were composed to be recited during tefillah are now being performed by Israel’s top singers in clubs and at concerts. But Shulamit Elizur insists that what she does has nothing to do with this trend.


“The modern performers are mainly interested in the piyutim that have tunes, and those that are printed in our siddurim. But I’m involved in doing research into the piyutim that were lost and haven’t been said in many years. My field is kitvei yad, primarily those that were found in the Cairo Genizah.”


I ask her if after all these years it’s still possible to find new things.


“We have an organization that takes all the fragments and deciphers them. For example, I found a fragment of a page and then much later I found another piece of the same page. It turns out that the page is part of a sefer written by Rabbeinu Saadyah Gaon against the Kara’im. We don’t have the entire book, but the two pieces I was able to put together are from a previously unknown part of that sefer, which was very exciting for me.”


“So it’s all about putting pieces together,” I state.


“Yes, although we do sometimes find complete pages as well. For example, I discovered a piyut for Tefillat Geshem on Shemini Atzeret that isn’t found in our siddurim and predates the great paytan Rabbi Elazar Hakalir, who lived in Eretz Yisrael close to the Muslim conquest. It is very unique and I published it in one of my articles.


“When we go through the Genizah, we examine each piece individually to try to understand what it is. We have a catalogue with over 160,000 entries. That doesn’t mean that there are that many piyutim, because if we find the same piyut five times it gets five separate entries. But there are tens of thousands of them, most of which are unknown, and we are constantly finding more. The next step is to upload them onto a website to make them accessible to the public, but right now we don’t have the funds to complete the project.


“We still have a few years of research left, because even though we’ve gone through every fragment found in the Genizah that was known to be a piyut, there are still many more that weren’t known to be parts of piyutim. In Cambridge, the Genizah was organized according to category: There are contracts, letters, parts of Tanach, Talmud and piyutim. My teacher, Ezra Fleischer, began the work of examining all the other categories for fragments that were previously unrecognized as piyutim, and the work is not yet finished. For example, when a contract was no longer needed, the other side of it could then be used to write piyutim, but it was still categorized as a contract. So we still need to find all of those fragments of lost piyutim and piece them together.”


“How many fragments are in the Genizah?”


“Tens of thousands, and sometimes there can be as many as 50 piyutim on a single one. This is a very large undertaking. Ezra Fleischer worked on it for 40 years, and before he passed away he asked me to continue his work.”


“So you’re his successor.”


“For this project, but I don’t claim to come close to his stature. He was unbelievably knowledgeable in piyut, nusach hatefillah, secular poetry and languages; he spoke more than ten.”


“Was he born in Eretz Yisrael?”


“No. That’s another story, which is really deserving of its own article. He was born and raised in Romania. His father was Yehuda Leib Fleischer, who did research on Rav Avraham ibn Ezra, which is why he named his son Avraham Ezra.


“As a bachur, Ezra was an activist for immigration to Eretz Yisrael, so he was arrested and put in jail under extremely dangerous conditions. He was kept in solitary confinement for a number of years, so during that time he composed a number of Hebrew songs and poems in his head. When he was finally freed, he wrote three books of songs and poems from memory.


“He also wrote a book against the Communists, which he was able to put into the hands of the Israeli ambassador, who sent it to Israel and had it printed under a pen name. It received such wide acclaim that he received the Israel Prize for it anonymously while he was still in Romania. But he couldn’t reveal to anyone that he was the author, because he knew that the Romanians would kill him if word got out.


“A year later he was allowed to go to Israel, where he became friends with my parents. I was five years old when I first met him. He told me that he had studied law in Romania because that was the only exam that wasn’t held on Shabbat. He actually hated law, but he had to study something in university so he chose that. Still, even after he graduated he couldn’t get a job in a prestigious law office, which would have necessitated working on Saturdays, so he became the official secretary of the kehillah under Rav Rosen. He really had unbelievable mesirat nefesh to keep Shabbat.”
ACADEMIA


“How did you become interested in the study of piyut?”


“When I went to university I wanted to study the Hebrew language. But because I was required to add another subject I decided to add Hebrew literature, which my mother taught. Then Professor Fleischer invited me to join his project and I loved it. I took several courses with him and became more and more interested. I finished my bachelor’s degree after only two years and had to decide what to do next.


“In the meantime I had gotten married, and I wanted to make sure that whichever professor I learned under would help me advance in my studies. I also had a choice between studying for a master’s and a more difficult program that would allow you to start working towards your doctorate after a year of study. By then I was expecting, and I realized that the harder program would actually be easier for me because it allowed for much more study to be done at home. The problem was that the language department didn’t want to work with me within the parameters of this program. Since I loved the piyutim, I decided to try to do my doctorate with Ezra Fleischer and he agreed. After the initial year of post-graduate study it took me another three and a half years to receive my doctorate. So the whole thing from undergraduate to PhD took six and a half years, which was also when I gave birth to my third child.”


“Did you find that you had a harder time as a woman in a man’s field?”


“There were never any problems because of that.”


“Are you the highest-ranking professor of piyut in Hebrew University?”


“Yes. There are professors emeritus, but I’m the only one left who is still teaching. Aaron Mirsky, who was related to me, and Ezra Fleischer have both passed away. Then there’s Yosef Yahalom, but he is now retired.”


“Aaron Mirsky internalized the language of the paytanim, but people don’t write like that anymore.”


“That’s true, and sometimes it wasn’t easy to understand him. I remember that my mother once won a prize and Aaron Mirsky was one of the judges who gave a speech. He used the word ‘shigush,’ and throughout the entire evening my aunt kept asking what it meant. I told her that it was an Aramaic word from the piyutim. Incidentally, having a knowledge of targum is also very helpful when trying to understand the piyutim. I make sure to learn shnayim mikra v’echad targum every week. My father taught me Targum Onkelos when I was a young girl, and I taught it to my children as well.”


“Are most of your doctoral students at the university secular?”


“No. Most of them are religious.”


“Do your secular students look at all of this as simply another subject, or does it bring them closer to Yiddishkeit?”


“I really don’t know. Sometimes it does bring them closer. I’ve had students who told me that they weren’t familiar with any Tanach, so I told them to study two perakim a day to catch up. But only one person actually took my advice. I remember that it really bothered me at the time that she was the only one, because she wasn’t Jewish, but in the end she became a giyoret kahalachah and is a shomeret mitzvot.”


“Do you face any difficulties as a woman in this field in the world at large?”


“It’s a bit more complicated. I never go anywhere I’m not wanted.


TORAH KNOWLEDGE


“You must really have a lot of Torah knowledge for all of this,” I tell her.


“I need to learn all the time, so I do.”


“There certainly aren’t many women in the world who know as much Torah as you do,” I insist.


“Baruch Hashem, there are many women who are very knowledgeable today, although they might not be familiar with piyutim. At the last Siyum HaShas, the organizers realized that a lot of people were bringing their wives along, so they decided to have a separate women’s program and asked me to speak. I talked about a mesorah that emerges from the piyutim that Hillel and Shammai were actually brothers, and I explained what it really means. The paytan says that just as the Torah was originally given to two brothers, Moshe and Aharon, so too was it later given to Hillel and Shammai, who were also brothers. Then I showed them how Hillel is a continuation of Aharon and Shammai is a continuation of Moshe, and I brought many mekorot showing how each one had his own direction and how the two of them coming together b’achvah is the epitome of the entire Torah.”


“Where did you find all of those sources? In midrashim?”


“Some of them are from the Midrash, but there are a lot in chasidut as well.”


“In order to understand piyutim a person would have to study them for many hours, but we usually say them too quickly to really understand them.”


“That’s true. That’s why they should be learned properly before Yom Tov. But you don’t have to learn everything in a single year. You can do it gradually. I apply the same principle to the kinot of Tishah B’Av; each year, two should be studied properly. While we’re on the subject, I’d like to share something very interesting. The first kinah we say in the morning is alphabetical in order, but it only starts from the letter samech. What happened to the previous letters? Well, if you look in the machzorim of Nusach Italia you’ll find that they recite a krovetz for each brachah of Shmoneh Esrei. The paragraphs are arranged alphabetically from alef through nun, but they end at Bonei Yerushalayim. That’s because the original place to say kinot was in the middle of the brachah of Bonei Yerushalayim during Shmoneh Esrei! They didn’t say as many kinot as we do, though; they’d recite a few piyutim of kinot and then a few piyutim of nechamot. Similarly, the original minhag in Ashkenaz for Selichot on a taanit was to say it during the brachah of Slach Lanu.


“Studying piyutim reveals minhagim that have been forgotten. For example, on Rosh Hashanah they would blow the shofar in the Beit HaVaad (where the Sanhedrin of Eretz Yisrael sat) even when it occurred on Shabbat. But how was it actually done? There’s a piyut, published by Ezra Fleischer in Tarbiz 54 (reprinted in a volume of his collected writings, Statutory Jewish Prayers) that describes how they would bring the shofar before Shabbat and tie it securely to an amud so that it couldn’t move at all. When it came time to blow the shofar, the baal tekiah would blow the shofar with his mouth without touching it so there would be no issue of carrying.”


“There are many other minhagim as well. In the foreword to every sefer I write, after I describe the literary points, I go into the tochen and the many lost midrashim and so on. I also write about lost minhagim, but what minhagim could I write about for Rosh Hashanah? However, as everyone knows, the way we often find things we’re looking for is through hesech hadaat. You just have to be aware that there’s a problem, because otherwise you might see it without understanding what you’re seeing.


“There’s a question that has bothered researchers for many years. In Masechet Megillah (30b) there is a machloket as to whether to read the parshat hashavua on the arba parshiyot and take out two sifrei Torah—as we do—or to take out only one sefer Torah and read just the special kriah for that week. The question is, according to the second opinion, how could they call up seven people to the Torah on Parshat Shekalim, for example? This question has been examined and much has been written about it.


“The researchers found kitvei yad that say that they simply read longer parshiyot for the arba parshiyot. For example, it says that according to that opinion they would read from Zachor until ba’eir heiteiv in the next parshah [Devarim 27:8]. It says that for Hachodesh they would also read more and Parah is long enough. However, it doesn’t say what they would do for Shekalim.


“A couple of years ago I found a piyut for Parshat Shekalim that I wanted to work on for something else. As I was working on the peirush, I began to wonder why it talks so much about the ketoret if it’s supposed to be about shekalim. Then I realized that it goes from the kiyor to the shemen hamishchah and the ketoret and concludes with ‘V’shamru Bnei Yisrael et haShabbat.’ So I suddenly realized that it must have been the kriah for Parshat Shekalim according to the second opinion—until V’shamru. This piyut was able to help me find a minhag without even searching for it.


“Similarly, the piyutim can give us a picture of what the nusach hatefillah was like. I wrote a paper saying that the nusach of Shmoneh Esrei used to have pesukim before the end of every brachah, just as there are pesukim before the end of birchot kriyat Shema. I proved this from the piyutim, although I was strongly criticized. Then I showed it to one of my former students who told me he’d heard something similar from a researcher who had found a Christian prayer in Greek from the fourth century that was based entirely on Shmoneh Esrei and also had pesukim at the end of each brachah. Another researcher subsequently found a papyrus from that era that also showed one of the brachot with pesukim. There are researchers who still disagree, but I feel that there are now three proofs for this idea.


“I also wrote a sefer called Piyutei Pinchas Hakohen. Pinchas Hakohen was a rosh yeshivah and paytan in Eretz Yisrael during the eighth century. There are many minhagim that can be found in his piyutim as well. He has many beautiful piyutim for Rosh Chodesh, one nicer than the next. However, he also has piyutei kiddush yerachim that are very difficult. In that group, there is a kiddush for each month. But when would kiddush be said on Rosh Chodesh?


“In Masechet Sofrim [19:7] it says that the zekeinim and the talmidim would make a seudah on the night of lamed and after Birkat Hamazon they would pour a cup of wine, say the brachah of Hagafen, and then they would say a brachah that concluded with Baruch atah Hashem, mekadeish Yisrael v’roshei chodashim. So he composed a special nusach of kiddush to be said each month with that brachah. In Masechet Sofrim it says that this wasn’t a regular kiddush but a special praise of Hashem, which had to include something about the tuvei ha’ir, the shevatim, the months of the year and the mazalot.


“You can see in his piyutim that each month contained something about its mazal, the corresponding sheivet, its stone in the Choshen and so on. He goes through it in alphabetical order, and in each month when he reaches the letter tzaddik he discusses the tzom, the fast that occurred in that month. They had a list of fasts that were observed in commemoration of whatever took place in that month. I did some research and eventually found the list in a kinah for Tishah B’Av written by Rabbi Elazar Hakalir. Then I started looking through kitvei yad and found a lot of them describing these fasts. I ultimately wrote a whole book on these fasts, because there are a number of different versions, including one that’s quoted in Shulchan Aruch [Orach Chayim 580:2]. I even gave a full seminar on this topic. One of my students told me she expected it to be boring, but in the end it was the most interesting one she’d ever taken!


“Not everyone observed those fasts; only the talmidei chachamim fasted. Eventually it turned into a list of yahrtzeits of tzaddikim that grew longer and longer, because once they weren’t fasting anyway it didn’t really matter how long the list was. But the original list was quite short. This was something I only found out about thanks to the piyutim of Pinchas Hakohen. I’ve also learned a lot of other interesting things, including some gezeirot the Jews suffered from in those days. The first part of the sefer on the fasts is just texts with philological explanations. The second part is a discussion of all the fasts.


“Are they all yahrtzeits?”


“Most of them are, but some of them commemorate other events that took place. For example, the fast of 8 Teves is observed to commemorate the writing of the Torah in Greek, which is mentioned in Shulchan Aruch.


“Incidentally, I wrote a sefer for the bar mitzvah of each of my sons—although not for my grandsons, because that would be too much for me, ka”h! One son’s bar mitzvah was on Parshat Hachodesh so I wrote about the piyutim of the arba parshiyot. Another one was in Parshiyot Acharei Mot-Kedoshim, so I wrote about a paytan who wrote a lot for Acharei Mot and Yom Kippur.”


ANCIENT HISTORY


“How far do the piyutim go back?” I inquire.


“We have some that go back to the fifth century and maybe a bit earlier, but probably not much earlier than that. The sixth century has quite a lot of piyutim, and by the tenth century we find an explosion, to the extent that every small community had its own piyutim. They were very important to each kehillah. Think about what happens now during chazarat hashatz. People don’t listen with the proper kavanah, and it’s only natural because the chazan is simply repeating what everyone just finished saying. But if the tzibbur expected to hear a new piyut, it would cause everyone to concentrate much better. In those days they didn’t simply repeat the piyutim of the previous year; every year they came up with something new. Just for Shachris of Shavuot we have six piyutim that were written by Rabbi Elazar Hakalir to be said before Kedushah. One of those reached Ashkenaz, but the Genizah has more.”


“Many cultures have been built on the oral transmission of tradition through song. Is that something that existed in our history as well?”


“The paytanim originally knew their songs b’al peh, because as the Gemara says [Shabbos 115b], ‘Kotvei brachot k’sorfei Torah,’ those who write the brachot of Shmoneh Esrei are considered to have burned the Torah [because they are not allowed to be saved if there is a fire on Shabbos]. And the piyutim were actually said within chazarat hashatz instead of the nusach of the middle of the brachot and then they concluded with the matbei’a of the brachah.


“We know this because some piyutim are meshorsharim, linked together by beginning each one with the last word of the previous piyut, which means that nothing was said between the ending of the brachah and the beginning of the next piyut. Additionally, we see that the piyutim mentioned tal and geshem, depending on the time of the year, because that was the only way to mention them. They also said all of the piyutim by heart, which is why they are usually arranged alphabetically to make them easier to remember.


“As we know, it was forbidden to have written siddurim in those days. They only started writing them down much later. If they were written down, it was usually done in secret. But of course, if they hadn’t been written down at all we would never know about them, so they were at least sometimes written down, but the typical person didn’t have one. We have a letter from a chazan to a friend asking him to send him piyutim before the chagim, and to do so quickly, so he would have enough time to learn them by heart.”


“Why did they have to be recited from memory?”


“It’s a matter of kavod not to read words that are meant to be coming from the heart from a piece of a paper. To use a modern example, until the last 20 years or so it was accepted that the President of the United States doesn’t give a speech by reading from a paper. The same applies to a chazan.


“I have a student who is blind. He just sits and listens to my courses, and he’s one of my top students. He knows a lot of midrashim b’al peh. I’ll read a piyut, and he’ll interrupt every couple of words and point out which midrash it’s referring to. He’s used to knowing everything b’al peh, and the same was true for everyone when these piyutim were written. This only changed in the middle of the Geonic period.


“In those days everyone was trained to remember everything. Today, with computers, it’s only getting worse. Everyone relies on the computer and on Bar Ilan’s Responsa Project. The worst part is that without remembering, we don’t even know what to search for. That’s why it’s still so important to commit things to memory. Children used to know the entire Tanach b’al peh before they even began to learn mishnayos, and then they learned that by heart as well.”


CHAZANIM


“What do you think was the point of the piyutim?”


“To sing beautiful praises of Hashem, although they were also educational.”


“Did they have special melodies?”


“Not exactly songs with actual notes, but they had tunes in the same way that when we daven or learn Gemara there are certain tunes to the words; we don’t just say them. For example, my grandfather would work in the orchards all day long, come home, open a Gemara and chant the words in his special tune. He would also pay his workers to take a break to learn Torah, so anyone who loved to learn wanted to work for him! We don’t really know the melody to which piyutim were chanted, but there was definitely a tune.”


“Did any women write piyutim?”


“No, because the paytan had to be the shliach tzibbur, which obviously precludes women.”


“Rabbi Elazar Hakalir was a shliach tzibbur?”


“Yes, he and the great early paytan Yanai even sometimes signed their works with the word ‘chazan.’ They wrote their piyutim for themselves. When they stood at the amud, the tzibor had no idea what they would say before they heard it.”


“The piyutim of Rabbi Elazar Hakalir are very similar to those of the German Rishonim.”


“That’s because the Germans copied his style. A number of his piyutim made their way from Eretz Yisrael to Italy and from there to Germany, where they imitated him.”


“It takes a real talmid chacham to be able to understand the depth hinted at in his piyutim.”


“That’s true. I am working right now on his piyutim, so I can show you some. There’s a book I published together with Dr. Michael Rand. I wrote the peirush and he examined the kitvei yad. The book consists only of piyutim written by Rabbi Elazar Hakalir for Rosh Hashanah. It was very difficult, because it requires careful examination of all of the midrashim to be able to understand what he’s saying. Interestingly, there are very few piyutim said today that don’t have additional parts that are no longer recited.”


“In other words, they were abbreviated?”


“Yes, in later generations. For example, Ta’ir V’taria, which is said during Shachris of Rosh Hashanah, is just the refrain of a lengthy piyut that is no longer said. Another example is Melech zechor achuz keren. You can see what a great poet the author was, as in those four words he was able to mention malchiyut, zichronot and shofarot, as well as the remembrance of Akeidat Yitzchak. After that we say Melech Elyon, which we can see was censored because each line originally had a corresponding line about the melech evyon—the poor king of flesh and blood—of which we now only say two lines at the end. However, if we look at the kitvei yad we find that there was an additional piyut before Melech Elyon, which apparently was never brought to Germany and isn’t said by any community in the world to our knowledge.”


“I would imagine that if we were to say all of Rabbi Elazar Hakalir’s piyutim for Rosh Hashanah it would probably take us an entire week.”


“Or it could take us an entire year to choose which piyutim we wanted to say in a particular year! He didn’t say everything he’d ever written each year; he apparently alternated.”


LOST MIDRASHIM


“There’s another amazing thing I find when doing research. I am constantly coming across midrashim that were lost to the ages. Sometimes I’ll only find the source years later. For example, there’s a piyut that says that the moon disappears on Rosh Hashanah so that we should not be reproved in judgment. What does that mean? I looked and looked but could not find any such midrash. Eventually I found that Machzor Vitry and others write that Hashem established Rosh Hashanah on Rosh Chodesh so that when the Satan will try to prosecute the Jews by saying they sinned, Hashem will tell him to bring witnesses. The Satan then says, ‘Who should I bring? I can’t bring the sun and the moon, because the moon is in hiding and the sun can’t testify on its own.’ When the Satan comes back on Yom Kippur, Hashem tells him that it’s too late because Bnei Yisrael already did teshuvah. Here we see a source for it in 11th-century Germany, but Rabbi Elazar Hakalir lived in the seventh century. Another paytan, Yannai, who lived in the sixth century, also mentions this idea in a piyut. So without these piyutim we would have thought it was a chiddush of rabbanei Tzarfas, but now we know that it probably originated in a lost midrash.


“Another interesting example: Everyone knows that Haman was referred to as ‘the Agagi’ because Shaul allowed Agag to live one extra night, which allowed Haman’s ancestor to be born. However, the earliest makor we find in writing in the 16th century; this fact was discovered by Rav Shmuel Ashkenazi of Yerushalayim. But I found a ktav yad of a piyut about Purim that describes this very story and explains how Haman’s ancestor was born, which gives us a source from 1,000 years earlier! And there are many similar examples of lost midrashim being kept alive through unknown piyutim.”


“Is it possible that the later chachamim wrote things based on these lost piyutim?”


“That’s very unlikely, because these kitvei yad were never disseminated. But what these piyutim prove is that there was a mesorah that people knew about and may have even been set down in midrashim that were subsequently lost, and the later chachamim who did write about them were familiar with the original mesorah.”


“Do you give shiurim on the meanings of the piyutim?”


“Only in the university, although tonight there will be an event in preparation for Rosh Hashanah where I will be speaking about Unetaneh Tokef.”


“Let’s talk about Unetaneh Tokef for a moment.”


“Everyone knows the story of Rabbeinu Amnon and his mesirat nefesh that led to his writing this piyut. Everyone also knows that he lived in the city of Mainz, Germany, which means that he had to have lived towards the end of the tenth century, because we don’t find any piyutim from that region before that time.”


“He is also a personality about whom we know almost nothing.”


“Exactly. We don’t know anything about him except this story. However, we found Unetaneh Tokef in the Genizah near a collection of piyutim by Yannai. We even began to think that maybe Unetaneh Tokef was written by Yannai, which I still think is true, but at the very least it seems to have come from the era of Yannai. Other researchers argued and said that because of its length and the lack of rhymes and verses it was really from Ashkenaz. Then we found incontrovertible proof that it did not originate in Ashkenaz: a very long piyut from Rabbi Elazar Hakalir to be said right before Kedushah of Musaf that takes the words of Unetaneh Tokef and enlarges upon each line. This clearly shows that while he was not the composer of Unetaneh Tokef, he was familiar with it and it was significant enough in his lifetime that he felt it worthy of being adapted and enlarged upon.”


ELIZUR’S WRITINGS


“I see that you enjoy the piyutim of Rabbi Elazar Hakalir very much, but it would seem that most people appreciate Rabbi Yehudah Halevi more because his style is easier to understand.”


“We’ve found new things from Rabbi Yehudah Halevi as well. Incidentally, not everything he wrote is so easy to understand. Everyone knows Tziyon Halo Tishali, which is easy to understand, particularly in contrast with Rabbi Elazar Hakalir. But many of his piyutim also require study.


“I wrote an article a number of years ago about the piyutim that were written to be said before Kedushah. With all those references to hidden midrashim, they could not have been intended for just anyone sitting in a beit knesset. As I tell my students, ‘You’re all sitting in front of me right now, but when it comes to the test, some of you will get 100% while others might only get 70%.’ The paytanim understood this as well, so in the beginning of those piyutim you’ll find the references hinted at very obliquely. Then, as the piyut continues, those remazim will be fleshed out a bit more, and by the time you get to the end there are concepts that can be understood by anyone. In this way, more and more people can feel a connection.”


“Are all of your books on piyut?”


“Yes.”


“But your sefer on the parshah, Shirah Shel Parashah, is something that is accessible to everyone, not just scholars.”


“Absolutely. I wrote another book like that on secular poetry from Spain.”


“How long did it take you to write the sefer on the arba parshiyot for your son’s bar mitzvah?”


“A couple of months. I work very quickly.”


“Which sefer do you consider your biggest accomplishment— your magnum opus?”


“The one I’m in the middle of writing right now. It’s a sefer on the history of the kedushta, which are the piyutim composed to be recited right before Kedushah. There are many chiddushim in that sefer and also things about Rabbi Elazar Hakalir that I discovered.”


“From examining his kisvei yad?”


“We don’t have any kitvei yad from him personally. He passed away in the middle of the seventh century, and the earliest kitvei yad we have are from the ninth century. However, I was able to figure these things out from the style and verses of his piyutim. It’s very complicated; I’ve been working on this for decades.


“Which ones are nicer? The ones he wrote when he was younger, or the ones he wrote when he was older?”


“Although the two styles are very different, they are both very nice, and I wouldn’t say that one is nicer than the other. In between there was a time when his style was very complicated, and I don’t really appreciate it, but I like to say that he was engaged in developing his later style. His later style is much easier to understand and is very lyrical. He wrote piyutim for chatanim and for the seven weeks of nechamah after Tishah B’Av. I wrote a sefer on those. I’m currently working on Rabbi Elazar Hakalir’s piyutim for Yom Kippur, and I daven that Hashem should give me the koach to finish it.”


BACKGROUND


“Was your father a learned person?”


“Yes. He was a talmid chacham who had studied in Yeshivas Chevron as a bachur, but after that he learned entirely on his own.”


“What was his name?”


“Meir Chovav. My grandfather, father and uncle were all very interested in piyut and zemirot. They had special tunes for all of the zemirot of Motza’ei Shabbat. I don’t know many people who sing all of the zemirot in the siddur, but my grandfather did. When I got married I asked my mother to teach me all of her father’s tunes so I’d be able to pass them onto the next generation, and now all of my children know them as well.”


“I’ve heard of your father. He wrote many sefarim.”


“Right, and he was also an editor. He taught me piyutim as soon as I started to read. He davened in Yeshivat Eitz Chaim and I used to sit next to him as a young girl. They would say the piyutim for the Arba Parshiyot after davening rather than during chazarat hashatz. As they said them, my father would show me the words and explain them to me. My mother was also a teacher of literature and she wrote her master’s thesis on the Selichot of Rabbi Shimon ben Rabbi Yitzchak. So I grew up in a home where piyutim were of the utmost importance. My father had a theory in chinuch that the world needs to hear: When you tell children that if they learn you’ll give them candies, you’re teaching them that the goal is the candies, and that Torah is something that needs to be paid for and isn’t good on its own. My father’s approach was the exact opposite. If you do something correctly, I will stay and learn Torah with you. If you are dressed and ready to go to school early, you can come to my room and I will learn with you. This taught us that Torah itself was the reward. I did the same thing with my children and I’ve seen amazing results.


“Last week we went on vacation up north. When we arrived at the hotel, there was a beit knesset there. Whoever hadn’t davened Minchah yet went and davened, and then they needed a minyan for Maariv, so they waited for a minyan. Our family has seven men over bar mitzvah between our children and grandchildren, so they only had to wait for three more people. In the meantime, I walked in to see what was happening and found my son-in-law learning with a group of children and teaching them the story of tanur shel Achna’i [Bava Metzia 59a]. One of my sons was sitting and learning Gemara with his ten-year-old son. Two grandchildren—cousins—were learning Gemara; everyone was learning. They all know that whenever there’s free time it’s for the purpose of learning. I felt so fortunate. This was exactly my father’s shitah in chinuch. Whenever I see things like this it makes me really happy. Seeing the grandchildren laughing and playing during the vacation was very nice, but seeing them learning like that was so much better.”


“I’m sure the fact that they have a mother like you also helps.”


“And it’s not just my sons; my daughter is also very learned. She is now finishing her doctorate on how to teach family purity in today’s day and age.”


“How many children do you have?”


“I have four, baruch Hashem; one daughter and three sons. My daughter and her 17-year-old daughter daven in the beit knesset three times a day, sitting bitzniut in the ezrat nashim.”


“How long have you been living here in the Old City?”


“Forty-one years.”


“This is a very nice house. Are all the homes here similar?” “Each one is different. No two are the same.”


“Are there any problems with the Arabs in the neighborhood?”


“Almost none.”


“Do people who live here go to the Kotel every day?”


“Some do. There were years when I went every day, but I want to be able to daven properly with a minyan and that’s very difficult to do from the ezrat nashim of the Kotel, so I go to the Churva. I’ve been davening there every day since they renovated it. There are many women in the neighborhood who daven with a minyan every day and even three times a day. Between the Kotel and the Churva, it’s very easy. My husband goes to the Kotel because on the men’s side it’s much easier to daven.”


“What does your husband do?”


“He works at the Academy for the Hebrew Language. They are working on a historical dictionary of the Hebrew language. They have a collection of every word used by Chazal, all of the midrashim, all of the piyutim, megillot genuzot and more. They want to upload as many texts as possible into the computer and then analyze where and how many times every single word can be found. What’s unique is that they don’t just put up every word on the website; they dissect them. So, for example, as I’m working and come across a certain word, I can search for it and see every context in which it is used. They check each text according to the most accurate kitvei yad and give an explanation for every word. This is my husband’s biggest project. They also publish sefarim of the kitvei yad from time to time. For example, they printed the Talmud Yerushalmi from the only full ktav yad in existence. If there are mistakes in the ktav yad they point them out. Right now my husband is working on an index that explains each mistake; he’s constantly working on the Yerushalmi.”


“Was your husband also born in Yerushalayim?”


“Yes. His mother was a Holocaust survivor and his father was a survivor of the Chevron massacre; he was learning in Yeshivat Chevron at the time. My husband was their only son.”


“And now, to sum things up…”

“What can I really say in summary? I thank Hashem for ‘placing my portion among those who sit in the beit midrash,’ and for giving me the ability to teach and explain piyutim. I daven that Hashem should give me the koach to continue with my work.”



A Source for Rav Kook’s Orot Hateshuva Chapters 1 – 3

A Source for Rav Kook’s Orot Hateshuva
Chapters 1 – 3

By
Chaim Katz, Montreal
Rav Kook begins the
first chapter of his Orot Hateshuva [1] as follows:
We
find three categories of repentance: 1) natural repentance 2) faithful repentance
3) intellectual repentance.
את התשובה אנו מוצאים
בשלש מערכות: א) תשובה טבעית, ב) תשובה אמונית, ג) תשובה שכלית
He defines natural repentance:
(תשובה טבעית) הגופנית סובבת את כל העבירות נגד חוקי הטבע, המוסר והתורה, המקושרים עם חוקי
הטבע. שסוף כל הנהגה רעה הוא להביא מחלות ומכאובים . . . ואחרי הבירור שמתברר אצלו הדבר, שהוא בעצמו בהנהגתו הרעה אשם הוא בכל אותו דלדול החיים שבא לו, הרי הוא שם לב לתקן את המצב
The
natural physical repentance revolves around all sins against the laws of nature
ethics and Torah that are connected to the laws of nature. All misdeeds lead to
illness and pain . . . but after the clarification, when he clearly recognizes that
he alone through his own harmful behavior is responsible for the sickness he
feels, he turns his attention toward rectifying the problem.
Rav
Kook is describing a repentance that stems from a feeling of physical weakness
or illness. He also includes repentance of sins against natural ethics and
natural aspects of the Torah. A sin of ethics might be similar to the חסיד שוטה, who takes his devoutness to foolish
extremes (Sotah 20a). A sin in Torah might be one who fasts although he is
unable to handle fasting (Taanit 11b דלא מצי לצעורי נפשיה) [2].
R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, in his
collection of sermons Likutei Torah [3], also recognizes three types of
repentance. Homiletically, he finds the three types in Ps. 34, 15.
סור מרע, ועשה
טוב, בקש שלום ורדפהו.
He also relates the
types
to three names of G-d that appear in the text of the berachos that we
say:
 ברוך
אתה ד’ אלוקינו  
According
to R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the first level of repentance relates to the Divine
name Elokim (In Hassidic thought, repentance (teshuva or return) is
taken literally as ‘returning to G-d’, not only as repentance from sin.) The mystics
of the 16th century connected the name Elokim to nature.
אלוקים בגימטריא הטבע
The word Elokim is numerically equivalent to the word for nature (hateva).
[4]
In the sermon, Elokim
is also related to ממלא כל עלמין, the immanence of G-d, which may have
something to do with the laws of nature.
R. Kook describes the second level of repentance as
follows:
אחרי התשובה הטבעית
באה האמונית, היא החיה בעולם
ממקור המסורת והדת
After the natural repentance comes a repentance based on faith. It subsists
in the world from a source of tradition and religion.
R. Shneur Zelman
of Liadi describes the second type of repentance as a return to the Divine
name Hashem, the Tetragrammaton. This
name signifies the transcendence of G-d, the name associated with the highest
degree of revelation, the name of G-d that was revealed at Sinai and that is
associated with the giving of the Torah.
Rav Kook’s third
level of repentance:
התשובה השכלית היא . . . הכרה ברורה, הבאה מהשקפת העולם
והחיים השלמה . . . היא מלאה כבר אור אין קץ
The
intellectual repentance . . . is a clear recognition that comes from an encompassing
world and life view. . . . It is a level filled with infinite light.
R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi describes the third level of as a return through
Torah study to the level of the Or En Sof, the infinite self-revelation
of G-d. It is a return to אתה
to Thou.
In
summary, R. Shneur Zalman discusses three types of teshuva, (although the
sources only speak about two types: תשובה מיראה , תשובה מאהבהYoma 86b). These three teshuva
categories form a progression. Rav Kook also speaks of a threefold progression:
a return based on nature, a return based on faith, and a return based on
intellect. [5]
R. Kook did study Likutei Torah. This is documented in a book called Mazkir HaRav
by R. Shimon Glicenstein (published in 1973) [6]. R. Glicenstein was Rav Kook’s
personal secretary during the years of the First World War, when Rav Kook
served as a Rabbi in London.
On page 10, R. Glicenstein writes:
One time on the eve of the holiday of Shavuot, I entered
the Rav’s room and I found him running back and forth like a young man. He was
holding Likutei Torah (the section on the Song of Songs) of the Alter
Rebbe (the Rav of Liadi) in his hand. With sublime ecstasy and great emotion, he
repeated a number of times: “Look, open Divine Inspiration springs out of each
and every line of these Hassidic essays and exegeses”.
מכל שורה ושורה שבמאמרי
ודרושי חסידות אלה מבצבץ רוח הקדש גלוי’
bcb
The second chapter of Orot Hatshuva is titled Sudden
Repentance and Gradual Repentance. The chapter consists of three short
paragraphs: the first describes the sudden teshuva as a sort of spiritual flare
that spontaneously shines its light on the soul. The second paragraph explains gradual
teshuva is terms of a constant effort to plod forward and improve oneself without
the benefit of spiritual inspiration.  
These ideas also find a parallel in the Likutei
Torah
[7]. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi discusses
two levels of Divine service (not two levels of repentance). In one a spontaneous
spiritual arousal comes from above (itaruta de le-eyla) initiated by G-d as a
Divine kindness, without any preparation on man’s part. In the other (itaruta
de le-tata) man serves G-d with great exertion and effort, taming and refining his
own animal nature, without the benefit of any Divine encouragement.
Rav Kook’s third paragraph is difficult to understand.
Rav Kook begins by describing again the sudden repentance:
התשובה העליונה  באה מהברקה של הטוב הכללי של הטוב האלהי השורה בעולמות כולם
The sublime teshuva is a result of a flash of the general
good of the G-dly good, which permeates all worlds.
The paragraph then continues on a seemingly different
track.
והיושר והטוב שבנו
הלא הוא בא מהתאמתנו אל הכל, ואיך אפשר להיות קרוע מן הכל,
פרור משונה, מופרד כאבק דק שכלא חשב.
ומתוך הכרה זו, שהיא הכרה אלהית באמת,
באה תשובה מאהבה בחיי הפרט
ובחיי הכלל
The rightness and goodness within us, does it not come
from our symmetry with the whole. How can we be torn from the whole, like an
odd crumb, like insignificant specs of dust?
From this recognition, which is truthfully a G-dly
recognition, comes repentance from love in both the life of the individual and
the life of the society.
I have a feeling that this paragraph is also related to
something in Likutei Torah. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (in the sermon just mentioned)
relates that people complain to him because they feel a spirit of holiness that
arouses them to emotional prayer for a only a short duration of time (sometimes
for a few weeks). Afterwards the inspiration ceases completely and it’s as if
it never existed. He responds, that they should take advantage of those periods
of inspiration when they occur, not just to enjoy the pleasure of prayer, but
also to change their behavior and character for the better. The state of inspiration
will then return.
I
think Rav Kook, in his own way is dealing with the same issue. Obviously, the
goal is the sudden, inspired teshuvah, but how do we get there? How do we take
the exalted periods of awareness and inspiration and regulate them, so that
they are more deliberate, intentional and continuous. I can’t say I understand
the answer, but I think Rav Kook is saying that if we recognize that we are
part of the “whole” and not separate then we will get there.
bcb
In the third
chapter, Rav Kook, distinguishes between a detailed teshuva relating to
specific individual sins and a broad general teshuva related to no sin in particular.
He writes (in the second paragraph):
וישנה עוד הרגשת תשובה
סתמית כללית. אין חטא או חטאים של עבר עולים על לבו, אבל ככלל הוא מרגיש בקרבו שהוא
מדוכא מאד, שהוא מלא עון, שאין אור ד’ מאיר עליו, אין רוח נדיבה בקרבו, לבו אטום
There is another repentance emotion, which is broad and general. The person
is not conscious of any past sin or sins, but overall he feels crushed. He
feels that he’s full of sin. The G-dly light doesn’t enlighten him, he is not
awake; his heart is shut tight. 
The concept of a
teshuva that is independent of sin is also found in Likutei Torah:
התשובה אינה דוקא
במי שיש בידו עבירות ח”ו אלא אפילו בכל אדם, כי תשובה הוא להשיב את נפשו שירדה מטה מטה ונתלבשה בדברים גשמיים אל מקורה ושרשה
Repentance isn’t
only for those who have sinned (may it not happen), but it’s for everyone.
Teshuva is the return of the soul to its source and root, because the soul has
descended terribly low, and focuses itself on materialistic goals. [8]
R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi also discusses
the same symptoms as Rav Kook.
בזמן הבית הי’ הקב”ה
עמנו פנים אל פנים בלי שום מסך מבדיל   . . .
משא”כ עכשיו בגלות
מחיצה של ברזל מפסקת ונק’ חולת אהבה שנחלשו חושי אהבה ואומר על מר מתוק
When
the temple stood, when the Holy One blessed is He was with us face to face
without any concealment . . . However now in exile there’s an iron partition
that separates us. We are lovesick, meaning our love is weak. We don’t
distinguish bitter from sweet. 
כעת בגלות מחמת כי הלב
מטומטמת אין המח שליט עלי’ כ”כ
כי
עבירה מטמטמת לבו שלאדם ונקרא לב האבן
Now
in exile because the heart is shut down, the mind hardly can arouse it. Sin has
shut down the heart and it’s called a heart of stone. [9]
bcb
The
organization of the first three chapters of Orot Hateshuva, presents another
sort of problem: How are the types of teshuva in the three chapters related? Is
the intellectual teshuva of chapter one different from the sudden teshuva of
chapter two and different from the general teshuva of chapter three?
I suggest that
the arrangement of the three chapters follows the categories
of עולם שנה ונפש,
(which are found in Sefer Yetzirah). The first chapter examines natural return,
faithful and intellectual return. These are connected to נפש – one’s personality and understanding. The
second chapter deals with repentance and its relationship to time (שנה). Repentance
is either sudden or gradual. The third chapter speaks about a
return motivated by a specific sin or motivated by a general malaise. This can
possibly be associated with space/location (עולם); the world (or the specific sin) is
located somewhere outside of the person and motivates the person to return. Explanations based on the three dimensions of עולם שנה ונפש occur in a number of places in Likutei
Torah.
[10]

[1]
here, and here
[2]
I saw these two examples in Rav Kook’s Ein AY”H, (here).
In
the following paragraph, Rav Kook speaks about a natural spiritual, repentance
––pangs of remorse (if the sinner is an otherwise upright individual) that
motivate the sinner to perform teshuva.
[3] Likutei Torah Parshat Balak 73a. The sermon begins with the words מה טובו. There are
(shorter) versions of the sermon published in other collections. (here)
[4]
Quoted also in the second part of Tanya, (Shaar Hayichud Vhaemunah)
beginning of chapter 6. The statement is usually attributed to R. Moshe
Cordovero, (Pardes Rimonim)
[5] Possibly both R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi and R. Kook
relied on an earlier source that I’m unaware of. Maybe R. Kook and R. Shneur Zalman arrived at a similar
understanding independently.
[6] R. Tzvi Yehudah Kook wrote the introduction to the book. From the introduction,
it looks like R. Glicenstein had given R. Tzvi Yehudah his essays and notes so
that they could be published. (here)
[7] Parshat Vayikra
page 2b, on the words אדם
כי יקריב מכם (here).
[8] Shabbat Shuva page
66c and Balak page 75b.
[9] Parshat Re’eh page 26a, Shir ha Shirim   page 36a.
[10] Parshat Hukat
page 64d. Obviously, I don’t think that Rav Kook’s use of olam, shana, nefesh, (if
he’s in fact using that breakdown) comes specifically from Likutei Torah.
 



The Babylonian Geonim’s Attitude to the Talmudic Text

The Attitude of the Babylonian Geonim to the
Talmudic text
By Dr. Uzy Fuchs
A few weeks ago
we mentioned here
that the Seventeenth World Congress
of Jewish Studies
took
place at the Mount Scopus Campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Over the next few months we will be
posting written transcriptions of some of the various presentations
(we hope to receive additional ones).
The first in this series is from Dr. Uzy Fuchs dealing with the
Babylonian Geonim’s attitude to the Talmudic text, the subject of his recently
released excellent book.  To purchase
this work contact me at
Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com. Part of
the proceeds will be used to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.
Here is the cover:
יחסם של גאוני בבל לטקסט התלמודי
הרצאה בקונגרס השבע-עשרה למדעי היהדות, ירושלים, אב
תשע”ז
מאת: עוזיאל פוקס
(קטעים מתוך המצגת משולבים בתוך לשון ההרצאה)
שאלת
יחסם של גאוני בבל לעניינים טקסטואליים במשנה ובתלמוד הבבלי היא שאלה רחבה
ומורכבת, מכיוון שמדובר על תקופה של למעלה משלוש מאות שנה, שפעלו בה חכמים שונים
בכמה מרכזים.
אפתח
בכמה נתונים מספריים שיאפשרו לנו למקד את הדיון.
בידינו
השתמרו בערך 260 התייחסויות של הגאונים לעניינים טקסטואליים במשנה ובתלמוד. חלקם
ארוכים ומפורטים וחלקם כוללים הערה קצרה; מהם שהגיעו בשלימות ומהם מקוטעים וקשים
לפיענוח; הרבה מהם נכתבו כמענה לשאלות טקסטואליות אך לא מעט נכתבו ביוזמתם של
הגאונים עצמם.
בנקודה
אחת הממצאים חד משמעיים – המקום המרכזי של רש”ג ורה”ג בתחום הטקסטואלי.
מניתוח
של המקורות שבהם רב שרירא גאון ורב האיי גאון עסקו בעניינים טקסטואליים אנו למדים
על המניעים שלהם לעסוק בגרסאות התלמוד. הרבה מהם נכתבו כתשובות לשואלים, בין
בעניינים טקסטואליים ובין בתשובות הלכתיות ופרשניות. באופן מיוחד מעניינות אותן
התשובות שבהן העניין הטקסטואלי הוא שולי, ואין הוא חיוני כלל ועיקר כדי לענות
לשאלה שנשאלו הגאונים, ואף על פי כן טרחו הגאונים להוסיף הערה ארוכה או קצרה
בעניין גרסאות התלמוד.
חשיבות
מיוחדת יש לכמה עשרות דיונים טקסטואליים שנכתבו בחיבורי הגאונים ולא בתשובותיהם.
במיוחד
מעניין פירושי רב האי גאון למסכתות ברכות ושבת, שבשרידים הלא רבים שהגיעו אלינו יש
עשרים וארבעה דיונים טקסטואליים. חלקם ארוכים, מורכבים ומפורטים. דיונים אלה
מלמדים אותנו שבעיני גאוני בבל האחרונים – רש”ג ובעיקר רה”ג – העיסוק
בגרסאות התלמוד הפך להיות חלק בלתי נפרד מסדר יומו של לומד ומפרש התלמוד.
מכל
מקום, העיסוק הטקסטואלי האינטנסיבי המרובה של שני גאוני פומבדיתא המאוחרים – רב
שרירא ורב האי רב שרירא – מלמד שאת כותרת ההרצאה ‘יחסם של גאוני בבל לטקסט
התלמודי’ יש לסייג הרבה. על שאר הגאונים אנחנו יודעים מעט מאוד, ועל יחסם של רוב
רובם של גאוני בבל לעניינים טקסטואליים אי אפשר לומר מאומה.
אפשר
להאריך במחשבות ובהשערות בעניין זה – מה המשמעות של מיעוט הדיונים הטקסטואליים של
רוב הגאונים: האם מדובר על עניין מקרי – הדיונים שלהם לא הגיעו לידינו, או שמא
באמת עסקו פחות בעניינים טקסטואליים. אך בשל קוצר הזמן לא אכנס לכך. 
*
הישג
בולט של אחרוני הגאונים הוא יצירת הגדרות או שימוש ב’כלי עבודה’ כדי לדון בגרסאות
השונות. לא רק קביעות בסגנון של ‘גרסה נכונה’ או ‘גרסה לא נכונה’ אלא ניסיון ליצור
קני מידה על מנת לשקול בין הגרסאות השונות, ולהכריע איזו מהן נכונה יותר. כמו כן,
הגאונים המאוחרים תייגו גרסאות שונות באיפיונים: מדוייק, לא מדוייק.
איפיונים
אלה חשובים עד מאוד, והם מלמדים הרבה על החשיבה הביקורתית של אחרוני הגאונים, על
השימוש שלהם בכלים שהיינו מכנים ‘מחקריים’ או ‘ביקורתיים’. אף על פי כן, יש להדגיש
כי קני המידה והאפיונים השונים באים בראש ובראשונה בשירות הפרשנות.
אדגים
את הקביעה הזו בשתי דוגמאות הבאות בדברי הגאונים רב שרירא ורב האיי.
אחת
השאיפות של חקר מסורות בכלל וחקר גרסאות התלמוד בפרט היא מציאת המסורות והגרסאות
המדויקות והמהימנות. ואכן, אחרוני הגאונים קבעו לגבי לא מעט גרסאות שהן מדויקות,
או שהן של חכמים דייקנים.
וכאן
יש לברר – מה הופך חכמים אלה להיות חכמים דייקנים בעיניהם של אחרוני הגאונים? האם
המסורות שעליהם הסתמכו או שמא דרך כזו או אחרת שבה הצליחו לשמר את גרסאות התלמוד?
ושמא היה להם קריטריון אחר?
בשתי
תשובות אנו מוצאים רמז לעניין, ושתיהן נוגעות לסוגיה הטעונה של הפער שבין נוסחי
הפסוקים שבמקראות לבין נוסחם בגרסאות התלמוד.
וכך
כתב רב האיי גאון:
‘וודאי
אילו היה הפסוק כטעותם… אלא שאינו כן, דרבנן דווקני ומי שמעיינין בשמועה
ואינן גורסין והולכין שיטפא בעלמא…’.
בתשובה
זו כרך רה”ג כרך את הדיוק של אותם ‘רבנן דווקני’ ב’מי שמעיינין בשמועה’,
כלומר, הם אינם גרסנים מכניים, אלא הם מבינים את המתרחש בסוגיה. ה’דיוק’ של המסורת
קשור ל’עיון בסוגיה’, להבנתה ולהתאמתה למסורת ה’נכונה’ במרכאות, כלומר זו שאינה
יוצרת קשיים פרשניים. ה’דיוק’ מוגדר ככזה בזמן שהוא משרת את הפרשנות הנכונה.
נשוב
לעניין החכמים הדייקנים עוד מעט. ונעבור לפני כן לקנה מידה אחר לבחינת גרסאות
התלמוד.
בכמה
תשובות הגאונים – שוב רב שרירא ורב האיי גאון – קבעו שגרסה מסוימת היא גרסת ‘כל
החכמים’. הקביעה הזו, המסתמכת על ‘כל החכמים’ היא בוודאי שיקול נכבד בעד גרסה
מסוימת. רה”ג השתמש בקביעה הזו גם בתשובתו הידועה בעניין מנהגי תקיעת שופר
בראש השנה: ‘והלכה הולכת ופשוטה היא בכל ישראל… ודברי הרבים הוא המוכיח
על כל משנה ועל כל גמרא, ויותר מכל ראיה מזה פוק חזי מה עמא דבר, זה העיקר והסמך’.
התפיסה הזו, או כפי שכונתה בערבית ‘אג’מאע’ היא גם אחד מארבעת היסודות של פסיקה
ההלכה המוסלמית. כאמור, קביעות כעין אלה באו כשיקול טקסטואלי בדברי הגאונים. ברוב
הפעמים הקביעה שגרסה היא ‘גרסת כל החכמים’ באה להכריע כמו גרסת הגאונים בתלמוד
הבבלי בניגוד למקור אחר – גרסה בתוספתא, גרסת ספרי משנה וגרסה הבאה בהלכות פסוקות
והלכות גדולות.
גם
בתשובה בעניין נוסח פסוק בספר דברי הימים, המובא בגרסה שונה בסוגיה בתחילת מסכת
ברכות, קבעו רב שרירא ורב האיי גאון באופן נחרץ: ‘וחס ושלום דהאוי שיבוש בקראיי,
דכולהון ישראל קריין להון פה אחד והאכין גארסין רבנן כולהון בלא שיבושא
ובלא פלוגתא ובלא חילופא
‘.
בסופה
של אותה תשובה הוא גם הזהיר לתקן גרסה זו, וגם כאן הזהיר את כל החכמים – ‘ואזהר
לתיקוני לנוסחי… ולאיומי על כולהו רבנן ותלמידי למגרס הכי דלא תהוי חס
ושלום תקלה במילתא’. קביעות נחרצות אלה הן מאוד חד משמעיות – יש גרסה אחת ויחידה
בתלמוד שהיא גרסת כל החכמים, והיא מתאימה לנוסח הפסוק בדברי ימים. אלא שהמציאות
אינה כל כך חד משמעית, ובמהלכה של אותה תשובה ציין רב האיי גאון לנוסח נוסף בסוגיה
– וכאן אנחנו חוזרים גם להגדרת ‘דוקאני’ שעליה עמדנו לעיל:
‘ורבנן דוקאני הכין גרסין וכן
הוא אומ'[ר] באֿבֿיֿוֿ בלישנֿאֿ רויחאֿ, ומאןֿ [ד]גֿאריס לישאנא קיטא
ולא דאייק למיגרס וכן הוא אומר באביו
הכין מפריש דגאמרֿין מן אבא לברא אבל קרא
כולי עלמא פה אחד קארו ליה וגרסין ליה וכיון דהכין היא שמעתא איסתלק ליה
<ספיקא>’. כלומר, על אף שבעיקרו של דבר הגאונים לא נסוגו מן הקביעה שכל
החכמים גורסים את הפסוק בסוגיה כמו נוסחו בספר דברי הימים – כלומר ‘יהוידע בן
בניהו’, הרי שהוא מוסיף שיש הגורסים גרסה מרווחת יותר, שבה נוספה לשון פירוש ‘וכן
הוא אומר באביו’ המבהירה שהפסוק בעניין ‘יהוידע בן בניהו’ מתייחסת לאביו של ‘בניהו
בן יהוידע’ המוזכר בהקשר אחר בסוגיה.
זאת
אומרת, שהקביעה שגרסת הסוגיה היא גרסת ‘כל החכמים’ אינה קביעה מוחלטת. היא מתייחסת
לנושא המרכזי בעיני הגאון – נוסח הפסוקים המצוטט בסוגיה – אך בעניין אחר הוא מבהיר
שיש גרסה יותר מדויקת של ‘רבנן דוקאני’ הגורסים ‘לישנא רויחא’ ובה הסבר נוסף
המסביר באופן מוצלח יותר את הסוגיה, ומדגישה ‘וכן הוא אומר באביו’, וכך אפשר להבין
את רצף הפסוקים המלמדים על בניהו בן יהוידע מפסוק העוסק ב’יהוידע בן בניהו’.
נמצאנו
למדים ששלושת הקריטריונים – אזכור ‘רבנן דוקאני’, הקביעה שגרסה היא גרסת כלל
החכמים, וההבחנה בין ‘לישנא קיטא’ ל’לישנא רויחא’ – מובאים על מנת לפרש את הסוגיה,
ולצנן את ‘תפוח האדמה הלוהט’ שעליו העמידו השואלים. הדיון איננו דיון טקסטואלי
טהור, אלא דיון טקסטואלי שנועד לפתור בעיה פרשנית – במקרה זה אי ההתאמה בין
המקורות.
קביעה
זו מצטרפת לעובדה שגם במקומות אחרים קנה המידה המרכזי של גאוני בבל לדיון בגרסאות
התלמוד הוא ההתאמה לפרשנות ולעניין.
בלשון
מעט מופרזת אפשר לקבוע שדרכם של אחרוני הגאונים הפוכה מסדר הפעולות הפילולוגי
שעליו המליץ פרופ’ אליעזר שמשון רוזנטל המנוח. בעוד שהוא קבע ש’על שלושה דברים כל
פרשנות פילולוגית-היסטורית עומדת: ‘על הנוסח, על הלשון, על הקונטקסט הספרותי
וההיסטורי-ריאלי כאחד… ובסדר הזה דווקא’, הרי שרב שרירא ורב האיי העדיפו דווקא
את הפרשנות, את העניין, ואת הקונטקסט הספרותי על פני הגרסה והנוסח.
למשמעותה
של קביעה זו נשוב לקראת סוף הדברים.
*
ממה
נובע העיסוק המרובה של גאוני בבל בגרסאות התלמוד? מה גרם לגאוני בסוף המאה העשירית
ותחילת המאה האחרת עשרה להקדיש מאמץ לימודי ליצירת הגדרות וקני מידה לדיון בגרסאות
הללו?
ההסבר
הסביר, שכבר הובא בספרות המחקר, הוא ריבוי הגרסאות בסוף התקופה. סביר להניח
שהגרסאות הללו באו מתוך שתי ישיבות הגאונים, אולי מחוגים אחרים בבבל, ואולי אף
גרסאות שהגיעו אליהם מן התפוצות.
ואכן,
לא פעם הדיון של הגאונים מתייחס במפורש לגרסאות של חכמי התפוצת שפנו אליהם
בשאלותיהם.
אדגים
כאן דוגמה אחת לדיון ייחודי של אחד הגאונים בתגובה לגרסה שהגיעה אליו מן התפוצות,
או ליתר דיוק לתגובה של הגאון להצעה להגיה גרסה של סוגיה ביבמות.
וסיימת
להקשות ואמרתה
אלא סופה דקאתני עמד אחד מן האחין וקדשה אין לה עליו כלום היכי
מתריץ לה רב אשי עמד אחד בין מן הילודין בין מן הנולדין וקדשה אין לה עליו כלום
והלא ר’ שמ'[עון] לא היה חלוק אלא בנולדין בלבד אבל הילודין לא היה צריך להזכיר
אותם בכלל, ואמרת כי עלה על לבבך לשנות עמד אחד מן הילודין שכבר נולדו
וקידשה אין לה עליו כלום ולעקור מן האמצע… אבל אמרת כי לא מלאך לבך לסמוך על
דעתך
[…] שקיימתה […]                        הספרים
אשר בֿמק[ו]מ[כם כ]אשר אמרת […]מתחילה ועד סוף, כי זה שאתם שנים כתוב גם
עדיכם עמד אחיו בין מן הילודין וֿבין מן ה[נו]לדים
[…] אין לה עליו כלום, כך
אנו שונין…
על
הצעות הגהה של אחרוני הגאונים שמענו, ולרה”ג יש מעט הצעות להגיה גרסאות של
התלמוד, אך זו הדוגמה היחידה הידועה לי שבה השואלים הציעו בפני הגאון להגיה
את סוגיית התלמוד.
דוגמה
יחידה זו מצטרפת לשאלות של חכמי התפוצות מן הגאונים. בעוד שהרבה מן השאלות
בעניינים טקסטואליים הן שאלות מאוד פשוטות, חלק מן השאלות לאחרוני הגאונים הן
שאלות מורכבות ובהם קושיות מפורטות על גרסאות התלמוד, והן כוללות השוואה בין
מקורות שונים. שאלות אלה נשאלו על ידי גדולי החכמים בתפוצות: ר’ משולם בר’
קלונימוס, רב יעקב מקיירואן, ור’ שמריה בר’ אלחנן במצרים.
אפשר
שריבוי הגרסאות בישיבות, והאתגר שהשואלים, חכמי התפוצות, הציבו לגאוני בבל – חידדו
את הצורך שלהם להתמודד עם הגרסאות השונות, להפוך אותם לחלק מסדר היום הלימודי
שלהם, וליצור קני מידה לדיון והכרעה בין גרסאות וכן אפיונים שבהם כינו את הגרסאות
השונות. אפשרות זו היא השערה סבירה, אך היא נותרת בגדר השערה.
*
ריבוי
הגרסאות לא היה רק מניע משוער לפעילותם של הגאונים בעניינים טקסטואליים. הוא הפך
להיות חלק מן הדיון עצמו. אבהיר את הדברים – אך אאלץ לומר בעניין דבר והיפוכו.
כלומר הגאונים כתבו דברים בגנות ריבוי הגרסאות, אבל הם גם השתמשו באותו ריבוי
גרסאות – גם לעניינים פרשניים והלכתיים. 
וזה
ביאור הדברים.
בכמה
מקורות, אחרוני הגאונים טענו שגרסה מסוימת היא ‘שיבוש’ אך ברור שאין הכוונה לכך
שהגרסה מוטעית או לא נכונה, אלא לכך שיש לסוגיה כמה גרסאות.
<מצגת> הדוגמה הבולטת
ביותר באה בתשובה של רב האיי גאון, שבה התבקש לפרש בהרחבה סוגיה במסכת סוטה:
והא
דתנו רבנן… לרוח לן גאון בפירושיה

ולא זה מקום הספק אלא הספק בשינוי לשונות
דאמ'[ר] רב
משרשיא איכא ביניהו עראבא ועראבא דעראבא. ושינוי לשונות דגראסי הוא שבוש וכולן
טעם אחד הן. יש שונין כך
…….
ויש
שגורסין
מדברי
רב האיי ברור שאין מדובר על שיבוש במובן של טעות שהרי ‘כולן טעם אחד הן’ ומכיוון
שבהמשך דבריו הוא מבאר את שתי הגרסאות – אלא שעצם העובדה שיש ‘שינוי לשונות
דגראסי’ הוא הוא השיבוש. בדומה לכך, יש עוד כמה מקורות שכאלה, ומהם אנו למדים על
אי הנחת של אחרונים הגאונים מריבוי הגרסאות.
מצד
שני, יש מקומות שבהם הגאונים ציינו כמה גרסאות ונראה שהדבר לא נראה מוזר או קשה
בעיניהם. במקומות שבהם מדובר על עניין פרשני או לשוני גרידא אין בכך כל תמיהה. אך
הגאונים אך השתמשו לעתים בגרסאות כאילו הן דעה הלכתית לגיטימית.
הדוגמה
הבולטת ביותר היא תשובה אנונימית, <מצגת< שבה השואלים והגאון המשיב
ציינו שיש לסוגיה שתי גרסאות, וכיוון שאי אפשר להכריע מתייחסים לכך כאל ‘תיקו’
תלמודי:
ונשאל
גאון, דאיכא נו<סח>י דכתיב בהו מבני חרי ואיכא דכתיב בהו ממשעבדי.
והשיב:
חייכון אחינו שגם אצלינו כך הוא, איכא דגרסי מבני חרי ואיכא דגרסי ממשעבדי. מיהו
רובא דרבנן דעליהון סמכא דגרסי מפום רבוותא דעליהון סמכא דשמעתא גרסי ומגבי ביה
ממשעבדי,

ואעפ”כ <כיון> דאיפליגו בהא גרסאי דהוו מעיקרא, ליכא כח בהא
מילת'[א] <למיזל> בתר רובה ולקולא עבדינן ולא מגבינן ביה ממשעבדי.
ברור
שלגאון הייתה גרסה שהוא העדיף אותה – זו של רובא דרבנן – ואף על פי כן התייחס
לגרסה השנייה כאל אופציה ממשית, המשפיעה על פסיקת ההלכה בסוגיה.
אציין
דוגמה נוספת בתחום שאינו הלכתי. כאשר רש”ג ביקש באיגרתו להבהיר שגם בתקופת
קדומות היה ‘תלמוד’ הוא הגדיר:
ותלמוד
הוא חכמה דראשונים,
וסברין <ביה> טעמי משנה דתנו רבנן
רבו לא רבו שלימדו משנה ולא רבו <שלימדו> מקרא אלא רבו שלימדו תלמוד.
ואיכא דתאני שלימדו חכמה ותרויהו חד טעמא אינון
דברי ר’ מאיר, ר’ יהודה אומר
כל שרוב חכמתו ממנו…
ברור
שגרסתו בתלמוד היתה ‘רבו שלימדו תלמוד’ אך רב שרירא ‘ניצל’ את הגרסה האחרת, והשתמש
בגרסה ‘רבו שלימדו חכמה’ כדי ללמדנו ששתי הגרסאות מקבילות, ושאין ‘תלמוד’ אלא
חכמה, חכמת הראשונים.
נמצאנו
למדים – כפי שכבר אמרתי לעיל – שביחס לריבוי הגרסאות אנו מוצאים שימוש בשתי גישות
הפוכות. רצון למצוא גרסה אחת ויחידה, ואי נחת מריבוי הגרסאות והגדרתן כ’שיבוש’
מזה, אך גם הצגת כמה גרסאות, ואף שימוש פרשני והלכתי בגרסאות האלטרנטיביות מזה.
תופעה
זו לא ללמד על עצמה יצאה.    גם בנקודות
אחרות אפשר להראות שהגאונים השתמשו בגישה טקסטואלית אחת, אך גם בגישה ההפוכה. כך
למשל בנוגע להגהת התלמוד.
רב
האיי גאון קבע במילים נרגשות:
ודאי
ששמועה זו למשמע אוזן נוח מן הראשון אלא שלא כך גרסתנו ולא כך גרסו הראשונים, ואין
לנו לתקן את המשניות ואת התלמוד בעבור קושיא שקשה לנו
.
אך
במקום אחר הציע לשנות את גרסת הסוגיה בשל קושי פרשני:
וטובא
עייננא בהדין [גירסא] ולא סליק ליה פירושא אליבא דפש[אטא דהי]לכתא.
…וכל
אימת דאתית לשוויה להא מותיבי להאי שמעתא לר’ יוחנן ולמימר הוא מפריק לא קא
סלקא שמעתא לדילנא כל עיקר
.
וכד
משוית ליה לקושיא ולפירוקא לרב הונא סליקא ליה שמעתא ולא קאיים בה מידעם.
והכין
חזינא דמבעי למגרס:
בשלמא ללישנא קמא רב הונא כר’ מאיר ור’
יוחנן כר’ יהודה.
העובדה
שאותו חכם אומר דבר והיפוכו באותו עניין ובהקשרים שונים אינה מפתיעה כל מי שמצוי
בספרות הרבנית, אך היא מבלבלת את החוקר שמנסה לעשות סדר, ולהטיל שיטה בדברי
הקדמונים.
.
סוף
דבר. בהרצאה זו ביקשתי לטעון שלוש טענות. ביקשתי לטעון שבסוף תקופת הגאונים הפך
הדיון בגרסות התלמוד להיות חלק אינטגרלי מאופן הלימוד והכתיבה של הגאונים – הם
עסקו בגרסאות התלמוד פעמים רבות, הן כאשר השיבו לשואליהם הן בשעה שכתבו את
פירושיהם. לא זו בלבד – וזו הנקודה השנייה – הם אף יצרו כללים והבחנות חשובות
הנוגעות להיבטים הטקסטואליים של ספרות חז”ל.
אף
על פי כן – וזו הטענה השלישית – ביקשתי לטעון שבמידה רבה כלים פילולוגיים אלה היו
משועבדים בראש ובראשונה לפרשנות התלמוד. כיוון שכך הם היו עשויים להתמקד בפרשנות
סוגיה מסוימת או בפסיקת הלכה בעניין מסוים, תוך שימוש בכלים טקסטואליים שונים או
הפוכים מאלה שהם קבעו בהקשרים אחרים.
מאות
הפעמים שבהם גאוני בבל עסקו בטקסט התלמודי – לעתים תוך רגישות טקסטואלית והבנה
יוצאת מן הכלל של דרכי המסירה ותהליכי שיבוש ושינוי בטקסטים הנמסרים בעל פה או
בכתב – אינה הופכת את פעולתם לשיטה או למדע במובן המודרני, וכאמור, הבנה זו מאפשרת
לנו להבין סתירות בדרך שימושם של הגאונים בקני המידה שקבעו.
אם
לחזור לכותרת ההרצאה: ‘יחסם של גאוני בבל לגרסאות התלמוד’ – הרי שיחס זה היה
משועבד בראש ובראשונה לשימור המסורת שלהם, לפרשנות של סוגיות התלמוד ולפסיקת הלכה,
ולא כל כך לקביעת כללים ועקרונות מוצקים.
אני
מקווה שלא אפגע בפרופ’ רמי ריינר שנתן למושב את הכותרת היפה שלו – ‘ראשונים
כחוקרים’ – אם אטען שהראשונים – לפחות בתחום שבו עסקתי  – לא היו באמת חוקרים. הם ידעו שיש בתלמוד
גרסאות קצרות ולשונות פירוש, הם ידעו לקבוע שגרסה השתבשה כתוצאה מגיליון שחדר
לפנים הטקסט, הם הבינו כיצד גרסאות השתבשו כתוצאה מן ההגייה השגויה של מילים. אך
הם היו בראש ובראשונה לומדי תורה, מפרשי תלמוד ופוסקי הלכה.