The Strange Shape
of the Marcheshet Pan

                                                            
By Eli Genauer

“The underlying basis of our work is that
pictures are an organic part of the commentary, and it possible that Rashi even
allowed himself to limit his explanatory words when a picture was available to
the reader. This is in the sense of “a picture is worth a thousand
words”. The picture is an integral part of the written book, no less
important than the words.” 

                                                              
Dr Ezra Chwat

                                                    
Department of Manuscripts, National Library of Israel

                                                     
Giluy Milta B’Almah Blog

                                                          
January 15, 2017

There were many vessels
used in the Beit HaMikdash. Nevertheless, without pictures or diagrams drawn
contemporaneous to their existence, there remains some doubt as to exactly what
they looked like. I would like to discuss one vessel used quite often in the
Temple and see what the diagrams of the Rishonim can tell us about its makeup.
I would also like to analyze a diagram in Rashi’s commentary to Talmud Bavli
and see how it fits into our discussion.

Leaving  aside the opinion of Rabbi Yossi Haglili, let us concentrate on the statement of Rabi Chanina ben Gamliel

We would imagine that the Marcheshet is a deep vessel, and the Machvat
is flat, as it is described as a griddle. 
Perhaps like this:

                                   

The Gemara then cites a Braita which deals with the following
situation.  If a person takes a vow
saying “I take upon myself a Marcheshet”, it remains unclear whether he meant
he will bring the vessel called a Marcheshet, or the normal Korban Mincha that
is brought in a Marcheshet. Beit Hillel is of the opinion that since there was
a specific vessel in the Beit Hamikdash called a Marcheshet, we understand that
he is talking about that vessel and we require him to donate it to the Beit
HaMikdash.[2] Here are the words of the Braita which describe in some detail
the appearance of this Marcheshet pan:

Rashi goes to great
lengths to explain this uncertain statement and includes a diagram in his commentary.
This diagram first appeared in printed form in the early 18th
century but unfortunately, it does not align with the words Rashi uses to
describe the overall shape of the pan. 
Additionally, It does not match the diagram we have in a manuscript of
Rashi nor diagrams in manuscripts of other Rishonim.

But first some
background

The diagrams we have
today in the Vilna Shas in Rashi and other Rishonim come from earlier printed
editions. The first printed edition of the entire Talmud to contain diagrams
was the Behrmann Shas printed in Frankfurt on Oder, 1696-98.[3] Raphael Natan
Nata Rabinowitz posits that by the time diagrams were included in the printed
text, there were very few manuscripts around because most had been placed in
Genizah.[4]  He therefore concludes that manuscripts were not used in the early
18th century as a source for diagrams. What was the source of those
diagrams for the Behrmann Shas ? According to the editors of the Behrmann Shas,
they mostly came from the Chochmat Shlomo of 1582.[5] It’s an extremely
reliable source because it was written by Rav Shlomo Luria who specifically
wrote it to correct the text of the Bomberg Shas and to insert the relevant
diagrams. Rav Shlomo Luria lived at a time when there were still many
manuscripts around, so either he used those manuscripts for his textual
emendations and as a source for his diagrams, or he used his own capabilities
to come up with his changes and additions. Since most of our present day
diagrams follow from the Behrmann edition, they have an aura of authenticity
attached to them.[6]

The problem arises when
we discover that Chochmat Shlomo does not include all the diagrams we have
today. For example, in our case, there is no Chochmat Shlomo on Menachot.

Let us now take a look
at the diagram in Rashi on Menachot 63a.

The first time it
appeared in print was in the Frankfurt am Main edition of 1722, exactly 200
years after the diagramless Bomberg edition. We know its source was not a
manuscript of Rashi nor was it the product of the Maharshal.

Putting aside the
diagram for a moment, let us concentrate on the words of Rashi as he tries to
describe the Marcheshet:

Rashi concentrates on
the word כלבוס as the Gemara itself says that a Marcheshet is shaped like a
deep כלבוס. Rashi first gives us an old French word
which is normally translated as “tongs”.[7] He says that the Marcheshet is like
his present day Machvat pan and that the “wall in the middle faces the inside,
like this”. The problem is that the diagram does not seem to show a wall in the
middle facing the inside. Additionally, if a כלבוס is a pair of tongs, and the shape of the
vessel looked somewhat like a pair of tongs, how does that align with the
diagram which is circular?

The Shita Mekubetzet
which is included on the standard page of the Vilna Shas has a completely
different diagram.

Notice that the word
Dofen is in the middle of the diagram just as Rashi says והדופן באמצעות כלפי פנים

The
volume of the Bomberg edition that belonged to Rav Betzalel Ashkenazi the
author of the Shita Mekubetzet contains the exact same diagram inserted in the
blank space of the Rashi.

Jerusalem – The National Library of Israel Ms. Heb. 4°79 (link).

In his book Dikdukei
Sofrim on Menachot (Munich, 1886) R.N.N. Rabinowitz writes about the
importance of the comments of the Shita Mekubetzet as they were addressed to
the Bomberg edition of 1522 and relied heavily on manuscripts which included a Rashi
manuscript.[8] The Acharit Davar printed at the end of the Vilna Shas also
extols the importance of the Shita Mekubetzet on Kodshim as it came from a
manuscript and was based in part on a manuscript misidentified but actually of
Peirush Rashi.[9]

Going back in history,
we can get an idea if a diagram did in fact exist in Rashi manuscripts by
looking at the first printed edition of Menachot which was Bomberg 1522. Its
source had to be from manuscripts because no printed edition preceded it.

You can see that the
Bomberg editors included the word “כזה” in the text of the Rashi and left 2
spaces indicating that their manuscript included 2 diagrams. This may explain
why our present diagram does not reflect the shape of the overall pan as there
may have been one diagram depicting its shape and a second one depicting the
apple like insets. In fact, a notation in the Oz Vehadar edition states quite
clearly that our diagram just illustrates the words “גומות
גומות”.

As mentioned before,
the words of Rashi seem to support the idea that the Marcheshet pan was
semicircular in nature. In addition, the shape of the vessel is likened to a כלבוס which is an
item dealt with a number of times by Rashi

For example this Rashi
on Shabbat 59b:

Rashi states that an
item worn by women called a “מנקתא פארי” ( starting with the letters “וי״מ” for ויש מפרשים) is “כּמין חצי עגול עשוי כמין כלבוס” and then draws your attention to a
diagram of a semi circle.

Fortunately I was able
to find a manuscript of Rashi on Menachot which is identified as Vatican
487  and is from the 13th
century. (Made available by the Polonsky Digitization Project) It pictures the
Marchseshet pan in a semicircular shape and thus fits in more with the words of
Rashi.

It’s clear that the
diagram included only deals with the semicircular nature of the vessel and not
the little depressions inside the “Tocho Shel Kli”. This diagram is very
similar to the one in the Shita Mekubetzet and it is possible it served as a source
for the Shita Mekubetzet.[10]

We are confronted with
another diagram of the Marcheshet pan in what is known as the Peirush Rabbeinu
Gershom first printed in the Vilna Shas. This Peirush describes the vessel
being shaped like a כלבוס and then says it is “כמו פגום”, which means incomplete. One would expect
to see a vessel like in the Shita Mekubetzet and in the Rashi manuscript which
is not either completely circular or square in nature. Nevertheless, the diagram
in the Vilna Shas depicts this vessel as being square like this

In the Achrit Davar the
editors of the Vilna Shas state that they had a manuscript of this Peirush
Rabbeinu Gershom however the following manuscript shows the pan as having an
indentation and not being square.

Roma – Biblioteca Angelica Or. 1 (link):

It could be they that
had a manuscript depicting a square pan, or it is possible that their
manuscript had a pan with an indentation and this was not transferred
successfully to the printed page. Certainly the words of the Rabbeinu Gershom
indicate the latter.

Conclusion:

Nowadays it is easy for us to transfer an image from a
manuscript to a printed or electronic page. All we have to do is point, shoot,
copy and paste. The result is an exact duplicate of what is on the manuscript,
and it is even easier to work with than the original. But hundreds of years ago
it was not so simple. A woodcut or an engraving of the image could be made and
then transferred to the printed page, but that was time consuming and
expensive. Because of this, images such as diagrams were just left out, and
when they were added, they were often misleading and sometimes even incorrect.
The printing revolution was a giant step forward for the dissemination of
Jewish knowledge, but, at least at its beginning, played havoc with many important
diagrams.

[1] English translation
from Sefaria.org.

[2] The Rambam Paskens
according to Beit Hillel. Since Beit Hillel speaks about the Marcheshet being
different than a Machvat,  and not just having a cover) it is clear that the
Rambam holds like Rav Chananya ben Gamliel

[3] Maamar ‘al hadpasat ha-Talmud with Additions, ed. A.M. Habermann, Mossad ha-Rav Kook, Jerusalem: 2006, p.41. The Soncino family printed individual editions of the Talmud between 1483- 1518, but not an entire set. Some of those editions such as Eiruvin did contain diagrams and some did not. The first complete set of the Talmud was the Bomberg edition 1519-1522. That edition did not contain diagrams, only empty spaces which were to indicate where diagrams were to go (the only exception was Sotah 43a). There were numerous full editions of the Talmud printed between 1522-1697, but these also did not contain diagrams. 

[4] Printing
the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud, Marvin J. Heller, Im Hasefer 1993 p.6 states as follows: “Rabbinovicz attributes the dearth of Talmud codices to
the manner in which they, and many other manuscripts, had been written; without
any commentaries, with errors and erasures, and lacking even lines. Rashi and
Tosafot (additions by Ashkenazic luminaries after Rashi) were separate
manuscripts, suffering from the same conditions. As a result, learning must
have been difficult, with the reader having to continuously peruse three different
works, assuming that he owned them. Therefore, when the Talmud was printed with
Rashi and Tosafot, “men no longer learned from their manuscripts, but
considered them as utensils without further value, placing them in genizahs, so
that they no longer exist.”

[5] Other sources mentioned by the editors of the Behrmann Shas are Maharsha and Maharam Lublin. Neither of those sources contain diagram for our Rashi.

[6] A good summary of
the subject of where our present day diagrams came from can be found in the
introduction to the Shas Nehardea, under the heading of “המקור לציורי הש”ס”. (Vagshal Publishing Ltd,
Jerusalem, 2008, p.5 of the introduction. The overall section on diagrams
starts on page 4 of the introduction under the heading “מבוא לציורי הש״ס”.)There are a few diagrams that are
not in the Berman Shas but first appear in the Frankfurt am Main edition of
1720-1722. Here too, the editors of that edition say that the source of their
diagrams was the Chochmat Shlomo.

[7] All the Meforshim
understand that Beit Hillel is saying that the Marcheshet pan is shaped like
a כלבוס,
meaning the pan is shaped like a pair of tongs. 
I would imagine tongs to look like this, with the top part being
semicircular especially in the open position

Jastrow renders our
Braita saying that a Marcheshet is “a baking form in the shape of forceps with
cavities”

[8] Rabbinowitz writes
on page 1 of his introduction that when he wrote his emendations on Menachot
that “I had in my hand a handwritten manuscript of the Shita Mekubetzet by Rav
Betzalel Ashkenazi…..And he wrote his comments on the 1522 Venetian edition
including Gemara, Rashi and Tosafot with the help of handwritten manuscripts he
( Betzalel Ashekenazi) had in his hands”

[9] Achrit Davar at the
end of Masechet Nidah, p.6

[10] The Oz VeHadar edition of the Talmud
actually changes the diagram inside the Rashi to the diagram of the Shita
Mekubetzet

מסופר[1]
שבליל א’ דר”ח חשון תשל”ט הי’ הצייר החבד”י ר’ ברוך נחשון שיחי’
מקרית ארבע ביחידות אצל הרבי מליובאוויטש זצוק”ל ושאל אם יכול להראות להרבי
את הציורים פרי מעשה ידיו שהביא עמו מארה”ק. הרבי נענה בחיוב. ולשם כך הכינו
תערוכה מציוריו בבנין הצמוד ל770. ביום רביעי ו’ כסלו הלך הרבי בלוויית מזכיריו לראות
התערוכה. הרבי עיין בכל הציורים והעיר כו”כ הערות עליהם. כשניגש לציור בה
מצוירים תפילין של הקב”ה ושל ישראל, ובתפילין של הקב”ה נכתב “ומי
כעמך ישראל גו'” – העיר הרבי: צריך להוסיף כאן “כ” [כישראל]. ישנם שני
כתובים, אחד עם כ’ ואחד בלא כ’, ונוסח אדמו”ר הזקן עם כ’.

פירוש:  

ציור הנ”ל מיוסד על הגמ’ ברכות (ו, א):

אמר רבי אבין בר רב אדא
אמר רבי יצחק: מנין שהקדוש ברוך הוא מניח תפילין .. אמר ליה רב נחמן בר יצחק לרב חייא
בר אבין: הני תפילין דמרי עלמא מה כתיב בהו? אמר ליה: ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ.

והנה בשמואל (ב ז, כג) כתיב וּמִי
כְעַמְּךָ כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹי אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ גו’. ובדברי הימים (א יז, כא) כתיב:
וּמִי כְּעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹי אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ גו’. ובתפילת מנחה של שבת בסידורי
בני אשכנז[2]
הנוסח הוא אַתָּה אֶחָד וְשִׁמְךָ אֶחָד וּמִי כְּעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל גּוֹי אֶחָד בָּאָרֶץ
– בלי כ’, כלשון הכתוב בדבה”י. אבל נוסח בעל התניא בסידורו הוא כל’ הכתוב
בשמואל  – כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל[3]
והוא נוסח עדות המזרח.

וכוונת הרבי היתה דמאחר שהאדמו”ר הזקן קבע
דבתפילת מנחה דשבת הנוסח הוא כל’ הכתוב בשמואל – כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, לכן בציור של
תפילין דמרי עלמא יש לחסידי חב”ד לתפוס נוסח הרב בסידורו.

ומתחילה לא הבנתי, דמה השייכות של נוסח הפיוט
“אתה אחד” בתפילה של מנחה דשבת להסוגיא בברכות אודות תפילין דמרי עלמא?

ועוד, שבכל הדפוסים ורוב כת”י הידועים[4]
הנוסח בש”ס הוא וּמִי כְּעַמְּךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וכיון שהציור מיוסד על סוגיא זו
לכאורה הנכון לתפוס לשון הש”ס כפי שעשה ר’ ברוך הנ”ל.

וי”ל, דהנה בהמשך הש”ס שם איתא:

ומי משתבח קודשא בריך הוא
בשבחייהו דישראל? – אין, דכתיב: את ה’ האמרת היום (וכתיב) וה’ האמירך היום (כי
תבוא כו, יז-יח). אמר להם הקדוש ברוך הוא לישראל: אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם, ואני
אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם; אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם, שנאמר: שמע ישראל ה’ אלקינו
ה’ אחד. ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם, שנאמר: ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ.

ובאבודרהם מבואר דנוסח העמידה של מנחה דשבת אמנם קשור
לסוגיא זו, אלה דבריו:

אתה אחד ושמך אחד. לפי
שבשחרית של שבת ניתנה התורה והתפללנו ישמח משה שהוא מדבר במתן תורה תקנו לומר
במנחה אתה אחד –

כלומר: כשם שאתה אחד
ואין כמוך, כמו כן מי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד, שהם לבדם רצו לקבל תורתך ולא האומות[5].

והיינו דדרשינן בפרקא
קמא דברכות (ו, א) וחגיגה (ג, א) את ה’ האמרת היום וה’ האמירך היום. אמר הקדוש
ברוך הוא אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם וכו’.

ומאחר דנוסח “אתה אחד..” משתייך להמימרא
המובא בש”ס בברכות בהמשך ובהקשר להמאמר אודות תפילין דמרי עלמא, מסתבר שנוסח
העמידה מתאים לנוסח הש”ס, וא”כ לפי אדמו”ר הזקן נוסח הש”ס, הן
בהמאמר אודות תפילין דמרי עלמא , והן
בהמאמר הבא בהמשכו – “אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם..”
– לכאורה צריך להיות: כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל[6].

ואמנם הקטע “את ה’ האמרת היום..” מובא בחגיגה
בשם רבי אלעזר בן עזרי’, ושם הנוסח בכת”י מינכן[7]
הוא כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל[8].

וחפשתי ג”כ ברוב דפוסים הקדומים של האבודרהם[9],
ובכולם הנוסח – כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל[10]. 

עכ”פ מצאנו הסבר להערת הרבי לר’ ברוך נחשון
שיחי’. וכבר אמרו רבותינו (סוכה כא, ב): אפי’ שיחת תלמידי חכמים צריכה לימוד שנאמר
(תהלים א, ג) ועלהו לא יבול.

אגב, דבר מעניין מובא בס’ “הרב” (נערך
ע”י הרב נחום גרינוואלד, תשע”ה) ע’ מז מספר “זכות אבות”
ע”מ אבות מהרב מנחם נתן נטע אויערבאך (ירושלים, תרנד), והוא שמועה בשם אדמו”ר
הזקן שהטעם שהעדיף נוסח כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל[11]
הוא מפני שאסור לקרות בכתובים בשבת בשעת בית המדרש (גזירה משום ביטול בית המדרש
שלא יהיה כל אחד יושב בביתו וקורא וימנע מבית המדרש – רמב”ם שבת כג, יט
משבת קטז, ב). ולכן הביא הנוסח מספר שמואל (כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל), ולא הנוסח מדברי הימים
(יִשְׂרָאֵל).

יחוס דברים אלה לאדה”ז רחוקה מכמה טעמים. אבל כפי
אשר העיר הרנ”ג שם, ביאור זהה אבל ביחס לתפילה אחרת נמצא בשו”ת צפנת
פענח דווינסק ח”ב ס”ה.

בסוף ברכת המזון בקטע מִגְדּוֹל | מַגְדִּיל יְשׁוּעוֹת
מַלְכּוֹ כ’ האבודרהם שיש לו מסורה מרבותיו דיש שינוי נוסח בין שבת לחול – דבחול
אומרים מַגְדִּיל ובשבת מִגְדּוֹל. נוסח מִגְדּוֹל הוא (הקרי) בנביאים (שמואל ב כב,
נא), ונוסח מַגְדִּיל בכתובים (תהלים פרק יח, נא). האבודהם נותן טעמים בדבר ודבריו
מובאים במג”א סי’ קפז ומשם לשו”ע הרב וכו’. וכן נתפשט בכל תפוצות ישראל[12].

והרוגצ’ובי כ’ דטעמא שאין אומרים מַגְדִּיל בשבת הוא
משום שאין קוראין בכתובים בשבת[13].

והנה האיסור לקרות בכתובים בשבת הוא רק בשעת בית
המדרש כדאי’ בשבת שם, ולפרש”י היינו קודם סעודת היום, וא”כ לא שייכא
לברכת המזון או לתפילת מנחה.

אלא שדברי הצ”פ יתכנו לשי’ הרמב”ם (שם
פ”ל ה”י) שכנראה סובר דזמן בית המדרש היינו אחר הסעודה עד מנחה,
ועד”ז בשיטה להר”ן שם[14].

אלא
שדברי הצ”פ צ”ע מטעם אחר, כי בגמ’ שם מובא הברייתא (מתוספתא שם
פי”ג  ה”א): “אף על פי
שאמרו כתבי הקדש אין קורין בהן – אבל שונין בהן ודורשין בהן, נצרך לפסוק – מביא
ורואה בו”, דהיינו שמותר לצטט פסוקים מכתובים מתוך דרשה וכיו”ב.
וא”כ רחוק שנזהר המחבר של “מגדיל ישועות מלכו” שלא להכליל תיבות
אחדות מכתובים מובלעות בתוך פיוט.

אכן
הפי’ המובא בספר “זכות אבות” הנ”ל בשייכות לתפילת “אתה
אחד” של מנחה דשבת, הוא ודאי דלא כמאן. דלכל הראשונים זמן “בית
המדרש” כלה קודם מנחה[15].
ואדרבה בגמ’ שם מובא שבנהרדעא היו רגילים לקרא בבית המדרש פרשה בכתובים בזמן מנחה.

Everything is Illuminated: Mining the Art of Illustrated Haggadah Manuscripts for Meaning

            We have discussed haggadah illustrations in the past (see the links at the end of this post) and we wanted to expand and update upon that discussion for this year. In this post we focus on Hebrew illuminated haggadah manuscripts, and in the follow-up post will turn our attention to printed illustrated haggadot.

            While there is not as large of a body of Jewish art as that of art in general, historically Jews have appreciated the visual arts early in their evolution into a nation.  Aside from the biblical forms, we have evidence of art dating to the second century of the common era in the well-known frescos at the Dura-Europos synagogue.[1] But, such appreciation was not limited to second century Palestinian Jews, as evidenced from the discussion below, this appreciation continued, almost unabated, until the modern period.  It was not just the artist class or wealthy acculturated Jews that were exposed to and admired this medium.  For example, in the 1560 Mantua haggadah, one of the more important printed illustrated haggadot, the wise son appears to be modeled after Michelangelo’s Jeremiah in the Sistine Chapel (view it here: link). 

            

Lest one think that it is highly unlikely that a 16th century Italian Jew would have even entered the chapel, let alone been familiar with this painting, a contemporaneous account of Jewish art appreciation disabuses those assumptions.  Specifically, Giorgi Vasari, the 16th century artist and art historian, in his Lives of Excellent Painters (first published in 1560), records regarding Michelangelo’s statute of Moses – that is a full statute depicting the human form and was placed in the church of San Pietro in Rome – that “the Jews [go] in crowds, both men and women, every Saturday, like flocks of starlings, to visit and adore the statue.” That is, the Sabbath afternoon activity was to go to church to admire the statute of Moses, that is more famous for having horns than its Jewish visitors.[2]

Hebrew Manuscripts Background  

A brief background regarding Hebrew manuscripts before delving into the illuminated haggadah manuscripts. Details regarding manuscripts, the name of the copyist, the date, and the place where the manuscript was written, were supplied not at the beginning of the book – as is the convention with printed books and title pages –  instead in manuscripts this information is provided at the end. For this reason, the scribe’s note containing the information was called a colophon – from the Greek word kolofon, meaning “summit” or “final point.”[3]

Number of Hebrew mss.

A cautious guess of the number of extant Hebrew manuscripts in existence is between 60,000 -70,000 “but no more than 30-40 thousand of them predate the middle of the sixteenth century.”[4] Of the 2-3 hundred thousand Hebrew manuscripts presumed in existence in Europe at the beginning of the fourteenth century, probably no more than four to five thousand are extant today, possibly even less. “From the tenth century (before which information is very scarce) to 1490 (when the influence of printing books began to be felt)” there are an estimated one million manuscripts, meaning, “that 95 per cent of manuscripts have disappeared.”[5]  In addition, the early printed books – incunabula – had similar survival rates.

            The dearth of manuscripts has left a significant hole in our knowledge of major Jewish texts.  For example, there is only one complete manuscript of the Palestinian Talmud (1289) and two partial manuscripts. The Babylonian Talmud fared slightly better, with one complete manuscript (1342) and 63 partial manuscripts in libraries, with only 14 dating from the 12th & 13th centuries.[6] 

One of the partial TPs is known as the Vatican Codex 133 – and worth mentioning is the Vatican and its role regarding Hebrew manuscripts.  While there is no doubt that the Church had a significant hand in reducing the number of manuscripts – in reality the destruction of Hebrew manuscripts was the work of the Jesuits and not the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, the Church confiscated and, thus in some instances preserved Hebrew manuscripts.  Consequently, we have a number of important Jewish texts that survive in the Vatican library.  Today, many of these manuscripts have been published.  The incomplete manuscript of the TP is but one example.  Additionally, regarding the use of (rather than just reprinting) the Vatican library, for at least late 19th century, Jews had access to the library.  For example, R. Raphael Nathan Rabinowitz, who authored a monumental work on Talmudic variants provides that “I prayed to God to permit me entrance to the Vatican library to record variant readings” his prayer was answered, and he received permission not only to use it during regular hours but “even on days that it was closed due to Christian holidays, when the library was closed to all, and even more so Jews.”[7] In total he spent close to 9 months in the library. In addition, Rabbi Rabinowitz’s presence and special status at the Vatican library was instrumental for the editing of the Vilna Talmud, where he secured permission for the Romm-employed copyists to work with manuscripts of the commentary of Rabbenu Hananel, even though they arrived in Rome during the summer season when the library was closed.

            Of the estimated one million Hebrew manuscripts from the 10th century until 1490, approximately 5% have survived.  As mentioned, religious persecution was one reason, but the main reasons are (1) deterioration from use, (2) accidents, and (3) reuse.  The first two are self-explanatory, the third requires a bit of explanation.  From the times that manuscripts were written on papyrus, unwanted manuscripts were scraped or washed and then reused.  (This papyrus recycling was not confined to reusing for books, papyrus was used from wrapping mummies, burned for its aroma, and used, according to Apices, to wrap meat for cooking). Similarly, leather and parchment were recycled, in the more egregious examples for shoe leather but in many cases for book bindings.  The latter reuse would be critical to the survival of numerous Hebrew manuscripts which have now been reclaimed from bindings.  It is estimated that there are 85,000 such binding fragments.  “The commonest use of written folios, however, was in bindings, whether for binding strips, end papers, or covers.”[8]   

Illuminated Hebrew Manuscripts

            The “earliest examples of Jewish book illumination are tenth-and eleventh-century Bible codices written in the Orient or Near East.  The illuminations are not figurative but consist of a number of decorative carpet pages adorned with abstract geometric or micrographic designs preceding or following the Biblical text.”[9] While these early illuminated manuscripts did not contain human figures, they did contain the first iterations of something unique to Jewish manuscripts, “one form of manuscript depiction unique to Jewish manuscripts is micrography with the earliest examples of this art may be found in the tenth-century Bibles written in the Orient.”[10]  A beautiful example of this art can be seen in the carpet pages for the Leningrad Codex. 

Similar non-representational geometric art was incorporated into Islamic art to avoid graphic representation.  Consequently, symmetrical forms were created which required advances in math theory to accommodate the ever more complex art.

Hebrew manuscripts did not adopt the Islamic convention – for the most part – and the earliest illustrations of human figures appear in Franco-Ashkenazic manuscripts – bibles – of the thirteenth century.

The earliest extant illustrated haggadah[11] is what is known as the Birds’ Head Haggadah dated to the early 1300s. The moniker “Birds’ Head” comes from the fact that the illustrator used birds heads/griffins in place of human heads. This manuscript is not the only Jewish manuscript to use zoophilic (the combination of man and beast) images. Zoophilic images can be found in a variety of contexts in Jewish manuscripts. For example, in the manuscript known as Tripartite Machzor, men are drawn normally while the women are drawn with animal heads.[12]  The name of this Machzor comes from the random fact that the manuscript was split up into three.  At times manuscripts are titled by location (Leipzig Mahzor), history (tripartite) or owner.  In one example, the “Murphy Haggadah” “ suffered a fate all too common to many Hebrew texts.  Before the Second World War the manuscript belonged to Baron Edmond de Rothschild.  During the war it was stolen and sold to an American, F.T. Murphy, who bequeathed it to Yale University, his alma matter.  For years it was known as the “Murphy Haggadah” until, in 1980, a Yale scholar, Prof. J. Marrow, identified as belonging to the Rothschilds.  The manuscript was returned to the Rothschild family and presented by the Baroness Dorothy to the Jewish National Library.[13]

            When it comes to the Birds’ Head manuscript, a variety of reasons have been offered for its imagery, running the gamut from halachik concerns to the rather incredible notion that the images are actually anti-Semitic with a bird’s beak standing in for the Jewish nose trope and the claim that the ears on the “birds” are reminiscent of pigs’ ears. Generally, those claiming halackhic, or more particular pietistic reasons, do so because they are unable “to conceive of such a bizarre and fanciful treatment of the human image as emerging from anywhere other than the twisted and febrile imagination of religious fanatics.”[14] But, in reality the use of bird’s head in lieu of human “reflects a liberal halakhic position rather than an extreme one.”[15]  The camp of Yehuda ha–Hassid would ban all human, animal and celestial depictions, a more liberal position from this perspective permits animal images.  And, while that position doesn’t explicitly permit a depiction half-animal half-human, the zoophilic images appear to show they were allowed, as the illuminator and owner of the Birds Head Haggadah agreed with that position.

            Aside from halakha, and the meaning or lack thereof behind “birds”, a close examination how the illuminator used this convention yields surprising nuance and commentary.      

While most of the images carry a bird’s head, there are a few exceptions. Most notably, non-Jews, both corporeal and spiritual do not. Instead, non-Jewish humans as well as angels have blank circles instead of faces. But, there is one scene that poses a problem. One illustration shows the Jews fleeing Egypt (all with birds’ heads), being pursued by Pharaoh and his army. Pharaoh and his army are depicted faceless.

  But, unlike the rest of the figures in Pharaoh’s army, two figures appear with birds’ heads. Some write this off to carelessness on the illustrator’s part. Epstein, who credits his (then) ten-year old son for a novel explanation, offers that these two figures are Datan and Aviram, two prominent members of the erev rav, those Jews who elected to remain behind. Indeed, they are brandishing whips indicative of their role as nogsim (Jewish taskmasters, or the precursor to Jewish Sonderkommando). While the illustrator included them with the Egyptians, he still allowed them to remain with their “Jewish” bird’s head.  This is a powerful idea regarding the idea of sin, and specifically, the Jewish view that even when a Jew sins, they still retain their Jewish identity – their “birds head.”   Sin, and including sinners as Jews, are motifs that are highlighted on Pesach with the mention of the wicked son and perhaps is also indicated with this illustration. The illustrator could have left Datan and Aviram out entirely or decided to mark them some other way rather than the Birds’ head. Thus, utilizing this explanation allows for the illustrator to enable a broader discussion about not only the exodus and the Egyptian army’s chase, but expands the discussion to sin, repentance, Jewish identity, inclusiveness and exclusiveness and other related themes.[16]

            Once we have identified the Jews within the haggadah, we need to discuss another nuance in their depiction.  The full dress of the adult male bird is one with a beard and a “Jewish hat,” pieus conutus – a peaked hat, or the Judenhut.  Children and young servants are bareheaded.  But, there are three other instances of bareheadness that are worthy of discussion.  (1) Joseph in Egypt, (2) the Jews in Egypt and (3) Datan and Aviram.  The similarity between all three is that each depicts a distance from god or Jewish identity.  Joseph, unrecognizable to his brothers, a stranger in a strange land, and while inwardly a Jew, externally that was not the case.

            The Jews in Egypt had sunk to the deepest depths on impurity, far from God. Finally, as we discussed previously, Datan and Aviram are also removed from god and the Jewish people.  Again, the illustrator is depicting Jews – they all have the griffin heads – but they are distinct in their interaction with god and the Jewish people.[17]  

Using this interpretation of the griffin images, yields yet another subtle point regarding inclusion, and also injects some humor into the haggadah.  The dayenu panel has splitting of the sea, the manna and the giving of the Torah.  The middle panel is less clear. Some posit that it is the Jews celebrating at the sea, but there is no indication of that because in most manuscripts, that includes Miriam, and the Egyptians drowning, not just five random images.

   
Instead, it appears that the person to the left is speaking (his hand is over his heart a medieval convention to indicate speech), and they are approaching the older figure on the left.  All are griffin headed and Judenhut attired – so Jews and regular ones. Between the splitting of the sea and the manna and quails the Jews complained to Moses.  Its possible that this is what is being depicted here, the complaining Jews, and the illustration serves as a testament to God’s patience and divine plan, the theme of dayenu, that even though we complained and did X, God still brought the manna, quail and Torah.[18] 

            If these are in fact the complainers, we can theorize about another detail of the image.  Above the figure at the left and the right, is faint cursive (enhanced here for visibility as much as possible) that reads: “Dass ist der Meirer (this is Meir) Dass ist der Eisik (this is Issac).”[19]  Thus Meir and Issac are being chided – but not kicked out – for complaining too much (rather than representing an unclear image of the Jews celebrating at the sea or just evidencing poor dancing). 

            Continuing through the dayenu we get to the giving of the Torah, and again, the nuance of the illustrator is apparent

.

            Two tablets were given at Sinai, but the actual Pentateuch is comprised of 5 books.  Thus, to capture that the 5 are a continuity of the two, as they are transmitted down, they transform into five tablets.  What about the ram/lamb at the bottom?  Some have suggested that it is the Golden Calf. But it is unlikely that such a negative incident would be included.  Instead, assuming that continuity or tradition is the theme, this lamb is representative of pesah dorot that is an unbroken tradition back to Sinai and unconnected with the Christian idea of Jesus as a stand in for the lamb.  Immediately prior to dayenu we have the Pesach mitzrayim with the figure’s cloak blowing back due to the haste.

       Thus, the dayenu is bracketed by the historic Pesach and the modern one – all part of the same tradition. [20]  

            It is worth mentioning that the Birds’ Head Haggadah is currently in the news. An item recently appeared about how the heirs of Ludwig Marum and his wife Johanna Benedikt, the owners of the haggadah prior to the Nazi era, are pressing the Israel Museum to recognize their family’s title, and pay them a large sum of money (but only a fraction of its estimated value). The Israel Museum acquired the haggadah for $600 from a German Jewish refugee in 1946.  (link).

            Turning to Spain, one of the most beautiful illuminated haggadot is the “Golden Haggadah.”  Just as the Ashkenazi Bird’s Head has depth to the illustrations, the Golden Haggadah can be mined for similar purpose.  Each folio is comprised of four panels.  And while they appear to simply depict the biblical narrative, they are so much more. 

            In an early panel we have Nimrod throwing Abraham into the fire and later Pharaoh throwing the males in the Nile, both Nimrod and Pharaoh are similarly depicted, on the throne, with a pointed finger indicating their equivalence in denying god. 

            The folio showing the Joseph story has the brothers pointing in the same manner as Pharaoh and Nimrod – the illustrator showing his disdain for the mistreatment and betrayal and equating it with the others.

            But, that is not all.  Counting the panels there are 9 between Nimrod and Joseph and 9 between Joseph and Pharaoh.  Taken together, these illustrations “renders an implicit critique of the attitude of that Jewish history is nothing but an endless stream of persecution of innocent Israel by the bloodthirsty gentiles.  Yes, it is acknowledged, these gentile kinds might behave villainously in their persecution of Jews.  But groundless hatred between brother and brother is on par with such terrible deeds, and sometimes sinat hinam can precipitated treachery as destructive as persecution by inveterate enemies.”[21]

            One other striking feature of the Golden Haggadah is the inclusion of women. There are no fewer than 46 prominent depictions of women in the haggadah.  Indeed, one reading of the exodus scene has a woman with a baby at the forefront leading the Jews out of Egypt behind Moses.

            This may be a reference to the midrash that “in the merit of the righteous women the Jews were redeemed.”[22]  The difference in the exodus scene is particularly striking if one compares it to the Ashkenaz Haggadah – Moses clearly at the front, and the most prominent woman in the back.

Of course, it is completely appropriate for the inclusion of women in the haggadah as women and men are equally obligated to participate in the seder. Another example of the prominence that woman play in the Golden Haggadah iconography is the scene of Miriam singing includes the largest images in the haggadah, the women occupying the full panel.  We don’t know why the illustrator chose to highlight women – was it for a patron or at a specific request.[23] 

The Golden Haggadah is not the only manuscript that includes women in a prominent role in the illustrations.  The Darmstadt Haggadah includes two well-known illuminations that place woman at the center.  The illuminations adoring other Darmstadt serve a different purpose than the Golden or Birds’ Head, they are purely aesthetic.[24]  Thus, the inclusion of women may not be linked to anything in particular.  At the same time, it is important to note that in terms of reception, that is, how the reader viewed it, the focus on women was not cause for consternation. One other note regarding the haggadah, the last panel is a depiction fountain of youth.  Note that men and woman are bathing – nude – together, which seems odd to a modern viewer (and, again, apparently did not to the then contemporary reader).  And, while admittedly not exactly the same, the 14th century R. Samuel ben Baruch of Bamberg (a teacher of R. Meir of Rothenberg) permitted a non-Jewish woman to bath a man so long as it was in public to reduce the likelihood of anything untoward occurring.[25] 

Before we leave the Darmstadt Haggadah, we need to examine the panel facing the Fountain of Youth. This panel depicts a deer hunt.

 As mentioned above, this image is not connected to the text and instead is solely for aesthetic purposes.  The hunting motif is common in many medieval manuscripts, and in some a unicorn is substituted for a deer.  While the unicorn has Christological meaning, on some occasions it also appears in Hebrew manuscripts.[26]

While the use of the hunting scene in the Darmstadt Haggadah was unconnected to the haggadah, in others it was deployed for substantive purpose.[27] [As an aside, it is possible that Jews participated, possibly Rabbenu Tam, in hunting, or at least its falconry form.[28]] As is well-known, the inclusion of the hare hunt is to conjure the Talmudic mnemonic regarding the appropriate sequence over the wine, candle, and the other required blessings, or YaKeNHaZ.  “To Ashkenazic Jews, YaKeNHaZ sounded like the German Jagen-has, ‘hare hunt,’ which thereby came to be illustrated as such in the Haggadah.”[29]

 Generally, Jews seem to have issues with botany.  We struggle to identify which of the handful of fruits and vegetables mention in the Bible and Talmud. But on Passover, the marror an undefined term, proves particularly illusory. Today, there is no consistency regarding what is used for marror with it running the gamut from iceberg lettuce to horseradish root. While we may not be able to identify it with specificity, we know what its supposed to taste like – bitter.  Manuscripts may provide some direction here.  There are two depictions in illuminated haggadot.  One of a leafy green, found in numerous examples, from a fragment from the Cairo Geniza to the Birds’ Head, and that of an artichoke.[30]  If it is a leafy green, it must be a bitter one – and that changes based upon time, place and palate.  For example, 30 years ago romaine lettuce was only the bitter lettuce widely available. But, among lettuces, it is far from bitter, and today, there are a variety of truly bitter lettuces available, arugula, mustard greens, dandelion, mesclun, etc.  Another leafy and very bitter option that is found in illuminated haggadot is the artichoke.  The artichoke is extremely bitter without proper preparation.  Indeed, from just touching the leaves and putting them in your mouth you can taste the bitterness.  The Sarajevo Haggadah and brother to the Rylands both have artichokes.

            The association of the artichoke with Passover is more obvious when one accounts for Italian culinary history.  Specifically, artichokes are associated with Jews and Passover. Carcoifi alla giudia – literally Jewish style artichokes “is among the best known dishes of Roman Jewish cuisine.” Artichokes are a spring thistle and traditionally served at Passover in Italy.  Whether or not from a culinary history this dish sprung from the use of raw artichoke for marror is not known, but we can say with certainty that artichokes have a considerable history when it comes to Passover. 

Horseradish only became popular, in all likelihood, because an early Pesach, would be too soon for any greens and thus they were left with horseradish – which is not bitter at all, instead it is spicy or more particularly hot.  In Galicia in the 19th century the use of horseradish was so ingrained that  permission was even granted and affirmed for people to use less than a kezayit  and still recite the blessing. In light of this, the custom yields the possibility that all sort of other spicy items be used for marror including very hot jalapeño peppers, for example.[31] Since we are discussing herbs, it is also worth noting that recently rulings regarding the use of marijuana and Pesach have been issued both in Israel and the United States (here), for our discussion on marijuana and Pesach please see here.

            One manuscript captures the uncertain identification of marror.  In the Tubingen Haggadah, the place where the illustration for marror is left blank, presumably to permit the owner to fill in what they are accustomed to use.

            Marror is not the only vegetable that is eaten during the seder, another difficult to identify is the karpas.  Today there are a variety of items used, and in reality, any dip-able vegetable will suffice, historically, it seems that lettuce or celery was used. The Birds Head provides that “lattich (lettuce) and eppich (celery) should be used. These are traditional salad foods, which, in the normal course of things, would be dipped or tossed with a dressing.  A dressing can be a simple as vinegar, and indeed, in many medieval haggadot, hometz or vinegar is used to dip.  We can trace the change from the more obviously salad oriented vinegar to saltwater where in the Darmstadt Haggadah, a later hand wrote on top of hometz – mei melekh.  While it appears nearly universal that hometz was used, its disfavor may be connected to a rule unrelated to Passover.  Since the Middle Ages, there is a dispute whether or not vinegar falls under the ambit of stam yenam.  Thus, the change to saltwater may be more of a reflection about views on what constitutes stam yenam and less to do with tears.

            One final food item is the haroset preparation.  Apples are familiar and linked to the midrash regarding birthing under an apple tree, in the Rothschild Machzor and the 2nd Nuremburg haggadah, cinnamon is called for because “it resembles straw.”  It also concludes that “some incorporate clay into the haroset to remind them of the mortar. For those wanting to replicate this addition, edible clay, kaolin, is now easily procured, and there is even a preparation that creates stone-like potatoes, perfect for the seder.

            To be continued… but until then see these posts Halakha & Haggadah, and regarding some illustrations in the iconic Prague 1526 Haggadah, here and also Elliot Horowitz’s discussion.

By Eli Genauer

A recent book auction
by Kestenbaum featured the following listing:

AUCTION 65: JUNE 25TH, 2015
LOT:
111 (TALMUD, BABYLONIAN). Masechta Sotah. With commentaries by Rashi, Tosaphoth,
Maimonides and Rabbeinu Asher. FIRST BOMBERG EDITION .. ……Vinograd, Venice 27;
Habermann, Bomberg 22.

Daniel Bomberg, Venice: 1520.
                   This
Tractate contains the only appearance of a printed text illustration throughout
the entire Talmud issued by Bomberg (see f. 43r).

The reference to ( see f.43r ) indicates that this singular
printed diagram in the Bomberg Shas appears on Daf 43A in Sotah.

It is a diagram of the configuration of trees in a particular
orchard and it looks like this

We find other instances of a Bomberg edition of tractate Sotah
being offered for sale, and they contain the same basic information.

Kedem Auctions Auction no. 40 – Books, Manuscripts, Rabbinical LettersWednesday, September 3, 2014 – 17:00Books & ManuscriptsTractate Sotah –
Venice, 1520 – Bomberg Printing, First EditionBabylonian Talmud, Tractate Sotah – with Rashi commentary and
Tosfot, Piskei Tosfot and Rambam’s commentary on the Mishna. Venice, 1520.
Printed by Daniel Bomberg, first edition.
On Leaf 43, 1 is an illustrative sketch on Rashi commentary. This is the
only printed sketch found in the Bomberg edition of the Talmud. Bomberg left
the rest of the places which were designated for sketches and illustrations
empty to complete with drawings after printing.

Sotheby’s
Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sotah, Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 1520
17 DECEMBER 2008 | 10:00
AM ESTNEW YORKBabylonian Talmud,
Tractate Sotah, Venice: Daniel Bomberg, 1520Folio (13¾ x 9½ in.; 350 x 242 mm.Folio 43r. provides the
only example of the inclusion of a printed diagram in the Bomberg Talmud.
In all other tractates, Bomberg simply left a blank space in which an
individual could insert a diagrammatic drawing.

The source for
this information most likely came from “Maamar al Hadfasat HaTalmud” by Raphael
Nathan Nata Rabbinovicz. It was first printed in 1868 as a hakdamah to
his book Dikdukei Sofrim on Masechet Brachot and later
added on to by Rabbinovicz and printed as a separate book.

I refer to this edition: Maamar ‘al
hadpasat ha-Talmud with Additions, ed. A.M. Habermann, Mossad ha-Rav Kook,
Jerusalem: 2006

On page 41,
Rabbinowicz, writing about the first Bomberg edition, states as follows

In all of the
Talmud ( and in all other older printed editions of the Talmud until the Berman
edition ( Frankfurt An Der Oder 1697-99) )the diagrams were not included in the
Talmud, Rashi and Tosfot, and their space remained empty, except for Sotah
43A, where we find a diagram in Rashi.

He seems to be
saying that not only in the Bomberg first edition was this the only diagram
included, but also in subsequent Bomberg editions this remained the only
diagram included. He even casts a wider net and says that this was the only
diagram included in any set of the Talmud until the Berman edition of Frankfurt
an Der Oder printed from 1697-1699.

Is this correct?
I would have to say it is mostly correct but not completely.

The Israel
National Library website contains the following page:

It can be
accessed at http://aleph.nli.org.il/nnl/dig/bk_sub.html

It is a
wonderful source for early printed books and it contains every tractate of the
first edition of the Bomberg  Shas. What
may a bit less known is that it also contains one tractate of the third edition
of the Bomberg  Shas, Masechet Zevachim,
printed in 1548. (1)

If we look at
Daf 53B, we are confronted with the following

A close up of
the bottom of the page looks like this

At first I
thought that this diagram of the Yesod of the Mizbeach had been drawn in by
hand, but an analysis of the difference in the way this page was set up versus
the same page in the first two editions lead me to conclude that this diagram
was added by the Bomberg editors intentionally and was included as part of the
printed page. Aside from that, I had the privilege of looking at this same page
in a different copy held by the JTS Library with Sharon Lieberman Mintz, ( JTS
Curator of Jewish Art) and she confirmed that this mechanical drawing and the
one available online at the NLI website were exactly the same.

If we look at
the 1520 edition, we can see the problem that the editors faced

Here is both 53A
and 54A

Let’s take a
closer look at the bottom of 53B, where the diagram appears in the third
edition

After a lengthy
explanation by Rashi on the makeup of the Yesod, he adds the word “Kazeh”. It
is right at the bottom. Usually, we would find an empty space there, but alas,
there is no room.

The empty space
where the diagram should go is not on the bottom of 53B, but rather on the top
of 54A. It has nothing to do with the Rashi that begins with the word
“Retzuah”.

So it is
possible that by the third edition of Zevachim, the Bomberg editors decided to
fix that. They set the type for 53B in a different manner, allowing them the
space for a diagram, and they even included the diagram.

I thought I
might find other diagrams in this third Bomberg edition and spent an afternoon
at the JTS Library looking through various Masechtot of that edition, but did
not find another diagram. As far as I know, this was the only diagram added to
the third edition. There is no way to know for sure why the Bomberg editors
added this one, just as there is no way to know why the diagram on Sotah 43A
was included in the first edition. But at least one can see what might have
bothered them here.

[1] I refer to this as the third edition although there is much discussion as to
whether this might actually be a fourth edition. For more background on this,
please see Marvin J.  Heller, Printing the Talmud (A History of
the Early Printed Editions of the Talmud )Im Hasefer, Brooklyn, NY 1992,
pages 167-180