Genazym Auctions: Illustrations & the Friendship Between the Hazon Ish and R. Zevin
Genazym Auction: Illustrations and the Friendship between the Hazon Ish and R. Zevin
The auction house, Genazym, is holding its third auction (the catalog is available here) this week Thursday, August 30th. This auction includes many Hassidic works, letters, autographs, early editions, and some impressive bindings. Additionally, as at other auction houses, items are already appearing from the Lunzer/Valmadonna collection whose books were sold and auctioned in the past year.
There are a few items that have aspects that go beyond their texts. The book, Hok le-Yisrael, Prague, 1798, (lot 27) is notable for its unusual title page. It contains Dovid and Shlomo (for a discussion of the inclusion of biblical figures on the title-page see here), with the head of Goliath at David’s feet. David is shown lifting his shirt to expose his belly which is depicted as one of substantial girth. It is unclear why the illustrator used that particular pose. The remainder of the illustration is unremarkable. But the text of the title has its own quirk, where it is printed in a handwritten font, both the Hebrew and the German.
Just to mention one other unique illustrated item I recently came across about to be auctioned off in the forthcoming Genazym auction (lot 26). In a few copies of the 1840 printing of the classic work on Shecitah, Tevous Shor there is a very nice illustration connected to the title and name of the author.
Some books are especially valued because of their legendary segulah powers. Recently this has become even more commonplace with this genre expanding exponentially.[1] At times the source for how these books fall into that genre are murky, but one that has a long history is Hayim ben Attar’s Or ha-Hayim. The first edition, Venice 1742, (lot 49), in a very nice binding, is highlighted for its segulah powers that include protection, healing, and children, and the study of it has the power to purify one’s soul.
Returning to illustrations, a portrait of R. Dov Ber Meisles, the rabbi of Warsaw (and other cities), from 1891, is among the items. This is not the only illustration that R Meisels appears. During the late 1860s, there was substantial unrest in Poland when many sought to force the Tsar to bestow greater civil rights to the populace. The clergy played a large role in this endeavor and R Meisels was among them. This was viewed as an opportunity for Jews to be accepted by the population. In this, Meisels had a profound impact and was among the main influencers of Marcus Jastrow to take part in the movement. Meisels and Jastrow became very close. When both were imprisoned for their activities, initially Jastrow was kept in isolation but when he was transferred to Meisels’ cell, Jastrow’s spirits were lifted and was able to deal with the remainder of his imprisonment. In the end, both were expelled from Poland, although eventually permitted to return. One of the most notable events during this period was the funeral of five protesters who were killed by government forces. The funeral took place on Shabbos and both Jastrow and Meisles were in attendance. Their participation is recorded in Aleksander Lesser’s painting, “Funeral of five victims of the demonstration in Warsaw in 1861.”In the center left, Meisels appears with a fur hat next to Jastrow in his canonicals.[2]
Another item of ephemera is a letter from the Hazon Ish to R. Yosef Zevin (lot 68)(the envelope confirms that the addressee was R Zevin). Although there is no doubt about R Zevin’s Zionist leanings, the Hazon Ish carried on a correspondence with him.[3] This is yet another letter showing the connection between R Zevin and the Hazon Ish. (For others, see Yehoshuah Levin, HaShakdan (Monsey: Tuvia’s, 2010), 117). R Zevin included a profile of Hazon Ish and his style of study in the book Ishim ve-Shitot.
As we have shown in the past, one can learn all kinds of things from the information found in the writeups in the various auction catalogs including seeing actual clear copies of the manuscripts (lot 55). there is a letter of his from 1886 about his essay on Antisemitism called Shar Yisroel which he was about to print. He writes to his son to check it over as someone told him that perhaps some might get angry about and it would cause problems for him and the Yeshiva. This is not the only time that we find the Netziv nervous about his actions and that it would cause possible problems for the Yeshiva.
Two of R Yaakov Emden’s important works, Mitpahat Seforim and his Siddur, both of which are rare are up for sale (lots 75 & 76). The first of edition of his siddur is critical to actually determining R. Emden’s opinions regarding the liturgy and its attendant customs. This is so because although there are many alleged reprints of the Siddur, they, in fact, do not include the text that R Emden so carefully edited. Only recently has the complete siddur been reprinted. The Mitpahahat is R Emden’s well-known challenge to the Zohar, or parts of it. Emden points to many passages that appear to be later than when R Shimon bar Yochi lived, the traditional author of the Zohar. R. Emden’s work was subject to some rebuttals, one is Moshe Kunitz Ben Yochi. But some allege that Kunits freely borrowed from others and that his rebuttals fall short of the mark.
One final item, also a siddur, is a first edition of Siddur R’ Shabsai MeiRushkov (lot 95) which is considered very rare starting bid is $50,000 and with a sale’s estimate of $100,000.
[1] See Avraham Ya’ari, Mehkeri Sefer (Jerusalem: Yehuda, 1958) who discussed a number of books that were written after the author experienced cataclysimic events. See also Eliezer Brodt’s article in the forthcoming Ami Magazine discussing the ubiquity of this phenomenon.
[2] See Jastrow, “Baer Meisels, Chief Rabbi,” The Maccabean XI, 5 (Nov. 1906), 208-09; idem. XI, 6 (Dec. 1906), 246-48. For Jastrow’s activities during that time see Michael Galas, Rabbi Marcus Jastrow and His Vision for the Reform of Judaism: A Study in the History of Judaism in the Nineteenth Century, trans. Anna Tilles (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013), 70-88. Even at the end of his life, Jastrow was in America he still counted Meisel among those who influenced him. See idem. 170.
[3] That is not to say that some didn’t try to write out R Zevin’s connection to Zionism. See Jacob J. Schacter, “Facing the Truths of History,” Torah u-Madda Journal 8 (1998-1999): 223-24.
The 1526 Prague Haggadah and its Illustrations
The 1526 Prague Haggadah and its Illustrations
By ELIEZER BRODT
This piece was originally printed in Ami Magazine’s Kunteres 9 Nisan 5777 – April 5, 2017
The topic perhaps most written about in Jewish literature is the Haggadah shel Pesach. There are many kinds in many languages and with all kinds of pirushim and pictures. Whatever style one can think of, not one but many Haggados have been written—be it on derush, kabbalah, halachah, mussar or chassidus. There are people who specialize in collecting Haggados, even though they don’t regularly collect sefarim. In every Jewish house today one can find many kinds of Haggados. Over the years, various bibliographers collected and listed the various Haggados. In 1997, Yitzchak Yudolov printed The Haggadah Thesaurus, which contains an extensive bibliography of Haggados from the beginning of printing until 1960. The final number in his bibliography listing is 4,715! Of course, many more have been printed since 1960. New Haggados are printed every single year. Even people who never wrote chiddushim on the Haggadah have had one published under their name based on their collected writings. When one goes to the sefarim store before Pesach, it has become the custom to buy at least one, although it is very easy to become overwhelmed, not knowing which to pick.
The one I would like to focus on in this article was printed in Prague in 1526.[1] The Prague edition of the Haggadah is considered by experts to be one of the most important illustrated Haggados ever published. It is perhaps the earliest printed[2] illustrated Haggadah for a Jewish audience, and it served as a model for many subsequent illustrated Haggados. Some insist that it is the greatest single Haggadah ever printed. “Certainly it is one of the chief glories in the annals of Hebrew printing as a whole and for that matter in the history of typography in any language.”[3] Printing came to Prague in 1487 (around 40 years after its invention), and the first Hebrew book was printed there in 1518. The Prague 1526 edition was published by the brothers Gershom (Cohen) and Gronom Katz on Sunday, 26 Teves 5287 or December 30, 1526.[4]
This Haggadah contains many of the halachos of the Seder beginning with bedikas chametz, a collection of pirushim on various parts of the Haggadah, and 60 illustrations made from woodcuts. However, we do not know who authored these halachos and divrei Torah (which are full of interesting ideas). The halachos written here are very significant, as they were written and printed before the Shulchan Aruch. The illustrations are also significant, as they had a tremendous impact on the illustrated Haggados printed afterward.
I would like to discuss some of the interesting things we can learn about the Seder and Haggadah via this Haggadah and some of its illustrations.
The first general question is why they chose to illustrate the Haggadah. Who was their intended audience? Various people who studied this Haggadah have debated this issue,[5] but to me it’s pretty clear that it had to do with one of the most important parts of the Seder night—the special audience—the children. This was a tool to help enable us to fulfil the important obligation of v’higadeta l’vincha. Last year, in an article in this magazine, I outlined many customs done during the Seder with the underlying theme to get the children “into” the Seder. One of the best ways to get kids “into” it is via visual aids, showing them pictures or acting out certain things. Simply reciting the Haggadah and just saying “some Torah” is not as effective. It would seem to me that this was their intention when they illustrated the Haggadah. It could be that some of the pictures were to lighten it up for the adults too, as I will soon explain.
The significance of this point is that Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, zt”l, raises possible issues with looking at illustrated Haggados on Pesach based on the halachos in the Shulchan Aruch (307:15) dealing with reading captions of images on Shabbos.[6]
If we are correct that the purpose is to educate the children, it might be a possible reason to permit looking at these images. To be sure, some of the Haggados with images were printed with the involvement of great gedolim, such as the illustrated 1590 Prague Haggadah, which had a kitzur of the Zevach Pesach of the Abarbanel written by Rav Yitzchak Chayis (1538-1610).
If we are correct that the purpose is to educate the children, it might be a possible reason to permit looking at these images. To be sure, some of the Haggados with images were printed with the involvement of great gedolim, such as the illustrated 1590 Prague Haggadah, which had a kitzur of the Zevach Pesach of the Abarbanel written by Rav Yitzchak Chayis (1538-1610).
Just to emphasize the significance of visual aids when learning, in a haskamah for a work about shechitah that was written but never printed, the Aderes stresses the benefit of the numerous diagrams and illustrations of animals in the book for the understanding of the various complex halachos of shechitah.[7]
Similarly, Rav Belsky dissected an animal on video to give a visual aid for those learning Maseches Chulin. It is also related that when the Minsker Gadol, Rav Yerucham Perlman, zt”l (1835-1896), first became rav he made it his business to go to the head shochet of the city to learn all the aspects of animals for the laws of treifos and the like. The shochet asked him how he could possibly teach the rav anything. The Minsker Gadol replied, “It’s one thing to learn the halachos in sefarim, but when it comes to psak halachah one needs to know the exact aspects as they are on the actual animal.[8]
Additionally, there is a great benefit for us to analyze the pictures nowadays, as it can give us a glimpse into how they conducted the Seder in those days.
Halachos
One of the first parts of the Seder is the eating of karpas. Nowadays, for the most part, the custom is for the children to say, “We wash our hands, but we don’t say the brachah for this washing.” In the instructions to the Prague Hagadah it says to say the brachah for washing.[9] In fact, there are a number of Rishonim who say that one should say the brachah of al netilas yadayim.
Who pours the wine?
After saying Ha Lachma Anya the cups of wine are refilled. There is a picture of someone refilling the wine with a caption stating that the servant should refill the wine. The Rama in Darchei Moshe says that the person who is conducting the Seder should not fill the cups of wine; rather, someone else should do it for him.[10] This would appear to be an earlier writter source with the same idea.[11] Interestingly enough, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that we do not do this. The leader can pour the wine for himself, and there is no reason that his wife should have to pour for him.[12] Rav Yitzchak Chayis writes in Siach Yitzchak—which is a halachic work about the Seder night first printed in Prague in 1587—that one should train his six or seven-year-old child to do this mitzvah.[13] Perhaps another minhag related to this statement of the Rama is that the one leading the Seder does not get up to wash his hands; rather, the water is brought to him.[14]
Pouring out the wine for the Ten Makkos
After saying Ha Lachma Anya the cups of wine are refilled. There is a picture of someone refilling the wine with a caption stating that the servant should refill the wine. The Rama in Darchei Moshe says that the person who is conducting the Seder should not fill the cups of wine; rather, someone else should do it for him.[10] This would appear to be an earlier writter source with the same idea.[11] Interestingly enough, the Aruch Hashulchan writes that we do not do this. The leader can pour the wine for himself, and there is no reason that his wife should have to pour for him.[12] Rav Yitzchak Chayis writes in Siach Yitzchak—which is a halachic work about the Seder night first printed in Prague in 1587—that one should train his six or seven-year-old child to do this mitzvah.[13] Perhaps another minhag related to this statement of the Rama is that the one leading the Seder does not get up to wash his hands; rather, the water is brought to him.[14]
Another minhag found in this Haggadah is the famous custom of dipping the fingers into the wine when saying the Ten Makkos. In this section of the Haggadah there is an illustration of someone dipping his finger into his cup and there is also a caption under the picture stating that some dip with the pinky, followed by a reason for this custom.[15]
The earliest known source for this minhag can be found in a drashah of the Rokei’ach, recently printed from a manuscript by Professor Simcha Emanuel.[16] But this source speaks about dipping the index finger. The Rama also writes to dip the index finger. Interestingly, the Magen Avraham says to dip with the kemitzah, which is the ring finger.
Walking with a sack on the back
There a few places in the Haggadah, such as near the paragraph of B’chol dor vador, where we find an illustration of someone walking with a sack (of matzah) on his back. The source for this can be found in some of the Rishonim and early Acharonim. After mentioning breaking the matzah in their description of Yachatz they add that the leader of the Seder puts it on his shoulders and walks with it for a bit; others do this only later on when they eat the afikoman.[17]
Eliyahu Hanavi coming to the Seder
I traced the sources for this in a previous article in Ami Magazine. When discussing the sources for this, Rabbi Sperber notes[18] that in a few of the illustrated Haggados there are pictures of a man on a donkey near Shefoch Chamascha. In some of them he is being led by someone else; for example, in the Prague Haggadah of 1526.
I also noted that Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash writes that mazikin run away from any place where Eliyahu’s name is mentioned. He says that because of this some make a picture of Eliyahu and Moshiach for the children, so that the children seeing it will say “Eliyahu,” causing the mazikin to disappear.[19] This could indicate that the illustrations were shown specifically to the children, as I claimed earlier.
Nusach of the Haggadah
The actual nusach of the Haggadah is its own large topic, starting from the Gemara and moving onward to manuscripts and discussions among the poskim. In the beginning of the Haggadah we begin with the famous Aramaic passage of Ha Lachma Anya. Much has been written about different aspects of this passage. One aspect is whether the exact nusach should be Ha Lachma Anya or K’ha Lachma Anya. The Rama quotes Rav Avraham of Prague, who says to specifically say Ha Lachma Anya and not K’ha Lachma Anya. The Maharal says the same. We see that two great sages from the city of Prague paskened that we should say Ha Lachma Anya.
Who was this Rav Avraham of Prague quoted by the Rama?
Rav Dovid Ganz (a talmid of the Maharal) writes in his historical work Tzemach Dovid that he was the rosh yeshivah and av beis din of Prague in the 1520s. He also authored some notes to the Tur, which were printed by Gershom (Cohen) Katz in Prague in 1540.[20] Thus, it is interesting that in the Haggadah the nusach was different from that of the av beis din of the city. Interestingly enough, his sons printed two more Haggados (1556 and 1590) in Prague and there too the nusach is different from that of Rav Avraham. Ultimately, the Magen Avraham concludes that whichever nusach one says is fine.[21]
What to use for maror
Another interesting picture is of the maror. In two places in the Haggadah the illustration used for maror is that of a lettuce—chasah. This is chazeret, which is the first of the five types enumerated in the Mishnah that one can use for maror.
There is a famous teshuvah from the Chacham Tzvi where he writes at length that this is the ideal item to be used for maror, as it’s the first in the list of the Mishnah.[22] We also find that the Netziv wrote a letter to his son, Rabbi Chaim Berlin, urging him to use it for maror instead of sharper vegetables, especially after fasting and drinking wine.[23] There are also numerous earlier illustrated manuscripts that show pictures of lettuce for the maror.[24]
More on maror
Speaking of maror, the inscription next to the picture is of great interest. It says, “There is a custom when saying maror that the man points to his wife, as it says ‘An evil wife is worse than death.’” Much has been written about this illustration. Some have written that it is ridiculous and there cannot be such a custom. On the other hand, Rabbi Wengrov and, more recently, Rabbi Yisroel Peles,[25] have demonstrated that there are pictures of a man pointing to his wife near the paragraph of maror in various illustrated Haggadah manuscripts. It is clear, however, as Rabbi Wengrov writes, that this was done in a joking manner to lighten up the Seder, but it isn’t serious, chas v’shalom. Rabbi Wengrov demonstrates that other pictures found in these Haggados show that the authors had a sense of humor and drew certain illustrations to lighten up the mood.[26]
Explanation via illustration
Some of the pictures in the Haggadah are to explain a particular passage. One such example is the image of the four sons. The tam is often translated as a derogatory term—the foolish son. However, the caption above the picture says, “Tamim tihyeh im Hashem” – always be complete with Hashem, which means that they understood the tam to be a man of piety.[27]
Omission
At the end of the Haggadah we conclude the Seder with a few songs, such as Echad Mi Yodei’a[28] and Chad Gadya. The authors and earliest sources for reciting them are unknown.[29] Rabbi Shemaryah Adler suggests that Chad Gadya may have been written by Daniel.[30] Rabbi Yedidyah Tiyah Weil writes in Marbeh L’sapeir on the Haggadah that he heard that these two songs were found in a manuscript from the beis midrash of Rav Elazar Rokei’ach. Numerous pirushim have been written about Chad Gadya, based on all the methods of learning Torah.[31] Be that as it may, many have noted that they are not found in this Haggadah. The first time they appear in print are in the Haggadah printed in Prague in 1590.
Another notable omission is the stealing of the afikoman. I wrote in the past in this magazine that one of the earliest sources in print can be found in the Siach Yitzchak, which mentions stealing the afikoman, but not in the same way as we do it nowadays.[32] It would seem that since no mention of it is made in the instructions of the 1526 Haggadah that it was not yet a widespread custom at that time.
Kiddush and Hunting
In the beginning of the Haggadah, on the bottom of the page of Kiddush, we find a mysterious picture of someone hunting hares with a horn and dogs. This picture can also be found in a bentcher printed by the Katz brothers in Prague a few years earlier. The question is obvious: What in the world does this have to do with Kiddush, especially as it is not a Jewish hobby? One of the answers suggested is that when Yom Tov occurs on Motzaei Shabbos we use an abbreviation known as Yaknehaz to remember the order in which to say Kiddush and Havdalah. The pronunciation of Yaknehaz is similar to jagen hasen, which is German for hunting hares, so this picture is meant to serve as a reminder of the abbreviation.[33]
Moreon Kiddush
Throughout the Haggadah there are illustrations of people holding cups of wine; sometimes the one holding the cup is dressed like a king. It would appear that this is to reflect the halachah to act like a king on the Seder night as part of the celebration of our freedom.
At other times the image is of an older man holding the cup either in his left hand or in his right. Rabbi Shaul Kook points out that some of the time it’s in the palm of his hand, which is the way it should be held according to various mekubalim, while at other times he holds the cup by its stem. He suggests that near the passage where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says, “I am like someone who is 70 years old,” he is depicted as holding the cup in his left hand while stroking his white beard with the other to show that he’s really not that old.[34] At that point in the Haggadah one would not be holding the cup for the purpose of drinking one of the four kosos and that’s why he’s not holding it in his palm. Whereas in the pictures near where one would hold the cup for drinking he is holding it in the palm of his right hand. However, there is another picture on the page of Kiddush that is similar to the one of Rabbi Elazar holding the cup in his left hand and stroking his beard. Rabbi Kook says that this is because the printer was not educated and, not realizing the reasons for the difference, used the wrong woodcut.[35]
The problem with this is that the earliest source we have for holding the cup of wine specifically in the palm of the hand is in the Shalah HaKadosh, which was first printed in 1648—long after this Haggadah was printed.[36] It is, however, very possible that mistakes were made because printing with woodcuts is very difficult and confusing.
Sitting during Kiddush
Other customs that we can possibly learn from the illustration of Kiddush are that the person is both sitting and looking at the cup. These are also mentioned by various poskim in regard to the halachos for how Kiddush should be said.[37] There are other halachos of Kiddush that can perhaps be learned from these illustrations, but one has to be careful as to how much to “read into” them.
[1] On this Haggadah, see A. Yaari, Bibliography Shel Haggadot Pesach, p. 1. Y. Yudolov, Otzar Haggados, p. 2, # 7-8; the introduction to the 1965 reprint of this Haggadah; Yosef Yerushalmi, Haggadah and History, plate 13; Yosef Tabori, Mechkarim B’toldos Halachah (forthcoming), pp. 461-474. See especially the excellent work of Rabbi Charles Wengrov, Haggadah and Woodcut, (1967), which is completely devoted to this Haggadah. Another recent work devoted to this Haggadah was printed this year by R’ Yehoshua Goldberg, Haggadas Prague. Many thanks to my friend Dan Rabinowitz for the discussions about this Haggadah over the past few years. Here are two earlier posts by Dan on manucript Haggados and the 1526 Prague Haggadah: here and here. Thanks also to Mr. Yisroel Israel for his help with the images.
[2] As there are numerous illustrated manuscript haggadas.
[3] Yerushalmi, Haggadah and History, p. 30.
[4] This detailed publication information does not appear on the title page; rather, it appears at the end of the book in what is referred to as the colophon. On the printers see Chaim Friedberg, Toldos Hadefus Haivri, pp. 1-10. On various aspects about printing in these years in Prague, see Hebrew Printing in Bohemia and Moravia (Prague 2012).
[5] Richard Cohen, Jewish Icons, (1998), pp. 94-97; Chone Shmeruk, The Illustrations in Yiddish Books of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Heb. 1986).
[6] Halichos Shlomo (Pesach), pp. 267-268.
[6] Halichos Shlomo (Pesach), pp. 267-268.
[7] Intro to Shu”t Ohel Yosef, 1903.
[8] Hagadol MiMinsk, p.51.
[9] Drashah L’Pesach L’Rabbi Elazar MiVermeiza, p. 96. See: Haggadah Shevivei Eish, p. 152; Y. Tabory, Pesach Dorot, pp. 216-244. See also what I wrote in my work Bein Kesse Le’assor, pp. 148-153.
[10] Darchei Moshe, 486:1.
[10] Darchei Moshe, 486:1.
[11] See also Siach Yitzchak (Brooklyn 2016), p. 241.
[12] Aruch Hashulchan, 473:6.
[13] Siach Yitzchak, p. 239, 252.
[14] Siach Yitzchak, p. 239.
[15] On this minhag see Zvi Ron, Our Own Joy is Lessened and Incomplete; The History of an Interpretation of Sixteen Drops of Wine at the Seder, Hakirah 19 (2015), pp. 237-255. I hope to return to this in the future.
[16] Drashah L’Pesach L’Rabbi Elazar MiVermeiza, p. 51, 101, 127.
[16] Drashah L’Pesach L’Rabbi Elazar MiVermeiza, p. 51, 101, 127.
[17] Rabbi Wengrov (above note 1), p. 60. See also Hanhagot HaMaharshal, pp. 10-11; Magen Avraham, 473:22; Chidushei Dinim MeiHilchos Pesach, p. 38. See Rabbi Chaim Benveniste, Pesach Me’uvin, 315; Vayageid Moshe, pp. 116-117.
[18] Minhagei Yisroel 4, pp. 168-170.
[18] Minhagei Yisroel 4, pp. 168-170.
[19] Minhaghim Dik’hal Vermeiza, p. 86
[20] Tzemach Dovid, p. 139. See also Tzefunot 7 (1990) pp. 22-26.
[21] See also Siddur R’ Shabsei Sofer, 1, p. 5; Rabbi Yosef Zechariah Stern, Zecher Yosef, p. 4. [22] Chacham Tzvi, 119. On using this even though it is not bitter see also Dovid Henshke, Mah Nishtanah (2016), pp. 250-255, 215-220, 224-227, about Maror being bitter.
[23] Meromei Sadeh Pesachim 7b, See also Arthur Schaffer, History of Horseradish as the Bitter Herb of Passover, Gesher 8 (1981) pp. 217-237; Levi Cooper, Bitter Herbs in Hasidic Galicia, JSIJ 12 (2013), pp. 1-40; Z. Amar, Merorim, pp. 67-83. See also Rabbi Yehudah Spitz, Maror Musings, the not so bitter truth about Maror, Ami Magazine (2014), pp. 230-234.
[24] See Rabbi Wengrov (above note 1), p. 54. See also Rabbi Dovid Holtzer, Eitz Chaim 25 (2016), pp. 285-292.
[23] Meromei Sadeh Pesachim 7b, See also Arthur Schaffer, History of Horseradish as the Bitter Herb of Passover, Gesher 8 (1981) pp. 217-237; Levi Cooper, Bitter Herbs in Hasidic Galicia, JSIJ 12 (2013), pp. 1-40; Z. Amar, Merorim, pp. 67-83. See also Rabbi Yehudah Spitz, Maror Musings, the not so bitter truth about Maror, Ami Magazine (2014), pp. 230-234.
[24] See Rabbi Wengrov (above note 1), p. 54. See also Rabbi Dovid Holtzer, Eitz Chaim 25 (2016), pp. 285-292.
[25] Hamaayan 51 (2011), pp. 11-14.
[26] On this and other pictures related to humor in the Haggadah see Rabbi Wengrov (above note 1),pp. 54-59.
[27] See also Rabbi Wengrov (abovenote 1), pp. 43-44; HaggadasMidrash B’chodesh (2015) of Rav Eliezer Foah (talmid of the Rama MiFano), p.135; R’ Elazer Fleckeles, Maaseh B’Rabbi Elazar, p. 63-64. See also Dovid Henshke, Mah Nishtanah (2016), pp. 358-359.
[28] See Rabbi Toviah Preshel, Kovetz Maamarei Tuviah 2, pp.64-65.
[28] See Rabbi Toviah Preshel, Kovetz Maamarei Tuviah 2, pp.64-65.
[29] See Chone Shmeruk, “The Earliest Aramaic and Yiddish Version of the Song of the Kid (Khad Gadye),” in The Field of Yiddish, 1 (New York 1954), pp. 214-218; Chone Shmeruk, Safrut Yiddish,pp. 40-42, 57-60; Asufot, 2 (1988), pp. 201-226; Rabbi Yisroel Dandrovitz, Eitz Chaim 23 (2015), pp. 400-416. Shimon Steinmetz discusses the origin of Chad Gadya here.
[30] Minchas Cohen, p. 73. Many thanks to my friend Rabbi Shalom Jacob for sending copies of this extremely rare work.
[31] Marbeh L’Sapeir, p. 140, 151. See also Rabbi Yosef Zechariah Stern in his Haggadah Zecher Yosef (p. 30), who writes that he did not find this piyut printed before the sefer Maasei Hashem. See also the Haggadah Shleimah ad. loc.; Assufot, vol 2 pp. 201-226; Mo’adim L’simcha vol. 5 ch. 11; Y. Tabory, Pesach Doros, pp. 341-342 and the note on pp 379.
[32] Siach Yitzchak, p. 21a. About this gaon see the introduction of Rabbi Adler in his recent edition of Pnei Yitzchak – Apei Ravrevi.
[32] Siach Yitzchak, p. 21a. About this gaon see the introduction of Rabbi Adler in his recent edition of Pnei Yitzchak – Apei Ravrevi.
[33] See Rabbi Wengrov (above note 1), pp. 36-37.
[34] See Rabbi Yosef Zechariah Stern, Zecher Yosef, pp. 5a-6a.
[35] See Yeida Haam 2 (1954), p. 148; Iyunim Umechkarim, 1 pp. 81-83.
[36] See also R’vid Hazahav, Vayeishev (Kaf Paroh); Rabbi Mordechai Rosenbalt, Hadras Mordechai, Bereishis, 259. See also Shu”t Beis Yaakov, (1696) 174 who quotes such a custom from the Arizal.
[37] See Rabbi Dovid Deblitsky, Birchos L’rosh Tzaddik, pp. 25-31.
[37] See Rabbi Dovid Deblitsky, Birchos L’rosh Tzaddik, pp. 25-31.
Towards a Bibliography About Realia and Chumash, specifically relating to the Mishkan and Bigdei Kehunah
Towards a Bibliography About Realia and Chumash, specifically relating to the Mishkan and Bigdei Kehunah
By Eliezer Brodt
Learning Chumash and Nach is extremely important for many reasons. Over time it became a neglected subject (why is the subject of a different post IY”H) and in many circles is still true today. Sadly, many people remain with the images of the various stories from Tanach the way they heard it in their youth without a genuine understanding of the events. I strongly believe that learning Tanach properly (by both students in school and adults) could help with some of the issues we face today. In recent years there have been attempts to fix this problem but there is still much work to be done.[1] There are many works out there to help one deepen their understanding of Tanach, each focusing on different aspects.
In this post I will limit myself to mentioning some of the recent, general works on the topic that I feel can help. However, the main focus of the post will be a listing and description of works to help one learn Parshiyos Terumah through Pekudei, with emphasis on works that focus on the Realia. I will also quote some general sources of the significance of understanding the Realia. Eventually I will return to add more works and Parshiyos to this list. I will also deal with other aspects of learning Tanach. Just to mention one area to help one understand Chumash which I dealt with a bit in the past – that is Via learning Targum Onkelos properly, see here and here.
General works
אמנון בזה, עד היום הזה, שאלות יסוד בלימוד תנ”ך, ידיעות ספרים, 470 עמודים.
היא שיחתי, על דרך לימוד התנ”ך, בעריכת ר’ יהושע רייס, מכללת הרצוג תשע”ג, 264 עמודים
בעיני אלוהים ואדם, האדם המאמין ומחקר המקרא, בעריכת יהודה ברנדס, טובה גנזל חיותה דויטש, בית מורשה ירושלים תשע”ה, 487 עמודים
Moshe Sokolow, Tanakh, An Owner’s Manual, Authorship, Canonization, Masoretic Text, Exegesis, Modern Scholarship and Pedagogy, Urim 2015, 219 pp.
David Stern, The Jewish Bible, A Material History, Washington Press 2017, 303 pp. [Beautifully produced]
Yitzchak Etshalom, Between the lines of the Bible, Genesis, Recapturing the Full meaning of the Biblical Text (revised and Expanded), Urim/OU Press, NY 2015, 271 pp.
Yitzchak Etshalom, Between the lines of the Bible: Exodus: A study from the new school of Orthodox Torah Commentary, Urim/OU Press, NY 2012, 220 pp. [On this work see here]
See also the incredible site ALHatorah.org which is extremely useful.
Also, worth mentioning is the new series which I am enjoying so far:
יואל בן נון, שאול ברוכי, מקראות עיון, רב תחומי בתורה, יתרו, 278 עמודים
יואל בן נון, שאול ברוכי, מקראות עיון, רב תחומי בתורה, 608 עמודים
See their Website for more information here.
Many years ago, when I was in fourth Grade, my Rebbe, Rabbi Zacks (who loved seforim) taught us the Parshiyos of Terumah etc. While learning it he would take out this fancy and expensive book with color pictures of the various Kelim in the Mishkan and of the Bigdei Kehunah to help us better understand what we were learning. He was using visual aids of pictures to help the students understand Chumash. I recall that when it was Friday of Parshas Terumah there was non-stop knocking on the classroom door, because Rabbeyim from different classes sent students to borrow the sefer so that they too could show their classes the pictures while learning Parshas Hashavuah. A few years later I recall someone bringing and setting up a real model of the Mishkan and Kelim to our school. All this helped us understand the Chumash a bit better.
A few years ago I heard a shiur in Jerusalem from the prolific Rabbi Yechiel Stern on Visual aids for learning, as he had written many such seforim to help students. He described that at first there was much opposition to what he was doing but eventually it became more and more accepted.
At the time I realized that this was something that the academic world was busy with for well over hundred years and wrote on this numerous works. However, that obviously would not help the case to get mainstream Yeshivos to use these works even when the authors were frum and the like. (See further on).
However, the truth is that there were many Gedolim who had realized the significance of using Visual aids while teaching and of understanding the Realia while learning Chumash.
Just to list some sources.
R’ Sofer writes about the Chasam Sofer:
לתכלית גדול הזה לברר הלכה לאמיתו ולהעמיד כל ענין על בוריו הי’ לו לכל שיעורי תורה כלים מיוחדים מדודים מאתו בדקדוק הדק היטב להראות לתלמידיו וכן הי’ לו בארגז מיוחד שני צורות תבנית זכר ונקבה מעשה אומן מופלא והיו נעשים פרקים פרקים וכל חלקי הפנימים מעשה חדש נפלא ללמוד וללמד חכמת הניתוח ולא הראה זה רק לתלמידים מובהקים אשר יראת ה’ אוצרם בעת למדו אתם הלכות נדה וכדומה.[2]
Regarding the Minsker Godol after he got his first position, he sat with the head Dayan to see exactly how to Pasken. His reason for this was:
“מעולם לא ראיתי הדברים האלה במציאות, וכל ידיעותי אינן רק מהעיון והלימוד בספרים…”.[3]
In a Haskamah of the Aderet he writes as follows:
בואו ונחזיק טובה להרב המובהק הנ’… אשר המציא להשכיל להטיב לצעירי התלמידים להקל מעליהם למוד ההוראות במקצוע הל’ שחיטה וטריפות בהמציאו ציורים ותמונת מכל אבר ואבר לכל פרטי מוצאיו ומובאיו על פי מקורים נאמנים… התענגתי מאד לראות חיבורו סי’ אהל יוסף נחמד למראה וטוב למעשה לא לבד לצעירי התלמידים אשר לא ראו ניתוח בעלי חיים מעודם, כי אם גם למוריהם, כי יקל הלימוד לתלמידיהם להורותם הלכה למעשה על כל פרט ופרט לאמר בזה ראה וקדש”.[4]
In the extremely interesting autobiography of Eliezer Friedman he writes:
מצאתי אצל אחד… ספר רבני ובו לוח הריאה וציורים. אנכי הייתי אז בקיא מאוד ביורה דעה. ראיתי כי באמת נחוץ לחניכי הרבנים לומדי היו”ד, לוח הריאה אבל לא כזה שמצאתי שאינו אומר כלום… צירתי עלי גליון גדול, צורת הריאה, אונותיה ואומותיה וכל סוגי השאלות אשר אפשר להוליד בהלכות ריאה. הכל מצויר בצבעים שונים, צבעים טבעיים כפי הלקוי והמחלה אשר ידובר עליהן בש”ס ופוסקים. על כל לקוי, הצגתי אות מספרי ובצד הציור כתבתי בקצור נמרץ שם הלקוי, תמצית דעות הפוסקים והחלט הדין להטריף או להכשיר, את הציור אזה הראיתי לגאונים ר’ נפתלי צבי יהודה מוולואזין ור’ שלמה הכהן מווילנא. הם סמכו ידעם על הציור להשתמש בו הלכה למעשה, ואמכור אותו למדפיסים ראם בווילנה. גם סמיכה להורות ולדון נתנו לי (ספר הזכרונות, עמ’ 136).
See also the important introduction related to this in Rabbi Moshe Leib Shachor, Bigdei Kehuna (pp.10-11).
Turning to these Parshos in Chumash in Particular.
In 1612, R’ Abraham Portaleone (1542-1612), a Talmid Chochom and medical doctor, printed in Mantua his encyclopedic masterpiece Shiltay HaGiborim. This work deals in great depth with every aspect of the Mishkan and Mikdash, with a tremendous focus on Realia. For example, when dealing with the Kitores, he methodologically investigates every aspect of it (pages upon pages) drawing upon his expert knowledge in sciences and command of ten languages. Similarly, when discussing the stones of the Choshen, he tries to identify the stones, using these same tools, while covering other aspects related to them. When dealing with the music and the instruments used in the Beis Hamikdosh, he again devotes many pages to the subject, explaining it via knowledge of the Realia. This last section on Music was the Subject of a PhD dissertation in 1980 written in Tel Aviv by Daniel Sandler.
רבנו אברהם הצליח להקיף ולהתמודד בחיבורו עם נושאים שונים ומגוונים הקשורים למקדש, כמו תוכנית מבנה המקדש וכליו, הקרבנות הראויים לעלות למזבח, בגדי כהונה, אבני החושן, סממני הקטורת, עצי המערכה, תפקידי הלויים, ובהם שירה וזימרה, שמירה, וכן סדר התפילות והקריאה בתורה ועוד נושאים רבים. בכל אחד מהנושאים שעסק, הוא הפגין ידע ובקיאות מעוררת השתאות, בתחומי הזואולוגיה, הבוטניקה, מנרולוגיה, מוסיקה, רפואה, טכנולוגיה ועוד ועוד. בעצם לפנינו חיבור אנציקלופדי רחב היקף, האנציקלופדיה הראשונה שנכתבה על המקדש.
אז מה הופך את רבנו לחוקר ? ראשית, רבנו אברהם היה בעל ידע נרחב בכל הספרות היהודית לדורותיה, ובהקדמתו הוא מנה כמאה מקורות בהם השתמש, החל מספרות חז”ל, הגאונים, הראשונים וחכמים בני תקופתו. אולם מקורות הידע שלו לא הצטמצמו לארון הספרים היהודי, אלא הוא היה בקיא גם בכל מכמניה של הספרות הקלאסית, היוונית, הרומית והערבית, וספרות המדע שהתפתחה בתקופתו. רבנו אברהם ניחן באחד מכלי המחקר החשובים ביותר והיא ידיעת שפות. על פי עדותו בהקדמה הוא השתמש בחיבורו בעשר שפות: איטלקית, ארמית, גרמנית, צ’יכית, יוונית, לטינית, ספרדית, ערבית, פרסית וצרפתית.
In 2010 Mechon Yerushalyim and Mechon Shlomo Uman put out a beautiful, annotated edition of this special work (47+709 pp). At the end of the thorough introduction they are very open and quote Prof. Amar as follows:
אולם פרופ’ זהר עמר העיר בצדק שלצורך הוצאת מהדורה מדעית מלאה של הספר נדרשת עוד עבודה רבה מאוד. מדובר בספר מסובך עם מאות רבות של מונחים בשפות לועזיות שונות, והוא דורש התמודדת עם הספרות הקלאסית היוונית והלטינית (כמו אריסטו, תיאופרסטוס, פליניוס, דיוסקורידס וסטארבו) מחד, וספרות ימיו של רבנו המחבר (כמו חיבוריהם של פרוספר אלפין ואחרים) מאידך, ויש צורך להשוות את כל הציטוטים עם המקורות עצמם על רקע העובדה שהמחבר הוא הראשון שמביא את תרגומם בעברית. מעבר לכך חייבים לזהות באופן שיטתי את כל הצמחים, בעלי החיים והמינרלים שבספר, ולהתחקות אחרי תהליכי ייצור וטכנולוגיה המוזכרים בו (למשל ייצור סבון). כל זה דורש מחקרים נוספים בעזרת מומחים לתחומים השונים, והרבה הרבה זמן (יתכן שכדאי יהיה להוציא בעתיד נספח מדעי למהדורה זו.
Although what Amar writes is very true, what they did do is extremely useful.
Just to add one more source about R’ Abraham Portaleone: See the two excellent chapters devoted to him by Andrew D. Berns, in his recent book The Bible and Natural Philosophy in Renaissance Italy, Cambridge 2015, pp. 153-230. One chapter focuses on his correspondence with his Gentile colleagues found in an unpublished manuscript of his. The other chapter deals with R’ Abraham Portaleone’s sections devoted to the Kitores.
Over the centuries other works were written devoted to explaining the Realia of the Mishkan and Mikdash (hopefully one day I will compile a detailed list). In 1891 a work called Mikdash Aron was printed’ a bit later the same author printed another work also devoted to this subject called Parshegen.
Rav Kasher writes about this work as follows:
וראיתי להעיר כאן על ספר זה, שמוקדש לביאור מעשה המשכן וכל כליו, הלוחות וספר תורה ולחם הפנים. המחבר עשה מלאכה גדולה, שערך הכל בקצור נמרץ והכניס הרבה, חומר על כל אלה ,ענינים בעשרים דפים (40 עמוד) ונראה, מתוך ספרו שהשקיע בו הרבה זמן ויגיעה גדולה. אמנם הסדר שלו הוא מוזר. מחבר זה סדר לו פנים וביאור. הפנים נכתב באופן סתמי ומוחלט שהקורא חושב שהוא מועתק מאיזה, מקור והביאור נותן המקורות, וכל מעיין משתומם לראות אין שבכל ענין וענין כותב לו בפנים דברים שהם השערות גרידא מהרהורי לבו שאין להם שום מקור ויסוד ,והרבה פעמים מציין מקורות אבל לא הבין הדברים כראוי, וכותב להיפך מהמבואר בראשונים כי דרכו הוא בלשון מדברת גדולות ולכן אין לסמוך על דבריו רק צריכים לבדוק המקורוות ותמה אני על א׳ מהגדולים המסכים על ספרו בהערות להוצאה שניה, מהספר מביא שכמה מהגדולים בזמנו פלפלו עמו וכנראה, שלא נפנו לקרוא בעיון בהספר, לכן לא העירו להמחבר על עיקר גישתו שאינה נכונה [תורה שלמה, כב, מילואים, עמ’ 23].
Rav Kasher writes he does not understand how one of the Gedolim who gave a Haskamah did not comment. This appears to be a strange story and requires further investigation of the various editions of the work. The author has various letters from Gedolim and brings various comments he received from them about the work. One of the Gedolim who he was in correspondence about his works was the Netziv. Interestingly, the Netziv writes in one of these letters:
תבנית הארון והלוחות כבר שלחתי להגרש”מ כמבוקשו…
[Some of the letters were reprinted in Igrot Netziv, pp. 39-41 but not all of them. I have no explanation for this].
Of interest is what the author writes describing how he came to writing this work and his meeting with R’ Meir Simcha
Besides for publishing works on the Mishkan others built models. R’ Tuviah Preshel collected a bunch of accounts of people who actually built such models of the Mishkan to help people understand it (See Ma’amarei Tuvia, 1, pp. 412-419 available here).
One work in particular which still has not been outdated is the Living Torah from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. Although his translation on the whole torah is very important, the sections on these Parshiyos are extremely special and useful.
Turning to specific “ingredients” we find mentioned in these parshiyos time and time again. There are a few works of Zohar Amar relevant, all of which investigate the particular topic from the early sources until recent developments. See for example:
זהר עמר, בעקבות תולעת השני הארץ ישראלית, תשס”ז, 106 עמודים
זהר עמר, ספר הקטורת, תל אביב תשס”ב, 197 עמודים
זהר עמר, הארגמן, פורפורה וארג’ואן במקורות ישראלועוד בירורים בענייני התכלת, תשע”ד, 281 עמודים
In it he writes:
במסגרת המחקר פיצחתי כ-11000 קונכיות של ארגמונים לצורך מיצוי צבע מהם (עמ’ 13).
See also
ר’ ישראל ראזענבערג, קונטרס מרכבו ארגמן, והוא בירור מהות צבע ארגמן מדברי חז”ל עד האחרונים וביאור המסורה בזה [וגם יתבאר בו מהות תולעת שני], נד עמודים.
I am specifically avoiding listing material on תכלת as there has been a recent explosion on the topic (especially of note are the booklets coming out of Lakewood). Someone needs to put out a proper bibliography of all the works on this hot topic. Just to mention three recent discussions related to the topic.
I, See Dovid Henshke’s recent article in Assif 5 (2018)
פתיל תכלת וגידלי ציצית בירורים בקיום מצות תכלת בציצית
Available here
II,
ר’ יהושע ענבל, קוציו של ארגמון, האוצר יא (תשע”ח), עמ’ רעא-שיב.
A PDF is Available upon request.
Three Listen to this Shiur – specifically the Part from Rabbi J. D. Bleich.
The Aron
A special article devoted to literary all aspects of the Aron is from R’ Menachem Silber, published in Sefer HaZicron LeRebbe Moshe Lipshitz (1996), pp. 229- 272. The Article is titled ארון העדות ולוחות הברית: צורתם ותבניתם. The article is written very concise, in an encyclopedic style, includes hundreds of footnotes and is well worth ones time to go through.
An interesting point related to this article is in a publication of Encyclopedia Talmudit where they discuss various issues related to their publication:
ערך לוחות הברית, לאורך זמן רב פקפקנו אם יש לו מקום באנצ”ת. הנושא אינו הלכתי ממש, ניתן לראותו יותר כרקע להלכה, שיש להניחם בארון שבקדש הקדשים, ולדעת הרמב”ן יש מצוה מיוחדת לעשות ארון לצורך הלוחות, כגון אם נמצא אותם בלי ארון. אכן ענין זה כבר נידון כללית בערך ארון. והנה סמוך לסוף הכרך קבלנו מאחד מלומדי האנצ”ת עבודה יפה שהוא ערך בנושא, ובקשנו לראות אם היא מתאימה לנו. במבט ראשון אכן נראתה דומה לערך באנציקלופדיה, וכאן המקום להודות לו מקרב לב. זה עורר אותנו לשיקול מחדש, ובסופו של דבר הערך נכתב, ולמעשה השתנה מהמסד עד הטפחות, והלומד ימצא בו ריכוז של סוגיות שונות בתלמוד בבלי וירושלמי, סביב צורתם של הלוחות.
I assume they got a copy of Rabbi Silber’s article and this helped them change their minds. See the entry in Encyclopedia Talmudit, 37, pp. 143-150. In Footnote # 21 they quote the article (I think they should write out the authors name).
See also
ר’ עזריאל לעמל כ”ץ, קונטרס מנוחת השכינה, מראי מקומות וביאורים בענין הארון, ביאור מקיף בענין מנוחת השכינה על הארון, נצחון ישראל, נגד האויבים ע”י נשיאת הארון למלחמה, ושמות של הקב”ה שהיו מונחים בארון, ועוד, תשע”ו, צח עמודים
Lechem Hapanim
For information about all aspects of the of Lechem Hapanim: See the excellent entry in one of the most recent volumes of Encyclopedia Talmudit, 37, pp. 483-591
About making of Lechem Hapanim see:
זהר עמר, חמשת מיני דגן, תשע”א, עמ’ 129-172
On the Menorah throughout the ages:
See Daniel Sperber, “The History of the Menorah”, Journal of Jewish Studies 16:3-4 (1965) pp. 135-59, and in his Minhaghei Yisroel, 5, pp. 171-204. Daniel Sperber in Daniel Sperber Articles, Reviews and Stories 1960-2010, Jerusalem 2010, p. 11.
Baraita De-Melekhet Ha-Mishkan
A much earlier “neglected” work important to use when learning these parshiyos is Baraita De-Melekhet Ha-Mishkan.
For Meir Ish Shalom’s edition see here. R’ Chaim Kanievsky commentary on this work is available here. A recent critical edition of this work was done by Robert Kirschner, Baraita De-Melekhet Ha-Mishkan: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Translation, 1992, 320 pp. For a review of this edition see Chaim Milikowsky, “On Editing Rabbinic Texts: A Review-Essay of Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Translation by R. Kirschner”, JQR 86 (1996), pp. 409-417 (here). For a recent commentary on this work see:
ר’ חיים דיס, דברים אחדים, אנטווערפען תשע”א, על ברייתא דמלאכת המשכן, בגדי כהונה ועוד, תקנו עמודים
This work is available free in PDF here.
Two other random works I will mention here are:
רבינו שמעיה השושני, סוד מעשה המשכן, כ”י, [מדורו של רש”י], מהדיר: ר’ גור אריה הרציג, 2013, 20 עמודים.
יעקב שפיגל, לשון הזהב (חישוב הזהב הנדרש לכלי המשכן והמקדש) לר’ יצחק בן שלמה אלאחדב, בד”ד 12 (תשס”א), 5-34
Bigdei Kehunah
An important work that had tremendous impact on many of those related to Wissenschaft as well as those who identified with the Haskalah movement was R’ Azariah de Rossi’s Meor Einayim. This work, first printed in Mantua in 1573, was really a few hundred years ahead of its time. However, for a long period of time it remained underaappreciated and, in some circles, even banned. De Rossi’s book was an attempt to deal with the chronological and intellectual history of Judaism during the Second Temple and early Rabbinic periods. The author devoted a considerable amount of space towards understanding Chazal and Aggadah. De Rossi employed critical methods, including philology, going back to translating early original documents from their source languages. Many of these methods eventually became the trademark of Wissenschaft.[5] Zunz wrote the first definitive study on the history and usage of this work, emphasizing its importance.[6] The work also influenced people affiliated with the “GRA school”, such as RaShaSh and Netziv (who quotes it in relation to the Bigdei Kehuna).[7] One lengthy section of this work is devoted to the Bigdei Kehuna (See his Imrei Bina, Ch. 46-50) where he has a lengthy discussion based on Rishonim and other sources such, as Yosifon and Philo. While I am not sure if R’ Abraham Portaleone in his Shiltei HaGiborim, also printed in Mantua a bit later, made use of the Meor Einayim‘s discussion, it’s worth mentioning that he also deals extensively with the Bigdei Kehuna.
One outstanding work on the topic of the Bigdei Kehuna is Rabbi Moshe Leib Shachor, Bigdei Kehunah (1971) 447 pp.
For a review on this book see Daniel Sperber, Daniel Sperber Articles, Reviews and Stories 1960-2010, Jerusalem 2010, p.51 who writes about it:
It is the work of a true Talmid Chacham with a tremendous Bekiyut… applying the traditional methods… to a relatively unexplored field… The depth and detail of treatment is sometimes most astounding… His sharpness and his critical abilities glimmer through the printed words… This book has a wealth of information on a little-known subject. It is clearly written, well organized….
An older work on Bigdei Kehunah is available here. For a recent book on this subject see:
ר’ זאב לופיאן, לשרת בקודש, ירושלים תשע”ו, בעניני בגדי כהונה, תפו עמודים
See also
ר’ ישראל גארדאן, קונטרס לב ישראל, בעניני האפוד והחושן, ללוס אנג’לס תשע”ג, 123 עמודים
See also
זאב ספראי, משנת ארץ ישראל, יומא, עמ’ 249-269
The stones of the Choshen
Recently much has been written on the Stones of the Choshen.
See
.זהר עמר, החן שבאבן, אבני החושן ואבנים טובות בעולם הקדום, תשע”ז, 350 עמודים
See also the important article on the topic from Rabbi Yankelowitz:
זיהוי אבן החושן על פי תרגום השבעים והתרגומים הארמיים, חצי גיבורים י (תשע”ז), עמ’ תעח-תקמא.
A pdf is available upon request.
See also the chapter of Andrew D. Berns, in his recent book The Bible and Natural Philosophy in Renaissance Italy, Cambridge 2015, pp. 109-152, “The Grandeur of the Science of God” David De Pomi and the stones of the High Priests Breastplate. The Chapter is specifically devoted to understanding David De Pomi of the Tarshish stone in his Tzemach Dovid[8] where he identifies it as the diacinto and mentions the Segulos of this stone.
Appendix:
It appears that even though some will use visual aids and Realia for teaching Chumash, many are nervous about introducing Realia when learning Talmud. See here, here and here for some recent discussions on the subject. [For Earlier posts related to this see here and here] Although I personally am not sure how one can say its not important or relevant (but I am biased and tainted from Academia already). I suspect that part of the issue is that the fear is at times the outcomes might clash with Halacha. This itself has many ramifications and is an explosive topic which I hope to return to someday.
To cite just one example, over ten years ago I wrote:
One of the greatest poskim of the past century, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, was famous for how he consulted experts and tried to understand the exact facts before issuing a pesak. This is evident in all his writings on all of the modern-day issues. One example: In recent years there has been much written on the bottle cap opening of shabbat — it even has its own huge sefer (as virtually everything else does these days) on the topic! One of the rabbanim who has been involved with this topic for years is R. Moshe Yadler, author of Meor Hashabbat, where he has written on this topic and spent many hours speaking to many gedolim about it. When he was researching the topic he made sure to track down every type of bottle, he visited factories to see how bottles are made so that he would be able to understand exactly how it is made so he would be able to pasken properly. When he gives a shiur about this topic he comes with a bag full of all types of caps to demonstrate to the crowd the exact way it is made, etc. He told me once that he spoke to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach about this many times. At one point he requested R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach to put in writing all his pesakim on the subject to which the latter did. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s son told R. Yadler that his father sat for three days with a soda bottle in front of him the whole time he was writing the teshuvah and he kept on taking it on and off.
Yet elsewhere we find R’ Shlomo Zalman writes in regards to some of the discoveries of Yehudah Felix:
קיבלתי יקרת מכתבו מעולם לא אמרתי לשנות מהמסורת והשו”ע וכמו שאין שומעין לפרופ’ פליקס (שהוא שומר מצוות) ששבולת שועל הוא לא מה שקוראים העולם, ואין שומעין לו ומברכין מזונות, וכן הוכיח באותות שתמכי הנקרא חריין לא היה כלל בזמן חז”ל ואין יוצאין בזה מרור, ואעפ”כ אין שומעין לו נגד המסורות. וכ”ש בענין זה שמפורש בשו”ע וכידוע (ר’ צבי גולדברג, מסורתנו, ירושלים תשס”ג, עמ’ 6).
For another article against Felix see R’ Yonah Merzbach, Aleh LeYonah (2102), pp. 535-539. About Y. Felix see Zohar Amar article in Jerusalem and Eretz Yisroel 4-5(2007), pp. 7-10. Available here.
[1] In the next version of this article I will cite sources about this, IYH.
[2] חוט המשולש, כט ע”א.
[3] הגדול ממינסק, ירושלים תשנ”ד, עמ’ 51.
[4] שו”ת אהל יוסף, ניו יורק תרס”ג, בהקדמה.
[5] On this work there is extensive literature. See for example Bezalel Safran: Azariah de Rossi’s Meor Eynaim, PhD, Harvard 1979 (Thanks to Menachem Butler for this source); Robert Bonfil: Azariah De’ Rossi Selected chapters from Sefer Meor Einayim, Jerusalem 1991; Lester Segal: Historical Consciousness and Religious Tradition in Azariah de’ Rossi’s Meor Einayim, New York 1989.
[6] Toledot Rabi Azariah min ha-Adumim, Kerem Hemed 5 (1841) pp. 131-58; Tosefot le-Toledot R’ Azariah min ha-Adumim, Kerem Hemed 7 (1843) pp. 119-24.
[7] Gil Perl, The Pillar of Volozhin: Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin and the World of Nineteenth-Century Lithuanian Scholarship, Boston: Academic studies Press 2013, pp.105-126. This is the subject of a future article.
[8] On the Tzemach Dovid see Shimon Brisman, History and Guide to Judaic Dictionaries and Concordances, Ktav 2000, p. 61, 290.
The Strange Shape of the Marcheshet Pan
The Strange Shape
of the Marcheshet Pan
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.”
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.
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.
Massechet Menachot 63a
האומר הרי עלי במחבת, לא יביא במרחשת; במרחשת, לא יביא במחבת. מה בין מחבת למרחשת–אלא שהמרחשת יש לה כסוי, ולמחבת אין לה כסוי, דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי; רבי חנניה בן גמליאל אומר, מרחשת עמוקה ומעשיה רוחשין, ומחבת צפה ומעשיה קשין
One who says, “I take upon myself [to offer a grain offering prepared]
on a griddle, he must not bring [one baked] in a pan. If [he says “I take upon
myself to offer a grain offering prepared] in a pan,” he must not bring [one
prepared] on a griddle. What is the difference between a griddle and a pan? The
pan has a lid to it, but the griddle has no lid – [these are ] the words of
Rabbi Yose Hagili; Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says : a pan is deep and what is
prepared is spongy, a griddle is flat and what is prepared is hard.[1]
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:
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:
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:
כלי היה במקדש ומרחשת שמה ודומה כמין כלבוס עמוק וכשבצק מונח
בתוכם דומה כמין תפוחי הברתים וכמין בלוטי היוונים
There was a vessel in
the Temple called Marhesheth, resembling a deep mould, which gave the dough
that was put into it the shape of Cretan apples and Grecian nuts. (The Soncino
Hebrew/English Babylonian Talmud)
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.
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
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]
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.
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.
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.
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:
diagram for a moment, let us concentrate on the words of Rashi as he tries to
describe the Marcheshet:
כלבוס
– גלואו”ן שם כלי עשוי כעין מחבת שלנו והדופן באמצעות כלפי פנים
כזה ומצוייר תוכו גומות גומות וכשהבצק מונח בתוכו [נכנס] הבצק
בגומות:
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 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.
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
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.
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]
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.
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”.
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
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:
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.
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.
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]
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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
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”
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”
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
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
actually changes the diagram inside the Rashi to the diagram of the Shita
Mekubetzet
מי כעמך כישראל
מי כעמך כישראל
איסר זלמן ווייסברג, לייקוואוד
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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:
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 –
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].
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’.
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].
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].
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].
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.
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).
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.
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].
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].
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.
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].
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.
|
ציור מברוך נחשון שיחי’ שנת תשע”ו
באתר nachshonart.com |
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.
[1] יומן של הר’ מיכאל אהרן
זליגסון (הידוע בדייקנות) באתר yomanim.com(משם
נעתק בסו”ס שיחות קודש [החדש] חלק נ’, תשס”ג – בלי ציון מקורו).
זליגסון (הידוע בדייקנות) באתר yomanim.com(משם
נעתק בסו”ס שיחות קודש [החדש] חלק נ’, תשס”ג – בלי ציון מקורו).
[2] כ”ה בסידור רס”ג
ובנוסח הרמב”ם, וכ”ה מנהג בני אשכנז (מחזור ויטרי, רוקח, סידור פראג
רע”ט).
ובנוסח הרמב”ם, וכ”ה מנהג בני אשכנז (מחזור ויטרי, רוקח, סידור פראג
רע”ט).
[3] כ”ה בסידור
רע”ג והוא כמנהג הספרדים. וכ”ה בסידור ספרד רפ”ד (הוא הסידור
שהרח”ו בחר לקבוע עליו שינוי נוסחות האריז”ל), בנגיד ומצוה להר”י
צמח (ירושלים תשכ”ה ע’ קלב, ובהגהה בשמו בפע”ח שער השבת פכ”ג)
ובסידור האר”י (ר’ שבתי מראשקוב, ר’ אשר). בבן
איש חי (שנה ב פ’ חיי שרה) כ’ דכ”ה העיקר, וכ”ה להדיא בעצם כתי”ק
של הרח”ו שער א דף קו, ב. (כל אלה המ”מ לקחתי מספר “תפילת
חיים”, מר’ דניאל רימר, תשס”ד, ע’ קצז הערה רב). וכ”ה בסי’ אור
הישר להר”מ פאפריש, וכן קבע הגאון בעל מנחת אלעזר בסידורו.
רע”ג והוא כמנהג הספרדים. וכ”ה בסידור ספרד רפ”ד (הוא הסידור
שהרח”ו בחר לקבוע עליו שינוי נוסחות האריז”ל), בנגיד ומצוה להר”י
צמח (ירושלים תשכ”ה ע’ קלב, ובהגהה בשמו בפע”ח שער השבת פכ”ג)
ובסידור האר”י (ר’ שבתי מראשקוב, ר’ אשר). בבן
איש חי (שנה ב פ’ חיי שרה) כ’ דכ”ה העיקר, וכ”ה להדיא בעצם כתי”ק
של הרח”ו שער א דף קו, ב. (כל אלה המ”מ לקחתי מספר “תפילת
חיים”, מר’ דניאל רימר, תשס”ד, ע’ קצז הערה רב). וכ”ה בסי’ אור
הישר להר”מ פאפריש, וכן קבע הגאון בעל מנחת אלעזר בסידורו.
בסדור היעב”ץ
(אשכול תשנ”ג) כתוב בפנים בלא כ’, אבל בהפירוש עם כ’ (ומציין לשמואל ב)?!
(אשכול תשנ”ג) כתוב בפנים בלא כ’, אבל בהפירוש עם כ’ (ומציין לשמואל ב)?!
[4] כמובא בפרויקט פרידברג
לשינויי נוסחאות בתלמוד הבבלי – ‘הכי גרסינן’ באתר jewishmanuscripts.org. [רק בכת”י אחד (קטע מהגניזה) הגירסא
“כישראל”].
לשינויי נוסחאות בתלמוד הבבלי – ‘הכי גרסינן’ באתר jewishmanuscripts.org. [רק בכת”י אחד (קטע מהגניזה) הגירסא
“כישראל”].
[5] קדמו בזה בפי’ ר”י בר יקר. פי’ אחר בשייכות
תפילה זו לשבת בתוס’ חגיגה ג,ב ע”פ מדרש “ג’ מעידין זה על זה הקדוש ברוך
הוא ישראל ושבת…”. מובא גם בס’ הפרדס לרש”י ע’ שיד, בשבלי הלקט
סקכ”ו, ובטור סרצ”ב.
תפילה זו לשבת בתוס’ חגיגה ג,ב ע”פ מדרש “ג’ מעידין זה על זה הקדוש ברוך
הוא ישראל ושבת…”. מובא גם בס’ הפרדס לרש”י ע’ שיד, בשבלי הלקט
סקכ”ו, ובטור סרצ”ב.
[6] אין לנו ידיעות ברורות
מתי נתקן הנוסח “אתה אחד..” ובזמן הגאונים עדיין לא נתפשט בכל תפוצות
ישראל, כי הן רע”ג והן רס”ג הביאו די”א נוסח אחר (“הָנַח
לנו..” – וברע”ג דהוא העיקר) ולא “אתה אחד”. ובמבוא לבעל
סידור עבודת הלב הנכלל בסדור “אוצר התפלות” כתב שנוסח כל תפילות שבת,
ר”ח ומועדים נוסדו בימי חכמי המשנה והתלמוד זמן רב אחרי אנשי כנה”ג.
מתי נתקן הנוסח “אתה אחד..” ובזמן הגאונים עדיין לא נתפשט בכל תפוצות
ישראל, כי הן רע”ג והן רס”ג הביאו די”א נוסח אחר (“הָנַח
לנו..” – וברע”ג דהוא העיקר) ולא “אתה אחד”. ובמבוא לבעל
סידור עבודת הלב הנכלל בסדור “אוצר התפלות” כתב שנוסח כל תפילות שבת,
ר”ח ומועדים נוסדו בימי חכמי המשנה והתלמוד זמן רב אחרי אנשי כנה”ג.
בס’ יסודות התפילה לר’
אליעזר לוי (ת”א תשי”ב) משאר שמימות עזרא עד זמן חז”ל התפללו
י”ח בשבת עד שבטלו י”ב האמצעיות, כי בש”ס (ברכות כא, א) איתא “כי
הוינן בי רבה בר אבוה, בען מיניה, הני בני בי רב דטעו ומדכרי דחול בשבת, מהו
שיגמרו? ואמר לן: גומרין כל אותה ברכה”, והטעם משום ד”גברא בר חיובא
הוא, ורבנן הוא דלא אטרחוהו משום כבוד שבת*”, משמע דמתחילה נתקן לברך י”ח כל ימות
השנה כולל שבת ויו”ט, דאם לאו הכי למה הוא בר חיובא, מי חייב אותו? ובירושלמי
(ברכות ד, ד, ופ”ה ה”ב) מצינו דרבי אמר “תמיה אני היאך בטלו חונן
הדעת בשבת אם אין דיעה מניין תפילה”, ולכן ס”ל להירושלמי דלענין ברכת
חונן הדעת בודאי צריך לגומרו בשבת**. ואיך תמא רבי “האיך בטלו” אם מעולם
לא תקנו אמירתו בשבת?
אליעזר לוי (ת”א תשי”ב) משאר שמימות עזרא עד זמן חז”ל התפללו
י”ח בשבת עד שבטלו י”ב האמצעיות, כי בש”ס (ברכות כא, א) איתא “כי
הוינן בי רבה בר אבוה, בען מיניה, הני בני בי רב דטעו ומדכרי דחול בשבת, מהו
שיגמרו? ואמר לן: גומרין כל אותה ברכה”, והטעם משום ד”גברא בר חיובא
הוא, ורבנן הוא דלא אטרחוהו משום כבוד שבת*”, משמע דמתחילה נתקן לברך י”ח כל ימות
השנה כולל שבת ויו”ט, דאם לאו הכי למה הוא בר חיובא, מי חייב אותו? ובירושלמי
(ברכות ד, ד, ופ”ה ה”ב) מצינו דרבי אמר “תמיה אני היאך בטלו חונן
הדעת בשבת אם אין דיעה מניין תפילה”, ולכן ס”ל להירושלמי דלענין ברכת
חונן הדעת בודאי צריך לגומרו בשבת**. ואיך תמא רבי “האיך בטלו” אם מעולם
לא תקנו אמירתו בשבת?
ואחר שבטלו י”ב
האמצעות יסדו לומר שלש ראשונות ושלש אחרונות וקדושת השבת באמצע (משנה ר”ה ד,
ה. תוספתא ברכות ג, יד). אבל נוסח ברכה האמצעית הי’ שווה בכל ג’ תפילות דשבת, ואולי
התחיל רק מ”קדשינו במצותך” (ראה פסחים קיז, ב). ובזמן האמוראים או (יותר
מסתבר בזמן) הגאונים נתחבר נוסחאות השונות הנוספות לכל אחת מתפילות של שבת קודם
סיום ברכה האמצעית.
האמצעות יסדו לומר שלש ראשונות ושלש אחרונות וקדושת השבת באמצע (משנה ר”ה ד,
ה. תוספתא ברכות ג, יד). אבל נוסח ברכה האמצעית הי’ שווה בכל ג’ תפילות דשבת, ואולי
התחיל רק מ”קדשינו במצותך” (ראה פסחים קיז, ב). ובזמן האמוראים או (יותר
מסתבר בזמן) הגאונים נתחבר נוסחאות השונות הנוספות לכל אחת מתפילות של שבת קודם
סיום ברכה האמצעית.
עכ”פ לא רחוק
שהנוסח “אתה אחד” אמנם מיוסד על מאמרו של ראב”ע המובא בחגיגה.
שהנוסח “אתה אחד” אמנם מיוסד על מאמרו של ראב”ע המובא בחגיגה.
ואפי’ אי נימא שאין
דברי רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מקורו של נוסח התפילה, מ”מ כיון שהיא מבטא
אותו הרעיון, יש מקום לומר שאותו הסיבה שנבחר הנוסח כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל ע”י מחבר
הנוסח “אתה אחד”, כחה יפה גם ביחס לנוסח המימרא של ראב”ע.
דברי רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מקורו של נוסח התפילה, מ”מ כיון שהיא מבטא
אותו הרעיון, יש מקום לומר שאותו הסיבה שנבחר הנוסח כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל ע”י מחבר
הנוסח “אתה אחד”, כחה יפה גם ביחס לנוסח המימרא של ראב”ע.
*)
בכמה ראשונים כתבו הטעם משום איסור שאילת צרכיו בשבת. ראה רמב”ם פאר הדור
סק”ל. מחזור ויטרי סק”מ. ספר הפרדס לרש”י ע’ שטז. שבה”ל
סקכ”ח. (וראה בזה ב”קונטרס בקשות בשבת” להרב יעקב זאב פישר,
תשס”ה, ע’ מא איך להתאים שיטתם עם המפו’ בש”ס דהוא משום דלא אטרחוהו משום
כבוד שבת. ובביאור הגר”א סצ”ד סק”א דבאמת כ”ה לדעת החכמים
בש”ס דילן ברכות לג, א בטעמא דאמרינן הבדלה בחונן הדעת. וראה גם “הסידור –
מבנה ונוסח סידורו של.. בעל התניא”, היכל מנחם תשס”ג, מאמרו של הרב
גדלי’ אבערלאנדער בענין בקשת צרכיו בשבת ע’ שצז).
בכמה ראשונים כתבו הטעם משום איסור שאילת צרכיו בשבת. ראה רמב”ם פאר הדור
סק”ל. מחזור ויטרי סק”מ. ספר הפרדס לרש”י ע’ שטז. שבה”ל
סקכ”ח. (וראה בזה ב”קונטרס בקשות בשבת” להרב יעקב זאב פישר,
תשס”ה, ע’ מא איך להתאים שיטתם עם המפו’ בש”ס דהוא משום דלא אטרחוהו משום
כבוד שבת. ובביאור הגר”א סצ”ד סק”א דבאמת כ”ה לדעת החכמים
בש”ס דילן ברכות לג, א בטעמא דאמרינן הבדלה בחונן הדעת. וראה גם “הסידור –
מבנה ונוסח סידורו של.. בעל התניא”, היכל מנחם תשס”ג, מאמרו של הרב
גדלי’ אבערלאנדער בענין בקשת צרכיו בשבת ע’ שצז).
**) ברא”ש ברכות (פ”ג סי”ז) הביא מרבי
אשר מלוניל דפסק כן להלכה דדוקא בברכת אתה חונן גומר הברכה, ותמא עליו דהוא נגד
ש”ס דילן. וראה ב”ח סרס”ח ביאור שיטתו.
אשר מלוניל דפסק כן להלכה דדוקא בברכת אתה חונן גומר הברכה, ותמא עליו דהוא נגד
ש”ס דילן. וראה ב”ח סרס”ח ביאור שיטתו.
[7] וכן בעוד ב’ כת”י:
כתב-יד הספריה הבריטית 400, כתב-יד גטינגן 3 (כמובא בפרויקט פרידברג הנ”ל
הערה 4).
כתב-יד הספריה הבריטית 400, כתב-יד גטינגן 3 (כמובא בפרויקט פרידברג הנ”ל
הערה 4).
[8] וכ”ה הנוסח במאמר
זה המובא במדבר רבה נשא פי”ד (דפוס וילנא, וכ”ה במהדורת יבנה). אבל בילקוט (ואתחנן רמז תתכה, וישעי’ רמזים תקו ותסז)
הנוסח בלא כ’.
זה המובא במדבר רבה נשא פי”ד (דפוס וילנא, וכ”ה במהדורת יבנה). אבל בילקוט (ואתחנן רמז תתכה, וישעי’ רמזים תקו ותסז)
הנוסח בלא כ’.
[9] דפו”ר אשבונה (ליסבון) ר”נ 1490, קונטשטינא רעג 1513,
ויניציאה שכו 1556, אמשטרדם תפו 1726, פראג תקמד 1784.
ויניציאה שכו 1556, אמשטרדם תפו 1726, פראג תקמד 1784.
בדפוס ווארשא תרלח 1878
הוא בלי כ’. וכ”ה במהדורה הנד’ בירושלים תשכ”ג ע”י ר’ שמואל
קרויזר. בפרוייקט בר-אילן כותבים על מהדורה זו שיש בו “תיקונים רבים על-פי הדפוסים
הראשונים וכתבי יד”, ובשער הספר כתוב “מתוקנת ע”פ דפוס ראשון”
אבל במבוא הספר כתב שהשתמש בדפוס ווילנא ובכת”י אחד (של הר”ש שרעבי) ולא
הזכיר שום דפוס או כת”י אחר. עד”ז במהדורת אבן ישראל “השלם והמנוקד”
ירושלים תשנ”ה – ג”כ בלי כ’. בשער מהדורה זו כתוב
“מוגהת ומתוקנת עפ”י דפוסים ראשונים וכת”י נדירים” – אך לא
טרח להודיענו באיזה דפוסים וכת”י השתמש. ה”דיוק” בשתי מהדורות האלו
נראית בעליל. דאם כי בשתיהן מופיע התיבה הנידונית בלי כ’, אעפ”כ ציינו לשמואל
ב, ולא לדברי הימים.
הוא בלי כ’. וכ”ה במהדורה הנד’ בירושלים תשכ”ג ע”י ר’ שמואל
קרויזר. בפרוייקט בר-אילן כותבים על מהדורה זו שיש בו “תיקונים רבים על-פי הדפוסים
הראשונים וכתבי יד”, ובשער הספר כתוב “מתוקנת ע”פ דפוס ראשון”
אבל במבוא הספר כתב שהשתמש בדפוס ווילנא ובכת”י אחד (של הר”ש שרעבי) ולא
הזכיר שום דפוס או כת”י אחר. עד”ז במהדורת אבן ישראל “השלם והמנוקד”
ירושלים תשנ”ה – ג”כ בלי כ’. בשער מהדורה זו כתוב
“מוגהת ומתוקנת עפ”י דפוסים ראשונים וכת”י נדירים” – אך לא
טרח להודיענו באיזה דפוסים וכת”י השתמש. ה”דיוק” בשתי מהדורות האלו
נראית בעליל. דאם כי בשתיהן מופיע התיבה הנידונית בלי כ’, אעפ”כ ציינו לשמואל
ב, ולא לדברי הימים.
[10] וכן בדרשות הר”ן דרוש השביעי ד”ה
והנה גרס בגמ’ חגיגה כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל (כ”ה במהדורה המדויקת של מוסד הרב קוק
תשס”ט, ע”פ ד’ כת”י, דלא כבדפוסים הישנים).
והנה גרס בגמ’ חגיגה כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל (כ”ה במהדורה המדויקת של מוסד הרב קוק
תשס”ט, ע”פ ד’ כת”י, דלא כבדפוסים הישנים).
[11] לכאורה אין בחירת לשון
הכתוב בנביאים הקודמת לכתובים, הן בכתיבתו (ספר שמואל נכתב על ידו, ודברי הימים
ע”י עזרא – ב”ב יד,ב – טו,א) והן בסידורו – צריכה הצדקה. לאידך, כיון
שה”כ” של כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל הוא רק סגנונית, (מתאים לסגנון אותו הפרק
“לעבדי לדוד” [פסוק ח], לעמי לישראל [פסוק י] – כדהעיר
בפי’ “דעת מקרא”), אולי בחר הפייטן נוסח המתאמת יותר לסגנון הפיוט.
הכתוב בנביאים הקודמת לכתובים, הן בכתיבתו (ספר שמואל נכתב על ידו, ודברי הימים
ע”י עזרא – ב”ב יד,ב – טו,א) והן בסידורו – צריכה הצדקה. לאידך, כיון
שה”כ” של כְּיִשְׂרָאֵל הוא רק סגנונית, (מתאים לסגנון אותו הפרק
“לעבדי לדוד” [פסוק ח], לעמי לישראל [פסוק י] – כדהעיר
בפי’ “דעת מקרא”), אולי בחר הפייטן נוסח המתאמת יותר לסגנון הפיוט.
[12] ידוע הצעת בעל ת”ת
בספרו ברוך שאמר על הסידור (ע’ רטו) שהדבר נשתלשל בטעות,
דמתחילה הנוסח הי’ מַגְדִּיל, ואחד רשם בכת”י על הצד (להודעה בעלמא) “בשב’
מִגְדּוֹל”, ור”ל דבשמואל ב’ הנוסח הוא מִגְדּוֹל. והמעתק מכת”י
ההוא טעה בכוונת הדברים, ופיענח “בשבת מִגְדּוֹל”. ומשם נעתק מכת”י
לכת”י עד שבא בדפוס. ולבד הקושי להניח שטעותו של מעתיק אחד יתפשט עד כדי
שיתקבל בכל תפוצות ישראל – אשכנזים, ספדרים, פוסקים ומקובלים וכו’ מבלי מערר – כבר
העירו שחלוקת שמואל לב’ ספרים (שנעשית ע”י הגמון נוצרי) כנראה לא הי’ נפוץ
בתפוצות ישראל עד כמאתיים שנה אחרי האבודרהם כאשר בשנת רפ”ו הוציא המדפיס
דניאל בומברג את התנ”ך (מקראות גדולות, ויניציאה) עפ”י חלוקת הספרים
והפרקים של הנוצרים. [ראה הנסמן בויקיפדי’ ערך “חלוקת הפרקים בתנ”ך”].
בספרו ברוך שאמר על הסידור (ע’ רטו) שהדבר נשתלשל בטעות,
דמתחילה הנוסח הי’ מַגְדִּיל, ואחד רשם בכת”י על הצד (להודעה בעלמא) “בשב’
מִגְדּוֹל”, ור”ל דבשמואל ב’ הנוסח הוא מִגְדּוֹל. והמעתק מכת”י
ההוא טעה בכוונת הדברים, ופיענח “בשבת מִגְדּוֹל”. ומשם נעתק מכת”י
לכת”י עד שבא בדפוס. ולבד הקושי להניח שטעותו של מעתיק אחד יתפשט עד כדי
שיתקבל בכל תפוצות ישראל – אשכנזים, ספדרים, פוסקים ומקובלים וכו’ מבלי מערר – כבר
העירו שחלוקת שמואל לב’ ספרים (שנעשית ע”י הגמון נוצרי) כנראה לא הי’ נפוץ
בתפוצות ישראל עד כמאתיים שנה אחרי האבודרהם כאשר בשנת רפ”ו הוציא המדפיס
דניאל בומברג את התנ”ך (מקראות גדולות, ויניציאה) עפ”י חלוקת הספרים
והפרקים של הנוצרים. [ראה הנסמן בויקיפדי’ ערך “חלוקת הפרקים בתנ”ך”].
[13] כרך זה של שו”ת
צ”פ יצא לאור רק בשנת תש”א, לכן אין מקום להציע שהדברים ששמע הרב
אוירבאך הנ”ל (והדפיסם בספרו בשנת תרנ”ד), מקורם מהרוגוצ’ובר אלא שנתחלף
זהותו של בעל המימרא בין חסיד חב”ד (כי הצ”פ נמנה בין חסידי חב”ד,
ושימש כמרא דאתרא לעדת חסידי חב”ד-קאפוסט בדווינסק), לבין אדמו”ר הזקן
מיסד תורת ושלשלת חב”ד.
צ”פ יצא לאור רק בשנת תש”א, לכן אין מקום להציע שהדברים ששמע הרב
אוירבאך הנ”ל (והדפיסם בספרו בשנת תרנ”ד), מקורם מהרוגוצ’ובר אלא שנתחלף
זהותו של בעל המימרא בין חסיד חב”ד (כי הצ”פ נמנה בין חסידי חב”ד,
ושימש כמרא דאתרא לעדת חסידי חב”ד-קאפוסט בדווינסק), לבין אדמו”ר הזקן
מיסד תורת ושלשלת חב”ד.
ולהעיר שמחבר ס’ “זכות
אבות” בהגהה שם כתב מעצמו ביאור זה לשינוי מַגְדִּיל | מִגְדּוֹל. ובספר מקור
התפילות מאת הרב בנימין פרידמן (י”ל לראשונה ע”י המחבר במישקאלץ [הונגרי’]
תרצ”ה, ושוב ע”י בן המחבר בבני ברק תשל”ג) מביא הדברים בשם אביו של
רבי ישעיה פיק ברלין [רבי יהודה לייב המכונה ר’ לייב מוכיח]. וממשיך להביא ביאור
יפה משלו.
אבות” בהגהה שם כתב מעצמו ביאור זה לשינוי מַגְדִּיל | מִגְדּוֹל. ובספר מקור
התפילות מאת הרב בנימין פרידמן (י”ל לראשונה ע”י המחבר במישקאלץ [הונגרי’]
תרצ”ה, ושוב ע”י בן המחבר בבני ברק תשל”ג) מביא הדברים בשם אביו של
רבי ישעיה פיק ברלין [רבי יהודה לייב המכונה ר’ לייב מוכיח]. וממשיך להביא ביאור
יפה משלו.
[14] וברבינו חננאל שם משמע
דאין בזה זמן קבוע, ותלוי במציאות באותו מקום מתי לומדים בבית המדרש.
דאין בזה זמן קבוע, ותלוי במציאות באותו מקום מתי לומדים בבית המדרש.
[15] בדוחק י”ל שמסדר
נוסח “אתה אחד” אזיל בשי’ ר’ נחמי’ המובא בברייתא שם שאין קורין בכתובים
כל היום, וחולק על סתם משנה שנאסר רק משום “ביטול בית המדרש”.
נוסח “אתה אחד” אזיל בשי’ ר’ נחמי’ המובא בברייתא שם שאין קורין בכתובים
כל היום, וחולק על סתם משנה שנאסר רק משום “ביטול בית המדרש”.
Everything is Illuminated: Mining the Art of Illustrated Haggadah Manuscripts for Meaning
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.
[1] E.L. Sukenik, The Dura-Europa Synagogue and its Art, Bialik Press, Jerusalem:1947. See also, Gabrielle Sed-Rajna, Jewish Art, transl. Sara Friedman & Mira Reich, Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York: 1997, 9-13; 20-29;114-39.
[2] Two Prague Haggadahs, Valmadonna Trust Library, Italy:1978, 16 n.16 (the citation should read p. 435, not p. 345)
[3] Binyamin Richler, Hebrew Manuscripts: A Treasured Legacy, Cleveland/Jerusalem: Ofeq Institute, 1990, 20.
[4] Id. at 58.
[5] Colette Sirat, Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages, ed. & transl. Nicholas de Lange, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 234.
[6] Id. 242-43.
[7] R. N. Rabinowitz, Dikdukei Soferim, Munich: E. Hovner, 1881, vol. 11, Tractate Baba Bathera, 7.
[8] Sirat, Hebrew Manuscripts, 235-38.
[9] Richler, Hebrew Manuscripts, 45.
[10] Id. 48.
[11] Interestingly, illuminated haggadot did not end with the introduction of printing, there are a number from the 18th century and beyond.
[12] See B. Narkiss, Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts, Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1969, 106.
[13] Richler, Hebrew Manuscripts, 47.
[14] Marc Michael Epstein, The Medieval Haggadah: Art, Narrative, and Religious Imagination, New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2011, 50-51. See the other discussions of this book, here.
[15] Id. 51.
[16] Id. 51-53, 71-72. Much of the discussion regarding this haggadah and the Golden Haggadah is reliant upon Epstein’s thorough analysis of these manuscripts.
[17] Id. 65-68, 71-72.
[18] Id. 87-90.
[19] M. Spitzer & B. Narkiss, “General Description of the Manuscript,” in The Bird’s Head Haggada of the Bezalel National Art Museum in Jerusalem, ed. by M. Spitzer, Tarshish Books: Jerusalem, 1967, 23.
[20] Epstein, The Medieval Haggadah, 90-91.
[21] Id. 162.
[22] Id. 178.
[23] Id. 185-86.
[24] Narkiss, Hebrew Illuminated Manuscripts, 126.
[25] Elliot Horowitz, “Between Cleanliness and Godliness,” in Tov Elem: Memory, Community & Gender in Medieval & Early Modern Jewish Societies, ed. E. Baumgarten, et al., Bialik Institute, Jerusalem:2011, *38-*39.
[26] Piet van Boxel, “The Virgin & the Unicorn: A Christian Symbol in a Hebrew Prayer Manuscript,” in Crossing Borders, Hebrew Manuscripts as a Meeting-place of Cultures, ed. Piet van Boxel & Sabine Arndt, Bodleian Library, University of Oxford:2009, 57-68.
[27] The hare hunt image appears in Seder Zimerot u-Birkat ha-Mazon, Prague 1514, in the Shevuot portion. Of course, the mnemonic applies to any holiday that potentially falls on a Saturday night. See B. Roth, “Printed Illustrated Hebrew Haggadot,” Areshet, vol. 3 (1961), 8.
[28] See Leor Jacobi, “Jewish Hawking in Medieval France: Falconry, Rabbenu Tam, and the Tosefists,” in Oqimta 1 (2013) 421-504, available here.
[29] Y. Yerushalmi, Haggadah & History, The Jewish Publication Society, United States:1997, plate 15.
[30] The various manuscript depictions of marror are collected in Mendel Metzger, La Haggada Enluminee, Brill, Leiden:1973, figs. 242-65.
[31] Levi Cooper, “Bitter Herb in Hasidic Galicia,” Jewish Studies, an Internet Journal, vol. 12, 2013 (available here).