1

Torah Reading for Zochor and Parah

|
Torah Reading for Zochor and Parah
By Eliezer Brodt
The following is a chapter of my PHD dissertation related to the upcoming Torah Reading for Zochor and Parah
קריאת פרשת זכור ופרשת פרה דאורייתא*
מאת אליעזר יהודה בראדט

ר’ אברהם גומבינר בעל ‘מגן אברהם’ נפטר בצום גדליה שנת תמ”ג ולא זכה לראות חיבורו ‘נר ישראל’, הפירוש המונומנטלי לשלחן ערוך אורח חיים, יוצא לאור בדפוס. כמה שנים לאחר מכן, בשנת תנ”ב, נדפס החיבור יחד עם ‘טורי זהב’ בדיהרן פארט ע”י המדפיס המפורסם ר’ שבתי בס בעל ‘שפתחי חכמים’. תיכף לאחר הדפסתו זכה שנכתבו ונדפסו כמה קיצורים ממנו, ביניהם גם ר’ נתן איגר בחיבורו ‘גן נטע’, פראג תנ”ה. גם זכה לספרי פרשנות שנכתבו במיוחד על חיבורו. עד כדי כך מצינו שר’ יונה לנדסופר כתב בצוואתו: “הלכה כמותו כל מה שפוסק”. ויש עוד הרבה שכתבו בדומה לו. נשאלת השאלה מה ייחודי בחיבור זה ומה יתרונו על פני שאר המפרשים. התשובה בקצרה היא שבפירוש זה אנו מוצאים: א. לימוד הסוגיה ושאר המקורות באופן עצמאי בלי להסתמך רק על קודמיו. ב. חידושים עצמיים. ג. מקורות חדשים מספרות האחרונים. גם יש בו יותר דיונים על כל סימן וסימן, וזהו גם “פירוש” במובן הפשוט של המילה, שהרי הוא דן בכל דבר ודבר כמו רש”י ותוס’ גם יחד, הוא מרבה לדון מכל כיוון אפשרי, בודק שורש הדבר, וגם מביא מקורות רבים שלא היו לשאר נושאי הכלים, השתמש בבקיאותו בספרי חז”ל וראשונים וארבעה חלקי השו”ע ודן בכל מה ששייך לסימן. לכן אין שאלה מדוע ניצח המג”א את מתחריו. אבל עדיין יש לדעת שקשה להגיד דבר משמעותי בנוגע למג”א מבלי לעיין היטב בדבריו שנכתבו בקיצור נמרץ וגם חייבים לבדוק בכל הסוגיות היכולות להיות נוגעות לאותו עניין, כאשר אצלו רואים כפשוטו איך “דברי תורה עניים במקום אחד ועשירים במקום אחר”, ואיך הוא משתמש בבקיאות נדירה כדי להגיע למסקנות הלכתיות. כדי לרדת לסוף דעתו יש לעקוב אחר ציוניו ולעיין בהם היטב, ואפי’ במקום שלא ציין לדבריו בשאר מקומות. בדוגמה זו לפניניו רואים את עומק כוונתו ומדוע חייבים לבדוק דבריו המקומיים בעיון וגם בשאר המקומות הנוגעים לסוגיא, כדי להגיע להבנת דבריו.
הארכתי בסוגיה זו לפי שאפשר לראות דרכה הרבה פרטים בנו”כ אלו.[1]
בית יוסף
בסי’ קמו מתייחס הבית יוסף לשתי הקריאות שיש בהן חומרה יותר מכל שאר הקריאות:
“וכל מיני היתרות אלו שכתבו המפרשים להקל בשמיעת קריאת התורה, אינם ענין לפרשת זכור שהיא מן התורה בעשרה, כמבואר בדברי הרא”ש פרק שלשה שאכלו ובדברי סמ”ק. והתוספות ריש פרק היה קורא (ברכות יג ע”א ד”ה בלשון) כתבו, דפרשת זכור ופרשת פרה הוו דאורייתא”.
ושוב בבית יוסף אורח חיים ריש סי’ תרפה מביא:
“וכתבו בתוספות בריש פרק היה קורא, דיש פרשיות המחוייבין לקרות דאורייתא, כמו פרשת זכור ופרשת פרה אדומה”.
דרכי משה
בדרכי משה הוסיף עליו: “וכתב בתרומת הדשן סימן ק”ח, דלכן יש ליזהר יותר לשמוע פרשת זכור בעשרה, יותר מקריאת מגילה שנזהרים לקרותה בעשרה, אלא שהעולם לא נהגו כן”.
עוד מביא בדרכי משה: “מצאתי כתוב בשם מהרי”ש, אותם שאינם יכולים לבא למנין לפרשת זכור יש להם ליזהר לומר אותה בניגון ובטעמים”.
ומשם מובא הדבר בשולחן ערוך, שם סע’ ז: “י”א שפרשת זכור ופרשת פרה אדומה חייבים לקראם מדאורייתא, לפיכך בני הישובים שאין להם מנין צריכים לבא למקום שיש מנין בשבתות הללו, כדי לשמוע פרשיות אלו שהם מדאורייתא. הגה: ואם אי אפשר להם לבא, מ”מ יזהרו לקרותם בנגינתם ובטעמם”.
ר”ל שהמחבר סובר שקריאות פרשיות זכור ופרה הן מדאורייתא. הרמ”א שותק ואינו מביע דעתו.
ב”ח
הב”ח שם, מביא דעת התוס’ בברכות שפרשת זכור היא מדאורייתא ומוסיף: “וכיוצא בזה כתבו התוספות בפרק היה קורא, והוסיפו לשם פרשת פרה אדומה דהיא נמי דאורייתא. וצ”ע מנא להו הא. בשלמא פרשת זכור ודאי משמע בפרק שני דמגילה (יח ע”א) דהוי דאורייתא, מדאמר… וכן כתב הסמ”ק שזהו בשבת שלפני פורים שמזכירין פרשת זכור, אבל פרשת פרה שוה לפרשת שקלים ופרשת החדש”.
והב”ח ממשיך וכותב:
“ומה שתופסין התוספות בפשיטות דקריאת התורה אינה מן התורה אלא מדרבנן ועזרא הוא דתיקן, איכא לתמוה נמי, דבפרק מרובה אמרו, משה רבינו עליו השלום תיקן במדבר שיהו קורין בתורה, אלא שבא עזרא ותיקן תלתא. ובירושלמי (מגילה פ”ד ה”א) נמי איתא, משה תיקן להם לישראל שיהיו קורין בתורה בשבתות וימים טובים וראשי חדשים ובחולו של מועד, שנאמר וידבר משה את מועדי יי’ אל בני ישראל, ומביאו הרי”ף בפרק הקורא עומד (מגילה יג ע”א). השתא לפי זה ודאי כל קריאה בשבתות מן התורה כפירוש רש”י, אלא שלא היה סדר מיוחד לכל קריאה מלבד פרשת זכור, ובא עזרא ותיקן הסדר לכל הקריאות. ואפילו לפי זה נראה דצריך ליזהר טפי בפרשת זכור, שהיא מצוה מיוחדת ומפורשת בתורה, מה שאין כן שאר קריאות שאינן אלא בעל פה מפי משה רבינו עליו השלום. ועיין בתרומת הדשן סימן ק”ח”.
הוי אומר, למסקנתו, קריאת התורה של כל שבת ומועד היא מדאורייתא, אבל מן התורה לא נאמר מה היא הקריאה המיוחדת לכל שבת ומועד, וסדר הקריאה הוא מתקנת עזרא. ואילו קריאת פרשת זכור בשבת בכל שנה היא מדאורייתא, אבל לא פרשת פרה.
לאחר מכן מביא הב”ח: “כתב מהרש”ל דממה שכתב מהרא”י בתרומת הדשן סימן ק”ח, דצריך טפי שישמע קריאת פרשת זכור בצבור ממקרא מגילה, יראה להדיא שאין הקטן עולה למפטיר בפרשת זכור. ואף על פי שהשליח צבור קורא בתורה, מה בכך, הא בעינן בר חיובא לעלות והוא גם כן קורא בתורה אלא שהשליח צבור קורא בקול רם שלא לבייש וכו’. ואף בפרשת פרה ראוי להזהר, מאחר שבאותן תוספות יראה שאף פרשת פרה דאורייתא היא, וכמדומה שכך מצאתי בחידושי מרדכי עכ”ל”.
לאחר שמעתיק את דברי מהרש”ל, מוסר הב”ח את דעת עצמו: “ואינו נכון, דבקטן היודע למי מברכין ודאי שרי אף על פי שהקטן קורא בקול רם, דהא קטן עולה למנין שבעה וקריאת ספר תורה בכל שבת היא דאורייתא, מ’וידבר משה את מועדי יי’, כדאמרינן בירושלמי שהבאתי לעיל, ואפילו בקטן שאינו יודע למי מברכין, לא ידעתי למה לא יצאו השומעין בקריאת השליח צבור פרשת זכור מן הספר תורה, דמאי נפקא מינה בעולה לספר תורה אם הוא גדול או קטן, הא עיקר החיוב הוא שישמעו לקריאת התורה מהקורא מתוך ספר התורה”.
ט”ז
חתנו הט”ז[2] מביא דברי התרומת הדשן במילואם [יתר על מה שנמצא בב”ח]: “כתוב בת”ה סי’ ק”ח: צריכין ליזהר בקריאה בצבור טפי ממקרא מגילה…”. ואחר כך מביא דברי מהרש”ל מתוך הב”ח והוא מסיים: “ולעניות דעתי נראה דבקטן שאין יודע למי מברכין אין יוצאין ידי הברכה על ידו, ואין יוצאין ידי קריאה בלא ברכה, ע”כ אין להקרות למפטיר לקטן שאינו יודע למי מברכין, אבל ביודע למי מברכין נראה דשפיר יוצאין. ובסי’ רפ”ב פסק רמ”א דקטן יכול לקרות בפרשת המוספין או בארבע פרשיות שמוסיפין באדר, ונראה דביודע למי מברכין קאמר”.
עד כה מסכימים הפוסקים הנ”ל שפרשיות זכור ופרה שתיהן מדאורייתא וכפי שהובא בב”י בשם תוס’, ובתרומת הדשן. וכן סברת מהרש”ל כפי שהובא בשמו בב”ח. אמנם הב”ח עצמו חולק עליו וסובר שרק פרשת זכור היא מדאורייתא. דיון צדדי קיים בב”ח ובט”ז, אם בקריאה שהיא מוגדרת מדאורייתא ניתן להעלות קטן לתורה שיוציא את הקהל ידי חובתו, ואיזה קטן ניתן להעלות.
כמה עניינים עקרוניים אנו למדים: א. הב”ח משתמש בדברי מהרש”ל ממקור שאינו לפנינו, ואולי מדובר בגליונותיו לטור שהוא מרבה להביא בחיבורו. ב. הב”ח אינו חושש לחלוק על קודמיו – תוספות, תרומת הדשן, שו”ע, רמ”א ומהרש”ל הסבורים שפרשת פרה היא מדאורייתא. ג. גם הט”ז אינו חושש לחלוק על חמיו הב”ח.
עולת תמיד
ב’עולת תמיד'[3] כתב: “כן כתבו התוספות ריש פרק היה קורא והרא”ש פרק שלשה שאכלו דפרשת זכור ופרשת פרה מדאורייתא הוא, ועיין מה שכתבתי בזה בסי’ רפ”ב”.
ושם[4] כתב: “ובכנסת הגדולה מסיק דקטן יקרא בפרשת המוספים, זולת בפרשת זכור שהוא לכולי עלמא מדאורייתא. ועיין בתשובות הרשד”ם חלק או”ח סי’ י”ב. ונראה שיש להחמיר גם האידנא דשליח צבור קורא ומשמיע לציבור”.
יש לציין שבדבריו אלה נטה אחרי הכנסת הגדולה (וראה עוד להלן עד כמה) ואפי’ לא ציין לדברי רבו הב”ח בענין זה.
מגן אברהם
בהקדמה לסי’ תרפה הביא המג”א כמה הוספות בסוגייתנו:
[1] בשל”ה האריך לצדד שפרש’ פרה אינה דאורייתא. וכ”כ הב”ח, וכ”מ בתשובת מהרי”ל סי’ קפ”ב וקס”ז שלא הזכיר אלא פרשת זכור. [2] ובת”ה סי’ ק”ח כתב וז”ל, באשר”י פ”ו דברכות כתב דעשה דאורייתא לקרות פרש’ זכור בעשרה, ובתוספות שנ”ץ כתבו דאין שום קריאה דאורייתא רק פ’ זכור, ובתו’ הקצרות בברכות פ”ב פי’ דפ’ זכור ופ’ פרה חייבים לקרותן מן התורה וכו’. וכן בסמ”ק כתב: מ”ע זכור את אשר עשה, ואם כן צריך ליזהר יותר שישמעו קריאת פרשת זכור בי’ ממקרא מגילה בזמנה, אלא שהעולם לא זהירי בהכי. עכ”ל. [3] ול”נ ליישב מנהג העולם, דאטו מי כתיב בתורה שיקראו דוקא בשבת זה, אלא שחכמים תקנו בשבת זו הואיל ושכיחי רבים בבה”כ וסמוך לפורים כדי לסמוך מעשה עמלק למעשה המן, כמ”ש הלבוש, וא”כ כששומע בפורים פרשת ויבא עמלק נמי זוכר מעשה עמלק ויוצא י”ח. וכ”ה ברא”ם סי’ ב’. [4] ומשום פ’ פרה ס”ל דלא הוי מדאורייתא, דבאמת אין טעם בקריאת’ מדאורייתא וגם לא ידענא היכא רמיזא. [5] ול”נ שהגירס’ הנכונ’ כמ”ש בחי’ הרשב”א וז”ל, והקשו שלא מצינו קריאת ס”ת מן התורה אא”כ יאמר רש”י שתהא קריאת הפרשיות כגון פרשת פרה ופרשת זכור וכיוצא בהן מן התורה, ע”כ מ”מ כל אדם יהא זהיר וזריז במצו’ לבוא למנין. [6] ובמגלה דף י”ח משמע פשטא דתלמודא דפרשת זכור דאורייתא, ומשמע שם דה”ה בפ’ ויבא עמלק, יצא. [7] כתב מהרי”ל: בכל ד’ פרשיות אין מזכירין נשמות ואומרים צו”ץ (ד”מ): יש נוהגין בשנה מעוברת לקבוע תענית בכל יום ה’ מפרשת שובבי”ם ת”ת וי”א גם פרשת ויקהל ופקודי, ואומרים שומר ישראל וכו’].
עיון מדוקדק בדברי המגן אברהם
  1. בראש ובראשונה הוא דן בהרחבה האם קריאת פרשת פרה נחשבת מדאורייתא. הוא מביא שהשל”ה האריך לצדד שפרשת פרה אינה מדאורייתא, והוא גם ציין לב”ח שדן בזה, והוא מדייק בשתי תשובות של המהרי”ל (סי’ קפ”ב וקס”ז) שלא הזכיר אלא פרשת זכור.
שתי תופעות עולות מכאן:
– שימוש בספר של”ה כחיבור הלכתי.[5]
– שימוש בספר מהרי”ל.
  1. אח”כ מביא דברי תרומת הדשן שפרשת זכור בעשרה חמורה יותר מקריאת המגילה, ושתוס’ ס”ל שפרשת פרה היא דאורייתא. גם מכאן ניכר שימושו הישיר בספר תרומת הדשן, שלא הסתמך על הציטוטים בספרי קודמיו, דבר שיודגם בטבלה להלן.
  2. לאחר מכן מחדש המג”א יישוב למנהג העולם שלא מחמירים בפרשת זכור, שאמנם המצווה היא מן התורה, אבל קביעת המועד – שבת זו – לא מן התורה הוא, אלא מדברי חכמים. ולמעשה ניתן לצאת את חובת התורה גם פורים עצמו.
בינתיים אנו יכולים להתרשם משלוש המסקנות הללו:
  • שימושו בספר הלבוש.
  • כח החידוש שלו.
  • שימושו במקור ‘הרא”ם סי’ ב” [לא הצלחתי לאתר מקורו בעניין].
  1. לבסוף הוא חוזר לשאלת פרשת פרה אם היא מדאורייתא, וכותב: “ומשום פ’ פרה ס”ל דלא הוי מדאורייתא, דבאמת אין טעם בקריאת’ מדאורייתא וגם לא ידענא היכא רמיזא, ול”נ שהגירס’ הנכונ’ כמ”ש בחי’ הרשב”א וז”ל והקשו שלא מצינו קריאת ס”ת מן התורה, אא”כ יאמר רש”י שתהא קריאת הפרשיות כגון פרשת פרה ופרשת זכור וכיוצא בהן מן התורה ע”כ”.
  • חידושי הרשב”א למסכת ברכות היה בספרייתו.[6]
  • הוא עשה שימוש עצמאי בחידושי הראשונים להכריע בשאלה ממין זה, כדי לברר את הגירסא הנכונה. אך עדיין נשאל את עצמנו מה כוונתו ומה ביקש להכריע בהבאת גירסת הרשב”א? האם הכוונה להראות שפרשת פרה גם היא מדאורייתא?[7] האחרונים כתבו[8] בביאור דבריו שהמג”א רצה להראות שהגירסא בתוס’ היא כדעת רש”י, דהיינו שגם תוס’ לא סוברים שפרשת פרה היא מדאורייתא.
כיום ידוע שפרשנות זו אינה נכונה, כי תוספות בעצמם ס”ל שפרשת פרה מדאורייתא.[9]
כאן המקום לציין: נראה ש’אליה רבה’ לא הבין כך ברשב”א, היינו שדבריו נאמרו רק בדעת רש”י. הוא כתב[10] שמ”מ פרשת פרה היא דאורייתא וציין לדברי התרומת הדשן ודברי הרשב”א הללו, והוא דייק בסוף דבריו: ‘וכיוצא בהן מן התורה’, שפירושם: “ופירושו נ”ל גם על פרשת שקלים והחודש”. וגם הוכיח מעוד מקורות שאין טעות בתוס’ ברכות.
  1. מיד לאחר מכן כותב המג”א: “מ”מ כל אדם יהא זהיר וזריז במצו’ לבוא למנין”. כוונתו כאן לא מחוורת. האם הוא חוזר לפרשת זכור, או שהוא עדיין עוסק בפרשת פרה? לענ”ד משפט זה אינו חוזר לפרשת זכור, כי אליה הוא התייחס למעלה כשהעתיק לשון תרומת הדשן, אלא כוונתו לפרשת פרה, דהיינו, לאחר שפירש בדברי הרשב”א שרק רש”י ס”ל שהיא מדאורייתא, כתב שמ”מ יש להיזהר לבוא למנין [על עצם העניין שארבע פרשיות חמורות יותר מקריאת פרשיות של כל השנה, ראה של”ה שכתב כן].[11]
  2. אח”כ חזר לפרשת זכור והוא מבסס חידושו על הגמרא במגילה שגם ע”י קריאת פרשת ‘ויבא עמלק’ יוצא ידי חובת פרשת זכור מדאורייתא: “ובמגלה דף י”ח משמע פשטא דתלמודא דפרשת זכור דאורייתא, ומשמע שם דה”ה בפ’ ויבא עמלק, יצא” [החידוש הוא לענין פרשת ‘ויבא עמלק’ וזה מה שבעצם נאמר למעלה מזה]. חידוש זה לא מצאנו בספרי הלכה אחרים. כאן ניכרת סמכותו לחזור ולהסיק הלכה מן התלמוד עצמו.
  3. עוד ניתן להבחין, כי כדרכו במקומות רבים בפירושו, הוא מוסיף דברים שאינם מופיעים בנושאי הכלים הקודמים לו סביב השו”ע, וזו – כפי שכבר הסברתי באריכות כמה פעמים היא אחת ממגמותיו בפירושו. אבל לא אכנס לזה כאן.
סעיף זה הוא דוגמה מצויינת לראות דרכו של המג”א ומגמתו בספרו. מתוספותיו לכל סימן, לא תמיד ברור באלו ספרים עשה שימוש תדיר ועקבי, ובמיוחד לא ברור איזה סוג תוספות חיפש להוסיף. למשל, בהלכות פורים הוא מרבה להביא מהספרים: מעגלי צדק, מטה משה ושל”ה. בכל אחד מהחיבורים הללו נמצאים מקורות חשובים. אך דווקא בסוגיא זו של פרשת זכור ופרה הוא לא מצטט כלום מתוך מעגלי צדק ומטה משה, ורק דבר אחד מתוך השל”ה, אף שיכול היה להוסיף מהם דברים לא מעטים. מכאן ברור דבר אחד בלבד: שאין מטרתו להביא מקורות מעניינים בכדי, וכי לא הביא כל מה שיכול היה להביא.
דעת מהרש”ל
לעיל כתבתי בדעת הב”ח, כי מדבריו עולה שברשותו היה חיבור של מהרש”ל בכ”י, אבל הוא לא חושש לחלוק עליו. חשוב יותר לציין שלפי דברי מהרש”ל שהובאו בב”ח, פרשת פרה היא מדאורייתא. אבל לפי מטה משה והשל”ה, בחיבור ‘חכמת שלמה’ מחק מהרש”ל מילים אלו מתוס’: “ופרשת פרה אדומה נמחק, ונכתב בצידו טעות הוא וכן בתוספות דמגילה”.[12] וב’מקור חיים’ (סי’ קמו) כבר עמד על הסתירה בדברי מהרש”ל.
ייתכן שהמג”א לא הביא דעת מהרש”ל כאן, על אף שבד”כ דעתו חשובה לו ביותר, משום שהוא הכיר בסתירה ולא יכול היה להסתייע בדבריו לשום צד. ואפשר גם לומר שזו הסיבה שהמג”א הדגיש המלים “הגירסא הנכונה”, לרמז כי לדעתו לא היה מקום למחיקת מהרש”ל בחכמת שלמה, כי לפי הרשב”א הכוונה היתה בדעת רש”י לא שתוס’ בעצמם ס”ל כך.
מהדורת התלמוד שהיתה לפני הב”ח והמג”א
לפי התרומת הדשן, ב”י ורמ”א, היתה גירסא בתוס’ בברכות ומגילה, שפרשת פרה היא מדאורייתא. כאמור, מהרש”ל ב’חכמת שלמה’ מחק את המלים “פרשת פרה” בתוס’ ברכות ומגילה. ואכן בתוס’ הנדפסות בש”ס שלנו המלים הללו אינן נמצאות לא במסכת ברכות ולא במסכת מגילה. אבל לפי עדות הב”ח, תוס’ במגילה כתב “פרשת פרה” ואילו בתוס’ ברכות חסרות המלים. כנראה שבמהדורה שהשתמש בה המג”א כבר לא נאמר כך בתוס’, ולכן הוא הביא זאת מהרשב”א.
עיון בדפוס הראשון של התלמוד מעלה שבברכות כתוב בתוס’ ‘פרשת פרה’ אבל במגילה לא כתוב פרשת פרה. לכן צ”ע איזו מהדורה היתה לפני מהרש”ל וב”ח כשהם כתבו חיבוריהם. לאחרונה הגיע יצחק רון למסקנה שבדרך כלל לא היה הדפוס ראשון של בומברג ברשות מהרש”ל.[13] ולגבי הב”ח, דעת פרופ’ י”ש שפיגל היא שהב”ח השתמש בדפוס שני של בומברג למסכת מגילה.[14] אבל לפנינו לא נמצא בין בברכות ובין במגילה, שכבר שמו הערות של המהרש”ל בתוך הדפוס. מעניין למה בכלל מחק המהרש”ל גירסה זו, כיום אנו יודעים שגירסא כזא נמצאת בהרבה ראשונים.
עוד בענין דרכו של המג”א
כדאי להעיר שלא ניתן לעמוד על היקף עבודתו של המג”א, רק מניתוח מקומי. כדי להבין את דרכו צריך להקיף את כל רחבי ספרו, כפי שיודגם כאן.
  1. המג”א לא דן לענין קטן אם מותר לו לעלות לפרשת זכור, בעוד הב”ח והט”ז דנים בעניין. ה’מאמר מרדכי’ תמה על כך והשאיר זאת בצ”ע. אך נעלם ממנו שהמג”א דן בכך בקצרה בסי’ רפב ס”ק יב ושם פסק כמו הב”ח! וכך כתב על דברי הרמ”א: “וכ”פ ב”ח דלא כרש”ל”.
  2. בסי’ קמו כתב המג”א בהגהותיו שנדפסו רק בדפוס ראשון על הגליון: “ראה מה שכתבתי בסי’ תרפ”ה”.
  3. בסי’ קלז ס”ק ו הביא המג”א שו”ת מהר”ם לובלין שכתב בתוך דבריו: “שאני פרשת פרה שהיא דאורייתא”, וע”ז כתב במג”א: “ועיין מה שכתבתי סי’ תרפ”ה”.
  4. הב”ח בסי’ תרפ”ה מחדש כמה דברים בעצם חיוב קריאת התורה בכל ימות השנה. ועל כך לא העיר המג”א כלום. אבל בסי’ קל”ה בהקדמה הוא דן בדבריו וכך הוא כותב:

“אי’ ברי”ף פ”ד דמגיל’: ירושלמי, משה תיקן לישראל שיהיו קורין ג’ בב”ה ובמנחה עכ”ל, וצ”ע דאי’ במרובה שהלכו ישראל ג’ ימים בלא תורה בימי משה, עמדו הנביאי’ שביניהם ותקנו שיהיו קורין בב’ וה’ ובשבת, ועזר’ תיקן במנחה, והתוס’ רפ”ב דברכות כתבו גם כן שעזר’ תיקן קריאת התורה והקשה הב”ח עליהם בסי’ תרפ”ה מההי’ דמרובה וכו’, ואפשר לומר דהתוס’ לא נחתו לדקדק בזה ועיקר קושיתם כיון דתקנת נביאי’ הי’, א”כ ל”ש לומר דקרא ‘והיו’ אתא להורות על כך, והא דכ’ הרי”ף שעזר’ תיקן בב’ וה’ היינו מנין הקרואי’ כדאי’ בגמ’, וא”כ משה תיקן מנין הקרואים בשבת וי”ט ור”ח וח”ה, וכ”מ ברמב”ם פי”ב מתפל’ ובסמ”ק סי’ קמ”ט”.

לדרכו של ‘עולת שבת’ ושימושו בחיבור ‘כנסת הגדולה’
הבאתי שב’עולת שבת'[15] כתב: “ובכנסת הגדולה מסיק דקטן יקרא בפרשת המוספים, זולת בפרשת זכור שהוא לכולי עלמא מדאורייתא. ועיין בתשובות הרשד”ם חלק או”ח סי’ י”ב. ונראה שיש להחמיר גם האידנא דשליח צבור קורא ומשמיע לציבור”.
העו”ת ציין למקורות אלה מבלי לבדוק באמתחתם, משום שהעתיק בסתם את דברי כנסת הגדולה כאן שכתב בסי’ רפב: “ומנעתיו שקטן יקרא בפרשת המוספין ויפטיר, זולת בפרשת זכור דלכו”ע הוא דאורייתא שיקרא בה גדול ויפטיר בה גדול. ועיין ברשד”ם חלק א”ח סי’ יב”. ובאמת, המעיין בתוך הספר יווכח מיד שהדיון של מהרשד”ם אינו נוגע לענין קטן ופרשת זכור כלל, אלא נוגע לעניין אחר לגמרי בענייני מפטיר.
מגן אברהם ושיירי כנסת הגדולה
לעיל, עמ’ 84 העליתי השערה שהמג”א הכיר את הספר ‘שיירי כנסת הגדולה’, עקב אחרי מקורותיו והתרשם שאין לו תועלת גדולה ממנו ותרומתו לא חשובה כמו חיבור ‘כנסת הגדולה’ שהוא מביא מאות פעמים בשמו ושלא בשמו. להשערתי הוא נוכח לראות שרוב הדברים שמביא ‘שיירי כנסת הגדולה’, הם מתוך ספרים הנמצאים ברשותו ושעשה בהם שימוש.
כאן ניתן לראות דוגמה לכך.
‘שיירי כנסת הגדולה’ כתב[16]: “ופרשת פרה אדומה… מורי רש”ל ז”ל בספר חכמת שלמה כתב דטעות, ומחק פרשת פרה. מטה משה סי’ תתר. גם הב”ח הצריך עיון למה שנמצא כתבו ופרשת פרה אדומה, וכן בספר ל”ח שאכלו אות נ”ב כתב לא ידעתי אנה מצאו זה…”.
ואח”כ הוא כתב: “כתב רש”ל ז”ל, שאין הקטן עולה למפטיר זכור… ואינו נכון דבקטן היודע למי מברכין ודאי שרי… ואפ’ בקטן שאינו יודע… ומ”ש רש”ל בפרשת זכור גם בתשובת מהרי”ל סי’ קצז מגמגם על זה הביאה רבינו המחבר בסי’ רפב”.
רואים שהוא מרבה להביא ספרים כמו מטה משה, ב”ח, לחם חמודות, שהיו בשימוש תדיר אצל המג”א, לכן לא היה צריך להביאם מכלי שני.
אגב, רואים שגם הכנסת הגדולה לא ציין מקורו לכל דבר. הוא נטל את כל הידיעה אודות דעת הרש”ל בעניין קטן מתוך הב”ח, אבל הוא לא ציין אליו. בזמנם לא כתבו על כל דבר ודבר מה מקורו, כפי שמקפידים היום בעולם האקדמי.
ועוד בענין זה שהבאת, שהמג”א לא הביא דברים מתוך ‘שיירי כנסת הגדולה’ מלבד לפעמים דרך העולת תמיד ועולת שבת. כאן ניתן היה לסבור שאחד הציונים של המג”א לשו”ת מהרי”ל לענין פרשת זכור שהיא מדאורייתא – הוא משיירי כנסת הגדולה כאן, ואפשר שזה היה מקורו. אבל הואיל ובשיירי כנסת הגדולה ציין להמהרי”ל בסי’ קצז ואילו המג”א ציין לסי’ קסז, שזה אכן הציון הנכון ולא קצז, מכאן שהוא עשה שימוש ישיר בשו”ת מהרי”ל.
הערה על פי דברי המג”א
ר’ אליעזר דינער כתב: “המחבר מביא הכא סתם שפרשת זכור ופרשת פרה מדאורייתא… אך בענין פ’ פרה לא ידוע מה טיבו של החיוב זה… נמצא בתוס’ הקצרות בברכות… דפרשת זכור ופרשת פרה חייבים לקרותם מן התורה… ונראה שבזמניהם היתה גירסא זו ברש”י ובתוספת הנזכרות… שכמדומה לו בראשונה הגירסה לא היתה פ’ זכור ופ’ פרה, אלא פ’ זכור ופ”פ שהם ראשי תיבות של פרשת פורים, והיא פרשת ויבא עמלק וכו’ ופרשה זו באמת דאורייתא היא כמו שפירוש המ”א בסי’ תרפ”ה, ומביא ראיה לדבריו מהגמרא דמגילה דבפרשה זו יצא, ע”כ, ואחרי כן שינה המעתיק ראשי תיבות פ”פ לפרשת פרה, יען אשר הלשון פרשת זכור ופרשת פרה שגורה בפיו יותר מפרשת זכור ופרשת פורים, ובדרך זה בא הטעות פרשת פרה דאורייתא לספרים…”.[17]
הט”ז ומגן אברהם וחיבור תרומת הדשן

תרומת הדשן
יראה דאדרבה צריך טפי שישמע קריאת פרשת זכור בצבור ממקרא מגילה. אף על גב דמקרא מגילה עדיפא וכל מצוה נידחת מפניה, מ”מ לדעת רוב הפוסקים נקראת היא ביחיד, אבל קריאת פרשת זכור כתב האשירי פ’ שלשה שאכלו, דעשה דאורייתא הוא לקרותן בעשרה, ודוחה ל”ת דלעולם בהם תעבודו. להכי שיחרר רבי אליעזר עבדו, כדי להשלימו לעשרה. ע”ש פ’ שלשה שאכלו באשירי,
ובתוס’ שנ”ץ שכתבו דאין שום קריאה מדאורייתא רק פרשת זכור.
ובתוס’ הקצרות מברכות פ’ שני פירש, דפרשת זכור ופרשת פרה אדומה חייבים לקרותן מן התורה.
וכן בסמ”ק חלק למצות עשה זכור אשר עשה, וזה שאנו קורין פרשת זכור קודם פורים.
וא”כ צריך ליזהר יותר שישמע קריאת פרשת זכור בעשרה ממקרא מגילה בזמנה, אלא שהעולם לא זהירי בהכי.

ט”ז

צריכין ליזהר בקריאה בצבור טפי ממקרא מגיל’ אף על גב דמקרא מגילה עדיפ’ וכל מצו’ נדחת מפני’ מ”מ לדעת רוב הפוסקים נקראת אף ביחיד אבל פרשת זכור כתב האשר”י פ’ שלשה שאכלו דעשה דאוריית’ הוא לקרות’ בעשר’ ודוחה ל”ת שבתור’ דלעול’ בהם תעבודו להכי שחרר ר”א עבדו כדי להשלימו לעשרה.

ובתוס’ שנ”ץ כתבו דאין שום קריא’ מדאורייתא רק פרשת זכור.
ובתוס’ קצרות מברכות פ”ב פירשו דפרשת זכור ופרשת פרה חייבים בקריאתם מן התורה עכ”ל.

מגן אברהם
באשר”י פ”ו דברכות כתב דעשה דאורייתא לקרות פרש’ זכור בעשרה,
ובתוספות שנ”ץ כתבו דאין שום קריאה דאורייתא רק פ’ זכור.
ובתו’ הקצרות בברכות פ”ב פי’ דפ’ זכור ופ’ פרה חייבים לקרותן מן התורה וכו’.

וכן בסמ”ק כתב מ”ע זכור את אשר עשה
 

ואם כן צריך ליזהר יותר שישמעו קריאת פרשת זכור בי’ ממקרא מגילה בזמנה אלא שהעולם לא זהירי בהכי עכ”ל.

הטבלה מדגימה מספר הבנות:
א. דרכם של האחרונים הללו בהבאת ציטוטים.
ב. ‘תרומת הדשן’ היה ברשותם של הט”ז והמגן אברהם והם לא הסתמכו על כלי שני, לפחות במקרה זה [אמנם יש צורך לבדוק לגבי כל מקרה, כי ייתכן שלפעמים סמכו על ציטוטים משניים].
לא הבאתי בטבלה זו את הציטוט מתרומת הדשן שהובא בדרכי משה הארוך, כי שם הוא מביא רק שורה אחת. הב”ח רק ציין לעיין בסימן זה אבל לא מביא לשונו.
אע”פ שהמצטטים כתבו ‘עכ”ל’, אין הכוונה ללשון המקור ממש, אלא לתמציתו. הט”ז לא מביא את הסוף מה שכתב הסמ”ק ואת המסקנה שצריכים ליזהר יותר… והמג”א לא הביא את החלק הראשון של התשובה. וכמו שהדרכי משה כתב בהקדמתו, ראה לעיל, עמ’ 88.
סיכום
בפרק זה רואים, כאמור, כמה דברים חשובים, בענין דרכם של הנו”כ.
הב”ח משתמש בדברי מהרש”ל ממקור שאינו לפנינו. ב. הב”ח אינו חושש לחלוק על קודמיו – תוספות, תרומת הדשן, שו”ע, רמ”א ומהרש”ל שס”ל שפרשת פרה היא מדאורייתא. ג. גם הט”ז אינו חושש לחלוק על חמיו הב”ח. ד. העולת תמיד לא מחדש הרבה רק בעיקר על פי הכנסת הגדולה. ה. המג”א מביא כמה מקורות חדשים בסוגיה בכלל. ו. המג”א משתמש בשל”ה לנדון הלכתי. ז. שימוש של המג”א במהרי”ל. ח. טעם שהמג”א לא נצרך להביא מ’שיירי כנסת הגדלה’. ט. כח החידוש של המג”א. י. שימושם של הט”ז והמג”א בתרומת הדשן על פי בדיקה בפנים. יא. דרכם של הט”ז והמג”א כשכותבים ‘עכ”ל’ שאינו ממש.
[1] * פרק חיבורי, ‘פרשנות השלחן ערוך לאורח חיים ע”י חכמי פולין במאה הי”ז’, חיבור לשם קבלת תואר דוקטור, אוניברסיטת בר אילן, רמת גן תשע”ה’. אי”ה בקרוב אחזור להוסיף ולתקן פרק זה.
בענין פרשת זכור מדאורייתא, ראה: ר’ אהרן לעווין, ברכת אהרן על מסכת ברכות, ירושלים תשנ”ח, דף נא ע”ב (מאמר צט); ר’ צבי הירש גראדזינסקי, מקראי קודש, ב, נוי יארק תרצ”ז, עמ’ קו; הנ”ל, מילי דברכות, סט. לואיס תרפ”ג עמ’ פג-פד; ר’ עובדיה יוסף, חזון עובדיה, פורים, ירושלים תשס”ג, עמ’ ג-ה. בענין פרשת פרה מדאורייתא, ראה: ר’ מאיר לייבייש – מלבי”ם, ארצות החיים, ווארשא תר”ך, דף ו ע”א, סי’ א אות ד; האדר”ת, אלה יעמדו, עמ’ נז-נח; הנ”ל, חשבונות של מצוה, ירושלים תשס”ה, עמ’ רפו; ר’ מאיר שמחה הכהן מדווינסק, משך חכמה, פרשת חוקת, פרק יט פסוק כ [בענין המג”א]; ר’ צבי פרבר, הגיוני צבי, בתוך: ספר המועדים, לונדון תשמ”ז, עמ’ נג-נד; ר’ יצחק אריאלי, עינים למשפט, ירושלים תשי”ז, ברכות, (יג ע”א), עמ’ סח; ר’ שלמה פישר, דרשות בית ישי, א, ירושלים תש”ס, סי’ לב, עמ’ רל; חזון עובדיה, פורים, עמ’ טז-יח; ר’ יעקב קמנצקי, אמת ליעקב על התורה, ניו יורק תשנ”א, עמ’ שב, תמד, תפד; דניאל שפרבר, נתיבות פסיקה, ירושלים תשס”ח, עמ’ 45-50.
[2]  שם ס”ק ב.
[3] סי’ קמו ס”ק י.
[4] סי’ רפב ס”ק ד
[5] אי”ה אחזור לדון בזה ביתר הרחבה בקרוב.
[6] וראה נח,ד; שם,ה; סה,ב; סו,ב; קסז,ח; קצג,ו; שם,ז; ריב,ג; רכב,ב ועוד.
[7] יש לציין בדברי הרשב”א במגילה, כלל אינו מביא פרשת פרה כשהוא דן בזה.
[8] ראה: מחצית השקל, לבושי שרד, שמן למאור, בגדי ישע כאן.
[9] ראה למשל, תוספות רבנו יהודה שירליאון, ברכות; תוס’ רא”ש ברכות דף יב ע”ב, וכ”כ בדבריו, וסוטה דף ל”ב ע”ב; וכ”כ תוס’ איוורא סוטה שם. וראה ריטב”א מגילה שם.
[10] סי’ תרפ”ד ס”ק כא.
[11] של”ה, מסכת מגילה, דף פו ע”ב.
[12]  חכמת שלמה, ברכות שם. וכן כתב בביאור הגר”א סי’ תרפ”ה ס”ק כב. וראה ר’ שלמה זלמן הבלין, ‘ביאור הגר”א לשו”ע’, ישורון, ה (תשנ”ט), עמ’ תשי”ח-תש”כ.
[13] יצחק רון, ‘בקורת נוסח התלמוד הבבלי של ר’ שלמה לוריא’, עבודה לשם קבלת תואר דוקטור, האוניברסיטה בר אילן, רמת גן תשמ”ט, עמ’ צ. ולענין מסכת ברכות בכלל, ראה דבריו שם עמ’ 95-106.
[14] שפיגל, עמודים, הגהות, עמ’ 342. וראה ר’ דוד קמינצקי, ישורון, טו (תשס”ה), ‘חידושי הב”ח על ה”ס מכי”ק’, עמ’ פח הערה 18; ר’ יהושע מונדשיין, ‘שיבושים בהעתקת הגהות הב”ח לתלמוד’, מוריה כא, גליון ה-ו (רמה-רמו) (תשנ”ז), עמ’ קא-קג. והוא מציין לכ”י על מגילה, שהגיע לספרייה, מס’ 1744. הלכתי לבדוק בספרייה הלאומית, אך כרגע לא ניתן לראות חיבור זה, לכן ענין זה לא נבדק עד דק, ועוד חזון למועד.
[15]  סי’ רפב ס”ק ד.
[16]  סי’ תרפ”ה.
[17] זכרון יוסף צבי, ברלין סי’ קמו. וראה ר’ ברוך הלוי עפשטיין, מקור ברוך, ב, ווינלא תרפ”ח, עמ’ 1152; מה שכתב יעקב שמואל שפיגל, ‘על היחס לחיבוריו של ר’ אהרן וירמש’, ירושתנו, ג (תשס”ט), עמ’ רפה-רפו; הנ”ל, ישורון, יב (תשס”ג), עמ’ תתה בענין ר”ת אלו.


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

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

 

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


The Rogochover and More: Excursus on Fasting

|
The Rogochover and More: Excursus on Fasting
Marc B. Shapiro
Relevant to what appeared in the last post (see note 13), I wish to mention some leniencies regarding fast days that contradict mainstream halakhah. I have also included other interesting material regarding the fast days.
1. R. Israel Jacob Fischer, dayan on the beit din of the Edah Haredit, stated that in our day all pregnant women up until the ninth month must eat on Yom Kippur פחות מכשיעור. See his haskamah to R. Baruch Pinchas Goldberg, Penei Barukh (Jerusalem, 1985), where he writes:
כיום הזה שנחלשו הדורות, ועשרות רבות של נשים מפילות ע”י התענית, צריכין כל הנשים המעוברות עד החודש התשיעי לאכול ביוהכ”פ פחות מכשיעור.
For a criticism of this great leniency, which contradicts Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 617:1, see R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 17, no. 20. Elsewhere, R. Fischer states that pregnant women are forbidden to fast on Tisha be-Av.
מעוברת אסורה להתענות בת”ב, ואין כאן דין שיעורים, כי במקום סכנה לא גזרו חז”ל
See Even Yisrael, vol. 9, no. 62. This too is at odds with Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 554:5, which rules that pregnant women are obligated to fast on Tisha be-Av.
In an article on the OU website[1] R. Y. Dov Krakowski writes:
There are those who are Noheg that pregnant women do not even begin to fast on Tisha B’Av (there is very little if any Halachik backing to this hanhaga, but many of the chosheve senior Poskim have such a Mesorah. I have personally heard this from many family members who heard this from my great uncle the Veiner [!] Rov Zetzal and from my wife’s grandfather Harav Lipa Rabinowitz who says it in the name of his grandfather the Sundlander Rov Zatzal).
R. Yosef David Weissberg also reports that many halakhic authorities rule that in contemporary times pregnant women are not obligated to fast on Tisha be-Av.[2]
2. R. Akiva Joseph Schlesinger writes that he has a tradition from the Hatam Sofer that pregnant and nursing women should only fast on Yom Kippur, and even women who are not pregnant should only fast on Tisha be-Av and the other fast days if they are very healthy.[3] He also quotes an oral tradition from the Hatam Sofer which seems to be saying that if he had the authority, he would have abolished the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av. (See note 4 for another source where the Hatam Sofer says this explicitly.)
ובפרט אחרי כי בא חולשא לעולם, שמענו מהחת”ס זיע”א שאמר אי לאו דמיסתפינא כלפי ד’ תעניות חוץ מיוהכ”פ ות”ב מטעם חשש סכנה לכמה בני אדם, ובפרט לנשים ה’ ירחם, ולא להניח לבנותיו להתענות חוץ מהנ”ל.
His last words are not entirely clear. I think they mean that he would have preferred not to allow his daughters to fast except on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, but not that he did so in practice. He does not say ולא הניח לבנותיו but ולא להניח לבנותיו.
The editor adds a note explaining the passage just quoted, but he misunderstands what R. Schlesinger means when he writes .מטעם חשש סכנה לכמה בני אדם He also mistakenly understands the passage to mean that the Hatam Sofer forbade all women to fast, other than on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.
כאן כתב רבינו פסק החת”ס לענין שאר תעניות, דהיה אוסר להתענות לכל הנשים ואפילו למי שאינם מעוברות ומניקות, ולאנשים היה מתיר לכמה בני אדם אי לא דמסתפינא, אבל לנשים החליט להיתר.
R. Schlesinger also states that the rabbis did not allow women to fast except for Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.
בענין התעניות, בחולשתינו, רבותינו לא הניחו לנשים להתענות חוץ מט”ב ויוהכ”פ.
R. Schlesinger himself suggests that the women not fasting should give some money to charity and fast a few hours or even abstain from food the evening before the fast actually begins.
Returning to the Hatam Sofer’s comment that if he had the authority, he would abolish the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, the exact same thing was said by R. Abraham Joshua Heschel of Apta. He added that on Yom Kippur, who needs to eat (since we should be so involved in our prayers), and on Tisha be-Av, who is able to eat (as we should be so focused on mourning what we have lost)?[5]
אם הייתי בכוחי הייתי מבטל כל התעניתים חוץ מיום המר והמנהר (הוא ט’ באב), שאז מי יוכל לאכול. וחוץ מיום הקדוש והנורא (הוא יום כפור), דאז מי צריך לאכול.
R. Abraham also reported that he was told by his teacher, R. Elimelech of Lizhensk, that if he could find two others to join with him, he would abolish “the fasts” (presumably, everything except for Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av).[6]
3. R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabia Omer, vol. 10, Orah Hayyim no. 39, discusses the laws of a nursing woman and the various fasts. On p. 503, in the hosafot u-miluim, he adds:
מש”כ להקל במינקת שאפילו הפסיקה להניק אם היא בתוך כ”ד חודש ללידה פטורה מלהתענות ג’ צומות ותענית אסתר. יש להסתייע ממ”ש הגאון בעל דרכי תשובה בשו”ת צבי תפארת סוף סי’ מח: וז”ל: ודע כי שמעתי מפה קדוש של מורי הגאון הקדוש אדמו”ר רבי יחזקאל משינאווא זצללה”ה, שאמר, כי הוא מקובל מגאוני וצדיקי הדור הקודמים זצ”ל, שכל אשה שעומדת עדיין בימים שיכולה ללדת, ובימי הצומות היא חלושת המזג, אפילו היא בריאה ושלימה, נכון יותר שלא תתענה, ורק לאחר שיפסוק זמנה מללדת עוד, אם תהיה בבריאות תשלים אותם התעניות, לחיים ברכה ושלום. ע”כ
This is a fascinating passage as R. Ovadiah is quoting R. Zvi Hirsch Shapira in the name of R. Ezekiel Halberstam of Shinova, who himself is passing on a tradition from earlier geonim and tzadikim, that women of childbearing age, even if they are not pregnant, do not have to fast if they feel weak. This ruling is in contradiction to Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 550:1, which states that women are also obligated to fast on the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz and Tzom Gedaliah, and does not give any exemption if they feel weak (as pretty much everyone feels a little weak when fasting). As we have already seen, R. Akiva Joseph Schlesinger states that “our rabbis” did not allow any women, not just those of childbearing age, to fast on these days.
R. Meir Mazuz, Sansan le-Yair (2012 ed), p. 354, notes this passage of R. Zvi Hirsch Shapira and reacts very strongly:
והוא נגד חז”ל חכמי התלמוד וכל הפוסקים שלא התירו רק למעוברת ומניקה. ומזה למדו רוב המורות והתלמידות בבית יעקב בימינו שלא לצום כל ד’ תעניות, ואוכלות בריש גלי בשעת ההפסקה כאילו לא היו ד’ תעניות בעולם ולא תיקנו אותם הנביאים.
Is R. Mazuz correct that most teachers and students at Bais Yaakov schools do not fast on the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah, and Ta’anit Esther? I know that in the yeshiva world many do not fast, but my question is, is this really the majority, and are there any differences between Bais Yaakov schools in the U.S. and Israel? (Even though R. Mazuz refers to ד’ תעניות established by the prophets, I am assuming he means the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah, and Ta’anit Esther, as religious women of all stripes fast on Tisha be-Av.)
See also here where R. Yitzhak Yosef states that he heard that in some seminaries they tell the young women that they do not have to fast except for Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.
When I told a friend about what this post is focused on, he mentioned that he knows that many women do not fast other than on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, but that he never heard of a “mainstream” posek who had this position. From R. Mazuz’s harsh comment it seems that he too assumes that there is no real halakhic basis for the practice of not fasting. My response to my friend, which I now share with readers, is that you can’t get any more mainstream than the great R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and this was indeed his position. In Halikhot Shlomo: Moadei ha-Shanah, Nisan-Av, p. 401 n. 16, the following appears:
ולענין נשים הי’ דרכו של רבנו להשיב לשואלים שהמנהג במקומותינו היה שהנשים אינן מתענות כלל, ואף הנערות, מלבד תשעה באב ויוהכ”פ. אבל לאנשים אין להקל כלל בד’ תעניות ותענית אסתר יותר מהבמואר בפוסקים.
It is hard to criticize women for not fasting on the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah, and Ta’anit Esther when R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach saw no problem with this practice.
As with R. Mazuz, R. Eliezer Shlomo Schik, here, uses the expression “4 fast days” and it refers to the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah and Ta’anit Esther. He notes that the practice in Breslov is that no women fast on these days. I have been told that among other hasidic groups there is variation. Some women fast on these days, others never fast, and some do not fast if they are married and of childbearing age. (In discussing unusual leniencies, there is no need to mention standard kulot that deal with pregnant and nursing women.)
R. Yohanan Wosner, a dayan in the Skverer community, writes that while some permit married women of childbearing age to forego the fasts (other than Tisha be-Av and Yom Kippur), there are those who permit even unmarried women to do so.[7]
In R. Simhah Rabinowitz’s Piskei Teshuvot, Orah Hayyim 550:1, he states that a few great figures (gedolei ha-dorot) were lenient and permitted all women of childbearing age to forego the fasts (other than Tisha be-Av and Yom Kippur). I must note, however, that none of the figures he refers to were halakhic authorities. The first source he cites was mentioned by me in the last post, note 13.[8] In it we see that the hasidic master R. Nathan David of Szydłowiec said that no women of childbearing age should fast, except for on Yom Kippur. The fact that he said that even on Tisha be-Av such women should not fast is, I think, quite radical. The passage also records a subversive comment from R. Ezekiel of Kozmir about how the Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah, who instituted the fast days, are embarrassed now because they did not anticipate the much weaker recent generations. R. Ezekiel  The point of such a comment was presumably to “give cover” for those who find it difficult to fast and thus choose not to.
ושמעתי מחסיד ישיש א’ שנסע להרה”ק ר’ יחזקאל מקאזמיר ז”ל שהוא היה מקיל גדול בתעניות, ואמר שאנשי כנסה”ג שתקנו התעניות מתביישין על שלא הסתכלו בדורות אלו, וסיפר כמה ענינים מקולותיו שהיה קשה לי לכתוב, ובשם רבינו הקדוש ז”ל מפאריסאב שמעתי שאמר בזה”ל מוזהר ועומד אני מהה”ק ר’ נתן דוד ז”ל משידלאווצע לדרוש ברבים ששום אשה שראויה עדיין לילד לא תתענה כ”א ביום הקדוש, ולכן עכ”פ אדרוש זאת לידידיי.
The second source R. Rabinowitz cites is a report that R. Menahem Mendel of Kotzk said that with women one must be lenient when it comes to the fast days, as they need strength to give birth.[9]
שמעתי מהה”ג מהו”ר מאיר בארנשטיין ז”ל ששמע מפ”ק כ”ק מרן הקדוש זצוקלל”ה מקאצק דבאשה יש להקל בתעניות משום שצריכה כח להוליד בנים.
This is a very sensible statement which incidentally all poskim would agree with. But contrary to what R. Rabinowitz states, it says nothing about exempting women of childbearing age from any fast days. It only says that when dealing with such women the posek should be lenient.
The final source R. Rabinowitz quotes is from R. Ezekiel Halberstam of Shinova which was mentioned already.
4. R. Sadqa Hussein (1699-1772) was the leading rabbi in Baghdad in his day. He ruled that no pregnant women should fast on Tisha be-Av, as it was so hot in Baghdad that fasting created a situation of sakanat nefashot.[10]
5. Here is a fascinating section of a 1953 letter from Joseph Weiss to Gershom Scholem.[11] It provides evidence that there was a time that members of the Ruzhiner “royal family” did not complete the fast of Tisha be-Av.[12] Do any readers know anything about this?
 
It could be that this practice relates to the tradition that R. Israel of Ruzhin died at the premature age of 54 as a result of fasting on Yom Kippur. Ahron Marcus writes:[13]
הוא נפטר מצמאון הלב שנגרם לו, כעדות הרופא המפורסם מלבוב, ד”ר יעקב רפפורט, ביום הכפורים האחרון תרי”א, כאשר התגבר על הבולמוס של צמא והשלים את תעניתו, מבלי לגמוע טיפת מים במשך היממה. הרבנים הנוכחים, אשר מורי הרבי שלמה רבינוביץ זצ”ל גינה את מבוכתם, לא העיזו להתיר לו את השתיה, על אף הדין המפורש בשולחן ערוך במקרה כזה. הוא הסתפק בכך, שטבל את קצות אצבעותיו בקערת מים ונשם את ריח המים, ובזה הגביר את ענוייו. המסכנים לא הבינו, כי גופו של אותו צדיק, על אף כפיפותו המוחלטת לכוחות הנפש, היה נתון לחוקי טבע רגילים. הוא לא שב לאיתנו, ונסתלק בג’ מרחשון.
In discussing this story, R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin writes:[14]
ומכל הרבנים הגדולים שהיו שם לא עלתה אף על דעת אחד מהם, שאם הצדיק אמר כן, בודאי הוא מרגיש כי בנפשו הוא, ויש פקוח נפש בדבר. שתקו הרבנים ומכיון שלא התירו לו, סבל הצדיק, וקפצה עליו מחלת הלב, שקורין “הערץ-וועסער זוכט”, ומאנה להרפא. מחלתו נמשכה עד יום ג’ מרחשון, ונשמתו הטהורה עלתה אז לגנזי מרומים.
This is obviously an extreme example of being “frum” at someone else’s expense, in this case at the expense of literally his life.
Regarding R. Israel of Ruzhin, it is also recorded that he said that if someone feels a little bit weak he should not fast.[15]
וכשם שמצוה לשמור ישראל מעבירה כן מצוה ליזהר לכל איש אם יש לו מעט רפיון כח שלא יתענה.
It is not clear if this advice refers to all fasts, including Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.
Since the above-mentioned permission to eat on Tisha be-Av – and no doubt this also applied to the other fast days aside from Yom Kippur – was reserved for members of the Ruzhin “royal family,” it reminded me of a passage in R. Moses Sofer, Hatam Sofer al ha-Torah, vol. 2, p. 165a (haftarah for parashat Pekudei). The Hatam Sofer states that in theory, if one is able to focus all of his intentions on the glory of God, without getting any physical benefit, then it would permissible to eat on Yom Kippur. But he adds that this is something that only gedolei Yisrael can accomplish.
דודאי לאכול ביה”כ לשם מצוה אם אדם יכול לכוון כל מחשבתו לכבוד ה’ בלי שום כונה אחרת להנאת הגוף אזי היא צורך גבוה כמו קרבנות נשיאים ועוד טוב ממנו ויפה דנו ק”ו אך מי יכול לעמוד בזה כ”א גדולי ישראל שהרי משום כך ס”ל לאבא שאול [יבמות לט ע”ב] מצות חליצה קודם למצות יבום לרוב העולם שאינם יכולי’ לעמוד על מחשבתם שלא לכוון להנאת הגוף.
6. R. Joseph Mordechai Yedid Halevi, Yemei Yosef (Jerusalem, 1913), vol. 1, Orah Hayyim, no. 9, states that scholars and melamedim, if their fasting will affect their learning or teaching, are not obligated in any of the fasts other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av. He says that his ruling is halakhah ve-lo le-ma’aseh.
7. The practice in Stockholm used to be that the community ended the fast of the 17th of Tamuz nine and a half hours after hatzot, which is before it is dark. This practice was defended by R. Benjamin Zvi Auerbach in his Nahal Eshkol, Hilkhot Tisha be-Av, p. 16 n. 1. I have heard from R. Chaim Greisman, the Chabad rabbi in Stockholm, that today they end the fast of 17th of Tamuz when it is dark. According to the times provided on www.chabad.org, in 2018 this will be at 11:38pm, with the fast beginning that morning at 12:51am (alot ha-shachar).[16] R. Michael Melchior, the chief rabbi of Norway, informs me that they also end the fast at darkness. This means that in 2018 in Oslo the fast of the 17th of Tamuz will end at 12:19am, with the fast beginning at 1:20am.[17]
R. Aaron Worms, Meorei Or, vol. 4 (Be’er Sheva), p. 14b, writes as follows about the northern European countries:
וכבר שמענו שהקילו רבנים קדמונים במדינו’ ההם לסיים תעניתם בצום הרביעי וצום החמישי בעוד היום גדול בשעת חשיכה לרוב גלות ישראל ואף שתענית שלא שקעה עליו חמה לאו תענית שאני התם שמעקרא לא קבלו יותר מרוב ישראל.
Notice how he also refers to ending Tisha be-Av (tzom ha-hamishi) when it is still daylight. The justification he offers is the same as was later given by R. Auerbach, but R. Auerbach’s justification was only stated with regard to the 17th of Tamuz, not Tisha be-Av.
8. R. Ernst Gugenheim, Letters from Mir (New York, 2014), p. 106, wrote as follows in 1938:
Tomorrow [the day before Purim] will be a day of fasting. Here [in the Mir Yeshiva], they are rather meikil with respect to this viewpoint, and many bachurim, too weak, do not fast completely. It is true that every day for them is a day of half-fasting, such that they are quite weakened.[18]
9. R. Mordechai Eliyahu ruled that a pregnant or nursing woman can break her fast on Tisha be-Av if she is having difficulty fasting, and she does not need to ask a halakhic question. Rather, she is to determine herself if it is too difficult for her.[19] In 2007, because it was very hot on Tisha be-Av, R. Eliyahu ruled that no pregnant women needed to fast.[20]
10. R. Shmuel Salant was very liberal when it came to the fasts other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av. If someone merely said that he was thirsty and wished to drink, R. Salant would immediately tell him to do so. If someone told R. Salant that fasting was difficult for him, R. Salant would permit him not to fast, and he did not ask for any particulars from the questioner. This was based on a teaching he had from R. Isaac of Volozhin, “that one safek sefeka related to pikuah nefesh pushes aside many fasts.”[21] Once, on a fast day between minhah and maariv, he heard someone say that he was thirsty and was waiting for maariv so that he could drink. R. Salant immediately got the man a cup of water and told him to drink it.[22]
A similar approach is recorded with regard to R. Meir Shapiro[23].
והיה אומר כי בדורות החלשים כבימינו כל מה שאוכלים הוי ככדי חייו, וצום הוי כסכנה לאנשים רבים, ולכן התיר להרבה לאכול בימי צום.
11. R. Haim Ovadia, a contemporary liberal Orthodox rabbi, argues that the minor fasts (which include all fasts other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av) are optional in today’s day and age. See his discussion here. He concludes his analysis as follows:
In the current state of the Jewish people in Israel and abroad, the Talmudic rule demands that fasting on the minor fast days should be optional, and according to Ha’Meiri, fasting would even be forbidden, maybe because it shows lack of gratitude to God. For that reason, one who chooses not to fast on these days cannot be considered one who breaches the law, and can definitely rely on the ruling of Rashba. Hopefully, in the coming years, more and more individuals will choose to acknowledge the fact that we leave [!] in better times and develop a more positive worldview, and as a result maybe persuade the rabbinic leadership to reassess the situation and leave us with only two fast days, Tisha Be’Av and Yom Kippur, thus making those two much more meaningful.
12. R. Herschel Schachter, Nefesh ha-Rav, pp. 261-262, writes:
כשהורי רבנו התחתנו, שלח הגר”ח להודיע להכלה מרת פעשא שא”צ להתענות ביום חתונתה, כי כך היה דן כל אדם בזה”ז כחולה שאב”ס, שא”צ להתענות בשאר תעניות [ואפי בט’ באב, כדעת המחבר (תקנ”ד ס”ו) והאבני נזר (חאו”ח סי’ תכ”ט), ודלא כדעת הט”ז (שמה סק”ד), (כן שמעתי)] חוץ מביוה”כ. . . . נהג רבנו להתענות בכל התעניות, ואפילו ביאה”צ.
R. Schachter cites R. Chaim Soloveitchik as saying that today everyone is regarded as suffering from a non-life-threatening illness and thus there is no obligation to fast other than on Yom Kippur. He adds that R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik did not follow this view but fasted on all the fast days, including when he had yahrzeit.
This is a radical view, as I do not know anyone else who stated that other than Yom Kippur, there is no longer an obligation to fast, even on Tisha be-Av. I must note, however, that there is no real source for this report in the name of R. Chaim. I spoke to R. Schachter about this and he told me that there is also a story that R. Chaim left a will stating that people should not fast on Tisha be-Av. Again, there is no source for this report, and like many such stories it is hard to know if there is any truth to it. Had R. Chaim felt strongly about this matter he could have announced his supposed view to his community, but he never did so.
There is something else that should be mentioned in this regard. The late Professor Aaron Schreiber told me that he heard from R. Simcha Sheps, who studied in Brisk, that one day on the 17th Tamuz he visited the Brisker Rav, R. Isaac Zev Soloveitchik, in Jerusalem. He entered the Brisker Rav’s home and found him at the table eating! It is hard to know how much faith we can put in such a report as with the passage of time people’s memories can change. Someone I know was told by R. Ahron Soloveichik that the Brisker Rav ate on Tishah be-Av, but this was for a medical reason, not because of any halakhic rationale regarding the current binding nature of the fasts.
13. The Ben Ish Hai, parashat Shoftim (first year), no. 17, rules that a groom – the same would apply to a bride – within the week of his wedding does not fast on Tzom Gedaliah, 10th of Tevet, Ta’anit Esther, and 17th of Tamuz. [24] He adds this was the practice in Baghdad.[25] (The exemption from fasting on Ta’anit Esther is mentioned by many others.[26])
R. Ovadiah Yosef is more stringent in this matter. He states that only if the 17th of Tamuz is pushed off to Sunday (and this would apply to the other fasts as well), then the bride and groom do not need to fast.[27]
R. Elijah Mani, another Baghdadi, records an additional liberal opinion (which he himself does not accept) in line with what the Ben Ish Hai wrote.[28]
נשאלתי אם החתן חייב להתענות [בעשרה בטבת]. ואני שמעתי ממורי הי”ו [הרב עבדאללה סומך] ששמע מהרב הגדול משה חיים זלה”ה, שאומר לחתן כרצונו אם תרצה להתענות ואם תרצה שלא להתענות.
14. R. Shmuel Wosner, Shevet ha-Levi, vol. 8, no. 261, states that someone who flies from Israel to the United States on a fast day such as the 17th of Tamuz does not need to wait until it is dark in the United States in order to break his fast. Rather, he can break the fast at the time that it is over in Israel. Since R. Wosner writes ביום תענית וכמו בי”ז בתמוז  I assume that he excludes Tisha be-Av from this lenient ruling.[29]
15. In my post here I discussed the original halakhic approach of R. Yitzhak Barda. When it comes to the fast days he also has an original perspective in that he holds that on Tzom Gedaliah, 10th of Tevet, Ta’anit Esther, and 17th of Tamuz, one can break the fast at sunset rather than waiting until darkness, which is the standard practice. See here. This is a more lenient position than his earlier approach found in his Yitzhak Yeranen, vol. 3, no. 20 and vol. 5, no. 41, where he only permits one to break the fast of the 10th of Tevet at sunset when the fast is on Friday.
16. In Teshuvot ha-Geonim: Shaarei Teshuvah, no. 325, the following appears:
זקן חלש שהיה מתענה ובתוך התענית שעבר עליו רובו של יום בתענית וכבר בא לידי חלישות בענין שחושש לסכנה מאכילין אותו אפילו ביום כיפור ולא שבקי ליה דימות וגמרינן מההיא עוברה דהריחה כו’ כ”ש אם הוא זה זקן נכבד שאם ימות ויסתכן על תענית זה יהיה הפסד לרבים.
This geonic responsum has been cited numerous times and no one saw anything problematic with it. However, in 1995 R. Yehiel Avraham Silber published his Birur Halakhah: Telita’ah, and he has a different perspective.[30] He states that “there is no doubt” that this responsum is a forgery. His reason is that nowhere in halakhic discussions of pikuah nefesh is consideration ever given to whether a person is “honorable”. Yet in the geonic responsum it speaks of a זקן נכבד as a factor to be considered in permitting someone to break his Yom Kippur fast, as his life is not just an individual matter but is of importance to the community as a whole.
R. Silber writes:
תשובות הגאונים שערי תשובה נדפס לראשונה בשאלוניקי בשנת תקס”ב – תקופת הנסיון של עקירת התורה על ידי זיופים; סמוך לזה בשנת תקנ”ג יצא לאור לראשונה הספר שכולו זיוף בשמים ראש.
I think all readers can see that his argument has no basis whatsoever. Furthermore, the appearance of Besamim Rosh, a rabbinic forgery published by a maskil in Berlin in 1793, has absolutely nothing to do with a volume of responsa published in 1802 Salonika, a place far removed from any Haskalah influence. R. Silber’s claim is so unreasonable that I would never even refer to it in an academic article, and only mention it here as another curiosity from the world of seforim.
17. Here is a fascinating text that was called to my attention by R. Chaim Rapoport. It appears in R. Samuel Elijah Taub’s Imrei Esh (Jerusalem, 1996), p. 186, and has been subsequently included in other works.
 
R. Taub, the Modzitzer Rebbe (1905-1984), states that his forefather, R. Ezekiel of Kozmir (1772-1856), was lenient with all the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.[31] He then says that R. Ezekiel was very opposed to Tzom Gedaliah, and used to say that in Heaven Gedaliah is embarrassed that they established a fast day in his memory. Earlier in this post I cited a passage from R. Abraham Yelin that mentions how R. Ezekiel said that Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah are now embarrassed for having instituted the fast days (see the source in n. 8). R. Yelin also writes that “it is difficult for him to record” some of R. Ezekiel’s leniencies regarding the fast days.[32]
R. Ezekiel’s opposition to Tzom Gedaliah was such that in his beit midrash it was declared that whoever wishes to fast on this day should leave Kozmir. We can thus assume that none of R. Ezekiel’s followers fasted on Tzom Gedaliah. Does anyone know if this antinomian view about Tzom Gedaliah continued among his descendants, which include the rebbes of Modzitz?
18. There is a joke in the “frum” world which goes as follows: There are three reasons not to fast on Tzom Gedaliah.
            1. It is a nidcheh (as he was killed on Rosh ha-Shanah).[33]
            2. Even if he was not killed he would not have been alive today.
            3. He would not have fasted for me if I was killed.
While this is only a joke, R. Ephraim Bilitzer records that it was widely reported that certain hasidic rebbes said that Gedaliah was troubled in heaven by the fact that thousands of Jews fasted on his account.[34] Therefore, followers of these hasidic rebbes did not fast on Tzom Gedaliah. R. Bilitzer finds it hard to believe such stories, but after what we have seen with R. Ezekiel of Kozmir, it is obvious that, at least with regard to R. Ezekiel, this was indeed the case.
Would R. Ezekiel, or any other hasidic rebbe who told his followers not to fast on Tzom Gedaliah, be impressed by R. Bilitzer’s very non-hasidic objection?
הלא דין הוא בש”ע להתענות ומה זה שנהגו שלא להתענות נגד הש”ע
After all, the Shulhan Arukh also gives the times for prayer, and a number of hasidic rebbes ignored these as well.[35]
In general, it should not surprise us to find hasidic rebbes with lenient approaches to fast days. R. Bilitzer himself informs us that R. Yissachar Dov Rokeah, the Belzer Rebbe, told his followers who were with him for the High Holy Days that anyone who felt the least bit weak on Tzom Gedaliah should immediately eat. This is a very lenient approach, and if followed by the Jewish world at large it would mean, I think, that not many teenagers would fast on this day. While fasting gets easier as one gets older, my experience has been that most teenagers find it at least a little bit difficult to fast.
The following story, about R. Solomon of Radomsk, even shows great leniency with regard to Tisha be-Av. I am sure readers will wonder why R. Solomon thought it was necessary for people to drink when the fast was just about over. If he wanted people to break the fast, why not have them drink earlier in the day?[36]
היה נוהג להקל בתעניות. פעם אחת, בערב תשעה באב ארעה שרפה בבית בנו, והיו הכל טרודים בכבוי השרפה. לפני גמר התענית, בשעת בין השמשות, הלך אל הבאר, הסמוכה לבית המדרש, וצוה לכל אחד לשתות מים.

Here is another interesting passage, from R. Abraham Yelin, Derekh Tzadikim, p. 13b, no. 44:

It states that R. Mordechai of Nes’chiz used to pray minhah when it was already dark. However, on the 17th of Tamuz he finished maariv when it was still light. It is true that this text does not mention actually eating when it was still light, but isn’t that the implication of the passage? What else could it be coming to tell us, without having to be too explicit? I can’t imagine that it means that they finished maariv early so that people could go home and be ready to eat as soon as the fast was over.
It was not only hasidic rabbis who had such a liberal perspective (and I have already referred to R. Chaim Soloveitchik). Here is a story that was told by a hasidic rabbi to the grandson of R. Baruch Bendit Gliksman.[37] (R. Baruch Bendit was a misnaged.[38]):
פעם ישבתי ביום תענית בליטומירסק ולמדתי יחד עם בן גיסי, האדמו”ר רבי חנוך העניך מאלקסנדר וחתן גיסי, רבה של לודז הג”ר יחזקאל נומברג. נכנס אלינו זקנך הג”ר בנדיט מלאסק ומיני מזונות בידו, דורש מאתנו כי נטעום מעט ונפסיק את התענית, אמר: “מובטחני כי תהיו פעם מורי הלכה בישראל, לכן עז רצוני כי תלמדו להקל בתעניתים”.
Returning to Tzom Gedaliah, I found an interesting passage in R. Yitzhak Meir Morgenstern’s She’erit Yaakov on Tractate Megillah.[39] He writes:
וראיתי דיש אנשים שנהגו להקל בצום גדליה כשנוסעים בדרך, ותמהתי עליהם איה מקורם.
R. Morgenstern is not referring to Modern Orthodox people. He is referring to those in his own hasidic circle, and he tells us that among them there are some who do not fast on Tzom Gedaliah when they are traveling. He wonders what the source for this practice is and is not able to find a good justification. For the purposes of this post, however, the very fact that he acknowledges the existence of a laxity when it comes to Tzom Gedaliah is significant.
R. Raphael Aaron Ben Shimon (1848-1928), the chief rabbi of Cairo, also speak of laxity regarding the fast days other than Tisha be-Av and Yom Kippur.[40] However, unlike R. Morgenstern, he was referring to a traditional Sephardic community rather than a haredi population.
בעון פשתה המספחת להקל בתעניות הצבור חוץ מט’ באב ויוה”כ
I think R. Ben Shimon’s description is also applicable to many in the Modern Orthodox world, at least in the United States. That is, while they are careful to fast on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, this is not the case regarding the other fast days. But unlike what we have seen with R. Morgenstern, no one would think to ask if there is any halakhic support for this. Even those who eat on the fast days know that their behavior is not in line with halakhah.[41]

 

 

[1] I mention the source since I was surprised that the OU would post an article written in “yeshivish” rather than converting it to standard English.
[2] Otzar ha-Berit (Jerusalem, 2002), vol. 1, 5:2.
[3] She’elot u-Teshuvot Rabbi Akiva Yosef, vol. 1, no. 174.
[4] See Minhagei Rabotenu ve-Halikhoteihem (Jerusalem, 2009), p. 317, citing the book Elef Ketav, no. 671:
החת”ס זלה”ה אמר, אם היה בכוחו היה מבטל כל התעניתים זולת ת”ב ויוה”כ.
Megillah 5b states that R. Judah ha-Nasi wished to abolish the fast of Tisha be-Av but the Sages disagreed. Another version recorded ibid., is that he only wanted to abolish Tisha be-Av if it was postponed to Sunday, but the Sages disagreed.
[5] Yalkut Ohev Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1998), p. 124.
[6] R. Israel of Ruzhin, Irin Kadishin, parashat Va-Yikra (p. 19a). When the text mentions abolishing “the fasts”, I don’t think it is merely referring to individual fasts that pious people undertake, as the term “abolish” would not seem to fit in that context.
[7] Hayyei ha-Levi, vol. 6, Orah Hayyim no. 95. It is interesting that some treat unmarried women with more leniency than men, because when it comes to the fast of the 20th of Sivan, commemorating the Chmielnicki massacres, Shaarei Teshuvah, Orah Hayyim 580:1, writes:
שמעתי בימי חרפי שנכתב בפנקס הארצות שהגזרה היא לבן י”ח בזכר ולבת ט”ו בנקבה.
For some reason, when it came to the fast of the 20th of Sivan the rabbis wanted 15-year-old girls to fast, but boys were only supposed to do so from the age of 18.
[8] R. Abraham Yelin, Derekh Tzadikim (Petrokov, 1912), pp. 13b-14b.
[9] R. Abraham Pitrokovski, Piskei Teshuvah (Jerusalem, 2001), no. 88 (Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, p. 88).
[10] See R. Hussein, Tzedakah u-Mishpat (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 10.
[11] Gershom Scholem ve-Yosef Weiss: Halifat Mikhtavim 1948-1964 (Jerusalem, 2012), p. 102.
[12] Rabbi and Mrs. Samuel Sperber, mentioned in the letter, are the parents of Professor Daniel Sperber.
[13] Ha-Hasidut, trans. M. Shenfeld (Tel Aviv, 1954), p. 223. See also R. Yissachar Tamar, Alei Tamar, Yoma, p. 396, who records in the name of the Rebbe of Husiatyn a different version of what R. Israel did with the water placed before him.
לרה”ק מריזין היתה לו דלקת גדולה בפיו וביחוד על השפתיים מתוך הצימאון הגדול, והעמידו לפניו קערה עם מים קרים כדי ששפתיו יתקררו מעט ע”י האדים היוצאים ממים קרים.
[14] Sipurei Hasidim (Tel Aviv, 1957), vol. 2, p. 85.
[15] Irin Kadishin, parashat Va-Yikra (pp. 19a-b).
[16] This time for alot ha-shahar is accompanied by the following note: “On this date at this location the sun does not set far enough below the horizon to use the standard calculation. The Chabad custom is to use Chatzot for this time.”
[17] These times were given to me by R. Melchior. Chabad’s site has the fast in Oslo ending at 12:18am (one minute earlier than R. Melchior) and beginning at 1:20am (the same time as R. Melchior). There are significant differences between these times and the times that appear on the popular myzmanim.com. On the latter site it says that this year in Oslo the fast begins at 2:48 am, which is significantly later than the official community practice and the Chabad practice. Myzmanim.com states that the fast ends according to R. Tukatzinsky at 12:34am, which, we are told, is the emergence of ג’ כוכבים בינונים. This is a later time than that of R. Melchior and Chabad. For Oslo, myzmanim.com does not give a time for the end of the fast according to R. Moshe Feinstein.
There are also divergences when it comes to Stockholm. As noted, the Chabad site has the fast of the 17th of Tamuz this year beginning at 12:51am and ending at 11:38pm. Myzmanim.com has the fast beginning at 2:25am and ending at 11:45pm according to R. Tukatzinsky and at 12:09am according to R. Moshe Feinstein.
Readers can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that people who will be in Oslo or Stockholm on the 17th of Tamuz (or any other day for that matter) are halakhically permitted to rely on what appears on myzmanim.com in opposition to the local community’s practice.
[18] Among other passages that readers will find interesting is p. 160:
I have already gedavent [prayed] and listened to the weekly Inyan of Reb Chatzkel – Yechezkel [Levenstein]. He has already spoken very often against the datsche = vacations, wanting only the weak or sick bachurim really to go rest, but I observe he has not had much success in this respect and that there will be exactly the same number leaving. On the other hand, the yeshiva had gotten into the habit of rowing on the lake – but a single Inyan sufficed to bring an end to this custom from one day to the next – which constituted in a way a chillul Hashem, because in doing it the bachurim put themselves in the same category as the town people. Yet, is it not correct that, since the Torah is different from everything that exists, a ben Torah is distinguished by his behavior from his entire entourage? In Yiddish, it’s much better. I am sure that on my arrival in Mir, I would not have been able to understand that it was base to ride a bicycle or to go rowing. It is obvious that these restrictions are only valid here in this place, but you can also see how much the städtische [city dwellers] feel respect or anger to the yeshiva-leit.
On p. 96 he writes: “Our milk is purely Jewish milk, but the butter comes from goyim and is subject to no shemira of any sort.”
[19] R. Moshe Harari, Mikraei Kodesh: Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, p. 220 n. 6.
[20] R. Harari, Mikraei Kodesh: Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, p. 221 n. 7.
[21] Aderet Shmuel (Jerusalem, 2014), p. 145.
[22] Ibid., p. 146.
[23] R. Natan Lubert, She’erit Natan (Ashdod, 2013), p. 147.
[24] R. Solomon Laniado of Baghdad found the Ben Ish Hai’s position so astounding that he claimed that there is a printing error, and the text should be corrected to say that the groom needs to fast on all days except for Ta’anit Esther. See his letter in R. Yitzhak Nissim, Yein ha-Tov, vol. 2, Even ha-Ezer no. 2. (The title of R. Nissim’s book is often pronounced Yayin ha-Tov, but that is incorrect. See Song of Songs 7:10.)
[25] The Ben Ish Hai’s testimony about the practice in Baghdad is problematic, as his contemporary, R. Elisha Dangor, writes that the practice in Baghdad is that the groom does fast in the week of his wedding, with the exception of Ta’anit Esther. See Gedulot Elisha (Jerusalem, 1976), Orah Hayyim 549:5. R. Ovadiah Yosef, Halikhot Olam, vol. 2, p. 211, cites the Ben Ish Hai’s student, R. Joshua Sharbani, who says that the because the Ben Ish Hai was so busy and involved in Torah study, he is not such a reliable source for the practices of Baghdad.
שהרב בן איש חי לא היה בקי כל כך במנהגי בגדאד לרוב טרדתו ושקידתו בתורה
This is quite a surprising this to say, as the Ben Ish Hai lived in Baghdad so how could he not be aware of things? Yet R. Ovadiah Yosef finds support for R. Sharbani’s comment in a responsum of R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Hayim Sha’al, vol. 2, no. 35:2. R. Azulai cites a few examples where R. Joseph Karo testifies as to what the accepted practice was, and yet we have evidence that contradicts what R. Karo states. R. Azulai explains the reason for R. Karo’s mistake:
ויתכן שלרוב קדושתו וטרדת לימודו לא דקדק וסבר שהמנהג כך ואינו כן
[26] See R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yehaveh Da’at, vol.2, no. 78.
[27] Yehaveh Da’at, vol. 3, no. 37. In Yalkut Yosef: Kitzur Shulhan Arukh 265:13 (מילה במועדי השנה), it states that a groom can only eat on the pushed-off fast day after hatzot.
[28] Ma’aseh Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 2017), no. 119.
[29] In an earlier responsum, Shevet ha-Levi, vol. 7, no. 76, he does not say to break the fast when it is over in Israel. Rather, he says that one can break the fast when one feels weak.
[30] See Birur Halakhah: Telita’ah, Orah Hayyim 618.
[31] It is interesting that he quotes R. Ezekiel as saying something very similar to what I cited earlier in this post from R. Abraham Joshua Heschel of Apta:
בשחור מי יכול לאכול – והכוונה היתה לתשעה באב שהוא יום חורבן ואבילות, ומי יכול אז לאכול. ובלבן מי צריך לאכול – היינו ביוהכ”פ ומי צריך לאכול, הרי בני אדם כמלאכים.
[32] Yelin, Derekh ha-Tzadikim, pp. 13b-14a.
[33] This is how the joke was told to me. While many indeed assume that Gedaliah was killed on Rosh ha-Shanah, Maimonides believes that he was killed on the third of Tishrei. See Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ta’aniyot 5:2.
On the assumption that he was killed on Rosh ha-Shanah (which is the dominant opinion), and the fast day was pushed off from its actual date, does this mean that every year Tzom Gedaliah has the status of a pushed-off fast day, with the various leniencies that go with it? Most say no, but there are some who say yes. R. Yair Rosenfeld has recently discussed the matter in Ha-Ma’yan 56 (Tishrei 5777), and he concludes (p. 18):
לאור זאת, יולדת במקום שמנהג הנשים לצום בד’ צומות יכולה להמנע מהצום, וכן אבי הבן, ובצורך גדול אף הסנדק והמוהל, מתענים ולא משלימים. כן יש להוסיף שאף חתתן בשבעת ימי המשתה יכול להקל בצום זה כדינו בצום נדחה.
[34] Yad Efraim (Tel Aviv, 1970), no. 29 (p. 206, third numbering). This book is found on Otzar ha-Hokhmah together with many other books from R. Bilitzer. It is worth noting that most of his books on Otzar ha-Hokhmah, including six volumes of responsa, are still in manuscript. It appears that there is no money to prepare these works for publication, and they were therefore put on Otzar ha-Hokhmah in manuscript form. Fortunately, his handwriting is easy to read.
[35] The other objection of R. Bilitzer is that Tzom Gedaliah is not on account of the death of Gedaliah per se, but due to what befell the Jewish people in the Land of Israel as a consequence of his death. Even if this is correct, R. Bilitzer’s anger with the reported hasidic flaunting of Tzom Gedaliah apparently caused him to exaggerate somewhat. In his defense of fasting on Tzom Gedaliah, R. Bilitzer states that what happened to the Jews after Gedaliah’s death “was like the destruction of the Temple.”
Furthermore, it seems that the fast has more to do with Gedaliah the individual than R. Bilitzer is willing to acknowledge. I say this because some authorities have pointed to leniencies with regard to Tzom Gedaliah precisely because it is a pushed-off fast (i.e., it does not take place on the day of the event it commemorates). This shows the centrality of Gedaliah the individual and the importance of the day of his assassination to the fast. If the entire focus was on what befell the Jewish people after his death, the actual date of his death, and the resulting issue of a pushed-off fast, would not have any real significance.
I cannot locate the source at present, but Gerson Cohen, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, had no liking for Tzom Gedaliah. He wondered why a fast was declared in memory of a man he called “a Quisling.” Yet if Gedaliah is to be regarded as a Quisling, does that make Jeremiah, who told the Jewish people to accept Babylonian rule, a “Tokyo Rose”?
[36] Moshe Tzvi, “Ha-Tiferet Shlomo” me-Radomsk (Bnei Brak, 1989), p. 182.
[37] Yehuda Leib Levin, Beit Kotzk (Jerusalem, 1959), vol. 2, p. 159.
[38] See Pinhas Gliksman, Ir Lask ve-Hakhameha (Lodz, 1926), p. 43.
[39] There are actually two such volumes. I am referring to the first one that appeared (it has no date), p. 32.
[40] Nehar Mitzrayim (Jerusalem, 2007), Hilkhot Tefillin, no. 4 (p. 14).
[41] The one exception to this generalization would be the congregants and followers of R. Haim Ovadia. As we have seen in this post, R. Ovadia claims that the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av are not obligatory. Thus, his congregants and followers would not regard eating on these fast days as deviant. As far as I can tell, no other liberal Orthodox rabbis have adopted R. Ovadia’s position.


At a Holiday Celebration with the Lubavitchers by Elie Wiesel (1963)

|

At a Holiday Celebration with the Lubavitchers [on Yud Tes Kislev]

By Eliezer Wiesel

The Forverts (13 December 1963) [Yiddish]

[Translated to English by Shaul Seidler-Feller (2017)]

The “Holiday of Salvation” among the Lubavitchers. – We travel to Brooklyn the way they used to travel to see the rebbe. – The holiday of Yud Tes Kislev. – Why I like to attend when the Lubavitchers host a farbrengen. – Guests from Israel. – The miracle of joy.

By Eliezer Wiesel

Someone remembered: it is Yud Tes Kislev. So, who wants to visit the Lubavitchers? Everyone. Everyone wants to go. Just because? [No,] it is the Holiday of Salvation. The first rebbe, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Lyady, the Ba‘al ha-Tanya, was released from a tsarist prison on the nineteenth day of Kislev. The joy [of that moment] has remained in its entirety, being passed on from generation to generation, from heart to heart, from word to word. Who says that only sorrow must be bequeathed as an inheritance? Hasidim do not believe in such an inheritance. Hasidim move heaven and earth to stay happy. The Imminent Presence of God is driven away by sadness.

Ten people were gathered in the room, both locals and visitors from the State of Israel: Aryeh Disenchik, editor-in-chief of the Tel Aviv-based evening newspaper Maariv; Aharon Kidan, one of Prime Minister Levi Eshkol’s closest assistants; Yehuda Hellman, secretary of the Conference of Presidents; the Israeli author Zvi Kolitz (one of the producers of the anti-Pius play The Deputy); and Isaac Moyal, representative of Keren Hayesod.

We were speaking, as usual, about politics and acquaintances: where so-and-so is and what became of so-and-so. Also: what will be the nature of the relationship between the Johnson Administration and Israel? Or: has Levi Eshkol yet freed himself entirely of the famous shepherd in Sde Boker?

Close to midnight, someone remarked: it is Yud Tes Kislev. The effect was instantaneous. The heated discussions were cut short. No one spoke for a full minute. Presumably everyone was remembering his own Holiday of Salvation, his own personal thirst for redemption.

Who wants to visit the Lubavitchers?

Everyone. Almost without exception. Just like once upon a time in Hungary or Poland: they would travel to the rebbe to liberate themselves from the mundane; to forget their gray, daily concerns; to immerse themselves in Hasidic rapture and Hasidic song, if not in Hasidic faith.

I enjoy Lubavitcher celebrations. I enjoy watching Jews rejoicing and tearing themselves away from the earth, as if it had no control over them, as if their enemies had lost their power, if not forever, then at least for now, on this night of remembrance and thanksgiving.

The rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, sits up front and toasts “l’chaim!” before the hundreds of Hasidim and yeshivah students, who sway while singing and close their eyes while listening to his homily.

I first attended such a farbrengen four years ago – and whoever comes once must return.

Jews have so many reasons to mourn and to allow themselves to sink into melancholy. So when I see a congregation building the palace of song, I feel like reciting a blessing: she-heheyyanu.

Since the War, I have felt that we will never again be able to sing and forget. The Holy Temple was destroyed more than once in sinful Europe, and Tish‘ah be-Av, I thought, would fall more than once a year.

Never again will yeshivah students clap their hands to the rhythm of a melody; never again will their faces flare up under the radiant, calm gaze of their rebbe – so I thought both during and after the War. The world will remain a cemetery, without Kohanim and without Levites.

That is why I come to the Lubavitchers. Their jubilation attracts me. Since the Holocaust, every bit of joy is – a miracle, even greater than the release of the rabbi from Lyady.

Isaac Babel writes in one of his novels that he once had the opportunity to meet the Chernobyler Rebbe of that time. Involuntarily, a cry of pain escaped the Soviet Jewish writer’s heart: “Rebbe! Bless me! Give me rapture!”

That same cry of pain or prayer of pain rages within all of us. Most of us unfortunately have no one to cry to, to pray to, and we live in a desolate world. Our life force thirsts for a sip of water – but everything around us is dry, silent. There is no strength to sing, no reason to sing. The past went up in flames, the future is shrouded in heavy clouds. Not long ago, a friend of mine confided in me that he had just gotten married, but he has not yet decided if he can bring children into the world, whether he has the right to do so. Because – what can he offer his children? Just dangers and memories, both of them exceedingly dreadful.

That is why I enjoy going to the Lubavitchers, even though I am a Vizhnitser, not a Lubavitcher, Hasid.

Among them – one wishes to say: among us – they know how to banish doubt and melancholy. They know the secret of joy and rapture. The world will always remain the world, man will always remain man: if you have a difficult question, open the Tanya and learn a chapter; or: raise your cup and have the rebbe toast you “l’chaim!” – and your soul will feel relieved.

The rebbe says his Torah, the crowd sings. A bridge connects Torah and song, and on it Hasid and rebbe meet, one drawing his strength from the other.

Dozens of paper cups are lifted into the air, all of them directed toward the rebbe; no one will drink without his “l’chaim!” signal.

Here, inside, everything is clear. Without confusion. There is a path, and the rebbe knows where it leads. Liberation is a miracle that is renewed every day. Every one of us has something from which to free himself and an enemy to conquer.

Outside, that path becomes a forest where shadows stray, searching for light in others’ windows.

I cast a glance at my friends who have come from both near and far to this holiday celebration. The scene before their eyes has captivated and enchanted them. When someone leads them up to the rebbe, they are the happiest people in the world. One after the other, they shake his hand and ask for his blessing. Yud Tes Kislev will become a date in their lives, too.

On our way out, someone remarked: I had no idea that despite the fact that I am not a Hasid I would not feel like a stranger among them. That is the miracle.

Somewhere in the east, on the edge of the horizon, a ray of light has brought the promise of a new beginning.



New Book Announcement – נשמת הבית

|
New Book Announcement
נשמת הבית, שאלות שנשאלו ליועצות ההלכה של מדרשת נשמת בנושאי היריון, לידה, הנקה ואמצעי מניעה בליווי הדרכה מעשית והסברים ונספחים רפואיים, 367 עמודים
Nishmat Habayit is a collection of 63 she’elot uteshuvot on Pregnancy, Birth, Nursing, and Contraceptives. Each question has a short answer, as a yoetzet halacha would addresses the woman with the question, followed by a more extensive halachic discussion. The questions were selected from among tens of thousands in Nishmat’s Taharat Hamishpacha database. The responses were authored by a team of yoatzot halacha, under the supervision of Rabbi Yehuda Henkin and Rabbi Yaakov Varhaftig; and edited by Rabbi Yehuda and Chana Henkin. The book includes medical appendices, helpful even to poskim. The responses display sensitivity to women, coupled with complete faithfulness to halacha. The book carries haskamot of recognized poskim in Israel. The book was published by Maggid Press and is available here. Sample chapters are available upon request [Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com ]
Here is the title page, table of contents, and haskamot.



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

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


BY BATSHEVA SASSOON


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

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


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


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


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


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


GENIZAH


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


“How many fragments are in the Genizah?”


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


“So you’re his successor.”


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


“Was he born in Eretz Yisrael?”


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


“There were never any problems because of that.”


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


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


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


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


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


“No. Most of them are religious.”


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


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


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


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


TORAH KNOWLEDGE


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


“Are they all yahrtzeits?”


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


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


ANCIENT HISTORY


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


CHAZANIM


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


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


“Did they have special melodies?”


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


“Did any women write piyutim?”


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


“Rabbi Elazar Hakalir was a shliach tzibbur?”


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


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


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


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


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


“In other words, they were abbreviated?”


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


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


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


LOST MIDRASHIM


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


ELIZUR’S WRITINGS


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


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


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


“Are all of your books on piyut?”


“Yes.”


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


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


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


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


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


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


“From examining his kisvei yad?”


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


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


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


BACKGROUND


“Was your father a learned person?”


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


“What was his name?”


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


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


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


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


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


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


“How many children do you have?”


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


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


“Forty-one years.”


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


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


“Almost none.”


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


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


“What does your husband do?”


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


“Was your husband also born in Yerushalayim?”


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


“And now, to sum things up…”

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