1

The American Yekkes

The American Yekkes[1]
By Yisrael Kashkin
As I march around town grasping my Hirsch Siddur, I sometimes am asked, “Are you a Yekke?” to which I answer, “I am an American Yekke.”[2]  This statement draws puzzled looks as if I had said that I were an Algonquin Italian. “America is a Germanic country and my family has lived here for a century,” I say, attempting to explain but provoking usually even more puzzlement. For those who want to hear more, I present my case. 
Consider the country’s language. English is technically a Western Germanic tongue. It started when Germanic tribes settled in Britain in the fifth century, displacing Common Brittonic, a native Celtic language, and Latin, which had been introduced by the Romans. The English that was formed then was called Old English. As Wikipedia describes it, “Old English developed from a set of Anglo-Frisian or North Sea Germanic dialects originally spoken along the coasts of Frisia, Lower Saxony, Jutland and Southern Sweden by Germanic tribes traditionally known as the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. As the Anglo-Saxons became dominant in England, their language replaced the languages of Roman Britain…”[3] Frisia is a coastal region along the Southeastern corner of the North Sea which today sits mostly in the Netherlands. 
The Frisian languages are the closest to English. Wikipedia explains: 

The Frisian languages are a closely related group of Germanic languages, spoken by about 500,000 Frisian people, who live on the southern fringes of the North Sea in the Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. The Frisian dialects are the closest living languages to English, after Scots.[4]

The language of Scots mentioned here is also a Frisian tongue brought by the Germanic immigrants and not Scottish Gaelic, a Celtic language that people generally associate with Scotland.[5] 
Old English was followed by Middle English which started in the 11th century after the Norman Conquest and continued unto the late 15th century. While Modern English contains vocabulary from several languages, the second most prominent being French which arrived with the Normans, the basic vocabulary and grammar of English is Germanic. Of the 100 most commonly used English words, 97% are Germanic; of the 1000 most commonly used English words, 57% are Germanic.[6]
Look at this example. Here’s one way to say, “Hello, my name is Harold” in several languages, the first four being Germanic. 
Dutch: Hallo mijn naam is Harold. 
German: Halo mein numen ist Harold. 
Swedish: Hej, mitt namn är Harold 
English: Hello, my name is Harold. 
French: Je m’appelle Harold. 
Italian: Ciao, mi chiamo Harold. 
Latin: Salve nomen meum HOROLD. 
Russian: привет меня зовут Гарольд. 
Chinese: 你好,我的名字是哈羅德 
See what I mean? 
As mentioned, those Germanic tribes went by the names Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. While most people associate the term Anglo-Saxon with the American aristocracy and the British, the term actually finds its origins in those Germanic settlers of Britain as does the name of the language called English, which derives from the Angles specifically. The Encyclopedia Britannica sums it up as follows: 

Anglo-Saxon, term used historically to describe any member of the Germanic peoples who, from the 5th century ce to the time of the Norman Conquest (1066), inhabited and ruled territories that are today part of England. According to the Venerable Bede, the Anglo-Saxons were the descendants of three different Germanic peoples—the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes—who originally migrated from northern Germany to the island of Britain in the 5th century at the invitation of Vortigern, king of the Britons, to defend his kingdom against Pictish and Irish invaders.[7] 

The Venerable Bede was an 8th century English monk and historian whose book The Ecclesiastical History of the English People earned him the title “The Father of English History.” The name Bede is actually Anglo-Saxon, ie. Germanic, being built on the root bēodan or to bid or command.[8]  Thus, the father of English history has a Germanic Anglo-Saxon name. 
It is possible that a high percentage of the inhabitants of 5th century Britain were not only influenced by the Germanic invaders but were actually comprised largely of those Germanic invaders and their descendants. We see this in the spread of the Frisian-Germanic language throughout Britain. In “Empires of the World, A Language History of the World,” Nicholas Ostler traces the decline of Latin during the collapse of the Roman Empire against invading armies. Slavic languages took hold in Eastern Europe but Germanic-Frisian held sway in Britain. 

Perhaps something similar happened at the opposite end of the Roman dominions, for Britain too lost its Latin in the face of invasions in this period. It also lost its British. This event of language replacement, which is also the origin of the English language, was unparalleled in its age – the one and only time that Germanic conquerors were able to hold on to their own language.[9] 

Ostler cites a theory by researcher David Keys that the ravages of the bubonic plague facilitated the spread of the Frisian Germanic dialect as it wiped out a high percentage of the Britons who, unlike the Saxons, maintained trade routes with the Roman Empire, from which the plague entered the island. A Germanic language took hold because a large percentage of the populace was actually Germanic. 
Genetic studies support the theory. One study at the University College of London tracked a chromosome that is found in nearly all Danish and North German men to about half of British men.[10] It is not found in Welsh men of Western England where the Angles and Saxons did not invade. 
While anthropologists debate the percentages of the British populace that trace to the AngloSaxons, the sociological discussion is more relevant to the thesis. The Germanic Anglo-Saxons ruled the British Isles for centuries, and rulers tend to dictate cultural norms. The Wikipedia entry on the Britons sums up their demise with the pithy words: “After the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons the population was either subsumed into Anglo-Saxon culture, becoming “English”; retreated; or persisted in the Celtic fringe areas of Wales, Cornwall and southern Scotland, with some emigrating to Brittany.”[11] The point here is that the nationality called English is built on Anglo-Saxon or old Germanic culture. 
And again, pithily, Wikipedia sums up the entire cultural transformation of Britain under the Germanic invasion: 

The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is the term traditionally used to describe the process by which the coastal lowlands of Britain developed from a Romano-British to a Germanic culture following the withdrawal of Roman troops from the island in the early 5th century. The traditional view of the process has assumed the large-scale migration of several Germanic peoples, later collectively referred to as Anglo-Saxons, from the western coasts of Europe prior to the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms that came to dominate most of what is now England and lowland Scotland.[12] 

A connection between the aristocracies of Germany proper and England has endured to modern times. British Kings George I and II were born in Germany, spoke German, and belonged to the House of Hanover.13 Queen Victoria’s mother was born in Germany, and Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, also was born in Germany. Their son King Edward VII, was an uncle of Kaiser Wilhem II, the last German Emperor and King of Prussia. Mary, the Queen consort of King George V, was a princess of Teck, a German aristocratic line. The present British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, inherited the throne from Edward VII’s grandson George VI. Thus, she too is part German as are the princes Charles and William, the current heirs to the throne. 
It should be no surprise that the British and other Germanic peoples have much in common. One sees it in their orderliness, rationalist mindset, industriousness, and emotional reserve. Similar too is the Anglo aristocracy that set up the USA, laid down its primary culture, and arguably continues to run the place or did so through the 1950s. The educated American reader certainly needs no overview of the British roots of the USA which started as a British colony. The connection is so strong that the term WASP or White Anglo-Saxon Protestant is generally used by Americans to designate a type of American even though, as I have shown, it traces back to the Germanic English and their German ancestors. While the USA is composed today of many ethnic groups, it is governed mostly in an AngloGermanic style, ie. rule-based and organized. 
So there’s the Germanic-English connection and its role in the founding of America. What about the American people? There we have an even more recent linkage via 19th century immigration. German Americans, some forty-nine million strong, are the largest ancestral group in the country.[14] By contrast, Irish Americans number thirty-five million and Italian Americans seventeen million. The 2010 census reports the top five as follows:
1      German      49,206,934      17.1% 
2      African      45,284,752      14.6% 
3      Irish      35,523,082       11.6%
4      Mexican      31,789,483      10.9% 
5      English      26,923,091      9.0% 
Incredibly, there are nearly twice as many Americans of German ancestry as English.[15] In 1990, fiftyeight million Americans reported German ancestry, constituting 23% of the entire country.[16] Between 1850 and 1970, German was the second most widely spoken language in the United States, after English.[17]
Germans immigrated in the greatest concentrations to the Midwest where the state legislatures of several of the North-Central states promoted their immigration with funding and support.[18] The area between Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and St. Louis was known as the German triangle.[19] By 1900, more than 40% of the major cities of Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Cincinnati were German American.[20] However, they landed also in large numbers in New York and Pennsylvania and went all the way to the West Coast. In 1790, a third of the residents of Pennsylvania were German immigrants.[21] The following map shows plurality ancestry, ie the largest groups of national origins, in each state in 2010: 
Plurality ancestry in each state.[22]
More states have a plurality ancestry of German than any other nationality, three times the number of the next highest group.[23] Moreover, significant German immigration started in the 1670s and continued in large numbers throughout the 19th century, whereas most of the other ancestral groups of significant numbers arrived much later into a more established culture into which they strove mostly to conform.[24] Africans, whose numbers come closest to the Germans, also arrived early but were not in a position to shape the national culture.[25] 
Now, the word German and any word that contains it such as Germanic are problematic for many Jews, particularly those who were most directly affected by the Holocaust. This is understandable. However, as we have shown, the term Germanic is not limited to Germany proper. Germanic languages are spoken in such places as Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark, culturally similar countries from a global perspective, and sources of immigration to the USA, particularly the Midwest. All are considered Germanic peoples.[26] Switzerland and Belgium too are largely Germanic. While technically, English and German belong to the West German family of languages along with Dutch and Afrikaans, North Germanic languages include Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Icelandic, and Faroese, which is spoken in the islands off the coast of Norway.[27] The adjective Germanic describes not just the culture of Germany but that of Northern Europe including large parts of Holland, Scandinavia, England, Switzerland, Luxembourg, and Iceland. The Danes who are famous for protecting Jews during World War II are Germanic, as were the Dutch business associates of Otto Frank, Anne Frank’s father, who assisted her family as they hid in the attic, as was the Swede Raoul Wallenberg, who, by the way, studied in the American Middle West, at the University of Michigan, before he risked (and likely lost) his life saving Jews during the Holocaust. 
Accordingly, England, Germany, and the United States are not culturally identical. The Germanic Anglo-Saxons merged with the Britons and Pics of the British Isles. The British colonialists cohabited the New World with French settlers, Native Americans, Africans, Dutch, Irish, and an idiosyncratic group of Germans who came to the New World in search of religious freedom. As the USA formed and evolved millions of immigrants from all over the planet joined them. Germans are more intense than the other two groups. The British have the best sense of humor. Americans are the least formal of the three. Additionally, Americans are the least class conscious, have by far the best record regarding treatment of the Jews and religious freedom in general, and lack the ethic of blind obedience to authority that once characterized the Germans and enabled the Holocaust. In fact, the phrase “question authority” originated in the USA during the sixties movement and is arguably traceable to American sensibilities in general. Nobody knows what the future holds, but as I write, America, though Germanic, is not Germany, even as it picked up many traits from German immigrants. The same applies to England. But all three societies start to look quite similar when you compare them to Italy, Greece, Ukraine, Turkey, India, China, Nigeria, or the Arab countries. 
Even though my great-grandparents, who I never met, lived their lives in shtetls in the Ukraine, I am more Western and Germanic in style than Eastern European. Many Jewish Americans of Eastern European extraction can claim the same since peak immigration occurred at the turn of the last century. In those days, immigrants were encouraged to Americanize. The situation might be somewhat different for the people who attended yeshivos in New York City and lived in enclaves there, but for those who lived “out of town”, moved to the suburbs, or attended public school, the culture could be quite distinct from that of Eastern Europe. In American public schools until very recently, literature classes consisted of British and American authors and history classes British and American leaders, the latter being of Anglo descent. 
Granted, America has many sub-cultures, some not Anglo at all. You can visit neighborhoods in Metropolitan New York City such as Spanish Harlem and Chinatown in Manhattan or Little India in Jersey City and experience the difference. However, many Jewish Americans were raised in the suburbs, and their culture was defined by the public education system which took its cues from the universities which themselves are Anglo-Saxon in style, at least they used to be. Consider the archetypal professor in a tweed jacket with elbow patches ‒ the British gentleman. So, too, are most corporations Anglo-Germanic in style with their command and control organizational structure. 
The German influence is seen from coast to coast. Some people argue that the whole notion of a public education, funded and administered by the government, comes from the Germans.[28] Elsewhere, schooling was a private matter. This may be one reason that the Midwest developed such strong public schools, as German American writer Kurt Vonnegut often noted[29], and such strong state universities. In the Northeast, private colleges are more prominent. The concept of kindergarten comes from Germany.[30] The concept of the research university, used by many of America’s most prominent institutions, comes from Germany, as does the practice of faculty following their interests and students choosing their courses – the model used in most colleges today.[31] The old British model called for a rigid curriculum. The prizing of home ownership, which is a strong American value, was common among German immigrants. In the words of La Vern J. Rippley, “There was a low rate of tenancy among early German immigrants, who purchased homes as early as possible. German Americans have traditionally placed a high value upon home ownership and prefer those made of brick.”[32] Not surprisingly, home ownership is highest in the Midwest.[33] And let us not fail to mention hamburgers with pickles and frankfurters with sauerkraut, German imports, named for German cities but as American as the flag. Few Americans have 4th of July picnics or any picnics without them. 
Even socially, America resembles Germany. I recall as a youth visiting Europe and noting the contrasting styles of the people in various societies, particularly in comparison to Americans. As I entered each new country, I felt as if I were meeting entire new breeds of people. For example, the English were more classy (more than me) and sticklers about social propriety. They had complex rules about social interactions that I had never heard before, when to call, when not to call, how long a visit should be, what topics to discuss and not to discuss. The French were more cultured and had rules about food, dining, and clothing, rules that I had never heard before. I was impressed by aspects of both groups but felt like an outsider. However, with the Germans I seemed to know the rules and to care about them as well. The smooth running of society was a central concern. Our very practical goals for education seemed similar. They were ambitious and interested in engineering, commerce, politics, and history. The gaps between their style and mine were the narrowest − even physical mannerisms and social cues seem to be the same. For example, while the British, French, and Germans all displayed senses of humor, the Germans tended to take serious topics more seriously and refrain from joking about them.[34] I felt much of the time that I was with Americans, which is not something I felt with any other group. 
Blogger Dana Blankenhorn makes a similar observation: 

Here is something you weren’t told in school.  

America is a Germanic country.  

Our food is German. Our dress is German. Our distances, both personal and urban, are German. Our sense of beauty is German, not French. Our bread and sweets are German. Our loud laughter is German. America has people of French and Spanish and Polish and English and Irish and a hundred other descents, but the Germans set the mood, and the mood remains the same.[35] 

On the darker side, some argue that the notion of compulsory peacetime military service and general militarism come from the Germanic kingdom of Prussia and lead to the World Wars.[36] As James Gerard, the US ambassador to Germany during World War I noted, “Prussia, which has imposed its will, as well as its methods of thought and life on all the rest of Germany, is undoubtedly, a military nation.”[37] Mirabeau the French orator said, “War is the national industry of Prussia” and Napoleon said that Prussia “was hatched from a cannon ball.”[38] The USA, with a larger military budget than the next fifteen nations combined and five times the budget of the second biggest spender, seems to have inherited much of this militaristic sensibility.[39] The USA, despite having oceans for natural boundaries, has military personnel in over one hundred countries, far exceeding the global military presence of any other country.[40] 
With all of this said, we can return to the term that I have set out to explain: American-Yekke. What is a Yekke? Is he or she a descendant of Yepeth, Gomer, Ashkenaz, and the Germanic tribes that migrated from Asia Minor to Central Europe, warring with and pushing out the Roman legions?[41] No, he or she is a descendant of Shem, Abraham, and Sarah who practiced Judaism in the countries built by those Germanic peoples, extracting some of their better qualities. An American-Yekke is a Jew who lives not in European Germanic countries such as Germany, Austria, Switzerland, or Holland but in Germanic America. 
Just this week, I received a phone call from a long, lost elder cousin. He was born in Cuba in the 1930s after my great-uncle immigrated there from a shtetl in the Ukraine. One brother gained entrance to the United States and the other to Cuba where he stayed until the communist takeover, immigrating eventually to Miami, Florida. My cousin was raised in Cuba and absorbed some of the best features of the Latin personality. He is easygoing and super-friendly, almost musical in his speaking manner. Certainly, I observed myriad universal Jewish qualities in my cousin and traces of Eastern Europe as you’ll find in me. But you can hardly call him an Eastern European even though his father, a wonderful man, was very much an old world yid from the shtetl. In talking to my cousin after a break of four decades, I could see how much we are shaped by the societies in which we are reared even as we retain Jewish identity and practice as he has. I have made similar observations of South African Jews whose parents are from Lithuania, British Jews whose parents are from Poland, and French Jews whose parents are from North Africa. We absorb much from the societies in which we live. I once had a Shabbos meal with a Haredi family in Paris. They served traditional Eastern European type food – chicken and kugel – but in tiny portions on large plates, in the manner of French cuisine.[42] After only one generation in France the influence was visible. 
So what are the repercussions of this? They are that some American Jews will be attracted to German Orthodoxy as it developed to suit the needs and reflect the sensibilities of pious Jews in Germanic lands. Each of the different camps of Orthodoxy work from the same literature, principles and laws. They are substantively the same, differing only in the margins, in style, via the parts of the Torah that they emphasize. 
I have observed a curious phenomenon. Many Russian Jewish baalei teshuvah thrive in the Eastern European portion of the Haredi world, looking completely at home there. They embrace the isolation from and lack of identification with the general society that characterizes much of that world. After all, they don’t even want you to call them Russian. “I am a Jew from Russia, not a Russian Jew,” they’ll say. Now, how many American Jews don’t want to be called American? Even those who make aliyah often still refer to themselves as American. Same with the British, Canadians, Australians, Swiss, and other Westerners. One can see in these recent immigrants from Russia how Eastern European Jewry in the 19th century put less emphasis on concepts like ‘light unto the nations’ and ‘tikun olam.’ This can happen when an entire nation is cast into an apartheid situation like the Pale of Settlement and mistreated there. 
By contrast, many American baalei teshuvah were attracted to Torah because of those ideas. One of the pillars of education in the USA is civics. Public school education in the United States of the 1920’s centered on the teaching of citizenship and civic service.[43] Scores of American youth envision for themselves careers in the public service. This is very American. Certainly before the 1970s it was.[44] It was German too.[45] Civic duty and national loyalty ‒ those were important parts of the culture in Germany. Certain nefarious people manipulated that value for wicked purposes as we know. One sees those values addressed in a constructive way in the writings of numerous German rabbis. In the words of Rav Joseph Breuer of Frankfurt, Germany: 

“And promote the welfare of the city to which I have exiled you; pray for it to God, for with its welfare, you too, will fare well” (Yirmeyahu 29:7). Because the Prophet has given this message to our people, banished from its homeland by the Will of God, each Jew, wandering through the world and faithful to the Torah, is obliged to keep faith towards the country which gives him refuge and a home.[46]

This idea being rooted in the Prophets is not alien to any Orthodox Jewish group but is emphasized in the German Jewish community. Rabbi Leo Jung, who attended the Hildesheimer Seminary in Berlin, wrote, “Judaism is a national religion in that it is the religion which God has given to Israel. According to the Torah, He has chosen us as His peculiar people, ‘to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ But Judaism is also universal, for that very choice implies that, as a priest to his congregation, the whole nation should be an example unto the gentile world of a life lived with God – upright, just, and kind. Our rabbis tell us that Judaism is the way of salvation for the Jew, but the righteous men of other religions will also partake of eternal salvation.”[47] 
Interestingly, I know one young woman who was born in the Ukraine but raised from a very young age in the United States. She even speaks fluent Russian but having been raised and educated in a Germanic country, the USA, she is attracted to the German Jewish approach on these matters. I know another that moved to the USA as an adult and she views both her native country Russia and her new host society the USA from the perspective of an outsider, with palpable suspicion and an often amusing derision. 
Of course, there are limits within German Orthodoxy to identification with one’s host country. If German Jews are anything, it is self-disciplined and they know where to draw the line. As Mordechai Breuer noted, “S.R. Hirsch was not alone in his aversion to Prussiandom and manifestations of German flag-waving. There were observant Jews in all parts of Germany who consciously distanced themselves from such display, either because they tended toward the old piety, where their ‘Jewishness’ did not leave room for German national consciousness, or because they shared an overriding affection for the local urban or rural surroundings.”[48] The idea within German Orthodoxy is to act with gratitude and loyalty towards one’s host country and to serve as a light when possible. But it is a host country; it is not our country. The very identification of it as a host puts us on the outside. 
Also appealing to the American sensibility is the order and decorum of the German Jewish approach. The first time that I walked into K’hal Adath Jeshurun the main synagogue of the German Orthodox community in Washington Heights, New York City, I was dazzled by the tidiness and order of the place. Their bank of light switches is numbered and color coded. It was a thing of beauty. The tefillah schedule is accurate and displayed outside the front door. The siddurim are grouped by type as they sit neatly on the shelves.[49] I cannot tell you how many times I have tidied up the sefarim in shuls around the world only to find them a mess again days later. In KAJ, I felt at home. I felt like I was back in the Midwest. 
The sense of discipline and order is found as well in the German approach to minhagim. The German Jewish loyalty to every detail of minhag avoseinu is well known and has served to safeguard authentic practice. In the words of Lakewood Mashigiach Matisyahu Salomon: 

As we know, over the years it became common to poke fun at the customs of the ‘Yekkes’, until someone proceeded to show the world that it is specifically the Yekkes who continue the ancient traditions, and that their customs originated during the time of the Geonim and Rishonim.[50]

Maintenance of the many details of minhagim right down to the nusach of fine points of the Siddur and piyutim requires a special kind of commitment and attitude. The Yekke beis ha-kenneses puts this all on display with its unique atmosphere of decorum, seriousness, and refined sentiment. 
One sees a similar sort of decorum in many American institutions from government to military to education much as one does in other Germanic countries. However, this does not mean that the German Jewish approach is to imitate the German gentiles. As Rav Joseph Breuer pointed out, “Extensive chapters in the Shulchan Aruch stress the vital importance of cleanliness, order, and dignity in the Synagogue. Thus, these aspects in themselves have little to do with a specific ‘German Jewishness.’”[51] According to Rabbi Avigdor Miller, the idea of order and punctuality as Jewish virtues traces back to the great generation of Har Sinai as depicted in the Chumash: 

But before Moshe, the Am Yisroel were so good that even Bilaam, al corchei had to praise them. Now it states, Vayisa Bilaam es einav. Bilaam lifted up his eyes. Now he wasn’t looking for good things in the Am Yisroel. You have to know that. If Bilaam could have found faults, he would have pounced on it like a fly pounces on a speck on the rotten apple. He was looking for faults. Vayar es Yisroel shochain l’shvatim. He saw Yisroel dwelling according to their shevatim. Now this I’ll say in passing although it’s not our subject. He saw that they were orderly. That they didn’t mix. Everything was done with a seder. Now that’s off the subject. Someday I’ll talk about the importance of the orderliness of the ancient Jewish people. The ancient Jewish people were punctual in time. It’s a mistake when you say Jewish time. It’s a big lashon hara. There’s a zman krias Shema and that’s the time. You got to be punctual. No fooling around with that time. And other things in Halacha. Oh no, Jewish time is the most punctual, precise time. They were baalei seder.[52]

While some people view German Jewish punctuality as a quaint idiosyncrasy, we see that it represents the preservation of ancient practice that predates the German golus by thousands of years. What is happening is that the environment of the host country allows for better enactment of important parts of halacha. This doesn’t mean that the gentile hosts are encouraging halachic excellence but it just so happens that their style works in our favor on occasion. 
The incentive apparatus for observance is another distinguishing trait of German Orthodoxy – at least the Hirschian portion of it – that works better for many Americans. One finds in some parts of the frum world an intense focus on divine wrath. It may work successfully for many people. However, it is not productive for some, particularly when administered in large doses. I know of people who literally suffered nervous breakdowns from the continuous feeling of failure and terror. Moreover, the “terror of Heaven” approach does not go well with the American sensibility of optimism, responsibility, selfrespect, and healthy ambition as primary motivations in life. 
Fittingly, we do not see a persistent terror-based approach in the writings of Rav Hirsch, not a continuous emphasis on it. One finds openly threatening talk towards people who take advantage of the innocent and the helpless (Horeb 353 for example), and certainly, Rav Hirsch often discussed divine judgment (Siddur, Pirkei Avos, 3:1; Horeb, chapter 8; Collected Writings, Vol. I, p. 216; Vol. II, p. 398, and Vol. IX, p. 123 are a few examples), warning us of the “stern justice in the hereafter weighing all in an unerring balance” (Judaism Eternal , Vol. 1, “Adar”). He even translated passages from the medieval work Sefer Chasidim, which, while presenting love of and obedience to God as the primary 9 motivations for its stringent call to piety (Sefer Chasidim 62, 63), reference palpable concern over divine reward and punishment as well. For example, “Whatever you may have done to give your neighbor even a moment’s grief will be subject to punishment by Divine judgment, for it is written (Ecclesiastes 11,9;12,14) that God will call you to account for all this, even for secret things.” (Sefer Chasidim 44 in Collected Writings, Vol. VIII, pp. 160-1). However, overall Rav Hirsch’s approach was multi-faceted, utilizing love and awe of God, self-respect, fear of Divine retribution, and yearing for Divine reward. He did not resort to fire and brimstone at every turn. In the words of the gaon R’ Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg:

Rav Hirsch reestablished the principle of the fulfillment of religious duties with a spirit of joy and love, that is, from a satisfaction of the natural yearning of the Jewish soul for authentic religious expression. Mitzvos, as understood by Rav Hirsch, are the conduit of the Divine blessing in this world, the cord which binds man’s soul to his Creator, and which binds his fundamental spiritual nature with his physical presence. Rav Hirsch constantly appealed for the living of a religious life enriched by spiritual vitality, not by fear of Divine retribution in this life and the next.[53]

According to Rav Weinberg, an excessive reliance on fear of punishment as motivation for religious observance was an unfortunate byproduct of antisemitism. In his article “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” he said the following in a discussion of medieval European Jewry, which presumably included medieval Germany, and the effects of persecution, pogroms, banning of Jews from trades, and expulsions. 

Judaism no longer drew direct sustenance from life; it no longer was synonymous with the abundant power which dwells in the Jewish soil. Rather, it began to be viewed as being nourished by fear -‒ of death and of awesome punishments in the world to come. It is true that belief in reward and punishment is a fundamental of Judaism, and indeed, no religion worthy of the name can dispense with a concept which logically follows from the idea of an omniscient and omnipresent Supreme Being, as clearly elucidated by Saadia HaGaon in his Emunot V’deiot. However, the use of this belief as a central pillar or religious feeling and the sole motivating force for the fulfillment of one’s duty served only to cast a pall over religious sensibility and weakened any spiritual vitality, as decried by the Chassidic masters.[54]

One can become so accustomed to the punishment-only approach to Judaism that he or she may be surprised to find that there can be another. In Rav Hirsch one finds another. In drawing from the Torah to motivate German Jews of the modern era, he served Americans too. 
While gentile German immigration to the Americas started early by American historical standards, it transpired deep into European history, two centuries after the close of the Middle Ages. The Napoleonic Wars, which affected meaningful Jewish emancipation in Europe, particularly Germany, were a major impetus for immigration as they caused severe disruption in the Germany economy.[55] During the same period, France under Napoleon granted Jews full rights as citizens and this included the Jews living in the Rhine Valley, which had been annexed by France.[56] Thus, the German immigrants who formed so much of American culture were not the same people who had so intensely persecuted the Jews in Medieval times. They were for the most part 19th century contemporaries of Rav Hirsch. Thus, it makes sense that the approach to religious motivation and divine reward that Rav Hirsch formulated for Jews in 19th century German society would be meaningful to Jews who are raised in an American society that was shaped to a major extent by immigrants from 19th century Germany. 
As Rav Weinberg points out, Rav Hirsch accomplished this by returning to a traditional Jewish outlook. He did not invent something new. Says Rav Weinberg, “Nor were these ideas unique to him – they were as old as the founding Sages, who called this attitude הרוממות אהבת הרוממות יראת : awe and love of the Almighty’s elevated nature, and the greatness in man which it implies.” Rav Hirsch brought us back to where we stood before persecution “cast a pall over religious sensibility.” Since the multi-faceted approach is rooted basic Talmudic thought, Rav Hirsch was not the only one to turn to it. As Rav Weinberg noted, the Chassidic masters of Eastern Europe also pursued this approach, as did others. The same applies to many of the distinguishing traits of German Orthodoxy. They are not necessarily exclusive to German Jews. As mentioned, the differing styles of the various derachim often come down to a matter of emphasis. When I sing the praises of German Orthodoxy, I do not intend to slight other groups or discount the worth of their approaches, nor do I always intend to contrast them with the vast and magnificent world of Eastern European Judaism. Even when I do contrast West and East, I am pointing out only differences in style. Each has its merits and shortcomings. 
And of course the two groups are cousins. Ashkenazi Jews in general can count a long stay in Germany as part of their golus story. After the destruction of the Second Temple, the Romans took many Jews as slaves across the Mediterranean to Rome proper, which in our times is called Italy. Sometime after earning their freedom and building communities in Italy, they migrated to France and elsewhere in Southern Europe and then to Germany where the language of Yiddish, a German dialect was formed. After several hundred years persecutions drove them East to Poland and Russia. The vast majority of Ashkenazi Jews have German Jewish ancestry which is why they are called Ashkenazi, a term used since Medieval times for Jews living in the Rhine Valley in Germany. 
Another area of overlap between Germany and America is recognition of the value of secular studies. According to Professors Mordechai Breuer[57] and Marc Shapiro[58], openness to quality secular learning was nothing unusual in Germany. As Professor Mordechai Breuer wrote, “Among German Jewry, there had always been rabbis who had recognized the need for Jews to acquire some general culture and who saw no offense against tradition in this.” This makes sense given that there was much quality material.[59] The same applies in the United States, which, until recently, displayed in many quarters a distinct concern for morality and faith and a knack for memorializing them in literature and law. Accordingly, Torah observance need not stand in opposition to the best of “secular” knowledge. It is the next step above it. They are not always opposites. A person need not toss aside his secular education if that education was of a proper kind. This is an important idea for Americans as the USA is intensely focused on higher education. In the most recent Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, 13 of the 25 top ranked universities are located in the USA[60] and in the London Times rankings 17 of the top 25 are in the USA.[61] Rav Hirsch stresses of course that “the knowledge of the Torah and the understanding we derive from it is to be our principle concern and…must be the yardstick by which we measure all the results obtained by other spheres of learning.” (R’ Hirsch on Vayikra 18:5)[62] 
Steven M. Lowenstein’s Frankfurt on the Hudson, which is a history of the German Jewish community of Washington Heights in Manhattan, discusses other Germanic qualities such as thrift.[63] Germanic peoples are known for it. Along with thrift comes savings. The book talks about immigrants who espoused the philosophy of “saving for a rainy day” even deep into their elder years when that rainy day had come.[64] Accordingly, the contemporary trend of forgoing job training for the young and living with no financial plan is quite alarming to many culturally Germanic Americans.[65]
Being practical-minded comes into play here too. As Russian immigrants encountered German immigrants at the turn of the last century, each formulated generalizations about the others. Polish born Educator Israel Friedlander summed them up as follows: 

The German Jews were deliberate, reserved, practical and sticklers for formalities, with a marked ability for organization; the Russian Jews were quick-tempered, emotional, theorizing, haters of formalities with a decided bent towards individualism (Israel Friedlander “The Present Crisis of American Jewry,” 1915)[66]

Sociological generalizations are considered not “politically correct” these days, but we all know that they often contain grains of truth. German Jews (and Germans) do tend to be concerned with the practical. Rav Hirsch uses the words “practical” and “practice” more than a dozen times in the eighteenth letter of his book Nineteen Letters. So, too, are the British and the Americans inclined towards the practical. 
The leaning towards practicality can play a role in an entire religious philosophy. In the Nineteen Letters, Rav Hirsch, apparently basing himself on the Kuzari, challenges a notion that developed in parts of Medieval Spanish Jewry that the goal of man was philosophic perfection for which mitzvos were a handmaiden, rather than the reverse. In Rav Hirsch’s view this approach was the result of an attempt to reconcile Judaism with Greek thought. Aristotle had said, “The highest individual perfection is speculative wisdom, the excellence of that purely intellectual part called reason.” (Comp. Aristotle, Ethics, I, 6.) Professor Harry Wolfson described this encounter with Greek thought as follows: 

Like Philo, the philosophers of the Middle Ages aimed at reconciling Jewish religion with Greek philosophy, by recasting the substance of the former in the form of the latter. The principles upon which they worked were (i) that the practical religious organization of Jewish life must be preserved, but (ii) that they must be justified and defended in accordance with the principles of Greek philosophy. Thus Hellenic theory was to bolster Hebraic dogma, and Greek speculation became the basis for Jewish conduct. The carrying out of this programme, therefore, unlike that of Pauline Christianity, involved neither change in the practice of the religion, nor abrogation of the Law. There was simply a shifting of emphasis from the practical to the speculative element of religion. Philo and the mediaeval philosophers continued to worship God in the Jewish fashion, but their conception of God became de-Judaized. They continued to commend the observation of the Law, but this observation lost caste and became less worthy than the “theoretic life.” Practice and theory fell apart logically; instead there arose an artificial parallelism of theoretic with practical obligations.[67]

This outlook was influential on kelal Yisrael, in Rav Hirsch’s view negatively so as it lead to a devaluation of mitzvos. It seems to me that parts of Jewry in general more enthusiastically embraced “the speculative element of religion.” By contrast, as Israel Friedlander described it, the Germans were “practical.” The term in this sense conveys the meaning of something that one puts into practice. Not surprisingly, Rav Hirsch repeatedly stressed the importance of putting study into practice. He wrote, “You must study for practical life — that is the fundamental principle of the law. With attentive mind and with receptive heart you must study in order to practice. You must aim at learning from the law a way of life, which is its true teaching; only then can you learn it properly, only then will it disclose to you its inmost meaning.” (Horeb 75, 493) And he wrote, “Knowledge of the Law alone is not enough to gain Paradise in world to come; if that Paradise is to be won and the earth is also to be transformed into a Paradise, this Law must be not only known but also observed. And there remains a very wide gap between the knowledge of the Law in theory and its observance in practice.”[68] And once again, let us remark that German Jewry is not unique in this value, ie., it is not the only group that emphasizes the putting of learning into practice.[69] However, it is one of the most fervent. 
As Rav Shimon Schwab tells us, Rav Hirsch did not create his derech out of thin air. He got it mostly from his rebbes (who were German Jews) who got it from their rebbes: “But Rav Hirsch also had behind him a solid mesorah from gadolim who showed him the way. From the time of Chazal through the period of the Geonim; the Rambam, the Chachmei Sepharad through the Talmidei Hagra all the way down to his own Rebbe the Oruch L’ner and his disciples. Rav Hirsch had his mesorah.” (Selected Speeches, p. 243).[70]
Aside from the Germanic trait of pragmatism, Friedlander mentioned also emotional reserve, deliberation in action, and formality. Lowenstein elaborates: 

Among the many formal values that were highly praised were dignity, discipline, punctuality, structure, and order. Spontaneity was less prized than stability. Many German Jews expressed disapproval of the loud wailing at eastern European funerals as undignified; at their own funerals, weeping was restrained and silent.[71] 

Conduct at funerals was not the only issue. The book goes on to describe actual confrontations at Simchas Torah celebrations where the old-timers from Germany struggled with attempts by the youth to bring Eastern European style boisterous dancing into KAJ and other German Orthodox synagogues in Washington Heights. As it stands now in the 21st century, shtick and exuberant dancing at weddings and other gatherings seems, well, Jewish. In actuality, it is Eastern European Jewish, probably Russian Jewish for the most part (along with numerous Sephardic groups). German Jews conducted themselves differently. 
None of this is intended to equate German Jews with German gentiles nor American Jews with American gentiles. I am saying only that we are influenced by our host societies, sometimes in negative ways, sometimes in neutral ways, and sometimes in positive ways. For example, many of us feel quite Jewish when we refer to horseradish as כרײן. But this word, like most in Yiddish, does not have a Hebrew etymology: 

The Southern German term Kren is a loan from a Slavonic tongue, where cognates of Kren are widespread (Czech křen, Sorbian krěn, Russian khren [хрен], Ukrainian khrin [хрін] and Polish chrzan) and ultimately of unknown origin. Some other non-Slavonic European languages have also borrowed that name, e. g., French cran, Italian cren, Yiddish khreyn [כרײן] , Romanian hrean and Greek chreno [χρένο].[72]

That would be a purely neutral influence. Then there are some that are mixed. Take for example the philosophy of Kant. Many Orthodox Jews have studied it and claim to have grown from it. Yet, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik noted the following problem with Kant: 

…the religious person is given not only a duty to follow the halakha but also a value and vision. The person performing the duty seeks to realize this ideal or vision. Kant felt that the duty of consciousness expresses only a “must” without a value. He demanded a routine form of compliance, an “ought” without aiming at a value. As a soldier carries out his duty to the commanding officer, one may appreciate his service or just obey through discipline and orders. Kant’s ethics are a “formal ethics”, the goal is not important. For us it would be impossible to behave this way. An intelligent person must find comfort, warmth, and a sense of fulfillment in the law. We deal with ethical values, not ethical formalisms. A sense of pleasure must be gained by fulfilling a norm. The ethical act must have an end and purpose. We must become holy.[73] 

So a German Jew is not a German, even this very distinguished German. Nevertheless, German Jews often possess certain sensibilities that may work best with German Orthodoxy. And so it goes for many American Jews. 
Rav Shraga Feivel Mendlowitz, ever sagacious, told his students, “I cannot understand how it is possible for an American yeshiva student to be Jewish without The Nineteen Letters.”[74] The Nineteen Letters, Rav Hirsch’s first published book, explained Torah Judaism to the Western world, particularly to German Jewish youth. Coming from Eastern Europe, Rav Shraga Feivel could see how Americans would take to its approach, would need its approach. 
Many observant Jews struggle to find a derech. Some leap from Haredism to Modern Orthodoxy in search of a home. They may like the seriousness of Haredism but are uncomfortable with the striving for complete isolation from general society. They may like the appreciation of secular studies in Modern Orthodoxy but deem the filtering process inadequate. They may like the Modern Orthodox inclusion of Nach in the educational curriculum but cannot wrap their minds around the image of teenage boys and girls studying it in the same classroom.[75] 
Round and round it goes. However, German Orthodoxy, particularly as practiced via Torah Im Derech Eretz, contains elements of both. It is an approach to Torah observant Judaism which, unfortunately, one does not see substantially in action nowadays. One has to seek it out. For many it may resolve much confusion vis à vis derech when the others, all noble paths if done in sincerity, remain an uncomfortable fit. 
It is not an easy road. As Rav Shimon Schwab noted, “Torah Im Derech Eretz is not a kulah but a chumrah.” (Not a leniency but a stringency.)[76] In other words, the goal of Torah Im Derech Eretz to bring holiness to all aspects of one’s life, including the ‘secular’ parts, even while engaging general society, is formidable. Perhaps it is handled best by the German Jewish character, with its discipline on all sides, its sense of balance and proportion, its pragmatism, and its concern for piety, propriety, politeness, and community. 
Now, German Orthodoxy is not necessarily equivalent to Torah Im Derech Eretz. Many German Jews dating back to Rav Hirsch’s day and through today, demonstrate a different approach to German Orthodoxy even as they carry many of the traits that produced Torah Im Derech Eretz. For example, many people in Eretz Yisroel who maintain minhag Ashkenaz do not involve themselves with secular studies. And many German Jews have taken on other derachim entirely. This article, which may seem to merge German Jewry and Torah Im Derech Eretz, is not intended to parse out and categorize all the subtle differences between them. Its purpose is to say that America is largely a Germanic country and the different strains of German Jewry may be appealing to Americans and to Jews from other Germanic countries. I would expect that Torah Im Derech Eretz would hold the broadest appeal. 
One may legitimately question whether contemporary American culture is still concerned with piety, propriety, politeness, and community. The same can be asked of contemporary Germany. What person who has laid his eyes on television or the NY Daily News could answer confidently in the affirmative? One wonders if any society in modern history, other than Germany in the 1930s, has changed as much as has the USA and the West in general over the last half-century. It’s truly night and day, just an astonishing collapse in values. 
Rav Hirsch warned us about the mutability of ‘Hellenic culture,” ie. culture that draws from the blessing of Noah’s son Japheth to ennoble human kind through the pursuit of knowledge, beauty, and symmetry in contrast to the fear, ignorance, and violence of idolatrous, pre-Hellenic societies. Rav Hirsch’s lengthy discussion of this complex topic can be found in the chapter “Hellenism, Judaism, and Rome” in the book Judaism Eternal. He tells us as follows: 

The Hellenic culture only stimulates the intellect, only creates the thirst for knowledge and truth, but is not capable in itself of assuring knowledge and producing truth. The mind indulges in surmises and conjectures, forms fanciful and hypothetical assumptions in order to solve the enigmas with which man is confronted both by the world outside and within himself and the solution of which his yearning soul passionately seeks. And as long as Hellenism assumes that the human mind alone-which, as reason, is created to “perceive” only the truthsimultaneously creates, reveals and dispenses truth, so long does the misty wisdom of the Hellenic spirit arrive at results which swing from one extreme to the other in everrecurring cycles, as has been evident in the history of human thought seeking wisdom for nearly 2,500 years in the Hellenic spirit.[77] 

Once upon a time, the USA, upon whose currency is emblazoned the creed “In God we trust,” was largely a faith-based society as was Germany. Arguably, those days are gone despite some superficial activity that is merely reminiscent of the past. At minimum, the departure from religion correlates with the collapse. It is more likely the primary cause as it left us vulnerable to the wild “swings” of Hellenistic based culture. As Rav Hirsch said, “Hellenic culture contains only one single fraction of that truth which some day will bring salvation to mankind. It is only a small preparation for that happiness which will some day flourish on earth through Shem’s “tents wherein God dwells”; and as long as it is not wedded to that Hebraic spirit, as long as it prides itself on being sublime and exclusive, it falls into error and illusion, degeneration and servitude.”[78] 
My maternal grandmother was from Uman in the Ukraine ‒ yes the actual Uman made famous by the Chassidic leader Rebbe Nachman. She returned to a Germanic land on the other side of our millennial family history. I would argue that my upbringing was more Germanic than that of many second generation German Jews from Washington Heights as that community started merging with the rich Eastern European yeshivish culture four decades ago. The America of my youth was much more distinctly Germanic for the most part. It should be no surprise that German Orthodoxy is the closest thing to it. I have met numerous others like me and am confident that there are many more out there, many more American Yekkes.
________________________________________________________
[1] Yekke is a colloquialism for German Jew. The term possibly originates in the German word Jacke (with the J pronounced as a Y) which means jacket as German Jews tended to wear shorter coats (jackets) than Eastern Europeans. Another theory posits that it stems from the Western European pronunciation of the name Jacob as Yekkef. (“Yekke,” Wikipedia) There are other explanations for the term. My apologies to those in the German Jewish community who are not fans of it. The usage here obviously is with affection and esteem as you shall see. 
[2] The Hirsch Siddur (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2013) contains the commentary of R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch (1808-1888) of Frankfurt, Germany. 
[3] “Old English,” Wikipedia. 
[4] “Frisian languages,” Wikipedia. 
[5] “Scots Language,” Wikipedia: “Scots is the Germanic language variety spoken in Lowland Scotland and parts of Ulster (where the local dialect is known as Ulster Scots). It is sometimes called Lowland Scots to distinguish it from Scottish Gaelic, the Celtic language which was historically restricted to most of the Highlands, the Hebrides and Galloway after the 1500s. The language developed during the Middle English period as a distinct entity.” 
[6] Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge University Press. p. 477 in “English Language,” Wikipedia. 
[7] “Anglo-Saxons,” Encyclopedia Britannica. 
[8] “Bede,” Wikipedia. 
[9] Nicholas Ostler, “Empires of the World, A Language History of the World,” (Harper Collins: New York, 2005), p. 312. 
[10] “Are the English really Germans or Spaniards?,” The Telegraph, 
[11] “The Britons,” Wikipedia. 
[12] “Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain,” Wikipedia. 
[13] “Hanover,” English Monarchs . 
[14] 2000 US Census in Wikipedia, 
[15] “Race and ethnicity in the United States,” Wikipedia.org
[16] “The Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link).
[17] La Vern J. Rippley, “German Americans,” . The first recorded usage of the name “America” as the name of the New World is found on the 1507 map Universalis Cosmographica by German Cartographers Martin Waldseemuller and Matthias Ringmann. “Martin Waldseemuller,” Wikipedia.org. 
[18] “Waves of German Immigrants,” Energy of a Nation 
[19] “1890,” “The Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link). 
[20] “German Americans,” Wikipedia. 
[21] “Germans in America,” Library of Congress (link). 
[22] “Race and ethnicity in the United States, “ Wikipedia. 
[23] Ibid., Applysense – Map from Blank USA by Lokal Profil. Information and colors from USMapCommonAncestry2000.PNG by Porsche997SBS, who sourced the info from Census-2000-Data-Top-USAncestries-by-County.svg, copy permission granted. 
[24] “German American,” Wikipedia,. 
[25] “Sentiment among German Americans was largely anti-slavery, especially among Forty-Eighters.” “German American,” Wikipedia from Wittke, Carl (1952), Refugees of Revolution, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania press. 
[26] “Germanic Peoples,” Wikipedia. 
[27] “Germanic Languages,” Wikipedia. 
[28] “Henry Philip Tappan,” Wikipedia 
[29] In particular, see his last book “Man Without A Country.” 
[30] “The History of Kindergarten from Germany to the United States,” Christina More Muelle, Florida International University . Freidrich Froebel started the first kindergarten in Germany and German immigrants George Schurz and his wife Margaretha Meyer, a student of Froebel, transplanted it to the USA in 1855. 
[31] Steven Muller, “After Three Hundred Years: A Keynote Address in 1983,” “America and the Germans, An Assessment of a Three-Hundred Year History,” Edited by Frank Trommler and Joseph McVeigh (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983), p. xxvi-xxviii. 
[32] La Vern J. Rippley, “German Americans,” . 
[33] “Homeownership in the United States,” Wikipedia. Interestingly, home ownership in 21st century Germany is relatively low by European standards. Amelie Constant, Rowan Roberts, Klaus Zimmerman “Ethnic Identity and Immigrant Homeownership.” September 2007, IZA DP No. 3050. [34] A similar observation is made in John Ardagh, “German and the Germans,” (Penguin: New York, 1991), p. 4. 
[35] Dana Blankenhorn 
[36] Irving Gordon, “World History Review Text,” (New York: Amsco Publications, 1988), p. 206. See also B. Ann Tlusty, “The Martial Ethic in Early Modern Germany: Civic Duty and the Right of Arms,” (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011). The publisher’s book summary notes as follows: “For German townsmen, life during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was characterized by a culture of arms. Because the urban citizenry, made up of armed households, represented the armed power of the state, men were socialized to the martial ethic from all sides. This book shows how civic institutions, peer pressure, and the courts all combined to create and repeatedly confirm masculine identity with blades and guns. Who had the right to bear arms, who was required to do so, who was forbidden or discouraged from using weapons: all these questions were central both to questions of political participation and to social and gender identity. As a result, there were few German households that were not stocked with weapons and few men who walked town streets without a side arm within easy reach. Laws aimed at preventing or containing violence could only be effective if they functioned in accordance with this framework.” 
[37] James W. Gerard, “My Four Years in Germany.” (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1917), p. 75. 
[38] James W. Gerard, “My Four Years in Germany.” (New York: George H. Doran Company, 1917), p. 76. 
[39] CIA World Factbook, CIA.gov in GlobalFirepower.com (link) “Military budget of the United States,” Wikipedia. 
[40] “Ron Paul says U.S. has military personnel in 130 nations and 900 overseas bases,” Politifact.com here
[41] Binyamin Shlomo Hamburger, “The Migration of Torah Tradition from the Land of Israel to Ashkenazic Lands,” This explanation of the origin and migration of Germanic peoples to the Rhine Valley differs from that of many academic historians who argue that the Germanic tribes originated in Scandinavia. See Wikipedia, “Germanic Peoples.” 
[42] “French lessons: East petite, take your time,” Karen Collins R.D., NBCNews.com 
[43] Robert Reich, “The Next American Frontier” (New York: Penguin Books, 1983) pp. 55-56. See also Diana Owen, “Citizenship Identity and Civic Education in the United States,” Paper presented at Conference on Civic Education and Politics in Democracies, Center for Civic Education and the Bundeszentrale fur Politische Bildung, San Diego, September 26, 2004 (link). 
[44] See James Wilson, John DiIulio, Jr., Meena Bose “American Government, Essentials Edition,” (Boston: Centage Learning: 2015), p.83. They cite a study that shows Americans display higher rates of faith in their public institutions, belief in the imperative of civic duty, and sense that a citizen can affect government policies than people in several other countries. 
45 Joseph Breuer, “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). EDiplomat.com, “Germany” writes “Germans value order, privacy and punctuality. They are thrifty, hard working and industrious. Germans respect perfectionism in all areas of business and private life. In Germany, there is a sense of community and social conscience and strong desire for belonging.” 
[46] Joseph Breuer, A Unique Perspective, “Our Duty towards America,” (New York: Feldheim, 2010) p. 310. Joseph Breuer (1882-1980). 
[47] Leo Jung, Between Man and Man (New York: Jewish Education Press, 1976) p. 150. Leo Jung (1892-1987). 
[48] Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1992) p. 304. 
[49] R’ Joseph Breuer wrote, “Physically, the Kehilla’s German-Jewish character is immediately visible in the Synagogue. Extensive chapters in the Shulchan Aruch stress the vital importance of cleanliness, order, and dignity in the Synagogue. Thus, these aspects in themselves have little to do with a specific “German Jewishness.” “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy, (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). In other words, the cleanliness of the German Orthodox synagogue is rooted in the halakha. It is not merely a reflection of German traits. However, German Jews excel in observing the halachos on this matter. 
[50] Binyomin Shlomo Hamburger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, (Bnei Brak: Machon Moreshes Ashkenaz, 2010), p. 9. 
[51] “Our Way,” Rav Breuer His Life and Legacy, (Nanuet, NY: Feldheim, 1998). 
[52] Avigdor Miller, “True Modesty,” tape 412, 42:27. Rabbi Miller was born in Baltimore, studied at Slabodka Yeshiva in Lithuania in the early 1930s, and lived most of his life in Brooklyn, NY. He once remarked, “I have plenty to say about the German kehillah. I love the German kehillah. As a boy I davened every Shabbos in a German shul. I can sit four hours in the afternoon, Shabbos afternoon, in a German shul.” Loving His People 2, #528 1:06. 
[53] Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” The World of Hirschian Teachings, ed. Elliott Bondi, (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2008) pp. 102-3. 
[54] Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, “The Torah of Life, As Understood by Rav S. R. Hirsch,” The World of Hirschian Teachings, ed. Elliott Bondi, (Nanuet, New York: Feldheim, 2008) pp. 102-3. 
[55] “Waves of German Immigrants,” Energy of a Nation . The beginnings of tolerance date from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, a treaty granting tolerance to Christian minorities; although Vienna banned Jews in 1670 and Worms in 1689. “German Jewish History in Modern Times,” Leo Baeck Institute (link). 
[56] “German Jewish History in Modern Times,” Leo Baeck Institute, p. 13 . Prussia granted Jews the status of “native residents and Prussian citizens” in 1812. 
[57] Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition (Columbia University Press: New York, 1992), p. 73. See also Marc Shapiro, “Great Figures in Rabbinic Judaism”, Classes on Samson Raphael Hirsch, www.TorahInMotion.org. See also Shnayer Leiman, Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, ed. J.J. Schacter (Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1997) “Rabbinic Openness to General Culture in the Early Modern Period in Western and Central Europe,” Sections on Isaac Bernays and Jacob Ettlinger. 
[58] Marc Shapiro, “Great Figures in Rabbinic Judaism”, Classes on Samson Raphael Hirsch, www.TorahInMotion.org. See also Shnayer Leiman, Judaism’s Encounter with Other Cultures, ed. J.J. Schacter (Northvale, NJ: Aronson, 1997) “Rabbinic Openness to General Culture in the Early Modern Period in Western and Central Europe,” Sections on Isaac Bernays and Jacob Ettlinger. 
[59] Consider this quotation from German-born Friedrich Frobel, the founder of the first kindergarten, “Education consists in leading man, as a thinking intelligent being, growing into self-consciousness, to a pure and unsullied, conscious and free representation of the inner law of Divine unity and in teaching him ways and means thereto.” “The History of Kindergarten from Germany to the United States,” Christina More Muelle, Florida International University . 
[60] Quacquarelli Symonds World University Rankings, 2014. 
[61] Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2014-2015 . 
[62] Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch, Leviticus 18:5, translated by Isaac Levy (Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1989) 
[63] The Wikipedia article “Prussian Virtues” lists the following: austerity, bravery, courage. discipline, frankness, godliness, humility, incorruptibility, industriousness, loyalty, obedience, punctuality, reliability, restraint, self-denial, self-effacement, sense of duty, sense of justice, sense of order, sincerity, subordination, and toughness. Interestingly, Wikipedia does not have an article on Russian virtues but does have one on the “Russian Soul.” Certainly, Prussians have soul and Russians virtue. Both terms concern human ideals, but approach it in a different manner. 
[64] Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989). 
[65] kwintessential.co.uk, “German Society and Culture.” writes “In many respects, Germans can be considered the masters of planning. This is a culture that prizes forward thinking and knowing what they will be doing at a specific time on a specific day. Careful planning, in one’s business and personal life, provides a sense of security. Rules and regulations allow people to know what is expected and plan their life accordingly. Once the proper way to perform a task is discovered, there is no need to think of doing it any other way. “ See also“German Cultural Values” at . 
[66] Israel Friedlander “The Present Crisis of American Jewry,” 1915 in Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989). Friedlander (1876-1920) was a founder of the Young Israel movement. 
[67] Harry Wolfson, “Maimonides and Halevi: A Study in Typical Jewish Attitudes Towards Greek Philosophy in the Middle Ages” in Michael Makovi, “The Kuzari as Contrasted With Rabbi S. R. Hirsch’s Conception of Tiqun Olam – The Place of Universalism and Morality in Judaism.” . 
[68] Collected Writings, Vol. II, p. 398. 
[69] See for example the Ramban’s famous letter to his son. 
[70] Shimon Schwab, Selected Speeches (Lakewood: CIS, 1991) p. 243. 
[71] Steven M. Lowenstein, Frankfurt on the Hudson (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1989), ebook, Loc 2480. 
[72] Gernot Katzer’s Spice Pages, “Horseradish (Armoracia rusticana G. M. Sch.) “, (link). 
[73] Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Mesorat HaRav Siddur (Jerusalem: Koren, 2011) p. 112-3. 
[74] Klugman, p. 66. 
[75] They may also jump to and from Chassidism, enjoying the emphasis on community and song. And we find this too in German Orthodoxy, particularly in Frankfurt and Washington Heights with its implementation of the complete kehilla and the choir. In Washington Heights, NY, Rav Joseph Breuer built a totally self-sufficient community with a huge synogogue, day school, kollel, beis din, mikva, kashrus organization, senior center, and chevra kiddushah. The feeling of community and togetherness is palpable there on Benett Ave. as is the dignity and good manners of its community members in a manner reminiscent of the musar movement. 
[76] Cited by R’ Yisroel Mantel, KAJ, “60th Anniversary Gathering.” . 
[77] Samson Raphael Hirsch, “Hellenism, Judaism, and Rome,” Judaism Eternal, Vol. 2 (London: Judaica Press, 1972) p. 191. 
[78] This is all most relevant for choosing educational strategies for the young people of today. I argue that Hirsch’s Torah Im Derech Eretz is still needed if only because it is not possible to hide from a wireless society and its equally invasive government. The Czars actually granted Jewish communities in Russia a fair amount of autonomy in comparison to ours. However, the exact form of Torah Im Derech Eretz for the 21st century likely needs to differ somewhat from that which may suit the people of my generation even as the basic principles as outlined by Rav Hirsch still apply. I recognize sadly that the America that many of us knew is largely but a memory. However, for some the memory is strong enough to inform their religious outlook.



The Meaning of the Word Hitpallel (התפלל)

The
Meaning of the Word Hitpallel (
התפלל)
By
Mitchell First[1]

It is clear from the many places that it
appears in Tanakh that התפלל connotes praying. But what was the
original meaning of this word? I was always taught that it meant something like
“judge yourself.” Indeed, the standard ArtScroll Siddur (Siddur Kol Yaakov) includes the following in its introductory
pages: “The Hebrew verb for praying is מתפלל;
it is a reflexive word, meaning that the subject acts upon himself. Prayer is a
process of self-evaluation, self-judgment…”[2]
More recently, when I searched Jewish
sites on the internet for the definition that was offered for hitpallel and mitpallel, I invariably
came up with a definition similar to the above. Long ago, Rabbi S. R. Hirsch
(d. 1888) and R. Aryeh Leib Gordon (d. 1912) also gave definitions that focused
on prayer as primarily an action of the self.[3]
In this post, I would like to share a different
interpretation offered by some modern scholars, one based on a simple insight
into Hebrew grammar. This new and compelling interpretation has unfortunately
not yet made its way into mainstream Orthodox writings and thought. Nor has it
been given proper attention in academic circles. For example, it did not make
its way into the widely consulted lexicon of Ludwig Koehler and Walter
Baumgartner.[4] By sharing this new interpretation of התפלל,
we can ensure that at least the next generation will  understand the origin of this critical word.
                                                            
——
There
are two issues involved in parsing this word: 1) what is the meaning of the
root פלל? and 2) what is the import of the hitpael stem, one that typically implies
doing something to yourself?
With
regard to the root פלל, its meaning is
admittedly difficult to understand. Scholars have pointed out that the other
Semitic languages shed little light on its meaning.[5]
If
we look in Tanakh, the verb פלל is found 4 times:[6]
1)      It
seems to have a meaning like “think” or “assess” at Genesis 48:11: re’oh fanekha lo filalti…(=I did not
think/assess that I would see your face).[7]
2)      It
seems to have a meaning like “intervene” at Psalms 106:30: va-ya’amod Pinḥas va-yefalel, va-teatzar ha-magefah (=Pinchas
stood up and intervened and the plague was stopped).[8]
3)      It
seems to have a meaning like “judge” at I Sam. 2:25: im yeḥeta ish le-ish u-filelo elokim…(If a man sins against another
man, God will judge him…).[9]
4)      It
also appears at Ezekiel 16:52:  את שאי כלמתך אשר פללת לאחותך גם (= You also should bear your own shame that you pilalt to your sisters). The sense here is difficult, but it is
usually translated as implying some form of judging.                                                                                     
    
What
I would like to focus on in this post, however, is the import of the hitpael stem in the word התפלל. 
Most students of Hebrew grammar are taught early on that the hitpael functions as a “reflexive” stem,
i.e., that the actor is doing some action on himself. But the truth is more
complicated.
One
source I saw counted 984 instances of the hitpael
in Tanakh.[10] It is true that a
large percentage of the time, perhaps even a majority of the time, the hitpael in Tanakh is a “reflexive” stem.[11] Some examples:
●       “station
oneself”; the verb יצב is in the hitpael 48 times in Tanakh (e.g., hityatzev)
●       “strengthen
oneself”; the verb חזק is in the hitpael 27 times in Tanakh (e.g., hitḥazek)
●       “sanctify
oneself”; the verb קדש is in the hitpael 24 times in Tanakh (e.g., hitkadesh)
●       “cleanse
oneself”; the verb טהר is in the hitpael 20 times in Tanakh  (e.g., hitaher)
        But it is also clear that the hitpael transforms meanings in other
ways as well. For example: 
●       At
Genesis 42:1 (lamah titrau), the form
of titrau is hitpael but the meaning is likely: “Why are you looking at one
another?”   This is called the
“reciprocal” meaning of hitpael.
Another example of this reciprocal meaning is found at II Chronicles 24:25 with
the word hitkashru; its meaning is
“conspired with one another.”
●       The
root הלך appears in the hitpael 46 times in Tanakh,
e.g., hithalekh. The meaning is not
“to walk oneself,” but “to walk continually or repeatedly.” This is called the
“durative” meaning of the hitpael.
There are many more durative hitpaels
in Tanakh.[12]
Now
let us look at a different word that is in the hitpael form in Tanakh: התחנן. The root here is חנן which means “to be gracious” or “to show favor.”  חנן
appears in the hitpael form many
times in Tanakh (התחנן, אתחנן, etc.). At I Kings 8:33 we even have a hitpael of פלל
and a hitpael of חנן adjacent to one another: 
והתחננו והתפללו.  If we are constrained to view התפלל as doing something to yourself, then what
would be the meaning of התחנן?  To show favor to yourself? This
interpretation makes no sense in any of the contexts that the hitpael of חנן
is used in Tanakh.
Rather,
as recognized by modern scholars, the root חנן
is an example where the hitpael  has a slightly different meaning: to make
yourself the object of another’s action.
(This variant of hitpael has been
called “voluntary passive” or “indirect reflexive.”) Every time the root חנן is used in the hitpael, the actor is asking another
to show favor to him. As an example, one can look at the beginning of parshat va-et-ḥanan. Verse 3:23 states
that Moshe was אתחנן to God.   אתחנן
does not mean that “Moshe showed graciousness to himself.” Rather, he was
trying to make himself the object of God’s
graciousness.
Let
us now return to our issue: the meaning of התפלל.
Most likely, the hitpael form in the
case of התפלל is doing the same
thing as the hitpael form in the case
of התחנן: it is turning the word into a voluntary
passive/indirect reflexive.[13]  Hence,
the meaning of התפלל is to make oneself the object of God’s פלל (assessment, intervention, or judging). This is a much
simpler understanding of התפלל than the ones that
look for a reflexive action on the petitioner’s part. Once one is presented
with this approach and how it perfectly parallels the hitpael’s role in התחנן,
it is very hard to disagree.[14]
  
Some
Additional Comments
1.      It
is interesting to mention some of the other creative explanations for התפלל that had previously been proposed (while
our very reasonable interpretation was overlooked!):
a.       The
root is related to a root found in Arabic, falla,
which means something like “break,” and reflected an ancient practice of
self-mutilation in connection with prayer.[15] Such a rite is referred to at 1
Kings 18:28 in connection with the cult of Baal (“and they cut themselves [=va-yitgodedu] in accordance with their
manner with swords and lances, until the blood gushed out upon them”).[16]
b.      התפלל  is derived from the root נפל (fall) and reflected the ancient practice of prostrating
oneself during prayer.[17]
c.       התפלל  did not originate based on a three-letter
root, but was a later development derived from a primary noun תפלה. In this approach, one could argue that התפלל  is not even a  hitpael.
(This approach just begs the question of where the word  תפלה
would have arisen. Most scholars reject this approach because תפלה does not look like a primary noun. Rather, it looks like a noun
that would have arisen based on a verb such as פלל
or פלה.) 
2.
There are other examples in Tanakh of
words that have the form of hitpael
but are either voluntary passives (like  התפללand התחנן)
or even true passives, as the role of the hitpael
expanded over time.[18] Some examples:[19]
a.       Gen
37:35: va-yakumu khol banav ve-khol
benotav le-naḥamo, va-yemaen le-hitnaḥem
…(The
meaning of the last two words seems to be that Jacob refused to let himself be
comforted by others or refused to be comforted; the meaning does not seem to be
that he refused to comfort himself.)
b.      Lev.
13:33: ve-hitgalaḥ (The
meaning seems to be “let himself be shaved by others.”)
c.       Numb.
23:9: u-va-goyim lo yitḥashav
d.      Deut.
28:68:  vehitmakartem sham
le-oyvekha la-avadim ve-li-shefaḥot…
(It is unlikely that the meaning is
that the individuals will be selling themselves.)
e.       Psalms
92:10: yitpardu kol poalei
aven 
(The evildoers are not
scattering themselves but are being scattered.)
f.       Is.
30:29: ke-leil hitkadesh ḥag…(The holiday is not sanctifying
itself.)
g.      Prov.
31:30:  ishah yirat Hashem hi tithalal
h.      Jonah
3:8: ve-yitkasu sakim ha-adam ve-ha-behemah… (Animals
cannot dress themselves!)
i.       
II Kings 8:29 (and similarly II Kings
9:15, and II Ch. 22:6): va-yashav Yoram
ha-melekh
le-hitrape ve-Yizre’el… (The
meaning may be that king Yoram went to Jezreel to let himself be healed by
others or to be healed.)
              
3.  As we see from this post, understanding the
precise role of the hitpael is
important to us as Jews who engage in prayer. Readers may be surprised to learn
that understanding the precise role of the hitpael
can be very important to those of other religions as well. A passage at Gen.
22:18 describes the relationship of the nations of the world with the seed of
Abraham:
.והתברכו בזרעך כל גויי הארץ 
(The phrase is found
again at Gen. 26:4.) Whether this phrase teaches that the nations of the world
will utter blessings using the name
of the seed of Abraham or be blessed
through the seed of Abraham depends on the precise meaning of the hitpael here. Much ink has been spilled
by Christian theologians on the meaning of hitpael
in this phrase.[20]
                                                                ——
Whoever suspected that grammar
could be so interesting and profound!
         
             !ונתחזק  חזק חזק
(Does the last word
mean “let us strengthen ourselves,” “let us continually be strengthened,” or
“let us be strengthened”?   I will leave
it to you to decide!)
Notes:
[1] I would like to
thank my son Rabbi Shaya First for reviewing and improving the draft.
[2]  P. xiii.
[3]   The edition of Rav Hirsch’s Pentateuch
commentary translated by Isaac Levy includes the following (at Gen. 20:7): התפלל means: To take the element of God’s truth,
make it penetrate all phases and conditions of our being and our life, and
thereby gain for ourselves the harmonious even tenor of our whole existence in
God….  [התפלל
is] working on our inner self to bring it on the heights of recognition of the
Truth and to resolutions for serving God…Prior to this, the commentary had pointed
out that the root פלל  means “to judge” and that a judge brings
“justice and right, the Divine Truth of matters into the matter….”
R.
Aryeh Leib Gordon explained that the word for prayer is in the hitpael form because prayer is an
activity of change on the part of the petitioner, as he gives his heart and
thoughts to his Creator; the petitioner’s raising himself to a higher level is
what causes God to answer him and better his situation. See the introduction to Siddur Otzar Ha-Tefillot (1914), vol. 1,
p. 20. The Encylcopaedia Judaica is
another notable source that uses the term “self-scrutiny” when it defines the
Biblical conception of prayer. See 13:978-79. It would be interesting to
research who first suggested the self-judge/self-scrutiny definition of prayer.
I have not done so. I will point out that in the early 13th century
Radak viewed God as the one doing the judging in the word התפלל. See his Sefer
Ha-Shorashim
, root פלל.
[4] The Hebrew
and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament
(1994). The authors do cite the
article by E.A. Speiser (cited in the next note) that advocates the
interpretation. But they cite the article for other purposes only. The
interpretation of התפלל that Speiser
advocates and that I will be describing is nowhere mentioned.
[5]  For example, E.A. Speiser writes that
“[o]utside Hebrew, the stem pll is at
best rare and ambiguous.” See his “The Stem PLL
in Hebrew,” Journal of Biblical
Literature
82 (1963), pp. 301-06, 301. He mentions a few references in
Akkadian that shed very little light. There is a verb in Akkadian, palālu, that has the meaning: “guard,
keep under surveillance.” See the  פללarticle in Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament
, vol. 11, p. 568 (2001), and
Koehler-Baumgartner, entry פלל, p. 933. This perhaps
supports the “assess” and “think” meanings of the Hebrew פלל.
[6]  Various forms of a related noun, פלילים, פללים, פלילי and פליליה, appear 6 times. The meanings at Deut. 32:31 (ve-oyveinu pelilim), Job 31:11 (avon pelilim), and Job 31:28 (avon pelili) are very unclear. The
meaning at Is. 16:3 (asu pelilah) is
vague but could be “justice.” The meaning at Is. 28:7 (paku peliliah) (=they tottered in their peliliah) seems to be a legal decision made by a priest. Finally,
there is the well-known and very unclear ve-natan
be-flilim
of Ex. 21:22. Onkelos translates this as ve-yiten al meimar dayanaya. But this does not seem to fit the
words. The Septuagint translates the two words as “according to estimate.” See
Speiser, p. 303. Speiser is unsure if this translation was based on guesswork
or an old tradition, but thinks it is essentially correct.
[7]  Note that Rashi relates it to the word maḥshavah. Sometimes the verb is
translated in this verse as “hope.” Even though this interpretation makes sense
in this verse, I am not aware of support for it in other verses. That is why I
prefer “think” and “assess,” which are closer to “intervene” and “judge.” Many
translate the word as “judge” in this verse: I did not judge (=have the
opinion) that I would see your face. See, e.g., The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, entry פלל. 
[8] Brown-Driver-Briggs translates ויפלל using a similar verb: “interpose.” See
their entry פלל.  Alternatively, some translate ויפלל here as “executed judgment.”
[9] It has been
suggested that the “judge” meaning is just a later development from the
“intervene” meaning.
[10] The exact number
given varies from study to study. I have also seen references to 946, 780 and
“over 825.” See Joel S. Baden, “Hithpael and Niphal in Biblical Hebrew:
Semantic and Morphological Overlap,” Vetus
Testamentum
60 (2010), pp. 33-44, 35 n.7.
[11]  We must be careful not to assume that the hitpael originated as a reflexive stem.
Most likely, the standard Hebrew hitpael
is a conflation of a variety of earlier t-stem forms that had different roles.
See Baden, p. 33, n. 1 and E.A. Speiser, “The Durative Hithpa‘el: A tan-Form,” Journal of the American Oriental Society
75 (2) (1955), pp. 118-121.
[12]  See the above article by Speiser. For example,
with regard to the hitpael of אבל, the implication may be “to be in mourning
over a period of time.” With regard to התמם
(the hitpael of תמם; I I Sam. 22:26 and Ps.18:26.), the implication may be “to be
continually upright.” Some more examples: משתאה  at Gen. 24:21 (continually gaze),  תתאוה
at Deut. 5:18 (tenth commandment; continually desire), ויתגעשו  at Ps. 18:8 (continually
shake), and  התעטף
at Ps. 142:4 (continually be weak/faint ). Another example is the root נחל. When it is in the hitpael, the implication may be “to come into and remain in
possession.”
[13] See T. Lambdin, Introduction to Biblical Hebrew (1971),
pp. 249-250, and Speiser, The Stem PLL,
p. 305.
[14] Rav Hirsch views התחנן as “to seek to make himself worthy of
concession.” See his comm. to Deut. 3:23. This is farfetched. Hayim Tawil
observes that there is an Akkadian root enēnu,
“to plead,” and sees this Akkadian root as underlying the Hebrew התחנן. He views the hitpael as signifying that the pleading is continous (like the
import of the hitpael in hithalekh). See his An Akkadian Lexical Companion For Biblical Hebrew (2009), pp.
113-14. But there is insufficient reason to read an Akkadian root into התחנן, when we have a very appropriate Hebrew
root חנן.
[15]  See Theological
Dictionary of the Old Testament
, vol. 11, p. 568, Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of
the Hebrew Language for Readers of English
(1987), p. 511,
Brown-Driver-Briggs, entry פלל, and
Koehler-Baumgartner, entry פלל, p. 933.
[16] The Soncino commentary
here remarks that this was “a form of worship common to several cults with the
purpose of exciting the pity of the gods, or to serve as a blood-bond between
the devotee and his god.”
[17] See Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament,
vol.  11, p. 568,  Klein, p. 511, and Koehler-Baumgartner, entry
פלל, p. 933.
[18] One scholar claims
to have located as many as 68 such instances in Tanakh, but does not list them. For the reference, see Baden, p.
35, n. 7. Baden doubts the number is this high and believes that the true
number is much lower. Baden would dispute some of the examples that I am
giving. Hitpaels with true passive
meanings are found more frequently in Rabbinic Hebrew. The expansion of the
meaning of the hitpael stem to
include the true passive form took place in other Semitic languages as well.
See O.T. Allis, “The Blessing of Abraham,” The
Princeton Theological Review
(1927), pp. 263-298, 274-278.
[19] These and several
others are collected at Allis, pp. 281-83. 
For a few more true passives, see Kohelet 8:10, I Sam. 3:14, Lam. 4:1,
and I Chr. 5:17.

[20] See, e.g., Allis,
and Chee-Chiew Lee, “Once Again: The Niphal and the Hithpael of ברך in the Abrahamic Blessing for the
Nations,” Journal for the Study of the
Old Testament
36.3 (2012), pp. 279-296, and Benjamin J. Noonan, “Abraham,
Blessing, and the Nations: A Reexamination of the Niphal and Hitpael of ברך in the Patriarchal Narratives,” Hebrew Studies 51 (2010), pp. 73-93.



אמירת פיוטי ‘אקדמות’ ו’יציב פתגם’ בחג השבועות

אמירת פיוטי ‘אקדמות’ ו’יציב פתגם’ בחג השבועות
by Eliezer Brodt
The following post tracing many
aspects​ of the famous Piy​ut  Akdamot
originally appeared in my recently completed doctorate
פרשנות השלחן ערוך לאורח חיים
ע”י חכמי פולין במאה הי”ז, חיבור לשם קבלת תואר דוקטור אוניברסיטת בר
אילן, רמת גן תשע”ה  pp.341-353.
This version is extensively updated with many corrections and additional
information. The subject has been dealt with by many including here a few years
back.

אמירת
הפיוטים ‘אקדמות’ ו’יציב פתגם’
הקדמה
בספרות ההלכה הפופולרית של ימי הביניים
– סמ”ג, רמב”ם ומרדכי – לא מצאנו התייחסות לחג השבועות, שהרי חג זה
מתייחד בכך שאין לו כל ייחודיות הלכתית. לקראת מוצאי ימי הביניים, המקור העיקרי
ללימוד ההלכה היה ספר הטורים, שכתיבתו הסתיימה בין השנים 1330-1340. בטור
או”ח סי’ תצד הוא מתייחס באופן ישיר לחג השבועות ולמנהגיו ומונה כמה הלכות
הנוגעות לחג השבועות, וזו לשונו בדילוגים ובהוספת סעיפים:
א.    
סדר התפילה
כמו ביום טוב של פסח אלא שאומרים… יום חג שבועות… זמן מתן תורתינו.
ב.     
במוסף
מזכיר קרבנות המוספין וביום הבכורים וגו’ עד ושני תמידין כהלכתן.
ג.      
גומרין
ההלל.
ד.     
מוציאין ב’
ספרים וקורין ביום הראשון ה’ בפרשת וישמע יתרו מבחדש השלישי עד סוף סדרא, מפטיר
קורא בשני וביום הבכורים.
ה.     
מפטיר
במרכבה דיחזקאל ומסיים בפסוק ותשאני רוח.
ו.       
ביום השני
קורין בפרשת כל הבכור… ומפטיר קורא כמו אתמול.
ז.      
מפטיר
בחבקוק מן וה’ בהיכל קדשו…
ח.     
נוהגין בכל
המקומות לומר במוסף אחר חזרת התפלה אזהרות העשויות על מנין המצות…
למרות ההתייחסות הישירה לחג השבועות,
עדיין נותר הרושם שהוא חג ללא מאפיינים מיוחדים, והמחבר מוצא מקום להידרש לסדרי
התפילה בלבד. מתוך סדר התפילה, רק מנהג אמירת האזהרות הוא ייחודי לשבועות.
בשנת ש”י נדפס
לראשונה חיבורו של ר’ יוסף קארו, ‘בית יוסף’, כפירוש לספר הטורים. המחבר מבאר
בהקדמה לספרו, שמגמתו להראות את מקורותיו של הטור וגם להוסיף עליו ידיעות נוספות.
בסימן שאנו עוסקים בו הוא מוסיף על הטור כמה דברים:
א.    
איסור
להתענות במוצאי חג השבועות.
ב.     
קיים מושג
של “אסרו חג” גם לחג השבועות.
ג.      
לדברי הטור
שגומרין בו ההלל הוא מציין את מקורו במסכת ערכין פרק שני (דף י ע”א).
ד.     
כלפי מה
שכתב הטור לעניין קריאת התורה וההפטרה, הוא מציין למקורות במסכת מגילה.
הלכה נוספת
הקשורה לשבועות נזכרת בספר ‘בית יוסף’, אך שלא במקומה. הכוונה למנהג קריאת מגילת
רות. בהלכות תשעה באב, סימן תקנט, כתב ‘בית יוסף’: “כתבו הגהות
מיימוני: יש במסכת סופרים דאמגילת רות וקינות… מברך אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על
מקרא מגילה. וכן נהג הר”ם. אכן יש לאמרה בנחת ובלחש. עכ”ל. והעולם לא
נהגו לברך כלל על שום מגילה חוץ ממגילת אסתר”.
בשנת שכ”ה הדפיס ר’ יוסף קארו את
חיבורו ‘שלחן ערוך’, שהוא הלכה מתומצתת בלי מקורות מתוך ספרו בית יוסף, ושם חוזר
על דברי הטור בענייננו מבלי להוסיף עליו כלום. כמו כן, הוא לא הביא את מנהג קריאת
מגילת רות בחיבור זה, והדבר מצריך הסבר.
כאמור, בספרי הלכה חשובים אין יחס
מיוחד לחג השבועות. ההתייחסות היא בעיקר לסדרי התפילה, הדומים לשאר החגים. הטור
מביא מנהג אחד מיוחד – אמירת אזהרות.
בסביבות שנת ש”ל חלה
תפנית חדה בזירת ספרות ההלכה ביחס לחג השבועות. באותה שנה מדפיס הרמ”א את
הגהותיו ל’שלחן ערוך’. כידוע, חלק נכבד מהגהותיו הן הוספות ממקורות אשכנזיים שלא
הובאו בבית יוסף. הרמ”א הוסיף כמה מנהגים בהלכות חג השבועות:
א.    
“נוהגין
לשטוח עשבים בשבועות בבית הכנסת והבתים, זכר לשמחת מתן תורה”.
ב.      “נוהגין בכל מקום לאכול מאכלי חלב ביום
ראשון של שבועות; ונ”ל הטעם שהוא כמו השני תבשילין שלוקחים בליל פסח, זכר
לפסח וזכר לחגיגה, כן אוכלים מאכל חלב ואח”כ מאכל בשר. צריכין להביא עמהם ב’
לחם על השלחן שהוא במקום המזבח, ויש בזה זכרון לב’ הלחם שהיו מקריבין ביום הבכורים”.
ג.      
לענין
קריאת מגילת רות הוא כותב בסי’ תצ: “נוהגין לומר רות בשבועות. והעם נהגו שלא
לברך עליהם על מקרא מגילה ולא על מקרא כתובים”.
כאן המקום לציין שבחיבורו של
הרמ”א ‘דרכי משה’, הדומה במגמתו ל’בית יוסף’, שנכתב לפני שהוסיף את הגהותיו
לשו”ע, לא נמצא דבר בעניין חג השבועות.
לאחר שנים ספורות, בשנת ש”ן, מדפיס
תלמידו ר’ מרדכי יפה את ספריו – ספרי הלבושים. בהלכות שבועות הוא מוסיף – לצד
המנהגים שהביא רבו הרמ”א – מספר דברים שלא הובאו בחיבורו של רבו:
א.    
“ואומרים אקדמות
אחר פסוק ראשון – בשעת העלייה הראשונה”.
ב.      “ונוהגין לומר יציב פתגם… אחר פסוק ראשון שיש בו ג”כ
מענין המרכבה והמלאכים”.
ג.       “במוסף אחר התפלה אומרים אזהרות” – מנהג שלא הובא ב’בית יוסף’ ובהגהות הרמ”א, אבל הובא ב’טור’.
הרמ”א והלבוש מביאים בדרך
כלל מקורות אשכנזיים קדומים, כגון מנהגי מהרי”ל, מתוך חיבורים שנכתבו זמן רב
לפני דורו של ר’ יוסף קארו. ואכן, בספרי ר’ אברהם קלויזנר, מהרי”ל, ר’ אייזק
טירנא ובהגהות ומנהגים שנוספו עליו, יש כמה מנהגים לחג שבועות שלא מצאנו ב’טור’
ו’בית יוסף’, כמו שטיחת פרחים ועשבים בחג, אכילת מאכלי חלב, אמירת ‘אקדמות’ ו’יציב
פתגם’ וקריאת מגילת רות.
בשנת ת’ נדפס לראשונה חיבורו של ר’
יואל סירקיש
לטור או”ח. בסימן זה אינו מוסיף כלום על דברי הטור, מסיבה
פשוטה: בהקדמה לחיבורו הוא כותב שכוונתו לבאר דברי הטור, וכאן אין מה להוסיף או
להעיר עליו, שהרי הכל מובן.
אמירת
הפיוטים ‘אקדמות’ ו’יציב פתגם’
אחת הסוגיות שהעסיקו את נושאי כלי השו”ע היא אמירת
פיוטי ‘אקדמות’ ו’יציב פתגם’. כידוע, אחד הפיוטים שעדיין נאמרים בכל בתי הכנסת, גם
בקהילות שמחקו בקפדנות את כל הפיוטים, הוא הפיוט הנאמר בחג השבועות – ‘אקדמות
מילין’.[1]
וכפי שאמר מי שאמר:Akdamus may well be Judaism’s best known and most beloved piyut“.[2]F
החוקר הגדול של תחום התפילה
והפיוט, פרופ’ עזרא פליישר, כותב אודות האקדמות:
שיריו הארמיים של ר’ מאיר זכו לתפוצה גדולה בקהילות אשכנז ועוררו התרגשות
והתפעלות בלב הרבה דורות של מתפללים. בתוך אלה או בראשם, עומד שירו המוכר ביותר של
המשורר ‘אקדמות מילין’, פתיחה לתרגום הקריאה ביום ראשון של שבועות. קטע זה הנאמר
בימינו אפילו בבתי כנסיות שאין אומרים בהם עוד שום פיוט, נעשה סימן היכר של חג
השבועות. שגבו ועוצמת לשונו, צורתו המשוכללת ותכניו המרגשים, מצדיקים בהחלט את
פרסומו.[3]
הפיוט ‘אקדמות’ התחבר בידי ר’ מאיר
ש”ץ, בן זמנו של רש”י.[4]
אמנם מנהג אמירת אקדמות בשבועות לא הוזכר בספרי הלכה מתקופת הראשונים, ר’ יוסף
קארו לא מזכירו בחיבוריו ‘בית יוסף’ ו’שלחן ערוך’, וכן הרמ”א נמנע מלהזכירו
ב’דרכי משה’ או בהגהותיו. יצויין כי אין בכך דבר יוצא דופן, שהרי פיוטים בשבתות
ובימים טובים היו חלק אינטגרלי מהתפילה, ולא מעשה חריג, ועל כן לא נדרשו להזכיר את
הפיוטים בספרי ההלכה.
המנהג גם לא מוזכר בב”ח, נחלת צבי
או עולת שבת. לעומתם, החיבור ההלכתי הראשון שמביא את המנהג הוא ה’לבוש’ שנדפס,
כאמור, לראשונה בשנת ש”ן: “ואומרים אקדמות אחר פסוק ראשון – בשעת העלייה הראשונה”. כנראה מצא לנכון להזדקק למנהג,
בשל ייחודיותו – אמירתו בתוך קריאת התורה, בין הברכות. ייחודיותו של עניין
זה מעוררת קושי הלכתי, כפי שהעיר על כך ר’ דוד הלוי, באמצע המאה השבע עשרה, בספרו
‘טורי זהב’:
על מה שנוהגים במדינות אלו לקרות פסוק
הראשון ואח”כ מתחילין אקדמות מילין כו’. יש לתמוה הרב'[ה] היאך רשאים להפסיק
בקריאה, דהא אפי’ לספר בד”ת אסור כמ”ש בסי’ קמ”ו וכל ההיתרי’
הנזכרים שם אינם כאן כ”ש בשבח הזה שהוא אינו מענין הקריאה כלל למה יש לנו
להפסיק. ושמעתי מקרוב שהנהיגו רבנים מובהקים לשורר אקדמות קודם שיתחיל הכהן הברכה
של קריאת התורה וכן ראוי לנהוג בכל הקהילות…
לדעת הט”ז, אמירת אקדמות אחר
הפסוק הראשון נחשבת הפסק, ופיוט זה ‘אינו מענין הקריאה’ ואמירתו נוגדת את ההלכה.
הוא מתעד שמועה שרבנים מובהקים הנהיגו לשורר אקדמות קודם הברכה, כדי שלא יהיה הפסק,
וכן לדעתו ראוי לנהוג. לא ידועה זהותם של הרבנים האלו, אבל אולי הכוונה לרבני
ונציה המוזכרים בחיבורו של בן הדור, ר’ אפרים ב”ר יעקב הכהן, אב”ד וילנא
(חי בין השנים שע”ו-תל”ח), שו”ת שער אפרים, שנדפס לראשונה בשנת
תמ”ח (לאחר פטירת הט”ז):
אשר שאלוני ודרשוני
חכמי ק”ק ויניציאה העיר… אודות דברי ריבות אשר בשעריהם בענין הפיוט אקדמות
שנוהגים האשכנזי’ לאומרו בחג השבועות בשעת קריאת התורה אחר פסוק ראשון של בחודש
השלישי. וחדשים מקרוב באו לבטל המנהג ההוא מטעם שאסור להפסיק בקריאת התורה ורוצים
שיאמרו קודם קריאת התורה אם יש כח בידם לבטל מנהג הקדמונים מטעם הנז’ או נאמר שלא
יכלו לבטל מנהג אבותינו הקדושים… מטעם אל תטוש תורת אמך ואף שהוא נגד הדין מנהג
עוקר הלכה.[5]
חכמי ונציה האיטלקים לא הורגלו
למנהג האשכנזי וניסו לשנותו על פי כללי ההלכה שבידיהם. על כל פנים, גם אם לא נקבל
השערה זו ולא נזהה את חכמי ונציה כאותם הרבנים המובהקים שמזכיר הט”ז, למעשה
דעת הט”ז היתה כמותם, שאין להפסיק בקריאת התורה. אם כי הוא נזהר שלא לבטל
אמירת אקדמות לגמרי, אלא רק לשנות את מועד אמירת הפיוט.
ולאמיתו של
דבר, כבר בשו”ת ‘נחלת יעקב’, בתשובה שנכתבה באיטליה
בשנת שפ”א, נאמר בין השאר: “והיום הסירותי חרפת מצרים המצרים
הדוברים עתק על מנהג האשכנזים הנוהגים לאמר שבח אקדמות מילין ביום חג השבועות
ומספיקין בין הברכות רק שקוראין פסוק ראשון בחודש השלישי…”.[6]
על כל פנים, ר’ אפרים הכהן מעיד
בתשובה הנ”ל שנכתבה באותו הזמן שר’ דוד הלוי כתב את ספרו: “שבמדינת פולין ורוסיא
ואגפיהם בקצת מקומות אומרים אותו קודם קריאת התורה…”.[7] כארבעים שנה לאחר שהט”ז נדפס לראשונה כתב ר’ יעקב
ריישר: “ומקרוב שהיו רוצים לשנות המנהג בשביל דברי הט”ז ולא עלתה בידם
לשנות המנהג”.[8]
וכן העיד ר’ משה יקותיאל קופמאן כ”ץ חתנו
של המג”א בחיבורו ‘חקי חיים’ שנדפס לראשונה
בת”ס: “מנהג שלנו שאנו קורין בחג השבועות אקדמו’ אחרי פסוק
ראשון…”.[9]
המקורות הקדומים ביותר של אמירת
אקדמות כפי המנהג המקורי, דווקא לאחר הפסוק הראשון של קריאת התורה, הוא ספר
המנהגים לר’ אברהם קלויזנר,[10]
מהרי”ל,[11]
ר’ איזיק טירנא[12],
ר’ זלמן יענט,[13]
‘מעגלי צדק’,[14] ‘לבוש’[15]
ו’בספר המנהגים’ מאת ר’ שמעון גינצבורג שנכתב ביידיש-דויטש.[16]
וכן נהגו למעשה באשכנז: בפרידבורג[17],
פרנקפורט,[18]
פיורדא,[19]
וירצבורג[20] ובקהילות האשכנזים בווירונה
שבאיטליה.[21]
הט”ז חולק על המנהג הקדום
ועל המקורות הקדומים שתיעדו את המנהגים האלו. אין ספק שהט”ז מכיר את מקור
המנהג, ולא עוד אלא שהוא עצמו משתמש במקורות אלו בחיבורו פעמים רבות, אבל דווקא
בשל חשיבותם בזמנו בפולין ובאשכנז העדיף להשיג עליהם מבלי להזכיר את שמם, כדי למעט
בתעוזתו.
והנה, ר’ אפרים הכהן מוילנא הגן
בתשובתו הנזכרת על אמירת אקדמות כמנהג המקורי, ובתוך דבריו הוא כותב:
בענין הפיוט אקדמות
לומר אחר פסוק ראשון שהקבלה של האשכנזים הוא מרבים וגדולים ומפורסמים וכתובים על
ספר הישר הלא המה הרב מהר”י מולין בספרו שהיה גדול בדורו וכל מנהגי האשכנזים
נהגו על פיו וחכמי דורו היו גדולים ומופלגים ונכתב דבריו בספר בלי שום חולק שנהגו
לומר אקדמות אחר פסוק ראשון וגם הרב מהר”א טירנא בספרו במנהגים אשר אנו
נוהגים אחריו כתב גם כן כנזכר ואחריהם הגדול בדורו הרב מוהר”מ יפה בעל
הלבושים אשר היה מחכמי פולנייא והביא דבריהם לנהוג כן בלי שום חולק…
מכאן שהמחלוקת בהלכה זו נובעת
משאלת היחס הראוי לחיבורי מהרי”ל ור’ אייזק טירנא, שהם המקור למנהג המקורי.
ר’ אפרים הכהן סבור שאין לערער אחריהם, גם במקרה שדבריהם אינם עולים בקנה אחד עם
כללי ההלכה, ויש לנו לסמוך על המסורת המקובלת ועל המחברים שקבעו את מנהג אשכנז
לדורותיו. לעומתו, הט”ז חולק, וסובר שעל אף החשיבות המרובה של חיבורים אלה,
אין למנהג תוקף כאשר הוא מתנגד עם ההלכה.[22]
כמובן שהויכוח לא נעצר במאה
הי”ז. במשך הדורות הבאים התפתח פולמוס פורה וחריף גם בשאלה הכללית של היחס
למנהג כאשר הוא נוגד את ההלכה המפורשת, ובמיוחד בשאלה פרטית זו, אם יש לשנות את
המנהג המקורי ולהפסיק את הקריאה לאמירת אקדמות. הרבה קולמוסים נשתברו בפולמוס זה,
כדלהלן.
ר’ מאיר איזנשטאט
(ת”ל-תק”ד) כותב בספרו ‘פנים מאירות’:
ודע לך כי נהירנ’ בימי חורפי שרצה רב אחד לנהוג כדעת הט”ז ולא
הניחו הקהל לשנות מנהגם ואני ג”כ כל ימי לא הנהגתי כמותו וכל המשנה ידו על
התחתונה… והמפורסמי’ אין צריכין ראי’ שמנהג זה נתיסד משנים קדמוניות לפני איתני
וגאוני ארץ והלבוש מביא מנהג זה… ולדעתי המבטל פוגע בכבוד ראשונים.[23]
מן הצד השני עומד ר’ יעקב עמדין,
נינו של ר’ אפרים הכהן, הכותב:
והאומרים
פיוט אקדמות יאמרוהו קודם שמברך הכהן. כך הנהיגו גדולי הדורות חס ושלום להפסיק בו
תוך קריאת התורה… אף על גב דמר אבא רבה הגאון החסיד בעל שער אפרים בתשובותיו
דחיק טובא וניחא ליה למשכוני נפשיה אהך מנהגא… ומה מכריחנו לכל הטורח הלז. ולקבל
עלינו אחריות גדול בחנם. אם אמנם גם בעיני יקר הפיוט החשוב הלז. גם אנו אומרין
אותו לפי שאדם גדול חברו. ונאה למי שאמרו. אבל חס ושלום להעלות על הדעת שמחברו תקן
להפסיק בו בתוך קריאת התורה. אשר לא צוה ולא עלתה על לבו. אלא שהדורות הבאים חשבו
להגדיל כבודו בכך. אמנם כבוד שמים הוא בודאי שלא להפסיק… והיותר טוב לאמרו קודם
שנפתח ספר תורה…[24]
מסופר שכאשר בעל ‘שגאת אריה’ התמנה כרבה של
העיר מץ, רצה שקהילתו תשנה את המנהג ותנהג כהוראת הט”ז, ומחמת זה כמעט הפסיד
את רבנותו שם.[25]
למעשה ניתן ליישב את השגת
הט”ז על מהרי”ל וסיעתו. הטיעונים שנאמרו בעד ונגד אמירת ‘אקדמות’ בתוך
קריאת התורה, דומים להפליא לטענות שהועלו בויכוח שהתנהל במשך דורות בעניין אמירת
פיוטים בתוך התפילה ובפרט בתוך ברכות קריאת שמע. ידועים דברי בעל ‘חוות יאיר’ שכותב
בתוך דיונו:
ואיך שיהיה, כבר כתבתי
שלא נתפשט אמירות פיוטים אלו שמפסיקין תוך ברכות דק”ש בכל מקום, ומ”מ
בגלילות אלו שנתפשט אין ליחיד לפרוש כלל אף שהיה נראה פשר דבר שיאמרם אחר תפילתו
בפני עצמן או לבחור דרך ומקום לאמירתם אחר גמר ברכה או בשירה חדשה גבי זולתות,
מ”מ נראה דאפילו החסיד בכל מעשיו אל ישנה מנהג הציבור מאחר שיש לנו גדולי
עולם לסמוך עליהם מלבד כל המחברים עצמן…[26]
וכן כותב
במפורש ר’ גרשון קובלענץ בנוגע לענייננו:
והנה השבח הזה [=אקדמות] חברו וגם יסדו לשבח ה’ ועמו ישראל הפייטני
ר”מ ש”צ שבסוף הא”ב חתם שמו מאיר, והוא ר”מ ש”צ
כמ”ש בשו”ת חוות יאיר שאלה רל”ח ושם הפליג מאד ממעליותיו שהם כמו
פיוטי הקליר וחביריו שמפסיקין בהן בברכות באמצע אפי’ אותם שאינם מיוסדים בלשון שבח
ותחנונים רק סידורי דינים אפ”ה מפסיקים עמהן…
ובתוך דבריו שם מבאר ר’
גרשון קובלענץ למה אינו נחשב הפסק:
ואף שהחמירו חכמים מאוד בהפסק ק”ש וברכותיו שאפילו מלך ישראל שואל בשלומו,
ונחש כרוך על עקיבו לא יפסיק ובפיוטים מפסיק אפילו בי”ח והטעם שפיוטים אלו
שיסד הקליר וחביריו הם ע”פ סודות נוראים עמוק עמוק מי ימצאנו ע”כ כל
המשנה ידו על התחתונה וכן הוא… ספר חסידים סי’ קי”ד המשנה מנהג קדמונים כמו
פיוטים וקרובץ שהנהיגו לומר קרובץ הקלי”ר ואומר קרובץ אחרים עובר משום לא
תסיג גבול עולם… אלא ודאי צ”ל דאין כאן משום הפסק כלל דאין משגיחין בזה
כיון דנתקן כן מגדולי עולם גדולי ישראל וחכמים מטעם הכמוס עמהם ע”פ הסוד
כנ”ל וא”כ אין שייך הפסק כלל מידי דהוי אשארי פיוטים שמפסיקים בהן
בברכות ק”ש וי”ח כמ”ש בסי’ ס”ח בהג”ה ויעוין שם
בד”מ מה שכתב בשם מהרי”ל… וא”כ כ”ש שמפסיקים בתורה בפיוטים
שנתקנו על כך דהא ברכות ק”ש חמור יותר מקריאת התורה דהא אין מפסיקין
מק”ש וברכותיה לתורה וכמ”ש בטור ובב”י סי’ ט”ו שאין מפסיקין
לתורה כשהוא עומד בק”ש וברכותיה ואפי’ כשהוא כהן ויש חשש פגם אפ”ה אינו
מפסיק מק”ש וברכותיה לעלות לתורה ואפ”ה מפסיקים בהן בפיוטים כנ”ל
וכ”ש שמפסיקים בקריאת התורה בפיוטים שנתקנו על כך…[27]
יישוב אחר כתב ר’ אפרים הכהן בשו”ת שער אפרים:
ונלע”ד ליתן טעם לשבח כי בודאי שלא לחנם קבעו הפיוט של אקדמות דוקא
אחר פסוק ראשון ולא אחר פסוק שני או אחר פסוק ג’ ולא קודם פסוק ראשון אחר הברכה,
לפי שקודם פסוק ראשון פשיטא דהוי הפסק קודם התחלת המצוה כמו סח בין ברכת המוציא
לאכילה וצריך לחזור ולברך ואחר פסוק שלישי כבר גמר המצוה וצריך לברך… גם אחר
שקרא שני פסוקים לא רצו לתקן לומר הפיוט אקדמות שהרי כתב הרב מהרי”ק… שאם
קרא הא’ אף שני פסוקים שיצא ידי קריאה וא”צ לחזור…
ר’ מאיר איזנשטאט, בתשובה שחלקה
הובא למעלה, כותב ליישב השגת הט”ז:
ומה שתמה הט”ז דהא
אפילו לספר בד”ת אסור כו’ יש סתירה גדולה לדבריו דהתם הטעם שלא ישמע קריאת
התורה מהש”ץ אבל הכא שגם הש”ץ מפסיק ומתחיל לשורר ואח”כ קורא בתורה
והכל שומעים הקריאה מהש”ץ אין ענין כלל להתם… ואדתמה ההפסק בהקדמות יותר
הי’ לו לתמוה על שאנו מפסיקים בקרובץ שכתב הטור א”ח בסי’ ס”ח שתמהו על
המנהג הזה שבפירוש אמרו במקום שאמרו לקצר אינו רשאי להאריך ועוד שנינו כל המשנה
ממטבע שטבעו חכמים בברכות לא יצא ידי חובתו אפ”ה אין אנו מבטלין מנהגינו
ק”ו בקריאת האקדמות שאין בהפסקה נגד הש”ס כיון שקורא פסוק ראשון אחר
הברכה ואינו מפסיק בין הברכה ובין הקריאה אין כאן חשש ברכה לבטלה דדומה כמו שמברך
על המזון המוציא והתחיל לאכול דמותר להפסיק ולדבר באמצע אכילה הכי נמי הכא…[28]
עד כה ראינו את ההיבטים העיקריים
השונים שהועלו בנוגע לשאלה ההלכתית.
כעת אבקש להעיר משהו יותר עקרוני
בסוגיה. עובדה בולטת היא שדיוני הפוסקים כולם סובבים סביב סמכותם של מהרי”ל
ור’ אייזיק טירנא במקרה של התנגשות עם ההלכה התיאורטית, לצד טענה דומה שמחבר הפיוט
היה אדם גדול שראוי להפסיק בשבילו. אך הפוסקים לא דנו במהות פיוט האקדמות ובמטרתו,
וכמו שהט”ז כתב בתוך דבריו: “כ”ש בשבח הזה שהוא אינו מענין
הקריאה כלל למה יש לנו להפסיק
…”. וכן יש לדייק בדברי ר’ יעקב עמדין
שהבאתי לעיל.
אולם דומה בעיני שהבנת מהות
האקדמות תסייע להבנת הסוגיה.
המדקדק המפורסם ר’ וואלף
היידנהיים (1757-1832)[29], בספרו
‘מודע לבינה’ שנדפס לראשונה בשנת 1818, עוסק בטעם מנהג קריאת עשרת הדיברות בשבועות
בטעם העליון,[30]

ובתוך דבריו נוגע גם בפולמוס זה והוא מביא דברי החזקוני שכותב:
יש ברוב
הדברות שתי נגינות ללמד שבעצרת שהיא דוגמא מתן תורה, ומתרגמינן הדברות קורין
כל דברת לא יהיה לך וכל דברת זכור בנגינות הגדולות לעשות כל אחת מהן פסוק אחד שכל
אחד מהן דברה אחת לעצמה…[31]
בהמשך כותב ר’ וואלף היידנהיים
שהוא מצא כ”י של מחזור ישן,[32]
וזה תיאורו:
הקריאה…
של א’ דשבועות… היתה כתוב שם המקרא עם התרגום כי בזמן ההוא עדיין היה המנהג קיים
להעמיד מתרגם אצל  הקורא… ואופן כתיבתו
מקרא עם התרגום הוא על זה הסדר תחלת כתב פסוק בחדש השלישי וגו’ ואח”כ אקדמות
מילין וכו’ והוא רשות ופתיחה למתורגמן, מענינא דיומא. בסוף אקדמות, כתב בירחא
תליתאה וגו’ שהוא תרגום של בחדש השלישי. ואח”כ כתב פסוק ויסעו מרפידים.
ואח”כ תרגומו, ועד”ז כתב והולך מקרא ותרגום מקרא ותרגום, עד פרשת וידבר
אלהים שהקדים לפניה פיוט ארוך ע”ס א”ב תחלתו ארכין ה’ שמיא לסיני…[33]
ועד”ז כתב עשרת הדברים בעשרה פסוקין ובעשרה תרגומים עד גמירה… וכל התרגומים
לקוחת מתרגום ירושלמי המכונה אצלנו ת”י עם קצת שינויים ותיקונים. וכל הפיוטים
האלה שבתוך הקריאה מתוקנים בלשון ארמי וחתום בתוכם מאיר ברבי יצחק…[34]
דברים אלו הם המפתח לכל סוגיית
ה’אקדמות’. שכן מתבאר מדברי החזקוני ומתוך כה”י הנ”ל שהיה מנהג בשבועות
ובשביעי של פסח להעמיד מתרגם אצל הקורא כמו שהיה בכל קריאה בזמן חז”ל עד
לתקופת הגאונים (לכל הפחות),[35]
והוא היה מתרגם כל פסוק. הפיוט המקורי של ר’ מאיר ש”ץ, ‘אקדמות’, הוא רק
הפתיחה ו’הרשות’ מענינא דיומא לפיוט ארוך שעניינו עשרת הדברות, היינו תרגום ארוך
על עשרת הדברות שהיה מבוסס על תרגום הירושלמי. אמירת הפיוט כלל לא היה נחשב הפסק הואיל
ונכלל בתקנה הראשונה שהיו מתרגמים בשעת קריאת התורה.[36]
זאת הסיבה שפיוט ‘אקדמות’ נאמר דווקא
לאחר
הפסוק הראשון, כי הוא בא סמוך להתחלת התרגום לפסוק הראשון, דהיינו אחר
קריאת הפסוק הראשון, ובעיקרו לא היה נחשב הפסק כלל. במרוצת הדורות
הופסק מנהג התרגום גם בשבועות וכן הושמט רוב הפיוט הארוך. בשל סיבה זו לא היתה
אמירת האקדמות בכלל הפולמוס הכללי בעניין אמירת פיוטים בתוך התפילה.
בין השנים תרנ”ג-תרנ”ז
נדפס בעיר ברלין על ידי חברת ‘מקיצי נרדמים’ חיבור חשוב מבית מדרשו של רש”י,
בשם ‘מחזור ויטרי’,[37]
על ידי הרב שמעון הורוויץ.[38]
בחיבור זה נמצאים הרבה פיוטים ארמיים ורשויות למתרגם שנהגו לומר בשביעי של פסח
ובשבועות, וחלק מהם מוסבים על עשרת הדיברות,[39]
בדומה למה שמצא ר’ וואלף היידנהיים בכת”י ישן, וגם נמצאים שם פירושים על
פיוטים אלו.[40]
חלק מפיוטים אלו נכתבו על ידי ר’ מאיר ש”ץ. במאה האחרונה נמצאו עוד כת”י
של הרבה פיוטים מן הסוג הזה,[41]
וחלקם קדומים מאוד.
יש לציין שר’
שלמה חעלמא, בעל ‘מרכבת המשנה’ (1716-1781) כבר כתב כן מסברת עצמו בחיבורו ‘שלחן
תמיד’ (נדפס מכ”י בשנת תשס”ד):
ונ”ל דמש”ה היה מנהג ראשונים לשורר
אקדמות אחר פסוק ראשון, שבזמן המחבר היה המנהג כמנהג האיטלאנים עד היום שאחד קורא
ואחד מתרגם כמו שהוא מדינא דגמרא, הילכך אחר שגמר הקורא פסוק אחד קודם שהתחיל ליטול
רשות אקדמות מילין וכו’ ודרש כל אקדמות, ואח”כ תירגם הפסוק הראשון, וה”ה
ביציב פתגם שגם את ההפטרה מתרגמין האיטלאנים עד היום, ובזה יובן החרוז האחרון
יהונתן גבר ענוותן וכו’ ששם הקורא היה יהונתן, והקורא היה צריך להיות גדול
מהמתרגם, ואמר המתרגם בדרך ריצוי שיחזיקו טובה להקורא אעפ”י שאני דורש שהוא
גדול ממני, ולפ”ז כיון שאדם אחר משורר אקדמות אפ’ אחר פסוק ראשון אין לחוש.[42]
על פי התיאור ההיסטורי העולה מכל
הגילויים יש ליישב השגת הט”ז שהעיר: “שהוא אינו מענין הקריאה כלל למה יש
לנו להפסיק”. דברים אלו מתאימים רק למציאות זמנו של הט”ז, אולם מעיקרא
כשנתקן הפיוט כחלק מאמירת המתרגם הוא היה חלק מעניין הקריאה, ולכן לא היה נחשב
הפסק. מציאות זו נעלמה מעיניו של ר’ יעקב עמדין וזה הביאו לכתוב מה שכתב.
אך בזמן מהרי”ל ובית מדרשו עדיין
ידעו מה היה התפקיד המקורי של ה’אקדמות’, וכן עדיין נהגו לומר חלק מהפיוטים הללו,
כפי שכתב בן דורו ר’ אייזק טירנא:
ואומר
אקדמות מילין אחר פסוק ראשון ובחדש השלישי [עד באו מדבר סיני]. ואומרין ארכין
אחר וירד משה קודם וידבר. ואומרין אמר יצחק לאברהם אביך, קודם כבד
את אביך…[43]
פיוט ‘ארכין’ הוא בענין משה
ומלאכים ומתן תורה,[44]
ופיוט ‘אמר יצחק לאברהם אביך’ הוא פיוט על אברהם ויצחק.[45]
תחילה, לאחר שאמרו פיוטים אלו גם נהגו לתרגם הפסוקים.
מכל מקום, הערת הט”ז התקבלה והביאוה הרבה פוסקים כמו ‘גן נטע’,[46]
‘באר היטב’,[47]
‘הלכה ברורה’,[48]
‘חק יוסף’,[49]
ר’ שלמה אב”ד דמיר בחיבורו ‘שלחן שלמה’[50]
שנדפס לראשונה בתקל”א, ר’ שלמה חעלמא,[51] ר’ יוסף
תאומים ב’פרי מגדים’,[52]
שלחן ערוך הגר”ז,[53] ‘מליץ יושר’,[54]
ר’ רפאל גינסבורג,[55]
מחצית השקל,[56] חתם
סופר,[57]
שער אפרים,[58]
שלחן קריאה,[59]
ר’ שלמה שיק,[60]
ר’ יוסף זכריה שטרן,[61]
ר’ יוסף גינצבורג,[62]
ר’ ישראל חיים פרידמאן,[63]
האדר”ת,[64]
ערוך השלחן,[65]
משנה ברורה,[66]
ר’ צבי הירש גראדזינסקי,[67]
ר’
עזרא אלטשולר,[68] ר’ אברהם חיים נאה,[69]
ר’ יוסף אליהו הנקין[70] ור’ יחיאל מיכל טוקצינסקי.[71]
נראה שגם אם הפוסקים הללו לא
ידעו את ההקשר ההיסטורי והנסיבות של אמירת האקדמות, מכל מקום אין הדבר נוגע ישירות
לעמדתם, ואפשר שאף אילו ידעו היו סוברים שבמציאות הנוכחית, כשאין התרגום נאמר,
אמירתו של הפיוט חוזרת ונחשבת הפסק. ולכן דעתם עדיין תהיה שאמנם אין לבטל את
אמירתו, אך יש להקדימו לפני הברכה.
דעת המגן אברהם
הרבה לא שמו לב לכך שהמג”א חולק על הט”ז, וכמו שציינו ר’ ישעיה
פיק,[72]
רע”א,[73] ר’
מרדכי בנעט,[74] והחת”ס[75],
לדברי המגן אברהם לעיל סי’ קמו, בנוגע לאיסור היציאה מבית הכנסת בשעת קריאת התורה:
“אסור לצאת – אפי’ בין פסוק לפסוק [טור]. ונ”מ בשבועות שאומרים
אקדמות
“.
לפי הבנת האחרונים, מדברי המג”א משתקף בבירור שאומרים אקדמות לאחר שקראו
הפסוק הראשון של קה”ת, כפי המנהג שהיה מקובל בימיו.[76]
ניתן להניח שאם הערתו של המגן אברהם היתה נאמרת במקומה בהלכות חג השבועות, חלק מן
הפוסקים היו סומכים עליו ולא על הט”ז. ואילו במקרה זה לא היתה לדבריו ההשפעה
הרגילה.[77]
לדעתי, המגן אברהם חולק על הט”ז גם משום שהוא היה מודע לנסיבות
ההיסטוריות שגרמו לפיוט להיקבע לאחר הפסוק הראשון.
בסימן זה – תצד – המג”א דן בשאלת קריאת
עשרת הדברות לפעמים בטעם העליון ולפעמים בטעם התחתון. הוא מביא שבשו”ת משאת
בנימין והחזקוני דנו בשאלה זו, והוא מביא את לשונו של החזקוני:
“ובחזקוני
פ’ יתרו כת’ שבעצרת שהיא דוגמת מ”ת ומתרגמין הדברות קורין כל דבור לא
יהיה לך ודבור זכור בנגינות גדולות לעשות מכל א’ פסוק א’ ודברות לא תרצח בנגינות
קטנות אבל בשבת יתרו קורין לא יהיה לך וזכור בנגינות קטנות ולא תרצח וגו’ בנגינות
גדולות לעשותם פסוק א’ כי לא מצינו פסוק בתורה מב’ תיבות וגם באנכי וגו’ יש נגינה
גדולה ע”ש.
עיון ב’משאת בנימין’ מעלה שהוא כבר ציין ל’חזקוני’ ול’הכותב’, אבל הוא לא
מביא באופן מדויק את דברי שני המקורות. המג”א בדק בעצמו באותם הספרים ומביא
את דבריהם מתוך הספרים שהיו כולם ברשותו. ואנו יודעים שהספר היה מצוי בספרייתו. [78]
מלים אלו הן בדיוק המלים שהביאו את ר’ וואלף היידנהיים להבין את מהות
הפיוט. נראה שלכל הפחות המג”א ידע שבעצרת נהגו לתרגם עשרת הדברות.[79]
והנה, בסי’ קמה נאמר דין ה’מתורגמן’ ובסוף הסימן כתב המחבר שבזמן הזה לא
נוהגין לתרגם ומיד לאחר מכן בסי’ קמו כתב המחבר: “אסור לצאת ולהניח ס”ת
כשהוא פתוח, אבל בין גברא לגברא ש”ד [=שפיר דמי]”. וכתב בביאור
הגר”א: “ואפי’ בין פסוקא לפסוקא אסור דתיקו דאורייתא לחומרא. תר”י
[תלמידי רבינו יונה] וטור. והשמיט הש”ע שאינו נוהג עכשיו שאין מתרגמין עכשיו
ואין מפסיקין בין פסוק לפסוק”.[80]
אבל המגן אברהם העיר על כך: “אסור לצאת – אפי’ בין פסוק לפסוק [טור].
ונ”מ בשבועות שאומרים אקדמות”. דהיינו, אכן כיום אין מתרגמים, וכמו שכתב
הגר”א, אבל עדיין דין זה נוגע פעם אחת בשנה – כאשר בשבועות אמרו אקדמות לאחר
שהתחילו קריאת התורה, וכמו שמבואר בחזקוני שהובא בסי’ תצד.
כאמור, לעניין אקדמות אנו
יודעים שדברי הט”ז התקבלו ולא דעת המגן אברהם.
עוד על מחלוקת זו
כזכור, כנראה שדעת הט”ז
שניתן לחלוק על מהרי”ל ור’ אייזיק טירנא, כאשר ההלכה הפשוטה מחייבת זאת. נראה
שהמגן אברהם חולק על גישה זו. במקום אחר הוא כותב עיקרון כללי במנהגים, הלקוח מתוך
שו”ת הרמ”א בשם מהרי”ק:
וכ’ רמ”א בתשו’… בשם מהרי”ק… דאם נמצא המנהג באיזה פוסק אין
לבטלו. אפי’ בשעת הדחק אין לשנות מנהג, כדאמרי’ בבני בישן. ואפי’ יש במנהג צד
איסור אין לבטלו, כמ”ש מהרי”ק…[81]
ואולי המג”א סובר שאפילו
כיום שאין מתרגמים ולכאורה אמירת הפיוט היא הפסק, מ”מ יש מקור למנהג ולכן יש
להשאיר את המנהג על כנו ולומר אקדמות דווקא לאחר קריאת הפסוק הראשון.
ובדרך אפשר יש להוסיף שזה
תלוי בגישה של המג”א שמרבה להעתיק מספרי מנהגים אלו וגם מפרט ודן בפרטי מנהגים
שונים ומתייחס אליהם בחיוב, לעומת הט”ז שאינו מרבה להביא מספרים אלו בחיבורו
ואינו דן הרבה במנהגים כמו המגן אברהם.
‘יציב פתגם’
אמנם הערת הט”ז לא היתה רק על ‘אקדמות’
אלא גם על ‘יציב פתגם’ שנכתב ע”י רבינו תם[82] ונאמר בקריאת התורה של שבועות
ביום טוב שני של גלויות. וכך הוא כותב: “וגם ביציב
פתגם שאומרים ביום שני אחר פסוק ראשון של הפטרה ראוי לנהוג כן, אלא שאין ההפטרה
חמירא כ”כ כמו קריאת התורה”.
גם במקרה זה כותבים האחרונים שזה היה פיוט של
רשות למתורגמן, כמו אקדמות, אך במשך השנים שכחו ממנו, ולכן בתחילה אמרו אותו דווקא
אחר שקראו פסוק אחד מן ההפטרה.[83]
ואולם, מנהג אמירת תרגום להפטרה של שביעי של פסח ושבועות נהג אפילו לאחר תקופת
הראשונים. ראה למשל ב’מחזור כמנהג רומה’ שנדפס ע”י שונצין קזאל מיורי בשנת
רמ”ו, שם מופיע התרגום בקריאת הפטרה של פסח, ליום ראשון,[84]
שני,[85]
שבת חול המועד,[86] לשביעי,[87]
שמיני של פסח,[88] ושבועות
יום ראשון[89]
ושני.[90]
לדעת כמה אחרונים נוהגים כדעת
הט”ז[91]
גם במקרה זה: ‘שלחן שלמה’,[92]
שלחן ערוך הגר”ז[93]
והאדר”ת.[94]
מעניינת מסקנתו של המשנה ברורה:
“והמנהג לומר אקדמות… קודם שמתחיל הכהן לברך… וכן המנהג כהיום בכמה
קהלות. אכן יציב פתגם שאומרים ביום שני בעת קריאת הפטרה נתפשט באיזה מקומות לאמרו
אחר פסוק ראשון של הפטרה”.[95]

[1] בענין אמירת אקדמות ראה:
אליעזר לאנדסהוטה, עמודי העבודה, עמ’ 164-165; י’ דוידזון, אוצר השירה והפיוט, א,
עמ’ 332, מספר 7314; אלכסנדר גרעניץ, ‘השערה על דברים אחרים’, המליץ שנה ג (1863)
גלי’ 12 עמ’ 12 (192); פלמוני, ‘יציב פתגם’, עלי הדס, אודיסה תרכ”ה, עמ’
105-107 [מאריך כדעת הט”ז]; ר’ חיים שובין, מבוא לסדר פיוט אקדמות עם פירוש
שני המאורות, ווילנא תרס”ב, עמ’ 11-25; יצחק אלבוגן, התפילה בישראל בהתפתחותה
ההיסטורית, תל-אביב תשמ”ח, עמ’ 143, 251; ר’ יהודה ליב מימון, חגים ומועדים3,
ירושלים תש”י, עמ’ רסד-רסח; ר’ נפתלי ברגר, ‘תפילות ופיוטים בארמית בסדר
התפילה ובמיוחד תולדותיה ומקורותיה של שירת אקדמות’, בני ברק תשל”ג [חיבור זה
ראוי לציון. זוהי עבודת דוקטורט שנכתבה בבודפסט בהונגרית, ורק בתשל”ג תורגם
לעברית. הוא מקיף היטב את כל הנושא]; ר’ שלמה יוסף זוין, מועדים בהלכה, עמ’
שעא-שעב; מיכאל ששר, ‘מדוע חובר פיוט ה”אקדמות” בארמית?’, שנה בשנה, כה
(תשמ”ד), עמ’ 347-352; שלמה אשכנזי, אבני חן, ירושלים תש”ן, עמ’
116-118; יונה פרנקל, מחזור לרגלים, שבועות, ירושלים תש”ס, עמ’ י ועמ’ כח
ואילך; עזרא פליישר, שירת הקודש העברית בימי הביניים, ירושלים תשס”ח, עמ’
471-472; הנ”ל, תפילות הקבע בישראל בהתהוותן ובהתגבשותן, ב, ירושלים
תשע”ב, עמ’ 1096, 1166-1167; ר’ בצלאל לנדאו, ‘על פיוט אקדמות ומחברו’, ארשת:
קובץ מוקדש לעניני תפילה ובית-הכנסת ב (תשמ”ג), עמ’ 113-121; ר’ בנימין
שלמה המבורגר, ‘גדולי הדורות על משמר מנהג אשכנז’, בני ברק תשנ”ד, עמ’
108-113; ר’ דויד יצחקי, בסוף ‘לוח ארש’, ירושלים תשס”א, עמ’
תקמ”א-תקמב; ר’ יהונתן נוימן, ‘התרגום של חג השבועות’, קולמוס 112
(תשע”ב), עמ’ 4 ואילך; ר’ צבי רבינוביץ, עיוני הלכות, ב, בני ברק תשס”ד,
עמ’ תנ”ב-תסז; פרדס אליעזר, ברוקלין תש”ס, עמ’ קצח-רכו; ר’ טוביה
פריינד, מועדים לשמחה, ו, עמ’ תסה-תעה; ר’ אהרן מיאסניק, מנחת אהרן, ירושלים תשס”ח,
עמ’ קטו-קכד; ר’
יצחק טעסלער, פניני מנהג, חג השבועות, מונסי תשס”ח, עמ’ רכח-רמט;Menachem Silver, “Akdomus and Yetziv Pisgom in
History and Literature, Jewish Tribune, May 29th 1990, p. 5 [תודה לידידי ר’ ישראל איזרעל שהפנני לזה]; Jeffrey Hoffman, “Akdamut: History,
Folklore, and Meaning,” Jewish Quarterly Review 99:2
(Spring 2009), pp. 161-183; E.
Kanarfogel, The Intellectual History and Rabbinic Culture of Medieval
Ashkenaz
, Detroit 2013, pp .387-388.
לענין
הסיפור על בעל האקדמות ו’עשרת השבטים’ ראה: אליה רבה, סי’ תצד ס”ק ה שכתב: “נמצא
בלשון אשכנז ישן נושן מעשה באריכות דעל מה תקנו אקדמות”. וראה אליעזר
לאנדסהוטה, עמודי העבודה, עמ’ 165; משה שטיינשניידער, ספרות ישראל, ווארשא
תרנ”ז, עמ’ 417 והערה 1 שם; ר’ אברהם יגל, נדפס מכ”י ע”י אברהם
נאיבואיר, ‘קבוצים על עניני עשרת השבטים ובני משה’, קובץ על יד ד (תרמ”ח)
(סדרה ראשונה), עמ’ 39; יצחק בן יעקב, אוצר הספרים, עמ’ 384 מספר 1825 והערות
רמש”ש שם; הערות שלמה ראבין, בתוך: ר’ יהודה אריה ממודינה, שלחן ערוך, וויען
תרכ”ז, עמ’ 67; ר’ דובערוש טורש, גנזי המלך, ווארשא תרנ”ו, עמ’ 109;
יצחק ריבקינד, ‘די היסטארישע אלעגאריע פון ר’ מאיר ש”ץ’, ווילנא תרפ”ט;
הנ”ל, ‘מגלת ר’ מאיר ש”ץ’, הדואר 9 (1930) עמ’ 507-509; ישראל צינברג,
תולדות ספרות ישראל, ד, תל-אביב תשי”ח, עמ’ 90-92; [ובהערות של מנדל פיקאז’
שם עמ’ 253]; ישראל צינברג, מכתב ליצחק ריבקינד, בתוך: תולדות ספרות ישראל, ז, עמ’
216-217; ר’ יהודה זלוטניק (אבידע), בראשית במליצה העברית, ירושלים תרצ”ח,
עמ’ 33; מכתב של ר’ יחזקיהו פיש הי”ד מהאדאס [נדפס מכ”י בתוך: ר’ יחיאל
גולדהבר ור’ חנני’ לייכטאג (עורכים), גנזי יהודה, ב, חמ”ד תשע”ה], עמ’
רנח; אברהם רובינשטיין, ‘קונטרס ‘כתית למאור של יוסף פערל’, עלי ספר ג
(תשל”ז), עמ’ 148; עלי יסיף, ‘תרגום קדמון ונוסח עברי של מעשה אקדמות’, בקורת
ופרשנות 9-10 (תשל”ז), עמ’ 214-228; הנ”ל, סיפור העם העברי, ירושלים
תשנ”ד, עמ’ 384, 659; יוסף דן, ‘תולדותיו של מעשה אקדמות בספרו העברית’,
בקורת ופרשנות 9-10 (תשל”ז), עמ’ 197-213; ר’ משה בלוי, ‘הסיפור המוזר של
חיבור אקדמות’, קולמוס 26 (תשס”ה), עמ 12-15; ר’ טוביה פריינד, מועדים לשמחה,
ו, עמ’ תעו-תפט; ר’ נחום רוזנשטיין ור’ משה אייזיק בלוי, ‘מנהג אמירת אקדמות
והמעשה המופלא שנקשר בו’, קובץ בית אהרן וישראל, שנה כט, גליון ה (קעג)
(תשע”ד), עמ’ צא-קו [בלוי אף הדפיס גירסה מורחבת של המאמר בחוברת אנונימית].
יש לציין שר’ ישראל משקלוב האמין שסיפר של בעל אקדמות ועשרת השבטים היה אמת, ראה
במכתב שלו לעשרת השבטים, בתוך: אברהם יערי, אגרות ארץ ישראל, רמת גן תשל”א,
עמ’ 347-348 [=אברהם נאיבויאר, ‘קבוצים על עניני עשרת השבטים ובני משה’, קובץ על
יד ד (תרמ”ח) (סדרה ראשונה), עמ’ 54]; ר’ דוד אהרן ווישנעויץ, קונטרס מציאת
עשרת השבטים, בסוף: מטה אהרן, ירושלים תרס”ט, בדף פא ע”א]; וראה המכתב
שנדפס ממנו ע”י אריה מורגנשטרן, גאולה בדרך הטבע, ירושלים תשנ”ז,
(מהדורה שניה), עמ’ 125. [על
המכתב ור’ ישראל משקלוב ראה מאמר המקיף של ידידי ר’ יחיאל גולדהבר, ‘מאמציו של רבי
ישראל משקלוב למציאת עשרת השבטים’, חצי גיבורים – פליטת סופרים, ט (תשע”ו),
עמ’ תשסט-תתנו].
הפיוט
זכה לפירושים רבים כמו: ר’ חיים שובין, סדר פיוט אקדמות עם פירוש שני המאורות,
ווילנא תרס”ב; ר’ אהרן מיאלדער, באור שירת אקדמות, ווארשא תרס”ד; ר’
חיים יאנאווסקי, קנין טוב, פיעטרקוב תרס”ח; ר’ שמואל ווענגראב, פיעטרוקוב
תרפ”ו. ביבליגרפיה של פירושים נמצא בסוף Rabbi Salomon,
Akdamus Millin
, New York 1980, pp. 149-151.
וראה
עדותו של הרב יעקב משה חרל”פ על פגישתו הראשונה עם הרב קוק, הובאה ע”י
יאיר חרל”פ, שירת הי”ם, בית אל תשע”ב, עמ’ 321.
עוד
מקורות שנהגו לומר פיוט זה ראה: זכרונות ומסורות על ה’חתם סופר’, בני ברק
תשנ”ו, עמ’ 206; על רוסיא בערך 1840 ראה Pauline
Wengeroff, Memoirs of a Grandmother, California 2010, Vol. 1, p. 150; על מינסק בשנת 1860 בערך, ראה: אלכסנדר הורוויץ, א, זכרונות פון
צוויי דורות, ניו יורק תרצ”ה, עמ’ 143; על ישיבת מיר בשנת 1938, ראה: Letters From Mir, Editor: Claude Gugenheim,
New York 2014, p.147.; ר’ שלום
מקאידינאוו, משמרת שלום, ירושלים תשס”ג, עמ’ רמד; על מנהג חב”ד ראה: ר’
אברהם לאוואוט, שער הכולל, ברוקלין תשנ”א, פרק מ אות יז, עמ’ צב; ר’ יהושע
מונדשיין, אוצר מנהגי חב”ד, ניסן-סיון, ירושלים תשנ”ו, עמ’ שב-שד.
ויש
לציין שאף כמה חיבורים סאטיריים נכתבו במבנה דומה לאקדמות או בניגון שלו. ראה: Israel Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature, New York 1966,
ברשימה בסוף הספר מספר 89, 121,142,172,191, 207, 229,232.
[2] Rabbi Avi
Gold, The Complete Artscroll Machzor, Shavuos, New York 1991, p. 288.
[3] עזרא פליישר, תפילות הקבע בישראל בהתהוותן ובהתגבשותן, ב, ירושלים
תשע”ב, עמ’ 1112.
[4] על ר’ מאיר ש”ץ
ראה: Leopod Zunz, Literaturgeschichte
Der Synagogalen Poesie
, Hildesheim 1966, pp.145-151; יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט בקהילות ישראל, ירושלים
תשע”ו, עמ’20 ; ר’ וואלף היידנהיים
במבוא לפיוטים בתוך ‘מחזור לשמחת תורה’, רעדלעהיים תקצ”ב, דף ד ע”ב-ה
ע”א; אליעזר לאנדסהוטה, עמודי העבודה, עמ’ 162-167; ר’ חיים שובין, מבוא לסדר
פיוט אקדמות עם פירוש שני המאורות, ווילנא תרס”ב, עמ’ 11-25; ר’ נפתלי ברגר,
‘תפילות ופיוטים בארמית בסדר התפילה ובמיוחד תולדותיה ומקורותיה של שירת אקדמות’,
בני ברק תשל”ג, עמ’ כז-כח; אברהם גרוסמן, חכמי אשכנז הראשונים, ירושלים
תשס”א, עמ’ 292-296; ישראל תא- שמע, התפילה האשכנזית הקדומה, עמ’ 35, 39; Katrin Kogman-Appel, A Mahzor from Worms,
Cambridge 2012, p. 66, 223.
 לענין חתימת שמו ראה מה שכתב ר’ אליהו בחור, ספר
התשבי, בני ברק תשס”ה, עמ’ רמח ערך רב. וראה ‘אגרות הפמ”ג’, אגרת ה, אות
יא [שם, עמ’ שפה], שאחר שהעתיק דברי התשבי כותב: “כי התשבי נאמן יותר ממאה
עדים”.
עוד פיוטים ממנו ראה: ר’ משה רוזנווסר, ‘פירוש
ומקורות ליוצר לשבת נחמו’ (שחיבר ר’ מאיר בר יצחק – בעל האקדמות), ירושתנו ב
(תשסח), עמ’ רנט-רעו; Alan
Lavin, The Liturgical Poems of Meir bar Isaac, Edited with and Introduction
and Commentary
, PhD dissertation JTS Seminary 1984.
וראה: פיוטים לארבע פרשיות עם פירוש
רש”י ובית מדרשו, ירושלים תשע”ד, עמ’ קט ועמ’ קנא מה שהובא בשמו [תודה
לידידי ר’ יוסף מרדכי דובאוויק על עזרתו במקור האחרון].
[5]
שו”ת שער אפרים, זולצבאך תמ”ח, סי’ י. עליו ראה: מאיר
וונדר, אלף מרגליות, ירושלים תשנ”ג, עמ’ 396-397; יש לציין שדברי השער אפרים
הובאו אצל ר’ שלמה זאב קליין, ‘דברי הפיוטים וזעקתם’, מילהוזין תרי”ט, עמ’ 2.
[ספר נדיר זה נדפס ע”י ידידי דר’ שלמה שפרכר, בחוברת בשם ‘קובץ ארשת שפתנו’,
בברוקלין תשס”א].
[6] ר’ יהושע יעקב היילפרין, שו”ת נחלת יעקב,
פדוואה שפ”ג, סי’ מו. דבריו הובאו בנוהג כצאן יוסף, עמ’ רלז. וראה מקור חיים
סי’ קמו בקיצור הלכות, ד”ה אפ’ בין גברא לגברא, עמ’ ריח.  על הספר ראה: שמואל גליק, קונטרס התשובות החדש,
ב, ירושלים תשס”ז, עמ’ 738-349
[7] שו”ת
שער אפרים, סי’ י.
[8]
חק יעקב, שם ס”ק ג. עליו ראה: רב צעיר, תולדות הפוסקים, ג,
ישראל תש”ז, עמ’ 187-191; ש’ שילה, ‘הרב יעקב רישר בעל הספר שבות יעקב’,
אסופות, יא (תשנ”ח), עמ’ סה-פו.
לשו”ת
שער אפרים מציינים: ‘חקי חיים’, דף קעח ע”א; אליה רבה, שם, ס”ק ה; ר’
יוסף שטיינהרט, שו”ת זכרון יוסף, פיורדא תקל”ג, סי’ ה, (ד”ה תשובה);
נוהג כצאן יוסף, עמ’ רלח.
[9]
חקי חיים, ברלין ת”ס, דף ל ע”א. והשווה דבריו שם, דף קעח
ע”א- ע”ב: “ש”א סי’ יו”ד טעם לשבח על מנהג שלנו”.
עליו ראה: א”י בראדט, פרשנות השלחן ערוך לאורח חיים ע”י חכמי פולין במאה
הי”ז, חיבור לשם קבלת תואר דוקטור אוניברסיטת בר אילן, רמת גן תשע”ה,
עמ’ 44.
[10] ספר
המנהגים לר’ אברהם קלויזנר, ירושלים תשס”ו, עמ’ קכא.
[11]
מהרי”ל, עמ’ קסב.
[12]
ספר המנהגים לר’ אייזיק טירנא, עמ’ סט.
[13] נדפס בתוך: ספר המנהגים לר’ אייזיק טירנא, ירושלים תש”ס, עמ’
קעא.
[14] מעגלי
צדק, עמ’ פח. ה’מעגלי צדק’ נדפס לראשונה במחזור בשנת שי בשאלוניקי, ולאחרונה הודפס
חלק ההלכות מתוך המחזור ע”י יצחק הערשקוויטש, ירושלים תש”ס. ראה עליו:
י”ש עמנואל, מצבות שאלוניקי, א, ירושלים תשכ”ג, עמ’ 36, 68-69; מ’
בניהו, ‘רבי שמואל יפה אשכנזי’, תרביץ, מב, תשל”ג, עמ’ 423-424 והע’ 37; מ”ש
מולכו, מצבות בית העלמין של יהודי שאלוניקי, תל אביב תשל”ה, עמ’ 59-60; י’ ריבקינד, דיקדוקי ספרים,
קרית ספר ד (תרפ”ז), עמ’ 278, מס’ 32; ד’ גולדשמידט, מחקרי תפילה ופיוט, עמ’ 252-265;
מאיר בניהו, הדפוס העברי בקרימונה, ירושלים תשל”א, עמ’ 141-178.
המג”א
הביא הרבה פעמים בשמו, כמו נה:יז, פח:ג, קלא:י, תכז:א, תלא:ה, תלז:יז, תכז:א,
תנ:יב, תנג:יא, תקפא:ד, תקפא:ז, תקפא:ח, תקפב:ח, תקפג:ב תקפד:ג, תקפט:ד, תרכד:ז,
תרכט:ה, תרנא:יט, תרנא:כא, תרנח:יב, תרסא:, תרע:ב [2X], תרעב:ה, תרעג:ז, תרפא:א, תרפח:יא, תרצ:יט, תרצא:ח. ולפעמים בלי
לציין למקורו.
[15] מקור
קדום יותר למנהג אמירת אקדמות נמצא במחזור עתיק של וורמייזא שכתיבתו נגמרה בשנת
1272. ראה ע”ז: ד’ גולדשמידט, מחקרי תפילה ופיוט, ירושלים תשנ”ו, עמ’
17; עזרא פליישר, תפילות הקבע בישראל בהתהוותן ובהתגבשותן, ב, ירושלים תשע”ב,
עמ’ 1166-1167. ורק מזמן כלשהו ומטעם בלתי ידוע הפסיקו לאומרו בשבועות, ראה:
ר’ יאיר חיים בכרך, מקור חיים, סי’ תצד, שהעיד על וורימיזא בזמנו שלא אמרו אקדמות.
והשווה: ר’ יוזפא שמש, מנהגים דק”ק וורמיישא, א, עמ’ קיב. וראה מה שכתב בזה
ר’ יודא ליווא קירכום, מנהגות וורמייזא, ירושלים תשמ”ז, עמ’ רנח. וראה עוד פליישר,
שם, עמ’ 1167; יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט בקהילות ישראל, ירושלים
תשע”ו, עמ’ 70; ר’ איסר בער וולף, ‘היהודים בווארמס’, ירושתנו ד (תש”ע),
עמ’ רפד.
[16]
חיבור זה נדפס לראשונה במנטובה ש”ן. מכון מורשת אשכנז עובד על
תרגום הספר לעברית ותודה לר’ בנימין שלמה המבורגר ששלח לי את קטע התרגום הרלוונטי:
“קוראים רק את הפסוק הראשון, אחרי כן
אומר החזן מתוך המחזור ‘אקדמות מילין’, והקהל עונה לו בפסוק השני, וכן עד גמירא.
(בוורמיישא אין אומרים ‘אקדמות’)… (בפולין ופיהם אומרים פיוטים רבים, מתחילים ‘ארכין’
ואומרים אותם בתוך הקריאה. יש קודם שקוראים ‘וירד משה’, ויש קודם שקוראים את עשרת
הדברות)”.
חשיבות
הספר היא, כפי שכתב יצחק זימר (‘גזרות תתנ”ו בספרי המנהגים בימי הביניים ובעת
החדשה’, יום טוב עסיס ועוד [עורכים], יהודים מול הצלב, ירושלים תשס”א, עמ’
163]: “עדות לפופולריות הרבה לה זכה הספר היא ארבעים ושתים המהדורות שלו,
שנדפסו כמעט בכל רחבי אירופה, מאמסטרדם במערב עד ורשה במזרח. מראשית הדפסו עד שנת
תרנ”ב במשך למעלה משלוש מאות שנה נדפס הספר כמעט בכל מקום בגרמניה שהיה בו
בית דפוס יהודי”. וראה: 252-256Oxford 2005, pp.
Introduction to Old Yiddish Literature, Jean Baumgarten,
[17]
ראה ש”מ לונטל, “מנהגים דק”ק ורנקבורט דמיין” (מנהגי
פרנקפורט מכת”י שהועתקו בשנת של”ז בשביל קהילת פרידבורג), המעין, לו
(תשנ”ו), עמ’ 28.
[18]
ראה ר’ יוסף
יוזפא סג”ל, נוהג
כצאן יוסף, תל-אביב תשכ”ט, עמ’ רלז-רלח; ר’ זלמן גייגר, דברי
קהלת, פפד”מ תרכ”ב, עמ’ 446.
[19]
מנהגי פיורדא, פיורדא תקכ”ז, דף יב ע”א, סי’ עא [=ר’
בנימין שלמה המבורגר, הישיבה הרמה בפיורדא, א, בני ברק תש”ע, עמ’ 527].
[20] ר’ נתן הלוי באמבערגער, לקוטי הלוי, ברלין תרס”ז, עמ’ 19.
[21]
ר’ מנחם נוויירה, מנהג ותיקין [נכתב בערך בשנת תק”ח], אנטוורפן
תשס”ה, עמ’ 30: “אומרים אקדמות מלין אחר פסוק א’ וכן כתב בעל שער אפרים
בתשובותיו סימן, ואין לנו לזוז ממנו וכן הנהיגו וכן ינהגו לעולם“. [תודה
לידידי הג”ר אפרים בנימין שפירא שהפנני לחיבור נדיר זה והשיג לי עותק ממנו.]
[22]  וראה ר’ בנימין שלמה המבורגר, ‘גדולי הדורות על
משמר מנהג אשכנז’, בני ברק תשנ”ד, עמ’ 108-113
[23]  שו”ת פנים מאירות, ג, סי’ לא.
[24] סידור
רבי יעקב מעמדין ב, ירושלים תשנ”ג, אות ט”ז, עמ’ קנ-קנא.
[25]  ראה: ; A. Cahen, Le Rabbinat de Metz, REJ 12
(1886) pp. 295-296 ר’ אהרן מרקוס, החסידות, תל-אביב
תשי”ד, עמ’ 28-29; חיים ברקוביץ, מסורת ומהפכה, עמ’ 120; ר’ יוסף פראגר,
‘תולדות קהילת מיץ’, ירושתנו ב (תשס”ח), עמ’ שנו.
[26]  שו”ת חות יאיר, סי’ רלח. לגבי התייחסותו
לפייטנים כבעלי הלכה, ראה: ר’ יאיר חיים בכרך, מר קשישא, ירושלים תשנ”ג, עמ’
קפא-קפג; ר’ אלעזר פלעקלס, שו”ת תשובה מאהבה, א, סי’ א; ר’ יוסף זכריה שטרן, שו”ת זכר יהוסף, א, סי’ יט. עצם
הענין של אמירת פיוטים היה נתון בפולמוס גדול, ועד היום לא נודעו כל הדיונים עליו.
מעשה בני אשכנז תמכו בו כל השנים, ראה: ר’ יוסף זכריה שטרן, שם;
יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט קהילות ישראל, ירושלים תשע”ו, עמ’
167-171; ישראל תא-שמע, מנהג אשכנז
הקדמון, עמ’ 89 ואילך; הנ”ל התפילה האשכנזית הקדומה, עמ’ 35-36; Ruth Langer, To Worship God Properly,
Cincinnati 1998, pp. 110-187; Daniel Sperber, On Changes in Jewish Liturgy;
Options and Limitations
, Jerusalem 2010, pp. 181-191. וראה י’ גלינסקי, ‘ארבע
טורים והספרות ההלכתית של ספרד במהאה ה14, אספקטים היסטוריים, ספרותיים והלכתיים’,
עובדה לשם קבלת תואר דוקטר, האוניברסיטה בר
אילן, רמת גן תשנ”ט, עמ’ 271-278.
 [27] שו”ת
קרית חנה, מיץ תקמ”ה, סי’ ז, ונדפס ג”כ בשבות יעקב, א, סי’ יב.
[28]  וראה מה שר’ חיים עהרענרייך העיר ע”ז
ב’שערי חיים’ בתוך: שערי אפרים, ברוקלין תשס”ד, דף ל ע”א-ע”ב.
[29]  עליו ראה: יצחק אייזיק קובנר, ספר המצרף,
ירושלים תשנ”ח, עמ’ 86-87; ר’ ישראל לוינגר, ‘ר’ וואלף היידענהיים חייו
ומפעלו’, המעין כו:א (תשמ”ו) עמ’ 16-27; הנ”ל, שם כו:ב (תשמ”ו) עמ’
35-42; ר’ דוד קמנצקי, ‘פסקי דין ותקנות קהילת פרנקפורט בתקופת רבנו ההפלא”ה
[ב]’, ישורון כה (תשע”א), עמ’ 213-215; ר’ בנימין שלמה המבורגר, הישיבה הרמה
בפיורדא, ב, בני ברק תש”ע, עמ’ 113-115. במוסף התורני ‘קולמוס’ גלי’ 47
(תשס”ז), עמ’ 18 ואילך, פרסם ר’ ראובן אליצור מאמר כנגדו [שוב נדפס בתוך אוסף
מאמריו: ספר זכרון דגל מחנה ראובן, בני ברק תשע”א, עמ’ שצ-תג]; ור’ שמואל
לוינזון הגין עליו ב’קולמוס’ גלי’ 51 (תשס”ז), עמ’ 24-29.
[30]
על זה ראה: ראה: לקט יושר, עמ’ 30; ר’ ידידיה שלמה נורצי, מנחת שי,
ירושלים תשס”ה, עמ’ 192-193; ר’ אשר אנשיל ווירמש רופא, סייג לתורה, פרנקפורט
דמיין תקכ”ו, בסוף הספר; ר’ שלמה זלמן הענא, בשערי תפילה, [בתוך: לוח ארש,
ירושלים תשס”א, עמ’ רצו-שה [דבריו הובא בלי לציין מקורם אצל השו”ע הרב,
שם, סעיף ח-יא, ובביאור הלכה, ואצל ר’ שלמה חעלמא בשמו ב’שלחן תמיד’,
ירושלים תשס”ד, עמ’ קה, סי’ יט, זר זהב, אות ה.]; ר’ יעקב עמדין, לוח ארש,
עמ’ קמג-קמח; ר’ וואלף
היידנהיים, מודע
לבינה, וילנא תרמ”ח, (אחר חומש שמות), דף יג ע”א-יד ע”ב [ראה לעיל
הערה 57]; ר’ משה קערנער, ברכת משה, ברלין תקצ”ד, עמ’ 93; ר’ זלמן גייגר,
דברי קהלת, פראנקפורט תרכ”ב, עמ’ 112-114; ר’ דוב ריפמאן, שלחן הקריאה,
בערלין 1882, דף פ ע”א ואילך; ר’ שבתי לישפיץ, שערי רחמים [בתוך: ר’ אפרים
זלמן מרגליות, שערי אפרים], ברוקלין תשס”ד, עמ’ 92; ר’ שלמה שיק, סדור
המנהגים, א, מונקאטש תר”ם, דף פב ע”ב; הנ”ל, שו”ת רשב”ן,
מונקאטש סי’ קצב; אדר”ת, תפלת דוד, עמ’ פו (בשם ר’ בצלאל הכהן); ר’ פנחס
שווארטץ, ניו יורק תשכ”ט, מנחה חדשה, עמ’ כב-כג; J.
Penkower, ‘Maimonides and the Alepp Codex‘, Textus IX (1981), pp.
115-117 [תודה ליצחק פנקובר שהפנה אותי לזה].
עוד
על כל זה ראה: מרדכי ברויאר, כתר ארם צובה והנוסח המקובל של המקרא, ירושלים
תשל”ז, עמ’ 56-66; הנ”ל בתוך: בן ציון סגל (עורך), עשרה הדיברות בראי
הדורות, ירושלים תשמ”ו, ‘חלוקת עשרת הדיברות לפסוקים ולדיברות’, עמ’ 223-254;
אמנון שילוח, ‘הערות לעניין ניגוני הטעם העליון בעשרת הדיברות’, הנ”ל, עמ’
255-263; אניציקלופדיה תלמודית, כ, ירושלים תשנ”א, עמ’ תרו-תרח; יוסף עופר,
‘הטעם העליון והטעם התחתון בעשרת הדיברות’, דף שבועי, אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, 238
(תשנ”ח); ר’ דויד יצחקי, בסוף לוח ארש, ירושלים תשס”א, עמ’ תקכד ואילך,
שם, עמ’ תקלז-תקמ; ר’ אהרן מיאסניק, מנחת אהרן, ירושלים תשס”ח, עמ’ קכח-קלז.
[31]  ר’ חיים דוב שעוועל (מהדיר), חזקוני, ירושלים
תשמ”א, יתרו (כ:יד), עמ’ רנט.
[32]
יש לציין שידידי ר’ חיים ישראל טעסלער, ‘מאמר הרמן ורשותא’, קובץ פעלים
לתורה כב (תשע”ה), עמ’ קלב-קלג ועמ’ קלו-קלז, מברר איזה כ”י היה לפניו
ואפי’ הביא תמונות של כתה”י.
[33]  על פיוט זה ראה לקמן.
[34] הסבר
זה נדפס לראשונה על ידיו ב’מודע לבינה’ רעדלהיים תקע”ח, שמות, דף קכו
ע”א- קלא ע”א; מודע לבינה, וילנא תרמ”ח, (אחר חומש שמות), דף יג
ע”א-יד ע”ב. ולאחרונה ע”י ר’ דויד יצחקי, בסוף מהדורת ‘לוח ארש’,
ירושלים תשס”א, עמ’ תקכד ואילך עם הערות. וראה שם, עמ’ תקמא-תקמב.
מהלך
זה צוטט רבות: שד”ל, כרם חמד ג (תקצ”ח), עמ’ 201-202; הנ”ל, פירושו
על התורה, ירושלים תשנ”ג, עמ’ 319; ר’ יהודה לעווענברעג, אמרי חן, ב,
לייקוואוד תשמ”ו, עמ’ עג-עה; פרדס אליעזר, עמ’ רא-רג. וראה מה שהעיר ע”ז
ר’ חיים שובין, במבוא, ל’סדר פיוט אקדמות עם פירוש שני המאורות’, ווילנא
תרס”ב, עמ’ 16-20.
עצם הביאור, ללא דברי החזקוני ורז”ה, נמצא
גם בשם ר’ מאיר א”ש, ע”י בנו ב’זכרון יהודה’ [נדפס לראשונה
בתרכ”ח], ירושלים תשנ”ז, עמ’ פו; ר’ חזקיה פייבל פלויט, ליקוטי חבר בן
חיים, ב, מונקאטש תרל”ט, דף לד ע”א; ר’ נתנאל חיים פאפע, ‘מאמר על
אקדמות’, המאסף יא (תרס”ו) (חוברת ג, סיון) סי’ כג, דף לט ע”ב- מ ע”ב;
הנ”ל, ‘אקדמות ויצב פתגם’, וילקט יוסף טו (תרע”ג) קונטרס יט, עמ’
148-149, סי’ קע”ה; ר’ יהודה ליב דאברזינסקי, שו”ת מנחת יהודה, פיעטרקוב
תרפ”ח, סי’ כג; ר’ עזרא אלטשולר, שו”ת תקנת השבים, או”ח, בני ברק
תשע”ה, עמ’ קמג-קמד; ר’ נפתלי ברגר, ‘תפילות ופיוטים בארמית בסדר התפילה
ובמיוחד תולדותיה ומקורותיה של שירת אקדמות’, בני ברק תשל”ג, עמ’ לב-לד,
פב-פו; ר’ חיים ישראל טעסלער, מנהגי חג השבועות, לאנדאן תשע”א, נספח, עמ’ א-ה
[תודה לידידי ר’ מנחם זילבר שהפנני לזה]; הנ”ל, ‘מאמר הרמן ורשותא’, קובץ פעלים
לתורה כב (תשע”ה), עמ’ קיד-קלה.
[35] על
מקום המתרגם בקריאת התורה ראה מש”כ ר’ יהודה ברצלוני, ספר העתים, עמ’
266-268. וראה יצחק אלבוגן, התפילה בישראל בהתפתחותה ההיסטורית, תל-אביב
תשמ”ח, עמ’ 140-144; יצחק גילת, פרקים בהשתלשלות ההלכה, רמת גן תשס”א3,
עמ’ 358-359; S.D. Goitein, A Mediterranen Society,
2, Califiorinia 1999, pp. 175-177 [שעדיין בזמן
הגניזה נהגו לתרגם הקריאה לארמית]; ר’ יצחק ווייס, בית יצחק, על מסכת מגילה, בני
ברק תשס”ט, [נדפס לראשונה במונקאטש 1896], עמ’ שנג.
יש
לציין שבתימן נוהגים כן עד היום הזה. ראה למשל: ר’ יוסף קאפח, הליכות תימן,
ירושלים תשכ”ח, עמ’ 68: “בשבתות ובחגים עומד נער כבן שש שבע או שמונה
שנה, ומתרגם תרגום אונקלוס אחרי הקורא פסוק פסוק…”.
[36] יש
לנו עוד מקורות מזמן הראשונים שנהגו בשבועות ושביעי של פסח, לתרגם הקריאה ולהקדים
פיוטים לתרגום. ראה: תורתן של גאונים ה, ש”ז הבלין וי’ יודלוב (עורכים), ירושלים
תשנ”ב, עמ’ 349-350; ספר המנהיג לראב”ן הירחי, ירושלים תשנ”ד עמ’
נח; כל בו, ירושלים תשמ”ח, סי’ נב, שו”ת מהר”ם מרוטנברג, (פראג),
בודאפעסט תרנ”ה, סי’ נט; ר’ מנחם מטרוייש, סדר טרוייש, פראנקפורט דמיין
תרס”ה, עמ’ 33; מנהגי
ר”ח פלטיאל, (בתוך: דניאל גולדשמידט, מחקרי תפילה ופיוט, ירושלים
תשנ”ו), עמ’ 58;
פירושים ופסקים לרבינו אביגדור צרפתי, (מהדיר: ר’ יצחק הערשקאוויטש), ירושלים
תשנ”ו, עמ’ שיט [ראה שם הערת המהדיר, אות נו]; ר’ יאיר חיים בכרך, מקור חיים,
סי’ קמה ס”ק א [מביא תוס’]; ר’ יוסף חזן, חקרי לב, או”ח, סי’ מא; ר’
ראובן מרגליות, נפש חיה, מילואים, סי’ תצד, עמ’ 11; יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי
תפילה ופיוט בקהילות ישראל, ירושלים תשע”ו, עמ’ 62; יצחק אלבוגן, התפילה
בישראל בהתפתחותה ההיסטורית, עמ’ 143; ר’ מרדכי מנחם הוניג, ‘על מהדורתו החדשה של
ספר המשכיל (ספר חסידים) לר’ משה בר’ אלעזר הכהן’, ירושתנו א (תשס”ז), עמ’
רכט.
[37] על
הספר ראה: יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט בקהילות ישראל, ירושלים
תשע”ו, עמ’ 19; ישראל תא-שמע, התפילה האשכנזית הקדומה, עמ’ 15-20; הנ”ל,
כנסת מחקרים, א, ירושלים תשס”ד, עמ’ 62-76; אברהם גרוסמן, חכמי צרפת
הראשונים, ירושלים תשס”א, עמ’ 395-402.
[38] עליו
ראה: עזרא שרשבסקי, החכם מלייפציג, ירושלים תשנ”ג.
[39] כמה
חוקרים כבר ציינו לכל זה רק מתוך ה’מחזור ויטרי’ – על פי כתב היד. ראה למשל:
שד”ל, כרם חמד ג (תקצ”ח), עמ’ 201-202; שי”ר, במכתב שנדפס ע”י
אברהם אליהו הרכבי, זכרון לראשונים ואחרונים, ב, ווינלא תרמ”א, עמ’ 37;
י”ל צונץ, הדרשות בישראל והשתלשלותן ההיסטורית, ירושלים תש”ז, עמ’ 512.
[40] ראה:
מחזור ויטרי, נירנבערג תרפ”ג, ב, [מהדורת ר’ הורוויץ], עמ’ 158 ואילך, עמ’
304- 345 [=מחוזר ויטרי, (מהדורות ר’ גולדשמידט), ב, ירושלים תשס”ד, עמ’ תפג-
תקעד]. וראה ‘פירוש אלפביטין על י”ג פיוטים ארמיים לחג השבועות’, שנדפס
לאחרונה ע”י מנחם שמלצר, מחקרים בביבליוגרפיה יהודית ובפיוטי ימי הביניים,
ירושלים תשס”ו, עמ’ 1-92. על פיוטים אלו ב’מחזור ויטרי’, ראה ישראל מ’ תא-שמע,
כנסת מחקרים, א, עמ’ 77-86.
[41] ראה:
י”ל צונץ, הדרשות בישראל והשתלשלותן ההיסטורית4, ירושלים
תש”ז, עמ’ 194, 512; חיים שירמן, ‘פיוט ארמי לפייטן איטלקי קדמון’, לשוננו כא
(תשי”ז), עמ’ 212-219; שרגא אברמסון, ‘הערות ל’פיוט ארמי לפייטן איטלקי
קדמון’, לשוננו כה (תשכ”א) עמ’ 31-34; יוסף היינימן, עיוני תפילה, ירושלים
תשמ”ג, עמ’ 148-167; אברהם רוזנטל, ‘הפיוטים הארמיים לשבועות’, עבודת גמר
האוניברסיטה העברית תשכ”ו; מנחם שמלצר, מחקרים בביבליוגרפיה יהודית ובפיוטי
ימי הביניים, ירושלים תשס”ו, עמ’ 242-245; י”מ תא-שמע, כנסת מחקרים, א,
ירושלים תשס”ד, עמ’ 77-86; לאחרונה נדפס אוסף של פיוטים בארמית שבו נמצאו בין
השאר פיוטים כרשות למתרגם, ראה: יוסף יהלום ומיכאל סוקולוף, שירת בני מערבא,
ירושלים תשנ”ט. [על חיבור זה ראה מאיר בר-אילן, ‘פיוטים ארמיים מארץ ישראל
ואחיזתם במציאות’, מהות כג (תשס”ב), עמ’ 167-188[.
וראה יונה פרנקל, מחזור לרגלים, שבועות, ירושלים תש”ס, עמ’ 397-564 שם נדפסו
כל הפיוטים ששיך לשבועות.
[42] שלחן תמיד, ירושלים תשס”ד, עמ’ קד, סי’ יט, זר
זהב, אות ג. עליו ראה: אברהם בריק, רבי שלמה חעלמא, ירושלים תשמ”ה.
[43] ספר
המנהגים לר”א טירנא, עמ’ סח. וראה ספר מנהגים לר’ אברהם קלויזנר, עמ’ קכא;
מהרי”ל, עמ’ קסא; אליה רבה סי’ תצד ס”ק ה.
[44] ראה:
אוצר השירה והפיוט, א, עמ’ 347, מספר 7648; שירת בני מערבא, ירושלים תשנ”ט,
עמ’ 110-116; יונה פרנקל, מחזור לרגלים, שבועות, עמ’ 397-400.
[45] יונה
פרנקל, מחזור לרגלים, שבועות, עמ’ 467-469. וראה ר’ שלמה שיק, סדור המנהגים, א,
מונקאטש תר”ם, דף פב ע”ב.
[46]  שם.
[47]  שם, ס”ק ב.
[48]  שם.
[49]  שם, ס”ק ה.
[50]  שלחן שלמה, סי’ תצד סע’ ד.
[51]
שלחן תמיד, ירושלים תשס”ד, עמ’ קד, סי’ יט, אות ב.
[52] משבצות
זהב ס”ק א.
[53] שלחן
ערוך הרב, שם, סעי’ ז
[54]
מליץ יושר, אמשטרדם תקס”ט, דף ה ע”ב. החיבור כולל תקנות
של ר’ אהרן משה יצחק גראנבום שהיה רב בקהילה באמסטרדם. וראה מה שכתב ר’ יצחק בהאג
ב’אור האמת’, נדפס בתוך אוצר החיים ט (תרצ”ג), עמ’ 117. על חיבור זה ראה: ר’
בנימין שלמה המבורגר, הישיבה הרמה בפיורדא, ב, בני ברק תש”ע, עמ’ 355-368; דניאל שפרבר, מנהגי ישראל,  ג, ירושלים תשנ”ה, עמ’ קנח-קנט.
[55] ר’ רפאל גינסבורג, דינים
ומנהגים לבית הכנסת דחברת האחים, ברעסלויא תקצ”ג, עמ’ 14. יש לציין שספר זה
נדיר ביותר ועותק של הספר אינו נמצא בספרייה הלאומית! והעותק שנמצא על האתר של Hebrew
Books חסר עמודים
אלו.
[56]
סי’ קמו: “ולפי מנהגינו שאומרים אקדמות קודם שמתחיל
הכהן…”.
[57]
גליון שו”ע, סי’ תצד: “כי כל המעיין בשער אפרים סוף
התשובה יראה כי כל ראיותיו הם צנומות דקות…”. מעניין מסקנתו זו לאור יחסו
החיובי למנהגי עיר מולדתו פרנקפורט, שכאמור לעיל נהגה דלא כט”ז. ראה מעוז
כהנא, מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר: הלכה והגות לנוכח אתגרי הזמן, ירושלים תשע”ו,
עמ’ 276-282, בענין יחסו לפרנקפורט.
[58]  שער אפרים, שער ד אות טו.
[59]  ר’ דוב ריפמאן, שלחן הקריאה, בערלין 1882, עמ’
158
[60]
סדור המנהגים, א, מונקאטש תר”ם, דף פב ע”ב.
[61] שו”ת
זכר יהוסף, א, סי’ י”ט, דף לב ע”א, ד”ה ובט”ז סי’ תצד.
[62]
עתים לבינה, ווארשא תרמ”ז, עמ’ 254.
[63]
ליקוטי מהרי”ח, ג, ירושלים תשס”ג, דף מז ע”ב.
[64] אדר”ת,
תפלת דוד, ירושלים תשס”ד, עמ’ פה.
[65]  ערוך השלחן, סעי’ ד.
[66] משנה
ברורה ס”ק ב.
[67]
ר’ צבי הירש גראדזינסקי, מקראי קודש, ב, נוי יארק תרצ”ז, עמ’
לג-לד.
[68]
שו”ת תקנת השבים, או”ח, בני ברק תשע”ה, עמ’ קמד:
“וכן נהגו עתה בכל גלילי רוסיא ע”פ גדולי הדור”. וראה לוח עברי
טייטש עם מנהגי בית הכנסת, וילנא תר”פ, עמ’ 30.
[69]
לוח לשנת תרצ”ב, ירושלים תרצ”ב, עמ’ כט.
[70]
שו”ת גבורות אליהו, א, לייקוואוד תשע”ג, עמ’ רסא.
[71]
ספר ארץ ישראל, ירושלים תשט”ו, עמ’ סה. וכ”כ ר’ שמואל
מונק, קונטרס תורת אמך (בסוף שו”ת פאת שדך או”ח, ב, חיפה תשס”א),
אות קפח.
[72] סי’
תצד, בילקוט המפרשים שבסוף שו”ע מהדורת מכון ירושלים.
[73]
סי’ תצד, בגליון רע”א שם.
[74]
 סי’ תצד, בילקוט המפרשים שבסוף שו”ע מהדורת מכון ירושלים.
[75] סי’
תצד. למעשה מסקנתו הוא: “אבל היותר נכון לאומרו קודם ברכה כלל”.
[76] ראה
מחצית השקל, פמ”ג באשל אברהם, ולבושי שרד בסי’ קמו. וראה: ר’ גרשון קבלענץ,
שו”ת קרית חנה, מיץ תקמ”ה, סי’ ז ונדפס ג”כ בשו”ת שבות יעקב,
לר’ יעקב רישר, א, סי’ יב.
[77] ראה ר’ בנימין שלמה המבורגר, ‘גדולי הדורות על משמר מנהג אשכנז’,
בני ברק תשנ”ד, עמ’ 112.
[78]
ראה: מג”א סי’ קכה ס”ק ב וזית רענן דף יט ע”ב, לח
ע”ב, נ ע”ב, ע ע”א, פא ע”ב.
[79] ר’
מאיר א”ש, ב’זכרון יהודה’, ירושלים תשנ”ז, עמ’ פו, שכיוון מעצמו לביאורו
של ר’ וולף היידנהיים, ידע על הרעיון של התרגום
בשבועות מתוך המג”א, כמו שהוא כותב שם.
[80] ביאור
הגר”א, סי’ קמו. אגב יש לומר שהגר”א לשיטתו, השוללת אמירת פיוטים בכלל,
לא מזכיר את אקדמות כלל. וראה מה שכתב ר’ יעקב
שלום סופר, תורת חיים, סי’ קמו ס”ק א.
[81] מגן
אברהם, סי’ תרצ, ס”ק כב. וראה  שו”ת שער אפרים, זולצבאך תמ”ח, סי’ י;
ר’ יוסף שטיינהרט, שו”ת זכרון יוסף, פיורדא תקל”ג, סי’ ה, ד”ה
תשובה; ור’ שמשון מורפורגו, שו”ת שמש צדקה, א, ונציה תק”ג, סי’ יא דברים
חשובים בעניין.
[82] על
מחבר ‘יציב פתגם’: ר’ מנחם קשענסקי, ‘יציב פתגם’, הפלס ה (תרס”ה), עמ’
471-473; י’ דוידזון, אוצר השירה והפיוט, ב, מספר 3577; ר’ ישיעהו זלוטניק,
הצפירה, שנה 67 גליון 119, (1928) 24 מאי, עמ’ 5; ר’ שאול ח’ קוק, עיונים ומחקרים,
ב, ירושלים תשל”ג, עמ’ 203-204; ר’ ראובן מרגליות, עוללות, ירושלים תשמ”ט,
סי’ כג, עמ’ 61- 63; הנ”ל, נפש חיה, סי’ תצ”ד, ובמילואים שם; יצחק
מיזליש, שירת רבינו תם, ירושלים תשע”ב, עמ’ 51-54; ר’ משה אייזיק בלוי, ‘מיהו
יהונתן ביציב פתגם’, קולמוס 63 (תשס”ח), עמ’ 16-18;
E. Kanarfogel, The Intellectual History and
Rabbinic Culture of Medieval Ashkenaz
, Detroit 2013, pp. 393-395.
בענין
אמירת יציב פתגם ראה: אלכסנדר גרעניץ, ‘השערה על דברים אחרים’, המליץ שנה ג (1863)
גלי’ 12 עמ’ 12 (192); פלמוני, ‘יציב פתגם’, עלי הדס, אדעסא תרכ”ה, עמ’
105-107 [מאריך כדעת הט”ז]; יצחק אלבוגן, התפילה בישראל בהתפתחותה ההיסטורית,
תל-אביב תשמ”ח, עמ’ 144; עזרא פליישר, תפילות הקבע בישראל בהתהוותן
ובהתגבשותן, ב, ירושלים תשע”ב, עמ’ 1113, 1093; יונה פרנקל, מחזור לרגלים,
שבועות, ירושלים תש”ס, עמ’ 570-572; הנ”ל, פסח, ירושלים תשנ”ג, עמ’
632-634; ר’ יצחק טעסלער, פניני מנהג, חג השבועות, מונסי תשס”ח, עמ’ תיז-תכ.
[83] ראה:
ר’ מאיר א”ש, ‘זכרון יהודה’, ירושלים תשנ”ז, עמ’ פו; ר’ נתנאל חיים
פאפע, ‘מאמר על אקדמות’, המאסף יא (תרס”ו) חוברת ג סי’ כג, דף לט ע”ב- מ
ע”ב; הנ”ל, ‘אקדמות ויציב פתגם’, וילקט יוסף טו (תרע”ג) קונטרס יט,
עמ’ 148-149, סי’ קע”ה; ר’ פנחס שווארטץ, ניו יורק תשכ”ט, מנחה חדשה,
עמ’ כט-ל; ר’ יהודה ליב דאברזינסקי, שו”ת מנחת יהודה, פיעטרקוב תרפ”ח,
סי’ כג; ר’ עזרא אלטשולר, שו”ת תקנת השבים, או”ח, בני ברק תשע”ה,
עמ’ קמד; ר’ חיים טעסלער, מנהגי חג השבועות, לאנדאן תשע”א, נספח, עמ’ ו-ז;
הנ”ל, ‘הפיוט יציב פתגם’, בתוך: לוח דרכי יום ביומו מונקאטש, לאנדאן
תשע”ב, עמ’ נז-סט.
[84] ‘מחזור
כמנהג רומה’, שונצין קזאל מיורי רמ”ו, מהדורת פקסימיליה, ירושלים תשע”ב,
דף 82 א-ב. וראה מה שכתב ר’ יצחק יודלוב, ‘המחזור כמנהג רומה דפוס שונצינו’, קובץ
מחקרים על מחזור כמנהג בני רומא, בעריכת אנג’לו מרדכי פיאטלי, ירושלים תשע”ב,
עמ’ 19 הערה 32, ועמ’ 27.
[85]
 שם, דף 88א
[86] שם,
דף 90 א.
[87] שם,
דף 93 ב- 94 א.
[88] שם,
דף 97 א-ב.
[89] שם, דף 136 א.
[90]
שם, דף 140ב-141א.
[91] יש
לציין לדברי המקור חיים, סי’ תצד, שאין אומרים בוורמייזא ‘יציב פתגם’ כלל.
[92] שלחן
שלמה, סעי’ ד.
[93] שלחן
ערוך הרב, סעי’ ז.
[94] תפלת
דוד, עמ’ פה.
[95]  משנה ברורה, סי’ תצד ס”ק ב.



Daily Birkat Cohanim in the Diaspora

Daily
Birkat Cohanim in the Diaspora *
By Rabbi Daniel
Sperber
Question: May
Cohanim outside the Land of Israel give the priestly blessing (Birkat
Cohanim
, or Nesiat Kapayim) on weekdays and on regular Shabbatot?
Answer: The
Torah explicitly requires the Cohanim to bless the people (Numbers
6:23), but does not tell us where or when they should do so. Rambam (Sefer
ha-Mitzvot
, Mitzvat Assei 26) who gives no details, but refers us to
B. Megillah 24b, Taanit 
2b, and Sotah 37b, to work out the details. However, there are
versions of the Rambam’s text (edited by R. Hayyim Heller and R. Yosef Kefir)
when there are the additional words “every day”, and this, indeed, is
his ruling in the heading of his Hilchot Tefillah and Birkat Cohanim;
and see further ibid chapter 14, and this also is the ruling in Sefer
ha-Hinuch
, Mitzvah 367. However, there we find the additions that
“the Mitzvah applies in all places at all times…” Hagahot
Maimoniyot,
to Rambam Hilchot tefillah 15:12 note 9 writes, on the
basis of R. Yehoshua ha Levi’s statement in B. Sotah 38b, that any Cohen
who does not bless the people transgresses three commandments, splitting as it
were the biblical verse in Numbers ibid. thus: “So shall you bless
the children of Israel/ say unto them”, adding verse 27 ibid., “And
they shall put my name upon the children of Israel…” The Hagahot
Mordechai
modifies this by adding that if the Cohen has not been summoned
to bless the people, he does not transgress by not doing so, referring to the
Yerushalmi text, and this view is accepted by the Beit Yosef, Orah Hayyim
128. There is also a minority view, rejected by mainstream authorities, that of
Rabbenu Manoah, that even if the Cohen was not called, if he did not bless the
people, he transgresses at least one commandment.
Outside
Israel it is the practice for the Cohanim not to give the priestly blessing, even
though the mitzvah clearly applies abroad (see R. Hayyim Hezkel Medini, Sdei
Hemed
vol.3, p.271, vol.8 pp.177 and 381), and for the congregation not to
request that they do so, – this with the exception of musaf on the
foot-festivals and Yom Kippur – even during Neilah. The Beit Yosef was very
perturbed by this practice. He writes (Orah Hayyim 128):
The Agur wrote that Mahari Kolin [the Maharil] was
asked why the Cohanim do not give the priestly blessing every day, since it is
a positive commandment. And he answered that it was the custom of the priests
to make a ritual ablution [in the Mikvah] before blessing,
* This is
an expanded version of an article published under this title in Conversations
20, 2014, pp.150-155.
as is recorded in Hagahot Mordechai, and to do so
every day in the winter would be very difficult for them.
Hence, the custom evolved to do so only on the
festivals. Furthermore, [doing so] would curtail the business activities (mi-taam
bitul melachah
), and in any case if the Cohen is not summoned he
does not transgress.
However,
the Beit Yosef continues:
He forced himself to justify his local custom; but the
reasoning is insufficient. For that which he said that they were accustomed to
make a ritual oblution every day, this is a stringency – i.e. it is not really
required – which leads to leniency… Since ritual ablution as a requirement for
the priestly blessing is not mentioned in the Talmud. And even if they took
upon themselves this stringency, why would they cancel three commanments, even
if they were not transgressing since they had not been summoned. Surely it
would be better that they carry out these three commandments clearly and not
make the ritual ablutions, since there are not required, and by not doing so
they could fulfill the three commandments.
He ends
by saying:
And praise be to the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael and
all Egypt who give the priestly blessing every day, and do not make ritual
oblutions for it.
Indeed
there are some congregations that still follow the Beit Yosef’s position. Thus,
the Syrian community has birkat Cohanim every day, (see H.C. Dobrinsky, A
treasury of Sephardic Laws and Customs
, Hoboken N.J., New York 1986, p.168).
This too was the Amsterdam custom of the Portuguese community, (Shemtob
Gaguine, Keter Shem Tov, vol.1, Kédainiai 1934, pp.222-227 note 268, who
also quotes Even Sapir, that this was the practice in Yemen, and
possibly in some Moroccan congregations), while in Djerba they did it on
Shabbatot and festivals, (R. Moshe HaCohen, Brit Kehunah, Orah Hayyim,
pp.101-102, and note 30). Thus, there are several precedants for this practice.
However,
the Ashkenazi Rema, R. Mosheh Isserles, in his Darkei Mosheh ibid. 21,
seeks to justify the Ashkenazi custom. He writes:
Because [doing so] would curtail business activities
for the people in these countries, for the Cohenim are struggling to support
themselves in the exile, and they can barely support their families, other than
the bread they gather by the sweat of their brows daily, and they are not
happy. And it is for this reason that they do not carry out the priestly
blessing, which leads to bitel melachah la-am. And even on Shabbat they
do not do so, because they are troubled and concerned about their future…, and
they are only joyful on the festivals. And thus the custom evolved only to
bless the people on the festivals. So it would appear to me.
The
notion that the Cohen must be joyful when blessing the congregation has its
roots in the early Rishonim, (in Rash’s teacher, R. Yitzhak ben Yehudah).
The Mateh
Efraim
, of R. Efraim Zalman Margaliot, added that this was an ancient
practice, even more than five hundred years old, going back to the Tashbetz
ha-Katan, a disciple of the Maharam Mi-Rothenburg, and the Kol Bo
sect.128, and accepted by the Maharit, the Agur, the Darkei
Mosheh
etc., “and one may not stir from this custom” . He also
gives additional reasons to support this custom.
R. Efraim
Zalman Margaliot (1760-1811) in his response, Beit Efraim, Orah Hayyim 6,
Lvov 1818, also suggested that the reason for the absence of birkat Cohanim
abroad is because in our days the pedigree of Cohanim is questionable, and a Zar,
non-Cohen, may not bless the people (see B. Ketubot 24b), and doing so
several times every day would be making a berachah le-vatalah – an idle,
that is to say, unnecessary, blessing, which is forbidden – on numerous
occasions by many people. However, since birkat Cohanim is a mitzvat
aseh
, a positive commandment, and we rule that even in questions of
uncertainty – safek -, when we are dealing with a mitzvat aseh,
we rule le-humra, stringently; and certainly it is superceded by the
seriousness of the mitzvah. Furthermore, if the Beit Efraim‘s
argument were correct, how come the Cohanim abroad do bless the people
on festivals during musaf?  [1]
The
Sefardi Kaf ha-Hayyim, R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, on the other hand (Orah
Hayyim
ibid note 16), cites French R. Yaakov of Marvege, (in his Shut
Min-ha-Shamayim
no.38), who writes that:
In a place where there are suitable Cohanim to bless
the people, and they do not do so even once a year, both the congregation that
do not call them to do so, and the Cohanim themselves, who do not make the
blessing, transgress, also because they seem not to be relying on their Father
in Heaven.
This was
cited by the Egyptian Radbaz, R. David ben Zimra, and especially  the Hesed le-Avraham of R. Avraham
Azulai, who writes at length censuring those who do not bless the people, enumerating
the negative effects of their flawed thinking, concluding that “it be
proper to do so in every place, and not to seek out strategies to avoid doing
so.”
And even
the Ashkenazi Hafetz Hayyim, in his Mishnah Berurah 128:12 in the
Beur Halachah wrote:
It is only because of weekness that the Cohanim can go
out and not go up [to bless the people. For if not so, certainly they are not
acting well to needlessly nulify a positive commandment.
Indeed,
there are some Ashkenazi congregations where they do carry out the priestly
blessing at least once a month, as we learn from the Sefer ha-Miktzoot,
or even every Shabbat, as is mentioned in the Mateh Efraim.
Finally,
we may cite the words of R. Yehiel Michel Epstein, in his Aruch ha-Shulhan,
Orah Hayyim
128:4, who writes:
And behold, it is certainly the case that there is no
good reason to nullify the mitzvah of birkat Cohanim the whole
year long, and [it is] a bad custom. And I have heard that two great
authorities of former generations – probably the Gaon Eliyahu of Wilna and R.
Hayyim of  Volozin – each one wished to
reestablish birkat Cohanim daily in their location, and when they
decided on a given day [to begin], the issue become confused and they did not
succeed, and they said that from Heaven it was thus decreed.
In view
of all the above we may state that Birkat Cohanim does not require
ritual oblution, and in present day diaspora countries, blessing the people
will not effect or curtail any business activities, and people in the diaspora
are not downtrodden nor do they live in permament misery, so that they cannot
be joyful enough to bless the congregation. And according to some opinions
(e.g. the Pri Hadash) even if they are not called to give the blessing,
they may/should do so, (see e.g. Piskei Maharitz, Orah Hayyim vol.1,
Bnei Brak 1987, pp.259-260, with the note of R. Yitzhak Ratzabi ibid. Note 7,
ibid. Beerot Yitzhak). Thus, the reasons given for avoiding giving the
priestly blessing are for the main part largely irrelevant in present-day diaspora
conditions.
On the
other hand, not doing so means not carrying out three positive biblical
commandments, and according to some ,albeit minority, opinions this is also the
case when the congregation does not summon the Cohanim. Some, somewhat mystical
sources also stress the great spiritual benefits of the priestly blessing, and
the considerable negative effect of their absence. Furthermore, we have seen
evidence that in some Ashkenazi communities Birkat Cohanim was practiced
on Shabbatot or monthly, and not merely on the festivals.
Taking
into account all of the above, I would think that nowadays, there is little
justification for not carrying out the priestly blessing daily in our diaspora
congregations.
I would
like again to refer to the Hesed le-Avraham:
מי שאינו
מברך מאבד טובה הרבה ומראה שאינו חפץ במצות ולא חפץ בברכה, ובז לדבר יחבל לו, לכן
הכהן הירא את דבר ד’ ובמצותיו חפץ, לא יעבור מלברך לעשות נחת רוח ליוצרו, כי טוב
בעיני ד’ לברך את ישראל ומה טוב ומה נעים מנהג איזה מקומות, שהכהנים נושאים כפיהם
בכל יום וכן ראוי לנהוג בכל מקום, שלא לבקש תחבולות לבטל מ”ע מן התורה.
To
summarize:
This is a
biblical commandment obligating the Cohanim to bless the people.
Not doing
so means not fulfilling that biblical commandment, and, according to some
authorities, even transgressing three biblical commandments.
Here we
may add yet another element to our discussion. There is a well-known opinion of
R. Eliezer Azikri, in his Sefer Haredim chapter 4 (with the commentary
of R. Yitzhak Leib Schwarz, Kunszentmiklos 1935, p.19), that “those who
stand before the Cohanim in silence and direct their hearts to receive the
benedictions as the words of God, they too are included in the mitzvah
as parts of the 613 [mitzvot]”.
The
commentator, ad loc. (note 18-19) discusses this opinion, printing out that it
is a subject of considerable controversy among the greatest of authorities, but
he quotes the author of the Haflaah, R. Pinhas ha-Levi Horowitz, (in his
notes to Ketubot 24b and Rashi ibid.), that just as there is a
commandment to the Cohanim to bless Israel, so too is there a commandment to
Israel to be blessed by the Cohanim. He states that there are other examples
where the torah, explicitly commands only the active partner and not the
passive recipient, but nonetheless both are obligated. He brings as one example
to mitzvah of yibum which devolves both on the levir (yavam)
as well as the sister-in law (yevamah), even though the Torah
commandment is directed towards the levir alone. The Haredim‘s novum was
widely accepted, even though his source remained to many unclear.
Furthermore,
the Gemara in B. Sotah 38b states in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi, that God
Himself yearns to hear Birkat Cohanim, basing himself on the verse in Numbers
6:27, “And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel; and I will
bless them”, further adding that “Every Cohen who blesses [the
people] is blessed”, and he that does not do so is not blessed”, as
it is written, “And I will bless them that bless thee” (Genesis
12:3).
This view
is already found in a statement of the Tosafist R. Yaakov of Mervege,
Sheelot u-Teshuvot min ha-Shamayim
(ed. R. Reuven Margaliot, Jerusalem
1957, no.37, p.69), already briefly 
cited above, who writes as follows:
I was also uncertain as to those places where there
are Cohanim who are suitable to carry out birkat cohanim and were
accustomed not to do so even once a year. And I asked [advice] concerning this
issue, whether [in their not doing so] there is a transgression, or whether one
can rely upon R. Yaakov who said that the Cohanim are not obligated to bless
other than when the people tell them to do so.
And they [i.e. from Heaven] replied: Both these and
these transgress; namely, the people (literally: Israel who do not tell  them [to bless], and appear not to be  fearful of [the requirement to receive] the
blessing of  Father in Heaven, and the
Cohanim, who do not bless on their own accord the nesiat kapayim, for is
it not written, “And I will bless those that bless thee” (Genesis
12:3), and from the positive [statement] we may deduce the negative, (i.e. that
from the positive statement that God will bless the blessers, we may deduce
that he will curse them that do not bless).
Admittedly
this is an opinion of a Kabbalistic nature, and we do not necessarily rule
accordingly when there is an opposing view of the niglah (the
rationalist position), as is well known. However, this same view was also
indicated in the commentary attributed to the Raavad to Tamid 33b, [2] but
which is actually by the rationalist Tosafist R. Baruch be-R. Yitzhak Vermaiza,
[3]  the 
author of Sefer ha-Terumah. This commentary in this instance
bases itself on (the largely lost) Sefer Miktzoot. [4]  The editor of this commentary pointed out (in
note 48) that this was the view of the Haredim, adding that it was also
noted by R. Zeev Pomeranchik, in his Emek Berachah, Jerusalem 1948,
sect.7, further cited by R. Pinhas Horowitz, in his Sefer Haflaah (to Ketubot
24b), and so also in Hagahot R. Akiva Eiger to Shulhan Aruch, Orah
Hayyim
128:1, and similarly in the Beur Halachah ibid.
It should
however not be overlooked that this point of view was not accepted by all
authorities. Thus, it was questioned by R. Yosef Babad, in his Minhat
Hinuch, Mitzvah
378, (ed. Machon Yerushalayim, vol.3, Jerusalem 1991, p.66)  [5],
basing himself on the Ritba to Sukkot 31b,  [6]  who writes explicitly that there is no
obligation on the part of “Yisrael to be blessed. [7]
Nonetheless,
considering the gravity of the iussue, [8] we
should surely take servious account of the Haredim’s view, appearing as
it does in a number of significant rishonim and aharonim, and not
deprive Am Yisrael in the diaspora from having opportunity to participate in
this important mitzvah.
The
reasons given by the various authorities for not fulfilling this mitzvah
regularly in the diaspora, are, of themselves problematic, but in any case
quite irrelevant to present day diaspora communities. There exist precedents in
different congregations, even outside Eretz-Israel, for daily, weekly or
monthly priestly blessings. [9]
In
Jerusalem and in some parts of Eretz Yisrael the priestly blessing is carried
out daily.
This
being the case, why should we deprive Am Yisrael in the diaspora and its
Cohanim, and even, as it were, God Himself, from the opportunity to participate
in this all important mitzvah?
In view
of all of the above, I see no reason why the daily, or at least weekly,
blessing on the part of the Cohanim not be reinstated in diaspora communities.

[1]  R. Shaar
Yishuv Cohen, Shai Cohen vol.1, Jerusalem 1997, pp.54, discusses this
issue in detail, showing that the view of that a Zar is forbidden to
bless was not mentioned in the Rambam, the Rif and the Rosh,
and that there is no issue of a berachah le-vatalah, etc. We shall not
repeat his detailed argumentation, which is beyond the scope of this study.
[2] Ed. Yair
Goldstoff, Jerusalem 1989, p.131.
[3] See E. E.
Urbach, Baalei ha-Tosafot: Toldotehem, Hibburehem, Shitatam, 2nd
edition, Jerusalem 1980, vol.1, pp.346-361, on this personality. He was a disciple
of Rabbenu Tam (ibid. p. 347 note 13), and definitely of the rationalist
school.
That this commentary is by R. Baruch be.R. Yitzhak was
demonstrated by A. Epstein, in his pamphlet on Sefer Yihusei Tannaim
ve-Amoraim
p.16; Poznansky, Anshei Kairuwan, (Harkavy Festschrift
, Petersburg 1909), p.22; Hayyim Michel, Or ha-Hayyim 2nd
edition, Jerusalem 1965, p.28; M.M. Kasher and Y. Mandelbaum, Sarei ha-Elef
2nd edition, Jerusalem 1979, vol.1, p.330 no.4; vol.2, p.629,
referring also to Eliav Schochetman, Alei Sefer 3, 1979, p.83.
Goldstoff, in his introduction seems to have been quite unaware of all of the
above.
[4]  Ed. Simhah
Assaf, Jerusalem 1947, pp.39-40, no.47. In his note at the end of the passage,
he brings a wealth of bibliographic references, which supplements that which
was cited in the preceding note.
[5]  For some
reason that sentence is bracketed in that edition.
[6]  Ed. Eliyahu
Lichtenstein, Jerusalem 1975, p.97. And see editor’s note 319 ibid.
[7]  The editor
also refers us to R. Avraham Dov Shapira, Dvar Avraham, vol.1,
Warsaw-Pietrokow 1906, sect.31, basing himself on Yerushalmi Megillah
4:8, and cited by the Tosafot in Hagigah 16a, s.v. be-Cohanim,
and the Shiyarei Korban to Nazir 7:1, R. Reuven Margaliot, in his
note ibid., also refers to the Rashba to Sukkah ibid. However,
here I think his albeit (prodigious) memory failed him, since there is no
Rashba to Sukkah, and no doubt he really meant the Ritba. And
perhaps his mistake came about because the Ritba to Sukkah was
first published in Sheva Shitot la-Rashba, Berlin 1757, so that many
authorities mistakenly attributed it to the Rashba. See Lichtenstein’s
introduction, ad init and his note 1.
[8]  We may
further note that this has a lively current discussion in Habad circles. See,
for example, Hearot Ha-Temimim ve-Anash, published by Yeshivat
Tomchei Temimim Lubawitz
ha-Merkazit, Kfar Habad, issues 219-221,
224, 233, 239, and in Pardes Habad 15-18. There the discussion is
primarily directed to Eretz Yisrael. And the case for Eretz Yisrael was argued
very persuasively and in great detail by R. Shaar Yashuv Cohen, in his Shai
Cohen
, vol.1, Jerusalem 1997, pp.3-79. And on p.24 he brings a letter from
the Lubawitch Rebbe, in which he mentions that the Baal ha-Tanya
expressed his desire to reinstitute the daily birkat Cohanim, especially
since in his words this blessing “is rapidly drawn throughout all the worlds,
without prevention or hiderance and with no examination of the forces of
stringency” (Likkutei Torah, Korah ad fin.).  However, despite this, he did not do so for
some unknown reason. And it was for this reason that the Rebbe preferred to let
the existing situation be, rather than reactivating the daily blessing. Very
recently this subject has also been discussed in Mosheh Rahamim Shayo’s Mehkerei
Aretz: Hilchot Birkat Cohanim
Jerusalem 2015, chapter 10, pp.128-129, who,
however, makes no significant novum to the whole issue.
A more comprehensive discussion may be found in Eitan
Shoshan, Minhat Eitan, vol.1, Bnei Brak 2003, sect. 7 note 1, pp.141-144.
He refers us to Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayyim sect.22, who seems to find
support for this view from the Tosafot to Rosh ha-Shanah 16b,
s.v. ve-Tokin; but he notes that in a different responsum, (sect. 167),
he wrote that most decisors are of the opinion that there is no obligation upon
the Yisrael to be blessed. The problem of this apparent contradiction is left
unsolved. The Maharsham, R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron, vol.8, Satmar
1910, sect.25, cites the view of the Ritba, but concludes that,
nonetheless, there is an obligation on the part of the Yisrael, since he
is assisting the Cohen to carry out the mitzvah. (See Bentzion A.
Rabinowitz, Piskei Teshuvot, vol.2, Jerusalem 2002, p.2, note 4.)
Shoshan brings a number of additional sources supporting this view, but also
the opposing position, e.g. Mahari Assad (R. Yehudah Assad) Yehudah
Yaaleh
, Lvov-Petersburg 1873-1880, sect.46, Aruch ha-Shulhan, Orah
Hayyim
128:4; and that this was apparently the view of the Hazon Ish,
according to R. Hayyim Kanievsky, (referring to R. Shalom Yuda Gross, Nesiat
Kapayim ke-Hilchata
p.14). (Incidentally, his references are not altogether
reliable, and his attributions likewise.) Finally, he examines the implications
(nakfa mina) of these two opposing views. And see his summarizing
remarks on p.611.
[9]  Indeed, this
is exactly what R. Y.M. Tycocynsky wrote concerning Eretz Yisrael…”for the
reasons given by the Poskin for abolishing a positive mitzvah
outside Israel every day, and the reasons… because of the need for ritual
ablution and also the problems of livelihood that cause them to be without
being joyful, and birkat Cohanim has to be [carried out] with joy and
good will, since we end the blessing ‘be-ahavah‘, ‘with love’ – [these
reasons] were not sufficient for the greatest of Poskim to abolish a
great mitzvah that [actually] comprises three mitzvot, and
[consequently] they praised the people of Eretz Yisrael who keep this positive
commandment…, (cited by Shaar Yiashuv Cohen, ibid. pp.16-17).



R. Yair Hayyim Bachrach as a Writer of Romance?, A Non-Jewish Song Made Holy, Love (and More) Before and After Marriage, and Memoirs that Maybe Tell Too Much

R. Yair Hayyim Bachrach as a Writer of Romance?, A Non-Jewish Song Made Holy, Love (and More) Before and After Marriage, and Memoirs that Maybe Tell Too Much
Marc B. Shapiro
Continued from here
There is an interesting responsum of R Yair Hayyim Bacharach, Havot Yair, no. 60, that deals with a man and woman who were in love and get married despite the strong opposition of the woman’s father. The story is quite romantic. It describes how during an epidemic in Worms in 1636 the beautiful and intelligent only daughter of one of the rich leaders of the local Jewish community falls ill. There is a man who had fallen in love with her and wants to take care of her in her illness. We are told that this man is tall and handsome, yet he comes from “the other side of the tracks” (i.e., from the lower class). He is able to get the agreement of both the father and daughter that if he takes care of the woman, which would be at great personal risk to himself, and she recovers, that they will marry. The woman indeed recovers but the man himself becomes sick, and the roles are reversed. The woman now takes care of him, which is only fitting since he caught the illness taking care of her. She too has fallen in with him and fortunately he survives, meaning that they are now able to marry. However, the father wishes to go back on his side of the agreement, which obligated him to provide a dowry, and that is the halakhic matter that the responsum focuses on.

Elchanan Reiner has argued that the entire story is a fiction, and what R. Bacharach, one of the most important 17th century halakhic authorities, has done is create a love story in line with the romantic stories that were appearing at this time in general literature. The story can therefore be seen as similar to a parable that is created for use in a sermon.[1]
The story R. Bacharach records is about a woman, indeed an only daughter, from a rich and important family. On the other side you have a poor man with no financial future. These are two people who in traditional Jewish society (and general society as well) normally would never be allowed or even want to come together. Yet because of the unusual circumstances of the epidemic, the man who dreams of the woman he could normally never have, is able to arrange a way to spend time with her and cross the boundary that otherwise would have kept them apart.
In the end we are inspired to see how love conquers all. For the sake of love the woman defies her father and gives up all the wealth that would be hers if she would only listen to her father and reject what her heart is telling her. It is a case of love vs. money, position, and power, and love wins. R. Bacharach mentions that when the father refuses to allow the marriage, the daughter says to him שעל כל פנים תזדקק לו הן בהיתר הן באיסור. What this means is that she threatens her father that if he doesn’t allow her to marry the man she loves, that she will be with him, i.e., sleep with him, anyway. For his part, the father says that he will not give her a dowry, and in the end ולקחה המשרת חנם. In other words, they married, but without any money from her father. They did what virtually no one else in 17th century Jewish society did. They married for love, choosing their own partners, without concern for status or money. According to Reiner, what R. Bacharach has given us in abridged form is nothing less than a Jewish version of Romeo and Juliet or West Side Story.
The late R. Raphael Posen responded to Reiner’s article, rejecting completely the latter’s hypothesis.[2] He acknowledges that the case described in R. Bacharach’s responsum may be theoretical, and notes that there are many such theoretical cases in the responsa literature. As for the romantic elements in the responsum, he states that in responsa one can find much “juicier” stories than the one discussed by Reiner, and there are also cases of lovers’ entanglements from completely different eras. Posen refers in particular to two responsa that appear in the Tashbetz. These responsa predate R. Bacharach by a couple of centuries. They also were written in North Africa, a place that did not have the sort of romantic literature that according to Reiner was the model for R. Bacharach’s responsum.
Reiner has a short and somewhat biting response to Posen.[3] He states that Posen’s article shows the very mentality that created the need for R. Bacharach to “cover up”, as it were, the love story he inserted into his responsa.
לא ניתן היה להעלות על הדעת דוגמא טובה הימנו להציג לקורא את פניה התרבותיים של השכבה החברתית שמפניה היה על חיים יאיר [!] בכרך מוורמס להסתיר לכאורה את סיפורו: שכבה העשויה מתלמידי חכמים בינוניים ובעלי בתים למדנים למחצה, הקוראים את הטקסט באופן חד ממדי, מפרשים אותו פירוש אחד ויחיד, שאינו סוטה מערכי היסוד הבסיסיים ביותר של סביבתם.
Reiner also states that what upset Posen was that Reiner’s portrayal of R. Bacharach diverges from the standard portrayal of “gedolei Torah” in that Reiner assumes that R. Bacharach was aware of the world around him and responded with originality to its intellectual challenges. Reiner obviously did not know Posen, as he assumed that Posen was an unsophisticated haredi ideologue with no appreciation for complexity in great rabbinic figures. The truth is that Posen, who represented the best of the German Orthodox tradition, was the exact opposite of this, as anyone can see by examining his essays in Ha-Ma’yan and elsewhere. As for the substance of the dispute between Reiner and Posen, I would love to hear which side readers come down on.
Regarding love prior to marriage, which we also discussed in the last post, it is noteworthy that there is a non-Jewish song focused on this theme that was turned into a religious song. Here is a Yiddish version of the original song, recorded by R. Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald. It would have originally been sung in German or Hungarian [4]
וואַלד, וואַלד, ווי גרויס ביסטו
ראָזא, ראָזא, ווי ווייט ביסטו
וואָלט דער וואַלד ניט גרויס געווען
וואָלט דאָך מיין ראָזא נענטער געווען
וואָלט מען מיך פון וואַלד אַרויסגענומען
וואָלטן מיר זיך ביידע צוזאַמענגעקומען
This translates as:
Forest, Forest, how large you are,
Rosa, Rosa, how distant you are,
If the forest was not so large,
My Rosa would be closer,
If I would be taken out of the forest,
We would both come together.
By changing only a few words, R. Isaac Taub, the Kaliver Rebbe (1744-1828) turned this love song into a religious song, the title of which is גלות, גלות.[5]
גלות, גלות, ווי גרויס ביסטו
שכינה, שכינה, ווי ווייט ביסטו
וואָלט דער גלות ניט גרויס געווען
וואָלט דאך די שכינה נענטער געווען
וואָלט מען מיך פון גלות ארויסגענומען
וואָלטן מיר זיך ביידע צוזאַמענגעקומען
All this is well known in the hasidic world. It is so well known that one can only wonder how R. Yaakov Moshe Hillel could attempt to deny what I have just mentioned. In his Va-Yashav ha-Yam,[6] R. Hillel states, “Heaven forbid” to believe that any love songs were ever turned into religious songs by great rabbis:
(וכן מה שמפיצים שמועות כאלו על גדולים אחרים שהיו שומעים מהגוים שירי עגבים ומעתיקים אותם אל הקדושה, להלחין עליהם גם שירות ותשבחות גם קדישים וקדושות) אנא דאמינא ולא מסתפינא דחלילה להאמין כזה על גדולי ישראל שכבר כתבנו לעיל דלדעת כל הפוסקים אסור לשמוע שירי עגבים, ובעצם השמיעה לבד יש איסור, ואיך יתכן שגדולי ישראל יתעסקו בדברים מכוערים כאלו, חלילה להעלות כן על הדעת.
I have often written about how people are sometimes so convinced of something that when they are confronted with an alternative perspective in the writings of authoritative sages or in a report by a trustworthy person, they argue that the text is a forgery or the report is fraudulent, because gadol X never could have said or done such a thing. The situation with R. Hillel is even beyond this. The fact that the Kaliver Rebbe took a love song and turned it into a religious song is something that is known by all pretty much all educated Hungarian Hasidim (and not only Hasidim). It is worth noting that he didn’t just take the tune and add religious words, which is the case with other songs taken from the non-Jews. He actually kept the words, just changing a few of them.[7] Yet R. Hillel refuses to believe any of this. R. Hillel is a Sephardic Jew from India who probably knows close to zero about the history of Hasidism. Yet somehow he feels that he can declare that all the people who know the truth about this matter are not only incorrect, but are also degrading the honor of the Kaliver Rebbe.
Regarding love between husband and wife, I found an interesting passage from R. Levi Yitzhak of Berditchev.[8] He asks, why does the Torah tell us that Isaac loved Rebekkah? He answers that there are two ways a man loves his wife. One is that he loves her because of his physical lusts, “and this means that she is not his wife at all, rather, he [really] loves himself.” The other way of loving ones wife is because she is the “vessel” by which he can fulfill God’s commandments,[9] just like a person loves other mitzvot. “This is what it means that Isaac loved her, because he didn’t think at all about his physical desires, but was only intent on fulfilling God’s commandments.”
ויש אדם שאוהב אשתו ואינו מחמת תאות גוף שימלא תאותו רק מחמת שהיא כלי לקיים על ידה מצות הבורא ית’ שמו כמו שאדם אוהב שאר מצות וזה נקרא אוהב את אשתו וזהו ויאהבה יצחק שלא חשב כלל מחמת תאות הגוף שלו רק כדי לקיים מצות הבורא ית’ שמו ויתעלה זכרו.
R. Daniel Eidensohn has called attention to a similar approach attributed to the Baal Shem Tov, that you should love your wife as you love your tefillin. That is because with each of them you have the opportunity to fulfill mitzvot. See here. I don’t think this sort of interpretation will find much appeal in modern times, as it completely ignores the most obvious, and most important, type of love from husband to wife, which one hopes is present in every marriage. In fact, it is not only in modern times that such an interpretation would not be appealing, as all of the pre-modern sources that speak about loving one’s wife are indeed referring to real love.
R. Levi Yitzhak’s stress on love of one’s wife since she gives one the ability to perform mitzvot (i.e., purely utilitarian) is also at odds with other hasidic sentiments. For example, there is a famous story about a hasidic rebbe who was ill. A Lithuanian rabbi came to visit him late one night. He knocked on the door and when the rebbe answered the door, the rabbi said, “I have come to fulfill the mitzvah of bikur cholim”. The rebbe replied, “It is very late now, and I am tired and not in the mood to be the cheftza for your mitzvah.” This story is told among hasidim as a way to knock the non-hasidim. The lesson is that the Lithuanian rabbi should have come to visit the rebbe because he had the basic human emotion of wanting to show empathy to another who was suffering. Instead, he showed that this was foreign to his way of thinking, and his primary goal was simply to fulfill the mitzvah. And for that, the rebbe was not interested in taking part.
Since we are talking about love, I can’t resist sharing the following story told about R. Jacob Lorberbaum of Lissa. Like all of these types of stories, we can’t say if it actually occurred, but the fact that it is told is itself significant even if in this case I find it hard to believe that the sentiments expressed would be widely shared by any group. The story is found in R. Israel Beckmeister’s Ahavat Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1976), pp. 49-50.

According to the story, a student once came to R. Lorberbaum and told him that since his wife hadn’t given birth in ten years he wished to divorce her. R. Lorberbaum asked him what his wife says about this, and he replied that she doesn’t want to be divorced as she loves him greatly. He also added that he too loves his wife greatly. R. Lorberbaum told him that he shouldn’t love her so much, and he should return home and God would grant him a child.
The student could not understand what R. Lorberbaum was telling him, since how could he tell a husband not to love his wife so much. When he returned home his wife asked him what R. Lorberbaum said, and he replied sharply that it does not concern her. This led to an argument and he slapped his wife, causing her to faint and leading to a great rift between them. The wife’s parents intervened and they were able to make peace between the couple, and following this the wife became pregnant and had a son.
R. Lorberbaum, who served as sandak, asked his student if he followed what he told him, i.e., not to love his wife so much. The student replied that he did, and that he also slapped her. R. Lorberbaum told him that the slap was too much, but that he should know that the scientists have stated that if a husband and wife are very much alike they cannot have children. Thus, when he heard that his student and his wife loved each other greatly, he understood why they couldn’t have children, and that is why he told the student that he shouldn’t love her so much. In other words, only if there is some distance between them will they be able to have children. (The nonsense that earlier generations believed in never ceases to amaze me. I realize, of course, that future generations might think the same about us.)
Another relevant text is found in R. Hayyim ben Betzalel of Friedberg’s Sefer ha-Hayyim. As part of my Torah in Motion tour of Germany this summer, we are going to Friedberg. The most famous of the rabbis of Friedberg was R. Hayyim ben Betzalel, the brother of the Maharal and a great scholar in his own right. In preparation for the trip I am reading material by and about R. Hayyim, and the following is one of the fascinating things I found.
In his Sefer ha-Hayyim,[10] R. Hayyim notes that the demons want to connect themselves with scholars or even with any men. However, this is difficult since men are on the highest spiritual level, and thus distant from the demons. Therefore, the demons connect themselves to women who are on a lower spiritual level than men, and thus closer to the demons. In other words, at the bottom you have demons, women are above them, and men stand at the top. As R. Hayyim explains, both demons and women share an important characteristic, namely, that they are naturally defective: חסירי היצירה. As proof for this contention about women, he cites Sanhedrin 22b:
אשה גולם היא ואינה כורתת ברית אלא למי שעשאה כלי
“A woman [before marriage] is a shapeless lump, and concludes a covenant only with him who transforms her [into] a [useful] vessel.”
The fact that the Talmud refers to a woman as a “shapeless lump” is proof for R. Hayyim that she is on a lower level than a man, and this basic division is not altered after marriage.
This then leads R. Hayyim to call attention to Exodus 22:17 which states מכשפה לא תחיה, “Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.” He asks, why is only a sorceress mentioned, and not a sorcerer מכשף? He also calls attention to Avot 2:8, מרבה נשים מרבה כשפים, “The more wives, the more witchcraft,” which also makes the connection of sorcery to women. R. Hayyim explains that because of the closeness of women and demons the Torah was concerned that women would seek to “go down” and achieve completeness by connecting themselves with the demonic forces below them. This wasn’t such a worry when it came to men since they were “two levels above” the domain of the demons.
All of this is quite interesting, and R. Hayyim ben Betzalel was very happy with this explanation (which must be causing some readers to pull their hair out.) After offering it he expressed pride in what he wrote:
והנה לא קדמני אדם בפירוש זה והוא ענין נכון אצלי.
So what does this have to do with what I have been discussing in the post? R. Hayyim warns men not to be too connected to women (which includes their wives) since this will mean that they are trying to complete themselves and find perfection by means of someone who is on a lower level than them. I believe this to be in complete opposition to the modern romantic notion that men and women can be soulmates, for one cannot be a soulmate with one whose soul is literally on a lower level.[11]
Since I mentioned love between future husbands and wives, I should also note that there was concern that because young men and women were engaged, that they might initiate a physical relationship before the marriage. This explains the takkanot in Candia (1238) and Corfu (1663) forbidding an engaged man to even enter the house of his future father-in-law (where his fiancée lived).[12] The Corfu takkanah also states that an engaged woman is not permitted to be in the house of her future husband. The Corfu takkanah does make an exception that a month before the wedding the man and woman can be in the homes of their future in-laws. This is because there are wedding plans that need to be taken care of. But the takkanah specifies that the engaged couple must not be left alone.

The Candia takkanah states that if for some reason the man has to enter his future father-in-law’s home, he has to bring two men with him to act as his “guards”. The only exception to this rule is if the young man is studying Torah with his future father-in-law. In that case he can be at the home, since “the study of Torah is such as to weaken the force of the tempter.”

Solomon Buber records a 1776 oath signed by a man in Lvov declaring that he will not enter the house of his future bride under any circumstanced.[13] This was no doubt required by the rabbi. According to the text of the oath, if the man violates his pledge

אהיה נדון כעובר על השבועה בכל מיני עונשין וקנסים עצומים וחרפות ובזיונות בלי שום המלטה בעולם
R. Jonathan Eybeschuetz, in a sermon delivered in Metz in 1744, declared that “from this point on” he would only write a betrothal contract if the man and woman give their solemn agreement not to touch one another until after the wedding.[14]
As is clear from the sermon of R. Eybeschuetz just referred to,[15] many engaged couples were ignoring the law of negiah. Even Mendelssohn did not follow it, as we see from a letter he wrote to his fiancée. “Even the kisses that I stole from your lips were mixed with some bitterness, for the approaching separation made me heavy of heart and incapable of enjoying a pure pleasure.”[16]
In his autobiography, R. Leon Modena records the following about his young fiancée who was on her deathbed. He was 19 years old at the time.
On the day she died, she summoned me and embraced and kissed me. She said, “I know that this is bold behavior, but God knows that during the one year of our engagement we did not touch each other even with our little fingers. Now, at the time of death, the rights of the dying are mine. I was not allowed to become your wife, but what can I do, for thus it is decreed in heaven. May God’s will be done.”[17]
This story reminded me of an incident R. Jacob Emden records in his autobiography, although the details are entirely different. The translation of this lengthy passage is by Jacob J. Schacter in his outstanding dissertation on R. Emden.[18]
A miracle also occurred to me, especially relevant to matters spiritual. (It was) a miracle similar to that of Joseph the righteous and (even) slightly more so. I was a young man, tender in years, in the full strength of my passion. I had been separated from my wife for a long time and greatly desired a woman. A very pretty unmarried young girl who was my cousin happened to meet me there and was alone with me. She brazenly demonstrated great love to me, came close to me and almost kissed me. Even when I was lying in my bed, she came to cover me well on the couch, in a close loving manner. Truthfully, had I hearkened to the advice of my instinct she would not have denied my desire at all. Several times it (indeed) almost happened, as a fire (consumes) the chaff. Frequently there was no one in the house with me but her. They (i.e. the members of her family) were also not accustomed to come for they stayed in the store on the marketplace, occupied with their livelihood all day. Had God not given me great strength, the excellency of dignity and the excellency of power (Gen. 49:3), to overcome my fiery instinct which once almost forced me to do its bidding, (and) were it not for the grace of God which was great upon me, (I would have been unable) to withstand this very powerful temptation, greater than all temptations. I was a man at the prime of my strength and passion. There was a very pleasant beautiful woman before me who demonstrated for me all manner of love and closeness many times. She was related to me, unmarried, a tender child and recently widowed. She may have been ritually pure or would have ritually purified herself had I requested it. If I had wanted to fulfill my passionate desire for her, I was absolutely certain that she would not reveal my secret. I controlled my instinct, conquered my passion and determined to kill it. My heart was hollow and I did not . . . Blessed be the Lord who gives strength to the weary for I was saved from this flaming fire.
Schacter does not translate the next sentence in the memoir in which R. Emden expresses the wish that as a reward for standing firm, he and his descendants until the end of time will be protected from sexual temptation.
Here are the pages from the Warsaw 1896 edition of Megilat Sefer, pp. 82-83.
In 2012 a new edition of Megilat Sefer appeared, edited by R. Avraham Yaakov Bombach. Here is page 106 from this edition.
As you can see, the Bombach edition has omitted the entire story R. Emden tells. While R. Emden thought it was important for people to know about how he overcame his evil inclination, and he therefore recorded it for posterity, Bombach obviously felt that this is “too much information.” Instead of discussing the significance (and strangeness) of R. Emden allowing us entry into his most personal memories, Bombach chooses the other path and censors that which he is uncomfortable with.
On the other hand, in the introduction to the recently published memoir of the Sephardic scholar, R. Joseph Hayyim Abuhbut,[19] the editor calls attention to the very passage I have quoted, and which was censored by Bombach. He notes how much value the reader can derive from this passage in seeing how R. Emden was able to overcome temptation.
מה מאוד מופלאים הם דברי הגאון יעב”ץ זצ”ל . . . כמה תועלת תצמח לקורא כאשר יווכח לראות באיזה נסיונות נתנסה זה האיש המרעיש ארץ, מי מילל ומי פילל.
R. Elijah Rabinowitz-Teomim mentions in his autobiography that he lived in the home of his future father-in-law together with the girl he was engaged to.[20] At that time he was around sixteen years old and she was under fifteen. He mentions that she was in love with him: והיא דבקה אחרי בלבה. As with R. Emden, he makes a point of telling us that although he engaged in much conversation with her, as they had become very close (“like brother and sister”), he never touched her in all the time he lived in her home. Unlike R. Emden who tells us how much he was tempted and that he “greatly desired a woman,” R. Rabinowitz-Teomim tells us that his relationship with the girl was purely platonic, and he never even thought about her in a sexual way. 
בשלהי שנת תרי”ט העתיק אאמו”ר ז”ל משכנו לעיר ראגאלי ועמו יצאו כל ב”ב, ונשארתי לבדי בשילעל בבית המחותן . . . בכל משך היותי בבית המחותן לא הייתי רחוק מהמשודכת והיינו מדברים זע”ז, ובשגם אחרי נסע בית אאמו”ר ז”ל משם ונשארתי בבית אביה, כל היום, והיא דבקה אחרי בלבה, כאשר ראיתי וידעתי גם שמעתי כי יקרתי בעיני’. . . היינו קרובים זה לזה כאח לאחות, לשוחח כנהוג בבני הנעורים, אבל לא עלה לבי על דבר אחר, חלילה, ולא נגעתי בה אפילו באצבע קטנה כל משך שבתי עמהם, כדת שלת תורה.
So we have three memoirs by leading rabbis, all of which mention them with a girl. Both R. Emden and R. Rabinowitz-Teomim feel it is important to inform the reader that they never touched the girl. As we have seen, R. Emden was very proud of how he overcame his evil inclination and that is why he tells the story. I don’t know why R. Rabinowitz-Teomim thought it was important to mention the matter, especially as no one would have assumed that he had any physical contact before marriage.
I found another interesting source in R. Eleazar Kalir’s Havot Yair.[21] R. Kalir, who died in 1801, was the rabbi in Kolín, today in the Czech Republic. He discusses the common phenomenon of engaged couples having physical contact, and he tells us that no rebuke can stop the practice. He also says that the fault for this must be placed mostly upon the parents, since they are happy to see this behavior by the engaged couple and thus make no efforts to stop it.
בעו”ה רבו המספחת זו בישראל שתיכף אחר התקשורת התנאים, החתן הולך אל הכלה ואינו נזהר מח”ו [חיבוק ונישוק], והיא גם היא אסור לו משום נדה שהיא בכרת . . . ובעו”ה הדבר הזה הוא כמנהג הקבוע, ואולי הוא ממנהגות סדום ודור המבול שהשחיתו את דרכם, והיתר זה אינו בא רק כמאמרם, עבר ושנה נעשו לו כהיתר, ובעו”ה אין התוכחה מועלת בזה, שאמר יאמר מה בכך, שאני הולך אל הכלה שלי, שהיא המיועדת לי, על זה סיים הנביא וכלה מחופתה שאינה נקראת כלה אלא לאחר חופתה, ואז רשאי ליחד עמה, ואמרו כלה בלא ברכה אסורה לבעלה כנדה, וק”ו בעודה לא טהרה מטמאת נדתה.
ולא על החתן לבד יש להתלונן אלא ביותר על אבותיהם שרואים דבר זה, ולא די שהם שותקים אלא אף משמחים אלי גיל בראותן מעשים הללו בעיניהן ממש כצאן לטבח יובל . . . והוא מסייע ידי עוברי עבירה, בראותו תולדותיו כיוצא בזה ולא די דאינו מוחה אלא אף מסייע לדבר עבירה, ואדרבה מוטל על האבות להיות מוחים ובפרט מי שסיפק בידו לעשות.
Elsewhere in his book, we see that R. Kalir told his female congregants that on Shabbat morning they should leave the synagogue and go home before the end of services. This was to prevent men and women mixing which would happen if the women were still there when services ended.[22] It is hard to believe that he found much of a receptive audience for this request.
To Be Continued
1. In my last post I mentioned Maxine Jacobson’s new book on R. Leo Jung. Anyone who is interested in purchasing a soft-cover copy of the book for $25 can contact her directly at maxine.jacobson at sympatico.ca.

2. One of the most prolific authors of halakhic works in English is Rabbi Ari Enkin. His most recent book (which is his eighth such publication) is Halichot V’halachot. Anyone who is interested in modern issues and their halakhic ramifications will enjoy this book and his previous volumes. The topics he discusses run the gamut, from Shabbat and holidays, to kashrut, interpersonal issues, and civil and monetary law. As one can see from the numerous references in each essay, Rabbi Enkin has great erudition in the responsa literature, particularly the modern halakhic authorities. He cites these authorities no matter which ideological camp they are found in, and as such should be a model for all. Those who wish to order the book can contact the author at rabbiari at hotmail.com. His website is here.

3. On June 5, 2016, in honor of Yom Yerushalayim, I will be speaking at the Community Synagogue of Monsey, 89 West Maple Avenue. The title of my talk is “R. Shlomo Goren: The Revolutionary Chief Rabbi.” The talk will follow minhah which is at 8:15pm.

[1] See Reiner, מעשה שאירע בק”ק ווירמייש”א ברעש הגדול שנת שצ”ו, Ha-Aretz, Oct. 4, 2006, available here.
[2] See Posen, מגדלים פסיכולוגיסטיים, Ha’aretz, Oct. 17, 2006, available here.
[3] See Reiner, שערי פירושים לא ננעלו, Ha’aretz, Oct. 24, 2006, available here.
[4] Toyznt yor Idish lebn in Ungarn ([New York, 1945]), p. 173.
[5] See ibid.
[6] Vol. 2, no. 7 (p. 145).
[7] See R. Avraham Mordechai Katz, “Be-Inyan Shirat Nigunim ha-Musharim Etzel ha-Goyim,” Minhat ha-Kayitz 8-11 (2006), pp. 73-74, who makes this point and responds to R. Hillel. Regarding using non-Jewish music, Dov Weinstein called my attention to this shiur on the Yeshivat Kise Rahamim website which begins with music from Abba’s song “Dancing Queen.” I can’t imagine that the person who inserted the music has any clue where it comes from.
The Kise Rahamim website is where you can find R. Meir Mazuz’s shiurim, but a number of short videos are not included on the website. For example, this video appeared on Yom ha-Zikaron 2016:



R. Mazuz refers to the day as “kadosh ve-nora” and calls for synagogues to recite the prayer for Israeli soldiers every Shabbat. As he notes, if someone donates ten shekalim you make a blessing for him, so how could you not make a blessing for one who spills his blood for the Jewish people? I understand full well why haredim don’t say the prayer for the State of Israel. Yet I have never understood how haredi society could refuse to recite a mi-sheberakh prayer for the soldiers, the same soldiers who are the only reason why there can be a haredi society in Israel in the first place. Interestingly enough, in all the conversations over the years that I have had with haredim regarding this matter, to my recollection I have never met one who agreed with, or was willing to defend, his community’s avoidance of the prayer. (I am referring to mainstream haredim, not Satmar or other anti-Zionists.)

[8] Kedushat Levi (Warsaw, 1902), p. 15b, s.v. ויביאה יצחק
[9] The text has מצות which could be read as singular or plural.
[10] (Jerusalem, 1993), p. 153 (Sefer Selihah u-Mehilah, ch. 10). See Byron Sherwin, “In the Shadows of Greatness: Rabbi Hayyim Ben Betsalel of Friedberg,” Jewish Social Studies 37 (Winter 1975), pp. 49-50.
[11] Since this post has dealt a good deal with love, let me add one more point about a different sort of love. There is an old question, why when the kohanim bless the people do they say וצונו לברך את עמו ישראל באהבה? Where do we find that the kohanim were told to bless the people “with love”?  A number of different answers have been given, and one famous answer, intended as a joke, is as follows.
Before giving us the text of the priestly blessing , the Torah, Numbers 6:23, states:
דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמור, כה תברכו את בני ישראל אמור להם.
This word, אמור, sounds a lot like the French and Italian words for love, so we see that God is telling the kohanim to love the people.
As mentioned, this is a famous answer. Not so famous is that it was actually stated by R. Leon Modena with reference to Italian. He, of course, also intended it as a joke. See Ziknei Yehudah, no. 127:
ואמרתי על דרך צחות דכתיב כה תברכו אב”י אמו”ר להם אמור בלע”ז היינו באהבה.
[12] See Louis Finkelstein, Jewish Self Government in the Middle Ages (New York, 1964), pp. 271-272, 279, 320-321.
[13] Solomon Buber, Anshei Shem (Cracow, 1895), p. 132.
[14] See Ya’arot Devash (Jerusalem, 1988), vol. 1, p. 62, s.v. ואתם עם ה’. The last three sources I have cited are mentioned by Salo Wittmayer Baron, The Jewish Community (Philadelphia, 1942), vol. 3, p. 206. For other relevant sources, see David Biale, Eros and the Jews (Berkeley, 1997), pp. 70ff.
[15] See Ya’arot Devash, vol. 1, pp. 61, 62
[16] Alexander Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn (Portland, 1998), p. 93.
[17] The Autobiography of a Seventeeth-Century Venetian Rabbi, trans. Mark R. Cohen (Princeton, 1988), p. 91.
[18] “Rabbi Jacob Emden: His Life and Major Works” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), pp. 55-57.
[19] Meoraot Yosef (Elad, 2014), p. 14 (first pagination).
[20] Seder Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 1983), pp. 22-23.
[21] (Jerusalem, 2004). p. 76.
[22] Ibid., p. 75.



The Pros and Cons of Making Noise When Haman’s Name is Mentioned: A historical perspective (updated)

The Pros and Cons of Making Noise
When Haman’s Name is Mentioned: A historical perspective (updated)
By:
Eliezer Brodt
Severalweeks before Purim, one can already see children of various ages playing with cap guns and other loud noisemakers. All of this is done in the spirit of preparing for the laining of the Megillah and the noise that will be made whenever the name of Haman is mentioned—sort of like reviewing the halachos of Yom Tov 30 days before the chag!
On a more serious note, what are the reasons for the minhag of “banging” whenever the name of Haman is said? In this article I will try to trace some of the sources and their various aspects.[1] This post first appeared last year as an article in Ami Magazine; the current version contains many additions to that article. A much more expanded version of this article will appear in Hebrew (IY”H) in the future.
According to the Yerushalmi, one should say “arur Haman ubanav, Haman and his children should be cursed, but it does not specify when. It then mentions that R’ Yonasan would curse Nevuchadnetzar after he was mentioned during the Megillah.[2] However, in Masechtas Sofrim, where this is also brought down, it says that “arur Haman ubanuv” was said after the Megillah was read. From this it is clear that the reason for saying this is the pasuk in Mishlei, that when one mentions the name of a tzaddik he should say “zecher tzaddik livrachah” and “shem reshaim yirkav” whenever an evil person is mentioned.[3]  Today, the practice is to say “arur Haman ubanav after the Megillah, during the piyyut Asher Heini[4], and specifically when its most famous stanza is recited, Shoshanas Yaakov.[5] In fact, this might be what the Gemara is referring to when it says one should be intoxicated to the point of not knowing the difference between “arur Haman” and “baruch Mordechai.”[6]
The Manhig writes that in Spain the custom was to say “arur Haman baruch Mordechai” after the Megillah reading. The children in France and Provence had a custom to write Haman’s name on the bottom of rocks and bang them together in fulfillment of ““shem reshaim yirkav.”[7] From this source it would appear that this was done specifically by children and each and every time Haman’s name was mentioned.
Rav Aharon Hakohen Miluneil (d. 1330) in his work Orchos Chaim adds that the children of France and Provence did this for the additional reason of fulfilling “macho timcheh es zecher Amalek,” but does not specify when this was done. It appears that this was simply a custom that was done on Purim although not necessarily during the Megillah, reading. [8]
The Avudraham mentions the custom from the Manhig and adds that there is a source in the Midrash saying that one should erase Amalek from wood and stones.[9]
The Sefer HaAsufot cites another Midrash (which we don’t have) to show that the children banged on the wall when Haman’s name was mentioned.[10]  The Shibolei Haleket writes that some people in Italy had the custom of stamping their feet, banging stones and breaking pots, after which everyone would get up and thank Hashem for saving the nation;[11] he writes that while it is not obligatory, it is a good custom. It appears that this was done by everyone, not only the children.
From the Sefer Hatadir, it appears that “children who were zealous to do mitzvos” would break pots when Haman and Zeresh were mentioned.[12] It seems from both of these Italian sources that it was not done during the Megillah reading, but neither gives a reason for this custom.
In yet another Italian source, the Machzor Kiminhag Roma printed by Soncino in 1485-1486, we find that they would
smash pots when the piyyut was recited after the Megillah, but during the Megillah laining they would stamp their feet, clap
their hands and make other sounds. It’s also clear that this was done by everyone.[13]
A bit later, R’ Yehudah Aryeh Modena (1571-1648) wrote about Italy that some would bang when Haman’s name was said.[14]
R’ Zalman of St. Goar, in his work Sefer Maharil, writes that he observed that his Rebbe, the Maharil, did not bang when Haman’s name was said.[15] The Rama brings this down in his Darchei Moshe.[16] Various Acharonim have different explanations as to why the Maharil did not bang.[17] There is, however, a manuscript written by the Maharil’s son saying that his
father did indeed bang when Haman’s name was mentioned.[18]
R’ Avraham Saba writes that some have the custom to bang two stones together, based on the words “vehayah im bin hakos harasha,” as the final letters of the first three words spell Haman[19]. This remez is also brought by the Sifsei Kohen Al Hatorah[20], Minchah Beilulah[21], Levush[22] and Mateh Moshe.[23]
The Rama writes that there was custom among children to make a picture of Haman or write his name on wood or rocks
and erase them in fulfillment of “macho timcheh” and “shem reshaim yirkav.” From this they developed the custom of banging during the Megillah reading, and one should not abolish or belittle any custom because there was a good reason for it being established.[24] In Darchei Moshe he writes that his source is from the Manhig as quoted by the Avudraham.
In the very popular Yiddish book by R’ Shimon Ginsburg, first printed in 1590, we find the custom of the children “banging”[25]. Similarly, the Levush also writes that we should keep this custom, as does the Magen Avraham.[26] The Levush then says that when Haman’s name is mentioned one should actually say “shem reshaim yirkav”[27]. At first glance this appears to be a big chiddush, as talking during the Megillah reading is a hefsek. The Mishnah Berurah[28] and Rav Moshe Feinstein conclude that one should not say this during the Megillah.[29] However, after quoting the Levush, the Magen Avraham writes “see Midrash Rabbah about Nevuchadnetzar”.[30] The Magan Avrhom is referring to the Medrash we quoted in the beginning, of Esther which says R’ Yonasan would curse Nebucadnetzar after it was mentioned during the Megilah. So from this Medrash we see clearly that during  the Megilah reading he would say this and he would not wait for after the Megilah. This supports the Levush.[31]
R’ Avraham Klozner writes that the reason children bang rocks together is that they do not know how to say “shem reshaim yirkav, Whereas the adults say that during the Megillah”.[32] The anonymous comments, in Sefer Haminhagim of Rav Isaac Tirina writes the same.[33]
Those Opposed to “Banging”
R’ Binyamin Halevi writes in the Machzor Maagalei Tzedek (first printed in 1550) that he is opposed to these customs,
as well as the burning of a mock Haman in effigy. Not only do they cause a great disturbance in shul, but we live among non-Jews who are constantly looking for reasons to attack us. In other words, these minhagim are dangerous and should be abolished, as was done with other customs.[34]
To illustrate how these things can get out of control, R’ Eliyahu Capsili describes an incident that occurred in Crete in 1545 when a firecracker went off and caused utter pandemonium in shul. A takanah was subsequently made forbidding this kind of thing on Purim.[35]
R’ Avrohom Chaim Naeh writes about Yerushalayim in the 1940’s :
הרמ”א כתב על מנהג הכאת המן דאין לבטל שום מנהג… אבל המנהג היה להכות בעצים, ויומא כי האדינא חידשו להם הילדים מנהג חדש שמכין עם כדור פולווער [חומר נפץ], שנשמע קול יריה והפולווער הזה מוציא עשן מסריח ומחניק, עד שאי אפשר כלל לעמוד בבית הכנסת. העשן נכנס בגרון הקורא, וקולו נעשה צרוד, ובקושי אפשר לו להמשיך הקריאה, וכן הצבור סובלים מחוסר אויר, ומצפים מתי יגמרו הקריאה. בודאי חובה לעקור המנהג של היריות שעת הקריאה, דזה אינו מנהג וותיקין ועל דבר זה צריך לעמוד לפני הקריאה בכל תוקף, ולהוציא מידם כלי היריות [קצות השלחן, הערות למעשה, עמ’ קמו אות ה].
Another reason to refrain from banging is found in the Shelah Hakadosh, which is that it simply makes too much noise and people can’t fulfill the obligation to hear the Megillah.[36] The Pri Megadim writes something similar, that it confuses people.[37]
Another early source opposed to banging R’ Shmuel Portaleone (1570-1648).[38] One of his concerns was that the non-Jews would make fun of us.
The Seder Hayom (1599) writes that it’s not proper to make a ruckus in shul but if it’s being done by small children there’s no need to be concerned, due to simchas hayom.[39]
In Egypt and in London[40] (1783) they abolished the noisemaking completely.[41] Rabbi Avraham Levinson in Mekorei Haminhaghim[42] and R’ Ovadiah Yosef[43] were also for abolishing it. Similarly, Rav Yosef Henkin writes that the banging should be stopped during the actual Megillah laining.[44]
A Compromise
Rabbi Chaim Benveniste (1603-1673) in his work Sheyarei Knesses Hagedolah writes that in Izmir the chazzan would say the names of Haman and his children very loudly so the children would hear it and bang on the floor;[45] this was the intention of the Orchos Chaim. The banging was only done this one time during the Megillah. However, it’s worth pointing out that eventually the banging was abolished completely in Izmir.[46]
Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash (1604-1678) of Worms writes that noise was made only when the Haman of “asseres bnei Haman” was said.[47] The Mekor Chaim writes the same but adds that woman and children did stamp their feet when Haman’s name was mentioned.[48] The Ben Ish Chai writes that the community would bang when “asseres bnei Haman” was read in Bagdad, but he himself would stamp with his foot after the first and last Haman.[49]
R’ Avrhom Chaim Naeh writes:
בעיה”ק חברון ת”ו, שהצבור היו אומרים עשרת בני המן לפני שהבעל קורא אומרם, ובזמן זה היו התינוקות מכים, ואחר כך אומרם הקורא מתוך המגילה. ויש לומר, דמשום זה זכו עשרת בני המן שהציבור יקרא אותם תחלה, כדי שיוכלו לספוג המכות, דבזמן שהקורא אומרם אי אפשר להכות כיון שצריך לאמרם בנשימה אחת [קצות השולחן, הערות למעשה, עמ’ קמו].
We find a few sources showing that attempts were made to abolish the minhag but for the most part they were unsuccessful.
In her memoirs, Pauline Wengeroff (b. 1833 in Minsk) wrote: “Whenever the hateful name of Haman was heard the men stamped their feet and the young people made an uproar with shrill graggers. My father was irritated by this and forbade it but it was of no use; every year people did it again”.[50] Her father was R’ Epstein, a talmid of R’ Dovid Tevel, author of Nachalas
Dovid
who was a talmid of R’ Chaim Volozhiner.[51]
R’ Yosef Ginsburg writes that it best to bang only when Haman’s name is mentioned with his father’s, as done in communities in Lita and Rasin.[52]
In a memoir written describing Kovno the author relates how a local talmid chacham unsuccessfully tried to convince the children not to throw firecrackers during the Megillah laining.[53]
In a letter written in Telz in 1915 R’ Avraham Eliyhau Kaplan notes that Purim has passed and the children have already made their disturbances with their graggers.[54]
According to the Orach Hashulchan, one should make sure that the noise does not get out of control; otherwise it is preferable to hear the Megillah at home with a minyan.[55]
Sources that they did bang
Still, it appears that for the most part, the minhag remained.
R’ Yair Chaim Bachrach writes:
כלי נקישה שעושין לתינוקות לנקש כמו בפורים יזהר גדול מלטלטלו, אבל ביד התינוקות אין מוחין, כ”ש כשחל פורים ביום א’ כשהולכין בערב לבה”כ [מקור חיים, סי’ שמג]
This appears to be some sort of noise maker.
R’ Yakov Emden brings down that his father the Chacham Tzvi used to bang with his feet when Haman’s name was said during the Megilah.[56]
In the cynical, anonymous, satire Ketav Yosher, first printed in 1794 (and attributed to Saul Berlin), we find one of the Minhaghim he makes fun of is the banging by Haman.[57]
In 1824 a parody called the Sefer Hakundos (trickster) was printed in Vilna. This parody was written by a maskil as a vicious attack on the Jews of the time poking fun at many things. The plus about this parody is we get a very interesting glimpse into Jewish life in those days.[58] When discussing Purim he writes “He (the trickster) must bang with all his strength for a long time every time Haman’s name is mentioned until he is either thrown out or quieted down. If he gets thrown out due to his long
banging even better and he must scream welcome when Haman’s name is said”.
See here what On the Main line brings about New York in 1841.
In a very informative Memoir describing life in Lithuania in the 1880’s the author describes: “We all went to the Synagogue equipped with our Haman Dreiers… and each time the reader of the Megillah… mentioned the name haman the nosie of the rattles was deafening”.[59]
In a diary describing Russia in the 1890s the author writes: “At every mention of Haman’s name there are general cries while the children howl and make as much noise as possible with graggers…the adults beat their pews with sticks as a token of their desire to beat Haman”.[60]
S. Ansky writes in his memoirs of World War One: “On Purim I went to Synagogue to hear the reading of the book of Esther. At the the mention of Haman’s name the children traditionally make noise say by clapping but when these children tried to clap, though very softly, their frightened parents hastily shushed them. Why didn’t they let the children make noise? I asked somebody afterword. Someone might object he stammered. Try and prove that they meant the ancient Haman and not the present one.”[61]
R’ Elayshiv, zt”l, never stopped the crowd from making noise but he himself did not.[62]
Jews in the Eyes of Gentiles
Many of sources of information about how various minhaghim were observed come from non-Jews or meshumadim, which must obviously be used with caution because some of these writers were tendentious or may not have fully understood what they observed or heard of even if they tried to be objective. These accounts however seem sound.
Johannes Buxtorf (1564-1629) writes in his Synagoga Judaica: ” There is also the custom that as often as the name of Haman is mentioned the young Jews knock him, and there is a great commotion. They used to have two stones, on one of which was written “Haman,” and they knocked them together until the name had disappeared, and they said and called out: Jimmach Schmo, his name shall be blotted out, or, Schem reschaim jirkabh, the name of the wicked shall rot. Arur Haman, cursed be Haman…”.[63]
In a letter written by John Greenhalgh in 1662 to a minister friend of his we find the following description of his visit to a shul: “My Rabbi invited me afterward to come and see the feast of Purim which they kept he said for the deliverance from Haman’s conspiracy mentioned in the Book of Esther in which they use great knocking and stamping when Haman is named”.[64]
In the Present State of the Jews (1675) Lancelot Addison writes: “Both the women and children…at the naming of Haman make a hideous noise with their hands and stamping with their feet.”
Johann Eisenmenger (1654-1704) writes that “the boys… clench their fists and strike them together, and hissing at the name of Haman make a mighty noise”.[65]
In the Ceremonies of the Present Jews (1728) we find: “They clap their hands or beat the benches to signify that they curse [Haman]”.[66]
In the book Religion, Ceremonies and Prayers of the Jews the pseudonymous Gamaliel Ben Pedazhur (1738) writes: “All the Jews, young and old, stamp their feet on the floor… the children generally have hammers with them at the synagogue… this
is done by way of rendering [Haman’s] memory as obnoxious as they can.”
Hyam Isaacs in Ceremonies Customs Rites and Traditions of the Jews, first printed in 1794, writes (second edition, 1836, p. 89): “and as often as the reader mentions the name Haman… it is customary for the children, who have little wooden hammers to
knock against the wall as a memorial that they should endeavor to destroy the whole seed of Amalek”.
 In his notes, a Christian traveler describes the events of a visit of his in a shul in Jerusalem, he also writes how the kids would make noise with graggers whenever haman’s name was said and the adults would bag with their feet or sticks.[67]
Reasons for this Custom
What follows from all this is that according to some Rishonim it ties specifically to Shem Rishoim Yirkav whereas others tie it to Mochoh Timcha Es Zeicher Amalek. According to some it was done specifically by the children; according to others it was also
done by adults. Some sources report it as being done after the Megilah reading; others say it was done during the Megilah reading.
The Rama (S.A. 690:17), after bringing some of the earlier sources for this custom, writes that one should not abolish or make fun of any custom because there was a good reason for its establishment.
It is interesting that the Rama, who brings many customs throughout his work, specifically chose this case to spell out this rule.[68] Two, the Magan Avrohom specifically here (690:22) has a lengthy discussion as to various “halachos” of Minhaghim. The question is, why?
Throughout history there were many who were against the “banging of Haman”. So the question is, what lies behind this Minhag. If we can understand that then perhaps we can better understand the Rama and Magan Avrohom.
To backtrack a bit, the Gemara in Sanhedrin (64b) mentions something about jumping on Purim “kmashvarta d’puria.” R’ Nissim Gaon and Rashi understand this to be referring to fires that the children made to jump through on Purim. But the Aruch says that it refers to a minhag to make an effigy of Haman that the children would hang from the roofs and burn on Purim, dancing and singing around it.[69] This is mentioned by others such as such as the Orchos Chaim[70] and Avudraham[71] as well as in Mesechtas Purim by R. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus (1286-1328).
Many have also noted that in the year 408 (!) a law was passed banning the Jewish custom of burning an effigy of
Haman on a gallows in the form of a cross.[72]
In Yemen they did not “bang” but fashioned a man out wood, dressed him up and dragged him around the whole day before hanging him in effigy.[73] The same was done in Baghdad[74] and other communities.[75]
Another minhag related to all this; R’ Tzvi Hirsch Koidonover in his classic work Kav Hayashar brings from his Rebbe R’ Yosef MeDubnov that R’ Heschel[76] (known as the Rebbe R’ Heshel) had a custom when he tested out his writing instrument he used to write either the name Haman or Amalek and then he would erase it to “fulfil” Mocho Timcha Es Zeicher Amalek.[77]
The significance of this source is this work was first printed in 1705-1706 in both Hebrew and Yiddish and was printed over eighty times! It was extremely popular amongst all kinds of readers so this custom of R’ Heschel was very famous.
An additional reason for the widespread popularity of this custom was that the Sefer Zechirah from R’ Zecariah Simnar also brings it, first printed in 1709.[78] This work was extremely popular in its time and was printed over 40 times.
It appears that the custom has to do with both Shem Rishoim Yirkav and Mochoh Timcha Es Zeicher Amalek.
But why did they do this?
What follows is an adaptation of Shut Mili D’avos (3:13) by R’ Yisroel Margolis Yafeh, a talmid of the Chasam Sofer, 9 with some additions and elaboration):
The Torah enjoins us to remember what Amalek did to us. The question is how do we go about doing this, and how often do we need to? The Arizal had a custom to say it every day.[79] What is behind this? It’s to remind us how Amalek set out to completely destroy us. But it also represents our other enemies throughout time, even if they are not direct descendants of Amalek.
The Chinuch writes that the reason for this mitzvah is to impress upon us that whoever oppresses us is hated by Hashem and that their punishment is commensurate with their wrongdoing.[80] Doing an action helps us remember. The banging is to help us remember that part of what we are doing is Mocho Timcha Es Zeicher Amalek, when we read the Megilah. Furthermore it takes time to read the Megilah so to constantly remind us, we bang. It’s also to keep us awake during the leining,[81] but even more so, writes R’ Margolis Yaffe, that similar to Pesach where we do many things for the children’s sake, on Purim as well the children were also saved from this decree of Haman. To get them to learn and remember about Purim we do all this, i.e. have them bang etc. Therefore it is not considered a Hefsek to bang or say Shem Rishoim Yirkav.
In various Rishonim we find a custom to say certain Pisukim of the Megilah out loud. The reason given is that it adds to the Simcha[82] while  some add to this that it’s specifically for the children.[83]
On Rosh Hashonah we have a custom to eat various fruits and say Tefilos. Many ask why we do this. Numerous Achronim,[84] when explaining this Minhag point to a Ramban[85] who writes that when an action is done down here it has an affect ‘upstairs’ causing something on earth to happen. To illustrate this a bit better this Ramban is used to explain numerous issues. There is a custom amongst some that when they say Poseach Es Yodecha during Ashrei, where one is supposed to have in mind about asking Hashem for parnasha, they keep their hands open to “receive” the parnasa.[86]
When an action is done ‘down here’ it has an affect ‘upstairs’, thereby causing something to happen in the physical world.[87] When we make noise when Haman’s name is mentioned, it “triggers” Hashem to destroy Amalek and our other enemies. This, R’ Dovid Pardo in his work on the Sifrei writes, is what is behind this Mitzvah of “Remembering what Amalek did to us” and why some say it daily.[88]
Moreover, when R’ Yehudah Hachasid was asked why we bang on the walls when Haman is mentioned, he answered that they do the same thing in gehinom.[89]
Connected to all this is the second reason brought for banging by Haman which is Shem Rishoim Yirkav. The Nezer Hakodesh explains that when evil people are cursed it has a great effect on their punishments in gehinom[90].  According to some this lies behind the reason when referring to Yoshkah we say Yeshu (Yud-Shin-Vav) as it’s the abbreviation of Yemoch shemo Vizichro[91]. With this we can easily understand its connection to Haman and the banging by Haman, all of the above explanations lie behind the custom.
R’ Eliezer Hakalir even wrote a piyyut for Parshas Zachor in which one says “yimach shemo vezichro” after every (other) stanza.[92]
Another reason is found in the Kaf Naki. He writes that we find Jews, children and adults, from all over, bang with sticks and stones for Haman as if he is still alive. He writes that although the Goyim mock us for this, there is a sound reason for all the commotion. The reason is to remind us that Haman and other enemies were destroyed by Hashem, therefore we bang and make a big deal to remind us of this fact and so that the children will learn that if another enemy rises against us, he too will be destroyed.[93]
Perhaps with all this we can understand why the Rama wrote about Minhaghim not to make fun of them; to teach us that even though it appears to not make sense to us, there is more to the story.
[1]The first large collection of sources on this subject was printed by Yom Tov Lewnsky, Keisad Hekahu Es Haman Betufuzos Yisroel, 1947, 89 pp. For other useful collections on this topic see; Rabbi Avrohom Levinson, Mekorei Ha-Minhaghim, Siman 62; R’ Shem Tov Gagin, Keser Shem Tov, 2, pp. 542-545; S. Ashkenazi, Dor Dor Uminhagahv, pp. 98-104; Rabbi Gedaliah Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beydenu, 2, pp. 307-324; Rabbi Tuviah Freund, Moadim Li-Simcha, 3, pp. 299-323; Pardes Eliezer, (Purim) pp. 186- 252; Rabbi Gur-Aryeh, Chikrei Minhaghim,1, pp. 218-222; Rabbi Rabinowitz,  Iyuni Halachot, 3,pp.
488-515; Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, 3, pp. 156-159; 4, pp. 331-333; 6, pp. 242-246; Ibid, Keisad Mackim Es Haman, 47
pp. See also M. Reuter, The Smiting of Haman in the Material Culture of Ashkenzai Communities: Developments in Europe and the Revitalized Jewish Culture in Israel- Tradition and Innovation, (PhD Hebrew University 2004) (Heb.).
Another important work that was very helpful for this topic is Eliot Horowitz, Reckless Rites, Princeton 2006. I hope to deal with all this more in depth in the future.
[2]  Yerushalmi, Megillah, 3:7. See the comments of the Korban HaEdah; Shiurei Korban; R’ Eliyahu Hacohen, Midrash Eliyhau, 89b; R’ Shlomo Kluger, Chochmas Shlomo, 690. See also R’ Ratner, Ahavas Tzion Vi-Yerushlayim, Megillah pp. 77-78; S. Abramson, Rav Nissim Gaon, p. 279; R’ Yissachar Tamar, Alei Tamar, Megillah, pp. 142-144; R’ Palagi, Yafeh Li-Lev, 690:6-7.
[3]  Mesechtas Sofrim, 14:6-7. See the Mikra Sofrim (on Mesechtas Sofrim), and the sources in the Higger edition of Mesechtas Sofrim, pp.254-255.  For other versions of this Chazal, see the Midrash Bereishis Rabbah (Theodore-Albeck), pp. 496-497; Yalkut Makheri Mishlei printed from a manuscript by Yakov Spiegel, Sidra 1 (1985), pp. 123-125; Torah Sheleimah, Esther, p. 62. 200; Esther Rabbah, (Tabori and Atzmon Ed.) pp. 178-179, 114-115, [on this new edition see here].
[4]  On the Piyyut Asher Heni see I. Davidson, Otzar Hashira Vehapiyyut 1, p. 372, #8215; R’ Fack, Yemei Mishteh Vsimcha, pp. 158-161; Avrohom Frankel, “Asher heniya – toldoteha shel berakhah mefuyetet, available on the Piyyut website here; Rabbi Yakov Stahl. Segulah (2012), p. 32, no. 30-31.
[5]  On the exact Nussach of Shoshanas Yakov and the censors see R’ Yakov Laufer, Mei-Soncino Vi-ad Vilna, pp. 41-43; Sefer
HaZikuk
in Italia 18 (2008), p. 183.
[6]  Some Rishonim assume it is referring to a Piyyut;  See Sefer Hamanhig, 1, p. 242; Zror Ha-Chaim, p. 118; Shita leMesechtas
Megillah,
pp. 34-35; Avudraham, p. 209; Rashash, Megillah 7b; Meir Rafeld, Nitivei Meir, p. 198. I hope to return to this topic;
for now see Rafeld, ibid, pp. 190-209.
[7]  Sefer Hamanhig, 1, pp. 242-243.
[8]  Orchos Chaim, Purim, 41. The Beis Yosef (690) appears to have a different version of the Orchos Chaim than we have.  On
the Orchos Chaim, see Dr. Pinchas Roth, Later Provencal Sages- Jewish Law and Rabbis in Southern France, 1215-1348, (PhD Hebrew University 2012), pp. 38-41.
[9] Avudraham, p. 209. I believe this addition is not a quote from the Manhig, contra Y. Rafael (in his notes to Sefer Hamanhig, 1, pp. 242) and others appear to have understood the Avudraham.
Regarding the source of this Midrash, Rashi at the end of Ke Sisa brings such a Midrash. The Minchas Chinuch writes he does not know the source for it (Mitzvah 604) The Aderes (Chesbonot Shel Mitzvah, pp. 377-378) and R’ Meir Simcha point to the Mechilta in Beshalach [See Mechiltah Di R’ Yishmael at the end of Parshas Bishalach and the Mechiltah Di Rashbi, p. 126; R’ Menachem Kasher, Torah Sheleimah, Beshalach p. 270 (120), 274 (130); See also Menachem Kahana, Hamechiltos Li Parshas
Amalek
, pp. 190-191, 194, 314, 355. See also the important comments of Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, 4, pp. 331-333.
[10] Meorot Rishonim, pp. 168-169.
[11] Shibolei Haleket, Purim, 200. See also the Tanyah Rabosi (Purim, 40) who says the same.
[12]  Sefer HaTadir, p. 209. On this work see R’ Rafael Nosson Rabinowitz, Ohel Avrohom, pp. 14-15.
[13] Machzor Ki-Minhag Roma (1485) in the 2012 reprint p. 62a. See Yitzchack Yudolov, Kovetz Mechkarim Al Machzor Ki-Minhag Bnei Roma (2012), p. 34, and pp. 32-33. M. Gidman, Ha-Torah Ve-Hachaim, 2, pp. 189-190 brings another Italian Machzor from manuscript that says the same. See also E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, p. 272.
[14]  Shulchan Orach, p. 84.
[15]  Maharil, pp. 427-428. On this work see the Y. Pelles, The Book Of Maharil According to its autograph manuscripts and its specialty as a Multi-Draft versions work (PHD, Bar Ilan University 2005).
[16] Darchei Moshe, 690. See Magan Avrohom, 690:19 who brings down the Maharil.
[17] See Shut Maharam Shick, Y.D. # 216
[18]  Maharil, p. 428, note 6.
[19] Eshkol Hakofer, 9:32. About him see the introduction to the recent edition of his work Tzror Hachaim, Jerusalem 2014.
[20] End of parshas Ki Sisa.
[21] Ki Sisa, 25:2.
[22] Levush, 690:17.
[23] Mateh Moshe, 1006.
[24] S.A. 690:17
[25] On this work See Jean Baumgarten, “Prayer, Ritual and Practice in Ashkenazic Jewish Society: The Tradition of Yiddish Custom Books in the Fifteenth to Eighteenth Centuries”, Studia Rosenthaliana, Vol. 36, (2002-2003), pp. 121-146.
[26]The Magan Avrhom (690:19) says to be careful not to miss words [See the Noheg Ketzon Yosef p. 200 who says the same]. The Magan Avrhom says to say a pasuk or two from the Chumash (because might have missed it). However the Mekor Chaim says this is only if you have a kosher Megillah.
[27] 690:17.
[28]  Sharei Tzion, 690:57.
[29] Igrot Moshe (O.C., 1:192). R’ Moshe deals with the intention of the Yerushalmi and more. See also Chazon Ovaadiah, pp. 93-94; Haghot Pnei Menachem, (printed in the back of the Zichron Aron Levush).
[30]  690:21. See the important comment of the Machtzis Hashekel. See also the Yafeh Mareh on the Midrash Raba on parshas Va-Yayra 49:1.
[31]  There is much more to this story, depending on the exact Girsa in the various Midrashim that talk about saying ‘Aror Haman Ubanuv’. I hope to return to this in the future; for now see the important notes in Midrash Rabah (Theodore-Albeck), pp. 496-497; Yalkut Makheri Mishlei printed from a manuscript by Yakov Spiegel, Sidra 1 (1985), pp. 123-125. See also the important Teshuvah of R’ Yissachar Teichtal, Mishnat Sachir, siman 228-229 where he deals with when exactly do we say Shoshanas Yakov, which relates to all this.
[32]  Sefer Ha-Minhaghim Li R’ Avrohom Klozner (2006), p. 74. On this work see Rachel Mincer, Liturgical Minhaghim Books: The Increasing Reliance on written texts in late Medieval Ashkenaz, (PhD JTS, 2012), pp. 91-149.
[33]  Sefer HaMinhaghim Li R Issac Tirina, (2000), p. 48 # 55. On the authorship of these notes see the Introduction Ibid.
[34]  Maagalei Tzedek, (2000), pp. 175-176. I hope to return to this work in the near future.
[35]  Takonot Kandyah, pp. 130-131. See also the Kitzur Shelah, p. 88a, who describes a similar incident. For the most recent work on R’ Capsali see: Aledia Paudice, Between Several Worlds: The life and writings of Elia Capsali, Munchen 2010.
[36]  Shelah, p. 87a.
[37]  The Mishna Berurah quotes this but it’s not clear what his outcome with all this is.
[38]  Printed in Meir Benayhu, Yosef Bechiri, p. 437,418.
[39]  Seder Hayom, p. 240.
[40] Keser Shem Tov (above note 1).
[41] See Niveh Sholom, Dinei Purim, 7; Na-har Mitzrayim, pp, 52b-53b.
[42]  Siman 62. See also R’ Yakov Reifman, Ha-maggid (1858), issue # 11, p. 44.
[43]  Chazon Ovadiah, Purim, pp. 62-63.
[44]  Shut Gevurot Eliyhau, p. 209.
[45]  Shirei Knesses Hagedolah, 690. About him see the recent work of Yakov Barnai, HaMaruh Shel Europia, Jerusalem 2014.
[46]  Yafeh Li-Lev, 690:15.
[47]  Minhaghim De-Kehal Vermeizah, (1988), pp. 259-260.
[48]  Mekor Chaim, 690.
[49] Ben Ish Chai, first year, Parshas Tzaveh, 10.
[50] Pauline Wengeroff, Memoirs of a Grandmother, 2010, p. 113
[51]  Her father authored an important work called Minchas Yehudah. On this work see S. Abramson, Sinai, 112 (1993), pp.1-24; N. Steinschneider, Ir Vilna, pp. 248-249.
[52]  Itim LeBinah, p. 237.
[53]  Yoser Yasrani, 1, p. 168.
[54]  Be-Eikvot Ha-Yeriah, p. 162,
[55]  Oruch hashulchan, 690:23.
[56]  Siddur R’ Yakov Emden 2, p. 472.
[57] Prakim BeSatira Haivrit (1979), p.93.
[58] See the critical edition of this work printed in 1997, p. 67.
[59] Benjamin Gordon, Between Two worlds: The Memoirs of a Physician, p. 37.
[60] M. Zunser, Yesterday, p.42.
[61] The Enemy at his Pleasure (p. 284).
[62]  I witnessed this myself a few times when I davened there. See also Halichos VeHanhagot, (Purim), p. 14; Ish El haedah, 2, p. 275.
[63]  Synagoga Judaica, pp. 556-557.
[64] Dr. A. Cohen, An Anglo-Jewish Scrapbook 1600-1840, London 1943, p. 267.  See also Ibid, p. 260.
[65] Johann Eisenmenger, The Traditions of the Jews, U.S.A. 2006, p. 853. On this work see E. Carlebach, Divided Souls, London 2001, pp. 212-221.
[66] Ceremonies of the Present Jews, p. 44.
[67] Masei Notzrim Le Eretz Yisroel, p. 802.
[68] See Maharatz Chayes, Darchei Horaah, pp.235-235. For general information about the importance of Minhaghim, see R’ Heller, Maoz Hadat, Chapter 3.
[69] Aruch, s.v. Shvar quoted by the Rama in Darchei Moshe (690). See R’ Yakov Shor, Mishnat Yakov, pp. 398-399; S. Abramson, Rav Nissim Gaon, p. 278; Sefer haManhig, Mossad Harav Kook ed. vol. 1, pp. 249;  Herman H. Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), pp. 175-177,328.
[70]  Orchos Chaim, Purim, 42.
[71]  Avudraham, p. 209.
[72]  See Yom Tov Lewnsky, (above note one), p. 16; Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, 1, p.17; E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, pp. 213-217; Sarit Gribetz, “Hanged and crucified: The book of Esther and Toledot Yeshu”, in Toledot Yeshu Revisited, (Peter Schafer and others ed.), Tubingen 2011, pp. 171-175. See also another early source that appears to be alluding to this, Shirat Bnei Ma-Aravah (Yahlom and Sokolof ed.), pp. 216-217, 33.
See also Levi Ginsburg, Shut Ha-Geonim Min Hagenizah New York 1909, pp. 1-3; R. S. Schick, Sefer Haminhaghim p. 51a; Korot Luv Ve-Yhudehah, p. 198; Israel Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature, pp. 21-22; E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, pp. 93-106. See also R’ Reuven Margolis, Margaliyot Hayam, Sanhadrin 64 b (17-18); Israel Yuval, Two Nations in your Womb, pp.165-166; T. Gaster, Festivals of the Jewish Year, pp. 227-229.
[73] See Rabbi Yosef Kapach, Haleichos Teiman (1968), p. 40. Earlier about Teiman the famous traveler R’ Yakov Sapir already describes this, Even Sapir, pp, 86b-87a [R’ Reuven Margolis Nefesh Chayah, 690].
[74] See R’ Dovid Sasson, Maseh Bavel, p. 226. See the nice collection of sources about this in Pineinim 54 (2012); Pineinim 55, (letters to the Editor); Pineinim 64, (letter to the editor) [Thanks to Yisachar Hoffman for sending me these sources].
[75]  This kind of stuff gets out of control in 1932 some youngsters made such a Mock Haman out of R Kook! See Rabbi S. Goren’s autobiography, With Might and strength (Heb.), p. 68; R’ Menachem Porush, Besoch Hachomos, (1948), pp. 323-324. See also the recent collection of Material on this called “Einei Yochel Lehashlim Im Das Hakanoyim“.
[76] E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, p. 109 identifies this R’ Heshel incorrectly to be R’ Heshel Zoref. However already in the first edition printed by the author in the Yiddish part he writes he is referring to R’ Heshel Av Beis Din of Cracow. See also R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi’s notes to the Kav Ha-Yosher (1999), p. 23.
[77] Kav Ha-Yosher, ch. 99; Yesod Yosef, Ch. 82. On this work see: Y. Schachar, Bikurot Hachevrah, pp. 3-6; Jean Baumgarten, ‘Eighteenth-Century Ethico-Mysticism in Central Europe: the “Kav ha-yosher” and the Tradition’, Studia Rosenthaliana, Vol. 41, Between Two Words: Yiddish-German Encounters (2009), pp. 29-51; see also his Introduction to old Yiddish Literature, index; Yakov Elbaum, ‘Kav Ha-Yashar: Some remarks on its structure, content and literary sources’, Chut Shel Chein (heb.), pp. 15-64.  On the Yesod Yosef, see: Yeshurun 3 (1997), pp. 685-687.
[78] Sefer Zechirah, (1999), p. 273. See R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi’s notes to the Kav Ha-Yosher (1999), pp. 4-5. On this work see my Likutei Eliezer, pp. 13-25. For additional sources on this see E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, pp. 107-109; Pardes Yosef, Devarim
beis, pp. 1077-1078 [Thanks to Professor Yakov Speigel for pointing me to this source].
[79] See Olat Tamid (O.C. 1:6); Magan Avrohom 60:2 See also his important comment in his Zayis Raanan, p. 51 b; Radal, Pirkei Di R’ Eliezer, Ch.44:5 (Haghot); Malbim, Artzos Hachaim, Eretz Yehudah, 1:4; Moshe Chalamish, Chikrei Kabbaah UTefilah, pp. 209-226 who collects numerous sources on this topic. See also: Aderes, Chesbonot Shel Mitzvah, pp. 382-383; R’ Zevin, Leor Ha-Halacha, (2004), pp. 270-278; Encyclopedia Talmudit, 12, pp. 217-223.
[80] Chinuch, Mitzvah 603.
[81] Some say this is why some pesukim of the Megilah are read out loud by everyone (see more on this further on).
[82] Sefer Hamanhig, 1, p. 243.
[83] See Yakov Spiegel, Pischei Tefilah UMoed, pp. 195-204.
[84] See for example R’ Margolis in his Shut Machlos Hamachanyim, pp. 27b-28a.
[85] Breishis, 12:6; 48:22.
[86] R’ Yosef ben Naim, Noheg BiChochma, pp. 167-168. See Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, 3, pp. 113-172.
[87]  See Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, 3, pp. 113-172.
[88] Sifri DeBei Rav, 4, (1990), pp. 181-183.
[89] Meorot Rishonim, p. 171; M. Gidman, Ha-Torah Ve-Hachaim, 1, p. 121. A similar idea is found in R’ Eliyahu Hacohen, Midrash Eliyhau, 89b.
[90]  Nezer Hakodesh, 2, (2014) p. 400. On the actual concept of Shem Rishoyim see Chida in his work Kisay Rachamim on Mesctas Sofrim, 14:7 I hope to return to this in the future.
[91]  R’ Avigdor Hazarfati, p. 414. For additional sources on this see R’ Hamberger, Mishichei Sheker Umisnagdeyium, (2009), pp. 121-122.
[92]  In the recently discovered Pirish from the Beis Medrash of Rashi on the piutim [Piyutim LeArbah Parshiyous, (2013), p. 77] it says the reason for saying Yemoch shemo Vizichro in this piyyut is because of the Medrash quoted earlier.
[93]  Kaf Naki, Lud 2014, pp. 95-96. The Chida brings this piece down from manuscript in his Machzik Beracha, Kuntres Achron, Siman 687 and in his Midbar Kadmot, Ois peh:12.