1

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 “k’mashvarta 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.


Avunculate Marriage in the Bible

|

Avunculate Marriage in the Bible

By Reuven Chaim (Rudolph) Klein
Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of the Lashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [available here]. His book is available online and in bookstores throughout the world. Rabbi Klein published articles in various journals including Jewish Bible Quarterly, Kovetz Hamaor, Kovetz Chitzei Gibborim, and Kovetz Kol HaTorah. He studied at premier Yeshivas including the Mir in Jerusalem and BMG in Lakewood. He was most recently a fellow at the Tikvah Institute for Yeshiva Men (Summer 2015) and lives with his wife and children in Beitar Illit, Israel.
Anyone who has a copy of the first edition of his book on Lashon HaKodesh is eligible to receive a PDF of the “Additions and Corrections” section of the new edition. Please send requests directly to the author at: historyofhebrew@gmail.com

The term “avunculate marriage” refers to marriage between a man and his niece. In this paper, we will explore the Bible’s view on the permissibility of such unions, and discuss several examples of such marriages in the Bible. Not only does rabbinic literature generally presume that such marriages are permitted, the Talmud even encourages it. On the other hand, other sources ban these relationships. The Sadducees believe that the Bible forbids such marriages. While various Tosafists believe that such marriages are Biblically permitted, they still prohibit marrying one’s niece (at least in some cases) for other reasons.

Abraham & Nahor marry their nieces

Upon close examination, one will find that at least six Biblical personalities married their nieces. Each of these cases can and are interpreted in various ways; calling into question their relevance to our discussion. However, the mere fact that tradition allows for these sorts of interpretations shows that avunculate marriage is compatible with Biblical tradition, and constitutes a legitimate building block in the institution of the Jewish family.

The first two examples of avunculate marriages in the Bible are those between Abraham and Nahor and their respective nieces. The Torah says:

And Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begot Lot. And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. (Gen. 11:26–29)

This passage records that Abram (i.e. Abraham), Nahor, and Haran were brothers. Nahor married Milcah, the daughter of Haran; and Abraham married Sarai. According to an ancient tradition preserved in rabbinic sources (Seder Olam Ch. 2; TB Megillah 14a; and TB Sanhedrin 69b) and by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews Book I, Ch. 6), another name for Sarai is Iscah. The assertion that Sarai is the same person as Iscah is supported by the fact that the Torah provides the paternity of Nahor’s wife Milcah, yet does not mention the paternity of Abraham’s wife Sarai. Given that the Torah delineates one wife’s father, we would have expected it to mention the father of the other wife as well. This difficulty can be resolved if we assume that Sarai is Iscah, since the Torah states that Haran was the father of Iscah.[1]

If we assume that the Haran who is mentioned as Abraham and Nahor’s father-in-law is the same person as their brother Haran, and that Sarai is Iscah, then this passage records two instances of avunculate marriages: Nahor married his niece Milcah and Abraham married his niece Iscah/Sarai. However, it is debatable whether Nahor and Abraham’s marriages to Milcah and Sarai were truly avunculate marriages. In order to claim that they were, one must rely on two assumptions, both of which are subject to dispute. Firstly, Ibn Ezra (to Gen. 11:29) expresses skepticism regarding the identification of Iscah with Sarai.[2] Secondly, even if Iscah is Sarai, some commentators (including Abarbanel(Gen. 11) and the Medieval work Moshav Zeqenim[3]) understand that the Bible refers to two different men named Haran. One was a brother to Abraham and Nahor (and father of Lot); while the other was the father of Iscah/Sarai and Milcah.[4] Accordingly, there is no clear consensus on whether Abraham and Nahor married their nieces.

Dinah’s daughter

Later in Genesis, the Bible relates that when Joseph was the Egyptian viceroy, he married Osnath daughter of Poti-Phera (Gen. 41:45). According to many Midrashic sources (Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer Ch. 38; Masekhet Sofrim 21:9; and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. 41:45(, Osnath was none other than the daughter of Dinah (Jacob’s daughter) and her rapist, Shechem. This “illegitimate” child was initially shunned by Jacob’s family, but eventually found her way back in by marrying Joseph. Thus, Joseph’s wife Osnath was his niece, the daughter of his sister Dinah. Although others understand that Osnath was actually an Egyptian woman,[5] the Midrashic sources above reject the notion that Joseph would marry a non-Israelite woman.
Similarly, Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel quotes a Midrash[6] which says that Simeon married the daughter of Dinah who was born by rape through Shechem.[7] According to this Midrash (which is probably mutually exclusive with the above mentioned sources), Simeon married his niece, the daughter of his sister Dinah.
These examples differ from the others under consideration because these are the only explicit examples of a man marrying his sororal niece (i.e. his sister’s daughter). All the other examples involve a man marrying his fraternal niece (i.e. his brother’s daughter).

Uziel and Miriam

Amram had three children: Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. The Bible records the marriages of both of Amram’s sons: Moses married Zippora daughter of Jethro (Ex. 2:21), and Aaron married Eliseba daughter of Amminadab (Ex. 6:23). However, the Bible does not tell us about the family of Amram’s daughter Miriam.

Rabbinic literature states that she married Caleb (Exodus Rabbah §1:17; Sifrei, Beha’alothkha §78; and TB Sotah 11b–12a). However, according to the apocryphal work The Testament of Amram found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (4Q543, 4Q549), Amram gave his daughter Miriam to his younger brother Uzziel to wed. That work understands that the sons of Uzziel listed in the Bible (Ex. 6:22) were born to his wife Miriam. Thus, that work believed that Uzziel married his brother’s daughter Miriam.

Othniel and Achsa

As related in the book of Joshua (15:16–17) and in the opening chapter of Judges (1:12–13), Caleb offered his daughter Achsa to whoever could conquer the Canaanite stronghold at Kiriath Sepher: “And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it; and he [Caleb] gave him [Othniel] Achsah his daughter to wife.” Othniel succeeded in conquering the city and thus won the hand of his brother’s daughter Achsa in marriage. Most assume that Othniel was Caleb’s full brother, although some explain that they shared only a mother, not a father.[8]
R. Ishtori ha-Parhi (1280-1366), the foremost Rabbinic topographer of the Medieval period, writes (Kaftor Va-Fereh Ch. 5) that the Sadducees consider themselves more pious than Rabbinic Jews because they forbid one to marry his brother’s daughter. Then, ha-Parhi cites this case as a Biblical precedent for allowing such marriages. Nonetheless, ha-Parhi notes that the case of Othniel only proves that one may marry the daughter of his maternal brother but does not necessarily prove that one can marry the daughter of his paternal siblings.

Elimelech and Naomi

There is a Talmudic discussion (TB Bava Bathra 91a) regarding the Book of Ruth which explains the relationships between its major players. It asserts that Elimelech (Naomi’s husband), Salmon (Boaz’s father), the anonymous relative who refused to redeem Naomi’s field, and Naomi’s father were all sons of Nahshon ben Amminadab. According to this understanding, Elimelech married his brother’s daughter—Naomi.

However, the Midrash (Ruth Rabbah §6:3) presents a dissenting view that Elimelech was a son of Salmon (and brother to Boaz). According to this understanding, Naomi was not Elimelech’s niece but his first cousin.

Mordecai and Esther

The Talmud (TB Megillah 13a) relates that Mordecai not only raised the orphaned Esther, but he also married her. Furthermore, some sources, including Josephus in Antiquities (Book XI, Ch. 6), Targum Rishon (to Est. 7:6),[9] and the Vulgate (Est. 2:7) explain that Esther was Mordecai’s niece. Ibn Ezra (to Est. 8:1) and Maimonides (there)[10] also repeat that claim. Together, these two ideas indicate that Mordecai married his niece. Nonetheless, this understanding is simply mistaken as the Bible quite explicitly states that she was his first cousin, not his niece: And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter… (Est. 2:7) and Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai… (Est. 2:15).

The Talmud encourages marrying one’s niece

The prophet Isaiah tells of several acts of kindness that a man can perform that would prompt God to answer his prayers. He says:
Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the
poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover
him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Then shall thy light
break forth as the morning, and thy healing shall spring forth speedily; and
thy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of the LORD shall be thy
reward. Then shalt thou call, and the LORD will answer; thou shalt cry, and He
will say: ‘Here I am.’… (Is. 58:7–9)
When explaining these “good deeds” in practical terms, the Talmud (TB Yevamot 62b–63a) notes that and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh refers to a man who marries his sister’s daughter. While there is a controversy among the commentators concerning whether the Talmud only means one’s sororal niece or even his fraternal niece, it is clear that the Talmud encourages a man to marry his niece. Similarly, the Tosefta (Kiddushin 1:2) teaches, “A man should not marry a woman until his sororal niece comes of age [so that he can marry her], or until he finds [another woman equally fitting for him.”

Only Sororal niece, or even fraternal niece?

There are two approaches among the earlier commentators in how to understand the Talmud’s endorsement of marrying one’s niece. Rashi understands that the Talmud only endorses marrying one’s sororal niece. He explains that this act is considered particularly kind, because a man has a certain longing for his sister (more so than for his brother). Thus, by marrying her daughter, he will insure that his wife will be especially cherished.

However, the Tosafists (Tosafot to TB Yevamot 62b) quote in the name of Rashi’s grandson Rashbam that the Talmud’s endorsement also applies to one’s fraternal niece, not just to a sororal niece. He explains that the Talmud specifically mentions marrying a sororal niece simply because it is more common that a man’s sister will convince him to marry her daughter than it is for his brother to do so.

Nonetheless, Rabbeinu Tam disagrees with this assertion and instead maintains that the Talmud only means that one should marry his sororal niece. There are two modes of justifications given for this approach: Firstly, one’s sororal niece is similar to her uncle, as the Rabbis say, “Most children are similar to the brothers of their mother” (TB Baba Bathra 110a, Sofrim 15:10). This similarity between the two will ensure a stronger marriage, and that is precisely what the Talmud means to endorse.

Furthermore, the Tosafists quote in the name of Rivan (a son-in-law of Rashi and uncle to Rabbeinu Tam and Rashbam) that it is actually forbidden to marry one’s fraternal niece, so the Talmud must only have endorsed marrying one’s sororal niece. They explain that according to the rules of the Levirate marriage (mentioned in Deut. 25:5–10), a man (A) is commanded to marry the widow of his brother (B), if B dies childless. However, the Mishnah teaches (Yevamot 1:1) that if the widow is A’s daughter, then A is exempt from that commandment, because a man may not marry his own daughter. Thus, the Rabbis forbid a man (B) from marrying his niece (A’s daughter) so as to prevent a situation where the commandment of Levirate marriage will be abolished. This rabbinic ban on marrying one’s fraternal niece proves that the Talmud’s endorsement of marrying one’s niece only applies to a sororal niece.[11]
Nonetheless, this proof is incomplete because there are situations where there is no clash with the rules of the Levirate marriage. For example, if A is already deceased (and therefore anyways unable to perform the Levirate marriage), then B should be allowed to marry his daughter. Or if A is only B’s maternal brother, but not paternal brother (and therefore is not allowed to marry B’s widow even if she was not his daughter see TB Yevamot 17b), then he should be allowed to marry A’s daughter. Accordingly, one can argue that in these situations, the Talmud endorses marrying even one’s fraternal niece. This is especially compelling in light of ha-Parhi’s above mentioned proof-text from Othniel, which shows that one is allowed to marry his maternal brother’s daughter.
In short, Rabbeinu Tam—in agreement with his grandfather Rashi—understands that the Talmud only endorses marrying one’s sororal niece, but actually forbids marrying one’s fraternal niece. Rabbi Betzalel Ashkenazi (1520–1592) testifies that this is also the opinion[12] of the non-yet-extant Tosafot Shantz to the Talmudic Tractate Gittin.[13]In his commentary to the Bible, the ‎Alsatian sage R. Yohanan Luria (1440–1514) also follows Rabbeinu Tam’s view.[14]
However, Maimonides (in his commentary to the Mishnah Nedarim 8:5 and in his Laws of Sexual Prohibitions, end of ch. 2) understands that the Talmud does not mention one’s sororal niece to the exclusion of his fraternal niece. He thus rules that is considered a Mitzvah for a man to marry either his sororal or fraternal niece.[15] R. Meir Abulafia (1170–1244) writes (Yad Ramah to TB Sanhedrin 76b) that marrying one’s niece is considered commendable because she is the closest relative that a man is allowed to marry. He thus follows his older contemporary Maimonides in offering no distinction between a sororal niece and fraternal niece (because the degree of kinship to both is the same). Nonetheless, he notes that the Talmud mentioned one’s sister’s daughter in specific simply because marrying her is even more commendable. By doing so, he is performing an act of kindness towards his sister, who might otherwise have difficulty marrying off her daughter.[16]
R. Moses Isserles (1520–1572) settles the matter by ruling in accordance with the view of Maimonides and Rashbam that one should marry his sororal or fraternal niece (see his glosses to the Shulhan Aruch, Even Ha’Ezer §2:6; 15:25).

The Rabbinic View regarding Forbidden Relationships

Rabbinic Judaism extends the meanings of the Biblical passages (Lev. 18 and 20) which delineate forbidden relationships. They note that the Torah spoke of the incest laws from the man’s point of reference, but the laws apply equally to a woman. Thus, the Rabbis understand that all incestuous relationships mentioned in the Bible are forbidden to both the man and the woman involved (TB Yevamot 84b). However, the Rabbis do not add more forbidden relationships than those listed by the Bible; they only say that both parties are culpable. The Sadducees, on the other hand, add cases to the Bible’s list and forbid more cases of the same types of relationship. In this, the Rabbis understand the Bible’s meaning differently than the Sadducees and remain more faithful to the text of the Torah than did they.

The Sadducee View Regarding Forbidden Relationships

A Sadducean work found by Solomon Schechter at the Cairo Geniza criticizes those who marry their brother or sister’s daughter. This work reasons that since according to Mosaic law, a man is not allowed to marry his mother’s sister because she is his mother’s flesh (Lev. 18:13), a woman is also not allowed to marry her parents’ brother. The rationale for such an extension of the Biblical law is that the Torah does not simply list forbidden cases of incest, it lists forbidden categories of relationships. These relationships are determined by degree of kinship, without regard for gender. Thus, if a man is forbidden to his parents’ sister, the same prohibition says that a woman is forbidden to her parents’ brother because the degree of kinship—in this case, parent’s sibling—is the same.[17]
A copy of this document, now known as the Damascus Document, was also found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (4Q270). It contains a condemnation of those men who marry their brothers’ daughters (although that particular source omits the prohibition of one’s sister’s daughter). A legal scroll found at Qumran known as Midrash Mishpatim (4Q251) contains a list of the Biblical prohibitions of incest, and includes a man marrying his brother’s or sister’s daughter. Another important document from Qumran known as the Temple Scroll (11Q19) [18] also forbids marrying one’s brother’s or sister’s daughter.[19]
Case
#:
The Bible
(Lev. 18 and 20) forbids a man from marrying his…
The Rabbis
say that this also means that a woman maynot marry her…
The Sadducees
would say that this also means that one maynot marry his/her…
Sadducean
approach is redundant because it is already included in case #/New case:
1
Mother
Son
Daughter/Father
(13)
2
Sister
Brother
n/a
n/a
3
Father’s wife
Husband’s son
Wife’s
daughter/Mother’s husband
9
4
Granddaughter
Grandfather
Grandmother/Grandson
NEW
5
Parent’s
sister
Siblings’ son
Niece/Parent’s
brother
NEW
6
Father’s
paternal-brother’s wife
Husband’s
paternal-brother’s son
Wife’s
paternal-sister’s daughter/Parent’s paternal-sister’s husband, Mother’s paternal-brother’s
wife/Husband’s paternal-brother’s son
NEW (2
scenarios)
7
Daughter-in-law
Father-in-law
Mother-in-law/Son-in-law
12
8
Brother’s
wife
Husband’s
brother
Wife’s
sister/Sister’s husband
11
9
Wife’s
daughter
Mother’s
husband
Father’s
wife/Husband’s son
3
10
Wife’s
granddaughter
Grandmother’s
husband
Grandfather’s
wife/Husband’s grandson
NEW
11
Wife’s sister
Sister’s
husband
Brother’s
wife/Husband’s brother
8
12
Mother-in-law
Son-in-law
Daughter-in-law/Father-in-law
7
13
Daughter (see
fn. 22)
Father
n/a
n/a

The Sadducean method of interpretation creates three pairs of redundancies in the Bible’s list (Cases 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 12) and also creates four new cases of incest which are not mentioned in the Bible, in addition to marrying one’s niece (Cases 4, 6, two scenarios, 10).

These two points demonstrate the weakness of the Sadducean approach. The method of interpretation used to justify including one’s niece in the Biblical prohibition against marrying one’s aunt would create a series of redundancies in the other listed cases of incest. Furthermore, according to the Sadducean methodology of Biblical interpretation, four other relationships should be classified as incestuous (in addition to marrying one’s niece). However, the Sadducees are inconsistent in that they explicitly mention their added prohibition against marrying one’s niece but fail to account for the other new cases of incest which their methodology creates.[20]

In fact, Saul Lieberman argues that the Rabbis classified marrying one’s niece as a positive deed specifically in order to counter the Sadducean view that marrying one’s niece is Biblically forbidden. He notes it is the Rabbis’ way to take things which are simply “allowed” by the Bible and encourage people to do them in order to undermine sectarian heretical views.[21]
Interestingly, in his abovementioned work, ha-Parhi notes that the Sadducees were not innovators in banning marriage to a niece: They adopted the prohibition from the Samaritans, who took the idea from the Arabs.[22] Later, the Karaites also followed suit and outlawed uncle-niece marriage.[23]

R. Yehuda Ha-Hassid’s view

The 12th century German leader of the Hassidei Ashkenaz movement, R. Judah Ha-Hassid, declares that one should not marry his niece, neither sororal nor fraternal (in his ethical will §22 and in Sefer Hassidim §477). However, his understanding of this prohibition clearly differs from the Sadducean approach. The Sadducees understood that the Bible itself prohibits marrying one’s niece, while Ha-Hassid does not. As a follower of Rabbinic tradition, Ha-Hassid must comply with Talmudic law, yet his mention of a prohibition against marrying one’s niece is clearly at odds with the Rabbinic approach which not only allows for such marriage but even encourages it.

R. Ezekiel Landau of Prague (1713–1793), in his halachik responsa (Noda B’Yehuda, Even HaEzer Tinyana §79), offers an innovative solution. He proves that R. Judah Ha-Hassid only wrote the prohibitions in his will and Sefer Hassidim for his descendants—not for all Jews—because otherwise his prohibition would contradict an explicit Talmudic passage that not only allows but even applauds a man marrying his niece. [24] Others interpret Ha-Hassid’s warning in accordance with contemporary science, which warns of the genetic dangers to children born to an uncle and niece.

Nonetheless, Ha-Hassid himself explains his true intent. He writes (Sefer Hassidim §488) that only a pious individual is allowed to marry his niece in order that his children be similar to himself (per the rabbinic dictum mentioned above). However, a wicked man who only intends to fulfill his own pleasures should not marry his niece, so that his children will not be like him. Thus, Ha-Hassid actually allows for avunculate marriage in the right circumstances, yet elsewhere he writes blankly that it is forbidden so that the not-necessarily-pious masses would refrain from such unions.[25]

Conclusion

There are essentially two general views regarding avunculate marriage in the Bible. The Rabbinic position is that avunculate marriage is permitted by Biblical law. In fact, according to Rabbinic tradition, there are even Biblical precedents for allowing such marriages. Nonetheless, the Rabbis do limit the circumstances under which one may marry his niece. They forbid marrying one’s fraternal niece, since this might interfere with the commandment of the Levirate marriage. There is also the pietistic view of the Hassidei Ashkenaz, who rule that only a pious man may marry his niece (because he will have pure intentions), while the masses should not engage in such unions.

By contrast, the Sadducean approach outlaws avunculate marriage entirely, and attributes this prohibition to the Bible. Even according to Rabbinic tradition, the aforementioned Biblical cases are not unanimously viewed as actually consisting of avunculate marriages. The Sadducees would likely interpret these cases such that they do not serve as precedents for legitimately marrying one’s niece.

[1] L.
A. Feldman (ed.), Pirush HaRan Al HaTorah (Jerusalem: Machon Shalem,
1968) pg. 149.
[2]
While Ibn Ezra does not explicitly note his objections to this identification,
other sources quote a question in his name which implies a reject of this
tradition. Ibn Ezra asks that if we assume that the Bible lists Terah’s sons in
order of their birth, then Abraham was at least two years older than Haran.
Furthermore, it is evident from the Bible that Abraham was ten years older than
his wife Sarah (Sarai), as it says Then Abraham fell upon his face, and
laughed, and said in his heart: ‘Shall a child be born unto him that is a
hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?’ (Gen.
17:17). This would mean that Haran fathered Iscah/Sarai at the extremely
unlikely age of eight. Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel answers this objection by
noting that the Talmud (TB Sanhedrin 69b) itself already raised this
point. In fact, it uses this calculation to prove that in early generations men
fathered offspring from as early as the age of eight. See I. S. Lange
(ed.), Pirushei HaTorah L’Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel (Jerusalem,
1981) pp. 26–27 and S. Sasson (ed.), Moshav Zeqenim (London,
1959) pg. 15.
[3] S.
Sasson (ed.), Moshav Zeqenim (London, 1959) pg. 15.
[4] The
commentators propose this distinction because of the fact that the Bible splits
the genealogy of Haran’s descendants into two verses. The first verse only
mentions Lot, while the second says that he was the father of Milcah and Iscah.
However, Kimhi explains these verses in the exact opposite way: He
argues that the Torah sought to clarify that Haran was not only the father of
Lot, but also of Milcah and Iscah (which follows the view that this passage
only discusses one Haran).
[5]
Josephus (in Antiquities of the Jews Book II, Ch. 6) also understood
that Joseph’s wife was literally the daughter of Potiphar. However, see Midrash
Sekhel Tov (to Gen. 39:1) and Midrash Tadshe (Ch. 21), printed in J.
D. Eisenstein (ed.), Otzar Midrashim (New York, 1915) pg. 486 and also
cited by Yalkut Shimoni (Joshua §9), which say that Osnath was among
several righteous female converts.
[6]
This Midrash appears nowhere else, save for Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel’s
commentary. However, there is a similar tradition (Genesis Rabbah
§80:11) which says that Dinah refused to leave the house of Shechem until
Simeon promised to marry her. According to that Midrash, Simeon married his
sister Dinah, not her daughter.
[7] I.
S. Lange (ed.), Pirushei HaTorah L’Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel (Jerusalem,
1981) pg. 166.
[8] The
Talmud (TB Temurah 16a), followed by Rashi (to Jos. 15:17 and Jud.
1:13), writes that Othniel was only Caleb’s maternal brother, not full brother.
The rationale for this statement is that Caleb’s father is always given in the
Bible as Jephunah (Num. 13:6; 14:30; 26:65; 32:12; 34:19; Deut. 1:36′; Josh.
14:6; 14:14; I Chron. 4:15), while Othniel is always mentioned as a son of
Kenaz (Josh. 15:17; Jud. 1:13; 3:9; 3:11; I Chron. 4:13). According to this
approach, after Caleb was born, his mother married someone named Kenaz, and
bore Othniel to him. Rashi remains consistent with this view when he writes (in
his commentary to TB Sukkah 27b) that he is unsure of Othniel’s tribe,
because his relationship to Caleb was only through their mother, and
matrilineal descent does not impart tribal affiliation.
Kimhi
(to Josh. 15:17) adds that in the instances that Caleb also is referred to as a
Kenizzite (Num. 32:12; Josh. 14:6; 14:14), this term is a reference to his
step-father. Kimhi then suggests that Caleb and Othniel were actually
full brothers and that their father had two names: Jephunah and Kenaz (which is
why Caleb is also called a Kenizzite). Ultimately, Kimhi rejects this
approach and argues that the appellation “Kenizzite” refers to the family
of Kenaz, a common ancestor of both Caleb and Othniel. Ha-Parhi (cited
below) and Abarbanel (to Josh. 15:16 and in his introduction to Judges) concur
with Kimhi’s conclusion. [It has yet to be explored whether the term
Kenizzite used in connection with Caleb is related to the Kenizzites, a
Canaanite tribe which God promised Abraham will be conquered by the Israelites
(Gen. 15:19).]
[9]
Although, see Targum Rishon earlier (to Esther 2:7 and 2:15) who
explicitly writes that Esther was the daughter of Mordecai’s uncle, making them
first-cousins, not niece and uncle.
[10] Y.
Rivlin (ed.), Pirush Megillat Esther L’Rambam (Jerusalem, 1952)
pg. 60.
[11] See
Tosafot (TB Yevamot 99a) and Tosafot Yeshanim (ibid. 62b).
The same point is made earlier by Rav Sherira Gaon (who predated Rabbeinu Tam)
in a responsum printed by M. Grossberg (ed.), Gvul Menashe (Frankfurt,
1899) pg. 15.
[12] R.
Abraham Haim Schor (d. 1632) writes (Torat Haim to TB Sanhedrin
76b) that marrying one’s sororal niece is especially praiseworthy because
according to Biblical law, a daughter does not inherit her deceased father’s
property unless he has no sons. Accordingly, there is likely animosity between
a man and his sister, for the former will inherit their father’s property and
the latter will not. Therefore, it is especially praiseworthy for a man to
marry his sister’s daughter in order to alleviate this animosity and show his
sister that even she will derive benefit from their deceased father’s estate. Tosafot
Shantz, as quoted by Ashkenazi, offers a very similar approach and adds
that marrying one’s brother’s daughter does not achieve the same effect because
one’s paternal brother will in any case inherit his father’s property. In this,
Tosafot Shantz offers another strong argument for Rabbeinu Tam’s position.
[13] M.
Y. Blau (ed.), Shitah Mekubetzet Yevamot (New York: Shitat HaKadmonim,
1986) pg. 302. See also Shitah Mekubetzet (to TB Nedarim 63b) who
also seems so inclined.
[14] Y.
Hoffman (ed.), Meshivat Nefesh (Jerusalem: Machon Yerushalayim, 1998)
pg. 18.
[15] See
also Meiri (to TB Yevamot 62b) who seems to agree with Maimonides.
[16] In
a similar explanation, R. Todros HaLevi ben Joseph Abulafia (1225–1285), a
nephew of R. Meir Abulafia, writes that marrying one’s sister’s daughter is
especially meritous because his sister likely has financial difficulties in
marrying off her daughter. Hida (Birkei Yosef to Even HaEzer
§2:6) quotes this unpublished explanation of R. Todros and adds that according
to this, there is no difference between a sororal niece and a fraternal niece,
the difference is only in whether the groom’s sibling has financial
difficulties.
[17] S.
Schechter (ed.), Documents of Jewish Sectaries Vol. 1, Fragments of a
Zadokite Work (Cambridge, 1910) pg. 5.
[18]
Interestingly, Midrash Mishpatim lists the prohibition of marrying one’s
niece before it lists one’s aunt, while the Temple Scroll lists
marrying one’s niece afterwards.
[19] See
E. Eshel, “The Proper Marriage according to the Genesis Apocryphon and Related
Texts,” Meghillot: Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls Vol. 8–9 (Jerusalem:
Bialik Institute, 2010) pp. 29–51, who discusses numerous examples of the DSS
embellishing Biblical passages by adding marriages between first cousins. She
explains that the authors of those scrolls added cases of marriage between
first cousins and not between man and his niece precisely because the Qumranic
sect believed the latter to be forbidden.
[20] It
should be noted that three out of four of those cases (i.e. grandmother,
mother’s paternal brother’s wife, and grandfather’s wife) are explicitly banned
by Rabbinic decree, even though according to Rabbinic interpretation they are
permitted by Biblical law (see TB Yevamot 21a).
[21] S.
Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-fshutah (New York: JTS, 1973) pg. 915. Cf. E.
Segal, “Sarah and Iscah: Method and Message in Midrashic Tradition”, JQR,
vol. 82:4, pp. 417–429 who seems content to similarly explain the Midrashic
identification of Sarah with Iscah (mentioned above).
[22]
Ha-Parhi, in his abovementioned polemic against Sadducees, writes that
should one meet a Sadducee, one should tell him that according to Sadducean
religion one is allowed to marry his daughter because the Bible does not
explicitly forbid it and the Sadducees do not recognize the hermeneutical
arguments set forth by the Rabbis (TB Sanhedrin 76a) for its
prohibition. However, in light of the above, Ha-Parhi’s polemic is no
longer applicable because according to the Sadducees’ internal logic, marrying
one’s daughter is included in the prohibition of marrying one’s mother because
both are a violation of the child-parent relationship. That is, the Torah
forbids a man to lie with his mother and both Rabbinic and Sadducean
interpretation extend this prohibition to a woman who is forbidden from lying
with her son. However, Sadducean interpretation would also argue that included
in this prohibition is a man lying with his daughter because the Torah’s intent
is not simply to forbid a man and his mother, but to declare incestuous any
fornication between the child-parent line. The Rabbis, on the other hand,
understood that this is not the intent of the Torah and instead offer their own
source for the prohibition of marrying one’s daughter.
[23] N.A.
Stillman (ed.), “Malik al-Ramlī.” Encyclopedia of Jews in the
Islamic World (Brill Online, 2013).
[24] For
an extensive survey of various authorities who agree or disagree with Landau’s
characterization of the prohibition cited by R. Yehuda Ha-Hassid, see Sdei
Hemed Vol. 7 (Brooklyn: Kohath Publishing, 1950) pp. 2483ff.
[25] See
S. Guttman (ed.), Sefer Tzava’at Rabbi Yehuda HaHassid HaMefoar
(Jerusalem: Otzar HaPoskim, 2011) pp. 177–188 for an in-depth analysis of Ha-Hassid’s
stance on the topic.


R. Yitchak Al-fasi’s Anti-Qaraite Legislative Activity

|
R. Yitchak Al-fasi’s
Anti-Qaraite Legislative Activity
By Tzvi H. Adams
R. Yitchak Al-fasi (1013 – 1103) lived in North
Africa and Spain during the Golden Age of Qaraism. It is quite natural that we
find many instances of anti-Qaraite legislation in his writings.
Below are four such cases:
1) R. Al-fasi had the shofar blown on Shabbos
Rosh HaShanah in his beth din in Fez, Morocco. (See
discussion here: here). This
ruling and practice baffled many later authorities as it seems to contradict
the Talmud Rosh HaShanna 29b. R. Zerachiah Ha-Levi wrote about R. Al-fasi’s
opinion – וזה אחד מן המקומות המתמיהים הנמצאים בהלכות  (המאור הקטן ר”ה פ”ד).

When we consider that the Qaraites (of whom existed a large community in Fez)
did not blow a shofar at all on this holiday because such blowing is not
clearly written in the Torah, it is understandable why R. Al-fasi would desire
to have shofar blowing take place. Refraining from blowing the shofar would be
like surrendering to Qaraite views. We should also recall that Rosh HaShanah
can fall out on Shabbos as often as five times in ten years.
Aaron ben Elijah (1328-1369), a prominent
Qaraite theologian wrote:

The Rabbanites draw an analogy between the Day
of Trumpeting and the Day of Atonement which precedes the Year of the Jubilee,
of which it is written: Then shalt thou sound the horn of trumpeting in
the seventh month… on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 25:9). They say
just as this trumpeting was done with horn, so also must the trumpeting on the
Day of Trumpeting have been done with a horn. (However), we have already
explained…. The Day of Trumpeting, therefore,
signifies nothing but the raising of the voice in song and praise, inasmuch as
there is no mention of a horn in connection with it. Moreover, why should we
draw an analogy between a thing which is obligatory every year, and one which
is obligatory only once in fifty years, the year of the
Jubilee?…                   
(from Leon Nemoy’s Karaite Anthology (1980) pg 173)

Read more on the Qaraite halacha here
2) R. Al-fasi was a key player in the
transition of the evening prayer from reshut to chova:
Summary: Since the close of the Talmud, the
accepted halacha had been תפילת ערבית רשות.
Towards the end of the tenth century the custom solidified amongst Qaraites to
pray only twice a day. To create a social divide, Rabbanite authorities
responded by requiring every Rabbanite follower to pray three times each day.
By attending synagogue three times a day one affirmed his allegiance to the
Rabbanite camp; also by praying more often than Qaraites, Rabbanites
distinguished themselves as being more holy and religious. The Franco-German
sages, distant from the Qaraite-Rabbanite scene, upheld the original halacha of
תפילת ערבית רשות.
Explanation: All early Gaonim ruled aravit
is optional (עיין בראשונים ברכות פרק תפלת השחר).
In early Qaraite times there were different views as to how many times a day
one should pray. Anan ben David, the early sectarian schismatic, believed that
only two prayers should be said: “Anan rejected the maariv – service, as being
only a Rabbinic innovation (See Brochos 27b), and prescribed two daily services
only in accordance with the times on which the Temidim were sacrificed” (Jacob
Mann, “Anan’s Liturgy and his half-yearly cycle of the reading of the law”, Karaite
Studies (1971) edited by Philip Birnbaum pg. 285). R. Saadya Gaon
(882- 942), who had many interactions with Ananites, responded by requiring
Rabbanites to pray three times- he made maariv mandatory (chova).
This was only the opinion of the Ananites;
other sectarian Qaraite-like groups had other views as to the number of daily prayers
required. Later, in the mid-tenth century, R. Sherira Gaon (906-1006)
maintained the early gaonic psak that maariv
is reshut, but
wrote that one who does not daven maariv is a “poretz
geder” (here).
Late in R. Sherira’s lifetime and in subsequent
years, the view among Qaraites was solidifying that only two daily prayers were
required. The Qaraite scholar, Levi ben Yefet, writes in his Sefer
ha-Miswot (latter half of the 10th century),II pp.  501-502:
הדבור
בכמה זה השער- כבר נתחלפו בו ואשר עליו ההמון, כי הנה שתי תפלת בכל יום בקר וערב
שנאמר “ולעמוד בבקר בבקר להודות ולהלל ליוי וכן לערב”,… אשר יהיה זולת אלה הוא
נדבה…
ואמרו
מקצת חכמים כי חובה גם היא…ואלה הג’ תפלותיהם אשר זכר אותם דוד ע”ה “ערב ובקר
וצהרים אשיחה…” …. והקרוב עמי כי אלה הכתובים לא יורו על חיובה…
Shortly thereafter, R. Al-fasi (1013 – 1103)
further enforced the tri-daily prayer system by stating “והאידנא
נהוג עלמא לשוייה כחובה”. A Jew who belonged to the Rabbanite camp
distinguished himself from the Qaraites by attending synagogue three times a
day. I am preparing a lengthy paper on this topic – “The Transition of Aravit
from Reshut to Hova–
a Rabbanite Response to Qaraism”.
3) R. Al-fasi participated in the anti-Qaraite
transition of minor fast days from being voluntary to mandatory.
Though the Gaonim and R. Chananel (990-1053)
explicitly say that not eating on the three minor fast days is the individual’s
choice (as per the Talmud’s ruling RH 18b- אין שמד ואין
שלום – רצו – מתענין, רצו – אין מתענין), R. Al-fasi chose to overlook this detail
about fast days in his halachic writings. The purpose of this intentional
omission was almost certainly to separate Rabbanites from the Qaraite community
who did not observe the Rabbanite fasting calendar.
Briefly, here is the sugya
in Rosh HaShannah 18b:
אמר ר”ש
חסידא מאי דכתיב (זכריה ח) כה אמר ה’ צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי
וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה קרי להו צום וקרי להו ששון ושמחה בזמן
שיש שלום יהיו לששון ולשמחה אין שלום צום אמר רב פפא הכי קאמר בזמן שיש שלום יהיו
לששון ולשמחה, יש (גזרת המלכות) שמד צום, אין (גזרת המלכות) שמד ואין שלום רצו
מתענין רצו אין מתענין אי הכי ט”ב נמי אמר רב פפא שאני ט’ באב
הואיל והוכפלו בו צרות
The Gaonim:
– בזמן
הזה, בדורות הללו, שאין שמד ולא שלום, רצו מתענין לא רצו אין מתענין…. הילכך שלושת
צומות, מי שאינו
רוצה לצום אין בכך כלום ואינו מחוייב בהן. (תשובות הגאונים גנזי
קדם ח”ג עמ’ 43)
R. Chananel:
שיש שלום
– כלומר כל זמן שבית המקדש קיים יהיה לששון ולשמחה. יש שמד – צום.  אין שמד
ואין שלום –  כגון עתה בזמן הזה, רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין. וכיון שאם רצו
שלא להתענות בהן אין חובה עליהן, לפיכך אין שלוחין יוצאין בהן.
(רבינו חננאל – ראש השנה יח, ב)
הרב
ברג’לוני ז”ל כתב מ”ט קבעום האידנא חובה? מפני שהם דברי קבלה … (שערי תשובה
סימן עז)

By the time of Ramban (1194–c. 1270) and later
authorities mandatory fasting was well established in Spain. (Rashba, though,
is an exception- he still considered the fasts optional.)
About the practice of the Qaraites, Levi ben
Yefet, writes in his Sefer ha-Miswot (latter half of the
10th century),III pg 452: Levi be writes
“צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי” וגו’. … והוא
העשירי מן החדש העשירי… והוא היום אשר סמך בו נבוכדנצאר על ירושלם והצר עליה
ובנה עליה דיק, שנאמר “ויהי בשנה התשיעית למלכו בחדש העשירי בעשור לחדש בא
נבכדנאצר מלך בבל וכל חילו” וגו’
והיום השני – והוא יום פתיחת המדינה, והוא היום התשיעי מן החדש הרביעי
שנאמר “בחדש הרביעי בתשעה לחדש ויחזק הרעב בעיר ולא היה לחם לעם הארץ ותבקע
העיר”.
והצום השלשי – הוא היום השביעי מן החדש החמישי מפני כי אמר בו
“בחדש החמישי בשבעה לחדש היא שנת תשע עשרה שנה למלך נבוכדנצר בא נבוזראדן רב
טבחים עמד לפני מלך בבל בירושלם, וישרוף את בית יוי”.
והצום הרביעי – הוא היום העשירי מזה החדש הה’ שנאמר “ובחדש
החמישי באחד לחדש” וגו’. והגרמתו וגם הגרמת היום הז’ הוא שריפת בית יוי מפני
כי אמר אחרי כל אחד מהם ” וישרוף את בית ה’ 
שני פעמים.
והצום הה’ – הוא יום כד’ מן החדש השביעי שנאמר “וביום עשרים
וארבעה לחדש נאספו בני ישראל בצום ובשקים” וגו’.
… ויש באלה הצומות חלוף. מהם בין הרבנים ובין הקראים, ומהם בין
הקראים ובין העננים,…
הדבור בצומות אשר יצומו אותם הרבנים … והוא יום
יז’ בתמוז ויום ט’ באב, ויום עשרה בטבת… ואולם לא נצום אותם עמהם…
Dr. Isaac Gottlieb summarizes (here):
The Karaite calendar does not take note of our
holidays of Hanukkah, Tu-b’Shvat… because these days are not mentioned in the
written Torah. Three of the four fast days associated with the destruction of
the First Temple are observed in Karaite tradition, but on different days from
us: the “fast of the fourth month,” which we observe on the 17th of Tamuz, they
mark on the 9th of Tamuz (cf. II Kings 25:3-4); instead of the Ninth of Av the
Karaites fast on the 7th and the 10th of Av (II Kings 25:8; Jer. 52:12-13);
instead of the Fast of Gedaliah, which we observe on the 3rd of Tishre, the
Karaites fast on the 24th of Tishre (Neh. 9:1). The fast on the 10th of Tevet
is the only one which they observe on the same date (Jer. 52:4-5). They do not
observe the Fast of Esther but celebrate Purim for two days, and on leap years
they only observe it in the first month of Adar.
Rabbi David Bar-Hayim’s view is that the
transformation from optional to mandatory fasting occurred because later
rishonim believed they lived in time of שמד
– hence fasting was obligatory. More recent authorities only cited the words of
these late rishonim and that perspective became the norm. Here is his
discussion of this topic: “The Four
Fasts and their Halakhic Status Today”. Rabbi Bar-Hayim suggests that the situation
today (the political climate – war vs. peace) is not different than that of the
Gaonim and R. Chananel – אין שמד ואין שלום. 
This assessment has practical halachic implications. I suspect, though, that
the transformation was not only because of ‘wartimes versus peaceful times’ but
was also political and anti-Qaraite.
Rambam also omits this Talmudic leniency of רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין. The Halachot
digest of R. Al-fasi and Mishnah Torah of Rambam were both intended
to replace Talmud study for the lay population. By ignoring the leniency of
permissibility of skipping the minor fasts, these sages made sure their general
readers would assume fasting is obligatory- thereby segregating them from the
Qaraite communities who did not fast on Rabbanite fast days.
The language used by R. Y Barzillai, “קבעום האידנא חובה”, is similar to that employed by R.
Yitzchak Al-fasi and others – “והאידנא נהוג עלמא לשוייה
כחובה” – in explaining why, in the eleventh century, Jews were
required to pray the evening prayer every night (עיין
ברכות פרק תפלת השחר). This may hint at the same reason for
change- to separate Rabbanites from Qaraites. See Case#2.
Furthermore, Sma”k 96 (R. Yitchak Corbeil- 13th
century France) and Kolbo Laws of Taanith (Provence
14th century) cite the Gemara רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין
. These authors only cite practical matters- it is clear they still considered
the minor fasts optional. The great R. Tam was asked if a pregnant woman needs
to fast on the minor fasts. He responded by citing the Talmud – that these
fasts are optional (cited in Hagaath Maimoni Laws of Taanith 5).

These European sages lived far from Qaraites and therefore had no need to
respond to sectarian practices.
My suggestion – that the transformation of the
three minor fasts from being optional to mandatory was a reaction to Qaraism –
is novel and requires some more investigation and research…והמשך יבוא.
4) R. Yitchak Al-fasi, and his teacher, R.
Chananel, created a six hour waiting requirement between meat and dairy in the
early eleventh century – thereby limiting the social participation of
Rabbanites with Qaraites. This was not the common practice in Judaism until
their new legislation. I elaborated on this in “Waiting Six Hours for Dairy- A
Rabbanite Response to Qaraism” –  here.



What Did the Willows Ever Do to Deserve Such a Beating? An Original Explanation for a Perplexing Custom

|
What Did the
Willows Ever Do to Deserve Such a Beating?
An Original
Explanation for a Perplexing Custom

By Steven Weiner 

Steven had the privilege and good fortune of
learning from Rav Aharon Lichtenstein ztz”l and Rav Yaakov Meidan
Shlit”a at Yeshivat Har Etzion (1982-83) and prior to that from Rav
Yisroel Mendel Kaplan ztz”l and other Rabbeim at the Talmudical Yeshiva of
Philadelphia.  He is currently working on a series of essays on the theme
of Shivat Tzion and its contemporary resonance.

Introduction
The
seventh day of Sukkot – the day we now call הושענא רבה – has no special significance in the Torah.  The day has no distinctive name; no mitzvot
or rules distinguish it from the rest of Sukkot; its sacrifices follow
precisely the same pattern as the previous six days; and, unlike the seventh day
of Pesach, the seventh day of Sukkot is not even a מקרא קדש.  In other words, the seventh day of Sukkot
appears in the Torah as indistinguishable from the other days of המועד חול.
Nevertheless,
the Talmud describes several unique practices that were performed on הושענא רבה.  One such practice is the custom we still
observe today known as חיבוט ערבות (chibut aravot),
beating our ערבות against the ground. 
What is the meaning of this strange ritual, and does it have any meaningful
relationship with הושענא רבה?
In
this article, we suggest an original answer grounded in a deep connection
between the curious practice of beating ערבות and the teachings
of the final נביאים who were active during the early days of
the Second Temple, also known as the period of שיבת ציון.
A
most mysterious מנהג
נביאים
According
to the Mishna (Sukka 4:5), on each day
of Sukkot the people brought tall ערבות branches to the מקדש and stood them on the
ground surrounding the מזבח,
thereby adorning the מזבח with an overhanging
canopy of leaves.  The Gemara (Sukka
44a-44b) concludes that this practice is rooted in a הלכה למשה מסיני
(an
oral tradition received at Sinai).  However,
while the Mishna describes only a ritual performed inside the מקדש, the Gemara adds that a custom involving ערבות also
developed later outside of the מקדש – but only on one day of Sukkot, הושענא רבה.[1]  The Gemara describes this custom using the
verb חיבוט –
understood by Rashi as waving the ערבות,
and by Rambam as beating them e.g. against the floor.  The familiar custom nowadays is to take a
bundle of ערבות on הושענא רבה and strike it
sharply, several times, against the floor or a chair.
What is the
source and meaning of חיבוט ערבות outside the מקדש?  The Gemara (Sukka 44b) calls this practice a מנהג נביאים (“custom of the
prophets”).  Rashi and other traditional
commentators understand this as meaning that the custom was instituted by the trio
of prophetsחגי
זכרי’ ומלאכי , who prophesied during the early Second Temple period and were
members of אנשי כנסת הגדולה.  However, barely one page earlier (44a), the Gemara indicates חיבוט ערבות is a זכר למקדש!  Indeed, Rambam and numerous other subsequent authorities
who discuss the practice of חיבוט
ערבות echo the Gemara on both counts, dubbing
the practice a זכר למקדש
as
well as a מנהג נביאים.  But performing a זכר למקדש
is
an act of דרישת
ציון, a response to Yirmiyahu’s cry that poor
Zion lies destroyed and abandoned with none seeking her.[2]  How could a זכר למקדש in
the spirit of דרישת ציון possibly make sense in the earliest days
of the Second Temple, centuries before its destruction[3]? 
Furthermore, why
does the Gemara ascribe this custom specifically to the prophets?  The intriguing term מנהג נביאים is not used elsewhere
in the Talmud.  While many familiar practices
are known as enactments of אנשי
כנסת הגדולה (the Rabbinic authority during שיבת ציון, whose
members included חגי זכריה ומלאכי as well as other leading scholars of that period), they are not
labeled as מנהג נביאים.  What significance is to be found in the
Talmud’s attribution of חיבוט ערבות specifically to the prophets of the early Second
Temple?
In addition, the
peculiar way we perform this custom – beating ערבות against the ground[4] –
also cries out for explanation.  What does
beating branches symbolize?  Moreover, if
the custom is intended to remind us of the ערבות ceremony inside the מקדש, shouldn’t we instead encircle and adorn
the שלחן with
our ערבות, just as the מזבח was
encircled and adorned with ערבות in the מקדש?  After all, we commemorate the practice of הקפות in
the מקדש (Mishna Sukka 4:5) by marching around the שלחן in very similar
fashion.  Why then do we commemorate a
ceremony of adorning the מזבח by beating our ערבות against the ground?
A well-known Kabbalistic explanation
views חיבוט ערבות as a rite of atonement, and interprets הושענא רבה as
a day of final judgment and forgiveness. 
Beating the branches symbolizes, and mystically brings about, a
sweetening of the Divine attribute of justice.[5] While a mystical interpretation is certainly possible,
the Talmud never mentions judgment or atonement regarding חיבוט ערבות or הושענא רבה.  For
those of us who might prefer a less esoteric alternative, I wish to propose an
explanation for חיבוט ערבות that is
grounded in Biblical sources, and which also helps to resolve the puzzle of exactly
how and why a זכר למקדש
was
initiated as a מנהג נביאים in the early
days of שיבת
ציון.  I am not sure that
difficulty is tackled by the Kabbalistic approach.
Others have suggested that חיבוט ערבות represents
a prayer for rain, the sound of beating ערבות evoking the sounds
and sights of a rainstorm.[6]  This seems plausible, as the Talmud and
Midrash indicate that arba minim and
other practices of Sukkot are in part connected to our prayers for rain, which
begin at this time of year.  However, once
again this explanation fails to shed light on why the custom was initiated specifically
by the prophets of שיבת ציון, or how we can possibly reconcile the seemingly
self-contradictory, dual status of מנהג
נביאים and זכר למקדש.
Affirming a powerful prophecy by acting
it out
I believe the
key to unlocking the significance of חיבוט ערבות may be found by
examining the visions proclaimed by the prophets of שיבת ציון.
The Second
Temple was built in a climate of intensely mixed emotions.  The austere structure of שיבת ציון paled against the splendid, opulent בית ראשון
constructed
by Solomon.  Celebrating their first
Sukkot shortly after rebuilding the מזבח,
the people of Ezra’s time offered the obligatory holiday offerings בְּמִסְפָּר
כְּמִשְׁפַּט דְּבַר־יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ – “by number, according to the obligation of each day.”  In contrast, Solomon offered such bountiful
sacrifices for the inauguration of בית ראשון that the capacity of the מזבח was
overwhelmed and more space had to be specially consecrated![7]  Moreover,
בית ראשון
was
graced with a visible appearance of God’s presence, ‘ה כְּבוֹד, with clouds filling the Temple upon its
dedication, just as occurred in the original משכן.[8]  No comparable revelation is reported for בית שני.  Accordingly, elders who remembered the
magnificent First Temple wept loudly over the Second Temple’s modest foundations,
and the inaugural ceremony was accompanied by a heart-rending mixture of tears
and rejoicing (Ezra 3:12-13).  To make matters even worse, Persia soon
suspended further rebuilding of the Temple
in response to slander against the Jews by their envious, non-Jewish
neighbors (see Ezra 4).
Against this painful
backdrop, the prophet חגי received a stirring vision on the 21st day of Tishrei – i.e.
on הושענא רבה,
the same date when Solomon had concluded his spectacular חֲנֻכַּת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ for the
First Temple centuries earlier:
חגי פרק ב
(א)
בַּשְּׁבִיעִי בְּעֶשְׂרִים וְאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הָיָה דְּבַר־יְקֹוָק
בְּיַד־חַגַּי הַנָּבִיא לֵאמֹר:
In a powerful message
of hope and encouragement, God first acknowledged that the Jewish people were demoralized
by the humble stature of בית שני
(“it is nothing in your eyes”) in comparison to the glorious Temple and kingdom
of Solomon:
(ג)
מִי בָכֶם הַנִּשְׁאָר אֲשֶׁר רָאָה אֶת־הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה בִּכְבוֹדוֹ הָרִאשׁוֹן,
וּמָה אַתֶּם רֹאִים אֹתוֹ עַתָּה? הֲלוֹא כָמֹהוּ כְּאַיִן בְּעֵינֵיכֶם:
Nevertheless, God
urged the people and their leaders to strengthen themselves and take action (continue
rebuilding), mindful that He is with them.  God declared that in but a moment He could
shake (מַרְעִישׁ)
the heavens and the earth, overturn (וְהִרְעַשְׁתִּי) powerful empires and deliver their wealth
to Israel, and “fill this house with כָּבוֹד.”[9]  The כָּבוֹד of
the new Temple could then exceed even the כָּבוֹד of
the First Temple, in both material wealth and Divine presence:
(ד) וְעַתָּה חֲזַק זְרֻבָּבֶל נְאֻם־יְקֹוָק, וַחֲזַק יְהוֹשֻׁעַ
בֶּן־יְהוֹצָדָק הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל, וַחֲזַק כָּל־עַם הָאָרֶץ נְאֻם־יְקֹוָק,
וַעֲשׂוּ – כִּי־אֲנִי אִתְּכֶם, נְאֻם יְקֹוָק צְבָקוֹת:
(ה) אֶת־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־כָּרַתִּי אִתְּכֶם בְּצֵאתְכֶם
מִמִּצְרַיִם וְרוּחִי עֹמֶדֶת בְּתוֹכְכֶם אַל־תִּירָאוּ:
(ו) כִּי
כֹה אָמַר יְקֹוָק צְבָקוֹת:
עוֹד אַחַת מְעַט הִיא, וַאֲנִי מַרְעִישׁ
אֶת־הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת־הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת־הַיָּם וְאֶת־הֶחָרָבָה:
(ז) וְהִרְעַשְׁתִּי אֶת־כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם וּבָאוּ חֶמְדַּת
כָּל־הַגּוֹיִם וּמִלֵּאתִי אֶת־הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה כָּבוֹד אָמַר יְקֹוָק
צְבָקוֹת:
(ט) גָּדוֹל
יִהְיֶה כְּבוֹד הַבַּיִת הַזֶּה הָאַחֲרוֹן מִן־הָרִאשׁוֹן אָמַר יְקֹוָק
צְבָקוֹת וּבַמָּקוֹם
הַזֶּה אֶתֵּן שָׁלוֹם נְאֻם יְקֹוָק צְבָקוֹת:
I suggest our מנהג נביאים of
beating ערבות has its roots in this prophecy.  When חגי received these powerful words, cutting
to the heart of the difficult challenges that he and his generation faced, he responded
by acting out his own prophecy –
וְהִרְעַשְׁתִּי /אֲנִי מַרְעִישׁ, “God
will shake the heavens and the earth” – by striking the earth sharply with a
bundle of ערבות.[10]
 Using ערבות poignantly evoked the
similar branches that were used on that same day by the people within the מקדש to
encircle and celebrate their modest, fragile מזבח.
Prophets
in the Bible often acted out the imagery of their prophecies, as a way of affirming
and reinforcing their visions.  Ramban notes
this phenomenon in his commentary to the Torah (Breisheet 12:6).  One famous example
is even highly reminiscent of חיבוט
ערבות: Elisha instructed the King of Israel to bang arrows on the ground,
in order to affirm Elisha’s prophecy that Israel would smite and defeat its enemy
(Melachim II 13:16-17).  It is easy to picture חגי
following
in Elisha’s path and striking the ground with ערבות in place of
arrows, as an affirmation of his own prophecy ofוְהִרְעַשְׁתִּי /מַרְעִישׁ and
as a prayer to God that it be completely and speedily fulfilled.[11]
Thus,
חיבוט ערבות was from its very
inception both מנהג נביאים
and זכר למקדש – a זכר למקדש ראשון!!  Our puzzle is solved!  חגי and his colleagues performed חיבוט ערבות in the purest spirit of דרישת ציון.  Their ritual expressed a heartfelt plea for
the redemptive upheaval (רעש) that they envisioned, so that the full glory of בית ראשון could be
restored and exceeded.  At the same time,
the custom also served as a reminder of God’s command to חגי that we
strengthen ourselves and act courageously in fulfillment of God’s mandate to
continue rebuilding.
Although
בית שני was eventually completed, the longed-for glory of Solomon’s
era remained elusive. Judea was a vassal state for most of the Second Temple
period.  God’s presence (שכינה) was not manifest in בית שני, at least in
comparison with בית ראשון.[12]
 Therefore, it makes sense that חגי
and
his colleagues, and eventually all Jews, would annually repeat the custom of חיבוט ערבות outside
the מקדש on
הושענא רבה, affirming the
yearned-for prophecy on its anniversary.  To this day, in the prayer we recite just
before חיבוט ערבות – known as (“”קול מבשר) אומץ ישעך – we plead for complete and imminent
redemption by evoking “sounds” of deliverance including the earth-shaking upheaval
around Jerusalem foretold by זכרי’ , close colleague of חגי.  Like the original
prophecy of חגי, and much
like אני מאמין,
our custom of beating ערבות expresses both a prayer to God for redemption as well as
an uplifting pledge of faith and determination.
Our
novel interpretation also explains why the custom of חיבוט ערבות outside the מקדש is unique
to הושענא רבה.  The Gemara (Sukka 44a) explains why חיבוט
ערבות is performed on only one day of
Sukkot, as opposed to all seven days, but never explains the choice of which
day.[13]
 According to our explanation, the prophecy
of חגי
is
naturally reenacted and reaffirmed on its anniversary.  Intriguingly, Taz[14] suggests
חיבוט ערבות is
performed on הושענא רבה because of its unique holiness: יותר קדושה ביום זה.  Our proposal offers one way of interpreting
that special holiness.  הושענא רבה, the anniversary of בבית ראשון
חנכת המזבח
and
of נבואת חגי, is a day
of yearning for full redemption and the imminence of God’s presence – precisely
the theme expressed by חיבוט ערבות.
Counterpoint: who dares scorn the day of
small beginnings?
While
beating ערבות outside of the מקדש expressed a deep longing for more
completion redemption, adorning the מזבח with a beautiful canopy of ערבות sounded a complementary
note inside the מקדש.  I believe this latter
practice acquired particular poignancy during the Second Temple period,
precisely because nagging feelings of disappointment over the limited “glory”
of that redemption were so palpable from the very start.  As cited above from Ezra 3, tears threatened
to drown out the shouts of joy heralding the inauguration of the Second
Temple.  Likewise, חגי
in
his הושענא רבה prophecy hears God say: “Who among you remembers the
glory of the First Temple, and what do you think of this house now?  It is nothing in your eyes!”
In
the prophecy of חגי, God’s primary response to these feelings of disappointment is
a promise that the future can be brighter if the people will only be strong and
act with courage and faith.  However, in 4:10
זכרי’, we hear
a somewhat different response: כִּי מִי בַז לְיוֹם קְטַנּוֹת?  – Who scorns
the day of small things?  I sense a sharp
tone of rebuke in the word “scorn”: Who dares to scorn the גאולה of שיבת ציון simply because it appears “small” and
modest compared to Solomon’s empire?  Shouldn’t
the people be grateful for even the smallest beginnings of גאולה?  Perhaps
חגי
2:3
contains a hint of the same rebuke: is the nascent בית שני really nothing
in your eyes?
I
suggest that for the Jews of the Second Temple[15],
adorning the מזבח with ערבות
became a deeply meaningful way of expressing gratitude and appreciation for the
redemption they enjoyed, imperfect as it was. 
The ceremony became a way of saying: we will never scorn you, oh מזבח, you are precious to
us!  In fact, the Mishna (Sukka 4:5) records that when the
ceremonies in the מקדש were completed on הושענא רבה, the people shouted: יופי לך מזבח, יופי לך מזבח
(“beauty is yours, מזבח”).  The reason for this charming salute to the
altar is not discussed in the Talmud, and several commentaries have commented
on it.[16]  Personally, I cannot help but hear an unmistakable
echo of the “cheers of ‘Beauty! Beauty!’” foretold in 4:7 זכרי’:
מִי־אַתָּה הַר־הַגָּדוֹל לִפְנֵי זְרֻבָּבֶל לְמִישֹׁר וְהוֹצִיא
אֶת־הָאֶבֶן הָרֹאשָׁה תְּשֻׁאוֹת חֵן חֵן לָהּ:
Whatever great mountain
[obstacle] lies before Zerubavel –will be flattened!  He will present the cornerstone amid cheers of
“beauty, beauty!”
This vision of זכרי’
is adjacent
to his rebuke against those who scorn the day of small things.  The prophet’s message is that when the cornerstone
of the new Temple is placed, the proper response is joyous applause of “beauty,
beauty!”  Do not dare to be so ungrateful
as to scorn the modest beginnings of our new מקדש, thunders זכרי’!  I suggest that for the
people of בית שני,
the ערבות ceremony around the מזבח was an opportunity
to align themselves with those who gratefully cheered the cornerstone, and to
distance themselves from any thoughts of scorn.
Our
novel interpretation of the ערבות ceremony in the מקדש is further supported by the Gemara’s
citation (Sukka 45a) of Tehilim
118:27 – אִסְרוּ־חַג
בַּעֲבֹתִים עַד־קַרְנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – as a source for encircling the מזבח with a canopy of ערבות. 
In
this section of Tehilim, familiar to us from Hallel, just a few verses earlier (118:22)
we read:
אֶבֶן מָאֲסוּ הַבּוֹנִים
הָיְתָה לְרֹאשׁ פִּנָּה
The
lowly stone once scorned by many is now the celebrated cornerstone!  This echoes the message and “stone” imagery
of זכרי’ that we
read above.  As Tehilim 118 continues, we
rejoice in this remarkable gift from God (23-24), we bless those who come
paying respects to the מקדש (26), and we gratefully salute the מזבח by encircling it
with leafy boughs (27).  The Gemara’s
citation of this excerpt from Tehilim as a source for adorning the מזבח makes perfect sense.
A Message for Our Own Era
We
have suggested a new interpretation for the mysterious custom of חיבוט ערבות, attributed by the
Gemara to the prophets of שיבת ציון.  We suggest the custom
arose from confrontation with the incomplete redemption of the Second Temple era.  The seemingly bizarre ritual of shaking
branches and striking the ground expressed profound longing for (and faith in) a
more perfect גאולה,
by vividly acting out the vision of חגי that one day God will bring a fully redemptive
“upheaval” when His presence returns to “shake” the earth and overthrow all
oppressors.  This same theme is
emphasized even today on הושענא
רבה in our prayers accompanying חיבוט ערבות.
At
the same time, we have also suggested that the related practice of adorning the
מזבח with
a beautiful canopy of boughs and shouting יופי לך מזבח expressed a complementary
sense of gratitude.  Even as the people
of בית שני pined
for complete redemption, they acknowledged the partial, beautiful redemption
which they had merited to receive, and did not dare scorn it.
How
fortunate are we in contemporary times, two thousand years after the Second
Temple’s destruction, that while still yearning for שלמה
גאולה, we can once again also express gratitude
for an imperfect but precious redemption already granted us.  Indeed today’s Jerusalem and Israel are
beautiful gifts – יופי לך
– as well as a work-in-progress.  As we
continue to beat our branches against the earth crying out for the קול מבשר heralding our ultimate redemption, and committing ourselves to the national
project of rebuilding (materially and spiritually), we dare not forget to appreciate
the remarkable gifts God has already bestowed upon us.
[1] It is evident
from the Gemara’s complicated discussion on Sukka 43b-44a, and is universally
accepted by all subsequent authorities, that חיבוט ערבות outside the מקדש is
performed only on הושענא רבה.
[2] Sukka 41a, ditto Rosh Hashana 30a, citing Yirmiyahu
30:17.
[3] One might attempt
to answer that חיבוט ערבות was originally a מנהג נביאים, but after המקדש חורבן it became instead, or in addition, a זכר למקדש.  See Tosafot Yom Tov
(Sukka 4:5), the only source I have seen so far who addresses this apparent
contradiction between מנהג
נביאים and
זכר למקדש.  But this answer seems
problematic.  Following Gemara Sukkah
44b, all of the major poskim rule that we recite no blessing on חיבוט ערבות precisely because it is a mere custom,
a מנהג נביאים.  But
if the practice was converted after the חורבן into a זכר למקדש, then why shouldn’t it warrant a blessing, just like holding arba minim after the first day of Sukkot
זכר למקדש?  Evidently then, even
the זכר למקדש
aspect
of חיבוט ערבות itself only has
the authority of a מנהג נביאים, which leaves our question unanswered.
[4] This question
is strongest according to Rambam and others who understand חיבוט as
banging against a surface, as is our common practice nowadays.  According to Rashi, who interprets חיבוט as
a synonym for waving or shaking, the ritual would not stand out as so unusual per se.
[5] Zohar parshat Tzav (end of 31b); see also
Ramban on Bamidbar 14:9.
[6] E.g. Rabbi Dr. Louis
Jacobs, in The Jewish Religion: A Companion, reprinted  here.
[7] Compare Ezra 3:4 versus Melachim I 8:63-64 and Divrei
HaYamim II 7:5, 7.
[8] Melachim I 8:10-11, Divrei HaYamim II 7:1-3, Exodus
40:34-35.
[9] Compare Melachim I 8:11 and Divrei HaYamim II 7:1-2 (כִּי־מָלֵא כְבוֹד־יְקֹוָק אֶת־בֵּית יְקֹוָק).
[10] The same verb רעש
–
upheaval, literally shaking the earth – also appears prominently in the visions
of final redemption recorded by זכרי’
(contemporary of חגי) and יחזקאל (slightly earlier, during the Babylonian exile), traditionally
read as haftarot during Sukkot.
[11] There is also
Midrashic precedent for the notion that shaking the branches of ארבע מינים symbolizes
the overthrow of our enemies and the redemption of Israel.  See ספר הרוקח,
in the attached source sheets.
[12] Yoma 21b. 
See also Yoma 9b: because the Jews of that era did not return to
Israel en mass “like a wall”, and instead mustered only a relatively weak
return, God’s presence likewise returned only to a limited extent.
[13] Admittedly, the
choice of הושענא רבה might be
arbitrary: might as well pick the last day, if we must pick one.  Compare Sukka 43a, explaining why ערבה was
taken in the מקדש
on הושענא רבה even on Shabbat.  Essentially, the Gemara explains that הושענא רבה was selected by Chazal for this purpose not necessarily due to its inherent special
character, but perhaps simply because it happens to be “the last day.”  Beit Yosef and Bach (O.C. 664) both suggest explaining
the assignment of חיבוט ערבות to הושענא רבה in a similar manner.  However, it is more satisfying to find an underlying
connection between the day and its practices, if we can.
[14] Taz O.C. 664
note 2; cited by Mishna Berura in note 11. 
Taz also connects the special holiness of הושענא רבה to the performance of seven הקפות in
the מקדש; we hope and intend בעזרת
ה’ to
explore the meaning of הקפות in a separate, companion essay.
[15] The precise
origin of adorning the מזבח with a tall canopy
of ערבות is unclear.  I am not aware of any indication that it was an
essential part of the original הלכה למשה מסיני of
holding extra ערבות in the מקדש.  However, for our
purposes, it doesn’t really matter if the practice originated during the Second
Temple era, or if it was initiated earlier and simply took on additional
meaning later.
[16] See Aruch
Le-Ner (Sukka 45a); Tiferet Yisrael in הלכתא גבירתא
on Mishna Sukka chapter 4.


Mishloah Manot: An Insight of the Rav zt”l

|
Mishloah Manot: An Insight of the Rav zt”l
By Nathaniel Helfgot

Rabbi Helfgot is Chair of the Dept. of Torah SheBaal Peh at SAR High School and rabbi of Congregation Netivot Shalom in Teaneck, NJ. He has served as editor of Or-Hamizrach and associate editor of The Meorot Journal. He has written and edited a number of sefarim and volumes including  Divrei Berakha U-Moed: Iyunim Be-Nosei Berakhot U-Moadim (Yeshivat Har Etzion, 2002),  Community, Covenant and Commitment: Selected Letters and Communications of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (Toras HoRav Foundation, 2005), The YCT Rabbinical School Companion to Sefer Shmuel  (Ben-Yehuda Press, 2006), Mikra and Meaning: Studies in Bible and Its Interpretation (Maggid Publishers, 2012), Al Saf Ha-Aretz (Maggid Publishers, 2014)

One of the abiding contributions of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik , the Rav zt”l, to halakhic thought was the introduction of the notion that there exists a category of mitzvot that though expressed in external action (maaseh ha-miztvah) is geared to fulfillment in the inner recesses of the heart and soul (kiyum she-ba-Lev). The external act is meant to engender and lead or in other instances to be a concrete expression of an inner emotional experience. Most famously the Rav developed these notions in relationship to the areas of aveilut, simchat yom tov and the experience tefillah and  teshuvah.  Rabbi Reuven Ziegler has noted that the Rav himself, (or in citations by students) used this distinction in print in relation to fifteen distinct mitzvot[1].
I would like to add one more to the list based on two unpublished letters of the Rav. In the year 2000 when I was deep into my research on the letters of the Rav zt”l for the volume that would be published in 2005 entitled Community, Covenant and Commitment : Selected Letters and Communications of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik )Toras HaRav Foundation-Ktav, 2005), I received copies of a number of letters that the Rav sent to Mr. Aaron Schreiber z”l in the mid 1950’s and early 1960’s.[2]  Mr. Schreiber z”l was a resident of the West Side of Manhattan and an active and devoted member of  the Rav’s celebrated weekly Talmud shiur for the general community held each Tuesday night at the Moriah Shul on West 80th street from  1952 through early 1980. The short letters were notes of good wishes and greetings for Rosh Hashanah and other events and thus not published in the volume mentioned above.
In two of these letters the Rav argued that the mitzvah of משלח מנות  also fell into the paradigm of maaseh ha-mitzva and kiyum she-ba-lev.
Below are the texts of the letters (including the original spellings):
1.                                                                                                             עשרה באדר שני, תשי”ד
                                                                                                                March 14, 1954
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schreiber:
Thank you so much for the beautiful  basket of fruit which you sent us for Purim. We appreciate greatly the thought behind your kind gesture. As an attentive and intelligent participant in our weekly class, Mr. Schreiber, you certainly recall my remark about a unique group of mitzvoth which display a dual aspect; the technical performance asserts itself in a physical deed whereas the intrinsic content of the mitzvah expresses itself in a state of mind, a thought, a feeling or an emotion.

I believe that the precept of משלח מנות belongs to this category of  dual mitzvoth-the actual sending or giving of the present is an external act, in itself irrelevant, yet the full sublime meaning of it is attained in the manifestation of warm -hearted and sincere friendship. For such sentiments I am always very thankful.  Mrs. Soloveitchik  joins me in wishing you a very happy and joyous Purim.

                                                                       With kindest personal regards, I remain
                                                                       Sincerely yours
                                                                        Joseph Soloveitchik
שמחת פורים וחדות ד’ מעוזכם!
2.                                                                                                                                             
                                            יום שני, יג’ אדר, זמן קהלה תשט”ו                                                                                
  Dear Mr. Schreiber:
     We received the basket of candy which you sent to us for Purim. Permit me to convey to you and to Mrs. Schreiber our sincerest thanks for remembering us at this time of the year. The Halachah has introduced the  practice of  משלח מנות  as an objective symbol of a subjective feeling, as an expression of a sentiment, as a manifestation of friendship, the greatest of all gifts that human beings can bestow upon each other. As such we cherish your present  and are thankful for it.

                                                                    With kindest personal regards to you and Mrs. Schreiber, I remain
                                                                          Sincerely yours,
                                                                          Joseph Soloveitchik
                    


[1] Majesty and Humility (Urim, 2012) pg. 86-87.
[2] My thanks to his son Mr.  Joel Schreiber for sharing the letters with me at that time.


Running on the Inclined Plane of the Altar in the Second Temple

|

Running
on the Inclined Plane of the Altar in the Second Temple

by Chaim Katz
בראשונה … 
רצין ועולים בכבש, וכל הקודם את חברו לתוך ארבע אמות זכה
 We read in the Mishna:
[The priests used to
compete for the honor of separating and removing ashes from the altar] by
sprinting up the ramp. Whoever was the first to reach the top four cubits was
entitled to remove the ashes.  Mishna
Yoma 2:1
One
of the first authorities to question the practice described in this mishna was
Eliezer ben Samuel of Metz who lived in the 12th century. He was a Tosafist and
a student of Rabbenu Tam. In his Sefer Yereim 
(Negative 311), he compared the description given in this mishna with a
conflicting description given in the Mekilta DeRabbi Yishmael: (Masechta
d’bhodesh parsha 11):
  מה ת״ל אשר לא
תגלה ערותך עליו שלא יפסיע פסיעה גסה אלא עקב בצד גודל וגודל בצד עקב
What do you learn from
the verse “don’t go up to my altar by stairs so that your nakedness isn’t
revealed near it” (Ex. 20:23) [1] – that one doesn’t take large strides when
stepping up to the altar, rather heel-next-to-toe and toe-next-to-heel.
Apparently,
the Mekilta DeRabbi Yishmael forbids not only running on the ramp, but even
forbids regular, normal, walking on the ramp.
Another
Tosafist, R. Moshe of Coucey (13th century) in his Tosafot Yeshanim on Yoma 22b
re-raised the problem. Over the years and centuries, many others suggested ways
of resolving this difficulty. [2]
A
solution occurred to me based on the idea that maybe the priests who sprinted
to the top of the ramp were acting improperly and not following the teaching of
the sages. Our sources report a number of temple practices that were initiated
by groups who followed their own teachings. For example: the practice of
lighting incense outside the kodesh ha kedoshim on Yom Kippur (Yoma 19b), the
practice of not offering the water libation on the altar on sukkot  (Yoma 26b), the practice of following a
different calendar and bringing the omer offering on Sunday (Menahot 65). [3]
Although
I don’t have a proof that the races on the ramp were improper, the Talmud
itself encourages this perception (Yoma 23a):
ת”ר מעשה
בשני כהנים שהיו שניהן שוין ורצין ועולין בכבש קדם אחד מהן לתוך ארבע אמות של
חבירו נטל סכין ותקע לו בלבו עמד רבי צדוק על מעלות האולם ואמר אחינו בית ישראל שמעו … געו כל העם בבכיה בא
אביו של תינוק ומצאו כשהוא מפרפר אמר הרי הוא כפרתכם ועדיין בני מפרפר ולא נטמאה סכין
We read in a baraita. It
once happened that two priests were racing up the ramp … when  one got close to the other and stabbed him …
R. Zadok stood on the steps of the temple and eulogized the slain priest:
Listen my brothers the house of Israel … All the people burst into tears. The
father of the young priest had meanwhile found his slain son in his death
throes, “The knife is still ritually clean”
The
obvious contrast between the father who “cared more about the purity of the
temple vessels than about the murder” and the people who were present listening
to R. Zadok and weeping, demonstrates that the priest (the father) didn’t see
himself as part of the community who was present in the temple nor did he share
the priorities of the rabbis. [4]
If
so, there really is nothing to reconcile: a priest is never allowed to run on
the ramp. Historically, there was a time when the rabbis had little control
over what the priests did. The Mishna is describing one of those times.
However, when the circumstances changed and the rabbis had the opportunity,
they stopped the racing and substituted the lottery in its place. [5]

Standing
in Prayer

The
Mekilta’s teaching is not quoted in the Babli, but is quoted in the Yerushalmi,
albeit in a different context. We read in the Yerushalmi (Talmud Berakot 1:1):
זהו שעומד ומתפלל צריך להשוות את רגליו.  תרין אמורין רבי לוי ורבי סימון חד אמר
כמלאכים וחד אמר ככהנים.  מאן דאמר ככהנים
לא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי שהיו מהלכים עקב בצד גודל וגודל אצל עקב.  ומאן דאמר כמלאכים  ורגליהם רגל ישרה.
One who stands up to
pray must hold his feet together. Two teachers: R. Levi and R. Simon. One of
them says: like angels. The other one says: like priests. The one who refers to
priests quotes:  “Don’t go up to my
altar by stairs” (Ex. 20:23).  They walked
with heel-next-to-toe and toe-next-to-heel. The one who refers to angels quotes:
“Their legs were as one straight leg” (Ez. 1:7)
It
isn’t very clear how to visualize that the kohen walking on the ramp towards
the altar, serves as a source and paradigm for the custom of standing with
one’s feet together during the amidah prayer. Many commentaries therefore,
found a practical difference between these two opinions: if we compare
ourselves to angels, then we stand with our feet together and parallel to each
other; however if we compare ourselves to priests, then we stand in prayer with
one foot in front of the other. [6]
The
Oxford manuscript of the Mekilta has a slightly different description of the
way the priest walked up the ramp. Based on the manuscript and a careful
reading of the rest of the passage in the standard editions, the comparison
between walking on the ramp and standing with our feet together in prayer is
much more straightforward: 
אלא גודל בצד
עקב ועקב בצד עקב ועקב בצד גודל
Rather toe-next-to-heel
and heel-next-to-heel and heel-next-to-toe
According to the
manuscript, the priest stood with his feet together before taking every step.
Instead of taking a full step (moving his heel about 20 inches) he took half
steps (moving his heel about 10 inches each time). [7]
In
addition, when the Mekilta teaches that the priest walked heel next to (בצד)
toe,  it doesn’t mean that he moved one
foot completely ahead of the other, with the back of the heel of one foot
touching or parallel to the top of the toe of the other foot. Rather the priest
took even smaller steps so that the length of the big toe of one foot was “next
to” or parallel to the heel and lower instep of his other foot. I experimented
and found for me, at each step my heel only moved forward  about 6 inches.  At this pace the legs are hardly parted.
This
is all to say that if you were present in the courtyard of the Israelites
(about 50 feet away from the priest walking up the ramp), you would see the
priest standing with his legs held together heel to heel 50% of the time
(assuming all steps took an equal length of time). Even when he was “walking”,
he moved his legs so slightly apart that he would appear to be standing still.
The long robe he wore that reached down to his ankles also helped to conceal
his movement. Picture the priest walking up the ramp as someone standing still
on a slowly moving sidewalk or some similar example. He looks almost
motionless, as he inches forward smoothly towards the top of the altar.  (I did a test on level ground.  Walking this way, it took me a little more
than three minutes to cover about 32 cubits).
It’s likely that both
amoraim in the Yerushalmi agree that we pray with feet held together parallel
to each other. They each  cite a
different pasuk, but they’re expressing the same idea.[8]
On the level of the aggadah,
there may be a different lesson from each teaching. We’re fortunate to have R.
Kook’s aggadic interpretation on the meaning behind aligning one’s feet
together in prayer like the angels: [9] 
המתפלל צריך שיכוין רגליו, שנאמר ורגליהם רגל
ישרה. הרגלים משמשים פעולת ההליכה ופעולתהעמידה. לפעולת ההליכה עיקר שימושם הוא
במה שהם נפרדים, בפעולת העמידה עיקר שימושם הואבמה שהם מתאחדים. במהלך שלמות האדם
יש הליכה, להוסיף לקנות שכליות ומעלות מדותיות. וישעמידה, היינו שהדברים שקנה יהי’
קנינם חזק בנפשו, לא יפסידם איזה שינוי וגירעון במצבו…
ובזההאדם
מתדמה לפי יכולתו לשכלים העליונים, שקניני שלמותם חזקים במציאותם, בהיות ג”כ
עיקרתעודתם לעמוד בשלימותם ולא להוסיף עליו.ובזה ג”כ
נכללת השתדלות האדם בתפילה שתהיינה מעלותיו קנויות אצלו ומוטבעות
Legs are used for
walking and standing. In the activity of walking, the legs’ usefulness consists
in their being parted; in standing, in being held together. To advance towards
perfection, to progress in virtuous conduct and intelligence, man must move. To
entrench in his personality what he has already acquired, man must stand still.
He must not allow any change for the worse in his circumstances to let him lose
what he possesses…Torah is essentially designed to increase man’s perfection
and exaltation. It is referred to as ‘a path’… Tefillah impresses virtues
already acquired making them stable and enduring. Here man is likened, to the
extent that he is capable, to the supreme intelligences whose perfection is
firmly ingrained in their selves – their intrinsic function being to preserve
their perfection, not to add to it [10]
I’m
not capable of extrapolating a similar lesson from the comparison with priests
walking up the ramp. However, I feel that we have a enough  key words to associate the way the priests
walk up to the altar with ideas like refinement, growth and free choice on one
hand, and ideas like slow change on the other. 
With this in mind we can at least get a fuzzy feeling for the difference
between standing with our feet together in prayer like angels and standing with
our feet together like priests walking up the ramp.
__________________________________________________
[1] I notice that in some humashim the pasuk is numbered 22 instead of 23. I was looking in some modern editions of Moreh Nebukhim, and saw two editions that reference this pasuk as 26 (following non-Jewish chapter and verse (?)).
[2] The common approach to synchronizing the two taanaitic sources is a compromise.  Kohanim may run or walk quickly on the ramp but must take smaller than normal strides. Another approach claims that the mekilta’s opinion is rejected and priests may run normally on the ramp.  Some present an opposite view and understand the mishna as a description of priests running towards the ramp, but not running on the ramp. And some interpret the mekilta to be talking about the altar itself – the kohanim may run on the ramp but may not take big strides when walking on the top of the altar.  I’m sure there are more solutions.
[3] Racing or competing seems very Hellenistic. Megillat Taanit lists a number of semi-holidays that were established when the rabbis prevailed over the temple priests. 
[4] Maybe this obsession with purity in the
temple identifies these priests as Sadducees as in the Mishna Para 3:6 “they
would touch the kohen who was about to prepare the ashes of the red heifer
because the Sadducees believed…”. But even if the priests weren’t Sadducees or
Boethusians, they might still have been ignorant of the teaching of the Rabbis.
The Mishna mentions high-priests who were illiterate. The Sifra mentions
priests who had to rely on the sages to tell them if a leprous mark was clean
or unclean.
[5] The Talmud explains that running up the ramp
was discontinued because it was too dangerous. It doesn’t say that the race was
improper on unlawful.  However, R. Saul
Lieberman discusses something similar in Hellenism in Jewish Palestine page 139
in the chapter about The Three Abrogations of Johanan the High Priest. He
writes that “the Rabbis were sometimes reluctant to reveal the reasons which
moved them to enact a new law. Moreover, in order to make the people accept a
new ordinance the Rabbis occasionally substituted some formal legalistic
grounds for the real motive.” He’s speaking there, (in one of the examples),
about the knockers who stunned the animal by hitting it on the head before
slaughtering it. The Talmud says the reason this practice was abolished,
because it made the animal treif, but the Tosefta gives a different reason for
abolishing the practice – because it mimicked what was done in the heathen
temples. 
[6] One of the first to present this
interpretation is the Talmidey Rabbenu Yona page 5a of the Rif on Berakhot .
Many commentators of the Yerushalmi have given the same explanation.
[7] This variant is quoted in the Mekilta, Horowitz-Rabin
edition, (end of Yitro) p. 245 (line 2) and is visible online here.   R. E.Z. Melamed in Essays in Talmudic
Literature (Heb.)  Iyunim b’Sifrut
HaTalmud) published in Jerusalem by Magnes press in 1986, (the original article
was published in Tarbitz in 1935), demonstrates that the Oxford manuscript is
much more accurate and authentic than the early print of the Mekilta that
Horowitz reproduced as the main text of his edition. On the other hand, the two
other manuscripts of the Mekilta, which are displayed on the web site mentioned
above, are identical to the printed version with respect to this sentence.
According to the Oxford Mekilta manuscript the
Kohen walked this way on the ramp: stand with your left foot ahead of your
right foot. Take a small step forward with your right foot until your two feet
are aligned.  Move your right foot
forward again so that it is ahead of your left foot. Now move your left food
forward until your two feet are aligned. 
Move your left foot forward again. Note that you’re moving the same foot
two times in a row.
[8] compare (for example):
Zeiri of Dihavet said to Rabhina, “You derive that idea from that pasuk and we
derive the same idea from this pasuk.” – Taanit 7b
[9] The Babli, Berakot
10b, has the comparison to angels but not the comparison to priests. R. Kook’s
comment is printed in the Siddur Olat Ray”h , (in the anthology portion)
just before the Amidah.  This section was
probably taken from his Ayn Ay”h commentary on Babli Berakot #153. I don’t
have access to the printed Ayn Ay”h. The online version (without the editor’s
notes) is here.

[10] This paragraph is
the work of Rabbi Leonard Oschry, in his English translation of Netiv Binah
called Meditations on the Siddur by B.S. Jacobson, published by Sinai
Publishing, Tel Aviv, Israel 1966. There is also an English translation of R.
Kook’s explanation by Rabbi Chanan Morrison here.