על הלכות בעל קרי בסידור בית יעקב

by: Gabriel Wasserman

Etymologies of the Hebrew Calendar

By Dan D.Y. Shapira

Dan (or, Dan D.Y.) Shapira is an Orientalist and grows more than fifty trees on the edge of the Judaean Desert. He’s a Full Professor at Bar-Ilan University.

The month of Nisan begins the Hebrew year. Its name comes, ultimately, from Sumerian nisag (nig, “thing,” + sag (“head/first”), “first fruits” at about the spring equinox, via Akkadian and / or Aramaic. It should be observed that the names of the months in Sumerian were different from those used later in Akkadian.

It is not completely clear whether חודש האביב, “the month of green ears of young barley,” was the name of this month, and not its appellation.

Then comes Iyyar, from Akkadian ^itiAyari, “blossom.” In the Babylonian calendar its name was Araḫ Āru (Araḫ = yeraḥ, ירח), which also meant “month of blossoming.”

The name of the month Sivan comes from Akkadian simānu, “season; time.”

This word can be the source of Aramaic > Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic and Talmudic Hebrew zeman, זמן. However, this etymology poses a huge historical problem, because of similarity to Iranian zaman, with Avestan (the language of the Avesta, the Zoroastrian holy corpus) zruuan-, “time,” and with the Iranian “deity” Zurvān, the primordial time-space, from whose good thought Ahura Mazda / Ohrmazd, the benevolent actor, and from whose doubt in his own thought Angra Mainyu / Ahriman, the malevolent actor, were “born.”

The evidence in various Semitic languages demonstrates that zeman has different phonetic forms: Aramaic had both zeban and zeman, Syriac Aramaic zabnā, Mandaic Aramaic zaman and zban, Arabic both zamn and zamān, and Ethiopian Semitic languages have zaman, zäbän (Tigre), zämän (Amharic, Tigriñña and Gurage), and Mehri, an indirect continuation of Ancient South Arabian, has both zemōn and zubōn.

The name of Tammuz comes from the Assyrian and Babylonian month Araḫ Dumuzu, named after the Mesopotamian deity Dumuzid, a dying and reviving deity, mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14 (“Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz”; KJV).

Ab / Av comes from Abu, meaning “reed”; the name מנחם אב is a later invention, because of the calamities of this month and the hope of redemption to occur in this month.

Elul has its name from Araḫ Ulūlu “harvest month” in the Babylonian calendar; in the Babylonian calendar (and in some later calendars derived from it), Ulūlu was used as a leap month (the function of Adār II with the Jews).

Tishrei / Tishri has its name from Akkadian tašrītu, “beginning,” as this month was opening the second half of the year (the verbal root ŠRY exists also in Hebrew and Aramaic). Now we celebrate the יום תרועה as Jewish New Year.

Marcheshvan / Marḥešvan comes from Akkadian waraḫ šamnu, “eighth month”; in Hebrew, the Akkadian name was divided incorrectly into war- > mar- / ḫašamnu > ḫašvan, provided with a Volketymologie (the Bitter Cheshvan).

Kislev, from Babylonian Kislimu, meaning possibly “thick mud,” and associated in Babylon with the cult of Nergal, deity of the Netherworld, plague, and war. In the Jewish tradition, this months is associated with dreams.

Tevet / Ṭēḇēṯ, from Akkadian ṭebētu, the “muddy month.”

Shebat / Shvat (Šeḇāṭ) comes from the Babylonian Šabāṭu, meaning “strike,” and referring to the heavy rains; this is one of the two Babylonian months directly mentioned in the Bible (Zechariah 1:7), besides Adār.

Adār has its name derived from the Babylonian Araḫ Addaru, “month of harvest.”

It is generally assumed that these month names were adopted into the Hebrew calendar during the sixth century BCE Babylonian captivity of the Jews. Month names from the Babylonian calendar appear not only in the Hebrew calendar, but also in the Mandaean, Modern Assyrian, or Syriac, calendar, in the Syriac calendar proper, and in the names of half of the month used in Türkiye and in many Arab-speaking countries (along with Islamic and Gregorian calendars).

In these calendars, for example in the Arabic secular calendar, Tišrīn al-ʾAwwal (the First Tišrīn) stands for October, Tišrīn aṯ-Ṯānī (the Second Tišrīn) stands for November, Kānūn al-ʾAwwal (the First [month of] heating utensil) stands for December, Kānūn aṯ-Ṯānī (the Second [month of] heating utensil) stands for January, Šubāṭ is February, ʾĀḏār is March, Naysān is April, ʾAyyār is May, Ḥazīrān (month of Boar, the Syrius star) is June, Tammūz is July, ʾĀb is August, ʾAylūl is September. These names are based closely on the names in Syriac Aramaic.

In the Bible, several Phoenician-Canaanite month names are used: Ziv, “glow” = Iyyar; Ethanim = Tishrei; Bul = Marcheshvan / Marḥešvan. These names are only mentioned in connection with the building of the First Temple these names may be attributed to the presence of Phoenician scribes in Solomon’s court at the time of the building of the Temple.

There are movements in Lebanon trying to revive the Phoenician Language and Phoenician-Canaanite paganism; they use these months names known from the Bible and from Phoenician and Punic inscriptions, with Pegarim (month of the cult of the dead) for Elul, etc.

How the “Songs of the Day” Were Chosen

By David Farkas*

The morning prayer service concludes with the Song of the Day, the שיר של יום. All of them are taken from Tehillim, the Psalms. The question is, why were these particular Psalms selected for the different days of the week?

This question is squarely addressed by the Gemara. For this reason, understandably, most commentaries to the Siddur that address it simply refer to the relevant passage, and proceed no further. Yet, as we shall see, the matter does not quite end there alone.

The Custom

During the Temple period, when the daily Tamid offering was brought by the Kohanim, the Levites would accompany the service with song while the drink offerings were poured. Which songs? The Mishna in Tamid (7:4) tells us:

As one can see, each day a different Psalm was sung, including, in order, Psalms 24, 48, 82, 94, 81, and 93. On Shabbos the Levites would recite Psalm 92, מזמור שיר ליום השבת. This was the custom of the Levites during the times of the Temple.^[1]

The selection of Psalm 92 for Shabbos appears relatively straightforward. Though the tannaim debate whether the “Shabbos” refers to Saturday or a future world to come, the connection of the Psalm to some kind of “Shabbos” is apparent on the surface and will not concern us here. But what about the remaining six weekdays? What connection do these Psalms have with the various days of the week?

The Gemara in Rosh Hashana 31a addresses the question head-on:

It is far from clear what these interpretations mean. Rashi gives an explanation for most of them. Other Rishonim, like Rabbeinu Chananel and Rabbeinu Bechaye (Exodus 29:40) offer additional explanations of the passage, or various nuanced differences of Rashi’s explanations. All, however, base their words on the sparse language of the Gemara.

And yet, an intellectually honest reader must admit, if only to himself, that these explanations seem, upon review, very forced. For example, Rashi explains that the Tuesday Psalm, which opens with the words
אֱלֹקים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת קל,
was chosen because on this day God exposed the land masses, paving the way for animal and vegetative life and ultimately, for God’s assembly, Israel, which is situated on land. Thursday was selected because when Man sees the myriad species of birds that were created this day, his soul is uplifted, causing him to sing the words הַרְנִינוּ לֵאלֹקים עוּזֵּנוּ.

Can these ideas really be called the theme of the Psalm? Do these Psalms focus on the concepts mentioned by the Gemara, or are the phrases merely mentioned among the other verses? Could not one employ similar methods of drush to read the same concepts into almost any other Psalm?

While not exactly common, commentators will occasionally explain a Mishna differently from the Gemara, if it does not affect practical halacha.^[2] Thus, the question must be asked: Is this passage in Rosh Hashana the last word on the subject?

Suggested Explanations – The Traditional Approach

As a matter of fact, it is not. Several attempts have been made to explain the connection between the days and the Psalms, independently of the Gemara. The following is a brief survey of these explanations, the first two of which can be found in a comprehensive book on the subject of the Song of the Day, by R. Peretz Shmuel HaLevi Mantel, entitled שירת שמואל – על אמרת שיר של יום (Bnei Brak 2003).^[3]

The Chasam Sofer (R. Moshe Sofer, 1762–1839) in his collected Drashos (Vol. I, p. 12) references the Gemara’s explanations, and finds them “very forced”. ( הנה טעמים שאמר התנא דחוק מאד לכוון דבר יום ביומו). Instead, the Chasam Sofer posits that the seven days represent seven distinct periods of history. The first period was a time when God’s glory filled the earth, hence the Sunday Psalm speaks of לה’ הארץ ומלואה. In the second period wickedness began to prevail, and so God restricted His glory to Jerusalem and the Temple; hence, the Monday Psalm speaks of גדול ה’ ומהולל מאד בעיר אלוקינו הר קדשו . In the third period wickedness extended further and so God restricted his presence to the 4 cubits of halacha, or stated otherwise, to Judges; thus, the Tuesday Psalm speaks of אלוקים נצב בעתת אל בקרב אלוהים ישפוט. In a similar fashion the Chasam Sofer explains the ensuing days of the week – with no attempt to conform to the words of the Gemara.

The Vilna Gaon (1720 – 1797)) in his commentary to Tamid also offers an independent explanation, citing a statement in the Zohar to the effect that each Song of the Day corresponds to a thousand years of the eventual six thousand years the world is destined to endure, the final day of Shabbos referring to a time to come after the initial 6,000 year period. Having established this background, the Gaon adopts a similar approach as the Chasam Sofer in characterizing each thousand-year period, and then finding a reference in the Psalms to that period. Thus, for example, in the third thousand the Torah was given and holiness descended unto the world, hence the reference in the Tuesday Psalm to אלוקים נצב בעדת קל. In the fourth thousand the Temple was destroyed, prompting God to promise revenge, and hence the Wednesday reference to God as קל נקמות.

A problem with this approach, as noted by the aforementioned R. Mantel, is that there is actually no such passage in the Zohar. (In fact, as will be shown presently, the Zohar offers a completely different explanation, at least for the Monday Psalm.) The 6000-year duration of the world is well-known from various Talmudic passages, but there is no known statement connecting the Song of the Day to this tradition. Presumably, R. Mantel suggests, the Gaon was referring to Rashi’s statement in Avoda Zara 9a that “the six thousand years correspond to the days of the week, and Shabbos refers to the calm that will befall the world in the seventh thousand.” This statement, however, makes no connection whatsoever to the Songs of the Day.

In addition to the foregoing explanations, one can also find other suggestions that do not truly accord with the passage in Rosh Hashana. Some, like R. Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin (1823 – 1900) ostensibly make efforts to work their suggestions into the words of the Gemara, but it is quite apparent that they are really offering their own interpretations. The unique style of R. Tzadok makes his words sometimes difficult to understand, and almost impossible to translate, without copious explanatory notes. The interested reader is referred to the article שיר של יום בתורת ר’ צדוק הכהן by R. Yishayahu Hadari (סיני # נג, תשכ”ג עמודים עה-צא).

Finally, there are also individual explanations that, although structured to appear merely as commentary to the above Gemara, a close reading shows they are really the commentator’s own explanations. The Ben Ish Chai, for example, states that the Sunday Psalm is auspicious (a סגולה) for one’s livelihood, which is why it is recited communally after the evening prayers on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. Thus, the first day of the working week is appropriate for its recitation. The Zohar (Vayikra 56b Margolios ed.) states that the Monday Psalm was selected for the second day because the sons of Korach who authored it sing for their brothers doomed to sit by the entrance of hell, which was created on the second day.^[4] Rabbeinu Bechaye (Ibid.) asserts that the Thursday Psalm was selected because it speaks of God redeeming us from Egypt, and we find Biblical comparison of Pharoah to a crocodile; hence, the Psalm is recited on Thursday, the day such creatures were created.^[5] As one can see, none of these explanations are actually founded on the words of the Gemara.^[6]

From the foregoing, it is apparent that the passage in Rosh Hashana, though it looms large over all discussion on the topic, is not necessarily the last word. Even the greatest of Rishonim and Achronim have offered alternative explanations. Yet, while they are not based on the Gemara that actually addresses the question, all these explanations are still based on other Gemaras or Midrashim that seem to bear on the topic. However, there is another approach that must be explored as well.

The Non-Traditional Approach

The Bar Ilan University publishes a weekly D’var Torah, under the auspices of the official campus Rabbi. In a short, 2-page article for the 2008 edition of פרשת בחוקתי, Dr. Rachel Reich observes the following: In each of the Psalms for the week, the name of God appears in the numbered word associated with the day.

That is, the brief note of introduction to the Psalm (the כותרת, i.e, לדוד מזמור, מזמור לאסף, etc.) should be set aside, focusing only on the actual Psalm itself. On Sunday, the opening phrase is לה’ הארץ ומלואה – the name of God for the first day appears as the first word. On Monday, the Psalm begins גָּדוֹל ה’ וּמְהֻלָּל מְאֹד – again, the name of God for the second day appears as the second word. On Tuesday the phrase is אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת-קל, the name of God again appears as the hyphenated third word for the third day. On Wednesday אֵל נְקָמוֹת ה’ קל נְקָמוֹת הוֹפִיעַ it appears as the fourth word for the fourth day. On Thursday it is הַרְנִינוּ לֵאלֹהִים עוּזֵּנוּ, הָרִיעוּ לֵאלֹקֵי יַעֲקֹב, the fifth word for the fifth day, and on Friday we have ה’ מָלָךְ גֵּאוּת לָבֵשׁ לָבֵשׁ ה’ֹ again, the name of God appears as the sixth word, on the sixth day.

This explanation is so simple and straightforward that one might perhaps doubt it for that reason alone. It can’t be that simple! And indeed, Dr. Reich herself acknowledges several problems with this solution. For one, these are not the only Psalms that have God’s name in the right spaces. For example, in Psalms 3 and 8 God’s name appears as the first word. In Psalm 9 it is the second word. Why, then, should these particular Psalms have been chosen among the others? It might also be noted that in some of these Psalms, the name of God also appears prior to the appearance under the word corresponding to the correct day. These indeed represent problems with the proposed solution.^[7]

In an article I came upon years after writing this article, Rabbi Dr. Raymond Apple also cites Dr. Reich’s explanation.^[8] While acknowledging the suggestion to be ingenious, Dr. ApplDe finds the suggestion too mechanical, and thinks it doubtful that the priests and poets of the First and Second Temples favored such “artificial devices.” Dr. Apple concludes, “There is no clear reason why particular psalms were designated to be recited on different days of the week” and “the reason why they were originally chosen remains a mystery.”^[9]

Nevertheless, I believe Dr. Reich has hit upon the truth. Some might say that the very simplicity of the solution is itself the best indication of its truth.^[10] Certainly, this explanation is not radically different from other Mishnayos that are explained by the Gemara by way of numerical explanations, such as gematriyos. The Mishna in Nazir (1:3) for example, positing thirty days as the default length of Nezirus, or Shekalim (1:3), requiring Kohanim to also contribute the annual half-shekel, are each explained by the Bavli and Yerushalmi respectively to be based on Gematrias of the word יהיה and זה. Thus, methodologically speaking, attributing an ancient practice to a numeric basis, even when the source Mishna doesn’t say so explicitly, is perfectly sound.

However, I also believe Dr. Reich is correct because there are other Talmudic passages that I think take the matter beyond doubt. Further, I do not think the questions she herself asks are problematic, and to the contrary, I think they work hand in glove together with the passage in Rosh Hashana to give us the complete picture we need.

Synthesis

A clue to the ultimate resolution lies, I believe, in how the Psalms are identified both in the Mishna and in the Gemara. Notice that each Psalm is identified only by the first line in the Psalm. Psalms are not always so identified in Rabbinic literature. In fact, they are often referred to by their nicknames: Thus, for example:

• Psalm 91 is referred to as שיר של פגעים, ויש אומרים שיר של נגעים (Shavuos 15a).
• Psalm 136 is referred to as הלל הגדול. (Taanis 19a).
• 145 is referred to as אשרי, a word not actually part of the Psalm. (Brachos 4a)

In other words, Psalms are sometimes referred to by nicknames that reflect their character. By marked contrast, then, in the Mishna of Tamid and the Gemara of Rosh Hashana, where no character-defining name is given, and where the Psalm is identified only by the first line, we can infer that it is indeed only the opening line of the Song that is significant, because of the placement therein of God’s name.^[11]

The clincher, though, I believe, comes from a passage at the end of Sukka (55a). There we find as follows:

In this passage the Gemara details the Psalms the Levites would sing during the Chol HaMoed service. But when referring to the relevant Psalm, the Gemara identifies it specifically by the verse within the Psalm that is alluded to. Again, contrast this with our Mishna and Gemara, which both only identify the Psalm by the first verse. This is especially apparent in the Thursday and Friday Psalms (81 and 82) which are mentioned both in this Chol HaMoed passage, and in the Song of the Day passage with which we began. They thus make for a clear contrast: For purposes of Chol HaMoed, they are identified by specific verses within the Psalm; but for the Song of the Day, they are identified only by their first verse. Thus, it is apparent that the Song of the Day was selected because of something in, and only in, the first sentence. Thus, one may be justified in thinking that the placement of the name of God in the first sentence is indeed the reason these Psalms were selected.^[12]

The sole remaining question then, is why were these particular Psalms chosen, when there are other Psalms that also have God’s name appearing on the first or second or third word? It is here where the Gemara’s explanation comes in. If we are correct, then R. Akiva, the author of the passage in Rosh Hashana, almost certainly understood that the reason these Psalms were chosen was for the simple and easily-grasped reason that God’s name was said at the right point, exactly as posited by Dr. Reich. (There may even have been some kind of musical way of underscoring this point to the pilgrims gathered in the Temple.) But why those Psalms more than any other Psalm in which the name appears on the right word? It is because of the underlying reasons explained in the passage. Because, asכתבי קדש , the Psalms contain layers of inspired meaning, and R. Akiva saw the connection between these Psalms and the items created on the days in which they were to be read.

In short, what emerges from all this is that R. Akiva’s explanation in the Gemara is drush to the halacha embodied in the Mishna. The halacha of what song to sing is based on the simple and straightforward reason of where the name of God appears in the Psalm. Stated otherwise, perhaps, the halacha looks at the exterior form and format of the Psalm. The drush behind it, by contrast, explains why these Psalms were selected out of a number of other possibilities. By focusing on the character of the day, as reflected in the items created on the various workdays, it looks to the inner meaning, rather than the exterior. The halacha and the drasha come together, like the voices of the Levites themselves, in perfect harmony.^[13]

*David Farkas is an attorney in Cleveland. His notes on the Talmud Bavli were recently published by Machon Aleh Zayis as HaDoresh Vi-HaMivakesh.

1. Even today the custom continues, see Rambam סדר תפלות כל שנה (Warsaw-Vilna Ed.) stating: נהגו מקצת העם לקרוא בכל יום אחר תחנונים אלו שיר מזמור שהיו הלוים אומרים בבית המקדש באותו היום.The custom of the formal declaration preceding the actual Psalm, היום יום פלוני של שבת, entered the Siddur, like certain other customs, by way of the Kitzur Shla, and appears to be based on the comments of the Ramban in Shemos (20:7) urging the daily mention of Shabbos. See סדור עליית אליהו. ↑
2. See the comments of Tosfos Yom Tov to Nazir 5:5 אף על פי שבגמרא לא פירשו כן, הואיל לענין דינא לא נפקא מינה ולא מידי, הרשות נתונה לפרש וכו’.. The comments of Tosfos Yom Tov are actually based on the interpretation of Rambam there, and both are cited approvingly by Rashash to Pesachim 74a, who states “וכבר הרשנו הרמב”ם בפרק ה’ דנזיר משנה ה’ לפרש משנה נגד הגמרא היכא דליכא נפקותא לדינא, עיין שם בתוי”ט ועיין מה שכתבנו בברכות מ”ט ב במשנה שגם הגר”א ז”ל עשה כן.” ↑
3. This book was also cited by Eliezer Brodt on Seforim Blog here, https://seforimblog.com/2009/09/source-for-recitation-of-ledovid/ and see also Dan Rabinowitz’s article here https://seforimblog.com/2006/09/custom-of-reciting-ldovid-hashem-ori. ↑
4. See Shemos Rabbah (15:22) ↑
5. See Ezekiel 29:3 הִנְנִי עָלֶיךָ פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם הַתַּנִּים הַגָּדוֹל הָרֹבֵץ בְּתוֹךְ יְאֹרָיו. (I have translated תנים הגדול as “crocodile”. It might also be translated as serpent or sea monster.) ↑
6. The alternative explanations cited in this paragraph are all mentioned by R. Mantel in his comprehensive book mentioned above.With brilliant insight, R. Yechezkel Katzenelbogen (1667-1749) in שו”ת כנסת יחזקאל ס’ קט posits that the Tannaitic debate in the Gemara alluded to above over the meaning of the Song for Shabbos hinges upon whether or not King David, as the author of the Psalms, intended the selected Psalms to be associated with the various days of the week, or the Levites merely selected them based on their own interpretation of them. R. Yechezkel’s understanding is based on a very fine reading of the text, which, unfortunately, would require background well beyond the scope of this inquiry. ↑
7. Dr. Reich, after acknowledging these difficulties, concludes her article with a sincere request, “אם ידע מישהו להציע הסבר אחר לבחירת מזמורים המכונים שיר של יום, תבא עליו ברכה.” And indeed, the Dvar Torah drew a response several weeks later, in the פרשת נשא edition of the Bar Ilan weekly, from Dr. Gavriel Cohen. In addition to pointing out the significant flaw that Dr. Reich failed to mention the Gemara in Rosh Hashana, Dr. Cohen also notes that others had addressed the issue as well. It is from Dr. Cohen’s letter that I learned of Rabbi Mantel’s sefer, as well as the above-mentioned article of Rabbi Hadari. Dr. Cohen’s letter also references an explanation of Meir Hillel Ben Shammai, in a 91-page monograph entitled שיר של יום בעבודת התמיד. Ben Shammai claims, based on a reading of I Chronicles (16:7-36) that the Psalms mentioned in the Mishna were not exclusive, and in fact, the Levites would often change them to whatever they felt was appropriate This monograph, however, also fails to cite the Gemara (or any other commentator) on the topic, and I found it speculative and unconvincing. ↑
8. Jewish Bible Quarterly, Vol. 42, no. 2, April-June 2014. ↑
9. Id. Interestingly, Dr. Appel also cites the explanation of the Zohar, but without a source. As mentioned above, there actually isn’t any source for this Zohar. He does, however, cite secondary sources, Biurei Ha-Gra and Kehati to the Mishna in Tamid we began with. ↑
10. See various encyclopedia entries for the logical principle known as Occam’s Razor. ↑
11. To be sure, Rashi’s explanation of the passage too, perhaps based precisely on the above point, also focuses on the first line. However, the forced nature of Rashi’s interpretation still exists, and it is clear from other commentators cited above (including Maharsha on the passage) that they felt the explanation of the Gemara rests also upon other verses later in the Psalm. ↑
12. In a passage just before the passage we opened with in Rosh Hashana, the Gemara also refers to the Thursday Psalm (81) as הסירותי מסבל שכמו and not by citing the first verse. However, the Gemara there is referring to the second half of the Psalm, and thus the point is not as strong as the Chol HaMoed passage in Sukkah. ↑
13. I thank Dr. Eliezer Brodt for his review of this article and all the Torah I have learned from home over the years. Dr. Brodt drew my attention to the sources in fn.3, and also adds the following: על הנושא כולו ראה: יעקב שפיגל, ‘דרך קצרה בלשון תנאים ועל פשט ודרש במשנה’, אסופות ד (תש”ן) עמ’ ט-כו; חנן גפני, ‘פשט ודרש במשנה: לגלגוליה של מסורת מבית מדרשו של הגר”א’, סידרא כב (תשס”ז), עמ’ 5-19; הנ”ל, פשוטה של משנה ↑

The Haftarot of the Sabbaths of Hanukkah and the Haftarah of the Sabbath of Rosh Ḥodesh Tevet^[1]

by: Eli Duker

In the Babylonian Talmud (Megillah 31a) it is stated that the haftarah for the Sabbath of Hanukkah is from “the lamps of Zechariah,” and if Hanukkah coincides with two Sabbaths, the haftarah for the first Shabbat is from “the lamps of Zechariah” and the haftarah for the second Shabbat is from “the lamps of Solomon.”

Rashi there explains that “the lamps of Zechariah” refers to the haftarah beginning: “Sing and rejoice” (Zechariah 2:14), and that “the lamps of Solomon” refers to the haftarah beginning: “Hiram made” (I Kings 7:40). This explanation is also found in Seder Rav Amram Gaon, and this is the practice in most communities to this day.^[2]

We find another custom in Tractate Soferim (20:8) with regard to the Torah reading and haftarah for the Sabbath of Hanukkah:

ובשבת שבתוכו קורא ויהי ביום כלות משה, עד כן עשה את המנורה, וכן ביום השמיני, עד וזה מעשה המנורה, ומפטיר ותשלם כל המלאכה.

Thus, according to Tractate Soferim, the haftarah for the Sabbath of Hanukkah begins: “When all the work was completed” (I Kings 7:51), which addresses the dedication of the First Temple. It is somewhat puzzling that the haftarah begins precisely there and not a few verses earlier, which would have included the “lamps of Solomon,” a fitting verse for Hanukkah. It is possible that since Tractate Soferim generally reflects the practices of Eretz Yisrael, and the miracle of the cruse of oil is a Babylonian tradition, they saw no need to refer to the making of the menorah. Yet, we see that according to this ruling they nevertheless read in the Torah up to the account of the making of the menorah, even though according to the Mishnah only the passages of the nesi’im are read — indicating that there is a desire to allude to the miracle of the cruse of oil.^[3] One can suggest that since the menorah was already mentioned there, they did not see a need to allude to it again in the haftarah.

Tractate Soferim does not mention a Torah reading or haftarah for the second Sabbath of Hanukkah. Concerning Rosh Ḥodesh Tevet that falls on a Sabbath, it is stated there (20:12):

דר’ יצחק סחורה שאל את ר’ יצחק נפחא, ראש חדש טבת שחל להיות בשבת במה קורין, בעניין כלות, ומפטיר בשל שבת וראש חדש.

The “haftarah for Sabbath and Rosh Ḥodesh” refers to what is stated elsewhere in Tractate Soferim (17:9):

ובזמן שחל ר”ח להיות בשבת השמיני שצריך לקרות וביום השבת ובראשי חדשיכם הוא מפטיר (יחזקאל מ״ו:א׳) בכה אמר [ה”א] שער החצר הפנימית הפונה קדים.

In Pesikta Rabbati^[4] there are homilies on no fewer than three haftarot for the Sabbaths of Hanukkah: “Elijah took twelve stones” (I Kings 18:31), “When all the work was completed” (I Kings 7:51, similar to the haftarah in Tractate Soferim), and: “It will be at that time that I will search Jerusalem with lamps” (Zephaniah 1:12). Each of these sections in the Pesikta begins with a halakhic question relating to Hanukkah.

In Piska “Elijah took” (4) we find:

ילמדנו רבינו: ראש חודש שחל להיות בחנוכה, הואיל שאין תפילות המוספין בחנוכה, מי שהוא מתפלל תפילת המוספין מהו שיהא צריך להזכיר של חנוכה? למדונו רבותינו אמר רבי סימון בשם רבי יהושע: ראש חודש שחל להיות בחנוכה אף ע”פ שאין מוסף בחנוכה אלא בר”ח, צריך להזכיר של חנוכה בתפילת המוספים. שבת שחלה להיות בחנוכה אע”פ שאין מוסף בחנוכה אלא שבת, צריך להזכיר של חנוכה בתפילת המוספין. והיכן הוא מזכיר? בהודאה.

It is noteworthy that the question is formulated primarily with regard to the Musaf of Rosh Ḥodesh during Hanukkah, even though it obviously applies equally to the Musaf of the Sabbath of Hanukkah, as reflected in the answer. Rabbi Meir Ish Shalom already noted in his commentary in his edition of Pesikta Rabbati^[5] that it is reasonable to assume this is the haftarah for the Sabbath of Rosh Ḥodesh Tevet. The connection between this haftarah and Rosh Ḥodesh likely lies in what appears later in the same passage in the Pesikta:

אתה מוצא שנים עשר חודש בשנה, שנים עשר מזלות ברקיע, שתים עשרה שעות ליום ,ושתים עשרה שעות לילה. אמר הקדוש ברוך הוא: אפילו העליונים והתחתונים לא בראתי אלא בזכות השבטים שכך כתב “את כל אלה ידי עשתה” (ישעיה סו:ב), בזכות כל אלה שבטי ישראל שנים עשר (בראשית מט:כח) (לכך שנים עשר מזלות, שתים עשרה שעות). לכך כיון שבא אליהו לקרב את ישראל תחת כנפי השכינה נטל שתים עשרה אבנים למספר השבטים ובנה אותן מזבח. מניין? ממה שהשלים בנביא “ויקח אליהו שתים עשרה אבנים למספר שבטי בני יעקב”.

In Piska “It will be at that time” (8) we find:

ילמדנו רבינו: מהו שידליק אדם נר שישתמש בו מן הנר של חנוכה? תלמוד, למדונו רבותינו א”ר אחא בשם רב (אמר) אסור להדליק נר שישתמש בו מנר של חנוכה, אבל נר של חנוכה מותר להדליק מנר של חנוכה.

In Piska “When all the work was completed” (6) we find:

ילמדנו רבינו: נר של חנוכה שהותיר שמן מהו צריך לעשות לו…

It is therefore possible to suggest that in Pesikta Rabbati there is Zephaniah 1:12 for the first Sabbath of Hanukkah that is not Rosh Ḥodesh, and I Kings 7:40 for the second Sabbath of Hanukkah. In addition, there is I Kings 18:31 as a haftarah for a Hanukkah Sabbath that is also Rosh Ḥodesh. This is an appropriate haftarah for this time due to description of the victory over the prophets of Baal—which parallels the Hasmonean victory over the Greek kingdom—and the recurring motif of twelve, which is appropriate for Rosh Ḥodesh.

By contrast, all other sources from Eretz Yisrael (Tractate Soferim and the piyyutim mentioned below) point to I Kings 7:51 as the sole haftarah for the Sabbath of Hanukkah, read not only when there are two Sabbaths of Hanukkah. Moreover, in the Pesikta, the Piska of “When all the work was completed” immediately follows “It was on the day that Moses finished,” which is the Torah reading for a regular Sabbath of Hanukkah (or at least when Shabbat falls on the first day of Hanukkah).^[6] For this reason, B. Elitzur claims^[7] that “When all the work was completed” was read specifically on the first Sabbath of Hanukkah, and “It was on the day” was read on the second Sabbath. It should be noted that the Piska “It was on the day” is adjacent to the Piska “The one who brought his offering on the first day,” not to the Piska “On the eighth day” (to which the section “And Elijah took” is adjacent).^[8]

In the Kedushta piyyut of Yannai^[9] for the Sabbath of Hanukkah, the verse “When all the work was completed” appears as the first verse in the chain of verses in the meshalesh, indicating that this was the haftarah. Likewise, this verse also appears in the Meḥayyeh of the Kedushta piyyut of Rabbi Yeshuah son of Rabbi Joseph.^[10] There is nothing in these piyyutim to indicate they were composed specifically for the second Sabbath of Hanukkah.^[11] In light of all these sources—which mention only a single haftarah for the Sabbaths of Hanukkah (despite the approximately five-hundred-year gap between Yannai and Rabbi Yeshuah)^[12]—the customs reflected in Pesikta Rabbati were likely very rare in both time and place.

In a comprehensive study of Rabbi Eleazar ha-Kalir’s Kedushta piyyutim for Hanukkah, A. Mintz-Manor identifies no fewer than five potential haftarot for the first Sabbath of Hanukkah. In the piyyut “Adir Kenitzav,” the Kalir cites the verses “When all the work was completed,” as well as “Solomon built the House and finished it” (I Kings 6:14), and “Thus said Hashem: Behold, I will restore the fortune of the Jacob’s tents” (Jeremiah 30:18).

In the piyyut “Meluḥatzim Me’od Bera,” “Behold, I will restore” also appears, as well as “I will search Jerusalem” (which appears as a haftarah in Pesikta Rabbati), and another potential haftarah: “Solomon brought the peace offering” (I Kings 8:63).

In the piyyut “Otot Shelosha” for a Sabbath that is both Hanukkah and Rosh Ḥodesh, both the verses “The gate of the inner court” and “When all the work was completed” appear, indicating that in his time there was no uniform custom in Eretz Yisrael for this Sabbath, with some reading the Rosh Ḥodesh haftarah and others reading the Hanukkah haftarah. Yet, the fact that the verse from the haftarah of Rosh Ḥodesh appears first may indicate that that was the preferred haftarah.

In the piyyut “Menashe Ve’et Efraim,” written for the second Sabbath of Hanukkah, the haftarah is “On the eighth day he sent the people off” (I Kings 8:66). It is possible that this is the same haftarah that appears in “Meluḥatzim Me’od Bera,” with a few earlier verses added.

Summary of Haftarot

A Geniza fragment^[13] records both customs with regard to Rosh Ḥodesh Tevet (and Adar and Nisan) that fall on a Sabbath. According to the custom in Eretz Yisrael, two Torah scrolls are taken out. The passage for Hanukkah is read first, and then that of Rosh Ḥodesh. According to the Babylonian custom, where the weekly portion is read as well, that is read first, followed by Rosh Ḥodesh and Hanukkah. According to both customs, the haftarah there is for Hanukkah.^[14]

From all the above, we see multiple differing customs regarding the Sabbath of Rosh Ḥodesh Tevet:

1. Haftarah of Rosh Ḥodesh – Tractate Soferim; one mention in Kalir.
2. Haftarah of Hanukkah – one mention in Kalir; a Geniza fragment.
3. A special haftarah – Pesikta Rabbati.

We find in the Geonic literature that the haftarah of Hanukkah is read, as stated in a responsum of Yehudai Gaon:

תוב שאילו מן קמיה: הקורא בתורה בראש חדש חנוכה ושבת בשל ראש חדש מפטיר או בשל חנוכה? ואמר בשל חנוכה.

There is a similar statement in Halakhot Pesukot^[15] and the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon.^[16]

In Early Ashkenaz, where the Hanukkah haftarot followed those in the Talmud Bavli, there existed differing customs concerning the haftarah for a Sabbath of Hanukkah that coincided with Rosh Ḥodesh. In the Siddur of Rashi (321) we find:

ואם חל ראש חודש טבת להיות בשבת, התדיר קודם. מוציאין שלש תורות, וקורין ששה בעניינו של יום, והשביעי ובראשי חדשיכם, ומפטיר קורא בחנוכה ובנבואת זכריה [רני ושמחי], והשמים כסאי בטלה, דהא לא קרי מפטיר בראש חדש דלימא הפטרה דיליה. ובמס’ סופרים גרסינן שמפטירין בשל ראש חדש, אבל לא נהגו העם כן: ושמעתי שנחלקו במגנצא שני גדולי הדור ר’ יצחק בר’ יהודה ור’ שמואל בר’ דוד הלוי, ר’ יצחק ציווה להפטיר ברני ושמחי, ור’ שמואל העיד מפי אביו שאמר לו שמפטירין בשל ראש חדש וקיימו את עדותו, וכמדומה שחולקין כן בראש חדש אדר שחל להיות בשבת, ואנן נוהגין [להפטיר] ביהוידע.

From this passage it emerges that although Tractate Soferim states that the haftarah should be that of Rosh Ḥodesh, this was not the common practice. Rashi records that in Mainz two leading sages of the generation disagreed: Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yehudah ruled to read beginning from Zechariah 2:14, whereas Rabbi Samuel bar David ha-Levi testified in the name of his father that the haftarah should be that of a standard Rosh Ḥodesh on the Sabbath, and his testimony was accepted. Rashi adds that a similar disagreement seems to have existed regarding Rosh Ḥodesh Adar that falls on a Sabbath, concerning which he records that the practice was to read “Yehoyada.”

This material appears as well, with slight variations, in Sefer ha-Pardes.^[17]

It is recorded in Ma‘asei ha-Geonim:

ואילו תשובות שהשיב רבי’ ר’ משלם בר’ משה ממגנצא לאחי לר’ נחומי’. וששאלת ר”ח טבת שחל להיות בשבת במה מפטירין? יש מבני קהלינו שאומרים שמפטירים ברני ושמחי ויש מהם שאומרים שמפטירין בהשמים כסאי ואבאר טעמם של אלו וטעמם של אלו מיושר על המחיקה אותן שאומרין להפטיר בנירות של יהוידע^[18] אומרים כן היא המדה לעולם שבאותו עיניין שהמפטיר קורא באותו עיניין (ש)צריך להפטיר הוי קורא בשל חנוכה. ואם נפשך לומר יקרא בשל ר”ח ויפטיר בשל ר”ח, אינה היא המידה שהרי תדיר ושאינו תדיר תדיר קוד’. וטעמם שאומרי’ להפטיר בשל ר”ח או’ ר”ח דאורייתא וחנוכה דרבנן ולא אתי דרבנן ודחי דאורייתא. ומצינו בהלכות גדולות שצריך להפטיר ברני ושמחי אבל במקומינו נהגו להפטיר בשל ר”ח מפני כבודו של רבי’ יהודה הכהן הזקן שהורה [כן] וקיי”ל מקום שיפול העץ שם יהו פירותיו.

It is clear from these sources that Rabbi Yehudah ha-Kohen ha-Zaken and Rav David (cited by his son Rav Shmuel), both students of Rabbeinu Gershom—and Rabbi Samuel bar David, ruled to read the Rosh Ḥodesh haftarah. Beyond the claim that Rosh Ḥodesh is by Torah law, they were evidently also aware that this was the ruling in Tractate Soferim.

By contrast, Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yehudah—who studied under Rabbeinu Gershom but was primarily a disciple of Rabbi Eliezer ha-Gadol^[19]—ruled in Mainz to read the Hanukkah haftarah despite the rulings of Rabbi David and Rabbeinu Yehudah ha-Zaken. Out of respect for the latter authorities, this ruling was not adopted, even though it was known that Halakhot Gedolot ruled in that direction (apparently referring to Halakhot Pesukot, as cited in Or Zarua).

In the Ra’avan we find a continuation of this position, including a statement that Rabbi Yehudah ha-Kohen’s sons also ruled to read the haftarah of Rosh Ḥodesh:

וראש חודש טבת שחל בשבת בחנוכה נחלקו בהפטרה. הגאונים רבינו רבי יהודה הכהן ובניו היו מורין להפטיר בהשמים כסאי מטעם תדיר ושאינו תדיר תדיר קודם. ועוד, מדאמרינן [כ”ט ב] דאין משגיחין בדחנוכה תחילה וראש חודש עיקר, למה לי למימר ראש חודש עיקר, אלא אפילו להפטרה. ועוד, מדמפורש בהפטרה “מידי חודש בחדשו ומידי שבת בשבתו” ואין דוחין שתים, שבת ור”ח, מפני אחת, חנוכה. והחלוקין עליהם אומרים כיון שהמפטיר קורא בדחנוכה צריך להפטיר בדחנוכה. וחקרתי אני אליעזר בסדר רב עמרם גאון, ולא הזכיר בו כלל השמים כסאי, אלא כך כתב בו, שבת של חנוכה קורין בנירות דזכריה רני ושמחי ואם יש ב’ שבתות בשבת ראשונה קורין רני ושמחי.

Here we see the same tendency noted earlier with Rabbi Samuel bar David: the sons of Rabbi Yehudah ha-Kohen followed their father’s ruling to read the Rosh Ḥodesh haftarah. Ra’avan notes that others disagreed, though he does not name them—presumably he refers to Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Yehudah and perhaps his son Rabbi Yehudah, who sought guidance regarding his father’s rulings.^[20] It appears from Ra’avan’s language—though not definitively—that he personally examined the Siddur of Rav Amram Gaon and followed it in determining who to follow concerning this dispute among the scholars of Mainz.

It is noteworthy that in Sefer ha-Minhagim of Rabbi Abraham Klausner^[21] and also in the Maharil^[22] it is stated that the opinion of “Eliezer”^[23] was to read the haftarah of Rosh Ḥodesh.

We find Maḥzor Vitry (239):

ואם חל ראש חדש בשבת התדיר תדיר קודם. ומוציאין ג’ תורות. וקורין ששה בעיניינו של יום. והשביעי ובראשי חדשיכם. ומפטיר קורא בחנוכת המזבח. לפי עניין היום. ומפטיר בנבואת זכריה. רני ושמחי: על שם ראיתי והנה מנורת זהב: והשמים כסאי בטילה. דהא לא קרי מפטיר בשל ראש חדש דלימא הפטרה דידיה: ובמס’ סופרי’ גר’ שמפטירין בשל ראש חדש. אבל לא נהגו העם כן. ושמעתי שנחלקו שני גדולי הדור במייאנצא. ר’ יצחק בר’ יהודה צוה להפטיר ברני ושמחי. ור’ שמואל בר’ דוד הלוי העיד משום (אבא) [אביו] שמפטירין בשל ראש חדש. וקבלו את עדותו: וכמדומה לי שחלוקין בין ראש חדש אדר שחל להיות בשבת. (דאין) [דאנן] נוהגין להפטיר ביהוידע.

It is evident from this statement that there existed a clear custom—apparently in France—to read the haftarah of Hanukkah despite their awareness of the dispute in Mainz.

Subsequently Rabbi Shimon of Sens (Tosafot, Shabbat 23b) stated unequivocally that Hanukkah haftarah should be read.

הדר פשטה נר חנוכה עדיף משום פרסומי ניסא – ונראה לרשב”א כשחל ר”ח טבת להיות בשבת שיש להפטיר בנרות דזכריה משום פרסומי ניסא ולא בהשמים כסאי שהיא הפטרת ר”ח. ועוד כיון שהמפטיר קורא בשל חנוכה יש לו להפטיר מענין שקרא. ומה שמקדימים לקרות בשל ר”ח משום דבקריאת התורה כיון דמצי למיעבד תרוייהו, תדיר ופרסומי ניסא, עבדינן תרוייהו, ותדיר קודם. אבל היכא דלא אפשר למעבד תרוייהו פרסומי ניסא עדיף. ועוד דבקריאת התורה אין כל כך פרסומי ניסא שאינו מזכיר בה נרות כמו בהפטרה. ועוד נראה לרשב”א דעל כן הקדימו של ר”ח כדי שהמפטיר יקרא בשל חנוכה ויפטיר בנרות דזכריה.

Tosafot hold that the reason why the Torah reading of Rosh Ḥodesh precedes that of Hanukkah is precisely so that the haftarah should be that of Hanukkah.

The Rash cited in Tosafot there adds another claim: Publicizing the miracle is far more prominent in the haftarah of Zechariah than in the Torah reading, which does not explicitly mention lamps.

Over the generations in Ashkenaz, both customs are recorded in the Rishonim such as Ravyah, Or Zarua, and Mordechai. Yet, in Ravyah—similarly to Ra’avan—there is a clear inclination toward reading the Hanukkah haftarah:

ואי איקלע פרשת שקלים בראש חדש אדר מפטיר בבן שבע שנים, דמיירי בשקלים מעין שקלים דכי תשא שקרא המפטיר, וזה הכלל שהמפטיר הולך אחר הפרשה שקרא הוא עצמו. ויש חולקים ואומרים להפטיר בראש חדש לעולם, מפני שהוא תדיר. וכן שבת וראש חדש וחנוכה מפטיר ברני ושמחי מעין הפרשה שקרא בה המפטיר. וכן כשחל פרשת שקלים בכ”ט בשבט מפטיר בבן שבע.

By contrast, Shibbolei Haleket^[24] cites Rabbi Yehudah HaḤasid as ruling that one should read the Rosh Ḥodesh haftarah.

In Sefer ha-Minhagim of Mahara of Tirna, it is stated that the opinion of the Mordechai is to read the Hanukkah haftarah, and this is how it appears in the Vilna edition of the Talmud. Yet, the Machon Yerushalayim edition has an addition that appears in manuscript:

וכן נמצא בתשובת רב יהודאי גאון^[25] אך רבי יהודה כהן הביא ממסכת סופרים ובהלכות פסוקות של ספר והזהיר^[26] וברכות ירושלמי^[27] שמפטירין בדר”ח, ונלאיתי לכתוב ראיות.

Despite this, according to the other French sources the practice was to read the Hanukkah haftarah. In the Sefer ha-Minhagim (76) attributed to Rabbeinu Abraham Klausner—though the core of the work is actually by Rabbi Paltiel (of French origin)^[28] —it is stated:

ומפטיר רני ושמחי, וכן מנהג הרבב במיידבורק. לעולם נגד מה שקורין המפטיר מפטירין. וה”ר אליעזר אומר דמפטירין השמים כסאי ואין משגיחין בדחנוכה, אע”פ כשחל ר”ח אדר בשבת מפטירין בן שבע שנים, היינו משום דמיניה קא סליק משקלים, לכך משקלים מפטירין דדמי’ ליה ושבקיה דר”ח, אבל הכא לא דמי רני ושמחי לפרשת נשיאים כלל, הילכך מפטירין בדר”ח דדמי’ לפרשת שבת ולפרשת ר”ח שנא’ “מדי חדש בחדשו ומדי שבת בשבתו”, והכי אמרינן במסכת סופרים, שאל ר’ יצחקה לר’ יצחק נפחא ר”ח טבת שחל להיות בשבת במה קורין א”ל בענין ויהי ביום כלות משה, ומפטיר בר”ח ושבת והיינו מדי חדש בחדשו וגו’.

This passage introduces a new claim: The haftarah of Hanukkah does not correspond to the Torah reading of the Nesi’im at all, and therefore should not override the Rosh Ḥodesh haftarah. This represents at least one French source inclined toward the Rosh Ḥodesh haftarah. These views are cited in the glosses of the Maharil, though the Maharil himself ruled to read the Hanukkah haftarah.

Ultimately, the Rosh, the Tur,^[29] and the Abudirham^[30]—and following them the Shulḥan Arukh and the Levush (with the Rema not offering a dissent)—all ruled that the haftarah of Hanukkah is read. This is the practice observed in all communities today.

1. I would like to thank my brother R’ Yehoshua Duker for his help in editing this, and Dr. Gabriel Wasserman for discussing the piyyutim with me. This article is written לזכר נשמת ייטא בת הרב שמואל יוסף who just passed away. Her emunah and mesirat nefesh in Auschwitz and in her long life afterward is a source of inspiration for her extended family and beyond. ↑
2. See my site on Alhatorah, with regard to the Algerian practice not to read a special haftarah for the second Sabbath of Hanukkah ↑
3. See E. Fleischer, The Formation and Fixation of Prayer in Eretz Yisrael, pp. 449–450 (Heb.). He understands that the reading for the last day of Hanukkah when it fell on the Sabbath was not the entirety of Numbers 7 but only similar to today’s practice. The issue of the tradition of the miracle of the oil is beyond the scope of this article. ↑
4. Concerning the haftarot for Hanukkah in Pesikta Rabati, see Elitzur, B. “Pesikta Rabati: Pirkei Mevo” pp.77-79. ↑
5. Piska 8 fn. 1. ↑
6. See Fleisher. ↑
7. Elitzur p. 77. ↑
8. Elitzur. ↑
9. Mahzor Piyuttei Rabbi Yannai LeTorah Velamoadim, Vol, 2. p. 237. ↑
10. https://maagarim.hebrew-academy.org.il/Pages/PMain.aspx?mishibbur=954001&page=1 and Elitzur S. “Piyyutei Rabbi Yeshuah Birbi Yoesf Hashofet” p.11 fn. 46 and pp 28-20 in Kovetz Al Yad 5774. ↑
11. Fleisher pp. 451-452, and fn. 32. ↑
12. Rabbi Yeshuah was a dayan in 11th century Alexandria. See Fleisher, ibid. ↑
13. Oxford Bodl. Heb. e. 93/3. ↑
14. Fragment is in Judeo-Arabic, translated by Fleisher pp. 449-250 and fn. 22. ↑
15. P. 185. ↑
16. P. 36. ↑
17. Budapest Edition, p. 144 ↑
18. Ms, 6691=31. It is not clear why Yehoyada is mentioned here. Perhaps it is due to confusion with the son of the First Temple era Zechariah, or perhaps it is due to the same issue existing with regard to Rosh Ḥodesh Adar of Sabbath when the haftarah is about Yehoyada; see Mahzor Vitry, cited below. ↑
19. Grossman, Ḥakhmei Ashkenaz Harishonim pp. 302-303. ↑
20. Ibid. p 301. ↑
21. Machon Yerushalayim edition, p. 65, Halacha 76. ↑
22. Machon Yerushalayim edition, p. 410. ↑
23. I.e., Raavan; see notes in books above. ↑
24. Inyan Hanukkah, Siman 190. ↑
25. It seems he is referring to the Halakhot Pesukot. ↑
26. We do not have this source. See Shibbolei Haleket, Zichron Aaron edition, siman 190 fn. 32. ↑
27. This source does not appear in today’s editions of the Yerushalmi. Many thought that Rishonim had a “Sefer Yerushalmi” that was an addition to the standard Talmud Yerushalmi. Several decades ago, texts were found in the bindings of books in various European libraries that may be this work. See Zusman Y. “Seridei Yerushalmi Ktav Yad Ashkenzi (Kovetz Al Yad 1994, especially pp.15-17). Later he writes how the Mordechai (Beitzah 2:682) cites a Yerushalmi not known to us, and it was found there.
    As I am unaware of anything from Tractate Berakhot from this Geniza, it is uncertain what the Mordechai is referring to, but he is likely referring to this work here as well. See Zussman’s “Yerushalimi Ktav-Yad VeSefer Hayerushalmi” in Tarbitz (1996) pp. 37-63, as well as Mack. H. “Al Hahaftara Beḥag Simchat Torah” in Meḥkerei Talmud 3 vo. 2 pp. 497-8 fn. 44. ↑
28. See the introduction to the Machon Yerushalayim edition. ↑
29. Oraḥ Ḥayyim 684. It is the same in other sources using this numbering. ↑
30. Hanukkah. ↑

Chanukah Controversies, Customs and Scholarship: A Roundup & Update

We are working on creating a better system to navigate past posts [please contact us at Seforimblog-at-gmail if you are interested in volunteering]. In the interim, here is a collection of Chanukah-related posts along with some new material:

(As an aside, the Seforimblog’s internal style guide uses the Ashkenazic transliteration of the holiday name. Nonetheless, each author has the freedom to use whichever they prefer.)

Controversies and Contested History

Nearly every aspect of Chanukah has sparked debate. The holiday’s most famous miracle, the oil burning for eight days, became the center of a 19th-century controversy involving the polyglot Chaim Zelig Slonimsky. Both Zerachya Licht (“חז״ל ופולמס חנוכה“) and Marc Shapiro (“The Hanukkah Miracle“) examine this dispute and whether the eight-day miracle was authentic or constructed. Licht explores Slonimsky’s fascinating life in greater detail in his two-part series on “Chaim Zelig Slonimsky and the Diskin Family” (part 1 and part 2). Slonimsky’s other Chanukah legacy, coining the Hebrew term sivivovon for dreidel, is discussed in this post (it pre-dated Ben Yehuda). Other linguistic terms are discussed with characteristic thoroughness by Mitchell First, tracing both “The Identity and Meaning of the Chashmonai” and “The Meaning of the Name Maccabee.” For an earlier treatment of the latter term, see Dan Rabinowitz’s post here. Meanwhile, the divergence between Ashkenazic and Sephardic practices extends even to the menorah lighting ritual itself. Zachary Rothblatt traces “The History behind the Askenazi/Sephardi Divide Concerning Lighting Chanukah Candles.” Reuven Kimmelman’s “The Books of Maccabees and the Al HaNissim Prayer for Hanukah” reveals how the liturgy itself represents a melding of different historical traditions.  While Marc covers another liturgical item,  a potential Maccabean Psalm (here), which opens another window into the holiday’s ancient textual layers.

Games, Mathematics, and Mythmaking

The dreidel’s supposedly ancient Jewish pedigree is thoroughly debunked in “April Fools! Tracing the History of Dreidel Among Neo-Traditionalists and Neo-Hebraists.” Despite persistent legends that brave Jews used dreidels to disguise Torah study during Greek persecution, the game has no such heroic origins. That hasn’t stopped it from generating interesting mathematical questions: which player has the best advantage? How long does a typical game last? Thomas Robinson and Sujith Vijay tackle the latter in “Dreidel Lasts O(n²) Spins.”

Dreidel wasn’t the only Chanukah game. Card-playing customs are explored in “The Custom of Playing Cards on Chanukah,” which highlights an often-overlooked source for Jewish practice: Pauline Wengeroff’s Rememberings: The World of a Russian-Jewish Women in the Nineteenth Century.

Customs, Food, and Forgotten Practices

Many Chanukah customs center on food and celebration. Eliezer Brodt surveys these in “The Customs Associated with Joy and their More Obscure Sources,” and discusses the distribution of real and chocolate coins at the end of this post. But not all customs have survived or been remembered. Eliezer’s very first post for Seforimblog back in 2006, “A Forgotten Work on Chanukah, חנוכת הבית,” examined an obscure Chanukah text, Chanukas ha-Bayis, cited by Magen Avraham. (That initial post launched a prolific collaboration—Eliezer has since contributed dozens of articles, completed his Ph.D. dissertation on the Magen Avraham, and published many books.) His “The Chanukah Omission” identifies a missing tractate, with an update available in his recent talk here, along with a discussion of another lesser-known tractate that touches on Chanukah and involves censorship.

The Menorah in Text and Image

The menorah has been reproduced in countless forms, from the famous depiction on the Arch of Titus to manuscripts, printed books, and ephemera. Steven Fine’s The Menorah: From the Bible to Modern Israel (Harvard, 2016) offers the most comprehensive treatment of how this symbol shaped Jewish identity, and Fine continues to publish on the topic, recent articles are available on his Academia page. The exhibition catalog In the Light of the Menorah: Story of a Symbol (Israel Museum, 1998) contains excellent essays in both Hebrew and English, though oddly, the English version omits nearly all the notes. Another strange omission mars L. Yardeni’s earlier The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah (1971): Daniel Sperber notes in his Minhagei Yisrael (vol. 5, 171*) that Yardeni drew extensively on his Journal of Jewish Studies article but credited him only sporadically.

None of these works, however, addresses the menorah in early Hebrew printed books. For that, see our article “The Image of the Menorah in the Early Printed Hebrew,” along with the comments adding further examples.

New and Notable

Daniel Sperber has just published Mei Chanukah, a new work on the berita associated with Chanukah. Due to timing, it will likely only be available in Israel this year. If anyone knows of US distributors, please note them in the comments.

Not all recent scholarship meets the same standard. Akiva Shamesh’s review highlights serious deficiencies in Mitzva Ner Ish u-Beyoto. In another review, “Yemi Shemonah,” Shamesh addresses the “famous” Bet Yosef question: why eight nights of Chanukah rather than seven?

Chanukah Samach!

ועשו להם ציצת – What to Make of Tzitzit

By Joseph Wertzberger [1]

ויאמר ה׳ אל משה
דבר אל־בני ישראל ואמרת אלהם ועשו להם ציצת על־כנפי בגדיהם לדרתם ונתנו על ציצת הכנף פתיל תכלת
והיה לכם לציצת וראיתם אתו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה׳ ועשיתם אתם, ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם
למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם
אני ה׳ אלקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלקים, אני ה׳ אלקיכם
במדבר ט׳׳ו, ל׳׳ז – מ׳׳א

And HaShem said to Moshe as follows.
Speak to the people of Israel and tell them they should make themselves fringes on the ends of their garments, for generations, and place on the end-fringes a techelet-thread.
And they shall serve you as glance-objects – when you see them you’ll recall all HaShem’s orders and do them, and you won’t follow your hearts’ and eyes’ explorations, after which you tend to stray.
So that you recall and perform all my orders, and are ordained to your god.
I am HaShem, your god, that took you out of the land of Egypt to be your god, I am HaShem your god.

Numbers 15, 37-41

_________________

Archeologists recently published[2] new findings regarding the history of Tel Shiqmona, a site near present-day Haifa that was a large-scale production facility for techelet and argaman,[3] the deep blue and purple dyes used in ancient Israel and throughout the Near East during the First-Temple period and later.

Understanding techelet and its role in the ancient world can help us better appreciate how it, together with tzitzit, may have been viewed in early First-Temple Israel, and to more clearly recognize some of the ideas presented in its parsha and in related parshiot in the Torah.

Techelet was produced from the glandular excretions of the Murex trunculus sea-snail using an elaborate production method, and was the most valuable dye in the ancient Near-Eastern world — by some sources it took two-hundred and fifty thousand shells to produce one ounce of dye, which was then worth, by weight, three times the value of gold.[4] Due to its prized status and high cost, it was used in priestly vestments and royal garments[5] across the ancient Near East, including in Israel’s temple vestments.[6]

Techelet’s role in tzitzit can be understood as a signifier that, in contrast to other ancient Near-Eastern religions, in which the priestly class served as intermediaries between the people and their gods,[7] in ancient Judaism the entirety of the Jewish people and all of its members were conceived as a semi-priestly class, with each individual given direct access and communion to God, and all people required to serve him,[8] with sexual, dietary[9] and clothing rules applicable to each of them and signifying their special status.

Like the Israelite priesthood itself, which utilized techelet extensively in its raiment, and also perhaps in similitude to royal garments, individual Jews wore an article of clothing that included a small amount of techelet as a miniature priestly or royal vestment, reminding the wearer that they belong to a class of people vested with particular rules, and requiring maintenance of a higher order of behavior.[10][11][12]

Tzitzit and techelet are not simply objects randomly chosen to serve as reminders to keep the mitzvot. Rather, they signify the wearer’s membership in an elevated class of people to whom the mitzvot apply as part of class membership.

______________________

The root-word ציץ refers to a bud or a blossom,[13] to fringes or tassels,[14] and to the act of peeking,[15][16][17][18] and in its variants can be used in both noun and verb format.[19]

Understanding this reveals the beautiful and poetic wordplay-based meaning of parshat tzitzit, which juxtaposes two conceptions of the root-word ציץ playing off each other to provide the fuller meaning of the word ציצת, and the message of the passage and of the מצוה itself.

In the word’s initial appearance in verse 38, the Jews are told to make ציצת, bud-like thread-fringes, at the ends of their garments. In the next verse, the meaning of the word based on its sentence-context changes to the noun version of the work peek – an object to peek at.[20] The tzitzit together with their techelet are symbols of Israel’s special relationship with God, and thus serve as reminder-objects to regularly look at — “They shall be for you glance-objects,[21] for when you see them, you’ll recall the commandments…”.[22][23]

___________________________

All of which adds color to our understanding of the story of Korach and his arguments against Moshe and Aharon.

The reason the incident of Korach is placed directly after the chapter of tzitzit in the Torah is because Korach’s arguments flow directly from the ideas presented in that chapter. The foundational concept in the parsha of tzitzit is that all Jews are a royal and priestly class, all are קדשים לאלקיכם – sacred and dedicated to God; that God took the Jewish people out of Egypt, להיות לכם לאלקים, to be directly a God of all of the Jewish people – אני ה׳ אלקיכם. Comes Korach and argues, if all Jews are uniquely members of a royal and priestly class in direct communion with God, then why are separate priestly and ruling classes needed to lord over them and to mediate between them and the divine. Korach notes, כי כל העדה כלם קדשים )based on והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם); ובתוכם ה׳ )paralleling אני ה׳ אלקיכם אשר הוצאתי אתכם מארץ מצרים להיות לכם לאלקים, אני ה׳ אלקיכם) and therefore ומדוע תתנשאו על קהל ה׳. The words in Parshat Korach, and Korach’s message, directly address the words and the message in the chapter preceding it.

Many readers are now surely recalling the well-known midrash, a version of which appears in Rashi on the first verse in Parshat Korach, according to which Korach used tzitzit and techelet as a metaphor in his arguments against Moshe and the priesthood’s rule over Israel, contending that an article of clothing made entirely of techelet should not require tzitzit.[24] The meaning of the midrash is made clearer through our understanding of the parshiot. The crux of Korach’s argument is based on techelet’s inclusion in tzitzit as a symbol of priesthood and royalty, signifying the elements of priesthood and royalty carried by all Jews. The midrash elucidates this, and highlights the Korach story’s placement immediately after tzitzit, by elaborating on Korach’s arguments and their premises in the ideas behind techelet. Like a royal garment all of techelet should not need another strand of techelet to make it royal, the Jewish people, who are all part of a royal class, as signified by their own techelet, should not need another royal class to lord over them. Since all Jews have priestly status and are connected to God, what sense is there in adding another priestly appendage? Like a royal or priestly garment does not need an additional purple thread to signify and manifest its meaning, a nation that is itself entirely royal and priestly, should not need other superior and ministerial classes added to it.[25]

___________________________

To round out the discussion, let’s take a look at another midrash that discusses tzitzit and touches on many of the ideas and themes mentioned above.

ועשו להם ציצת על כנפי בגדיהם. זה שאמר הכתוב אור זרע לצדיק ולישרי לב שמחה (תהלים צ׳׳ז – י׳׳א), ה’ חפץ למען צדקו (ישעיה מ׳׳ב – כ׳׳א). זרע להם הקדוש ברוך הוא את התורה ואת המצות לישראל, כדי להנחילם חיי העולם הבא, ולא הניח דבר בעולם שלא נתן בו מצוה לישראל. יצא לחרש, לא תחרש בשור ובחמור, לזרע, לא תזרע כרמך כלאים, לקצר, כי תקצר קצירך בשדה… נתכסה בטלית, ועשו להם ציצת

תנחומא, שלח, סי׳ ט׳׳ו; רבה, במדבר, סי׳ י׳׳ז

“And they should make themselves tzitzit”: Regarding this it is written, “A light shines for the righteous, and there is joy for the straight-hearted” (Tehillim 97-11), “God desired the sake of his righteousness” (Yeshaya 42-21). God sowed Torah and mitzvot for Israel, in order that they inherit eternal life, and he did not leave a thing in the world regarding which he didn’t give a commandment to Israel. A person goes out to plow, “Don’t plow with an ox and donkey”; to sow, “Do not sow your vineyard mixed varieties”; to harvest, “When you harvest in the field”… [the midrash then mentions many other mitzvot that apply to various tasks, and ends with] he covers himself with a cloak, “they should make themselves tzitzit”.

Tanchuma Shelach 15; Rabbah Bamidbar 17.

To better understand the midrash and the significance of its two introductory verses, one needs to see the fuller context of those verses.[26]

אור זרע לצדיק ולישרי⁠ לב שמחה. שמחו צדיקים בה׳ והודו לזכר קדשו. תהלים צ׳׳ז, י׳׳א – י׳׳ב

A light is implanted for the righteous, and there is joy for the straight-hearted. Righteous, rejoice in God, and praise the recollection of his sacredness. Tehillim 97, 11-12.

החרשים שמעו והעורים הביטו לראות. מי עור כי אם⁠ עבדי וחרש כמלאכי אשלח, מי עור כמשלם ועור כעבד ה׳. ראות רבות ולא תשמר פקוח אזנים ולא ישמע. ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר. ישעיה מ׳׳ב, י׳׳ח – כ׳׳א

Deaf ones, listen, and blind ones, look and see. Who is blind, but only my servant, who as deaf as the messenger I send; who as blind as the wholesome, as blind as the servant of God. Seeing much and paying no heed, open-eared and hearing not. God desires the sake of his righteousness, let the directives be great, and more mighty. Isaiah 42, 18-21.

We can recognize numerous allusions and references to tzitzit, which help us understand the midrash’s message.

אור זרוע לצדיק – Mitzvot, of course, are Ohr Zarua because they are a light that guides our path, and were implanted into the activities of the world; but tzitzit, representing all of the mitzvot, are particularly so – titzit’s root-word includes an allusion to shining light, and to planted blossoms, and it protects the person from sinning, assisting to make him righteous.

ולישרי לב שמחה — In reminding the person of the mitzvot, the tzitzit assist to keep the person’s heart straight, protecting it from straying. (ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם)

שמחו צדיקים בה׳ והודו לזכר קדשו – That righteous person who thereby kept the mitzvot should praise and be grateful for the tzitzit, the reminders of sacredness – למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם.

Now on to the verses in Yeshaya…

והעורים הביטו לראות. מי עור כי אם⁠ עבדי… מי עור כמשלם ועור כעבד ה׳. ראות רבות ולא תשמר… – The midrash exposits these verses as a reference to the person who looks at and sees his tzitzit but whose eyes are at the same time blind to other temptations. As commanded in the verse in Bamidbar, he looks at his tzitzit, recalls and performs all of the mitzvot, is a servant of God, stays wholesome, and becomes righteous, while blind and paying no heed to the things that would otherwise lead him astray (והיה לכם לציצת וראיתם אתו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה׳ ועשיתם אתם, ולא תתורו אחרי… עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם.).

ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר – God desires the sake of righteousness,[27] and therefore he made the Torah and its commandments greater by making them more numerous and all-encompassing, so that they serve to protect us against sinning and keep us righteous.[28] And the tzitzit are what serve to remind us to keep all of those commandments – [29]למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי.

Looking back now at the verses in the chapter on tzitzit, one notices how many of its words and ideas are presented and cross-referenced in the two passages in Tehillim and Yeshaya as exposited by the midrash: the meaning of the word Tzitzit as a blossom, and as a shining light, tzitzit assisting their wearer and seer to remain righteous, to recall all of the very many mitzvot, to serve God and keep them, to remain wholesome and righteous, not to stray after one’s heart, and not to stray after one’s eyes.

והיה לכם לציצת וראיתם אתו וזכרתם את כל מצות ה׳ ועשיתם אתם, ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם אשר אתם זנים אחריהם. למען תזכרו ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם

Almost everything in these two verses on tzitzit is cross-referenced somewhere in the passages mentioned in the midrash.

___________________________

Having said all of this one cannot help but end with the well-known Mishna that closes Tractate Makot:

רבי חנניה בן עקשיא אומר רצה הקב”ה לזכות את ישראל לפיכך הרבה להם תורה ומצות שנאמר ה’ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר. מכות ג׳ – ט׳׳ז

In light of the midrash just discussed, we recognize that the word לזכות as used in the Mishna means to purify (rather than to provide merit, the more common contemporary translation of the word as used in the passage). The numerous mitzvot serve to keep those who perform them pure, to help stay them from sin, and to maintain their righteousness.[30]

This also helps explain the Mishna’s placement at the end of the last chapter of Makot, which is comprised of lengthy lists of sins and descriptions of their punishments. In light of that, and also so as not to close the tractate with all of that negative material, the Mishna quotes this teaching regarding how mitzvot’s abundance serves to protect us from the many sins, and leads us in their stead to good.

[1] The author is the creator of the YouTube channel, Understanding Kohelet.
[2] Shalvi G., Sukenik N., Waiman-Barak P., Dunseth Z.C., Bar S., Pinsky S., et al. (2025), Tel Shiqmona during the Iron Age: A first glimpse into an ancient Mediterranean purple dye ‘factory’, PLoS ONE 20(4): e0321082 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321082); Shalvi, G., & Gilboa, A. (2023). Between Israel and Phoenicia: The Iron IIA–B Fortified Purple-dye Production Centre at Tel Shiqmona, Tel Aviv, 50(1), 75–110 (https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2023.2190283).

See also, Mihailo S. Zekic, The Secrets of Tel Shikmona, Let the Stones Speak Magazine, July – August 2023, (https://armstronginstitute.org/933-the-secrets-of-tel-shikmona); Lidz, Franz, In Israel, a 3,000-Year-Old Purple Factory, NYTimes, March 5, 2024, (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/05/science/archaeology-tyrian-purple-murex.html); Margolis, Andrea, Archeologists Uncover Ancient “Factory” Used to Produce Coveted Purple Dye Mentioned in Bible, Fox News Online, May 10, 2025 (https://www.foxnews.com/travel/archaeologists-uncover-ancient-factory-used-produce-coveted-purple-dye-mentioned-bible).
[3] Argaman is also known as Tyrian purple.
[4] Zaria Gorvett, Tyrian Purple: The lost ancient pigment that was more valuable than gold, BBC Online, November 24, 2023 (https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231122-tyrian-purple-the-lost-ancient-pigment-that-was-more-valuable-than-gold#).
[5] E.g., Esther 8-15.
[6] E.g., Shemot, Chapter 28.
[7] See, for example, Ada Taggar-Cohen, Priests and priestesses, ancient near east (June 30, 2015), in The Encyclopedia of Ancient History (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah25085).
[8] ואתם תהיו לי ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש. שמות י׳׳ט ו׳

And you will be dedicated to me, a nation of priests, and a consecrated people. Shemot 19-6.
[9]  רמב׳׳ם, משנה תורה, סדר קדושה.
[10] This is alluded to in וראיתם אתו… ועשיתם את כל מצותי והייתם קדשים לאלקיכם, which expresses tzitzit’s role as a representative sign of the Jewish nation’s sacredness as a people dedicated to God and ordained to serve him.
[11] It may also be that fringes at the ends of garments themselves also signified royalty or the priestly class. See Stephen Bertman, Tasseled Garments in the Ancient Near East Mediterranean, The Biblical Archeologist, Vol. 24, No. 4 (Dec., 1961); Jacob Milgrom, Hems and Tassels, Biblical Archology Review, Volume IX, No. 3 (May/June 1983). Turning the weft that remained at either end of a garment into ornamental tassels would have been a way of indicating the significance of the wearer, contrasting with ordinary garments which would have had the ends of their wefts sewn into a straight hem, to make the clothing more utilitarian and also more durable. See also, Kelly Olson, Fringed Clothing in Roman iconography and written sources, Chapter 11 in Textiles in Ancient Mediterranean Iconography (Oxbow Books, 2022), and Ancient Fashion: Fringed Clothing in Roman Iconography and Written Sources, at https://brewminate.com/ancient-fashion-fringed-clothing-in-roman-iconography-and-written-sources.
[12] Another area where a parallel exists between the service of Israel’s priestly class and that of the ordinary Jewish “semi-priesthood”, is the prohibition on leaven in the Temple (Shemot, 34-25, and elsewhere), which applies to all of the Jewish people during their Pesach sacrifice and subsequent holiday.
[13] והיתה ציצת נובל צבי תפארתו, אשר על ראש גיא שמנים כבכורה בטרם קיץ, אשר יראה הראה אותה, בעודה בכפו יבלענה. ישעיה כ’’ח ד׳

הבאים ישרש יעקב, יציץ ופרח ישראל, ומלאו פני תבל תנובה. ישעיה כ’’ז ו׳
[14]  וישלח תבנית יד ויקחנו בציצת ראשי. יחזקאל ח׳ ג׳
[15] דומה דודי לצבי או לעפר האילים, הנה זה עומד אחר כתלנו, משגיח מן החלנות מציץ מן החרכים. שה’’ש ב׳ ט׳
[16] Consider also the interesting example of, .בפרח רשעים כמו עשב ויציצו כל פעלי און… ותבט עיני בשורי
[17] Of course the word ציץ‘s meanings of blossom and peek are related, since blossoms are the first peeks of a plant’s flower and color.

It’s interesting to note that just like the English word peek is used to refer both to the thing that is just barely seen peeking out of a crack, and to the person that is peeking and just barely sees something, the Hebrew word מציץ can have a similar dual use, as seen in the poetic utilization of the word מציץin the verse in Shir HaShirim referred to in note 15, where the lover peeking through the cracks in the verse can be understood as the lover looking at his beloved through the cracks (see, for example, Rashi, Rashbam and ibn Ezra), but also as the countenance of the lover just barely appearing to his beloved through the cracks (R’ Yosef Kimchi, Metzudat David and Ho’il Moshe, as well as Rashbam in Shemot 28-36) — the woman gets a glimpse of her lover, who then disappears, and later in verse 14 she beseeches him to appear again.

See also Me’or Eineyim, Bereshit and Pinchas, in the name of the Ba’al Shem Tov, that the concept of מציץ מן החרכים alludes to a person’s tendency to want to do the right thing due to the perception that people are watching and paying attention to them, and that this is in fact a manifestation of what in reality is the person’s desire to do the right thing due to their perception of God observing them. We feel and respond to our perception of human observation, but we are really perceiving God’s essence, so to speak, observing us; manifesting through our perception of humans’ perception – God is, so to speak, מציץ מן החרכים.

Here too, the Baal Shem Tov’s interpretation of the passage as reflected through this teaching can be understood as reading the word מציץ in the verse both as God observing us and watching us through the people that surround us, as well as God appearing to us through our sense of people’s observation.

The teaching contains a similar idea to the Baal Shem Tov’s well-known teaching regarding ה׳ צלך, that not only is God a shadow over the human, protecting them, but also a shadow of the human, appearing to the human as the human understands God; and is also typical of many of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings in that it contains several layers of meaning that are related to one another and nest inside each other.
[18] With regard to the ציץ of the High Priest, there are various interpretations regarding the source of the word, for example ibn Ezra interprets it as similar to ויקחנו בציצת ראשי (see note 14), while Rashbam says it was called ציץ because it was seen, similarly to מציץ מן החרכים. It’s also possible that the source of the word was due to the shine glancing off of the ציץ, and how it added aura to the appearance of the High Priest, and made it ‘pop’, similarly to ועליו יציץ נזרו in Tehillim 132-18 (see also Chizkuni with a similar explanation). Again, of course all of these meanings are related, and it’s quite possible that the source of the word יציץ’s usage as shine and glance is itself based on light’s bursting forth from the shining object. In a similar light, R.S.R. Hirsch explains that the root word ציץ signifies something that protrudes and pops out of a surface, and that this is the source of the word’s usage for blossoms, fringes, peeking, as well as for the High Priest’s ציץ. See also Sifri, Bamidbar, 15-32, אין ציצת אלא דבר היוצא, ודבר כל שהוא, which supports to R.S.R. Hirsch’s interpretation. See also Divrei Yirmiyahu on Rambam, Mishnah Torah, Tzitzit, 1-1.

Speaking of which, it interesting to note that the ציץ, just like ציצת, incorporated a פתיל תכלת.
[19] אנושׁ כחציר ימיו, כציץ השדה כן יציץ. תהלים ק׳׳ג ט׳׳ו
[20] Rashbam and Ri Bechor Shor also note this change in the word’s meaning between verses 37 and 38. Interestingly, Rashi notes both fringes and looking as possible meanings of the word in verse 37, seemingly not taking the view that the word has different meanings in the two sentences.

The interpolation of the instruction to put techelet on the fringes coming between the two mentions of the word tzitzit, meshes well with reading a change in the word’s meaning between its two appearances, because it’s the techelet that makes the tzitzit a symbol of the Jews’ elevated status, thereby turning it in it into a handy reminder of its associated status’ accompanying behavioral requirements. ונתנו על ציצת הכנף פתיל תכלת –> והיה לכם לציצת In this reading these are not two unrelated phrases in sequence, but are in fact intended to be meaningfully read together, one related to the other.
[21] Unfortunately there is no English-language word equivalent to this concept, so I coined the word glance-object, or alternatively, look-object, somewhat similar to the word looking-glass.
[22] See also Tanchuma Bamidbar 15, Rabah Bamidbar 17-5 – והיה לכם לציצית, שתהא נראית… וראיתם אותו, פרט לכסות לילה. The word tzitzit itself already includes in its meaning the concept of being seen, even without the addition of וראיתם אותו.

Interestingly, this interpretation is first provided by the midrash in verse 38, and not in verse 37, while the Sifri’s exposition of the word tzitzit as signifying anything that protrudes, mentioned in note 18 above (and which seemingly contradicts the continuation of the midrash here in Tanchuma that provides a minimum length for tzitzit based on the requirement for it to be seen), is provided in verse 37. This seems to lend support to the idea that the meaning of the word changes between the two sentences.

Reading the first two uses of the word as fringes, and the third as referring to a larger mitzva of tzitzit with a broader meaning that encompasses both the fringe element and the techelet element works very well with the Rambam’s reading of tzitzit as two elements of one larger mitzva. Rambam, Mishnah Torah, Tzitzit, Chapter 1, Sections 1-5. Furthermore, with this perspective in mind we can also posit that the fringe element of the mitzva does not require a particular length, in accordance with the Tanchuma, while the combined fringe-techelet full mitzva of tzitzit requires a particular length, in accordance with the Sifri, since it is predicated on being seen. And in fact we must reconcile the Tanchuma and Sifri’s two readings halachically, and cannot read them as conflicting opinions, since the Sifri cites the elders of Bet Shamai and Bet Hillel as concurring on the point that tzitzit can be of any length as long as they protrude, while the Tanchuma cites a disagreement between Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai regarding different required lengths for tzitzit based on the requirement for them to be seen. In consonance with the Rambam’s reading and the explanation provided here, the two readings do not in fact contradict each other, neither halachically nor as a literary reading of the text, both of which support each other.

Incidentally, this is a case where one can follow the thread of halachic development very well. The Torah itself simply states in straightforward terms that one should create fringes at the ends of garments, and place techelet on the fringes, to have it be seen and serve as a reminder of the mitzvot. Chazal then flesh out the parameters more precisely based on the passages’ words and contextualized meanings — explaining tzitzit’s baseline concept as a simple protrusion, while noting that fulfillment of the fuller concept and its service as a seeable reminder requires a minimum that can be seen. The Rambam then forms the mitzva into a categorical set of parameterized components and rules tracking the requirements and concepts set out by Chazal. At each stage the mitzva and its details are presented using the language and conceptualization familiar to the Torah and expositors of the particular period, while expressing the same underlying ideas.
[23] Another interesting bit of wordplay in the passage is the juxtaposition of the words tzitzit and mitzvot. Both are somewhat similarly-sounding, and indeed, the tzitzit stand in as a reminder of the mitzvot.

I recall noticing as a child in shul, that when we got to the end of Keriyat Shema, you’d suddenly hear a lot of tz’s, s’s and z’s in the room, which had an interesting sound and ring to it. I used to think it was just a kind of funny random thing a child notices, but it turns out that the particularly perfusive profusion of sound in the passage is not an accident but in fact a feature of the passage’s poetry and wordplay (not dissimilar, for example, to the line צבאות צאנך יצלצלו בקול in Hakalir’s אדירי איומה, recited by Ashkenazim during shacharit on the first day of Rosh Hashana, or the line אלו ואלו בצפצוף מצפצפים in the similarly styled כל שנאני שחק, recited in the same place in the service on the second day).

And if we want to stretch the exercise further we might even say that the ז׳ in זכרתם also serves as a poetic counterpoint to the ז׳ in זנים – the tzitzit pull one back to the mitzvot, acting as a reminder to keep the mitzvot and not wander after the temptations pulling one away.
[24] The midrash is as follows, “’And Korach took…’ What is written prior to this matter, “Speak to the children of Israel and tell them to make themselves tzitzit”. Korach jumped on this point and said to Moshe, “does a garment all of techelet require tzitzit?” Moshe said to him it requires tzitzit. Said Korach, “a garment all of techelet does not exempt itself, and four threads exempt it?” Tanchuma Korach, Siman 2. Another story with a slightly different spin on how Korach arranged talitot and tzitzit to illustrate the ideas behind his argument is presented several lines later in the same midrash.

Note that the midrash also seems to be explicating the phrase “Vayikach Korach”, which is anomalous in that there is no object connected to the subject and verb. The Midrash explains that Korach “took” the chapter and the ideas that immediately precede the word “vayikach”. See also Tanchuma at the start of Siman 3, which states “ויקח קרח – לקח טליתו”, which seems to be phrasing the idea in a similar way, explicating the word “vayikach”.
[25] This is a good example of how classic midrash analyzes and identifies the literary references, and the larger ideas, meanings and messages, that underlie the Torah’s words, phrases and narratives, and their relationships and connections; and explicates and illustrates them using memorable story-form, metaphor and allegory.
[26] This is often the case with midrash. Our written versions of a particular midrashic teaching may quote only a brief snippet of the relevant verse being analyzed, while the full breadth and point of the midrash’s teaching become evident only in the light of, and often apply to, a much fuller extent of the quoted verse(s).
[27] The word צדקו in this verse also serves as a cross-reference to the word צדיק in the Tehillim verses.
[28] An additional connotation of the teaching is that the greater the Torah is (יגדיל), and the more commandments and rules it has, the mightier it is, and the more effect it has (יאדיר).
[29] The verse ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו as exposited in this midrash can also be read as a reference to the verse regarding tzitzit in Devarim 22-12, where tzitzit are called גדלים. ה׳ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר – in order to increase His desired righteousness, God represented the Torah and mitzvot in the gedilim, so that their wearers may perform the many mitzvot in the Torah and become great. And in fact the verseגדלים תעשה לך על ארבע כנפות כסותך in Devarim 22 – 12 comes directly after several of the other verses quoted in this midrash regarding the many and various mitzvot – the four verses directly preceding גדלים תעשה לך are all directly quoted in the midrash.
[30] This Mishna’s teaching reflects very well Chazal’s own project of building and enlarging Torah shebe’al peh as a means of clarifying, sharpening and expanding the contours of mitzvot and of the Torah, so that they serve as a stronger spiritual lattice and framework for the Jewish people, particularly after the loss of the Temple and its symbolic and ritualistic role as an identifying marker and base for Israel and for its connection to God, and following the exilic loss of the Jewish people’s identity tied to a land and a governing nation. מיום שחרב ביהמ”ק אין לו להקב”ה אלא ד’ אמות של הלכה בלבד (ברכות ח.) – the laws and rules of halacha act as a framework on which the Jewish people’s relationship with God establishes itself and is based upon, thereby serving as a space for God in this world, so to speak, in place of the Bet Hamikdash which had previously served this role.