“Milta De’Bedichuta”: Some Playful Parodies of the Talmud in the Modern Period

By Ezra Brand

6-Mar-23

Ezra Brand is an independent researcher based in Tel Aviv. He has an MA from Revel Graduate School at Yeshiva University in Medieval Jewish History, where he focused his research on 13th and 14th century sefirotic Kabbalah. He is interested in using digital and computational tools in historical research. He has contributed a number of times previously to the Seforim Blog (tag), and a selection of his research can be found at his Academia.edu profile. He can be reached at ezrabrand@gmail.com; any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.

Intro

The origins of Jewish humor are debated, with some linking it to Eastern Europe and others to a more distant time and place. Recognition of Jewish humor as first-rate gained popularity at the end of the 19th century.[1]

I previously wrote on the Seforim Blog about humor in the Talmud.[2] In this piece, my focus will be on parodies of the Gemara written for Purim, known as “Purim Dafs”. Roni Cohen, at the beginning of his 2021 dissertation on Medieval Parodies for Purim, describes the earliest known parodies on the Talmud written for the holiday of Purim:

The first, Massekhet Purim (Purim tractate), is a parody of the Talmud written by the Provençal translator, philosopher, and writer Kalonymos ben Kalonymos, during the period he lived in Rome, between 1324 – 1328. The other two – Megilat Setarim (esoteric scroll), a parody on the Talmud and Sefer Habakbuk (the book of Habakbuk), a parody of the Hebrew Bible – were both written by the Provençal philosopher, astronomer, and bible commentator Rabbi Levi ben Gerson (Gersonides) in 1332.[3]

When written for Purim, the Talmud parodies are often known as “Purim Dafs”. This is something I tried my hand at when I was in yeshiva.[4]

In this piece I’d like to give a number of examples of modern parodies of the Talmud, collected from various locations on the web, listed in chronological order of date first published.[5]

 

מסכת פורים: מן תלמוד שכורים (1814) ⁶

A satirical discussion of the laws of drinking on Purim.

מסכת עניות מן תלמוד רש עלמא (1878)⁷

A satirical halachic discussion of laws of poverty.

מסכת עמיריקא: מן תלמוד ינקאי (1892) ⁸

A satirical halachic discussion of living in America.

מסכת שטרות (1894) ⁹

A satirical halachic discussion of who can sign contracts.

מסכת דרך ארץ החדשה: מתלמודא דארעא חדתא (1898)^10[10]

A satirical halachic discussion of living in America.

מסכת סוחרים (1900)^[11]

A satirical halachic discussion of the laws of merchants.

מסכת אדמונים מן תלמוד בולשבי (1923)^[12]

A satirical discussion of the trivial differences between the socialist Bolsheviks (“red”) and the monarchic Mensheviks (“white”) in the Russian Civil War, which started in 1917.

 

מסכת פרוהבישן מן תלמוד בטלי (1929)^[13]

A satirical halachic discussion of the laws of drinking alcohol during the period of Prohibition in the United States, which started in 1920.

מסכת פורים תו שין טית וו (1955)^[14]

A satirical halachic and aggadic discussion of Israeli elections.

מסכת המן (1975)^[15]

A satirical halachic discussion regarding Haman.

מסכת אב”כ שומע קול צופר (1991)^[16]

A satirical halachic discussion of wearing of gas masks during the Iraqi rocket attacks on Israel during First Gulf War in 1991.

הדאנאלד (2016)^[17]

A satirical discussion of the Trump wall.

מסכת קורונא פרק ב’ (2021)^[18]

This parody is a satirical halachic and aggadic discussion surrounding coronavirus, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

New Books & Book sale 2023

By Eliezer Brodt

The post hopes to serve a few purposes. The first section lists some new interesting seforim and thereby making the Seforim Blog readership aware of their recent publication.

Second, to make these works available for purchase for those interested.

Third, the second part of the list are some harder to find books, for sale. (This is a continuation of this post.)

Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.

Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for more information about purchasing or for sample pages of some of these new works.

Part one

1. אוצר הגאונים, עבודה זרה, שבועות, מכות, הוריות, בעריכת ירחמיאל ברודי ואחרים, 398 עמודים
2. מנחם כהנא, דרש המזהיר ותרומתו למחקר ספרי דברים ומכילתא דברים
3. תלמוד מסכת נזיר, א, מכון תלמוד ישראלי
4. מעגל טוב, להחיד”א, מהדורת הרב מנדלבוים [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
5. נעימת כהנים, מהדיר פרופ’ יעקב שפיגל [ניתן לקבל הקדמה ודפי דוגמא]
6. מן הגנזים, כרך טז, כולל ‘יומן החלומות של רבי יהודה פתייא’ מאת ר’ משה הלל
7.   זכור לאברהם, תשפ”ג, בעניני ספר תורה [כרך חדש]
8. ר’ בלס, מנופת צוף עיונים במורה הנבוכים, כרך ג, [על מורה נבוכים חלק ג]
9. אברהם וסרמן, מסילה חדשה רב קוק ואתגרי חינוך
10. ארץ-ישראל בשלהי העת העתיקה, ב’ חלקים, 1300 עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
11. ירושתנו חלק יב [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
12. ישראל רובין, כפירותיו של הרמב”ם
13. ר’ אמזוג, אם למקרא, ב’ חלקים, בראשית-ויקרא
14. ר’ אשר דוד מייערס, מלאכת המשכן וכליו, תקעו עמודים
15. ר’ שלמה הלוי, לב אבות על אבות, אהבת שלום
16.    עקיבא שטרנברג, ארץ לא נודעת \ התמודדות בעלי ההלכה עם אתגרי ההגירה לצפון אמריקה 1850-1924
17.   אבן עזרא איש האשכולות, קובץ מאמרים בעריכת דב שוורץ
18. ר’ אליהו דינר, מגילת סוטה, ביאורים ועינוים בעניני סוטה, תתקע עמודים
19. ר’ שלמה כהנא, שו”ת נחמת שלמה, מכון ירושלים
20. על פי ספר דרכי התלמוד לר’ יצחק קנפאנטון, שער דרכי התלמוד
21. ר’ זאב וגנר, אוצר רש”י, ליקוט ביאורי המילים במקרא ובתלמוד מכל פירושי רש”י והמיוחסים לו
22.   מבוא למשנה, משנת ארץ ישראל, ספראי
23. שו“ת מנחת זכרון, ר רפאל שלמה הבדלה ז“ל, מכון אהבת שלום
24.   ר”י מלוניל, תעניות וסוכה, מכון תלמוד ישראלי
25.   ר’ חנוך גרוסברג, חזון הארץ, [המעשה והתרומה, תורת השמיטה, חוקת שדה, נטע הלולים]
26. ספרא דצניעותא עם ביאור הגר”א, עם ביאור מר’ יצחק הוטנר
27. הרב עוז בלומן, איש משורש נביא, הממד האתי בבקשת האלוהים של הלל צייטלין [ניתן לקבל תוכן והקדמה]
28. ר’ אורי הולצמן, להתהלך, לפני אלקים באור החיים, על חומש שמות
29. ר’ ישעיה לוי, מקרא אני דורש, על חומש שמות [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
30. ר’ חיים פאלאג’י, מועד לכל חי, מכון שובי נפשי
31. ר’ צבי פסח פרנק, הר צבי על מסכת סנהדרין, מכות
32. ר’ שלמה וואלעס, תורת בית כנסת, עיוני ובירורי הלכה בעניני בית הכנסת, תרפח עמודים
33. אגרת ר’ שרירא גאון, בעריכת ר’ נתן דוד רבינוביץ [מהדורה חדשה]
34. ר’ יוסף פאק, ואני אברכם, כל דיני ומנהגיי נשיאת כפים, השייכים לבית המקדש ולזמן הזה
35. ר’ שמואל מאטאלון, שו”ת עבודת השם, מכון הכתב
36. רבנו גרשום, מסכת בבא בתרא, עם פירוש משפחת הגרשוני
37. שו”ת רבי שלמה ברוך [מכתב יד] משנות ה’ש’
38. ר’ אריה ליב ברעסלא, שו”ת פני אריה [מהדורה שנייה]
39.   פני מזרח,  בהירות שיטת הגאונים ומנהג ארץ ישראל [זמנים]
40.   ר’ יהודה ן’ שמואל אבן עבאס, מקור חיים \ יאיר נתיב [על פי כתב יד]
41. פירוש רבניו סעיד ן’ דוד אלעדני, ספר אהבה
42. יהודית הנשקה, המשנה בביזנטיון: מסורת הלשון של כתב יד קיימברידג’ למשנה

Part two

1. סיפור מעשי שבתי צבי, נדיר, $60
2. לקוטי קדמוניות לתולדות הקראים וספרותם, פינסקר, $26
3. משה צוקר, פירושי רס”ג לבראשית, $66
4. סדר ברכת המזון עם פירוש ר’ נתן שפירא, כולל סדר זמירות להמהרש”ל, $24
5. מחזור גולדשמידט, ר”ה-יו”כ, $110
6. מחזור גודלשמידט, סוכות, $28
7. ספר חסידים מקיצי נרדמים, במצבו, $30 כולל המבוא
8. מחכם באשי לרב ראשי, הרב יעקב מאיר 1939-1856, $25
9. משה הלברטל, הולדת הספק, $22
10. הכתב והמכתב חלק ב, $23
11. ר’ יעקב ר’ יעקב ששפורטש, ציצת נובל צבי, מהדורות ישעיהו תשבי, $75
12. מאיר בניהו, התנועה השבתאית ביוון, $75
13. ספר מלמד התלמידים, מקור, $38 [מצוין]
14. שערי תורת בבל, $40 [מצוין]
15. אוצר מפרשי התורה, כמה חיבורים: קטורת המים באור לתרגומים, מרגליות טובה, שלשה פירושים על אבן עזרא, מבין חידות פיר’ על המסורות, $34
16. סופה וסערה א, $21
17. סופה וסערה ב, $21
18. סופה וסערה ד, $21
19. יצחק לנדיס, ברכת העבודה בתפילת העמידה, $24
20. שבחי הבעש”ט, מהדיר: אברהם רובינשטיין, $28
21. משה סמט, חדש אסור מן התורה, $65
22. קובץ ספרי טעמי המסורה, $40
23. דרשות אגדות אזוב, $25
24. פירוש הגאונים לסדר טהרות, $30
25. מדרשי הגאולה, $26
26. שמעון שלם, ר’ משה אלשיך, $27
27. בראשית זוטא, מוסד הרב קוק, $26
28. ספר המקנה ר’ יוסף רוסהיים (מקיצי נרדמים), $26
29. יוסף המקנה, מקיצי נרדמים, $25
30. סידור רבינו שלמה ברבי נתן ע”פ הגאונים, $24
31. ר’ משה אביגדור עמנואל, לנבוכי התקופה, $18
32. ר’ יצחק ברויאר, הכוזרי החדש, $26
33. שמואל ורסס ויונתן מאיר, ראשית חכמה, $28
34. ר’ דוד זריצקי, זכרם לברכה, גאוני הדורות ואישי סגולה, $26
35. מסילת ישרים, מהד’ אופק, כולל מבוא והערות של ר’ יוסף אביב”י, $34
36. אברהם ווייס, על היצירה הספרותית של האמוראים, $25
37. אבן עזרא, פליישר, שמות, $25
38. מחקרים ומבואות לתלמוד: כולל ד’ חיבורים, מבוא התלמוד, לחקר סדר התלמוד, תולדות המשנה, אסמכתא, $26
39. יוסף היינימן ,התפילה בתקופת התנאים כריכה רכה, $23
40. מכלכל חיים בחסד, שני חלקים [ הזכרת גשם סגול \ יהי רצון שבין תקיעות], $25
41. הגדה של פסח, תורת חיים, מוסד הרב קוק, $22
42. משנת יעקב, ר’ יעקב שור, [ברכות, בעי חיי על רבנו בחיים, נר ערוך על ספר הערוך], $25
43. דבר אברהם, חלק הדרוש, $25
44. מדרש דניאל ומדרש עזרא, מקיצי נרדמים, $24
45. קונטרס טוהר הלשון, $10
46. חיים גרטנר, הרב העיר הגדולה, [מצוין], $24
47. קובץ מאמרים, ר’ יחזקאל אברמסקי, $24
48. דרשות גבעת שאול, הרב שאול הלוי מורטירה [מצוין], $28
49. ישראל וינשטוק, במעגלי הנגלה והנסתר, $24
50. הרב שלמה גורן, אוטוביוגרפיה, בעריכת אבי רט, כריכה רכה $17
51. אגרות סופרים, מכתבים של רע”א, חתם סופר, וכתב סופר, $16
52. יוסף דן, תולדות תורת הסוד חלק יג, $28
53. הגאון החסיד מוילנא, ר’ בצלאל לנדוי, $19
54. נחום לאם, תורה לשמה, $24
55. ר’ יוסף הלל, ביאורים על פ’ רש”י, ב’ חלקים, $42
56. מגנזי ישראל בוואטיקאן, קוק, $23
57. התקנות בישראל חלק ד, $15
58. ר’ משה שפירא, ר’ משה שמואל ודורו, [מצוין] $26
59. אגרות בעל דורות הראשונים, $18
60. אברהם ברור, זכרונות אב ובנו, $25
61. אביגדור אפטוביצר, מבוא הראבי”ה, $25
62. ר’ נתן דוד רבינוביץ, בינו שנות דור ודור, $25
63. ר’ נח מינדס, פרפראות לחכמה\ נפלאות חדשות, $24
64. יצחק רפאל, ראשונים ואחרונים, $24
65. כל בו אבילות, חלק ב, $15
66. אברהם יערי, שלוחי ארץ ישראל, $36
67. ר’ יחיאל גולדהבר, קונדיטון, $20
68. מעוז כהנא, מהנודע ביהודה לחתם סופר, הלכה והגות לנוכח אתגרי הזמן,[מצוין] $28
69. יחזקאל קוטיק, זכרונות ב’ חלקים, [מצוין], $45
70. משה בר אשר, פרקי עיון בעברית החדשה ובעשייה בה, $24
71. אגודת אז”ב, ר’ אפרים זלמן מרגליות, מכתבים, $24
72. חיים שלם, אי של אפשר על בנימין מינץ, $24
73. נפתלי בן מנחם, ענייני אבן עזרא, $40
74. יעקב אלבוים, פתיחות והסתגרות, $25
75. פישל שניאורסון, חיים גראביצר, $28
76. ים מרגליות, אוסף מאמרים של ר’ ראובן מרגליות, $20
77. ר’ ראובן מרגליות, תולדות מהרש”א, תולדות אור החיים הק’ תולדות רב יהודה הנשיא, הרמב”ם והזוהר, $28
78. מאיר הרשקוביץ, שני כרובים על הקצות ותוס’ יום טוב, $28
79. בן ציון קליבנסקי, כצור חלמיש, $25
80. יואל אליצור, מקום בפרשה, [מצוין], $25
81. יעקב שפיגל, עמודים בתולדות ספר העברי, תלמוד ערוך, [מצוין] $28
82. לבנת הספיר, ר’ דוד ב”ר יהודה החסיד, $24
83. ירושתנו חלק ב, $20
84. Daniel Sperber, The Jewish Life Cycle Lore and Iconography Jewish Customs from the Cradle to the Grave, $60
85. Israel Barzilay, Manasseh Of Ilyah, $25

The Etymology of “Onah”

by Mitchell First (MFirstAtty@aol.com)

I thought it would be useful if everyone would have a better understanding of how the root ענה, occurring at Exodus 21:10 in the form “onatah,” can refer to the sexual obligation. I will offer several possibilities.

First I must provide a brief overview of this widely occurring root. It is typically viewed as having four meanings as a verb: 1) respond, 2) sing, 3) afflict, and 4) occupy oneself with.

It is hard to unify all these meanings. But it is easy to see that perhaps the first and second meanings have a common origin.

As to the third meaning, the word ענו, a submissive, humble individual, probably derives from this meaning and the word עני, a poor individual, also probably derives from this meaning.

The fourth meaning is a rare one in Tanakh. It is only found in the book of Kohelet.

It is also possible that ענה has a “time-related” meaning in Tanakh. We will discuss this below.

—–

Exodus 21:10 reads: “If he marries another, he must not diminish her food, her clothing, or ‘onatah’ (=her onah).” The person being protected is the Israelite slave who was the first wife.

The Mishnah at Ketuvot 5:6 understands “onah” (without any discussion) as referring to the man’s sexual obligation to his wife,[1] and then proceeds to delineate the obligation for various occupations.

Our first question is whether we can fit this meaning of “onah” into any of the first four meanings above. Note that Rashi on our verse explains the word as “tashmish” but does not provide any explanation.

We could connect our word with the “response” meaning above and suggest that “onatah” means “a response to her request for intimacy.” But it is hard to imagine that such an important obligation would be phrased in such a vague way.[2]

Here are a few better approaches:

1. There is a word מעון and other words related to it that appear many times in Tanakh and mean “dwelling.” Presumably, their root would have been עון. If the root of our “onatah” (which has no vav) would be עון with its “dwelling” meaning, we can interpret the word “dwelling” as symbolizing a main activity that goes on in a dwelling, i.e., sexual relations.[3] Our verse would be referring to sexual relations but doing it euphemistically. As a parallel, in English the word “cohabit” typically now has a sexual meaning, even though the word originated with a “habitation” meaning.

Of course, we can alternatively interpret our verse to be stating that a man may not diminish the living quarters of his wife and that the verse has nothing to do with sexual relations. Rashbam and Cassuto are among the many who take this approach.[4] But obviously we would like to avoid this interpretation.

2. It has been argued that Ayin-Nun-Heh has a meaning related to “time” in Tanakh. We know that it has such a meaning in early Rabbinic Hebrew. See, e.g., Mishnah Peah 4:8: “onat ha-ma’aserot.”[5]

If there was a root Ayin-Nun-Heh (or Ayin-Nun-Tav) with a time-related meaning in the era of Tanakh, “onatah” could be referring to a husband’s obligation to provide relations to his spouse at certain time intervals. R. Saadiah Gaon and Ibn Ezra are among the many who follow this approach. Daat Mikra offers it as its second interpretation.

But this is still not a simple way of reading the verse. As Luzzatto observes: “It does not stand to reason that the Torah would designate a man’s relations with his wife by the term ‘set time,’[6] besides the fact that nowhere in the Torah is there any timetable for this matter.”[7]

There is an alternative way of obtaining the relations meaning based on the “time” meaning of “onah.” We can say that “onah” means “her time,” and in the case of two competing women, as is the case here, it means “her turn.”[8]

——

We still have to address the issue of whether Ayin-Nun-Heh or Ayin-Nun-Tav really did have a time-related meaning in Tanakh.

There are three arguments to support this.

First, the word עת means “time” many times in Tanakh. Many believe this derives from a root [9]ענת, but many disagree with this etymology.[10]

Second, עונן and מעונן refer to one who engages in divination. Many understand this word as deriving from Ayin-Nun-Heh with a “time” meaning. I.e., perhaps these individuals made predictions as to what is a good time to do things. But others interpret these words with a different etymology altogether. E.g., perhaps these individuals made predictions by looking at cloud formations. Many other possibilities have been suggested for the etymology of עונן and מעונן. But the time-related etymology is a real possibility.

– Third, the fact that our word appears in early Rabbinic Hebrew with a time-related meaning is some evidence that this meaning already existed in Biblical Hebrew.

3. A third approach observes that there are many instances in Tanakh where Ayin-Nun-Heh occurs in the piel construct in a context of a man forcing a woman to have intercourse. See, e.g., Gen. 34:2 (Dinah), and Deut. 21:14 (woman captured in war).[11] We are used to translating these piel verbs with an “afflict sorrow or pain” meaning, or perhaps a “humbled” meaning.¹² But perhaps Ayin-Nun-Heh in the piel in all or some of these cases is better understood as “rape.”[13] If Ayin-Nun–Heh in the piel construct can mean “rape,” that same root in the kal construct can mean “consensual relations.” Then we could utilize this meaning for our word at Ex. 21:10.[14]

To complete our discussion, I must mention two other Tannaitic passages about “onah”: one in the Mekhilta, and the other: a baraita in the Talmud.

As I mentioned at the outset, the Mishnah at Ketuvot 5:6 assumes that the “onah” of our verse means “relations” and does not offer any alternative view or any derivation.

The Mekhilta in Mishpatim offers three different interpretations of “onah.” The first is “relations” (“derech eretz”). This view is brought in the name of R. Yoshiah. The prooftext he cites is Gen. 34:2 (regarding Dinah): “va-yishkav otah va-ye’aneha.” This citation is surprising because it is usually assumed that “va-ye’aneha” here has the “afflict” or ”humbled” meaning. (This citation fits loosely with our third approach.)

A second view (in the name of R. Yonatan) interprets “onah” to be a reference to giving clothing that is appropriate to the season. A third view (in the name of Rebbi) interprets “onah” as food (giving a strange prooftext, Deut. 8:3). This third view interprets a different word in verse 21:10, one from the root שׁאר, as referring to “relations.”

At Ketubot 47b, there is a baraita very similar to the Mekhilta (although with different Tannaim) that also gives the above three views. In the view of the tanna kamma, the verse cited for the “relations” meaning is a statement of Lavan at 31:50: “If you will ‘ta’aneh’ my daughters and/or take other wives besides my daughters…” Yet in this verse, our root clearly means “afflict” and does not mean “relations.”[15]

——

To sum up, if one wants to interpret “onah” as “relations,” one approach is to relate it to the word מעון and its meaning “dwelling.” “Dwelling” can symbolize a main activity that goes on in a dwelling. Alternatively, the approach that “onah” simply refers to “her time” (=her turn) sounds plausible as well. Finally, we have the suggestion that Ayin-Nun-Heh in the kal construct may refer to consensual relations.

 

[1] The Mishnah does not cite our verse but is implicitly referring to it. Admittedly there are other interpretations of “onah” among the Tannaitic Sages. I will discuss them at the end of this article.
[2] Nevertheless, S.D. Luzzatto is willing to adopt something like this approach. S. Mandelkern takes it seriously as well. The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon mentions it as a possibility. In more modern times, M.Z. Kaddari, Millon Ha-Ivrit Ha-Mikrait (2006), p. 815, adopts it without any discussion.

For more on the view of Luzzatto and on this entire topic, see the article by Marty Lockshin from Jan. 27, 2022 on thetorah.com: “Onah: A Husband’s Conjugal Duties?”

Lockshin points out that Targum Onkelos merely renders the Hebrew term with an Aramaic equivalent, so we cannot determine how it was understood in this translation. He also discusses the views of the other early Aramaic translations. He also mentions the view of the Septuagint. It has “homilian,” which literally means “company” or “conversation,” but which many scholars think is being used euphemistically here for “relations.”
[3] Daat Mikra adopts something like this as the first of its two interpretations. Luzzatto mentions some who take this approach, even though he disagrees with it.

New book Announcement

After being out of print for several years, a new edition of Rav Yehuda Herzl Henkin z”l’s Shu”t Bnei Banim Vol. 1 was just published.

The volume remains as relevant, original, and significant as when written, 4 decades ago; and has haskamot from a first-rank lineup of gedolim: R. Gedalia Felder, R. Moshe Feinstein, R. Eliezer Waldenberg, R. Menashe Klein, R. Ovadia Yosef, R. Avram Shapira, and R. Mordechai Eliahu, all ztz”l.  The new edition is annotated and punctuated, making it even more accessible.  

Copies can be purchased in the US at Israel Mizrahi’s incredible book store via this link or via his email address bluebirds15@yahoo.com.

For information how to purchase copies in Israel contact Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.

To see sample pages of the new edition, send an email to Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.

For some recent write ups about R. Henkin: See here for an article from a close talmid of his and here for an article from Rabbi Shlomo Zuckier. Here is a link to a video presentation about his very productive life and legacy from December 30, 2020.

Shemot 2:1 – Did Rashi Include Miriam’s Advice to Her Father?

Eli Genauer

“Rashi’s choice of citations from the voluminous material of the Sages is in itself a commentary for those who understand the reasons he selected one or two opinions out of many”

Publisher’s Preface to the Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi on Shemos, (Brooklyn 1994) page ix

One of the most famous Medrashim in Sefer Shemot tells how six-year-old Miriam convinced her father Amram to re-marry her mother Yocheved. After the decree that all baby boys born would be thrown into the Nile, Amram separated himself from Yocheved, not wanting to have her give birth to a boy who would be killed immediately. Miriam confronted her father and said “Your action is worse than Pharoah’s. He only decreed against boys, and your action also includes the girls.” Amram agreed with Miriam and re-married Yocheved.

In many Chumashim, this story is included in the first Rashi of the 2^nd chapter. It is in parentheses, starting with the words ״וחזר ולקחה״ and is ascribed to a “Rashi Yashan”.

This is how it is presented in the Oz VeHadar Chumash Beit HaKeneset (Jerusalem 2014)

It is also presented this way in the Artscroll Stone Chumash and the Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi.

But on the website Sefaria, the portion in parentheses is missing

ויקח את בת לוי. פָּרוּשׁ הָיָה מִמֶּנָּה מִפְּנֵי גְּזֵרַת פַּרְעֹה, וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ וְעָשָׂה בָהּ לִקּוּחִין שְׁנִיִּים, וְאַף הִיא נֶהֶפְכָה לִהְיוֹת נַעֲרָה; וּבַת ק“ל שָׁנָה הָיְתָה, שֶׁנּוֹלְדָה בְּבוֹאָם לְמִצְרַיִם בֵּין הַחוֹמוֹת, וּמָאתַיִם וָעֶשֶׂר נִשְׁתַּהוּ שָׁם, וּכְשֶׁיָּצְאוּ הָיָה מֹשֶׁה בֶּן שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה, אִם כֵּן כְּשֶׁנִּתְעַבְּרָה מִמֶּנּוּ הָיְתָה בַּת מֵאָה וּשְׁלוֹשִׁים וְקוֹרֵא אוֹתָהּ בַּת לֵוִי (עיּ סוטה י“ב, בבא בתרא קי“ט ושמות רבה):

Linguistically, the flow of the words in Sefaria makes more sense: פָּרוּשׁ הָיָה מִמֶּנָּה מִפְּנֵי גְּזֵרַת פַּרְעֹה, וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ וְעָשָׂה בָהּ לִקּוּחִין שְׁנִיִּים. Adding the words ״וחזר ולקחה״ duplicates the statement after the parentheses וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ וְעָשָׂה בָהּ לִקּוּחִין שְׁנִיִּים, and overall, the episode with Miriam seems to be an interruption in the words of Rashi.

It is therefore important to see whether this story appears in any of the manuscripts of Rashi that we have, and in the early printed editions. It would also be important to track down the source of the “Rashi Yashan.”

As far as Rashi manuscripts, I first checked one known as Leipzig 1, which to many scholars is the most accurate.[1] Here is how it is presented, and as you can see, it is missing the Miriam story

https://media.alhatorah.org/Parshanim/Rashi%20Leipzig/97.pdf

Transcribed it looks like this.

ויקח את בת לוי – פרוש היה ממנה מפני גזירת פרעה וחזר והחזירה ועשה בה ליקוחין שניים…..

The manuscript known as Oxford CCC 165 (Neubauer 2440) is also considered important because it may be the oldest Rashi manuscript we have (circa 1194). The Miriam story does not appear there either.

Munich 5, which contains the text of Rashi supplemented by other Medrashic comments, is considered important by some scholars because of its age.[2] The story is missing from from the actual text of Rashi פָּרוּשׁ הָיָה מִמֶּנָּה מִפְּנֵי גְּזֵרַת פַּרְעֹה, וְהֶחֱזִירָהּ וְעָשָׂה בָהּ לִקּוּחִין שְׁנִיִּים

It is recorded later on giving another viewpoint as to Miriam’s advice, i.e. that Miriam encouraged her father to re-marry because she had a prophetic vision that Yocheved would give birth to the redeemer of Israel.

There are many other manuscripts available on the internet. Al HaTorah includes links to over 60 manuscripts from the 12^th century to the 15^th century. https://alhatorah.org/Commentators:Online_Rashi_Manuscripts

They are known usually by the holding library. Aside from the ones shown above, they are known for example as Hamburg 13, Oxford-Bodley Opp. 34, London 26917, Berlin 1221, Berlin Qu 514, Florence Plut.III.03, Vatican Urbinati 1, Paris 155, Parma 2708, Parma 2868, and Parma 3081.

None of the over 40 manuscripts I checked includes this comment.

Rashi incunabula also do not contain the Miriam story, nor did I find it in any Chumash with Rashi in the 1500’s.[3]

Here are the texts in three incunabula[4]

Guadalajara Alkabetz 1476, Reggio di Calabria, 1475 Rome 1470

I have found Hijar 1490 to differ with other incunabula, but not here.

Here are some examples of the text of Rashi in printed editions of the 1500’s.

Here is the influential Sabionetta printed edition of Rashi of 1557

I have found Venice 1567 Cristoforo Zanetti to differ in places with other Chumashim, but not here.

There is also no comment on the text of Rashi including the Miriam story in any early of the Meforshai Rashi such as Riva, Rav Eliyahu Mizrahi and Gur Aryeh.[5]

I found the first reference to it in Yosef Da’at (Prague 1609), and it is ascribed to a “Rashi Klaf”:

Avraham Berliner leaves it out in both editions of Zechor L’Avraham (1868 and 1905) even though by 1905 he stated that he had seen 100 Rashi manuscripts.[6]

It was added later on into the text of Rashi albeit in parentheses and was ascribed to a Rashi Yashan. This is Hanau 1611-14. I do not know with certainty if its source was Yosef Da’at or a previously printed edition of Rashi.

It was not included in the Basel Mikraot Gedolot of 1618.

Afterwards we do find it in Menasseh ben Israel’s edition of Chumash of 1635:

But not in Benveniste’s 1644 Amsterdam edition of Rashi:

It was included in the first edition of Siftei Chachamim Amsterdam 1670. After that it was included in most printed editions, although not in all.

What is the source of this Drasha? Its main source is a Gemara in Sotah 12a

וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי לְהֵיכָן הָלַךְ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר זְבִינָא שֶׁהָלַךְ בַּעֲצַת בִּתּוֹ תָּנָא עַמְרָם גְּדוֹל הַדּוֹר הָיָה כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁאָמַר פַּרְעֹה הָרָשָׁע כׇּל הַבֵּן הַיִּלּוֹד הַיְאֹרָה תַּשְׁלִיכֻהוּ אָמַר לַשָּׁוְא אָנוּ עֲמֵלִין עָמַד וְגֵירַשׁ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עָמְדוּ כּוּלָּן וְגֵירְשׁוּ אֶת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן אָמְרָה לוֹ בִּתּוֹ אַבָּא קָשָׁה גְּזֵירָתְךָ יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁל פַּרְעֹה שֶׁפַּרְעֹה לֹא גָּזַר אֶלָּא עַל הַזְּכָרִים וְאַתָּה גָּזַרְתָּ עַל הַזְּכָרִים וְעַל הַנְּקֵיבוֹת ….. עָמַד וְהֶחְזִיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עָמְדוּ כּוּלָּן וְהֶחְזִירוּ אֶת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶן וַיִּקַּח וַיַּחְזִור[7]

A similar idea is found in Medrash Rabbah 1:19

מדרש רבה על שמות א: יט.

וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי להיכן הלך אמר רבי יהודה בר רבי זבינא שהלך בעצת בתו תניא עמרם גדול הדור היה וכוּ’ וַיִּקַּח אֶת בַּת לֵוִי והחזיר לא נאמר אלא ויקח אמר רבי יהודה בר רבי זבינא שעשה לה מעשה לקוחים

In terms of scholarly editions, Rashi HaShalem Mechon Ariel (1992) does not include it. [8] Rashi HaShalem even goes out of its way to argue against including the Miriam story by writing “It appears to me that Rashi Davka did not cite the Drashot in Gemara Sotah…. because he only included items that are proven from ‘P’shat Ha’Katuv’”

Conclusion

It is important to know which sources Rashi chose not to include in his commentary. I believe that Rashi did not include the Miriam story in his commentary on Shemot 2:1. It was first cited by the Sefer Yosef Da’at which was written in 1609, who ascribed it to a Rashi Klaf which he had. Clearly it was there, but since it was unique among manuscripts or printed editions, I believe his manuscript had this story added to it sometime after Rashi. All scholarly editions today do not include it.

[1] From the Website Al HaTorah

https://alhatorah.org/Commentators:Rashi_Leipzig_1/1/en

The popularity of Rashi’s Torah commentary and the tendency of medieval scholars and copyists to add to it their marginal glosses combined to create enormous variation between different manuscripts and editions of the commentary…. On this backdrop, the importance of the Leipzig 1 (Universitätsbibliothek Leipzig, B.H.1) manuscript of Rashi can hardly be overstated. This manuscript was written in the 13th century by R. Makhir b. Karshavyah, who states that he produced it from a copy of the commentary transcribed and annotated by Rashi’s own secretary, R. Shemayah… MS Leipzig 1 is, thus, an extremely valuable textual witness which comes tantalizingly close to the original source….
[2] From the KTIV website in its description of Munich 5 “כמו כן מביא הרבה ממדרשי חז“ל והרבה מאד מתרגום יונתן”
[3] Aside from the two editions shown below, I checked the following Rashi texts from the 1500’s and did not find the Miriam story

Bomberg Mikraot Gedolot 1518, Rashi Bomberg 1522, Rimini 1525, Bomberg Mikraot Gedolot 1524-26, Augsburg 1534, Rashi Bomberg 1538, Venice Giustiani 1548, Riva di Trento 1561, Venice Juan Di Gara 1567, Cracow 1587, Venice 1590

[4] Rashi HaMevuar (2016) confirms that the words are missing from other incunabula by writing “בכל הדפוסים ליתא לתיבות אלה.”

[5] It is clear from Riva that the story was not included in Rashi because he quotes Rashi, and then adds the quotation from Sotah:
ויקח את בת לוי. פרש“י פרוש היה ממנה מפני גזרת פרעה והחזירה וכבר הוא מפורש בפ“ק דסוטה למה החזירה דאיתא התם וז“ל תנא עמרם גדול הדור היהb
[6] Berliner often includes text which he saw in Yosef Da’at from a Ktav Yad Yosef Miklosh had from 1293

“עוד ספחתי אל ההערות את הנוסחאות אשר הביא בעל “יוסף דעת מכ“י אחד אשר היה לפניו משנת נ“ג לאלף הששי

The author of Yosef Da’at writes about a Klaf Yashan Noshan as follows”

ובפרט רש“י קלף ישן נושן… לערך שלוש מאות שנה ויותר שמצא בלובלין

[7] It is interesting to note that although Amram is described as a “Gadol HaDor,” Chazal were not hesitant to ascribe the winning argument to Miriam.
[8] Roedelheim 1860 does not contain the story in Rashi

Zerachya Licht, “חז״ל ופולמס חנוכה,” and Marc Shapiro, “The Hanukkah Miracle,” discuss the 19th-century controversy regarding the polyglot, Chaim Zelig Slonimsky, and the connection, or lack thereof, the miracle of the candles burning for eight days. Licht discusses Slonimsky in more depth in a two-part post, “Chaim Zelig Slonimsky and the Diskin Family,” part 1 and part 2.   Marc also discusses a potential Maccabean Psalm in his article here.

Mitchell First traces the history and spelling of two terms associated with Chanukah,  “The Identity and Meaning of the Chashmonai,” “The Meaning of the Name Maccabee,” for an earlier post by Dan Rabinowitz, on the latter term, see here.  First recently published his latest book, Words for the Wise: Sixty-Two Insights on Hebrew, Holidays, History and Liturgy.

A recurring theme of articles in the secular and Jewish presses is whether playing dreidel has any sources and if it is even fun. For example, Howard Jacobson, who won the 2010 Man Booker prize in a New York Times editorial, isn’t a fan. “How many years did I feign excitement when this nothing of a toy was produced? The dreidel would appear, and the whole family would fall into some horrible imitation of shtetl simplicity, spinning the dreidel and pretending to care which character was uppermost when it landed. Who did we think we were – the Polish equivalent of the Flintstones?” Marc Tracy, in Tablet Magazine, expressed his sentiment in his post, “The Unbearable Dumbness of Dreidel.” Although this year, two articles in Tablet, “Adapt, Adopt, Subvert, Survive” and “The Miracle of the Dreidel,” argue for the contemporary relevance of the custom.  For our discussion, see “Chanukah Customs and Sources.” For another discussion regarding dreidel and other Chanukah customs, see “The Customs Associated with Joy and their More Obscure Sources.” Another form of Chanukah gameplay, cards, is dealt with in “The Custom of Playing Cards on Chanukah.” The post highlights an important, often overlooked, source for Jewish customs, the memoir of Pauline Wengeroff, Rememberings: The World of a Russian-Jewish Women in the Nineteenth-Century.

Eliezer Brodt tackles the missing tractate for Chanukah in “The Chanukah Omission,” and with an update in his recent talk, available here.  (And a discussion of the other lesser known tractate that implicates Chanukah and an example of censorship.)The Seforimblog, in 2006, published his first post, “A Forgotten Work on Chanukah, חנוכת הבית,” discusses an obscure Chanukah-related work, Chanukas ha-Bayis, cited by Magen Avraham. Subsequently, Eliezer wrote dozens of articles for the Seforimblog and his Ph.D. dissertation on the Magen Avraham. The serious deficiencies of another work on Chanukah, Mitzva Ner Ish u-Beyoto, are highlighted in a review by Akiva Shamesh.  Shamesh deals with the “famous” question of Bet Yosef, why there are eight and not seven nights of Chanukah, in another book review, “Yemi Shemonah.“

Finally, the subject of Greek Wisdom is apprised in Eliyahu Krakowski’s article, “How much Greek in ‘Greek Wisdom.'”

This year, as many, Chanukah coincides with Christmas. For our original bibliography on the topic of the Jewish response to Christmas, otherwise referred to as Nitel, see here. That post should be updated to include Rebecca Scharbach, “The Ghost in the Privy: On the Origins of Nittel Nacht and Modes of Cultural Exchange,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 20 (2013), pp. 340-373. Marc Shapiro’s lecture on the topic is available on YouTube. And for an interesting Christmas card by Edmund Wilson, see Elliot Horowitz’s post, “Edmund Wilson, Hebrew, Christma, and the Talmud.” Horowitz’s other posts include one on Bugs Bunny, Isaiah Berlin on Meir Berlin (Bar-Ilan) and Saul Lieberman, non-Jewish reactions to the synagogue, a discussion of the historical application of Amalek, and regarding reading Biblical books to children.