The Book of Disputes between East
and West
or
A Treasury of Alternate Customs from the Land of Israel and from Babylon
with additions from the Appendices of the
Miller and
Lewin Editions
Menahem Av, 5772
Jerusalem
After the translation of the text itself, various
additional items are added, some of them never before published. Also included
is a translated summary of major sections of Margaliot’s introduction, along
with comments and updates.
Round brackets reflect text found in only certain
Hebrew manuscripts as indicated by Margulies in
his
Hebrew edition.
Square brackets contain English insertions of this
translator.
1.
People of the East sit while reading the Sh’ma. The
residents of the Land of Israel stand.
2.
People of the East do not mourn for a baby [who has died]
unless he has reached 30 days [of life]. The residents of the Land of Israel
[mourn] even if he is only a day old. (He is like a fully-grown groom
[=man])
3.
People of the East will allow a nursing mother to marry within
twenty-four months of the death of her baby. Residents of the Land of Israel
require her to wait twenty-four months, lest she come to kill her son.
4.
People of the East redeem the
firstborn with twenty-eight (and a half) royal pieces of silver. Residents of
the Land of Israel use five shekels, which are equivalent to seven (and a
third) royal pieces of silver.
5.
People of the East exempt a mourner [from observing laws and
customs of mourning, if the relation expired just] before a festival, even a
moment [before]. Residents of the Land of Israel only exempt a mourner from the
decree of seven days [of mourning] if at least three days have elapsed before
the festival.
6.
People of the East forbid a bride
from [having relations with] her husband for the full seven [days] for she is
considered to be a menstruating as a result of the relations. The residents of
the Land of Israel (say) that since his removing of her hymen is painful [it is
an external wound and] she is permitted immediately.
7.
The marriage contract of the
People of the East consists of twenty-five pieces of silver (and their dowry).
The residents of the Land of Israel (say) that anyone who [obligates himself]
to less than two hundred for a maiden or one hundred for a widow, is effecting
a promiscuous relationship.
8.
People of the East permit [the
use of] an oven (during Passover), based on the source: “[We may] roll the
Passover [lamb] in the oven at sundown.” (Mishnah Shabbat 1:11) Residents of
the Land of Israel (say): “Disregard the Passover [lamb] since it is a
sacrifice, and we [even] desecrate the Sabbath on account of it.”
9.
People of the East do not wash [=
ritual immersion] after experiencing a seminal emission or after relations
(since they reason that “we are in an impure land”). Residents of the Land of
Israel (do wash after a seminal emission or relations, and) even on the Day of
Atonement (for they maintain that those who have seen emissions should wash in
secret on the Sabbath and on the Day of Atonement) as a matter of course,
[which they learn] from the example of Rabbi Yosi bar Halafta, who was seen
immersing himself on the Day of Atonement.
10.
People of the East permit gentile
butter [alternatively: cheese], (saying) that it cannot become impure.
Residents of the Land of Israel forbid it on account of (three things: because
of) milk which was expressed by a gentile (without a Jew observing him, because
of gentile cooking) and because of impure fat (which it might be mixed
with).
11.
People of the East say that a
menstruating woman may perform all types of household duties except for three
things: mixing drinks, making the bed, and washing his face, hands, and legs.
According to the residents of the land of Israel, she may not touch anything
moist or household utensils. Only reluctantly was she permitted to even nurse
her child.
12.
People of the East do not say
recite eulogies [alternatively: the prayer “tsidduk ha-din”] in
the presence of the dead (during the in-between days of the festival).
Residents of the Land of Israel do recite these before him.
13.
People of the East do not rip up
a divorce contract. Residents of the Land of Israel rip it up. [Acc. to Lewin,
this may have originally referred to whether a mourner rips his garment during
the intermediate days of a festival.]
14.
People of the East have mourners
come to the synagogue each day. Residents of the Land of Israel do not allow
him to enter, with the sole exception of the Sabbath.
15.
People of the East do not clean
their posteriors with water. Residents of the Land of Israel do cleanse
themselves [with water], (based on the source:) A generation which considers
itself pure … [but has not cleaned itself from its excrement.] (Proverbs
30:12)
16.
People of the East [permit one
to] weigh meat on intermediate days of the festival. Residents of the Land of
Israel forbid hanging it on a scale, even just to keep it away from rodents,
(based on the source: “One may not operate a scale at all.” – Mishna Beitza 6,
3)
17.
People of the East circumcise
[babies] over water and then dab [the water] onto their faces, (from here: “and
I will wash you with water, [rinse your blood off of you, and anoint you with
oil]” – Ezekiel 16:9) Residents of the
Land of Israel circumcise over dust, from here: “Also, due to the blood of your
covenant have I sent your prisoners free from a pit with no water in it.”
(Zechariah 9:11)
18.
People of the East (only) check
the lungs. Residents of the Land of Israel (check) eighteen types of disqualifications.
19.
People of the East only recite a
blessing [= grace
after meals] over [a cup of] diluted wine.
Residents of the Land of Israel (will recite a blessing) when it is fully
potent.
20.
When thurmusin [beans] and
tree-fruit are served to People of the East simultaneously, they recite the
blessing for fruit of the tree and set aside the beans. Residents of the Land
of Israel recite a blessing on the thurmusin, since everything is
included in “[the fruits of] the earth.”
21.
On the Sabbath, people of the
East break bread on two loaves, for they expound: “a double portion of bread”
(Exodous 16:21) [which fell on the Eve of the Sabbath]. Residents of the Land
of Israel break bread exclusively on a single loaf, so that the [lesser] honor
of the Eve of the Sabbath will not intrude upon [the honor of] the Sabbath.
22.
People of the East spread their
hands [= recite the priestly blessing] during fasts and on the on the ninth of
Av as part of the evening benedictions. Residents of the Land of Israel only
spread their hands during the morning services, with the sole exception of the
Day of Atonement.
23.
People of the East will not
slaughter a newly-born animal until the eighth day. Residents of the Land of
Israel will slaughter even a newborn, for [they maintain that] the prohibition
of the eighth day applies only to sacrifices.
24.
People of the East do mention the
word mazon [=nourishment] in the blessings of grace after dining.
Residents of the Land of Israel consider mazon to be [the] central
[component of the blessings] (for everything else is peripheral to mazon].
25.
A ring does not sanctify marriage
according to people of the East. Residents of the Land of Israel consider it
[sufficient to] fully sanctify a marriage.
26.
People of the East individually
redeem the second tithe and the planting of the fourth year. Residents of the
Land of Israel only redeem them in [the presence of] three [men].
27.
The divorce contracts of people
of the East contain two ten-letter words [‘dytyhwyyyn’ and ‘ditiṣbyyyn’]. Those of the residents of the Land of Israel contain
three ten-letter words [the third is not known].
28.
People of the East bless the
[bride and] groom with seven blessing. Residents of the Land of Israel recite
three [blessings, which have been forgotten].
29.
According to people of the East,
the prayer leader recites the priestly blessing (before the congregation) [in
the absence of Kohanim]. Residents of the Land of Israel do not (allow the
prayer leader to recite the priestly blessing, for they expound [from the
verse]: “So they shall put my name” (Numbers 6:27) that it is strictly
forbidden for anyone to “put” the holy name), unless they are Kohanim.
30.
People of the East forbid bread
baked by a gentile, but will consume gentile bread if a Jew threw a piece of
wood into the fire. Residents of the Land of Israel forbid it (even with the
wood, for the wood neither forbids nor permits. When are they lenient? In cases
when there is nothing [else] to eat, and already a day or two have passed
without consuming anything. It was thus permitted to revive his soul so that
his soul should be maintained, but only from a [gentile] baker who has never
brought meat into his bakery, even though it considered a [separate] cooked
dish.)
31.
People of the East carry coins
from place to place on the Sabbath. Residents of the Land of Israel (say) that
it is forbidden to even touch them. Why? Because all types of work are done
with them.
32.
People of the East recite: “meqadesh
ha-shabbat,” [who sanctifies the Sabbath]. Residents of the Land of Israel
recite: “meqadesh Yisrael v’yom ha-shabbat” [who sanctifies Israel and
the Sabbath day].
33.
Among people of the East, a
disciple does not greet his master with: “shalom”. Among residents of
the Land of Israel a disciple greets his master [by saying]: “shalom
unto you, rabbi.”
34.
According to People of the East,
if a yevama [=a woman automatically betrothed to the brother of her
deceased husband] should marry [another man] without halitza [=a legal
procedure which frees her from this betrothal] and her yavam [=the
brother] should return from overseas, he performs the halitza (to her)
and she remains with her (second) husband. Residents of the Land of Israel
remove [=forbid] her from both of them.
35.
People of the East exempt a yevama
from halitza [only] once the baby is thirty days old. According to
residents of the Land of Israel, even if only the head and most of the body
emerged alive, and even for only a moment (before the father died), she is
fully exempt from halitza and from yivum [and may remarry
freely], (for they expound: “If he has left seed, she is exempt.”)
36.
People of the East turn their
faces (towards the congregation) and their backs towards the aron
[=closet containing the Torah scroll]. Residents of the Land of Israel [are
positioned with] their faces towards the aron.
37.
According to people of the East,
one [scribe] writes the divorce contract and another signs along with the
writer. Among residents of the Land of Israel, one writes and two [others]
sign.
38.
People of the East marry the
[bride and] groom on Thursday. Residents of the Land of Israel [marry] on
Wednesday, (according to the law: “a maiden marries on Wednesday.” – Mishnah
Ketubot 1:1)
39.
People of the East perform labors
on the intermediate days of the festivals. Residents of the Land of Israel do
not do them at all. Rather, they eat and drink and exert their [energies in
learning] Torah, (for the sages have taught that: “it is forbidden to perform
labors on the intermediate days of the festivals.”)
40.
People of the East begin [the
initial act of] intercourse with genital insertion in the natural manner.
Residents of the Land of Israel use a finger [to break the hymen and enable
conception through the first act of intercourse. Alternatively, to verify
virginity.]
41.
People of the East observe two
festival days. Residents of the Land of Israel observe one, (as per the
commandment of the Torah.)
42.
People of the East forbid the
Kohanim from blessing the congregation if they have long, unkempt hair.
[Alternatively: with their heads uncovered]. Among residents of the Land of
Israel Kohanim do () [in fact bless the congregation with long, unkempt hair.]
43.
People of the East whisper the
eighteen benedictions while praying. Residents of the Land of Israel [pray] out
loud, in order that people should become familiar with them.
44.
People of the East count the Omer
only at night. Residents of the Land of Israel count during the day and at
night.
45.
People of the East circumcise
with a razor. Residents of the Land of Israel use a knife.
46.
(People of the East mix a remedy
for circumcision from donkey dung and cumin. The residents of the Land of
Israel do not do this.)
47.
According to people of the East,
the prayer leader and the congregation read the weekly [Torah] portion [of the
annual cycle] together. Among residents of the Land of Israel, the congregation
reads the weekly portion and the prayer leader [reads] the weekly [triennial]
orders.
48.
People of the East celebrate Simhat
Torah [the festival of the completion of the Pentateuch] every year.
Residents of the Land of Israel celebrate it once every three-and-a-half years.
49.
People of the East bless the
Torah while it is being [re-]inserted [into the Aron]. Residents of the
Land of Israel bless both while it is being inserted and while being removed,
(according to scripture and law, as per the verse: “and upon its opening the
entire nation stood.” – Nehemia 8:5)
50.
(According to people of the East,
a Kohen may not bless the congregation until he has married. Residents of the
Land of Israel [allow him to] bless even before he has married a woman.)
51.
People of the East do not carry a
palm branch [when the first day of the festival of Tabernacles falls] on the
Sabbath. Rather they take a myrtle branch. Residents of the Land of Israel
(carry both the palm and the myrtle on the first day of the festival which
falls on the Sabbath, according to the verse:) “And you should take for
yourselves” (Leviticus 23:40) [which is expounded to include:] “on the
Sabbath.” (Bavli Sukkah 43a)
52.
(Residents of the Land of Israel
permit the consumption of daytra fats. Residents of Babylon forbid it.)
53.
People of the East permit [the
consumption of] broad beans which a gentile has boiled, and also locusts.
Residents of the Land of Israel forbid it, (since they mix their boiled meat
with their boiled fruits [= produce].)
54.
People of the East do not blow
sirens before the onset of the Sabbath. Residents of the Land of Israel sound
three sirens.
55.
According to people of the East,
Kohanim lift their hands [to bless the people] three times on the Day of
Atonement. Residents of the Land of Israel [bless] four times on that day: shaharit,
musaf, minha, and neila.
56.
(*). Residents of Babylon permit
[the consumption of] milk [from a cow] which a gentile has milked, [even]
without a Jew having watched him, provided that there are no unclean animals in
his flock. Residents of the Land of Israel forbid its’ consumption. (This item
is found in only one manuscript. Thus, Margulies doubts whether it is included
in the original collection; however, he maintains that it is historically authentic
and thus included it in the commentary section.)
Margulies’ running commentary has not been translated.
[Translator’s note on additional items:
There are four different types of items and it is
important to distinguish between them.
A. Items which appear in multiple versions of the Geonic
list collections, the main body of the present work.
B. Items which appear to have been added to certain
manuscript versions of the list after its “publication,” during the Geonic
period or shortly thereafter. This includes items 46, 50, and 56, and possibly
others. Since they may actually be remnants of the original list and do appear
in the manuscripts, Margulies and Lewin did include them in attempting to
produce a critical version of this text itself. [Elkin’s 1998 Tarbiz article
hints that the original work may have been smaller than Margulies supposed and
hence more of the text translated above would fall into this category.]
C. Items which are culled from external Geonic literature
and provide direct testimonial evidence for the historical validity of these
distinctions. They could conceivably have been included in the original list,
but for one reason or another were not. This describes Lewin’s additions, and
the first section of Miller’s additions.
D. Items which were deduced from prior Talmudic
literature. Kaftor w’Ferah seems to have pioneered this field, picked up
and extended by Miller and others. It should be noted that these items should
all be evaluated separately, as they do not necessarily constitute testimonial
evidence and rather, in some cases, may be merely theoretical.]
Additional items collected by R. Yoel HaKohen Miller
(1878)
From
Masekhet Sofrim:
56.
People of the East recite kaddish and borkhu
with ten men. People of the Land of Israel [recite] with seven (10:7)
57.
People of the East
respond “Steadfast are you” after the reading of the prophets while sitting.
Residents of the Land of Israel [respond] while standing. (13:10)
58.
People of the East
fast before Purim. People of the Land of Israel [fast] after Purim, based on
Nikanor. (17:4, from Tosefta)
59.
People of the East recite Kedusha each day. People of
the Land of Israel only recite it on the Sabbath and Festival days. (Tosafot
Sanhedrin 37b ad. Loc. Mknp, citing Geonim
Compiled
by Miller from Kaftor w’Ferah of Rabbi Ashtori HaParḥi (Isaac HaKohen ben
Moses, 1280-1366), deduced from talmudic sources:
60.
People of the East do not ordain judges. People of the Land of
Israel do ordain. (Sanhedrin Chapter 1)
61.
People of the East conclude [the threefold benediction]: “for
the land and the fruit.” People of the Land of Israel [conclude]: “for the land
and its fruit” (Berakhot, 6th chapter)
62.
People of the East first plow and then sow seeds. People of
the Land of Israel first sow and then plow. (Sabbath, 7th chapter)
63.
People of the East do not chase after idol worship [in order
to destroy it]. People of the Land of Israel do chase after it. (Sifre Devarim
Re’eh 61)
64.
People of the East do not collect fines. People of the Land of
Israel do collect in court. (end of Ketuvot ch. 3…)
65.
People of the East permit a brown citron [for use among the
four species]. People of the Land of Israel forbid it. (Sukkah, ch. 3)
66.
People of the East grind with a small mortar on a
festival day. People of the Land of Israel forbid it (Beitza, ch. 1)
67.
People of the East [formally] begin the meal [and apply its laws]
once the belt has been released. People of the Land of Israel [begin] once the
hands have been washed. (Shabbat, ch. 1)
68.
People of the East maintain that one who purchases a slave from a
gentile, who does not wish to become circumcised [immediately], may postpone
and continue deliberations up to twelve months. People of the Land of Israel do
not allow any delay lest sanctified food become defiled through contact with
him. (Yevamot 48b)
69.
People of the East do not transfer bones of the dead from little
caves to small holes in caves [where presumably whole cadavers could not fit,]
in order to bury other dead. People of the Land of Israel do transfer [bones].
(Rav Hai Gaon, as cited by
Ramban, in
Torat
ha-adam)
70.
People of the East first marry and then learn Torah. People of the
Land of Israel learn Torah first and then marry. (Kiddushin 29b)
71.
People of the East recite nineteen blessings. People of the Land
of Israel recite eighteen blessings. (
Rabbenu Yeshaya ha-Zaqen,
RID, in
his commentary to Ta’anit, cited
here)
72.
People of the East do not mention “dew” during the summer. People
of the Land of Israel do mention it. (PT Ta’anit ch. 1, Berakhot ch. 5)
73.
People of the East are not concerned with “pairs.” People of the
Land of Israel are concerned. (Pesahim 110) [in all manuscript and printed
versions of the Talmud known to me it appears in reverse and was apparently
copied by mistake here.]
I would now
like to present some very special additions of Rabbi Benjamin Wolf Singer
(1855-1930). R. Daniel Sperber published
a
volume of his hiddushim/novella. See his biography of the author
here and
here. Much more about him later. I hope to devote a future
post to Rabbi Singer and his brother.
These notes
have never before been published, and were found in the form of his handwritten
notes in the back of his personal copy of Miller’s edition of the work, now
housed in the Bar Ilan University central library. The notes follow the extra
hiluqim of Kaftor v’Ferah, ShIR, and Miller which we have just translated
above. Apparently, they inspired Rabbi Singer to continue their work on the
very same page! His notes look like this:
(Click for large, high-resolution images)
What follows is the best I
could do for a transcription. All of the main points are clear, but not all of
the references. Even this I couldn’t have done without a lot of assistance from
my friend R. Yehezkel Druk, who is responsible in no small part for the many
corrections and additions in Moreshet L’Hanhil’s volumes of the new Friedman
Shulhan Arukh.
Hopefully, some of the
readers viewing at home can decipher some more of this. If you can, please
comment! A translation and more follows.
תוספות חלופי מנהגים
של ר’ בנימין זאב זינגער
א. מחלמ”נ [=מחלפי
מנהגים?] דבבבל לא קפדו אטבילת קרי עיין ברכות כ”ב. ובא”י קפדו. ע’ ירושלמי
שם פ”ג ה”ב, תמן נהגין כו’ ע”ש.
ב. בבבל שובתין מתוך
מריעין, שבת לד: מנהג אבותיהן בידיהן. ע”ש.
ג. בבבל קרו הלל בר”ח
ובא”י לא. תענית כח: מנהג אבותיהן בידיהן. ע”ש.
ד. בבבל קרו פרסא עי’
(חולין) פסחים צג: וצ. ולהיפך בא”י קרו רק ד’ מילין. עי’ ירושלמי ברכות פ”א
ה”א ושם נסמן [וירושלמי שבת סוף פרק קמא עד ד’ מיל ועיין יומא כ:] ואותה ?הכחיי?
עצמה דרבי יהודה דאיתא בפסחים פרסא היא בירושלמי במילין. והא דבחולין קכב: עד ד’ מיל
דאמר בשם רבי ינאי ורשל”ק [ריש לקיש] בני ארץ ישראל. ועי’ ברכות טו ע”א [אבל
לאחוריה אפילו מיל אינו חוזר [ומינה] מיל הוא דאינו חוזר הא פחות ממיל חוזר] סוטה
מו: [וכמה א”ר ששת עד פרסה ולא אמרן אלא רבו שאינו מובהק אבל רבו מובהק שלשה
פרסאות] סנה’ ה: [ותניא תלמיד אל יורה הלכה במקום רבו אלא אם כן היה רחוק ממנו שלש
פרסאות כנגד מחנה ישראל] סוכה מד: [אמר אייבו משום רבי אלעזר בר צדוק אל יהלך אדם
בערבי שבתות יותר משלש פרסאות] ושם נראה דראב”ץ [=רבי אלעזר בר צדוק] בבלי
היה מדאמר בלשון פרסי ועי’ תו'[ספתא] ב”ק פ”ח מ”ט [אין פורסין
נשבין ליונין אלא אם כן היה רחוק מן היישוב שלשים ריס] ל’ ריס (והיינו ד’ פרסי) ועי’ נדה כד: תניא אבא שאול אומר ואי תימא
רבי יוחנן כו’ ורצתי אחריו ג’ פרסאות
ה. לדעת בני א”י
ד’ מפתחות ביד הקב”ו ולדעת הבבלי ג’ עיין ריש תענית ומאיר עיני חכמים דף מב: וכיוצא
בזה ברכו’ ג’ ע”ב רבי אומר ד’ משמרות רבי נתן ג’ ונראה שבא”י קיימו מספר
ד’ ובבל ג’
ו. ירושלמי פ”ק
דראש השנה תמן חשן [תמן חשין לצומא רבה תרין יומין] ? יומא רבה ב’ יומי’ ועי’ סה”ד [סוף הלכה ד’] שאבוה… בשמת ע”י
זה [פני משה מסכת ראש השנה פרק א: “תמן חשין לצומא רבא תרין יומין. בבבל היו
אנשים שחששו לעשות מספק ב’ ימים יה”כ ולהתענות ואמר להן רב חסדא למה לכם
להכניס עצמיכם למספק הזה שתוכלו להסתכן מחמת כך הלא חזקה היא שאין הב”ד
מתעצלין בו מלשלוח שלוחים להודיע לכל הגולה אם עיברו אלול ואם אין שלוחין באין
תסמכו על הרוב שאין אלול מעובר. ומייתי להאי עובדא דאבוה דר’ שמואל בר רב יצחק
והוא רב יצחק גופיה שחשש ע”ע וצם תרין יומין ואפסק כרוכה ודמיך. כשהפסיק מן
התענית ורצה לכרוך ולאכול נתחלש ונפטר. ועל שהכניס עצמו לסכנה מספק לא הזכירו שמו
להדיא ואמרו אבוה דר’ שמואל בר רב יצחק”.]
ז. ירושלמי ברכות פ”ב
ה”א כך אינון (בבלאי) נהגין גביהון זעירא לא שאל בשלמיה דרבה
ח. עי’ ירושלמי סוכה
פ”ד ה”א ושביעית פ”א ה”ז ועיין שם פ”ד ה”א או’ רבי
יוחנן לרבי חייה בר בא בבלייא תרין מילין סלקון בידיכון מפשיטותא דתעניתא וערובתא
דיומא שביעייא. ורבנן דקיסרין אמרין אף הדא מקזתה ועי’ בבלי סוכה מד. ??
ט. יוסף בבבלי יוסי
בירושלמי עי’ ?יבמות? קג ע”א
7. ברכות פ”ח ה”א
ירו’ אמר אר”י ב”ר נהיגין תמן במקום שאין יין ש”צ עובר לפני התיבה
ואומר ברכה אחת מעין שבע וחותם במקדש ישראל ואת יום השבת. ועי’ ?רא”ש? ?? י”ב
שלא מצאנו כן בבבלי
8. עיין ברכות נ. בבבל
נהגי כרבי ישמעאל ברכו א”ה המבורך – וירושלמי פ”ז דברכות ה”ד [נדצ”ל:
ה”ג] נראה דבא”י כר”ע
9. ירושלמי ברכות פ”ז
ה”ד [נדצ”ל: ה”ג] נראה דבא”י כשקראו כהן במקום לוי לא בירך
שנית ובבבל מברך. עיין שם. תוס’ גיטין נט: [ד”ה כי קאמרינן באותו כהן, והשווה
תוספת לוין סו’ י”ג וי”ד]
10. פסחים
נו: בענין ברוך שכמל”ו [שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד] דבא”י אומרין אותו
בקול רם מפני המינין ובנהרדעא בחשאי שאין שם מינין מב.. לר.. גבי ר’ אבהו ב’. [אולי
הכוונה לצטט ויכוח של מין עם ר’ אבהו.]
Here is a loose translation without the references:
- In Babylon they were lax regarding the requirement
for one who experienced seminal emissions [Ba’al Qeri] to immerse
himself in a mikva. In the Land of Israel they were stringent.
- In Babylonia they commence the Sabbath in the midst
of the blowing of the shofar teru’ah — They retain their fathers’
practice. (Sabbath 35b)
- In Babylon, they read the hallel on the day of
the New Moon. In the land of Israel they did not (Ta’anit 28b, “They
retain their fathers’ practice”).
- In Babylon [a large unit of length] is referred to as
a “parsa.” On the other hand, in the land of Israel, it is referred
to as “four mil.” [miles]
- According to the understanding of the sages of the
Land of Israel there are four keys in the hands of the holy one, blessed
be he. According to the understanding of the sages of Babylon, there are
three.
- In Babylon there were sages who fasted two Days of
Atonement due to uncertainty as to on which day the new month begins.
- The Babylonians do not greet [rabbinic authorities],
so Z’eira [respected their custom and] did not greet Rabbah when he
visited.
- Rabbi Yohanan said to Rav Hiyya bar Bo: “The
Babylonians have brought two [customs] up with them: full prostration on
the fast days and the taking of the willow on the seventh day [of Sukkot].
The Rabbis of Caesarea added bloodletting [to the list] as well.
- In the Babylonian Talmud we find: “Yosef.” In
the Jerusalem Talmud: “Yosi.”
- (7) “There, in Babylon, when there is no wine, the
prayer leader descends to the bima and recites the one blessing in
place of seven and concludes with meqadesh Israel v’et yom hashabbat.”
However, in the Babylonian Talmud we do not find this.
- (8) In Babylon the custom followed Rabbi Ishmael in
reciting “borkhu et hashem hamevorakh.” It appears that in the Land
of Israel they followed Rabbi Akiva [instead].
- (9) Is seems that in the Land of Israel, when a Kohen
was called to the Torah reading in the absence of a Levite, he would not
recite a second blessing. In Babylon he recites the benediction.
- (10) In the Land of Israel they recite “Barukh
shem kavod malkhuto l’olam va’ed” out loud because of the heretics. In
Nehardea they whisper it since there are no heretics there.
As you can see, the numbering switches from Hebrew to
Latin after tet. This is probably because the tet resembles a
six, so he followed it up with seven. Remember, these were just personal notes,
not intended for publication, obviously. Rabbi Singer’s mind was on more
important things, as the erudition of his notes speaks for itself. Anyway, who was Rabbi Singer? We’ll return to that at the end of
this post. Here in the middle of the work there is a citation apparently to a
Yalkut in Parshat VaYeshev, but I can’t make heads or tails of it.
Appendix to
Lewin’s edition. The articles originally appeared in Sinai 10 and 11.
Like
Zinger, Lewin also noted the additional Hiluqim in Miller’s volume and
decided to add more. Instead of adding exclusively from Talmudic sources, Lewin
leaned more on Geonic sources, of which he was the great master. Some of these additions are quotations, and
some Lewin formulated himself.
1.
After completion [of the section from the public reading], the
reader blesses: “Blessed are you … ruler of the world, rock of ages, righteous
of all generations, the steadfast deity …” Then the congregation promptly
rise and say: “Steadfast are you, he, the Lord, our G-d, and steadfast is your
word. Steadfast, living, and lasting is your name and it’s utterance. Always
will you rule over us forever and ever.” This is one of the disputes between
the sons of the East and the sons of the West, for the sons of the East respond
while sitting whereas the sons of the West [respond] while standing.
2.
In Zoan, Egypt, which is called Fustat [today part of old
Cairo], there are two synagogues: one for the people of the Land of Israel, the
al-Shamiyin congregation [=the “Yerushalmi”, this name is
still used today to refer to a Jewish Yemenite branch] (It is named after
Elijah, of blessed memory [?, see below]). The other is the congregation of the
people of Babylon, the
al-Iraqiyn congregation. They do not observe the
same customs. (Selections from Yosef Sambari,
Seder HaHakhamim, Neubauer
I, p. 118. On page 137 it states that the congregational synagogue then still
in use was built before the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem.)
One, (the people of the Land of Israel) stands during
kedusha, while the
other, (that of the residents of Babylon) sit during kedusha. (Rabbi Avraham
ben HaGra,
Maspiq l’ovdei hashem. In
the 1989 edition published by Nissim Dana, page 180, the opinions appear in
reverse order)
3.
It is written in the responsa of the Geonim that the residents
of the Land of Israel recite kedusha only on the Sabbath, since it is written
[in Isaiah 6:2] that the Hayot have six wings. Each wing sings praises
corresponding to the days of the week. When the Sabbath arrives, the Hayot say
to the holy one, blessed be he: “We do not have another wing!” He replies to
them: “I have another wing which sings praises to me, as in (Isaiah 24:16):
“From the end [literally: wing] of the world we have heard song.” (Tosafot
Sanhedrin 37b, ad. loc. Mikanap, Miller 59)
4.
We do not recite kadish or borkhu with
any less than ten [men]. Our sages in the west recite it [in the presence] of
[even] seven [men]. They explain themselves according to the verse: “bifroa
p’raot …” (Judges 5:2) according to the number of words [in the verse = seven.
See also verse 5:9.] Some recite it with even six [men] since [the word] borkhu
is the sixth [word in the verse]. (Some base this opinion on Psalms 68:27,
which contains six words – Avudraham)
5.
R.
Joseph said: How fine was the statement which was brought by R. Samuel b. Judah
when he reported that in the West [Israel] they say [in the evening], “Speak
unto the children of Israel and thou shalt say unto them, I am the Lord your
God, True.” (Berakhot 14b, Soncino translation). Still now, several cities [alternatively:
regions] in the Land of Israel observe this custon in the evening. They reason
that shema and v’haya im shamoa, [the first two paragraphs], are
observed both day and night, whereas va’yomer is only observed during
the day [as per Mishna Berakhot 2:2]. (Hilkhot Gedolot 1, Hilkhot Berakhot 2,
p. 37, second Hildesheimer edition)
6.
The
sages of the Land of Israel behave as follows: they recite the evening prayers
and later they read the Shema in its proper time. They are not concerned
about connecting [the blessing ending with] geula to the evening
prayers. (Sha’arei Teshuva 76, See Otzar HaGeonim for a list of numerous
rishonim and collections who cite this responsum.)
7.
Conserving
a festival which begins after the Sabbath, it is still maintained in the Land
of Israel that a fourth blessing is recited separately… but as for us, Rab
and Samuel instituted for us a precious pearl in Babylon: “Just judgements and
true Torah.” (attributed to Rav Hai Gaon, Otzar HaGeonim Berakhot, Perushim p.
46)
8.
On
the final day of the festival miṣwot
u’ḥuqim and bekhor are read (Megilah 31a, acc. to mss.
Munich and rishonim). Rav Hai Gaon explains this passage as a mnemonic sign: 1.
There are those who read “for this miṣwa” (Deut. 30:11) and this is
still read in the Land of Israel. 2. There are those who read from “im be’ḥuqotai
until “qomemiut.” (Lev. 26:3-13) 3. There are those who read: “kol
ha’bekhor” (Deut 15:19). We read “kol ha’bekhor.” (various
sources, Otzar HaGeonim Megillah, p. 62, no. 230)
9.
Upon
the conclusion of the Day of Atonement, residents of the Land of Israel blow qashraq
[=tashrat, a serious of various tones]. Residents of Babylon only
sound one plain blow in remembrance of the jubilee. [From here until the end,
Lewin composed most of the statements himself based on the sources he
provides.]
10.
The
three fast days – Ta’anit Esther – are not observed consecutively, but
rather, separately: Monday, Thursday, and Monday. Our sages in the Land of
Israel were accustomed to fast after the days of Purim, on account of Nicanor
and his company. Also, we delay [unpleasant] payment and do not predicate it.
(Masekhet Sofrim 17)
11.
Residents
of the Land of Israel would not actually fully prostrate themselves on fast
days. Residents of Babylon would actually fully prostrate themselves.
12.
Residents
of the Land of Israel did not read Hallel at all on the day of the New
Moon. Residents of Babylon read it while skipping sections [an abbreviated
version].
13.
Among
residents of the Land of Israel, the first reader from the Torah recites the
beginning blessing, and the last reader recites the final blessing. According
to the residents of Babylonian, each and every reader blesses before and after
the reading, since [members of the congregation may be] coming and going
[during the readings and thus miss one or the other].
14.
In
the absence of a Levite, residents of the Land of Israel would call a second
Kohen to read from the Torah in his place. Residents of Babylon would call up
the very same Kohen again who just read the first portion.
15.
Residents
of the Land of Israel permitted writing [Torah] scrolls on the skins of pure
animals even if they were not slaughtered according to specifications of
dietary laws. Residents of Babylon forbade this since they were not
slaughtered.
Translated summary of selected sections of Margaliot’s
introduction
Margulies’ Table of Contents
[The entire Table of Contents of Margulies has been
translated. However, only a summary of chapter 2 and the text of the original
work itself have been translated here.]
Chapter 1
Relations between Babylon and the Land of Israel from the
close of the Talmudic period until the close of the Geonic period
1.
The end of the Talmudic Period
2.
The Geonic period
3.
Attitudes towards divergent
customs until the Geonic period
4.
Attitudes of Babylonian Geonim to
the customs of the Land of Israel
Chapter 2
The Book of Disputes between East and West, the nature of
the work and its use by Rabbinic and Karaite Jews.
1.
The name of the work
2.
The author, his period, and
locale
3.
Purpose of the work
4.
Characteristics and scope of the
book
5.
Language and sources
6.
Legal sources and historical
development of the disputes
7.
Use of the book by Geonim
8.
Use of the book by Rabbinic legal
authorities
9.
Use of the book by Karaites
10.
Scholars who have studied the
work
Chapter 3
Textual sources of
the Book of Disputes, Printed Editions and Manuscripts
1.
Text versions, families and
formation
2.
The first group
3.
The second group
4.
The third group
5.
This edition’s presentation and
stemmatic diagram of source relationships
6.
The varying order of the disputes
in all of the versions
7.
The text
Presentation of the actual text with variant apparatus
Sources, History, and Development of the Disputes
[Systematic Commentary]
Chapter 1 is a general introduction to the context of the
work and is not translated at this time
Chapter 2 Summarized in translation
1.
The name of the work
The work appears in numerous manuscript versions and
cited by various Rishonim. Virtually every single one has a different title for
the work – all variations on the same descriptive theme. [Both the variation in
titles and the descriptive nature suggest that the work may have been not only
anonymous, but also untitled. It was simply a list drawn up by a sage, copied
and possibly added to.]
I don’t know who decided to include the work in
Maharshal’s edition, it led some to believe that the Maharshal himself
collected it, a point justly disputed by Rav Avraham ben HaGra [see below].
Margulies is perplexed as to why Miller chose a title
based on the root ḥlp, which only appears in a few secondary sources like
Ravya, Rosh, and Tur.
[Lewin also followed Miller on this point. It seems that
the selection of this root was designed to minimize the controversial nature of
the work. As Lewin stresses in his introduction, this is a work of divergent
customs, not disputes regarding actual Torah law. The reader can evaluate both
titles, which have themselves both been translated here as “alternates”. In
this writer’s opinion, both of the roots may be “alternate” variations of one
original word (probably from the root
ḥlq)
as the letters
peh
and
qof are graphically similar. A supporting example of variation
between these very same words is found in
The Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon in
the “French” manuscript branch. See
Lewin’s
edition, page 22, left column, note 19. There you will find a manuscript with
precisely such an alternate reading.
Also of note is that certain Islamic literature which
records divergent legal opinions is referred to as
kḥilaf. See
here, beginning of intro. On the other hand, an 11th
century Karaite work is entitled
Ḥilluq ha-qara’im we-ha-rabbanim]
2. The author, his period, and locale
The author is anonymous, and we have no clue as to his
identity.
The first serious recorded attempt to date the work is by
Rabbi
Abraham ben Elijah of Vilna, the son of the famous GRA, in
his work
Rav
P’alim, p. 126. He was uncertain as to whether
the work was authored by amoraim or in a later period. [His chief concern here
is disproving the erroneous theory that the
Maharshal himself collected
the work from various rabbinic sources.] Miller was able to hone in closer,
from the
savoraim at the close of the Talmudic period to the beginning
of the Geonic period. Margulies provides considerable evidence that the work
was composed around the year 700. That is, after the Arab conquest and before
Rav Yehudai Gaon.
According to Miller, our author was a native of the Land of Israel and familiar
with Babylonian customs through travel to Babylon.
Western Aramaic and Western Hebrew forms abound. In fact, the very
composition in Hebrew suggests composition in the land of Israel, the language
of the
“Minor”
Talmudic tractates produced there during the Geonic
period, as well as Hebrew translations of
Eastern Aramaic Babylonian Geonic works themselves. Margulies points out
that since Miller’s publication, new evidence has emerged from the Cairo geniza
which shows that after the Arab conquest, Babylonian Jews migrated to the Land
of Israel and formed their own separate congregations in
Tiberias,
Ramla, and
Mivtzar Dan (Panias-Banias), with the most likely speculative location for our
author being Tiberias, which was a native Torah center that may have already
boasted a Babylonian community during the Talmudic period.
3. Purpose of the work
According to Miller, the work was designed to oppose the
Babylonian side in the dispute between the two great Torah centers. He points
out that many more explanations are offered in support of the
“Yerushalmi” side than the Babylonian. Later, Miller appears to
backtrack and seems to conclude that the work is simply meant to impartially
catalog the various discrepancies.
Margulies accepts the claims regarding the basic “Yerushalmi”
orientation, but understands the purpose more subtly. Rather than taking a
confrontational stance, the work merely seeks to explain and rationalize the
local customs and decisions to the new Babylonian immigrants who were not aware
or respectful of the locals. No attempt is made per se to reject the validity
of the Babylonian customs themselves and at times the author troubles himself
to explain them only.
4. Characteristics and scope of
the book
The items in the work are haphazardly arranged with only occasional grouping according to topic. It is nowhere near complete
in cataloging all of the items of dispute. According to Miller, the complete
version of the work has not yet been transmitted to us. [This understanding may
underly many efforts to expand on this list, discussed in the Appendix.]
Margulies disagrees, on the basis of the numerous manuscript examples at his
disposal. According to him, the author never meant to compile an exhaustive
list.
5. Language and sources
It has already been pointed out that the work was
composed in “Yerushalmi” Hebrew. A list of words and phrases is
provided by Margulies along with parallel examples from Talmudic and Geonic
“Yerushalmi” literature. He supposes that many more parallels would
be found in halakhic works from the period and region which are no longer
extant.
[This section is of
considerable philological interest especially regarding Geonic material in
Hebrew which may be of uncertain provenance.]
6. Legal sources and historical
development of the disputes
Most of the items can be
documented partially in other Talmudic and Geonic literature. As would be
expected, there is a high level of correspondence between the
“Yerushalmi” side and the Jerusalem Talmud; also, between the
Babylonian side and the Babylonian Talmud.
In some cases, a Tannaitic dispute may have been
transmitted unresolved to both regions and eventually decided differently in
each locale in a purely internal manner. Conversely, sometimes entirely
external factors may drive the discrepancies in later periods as well.
Of special interest is following the disputes from the
Geonic period until the end of the period of
the Rishomin signified by the publication of the Shulhan Arukh. In
general, the Babylonian side prevailed as their hegemony increased, but in a
number of cases, the position native to the Land of Israel in fact dominated,
especially when it did not contradict any explicit statements in the Babylonian
Talmud. This tradition was especially strong in Tsarfat and Ashkenaz (France
and Germany) as opposed to Sepharad (Spain), which historically remained tied
to the Babylonian Geonim. The influence of the Land of Israel side is
especially noticed in the house of study of the great
Rashi and
his students (items 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 25, and more).
The period following the publication of the
Shulhan Arukh is not discussed systematically in Margulies’ commentary
since to a large extent geographic boundaries were erased by the free transfer
of books from one region to another and a great amount of cross-fertilization
occurred. Nevertheless, it is noted that a number of disputes remain with us to
this very day between
Ashkenazi and
Sepharadi communities.
7. Use of the book by Geonim
In Babylonian Geonic responsa literature, a number of
disputes are addressed, but apparently not through direct exposure to the work.
It is more likely that the inquirers from the Land of Israel or North Africa
might have been motivated in their queries by exposure to concepts from the
work.
However, the later European collections of Geonic material did see fit to
gather material from this work into their nets. The collection known as
Sha’are Tsedeq includes no fewer than eleven items culled from the
disputes.
In a few cases, items from the collection are attributed
to Babylonain Geonim themselves, but it is difficult to rely on any of these
attributions and most were clearly added by the later compiler.
8. Use of the book
by Rabbinic legal authorities
Many of the great authorities were most probably unaware of the work as they
never cite it or it’s contents. Others who do cite it generally cite only
sections known to them through second or third-hand rabbinic sources.
Geographic location was clearly a major factor. In France and Provence use was
much more pronounced than in Spain. The work seems to have reached different
locations at different times. By the 14th century the work seems to
have been lost for the most part, as only citations from by previous
authorities are ever quoted.
One reason for the neglect of this work may have been
it’s brevity. [For example, the usual explanation for the grouping of the
twelve prophets in one scroll, and today in one volume, is so that the small
books would not become lost.] However, a more compelling reason appears to be
the negative impression that the work made on certain authorities, most
notably, Nahmanides, Ramban (Avodah Zara 35b). It was (correctly) perceived
that the work contains material which contradicts the Babylonian Talmud,
already considered supremely authoritative. Methods of study which stressed a
proper historical understanding of all legal points of view would become common
in rabbinic circles well before the modern period, but at the time they were
not yet developed. If an opinion could not be utilized for determining the
halakha, it was not deemed worthy of further inquiry. Nahmanides is the only
early Spanish sage who even mentions the work, so it is not at all surprising
that he considers it outside the pale of legal precedent.
Possibly, the Spanish Sages resisted the work as a result of the utility that
Karaites received from it and quoted from it. They may have suspected the work
of being a Karaite forgery.
In contrast, early Provencal authorities made ample use of the work. They
include: Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne (Eshkol), Rabbi Isaac ben
Abba Mari of Marseilles (Ittur), and Rabbi Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel (Manhig).
The textual versions cited by the Provencal sages are similar to those
found in the Geonic Responsa collections which appear to be most original.
Ashkenazi sages also utilized the work widely, but the stylized textual
citations indicate that they were generally quoting secondary and tertiary
rabbinic sources rather than the work directly. The sages include: Rabbi
Eliezer bar Nathan of Mainz (Ra’avan, Even Ha-Ezer), Ravya, Tosafot, Rabbi
Eliezer of Metz (Yereim), Sha’arei Dura, Machzor Vitry.
From the fourteenth century on mention and discussion of the work seems to
virtually disappear. A most notable exception is Rabbi Ashtori HaParḥi (Isaac
HaKohen ben Moses, 1280-1366) in his Kaftor w-Ferah, who traveled from
France to the Land of Israel, on which his work focuses. He cites the work
according to versions not attested to otherwise among French sages.
[Furthermore, he took an interest in expanding upon the principle of the work
as seen in the additions which Miller culled from it. See below after the main
body of the translation.]
Students of the Maharam of Rottenberg, such as Hagahot Maimoniot, Mordechai,
and Rabbenu Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh) mention the work haphazardly.
Other sages who cite the work include Rikanati, Tashbatz, Agur, Or Zarua, and
Shiltei Giborim. None of the early or later sages undertook an
elucidation of the entire work – they left this important work for us to do!
9. Use of the book by Karaites
Karaites took a much keener interest in the disputes than
Rabbanites. This is not at all surprising. The
Rabbanites claimed to possess an
authoritative Talmudic tradition handed down from the earlier sages. Every
known dispute amongst the Talmudic sages themselves was utilized in order to
argue against these claims. From Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai to disputes
amongst the Babylonian Geonim themselves, the Karaites seized upon the disputes
between East and West eagerly.
The first Karaite sage to quote the work is
Jacob Qirqisani (10th century). Since he cites the work in
an overtly apologetic manner (read: missionary), he was wont to exaggerate and
even forge sections of the work. Thus, it goes without saying that his work
cannot be utilized uncritically. Nevertheless, despite this cautionary note,
his early explanations can at times be very useful in understanding the nature
of the disputes themselves.
He explains his interest in the disputes very clearly.
According to him, the disputes between East and West were more extensive than
the disputes between the
Rabbanites and the Karaites, but nevertheless, claims
of heresy were never leveled and a spirit of tolerance reigned between the
communities. So too, the Karaites should be accepted by the
Rabbanites . This
stance led him to exaggerate at times the extent of the disputes which were
considered normative. Thus, even though the majority of the disputes concern
extra-legal customs, he would attempt to thrust them into the body of the legal
arena as exemplars of radical opinions. If at times he may have honestly
misunderstood the disputes, in some of them it appears that he was making a
cynical attempt misrepresent them and create confusion to advance his
rhetorical purposes.
One example which stands out is a dispute which Qirqisani appears to have
invented out of whole cloth, an out and our forgery not attested to in any
other versions of the work:
“People of Babylon do not permit one to betrothe a woman
with [the fruit of] the seventh year. People of the Land of Israel permit this.
Therefore, the betrothals of that year in the Land of Israel are not considered
by the Babylonians to effect marriage, and their children are not valid.”
[According to Mordekhai Akiva Friedman (Madaei HaYahadut 31), a maculation of taba’at
to shevi’it resulting from graphic similarity between the letters tet
and shin led item 25 to be misconstrued by Qirqisani in this manner. If
Lewin did not mention this possibility, at the very least, he noticed the
similarities and listed them together in his collection.]
From Qiqisani’s time on, Karaites have continued to
utilize the work in their own disputations with Rabbanites. As we saw earlier,
this may have led to the work’s falling out of favor among Rabbanites in
regions where Karaites were active.
10. Scholars who have studied
the work
2. Dr. P. P. Frankl in
Monatscrifft,
1871 (Heft 8), p. 352-363 (available through
compactmemory)
5.
Rabbi Gershon Hanoch
Leiner, the Admor of Radzin,
in his commentary to
Orchot Hayyim, mentions that he has composed commentaries
on 50 disputes from the work. This has not been published and according to
Margulies may no longer be extant.
7.
R.
Ezra Altshuler,
Tosefta, 1899. According to Lewin and
Margulies, he plagiarized Miller (3 above) without mentioning him at all, even
copying his printing errors. Someone should do a study on this work and figure
out if the accusations are justified. Both Eliezer Brodt and I suspect that R.
Ezra did, in fact, add plenty of his own material and didn’t see anything wrong
with copying transcriptions from a previous edition. This version of the
Hiluqim
has
been republished
with additional notes from
the Aderes.
12.
[After
over a Jubilee of reliance on the two critical editions of Marulies and Lewin,
without further critical study,
Ze’ev Elkin re-opened the field with his
1997 Tarbiz article focusing on the earliest
manuscripts of the work, which are all of Karaite origin. He questioned several
of Margulies conjectures. Elkin later became a member of the Knesset.
13.
R.
Dr. Uzi Fuchs,
Netuim
2003. An
examination of the Rothschild manuscript and its role in the development of the
various textual variants.]
Chapter 3 Textual
sources of the Book of Disputes, Printed Editions and Manuscripts
[This technical section has not been translated, except
for the last section, the text itself, found at the beginning of this article.
According to Elkin’s 1997 article the textual analysis may be in need of an
update and revision.]
Now that we are finished duscussing the Hiluqim, we can
return to the question about who Rabbi Benjamin Zev Singer was. Rabbi Singer
published
Hamadrich, a Talmudic anthology, in collaboration with his brother, Rabbi Abraham Singer
of Varpalota in 1882 and
Das Buch der Jubiläen (Die Leptogenesis) in 1898
as “Wilhelm Singer.” Also,
Neue Lehrmethode
für den hebräischen Lese- und Sprachunerricht in der ersten Klas in 1867
, with an additional Hebrew subtitle, אור חדש. This is a slim German Sefer Mesores
for learning the Hebrew alphabet, davvening, handwriting, and selected phrases
in Judeo-German
.Singer is identified as a
hauptschullehrer, a
schoolteacher.
R. Daniel Sperber published a volume of Rabbi Singer’s
novella/hiddushim on Tractate Shabbat in 1986 and included a biography of him:
That biography is incorporated in a
list
of his many unpublished Hebrew works still in
manuscript which are housed in boxes at Bar Ilan. Apparently University of
Toronto houses manuscripts of his writing in German (maybe Hungarian, too, but
he wrote both of his books in German. I noticed that at least one of the items
Singer listed above (four mil) is apparently given fuller treatment in these
manuscripts. Given the sheer quantity of his output, I suspect that many more
items in the list are as well.
On the title page of the book, Singer lists a couple of
learned review articles in German of the Miller volume. See it here:
One review appears in Graetz’s Monatsschrift,
1879, pp. 87-91 (Heinrich Graetz took over as editor after Zecharias Frankel);
the other is in Brüll’s Jahrbuecher,
vol. 4, pp. 169-173. (Both are available at www.compactmemory.de.) A couple of
other articles are listed here as well, after the fact. At the top, the
aforementioned 1871 Monatsschrift article of Dr. P. P. Frankl (listed by
Marguleis), p. 357. At the bottom, an additional Brüll Jahrbuecher article
from the first volume of the series, p. 44, where Talmudic customs of the Galil
and Judah are discussed.
It is quite
interesting to see that the Rabbi Singer brothers, the authors of HaMadrich,
featuring haskamot of R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spector, the Netziv, and (over a
hundred!) gedolim, had an openness to modern scholarship which accommodated
Graetz and even Brüll, a reform rabbi who for a time headed the congregation in
Frankfurt opposite R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch. This openness is also manifest
in the very existence of R. Singer’s volume on the book of Jubilees, Seforim
Hitzoni’im.
Another point worth
mentioning is that
HaMadrich is essentially a collection of chapters to
be learned by beginning and intermediate students all in one volume with an
eclectic running commentary. That work was briefly touched on
in
this forum previously, but it would be more
interesting to explore in greater detail exactly how eclectic it was once we
have a clearer picture of the depth of lomdus and of academic scholarship
displayed by the authors of this first “Artscroll.”
This “openness” of the Singer brothers did not appeal to
everyone.
R.
Yehoshua Monsdhein’s article on HaMadrich details the controversy surrounding the work. It is difficult
to piece together exactly to what extent the opposition was to any change
whatsoever in the education process, and to what extent it was towards
entrusting the enlightened Singer brothers to this task.
If it can be compared
were these haskamot procured (many of them probably after the controversy
already developed!) any more successful than the ones in Rabinowitz’s Dikdukei
Sofrim? How many lomdim actually learned with HaMadrich? It was only
reprinted once and then again twenty years ago.
Back to the
Hiluqim notes
, It seems to me
that except for the first
Monatsschrift
review, the additional three references were added in pencil by
another hand, perhaps R. Singer’s brother R. Abraham, who worked closely with
him on
HaMadrich. But probably
not the other way around. I consulted with
R.
Yechiel Goldhaber – he thinks that these notes are
in the same style as the published hiddushim on Shabbat, and that seems quite
reasonable.
Translator’s
note: Thanks to Avi Kessner for suggesting and sponsoring this project, also
for proofreading and valuable comments. I am indebted to Sander Kolatch and the
Kolatch Foundation for general assistance during the year. Eliezer Brodt
provided several useful references, without which this post would have been
much poorer. The Guetta, Jacobi, and Peled families who continue with their
unfailing support, especially my wife Dana, who makes it all possible. This translation
is dedicated to my father, Nathan ben Tzipporah, in the hope that he should
enjoy a complete and speedy recovery.
