A Review of Parashas Hamelech – Al Mitzvas Hakhel, by Rabbi Moshe Parnes

Reviewed by: Rabbi Moshe Maimon, Jackson, NJ

Sefer Parashas Hamelech on the mitzvah of Hakhel offers a unique and illuminating contribution on one of the lesser-studied mitzvos of the Torah. It fits the modern genre of encyclopedias on arcane subjects, while also combining elements of older and more established trends in Torah publications, weaving it all together in deft scholarly fashion. It is both an exhaustive accumulation of sources primary and secondary on its topic as well as a lively sefer iyun, providing fresh and penetrating perspectives on everything it touches.

The little explored, but very timely mitzvah of Hakhel which in the Temple era entailed a mass gathering at the Beis Hamikdash in the post-sabbatical year, where the assemblage would hear the Jewish King perform a special Torah reading, has been largely uncharted by the major halachic compendiums. A noteworthy exception is the Rambam who included it in his Hilchos Chagigah; the section of Mishneh Torah pertaining to the tri-annual Temple pilgrimage. The obvious reason for its exclusion from the codes is that this mitzvah was not of practical relevance for the Jewish Diaspora, and thus became a topic for theoretical discussion by experts only.

Interest in this mitzvah, however, was generated in scholarly circles with the return to the Land of Israel by large segments of World Jewry. Late in the 19th century, the illustrious R. Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teumim (“the Aderes”) published (anonymously) what to this point has been considered the most exhaustive treatment of the topic, his Zecher Lemikdash. (A major focus of the Aderes has been the possibility of reestablishing this mitzvah in modern times, even if only as a testimonial—an idea elaborated upon by R. Shmuel Kalman Mirsky in his article in Talpiyot vol. 6 pp. 92-118).

Additionally, besides for being virgin halachic ground, this topic also leads into fascinating discussions on more classical halachic topics such as laws the pertaining to daily prayer, the reverential treatment of Torah scrolls, and the specific requirements for the weekly Torah reading. Naturally, an incisive treatment of the unique Hakhel service in the Beis Hamikdash is of necessity accompanied by deep dives into the broader context of other mitzvos that were specifically pertinent in the Temple era, as well as close examinations of various elements of the Temple services and the qualifications necessary for Jewish royalty along with other such related topics.

With every passing shmittah cycle, interest in Hakhel seems to swell and this year is no different. Our author, Reb Moshe Parnes, a self-described businessman living in Boro Park but clearly a gifted scholar who devotes a good portion of his day to intense Torah study, timed the launch of Parashas Hamelech perfectly. His magnum opus was primed and perfected just in time for the culmination of the current shmittah cycle.

The volume begins with a thorough introduction devoted to the “aggadic” aspects of Hakhel and presents various different perspectives on the unique mitzvah, all culled from a wide variety of classical sources, such as the following:

• A mass Torah-study session.

• A demonstration geared for enhancing fear of Heaven among the masses.

• An outgrowth of the mitzvah to make pilgrimage to the Beis Hamikdash during the shalosh regalim (a perspective enhanced by the Rambam’s placement of this mitzvah in Mishneh Torah as mentioned previously).

• A reenactment of kabbalas haTorah.

The main body of the sefer is divided into three parts: The primary text is written in the style of a Shulchan Aruch with short, anonymous pronouncements given in the form of chapters (simanim) and paragraphs (se’ifim), which cover all the halachos of Hakhel divided into three main categories:

A] The section on the general aspects of the mitzvah covers the exact time and place for the mitzvah; the technical aspects of how the platform is constructed and the Torah scroll that is to be used for the reading.

This section ends with a spirited discussion of the sources regarding the fulfillment of this mitzvah in contemporary times. It concludes that since the mitzvah is dependent on mitzvas r’iyah (the Temple pilgrimage) which cannot be practically fulfilled without the Beis Hamikdash, the mitzvah of Hakhel cannot either be fulfilled at this time. To counter the suggestion of the Aderes that we at least make a remembrance for this mitzvah, the author points out that a zecher is not enacted when the mitzvah itself was never performed outside of the Beis Hamikdash. (The Aderes himself, following the Yaavetz, adopted the view that the custom of reading Sefer Devarim on Hashanah Rabbah evolved out of a zecher for Hakhel. If this were true, the author’s point would be considerably weakened, but it should be noted that this idea is purely speculative and does not account for the fact that the custom is practiced every year, whereas Hakhel was only relevant once in seven years).

B] The second section is devoted to the unique Torah reading that constitutes the actual mitzvah of Hakhel, and encompasses all aspects of this reading. At the end of this section, the author shows how many sources understood that this Torah reading was intended to lead into a practical mussar shmooze by the king, who would even exhort the people to be more pious in their religious observance. One prominent Italian sage, R. Shmuel Yehuda Katzenellenbogen (d. Padua, 1597), illustrates this point with a sampling of a schmooze targeting the ills of his own time—married women who did not cover their hair, or who wore wigs!

C] Section three covers all the rules regarding who is obligated by this mitzvah and who is exempt. No scenario is left unexplored, from children to converts to people with physical disabilities and much more. It is here that we can find detailed discussions pertaining to all aspects of life, even one as seemingly mundane as whether someone with impaired vision necessitating eyeglasses is considered “blind” and thereby exempted from Hakhel.

The main text is rather comprehensive and treats pretty much every aspect of the halachos of Hakhel, but it is in the two subtexts where we are treated to full blown halachic expositions of a great array of topics. The section titles “biurim” deals primarily with the material treated in the main text, providing the sources for the cited opinions with a good deal of breadth and thorough analysis—sure to delight those with a lomdishe bent.

The “iyunim” section, on the other hand, branches off the “biurim” section and includes in its scope interesting dives into topics which may be tangential to the main discussion but are compelling on their own. A sampling: What are the halachic prerequisites for determining who is a shoteh (insane)? Did the Israelite kings of the ten tribes have the halachic status of Jewish kings? What are the parameters of the mourner status conferred on one who has been placed in niddui (excommunication)? What is the reason for reading the Aseres Hadibros with the taam elyon? These and many more discussions are listed in the detailed topical index included at the end of the sefer.

The source material used for this work is exceptionally rich. When we read in the introduction the passionate dedication to the author’s late father, who possessed a tremendous library and knew how to utilize it well in his scholarly pursuits, we get the sense that the son is likewise in possession of these blessings. The fifteen-page bibliography at the end of the volume provides the authors’ names and dates of publication for the roughly 500 titles cited in the text.

A section at the end of the sefer includes a lively back and forth between the author and other scholars pertaining to their comments on his work, in which Rabbi Parnes credits his colleagues generously for their insights.

Recent years have seen a flurry of new sefarim which seem, more and more, to deal exclusively with highly specialized topics. This may just be an expression of the development of new directions in Torah scholarship in the contemporary “Torah world.” As celebrated masters of kol hatorah kulah become ever more scarce, their places are taken by localized experts who specialize in specific areas of Torah.

Perhaps, however, this trend is merely symptomatic of the nature of supply and demand in the sefarim market; a sort of Torah capitalism if you will. Consumers, sensing that previous generations have already sowed all that are worthwhile in the field of rabbinic scholarship, trend towards the encyclopedic, targeting sefarim that will reap all the fruits of the generations of labor and serve as a repository of all the information generated by scholars–both ancient and recent–on a given topic. Contemporary authors are simply aiming to meet that demand.

Whether indicative of new trends in Torah study or simply of changing patterns in the marketplace, sefarim focusing exclusively on issues that previously took up a few simanim (or, in some cases, no simanim) in Shulchan Aruch have become commonplace of late. Typically, these works excel more in their bekiyus than in their iyun. While these sefarim can be very effective for research purposes, one who still wishes to revel in that old time iyun is often better served looking for a title authored by one of the greats of the past.

Yet, as evidenced by the sterling example of Parashas Hamelech, the sources that have supplied countless generations with grist for the iyun mills are still capable of inspiring further significant halachic developments when utilized properly by capable baalei iyun. Rabbi Parnes should thus be commended for his wonderful and singular offering to the world of Torah scholarship that combines both of the aforementioned trends.

May the merit of the additional Torah study spurred on by this engaging work contribute to the tipping of the Heavenly scales and hasten us to that long-awaited moment where we can once again practice this monumental mitzvah.

Renewal of the Hakhel Ceremony in Jerusalem and New York[1]

By Aaron R. Katz

A graduate of the University of Chicago Law School and a musmach of RIETS, Aaron is the Associate Director, Private Equity and M&A Finex at WTW Israel. He lives with his wife and four children in Mishkafayim, Ramat Bet Shemesh.

As we come to the final days of the Shmitah year, preparations will soon begin for the Zecher LeHakhel events that will occur starting with the new year of 5783 (2022), which is a Motzei Shmitah year (the year following the Shmitah year).

During Chol Hamoed Sukkot in 2015, a Zecher LeHakhel ceremony took place in the courtyard in front of the Kotel. As the corresponding Hebrew year of 5776 immediately followed a Shmitah year, the event was a commemoration of the biblically-ordained Hakhel ceremony[2] in which the entire nation would assemble during Sukkot[3] of every Motzei Shmitah year for a public reading by the king of certain parts of Deuteronomy.[4] Present at the event at the Kotel were numerous dignitaries, including the Ashkenazi and Sefardi Chief Rabbis, as well as President Reuven Rivlin.

 The current Hakhel ceremony traces its roots to R. Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim (1843-1905) (the “Aderet” and the father-in-law of R. Avraham Yitzchak Hacohen Kook), who discussed the establishment of a commemoration of Hakhel in his book Zecher LeMikdash in 1889 (the Hebrew year of 5649, which itself was a Shmitah year), a work that was anonymously published but has been conclusively determined to have been written by him.[5] The first modern-day ceremony took place in 1945, following the end of the 5705 Shmitah year, under the auspices of Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog. The ceremony began in the Yeshurun Synagogue and concluded at the Kotel. In 1952, following the 5712 Shmitah year, the Hakhel ceremony was held on Mt. Zion (as the Kotel was under Jordanian rule at the time) and was attended by both R. Herzog and Sefardi Chief Rabbi Ben-Zion Meir Hai Uziel. A book titled Zecher LeMitzvat Hakhel, edited by R. Mordechai Cohen, appeared shortly after the ceremony and contains a lengthy discussion of the Hakhel ceremony, as well as pictures and a description of the 1952 event. [6]

In the Nisan 5713 (March/April 1953) edition of Yeshiva University’s Talpioth journal includes two articles on Hakhel, including one by the journal’s editor R. Samuel K. Mirsky, under the title: “Renewal of Hakhel.”[7] At the end of that same journal appears a Hebrew description of a Hakhel ceremony that took place in New York. The description was written by a certain צ.ט.. (which most certainly refers to R. Zvi Tabory, who took part in the event as mentioned below). An English translation of this description from Talpioth appears below.[8]

Hakhel Gathering in New York

On Wednesday, the third day of Chol Hamoed Sukkot, a special gathering took place at the Commodore Hotel in New York to commemorate the Hakhel ceremony.

The gathering was organized by the Jewish Agency’s Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora to allow the Jews of the Diaspora the opportunity to identify with our brethren in the State of Israel who were assembling at the same time on the summit of Mt. Zion in Jerusalem to take part in a Hakhel ceremony organized by the Chief Rabbinate and the Ministry of Religion, the first such event since the establishment of the State.

The Rabbinical Council of America co-organized this gathering together with the Jewish Agency’s Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora (the “Department”), and this joint effort was extremely successful. A large celebratory crowd filled the hall, and hundreds of people were forced to go home for lack of space.

Dr. Yosef Burg, Israel’s Health Minister, inspired those assembled with his words on the responsibilities of a Jew, whoever he may be, to the State of Israel. R. Samuel K. Mirsky gave an instructive talk on the renewal of the practice of Hakhel in Israel. R. Zvi Tabory, Director of the Department in New York, opened the evening and pointed out the historic nature of the event, which comes on the heels of the revival of our nation in its land. He also delivered words of blessing on behalf of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the head of the Department, R. Zev Gold of Jerusalem. The participants enthusiastically accepted the blessing from Zion: “Just as you have merited to organize this event, so may you merit to perform the ritual properly according to all of its laws in the restored Temple in Jerusalem!” R. Israel Tabak of Baltimore, head of the Education Department of the Rabbinical Council of America, served as the master of ceremonies for the event and introduced R. Theodore Adams, the President of the Rabbinical Council of America, who discussed the concept of Jewish unity. Dr. Pinkhos Churgin, President of Mizrachi in America, delivered words of blessing on behalf of the Mizrachi organization, and R. Yissocher Levin, President of Hapoel HaMizrachi in America, delivered words of blessing from his organization.[9] Mr. Eliezer Doron, Israeli Consul General of New York, delivered words of blessing on behalf of the State of Israel.

A musical program was arranged by Cantor Shalom Katz from Washington, D.C., and Cantor Pinchas Jassinowsky from New York. Mrs. Jassinowsky accompanied them on the piano. 

R. Zvi Yehuda Meltzer, Av Bet Din of Rehovot and Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Hadarom in Israel, recited a special prayer for world peace.

It is quite unfortunate that an event of this caliber only occurs once every seven years; however, we can hope that the inspiration and excitement felt on this occasion will sustain the Jewish community for the next seven years.

The organizers of the event did not want to limit its scope simply to New York; rather, they intended to extend it to outlying cities as well. In turning to rabbis across the United States to suggest that they arrange Hakhel commemoration events in their respective communities, they offered a sample program, attached materials on the topic of Hakhel, and provided copies of the thorough, instructive, powerfully impactful article on Hakhel written by R. Samuel K. Mirsky, an advanced edition of which had been published in honor of the celebration held on Chol Hamoed Sukkot.

In addition, the Department arranged a celebratory Hakhel event for upperclassmen from yeshiva day schools that took place in the large hall of the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary. This event was also held during Chol Hamoed Sukkot, and 1,200 students from 20 different yeshiva day schools participated. Students from the Shulamith School for Girls put on a wonderful play about the draining of the Hula swamps. A choir of one hundred students from Yeshiva Rabbi Moshe Soloveichik and Yeshiva Rabbi Israel Salanter, conducted by Mr. S. Silbermintz, sung a number of pleasant tunes for the audience.

These young children also lit candles and prayed for world peace, and it is certain that this event left a lasting impact on the attendants.

Conclusion

This post focuses on the rebirth of the modern Hakhel ceremony in the years of 1945 and 1952. In a future post, I hope to examine the manner in which the ceremony was observed in later years in both Israel and the diaspora. Of particular interest is whether R. Mirsky’s push for widespread of observance of Hakhel in the diaspora made a lasting impact following the successful 1952 event.  

Notes:

[1] I wish to thank my dear friends Rabbi Shaul Seidler-Feller, Mr. Menachem Butler and Rabbi Dr. Eliezer Brodt for their assistance on this brief essay at the Seforim blog. The essay is dedicated to the memory of my beloved chavrusa Donny Ladell, דניאל שבתי בן אליעזר ז“ל, upon his thirteenth yahrtzeit.
[2] See Deuteronomy, ch. 31. Also see the recently published Parshas Ha’melech by R. Moshe Parness on pages 118-120 where he quotes the relevant sources that discuss that Hakhel is only a biblical commandment in force as long as the Beit Hamikdash is standing. There is also a sefer called Parshas Ha’melech by R. Shmuel Genut on Hakhel that was just published this summer as a third edition (with the earlier two editions having been published in the two previous Motzei Shmitah years, respectively) that discusses the mitzvah of Hakhel, online here.
[3] For an in-depth discussion on the exact day of when Hakhel would take place, see David Henshke, “When is the Time of Hakhel?” Tarbiz, vol. 61, no. 2 (1992): 177-194 (Hebrew), available here.
[4] See Rambam, Hilchot Chagigah, ch. 3. For a detailed analysis of the Rambam’s opinion and a description of the proper halachic manner in which to conduct a Zecher LeHakhel event, see Maran Ovadya Yosef, Chazon Ovadya: Hilchot Shmitat Ksafim uPruzbul (Jerusalem, 2015), 219-228 (Hebrew), as well as his responsum in She’elot u-Teshuvot Yabia Omer, Yoreh Deah, vol. 10, no. 22. Maran Ovadya Yosef was prominently involved in numerous “Zecher LeHakhel events” at the Kotel. I was privileged to see him in person in 2008 at the last Zecher LeHakhel he attended before his passing in 2013.
[5] See Yaakov S. Spiegel, Amudim be-Toldot ha-Sefer ha-Ivri / Chapters in the History of the Jewish Book, vol. 3: The Title Page (Jerusalem, 2014), 35-36 (Hebrew), regarding the anonymously published Zecher Lemikdash, which includes an approbation from Rabbi Eliyahu David Rabinowitz-Teomim, known as the Aderet, as well as comments that the Aderet himself wrote on the work, which Spiegel notes was purposely done by the Aderet in order to conceal that he himself authored the work.

Note that the Ahavat Shalom edition of all of the Aderet’s writings was published in 2004 and the Zecher Lemikdash volume contains the original Zecher Lemikdash that was anonymously published as well as additional writings from the Aderet that has not previously been published (see pages 22-24 and 82-85).

See also the recently-published volume of The Collected Writings of R. Moshe Reines, ed. Eliezer Brodt (Jerusalem, 2018), 604 (Hebrew), where R. Reines identifies the Aderet as the author of Zecher Lemikdash. For more on this work, see here. Also see Ari D. Kahn, “The Commandment of Hakhel,” Explorations (25 September 2015), notes 2-3, available here, regarding the authorship of Zecher Lemikdash. R. Parness in Parshas Ha’melech (see source 2 above) also quotes Zecher Lemikdash though he argues with one of the Aderet’s sources.
[6] This sefer is available online here.

In a recently published collection of writings of the Chazon Ish titled Sefer Chazon Ish: Shailos uTeshuvos v’Chiddushim, it is recorded in Siman 446 that on his copy of the Sefer Zecher LeMitzvat Hakhel, the Chazon Ish wrote that “assur la’asot ken” (it is forbidden to do so). Perhaps the Chazon Ish’s opinion may serve as one source for the general resistance of Ashkenazi haredi circles to joining in the event at the Kotel, which is more closely identified with the national religious movement (at least from the perspective of Ashkenazim). Notably, since the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was a proponent of Hakhel events (see, for example, the letter from R. Schneerson in the beginning of Zecher LeMitzvat Hakhel), the Chabad movement hosts numerous such events around the world throughout the entire year following Shmitah. For a synopsis of R. Schneerson’s views on Hakhel, see, for example, two articles by Shmuel Butman, “A Special Year: Hakhel Gatherings for Torah Inspiration,” The Jewish Press (23 September 1994): 19; and Shmuel Butman, “The Year of Hakhel,” The Jewish Press (21 October 1994): 36. See also the Likras Shabbos volume (volume 516, Parshas Veyelech, 5776) published by Or Hachasidus which contains many insights on Hakhel from R. Schneerson.
[7] Talpioth, vol. 6, no. 1-2 (March-April 1953): 92-118 (Hebrew).

Several months prior to the publication of his Talpioth article, R. Mirsky published two articles in English-language publications on Hakhel in Samuel K. Mirsky, “Hakhel,” The Jewish Forum, vol. 35, no. 9 (October 1952): 167-169; and Samuel K. Mirsky, “The Forgotten Mitzvah,” The Jewish Horizon, vol. 15, no. 2 (October 1952): 3-4. See also the article by R. Mirsky’s brother-in-law in Gersion Appel, “Renewing the Covenant: The Importance of Hakhel for the Jewish Faith and Its Implications for Today,” The Jewish Horizon, vol. 15, no. 6 (February 1953): 6-9.

Interestingly, R. Mirsky posited, based on R. Eliezer of Metz, that there are really two separate Mitzvot involved with Hakhel, one of which is a commandment directed to the entire nation and one of which aims at the individual. R. Mirsky wrote that the individual commandment had been transformed into the modern-day celebration of Simchat Torah, and that, with the establishment of a Jewish state, the national commandment can now be renewed, concluding that “only a Hakhel in which the national aspect is emphasized in fitting celebration can fill the demand of the hour.”

For an initial biographical tribute to R. Samuel K. Mirsky, see Yehudah Mirsky, “The New Heavens in the New World: The Religious Hebraism of Samuel K. Mirsky,” in Adam S. Ferziger and David Sperber, eds., Darkhei Daniel – The Paths of Daniel: Studies in Judaism and Jewish Culture in Honor of Rabbi Professor Daniel Sperber (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2017), 101*-128*, available here.
[8] The JTA also has a write-up of the New York event. See online here:

“A parallel celebration of the revival for the first time in 2,000 years of “Hakhel,” the Biblical ceremony which was performed in ancient Israel at the end of every Sabbatical year, took place at the Hotel Commodore here tonight at a public service sponsored by the Jewish Agency and the Rabbinical Council of America. The service was a counterpart of a similar celebration held in Jerusalem earlier this week on Mount Zion under the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. A message from Dr. Nahum Goldmann emphasizing that the furtherance of Jewish scholarship and culture in its various forms is of decisive importance for the survival of the Jewish people and of Judaism, was read at the service here. A “Hakhel” ceremony for children, attended by 1,200 pupils of 19 Hebrew day schools in New York, was held yesterday at the Yeshiva University.”

[9] Note that at this time, Mizrachi and Hapoel HaMizrachi were two Israeli political separate parties. These parties later combined for the 1955 Knesset elections and ultimately merged in 1956 to form the National Religious Party.

A Desperate Plea for Help on Behalf of Vilna’s Old Jewish Cemetery in 1919

By Shnayer Leiman

Recently, a brief study was posted online on Meir Zelmanovich, the custodian of Vilna’s old Jewish cemetery, who died a martyr’s death in 1920.[1] Here, we wish to add Zelmanovich’s only published writing, a Yiddish letter that appeared in Vilna’s יידישע צייטונג [Yidishe Tsaytung], on Monday, December 15, 1919.[2] The letter will appear below both in the original Yiddish and in an annotated English translation. It is a significant, and tragic, historical document. Also, mostly due to the recent discovery of a treasure trove of photographs relating to World War I, we will present several newly discovered photographs of Zelmanovich.[3]

For those unfamiliar with Vilna’s old Jewish cemetery, we note that according to a Jewish tradition in Vilna it was founded in 1487. Modern scholars, based upon extant documentary evidence, date the founding of the cemetery to 1593, but admit that an earlier date cannot be ruled out. The cemetery, still standing today (but denuded of its tombstones), lies just north of the center of the city of Vilna, across the Neris River, in the section of Vilna called Shnipishkes (Yiddish: Shnipishok). It is across from, and just opposite, one of Vilna’s most significant landmarks, Castle Hill with its Gedeminas Tower. The cemetery was in use from the year it was founded until 1830, when it was officially closed by the municipal authorities. Although burials no longer were possible in the old Jewish cemetery, it became a pilgrimage site, and thousands of Jews visited annually the graves of the righteous rabbis and heros buried there, especially the graves  of the Ger Zedek (Avraham ben Avraham, also known as the son of Graf Potocki, d. 1749), the Gaon of Vilna (R. Eliyahu ben R. Shlomo Zalman, d. 1797), and the Hayye Adam (R. Avraham Danzig, d. 1820). Such visits took place even after World War II.

Briefly, the historical context of the letter was the battle for control of Vilna in the aftermath of World War I. During the years 1914 to1922, nine different governments ruled in Vilna, making life miserable for its residents. Almost certainly, the greatest concentration of Jewish suffering in this period took place in 1919, when the Polish legionnaires unleashed a pogrom against Vilna’s Jews. Zelmanovich’s Letter to the Editor appeared in print in December 1919 and records in detail the damage to the dead; he left it for others to record the damage to the living.[4] This stage of Polish rule came to an end when the Russians recaptured Vilna in July of 1920. Russian rule lasted for some six weeks, and was followed by Lithuanian rule. On October 8, 1920 the Poles once again recaptured Vilna. Sadly, on October 10, 1920 Meir Zelmanovich was one of a handful of Jews murdered by the returning Polish legionnaires.

1. The Original Yiddish Version of Zelmanovich’s Letter.

2. An Annotated English Translation of Zelmanovich’s Letter.

The Hostile Incidents at Vilna’s Old Jewish Cemetery: (A Letter to the Editor)

Please provide me with a platform to describe the hostile incidents that have taken place – from Passover[5] until today – at the old Jewish cemetery.

Immediately after Passover, the fence (surrounding the cemetery) was breached, and horses were allowed to enter the cemetery. The officers in charge of the horses chose to move into my house, and helped themselves to whatever they could find. It was only when my daughter came down with typhus, that they left the house and encamped on the cemetery grounds. They burned the wooden tombstones, and broke stone tombstones as well. They smashed the tombstones of R. Yisrael Kreines’ father,[6] R. Yaakov Landau,[7] Rekhl the mother of R. Shimon Strashun,[8] R. Mordechai Meltzer’s wife,[9] and a few others. They were about to destroy the wooden tombstone of the Chief Rabbi, R. Hillel,[10]ho died in 1706,[11] but I managed to hide it while it was still whole.

The official rabbi,[12] Rabbi Rubinstein[13] was heavily involved in rectifying matters. We were able to arrange for the horses to be removed from the cemetery. The officers of the Zedakah Gedolah Society[14] arranged for the fence to be repaired at a cost of 7000 rubles. Now, however, the soldiers have returned with saws and axes and have pulled back and rearranged the fence so that anyone could enter the cemetery from the nearby public passage way. Thus, they once again are tearing down the rooftops of the mausoleums.

Regarding the Gaon’s[15] mausoleum, they have now, for a second time, torn down its roof, and also smashed its windows. They have also begun to break down its walls.

They tore off the rooftops of the mausoleums of R. Noah Petletzis[16] and R. Shmuel Landau.[17] Just last night, they placed the carcasses of 5 horses next to the mausoleums.

All our communal Jewish activists are obligated to come and view for themselves the devastation that is taking place in the old Jewish cemetery. And, at the same time, they are obligated to rescue whatever can still be rescued.

Meir Yisrael Zelmanovich,
Custodian of the Old Jewish Cemetery

———-

3. Newly Discovered Photographs of Meir Zelmanovich.

a) Meir Zelmanovich at the Mausoleum of R. Menahem Manes Chajes.

 

b) Photograph of Meir Zelmanovich at Vilna’s Old Jewish Cemetery.

The top photograph (left) is clearly the original that ultimately appeared in the postcard that was produced in 1916 (right) and discussed in our earlier study.[18] The photograph’s clarity and detail are far superior to that of the postcard, a clear reminder that some postcard reproductions need to be taken with a grain of salt.[19]

The bottom photograph, it seems to me, is a magnificent likeness of Meir Zelmanovich. Someone scribbled in the date 1916, which almost certainly is when it was taken.[20]

 

Notes

[1] S. Leiman, “In Praise of Ephemera: A Picture Postcard from Vilna Reveals its Secrets more than One Hundred Years after its Original Publication,” The Seforim Blog, July 27, 2020 (here). Cf. The Leiman Library (www.leimanlibrary.com), texts, item 143.

[2] Issue 181, p. 2, columns 1-4. The newspaper lists the Jewish calendrical date as well, 23 Kislev. For a brief history of Vilna’s short-lived יידישע צייטונג (it ceased publication in 1920), see D. Flinker, et al, eds., עיתונות יהודית שהיתה (Igud ha-Olami shel ha-Itonaim ha-Yehudim: Tel-Aviv, 1973), p. 246.

[3] In July of 2020, a huge collection of rare photos of Vilna was sold at auction on Ebay. The photos were made by a professional photographer who served as a photo correspondent working with the German 10^th army, which occupied Vilna during World War I. Fortunately, about half of the photos were acquired by a coalition of scholars and patrons of scholarship in Lithuania who realized how significant these photos were. I am indebted to my Lithuanian colleague, Dr. Andrius Kulikauskas, for sharing the above information with me, after the fact. What Andrius could not know is that I too was a bidder in that auction (without knowing all the fine details about who took the photographs), and managed to acquire four photos taken at the Old Jewish cemetery in Vilna, including the two photos of Meir Zelmanovich reproduced below.

[4] For a fuller account of the pogrom itself, see the study cited above in note 1.

[5] Vilna’s Jewish community celebrated Passover in 1919 from the evening of April 14 through April 22. The Russian Red Army ruled in Vilna through April 18, 1919. On April 19, the Polish legionnaires replaced the Russian Red Army. Almost immediately, a pogrom ensued against the Jews, leading to much death and destruction. Vilna remained under Polish control during the period that Zelmanovich published his “Letter To The Editor.”

[6] R. Yisrael Gordon Kreines (1778-1856) was a learned Torah scholar adept in Russian. In 1837 he was appointed Rabbi of Vilna, largely for the purpose of fulfilling the Czarist regime’s requirement that a rabbi be appointed who could record in Russian all births, marriages, and deaths in the Jewish community. See H.N. Steinschneider, עיר ווילנא (Vilna, 1900), pp. 192-195. Kreines’s father, R. Avraham Gordon was a major lay leader (פרנס ) of Vilna who died in 1780. See S. Y. Fuenn, קריה נאמנה (second edition, Vilna, 1915), p. 187-188.

[7] R. Yaakov Landau (circa 1793-1828), a learned rabbinic scholar, was the oldest son of R. Shmuel Landau, also a rabbinic scholar of note (see below, note 17). R. Yaakov was the older brother of R. Yitzhak Eliyahu Landau (1801-1876), who served as rabbi and official preacher (מורה צדק ומגיד מישרים) of Vilna from 1868 until his death in 1876. R. Yaakov’s Landau’s full given name was Avraham Yaakov. Unfortunately, he died at an early age. His epitaph is preserved in Fuenn, pp. 253-254. Y. Klausner, קורות בית–העלמין הישן בוילנה (Vilna, 1935), p. 63, note 2, reports that R. Yaakov Landau’s tombstone was no longer standing in 1935.

[8] R. Shimon Strashun (circa 1823-1905) was a distinguished rabbinic scholar who resided in Vilna, and was the son of a distinguished rabbinic scholar who also resided in Vilna, R. Avraham David Strashun (19^th century). Avraham David’s first wife, חנה (d. 1824), was the mother of R. Shimon Strashun. See Steinschneider, p. 191. Assuming there is no error here on the part of either Steinschneider or Zelmanovich, it is possible that her full name was חנה רחל. The Yiddish name Rekhl is a common variant of the name Rokhl. See, e.g., A. Beider, A Dictionary of Ashkenazic Given Names (Bergenfield, 2001), pp. 560- 562, especially p. 561, column 2.

[9] R. Mordechai Meltzer (1797-1883) served as an official rabbi in Vilna with the title מורה צדק . He was the head of Vilna’s Ramajles (ראמיילעס) Yeshiva during the first half of the 19^th century, where he trained many of Vilna’s most distinguished rabbis. In 1864, he was appointed Chief Rabbi of Lida (today in Belarus), where he served with distinction until his death in 1883. His wife, Sarah Devorah, died in 1830, and was buried in Vilna’s old Jewish cemetery. See Steinschneider, pp. 122-126.

[10] For a brief account of R. Hillel b. R. Jonah ha-Levi, and for the text of his epitaph, see Fuenn, p. 104. Wooden tombstones were commonplace in the old Jewish cemetery; not everyone could afford a stone tombstone. The wooden tombstone of R. Hillel b. R. Jonah ha-Levi, rescued by Zelmanovich, almost certainly no longer exists. A photograph of the tombstone, however, was preserved in the An-Ski Museum in Vilna, and published in Klausner, p. 42.

[11] The Yiddish original gives the Jewish year: [5]466.

[12] Under Czarist rule, the Russian government required Jewish communities to appoint a kazyonny ravvin “an official rabbi,” fluent in Russian, who – among his various responsibilities — would be responsible for recording (in Russian) births, marriages, and deaths. Rabbi Rubinstein’s initial appointment in Vilna was as kazyonny ravvin. Zelmanovich uses the Yiddish (and German) title ראבינער here to indicate Rabbi Rubinstein’s status at the time.

[13] Rabbi Isaac Rubinstein (1880-1945) was appointed “official rabbi” (see previous note) of Vilna in 1910. With the outbreak of World War I, the more traditional rabbis were forced to flee Vilna, and Rubinstein – for all intents and purposes – was the only functioning rabbi in Vilna. In this difficult period, and later under Polish rule, Rubinstein repeatedly interceded on behalf of the Jewish community, with great success. He served as a member of the Polish senate from 1922-1939. In 1928, he was appointed Chief Rabbi of Vilna. A leading religious Zionist, and a superb speaker, he managed to flee Vilna in 1940 (then under Soviet domination), and made his way to the United States in order to enlist aid on behalf of East European Jewry.

[14] The Zedakah Gedolah Society was Jewish Vilna’s official communal institution in charge of public welfare. Given the rampant poverty that prevailed throughout much of Vilna’s Jewish history, this was one of the most important institutions in Vilna. It assumed even greater significance when the Czarist regime abolished Vilna’s “Kahal” structure in 1844. One of the Zedakah Gedolah’s many tasks was to provide the lion’s share of the funding necessary for the upkeep of Vilna’s Jewish cemeteries. With the advent of World War I, it fell into a period of steady decline and would ultimately be liquidated under Polish rule in 1931. See Israel Cohen, Vilna (Philadelphia, 1943), pp. 121-122 and pp. 394-397. Cf. Andrew N. Koss, “Two Rabbis and a Rebbetzin: The Vilna Rabbinate During the First World War,” European Judaism 48:1 (2015), pp. 120-122.

[15] The reference is to the mausoleum of R. Elijah b. Solomon (1720-1797), the Vilna Gaon, which never fully recovered from the damage inflicted upon it by the Polish legionnaires.

[16] Noah Bloch Petletzis (d. 1809) was an exceedingly wealthy Jew who donated generous sums of money to Vilna’s various educational and charitable institutions. He singlehandedly provided the entire funding for the construction of the women’s section (עזרת נשים) in Vilna’s Great Synagogue. See Fuenn, p. 223-224; cf. Klausner, p. 66. He should not be confused with the Maskil Noah Bloch (d. 1846) who, after much controversy about exactly where in the Zaretcha cemetery he should be buried, was finally laid to rest. See H.N. Steinschneider, עיר ווילנא (Jerusalem, 2003), vol. 2, pp.48-49 (edited by M. Zalkin).

[17] R. Shmuel Landau (d. 1818) was a son-in-law of R. Hayyim Landau (d. 1797) of Brody, a founder and key supporter of the קלויז of Brody. On the “kloyz” of Brody, see N.M. Gelber, תולדות יהודי ברודי (Jerusalem, 1955), pp. 62-73. Not surprisingly, R. Shmuel adopted his father-in-law’s surname and brought it to Vilna. He was an exceedingly modest rabbinic scholar, whose 3 sons, all named Landau, would become well-known rabbinic scholars. R. Shmuel Landau’s epitaph (or, at least, a portion of it) was preserved by Fuenn, p. 230; cf. Klausner, p. 63.

[18] See above, note 1.

[19] Notice, e.g., the different facial expressions in the two photographs. When the two photographs are enlarged, it becomes obvious that the original photograph preserves much detail no longer visible in the postcard, including the fine detail of the vast terrain to the left of the mausoleum (alas, only partially captured by the scans presented her, but quite visible to the naked eye.)

[20] That all the photographs gathered here are, in fact, genuine likenesses of Meir Zelmanovich seems likely. Certainly the family photo published in the earlier study (see above, note 1) identifies him by name. His German passport of 1916 offers additional proof. During the German occupation, all residents of Vilna were required to have — and to carry at all times – a German passport (we would call it: an identity card). Zelmanovich’s German passport lists his correct name, age, and address (at the Old Jewish cemetery), and includes his passport photo! I am indebted to Regina Kopilevich, researcher and tour guide extraordinaire, for retrieving Zelmanovich’s passport from the many preserved in the Lithuanian State Historical Archives (Lietuvos Valstybes Istorijos Archyvas). Here is Zelmanovich’s passport photo:

Yet another unmistakable likeness of Meir Zelmanovich can be seen in two photographs preserved in the archives of the Ghetto Fighter’s House Museum at Kibbutz Lohamei Hagetaot. Both photos were taken in 1916 at the old Jewish cemetery. One photo (catalog number 31468) depicts Meir Zelmanovich and a teenager (almost certainly his son Sholom) standing next to the legendary tree that hovered over the ashes of the martyred Ger Zedek of Vilna, in the old Jewish cemetery’s south eastern corner. Another photo (catalog number 31467) depicts the father and son (now wearing an overcoat) standing at a pathway in the center of the old Jewish cemetery. The photos are available online, so there is no need to post them here. I am deeply grateful to art historian Dr. Vilma Gradinskaite of Vilnius for bringing my attention to the photos preserved in the archives of the Ghetto Fighter’s House Museum.

Rashi Devarim 26:17-18….. הֶאֱמַ֖רְתָּ and הֶאֱמִֽירְךָ֣

Eli Genauer

Rashi provides two explanations for a word in the Torah. Some scholars maintain that Rashi was not the source of the second explanation, rather it was derived from a “Taus Sofrim”. A close look at the manuscript witnesses reveals that the second explanation most likely did originate with Rashi. 

Devarim 26

17. אֶת־ה’ הֶאֱמַ֖רְתָּ הַיּ֑וֹם לִהְיוֹת֩ לְךָ֨ לֵֽאלֹֹֹֹֹקים וְלָלֶ֣כֶת בִּדְרָכָ֗יו וְלִשְׁמֹ֨ר חֻקָּ֧יו וּמִצְוֺתָ֛יו וּמִשְׁפָּטָ֖יו וְלִשְׁמֹ֥עַ בְּקֹלֽוֹ׃

 18. ה’ הֶאֱמִֽירְךָ֣ הַיּ֗וֹם לִהְי֥וֹת לוֹ֙ לְעַ֣ם סְגֻלָּ֔ה כַּאֲשֶׁ֖ר דִּבֶּר־לָ֑ךְ וְלִשְׁמֹ֖ר כָּל־מִצְוֺתָֽי

Rashi:

:האמרת … האמירך. אֵין לָהֶם עֵד מוֹכִיחַ בַּמִּקְרָא, וְלִי נִרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַבְדָּלָה — הִבְדַּלְתָּ לְךָ מֵאֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים וְהוּא הִפְרִישְׁךָ אֵלָיו מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה, וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד וְהוּא לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת כְּמוֹ (תהלים צ”ד) יִתְאַמְּרוּ כָּל פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן

האמרה, האמירך are words for the meaning of which there is no decisive proof in Scripture. It seems to me, however, that they are expressions denoting “separation” and “selection”: “You have singled Him out from all strange gods to be unto you as God — and He on His part, has singled you out from the nations on earth to be unto Him a select people”. And I have found a parallel (lit., a witness) to it where it bears the meaning “glory”, as in (Psalms 94:4): “All wrongdoers glory in themselves”. (Sefaria translation)

We are faced with the following issues

1. First Rashi says that he cannot find a word in Tanach similar האמרת … האמירך אֵין לָהֶם עֵד מוֹכִיחַ בַּמִּקְרָא, and he is therefore compelled to give his own interpretation וְלִי נִרְאֶה
2. Rashi then seems to do an about face and says that he actually did find a comparable word in Tanach וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד. The Sefer Yosef Da’as terms this a Stirah.
3. The textual witness that Rashi finds for האמירך is in Tehillim. On that word in Tehillim, Rashi gives an explanation and refers you to Ki Savo where he says the meaning is the same as his interpretation of וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד . There is a similar situation with Rashi’s interpretation of that word in Chagigah 3a and on Berachos 6a. On the other hand, in Gittin 57a, we find Rashi explaining our Pasuk in Ki Savo the same as his וְלִי נִרְאֶה Pshat here. We need to understand the relationship between the Rashi in Devarim and the Rashi on Tehillim. We need to understand the various Gemaros that explain either the Pasuk in Tehillim or the Pasuk in Devarim. We also need to understand why Rashi did not use the interpretation of Onkelos for the words האמרת ,האמירך which is taken directly from the Gemara in Chagigah.
4. When we look at the various manuscripts of Rashi on this Pasuk we find a wide diversity of texts. Both the Sefer Yosef Da’as (Prague 1609) and Wolf Heidenheim (Chumash Me’Or Eynayim 1821) say that the words starting from וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד were not written by Rashi but were added later on by a student.[1] A study of the many Rashi manuscripts available today puts this conclusion into question

האמרת … האמירך. אֵין לָהֶם עֵד מוֹכִיחַ בַּמִּקְרָא, וְלִי נִרְאֶה שֶׁהוּא לְשׁוֹן הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַבְדָּלָה — הִבְדַּלְתָּ לְךָ מֵאֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים וְהוּא הִפְרִישְׁךָ אֵלָיו מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה, וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד וְהוּא לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת כְּמוֹ (תהלים צ”ד) “יִתְאַמְּרוּ כָּל פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן”

The above seems to be the standard text of this Rashi. We find evidence of this entire text including the words “וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד” going back to Lisbon 1491, Venice 1524 and Sabionneta 1557:

Lisbon 1491

Venice 1524 ( and 1547)

Sabionetta 1557

Some “newer” Chumashim have the thought starting with וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד in parentheses:

Amsterdam 1901-A.S Onderwijzer – (The Dutch translation of Rashi also has this portion in parentheses)

Chumash Torah Temimah- Vilna -1904

The Artscroll Stone Chumash has the words “דבר אחר” immediately preceding the word “וּמָצָאתִי” all in parentheses.

I have also seen it recorded with just the דבר אחר in parentheses. 

The Sefer Yosef Da’as (Cracow 1608) concludes that the words starting from וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד were not written by Rashi[2] ״רק איזה תלמיד כּתבו על הגליון והמדפיס חשב שהם דברי רש״י״ 

                         

This is also the conclusion of Wolf Heidenheim:

Chumash Meor Einayim, Rödelheim : 1821 (ed. Wolf Heidenheim)

Heidenheim echoes the words of the Yosef Daas[3]:

What was the Original Girsa of Rashi?

Here is some background on the manuscript known as Leipzig 1. It was not available to Yosef Da’as, Wolf Heidenheim or later on, to A J. Berliner and to Artscroll Saperstein.

From Chachmei Tzarfat HaRishonim by Prof. Avraham Grossman.[4]

עמ’ 187 :כלי עזר חשוב לבירור הנוסח המקורי של פירוש רש”י לתורה הוא כתב-יד לייפציג  .פירוש רש”י לתורה שבכתב-יד זה הוא ככל הנראה הנוסח הקרוב ביותר על המקור שכתב רש”י, המצוי כיום בידינו, אף שגם בו יש השלמות מאוחרות ושיבוש העתקה. בשולי פירוש רש”י לתורה שבכתב-יד זה נרשמו הגהות רבות ערך של תלמידו ר’ שמעיה, ונידון בהן בפירוט בסקירת מפעלו של ר’ שמעיה

 עמ’ 188 :ר’ מכיר העיד פעמים הרבה שהחזיק בידיו את כתב היד של פירוש רש”י לתורה שבו כתב ר’ שמעיה בעצמו את הגהותיו

. עמ’ 191 :מדבריו של ר’ שמעיה עולה כי לא זו בלבד שרש”י בעצמו הכניס תקונים לפירושיו והגיהם, אלא שביקש גם ממנו לעשות כן

 “הגהות רבינו שמעיה ונוסח פירוש רש”י לתורה” –  תרביץ ס׳ (תשנ״א)

” לדעתי ראוי [כ”י ליפזיג 1] להיחשב כמקור החשוב ביותר המצוי כיום בידינו וככלי העזר העיקרי לכל חקירה בשאלת הנוסח של פירוש רש”י לתורה”

This is how it is recorded in Leipzig 1. The order is reversed and Lashon Tiferet comes first followed by Lashon Havdalah. 

(The entire page.)

 .יז-יח האמרת, האמירך – לשון תפארת כמו יתאמרו כל פעלי און אין להם עד במקרא, ולי נר’ שהם לשון המשכה והבדלה הם, הבדלתו מאלקי הנכר להיות לך לאלקים, והוא הפרישך אליו מעמי הארץ להיות לך לעם סגולה 

We find that the interpretation that Rashi seems to give as an afterthought, is now the first interpretation.                                                                            

Berlin 1221- Has only לשון תפארת

                                                                  האמרת, האמירך – לשון תפארת כמו יתאמרו כל פעלי און 

On the other hand, Munich 5 has only Lashon Havdalah with no Lashon Tiferes – the complete opposite of Berlin 1221.

Because of its age (1194) another important manuscript is Oxford UCC 165 ( Neubauer 2440). It records the Rashi the same as Munich 5.

To summarize: Lepzig 1 has both comments with Lashon Tiferes first. Berlin 1221 has only Lashon Tiferes and Munich 5 and Oxford UCC 165 only have Lashon Havdalah.[5]

An analysis of other manuscripts by Al HaTorah yields the following, along with a possible approach to reconciling the textual variances. .

From Al Hatorah.org:

10 ה    10ה הדיון בהמשך של “אין להם עד… לעם סגולה” חסר בכ”י ברלין 1221, וינה 23, וינה 24 

בכ”י פרמא 181, מינכן 5, פריס 155, ברלין 1222, וטיקן 94, ליידן 1, המצב הפוך, וחסר “לשון תפארת כמו יתאמרו כל פעלי און” (בפרמא 181 הוא נוסף בגיליון אחר “לעם סגולה”, ובברלין 1222 הגיליון סומן לאחר “האמרת והאמירך” וכפי שהוא מופיע בטקסט בלייפציג 1). בכ”י ויימר 652 “מצאתי להם עד לשון תפארה יתאמרו כל פועלי און” מופיע בסוף הפירוש לאחר “לעם סגולה”, וכן באופן מקוטע בפריס 154. כ”י פריס 49 דומה לכ”י לייפציג. ועיין במחלוקתם של א’ טיוטו בתרביץ ס”א:א’ עמ’ 92-91 וא’ גרוסמן בתרביץ ס”א:ב’ עמ’ 308.
יש שתי דרכים שבהן ניתן להסביר ולשחזר את התהליך שאירע בפירוש רש”י כאן:
(א) הפירוש הראשון (“לשון תפארת”) הוא של רש”י עצמו, והפירוש השני (“לשון המשכה / הפרשה והבדלה”) הוא תוספת של ר”י קרא. אפשרות זו נתמכת ע”י כ”י מוסקבה 1628 – עיין דברינו על פירוש ר”י קרא לדב’ כ”ו:י”ז-י”ח.
(ב) שני הפירושים הסותרים נכתבו ע”י רש”י עצמו. הפירוש הראשון (“לשון תפארת”) הוא של רבותיו של רש”י, והפירוש השני (“לשון המשכה / הפרשה והבדלה”) הוא של רש”י עצמו. אפשר שכ”י פרנקפורט 19 תומך באפשרות זו. שם כתוב: “האמרת, האמירך – לשון תפארת כמ’ יתאמרו כל פועלי און וכמ’ בראש אמיר כך הורו מורים [אולי צ”ל “מורי”]. ואני אומ’ שאין להם עד במקום [צ”ל “במקרא”]. ולי נראה שהוא לשו’ הפרשה והבדלה, הבדלתו לך מאלהי הנכר להיות לך לאלהים, והוא הפרישך אליו להיות לו לעם סגולה.”

Analysis of Gemaros and of Rashi in Tehillim:

The first Pshat וְלִי נִרְאֶה in the standard Rashi is that the Jewish people have set aside Hashem to be there G-d (לְשׁוֹן הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַבְדָּלָה ) and He has set aside the Jewish people as His people. This is similar to the explanation Rashi gives for our Pasuk on Gittin 57b. The Gemara tells the story of the woman whose seven sons refused to bow down to an idol, each one quoting a Pasuk to back up his decision.  

‘אתיוהו לאידך אמרו ליה פלח לעבודת כוכבים אמר להו כתוב בתורה (דברים כו, יז) את ה’ האמרת וגו’ וה’ האמירך היום וגו

They then brought in yet another son, and said to him: Worship the idol. He said to them: ( I cannot do so,) as it is written in the Torah: “You have האמרת  Hashem this day to be your G-d…and Hashem has האמירך you this day to be a people for His own possession” (Deuteronomy 26:17–18)

Rashi explains   האמרת – ייחדת – set aside . This is very similar to the Lashon he uses in Ki Savo of הִבְדַּלְתָּ לְךָ מֵאֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים

On the other hand, the Pasuk where he writes וּמָצָאתִי לָהֶם עֵד וְהוּא לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת כְּמוֹ 

 “יִתְאַמְּרוּ כָּל פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן”:, in Tehillim 94:4..there Rashi gives his second explanation to our words in Ki Savo

The thought expressed in Tehillim is how long will Hashem tolerate the fact that evildoers brag about their actions. It is clear that יִֽ֝תְאַמְּר֗וּ means “praise themselves”. 

עַד־מָתַ֖י רְשָׁעִ֥ים ׀ יְהוָ֑ה עַד־מָ֝תַ֗י רְשָׁעִ֥ים יַעֲלֹֽזוּ׃

How long shall the wicked, O LORD, how long shall the wicked exult,

יַבִּ֣יעוּ יְדַבְּר֣וּ עָתָ֑ק יִֽ֝תְאַמְּר֗וּ כָּל־פֹּ֥עֲלֵי אָֽוֶן׃

shall they utter insolent speech, shall all evildoers pride themselves?

Rashi in Tehillim  

יתאמרו. ישתבחו כמו (דברים כו) האמרת והאמירך

In Ki Savo, Rashi seems to say he can’t find a witness for this word  הֶאֱמַ֖רְתָּ in all of Mikra and then Rashi himself in Tehillim explains the word as meaning something very similar to לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת  and refers you to the Pesukim in Devarim. And in Tehillim, he gives a different explanation for the Pasuk in Ki Savo than he gives on Gittin 57b.

Chagigah 3a on the bottom of the page

עוד דרש (דברים כו, יז) “את ה’ האמרת היום”,” וה’ האמירך היום “אמר להם הקב”ה לישראל אתם עשיתוני חטיבה אחת בעולם ואני אעשה אתכם חטיבה אחת בעולם

Rashi comments

האמרת – שבחת כמו יתאמרו כל פועלי און (תהילים צ״ד:ד׳) ישתבחו, שדרכן צלחה:

Again we have the word יתאמרו or האמרת meaning something like לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת (שבחת ) and not לְשׁוֹן הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַבְדָּלָה

Rashi seems to be giving us a translation of the word האמרת as opposed to the Gemara’s Drasha on this word

However, Onkelos uses the word  חֲטַבְתָּin his translation of the word He’emircha

יָת הּ’ חֲטַבְתָּ יוֹמָא דֵין לְמֶהֱוֵי לָךְ לֶאֱלָק’ וְלִמְהַךְ בְּאָרְחָן דְּתָקְנָן קֳדָמוֹהִי וּלְמִטַּר קְיָמוֹהִי וּפִקּוּדוֹהִי וְדִינוֹהִי וּלְקַבָּלָא בְמֵימְרֵיהּ:

והּ’ חָטְבָךְ יוֹמָא דֵין לְמֶהֱוֵי לֵיהּ לְעַם חַבִּיב כְּמָא דִי מַלִּיל לָךְ וּלְמִטַּר כָּל פִּקּוּדוֹהִי:

חטיבה  is like in the words “Chotaiv Aitzecha.”

The word חטיבה is translated by Steinsaltz as a “single entity.”

This is Steinsaltz’s translation of the Gemara:

You have made Me a single entity in the world, (as you singled Me out as separate and unique). And (therefore) I will make you a single entity in the world, (as you will be a treasured nation, chosen by God.)

This is more in line with the idea of

לְשׁוֹן הַפְרָשָׁה וְהַבְדָּלָה — הִבְדַּלְתָּ לְךָ מֵאֱלֹהֵי הַנֵּכָר לִהְיוֹת לְךָ לֵאלֹהִים וְהוּא הִפְרִישְׁךָ אֵלָיו מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ לִהְיוֹת לוֹ לְעַם סְגֻלָּה

We have a similar outcome in Rashi in Berachos 6a where the Pasuk in Ki Savo is also quoted. There too Rashi explains the word האמיר in our Pasuk in Ki Savo as meaning praise.

ומי משתבח קודשא בריך הוא בשבחייהו דישראל אין דכתיב את ה׳ האמרת היום וכתיב וה׳ האמירך היום 

Is the Holy One, Blessed be He, glorified through the glory of Israel?  Yes as it is stated: “You have האמרת, this day, that the Lord is your God, And it states: “And the Lord has האמירך, this day,…(Deuteronomy 26:17–18).

Rashi comments on the word האמרת:

האמרת – לשון חשיבות ושבח כמו יתאמרו כל פועלי און (תהילים צ״ד:ד׳) ישתבחו

The Lubavitcher Rebbe summarizes some of the problems with the Rashi text as we have it, and adds another issue as to why Rashi didn’t explain the word as coming from the Shoresh “Omair” as Ibn Ezra did.

Likutei Sichos Chelek Tes – The Sicha is in Yiddish only – This is a summary in Hebrew:

קשה לפרש ש”האמרת” הוא לשון אמירה (כי האמירה אינה בכל יום), ו”אין להם עד מוכיח במקרא” שיכריח לפרש כן. אך “ומצאתי להם עד” שהוא לשון תפארת

ברש”י (כ”ו י”ז): “האמרת והאמירך: אין להם עד מוכיח במקרא. ולי נראה שהוא לשון הפרשה והבדלה, הבדלתו לך מאלוקי הנכר להיות לך לאלוקים והוא הפרישך אליו מעמי הארץ להיות לו לעם סגולה. ומצאתי להם עד והוא לשון תפארת כמו יתאמרו כל פועלי און”

.1 צריך להבין איך אומר בהתחלה ש”אין להם עד מוכיח”, הרי מיד אח”כ אומר “ומצאתי להם עד”? 

.2ומדוע אינו מפרש שהוא לשון אמירה – כמו שפירש ר’ יהודה הלוי והובא באבן עזרא – שאז יוצא שיש להם ריבוי מוכיחים במקרא

והביאור: רש”י מדגיש ש”אין להם עד מוכיח במקרא”, זאת אומרת שישנה קושי לפרש ש”האמרת” הוא לשון תפארת ואמירה, ורק אם היה להם עד מוכיח – שיכריח לפרש כן – הי’ מפרש כן. והקושי שישנו בפירוש אמירה הוא שהפסוקים “האמרת היום” “וה’ האמירך היום” באים בהמשך להפסוק “היום הזה ה’ אלוקיך מצוך” – שקאי על כל יום, וא”כ אי אפשר לפרש ש”האמרת” הוא לשון אמירה, כי רק כשהנהגת בנ”י הוא כראוי פועלים שה’ יאמר שהוא רוצה להיות להם לאלוקים, ורק כשהנהגת ה’ עם בנ”י הוא באופן ניסי, אומרים בנ”י שהם עם סגולה. ולכן מפרש רש”י “לשון הפרשה והבדלה”, דענין זה אינו תלוי בהנהגת בנ”י (דגם כשאינם עושים רצונו של מקום יודעים שה’ הוא אלוקיהם(

This is how this Pasuk is presented in the Artscroll Saperstein Rashi[7]:

The comments end (4.) with “Yosef Da’as concludes they were interpolated by someone other than Rashi” indicating that Rashi in Ki Savo does not include the concept of האמרת meaning לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת. This is directly in contradiction to Leipzig 1. 

What does Avraham Berliner in Zechor L’Avraham (Berlin 1867) say?                            

Firstly, Berliner states that the author of Yosef Da’as only had one Rashi manuscript and therefore his (Berliner’s) rendering of Rashi is more accurate.

This is Berliner on our Pasuk:

In his introduction, Berliner mentions all the Kisvei Yad he had and includes Munich 5 but he does not include Leipzig 1. 

In conclusion, if you look at many early manuscripts, the idea that האמרת means לְשׁוֹן תִּפְאֶרֶת is definitely there. As a matter of fact, in Lepzig I it comes first and other manuscripts, (such as Berlin 1221) don’t even have the explanation of הבדלה. Both Leshonos could come from Rashi. 

[1] The Artscroll Sapirstein Rashi quotes Yosef Da’as as the last of its comments.
[2] The author of Yosef Da’as:

המחבר היה מחכמי פראג שנולד בפראג בשנת ש”ם ונפטר שם בשנת תי”ד. הוא היה תלמידם של גדולי חכמי פראג, והוא מביא הרבה תורה מהם בספר, וכן הוא כותב מאחרי השער שהספר נדפס בהסכמתם. המחבר עמל לזקק את הטעויות שנפלו בפירוש רש”י על התורה, ולמטרה זו השתמש בחומשים עתיקים, וכן בכתב יד עתיק מהמאה ה-14 שמצא בלובלין. ליד כל תיקון והערה, הוא מציין את המקור

[3] A.J. Rosenberg also weighs in on this (Judaica Press Rashi in English) as follows:

[4] There is a Machlokes on Grossman’s opinion which is still open 308 ‘ועיין במחלוקתם של א’ טיוטו בתרביץ ס”א:א’ עמ’ 92-91 וא’ גרוסמן בתרביץ ס”א:ב’ עמ.
[5] Munich 5 is also supposed to be quite authoritative. Here is a quote from Prof. Marc B. Shapiro cited in Hakirah 26:

The copyist of the Rashi manuscript was not some anonymous person, but R. Solomon ben Samuel of Würzberg. R. Solomon was an outstanding student of R. Samuel he-Hasid and a colleague of R. Judah he-Hasid. He was also a student of R. Yehiel of Paris, and R. Solomon’s son was one of the participants in the 1240 Paris Disputation together with R. Yehiel. R. Solomon wrote Torah works of his own and he may be identical with R. Solomon ben Samuel, the author of the piyyut סלחתי ישמיענו that is recited in Yom Kippur Neilah. ArtScroll, in its Yom Kippur Machzor, p. 746, tells us that סלחתי ישמיענו was written by “R’ Shlomo ben Shmuel of the thirteenth-century.”

[6] Explanation of Ibn Ezra. First, he says it a language of exaltation. (similar to Shavachta and Lashon Tiferes)  Then he quotes Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi as saying the source is ויאמר . Ibn Ezra prefers this explanation. This is referred to by the Lubavitcher Rebbe as the most direct explanation. 

האמרת. מלשון גדולה וקרוב מגזרת בראש אמיר ויאמר רבי יהודה הלוי הספרדי ,נשמתו עדן, כי המלה מגזרת ויאמר והטעם כי עשית הישר עד שיאמר שהוא יהי’ אלהיך גם הוא עושׁה לך עד שאמרת שתהי’ לו לעם סגולה ויפה פירש והנה תהיה מלת האמרת פעל יוצא לשנים פעולים

The Hebrew word “bespoke” carries connotations of exaltation. Compare, “in the top of the uppermost bough” [Isaiah 17: 6]. The Spaniard Rabbi Yehudah HaLevy — may his soul rest in Gan Eden — explained how the word is related to the verb “to say”: the sense of the passage is that you have done all that is proper, to the point that you cause other people to say “He will be your God”; and He will likewise act toward you so as to cause you to say that you will be His treasured people. According, the verb “to bespeak” takes both a direct and an indirect object.
[7] Artscroll’s sources are given as follows:

Variant readings [of the text of Rashi] are either enclosed in braces or appear in the footnotes, along with the sources from which Rashi drew his commentary. Among the earliest printed editions (incunabula) from which the variant readings are taken are the editions printed in: Rome (undated, possibly 1470), Reggio di Calabria, Italy (also called defus rishon, “first printed edition”; 1475); Guadalajara, Spain (Alkabetz edition, 1476); Soncino, Italy (1487); Zamora, Spain (1487). The Venice (Bomberg) edition of 1517-18 was the first edition of Mikraos Gedolos with Scripture, Targum, Rashi and all the standard commentaries. In the course of researching the variant readings of Rashi, we found valuable resources in the recently published Yosef Hallel (Rabbi Menachem Mendel Brachfeld; Brooklyn; 5747/1987); and, for the Bereishis volume, the ongoing Chamishah Chumshei Torah – Ariel/Rashi HaShalem (Jerusalem, vol. 1 – 1986, vol. 2 – 1988, vol. 3 – 1990). 

The Meaning of the Word Eduyos in מסכת עדיות

David S Farkas

Mr. Farkas received his rabbinic ordination from Ner Israel Rabbinical College in 1999. He lives with his family in Cleveland, Ohio, where he serves as Senior Corporate Counsel for one of the largest energy distribution companies in the United States.

Masechet Eduyos is a unique volume of the Talmud. It is the only halachic tractate not confined to a single defined area of law. It is, rather, a collection of Mishnayos on diverse topics, some of which appear elsewhere throughout the six orders of the Mishna and the Gemara. It is also, along with Avos, the only volume in Seder Nezikin with no Gemara, neither Bavli nor Yerushalmi.[1]

What exactly does the word Eduyos mean? Two traditional explanations have been offered, one significantly older than the other. Both explanations are not without difficulties. In this brief note I propose, with all appropriate caution and respect, a new explanation – a חדוש that, to my knowledge, has never before been suggested.

The classical explanation is stated by the Rambam in his Introduction to the Mishna, as follows:[2]

ורוב עניין זאת המסכתא הוא לזכור בה כל ההלכות שהעידו עליהם אנשים ברורים נאמנים, ושעדותם ראוי לסמוך עליה… ועדויות הם הודעת הדברים שהעידו בם לפני השופטים בעיתים ידועים וקבלו אותם מהם

Thus, Eduyos means “testimonies”. The volume is a record of various halachic statements made by reliable men in front of judges, assembled into a single volume. To be more precise, as the Rambam also writes at the end of the second chapter of his commentary, based on Berachos 27b, these testimonials took place when R. Gamliel was deposed from his position of Nasi, and replaced by R. Elazar ben Azaryah. This would indeed appear to be the simplest explanation, as the phrase העיד – a Tanna “testified” – appears numerous times in Eduyos. And the plural of the word is, in fact, עדיות, as it appears in Makos 6b הרי אלו שתי עדיות.

And yet the matter is not quite that simple. For these numerous examples all appear only in the last three chapters of the 8-chapter volume. (The word is also used, in a passing and different context, in the third Mishna of the first chapter.) In fact, the majority of the rulings found in the volume were not decided on the basis of any testimony at all. Shouldn’t the name of the masechta reflect the character of the entire masechta?

There is a second interpretation of the word, based on an alternate name for Eduyos found several times in the Gemara: בחירתא. The meaning of this word is “the chosen”, or “the best”. The sense of the word is that these Mishnayos are “the best”, because the halacha follows them, since their content comes from great authorities. See, e.g., Rashi to Brachos 27a and Kiddushin 54b. Noting this, the Tiferes Yisrael commentary of R. Yisrael Lifschitz (1782-1860) writes in the name of his father that the name of the volume should really be pronounced עִדיות (Idiyos) with a chirik under the ayin. The word would thus parallel the term בחירתא, and would also be understood as “the choice ones”, in the same way that word is sometimes used in the Talmud, as in לא בא הכתוב אלא לִגְבּוֹת לנזקין מן העדית (Bava Kama 6b). The scholar Y. N. Epstein, in his מבוא לנוסח המשנה, also prefers this alternative “choice” explanation, citing Geonic spellings of the volume as עידיות which, in concert with the alternative name בחירתא, supports this understanding. (Interestingly, while Epstein cites this explanation in the name of the early Reform leader Abraham Geiger, a contemporary of R. Lifschitz, this view is already found in the Maarich of R. Menachem di Lonzano (1550-1626) under the entry for בחר.)[3]

Nevertheless, after R. Lipschitz records this suggestion he discredits it, based on Rashi in Kiddushin 54b. Rashi thereto, in explaining the word בחירתא, writes: מסכת עדיות קרי בחירתא שכל דבריהם העידו מפי הגדולים והלכה כמותן. Since Rashi deliberately employs the word העידו (rather than אמרו), he feels that Rashi did not agree with his father’s proposal, and instead accepted the traditional explanation that it means “testimony.” Yet this too, is not quite clear. While Rashi does clearly make a point of emphasizing the word העידו, he also uses the words מפי הגדולים, which speaks to “the best”. (And in his commentary to Brachos he does not use the word העידו at all.) The following must be noted as well: In the Rambam cited above, en route to explaining the word to mean “testimony”, Rambam writes that the volume contains “testimony from choice and trustworthy men.” (אנשים ברורים נאמנים). This too, speaks to the alternative “choice” explanation. Thus, both Rambam and Rashi appear to deliberately conflate both meanings – “testimony” and “choice” – in explaining the meanings of עדיות and בחירתא.

The ambiguity in Rashi and Rambam seem to suggest they saw merit in both explanations – which is another way of saying, perhaps, that they also sensed the difficulties in both. The most glaring difficulty, it seems to me, is that neither of the two explanations get to the heart of what Eduyos really is: a miscellany of disconnected and unrelated teachings. If the name of the volume is supposed to characterize the content it contains, surely a more apt appellation could have been chosen.

It is precisely because of this question that R. Yitzchak Rabinowitz, in Doros HaRishonim, posits that strictly speaking, only the last three chapters are called עדיות; these three chapters were added to a pre-existing work written in the early days of Yavneh (as the Tosefta to Eduyos indicates) that contained the first five chapters.[4] Together, the entire work is called בחירתא. R. Rabinowitz proceeds at length, with close analysis, to describe how the work ultimately came together, but of interest here, in doing so notes the following:

המס‘ הזאות היוצאת לגמרי מכל כלל מסכתות כולו, אשר הם ידברו מפרט אחד של שבת או יבמות וכו‘ והיא אין לא פרט כלל מסויים. ולא יכול להיות כזה, לפי שכל ענינה היפך מזה, כי מתחילה נבראה בימי הבירורים להביא שם העוללות מענינים השונים אשר עדיין לא נסדרו אצל יסוד המשנה ובמקומם, העוללות השייכים לדברי ב“ש וב“ה, והעוללות של סוף ימי הבית אשר עדיין לא נסדרו במקומם….יש בהם אשר נשארו כן גם לפנינו רק במס‘ עדיות לפי שהינם [כצ“ל] עומדים לעצמם, ואין להם התלת גמורה אצל יסוד המשנה…והדבר מובן מעצמו כי בעסקם בימי הבירורים כל דברי ב“ש וב“ה היה עליהם להביא את הדברים האלו אשר עדיין לא קנו מקומם ואשר אך במקום הזה הוא גם עיקר מקומם בהמס‘ הזאת, אשר נוסדה לכל העוללות האלה

R. Rabinowitz’s point is that Eduyos was intended as a sort of clearing house to record all sorts of information that did not have a natural home elsewhere in the Mishna.

With this in mind, I draw the reader’s attention to the following verse, Isaiah 64:5:

וַנְּהִי כַטָּמֵא כֻּלָּנוּ וּכְבֶגֶד עִדִּים כָּל צִדְקֹתֵינוּ וַנָּבֶל כֶּעָלֶה כֻּלָּנוּ וַעֲו‍ֹנֵנוּ כָּרוּחַ יִשָּׂאֻנוּ

We have all become defiled, and all our righteousness is like a worn-out garment; we all wither like a leaf, and like a wind, our sins carry us off. (Artscroll translation)

Note the phrase כבגד עדים. Rashi explains: וכבגד עדים – וכלבוש מרחק (ת“י) כבגד מאוס שהכל אומרים הסר. עדים תרגום של הסרה. The phrase means a piece of clothing to be cast out, something repulsive that everyone removes. Idim is the Targum of the word “removal”.

Rashi writes similarly in Genesis 4:19, in explanation of Lemech’s two wives, one of whom was named עדה. After explaining that the custom then was for men to take two wives, one for propagation and one for carnal pleasure, Rashi writes: עדה – היא של פריה ורביה, ועל שם שמגונה עליו ומוסרת מאצלו. עדה תרגום של סורה. Adah was called by this name because she was repulsive to and cast out from her husband. It is the Targum on the word “remove”. Indeed, in Genesis 49:10 the words לא יסור are translated by Targum as לא יעדי.

R. Isaiah D’Trani (רי“ד c. 1165-1240) relates the phrase to Proverbs (25:50) מעדה בגד ביום קרה, and says it means בגד ישן הרבה והוסר כל צמרו a very old cloth from which all the wool has been removed. The JPS translation (1999) renders it “Disrobing on a chilly day”, which retains the sense of discarding or removing.[5]

Radak, in his commentary to Isaiah, explains similarly: תרגום ספחת עדיא, ויש מפרשים מתרגום הרה מעדיא, כלומר כשתלד בגדיה מלוכלכים בדם, ויש לפרש בגד סמרטוט ובלוי, וכן בדברי רבותינו ז“ל המשמשת בעדים עד שהוא נתון תחת הכר, והענין אחד כי בגד מלוכלך הוא מוסר מהבריות.. The Targum of “discoloration” (Leviticus 13:2) is Adia. Some explain it based on the Targum of “pregnant” (Genesis 16:11) which is Mi-Adya, that is, when one gives birth, her clothes are soiled with blood. It should thus be understood here as a used rag. The sages employed a similar usage concerning a woman who cohabits with the use of cloths, i.e, the sheet under the pillow [to determine her halachic status as a menstruant.] The sense of the phrase is thus a dirty rag removed from people.

The concept of הסרה removed is thus common to all these explanations. Stated otherwise, the word עד or perhaps עדי means something cast aside. As noted by Radak (as well as the Aruch; see also R. Hai Gaon to Nidah 1:1, cited in Kohut’s Aruch Ha-Shalem) the word עד used in the laws of Nidah, commonly thought to mean that the use of a cloth bears “witness” to one’s halachic status as a menstruant, actually refers to the cloth itself. In the context of Isaiah, the phrase takes on a connotation of “filth”. However, as both Rashi and the Rid explain, and in view of the examples they cite, it appears that the word itself has no inherent connotation of uncleanliness. (To the contrary, if the rag were already soiled it would be of no use for determining one’s halachic status for purposes of Nidah.) The key point is that it refers to something cast off or discarded – a negligible item of no value by itself.

If so, we may have here the true meaning of the name of this most unusual Masechta. For, as noted by the Doros HaRishonim, what is the volume of Eduyos, if not an eclectic collection of random Mishnayos without any unifying theme in which they could otherwise find a home?

In Bava Basra 14b, after proposing that the prophet Hosea, of the 12 minor prophets, should be written separately, the Gemara rejects the proposal, commenting איידי דזוטר מירכס. Since it is small, if it would be written separately it would be lost.

Just so. The Mishnayos of Eduyos are teachings without a בית אב. They are small, individual items, with no common theme. If they were not assembled together in a single volume, they would have been lost. They would have been discarded and forever removed from the Talmudic cannon, except insofar as some of them found their way into the Gemara in the same way as other Beraisos did. These Mishnayos are all בגדי עידם – outcasts, left outside the other tractates because of their individualized nature. They are, then, to use the word we would use today: Miscellaneous.

It remains to be asked, if the name of the Masechta is based on the meaning of עד or עדי in the sense of “Outcasts”, (or as I prefer, “Miscellaneous”), rather than “Testimonies”, why then is it called עדיות rather than עדים? For this it is sufficient to note that there are many places in which the Sages employed words in grammatical formats different from the way they are found in Tanach. See Chulin 137b. כי סליק איסי בר היני אשכחיה לר‘ יוחנן דקא מתני ליה לבריה רחלים אמר ליה אתנייה רחלות א“ל כדכתיב רחלים מאתים אמר ליה לשון תורה לעצמה לשון חכמים לעצמן. In this example, R. Yochanan directed Issi to use the term רחלות with a feminine suffix, even though the Torah itself uses the masculine, because rabbinic terminology has its own pattern. As noted in the Soncino commentary, “In the speech of the rabbis there is a marked tendency to adopt the plural ending ‘oth’ in place of the ending ‘im’ with which the same words are found in the Bible. Compare the plural of המון, קרבן, עולם etc.” The word עדיות would thus fit neatly within this pattern.[6]

Alternatively, perhaps the sages thought the word עדים might be confused with the word for “witnesses”, and thus chose to use the word עדיות instead. There is precedent for such a suggestion – מסכת ביצה, it has been suggested, is pronounced differently from how the ordinary word ביצה is pronounced, for fear of confusion with a similar-looking word.[7]

Finally, it is entirely possible that the sages deliberately used the word עדיות to give it a broad meaning, so as to encompass all three meanings of the word עד: testimonies, choice, and miscellaneous. To call it עדים would only have given this third, new meaning suggested here. We have already noted above that both Rashi and the Rambam appear to recognize both of the first two meanings within their commentary. If so, and if I am correct in this suggestion that the word carries the connotation of “miscellaneous”, the sages may still have called the volume עדיות to preserve the other two meanings as well.

I acknowledge the inherent risk one undertakes in proposing a new reading in so basic and fundamental a point. Nevertheless, מקום הניחו לנו להתגדר. I believe this rare but well-established meaning of the word עד is, in whole or in part, the source of the name of Masechet עדיות.

Lecture on the Legend of R’ Yehuda Halevi’s Death and more

Eliezer Brodt

Earlier today I had a conversation with Rabbi Moshe Schwed of All Daf.  The conversation was a discussion of the famous Legend of R’ Yehuda Halevi’s death. I also devoted some time to talking about the Cairo Genizah and how some of its discoveries relates to R’ Yehuda Halevi’s final years.

Some of this material appeared earlier on the Seforim Blog back in 2011 (here) and in Hebrew in Yeshurun 25 (2011). A PDF is available (here).

We recorded it and it’s available for viewing here and here, and an audio recording is available here.

This is an experiment which we are trying on the Seforim Blog and we hope to have other presentations from others over time. Feedback or comments of any sort are appreciated.

In addition, one can hear my recent presentation on All Daf, aboutlearning Shas Kotton– Kesuvos Throughout the Ages here and here.

Season One of my series devoted to the seforim of Hagaon Rav Chaim Kanievsky Ztz’l was completed a few weeks ago B”h, and ten episodes are available for viewing here.

IYH Season Two should begin shortly.

Sponsorships are available.