There are many customs associated with Shavout, you can read about some here and here. One, is staying up all night and learning Torah (or at least part). This custom, which began in the 16th century in Safet spread rather quickly throughout the Jewish world. R. Yosef Karo, the author of the Shulkan Orakh lent a spiritual side. R. Karo stayed up all night and was studying with his student R. Shlomo Alkabtz (author of Lecha Dodi) and the following occurred:

Rav Yosef Karo and I agreed to stay up all night on Shavuot… we did not sleep for one minute… and when we began to study the Mishna.. we heard the voice of the Divine Presence, [with a feeble voice] speaking through Yosef Karo: ‘May you be blessed; return to your studies, do not stop for one minute, and go to Eretz Yisrael… Do not have pity on your vessels [material goods], because you will be sustained by “the upper realms”… so hurry to Eretz Yisrael, because I will be your sustainer, and I will provide for you and the peace of your house.’ And we all raised up a great cry of joy, when we heard the Divine Presence, her voice pleading with us…

Thus, feel the Divine and give Him honor.. and God will cause your hearts to merit becoming one with the Holy Land, to work it together, Amen.

Elliott Horowitz, who we had mentioned previously, has a rather interesting explanation to the quick spread of the custom. Horowitz notes that the rise in popularity of remaining up all night was due to the new drink – coffee. Coffee with its stimulant powers allowed more people to participate in this ritual. Thus, Horowitz notes in a period of thirty years no less than five editions of Tikkun lel Shavout are published in Venice. The same is true in other areas of Europe. This coincided with the rise of coffeehouses. Venice, the same city with all the printings of the Tikkun lel Shavout, in the 18th century, had some 200 coffeehouses (even prior to the rise of Starbucks). In Worms, the community was tasked with supplying coffee specifically for Shavout night. These facts precipitated greater parcipitation in a ritual with its demand upon wakefullness through the night.

While the above is rather interesting explaination for the spread of this custom, it is worth noting that Horowitz’s article appears incomplete. Specifically, he doesn’t touch on two other rituals which would benefit from coffee. The first would be Pesach night. As one is obligated to stay up (and this is min HaTorah) coffee it would seem would be perfect. (In fact, Briskers only stay up on Pesach night and do not stay up on Shavout to highlight this.)

But, perhaps coffee was not used on Pesach because a) it was a private – in the home and b) some considered hametz or kitnyot or at least susceptible to admixture with them.

The second area is the custom to say Shilchot at midnight. Many say it in the morning or some even say it early evening, but many hold midnight is the best time, why did this not benefit from coffee? In other words, why do we not see a rise in people reciting Selichot at midnight after coffee is introduced.

Finally, Horowitz does not discuss how almost all of the kabalistic customs from Safed where quickly adopted by the rest of Europe even when they had nothing to do with coffee. So the remaining awake all night can be seen as just an outgrowth of the acceptance of the others, think kabbalat shabbat etc.

Although Horowitz doesn’t touch upon these, his thesis is one to bear in mind when one is indulging in coffee (today RedBull) and cheesecake at 2 am.

Sources: Elliott Horowitz, “Coffee, Coffeehouses and the Nocturnal Rituals of Early Modern Jewry,” AJS Review 14:1 (Spring, 1989) 17-46; For a fascinating view of the spread of coffee to Amsterdam Jews and the rest of the world, one should read David Liss’s historical fiction work “The Coffee Trader.”

There is what appears at first glance to be a technical passage (although some may find it of interest on its own) in the Talmud dealing with the issue of which types of impurity bars one from Torah study. The Talmud states “הזבים והמצורעים ובעולי נדות קורין בתורה ושונין מדרש הלכות והגדות ובעלי קרי אסור בכולן” “A zav, a metzorah, boli niddot, are permitted to read from the Torah, study Midrash, Laws, and ‘agadot, however a ba’al keri can study none of these.” So according to this all these types of men, as this is in the masculine, are able to study these things even though they have some level of impurity. This is how it appears in the Talmud Bavli.

However, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Tosefta preserve a different reading. They have both men and women in the list. Hence “זבין וזבות נדות וילדות קורין בתורה וכו” “zavim and zavot (the feminine) and menstruating women, and a women who just gave birth can read from the Torah etc.” according to this reading women would need to know whether they could engage in study of Midrash and Law etc. So what happened?

Lieberman states “I think that the women would intentionally removed [from the Munich manuscript of the Talmud Bavli and hence our corrupted texts] and were replaced with men.” So the menstruating women were replaced with a man who had marital relations with a menstruating woman. And instead of a woman who gave birth we have a metzorah. The reason is obvious to have the Talmud discussing whether women in this state of impurity could study these texts assumes that they regularly studied them, something that for some may not have been accepted.

Sources: Saul Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim vol. 1, 15; Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot, 3:4; Talmud Bavli Berakhot 22, a; Tosefota, Berakhot 2 :12; Lieberman, Tosefta K’Peshuto p. 20.

When one discusses the “Jewish” date of the world, the source used is the book Seder Olam. In fact, this is the source where we get to our counting of this being the 5766 year of the world. There was a rather intriguing controversy about whether the edition we have of Seder Olam is a corrupted edition or not.

R. Moshe Hagiz, pehaps most well know for his campaign against R. Moshe Hayyim Luzzato, had a very interesting correspondence with R. Jacob Emden. R. Hagiz was incensed when a published siddur by R. Uri Lipmann in Sulzbach.

This siddur offered an explaination for the recitation of Tzedkaska (צדקתך) at Shabbat mincha. “As Moshe died on Friday, King David on Shabbat were therefore recite tzeduk hadin at Shabbat mincha.” R. Hagiz took issue with the statement that Moshe died on Friday. R. Hagiz first attacked this siddur in an wholly unrelated book. R. Hagiz added his comments to the book Birkat Eliyahu, Wandsbeck 1728. There, R. Hagiz claims that the publisher altered the death date of Moshe from the Shabbat to Friday in an effort to answer how Moshe could have written on the Shabbat. Thus, according to R. Hagiz, the publisher had Moshe die on Friday when writting is permitted.

This justification enraged R. Hagiz. He says

who is this person in todays day and age who calls himself a Jew . . . how terrible is it to change, to change even the dot of the letter yud of our perfect Torah. . . and this type of diesease which spreads among those lacking in faith and lacking in wisdom . . . god should pay back these comesurate with thier wickedness.

But R. Hagiz did not stop there. Instead, he wrote a long letter to R. Emden highlighting this terrible deed to have Moshe die on Friday. We now come to the issue of the book Seder Olam. R. Hagiz was faced with a problem. While it is correct that some sources have Moshe dying on Shabbat, others – specifically the Seder Olam – have Moshe dying on Friday.

R. Hagiz therefore decided that the Seder Olam must have been corrupted. “A wise person can see that is some places a later person . . . put in his own thoughts . . . as is common when persons write their notes on the side eventually printers incorporated these personal notes into the actual text of the book.” Thus, according to R. Hagiz, the statement that Moshe died on Friday is one that was not from the actual Seder Olam but was inserted erronously into the book.

R. Emden takes issue with this explanation of the Seder Olam. He first notes this idea that later additions were incorporated into the Seder Olam is really from R. Azariah de Rossi the author of the controversial Me’or Einayim. R. Emden then continues and notes that while it is true that numerous additions to our texts by later persons have been incorporated into the text, including even in Nach (he cites R. Kimchi (RaDaK) on Joshua 21:7). R. Emden says that the Seder Olam did not suffer such a fate and is “clean and pure.”

In the end R. Emden is satisified in admitting that there is a controversy amongst the midrashim about Moshe’s death date, and therefore R. Hagiz should accept that there are those who disagree with him.

This debate regarding the Seder Olam was not only between R. Emden and R. Hagiz but continues to today. Among most scholars the concensous is that although portions of the Seder Olam date to at least Talmudic times there were later insertions. Among others, the entirety of Seder Olam is attributed to the tanna R. Yose ben Halfta.

Sources: First, if one wishes to read more about marginalia which have become part of the text, see R. Yitzhak Zilber excellent article “Yedi maTikim Shaltu Bo” in Ohr Yisrael 41, 201-222. Additionally, Zilber discusses the above controversy and also includes an extensive discussion regarding R. Emden’s views on R. Azariah de Rossi and his Me’or Einayim. On the controversy discussed above see R. Eliyahu ben Yaakov, Birkat Eliayhu (Wandsbeck, 1728), 56b-57a; R. Jacob Emden, She’elot Ya’avetz, vol. 1 no. 33; see also the Ratner edition of Seder Olam.

I have previously briefly mentioned a couple of problems with the new work Kuntress Ha-Teshuvot haHadash, now I would like to give a full review. First, I am no expert in the teshuva literature, that being said I was somewhat disappointed with this book.

The book first contains a long introduction into the teshuva literature in general. It discusses such topics as the importance of the literature, the pervasiveness or lack there of, as well as censorship in the teshuvot and different bibliographic topics. On this last point, the introduction discusses how, at the advent of printing, teshuvot do not seem to have been that important. They come do this conclusion by comparing amounts of other types of books printed during the same period with that of teshuvot. Books on other topics were printed in mass, while teshuvot made up only a very small portion of the books printed.

The introduction is fairly informative, although for much of this ground there are far better works out there (documented in the extensive footnotes), this does provide a basic understanding. Finally, there is a discussion about the book itself and what Boaz Cohen’s work (the predecessor to this one) is out to accomplish. This last topic is also covered in an English translation of the introduction, however, all the rest of the introduction is not translated.

The bulk of the book is devoted to the actual bibliographical entries of the teshuva books. This volume covers books with titles between aleph and lamed. But it is far from clear what exactly the standard for these entries are. If I had to categorize my main complaint with this, it would unevenness. That is, for some entries there is a significant amount of information such as some important teshuvot from that book, what other books discuss this one, and other points of interest. For other books with equally important and interesting teshuvot there is nothing.

So for Luach Eres by R. Jacob Emden (no. 1950) there is a long entry dealing with all the content of the work as well as others who he discusses and those who discuss the work as well. They also include articles on the book as well. This runs over three densely packed columns. The same is true for Eleh Divrei HaBrit (no. 222) as well as many, many others.

But for the book Har Tabor (no. 1129) which discusses the proper place of the bimah in the center of the synagogue there is no mention of any other books which discuss this topic, or any other books which disagree with this book either.

Another example, the book Be’ar Esek (no. 406) contains a teshuva about the R. Menacham of Fano and whether he had a beard. This teshuva was highly controversial and R. Yosef Erges, R. Moshe Sofer, and R. Eliazer of Munkatz all wrote about it. There is no mention of this teshuva in the entry nor is there any mention of the literature this teshuva spawned.

This last point, that at times they fail to reference other books about the one entered happens time and time again. Perhaps the most egregious example of this is the Divrei Iggeret by R. Menhem Steinhardt (no. 759). Although the entry does note this book contains a teshuva on kitnyot (he permits it) it doesn’t mention any of the books discussing this topic, e.g. Ashro Hametz (which has no entry at all), nor does it mention the teshuva from R. Moses Sofer against R. Steinhardt’s permitting kitnyot. Additionally, it doesn’t mention an article devoted to the book itself. Professor Judith Bleich wrote an article titled “Menahem Mendel Steinhardt’s “Divrei Iggeret”, Harbinger of reform” in the Proceedings for the World Congress of Jewish Studies 10 (1990): 207-214.

The next problem with the work is incompleteness. This is apparent in the entries as well as the bibliography provided. So some of the problems mentioned above are the worst, in that they don’t list anything about the book, at times even when they do they do a shoddy job. Already in my previous post I mentioned the poor entry on the organ. But there are numerous others. For instance, they have a fairly comprehensive entry on the book Hayi Olam (no. 1456) which deals with the issue of cremation. They discuss the content of the book as well as others who disagree with the author. They list other books dealing with the same subject matter as well. However, they fail to mention Michael Higger’s coverage (perhaps the most comprehensive) on this topic. (This appears in his Halakhot ve’Aggadot, 1933).

Or we have the entry for Modena’s works. Perhaps it is worthwhile to compare this entry with another. We first have the entry for the Zakan Ahron by R. Ahron Walken. As each entry includes biographical information and sources this entry reads “על המחבר ראה: דור רבניו וסופריו, ו, עמ’ 31-32; אהלי שם, עמ’ 201; אנציקלופדיה של הציונות הדתית, ב, עמ’ 175-177. וראה לאחרונה, אליעזר הכהן כ”צמאן, “נעימות התורה- הג”ר אהרן וואלקין אב”ד פינסק בעל בית אהרן, זקן אהרן, וכו'”, ישורון יא (תשס”ב), עמ’ תתצא-תתקד; יב (תשם”ג) עמ’ תשכז-תשלט.” So, for this we have three entries plus a recent article discussing the biographical details. Now we turn to Modena. For Modena we have the following: “על המחבר ראה “אריה ישאג – ר’ יהודה אריה מודינה ועולמו” and then provides the detail for that book. So we have one entry for Modena biography. So was Modena unknown? No, far from it, he wrote his own autobiography. There have been numerous articles on him as well as a full lengthy doctoral dissertation by Adelman. His autobiography is available in both Hebrew and English. The English version contain articles on him as well. But none of these are mentioned.

Now we get to omissions. The book Avot ‘Atrarah L’Banin (no. 4) contains, as the entry notes, an extensive teshuva on the permissibility of being photographed. It includes a list of Rabbis who had their photograph or more likely, their portrait done. This is all well and good. However, the entry leaves out perhaps the most interesting part, the author of Avot included a photograph (loose) of himself in the first edition. Thus, his teshuva was in a sense to justify his own practice.

There is no entry for the book Hadrat Panin Zakan which is a collection of teshuvot on beards. Nor is there an entry for the book Da’as HaRabanim which is two long teshuvot from R. Menachem Mendal Kasher and R. D. Polonski (Kli Hemdah) discussing women’s suffrage.

The editors claim this list only goes up to the year 2000. However, for some entries they include editions even after the year 2000. For R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin’s Beni Banim (no. 555) they include his fourth volume printed in 2004. However, for R. Teichtel’s Em HaBanim Semacha (no. 239) where there have been two recent translations which are different they do not include this. But again for R. Menachem Kasher’s Hatekufa haGedolah (no. 1144) (how this even qualifies as a teshuvah book is left unanswered) they include his 2001 edition.

Or we have the entry for the Helkat Ya’akov (no. 1496) where they note the first edition date and then the rest they claim are photo-offsets of the original. This is wrong. In the subsequent editions R. Herzog’s approbation was removed and thus they are not just copies of the original.

However, perhaps the answer to some of these shortcomings comes from the introduction itself. The editors explain how this work came to be. They explain that this was initially an “auxiliary tool for another project” a project on “Jewish education in the halakhic literature.” This is perhaps most telling. They are explaining to the reader that (a) they are not bilbiographers; (b) they did not initially set out to do this; (c) they are not experts in teshuvot. These shortcomings are apparent. This being said, it is important to recognize that this is a vast improvement over Cohen’s work and a welcome entry for Jewish biliography.

The Vilna edition of the Shas printed by the Romm Press has become the standard edition of the Shas. This Shas had many important additions and corrections that prior ones did not. One of those was the inclusion of the comments of R. Jacob Emden.

However, it appears that one comment, a rather important one was left out. R. Emden in Gitten page 60 made a comment regarding the Hassidim, this does not appear in the Vilna Shas. In the Mozonim edition they partially rectified this by providing a partial transcription of the passage. But it seems they were unable to reproduce the entire passage and thus, even in their edition it contains numerous ellipses. Now, in the most recent volume of the journal Ohr Yisrael, R. M.M. Goldstein has provided the complete passage. As will be apparent, this is a very important passage. R. Goldstein got this from the manuscript of R. Emden’s comments which is now housed in the Oxford Library. In the article, R. Goldstein provides of copy of the original manuscript.

In it R. Emden discusses Kabbalah and that this subject is really only for a select few. (He also explains the term aggadah in relation to kabbalah). He then continues to explicate the limited distrubution of kabbalah and says

ואינו מתגלה אלא ליחידי סגולה לא עמוד איש בליעל ורע בסודה, ולהוציא גם ממה שנהגו מתחסדים חדשים מקרוב באו לעסוק בספר הזוהר ואר”י בקבע, ועשו תלמוד והלכות עראי וטפל, אין חפץ ה’ בהם, הלא מזקנים נתבונן שעיקר למודם ותורתם לא היה אלא בנגלה בלבד, וסתרי תורה לא היה נמסרים אלא ליחיד עמוד בחצי ימיו על פי תנאי פרישות הרבה כמו שאמרו פרק אין דורשין, ואף זה לא אשכח ותני רק למבין מדעתו וחכם, והללו עשו פומבי לדבר פתאים בל ידעו מה, כסילים נעדרי דעת, השה אלוה חכמה ולא חלק להם בבינה

[kabbalah] should only be given to a limited set of person, one who can understand its secrets, this excludes the new hassidim who spend their time reading the Zohar and the works of the AR”I, but only spend amount of time on the Talmud and the laws, God does not want them, from our ancestors we have learnt that the majority of ones time should be only in the revealed Torah, the seceret Torah was only for special ones, who where older [at the mid point in life] with conditions of ascetism as is described in the Talmud Haggiah, it is only given to those who can understand by themselves, however, these [the hassidim] they make public things which should be private to those who don’t know anything, idiots totally lacking in knowledge, God who gives wisdom did not give them understanding.

While this is not the only critique R. Emden had of Hassidim it is curious that the Romm printers did not inlcude it. Unfortunatly we don’t know why. It was not as if the Romm press was considered particularly friendly with Hassidim. In fact, one of the reasons Hassidim used the Shapira press was they viewed the Romm one as not in line with Hassidic values. This was so, as the Romm press printed works of maskilim. But, now that this passage has been printed one can hope that in future editions of the Shas this will be included, in it entirety.

Sources: R. M.M. Goldstein, Iyunim u’Biurim b’Mishnato shel Rabbenu haYavetz, in Ohr Yisrael vol. 43 (Nissan 5766) 203-215; for another passage in R. Emden’s writings discussing Hassidim see Wilensky, Hassidim u’Mistnagdim, p. 380; for more on what the Romm edition included see their Achrit Davar at the end of Niddah.