Towards a Bibliography of seforim related to Shavuos and Megilas Rus (both new and old)

By Eliezer Brodt

Originally posted May 24, 2012 – Updated June 3, 2019

In this post I intend to start a list towards a more complete bibliography to the various seforim (new and old) and articles related to Shavuos (including many links). I hope to update it in the future.

When learning the Halachos of Shavuos, one is struck how the Tur does not mention anything special for Shavuos except for instructions related to davening and Keriyas Hatorah. The only custom he mentions that is unique to Shavuos is saying Azharot. Rabbi Yosef Caro in both of his works, Beis Yosef and Shulchan Aruch pretty much follows in this path. In the Codes is not until the Rema that some of the famous customs related to this Yom Tov are brought down, such as the custom of placing flowers in shuls and houses, the custom of eating Milchigs and eating special lechem to remember the Shtei Halechem. Only afterwards through the writings of the Matteh Moshe, Knesses Hagedolah and especially the Magen Avraham are the other customs related to this Yom Tov brought forward, among  them, when exactly is one supposed to daven Maariv Shavuos night, staying up the whole night learning, saying Akdamus, using a special Trope when leining the Aseres Hadibros, and leining Megilas Rus[1].

The first work worth mentioning, as its one of my all-time favorites, is Rav Zevin’s Moadim Be-halacha. In this work he has four pieces, none of which needs my approval! – related to Shavuos. He has a general piece, one related to various issues about the Shtei Halechem, another related to Megilas Rus and one related to various aspects of Aseres Hadibros.

Regarding general aspects of Aseres Hadibros one should see the collection of articles in the volume called Aseres Hadibros edited by B. Segal (Magnes Press, 1986) and the work Aseres Hadibros Ve-keriyas Shema from Moshe Weinfeld (2001).

For a discussion of the special Trope used when leining the  Aseres Hadibros see the article from Amnon Shiloah in the volume  Aseres Hadibros edited by B. Segal. See also Rabbi Dovid Yitzchaki in the back of his edition of Luach Eresh pp. 524- 540; the series of articles of Y. Laufer (available here, here and here) [special thanks to my good friend Mr. Yisroel Israel for bringing this to my attention]; this article from Y. Ofer. See also Jordon, Penkower, ‘Maimonides and the Alepp Codex‘, Textus IX (1981), pp. 115-117.

For discussion of the custom to stand during the leining of  Aseres  Hadibros see this earlier post by Dan Rabinowitz available here and especially the sources listed at the end. To add to the usage of the Teshuvos Harambam mentioned there, see Rav Zevin, Moadim Be-halacha, p. 389-390. See also what I mention here, and also Rabbi Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beyadenu, pp.605-622. In addition see here [thanks for Yissachar Hoffman for sending me this source]. In the work Shiurei Rav Elyashiv on Berachos (p. 93) it says that he held it’s assur to stand based on this teshuvah of the Rambam. I will add that I davened for many years at Rav Elyashiv’s minyan on shabbos. I always wanted to see if he would sit or stand but he almost always got that aliya – until one time he did not and I was able to see that he indeed stayed seated!

Regarding the dating of Matan Torah see A. Lifshitz, The Date of the Giving of the Torah In Rabbinic Sources, Netuim 16 (2010), pp. 33-68.

Regarding Shtei Halechem see the excellent work Birchat Haaretz from Rabbi Y. Mashbaum available here.

Regarding the time when to daven Maariv Shavuos night and making Kiddish see Rabbi Binyomin Hamburger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, 4:344-369. See also Eliezer Brodt, Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century, PhD, Bar Ian University) July 2015, pp. 338-341.

Regarding staying up Shavuos night, see R. Hamburger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, 3:268-364, where he traces this minhag and deals with, at great length, the minhag of saying Tikun. See also Professor Moshe Chalamish, Ha-Kabalah, pp. 595- 612. See also J.D. Wilhelm, “Sidrei Tikkunim,” in Alei Ayin: Essays Presented to Salman Schocken (Jerusalem: Schocken 1948-1952), pp. 125-146, (Hebrew). Of course, I must mention my good friend Menachem Butler’s favorite article relating to all this, Elliott Horowitz, “Coffee, Coffeehouses, and the Nocturnal Rituals of Early Modern Jewry,” AJS Review 14:1 (Spring 1989) pp. 17-46 [available here for download]. For other Halachic issues related to staying up all night see the recent work, Ha-niyur Kol Ha-laylah. See Also my article Tracing the history of Shavuos night learning available in English here and Here. See also Eliezer Brodt, Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century, PhD, Bar Ian University) July 2015, pp.354-360.

Regarding saying Akdamot see this earlier post from Dan Rabinowitz available here. See also Rabbi Dovid Yitzchaki in the back of his edition of Luach Eresh, pp. 541-542. See also Jeffrey Hoffman, “Akdamut: History, Folklore, and Meaning,” Jewish Quarterly Review 99:2 (Spring 2009) pp. 161-183. See also the recent work, from Rabbi Strickoff, Inside Akdamus and Yetziv Pisgam, 2019 (176 pp.) See also my extensive article on this in hebrew available here and updated here in the latest volume of Yerushaseinu (2018), pp.514-534, which also deals with Yetziv Pisgam. I hope to complete part two shortly.

Of course, I need to mention an earlier book related to this from one of my favorite writers, Y. Rivkind, Di Historishe Alegorye Fun R. Meir Shats, Vilna 1929 (Yiddish) (64 pp.) [A PDF is Available upon request]. Also, worth mentioning is the very valuable PHD on the topic originally written in Hungarian in 1946 from Naftoli Berger, Tefilos UPiutyim… Shirat Akdamut. It was translated into Hebrew in 1973.

For an interesting older Perush on Akdamus with a nice overview see here. See also this work.

Regarding the custom of saying Azharot on Shavuos see what I wrote here and available in pdf form here]. I hope to update this post in the near future. Meanwhile, see what I wrote in Yeshurun 25:447-449.

Another area worth learning about is Bikurim. For this I recommend the volume of the Safrai Family from their series of Mishnas Eretz Yisrael.

Regarding the custom of placing flowers in Shul and at home, see the works of Rabbi Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beyadenu, pp. 573-604 and the collections of material found in Moadim Li-simcha and Pardes Eliezer. See also Rabbi Yehuda Spitz, Adorning the Shul with Greenery on Shavuos (part one & part two). See also this earlier article on the seforim blog & my Hebrew article on it here (IyH, A more complete version is going to print shortly].

Regarding the custom of eating Dairy on Shavuos, much has been written. See the works of Rabbi Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beyadenu, pp. 623-647 and the collections of material found in Moadim Li-simcha and Pardes Eliezer. Recently Rabbi Moshe Dinin collected 160 reasons (!) for this custom in Kuntres Matamei Moshe (2008). Even more recently Rabbi Yosef Ohev Zion printed a work called Yoma De-atzartah (2009) [thanks to Yissochor Hoffman for bringing this work to my attention]. For important discussion related to this topic see the articles of my friend Rabbi Yehudah Spitz available here and here.  See More recently my articles on the topic , “The Mysteries of Milchigs”, Ami 71 (2013), pp. 89-93 (here) and the updated version, Tracing the history of eating milchigs on Shavuos (here). See also Rabbi Yehuda Spitz, The Halachic Challenges of the Cheesecake (here).

Related to this one should read the great article by Aviad A. Stollman, “Halakhic Development as a Fusion of Hermeneutical Horizons: The Case of the Waiting Period Between Meat and Dairy,” AJS Review 28:2 (November 2005) pp. 1-30 (Hebrew) [expanded from his M.A. on Perek Kol Habassar. See Also R’ Eitam Henkin HYd article available here.

Another custom that originally took place on Shavuos was when a child turned three, they used to conduct a special seder with eating cakes and reciting various pesukim and the like. This custom was dealt with by many; for a recent discussion of this topic, including sources, see my article in Yerushasenu 5 (2011), pp. 337-360. [A PDF is available upon request or its downloadable here].

Another issue of interest worth mentioning related to Shavuos is the plagiarism of the highly controversial Sefer Chemdas Yamim discussed many times on this blog (see here). Isaiah Tishbi in his various essays where he proves the plagiarisms of the Chemdas, uses many different topics related to Shavuos as samples. See the collection of his articles Chikrei Kabbalah Veshiluchoseh pp. 374-376 (regarding when to daven Maariv), 382-383 (which day was Matan Torah), pp. 389-391 (regarding standing during Aseret hadibrot), pp. 391-393 (regarding the Maggid visiting the Beis Yosef on Shavuos night) and pp. 340-341 (regarding eating meat after milk).

Here is a listing of some general works related to Shavuos that deal with many of the above aspects and more:

1. ר’ שלמה קלוגר, קהלת יעקב, ירושלים תשס”ו, תמז עמודים..
2. ר’ פנחס שווארטץ, מנחה חדשה, תרצ”ז, נו עמודים
3. ר’ יצחק ווייס, בינה לעתים, בני ברק תשסד
4. ר’ שריה דבליצקי, קיצור הלכות מועדים, תשס”ו, פב עמודים
5. ר’ אבוגדר נבנצל, ירושלים במועדיה
6. ר’ עובדיה יוסף, חזון עובדיה, יום טוב, ירושלים תשס”ג
7. ר’ אהרן מיאסניק, מנחת אהרן, ירושלים תשס”ח, רצב עמודים
8. ר’ גדליה אבערלאנדער, מנהג אבותינו בידינו, מאנסי תשס”ו
9. פרדס אליעזר
10. ר’ טוביה פריינד, מועדים לשמחה, ירושלים תשס”ח
11. ר’ יצחק טעסלער, פניני המנהג, מונסי תשס”ח, תצב עמודים, ספר זה כולל אלפי מקורות וס”ד פרקים על עניני החג.
12. ר’ יוסף חיים אוהב ציון, יומא דעצרתא, ירושלים תשס”ח.
13. ר’ שמעון קרסנר, נחלת שמעון, ב’ חלקים, באלטימאר תשע”ה, תסו+של עמודים.

Over the centuries numerous works have been written explain this Megilah. Just to mention a few: until last year the best collection of Rishonim was in the Toras Chaim edition printed by Mossad Rav Kook. This edition has the commentaries of nine Rishonim printed based on manuscripts.

A few year ago, the Even Yisrael company printed a nicely done edition which had a few Rishonim and Achronim. But I cannot offer an opinion if it does not have mistakes and the like. More recently they reprinted this, adding many more Rishonim and Achronim. If one is interested in buying any one volume related to Rus this is the best to buy for your money, as you get a bunch of commentaries all in one volume.

Another work worth mentioning is called Tosfos Haslem this is a collection from many different manuscripts of the Baalei Hatosfos on the Megilah.

Another work on Rus worth mentioning is the Shoresh Yeshai from Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz. There are many editions of this work, but I recommend the one printed a few years ago edited by Rabbi Shmuel Askhkenazi, as it includes a very good introduction, many notes and some very useful indices.

Another beautiful work on Rus worth learning through is the Meshivos Nefesh from the Bach. This perush goes through everything related to the megilah very thoroughly. He also wrote a work on Rashi called Be’er Mayim. This work was printed many times.

Another work is the Torah Sheleimah continuing in the path of Rabbi Menachem Kasher’s Torah Sheleimah on the Torah, collecting the many Midrashim on the Megilah. However, the great notes of Rav Kasher are definitely missed by many.

Another work I enjoyed on Rus was from Rabbi Yosef Zechariah Stern – one of my favorite Gedolim – his bekius here is simply remarkable (as it is in all his other works).

Another collection of useful works on Megilas Rus was printed a few years ago by my good friend Rabbi Moshe Hubner. The title of the volume is Uryan Toilessyah (314 pp.). This volume contains four works, the first being his own called Uryan Toilessyah. The style of this work is to deal with many of the issues that come up while learning the Megilah.The questions and answers are based on a very wide range of sources. He also includes many nice ideas of his own to various problems. It is very organized clear and to the point. He also printed three other earlier works, the first being Invei Hagefen first printed in 1863, the second being Rishon Mekor Hachaim first printed in 1697. He also reprinted some Teshuvos and articles related to Shavuos from his grandfather Rabbi Shmuel Hubner, author of the Nimukei Shmuel. [A few copies of this work are still available; email me for more details].

This year a few more important works related to Megilas Rus were just printed. First worth mentioning is the Mikraot Gedolot Haketer from Bar Ilan. This series began a few years back and has fallen asleep for awhile. Last week the project “woke up” and five volumes were released in the small size. The point of this series is to offer the most accurate texts of various Rishonim on Tanach based on all the manuscripts.

Another excellent work just printed is the Eshkol Hakofer from Rabbi Avraham Sbba, author of the Tzeror Hamor (259 pp.). This work had been printed many years ago based on one manuscript but this edition is printed based on numerous manuscripts and contains many pieces not found in the printed edition. This work is simply beautifully done, with a nice introduction and many useful notes.

Another work on Rus worth mentioning is Nachlas Yosef from R’ Yosef Lipovitz available here. About this Interesting personality see Hillel Goldberg, Between Berlin and Slobodka, pp. 137-145 and more recently in Sholomo Tikochinski, Torah Scholarship, Mussar and Elitism (2016), pp. 309-310.

Another great work that just was printed for the first time was the Toldos Shlomo by Rabbi Shlomo Kluger (436 pp.).

Another new work on Megilas Rus is called Megilas Rus Im Otzros Hameforshim (482 pp.) This work contains a few sections the first part contains separate extensive perushim on Targum, Rashi, Rav Yosef Kara and Ibn Ezra’s perushim. Besides for this, it contains an extensive peuish on the Megilah. Another section has in-depth lengthy discussions on various topics related to the Megilah, Rus and David Hamelech. As the bibliography at the end of the sefer shows it is based on many seforim.

Another work worth mentioning is the Ke-Motzo Shalal Rav on Rus and Shavuos. This work continues in the path of Rabbi Rosenthal’s earlier works on chumash and Yomim Tovim with the same name, collecting and presenting nice material, written clearly, and easy to understand related to Rus and Shavuos from famous and less famous works.

 [1] The Rema mentions this minhag earlier (490:9) but not in hilchos Shavuos.

Reflecting on When the Arukh haShulhan on Orach Chaim was Actually Written: Citations of the Mishnah Berurah in the Arukh haShulhan

Michael J. Broyde & Shlomo C. Pill

Rabbi Michael Broyde is a Professor of Law at Emory University School of Law and the Projects Director at the Emory University Center for the Study of Law and Religion.  Rabbi Dr. Shlomo Pill is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Jewish, Islamic, and American Law and Religion at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology and a Senior Fellow at the Emory University Center for the Study of Law and Religion.  They are writing a work titled “Setting the Table: An Introduction to the Jurisprudence of Rabbi Yechiel Mikhel Epstein’s Arukh Hashulchan” (Academic Studies Press, forthcoming 2020).

We post this now to note our celebration of the publication of תערוך לפני שלחן: חייו, זמנו ומפעלו של הרי”מ עפשטיין בעל ערוך השלחן (“Set a Table Before Me: The Life, Time, and Work of Rabbi Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, Author of the Arukh HaShulchan” (see here) (Maggid Press, 2019), by Rabbi Eitam Henkin, הי”ד.  Like many others, we were deeply saddened by his and his wife Naamah’s murder on October 1, 2015.  We draw some small comfort in seeing that the fruits of his labors still are appearing.

According to Rabbi Eitam Henkin הי”ד in his recently published book on the life and works of Rabbi Yechiel Mikhel Epstein, the first volume of the Arukh Hashulchan on Orach Chaim covering chapters 1-241 was published in 1903; the second volume addressing chapters 242-428 was published in 1907; and the third volume covering chapters 429-697 was published right after Rabbi Epstein’s death in 1909.[1] Others confirm these publication dates.[2]

The Mishnah Berurah, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan’s commentary on the Orach Chaim section of the Shulchan Arukh was published in six parts, with each appearing at different times over twenty-three-year period.  Volume one was published in 1884, volume three in 1891, volume two appeared in 1895, volume four in 1898, volume five was published in 1902, and volume six in 1907.

We suspect that while the first volume of the Arukh Hashulchan on Orach Chaim did not appear until 1903, Rabbi Epstein wrote this work some time before this, and its publication and was delayed for economic and government censorship reasons. Rabbi Eitam Henkin notes (in the above biography) that Rabbi Epstein made mention of the very difficult time he had finding the funds to publish his work. Rabbi Epstein himself wrote in an 1886 letter, “to my great distress, I am unable to publish [the next installment of the Arukh Hashulchan] due to the lack of funding . . . publishing is exceedingly expensive.”[3] The high cost of publishing and limited funding actually led to Rabbi Epstein’s initially publishing the Arukh Hashulchan in numerous short pamphlets, each covering just a few of the Shulchan Arukh’s topic headings, rather than in larger volumes.  Eventually, as funds became available, these pamphlets were combined into larger volumes, organized around the “four-pillars” framework of halakhah used by other rabbinic jurists since Rabbi Karo.[4] Likewise, Rabbi Henkin uncovered correspondence in which Rabbi Epstein bemoaned that long-before completed manuscripts of the Arukh Hashulchan were languishing in St. Petersburg awaiting review and approval by Russian government censors.[5]

Appreciating the realities of the funding- and censorship-related delays with which Rabbi Epstein had to contend helps rectify what Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan described as Rabbi Epstein’s furiously productive writing schedule with the nearly four decade span between when he began writing the Arukh Hashulchan in 1870 and the publication of the final volume of Arukh Hashulchan: Orach Chaim in 1909 (and other volumes considerably after his death by his daughter[6]). Rabbi Meir Bar Ilan described his grandfather’s process as follows:

My grandfather sat each day in the room designated as the local rabbinic courtroom together with his two rabbinic judge colleagues from morning until night, save for two hours in the afternoons . . . He sat at his table with a chair next to him upon which he kept four books related to the topic he was currently dealing with: a volume of Maimonides’ Mishnah Torah, a volume of the Arbah Turim, the Shulchan Arukh, and a small edition of the Talmud.  And thus, looking here and there, he wrote his book, Arukh Hashulchan, page after page.  Occasionally, he would get up and take out another book to look at . . . This book, the Arukh Hashulchan, which is foremost in its genre, was printed directly from the first draft manuscripts, exactly as they were initially produced by the author . . . without edits, erasures, or rewrites.[7]

Even if somewhat hyperbolic in its recollection, the pace of work described by Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan certainly does not suggest that the writing of the Arukh Hashulchan would have taken more than thirty years. It is likely that the text of Rabbi Epstein’s monumental restatement of halakhah was written and prepared long before it finally appeared in print.[8]

So, when was the Arukh Hashulchan on Orach Chaim actually written? We suspect it was written after 1891 and before 1895.

As noted, the first volume of the Mishnah Berurah was published in 1884, and the Arukh Hashulchan cites it thirteen times.  Mishnah Berurah volume three was published seven years’ later in 1891 and is also cited by the Arukh Hashulchan—in this case, twelve times.  The Arukh Hashulchan cites none of the other four volumes of the Mishnah Berurah, however, which indicates that Rabbi Epstein did not have them.  That would indicate that Rabbi Epstein had completed his manuscript of Arukh Hashulchan on Orach Chaim before the 1895 when the next installment of the Mishnah Berurah appeared. We see in Rabbi Eitam Henkin’s work (p. 312) that he proposes a similar observation, and we are gratified that he shares this inference. While over a decade would pass before the Arukh Hashulchan on Orach Chaim was fully published, and while by this time the Mishnah Berurah, too, was in print in its entirety, Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan’s account of Rabbi Epstein’s writing process suggests that once written, the Arukh Hashulchan manuscripts were not significantly revisited or edited by Rabbi Epstein. It is not surprising, then, that the Arukh Hashulchan on Orach Chaim does not include references to sections of the Mishnah Berurah that appeared only after 1895.

We are aware of 36 (or 37, if one counts the double reference in number 5, below) references to the Mishnah Berurah in the Arukh Hashulchan[9] none of which are particularly important to the work, and only in one of them (319:22) does the Arukh Hashulchan seem to be actually reacting to something that the Mishnah Berurah directly cited in his own name.  The citations to the Mishnah Berurah in the Arukh Hashulchan themselves generally look like (to quote Rabbi Bar-Ilan) “another book to look at.”  Furthermore, it only looks like he did so in certain areas deeply and other areas much less.  There are six quoted in hilkhot tzitizit, one in hilkhot tefillin, two in hilkhot shema, four citations over three simanim in hilkhot tefilla, and then occasional references scattered throughout hilkhot Shabbat.  This sparse citing suggests that the Arukh Hashulchan neither studied the Mishnah Berurah, nor is responding to it systemically.  So to, the only explanation for the lack of citation to volumes two, four, five and six is that Rabbi Epstein did not have them at the time he was producing his manuscript of the Arukh Hashulchan on Orach Chaim. (We see that Rabbi Eitam Henkin, in his work makes a similar observation on pages 311-313.)

Below is a list of all the cases we are aware of in which the Arukh Hashulchan actually has and cites and quotes this Mishnah Berurah.

1. Arukh HaShulchan 10:4 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 10 s.v. veyesh lah.
2. Arukh HaShulchan 10:7 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 10 s.v. ela im ken.
3. Arukh HaShulchan 10:8 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 10 s.v. veain lah kenafot.
4. Arukh HaShulchan 11:8 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 11 s.v. vehu.
5. Arukh HaShulchan 11:22 contains a reference to both Mishnah Berurah 11:27 and 11:29 and the Biur Halakhah, which explains this.
6. Arukh HaShulchan 12:4 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 12 s.v. im nepseku.
7. Arukh HaShulchan 14:5 contains two references to Biur Halakhah 14 s.v. hetil yisrael.
8. Arukh HaShulchan 25:23 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 25 s.v. vehakhi nohug.
9. Arukh HaShulchan 25:26 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 44.
10. Arukh HaShulchan 62:3 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 62 s.v. yachol lekrotah bekhol lashon.
11. Arukh HaShulchan 76:21 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah s.v. kara bemakom.
12. Arukh HaShulchan 76:4 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 77:8.
13. Arukh HaShulchan 79:11 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 5.
14. Arukh HaShulchan 79:17 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 79:29 or Biur Halakhah s.v. aval chalul.
15. Arukh HaShulchan 87:7 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 9.
16. Arukh HaShulchan 89:23 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 89:22.
17. Arukh HaShulchan 89:24 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 89:24 and Biur Halakhah s.v. vekhen okhlin umashkin.
18. Arukh HaShulchan 91:3 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 91 s.v. hoyil vekhisah.
19. Arukh HaShulchan 91:4 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 91 s.v. yatza.
20. Arukh HaShulchan 245:8 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 245:23.
21. Arukh HaShulchan 247:13 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 247:18.
22. Arukh HaShulchan 262:4 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 262:12.
23. Arukh HaShulchan 263:19 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 263:49.
24. Arukh HaShulchan 268:6 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 268 s.v. veshelo bekavanah.
25. Arukh HaShulchan 271:30 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah s.v. vehu rubo.
26. Arukh HaShulchan 275:2 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 275 s.v. leor haner.
27. Arukh HaShulchan 301:122 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 301:176–177.
28. Arukh HaShulchan 302:32 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 303:87-88.
29. Arukh HaShulchan 302:9 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 301:2, 10, 11 and Biur Halakhah s.v. shaveh aleha.
30. Arukh HaShulchan 306:22 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 306:16 and Biur Halakhah s.v. beketav shelahem.
31. Arukh HaShulchan 319:19 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 319 s.v. le’ekhol meyad.
32. Arukh HaShulchan 319:22 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 319:21 and Biur Halakhah s.v. beshinui.
33. Arukh HaShulchan 321:10 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 321:37–38.
34. Arukh HaShulchan 328:39 contains a reference to Mishnah Berurah 328:145.
35. Arukh HaShulchan 330:7 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah s.v. kol sheloshah yamim.
36. Arukh HaShulchan 336:21 contains a reference to Biur Halakhah 336 s.v. mutar lelakh.

A question that can only be speculated about is whether the Arukh HaShulchan is ever responding without citation to the Mishnah Berurah (for example, in the case of married women and hair covering in the synagogue in Orach Chayim 75).  Rabbi Eitam Henkin (p. 314) quotes the famous observation of this father, Rabbi Yehuda Herzl Henkin in Shut Benai Banim 2:18 that there are countless times where the Aruch HaShulchan is responding, without citing, the Mishnah Berurah.  Rabbi Eitam Henkin then provides a list of such possible cases.

[1] See Rabbi Eitam Henkin, Ta’arokh Lifanai Shulchan: Chayo Zemano U’mepa’alo Shel Harav Yechiel Mikhel Epstein Baal Arukh Hashulchan, pp. 245-246.

[2] See as well the following article by Rabbi Eitam Henkin where he makes this claim as well:

 ‘ספרי ערוך השלחן – סדר כתיבתם והדפסתם’, חצי גבורים – פליטת סופרים, ז (תשע”ד), עמ’ תקטו-תקלו

Copies of the first editions can be found in the Hebrew University Library.

[3] Kitvei Ha-Arukh Hashulchan, no. 104.

[4] See Rabbi Eitam Henkin’s book at pages 234–235.

[5] See Kitvei Ha-Arukh Hashulchan, no. 56.

[6] See Printing of the Arukh HaShulhan: The Missing Line About Rabbi Epstein’s Daughter for more on the posthumous publication of volumes.

[7] Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan, From Volozhin to Jerusalem 269-271 (1939-1940) [Hebrew].

[8] See Rabbi Eitam Henkin’s work תערוך לפני שלחן at pages 229–257 for a detailed discussion of the publication difficulties and schedule of the Arukh HaShulchan.

[9] Twice Arukh Hashulchan refers to the work by its formal name, Mishnah Berurah, and all the remaining times by an acronym מ”ב or המ”ב.

Special book offer: Besamim Rosh

By Eliezer Brodt

One of the most famous forgeries in Jewish literature is the Shu”t Besamim Rosh. This work was brought to print by Saul Berlin in 1793. Shortly after it was detected as a forgery.

Over the years the Seforim Blog has featured many essays about this work (here, here, here, here, here, here). For a valuable post about the subject see here.

For some very recent work on the BR see the three-part series by Rabbi Chaim Tessler, (PDF’s available upon request). On the BR’s famous teshuvah about Suicide see Eliezer Sariel, A Matter of Life and Death: The Halakhic Discussion of Suicide as a Philosophical Battleground, Studies in Judaism, Humanities, and the Social Sciences, 2018 pp. 91-103.

Its worth seeing this interesting piece by R’ Mattityahu Strashun about the BR:

R’ Strashun concludes this lengthy discussion, stating that he heard that: “the great critic Dr. Zunz, wrote a special article on the Besamim Rosh and who is like him in such things, but the work did not reach me yet.” This essay of Zunz was recently translated into Hebrew in Avraham Frankel: Rites of Synagogue Liturgy, Jerusalem 2016, pp.256-258.

In an earlier post we wrote:

In 1984, the BR was reprinted …  This edition, edited by R. Reuven Amar and includes an extensive introduction, Kuntres Yafe le-Besamim, about BR.  Additionally, commentary on the BR by various rabbis is included.  The text of this edition is a photo-mechanical reproduction of the first edition.  This edition contains two approbations, one from R. Ovadiah Yosef, who in his responsa accepts that BR is a product of R. Saul Berlin, but R. Yosef holds that doesn’t diminish the BR’s value.  The second approbation is from R. Benyamin Silber.  But, R. Silber provides notes in the back of this edition and explains that he holds the BR is a forgery and that he remains unconvinced of Amar’s arguments to the contrary.[1]

For many years this 1984 version of the BR has been almost impossible to find. A few weeks ago, a very limited run of the 1984 BR edition was reprinted and is available exclusively via Mizrahi Books.

Mention the Seforim Blog & the price is $22. Postage is $4 for one volume, and just $1 for each additional copy and naturally it can be picked up at the store as well. International postage is available at cost, contact Israel Mizrahi for an exact quote (call 347.492.6508). Payment can be made via paypal, credit card over the phone, check, or money order (if sending money, the address is 3114 Quentin Rd, Brooklyn, NY 11234). Contact info and PayPal is to bluebirds15@yahoo.com. It can also be ordered online here.

[1] To add to Samet’s and Amar’s very comprehensive lists of acharonim who quote the BR, see Eliezer Brodt, Yeshurun 24 (2011), pp. 426-427. See also Eliezer Brodt, Besamim Rosh in Galicia (forthcoming) IYH.

The Haftarot for Behar and Behukkotai[1]

By Eli Duker

The old Babylonian practice was to read Jeremiah 16:19 as the haftara for Parashat Behar and  Ezekiel 34 for Parashat Behukkotai, and this is attested to in most of the relevant Cairo Geniza fragments. One of them, Cambridge T-S B15.4, aside from also indicating this, is written in the Oriental Hebrew script and vocalized with the Babylonian supralinear system, indicating its antiquity.  Moreover, these haftarot are listed by R’ Shlomo ben Natan,[2] and their verses are the basis for the Zulatot in the Piyutim of  R’ Shmuel  ben Hoshana[3] written for these Parshiyot.[4] 

It would seem that Jeremiah 16:19 was chosen for Behar because the prophet’s pronouncements of  “Cursed is the man who relies on people” and “Blessed is the man who relies on Hashem” echo the blessing, mentioned in Parashat Behar, that is given to the sixth year of the Sabbatical cycle in anticipation of the Sabbatical year.

It is not clear to me why Ezekiel 34 was chosen as the haftara for Behukkotai, but it may be that its metaphor of a shepherd tending his flock (34:12) brought up immediate associations with the commandment to tithe the flocks and herds elaborated on in the Parsha.[5]

However, in Europe a new haftara beginning with Jeremiah 32:6 appears for Behar quite early on. Meanwhile, the original haftara for that parasha was “moved” to Behukkotai. These haftarot appear in R’ Shmuel Hanagid’s haftara list that is brought in Sefer Ha’eshkol,[6] and in R’ Elazar of Worms’s book on haftarot.[7] They are also listed by R’ Ya’akov Hazan in Etz Haim,[8] which serves as an account of the practices of Anglo Jewry on the eve of the Expulsion.

Abudarham lists only these haftarot for these two parashiyot,[9] and they are also the only haftarot in all of the Ashkenazic Humashim and haftara books in manuscript that I have come across,[10] excepting one[11] that reversed the two haftarot, placing Jeremiah 16:19 with Behar and Jeremiah 32:6 with Behukkotai. Moreover, they are the haftarot in the only humash[12] in our possession that is beyond a doubt from pre-expulsion Spain,[13] and all subsequent humashim that follow the Ashkenazic and Sephardic practices.

It is impossible to determine exactly why communities chose to change the practice regarding the haftarot for Behar and Behukkotai, or when and where this began to take place.

Nonetheless, Jeremiah 32:6 is an exceptionally appropriate haftara for Parshat Behar, as it describes how Jeremiah performed the commandment of redeeming the land formerly owned by a relative, a central part of the parasha.

As it is such an obvious fit, why did the Babylonians not choose it themselves? I believe that this is due to the fact that the old Babylonian practice was to read Jeremiah 32 as the haftara for Va’ethannan, beginning with 32:16. Later on, when communities that read the Torah according to the Babylonian annual cycle adopted the practice of reading “Nahamu”[14] (Isaiah 40:1) on the Sabbath following Tish’a B’av, when Parshat Va’ethannan is always read, Va’ethannan’s original haftara became “available” and thus was deemed very appropriate for Behar, while Behar’s original haftara was “moved” to Behukkotai.[15] The new haftarah for Behar – and the moving of its old one to Behukkotai – were accepted more than any other “new” haftara practice.[16] Only the Italian and Yemenite rites, most conservative regarding  retention of Babylonian haftarot, read the two hafarot as they were originally read.[17]

The practice in Poznań, interestingly enough, was to retain Jeremiah 32:6 as the haftara of Behar, while retaining the old Ezekiel 34 as the haftara for Behukkotai.[18]

Bibliography of Printed Works

 Avraham ben Yitzhak of Narbonne. ”Sefer Ha’eshkol”  Eds. Shalom and Hanokh Albeck.  Jerusalem: Wagshal, 1984.

Azulai,  Menahem. “Lifuyutam shel Yehudei Bavel -Kit’ei Geniza)” (Azulai, Ada. trans.)  Jerusalem: Azulai, 2010.

 Beukum, Walter Jaques van.  “Hebrew Poetry from Late Antiquity – liturgical poems from Yehudah” Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Biton, Eliyahu. “Or Yahudut Luv”  Biriah: Yeshivat Beit Yosef, 1982.

“Sefer Nahalat Avot -Minhagei Yehudei Luv”  Biria: Biton, 2007.

“B’rocho L’Mnachem – essays contributed in honor of Rabbi Menachem H. Eichenstein”   Ed.  Norman Paris. St Louis: United Orthodox Jewish Community – Vaad Hoeir of St. Louis, 1955

David Berabi Yosef Berabi David Ben Abduraham. “Abduraham Hashalem” Jerusalem: Osha, 1963.

Elazar of Worms. “Peirush Al Hahaftarot”  Warsaw: Zisberg, 1875.

Ginzburg, Christian D. “The Massorah”  Jerusalem: Makor, 1971.

“Hamisha Humshei Torah: Im haftarot Vihamesh Megilot” Eliezer ben Avraham Alaatansi, 1486.

“Humash Lima’an Shmo Be’ahava”  publisher and date of publication unknown.

 “Sefer Vayikra, Hamisha Humshei Torah Im Peirush Rashi,” V’im Da’at Mikra” Ed. Menahem Bula. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1991.

Jacob ben Jehuda Hazan of London. “The Etz Chaim” ed. Israel Brodie. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1962

“Machzor LiYamim Noraim” ed. Daniel Goldschmidt. Jerusalem: Koren, 1970.

Shlomo ben Natan. “Shlomo Ben Nattan Siddur Al Pi Hage’onim- Chibro Rabbenu Shlomo B’rabi Nattan.” Ed. Shmuel Chagai. Jerusalem: 1995.

Shmuel ben Hoshana, “The Yostserot of R Samuel the Third.” Edited by Joseph Yahalom and Noaya Katsumata. Jerusalem: Yad Itzhak Ben-Zvi,  2014.

Simha of Vitry. “Mahzor Vitry.” Edited by Arye Goldschmidt. Jerusalem: Makhon Otzar Haposkim, 2009.

Talmudic Encyclopedia, Edited by Meyer Berlin (Bar-Ilan) and Shlolmo Yosef Zevin. Jerusalem: Talmudic Encyclopedia Publishing, 1961.

Zeruk, Refael. “Luah Dinim Uminhagim Kehilot Yotzei Luv”  Bat-Yam: Ginzei Refael, 2008

[1] I would like to thank Rabbi Avi Grossman for editing both the original Hebrew version article as well as my English translation. I would also like to thank my son Moshe Duker for assisting me in looking up haftarot in printed humashim.

[2] Shlomo Ben Nattan, Siddur Al Pi Hageonim, p. 201.

[3] “The Yotserot of R Samuel the Third.” Vol. 1, pp. 519, 528-259.

[4] In Fried’s list of haftarot that appears as an appendix to Volume X of the Talmudic Encyclopedia, Isaiah 1:19 is brought as an alternate haftara for Parashat Behukkotai.This was based on Zulay’s understanding in Zur Liturgie der babylonischen Juden, regarding a piyut  composed by “Yehuda” for “Im Behukotai” with verses beginning with Isaiah 1:21 Zulay believed Yehuda to be Babylonian,  that that was the haftara for this Parsha. However, evidence brought by van Bekkum in his introduction to “Hebrew Poetry from Late Antiquity: Liturgical Poems of Yehudah” shows that Yehuda was a Palestinian Paytan. In addition, Isaiah 1:24 was the haftara for Sedra “Im Behukkotai” in the Palestinian triennial cycle of Torah readings. See Ofer,  “Hahatfarot Al Pi Haminhag Hatlat -Shenati” (here). I would like to thank Prof. Yosef Yahalom for directing me to van Bekkum’s work.

[5] See Daat Mikra,  Vayikra Vol. 1, pp. 323-324. The other reasons given there seem less convincing, as this is not a haftara of rebuke.

[6] Albeck Edition, p. 181.

[7] “Peirush Al Hahaftarot”. p. 8.  The haftara for Behar  is missing in the Ginsburg-Moscow Ms.of Mahzor Vitry while it lists Jeremiah 16:19 as the haftara for Behokkotai. See Goldschhmidt edition, Vol.2, p. 579.

[8] Vol. 1, p. 54.

[9] P. 303.

[10] Mss. Breslau 9: Cambridge St. Johns A1: Vatican EBR 13 14 15 16:  Parma 1885 2046 2148 2818: 3083 3085:  British Library 9401 9403:

[11]  Ms. Vatican EBR 20.

[12] Printed in Hijar in 1486. Another humash with the same haftarot for these parashiyot is believed to have been printed in Spain as well. See the National Library of Israel website: here.

[13] The practice in Saragosa was to read the original Babylonian haftarot. See “The Massorah,” Vol. 2b, p. 486.

[14] The practice of reading Nahamu on the Sabbath following Tisha B’Av was much more prevalent than the practice of reading special haftarot in subsequent weeks. Rambam (Tefilla 13:19) writes that Nahamu was the “practice of the people,’ (Nahagu Haam) while he describes the practice of reading the other six haftarot of Consolation as a local custom.The Italian practice is to only read haftarot of Consolation for the remainder of Av, but this is not directly related to my main thesis, as Italians read Jeremiah 16:19 for Behar.

[15] Parshat Behar plays a unique role in the Ashkenazic liturgy for the Omer period. In the Western rite, R. Baruch of Mainz’s “Aharei Nimkar Geula Tihyeh Lo” is the zulat for that Sabbath, while in Eastern Ashkenaz the Geula “Yakush Ma’yano” is said. Both of these piyutim beseech Hashem, as our “close relative”, to perform the “commandment”of redeeming us. No other piyutim from the Omer liturgy are connected to the weekly parashiyot. However, in spite of the strong connection that Ashkenazic Jewry felt to the redemption commandments listed in Behar, is is unlikely that it is the reason for their choice of haftara, which appeared on the scene quite early, before the composition of these piyutim.

It is also worth noting that there has been a historical trend to eliminate haftarot of rebuke from the book  of Ezekiel,  but that doesn’t seem to be relevant to the haftara of Behukkotai as it is not a haftara of rebuke. See note 4.

[16] Unlike the old haftarot for Shemot (Ezekiel 16)and Bo (Isaiah 19) that were retained in some Spanish and Babylonian communities up to the present day. See the list in TE,  pp. 703-706.

[17] Humash L’maan Sh’mo B’Ahava claims that Libyan communities read Jeremiah 16:19 for Parashat Behar. No other sources back up this claim, and Luah Dinim U’Minhagim Yotzei Luv (2008, pp. 137-138) lists the “standard” haftarot for these parashiyot.

[18] See Mirsky, Shmuel K, in “Pinkas Bet Haknesset D’K”K Pozna” in “B’rcho L’Menachem”  p 262. The Poznan community preserved various customs with an Italian connection that either disappeared from the rest of Ashkenaz, or never got there in the first place.

For instance, they read Dirshu (Isaiah 55:6) as the haftara for the Sabbath between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur in years when there was a Sabbath between Yom Kippur and Sukkot long after that practice disappeared from the rest of Ashkenaz. See Mirsky, p. 264.
Moreover, during Minha of Yom Kippur they recited the kiklars of “Emunat Om Noteret” and “Efa’er L’Malki Bakodesh. The Kiklars come from the Kalirian kedushta “Odecha Bekol Areiv”, which is recited as the kedushta for Yom Kippur Minha in the Roman community. In Poznan they were inserted into the non-Kalirian Kedushta “Eitan Hikkir Emunatekha” which was recited in all Ashkenaz. (In Nusach Polin   only the  Koteret is inserted.) See Mirsky, p. 270, and Goldschmidt in the introduction to Mahzor L’yamim Nora’im, Vol. 2, pp. 45-46. I would like to thank Dr. Gabriel Wasserman for pointing this out to me.

Three New Books

By Eliezer Brodt

In this post I would like to briefly describe three new works, which are hot off the press. For a short time, copies of these three works can be purchased through me for a special price. Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog. Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for more information.

The first title is printed by the World Congress of Jewish Studies:

פירוש רש”י לספר משלי, ההדירה והוסיפה מבוא והערות ליסה פרדמן

Lisa Fredman’s, Rashi’s Commentary on the Book of Proverbs is a critical edition of Rashi on Mishlei based on numerous manuscripts. It includes a very extensive introduction and many valuable notes throughout the volume. Critical editions of Rashi are always welcome and very important, sadly not enough of them exist. One section in the introduction which I found interesting relates to Rashi and his responding to Christians and Christianity specifically in his work on Mishlei.

Here is the table of contents for this work:

מגנזי אירופה כרך שני  ההדיר והוסיף מבואות, שמחה עמנואל, 408 עמודים

The Second volume which I am very happy to announce is the publication of an important work which I have been eagerly waiting for, Professor Simcha Emanuel of the Hebrew University’s Talmud department’s volume of texts from the “European Genizah”, volume two. This volume was just printed by Mekitzei Nirdamim and is being sold by Magnes Press. [Volume one was mentioned earlier on the blog here]. For a sample chapter e mail me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com.

Professor Emanuel is considered one of the today’s greatest experts in Rishonic literature. He has produced numerous special works [such as this recent work, this, this and my favorite] and articles of both texts and material about them for quite some time. [Many of which are available here] All of which are of very high quality, showing an incredible breadth and depth in the material at hand. One area of specialty of his is finding long-lost works; this new volume continues this trend. It includes numerous newly discovered texts of Rishonim, with introductions and background of their importance and proof of identification. Some of the discoveries are simply put remarkable detective work, how he pieces together the various pieces of the puzzle.

The author writes in the abstract of the book as follows:

            The purpose of this volume, like its predecessor, is to uncover fragments of important Hebrew works hidden in the “European Genizah”. Thousands of pages of Hebrew manuscripts have been discovered in this “Genizah”, which is scattered in hundreds of libraries and archives throughout Europe and even beyond. In the late medieval and early modern eras, these pages were used to bind books and as folders of archival documents. In the first volume of this series, I published eleven new works from the “European Genizah”, prefacing them with a wide-ranging introduction about the nature of this “Genizah”. Nine additional works are published in the present volume.

            The works published herein are from a variety of genres: Biblical exegesis, Talmud commentary, halakhic literature, and liturgical interpretation. They appear in this volume in chronological order, from earliest to latest. The most significant of the works is also the work whose discovery required more effort than all of the others; it appears in the first chapter of the book. This work was written — I wish to argue — in ninth or tenth-century Palestine. It reveals valuable information on the history of halakhah in Palestine of that era, and also teaches a great deal about how Palestinian Traditions made their way to the European continent. This work still requires a great deal of study, and I hope that others come along to add to my words.   The fragments published here were identified in the collections of fourteen archives and libraries. These institutions, located throughout Europe, aptly reflect the dispersal of the European Geniza.

Here are the Table of Contents of this special work:

The third work is also printed by the World Congress of Jewish Studies.

שולמית אליצור, סוד משלשי קודש: הקדושתא מראשיתה ועד ימי רבי אלעזר בירבי קליר

This work Sod Meshalleshei Qodesh is written by Professor Shulamit Elizur (see here), one of the worlds leading experts on piyut. Some have claimed this work will change the study of piyut completely. In an interview published in Ami Magazine and reprinted with updates on the Seforim Blog (here) Elizur was asked:

Which sefer do you consider your biggest accomplishment— your magnum opus?”

She replied:

“The one I’m in the middle of writing right now. It’s a sefer on the history of the kedushta, which are the piyutim composed to be recited right before Kedushah. There are many chiddushim in that sefer and also things about Rabbi Elazar Hakalir that I discovered.”

This book is now out and is over one thousand pages!.

The following is the abstract of the book translated into English for the readers of the Seforim Blog by Dr. Gabriel Wasserman (and is not found in the actual book). This will give one a good idea of what the purpose of this work is:

Sod Meshalleshei Qodesh: The Qedushta From its Origins until the Time of Rabbi El‛azar berabbi Qillir

 A qedushta is a series of piyyutim for the ‘Amida prayer, which is expanded in honor of the recitation of the Qedusha, and includes many complex components. Its origins are in the Land of Israel, in the fourth or fifth century. We first see it as a constructed composition with set, complex, rules in the work of the poet Yannai, who lived in the mid-sixth century, the teacher of Rabbi El‛azar berabbi Qillir (who is known popularly as “the Qallir”). The qedushta, as it appears in the hundreds of compositions by Yannai and his followers, conceals many secrets: mysterious strings of biblical verses accompany its first components; a fixed biblical verse concludes the third component, followed by the strange words “El Na”; then comes a fourth component, whose structure is free, and always concludes, for some reason, with the word “Qadosh”; the fifth component in Yannai’s compositions is the ‘asiriya, a poem constructed of a truncated alphabetical acrostic from only aleph to yud, followed by a prayer beginning “El Na Le‘olam Tu‘aratz” – and it is unclear why this prayer appears here; then there is a group of poems called rahitim, which are written, for some reason, in unique, stereotypical structures. These are only a fraction of the various strange features of the qedushta’ot of Yannai and the other poets. The discussions in the book are dedicated to suggesting solutions to all these questions, and to others, and involve uncovering fragments of qedushta’ot that preceded Yannai; by examining these texts, they excavate the literary remains to construct a model of the gradual development of the qedushta over time, from its origins until it reached its complex structure in the days of Yannai and Rabbi El‛azar berabbi Qillir.

The first section of the book, which is the largest, is devoted to this development of the qedushta, in all its elements, including those that follow the recitation of Qedusha. Naturally, this section deals with the piyyutim mostly from a structural point of view, for only such an analysis can enable a comprehensive look at the development of the genre. However, as a base for these structural analyses, this section contains the texts of many piyyutim, mostly pre-classical (from the period before Yannai, when the poets did not yet use rhyme). Alongside them are printed classical rhyming piyyutim, too, from the period of Yannai and his colleagues, and, in a few instances, even piyyutim from later periods.

The second section of the book focuses on one single poet: Rabbi El‛azar berabbi Qillir, the most prolific of the classical poets in the Land of Israel, whose poems reached Europe, and some of them are recited in Ashkenazic and Italian synagogues through today. The qedushta’ot of Rabbi El‛azar berabbi Qillir are varied in both their structures and their styles, much more than those of Yannai; this section is devoted to an analysis of these compositions, and an attempt to map out which ones are earlier and which later. On the basis of precise structural analysis, the section builds a higher level of analysis – stylistic; and thus we see the picture of the great poet’s literary journey. It becomes clear that when he was started out, he was heavily influenced by the work of Yannai, and slowly he created new ways for himself: at first he went in the direction of obscurity and difficulty, which he gradually made more and more obscure; but then, in a later, more mature phase, he turned to pure lyrical song, which today’s reader, too, will find sweet.

The third section leaves aside the structural analyses, and suggests directions for further research. This section is short, and contains only first steps towards new directions in piyyut analysis. It focuses primarily on content, and ways that the qedushta’ot are organized, but it moves on to questions of how the qedushta is constructed as a complete composition, and points out various difficulties that the poets needed to overcome, and analyzes at length their literary solutions to these problems. Yannai stands at the center of the discussion in this section, but there are also notes about other poets. Most of the suggested directions for further research are new, and we hope that they will lead to further productive scholarship, and make it possible to study the piyyutim from angles that have hitherto been less examined.

Throughout the book, phenomena are demonstrated by means of the texts of piyyutim. More than 250 piyyutim are printed in the book, of which about 130 are being printed for the first time. Most of these piyyutim are from the earlier periods of piyyut, and their publication in this volume reveals the full contribution of these layers of the genre to our understanding of the history of the qedushta. Even the piyyutim that have already been printed elsewhere often were published in out-of-the-way publications, some of them with no vowels or commentary. It goes without saying that for this volume, these texts were all printed anew straight from the manuscripts. When pieces from Yannai’s work are cited to exemplify some point, an attempt has been made, inasmuch as possible, to use pieces that have not been included in the existing publications of his work, and thus the volume contributes a great amount of new material to the corpus of Yannai’s piyyutim. The volume as a whole is based on examination of hundreds of manuscripts, mostly from the Cairo Geniza, and these provide a wide, firm textual basis to the analysis.

The book is intended first and foremost for scholars, but it will also enable people interested in piyyut and its history from outside the world of academia to gain exposure to a great corpus of early piyyutim, among which are several stunningly beautiful gems, which are being published here for the first time.

For the Hebrew abstract email me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

Here is the table of contents: