Berakhot Koren Talmud Bavli and Ein Aya

by Chaim Katz

Berakhot Koren Talmud Bavli (KE) is a translation (into English) of Rav Adin Even-Yisrael Steinsaltz’s Hebrew edition of tractate Berakhot. It comprises the text of the Talmud, the in-line commentary, the explanation of foreign words, the mini-studies (iyunim), the biographies of selected sages, the description of cultural objects (hahayim), descriptions of fauna and flora and more. As far as I’ve noticed, they never mention in the front matter nor in the advertising blurbs that they added informational notes that don’t appear in the original edition, but there are more than 100 new notes in Berakhot KE.

In this paper, I’d like to present an overview of the new notes, and specifically examine the notes based on Ein Aya [1] – Rav Kook’s commentary to Ein Yaakov. [2]

I had a few questions about the notes based on Ein Ayah:

1. In the Hebrew edition, Rav Adin created a bibliography of all the sources he used to compile his explanations. The list contains about 100 entries that stretch from Baal Halakhot Gedolot and Sheiltot (8th century) to Rabbi Akiba Eger (died 1837), the Hatam Sofer (died 1839), and  commentaries printed in the Vilna Shas and the Vilna Ein Yaakov, e.g., Maharatz Chajes (died 1855), Rav Samuel Strashun (died 1872), Rav Hanokh Zundel the author of Etz Yosef (died 1867).  Rav Adin did not incorporate any 20th century authors in his commentary. KE made an exception and included Rav Kook. What is the reason?
2. Ein Aya is not really an explanation of Ein Yaakov. Rav Kook points out in its introduction that his work uses Ein Yaakov as a starting point. However, his goal was to expand the literature of Aggadah and produce a new type of reading material based upon ethical ideas in Jewish philosophy, kabbalah, musar and hassidut. Does KE realize that Ein Aya is not a commentary like the others?
3.  Ein Aya is very long. A haggadic statement that Maharsha devotes 15 lines of explanation to, is discussed by Rav Kook in about 60 lines (30 lines of double column text). How will KE summarize all that material? [3]

First, I’ll briefly review some of the new notes in KE and then examine a few passages quoted from Ein Aya. The following are new:

1 KE Daf 16b (page 112) has a biography of Rav Safra which is copied from the Hebrew edition Moed Kattan 25a

2 KE Daf 57b (page 371) has a biography of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha copied from Gittin 58a

3 KE Daf 64a (page 409) has a note about the Chaldean astrologers, which is copied from the Hebrew Shabbat 156b. 

4 KE Daf 17b (page 115) has a note about Jesus the Nazarene copied from the Hebrew Edition Sotah 47a.

5 KE Daf 9b, (page 59) there is a note about tekhelet, similar but different from the notes in Menahot 38a  .

6 KE Daf 12b, (page 82) has a long note about tzizit – ritual fringes

7 KE Daf 13b, (page 91) there’s a definition of kavanah – intent

8 KE Daf 13b, (page 92) has a diagram of the placement of the tefillin on the arm and hand. 

9 KE Daf 56b, (page 365) has a note describing a lion. 

10 KE Daf 56b, (page 367) has a note describing an elephant. 

11 KE Daf 41a, (page 270) has notes for: radish, olive, wheat, barley, and fig. The following page has a definition of a date. 

12 KE Daf 59a (page 382) has a note about a rainbow.

13 KE Daf 7a, (page 42) has an unattributed explanation based on the words: “When I wanted you did not want . . . “.  The explanation is from Maharsha. 

14 KE Daf 10a, (page 64) has a comment concerning the relationship of the Holy One Blessed is He and the world. This explanation comes from Etz Yosef.

15 KE Daf 11b, (page 74) has an unattributed very long note about abounding love אהבה רבה and eternal love אהבת עולם. The note is taken verbatim from The Long Shorter Way (Chapter 4 – Two Ways of Loving G-d) [4].

16 KE Daf 51a, (page 323) has a clarification of a statement made by the angel Suriel. This is from the Maharsha. 

17 KE Daf 58a, (page 374) has an explanation concerning the statement: “When Samaria was cursed, its neighbors were blessed”. The explanation comes from Anaf Yosef.

18 KE Daf 17a (page 114) There is a short note about the “Divine Presence” (although it’s not the first time that the word שכינה appears in the tractate.)

My sense is that the Steinsaltz Hebrew edition only introduces a note when there is a problem (on the page) that the additional note might solve. KE relaxes this constraint. I’ll illustrate this difference using the first example in the above list. We read in our Gemara:

 After his prayer, Rav Safra would add: “May it be Your will, G-d our G-d, that You make peace among the members of the heavenly court…”

Rav Safra is one of many sages quoted. There is no problem that needs to be solved. The KE has a biography of Rav Safra that ends this way:

Since Rav Safra was an itinerant merchant, he never established his own yeshiva and did not spend much time in the study hall. Therefore, there were those among the Sages who held that he was unlike other Rabbis, that all are required to mourn their passing. 

This is a strange piece of information which doesn’t look like it belongs in a biography. However, the Talmud Moed Kattan 25a, records the following discussion:

When R. Safra died, the students did not rend their clothes for him, since, they said, we have not learned from him. Abaye argued with them: Does the baraita say: ‘When a teacher dies’? Rather it says ‘when a scholar dies’.  Moreover, every day in the study hall we discuss his interpretations of the halakha. 

KE’s biography was copied from Rav Adin’s biography in Moed Katan. 

There are many other examples of notes in KE that were copied from one location to another. They usually don’t fit very well in the destination location. In general, the notes regarding the religious objects add value. The notes describing the obvious (e.g., lion and elephant) are probably included for their esthetics.

Concerning Ein Aya: First, I’ll present the note, my translation and the Hebrew text of Ein Aya side by side and then I’ll discuss the note briefly. 

1 KE Daf 9a (Page 57), Ain Aya Berakhot 1 112 

When the children of Israel were redeemed from Egypt, they were redeemed only in the evening. And when they left, they left only during the day: There are two separate elements to the transition from slavery to freedom. First, the slave acquires a personal sense of freedom and becomes master of his own fate. Second, he becomes free in the eyes of others, i.e., he is perceived by those surrounding him as a free man and has the potential to influence them. With regard to the children of Israel, the first element enabled them to receive the Torah and elevate themselves with the fulfillment of G-d’s commandments. The second element provided Israel with the opportunity to become a “light unto the nations.” Therefore, the redemption was divided into two stages. The first stage, in which they acquired private, personal freedom, took placed at night; the second stage, which drew the attention of the world to the miracle of the Exodus, took place during the day.

R. Aba said: All agree that when Israel was redeemed from Egypt, they were redeemed specifically during the night, and when they left Egypt, they left specifically during the daytime. Redemption from slavery to freedom in general has two effects on an entire nation: 1) An inner liberation and exaltedness that it senses when it exchanges the submissiveness of slavery for autonomy and self-determination. 2) A freedom to perform actions that impact the world.  In Israel these two effects are more pronounced. For the inner freedom is the beginning of their own perfection – developing holy behaviors in Torah, its mitzvot and its wisdom. While the outer public freedom allows Israel to be a light to the nations. A great part of the latter mission has already been accomplished even in our time and will be fully completed when G-d has compassion on His nation. For from Zion will the Torah go forth (Is. 2:3), Even the people in the far-way lands will wait to hear Torah of Israel (Is. 42:4) Therefore, the redemptions are divided into two parts. When Israel was redeemed from Egypt – the inner redemption – this occurred during the nighttime. For the main point is not publicity or exposure to others, but a strong sense of their inner liberation. When they left, they specifically left during the daytime, publicly and openly for all the nations of the world to see, to demonstrate their worldly mission of instructing, benefiting and illuminating all of mankind with the light of G-d as it is written: Nations will walk in your light, kings in your glorious light. (Is. 60 3)

א”ר אבא הכל מודים כשנגאלו ישראל ממצרים לא נגאלו אלא בערב, וכשיצאו לא יצאו אלא ביום . הגאולה מעבדות לחירות בכלל, פועלת בכלל עם-שלם שני עניינים. האחד הוא החופש שירגיש בנפשו התרוממות שיצא מכלל שפלות העבדות ונעשה בן חורין ואדון לעצמו. והשני הוא הפעולה הנגלית בעולם, בהיותו עם חפשי חי ופועל. ובישראל עוד יתר שאת לשני אלה, כי החופש הפנימי הוא התחלה לשלמות עצמם, בקדושת המדות בתורה ומצותי’ וחכמתה. והחופש הגלוי החיצוני, הוא עומד בישראל להיות לאור גויים, כאשר כבר נעשה חלק גדול מזה גם לעת כזאת, ויגמר בתכליתו לעת ירחם ד’ את עמו, כי מציון תורה תצא ולתורת ישראל איים ייחלון.  ע”כ נחלקו הגאולות לשני חלקים, כשנגאלו ישראל ממצרים הגאולה הפנימית, היינו מבערב, שע”ז אין העיקר הידיעה והפרסום של זולתם, כי אם ההרגשה הטובה בחופשתם הפנימית. וכשיצאו לא יצאו אלא ביום, ביד רמה גלוי לכל יושבי תבל, להורות על פעולתם הגלויה בעולם, להשכיל להיטיב לכל ברואי בצלם להאיר באור ד’, כדבר שנאמר “וְהָלְכוּ גוֹיִם לְאוֹרֵךְ וּמְלָכִים לְנֹגַהּ זַרְחֵךְ

KE skipped the nuance that Rav Kook was speaking about nations and not individuals. It also decided that redemption occurs in two stages, while Rav Kook only said that redemption has two components to it. They stopped short and didn’t capture the emphasis that Rav Kook placed on enlightening the nations (probably with the Noachide laws), but on the whole, it’s a fairly accurate summary.

2 KE Daf 10b, (page 65), Ain Aya Berakhot 1 141

From the chambers [kirot] of his heart – Often prayer is viewed as an act that combines the spiritual and the intellectual. There is a cognitive awareness of the necessity to turn to G-d in our time of need. When there is a pressing need, calling for a higher level of prayer, there can be an authentic call emanating from a person’s very heart, as the Psalmist declares: “My heart and my flesh sing for joy unto the living G-d” (Psalms 84:3)

Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed. Why wall? Rabbi Shimon b Lakish said: From the walls of his heart. There is a prayer that accompanies emotions that are intellectual, when the intellect perceives the value of the necessity of praying and recognizes the great worth of prayer. For the intellect is associated with the spirit of the heart, which resides in the chamber of the heart.  However, when one fortifies oneself in prayer so much so that the body’s powers are aroused by the feelings generated by prayer, then the prayer affects the body, not just the soul. This is called praying from the walls of the heart. Namely, not just with the spirit, which is in the chamber of the heart, but also with physical vitality as it written: my heart and my flesh sing to the living G-d (Psalms 84:3)

ויסב חזקי’ את פניו אל הקיר ויתפלל. מאי קיר ארשב”ל מקירות לבו יש תפילה שבאה ברגש שכלי, שהשכל משקיף על ערך הנחיצות להתפלל ומכיר גדולת ערך התפילה. והנה השכל מיוחס לרוח הלב השורה בחלל הלב. אבל כשמגביר ברחמים עד שגם כוחות הגופניים מתפעלים מרגשי התפילה, ונמצא שהתפילה פועלת על הגוף לא על הנפש לבדה, נקרא שמתפלל מקירות הלב. כלומר לא מהרוח לבדו שהוא בחלל הלב, כ”א גם בהתפעלות בשרית, כמו שכתוב “לבי ובשרי ירננו אל אל חי”.

This is a more difficult piece, particularly because we don’t relate to the view that (one side of) the heart is filled with spirit. We don’t identify with the description of the heart as a source of emotion and we no longer think of intellect affecting the flesh of the heart (but that’s another discussion).

The main problem with KE’s translation, is that Rav Kook is speaking here about the influence that prayer has on the person. He’s not speaking about “a higher level of prayer . . . an authentic call emanating from a person’s very heart”. He’s saying that a person can change himself through prayer.  He can change his thoughts (chamber of the heart) and he can even change his character (walls of the heart). KE’s translation misses all of this. It misses the distinction between walls and chamber, and it misses the connection to the verse from Psalms that Rav Kook cites.

(It’s not the right place now to trace the history of the idea that the person refines and elevates himself through prayer. See maybe Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch on Devarim 11:13, or Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Shiurim l’Zecher Aba Mori z”l  volume 2, page 29 and other places there.)

3 KE Daf 63b, (page 408), Ain Aya Berakhot 9 344

Matters of Torah are only retained by one who kills himself over it [5] While educators often try to make Torah study easier because they believe that doing so will lead students to accumulate more information and Torah knowledge, their approach is fundamentally flawed. The significance of Torah education is qualitative, not quantitative. It is not the sheer volume of knowledge amassed; it is the quality of the Torah wisdom that is attained. Simplistic, facile methods of study do not facilitate deep understanding. That can only be achieved through hard work and serious effort

The school of R. Yannai taught: What is the meaning of (Mishle 30:33) The culturing of milk produces fermented milk (yogurt) …  In whom do you find fermented milk of Torah, in the one who spits out the milk he nursed from his mother.   There are many educators who pride themselves for introducing methods that make learning simpler. They imagine they’ll benefit the world by transmitting lessons and knowledge of Torah in an undemanding way, eliminating the need to for a person to work.  This assistance is misguided. Knowledge isn’t measured by quantity but by quality, according to depth and perceptiveness that enable the student to apply the knowledge to any situation. More so regarding Torah knowledge, which is measured by the profound impression on the student in his ethical personality, virtuous behavior, and pure fear of Heaven. Success will come when the studies do not follow an easy and undemanding curriculum. For through exertion and mental effort, a person is elevated to ethical behaviors, and turns with love and longing toward wisdom and holiness. The learning affects him such that he’s entirely dedicated and devoted to his lessons. Learning specifically with great effort produces a deep understanding, clarity in knowledge, and the pleasing way of serving G-d, fearing Him, and purifying one’s character.  Studies that are acquired easily, without exertion and tremendous struggle will always be superficial, frozen and detached from the person’s inner soul. They will have minimal impact on his behavior and personality.  Therefore, the fermented milk of Torah, the choice purified portion of Torah, the key aspect, clarified by deep thought and profound understanding that strengthens the soul in the fear G-d, and in the ways of holiness in whom will it be found? Only in one who was raised laboring in Torah and acquired Torah by following the beaten paths of strenuous effort and great toil; who distances himself from his childhood pleasures so that his Torah was not acquired though childish games.  He spits out the sweet milk he nursed from his mother

אמרי דבי ר”י: מאי דכתיב (משלי ל לג): “כי מיץ חלב יוציא חמאה במי אתה מוצא חמאה של תורה? – במי שמקיא חלב שינק משדי אמו עליה” רבים הם הפדגוגים המתנשאים להביא דרכים להקל את עול הלימוד, וחושבים שיביאו ברכה לעולם בהקנותם את הידיעות והלימודים התורניים באופן קל, שלא יצטרך האדם להיות עמל בהם. תועלת הדבר אינה אמנם אלא מתעה, כי הידיעות לא תימדדנה על פי כמותם כי אם על פי איכותם, על פי עומק ההבנה וחריפות השימוש בהם לכל חפץ.ביותר לימודי התורה, על פי גודל הרושם שפועלים על הלומד, לענין התכונה של המוסר המעשים הטובים ויראת ה’ הטהורה.  ובזאת יהיה מועיל רק הלימוד שאינו בא בדרכים קלים ונוחים לקלוט, כי על-ידי היגיעה ועבודה שכלית מתעלה האדם למידות נעלות, ולהיות נוטה אל השכל ואל כל דברי קודש באהבה וחפץ לב, והלימוד פועל עליו להיות כולו נתון ומסור ללימודיו. על-כן יצא מהלמוד שעל-ידי היגיעה דווקא, עומק ההבנה והידיעה הברורה עם הפעולה הרצויה לעבודת ה’ ויראתו וכל טהרת המדות.  אבל הלימודים הנכנסים באופן קל, בלא יגיעה ועבודה כבירה, ישארו לעולם שטחיים וקפויים, עומדים מחוץ לנפשו של אדם הפנימית, ופועלים מעט על מעשיו ועל יצרי לבבו. ע”כ חמאה של תורה, הברור והמובחר שבה, העיקרי, המחוור בעומק רעיון ושום שכל והמרבה אומץ הנפש ביראת ה’ ודרכי קודש במי תמצא? רק במי שנתגדל על עבודת התורה בעמל, וקנה אותה בדרכים כבושים שע”י יגיעה ועבודה רבה, שעמדו לו להתרחק מן הילדות וכל געגועיה, לבלתי קנותם בדרך שעשועי ילדים, כ”א מקיא חלב שינק משדי אמו עליה

KE, missed the point here as well. Rav Kook isn’t speaking about education or Torah education. It’s not about “deep understanding that can only be achieved through hard work and serious effort” 

He’s speaking about love of G-d. The fermented milk of Torah represents the Torah studies that, under the proper conditions, lead the person to the love of G-d. Knowledge isn’t sufficient; one must labor and exert himself in these Torah studies and only then will they succeed in leading him to holiness.  

(The basis of Rav Kook’s idea might be in the Sifre Devarim (on Deut. 6 6) quoted by Maimonides Book of Commandments, Positive #3, “You shall love G-d your G-d with all your heart’, can I know how to love G-d? The Torah therefore says: These words which I command you today shall be upon your heart. Thus, you will come to recognize the One who spoke and the world was created and you’ll cling to His ways.)

4 KE Daf 10a, (page 62), Ain Aya Berakhot 1 128  

David… resided in five worlds and said a song of praise corresponding to each of them: There is a tremendous difference between looking upon an experience in a superficial manner and reflecting upon it and contemplating it. An individual who merely sees the external will not come to understand the deeper, spiritual significance of a given experience or encounter. Natural events like pregnancy, birth and nursing may seem to be mundane events experienced by humans and animals alike. However, one with a higher level of spiritual discernment will appreciate the vast difference between man and animal. King David’s songs of praise, uttered at every stage of life, attest to the magnitude of his sensitivity to G-d’s beneficence and to his appreciation of His role in the world.

He lived inside his mother’s womb and offered songs of thanksgiving; he went out into the air of the world… One who looks at the real world superficially cannot recognize the grandeur and beauty of the majesty of G-d nor the splendour of the human soul, as his perception of the real world is based exclusively on obvious visible traces of wisdom. In the words of the Duties of the Heart, (Hovot HaLevavot by Bahya ibn Pakuda Spain 11th century): based on the obvious visible traces of wisdom in the real world, both the intelligent man and the fool are equivalent.  On the other hand, the truly gifted person will find hidden insights in the very things that didn’t inspire or elevate the person who looks at the world superficially. The truly gifted person will recognize the line of kindness that extends through all creations from their beginnings to their ultimate purpose. He will appreciate G-d’s wonders and thank Him. With happiness he will sing for G-d and for His goodness. He will recognize the majesty of his own soul that perceives the grandeur of the glorious King. Therefore, David (peace to him), who combined in himself depth of knowledge with sweet Divine song, sang about things that are discerned only with wisdom and deep contemplation.  He lived inside his mother’s womb…   Seemingly, there is no reason to be amazed. The experience is similar for a human or any other animal that doesn’t speak. In the womb, the human embryo is just like an amphibian or a lizard, the lowest rungs in the animal hierarchy.  But when he reflects deeply, that in this lowly state all organs and limbs, which will serve the loftiest powers of the soul, are being completed. Not one is missing. If so, how great is the work taking place in the womb for the design of a person. Then, being so far from perfection, all the material and spiritual abilities he will later need are developing so that he’ll develop into a refined ethical person, who embraces in his brain and mind, the foundations of the world and its infinite expanses.

דר במעי אמו ואמר שירה, יצא לאויר העולם  . . .  הבדל יש בין המסתכל רק בהשקפה שטחית על המציאות, הוא לא יוכל להכיר רוממות ה’ והדר גאונו ועם זה הוד נפש האדם, רק מהדברים הגלויים בסימני החכמה שבמציאות. כדברי חוה”ל, שבסימני החכמה הגלויים המשכיל והכסיל שוין בהם.  אבל החכם האמיתי, הוא יחדור אל סימני החכמה הצפונים, שלעין הרואה רק חיצוניות הדברים לא יולד מהנה שום רוממות נפש. אבל החכם האמיתי, יכיר החוט של חסד ההולך בכל המעשים כולם מהתחלתם עד מטרתם, ויכיר נפלאות השם ית’ ויודה לשמו. ומטוב לב ישיר על ד’ ועל טובו, ויכיר הוד נפשו המכרת את הדרת מלך הכבוד. ע”כ דוד ע”ה שבו חובר עומק הדעת עם נועם השירה האלהית, אמר שירה על הדברים שרק בחכמה והשקפה רבה יוכר הודם ופלאם.  דר במעי אמו, לפי החיצוניות אין להפליא כ”כ, מקרה האדם בזה כמו שאר החיים הבלתי מדברים, אז הוא במדרגת השרצים ג”כ שהם במדרגה הנמוכה של מערכת החי.  אבל כשהתבונן, כי בהיותו במצב הנמוך הזה אז נגמרו ונוצרו כל יצוריו כולם, וכל האיברים המשמשים לכוחות הנפש היותר נשגבות אחד מהם לא נעדר. א”כ מה רבה התכונה הנעשה בבטן המלאה ביצירת האדם, שאז במצב רחוק משלמות והתפתחות כזה, צריכים שיוכנו לו כל הכוחות וכל הכלים הרוחניים והגשמיים שיצטרכו לו בהיותו אדם המעלה, המחבק זרועות עולם ומרחבי אין קץ בדעו ושכלו.

Here too, I think, KE missed the point. It’s not about “the vast difference between man and animal”, which Rav Kook never mentioned. Rav Kook picks the theory of recapitulation to explain David’s song. According to the theory (which was immensely popular in the second half of the 19th century), the stages of embryonic development correspond to adult stages in the evolution of the species (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny). That’s why Rav Kook writes: the human embryo is then like an amphibian.  But the theory is based on superficial similarities. The truly wise man looks beyond the superficiality and sees that each embryonic phase is not an evolutionary ancestor, but a point on a line extending from the person’s beginning to his birth. Each point on the line contains a hidden potential that will unfold and finally develop into a moral and ethical man. The insight (probably disproves the theory and) results in a greater appreciation of the Creator’s kindness, which is the song of praise that David sings.

We can now come back and answer the three questions that I posed earlier. 1) KE is not looking at Ein Aya as a typical commentary; that’s why they had no problem including Rav Kook’s words in the Berakhot volume.  Additionally, I guess, the writers or editors have an admiration and affinity for Rav Kook and wanted to include some writings of his. 2) KE knows that in quoting a section from Ein Aya they are not explaining the text of the Talmud. Instead, they are attempting to follow the path of Ein Aya; to add thoughts and reading material of an ethical nature to KE. 3) It looks (at least in these few examples) that KE translated only the first few sentences of the Ein Aya section and then wrote up their own conclusions. They probably didn’t read to the end of the Ein Aya section(?), or if they did, they decided to “keep it simple”. I guess this can be excused too. In one of these notes they did write “see Ein Aya” instead of just attributing the section to Ein Aya.

Maybe the new notes in KE Berakhot aren’t of the same calibre as the original notes in the Hebrew edition. Still, they make the learning more interesting and more attractive. For this we should be thankful.

[1] Ein Aya is a work by Rav Kook on the Aggadah in Ein Yaakov, published by Makhon HaRav Tzvi Yehuda, Jerusalem. It consists of 4 volumes covering Berakhot and most of Shabbat. Though it was written over 100 years ago it was only published recently (approximately between 1995 and 2005). The text is also available at https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/
[2] Ein Yaakov is a collection of aggada from the Talmud Babli, by Rabbi Yaakov Ibn Habib (died 1516)
[3] I’m using as my example: Daf 3a “Rabbi Eliezer said: The night consists of three watches… during the first watch a donkey brays, during the second the dogs howl, during the third the infant nurses from its mother and a wife speaks with her husband”
[4] The Long Shorter Way, Discourses on Chasidic Thought, by Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, edited and translated by Yehuda Hanegbi, Koren/Maggid Publishers. Based on a series of lectures delivered by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz on Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi’s classic Chasidic work, the Tanya.
[5] There is a printing mistake here. They mixed up the passage’s key words (דיבור המתחיל) with another comment.  I’m not sure if this mistake affected the subsequent translation. 

An enigmatic Pseudo-Shklov edition of Barukh She’amar[1]

By Marvin J. Heller

A title-page describing the work as an 1820 Shklov press publication is indicative of an enigmatic pseudo-edition of Baruch She’amar, a halakhot work pertaining to Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot by R. Simeon bar Eliʻezer (d. c. 1360). The author of Barukh She’amar, R. Simeon bar Eliʻezer (d. c. 1360), was born in Saxony, Germany and died in Eretz Israel. Orphaned at the age of eight, Simeon was adopted and raised by R. Issachar, a scribe who taught Simeon his craftsmanship, at which Shimon developed such expertise that R. Solomon ben Jehiel Luria (Maharshal, c. 1510-1574) referred to Simeon as “the head of all scribes.”[2]

There is confusion as to the actual dates and places of printing of this imprint. The title-page clearly gives Shklov as the place of printing and dates it with the chronogram “[We must] teach the children of Judah the archer’s bow קסת [קשת] ללמד בני יהודה  (580 = 1820)” (II Samuel 1:18). However, to get the date 1820 the shin ש (300) in the verse has been replaced with a sameh ס (60) for the total of 580 = 1820. Nevertheless, bibliographic sources are in agreement that the publication place of the 1820 Barukh She’amar was Minkowce (Minkovtsy), a village in Podolia near Belarus in north-eastern Poland. However, there were earlier editions of Baruch She’amar issued in Dubno in 1796 and again in Shklov in 1804.

The two presses noted in conjunction with the printing of the subject editions of Baruch She-Amar are in Shklov and Minkowce (Minkovtsy). The former location, Shklov, is in the Mogilev region of Belaurus on the Dnieper river, approximately 410 km. from Vilna. It was home to a Jewish community dating to the late seventeenth century. A charter permitting Jewish settlement in Shklov was first received in 1668. Not long after, according to a visiting diplomat in 1699, Jews were “the richest and most influential class of people in the city.” By 1776 the Jewish population of Shkolov was 1,367. Shklov was an intellectual center as well as being an important commercial center in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.[3] Hebrew presses in Shklov date to the late eighteenth century and as many as 226 Hebrew titles are attributed to that location until 1835. Minkowce, in contrast, is in the Kamenets-Podolski district of the Ukraine. A smaller community, its Jewish population in 1765 was 375. A Hebrew press was active there from 1795 to 1812, publishing almost forty titles.[4]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1804, Baruch She’amar, Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1820, Baruch She’amar, Courtesy of Virtual Judaica

Entries in bibliographic works for Baruch She’amar consistently question the title-page of the 1820 edition’s place of publication when recording this work. Ch. B. Friedberg, in the Bet Eked Sefarim, records several editions of Baruch She’amar, among them [Minkowce 1795], Shklov 1804, and [Minkowce 1820]. In his Hebrew typography in Poland Friedberg records Baruch She’amar under Minkowce, 1796 and 1820 and under Shklov the 1804 edition of that work, dated קסת ללמד בני יהודה (564 = 1804). Vinograd, in the Thesaurus, lists a 1795 edition of Baruch She’amar referencing Friedberg, noting that it is questionable and an 1820 edition in which the title-page states Shklov, and in the entry for that work under the latter location has 1804 and 1820 entries, and for the 1820 edition referring the reader to Minkowce. Apart from these editions there was, as noted above, a prior 1796 Dubno imprint as well as several later editions.[5]

The text and format of the 1804 and 1820 editions are alike, both quartos (4⁰: 32 ff.) and the title-pages of the two editions of Baruch She’amar even employ the same chronogram, modified to reflect the date of publication. Both title-pages credit R. Israel ben Issachar Ber from Ohilov for bringing the book to press, apparently the latter a repetition from the earlier printing. However, the 1804 Baruch She’amar names the printers as Aryeh ben Menahem, Aryeh Leib ben Schneer Feibush, Abraham ben Jacob, and Shabbetai ben Ziyyon as the printers. In contrast, the 1820 edition does not name the printer.

Abraham Yaari has entries for both Shklov and Minkowce in his bibliographical articles on those locations. In his article on Shklov he writes that a partial edition of Baruch She’amar had been printed previously in Dubno in 1796 and this, the 1804 edition, was the first complete printing of that work. He adds that Friedberg’s entries are in error and that the 1820 [Shklov] edition does not exist. Concerning the 1820 Minkowce edition, Yaari informs that there is an approbation from R. Judah Leib ben Zevi ha-Kohen Av Bet Din in Minkowce dated 11 Kislev 1820 (November 29, 1819) who refers to the earlier Minkowce printing and states that it is now being reprinted here, that is, in Minkowce. Yaari again takes issue with Friedberg, concluding “in truth, a complete edition was first printed in Shklov in 1804 (and based on that edition it was printed in Minkowce in 1820). A partial edition was printed in Dubno in 1796 and perhaps this is the reason for the errors.”[6]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1796, Barukh She’amar, Courtesy of the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad Ohel Yosef Yitzhak

While Yaari does appear to accurately summarize these editions he does not explain why the title-page of the 1820 Baruch She’amar clearly states Shklov as the place of printing rather than Minkowce. It is well known that in several instances the place of printing and the publication dates were modified to mislead the censor. However, that is not the case with other titles printed in both of our locations and the subject matter of Baruch She’amar on the halakhot pertaining to scribal arts is not one likely to attract the censor’s attention.

The printers of the 1820 edition removed the names of the printers from the 1804 title-page; it seems highly unlikely that they would have omitted correcting the publication place name. Moreover, even if in copying the title-page from the previous edition had been an oversight such an improbable error, if it  had occurred, would certainly have quickly necessitated a stop-press correction. Even if caught later it seems improbable that the publisher would have distributed the work as is. Moreover, it also seems improbable that this copy of the 1804 edition would have been subject to copyright restrictions. There is another important omission from the 1820 edition, that is, the editor, Israel ben Aryeh Leib’s apologia, at the end of the work.

There are, however, in addition to those noted above, significant likenesses between the two works. First, excepting the front matter and apologia, the texts are set, line for line, in an identical manner. Moreover, the fonts appear to be alike. The reader should compare the two like pages below and drew his/her own conclusion. Perchance, the Minkowce printer acquired remaining copies of the 1804 edition, added the new front and back matter and reissued the work. Why did he do so?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1804, Baruch She’amar, Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1820, Baruch She’amar , Courtesy of Virtual Judaica

Perhaps, and this is highly speculative, he felt that publishing this edition of Baruch She’amar as a pseudo-Shklov publication would give it greater marketability. If so, that should also have been true as well of other Minkowce publications. Or maybe he simply did not want to put his name on someone else’s work. Finally, we are left with the question as to why R. Judah Leib ben Zevi ha-Kohen’s approbation, which helps identify the place of publication, was printed with Baruch She’amar. Possibly including the approbation was important for the reasons that approbations were obtained, and it certainly would have been unconscionable, having gotten the Av Bet Din‘s approbation, to not print it.

We are left with a teku (an unresolved question).

[1] I would like to thank Eli Amsel of Virtual Judaica for bringing the 1820 edition of Baruch She-amar to my attention and Eli Genauer for reading the article and for his corrections.
[2] Hirsch Goldwurm, ed., The Rishonim (Brooklyn, 1982), p. 147.
[3] The Encyclopedia of Jewish life Before and During the Holocaust, editor in chief, Shmuel Spector; consulting editor, Geoffrey Wigoder; foreword by Elie Wiesel II (New York, 2001), III p. 1170; Yeshayahu Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book. Part I Indexes. Books and Authors, Bibles, Prayers and Talmud, Subjects and Printers, Chronology and Languages, Honorees and Institutes. Part II Places of print sorted by Hebrew names of places where printed including author, subject, place, and year printed, name of printer, number of pages and format, with annotations and bibliographical references II (Jerusalem, 193-95), pp. 689-95 [Hebrew].
[4] The Encyclopedia of Jewish II (New York, 2001.). p. 826). Vinograd II pp.457-458.
[5] Ch. B. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim (Tel Aviv, 1951), bet 1431 [Hebrew]; idem. History of Hebrew Typography in Poland from its beginning in the year 1534 and its development to the present. . . . Second Edition, Enlarged, improved and revised from the sources (\(Tel Aviv, 1950), pp. 91,121, 123 [Hebrew]; Yeshayahu Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book. Listing of Books Printed in Hebrew Letters Since the Beginning of Printing circa 1469 through 1863 II (Jerusalem, 1993-95), pp. 457, 458, 692, 694 [Hebrew].
[6] Avraham Yaari, “Hebrew Printing in Minkovtsy,” Kiryat Sefer 19 (1942-43), pp. 274-75 [Hebrew]; idem. “Hebrew Printing in Shklov,” KS 22 (1945-46), pp. 141-42 [Hebrew].

Concerning Athei Merahiq, Nasog Ahor, and the Ravia Mugrash, and More

by Rabbi Avi Grossman

(The author would like to express his gratitude to those who supported the recent publication of his Haggadat Hapesah. Contact him at avrohom.grossman@gmail.com to obtain a copy. Parts of this post originally appeared here.)

Recently, I was privileged to be part of a fun-yet-esoteric discussion on matters of Hebrew grammar. First, some background: there is a grammatical phenomenon in Biblical Hebrew known as “nasog ahor,” literally, “stepped back.” In certain words that are accented on the last syllable but have an earlier syllable that is open, sometimes the accent is shifted to that earlier syllable if the proceeding, grammatically connected word is accented on one of its earlier syllables. Examples with which many are familiar include the blessing on the Torah, wherein the word בחר, when connected to the next word, BA-nu, becomes “a-sher BA-har BA-nu,” or the blessing on the bread, wherein the word would normally be ham-mo-TZI, but when connected to LE-hem, it becomes ham-MO-tzi LE-hem. 

The second is a phenomenon that is often a consequence of the first, and it is not well known at all. “Athei merahiq,” lit. “coming from afar,” is when a word ends with an open, unaccented syllable vowelized with a qamatz or segol and is joined to the proceeding word that is accented on the first syllable, placing a dagesh in the first letter of that latter word. The fact that the first word’s last syllable is unaccented may be due to the “stepped back” phenomenon described above, but not always. Examples that come to mind from recent Torah readings include Genesis 30:33, w’A-n’tha BI, in which the beth has a dagesh, and 31:12, O-seh LACH, in which the lamed has a dagesh.

While the nasog ahor phenomenon makes sense to me, and interestingly enough, has its parallels in spoken English, for instance, I do not understand the latter phenomenon, nor am I aware of any explanation among the various authorities. However, based on the theories I outline in my book, I can tolerate why this phenomenon of basically closing the final syllable of the first word would happen only with the segol or qamatz. The segol is a t’nu’a q’tana, a minor or short vowel, and the only t’nu’a q’tana that occurs in open, accented syllables that end words, making it more versatile than the patah, the only other short vowel that occurs in open or accented syllables, and because it does not have a natural semivowel at its end (the Y sound at the end of the long E and A sounds, or the W at the end of long O or U sounds), closing its syllable does not result in an unaccented consonant cluster, which, as explicated by Gesenius, is not allowed. As for the qamatz, it is the only t’nu’a g’dola, major or long vowel, that does not have a natural semivowel conclusion, and once again closing its syllable does not result in the formation of a consonant cluster, although this would then require us to explain why an ordinary qamatz is treated like the other major vowels if it is lacking this essential feature. 

Like every rule, athei merahiq has its exceptions. For example, we read A-sa LO in Genesis 37:3 , and in that case, the lamed should have a dagesh, but it does not, or in 1:5, QA-ra LAY-la, and once again the lamed should have a dagesh, but it does not. It seems that whenever a past tense, singular, masculine verb in the pa’al conjugation that ends with a silent hei or alef is accented on its first syllable, it does not place a dagesh at the beginning of the next word. I have not yet found an explanation as to why this class of verbs should not follow the athei merahiq rule, and it is quite surprising being that their female counterparts (words like קראה and עשתה, etc.) are sometimes accented on their first syllables and then follow the rule of athei merahiq.

Recently, Dr. Marc Shapiro, k’darko baqodesh and blogs, released another must-read article on the Seforim blog. In it he made the following point: 

In the ArtScroll siddur, p. 86 it reads:

ועל מאורי אור שעשית, יפארוך, סלה

There is a dagesh in the ס of סלה. This means that the comma after יפארוך is a mistake, as you cannot place a dagesh in this ס if preceded by a comma.

Dr. Shapiro’s assumptions in this matter are that the samech of sela receives a dagesh because of the athei merahiq rule, meaning that the previous word, y’fa-a-RU-cha, must be connected to it, and therefore it would be wrong to have a comma between the words. If there were a comma, then the samech would not receive a dagesh. It is then that I took issue with his argument, and wrote the following to him:

Actually you can have a dagesh. For example, אַ֭שְׁרֵי יֽוֹשְׁבֵ֣י בֵיתֶ֑ךָ    ע֝֗וֹד יְֽהַלְל֥וּךָ סֶּֽלָה.

This is a well-known verse from the Psalms. 

Now, you might be initially inclined to dismiss this example, as in this case, sela is connected to the previous word by the trop, but the truth is that in the Sifrei Emeth, what would normally be a mercha tip’ha (pause) siluq succession (in the other 24 books), does not and cannot exist when the word with the siluq is less than three whole syllables (or when accented before the last syllable, four whole syllables). Instead, what would be the tip’ha, the mafsiq, becomes the m’shareth of the siluq. For example, in Chronicles we have this well-known verse

 הוֹד֤וּ לַֽיהוָה֙ כִּ֣י ט֔וֹב כִּ֥י לְעוֹלָ֖ם חַסְדּֽוֹ׃

But in the Psalms, because the word hasdo only has two syllables, the last three words are all connected, and hasdo is connected to the previous word: 

:הוֹד֣וּ לַֽיהוָ֣ה כִּי־ט֑וֹב    כִּ֖י לְעוֹלָ֣ם חַסְדּֽוֹ

The trop of the word ki is not the tip’ha-mafsiq that exists in the other books, rather, it is also a m’shareth:

This happens to also hold true for the etnah in Sifrei Emeth, which, according to R’ Breuer, and as you can see from this example, has the weight of a zaqef of the other books, and also converts its mafsiq mishneh into a m’shareth when the word with the etnah is “short.” I have yet to figure out why this is. So, for example, if the verse lha’alot ner (mafsik) tamid were to be in Psalms, it would just be lha’alot ner tamid. Or the verse nagila w’nism’ha vo. In the Torah, it would have been nagila w’nism’ha (pause) Bo, but because bo is a short word, it is automatically connected to the previous. Every time the word sela appears at the end of a verse, it must be connected to the previous word, even if in context, the mafsiq that was supposed to be right before it would indicate the highest grammatical disjunction. For example, in the above verse, if sela were not there, it would be read “ashrei (pause) yosh’vei veithecha; od, y’hal’lucha (full stop).” And the same is true for basically every verse in Psalms that ends with sela. 

 :יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֣וֹת עִמָּ֑נוּ    מִשְׂגָּֽב־לָ֨נוּ אֱלֹהֵ֖י יַֽעֲקֹ֣ב סֶֽלָה

Logically, according to our accepted use of commas, all of those verses should have a comma, or perhaps even a period, right after the penultimate word. “The Lord of Hosts is with us; Our stronghold is the God of Jacob. Sela!” Yet, here sela is once again connected to the previous word. 

So yes, if “m’orei or she’asita, y’faarucha, sela” were a verse in Psalms, the last two words would be connected (because y’fa’arucha is accented on an early syllable and ends with a qamatz) and the samech would have a dagesh.

Dr. Shapiro had some follow up questions: 

I see that you are assuming that a tipcha equals a comma (and let’s assume we are dealing with Tehillim). Leaving aside the issue of since when do siddurim insert commas before words like they did before סלה? I have not seen that anywhere. But is a tipcha really a comma?

He also complimented me, and I wrote the following response to him:

The answer is that tip’ha is sometimes a comma. The rule in the 21 ordinary books of scripture is that tip’ha is the mafsiq before the siluq. Every verse in those books has at the very least a siluq and a tip’ha.

This needs to be clarified. There are probably only a few dozen or so verses wherein the last mafsiq before the siluq is an ethnah, but in those cases, the ethnah is preceded by a tip’ha. 

However, the objective value of the tip’ha depends on the entire context of the particular verse. In a short verse, like “Adam Sheth Enosh” (I Chronicles 1:1) it corresponds to absolutely no punctuation. In וַיָּ֥זֶד יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב נָזִ֑יד וַיָּבֹ֥א עֵשָׂ֛ו מִן־הַשָּׂדֶ֖ה וְה֥וּא עָיֵֽף׃, the second tip’ha has the value of what we would call a comma, while the first tip’ha (under Yaakov) [does not.] If the word sela would ever end any verse in the 21 books, it would be preceded by a tip’ha, by definition, or perhaps the even stronger ethnah, and then you would have to examine the verse’s context and meaning to determine what ever mafsiqim are featured. As you know, in some verses, there aren’t even zaqefim, let alone etnahim, before the tip’ha, e.g.  וְהָי֞וּ הַדְּבָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֗לֶּה אֲשֶׁ֨ר אָֽנֹכִ֧י מְצַוְּךָ֛ הַיּ֖וֹם עַל־לְבָבֶֽךָ׃

In contrast, the verses in Sifrei Emeth have almost half a dozen ways of ending! Some have a ravia mugrash where the tip’ha would be, some turn the final ravia into a m’shareth (like the examples I showed you earlier), and some have a string of m’shar’thim with no mafsiqim, once again due to the shortness of all the words:  עֵֽינֵי־כֹ֭ל אֵלֶ֣יךָ יְשַׂבֵּ֑רוּ וְאַתָּ֤ה נֽוֹתֵן־לָהֶ֖ם אֶת־אָכְלָ֣ם בְּעִתּֽוֹ׃

My guess is that this has something to do with certain musical rules. 

The sages noted that the verses of Sifrei Emeth tend to be shorter than the verses in the rest of the Bible. I would also add that after careful analysis, including a thorough comparison of the verses and passages that appear in both (David’s victory song, for example), the verses of Emeth tend to have less mafsiqim. I would really like to find someone with whom to work to understand these phenomena, but alas, I immigrated to Israel after R’ Breuer and R’ Kappah left us.

Therefore, in answer to your question, I insert the comma because that is how the verse is to be understood when translated, and that is how the English language and modern Hebrew work, but in the scriptural form, the laws of grammar/music dictate that the pause be subsumed due to the shortness of the word. My belief is that the siddur makers should always leave in the trop where ever possible, but certain liturgies are not biblical, and therefore the siddur makers try to help the reader by adding our Western conventions. 

(75:4 is also a perfect example, by the way: נְֽמֹגִ֗ים אֶ֥רֶץ וְכׇל־יֹשְׁבֶ֑יהָ

  אָנֹכִ֨י תִכַּ֖נְתִּי עַמּוּדֶ֣יהָ סֶּֽלָה

If we were to parse this verse using modern commas and periods, the period would be before the word sela. And that is how, for example, the JPS 1917 has it.)

Consider: How should one say “al tig’u bimshihai“? In Chronicles, there is a disjunctive pashta on the first word, leaving the dagesh in the following beth, but in the Psalms, tig’u has a conjunctive mercha, making the next word “vimshihai.” Or “Lo tirtsah, lo tinaf.” When read with one set of trop, the tavim are strong, while when read with the other set, the tavim are weak. When you are speaking or lecturing, or perhaps reciting those verses as part of your prayers but not as part of whole paragraphs, which set of trop do you use? I have no answer at the moment. But this doubt must exist when the liturgy adds sela to the end of a sentence. Do we read it as though it were one of the Psalms?

In the three books of Emeth, there are many verses that conclude with a series of connected words, whereas in the other books, such a series would demand a number of mafsiqim preceding the end of the verse. However, with regards to the beginnings of verses, the opposite is true, when we deal with unusually long words. In the books of Emeth, the tendency is to have more mafsiqim, whereas in the other books, there are sequences of many connected words, usually leading into the flourishing mafsiqim of the fourth level, pazer, t’lisha, gershayim, etc. This might have something to do with those flourishes. Because the books of Emeth are more musical, the flourishes tend to be at the ends, so that would allow for more conjunctives, whereas in the other books, the flourishes and conjunctives are concentrated at the beginnings of verses.

… 

There is much to be said about the ravia mugrash (the trop that marks words such this: נַ֝פְשִׁ֗י,) one of the most common disjunctives found before the conclusion of verses in the books of Emeth. Most often, it does fill the role of the tip’ha found before the conclusion of the vast majority of verses in the rest of the Bible, but not always.

The zaqef gadol that occurs on “long” words that, due to their lack of an open syllable that is not accentable, can not receive a secondary accent (ta’am mishneh) is represented by the ordinary symbol for the zaqef qaton and another symbol, called a m’thiga, the symbol that normally represents the qadma or pashta, placed above the second letter of the word. Together, these two symbols signify the zaqef gadol, and not, as many believe, that the word is actually hosting both the accent of the zaqef and the secondary accent of the pashta/qadma. An illustration: לְזַ֨רְעֲךָ֔. In this case, all of the accents and musical notes should be placed on the final syllable, and no accent whatsoever is put on the first syllable, zar, the one under the m’thiga. Many are misled by the m’thiga, and it is unfortunate.

The ravia mugrash is similar to this type of zaqef gadol in that it is represented by the combination of two symbols, in this case the common ravia above the accented syllable plus another symbol, the one that normally represents the geresh, above the first letter of the word. Once again, these two symbols combine to form one unified symbol, and the presence of the geresh symbol on the first letter does not indicate secondary accentage. However, there are a number of cases in which a single word does have multiple trops, and the lesser of the two does indicate a secondary accent, for example, in words that have a munah and a zaqef qaton, or both qadma and azla (geresh), or, in rare cases, a tip’ha and an ethnah (Numbers 28:26) or the like on exceptionally long words. 

The ravia mugrash most often appears toward the end of a verse when what follows is a “long” word, or at least two words. Generally speaking, a “long” word is one that has three full syllables, whereas two words will do the trick even if combined they only have two full syllables. When discussing post-talmudic Hebrew poetry, the terms t’nu’a (lit., a “movement”) and yathed (lit., a “peg”) are used to describe the two types of syllables that can be formed in Hebrew. The former refers to a pure syllable, whether closed by a consonantal sound or not, while the latter refers to a pure syllable preceded by the sound of a consonant marked with a sh’wa na‘* (or a guttural letter vowelized with some sort of hataf vowel, which are types of sh’wa na’.). For the purposes of Emeth, both t’nu’oth and y’thedoth are (often literally) counted as syllables, whereas in the other books of the Bible, there are cases in which this categorical lumping is not admitted. (In later Hebrew terminology, including modern Hebrew, t’nu’a is also the word for a vowel sound, with the connection being that every syllable has but one vowel sound, with options for consonantal sounds to both precede and follow the vowel.) Rabbi Meir Mazuz uses this piyut as an example for beginners:

adon (yathed, as the alef is vowelized with a hataf patah) ‘o-lam (two t’nu’oth, pure syllables) asher (yathed) ma-lach (two t’nu’oth)…

These definitions of syllables are entirely unlike the ones with which we are familiar from our spoken languages. Indeed, we must also keep in mind that throughout the Bible, words connected by maqqafim (hyphen-like symbols) are, for all of our grammatical intents and purposes, considered as one word. Whether a compound noun, adjective, or adverb is “hyphenated” into one compound word or not is a delicate syntactical matter, and sometimes both forms appear in a single verse. 

In a particular verse, if there is only one word (according to our liberal definition) after the word that can potentially receive the ravia mugrash, in order for the ravia mugrash to appear, that ultimate word must, as we have said, have at least three syllables. Therefore, the following are not considered syllables:

1. Any syllable that may be after the accented syllable. That is, in words accented mil’eil, before the last syllable, the latter syllables do not count. Thus, words like KE-sef and ME-lech are considered monosyllabic for our purposes, while huq-QE-cha, and yag-GI-du are merely disyllabic. 
2. Similarly, the patah g’nuva necessitated by the combination of long vowels closed with final guttural consonants also does not count as a syllable: ya-REI-ah and ma-NO-a’ only have two syllables for our purposes, while Noah is a monosyllabic name.
3. Any letter vowelized with a sh’wa na’ or hataf vowel also does not form a countable syllable. Therefore, words like l’o-LAM only have two syllables. In poetry terms, both y’thedoth and t’nu’oth count as only one syllable each. 
4. When a prefix waw with a sh’wa is converted to a shuruq because it precedes a labial letter, and therefore seemingly forms a third syllable, it still does not count, and it is viewed as though it remained a waw with a sh’wa na’. Examples: u-va-A-retz  (Psalms 113:6) and u-vi-NA (Proverbs 23:23) are both still considered as disyllabic, the former because the last syllable is after the accented syllable. (When the prefix waw becomes a shuruq because the first letter of the word is vowelized with a sh’wa, in most cases a new, countable syllable is formed with the original first letter, e.g., וּשְמוֹ ush-MO or וּבְיוֹם uv-YOM, and in some exceptional cases recorded in the masora, the waw/shuruq forms its own syllable, and the subsequent sh’wa is na’ is still connected to the next syllable, e.g., u-Z’HAV (Genesis 2:12). In either of these cases, a syllable is added to the count.)
5. Lastly, if a word has every type of additional factor that does not increase its syllable count, i.e., both of its true syllables are preceded by some form of sh’wa na’ or hataf and it has another, third syllable after the accented syllable, then it may be considered a long word, e.g., l’sho-L’HE-cha (Proverbs 22:21), y’va-R’CHU-cha (Psalms 145:10) , and y’sha-R’THEI-ni (Psalms 101:6), but as can be seen from Psalms 145:6, asap-P’REN-na, this is not always the case. 

Thus, in Proverbs 29:22, the hyphenated word rav-PA-sha is not considered two words because of the maqqaf, nor is it considered a “long word” because it only has “two syllables,” the third syllable not being considered because it proceeds the accent, and therefore the preceding word is marked with a conjunctive munah, and the same can be said about the word y’shar-DA-rech five verses later, while in Psalms 145:4 EIN HE-qer does allow for a preceding ravia mugrash despite its lack of syllables because the words remain unhyphenated.  

The d’hi, (as in: ר֭וּחוֹ ) which we have addressed earlier, is also slightly misleading, due to its resemblance to both the disjunctive tip’ha of the rest of the Bible and the connective tip’ha of Emeth, and the fact that it is always written before the word, thus never indicating which syllable is to be accented. Further, the rules we have stated above regarding the ravia mugrash before the silluq apply to the d’hi that appears before the ethnah, i.e., that it is replaced by a connective trop in certain circumstances, but with one important addition: If no other word appears in the ethnah‘s domain before the word that is to receive the d’hi, and no other words are to appear connected to the word with the ethnah after the d’hi, the d’hi is replaced by a mercha, its counterpart conjunctive. This explains the phenomenon in the example I brought earlier, in the following verse with which many are familiar (I Chronicles 16:22): 

אל־תִּגְּעוּ֙ בִּמְשִׁיחָ֔י וּבִנְבִיאַ֖י אַל־תָּרֵֽעוּ׃

The second word is bim-shi-HAI, with a strong beth sound, whereas in the corresponding verse in Psalms(105:15),

אל־תִּגְּע֥וּ בִמְשִׁיחָ֑י    וְ֝לִנְבִיאַ֗י אַל־תָּרֵֽעוּ׃

the word is vim-shi-HAI, with a weak, veth sound. The (compound) word al-tig-G’U before the (long) word vim-shi-HAI has no other words before it, and therefore it is not marked with the disjunctive d’hi. This also explains the following noticeable break in the pattern in the final psalm, which is a good illustration of most of the rules we have discussed until this point: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see, the word hal’luhu, is usually marked with a disjunctive, because it is a verb followed by an object composed of multiple words (as in the conclusions of these verses), but in the second and fifth verses, the first hal’luhu‘s (in blue) have no words before them, nor do the subsequent words with the ethnah’s have other conjoined words. Thus, the hal’luhu‘s in those verses lose their disjunctive d’hi’s, and the following words (or hyphenated compound word), are modified, vig-vu-ro-THAW or v’tzil-tz’lei-SHA-ma’, respectively, and the prefix beth in each word is weak. In verses 3 and 4, the word hal’luhu in the first halves is proceeded by multiple words in the domain of the ethnah (the green words), and therefore it keeps its disjunctive d’hi. Now, one may ask, why is it that in verse 5 b’tziltzlei shama’ becomes one hyphenated word, whereas in verse 3, the seemingly shorter words b’theqa shofar remain separate? The answer lies in the fact, that, based on what we wrote above, b’tziltz’lei and b’theqa are both “short” words, but b’theqa has an open syllable capable of receiving an accent, whereas b’tziltz’lei does not have an accentable syllable that would not be adjacent to the accented syllable of SHA-ma’. Its latter syllable is obviously unfit due to proximity, and its first syllable is closed, making it also ineligible. Secondary accents may only be placed on open syllables.

…

A major exception to these rules occurs a number of times in the shortest verses of Emeth. In the verses that open each of the principles speeches in Job, (3:2, 4:1, 6:1, etc.) there are only three or four words, and we find that either a ravia (in the three-word verses that introduce Elihu or Job’s speeches) or a ravia mugrash (in the four-word verses that introduce the others with the longer names) precedes the final word, even though that final word is accented on its penultimate syllable. This can be explained by the perhaps-necessary proposition that every single verse needs at least one internal disjunctive trop, and there is no other place to put one in those verses, or that the final word actually is a “long” word, and we are just left with the question as to why “way-yo-MAR,” which is normally accented milra’, is here accented mil’eil, like its counterpart way-YO-mer, which has the same meaning, but normally appears at the beginning of a phrase. I hope the readership has any insights regarding this matter.

An opposite exception is in Job 6:4, whereby the “long” word YA-‘ar-CHU-ni is still connected to the previous word. I can hypothesize that this word should be considered short, as it was once pronounced with “only” two countable syllables, as though vowelized thusly: יַעְרְכוּנִי, ya’-R’CHU-ni.

….

One will also take note of the fact that in the Mechon Mamre edition (the online edition from which I borrowed these visual aids) and the various MHK editions edited by R’ Breuer, some verses have ordinary ravia’s instead of the ravia mugrash. For example, in the last verse of Psalm 150 above, the penultimate word has a ravia, but in the various Koren publications, for instance, and other traditionally Ashkenazi texts, those words also have a ravia mugrash. Apparently, R’ Breuer was of the opinion that a ravia mugrash can only appear in verses that already have an ethnah (or one of its replacements). The others do not subscribe to such a rule. Also, I find it interesting that in verses like those that conclude the last five psalms, we find a striking pattern that effectively divides the verse into three parts, instead of the usual two. Most verses in the Psalms follow the symmetrical division pattern, with the half-way point marked by an ethnah, and the quarters marked by a d’hi and ravia mugrash, respectively, but in these cases, the ordinarily symmetrical verse has the climactic Hallelujah added at the end, and because the ravia (mugrash) has to come before the silluq, what would have been the silluq is downgraded to a ravia mugrash, necessitating the downgrading of the the ethnah at what would have been the verse’s midpoint, resulting in it also receiving a ravia. This dispute between the publishers and the phenomenon of the verse being effectively divided into three by the ravia’s indicates to me that for our purposes both types of ravia (ordinary and mugrash) have the same punctuational value, and that in whatever theory we use to explain the hierarchy among the ta’amei emeth, the simple analogy of emperors, kings, viceroys (primary, secondary, and tertiary disjunctives), etc., that features in the other books of the Bible is not adequate for the books of Emeth. For example, in his introduction to the Daat Mikra Psalms, R’ Breuer wrote about how there are no “emperors” in ta’amei emeth, except for the silluqim, and how both the ravia and ethnah are on the same level, both being “kings.” I would like to offer that if we must use the nomenclature and analogies familiar from the other books, the silluq and oleh w’yoreid are the emperors, and the ethnah is the king, ravia’s are viceroys, etc., except that, in a radical departure from the rest of the Bible, most of the verses of Emeth, due to their shortness, have only one emperor, the silluq, and often the kings are also missing, as in those verses in which, as pointed out by R’ Breuer, some sort of ravia takes the ethnah‘s place because there are not enough words proceeding it that can be furthered divided.

One should also note how in the following two verses,

:וַיְדַבֵּ֣ר יְהוָ֔ה אֶֽל־אַהֲרֹ֖ן לֵאמֹֽר

and

:וַיְדַבֵּ֥ר יְהוָ֖ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֥ה לֵּאמֹֽר

the only difference is that the name of the object in the latter verse is slightly longer, and not even by a syllable. We see that the mere addition of a hei with a hataf patah lengthens the name Aharon enough so that it justifies upgrading the mercha before the silluq to a tip’ha, and the tip’ha that was already marking the Divine Name to be upgraded to a zaqef. Not only would this not fly in Emeth, as I have mentioned before, this shows the general tendency of the cantillation in most biblical books to have more disjunctives, especially when close to the “emperors,” whereas in Emeth the tendency is toward more conjunctives, especially as words get closer to the primary disjunctives. It is telling that the silluq, ethnah, zaqef, and tip’ha of most of the Bible have at most two words in their immediate domains connected to them by the trop, whereas the lesser disjunctives, e.g. the pazer, t’vir, and pashta are often preceded by three and sometimes four words marked with conjunctives. A comparison of similar words and phrases indicates for example, that the disjunctive t’vir of the rest of the bible is often converted to a conjunctive in Emeth. 

….

In the rest of the books of the Bible, this idea that the sh’wa na’ forms one syllable with that which follows is often preserved in the phenomenon of the athei me’rahiq. In the second reading of Wayeira, we have the combination ha-LI-la L’CHA, whereby the lamed of l’cha receives a dagesh because it is part of an accented syllable that is immediately preceded by a connected word that ends with an unaccented qamatz in an open syllable. 

Yet, there is also the phenomenon that a rule that distinguishes between two possible trops is even more specific than syllable count; sometimes, for instance, whether a word is marked with a qadma or munah, both conjunctives, depends on whether that word is accented on its very first letter, and that, in turn, effects the subsequent disjunctive. Two ready examples are Deuteronomy 15:7, V’CHA, and 17:18, w’CHA-thav. Words like these are either marked 1.with a munah if accented on their first letters, or 2. marked with a qadma if accented on any other letter. These examples show how exactly this rule is followed, as in both of them the first (compound) syllable is accented, but that is not sufficient to allow for the munah. Consequently, the following words are then, despite their being eligible to receive a gershayim, marked with a geresh, as there can not be a word marked with gershayim immediately following a word marked with a qadma. 

With this in mind, we can understand an unusual difference of opinion. In Numbers 33:9, most of the tiqqunim have the words שתים עשרה marked with a qadma and azla (geresh). Had the word esreh appeared alone, (which technically could not happen because the word, as vowelized, only exists in conjunction with another,) it would have been marked with a gershayim because it is accented on its latter syllable, but because the word שתֵּים, which by our definition is monosyllabic, is not accented on its first letter, it therefore receives a qadma, which in turn converts the gershayim on עשרה into a geresh. (The word gershayim itself is unusual in that if it or any word of its mishqal were to appear in the Bible, it could never be marked with a gershayim precisely because it is accented mil’eil! It is very odd that thousands of young men are taught the trop by singing their names, thus becoming familiar with the “ger-sha-YIM.”) However, in MHK publications and in the Mechon Mamre edition, שתֵּים is marked a munah, and this makes perhaps more sense, as in the words שְתַּיִם, שְתֵּי, and שְתֵּים the taw is still strong, indicating the tradition that in these words, the sh’wa under the shin is not pronounced na’ and it would have been more appropriate for me to represent שְתֵּים as shteim, without the apostrophe I have been using to represent the sh’wa na. If the shin is indeed read in one consonant cluster with the taw, then this word is now accented on its very first letter (along with all four of its letters), thus calling for its trop to be a munah and not a qadma. In Diqduq Eliyahu and Lehem Habikkurim, this strange circumstance is illustrated by placing a phantom alef vowelized with a short vowel before the shin, thus making the shin appear to close a syllable and “immobilizing” its sh’wa. In a similar word, the singular masculine form of the imperative “drink,” שְתֵה, the shin is pronounced with a sh’wa na’ and therefore the taw is weak, while when the word שְתֵּי is prefixed with a mem, e.g., in Judges 16:28, indicating the contracted word מִן, the shin does receive a dagesh to compensate for the missing nun, making its sh’wa a sh’wa na’, and the taw does lose its dagesh. 

Taking Issue with the Ish Matzliah 

Rabbi Mazuz is the leading authority on all things grammatical, and it is a testament to his influence and greatness that two of his more questionable opinions, opinions that can not be reconciled with the traditions we have received, have become more and more popular, and is partly attributable to the fact that the tiqqun published by his students, Tiqqun Qor’im Ish Matzliah, and the subsequent Hummash of the same name for synagogue use have become fixtures in many synagogues.

The first involves the public reading of Genesis 35:22, the Reuben incident. According to the traditional practice, this verse describing Reuben’s actions is combined with the next verse (what should be 35:23, “And the children of Israel were twelve,” but in many editions is not numbered) thus eliminating its silluq, the Torah reader’s cue for the Targum reader, depriving the Targum reader a chance to actually read the translation to the former verse aloud, and when he hears the silluq of the latter verse, he only reads the Targum thereto. The author of the weekly letter “Tamey Torah” (spelled in Hebrew טעמי תורה, tameytorah@gmail.com) has pointed out in the name of the Rabbi Jacob Emden that this is the explanation for the alternate sets of trop that accompany the Decalogue, both iterations of which are traditionally read publicly in the ta’am elyon, a set of trop which recombines the traditional verses, i.e. rearranges the silluqim, such that some verses are thereby combined into one verse, whereas another verse is divided into multiple short verses, thus cuing to the Targum reader to read his lines after individual commandments and not actual verses. The standard set of trop is referred to as the ta’am tahton, and the usual systems of numbering the verses follow it.

For centuries now, most Jewish communities have not been reading the Targum along with the public Torah reading, and based on this explanation, there is no longer any reason for us to continue reading these three sections with the ta’am ‘elyon, and indeed there are places in which the practice of reading the Decalogue with the ta’am ‘elyon has been suspended. However, in places where the Targum is still read publicly, this upholds the talmudic imperative to not translate the account of the Reuben incident (M’gilla 4:10, Laws of Prayer and Torah Reading 12:12). Rabbi Emden’s understanding is even mentioned by Rabbi Mazuz in his introduction to his tiqqun, yet, it was his father’s practice (see Tamey Torah for written sources) to read Genesis 35:22 twice, once on its own and once connected to the next verse, in order to thereby read the verse with both sets of trop, as though to satisfy all of the opinions because we can not know which is the correct set of trop to follow. Tamey Torah has documented a number of sefarim, all of North African origin, that record this practice, which, aside from the fact that it utilizes the Reductio Ad Opinionibus At Dissiderent fallacy instead of trying to come to sort of halachic solution, has the negative consequence of now having Reuben’s incident read in front of native Hebrew-speakers twice, ensuring that they clearly hear the verse as is, and maybe even provoking them to look into it further, because attention has now been drawn to it. In both this case and the next, it is surprising that the Lehem Habikkurim “died from a kashya” and altered the practice, because in other lands, the answer to his kashya (“why are there two sets of trop?”) had already been offered and accepted, thereby upholding the traditional practice. Tamey Torah also notes that the Vatican manuscript they claim as a source is misunderstood: its marginal note is merely pointing out the existence of two sets of trop, and does not literally mean that both sets should somehow be read publicly.

As a side note, the other peculiarity found in the Vatican manuscript, indicating that Genesis 35:22 should feature a zarqa–segol series in the ta’am elyon, was also included in the tiqqun. Now, there are two competing schools of thought regarding what exactly a segol is supposed to be:

1. Segol is a disjunctive trop on the level of an ethnah, and together they divide the verse into three parts, the first third concluding with the segol, the second with the ethnah. This explains why the segol always precedes the ethnah. (I know of only one verse in the Bible that has a segol but no ethnah.) When examining many verses, you can see that this makes a lot of sense, and is attributed to the Ibn Ezra and others, and is also endorsed by Rabbi Mazuz.

2. Segol is a disjunctive on the level of a strong zaqef, and when a verse calls for many trops of that level, the first becomes a segol, under specific conditions. Jacobson brings a number of verses, including I Samuel 5:3-4 to illustrate this, and this is the position of Rav Breuer, among others, and explains why the segol‘s second mishneh is a ravi’a and not a zaqef, but it does not explain why segol is always before the ethnah.

According to the common tradition, Genesis 35:22 is to be read thusly:

:וַיְהִ֗י בִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ בָּאָ֣רֶץ הַהִ֔וא וַיֵּ֣לֶךְ רְאוּבֵ֔ן וַיִּשְׁכַּ֕ב אֶת־בִּלְהָ֖ה פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ אָבִ֑יו וַיִּשְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵֽל

and the subsequent verse, which as I mentioned, is not independently numbered in many editions, appears thusly:

וַיִּֽהְי֥וּ בְנֵֽי־יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁנֵ֥ים עָשָֽׂר׃

Now, there are two main ways we could have combined these verses into one long verse and preserve the hierarchy of the trop:

1. The first verse is now only half a verse, and therefore, it’s silluq is downgraded to an ethnah, and its z’qefim and tip’hoth should be downgraded to pashtoth, r’vi’im, t’virim etc.,

or

1. being that the latter verse has no ethnah, we could perhaps divide the combined verse into thirds, with the first verse containing the first two thirds, and its silluq becoming an ethnah and its own ethnah becoming a segol, but, as pointed by R’ Breuer and others, even if one were to assume that a segol is a disjunctive on the level of an ethnah, there is no such thing as a segol in such proximity to an ethnah. Therefore, this possibility is ruled out.

Yet, in the original verse, the zaqef on the word ההִוא is the strongest internal disjunctive after the ethnah of אביו, and when the verses are combined, because the original ethnah is downgraded, it stands to reason that the zaqef of hahi should have been downgraded to a ravia, and certainly not upgraded to a segol as it has been in the Tiqqun Ish Matzliah. On the contrary, if the Reuben verse is then extended by a new phrase that is “ruled by an emperor,” then the segol should at least be placed where the Reuben verse’s ethnah appeared, and I would therefore argue that if anything, we could only entertain a segol on the word hahi in the ta’am tahton of that verse.

Elsewhere in the tiqqun, the words ohela (genesis 18:6 and elsewhere) and tzo’ara (ibid 19:23) are, in accordance with the opinion of the Lehem Habikkurim, accented on their last syllables, o-he’LA and tzo-a’RA’, respectively, whereas in most tiqqunim, the words are accented on their first syllables, as is seemingly indicated in the oldest manuscripts, O-he’la and TZO-a’ra’. The argument for this position is as follows: Normally, the addition of an unaccented suffix qamatz-silent hei is an alternate form of the directional el or the prefix lamed (the same suffix when accented indicates femininity). “To Hebron” can either be el hevron, or l’hevron, or hevrona. In the latter case, the accent stays on the syllable that is normally accented, and the additional syllable formed by the qamatz and silent hei is not accented. Note also what happens to a word like goshen, which is of the same mishqal as tzo’ar and ohel. The normal pronunciation of the word is GO-shen, and when the directional is appended, it becomes GOSH-na, with the shin now closing the strong vowel of the accented syllable, but in the case of these two words, the presence of the guttural letter vowelized with a hataf, hei with a hataf segol and ‘ayin with a hataf patah, respectively, creates what appears to be a third syllable. Now, according to the rules of grammar with which we are familiar, those gutturals can not receive the accents because they have hatafim, and no hataf or sh’wa na’ is accented. Further, and this is the crux of the dispute, the first syllables of these words should not receive the accents either because that would result in words that are primarily accented too far away from the end of the words, and they are vowelized with holam, necessitating the subsequent guttural letters to be vowelized with forms of hataf vowels, themselves types of shwa na’, which according to another rule, can not follow a full vowel, a tnu’a g’dola, that is accented. Normally, Hebrew words are accented milra’, on the last syllable, whereas in some cases the word is mil’eil, accented before the last syllable, but even in those cases, the accent is at least on the syllable right before the last. There is no such thing as a word accented on a syllable two or more syllables away from the last syllable, and when there is a full vowel in an accented syllable, it can be closed by a shwa nah. For example, in אומרים o-m’RIM, the accented syllable has a hiriq gadol and is closed by the (unwritten) shwa nah of the mem, and in אומר o-MER, the tzeirei of the accented syllable is closed by the shwa nah of the reish.

However this argument is mistaken, because, as we have now learned, consonants, whether guttural or not, when vowelized with sh’wa na’ or any form of hataf do not count as syllables. Therefore, in the words ohela and tzoara, it is not the case that the first of three syllables is accented. Rather, it is just that the first of two syllables is accented. Also, because this first argument could be rejected by the editors of the tiqqun because they may not hold of this theory of explaining the vowels, it must be pointed out that even according to their own theory, when words do have full vowels in their final, accented and closed syllables and the final consonant is a pronounced guttural letter (‘ayin, heth, or a non-silent (“mappiq“) hei), then we add a phantom patah between the vowel and the consonant. If words like ohela and tzo’ara were to follow this model, we would have to pronounce them like אֹ ַהְלָה Oah-la and צֹ ַעְרָה TZOa’-ra, thus adding another seeming syllable to the word. (I added spaces within these words to show where the patah sound would be inserted. In words like תפוּחַ most people know to articulate the patah between the shuruq and the final heth.) In a word like GOSH-na, we would not be confronted with any problem because we already have a precedent for closing a holam‘s accented syllable with a shin sound without having to add a phantom patah, e.g., ראש, rosh. The truth is that in these unusual words, which are ideally accented on their first syllables which feature full vowels closed by guttural consonantal sounds, we have few options.

I welcome whatever insights the readers can offer. 

* For almost twenty years, I have followed the Soncino Talmud’s convention of representing the waw as a “w”  and thaw as “th” in transliteration. This, despite its unpopularity, eliminates many ambiguities and more accurately reflects the proper pronunciation. 

The History behind the Ashkenazi/Sephardi divide concerning lighting Chanukah candles

By Zachary Rothblatt

Zachary Rothblatt learned in Kerem B’Yavneh, Ner Yisroel, and will be receiving Semicha soon from RIETS. He is finishing a graduate degree in Bible and Talmud at the Bernard Revel Graduate School for Jewish Studies. He is a Judaic studies teacher at the Idea School in Tenafly, New Jersey.

One of the most famous halachic debates of Chanukah is the debate concerning how many sets of candles a family should light. Ashkenazim believe, with some variances, that each family member should light a menorah, while Sephardim believe that only one menorah should be lit per family. In this essay I would like to map out the history of how lighting Chanukah candles has been practiced and attempt to explain why in fact Ashkenazim and Sephardim do as they do.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 671:2) records the Sephardic practice of lighting only one set of candles per family. Rema (ad loc) records that the widespread minhag in Ashkenazi communities is for each member of the household to light his or her own set of Chanukah candles. The Taz (‘ס״ק א) notes that this is a unique situation in that Sephardim follow the opinion of Tosafot and that Ashkenazim follow the opinion of the Rambam. Some have taken this as proof of cross-cultural interaction between Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Beit Yosef does indeed say that Sephardic custom is based conceptually on Tosafot and Darkei Moshe Ha’Aruch says that Ashkenazi practice is based on the Rambam. That may be true from a conceptual standpoint. From a historical perspective, I believe the bases of these minhagim are to be found elsewhere.

The details of the Rabbinic commandment to light Chanukah candles are found in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 21b) as well as in the Scholion of Megillat Ta’anit. For our purposes, the textual differences between the two corpora and internally within the manuscripts of the Bavli are negligible. The Talmud quotes a Baraita[1]:

ת”ר מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו והמהדרין נר לכל אחד ואחד והמהדרין מן המהדרין ב”ש אומרים יום ראשון מדליק שמנה מכאן ואילך פוחת והולך וב”ה אומרים יום ראשון מדליק אחת מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך

The Sages taught: The mitzvah of Chanukah is each day to have a light kindled by a person, the head of the household, for himself and his household. And the mehadrin, i.e., those who are meticulous in the performance of mitzvot, kindle a light for each and every one in the household. And the mehadrin min hamehadrin, who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to the nature of that adjustment. Beit Shammai say:On the first day one kindles eight lights and, from there on, gradually decreases the number of lights until, on the last day of Hanukkah, he kindles one light. And Beit Hillel say: On the first day one kindles one light, and from there on, gradually increases the number of lights until, on the last day, he kindles eight lights.

The first level of the mitzvah is defined as one candle per family. The second level, mehadrin, mandates a candle for each member of the family (See later for a discussion concerning who is to light these candles). The level of Mehadrin min HaMehadrin is debated by Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. As per the general rule we follow Beit Hillel. The fundamental question is whether the third level of Mehardin min Hamehadrin is in addition to the second level, i.e. each household member should have a menorah and light from one to eight candles, or that only one menorah should be lit in such a manner. This point is debated between Rambam and Tosafot, as referenced earlier.

Tosafot writes as follows (ad loc s.v. V’hamehadrin)[2]

והמהדרין מן המהדרין. נראה לר”י דב”ש וב”ה לא קיימי אלא אנר איש וביתו שכן יש יותר הידור דאיכא היכרא כשמוסיף והולך או מחסר שהוא כנגד ימים הנכנסים או היוצאים אבל אם עושה נר לכל אחד אפי’ יוסיף מכאן ואילך ליכא היכרא שיסברו שכך יש בני אדם בבית:

It seems to Ri (Isaac of Dampierre, 12th century) that Beit Shammai and Beit Hilel are referring only to “Man and his household” because in this way there is more beautification of the Mitzvah because there is something recognizable when he keeps adding or leaving out (candles) which corresponds to days that are entering or exiting. However, if he makes a candle for each one (i.e. each member of his household gets his own candle), even if he adds (candles) from this moment and onwards, there is nothing recognizable, because (the people) would think that so is the number of people in the household. (i.e. in this case, instead of attributing the increase or decrease in candles to the intention of the owner to match the corresponding day of Chanukah, people would attribute it to the intention to match the number of people in the household.)

Ri feels that for the Mehadrin min HaMehadrin only one set of Chanukah candles should be lit in order to preserve the distinctiveness of each day. We will return to the Tosafot later.

Rambam writes as follows (Mishneh Torah 4:1-3)[3]

רמב”ם הלכות מגילה וחנוכה פרק ד:א-ג

א. כמה נרות הוא מדליק בחנוכה, מצותה שיהיה כל בית ובית מדליק נר אחד א בין שהיו אנשי הבית מרובין בין שלא היה בו אלא אדם אחד, והמהדר את המצוה מדליק נרות כמנין אנשי הבית נר לכל אחד ואחד בין אנשים בין נשים, והמהדר יתר על זה ועושה מצוה מן המובחר מדליק נר לכל אחד ואחד בלילה הראשון ומוסיף והולך בכל לילה ולילה נר אחד.

ב. כיצד הרי שהיו אנשי הבית עשרה, בלילה הראשון מדליק עשרה נרות ובליל שני עשרים ובליל שלישי שלשים עד שנמצא מדליק בליל שמיני שמונים נרות.

ג. מנהג פשוט בכל ערינו בספרד שיהיו כל אנשי הבית מדליקין נר אחד בלילה הראשון ומוסיפין והולכין נר בכל לילה ולילה עד שנמצא מדליק בליל שמיני שמונה נרות בין שהיו אנשי הבית מרובים בין שהיה אדם אחד.

1. How many lamps should one light on Chanukah? It is a commandment that one light be kindled in each and every house whether it be a household with many people or a house with a single person. One who enhances the commandment should light lamps according to the number of people of the house – a lamp for each and every person, whether they are men or women. One who enhances [it] further than this and performs the commandment in the choicest manner lights a lamp for each person on the first night and continues to add one lamp on each and every night.

2. How is this? See that [if] the people of the household were ten: On the first night, one lights ten lamps; on the second night, twenty; on the third night, thirty; until it comes out that he lights eighty lamps on the eighth night.

3. The widespread custom in all of our cities in Spain is that all of the people of the household light one lamp on the first night. And they continue to add one lamp on each night, until it comes out that one lights eight lamps on the eighth night – whether the people of the household were many or whether it was [only] one man.

Maimonides writes his personal opinion that Mehadrin min HaMehadrin is defined as each individual having a set of candles and adding to it successively over the days of Chanukah. He notes though that the common Minhag in Spain was for a family to only light one set of candles.

As we have seen the Rema codifies the minhag of each individual family member lighting his or her own Chanukah candles. In Darkei Moshe Ha’Aruch he explicitly quotes this idea in the name of Rambam. Similarly, Maharshal in his responsa (no. 85), says the Ashkenazi minhag is based on Rambam. Rav Dovid Novhardoker (19th century) in his Shut Galya Masechet (Responsa no. 6) believes this is an incorrect reading of the Rambam. He believes that a precise reading of the Rambam leads to the conclusion that only one individual should light all the candles corresponding to the number of individuals in a house, based on Rambam’s use of the singular form of the verb (מדליק עשרה). He argues forcefully that there is no source for the concept of each individual lighting his or her own menorah in any Rishon and worries that there may be a concern of bracha l’vetala to follow the standard Ashkenazi minhag.

It is entirely possible that Rema and Maharshal disagreed with the validity of the inference of the Galya Masechet. It’s also possible that they were merely trying to find an early source that is conceptually similar to Minhag Ashkenaz and weren’t concerned for the particular details.

The objections of the Galya Masechet notwithstanding, Rav Ariav Ozer Shlit”a of Yeshivat Itri has pointed[4] to early Geonic evidence that there is a concept of an individual lighting of the Menorah. The relevant responsum is found in a number of places, and in some sources is attributed to the mid-9th century Suran Gaon Sar Shalom b. Boaz. The Genizah version (published in Geonica, no. 343) reads as follows:

גאוניקה 343 (וכן בשי׳ בעשרת הדברות ובשע״ת וה״פ ומובא בטור סי׳ תרע״ז)

ואנשים הרבה בחצר אחת שורת הדין אם משתתפין כולן בשמן יוצאין כולם בנר אחת מדנר שיש לה שתי פיות עולה לשני בני אדם ומדר׳ חונא מילא קערה שמן וכו׳ ומדר׳ זורא מראש הוה משתתפנא בפריטי אלמא בשותפות סגיא אבל הרוצה לחבב ולהדר מצות כל אחד ואחד מדליק נר לעצמו דתנו רבנן מצות נר חנוכה נר איש וביתו והמהדרין נר לכל אחד וא׳ וכו׳

The basic issue in the responsum concerns the possibility of multiple individuals living in one courtyard using one menorah. The Gaon says they technically can chip in together to use one set of candles. Ideally though, they should each light his own menorah as we find concerning the Mehadrin of the Talmud. This reading of the Talmud assumes that the 2nd level of Mehadrin is in fact an individual obligation for each member to light, unlike the Galya Maseches.

It terms of other Geonic material there is an important Genizah find (T-S G2.132 1v) that as of now has only been published in a footnote.[5] The fragment reads as follows:

כחשבון הנפשות, שאם יש חמשה מדליק חמשה או עשרה מדליק עשרה. והמהדרין מן המהדרין הוא טעם שלישי מופרש מן הטעמים הראשונים ובו נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל ולא בר…ם ומצוה מן המובחר לעשות כדברי בית הלל כטעם השלישי להדליק לילה הראשונה נר אחד ומיכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך נרות וכך אנו נוהגין מדליקין אנו לילה הראשונה נר אחד בשניֿ שני נרות וב…מוסיפין נר.. ש

It appears the source is saying that the 3rd level is to only light one set of Chanukah candles. If this is the correct inference this would indicate that what eventually became the ‘Sephardic’ custom was already being practiced at a very early period, possibly even in one of the Geonic yeshivot.

As well, In the Siddur of R’ Saadya Gaon[6] we find the following interesting comment (quote is from Assaf’s Hebrew translation)

ומצוותיו הן להדליק נר על פתח כל דירה שלנו, מן ליל כ״ה כסליו עד סוף שמונה ימים, ומהדר ישים נר לכל נפש מאנשי הבית.

Rav Saadya curiously only mentions the 2nd level of Mehardrin. This may be an innocuous omission or it may be an indication that it was not common to light according to the level of Mehadrin min haMehadrin. R. Elazar Hurvitz notes a parallel between Rasag’s words and a Gaonic responsum he published.[7] The responsum contains surprising details both concerning the practice mentioned by the questioner and the Gaon’s response. It reads:

ואשר כתבתם, מנהגנו בחנוכה להדליק בהיכל שמנה נרות, בלילה ראשונה עושין אחת משמאל ושבע לימין ובכל לילה מעתיק אחת מימין לשמאל ע(ל)(ד) לילה שמיני יעשו כולן לשמאל. יודיענו אדונינו גאון היאך עושה. שיש מי שאמר ששה עשרה, שמנה מימין ושמנה משמאל. ילמדינו אדונינו היאך מנהגכם וכיצד נעשה. אנו מנהגינו בבית להדליק כמנין אנשים שיש בבית, כדתנן המהדרין נר לכל אחד ואחד. ובבתי כנסיות עושין כבית הלל, לילה הראשון מדליק אחד, מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך, ואין עושין כלום מהן מימין, וכך יפה לעשות.

The questioner mentions his own minhag to light eight candles every night! What distinguished one night from the next is that every night one candle was moved from the left to the right. The questioner inquires as to what the Gaon’s practice is, as he has heard some recommend lighting 16 candles (!), eight to the right and eight to the left. The Gaon answers that in fact his minhag is to only fulfill the level of Mehardin min HaMehadrin in the synagogue, while at home the minhag was to perform the 2nd level of mehadrin. So we have explicit proof that there were Gaonim who only lit the level of mehadrin, and Rav Saadya is likely precise in his formulation.

As quoted above, Maimonides noted that the widespread Spanish minhag was for each family to light only one set of Chanukah candles. This minhag is attested in several sources, including the Gaonic responsum above. Another early source for the minhag is the 12th century siddur of Rabbi Shelomo b. Natan.[8] While scholars had originally thought R. Shlomo was from Sijilmassa, Morocco, there has been a growing lack of consensus on the issue. Uri Erlich[9] has suggested the possibility that R. Shlomo was from an area near Aleppo, Syria.

Other later evidence for Spanish practice comes from, among other sources, Ritva,[10] Rabbi Hayim of Toledo,[11] and the Nimukei Yosef.[12] From all these sources it is apparent that the Sephardic custom has unquestionably been to light one set of Chanukah candles per family, in variance with Rambam’s own opinion.

The same minhag is attested in Provence by, among others, both Meiri[13] and Rabbi Meiri HaMeili.[14] Against this, R. Yehonatan of Lunel in his novellae on the Rif[15] says that for Mehadrin min HaMehadrin each individual should have their own set of candles. It is very possible that R. Yehonatan, an avid follower of Rambam, followed Rambam’s personal opinion on the matter. It is unclear if such was ever practiced by a Provencal community.

Returning to Ashkenazic practice, the first explicit source for the minhag to have every individual light appears in the writings of Maharil (c. 1365-1427). Both in his responsa[16] and in the Sefer Maharil,[17] Maharil says the current minhag is for each individual to light, explicitly saying they do not follow the opinion of the Ri. Additionally, Maharil and his students[18] devote significant discussion concerning the possibility for a husband to light separate Chanukah candles when not home (The sources take for granted that even within Minhag Ashkenaz a couple would light only one set of candles, hence the question). These issues were debated extensively by scholars, but no prior discussion of this topic appears. While it is an argument from silence, this alone makes one wonder how popular was the current Minhag Ashkenaz before Maharil (one could also suggest that the minhag used to be that spouses lit their own candles, but this contradicts the simple reading of Shabbat 23a).

Looking through the Ashkenazic Halachic material that precedes Maharil one finds repeated mention of the opinion of Ri that there should be only one set per family. The Mordechai explicitly endorses Ri[19] and quotes that it is the minhag (both in our printed version as well as in Vatican ms. 141, which is the manuscript most authentic to the original Mordechai). As well, the opinion of the Ri is codified in the Agudah[20] (early 14th century), by R. Mendel Klausner[21] (early 14th century) in his Pesakim, and by R. Hizkiya of Magdeburg (late 13th century) in his Pesakim.[22] Not a single source belies any suggestion of the later Ashkenazi minhag.

This leads us back to Tosafot. From the presentation of Tosafot as it appears in our printed Gemaras there is no way of telling how the approach of the Ri related to the contemporaneous practice of lighting in 12th century France and Germany. I had even seen a number of years ago someone cautiously propose that the reason that Mehadrin min HaMehadrin was up for debate in Tosafot was because Jews did not actually light Mehadrin min HaMehadrin and there was no set minhag. A review of the manuscript evidence of Tosafot solves this issue. Guenzburg ms. 636 contains a unique Tosafot on Shabbat authored by a student of Ri.[23] The version of Ri in that manuscript reads as follows:

והמהדר’ין מן המהדרין בית שמי וכו’.נר’אה לר’ דלא קאי אנר לכל אחד ואחד כדי לקיים המנהג שלנו. וטעם נותן ר’בי לדבר דהא לא הוי פרסומי ניסא דהא לא ידיע כמה ימים עברו וכמה יש לבא. וא”ת בפחות או ביתר ידיע שיש בלילה אחת יותר או פחות מחבירתה. בהא לא מינכר משום דאמרי אינשי נתרבו או נתמעטו בני הבית. מ”ר.

In this version, the Tosafot writes that Ri offered this explanation of the sugya specifically in order to substantiate the minhag! This is also found explicitly in the version of Tosafot that appears on the side of the Rif in many manuscripts, and is known as Tosafot Alfas. These Tosafot were gathered by Rabbi Yisrael b. Yoel, also known as R. Zuslein, in the 14th century. He seems to also be the collator of the Rashi on the Rif.[24] His version of Tosafot appears as follows[25]

המהדרין נר לכל אחד נר׳ לר”י שיש הידור כב”ה ליל ראשון אחת ומוסיף כל לילה אחת כמו שאנו נוהגי דאז איכא הכר כל הימים כנגד ימים הנכנסים אבל אם עושה נר לכל אחד ואחד ואפי’ יוסיף מכאן ואילך ליכא הכר שהנכנסים יסברו שכך דרך יש בני אדם בבית…

While not as direct as the previous Tosafot, it is clear that the Ri is explaining the Gemara to be in consonance with the minhag. In fact, upon reexamination, it appears that the Mordechai is in fact just quoting this exact version of the Tosafot when he writes

ולמהדרין נר לכל א’ נראה לר”י שיש יותר הידור לב”ה לילה הראשון א’ ומוסיף בכל לילה א’ כמו שאנו נוהגין…

It turns out then that originally the minhag for Ashkenazim and Sepharadim was the same. Only in the late 14th century is there any explicit evidence of a counter minhag. It is plausible that the rupture of the Black Plague and the related pogroms could have been a factor. Why specifically the minhag would have switched to requiring more people to light candles, and hence cost more money, would be unclear.

But that is not the end of the discussion on Minhag Ashkenaz. Some scholars disagreed with the Ri’s reading of the gemara. They presumably thought it was too farfetched to think that Mehadrin min haMehadrin does not directly build on Mehadrin. Two sources provide a very different way to defend the minhag of lighting only one set of candles. The first is found in the margins of Frankfurt Ms. Oct 81, which is a copy of the Piskei Mahariach on Shabbat.[26] The anonymous author, quoting his father R. Shlomo’s Tosafot, writes as follows:

מתוספות מורי אבי ה”ר שלמה נר”ו, וא”ת למה אין אנו עושין כמו מהדרין, שפירושו נר אחד לכל אחד מבני הבית. טעמא שלא יאמרו הגוים שעושין כשפים בשביל שאין רואין בכל בית בשוה:

While he mentions Mehadrin, I believe he is really inquiring as to why we don’t similarly mandate that each individual light his or her own menorah for Mehadrin min haMehadrin. He says that there is a concern that the non-Jews will think that the Jews are engaged in witchcraft if they see different numbers of candles in different houses. R. Avraham Shoshana in his notes on the Mahariach notes that Ritva quotes the same idea.[27] He writes

ופי’ הר’ יוסף דלהכי אין אנו כמהדרים ולא כמהדרים מן המהדרים פן יחשדו בכשפים (כי) אם היה לכל אחד נר.

This opinion of R. Yosef is immediately contrasted in the Ritva with the Ri. R. Shoshana suggests that this R. Yosef is in fact none other than Ri Porat, a 12th century Tosafist who disputes the Ri concerning a number of Chanukah topics. If this is true then even as early as the 12th century the Ri and Ri Porat were debating if it is possible to read the gemara in accordance with the minhag. Ri Porat is suggesting that there is an external factor that is causing the minhag to differ from dina d’gemara. According to this logic, if circumstances would change it would be appropriate for each individual to light his or her own menorah. This approach may have been a factor behind the switch within minhag Ashkenaz.

There may be some evidence from medieval Italy that would suggest they lit multiple sets of Chanukah candles. The Riaz (13th century) explicitly endorses the opinion that each individual should have their own set of candles.[28] Like Ri MiLunel, it is entirely unclear from the source whether such was practiced in any institution. Unlike Provence though, we do not have the same unequivocal evidence about what the Italian minhag was. In Sefer Tanya, a 13th century work modeled to a large degree on Shibbolei HaLeket, the author writes the following[29]

מצות נר חנוכה מדליק נרות כנגד כל בני הבית ולפחות נר אחד לכולן. ויום ראשון מדליק בה פתילה אחת. וביום שני שתים. וכן מוסיף והולך עד יום השמיני

The Tanya begins by saying that “the candles are lit ‘kneged’ all the members of the house, and at minimum one candle for everyone.” He then begins to describe the level of mehadrin min hamehadrin. From the flow of his comments it seems that kneged means that candles are lit according to the number of household members, and it is possible to add to each set as per mehadrin min hamehadrin, like the Riaz.

Many of the manuscripts of Mahzor Bnei Roma carry a common set of Halachot. Six manuscripts[30] I surveyed all state that on the 25 of Kislev we begin lighting candles

כל אחד ואחד בביתו

Which could be understood that every individual member of the household lights his or her own set of candles. The parallel text is found in Sefer HaTadir[31] (Italy 14th century) that states.

וכן בכל בתי בני ישראל שמנה לילות זו אחר זו כל בעל הבית לעצמו ובכל לילה מוסיפין פתילה אח׳ עד שיעלו בליל האחרון לסכום שמנה.

Which is clear that only the head of the household lights candles. So it is possible there were two competing minhagim in Italy and one may have even influenced minhag Ashkenaz but the data currently is too meager to fully resolve the issue.

The Seforim Blog is pleased to announce that esteemed Seforim Blog contributor Dr. Marc Shapiro is speaking at Young Israel Beth-El of Boro Park, 4802 15th Avenue in Brooklyn, this coming Saturday night December 21 at 8pm.

The title of his talk is “Judaism and Islam: Some Historical and Halakhic Perspectives”.