Azariah de’ Rossi’s Annotations on Sefer ha-Kuzari: Identification and Preliminary Analysis

Yehuda Seewald

Abstract

This article presents the identification of annotations on a 1547 Venice edition of Sefer ha-Kuzari (The Kuzari) as the work of the Italian-Jewish scholar Rabbi Azariah de’ Rossi (min ha-Adummim). The identification is based on detailed paleographic comparison between these annotations and de’ Rossi’s verified notes on a manuscript of Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed (Paris, BnF MS hebr. 691). The article examines the nature of these annotations, their sources, and their significance for understanding de’ Rossi’s interpretative approach and his conception of the relationship between these two major philosophical works.

Introduction

Rabbi Azariah de’ Rossi (1511-1578), one of the most important Jewish scholars in 16th-century Italy, combined traditional Jewish learning with innovative Renaissance research methodologies in his major work Me’or Einayim (The Light of the Eyes).[1] His research spanned various fields, from historiography and chronology through philology and source criticism to philosophy and natural sciences.

Among the works that were central to de’ Rossi’s study were Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed and Judah Halevi’s Kuzari. He frequently quoted and referenced these two works in Me’or Einayim, using their ideas as a foundation for his discussions.[2] It appears that de’ Rossi not only quoted and discussed these works but also systematically edited and annotated them.

Chapter 1: Identification of the Annotations

The manuscript of the Guide for the Perplexed preserved in the National Library of France (hebr. 691) includes de’ Rossi’s explicit ownership signature: “This book, the Guide, gracious dweller of heights, belonged to me, Azariah son of Moses min ha-Adummim”.[3] Alongside this signature, numerous marginal notes appear, some signed with the initials “A.E.” (Amar Azariah). These notes provide a reliable reference point for identifying his handwriting.

In January 2025, two hundred Judaica items from Mr. Klagsbard’s estate were offered for sale at the Kedem auction house’s 100th public auction. Among them was lot 96, a copy of Sefer ha-Kuzari in Judah ibn Tibbon’s translation, second edition, Venice 1547. While browsing through the catalog and attached images, I was excited to identify the previously unidentified annotations as written by Rabbi Azariah de’ Rossi.[4] A detailed paleographic comparison between the notes on his copy of the Guide and those on the Kuzari confirmed this identification. The similarity is evident in all characteristics: writing style, letter forms (particularly alef, final mem, and qof), and consistent use of certain abbreviations.

Beyond the similarity in the handwriting itself, similar editorial patterns can be identified in both works. In both texts, de’ Rossi created detailed tables of contents at the beginning of the book, using the same system of notation and reference. Additionally, the notes in both works are organized similarly in the margins, with consistent use of square brackets to indicate additions and completions.

Providence arranged that while the copy was sold to a private collector, it was photographed and made publicly accessible in the “Ktiv” digital platform of the National Library of Israel.

Chapter 2: Nature and Sources of the Annotations

Analysis of the annotations on the Kuzari reveals several layers of corrections and notes. The annotations can be classified into two types, similar to his notes on the Guide for the Perplexed. The first type consists of brief interpretative notes, where he generally appears as a concise yet profound philosophical commentator. The second type comprises quotations from other commentators. In his notes on the Guide, he quotes from Narboni, Ibn Kaspi, and a previously unknown commentator named Rabbi Abraham Kashlar.⁵ In his notes on the Kuzari, he quotes from Abraham Ibn Ezra’s biblical commentary, from Rabbi Nathanel ibn Kaspi’s commentary on the Kuzari, and from other commentators. An example of a quotation from Ibn Kaspi appears in his note on the science of music in Book II:65, which is found in Ibn Kaspi’s autograph manuscript, as we shall discuss below.

In the Kuzari, we also find systematic and extensive corrections to Judah ibn Tibbon’s translation as it appeared in the 1547 Venice edition before him. The Ibn Tibbon family played a crucial role in medieval Hebrew translation: Judah ibn Tibbon (c. 1120-1190), known as “the father of translators,” established their translation tradition and produced the first Hebrew translation of the Kuzari. His son Samuel (c. 1150-1230) became renowned for his precise translation of Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, while Samuel’s son Moses, though also active as a translator, was considered less rigorous than his predecessors.

De’ Rossi believed, as he explicitly stated in his work Imrei Binah,[6] that this Kuzari translation was flawed since it was not produced by Samuel ibn Tibbon, whom he considered the most authorized translator of philosophical works. Interestingly, de’ Rossi made a significant historical error: he was unaware that the translator was actually Judah ibn Tibbon, the patriarch of the family, and instead believed it was Moses ibn Tibbon, Samuel’s son, whose translation methodology he criticized. This misidentification led de’ Rossi to approach the text with particular critical attention, though ironically, he was correcting the work of the very founder of the translation tradition he admired.

In our copy, we can see that de’ Rossi’s corrections to the translation drew upon several distinct sources:

1. Translation corrections based on Judah ben Cardinal’s version, which was available to de’ Rossi.[7] A clear example of this is the correction of the term “Karaites” at the beginning of the book, which does not appear in the Venice edition but matches Cardinal’s translation.[8]

2. Corrections based on Judah ibn Tibbon’s own revisions, which were written as alternative readings. These corrections appear in the margins of various Kuzari manuscripts.[9]

3. Original translation suggestions by de’ Rossi himself, which were later incorporated into subsequent editions.[10]

To understand the sources of these corrections, we must first understand the history of Judah ibn Tibbon’s translation of the Kuzari. As David Zvi Baneth demonstrated in his foundational research, ibn Tibbon’s translation reached us in two distinct basic versions:

1. The first, which Baneth termed “Version T,” reflects ibn Tibbon’s original translation language.

2. The second, “Version S,” is a later adaptation.

Although the two versions are closely related, they differ in their translation methodology and language: Version S presents a more precise and consistent translation that strives to adhere to the Judeo-Arabic original and to translate each term uniformly.

Additionally, as Bar-Asher has shown, another layer of translation by Samuel ben R. Judah ben Meshullam entered ibn Tibbon’s translation. [11] This scholar initially intended to translate the entire book himself but, upon seeing ibn Tibbon’s translation, refrained from completing a full translation. The question of whether he translated the book based on ibn Tibbon’s translation or merely wrote corrections in the margins of ibn Tibbon’s translation remains unresolved.

Over the generations, these versions became intermingled, and later copyists combined them indiscriminately. This process gave rise to mixed and complex versions, which were also reflected in the first printed editions of the book.

Examination of de’ Rossi’s copy, with his annotations on the 1547 Venice edition, shows that he attempted to grapple with this complexity. He utilized various sources to determine the precise text – Judah ben Cardinal’s translation that was available to him, as he testifies in his book Imrei Binah, making his notes a potential source for identifying Cardinal’s largely lost annotations.[12] He also used the margins of Kuzari manuscripts that documented additional versions of ibn Tibbon’s translation, as well as adding notes of his own.

Chapter 3: The Influence of De’ Rossi’s Notes on Rabbi Judah Moscato’s Kol Yehudah

Professor Avishai Bar-Asher’s comprehensive study of the Hebrew translations of the Kuzari and the evolution of Judah ibn Tibbon’s translation[13] concludes with these words:

“It is to be hoped that the discovery of additional material—in other documents preserving translation fragments, in the extensive material preserved in the margins of manuscripts of ibn Tibbon’s translation in its various versions, or in secondary copies that have not yet been examined—will help to further evaluate the hypotheses and preliminary conclusions proposed in this study.”

It appears that one of the most important documents for understanding the evolution of ibn Tibbon’s translation from the edition published with the Kol Yehudah commentary onwards is this document containing de’ Rossi’s annotations.

We will examine two of de’ Rossi’s annotations that demonstrate his influence on Rabbi Judah Moscato, author of Kol Yehudah, which became the canonical commentary on the Kuzari from its first publication in Venice in 1594 until today.

The first concerns a textual matter. In the Kuzari, Book II:57, it states:

.אמר הכוזרי: אתם היום במבוכה גדולה מאלה החובות הגדולות, ואיזו עדה תוכל לשמור כל הסדר הזה

“The Khazar king said: You are today in great confusion regarding these great obligations, and which congregation could maintain all this order.”

De’ Rossi was convinced this translation was incorrect. In his Me’or Einayim, he criticizes it and rejects Ibn Kaspi’s attempt to justify it. He notes there that Ben Cardinal translated “in confusion” as “in quiet and rest”.[14] In the margins of his personal copy, he included ibn Tibbon’s alternative translation, “indeed in return and tranquility,” but also proposed his own correction: he crossed out the word “in confusion” and wrote above it “in rest.”

Notably, not by coincidence, the reading “in rest” appears in all editions of the Kuzari with Kol Yehudah onwards, to the puzzlement of Munk and other scholars who wondered about the source of this reading.[15]

It seems likely that de’ Rossi’s suggested correction found its way into Rabbi Judah Moscato’s work, as we find evidence of his influence in other places as well.

Here is another source that apparently shows such influence. In Book II:65, the Kuzari discusses the excellence of music, stating:

…אמר הכוזרי: שמה בלי ספק נגמרה ושמה היתה מעוררת הנפשות, כאשר יאמר עליה, שהיא מעתקת את הנפש ממדה אל הפכה

“The Khazar king said: There, without doubt, it was perfected and there it would stir the souls, as it is said of it that it transfers the soul from one disposition to its opposite…”

De’ Rossi writes in the margin:

כנגן דוד לפני שאול להעביר רוחו הרעה וכנגן אלישע בהסתלקות הנבואה. וכבר חשב האפודי שלזאת הסבה כתוב בקצת מזמורי תהלים למנצח, לפי שהיה השיר המיוחד למזמור ההוא ממה שינצח כח או כחות מה מהנפש להשיבם להיושר והנכון

“Like David’s playing before Saul to remove his evil spirit, and like Elisha’s playing when prophecy departed. The Efodi already thought that for this reason it is written in some psalms ‘To the chief musician,’ because the song designated for that psalm was among those that would overcome some power or powers of the soul to return them to uprightness and propriety.”

These words are not found in any of the Efodi’s known works, but it appears that in de’ Rossi’s memory, he confused the Efodi with Rabbi Nathanel ibn Kaspi. The latter writes in his commentary on this passage:[16]

כאשר ראינו משאול כאשר ביעתתהו רוח רעה והיה כנגן דוד לפניו סרה מעליו הרוח הרעה ההיא כמו שמבואר מהספור, והיה בהיות אלהים אל שאול ולקח דוד את הכנור ונגן בידו ורוח לשאול וכו’. וכן היתה חכמת המושאיקא מעוררת הנפשות, כי מצד התלות השכל האינושי בחומר ישיגהו פעמים עכירות ובהלה ושכחה, ובה יקנו יתרון המעלות ויקנו המדות ויחזיקו התכונות. וכן יסירו הנגונים חליי הנפש ויכוונוה לקבל רוח הקדש. ובזה ינוצחו קצת תכונות רעות שבנפש ויוכנעו לעבודת האל, על כן כתב למנצח מזמור לדוד. ולהיות חכמת הנגון בנוייה על סדר הערכים, ר”ל על סדר הערך והיושר מסודר ומתוקן כראוי, על כן אמר דוד שיר המעלות

“As we saw with Saul when an evil spirit troubled him and when David played before him the evil spirit departed from him, as is clear from the story, ‘And it happened, when the spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took a harp and played with his hand; then Saul would become refreshed,’ etc. Thus the science of music would stir the souls, for due to the attachment of the human intellect to matter, it sometimes experiences turbidity, confusion and forgetfulness, and through it they acquire excellence of virtues and acquire good traits and strengthen dispositions. Thus the melodies remove the illnesses of the soul and prepare it to receive the holy spirit. In this way certain evil dispositions in the soul are overcome and subdued to divine service, therefore it is written ‘To the chief musician, a psalm of David.’ And because the science of music is built on the order of proportions, that is, on the order of proportion and uprightness arranged and established properly, therefore David said ‘A Song of Ascents.'”

It seems quite clear that de’ Rossi summarized and abbreviated ibn Kaspi’s comments here, making them the source of his note, though he mistakenly attributed them to the Efodi.

Now, I can find no logical explanation for Rabbi Judah Moscato’s words elsewhere, unless we say that he saw de’ Rossi’s words in this note and understood them in an interesting way.

This is what Rabbi Judah Moscato writes in his book of sermons, Nefutzot Yehudah:[17]

ומקרא מפורש הוא, יבקשו איש יודע מנגן בכינור. והיה בהיות עליך רוח אלהים רעה, וניגן בידו וטוב לך. ועל כתפות האפודי היתה זאת שומה, אל מול פניו, לעומת מחברתו, כי על כן נאמר בקצת המזמורים למנצח, להיות השיר המיוחד אליהם מועיל מאד לנצח התכונות שבנפש, להכניעם ולהשיבם אל תיקון היושר לעבודת האל יתברך. הוא דבר בעל הכוזרי, בהפליגו בשבחי המוסיקה הנמצאת מאז באומתנו, וזו לשונו, מאמר ב, סימן סה: שמה, מבלי ספק, נגמרה ונשלמה, ושמה היתה מעוררת הנפשות, כאשר ייאמר עליה שהיא מעתקת את הנפש ממידה אל הפכה. ע”כ

“And it is an explicit verse, ‘Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp. And it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon you, that he shall play with his hand, and you shall be well.’ And upon the shoulders of the ephod this was placed, before him, opposite its joining, for therefore it is said in some psalms ‘To the chief musician,’ as the song designated for them was very beneficial for overcoming the dispositions of the soul, to subdue them and return them to proper rectification for the service of God, blessed be He. This is what the author of the Kuzari said, in his praise of the music found then in our nation, and this is his language, Book II:65: ‘There, without doubt, it was perfected and completed, and there it would stir the souls, as it is said of it that it transfers the soul from one disposition to its opposite.’ End quote.”

It is quite clear that these are the same ideas that originated in ibn Kaspi’s commentary. But how did the words “and upon the shoulders of the ephod this was placed” enter into R. Judah Moscato’s discussion? What does the ephod, and specifically “Efodi,” have to do with King David? It must be that de’ Rossi’s words were before him, and he interpreted the word “Efodi” as referring to David’s ephod.

Conclusion

The identification of Azariah de’ Rossi’s annotations on the Kuzari sheds light both on his interpretative approach and on his influence on subsequent generations. Analysis of the annotations reveals a scholar combining expertise in commentarial literature with meticulous textual criticism, drawing on various sources and traditions. Particularly interesting is his influence on Rabbi Judah Moscato, who incorporated some of his corrections into his Kol Yehudah commentary, which became the canonical commentary on the Kuzari. These annotations thus join a series of testimonies to de’ Rossi’s significant contribution to the development of Jewish exegesis in the late Renaissance period.

The discovery of his annotations on the Kuzari, alongside his known annotations on the Guide for the Perplexed, allows us to better understand his relationship to these two major philosophical works and his conception of the connection between them. Further research into these annotations may shed light on additional questions concerning the textual history of the Kuzari and the development of its interpretation.

Book announcement:  New work on Tefilah

By: Eliezer Brodt

דוד הנשקה, לבקש תפלה: תפילות הקבע בתלמודם של חכמים, ב‘ חלקים, 1304 עמודים

I am very happy to announce the publication of an important work (in time for reading over Pesach) which I have been eagerly awaiting; Professor David Henshke of the Talmud Department at Bar Ilan University’s Livakeish Tefilah. The books were published by Magnes Press.

Back in 2016 I announced his work on the Leil Haseder. If you did not get it yet, I highly recommend it. In that post, I highlighted the reason for my excitement and the strengths and uniqueness of that work-something I still stand by.

Relevant to this new work I will quote part of what I wrote than with some minor updates:

Professor Henshke shows a command of two worlds which some feel cannot go together, the Yeshivah and Academic worlds. He learned by various greats of the past including R’ Yisroel Gustman, R’ Binyamin Ze’ev Benedict, and R’ Shlomoh Fisher, has served as a maggid Shiur, worked for Encyclopedia Talmudit for a while, and is extremely familiar with the Yeshivisheh Torah in all areas, including Kodoshim and Taharos. His works shows an incredible command of the relevant sources, from Chazal and onwards, Geonim, Rishonim and Achronim. At the same time, he shows the same impressive breadth in academic literature as well as deep understanding and utilization of the various methodologies. He is careful to examine all the material from scratch, including the manuscripts, to the finest details. This allows him to look at the sugyah with a fresh look. Additionally, he is also a great “Mechadish” and has originated many new ideas on various issues. Professor Henshke is an outstanding example of the tremendous benefit in combining both worlds (a topic for a different time). All this is done with Yiras Shamyim and with proper respect of whoever he is dealing with, even when he is arguing with them.

In general, Professor Henshke’s lectures and written material focus on the Peshat. Basing himself upon a meticulous reading of the texts, he then approaches Chazal (Midrashei halacha and Mishna-Tosefta) by putting each halachah into its proper literary perspective (each corpus reflects the Halachos as learned in a different Bais Midrash; that of R’ Yishmael and that of R’ Akiva). This approach, coupled with his phenomenal scope allows him to connect seemingly non-related halachos, weaving an intricate tapestry worthy of both Rosh Yeshiva and scholastic.

He has written over 140 articles and three books (here, here & here) developing and elaborating on his methods. Many of his articles are available here thanks to the efforts of my dear friend Menachem Butler

In recent years, Tefilah has finally begun receiving the in-depth treatment it needs and deserves, both through the publication of new Seforim, (and reprints of older ones) and through academic works. IY”H, I hope to discuss this in an upcoming podcast episode.

Henshke opens his work with an insightful overview of its goals and limitations before diving into the depths of the sugyos. The current volumes are certainly not a light read, but they provide a profound and original perspective, offering a deeper understanding of numerous sugyos related to Tefilah. This work is sure to become a definitive study on the subject.

If one is interested in reading the introduction or some articles by Professor Henshke that were later updated and incorporated into this work, feel free to email me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

Here are the Table of Contents of this special work. Simply looking at it gives one sense of some of the issues he deals with.

The book can be purchased through me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com or via Magnes Press.

We have previously discussed Jewish literature and the genre of parody, which arguably began with Maseches Purim and inspired many other works that use Purim as a catalyst. The genre further developed, with parody being employed in various contexts, such as the disputes between traditionalist Litvaks and the nascent Hasidic movement, the Haskalah, or during the mass emigration of Jews to the United States, which highlighted the religious laxity of many immigrants. (For some of our previous discussions, see “Purim and Parodies,” “Talmudic Humor and Its Discontents,” and “Purim Roundup.”) In that spirit, we present a contemporary take on the genre.

AI Killed the Purim Torah Star 

by Ari Friedman

As I struggled to write my own opening sentence for this post and the AI had already written three complete article drafts including one in perfect rhyme, I was struck by the Purim-spiel Eseque irony. While they were all limited and far from ready to publish, it was still disheartening to see proof of my thesis – that in an era of AI content generation, Purim Torah is uniquely suited to be replaced by AI, leaving the creativity of idea generation and AI prompt writing as the primary human activity.

After that, my next approach was to refine my prompt[1] to make it the article’s opening paragraph, planning for the remainder of the article to work towards unpacking the prompt in the old-fashioned manual way. That was before the idea of taking the experiment one step further, and asking ChatGPT to write an article in the style of a Seforim Blog post. After the below result, I gave up trying to write and let AI take over (until my concluding thoughts at the end…):

The AI Takeover of Purim Torah: A Loss of Unique Wit and Creativity

For centuries, the art of crafting Purim Torah has been a revered tradition, a true intellectual sport where wit, Torah erudition, and creative parody blend seamlessly. Whether it was an absurd responsum in the style of the Rishonim, an over-the-top pilpul worthy of Brisk, or a parody of modern Halachic discourse, the ability to generate Purim Torah was a rare skill cultivated over years of Torah study and immersion in its many genres. But in the age of AI and large language models (LLMs), this unique genre—perhaps more than any other aspect of Torah—has been particularly susceptible to automation and, in doing so, has lost some of its unique charm.

Why AI is Uniquely Suited for Purim Torah

Unlike serious Halachic analysis, where AI struggles due to its propensity for hallucination and inability to provide accurate citations, Purim Torah operates on an entirely different playing field. In fact, there are at least three major reasons why AI is not just able to generate Purim Torah but can do so with uncanny ease, making it an almost natural fit for the genre.

1. 1. Purim Torah Doesn’t Require Perfect AccuracyUnlike Halacha L’Maaseh or Torah L’Shma, which demand precision and carefully sourced material, Purim Torah thrives on the absurd. The very essence of the genre is a loose but convincing application of Torah logic, taking an idea and stretching it to its most illogical extreme—all while maintaining an internal consistency. AI-generated text, with its tendency to create plausible-sounding but often fictitious information, naturally mimics the very process that a skilled Purim Torah crafter would engage in.
   2. Freedom from Halachic Precedent and Norms
      Traditional Halachic discourse is bound by precedent, textual integrity, and a commitment to consistency within the Mesorah. AI, by contrast, does not operate within the constraints of normative Halachic methodology—it merely identifies and replicates patterns without concern for authenticity. But in Purim Torah, where the goal is to break free from conventional constraints and push ideas to their most humorous and exaggerated conclusions, this lack of normative boundaries is actually a feature rather than a bug.
   3. Pattern Recognition Over Comprehension—Exactly What Purim Torah Does
      AI models generate text not through true comprehension, but by predicting the most statistically probable next word in a sequence based on vast amounts of prior data. Ironically, this is almost exactly how Purim Torah operates: it mimics classic rabbinic discourse, borrows styles and phrases from well-known sources, and applies them in unexpected and humorous ways. The very fact that AI can seamlessly replicate various Torah genres without true understanding makes it an almost perfect tool for constructing convincing and hilarious Purim Torah pieces.

The Loss of a Unique Intellectual Art

While AI’s ability to generate Purim Torah is impressive, it also represents a loss. What once required deep learning, broad knowledge, and a sharp sense of humor can now be produced at the click of a button. The Purim Torah of past generations was a testament to a scholar’s breadth, creativity, and ability to weave absurdity with authenticity. In contrast, AI-generated Purim Torah, while often funny and convincing, lacks the personal touch, the intellectual effort, and the deep connection to Torah that human-generated satire provides.

As we enter a new era where AI can effortlessly produce all manner of Torah parody, perhaps the challenge now is for human minds to outwit their digital counterparts. Just as Torah study itself requires deep engagement and personal toil, maybe Purim Torah too must evolve—forcing its writers to develop even more sophisticated and nuanced humor that AI cannot easily replicate. After all, if Purim teaches us anything, it is that even in an upside-down world, human ingenuity and creativity will always find a way to shine through.

While maybe not perfect, and sorely lacking a Purim-Torah sense of humor, these were quickly generated upon further request. From specific references to the Seforim Blog,[2] or creating a complete Sugya from Mishna through Gemara[3]

אין יוצאין ידי חובת תורת פורים על ידי חיבור שעשה מעשה מחשב, אבל מתירין בדברים שעשה אדם בסיוע של מעשה מחשב, and Gemara asking  מנא הני מילי? אמר רבא: דאמר קרא “ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו” (אסתר ט:כב) – איש ולא מעשה מחשב

?מתקיף לה רב פפא: אי הכי, הכותב תורת פורים על ידי קולמוס, נמי לא יצא! דהא לאו “איש” הוא אלא כלי

.אמר ליה אביי: שאני התם, דכלי בטל לגבי אדם, אבל מעשה מחשב לאו בטל לגבי אדם

And even an artscroll style translation and explanation for complex Sugyas not in the Mishna, such as does prompt generation fulfill the minimum requirement? 

“They inquired: What about a composition that a computer-device made according to a person’s instruction – where the person directed the computer specifically? What is [the law]? Can this fulfill the obligation? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear, we can resolve this from our Mishna which states: “but we permit [the use of] words that a person made with the aid of a computer-device” – does this not refer to such a case? This seems to permit computer-assisted composition.

Rabbah said to him: No, the Mishna is not addressing that case. There [the Mishna] refers to a person who wrote most of his words and the computer-device completed a little – meaning the human contribution was substantial and primary.

Although this content was impressive, the “takeaway messages” concluding the AI-generated Seforim Blog article of a John-Henry-like Torah Scholar who will ultimately defeat the output of LLM, and that being the message of Purim, is severely lacking. 

While the significant limitations in AI’s understanding of Torah are not surprising (and are being extensively studied and compared on an active Substack), it does challenge the prompt writer to re-examine their role, to understand the message this topic delivers, and recognize the evolving role of human creativity for Torah-humor and by extension Torah Lshma in the era of AI.

In Rav Hutner’s Pachad Yitzchak for Purim Maamar 34 he explains why only Purim of all the holidays is the one the Gemara says will continue to be observed in the Messianic age. Using imagery of travelers traversing an unknown forest in the darkest of night, one using a small candle, the other learning new skills of lightless navigation, when the sun rises and “a candle in the face of the sun has no worth”, the candle navigator extinguishes his no longer relevant light . However, the traveler who developed a new skill to navigate in the darkness, maintains that skill even when the sun rises to its full glory, and it is never outshone. Rav Hutner understands the message of the Gemara that the miracles of the messianic era will eclipse the miraculous interventions of the Exodus and the divine interventions the holidays commemorate, leaving them extraneous in the Messianic age. However, the lesson of Purim and seeing God within the hidden framework of political drama and a Megilla that teaches how to find God’s presence specifically when it is hidden, is an ability the miracles of the messianic era will never overshadow. 

Perhaps in the era of AI we face a similar challenge. The ease and speed of AI content generation make human efforts akin to שרגא בטיהרא מאי אהני – a candle in broad daylight.[4] Yet, our challenge remains to find the areas of Torah that are uniquely human, and find the reason Hashem gave imperfect humans the Torah over the objections of the original non-human advanced intelligence, the Malachim.[5]

While the final polished product of Purim Torah may not be the uniquely human role, the skill, and more importantly, desire to create Purim Torah might be. Just as Malachim don’t have parents to respect, they likely also don’t make jokes. A nation so suffused with the love of Torah, that even their humor is expressed in creating Torah themed jokes, is a “Kinyan Nefesh” that remains important even beyond the AI singularity. When the AI sunrise comes and outshines most of human creativity, it may be the desire to make and consume Purim Torah that shows the ביטול מודעא where the Jewish people lovingly accept the Torah in all facets of life, that will continue to light up our hearts in Chodesh Adar.

[1] “Write an article in the style of a Seforim Blog article explaining how AI and LLMs have taken away the unique charm of Purim Torah. The ability to create Torah-based jokes and parody was a hard earned skill that required years of study, broad knowledge, and creativity to generate Purim Torah ideas and deliver them in a style consistent with the desired Halachic or Rabbinic genre. Unlike other areas of Torah or Halacha, AI is particularly suited to be replaced by AI for at least 3 major reasons. 1. Unlike Halacha L’Maseh or Torah L’Shma which require accurate sources where hallucinations are unnacebtabple, making up sources is an integral part of authentic Purim Torah 2. The ideas and conclusions reached do not have to adhere to preexisting Halachic precedents or norms 3. The entire premise of AI content generation based only on pattern matching learned from vast amounts of data, rather than true comprehension, is exactly what good Purim Torah does.[2] ChatGPT: “What makes this particular digital disruption so fitting is that Purim Torah was practically begging to be automated. Unlike serious Torah discourse, where one mistaken citation of the Rambam can lead to a scathing takedown on the Seforim Blog (with seventeen footnotes, three in French, and a digression about a manuscript variant nobody actually asked about), Purim Torah thrives precisely because it doesn’t need to be accurate.”
[3] Claude Sonnet 3.7 https://claude.ai/share/46d25f56-e24a-4f0c-b6ad-04348408b01e
[4] Chulim 60b
[5] Shabbas 88a

Reuven Kimelman/Brandeis University

וְנַהֲפוֹךְ הוּא

“Why are the Books of Ruth and Esther so much alike?”

No title is more intriguing than “Why are the Books of Ruth and Esther so much alike?” for a study of two biblical books ostensibly having nothing in common besides the featuring of a heroine. Otherwise, there are hardly two narrative biblical books seemingly more unalike.[1] The Book of Ruth takes place in rural Judea, in Bethlehem, in the period of the Judges, before the establishment of the Jewish monarchy. The Book of Esther takes place in Shushan HaBirah, the fortressed-capital city of the Persian empire in the period of the Persian kings, over a half millennium later after the dissolution of the Jewish monarchy. The Book of Ruth employs classical Hebrew on the model of the Books of Samuel and Kings along with some locutions mostly found in late biblical Hebrew. The Book of Esther is of late biblical Hebrew, replete with Persian words and practices. In Ruth, a Moabite woman marries a Jew leading to the fathering of a king; in Esther, a Jewish woman marries a Gentile king with no mention of heirs. Ruth revolves around family; Esther revolves around politics. Ruth is idyllic and agrarian; Esther is hellish and urban. Esther is a story of good versus evil with villains and heroes. Ruth is a story of passivity versus activity without villains or dramatic heroism. In Ruth, the worst eventuality is the destitution of two widows. In Esther, the worst eventuality is the destruction of a people.

Even in the Bible, the two books lack linkage. In the Protestant version of the Bible, following the Septuagint, their locations conform to their historical context. Ruth is placed near the beginning of the historical section between the Book of Judges and Samuel; Esther is placed near the end between Nehemiah and Job. In the current Jewish version of the Bible, following medieval Ashkenazi manuscripts, the Books of Ruth and Esther are placed with the other three Megillot or Scrolls but not juxtaposed. The five are ordered according to their lectionary use in the synagogue, starting with the Song of Songs for Pesach, Ruth for Shavuot, Lamentations for Tishah B’Av, Ecclesiastes for Sukkot, and finally Esther for Purim. Others resorted to a presumed chronological order. The Talmud (B. Baba Batra 14b) places Ruth at the beginning of the Writings right before Psalms, likely due to the David connection.

These differences are consequential in distinguishing Ruth and Esther in terms of narrative, not in terms of narratology. A story can be analyzed by its narrative, or by its narratology. The former focuses on the content; the latter on the construction. On the surface, the Books of Ruth and Esther share little; below the surface, however, the techniques for the structuring of the plot share much. As narrative, they diverge; as narratology, they converge. Narrative consists of what is told; narratology consists of how it is told. The issue is not the storyline, but its fashioning, namely, its emplotment. Emplotment deals with the fashioning of a narrative structure or plot by connecting the various elements in a coherent manner. This involves the arrangement of the individual elements into a larger framework to create a sense of purpose within the narrative. In sum, narrative deals with plot; narratology deals with emplotment.

From the perspective of narratology, the Books of Ruth and Esther share much. The most obvious is the status of Ruth and Esther as heroes in both senses, namely, most admired and most active in moving the story forward to its conclusion. On its own, this is not that telling, as there are many biblical heroines who determine the outcome of the story from Eve to Rebecca, from Rahab to Yael, from Deborah to Abigail and then later, in the Apocrypha, Judith. In Genesis alone, the subtlety and initiative of women resolve progeny issues from Sarah to Lot’s daughters, from Rebecca and Rachel to Tamar. Nonetheless, motherhood plays a minor role in Ruth while totally absent from Esther.

More significant is the sharing of the three narrative unities of time, place, and character. Unlike the stories of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Samuel, and David which extend over a lifetime, or take place in different countries, or involve a change of characters, the Books of Ruth and Esther share a limited time, mostly a single place, and consistency of characters. Both stories take less than two years; both occur primarily in a single city, Bethlehem for Ruth, Shushan for Esther; and both begin and end with the same characters, Naomi and Ruth for one, Mordechai and Esther for the other. Each is self-contained, not part of some grand narrative as in Genesis-Exodus and Joshua-Kings.

God plays a backseat role in both; neither speaking, nor directly addressed, nor directly intervening. Still, The Book of Ruth attributes much to God positively (1:6, 4:13) and negatively (1:13, 21-22). God’s blessing is invoked (1:8-9, 2:4, 20, 3:10, 4:14) and God’s aid is evoked (1:9, 2:12). It is the coincidence of events that most points to a behind-the-scenes director, sensed starkly in the happenstance of Ruth (2:3, 2:4, 4:1) as well as throughout Esther. The absence of an explicit God is countered by the presence of an implicit God. The lack of explicit God-directedness correlates with the other historical biblical books of the Persian period such as Ezra and Nehemiah and, of course, Esther in contrast to the pronounced presence of God in Samuel and Kings of the classical biblical period.

Focusing on the pattern or structure of events produces surprising connections such as the pivotal role of marriage and family. In The Book of Ruth, a quondam non-Jewish woman (Ruth) marries a Jewish man (Boaz); in The Book of Esther, a Jewish woman (Esther) marries a non-Jewish man (Achashverosh). In Ruth, a widowed Moabite woman becomes the wife of a Jewish landowner initiating a line of future Jewish kings. In Esther, a Jewish orphan becomes the wife of a Persian king saving the Jewish people. In both cases, an outsider becomes an insider through marriage. Both marriages are of questionable propriety if not once downright prohibited.

Esther herself is the second wife of Achashverosh, having assumed the perquisites of the banished Vashti (2:17b). Boaz is the second husband of Ruth, having assumed the perquisites of the deceased Mahlon (4:9-10).

In Ruth, a distressed widow prevails upon her to-be-husband to extricate her and her mother-in-law from their plight. In Esther, a distraught queen prevails upon her husband to extricate her and her people from their plight.

Both end in unexpected succession. Ruth ends in an unexpected genealogical succession — from Ruth and Boaz to Obed and David. Esther ends in an unexpected political succession — from Haman to Esther and Mordechai.

Besides the move from outsider to insider, Ruth and Esther advance from alien to actual or potential royalty, and from dependency on others to dependency of others on them as illustrated by the reversal of roles of Naomi versus Ruth and Mordechai versus Esther discussed below.

Most significant for establishing commonality is the overlap of terminology starting off with וַיְהִי בִּימֵי, “And was in the days of.” This unique biblical opening establishes the link from the outset.[3] The linkage is tightened by the common terms employed for Esther and Ruth finding favor in the eyes of their patron, making them stand out from among the women courting the attention of their patron.

Regarding Ruth and Boaz, it says:

וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו: מַדּוּעַ מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ לְהַכִּירֵנִי וְאָנֹכִי נׇכְרִיָּה.

“She said to him, ‘Why have I found favor in your eyes to acknowledge me, being that I am a foreigner?’ ” (2:10b).

Regarding Esther and Achashverosh, it says:

וַיֶּאֱהַב הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת־אֶסְתֵּר מִכׇּל־הַנָּשִׁים וַתִּשָּׂא־חֵן וָחֶסֶד לְפָנָיו

“The king loved Esther more than all the other women, as she gained his favor and grace” (2:17).

Similarly,

וַיְהִי כִרְאוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת־אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה עֹמֶדֶת בֶּחָצֵר נָשְׂאָה חֵן בְּעֵינָיו

“As soon as the king saw Queen Esther standing in the court, she gained his favor” (5:2).

The expression of Ruth’s for finding favor מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ in the eyes of Boaz is used repeatedly in Esther (5:8, 7:3, 8:5) for finding favor in the eyes of Achashverosh. The חֶסֶד also appears in both albeit of contrasting meanings. For Esther, it is her external beauty, her grace (2:9, 17); for Ruth, it is her internal beauty, her kindness (3:10) or that of God (1:8, 2:20).

Two rare Hebrew usages clinch the case for verbal linkage. The first is the term for guardian or caretaker. Naomi upon taking care of Ruth’s child is designated omenet, תְּהִי־לוֹ לְאֹמֶנֶת (4:16) while Mordechai is designated Esther’s omein, וַיְהִי אֹמֵן אֶת־הֲדַסָּה (2:7). The term usually refers to female caretakers of royalty.[3] By using a term which designates a protective woman[4] for Mordechai designates him, mutatis mutandis, Naomi’s double.

The second is the rare usage of the verb שבר for “looking forward.” Elsewhere, it appears in a religious context.[5] Here alone it applies to non-Jews in a general context. For Ruth 1:13, it is the false hope of Ruth and Orpah looking forward to grown-up children from Naomi: הֲלָהֵן תְּשַׂבֵּרְנָה עַד אֲשֶׁר יִגְדָּלוּ. For Esther 9:1, it is the false hope of the enemies of the Jews looking forward to dominating them: שִׂבְּרוּ אֹיְבֵי הַיְּהוּדִים לִשְׁלוֹט בָּהֶם וְנַהֲפוֹךְ הוּא.

The common use of קים⁶ also connects them, though it shows up elsewhere.[7] Its distinctive Hebrew use as “legally authorizing,” as in Ruth 4:7 and Esther 9:32, is matched only by the Aramaic use of Daniel 6:8.

The drinking of Boaz and Achashverosh on the verge of making a fateful decision appears in corresponding terms:

Ruth says regarding Boaz:

וַיֹּאכַל בֹּעַז וַיֵּשְׁתְּ וַיִּיטַב לִבּוֹ

“And Boaz ate and drank and got into a good mood” (3:7).

Esther says regarding Achashverosh:

כְּטוֹב לֵב־הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּיָּיִן

“When the king got into a wine-induced good mood” (1:7).

The number ten figures prominently explicitly and implicitly. Explicitly: Ruth specifies that Naomi spent ten years in Moab (1:4), and that ten men are assembled at the city’s entrance gate (4:2). Esther specifies that Esther is taken to the royal quarters on the tenth month (2:16), and that the ten sons of Haman were to be hanged, meriting four mentions (9:10-14). Implicitly: According to Ruth, the generations from Peretz to David add up to ten.[8] According Esther, the number of times the gate of the king is designated as Mordechai’s station comes to ten[9] as do the number of banquet-parties.[10]

Sensitivity to spousal parallels makes others noticeable. Both begin with the loss of a spouse: Ruth loses her husband; Achashverosh loses his wife. Coming at the beginning, both losses create an expectation of a turnaround to make up for the loss. In The Book of Ruth, Naomi resolves the issue by having Ruth marry Boaz. In The Book of Esther, Mordecai resolves the issue by having Esther marry Achashverosh. In both cases, the older relative (Naomi and Mordechai) mentors the younger relative (Ruth and Esther) by guiding the younger on turning around the situation. In both cases, the advice is accepted by the younger though adjusted by their feminine wiles to turn the tables and achieve their goal. The result is that both induce their ruling man (Boaz and Achashverosh) to intervene and save them and company.

The night is the common watershed. Ruth evokes the salvific mid-night of the Exodus by using the identical expression of the Exodus (12:29) וַיְהִי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה saying:

וַיְהִי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה וַיֶּחֱרַד הָאִישׁ וַיִּלָּפֵת וְהִנֵּה אִשָּׁה שֹׁכֶבֶת מַרְגְּלֹתָיו

At mid-night, the man gave a start and recoiled—behold a woman lying at his feet (3:8).

Esther says:

בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא נָדְדָה שְׁנַת הַמֶּלֶךְ.

That night, sleep eluded the king (6:1).

Neither Boaz nor Achashverosh get an uninterrupted night’s sleep. Indeed, the night constitutes the turnaround precipitating the denouement.

The dramatic tension grabs the reader’s attention awaiting the outcome of the heroine’s (Ruth or Esther) daring encroachment on the space of the man in control (Boaz or Achashverosh). Both Ruth (3:3) and Esther (5:1) get dressed up for the occasion. Both resolutions involve a type of exposure, admittedly somewhat distinct, at the respective deciding point: Ruth (3:6) exposes the leg of Boaz at his threshing floor; Esther exposes Haman’s plot to Achashverosh at her party. Both have a potential spoiler: “Tov” or peloni almoni in Ruth; Haman in Esther. The man in control (Boaz or Achashverosh) responds favorably to the heroine’s entreaty and resolves the issue by the disposal or circumvention of the spoiler, “Tov” (Ruth 4:4-10) or Haman (Esther 7:10).

The removal of legal obstacles smooths the way to the final resolution. For Ruth (4:4-10), a prior claim needs to be circumvented to allow Boaz to exercise his option. For Esther (8:8-11), a previous edict needs to be circumvented to allow for Jewish self-defense.

Even Orpah and Vashti have their parallels. Orpah serves as Ruth’s foil; Vashti serves as Esther’s foil. Orpah and Vashti do the sensible and vacate the stage. Ruth and Esther do the outrageous and occupy center stage.

How do Ruth and Esther implement their center-making roles? Both revise their mentors’ urgings to intervene. Ruth subtly amends Naomi’s advice. Naomi instructs Ruth to interrupt Boaz’s sleep on the threshing floor and do what he says, וְהוּא יַגִּיד לָךְ אֵת אֲשֶׁר תַּעַשִׂין (3:4b). Instead, Ruth turns the tables leading Boaz to say:

וְעַתָּה בִּתִּי אַל־תִּירְאִי
כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאמְרִי אֶעֱשֶׂה־לָּךְ.

And now, my young lady, have no fear,
whatever you say I will do for you (3:11a).

Naomi assumed that Boaz, the wealthy landowner, would call the shots; Ruth, the destitute foreigner, proved otherwise.

Note also the parallel between Boaz and Achashverosh.

The former says to Ruth: “whatever you say I will do for you” (ibid.);

the latter says to Esther:

וּמַה־שְּׁאֵלָתֵךְ וְיִנָּתֵן לָךְ
וּמַה־בַּקָּשָׁתֵךְ עוֹד וְתֵעָשׂ

Whatever is your wish, it shall be granted.
And whatever is your request? It shall be done (9:12).

Ruth also pointedly revises Boaz’s own compliment to her about God into her directive to Boaz:

(אֲשֶׁר־בָּאת לַחֲסוֹת תַּחַת־כְּנָפָיו = “that you sought refuge under His wings” [2:12b]
וּפָרַשְׂתָּ כְנָפֶךָ עַל־אֲמָתְךָ כִּי גֹאֵל אָתָּה

Spread your wing (= corner of the garment[11]) over your handmaid, for you are the redeemer (3:9).

This expression for being taken under God’s wings indicating solicitude, as in Ruth 2:12b, is frequent in Psalms.[12] Its use at 3:9, however, in the light of Ezekiel 16:8,[13] conjures up conjugality intimating minimally eligibility if not a marriage proposal.[14] Ruth thereby instigates the process of redemption by turning the tables on the male in charge initiating the denouement.

Esther, for her part, deflects Mordechai’s rash advice to barge in on the king and plead the case of her people. Instead, she sets up Haman by inviting him to a party in her private quarters with her husband with whom she has not been for thirty days (4:11b). The impervious Haman, so full of himself (7:5b), as Achashverosh notes, falls for the trap oblivious of the repercussions of a ménage à trois.[15]

Both books record two interventions of women offering advice. In Ruth, the local women speak up twice. The first at 1:19-20 is negative regarding Naomi’s self-pitying bitterness upon her return to Judea and the irony of being called Naomi, which plays on the Hebrew for pleasantness. The second is positive regarding the birth of Obed, her new-born, as it were, grandchild:

וַתֹּאמַרְנָה הַנָּשִׁים אֶל־נׇעֳמִי
בָּרוּךְ יי אֲשֶׁר לֹא הִשְׁבִּית לָךְ גֹּאֵל הַיּוֹם
וְיִקָּרֵא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל

And the women said to Naomi:
“Blessed be the Lord who has not deprived you of a redeemer today.
May he achieve renown in Israel” (4:14).

In Esther, the first is positive reflecting Haman’s spectacular rise:

She (Zeresh) says along with others “Let a stake be put up fifty cubits high, and in the morning ask the king to have Mordecai impaled on it. Then you can go gaily with the king to the feast” (5:14).

The second is negative projecting his spectacular fall:

His advisers and his wife Zeresh said to him, “If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of Jewish stock, you will not prevail; you will fall before him to your ruin” (6:13).

In fact, at 7:8, Haman falls before Esther.

They also share a common historical perspective albeit reversed.

The Book of Ruth projects three generations forward to David, Boaz’s great-grandson:

וּבֹעַז הוֹלִיד אֶת־עוֹבֵדוְעֹבֵד הוֹלִיד אֶת־יִשָׁי וְיִשַׁי הוֹלִיד אֶת־דָּוִד

Boaz begot Obed, Obed begot Jesse, and Jesse begot David (4:21b-22).

The Book of Esther retrojects three generations backward to Kish, Mordechai’s great-grandfather:

אִישׁ יְהוּדִי הָיָה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה וּשְׁמוֹ
מׇרְדֳּכַי בֶּן יָאִיר בֶּן־שִׁמְעִי בֶּן־קִישׁ אִישׁ יְמִינִי

In the capital Shushan lived a Jew by the name of
Mordecai, son of Jair, son of Shimei, son of Kish, a Benjaminite (2:5).

In the end, the prominence of the younger heroines, Ruth and Esther, yields to that of the older mentors, Naomi and Mordechai. The plot of The Book Ruth begins (1:2) and ends (4:17) with Naomi. Beginning as the mother of Ruth’s husband, she ends up as the mother of Ruth’s child, nearly edging Ruth out. In the middle, at the turning point, Ruth dominates. The plot of The Book of Esther begins (2:5) with Mordechai as Esther’s uncle/cousin and the dominant one. In the middle, at the turning point, Esther dominates. By the end of chapter 9, they appear as coregents albeit with a subtle variance. At 9:29, Esther’s name precedes Mordechai’s, whereas at 9:31 Mordechai’s name precedes Esther’s. True, Esther appears alone at 9:32; but by the end, Mordechai has edged out Esther as evidenced by the closing encomium to Mordechai:

For Mordecai the Jew ranked next to King Ahasuerus and was highly regarded by the Jews and popular with the multitude of his brethren; he sought the good of his people and interceded for the welfare of all his kindred (10:3).

Following suit, II Maccabees 13:42, designates Purim as “the day of Mordechai.”

Ruth ends with the birth of David (4:22), the future regent of Israel. Esther ends with the rise of Mordechai as coregent of Persia (10:3). Mordechai is the great-grandson of an exile from Jerusalem along with the last reigning descendant of King David (2:6). David is the great-grandson of Ruth who left Moab to accompany Naomi on her return to the land of Judah (1:7b).

Two tales of dizzying reversals; so different in content, yet so alike in structure. Both feature individual and collective reversals. Ruth: Individually, a Moabite childless, destitute widow becomes the Jewish spouse of a wealthy landowner and progenitress of David, the future king of Israel. Collectively, in the period of the Judges are planted the seeds of the future monarchy. Esther: Individually, an orphan Jewish girl becomes the Queen of Persia. Collectively, a people threatened with extermination emerge politically dominant and religiously attractive.[16]

Most dramatic are the reversals of Esther regarding those of Haman and Mordecai.[17] Haman — instead of hanging is hanged. Mordechai — instead of being hanged on raised gallows is raised to viceroy of Persia. Haman, seeking the king’s authorization to shame Mordecai by hanging him in public (5:14), is authorized by the king to honor him in public (6:11). Wishing to be exalted by the king (6:6b), Haman is debased by the king. Instead of riding on the king’s horse exultingly, he draws Mordecai on it humiliatingly (6:11). Finally, Mordecai displaces Haman as the king’s second getting Haman’s ring (8:2) and adorned in the royal garments, לְבוּשׁ מַלְכוּת (13:15), of Haman’s aspiration (6:8).

Esther — instead of going down with her people (7:4), becomes the savior of her people (8:5-6). As Esther assumes Vashti’s role (2:17b), so Mordechai assumes Haman’s role (8:2a). Indeed, the leitmotif וְנַהֲפוֹךְ הוּא, “reversal” (9:1, 22), epitomizes the whole book, smacking of a Divine hand. In an upside-down moral world only a reversal can set things right.

Reversals, as noted, also characterizes Ruth, most notably in the land of Israel transitioning from famine (1:1) to abundance (1:6) as Ruth transitions from barrenness to fruitfulness. What, however, is a secondary narratological technique in Ruth emerges as the dominant engine in Esther.

There are even reversals common to both. Both highlight the reversal from non-Jewishness to Jewishness. For Ruth, it involves the individual switching of ethnic and religious loyalties:

עַמֵּךְ עַמִּי וֵא-לֹהַיִךְ אֱ-לֹהָי =

Your people are my people, and your God my God (1:6).

For Esther, it involves the mass switching to Jewishness throughout the Persian empire:

ְרַבִּים מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מִתְיַהֲדִים =

Many of the native population profess to be/act like Jews (8:17).

Ruth, who aligns with God and people, is blessed to God by her people (2:20, 3:10). Esther, who aligns with her people (8:6), saves herself and her people (8:5).

There might even be some correlation in the fact that The Book of Ruth ends with the planting of the seeds of the Jewish monarchy while The Book of Esther ends with the Jewish integration into the Persian monarchy.

Both resonate with their own peals of redemption. For The Book of Ruth, redemption is that of Israel in its land; for The Book of Esther, redemption is that of Israel outside its land. Introducing Mordechai as a descendant of Kish who was exiled from Jerusalem along with the Judean king (2:6) could have prompted a finale of the return of Israel to its land as at the end of Chronicles or the beginnings of Ezra or Nehemiah were it not for the restraints of historical verisimilitude.

The result is that The Book of Esther only features an interim redemption, dependent on the whim of a mercurial king. Lacking explicit terminology for redemption, not even a nod to any return, it stands in sharp contrast with The Book of Ruth with its use of a form of the verb שב (= “return”) some twelve times in chapter one about half of which refer to returning to the land and its repetition of the lexeme גאל (= “redeem”) twenty-one times (nine as a noun and twelve as a verb) concentrated in the last two chapters of Ruth. The repeated mention of redemption albeit of individuals and land cannot help but allude to that of the people in its land constituting real redemption. The term is just too repercussive to be contained in or restrained by its denotation especially in the light of the echoes of Exodus 20:2,

, אָנֹכִי יְי אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר הוֹצֵאתִיךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם מִבֵּית עֲבָדִ͏ים

in the formulation of Ruth 3:13: וּגְאַלְתִּיךְ אָנֹכִי חַי־יְי; the redemptive allusion of Ruth 3:8 to the forecited Exodus 12:29; and the revealing double mention of the genealogical line to David (4:17b, 22) making “David” the final word. The redemptive resonances of גאל are most audible in the forecited 3:9 כִּי גֹאֵל אָתָּה and in the reverberating 4:14 –

בָּרוּךְ יְי אֲשֶׁר לֹא הִשְׁבִּית לָךְ גֹּאֵל הַיּוֹם וְיִקָּרֵא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל

Blessed be the Lord who has not deprived you of a redeemer today. May he be renown in Israel (4:14) –

thereby intimating not so subtly the to-be Davidic role in the redemption of Israel. The combination of גֹּאֵל with וְיִקָּרֵא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל is the clincher, as the standard way of naming is merely יִקָּרֵא שְׁמוֹ, whereas וְיִקָּרֵא שְׁמוֹ בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל is unique to Ruth 4:14[18] intimating that the גֹּאֵל that emerges on the horizon today is to be renown in Israel. This conforms to the usage of the comparable terminology in the redemption-oriented verse of Isaiah 54:5:

כִּי בֹעֲלַיִךְ עֹשַׂיִךְ יי צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ וְגֹאֲלֵךְ קְדוֹשׁ יִשְׂרָאֵל אֱלֹהֵי כָל־הָאָרֶץ יִקָּרֵא

The Ruth reference thus far exceeds the otherwise unknown Obed. Limiting גֹּאֵל to Obed who somehow redeems Naomi, his mother’s mother-in-law, with which he has no blood relationship, is an unattested usage unable to account for either denotation or connotation. This leads to the allusive possibility that the “redemption” encompasses also the return to the Land.[19]

Esther deftly molds the various plot elements and literary strategies of Ruth into its own version of redemption. As in Ruth, female intuition and initiative engineer the redemption determining the destiny of Israel. The insights and plans of the women prevail over those of the men. Whereas the men — Achashverosh, Haman, Mordechai, and Boaz — tend to misread the situation somewhat blinded by their own set of circumstances; the women — Esther, Vashti, Zeresh, Ruth and Naomi – perceptively size up the situation knowing what to do and when to do it.

Singularly engaging in lucid Hebrew, Ruth and Esther are eminently readable, plot-based narratives, unlike the other three Megillot. Every scene advances the narrative. All purported incidental elements are integrated, nothing remains extraneous. Like a well-structured drama, each character, however introduced, ends up contributing to the plot at the appropriate time. The result is the two most self-contained yet reverberating literary gems of the Bible.

In the final analysis, the surface differences fail to mask the subsurface commonalities. Esther so echoes Ruth that the divergences of narrative pale before the convergences of narratology.[20] The correlation of the roles of Naomi and Mordechai, Boaz and Achashverosh, and — above all — Ruth and Esther seal the case. It’s the latter two that renders the midrashic observation regarding the Exodus —

בזכות נשים צדקניות… נגאלו ממצרים

“By virtue of the righteous women… Israel was redeemed from Egypt”[21] — applicable to both heroines of Shavuot and Purim[22] as we look forward to the merit of righteous woman effectuating other redemptions.[23]

[1] For a fuller treatment of the two books without raising this issue, see the introductions to The JPS Bible Commentary on Esther and Ruth, the first by Adele Berlin, 2001, and the second by Tamara Cohn Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, 2011. The issue is somewhat touched upon by P. Meltsar, Ruth, Da’at HaMikra, amesh Megillot (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1990), pp. 21-22. The issue of the comparability of the two is taken up by Orit Avnery, Liminal Women: Belonging and Otherness in the Books of Ruth and Esther (Hebrew), Shalom Hartman Institute, Jerusalem 2015, from a speculative feminist perspective with little overlap with this study.
[2] According to ancient authorities this portends negatively for both (B. Megillah 10b).
[3] See 2 Samuel 4:4; 2 Kings 10:1, 5; Isaiah 49:12, 60:4.
[4] As confirmed by Moses’s metaphorical use in Numbers 11:12.
[5] See Psalms 104:27, 119:166, 145:15.
[6] Ruth 4:7; Esther 9:21, 29, 31, 32.
[7] See Ezekiel 13:6; Psalms 119:28, 106; Daniel 4:23; 6:8, 16, 27. The four occurrences in Daniel and Esther reflect its frequency in post-exilic Hebrew.
[8] As opposed to 1 Chronicles 2:4-15 which starts with Judah, as would be expected, and traces eleven generations to David. Ten reflects a turning point as in from Adam to Noah (Genesis 5:3-32) and from Shem to Abraham (Genesis 11:10-26), the correlation of which is made explicit in Mishnah Avot 5:2. In the latter, Shem’s father, Noah, is not mentioned just as Perez’s father, Judah, is not mentioned here making for ten in both cases. Genealogical lines climax at ten, with Noah, Abraham, and David, none of which is make explicit.
[9] See Esther 2:19, 2:21, 3;3, 4:2 (2x), 4:6, 5:9, 5:13, 6:10, 6:12.
[10] See Eskenazi, The JPS Bible Commentary Esther, xxiv-xxv.
[11] See 1 Samuel 15:27; 24:5-6, 12.
[12] Psalms 7:2, 17:8, 36:8, 91:4
[13] וָאֶעֱבֹר עָלַיִךְ וָאֶרְאֵךְ וְהִנֵּה עִתֵּךְ עֵת דֹּדִים וָאֶפְרֹשׂ כְּנָפִי עָלַיִךְ וָאֲכַסֶּה עֶרְוָתֵךְ

“When I passed over you and saw it was your time for lovemaking, I spread My garment over you and covered your nakedness.” See Deuteronomy 23:1, 27:20.
[14]For the range of possibilities, see Eskenazi, JPS Bible Commentary Ruth, p. 59.
[15] See Rashi, Esther 5:4, 6:1, along with Alshikh and Alkabetz, ad loc., in Sefaria.
[16] See Esther 8:11.
[17] See Berlin, The JPS Bible Commentary to Esther, p. xxiv.
[18] Albeit close to the related formulation of Deuteronomy 25:10.
[19] This is all the more likely were Ruth composed in the Persian period.
[20] This builds on Esther’s use of biblical motifs especially that of the Joseph story; see Berlin, The JPS Bible Commentary, pp. xxxvii, lvi-lvii. Note specifically Esther’s contraction and inversion of יֵּט אֵלָיו חָסֶד וַיִּתֵּן חִנּוֹ for Joseph (Genesis 39:21) into the unique biblical use of חֵן וָחֶסֶד for Esther (Esther 2:17).
[21] B. Sotah 11b.
[22] For the prior application to Esther, see Rashi, B. Pesahim 108b.
[23] אין הדורות נגאלים אלא בזכות נשים צדקניות שבדור (Midrash Ruth Zuta 4.11, ed. S. Buber, p. 48).

Hayyim ben Benjamin Ze’ev Bochner: Kabbalist, Talmudist, and Grammarian

by Marvin J. Heller[1]

Hayyim ben Benjamin Ze’ev Bochner (c. 1610–84), a multi-faceted individual, was the author of varied works reflecting diverse contemporary intellectual interests. His books are both independent works and commentaries on earlier titles. A Kabbalist, Talmudist, and grammarian, Bochner wrote on these subjects as well as annotating numerous other works.

Born in Cracow, Bochner’s family was one of that city’s wealthiest Jewish families, owners of a stone mansion and two adjoining stores on Casimir place, a street otherwise without Jews. A student of R. Israel Seligman Ganz (1541-1613) in nigleh (revealed Torah) and of R. Jacob Temerls (Jacob Ashkenazi, d. 1666) in nistar (concealed Torah – Kabbalah), Bochner married the former’s daughter. Upon his father’s death in 1647, Bochner inherited a share in the family business and property. He elected, however, in order to further pursue his studies, to forgo his portion of the business and the properties in lieu of a life-long weekly allowance, selling his share to his three brothers a a sister. Initially, Bochner opened a free rabbinical school and associated with several renowned scholars, among them R. Lipmann Heller. Bochner, however, was subsequently called to serve as rabbi and head of the bet din in Ebenfurth and afterwards in Lackenbach in Austria, maintaining a yeshiva in both locations. He later relocated to Vienna, remaining there until the expulsion of the Jews from that city in 1670. His final residence was in in Fürth, Bavaria, where he passed away on Feb. 2, 1684.[2][3]

Bochner was a Talmudic scholar, reflected in his works. His primary lifetime occupation was writing, editing, and publishing books.[4] In this article we first address books which Bochner authored or seriously annotated, followed by other titles which he edited or annotated to a lesser extent. We begin with Orhot Hayyim published in 1654.

I

Orhot Hayyim – Bochner based his first composition of consequence, Orhot Hayyim, on the Minhagim of R. Isaac Tyrnau (1c. 1380/85-1439/52); it is an abridgment and annotation of that popular work. Orhot Hayyim was published in Cracow in 1654 at the press of Menahem Nahum ben Moses Meisels. It is a small book, a quarto in format (4⁰: [10] ff.). The Meisels’ press was established in 1630, acquiring the typographical equipment that had previously belonged to the Prostitz press. In addition to that acquisition, Meisels had new letters cast in Venice. Meisels’ publications reflect the Prague style, likely due to the influence of his manager, Judah ha-Kohen of Prague. Meisels received a privilege from King Sigismund III Vasa, later reconfirmed by King Ladislaus IV Vasa and the town authorities.[5]

Isaac Tyrnau’s Minhagim was very popular at its time and remains so today. In the Bet Eked Sepharim, Ch. B. 2Friedberg records thirty-two editions of that work, beginning with a 1566 Venice printing though an 1880-88 Munkatch edition, including commentaries and Yiddish translations.[6] Minhagim, a compilation of customs written in the mid-fifteenth century, records the religious conventions and practices of central European Jewry for the entire year.[7]

Tyrnau was born in the Hungarian city of Tyrnau (now in Slovakia) or in Vienna, but later resided in Tyrnau, Austria. He was a student of R. Abraham Klausner, R. Shalom ben Isaac of Neustadt (Sar Shalom), and R. Aaron of Neustadt (Blumlein). Tyrnau later served as rabbi in Pressburg. An interesting digression. It is reported that Tyrnau’s beautiful daughter was kidnaped by the crown prince of Hungary who fell in love with her and subsequently renounced the crown and converted to Judaism. The prince went to study Judaism with Sephardic rabbis, returned to Hungary and had a clandestine marriage with Tyrnau’s daughter. He continued to study, with Tyrnau. Catholic priests, however, accidentally became aware of the prince’s situation, and demanded that he return to Catholicism. Upon his refusal, he was burned at the stake and the Jews were expelled from Tyrnau.[8]

The title page of Orhot Hayyim notes the inclusion of material from the Zohar and is dated, in the year, quiet השקט in the month Menahem (Av) (414 = July/August, 1654). Bochner’s abridgment of Tyrnau’s Minhagim is described on the title page as:

Abridged Minhagim of the gaon R. Eizek Tyrnau with the annotations and many laws collected from the work of the great gaon R. Moses Isserles (Rema, Shulhan Arukh) of which the eyes of all Israel behold and from whose waters they drink and according to whom the halakhah is determined everywhere in these lands and by whom we live and from other poskim who have gathered in their hands the spirit of God. . . . All the customs and laws of the entire year done and mentioned, all the order of prayers and [birkat ha-mazon], piyyutim and yozerot (liturgical poetry), reading of the parashiot and haftarot, all explained. This book includes only that which every man does not know well. . . .

On the verso of the title page is Bochner’s introduction, where he writes that he has written this work because he has seen that the hearts of people are much troubled due to the many hardships and bitterness that have befallen us in our exile, harsh and bitter, in which we have forgotten many customs which are not so frequent. Bochner continues that the gaon [R. Isaac Tyrnau] ז”ל arranged them correctly albeit in a new order, found in most siddurim (prayer books). Nevertheless, it appears to him that they are not understood by all due to their length and errors occur in many matters. Bochner remarks that many entries are not arranged in order but rather are scattered here and there so that it is not easy to locate them. Also, in some instances, they are located in a new entry, others in the applicable laws. With the result that many people, of varying stature, lesser and greater “are astray in the land” (cf. Exodus 14:3) and in doubt about many customs and laws, as Tyrnau brings different opinions that are inconsistent with each other. Furthermore, the gaon, the Rema (R. Moses Isserles, 1530-72) who came after Tyrnau, made great effort as to “search Jerusalem with lamps” (cf. Zephania 1:12) for all the customs related to Ashkenazim. Many customs are found in the Shulhan Arukh that are not among the customs of Tyrnau. Bochner notes that the world is accustomed to follow the decisions of Tyrnau when in truth they should follow the Rema whose rulings they have “ordained and taken upon” (Esther 9:27) themselves to follow. So that there should not be two Torahs he has therefore arranged it with that in mind. He has entitled the book Orhot Hayyim so that one should know the way of life (Orhot Hayyim).

1654, Orhot Hayyim, Cracow

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

There are approbations from R. Gershon Saul Yom Tov, called Lippman ben Nathan ha-Levi Heller, and R. Isaac ben Abraham Moses Israel Eilenberg, a listing of the contents, and the text in two columns in rabbinic type, excepting 7a-b which are primarily in one column. Pages have the heading dinei from the book Orhot Hayyim. Isaac Yudlov observes that the text, as suggested above, is an abridgement of Isaac Tyrnau’s Minhagim with annotations and additions from the Rema’s Shulhan Aruk.[9]

There is only one incomplete edition that survives. It was part of Mehlman and now in NLI. Thus, all of the reprints are also incomplete. It was also republished in 2003, (Zikhron Aaron, Jerusalem), with Or Hadash. It is preceeded by a of part of Yudolov’s article that appeared in Moriah discussing the unicum and Bochner. Apparently Orhot Hayyim was not reprinted for several hundred years. the Jewish National and University Library catalogue records two later editions, that is Jerusalem 1994 and Brooklyn 2006. The former is incomplete, that is, selected portions of Orhot Hayyim, the second not seen.

Luah ha-Hayyim – Our next Bochner title is Luah ha-Ha-Hayyim, a popular medical work on dietetics. Published in 1669 in Prague by Judah ben Jacob Bak. It too is a small work, quarto in format (4⁰: 4 ff.). The Bak press was a printing house of note, founded by Jacob ben Gershom Bak (d. 1618) in 1605; eight generations of the Bak family printed Hebrew books in Prague until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Jacob Bak was succeeded by his sons Joseph and Judah who, from 1623, printed under the name Benei (sons of) Jacob Bak. After Joseph left the firm in 1660, Judah printed alone until August, 1669, when a libel suit caused a temporary cessation in printing. Two years after Judah’s death (1671), in October, 1673, his sons Jacob and Joseph were permitted to restart the press, afterwards publishing books with Hebrew letters until 1696 under the name Benei Judah Bak.

1669, Luah ha-Hayyim, Prague

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

The first text page has a heading and introductory paragraph in place of a title page, stating that:

“It shall be health to your navel” (proverbs 3:8), etc. For to the Lord, “For they are life to those who find them, and health to all their flesh” (Proverbs 4:22).

Concise rules of behavior for a person for medical purposes, to maintain bodily health. This is a great principle in the service of the Rock, may His name be blessed. For the public good it is being published anew by R. Hayyim Bochner of Cracow. And it is ישקיט (429 = 1669). “For this was the custom in former times in Israel” (Ruth 4:7) and it has received approbations from the leading physicians. All these things are correct, “and right to those who find knowledge” (Proverbs 8:9) and thereby merit.

Below this brief header are approbations of two doctors, Dr. Solomon and Dr. Mattathias, both of Lublin, followed by the text, in two columns in rabbinic type with enlarged initial words in square letters. Luah ha-Hayyim, brought to press by Bochner, is frequently attributed to a R. Raphael by distinguished bibliographers such as Isaac Benjacob and Moritz 4Steinschneider, who note that Raphael’s name is formed by an acrostic of the initial letters of the first line, רבות פעמים אשר לקטתי .[10]

Luah ha-Hayyim provides dietary advice, such as not eating or drinking until one is hungry or thirsty; nor immediately after exertion; recommends wheat bread and pure sweet white wine, but in limited measure; strong drink made from wheat is also good but should be aged, pure, and clear, that being a sign that it has been properly and sufficiently cooked. One should eat more in the winter and in those long nights additional sleep is beneficial. It warns against harmful foods, among them fruit from trees, limiting those that are dried and especially those that are more juicy, which if eaten when not ripe are like a two-edged sword; and lists foods that are diarrheic. An example of the text is:

It is beneficial to let blood in the first three hours of the day, for the blood prevails over a person during the first three hours of the day. In the winter bloodletting should be done from the left arm, in the summer from the right arm, indicated by, “Length of days is in her right hand” (Proverbs 3:16). Bloodletting should not be done on a day when one returns from traveling nor on a day when one is intending to leave, nor should one go to the bathhouse that day. Also, on the day before and after one should refrain from marital relations.

At the end of the volume is the following tail-piece.

Luah ha-Hayyim was a popular work. It was also printed in Cracow in 1669 and reprinted by Johann Wagenseil in Altdorf, 1687, is one of four Hebrew translations in Exercitationes sex varii agumenti. [It appears on pp. 78-98.], accompanied by a Latin translation entitled Tabulae vitae…brevis introductio hominis, in viam sanitatis. In that edition the Hebrew text and Latin translation are set in parallel columns. In Prague in1688, Altdorf in 1697, and Berlin in 1699, as well as several later editions.[11] is Menorat Zahav Tohor (4 ff.), a kabbalistic commentary on Psalm 67 attributed to R. Solomon ben Jehiel Luria (Maharshal, c. 1510-64). The Berlin edition is printed together with R. Ze’ev Wolf ben Judah Leib of Rosienie’s Gefen Yehidit, an ethical work based on the memorial prayer El Malei Rahamim, and that commemorates what befell the Jews of Podhajce (Podgaitsy), Ukraine in 1677 during a Tartar incursion and massacre of the Jews.

Parenthetically, Bochner is also credited with a Luah Hayyim, extant as a 12ff. unicum in manuscript only. Written in 1684, shortly before his death, it is in the National Library of Israel, as a 12 ff. The subject matter of Luah Hayyim, in contrast to Luah ha-Hayyim described above, is the calendar.[12]

Or Hadash – Our next Bochner title, Or Hadash, was published in Amsterdam at the press of Uri Phoebus ben Aaron ha-Levi in c. 1671-75 in quarto format (4⁰: [6], 53, [3] ff.). Uri Phoebus ben Aaron Witmund ha-Levi, who had previously worked for Immanuel Benveniste, established his own print-shop in 1658. He would print about one hundred titles, from 1658 to 1689, the period he was active in Amsterdam, generally traditional works for the Jewish community, encompassing Bibles, prayer-books, halakhic works, haggadot, aggadot, and historical treatises (Yosippon). In 1689, Uri Phoebus ceased printing in Amsterdam, in order to relocate to Poland. He established a Hebrew press in Zolkiew in 1691. His descendants continued to operate Hebrew printing-presses in Poland into the twentieth century.

The title page of Or Hadash has an architectural frame. The text notes that it is a very small volume:

“full with the blessing of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 33:23) specifically birkat ha-mitzvot and birkat ha-nehenin, as “men of renown” (Genesis 6:4) testify. Therefore, we said it should be printed, perhaps it will be a refuge in time of trouble for us, “to be enlightened with the light of the living Or ha-Hayyim” (Job 33:30), “and he shall plant the tents of his palace” (Daniel 11:45) . . .

The title-page is dated בו יגדל שלום (in which peace will grow, 431 =1661). The colophon is dated, Monday, Rosh Hodesh Shevat תל”ה (435 = January 28, 1675). It has been suggested that the colophon is a typesetter’s error and should read תל”א (431 = January 12, 1671), both days are Mondays, which would be consistent not only with the title page but also with the dates of the approbations, which were given in 1671 or earlier. The title-page is followed by Bochner’s preface with a border of verses, the first line is from the prayer book “Shine a new light (Or Hadash) upon Zion, and may we all soon be privileged to [enjoy] its brightness.” In the center is an acrostic of Bochner’s name, חיים באכנור Hayyim Bochner (above).[13] This is followed by twenty-six approbations from prominent Ashkenaz and Sephardic rabbis, among them among them R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (1579-1654) and R. Jacob Temerls (d. c. 1667).[14] The approbations are followed by a note of appreciation from Bochner (5b), his introduction (1a-6b), and then the text (7a-52b).

c. 1671-75, Or Hadash, Amsterdam

Courtesy of Hebrewbooks.org

The text of Or Hadash encompasses all the blessings of birkat ha-mitzvot and birkat ha-nehenin, excepting those pertaining to prayer. Or Hadash incorporates Or Yisrael, by Bochner’s teacher R. Israel Ganz, as well as his Birkat ha-Nehenin, which is from Bochner’s Orhot Hayyim (Cracow, 1654) on R. Isaac Tyrnau’s Minhagim, as well as other small works.[15]Among its contents, in addition to the blessings over food, are benedictions for a talit katan, tefillin, talit gadol, fixing a mezuzah, lulav, Hanukkah lights, dam betulah, sanctification of God’s name, visiting the ill, comforting mourners, and accompanying a body to its burial. As alluded to on the title-page there is an appendix entitled Or ha-Hayyim, also on dietary issues.

There are copies of Or Hadash in which the title page has a variant arrangement of the text. The text of Or Hadash is set in two columns in rabbinic type, excepting headers and initial words. There are several attractive woodcut tail-pieces, among them one, appearing several times, with a hand pouring water from a lave and two fish on each side, all symbols of a Levi, which here would be the printer, Uri Phoebus.[16] Reprinted and re-typeset in the 2003 Zikhron Aaron edition discussed above.

Or Hadash is recorded in Shabbetai ben Joseph Bass’s (1641-1718) Siftei Yeshenim (Amsterdam, 1680), the first bibliography of Hebrew books by a Jewish author, the only one of the above works so noted.[17]

Tozot Ḥayyim – This is the only edition of Tozot Ḥayyim (the Issues of Life), an abridged grammatical work on the popular Perek Shira by the renowned grammarian R. Elijah Levita (Bahur, 1468-1549). Published together with Perek Shira is Bochner’s Ma’amar al Shimoneh Beninim im ha-cenu’im ha-peshutim ve-ha-Mercovim (Essay on the construction of simple and complex pronouns). Tozot Ḥayyim was published in Hamburg at the press of Isaac Hezekiah di Cordova, one of the first publications of that press, established in 1710-11. Tozot Ḥayyim was issued in duodecimo format (12⁰: 20 ff.).

1710, Tozot Ḥayyim

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

The title-page dates beginning of the work to Tuesday, 23 Adar in the year “In an hour of favor I answer you בעת רצון עניתיך (470 = 23 February, 1710)” (Isaiah 49:8).[18] The text begins that Tozot Ḥayyim is an abbreviated essence of Perek Shira, divided into thirteen stanzas and with the addition of Ma’amar al Shimoneh Beninim im ha-cenu’im ha-peshutim ve-ha-Mercovim.

Perek Shira, the first of four parts of a larger work by Levitas entitled Pirke Eliyahu, was first published in Pesaro in 1520. It discusses in thirteen stanzas the laws of letters, vowel-points, and accents.[19] Ma’amar al Shemoneh Beninim, Bochner’s contribution to Tozot Ḥayyim is a small work, beginning on 12b. The text is bi-lingual, comprised of both Hebrew and Yiddish (Judeo-German) entries, the former in a square vocalized font, the later in rabbinic (Rashi) letters, explaining the rules of Hebrew grammar.

II

Midrash Konen – Our first Bochner title which he edited or annotated to a lesser extent than in the above works is Midrash Konen, printed in 1648 in Cracow at the press of Menahem Nahum Meisels, noted above. It as a small 20 cent. work (8, 5, 4 ff.) published together with Ma’in Hochmah, at the end of the volume.

1648, Midrash Konen

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

Midrash Konen deals with creation, heavens, paradise, and hell. It reflects apocalyptic sources of the Second Temple period and mystic literature of the beginning of the Middle Ages. It was composed in about the 11^th century and first published in Venice in 1601.[20] The title-page begins that Midrash Konen is based on the verse “He established the heavens by understanding” Proverbs 3:19). The title-page notes that it was edited by Bochner,

Sefer ha-Nikud vi-Sod ha-Hashmal – Also printed in 1648 is Sefer ha-Nikud vi-Sod ha-Hashmal, also in Cracow, also by the Meisels press, in octavo format (8⁰: 13ff.). These are kabbalistic works. Sefer ha-Nikud is a mystical explanation of the vocalization and deeper meaning of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet; Sod ha-Hashmal is on the vision of Ezekiel. Both titles, written by R. Joseph ben Abraham Gikatilla (1248–c. 1325), were first published in Venice at the press of Giovanni di Gara in Arzei Levanon, a compendium of seven small independent works.²¹

1648, Sefer ha-Nikud vi-Sod ha-Hashmal

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

Additional works that Bochner contributed to are Tikkunei Shabbat (Cracow, 1660) based on R. Isaiah Horowitz’s (Shelah ha-Kodesh, 1555-1630) Shenei Luḥot ha-Berit. It was published in octavo format (8⁰: [25] ff.), the press is uncertain. At the conclusion of Tikkunei Shabbat are prayers to be recited at the conclusion of Shabbat. Another small title that Bochner added to is R. Ḥayyim Rashpitz’s (Raschwitz) Iyyun Tefillah (Amsterdam, 1671) on meditation in prayer based on the persecutions and the martyrdoms of Prague. Yet other titles to which Bochner is credited [he lists these, and others at the beginning of Or Hadash as written but yet unpublished] with having contributed to but not seen by this writer include Mayim Ḥayyim, containing homilies on Bible and Talmud according to the peshat, remez, derush, and sod; Beit Tefillah (Arba’ah Roshim), a grammatical and mystical commentary on the prayer-book, the laws concerning prayers; and Patora di Dahaba, a compendium of the Shulḥan Aruk unpublished [a portion (or whole?) was published on circumcision in 2003 as part of Sefer HaBrit].[22]

III

R. Hayyim ben Benjamin Ze’ev Bochner was, as noted above, a multi-faceted individual. He was the author of varied works reflecting diverse contemporary intellectual interests. His books are both independent works and commentaries on earlier titles. A Kabbalist, Talmudist, and grammarian, reflected in the titles he wrote and annotated. In summary, the works addressed in this article, all relatively small, are Orhot Hayyim on minhagim; Luah ha- Hayyim, a medical work; Or Hadash on the blessings birkat ha-mitzvot and birkat ha-nehenin; Tozot Ḥayyim, an abridged grammatical work; Midrash Konen dealing with Creation, heavens, paradise, and hell; and Sefer ha-Nikud vi-Sod ha-Hashmal, kabbalistic works a mystical explanation of the vocalization and deeper meaning of the twenty-two letters of the Hebrew alphabet and on the vision of Ezekiel as well as additional works.

These works were written while Bochner was occupied with communal issues and Torah, for which he gave up his share in a successful family business. Not well remembered today, Bochner led a meaningful and fruitful life, and should be recalled for his lifestyle and personal achievements.