An Autopsy in Antebellum America: Exhuming a Forgotten 19th Century Halachic Debate on Cadaveric Dissection Part I

An Autopsy in Antebellum America:
Exhuming a Forgotten 19th Century Halachic Debate on Cadaveric Dissection
Part I

By Shimon Garrel

Shimon Garrel is a current M.D. candidate at SUNY Downstate Health Science University. He is a graduate of Touro College and studied in various yeshivas in New York and Israel. 

Halachic Considerations

This article is part I of II that will seek to address two points. The first and primary goal is to bring to light a somewhat forgotten and unacknowledged controversy regarding the permissibility of cadaveric dissection of Jewish bodies that took place in the heart of New York in 1856. A secondary aspect of this study which will appear in Part II is to examine the primary halachic responses to this debate especially in light of the contemporaneous halachic literature on the subject of performing a Post-Mortem.

To fully appreciate the background of this controversy we will begin with a short review of some of the primary halachic positions on autopsies leading up to 1856. Any discussion on halachic autopsies begins with Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, author of the Noda Be-Yehuda. The Noda Be’Yehuda’s landmark teshuva, Tinyana Y.D. 210, was the first teshuva of a world renown posek to directly address the permissibility of autopsies. Since its publication, the body of teshuvos and literature addressing the subject has grown almost exponentially. The question posed to the Noda Be’yehuda, was whether the body of a patient who passed away from a suspected gallstone[1] may be dissected to understand the pathology of the disease.

Regarding your treatise, which you sent to me, and which offers a presentation of the issue that you were asked about by the holy community of London: It happened that someone was ill with a gallstone. The physicians performed surgery, as usual for such an affliction, but it did not cure him, and he died. The sages of that city were asked if it is permissible to dissect the cadaver in that place to see evidence of the root of the affliction, and to learn from it for the future practice of medicine, so that if such a case occurs again, they know how to perform the surgery necessary for a cure without incising him too much, thus minimizing the risks of the surgery. Is this prohibited because it constitutes desecration and disgrace of this corpse, or is it permitted because it leads to the future saving of lives, so that they may take the utmost caution in their craft.

…In our case, there is no ill person who needs this. Rather, they want to study this discipline in case they encounter a sick person who requires it. We certainly do not supersede any Torah prohibition or even a rabbinic prohibition due to such a slight concern. For if you call this concern “an uncertainty pertaining to a life,” then any task related to healing—grinding and cooking medicine or preparing a scalpel for bloodletting—will be permitted on Shabbat, perhaps they will encounter a sick person who requires it that night or the next day. It is also difficult to distinguish between concern for the need arising in the near future and concern for the need arising in the distant future. Heaven forfend that such a thing should be permitted. Even gentile physicians do not gain surgical experience with just any corpse, but only with those put to death by the law[2] or with those who themselves consented to it while living. If we, God forbid, are lax in this matter, they will operate on every corpse to learn anatomy and physiology, so that they may know how to cure the living. Therefore, this is all unnecessarily lengthy, and there is no lenient approach whatsoever.[3]

For the next century, many if not all halachic deliberations on the matter of autopsies centered around the conditions set by the Noda Be-Yehuda’s ruling. The Noda Be’Yehuda’s perspective on this is clear. An autopsy may only be permitted in a matter of life and death that is “lefanenu”, where performing the autopsy can immediately benefit a high-risk patient. Post-Mortem examinations with the intent of simply studying “ in case they encounter a sick person” does not rise to the level of pikuach nefesh which would permit violating various prohibitions of desecrating a body. The Chasam Sofer, Y.D. 337 commenting on the Noda Be’Yehuda’s psak, agreed to the essence of the teshuva and introduces another element not cited by Rabbi Landau, which is that of a dead body being forbidden to derive benefit from. Without a direct beneficiary of the knowledge gained by the medical autopsy, writes the Chasam Sofer, it is forbidden to conduct a dissection both on grounds of Nivul Ha-Meis, desecration of the dead, and Issur Hanah, the inability to derive any benefit from a dead body.[4]

Rabbi Yaakov Ettlinger, the famed German Talmudist and Posek, took an even more hardline approach than the Noda Be-Yehuda and the Chasam Sofer. In Teshuva 170 published in his Binyan Tzion, he quotes the Noda Be-Yehuda and argues that even if there would be a deathly ill patient who may benefit from the knowledge gleaned from the dissection of a Jewish corpse it is absolutely forbidden to save one’s self by desecrating another body.[5]

We have now seen a brief collection of the positions of some of the most widely respected poskim of the late 18th and early 19th century Europe. The consensus of these poskim with the notable exception of Rabbi Ettlinger, would be to allow an autopsy only in a case where there is a patient who will directly benefit from the anatomical and pathological knowledge derived from that dissection.

Jews’ Hospital of New York

By the year 1848, the New York City Jewish population had swelled from an estimated count of 950 in 1826 to 13,000.[6] The increase in Jewish population in New York reflected the influx of Jewish immigrants that had begun making their way to the United States. This wave of immigration consisted mainly of Jews hailing from Central and Western Europe. Like many immigration stories, a mix of push and pull factors like political instability in the rapidly changing German confederacy, the economic needs of Jewish families due to the rapidly increasing industrialization, and perhaps a spirit of adventure, caused many German Jews to journey to America.[7]


Sampson Simson

With large amounts of immigrants settling in the slums of New York, it came to the attention of some of the wealthier Jews in New York, that a gaping medical void needed to be filled. While immigrant Jews requiring medical care could get it at city hospitals like Bellevue Hospital, many faced discrimination and it certain cases, may have even been refused treatment. With the unabated Jewish population growth, the urgency to open a Jewish hospital became more and more pronounced. On January 15th, 1852, a small group of nine friends, most of them prominent members of “high society” as well descendants of some of the earliest Jewish families in America, gathered in the Trustees’ room of Shearith Israel, the historic Spanish Portuguese Synagogue, and incorporated “The Jews’ Hospital of New York”. The nine represented a cross section of some of the most important and connected Jews in New York who had worked together on other charitable causes. The leader and most senior member of the group was 72-year-old Sampson Simson. Simson, a Columbia College graduate who studied law under Aaron Burr, had been involved in many other charitable enterprises after his early retirement spent the rest of his life involved in public affairs and charity.[9] The other eight were each men of repute, Rev Samuel M. Isaacs, famous for being on of the officiating clergy men of President Lincoln’s funeral. The others, John I. Hart, Benjamin Nathan, John M. Davies, Henry Hendricks, Theodore J. Seixas, Isaac Phillips and John D. Phillips were wealthy businessmen who had participated in varies Jewish charities and were eager to contribute to this much needed project. With Sampson elected as president of the first board of Directors of the Hospital, the mission statement was defined as to provide “medical and surgical aid to persons of Jewish persuasion and for all other purposes appertaining to Hospitals and Dispensaries”.

Within a few months, funds were raised, and a location was purchased by Sampson on 28th street between 7th and 8th Avenues, which at the time was away from the hustle of lower Manhattan and in the “rural” part of Manhattan Island. By Fall of 1853, the cornerstone had been laid and construction had commenced. On May 17th 1855, the Jews’ hospital was opened in a religious ceremony that was led by Reverend Jacques Judah Lyons, the Suriname born rabbi of the Shearith Israel, as well as Ansel Leo, a nephew by marriage to Simpson and leader of congregation B’nai Jeshurun, the second oldest orthodox shul in Manhattan after Shearith Israel.[10] And finally, on June 5th 1855, the first patient was accepted to Jews’ Hospital of New York. With great fanfare the first Jewish hospital in New York, and the second in the country,[11] was opened to the Jewish public.

Figure 2 From the Picture Collection of the New York Public Library. Jews’ Hospital in New York. Printed on border: “Incorporated February, 1866. 138 and 140 West Twenty-eighth Street, between Seventh and Eighth Avenues.” In 1866 the hospital ceased acting as a sectarian institution.

A “Dissection” for the sake of Heaven

The house staff of Jews’ Hospital consisted of what today would be called an all-star team. As detailed in “The story of the first fifty years of the Mount Sinai Hospital, 1852-1902”; pg’s 22 -23.

The first Staff, announced by the Board of Directors on May 21, 1855, included some of the most prominent physicians and surgeons practicing in New York. These men had faith in the efforts of Sampson Simson and his associates. There were four Consulting Physicians. One was Chandler R. Gilman, a witty conversationalist who in his younger days had supplemented the meagre earnings of his early medical career by writing.49 He was Professor of Obstetrics and Diseases of Women and Children at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, having been appointed in 1841; and in 1894 he was one of the few contemporary physicians to insist that there was such a thing as criminal insanity and that such criminals should have special treatment. Another was William Detmold, a German, who had introduced orthopedic surgery in New York, had founded an orthopedic clinic at the College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1841, and was to be the first President of the New York County Medical Association in 1884. William H. Maxwell was the third Consulting Physician, while the fourth was Benjamin W. McCready, a highly respected physician and an early contributor to the funds of the Hospital. The two Attending Surgeons were Israel Moses, an Army surgeon who also had contributed toward the building of the Hospital, and Alexander B. Mott, the son of Valentine Mott … He was an excellent surgeon in his own right, and the founder of Bellevue Medical College. There were three Consulting Surgeons: the great Valentine Mott; Thomas M. Markoe, one of the founders of the New York Academy of Medicine eight years earlier; and Willard Parker, a leader in surgery, a brilliant lecturer who had taught at Berkshire County Medical College and the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and a co-founder with Daniel Drake of the Cincinnati Medical College in 1835. The Resident and Attending Physician was Mark Blumenthal.[12] A member of the Portuguese Congregation, Mark Blumenthal was its official doctor in its help of the sick.

With an impressive roster of physicians and large financial backing from the Jews of New York, the Jews’ Hospital at the time of its opening was placed in the unique position of being unencumbered by prehistoric medical practices and policies while being run by some of the most forward-thinking and innovative physicians in New York. With a top-of-the-line staff, the introduction of some newer methodologies was not long in coming. On December 5th of 1855, exactly 6 months after the hospital’s opening, a meeting was called at the behest of Dr. Blumenthal, the house physician of the hospital and important to note, a practicing Jew. Dr. Blumenthal asked for permission to perform a post-mortem dissection on a deceased patient, as a “justification” to defend himself against the consulting physician who disagreed with Dr. Blumenthal’s assessment on the cause of death.[13] The use of post-mortem examination to determine cause of death was a fairly new phenomenon for the 19th century.[14] Advances in anatomic as well as histologic pathology had begun to take root in medical practice in Europe. French physician and “Father of Histology” Xavier Bichat (1777 -1802) famously wrote that “we should dissect in anatomy, experiment in physiology, and make necropsy in medicine; this is the threefold path without which there can be no anatomist, no physiologist, and no physician.”T[15] The spirit permeating western European hospitals especially was that a great physician wedded clinical medicine with knowledge gleaned from anatomic and pathologic examinations. Blumenthal, besides serving as the deputy coroner of New York city in 1853, spent part of 1854 visiting hospitals in London, Paris, and Munich.12 There is no doubt he bore witness to some of the attitudes and practices present in these hospitals and took some of what he learnt back to New York.

At the convened meeting, Dr. Blumenthal’s request was discussed, and the Board of Directors approved the post-mortem examination. It wasn’t long before word of the autopsy began to circulate and the Board of the Jews’ Hospital met once again on January 14th to appoint a committee to investigate whether a carte blanche policy to post mortems at the hospital should be allowed. The committee decided to submit the question to Rabbi Dr. Nathan Adler, Chief Rabbi of England, to decide whether autopsies should be permitted under “any circumstances.”[16]

Endnotes

[1] While frequently assumed to be referring to gallstones, Rabbi Dr. Edward Reichman has convincingly argued that it is in fact a case of bladder stones. See Reichman, E. (2021). The anatomy of Jewish law: A fresh dissection of the relationship between medicine, Medical History & Rabbinic literature. OU Press. pg’s. 344 -350. Although mention should be made of the work of the French anatomist and Surgeon Jean-Louis Petit who reported and advocated for performing cholecystostomy in the early part of the 18th century. See Clark BB., Livingston WT. Evaluation of Cholecystostomy. AMA Arch Surg. 1956;72(2):218–223. For an overview of Jean-Louis Petit’s life, see Markatos, K., et al; Jean-Louis Petit (1674–1750): a pioneer anatomist and surgeon and his contribution to orthopaedic surgery and trauma surgery. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 42, 2003–2007 (2018). I have left “אבן בכיס” as gallstones to maintain the original Sefaria translation.
[2] Interestingly, criminal bodies were the most common source of cadavers in England beginning with the English Murder Act of 1752. England of the early 18th century was experiencing concurrently a growth in the number of medical schools in the country as well as a perceived rise in crime. Hoping to “kill” as it were, two birds with one stone, Parliament passed the Murder Act in which bodies of executed criminals were to be used as medical cadavers. The hope was that this would both serve as a deterrent to criminals as it preyed on commonly held Christian religious sentiment about the need for proper burial. Similar laws were soon passed throughout parts of Europe and no doubt the Noda Be’Yehuda was aware of these codes. Understanding this also helps provide important perspective into the psak of the Noda Be’Yehuda. For a comprehensive legal and historical background on the passing of the Murder Act See Tarlow S, Battell Lowman E. Harnessing the Power of the Criminal Corpse (2018). Cham (CH): Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. Chapter 4, Murder and the Law, 1752–1832.
[3] Translation taken from Sefaria.
[4] Regarding the Chasam Sofer’s psak that studying medicine from dissections is considered Issur Hanaha see שו“ת נצר במטעי סי‘ לא and She’elot U’Teshuvot Be’er Moshe(Danishevsky) Y.D. 52 who discuss and challenge this assumption.
[5] The novel ruling of Rabbi Ettlinger, that one may not be saved by way of desecrating a dead body has been challenged by many other Poskim. See the direct response of the Maharam Schick to Rabbi Ettlinger in She’elot U’Teshuvot Maharam Schick 336. See further Rabbi Ettlinger’s reply in She’elot U’Teshuvot Binyan Tzion 171.
[6] Oppenheim, S. D. (1918). The Jewish Population of The United States. The American Jewish Year Book, 20, 31–74. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23600990
[7] On the German Jewish immigration to America, see generally Barkai, Avraham. Branching Out: German-Jewish Immigration to the United States, 1820-1914. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1994 and Diner, Hasia R. A Time for Gathering: The Second Migration, 1820–1880 (1992).
[8] Isaacs, M. S. (1902). SAMPSON SIMSON. Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society, 10, 109–117. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43059667
[9] Mount Sinai Hospital (New York, N., Benedict, J. (1944). The story of the first fifty years of the Mount Sinai Hospital, 1852-1902. New York. See pages 5 and 6 for a detailed account of each of the founding directors.
[10] Ibid. pg 9.
[11] The first “Jewish” hospital in the United States was the aptly named Jewish Hospital of Cincinnati. It was founded around the year 1850. See pg. 4 of the December 9th 1853, edition of the Asmonean, a 19th century Jewish weekly, for an amusing letter to the editor by the board of the Cincinnati Jewish Hospital “clearing up” that they were the first Jewish hospital incorporated in the United States.
[12] See the entry on Blumenthal from the Jewish Encyclopedia available at https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3434-blumenthal-mark for more information.
[13] Jews’ Hospital Minutes of the Board of Directors December 5th, 1855. Arthur H. Aufses, Jr., MD Archives, Mount Sinai Hospital.
[14] With the publication of the first serious work on pathology, De Sedibus et causis morborum per anatomen indagatis “Of the seats and causes of diseases investigated through anatomy” in 1761 by Giovanni Battista Morgagni, the connection between anatomy and disease had just begun to solidify.
[15] King LS, Meehan MC. A history of the autopsy. A review. American Journal of Pathology. 1973 Nov;73(2):514-44.
[16] The Occident, Vol XIV, Nu. III, pg 128.



The Birkhat ha-Mazon as an Early Modern Supplementary Prayerbook

The Birkhat ha-Mazon as an Early Modern Supplementary Prayerbook

Morris M. Faierstein Ph.D.

morrisfaierstein.academia.edu

The opportunity to meet the liturgical needs of the Jewish community in the age of printing presented both possibilities and problems for the publishers and printers who wished to publish prayerbooks. Unlike biblical and rabbinic texts that were the same for all Jewish communities, prayerbooks were very diverse with different communities having their own rites and sub-rites. Another problem was what to include and what not to include in the text of given prayerbook. To include everything that one might need for the whole cycle of the year, was not practical as one sixteenth century printer explained in his introduction:

“Observing that the material in this work is constantly increasing, that it is attaining the size of the Shulhan Arukh … and has become too cumbersome to be carried into the synagogue, the present publisher, with a pure heart, decided to print the siddur in two volumes, the first to contain the daily prayers, and the second the prayers for the holy days. This arrangement will enable one to purchase either part, as he may desire.”[1]

In addition to the division of the prayerbooks into one for the daily and weekly prayers and a second volume for the annual holidays, more specialized texts were published like Kinot for the Ninth of Ab, and the Passover Haggadah. The subject of this study is a subgenre of the daily /weekly prayerbook. It is called Birkhat ha-Mazon or Siddur Berakhah[2] but is very different from the modern publications of this name. The Early Modern prayerbook typically had the regular prayers but did not include all the other prayers and rituals that were not part of the synagogue services but still played an important role in Jewish religious life. The Seder Tefillot, as it was commonly called, contained the standard prayers for the morning [Shaharit], afternoon [Minchah] and evening [Ma’ariv] services for weekdays and Sabbaths, and occasionally added the special prayers for the New Moon [Rosh Hodesh]. These prayerbooks also had to be adjusted to the specific rite of its intended market. The Ashkenazi prayerbook usually came in either the Ashkenazi rite, which meant Germany, and the Polish rite,[3] which covered the area from Bohemia eastward to Poland and Lithuania. These prayerbooks did not normally include the special prayers for holidays. To solve this problem, another genre of prayerbook was created, called the Mahzor. This was not the large medieval Mahzor that contained the whole cycle of the year’s prayers along with rules and laws.[4] Rather it was small book that contained those parts of the High Holiday and Festival services that were unique to those occasions and not included in the standard prayerbook. Jacob ben Abraham of Meseritz, who published a Mahzor in 1599 describes the situation that he saw that convinced him of the need publish his Mahzor. He writes in his preface:

Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel, forever and ever, who helped me to print small Mahzorim for the whole year according to the Ashkenazi Rite, in order to benefit the public. I saw the great need for every Jew, and particularly in this time when Jews travel and make journeys from land to land, city to city, and place to place, with merchandise and for other needs. I decided to print a small Mahzor to lighten their load, and it should be in the hands of everyone. In particular, the visitors to the fair in the holy community of Frankfurt, on the three Pilgrim Festivals and the High Holy Days. It should be in their hands, to bring it with them to the holy community, to the fair where God has been gracious to me, and to fulfill their [religious] obligations in this way. I saw with my own eyes, the visitors standing outside the synagogue, running back and forth, and not paying attention to the cantor reciting the piyyutim. The reason for this is that each person does not have a Mahzor in their hand. Therefore, I was awakened, and many householders in the holy community of Frankfurt agreed with me, to print this Mahzor so that it will be in the hands of everyone, like this small prayerbook. With it, everyone will be able to fulfill their [religious] obligation.[5]

Another group of prayers and rituals that were missing from the Early Modern prayerbook were a whole variety of prayers and rituals that were not part of the normal prayer service but were integral to Jewish religious life. To meet the need for a collection of these prayers, another type of prayerbook which contained the prayers and rituals of Jewish life, was created, called, Birkhat ha-Mazon or Seder Berakhot.[6] This subgenre of prayerbook has not been the subject of previous scholarly study. The term Birkhat ha-Mazon has come to refer in the modern world to a small pamphlet containing the Grace after meals [Birkhat ha-Mazon] along with Sabbath songs and occasionally some other additions. The Early Modern Birkhat ha-Mazon was a much larger and more significant source of religious rituals and prayers. It was the repository for the prayers and rituals that were not part of the statutory daily prayers but were integral to the cycle of Jewish life and the rhythms of the Jewish calendar.

This study of the Early Modern Birkhat ha-Mazon as a supplementary prayerbook is preliminary for several reasons. First and foremost, it is based on a sample and not on a comprehensive survey of every work bearing this title. There are at least 25-30 editions of books entitled Birkhat ha-Mazon and Siddur Berakhot that can be found in the classic bibliographies of the Hebrew Book that are not included in this study.[7] A certain percentage of these are the small pamphlet that only includes the Birkhat ha-Mazon and some Sabbath songs, like the modern pamphlets of this name. My sample consists of twenty-four editions that I was able to download and examine the complete text. The publication dates ranged from 1563 to 1780. Seventeen editions are titled Birkhat ha-Mazon and are Ashkenazi in their ritual. All of these editions are bilingual, Hebrew-Yiddish. Six other editions were published in Italy and represent the Ashkenazi (3), Sephardi, Italian, and Rome (one each) rites. These editions are all in Hebrew but may have directions or brief discussions applicable laws and rules in a different language.[8] The last edition is the most unusual. It was published in Amsterdam in 1640 and has Hebrew and Spanish texts on facing pages.[9] The editions I chose to study were based on availability. The parameters were from the beginning of printing until 1800. I included every edition that I was able to find digitized and readable online or downloadable, so that a thorough description of the contents would be possible. Each edition included in this study is described in the Appendix.

The selection of prayers that were included in all of these editions, Ashkenazi, and Italian/Sephardi, are more or less similar. All of them include Festival prayers that are not part of the synagogue liturgy and prayers for the major life cycle events. Beyond that there is some variation in the exclusion or addition of prayers that were not as central. The sequence of some of the prayers also varies, but these variations are not of consequence for this study. They are editorial decisions made by the printer. The most significant difference between the two groups is the bilingualism of the Ashkenazi editions. All of them are bilingual, with most of the prayers translated into Yiddish along with the Hebrew originals. Occasionally a prayer or group of prayers will only be in Hebrew. Most commonly, the prayers relating to the circumcision ceremony and the redemption of the firstborn are only in Hebrew. On the other hand, the prayers relating to the wedding ceremony are usually translated. This is understandable, since in the first two cases, a rabbi or specialist officiates and translation of the prayers is not important, since everyone understands what is happening and why. On the other hand, people who are not fluent in Hebrew might have an interest in the meaning of the blessings that are part of the wedding ceremony.

The prayers of the Italian/Sephardi editions are completely in Hebrew and do not have translations. Even the Italian edition for the Ashkenazi rite does not have Yiddish translations of the prayers. All of the sixteenth and seventeenth century editions have instructions only in Hebrew. The two eighteenth century editions, published in 1737 and 1739, for the Italian and Ashkenazi communities in Italy respectively, have instructions in Italian, in the Latin alphabet. Most unusual is the Amsterdam, 1640 edition, which has a long Introduction in Spanish, and the text is completely translated with facing pages of Hebrew and Spanish. This edition was prepared for the recently organized community in Amsterdam whose members had a low level of Hebrew knowledge, which explains the variation for the Spanish–Portuguese community in Amsterdam.

Another interesting question is the introduction of kabbalistic elements, which were introduced into different communities at different times and ways. The earliest kabbalistic influence is found in the Venice, 1623. It includes the three Sabbath hymns attributed to Rabbi Isaac Luria. They were to be sung at the beginning of the three Sabbath meals, one for each meal. These hymns were mentioned only once more, for a second time in the Venice, 1739 Seder Berakhah. The Ashkenazi Birkhat ha-Mazon has no explicit kabbalistic material before the Frankfurt am Oder, 1753 edition. It includes for the first time the suggestion to sing Shalom Aleichem and Eshet Hayil before the Friday night meal.[10] The Prague, 1773 edition also recommends these two hymns and]adds the suggestion to recite Psalm 137 before the Birkhat ha-Mazon during the week and Psalm 126 instead on the Sabbath and Festivals.[11]

The question of Early Modern Ashkenazi bilingualism needs some clarification. There was a clear division between public worship and private worship and study. Public worship was only in Hebrew and the prayerbooks published for worship were only in Hebrew, though many did have brief instructions in Yiddish. On the other hand, Yiddish was a tool for study and was acceptable for private prayers by women and others who might not understand the meaning of the Hebrew prayers. Tehinnot, prayers of petition, in Yiddish are well known and both women and even men would pray in Yiddish at appropriate occasions.[12] However, when one moves into the realm of the texts used for public worship, prayerbooks and Humashim, to follow the Torah reading in the synagogue, are always in Hebrew. At most we find prayerbooks that have brief instructions in Yiddish.

There are a few prayerbooks and Humashim that might challenge this conclusion and need to be considered. I found three editions of Yiddish prayerbooks in the course of my research that should be considered. The oldest published Yiddish prayerbook was published by Joseph ben Yakar in Ichenhausen, 1555. The Introduction makes it clear that it was published for women who did not understand Hebrew, so that they could study it and understand the meaning of the prayers.[13]The second prayerbook was published in Mantua in 1562 and reprinted in Venice, in 1599. This prayerbook is unusual in that it was bilingual, Hebrew and Yiddish. It was the only one that I could find that was bilingual. The printer offers very little in the way of explanation for the publication. He writes in the title page, “Prayer book for the whole year, in Hebrew and Yiddish, the like of which you have never seen. men and women will see that nothing is missing. Blessed be the one who made it for us with such skill.”[14] Similarly, there were Humashim published in Yiddish, but they too were for personal study or for educational use to teach children. They could not have been used to follow the Torah reading in the synagogue.[15]

The purpose of this preliminary study has been to establish the existence of the Birkhat ha-Mazon/ Siddur Berakhah as a distinct subgenre within the broader category of Jewish liturgical texts. Many questions remain about these texts. Why do the particular prayers vary from edition to edition? Are there things that should have been included that were not, and vice versa? What is their place in Jewish society? The editions published in Western and Central Europe are bilingual, while the Italian editions are only in Hebrew. We know that Ashkenazi Jews in Italy abandoned Yiddish for Italian as early as 1600.[16] Sephardi and Roman Jews in Italy bever used Yiddish. Was Yiddish a liturgical language or just a language of study is an important question. A preliminary conclusion is that was used as a language of study and private prayer, but Hebrew remained the language of public prayer. There are other questions that may be of interest to experts in the history of Jewish prayer and its development. These remain for further research and study.

Birkhat ha-Mazon Editions

The majority of editions do not have a Preface, colophon or other paratexts beyond the title page. In the few case where these items are found, they will be included. Some editions are illustrated. This has been noted. The list of prayers in each individual work follows the sequence found in that edition. It is worth noting that there is no standard order, as one finds in Hebrew prayerbooks.

Libraries where the digitized editions are found.

Basel – University of Basel Library, online
FKT – Digitized Yiddish book collection, University of Frankfurt, online
HB – Hebrewbooks.org
NLI National Library of Israel, digitized books, online

Part I. Birkhat ha-Mazon editions. All of these editions have all or a majority of the prayers in both Hebrew and Yiddish. Occasionally, a few prayers are only in Hebrew.

1. Prague, 1580? [NLI][17]

2. Contents.

1. Title page is missing. 2. Begins in middle of Zemirot. 3. Havdalah. 4. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Song for Shabbat Hanukkah. 7. Purim Song. 8. Purim Reshut. 9. Wedding ceremony. 10. Circumcision ceremony. 11. Redemption of the first born. 12. Eruv Tavshilin. 13. Kapparot. 14. Visiting the cemetery on the eve of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 15. Shema before sleeping. 16. Kiddush for Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot. 17. Passover Haggadah. Ends ¾ through the Haggadah, end is missing. [95 pages]

2. Basel, 1600. [Basel]
1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon

Songs printed in Hebrew and in Yiddish that the women understand what they are blessing or what the songs say, and also the blessings that they are obligated to recite over all food, before and after. Also, over wine, and over fruit, and all drinks. I also added the Four Questions [the Passover Haggadah], which has not yet been found in any bentshen, and also how we do things on Passover, as will be shown below.

Commissioned by Jacob son of Abraham, of blessed memory, Tihinger, along with Jacob son of Abraham, of blessed memory, Pollak, who is called Jacob the Bookseller, from the land of Reisen, from the holy community of Mezeritz of Lithuania, near Brisk.,
Here in Basel the great city.
At the press of Konrad Waldkirch and household.
In the year, “Bestow Your faithful care on those devoted to You”[18] [360] in the small counting.

2. Preface.

I, Jacob ben Abraham, may his memory be for a blessing, the writer, have published this Yiddish bentshen for all pious women. Therefore, dear ladies, pay attention to me and buy the book quickly, so that I may rush home to my wife and children as soon as possible, for I have been in German lands for three years. I pray to God that my children are not ashamed by the fact that I carried around books. I hope that no one will speak badly of me. I behaved well in this endeavor, and I was held in esteem by others. My name is Jacob the bookseller; I am known throughout the German lands. I hope to have a good reward for fulfilling the commandment from this. In all the communities they ask for me, when will the bookseller come here, so that he might bring us books? At home, I did not have, because of our many sins, anything to eat, when I was in the land of Reisen. However, in Germany, God almighty did not forget my need. I hope to Him that I will also not, heaven forbid, forget Him. Therefore, I have had this Yiddish bentshen published. Your heart will rejoice in it. I hope you will always think well of me when I will be far from you. Therefore, dear ladies, buy it quickly from me, so that I will soon be able to run to my wife and children, since I have been away too long. My wife and children will be worried about me. With this you will be worthy that you will soon come to the Holy Land. This prays your servant, Jacob Pollack, bookseller.

3. Contents.

1. Psalm 23. 2. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Purim songs. 7. Purim Reshut. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 10. Kapparot. 11. Prayers for visiting Cemetery. 12. Circumcision ceremony. 13. Shema at Bedtime. 14. Sabbath Kiddush. 15. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah. 16. Kiddush for Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot. 17. Havdalah for festivals when the second day is a Sabbath. 18. Passover Haggadah. 19. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 20. Al ha-Michyah. 21. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. [150 pages]

3. Wilhermsdorf, 1687. [NLI – Has Illustrations].

1. Title Page.

Seder Birkhat ha-Mazon

The Zemirot printed in Hebrew and in Yiddish. The Ma Nishtana [Haggadah] also beautifully and finely printed with all of the illustrations, as in the large Haggadot, with good paper and ink: As we find in the Italian Haggadot with Yiddish on the side, much nicer than the previous ones. With many laws in Yiddish on the side: This was newly produced.

Under the rule of our lord, Baron Wolfgang Julius, General Field Marshall, His Highness, May his lordship be glorified and magnified, and he have long life, amen selah.
Printed here in the holy community of Wilhermsdorf
By the printer, Isaac son of Leib Yudel’s Katz, of blessed memory, of the Gershuni family.
“Satisfy us with Your Goodness”[19][447], in the small counting.

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Zemirot. 3. Havdalah. 4. Hanukkah. 5. Song for Shabbat Hanukkah. 6. Purim songs. 7. Purim Reshut. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the First Born. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Shema for bedtime. 14. Passover Haggadah. 15. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. [104 pages]

4. Dyhernfurth, 1692. [HB – Has Illustrations.]

1. Title Page.

Seder Birkhat ha-Mazon

The Zemirot printed in Hebrew and in Yiddish. The Ma Nishtana [Haggadah] also beautifully and finely printed with all of the illustrations, as in the large Haggadot, with good paper and ink: As we find in the Italian Haggadot with Yiddish on the side, much nicer than the previous ones. With many laws in Yiddish on the side: This was newly produced.[20]

Printed here in Dyhernfurth
By the noble Rabbi Shabbetai Bass, may his Creator protect him, from Prague:
Printed in the year, “Please, my blessing” [452], in the small counting.
Cum Licentia Superiorum

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Zemirot. 3. Havdalah. 4. Hanukkah. 5. Purim. 6. Wedding ceremony. 7. Circumcision ceremony. 8. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 9. Kapparot. 10. Shema for bedtime. 11. Kiddush for Sabbath and Festivals. 12. Passover Haggadah. [100 pages]

5. Wilhermsdorf. 1694 (?).[20] [Basel – Has Illustrations.]

1. Title Page.

Seder Birkhat ha-Mazon

The Zemirot printed in Hebrew and in Yiddish. The Ma Nishtana [Haggadah] also beautifully and finely printed with all of the illustrations, as in the large Haggadot, with good paper and ink: As we find in the Italian Haggadot with Yiddish on the side, much nicer than the previous ones. With many laws in Yiddish on the side: This was newly produced.

Under the rule of our lord, Baron Wolfgang Julius, General Field Marshall, His Highness, May his lordship be glorified and magnified, and he have long life, amen selah.
Printed here in the holy community of Wilhermsdorf
By the printer, Isaac son of Leib Yudel’s Katz, of blessed memory, of the Gershuni family.

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Zemirot. 3. Havdalah. 4. Hanukkah. 5. Song for Sabbath of Hanukkah. 6. Purim. 7. Wedding ceremony. 7. Circumcision ceremony. 8. Redemption of the Firstborn. 9. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 10. Kapparot. 11. Shema for bedtime. 12. Kiddush for Sabbath and Festivals. 13. Passover Haggadah. 14. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. [100 pages]

6. Frankfurt a. Main, 1696. [NLI].

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon for Satiety and not for Hunger

Bless us, Lord our God

This Bentshen is printed according to the customs of Ashkenaz and Poland together, so that everyone should be able to understand the Hebrew and the Yiddish with ease. Therefore, you pious men and women, look at this new Bentshen. Nothing like it has been printed before, with Vayishlach and Ribono shel Olam that we recite Saturday night.

The flower of the staff ,in the small counting.
Aaron of the house of Levi [456]
Printed in Frankfurt am Main
In the new Press of Juspa Tadir Katz

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Zemirot. 3. Havdalah. 4. Hanukkah. 5. Purim Reshut. 6. Wedding ceremony. 7. Circumcision ceremony. 8. Redemption of the firstborn. 9. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 10. Kapparot. 11. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 12. Prayers for visiting cemetery before High Holy Days. 13. Tehinnot on the eve of the High Holy Days. 14. Shema for bedtime. 15. Kiddush for Sabbath and Festivals. 16. Passover Haggadah. 17. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. [95 pages]

7. Frankfurt a. Oder, 1701. [NLI –Has Illustrations.]

1. Title Page.

Seder Birkhat ha-Mazon

The zemirot printed in Yiddish. The Ma Nishtana [Haggadah] also beautifully and finely printed with all of the illustrations, as in the large Haggadot, with good paper and ink: As we find in the Italian Haggadot with Yiddish on the side, much nicer than the previous ones. With many laws in Yiddish on the side: This was newly produced.

Printed in the year 461, in the small counting.
Here in the holy community of Frankfurt am Oder
Under the rule of our lord, His Majesty, king of Prussia, Fredrick the Third, and Grand Duke of Brandenburg. May God elevate his majesty and his kingdom, higher and higher, amen.
Printed in the press of the noble Michael Gottschalk:
Commissioned by the noble Rabbi Gershon Wiener from Frankfurt am Oder:

2. Contents.

1. Psalm 23. 2. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Shabbat Hanukkah. 7. Purim Reshut. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the firstborn. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Shema at bedtime. 14. Kiddush for Sabbath, Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 15. Havdalah when second day is Saturday night. 16. Passover Haggadah. [115 pages]

8. Amsterdam, 1701. [NLI].

1. Title page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon

This Bentshen is printed according to the customs of Ashkenaz and Poland together, so that everyone should be able to understand the Hebrew and the Yiddish with ease. Therefore, you pious men and women, look at this new Bentshen. Your children will rejoice when they read in this Bentshen. Through this you will be worthy to soon come into the land of Israel. May the Messiah of David come speedily in our days. Amen, so may it be His will:

In Amsterdam
In the House of and commissioned by the young man Emanuel son of the venerable Joseph Athias, of blessed memory
“Then Israel sang this song”[Exodus, 15:1], in the small counting [461]

2. Contents.

1. Psalm 23. 2. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Shabbat Hanukkah. 7. Purim songs and Reshut. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the firstborn. 11 Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 14. Prayers for visiting cemetery before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 15. Shema at bedtime. 16. Kiddush for Sabbath, Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 17. Passover Haggadah. 18. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 19. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 20. Yiddish prayer to be recited every day before the prayers. 21. Additional prayers after Havdalah. 22. Counting the Omer. [143 pages]

9. Amsterdam, 1702. [NLI].[22]

1. Title page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon

The Bentshen according to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. I hired someone who made the rhymes so that one should be able to sing them with one’s own tune, very beautifully. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have not spared any money, and all the mistakes from the previous Bentshen corrected, and everything has been placed in its proper order. The has never been anything like it in the world. I know that everyone will be well pleased, and nobody will be disappointed with what he paid for it.

Commissioned by the young man, Solomon son of Rabbi Joseph Katz, of blessed memory, Proops, bookseller.
In Amsterdam
In the House of the young man Emanuel son of the venerable Joseph Athias, of blessed memory
In the year, “The writing was God’s writing” [Exodus, 32:16], [462]

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Kiddush for Sabbath. 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Purim songs. 9. Wedding ceremony. 10. Circumcision ceremony. 11. Redemption of the firstborn. 12. Eruv Tavshilin. 13. Kapparot. 14. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 15. Prayers for visiting cemetery before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 16. Shema at bedtime. 17. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 18. Passover Haggadah. 19. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 20. Yiddish prayer to be recited every day before the prayers. [141 pages]

10. Frankfurt a. Main, 1713. [FKT].

1. Title page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon for Satiety and not for Hunger
The Bentshen according to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland

Set very evenly to live by it. At the end as at the beginning nothing has been spared. Beautiful print and paper. It will not be too expensive for anyone, sharply printed and beautiful, so that the women and maidens will be able to understand. No money has been spared for it, and many mistakes corrected. One will see that not much remained standing. I did what I could, and with this it has an end. The Holy One should send us the Messiah soon, and the exile should soon be removed from us, speedily in our days. May the Lord our God bless us. Amen, so may it be His will:

Printed here in the holy community of Frankfurt am Main, with the fonts of
Amsterdam
In the year, “When you have eaten your fill, give thanks to your God” [Deuteronomy, 8:10], in the small counting

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Kiddush for Sabbath. 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Shabbat Hanukkah. 7. Purim songs. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Eruv Tavshilin. 11. Kapparot. 12. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 13. Shema at bedtime. 14. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 15. Passover Haggadah. 16. Passover Haggadah. 17. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 18. Prayers for Kiddush ha-Levanah. [93 pages]

11. Amsterdam, 1722. [NLI – Has Illustrations].

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon
According to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland
The Bentshen

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. We have made the rhymes in Yiddish so that one should be able to sing them, with one’s own tune, very beautifully, and it will please everyone. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. Each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have included much more in this printing. One can see everything in it, how many illustrations are in it, and to honor the Holy One. In order that children become accustomed to like the commandments. Everything is placed in order, and it’s like has not yet been seen in the world.

In Amsterdam
Commissioned by and at the press of
Rabbi Solomon son of Rabbi Joseph Katz, of blessed memory, Proops, bookseller.
In the year, “The Lord your God will bless all your enterprises” [Deuteronomy, 14:29], in the small counting [482]

2. Colophon.

This expanded Bentshen and all sorts of books, which make it exceptional. It can be purchased from the printer himself, the famous bookseller, Rabbi Solomon, Katz, may His Creator protect him, Proops, living in the Broad Street in Amsterdam.

3. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Kiddush for Sabbath. 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Purim. 9. Wedding ceremony. 10. Circumcision ceremony. 11. Redemption of the firstborn. 12. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 13. Kapparot. 14. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 15. Prayers for visiting cemetery before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 16. Shema at bedtime. 17. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 18. Passover Haggadah. 19. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 20. Yiddish prayer to be recited every day before the prayers. [141 pages]

12. Amsterdam, 1723. [HB – Has Illustrations].[23]

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon
According to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland
The Bentshen

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. We have made the rhymes in Yiddish so that one should be able to sing them, with one’s own tune, very beautifully, and it will please everyone. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. Each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have included much more in this printing. One can see everything in it, how many illustrations are in it, and to honor the Holy One. In order that children become accustomed to like the commandments. Everything is placed in order, and it’s like has not yet been seen in the world.[24]

In Amsterdam
In the house and press of
Rabbi Isaac, son of, Jacob De Cordova bookseller
In the year, “All who are inscribed for life in Jerusalem” [Isaiah, 4:3], in the small counting [483]

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Kiddush for Sabbath. 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Purim. 9. Wedding ceremony. 10. Circumcision ceremony. 11. Redemption of the firstborn. 12. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 13. Kapparot. 14. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 15. Prayers for visiting cemetery before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 16. Shema at bedtime. 17. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 18. Passover Haggadah. 19. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 20. Yiddish prayer to be recited every day before the prayers. [142 pages]

13. Frankfurt a.M., 1727. [HB – Has Illustrations].

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon
According to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland
The Bentshen

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. We have made the rhymes in Yiddish so that one should be able to sing them, with one’s own tune, very beautifully, and it will please everyone. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. Each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have included much more in this printing. One can see everything in it, how many illustrations are in it, and to honor the Holy One. In order that children become accustomed to like the commandments. Everything is placed in order, and it’s like has not yet been seen in the world.[25]

Printed here in the holy community of Frankfurt am Main
Commissioned by and published by the printers
Rabbi Zalman, son of, Rabbi David Aptrood, may he live long:
And Moses, son of, Rabbi Jonah Gomberg, of blessed memory
In the fonts of Amsterdam:
In the year, “The Lord your God will bless all your enterprises” [Deuteronomy, 14:29], in the small counting [487]
Printed by Henrich Bayerhefer

2. Colophon.

Bentshen and all sorts of books can be obtained for purchase without exception, from the printers themselves, the famous bookseller, the famous, Moses, son of, Rabbi Jonah Gomberg, of blessed memory, who lives near the Jews bridge in Frankfurt am Main:

3. Content.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Kiddush for Sabbath. 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the firstborn. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 14. Shema at bedtime. 15. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 16. Passover Haggadah. 17. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. [93 pages]

14. Homburg a.d.Hohe, 1727. [NLI – Has Illustrations]

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon
According to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland
The Bentshen

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. We have made the rhymes in Yiddish so that one should be able to sing them, with one’s own tune, very beautifully, and it will please everyone. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. Each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have included much more in this printing. One can see everything in it, how many illustrations are in it, and to honor the Holy One. In order that children become accustomed to like the commandments. Everything is placed in order, and it’s like has not yet been seen in the world:[26]

Printed here in the holy community of Homburg an der Hohe
Established by Seligman, son of, Itzik Rothschild
In the fonts of Amsterdam:
In the year, “The Lord your God will bless all your enterprises” [Deuteronomy, 14:29], in the small counting [487]

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Kiddush for Sabbath. 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the firstborn. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 14. Shema at bedtime. 15. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 16. Passover Haggadah. 17. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. Missing some pages at the end. [82 pages]

15. Frankfurt a. O., 1753. [NLI – Has Illustrations]

1. Title Page.

This edition is missing the title page and several pages at the beginning. Bibliographical information is taken from NLI catalog entry.

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Tikkunei Shabbat [Includes Shalom Aleichem and Eshet Hayil].[27] 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the firstborn. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 14. Shema at bedtime. 15. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 16. Passover Haggadah. [83 pages]

16. Prague, 1773. [NLI – Has Illustrations]

1. Title Page.

Seder Birkhat ha-Mazon

With all the laws, Zemirot, Shema before bed, Kiddush for the whole year, Wedding ceremony, Circumcision and Redemption of the Firstborn, Kapparot, Prayers recited at the cemetery, Passover Haggadah. Also, with the Yiddish translation and all the illustrations included. This is very necessary, so come running and buy this. Pay what you can afford. The Messiah should come in our days, amen.

Printed here in Prague

Under the rule of the noble lady …[28] Maria Theresa, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia … and Austria … may her kingdom flourish, and may no stranger occupy her throne, and may her honor and her kingdom exceed that of her fellows, for length of days forever. Amen, so may it be Your will.

Gedruckt zu Ding in der Kakischen Buchdruck[29]

2. Colophon.

Completed, Praise to the Lord, Creator of the world
By the worker in the holy craft the typesetter and printer, Rabbi Selig, son of, Rabbi Wolf Bak, craftsman, judge, and teacher, here in Prague, may his memory be for a blessing.
By the worker in the holy craft the typesetter, the young man, David son of Lipman Bak, may his Creator protect him.
By the worker in the holy craft the printer, Lieberl, son of Rabbi Meir Stroz, of blessed memory. Grandson of Rabbi Lieberl, Rabbi, and teacher, here in Prague, author of Sefer Matitya’

3. Contents.

1. Proper practices for meals. [these are all in Yiddish]. 2. Hand washing, with laws relating to it, and Psalm 23. 3. Viduy [Confession] in the singular. 4. Good customs before eating, along with tehinnot to be recited. 5. Laws of ha-Motzi blessing and proper practices relating to meals. 6. “By the waters of Babylon” [Psalm 137] and “A song of Ascent when we returned to Zion” [Psalm 126]. These are recited before the Birkhat ha-Mazon.[30] 7. Laws and rules relating to Birkhat ha-Mazon. 8. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 9. Shema before bed. 10. Laws relating to lighting candles on the Sabbath and other festivals. 11. Laws relating to Friday night, including the following prayers, Shalom Aleichem, a Tehinnah, and Eshet Hayil.[31] 12. Laws relation to the recitation of Kiddush. 13. Kiddush. 14. Kiddush for Festivals. 15. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah along with customs for Rosh Hashanah. 16. Zemirot for Shabbat. 17. Havdalah, preceded by laws and customs. 18. Laws and customs for Sanctification of the New Moon, along with appropriate prayers. 19. Laws and prayers for Hanukkah candle lighting. 20. Shabbat Hanukkah. 21. Laws concerning the Fast of Esther and Purim. 22. Wedding ceremony. 23. Circumcision ceremony. 24. Redemption of the Firstborn. 25. Laws and customs for Shavuot. 26. Tehinnot for visiting cemetery. 27. Laws and customs for the Ninth of Ab. 28. Kapparot. 29. Laws relating to Yom Kippur and the Sukkot. 30. Laws of Passover and text of the Haggadah. 31. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. [151 pages]

17. Fürth, 1780.[32][FKT]

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon
According to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland
The Bentshen

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. We have made the rhymes in Yiddish so that one should be able to sing them, with one’s own tune, very beautifully, and it will please everyone. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. Each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have included much more in this printing. One can see everything in it, how many illustrations are in it, and to honor the Holy One. In order that children become accustomed to like the commandments. Everything is placed in order, and it’s like has not yet been seen in the world.

Printed here in the holy community of Fürth
In the house and praiseworthy and learned press of, Rabbi Itzik, may his Creator protect him, son of Rabbi David, of blessed memory.
In the fonts of Amsterdam:
In the year, “The Lord your God will bless all your enterprises” [Deuteronomy, 14:29], in the small counting [540]

2. Contents.

The contents of this edition are also a reprint of the Amsterdam, 1722 edition. [78 pages]

Part II. Italian and Spanish editions. All of the editions in this section are from the NLI.

1. Mantua, 1563. [NLI]

1. Title page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the Ashkenazim
See, this is new, containing the blessings for things that are enjoyed. Everyone who sees its explanations and additions will appreciate it.
Here in Mantua
Under the rule of our lord, his majesty Duke Gulielmo Gonzaga
By Rabbi Joseph son of Rabbi Jacob, of blessed memory of Padua

2. Colophons.

a. First Colophon.

Completed

To the blessed Lord I give pleasantries that we have lived to this time, to benefit the populace, young and old. They should praise the name of God with them, since the exalted task of the making of these zemirot completely, with the addition of the prayer, “the compounding of the incense” and other beautiful things. On the twelfth of Adar I, 323 [1563], in the small counting.

Here in Mantua
By Rabbi Joseph son of Rabbi Jacob, of blessed memory of Padua

b. Second Colophon.

Completed, praise to the Lord of the world

Rosh Hodesh Adar II, 323 [1563], in the small counting, by Jacob of Gezolo and Rabbi Joseph son of Rabbi Jacob, of blessed memory of Padua

3. Contents.

1. Psalm 23. 2. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Shabbat Hanukkah 7. Purim. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Shema before bedtime. 10. Circumcision ceremony. 11. Redemption of Firstborn. 12. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom].13. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 14. Kapparot. 15. Pitum ha-Ketoret.[33] 16. Prayers for visiting Cemetery. 17. Funeral prayers. 18. Birkhot ha-Nehenin with explanations. 19. Sabbath Kiddush. 20. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah. 21. Kiddush for Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot. 22. First colophon. 23. Passover Haggadah. 24. Second colophon. [103 pages]

2. Venice, 1617. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the holy community of Sepharad:
Printed at the request of the humble Abraham Haver Tov:
Commissioned by their excellencies
Pietro and Lorenzo Bragadin
In the house of Giovanni Kiutz, in the year 377 [1617]
Apresso i Clar. Sig. Pietro Lorēzo Bragadin

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Sabbath Kiddush. 3. Havdalah. 4. Shema before bedtime. 5. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 6. Sanctification of the New Moon. 7. Hanukkah. 8. Purim. 9. Passover Haggadah. 10. Kiddush for Rosh Hashana, Shavuot, Sukkot. 11. Blessings for Lulav, Sukkah. 12. Wedding ceremony. 13. Circumcision ceremony. 14. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 15. Prayer upon leaving the city. 16. Prayer when someone has a miracle happen for him. 17. Prayer after bathroom use. 18. Prayer before bloodletting. 19. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 20. Deathbed confession. 21. Prayers for mourners. 22. Laws of slaughtering. [110 pages]

3. Venice, 1623. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the holy community of Ashkenazim, may their Creator protect them:
Commissioned by and printed by their excellencies, Pietro and Lorenzo Bragadini:
In Venice, in the year, 5383 [1623]
In the house of Giovanni Coliani
Appresso gli Illustris. Sig Pietro e Lorenzo Brag.

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Azamer Bishevakhin, Asader be-Seudeta, Bnei Heichalah.[34] 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Shabbat Hanukkah 7. Purim. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of Firstborn. 11. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 12. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 13. Kapparot. 14. Prayers for visiting Cemetery. 15. Funeral prayers. 16. Birkhot ha-Nehenin with explanations. 17. Miscellaneous Blessings. 18. Sabbath Kiddush. 19. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah. 20. Kiddush for Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot. [77 pages]

4. Amsterdam, 1640. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
Orden de BENDICION conforme el uso K. K. de Sepharad.
Añadido y acrescentado en muchas cosas a las prededentes imprensiones.
Estampado en casa de IMANUEL Benbeniste, Año 5400.

2. Introduction.

It has a seven-page Introduction, “To the Reader.” The prayers are in Spanish and Hebrew on facing pages. The Spanish is written in the Latin Alphabet.

3. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Sabbath Kiddush. 3. Havdalah. 4. Shema before bedtime. . 5. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 6. Sanctification of the New Moon. 7. Hanukkah. 8. Purim. 9. Passover Haggadah. 10. Kiddush for Rosh Hashana, Shavuot, Sukkot. 11. Blessings for Lulav, Sukkah. 12. Wedding ceremony. 13. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 15. Prayer upon leaving the city [Tefillat ha-Derekh]. 16. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 17. Deathbed confession. 18. Prayers for mourners. 19. Circumcision ceremony. 20. Redemption of the Firstborn. [191 pages]

5. Venice, 1673. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the holy community of Rome, may their Creator protect them:
Including everything that was previously done:
“I greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being exults in my God” [Isaiah, 61:10] [1673]
In Venice
At the Bragadin press
IN VENETIA, M.DC.LXXIII
Nella Stamperia Bragadina. Per Christoforo Ambrosini.
Con Licenza de Superiori, e Pruilegio

2. Contents.

1. 1. Psalm for the Day, from Sunday to Friday. 2. Laws concerning Birkhat ha-Mazon [Hebrew]. 3. Birkhat ha-Mazon 4. A brief Birkhat ha-Mazon for workers having their meal at the place of their employer. 5. A piyyut to be recited Friday evening before prayers, composed by R. Judah Moscato [in the same place and time as Lekha Dodi would be in other communities. 6. Piyyutim for Shabbat [many same as Zemirot]. 7. Psalm 92 and other Psalms to be recited before the meal on Friday night. 8. Kiddush for Shabbat. 9. Zemirot. 10. Psalms 111, 15 recited for Shabbat. 11. Prayers and songs for conclusion of Shabbat. 12. Havdalah. 13. Sanctification of the New Moon. 14. Hanukkah. 15. Purim. 16. Passover Haggadah. 17. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 18. Kiddush for Rosh Hashana, Shavuot, Sukkot. 19. Circumcision ceremony. 20. Redemption of the Firstborn. 21. Engagement and wedding ceremony. 22. Funeral service. 23. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 24. Shema before bedtime. 25. Prayer for travelers. 26. Havinenu prayer. 27. One Hundred blessings [various prayers]. 28. Birkhat ha-Nehenin. [175 pages]

6. Venice, 1737. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the holy community of the Italians, may God protect them:
Con tutte le dichiarationi In volgare, & Haggadah Con la sua cerimonia ben Distinta.
Printed for the desire of the pleasant student Gad, son of the physician, Rabbi Isaac Foa may his Creator protect him
In Venice
NELLA STAM. BRAGADI.
Con Licenza de Superiori.
In the year, “Yea, you shall leave in joy” [Isaiah, 55:12], in the small counting [1737]

2. Contents.[35]

1. Psalm for the Day, from Sunday to Friday. 2. Zemirot. 3. Sabbath Kiddush. 4. More zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Sanctification of the New Moon. 7. Hanukkah. 8. Purim. 9. Passover Haggadah. 10. Counting the Omer. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 12. Kiddush for Rosh Hashana, Shavuot, Sukkot. 13. Wedding ceremony. 14. Circumcision ceremony. 15. Redemption of the Firstborn. 16. Prayers for Ninth of Ab. 17. Funeral service. 18. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 19. Shema before bedtime. 20. Havinenu prayer. 21. Prayer for travelers. 22. One Hundred blessings [various prayers]. [107 pages]

7. Venice, 1739. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the holy community of Ashkenazim, may their Creator protect them:
With greater vigor for the ancients
Con tutte ie dichiarationi In volgare; Et l, הגדה Con la sua cerimonia ben Distinta.
Now printed anew
In Venice
Nella Stamparia Vendramin, Con Licenza de Superiori,
In the year 5499, in the large counting.

2. Colophon.

By the one who works in the holy craft, David the son of the sage Raphael Hayyim Bueno, of blessed memory.

3. Contents.[36]

1. Psalms 23. 2. The psalms for each day of the week. 3. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 4. Three Sabbath Hymns by R. Isaac Luria.[37] 5. Zemirot. 6. Havdalah. 7. Hanukkah. 8. Shabbat Hanukkah. 9. Purim. 10. Kapparot. 11. Prayers for eve of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 12. Kiddush for Sabbath. 13. Kiddush for Rosh Hashana, Shavuot, Sukkot. 14. Passover Haggadah. 15. Counting the Omer. 16. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 17. Wedding ceremony. 18. Circumcision ceremony. 19. Redemption of the Firstborn. 20. Funeral service. 21. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 22. Shema before bedtime. 23. Prayer for travelers. 24. Pitum ha-Ketoret.[38] 25. Havinenu prayer. 26. Birkhat ha-Nehenin. 27. One Hundred blessings [various prayers]. [99 pages]

[1] Quotation from, J.D. Eisenstein, “Prayerbooks.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 12 Vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1909, 10: 172.[28]
[2] The former term is used in the Ashkenazi realm while the latter term is used by Sephardi and Italian communities.
[3] In medieval rabbinic literature, it is also called minhag Ostreich (Austria).
[4] A well-known example of the medieval Mahzor is the Mahzor Vitry, by Simcha of Vitry.
[5] This is taken from the Preface to the Mahzor for the Whole Year, published by the partners, Jacob bar Abraham o.b.m. Tihinger and second, Jacob bar Abraham o.b.m from the holy community of Meseritz of Lithuania, in the land of Reisen, who is called Jacob the Bookseller. Basel: Waldkirch, 1599. For more details see, Joseph Prijs, Die Basler Hebräischen Drucke. Freiburg im Breisgau: Urs Graf Verlag, 1964, No. 157.
[6] For convenience, the term Birkhat ha-Mazon will be used to describe both, but as we will see, their contents and format are similar.
[7] These include: M. Steinschneider, Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana. 2 Vols. Berlin: Friedlander, 1852-1860, Nos. 2599 – 2658; C.B. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim. 4 Vols. Tel Aviv: Friedberg, 1951, s.v., Birkhat ha-Mazon; Y. Vinogard, Ozar Sefer ha-Ivri. Jerusalem: Institute for Computerized Bibliography, 1994, s.v., Birkhat ha-Mazon.
[8] These details are included in the discussions of the individual editions in the Appendix.
[9] The Spanish text is in the Latin alphabet.
[10] Faierstein, Morris M. Jewish Customs of Kabbalistic Origin. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013, 39.
[11] Ibid. 18-20.
[12] The role of Tehinnot is discussed at greater length in,Morris M. Faierstein, “The Earliest Published Yiddish Tehinnot (1590–1609). Hebrew Union College Annual 91 (2020): 157–206.
[13] For more details about this edition and the text of the Introduction see, A. M. Habermann, “The Printer Hayyim Shachor, His Son Isaac, and his Son-in-Law Joseph ben Yakar.” Studies in the History of Hebrew Printers [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Reuben Mass, 1978, 122–124, No. 17.
[14] Chava Turniansky, and Erika Timm. Yiddish in Italia: Manuscripts and Printed Books. Milan: Associazione Italiana Amici dell’Uuniversità di Gerusalemme, 2003, 22, No. 13 and 24, No. 14.
[15] This is discussed in my forthcoming monograph, The Early Modern Yiddish Bible: From the Mirkevet ha-Mishneh to Blitz and Witzenhausen. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, forthcoming.
[16] This is documented in Turniansky, and Timm, Yiddish in Italia.
[17] The bibliographical information for this text is taken from Isaac Yudlov, Sefer Ginzei Yisrael: Osef Dr. Yisrael Mehlman. Jerusalem: National and University Library, 1985, No. 271.
[18] The verse is from Psalms, 36:11.
[19] The phrase is taken from the Sabbath morning Amidah prayer.
[20] This text is the same as the Wilhermsdorf, 1687 edition.
[21] This edition does not have a date on the title page and there is no colophon. According to Isaac Ben-Jacob, Otzar ha-Sefarim. Romm: Vilna, 1880, 88, no. 663, lists a second Wilhermsdorf edition in 1694. Perhaps this is that edition. This copy is found in the Basel University library.
[22] Yudlov, Sefer Ginzei Yisrael, No. 273.
[23] This edition is a copy of the Amsterdam, 1722 edition. The publisher is different.
[24] The Yiddish text is the same as the Amsterdam, 1722 edition.
[25] The Yiddish text is the same as the Amsterdam, 1722 edition.
[26] The Yiddish text is the same as the Amsterdam, 1722 edition.
[27] This is the first edition that contains these kabbalistically influenced hymns.
[28] This indicates words that can’t be read.
[29] This and a number of other things are approximations, as the print is indistinct.
[30] These are kabbalistic innovations. See, Morris M. Faierstein, Jewish Customs of Kabbalistic Origin. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013, 18-20.
[31] Ibid., 39. This was also introduced by the Safed kabbalists.
[32] This edition is the same as the Amsterdam, 1722 edition.
[33] A group of prayers relating to the incense in the Temple. It was believed to be a protection against the plague.
[34] These three passages are from the Zohar and are recommended by Rabbi Isaac Luria to be recited at the three Sabbath meals. See, Faierstein, Jewish Customs of Kabbalistic Origin, 40-41. It is particularly interesting that it is quite early to be included in a prayerbook and particularly in an Ashkenazi one.
[35] This edition has discussions of applicable laws and instructions in Italian in the Latin alphabet.
[36] This edition has instructions in Italian, written in the Latin alphabet.
[37] For more details, see the Venice, 1623 edition above.
[38] A group of prayers relating to the incense in the Temple. It was believed to be a protection against the plague.



Comments on recent books by R. Benji Levy and R. Eitam Henkin; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik; and the first color photographs of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg.

Comments on recent books by R. Benji Levy and R. Eitam Henkin; R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik; and the first color photographs of R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg

Marc B. Shapiro

1. Benji Levy, Covenant and the Jewish Conversion Question: Extending the Thought of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (Cham, Switzerland, 2021)

The last few decades have seen a lot of discussion regarding conversion, and what is and is not required before someone is accepted into the Jewish community. This is obviously a halakhic matter, as conversion is a halakhic procedure and the rabbis supervise it and are the ones to decide who is to be accepted for conversion. The issue also has a sociological component and in the State of Israel it has national and political significance as well. The fact that halakhic conversion standards in the last generation have become stricter, and conversions have even been revoked, shows that we are dealing with a matter that is far from simple. As most are aware, this has led to a good deal of tension in Orthodoxy.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik (1903-1993) was the leading Orthodox thinker in the post-World War II era. Combine this with his standing as a great talmudist and it is obvious that he will have important insights in the matter of conversion. It is to this that R. Benji Levy turns his attention in this valuable new book which analyzes the Rav’s halakhic thinking together with his philosophical perspectives. It is a book which all students of the Rav’s thought will want to examine.

Before his discussion of the Rav’s position, Levy deals extensively with earlier rabbinic views on the status of an apostate. This is helpful in and of itself, but also in terms of seeing the novelty of the approach advocated by the Rav. Bringing the Rav’s notions of Covenant of Fate and Covenant of Destiny into the halakhic arena, Levy argues the Rav arrived at his position by positing that holiness is not inherent, something one is born into. As such, one can lose this holiness. For the Rav, this is not only stated with regard to people, as he also that he felt that there is no such thing as holiness “inherent in an object.” Rather, holiness is “born out of man’s actions and experiences” (Levy, pp. 58-59, quoting from the Rav, Family Redeemed, p. 64). As is well known, R. Meir Simcha of Dvinsk had the same perspective. The Rav also offers this perspective when it comes to niddah. See Nathaniel Helfgot, ed., Community, Covenant and Commitment, pp. 325-326: “The entire concept of tum’at niddah, ritual impurity of the menstruant, is not an inherent description, but rather a relational one, for the niddah herself is not ritually impure at all. The ritual impurity expresses itself only in relation to the other.” This is definitely not the mainstream perspective in rabbinic literature.

In chapter 5, Levy gives us a good summary of the different halakhic positions regarding conversion. In the popular mind, this is often reduced to strict or lenient positions. But this is not really accurate, as the fundamental issue under dispute is what exactly does kabbalat ha-mitzvot means. It is often unclear which side is lenient and which is strict. For instance, if a rabbi voids a conversion because someone is thought to have converted without proper acceptance of mitzvot, this can be seen as strict when it comes to conversion. But the voiding of the conversion means that this individual does not need to fast on Yom Kippur, and if he is married he can leave his wife without giving her a get. So from this perspective, the voiding of the conversion is “lenient.”

Levy also calls attention to a fascinating “hiddush” of the Rav when it comes to conversion. According to the Rav, not only does a convert need to accept all the mitzvot, but he must also commit to a life of study of Torah. “A convert who wants to enter the congregation and accept upon himself the yoke of mitsvot, but is unprepared to toil in Torah, this is lacking in their conversion” (pp. 134-135). As Levy notes, this position is in line with the Rav’s stress on serious learning as opposed to the “sentimentality of ceremonialism” (p. 135). Levy adds that this stress on study “achieves a radicalization of the overall conversion process” (p. 135). I wonder, though, is this something that the Rav actually insisted on, or was this simply a point he mentioned in shiur like so many other ideas that sound appealing but are without practical significance? In fact, do we have any evidence that the Rav ever supervised conversions? If so, it would be fascinating to know what he required from future converts and how he guided them.[1]

Levy claims that R. Aharon Lichtenstein’s position in his famous article, “Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity,” is not identical with the Rav’s outlook. This was surprising to me, as it is generally understood that R. Lichtenstein’s 1963 article was an attempt to explain the Rav’s approach in the wake of the Brother Daniel episode. Levy, p. 84, quotes the Rav as saying that “however much an irreligious Jew attempts to cast off his faith, he is fated to be unsuccessful.”[2] He contrasts this with R. Lichtenstein’s statement that there is “a point beyond which the apostate cannot go and yet remain a Jew” (p. 84). Yet these statements are not in opposition. The Rav is referring to an irreligious Jew, not an apostate. A document I recently published which quotes the Rav’s explanation of his position makes this very clear.[3] It also shows that R. Lichtenstein’s points are directly in line with those of the Rav, and knowing their relationship, the article itself must have been written under the close guidance of the Rav.

Usually people think of Jewish identity as an inherent part of someone, an inheritance that cannot be given up. Yet the Rav departs from the usual approach and considers Jewish identity as something that can be lost, but only in extreme circumstances. One who is not religious does not lose his halakhic standing as a Jew. However, one who actually converts to another religion is regarded by the Rav as having severed his connection to the Jewish people, and for most intents and purposes would no longer be regarded as Jewish. (I do not know how he would regard the child of an apostate woman.)

As such, I must also reject Levy’s conclusion that for the Rav a Jew may lose his individual holiness, but his “holiness qua member of the Jewish collective is unshakeable.” It is this point that I believe to be mistaken, and as noted already, I assume that the Rav’s settled position is as explained by R. Lichtenstein. I also believe that we need not be concerned that in shiur the Rav offered a different reading of a text, as what he said in shiur was often provisional, an exploration of different possibilities.[4] In the case at hand we have more than one testimony that R. Lichtenstein’s description, that in many ways an apostate is not to be regarded as Jewish, is exactly in line with the Rav’s position. With this in mind, we also need to review Levy’s discussion of the Brother Daniel controversy (pp. 186f.). To say that the Rav supported the ruling of the Israel Supreme Court and leave it at that creates a misinterpretation. Yes, the Rav agreed with the Supreme Court that Brother Daniel was not to be regarded as Jewish. Yet the Court’s assumption was that halakhah would regard him as Jewish. However, since the Law of Return is a secular law, the Court had to decide based on how the law was understood by “the ordinary simple Jew,” and such a Jew would never regard a Catholic religious figure as being part of the Jewish people. The Rav could not be more adamant that the Court was in error, as in his view, even from a purely halakhic perspective, Brother Daniel could not be regarded as Jewish.[5]

One final point: Levy deals with authorities who have seen circumcision or immersion as conveying what can be termed “limited sanctity” or “partial conversion.” There is another source that should be added to this discussion. R. Hershel Schachter records the Rav’s understanding that the Patriarchs had moved beyond the status of benei Noah, but had not yet achieved the full status of kedushat Yisrael. Nevertheless, they still had some kedushat Yisrael.[6] This puts them somewhere between non-Jews and Jews, a “partial Jew” if one might use the term.

2. Eitam Henkin, Studies in Halakhah and Rabbinic History (Jerusalem, 2021).

It has been eight years since the murder of R. Eitam Henkin, and the deep sadness over what was taken from us remains. A glance at what Henkin was able to accomplish in his short life— three books and numerous articles, all of the highest caliber—shows us what the future would have held for him in both rabbinic and academic scholarship. As Eliezer Brodt puts it in his introduction to Henkin’s Studies in Halakhah and Rabbinic History: “He was a unique combination of an outstanding talmid hakham and historian who was also blessed with exceptional research and writing skills.” Fortunately, in his short years R. Eitam left us with much to treasure.

Studies in Halakhah and Rabbinic History, published through the great efforts of Seforim Blog editor Eliezer Brodt, is a treat for anyone who values Torah and Jewish scholarship. All of us are in great debt to Brodt for this labor of love, which began immediately after Henkin’s murder, when Brodt was the prime mover behind the publication of Ta’arokh Lefanai Shulhan, Henkin’s posthumously published book on R. Jehiel Mikhel Epstein and the Arukh ha-Shulhan. The essays in the current volume are translations of many of Henkin’s important Hebrew articles, and the translators, volunteers all, also deserve our great thanks.

The first section of the book focuses on halakhah. R. Eitam deals with the kosher status of strawberries, modern utensils and absorption of taste, the sale of land in Eretz Yisrael to non-Jews, and other topics. The second section, which has more than 250 pages, deals with the girls’ dance on the 15th of Av, the famous (or infamous) Bruriah story, the Shemitah controversy, the Novardok yeshiva, haredi revisionism when it comes to Rav Kook, and a number of other topics. The final section focuses on R. Joseph Elijah Henkin, offering a general survey of his life and significance, and a second article dealing with his statements about R. Shlomo Goren and the Langer Affair.

There is so much that can be said about this this rich book, but in the interests of space I will only offer a few comments. I am certain that in future posts I will have the opportunity to come back to it.

In chapter 2, Henkin discusses the fascinating issue of absorption of taste in modern utensils. If the halakhic concept of beliah is based on actual absorption, then when dealing with stainless steel, which does not absorb, the halakhic issues should disappear. Following this line of thinking, it could still be appropriate, for a variety of reasons, to have separate meat and dairy stainless steel utensils. But if one mistakenly cooked dairy in a meat stainless steel pot that had been used with meat in the last day, bediavad the food should be OK to eat and the pot should not need to be kashered. If one were to follow this approach, stainless steel would be treated just as Sephardim treat glass, which can be used for milk and meat as the glass does not absorb.

In response to such a claim about stainless steel, Henkin puts forth the original argument that the real issue is not the new type of materials we use for utensils, but that our ability to perceive taste is not what it used to be. In other words, if our taste buds have deteriorated, then we can no longer use them as the basis of determining if there are beliot.

To prove that our sense of taste has weakened compared to the days of the Sages, Henkin did an experiment:

I took a wooden spoon (an old one, like utensils in the average kitchen) and for about half a minute I used it to stir milk that had been boiled in a glass cup. I then washed the spoon well, and then stirred with it, also for a half minute, about half a cup of tea which had been boiled in a small metal pot (a cezve). At the same time, I stirred the same amount of tea using a new metal spoon. I tasted it myself and gave it to my family to taste (as mesihim lefi tumam, without knowledge of the experiment) and no one could discern any difference in taste between the cups. Even when the family members were asked to guess which of the two cups was “dairy,” the success of the guesses wavered as expected at around 50% (pp. 25-26).

The results he obtained led Henkin to conclude that our sense of taste has weakened. This is because it is clear from the talmudic sages that milk leaves a taste in wooden spoons, and yet in reality we see that this is not the case.

This is a very interesting point that I will leave to scientists to discuss, but I do not think it fundamentally changes the problem. Even if our sense of taste has weakened, and we cannot taste what in previous generations we would have been able to, the fact is that stainless steel by definition does not absorb taste. So even if in the days of the Sages they could sense the flavors absorbed in wood, they would not have been able to taste anything had they used stainless steel. Thus, we return to the question of whether there should be a halakhic concept of beliot when it comes to stainless steel.

I must also mention that Henkin’s teacher, R. Dov Lior, specifically states that one can use stainless steel for both meat and dairy (although in practice he requests that two other poskim agree with this position). [7] I find it hard to believe that this will ever become an accepted practice, but is there any halakhic reason why not, or is it only be a matter of continuing what we have done in the past even if there is no strict halakhic reason to do so? Must we assume, as stated by R. Yaakov Ariel, that the entire concept of beliah is a halakhic notion, which like other halakhot operates according to its own rules that are not tied to scientific facts?[8]

Finally, I must note that unfortunately when the essays were translated no attention was paid to Henkin’s website here. On occasion, Henkin corrected his essays, and when the essays were translated R. Eitam’s corrections should have been included. For example, in chapter 24 he discusses R. Shlomo Goren and the Langer affair. On p. 413 n. 17, he mentions various rabbis who were identified as having been on R. Goren’s special beit din that concluded that the Langer children were not mamzerim. Yet on his website here he notes that two of the names he mentioned are not correct. There are other articles of his where he added more material on the website, so readers who want the most up-to-date scholarship of Henkin are recommended to check there.

3. At the end of my last post I mentioned that the next post would include an unknown article by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik. I was mistaken, for not only is the article not unknown, but it is also included in R. Nathaniel Helfgot’s collection of the Rav’s letters and public statements, Community, Covenant and Commitment, pp. 263-265. Helfgot tells us that the article appeared in the Rabbinical Council Record (no date is given). I thought it was unknown because I found it in Jewish Horizon, Sep.-Oct. 1964, and didn’t at first realize that it was also reprinted in Helfgot’s book. What accompanies the Rav’s article is another article that is pretty much unknown. Although it is recorded in the bibliography of R. Lichtenstein’s writings found here, I have never seen anyone refer to it. While new material from the Rav is obviously very exciting, the same can be said for anything from R. Lichtenstein’s pen.

Since I promised something new from the Rav, how about the following which I believe is the first time that the Rav’s name ever appeared in print. It is from the German Orthodox paper Der Israelit, February 7, 1929, and mentions the shiurim for advanced students that the Rav delivered at an Ezra youth movement gathering in Berlin.

In my Torah in Motion classes on the Rav’s letters, available here, I also discussed the Rav’s reason for rejecting numerous pleas that he put forth his candidacy for the Israeli Chief Rabbinate after the 1959 death of R. Isaac Herzog. A lot has been written about this episode.[9] However, we also have the Rav’s testimony from the 1970s that he was again approached about becoming Chief Rabbi.[10] And there is even one other testimony about the Rav and the Chief Rabbinate, but this time I am referring to the Chief Rabbinate of the United Kingdom. Bernard Homa, Footprints on the Sands of Time (Gloucester, 1990), p. 127, writes as follows about the discussion of who would succeed Chief Rabbi Joseph Hertz:

I was one of the representatives of the Federation on the London Board for Shehita, where I served as Vice-President from 1946 to 1948. I also represented the Federation in 1947 on the committee, under the Chairmanship of Sir Robert Waley Cohen, dealing with the appointment of a successor to Dr. Hertz, who had passed away in 1946. I recall two items worthy of mention. Among the several names that came up was that of the famous Rabbi Joseph Ber Soloveitchik of Boston. There was no discussion as to his merits but he was quickly excluded from consideration for a very silly reason. The Chairman reported that he had been informed that he did not know how to use a knife and fork properly.[11] His informant was clearly unaware that in the U.S.A. table customs are different from those in this country and the allegation against him was thus not only trivial, but entirely without foundation.[12]

In my article in Hakirah 32 (2022), I published a number of letters from the Rav. Let me share an additional letter, to R. Irwin Haut, which was originally supposed to be included in my article. Unfortunately, I only have the first page. (The family also only has the first page. If any reader has the complete letter, please be in touch.) I thank Professor Haym Soloveitchik for granting me permission to publish it.

י“ג אדר השני, תשי“ט
March 23, 1959

Dear Rabbi Haut:

Acknowledge receipt of your letter. 

1. Liquids which were cooked or boiled before the Sabbath and remained on the covered gas range during the בין השמשות period may be put back, after being removed for the night to the refrigerator, on the covered flame on Saturday morning, provided that the liquid foods do not reach the temperature of יד סולדת. If, however, the liquids are kept near the flame so that their temperature remains above the house temperature, we do not have to concern ourselves with the aspect of יד סולדת. 

2. I would advise you to put a a [!] tin or tin-foil cover on the [next page missing]

The issue here is heating up liquids on Shabbat, and the position of the Rav is more liberal than the standard Orthodox approach today which is not to allow any reheating of liquids (other than Yemenite Jews who follow Maimonides’ opinion). To understand the Rav’s position, we must first note that this was actually the opinion of his mother, Rebbetzin Pesha, who was a scholar in her own right. In this case, I think we can say that the Rav was simply following his family tradition.

This is what appears in Yeled Sha’ashuim, p. 30, a book devoted to R. Ahron Soloveichik[13]:

Rebbitzen Pesha would place cold soup on the hot Shabbos blech and be careful to remove the soup before it became יד סולדת בו. She was not concerned about the איסור חזרה because the psak of the Rama is that if the food was on the Shabbos blech for the duration of בין השמשות on Friday night and was later removed from the Shabbos blech, then there is no איסור חזרה. The only question then is whether there it is forbidden from the standpoint of the איסור בישול. Rebbitzen Pesha reasoned that it is permitted to do this on the basis of ספק ספיקא. First of all, there is a מחלוקת ראשונים as to whether in דבר לח we say אין בישול אחר בישול. The view of חכמי ספרד is that even in דבר לח we say אין בישול אחר בישול. But, in this case, one removes the soup from the Shabbos blech before it reaches the heat of בישול. The soup becomes only lukewarm. There is a מחלוקת רש“י ותוספות whether this is permitted or it is אסור מדרבנן גזירה שמא ישכח וזה יגיע לידי בישול. The question in this case revolves only around an איסור דרבנן. Rebbitzen Pesha, therefore, reasoned that it is permitted on the basis of ספק ספיקא.  

Quite apart from the specific issue of liquids, the Rav’s position allowing food on the blech or even in the oven during bein ha-shemashot to be placed in the refrigerator and returned to the blech or oven the next morning is well known and has been discussed by many. This leniency can be traced to R. Nissim of Gerona who derives it from the Jerusalem Talmud.[14] Let me, however, me add two points. The first is that R. Ahron Soloveichik told me that I could adopt this position in practice. (I only asked about food, not liquids). The second point is that the Rav’s position has been portrayed as only referring to foods, not liquids. Yet we see from his letter to Haut that he, together with his mother, also held this position with regard to liquids.

Having said this, I think people will find the Rav’s instructions to caterers at the Maimonides school of interest. I thank Steven DuBois for calling my attention to this document, which is found here.

In one of these instructions I think it is obvious that the Rav was adopting a more stringent approach because he was dealing with caterers, who will not be as careful in these matters as individuals at home.  As you can see, the Rav only mentions removing solid foods from the refrigerator, but nothing about liquids. I think the reason is clear. An individual at home can be careful that liquids not reach the level of yad soledet bo, but this is not something the Rav was willing to entrust to a caterer who while busily preparing the Shabbat meal will often not be so careful to make sure that the liquid does not reach yad soledet bo.

We only have the first page of the Rav’s letter to Haut, but it is clear that the Rav’s second point is his advice to put a tin or tin foil cover over the stove knobs in addition to the blech. He does not state this as an absolute requirement but as a preferable procedure. However, in his instructions to caterers, this is listed as a requirement.

Let me share some more things related to the Rav, the first one of which comes courtesy of Ovadya Hoffman. In 1993 R. Yitzhak Hershkowitz published the first volume of his responsa Divrei Or. The second section of this volume includes responsa from the sixteenth-century scholar R. Abraham Shtang. In the introduction we find the following sentence:

אחדים מתשובות אלו נדפס ביובל ע“י ר‘ יצחק זימער

This is a very strange sentence, because what does נדפס ביובל mean? It actually refers to the 1984 Sefer Yovel for R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik where Yitzhak (Eric) Zimmer’s article appears (and Zimmer himself spells his name זימר). As Hoffman notes, this is a sort of “the wise will understand” reference. The editor did not feel that his readership could “handle” the actual title of the book, so instead he refers to it in code.

Growing up, maybe the first thing I knew about practices of the Rav was that he stood up with his feet together for the entire repetition of the Amidah. I recall how certain YU students would imitate this practice of the Rav, which sometimes created problems when people would try to exit the row while the students were standing with their feet together. Regarding the Rav’s practice, see R. Schachter, Nefesh ha-Rav, pp. 123-124, and here.

Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tefillah 9:3, actually explicitly states: “Everyone – both those who did not fulfill their obligation [to pray] and those who fulfilled their obligation – stands, listens, and recites ‘Amen’ after each and every blessing.” You cannot be much clearer than this, but nevertheless, there are those who offer a different interpretation of Maimonides. According to them, when Maimonides writes והכל עומדין ושומעין it does not mean literally to stand. Rather, עומדין ושומעין means to be quiet and listen. This argument is made by R. Ovadyah Hadaya[15] and R. Isaac Liebes,[16] and they both make the same point in support of their position. R. Moses Isserles, Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 124:4, writes: “There are those who say that the entire congregation should stand when the prayer leader repeats the prayer. (Hagahot Minhagim).” Both R. Hadaya and R. Liebes note that R. Isserles could have cited Maimonides to support the view that the congregation should stand for the repetition of the Amidah. The fact that he instead cites Hagahot Minhagim shows that R. Isserles also did not understand Maimonides to literally mean that the congregation stands.

The problem with this is that R. Hadaya and R. Liebes were unaware that the reference to Hagahot Minhagim, and all similar references to books in parenthesis, does not originate with R. Isserles. It was added by a later editor, and thus the point made by R. Hadaya and R. Liebes has no relevance to R. Isserles’ opinion.

Two more points about the Rav: I do not think it is widely known that one of the first publications of the Rav—based on notes of a listener—appeared in a Habad publication in 1942. Here is the title page which on Otzar haChochma is called מאמרי קודש פון כ“ק אדמו“ר שליט“א.

Here is the first page of the Rav’s article.

In a few of my online classes I dealt with the Rav’s opinion that even in contemporary times the hazakah of tav le-meitav tan du mi-le-meitav armelu (that a woman prefers almost any husband to being single) remains applicable. Here is what appears in R. Elyashiv’s Kovetz Teshuvot, vol. 4, no. 117. It sure seems like R. Elyashiv is rejecting the approach of the Rav.

4. In my post here I stated that Saul Lieberman began his studies at the Hebrew University in 1928. This information is based on Elijah J. Schochet and Solomon Spiro, Saul Lieberman: The Man and His Work, p. 8. However, a reader points out that in the August 16, 1927 entry of the unpublished diary of R. Mitchel Eskolsky, who was studying in Jerusalem at Yeshivat Merkaz ha-Rav, he speaks of meeting Saul Lieberman who was at that time a student at Hebrew University.

Regarding Lieberman, I thank Aron Rowe who called my attention to the fact that JTS has put some talks of Lieberman online. Before this, I had never heard Lieberman’s voice. See here, here, and here.

For those interested in Lieberman, I recently did eighteen classes on him. You can find them on Youtube here, and they are also currently being turned into podcasts which are on Spotify and other platforms. One interesting point about Lieberman which I did not mention is found in his letter to Gershom Scholem, dated July 10, 1967. (Lieberman’s letters to Scholem are found at the National Library of Israel.) Here he states that he was upset that he was not in Israel during the Six Day War, which would have enabled him to suffer together with Israel’s inhabitants. He comforted himself with the knowledge that he was able to have more of a positive impact in the U.S. than his presence would have had in Israel. He tells us what he has in mind, namely, that he permitted collecting money for Israel on the holiday. As Dr. Aviad Hacohen has pointed out to me, this must be referring to Passover, when tensions between Israel and its neighbors were already at a high level, rather than Shavuot, which came out after the war was over. Here are Lieberman’s words:

הצטערתי מאד שלא הייתי בארץ לפני פרוץ המלחמה ובפריצתה ולא זכיתי להצטער עם הציבור במקום הדאגה והצער, ונֶחׇׇמׇתי היא שהבאתי תועלת כאן הרבה יותר מאשר מציאותי בארץ. התרתי כאן לאסוף כספים ביו“ט, והרבנים שלנו פחדו לעשות כן בפומבי, ופסקתי להם שיטילו את כל האחריות עלי. מעניין שהרבנים האורטודוקסיים שהתנגדו לכך לא פצו אח“ז את פיהם למחות נגדי. אני מכיר יפה את אמריקה ואת ההתלהבות הגדולה שהיא גם עלול להצטנן קצת במשך שעות

We see that his pesak was for the Conservative movement, and when he says “our rabbis,” he means the Conservative rabbis, which he distinguishes from the Orthodox rabbis.

When people think of Lieberman they often think about another instructor in Talmud at JTS, namely, Rabbi David Halivni. I think readers will enjoy two recent publication by Zvi Leshem that record all sorts of interesting stories about Halivni, much like similar collections have been put together about so many great rabbis. See here and here.

Regarding Halivni, the following is also of interest. In 2006 a two-volume book about R. Menahem Mendel Hager of Visheva was published, Ha-Gaon ha-Kadosh mi-Visheva. Here is the title page.

R. Menahem Mendel was the grandfather of Halivni’s wife, and in the second volume there is a dedication from Halivni and his sons in memory of her. Notice how Halivni is referred to as Ha-Gaon and shlita.

5. Unlike today where there are thousands of color pictures of the current gedolim, in the past pictures of great rabbis were uncommon. Just think of the few that are available of for each gadol who lived before the Second World War. When it comes to R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, who died in 1966, we have a good number of pictures of him. However, until now no color pictures of R. Weinberg have ever appeared. I am happy to present the only color pictures of R. Weinberg that I have ever seen. They were taken by R. Weinberg’s nephew, Dr. David Corn, on a visit to Montreux in 1958 or 1959. I thank the Corn family for granting me permission to publish these pictures. The originals are now kept at Ganzach Kiddush Hashem in Bnei Brak.

In this picture we see a young R. Yitzhak Scheiner and a young R. Aviezer Wolfson on the right. Thanks to R. Jeremy Rosen for the identification of R. Wolfson.

Here is Dr. Corn with R. Weinberg.

Here are the remaining pictures he took.

6. In July 2023 I led what I was told was the first ever kosher tour to Tunisia, courtesy of Torah in Motion. Seeing this unique Jewish community up close was an amazing experience for all. 

Here is a beautiful picture from last summer’s trip to Tunisia. The photographer is Alan Messner and it was taken in Djerba. (I encourage everyone who studies Talmud Yerushalmi to check out Alan’s valuable index here.)

Quiz

Please identify the following and email me your answers:

1. There are two se’ifim in the Shulhan Arukh that only contain two words.

2. There is one siman in the Shulhan Arukh whose number is the gematria of the subject of the siman.

Coming next: More on Saul Lieberman, and R. Moshe Zuriel: A Great Teacher in Israel

* * * * * * *

[1] Regarding the Rav and converts, in R. Chaim Jachter’s fascinating new book, Gray Matter, vol. 5, p. 163, he mentions that in a 1985 shiur the Rav stated that non-Jews have a “right to convert.” R. Jachter elaborates on the halakhic implications of this notion.
[2] David Holzer, ed., The Rav Thinking Aloud (Miami Beach, 2009), p. 319.
[3] “Letters from the Rav,” Hakirah 32 (2022), p. 152. Here the Rav is quoted as attributing his position to his father, R. Moses. However, in Reshimot Shiurim: Yevamot (ed. Reichman), p. 211 (to Yevamot 17a), it is attributed to his grandfather, R. Hayyim. After mentioning R. Hayyim’s position that descendants of Jews in Spain who identify as Christians are to be regarded as non-Jews both le-humra and le-kula (meaning their children are also not halakhically Jewish), he adds: והוא חידוש נורא. Levy, p. 82, refers to this page in Reshimot Shiurim, but he focuses on the first possible explanation that the Rav offers, rather than the explanation of R. Hayyim which in practice was what the Rav adopted.

I have to say, however, that the Rav seems to have contradicted himself in a 1965 interview with Ha-Aretz (printed in Community, Covenant and Commitment, pp. 220-221). He stated:

During the “Brother Daniel” episode, I wrote to the Chief Rabbis urging that they should stop attempting to decide this issue according to [formal] Halakhah and decide it based on their emotions. Acccording to [formal] Halakhah, Brother Daniel is a Jew. . . . I prayed that the Justices would not follow the Halakhah.

I must also note that during the Brother Daniel episode in the early 1960s there was only one chief rabbi, R. Isaac Nissim.
[4] It might be an interesting project for someone who listened to many of the Rav’s online shiurim to put together a list of ideas he expressed that are not found in his writings or that are in contradiction to what he wrote. I am sure that there are plenty of examples where the Rav offers an idea that he is not sure about and never would have included in a published work. This is obviously relevant to how much weight we give passages in the series of books The Rav Thinking Aloud.

I thought of this when I read the summary of the Rav’s YU graduate school lecture from the late 1940s published in Hakirah 27 (2019), p. 51:

The commandment of lo tirtzah was not [meant to be] self-evident to the intellect. It is also a hok, as is the eating of hazir. The only difference is that it fits into our moral concept of thinking, whereas hazir doesn’t. [It is not obvious] reasoning that I should not murder someone who stands in my way.

Was this really the Rav’s settled opinion, or was he just trying to be provocative with the students, in order to bring out a point? I do not see how the Rav could have really thought that lo tirzah is a hok, and I do not know of anyone who has made such a claim. After all, the prohibition of murder is one of the Noahide Laws, none of which are hukkim. 

In Community, Covenant and Commitment, p. 333, the Rav accepts that there are “rational laws.” He adds that when the Jews were commanded about rational laws, “an internal-natural instinct was transformed into a Divinely revealed command.” Furthermore, “the normative field of operation was expanded and deepened and reached the depths and farthest boundaries of idealism, which are unknown to the psychological instincts and predilections.”

In Shiurei Harav, ed. Joseph Epstein (Hoboken, 1974), p. 114, the Rav includes lo tirtzah among the mishpatim, but here too he seems to be denying what we can call a natural law prohibition against murder according to R. Akiva. If one were to follow this approach, I do not see how the prohibition against murder can be regarded as a mishpat.

R. Akiva is saying that since you said “Do not murder,” we don’t murder; but if you did not say it, we might do it. R. Ishmael says that even without God, man would know better. For R. Akiva, a man is capable of murder and is stopped only because of God.

Today, not much proof is needed of R. Akiva’s point of view. There is some devil in man; some satan who can suddenly come to the fore. To prevent this, we need the word of God. For R. Akiva, the mishpatim, those rules for which we think we know the reason should be done on the same basis as the hukim, for which we do not know the reason.

Some might wish to bring proof that the prohibition against murder can be seen as natural law since God judged Cain guilty of murder and this was before the giving of the Torah. Yet this is not a strong point because according to Bereishit Rabbah 16:6, and see also Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Melakhim 9:1, Adam was already commanded against murder. Yet the fact remains that non-Jews are forbidden to murder, and are called to account for violation of this command. This applies even if they had never heard of God’s revelation to Noah or Moses. Doesn’t this mean that this law is in principle knowable by reason?

Marvin Fox has a different approach.

“Ye shall keep my statutes (Lev., 18:5). This refers to those commandments which if they had not been written in Scripture, should by right have been written. These include the prohibitions against idolatry, adultery, bloodshed, robbery and blasphemy [Yoma 67b].” There is no suggestion here that human reason could have known by itself that these acts are evil, nor is it suggested that they are not consistent with man’s nature. What is asserted is only that, having been commanded to avoid these prohibited acts, we can now see, after the fact, that these prohibitions are useful and desirable.

Fox. Interpreting Maimonides (Chicago and London), p. 127. When it comes to Maimonides, the crux of the problem revolves around Guide 2:33 where he categorizes murder (and the other final seven commandments of the Ten Commandments) as belonging to the “class of generally accepted opinions,” as opposed to the first two commandments which are rational, “knowable by human speculation alone.” For the most recent discussion of Maimonides and Natural Law, see Shalom Sadik, Maimonides: A Radical Religious Philosopher (Piscataway, N.J., 2023), ch. 4.

In the Hakirah article mentioned earlier in this note, the Rav also states as follows:

Those who possess greater knowledge and skill possess also the higher ranks in society. Yet Judaism tried to equate the dignity of every individual regardless of his possession of knowledge. [It differentiated] only in regard to his intellectual drive. Where Judaism gave preference to the hakham over the am ha’aretz, it was not with regard to his accumulation of wisdom but simply because he was engaged in this great ethical drive. If a man tries and fails, he is not condemned. [Rather] he receives equal respect [to that] of the hakham.

These are nice sentiments, but the Rav knew full well that this was never how Jewish society functioned. The am ha’aretz, even one who tried, and failed, to become learned in Torah, was never given equal respect to the hakham.

In reading over this note, I see that I have another point to add. I wrote: “After all, the prohibition of murder is one of the Noahide Laws, none of which are hukkim.” I do, however, know of one source that disagrees with my statement. R. David Kimhi, Commentary to Gen. 26:5, writes:

גם יש בשבע מצות שנצטוו בני נח שאין טעמם נגלה אלא לחכמים והם הרבעת בהמה והרכבת האילן ואבר מן החי לפיכך אמר: חקותי, ואמר: מצותי, כלל לכל המצות השכליות בין בלב, בין ביד ובין בפה מצות עשה ולא תעשה

This is a problematic passage. Leaving aside his assumption that ever min ha-hai is a hok, the other two examples he gives, mixed breeding of animals and grafting of trees, are not included in the Seven Noahide Laws. There is a dispute among the rishonim if these actions are forbidden for non-Jews. Those who hold they are forbidden see these as additional prohibitions separate from the Seven Noahide Laws.

In a future post I will deal with the issue of positive commandments that non-Jews might be obligated in. These are also not included in the Seven Noahide Laws which are only negative commandments.
[5] See my “Letters from the Rav,” p. 151.
[6] Eretz ha-Tzvi, p. 140. This is noted by R. Chaim Jachter, Gray Matter, vol. 5, p. 188.
[7] See p. 25 n. 7, where Henkin tells us that after presenting his approach to R. Lior the latter agreed that one should also perform a comparative analysis with stainless steel and other materials. It does not appear that this would have any impact on his halakhic decision, and he has not publicized a retraction. I would say to R. Eitam, and I regret that I did not have the opportunity to do so in his lifetime, that if scientifically it has been shown that there is no absorption in stainless steel, then as I mentioned in the text, I do not see why the comparative study he suggests accomplishes anything.
[8] See his letter in Ha-Ma’yan 53 (Tevet 5773), pp. 90-93. See also the discussion in Nadav Shnerb, Keren Zavit (Tel Aviv, 2014), pp. 314-322.
[9] See Jeffrey Saks, “Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik and the Israeli Chief Rabbinate,” B.D.D 17 (2006), pp. 45-67. See also the lengthy new article by Aviad Hacohen which focuses on the 1935 candidacy of the Rav for chief rabbi of Tel Aviv, but also discusses the period after R. Herzog’s death, “Ki mi-Neged Tir’eh et ha-Aretz ve-Eleha lo Tavo,” in Dov Schwartz, ed., Tziyonut Datit 9 (2023), pp. 153-222.
[10] See David Holzer, ed., The Rav Thinking Aloud (n.p., 2009), p. 143.
[11] R. Meir Mazuz, Mi-Gedolei Yisrael, vol. 1, pp. 197-198, points out that in the first printing of R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai (Hida), Ma’agal Tov (Livorno, 1879), the printer omitted the details that the Hida recorded about the way Jews in Tunis ate, which their coreligionists in Europe would have viewed as distasteful. This was restored in the Freimann edition, Ma’agal Tov ha-Shalem (Jerusalem, 1934). One of the things the Hida mentions is that in Tunis they ate with their hands, and you can see how uncomfortable it made him (p. 56):

ואוכלים בידיהם ורגליהם וכל שמנונית מלא חפניהם והיה מגביה הגביר חתיכת שומן בעודה בכפו יבלענה ומנקה ידו במטפחת שעל ברכיו והמטפחת נעשה כבית המטבחיים

“And they eat with their hands and with their feet, and with all the fat are their hands filled: the g’vir would lift up a piece of fatty meat and, while holding it in his hand, would he swallow it and then wipe his hands on a towel on his knees; and this towel would become like a butcher’s shop.”

The Diary of Rabbi Ha’im Yosef David Azulai, trans. Benjamin Cymerman (Jerusalem, 2006), Part 2, p. 20.

R. Yisrael Dandrovitz has a fascinating article devoted to the issue of eating with silverware, including the dispute over whether the sages of the Talmud ate with silverware or with their hands. He also deals with the practice of many hasidic rebbes to eat with their hands (some only eat fish with their hands). See “Al Ketzeh ha-Mazleg” Etz Hayyim 21 (5774), pp. 238-269.
[12] I was skeptical about this report of the Rav being considered, and wondered if Homa had remembered correctly. But R. Abraham Lieberman called my attention to Meir Persoff, Hats in the Ring: Choosing Britain’s Chief Rabbis from Adler to Sacks (Boston, 2013), p. 116, where we see that the Rav was indeed one of proposed candidates. The documentary evidence provided by Persoff contains nothing about the Rav’s table manners as a reason for him not being invited to interview for the position of Chief Rabbi.
[13] See also R. Bezalel Naor’s letter in Or ha-Mizrah, Nisan 5766, p. 192 n. 1. R. Naor, who is nothing less than a treasure in the world of Jewish scholarship, continues to amaze with his many contributions. His most recent book is Souls of the World of Chaos, which while focused on Rav Kook also encompasses the entire range of Jewish thinkers.
[14] Shabbat 17b in the Rif pages, s.v. u-mihu.
[15] Yaskil Avdi, vol. 2, no. 2.
[16] Beit Avi, vol. 3, no. 115:6.



Simchas Torah and its Customs Including an Appendix from: R’ Chaim Zev Malinowitz Zt”l Celebrating Simchas Torah All Year Round

Simchas Torah and its customs
Including an Appendix From R’ Chaim Zev Malinowitz Zt”l
Celebrating Simchas Torah All Year Round

By Eliezer Brodt

At the end of the Yom Tov of Succos there is a special Yom Tov called Simchas Torah. While in Eretz Yisroel it’s celebrated on the eighth day of Succos, Shmini Atzeret; in Chutz L’Aretz it’s celebrated the day after Shmini Atzeret. Simchas Torah is a day of great Simcha and like all of our Yom Tovim is replete with its own unique customs. This article is in no way an attempt to cover all of the many aspects of this Yom Tov, but rather to touch upon some of its rich minhaghim, an intellectual smorgasbord of sorts.[1]

The Name of the Chag

The Tur and other Rishonim write that the reason behind the name Simchas Torah is that on this day we complete our weekly reading of the Torah and as such it is proper to be BeSimcha. The Tur also points out that the custom is to begin reading Parshos Bereishis on this day to prevent the Satan from denigrating the Jewish people.

The Hagahos Haminhagim on R’ Issac Tirnah’s Sefer Minhagim expands this point thusly: the Satan berates the Jews before Hashem with the claim that they study Torah but never complete it, and even when they finish the Torah, they do not begin their study anew.[2] Therefore, the minhag is to begin the Torah anew immediately upon its completion in order to preemptively silence the Satan from offering any critique.

The Tur continues by noting that in some communities many Piyutim are said, some of them having the custom to take out all of the Sifrei Torah from the Aron Kodesh while doing so. Other communities make a big Seudah to celebrate the Simcha of completing and starting the Torah anew.[3] From other Rishonim it appears that those responsible for the Seudah are the Choson Torah and Chosson Bereishis.[4]

The Rama adds to above explanation of the Simcha on Simchas Torah as a celebration of completing reading the Torah by correlating the minhag to circle the Bima with the Sifrei Torah to that with the Daled Minim on the earlier days of Succos.[5]

However, in a late-antiquity work called Chilukim Bein Bnei Bavel L’bein Bnei Eretz Yisroel we find that while Bnei Bavel celebrated Simchas Torah every year, the custom in Eretz Yisroel was to finish the Torah once every three and a half years (or so), and only then did they celebrate ‘Simchas Torah’.[6] This custom is mentioned by the Rambam who notes that most communities finished once a year but some had a custom to do so only once every three and a half years. The famous traveler, R’ Binyomin of Tudela, mentions[7] seeing these two customs still in practice in Egypt in the 1160’s-1170’s, as does R’ Avraham ben HaRambam a few years later.[8] [I deal with this last aspect in my Presentation on All Daf Here.]

Additional insight into this special day can be found in the Netziv who writes:

ובהעמק שאלה סוף סימן קע”א הראינו לדעת דסיום התורה הוא גם כן יום שמחה לישראל, ובסימן קמ”ו אות ה’ הכרחנו משיטת רבותינו התוספות, דזה שאומרים הלל ומברכים ביום שמחת תורה, אינו משום ספיקא דיומא של שמיני עצרת, אלא משום שמחת גמרה של תורה, והיינו משום דזהו כעין חנוכת בית המקדש. ונראה דמשום הכי משונה קריאת התורה דזה היום מדיני קריאת התורה בכל השנה, והיינו משום דהוא כמו יום חנוכת המזבח דמשונה הבאת הקרבנות מדיני הקרבנות בכל השנה, כמו שכתבתי לעיל ז’ י’ עיין שם, כן היום ביום סיום התורה משונה מנהגיה מכל השנה. ובאמת הוא זה בעת שאנחנו בגלות והשגחת ה’ עלינו על ידי ד’ אמות של הלכה הוא דבר אחד עם חנוכת המזבח בזמן שישראל בארץ ישראל ובית המקדש קיים, שהשגחת ה’ עלינו ושכינתו היה תלוי בעבודת בית המקדש, שמשום הכי כתיב בכרובים שעשה שלמה ופניהם לבית, ללמדנו שגם עיני ה’ וגם עינינו תלויות על הבית כמש”כ בפרשת תרומה ובפרשת פקודי. כך בזמן הזה סיום התורה והתחלתה הוא שמחת לבבנו. דרך כלל אין שמחת ישראל כמו בזמן שאנחנו עושים סיבה להשכין את אלהי ישראל בקרבנו, כי הוא חיינו הרחב דבר, פרשת בהעלותך, י:י אות (ב) ]9

Simcha and Dancing

One of the ways to find data and get a glimpse of how Yom Tovim were celebrated in the past is through personal memoirs and autobiographical accounts.

Rabbi Elozor Reich described Simchas Torah in Eretz Yisroel in 1953, while he was learning there, thus:

On Simchas Torah in Yerushalayim, Chevron is the center of attraction and hundreds of people pack the beis hamedrash for hakafos and the actual dancing is a showpiece here. The queue of spectators waiting to get into the gallery stretches for a distance. So as to enable them to dance with energy the oilam makes kiddush and has a snack straight after maariv, and in the morning session the hakafos are also preceded by dinner! Even though the chevron performance was outstanding with special shticklech and minhagim I must say that the simchah in Yeshivas Hamasmidim with a heimishe oilam appealed to me more. Just before Yom Tov ends the yeshiva makes a rekkidah which is joined by hundred’s and watched by hundreds more in a square near the yeshiva called Kikar Shabbos. It is near to the entrance to the Meah Shearim area and has been the scene of many battles against chillul Shabbos.[10]

Further on R’ Reich describes[11] Simchas Torah in 1954:

“On Simchas Torah all, or nearly all, Yerushalayim comes to Chevron. The art of singing and dancing has been developed to a fine degree and it is one of the sights of the year. One of the specialties is “Se’u she’arim rasheichem” when the sifrei Torah are taken out. The is a block of about a hundred jumping up and clapping over their heads in front of the aron kodesh, whilst behind them are seim-circle and semi-circle charging backwards and forwards to the magnificent tune. The hakafos ended at 2 a.m. but singing continued until 3:30. You must be wondering when we ate – well, Kiddush was made before Maariv and dinner was served all through the night and the oilam went down in groups. To return to Simchas Torah. In the morning the seder was davening until after mussaf and then dinner followed by hakafos which carried on until four, when after mincha the ulam went out to the main crossroads and several hundred watched by many more, continued enthusiastic rekidos (if not without alcoholic support) until well after nightfall, when the crowd danced up to the Brisker Rav shlit”a and back. What a sight!

Rabbi Reich’s lengthy descriptions grant us a rare glimpse of the Yerushalayim Yeshivah world in the 1950’s.

Rav Chaim Stein, Rosh Yeshivah of Telz kept a diary throughout his travels during World War II. It chronicles his great mesiras nefesh for whatever mitzvos he was able to perform during that bleak period. The entry on Simchas Torah in his home town in 1940 relates Yom Tov was celebrated with great simcha despite the foreboding and funereal atmosphere.[12]

In an account about Mir Yeshivah before the war we find:

בשמחת תורה היה שמח משהו משהו! ר’ ירוחם היה נוהג לתת בשמחת תורה שיחה קצרה בין כל הקפה להקפה. הבחורים רקדו ורקדו זמן ממושך, ואז בתום כל הקפה היו נאספים ליד הבימה, ור’ ירוחם התיישב ודיבר כעשר דקות עד רבע שעה… [שמך לא שכחנו, א, עמ’ 190-191].

In a different account of pre-World War Two life, we find many very familiar details:

Simchat Torah begins, there were processions… the reins are almost completely released. We start with the verse “You have learned to know” and at times the right of distributing to prominent townsmen the honor of reciting the appropriate selections, verse by verse, was sold for the benefit of the synagogue.Sometimes this led to quarrels and to a diminution of the honor, since the person buying the right would privilege only his own relatives and friends, which the town considered to be spiteful. Eventually, selling the right to distribute these verses was abandoned in our town. Then the synagogue official or officials begin to distribute the honor of carrying the Torahs in procession: First the kohanim and Levites, then the town dignitaries, and after them the others. And woe to the official who does not follow the rules of precedence, especially with the procession during which the verse “Helper of the weak” is recited.The cantor leads those holding the Torah scrolls and the children follow them, holding flags. They circle the bimah, then stop before the ark to sing and dance, and the first circuit is completed. And we dare not stop until seven circuits around the synagogue are completed. After the processions, members of the congregation are honored by being called up for the reading of the Torah,… and then people disperse to their homes to eat and to rejoice in the spirit of the holiday.”[13]

A Galician author details the tremendous Simcha felt on Simchas Torah, relating how everyone would visit the Chasan Torah, Chasasn Bereishis and other important members of the city to take part in a kiddush… and how during the Hakafah of ‘Ozer Dalim’ the simcha felt was incredible; in the main shul people from all backgrounds dancing together…[14]

Why is Dancing Permitted?

An important Halachic question that needs to be addressed is, how is all aforementioned dancing etc. permitted if the Halachah rules[15] is one may not dance on Yom Tov?

The Rama, in his Darchei Moshe (OH 699), cites a Maharik who quotes the Geonim as having ruled to permit dancing on Simchas Torah since it is for the Kovod of the Torah.[16]

It is worth noting that the original German Minhag was not[17] to perform any sort of Hakofos with the Sifrei Torah[18] or dancing on Simchas Torah, neither by night or by day!

However, The Arizal and Gra did dance with great Simcha with Sifrei Torah.[19] As the Chayay Adam writes:

והגר”א היה מקיף שבע פעמים ואמר הנוסח שנדפס בסידורים ואחר כך אתה הוא אלהינו, והאדרת והאמונה כמו שנדפס במחזורים, והיה מקיף ומרקד לפני הספר תורה בכל כחו [כלל קנג]

R’ Nochumka of Hordona would also show tremendous simcha on Simchas Torah and even sang special niggunim.[20]

R’ Yaakov Ettlinger writes that one should not say that it’s not befitting my Kovod and Kovod Hatorah, to dance as this was exactly the sin of Michal, Shaul’s daughter.[21] Since the Mishna Berurah cites this ruling,[22] it is quite interesting to find in his son R’ Aryeh’s glowing biography of his father, the Chafetz Chaim, a description of the Chafetz Chaim’s display of intense Simcha during the Hakofos; encouraging all present to take an active part, he himself danced with the Sifrei Torah each Hakafah… he also wanted everyone to get a chance to dance with the Torah and avoid fights.[23]

In Rav Chaim Stein’s World War II diaries (quoted above) he describes how in 1941 he and his friends danced with great simchah; having no Sefer Torah, they danced instead with Chumashim.[24]

In a similar vein, it is reported that R’ Meir Shapiro of Lublin would dance with Gemaras printed by the Slavita publishing house.[25] R’ Aryeh Kagan, son of the Chafetz Chaim, recalls how in his youth the children would dance with the Megilot of Neviyim, but this lead to physical fights among the children at which point the Chafetz Chaim gave his son R’ Aryeh a copy of the Semag to dance with, explaining to him this is an important work that included both the written and oral Torah.[26]

Which brings us to point regarding children and Simchas Torah.

Children and Simchas Torah[27]

It hardly bears saying that this Yom Tov was extremely special for children all over, and they took an active part in the singing and dancing. Thus we find quoted in the account above “the cantor leads those holding the Torah scrolls and the children follow them, holding flags”.

In another account we find:

Every child carried a paper flag or banner on which were painted a lion and hare and the words: “Be swift as a hare and strong as a lion to carry out the commandments of the Torah.” On the flag was perched a large red apple and on top of the apple a lit candle. I still picture all the townspeople gathered in the Beis Medrash , the Torah Scrolls taken out of the Holy Ark, the seven Hakafot (processional circuits) around the synagogue, the men taking turns in carrying the Torah Scrolls and the singing and the dancing. We children joined the processions and heard the Yiddish expression “Derlebt iber ah-yohr” (may you have a good year and be privileged to celebrate again next year) repeated over and over again.[28]

This minhag is noted as early as the Orach Hashulchan.[29] In 1824 a parody called the Sefer Hakundas (trickster) printed in Vilna. Through this parody we get a very interesting glimpse into Jewish life in those days. When talking about Simchas Torah he mentions the big flags carried by ‘the trickster’.[30]

There is a special minhag in Stolin that before the Hakofot they say the 13 Anei Mamin with the children in Yiddish. Rabbi Abish Shor points to early origins for this minhag.[31]

Children participated in numerous other ways and even receive Aliyot; some chicken out or are too young and just stay under the Talis during Kol HaNe-Aryim!

Dancing around a Bonfire

The Magan Avraham rules the following: it is prohibited to light Pulvyer to produce Noise as a form of Simcha. What is he referring to?

The answer is ‘Pulvyer’ is gunpowder and the sentence refers to a custom of making a fire, leaping over it and shooting gunpowder. As mentioned earlier, the custom in many German communities was not to dance with Sifrei Torah or to perform any sort of Hakofos. However, in an early account of life in Worms by Rav Yuzpeh Shamash (1604-1678) we find a lengthy description at how later on in the day, when the Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis would make their Seudah, they would light a big fire and eventually they would dance around it. The hagahos to R’ Yuzpeh sefer describe how the Pnei Yehoshua took part in one such fire, during his temporary residence in the city (1753-4).[32]

Interesting enough the Maharil (already quoted by the Darchei Moshe) relates how some children would take apart the Sucah and burn it on Simchas Torah in this fire. The Maharil’s father did not let him do it but the Maharil himself did allow the children do it because of simchas Yom Tov.[33]

Another item that was burned in this fire, according to R’ Pinchas Katzenelenbogen’s account in his fascinating autobiography, was the Shul’s sheimos.[34] Apparently at some point they began adding gun powder to the fire and this is what the Magan Avhrhom is referring to in his aforementioned prohibition.[35]

These are not the only minhaghim the children were involved in.

Fruit and Fruit throwing[36]

In R’ Binyamin Halevi’s Machzor Maagalei Tzedek (first printed in 1550) we find that the adults would give out fruits to the children.[37] Much later, we find this custom mentioned by Y. Gibralter in his memoirs of pre-World War II Kovno, describing how the Gabbai would give out fruit to the children.[38]

Certain Rishonim mention that the adults would through the fruit at the children. Eliyahu Raba says that Rabbenu Bechayah was against this, but he says there is a source for this custom in the Midrash. Although he does not give precise details to his source, it appears that he is referring to a midrash quoted in the Targum Sheini on Esther (3:8), which says that on Atzeres they would go to the roofs of their shuls and they would throw down stuff, which is then gathered. In Amsterdam in 1770 a commentary on this Targum was printed, which added in a few words to this Midrash, to wit that they threw down apples and grass. This is the source for many to show that spreading out grass on Shavuos is a very early minhag. However, the words apples and grass are absent in all earlier editions of Targum Sheini; neither do they appear in other midrashic works that quote this same midrash. Still, there are numerous early sources in the Rishonim to throw apples on Simchas Torah; some chassidim still do so today, understanding the word ‘Atzeres’ as referring to Sukkos-Shemini Atzeres and not Shavuos. Thus, this midrash is not a source for Shavuos but rather for Simchas Torah.[39]

In Rav Yuzpeh Shamash’s work on Worms, while discussing throwing fruit at the children, he describes how a non-Jewish woman bequeathed the Jewish Community her garden upon her death, on condition that they use her garden for the Simchas Torah fruit. R’ Yuzpeh writes that he saw fruit from this garden used.[40]

Related to this last point, this is not the only “involvement” of Goyim with Simchas Torah.

One of the more famous accounts is the British diarist Samuel Pepys’ unexpected visit to Congregation Shaar Hashamayim in London on Simchas Torah in 1663. In his diary entry for Wednesday, October 14th, he writes:

after dinner my wife and I, by Mr. Rawlinson’s conduct, to the Jewish Synagogue: where the men and boys in their vayles, and the women behind a lattice out of sight; and some things stand up, which I believe is their Law, in a press to which all coming in do bow; and at the putting on their vayles do say something, to which others that hear him do cry Amen, and the party do kiss his vayle. Their service all in a singing way, and in Hebrew. And anon their Laws that they take out of the press are carried by several men, four or five several burthens in all, and they do relieve one another; and whether it is that everyone desires to have the carrying of it, I cannot tell, thus they carried it round about the room while such a service is singing. And in the end they had a prayer for the King, which they pronounced his name in Portugal; but the prayer, like the rest, in Hebrew…”.[41]

Women

We now return our focus to the custom to throw fruit; according to some accounts, it was the women who threw the fruit. This in turn leads our attention to the role of women and Simchas Torah.

Rebbetzin Ginsburg, R. Yechezel Levenstein’s daughter, while describing Simchas Torah in Yeshivas Mir in Europe said: “the woman stood behind the mechitzos and watched”. However, I had heard that other witnesses of Simchas Torah in the Mir in Europe had said that the women were not relegated behind the Mechitzah.[42] While checking up the source of Rebbetzin Ginsburg’s interview, I saw that it’s a Hebrew version of an article originally printed in English in the book Daughters of Destiny (Artscroll). However, in the original English version it says, as I had heard from others: “The woman would stand in a corner of the bais medrash separated from the men and wait excitedly for the Hakofos to begin” (p.76). No mention of the woman standing behind a Mechetziah.

Elsewhere I found someone write about the Mir;

בשמחת תורה היה… מעמד זה היה מאד יפה… כל העיירה היתה באה גם נשות העיירה באו לחזות בשמחת תורה מעזרת הנשים… [שמך לא שכחנו, א, עמ’ 190-191].

There are few other sources from other communities that woman came in to the Beis hamedrash on this night to watch the dancing up close.[43] Rav Yuzpeh Shamash of Worms describes how the woman would gather in a circle outside of shul and sing with the wives of the Chasan Torah and Chasan Bereishis.[44] In Baghdad, R’ David Sasson relates a local custom involving woman; all of the shuls would leave the Sifrei Torah out and men and woman would go from shul to shul to kiss them.[45] We find a similar custom mentioned a bit earlier, in his letters, R’ Ovadia Bartenurah relates seeing women doing so on Yom Kippur and Hoshanah Rabah night.[46]

In yet another account we find as follows:

“Simhat Torah is considered the most joyous day in the Hebrew calendar. It is the holiday to commemorate the occasion when the reading of the Pentateuch is finished. On the eve of this day the cantor leads the hakafot as it encircles around the almemer, and girls as well as married women are permitted to take part in some of the exercises usually reserved for men in the bet hamidrash. Everyone lines up to kiss the Torah and to participate in the singing when the hakafot changes hands. The services of the following morning were a repetition of those of the evening before and were characterized by singing and dancing”.[47]

In an Italian work from 1801 we find:

חיפוש דשלושה ס”ת, שאנו עושים תכף אחר ערבית, וכשגמר… פותחים הארון הקודש ומוציאים הג’ ס”ת, וס”ת נותנים אותו למע’ הרב ויוצא עם הס”ת לעזרה, עם זקן א’ ללוות הס”ת כדי לזכות את הנשים שבאות לנשק התורה… [פינקסי קהילות אשכנזיות באיטליה, עמ’ 89]

One other point regarding woman and Simchas Torah; Rivkah Tiktiner (died in 1605), the first Jewish woman to write a complete work (Minkes Rivkah) composed a Yiddish song for Simchas Torah. Yaari suggested that this song was sung while the woman decorated the Sifrei Torah.[48]

Excessive Drinking[49]

By way of introduction to this topic, the Mishna Berurah writes here in his introduction to the Siman about Simchas Torah

מה שנוהגין באיזה מקומות שאחר מנחה של יום טוב ראשון קובעין עצמן לשתות עד הערב ולפעמים נמשך ד”ז עד שעה ויותר בלילה שלא כדין הוא מפני כמה טעמים א) דקי”ל בסימן צ”ט דאם שתה יין כדי רביעית אל יתפלל אף שיכול לדבר עדיין בפני המלך וה”ה אם שתה שאר משקין המשכרין עי”ש בסק”א ואפילו אם שותה שאר משקין שאין משכרין כיון שהגיע ספק חשיכה חל עליו חובת קידוש ואסור לטעום עד שיקדש ואפילו לאחר קידוש הלא מעוכב לאכול מחמת ק”ש של ערבית ואינו מותר רק טעימה בעלמא דהוא מיני פירות או פת כביצה ולא יותר אכן יש לחפש עליהם זכות דרבים מדכרי אהדדי ולא יבואו לשכוח תפלת ערבית אבל עכ”פ יש ליזהר שלא לשתות אז משקה המשכר ומבואר הכל לעיל בסצ”ט ס”ק א’ וב’:

The Source for this (even though the MB does not cite it here) is the Shulchan Shlomo (1771) who writes:

מה שנוהגין בכל י”ט אחר מנחה של יום ראשון שותין ומשתכרין מאוד שאסור לקבוע לשתות דבש או יין ע”ש לעיל ועוד דמשתכרין ואין יכולים לעשות הקידוש ובפרט בשמחת תורה כי אז אחר המנחה מסורין הפתקין מה שנחתם על כל כל השנה ואין להשיב לכן יזהר ללמוד באותו הזמן א”א או להתפלל או לדבר צרכי מצוה…

Then the Shulchan Shlomo writes: that when they would dance around the Bima there were many fights, oftentimes leading to violence especially as some offenders were drunk and people were jealous who got to hold the Torah first. To prevent any altercations, he suggested assigning the honors through Gorel.[50] He then concludes this siman by again encouraging people not to get drunk and fight.[51]

As mentioned, the Chosson Torah and Chosson Bereishis made a Kiddush for the town or shul. In different accounts it was held in shul before Mussaf. Numerous sources describe how the participants would become a bit tipsy and even drunk.[52]

Drunkenness had “Halacha ramifications” too. The Levush writes that although the Kohanim normally Duchen on Yom Tov[53] but as drunkenness is common on Simchas Torah, we do not Duchen on Simchas Torah!

The Mishna Berurah writes:

בא”ר כתב שבפראג נוהגין לעלות במוסף ויש עולין בשחרית וכל מקום לפי מנהגו ויזהרו שלא ישתו [ס“ק יז]

The Menucha uKedusha writes:

תקנו לקדש על יןן טוב המשמח… לעבוד ה’ בשמחה, וכל זה לשתות מעט יותר מהרגלו עד לשמחה, וחס ושללום להשתכר אף בשמחת תורה, ואסור הוא! אבל המתקבצים בבית היין וששים ושמחים ומרקדים בשירים על מלוי תאותם, ובפיהם יתברכו לאמר לכבוד התורה, גונבים דעת של מעלה וסוברים שאין הקדוש ברוך הוא יודע עשתונותיהם [מנוחה וקדושה, עמ’ רעא].

Others got tipsy later on in the day. Pauline Wengeroff (b. 1833 in Minsk), writes:

“On simkhas torah this joy burst all bounds. On this day, you saw drunken Jews in the streets, something we otherwise only very rarely had occasion to experience. In our house, too, there was plenty of excitement. All kinds of drinks were prepared; the Jewish kitchen had to offer the best foods. Many guests were invited to lunch; the children and servants, too, were given full freedom, and strict discipline was abolished. My father, like all the guests, considered it a mitsve (a religious deed) to get tipsy at the table. My parents did not stop the young men when they danced and sang playfully, indeed wildly; Father even sang gaily along with them. Only the notes of the fiddle were missing, since the Jew was never allowed to touch a musical instrument on the festivals. There were also many religious table songs that made allusion to this joyful day and were sung in chorus. For my father, simkhas torah day had particular significance. As I have already said, my father’s main occupation was Talmud study, which he was even more eager to pursue whenever his business suffered losses. He would turn his back to the world, escape into his study room, and live only al hatauro ve‘al ho‘avaudo, as the Jew put it succinctly, that is, only in learning the laws and in prayer, which was the chief purpose of his life. Thus, from time to time, he would make a siyyum; such an event was celebrated very joyously and brought respect and honor, especially when it was a siyyum over the whole shas, that is, completing study of the entire Talmud, whose extent and unfathomable depth our sages compared to the ocean! My father used to keep his siyyum for a simkhas torah”.[54]

This account is of particular significance, as her father was R’ Yehudah Epstein, a talmid of R’ Dovid Tevel, author of Nachalas David; who was a talmid of R’ Chaim Volozhiner.[55]

In another account we find:

“After the processions, members of the congregation are honored by being called up for the reading of the Torah, … and then people disperse to their homes to eat and to rejoice in the spirit of the holiday. Again, the reins are loosened. People go from house to house and drink no end of liquor. Even those who have taken a vow of abstinence don’t abide by it strictly on this day; they get drunk and engage in all sorts of childish behavior, all in the name of rejoicing over the Torah”.[56]

See this special letter of R’ Zundel of Salant, Talmid of R’ Chaim Volozhiner from 1865 who wrote asking for Mechilah from a friend of his which happened when he was younger due to drinking in Yeshiva. The original letter was recently sold by Genazym Auction 8 (2020) item #90 for $4000.

While the Mishna Berurah is against getting drunk, he does encourage A seudah with Simcha quoting the Bikurei Yakov and others:

כתב הא”ר מבואר מהפוסקים דיש לשמוח לרבים בכל מה דאפשר בשמחה של מצוה ודלא כיש שמכין ודוחין אלו לאלו עד שהשמחה נהפך לתוגה ח”ו גם מתוך כך מונעין משמחה של מצוה ולכן יש לגעור בהן עכ”ל גם מהרי”ק בשורש ט’ האריך מאוד שלא לבטל שום מנהג שנהגו לכבוד שמחת התורה ע”ש ולכן רעה עושין בהרבה מקומות במה שביטלו מקרוב שלא לעשות משתה ושמחה בשמחת תורה אף גם ששמחין בשארי ימים וכל ימיהם כחגים ובעו”ה ביזוי כבוד התורה גרם זה שהתורה מונחת בקרן זוית ואין דורש ואין מבקש ומי יתן ישיב וירחם שבר ב”י ב”ב [בכורי יעקב]

R’ Avhrhom Zakheim writes in his memoirs, about Simchas Torah of Volozhin in 1874:

בשמחת תורה נערכה סעודה לכל התלמידים. אם מספרם לא היה גדול עשו את הסעודה בבית הנצי”ב, ואם היו תלמידים רבים ערכו את הסעודה בבית הישיבה. והנצי”ב היה נוהג ביום זה לשרת בעצמו את התלמידים, מגיש להם משקאות, עוגות ופרות. בסעודה היו מאריכים עד השקיעה. תיכף אחר הסעודה מהרו כל התלמידים לתפוס את החזקות. וזה דבר החזקה: כל תלמיד קנה לו זכות על מקום קבוע ללמודיו, והתפיסה נכללה מזה שהוא מהר על המקום שנתן עיניו בו, הניח את הגמרא על השלחן פתחה ולמד בה שעה קלה, וע”י כך קנה לו חזקה על מקומו לכל השנה. ומחר התחדשו הלמודים כסדרם על פסח… [נטעי איתן, ה, עמ’ 50]

Strange custom of Bowing

In 1921, Yitzchak Rivkind described a strange custom he saw when he was learning in Volozhin (after it was reopened and headed by R’ Rephael Shapiro); they would open the Aron when saying Aleinu and then, with the Niggun reserved for Mussaf of Yom Kippur, they would sing and bow on the floor exactly like we do on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. When he asked for the source of the Minhag he was told it comes from the Gra. Upon visiting Vilna, sometime after, he found the only place where this unique Minhag was observed was in the Gra’s Kloiz, and nowhere else in Vilna.[57]

In 1933, R’ Meir Bar-Ilan printed his memoirs in Yiddish; there he describes the great Simcha in Volozhin on Simchas Torah, both his father, the Netziv’s and the Talmidim’s. Amidst this recollection he relates that when they reached Aleinu the Aron was opened and then, with the Yom Kippur Mussaf Niggun, they would sing and bow on the floor exactly like we do on Rosh Hashona and Yom Kippur – just as Rivkind described.[58] Curiously, this custom is not mentioned in the Maaseh Rav or any of the other collections of the Gra’s Minhagim.

Recently, R’ Dovid Kamenetsky printed a very important manuscript related to the Maaseh Rav, which sheds light on how this important sefer of the Gra’s Minhaghim was written. The Gra had a very close talmid named R’ Saadyah who wrote down various customs he witnessed by his Rebbe, which formed the basis of the Maaseh Rav. He then embellished his work with material from other sources. The original work was recently discovered by Rabbi Kamenetsky who subsequently published it Within, we find that R’ Saadyah writes that on Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur the Gra would prostrate fully when saying Aleinu and did the same when saying Aleinu Simchas Torah night.

בר”ה וי”כ וש”י כשאומר הש”ץ זכרנו:… כשהגיע לכורעים הי’ כורע ונופל על אפיו בפשיטת ידים ורגלים וכן בשמחת תורה בלילה היו אומרים מזמורים ותפילות …בים ואח”כ היו נופלים על אפיה’ כנ”ל באימ[ה] בעלינו

Thus for the first time we have the exact source of the Gra’s and Volozhin custom in regards to Simchas Torah.[59]

In an incredible manuscript called Sefer LiKutim written in Vina during the life time of the Gra we find about RH and YK But not about ST:

הנה ראיתי הרבה ב”א מתמיהי‘ם על מנהג החסיד דקהלתינו בענין ההשתחואה בר“ה וביוה“כ – שהוא משתחו‘ה בפישוט ידים, לא כמנהג העולם. אבל אדרב‘ה, הם מן המתמיהי‘ם, שהחסיד הנ”ל קיים דינ‘א דגמר‘א, דאי’ בדף הנ”ל [מגילה ד’ כב] ע”ב דיליף מקרא, ד’השתחואה’ זו פישוט ידים ורגלים, ע”ש. רק על כל ישראל יש לדונו ג”כ לכ‘ף ז‘כות, שא”א להם לעשות כן אא”כ נעשה לנו נס כמו שהי‘ה בזמן שבהמ”ק הי‘ה קיים, שהיו עומדי‘ם צפופים ומשתחוים רווחים כי סדנא דארעא חד הוא, שבימים נוראים שחיוב להתפלל בכנופיא ובפרט ע”פ זוה”ק ובכל המדינות בב”כ ובבתי מדרשות דחוק מאוד [ספר הליקוטים, הובא ב’ישורון ו, עמ’ רמז-רמח].60

A possible explanation for this Minhag is when things were getting a bit wilder, i.e. too Lebidick, this served to remind those gathered of Kedushas Yom Tov. This is not the only Simchas Torah minhag based upon the Yomim Noraim; in one account we find: “The Musaf was chanted with the music of the New Year’s ritual”.[61]

Interesting we find in the memoirs[62] of R’ Avrohom Zakheim about Volozhin in 1874, where he describes the Simchas Beis HaShoeva as follows:[63]

 

Leining at night

Returning to the Night of Simchas Torah. After the dancing and after the Sifrei Torah are returned, Rav Isaac Tirna writes in his Sefer Minhagim that the custom was to again take out the Sifrei Torah and make sure they are prepared for the next day’s leining. However, the Rama both in his Darcei Moshe and in his Mapa writes they the minhag is not so; rather Parshas Nedarim was read. This statement is very puzzling for a few reasons: One there does not appear to be any early sources that mention such a custom; in point of fact, we never find any Leinig from the Torah at night the rest of the year.[64] Two, what does he mean by ‘Parshas Nedarim’? Three, does he mean to do so with a Beracha and call up others.

The Chayay Adam writes that in Prague they did not lein at night. In the various numerous collections of Minhaghim of German Jews we do not find any of them mentioning such a Leining. Neither did the Chasam Sofer Lein in his minyan.[65] The Orach Hashulchan says it’s a strange custom and thus many do not lein at night.[66] However, the Gra did do s [67] and R’ Efrayim Zalman Margolis brings it down in his classic work, Sharei Efrayim.[68]

A possible suggestion as to where this Minhag came from could be based on the fact that some Rishonim bring a custom that some had to finish leining the whole Torah on Simchas Torah night while some had the custom to do so Hoshana Rabbah at night (others did just Sefer Devaryim).[69] In a recent manuscript printed for the first time just a a year ago called Emek Succos we find that at the beginning of the fourteenth century there was a custom in Provence to Lein the whole Torah on Simchas Torah at night in front of the men, woman and children.[70] Most possibly this Minhag has to do with what the Rama brings and eventually they just leined only a small part.

Some other Halacha Questions

What happens when there are only Kohanim and Yisraelim that did not get an Aliyah do we call up a Levi that already got one?

So the Netziv writes once we do the five Aliyot than we do not need to call up the Levi again.

בעזהי”ת יום ה’ ה’ ניסן, תרמ”ג: להרב וכו’ מ’ אליהו ליבאן נ”י מו”צ בקאלאניע זאטישאק מכתב מע”כ מיום ב’ תזריע הגיע במועדו, ומחמת טרדות הימים נתאחר תשובתו, ועתה באתי בעזרו ית“ש…

עוד שאל מע”כ נ”י בשמחת תורה שמרבים לקרות את כל הנמצאים בביהכ”נ, וקורין כ”פ כהן, ואם אין שם לוי שלא עלה לתורה אם יותר טוב לקרות עוד הפעם אותו לוי, או לקרות הכהן במקום לוי, זה הדין מבואר באו”ח (סי’ קל”ה ס”י) נהגי לקרות כהן אחר כהן בהפסק ישראל ביניהם, והקשה הב”י הרי יש לחוש לפגם השני, ויישב דקורא עוד הפעם ללוי בין הכהן וישראל, והקשו האחרונים אם אין שם לוי מה יעשו, ויישב המג”א דקורא הכהן פעמים, וסיים ואפשר לומר דכולי האי לא שרינן לקרות כהן באמצע ושיקרא פעמים, והט”ז יישב בא”א. הא כו”ע מודו שא”א לקרות את הלוי שקרא בראשונה עוד הפעם, והכי מוכח בטור שם שכתב בשם רב עמרם ובתר דקרי כהן לוי וישראל קרי מאן דבעי אי בעי כהן למיתני ומיקרי שפיר דמי, וכשאין שם כהן וקורא לישראל במקומו אומר במקום כהן כדי כו’, אבל העולה במקום לוי א”צ לומר במקום לוי כו’. ולכאורה אינו מובן היאך אפשר לעלות במקום לוי הלא הכהן קורא פעמים, אלא צ”ל דמיירי בפעם השני אחר שקרא ישראל שקורין כהן ואח”כ ישראל במקום לוי, כיון שאין שם לוי שלא קרא עדיין, וכך המנהג אצלנו בש“ת… ומרוב טרדא הנני בחותמי שים שלום וברכה יאושר חילו ויושבי בצלו ישאו ברכה לרגלו כנפשו ומשאלו וכנפש העמוס בעבודה: נפתלי צבי יהודא ברלין. [שות משיב דבר, ב ,סי’ מח].71

In addition, see the Mishna Berurah

במקום צורך ודחק וכו’ – כגון בשמחת תורה וכה”ג יש לסמוך דמיד שקרא ג’ קרואים הראשונים כהן לוי וישראל מותר לקרות אח”כ כהן או לוי וכמ”ש לעיל בדעת המחבר… [קלה ס”ק לז]

Chasan Torah

Much has written about different aspects of the Chasan torah.

Just to mention two sources:

R’ Efrayim Zalman Margolis writes in his, Sharei Efrayim

יש מקומות שנהגו לעשות חתן תורה אף הקטן פחות מבן יג שנה אך ברוב המקומות נוהגין סלסול בעצמם לכבוד גמרה של תורה ומהדרי’ שיהיה ת”ח הגון ועכ”פ אדם נכבד וגדול במקומו מחמת חשיבתו ועשרו וכך ראוי לעשות [שערי אפרים, שער ח’ אות סא].

Here is a Takanah from Prague 1823 from R’ Eleazar Fleckeles and his Beis Din[72]

Appendix:

By R’ Chaim Zev Malinowitz Zt”l

Celebrating Simchas Torah All Year Round[73]

Yes, I know that Sukkos is already over. Sorry, I am simply not ready to get back to the weekly parshah just yet. The month of Elul, Rosh Hashanah, Aseres Yemei Teshuvah, Shabbos Shuvah, Yom Kippur, preparing for Sukkos, Sukkos, Simchas Beis Hashoeivah, Hoshanah Rabbah, Shemini Atzeres, tefillas geshem, Simchas Torah… It is no small feat to return to “plain ordinary” life. On the other hand, that is exactly what Hashem wants of us. Moreover, the true test of what the Yamim Tovim did for us —did to us— is, of course, the manner we return to what most of our lives consist of —the routine, the standard, the customary. Are we different, did we gain anything more than pounds or inches to our waistlines? It is told that a Rebbe of mine, Hagaon Harav Mendel Kaplan zt”l, was asked the inevitable question, “Nu, Rebbe, how was Yom Tov?” His answer? “I don’t know, come back to me in about a year and I’ll be able to tell you.” Clearly, Reb Mendel had a definitive grasp of what a Yom Tov is and what is supposed to be accomplished through it.

Let us at least dwell on the last day of Yom Tov, Simchas Torah, on which we rejoiced with the Torah and our accomplishments in learning Torah.   This is a universal celebration, encompassing the more learned, the less learned, men, women and children. We rejoice with our communion with the wisdom and ratzon of Hashem, and with our ability to understand it with our human, finite minds and intelligence. Let us delve into this a bit deeper, and try to understand it on a more profound level.

It is really quite interesting that we are so insistent on immediately starting Bereishis after finishing Vezos Haberachah and Sefer Devarim. However, we do so, barely giving the ba’al koreh a chance to catch his breath. We have a Chasan Bereishis, as we have a Chasan Torah. The poem we sing to the Chasan Bereishis when we call him to the Torah speaks darkly in one line of the Satan trying to trip us up in the Heavenly Court if we would dare not start again upon finishing. What is that all about?

Hashem is perfect. That premise is absolutely true by definition, not by happenstance. Which makes it quite peculiar to find as we go through the Torah that —ostensibly— everything He seemed to want to happen —did not! From Adam’s original sin which changed the course of all of history, to Cain’s  inability to share a world with just four other people, to the Flood (which apparently has Hashem saying, “Ok, let’s try this again…”), to Bnei Yisrael’s sin at the very giving of the Torah, which resulted in the breaking of the original Tablets of the Ten Commandments resulting in their having to be “re-given.”, to the sin of the spies which irrevocably changed the history of Bnei Yisrael’s entry into their land, the land of Israel… Why is our history so peppered with doing it over again? Why is Hashem’s world always developing through second chances?

The answer lies in the very purpose of the world’s creation. Hashem said, “Na’aseh Adam,” “Let us make man.” This can be interpreted to mean that man actually shares in the creation. It is man’s input, humankind’s struggles, in which Hashem wants to be a partner in the development of history and humankind. We struggle, we attempt, we try, we fail, and we try again. Hashem is interested in the human struggle. Therefore, imperfection is perfect —for it is exactly and precisely what Hashem is looking for— for that indeed is human nature.

We do not have Torah in an ex-post facto situation. Hashem’s world is not a world of ex-post facto. Eretz Yisrael was not obtained in a second-class way. The failures of mankind are in effect their successes —if, of course, they repair that which they have wrought. For such a world manifests the handiwork of humankind, rather than one handed to humankind on a silver platter.

The Rambam (Hilchos Tefillah 13:8) makes clear that the reading of Vezos Haberachah on Simchas Torah is not simply because that is the end of the Torah and, after all, we are now concluding the Torah and celebrating Simchas Torah.  Rather, there is some aspect of parshas Vezos Haberachah that is inyana deyoma —a timely topic, having to do with the celebration of Simchas Torah. What would that be though?

I would suggest that the answer lies in the famous passuk at the beginning of the parshah, “Torah tzivah lanu Moshe, morashah Kehillas Yaakov.” “Moshe Rabbeinu commanded us concerning the Torah; it is a heritage for the Congregation of Jacob.” Rashi provides some context for this verse, explaining that despite the many persecutions, pogroms, expulsions, killings, attempted forced baptisms and all of the other forms of oppression that the Jewish people have endured; we still maintain the Torah, understanding that it is our heritage.

Now, the word morashah is closely related to the word yerushah —an inheritance. And what is a morashah if not an inheritance of sorts? However, the difference between the two is that an inheritance that I have received is mine, and I am free to do with it as I please. A heritage, a morashah, on the other hand, implies that I have something very unique and special to a particular group. Thus, even when I get it, I have a responsibility to future generations to maintain it and treasure it and make sure that it survives me, and is handed over intact to the future. Truly, the Torah is our morashah.

It is truly our Torah; it is ours to treasure, ours to maintain. Na’aseh —we too have a share in the Torah’s existence in this world. We had to go through the ordeal of the Golden Calf to get the luchos sheniyos (the second tablets). We had to survive centuries of persecution… but the reading of Simchas Torah is the statement that the Torah is indeed our morashah —and we have it in our peculiarly human way. We finish it and we immediately start it again. We may never relinquish our diligence in studying it and maintaining it. We have it as our morashah.

This is a truly inspiring and practical message to take with us into the sometimes cruel, sometimes just cold and indifferent world. Something to teach to and a message with which to inspire our children.

[1] This piece was originally written but not published in 2018. I updated it since then and hope to elaborate on it more in a future Hebrew version IYH.

For useful collections on this topic, the most comprehensive work on this day was written by the legendary expert on Seforim, Avraham Yaari, Simchas Torah (530 pp.) See also the Recently published comments of R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi, in Igrot Shmuel pp. 273-274, 291-293 to his Friend Avraham Yaari. Many later authors who wrote on the Chag seem to have “borrowed” material from Avraham Yaari and “forgot” to attribute it to him. A more recent, comprehensive work, written in a different style is called Simchas Torah from Rabbi Tzvi Varshner.

For general information see R’ Y. Reifmann, Shulchan HaKriyah, Berlin 1882, pp. 92a-99b; Rav Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky, Mikraei Kodesh, 2, pp. 61-74; R’ S.Y. Zevin, HaMoadim BeHalacha, pp. 158-164; R’ Yechiel Goldhaber, Minhagei Hakehilot 2, pp. 153-182; R’ Ovadiah Yosef, Chazon Ovadiah (Sukkos), pp. 455-478; Luach HaHalachos Uminhaghim; R’ Deblitsky, Kitzur Hilchos HaMoadim (Sukkos), pp. 244-281; R’ Tchezner, Sharei Chag HaSukkos, pp. 273-305, 472-491; Rabbi Tuviah Freund, Moadim L’Simchah, 1, pp. 452-529; R’ Y. Mondshine, Otzar Minaghei Chabad, pp. 345-400; R’ Cohen, Olat Cohen (2014). See also the recently published manuscript by R’ Yakov Stahl [from 1359-1390] published in Yeshurun 37 (2017), pp. 167-199.
[2] In regards to when to do Shnayim mikra ve-echad targum See R’ Yismach, HaOtzar 20 (2019), pp. 244-289.
[3] Tur, no. 669. See Beis Yosef ibid.
[4] See Darchei Moshe ibid.
[5] For recent discussion about the Rama See R’ Shaul Bar ilan, HaMayan 239 (2022), pp. 54-68; Ibid, HaMayan 243 (2023), pp. 44-53.
[6] Chilukim Bein Bnei Bavel, no. 48. See R’ Ezra Altshuler’s comments on this chiluk. See also R’ Greenspan, Melches Machsheves, 2, pp. 353-355; R’ Greivisky, Bris Halevi, p. 480; the final piece of Meshech Chochma, V’Zos Habracha. For the most current bibliography on this work, see Rabbi Y.M. Dubovick, Yeshurun, 34, pp. 15-24.
[7] The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, (Adler Ed.), p. 70.
[8] HaMaspik (Dana Ed.), p. 180.
[9] The following ideas were sent to me by my friend, R’ Benish Ginsburg based on ideas he heard from R’ Chaim Malinowitz (and can be found in his book R’ Benish Ginsburg, Ki BaSukkos Hoshavti, Insights into Sukkos, 2016, pp. 299-307): “Shemini Atzeres is a day on which one can achieve tremendous closeness to HaKadosh Baruch Hu... After achieving kedusha and tahara on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, we experience the simcha of Sukkos, when we feel the hashra’as hashechina in the sukka. In the sukka, one is in the same dwelling, so to speak, as the Shechina. He is very close to Hashem. But there is an even higher level, and that level can be reached on Shemini Atzeres. I heard a mashal… from Rav Chaim Malinowitz… If you have a roommate in yeshiva, that creates closeness. After all, you share a room. But if your roommate is a family member, there is an extra level of love and connection. On Sukkos, we share a dwelling with Hashem, but on Shemini Atzeres, we become, in a sense, family with Hashem, “בנים למקום.” You don’t need any ma’aseh mitzva to help you focus on your simcha and closeness when you are with a family member, because the closeness is just there… However, Chazal understood that this is difficult for us. To focus on the special closeness without doing anything special… That is why the minhag developed to complete the Torah reading cycle so that we celebrate Simchas Torah on Shemini Atzeres. The way we express our highest level of closeness to HaKadosh Baruch Hu is through limud Torah and our dedication to limud Torah. On Shavuos, we celebrate kabbalas haTorah and the opportunity to learn. Shemini Atzeres is when we celebrate learning itself, as that is what helps us develop this direct connection with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. This is why we dance with the sifrei Torah on Simchas Torah. We are celebrating the special closeness with HaKadosh Baruch Hu that results from our limud Torah.
[10] A Treasure of Letters, pp. 57-58
[11]  A Treasure of Letters, pp. 148-149
[12] Mi-Telz Ad Telz, pp. 147-148.
[13] A Jewish Life on Three Continents, pp. 160-161
[14] Zichronos Av Ubno, p. 352
[15] See Rabbi Gedaliah Oberlander, Minhag Avoseinu B’yadeinu (Shonot), pp. 134-147.
[16] See Bikurei Yakov, 669:5,6,9; Rabbi Tzvi Varshner, Simchas Torah, pp. 41-46. See also VaYishma Koli, (Yaakov Spiegel Ed,) pp. 165-166.
[17] See R’ Geiger, Divrei Kohlet, p. 340. See Yerushaseynu 10 (2019), pp. 654-655.
[18] About the Amount of Sifrei torah and the origins of this aspect of ST See Yari, pp. 287-290; Yakov Spiegel, Moriah 37:7-9 (2019), pp. 49-61.
[19] See Maseh Rav, #232-233.
[20] Toldos Menachem, p. 41 see also ibid, p. 128. See Yari, pp.259-318.
[21] Bikurei Yakov, 669:9.
[22] Shar HaTzion, 669:10.
[23] Dugmah MeDarchei Avi, p. 33.
[24] Mi-Telz Ad Telz, p. 277. See also p. 319.
[25] Eleph Kesav, 2, p. 44.
[26] Dugmah MeDarchei Avi, p. 33. See also See also R’ Benish Ginsburg, Ki BaSukkos Hoshavti, Insights into Sukkos, 2016, pp. 328-331; R’ Asher Weiss, Minchas Asher, Sichos al HaMo’adim, pp. 225-226 (cited by R’ Ginsburg).
[27] See Yari, pp. 243-250; Tali Berner, Al Pi Darkom, pp. 237-240, 268-273.
[28] A. Gannes, Childhood in a Shtetl, p. 94-95.
[29] 154:11.
[30] Sefer HaKundas, p. 66. See also Hugo Mandelbaum, Jewish Life in the Village Communities of Southern Germany, p. 69. On flags, see R’ Shevat, L’Harim Es Hadegel; Aron Arend, Pirkei Mechkar LeYom Ha’atzmaut (1998), pp. 103-117.
[31] Ketavim, pp. 1216-1219.
[32] Minhaghim D’Kehal Vermeiza, (1988), pp. 229-232.
[33] See MaHaril, pp. 376-377; Bikurei Yakov, 669:5. On the significance of this passage in the MaHaril see R’ Peles, Sifri Maharil, p. 38, 399.
[34] Yesh Manchilin, pp.319-320. On the author see Maoz Kahana, From the Nodeh Be-Yehudah To the Chasam Sofer, pp.53-60,77-79.
[35] See Herman Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), pp.174-177.
[36] This custom has been the subject of a many recent articles. See: A. Yaari, Toldos Chag Simchas Torah, pp.231-237; D. Sperber, Minhaghei Yisroel, 6, pp.140-154; R’ S. Hamberger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, 4, pp. 430-461; R’ Y. Goldhaver, Minhaghei Hakehilos, 2, pp. 147-152; R’ Y. Tessler, Hiechiel Habesht, issue 20, pp. 75-100; Or Yisroel, 41, p. 187.
[37] See Maglei Tzedek, p. 142.
[38] Yosor Yasrani, p. 110. See also Hugo Mandelbaum, Jewish Life in the Village Communities of Southern Germany, p.72.
[39] See My article in Ve-Hinneh Rivkah Yotzet, (2017), pp. 215-217.
[40] Minhaghim D’Kehal Vermeiza, (1988), pp. 228-229.
[41] The Diary of Samuel Pepys, vol. 4: 1663, eds. Robert Latham and William Matthews (London: HarperCollins, 2005), 334-336. My thanks to Menachem Butler for this source. See also Yaari, pp. 255-258 for more sources on this.
[42] Mi-pehem (p. 199) which is a collection of interviews with various Gedolim.
[43] See also Toldos Chag Simchas Torah. pp.251-252.
[44] Minhaghim D’Kehal Vermeiza, (1988), p. 220.
[45] Masseh Bavel, p. 227.
[46] Igros Eretz Yisroel, p. 106.
[47] Between Worlds, p. 93
[48] Toldos Chag Simchas Torah, p.464. This song was recently reprinted by Y. Levine with an introduction and a translation in Hebrew (Simchat Torah Leyad). On Rivkah Tiktiner, see Levine’s Introduction (ibid); Z. Gries, Hasefer Kesochen Tarbut, p.172. Meneket Rivkah, with Introduction of Frauke Von Rohden (2009).
[49] See the results of drunkenness in R’ Avhrhom Zakheim, Nitei Eytan 3 (1927), pp. 11-12.
[50] Shulchan Shlomo, 669:3-4
[51] About this important work see Yeshurun 35 (2016), pp. 788-814
[52] See Kotik, Ma Sherueti, p.330; David Daiches, Two Worlds, p. 127; A. S. Sachs, Worlds That Passed (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1928), pp. 198-204.
[53] See Zichronos Umesoras Al HaChasam Sofer, p. 203; Aderet, Tefilas Dovid, p. 147; R’ Yechiel Goldhaver, Minhagei Hakehilot 2, pp.169-170; Yaari, pp. 237-240; Rabbi Akiva Males, Friends Don’t Let Friends Drink and Dukhen: Birkat Kohanim and Simhat Torah in the Diaspora, Tradition 49:2 (2016), pp. 53-64. See also Hugo Mandelbaum, Jewish Life in the Village Communities of Southern Germany, p.71.
[54] Memoirs of a Grandmother, pp. 167-168.
[55] Her father authored an important work called Minchas Yehudah. On this work see S. Abramson, Sinai, 112 (1993), p. 1-24; N. Steinschneider, Ir Vilna, pp. 248-249.
[56] A Jewish Life on Three Continents, pp. 160-161.
[57] HaIvri, 10:35, (1921), pp. 6-7. See Yaari, p.366.
[58] MeVolozhin Ad Yerushlayim, 1, p. 115. See also Yeshurun 40 (2019). P. 775; HaTzadik R’ Shlomo Bloch, pp. 112-113, (cited in the Yeshurun article).
[59] See Toras Hagra, p. 212. On this work see: Toras Hagra, pp. 127-226.
[60] See also R’ Slutzki, Etz Efrayim, p. 4A; Yakov Spiegel, Moriah 38:10-12 (2023). Pp. 43-54.
[61] Between Worlds, p. 93
[62] Nitei Eytan 5 (1931), p. 50, quoted by Rabbi Feffer, Simchas Beis HaShoeva LeHagra, pp. 216-217.
[63] For discussion about the Gra and the tremendous Simcha in regards to the Simchas Beis HaShoeva See Rabbi Feffer, Simchas Beis HaShoeva LeHagra.
[64] See Yaari, pp. 194-203; Bikurei Yakov, 669:13; R’ Yechiel Goldhaver, Minhagei Hakehilot 2, pp.161-165, 271-277; Rabbi Gedaliah Oberlander, Minhag Avoseinu B’yadeinu, 1, pp.164-184; Rabbi Tzvi Varshner, Simchas Torah, pp. 47-49.
[65] Zichronos Umesoros Al HaChasam Sofer, p. 202.
[66] 669:2.
[67] Maaseh Rav, #230.
[68] See also Aderet, Tifelas Dovid, p. 110, 146.
[69] See my previous article in Ami Magazine “The Mysteries of Hoshana Rabbah”, for sources about this.
[70] See R’ Yakov Stahl, Ginzei Chag HaSuccos, p.95, 152.
[71] See the Luach Halachos Uminhaghim who brings this down, p. 155 and Rabbi Tzvi Varshner, Simchas Torah, pp. 208-212 challenges the Pesak of the Netziv.

This Particular Teshuvah of the Netziv is special to me. I heard it mentioned many times by my Rav, R’ Yisroel Reisman, growing up as a Teenager, along with the following beautiful story. R’’ Reisman was a Levi, he related:

“Twenty years ago, as I began developing a relationship with Rabbi Pam, an incident tozok place, on a Simchas Torah night at the Yeshiva. I had a she’eila, which would come up the next day. At a break in the hakafos, I asked Rabbi Pam this query. He replied that the question had been addressed by the Netziv, in his Meishiv Davar, but struggled to remember the response. (The sefer was then out of print, and not available at the Yeshiva.) After a few moments, his face lit up. He remembered the Netzivs ruling, and the Tur on which it was based. I was certainly satisfied, and returned to the hakafos. A little while later, as I was dancing, I felt a tap on my shoulder. It was Rabbi Pam. “Do you have a raincoat? Come. I have a Meishiv Davar at home. Let’s look up the teshuva (responsum).” I was surprised, and very excited to have the opportunity for such a close personal experience. I rushed to get my coat. As we were leaving, Rabbi Avrohom Talansky, a member of the Yeshiva staff, approached us. He had heard of my question. He told us that Rabb Yaakov Kamenetzky had been asked the she’eila, and had responded in the same manner. My heart sank. I thought our walk home was lost. Rabbi Pam politely thanked Rabbi Talansky and then – together -we went to his home, where we learned through the teshuva. It was exactly as he had said. Rabbi Pam’s Meishiv Davar was full of notations. Numerous teshuvos were marked off; he had listed others in the back cover. (Rabbi Pam enjoyed learning teshuva sefarim. His personal notes contain many pages of she’eilos tha crossed his path and the sefer in which he had come across a p’sak.) We learned through two other teshuvos before heading back to Yeshiva It was a wonderful experience but quite unusual. During the walk back to Yeshiva, I gently asked Rabbi Pam what had prompted him to walk home during the hakafos. Was he unsure if he had remembered the teshuva correctly? Rabbi Pam answered that the bachurim from the dorm had visited his home that day for a Simchas Yom Tov. Rabbi Pam had spoken of dedication to learning, and in particular, mentioned Reb Zalmen of Volozhin’s mesiras nefesh in traveling a distance to look up a teshuva. He explained, “Initially, I could not remember the teshuva. It disturbed me that, at that moment, I didn’t plan to go home to check the teshuva. I had just spoken about this! This is why I had to walk home to check the sefer. “A person must always be honest with himself. (Jewish Observer, 2001, pp. 15-16).”

[72] Published in Kerem Sholomo 8 (1985) (80), pp. 46-47. I found this in R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi’s copy of Avraham Yaari, Simchas Torah which he had received as a gift from Yaari in 1965.
[73] This is an article of the Rav’s published in a Local Newspaper a few years ago. Published here with Permission from the Malinowitz Family.



Maimonides on Free Will, Divine Omniscience and Repentance

Maimonides on Free Will, Divine Omniscience and Repentance

Ben Zion Katz

The problem of reconciling the notions of man’s free will and Divine omniscience is an ancient one. As early as Mishna Avot 3:15 Rabbi Akiva states that “everything is known [by God] but permission (i.e. free will) is given [to people]”. Maimonides begins to tackle this question in his Laws of Repentance (הלכות תשובה) from Book One (The Book of Science סּפּר המדע) of the Mishnah Torah. In chapter 5 paragraph 5 Maimonides brings up the conundrum of Divine Omniscience vs human free will: How can people have free will if God knows the future? Maimonides insists that one who claims that God does not know people’s (future) actions is a heretic (Chapter 3 paragraph 8). He also claims that there is no doubt that people have free will (מעשה האדם ביד האדם) and that there are clear philosophical proofs (ראיות ברורות מדברי החכמה) for this. So how can these two competing concepts be explained? Maimonides insists that there is an answer, but that it is quite complicated/long (תשובת שאלה זו ארוכה). In the Mishnah Torah itself Maimonides only hints at a possible solution, stating that God’s knowledge is different (כי לא מחשבותי מחשבותיכם; Isaiah 55:8).

To pursue this matter further, one must turn to the Rambam’s philosophical masterpiece, The Guide of the Perplexed, where in Book Three, Chapter 20 Maimonides explains this idea further: that God’s knowledge is different from human knowledge because ”His knowledge is His essence and His essence is his knowledge” (Shlomo Pines, Moses Maimonides The Guide of the Perplexed, University of Chicago Press, 1963, hereafter “Pines”, p. 481). The reason for this is that “His knowledge is not a thing … outside of His essence” (Pines, p. 482). In simpler terms, for people, knowledge is separate from their being, but this is not true for God. A consequence of this idea, according to Maimonides is that “His knowledge concerning what will happen does not make this possible thing quit its nature” (Pines, p. 482). In other words, if human nature includes free will, the fact that God knows what will happen does not in any way abrogate that free will. Stated differently, if an event has two possible outcomes, “God’s knowledge…does not bring about the actualization of one of the two possibilities” (Pines, p. 483).

Several examples are often given to explain this difficult concept. The first is that if one is atop a mountain and sees two trains at right angles hurtling towards each other, foreknowledge of the impending collision does not in any way effect the outcome. The second, more philosophical approach is that for God who does not change, time is meaningless; future and past are equivalent. Therefore, just as one’s knowledge of the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo does not affect its outcome, so too God’s knowledge of future events does not affect their outcome. Thus God can be omniscient in a way we cannot fully comprehend, man can have free will, people have the capacity to repent and God can still punish evildoers.

This question of free will vs God’s omniscience comes up again in a different way in chapter 6 of the Laws of Repentance, paragraph 3, where Maimonides discusses the difficult question of the stiffening of Pharoah’s heart, a common trope in the story of the Exodus (see Exodus 4:21 and the discussion therein in Nahum Sarna, The JPS Torah Commentary Exodus, Jewish Publication Society, 1991, p. 23). Here again, the question is: if God stiffens Pharoah’s resolve, why was Pharoah deserving of God’s punishment? It seems as if Pharoah had no free will in the matter. Maimonides also discusses the fact that God prophesied to Abraham that Abraham’s descendants (the Israelites) will be oppressed by the Egyptians (Genesis 15:13). If this oppression was pre-ordained, how could God then exact punishment upon the Egyptians (Genesis 15:14) since seemingly God’s omniscience rules out free will on the part of the Egyptians? Maimonides answers the latter question in paragraph 5 of chapter 6 of the Laws of Repentance by explaining that God’s prophecy concerned the Egyptians as a nation but not individual Egyptians. Thus, presumably only those Egyptians who chose to torment the Israelites would be punished. Maimonides answers the first question regarding the stiffening or hardening of Pharoah’s heart by explaining that after Pharoah repeatedly sinned, part of his punishment was God’s withholding from Pharoah the latter’s ability to repent.

Thus, as has been pointed out by many others, Maimonides had a single philosophical program running through all of his major works (see e.g., Herbert Davidson, Moses Maimonides: The Man and His Works, Oxford University Press 2005, pp. 303-4). By reading about similar themes both in the Mishnah Torah and the Guide of the Perplexed, one can obtain a better idea of Maimonides’ contributions to Jewish thought. Using this approach we have shown that Maimonides was able to retain expansive concepts of Divine omniscience and man’s free will, and demonstrate the importance of repentance even if God “knows” whether or not you are actually going to repent.



Mrs. Ethel Abrams – Ettel Ha’Ivriya of Clarksdale, Mississippi

Mrs. Ethel Abrams – Ettel Ha’Ivriya of Clarksdale, Mississippi

By Rabbi Akiva Males

________________________

Introduction[1]

Stepping out of my car on Monday morning, July 3rd 2023, I received a warm welcome from the heat and humidity of Clarksdale, Mississippi. I opened the gate of the black iron fence surrounding the Beth Israel Cemetery and stepped inside. It didn’t take me long to survey the surprisingly well-maintained grounds where the members of that small Jewish community now rest in peace. Within a few minutes I found what I had come to see: the tombstone of Mrs. Ethel Abrams, of blessed memory.

Beth Israel Cemetery in Clarksdale, MS
Photo by Rabbi Akiva Males


The gravestone of Mrs. Ethel Abrams, a”h
Source: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/86841744/ethel-b-abrams#view-photo=108781020

In the paragraphs that follow, I hope to answer the following questions:

  • Who was Mrs. Ethel Abrams?

  • Why did I drive nearly 75 miles from my home in Memphis, TN to visit her grave?

  • What is the history of the small Jewish community which once flourished in Clarksdale, MS?

Part I – The Story of Mrs. Abrams

In January of 2017, I was researching the topic of using a flowing river as a Mikvah (see Rema to Shulchan Aruch YD 201:2, and Aruch Hashulchan YD 201:41-42). After Maariv one night, I approached Rav Nota Greenblatt, zt”l, while he was leaving Shul. I told him what I was looking into, some of the sources I had found, and inquired if anyone had ever asked him about this on a practical level. After all, the city of Memphis sits on the eastern bank of the Mississippi River. I figured this question must have arisen over the nearly seven decades Rav Nota had been fielding – and resolving – all sorts of Halachic questions in Memphis (and far beyond).

Rav Nota stopped, looked me in the eyes, and with a grin on his lips he asked me if I was familiar with Clarksdale, MS. I shrugged, shook my head, and responded that I had never heard of the place. Rav Nota went on to tell me that a prosperous group of Jewish small business owners and their families had once thrived there. He explained that in his younger years, when he was an active Mohel, he had made the roundtrip from Memphis to Clarksdale on many occasions upon the birth of baby boys.

Rav Nota became serious as he continued his story:

“Sadly, other than a cemetery, there’s nothing left of Clarksdale’s Jewish community.” He explained that while economic forces were mostly responsible, other factors had also played a role. His eyes moistened as he described how religious observances – particularly those of Shabbos – became less and less prevalent among the immigrant Jews who had sought to earn their livelihoods in the Mississippi Delta.

In retrospect, the handwriting of religious decline was on the wall. Like so many other small communities across the US, Clarksdale had a very limited infrastructure to support traditional Jewish observance, a lack of readily available Kosher food, and no strong Jewish educational structure for their children. It was not long before the Orthodox practices with which most of that community’s Jews were once familiar were no longer part of their routines.

“However,” continued Rav Nota, “there was one woman in Clarksdale who wouldn’t let go. Her name was Mrs. Abrams, and she remained absolutely committed to Yiddishkeit. In fact, she tried her best to convince others around her to remain Shomer Torah U’Mitzvos.”

Rav Nota shared that there was one Mitzvah that Mrs. Abrams – whom he called as a Tzadeikes – succeeded in convincing others to observe. Mrs. Abrams was passionate about Taharas HaMishpacha and would speak to the young married women of Clarksdale about how important that Mitzvah was for their marriages, and their families’ futures. However, Clarksdale had no Mikvah. If women were not willing to travel nearly 75 miles to Memphis and back (before modern highways would make that journey more manageable) how could they possibly observe this Mitzvah? Amazingly, on many nights a month, Mrs. Abrams would accompany women from Clarksdale to the nearby Mississippi River where she would help them discreetly immerse in its murky moving waters!

Rav Nota became emotional as he shook his head and exclaimed, “Can you believe it? Mrs. Abrams would take women – just about all of whom were far from keeping Mitzvos – to be Tovel themselves in the Mississippi River! If I wouldn’t have known her, I never would have believed it. But I knew her well, and it’s true!”

I listened in astonishment as Rav Nota described how over the course of many years, Mrs. Abrams had personally reached out to the Jewish women of her community, and respectfully spoke to all who would listen. In an era when everyone around her was dropping Mitzvah observance, somehow, Mrs. Abrams succeeded in encouraging many women to keep Taharas HaMishpacha. She did not persuade those women to visit a pristine new Mikvah. On the contrary, on an untold number of nights, this heroine of the Delta accompanied numerous young marrying and married women to the nearby silt-filled Mississippi River. There, in a spot she had cordoned off along the muddy riverbank, Mrs. Abrams would serve as both a Mikvah lady and a lifeguard!

I was in awe as Rav Nota spoke about Mrs. Abrams. She wasn’t just some sort of a “last of the Mohicans” when it came to Halachic observance in Clarksdale. From the way Rav Nota described this incredible woman, she had been the catalyst for many Jewish women of her locale observing the Mitzvah which was most uniquely theirs. The fact that she succeeded to the degree which she did – and under the most challenging of circumstances – boggled my mind.

As I left Shul and walked Rav Nota to his car, he added another detail about Mrs. Abrams. In speaking with her on his numerous Bris Milah runs to Clarksdale, she had demonstrated extensive knowledge of the other small communities of Jewish merchants living in towns across Mississippi. As such, Rav Nota reached out to her on many occasions to verify the Jewish credentials of people originating from her environs when matters arose pertaining to marriages, Gittin, and funerals. He told me that he had trusted Mrs. Abrams absolutely, and that she had been a vital resource for him in a number of cases that had come his way over the years.

I remember making a mental note to find out more about Mrs. Abrams and Clarksdale, MS, but other pressing issues always seemed to demand my attention. I filed this conversation with Rav Nota in my notes, and I nearly forgot about Mrs. Abrams until the summer of 2023.

Part II – Clarksdale’s Jews in the News

On Monday afternoon, September 6, 1926 – almost 100 years before my visit to Clarksdale – two short items concerning that town’s Jewish community appeared on the local newspaper’s front page. The Clarksdale Daily Register’s two articles related to Rosh Hashanah – which would occur later that same week on Thursday, September 9th and Friday, September 10th.

The first piece was entitled “Jews Observe Holy Season”, and was subtitled “Services To Be Held For The New Year In Local Synagogue All Week”. The first and last paragraphs of that article read:

“Services commemorative of Rosh Hashanah or the Jewish New Year will be observed here at the Beth Israel Synagogue. Beginning Wednesday evening at 7:30 when the opening service will be held. Thursday morning services will begin at 8. Since the congregation is an Orthodox one, members will observe two days and services will also be held Thursday evening at 7:30 and Friday morning at 8 o’clock. Regular services for the Sabbath will be held Friday evening and Saturday morning …”

“ . . . The New Year’s day is one of solemn joy and greeting of the day “L’shanah tovah,” A Happy New Year, is heard on all sides in the homes and in the synagogue. The festival is observed two days, the 9th and 10th of September, by the orthodox Jew.”

Just two columns to the right, Clarksdale’s paper ran a second article pertaining to the local Jewish community’s observance of that year’s Rosh Hashanah. It was entitled: “Pupils Enroll For Semester”, and was subtitled: “Jewish Children May Enroll Saturday Since Thursday and Friday Are Religious Holidays”. The first paragraph of that article reads:

“Due to the fact that Thursday and Friday of this week are Jewish holidays, Supt. Heidelberg of the city schools announced this morning that all Jewish children would be expected to enroll at their respective schools Saturday morning at 8:30, and that it would not be necessary for them to be present on either of the holidays. However, it is very necessary that they be present Saturday morning, at which time they will be classified . . .”

From the front page of the Clarksdale Daily Register, Monday Afternoon, September 6, 1926

The sad irony of that second article was not lost on the Museum of the Southern Jewish Experience.[2] Their newsletter of September 2022 opened with the following paragraphs:

“In 1926, the city of Clarksdale, Mississippi, unknowingly scheduled school registration for the two days of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. This didn’t sit well with the Jews of Clarksdale, so they asked for and got an accommodation: Jewish children could register for school on Saturday, instead of the Thursday and Friday of Rosh Hashanah.

This accommodation, in a way, encapsulates well the Southern Jewish experience: Clarksdale’s Jews stood up for their religious identity and the town acceded. But at the same time, there was an accommodation on the Jewish side, as well. Saturday is Shabbat, the Jewish sabbath. By the 1920s, most (but not all) of Clarksdale’s Jews were Reform, keeping their stores open on Saturdays, the busiest shopping day of the week. This was a necessity in a region where Sunday Closing Laws were the norm.

The Southern Jewish experience has always been about adapting, accommodating, and conforming to new surroundings, while at the same time embracing, sustaining, and celebrating our history, culture, and religious practices . . .”[3]

This commentary on the Clarksdale’s Jewish community’s 1926 Rosh Hashanah dilemma offers an eye-opening window into their struggles with religious observance. It also helps resolve the apparent contradiction between the two stories appearing on their newspaper’s front page. Although the first article twice stressed that the congregation was an Orthodox one, the second article described a synagogue whose membership overwhelmingly did not observe Shabbos in an Orthodox fashion. It seems that the condition of Clarksdale’s Beth Israel was much like that of many other early 20th century American synagogues. Though the congregation’s services may have been conducted in an Orthodox manner, by 1926, the lifestyles of many of that congregation’s families were not necessarily congruent with Halacha.

Discovering this eye-opening tidbit of Mississippi Jewish history made me curious to learn more about the Jewish community that once existed in Clarksdale.

Part III – Clarksdale: The Lifecycle of a Jewish Community in the Mississippi Delta

Thankfully, a good deal of research has already gone into the history of Clarksdale’s Jewish community. What follows are excerpts from two excellent articles published by The Goldring/Woldenberg Institute of Southern Jewish Life (ISJL)[4] and the Jewish Historical Society of Memphis and the Mid-South.[5] For the purpose of this article, I took the liberty of combining excerpts from both of those articles. I also rearranged the order in which some of those excerpts originally appeared.

“Clarksdale, Mississippi, sits on the Little Sunflower River a few miles east of the Mississippi River. The seat of Coahoma County, Clarksdale emerged as a trading hub in the late 19th century and has long served as an important cultural center for the Mississippi Delta region . . .

. . . The town’s population more than doubled during the 1890s, reaching 1,773 residents by 1900. Migrating African Americans—many of them formerly enslaved—contributed to this population increase, as they sought to make a living in the area’s booming cotton economy . . . .

. . . Prior to the depression of 1921, The Wall Street Journal reported Clarksdale as “the richest agricultural city of the United States in proportion to its population” . . .

. . . Jewish history in Clarksdale and surrounding towns dates to the arrival of German speaking Jews around 1870. Jewish organizational life began in the 1890s and continued to grow in the early 20th century. In the 1930s, the area’s Jewish population reached 400 individuals, and for a time Clarksdale boasted the largest Jewish community in the state. Although Jewish communal life remained vibrant into the 1970s, the Jewish population declined for the next few decades. In 2003 Clarksdale’s only Jewish congregation, Congregation Beth Israel, closed its synagogue . . .

. . . Jewish occupational patterns in Clarksdale mirrored trends not only in other developing towns in the Mississippi Delta but also in new sites of Jewish migration throughout the world. Jewish settlers often began as peddlers before founding dry goods or other retail stores, and they served customers from town as well as the surrounding countryside . . .

. . . By 1896, enough Jews lived in Clarksdale and the surrounding area to hold religious services. That year, five Clarksdale Jewish families founded a congregation known as Kehilath Jacob . . . Early worship services followed Orthodox practice . . .

. . . Kehilath Jacob continued to hold services in borrowed or rented spaces until 1910, when the congregation dedicated its first synagogue, a white stucco building at 69 Delta Avenue. With the erection of their first synagogue came a name change, and the congregation was known as Congregation Beth Israel from that point on . . .

Historic marker in front of Beth Israel Congregation’s first building in Clarksdale, MS
Photo by Rabbi Akiva Males

. . . As of 1920, the local community consisted of approximately 40 Jewish families in Clarksdale, with additional congregants in outlying areas . . . Temple Beth Israel accommodated a variety of Jewish observances during its early decades, but younger members began to push for Reform services with more English prayers. The rift between Orthodox and Reform congregants threatened to split the congregation during the 1920s, until the construction of a new synagogue in 1929 allowed Temple Beth Israel to hold two concurrent services on separate floors . . .

. . . The Orthodox members used the lower auditorium and the Conservative and Reform used the upper floor. It was the only synagogue in Mississippi that provided for Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform worship in the same sanctuary . . .

. . . As the 20th century progressed, Jewish shops remained a visible presence in downtown Clarksdale. Of fifteen dry goods stores listed in Clarksdale’s 1916 city directory, at least two-thirds belonged to Jewish merchants. Other Jewish retail businesses included “general goods” and grocery stores, as well as later department stores . . .

. . . The arrival of Rabbi Jerome Gerson Tolochko in 1932 marked a turning point for Beth Israel. Not only was Rabbi Tolochko the congregation’s first formally ordained resident rabbi, but his training at Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati reflected the Jewish community’s movement toward Reform Judaism . . .

. . . Clarksdale was home to nearly 300 Jewish residents at the end of World War II . . . In 1970 Congregation Beth Israel still claimed 100 families, but a series of economic changes had begun to have a visible effect on the Jewish community. The agricultural labor force in the Mississippi Delta had declined in preceding decades, as a consequence of New Deal programs that paid landowners to reduce crop production and the introduction of mechanical cotton pickers in 1947. As the number of sharecroppers and other agricultural workers decreased, so too did the customer base for many Jewish retail stores . . .

. . . During the late 20th century, the rise of chain discount stores accelerated the decline of Jewish retail businesses, and Clarksdale’s Jewish population continued to shrink . . . Many members relocated to Memphis but continued to support the Clarksdale congregation and maintained ties to the Clarksdale community.

In the early 21st century, Beth Israel’s remaining 20 members decided they could no longer sustain a congregation. They made plans to close the synagogue and organized a deconsecration service on May 3, 2003 . . . The building was ultimately sold, leaving the Jewish cemetery as the landmark that most explicitly testifies to the existence of a once vibrant Jewish community . . .”

Elsewhere,[6] I learned that Beth Israel’s cemetery was established in 1919. In recent decades, a fund was established to ensure the perpetual care of the final resting place of Clarksdale’s Jewish community. Indeed, I can attest to that cemetery’s dignified upkeep.

Part IV – Finding Mrs. Abrams

Rav Nota Greenblatt’s amazing story about Mrs. Abrams had piqued my curiosity about Clarksdale’s Jewish history. The articles I discovered helped me better understand that community’s rise and decline. However, as I reflected on Mrs. Abrams’ excursions to the Mississippi River with the Jewish women of her locale, there were more details I wanted to learn about that incredible woman:

  • What was her first name?

  • What was her background?

  • How did she remain so committed to Torah and Mitzvos in a place without a supportive populace or infrastructure?

  • What compelled her to remain in Clarksdale when she obviously desired to live a fully observant Jewish life?

  • How did she deal with Clarksdale’s 1926 Rosh Hashanah / Shabbos dilemma?

  • How did she successfully convince numerous women who were not seriously committed to Jewish observance to use the Mississippi River as a Mikvah?

  • How did she ensure the safety of the women she led into that mighty river?

Unfortunately, on Friday, April 29, 2022 (28 Nissan 5782) Rav Nota Greenblatt, zt”l, passed away. Although I asked some of Rav Nota’s children and Talmidim if they had more information on Mrs. Abrams, no one seemed to know more about her than what he had shared with me.

Rav Nota Greenblatt, zt”l, in his home study on Erev Pesach 2017
Photo by Rabbi Akiva Males

Through some internet sleuthing, I discovered a grandson of Mrs. Abrams, and he was excited about my interest in his grandmother.

When we spoke, I learned that her first name was Ethel, she was born on December 10, 1876, and that she hailed from a renowned Rabbinic family named Bronitsky from the vicinity of Minsk and Pinsk in Russia (modern-day Belarus). Ethel married her husband David (1877 – 1947) back in the Old Country, and that’s where their daughter and son were born. In search of a livelihood, David Abrams came to America in either 1904 or 1905, and a job opportunity brought him to Clarksdale, MS. The family was reunited in 1908 when Ethel and her two children were able to join David in Clarksdale.

According to family tradition, Mrs. Abrams was deeply unhappy about the decreasing levels of Jewish religious observance she witnessed all around her. Her determination to adhere to the Torah and Mitzvos must have caused her to feel quite isolated – yet she held firm. I learned that Mrs. Abrams raised chickens in her backyard, and that her husband would travel to Memphis by train with some of them on Friday mornings. Once there, they would be properly slaughtered, and he would take the train back to Clarksdale so those chickens could be prepared for Shabbos. Memphis was also where the Abrams family procured the Matzah and other staples they required for Pesach. On December 8, 1968 Mrs. Ethel Abrams passed away – just two days shy of her 92nd birthday.

I told Mrs. Abram’s grandson the beautiful story Rav Nota had told me about her, the Mississippi River, and the numerous Jewish women of Clarksdale who observed Taharas HaMishpacha because of her. He was not aware of these details about his grandmother, and he greatly appreciated my sharing those gems with him.[7]

As our friendly conversation drew to a close, I felt glad to have gained many biographical details of Mrs. Abrams’ life. Unfortunately, I also realized that I would never learn all that I wanted to understand about her. After all, no one could truly answer my questions about her thoughts and experiences other than Mrs. Abrams herself – and she did not seem to have left a written record before passing away in 1968. I thanked Mrs. Abrams’ grandson, and told him that I looked forward to visiting Clarksdale in the coming weeks.

Part V – Visiting Mrs. Abrams

As I stood before Mrs. Abrams’ tombstone on that July morning, I thought about her iron-clad resolve to remain true to Torah and Mitzvos in the midst of the most trying times and circumstances. I glanced at the many graves to her right and left and wondered how many of those neighbors had immersed themselves in the Mississippi River because of her. I recited a Perek of Tehillim followed by a Kel Maleh, and I pledged to give some Tzedakah in memory of that Tzadeikes upon returning to Memphis. As I exited Beth Israel’s cemetery, I looked back, and mentally bid farewell to Clarksdale’s Jewish community. After shutting the gate behind me, I returned to my car.

While driving back to Memphis, I thought of the famous Midrash[8] about why the Torah refers to Avraham Avinu as Avraham Ha’Ivri.[9] According to Chazal, Avraham did not simply come to Canaan from the other side of the river (which the word Ha’Ivri connotes in its plain meaning). Rather, Avraham Avinu earned the honorific title of Ha’Ivri because he found the strength to swim against the tide – living a life that was distinct from all who surrounded him. Even when the rest of the world metaphorically positioned themselves on one side of a river, Avraham was at peace remaining in solitude on the other side. Furthermore, not content in just behaving differently than his neighbors, Avraham Avinu also tried his best to persuade a great number of them to join him in his worldview and way of life – on his side of the river.

Like her forefather Avraham Ha’Ivri, Mrs. Ethel Abrams found the strength to go her own way, and not live her life by following the crowd. Regardless of her surroundings, Mrs. Abrams followed her own convictions, and also did her best to persuade others to observe Mitzvos – especially Taharas HaMishpacha. The river associated with Avraham Ha’Ivri was the Euphrates. In Mrs. Abrams’ case it was the Mississippi. After visiting her grave, I will always associate this Midrash with her. As far as I’m concerned, Mrs. Ethel Abrams was Ettel Ha’Ivriya of Clarksdale, MS.

Yehi Zichrah Baruch.

_____________________

Rabbi Akiva Males serves as the Rabbi of Young Israel of Memphis. He also teaches at the Margolin Hebrew Academy-Feinstone Yeshiva of the South. He can be reached at rabbi@yiom.org

[1] I thank my father Mr. U. H. Males for his valuable editorial assistance.
[2] The Museum of the Southern Jewish Experience is located in New Orleans, LA. See here.
[3] See here.
[4] Available online in the ISJL’s Encyclopedia of Southern Jewish Communities – Clarksdale, Mississippi. See here.
[5] Kerstine, Margie, “Clarksdale: A Mississippi Delta Jewish Legacy,” Southern Jewish Heritage 18, no. 2 (2005). Available online here.
[6] Bennett, David, “Temple Beth Israel Active Despite Recent Decline,” The Clarksdale Press Register, January 22, 1994, page 5B.
[7] He also wondered if Mrs. Abrams may have taken women to immerse in the Sunflower River – a smaller tributary of the Mississippi River which runs through Clarksdale. After all, that would have been simpler than going to the Mississippi River itself. Of course, this would have only been possible when the Sunflower River’s water levels allowed for immersion.
[8] Bereishis Rabbah 42:8.
[9] Bereishis 14:13


Identity of the Unknown Tomb. Who is buried in the unmarked grave next to the Vilna Gaon?

 Identity of the Unknown Tomb.
Who is buried in the unmarked grave next to the Vilna Gaon?

Ariel Fuss & Yoel Kabalkin

Prologue

Among the seven graves in the Ohel of the Vilna Gaon (R’ Eliyahu M’vilna) there is one without an identifying headstone. The sign above the entrance to the Ohel identifies this grave as the resting place for the ashes of the Ger Tzedek of Vilna, Avraham ben Avraham Potocki[1] This identification is accepted without questioning by many books and articles written about the Gaon when the origins of this theory and its veracity are suspect. This article will investigate how this theory came about and the issues with it and will then put forth a new theory as to who the occupant of this grave is.

Introduction

The Vilna Gaon was originally buried in the old cemetery in Shnipishok located in the northern part of Vilna in 1797 (תקנ”ח). Probably sometime in 1949/1950 the soviet government gave notice to the community that they intended to level the cemetery. The Jewish community received permission to move a few graves and chose to move the Vilna Gaon and a few others to the new cemetery in Vilna.[2] Due to Vilna being behind the iron curtain and information being hard to come by, the exact details of this transfer, who was taken, by whom, and to which cemetery was not known. There were conflicting reports about who was moved together with the Gaon until Prof Shnayer Leiman in an article in Jewish Action proved that most of the speculation was for naught.[3] Since most of the graves had been moved along with their headstones, all one needed to do was read them. The Gaon lay among 6 other graves in the newest cemetery in Vilna and contrary to all the different theories on who was worthy of being moved, there was no effort to traverse the cemetery and take other important people that had been buried there. It turns out that those that transferred the Gaon had just taken a part of the row he was buried on and moved everyone together. They clearly wanted to move the Vilna Gaon given his enormous profile and while doing so moved his neighbors. The identities of the graves in order from left to right are,

  1. R Zvi Hersh Pesseles

  2. R Yissachar Ber – The Gaon’s brother

  3. Vilna Gaon – Prof Leiman wrote a convincing article on the Seforim Blog[4] that the headstone is backwards and this is the Gaon’s true grave.

  4. R Noach (Mindes) Lipshutz – The Gaon’s Mechutan. He shares a headstone with his predecessor.

  5. Minda Lipshutz – R Noach’s wife

  6. Devora Pesseles – Tzi Hersh’s mother

  7. Unknown/Ger Tzedek

Thanks to Prof Leiman we now know the identity of six of the graves, but we are still left with 3 unanswered questions.

  1. Who is in the 7th grave?

  2. Why is there no identifying headstone?

  3. Why was R Zvi Hersh’s grave moved to a different location within the group?

Theory

There are many articles and books that mention the Ger Tzedek being buried in the Ohel. As early as 1956 a report in Ha-tzofe discussing moving the Vilna Gaon to Israel mentions that the Ger Tzedek was moved and is buried alongside the Gaon.[5] A 1983 report in the newspaper Davar about the Gaon’s Ohel asserts the same.[6]

This identification is now common knowledge to the extent that tour guides will tell you so and it even states as much on the sign outside the Ohel. There are two reasons for why people have assumed that the community moved the Ger Tzedek.[7] One being that he was an integral component of Vilna’s history and therefore it stands to reason that they would have moved him.[8] Secondly and possibly the main reason for why the theory has such staying power is the lack of a headstone. Since every other grave in the Ohel has a headstone the only reason the last one would not have one is because it lacked one to begin with. The sign outside the Ohel should not be used as proof positive of this identification because it is a late addition and on the same sign it also states that the Gaon is buried with his family which we know to be false. Although this theory is possible, there are many issues with it. Some of these issues are as follows:

  1. Those very same articles which propound this theory are riddled with other factual errors. For example, in the the Ha-zofe article they include R’ Shmuel ben Avigdor; the Gaon’s father; and son R Avrohom, among those that were moved. Just a quick glance at the headstones in the present day Ohel will tell you that this claim is false. This error occurred because as we have stated previously, accurate information from inside the iron curtain was hard to come by. Surprisingly, although we know today that these reports were false, the inclusion of the Ger Tzedek persists.

  2. Since Prof Leiman has shown that those who moved the graves just transferred those that were in the Ohel, it seems odd that they would specifically take the Ger Tzedek and not for example, R’ Moshe Rivkes (the Beer Hagolah), or R Avraham Danzig (the Chayei Adam), and many other important figures that were buried in the same cemetery and warranted preservation too.[9]

  3. There are accounts that contradict this theory. Dr Henry Shoshkes, a renowned Jewish writer and traveling reporter for “Der Tag Morgen Journal”, traveled to Vilna in 1956. While there he went to visit the new kever of the Vilna Gaon. He describes being told by the secretary of the community, one Leib Sarapej,[10] who claimed to have been involved in moving the bodies, that there was nothing of the Ger Tzedek to move. This was because what was buried of him originally was only the ashes of his body and it had dissipated over time.[11] R Yitzchak Zilber who visited Vilna while still behind the iron curtain, spoke with the lay leader of the community at the time of the transfer, a man called Heshel Kab, who was involved in the transfer of the Gaon. He stated that while they searched for the Ger Tzedek’s grave, they could not find his ashes and therefor did not move him.[12]

These issues lead us to question this theory and to try to come up with a better explanation, especially as there doesn’t seem to be a strong basis to this belief to begin with. 

In order to offer up a novel theory we must deal with a greater question first. When looking at the map of the cemetery in Israel Klausner’s book on the Vilna cemetery[13] you will notice that there were 11 people buried in the main sanctuary of the original Ohel, starting from number 20, and ending at 27 (there are 3 joint tombstones). Their identities are detailed in Klausner’s list below:

Out of the said 11 people buried in the original Ohel we know of 6 people who are now interred in the new Ohel. In Bold and in Green I have highlighted which gravestones are today in the new Ohel.

שלמה זלמן אבי הגר”א

[20]

אליהו בן משה מפינסק

[20]

היסו”ד

[21]

חיה אשת היסו”ד

[21]

הרב צבי הירש

[22]

דבורה

[23]

מינדל אשת ר‘ נח ליפשיץ

[24]

ר נח ליפשיץ

[25]

הגר“א

[25]

הרב ישכר בער אחי הגר“א

[26]

הרב יהושע העשל

[27]

So, once we know who was buried in the same Ohel, several questions immediately come to mind: Why did they move only these six graves and not the other ones from the same Ohel?

Why did they only start from R Zvi Hersh (22) and stop after R Yissachar Ber (26) and leave out R Yehoshua Heshel (27)? Why not move the Gaon’s father (20)? Why not move the YESOD (21), a very central and known figure in Vilna history? To answer these questions, we need to examine the original Ohel a bit closer. In the picture of the Ohel that appears in Klausner’s book we can see that there is a space between the Yesod and his wife (jointly number 21), and R Tzvi Hersh (22).

Why is there an empty wall between the Yesod and R Zvi Hirsch?

If we look at the picture below, taken at a different (probably earlier) time, one can see that in this area instead of a wall there is a shape of a door!

It is possible that when they made the main entrance to the Ohel on the opposite side, this door was closed. In any event, this gap can explain why the first four graves were not moved; they only took those that were to the right of the door![14] Now that we addressed the first half of our question, we are left with the second: If they took the entire row starting by the door why did they stop by R Yissachar Ber (26) and not take also R Yehoshua Heshel (27)? The evidence points us to the simplest conclusion, that in fact they did transfer him although without his headstone! In other words, of the 11 graves in the Ohel there were 4 to the left of the door and 7 to the right and they moved the entire batch from the door to the wall to the new cemetery, and thus unsurprisingly there are exactly seven graves in the new Ohel of the Gaon.

Thus, I am proposing that the additional grave with no headstone in the Gaon’s Ohel today is not the Ger Tzedek and is not the Chayeh Adam, but Simply Reb Yehoshua Heshel who was originally in the Gaon’s proximity.

This possibility has been generally ignored until now[15] for 2 reasons,

1.Since there were a few others in the Ohel that were not transferred it never struck people as odd why Reb Yehoshua Heshel was not either. However, since we’ve established an explanation for why the other 4 were not moved, it behooves us to find an explanation for why he wasn’t included.

2. The fact that there was no headstone led people to associate the grave with someone who would not have had a headstone to begin with, namely the Ger Tzedek.

Looking at Klausner’s description of Reb Yehoshua Heshel’s tombstone leads us to a possible solution to this second issue. His description is as follows: “the tombstone on the grave of the rav is made of wood and is preserved nicely”;[16] he even provides a picture of it on the next page. This fact, that the tombstone was made of wood as opposed to stone like the others in the Ohel, gives us a possible explanation for why it was not moved along with his body. It is possible that the wood was harder to move or that it possibly broke in the process.

In conclusion, the identification of the 7th grave with the Ger Tzedek doesn’t have much historical basis and is flawed for a few reasons, therefore we offer a new theory. The identity is none other than R Yehoshua Heshel who was buried in the original Ohel together with the rest of the row. This is the most plausible explanation which until now was ignored due to there not being a headstone, and not having an explanation for why these specific 7 graves were chosen as opposed to the others. We showed that a door was added to the Ohel and those that were involved in the transfer moved everyone from the right of the door until the end of the row including R Yehoshua Heshel. The reason his headstone was not moved was because it was made of material that was not conducive to transfer and possibly might have broken along the way.

B.

Essentially, we are left with one remaining question – Why was Rabbi Zvi Hersh moved from the extreme right to the extreme left in the order of the graves?

To propose an answer to this question, we need to go on a long detour. As previously mentioned, in 1956, Dr. Henry Shoshkes, visited the Soviet Union and Vilna, and then reported about his travels in the Tag, a Yiddish newspaper in New York. This was one of the first documented visits to the Jewish cemetery in Vilna after the transfer of the Gaon’s grave and is indirectly the source of many of the rumors surrounding the Vilna Gaon’s grave. In one of the articles describing his visit to the grave there is also a picture of the grave and a better one is published in Dr. Shoshkes’s book[17] – מהקרמלין עד הפרמידות. What is unique about the picture is that it is one of only two pictures that I know of, of the Gaon’s grave after it was transferred but before a new Ohel was erected.[18]

One can see several tombstones one next to the other but clearly there is no tombstone to the right of the Gaon’s headstone. Shoshkes writes that this grave without a headstone is the grave of the Chaye Adam – Rav Avraham Danzig. I believe otherwise.

I am assuming that this picture is taken facing south, with the headstones positioned at the head of the graves.[19] In other words, the headstones are arranged as they were on the outside wall of the Ohel in the old cemetery, but in the opposite direction compared to their current setup in the new Ohel. If we consider the old Ohel’s arrangement, the gravestone that should be to the right of the Gaon is the tombstone of his brother Rav Yissachar Ber. This of course raises the question – Why is it not there?

Let us return to Klausner’s picture and accompanying numbers. We observe that the numbers are in sequential order from left to right but one number is missing – number 26. That number corresponds to R. Yissachar Ber the Gaon’s brother. It is quite peculiar – why is the Gaon’s brother not listed beneath the picture?

For that we must go back to the wider picture of the old Ohel.

And then zoom in on the right upper corner of the Ohel:

What is that sign? We can see and understand it better by looking at an illustration made of the Gaon’s old Ohel. It is not exact but gives a very good idea.

In this illustration we can observe that beneath the plaque in the upper right corner there is a gravestone. By counting the number of gravestones to the right of the door, we reach an undeniable conclusion: there are two separate headstones, that to the right of the Gaon’s gravestone, positioned one on top of the other. The one adjacent to the Gaon corresponds to Klausner’s number 27, which is R. Yehoshua Heshel. On top of that, in the right upper corner, we find the headstone of Reb Yissachar Ber, that Gaon’s brother [26].

To fully comprehend this, we must recall the sequence of events. Initially, R. Yehoshua Heshel passed away, followed by the Gaon, much later. A few months after the Gaon’s burial, his Mechutan, Reb Noach Mindes, passed away and was interned to the left of the Gaon, sharing a joint gravestone. Several years later, when the Gaon’s brother died, there was a desire to bury him next to his brother, resulting in him being “squeezed” in between the Gaon and R. Yehoshua Heshel. Evidently there was sufficient space to accommodate the body, but during placement of the headstones on the outside of the Ohel, there was insufficient space. Consequently, R. Yissachar Ber’s headstone was positioned on top of R Yehoshua Heshel’s headstone.

Therefore, the key point of this story is that although R. Yissachar Ber was buried right next to the Gaon in the old Ohel, the headstone closest to the Gaon on the right side belonged to R Yehoshua Heshel. Based on this observation, I would propose that since, as mentioned, R. Yehoshua Heshel’s wooden headstone was never transferred, those responsible for arranging the headstones in the new cemetery left the grave next to the Gaon without a headstone, aligning it with their understanding of the headstones arrangement in the old Ohel.

We have one final question regarding Shoshkes’s picture: On the left side of the Gaon’s headstone, we can observe two additional headstones. The inscriptions are illegible, but judging by the size and shape of the gravestones, it would be reasonable to assume that the first one belongs to Mindel [24], the wife of Reb Noach. However, the issue lies with the second one. It should be Devorah’s grave [23], but it appears more similar to the gravestone of her son, Reb Zvi Hersch [22]. Why is Devorah’s gravestone missing?

If we examine the gravestones inside the Ohel, it becomes evident that Devorah’s gravestone is significantly taller than the others. It is possible that it was too challenging to set up without the support of an Ohel wall. Indeed, if we observe the current picture of Devorah’s gravestone inside the Ohel, it is clearly seen to be broken into two parts.

Now, let us consider the thesis proposed. I suggest that during the construction of the new Ohel, they reconnected the broken parts of Devorah’s headstone and returned her to her original position in the line-up. However, due to the need to relocate Reb Zvi Hersch, he was placed next to Reb Yissachar Ber instead of being positioned beside his mother, Devorah, where he rightfully belongs.[20]

In conclusion, I firmly believe that the order of the bodies has never been altered, and they are positioned precisely as they were in the old Ohel. However, there seems to have been a mix-up in arranging the headstones. Below, I present a summary outlining my understanding of the arrangement of the bodies in relation to the current placement of the headstones:

In a forthcoming article, I will delve into an in-depth analysis and present fresh evidence and explanations regarding the numerous rumors surrounding the relocation of the Gaon. I will explore questions such as who was responsible for moving him, the timing of the transfers, the frequency of the relocations, the fate of those involved in the process, and the condition of the Gaon’s body.

[1] For the purposes of this article the debate on the historicity of the Ger Tzedek matters little. Whether it happened like the stories or not, the fact is that there was a grave for him in the old cemetery that could’ve been moved. For the debate on the historicity of the Ger Tzedek see the Seforim Blog’s article about the topic here. 

Also see Magda Teter. (2005). The Legend of Ger Ẓedek of Wilno as Polemic and Reassurance. AJS Review, 29(2), 237–263. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4131733.
[2] There are some reports who claim that he was moved twice, once to the Zaretcha cemetery which was the cemetery used after the old one was filled up and only later was he moved to his present resting place in the Saltonishkiu cemetery. See footnote number 2 in Lieman’s article in the Seforim Blog.
[3] For a full list of the different reports see his article.
[4] https://seforimblog.com/2012/09/who-is-buried-in-vilna-gaons-tomb/
[5] There is a similar issue with descriptions of the Ger Tzedek’s original burial place. Many of these descriptions assume that he was buried next to the Gaon when in reality he was on the other end of the cemetery.
[6] See further such references in Leiman’s Jewish Action article.
[7] Prof Leiman also introduces the possibility that the Ger Tzedek was moved but was buried without a grave and leaves the seventh grave unidentified.
[8] As we will see later even people that claimed he wasn’t moved said that they searched for his remains but didn’t find anything of substance to move.
[9] This is probably the original reason for all the confusion around who was moved. There are many people who warrant preservation due to their status. Although as we stated previously it is possible that the Ger Tzedek was of a higher profile.
[10] Leib Sarapej later managed to immigrate to the United States, and reunite with his daughter in Richmond, Virginia. In 1970 wrote a letter to the editor of The Forward, in which he mentions his involvement in the transfer of the Gaon’s grave. This is the only first-hand record of someone who was directly involved in the transfer that I know of, and to the best of my knowledge has not been mentioned to date. https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/frw/1970/05/11/01/article/31.
[11]  https://www.nli.org.il/he/newspapers/dertog/1956/10/28/01/article/100. The way the article is written it would sound as if the Goan was then interred in the Zaretcha Cemetery (and not where he is currently buried) as right after Shoshkes describes the Gaon’s new resting place he goes on to describe other parts of the cemetery which were all found in the Zaretcha Cemetery. As odd as it may sound it would seem that Shoshkes had merged his visit to two different cemeteries into one account even though he is writing the article only a short while after being there. It could be that because of this Leyzer Ran, in his book referenced in comment 18 hereafter, wrote next to the picture of the Gaon’s headstone that he is buried in Zaretcha.
[12] See R.Yitzchak Zilber, To Remain a Jew (Jerusalem, 2010), pp. 389-390. Kab also said that the Gaon’s hairs “were as firm as needles”.
[13] Korot bet Halmin Hayashan D’Vilna. Can be found here.
[14]  The grouping can also be derived from Klausner p 45 who when describing the graves divides them into ones on the right and left in exactly this manner.
[15] Although Leiman does include it passing as one of the possibilities.
[16]]

[17] Page 28.
[18] The other such picture appears in Ran L., Jerusalem of Lithuania: illustrated and documented, 1974, p. That picture does not show anything but the headstone and so has limited importance. I suspect the picture in Ran’s book was also provided by Dr. Shoskes, from the same visit.
[19] This does however pose some difficulties for the lack of other graves in the picture. This is an issue I will address inter alia in a future article.
[20] Be it as Leiman purposes in order to have all the men on one side or for some other reason.



R. Nathan Nata ben Reuben David Tebele Spira and his Works: Among them Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar, on the Prohibition against Drinking Stam Yeinam (gentile wine), and Contemporary Books on that Subject

R. Nathan Nata ben Reuben David Tebele Spira and his Works:
Among them Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar, on the Prohibition against Drinking Stam Yeinam (gentile wine), and Contemporary Books on that Subject[1]

By Marvin J. Heller

Wine gladdens the hearts of men,
to make the face shine from oil,
and bread that sustains man’s life (Psalms 104:15).

The life and works of the seventeenth century rabbinic figure, R. Nathan Nata ben Reuben David Tebele Spira (Shapira), his books, among them Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar, on the prohibition of stam (setam) yeinam (gentile wine), and other contemporary works by rabbis on that controversy are the subject of this multi-part article. Concerning the dispute over stam yeinam it should be noted, emphasized, that this article is not a halakhic study nor does it, in any way, intend to provide decisions in Jewish law. It is an overview, from the perspective of Hebrew bibliography, Jewish literature, and history, of an issue that does involve those subjects, but, again, from a literary and historical perspective, and that only.

I

R. Nathan Nata ben Reuben David Tebele Spira (d. 1666) was born in Cracow, where his father served as a dayyan. His grandfather, R. Nathan Nata ben Solomon Spira (Shapira, c. 1585-1633) after whom he is named, was the renowned kabbalist and author of Megalleh Amukkot (Cracow, 1637), two hundred fifty-two explanations of Moses’ prayer, at the beginning of parashat Va-Ethannan, to cross the Jordan and see Eretz Israel (Deuteronomy 3:23 ff.). Our Nathan Nata Spira served as rabbi in several cities in Poland, subsequently going up to Eretz Israel when already elderly. He became, in Jerusalem, the rabbi of the Ashkenaz community.

The Chmielnicki massacres of 1648-49 (tah-ve-tat) in Europe and the ensuing devastation resulted in a severe reduction in the financial aid provided by the Jews of Eastern Europe to the Jewish community of Jerusalem.[2] This necessitated Spira traveling to Europe as a communal representative to seek increased support for the needy Jews of Jerusalem.[3] His journey, begun in 1655, took him to Italy, Holland, and Germany. Among the communities Spira visited was Amsterdam, where his influence caused Menasseh Ben Israel to bring the plight of Polish Jewry to the attention of Oliver Cromwell. Although Spira returned to Jerusalem, the needs of his community necessitated his returning to Europe, where he passed away in Reggio, Italy in 1666. Parenthetically, two of his son-in-laws subsequently served in that city’s rabbinate.[4]

It was in Italy that Spira published his books, all at the Vendramin press.[5] That press, established by Giovanni Vendramin in 1630, broke the monopoly enjoyed until then by Alvise Bragadin. For the first ten years the press operated under the name of its founder, but after his death it became known by the names Commissaria Vendramina and Stamparia Vendramina. The press eventually joined with that of Bragadin, and the combined presses continued to operate well into the eighteenth century.[6] Spira had formed a close relationship with R. Moses Zacuto (c. 1620–1697), among the foremost contemporary exponents of Lurianic kabbalah in Italy, who encouraged and was instrumental in assisting Spira in both his agency and in printing his books. Spira also edited the writings of such kabbalists as R. Chaim Vital (1542-1620), the foremost disciple of R. Isaac Luria (ha-Ari ha-Kadosh, 1534-72), R. Moses Cordevero (Ramak, 1522-70), and R. Abraham Azulai, 1570-1643).

II

The first of Spira’s titles is Tuv ha-Aretz (Venice, 1655), a relatively small kabbalistic work (80: [4] 76 ff.), on the holiness of the land of Israel. The title page of Tuv ha-Aretz has an architectural frame and is dated “the holy הקדושה (415 = 1655) land” It describes the contents which include praise of Eretz Israel, segulot (formulaic remedies), Tikkun Hazot (midnight prayers recited in memory of the destruction of the Temple), tikkun for the night of Shavu’ot, and tikkun for Hoshana Rabbah. These tikkunim are according to the rite of the kabbalists in Eretz Israel. There is also a kinah (dirge) on the exile of the Shekhinah (Devine presence).

Zacuto, who encouraged Spira to print this work, wrote a versified preface, the initial letters of lines forming an acrostic of his name. This is followed by introductions from the author and from Zacuto, who was the editor, and who also added prefatory remarks to some of the tikkunim. Spira, in his introduction, writes that Tuv ha-Aretz is based on the writings of R. Isaac Luria (ha-Ari), R. Hayyim Vital (including the tikkun from his Etz Hayyim, with glosses from the author), R. Moses Cordovero (Remak), and R. Abraham Azulai, concerning the holiness of the land, the need to sustain its inhabitants, and rebuking those whose criticism results in reduced support. He concludes that those who hearken, “shall eat the good of the land (tuv ha-Aretz)” (Isaiah 1:19).


1655, Tuv ha-Aretz
Courtesy of the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad Ohel Yosef Yitzhak

Tuv ha-Aretz is recorded in Shabbetai Bass’ (1641-1718) Siftei Yeshenim (Amsterdam, 1680), the first bibliography of Hebrew books by a Jewish author. His description of Tuv ha-Aretz states that it is “in praise of Eretz Israel and explains its ten levels of holiness. It also includes tikkun hatzot and tikkun for the night of Shavu’ot according to Kabbalah.”[7]

Tuv ha-Aretz has been republished several times. The first reported reprint is Constantinople (1706).[8]

In 1660, two additional works by Spira, Mazzat Shemurim and Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar. were published. Mazzat Shemurim was published by Antonio Rezzin, Vendramin in quarto format (40: 8, [4], 9-12, 21-84 ff.). Its name notwithstanding, Mazzat Shemurim מצת שמורים, despite the allusion to Pesah (Passover) and mazzah in its’ title, the word mazzat מצת does not, as its name implies, have anything to do with the festival, but rather is a kabbalistic work on the laws of mezuzah מ, zizit צ, and tefillin ת, the initial letters spelling Mazzat מצת.


1660, Mazzat Shemurim
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

The text of the title page, which has an outer frame of florets and an inner border; comprised of verses on all four sides, primarily related to the subject matter, the bottom verse including the publication date, “You shall be blessed above all other peoples ברוך תהיה מכל העמים” ([5]420 = 1660)” (Deuteronomy 7:14). The text of the title-page states that it is:

Mazzah, “a commandment of men learned by rote” (Isaiah 29:13), kept with all honor, according to the arcanum of mezuzah, zizit, and tefillin. Also, the morning benedictions according to the order of service, most precious to all “men of stature” (Isaiah 45:14) and to “all delightful craftsmanship” (Isaiah 2:16). . . .

Be-mizvat ha-Sar ha-Gadol Morisini

in the year, “And this is the Torah of the sacrifice of peace offerings השלמים ([5]420 = 1660)” (Leviticus 7:11) from the creation.

There is a brief introduction, and below it prefatory remarks, of which each line begins with an acrostic from Vintorin ben David. The text follows, in two columns in rabbinic type, excepting headers and initial words, which are in square letters. It begins with Sha’ar ha-Berakhot, set in a decorative frame, the initial words being minhagei ha-Ari. Hilkhot Tefillin has illustrations as to the proper order of placing tefillin according to Spira. Mazzat Shemurim is also recorded by Bass, who writes “on the deep meanings of of mezuzah, zizit, and tefillin and the order of their writing, letter by letter, and all their rules, according to Kabbalah.[9]

Mazzat Shemurim was reprinted in Amsterdam (1776) and Zolkiew (1865).[10]

III

Our next Spira title is Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar, on the prohibition against drinking Stam Yeinam (gentile wine). Before discussing Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar an introduction to the issue of prohibitedwine and the dispute that occurred concerning that wine is necessary. Stam Yanim is defined by OU Kosher as:

Stam yainum refers to wine which might have been poured for an idolatrous service, but we did not see it happen. In the days of the Mishnah, there was a pagan ritual to pour off some wine from every bottle in honor of an idol. Because of the uncertainty, the rabbis decreed that wine that was produced by a nachri [non-Jew], or even kosher wine which was left unattended with a nachri, is forbidden for drinking and benefit because it may have been poured for idolatry. After the rabbinic decree was enacted we treat stam yainum as if we saw it being poured (Tur Y.D. 123).

Even if the nachri who touched the wine was a monotheist, and he would therefore certainly not serve an idol, the rabbis still forbade the wine, for another reason—because sharing wine can lead to intermarriage. However, in this case, it is only forbidden to drink the wine, but one may benefit from this wine in other ways (e.g., it may be bought and sold). (See Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 123:26 and Shach 123:51.)[11]

The Talmud and Shulhan Arukh address stam yeinam as follows:

R. Asi says in the name of R. Yoḥanan who says in the name of R. Yehuda ben Beseira: There are three kinds of prohibited wines: yein nesekh (libation wine) from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit from the wine and which imparts severe ritual impurity when it has the volume of an olive-bulk.

stam yeinam, the ordinary wine of a gentile which is prohibited for benefit which imparts the ritual impurity of liquids when it has the volume of one-quarter of a log.

With regard to the wine of one who deposits his wine with a gentile, one is prohibited from drinking it, but one is permitted to derive benefit from it.

And thirdly, if one deposits his wine with an idolater, for safekeeping it is prohibited from drinking, but permitted for benefit. (Avodah Zarah 30b-31a)

stam yeinam of gentiles, idol worshippers, is prohibited from benefit and similarly, our wine which is touched by them is prohibited. Hagah (Notations of Rema) Because of the decree of wine poured out as a libation for idols. In contemporary times we do not find that wine is poured out for a libation. There are those who say that wine touched by a gentile is not prohibited from benefit and therefore it is permissible to take gentile wine to fulfil an obligation (repayment of a debt) as it is saving (from a loss). That is also the case for other instances in which there would be a loss, for example, if one transgresses and purchases or sells. However, initially it is prohibited to acquire or to sell in order to profit (Shulhan Orah Y. D. 123:1)

Given the above, an unlikely dispute arose roiling Jewish communities in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. It involved rabbinic participants from Eretz Israel through Italy to Poland, and concerned stam yeinam, wine prohibited for consumption from Talmudic times. Among those who were lenient on the prohibition of stam yeinam was R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen (1521-97). The son of R. Meïr of Padua (Maharam of Padua, 1482-1565), Samuel Katzenellenbogen served as rabbi in Venice and was highly regarded. His responsa are included in the responsa of several rabbis. According to Avraham Yaari, it was well known that Katzenellenbogen was lenient on the prohibition, as it concerned drinking with non-Jews which could lead to intermarriage. However, to acquire wine and drink it where weddings are not a concern, what does it matter?[12]

Also, as noted above, no less an authority than R. Moses Isserles (Rema, c. 1530-1572) the halakhic decisor for Ashkenazim, was apparently lenient on the prohibition of stam yeinam. He expressed a somewhat lenient view in his responsa, (no. 124) (Cracow, 1640), permitting Jews to do business with non-Jewish wine, vital to them to make a living. Rema noted that there was not a concern that it had been used for idolatrous purposes. Nevertheless, “what he has proposed is not in accord with settled halakhah and should not be relied upon.”

In that responsa, Rema permitted non-Jewish wine to be consumed by someone who was ill, not dangerously so, “and even those who while in perfect health drink such wine—as many did in the sixteenth century in France and as is now commonly done in nearly all countries—are not to be considered as neglecting any ritual requirement, and consequently are not to be suspected in regard to other commandments or are not to be considered as neglecting any ritual requirement, and consequently are not to be suspected in regard to other commandments or invalidated as witnesses.”[13]

Marc B. Shapiro informs that this was “quite shocking to later halakhists” who feared that this would weaken to consumption of such wine. Shapiro writes that as a result “it was too dangerous for publication. It was then censored out of the Amsterdam 1711 edition of Isserles’ responsa . . .” Shapiro relates that in contrast, R. Judah Loew of Prague (Maharal, 1525-1609) writes that in Moravia the masses and even rabbis did drink such wine. Maharal adopted a different and more severe approach, instituting “a special prayer (mi sheberakh) for those who abstained from such wine.” Lastly, Shapiro reports that more recently, R Sheftel Weiss of Nagysimonyi, Hungary (1866-1944) held that given a choice of eating pork or drinking non-Jewish wine, the former would be preferable.[14]

IV

We turn now to Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar, Spiras’s work on the prohibition against drinking gentile wine (stam yeinam) as well as addressing the issue of shaving one’s beard. It too was published by the Vendramin press, this in quarto format (40: [8], 38 ff.). Spira’s approach is kabbalistic, as is that of many of the other contributors to Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar.


1660, Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar, Venice
Courtesy of the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad Ohel Yosef Yitzhak

The title page has an attractive frame comprised of an outer border of florets belonging to the Vendramin press, although that printer’s name does not appear in the book. The inner frame is comprised of four lines of biblical verses between them on all four sides – all associated with wine, all from song of Songs:

“He brought me to the banquet room (lit. house of wine) and his banner of love was over me (Song of Songs 1:4)
“Oh, give me of the kisses of your mouth, for your love is more delightful than wine” (1:2)
“How much more delightful your love than wine, Your ointments more fragrant than any spice!” (Song of Songs 4:10).
“The king has brought me to his chambers . . . Savoring it more than wine” (Song of Songs 1:4).

The text of the title-pages states that it is a comprehensive work on the grave prohibition of drinking stam yeinam (gentile wine) or destroying “the corner of their beard” (Leviticus 21:5), and that it was printed be-seder ve-zot Hukat ha-Torah in the year “the holy הקדושה (420 = 1660) land.”

R. Spira’s lengthy introduction follows, in which he recounts how “Fear of God” (Genesis 20:11, Nehemiah 5:15) has caused him to leave his place and go out as an emissary, traveling through many places, where they have changed their ways and drink in a manner not in accordance with halakhah, a situation he bemoans in strong language. He includes the “reproofs of instruction” (Proverbs 6:23) of other rabbis, some deceased נוחי עדן, who over a period of time have inveighed against these serious iniquities, some previously printed, others not, and included here.

The text is set in two columns in rabbinic type, excepting headers, introductory text, and initial words. Eminent rabbis whose works on these subjects are printed here for the first time from Salonika are R. Samuel de Medina (Maharashdam, 1506–1589), R. Jacob Taitazak, R. Solomon le-Bet ha-Levi (1532-1600), R. Solomon ha-Kohen, R. David ben Nahmias, R. Moses Garshon, R. David ibn Sasson, R. Hiyya de Boton; from Constantinople are R. Meir ben Shango, R. Hananiah ben Yakar, R. Shem Tov Atiah, R. Hayyim Bassan, R. Eliezer Nahmias, R. Samuel Jaffe, and R. Isaac Ashkenazi. A comparable number of rabbis whose writings were published previously are also included in Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar.

Two brief examples of Spira’s approach, exemplified by his multi-faceted concern with wine, is the attribution (f. 5a) of the sin of Adam ha-Rishon and Eve (Genesis 3:6), where Spira writes that “the sin was that Eve squeezed grapes and gave it to him [Adam].” He continues attributing Leah taking the crown of Rachel with wine, relating that the numerical value of grapes ענבים (172) is equal to effect עקב (172), concluding that “The effect of humility is fear of the LORD” (Psalms 22:4), and that wine in grapes is the judgement resulting from this.

Further on (6b), he continues with the attribution of the prohibition on wine touched by a non-Jew to Adam and Eve, writing that Eve ate from the tree of knowledge for she added to the original command “thou shalt not touch it’ (Genesis 3:3) causing [the demonic angel) Samael to come and touch the tree and make it yayin nesekh (libation wine). Therefore, the sages enacted that the touch of a gentile makes it nesekh and prohibit benefit from it.

Contemporary Italian Jewry was considered lax in their observance of these mitzvot, stam yeinam, a rabbinic decree based on the Talmud, noted in detail above, the latter, a biblical decree, also codified in the Shulhan Arukh. Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar has been reprinted several times.[15]

In addition to the above works, Spira also wrote Torat Natan, published posthumously (Lemberg, 1884). Torat Natan is an elucidation of passages in the Zohar, and Me’orot Natan, a large work in three parts on kavvanot in prayer and the order of festivals with glosses by Zacuto, R. Samuel David Ottelenghi, and others, still in manuscript.[16]

V

The prohibition of stam yeinam has been addressed in numerous rabbinic works in addition to Spira’s Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar. It was not only Spira and those rabbis included in Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar who expressed concern and disapproval over the slackness in observance of these mitzvot. Most of the sixteenth and seventeenth century volumes concerned with the subject of gentile wine did so as part of a considerably larger subject matter, including it as one of numerous topics in responsa. Ten works from that period addressing the proscription have been identified.[17] The majority are not primarily concerned with stam yeinam.

Several examples of those works, one primarily concerned with our subject, others noting stam yeinam as just one of numerous issues, are described below in a relatively concise manner. The subject of gentile wine, as noted above, is included in works comprised of a very wide and varied subject matter, as evident from the following works. The sole book described here that directly address the issue of stam yeinam is our first work, that is, Dimyon Aryeh.

Dimyon Aryeh – R. Judah Leib ben David Pisk (Pisek) of Nikolsburg’s (d. c. 1644) Dimyon Aryeh (1616, Prague) is a collection of responsa on the issue of leniency on setam yeinam (gentile wine). A small work, it was printed at the press of Moses ben Joseph Bezalel Katz in quarto format (40: [18] ff.).

Pisk’s censure of stam yeinam, the drinking of gentile wine, is such that he compares it to a Torah prohibition on yein nesekh (libation), even criticizing early prominent sages for not being sufficiently emphatic on the prohibition.


1616, Dimyon Aryeh, Judah Leib ben David Pisk, Prague
Courtesy of the Valmadonna Trust Library

At the end of the book is an approbation from R. Moses ben David Levi and then the editor’s introduction, who writes that this book, small in size but of great value, came to hand. When he saw Pisk’s great erudition and sharpness in Talmud and poskim, he entitled it

Dimyon Aryeh, from the verse, “He is like a lion (dimyon aryeh) that is greedy [for its prey]” (Psalms 17:12), for as his name so he too is like a lion in the Torah, for his heart is as the heart of a lion. His intent is not to instruct in practical halakhah but rather his intent, which is pure, is to compare one case to another מילתא למילתא, one side to another, until at the end “selecting the food from the waste” (cf. Shabbat 74a) bringing to light the correct way, as the one who sees can see. . . .

Below the introduction is verse in praise of the author, in two columns, the initial letters in both columns forming an acrostic of Joseph Prague. The verso of that page lists the contents, consisting of eleven responsa, all erudite, none immediately evident that they are on the book’s subject matter. The responsa are from leading contemporary rabbis, among them R. Ephraim Luntshits, R. Isaiah Horowitz, and R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller. Dimyon Aryeh concludes with three brief responsa on the subject from R. Mordecai Lipshitz, R. Phineas Horowitz, and R. Lippman Segal.

For example: 5) on the obligation to spend money in order to not transgress a negative or positive precept from the Torah and what that entails: 7) explaining for which transgressions one should die rather than violate [a commandment] and on which transgressions one should violate and not transgress. This last responsum deals with the sotah (errant wife), and, with great erudition, quoting several Talmudic tractates, it is connected to the prohibition on stam yeinam. Below the approbation of R. Moses ben David Levi ([17b]) is a crowned, two-tailed lion, passant, the symbol of Bohemia.[18]

Dimyon Aryeh has been reprinted once only (Monsey, NY, 2006).

Gevurot ha-Shem – An example of the former is the Maharal’s Gevurot ha-Shem (1581-82, Cracow); Maharal was among the preeminent rabbinic sages of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries; his position on stam yeinam was noted above. Gevurot ha-Shem is on the Exodus, the Haggadah, Divine providence, exile and redemption, and consists of seventy-two chapters, fifty-one to sixty-five a commentary on the Haggadah. The volume concludes, with kizzur hilkhot Pesah and hilkhot yein nesekh ve-issuro, that is, the prohibition on gentile wine. At the beginning of that section Maharal refers to the prohibition due to socializing, noting that by drinking four cups of wine from yayin nesekh at the Passover seder sin one is adding to sin and is performing a mitzvah through a transgression. They are “The people who provoke My anger, continually, to My very face” (Isaiah 65:3).

Sefer ha-Zikhronot – Another example is R. Samuel ben Abraham Aboab’s (1610–94) Sefer ha-Zikhronot (1631-51, Prague). Born in Hamburg, Aboab was sent by his father at the age of thirteen to study with R. David Franco, whose daughter he married after the latter’s death. He initially served as rabbi in Verona, but in 1650 became rabbi in Venice, where he headed a yeshivah and rabbinic court. Aboab, who was known for his erudition, piety, and humility, fasted frequently.


c. 1631-51, Sefer ha-Zikhronot
Courtesy of Virtual Judaica

Despite his reputation for halakhic stringencies, Aboab was widely turned to, receiving numerous inquiries on matters of Jewish law. Published as an anonymous work, the title page not giving the author’s name, date or place of publication, it is attributed to Aboab and placed by bibliographic sources between 1631-51 in Prague.

Sefer ha-Zikhronot is a halakhic work explicating enactments, customs, and laws on contemporary issues. Sefer ha-Zikhronot is divided into ten zikhronot which are further sub-divided into chapters. The zikhronot are ethical principles arranged according to positive and negative precepts, dealing with those commandments, the observance of which individuals are lax in or fail to observe properly. The third of the zikhronot, comprised of three chapters, is on the prohibition of stam yeinam.

She’elot u’Teshuvot – Again, stam yeinam is addressed but is not the subject of R. Moses ben Joseph di Trani’s (Mabit, 1500-1580) She’elot u’Teshuvot (1629, (Venice). This collection of responsa consists of eight hundred and six entries. There is an index; Examples of the headings include laws of festivals (10 entries), laws pertaining to women (7) with such subheadings as betrothal (19), divorce (21), yibbum (levirate marriage) and halizah (4) ketubbot (21), dowries (7), stipulations in the ketubbot (3), support (3), and rebellious wives (3). The heading issur ve-heter has ten subheadings, among them food that is not kosher and prohibited wine, usury, Sefer Torah and parapet (ma’akeh), excommunication, vows and nazirite oaths, dedicated things, sabbatical year, prozbul, and mourning.

Masat Binyamin – The subject of stam yeinam is also addressed in R. Benjamin Aaron ben Abraham Slonik’s Masat Binyamin (1632-33, Cracow). The author was rabbi in Silesia and Podhajce. Masat Binyamin, authoritative responsa and brief halakhic novellae was published by Slonik’s grandson, R. Israel Isaac ben Hayyim Menahem Man. The title is from “Benjamin’s portion” (masat Binyamin, Genesis 43:34).

The title page is followed by Israel Isaac’s introduction, comprised of six paragraphs, each beginning Benjamin. He remarks that he has so carefully edited the work that errata are unnecessary. Next is a summary index by subject of the 112 responsa, on such subjects as gittin and halizah (12 responsa); ketubbah and dowry (7); kiddushin (5); agunah (10); business issues (8); mourning (11); other (2); zizit, prayer, and synagogue (6); Sefer Torah and its reading (6); Shabbat and eruvin (3); hamez (5); shofar, lulav, Purim, and fast days (6); forbidden foods (19); yein nesekh and usury (4); hallah, firstling of animals, and charity (3); and niddah and ritual immersion (2).


1632-33, Masat Binyamin, Benjamin Aaron ben Abraham Slonik, Cracow
Courtesy of Virtual Judaica

One responsa suggests a close relationship between Jews and their Christian neighbors. May a Jew loan clothing and jewelry to a non-Jew to wear to church on their holidays (86)? Slonik permits it as the clothes are worn for pleasure and prestige, not for religious purposes. On the sanctity of a printed Bible as opposed to a codex Bible, he rules that they have equal sanctity (99). May the margin of a Bible, trimmed when the printer binds the volume, be discarded (100)? Slonik writes that since all books are so bound it is as if the original intent was to do so and no sanctity adheres to the trimmings.

In an extensive responsa (29) Slonik deals with yein nesekh (gentile wine) where a Jew, Moses, entrusted sealed barrels of new wine to be delivered by non-Jewish waggoners under the supervision of Jews traveling on the wagon. The latter left the wagon, leaving the wine unsupervised. Moses found the wagon with the seals unbroken. Slonik writes that normally two seals are required as the seller will not see his wine again, not the case here. He permits the wine where great loss will occur with the caveat that if the wine bubbles through the tar sealing the barrel, as often happens with new wine, it is forbidden.

Davar she-bi-Kedushah – A popular kabbalistic work to arouse repentance is R. Abraham Reuben ben Hoeshke Katz (d. 1673) Davar she-bi-Kedushah. Katz is best known as the author of Yalkut Re’uveni and Oneg Shabbat. Davar she-bi-Kedushah was printed in Sulzbach (1684), at the press of Moses ben Uri Shraga Bloch. A small work, Davar she-bi-Kedushah was printed in octavo format (40: 12 ff.).


1684, Davar she-bi-Kedushah
Courtesy of the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad Ohel Yosef Yitzhak

There is an introduction by Abraham Reuben, in which he informs that the work is entitled Davar she-bi-Kedushah because there are ten ma’amorot for each het (sin), which is a davar shel kedushah; the initial and final letters of the title spell derasha; and for “those who seek (dorshei) the Lord shall not lack any good thing” (Psalms 34:11). It concludes with a list of twenty-two categories of sins in alphabetic order expressed as the viddui (confession of sins) on Yom Kippur, that is, the al het (for the sins that we have sinned before you). These are sins people customarily transgress and should be confessed daily.

Each sin begins with a heading of the sin, repeated as the viddui, for example, א eating and drinking, “for the sin that we have sinned before you through eating and drinking,” and then ten paragraphs from a wide selection of kabbalistic, Midrashic, and aggadic sources on that entry, the subject matter including: ב birkat ha-mazon; ג pride; ד vows and oaths: ה thoughts; י wine and yein nesekh; כ honor of sages; לevil talk and slander; מ tithes and charity; נ netilat yadayim (hand washing); צ zizit, tefillin, and mezuzot; and ת Torat Moshe. Examples from wine (3, 7) are:

3. Also these erred with wine for in that they drank wine they “fashioned a calf” (Exodus 32:4) and said “These are your gods” (Exodus 32:4, 8) and these also erred with wine. (Tanhuma)

7. The wine that Isaac gave to Jacob to drink Michael brought from Gan Eden and one does not find such wine as this for blessing except by Abraham and Melchizedek. (Midrash)

VI

R. Nathan Nata ben Reuben David Tebele Spira was, in his time, a rabbi of repute, but like many other prominent individuals is not well remembered today. His works, albeit highly regarded, are not well recalled today. While that is the case for many early rabbis of import, in Spira’s case that might be attributed to the specialized and esoteric nature of his works, as well as their kabbalistic content. Moreover, what might be considered his most important work, Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar, on the prohibition against drinking Stam Yeinam (gentile wine), is on a subject that is not as prominent, or sensitive today.

The subject of stam yeinam (gentile wine) was, as noted above, a topic of some discussion in Spira’s time. There were rabbis who permitted the consumption of gentile wine that was not designated for ritual use (libations), while others were adamant that there were no leniencies where stam yeinam was concerned. Spira was clearly on the stricter side of that dispute, as expressed in Yayin ha-Meshummar. That the dispute over the admissibility of such wine was widespread and of concern is clearly demonstrated by the number of works that address the issue.

Today, stam yeinam is no longer an issue, being clearly forbidden in strictly religious circles, and no longer a matter of concern among more liberal Jews. R. Nathan Nata Spira clearly expressed the strict negative opinion on the subject.

Again, his other works, which are not controversial, are most certainly of value. R. Nathan Nata ben Reuben David Tebele Spira was, in his time, a prominent rabbi who wrote significant kabbalistic works. In addition to Ma’amar Yayin ha-Meshummar, Tuv ha-Aretz on the holiness of the land of Israel and Mazzat Shemurim on the laws of mezuzah and tefillin are valuable works that deserve to be better remembered today.

[1] I would like to express my appreciation to Eli Genauer for his several comments and emendations.
[2] The most well-known chronicle of the tribulations of tah-ve-tat is R. Nathan Nata ben Moses Hannover’s Yeven Metsulah. Concerning that work and Hannover’s other titles see Marvin J. Heller, “R. Nathan Nata ben Moses Hannover: The Life and Works of an Illustrious and Tragic Figure,” Seforim.blogspot.com, December 28, 2018, reprinted in Essays on the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2021), pp. 256-72.
[3] Aryeh Leib Frumkin (Toldot Hakhme Yerushalayim II (Jerusalem, 1927-30, reprint Jerusalem, 2002), p. 40 [Hebrew]) quotes Divrei Yimei Shemu’el informing that of seven hundred widows and indigent who dwelled in Jerusalem four hundred died of famine.
[4] Hersh Goldwurm, ed. The Early Acharonim (Brooklyn, 1989), pp. 173-74; Frumkin, pp. 38-40; Mordechai Margalioth, ed., Encyclopedia of Great Men in Israel IV (Tel Aviv, 1986), cols. 1184-85 [Hebrew]; Avraham Yaari, Sheluhei Eretz Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1951, reprint Jerusalem, 1997), I p. 153 [Hebrew].
[5] The narrative of the following books is from Marvin J. Heller, The Seventeenth Century Hebrew Book: An Abridged Thesaurus, ( Leiden/Boston, 2011), var. cit.
[6] David Amram, The Makers of Hebrew Books in Italy (Philadelphia, 1909, reprint London, 1963), p. 372; Joshua Bloch, “Venetian Printers of Hebrew Books,” in Hebrew Printing and Bibliography (New York, 1976), p. 86).
[7] Shabbetai Bass, Siftei Yeshenim, (Amsterdam, 1680), p.26, tet 2. Concerning Shabbetai Bass see Marvin J. ller, “Bass, Shabbetai ben Joseph Meshorer,” The YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe, Gershon David Hundert, ed. I (New Haven & London, 2008), pp. 129-30.
[8] Yeshayahu Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book. 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 (Jerusalem, 1993), pp. 611 no.366.
[9] Bass, p, 48, mem 293.
[10] Menahem Mendel Slatkine, Shemot ha-Sefarim ha-Ivri’im: Lefi Sugeihem ha-Shonim, Tikhunatam u-Te’udatam (Neuchâtel-Tel Aviv, 1950-54), p. 143 [Hebrew].
[11] https://oukosher.org/halacha-yomis/yayin-nesech-stam-yainum-difference/
[12] Avraham Yaari, “An unknown document pertaining to the dispute in Rovigo,” in Studies in Hebrew Booklore (Jerusalem, 1958), p. 424 [Hebrew].
[13]  Wilhelm Bacher  Jacob Zallel Lauterbach, “Nesek,” Jewish Encyclopedia, IX (1901-06), pp. 227.
[14] Marc B. Shapiro, Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History (Oxford: Portland, Oregon, 2015), pp.81-2, 95-98. For a more detailed discussion of the controversy over setam yeinam see Gershon Kohen, “On the History of the Controversy over Stam Yayin in Italy and its Sources,” Sinai 77 (Jerusalem, 1975), pp. 64-88.
[15] Ch. B. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sepharim, (Israel, n.d), yod 542 records three additional editions after the above printing, Levon 1867, and Munkatch 1887 and 1902 records [Hebrew].
[16] Mordecai Samuel Ghirondi and Hananel Neppi, Toledot Gedolei Yisrael u-Ge’onei Italyah ve-Hagahot al Sefer Zekher Tzadikim li-Berakhah (Trieste, 1853, reprint Brooklyn, 1993), p. 276 [Hebrew].
[17] Among the works noted for this period and the list is not necessarily comprehensive, are, in chronolofical order, R. Judah ben Bezalel Loew (Maharal), Gevurot ha-Shem (1581-82, Cracow); R. Mordecai ben Gershom ha-Kohen, She’ilot u-Teshuvot ha-Geonim (1590, Prague); R. Solomon ben Abraham ibn Adret (Rashba), Avodat ha-Kodesh (1601-02, Venice); R. Judah ben Moses Saltero of Fano: Mikveh Yisrael // Palgei Mayim Moses ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto-Rafa (Rapaport) Judah ben Moses Saltero of Fano: (1607-08, Venice); R. Judah Leib ben David Pisk, Dimyon Aryeh (1616, Prague); R. Moses ben Joseph di Trani (Mabit), She’elot u’Teshuvot (1629, Venice); R. Samuel ben Abraham Aboab, Sefer ha-Zikhronot (1631-51, Prague); R. Benjamin Aaron ben Abraham Slonik, Masat Binyamin (1632-33, Cracow); R. Abraham Reuben ben Hoeshke Katz Davar she-bi-Kedushah (1684, Sulzbach); and R. Yom Tov ben Moses Zahalon, She’elot u’Teshuvot Yom Tov Zahalon (1694, Venice). Concerning these titles see Marvin J. Heller Marvin J. Heller, The Sixteenth Century Hebrew Book: An Abridged Thesaurus (Leiden, 2004; and ibid. The Sixteenth Century Hebrew Book: An Abridged Thesaurus. Brill, Leiden, 2004, The Seventeenth Century Hebrew Book. op. cit. var. cit.
[18] Concerning the widespread use of the lion image as a pressmark with Hebrew books see Marvin J. Heller “The Lion Motif on Early Hebrew Title-Pages and Pressmarks” Printing History, NS 22 (Syracuse, 2017), pp. 53-71, reprinted in Essays on the Making of the Early Hebrew Book. Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2021, pp. 30-61.



Book week 2023

Book week 2023

By Eliezer Brodt

Book week just began in Eretz Yisrael. Continuing with my now Sixteenth year tradition B”h, every year in Israel, around Shavuos time, there is a period of about ten days called Shavuah Hasefer – Book Week. Many of the companies offer sales for the whole month.

Shavuah HaSefer is a sale which takes place all across the country in stores, malls and special places rented out just for the sales. There are places where strictly “frum” seforim are sold and other places have most of the secular publishing houses. Many publishing houses release new titles specifically at this time.

In my lists, I sometimes include an older title, from a previous year, if I just noticed the book. As I have written in the past, I do not intend to include all the new books. Eventually some of these titles will be the subject of their own reviews. I try to include titles of broad interest. For last year’s list see here

As this list shows although book publishing in book form has dropped greatly worldwide, Academic books on Jewish related topics and Seforim are still coming out in full force.

Podcast about Book week

Last night I recorded episode eight of a possible new podcast series called Musings of Book Collector. The episode is all about Book week. If you wish to hear the episode, send me an email and I will send you the recording. I hope to go live with the other episodes IYh soon.

To receive a PDF of the sale catalogs of Mechon Yerushalayim, Zichron Ahron, Ahavat Shalom and other non-academic distributors, e-mail me at Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com.

In the lists below I have not included everything found in these catalogs as some items are not out yet and are coming out shortly. Others items I have not seen yet so I have not mentioned them as I try to only list items I have actually seen.

Note: Just because a book is listed below does not mean it’s on sale.

The second section below are titles that were printed in the past year, on a wide range of topics. These items are not specifically on sale at this time or easy to find. In addition, this is not an attempt to include everything or even close to that.

The purpose of the list is to help Seforim Blog readership learn about some of the seforim and Books that have been published in the past year.

A second purpose of this list is, to make these works available for purchase for those interested. As in previous years I am offering a service, for a small fee to help one purchase these titles (or titles of previous years). For more information about this email me at Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com.

Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the the Seforim Blog.

מגנס

  1. עודד כהן, סובב הולך הרוח: מרחבים תרבותיים בעולמו של החיד”א, 438 עמודים [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  2. קבץ על יד, כרך כח, הוצאת מקיצי נרדמים
  3. שלמה גליקסברג, פנקסי קהילות אשכנזיות באיטליה מן המאה הי”ח, מקיצי נרדמים
  4. עשרה פרקים, מאת דאוד אבן מרואן אלמקמץ, תרגום שרה סטרומזה
  5.  גן המלך, פירושי זוהר לר’ נפתלי הרץ בכרך, מכתב יד
  6. דוד הלבני, מקורות ומסורות ביאורים בתלמוד מסכת זבחים, מנחות, חולין
  7. אברהם פרנקל, מעגלי חיים מזיכרונותיו של מתמטיקאי יהודי
  8. מחקרי ירושלים, כרך כז
  9. קורות כו

האיגוד

  1. פירוש רבי יוסף חיון על ירמיהו, מהדיר יוחנן קאפח
  2.  תוספות רמב”ן לפירושו לתורה, שנכתבו בארץ ישראל, מהדורה שנייה מורחבת (הכוללת 47 עמודים חדשים בסוף הספר)

  3. יום טוב ליפמן צונץ, מנהגי תפילה ופיוט בקהילות ישראל, [מצוין] מהדורה שנייה

Littman

  1. Moshe Rosman, Categorically Jewish Distinctly Polish, Polish Jewish History Reflected and Refracted
  2. Elisha Fishbane, Ageing in Medieval Jewish Culture

ביאליק

  1. מנחם כהנא, דרש המזהיר ותרומתו למחקר ספרי דברים ומכילתא דברים
  2. סירוניות בבית המדרש, פואטיקה, פולקלור ופרשנות במדרש ויקרא רבה
  3. כתבי דב בר בן יהודה בירקנטל, דברי בינה, וספר זכרונות, ב’ חלקים, בעריכת פר’ גרשון הונדרט:סוחר היינות דב בר בן יהודה בירקנטל (1805-1723)… חיבר שני ספרים: הראשון… ‘דברי בינה’ ספר היסטורי רובו העוסק בתנועות משיחיות, ובייחוד בתנועות הקשורות בשבתי צבי וביעקב פרנק; הספר השני… בשם ׳זכרונות׳…
  4. משה בר אשר, תורת הצורות של לשון המשנה (ג-ד)
  5. דוד שטרן, כחומר ביד הסופר: גלגולי ספר התנ”ך ממגילה ועד מסך
  6. בית מקרא, סז
  7. מגילות כרך טז
  8. גלית חזן רוקם, סירוניות בבית המדרש: פואטיקה, פולקלור ופרשנות במדרש ויקרא רבה
  9.   שרה יפת, מחקרי מקרא
  10. מרדכי כוגן, הנחל השוטף: תעודות מאשור ובבל בזיקה לתולדות ישראל בימי בית ראשון

בר אילן

  1. אריאל אבן מעשה, דיבור לאינסוף: שפה ואלוקות בתורת ר’ דב בער ממזרריטש
  2. צבי מרק, מיסטיקה ושיגעון ביצירת ר’ נחמן מברסלב
  3. יוסף מרקוס, מכפרת המקדש לכפרת הקהל
  4. מאיר סיידלר, ״קיצה של יהדות גרמניה בפתח״: הרב יוסף צבי קרליבך הי״ד (1942-1883) – סוף עידן
  5. כתר- בר אילן – השלמת הסט של 21 כרכים
  6. ציונות דתית, ח
  7. סידרא לד
  8.  דעת צא
  9. תמר רוס, ארמון התורה ממעל לה: על אורתודוקסיה ופמיניזם
  10. מנחם מורשת, לקסיקון הפועל שנתחדש בלשון התנאים ועוד מאמרים

ראובן מס

  1. יוסף פונד, אגדות ישראל, אוסף מאמרים [ניתן לקבל תוכן]

האקדמיה

  1. שי למשה, יום עיון לכבוד משה בר אשר

כרמל

  1. מ’ מרגליות, בין שכחה לשכתוב: מסה היסטוריוגרפית על נושאים שהזיכרון הלאומי מעדיף לשכוח
  2. נגה בינג, חסידות ישראלית: סיפורה של חסידות סלונים בישראל
  3.  רון גלבוע, הזולת שבמעמקיי: אלטרואיזם, הפנמה ופסיכולוגיזציה במשנה הקבלית של יהודה הלוי אשלג
  4. יוסף פונד, הקבצו צעירי יהודה! תנועות הנוער והצעירים של אגודת ישראל
  5. אריאל הכהן, הלוח העברי: פתרון תעלומת שנת הבריאה
  6. אהרן איזק, אוטוביוגרפיה
  7. עזריה בייטנר, ממאמר למאמר, מפה לפה: כנסת מאמרים במדרש ובאגדה
  8. יורם ארדר ומאירה פוליאק (עורכים), תור הזהב הקראי – אנתולוגיה של היצירה הקראית במאות התשיעית עד השתים־עשרה
  9. אילן אדלר, המחזאות העברית המקורית והמתורגמת מראשיתה ועד תום המאה ה־19 – סקירה כרונולוגית

יד יצחק בן צבי

  1. ארץ-ישראל בשלהי העת העתיקה, ב’ חלקים, 1300 עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
  2. ספונות כח
  3. גנזי קדם חלק יח
  4. יהושע גרנט, אז מלפני בראשית: דברים שקדמו לבריאה בראי הפיוט הקדום
  5. אפרים חזן, חן ונוף יופי: שירת ר’ מנדיל בן אברהם אבי זמרה

מרכז זלמן שזר

  1. ירון בן נאה, אחרית דבר: צוואות יהודיות מהאימפריה העות’מאנית, 559 עמודים
  2. מיכל גלטר, שטריימל בדיזנגוף: חצרות חסידיות והמרחב הדתי בתל־אביב 1965-1940
  3. אבי-רום צורף, קדמה מזרחה: ר’ בנימין, דו־לאומיות וציונות־שכנגד
  4. קנת מוס, ימי המעשים: תחיית התרבות היהודית בתקופת המהפכה הרוסית (מתורגם)
  5. זיכרון ומשפט, שופטי בית המשפט העליון כותבים על השואה

הרצוג- תבונות

  1. ספראי, מבוא למשנה, משנת ארץ ישראל
  2. יואל בן נון, מקראות בראשית שמות – בינה בתורה שיעורים קצרים ומורחבים על סדר התורה
  3. יואל בן נון, נביאים מול מעצמות
  4. יהודה ברנדיס, מדע בתורתך, שבת
  5. נטועים, כג

קורן-מגיד

  1. אברהם יהושע השל, חסידים עד הקצה
  2. ד”ר מיכל טיקוצ’ינסקי, קראתי בכל לב
  3. שלום רוזנברג, גשר צר: אמונה בעולם של ספק על פי רבי נחמן מברסלב
  4. ר’ יהונתן רוזנצוויג, ד”ר שמואל הריס, נפשי בשאלתי: הלכות בריאות הנפש, 512 עמודים
  5. שלום רוזנברג, המחשבה היהודית לגווניה, מן הכוזרי ועד ללוינס, פרקי יסוד בהגות

  6. The Koren Tanakh of the Land of Israel- Leviticus

7. The Koren Tanakh of the Land of Israel – Numbers

8. Rabbi Nochum Rabinowitz, Pathways to Their Hearts: Torah Perspectives on the Individual

9.Rabbi Twersky, Perpetuating the Masorah

10.Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, Values in Halakh

11. Rabbi Aviad Tabory, State of Halakha, Israel’s History in Jewish Law

12. Samuel Lebens, A Guide for the Jewish Undecided

 13. רב אריה קפלן, ספר הבהיר

14. סט המשנה המבוארת – הרב שטיינזלץ

אידרא

  1. אבן עזרא איש האשכולות, קובץ מאמרים בעריכת דב שוורץ
  2. הרב עוז בלומן, איש משורש נביא, הממד האתי בבקשת האלוהים של הלל צייטלין [ניתן לקבל תוכן והקדמה]
  3. משה חלמיש, ממשות ורוח: הרהורים
  4. פילון – הפילוסופיה בשירות פרשנות המקרא

בלימה

  1. גרשום שלום, מצוה הבאה בעבירה, מהדורה חדשה בעריכת יונתן מאיר
  2. גרשום שלום, התנועות המשיחיות בישראל
  3. מיכה יוסף ברדיצ’בסקי, שינוי ערכין
  4. יוסף ברנר, הערכת עצמנו
  5. יוסף ברנר, סדנא דגלותא

בית מדרש לרבנים

  1. מדרש רבה, במדבר, מהדיר: פרופ’ חננאל מאק

האקדמיה ללשון העברית

  1. יהודית הנשקה, המשנה בביזנטיון: מסורת הלשון של כתב יד קיימברידג’ למשנה
  2. י’ קושטר, מילים ותולדותיהן (מהדורה שנייה)
  3. אוהד אבודרהם, דקדוק המנדאית הקדומה
  4. רבקה ריסקין, אמרו חכמים: שיחות של משא ומתן הלכתי במשנה

ידיעות ספרים

  1. איתמר אדלשטיין בשיתוף רבקה יוסף צ’קוטאי, בית יוסף – הרב עובדיה יוסף – הסיפור שלא סופר
  2. אברהם סתיו, צמחונות יהודית
  3. ישראל רובין, כפירותיו של הרמב”ם

הרב זייני – חיפה

  1. אוצר הגאונים, נדה
  2. אוצר הגאונים חולין, ב
  3. ר’ אמזוג, אם למקרא, ב’ חלקים, בראשית-ויקרא

מכון שלמה אומן-שעלבים

  1. החסיד יעבץ, על מסכת אבות, על פי כ”י, [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  2. פסקים ומנהגים לר’ יצחק מדורא

  3. ספר אמרכל [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]

אהבת שלום

        1. ר’ ראובן מרגליות, תולדות אדם, על המהרש”א, [מצוין], כולל המון הוספות ומכתבים למחבר [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
        2. מגיד מישרים למרן הבית יוסף, כולל מבוא ומפתחות על פי כתב יד, מבוא 131+ תשלא עמודי  [מצוין]
        3. ר’ יהודה לירמה, לחם יהודה על מסכת אבות [נדפס לראשונה שי”ג],
        4. ר’ שמואל פרימו, דרשות אמרי שפר,
        5. מן הגנזים, כרך טז, כולל ‘יומן החלומות של רבי יהודה פתייא’ מאת ר’ משה הלל
        6. ר’ שלמה הלוי, לב אבות על מסכת אבות,
        7. שו”ת מנחת זכרון, ר’ רפאל שלמה הבדלה ז“ל,
        8. סידור חמדת ישראל, חלק ג,
        9. ג’ חיבורים מר’ ששון מרדכי,
        10. שו”ת לחמי תודה,
        11. סידור בית עובד\ בית מנוחה,
        12. חידושי רבינו משה מאימראן, על מסכת עבודה זרה,
        13. חזר למלאי שו”ת וישב הים מאת הגרי”מ הלל שליט”א, חלק א’ וב’‎
        14. ר’ יוסף הלוי, יקר הערך על ספר הערוך, מכתב יד, ד’ חלקים,
        15. מן הגנזים, כרך יז,
        16. כתבי המהדורה קמא של ר’ חיים ויטל, ג’ חלקים,
        17. מאמר קו המדה עם פי’ אור יקר לרמ”ק
        18. חידושי הרא”ה על מסכת סוכה,

מכון תלמוד הישראלי

  1. תלמוד מסכת נזיר, א,
  2. ר”י מלוניל, תעניות וסוכה,
  3. אנציקלופדיה תלמודית, כרך מט
  4. אנציקלופדיה תלמודית, כרך נ

זכרון אהרן

1.הנותן אמרי שפר – דרשות הראנ”ח

  1. ר’ שלמה אלגזי, שמע שלמה, כולל מבוא מאת פרופ’ יעקב שפיגל, זכרון אהרן
  2. מדרש הגדול, ב’ חלקים, בראשית,

מכון ירושלים

  1. ר’ שלמה כהנא, שו”ת נחמת שלמה, מכון ירושלים
  2. דברי חכמים, מבעל החיי אדם [!] מכתב יד
  3. מנחת חינוך, בשולי המנחה, חלק ו

יד הרב ניסים

  1. אוצר הגאונים, עבודה זרה, שבועות, מכות, הוריות, בעריכת ירחמיאל ברודי ואחרים, 398 עמודים
  2. ירחמיאל ברודי, פירוש מסכת כתובות מן התלמוד בבלי, ג’ חלקים, 1200 עמודים [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  3. תרגום המקרא לערבית יהודית מגרבית, ד’ חלקים, בעריכת משה בר אשר

האוניברסיטה הפתוחה

  1. אבריאל בר לבב ומשה אידל, שער לקבלה נתיבות למיסטיקה יהודית, ג’ חלקים

כנרת

  1. ישי רוזן צבי, ההיסטוריה הסודית של חגי ישראל

רסלינג

  1. גלעד שפירא, מדרש הגדול

מדרשים, גאונים, ראשונים

  1. מחזור ויטרי, חלקים ד-ו, השלמת הסדרה [פרקי אבות, סדר תנאים ואמוראים, מסכת סופרים, ועוד דברים חשובים]
  1. ילקוט מדרשים, חלק י, מדרשי עשרות הדברות [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
  2. רבנו גרשום, מסכת בבא בתרא, עם פירוש משפחת הגרשוני
  3. פירוש ספר ויקרא לרס”ג, רק פרשת תזריע, מכתב יד, רכח עמודים מכון עלה זית [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  4. ליקוטי מדרשים, חלק ד
  5. פסקים וכתבים לבעל תרומת הדשן
  6. פירוש הראב”ן הירחי על מסכת כלה, מהדורה חדשה עם הערות מר’ שלמה גלצר
  7. פירוש רבניו סעיד ן’ דוד אלעדני, ספר אהבה
  8. סידור הרקנאטי, ג’ חלקים [כולל כ”י]
  9. החסיד יעבץ, על מסכת אבות רק על פרק א
  10. ר’ הירשמן, תרגום יהונתן וירושלמי, תרגום ללשון הקודש
  11. פירוש המשנה להרמב”ם, פסחים, ר’ יצחק שילת
  12. על הכל, תלמיד של ר’ משה מאיוורא, מבעלי התוספות, על פי כת”י
  13. קיצור מרדכי על מסכת ראש השנה

אחרונים

  1. ר’ שמואל מאטאלון, שו”ת עבודת השם, מכון הכתב
  2. שו”ת רבי שלמה ברוך [מכתב יד] משנות ה’ש’
  3. מנהגים לבעל הפרי מגדים, נועם מגדים [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  4. ר’ זכריה בן שלום החלפוני משנה ותלמוד עם פירוש המזרחי כולל מסכת סופרים
  5. דרישת הזאב על ששה סדרי משנה, לר’ זאב וואלף ממאהלוב, מהדיר: ר’ שלום דזשייקאב, 21+קעט עמודים
  6. ר’ אריה ליב ברעסלא, שו”ת פני אריה [מהדורה שנייה]
  7. ר’ יוסף מפוזנא, יד יוסף על התורה מכתב יד, יסוד יוסף
  8.  שדי חמד על התורה, כולל כת”י
  9. ר’ חיים פאלאג’י, מועד לכל חי, מכון שובי נפשי
  10. ר’ אליהו קלאצקין, ספר אבן פנה
  11. ר’ יוסף אב”ד פיזענץ, יד אבי שלום, דרושים על התורה
  12. ר’ יעקב רקח, שלחן לחם הפנים, יו”ד, אהע”ז, חו”מ, מכתב יד
  13. ר’ צבי פסח פרנק, הר צבי על מסכת סנהדרין, מכות
  14. מכתבי תורה, בין הצפנת פענח ור’ מרדכי קאלינא
  15. ר’ פנחס עפשטיין, מנחת ירושלים, סוטה
  16. ר’ יוסף ענגיל, אתון דאורייתא
  17. ר’ אליהו גוטמכר, סוכת שלם, מכתב אליהו, [מצוין], מהדורה שלישית
  18. ר’ יהודה עדל, מים טהורים, טהרות
  19. שו”ת צפנת פענח חלק ה
  20. ר’ צבי פסח פרנק, הר צבי פסקים והנהגות
  21. מגן אבות, ר’ מרדכי בנעט
  22. תוספתא עירובין פסחים ביצה, עם הגהות הגר”א מכתב יד בנו הגאון רבי אברהם זצ”ל
  23. מעשה רב להגר”א עם פי’ צופיה הליכות, מהדיר: ר’ שמואל עין
  24. ר’ יעקב עמדין, לחם שמים, משניות, דפוס צילום
  25. ר’ יהודה עייטש, וזאת ליהודה, ב’ חלקים
  26.   ר’ יצחק אייזיק הרצוג, שו”ת היכל יצחק, או”ח, כולל הערות של ר’ עובדיה יוסף
  27. ר’ שלמה תווינא, שיר ידידות, תהלים בדרך פרד”ס, ב’ חלקים
  28.  ר’ שלמה שניידר, שו”ת דברי שלמה חלקים ה’- ו’
  29. מנחת שלמה, ר’ שלמה זלמן אויערבך, ב’ חלקים מסכת שבת
  30. ר’ חיים על הרמב”ם, א, עם מורשת הגר”ח
  31. חידושי גאוני ליטא, פנקס טלז
  32. שו”ת ישכיל עבדי, סט
  33. חידושי ופירושי רבי שמעון ווערטהימער, מכתב יד
  34. העלם דבר להחיד”א, מכתב יד
  35. ר’ עזריאל רקובסקי, שלמה משנתו על מסכת שבת [מכתב יד]
  36.   ר’ שלום מאסקוויטש, נתיבותיה שלום, על תרי”ג מצות
  37. ר’ מאיר דן פלוצקי, כלי חמדה על ל”ט מלאכות, ג’ חלקים
  38. ר’ שלמה זלמן עהרענרייך, אבני המקום, ב’ חלקים (מהדורה חדשה)
  39. ר’ יהודה הנקין, שו”ת בני בנים, חלק א [מהדורה חדשה]
  40. ר’ אברהם אהרן יודעלעוויץ, אב בחכמה, חליצה על ידי שליח, כולל מבוא של ר’ נתן דוד רבינוביץ

הלכה

  1. נעימת כהנים, מהדיר פרופ’ יעקב שפיגל [ניתן לקבל הקדמה ודפי דוגמא]
  2. ר’ חנוך גרוסברג, חזון הארץ, [המעשה והתרומה, תורת השמיטה, חוקת שדה, נטע הלולים]
  3. ר’ שלמה וואלעס, תורת בית כנסת, עיוני ובירורי הלכה בעניני בית הכנסת, תרפח עמודים
  4. ר’ יוסף פאק, ואני אברכם, כל דיני ומנהגיי נשיאת כפים, השייכים לבית המקדש ולזמן הזה
  5. פני מזרח, בהירות שיטת הגאונים ומנהג ארץ ישראל [זמנים]
  6. ר’ עובדיה זכאי, בקרבך קדוש, ניתוחי קיצור קיבה בהלכה, 350 עמודים
  7. ר’ ישראל כהן, משמרת הכהנים, על הטהרת כהנים
  8. ר’ יצחק שטסמן, כל נדרי, תתקנט עמודים ]כולל כמעט מאה עמודים של חומר חדש]
  9. ר’ יעקב עקיבא סופר, ובמותם לא נפרדו, בעניני מתים
  10. ר’ חיים גאנצווייג, קונטרס הוראות רב משה
  11.   ר’ ישראל בעלסקי, שלחן הלוי, בענין רפואות אלטרנטיביות
  12. ר’ שלמה דוד, הצעירה לפני הבכירה, בת כהן לישראל
  13. ר’ איתמר גלבר, כבוד יום טוב, ביאורים בהלכות יום טוב, תתנ עמודים
  14. ר’ אלקנה ליאור, דברו על לב ירושלים, בירור הלכתי לאיתור מיקום המקדש המדויק
  15. ר’ יצחק דרזי, שבות יצחק, שטרי הדיוטות
  16. ר’ יצחק שילת, מדינה הלכה וכוונות התורה, 456 עמודים [ניתן לקבל התוכן]
  17.   ר’ שמעון גוטמן, קול מצהלות, נישואין
  18. . ר’ אסף פרץ, זכרון ישעיה, ליקוט כל עניני זכירה ושכחה
  19. חלת לחם, הלכות חלה
  20. מצות התכלת, 555 עמודים
  21. ר’ אברהם שטרית, פרנסה מתלמוד תורה, ד’ חלקים
  22. . דברות מרדכי, ויכלו מעין שבע
  23. שו”ת ידי דודי, ב’ חלקים, פסקי הלכות מאת הגאון רבי דוד פיינשטיין זצ”ל
  24. . ציוני הלכה, תפילה א, פסקי הלכה ושיעורים של רבינו יוסף שלו’ אלישיב זצוק”ל
  25. הרב ארלה הראל, שו”ת ישרי לבב, שות בענייני משיכה תוך מגדרית בהלכה ובהשקפה, על פי פסקי ר’ יעקב אריאל
  26. ר’ שריה דבליצקי, קיצור הלכות המועדים, דיני ט”ב שחל ביום א \ פסקי הלכות לימי בין המצרים \ תיקון חצות
  27. . ר’ משה פרנס, פרשת המלך, מצות הקהל
  28. ר’ יהודה וייס, מבוא לשיעורי תורה
  29. ר’ ניר הלוי גורביץ, חקרי הלכה ומנהג, תורת הציפורניים, חלק ד
  30. ר’ יהודה הופמן, אוצר הברכה, שהחיינו, ברכות הראיה ועוד
  31. החיסונים בהלכה
  32. ר’ יחזקאל בלוי, תל תלפיות, קיצור הלכות ומנהגים הנוגעים לערי יהודה וירושלים מקום המקדש והכותל
  33. ר’ הראל דביר, לקראת מקדש, עיונים בהלכות הנוגעות לחידוש עבודת המקדש והקרבנות
  34. מנהגי מהרי”צ הלוי דינר, שבת
  35. ר’ שי טחן, שף ויתיב: הלכות אמירת תהלים
  36. ר’ אהרן עזר, אור השלחן, הלכות מזוזה
  37. ר’ שניאור בורטון, הארץ אשר אראך, מצות ישוב ארץ ישראל בזמן הזה, רח עמודים

מחקר \ שונות

  1. 1. פרופ’ שלמה זלמן הבלין, מסורת התורה שבעל פה, יסודותיה, עקרונותיה והגדרותיה, ב’ חלקים, 1048 עמודים, [מצוין] [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
  2. ר’ נריה גוטל, רש”י צריך עיון, לדרכו של רש”י בפירושו לתורה [מצוין]
  3. שד”ל, אוהב גר, 251 עמודים , בעריכת יונתן בשיא
  4. עקיבא שטרנברג, ארץ לא נודעת \ התמודדות בעלי ההלכה עם אתגרי ההגירה לצפון אמריקה 1850-1924ר’ צבי סלושץ, מחקרי ארץ, אסופת מאמרים על נושאים בפרשנות התנ”ך ומחקרים בענינים שונים, 361 עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
  5. זוכרה לאהרן, לזכר פרופ’ אהרן מונדשיין ז”ל
  6. אמנון רז-קרקוצקין, תודעת משנה תודעת מקרא, צפת והתרבות הציונית
  7. עריכת מסכת ברכות בתלמוד בבלי, נח עמינח
  8. יוחאי מקבילי, טהרה תודעה וחברה, תפיסת הטומאה והטהרה במשנת הרמב”ם
  9. אברהם וסרמן, מסילה חדשה רב קוק ואתגרי חינוך
  10. פרופ’ נחום רקובר: המותרות בתקנות הקהילות, ב’ חלקים, 1360 עמודים [מצוין] [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  11. ר’ צבי סלושץ, מחקרי ארץ, אסופת מאמרים על נושאים בפרשנות התנ”ך ומחקרים בענינים שונים, 361 עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
  12. הרב ד”ר יוסף יצחק ליפשיץ, כלכלה וערכי היהדות

היסטוריה / תולדות

  1. מכתב לדוד, אוצר גנוזה וחילוף מכתבים… עם איש האשכולה ר’ דוד פרקוביץ זצ”ל [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
  2. קהילת צפרו, דורות ראשונים, סיפורה של קהילת צפרו במרוקו ואישי המעלה שחיו ופעלו בה, 387 עמודים \ קהילת צפרו, תהלה לדוד, סיפור חייו ומפעליו של הרב דוד עובדיה רבה האחרון של קהילת צפרו במרוקו,493 עמודים
  3. ר’ יהודה זייבלד, בעל העקידה, רבי יצחק עראמה, תולדותיו, מפעלותיו משנתו, [מצוין], 763 עמודים, [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  4. ר’ צבי יברוב, שגדל בתורה חלק ב, על מרן הגר”ח קניבסקי, שסט עמודים
  5. דברי שי”ח, עובדות הליכות הנהגות והדרכות בענינים שונים, ממרן הגר”ח קניבסקי, תתקפ עמודים
  6. להדבק בדרכיו של רבנו חיים קניבסקי, זצ”ל, ב’ חלקים
  7.   ר’ מנחם מנדל פלאטו, מרן החזון איש, א, 369 עמודים
  8. א”ד גורדון אני מבקש לב דופק נפש חיה, מכון אור האורות
  9. פוסק הדורות, ב’ חלקים על המהרש”ם
  10. ספר המסורה, ב’ חלקים
  11. ר’ אברהם אביש שור, כתבים, פרקים בתולדות קרלין סטלין, מהדורה שניה, כולל כרך של מפתחות, 1255+ 136 עמודים
  12. ר’ דוד אברהם מנדלבוים, הגאון רבי אריה צבי פרומר, תולדות רבנו בעל ארץ צבי
  13. תולדות חיים, ראיון בשתי פגישות עם הרב חיים דרוקמן זצ”ל על מסכת חייו
  14. ספר הצלה של רבי מבעלזא, ב’ חלקים

קבצים

  1. זכור לאברהם, תשפ”ג, בעניני ספר תורה [כרך חדש]
  2. ירושתנו חלק יב [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
  3. תחומין מג
  4. ישורון מו
  5. המשביר, כרך ט
  6. מכילתא ד [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  7. היכל הבעש”ט 43

שונות

  1. ר’ יעקב חיים סופר, מנוחת שלום, ד’ חלקים, כולל מפתחות
  2. שיעורי הגרי”ש זילברמן במסכת אבות, 372 עמודים
  3. מחזור שפתי רננות לחג הפסח, מהדיר ר’ משה רוזנווסר, בהוצאת מכון מורשת אשכנז [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  4. ר’ בנימין ברוך קרלנשטיין, ים ודרום ירשה, גבולי ארץ ישראל, תקלה עמודים +119 עמודים של מפות
  5. קובץ זכרון מכבדי אכבד, לזכר נשמת הרבנית יוכבד ענבל, בענין תוספת שבת, נר שבת כבוד שבת בהלכה ובאגדה [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
  6. יומן ליוורנו ד’ – החיד”א, מכתב יד
  7. ר’ שלמה יוסף זווין, סופרים וספרים, ג’ חלקים [מהדורה חדשה]
  8. ר’ אהרן שרגא לופיאנסקי, מפרש ושום שכל, אוצר ביאורים על התורה על פי טעמי המקרא ולקט הארות והערות על תרגום אונקלוס, תקמו עמודים
  9. שרשי הסודות, קבלה מעשיות, ר’ משה זכותא
  10. ר’ חיים דובער הכהן, “המלאך”, אוצר אגרות קודש, תרכז עמודים
  11. קונטרס ספדי תורה, הספדים על רבי מענדיל אטיק
  12. מחשבת אליהו, שיעורים חדשים מאת רבי אליהו דסלר כולל מכתבים חדשים
  13. ר’ דוד הנזיר, קול הנבואה [מהדורה חדשה]
  14. מעגל טוב, להחיד”א, מהדורת הרב מנדלבוים [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  15. ר’ יונתן בלס, מנופת צוף: עיונים במורה הנבוכים, כרך ג [על מורה נבוכים חלק ג]
  16. ר’ אשר דוד מייערס, מלאכת המשכן וכליו, תקעו עמודים
  17. ר’ אליהו דינר, מגילת סוטה, ביאורים ועינוים בעניני סוטה, תתקע עמודים
  18. על פי ספר דרכי התלמוד לר’ יצחק קנפאנטון, שער דרכי התלמוד
  19. ר’ זאב וגנר, אוצר רש”י, ליקוט ביאורי המילים במקרא ובתלמוד מכל פירושי רש”י והמיוחסים לו
  20. ספרא דצניעותא עם ביאור הגר”א, עם ביאור מר’ יצחק הוטנר
  21. ר’ אורי הולצמן, להתהלך – לפני אלקים באור החיים, על חומש שמות
  22. ר’ ישעיה לוי, מקרא אני דורש, על חומש שמות [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  23.   ר’ יהודה ן’ שמואל אבן עבאס, מקור חיים \ יאיר נתיב [על פי כתב יד]
  24. ר’ דוד הנזיר, רואין את הנשמע, מאסף לכתבי הרב הנזיר, ב’ חלקים
  25. תקון עולם, כנגד ציונים, נאסף בשליחות המנחת אלעזר
  26. ר’ יעקב אבן צור, עת לכל חפץ פיוטים, ב’ חלקים
  27. ר’ יוסף גן, מוסר השכל
  28. ר’ אברהם יגל, גיא חזיון
  29. קם רבה שחטיה לרב זירא
  30. הלכות תפילין דהיילגער ר”ת
  31. שו”ע המוסר, חלק ג
  32. יוסף טוב, יהדות תימן, ד
  33. ספר השירים המשוכלל בשירי הרב שלום שבזי
  34.  משנת השדה [יפה]
  35. מגדים חדשים, שמות
  36. מכתבים בין ר’ דוב לנדו ור’ חיים קניבסקי זצ”ל חלק ב
  37. כרם חמ”ד, בית מנוחה, הנהגות תפילת ישרים, אגרות החיד”א, מכון המאור, מא
  38. ר’ הראל דביר, פסח לה’, קרבן פסח
  39. ספר זכרון פני משה [ניתן לקבל דפי תוכן]
  40. דמעות של מלאכים
  41. ר’ צדוק הכהן, פוקד עקרים
  42. הרב עזריאל אריאל, קשר אמיץ, על אימוץ ילדים
  43. ר’ לוינגר, מאור למונחים בתלמוד
  44. דרישת המלאכים לרמ”ק – “מכון חכמי ירושלים והמגרב”
  45. קונטרס סיכום הכללים וההלכות בתשלום בתחבורה הציבורית
  46. ר’ שמעון גוטמן, שפתי ישנים, לקט חידושי תורה שנתגלו בחזיון לילה, שעד עמודים
  47. עדרו ירעה, יחסין הגומלין בין מנהיג ובין העם, בעריכת ר’ נריה גוטל ור’ דוד שטרן
  48. שלחן מלכים, ביאור מקיף על משנה תורה לרמבם הלכות מלכים ומלחמות, א
  49. ר’ מאיר מזוז, מקור נאמן, ג
  50.  שיעורי הרב יוסף קאפח, על הרמב”ם הקמות לפירוש המשנה, פרק חלק
  51. ר’ עזריאל מנצור, באר מרים, ביאור על פיוט יגדל
  52. ר’ יעקב חיים סופר, קובץ קונטריסים, אורייתא א-ב\ אמרי חיים\ אמרי יעקב [הערות על ספר החסידים]\ במשנת רבינו האריז”ל\ קטורת חיים
  53. רבי שלום פלמן, שלמים מציון, כתבים ושיעורים על התורה, ב’ חלקים
  54. תקנות תמכין דאורייתא לרבינו בעל בני יששכר
  55. אוצר חסידי חב”ד, חלק ב
  56. ר’ ישראל דנדרוביץ, היו דברים מעולם, הסודות הגנזים של העולם התורני, 706 עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן]
  57. ר’ יעקב קנמצקי, אמת ליעקב עיונים במקרא על נביאים וכתובים חלק א, תרפה עמודים
  58. ספר הזכרון לבעל מכתב מאליהו, חלק ג, כולל מכתבים ומאמרים, שמז עמודים
  59. אגרות הרב אליהו אליעזר דסלר, המכתב מאליהו, קנז עמודים
  60. הגיונות דברי חכמים, סדר השתלשלות בריאת העולם בראי תורת הסוד [תורה שהמחבר שמע מפי ר’ אברהם שמעון מז’ליכוב הי”ד!]
  61. ר’ אורי טיגר, פתח לבי, על מוסרי הרמב”ם, קע עמודים [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]
  62. ר’ אליהו גר, תפארת התפילה, מצות התפילה והלכותיה, תקעט עמודים
  63. ר’ חיים ויטל, ספר התכונה
  64. רמח”ל, קנאת ה’ צבאות \ מאמר הגאולה [על פי כת”י], שסה עמודים
  65. שלום זעלמאנאוויץ דער גר צדק, Solomas Zelmanavicius Sholom Zelmanovich\ 230 pp.
  66. ר’ זאב שטיגליץ, תחיית המתים, כל ענייני תחיית המתים, תצ עמודים
  67. ר’ שלום דובער לוין, עבודת הקדוש אצל אדמו”ר מליובאוויטש, כולל כשבע מאות הוראות פתקאות. בצירוף צילומי כתב יד… בתקופת עבודתי בספריית ליובאוויטש בשנים תשל”ז-
  68. ר’ אורי הכהן, השתלשלות הסוגיות בהלכות נדה, עד ההתפטרות להלכה ולמעשה, ב’ חלקים

  69. ר’ נחום אליעזר רבינוביץ, נר לנתיבתי, תורה-מועדים, ב’ חלקים



The Anatomy of an Auction: A Previously Undissected Body of Literature on the History of the Jews and Postmortem Dissection

The Anatomy of an Auction: A Previously Undissected Body of Literature on the History of the Jews and Postmortem Dissection

 Rabbi Edward Reichman, MD 

The issue of autopsy and postmortem dissection has been exhaustively explored in halakhic literature.[1] If I were to ask where and when we find the first halakhic discussion about this topic, the immediate response would invariably be the teshuva of the Noda biYehuda, from the late eighteenth century.[2] It may be time to rewrite the medical halakhah history books. On Sunday, May 21 Genazym Auction House held its fifteenth auction. Lot #133 was a work entitled Pachad Yitzchak.

There are multiple works throughout history that bear the title Pachad Yitzchak. The modern reader will surely think of the work of Rav Yitzchak Hutner. The reader of this blog may also think of the first multi-volume halakhic encyclopedia, authored by Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Lampronti (1679-1756). The volume offered for auction by Genazym is an earlier lesser-known composition of the same name by Yitzchak Hayyim Kohen me-haHazzanim (AKA Isaac Vita Cantarini)[3] published in 1685. 

Buried in Cantarini’s obscure work, in a section peripheral to the main theme of the book, we find a vivid and poetic description of a tragic incident relating to anatomical dissection.[4] Viewed in isolation, this incident merits historical attention due to its gravity. Yet, it merely reflects a much larger historical chapter about the Jews and postmortem dissection which long preceded the time of the Noda biYehuda and has remained largely undissected until now. But first a word about this work, its provenance and its author. 

The Work- Pachad Yitzchak (Amsterdam, 1685)[5]

The main subject of this work is the tale, told in poetic fashion, of the miraculous salvation of the Jewish congregation of Padua during the Austrian-Ottoman War in the year 1684. War erupted between the Austrian and Ottoman Empires in the year 1684 over the city of Buda (today part of Budapest). The virulently anti-Semitic Christian ruler of Padua spread a libel accusing the Jews of supporting the Muslim Turks in their battle against the Austrian Empire. His incitement caused an enraged crowd to break into the Padua Ghetto, yet the Jews miraculously persuaded the Venetian government to subdue the outburst. The Jews of Padua declared the 10th day of Elul as their Second Purim in gratitude for their miraculous salvation. This holiday was celebrated for many generations thereafter. 

However, the work also includes many additional unknown details of the history of the Jewish community and its rabbis. It is from this aspect of the book that we draw our discussion. 

Provenance

Regarding the item’s provenance, it was previously part of the William Gross Family Collection,[6] a significant portion of which has been recently sold at auction by both Kedem[7] and Genazym auction houses. Gross is a well-known prominent collector of Judaica and Hebraica and the selling of his collection is of historic significance. To see the collection of precious items united under one roof now become redistributed and disseminated across the world necessitates a moment of pause and reflection. Yet, this is the life cycle in the world of bibliophilia.[8] For centuries, passionate bibliophiles spent lifetimes amassing extraordinary and unique collections, only to have them subsequently sold piecemeal (for a variety of reasons) while still alive, or by less passionate heirs after death. Sometimes, however, collections are sold en bloc. An allusion to one such example is the image which appears on the bottom of the title page of the copy of Pachad Yitzchak sold at auction.  

This stamp, which is not mentioned in the catalogue description, indicates that this volume was previously part of the collection of Professor Lelio Della Torre. Della Torre was an Italian Jewish scholar of the nineteenth century, and prolific author, who served as a professor of Talmud and rabbinics at the rabbinical seminary in Padua, where Shadal also taught, from 1829 until his death in 1871. During this time, he was an avid collector of Hebraica. David Kaufmann, himself a renowned scholar and bibliophile, sought to procure Delle Torre’s collection upon the latter’s death. Kaufmann not only acquired Della Torre’s collection, but also that of Marco Mortara, a student of Shadal, and later Chief Rabbi of Mantua. Mortara’s collection in turn contained the library of Samuel Della Volta, whose life, work and library we discussed in this blog.[9]  All of these collections are now housed in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Library in Budapest, to which Kaufmann bequeathed his library. This volume from Della Torre’s library somehow escaped the grasp of Kaufmann and traversed a different path, ultimately landing instead in the Gross Family Collection.[10]

The Author- Yitzchak Hayyim Cantarini (1644-1723)[11]

The Cantorini family were a prominent family of Kohanim who were also associated with the cantorial profession – hence the name Cantarini, or MinHaHazanim, as their Hebrew name reflects. Isaac Cantarini graduated from the University of Padua Medical School on February 11, 1664, one of many Cantarinis who earned their medical degrees from the university.[12] He authored a number of congratulatory poems in honor of Padua medical graduates.

After graduated from Padua, Cantarini went on to become a leading figure in Italian Jewry. He is considered one of the greatest Torah sages of his time, and his responsa have been published in both Yitzhak Lampronti’s Pachad Yitzhak and Samson Morpurgho’s Shemesh Tzedakah.[13] Cantarini wrote halakhic, historical, and homiletic works, as well as medical treatises in Latin. He was a poet, author, physician, and consummate orator; non-Jewish clergy and lay people attended his Shabbat sermons. In the year 5460 there were so many non-Jewish visitors in synagogue when he spoke that the regulars had to ascend to the women’s section (ezrat nashim) to pray.[14] He was a teacher of both Rabbi Moshe Hayyim Luzzatto (Ramchal),[15] as well as Rabbi Yitzchak Lampronti.

Non-Jews sought Cantarini’s sage advice as well, as evidenced by his correspondence with the Christian intellectual Theophilio Ungar.[16]

Cantarini was known by his initials יחכם. He was also quite adept at word play, and Shadal mentions but one small example of his utilizing the acronym of his name in the introduction to a kinah he composed upon the passing of Rabbi Yehuda Briel:[17]

Shadal takes a stab at solving the riddle.

A Fearful Story in Pachad Yitzchak

The following story appears in the pages of Pachad Yitzchak.[18] On the 17th of Shevat 5440 (שנת מ”ת as per Cantarini), a young man by the name of Hananel (AKA Graziadio) Levi[19] died in the Ghetto. His body was prepared for burial, but in the interim, a band of raucous students from the University of Padua stormed the Ghetto, kidnapped the body, and whisked it away to the anatomy room in preparation for dissection and medical student instruction. The Jewish community was in an uproar, riots ensued, and all political channels were pursued to secure the return of the body. When initial efforts failed, some members of the Jewish community on their own initiative attempted unsuccessfully to enter the anatomy lecture hall under cover of night to procure the body. Ultimately, after one week, negotiations succeeded, and the Jews were promised by the University that they needn’t worry about similar infractions in the future, and that the bodies of the Jewish community would no longer be forcefully taken for anatomical dissection. 

Anatomy, the Jews, and the University of Padua- An Undissected Body of Literature

This frightening incident recounted in Pachad Yitzchak is significant in its own right, but here we situate it as part of a much larger narrative of anatomy, the Jews and the University of Padua, which began over a century earlier.

Since the Middle Ages, individual Jewish students experienced numerous hurdles to the completion of their medical training, many rooted in discrimination and antisemitism. It was sometime around the 16thcentury, however, as the result of the synchroneity of two major historical developments, that Jews, as a group, first encountered a new major challenge to their medical education. This challenge, unlike any previous, did not originate with their non-Jewish colleagues or institutions, but was self-imposed by the Jews. Its consequences however were no less severe.

In the beginning of the fifteenth century, the University of Padua became the first European university to officially allow admission of Jewish students for medical training.[20] This policy led to a gradual influx of Jewish students and the creation for the first time in history of a significant Jewish presence and recognizable entity in a consistent fashion on a university campus.[21] This positive development for the broader Jewish community[22] unwittingly evoked unanticipated consequences.

Simultaneous with the expansion of the Jewish community in Padua, a young professor on campus was quietly revolutionizing the study of anatomy. Andreas Vesalius, who arrived in Padua in 1537, began to hold frequent public and private anatomical displays and approached the study of human anatomical dissection in a systematic fashion not previously attempted.[23] He would later come to be known as the founder of modern anatomy. With his innovations came the expansion of the anatomy course in Padua. Anatomy became identified from then on as the most essential course in medical training, and Vesalius, along with the University of Padua, were leading the revolution. 

The Ramifications of Vesalius’ Contribution for the Jewish Community

Vesalius’s work formalized and expanded the teaching of human anatomy at the University of Padua, as well as at medical schools throughout the world. With the expansion of the course came the necessity to supply more cadavers for the dissection tables. To procure cadavers for the anatomy course, the university turned to both the judicial system as well as its students and their communities. Executed criminals served as one steady source of cadavers, but this did not suffice. 

Grave robbing became commonplace in order to supplement the source of bodies. The practice was even encouraged by Vesalius and, though technically illegal, was unofficially tolerated by the government. A ducal document from 1549, during Vesalius’s tenure in Padua, condemns grave robbing,[24] but the ever-present fear and reality of the practice also affecting the Jewish cemeteries.[25] Indeed, one scholar has suggested that one of the historiated letters in the Fabrica specifically depicts a scene of the grave robbing of a body from a Jewish cemetery.[26]

The scene depicts putti (cherubic figures common in Renaissance art) removing a body from a grave. The “o” on the flag held by one of the putti was the symbol Jews were required to wear on their clothing and may reflect that this was a Jewish cemetery depicted.

The emphasis on anatomy begun by Vesalius would continue long into the future. Soon the university would further invest in this venture by building the first example in the world of a permanent anatomical theater, completed in 1595 (after the death of Vesalius), created for teaching anatomy through the dissection of corpses. The theater still stands to this day. 

The supply of cadavers was a perennial challenge for the medical school, and as a result, the university sought additional creative ways to address the issue. At some stage they instituted each community which sent medical students for training at the university would be required to provide a certain number of bodies for the dissection table.[27] The Jewish community, like others on campus, was expected to provide cadavers for the yearly anatomy course. However, the Jewish students and community took issue with this expectation. As elated as Jews were to walk the halls of a premier university for the first time in history, this privilege would not compel the abrogation of ancient Torah principles. Jewish law forbids the dissection of the human body after death absent mitigating circumstances yielding direct and immediate life-saving benefit from the procedure.[28] The prohibitions of desecrating and deriving benefit from the corpse, as well as the obligation to bury the body preclude routine dissection or autopsy. 

This refusal of the Jews to provide bodies sparked outcry from both the university and its students. The tension created from this conflict would play out over centuries. It is reflected, for example, in multiple recorded incidents of Padua medical students attempting to kidnap Jewish bodies to provide for the anatomy course.[29] Although we have no starting date, already in the earliest Vesalian and post-Vesalian days in Padua a compromise was struck with the Jewish community providing a hefty financial compensation to absolve them from the cadaver obligation. However, this was not a one-time incident, and the anatomy issue persisted, with frequent renegotiation of terms over the years and increased tension resurfacing periodically. Despite the Senate’s repeated pronouncements, frequently the graves in the Jewish cemetery were violated. It was not uncommon for gravely ill patients to be transported out of Padua for fear of being dissected upon their death.[30] The Jews were compelled to construct secret hiding places in the Ghetto where the bodies could be concealed until the funeral. Often, they buried the dead under the cover of night to avoid the dissection table.[31]

One would have expected to find halakhic responsa from 16th and 17th century Italy discussing this topic, but the extant halakhic literature is silent. The first cases discussing autopsy only surface in the late 18th century. We do however find reference to this ongoing issue in the Padua Jewish community archives as well as in the administrative records of the city and University of Padua. We share these documents here, many for the first time. While not enshrined in the extant responsa literature, this community response to anatomical dissection surely reflects the considered rabbinic opinion and halakhic analyses of the local Padua rabbinate, to whom the community deferred on such matters. Prominent rabbis who served the Padua community, or were connected with the medical students during the period under discussion include Maharam Padua (1482-1565), Rabbi Yehuda Arye de Modena (1571-1648) and Rabbi Yehuda Briel (1643-1722), Rabbi Dr. Isaac Hayyim Cantarini (1644-1723), Rabbi Dr. Isaac Lampronti (1679-1756), and Rabbi Dr. Shimshon Morpurgo (1681-174), among others, and it is more than likely that they were involved, to some extent, in the discussions of the Jewish community regarding the provision of bodies to the medical school. 

The Padua Jewish Community Archives[32] 1624-1626

The Jewish community archives of Padua contain at least five entries from 1624 to 1626, discussed below, which directly address the anatomy issue. Daniel Carpi, the scholar of Italian Jewish history who transcribed and edited the archives, noted that since the Jews first settled in Padua the medical students requested from the Jewish community to provide to the university a specific percentage of Jewish bodies for use in the teaching of anatomy. The Jews refused and arranged a compromise to pay an annual ransom to absolve them from this obligation. However, the tension related to this matter never ceased, be it because the university continually raised the fee, or because they sometimes would only suffice with the supply of actual corpses for dissection. 

It is in this context that a tragic incident occurred in 1624 which frightened even the non-Jewish community. A group of students, led by a young anatomy professor, interrupted a Jewish funeral procession and attempted to kidnap the body. The agreement discussed in the first archival entry below appears to come on the heels of this incident in the hopes of preventing similar occurrences in the future.

April 19, 1624 (entry #545) compromise with the students during the season/days of dissection

In that the spirit of God has enlightened the esteemed philosopher Senior Cesare Cremonin to declare freedom (from dissection) for our deceased, through the continued annual designated payment to the students of the College of Arts, generation after generation. As a result, they are obligated to allow us to properly bury our dead during the season of dissection, lest anyone fear. Any violators will be fined, and they have coordinated with us to obtain from the government permission for a required fine for all who violate this agreement in a way amenable and sufficient for our needs. The aforementioned master Cesare and Yehudah Katz have already spoken on this matter and have begun discussion regarding the amount the Jewish community is willing to pay for this privilege. Therefore, to facilitate successful completion of these dealings, which will result in a salvation for our community, we present a parti to designate two members of our community,[33] even though they are not members of the committee, to negotiate directly with the aforementioned esteemed philosopher a sum which will then be presented to the community and the committee for a majority vote. 

Subsequent entries reflect the lengthy process of negotiation, implementation, and enforcement. A follow up entry from July 15, 1624 (entry # 554) states that the negotiations had been completed and a sum had been agreed upon with the government representative. The request is to approve the amount and facilitate payment. 

 An entry in the Padua University Archives from December 28, 1624 (pictured below) sheds a slightly different light on the negotiations, which may not have been officially ratified by the university.[34]

Here the university confirms an earlier privilege granted to the Jewish community by which those Jews studying medicine were granted free access to the anatomical theater, and the corpses of deceased Jews were to be left untouched by anatomical dissections due to strong religious objections to the procedure. For this privilege the Jews paid an annual sum of 100 Venetian pounds. The entry concludes, “the final decision on this proposal was delayed until the arrival of the “perillustris domini syndic.”[35] Parenthetically, this reveals that the agreements between the Jewish community and the university regarding Jewish cadavers date back to an earlier time.

An entry in the Jewish community archives some three weeks later (Entry # 566- January 21, 1625) corroborates the delayed decision of the university. It reiterates the need to arrive at an agreement between the Jewish community and the university to prevent the taking of Jewish bodies. A maximum fee of ten Ducat is set. This may have been a counteroffer to the much higher request of 100 ducats and explains why a specific number is mentioned here but not previously. 

May 17, 1626 (Entry #616)
Yet another entry reveals a creative solution to prevent grave robbing during the semester of anatomy.

Regarding designating two community representatives with the power to negotiate with Aharon Altarini to allow temporary burial[36] on his property (for community members) during anatomy season. They are granted permission to spend as much as necessary to appease those who oppose this practice.

While grave robbing was typically done secretly under the cover of night, some claims for Jewish bodies were more brazen. The entry of November 15, 1626 (Entry # 627) mentions a disturbing incident (mikre bilti tahor) of the interference of the medical students of Padua with the Jewish funeral procession of the wife of Moshe Fano (miPano). The incident, reminiscent of earlier similar episodes, appears to have been minor and fortunately did not escalate. Nonetheless, it precipitated another plea to find a long-term compromise with the university regarding the anatomy issue.

The Decree of 1672[37]

 On November 23, 1672, there was a decree reaffirming the Jews’ exemption from providing bodies for dissection and warning those who attempt to disturb the funerals or graves of members of the Jewish community. This decree appears in Jewish and governmental documents discussed below. It is unknown to me if or whether a specific historical event precipitated this reaffirmation.

The Case of Graziadio Levi and the Riots of 1679 

Here we position the story from Cantarini’s Pachad Yitzchak, occurring over a century after Vesalius’ expansion of the field of human anatomy with its subsequent creation of major halakhic and social problems for the Jewish community and its medical students. The event described by Cantarini which transpired in 1679[38] may have been the tipping point which led to a more serious and sustained response from the university. Following the death of a young Jew, Graziadio Levi, armed students stormed the Jewish ghetto in great numbers, kidnapped the corpse and brought it to the medical school in preparation for dissection. Riots ensued[39] and much effort was marshaled to rescue the body and provide a proper Jewish burial. The incident led to the issuance of a ducal letter dated February 27 of that year which rued the incident and emphatically reaffirmed the commitment by the university to protect Jewish corpses.[40]  As we have discussed, the events surrounding that fateful night in 1679 were recorded for posterity by Isaac Hayyim Cantarini in his Pachad Yitzchak. In the context of his recounting of the Levi affair, Cantarini mentions the earlier decree from November 23, 1672, protecting the bodies of the community from dissection. 

A record of the full 1679 decree is found in the Padua Civic Archives,[41] a copy of which I procured and present below. The name of Graziadio Levi is explicitly mentioned in the decree.

Ciscato transcribed the full text of the decree.[42]

The Central Archives of the History of the Jewish People possesses yet another record of the anatomy decrees. This unadorned document is a certified “copia” of the two decrees of 1672 and 1679.[43]

This was perhaps intended for archival records as opposed to public display. 

University (Governmental) Decrees Regarding Jewish Cadavers from 1672 to 1721

The Central Archives of the History of the Jewish People possesses yet another document, even more remarkable, related to the Padua anatomy decrees.[44] It includes not only one or even two decrees, but appears to be a summary or record of multiple decrees on the subject of cadavers, anatomy training at the medical school of Padua, and the Jewish community, spanning from 1672-1721. It includes the decrees of November 23, 1672, and February 27, 1679, as well as others. Furthermore, the presentation of these decrees, as an attractive broadside with calligraphy and illustrated header, indicates that it was likely intended for public display.[45]

Conclusion

In an obscure work published in 1685, recently offered for auction, appears an account of a tragic event involving the Jewish community and the dissection of human cadavers at the University of Padua. We have placed this seemingly isolated incident into a much broader historical context, fleshing out this chapter with new supportive archival material. For hundreds of years, beginning in the late sixteenth century, the Jewish community negotiated with the university for the right not to have Jewish bodies used for the anatomy course. There is no question that the local rabbinate of Padua must have been involved in these discussions and negotiations, though to what extent remains unknown. Refusal of the Jewish community to provide cadavers for dissection created major problems for both the many Jewish medical students who attended the university as well as for the Jewish community at large. The Jewish community’s restrictive position was premised entirely on halakhic grounds and would not have been sustainable throughout this lengthy period without significant rabbinic backing and support. Thus, while the extant published literature on autopsy begins with the Noda biYehudah in the late eighteenth century, there is little doubt that the halakhic discourse on the topic of anatomical dissection began long before.[46]

[1] For general discussions on anatomy and autopsy in Jewish law, see Kalman Kahana, “The Dissection of the Dead in Jewish Law: A Bibliography,” (Hebrew) haMa’ayan 7 (Tevet, 5727), 45-72; Avraham Steinberg, HaRefuah KiHalakhah 6 (Jerusalem, 2017), 512-550; Zev Farber and Irving Greenberg, “Autopsies I: A Survey of the Debate,” in Zev Farber, ed., Halakhic Realities (Maggid Books: Jerusalem, 2017), 323-417.
[2] For a discussion of the historical context of this teshuva, see Edward Reichman, “A Tale of Two Stones,” in The Anatomy of Halakha (Maggid/OU/YU Presses, 2022),
[3] Cantarini and Lampronti share at least one thing in common. They are both graduates of the University of Padua Medical School. Indeed, the passage in Cantarini’s work upon which I draw relates directly to the medical training at the university.
[4] This incident we describe transpired years before the so-called Purim of Buda (or Padua).
[5] The description of the work is drawn from the William Gross Collection Item Description, which is reproduced in the Genazym catalogue. See also M. Heller, The Seventeenth Century Hebrew Book (Brill, 2011), 1077.
[6] On Gross and his collection, see Shalom Sabar, Emile Schrijver, and Falk Wiesemann, Windows on Jewish Worlds: Essays in Honor of William Gross, Collector of Judaica on the Occasion of his Eightieth Birthday (Zutphen: Walburg Pers bv., 2019).
[7] In Kedem’s recent auction of items from the Gross Family Collection (Auction 92, May 2, 2023) we find two items of medical historical interest, one less obvious than the other. The first item is Mikne Avram (Venice, 1523), a Hebrew grammar work written by Avraham de Balmes (Auction 92, Part 1, Lot 4). De Balmes was a physician and his medical diploma from Naples, from the auspicious year of 1492, is the oldest extant Jewish medical diploma, now housed in the Braginsky Collection. On this diploma see, Giancarlo Lacerenza and Vera Schwarz-Ricci, “Il Diploma di Dottorato in Medicina di Avraham ben Me’ir de Balmes (Naploli 1492),” Sefer Yuhasin 2(2014), 163-193. De Balmes was also a student of Yehuda Messer Leon, who has been mentioned numerous times on this blog. Less known is that De Balmes is considered to be the first physician in history to perform a human-to-human blood transfusion. His patient was none other than Pope Innocent VIII. De Balmes transfused blood from three young boys, each of whom was paid a ducat, and infused the blood into the veins of the Pope. According to different reports, the Pontiff “either died or recovered.” See H. M. Brown, “Beginning of Intravenous Medication,” Annals of Medical History 1:2 (1917). Shortly thereafter we find him working in the printing press of Daniel Bomberg.  De Balmes was an expert in Hebrew language and grammar and was sought after by Christians for instruction. Mikne Avramwas published posthumously. A scholarly edition of this work was recently published placing it in the context of contemporaneous linguistic scholarship. See Dror Ben Arye, Mikneh Avram by Avraham de Balmes (Hebrew) (Ramat Gan, Bar Ilan University Press, 2022).

The second item (Auction 92, Part 2, Lot 115) is the spectacular medical diploma of Moshe ben Gershon Tilche from the University of Padua Medical School (1687), which we discussed in Edward Reichman, “Jews, Medicine and the University of Padua: A Behind the Scenes Tour of a New Exhibit at the Jewish Museum of Padua (November 2, 2022- December 31, 2022),” Seforim Blog (https://seforimblog.com), December 1, 2022.
[8] For a lament about the sale and loss of access to great Jewish book collections, see E. Reichman, “The Lost Library by Dan Rabinowitz and the ‘Burial of Souls’ by Yehuda Leib Katznelson: Different Expressions of the Same Sentiment,” The Seforim Blog (April 3, 2019), available at https://seforimblog.com/2019/04/the-lost-library-by-dan-rabinowitz-and-the-burial-of-souls-by-yehuda-leib-katznelson-different-expressions-of-the-same-sentiment/.
[9] E. Reichman, “Samuel Vita Della Volta (1772-1853): An Underappreciated Bibliophile and his Medical ‘Diploma’tic Journey,” Seforim Blog (https://seforimblog.com), November 5, 2021.
[10] When Kaufmann transferred Mortara’s library from Italy to Budapest a number of volumes were also “lost” on the way. See Asher Salah, “La Biblioteca di Marco Mortara,” in Mauro Perani and Ermanno Finzi, eds., Nuovi Studi in Onore di Marco Mortara nel Secondo Centenario della Nascita (Firenze: Giuntina, 2016), 149-168, esp. 157.
[11] On Cantarini, see, Harry A. Savitz, Profiles of Erudite Jewish Physicians and Scholars (Spertus College of Judaica Press, 1973), 25-28; C. Facchini, “Icone in sinagoga: emblemi e imprese nella predicazione barocca di I.H. Cantarini”, in Materia Giudaica, 7 (2002), 124–144. I thank Professor David Ruderman for this last reference. Cantarini’s Jewish legal responsa were published in both Yitzḥak Lampronti’s Paḥad Yitzḥak and Samson Morpurgo’s Shemesh Tzedakah. For his correspondence with the Christian intellectual Theophilo Ungar, see Y. Blumenfeld, Otzar Nehmad 3 (Vienna, 1860), 128-50.  For the definitive work on the Cantarini family, see Marco Osimo, Narrazione della Strage Compiuta nel 1547 Contro gli Ebrei d’Asolo e Cenni Biografici della Famiglia Koen-Cantarini (Casale-Monferrato, 1875). For a comprehensive bibliography on Cantarini, see Asher Salah, La Republique des Lettres: Rabbins, Ecrivains et Medecins, Juifs en Italie au XVIIIe Siecle (Brill: Leiden, 2007), 120-124.
[12] Modena and Morpurgo, Medici, 118; see D. Ruderman, Jewish Though and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe (Yale University Press, 1995), 113-114, regarding families with multiple graduates from the university.
[13] On Morpurgo, See Edward Reichman, “The Illustrated Life of an Illustrious Renaissance Jew: Rabbi Dr. Shimshon Morpurgo (1681-1740),” Seforim Blog (https://seforimblog.com), June 22, 2021.
[14] S. Y. Glicksberg, Ha-Derashah Be-Yisrael (Mosad HaRav Kook, 5700), 203-20.
[15] Ramhal wrote a eulogy for Cantarini. See R. Moshe Hayim Luzzatto, Sefer Ha-Shirim, ed. Y. Zemora (Mosad HaRav Kook, 5710), 4.
[16] This correspondence was published by Shadal. See Y. Blumenfeld, Otzar Nehmad 3 (Vienna, 1860), 128-50.
[17] Ibid.
[18] 45a- 46a.
[19] I discovered a wedding poem written a number of years earlier Graziadio (Hananel) Levi, assumedly the same person, for the wedding of Saul Lustro and Allegra Barukh in 1676. See JTS Library B (NS)CR2.
[20] The university admitted non-Catholics, which included, for example, both Protestants and Jews. On the history of the Jews and the University of Padua, see Edward Reichman, “How Jews of Yesteryear Celebrated Graduation from Medical School: Congratulatory Poems for Jewish Medical Graduates in the 17th and 18th Centuries- An Unrecognized Genre,” Seforim Blog (https://seforimblog.com), May 29, 2022; idem, “Jews, Medicine and the University of Padua: A Behind the Scenes Tour of a New Exhibit at the Jewish Museum of Padua (November 2, 2022- December 31, 2022),” Seforim Blog (https://seforimblog.com), December 1, 2022.
[21] The University of Montpellier was sporadically frequented by Jews in the Middle Ages, but does not compare to Padua, where Jews attended in far greater numbers and had their own student organizations.
[22] To be sure there were residual discriminatory practices towards the Jews at the university. In addition, while the Italian Jewish community viewed this development in a positive light, the Jewish communities in Poland and Germany were more concerned about the possible assimilation of the Jewish students and dilution and diminution of Torah study.
[23] We discuss the relationship of Vesalius to the Jews in Edward Reichman, The Anatomy of Jewish Law (Maggid/OU/YU Press, 2022).
[24] See Ciscato, Gli Ebrei in Padova, p. 297. Later documents, as discussed below, address body snatching in the Jewish community specifically.
[25] Carpi, op. cit., parti 616, discusses a request to delay burial during the season of anatomy at the medical school to preclude grave robbing.
[26] Jeffrey Levine, “Jewish History in Vesalius’s Fabrica,” September 17, 2014 (https://jmlevinemd.com/jewish-history-vesalius-fabrica/).
[27] Paul Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004).
[28] See Steinberg, Avraham Steinberg, HaRefuah KiHalakhah 6 (Jerusalem, 2017), 512-550. I realize it may be anachronistic to mention these specific halakhic concerns or formulation, as these were developed later in history starting with Rabbi Yechezkel Landau. Nonetheless, they are halakhic prohibitions and obligations that apply to dissection.
[29] For more on the history of anatomy and graverobbing in rabbinic literature, see Edward Reichman, The Anatomy of Jewish Law (Maggid/OU/YU Press, 2022).
[30] This practice might have violated the prohibition of moving a goses, the halachic equivalent to a “dying person.” A similar question was posed to Rabbi Moshe Stern: Could one move a critically ill patient out of the hospital for fear that, upon his death, his body would be taken for autopsy and dissection without family consent? Rabbi Stern ruled in the negative. See his Be’er Moshe 8, nos. 239, 240, 241, 243. Likewise, Rabbi Moshe Lemberger was asked whether a Kohen physician could expose himself to tum’ah in order to establish cause of death and prevent a likely autopsy. Rabbi Lemberger argues that the Kohen must do so, as this case is akin to a met mitzvah (one who dies without family or friends to bury him). See Lemberger, Ateret Moshe, Yoreh De’ah 2:244.
[31] Hebraische Bibliographie 16 (1876), p. 37.
[32] See Daniel Carpi, Minutes Book of the Council of the Jewish Community of Padua Volume Two: 1603-1630 (Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1979). All references to the Padua Jewish community archives are from this source. I thank Pia Settimi for kindly bringing these documents to my attention. See also Ciscato, 209-212.
[33] According to Pia Settimi, one of these was Avraham Catalano, who would later coordinate the community response to the plague in Padua in 1631 and author the diary Olam Hafukh about the experience.
[34] ASUPd, ms. 655, f. 13r. I thank Francesco Piovan, Chief Archivist of the University of Padua Archives, for procuring a copy of this document for me.
[35] I am unsure to whom this refers.
[36] The idea of temporary burial was suggested and debated by some prominent rabbinic authorities in the nineteenth century regarding the situation in Cincinnati, OH where graverobbing was rampant. See Reichman, Anatomy of Jewish Law, op. cit., 223-226.
[37] See below for discussion of this decree.
[38] Cantarini lists the Hebrew date of the event as 17 Shevat, 5440. Standard Hebrew date converters place this in 1680, but the Italian decrees all clearly place the year at 1679.
[39] There were broader political issues at play during these riots which are discussed by Cantarini.
[40] See Ciscato, Gli Ebrei in Padova, pp. 299–300; Hebraische Bibliographie 16 (1876), 37. The latter reference discusses an unpublished manuscript by Chaim (Vital) Moshe ben Elisha Cantarini that details this incident. I have been unsuccessful in locating this manuscript. Cantarini, member of an illustrious Italian family comprising many rabbi/physicians, graduated from the medical school in Padua and apparently taught in a yeshiva there as well. As discussed in this essay, this incident is described in great detail by his relative Isaac Chaim Cantarini in the latter’s Pachad Yitzchak.
[41] Archivio civico antico Ducali volume 13 carta 3r. I thank Antonella Ortis for her assistance in procuring this document.
[42] Ciscato, 299. The date of this decree is February 27, 1679. He lists the location as Ducali, Reg. N. N. 123 c. I r.
[43] Ducale: Che sia conservata agli ebrei la facoltà di eseguire le sepolture secondo il loro rito (Emessa in seguito alle proteste degli ebrei contro gli studenti di Anatomia). IT-Pa-47-ovs, Padova – Jewish Community 1679. I thank Ariel Viterbo of the National Library of Israel for bringing this document, as well as the others from the Central Archives, to my attention, and I thank Yochai ben Ghedalia, Yael Franklin and Tami from the Central Archives of the History of the Jewish People for so kindly providing copies of these documents.
[44] 206 Pergamena interessantissima concernente le violazioni di cadaveri degli israeliti che si permettevano gli studenti col pretesto  degli studi anatomici ” =IT-Pa 126 ovs. This broadside does not appear to have been mentioned by Ciscato or Roth, though the decrees were known to them. The Central Archives has another catalogue entry on the dissection of Jewish cadavers in Padua- Sulle violazioni dei cadaveri degli israeliti che si permettevano gli studenti col pretesto degli studi anatomici.  Archivio della Comunità di Padova, n. 206. 8 frames. HM-5157. This is a (poor) microfilm copy of the above broadside, thought the Archives does not identify it as such.
[45] Though he had not seen this document before, Francesco Piovan, the Chief Archivist of the University of Padua remarked, “As far as I can tell from the image, it’s just a summary of laws and decrees. Such summaries (even in print) of private documents and legal norms were quite normal: they can be found, for example, in processual documents. The interesting fact is that your document looks like a kind of ‘manifesto’ (placard), written in beautiful handwriting, and perhaps to be displayed, hung in a frame or fixed on a wooden tablet. In short, it seems destined for public viewing.”
[46] As a postscript, despite the religious limitation of providing bodies for dissection, there was at least some evidence of the interest and fascination amongst the Jews with the new discipline of human anatomy. When Padua’s anatomical theater was first built in 1595, the benches were not only occupied by the registered Jewish medical students, there is record of Jews from the community (non-students) attending dissections. See Cynthia Klestinec, “A History of Anatomy Theaters in Sixteenth Century Padua,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 59:3 (2004), n. 74. Furthermore, years after the publication of Pachad Yitzchak, when a young Abraham Levi was visiting Padua on his travels, his guide, our very same Rabbi Dr. Isaac Cantarini, as part of showcasing the highlights of the community, included a visit to an anatomy lesson where a cadaver was dissected. Shmuel Feiner, The Jewish Eighteenth Century: A Jewish Biography, 1700-1750 (Indiana University Press, 2020), 242.



From Print to Pixel: Digital Editions of the Talmud Bavli

From Print to Pixel: Digital Editions of the Talmud Bavli

Ezra Brand

Ezra Brand is an independent researcher who resides in Tel Aviv. He has an MA from Revel Graduate School at Yeshiva University in Medieval Jewish History, and has studied in the Talmud Department of Bar-Ilan University. He has contributed a number of times previously to the Seforim Blog (tag), and a selection of his research can be found at his Substack blog. His most recent major work is a “Guide to Online Resources for Scholarly Jewish Study and Research”. He is currently working on an overview of names and naming in early Jewish literature. He can be reached at ezrabrand@gmail.com; any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.

Intro – the tzurat hadaf[1]

It is a surprising fact that despite incredible advancements in technology, the layout of the Talmud has remained the same for centuries. The Bomberg edition from the 16th century, a groundbreaking achievement, still sets the standard. Yoel Finkelman writes in his recent, impressive overview of the layout of the printed Talmudic page:[2] “What is remarkable about the Gemara’s mise-en-page (the term for tzurat ha-daf in the academy) is not its invention, but its staying power as the normative way to produce texts of the Talmud.”[3] Finkelman then delves into the “history of the tzurat ha-daf of the Gemara.”

For an illustration of the lengths to which traditional publishers have gone to preserve the traditional tzurat hadaf, even in the 21st century, see Elli Fischer and Shai Secunda’s 2012 review article of the then-just-released “Artscroll Digital Library Schottenstein Talmud (English) App”, for the iPad:[4]

Since this elucidation is significantly longer than (and, in fact, already includes the actual text of) the Hebrew/Aramaic original, each Vilna page ends up being reproduced two to five times for every English page (a grey bar shows the reader which segment of the Vilna corresponds to the facing elucidation). This decision, both brilliant and perverse, added well over 10,000 pages, bringing the entire series to 73 volumes. The perversity of adding 10,000 apparently superfluous pages is obvious, but the brilliance of the decision was that it always kept the “original” page before the reader.

The digital daf

At the outset, Finkelman (in the above-mentioned article) highlights that the material manifestation of the written word can be broadly attributed to three factors: 1) The technological and material resources that are utilized to create and disseminate texts, 2) The economic and market forces that influence the demand for knowledge and education, and 3) The cultural perceptions of the role and function of language.[5] The ongoing decline in printing costs during the 20th and 21st centuries, coupled with the increasing accessibility of education, have led to significant advancements in all these factors.[6]

The advent of the internet has opened up entirely new avenues for publishing and designing the daf. Furthermore, for the very first time, readers have the opportunity to customize their reading experience, tailoring it to their unique preferences.

One popular author writes:[7]

“After more than a thousand years as the world’s most important form of written record, the book as we know it faces an unknown future. Just as paper superseded parchment, movable type put scribes out of a job, and the codex, or paged book, overtook the papyrus scroll, so computers and electronic books threaten the very existence of the physical book.”

However, one could plausibly say that the claim of the death of books has been greatly exaggerated. Physical books continue to be highly popular, and their sale has only continued to grow. And Orthodox Jews have yet an additional incentive to continue to buy physical books, as they can’t use ebooks on Shabbat and Chag. Regardless, there’s no question that we are in the middle of a decades-long revolution in how we have the ability to consume text, if one so chooses.

Despite the vast technological advancements that have revolutionized publishing, the digital daf is a peculiar return to pre-printing press methods in at least one regard: nowadays, the Talmud can be studied in isolation, without the surrounding commentaries. Most of the layouts that will be examined below diverge from the traditional tzurat hadaf that has been preserved for more than four centuries. In this way, they resemble the medieval Talmudic manuscripts, which include only the Talmud itself (sometimes accompanied by Rashi’s commentary).[8]

Let’s turn our attention to another aspect that Finkelman highlights: the groundbreaking nature of implementing a universal pagination system. Bomberg himself astutely utilized pagination and indexing as a key selling point.[9] Similarly, one of the numerous revolutionary features of digital editions such as Sefaria and Al-HaTorah is the capacity to reference not only the daf and amud, but also the section number. (I’ll explain the specific details of this later in this piece.) One can cite using section number, and hyperlink directly to that section. Every amud has around 10-15 sections, so this narrowing down is considerable. Even without reference to a specific section, checking a reference is far easier in a digital edition: with a simple “control + f”, one can search for a word from the quote. Gone are the frustrating days of scanning a giant wall of text in an amud to find a quote.

What will be discussed in this review

My focus here will be on modern editions that are available open-access digitally, online.[10] Therefore, I won’t review modern print editions.[11] I will also not review digital editions that, in my opinion, are inferior in every way to the editions discussed here.[12] And I won’t discuss editions targeted towards beginner students.[13]

As one of the resources exclusively pertains to Kiddushin (Katz’s Mahberot Menahmiyot), my sample will be from Tractate Kiddushin, specifically Kid. 2b, which solely features the Gemara without the Mishnah. Images will only be of Gemara, Rashi, and Tosafot, meaning that, I will exclude the surrounding glosses (Mesoret HaShas, etc). I will not be discussing supplementary texts and commentaries, and hyperlinks to outside sources that each has.[14] I will be discussing different customization and viewing options.

Another caveat: This piece is focused on layout, and so it will not discuss the textual accuracy of the editions.[15]

An interesting element of modern editions is the typography; specifically the choices of font. However, this will not be discussed here.[16]

Outline

Intro – the tzurat hadaf 1
The digital daf 2
What will be discussed in this review 4
Outline 5
Tzurat hadaf AND customizable 6
Mercava 6
Shitufta 7
Static PDF 9
Mahberot Menahmiyot (=MM) 9
Gemara Sedura HaMeir 10
Talmud HaIgud – Society for the Interpretation of the Talmud (האיגוד לפרשנות התלמוד) 12
Digital, not customizable 14
Wikisource 14
Pirkei Talmud Me’utzavim – R’ Dan Be’eri 15
Talmud Or Meir 18
Dicta 19
Digital and customizable 20
Sefaria 20
Al-Hatorah 22
Speculation on the future 24
Concluding Thought 27

Tzurat hadaf AND customizable

Mercava

At present, Mercava contains only Tractate Berachot. It includes a menu option that enables users to toggle punctuation and nikud. It is also worth noting that Mercava is presently in beta version, as stated explicitly by the page header. Many of the menu options are grayed out or non-functional, resulting in a suboptimal user experience. Often, it seems that two features cannot be employed simultaneously, without any discernible explanation.

Shitufta

Quite basic. It has section splits, which are the same as those of Sefaria and Al-Hatorah.[17] Like them, it enables linking to a specific section. However, it diverges from the section numbering in Sefaria and Al-Hatorah by commencing from 0 instead of 1, resulting in all section numbers in Shitufta being one less from those of Sefaria and Al-Hatorah.

Static PDF

Mahberot Menahmiyot (=MM)[18]

By Prof. Menachem Katz.

Image of Talmud text, from p. 3, line # 7:

MM is a static PDF. It divides every sentence into a separate line, as opposed to splitting into larger blocks of sections. The lines are numbered. It offers complete punctuation, without nikud.[19] MM displays citations for biblical verses, Mishnah, and Tosefta, as well as additional features discussed in the introduction.

Gemara Sedura HaMeir [20]

With punctuation, and split by line.

Talmud HaIgud – Society for the Interpretation of the Talmud (האיגוד לפרשנות התלמוד) [21]

The text is split into lines and numbered, similar to MM. Due to the nature of the work, the primary purpose of the Talmudic text in the Talmud HaIgud is not for its own sake, but to serve as a basis for subsequent commentary.

Digital, not customizable

Wikisource[22]

The crowd-sourced Wikisource is a sister-project of Wikipedia. It is replete with hyperlinks to primary sources, and to external secondary sources. Like MM, the text contains punctuation but not nikud. Instead of using numbered sections (like Sefaria and Al-Hatorah) or lines (like MM), the text is divided into unnumbered paragraphs. Moreover, these paragraphs are longer than those found in Sefaria and Al-Hatorah.

Pirkei Talmud Me’utzavim – R’ Dan Be’eri[23] [24]

Available as downloaded Word docs, from the Da’at website, for a few chapters. I consider this to be not customizable.[25] Has nikud, punctuation, and is split into numbered lines.

Talmud Or Meir

Has nikud, punctuation, and is split into numbered lines. While there are technically some customization options available, they are limited in scope.[26]

Dicta

Dicta has a suite of powerful tools, which combined could make for an incredible studying experience. These include automated tools for nikud and for Biblical sources.[27] Unfortunately, at this time it appears that the only way to view a passage of Talmud is via search results. There, a link is offered to the page in Sefaria. There is a section called Library, with powerful tools for reading rabbinic works, but only 300 works are currently offered there.[28]

Here’s a screenshot, of what appears after searching the first words of Kidushin 2b (“אי נמי שדות בכסף יקנו”), opening the first result, and scrolling to 2b:

Digital and customizable

Sefaria[29]

Image of customization options:

Splits into numbered sections. In our example, there are 15 sections. The default Hebrew doesn’t split these into paragraphs, but there is an option to split into paragraphs. Many tractates have nikud, some have punctuation. Our example page doesn’t have punctuation, even though it shows that option. Sefaria gives the option to remove nikud. As mentioned, as with Shitufta and Al-Hatorah, one can hyperlink to a specific section.

Al-Hatorah[30]

The section numbers in circles on the right side of the page are hyperlinked, which is a convenient feature. In the example page we are looking at, there is no nikud, unlike Sefaria. However, there is a period after each section, which provides a slight advantage over Sefaria‘s lack of punctuation, as it helps to break up the passages when viewing with no section breaks.

While Al-Hatorah also includes hyperlinked sections, it does not explicitly label which section is which, unlike Sefaria. Therefore, finding a specific section requires trial and error. As with Shitufta and Sefaria, it is possible to hyperlink to a particular section in Al-Hatorah.

One notable difference is that Al-Hatorah does not expand acronyms, as Sefaria does. For instance, מ“ט is not expanded to מאי טעמא, and אב“א is not expanded to איבעית אימא.

Speculation on the future

Secunda and Fischer, in the faraway land of 2012 (cited at the beginning of this piece), envision a future Talmud app:

“First of all, it would be a virtually borderless intertextual web. Talmudic passages that shed light upon one another would be linked in intricate overlapping networks. Passages citing earlier texts—biblical verses, the Mishnah, other rabbinic texts, the apocrypha—would be hyperlinked to the collection in which the cited text originally appears. Passages would also link to later commentaries, super-commentaries, relevant excerpts from legal codes and responsa, manuscript variants, monographs, homiletic interpretations, and, indeed, translations and elucidations. Discussions of Akkadian medicine would call forth images of Babylonian tablets. People, places, historical events, concepts, practices, and all sorts of other realia mentioned in the text would link to relevant explanatory pages, pictures, recordings, and video clips. […] [T]wo new Jewish text websites, themercava.com and sefaria.org, offer promising platforms for crowd-sourced translation, commentary, and discussion of the Bavli and other Jewish texts. […]”[31]

While some aspects of this idealistic vision have been realized, many others have not, at least not yet. Moreover, it remains unclear whether a more crowdsourced and social-media-oriented approach, (suggested in an un-cited part of Secunda and Fischer’s article), would even be desirable. In retrospect, the year 2012 was marked by somewhat utopian thinking, with Wikipedia and Facebook having recently achieved great success in spreading knowledge and connecting people worldwide. It seemed only natural to aspire to something similar in the realm of literature. However, today, with greater awareness of the unpredictable dynamics of such systems (such as misinformation), it is far from clear that such a goal is attainable or even desirable.

In my view, Sefaria, Al-Hatorah, and Dicta are the most promising candidates for realizing the immersive and highly hyperlinked experience envisioned by Fischer and Secunda. Once this is achieved, the resulting research tools are likely to be extremely powerful as well. However, the idea of leveraging comparative sources, as described by the authors, still seems quite far off, particularly with the current set of available tools.

Regarding the social and chavruta aspect discussed by Fischer and Secunda, a new possibility has emerged that was not even envisioned a year ago: an artificial intelligence-powered chavruta. I recently experimented with ChatGPT by providing it with the first paragraph of Kidushin 2b.[32]

As usual, ChatGPT demonstrated impressive coherence and confidence. However, it provided laughably incorrect interpretations. In fact, in some cases, it provided interpretations that were the exact opposite of the correct one.

I conducted a comparable test by inputting a paragraph of Ramban’s commentary on that sugya, requesting an explanation from ChatGPT. To my surprise, ChatGPT provided a reasonably good rephrasing in English. Although some of it was correct and some of it was incorrect, even the incorrect part was not entirely off. However, ChatGPT still requires further yeshiva study before being able to serve as a teacher.[33]

Given the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence and large language models, it appears highly likely that AI will continue to improve its ability to interpret the Talmud, along with all other sources, including digitized manuscripts. It may not be long before we turn to AI to obtain the ultimate p’shat in the Talmud.[34] Furthermore, there is a possibility that AI could eventually bring comparative sources to bear, as previously mentioned.

To update the speculative future envisioned by Fischer and Secunda, my ideal Talmud study experience would be an app with a GPT plug-in acting as a virtual chavruta/Rebbe, to interpret text and answer questions. In fact, something like this is already being tested by Khan Academy.[35]

With current tools, it will even be possible to create a virtual shiur.[36] In the future, it could even be live and interactive, happening in real time.

Another interesting idea that is ripe to be explored is visualization of the Talmudic text. This was put to the test by Yael Jaffe, in a 2015 Columbia dissertation.[37] Jaffe writes in her abstract (bolding is mine):

“This study investigates the effect of access to a visual outline of the text structure of a Talmudic passage on comprehension of that passage. A system for defining the text structure of Talmudic passages was designed by merging and simplifying earlier text structure systems described for Talmudic passages, following principles taken from research on text structure. Comprehension of two passages were compared for students who did traditional reading of a Talmudic passage (the passages had punctuation added, and a list of difficult words and their meanings was appended) (the control condition), and students who read the passage with these same materials as well as with an outline of the text structure of that passage (the experimental condition) […]

The results provide evidence that awareness of the text structure of a Talmudic passage helps readers when the passage is concrete and somewhat well organized. ”[38]

It is interesting to note that Jaffe’s control group had punctuation added. There is, in fact, no good reason why the punctuation should not be added to all the standard Vilna-Romm editions. This is something that I did as a matter of course in my gemaras in my yeshiva days, and I presume that I was not the only one.[39]

Concluding Thought

Will there ever be a single Talmud application to rule them all, similar to how the Bomberg layout remained the standard for 500 years, and continues to do so? Such a scenario is improbable and perhaps even unwanted in today’s rapidly changing and complex digital landscape. It would suggest a lack of progress. We may have to wait for the arrival of the Messiah or, at the very least, the AI singularity to provide the ultimate Talmud super-app.

[1] This piece was written as part of preparation for the workshop “Editions of Classical Jewish Literature in the Digital Era”, to be held at University of Haifa, June 18-20, 2023, at which I’ll be presenting. I want to express my gratitude to Menachem Katz for his efforts in organizing that workshop, and for inviting me to speak there. I’d also like to thank Eliezer Brodt for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this piece. I would also like to thank my father, my brother, and S. Licht for reviewing, making suggestions, and helping clarify in conversation some of the ideas discussed.
[2]  Finkelman, ”From Bomberg to the Beit Midrash: A Cultural and Material History of Talmudic Page Layout”, Tradition (Winter 2023), Issue 55.1, p. 14. I’d like to thank Eliezer Brodt for bringing this article to my attention.
[3] Immediately before, he writes (my bolding): “[T]he famous and ubiquitous tzurat ha-daf (page layout) of the Gemara was never exclusively by Talmudists for Talmudists. It was a common practice for producing non-Jewish European glossed texts in manuscript and later print from the high middle-ages though the sixteenth century. Some copyists and later printers of the Gemara—whether those printers were Jews or not—adopted it from contemporary Christian textual production.” This point is also made by Michele Chesner, in her interview on the Seforim Chatter podcast: “With Michelle Chesner discussing old books, Seforim, and more” (April 29, 2020).
[4] “Brave New Bavli: Talmud in the Age of the iPad”, Jewish Review of Books (Fall 2012). Archived here.
[5] Finkelman, pp. 16-17.
[6] Relatedly, I have heard the theory a few times from Prof. Meir Bar-Ilan that the writing down of the Talmud may have occurred due to the spread of the Chinese invention of paper to the West in the early medieval period. For some work on when the Mishnah and Talmud were first written, with previous scholarship cited, see: Yaakov Elman, “Orality and the Redaction of the Babylonian Talmud”, Oral Tradition, 14/1 (1999): 52-99 ; Shamma Friedman, “The Transmission of the Talmud and the Computer Age”, in Sharon Liberman Mintz and Gabriel M. Goldstein, eds., Printing the Talmud: From Bomberg to Schottenstein (2005), pp. 143-154 (esp. pp. 146-148) ;

יעקב זוסמן, “‘תורה שבעל פה‘ פשוטה כמשמעה: כוחו של קוצו של יו“ד“, מחקרי תלמוד ג, א (תשס“ה), עמ‘ 209-384 (נדפס שוב כספר ב– 2019) ; נחמן דנציג, “מתלמוד על פה לתלמוד בכתב: על דרך מסירת התלמוד הבבלי ולימודו בימי הביניים“, בר–אילן ל–לא (תשס“ו), עמ‘ 49-112.

[7] Keith Houston, The Book: A Cover-to-Cover Exploration of the Most Powerful Object of Our Time (2016), introduction (available via Amazon Kindle sample). He adds in a footnote: “It is worth introducing “codex” as a technical term: it means specifically a paged book, as opposed to a papyrus scroll, clay tablet, or any of the myriad other forms the book has taken over the millennia.”
[8] Recently pointed out by Ari Zivotofsky in a Seforim Blog post (“The Longest Masechta is …”, March 31, 2023): “[I]t is worth noting that ambiguity regarding sizes of masechtot only arose when commentaries began to be put on the same page as the text of the gemara. In other words, until the era of the printing press there was no ambiguity as to which masechta was the longest.” See also Finkelman, pp. 18-19 ; Friedman, “Printing”, p. 148. The early Soncino editions also only contained the Gemara and Rashi, see Finkelman, pp. 22-24. And see the recent statement of Yehuda Galinsky (bolding is mine): “The end of the thirteenth century witnessed a discernable growth in the composition of glossed works in Ashkenaz. It was from this time onwards that authors penned influential talmudic and halakhic works from France and Germany with the intention that they be accompanied by a supplementary gloss, which was to be copied alongside the text […] Instead, we find stand-alone commentaries that were copied separately from the text it was interpreting. In contrast to the well-known layout of the printed Talmud page, the writings of Rashi and Tosafot were written and usually copied as stand-alone commentaries and not as actual glosses to be copied on the same page.” (Judah Galinsky, “The Original Layout of the Semak”, Diné Israel, Volume 37 (2023), pp. 1*-26*, pp. 1-2.) A commenter to Zivotofsky’s blogpost pointed out that there is a print edition that contains only the Talmud (with supplementary indexes). It was printed 25 years ago. Here’s bibliographic info according to the National Library of Israel catalog entry:

תלמוד בבלי: כולל כל המשנה והמסכתות הקטנות : נערכו, סודרו והודפסו מחדש בכרך אחד, עם חלוקה לפסקאות, איזכורים מהמקרא, מלווים בשבעה מפתחות בסגנון אנציקלופדי, כולל מפתח ערכים אלפבתי, בעריכת צבי ה‘ פרייזלר … הרב שמואל הבלין … הרב חנוך הבלין (1998).

As an aside, Finkelman states (p. 18) that “The earliest [Talmudic manuscripts] are Geniza fragments from the ninth century”. However, see Friedman, pp. 147-148, that the earliest Talmudic manuscript is a scroll that can be dated to the 7th century.
[9] Finkelman, pp. 25-28. See also the interesting point by Finkelman, p. 41 (based on Jordan Penkower), that Bomberg was also the one to establish the standard method of citation for Tanach in the Jewish world: “In his first Mikraot Gedolot, Bomberg made a significant addition by adding chapter numbers and (in the second edition) verse numbers, features with little Jewish precedent which were based on thirteenth-century Catholic developments.”
[10] See my recent “Guide to Online Resources for Scholarly Jewish Study and Research – 2022”, where I discuss many of the resources discussed in this piece with more breadth. There I also discuss many of the resources excluded from this review for the reasons enumerated further. Bar-Ilan Responsa Project’s Talmud is online, but is not open-access. Bar-Ilan Responsa Project’s Talmud is linked from Yeshiva.org.il’s Talmud pages, top right of page. (See on Yeshiva.org.il in a later footnote.) That version of Bar-Ilan Responsa Project’s Talmud has punctuation, but no nikud, and is not split into sections/paragraphs, and is inferior in every way than the editions discussed here.

For the same reason (not open-access), I have not reviewed any editions on Otzar HaHochma, or other digital libraries which require a subscription.
[11] Such as Vagshal, Oz VeHadar, Shas Vilna HeChadash, Gemara Sedura. See image here of layout of Gemara Sedura. (See Shimon Steinmetz’s interesting piece here on self-censorship in the Vagshal edition: “Vagshal’s revision of the history of the Vilna Talmud, or, One of the most egregious examples of censorship I have ever seen”.) The best completely static tzurat hadaf edition that I could find available online as open-access is the Moznaim edition, available at Daf-yomi and HebrewBooks. It is a PDF, simply re-typeset. There are also printed editions with punctuation, such as Steinsaltz-Koren; Oz VeHadar; and Tuvia’s. See these news articles from 2016 on Oz VeHadar’s (ongoing?) Talmud edition with nikud and punctuation: here and here. And see the National Library of Israel (=NLI) catalog entry here. See also the NLI catalog entry on Yosef Amar’s 1980 Talmud edition (17 vols.) with nikud based on Yemenite pronunciation, here. And see NLI catalog entries of Koren’s (ongoing?) Talmud edition with nikud and punctuation: Sanhedrin (2014) ; Bava Metzia (2015) ; Sukkah (2016) ; Bava Batra (2017) ; Kidushin (2018).
[12] So I won’t discuss the following: Kodesh.snunit ; Mechon Mamre ; Daf-yomi.com > “Text”. Daf-yomi.com’s “Chavruta commentary” and “tzurat hadaf” are indeed worthwhile. See previous note on Daf-yomi.com’s Moznaim tzurat hadaf edition. The Friedberg Project website Hachi Garsinan technically has a few digital editions of Talmud on their website, but they are all for the purpose of presenting the manuscript variants. So I won’t be reviewing that, since this piece is focused on layout and UX/UI, and in that regard, the edition is sub-par. (Again, this is not necessarily a critique, as this isn’t the point of those editions.) As I say further, in this piece I will not discuss the editions’ textual accuracy. For this reason, I also won’t discuss The Academy of the Hebrew Language’s Ma’agarim edition. Tashma.jewishoffice.co.il’s Talmud shows promise, but for now seems to be inferior in every way than the editions discussed here. The website Yeshiva.org.il (פרשני – ויקישיבה) has the Chavruta commentary of the Talmud. However, as mentioned, the original PDFs of Chavruta commentary are available on the Daf-yomi.com website, so in my opinion it’s clearly best to use that. There’s no advantage to the text version (except for the ability to copy-paste). Yeshiva.org.il’s Chavruta is fully editable, wiki-style. But I see that as a negative, as you don’t know what you’ll be getting.
[13] Such as Gemara Brura and The People’s Talmud. See more at R’ Josh Waxman’s blogpost, “Some excellent Talmud projects out there” (March 5, 2020).
[14] For example, Sefaria and Al-Hatorah have the Steinsaltz translation and commentary, and Wikisource has extensive links to other resources.
[15] Many of the textual elements of the Vilna-Romm edition have been superseded by better editions (though many are still incomplete). Some examples:

תלמוד: דקדוקי סופרים (השלם); הכי גרסינן

רש“י: מהדורות פרופ‘ אהרן אהרנד

תוספות ; תוספות ישנים; רבינו חננאל : מהדורות רב קוק

עין משפט: עינים למשפט של ר‘ יצחק אריאלי (כל שבעה כרכים זמינים בהיברובוקס, לדוגמא, כאן)

מסורת הש“ס: דקדוקי סופרים השלם; תלמוד האיגוד

רי“ף: מהדורת שבט

[16] For now, see Yakov Mayer in his recent ground-breaking book on the first edition of Talmud Yerushalmi (which was also printed by Bomberg’s press), who cites previous studies on typefaces used by Bomberg: Yakov Z. Mayer, Editio Princeps: The 1523 Venice Edition of the Palestinian Talmud and the Beginning of Hebrew Printing (2022, Hebrew).

See also the recent book by Simon Garfield, Just My Type: A Book About Fonts (2011 ) for a fascinating, well-written, popular overview of typesetting and fonts. On medieval handwriting styles of Hebrew, see the monumental 3-volume series, under Malachi Beit-Aryeh’s editorship (each area is a different volume):

מפעל הפליאוגראפיה העברית, אסופות כתבים עבריים מימי–הביניים (1987-2017)

On second temple era styles, see the various works by Ada Yardeni, especially:

עדה ירדני‘ ספר הכתב העברי: תולדות, יסודות, סגנונות, עיצוב (1991).

[17] It is unclear to me who first made these section splits. It’s a question I’d be quite interested in knowing the answer to.
[18] Links to all of parts of MM:

  1. אקדמות למהדורה של התלמוד הבבלי – מסכת קידושין – מחברות מנחמיות

  2. מסכת קידושין ב ע“א – יד ע“ב

  3. מסכת קידושין יד ע“ב – כה ע“ב

  4. מסכת קידושין כה ע“ב – כט ע“א

  5. מסכת קידושין כט ע“א – מא ע“א

  6. מסכת קידושין מא ע“א – נח ע“ב

  7. מסכת קידושין נח ע“ב – סט ע“א

  8. מסכת קידושין סט ע“א – פב ע“ב

Compare Katz’s similar work on Yerushalmi (which also includes textual variant apparatus, and short commentary, unlike his work on Bavli), available at his Academia.edu site: “פסחן ומצתן של נשים Women on Passover and Matzah”.
[19] I personally prefer this style (punctuation, without nikud). See my discussion later.
[20] Tractate Sukka, p. 2 (ב). Not to be confused with Gemara Sedura (no HaMeir). Currently available online: Tractate Sukka (2013, here) and Tractate Avoda Zara (2015, here). See more on the project here.
[21] From the latest volume available online:

נתנאל בעדני, סנהדרין פרק חמישי (תשע“ב), עמ‘ 4.

See more on the project here.
[22] See more on the project here.
[23] See also some of R’ Be’eri’s other editions, available on Da’at website, here and here. On R’ Be’eri, see the Hebrew Wikipedia entry on him: דן בארי – ויקיפדיה
[24] Screenshot of downloaded Word document.
[25] To explain: Even though everything in the Word doc can be customized, this isn’t built into the website. Any of the editions in this “Digital” section can be pasted into a Word document and customized.
[26] Notably, the text itself is actually an image, which makes copying it impossible.
[27] Dicta was started by Prof. Moshe Koppel of Bar-Ilan University. He has contributed to Seforim Blog.
[28] As of 15-Apr-23.
[29] See more on the project here.
[30] See more on the project here.
[31] Compare also, at length, Friedman, “Printing”, pp. 150-154 ; Shai Secunda, “Resources for the Critical Study of Rabbinic Literature in the Twenty-First Century” in Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum (CRINT) 16, Christine Hayes (ed.), (2022), pp. 621-632.
[32] On 15-Apr-23, at https://chat.openai.com/.
[33] I should point out that I did not have access to GPT-4, which is the latest version of GPT. So I could not test whether GPT-4 is more capable at interpreting Talmud. For a discussion of some sources of the Yeshivish dialect of English possibly used as datasets for training ChatGPT-4, see my “From the Shtetl to the Chatbot: Some contemporary sources of Yeshivish content, in light of ChatGPT-4”.
[34] For some preliminary algorithmic research on the Talmud, see, for example, Satlow M., Sperling M. (2017). “Naming Rabbis: A Digital List”; Satlow M., Sperling M. (2020), “The Rabbinic Citation Network”; Satlow M., Sperling M. (2020). “The Rabbinic citation network”, AJS Review ; Zhitomirsky-Geffet M., Prebor G. (2019), “SageBook: toward a cross-generational social network for the Jewish sages’ prosopography”, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(3), pp. 676–695 ; “A graph database of scholastic relationships in the Babylonian Talmud”, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, Volume 36, Issue Supplement_2, October 2021, Pages ii277–ii289, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqab015, Published: 22 February 2021. See also Shira Shmidman, “Self-Evident Questions and Their Role in Talmudic Dialectic”, AJS Review (2023), p. 128: “Recently, I analyzed talmudic questions (that open with the phrase baʿei or beʿah minei) and discovered that by charting the questions by the generation in which they were asked, one can identify chronological trends of question asking in the Babylonian Talmud.”
[35] See Sal Khan, “Harnessing GPT-4 so that all students benefit. A nonprofit approach for equal access”, Khan Academy Blog (March 14, 2023). See especially this description: “Khanmigo [=the AI tool] engages students in back-and-forth conversation peppered with questions. It’s like a virtual Socrates, guiding students through their educational journey. Like any great tutor, Khanmigo encourages productive struggle in a supportive and engaging way.” For fun, I asked ChatGPT for a clever name for an AI chavruta/Rebbe. It gave me ten options. One of them is a great one (ChavrutAI), while three of them were hilarious ( AIvrumi; AIsh Torah; RoboRabbi). RoboRabbi could provide many of the intellectual aspects of being a rabbi: psak, eitza, questions in learning, and divrei torah.
[36] With tools like ChatGPT (content), ElevenAI (voice), D-ID (video), one can create any style of shiur. See my “Heimish High-Tech: Video in Yeshivish dialect using Generative artificial intelligence”. For training sources for the Yeshivish dialect, see my article: “From the Shtetl to the Chatbot: Some contemporary sources of Yeshivish content, in light of ChatGPT-4”.
[37] Jaffe, The Relevance of Text Structure Strategy Instruction for Talmud Study: The Effects of Reading a Talmudic Passage with a Road-Map of its Text Structure (2015). See especially ibid. Appendix E (pp. 103-104).
[38] On visualizations, see also this article, and the bibliography cited there:

יעקב אמיד, “עיצוב ייצוגים גרפיים של דיון תלמודי: תחום דעת מתחדש בהכשרת מורים להוראת תלמוד“

See also the lengthy intro of Menachem Katz to his Mahberot Menahmiyot (discussed earlier), with relevant bibliography. One good existing resource for outlines and charts for Talmud is Daf Yomi Advancement Forum – Kollel Iyun HaDaf. See Josh Waxman, “Some excellent Talmud projects out there” (cited earlier), #2. A fascinating related project is that of R’ Dr. Michael Avraham on mapping out the logic of the Talmudic sugya, using the tools and notation of modern logic. See his massive series Studies in Talmudic Logic, currently at 15 volumes. Note the surprising claim made in the abstract of vol. 14 of the series (Andrew Schumann, ed., Philosophy and History of Talmudic Logic, bolding is mine): “The Talmud introduces a specific logical hermeneutics, completely different from the Ancient Greek logic. This hermeneutics first appeared within the Babylonian legal tradition established by the Sumerians and Akkadians to interpret the first legal codes in the world and to deduce trial decisions from the codes by logical inference rules. The purpose of this book is (i) to examine the Talmudic hermeneutics from the point of view of its meaning for contemporary philosophy and logic as well as (ii) to evaluate the genesis of Talmudic hermeneutics which began with the Sumerian/Akkadian legal tradition. The logical hermeneutics of the Talmud is a part of the Oral Torah that was well expressed by the Tannaim, the first Judaic commentators of the Bible, for inferring Judaic laws from the Holy Book.”
[39] My suggestion for breaking the tzurat hadaf into sections: the pilcrow (¶). On the pilcrow, see the entertaining popular book, Shady Characters: The Secret Life of Punctuation, Symbols, and Other Typographical Marks (2013) by Keith Houston, chapter 1. (Available from Amazon for free as a Kindle sample.)

It should be pointed out that trop is an early medieval Hebrew form of punctuating the Biblical text. A few alternatives of punctuating the Torah arose in Geonic times.

On early nikud of Mishnah and Talmud, especially nikud bavli (we use nikud tavrani), see Yeivin:

ישראל ייבין, מסורת הלשון העברית המשתקפת בניקוד הבבלי (תשמ“ה), פרקים ב–ו.

I will point out the following: Tuvia’s edition adds nikud. But once one is past the beginner stage, nikud does little to enhance the reading experience, and in fact many readers find it a distraction. Modern Hebrew rarely uses nikud. Exceptions are for literature geared towards children and beginners (as noted), as well as instances where decoding is especially difficult, such as poetry, transliterated foreign words, and ambiguous words. In contrast, punctuation is a huge boost to faster comprehension, as Jaffe notes. Modern Hebrew texts use standard punctuation, like all modern languages.



Final Response

 Final Response

By Marc B. Shapiro

In response to Rabbi Herschel Grossman’s strong criticisms of my Limits of Orthodox Theology, I wrote four responses on the Seforim Blog. You can view them here, here, here, and here. I then stopped responding even though there are still many criticisms I could have commented on. Readers can compare Grossman’s arguments with my replies and draw their own judgment. Grossman has recently responded to my posts and offered further criticisms in an article published in Dialogue. See here.

I do not wish to respond to all of his points in his new article, but I feel I need to make some comments and then I will leave this matter and let the readers decide which side is more compelling. Because Grossman complains in his article that “the merits of the arguments are easily lost in the loose internet format and enthusiastic cheering of his online supporters,” I have decided not to allow comments to this post. I can only express my regret at the style that Grossman chose to adopt in his articles. Had he written in an appropriate fashion then it would have been possible to have had a constructive discussion and debate.

P. 161: “DIALOGUE editors offered the author, Dr. Marc Shapiro, an opportunity to respond directly in these pages. He chose instead to issue a response on his own blog, where he wrote a number of lengthy posts in his defense.”

Dialogue never offered me an opportunity to respond in the journal. The Seforim Blog is not my own blog. I am a writer on it like lots of others.

P. 162: “In his [Shapiro’s] view, the tenets of belief are Rambam’s innovations and are therefore disputable.” The word “innovation” implies that the Rambam invented the doctrines he includes in his principles. I never said such a thing.

P. 163: In giving examples of supposed distortions in my book, Grossman writes: “One example is when Shapiro cites Rivash in support of the statement that Christians believe in a three-part God while the Kabbalists believe in a ten-part God – a clear rejection of the Second Principle. A quick glance at Rivash reveals that he does indeed say such a thing as a quote from a philosopher, which he then proceeds to debunk.”

I would like readers to take a look at the relevant page of my book (p. 40) and see if what Grossman says is correct, that I cited Rivash in support of the statement that Kabbalists believe in a ten-part God.

Pp. 166-167. Readers should see my discussion here. I cite a number of sources that support what I say, and thus contrary to what Grossman states, I do not just insist on my right to offer an interpretation. In note 21 Grossman writes: “Dr. Shapiro attempts to salvage his theory by speculating that the Vilna Gaon may not have really meant what he wrote.” Readers can turn to my discussion here and will see that I never said that.

p. 173. We see here an example of how Grossman just talks past me, leading to nothing productive. I had questioned why in the Mishneh Torah the Rambam did not require that the convert be instructed in the Thirteen Principles. In his original essay, Grossman criticized this question which he said showed lack of understanding of the method of the Mishneh Torah. In my response here I cite rabbinic authorities who deal with this very question, thus showing that it is not an ignorant point, as Grossman portrayed it. One of those I cite is R. Chaim Sofer who writes [1]:

והדבר נפלא הלא יש י”ג עיקרי הדת והי’ לו לב”ד להאריך בכל השרשים

Grossman replies that while I quote R. Sofer, I neglect “to apprise [my] readers of R. Sofer’s subsequent words ‘Rambam didn’t add to the talmudic formula,’ exactly as I had written and directly in contradiction to Dr. Shapiro’s position.”

Here is the paragraph from R. Sofer.

R. Sofer says exactly what I quote him as saying. The final passage in the paragraph, which is mistranslated by Grossman, has nothing to do with my point and does not refute it in any way.

I would also note that in his fascinating Ha-Emunah ha-Ne’emanah, p. 142, R. Dovid Cohen offers an explanation as to why אין לומדים כל י”ג עקרים טרם שיתגייר הגר

P. 174. In Limits I discuss different approaches to the phenomenon of tikkun soferim. While the generally accepted approach is that tikkun soferim is not to be taken literally, I cite a number of authorities who did take it literally and assumed that Ezra or the Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah made changes to biblical texts (including the Torah). In a later post here (which has nothing to do with Grossman), I cited some other examples of sources that understood tikkun soferim literally. One of those I mentioned is R. Pesach Finfer.[2] He states as follows:

ראוי הי‘ עזרא שתנתן התורה על ידו . . . והוא ונחמי‘ עשו תיקון סופרים וכינויי סופרים

Grossman says that it is unclear what I see in this line. What I see is that R. Finfer states that Ezra and Nehemiah were responsible for tikkunei soferim. This is the same language that is used in other sources that take the notion of tikkun soferim literally. For those who don’t take it literally, Ezra has nothing to do with tikkun soferim. Following the sentence I quoted from R. Finfer, he refers in parenthesis to Radbaz’s comment which offers a different perspective, that tikkun soferim is halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai. Here is the page.

While on the topic of tikkun soferim, let me share something else that is relevant. In Limits I mentioned that the evidence points to Rashi understanding tikkun soferim literally, namely, that the biblical text was changed by the Scribes. There was some pushback to this assertion by those could not accept that Rashi would ever hold such a position. Yet subsequent to my book, Yeshayahu Maori also came to the conclusion that Rashi understood tikkun soferim literally.[3] Furthermore, R. Avraham Pessin also explains that Rashi understands tikkun soferim literally.[4] He states that according to Rashi the Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah had the authority to alter the text of the Torah:

ומבואר ברש”י שניתן הכח לאנשי כנסת הגדולה לשנות גם תורה שבכתב

I find this significant, because although one can point to numerous statements that such an approach in unacceptable, R. Pessin sees it as the clear meaning of Rashi (and among traditional interpreters he is not alone in this understanding[5]). Here are the pages from R. Pessin’s sefer.

Speaking of tikkun soferim, the most famous of which is Gen. 18:22: ‘ואברהם עודנו עומד לפני ה, I found something in R. Solomon Algazi’s Yavin Shemuah (Venice, 1639), p. 15a, which is fascinating and, as far as I know, unique in rabbinic literature. It is also in opposition to Maimonides’ Eighth Principle which establishes that the Torah in its entirety was delivered by God to Moses. In discussing ‘ואברהם עודנו עמוד לפני ה, R. Algazi claims that when God dictated the Torah to Moses, He said that God was standing before Abraham. But Moses on his own, out of respect for God, changed the verse to read that Abraham was standing before God. I guess we can say that this falls between the traditional view that the verse was never changed and the view that the Scribes altered the verse out of respect for God. For R. Algazi it was Moses who made the alteration, but as far as Maimonides is concerned, this is just as problematic as viewing tikkun soferim as an alteration of the Scribes. Here is R. Algazi’s surprising interpretation.

כיון דהב”ה היה אומר לו על כל מלה כתוב א”כ ודאי דהב”ה אמר לו וה’ עודנו עומד דלא איש אל ויכזב ומשה היה משנה על דרך כבוד וכותב ואברהם עודנו עומד א”כ מה שייך בזה הלכה למשה מסיני והוא על דרך המשל שדוד המלך יאמר לסופר מהי’ [מהיר] כתוב שדוד מצוה לפלוני והסופר משנה על דרך כבוד וכותב המלך דוד אבל המלך בעצמו אינו אומר כתוב המלך מצוה כך הב”ה יתעל’ לא אמר למשה שהיה סופר כתוב ואברהם עודנו עומד שהוא דרך כבוד אלא אמר לו האמת וה’ עודנו עומד ומשה שינה על דרך תיקון סופרים

Pp. 175-176. I wrote here: “Even when it comes to other basic ideas of Maimonides, which are not included as part of the Thirteen Principles, we find that scholars wondered why Maimonides did not include them in Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah.” I then cited Joseph Ibn Caspi in support of this statement. Here is the page from Amudei Kesef u-Maskiyot Kesef (Frankfurt, 1848), p. 113.

What I would add here is the interesting point that Ibn Caspi, Commentary on Guide 2:32, actually concludes that the Mishneh Torah’s formulation is in line with Maimonides’ true view, namely, that prophecy is a completely natural phenomenon which will of necessity occur if someone has both the ability and training. On the hand, he thinks that the view expressed in Guide 2:32 as being the “opinion of our Law and foundation of our doctrine”, namely, that God might prevent a prophet from prophesying, is not Maimonides’ true opinion, but is an example of the famous “seventh contradiction”.

Grossman is also mistaken when he writes, “In Moreh Nevuchim [2:32], Rambam argues—in opposition to the philosophers—that prophecy is only activated proactively by God, even if the requisite conditions are met.” Maimonides actually says the exact opposite of this. He states that the Torah view of prophecy is identical to the philosophic view except that God can choose, if He wishes, to prevent someone from prophesying even though according to nature he would be a prophet. This is the opposite of what Grossman states, that “prophecy is only activated proactively by God.”

Pp. 176-177: I stated that the notion that Maimonides changed his mind about including Reward and Punishment among the Principles was suggested by R. Solomon of Chelm. To this Grossman replies that Maimonides did not withdraw his belief in Reward and Punishment. It is just that in the Mishneh Torah he classified things differently. Again, Grossman misunderstands. I never said that Maimonides rejected the idea of Reward and Punishment. I was only referring to whether it should be included as part of the Thirteen Principles. As R. Solomon of Chelm explains, Maimonides’ later understanding is that Reward and Punishment is included as part of other principles and thus does not need to be listed separately.

Pp. 177-178. Grossman claims that I cite R. Avraham Hochman in an improper way, and in response R. Hochman states that the entire theme of his sefer “is to show that Rambam’s Principles are absolute and that he derived all of the Thirteen Principles from the Talmud.” He also is quoted as saying, “Academics often quote a question and forget that for the wise, the question is half the answer. But the professors stick to the question and don’t wait around for the answer.” Grossman then speaks of my “brazenness of citing a recognized authority to promote a position that the author himself openly rejects.”

I don’t know if R. Hochman reads English, and could see what I actually wrote, or if he only is responding to what Grossman told him. Either way, his letter, published at the end of Grossman’s article, is a complete distortion of my position. Leaving aside the particular examples that people can see, look at this characterization:

ולפי הבנה מוטעית זו שפך חמתו על הרמב“ם מנין לו לחדש הלכה שאינה במשנה . . .

Talk about describing a writer inaccurately!

And what is one to make of this statement from him?

אין שום חולק על עיקר מיסודי הדת אלא שנחלקו על מספר העיקרים

It is precisely against such a false view that I wrote my book in the first place. A typical response to the book has been that the opinions in opposition to Maimonides are “not accepted.” But here he denies that anyone actually disagrees with any of Maimonides’ principles. With such an outlook, we can’t even begin to have a dialogue.

The following paragraphs are what I quoted from R. Hochman. Nothing I quote here has any connection to what Grossman states or what R. Hochman writes in his letter responding to my supposed incorrect conclusions that I derived from his words. As the reader can see, contrary to what R. Hochman states, I mention not just his question but his answer as well. Of all of Grossman’s criticisms this one is very difficult to understand, because there is nothing at all controversial in what I write, and my summary of R. Hochman is accurate.

As for my wondering why the Principles are not listed together as a unit, which Grossman sees as an illustration of how I am unaware of the structure of the Mishneh Torah, let me begin by repeating what I wrote in my last post: R. Yaakov Nissan Rosenthal, on the very first page of his commentary Mishnat Yaakov to Sefer ha-Madda, also wonders about the point I made, that the Thirteen Principles as a unit are never mentioned in the Mishneh Torah. (Had I known this when I wrote my book, I certainly would have cited it.)

ותימא למה לא הביא הרמב“ם בספרו ה”יד החזקה” את הענין הזה של י“ג עיקרי האמונה, וצ”ע

R. Avraham Menahem Hochman writes:

מאחר וכל כך חמורה הכפירה, וגדולה החובה לדעת את י”ג העיקרים, כיצד זה השמיטם מספרו ה”יד החזקה”, ולא כתבם כפי שסדרם בפירוש המשנה

והנה אחר שהתבאר שהאמונה בי”ג העיקרים היא בסיס לתורה נשוב לשאלה הרביעית (בסוף פרק ה’) אשר לכאורה היא פליאה עצומה מדוע השמיט הרמב”ם ביד החזקה את החובה הגדולה להאמין בי”ג עיקרים, באופן חיובי, ולא סדרם כי”ג יסודי האמונה שחובה להאמין בהם

R. Hochman goes on to explain that most of the Principles are indeed mentioned in Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah in a positive sense (even if not as a unit of Thirteen Principles). He also notes the following important point, that when principles of faith are mentioned in the Talmud, they are never listed in a positive sense, that one must believe X. Rather, they are listed in a negative sense, that one who denies X has no share in the World to Come. Why Maimonides, in his Commentary on the Mishnah, chose to formulate the Principles in a positive sense and require active belief as a necessity for all Jews—something the Talmud never explicitly required—is an interesting point which we will come back to. Regarding some of the Principles the difference is clear. For example, according to the Talmud, denial of Resurrection is heresy, but one who has never heard of the Resurrection and thus does not deny it, or affirm it, is a Jew in good standing. For Maimonides, however, the doctrine of Resurrection must be positively affirmed. In a future post we can come back to which Principles even the Talmud implicitly requires positive affirmation of (obviously number 1, belief in God, but there could be others as well).

After reading these paragraphs, please look at Grossman’s article, pp. 177-178, and R. Hochman’s letter, pp. 188-191, and you will see that nothing there has any connection to what I actually say when referring to R. Hochman. I simply cite him to show that the question I asked is not an ignorant one, as Grossman stated. I also cite R. Hochman’s answer. So Grossman’s seizing on this and printing a lengthy letter from R. Hochman is nothing short of bizarre.

Pp. 178-179. Grossman writes:

Things really start to go “off the rails” when we examine Shapiro’s claim in the name of R. Shlomo Fisher, zatzal, that one need not accept Mosaic authorship, that the Rambam abandoned his principles, and that “Rambam’s formulation of the tenets of Jewish belief was far from universally accepted.”

Grossman responds that he found these attributions questionable so he checked with the family and students, and “they were horrified that anyone would be using R. Fisher’s name in this way.”

What exactly did I say that Grossman finds so objectionable? In Limits of Orthodox Theology, p, 126, I quote the following sentence from R. Bezalel Naor, Post-Sabbatian Sabbatianism (Spring Valley, 1999), p. 8: “The truth, known to Torah scholars, is that Maimonides’ formulation of the tenets of Jewish belief is far from universally accepted.” R. Naor tells us that he heard this insight from his teacher, R. Shlomo Fisher. (Anyone needing any indication of the high regard that R. Fisher held R. Naor in can examine their published correspondence.)

Grossman sees this as a radical statement whose authenticity he cannot accept. I don’t think readers of this blog will find it radical at all. In fact, I have elsewhere mentioned that R. Fisher made this statement in discussing R. Judah he-Hasid’s view on the authorship of the Torah, which diverges from Maimonides’ Eighth Principle. Contrary to Grossman, in none of my posts did I quote R. Fisher as saying that one need not accept Mosaic authorship. I simply cited his view about R. Judah he-Hasid. I also quoted his opinion that medieval Ashkenazic authorities had a different view on the matter of complete Mosaic authorship than Maimonides in that they did not regard the assumption that there are post-Mosaic verses in the Torah as heretical (a view also argued by Prof. Haym Soloveitchik, see here). Grossman claims that R. Fisher could not have said this, even though students can testify to him having said it. In fact, I can state right here that I too heard him make this distinction.

The final point that Grossman can’t accept is what I mentioned in 2007 here, from a student who attended R. Fisher’s weekly shiur on Avnei Miluim. “Interestingly enough, he reported to me that a few weeks ago R. Fisher declared that he believes the Rambam abandoned his system of 13 Principles, the proof being that they are never mentioned as a unit in the Mishneh Torah. In my book, I noted that R. Shlomo Goren held the same view.” Grossman summarizes my statement as “the Rambam abandoned his principles,” which would lead the reader to think that I was saying that the Rambam no longer accepted the truth of his 13 Principles, which would indeed be a radical position. But what I was really talking about, and I refer to this approach in my book, is the notion that the Rambam no longer accepted a system of 13 Principles. This would mean that he adopted another model to categorize the essential dogmas of Judaism, or as R. Goren suggested, maybe he later advocated a conception of Jewish theology like that held by Abarbanel, that one should not distinguish between so-called principles of Judaism and other aspects of the religion, since all must be regarded as equal.

When all is said and done, nothing I have attributed to R. Fisher is strange, radical, or unbelievable. Why Grossman would be horrified by what I wrote is anyone’s guess.

Grossman quotes from a 2018 letter put out by R. Fisher (some might say, put out by his family). In the letter, R. Fisher writes that no one is to quote anything he said in matters of Aggadah and hashkafah without the approval of his sons. This was because in the past he had been misquoted. We all know that misquoting of gedolim is nothing new. There are numerous examples of particular great rabbis being quoted as saying contradictory things, and of these rabbis stating that no one should believe anything they hear in their names unless they hear it directly from the rabbi. Yet this has never stopped people from quoting the gedolim and never will. This is simply the nature of the world. 

R. Fisher gave thousands of shiurim (a tiny percentage of them are online) and there are thousands of students who heard words of Torah from him. As with all students, they have repeated, and will continue to repeat, that which they heard from the rav, just like all students do. They have been doing this for at least fifty years. If R. Fisher’s letter means what it says, that no one is to repeat things that R. Fisher said, then this is simply an impossible request, and it also seems unprecedented in Torah history. It would mean that one who listens to a shiur from him dealing with non-halakhic matters, e.g., this one here, is not allowed to repeat any insights he heard. It would also mean that much of what was mentioned at the many eulogies, where people recalled things R. Fisher said, or on sites such as this and this, is inappropriate. It would mean that students are not allowed to repeat that which they heard from their rebbe. I don’t see how this is possible.

P. 179. Here is something that is really comical. Take a look at this page.

Grossman states that I mention that Shadal (Samuel David Luzzatto) claims that Ibn Ezra believed in post-Mosaic additions to the Torah. He writes: “Upon checking the source, we find yet another instance of Dr. Shapiro citing an author as believing something he actually vociferously denies. As Shadal points out, the primary source for this take on Ibn Ezra was the noted heretic Baruch Spinoza.”

I say this is comical since Grossman doesn’t have a clue as to what is going on here. The only way I can explain this is that Grossman merely skimmed the passage and thus misread it.

Shadal rejects Spinoza who (intentionally?) misunderstood Ibn Ezra to be hinting to the notion that Moses was not the author of the Torah.[6] This misinterpretation of Ibn Ezra is what Shadal rejects (and this is not mentioned in my book because it has nothing to do with what I was discussing). However, exactly as I said, Shadal also states that Ibn Ezra believed in certain post-Mosaic additions to the Torah. Here is the page in Shadal that I cited (as well as the subsequent page) so everyone can see it with their own eyes.

Shadal’s outlook in this matter is no secret, and he repeats this point elsewhere. See e.g., Mehkerei ha-Yahadut, vol. 2, p. 195:

מה שכתב ראב”ע ברמז, היות בתורה מקראות שנוספו בה אחר כמה דורות

In Iggerot Shadal, vol. 2, p. 246, he writes:

כי סברתו שיש בתורה מקראות נוספים קשה מדעת זולתו שקצת מלות מוטעות

In my book and subsequent posts I have identified around forty medieval and more recent authorities who share Shadal’s viewpoint in this matter.[7] Incidentally, R. Joseph Kafih, in his first work written when he was seventeen years old, attacks Shadal for attributing this view to Ibn Ezra. See Sihat Dekalim (Jerusalem, 2005), p. 90.

I must also note that Grossman does not simply miss Shadal’s meaning, but he also compares me to Spinoza in trying to ensnare the unsuspecting masses. If this wasn’t so comical, I might actually take offense. But I think readers should wonder how an author could say such a thing, and how a journal could publish it. It is simply beyond belief, made all the more absurd since Grossman is so mistaken about what Shadal actually states.

Incidentally, since we are talking about Shadal, it is worth noting that R. Elijah Benamozegh, whose commentaries on the Torah continuously dispute with Shadal, when it comes to Ibn Ezra and post-Mosaic additions, Benamozegh has the same position as Shadal. Here is what he writes in Ha-Levanon, July 3, 1872, p. 351, now easily available in the new edition of Em la-Mikra: Bereshit (Haifa, 2021), p. 114:

בראש ספר דברים ובמקומות אחרים רומז בעיניו מולל באצבעותיו ועל דלתות השער יתאו לרמוז שיש דברים בתורה נוספים ולא משה כתבם רק נביאים וצופים. ואני הפרתי את עצתו וקלקלתי את מחשבתו

P. 181. “Shapiro’s weakest scholarship appears when discussing kabbalistic matters.” I agree, which is why I try not to discuss these matters. If I do have to deal with them, I only rely on what recognized authorities have said,

P. 182. I wrote that according to Maimonides’ Seventh Principle, Moses was the greatest prophet who ever lived and there will never be a prophet as great as him in the future. Grossman says that I am mistaken, and that Maimonides does not declare that Moses was the greatest prophet, only that he was the “father of all prophets.” This statement is astounding. There are hundreds of discussions of the Seventh Principle in traditional rabbinic literature, and as far as I know they all agree with what I have written. The entire basis of the Seventh Principle is that Moses was greater than all other prophets. Maimonides states explicitly in the principle that “All are below him in rank . . . He reached a greater understanding of God than any man who ever existed or will ever exist.” This is so obvious that I do not want to spend any more time on it. It is only a mystery how Grossman could say something so wrong, and I do not know of anyone else who has ever written on this principle and made such a mistake (which Maimonides regards as heresy). Did no one from the editorial board of Dialogue read the article before publication? It is nothing short of incredible that an issue of Dialogue includes the false claim that there is no principle of faith to believe that Moses was the greatest prophet in Jewish history.

In addition to his explicit assertion that Moses was the greatest prophet, Maimonides does have an interesting formulation, stating that Moses is the father of all the prophets who preceded him and all who came after him. How can one be the “father” of those who came before him? R. Hayyim Dov Moshe Halpern explains it well[8]:

“אב” הכונה במעלה ולכן שייך לומר שהוא אב גם למי שקדם לו

Here are some passages from other authors whose books are found in my library. They all explain the principle correctly.

R. Yochanan Meir Bechhoffer writes[9]:

רבינו השווה את האמונה בעליונות משה רבינו על הנביאים הקודמים לו, לאמונה בעליונותו של הבאים אחריו. ואף כי אמת היא, שכך נחתמת התורה, לא קם כמשה וגו’, מ”מ יש לעיין מה הצורך בזה. נהי דהמאמין שאחר משה בא נביא גדול ממנו שיכול לבטל דבריו, כפר בנבואת משה, אך מה הסתירה לנבואת משה בחשבה שמי שקדם לו היתה גדול ממנו, הלוא הנביא הקדום לא יחדש דבר על פני משה

R. Ben Zion Epstein writes[10]:

ולכן נתנה למשה דוקא, כי היה דבוק כולו באין סוף ב”ה. ולכן היתה מדרגת נבואתו גדולה מכל הנביאים, ושכינה מדברת מתוך גרונו.

R. Avraham Menachem Hochman’s heading to his discussion of the Seventh Principle reads[11]:

להאמין בנבואת משה רבינו שהוא למעלה מכל הנביאים שהיו לפניו ולאחריו

And to mention one classic text (I could mention many more), R. Elchanan Wasserman writes[12]:

והנה בעיקרי הדת שמנה הרמב”ם בפירוש המשניות (פרק חלק) מנה שם עיקר אחד שכל דברי נביאים אמת, ועוד עיקר אחר שנבואת מהרע”ה היתה למעלה מנבואת כל הנביאים

R. Yaakov Weinberg in his Fundamentals and Faith, pp. 73ff. elaborates on Moses’ “prophetic superiority” (p. 81)

And finally, R. Yehudah Meir Keilson’s new edition of Kisvei ha-Rambam (which I encourage everyone to acquire), affirms my point (which as mentioned, is simply what Maimonides himself explicitly says, so it is not a question of how to interpret him).

Keilson, p. 82: “The Seventh Principle teaches that the nature of Moshe’s prophecy is unparalleled. . . . Rambam elaborates on Moshe’s prophetic superiority, which was the result of his moral and intellectual perfection.”

Keilson, p. 82 n. 1. “The title ‘father of all the prophets’ . . . Rambam takes this to refer to Moshe’s superiority in prophecy to that of all other prophets.”

Keilson, p. 154: “Rambam uses the expression that Moshe was the ‘father of all prophets’ to signify that he was the greatest of all prophets – that the level of his prophecy was superior to that of any prophet who ever was or who ever will be.”

Pp. 184-185. None of this makes any sense, and what Prof. Menachem Kellner writes has no relevance what I was referring to. I asked a simple question, which I later found that others asked as well (see here): Why does the Rambam not specify that future converts are to be instructed in the 13 Principles?

Coming next: Reviews of books by Benji Levy and Eitam Henkin, and an unknown article by R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik.

* * * * * * *

[1] Mahaneh Hayyim, Yoreh Deah 2, no. 25 (p. 139).
[2] Masoret ha-Torah ve-ha-Nevi’im (Vilna, 1906), p. 6. Regarding tikkun soferim as seen in the Genizah, see Joseph Ginsberg’s post here.
[3] “‘Tikkun Soferim’ ve-‘Kinah ha-Katuv’ be-Ferush Rashi la-Mikra,” in Yaakov Elman, et al., eds. Neti’ot le-David (Jerusalem, 2004), pp. 99-108.
[4] See his Temurat Ayil, Megillah, vol. 2 , pp. 93-95.
[5] In addition to the sources I have cited in Limits and here, see R. Petahyah Berdugo, Pituhei Hotam (Jerusalem, 1980), p. 187.
[6] Regarding Spinoza’s interpretation of Ibn Ezra, see Warren Zev Harvey, “Spinoza on Ibn Ezra’s “secret of the twelve,” in Yitzhak Y. Melamed and Michael A. Rosenthal, eds., Spinoza’s Theological-Political Treatise: A Critical Guide (Cambridge, 2010), pp. 41-55. See also Bezalel Naor, Ma’amar al Yishmael (Spring Valley, 1998), pp. 23-24.
[7] Shadal’s negative view of Ibn Ezra (and Maimonides) is well known. R. Jacob Bacharach’s poem in this regard is apt; Ishtadlut im Shadal (Warsaw, 1896), vol. 1, p. 19b:

הוא האיש אשר שם את הרמב”ם סיר רחצו, ועל הראב”ע השליך נעלו

[8] Hemdah Tovah (Lakewood, 2012), p. 131 n. 1.
[9] Even Shetiyah (Ramat Beit Shemesh, 2005), p. 74.
[10] Yud Gimmel Ikkarim (Jerusalem, 2009), p. 95.
[11] Ha-Emunah ve-Yud Gimmel Ikkareha (Jerusalem, 2004), p. 46.
[12] Kovetz Ma’amarim ve-Iggerot (Jerusalem, 2006), vol. 1, p. 57.


The Porto family: Eminent Sages, Scholars, and Prolific Seventeenth Century Authors

The Porto family: Eminent Sages, Scholars, and Prolific Seventeenth Century Authors

by Marvin J. Heller[1]

Among the illustrious families that have contributed to and enriched Jewish culture and history is the Porto (Rapa) family, comprised of sages and authors over the centuries. Known for their scholarship and valuable works, they also served in rabbinic positions in various locations. Originally from Lublin, the family came to Italy via Germany, settling in Porto in the vicinity of Verona. The family name Rapa stems from the German (Rappe in Middle High German), for raven. Rappoport is a combination of the Rapa, with Porto, done to distinguish this branch of the family from other Rapa branches. The Italian branch, our subject, providing eminent rabbis who authored distinguished works and served in the rabbinate in several cities in Italy.[2]

This article addresses the lives and works of several eminent members of the Porto family in the seventeenth century, describing a number of their diverse works. Entries are arranged chronologically.[3] A small number of Porto (Rapa) titles precede the works addressed in this article, also printed elsewhere. Among them are Kol Simhah (Prostitz, 1602) by R. Simhah ben Gershon Kohen, of Porto Rapa, on Shabbat zemirot; several editions of the Yalkut Shimonei with marginal annotations attributed to R. Menahem ha-Kohen Porto (Venice, 1566, Cracow, 1595-96, and Frankfort on the Main, 1687).[4] R. Abraham Menahem ben Jacob ha-Kohen Rapa mi-Porto (Rapaport)’s works, that is, the Minhah Belulah and Zafenat Pane’ah, are, as noted elsewhere, not addressed in this article, as having been described independently.

1608 Moses ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto-Rafa (Rapaport) – Our first Porto family publication is a compilation of responsa by R. Moses ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto-Rafa (Rapaport, d. 1624) concerning the prohibition by rabbis of the use of the mikveh in Rovigo. Moses ben Jehiel served from 1602 as rabbi of Badia Polesine in Piedmont, and afterwards as rabbi of Rovigo.

The dispute, a cause célèbre, concerned a mikveh built in 1594 by R. Jekuthiel Consiglio, then rabbi in Rovigo, in his home. Unable to obtain spring water, Consiglio dug a well and drew water with a pail, a halakhicly invalid procedure, as a mikveh requires free-flowing not drawn water. To resolve the problem, Consiglio used a pail with holes large enough to negate its status as a vessel. The mikveh’s validity depended upon whether the water passing through the bucket with holes was considered either drawn or pumped, thereby invalidating the mikveh.

After ten years possession of the house passed to R. Avtaylon Consiglio, Jekuthiel Consiglio’s older brother.[5] Among the first to invalidate the mikveh Avtaylon Consiglio, who upon studying the matter, found his brother’s position too lenient, the holes in the pail being too small to justify the leniency. Jekuthiel, however, found support for the halakhic appropriateness of his mikveh from several prominent rabbis from Venice. The dispute was widespread, in Italy prominent rabbis, such as R. Ezra of Fano, R. Moses Menachem Rapo, and R. Moses Cohen Porto, as well as R. Moses Mordecai Margalioth of Cracow responded. The dispute even extended to Prague and Safed, Eretz Israel, the respondent in the latter location there including R. Israel Galante in Safed.[6]

1608, Palgei Mayyim
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

Three books are devoted to the subject of the Rovigo mikveh, namely Miḳveh Yisrael (Venice, 1607) by R. Judah ben Moses Saltero of Fano, Palgei Mayim (1608) by R. Moses ben Jehiel, both opposed to the mikveh, and Mashbit Milḥamot (Venice, 1606) by R. Isaac Gershon, this last in support of Jekuthiel Consiglio and his mikveh.

The title of interest to us is Moses ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto-Rafa (Rapaport)’s Palgei Mayim. It was, in manuscript, initially entitled Milhamot ha-Shem but was renamed. Palgei Mayim was published by Zoan (Giovanni) di Gara in quarto format (40: 78,[38\, [2] ff.) in the month of Shevat שסח (368 = January-February 1608). The title-page, which has a pillared frame, informs that it is responsa from rabbis from both Italy and elsewhere. The title-page is followed by Moses ben Jehiel’s introduction in which he informs that he has entitled this work Palgei Mayim (“rivers of water,” var. cit.) for a river of knowledge of Torah goes out of Eden. Moses ben Jehiel’s purpose in writing Palgei Mayim was to”

To defend the sage who prohibits [the mikveh] and all of us who agree with him, for this is our sole intention: to divert slanderous remarks from him, and if we do not succeed in getting people to stay away from the mikveh as we wished to do, what matter? At least we will have saved our souls.

Next is a lengthy forward preceded by a head-piece with several figurines which reappears towards the end of the book as a tail-piece (below). The text begins with a responsum from Avtalyon Consiglio, followed by a responsum from R. Ben Zion Zarfati, continuing with additional responsa.


Palgei Mayim is a compilation of the responsa of the rabbis who prohibited the use of the mikveh, quoting twenty-eight opinions in support of Porto’s position, followed by Mish’an Mayim, which is a refutation of the rejoinder of the opposition. As noted above, Porto originally intended to entitle Palgei Mayim Milhamot Ha-Shem (Wars of the Lord, Numbers 21:14) but, as he writes, reconsidered doing so to avoid creating a more combative environment. A collateral effect of this and other disputes at this time, which involved numerous rabbis, according to Robert Bonfil, was to weaken the authority of the rabbis involved.[7]

This is the only edition of Palgei Mayim, R. Moses ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto-Rafa‘s (Rapaport) only published work. (Seforim Blog editor’s note: Palgei Mayim and the other works mentioned about the Rovigo mikveh controversy was recently reprinted by Mechon Zichron Aron in their two-volume set Geonei Padua (2014).

1627 R. Menahem Zion (Emanuel) Porto Kohen Rappa – Our next member of the Porto (Rapaport) family, R. Menahem Zion (Emanuel) Porto Kohen Rappa was born in Trieste towards the end of the sixteenth century, serving there as chief rabbi, subsequently holding a similar position in Padua, where he died in about 1660. A multifaceted individual, Menahem Zion (Emanuel) Porto, a mathematician and astronomer, authored a variety of books encompassing several fields. His works on those subjects were highly regarded. Indeed, he was praised for his works by Italian scholars such as the mathematician and astrologer Andrea Argoli; and by Tomaso Ercaloni and Benedetto Luzzatto for his sonnets. Menahem Zion was recommended, in 1641, by Gaspard Scüppius, editor of the Mercurius Quadralinguis, to the renowned Protestant Christian-Hebraist Johannes Buxtorf (the younger), with whom Porto later carried on an active correspondence.[8]


1627, Over la-Soher,
Courtesy of Virtual Judaica

Over la-Soher, a treatise on mathematics, is Menahem Zion’s primary, best known Hebrew title. It was published in 1627 as a quarto (40: 22 ff.) at the press of Pietro, Aluise, and Lorenzo Bragadin. The title is from Abraham’s purchase of Machpelah from Ephron the Hittite, concluding, “money current among the merchants (over la-soher)” (Genesis 23:16). The title-page has a pillared frame and simply states that it is a sefer ha-mispar (book of numbers).

The verso of the title page has verse encouraging purchase of the book, beginning, “hasten to acquire Sefer ha-Mispar, look into it . . .,” followed by Porto’s introduction (2a-3a) in square letters, extolling the great benefit and practical value of the subject matter and mentioning predecessors, particularly R. Elijah Mizrahi’s (c. 1450–1526) Sefer ha-Mispar, a deep and difficult work. However, Porto, while being concise, has added to and made his book more accessible to the reader. Having dealt extensively with merchants, Menahem Zion has entitled this book Over la-Soher. Finally, Porto greatly praises his patron R. Abraham ben Mordecai Ottiniger. There is a second introduction (3a-b) from R. Gershom ben Kalonymous Hefez, a student of Porto, who was responsible for publishing Over la-Soher.

The text follows in a single column in rabbinic type. Over la-Soher is divided into twelve chapters, dealing with practical arithmetic, multiplication, divisions and fractions. Numerous examples are given in Hebrew rather than Arabic numerals. This is the only edition of Over la-Soher.

Porto’s Italian works include Porto Astronomico (Padua, 1636); Breve Istituzione della Geographia (Padua, 1636); and Diplomologia, Qua Duo Scripturæ Miracula de Regressu Solis Tempore Hiskiæ et Ejus Immobilitate Tempore Josuæ Declarantur (Padua, 1643) reportedly translated into Hebrew by Porto and into Latin by Lorenzo Dalnaki.[9] Diplomologia, Qua Duo Scripturæ is dedicated to the emperor Ferdinand III. Originally written in Italian, it was translated by the author himself into Hebrew, who then sent it to Lorenzo Dalnaki of Transylvania who translated it into Latin.

Porto Astronomico di Emanuel Porto Rabbi Hebreo di Trieste (Padua, 1636), [10] is dedicated to Count Benvenuto Petazzo. In contrast to the favorable comments noted above, Cecil Roth is dismissive of this work, writing “The Porto Astronomico . . . is unimportant save as a curiosity.” Concerning Menahem Zion’s other books, Roth includes them in the category of “popularizing works” which “were published and seem to have achieved a measure of success.”[11]

 

 

1636, Porto Astronomico
Courtesy of Google Books

1628 Abraham ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto – A scholar of distinction, R. Abraham ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto, was active at the beginning of the seventeenth century. He resided in Cremona and Mantua, and afterwards in Verona. He studied under relatives and appears to have served as rabbi in Verona. Abraham Porto was the author of several works, most notably Havvot Ya’ir, rabbinic epigrams as well as several other works, still extant in manuscript.

Havvot Ya’ir, an alphabetical collection of Hebrew words with their cabalistic explanations, was published in 1628 in Venice at the Bragadin press by Pietro, Aluise, and Lorenzo Bragadin in quarto format (40: 40 ff.). The title-page is dated in a straightforward manner, as שפח (388 = 1688), but the chronogram in verse at the end of the book provides a completion date of Rosh Hodesh Sivan [5]388 (Friday, June 2, 1628). The text is enclosed by a pillared architectural frame and states that it is an appetizer based on the sayings of our sages “‘His speech shall flow as the dew’ (cf. Deuteronomy 32:2) for from one word shall come forth, flourish, and shine many words for the honor of ‘the desirable of the young men” (cf. Ezekiel 23:6, 12, 23) such as R. Samuel Hayyim Bassan of Verona, a student of R. Samuel Meldola.”

There is a dedication to “the desirable of the young men,” R. Samuel Hayyim ben Mordecai Bassan of Verona (2a) which concludes with lines of verse. Abraham Menahem’s introduction follows, in which he gives two further reasons for entitling the book Havvot Ya’ir. Firstly, as the villages provide provision for the large cities (Megillah 2b) so this small work will much illuminate and enthuse great rabbis to remember and briefly speak the words of our sages. Also, as one that does not have children, so is his “soul abased and languishes, this is my generations before the Lord.”[12] Abraham Menahem writes that the book is called,

Havvot Ya’ir to enlighten להאיר and to inflame the hearts of choice students such as yourself (Bassan) in the way of our sages, as to why the Torah is called “Etz Hayyim (tree of life)”, (Proverbs 3:18, 11:30, 15:4), for as the small trees ignite the larger ones so too my friend, the young ignite and inflame the hearts of those who are older, “He will magnify the Torah, and make it glorious” (Isaiah 42:21).

1628, Havvot Ya’ir, Venice
Courtesy of Virtual Judaica

There is an approbation from R. Judah Aryeh (Leone) Modena, R. Simhah Luzatto, and R. Nehemiah ben Leib Sarival. The text, assembled from the beginnings of his speeches, follows in a single column in rabbinic type.

Example of entries, which are arranged alphabetically, are כ kaf: beginning karpas, yahaz כרפס יחץ, the initial letters are כי for “For כי, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and thick darkness the people, but the Lord shall arise upon you” (Isaiah 60:2). The Patriarchs are an omen for their offspring. Jacob “divided ויחץ the children” Genesis 33:1). צ Tzadi:צחק “God has made me laugh “ (Genesis 21:6), and according to R. Pollack, Sarah said that she trusts that her offspring will be Talmudic scholars who will be experts in צ zizit and the ties of tefillin. This is the only edition of Abraham ben Jehiel Porto’s Havvot Ya’ir.

Among Abraham ben Jehiel ha-Kohen Porto’s other works are Gat Rimmon, a book of verse; Shimmush Avraham, a commentary on the Torah (below); and Hasdei David on the Psalms, all unpublished. He also wrote responsa, several published in the responsa of his contemporaries. Abraham’s brother was R. Moses ben Jehiel Porto-Rafa (Rapoport, d. 1624), and our Abraham also edited and printed the Minḥah Belulah (Verona, 1594) of R. Abraham Menahem ben Jacob ha-Kohen Rapa mi-Porto (Rapaport), a kinsman.

Shimush Avraham
Courtesy of the Russian State Library

1675 Zechariah ben Ephraim Porto: – This Porto, a seventeenth century Italian scholar, was noted for his learning and still more for his other virtues. A native, resident of Urbino, R. Zechariah ben Ephraim Porto (d. 1672) also resided in Florence and Rome, where, in the latter location, he officiated as rabbi, although he modestly refused to assume that title. Zechariah ben Ephraim was also a philanthropist; in his will, Zechariah Porto, who was childless, left all of his wealth for communal bequests for Talmud Torahs, dowries, and support of communities in Eretz Israel. His extensive library was dedicated to the Talmud Torah in Rome.

Zechariah Porto was the author of Asaf ha-Mazkir, a work containing a list of all the explanations and comments found in the Ein Ya’aḳov, R. Jacob ben Solomon ibn Habib’s popular and much reprinted collection of the aggadic passages of the Talmud. Zechariah Porto would not publish his book; it was printed after his death by the Roman community (Venice, 1688; according to Zedner, 1675).[13]

The title-page of Asaf ha-Mazkir has images of Moses and Aaron on the sides, cherubim above holding the tablets with the ten commandments, and at the bottom additional imagery. It is dated with the chronogram “It is ‘Asaph the recorder (Asaf ha-Mazkir) אסף המזכיר’ הוא (435 = 1675)” (II Kings 18:18, 37; Isaiah 36: 3, 22). Asaf ha-Mazkir was printed at the Bragadin press by Domenico Vedelago in quarto format (40: [4], 400 ff.).

The title page of Asaf ha-Mazkir has the Bragadin frame with Moses and Aaron, and a brief text that simply states Porto’s name and that it is being published for the public good.[14] It is dated, “He is ‘Asaph the recorder’ אסף המזכיר הוא (435 = 1675)” (II Kings 18:18, 37, Isaiah 36:3, 22). The colophon dates conclusion of the work to Tuesday, 13 Adar, “relief and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place ממקום אחר (435 = March 11, 1675)” (Esther 4:14), which in fact was a Monday that year.


1675, Asaf ha-Mazkir
Courtesy of the National Library of Israel

The title page is followed by the introduction of the Talmud Torah, which praises Porto’s piety, charity, and many other fine qualities; verse, also praising Porto and his work, beginning, “The wage of the righteous” (Proverbs 10:16, 18:11); and the introduction of R. Moses ben Jacob Levi from Vienna, the editor. He writes in the same vein, but adds that he should not be held responsible for errors for work was done on Shabbat by gentiles which could not be corrected.[15] He too concludes with verse. Next is the Italian Noi Reformatori dello Studio di Padoa, dated 11. Marzo 1675 and signed Gio: Battista Nicolosi Segret.


1675, Asaf ha-Mazkir
Courtesy of the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad Ohel Yosef Yitzhak

The text of Asaf ha-Mazkir is set in two columns, headers and text from the Ein Ya’akov in square letters, sources in rabbinic type. Tractate names are in a decorative frame, chapters in bold letters. Entries consist of the statement in the Ein Ya’akov, followed by sources addressing those statements. An example of an entry is the last chapter of Kiddushin 82a,

One should always teach his son a clean and easy trade, etc.

Lehem Shelomo no. 366 109 f. amud a.

Tosfot Yom Tov ch. 4 195 f. amud b

This is the only independent edition of Asaf ha-Mazkir, Zechariah ben Ephraim Porto’s only published work. It was included in later editions of the Ein Ya’akov, beginning with the Amsterdam (1725-26) edition. As Eli Genauer noted, “It was included in later editions of the Ein Ya’akov, beginning with the Amsterdam (1725-26) edition.)  An example of something like this is Chochmas Shlomo which was printed a few times and then never again because it made it to the back of the Vilna Shas underneath the Maharsha. So even though it was only published independently three times, it was published dozens of times onward by being in the back of the Vilna Shas.”

1619 Allegro Porto – The most unusual entry in our collection of seventeenth century Porto imprints is Allegro Porto’s Nuevo Musiche, a collection of secular madrigals. This, our last Porto entry, is not in our chronological order, nor is it part of our description of the Hebrew works by members of the Porto family. It is included, however, assuming that Allegro Porto was a member of the extended Porto family, in order to show the great diversity and productivity, even outside of our subject area of Hebrew imprints, of the family’s accomplishments.

A madrigal is an elaborate multi-part song for several voices, without instrumental accompaniment. It is a genre popular in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Allegro Porto published Nuevo Musiche in 1619, followed by two collections of madrigals in 1622 and 1625, one lacking a title-page.[16] Shlomo Simonsohn credits Allegro (Simha) Porto with four collections of songs, but enumerates three only, all printed in Venice, Nuove Musiche, (1619), Madrigali a cinque voci (1625), and Madrigali a tre voci, libro primo (1619).[17]

Cecil Roth informs that although singers and instrumentalists were active elsewhere in Italy, it was in Mantua only that there was a “sequence of Jewish composers who published their works.” Among them was Allegro Porto whom Roth describes as prolific. His writings, according to Roth, also include four works, two collections of madrigals for five verses being published in 1625, one being dedicated to the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II, the daughter of the Duke of Mantua being his empress, Simonsohnn describes her, Eleanora Gonzaga, as the sister of the Dukes Francesco II, Ferdinando and Vincenzo II. Among Porto’s madrigals was a collection in the new style (Nuevo Musiche, 1619), this dedicated to Count Alfonso de Porzia, chamberlain to the Duke of Bavaria. Another collection of Porto’s madrigals, this for three voices “‘with some arias and a romanesque dialogue’ (the first part alone is recorded, but perhaps there were others), published first in 1619, was reissued in the nineteenth century.[18]

No image accompanies this entry, in comparison to the other book descriptions; it was not possible to find an image of Porto’s Nuevo Musiche. The reason is its great rarity, for as Roth explains “Musical publications of this age are prodigiously rare, many surviving in only a single copy – others perhaps were less fortunate, so that to state dogmatically that certain compositions were unpublished is hazardous.” He notes that in the famed musical collection of King João of Portugal, assembled in the late eighteenth century, destroyed in the Lisbon earthquake of 1755, were four works by Allegro Porto.

Finale: the Porto family in the seventeenth centuries: – The various branches and members of the Porto family in the seventeenth century provided the Jewish communities of Italy, and by extension, world Jewry, with several distinguished rabbis and authors, their diverse works encompassing Torah commentary, responsa, mathematics, astronomy, kabbalistic linguistics, Aggadah, and even musical compositions. Their books, despite their value, were, with exception, published once only, in single editions. Given that these works are viewed positively, it is unfortunate that they were not republished or are not better known. Perchance, the very diversity of these Porto publications, represent the eclectic views of Renaissance Italy. They are a rich contribution to Jewish literature, representing the contributions of the seventeenth Porto family to the Jewish society of that period and to our times as well.

[1] I would like to express my appreciation to Eli Genauer for reading the article and his several comments, in particular for his observation on the editions of Asaf ha-Mazkir.
[2] This is a companion article to a previous article on a single distinguished Porto, R. Abraham Menahem ben Jacob ha-Kohen Rapa mi-Porto (Rapaport) and his works, the Minhah Belulah and Zafenat Pane’ah. Concerning that article see Marvin J. Heller, “Abraham Menahem ben Jacob ha-Kohen Rapa mi-Porto (Rapaport) Ashkenazi: A Renaissance Rabbi of interest” Seforim.blogspot.com (March 17, 2021).
[3] Several of the background descriptions of Porto family are from Richard Gottheil, Isaac Broydé, and Ismar Elbogen, “Porto,” Jewish Encyclopedia X (1901-06), pp. 133-34 and Shimon Vanunu, Encyclopedia le-Hachmah Italia (Jerusalem, 2018), var. cit.
[4] The Yalkut Shimoni entries are from the book descriptions in the Library of Agudas Chassidei Chabad Ohel Yosef Yitzhak library catalogue.
[5] Shmuel Glick, Kuntress ha-Teshuvot he-Hadash: A Bibliographic Thesaurus of Responsa Literature published from ca. 1470-2000 (Jerusalem & Ramat Gan, 2006-07) II, pp. 839-40 no. 2982 [Hebrew].
[6] A. M. Habermann, Giovanni Di Gara: Printer, Venice 1564-1610. ed. Y. Yudlov (Jerusalem, 1982), pp. 123-25 no. 257 [Hebrew]; Carmilly-Weinberger, Censorship and Freedom of Expression in Jewish History, pp. 160-61; Avraham Yaari, Unknown Documents concerning the dispute in Rovigo,” Studies in Hebrew Booklore (Jerusalem, 1959), pp. 420-29 [Hebrew].
[7] Robert Bonfil, Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy, translated by Jonathan Chipman (London, Washington, 1993), pp. 107-08.
[8] Gottheil, Broydé, Elbogen, op. cit.
[9] Giovanni Bernardo De Rossi,. Dictionary of Hebrew Authors (Dizionario Storico degli Autori Ebrei e delle Loro Opere), ed. Marvin J. Heller, (Lewiston, 1999), p. 157
[10] Cecil Roth, The Jews in the Renaissance (New York, 1959), pp. 235-36; Meyer Waxman, A History of Jewish Literature: From the Twelfth Century to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century II (New York, 1933, reprint 1960), p. 487.
[11] Cecil Roth, op cit, p. 236.
[12] Meir Benayahu, “The Caleon Press” Asufot XIII (Jerusalem, 2001), pp. 194-95 [Hebrew].
[13]  Ḥananel Nepi, Mordecai Samuel Ghirondi, Toledot Gedolei Yisrael (Trieste, 1853), p. 99 [Hebrew]; Joseph Zedner, Catalogue of the Hebrew books in the library of the British Museum (London, 1867), p. 788.
[14] Concerning the appearance of Moses and Aaron on the title-pages of Hebrew books see Dan Rabinowitz, “Aaron the Jewish Bishop,” ” Seforim.blogspot.com April 12, 2016).
[15] Concerning work done on Shabbat see Marvin J. Heller, “And the Work, the Work of Heaven, was Performed on Shabbat,” The Torah u-Maddah Journal 11 (New York, 2002-03), pp. 174-85, reprinted in Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2008), pp. 266-77.
[16] Willi Apel, Harvard Dictionary of Music (Cambridge, 1969), p. 446.
[17] Shlomo Simonsohn, History of the Jews in the Duchy of Mantua (Jerusalem, 1977), p. 676.
[18] Cecil Roth, The Jews in the Renaissance (1959, reprint New York, 1965), pp. 286-87.



New Book Announcement: Mesoras Torah Sheba’al Peh by Harav Professor Shlomo Zalman Havlin

New Book Announcement: Mesoras Torah Sheba’al Peh by Harav Professor Shlomo Zalman Havlin

By Eliezer Brodt

ר‘ שלמה זלמן הבלין, מסורת התורה שבעל פה, יסודותיה, עקרונותיה והגדרותיה ב–ג [ב‘ חלקים], 1048 עמודים

I am very happy to announce the recent publication of an important two-volume work, which will be of great interest to readers of the Seforim Blog. Mesoras Torah Sheba’al Peh by Harav Professor Shlomo Zalman Havlin, of Bar-Ilan University’s Talmud department.

There are various “agendas” in the following post:

The first: to further the Seforim Blog’s mission to inform its readership of new works and furnish them with a descriptive review; case in point these two incredible new volumes recently published.

Second: making some of the seforim mentioned and reviewed here available for sale; the proceeds help support the Seforim Blog.

Professor Havlin is one of the more prolific writers in the Jewish academic scene, having authored hundreds of articles and edited and published numerous seforim.

His articles cover an incredibly wide range of subjects in many areas of Jewish Studies; Geonim, Rishonim and Achronim as well as Bibliography, to name but a few. It is hard to define his area of expertise, as in every area he writes about he appears to be an expert!

He also served as chief editor of Bar Ilan University’s bibliographical journal, Alei Sefer for many years; in this capacity he also wrote numerous short but immensely insightful book reviews.

Over his career, RSZ Havlin devoted a lot of time and energy studying and analyzing various important Rishonim. Of note is the Rashba, he expended immense energy in publishing numerous manuscripts alongside his own in-depth essays regarding them. These were collected a few years back and published in two volumes by Mechon Even Yisroel.

He has edited and printed from manuscript works of Rishonim and Achronim, being firmly of the opinion, contrary to that of some other academics, that there is nothing non-academic about publishing critical editions of important manuscript texts.

His uniqueness lies not only in the topics he has taken up, but also in that his work has appeared in all types of publications running the gamut from academic journals such as Kiryat Sefer, Sidra, Alei Sefer as well as many prominent Charedi rabbinic journals such a Yeshurun, Moriah and others.

Another point unique to Havlin’s writings, besides his familiarity with all the academic sources, is that he shows prodigious familiarity with all the classic sources from Chazal, Geonim, Rishonim and Achronim, to even the most recent discussions in Charedi literature – this bekius was apparent well before the advent of search engines such as Bar-Ilan’s Responsa Project, Hebrew Books and Otzar Ha-hochmah. Alongside all this is his penetrating analysis and ability to raise interesting points.

A few years ago, my dear friend Menachem Butler made available dozens of RSZ Havlin’s publications online at his academia page available here.

About ten years ago, he published volume one of his writings, which contained fifteen chapters spanning from Chazal all the way until the Chazon Ish.

At the time, Professor Havlin mentioned to me that he hopes that he will find the strength and funding to publish the rest of his material. Over the years I reached out to him about it and he said he had no luck finding funding. To my great surprise, a few months ago he reached out to me and sent me the Table of Contents, saying the work has been finally published.

As one can see from the Table below, lots of material is devoted to the Rambam – to whom Havlin has devoted years researching all aspects of his writings from the manuscript to early printings. At one point, he published under Mechon Ofek the “Sefer Mugah (Authorized Copy) of the Rambam’s Yad and included an incredible introduction. This classic essay is included in this new collection alongside numerous essays of his on the Rambam many of which have also become classics.

These volumes have other important essays on Rishonim; included are his lengthy introductions to the Meiri’s Seder Kabbalah and his work on Avos, both of which he published critical, annotated editions through Mechon Ofek a few years back.

Some other essays in these volumes worth pointing out are his excellent introduction to the set Torasan Shel Geonim (published by Vagshal), and his essay on the authorship of the Kol Bo and Orchos Chaim.

There are also very important essays starting with the earliest Achronim to various essays on the Chazon Ish; sandwiched between are important essays on the Gra and others. One essay I enjoyed learning through a few times is his material on R’ Yechiel Ashkenazi from the time of the Rama. Another important essay of his which I enjoyed and use often is on Pilpul which was based on a talk in Harvard he gave many years ago.

There are also various book reviews of editions of seforim (some are rather sharp) all worth learning through carefully.

There is much more to say about the materials and essays in these two volumes but time is short.

Some of the essays were updated with new material or corrections from when they were published the first time.

Two minor complaints I would like to voice, one is there is no index to these works which makes it impossible to maximize all the nuggets all over in his various tangents. I imagine the reason for this is because indices costs lots of money to produce and the raising of funds for the publication was long, tedious and painful as it is so no index was included.

Another complaint which I have not come up with a good defense for is not every article has the original publication information included in the beginning of the chapter or at the end of the volumes. I imagine this too had to do with the budget.

Be that as it may, these two small complaints are negligible; these incredible volumes are worth owning and learning through carefully to gain from the research and discoveries of Havlin of over fifty years of learning.

I am the distributor of this work and I am selling copies of this work (currently it is not for sale anywhere else), so for more information about ordering\purchasing this work, contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

Here are the Table of Contents of the book:

Vol. I:

Vol. II:



New Seforim Lists, Seforim Sale, Highlights of the Mossad HaRav Kook Sale & Beta Version of My New Podcast “Musings of Book Collector”

New Seforim Lists, Seforim Sale, Highlights of the Mossad HaRav Kook Sale & Beta Version of My New Podcast Musings of Book Collector

By Eliezer Brodt

The post hopes to serve three purposes. The first section lists some new interesting seforim and thereby making the Seforim Blog readership aware of their recent publication. Second, to make these works available for purchase for those interested. Third, the last part of the list are some harder to find books, for sale. (This is a continuation of this post.)

Note: Some items are only available at these prices for the next 3 days.

Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog. Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for more information about purchasing or for sample pages of some of these new works.

In addition, this post features some highlights of the Mossad HaRav Kook Sale.

As I have written in the past:

For over thirty years, beginning on Isru Chag of Pesach, Mossad HaRav Kook publishing house has made a big sale on all of their publications, dropping prices considerably (some books are marked as low as 65% off). Each year they print around twenty new titles and introduce them at this time. They also reprint some of their older, out of print titles. Some years important works are printed; others not as much. See here, here, here and here, for review’s, of previous year’s titles.

If you’re interested in a PDF of their complete catalog, email me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

As in previous years I am offering a service, for a small fee, to help one purchase seforim from this sale. For more information, email me at Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com.

Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.

The last day of the sale is, April 21. Orders for the sale need to be sent in by this Thursday morning.

Finally: Last night I recorded a beta version of a possible new podcast series called Musings of Book Collector. The first episode is about some of the recent seforim mentioned in this post. Based on feedback I will see if I will continue, try to improve the quality and style. If you wish to hear the episode, send me an email and I will send you the recording.

ספרים חדשים

  1. שיעורי הגרי”ש זילברמן במסכת אבות, 372 עמודים

  2. מחזור שפתי רננות לחג הפסח, מהדיר ר’ משה רוזנווסר, בהוצאת מכון מורשת אשכנז

  3. מחזור ויטרי, חלקים ד-ו, השלמת הסדרה [פרקי אבות, סדר תנאים ואמוראים, מסכת סופרים, ועוד דברים חשובים]

  4. ר’ יהודה זייבלד, בעל העקידה, רבי יצחק עראמה, תולדותיו, מפעלותיו משנתו, [מצוין], 763 עמודים, [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]

  5. קבץ על יד, כרך כח, הוצאת מקיצי נרדמים

  6. שלמה גליקסברג, פנקסי קהילות אשכנזיות באיטליה מן המאה הי”ח, מקיצי נרדמים

  7.   החסיד יעבץ, על מסכת אבות, על פי כ”י, מכון שלמה אומן, [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]

  8. מגיד מישרים למרן הבית יוסף, כולל מבוא ומפתחות על פי כתב ידות, אהבת שלום, מבוא 131+ תשלא עמודי  [מצוין]

  9. מדרש רבה, במדבר, מהדיר: פרופ’ חננאל מאק

  10. ילקוט מדרשים, חלק י, מדרשי עשרות הדברות [ניתן לקבל תוכן]

  11. מנהגים לבעל הפרי מגדים, נועם מגדים, [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]

  12. דרישת הזאב על ששה סדרי משנה, לר’ זאב וואלף ממאהלוב, מהדיר: ר’ שלום דזשייקאב, 21+קעט עמודים

  13. ר’ יהודה לירמה, לחם יהודה על מסכת אבות [נדפס לראשונה שי”ג], מכון אהבת שלום

  14. אוצר הגאונים, נדה, הרב זייני

  15. ר’ שמואל פרימו, דרשות אמרי שפר, אהבת שלום

  16.  גן המלך, פירושי זוהר לר’ נפתלי הרץ בכרך

  17. ר’ אליהו גוטמכר, סוכת שלם, מכתב אליהו, [מצוין], מהדורה שלישית

  18. יומן ליוורנו ד’ – החיד”א, מכתב יד

  19. ר’ שלמה יוסף זווין, סופרים וספרים, ג’ חלקים [מהדורה חדשה]

  20. יוחאי מקבילי, טהרה תודעה וחברה, תפיסת הטומאה והטהרה במשנת הרמב”ם

  21. י’ קושטר, מילים ותולדותיהן (מהדורה שנייה)

  22. ר’ יוסף מפוזנא, יד יוסף על התורה מכתב יד, יסוד יוסף

  23.  שדי חמד על התורה, כולל כת”י

  24. ר’ חיים דובער הכהן, “המלאך”, אוצר אגרות קודש, תרכז עמודים

  25. קונטרס ספדי תורה, הספדים על רבי מענדיל אטיק

  26. דוד הלבני, מקורות ומסורות ביאורים בתלמוד מסכת זבחים, מנחות, חולין

  27. מחשבת אליהו, שיעורים חדשים מאת רבי אליהו דסלר כולל מכתבים חדשים

  28. גרשום שלום, מצוה הבאה בעבירה, מהדורה חדשה בעריכת יונתן מאיר

  29. עשרה פרקים, מאת דאוד אבן מרואן אלמקמץ, תרגום שרה סטרומזה

  30. מצות התכלת, 555 עמודים

מוסד הרב קוק

  1. פירוש ר’ דוד צבי הופמן, ויקרא, ב חלקים, בעריכת ר’ יהושע ענבל

  2. לכם יהיה לאכלה מהדורה חדשה עם הוספות ותיקונים מכתב יד של המחבר ר’ איתם הנקין, הי”ד

  3. שיטה מקובצת, מעילה תמיד

  4. ר’ מאיר קדוש, ממאורות הקבלה הקדושה, הלכות, מנהגים והנהגות, בספרות מקובלים ופוסקים, מסוף תקופת הגאונים ועד לסוף תקופת הראשונים, 963  עמודים

  5. ר’ טוביה פרשל, מאמרי טוביה ז [כרך חדש] [ניתן לקבל תוכן]

  6. ר’ יהושע ענבל, יורה משפט

  7. אגרת ר’ שרירא גאון, בעריכת ר’ נתן דוד רבינוביץ [מהדורה חדשה]

  8. פירוש המשניות להרמב”ם למסכת כתובות

  9. מאירי על משלי

  10. ר’ שלמה דיכובסקי, לב שומע לשלמה, חלק ג

  11. הלכות גדולות חלקים א-ב

  12. מדרש הגדול 5 כרכים, הופיעו מחדש

  13. כתבי הגרי”א הרצוג, 13 כרכים, הופיעו מחדש

  14. שו”ת מהר”ש מוהליבר, הופיע מחדש

  15. ספר המנוחה, הופיע מחדש

חלק שני

  1. ר’ דוד הנזיר, קול הנבואה מהדורה חדשה, $30

  2. ר’ מאיר בר אילן, מוולוז’ין עד ירושלים, ב’ חלקים, $45

  3. ר’ יצחק שילת, בתורתו של ר’ גדליה נדל, $31

  4. פירוש על התורה מיוחס לתלמיד הר”ן, $36

  5. אלמה, בעריכת ב”מ לוין (תרצ”ו), כולל חיבור מר’ יעקב ריפמן על תולדות רבנו בחיי, $25

  6. ר’ יעקב עמדין, לחם שמים, סט משניות, דפוס צילום, $50

  7. מעגל טוב, מהדיר הרב מנדלבוים, $40 [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]

  8. מ’ גינזבורגר, תרגום יונתן בן עוזיאל, $33

  9. קובץ זכור לאברהם, כרך חדש, עניני ספר תורה $21 [ניתן לקבל תוכן]

  10. הלכות המדינה לבעל ציץ אליעזר, $32

  11. ר’ יהוסף שווארץ, תבואות הארץ, [מצוין], $35

  12. יאיר לורברבוים, מלך אביון, $20

  13. שמואל שילא, דינא דמלכותא דינא, $45

  14. אבן עזרא איש האשכולות, קובץ מאמרים בעריכת דב שוורץ, $29

  15. הרב עוז בלומן, איש משורש נביא, הממד האתי בבקשת האלוהים של הלל צייטלין [ניתן לקבל תוכן והקדמה], $28

  16. יעקב שפיגל, עמודים בתולדות הספר העברי, כתיבה והעתקה, [נדיר] [מצוין], $75

  17. נעימות הכהנים, ויכוח באיטליה בענין ניגון ברכת כהנים ותקפו של מנהג, מהדיר פרופ’ יעקב שפיגל, [עותקים אחרונים], $26 [ניתן לקבל דפי דוגמא]

  18. רש”י עיונים ביצירתו, בר אילן, $34

  19. ר’ אורי טיגר, קונטרס משפט עשה, פירוש צח וקצר על שו”ח חו”מ, סי’ כו, בדיני איסור הליכה לערכאות, עם הגהות רבי חיים קניבסקי, $10

  20. אברהם יערי, תעלומת ספר [על החמדת ימים], $36

  21. משנה ברורה, ו’ חלקים, עם יצחק יקרא, פסקים של ר’ אביגדור נבנצל, $85

  22. ר’ אברהם וסרמן, מסילה חדשה, הראי”ה קוק ואתגרי החינוך, $22

  23. אברהם ברלינר, כתבים נבחרים, ב’ חלקים, [מצוין] $42

  24. מור אלטשולר, חיי מרן יוסף קארו, $26

  25. תורת המנחה, לרבינו יעקב סקילי תלמיד הרשב”א, $30

  26. ספר מוסר, פירוש משנת אבות לר’ יוסף בן יהודה, תלמיד הרמב”ם, $26

  27. הרב משה אביגדור עמנואל, לנבוכי התקופה, $19

  28. ר’ יצחק שילת, על האחרונים $21

  29. ש’ רוטשטיין, תולדות ר’ חיים עוזר גרודזנסקי, $8

  30. ש’ רוטשטיין, תולדות ר’ מנחם זמבה, $8

  31. ספרא דצניעותא עם ביאור הגר”א, עם ביאור מר’ יצחק הוטנר, $16

  32. עוטה אור על אונקלוס, $25

  33. באורי אונקלוס לר”ש ברוך שעפטל, $35 [מצוין]

  34. דיני קניין במסחר המודרני, יעקב הילסהיים, $29

  35. דוד רידר, תרגום יהונתן בן עוזיאל, $28

  36. איטליה, משה דוד קאסוטו, $16

  37. איטליה, שמואל דוד לוצאטו, $32

  38. י.ז. כהנא, מחקרים בספרות התשובות [מצוין], $34

  39. מאמר על הדפסת התלמוד, $32 [מצוין]

  40. תורתן של גאונים, כרך א, מבוא, $24

  41. שרגא אברמסון, בעלי תוספות על התורה, $22

  42. תמר אלכסנדר פריזר, מילים משביעות מלחם, $20

  43. ר’ יצחק ברויאר, הכוזרי החדש $27

  44. אברהם כהנא, קורות היהודים ברומא, $14

  45. ר’ יצחק שילת, על הראשונים, $22

  46. אגרות מרום, מכתבים מאת הרב יעקב משה חרל”פ, $24

  47. שמואל ורסס ויונתן מאיר, ראשית חכמה [פולמוס כנגד חסידים] $26

  48. מאמרי הראי”ה קוק [מצוין], $18

  49. אפרים אלימלך אורבך, רשימות בימי מלחמה $28

  50. יצחק לנדיס, ברכת העבודה בתפילת העמידה, $24

  51. שמואל וינגרטן, מכתבים מזוייפים נגד הציונות, $23

  52. דרכי נועם, כולל הסכמת הגר”א מווילנה, $26

  53. ר’ יקותיאל גרינוואלד, לפלגות ישראל בהונגריה, 17$

  54. נחום רקובר, זכות היוצרים במקורות היהודים [במצבו], $33

  55. מאיר רפלד, המהרש”ל וספרו ים של שלמה, 288 עמודים, $23

  56. משה סמט, החדש אסור מן התורה , $65

  57. יד אליהו קוק, חלק ב- נשים, $14

  58. כסא רחמים להחיד”א, מסכות סופרים, אבות דר’ נתן, $17

  59. ש’ ווזנר חשיבה משפטית בישיבות ליטא, עיונים במשנתו של הרב שמעון שקופ,$25

  60. שר שלום, שערים ללוח העברי $26

  61. חסדי אבות, פירוש מסכת אבות לרבי דוד פרווינצאלו, מכתב יד, בעריכת פרופ’ יעקב שפיגל, $21

  62. יצחק בער לעווינזאהן, תעודה בישראל, $25

  63. ישראל תא שמע, הנגלה שבנסתר – 21$

  64. יוסף תבורי, פסח דורות, $21