Eliezer Brodt – Pesach Drasha of the Rokeach

The Pesach Drasha of the Rokeach
by Eliezer Brodt

Every once in a while we are privileged to have the venerable printing house Mikezei Nerdamim release something special from the great rishonim (aside from their great journal Kovetz Al Yad). Last year they published the drasha of R. Eliezer Rokeach for Pesach edited by Professor Simcha Emanuel. In this post I would like to discuss some of the many things of interest in the work and also comment on the great job of Simcha Emanuel did in general with this work. This drasha seems to have been an actual drasha that the Rokeach said although it is pretty obvious from the length that it was not said at one time but probably broken up over a few times. The style of the drasha is mostly halacha and a bit of aggdah in the beginning and also scattered in the middle and end. He goes through many halchos of Pesach starting with koshering the utensils getting rid of the chametz and baking the matzos. He than continues on at great length to discuss all the aspects of the Seder. Then he deals with what to do if one finds chametz on Pesach and he ends with some halchos of Yom Tov in general. First I would like to mention some of the interesting points found in the actual drasha. First, the Rokeach records that his family custom was when they burned the chametz they would do so with the lulavim and hoshanos which they had saved from Sukkos. [1]. While talking about the minhag to bake matzos Eruv Yom Tov he writes do not bake the matzos for the second night until the second night because of chavivah mitzvah bi’shaytah (pg 92). He writes that if the Yom Tov falls out on Shabbos we do not smell hadassim for besamim on Motzei Shabbos because there is no loss of the extra soul as the soul remains for the duration of Yom Tov. (pg 93). Professor Emanuel points out that others disagree with this point and hold one does in fact make a blessing on the besamim when Saturday night is still Yom Tov. While talking about the washing for karpas he writes that one should make a ‘al nitelas yadaim (pg 96) whereas we today do not. [2] He than goes on to say that we eat a full kazais for karpas something we also do not do – we eat less than a kazais. [3] (pg 97, 152). He notes his family minhag was to hold the cup of wine during the recitation of v’hei she’umdah (pg 99 and pg 126) [4]. He than goes on to describe how his family pours out the wine when we say the ten plagues. (pg 101 see also pg 127). The importance of this last custom is that until the publication of this drasha, although many have recorded this custom in the name of the Rokeach, it appeared in none of his writings (as I plan on discussing at length in a forthcoming article). In regard to washing mayim achronim although others argue he writes one should wash (pg 106). [5] Another point worth mentioning about this sefer and this edition is the inclusion of Professor S. Emanuel excellent and lengthy notes. He discusses and provides additional sources for various things mentioned in the drash such as making matzos with pictures on them (pg 129-134), about the nussach of the Haggdah that some said רבון עלומים וכו’ after ביד חזקה (pg 53- 57) [6] and reasons for the issur of kitnyot (pg 51). One very interesting thing which he points out is the difference about how a name is spelled in various manuscripts. Specifically, whether the Rokeach’s father-in-law was Eliezer or Elazar. If it was Elazer than it turns out that the Rokeach, whose first name was also Elazer, apparently ignored the will of his teacher, Rebbi Yehuda ha-Hassid – who disallows such marriages. Although, most likely, the Rokeach was married prior to coming in contact with Rebbi Yehuda ha-Hassid, his practice demonstrates that people, prior to Rebbi Yehuda ha-Hassid’s pronouncement did not observe this custom. (pg 57- 59). In addition to this Professor Emanuel has included excellent exstensive notes and comments throughout the drasha. He references many important points related to the issues the Rokeach says also including interesting sources from manuscripts. Aside from this small work (152 pages) containing this very important drasha of the Rokeach it also includes many important pieces of information in regard to the Rokeach in general and especially to two works of his that until now were unknown. There is a lengthy discussion about a sefer of the Rokeach on shecitah and treifos as well as another sefer – Sefer Ma’seh Rokeach – and the many new items for it. NOTES [1] Page 79. For further on this custom see Sefer HaMaskil pg 33-34; the important comment of R Honig in Yerushasanu pg 208-209; Sefer Kushyuos pg. 168-169 and the notes therein; D. Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 2 pg. 193. [2] See also the Haggdah Shivivi Eish in Me’orot HaRishonim, pg 152; see also Y. Tabory, Pesach Dorot, pg 216- 244. [3] See also Y. Tabory, Pesach Dorot, pg 264-265. [4] See also Haggdah Shivivi Eish pg 109. [5] See also Tabory, pg 244-249. [6] See also Pirush Miyuchas l’Rashi in the Torat Hayyim Haggdah, pg 110.



Upcoming Kestenbaum Auction and FREE sefer!

Kestenbaum & Company will be holding a auction on March 22 and their catalog is available online here.

For those interested in a free sefer, someone is offering the KeMotzei Shalal Rov for free[!], you can contact them at avadar21-at-gmail.com.



Book Announcement: New edition of the Seder Hadorot

Book Announcement: New edition of the Seder Hadorot

By Eliezer Brodt

ר’ יחיאל היילפרין, סדר הדורות, מאנסי תשפא, חלק שני: סדר התנאים והאמוראים, ב’ חלקים, [אות א, 820 עמ’\ אותיות ב-ט, 717 עמ’]

 

 

This post serves a dual purpose; first, to describe in some detail a new edition of a very important work: Seder Hadorot, and thus make the Seforim Blog readership aware of its recent publication. The second purpose of this post is to make this sefer available for purchase to those interested. Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog. The seforim are also available for purchase at Mizrahi Books [here]. Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for more information about purchasing it or for sample pages of this new work.

The study of Jewish history for itself, as well noting those who pursued this study are very important topics and IY”H I hope to write about it at length. One of the classic works of Jewish history printed in the past few hundred years is the Seder Hadorot, authored by Rabbi Yechiel Halperin, Av Beis Din of Minsk (1660–1742). Seder Hadorot was first printed in 1769, after the author’s passing, by his grandson and included many Haskamot of Gedolim of the time. Since then, the work has been reprinted numerous times and, as a very authoritative work on the subject, has been quoted thousands of times.

Many sources which made use of this work also cast bright light upon the author’s prodigiousness. One such source can be found in a fascinating piece at the end of R’ Pinchas of Poletsk’s Droshot:

קורות הזמן כאשר יעדתי גלל כן כתבתי בקצרה את חכמי הזמן שנתגלה אורם בהתחלת ימי וקודם מעט כמו עשר שנים, והיה דור דעה ויצאו לדפוס ונתפזרו בישראל לתורה ולתועדה ולהוראה ולפלפול וחריפות, הראשון הרב הגדול הגאון ר’ יונתן מפראג שיצאו ספריו לאור עולם,… והרב הגאון הגדול בעל המחבר ס’ סדר הדורות, כאשר נודע בספריו הקדושים יצאו לאור עולם… [פעולתי השמיני, ב, עמ’ תצה-תצו]

We thus find R’ Halperin listed as one of the great Gedolim in a generation that had many giants.

One significant point of his work is, it demonstrates that R’ Halperin, one of the great Gedolim of his time, saw fit to invest much time on history, as a topic for itself and even stressed its importance in his lengthy introduction.

We find the work quoted by Gedolim already close to its printing; e.g., R’ Yosef Steinhart, in a teshuvah to his extraordinary brother-in-law R’ Yeshaya Berlin, wrote:

ואחר כותבי הדברי’ האלה בא לידי ספר נקרא סדר הדורות נדפס מחדש בשנת תקכ”ט עם הסכמה גם ממני וראיתי שם, בסדר תנאי’ ואמוראים … [שו”ת זכרון יוסף, סוף סי’ טו].

Perhaps one of the greatest comments about this work was by the Chida who wrote in his Shem Hagedolim:

סדר הדורות מהגאון מהר”ר יחיאל אב”ד דק”ק מינסק… ובחלק התנאים ואמוראים הן הראנו את כחו בתלמוד ועוצם בקיאותו דכל רז לא אנס ליה כאשר יסתכל המעיין… והרגיל בו יכיר גדולתו כי הבבלי והירושלמי והמדרשים כמאן דמונח בכיסתיה, והקדמתו הארוכה והנוראה ותקוני הש”ס שאחריה וחלק התנאים והאמוראים מבהילים את הרעיון מראות נפלאות ופלאי פלאות בקיאותו וחפ”ש מחופש בכלהו ספרי דבי רב אשר היו עמו במחיצתו [שם הגדולים, מערכת ספרים, אות ס [ח] סדר הדורות]

This particularly powerful description is all the more impressive when we consider the Chida‘s almost unrivaled expertise in history.

However, from the first printing of the work and onward numerous typos crept in and more and more were created over time with each subsequent printing. Another issue with the sefer is that many of the author’s abbreviations were misunderstood leading to erroneous readings. Additionally, many paragraphs were transposed or similarly garbled and all too often the author’s true intent was misunderstood, left cryptic or worse.

In 1878-1882, R’ Naftoli Maskeleison published an edited edition of Seder Hadorot, in an attempt to correct these major issues, after having spent twenty years working on the project. This edition received many impressive Haskamot.

The original work of the Seder Hadorot contains three sections:

סדר ימות עולם סדר הדורות; תולדות אישים ומאורעות מאז בריאת העולם ועד סמוך לדורו של המחבר

סדר התנאים ואמוראים; תולדות התנאים והאמוראים

שמות בעלי מחברים וכל הספרים בערך א”ב מסודרים. מדור מיוחד למחברים ומדור מיוחד לספרים

Now, after close to two decades of work, a new version of the Seder Hadorot was recently released by Rabbi Yeshaya Miller and Rabbi Yitzchok Hager of Monsey, New York. The two volumes just published are just the beginning of the lengthy, encyclopedic work, covering the Seder Hatannaim V’amoraim section, letters Aleph (820 pp.) and Beis-Tes (717 pp.).

This section of the Seder Hadorot is the most important and original part of the work, and where the author’s intellectual prowess is clearly displayed, as highlighted by the Chida’s remarks (quoted above). Hence the editors’ decision to begin the printing of their edition of the work from this section, hoping IYH to continue on to the rest of the work. [The rest of the work is finished they are just working on preparing it for print].

With regard to this section’s importance, it’s worth quoting the Shoel Umeshiv‘s Haskamah to the Dikdukei Soferim:

מו”ה רפאל… ועמד על כל אות ואות מה שנמצא מכפי הדפוסים אשר נמצאו בידינו… כי הוא יהיה לנו לעינים לעמוד על עומק כוונת הש”ס על פי הגרסות החדשות הנמצאות שם גם בחלוף שמות התנאים והאמוראים ומואד שמח לבי בזה… והתועליות הגדולות אשר יצאו מזה אם בשמות התנאים והאמוראים אשר נמצאו בהשינוים וכבר האריך בזה… בעל הסדר הדורות בהקדמתו והגאון מהרי”ב ולבי אומר לי אם היו רואים השינוים האלה הנמצאים בכ”י וראשונים היה שמחים לקראתם

Many years ago, during one of my first meetings with R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi z”l, the Seder Hadorot came up. He asked me if I knew someone named Yeshaya Miller from Monsey who had been working on the sefer. At the time, R’ Ashkenazi was very excited about this and eagerly awaited its publication.

R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi wrote in a Letter to the Editors of this edition:

זה לי רבות בשנים יחלתי למהדורה מתוקנת של סדר הדורות. ואולם נער הייתי גם זקנתי ולא ראיתי מי שיקבל על עצמו את העבודה הקשה הזאת. והנה שמחתני בפעלך ובצפיתי אצפה לחזות בנועם הופעת ח”א בעגלה ובז”ק כשהוא מתוקן ומקובל [אגרות שמואל, ג, עמ’ 1588]

A few weeks ago, I received several copies of this new edition. I began going through the edition and was simply blown away by the editor’s tremendous investment and efforts in producing a stunningly masterful critical edition of Seder Hadorot. I elaborate:

The editor’s state:

הגהה מדויקת על פי דפו”ר, קארלסרוא תקכט; חלוקת הקטעים; כותרות קצרות לפני כל ענין; השוואה לכת”י רבינו המחבר שרשם בגליוני ספר יוחסין; בדיקת כל מקור בספרי דפוס וכת”י בדקדוק רב; השלמת אלפי ציונים; העתקת לשונות הספרים שצויינו בספר

Simply put, they invested years upon years in checking and double checking every source mentioned; literally every word was examined and researched to understand the author’s intent. This was accomplished by consulting early editions of R’ Halperin’s sources thus verifying his readings and comments. Many of these sources were extremely rare, however the editors spared no effort or cost in tracking down each and every source, thus enabling them to better understand each comment.

The following excerpt, sampled from just one footnote serves to give us a small glimpse of the prodigious amount of effort invested into this editorial endeavor:

אבוה דשמואל ולי עיילי לבית הכנסת. דשף ויתיב בנהרדעא והתפללו שם (ראש השנה כד ב, עבודה זרה, מג ב) כתב מסעות בנימן בעיר שפיתה בית הכנסת שנבנה מאבנים ועפר ירושלים

שפיתה. לא ידוע לנו מאיזה דפוס העתיק רבינו את הכתיב “שפיתה”. בדפוסי קושטא שג, פרייבורג שמג, ליידן שצג (שני הדפוסים), אמשטרדם תנא: “שפיתיב” (וכן העתיק בוקסטורף בספרו ‘טיבריאס’, באזל 1620, עמ’ 25). במסעות ר’ בנימין דפוס פיררא שיו: “שיפיתיב”. ובדפוס אמשטרדם תנח: “שפי’ תיב”. על הכתיב “שפיתיב”, במקום “שף יתיב”, ראה: המגיד שנה כא חוברת 25 עמ’ 237; ירחון הכרמל שנה ד עמ’ 274; מקור ברוך לר”ב עפשטיין חלק ג דף תשלה ע”א-ע”ב

בית הכנסת “דשף ויתיב” נבנה מאבני ירושלים ועפרה על ידי יכניה ואנשי גלותו, כמו שכתוב – בנוסחאות שונות – באגרת רב שרירא גאון עמ’ 62-61; תשובת רב האי גאון, בתוך: תשובות הגאונים – שערי תשובה סי’ עא; ערוך ערך שף השני; רש”י ראש השנה כד ב ד”ה דשף, ועבודה זרה מג ב ד”ה דשף; ספר התרומה הלכות ארץ ישראל; כפתור ופרח פרק י, חלק א עמ’ רלג, ועוד

מסורות שונות בנוגע למקום בית הכנסת זה וקורותיו, מובאות בסבוב העולם לר’ פתחיה (אוצר מסעות עמ’ 52); שו”ת הרשב”א חלק ח סי’ ד; שו”ת צדקה ומשפט הקדמת ר’ עזרא ראובן דנגור; עלי תמר זרעים ב עמ’ע

While working on this edition they discovered R’ Halperin’s personal copy of Sefer Yuchasin by R’ Avraham Zaccuto, which he used and even wrote numerous glosses along the margins, thus enabling R’ Miller and R’ Hager to further decipher many previously cryptic passages in Seder Hadorot. All of R’ Halperin’s glossa are included in the notes of this edition.

However, the editors did not simply content themselves with referencing R’ Halperin’s sources; wherever possible but further searched after the first edition of every source mentioned in Seder Hadorot — and in many cases, even the manuscript copies. This was done to avoid relying solely upon possible mistaken information R’ Halperin may have been exposed to, due to errata introduced in subsequent printings of his sources.

Other important additions to this new edition are: punctation to enhance readability; the creation of title and section headings to each entry, thus dividing the contents into material that can be easily and expediently perused; graphically differentiating between R’ Halperin’s comments and his base text, Sefer Yuchasin, by varying the fonts used. This last point is quite crucial; R’ Halperin quotes Sefer Yuchasin extensively, all the while interspersing his own thoughts and comments and differentiating between the two authors enables the reader to better comprehend the Seder Hadorot. Finally, I must note that the typesetting is beautifully done and makes reading the work an absolute pleasure.

The new edition includes a section titled: Likutei He’aros. In the editors’ words:

לקוטי הערות: אלפי הערות שנלקטו מפי ספרים וספרים, הנושאים ונותנים בדברי רבינו המחבר, מהן שהיו עד עתה בכת”י ומהן שכבר נדפסו; מופיעות כאן לראשונה הערות מכת”י החיד”א, בעל שער בת רבים הגה”ק משימאני, בעל איתן אריה, בעל אפרקסתא דעניא, מרן הגרח”ק, ורבים אחרים

Many Gedolim and scholars have commented on this work since it was first printed. In this section, literally thousands of comments and additions from numerous manuscripts and printed works were collected and printed in a very organized manner.

A third section of this edition is Meluiyim:

מילואים: הרחבת דברים במקומות שראינו צורך לתת השלמה, בירור נוסף ועיון מעמיק לענינים הנידונים בספר ובלקוטי הערות; בירורי גירסאות רבות על פי עדי נוסח קדומים; הצעת דעות, פירושים והערות שונות לכל הקשור לעניני הספר; העתקים לשונות ארוכים שלה הכילם הגליון בפנים

This section is devoted to lengthier pieces devoted to elaborating upon particular passages in Seder Hadorot. The research invested in this section is simply incredible; no stone was left unturned.

One example of this: Seder Hadorot lists three hundred and thirty mentions of ר’ אליעזר הגדול in the Mishnah. In their almost ten-page elaboration of this in this section, the editors examine each of these mentions. This is extremely valuable to scholar and researcher alike, as many passages are attributed to ר’ אלעזר בן שמוע.

In conclusion: this outstanding new edition of this incomparable work is truly masterful and I eagerly await the completion of this set.



A Look at Makhon Moreshet Ashkenaz’s New Journal: Yerushateinu

A Look at Makhon Moreshet Ashkenaz’s New Journal: Yerushateinu
By Eliezer Brodt

There is a new journal published by מכון מורשת אשכנז titled ירושתנו. This מכון is well known for producing some excellent works, amongst them זכרונות ומסורות על החת”ם סופר and the four volumes ofשרשי מנהג אשכנז . This journal they promise to put out once a year but only time will tell, as anyone familiar with this מכון knows; they do great work but it takes forever for the seforim to come out. Many reasons have been given as to why that is so (money amongst them) however, the main reason I feel is because they strive for perfection – which is the biggest mistake many make as the משנה in אבות says לא עליך המלאכה לגמור.

With this in mind I would like to review this work (not in-depth so as to keep your interest). There are articles on all topics – basically whatever your interest you’re sure to find something there.

This sefer has about thirty articles including many articles which include hereto unpublished Torah from the great גדולים of אשכנז.

Amongst them from the בעל חינוך בית יהודא ,ערוך לנר ,רב הירש ,רב עזריאל הילדסהימר ,ר’ יונה מרצבך and ר’ דוד הקשר. There is an in-depth discussion as to the שיעור מיל according to the קליר between ר’ יצחק אדלר and ר’ יונה מרצבך. For those interested in poetry there is a great piece from the מהר”ם מרוטנברג on חנוכה which includes many interesting things about חנוכה. There is another article on the זמר of דרור יקרא and a piece on שירה during davening in general.

There are a few articles on contemporary halakhic issues such as הגעלת כלים from the בעל שמירת שבת כהלכתה and on יארצהייט when it’s a leap year.

Besides this there are about six articles on מנהגים all of the articles just whet one’s appetite – leaving one feeling that suddenly they took the משנה of שלא עליך המלאכה לגמור too far. For instance, one article discusses the custom of waiting between milk and meat is an extreme example of having too little information. I and many others were waiting for an exhaustive article on the topic – this is not it. Even the article from the generally great ר’ בנימן שלמה המבורגר (the author of the works שרשי מנהג אשכנז), discussing קדיש after קריאת התורה, leaves us feeling teased. We are used to much more from such an expert on מנהגים. He probably wants to save it for his own works שרשי מנהג אשכנז – which we are anyway long overdue for another one.

There are, however a few stand out articles. There is an important article from Professor יעקב שפיגל, whose articles and books are consistently excellent, discussing the בית יוסף’s usage of ראשונים – specifically which editions the בית יוסף had in front of him. שפיגל covers, among others, the שבלי הלקט and the sefer אגור. This is very important in fully understanding the בית יוסף in general and his sources.

After שפיגל’s article there is a much talked about article from ר’ מרדכי הוניג. This article is a review of a recent printing of the ספר חסידים החדש from the nephew of the רא”ש, sometimes referred to as the ספר המשכיל. This sefer has many many interesting things on many topics many of whichר’ הוניג is kind enough to point out – he has extensive comments from a wide range of sources. One can only hope that one day he puts out this sefer with all his notes and the many more I am sure he could have put in this article of 45 pages. Perhaps he was keeping with the above themeלא עליך המלאכה לגמור.

After that there is an article, from ר’ יחיאל גולדהבר, on ר’ עזריאל הילדסהיימר during his time in אייזנשטט. Although the article is good, it appears he missed out on one important source from ר’ עזריאל הילדסהיימר’s daughter all about her father. See Gertrude Hirschler and Shnayer Z. Leiman, “Esther Hildesheimer Calvary: The Hildesheimers in Eisenstadt,” Tradition 26:3 (1992): 87-92.

After that there is an extensive article on the life of ר’ יוסף אלטמאן including many items from rare German newspapers.

The articles conclude with a short piece from ר’ אברהם סולומון about a future edition of דברי קהלת from שלמה גייגר that he plans on publishing. דברי קהלת is, of course, an extremely important source for מנהגים and anyone familiar with the sefer will definitely understand the great necessity for such a job as it’s a very hard sefer to use but one could only hope that the authors dream comes true and he is able to put out the work as he intends to.

Finally, the inaugural issue of ירושתנו also includes a לוח השנה של מנהגי בית הכנסת לבני אשכנז בארץ ישראל and two articles in English.



Translations of Rabbi Judah Halevi’s Kuzari

Translations of
Rabbi Judah Halevi’s Kuzari
by Daniel J. Lasker
Daniel J. Lasker is Norbert Blechner Professor of Jewish Values at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, in the Goldstein-Goren Department of Jewish Thought. He has published widely in the fields of medieval Jewish philosophy, the Jewish-Christian debate, and Karaism.
This is Professor Lasker’s third essay at the Seforim
blog.
On the occasion
of the publication of:
ספר הכוזרי. הוא ספר הטענה והראָיה לדת
המושפלת לרבי יהודה הלוי
תרגם מערבית-יהודית לעברית בת זמננו
מיכאל שוַרץ
הוצאת הספרים של אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון
בנגב, באר-שבע, תשע”ז
R. Judah Halevi,
The Book of Kuzari. The Book of Rejoinder and Proof of the Despised Religion,
translated by Michael Schwarz
Beer Sheva, 2017
The
publication of Prof. Michael Schwarz z”l’s new modern Hebrew translation of
Rabbi Judah Halevi’s Judaeo-Arabic Book of Kuzari provides a good
opportunity to discuss previous versions of this seminal book of Jewish thought
and to evaluate the advantages that Prof. Schwarz’s translation has over other
renditions. Prof. Schwarz (1929-2011), who completed a draft translation before
he died over five years ago, was a scholar of Jewish and Islamic philosophy
whose best-known publication has been his translation of Maimonides’ Guide
of the Perplexed. After an unfortunate delay, the Kuzari has now been
published by the International Goldstein-Goren Center for Jewish Thought at
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, in its series “Library of Jewish Thought,”
under the editorship of Prof. Haim Kreisel.[1]
Less
than thirty years after R. Judah ben Samuel Halevi completed his Book of
Kuzari[2] in approximately
1140, it became one of the first Judaeo-Arabic compositions to be translated
into Hebrew. This pioneering translation marked part of the cultural transfer
of Andalusian Jewish culture, written in Judaeo-Arabic, into Hebrew, and was accomplished
in 1167 by R. Judah ben Saul Ibn Tibbon, “the father of the translators.” As
the centers of Jewish intellectual life moved to Christian areas where Hebrew
was the predominant Jewish literary language, it was only through this
translation that the Kuzari was known to generations upon generations of
Jews. The Kuzari’s readers were moved by its unwavering defense of
Judaism, its description of Jewish singular chosenness, and its love of Zion.
Halevi’s life story, including his departure from Iberia and, according to
legend, his martyrdom at the gates of Jerusalem, only strengthened the
resonance of the book (on this legend, see here). Extensive commentaries were written on the basis of the
Ibn Tibbon translation by authors who neither understand Arabic nor were able
to appreciate the Islamic context in which the Kuzari was written. Judah
Halevi’s defense of Judaism made a great impact on Jewish thought and achieved
canonical status.[3]
With
the birth of Jewish studies in the nineteenth century, scholars began
publishing original texts in academic editions. Thus, Hartwig Hirschfeld
(1854-1934), working with Oxford-Bodleian Ms. Pococke 284, the only complete,
or almost complete, version of the work, produced a first edition of the
original Judaeo-Arabic text of the Kuzari.[4] He published with it a
version of the Ibn Tibbon translation which was partially corrected to
correspond to the Judaeo-Arabic version, but not in a consistent manner. Thus,
Hirschfeld changed some passages in the Hebrew despite their being attested in
all the Ibn Tibbon manuscripts and editions, but left other problematic
passages untouched.[5] The Hirschfeld Ibn Tibbon text achieved wide
distribution when it was used by Avraham Zifroni as the basis of his edition of
the Kuzari, and many contemporary editions of the Hebrew Kuzari
are based on Zifroni’s work.[6] Meanwhile, Hirschfeld’s Judaeo-Arabic publication
has been supplanted by the superior edition of David Zvi Baneth and Haggai
Ben-Shammai.[7]
The
Judah Ibn Tibbon translation of the Kuzari is an adequate translation, despite
some misunderstandings. It follows the Tibbonide practice of maintaining the
syntax and word order of the original Arabic to the extent possible and often
translating the same underlying Arabic term with one Hebrew equivalent. It may also
be a better witness to the original text of the Kuzari than the unique Judaeo-Arabic
manuscript which was copied in Damascus over 300 years after the composition of
the original book. For professional students of medieval Jewish philosophy, or
those with close familiarity with medieval Hebrew, it is readable and achieves
its goal of making the work accessible to non-Arabic readers. Yet, there is
still no acceptable edition based on the best manuscripts of this translation.
In addition, as a means of communicating the extent of Judah Halevi’s thought
to the contemporary reader of modern Hebrew, it is less than ideal. Thus, since
the 1970’s, a number of new Hebrew translations of the Kuzari have
appeared.
The
first of these translations was presented by Dr. Yehudah Even Shmuel (1886-1976)
in 1973.[8] The first edition included a long introduction, a vocalized and
punctuated text, short notes and many extensive indices, and was praised for
the clarity of its Hebrew and its accessibility to contemporary readers.
Subsequently it was published in paperback with just the text and short notes,
an edition which has sold well and is used as a textbook for high schools and
universities. At first, the novelty of a medieval philosophical work in
readable modern Hebrew seems to have compensated for the imprecision of the
translation.[9] Oftentimes, the translator offered more of a creative
paraphrase than an exact translation, and there were sections where Even Shmuel
attempted to tone down considerably Judah Halevi’s view of Jewish essentialism.[10]
Many key terms were translated by different Hebrew words, making it impossible
for the reader to note the importance of these words, most of which have
resonances from the Islamic and Arabic realms. Thus, Halevi’s great debt to his
non-Jewish cultural context was effectively hidden by this translation.
Scholars soon realized that this edition of the Kuzari could not be used
for academic purposes.
Despite
its drawbacks, or perhaps because of its advantages, the Even Shmuel
translation went unchallenged for over 20 years. In the mid-1990’s, I heard
Rabbi Yosef Kafiḥ (1917-2000), the well-known editor and translator of
Judaeo-Arabic texts, reply to a question as to why he did not translate the Kuzari
as he had translated so many other classics. He responded that he had prepared
such a translation many years previously but had decided not to publish it
because he did not want to appear as competing with Even Shmuel. Nonetheless, Kafiḥ
finally did publish his own translation in 1997,[11] following his custom of
presenting the original Judaeo-Arabic and the Hebrew translation in parallel
columns.[12] This translation has neither the clarity nor the extensive
notation of Kafiḥ’s earlier translations; most of his comments are devoted to
attacking Even Shmuel’s translation. In his introduction, Kafiḥ explains that
he had begun translating the Kuzari when he was a student in a class led
by Rabbi David Cohen (the Nazir, 1887-1972) at Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in 1947-48,
where he was made responsible for comparing Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew with the
Judaeo-Arabic in the Hirschfeld edition.[13] Repeating what he had said in
public, namely that he had waited so long to publish this translation because
of his desire not to appear as a competitor with Even Shmuel, he then goes on
to attack Even Shmuel’s translation mercilessly. He even states that Rabbi
Judah Halevi composed one of his dirges when he realized that his Kuzari
would be translated by Even Shmuel.
Despite
Rabbi Kafiḥ’s great erudition in Judaeo-Arabic, and the general readability of
his other translations, the Kuzari does not match his previous work.
Whether this was a result of the fact that the translation was, indeed, a
product of his youth before he had perfected his Hebrew style, or was the work
of an aged man who did not review his earlier drafts, it did not succeed in replacing
the Even Shmuel translation as the generally accepted Hebrew version of the Kuzari.
My own experience with Israeli students has been that Kafiḥ’s Hebrew is not
much more understandable than that of Judah Ibn Tibbon, and, despite the
convenience of having the original Judaeo-Arabic text available, it was not a
very good pedagogical tool. Sometimes I preferred using the Ibn Tibbon text
which is available in a number of formats, such as in Yediot Aharonot’s Am
ha-sefer project[14] and on-line.
There
exists one more contemporary translation of the Kuzari into Hebrew and
that is the one produced by Rabbi Itzhak Shailat (b. 1946).[15] Shailat is
known for his editions and translations of medieval Judaeo-Arabic texts, such
as Maimonides’ Epistles. Although Shailat’s introduction and notes to
his editions demonstrate a conservative, harmonistic and pietistic approach to
his authors, his translations are generally accurate. His methodology, however,
is to reproduce Tibbonide Hebrew as much as possible, giving his translations a
classical, rather than modern, feel. Hence, his Kuzari should be seen as
an update of Ibn Tibbon rather than as an independent creation.
Before
discussing the new Hebrew translation, it might be useful to refer to
translations into other languages. In addition to editing the Judaeo-Arabic
text of the Kuzari, and producing an edition of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew
translation, Hartwig Hirschfeld also translated the book into English.[16] This
work was reissued many times, often with minimal attribution to Hirschfeld.[17]
The abridged translation of the Kuzari by Prof. Isaac Heinemann
(1876-1957) which appeared independently in Oxford, 1947, and was later
incorporated in the widely distributed Three Jewish Philosophers,[18] is
greatly dependent upon Hirschfeld. In addition to questions of accuracy, the
language of these translations is difficult for the contemporary English
reader.
In
an attempt to present a clearly written English version of the Kuzari
which could be used by laypeople, Rabbi N. Daniel Korobkin (b. 1964) published
a translation on the basis of the Ibn Tibbon version, relying on the
interpretations of the classical commentators Judah Moscatto and Israel of
Zamosc.[19] Although achieving its goal of readability, the author’s ignorance
of Arabic and the scholarly literature on the Kuzari are the cause of
multiple errors of translation and annotation. Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation
of the Kuzari is included in the book, but since it is based on the
Hirschfeld/Zifroni edition (the exact source is not noted in the book), and the
English translation is based on older editions, there are inconsistencies
between the Hebrew and the English. Subsequent to the Korobkin translation, other
English editions of the Kuzari have appeared, but apparently none of them
is based on the Judaeo-Arabic original.[20]
A
scholarly, readable English translation of the Kuzari from the original
has long been a desideratum. In fact, Prof. Lawrence V. Berman (1929-1988)
began the work on such a translation before his untimely death. The project was
inherited by Prof. Barry S. Kogan (b. 1944) and is scheduled to appear as part
of the Yale Judaica Series. This project has been long delayed, but Prof. Kogan
has been very generous with sharing drafts of this translation with colleagues,
a number of whom have used its clear and accurate renditions in their own
publications. One can only hope that there will not be much further delay until
the translation appears in print.[21]
This
leads us to the recently published Hebrew translation of the Kuzari by
Prof. Michael Schwarz. Following the pattern established in his translation of
Maimonides’ Guide, Schwarz presents an eminently readable rendition of
the book. As in the case of his other translations, the work combines accuracy
with readability. His language is elegant, eschewing the many foreign words
which have entered contemporary Hebrew. He highlights words which appear in
Hebrew in the Judaeo-Arabic original by using a bold font so the reader knows
that this is Halevi’s Hebrew, not Schwarz’s.
As
noted above, one of the challenges with a translation of the Kuzari is
how to capture the Islamic/Arabic flavor of the work. Despite its reputation as
the most Jewish of the medieval Jewish philosophical treatises, recent research
has demonstrated the extent to which the Kuzari is steeped in Islamic concepts.[22]
This can be seen by its use of a number of key terms which are repeated
throughout the book, such as ṣafwa (the choicest, translated as segulah,
as found in other translations, despite Prof. Schwarz’s reservations); al-amr
al-ilāhī (divine order, translated ha-davar ha-‘elohi, as per Kafiḥ,
in contrast to Ibn Tibbon’s ha-ʿinyan ha-‘elohi); ijtihād (fervent
striving or innovating new laws, translated as hit’amẓut, hishtadlut, or ḥiddush
halakhah), or qiyās (analogous reasoning or general rationalism,
translated heqesh or higgayon). Since it is not always possible
to use the exact same translation in every context, the translator must find a
way of informing the reader of the underlying key term. Schwarz solves this
problem by drawing up a list of recurring Arabic concepts and noting each time
one of them is used. He then explains these terms in a special glossary devoted
to their explication. Some important Arabic words which are used less often are
explained in the textual notes. In addition, the notes provide references to
Halevi’s sources or further explications.
Scholarly
analyses of the Kuzari are extensive, and as in the case of Schwarz’s
translation of the Guide, the notes are full of references to this
secondary literature. Although he does not say so in his very short preface,
one can assume that as was the case in the Guide, the reference to a
particular article or book does not necessarily imply endorsement of the
material found therein. The annotations are there for comprehensiveness, and
the alert reader is enjoined to examine them carefully. The bibliography
occupies 36 pages. In addition, there are indices of sources and a general
index of topics and places.[23]
When
Part One of Prof. Michael Schwarz’s translation of the Guide was first published
by Tel-Aviv University Press in 1997, I offered the opinion that despite the
fact that it was the best available Hebrew version of Maimonides’ masterpiece,
I was not sure it would replace the other available translations, partially
since traditional Jewish readers might be wary of a university provenance and
the reliance on non-Jewish sources.[24] I believe that my estimation has been
proven wrong, since the translation’s clear superiority to the competition has
made it indispensible.[25] It is to be hoped that the same widespread
acceptance of the Schwarz translation of the Guide will be repeated in
the case of the Schwarz translation of the Kuzari, since it is, without
doubt, the best Hebrew Kuzari available.
Notes:
[1]
Books from this series are produced by the Mosad Bialik Publishing House. The
Schwarz Kuzari can be ordered here.
The translation is preceded by an introduction which Prof. Schwarz asked me to
write and which he approved a few weeks before his death. [Editor’s Note:
Professor Schwarz’ edition of the Kuzari can be purchased via Bialik or by
contacting (Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com) — where the book will be available at the
same  Book Week price. Portions of the proceeds of this sale help support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.]
[2] The title, The
Book of Rejoinder and Proof of the Despised Religion, is in accordance with
a Geniza fragment; a slightly different title appears in the one full Judaeo-Arabic
manuscript mentioned below. The title of Ibn Tibbon’s translation, Sefer
ha-kuzari, was that which was known to centuries of Hebrew readers, and it corresponds
to the title, al-kitāb al-khazarī (“The Book of the Khazar”), found in
Halevi’s famous autograph letter from the Geniza.
[3] See Adam
Shear, The Kuzari and the Shaping of Jewish Identity, 1167–1900,
Cambridge 2008. Another medieval translation, by Judah ben Isaac Cardenal, has
not survived.
[4] Das Buch
al-Chazarî des Abû-l-Hasan Jehuda Hallewi; im arabischen urtext sowie in
der hebräischen übersetzung des Jehuda Ibn Tibbon, herausgegeben von Hartwig
Hirschfeld, Leipzig, 1887. The manuscript is now classified as Neubauer
Catalogue Oxford ms. 1228, and it is freely available on-line (here).
[5] See Daniel
J. Lasker, “Adam and Eve or Adam and Noah? Judaeo-Arabic and Hebrew
Versions of the Same Books,” Pesher Nahum. Texts and Studies in Jewish
History and Literature from Antiquity Through the Middle Ages Presented to
Norman (Naḥum) Golb, ed. Joel L. Kraemer and Michael G. Wechsler et al.,
Chicago, 2012, pp.141-148.
[6] The Zifroni
edition, Warsaw, 1911, published under his original name Zifrinowitsch,
included many valuable notes. Subsequent editions generally omitted these
notes.
[7] Judah
ha-Levi, Kitāb al-radd wa-ʾl-dalīl fi ʾl-dīn al-dhalīl (Al-kitāb al-khazarī),
ed. David H. (Zvi) Baneth and Haggai Ben-Shammai, Jerusalem, 1977.
[8] The
Kosari of R. Yehuda Halevi, Translated Annotated and Introduced by Yehuda
Even Shmuel, Tel Aviv, 1972. On Even Shmuel, né Kaufman, see Ira Robinson, “The
Canadian years of Yehuda Kaufman (Even Shmuel): Educator, Journalist, and
Intellectual,” Canadian Jewish Studies, 15 (2007), pp. 129-142.
[9] See, e.g.,
Michael Schwarz’s effusive review in Kiryat Sefer, 49 (5734), pp.
198-202. Many years later, Prof. Schwarz told me that he no longer held the
views he expressed in that review.
[10] For
instance, the term ṣarīḥ/ ṣuraḥa’, meaning “native-born,” and indicative
of Halevi’s essentialist view of the Jewish chosenness, is glossed over in
1:115; 2:1; and 5:23; see Daniel J. Lasker, “Proselyte Judaism, Christianity
and Islam in the Thought of Judah Halevi,” Jewish
Quarterly Review, 81:1-2 (July-October, 1990): 75-91 (Hebrew version: in Ephraim Hazan and Dov Schwartz, eds., The
Poetry of Philosophy. Studies on the Thought of R. Yehuda Halevi,
Ramat-Gan, 2016, pp. 207-220).
[11] Sefer
ha-kuzari le-rabbeinu Yehuda Halevi zẓ”l, Kiryat Ono, 5757.
[12] Kafiḥ states
that he used the text published by Hirschfeld, correcting it according to the
Baneth-Ben-Shammai edition. A comparison of texts indicates that he did not
always follow Hirschfeld and Ben-Shammai. In fact, in the edition and Hebrew
translation, he accepted certain emendations in the order of the text and the
re-assignment of sections from the King to the Sage, and vice versa, e.g.,
3:25-31. These departures from the original are very similar to ones made by
Even Shmuel (both mention the opinion of Rabbi Ben-Zion Hai Uziel).
[13] Cohen’s
class notes were published many years later as a commentary on the Kuzari
under the title Ha-kuzari ha-mevu’ar, edited by Dov Schwartz, Jerusalem,
1997.
[14] Judah
Halevi, Sefer ha-kuzari, Tel Aviv, 2008 (with my introduction). The text
is vocalized and section headings have been added (not by me), but it is not a
scientific edition.
[15] Jerusalem,
2010. In his introduction (p. 5), Shailat writes that he was aware that Prof.
Schwarz was working on a translation, but he decided to go ahead with his own
project because it was unclear when the Schwarz translation would be ready and
unlike Schwarz’s rendition into modern Hebrew, Shailat was translating it into
medieval Hebrew.
[16] Judah
Hallevi’s Kitab al Khazari, translated from the Arabic with an introd. by
Hartwig Hirschfeld, London, 1905.
[17] E.g., the
edition by Schocken Publishing House, The Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith
of Israel (various editions), which mentions H. Slonimsky as the author of the
introduction on the cover of the book, but requires one to search well to find
out that it was Hirschfeld’s translation.
[18] Cleveland,
1960, with many reprints.
[19] Yehuda
HaLevi, The Kuzari. In defense of the Despised Faith, translated and
annotated by N. Daniel Korobkin, Northvale, N.J., 1998.
[20] Amazon.com
lists many editions of the Kuzari. I have been unable to check them
personally. As far as I know, they are all dependent upon the Hebrew.
[21]
Reference should be made as well to the excellent French translation by Prof. Charles
Touati (1925-2003), executed on the basis of the Judaeo-Arabic original: Juda
Hallevi, Le Kuzari. Apologie de la religion méprisé, traduit sur le
texte original arabe confronté avec la version hébraïque et accompagné d’une
introduction et de notes par Charles Touati, Louvain, 1994.
[22] My student
Ehud Krinis discusses Shi’ite influence; see his God’s Chosen People: Judah
Halevi’s Kuzari and the Shīcī Imām Doctrine, Turnhout 2014. For Sufi influence, see Diana Lobel, Between
Mysticism and Philosophy: Sufi Language of Religious Experience in Judah
Halevi’s Kuzari. Albany, NY 2000.
[23] The indices
were produced by Prof. Schwarz’s son, David Zori, who took upon himself the
responsibility of transforming his father’s draft into publishable form.
Editorial work on the text was done by Ayal Fishler.
[24] Jewish Studies, 37 (1997): 267-271
(Hebrew).

[25] An edition
of Schwarz’s Guide, without the notes and with some corrections, was
issued by Yediot Aharonot in the Am ha-sefer series, Tel-Aviv, 2008. The
translation was also at one time freely available on-line until Tel-Aviv
University Press removed its site. Accessing it on-line is still possible, but
it is not as easy as it once was.


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

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

by Marvin J. Heller[1]

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

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

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

I

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

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

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

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

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

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

1654, Orhot Hayyim, Cracow

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

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

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

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

1669, Luah ha-Hayyim, Prague

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


c. 1671-75, Or Hadash, Amsterdam

Courtesy of Hebrewbooks.org

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

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

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

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

1710, Tozot Ḥayyim

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

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

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

II

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


1648, Midrash Konen

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

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

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

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

Courtesy of the Jewish National and University Library

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

III

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

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

[1] Once again, I would like to express my appreciation to Eli Genauer for reading the article and his constructive comments. I would also like to thank Dan Rabinowitz for his review and additive annotations.
[2] Kaufmann Kohler, S. Roubin, “Bochner, Hayyim b. Benjamin Ze’eb,” ”Jewish Encyclopedia vol. 3 (New York, 1901-06), p. 280; Mordechai Margalioth, ed., Encyclopedia of Great Men in Israel II (Tel Aviv, 1986), col. 492 [Hebrew].
[3] The order of expulsion was issued on Monday, March 1, 1670. By August 1 no Jews remained in Vienna. Soon after there was a reported deficit amounting to 40,000 florins a year in the state tax as well as a loss of 20,000 florins reported in the Landstände due to the departure of the Jews. The citizens of Vienna had agreed to pay the annual Jews’ tax of 14,000 florins but were now unable to pay their own taxes. On Sept. 26, 1673, in a conference in Wischaw, Moravia between government and Jewish representatives, it was agreed that upon payment of 300,000 florins and the former yearly tax of 10,000 florins 250 Jewish families could return to Vienna and occupy fifty business places in the inner city. (Joseph Jacobs, Meyer Kayserling, Gotthard Deutsch, Theodor Lieben, “Vienna,” Jewish Encyclopedia vol. 2 pp. 430-32).
[4] Hayyim Michael, Or ha-Hayyim (Frankfurt am Main, 1891, reprint, Jerusalem, 1965), p. 385 no. 861 [Hebrew].
[5] Krzysztof Pilarczyk, “Hebrew Printing Houses in Poland against the Background of their History in the World,” Studia Judaica 7:2 (Cracow, 2004), pp. 210-11.
[6] Ch. B. 3Friedberg, Bet Eked Sepharim, (Israel, n.d.), mem 2174 [Hebrew].
[7] Chaim Tchernowitz, Toledoth ha-Poskim, II (New York, 1946), pp. 260-61 [Hebrew].
[8] Shmuel Ashkenazi, “Tyrnau, Issac” vol. 20, Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 2007), pp. 219-20). Another somewhat similar affair, is that the ruler of Poland, King Casimir the Great (1333-70) fell in love with Esterka, the Jewess daughter of a tailor from a small town. Later generations took this as the reason for Casimir’s noteworthy friendship for his Jewish subjects. However, when the clergy became aware of Casimir’s very close friendship towards Jews, they incited the population against them, resulting in several riotous anti-Jewish outbreaks (Moses A. Shulvass, Jewish Culture in Eastern Europe: The Classical Period (New York, 1975, pp. 4, 6).
[9] Isaac Yudlov, Ginzei Yisrael, The Israel Mehlman Collection in the Jewish National and University Library (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 135-36, no. 808 [Hebrew].
[10] Isaac Benjacob, Otzar ha-Sefarim (Vilna, 1880), p. 257 no. 92 [Hebrew] and Moritz 5Steinschneider, Catalogus Liborium Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana (CB, Berlin, 1852-60), cols. 825-26 no. 4679.
[11] Yeshayahu Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book. Listing of Books Printed in Hebrew Letters Since the Beginning of Printing circa 1469 through 1863 I (Jerusalem, 1993-95), p. 203 [Hebrew].
[12] I would like to thank R. Eliezer Brodt for bringing it to my attention. Concerning this see the National Library of Israel Jerusalem Israel Ms. Heb. 6678=28 Hekhal Shlomo Jerusalem Israel Ms. Goldschmidt 28
[13] Bochner’s name in the works described here as well as on the title-page of Midrash Konen (below) is spelled באכנור, that is, with an א. For reasons that are not clear, several bibliographic works, including some descriptive entries in the JNL catalogue, spell it בוכנר, that is with a ו.Yet another spelling באכנער is in Isaac Benjacob, Otzar ha-Sefarim, p. 24 no. 487 [Hebrew].
[14] For a complete list of the approbations see L. Fuks and R. G. FuksMansfeld, Hebrew Typography in the Northern Netherlands 1585 – 1815 II (Leiden, 1984-87), pp. 264-65 no. 325.
[15] Benjacob, op cit.; Michael, op cit.
[16] Concerning the fish motif in Hebrew books see Marvin J. Heller “The Fish Motif on Early Hebrew Title-Pages and as Pressmarks” http://seforim.blogspot.com/, September 25, 2019, reprinted in Essays on the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2021), pp. 62-84.
[17] Shabbetai Bass, Siftei Yeshenim (Amsterdam, 1680), p. 5 no. 93 [Hebrew].
[18] Problematically, 23 February, 1710 was a Sunday.
[19] Joseph Jacobs, Isaac Broydé, “Levita, Elijah,” Jewish Encyclopedia vol. 8, pp. 46-49.
[20] Moshe David Herr, “Midrashim, Smaller,” vol. 14 Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 2007), p. 189.
[21] Concerning R. Joseph Gikatilla see Marvin J. Heller, “R. Joseph ben Abraham Gikatilla: A Medieval Sephardi Kabbalist,” Sephardic Horizons (Forthcoming). The other titles in Arzei Levanon are Midrash Konen, on the origin of the world, the heavens, paradise, and hell; Ha-Emunah ve-ha-Bittahon, a kabbalistic work generally attributed to R. Moses ben Nahman (Ramban, 1194–1270) but now believed to have been written by R. Jacob ben Sheshet Gerondi (13th century); Pirkei Heikhalot of R. Ishma’el Kohen Gadol, on Merkavah mysticism; Ma’ayin ha-Hokhmah, attributed to R. Jacob ben Sheshet Gerondi; and Klalei Midrash Rabbah, an abridged form of the methodological treatise on the Midrash Rabbah by R. Abraham ben Solomon ibn Akra.
[22] Kaufmann Kohler, S. Roubin, op. cit.