An Obscure Chumash Changes the Sefer HaChinuch Forever[1]
By Eli Genauer

I have a sefer in my collection with a very busy Shaar Blatt:

It is a Chumash printed by Yosef, Yaakov, and Avraham Proops in Amsterdam, 1767.[2] The Chumash contains some of the normal additions, such as Targum Onkelos and Rashi, along with two additions which are indicated as being “ואלה מוסיף על הראשונים”. I would like to focus on one of these additions, the Sefer HaChinuch. Placing the words of the Sefer HaChinuch underneath the text of the Chumash certainly made sense in theory, as one could review its words as one studied the Parsha. But it caused two major problems, one of which could be solved by use of a magnifying glass, and the other which brought about a change in the Sefer HaChinuch “עד היום הזה”.

The Sefer HaChinuch describes the details of, and reasons behind, the 613 Mitzvot.[3] Some of the explanations are very short, such as מצות אכילת מצה, (Mitzvah 10 -Shemot 12:18) so they fit nicely underneath a Pasuk. But when one Pasuk contains 3 Mitzvot and the lengthy explanations need to be placed underneath it (along with Onkelos, Rashi and Peirush Devek Tov), it creates a big problem with space. The only solution would be to have just one Pasuk on a page and to use smaller typeface for the Sefer HaChinuch than for Rashi. Here is how one page looks (Shemot 23:2). It includes Mitzvot 76,77 and 78.

This idea of including the Sefer HaChinuch in a “regular” Chumash was tried once again in 1783 in Frankfurt an der Oder, but perhaps because of this issue of space, never again after that.

This edition of the Chumash, which revised the order of the listing of the mitzvot, also altered the sequence in subsequent editions of the Sefer HaChinuch. This is despite the fact that the author of the Sefer HaChinuch specifically lists the Mitzvot of each parsha in one format. The Proops brothers’ edition of the Chumash overrode the author’s approach.[4] The original order for each Parsha is to list the מצוות עשה first and the מצוות לא תעשה afterwards. Here is how the Mitzvot of Parshat Tetzaveh are ordered in the oldest manuscript copy of the Sefer HaChinuch:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.163[4]

This order was preserved in subsequent manuscripts, and in the first printed edition of Sefer HaChinuch.[6]

In placing the מצוות עשה first and then the מצוות לא עשה, the author of the Sefer HaChinuch is following the model of the Sefer HaMitzvot of the Rambam.[7] As he writes in Mitzvah 138:

עִם כָּל זֶה מִדֶּרֶךְ חֶשְׁבּוֹן הָרַמְבַּ“ם זִכְרוֹנוֹ לִבְרָכָה אֲשֶׁר [נִתְפַּשֵּׁט] בַּמִּצְוֹת לֹא נִטֶּה…. כִּי הוּא בֶּאֱמֶת סִבָּתֵנוּ בְּעֵסֶק זֶה, וּמִיָּדוֹ זָכִינוּ לוֹ….

This division is also preserved in the headings of the halakhot in Mishneh Torah, and Sefer HaChinuch then follows it.

But this order would not work for a Chumash designed to have the Mitzvot aligned with the Pesukim in the order they appeared in the Parsha, because the מצוות עשה and מצוות לא תעשה are interspersed within the Parsha. For example, Mitzvot 98 and 99 are מצוות עשה and come first in the Parsha. But Mitzvah 102 (a מצות לא תעשה) follows Mitzva 99(a מצות תעשה) in the Parsha so it becomes Mitzvah 100. Here is how it looks in a modern volume:

This change in the numeration of the Mitzvot was not lost on the Proops brothers, and they note that they hoped Torah scholars would look favorably on this change.

“And now, this treasured Sefer ( HaChinuch) has been modernized according to the order ( of the Pesukim of the Chumash) so that the reader can easily follow it as he reviews the Parshat HaShavua. It is now presented page by page and therefore we have not followed the order of the author who presented all the מצות תעשה and מצות לא תעשה separately….and we have confidence that this will be pleasing to scholars who love Torah and who do the Mitzvot of Hashem…”

Artscroll has published a 10-volume series on the Sefer HaChinuch[8] and notes that the order of the Mitzvot is the way they are recorded in the Parsha. The introduction states that whereas “other Rishonim arranged the Mitzvot topically, Chinuch arranges them according to the Parshiyos (weekly readings) of the Torah, and within each Parsha, in the order in which the Torah records them”. There is a footnote to that statement which clarifies the matter by saying that originally “the author arranged the Obligations and Prohibition separately within each Parsha, first presenting all the Obligations and then all the Prohibitions. This arrangement was preserved in the earliest printed editions of Chinuch. In the 18^th century, however, this format was changed, and since then the Chinuch has been printed with the Obligations and Prohibitions intermingled, in the order of the verses of the Torah”. There is no explanation as to why in the 18^th century the order was changed. We are left to wonder why
something formulated by a Rishon was changed.

Rabbi Chaim Dov Chavel does not react quite as calmly to this change.[9] In his scholarly edition of Sefer HaChinuch first published in 1952 by Mosad HaRav Kook, he is quite critical of the Chumash which made these changes.[10] He writes:

“במהדורה זו נעשו שינוים גדולים ורבים בטופס הספר שנכנסו בכל הדפוסים שבאו אחריה”

“In this edition, many major changes were made in the form of the book which were introduced into all the editions which followed”

He compares this edition to one which he feels is more authoritative, the first printed edition of Sefer HaChinuch, Venice 1523.[11]

Among the changes he lists is the one of re-ordering the positive and negative Mitzvot

“מצות עשה ולא תעשה נסדרו כאן בפעם הראשונה בערבוב, כלומר ביחד, כמו שהן סדורות בתורה

He concludes his criticism of the Chumash with the Sefer HaChinuch by writing that it was if the printers had given the Sefer HaChinuch a “פנים חדשות “

“את נוסח לשון רבינו בסדר המצוות ומנינן שינו המדפיסים לגמרי, וכמעט ששיזו לחלק זה פנים חדשות”

Because he feels it was wrong to change the order of the Mitzvot, he reverts back to the original order and numbering used in the Kitvei Yad and in the earliest printed editions.[12]

Rabbi Chavel is correct in that the order and the numbering of the Mitzvot was changed forever by the new order introduced in a Chumash which tried to incorporate in it the Sefer HaChinuch.[13] The initiative for changing the Order of Mitzvot was to for no other reason than to attempt to align the Sefer HaChinuch with a printed Chumash. No group of Torah scholars in the 18^th century got together to decide to make this change. I imagine that the author of the Sefer HaChinuch might even have considered re-ordering the Mitzvot to conform to the flow of each Parsha but decided to keep the order of positive Mitzvot all together first and negative Mitzvos all together second.[14] It leaves unanswered the question of whether changing the order of the Mitzvot (even though done for what was seen to be a positive purpose) was the correct thing to do?

[1] I call this Chumash “obscure” because as you will see later on, a great scholar was unaware of it.
[2] Encyclopedia.com notes in part on the Proops printers:

PROOPS, family of Hebrew printers, publishers, and booksellers in Amsterdam. SOLOMON BEN JOSEPH (d. 1734), whose father may have been a Hebrew printer as well, was established as a bookseller in Amsterdam and associated with other printers from 1697 to 1703….At his death, appointed guardians continued to operate the press, and even when his sons JOSEPH (d. 1786), JACOB (d. 1779), and ABRAHAM (d. 1792) took over, they traded under the old name until 1751.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/proops

On my sefer, there is an ownership stamp of הרב י.ל. הכהן פישמן, also known as Rabbi Yehuda Leib Fishman Maimon who was one of the signers of Israel’s Declaration of Independence and was the first minister of Religious Affairs. He was also an avid book collector who owned 40,000 books. There is another ownership stamp belonging to him on the page preceding the Shaar Blatt which looks like this

It quotes part of the Pasuk in Breishit 49:10 לֹֽא־יָס֥וּר שֵׁ֙בֶט֙ מִֽיהוּדָ֔ה– עַ֚ד כִּֽי־יָבֹ֣א שִׁילֹ֔ה and then says ספריה הרב יהודה ליב הכהן פישמן–ירושלים.
[3] The idea that there are 613 Mitzvot in the Torah, 365 negative Mitzvot and 248 positive Mitzvot, is first recorded in Talmud Bavli Masechet Makot 23b

דרש רבי שמלאי שש מאות ושלש עשרה מצות נאמרו לו למשה שלש מאות וששים וחמש לאוין כמנין ימות החמה ומאתים וארבעים ושמונה עשה כנגד איבריו של אדם

[4]There is much discussion as to who was the author who chose to remain anonymous.

Sefaria summarizes the issue as follows:

המחבר מזהה עצמו רק כ“איש יהודי מבית לוי ברצלוני“, ויש חילוקי דעות לגבי זהותו המדויקת. יש המייחסים את הספר לר’ אהרן הלוי (רא“ה), אבל כבר הוכח בבירור שהוא לא חיברו. אחרים מיחסים אותו לרּ פנחס הלוי, אחיו של הרא“ה.

[5] The bibliographic record at the National Library of Israel notes that it was written in 5093 (1333) based on the colophon which states:

נשלם על ידי אברהם בכמ”ר אברהם ז”ל ב”ר משה נ”ע ליל ו’ עשרים יום לחודש טבת שנת צ”ג

https://www.nli.org.il/en/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-
manuscripts/itempage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docId=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990001132770205171&scope=PNX_MANU
SCRIPTS&SearchTxt=%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%20%D7%94%D7%97%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%9A
[6] I accessed the following manuscripts on KTIV, all of which had the same order. Parma 3016 – Laurentian Library, Florence, Italy Ms. Or. 473 -Casanatense Library, Rome, Italy Ms. 2857 – Paris BN 400vi.
[7] He was also following the pattern of the בעל הלכות גדולות, the first of the מוני המצוות.
[8] The Schottenstein Edition Sefer Hachinuch #1 / Book of Mitzvos, Brooklyn, NY, 2012 – General Introduction page xl.
[9] A comprehensive review of Rabbi Chavel’s works appeared in his “Peirush Rashi Al HaTorah” first printed in 1982 https://tablet.otzar.org/#/book/155543/p/1/t/1/fs/0/start/0/end/0/c
[10] Rabbi Chavel was not familiar with the Proops Amsterdam 1764 edition of the Chumash cited above and thought the first Chumash printed with the Sefer HaChinuch was the one of Frankfurt an der Oder of 1783. I assume he would have leveled the same criticism at the Amsterdam edition. The Bibliography of the Hebrew book notes this fact about the 1764 edition:

.ספר החינוך נדפס כאן לראשונה “אחר סדר הפסוקים” ולא לפי הסדר שקבע המחבר (עשין לבד ולאוין לבד). וכן נדפס ברוב ההוצאות הבאות. עיין במבוא של הרב חיים דוב שאוועל לספר החינוך, ירושלים תשי”ב, עמ’ כ-כא, שציין את השינויים שנעשו במהדורת תקמ”ג, שינויים אלו נעשו

[11] Here is the Shaar Blatt from Rabbi Chavel’s edition:

[12] An example would be Mitzvot 99-104. Both the order and the numbers are changed:

[13] Here are some examples of some modern editions which have it the “new” way:

[14] At the end of his introduction, he writes,  עַל כֵּן רָאִיתִי טוֹב אֲנִי הַדַּל בְּאַלְפִּי, תַּלְמִיד הַתַּלְמִידִים שֶׁבִּזְמַנִּי, אִישׁ יְהוּדִי מִבֵּית לֵוִי בַּרְצְלוֹנִי, לִכְתֹּב הַמִּצְוֹת עַל דֶּרֶךְ הַסְּדָרִים וְכַסֵּדֶר שֶׁנִּכְתְּבוּ בַּתּוֹרָה זוֹ אַחַר זוֹ ….and yet he still grouped them the way he did.

The Anonymous Author of Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna: An Antinomian or a Radical Maimonidean?

By Bezalel Naor

Today, it is an accepted fact in scholarly circles that Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna form a single unit that postdates the main body of Zohar.[1] More than one reader has been scandalized by statements in Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna likening the Mishnah to a shifhah or maidservant.[2] Predictably, in response, there grew an apologetic literature that attempts to justify how such shocking statements are compatible with normative Halakhah.[3]

One cannot rule out altogether the assertion by various secular historians that these pejorative statements betray an antinomian streak,[4] though to be certain, such statements of Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna are not situated in the present but deferred to the future. With this proviso, they are no more “antinomian” than the statement of Rav Yosef in the Talmud: “Mitsvot (commandments) are nullified in the future.”[5]

I wish to present a hitherto unexplored possibility. It seems likely that the anonymous author of Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna (which surfaced in Spain in the first decades of the fourteenth century)[6] was not so much an antinomian as a radical Maimonidean. It is in this light that we should understand negative statements issuing from the author regarding the study of Mishnah or those comparing the various Talmudic exercises and mental gymnastics to the backbreaking labor to which the Children of Israel were subjected in Egyptian exile.[7] These do not spring from an anti-halakhic mindset but rather from taking at face value Maimonides’ syllabus as laid out in his introduction to Mishneh Torah:

Hence, I have entitled this work Mishneh Torah (Review of the Law), for the reason that a person, who first reads the Written Law and then this [compilation], will know from it the whole of the Oral Law, without having need to read any other book between them [italics mine—BN].

We should be asking ourselves: Are there any historical grounds to assert that in Spain in the early 1300s there were halakhic Jews who openly—we should add, brazenly—promulgated the Maimonidean curriculum to the exclusion of Talmudic studies and the concomitant exercise of pilpul?

I offer the words of Joseph Ibn Kaspi:

Therefore my rabbis, listen to me and God will listen to you! I see that it is the intention of those among you who engage in Gemara, novellae and opinions (shitot),[8] to know proofs for the practical commandments, for you are not satisfied with the tradition from Mishneh Torah composed by Rabbenu Moshe [i.e. Maimonides], though he said: “And one shall have no need of any other book between them [Italics mine—BN].”

Here is an example. Ha-Rav ha-Moreh [i.e. Maimonides] wrote in his laws: “A sukkah that is higher than twenty ammah is invalid.”[9] Yet you despair and are without comfort until you know whether the reason is because “the eye does not rest upon it,” or because “one is not sitting in the shade of the sekhakh (overhead boughs) but of the walls,” or because “the sukkah must be a temporary dwelling,” as written in the Gemara.[10] Even this will not satisfy the very punctilious (mehadrin min ha-mehadrin) until they have added problems and opinions (shitot)[11]: “If you should say,” “one may say,” etc.

Truly, I admit that this is good, but why is the knowledge of proofs an obligation in regard to practical commandments, while not [even] an option,[12] but an outright prohibition when it comes to commandments of the heart? What sin has been committed by these four commandments of the heart (that I mentioned) that you do not treat them in the same manner but are satisfied by a weak tradition of few words, wanting comprehension?[13]

Who was Joseph Ibn Kaspi? Born either in Arles, Provence or Argentière, Languedoc,[14] around the year 1280, he passed in 1345 on the island of Majorca. His was a peripatetic life. The first period of his life was spent in the south of France. Later he gravitated to Barcelona, where his married son David resided. At approximately age thirty-five he travelled to Egypt for several months,[15] hoping to acquire there the intellectual legacy of Maimonides from the Master’s fourth and fifth generation descendants but was sorely disappointed in this respect. He even entertained the thought of traveling to Fez, Morocco in search of wisdom,[16] but that particular journey never materialized.

Ibn Kaspi’s reputation is that of an ultra-rationalist. His naturalistic explanations of events in the Bible far exceed even those of Maimonides; for that reason his opinions were marginalized. Though there is an abundance of manuscripts, it was only in the nineteenth century that Ibn Kaspi’s works were published from manuscript. (A few still remain in manuscript.) To this day, his interpretations have yet to “mainstream.”

My juxtaposing the Maimonidean enthusiast Joseph ibn Kaspi to the anonymous author of the kabbalistic works known as Ra‘ya Mehemna and Tikkunei Zohar may strike the reader of this essai as bizarre. Besides their contemporaneity, what basis is there for this juxtaposition?

Geographically, there are certainly grounds for relating the two authors to one another. Though separated by the Pyrenees, there was much traffic, intellectual and otherwise between Provence and Northern Spain. Some of the greatest families of Provencal scholars originated in Spain: the Kimhis, Joseph and his son David, who excelled as grammarians and Bible exegetes; and the Tibbonides, Judah and his son Samuel, who were the premier translators of classic philosophic works from Judeo-Arabic to Hebrew. And the traffic was two-way. Prominent Provencal families wended their way to Sefarad. The halakhist Rabbi Zerahyah Halevi (“Ba‘al ha-Ma’or”), a native of Gerona, established his career in Narbonne, only to return to Gerona at the end of his days. (His great-grandson was the Talmudist Rabbi Aharon Halevi of Barcelona.)[17] Ibn Kaspi is an example of a Provencal scholar who relocated to Catalonia: Barcelona, and eventually, the Balearic isle of Majorca. Thus, there could easily have been a sharing of ideas between southern France and northern Spain.[18]

In terms of mindset, the border between rationalist philosophy and kabbalah was especially porous at this time. Whoever authored Ra‘ya Mehemna and Tikkunei Zohar, carried with him much Maimonidean baggage. Linguistically, it is apparent to any student of the Ra‘ya Mehemna and Tikkunim that they are rife with the philosophic jargon made popular by the Tibbonides’ translations from Judeo-Arabic.[19] And let us not forget that the very backbone of Ra‘ya Mehemna is an enumeration of the commandments à la Maimonides’ Sefer ha-Mitsvot. (Rabbi Reuven Margaliyot isolated these commandments and presented them in orderly fashion in the introduction to his edition of the Zohar.)

*

When we put it all together it makes perfect sense. As shocking as some of its bold statements may be, the literary oeuvre of Ra‘ya Mehemna and Tikkunei Zohar cannot be construed as issuing from the mind of an antinomian. An antinomian would not go to the bother of constructing a Book of Commandments after a fashion. Rather, I maintain that the downgrading of the study of Talmud in general, and Mishnah in particular, should be attributed to a radical adoption of Maimonides’ curriculum of studies, whereby his halakhic magnum opus Mishneh Torah has superseded the study of Mishnah and Gemara.

In this respect, Maimonides’ devotees in Provence and Spain ventured beyond the Master himself. Maimonides penned a convincing letter to Rabbi Pinhas, the Dayyan (Justice) of Alexandria,[20] that regardless of what he wrote in the introduction to Mishneh Torah, the traditional study of the Talmudic tractates (albeit as summarized in Alfasi’s Halakhot) continues unabated in his beit midrash.[21] The curriculum that Maimonides once proposed remained an abstraction. It seems that Egyptian Jewry was not overly receptive to this innovation. Only well over a century later, did this great intellectual experiment of Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, a “hivemind of halakhah,”[22] designed to replace the “dialectics of Abayye and Rava,” find foot soldiers in the likes of Ibn Kaspi and the anonymous author of Ra‘ya Mehemna and Tikkunei Zohar. They launched their campaign from the soil of Provence and Spain.

Our thesis does not ride on the reputation of Joseph ibn Kaspi. Ibn Kaspi’s statement is perhaps the most outspoken and provocative call for adoption of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah as a way of bypassing Talmudic studies, yet there are other testimonies (from the least expected quarter) that the exclusive study of Mishneh Torah was starting to gain traction in medieval Spain.

The great halakhist Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh) emigrated from Germany to Spain at the turn of the fourteenth century and eventually emerged as the Rabbi of Toledo, Castile, where he left his stamp on the shape of Castilian Halakhah.[23] Evidently, Rabbi Asher had cause to fulminate against authorities who decided questions of practical Halakhah based solely on the rulings of Mishneh Torah without recourse to Talmud.

Rabbi Asher writes:

I heard from a great man in Barcelona who was eminently familiar with three orders [of the Talmud, i.e. Mo‘ed, Nashim and Nezikin]. He said: “I am amazed at people who have not studied Gemara and adjudicate based on their reading in the books of Maimonides, of blessed memory, believing that they understand them. I know myself, when it comes to the three orders that I studied, I am able to understand when I read Maimonides’ books. However, his books that are based on Kodashim and Zera‘im—I do not understand at all. And I know that it is that way for them regarding all his books![24]

*

Rabbi Yahya Kafah (1850-1931) was not wide of the mark when he asserted that those statements in Zoharic literature that undercut the Talmud (comprised of Mishnah and Gemara) were designed to enhance the prestige of the Kabbalah. (By the same token, one may safely say that Ibn Kaspi’s desire to streamline the study of Halakhah, stemmed from his valorization of Philosophy.)

Logically, our next question should be: What was Maimonides’ own stake in proposing that his compendium Mishneh Torah take the place of protracted Talmudic studies? Maimonides provides a simple answer to this question in his introduction to Mishneh Torah:

At this time, severe vicissitudes prevail, and all feel the pressure of hard times. The wisdom of our wise men has disappeared; the understanding of our prudent men is hidden. Hence, the commentaries of the Geonim and their compilations of laws and responses, which they took care to make clear, have in our times become hard to understand so that only a few individuals properly comprehend them. Needless to add that such is the case in regard to the Talmud itself—the Babylonian as well as the Palestinian—the Sifra, the Sifre and the Tosefta, all of which works require a broad mind, a wise soul and lengthy time, and then one can know from them the correct practice as to what is forbidden or permitted, and the other rules of the Torah.

On these grounds, I, Moses the son of Rabbi Maimon the Sefardi, bestirred myself…[25]

While perhaps not the ideal curriculum, the exigencies of the time demanded the production of a bold new work on the order of Mishneh Torah that would preserve the practice of Halakhah for the masses ill-equipped to make their way through the labyrinthine discussions of the Talmud or even the decisions of the Gaonica (originally intended to clarify the canons of Jewish Law).

But was there perhaps another purpose of Mishneh Torah that Maimonides kept to himself and was not willing to divulge in writing? In Hilkhot Talmud Torah (Laws of the Study of Torah), Maimonides would proceed to sketch the traditional trivium of Mikra (Bible), Mishnah and Talmud, [26]such that Pardes (the esoteric teachings of Judaism) comes under the rubric of “Talmud”[27]; and that furthermore, the mature scholar who has covered the requisite literature and is thus no longer bound by the daily trivium, “will devote all his days exclusively to Talmud, according to the breadth of his mind and the composure of his intellect.”[28]

Was the condensing of Talmud into Mishneh Torah Maimonides’ master plan to free time for the study of Pardes or esoterica? Should that prove true, then Ibn Kaspi’s interest,[29] and mutatis mutandis that of the Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna, was not so very different from that of HaRav HaMoreh.[30]

[1] This fact was recognized two and a half centuries ago by the discerning eye of Rabbi Jacob Emden. See Emden’s Mitpahat Sefarim, Altona 1768, Part 1, chap. 3 (6b); chaps. 6-7 (16b-17b); Lvov 1870, pp. 12, 37-39.

Whereas Zohar itself has come to be associated with the name of Rabbi Moses de Leon, no single name surfaces in regard to Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna (though there are some who would attribute the latter to a yet unidentified disciple of De Leon).

It should be mentioned in passing that even in regard to the authorship of the Zohar there has been a sea change in scholarly thinking. Unlike Scholem, who was convinced that the single author of the Zohar was Rabbi Moses de Leon, current thinking (spearheaded by Yehuda Liebes) rejects this notion of single authorship and assumes the Zohar to be a collaborative or composite work on the part of a mystic fraternity or haburah.

[2] See Zohar I, 27b. This is actually a segment of Tikkunei Zohar that the Italian printers in 1558 mistakenly embedded in Zohar. See Editor Daniel Matt’s note to the Pritzker edition of the Zohar, vol. 1 (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2004), p. 170, note 499. See also the Introduction to Tikkunei Zohar (Vilna, 1867), 15b and gloss of the Vilna Gaon, s.v. shalta shifhah.

And see the Tikkunim appended to Tikkunei Zohar (Margaliyot ed.), tikkun 9 (147a).

By the same token, there are passages where the Mishnah is related to Metatron, the “‘eved” (male servant). See e.g. Ra‘ya Mehemna in Zohar III, 29b; and The Hebrew Writings of the Author of Tiqqunei Zohar and Ra‘aya Mehemna (Hebrew), ed. Efraim Gottlieb (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2003), p. 1, line 3.

Moshe Idel has demonstrated that this motif whereby the Mishnah is juxtaposed to Metatron is to be found in the obscure work of Rabbi Abraham Esquira, Yesod ‘Olam (Ms. Moscow, Günzburg 607, 80a-b). See Idel’s introduction to The Hebrew Writings of the Author of Tiqqunei Zohar and Ra‘aya Mehemna, pp. 23-24, 27-28. Inter alia, Esquira’s text makes mention of “six hundred orders of Mishnah.” This is a reference to b. Hagigah 14a. See Rashi there s.v. shesh me’ot sidrei Mishnah. Thus, p. 23, n. 76 of Idel’s introduction is in need of correction. By the same token, Esquira’s “seven hundred orders of confusion” (“shesh me’ot sidrei bilbulim”) is a parody of the “seven hundred orders of Mishnah” in b. Hagigah 14a. See Idel, ibid. p. 28, n. 105.

Concerning the juxtaposition of the six-lettered Metatron, the servant, to the six days of the work week, see the Vilna Gaon’s gloss to Tikkunei Zohar (Vilna, 1867), tikkun 18 (33b), s.v. be-gin de-Metatron. There is precedent in a Teshuvat ha-Ge’onim (Gaonic responsum) for restricting the activity of the angelic realm to the six days of the week and reserving the seventh Sabbath day for Israel’s sphere of influence. See Tosafot, Sanhedrin 37b, s.v. mi-kenaf ha-’arets zemirot shama‘nu; and Rabbi Reuven Margaliyot, Margaliyot ha-Yam ad locum, and idem, Nitsutsei Zohar to Ra‘ya Mehemna in Zohar III, 93a, note 2.

Later, in sixteenth-century Safed, Rabbi Isaac Luria advised reserving the Sabbath day for the exclusive study of Kabbalah (“as was the custom of the early ones”), while relegating the study of Halakhah to the six work days. This is hinted to in the two verses “Hishtahavu la-Hashem be-hadrat kodesh” (whose initials form the word “Kabbalah”) and “Hari‘u la-Hashem kol ha-’arets (initials “Halakhah”). See Rabbi Hayyim Vital, Peri ‘Ets Hayyim (Dubrovna, 1804), Sha‘ar ha-Shabbat , chap. 21 (103c); Rabbi Jacob Zemah, Nagid u-Metsaveh (Lublin, 1881), 25b. And see Peri ‘Ets Hayyim, Sha‘ar Hanhagat ha-Limmud, s.v. kavvanat keri’at ha-Mishnah (85a): “Know that the Mishnah is Metatron in Yetsirah…”

In the Ra‘ya Mehemna in Zohar III, 279b, the Mishnah is referred to as the “shifhah…the female of the ‘eved, na‘ar (“lad”). “Na‘ar” or “lad” is yet another epithet for Metatron; see b. Yevamot 16b (based on Psalms 37:25) and Tosafot ad loc. s.v. pasuk zeh sar ha-‘olam amaro. Just as Metatron is referred to as “‘eved,” “for his name is like that of his Master” (b. Sanhedrin 38b). Both Metatron and Shadai have the numerical value of 318. (In Ra‘ya Mehemna in Zohar III, 82b it is spelled out that “Metatron is a good servant, a faithful servant to his Master.”)

In Ra‘ya Mehemna, in Zohar III, 276a, three of the most difficult tractates of the Mishnah are singled out for derision, ‘Eruvin, Niddah and Yevamot, as they are assigned the acronym ‘Ani (poor man).  The Vilna Gaon points out that the derogation of the rabbis, students of the Mishnah, is not absolute, but only relative to the “ba‘alei kabbalah” (“masters of the Kabbalah”). See Yahel ’Or, ed. Naftali Hertz Halevi (Vilna, 1882), Tetse, 276a, s.v. ve-i teima.

Earlier in that passage (Zohar 275b) we have the underhanded compliment, “Hakham Mufle Ve-Rav Rabbanan” (“Outstanding Sage and Rabbi of Rabbis”), whose initials spell the word “hamor” (jackass). (This cynical remark found its way into the modern mystery novel by Richard Zimler, The Last Kabbalist of Lisbon [Woodstock, NY: The Overlook Press, 1998], p. 44.)

One who found absolutely outrageous the labeling of the Mishnah as a “shifhah” was the Chief Rabbi of Sana‘a, Yemen, Rabbi Yahya ben Shelomo (Sliman) Kafah (1850-1931). See his ‘Amal u-Re‘ut Ru’ah va-Haramot u-Teshuvatam (Tel-Aviv, 1914; limited facsimile edition Jerusalem 1976), p. 12. Available at hebrewbooks.org.

‘Amal u-Re‘ut Ru’ah va-Haramot u-Teshuvatam is Rabbi Kafah’s rejoinder to the bans placed upon him by the various batei din (courts) of Jerusalem—Ashkenazic, Hasidic and Sefardic. It struck Rabbi Kafah as highly ironic that he, a staunch defender of Talmudic Judaism, was placed under the ban, while the Zohar, with its numerous derisions of Talmud and its students, was upheld and, what is more, sanctified. Ibid. p. 14.

The constraints of space do not allow us to explore the controversy regarding the Zohar that erupted in Yemen in the early part of the twentieth century between Rabbi Kafah and his disciples, the self-styled Darda‘im, on the one hand, and their opponents, to whom they referred as ‘Ikeshim. (The first label is based on the Midrashic pun on Darda‘ [1Kings 5:11] as Dor De‘ah, “a generation of knowledge”; the second comes from Deuteronomy 32:5, “dor ‘ikesh u-petaltol,” “a perverse and twisted generation.”) At the instigation of his critics, Rabbi Kafah was jailed on more than one occasion by the Muslim authorities. (Rabbi Kafah alludes to this in ‘Amal u-Re‘ut Ru’ah va-Haramot u-Teshuvatam, p. 14.)

The man who acted as a peacemaker between the warring factions was none other than Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook. While upholding Rabbi Kafah’s status as an unusual Torah scholar, Rabbi Kook conveyed to him that he had erred in taking literally passages that were intended to be understood metaphorically. See Igrot ha-Rayah, vol. 2, ed. RZYH Kook (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook 1961), no. 626 (pp. 247-248); Haskamot ha-Rayah, ed. Y.M. Yismah and B.Z Kahana (Jerusalem, 1988), no. 41 (pp. 46-47); Ma’amrei ha-Rayah, vol. 2, ed. Elisha Aviner (Langenauer) (Jerusalem, 1984), pp. 518-521. An incomplete variant of the letter in Haskamot ha-Rayah was published by Rabbi Moshe Zuriel, Otserot ha-Rayah, vol. 1 (Rishon LeZion, 2002), no. 76 (p. 447). See further Rabbi Zevi Yehudah Hakohen Kook, Li-Sheloshah be-Ellul I (Jerusalem, 1938; photo offset Jerusalem, 1978), par. 107 (p. 46).

For Rav Kook’s involvement with the Yemenite community and facilitating their ‘aliyah at the beginning of the twentieth century, see ibid. par. 42 (p. 21); and recently Ben Zion Rosenfeld, “Yahaso shel ha-Rayah Kook le-Hakhmei ha-Mizrah bi-Tekufat Yaffo 5664-5674 (1904-1914)” [“HaRav Avraham Isaac HaCohen Kook and his Attitude Regarding the Sephardi Sages During His Stay in Jaffa 5664–567 4(1904–1914)”], Libi ba-Mizrah (My Heart Is in the East) 1 (2019), pp. 287-290.

[3] See Rabbi Hayyim Vital, introduction to Sha‘ar ha-Hakdamot (printed as an introduction to the standard editions of ‘Ets Hayyim); Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, Iggeret ha-Kodesh (4^th section of Tanya), chap. 26 (especially 143a). And see Rabbi Dov Baer Shneuri, Bi’urei ha-Zohar (Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, 2015), Bereshit (to Zohar I, 27b), 5a-8d.

[4] Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, cited in Gershom G. Scholem, “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism,” in idem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken Books, 1970), p. 70, n. 1.

[5] b. Niddah 61b.

Contra Graetz, Scholem, referring to “the ambiguity of certain statements about the hierarchical order of the Bible, the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Kabbalah, which are frequent in the Ra‘ya Mehemna and the Tikkunim, and which have baffled not a few readers of these texts,” states categorically: “It would be a mistake to term these passages antinomistic or anti-Talmudic” (op. cit. p. 70). Rather, to describe the peculiar posture of the Ra‘ya Mehemna and the Tikkunim, Scholem coins the term “utopian antinomianism” or “antinomian utopia” (op. cit., pp. 80, 82).

Other secular scholars who objected to Graetz’s judgment concerning the controversial passages in the Zohar (or to be more precise, Tikkunei Zohar) were Bernfeld and Zinberg. See Heinrich Graetz, Geschichte der Juden, 7, Beilage 12; Shim‘on Bernfeld, Da‘at Elohim, Part 1 (Warsaw, 1897), pp. 396-397, note 1; Israel Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature, vol. 3, transl. Bernard Martin (Cleveland: The Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1973), pp. 55-56.

[6] Scholem and Idel would date Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna as early as the end of the thirteenth century (bringing the work in contact with Rabbi Moses de Leon). See Idel’s introduction to The Hebrew Writings of the Author of Tiqqunei Zohar and Ra‘aya Mehemna, pp. 10, 25-26, 29. Tishby established the years 1312-1313 as the terminus ad quem for the composition of Tikkunei Zohar based on its Messianic expectations for those years. Cited in Idel, ibid. p. 10, n. 7. See also p. 23. Idel, relying on Liebes, would make the terminus ad quem a year earlier, 1311. (Ibid.)

[7] See Zohar I, 27a:

They embittered their lives with hard labor (‘avodah kashah)—with kushya (difficulty);

with mortar (homer)—with kal ve-homer (a fortiori);

and with bricks (levenim)—with libun hilkheta (clarification of the law);

and with all [manner of] labor in the field—this is Beraita;

all their labor—this is Mishnah.

Though mistakenly embedded by the Italian printers back in 1558 in the text of the Zohar, this is actually a segment from the later work Tikkunei Zohar. See above note 2.

This same anachronistic interpretation of the verse in Exodus 1:14 is found (with slight variations) in the Ra‘ya Mehemna, again embedded in Zohar III, 153a, 229b (though in this case explicitly identified as Ra‘ya Mehemna). See also Tikkunei Zohar, tikkun 21 (Margaliyot ed. 44a); the additional Tikkunim appended to Tikkunei Zohar, tikkun 9 (147a); and the Tikkunim appended to Zohar Hadash (Margaliyot ed.), 97d (where the end of the verse is interpreted, “be-pharekh—da pirkha”), 98b, 99b.

And see now, The Hebrew Writings of the Author of Tiqqunei Zohar and Ra‘aya Mehemna (Hebrew), ed. Efraim Gottlieb and Moshe Idel (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 2003), pp. 39-40.

This degradation of Talmudic hermeneutic was duly noted by Rabbi Kafah (see above note 2). Kafah believed that the not so hidden agenda of the anonymous writer was to promote the study of Kabbalah at the expense of the study of Talmud. See ‘Amal u-Re‘ut Ru’ah va-Haramot u-Teshuvatam, p. 12: “The entire purpose of the author of the Zohar is to cause the Mishnah and the Talmud to be forgotten from Israel, to stop up the mouth of the well of living waters from which flow the ways of the Oral Law, and have them occupy themselves with his new Torah.”

[8] The primary meaning of the Hebrew word shitah is a line; hence, a line of thought. For its derivative usage in medieval rabbinical literature, see Mordechai Breuer, ’Ohalei Torah (Jerusalem: Shazar Center, 2004), pp. 109, 510; Ya‘akov Spiegel, ‘Ammudim be-Toledot ha-Sefer ha-‘Ivri, vol. 2 (Ramat Gan: Bar Ilan, 2005), p. 442; and lately, Hayyim Eliezer Ashkenazi, “Heker ve-‘Iyun be-Sifrei Rishonim (4),” Yeshurun, vol. 40 (Nisan 5779), p. 930, n. 7.

In the London Beth Din Ms. 40 (designated in the microfilm collection of the National Library of Israel, F4708), f.30, this word reads “mishnayot,” rather than shitot, but the reading is unlikely, to say the least. Cf. below n. 11.

[9] Maimonides, MT, Hil. Sukkah 4:1.

[10] The three opinions are found in b. Sukkah 2a.

[11] In the London Beth Din ms. for “shitot” there occurs the grotesquerie “shtuyot” (foolishness).

[12] The London Beth Din ms. has the superior reading “eino reshut o makom patur.”

[13] Joseph ben Abba Mari ibn Kaspi, Sefer ha-Mussar/Yoreh De‘ah, chap. 15.

Ibn Kaspi’s Sefer ha-Mussar was published in a couple of collections: Eliezer Ashkenazi of Tunis’ Ta‘am Zekenim (Frankfurt am Main, 1854); and Isaac Last’s ‘Asarah Klei Kesef (Pressburg, 1903). Our particular chapter (15) appeared earlier in the introduction to Ibn Kaspi’s ‘Ammudei Kesef u-Maskiyot Kesef, ed. Salomo Werbluner (Frankfurt am Main, 1848), p. xv. In Ta‘am Zekenim our quote appears on 53a; in ‘Asarah Klei Kesef on p. 70.

Sefer ha-Mussar was written for Ibn Kaspi’s twelve year old son Shelomo residing in Tarascon (Provence). According to the colophon, it was completed in 1332 in Valencia (Catalonia).

[14] Moshe Kahan is of the opinion that Joseph himself was born in Arles, and that it was his ancestors who hailed from Argentière (hence the Hebrew surname Kaspi). See M. Kahan, “Joseph ibn Kaspi—From Arles to Majorca,” Iberia Judaica VIII (2016), pp. 181-192.

[15] Kahan dates the journey between the years 1313-1315, and writes that Ibn Kaspi stayed in Egypt for about five months. Op. cit. p. 182.

In Mishneh Kesef I, ed. Isaac Last (Pressburg, 1905; photo offset Jerusalem, 1970), chap. 14 (pp. 18-19), Ibn Kaspi writes that about two years ago, at approximately age thirty-five, he went down to Egypt. The colophon of the book (p. 168) is datelined Arles, 1317, which would mean that the Egyptian expedition took place about the year 1315.

In Sefer ha-Mussar, which according to the colophon was completed in Valencia in 1332, we receive a slightly different picture. In the introduction, Ibn Kaspi writes that twenty years previous he wandered to Egypt; the total trip, from beginning to end, lasted five months. If we take him at his word, the trip to Egypt was in 1312. What is clear is that the actual sojourn in Egypt was less than five months.

[16] Introduction to Sefer ha-Mussar. In chap. 15, Ibn Kaspi spells out his fascination with Fez: “The Jews find repulsive and abandon today the Guide…the Christians respect and exalt it, and have translated it [to Latin]. All the more so the Ishmaelites; in Fez [italics mine—BN] and other lands, they established study-houses to learn the Guide from the mouth of Jewish scribes.”

[17] See Israel Ta-Shma, Rabbi Zerahyah Halevi (Ba‘al ha-Ma’or) u-B’nei Hugo (Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1992), pp. 2, 16; Hayyim Eliezer Ashkenazi, “Heker ve-‘Iyun be-Sifrei Rishonim (4),” p. 933, n. 17.

[18] Though scholars assume a Castilian—rather than a Catalonian—provenance for Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna, I do not see that as a major obstacle. Surely, the main flow of traffic was between Provence in the south of France and Catalonia in the north of Spain, but for Jews, Sefarad was an overarching unity, no matter the local potentates into which it was fragmented. Thus, in 1305, the Rabbi of Barcelona, Catalonia, Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham ibn Adret (Rashba) was able to place a newly arrived German émigré, Rabbi Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh) in the rabbinate of Toledo, Castile. (See Avraham Hayyim Freimann, Ha-Rosh ve-Tse’etsa’av, trans. Menahem Eldar [Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, 1986], pp. 28-29.)

Sometimes, within a single family one finds both strands of Kabbalah, Castilian and Catalonian. Isaac ibn Sahula, native of Guadalajara, Castile, author of the bestiary Meshal ha-Kadmoni (1281), as well as a kabbalistic commentary to Song of Songs, was a disciple of Rabbi Moses of Burgos, as well as an assumed associate of Rabbi Moses de Leon. (The first reference to the Midrash ha-Ne‘elam, an early stratum of the Zoharic literature, is found in Ibn Sahula’s Meshal ha-Kadmoni.) His brother, Meir ibn Sahula, on the other hand, prided himself on his Catalonian and Provencal pedigree, being a disciple of “Rabbi Joshua ibn Shu‘aib and of Rabbi Solomon ben Abraham ibn Adret (Rashba), who received from Nahmanides, who in turn received from Rabbi Isaac the Blind, son of Rabad of Posquières, who in turn received from Elijah the Prophet.” So writes Meir ibn Sahula at the conclusion to his commentary on the Bahir, “’Or ha-Ganuz.”

(Yehuda Liebes speculated that the especially acerb remarks that precede this peroration are directed against recent developments in Castilian Kabbalah, namely the Zohar. See Y. Liebes, Studies in the Zohar [Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993], pp. 168-169, n. 50. However, in all fairness, the description of those “who expound books and books of the nations, and transcribe therein their gods, and call them ‘Secrets of the Torah’ [Sitrei Torah],” sounds more like an attack on Maimonides and his followers who construe Aristotelian philosophy as Sitrei Torah, than an assault upon the Zohar. At the end of his lengthy footnote, Liebes conceded this distinct possibility.)

Thus, the division of Spanish Kabbalah into discrete units of Castilian versus Catalonian traditions need not prejudice us against the possibility of penetrations and influences that defy this dyadic model. One needs to complexify the general picture of Spanish Kabbalah in order to appreciate the multiplicity of forces at work. Binaries are helpful as historic guidelines but they can never do justice to the complexity of lived reality.

[19] Tishby collected some of these Tibbonide neologisms, starting with “nefesh ha-sikhlit” or “intellectual soul” (Ra‘ya Mehemna in Zohar III, 29b). See Isaiah Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar, vol. 1, 2^nd printing with corrections (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1949), pp. 77-78.

One can well appreciate how the Chief Rabbi of Sana‘a, Yemen, Yahya ben Shelomo Kafah, a most outspoken opponent of the Zohar, typified its author as “the philosopher, author of the Zohar” (“ha-philosoph mehabber ha-Zohar”). See his ‘Amal u-Re‘ut Ru’ah va-Haramot u-Teshuvatam, pp. 12-16.

Besides the obvious use of Maimonidean terminology, there is the subtle copying of categories. An example would be the way in which the author of Tikkunei Zohar patterned his “hamesh minim” (“five species” or “five sects”) of the ‘Erev Rav (Mixed Multitude) after Maimonides’ “hamishah minim” (“five sectarians”). The passage from Tikkunei Zohar was incorporated by the printers in Zohar I, 25a. (The note in Derekh Emet alerts the reader that the material correlates to Tikkunei Zohar, tikkun 50. In the new Pritzker edition of the Zohar, the passage from Tikkunei Zohar has been removed.) Maimonides’ “hamishah minim” are found in MT, Hil. Teshuvah 3:7. This is just a random sample of the pervasive influence of Maimonides on the author of Tikkunei Zohar and Ra‘ya Mehemna.

Cf. the direct quote from Maimonides, Hil. Teshuvah 3:6 in Isaac ibn Sahula’s Meshal ha-Kadmoni (Venice, 1546), Sha‘ar ha-Rishon (10a), s.v. va-yo’el ha-tsevi le-va’er. And see now Sarah Offenberg, “On Heresy and Polemics in Two Proverbs in Meshal Haqadmoni” (Hebrew), Jewish Thought 1 (2019), pp. 64-65. Recently, Hartley Lachter has attempted to demonstrate that the general tenor of Meshal ha-Kadmoni is esoteric; see H. Lachter, “Spreading Secrets: Kabbalah and Esotericism in Isaac ibn Sahula’s Meshal ha-Kadmoni,” Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 100, No. 1 (Winter 2010), pp. 111-138.

[20] It should be noted, for whatever it is worth, that Pinhas ben Meshullam was a Provencal rabbi who took up the post of Dayyan of Alexandria, Egypt. It would be pure conjecture on my part to posit that his critique of Maimonides reflected the way in which Mishneh Torah had been received in Provence. It is equally possible that Pinhas’ critique was not based on actual observation of the Provencal reception of Mishneh Torah.

[21] See Igrot ha-Rambam, ed. Yitzhak Shilat, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 438-439; quoted in Bezalel Naor, The Limit of Intellectual Freedom: The Letters of Rav Kook (Spring Valley, NY: Orot, 2011), pp. 297-298.

[22] The term “hivemind” referred originally to the coordinated behavior of a colony of insects (bees or ants) which to an outside observer, appears the workings of a single mind. In the age of the Internet, it refers to the collectivity of the users who function as a single mind in expressing their thoughts and opinions. This is, in effect, what Maimonides created in Mishneh Torah. As he stated it so eloquently in the introduction to that work:

I…intently studied all these works, with the view of putting together the results obtained from them in regard to what is forbidden or permitted, clean or unclean, and the other rules of the Torah—all in plain language and terse style, so that thus the entire Oral Law might become systematically known to all, without citing difficulties and solutions or differences of view, one person saying so, and another something else [italics mine—BN]—but consisting of statements, clear and convincing, and in accordance with the conclusions drawn from all these compilations and commentaries that have appeared from the time of Rabbenu ha-Kadosh [i.e. Rabbi Judah the Prince] to the present, so that all the rules shall be accessible to young and old, whether these appertain to the (Pentateuchal) precepts or to the institutions established by the sages and prophets, so that no other work should be needed for ascertaining any of the laws of Israel, but that this work might serve as a compendium of the entire Oral Law…

(Moses Hyamson translation with correction)

[23] See A.H. Freimann, Ha-Rosh ve-Tse’etsa’av, chap. 4 (pp. 32-41).

[24] She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rosh 31:9; quoted in Bezalel Naor, The Limit of Intellectual Freedom, pp. 300-301.

[25] Translation of Moses Hyamson with slight alterations.

[26] b. Kiddushin 30a. See Tosafot there s.v. lo tserikha le-yomei.

[27] MT, Hil. Talmud Torah 1:11.

[28] Ibid. 1:12.

[29] In Sefer ha-Mussar, chap. 10, Ibn Kaspi lays out a study plan for his twelve year old son, Shelomo. He advises Shelomo to spend the next two years studying Bible and Talmud. From fourteen to sixteen, he should turn his attention to ethics: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Avot with the commentary and introduction of Maimonides, Hilkhot De‘ot of Sefer ha-Madda‘, as well as Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Starting at age sixteen, for the next two years, he should tackle the Halakhic codes of Alfasi, Rabbi Moses of Coucy [i.e. Sefer Mitsvot Gadol or SeMaG] and Maimonides, and pursue the study of logic. At age eighteen, he would be well advised to study natural science for two years. Finally, at age twenty, Shelomo should commence studying Aristotle’s Metaphysics and Maimonides’ Guide. (He is also advised to take a wife at that time.)

[30] See Maimonides’ famous parable of the King’s palace in Guide of the Perplexed III, 51.

Review of Rav Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky’s Taharas Yisroel

By Shmuel Lubin

Shmuel Lubin is a doctoral candidate in biology and creator of “The Rishonim” podcast.

ר‘ צבי הירש גראדזענסקי טהרת ישראל, הלכות נדה, לראשונה מכתב יד, ע“י מכון תפארת צבי, [נדפס ע“י מכון עלה זית], תקסח עמודים

The publication of a new sefer on Hilchos Niddah is not necessarily cause for celebration in the often-saturated world of halachic literature.[1] But when such a publication is based on an early 20th century manuscript from the American heartland, it at least merits a glance; if the author happens to also have a rather famous rabbinic last name, talmidei chachamim may take interest even without knowing anything about the sefer’s content. All this can be said about Sefer Taharas Yisrael on the laws of Niddah, written by Rav Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky zt”l. Born c. 1857 in Lithuania, where he learned be-chavrusa with his more famous second-cousin, Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinsky zt”l, he then spent most of his adult life serving as the chief rabbi of Omaha, Nebraska for almost 60 years (1891-1947). [2] As intriguing as his biography is, once one begins studying Rav Grodzinsky’s Sefer Taharas Yisrael, such details quickly fade into insignificance, washed away by a torrent of Torah brilliance. This review will therefore focus first on judging the newly published work for what it is: a book on the laws of Hilchos Niddah (Family Purity).

Photo of Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky from approximately the time he arrived in America. (From Rosenbaum and Wakschlag, 1994)

Probably the most succinct way to describe the style of the Sefer Taharas Yisrael is to say that it does for Hilchos Niddah what R. Avraham Bornstein’s (the “Sochatchover”) Eglei Tal does for Hilchos Shabbos: it is a book of halacha that also provides the background for the laws through detailed conceptual analysis of its sources. In the center of the page is the halacha, which is usually a direct quotation from Shulchan Aruch, Rama, or similarly standard halachic works. This main text is flanked by two sets of notes: “Mekoros,” or citations, and “Biurim,” elaborations.

Because the main body of the text is often an exact citation from a standard halachic authority such as the Shulchan Aruch or Rama, sometimes these formulations do not precisely reflect the halachic consensus as Rav Grodzinsky understands it. Despite its name, therefore, the “Mekoros” section not only provides citations for the main text, but also serves more generally as ‘footnotes’, including brief but important clarifications or qualifications of the cited halacha. Together, this allows for the Sefer Taharas Yisrael to be useful as a work of practical guidance, like so many other summary works on Hilchos Niddah available today, but at the same maintain the voice of the classic authorities such as the Shulchan Aruch.

The vast majority of the sefer’s text, however, is comprised of the Biurim, wherein Rav Grodzinsky engages in classical rabbinic interpretation of halachic texts, analyzing their language and logic, raising questions, proposing interpretations, and refining his (and his readers’) understanding of the earlier textual sources. These sources used in the Biurim focus primarily on the Gemara and Rishonim, as well as the major poskim throughout the generations both “on the page” of the Shulchan Aruch and in other classic (and sometimes not-so-classic) works of She’eilos u-Teshuvos and halacha. Despite his remote location, especially relative to the Torah centers of Europe and America, Rav Grodzinsky amassed an extraordinary library of seforim, as attested to by the roughly 200 books of She’eilos u-Teshuvos that he lists in the introductory pages of the reference work that he published during his lifetime, “Likutei Zvi.”

Part of Rav Grodzinsky’s library which was housed by Otzar ha-Poskim in Jerusalem. (From Rosenbaum and Wakschlag, 1994)

Nevertheless, in Sefer Taharas Yisrael, Rav Grodzinsky focuses more narrowly on the classical commentaries printed in now-standard editions of the Gemara, Rambam, Tur and Shulchan Aruch.[3] Of course, not all of these were always so “standard”; for example, Rav Grodzinsky makes use of the Tosafos ha-Rosh that had been “newly printed on the side of the Gemara” (p. 42), referring to the now ubiquitous Vilna Shas published by Mrs. Deborah Romm and her sons during Rav Grodzinsky’s lifetime (while he was still living in Eastern Europe).

A few other observations are worth noting about Rav Grodzinsky’s use of sources. Although he does reference the responsa literature, aside from references to the Noda BiYehudah and Chasam Sofer, the total number of those citations is probably only a few dozen (which is certainly impressive, but does not reflect the more extraordinary breadth of his reference work, Likutei Zvi). Rav Grodzinsky also quotes heavily from both the Chochmas Adam of R. Avraham Danzig, and from the Shulchan Aruch “HaRav” of R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, whom Rav Grodzinsky invariably – and uniquely – cites as the “the Rav, the Gaon, the Chassid.” These seforim have become standard works of halacha that are frequently cited in the literature of the past century, but in several places, Rav Grodzinsky also quotes from another book of halacha that is rarely if ever cited today, the “Ikkarei ha-Dat” of R. Daniel Tirani (18th century Italy), which is noteworthy for also including what would be considered “medical” information along with the halacha (see p. 38).

Among Rav Grodzinsky’s many sources are also non-halachic texts, such as the Midrash Vayikra Rabbah or R. Eliyahu Mizrachi’s supercommentary to Rashi on the Torah. Another noteworthy reference is Rav Grodzinsky’s discussion of a comment by the “Besamim Rosh,” (p. 215) attributed to R. Asher b. Yechiel (“the Rosh”) but now widely accepted to have been forged by Saul Berlin.[4] This is especially interesting because among Rav Grodzinsky’s unpublished manuscripts is an expansive 11-volume work on the (authentic) responsa of R. Asher b. Yechiel. Given his expertise in the works of this particular medieval authority, it would be very valuable to know whether (or to what extent) he believed that positions expressed in the Besamim Rosh fit with other known statements of the Rosh. In an important responsum on the topic of annulling a marriage, published by Rav Grodzinsky at the end of his commentary to Maseches Berachos (published in 1923), he briefly mentions a “sevara meshubeshes” [distorted reasoning] quoted in the name of the Besamim Rosh, and says that the book was not available to him at the time. In Sefer Taharas Yisrael though, Rav Grodzinsky raises no objections to the book per se.[5]

Sometimes the “Biurim” are merely quotes from earlier compendiums, such as the Beis Yosef, or summaries of some of the major discussions of later commentaries such as the Chavos Daas and Sidrei Taharah (and those who have read through extensive comments of the Sidrei Taharah will acknowledge that extracting the main points from his lengthy pilpulim is itself a great service). In what may be the most difficult topic of Hilchos Niddah, Rav Grodzinsky excuses himself for deviating from his usual brevity to enumerate the various rabbinic positions and their halachic consequences for the benefit of someone struggling through the dense halachic details in question (p. 114-117).

Usually, though, Rav Grodzinsky goes far beyond mere quotations or summaries of earlier commentaries. Whether he is discussing the Gemara, the Rishonim, the Shulchan Aruch, or later commentators, Rav Grodzinsky’s novel elaborations upon these sources of the halacha are extraordinary in their clarity, profundity, and creativity. Most of these biurim are brief, consisting of a single question-and-answer, an additional proof to the position cited in the main text, or the like, but written in a lucid style that stands in stark contrast to other ‘short’ halachic commentaries such as the Shach and Taz.

The vast majority of Rav Grodzinsky’s novel contributions are in explicating a single, very precise detail of a halachic discussion. He does not engage in the type of high-level conceptual categorization (inventing ‘lomdishe chakiras’) that is common in contemporary yeshiva study.[6] Instead, his approach involves a close examination of the original sources, on occasion proposing alternative readings or explanations to resolve questions or demonstrate proofs to the halacha in the Gemara, Rishonim and early Acharonim.

Rav Grodzinsky’s creativity is especially evident in defending positions of Rishonim (and sometimes Acharonim) from the challenges of later commentators. As he writes (p. 257 and 343), “it is a mitzvah to resolve the words of the Beis Yosef from whose waters we drink constantly.” This tendency is not at all limited to R. Yosef Caro who, as the author of the Beis Yosef and Shulchan Aruch, is one of the main pillars of halachic decision-making. Rav Grodzinsky writes similarly regarding the authors of Knesses Yechezkel (R. Yechezkel Katzenellenbogen, p. 68-69), the Perisha (R. Yehoshua Falk Katz, p. 260), the Panim Meiros (R. Meir Poznan/Eisenstadt, p. 318), and many others. In fact, Rav Grodzinsky appears to be especially motivated to defend opinions that are rejected as erroneous by the majority of other commentators, saving them from potential dishonor.

As Eliezer Brodt discussed in his review of Sefer Beis ha-Yayin, Rav Grodzinsky is at times willing to attribute difficult passages to printers’ errors, but is wary of making such suggestions too frequently.[7] However, he sometimes solves difficult positions of Rishonim or explains why groups of Rishonim will disagree with each other by noting that they likely had different versions of the Gemara’s text.[8] In a similar vein, Rav Grodzinsky is adept at demonstrating how a dispute among Rishonim or Acharonim is dependent upon a dispute found in the Gemara (or at least earlier sources; e.g. on p. 185). He is particularly sensitive to rabbinic authors of differing opinions and has a keen eye towards finding a “le-shitaso,” explaining how deciding one particular halacha is dependent upon understanding a different halacha. He applies this method to many Amoraim, Rishonim, and Acharonim. These types of explanations demonstrate how Rav Grodzinsky was deeply attuned not just to nuances of the Talmudic sources, but also to the specific personalities behind each opinion voiced by the various commentators and authorities. Relatedly, Rav Grodzinsky will sometimes remark upon the general tendency or style of a Rishon, noting, for instance, “it is surprising to me that the Rosh did not mention that the position of the Tosafists diverges [from his own view] and dispute their words, as is his custom in every place” (p. 211).

Within the context of halachic discussion, Rav Grodzinsky is not averse to suggesting fresh and often creative interpretations of the Gemara that appear to be at odds with the major commentaries. Usually, his reinterpretations of primary sources are in response to some problem raised by the commentators, but this is not always the case. To take one relatively simple example, the Gemara (Niddah 9b) states:

וכמה עונה אמר ריש לקיש משום רבי יהודה נשיאה עונה בינונית שלשים יום ורבא אמר רב חסדא עשרים יום ולא פליגי מר קחשיב ימי טומאה וימי טהרה ומר לא חשיב ימי טומאה.

And how long is a typical cycle? Reish Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: the average cycle is thirty days. And Rava says that Rav Ḥisda says: It is twenty days. [The Gemara clarifies:] And they do not disagree. One counts [i.e., includes] days of impurity and days of purity. And the other does not count the days of impurity [i.e., the seven days of niddah plus the three days of possible ziva sightings]

The Gemara is fairly explicit in saying that the two rabbis cited as opining upon the average woman’s cycle do not disagree with each other. Yet, Rav Grodzinsky (p. 130) believes that the Gemara would not have expressed their opinions in different ways if their positions were truly identical, and so he suggests that they do, in fact, disagree, but the Gemara simply means that they both hold that the average cycle is approximately 30 days, not that their opinions vary so widely as to differ by ten whole days.

Notwithstanding his frequently bold and creative suggestions, Rav Grodzinsky is very hesitant to utilize those innovations in practice. Instead, he writes, “I will permit the audacity of boldly writing what has come into my net [arhiv be-nafshi oz lichtov mah she-alah be-metzudasi], but I am writing only for the purposes of study and not le-halacha, considering only as a student considers before his master” (p. 20), or “for even if this [novel explanation] answers many questions, it is against many Rishonim and Acharonim who are so much greater than I” (p. 389). When it comes to the practical implementation of halacha, Rav Grodzinsky’s humility prevents him from issuing a pesak that is against what he views as the mainstream position of the earlier poskim.[9] His determination of this “mainstream” is complex; Rav Grodzinsky does not appear to be working within a rule-based system such that, for example, if there is a dispute between the Shach and Taz he would always decide in favor of the Shach.[10] Instead, Rav Grodzinsky takes all the commentaries into consideration and appears to decide according to his considered majority, but many times both opinions will appear in the main body of the halacha in the center of the page, as yesh omrim [some say] one way or the other.

Even without consciously pushing the boundaries of pesak halacha, however, sometimes Rav Grodzinsky’s assessment of the halachic consensus is nevertheless important where later or contemporary rabbinic authorities continue to dispute certain halachos. Hilchos Niddah may be a “well-trodden path” (much more so than, for example, the laws of yayin nesech, the subject of Rav Grodzinsky’s book published in 2011), but there are numerous issues where contemporary poskim differ, and Rav Grodzinsky can thus serve as an important source for deciding halacha. To take just one example out of many, Rav Grodzinsky believes that there is no reason to follow the stricter opinion of the Or Zaru’a in considering a veses [expected period] to last for 24 (instead of 12) hours.[11]

Most of Rav Grodzinsky’s responsa remain unpublished, but from the few that are available it is clear that he did not shy away from tackling even the most complex of modern issues. In an undated manuscript that was probably written around 1941, for example, Rav Grodzinsky wrote what may be the first full-length discussion of the halachic implications of artificial insemination.[12] Some of Rav Grodzinsky’s previously published works also include fascinating asides or observations pertaining to his role and experiences as a rabbi in early twentieth century America.[13] However, there is almost no topic in Sefer Taharas Yisrael that was not discussed in the older, classical works of halacha. As far as I could tell, there is no hint to the fact that the sefer was written in 20th century Nebraska instead of 18th century Prague, even though there are many instances where one would think that the different American context might have an impact upon halacha. Perhaps this is because Sefer Taharas Yisrael was written earlier in Rav Grodzinsky’s lifetime, or maybe he simply wanted to maintain its classical style without discussing new questions in this context.

If Sefer Taharas Yisrael were published in pre-war Eastern Europe, it would have undoubtedly been popular among rabbinic students who recognized Rav Grodzinsky as a fantastic talmid chacham.[14] In (nearly) all of his writings, Rav Grodzinsky’s intended audience was certainly his rabbinic colleagues in Europe and Israel (then British Palestine), not his own congregants in the city of Omaha, Nebraska. In terms of his vast Torah knowledge, Rav Grodzinsky must have been worlds away from his neighbors and community. It is hard to imagine what he knew or thought about the city of Omaha when he was 33 years old, living in Vilna, when he accepted the invitation to become its rabbi in 1891. By the time Rav Grodzinsky arrived, there were (at least) two main Orthodox synagogues – a “Litvishe Shul” (Congregation B’nai Israel, founded 1883) and a “Russishe Shul” (Chevra B’nai Israel Adas Russia, founded 1884), with a third Hungarian Shul dedicated a few years after. As Omaha’s Orthodox rabbi, Rav Grodzinsky gave weekly sermons, led daily Mishnah studies, counseled congregants, answered halachic questions, and supervised kosher slaughter, but it seems inevitable that a great chasm would have existed between him and his community. He refused to speak English, even to his children, and seems to have avoided participating in the committees and social obligations that were becoming typical of American rabbis (although he did participate in the founding of Agudas ha-Rabbanim in 1902).

The majority of even Rav Grodzinsky’s most devoted congregants who may have purchased their rabbi’s books as a mark of respect could probably hardly read them, and his neighbors surely had little appreciation of the talmudic genius living among them. The salary provided by the shuls of Omaha, initially a modest honorarium of $25 per month from each synagogue, was hardly enough to make ends meet. When the two larger Omaha shuls hired Rabbi Yechiel Michel Charlop in 1923 (who stayed for two years before moving to the Bronx), he was offered an annual salary of $3,500. Meanwhile, Rav Grodzinsky at the time earned about $200-400 and was forced to supplement his income by providing various other functions such as selling Matzah for Passover and traveling annually to Sacramento, California to certify kosher wines. A few decades after his death, nobody in the community even remembered where he was buried.[15]

Instead, Rav Grodzinsky poured unimaginably superhuman efforts into producing scholarly Torah writings. His first book, “Mikveh Yisrael,” a commentary on the laws of ritual baths, appeared in 1898 with the approbation of his rebbe R. Yitzchak Elchonon Spektor zt”l. Starting in 1896, he contributed numerous articles to respected Torah journals, engaging in scholarly debates on a wide range of halachic issues with the rabbis of Europe, Israel, and elsewhere in America. The vast majority of Rav Grodzinsky’s prolific output, however, remained in manuscript form at the time of his death (at about 90) in 1947. Shortly afterwards, his personal library and unpublished writings were shipped off to the Otzar ha-Poskim institute in Jerusalem, as per his instructions prior to his passing.

A newspaper article from 1945 reported that Rav Grodzinsky (then at the age of about 87) was “planning the publication of additional works in the field of Rabbinics,”[16] but the word “planning” is a woefully inadequate description of the amount of effort and care that Rav Grodzinsky put into preparing his writings for publication. Many seforim aficionados will be aware of R. Akiva Eiger’s directions to his sons that they should publish his responsa using large clear lettering on the finest paper available. Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Grodzinsky went quite a bit further, taking an unusual, perhaps even unique step towards ensuring that his halachic works would be published as beautifully as he imagined them to be: with his clear handwriting, he would copy over his ready-to-publish manuscript into bound notebooks in the precise page layout that he intended for it to be printed, with the main halacha in the center flanked by citations on one side and elaborations on the other.

Despite the incredible lengths Rav Grodzinsky went to in preparing his manuscripts, they languished in their boxes (and were even tied up in their original ropes) for many decades before any of these previously unpublished works were actually printed. The saga of their publication is the subject of a 2015 Mishpacha magazine article[17] with additional updates included in the Introduction sections of more recent publications. In 2011, R. Shalom Jacob zt”l published Rav Grodzinsky’s work on Yayin Nesech, and a few years later published a collection of his writings on the holidays under the title Mo’adei Zvi vol. 1 (2016). This newly published work, Sefer Taharas Yisrael on Hilchos Niddah, the third in the series of Rav Grodzinsky’s works published from manuscripts, marks a bittersweet occasion, coinciding with the first yahrzeit of R. Shalom Jacob, whose dedicated efforts in publishing Rav Grodzinsky’s seforim have been continued by Rabbi Myron Wakschlag through Machon Tiferes Zvi, a nonprofit organization dedicated to publishing Rav Grodzinsky’s works. This new volume includes tributes to R. Shalom Jacob by Rabbi Yisroel Dovid Schlesinger of Monsey, by R. Shalom’s father, and by R. Shalom’s friend and partner-in-publication, Rabbi Wakschlag.

The publishers have lived up to Rav Grodzinsky’s high expectations admirably; Sefer Taharas Yisrael is handsomely bound, typeset in large lettering, and with the sections clearly laid out and formatted according to the author’s handwritten notebooks (even if maintaining the exact pagination would have been impractical, if not impossible). As expected for a work of this size and complexity, it is not entirely without typographical errors, although these rarely impede understanding.[18]

Particularly helpful is the Source Index, which contributes to making Sefer Taharas Yisrael more user-friendly for someone studying either Maseches Niddah or Shulchan Aruch (although Rav Grodzinsky’s own sefer does mostly follow the organization of the Tur). Without this index, the sefer would be much more difficult to be studied by someone following a classic yeshiva or kollel curriculum. However, it should be noted that the index, while useful, is not entirely comprehensive, especially for sources beyond the Gemara and Shulchan Aruch commentaries. For instance, there is no reference to “Ra’ah” (R. Ahron ha-Levi of Lunel) or his work, Bedek ha-Bayis despite being quoted several times.[19] However, as it currently stands the index is already 49 pages long(!), and these minor deficiencies do not substantially detract from its overall utility (and certainly do not impinge upon the quality of the sefer as a whole).

There is no question in my mind that this work will be an invaluable resource for anyone engaged in serious study of Hilchos Niddah, as Rav Grodzinsky’s scholarship deserves a place on the shelf of every kollel beis medrash. Hopefully, this publication will serve as a catalyst for the financing of more publications from Rav Grodzinsky’s writings; a list of manuscripts being considered for future publication and other information about this project can be found on the publisher’s website. Aside from the benefit that this serves “le-hagdil Torah u-le-ha’adirah,” publication of his responsa and sermons in particular will likely provide fascinating insights into the rabbinic engagement with new technologies and social realities of early 20th century America.

Moreover, the quality and depth of Sefer Taharas Yisrael should further solidify Rav Grodzinsky’s place among the gedolim of his generation, and the sefer is a fitting tribute to this giant who was largely under-appreciated by his own congregants of Omaha, Nebraska. In the commentary to Maseches Berachos that Rav Grodzinsky published in his lifetime, he explained the rabbinic ‘blessing’ that “you should see your world in your life, your end in the World to Come, and your hope will be for generations” (Berachos 17a):

“That you should be recognized and desired in people’s eyes in this world… that is “your end in the World to Come,” and “your hope,” meaning, your hope that your lips will speak from the grave through others speaking your sayings in this world, as the Gemara says in Yevamos (97a), “will be for generations,” meaning, for many generations after you, people will continue to cite your teachings in this world. (Milei de-Berachos p. 187)

May this blessing be applied posthumously to Rav Grodzinsky as fulfilled through the further study and publication of his works.

For sample pages of this work Email Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

On the History of the Custom to Announce Upcoming Fasts in the Synagogue on the Shabbat Preceding the Fasts

By Ezer Diena

About the author: Ezer Diena teaches Science and Judaics at Bnei Akiva Schools of Toronto. After studying at Yeshivas Toras Moshe for two years, Ezer received his B.Sc. in Chemistry and B.Ed. from York University.  He then joined Beit Midrash Zichron Dov of Toronto, where he studied for two years while serving as Rabbinic Assistant at BAYT and teaching in the Toronto and Thornhill communities. He welcomes any comments or feedback at ediena@torontotorah.com

Part 1: The sources of this custom

Many communities have the custom to make some type of announcement¹ of a fast day on the Shabbat preceding it. In what is likely the best-known version of this custom, Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 550:4) writes:

:(בשבת קודם לצום מכריז שליח צבור הצום חוץ מט”ב וצום כפור וצום פורים וסימנך אכ”ף עליו פיהו² (ומנהג האשכנזים שלא להכריז שום אחד מהם

On the Shabbat prior to a fast, the Shaliach Tzibbur announces the [upcoming] fast, except for the 9^th of Av, the fast of Kippur, and the fast of Purim [i.e. Ta’anit Esther], and the mnemonic for this is “AKaF alav pihu” [A = Av, K = Kippur, F = Purim] (Mishlei 16:26). Rema:³ And the custom of the Ashkenazim is not to announce any of them.

While the source of Shulchan Aruch’s formulation of the custom to announce fasts on the Shabbat prior is Abudarham⁴, this custom is described in a number of early sources. Two sources cited in support of this custom appear to be from Geonic times⁵, while another seven major sources span the first half of the second millennium. The Hebrew and English text of these nine sources, along with minimal analysis, follows:

Masechet Soferim (no later than 8^th Century CE)

In standard printings of Masechet Soferim, Chapter 21 Halacha 3⁶ references a custom that some individuals had to fast on Monday(s) and Thursday towards the end of the month of Nissan.⁷ The next passage⁸ reads

.במה דברים אמורים בצינעה, אבל לקרוא צום בציבור אסור, עד שיעבור ניסן

When is the above said? [When the fasting is done] privately, but to call a fast in public is prohibited, until Nissan has passed.

Rabbi Dr. Michael Higger (in his critical edition of Masechet Soferim, Volume II, p. 354, notes to line 13) notes no less than four other versions of the words that appear in the place of לקרוא צום בציבור, to call a fast in public: להטריח ציבור, to burden the community; להכריז צום בציבור, to announce a fast in public; להזכיר צום בציבור, to mention a fast in public; and להדין צום בציבור, to rule (?) a public fast. (Note as well that some of the versions lack the word צום, fast, but their meaning likely remains the same.)

Some commentaries to Masechet Soferim⁹ have therefore suggested that this line references this custom to announce fasts on the preceding Shabbat. While it is indeed the custom of many communities, even now, to recite a Mi Sheberach blessing on the first Shabbatot following Rosh Chodesh Iyar and Cheshvan for those who fast the Monday/Thursday/Monday fasts following Nissan and Tishrei,¹⁰ this does not seem to be the simple meaning of this passage of Masechet Soferim, for a number of reasons. Firstly, the passage in Masechet Soferim makes no mention of Shabbat, unlike all of the other sources discussing this custom. Secondly, it seems to be discussing the nature of the fast day itself as a fast of an individual, as opposed to the fast of the public. Thirdly, similar wording is used by Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 429:2) to describe the prohibition of fasting during the month of Nissan, and the overwhelming majority of commentaries¹¹ explain this phrase to refer to the act of public fasting, having nothing to do with an announcement on the Shabbat preceding the fast.¹²

A more plausible explanation¹³ of this passage in Masechet Soferim would be that this refers to the public display of fast day rituals, such as reading the Torah portion associated with a public fast day, or that there was some announcement of the fast to the public, but had nothing to do with the Shabbat preceding the fast.

In conclusion, there is no evidence from this passage in Masechet Soferim to suggest that the its author was aware of a custom to announce fast days in the synagogue on the Shabbat preceding.

Seder Rav Amram Gaon (9^th Century CE)

Another early source supporting the custom of announcing fasts on Shabbat may be Seder Rav Amram Gaon. In Seder Hilchot Ta’aniyot (usually indicated as Section 57), some editions¹⁴ of this work contain the following paragraph:

ונהגו בכל המקומות שמכריז ש”ץ בשבת קודם התענית ואומר צום פלוני ביום פלוני שיהפוך אותו הקב”ה עלינו ועל כל עמו ישראל לששון ולשמחה. ככתוב. כה אמר ה’ צבאות צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיו לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה ולמועדים טובים והאמת והשלום אהבו. תענית של צום הרביעי י”ז בתמוז, צום החמישי ט’ באב, וצום השביעי ג’ בתשרי, צום העשירי עשרה בטבת

It is the custom in all communities that the Shaliach Tzibbur announces on Shabbat before the fast and says “the fast Ploni will [take place] on the day Ploni, may Hakadosh Baruch Hu transform it for us and for His entire nation of Israel to gladness and happiness.” As it is written: “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month shall become occasions for joy and gladness, happy festivals for the House of Judah; but you must love honesty and integrity.” (JPS 1985 translation of Zechariah 8:19) The fast of Tzom Harevi’i is the 17^th of Tammuz, Tzom Hachamishi is the 9^th of Av, and Tzom Hashevi’i is the 3^rd of Tishrei, [and] Tzom Ha’asiri is the 10^th of Tevet.¹⁵

Unfortunately, this passage is not authentic. In addition to language that does not seem to fit the rest of the work¹⁶, it appears only in Manuscript Aleph (Oxford Bodleian Library Opp. Add. 4⁰28) of this work, a manuscript known for many later interpolations based on French customs.¹⁷ Also, if such a custom was so widespread at that time, one would expect other evidence from approximately the same time period or earlier, which, if extant, has eluded this author entirely. Indeed, Professor Daniel Goldschmidt treats this section as a later addition in his edition of Seder Rav Amram Gaon.¹⁸ Therefore, it is significant as testimony to the custom in France in the 1400s, but not as a report from 500-odd years prior in a different part of the world.

Machzor Vitry (11^th-12^th Century CE)

Standard printings of the Machzor Vitry (Section 190), a French work composed around 1100 CE,¹⁹ read as follows:

וכשחל תענית כתוב בשבת הבאה יאמר הכי: מי שעשה כו’. עד לירושלם עיר הקודש ונאמר אמן. צום פלוני יום פלוני זה הבא עלינו יהפכהו הק’ לנו ולכל ישר’ לששון ולשמחה ולברכה ולשלום ונאמר אמן. ככת’ כה אמר י”י צום הרביעי צום החמישי צום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה ולמועדים טובים האמת והשלום אהבו

When a “written fast” falls in the coming week, he should say as follows: “He who did…” until “to Yerushalaim, the holy city, and we say ‘Amen’!” [This text is found in the previous section as part of the prayer recited on the Shabbat before Rosh Chodesh.] “The fast of Ploni is on this day, Ploni, which is approaching. May Hakadosh Baruch Hu transform it for us and all of Israel to gladness and happiness and blessing and peace, and we say ‘Amen’!” As it is written, “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month shall become occasions for joy and gladness, happy festivals for the House of Judah; but you must love honesty and integrity.” (JPS 1985 translation of Zechariah 8:19)

Although there are various manuscripts of Machzor Vitry, and many of them have slightly different readings, the passage is considered entirely authentic. The details of this retelling of the custom, as well those which follow, will be analyzed at length later in this piece, and are brought here as a form of introduction, as well as if the reader would like to reference the full texts during other portions of this article.

Sefer Eitz Chaim (13^th Century CE)

Rabbi Yaakov Ben Yehudah Chazzan lived in London in the 1200s, and produced a Halachic work called Eitz Chaim.²⁰ Page 109 of the Brody Edition reads:

כשיארע צום²¹ לשבוע יאמר: צום פלוני יהיה יום פלוני, יהפכהו הקב”ה עלינו ועל כל ישראל לששון ולשמחה ולמועדים טובים, לריוח והצלה והצלחה, לברכה ושלום ונאמר אמן, כאמור: כה אמר יי [צבאות] צום הרביעי צום החמישי צום השביעי וצום העשירי יהיה לבית יהודה לששון ולשמחה ולמועדים טובים האמת והשלום אהבו

When a fast will fall in the week, he should say: “The fast of Ploni will be the day of Ploni, may Hakadosh Baruch Hu transform it for us and all of Israel to gladness and happiness and holidays, relief, deliverance and success, blessing and peace, and we say ‘Amen’!” As is said, “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month shall become occasions for joy and gladness, happy festivals for the House of Judah; but you must love honesty and integrity.” (JPS 1985 translation of Zechariah 8:19)

Kol Bo (13^th-14^th Century CE)

In an anonymous halachic work from around 1300, often attributed to Rabbi Aharon Ben Yaakov Hakohen²², we find the following in Hilchot Tefillat Yotzer Umussaf, Chapter 37:

.ועל ד’ הצומות שהן י”ז בתמוז וט’ באב וצום גדליה ועשרה בטבת מכריז בשבת שלפניהן ואומרים צום פלוני יהיה יום פלוני וכו’, אבל²³ אין מכריזין על ט’ באב ועל צום גדליה²⁴ לפי שהם ידועים לכל

On the four fasts, which are the 17^th of Tammuz, the 9^th of Av, the fast of Gedaliah, and the 10^th of Tevet, he announces on the Shabbat prior to them, and they say: “The fast of Ploni will be on the day of Ploni…”. But we do not announce on the 9^th of Av and the fast of Gedaliah, since they are known to all.

Orchot Chaim (13^th-14^th Century CE)

Standard printings of Orchot Chaim, an early 14^th Century work by Rabbi Aharon Ben Yaakov Hakohen²⁵ (Volume I, Seder Tefillat Shabbat – Shacharit, Section 8) read:

ועל ד’ הצומות שהן י”ז בתמוז וט’ באב וצום גדליה וי’ בטבת מכריז בשבת שלפניהם צום פלוני יהיה יום פלוני וכו’²⁶ ועל ט’ באב וצום גדליה י”א שאין מכריזין עליהם לפי שהן ידועים לכל.²⁷

On the four fasts, which are the 17^th of Tammuz, the 9^th of Av, the fast of Gedaliah, and the 10^th of Tevet, he announces on the Shabbat prior to them: “The fast of Ploni will be on the day of Ploni…”. [Regarding] the 9^th of Av and the fast of Gedaliah, some say that we do not announce them, since they are known to all.

Sefer Mitzvot Zemaniyot (13^th-14^th Century CE)

Rabbi Yisrael Ben Yosef Hayisraeli of Toledo, Spain, authored an Arabic work known as Sefer Mitzvot Zemaniyot around the beginning of the 14^th Century. It was translated into Hebrew not long after his death by Shem Tov Ben Yitzchak Ardotial, and that translation alone remains.²⁸ In his Hilchot Ta’aniyot, he writes:

וצריך להזהר בהם ולהזכירם ש”ץ ביום השבת הקודם אחר ההפטרה קודם שיאמר אשרי “אחינו ישראל [שמעו] צום פלוני יום פלוני. יהפוך אותו לנו²⁹ הקב”ה לנו לששון ולשמחה, כמו שהבטיחנו בנחמות, ונאמר אמן”. והענין לזה, כדי שיקבלו עליהם הצבור קודם בואו. כי אם לא יקבלוהו ולא כיונו בו אלא אחרי בואו, יקרא תענית שעות, שאינו יום צום אלא מעת שכיון לקבלו עד תשלום היום. ואמרו אין מתענין לשעות. ואמרו עוד כל תענית שלא קבלו עליו מבעוד יום לא שמיה תענית.

One needs to be careful about them and the Shaliach Tzibbur should announce them on Shabbat Day after the haftarah before he says “Ashrei”: “Our brothers, Israel, hear: The fast of Ploni is on the day of Ploni. May Hakadosh Baruch Hu transform it for us to gladness and happiness, as he promised us in the consolations, and we say “Amen”!” The purpose of this, is so the community accepts [the fast] upon themselves before it arrives. For if they do not accept it, and only focus upon it after it arrives, it will be called a Ta’anit Sha’ot [fast of hours], which is [only considered] a day of fasting from the time that he intended to accept it until the completion of the day. And they said (Ta’anit 11b): “[One] does not fast for hours.” They also said (Ta’anit 12a): “Any fast which they did not accept while it was still [the previous] day is not considered a fast.”

Although he lived in Spain, he was tremendously influenced by Rabbi Asher Ben Yechiel (Rosh), who had lived in and travelled through various Ashkenazic communities before settling in Spain in 1306. Thus, this work may reflect an Ashkenazic custom, albeit one that may have become accepted in Spain at that time. It is also imperative to note that scholars have documented the influence of this work on the next two works listed, Sefer Abudarham and Sefer Menorat Hama’or.³⁰

Sefer Abudarham (14^th Century CE)

As mentioned above, Sefer Abudarham, a classic 14^th Century Spanish liturgical work,³¹ served as the source for Shulchan Aruch’s ruling on this matter. The original text, found in printed versions of Sefer Abudarham (Seder Tefillat Hata’aniyot), reads:

ובשבת שקודם להם אחר קריאת ההפטורה קודם אשרי צריך שיכריז שליח צבור ולהודיע לקהל באיזה יום יחול הצום ואומר אחינו ישראל שמעו צום פלוני יום פלוני יהפוך אותו הקב”ה לששון ולשמחה כמו שהבטיחנו בנחמות ונאמר אמן. וג’ תעניות אין מכריזין עליהם ט’ באב יום הכיפורים ופורים וסימניך אכ”ף.³²

And on the Shabbat before them, following the reading of the Haftarah, prior to Ashrei, the Shaliach Tzibbur must announce and notify the congregation on which day the fast falls, and he says: “Our brothers, Israel, hear: The fast of Ploni is on the day of Ploni. May Hakadosh Baruch Hu transform it to gladness and happiness, as he promised us in the consolations, and we say “Amen”!” There are three fasts which we do not announce [the date of]: The 9^th of Av, Yom Hakippurim, and Purim, and the mnemonic is AKaF [A = Av, K = Kippur, F = Purim].

Sefer Menorat Hamaor (Rabbi Yisrael Al-nakawa; 14^th Century CE)

Finally, at approximately the same time and place as Sefer Abudarham was written, Sefer Menorat Hama’or, a chiefly ethical work by Rabbi Yisrael Al-nakawa, was also composed.³³ Standard printings of Chapter 2 of the book, entitled Hilchot Hata’aniyot (p.p.278-279 in the Anlau Edition), contain the following passage, in the context of formally accepting the “minor fasts”:

…ולפי’ נהגו להכריז ש”צ ביום השבת שהתענית חל להיות באותו שבוע הבאה אחריו. ואומר, אחינו ישראל שמעו, צום פלוני ביום פלוני, יהפוך אותו הב”ה לששון ולשמחה, כמו שהבטיחנו בנחמות, ונאמר אמן. כדי שיקבלוהו הקהל עליהם קודם שיחול, לפי שאין רובם בקיאים לקבל אותו עליהם מבעוד יום בתפלת המנחה, כמו שאמרתי.

…therefore, they have the custom that the Shaliach Tzibbur announces the fast on the Shabbat Day on which the fast falls in the week which follows it. And he says: “Our brothers, Israel, hear: The fast of Ploni is on the day of Ploni. May Hakadosh Baruch Hu transform it to gladness and happiness, as he promised us in the consolations, and we say “Amen”!” [This is done] in order that the congregation should accept it upon themselves before it arrives, since most of them are not expert enough to accept it while it is still daytime [before the fast] during the Mincha prayer, as I said.

To sum up the history of this custom, we see that it arose sometime near the start of the Second Millennium CE and was reported to be the custom of French Ashkenazic communities for at least the next few hundred years. We also see it in a distinct group of Spanish sources in the 1300s, which may have been influenced by Ashkenazic rabbis who either emigrated to Spain or were well-known in Spain, causing this to become common practice in those Sephardic communities. In the 1400s and 1500s, it appears that this custom was strong in certain Sephardic communities (especially Spanish ones), and possibly still in French communities, but virtually nonexistent in many Ashkenazic communities.

Following the dissemination of the rulings of Rabbi Yoseph Karo and Rabbi Moshe Isserles in the Shulchan Aruch and Mappah, we see significant adoption of this custom by communities that tended to follow Sephardic customs, and strong rejection of the custom by Ashkenazic communities across Europe. Ashkenazic codes of law from this point on either rejected this custom (which may be evidence that it was known to them, possibly via the ruling in Shulchan Aruch), or failed to mention it altogether, since it was not practiced.³⁴ However, we see evidence of adoption of this custom among Yemenite Jews,³⁵ Egyptian Jews,³⁶ and Italian Jews.³⁷

Part 2: Approaches to this custom

In order to properly understand this custom, we must ask the following questions:³⁸

1. What benefit might there be to people to announce a fast day on the Shabbat beforehand, and why would someone initiate such a custom?
2. Why might some communities not have adopted this custom or disagreed with it?
3. How do these reason(s) fit in with various details of the custom, as indicated in the sources noted above, including:
   1. the language of the announcement?
   2. the placement of the announcement in the prayer service?
   3. the dates which some communities do not announce?

In answering these questions, we find three distinct conceptual approaches³⁹ to this custom, which will be outlined below. Each of these approaches finds support among the various details of this custom, as mentioned in the sources introduced above. However, rather than attempt to assign these understandings to various authorities, this article presents the general approaches and incorporates appropriate material from the primary sources. Assigning a particular approach to each source is inappropriate, since they do not fully reflect exactly how that author may have understood the custom, but rather, how it was being practiced in that locale at that time.

Approach #1: Informing the Community

Perhaps the simplest way to explain this prayer and custom is that it serves as a method of alerting the community to an upcoming fast day.⁴⁰ The custom may have begun simply by necessity – members of a particular community may have not been fully aware of upcoming fast days, and as a result, it could have been decided by the community leaders that an announcement on Shabbat would be most effective to share this information with the community. Notably, around the times which we see this custom first being mentioned, there is reason to believe that there were more participants in the Shabbat prayer service than at other weekday services,⁴¹ and in addition, it provides significant time to prepare for the fast, which could be no earlier than the following day.⁴²

One could further conjecture that in communities where the fasts were communicated otherwise, or where the general population was more aware of such dates, this announcement was simply unnecessary. Alternatively, even if there were more communities that would have benefitted from a public declaration about the upcoming fast, it is possible that while some communities incorporated this into their prayer service, others may have felt it unnecessary or inappropriate.

Such an approach is primarily taken by Abudarham⁴³, who adds the words ולהודיע לקהל, emphasizing the element of announcement. (Truthfully, it is hard to reject this reading of virtually any source that mentions this custom.) If so, the words “אחינו ישראל שמעו⁴⁴, צום פלוני [ב]יום פלוני”, serve as a crucial part of the announcement, as they serve the main goal of passing this information on to the congregation. This would also explain the proximity of this prayer to the similar announcement of when Rosh Chodesh will take place the following week.⁴⁵

Commentaries to Shulchan Aruch that take this position are quite limited.⁴⁶ One example is Kaf Hachaim (Orach Chaim 550:24), who cites the language of Sefer Abudarham, and in 550:26, he also cites Yafeh Lalev (Volume III, Orach Chaim 550:2), who in turn cites Orchot Chaim’s language (brought above). Since Orchot Chaim writes that according to some, we do not announce the fasts of the 9^th of Av and Tzom Gedaliah “because they are known to all”, many understand this phrase to reflect an understanding that the purpose of the announcement is to make these dates known to all.⁴⁷ This would be true of the passage in Kol Bo as well, which also gives that rationale without citing another view. Similarly, in Sefer Abudarham (and Shulchan Aruch), three dates are given on which we do not announce the fast on the preceding Shabbat. Yom Kippur and the 9^th of Av were likely well-known, and did not need to be announced, and the Fast of Purim (Ta’anit Esther) need not be announced due to its proximity to Purim.⁴⁸ However, it would be hard to understand why Tzom Gedaliah, which immediately follows Rosh Hashanah, would not fall into this category as well.⁴⁹

Of particular interest⁵⁰ to those who follow this approach is the custom in Egypt. Sefer Minhagei Mitzrayim (authored by Rabbi Yom Tov Ben Eliyahu Shirizali, Rabbi of Cairo in the mid-late 1800s; note 55) testifies that the custom in Egypt was not to announce any of the fasts. However, his successor Rabbi Rafael Aharon Ben-Shimon, in Sefer Nehar Mitzrayim (Hilchot Ta’aniyot 1) spoke very harshly against the custom of not announcing these fasts, since he was personally aware of complaints from G-d-fearing Jews who had unintentionally eaten on the 17^th of Tammuz, and he re-instituted this custom in accordance with the view of Shulchan Aruch.⁵¹

Notably, a recent authority that takes this approach is Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu. In Kol Tzofayich (Balak 5761), p. 3, he advocates that even in communities that do not have this custom, on the Shabbat preceding the fast, the Gabbai should announce the date on which the fast falls, as well as the start and end times for the fast.⁵²

Approach #2: A Prayer

It is quite clear that the actual text of this addition to the Shabbat morning services contains two major components:

1. An announcement of when the fast will be taking place
2. A prayer that Hashem turn it into a day of happiness

When examining the various versions of this passage and the way it is described, one can see different emphases on each of these components. For example, in Orchot Chaim’s version, which reads “צום פלוני יהיה יום פלוני וכו’”, the only text mentioned outright is the announcement of the fast, although it is clear that some form of prayer was recited, since he includes וכו’, or “etc.” at the end of his statement. Thus, one would presume that the main focus of this addition is to alert the community to the upcoming fast, but we take the opportunity to also request from Hashem that these days be turned into happy occasions.⁵³

In a second set of texts, we find the second component, the prayer, clearly written following the announcement, but it tends to be fairly short. For example, Sefer Abudarham has “יהפוך אותו הקב”ה לששון ולשמחה כמו שהבטיחנו בנחמות ונאמר אמן”.

In Machzor Vitry, we find two interesting changes. Firstly, prior to the actual announcement, there is an opening prayer which matches the opening prayer recited before the announcement of Rosh Chodesh. Secondly (and this is found in various early French records⁵⁴), it concludes with a citation of the verse in Zechariah (8:19) that these days will be transformed into happy occasions. It cannot be determined if this verse was actually recited as part of the prayer at the time that these texts were written, or if the verse was printed following this prayer to explain it,⁵⁵ but it clearly demonstrates a strong connection to the consolation of that verse. Additionally, in Machzor Vitry as well as Sefer Eitz Chaim, the list of blessings that we pray for is significantly longer than in other sources.

Furthermore, in Machzor Vitry we find an odd phrase – it refers to each fast that we recite this before as a “תענית כתוב”, a written fast. Different interpretations have been proposed,⁵⁶ one of which is that this phrase refers to those fasts enumerated in Zechariah 8:19.⁵⁷ What criterion would be only applicable to those four fast fasts, and why refer to it in this strange way? Perhaps the emphasis of Machzor Vitry was on the fact that these four fasts are enumerated in a verse which explicitly states that they will be turned into days of happiness, which according to him, would be the main purpose of this passage and custom.⁵⁸

In addition to the above, many versions of Machzor Vitry omit the day of the week on which the fast will fall.⁵⁹ This too serves to deemphasize the notion that this section was added to remind others of an impending fast, and perhaps further emphasizes the role of this addition primarily as a prayer.

Additionally, another text can be called upon to support this notion that the primary reason for adding this section was to pray for a reversal from sadness to happiness. Kol Bo’s language about this custom appears to be internally contradictory. It opens saying that on each of the four fasts listed in Zechariah, the fast should be announced, and the prayer text should be recited. He then writes that Tzom Gedaliah and Tish’a B’av should not be announced. Why would he open by stating that we do announce those fasts, and one line later, write that we don’t?⁶⁰

Perhaps this contradiction can be resolved by noting a slight difference between the language of Orchot Chaim and that of Kol Bo.⁶¹ Kol Bo adds the word ואומרים, and they say, prior to the passage recited in the synagogue. Thus, Kol Bo opens with a statement that on these four fasts: a) one individual announces the fast to the congregation, and b) the community recites the following prayer text. Kol Bo continues by noting that on two of the aforementioned fast days, the announcement is not made, but it is possible that the prayer is still recited.⁶² In Orchot Chaim, however, the prayer recited is the same as the announcement, and thus, it is brought as two separate opinions as to whether the announcement/recitation takes place at all.

This suggests that the Kol Bo distinguishes between the announcement element and the prayer element of this passage, and according to him, although the announcement is recited only prior to the 17^th of Tammuz and 10^th of Tevet, the prayer is recited prior to each of the four fasts listed in the verse, which would also seem to indicate that its primary purpose was to ask G-d for this reversal.

If the main or sole purpose of this addition to the Shabbat morning service would be for prayer, its placement within the prayer service (as opposed to before or after, or at a completely separate time) is quite appropriate. The parallel to the mention of Rosh Chodesh, which is also surrounded by prayers for a successful month, is very easy to understand. However, as stated above, this view is limited in regards to the applicable dates on the Jewish calendar, since according to this view, the most appropriate fast day to ask for a reversal of would be the 9^th of Av, yet, many sources, including Shulchan Aruch, designate that day as one that we do not recite this passage on the Shabbat prior.⁶³ Additionally, it is hard to understand the opposition to this custom – why wouldn’t other communities have followed this custom as well?

Although there is no certain answer to this question, there are two factors worth noting:

1. If one were to view the passage announcing the upcoming Rosh Chodesh as fulfilling a different role than a prayer for the future, this passage seems out of place. If some Ashkenazic authorities viewed the Birkat Hachodesh as either an announcement or as some ritualistic acceptance of the new month,⁶⁴ they may have felt it inappropriate to add another section to the prayers which did not serve that same purpose.
2. There is a general hesitancy to mention sad things on Shabbat;⁶⁵ some have suggested that the rejection of this custom was in line with this ethic.⁶⁶ Indeed, there were even communities that did not recite the general Rosh Chodesh passage during the month of Av, due to its negative nature, so as not to bring that up on Shabbat.⁶⁷

While this view that this addition to the service serves primarily as a prayer is not explicitly mentioned by commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch, nor almost any writers,⁶⁸ it is clear that there is certainly an element of prayer according to all views of this custom, and that it may indeed be the main purpose of the custom according to some of the authorities that we brought above.

Approach #3a: An Informal Acceptance

The final general approach brought here is the one that has been most discussed in previous sources. In particular, Rabbi Dr. Daniel Sperber’s article on the topic mainly addresses this approach, and the classic commentaries on Shulchan Aruch who take note of this custom (in this case, Be’ur Hagra to Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 550:4 and, following in Gra’s footsteps, Aruch Hashulchan (Orach Chaim 550:4) also follow this approach.⁶⁹ However, as we will see, there is much material on this topic that has not yet been addressed, and therefore, it would be best to present the following spectrum of views within this approach, ranging from a wholly unofficial and non-halachic acceptance of the fast, to an extremely formal and legally valid acceptance of the fast.

On the less-formal side of things, Be’ur Hagra suggests that as per Talmud Bavli Rosh Hashanah 18a, the status of the fasts listed in Zechariah (likely excluding Tish’a B’av) depends on the situation of the Jewish people at that time. As the Talmud states there:

.אין גזרת המלכות ואין שלום רצו מתענין רצו אין מתענין

At a time where there is no decree of the kingdom and no peace, if they wish to fast, they should fast, and if they don’t wish to fast, they should not.”⁷⁰

Based on one opinion⁷¹ that nowadays (assuming there is no persecution), or at the very least, several hundred years ago, when this custom first appeared, the status of these three⁷² fast days was still in the hands of the people, an announcement on the Shabbat beforehand was a form of “accepting” the fast as a community by declaring that the community wishes to fast. According to this approach, those who disagree with the institution of this custom believe that these fasts have already been formalized, and they are no longer dependent on community will at all.⁷³

This approach does well in explaining the exclusion of Yom Kippur and the 9^th of Av, since they have a status of being completely established,⁷⁴ and do not require the will of the community to take effect. However, the exclusion of Ta’anit Esther is somewhat perplexing. Although it is certainly not included in the list of fasts that depend on community will, it doesn’t seem to be particularly established, especially when we contrast other halachot of the day. This led Gra to suggest that Shulchan Aruch was of the opinion that Ta’anit Esther is considered to be established in our day, that just as the Jewish people fasted as a community on the 13^th of Adar, we too continue to fast each year. This is in line with Esther 9:31, as applied in Rambam Hilchot Ta’aniyot 5:5.⁷⁵ On the other hand, based on Rema (Orach Chaim 684:2), Sperber suggested that Ta’anit Esther was simply a weak custom, and not obligatory to fast on at all,⁷⁶ which is why it was excluded from this list.

This approach, while initially appealing, has several issues. Firstly, it is impossible to suggest this as a plausible understanding of Sefer Abudarham, the source of Shulchan Aruch, since he brings the view of Ramban that the fasts are considered absolutely obligatory and not subject to communal approval, without bringing a dissenting view. Thus, to suggest that those who support announcing the fast must disagree with Ramban would be a clear contradiction. Furthermore, a number of commentaries⁷⁷ (possibly including Gra himself) understand that Shulchan Aruch also follows Ramban’s view, in which case Shulchan Aruch would also be subject to this contradiction.⁷⁸

Addition issues are the lack of a clear parallel to the Rosh Chodesh announcement⁷⁹, as well as language that doesn’t seem to indicate any sort of acceptance⁸⁰.

Approach #3b: A formal acceptance

Many descriptions of this custom are very consistent in presenting it as a form of acceptance. Sefer Mitzvot Zemaniyot makes extensive reference to the possibility of this addition being an acceptance of the fast, and earlier in his Hilchot Ta’anit, he mentions that only the 9^th of Av has status as a public fast day, unlike the other fasts. Sefer Menorat Hamaor, earlier in his Hilchot Hata’aniyot is also explicit that each individual must accept these fasts for them to be considered binding. One could certainly argue that the purpose of the announcement is to remind people to accept the fast individually, but it seems more likely that these sources viewed the mention on the Shabbat prior to be some sort of acceptance. It is also worth mentioning that this may be a more formal and individualized type of acceptance than what Gra and Sperber were referring to.

(It is also interesting to note the placement of this halacha in the various works which refer to it. In general, although it is not absolute, it seems that those authorities who place it in the Shabbat section⁸¹ tend to view it more as a prayer or announcement than an acceptance, whereas others who place it in the laws of fast days⁸² may view it as more of a formal acceptance.)

The question which must be posed for the adherents to this approach is by what mechanism mentioning a fast on the Shabbat prior is considered acceptance of a fast. For Mitzvot Zemaniyot (and possibly Menorat Hama’or), who view those fasts as optional, one would expect a halachically-binding acceptance.

Firstly, regarding the time gap that may occur between Shabbat and the actual fast day, it is possible that the acceptance is binding even a number of days prior to the fast. Interestingly, this halacha is derived by Ra’avyah (Ta’aniyot 857; also cited in Mordechai Ta’anit Remez 624 and Or Zaru’a Volume II, Hilchot Ta’anit 404) from the Mi Sheberach blessing of those who accept the fasts of Bahab (Monday-Thursday-Monday) around the time that the Torah is returned to the Aron on Shabbat morning on the Shabbat preceding those fats. Ra’avyah notes that if an individual answers Amen to this blessing and intends to fast on those days, they do not need an additional acceptance of the fast. Ra’avyah contends that despite the disagreement found in the Talmud (Ta’anit 12a) between Rav and Shemuel as to whether the fast must be accepted during the Mincha prayer, or simply at Mincha time, they would both agree that an agreement on the Shabbat before would be binding.⁸³ While to lay out the specific details of accepting fasts according to all authorities is far beyond the scope of this article, it is still our custom to accept the Bahab fasts by answering to the Mi Sheberach on the Shabbat preceding, which means that practically speaking, we follow Mordechai. Nevertheless, Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 563:1 (based on Tur Orach Chaim 563 and Rosh Ta’anit 1:13) clearly implies that accepting a fast prior to Mincha-time on the day before the fast is insignificant, and that one would not need to fast if they accepted the fast earlier.⁸⁴

Secondly, as to whether an announcement may serve as a formal acceptance of the fast, Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 562:12) writes:

תענית שגוזרים על הצבור אין כל יחיד צריך לקבלו בתפלת המנחה, אלא שליח צבור מכריז התענית והרי הוא מקובל. ויש אומרים דהני מילי בארץ ישראל שהיה להם נשיא, לפי שגזרתו קיימת על כל ישראל, אבל בחוצה לארץ צריכים כל הצבור לקבל על עצמם כיחידים, שכל אחד מקבל על עצמו

A fast that they decree on the public, each individual does not need to accept it during the Mincha prayer, rather, the Shaliach Tzibbur announces the fast⁸⁵, and it is accepted. And some say, that this was stated [only about] the land of Israel where they have a Nasi, since his decree is binding upon all of Israel, but in the diaspora, the entire community needs to accept the fast upon themselves as individuals, in that each [person] accepts it upon themselves.

It appears that this pronouncement of the community establishes the fast as a communal fast, which does not require any acceptance from anyone – they all must fast regardless.

If we follow the earlier view that the fasts of the 10^th of Tevet, 17^th of Tammuz and Tzom Gedaliah are still dependent on communal will, such an announcement might be required in order to formalize the fast. Such a view is ascribed by Sperber to Tur.⁸⁶ However, one could argue that the purpose of the announcement here is to create a fast which would otherwise not exist, but for these established fasts, there is no such need. This position is explicitly taken by a number of authorities.⁸⁷ Furthermore, even if there is a need to announce these fasts as a form of acceptance, as noted above, according to the second view in Shulchan Aruch, it is ineffective, so this seems to be a weak basis for announcing the fast. However, it is possible that it may be effective at continuing the custom of generations past to fast on this date,⁸⁸ and despite the above challenges, Menorat Hama’or, noting that the general public was not knowledgeable and many did not formally accept the fasts as individuals, appears to suggest that this serves as a form of acceptance.⁸⁹

However, both of these concerns (the acceptance of a fast not being effective prior to Mincha-time of the day before, and the potential inability of a non-Nasi Shaliach Tzibbur to affect a fast) can be addressed. Firstly, it is possible that this was not simply something announced by one individual, but that this section of the prayer service was actually recited by every individual (similar to what we find with the Rosh Chodesh announcement).⁹⁰

Alternatively, one could posit that the Amen recited at the end of the passage acts as a verbal acceptance, just as it does in the case of the Mi Sheberach for those who commit to fast on the aforementioned Bahab days.⁹¹

As to the second concern, that the acceptance was made too early, it is possible that this custom of announcing the fasts was at one point practiced only in the afternoon prior to the fast. Sefer Mitzvot Zemaniyot brings up the fast in the context of the fast days which fall on Shabbat and are delayed to Sunday, and writes “therefore”, leading into his description of the custom to recite this extra passage on Shabbat. It is possible that this point in the prayer service was close enough to the time of Mincha to be considered an acceptance of the fast even by those who would require it to be accepted at Mincha-time. However, this is admittedly a very creative and innovative read of Mitzvot Zemaniyot, and various considerations make it highly unlikely that this was the author’s intent.⁹²

The same cannot be said for Machzor Vitry. Firstly, of the four manuscript copies of this passage of Machzor Vitry, Rabbi Aryeh Goldschmidt notes that one version reads “וכשחל תענית כתוב למחר”, when a fast falls the next day.⁹³ Additionally, he notes that three of the four manuscripts do not mention the day on which the fast falls, from which he concludes (Shinuyei Nuscha’ot note 15 and footnote 2) that the custom was not to announce the day on which it would fall, and that this indicates that the passage served more as a prayer than anything else. However, his analysis was based on looking at the sum of the manuscripts, rather than following each manuscript tradition individually. MS ex-Sassoon 535, which (as noted above) limited the prayer to when the fast fell on a Sunday, could not possibly include a day on which the fast falls, since the prayer is only recited the day before the fast! This leaves three manuscripts, two of which omitted the day. These two manuscripts⁹⁴ read “וכשחל תענית כתוב לאחר השבת”, “when a fast falls after Shabbat”. This phrase, used in various places in Machzor Vitry⁹⁵ refers to Sunday, which would explain why no weekday is provided in that version of the supplication text.

If so, three manuscripts of what appears to be the earliest record of this custom testify that this passage was added only on the day prior to a fast day.⁹⁶ Thus, historically speaking, this addition may indeed have served as a form of accepting a fast for individuals or the community.⁹⁷ This would also explain the emphasis on the verse in Zechariah, which serves as a reminder that these fasts are not as established as one might think, in that they are dependent on the will of the community, as above.

In conclusion, while many later authorities suggest that this announcement served as a form of accepting the impending fast, there is little explicit support for this notion among early records of the custom. Only Menorat Hamaor and possibly Mitzvot Zemaniyot seem to conceptualize the added passage in this way, but it may be a major factor in the origin of this custom.

Conclusion

This custom to add a short passage announcing an upcoming fast to the Shabbat morning services is multi-faceted. While many authors have tried to provide a clear conceptual framework for this custom, based in one of the three approaches outlined above, in truth, there is no clear approach to explain every detail of this custom. Rather, as we analyze the text, placement and framing of the custom over many hundreds of years across different locales, we find that it incorporates elements of each of these three understandings. Such is the richness of this custom, that we find a way to provide practical reminders to the community, properly accept these fasts upon ourselves, and simultaneously pray for G-d’s salvation, may it come speedily in our days!

[1] Note: Although this article presents three major conceptual framings of this custom, the custom itself will be often described as an “announcement” or “prayer” throughout the article, even when those approaches to the custom are not being discussed.
[2] While the mnemonic AKaF is the product of Rabbi David Abudarham, who served as Shulchan Aruch’s source for this law (see below), Rabbi Karo appears to have expanded it on his own, as when he cites Abudarham in Beit Yosef, only the mnemonic AKaF appears, not the verse. (It is possible that other versions of Abudarham included this expansion as well – in the damaged St. Petersburg Russia Ms. C 98, folio 122, there is a larger gap than would be expected at that point in the text. His selection of this verse as an expansion of this mnemonic is interesting, since one could have also chosen Michah 6:6, “אכף לאלהי מרום”. Perhaps the reference to a verse about hunger is appropriate for a fast day, or, that the compulsion of one’s mouth refers to the acceptance of the fast by pronouncing it in advance. For a kabbalistic interpretation of this hint, see text box following note 44 in Halachot Uminhagim – Hilchot Ta’aniyot (Kovetz Halacha Umesorah – Teiman).
[3] See Rabbi Dr. Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael 4 (p.p.248-9) in regards to whether this comment was actually written by Rema, or whether printers added this in accordance with Rema’s view in Darkei Moshe (Orach Chaim 550:1) that the custom of the Ashkenazim is not to announce any of these fasts on the preceding Shabbat. Early printings of Shulchan Aruch with the comments of Rema (such as the early 1600s Krakow edition) contain this comment but lack an introductory “הגה:”.

It should also be noted that the Knesset Hagedolah, whom Sperber noted brought this comment from the Sefer Hamapah (possibly as opposed to Darkei Moshe) seems to not have had a copy of Darkei Moshe on Orach Chaim, as both times he cites something from it in his works, it is a secondary citation.
[4]Seder Tefillot Hata’aniyot; p. 254 in Abudarham Hashalem, (Yerushalaim/Usha Edition). This text will be presented in full later in this article.
[5] Tosfot Yom Tov (Ta’anit 2:9) raises the possibility that this was the custom in Mishnaic times as well, but this seems to be without a firm basis.
[6] All of this is part of Halacha 1 in the Higger/Debei Rabbanan Edition of Masechet Soferim (Volume II, p. 354).
[7] See Tur, Beit Yosef, and other commentaries to Orach Chaim 429 and 492 for discussion of this custom, and interpretation of this passage of Masechet Soferim; some understood this to be referring to fasts following the conclusion of Nissan.
[8] Halacha 1, lines 12-13 in Higger’s edition, Halacha 4 in standard printings.
[9] See e.g. Be’urei Soferim (Wasserstein) to Masechet Soferim 20:4, citing Nachalat Ariel to Masechet Soferim 20:4.
[10] See e.g. Shach Yoreh Deah 22:31
[11] See e.g., the comments of Chok Ya’akov, Magen Avraham, and Mishnah Berurah to Shulchan Aruch there.
[12] It would be appropriate to note that similar phraseology appears in multiple places in Tanach, such as Melachim I 21:9, Yonah 3:5 and various other places. See Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael 1:24, footnote 5 for some sources that address this.
[13] Be’urei Soferim (Wasserstein) to Masechet Soferim 20:4 (citing Nachalat Ariel, as above) does offer an alternative explanation as well, and the Kerem Re’em Edition of Masechet Soferim (Chapter 21, note 28) concludes similarly.
[14] See e.g. Seder Rav Amram Hashalem (Frumkin), Volume 2, p. 78. As we will discuss, any printing which used the Oxford Bodleian Library manuscript of the work includes this passage.
[15] Two notes on translating this passage, which apply to the remaining translations as well: 1. Although the citations of Zechariah 8:19 found in the different sources are not identical, the same JPS translation was used throughout. 2. Whether to close the quotes before or after the citation of the verse from Zechariah was not certain; some versions of the prayer include the verse, but others do not.
[16] For example, elsewhere, the author identifies customs by locale, rather than write “all places”.
[17] See Seder Rav Amram Gaon (Goldschmidt/Mossad Harav Kook Edition), p. 12, which details the history of this manuscript.
[18] Seder Rav Amram Gaon, Mossad Harav Kook Edition, p. 96, section 57*.
[19] See e.g., the Encyclopedia Judaica entry for Mahzor Vitry and The Jewish Encyclopedia entry Simha Ben Samuel of Vitry.
[20] See e.g. The Jewish Encyclopedia entry for Jacob ben Judah Hazzan of London.
[21] This term, as opposed to Ta’anit (found in other descriptions of the custom) may indicate that it refers to the four fasts in Zechariah, which are referred to in that fashion; compare the language of Orchot Chaim and Kol Bo. For further discussion of the differences between these two terms, see The Academy of the Hebrew Language, Tzom Veta’anit (published August 4, 2014).
[22] There is a significant amount of literature devoted to the relationship between (and history of) Kol Bo and Orchot Chaim, a work authored by Rabbi Aharon Ben Yaakov Hakohen, and virtually every edition of either work addresses this issue to some degree. Rabbi Mordechai Menachem Honig (“On the new Edition of Sefer Hamaskil of Rabbi Moshe ben Rabbi Elazar Hakohen” (Hebrew), published in Yerushateinu Volume I (5767), p. 237 and footnotes 144-145) writes, based on various sources, that Kol Bo was authored in Provence in the late 13^th Century, and served as an early version of Orchot Chaim, which was published in Majorca at a much later point in the author’s life.
[23] Shu”t Olat Yitzchak (Ratzabi) Orach Chaim 167 (p. 372) suggests that the words יש אומרים (and presumably the prefix of the next word) were omitted by a scribe; although this lacks manuscript support (e.g. Russian State Library, Guenzburg Collection, MS 72), it should not be discounted. This suggestion is motivated by the open contradiction in Kol Bo’s words, where he first writes that one announces the fast on all four days, then immediately writes that Tish’a B’av and Tzom Gedaliah are not announced. An alternative reading of Kol Bo will be presented later in the article.
[24] Based on the contradiction noted in the previous footnote, Rabbi David Avraham (Kol Bo Feldheim Edition, Volume 2, Column 218, footnote 59) suggests that this is a scribal error and should read “Tzom Kippur”. This is completely incorrect, as in addition to a lack of manuscript evidence, comparison to Orchot Chaim demonstrates that this is not the case, and even if one were to change this word, the contradiction in regards to the 9^th of Av would still remain.
[25] See footnote 22 above, as well as the Encyclopedia Judaica and The Jewish Encyclopedia entries for Aron Ben Jacob haKohen (spellings vary slightly). It should be noted that the author of Orchot Chaim was expelled from France (likely Narbonne) in 1306 and moved to Majorca. Although it is not clear exactly when this work was written, it is likely, however, that this work represents the French custom at the time, and not necessarily the Spanish custom.
[26] The previous section in Orchot Chaim contains a prayer recited on the Shabbat prior to Rosh Chodesh Av, which is intended to be recited here as well.
[27] According to this latter view that the announcement is only made on the Shabbat preceding the 17^th of Tammuz and the 10^th of Tevet, Or Torah (Elul 5777, p. 1204) provides the mnemonic יאמר ד”י לצרותינו (a play on words from Bereishit Rabbah 92:1), which references the fast of the 4^th (Daled) and 10^th (Yud) months.
28 See Dr. Nahem Ilan, “He who has This Book Will Need no Other Book”: A Study of Mitzvot Zemaniyot by Rabbi Israel Israeli of Toledo (published in various languages in various journals).
[29] The only printed version of Mitzvot Zemaniyot (published from manuscript by Rabbi Moshe Blau in 1985) contains this word, but it is clear that it is an error. Indeed, in the manuscript that Blau used, Oxford Bodleian Library Or. 603, one can observe folio 39v and see that this word does not appear. )The same is true of National Library of France Heb. 831 manuscript, folio 386v and Oxford Bodleian Library Reg. 63 manuscript, folio 141r, although in the latter, neither occurrence of לנו appears.) The full list of manuscripts of this work is available in Dr. Ilan’s article, and many of them are available online.
[30] See Dr. Nahem Ilan, “He who has This Book Will Need no Other Book”: A Study of Mitzvot Zemaniyot by Rabbi Israel Israeli of Toledo (published in various languages in various journals), especially footnotes 80 and 81; it is quite apparent that Mitzvot Zemaniyot was used as the basis for their formulations of this custom.
[31] See Encyclopedia Judaica and Jewish Encyclopedia entries for David Ben Joseph Abudarham.
[32] Note that Shulchan Aruch appears to have completed the verse in the mnemonic (see footnote 2), as it does not appear in printings of Abudarham. It is also unclear if this mnemonic was created by Abudarham, or may have been known in communities that followed this practice. Some considerations include the usage of the term Purim as referring to Ta’anit Esther (see Sperber’s comments on this in a footnote to Minhagei Yisrael 1:24), the lack of testimony to it in other contemporary sources, and Abudarham’s general tendency towards such hints.

It is also fascinating to note that Avraham Almaliach (Meichayei Hayehudim Betripolitania, in Mizrach Uma’arav, Volume III, p. 124) writes that the custom of Libyan Jews was to refer to Tzom Gedaliah as Achi Kippur, the brother of [Yom] Kippur, since they always fall on the same day of the week, and therefore, they have a special relationship. Or Torah (Elul 5777, p. 1204) suggests that this hint, AKaF, also includes Tzom Gedaliah, interpreting the mnemonic as Achi KiPPur.
[33] See Encyclopedia Judaica and Jewish Encyclopedia entries for Israel Ben Joseph Al-Nakawa (or Alnaqua).
[34] In addition to Rema’s comments in Darkei Moshe (Orach Chaim 550:1), Levush (Orach Chaim 550:4) writes explicitly that these fasts are not announced, and the vast majority of Ashkenazic commentators/codifiers, as well as books of customs from Ashkenazic communities, make no mention of such a custom altogether.
[35] See e.g., Moshe Gavra, Mechkarim Besidurei Teiman – Shabbat Uvirchot Hanehenin, p. 216 and Shu”t Olat Yitzchak (Ratzabi), Orach Chaim 167 (p. 371).
[36] Evidence and discussion of this practice will be brought later in this article.
[37] Early versions of the Italian liturgy contain no such custom, and modern-day siddurim do. Further research is required to track exactly when these changes occurred for many of the communities influenced by Sephardim, including Italian communities.
[38] A more basic version of these questions appears in Sperber’s treatment of this topic (vis-à-vis the disagreement between Shulchan Aruch and Rema), found in Hebrew in Minhagei Yisrael Volume 1, Chapter 24 and in English in Why Jews Do what They Do: The History of Jewish Customs Throughout the Cycle of the Jewish Year, Chapter 11.
[39] These do not include kabbalistic approaches; for more on the kabbalah that relates to this, See Rabbi Chaim Ben Avraham Hakohen, Tur Bareket to Orach Chaim 550:4 (1654 Amsterdam Printing, p. 244) and text box following note 44 in Halachot Uminhagim – Hilchot Ta’aniyot (Kovetz Halacha Umesorah – Teiman).
[40] Note that such announcements (not on Shabbat) are very ancient in nature; see footnote 12 for further documentation of this practice.
[41] See e.g. Shibbolei Haleket Section 170 (a 13^th Century German/Roman Rabbi), who writes in the name of his brother that some don’t always come to synagogue on weekdays.
[42] Specifically, in communities where individuals may have formally accepted the fasts at Mincha (or Mincha-time) on the day before, this would make sure that the entire community was aware in advance. The notion of accepting the fast will be discussed at great length in Approach #3.
[43] Likely, by extension, Shulchan Aruch takes this approach as well; even though the language of Sefer Abudarham is not copied in Shulchan Aruch itself, it is copied in Beit Yosef Orach Chaim 550.
[44] The addition of these three opening words, which don’t appear in many of the early versions of this custom, indicate that this was viewed as an announcement. Almost identical language is found in Talmud Bavli Ketubot 28b, also in the context of alerting the community.
[45] In his critical edition of Machzor Vitry (Tefillot Shabbat, Section 16, footnote 2, p. 287), Rabbi Aryeh Goldschmidt suggests that if the focus of the announcement of the upcoming Rosh Chodesh, in accordance with various Rishonim, is to alert the community to the upcoming day of Rosh Chodesh so that they may properly follow the associated halachot, it is logical to assume that this announcement fills a similar need. If, however, the purpose of the announcement of Rosh Chodesh is some form of Kiddush Hachodesh (as suggested by Rokeach, Section 53), this pre-fast announcement should simply be a prayer. (Interestingly, in the Nissan 5775 (Volume 70) Or Yisrael Journal, p. 240, footnote 10, Rabbi Meir Rose supports the notion that the Rosh Chodesh prayer is an announcement from this following section about fasts.)

While the main comparison to the announcement of Rosh Chodesh is certainly valid, there are two clear issues with his argument:

1. a) Since Machzor Vitry itself follows the former view (that the Rosh Chodesh announcement is intended to alert the public to the upcoming Rosh Chodesh, so that they can properly follow the laws of the day), one would expect that the same purpose is served by the announcement of the upcoming fast. However, Rabbi Goldschmidt concludes (based on some manuscript evidence) that this section functions only as a general prayer and follows some manuscripts which remove the day of the fast from this prayer! These manuscript issues will be discussed later in the essay, but there are various possible explanations for the omission of the day of the fast in those manuscript without creating somewhat of an internal contradiction.
2. b) In terms of Rabbi Goldschmidt’s second comparison (to a watered-down version of Kiddush Hachodesh, which establishes the date as Rosh Chodesh), it would be more natural to view this announcement as a form of accepting the fast (which establishes the date as a fast day) rather than viewing it as a general prayer, which seems to be less related.

[46] As noted above, many Ashkenazic commentaries seem to ignore this ruling altogether, so this custom is addressed primarily by Sephardic commentaries.
[47] Although one could counter that the first opinion brought in Orchot Chaim (to recite this prayer in advance of all four fasts) clearly disagrees with this reason.

Fascinatingly, the custom to avoid announcing the fast of Tzom Gedaliah was addressed at length by Rabbi Menachem Ben Yosef Chazan in Seder Troyes, a 13^th Century work addressing customs of Troyes. The printed version (Section 9; Weiss Edition p. 25) reads:

ומן הזכרת צום גדליה מצאתי בשם הר”ר יהודה ז”ל וז”ל היה קשה לי מפני מה אין מזכירין צום גדליה שהוא בחדש השביעי כמו שמזכירים צום הרביעי וצום החמישי וצום העשירי, לסוף נ”ל מפני יום כפור שאינן מניחים להזכיר צום גדליה, ועוד ט”א טוב שלא יטעו העם כשישמעו צום הרביעי ויסברו זיהו צום כפור ונפיק חורב’ מיניה, מ”ר יהודה עכ”ל. ואמנם מורי אבי היה מזכירו גם מנהג ק”ק טרוייש להזכירו גם בשבת, אך שאין מזכירים חדש תשרי כשאר החדשים

In regards to mentioning Tzom Gedaliah, I found in the name of Rabbi Yehudah z”l, and these are his words: “It was troubling to me, for what reason don’t we mention Tzom Gedaliah, which is in the seventh month, just as we mention the fast of the fourth, the fast of the fifth, and the fast of the tenth? It later seemed to me because of Yom Kippur that they do not allow to mention Tzom Gedaliah, and another reason it is good that the nation should not err when they hear the fast of the fourth and think that it is the fast of Kippur, and destruction will emerge from it. Rabbi Yehudah.” However, my father would mention it, and the custom of the holy congregation of Troyes was to mention it also on Shabbat, even though they don’t mention the month of Tishrei like other months.

These words are particularly hard to understand, no doubt due to a very corrupt text. If we restore this text from available manuscripts (Cod. Parm. 1902 and JTS Rab. 1489; unfortunately, this entire chapter is missing from the copy of Seder Troyes in the Austrian National Library Cod. hebr. 175 manuscript, and the German Senckenberg Ms. Oct. 227 has been catalogued incorrectly; it contains a different Seder Troyes (usually spelled differently in Hebrew), often printed at the back of standard copies of Sefer Haminhagim – Tyrnau), we find three very significant changes to the text:

1. מפני יום כפור שאינו נזכר מניחים להזכיר צום גדליה. Presumably, since Yom Kippur is not mentioned, it seems inappropriate to give so much honour and exposure to a minor fast that is so close in proximity.
2. שלא יטעו העם כשישמעו צום השביעי ויסברו זיהו צום כפור. If people misunderstand the “fast of the seventh” to refer to Yom Kippur, there are various issues that may arise, including not fasting properly on Yom Kippur itself. This is an obvious emendation and should have been changed even without other manuscript evidence.
3. גם מנהג ק”ק טרוייש להזכירו גם כשחל ר“ה בשבת. This text may indicate that they regularly announced Tzom Gedaliah on Rosh Hashanah, even when Rosh Hashanah coincided with the Shabbat prior, or the reverse.

Both this source and general topic requires much further study and analysis and could certainly serve as the basis of another full article of its own. Some additional sources to see are Rabbi Yair Rosenfeld, Hama’ayan 56:1, #215 (Tishrei 5776), p. 17 and footnote 12, Halachot Uminhagim – Hilchot Ta’aniyot (Kovetz Halacha Umesorah – Teiman), note 44 and Shu”t Olat Yitzchak (Ratzabi), Orach Chaim 167.

[48] Mark Mietkiewicz pointed out that in some communities, there might already be changes to the liturgy on these Shabbatot that would remind any attendees of the impending fast, even without explicitly noting the date of the fast, although one would expect that the same applies to Tzom Gedaliah as well, since it follows Rosh Hashanah.
[49] Indeed, Kaf Hachaim (Orach Chaim 550:27) rules in accordance with the view that this is not recited, and a quick survey of modern-day siddurim shows that this is the accepted view.
[50] And as brought by Sperber in Minhagei Yisrael 1:24 footnote 3, as evidence that not all “classic” Sephardic communities followed this rationale. One can add that Ateret Avot (Machon Moreshet Avot Edition, Volume II, Chapter 26 footnote 1 p. 378) writes that some communities in Jerusalem, Tunis and Djerba did not have the custom to announce fasts either.
[51] He even instituted that there should be further announcement on Shabbat, not just the prayer recited in the synagogue.
[52] This does seem superfluous in a world where synagogue calendars, which generally include this information, are so well disseminated, both in print and online forms, and it is possible that now, Rabbi Eliyahu would be more lenient in this regard than he was approximately 20 years ago.
[53] Although it is more likely that Orchot Chaim did not print the full prayer to save space, since an identical prayer was mentioned in the previous section to be recited on the Shabbat prior to Rosh Chodesh Av.
[54] Sefer Eitz Chaim, the selection from Seder Rav Amram Gaon, as well as the 12^th Century Provencal work, Malmad Hatalmidim (Parshat Devarim), which explores why this verse was chosen to be recited in this passage.
[55] In the versions found in Eitz Chaim and Machzor Vitry, the words ונאמר אמן, which appear to conclude the prayer, appear before the citation of the verse. However, one could argue that this was recited after the answering of amen, and the evidence from Malmad Hatalmidim (above) appears to favour this interpretation.

If one looks to modern versions of this passage, there are various customs and siddurim that include the verse as part of the prayer (e.g. Siddur Sha’ar Binyamin – Damascus, p. 402), and many others that do not (e.g. Tichlal Hamevu’ar – Baldi (Korach Edition, p. 302)). Also note the Provencal custom to recite it, as recorded in the 1762 Amsterdam printing of Seder Le’arba Tzomot Ule’arba Parshiyot according to the Provencal custom.
[56] Sperber (Minhagei Yisrael 1:24 footnote 6) assumes that this refers to any Biblical fast (which would include Yom Kippur), and this seems to be the understanding of Rabbi Dr. Alter Hilewitz in his Chikrei Zemanim, p. 375 (Ta’anit Esther). In 1954, Sefer Keter Shem Tov (by Rabbi Shem Tov Gaugin) Volume IV p. 49 suggested that this refers to any fasts listed in the verse in Zechariah, and this is also the position taken by Rabbi Goldschmidt in his commentary to Machzor Vitry (p.p. 287-8, footnote 5).
[57] In line with the latter view above.
[58] As noted in footnotes 21, 47 and 55, similar emphasis is found in Eitz Chaim, Seder Troyes and Malmad Hatalmidim.
[59]  While Rabbi Goldschmidt puts tremendous emphasis on this point, even choosing to follow the versions that do not list the weekday, we will provide an alternate reading later in the article that significantly weakens the argument from this detail.
[60]  See further footnotes 23 and 24 for suggested emendations that attempt to resolve this contradiction, which may render the following suggestion unnecessary.
[61] As outlined in footnote 22, these works are strongly related.
[62] These two elements could be roughly equivalent to the two major components of Birkat Hachodesh, one of which is to announce the day on which Rosh Chodesh actually falls, and the prayer which follows.
[63] A similar argument was made in the Sinai periodical (Tishrei-Adar 5729, 64) by Rabbi Dr. Alter Hilewitz on p. 27 of his article on Ta’anit Esther. See also his article in Chikrei Zemanim referred to in footnote 56.
[64] See the views mentioned in Rabbi Goldschmidt’s footnote 2 on p. 287 of his edition of Machzor Vitry, referred to in footnote 45.
[65] See various details relating to fasting and crying or otherwise relating to troubles on Shabbat in Tur and Shulchan Aruch (and their various commentaries) to Orach Chaim 288 and note Mishnah Berurah Orach Chaim 307:3.
[66] Rabbi Amram Aburbia, in his Netivei Am (Orach Chaim 55:2 p.p.323-324 in the 5766 edition) appears to be the first to invoke this reason, although Professor Zvi Zohar (in his article on Rabbi Aburbia, published in Harav Uziel Uvnei Zmano, p. 148) understands this not to be the rationale of Rema in his disagreement with Shulchan Aruch, but rather, an external reason which happens to support Rema. This is quoted by name in a few Sephardic works, and interestingly, appears word for word in Nitei Gavriel Hilchot Chanukah (Chapter 60, footnote 2) in the name of “Poskim”. Rabbi Yitzchak Abadi (Shu”t Or Yitzchak 1:216) also mentions this possibility.
[67] See mentions of this custom in Mordechai (Hagahot Tish’a B’av, found in Hagahot Mordechai to Moed Katan Section 934, citing Tosfot), Orchot Chaim (Seder Tefillat Shabbat – Shacharit, note 7) and Kol Bo, Chapter 37. See also Sefer Yisrael Vehazemanim (Rabbi Mordechai Hakohen, Volume II, p. 225), who writes that the custom to avoid blessing Rosh Chodesh Av is related to (if not influenced by) the hesitation to announce upcoming fasts on Shabbat.

One could argue that there is a connection between these two practices, although a less direct one. Although Mordechai (cited above) brings the custom to not announce Rosh Chodesh Av on the Shabbat prior, he also brings a number of objections to this practice, and concludes that one should announce even Rosh Chodesh Av. One objection brought is that one should specifically pray for blessing in this month, since it is “מוכן לפועניות”, or, in other words, a time of bad luck. One could make a similar argument regarding announcing the fasts, which might have been instituted specifically to pray for a reversal. Those who opposed this custom might not have felt it to be that important to pray for the upcoming month (or that mentioning these fasts would be in some way inappropriate).
[68] The various footnotes on this section list some of those who do raise this possibility.
[69] Quite shockingly, despite significant overlap between his own presentation and the presentation of Gra (and Aruch Hashulchan), Sperber does not mention their views at all throughout his article, which is especially strange since he focused on the disagreement between Shulchan Aruch and Rema, and quotes lesser-studied commentaries, such as Kaf Hachaim. This was later pointed out to him by two colleagues, Professor David Henshke and Rabbi Chaim Cohen (of Ramat Modi’in), and he noted this omission in Minhagei Yisrael 4, p.p.249-50.
[70] The details and exact parameters of this statement (e.g. which body decides whether or not they wish to fast – individuals, communities, or the entire Jewish people?) are discussed by various Rishonim and Acharonim, and are far beyond the scope of this article. Some details are discussed by Sperber in his presentation of this view, and interested parties are referred there.
[71]  See Sperber’s article (Minhagei Yisrael 1:24), which includes Mar Rav Cohen Tzedek cited in Shibolei Haleket 278, Rabbeinu Chananel (Rosh Hashanah 18a), Rashba (Rosh Hashanah 18a), and other Geonim. Be’ur Hagra to Orach Chaim 550:1 seems to identify Tosfot (Megillah 5b, d.h. verachatz) as potentially agreeing with this group of authorities, or at the very least, taking a lighter stand than Ramban (cited in the coming notes).
[72 ]The fast of Gedaliah, the 10^th of Tevet, and the 17^th of Tammuz. The Talmud in Rosh Hashanah continues with a discussion of the differences between the 9^th of Av and the remaining three fast days. Various commentaries there address whether it is possible that the 9^th of Av may also have this status; while the majority assume that the 9^th of Av is not subject to the will of the public, there is a minority view which does understand that the 9^th of Av is equivalent to the other “minor” fasts – see Rashba Megillah 5b, as well as Tur Orach Chaim 550 with Bach; the view of Rashba is elaborated upon by Rabbi Asher Weiss in “Gidrei Hatzomot Bazman Hazeh” (5777).
[73] This view is generally identified with Ramban (Torat Ha’adam Sha’ar Ha’evel – Inyan Aveilut Yeshanah, Chavel edition p. 243), who is widely cited by modern-day authorities, and is identified by many as the source of Tur’s comments in Orach Chaim 550.

In that passage, Ramban offers two reasons for fasting, which appear to be distinct: a) the Jewish people have accepted this as a custom, and one must not veer from that custom, b) various communities are experiencing persecution, and therefore, these fasts return to their original status, that of Divrei Kabbalah as established by Nevi’im. However, Tur omits the detail of persecution, and it is not clear if he assumes that these fasts return to their original status just through our acceptance of them. This confusion is compounded by various authorities who mix these reasons without clarifying, and who compare other views to them. It is particularly hard to understand Sperber’s classifications in Minhagei Yisrael 1:24. A much clearer classification of views is provided by Professor David Henshke, who is quoted by Sperber in Minhagei Yisrael 4, p. 249.
[74] Yom Kippur certainly does not require acceptance, and as noted in footnote 72, the vast majority of authorities agree about the 9^th of Av as well. Note also Talmud Bavli Ta’anit 11b and 12b, that the only public fast day in Babylonia is the 9^th of Av.
[75] Birkat Eliyahu commentary on Be’ur Hagra, p. 212, footnote 2 notes that although Gra also states that Ra’avad wrote the same, the author was unaware of a source. It is possible that Gra is referring to the second answer of Ra’avad cited in Rosh Ta’anit 2:24, which is similar to the approach detailed above. Once again, there is a lot more to be said about the status of Ta’anit Esther, but this is not the forum for it. Various authors have written excellent articles on it, and some of them incorporate this comment from Gra.
[76] See Minhagei Yisrael 1:24, footnote 28 (spanning p.p.175-177), much of which is relevant to Gra’s view as well.
[77] Only Ba’er Hagolah, Nachalat Tzvi and Gra cite Ramban by name as the source for Shulchan Aruch, and Gra also cites a dissenting view. However, Machatzit Hashekel and Ma’amar Mordechai also make reference to Ramban’s view (all commentaries are found in Orach Chaim 550:1).

Truthfully, the association with Ramban likely depends on how one understands the two statements made by Ramban (see footnote 73), since Shulchan Aruch uses similar language to both Ramban and Tur but omits their key statement that the status returns to one of Divrei Kabbalah. Sperber argues therefore that Shulchan Aruch believes that these fasts are theoretically dependent on community will, but we simply have a strong custom which cannot be violated. See Magen Avraham Orach Chaim 550:1 as well.
[78] One could resolve this contradiction by suggesting that historically the custom was intended as a form of acceptance but was later adopted and adapted by these authorities (perhaps as an announcement), despite their disagreement with the original reason.
[79] Although one could reasonably argue that this view is parallel to the minority view that the Rosh Chodesh announcement is a form of Kiddush Hachodesh, which also creates the status/sanctity of that day and informs our behaviour on it, that view is almost universally rejected; see Rabbi Goldschmidt’s notes to Machzor Vitry (Tefillot Shabbat, Section 16, footnote 2, p. 287). See further footnotes 45 and 64.
[80 Compare this to the regular prayer used to accept fasts during the Mincha prior, which explicitly mentions acceptance.
[81]  Machzor Vitry, Eitz Chaim, Orchot Chaim and Kol Bo.
[82]  The addition to Seder Rav Amram, Mitzvot Zemaniyot, Abudarham and Menorat Hama’or.
[83] This is far from being universally accepted; see Tur and Beit Yosef to Orach Chaim 562 and 563 for extensive discussion of sources on this topic. In particular, the view of Rabbeinu Tam (cited there) that an actual verbal acceptance may not be necessary at all would seem to support the notion that an announcement in advance might qualify as a formal acceptance of a fast.
[84]  Note the very strong disagreement with this view from Taz, Orach Chaim 562:16 and 563:1. For further discussion, see Magen Avraham Orach Chaim 563:1, Peri Megadim (Mishbetzot Zahav) Orach Chaim 563:1, Sha’ar Hatziyun to Orach Chaim 562, note 37, and various other sources in these two sections of Orach Chaim.
[85]  Note: there is no indication that this happens on Shabbat.
[86] Tur writes “תענית שגוזרין על הציבור אין כל יחיד ויחיד צריך לקבלו תחלה אלא ש”ץ מכריז התענית והרי הוא מקובל וכל שכן תעניות הכתובים בפסוק”. Sperber assumes that the final clause, which references the fasts listed in Zechariah, is referring to Tur’s comment that the Shaliach Tzibbur announces it, and then it takes effect. It seems more likely that Tur is referring back to the fact that it needs not be accepted, and that an announcement is necessary only when a fast is being instituted anew, but that for an established fast, there is no need for an announcement. This fits well with the usage of “כל שכן” by Tur here. Additionally, Tur himself clearly follows the stringent opinion of Ramban that these fasts have returned to their original status of Divrei Kabbalah, and also does not bring the custom of announcing the fasts on Shabbat.
[87] Sperber notes Levush (Orach Chaim 562:12) and Elyah Rabbah (note 11)/Zutah (note 4), who are followed by a number of later commentaries.
[88] See Sperber’s conclusion. See also Aruch Hashulchan Orach Chaim 562:32.
[89] Albeit with some reluctance. Rabbi Blau, in his notes to Mitzvot Zemaniyot, footnote 6, understands that Mitzvot Zemaniyot follows suit, and traces this to Rosh Ta’anit 1:13 (citing Ra’avad) that an announcement certainly works to accept a fast, and it would not require a formal acceptance. This is significant, since Mitzvot Zemaniyot (and following it, Menorat Hama’or) appears to be influenced by the school of Rosh, and such an announcement may have been far more acceptable at that time and place than at later times. On the other hand, Rosh also does not allow for early acceptance of the fast, as noted above, so this approach is hard to understand.
[90] For example, the language of Kol Bo seems to indicate that each individual recited the formula, as the printed versions read “ואומרים” prior to the text recited. Having an individual acknowledge out loud that the fast will be taking place on a specific day is tantamount to verbal acceptance. However, other (earlier) printings and manuscripts only had the word ואומר or a shortened form from which no conclusions can be drawn.
[91] See Levush, Orach Chaim 562:9, Magen Avraham 563:1 and commentaries for further discussion of this.
[92] The full citation of Mitzvot Zemaniyot is:

ואמנם שאר הצומות כשנופל ביום שבת, ואפילו ט”ב, ידחה ליום ראשון שלאחריו. וצריך להזהר בהם ולהזכירם ש”ץ ביום השבת הקודם אחר ההפטרה קודם שיאמר אשרי

However, it is far from certain that this was his intention, since those who relied upon this passage (Abudarham and Menorat Hamaor) interpreted it as referring to any fast which falls within the same week. Furthermore, the wording used includes “יום פלוני”, which would be entirely unnecessary if it was only ever practiced when a fast fell on Sunday.
[93]  Manuscript Shin, MS ex-Sassoon 535, which is the oldest, and possibly most authentic version. Rabbi Goldschmidt writes (Shinuyei Nus’cha’ot there, note 14) that this requires further study.
[94] Manuscript Nun, JTS Library MS no. 8092 and Manuscript Mem, Russian State Library, Guenzburg Collection, MS 481.
[95]  Sections 222, 499, 500, and Hilchot Pesach, Sections 23, 106, 108, albeit without the lamed prefix.
[96]  The only manuscript which does not support this reading is the British Museum MS no. 655, which contains various additions (see Rabbi Goldschmidt’s introduction to Machzor Vitry, where he dedicates Chapters 7 and 8 to discuss this manuscript). We can only speculate as to whether this was accidentally or purposefully changed, and it may have been due to a different custom at that time, or a harmonization to the custom of mentioning Rosh Chodesh.
[97]  It is still unlikely that this was the intention of Machzor Vitry, for there would be no reason to include the 9^th of Av, for as part of the school of Rashi, the author would have understood that the 9^th of Av does not require any form of acceptance (see Rashi to Rosh Hashanah 18a and Megillah 5b; contrast to the view of Rashba, mentioned in footnote 72). One other plausible explanation would be that this announcement was made on the day before every fast, not necessarily on Shabbat only; compare the language of Seder Troyes cited in footnote 47.

Note as well that if the fasts were originally scheduled for Shabbat, but pushed to Sunday, that may also be a basis for accepting them early (meaning, on the day that they were originally scheduled to take place on), or general leniency. This factor is discussed in Aliba Dehilchesa 97 (Haminhag Veta’amo, p. 36), in regards to the possibility of requiring an announcement prior to when the fast of Tish’a B’av falls on Shabbat, and by Rabbi Yair Rosenfeld, Hama’ayan 56:1, #215 (Tishrei 5776), p. 17 and footnote 12 in regards to Tzom Gedaliah.