Do you recall Hrubieszow?

Hrubieszow, Home to an Active Early Nineteenth Century Hebrew Press^[1]

Marvin J. Heller

A barely remembered Hebrew press, one credited with as many as forty books, although that number is uncertain, was active in Hrubieszow (Hrubyesho), Lublin district, in southeastern, Poland from 1816 to1821 and then intermittently until 1827. The variance in the number of titles printed may be attributed to the manner in which books are recorded, some titles being a composite of three works. In some instances, the town or the printers’ names are omitted from the title-page due to censorship or book tariff payment. The books published by the press are relatively small varied books, designed to meet the community’s needs and interests. The first works printed include several Yiddish titles. Most of the books are small format, ranging from duodecimo (12⁰) through quarto (4⁰) formats. The article describes a small portion of the Hrubieszow imprints to give a sense of the press’s publications, their variety, indicative of the community and how, through their books, the press served it. The selected works are generally of a scholarly and specialized nature, primarily Hasidic works on the weekly parasha (Torah reading), ethical, and halachic tomes, although varied within each category. These works reflect both the composition and interests of the community.

A barely remembered Hebrew press, one that is credited by the Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book with as many as forty books in the early nineteenth century, was active in Hrubieszow (Hrubyesho), Lublin district, in southeastern, Poland.^[2] Jewish presence in Hrubieszow dates to the first half of the fifteenth century, Jews being recorded there as tax farmers and merchants, doing business in such diverse areas as Walachia, Turkey, the Crimea, and Kiev.

In the 10th century, the Hrubieszow district had been part of the Polish state. In 981, however, it was seized by the Kievan Rus’, subsequently changing hands several times, even falling to the Mongol Empire in the mid-13th century. Even earlier, the founding of Hrubieszow dates to the early Middle Ages when there was a defensive ‘gord’ (a medieval Slavonic fortified settlement) on the Huczwa river island. Hrubieszow is mentioned as early as 1254, as a hunting settlement amid forests. In 1366, Hrubieszow, then known as Rubieszów, was recaptured by King Casimir III the Great, again becoming part of the Kingdom of Poland (see banner of early Polish monarchy, right). In about 1400, the town received a charter from Polish king, Władysław II Jagiełło. Hrubieszow (Rubieszów) was destroyed several times by Crimean Tatars, who raided the area in the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, and by rebellious Cossacks.

In 1772, After the First Partition of Poland, Hrubieszow was annexed by Austria. In 1800, Stanisław Staszic founded the Hrubieszow Agricultural Society, the first cooperative organization in Europe, which existed until 1945. In 1802, the name Rubieszów was changed to Hrubieszow, the name by which it is known today. Seven years later, in 1809, after the Austro-Polish War, Hrubieszow became part of the short-lived Polish Duchy of Warsaw, subsequently becoming, in 1815, by the Congress of Vienna ,part of the Russian-controlled Congress Poland, within the Lublin Governorate.^[3]

As noted above, Jews were active in Hrubieszow from the first half of the fifteenth century. At some point in that century, Jews in Hrubieszow received several privileges for wine trade and management of the town tax chamber. By 1551, thirteen Jewish residents occupied four houses, that number rising to 40 Jews living in 5 houses by 1560. That number continued to increase, so that from the 18^th century until the beginning of the 20^th century Jews comprised a considerable majority of Hrubieszow’s population, controlling trade, industry, and craft. In 1578, King Stephen Bahory granted the Jews in Hrubieszów extensive rights. Less than a century afterwards, during tah-ve-tat (the Chmielnicki massacres of 1648-49), the Jewish community was almost entirely destroyed. Soon afterwards, however, the Jewish community was reestablished – a yeshivah was opened, headed by R. Isaac ben Judah Charif. Hrubieszow would subsequently be home to a number of prominent rabbis and became influential in the Arba’ah Artzot (Council of the Four Lands).^[4] In the 18^th century the Hasidic movement became active in Hrubieszow, the city becoming a center of Berdichev Hasidism. Among its leaders was R. Joseph ben Mordecai Katzenelboigen (R. Mordechai of Neszhchiz), who relocated there in the 1790s.^[5]

We now turn to our subject, Hebrew printing in Hrubieszow. As noted above, the Hrubieszow press is credited by the Thesaurus with as many as forty titles, although that number may be uncertain; in contrast, Avraham Yaari records only thirty-four titles for Hrubieszow.^[6] Those works are relatively small varied books, designed to meet the community’s needs and interests, published from 1816 to1821 and then intermittently until 1827. This article will describe a small portion of those works, to give a sense of the press’s publications, their variety, indicative of the community and how, through their books, the press served it. To address a greater number would be tedious for both the reader and the writer.

Dr. N. M. Gelber and Avraham Yaari inform that attempts to establish a Hebrew press in Hrubieszow were made from 1792 through 1804, in the Austrian period, but that the matter was delayed, the privilege to do so not granted. In late 1816, a Hebrew press was established in Hrubieszow, now part of Congress Poland. The founder of the press was R. Menahem Mendel Finkelstein (Finkel Stein). He had partners, namely R. Moses Tzikor and R. Saul Moss Goldstein of Łaszczów. Finkelstein provided the financing, the latter two the necessary skills, being experienced printers, having been partners in the Hebrew press in Łaszczów. Management of the press changed in the following years. Goldstein left the press in 1819, returning to Łaszczów, Finkelstein left the press in 1821, leaving Tzikor in charge. Tzikor then took Solomon ben David as a partner. Eight master printers were employed by the press as compositors and press operators, namely Daniel Ze’ev ben Segal, Baruch Abraham ben David, both from Hrubieszow, Isaac ben David from Łaszczów, Hayyim ben Eliezer from Zhovkva, Israel ben Raphael, Menachem Mendel ben Baruch, Pesach Joseph from Łęczno, and Eliezer Segal, perchance from Hrubieszow.^[7]

Printing began shortly after the privilege was granted, the first works being published, including several Yiddish titles. Vinograd records ten titles for 1816-17, beginning with Shir ha-Shirim (1816), Orhot Zaddikim, Gedolus David u-Malchus Shaul, Haggadah shel Pesah, Sefer Hasidim, Lekah Tov, a siddur Tefillas Nehora, Noam Elimelekh, Shivhei ha-Ba’al Shem Tov, and Tanna de-vei-Eliyahu. These are all small format books, ranging from duodecimo (12⁰) through quarto (4⁰) formats. These works are indicative of the variety of the Hrubieszow imprints and the community the press served. For example, R. Judah ben Samuel he-Hasid’s (c. 1150-1217) Sefer Hasidim, an ethical, mystical, and halakhic work; Tanna de-be-Eliyahu is an aggadic midrash attributed to Elijah the prophet as dictated to the third century amora Anan bar Rav: Noam Elimelekh by R. Elimelech of Lizhensk; Shivhei ha-Ba’al Shem Tov, collection of Hasidic tales about the founder of Hasidim, and in contrast to the prior works, Joseph ha-Efrati’s Gedolus David u-Malchus Shaul, a maskilic (enlightened) drama.^[8]

Noam Elimelekh – We begin with R. Elimelech ben Eliezer Lippman (Lippa) of Lizhensk’s (1717-87) Noam Elimelekh, a classic and primary Hasidic work, representative of the press’s output and the communities’ interests. R. Elimelech was a student of R. Samuel Smelke Horowitz (Rebbe Reb Shmelke, 1726-78), and afterwards a disciple of R. Dov Baer the Maggid of Mezhirech (1704–72), as well as meeting by the latter R. Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev (c. 1740-1809). After the Maggid’s passing, Elimelech became the acknowledged head of the Hasidic movement and is considered the theoretician and creator of “practical zaddikism.”^[9]
Noam Elimelekh was published as a 23 cm. work ([1], 94 ff.) The title-page begins with honorifics of Elimelech of Lizhensk and informs that in order that there should not be blank paper at the beginning of the book and for benefit of the public, they have published the testament of the author (see below), and at the end of the volume is R. Joseph Gikatilla’s Tamei Ha-Mitzvot. Not noted but also at the end of the volume are Likkutei Shoshana and Iggeret ha-Kodesh. The title page is dated with the chronogram “[for he said] the God of my father’s [house] was my help כי אמר אלקי אבי בעזרי (577 = 1817)” (cf. Exodus 18:4). Elimelech’s testament, entitled conduct (הנהגות) of a man is on the verso of the title-page and consists of twenty-one admonitions for a person.
The title-page states that Noam Elimelekh was published at the press of Menahem Mendel Finkelstein. According to Ch. B. Friedberg the references to the publisher on the title-page varies between books. He notes that initially references to the printer stated Menahem Mendel Finkel Stein and associates. Afterwards, however, he does mention the names of his partners.^[10]

1817, Noam Elimelekh

The text, a hasidic Torah commentary on the weekly Torah portion, follows. It emphasizes the role of the zaddik in worship and divine service. At the end of the concluding section of the book are two decorative tail-pieces. These tail-pieces, particularly the one on the left, appear on title-pages of several Hrubieszow books.

Noam Elimelekh is a classic Hasidic work. First printed by his son after his death in Lvov 1788, Noam Elimelekh has proven to be an immensely popular work. This, the Hrubieszow printing, is the sixth edition. It is reported that more than 50 editions of Noam Elimelekh have been printed.^[11]

Sefer Hasidim – R. Judah ben Samuel he-Hasid’s (c. 1150–1217) Sefer Hasidim, a different but computable work is, as noted above, an ethical, mystical, and halakhic work. Judah was a disciple of his father, R. Samuel (ben Kalonymous) he-Hasid (c. 1120-75) an eminent kabbalist and ascetic; portions of Sefer Hasidim are attributed to Samuel he-Hasid. They are among the most renowned members and leaders of the Hasidei Ashkenaz, the influential Jewish pietist movement in medieval Germany.

It is reported that when Judah’s mother was pregnant with him, she was walking along a path by a bet medrash (Torah study hall) when a wagon came bearing down upon her, with no place to turn, neither to the right nor to the left. Just as she was about to be crushed by the horses’ hoofs, the walls of the bet medrash opened saving her and her son. It is also told that Samuel he-Hasid witnessed the heavens opening; asked what kind of son he wanted, he replied, one of exemplary piety. Judah reputedly hosted the prophet Elijah, was able to revive the dead, and performed miracles, particularly saving Jews from oppressors. He practiced an ascetic form of mysticism, fasting two days for Yom Kippur, throughout the week, eating at night only, and often fasted on Shabbat, claiming that the change would cause him pain, detracting from his pleasure in Shabbat. It was said by a contemporary that if Judah had lived in the times of the prophets he would have been a prophet.

1817, Sefer Hasidim

The title-page of Sefer Hasidim, published is octavo format (8⁰: [64] pp.) is in Yiddish, excepting the names of the printers and the publication date. All of the printers are cited here in bold letters, that is, Menahem Mendel Finkel Stein, Moses Tzikor and Saul Moss Gold Stein. The date in the chronogram, “Let the faithful exult in glory;
let them sing joyously upon their beds יעלזו בכבוד ירננו על משכבותם )577 = 1817).” (Psalms 149:5)

Sefer Hasidim is foremost an ethical manual, practical rather than theoretical, encompassing all aspects of life, including the minutiae of personal, family, and business matters. Numerous examples are cited, containing, considerable information about contemporary Jewish life. Advice is detailed and pragmatic, with the goal of achieving strict adherence to an ethical and pious life. These instructions, often based on kabbalistic teachings, have been influential because of the author’s great piety. Sefer Hasidim is also a mystical work, explaining biblical and talmudic passages.^[12]

Gedolus David u-Malchus Shaul – A very different work is Joseph Ha-Efrati of Tropplowitz’s (c. 1770–1804) Gedolus David u-Malchus Shaul, a drama in Yiddish. Among the smallest Hrubieszow imprints, it was printed in duodecimo format (12⁰) 29 ff.

1817, Gedolus David u-Malchus Shaul

The author, born in Tropplowitz, Silesia, was a Hebrew poet, dramatist, and tutor. While working in the last capacity he wrote the first acts of the drama Melukhat Sha’ul from Melukhat Sha’ul completed in Prague in 1793. Gedolus David u-Malchus Shaul is a Yiddish translation, retitled. This version, that is the Yiddish translation, has been described as “part of the traditional Purimshpil (“Purim play”) in many Lithuanian and Polish towns . . . the first modern Hebrew drama of the Haskalah period, is noteworthy for its new egalitarian and humanistic ideas.” In writing Melukhat Sha’ul Ha-Efrati was reputedly influenced by Shakespeare, Goethe, Schiller, and von Haller, as well as M. H. Luzzatto. The primary characters, Saul. David, Jonathan, and Michal reputedly signify abstract ideas rather than lifelike characters, representing “the pathos of a suffering hero, ridden with envy and guilt, torn by fears and loneliness, and not merely a proud and jealous king.”^[13]

The title-page is misdated, the date, given in a straightforward manner, is תקלז (= 1777). Depending on when the misdating was caught, it may have been corrected with a stop-press correction, that is, when an error was found the press would be stopped, the error would be quickly corrected and printing resumed. As one copy only of Gedolus David u-Malchus Shaul was seen it not known if that was done or if this is the sole uncorrected title-page for that work.^[14] Friedberg writes that he has seen several of the press’s books that are misdated^[15] For other examples, see below.

The text is in Yiddish excepting paragraph headers and, similarly, except here vocalized, the names of the participants in the drama on the verso of the title-page. This is the third edition of Gedolus David, the first having been printed in Lvov in 1801; It is a popular work, as many as fourteen editions are recorded for Gedolus David in the Bet Eked Sefarim and only twelve editions for Melukhat Sha’ul.^[16]

The following year, 1818, saw the publication of five titles, primarily Hasidic works, among them such classics titles as R. Menahem Nahum Twersky of Chernobyl’s Me’or Einayim, homilies on the weekly Torah portions; R. Samuel ben Nathan Ha-Levi Loew Kolin’s Maḥaẓit ha-Shekel on the Shulḥan Arukh Oraḥ Ḥayyim and Yoreh De’ah; R. Jacob ben Solomon Habib’s Ein Ya’akov, collection of aggadah in the Talmud; R. Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev’s Hasidic classic Kedushat Levi discourses on the weekly Torah readings, and, in Vinograd’s listing, a second Hrubieszow edition of Noam Elimelekh.

Kedushat Levi – R. Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev’s Kedushat Levi, a classic Hasidic work of weekly discourses. was published in quarto format (4⁰: [1], 78, 27, 15 ff.) in the year “Isaac pleaded [with the Lord] ויעתר יצחק (571= 1818)” (Genesis 25:21). R. Levi Yitzhak of Berdichev, who defended Hasidus against its opponents, settled in Berdichev, in 1785, residing there for the rest of his life. When he passed away, it seemed, to R. Nahman of Bratslav that “the light of the world had been extinguished.” Levi Yitzhak was held in the highest regard and affection by Jews. An example of his sensitivity, even to transgressors, is the following incident,

When he happened to meet “a young man eating in public on the fast of Tisha B’Av (the anniversary of the day on which both the first and second Temples were destroyed) the rabbi asked him mildly, “Have you forgotten that today is the Ninth of Av? Or are you perhaps unaware that it is forbidden to eat on the Ninth of Av?” “I have not forgotten what day it is and I am well aware of the prohibition,” answered the young man. “Possibly, my son, you are not in good health and have been advised by your doctor to eat?” the rabbi of Berdichev inquired further. No, I am in excellent health,” was the reply. “See, O Lord,” exclaimed the sage with joy, “how admirable Your children are! Even when they transgress Your Commandments, they do not stoop to falsehood.” ^[17]

Levi Yitzhak’s first published work, also entitled Kedushat Levi, is discourses on Hanukkah and Purim, printed in Slavuta in 1798. It was subsequently included in later editions of Kedushat Levi on the weekly Torah readings.

1818, Kedushat Levi

The title-page of this edition of Kedushat Levi begins with honorifics for R. Levi and then informs that it also includes additional material on various subjects. On the verso of the title pages is an approbation from four rabbis from Berdichev; R. David Shalit, R. Aaron Isaac ha-Kohen, R. Nathan Aryeh Davir, and R. Mordecai באאימו son of my lord, my father, teacher, and rabbi David Shalit. Below the approbation is the standard disclaimer that the people among whom the Jews reside today are not like those in the time of the Talmud, immoral idol worshippers, but today show respect for Torah and do justice and righteousness in their lands, The text follows, primarily on the weekly parsha, but also addressing other biblical books, festivals, and concluding with a final section addressing various subjects, including Pirke Avot. Kedushat Levi.

First published in Berdichev in 1811, this, the Hrubieszow edition, is the third printing of Kedushat Levi. A popular work, it has frequently been republished.

Sefer ha-Yashar – Among the books published in 1819 is R. Zerahiah ha-Yevani’s (13th or 14th century) popular ethical work Sefer ha-Yashar (Book of Righteousness). The title-page attributes the work to R. Jacob ben Meir Tam (Rabbenu Tam, c. 1100-1171), a not infrequent error, as well as it being attributed to R. Jonah Gerondi (13^th century). The former did author a Sefer ha-Yashar (Vienna, 1811), but that is another work, consisting of responsa and novellae, while the style of the latter, who wrote ethical works, differs from this book. A number of manuscripts, however, name Zerahi ha-Yevani’s as the author. While many now accept him as the author, that attribution is not definite. Little is known about Zerahiah, except that he was a resident of the Byzantine Empire and that he is credited with Sefer ha-Yashar.

Sefer ha-Yashar was published in octavo format (8⁰: [2], 40 ff.). The title-page begins that it is “the path of life and moral reproof, to go on a straight path. It is dated “it is [very] indeed upright וישר הוא מאוד (579 = 1819)” (cf. Deutronomy 32:4; Psalms 21:29). The printers names are given on the title-page as Menahem Mendel F. Sh. and Moses Tzikor,

1819, Sefer ha-Yashar

There is an introduction, in which Zerahiah brings proof for the Torah and its precepts from both reason and from the prophets, and bemoans the pursuit of pleasure, wealth, and honor in his time, rather than religion and morality. Sefer ha-Yashar, with the purpose of directing one’s soul towards the correct worship of God, piety, and ethical content, is written in an easy style so that it will influence others to right conduct. Sefer ha-Yashar is comprised of material from earlier ethical works, although they are not mentioned in the text by name nor directly quoted. It is evident, from the book, that he was familiar with Jewish philosophic works. The most significant of the prior works, acknowledged in the introduction, is Bahya ibn Paquda’s Hovot ha-Levavot, studied by Zerahiah, but too long and complex for the average reader. It provides, in summary, the essence of several chapters. Another important influence, evident in the text, is Maimonides.

The text, divided into eighteen chapters which address, beginning with the creation of the world, worship, repentance, knowledge of God, the will of God, the world to come, complete repentance, the significance of the righteous, accountability of a person, remembrance of the day of death, and the distinction between the righteous and the wicked. Zerahiah’s primary subjects are the need to imitate God, conditions of proper prayer, both theoretical and practical; correct conduct and obstacles to be overcome to achieve it; and repentance.^[18]

A popular work Sefer ha-Yashar was first printed in Constantinople (1540); this is the twenty-second edition, of slightly more than fifty recorded by the Bet Eked.Sefarim.^[19]
Levushe Serad – Another different work, also published in 1819, is R. David Solomon Eybeschuetz’s (Eibenschutz) halachic Levushe Serad on the Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah, particularly on the laws pertaining to shechita (ritual slaughter). Printed as a folio (2⁰: [2], 2-102 ff,) in the year “attired as thin beast לבושי השרד בהמה דקה (561 = 1801).” This date is certainly incorrect, a bet ב at the head of the word בהמה (beast) which make the verse meaningful but gives a date in error, as opposed to a kafכ which would read כהמה and would give the correct value of (579 = 1819) but be meaningless. I would suggest, and this is entirely speculative, that the printer wanted the meaning of beast even if that threw the date off. Support for this conjecture can be found in the correct date, immediately below the Hebrew date, in Arabic numerals, that is, 1819. This is the only title-page seen among the Hrubieszow imprints with an Arabic numeral date.

The author, R. David Solomon ben Yerachmiel Eybeschuetz, was born in Russia and studied under R. Moses Ẓevi Heller. He served as rabbi in several locations, among them Buzhanow, Soroki (Volhynia), and Jassy, (Rumania). Eybeschuetz made aliyah, that is, he went up to Eretz Israel, residing in Safed, where he died in 1812. Eybeschuetz was also a kabbalist as well as a Talmudist. His other works include responsa, Ne’ot Deshe (part one, Lvov, 1861), part two and manuscripts, including a commentary on the Torah and discourses.^[20]

The title-page describes Levushe Serad as being comprised of three parts, the first explaining the laws pertaining to laws of falling and broken bones in cattle and fowl; the second, laws applying to lungs; and the third, applying to Yoreh De’ah. The printers are given here as Menahem Mendel Finkel Stein. and Moses Tzikor.

The verso of the title-page has an approbation from R. David Shalit. The text is comprised of the commentary in two columns. The text of this volume on Yoreh Deah varies from the previous volume on Orah Haim. Chaim Tchernowitz describes this volume as following R. Alexander Sender Shor’s (d. 1737) influential Simla Hadasha, also on shechita; Levushe Serad being described as the most important commentary on that work ^[21] It does not include the text of Yoreh De’ah, on which Levushe Serad comments and elucidates.

1819, Levushe Serad

Levushe Serad on Orah Haim was first published in Mohilev (1805). This volume, on Yoreh Deah is the third edition, it too having been printed previously in Mohilev (1812).^[22]

Havvat Da’at – Among the books printed in 1820 was another work on Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah, but considerably different from Levushe Serad, that is, R. Jacob ben Jacob Moses Lorbeerbaum of Lissa’s (c. 1760–1832) Havvat Da’at. It was published as a folio (2⁰: [1], 37 [should say 36], [34] ff.) in the year “Day to day makes utterance, night to night speaks out יום ליום יביע אומר ולילה ללילה יחוה דעת (470 = 1805)” 19:3), This chronogram is also misdated, as is noted by the NLI catalogue, which records it as a circa 1820 imprint; which also states that the printer, who is not identified on the title-page, is unknown.

1820, Havvat Da’at

Jacob Lorbeerbaum of Lissa was a distinguished rabbi, who served in several communities, writing, in addition to Havvat Da’at other valued works. ^[23] However, his early days were difficult and troubled. His father, rabbi of Zborow, passed away prior to Lorbeerbaum’s birth; he was raised by R. Joseph Te’omim (Pri Megadim, 1727–1792), a relative. He initially combined learning and business, being a partner in a brewery but, when that failed, Lorbeerbaum became rabbi in Monasterzyska, founding a yeshivah there. He subsequently became rabbi of Kałusz writing many of his earliest works there, including Havvat Da’at which, reflecting his great humility, was originally published anonymously. When his authorship was subsequently identified ,Havvat Da’at became the name by which he is known.^[24]

In 1809, Lorbeerbaum became rabbi of Lissa. Lorbeerbaum was an opponent of the Haskalah movement, their influence resulting in his leaving Lissa in 1822 and returning to Kalisz. Disputes there forced him, in 1830, to again relocate again finally settling in Stryj, serving there as rabbi until his death.

The title-page of Havvat Da’at states that it is on Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah, which is a tree of knowledge “desirable as a source of wisdom” (Genesis 3:6), for the pure and the impure. It continues that it is comprised of two parts, Biurim, explanations in depth based on prior commentaries and Hiddushim, novellae, interpretative explanations of statutes and critical analysis. On both sides of the pressmark is the standard disclaimer that the contemporary peoples among whom the Jews dwell today are not immoral idol worshippers as in the past.

The commentary, as described on the title-page, is in two parts, about the text of the Shulhan Arukh. Chaim Tchernowitz describes the subject matter of Havvat Da’at as being on such subjects as salting of meat, meat and milk, mixtures, interest, niddah, and other halakhot dealing with prohibitions such as Stam Yeinam (gentile wine), and treifus. He concludes that according to Havvat Da’at even with laws dealing with permitted and prohibited foods there is room for critical and analytical critique.^[25]

Given the title-page variations of this edition, described above, it is not surprising that Avraham Yaari questions, concisely, whether Havvat Da’at is a Hrubieszow imprint. He suggests that it was published elsewhere, writing “one more book that is listed as having been published in Hrubieszow was actually published in Polonne. This is Chavat Da’at by Ya’akov of Lissa.”^[26] While we have noted a number of variations in Havvat Da’at, such as the dating error in the chronogram, albeit not that unusual for Hrubieszow publications, the absence of the printers’ names, and a pressmark that is not common to Hrubieszow title-pages, there is also the fact, in contrast to these varoiances, that the place of printing is clearly given on the title-page as Hrubieszow. Furthermore, other bibliographic sources, such as Friedberg’s Bet Eked Sefarim and Vinograd’s Thesaurus record Havvat Da’at as a Hrubieszow imprint. An examination of a sample of Polonne and Sudylkow (also suggested) title-pages did not show any like images. The question of whether Havvat Da’at was a Hrubieszow imprint or was published elsewhere is a teku (u nresolved).

Another Hrubieszow imprint by Jacob Lorbeerbaum of Lissa is a folio edition of Beit Ya’akov, novellae and commentary on Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha–Ezer and tractate Ketubot. The printers are given as Moses Tzikor, of Laszczow, and Solomon, ben David Lev, of Laszczow, Menahem Mendel Finkel Stein having already left the press.

This is the fourth printing of Havvat Da’at. The first edition was published in Lvov (1799).

Avodat ha-Kodesh – Among the books printed in Hrubieszow in 1820 is Avodat ha-Kodesh by R. Ḥayyim Joseph David ben Isaac Zerachia Azulai (Hida, 1724-1807), a prominent kabbalist, rabbinic scholar, bibliophile, and prolific author. More than eighty works are attributed to him, sixty in print, on a wide variety of subjects on Torah, halachah, aggadah, and kabbalah.^[27] Avodat ha-Kodesh, an 18 cm. octavo(80: 40 ff.) is comprised of three related works, Vinograd records each independently, that is, Avodat ha-Kodesh, Moreh be-Etzba, and Ziporin Shamir as separate entires. All three titles, kabbalistic explanations of customs, are in octavo format (8⁰) and relatively small works. Shimon Vanunu, describes Avodat ha-Kodesh as a compilation of several of Hida’s prior works.^[28]

Hida was born in Jerusalem to a prominent Sephardic family, descendant from exiles from Spain, and his great-grandfather was the kabbalist R. Abraham Azulai (c. 1570–1643, Hesed le-Avraham), originally from Fez, Morrocco and on his maternal side from R. Joseph Bialer, a German scholar. He was educated by leading rabbinic figures, among them R. Isaac ha-Kohen Rapoport, R. Shalom Sharabi, and R. Haim ibn Attar (Ohr ha-Haim). He served as rabbi in several communities and beginning in 1755, served as an emissary from Eretz Israel to Jewish communities in Europe.

1820, Avodat ha-Kodesh

The title-page has the heading Avodat ha-Kodesh in large bold type and below notes the other two works, and then that the book was brought to press by R. Jacob ben Naphtali Hertz of Brod and that it had been printed previously in Livorno. The title-page is dated in a straightforward manner as (תק”פ = 1820). The verso of the title-page has the disclaimer that the non-Jews among

whom the Jews noted above that contemporary nations are unlike the earlier nations who were immoral idol worshippers, but today show respect for Torah and do justice and righteousness in their lands. It is followed by the tailpiece noted above that appears on the title-pages of several books. Examples of the text are:

147: all who say shirat ha-yam (Exodus 14:30 – 15:19) with joy as if he himself had been delivered from the sea, Pharoh, and his army, when they drowned in the sea, and says Shira with great feeling is forgiven his iniquities.

148: all who weep and mourn for a person who was kosher is forgiven his iniquiites.

149: all who pray erev Shabbat and say [the prayer] ויכלו “the heavens and earth were completed” (Genesis 2:1), two angles say to him turn your eyes and your sins will be atoned for.

The pressmark appears at the end of the book as a tail-piece.

Tomer Devorah – Another work published in 1820 is R. Moses ben Jacob Cordovero’s (Ramak, 1522-1570) popular and much reprinted Tomer Devorah. A small kabbalistic, ethical, and inspirational treatise, it was published as a 19 cm. octavo (14 ff).

Moses ben Jacob Cordovero was the first to describe the dialectical process through which the Sefirot pass in their development and to interpret the various stages of their emanation as manifestations of the Divine mind.^[29] Based on his name, Cordovero appears to have been descended from Jewish exiles from the city of Cordova. It has been suggested, but this is uncertain, that he was born in Safed. Cordovero was a student of R. Joseph Caro (1488-1575) in nigleh (revealed, literal Torah) and, after heeding a heavenly voice that urged him to study Kabbalah, of his brother-in-law, R. Solomon Alkabez (Lekhah Dodi) in nistar (esoteric Torah, Kabbalah). Cordovero became a leader of the ascetic mystical community of Safed, preparing for it a list of rules of conduct, primarily instructions and commands. He served as a dayyan in Safed and founded a yeshivah there in about 1550, which he headed until his death in 1570.

Among Cordovero’s students were R. Elijah de Vidas (Reshit Hokhmah), R. Abraham Galante (ha-Kadosh), R. Samuel Gallico (Asis Rimmonim, an abridgement of Pardes Rimmonim), R. Hayyim Vital, and R. Isaac Luria (ha-Ari). Although Luria was Cordovero’s student for a short while only, and his system of Kabbalah would supplant that of Cordovero, Luria refers to Cordovero as his master and teacher, testifying that Cordovero was completely free of sin, that both the sages of the Mishnah and Elijah the Prophet appeared to him, and that at Cordovero’s funeral a pillar of fire preceded his coffin. Others, such as R. Menahem Azariah da Fano, although in Italy, considered themselves disciples of Cordovero. A prolific writer, he is responsible for several of the classics of Kabbalah.^[30]

Tomer Devorah is entitled from “And she sat under the palm tree of Deborah (Tomer Devorah) between Ramah and Beth‑El in Mount Ephraim” (Judges 4:5). The title-page urges man to follow a straight path, to end his isolation and reflect on his ways, to cleave to the order of the sephirot. The printers are given as Menahem Mendel Finkel Stein and Moses Tzikor of Łaszczów, their names preceded by honorifics. The title-page is dated with the chronogram in the year “This is the Teaching that Moses placed before the children of Israel זאת התורה אשר שם משה לפני בני ישראל (580 = 1820)” (Deuteronomy 4:44).

1820, Tomer Devorah

The text is comprised of ten chapters describing Divine qualities and how man should strive to emulate them. They are, 1) the Supernal Crown (Keter) and the thirteen attributes of higher mercy which belong to it; 2) the qualities of the crown, such as humility and kindness, eradicating pride from the heart; 3) wisdom (Hokhmah), love and care for all creatures; 4) understanding (Binah) and repentance; 5) on mercy (Hesed), the methods of performing mercy and assisting the Sefirot to function harmoniously; 6) power (Gevurah), utilizing the evil inclination to serve God; 7) beauty (Tiferet), the study of Torah and behavior appropriate to a scholar; 8) Endurance, Majesty and Foundation (Netzach, Hod and Yesod), support of Torah students and purity of life; 9) Sovereignty (Malkut), sacrifices for Torah and performing marital duties with holiness; 10) Man’s conduct so that he is never separated from the world of the Sefirot. An example of the text, from Keter, is:

Keter – Some major activities that are the main governance: Further for a person to resemble his Creator from the secret of the trait of the Crown (Keter), he must [do] some major activities – which are the main governance. The first: The trait of humility – which includes everything – because it is dependent on the Crown. As behold, It is a trait over all of the Traits, but it does not raise itself and become proud above [the others]. Indeed, It goes down and always looks downwards. And that is from two reasons: The one is that It is embarrassed to look at Its Cause, rather Its Emanator always looks down upon It to benefit It; and It looks down to the lower ones. So [too,] must a person be embarrassed from staring upwards, to be proud. Rather, he must always stare downwards, to diminish himself all that he can.^[31]

The title page is followed by a brief introduction from R. Moses Basola, with the pressmark. He found the manuscript of Tomer Devorah in the library of R. Menahem Azriah, who gave it to Basola, in order to bring it to press to merit Israel.

Tomer Devorah is replete with allusions from Talmudic and kabbalistic sources, systemizing and vividly presenting abstruse concepts. It has been frequently republished and translated into other languages, among them English. Tomer Devorah was first published in Venice (1588); this the Hrubieszow edition, is the fourteenth. The Bet Eked Sefarim records thirty-two editions, several with annotations, and not recording translations.^[32]

Ayyelet Ahavim – A rhetorical and poetic treatise on the Akedah (sacrifice of Isaac) by R. Solomon de Oliveyra (1633-1708). Ayyelet Ahavim was printed as a 19 cm. octavo (8⁰: [4], 20, [1] ff.). It is dated in a straightforward manner as תקפ”א,ה ([5]581 = 1821).

R. Solomon de Oliveyra is accounted among the Sephardic sages of Amsterdam.^[33] Oliveyra’s place of birth, whether Lisbon or Amsterdam, is uncertain. Albert Van Der Heide suggests that as Oliveyra’s parents were fugitive co1nversos, as documented in Amsterdam in 1628, he must have been born in the latter location. Also, based on the marriage certificate issued by the city of Amsterdam, Oliveyra married Rached Dias in 1660, when twenty-seven years old, again attesting to Amsterdam as his place of birth.^[34] Oliveyra served as rabbi (hakham) and teacher in the Talmud Torah Etz Haim of the Keter Torah association of the Amsterdam Portuguese community, of which he later became president. He was a member of the rabbinical council, over which he presided after the death of R. Jacob Sasportas (c. 1610-98). In addition to these rabbinic positions, Oliveyra worked as a corrector in the printing-house of Uri Phoebus.^[35] Oliveyra was the author of a number of varied multi-lingual works on grammar, lexicography, other philological subjects, poetry, and riddles. Van Der Heide has described Oliveyra as “the preeminent and omnipresent Hebrew poet of Jewish Amsterdam.” Oliveyra became, for a time, an adherent of Shabbetai Zevi, composing liturgical verse in his behalf as well as writing approbations

The primary publisher of Oliveyra’s books was David de Castro Tartas (c. 1625–c. 1700), active from 1662 to 1698 in Amsterdam. Their relationship began in 1665, when our subject work, Ayyelet Ahavim ws published. The title-page begins that it is Igeret: words of truth, “to understand a proverb, and a figure” (Proverbs 1:6). It is entitled Ayyelet Ahavim for it was “a precious vessel” (Hosea 13:15, Nahum 2:10, II Chronicles 32:27), “To receive the instruction of wisdom” (Proverbs 1:3), “He established it and searched it out” (Job 28:27), by the rav, the Sephardic sage SOLOMON ben DAVID Oliveyra, in the month of Ziv in the year תי”ז (1657, printed in Amsterdam in the year תכ”ה (1665). It adds that it has now been brought to press by R. Abraham Moses ben Solomon ha-Levi of Lublin: with the permission of the censor in Hrubieszow at the press of Moses ben Tzikor of Łaszczów.

1821, Ayyelet Ahavim

Oliveyra’s introduction follows (2a-b) in which he states that he does not wish to delve into deep explanations nor to go up to the heights of discourse, but rather his heart wishes to speak of the greatness of that “righteous man, who quarried the fetters of love, of that which he formed יצורו for the love of the One Who formed him יוצרו.” Oliveyra’s intent is to investigate this holy and wondrous deed. Among the several reasons that he entitled this work Ayyelet Ahavim is that it is on the love of Abraham and his soul for God “As the hart longs for water streams” (cf. Psalms 42:2). The wide-ranging text is comprised of numerous aggadot, and including riddles and parables. In one section the alternating paragraphs of verse are between father and son. The prose text is accompanied by infrequent marginal references.

First printed in Amsterdam (1665) this is the third and last published edition Of Ayyelet Ahavim.^[36]

Summation – Ten books have been described. The selected books give an insight to the type of works published by the Hrubieszow press. They are generally of a scholarly and specialized nature, primarily Hasidic works on the weekly parasha (Torah reading), ethical, and halachic tomes, although varied within each category. These works reflect both the composition and interests of the community. One book, Gedolus David u-Malchus Shaul, stands out, being of a contrary nature, that is, it has maskilic overtones. The provenance of one other work, Havvat Da’at, has been questioned. Also published were two editions of Shir ha-Shirim (1816, 1827), the former not seen, the latter (1820) with the commentaries of R. Eliezer ben Judah (Rokeah) and R. Moes ben Nachman (Ramban).

A lacuna in the press’s publications is the absence of Mishnaic and Talmudic volumes, attesting to the press’s emphases on small books, perchance the nature of its’ operations, a small publisher catering to and meeting a small market’s needs. It did, however, print an Ein Ya’acov, on the aggadot in the Talmud, this with the commentary Kotnot Or. The emphasis on small works does not in any way detract from the value of the press’s publications. Indeed, the books were well printed and attractive. Yaari, however, while approving of their appearance is not so positive as to the titles printed, writing “The books printed in Hrubieszow were elegant in appearance, but not of significant content. Most had been printed previously by other presses. These books were in great demand, such as popular Yiddish books.”

As noted above, the Thesaurus credits the Hrubieszow press with as many as forty titles, although that number appears uncertain, or perhaps exaggerated; Avraham Ya’ari recorded thirty-four titles only. Perchance, the difference in number can be attributed to the manner in which books are recorded. Avodat ha-Kodesh, for example, is a composite of three works, each listed independently in the Thesaurus but one entry only in Yaari’s listing. Summerly, there are three entries in the Thesaurus for Siddur Tefillat Nehora, a two-part prayer book designed so that it can be used for both Ashkenaz ads Sephardic rites. There is one listing only by Yaari, but more detailed. The entries in the Thesaurus for Tefillat Nehora are several years apart (1817, 1821, [1824]). To complicate matters, Yaari has several entries for Kotnot Or but the Thesaurus has one entry only for the Ein Ya’acov. The exact number of publications must remain then a teku (unresolved).

We have noted misdates and censors’ remarks. Yaari comments on this writing:

The names of the town or the printers are omitted from the title pages of several of the books printed in Hrubieszow. This is probably due to censorship, or book tariff payment. Sometimes the printers mentioned their names in some copies but not in others; sometimes they even inserted the name of a different town or stated a different year, to deceive the censor or the tariff–collector

No books omitting Hrubieszow were seen or noted.^[37] Why then, printing with the censors’ approval they would omit their names is unclear. Indeed, the books described above, all, with the exceptions of Havvat Da’at all have the printers’ names. In conclusion, as already noted, the Hrubieszow press published small varied books covering a variety of subjects. The books served communal needs, were works of value, and attractively printed. A press only active for a brief period, it served the Hrubieszow community well. It deserves, should be remembered, in addition entries in bibliographic and historical records.

1. I would like to express my appreciation to Eli Genauer for reading the article and his corrective comments, and Eli Amsel for his additional insights. All the title and text page images are courtesy of the National Library of Israel. The Polish monarchy banner is a public domain image. ↑
2. Vinograd, Yeshayahu. Thesaurus of the Hebrew Book. place, and year printed, name of printer, number of pages and format, with annotations and bibliographical references II (Jerusalem, 1993-95), p. 167 [Hebrew]. ↑
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrubiesz%C3%B3w ↑
4. The Encyclopedia of Jewish life Before and During the Holocaust, editor in chief, Shmuel Spector; consulting editor, Geoffrey Wigoder; foreword by Elie Wiesel I (New York, 2001), pp. 532-34; Polin: Virtual Shtetl https://sztetl.org.pl/en/towns/h/266-hrubieszow/99-history/137366-history-of-community; Dr. N. M. Gelber, Notes on the History of the Jews of Hrubieszow, tr. Yael Chaver, https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Hrubieszow/hru021.html. ↑
5. Hurvitz Tzvi Ha–Levi Ish Hurvitz, “The Town of Hrubieszow and its Rabbis,” translated by Yael Chaver, Columns 51-52. https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Hrubieszow/hru051.html ↑
6. Avraham Yaari, “The Hebrew Printing Press in Hrubieszow,” Kiryat Sefer, (Jerusalem, 1943–4), pp. 219–228 [Hebrew], tr. by Yael Chaver https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Hrubieszow/hru051.html#Page57 ↑
7. Dr. N. M. Gelber, Notes on the History of the Jews of Hrubieszow, tr. Yael Chaver, https://www.jewishgen.org/yizkor/Hrubieszow/hru021.html.. ↑
8. Ch. B. Friedberg, History of Hebrew Typography in Poland from the bginning of the year 1534, and its development up to our days . . . Second Edition, Enlarged, improved and revised from the sources (Tel Aviv, 1950), pp.150-52 [Hebrew]. ↑
9. Mordechai, Margalioth, ed., Encyclopedia of Great Men in Israel I (Tel Aviv, 1986), cols. 179-80 [Hebrew].Tzvi M. Rabinowicz, The Encyclopedia of Hasidism (Northvale, 1996), pp.111-12. ↑
10. Ch. B. Friedberg, History of Hebrew Typography in Poland, op. cit. ↑
11. Arnold Green, “Elimelekh of Lizhensk, “The Yivo Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe, Gershon David Hundert, ed. I (New Haven & London, 2008), p. 467; Rabinowicz, op. cit. ↑
12. Marvin J. Heller, The Sixteenth Century Hebrew Book: An Abridged Thesaurus II (Leiden, 2004) p. 697: Simcha Kogut, “The Language of Sefer Hasidim, Its Linguistic Background and Methods of Research,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature, ed. Isadore Twersky, II (Cambridge, 1984), pp. 95-108; Reuben Margaliot, ed., Sefer Hasidim (Jerusalem, 1973), pp. 3-9 [Hebrew]. ↑
13. https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/ha-efrati-tropplowitz-joseph ↑
14. To replace a sheet with a single error would necessitate replacing several pages, the number depending on the book format. The normal practice, therefore, was to retain the original defective sheet and use both it and the corrected sheet in copies of the book. Due to cost factors, both of paper and labor, the sheet with the error would be replaced only if the error was substantial or substantive. It is therefore possible for books to consist of non-uniform copies, having several sheets with variant readings. For examples of such errors see Marvin J. Heller, “Who can discern his errors? Misdates, Errors, and Deceptions, in and about Hebrew Books, Intentional and Otherwise” Hakirah: The Flatbush Journal of Jewish Law and Thought 12 (2011), pp. 269-91, reprinted in Further Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book, (Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2013), pp. 395-420. ↑
15. Friedberg, History of Hebrew Typography in Poland, p, 151 n. 1. ↑
16. Ch. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim, (Israel n.d.), gimmel 128, mem 1922 [Hebrew]. ↑
17. Rabinowicz, p. 61. ↑
18. Margalioth, Great Men, II col. 465-66; Meyer Waxman, A History of Jewish Literature (1933, reprint Cranbury, 1960), II pp. 276-79. ↑
19. Friedberg, Bet Eked.Sefarim, yod 1152. ↑
20. Louis Ginzberhg, N. T. London, “Eibenschutz, David Solomon,” Jewish Encyclopedia V (1New York, 901-06), pp. 75-78. ↑
21. Itzhak Alfassi “Schor, Alexander Sender ben Ephraim Zalman” v. 18 Encyclopedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 2007), p. 161; Chaim Tchernowitz, Toledoth ha-Poskim, III (New York, 1946), pp. 206-08 [Hebrew]. ↑
22. Friedberg, Bet Eked.Sefarim, lamed 108. ↑
23. Lorbeerbaum’s other published works are Ma’aseh Nissim (Zolkiew, 1801), on the Passover Haggadah; Mekor Ḥayyim (ibid., 1807), novellae and expositions of the laws of Passover in the Shulḥan Arukh together with the glosses of R. David ben Samuel ha-Levi and Abraham Abele Gombiner on Oraḥ Ḥyyim and novellae to tractate Keritot; Netivot ha-Mishpat (ibid., 1809–16), on Ḥoshen Mishpat; Torat Gittin (Frankfurt on the Oder, 1813), the laws of divorce and novellae on tractate Gittin; Kehillat Ya’akov (1831), on Even ha-Ezer and sections of Oraḥ Ḥayyim; Derekh ha-Ḥayyim, an anthology of liturgical laws, first published with the prayer book (1828) and then separately (1860 or 1870); Naḥalat Ya’akov (1849), expositions of the Pentateuch; Emet le-Ya’akov (1865), expositions of talmudic aggadot; Imrei Yosher, commentaries on the five megillot, each published independently; his ethical will (1875); and Millei de-Aggadeta (1904), sermons and responsa (EJ, op. cit.). In a private correspondence Eli Amsel noted other such works, writing “Another Hrubieszow imprint by Jacob Lorbeerbaum of Lissa is a folio edition of Beit Ya’akov, novellae and commentary on Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha–Ezer and tractate Ketubot.” ↑
24. Haim Gertner, “Lorbeerbaum, Ya‘akov ben Ya‘akov Mosheh of Lissa, Yivo Encyclopedia, I pp. 1087-88; Ephraim Kupfer, “Lorbeerbaum, Jacob ben Jacob Moses of Lissa” Encyclopedia Judaica XIII pp. 191-92. ↑
25. Tchernowitz, Toledoth ha-Poskim, III, p. 258. ↑
26. The Polonne (Polonnoye) press was active from 1789 to approximately 1830, publishing as many as130 titles. Among them three editions of Havvat Da’at. An accompanying note in the Polonnoye entry references it as a Sudylkow imprint (Vinograd, p. 502). Two [1834] editions of Havvat Da’at are listed for that location. ↑
27. Yaakov Amsalem and Yisrael A. Groweiss, “The Hida’s Riddle,” Mishpaha, March 22, 2022. ↑
28. Shimon Vanunu, Encyclopedia Arzei ha-Levanon. Encyclopedia le-Toldot Geonei ve-Hakhmei Yahadut Sefarad ve-ha-Mizrah II 649-(Jerusalem, 2006), pp. 649-69 [Hebrew]. The works noted by Vanunu are Moreh be-Etzba, Ziporin Shamir, Kesher Gadol, Kaf Ahas, Yosef be_Seder, Sensen le-Ir, and Shomir Yisrael. ↑
29. Heller, The Sixteenth Century Hebrew Book, var. cit. ; Gershom S. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1960). Pp. 252-53. ↑
30. Concerning other works by Moses Cordovero see Marvin J. Heller, “His Hand did not Leave Hers Until he was Grown: Two Little Known Works from Moses Cordovero (Ramak)” Los Muestros no. 44 (Brussels, 2001), pp. 44-46, reprinted in Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (Leiden/Boston, 2008), pp. 278-83. ↑
31. https://www.sefaria.org/Tomer_Devorah.2.2?lang=bi&with=SidebarSearch&lang2=en. ↑
32. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim, tav 484. ↑
33. Concerning see Marvin J, Heller, ” Solomon de Oliveyra:
    A Seventeenth Century Sephardic Sage,” Sephardic Horizons (v. 13: 1-2 Winter-Spring 2023), https://www.sephardichorizons.org/. ↑
34. Albert Van Der Heide, “Poetry in the Margin: The Literary Career of Haham Selomoh d’Oliveyra (1633-1708),” Studia Rosenthaliana 40 (2007-08), pp. 14. ↑
35. L. Fuks and R. G. Fuks-Mansfeld, Hebrew Typography in the Northern Netherlands 1585-1815 2 (Leiden, 1987), p. 247; Margalioth, col. 1264 [Hebrew]. ↑
36. Friedberg, Bet Eked.Sefarim, alef 1626. ↑
37. While I did not see any such works, Eli Amsel also wrote “I have several in my collection, only TWO without the city mentioned in title, Bet Ya’akov, cityless; Pri Etz Chaim, with koretz as the city in very small font!!!” ↑

Introduction: Arguments about eating in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret outside of Israel have a long and somewhat baffling history.[1] While not the only example of practice in opposition to the Shulchan Aruch, it appears to be among the most argued. The gemara, Rambam, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch, written in many locales, all seem to be as unambiguous as possible in requiring one to eat in the sukkah. The Gaon, incensed by the spreading Chassidic custom to eat outside the sukkah, perhaps lemigdar miltah, went so far as to mandate sleeping in the sukkah on the night of shemini atzeret, in opposition to the Maharil, the Magen Avraham and normative custom. Despite consensus among all major decisors to require eating in the sukkah, an undercurrent of opposition has existed from at least the times of the early rishonim. Support for that opposition has been based on a number of apparently legitimate points. However, despite some early and consistent opposition, despite the logic and halakhic rationale of those who did not sit in the sukkah, and despite the problematic nature of the gemara (as explained below), I hope to explain the basis for the concluding and declarative statement in the gemara: “we sit but do not make a berakha.” In fact, the assumption, explicitly found[2] as far back as the times of the rishonim, that the declarative ruling was interpolated at a later point, is fundamental to explain both sides of the controversy. Some, as early as the times of the rishonim, argue that we can discount such geonic interpolations in deference to the original text which, as will be demonstrated, concludes not to sit in the sukkah. My goal is to explain why the interpolation is to be followed despite its ostensible opposition to the remainder of the text. The major thesis proposed is that one has to differentiate between a period of doubt as existed in both the yerushalmi and bavli when rosh chodesh was declared based on the observation of witnesses and a later period when rosh chodesh was determined using a fixed calendar. The geonic interpolation into the text of the gemara occurred at that later point; its rationale and inconsistency with the texts of the gemara needs to be addressed from that perspective. If I am correct, then in the period when rosh chodesh was declared based on the observation of witnesses, as in the times of Rav Yochanon and Rav,[3] sitting in the sukkah was not always required. However, when the fixed calendar was in use, the rabbis (eventually) decreed that sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret was obligatory. It may well have been more akin to a gezairah required at their time versus a continuation of historic practice. The remainder of the paper focuses on:

• An analysis of the primary texts of the gemarot that demonstrates opposition to sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret.
• A conjecture that the level of doubt in the times of the gemara was minor.
• Possible objections to sitting in the sukkah on Shimini Atzeret when not required and why they were perhaps considered overriding particularly given the level of doubt. Additionally, there are critical factors that differentiate Shemini Atzeret from other cases of yom tov sheni.
• The interpolation by the geonim, and their insistence on sitting in the sukkah despite earlier halakhic rulings.
• The objection to the gemara’s conclusion by some early authorities and their different practices.
• Reasons that would exempt you from sukkah in general, would certainly exempt you on Shemini Atzeret; mitztayer and kabbalat penai rabbo are analyzed as bases for not sitting in the sukkah.
• A summary and a modest proposal.

Section 1 – An analysis of the primary text of the gemarot demonstrates opposition to sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret. The sugya in the bavli masechet sukkah beginning on 46b contains three parts:[4] A. The disagreement of Rav Yochanon and Rav. R. Judah the son of R. Samuel b. Shilath citing Rav ruled: The eighth day which may be the seventh is regarded as the seventh in respect of the sukkah and as the eighth in respect of the benediction. R. Yochanon, however, ruled: It is regarded as the eighth in respect of both. B. Two approaches to interpreting the disagreement. FIRST APPROACH: That one must dwell [in the sukkah on the eighth day] is agreed by all, they only differ on the question of the benediction. According to him who regards the day as the seventh in respect of the sukkah, we also recite the benediction [of the sukkah], while according to him who holds that it is regarded as the eighth in respect of both, we do not recite the benediction [of the sukkah]. R. Joseph observed: Hold fast to the ruling of R. Yochanan, since R. Huna b. Bizna and all the notables of his age once entered a sukkah on the eighth day which may have been the seventh, and while they sat therein, they did not recite the benediction. But is it not possible that they were of the same opinion as he who laid down that once a man has recited the benediction on the first day, he has no more need to recite it? — There was a tradition that they had just come from the fields. SECOND APPROACH: (the ikka de’amri) There are some who say that the ruling that one must not recite the benediction [of the sukkah] is agreed upon by both, and that they only differ on the question whether one must sit [inthe sukkah]. According to him who ruled that it is regarded as the seventh day in respect of the sukkah, we must indeed sit in it thereon, while according to him who ruled that it is regarded as the eighth day in respect of both, we may not even sit in it thereon. R. Joseph observed: Hold fast to the ruling of R.Yochanan. For who is the authority of the statement? R. Judah the son of R. Samuel b. Shilath [of course], and he himself sat on the eighth day which might be the seventh outside the sukkah. C. A declarative ruling that “we sit but do not make a berakha.” And the law is that we must indeed sit in the sukkah but may not recite the benediction. A. The disagreement of Rav Yochanon and Rav: Rav states that Shemini Atzeret is treated as the seventh for “this” and the eighth for “that.” Rav Yochanon states it is the considered as the eighth for “this” and “that.” The two approaches differ as to what “this” and “that” refer.[5] B. Two approaches to interpreting the disagreement: The first alternative assumes that all agree that sitting in the sukkah is obligatory; the argument concerns whether to make a berakha. In this approach Rav is asserting that one makes a berakha “leishev ba’sukkah.” The phrase “the seventh for this” refers to this obligation for a berakha on sitting in the sukkah. “The eighth for that” refers to the fact that the other prayers of Shemini Atzeret – kiddush and tefillah – mention only the eighth day and make no mention of Sukkot. Rav Yochanon asserts we make no reference to Sukkot, making no berakha when sitting in the sukkah on the eighth. It is the eight for “this” refers to sitting in the sukkah without a berakha; “the eighth for that” is interpreted identically to Rav. According to both opinions, “this” refers to whether or not a berakha is made when sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret. According to both opinions, “that” refers to the mention of only Shemini Atzeret in the prayers of the eighth day. This reading is rather forced in that there does not appear to be any disagreement about what holiday ought to be referred to in the various prayers and blessings of the eighth day. While the word “this” is informative, the word “that” is not. Stating both Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret in one prayer/blessing would be contradictory; declaring a day to be both Sukkot and Shemini Atzeret was never even raised as a possibility and for good reason. The first approach then quotes practice that supports the view of Rav Yochanon, suggesting that we are to follow the opinion of Rav Yochanon. The second approach assumes not making a berakha on sitting in the sukkah is undisputed; the argument is about even sitting in the sukkah. Thus the second part of the phrase – the eighth for “that” states that common view of both Rav and Rav Yochanon omitting a berakha on sitting in the sukkah. “This” refers to the obligation to sit in the sukkah. Rav maintains for “this” it is considered the seventh and hence one is obligated to sit in the sukkah. Rav Yochanon maintains it is the eighth for “this” as well with no obligation to sit in the sukkah. Note that in this approach of the ikaa de’amri, both parts of the sentence are informative. The second approach then also quotes practice that supports the view of Rav Yochanon, suggesting that we follow the opinion of Rav Yochanon Were the sugya to end at this point, the conclusion would be clear for two reasons. Each reason itself is two-fold, resulting from both a general principle as well as a detail present in this specific case.

• First, generally, where there are two alternative approaches, the second, the ikaa de’amri, is assumed normative.[6] As well in this specific case, as indicated, the phrase of both Rav and Rav Yochanon is more informative in the formulation of the ikka de’amri.
• Second, when there is a dispute between Rav and Rav Yochanon, we generally follow Rav Yochanon.[7]As well, in this specific case the text in both alternatives immediately includes an example of practice that follows the opinion of Rav Yochanon.

Taken together, we would assume to follow the second alternative and the opinion of Rav Yochanon – and not sit in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret. According to many readings, this conclusion is made even more strongly by the yerushalmi.[8] While the bavli addresses the obligation to sit in the sukkah, the yerushalmi notes that one may not sit in the sukkah while making kiddush but one may enter the sukkah afterwards if he so desires. While some rishonim quote this yerushalmi as opposing the psak of the bavli,[9] others claim[10] that the yerushalmi is addressing a region of Israel where there was no doubt about what day the courts declared rosh chodesh. Rabbi Schacter, in support of the former opinion, observed that the yerushalmi uses the expression “leilai yom tov achron;” the plural, “leilai” is only relevant if there is a yom tov sheni on the ninth. Given this interpretation, the yerushalmi is making a rather strong point of equating the nights of the eighth and ninth, dismissing any possibility of an obligation to eat in the sukkah on the eighth.[11] C. A declarative ruling that “we sit but do not make a berakha:” Despite the reading of the gemara as outlined, the bavli concludes that “we sit but do not make a berakha.” This opinion is that of both Rav in the second alternative and Rav Yochanon in the first alternative. This ruling corresponds to two of four opinions quoted; the two alternative opinions – not sitting at all or sitting and making a berakha – are only supported by one amora and only according to one alternative. Despite that, this ruling is contradicted by the normal principles of psak where we would follow Rav Yochanon’s opinion in the second alternative, as well as the yerushalmi. The language of the gemara “shemini safek shevii,” and in particular the various amoraim cited, place the gemara not in the period of calculation based on a fixed calendar, but still during a period where rosh chodesh was declared based on observation. During that period, yom tov sheni was observed because of real doubt and also, at some point, as a precaution even during those years where doubt did not exist. Given the establishment of a fixed calendar in 359 CE by Hillel II, it is not entirely clear in exactly what era yom tov sheni was firmly established and, more importantly, when it was extended to include sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret. It is entirely plausible, that this declarative ruling obligating sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret followed the period debated in the gemara by multiple centuries. This resolves the apparent contradiction in the text. Why this was not stated explicitly in the gemara is only problematic if one does not assume it was obvious. Section 2 – A conjecture that the level of doubt in the times of the gemara was minor. Returning now to the period of real doubt over which day was declared rosh chodesh, the question of why was sitting in the sukkah not considered mandatory? We will deal with a number of reasons that would argue against sitting in the sukkah in the next section. However, there are two factors that would reduce the level of doubt in the times of declaration based on observation.

• First, atmospheric conditions in the Middle East around the beginning of Tishrai are normally excellent and the ability for a new moon crescent to be observed is very high.[12]
• Second, the beit din had flexibility to reduce any doubt around Rosh HaShana. When necessary, the beit din could delay declarations of rosh chodesh Elul to guarantee that a moon’s crescent would always be present to be observed on the evening following the 29th of Elul.[13]

These two factors lowered the level of doubt considerably. In addition,

• the late date in the month when Shemini Atzeret occurs and
• the effort to determine Yom Kippur

would likely reduce the level of doubt even further. After fasting only on the 10th day of Tishrai as Yom Kippur, it is entirely possible that in spite of observing yom tov sheni on the first days of sukkot, the level of doubt was minimal and insufficient to overcome the objections covered in the next section.[14] Section 3 – Possible objections to sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret when not required and why they were overriding particularly given the level of doubt. Additionally, one can differentiate Shemini Atzeret from the more usual case of yom tov sheni on multiple grounds. There are two potential issues with sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret, tarti de’sasreh, acting in a contradictory manner[15] and violating the prohibition to add to a mitzvah, by adding an additional day of sukkah observance, particularly on Shemini Atzeret where sitting in a sukkah is not part of the observance.[16] In the case of sitting in the sukkah, a potentially neutral act, neither is violated if some aspect of performance is compromised; however, the degree of compromise required may be in dispute. Regardless of which of the two reasons[17] is invoked, in a case of limited doubt, one or the other or both may have been sufficient to make sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret either not obligatory or perhaps not even permitted without some restrictions. Both the yerushalmi and various opinions in the main text of the bavli, support this conclusion. At some point after a fixed calendar was established in the fourth century, a second day of yom tov was formalized (or maintained.)[18] As Rav Soloveitchik explained, an additional level of kedushat yom tov was applied to either an ordinary day (the day after a yom tov, isru chag) or the first day of chol hamoed because of sefaikah de’yoma. This additional level of kedusha, automatically invoked obligations for kiddush, tefillah, sippur yetziat mitzraim, etc. as well as prohibitions from work. Of course, such an approach could not be applied to Shemini Atzeret; it was already a holiday and one could not add to its kedusha, only change it. This was not done; note that we do not mention Sukkot nor do we observe the mitzvah of lulav. We simply sit in the sukkah without a berakha, something that is both different from a halakhic perspective from other observances of yom tov sheni that derive from the changed status of the day, and in Rav Soloveitchik’s opinion, less than satisfactory conceptually. He said, perhaps half-seriously, that despite his unwavering adherence to normative halakha, the position of the chassidim makes more sense. In any case, sitting in the sukkah is a unique observance with textual, historical and conceptual challenges. Section 4 – The interpolation by the geonim[19], and their insistence on sitting in the sukkah despite earlier halakhic rulings. I do not know the precise history of yom tov sheni. However, both reciting berakhot during yom tov sheni against normal halakhic practice,[20] as well as the assumed halakhic interpolation by the geonim requiring sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret may both have similar origin – the need to reinforce the observance of yom tov sheni. As Dr. Haym Soloveitchik points out,[21] the case of sukkah on Shemini Atzeret proves the wisdom of insisting on a berakha; the one mitzvah of yom tov sheni for which we do not recite a berakha, resulted in widespread non-observance. It seems more than likely that this interpolation was recognized as “outside the norm” if the practice during the period of doubt did not include sitting in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret. Like berakhot, it may have been viewed as necessary particularly following a single day observance of Yom Kippur to strengthen the observance of yom tov sheni. One can only assume that the ruling’s discontinuity from the remainder of the text of the gemara was recognized and did not need elucidation; when first written, a then contemporary reader would recognize the change in practice. Section 5 – The objection to the gemara’s conclusion by some early authorities and their different practices. Given universal acceptance of the observance of yom tov sheni in the times of the rishonim, one would not have expected any deviation from the gemara’s definitive conclusion. Rabbi Schacter and Dr. Soloveitchik highlight a number of sources that illustrate the lack of universal acceptance of the gemara’s conclusion by Rashi’s rebbe and members of his family,[22] a distinguished member of the Maharil’s community,[23] and by a member of the Kolonymous family.[24] Citing the core sugya in the bavli and the yerushalmi, while certainly relevant does not in and of itself justify deviating from a clear conclusion even if it is of geonic origin. What is universally conjectured is that the cold climate of Northern Europe motivated a change. For the geonim omitting a berakha constituted enough of a heker to obviate either objection – either a tarti de’sasreh or violating a prohibition to add to a mitzvah by adding an additional day of sukkah observance. In a temperate climate, eating outside without a berakha renders sitting in the sukkah a more balanced act – clearly not a complete fulfillment of the obligation to sit in the sukkah, but, nonetheless, still honoring the institution of yom tov sheni shel galyot. However, in the cold climate of Northern Europe, even absent a berakha, either objection would, as it did in the times of real safek, make sitting in the sukkah (at least during kiddush) problematic. Note as well that the custom of returning to the sukkah during the day is consistent with this logic. During the day:

• the temperature is milder,
• there is no tarti de’sasreh from the recitation of kiddush, and
• having been absent from the sukkah at night, as Rav Soloveitchik pointed out, creates a discontinuity of performance that renders sitting in the sukkah the following day a non-violation of adding to the mitzvah.

What is perhaps most surprising is that even after the period of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch, Rav Yosef Yuzpa, the dayan in Frankfurt am Mein around the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th century, when Rav Isaiah Horowitz, the Shelah HaKadosh, was Rav, in his sefer Yosef Ometz was still able to state that a family, descendant of Troyes, who does not sit in the sukkah, “has on what to rely.”[25] Section 6 – Reasons that would exempt you from sukkah in general, would certainly exempt you on shemini atzeret; mitztayer and kabbalat penai rabbo are analyzed as bases for not sitting in the sukkah. Mitztayer would exempt one from sitting in the sukkah not just on Shemini Atzeret but also on Sukkot proper. However, mitztayer is likely not binary. At one extreme, by living unnaturally in the sukkah one may not even fulfill one’s obligation, regardless of intent, as would be the case in extreme cold or very rainy weather. If, however, it is somewhat uncomfortable given the elements, sitting in the sukkah may no longer be obligatory, while it would still remain a fulfillment of one’s obligation. It seems logical as well to differentiate further the notion of mitztayer as it might apply to Sukkot versus Shemini Atzeret. Perhaps a yet lesser degree of mitztayer, not sufficient to allow eating outside the sukkah on Sukkot, might nonetheless, be more than sufficient to override and invalidate the level of heker made by not reciting a berakha. I have not seen any discussion of this notion by poskim, despite its apparent logic.[26] By analogy, one might not be legally drunk, but nonetheless it would be wise not to drive a car. Similarly, one might argue for eating outside the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret in conditions that do not meet the halakhic definition of mitztayer on Sukkot proper. Thus, cold temperatures that might not justify eating outside the sukkah on Sukkot could nonetheless justify, and indeed perhaps mandate, not eating in the sukkah on Shemini Atzeret. Rav Soloveitchik, in an attempt to justify Chassidic practice, noted the importance of the night of Shemini Atzeret, following the “guten kvitel” that Kabbalists associated with the day of Hoshana Rabbah. Like the exemption accorded to the celebration of sheva berachot even on Sukkot, when the sukkah does not comfortably provide adequate room, one can argue that the large celebrations by Chassidim where they are mekabeil penai rabbom, would similarly provide an exemption. I would add that here as well, a lesser degree of need might again be seen as voiding any heker provided by just omitting a berakha. Of course, while this explains why a tisch was held outside the sukkah, it does not in any way justify a general practice of avoiding the sukkah that has become widespread in many Chassidic circles.[27] Section 7 – A summary and a modest proposal. The discussion in the gemara covered a period of history where there was real doubt about the declaration of rosh chodesh, although in the case of Shemini Atzeret, that doubt was minimal. In the face of minimal doubt, the reasons not to sit in the sukkah prevailed. The geonim, perhaps in order to strengthen the notion of yom tov sheini, instituted the practice that “we sit but do not make a berakha.” It is not my intent to give halakhic advice; some might suggest that perhaps we ought to not even ask a local rabbi as much as follow family practice. In any case, for those who eat in the sukkah, I would consider situations of partial mitztayer that might arise, where eating in the sukkah may not be appropriate. On the other hand, given widespread laxity, one might argue that the stringencies of the geonim and the Gaon might again be particularly relevant. Of course, most fundamentally for those whose ancestors ate outside the sukkah in Warsaw, conditions are rather different in Miami,[28] or even in Baltimore or Boston.

Haftaros of Vayetze and Vayishlach – A Mistake Rectified[1]

By Eli Duker

There had been one practice throughout the Jewish world concerning the Haftara of Vayishlach until the print revolution. The book of Ovadia is the Haftara listed in every Haftara list, including the one in the Rambam’s Seder HaTefillos in the Mishneh Torah, MS Ginsburg Moscow of the Machzor Vitry,[2] Etz Chaim (written in London on the eve of the Edict of Expulsion),[3] Abudarham,[4] and the list of Rabbi Shmuel Hanagid, cited in the Sefer HaEshkol.[5] It is also the Haftara in the “Emes” piyyut written by Rabbi Shmuel Hashelishi[6] and the “Zulas” piyyut written by Rabbi Yehuda B’Rabi Binyamin.[7] This is also the Haftara listed in all chumashim in manuscript[8] and in all Cairo Geniza fragments⁹ that I have seen.

This was also the practice of those who followed the triennial cycle in Eretz Yisrael,[10] the Haftara for the sidra of Vayishlach Yaakov was from the book of Ovadia. The reason for the Haftara is clearly due to it being a prophecy about Edom, and Edom is discussed in depth in the parasha.

The universal practice in all communities was to read from the book of Hoshea for the Haftara of Vayetze, but not everyone read the same verses. In all Geniza fragments[11] the Haftara begins at 11:7, “Ve’ami seluim.” In the fragments with a clear end to the Haftara I have found 3 that end at 12:14,[12] which is similar to what appears in the list of in the Rambam’s Seder HaTefillos, making it a classic Haftara of exactly twenty-one pesukim. One source has it end at 13:4,[13] which is the “Zulas” piyyut written by Rabbi Yehuda B’Rabi Binyamin for this parasha,[14] as well as in the Sefer HaShulchan, written by a student of the Rashba. The reason for the Haftara is due to the verse “Vayivrach Yaakov ,” which is clearly related to the events of the parsha, as well as, possibly, the mention of “Bes El” in 12:5

There were two different Ashkenazi practices in the pre-printing era. One was to begin at 12:13, “Vayivrach Yaakov ,” and to read until the end of the book. This is the Haftara found in MS Ginsburg Moscow of the Machzor Vitry,[15] Etz Chaim,[16] and in 12 of the 16 Ashkenazi chumashim in manuscripts I checked. Outside of Ashkenaz this was the practice among the Romaniots. It is also found in the “Zulas” piyyut of Rabbi Shmuel Hashlishi,[17] who lived in Eretz Yisrael in the 10-11 centuries and belonged to a community that read the Torah according to the annual cycle (although the Haftara ends there at 13:4, making it a Haftara of just seven verses!). It was also the Haftara for the sedra of “Vayetze Yaakov” in the triennial cycle of Eretz Yisrael.[18]

The secondary practice in Ashkenaz, which I found in three chumashim in manuscript, was to read starting from 11:7. One manuscript has the Haftara ending at 12:14,[19] and the other two end at 13:5.[20] The latter is the practice of the Ashkenazi community of Amsterdam.[21]

The first printed chumash with Ashkenazi Haftaros was the Soncino, printed in Brescia in 1492. It had the Haftara beginning at 12:13, following most other Ashkenazi sources. The 1517 Bomberg chumash, printed in Venice, has printed Haftaros according to both the Ashkenazi and Sephardi practices, and has the Haftara for Vayetze beginning at 11:7. After 13:5, the word “כאן” in written, followed by something that was erased (in the microfilmed copy of the Israel National Library) followed by “ההפטרה לספרדים,” that this is where the Haftara ends according to the Sefardi practice, which is quite normative. But before 12:13, at the front of the page, the words “הפטרת וישלח לאשכנזים” appear. The Haftara of Vayishlach in that chumash is from Ovadia, without any instructions, indicating a discrepancy between the two practices. It is clear that a mistake was made here, as Hoshea 12:13 is an Ashkenazi Haftara for Vayetze, not Vayishlach.

The 1517 chumash did not sell well among Jews, likely because its editor, Felix Pratensis, was a Jewish convert to Christianity.[22] In 1524 Daniel Bomberg published another chumash, this time with Yaakov ben Chayim ibn Adoniya as his editor, and this edition was much more popular among Jews. It is essential an entirely different book, as this editor did not rely on the first edition, yet, the Haftaros were, by and large, copied from the first edition, with only minor changes. Concerning our topic, the Haftara for Vayetze is 11:7, without any indication that there are other practices. Right before 12:13 it is written “כאן מתחילין הפטרת וישלח האשכנזים” with no indication where Sephardim finish the Haftara. Here too, Ovadia is listed as the Haftara for Vayishlach, without any instructions indicating that there is a discrepancy between communities.

The popularity of the chumash (already called “Mikraos Gedolos”) created a situation where a new reality was created. The Ichenhausen chumash, published in 1544, merely copied the Haftaros and their instructions from the second Bomberg chumash.

By contrast, another Venetian publisher, Marco Antonio Giustiani, also in 1544, went even further, and wrote in his chumash concerning the Haftara from Ovadia as “הפטרת וישלח כמנהג בני ספרד”. The instructions in this chumash created three changes:

• It shortened the Sephardi Haftara for Vayetze and ended it at 12:12, a verse that that discusses the Israelites performing pagan sacrifices and the ramifications of this, an extremely inappropriate way to complete a Haftara.
• It ignored the widespread Ashkenazi practice to begin the Haftara of Vayetze from 12:13. Instead, it has them all starting at 11:7 (as well as completing the Haftara at 12:12, which was unheard of).
• It created a new Ashknenazi Haftara for Vayishlach, from Hoshea, which has nothing to do with the parsha at all, and did away with the reading from Ovadia, which had been a universal practice until that time.

Not all chumashim “ruled” in such a manner. In the Lublin chumash of 1517, the original Ashkenazi Haftaros of Hoshea 12:13 for Vayetze and Ovadia for Vayishlach were listed. Likewise, the Levush, published in 1590, listed these Haftaros as well.

Soon after, we begin to see many chumashim following the new practice. For example: Manitoba – 1589, Frankfurt am Main – 1662, Venice – 1684, as well Haftara books published in Frankfurt Oder in 1685 and in 1708. Yet, I found chumashim from this period with the original Ashkenazi Haftaros, but they were both printed in Prague, which is known to have kept the original practice, as will be discussed below.

The first to point out the error of the new chumashim was Rabbi Avraham Gombiner, in his commentary, Magen Avraham, on Orach Chayim of Shulchan Aruch in siman 428:[23]

מה שכתב בחומשי’ ויברח יעקב לפ’ וישלח ט”ס הוא ושייכ’ לפ’ ויצא (לבוש)

Magen Avraham was first published in 1692, after the author’s passing. He does not explicitly mention what the Haftara for Vayishlach is, but as he cites the Levush, it is clear that he meant it is from Ovadia, as with the exception of the new practice of reading Hoshea 12:13 for Vayishlach, which the Magen Avraham clearly rejects, Ovadia was the only known Haftara for Vayishlach. Nevertheless, chumashim printed after the publication of the Magen Avraham continued to list Hoshea 12:13 as the Ashkenazi Haftara for Vayishlach.[24] Even the chumash published by R’ Shabs ai Bass, author of the Sifsei Chachamim and publisher of Magen Avraham, had this as well.

In 1718 the book “Noheg Katzon Yosef” by Rabbi Yosef Yozefa Segal was published, a work on the practices of German communities in general and Frankfurt am Main in particular. He wrote the following concerning parashas Vayetze:[25]

כתב בלבוש החור ס’ תרס”ט שהפטרה של סדר זו הוא ויברח יעקב, והפטרת וישלח הוא ועמי תלואים, עיין שם. והנה באמת במקומות שמחלקים שתי פרשיות אלו מהושע לאמרם לשתי הפטרות משתי שבתות אלו היה הדין עם הלבוש להקדים המאוחר ולאחר המוקדם. דכד נעיין ביה שפיר נראה שכתיב ויברח יעקב “ובאשה שמר” שהוא מלשון ואביו שמר את הדבר, כלומר המתין עד שתנא ראויה לביאה, או ששמר את הצאן בעד האשה, שהוא מעין פרשת ויצא. ובעמי תלואים כתיב וישר אל המלאך ויוכל , שהוא על שם הכתוב כי שרית עם אלקים ועם אנשים ותוכל הכתוב בוישלח. א”כ למה לנו ליתן את של זה בזה ושל זה בזה? ואפשר שיצא משבשתא זו מפני ששתי הפטרות אלו הם סמוכים בקרא, ועמי תלואים מוקדם במקרא, לפיכך שמו המוקדם במקרא לפרשת ויצא המוקדמת, והמאוחר לפרשת וישלח המאוחרת. והמנהג בק”ק פ”פ שמפטירין בויצא מן ועמי תלואים עד סוף הנביא, דהיינו שתי הפטרות אלו ביחד, שמספר מה אירע ליעקב. ועיין מה שכתבתי בפרשת וישלח

It is written in the Levush Hachur siman 769 that the Haftara for this seder is “Vayivrach Yaakov ,” and the Haftara for Vayishlach is “Ve’ami seluim.” In reality, places that divide the Haftara from Hoshea in order to read it as two Haftaros over two Sabbaths should follow this Levush and read the latter part first and the earlier later, as when one looks examines the matter one see it says in “Vayivrach Yaakov ” (the words) “he guarded his wife,”[26] which is similar to, “and his father kept the matter in mind,”[27] meaning [Yaakov] waited until she was fit for marriage, or it means he guarded the sheep in order to marry the woman, which is similar to parshas Vayetze. And in “Ve’ami seluim” it is written “he strove with an angel and prevailed,” which is based on the verse “for you have striven with beings divine and human and prevailed,” which is written in Vayishlach. Therefore, why should we read them in the opposite order? It is possible that this mistake occurred because these Haftaros are adjacent to each other, and “Ve’ami seluim” appears first. Therefore, they put the first Haftara for Vayetze, which is the earlier parsha, and the latter one for the later Vayishlach. But the practice in Frankfurt is to read “Ve’ami seluim” until the end of the book, meaning to read both Haftaros together.

This piece is rather difficult to comprehend.

• First, the Levush says nothing of the sort. The author proceeds to try to explain the mistake that developed due to the Levush, who did not write what is ascribed to him.
• He recommends reversing the orders of the Hoshea Haftaras, rather than recommending that Ovadia be read, which he cites later as the practice in Frankfurt.[28]
• He claims that the Frankfurt practice is to read from 11:7 until the end of Hoshea for Vayetze. All other sources claim that the practice there was to read from 12:13 for Vayetze and to read Ovadia for Vayishlach, and there is no other source for this “double Haftara” anywhere.

The Rav of Frankfurt, Rabbi Yaakov, author of the Shav Yaakov, wrote an approbation for the book “Noheg Katzon Yosef,” but after he found many errors he asked Rabbi Yehuda Miller, the author’s father-in-law, to fix the errors.[29] Some later printings of the book included these corrections in a booklet called “Tzon Nachalos,” where he wrote that the author was indeed mistaken with regard to the practice in Frankfurt.[30]

In 1729, eleven years after the publication of Noheg Katzon Yosef, Rabbi Yitzchak Aizik Mis wrote a commentary on the Haftaros known as Be’er Yitzchak, which was published in Offenbach, a town quite close to Frankfurt. He listed there various halachos and practices connected to Haftaros. He wrote there:[31]

בכל החומשים נפל טעות שציינו להפטורת ויצא ועמי תלואים ולפ’ וישלח ויברח יעקב וצריך להיות לפ’ ויצא ויברח יעקב לפי שבו כתיב ובאשה שמר שהוא מעניינא דפרשה ששמר את הצאן בעד האשה ולפ’ ושילח ועמי תלאים לפי שבו כתיב וישר אל מלאך ויוכל וגו’ שהוא מעניינא דפ’ כי שרית עם א-הים ועם אנשים ותוכל ובק”ק פרנקפורט דמיין אומרים לפ’ ויצא ועמי תלואים וגם ויברח יעקב ולפ’ וישלח חזון עובדיה

All of the chumashim have a mistake, as they cite the Haftara of Veyetze as “Ve’ami seluim” and that of Vayishlach as “Vayivrach Yaakov ,” while the Haftara for Vayetze should be “ Vayivrach Yaakov ,” as is written there “he guarded a wife” which is the matter of the parsha where (Yaakov) guarded the sheep for the wife’s sake, and that of Vayishlach should be “Ve’ami seluim,” as it is written there he strove with an angel and prevailed, which is the matter of “for you have striven with beings divine and human and prevailed.” In Frankfurt am Main they say “Ve’ami seluim” and “Vayivrach Yaakov ” for Vayetze, and “Chazon Ovadia” for Vayishlach.

It is clear that he did not just copy this out of the Noheg Katzon Yosef, as he views what is printed in chumashim as a mistake, while the Noheg Katzon Yosef mistakenly attributed it to the Levush. But it seems likely that his (erroneous) statement concerning the Frankfurtian practice does come from there.[32]

The famous printing press in Amsterdam, Proops, published a chumash in 1712 with similar Haftaros for these parshiyos to the Venice chumashim, but in another chumash, the 1734 edition, in the Haftara for Vayetze before 12:14 it is written כאן מתחילין האשכנזים פרשת ויצא while for Vayishlach, Ovadia is listed as the Haftara for Sephardim, with no mention of the Ashkenazi practice at all. It is likely that the publisher, who published a Shulchan Aruch with Magen Avraham,[33] was aware of the comment there concerning the mistake in the chumashim about the Haftara of Vayetze, but someone along the line did not realize the ramifications of this and just left Ovadia as the Haftara for Sephardim alone.

The 1754 Proops chumash cited the Venteian Haftaros, possibly as the best method to correct the error of the earlier chumash omitting an Ashekenzi Haftara for Vayishlach. But in the chumash they published in 1762, the following appears before the Haftara for Vayetze, Hoshea 11:7:

והמנהג הנכון לאשכנזים להפטרת ויצא ויברח יעקב וכן כתוב באחרונים

Before Hoshea 12:14 the following appears:

כאן מתחילים האשכנזים הפטרת וישלח, והמנהג הנכון לאשכנזי’ זהו הפטר’ ויצא ועמי תלואים שייך להפטר’ וישלח

It seems that the so-called “achraronim” mentioned here are the Be’er Yitzchak and the Noheg Katzon Yosef.

These Haftaros appear in later Proops chumashim in 1767 and 1797, as well as in another Amsterdam chumash, published in 1817 by a doctor named Yochanan Levi.

Other chumashim of the period continue to cite the Haftaros as they were listed in the Venice chumashim.[34]

Rabbi Shlomo Ashkenazi Rappaport of Chelm, in his Shulchan Atzei Shitim, wrote that the Haftara for Vayetze is Hoshea 12:14, and the Haftara for Vayishlach is from Ovadia, and in his Zer Zahav commentary he wrote:[35]

ויברח יעקב – ודלא כמו שנרשם בחומשים בטעות ויברח יעקב לפרשת וישלח דשייך לפ’ ויצא (ס’ תכ”ח)

This is clearly based on Magen Avraham.[36] It seems that his opinion concerning the Hafatros was not accepted in his day.[37]

Eighteenth-century Amsterdam was major center of Hebrew printing, and Proops was quite famous in terms of print quality, and in particular for using new methods for marketing their books.[38] Books from there were shipped to Danzig, from where they made their way into Eastern Europe. [39] Proops’ books were very popular there, which enabled them to raise the necessary funds to print a new edition of the Talmud Bavli[40] Rabbi Avraham Danziger, having grown up in the city, would have likely been exposed to the many sefarim published by Proops, and it is likely that he had their chumashim. The first edition of his Chayei Adam was published anonymously in 1810, and the matter of these Haftaros is not raised there, but in the second edition, published in the author’s lifetime in 1819, is it written:

מה שכ’ בחמשים הפטרת וישלח ויברח יעקב הוא טעות אלא בויצא מפטירין מן ויברח עד ויכשלו בם ובוישלח מפטירין מן ועמי תלואים וגם מקצת ויברח יעקב עד ומושיע אין בלתי (תכ”ח):

What was the source for this statement of the Chayei Adam? It does not seem likely that it is Noheg Katson Yosef, as that book had been published only once, a century earlier.[41] It is also not likely to be the Be’er Yitzchok, which was published in faraway Offenbach. It seems reasonable that he was exposed both to the Proops chumashim (or others with those Haftaros), as well as other chumashim with the Venetian Haftaros, which he saw as mistaken, and when he referred to “what is written in the chumashim,” he did not mean all of them.

The publishers of this of this edition, Menachem Mann and Zimmel, published a chumash for Ashkenazim in 1820 with Hoshea 14:12 as the Haftara for Vayetze and 11:7 for Vayishlach, likely following what was the ruling of the Chayei Adam at the time.

The next edition of the Chayei Adam was published in 1825, several years after the author’s death. As it had the same publisher, it seems unlikely that any changes were made by anyone but him. It is written there:

מה שכ’ בחומשים הפטרת וישלח ויברח יעקב הוא טעות אלא בויצא מפטירין מן ויברח עד סוף הושע (ואח”כ פסוקים מיואל ואכלתם אכול וכו’ וידעתם וכו’ ג”כ מטעם לסיים בטוב( ובוישלח מפטירין מן ועמי תלואים וגם מקצת ויברח יעקב עד ומושיע אין בלתי ועפ”י הגר”א נוהגין להפטיר בפ’ וישלח וישלח חזון עובדי’ (תכ”ח)

We see two changes here.

• That two verses from Yoel should be added in to the Haftara for Vayetze (which he already pointed out in the previous edition is Hoshea 12:14) which otherwise ends with the mention of sinners stumbling.[42] Evidently, earlier authorities did not think it necessary to avoid such an ending. This is cited by the Mishna Berura,[43] but is not written in any chumashim published before the Holocaust.

• He mentions that the Vilna Gaon ruled that we read Ovadia as the Haftara for Vayishlach, and those who follow him do so. The author of the Chayei Adam was related to the Vilna Gaon by marriage, and prayed with him in the Vilna Gaon’s Kloyz.

These additions were printed in later editions of the book.[44]

During the same year, 1819, Rabbi Efraim Margolies published the Sha’arei Efraim,⁴⁵ which sounded similar to what was written in the Chayei Adam published in that same year:[46]

מה שנרשם במקצת חומשים הפטורת ויברח יעקב לפ’ וישלח הוא ט”ס, כי הוא שייך לפ’ ויצא, והפטורת וישלח בהושע ועמי תלואים למשובתי

It is unlikely that he saw the edition of the Chayei Adam that had been published just a few months beforehand. The fact that he writes that reading Hoshea 12:14 as the Haftara for Vayishlach is a mistake that appears in some chumashim indicates that he saw other chumashim with the Haftaros in what he considered the correct order, and is likely agreeing with them.

In the first edition of Shulchan Hakriah and Misgeres Hachulchan by R’ Dov Reifman, published in 1864, the opinion of the Sha’arei Efraim is cited,[47]  but in the second edition[48] it is not.

Later, the above-mentioned publisher of the Chayei Adam, Menachem Mann, changed his name to Romm and began publishing many books in Vilna, including the famous Shas Bavli. The chumashim published there had Hoshea 14:12 as the Haftara for Vayetze, and soon other publishing houses followed suit. Romm themselves continued to follow this approach,[49] even though luchos for Vilna printed in 1826[50] and 1839[51] had Ovadia as the Haftara for Vayishlach. It seems likely that in Vilna itself the publication of the Vilna Gaon’s practice in the Chayei Adam had an immediate effect.[52] Romm published the Toras Elokim chumash in 1874,[53] continuing to list Hoshea 11:7 as the Ashkenazi Haftara for Vayishlach, yet the following note was inserted before the Haftara:

הפטרה זו וגם הפטרת ויברח יעקב היא הפטרת ויצא לספרדים מפני שהם בנביא אחד אבל האשכנזים מפטירין בויצא רק ויברח יעקב ובוישלח חזון עובדיה כמבואר ברמב”ם ובלבוש

It is not clear what it means that both Haftaros are read by Sephardim for Vayetze, and it is rather strange that Hoshea 11:7 is listed for the Ashkenazi Haftara for Vayishlach with instructions that Ashkenazim actually read from Ovadia. Before the Haftara from Ovadia the following appears:

הגם שנמצא בחומשים כתוב שהיא הפטרה רק לספרדים אך מבואר ברמב”ם ובלבוש שהיא הפטרת וישלח בין לספרדים בין לאשכנזים

These instructions appeared in the Mikraos Gedolos chumash they published in 1880, and others used these rather strange instructions as well.[54]

The Mikraos Gedolos chumash published by Kadishson in Piotrkow had the Haftara from Hoshea 11:7 without any instructions, but wrote the following before the Haftara from Ovadia:

“כ”ה דעת הלבוש וראה עוד לזה ג”כ בסי’ תרפ”ד… הפטרת שבת א’ של חנוכה …

The Levush here explains that the reason why Zecharia is the Haftara on the first Sabbath of Chanuka while the fashioning of the menoras in Melachim in read on Chanuka only in the event that there is a second Sabbath is that that a Haftara discussing the future redemption is preferred, and the editor here felt the same applies to preferring Ovadia over Hoshea for parashas Vayishlach. The same instructions appear in the Romm Mikraos Gedolos printed in 1904.

Another Romm Chumash from 1898 had Ovadia as the Haftara for Sephardim only and Hoshea 11:7 for Ashkenazim. This chumash was reprinted in 1938, but that chumash was just a copy of one that was printed in Zhitomer in 1867, which is to this day viewed as the standard “shul chumash.”

The Chayei Adam as printed in 1825 edition onward is cited by the Mishna Berura.[55] It seems that by then many communities were reading Ovadia for Vayishlach.

The practice of returning to the original Ashkenazi Haftara was not limited to Vilna and its environs. Shortly after the publication of Sha’arei Efraim, we find many communities in what became the Austro-Hungarian empire (where Rabbi Efraim was from) who read Ovadia for Vayishlach. This includes Vienna,[56] Tarnow,[57] Pressburg[58] Erlau,[59] and Eperjes.[60] But the practice in Gálszécs[61] was to read Hoshea 11:7 for Vayishlach. This was the practice in Warsaw in Russian Poland as well, according to the luach from there in 1889. By contrast, in Przeworsk[62] they still maintained the Haftaros, based on the Venice chumashim, Hoshea 11:7 for Vayetze and 12:13 for Vayishlach.

Cities that retained the original Ashkenazi practice throughout

It is impossible to know the effect of printed chumashim in various eras on every local practice, but it is clear that there were communities that simply ignored them and continued the old practice from before the era of printing. We have already seen that that was the case in Frankfurt. This was the practice in Worms as well, as seen in “Minhagei K”K Vermeiza” by Rabbi Yosefa Shamash, circa 1648.[63]

Concerning Mainz, in “Minhagei K”K BeSeder HaTefilla Unuschoseha” in the Sefas Emes siddur printed in 1862,[64] Hoshea 12:14 is the Haftara for Vayetze. Although this is a late source, it seems to reflect a very early practice and only Haftaros that are not universal in Ashkenaz[65] are written there, which is why it does not mention the Haftara for Vayishlach, which by then was standard in Ashkenaz.

Concerning Prague (Bohemia), as mentioned earlier, chumashim there retained the original Haftaros of Hosea 13:12 for Vayetze and Ovadia for Vayishlach after they ceased to be printed as the Haftaros elsewhere. One chumash printed there 1697 does not, but it states explicitly that the Hafatros are as they are printed in Amsterdam. In Mendelsohn’s Biur, printed in 1836, the following is written:

‘מנהג פראג ויברח יעקב – והיא הפטרת וישלח כמנהג האשכנזים, ויש מתחילים אותה בהושע י”א פסוק ז

The verses between Hoshea 11:7-12:13 are printed in small letters, indicating they are generally not meant to be read by the intended audience. In a chumash printed in 1893, Ovadia and Hoshea 11:7 appear as Haftaros for Vayishlach, with these instructions before the former:

כמנהג האשכנזים רק בפראג ובמדינת בעהמען מפטירין חזון עובדיה

Before the Haftara from Ovadia the following appears:

כמנהג הספרדים פראג ומדינת בעהמען

In a chumash printed in Budapest in 1898 it is mentioned as a practice of Prague; not as one of all of Bohemia.

Just like there are different sources whether the original Haftaros were maintained in Prague alone or in all of Bohemia, there is a similar matter with regard to Frankfurt. In the chumash printed in Roedelheim in 1818 the Haftara for Vayetze is Hoshea 11:7. The note there states:

בק”ק פפד”מ ורוב אשכנז מפטירין בפ’ ויצא ויברח יעקב ואינם אומרים כלל ועמי תלואים

And for Vayishlach, where the Ashkenazi Haftara is listed as Hoshea 12:14, it is written:

כאן מתחילין האשכנזים הפטרת וישלח אבל בק”ק פפד”ם ורוב אשכנז מפטירין בפ’ וישלח חזון עובדיה דלקמן

The same appears in the 1854 chumash published there, as well as all subsequent printings, including the edition this chumash published in Basel in 1964.[66] The same notes appear in a chumash printed in Konigsberg[67] in 1851 and Vienna in 1864. A chumash printed in Furth in 1901 had Hoshea 11:7 as the Ashkenazi Haftara for Vayishlach, but mentioned that the practice in Frankfurt was to read from Ovadia.

Here there is evidence that the retaining of the original Haftaros spread beyond Frankfurt, as it was the practice in the old communities of Mainz and Worms.

Another community that appeared to have retained the old practice throughout is Posen, from which there is a Pinkas[68] with unique practices and carefully retained customs.

The original practice returned, as it was mentioned in sources and chumashim in the 19th century. It was in the luchos in the Austrio-Hungarian empire mentioned before and it was the practice in Chernowitz as of 1868. Later it was mentioned in the all of the luchos in Eretz Yisrael69] and in that of Ezras Torah in the United States, causing (or reflecting) that the old/new Haftaros became the standard practice for Ashkenazim.

The reacceptance of the two original Haftaros was and is not universal. The Beis Medrash Hayashan in Berlin read Hoshea 11:7 for Vayishlach until its bitter end,[70] while the practice of Kehal Adas Yisrael there was to read Ovadia.[71] The United Synagogue communities in the United Kingdom[72] (and some synagogues in some other Commonwealth countries) still read Hoshea, as it is listed as the Ashkenazi Haftara in the Hertz Chumash.[73] The Chabad[74] practice is similar to the Sephardi practice, and Amsterdam Ashkenazim read Hoshea 11:7 for Vayetze.

Adding verses from Yoel

The Chayei Adam cited this idea, which is then cited by the Mishna Berura. Two other options are mentioned in order to finish with a positive matter. One is to finish the Haftara earlier, at 14:7, and another is to add from Micha 7:18-20.[75]

Luach Eretz Yisrael of Rav Yechiel Michel Tucazinsky cites the practice of adding the two verses from Yoel. Lately, this practice has been cited by the Ezras Torah Luach in the United States.[76] Nonetheless, out of all of the chumashim that list the Haftara from Hoshea 12:13 for either Vayetze or Vayishlach, none mentioned this practice until the Koren Chumash of 1963, which cited that there are those who add the verses, and so is written in subsequent editions until today. By contrast, there are other Israeli chumashim that do not cite this practice.

The first edition of the popular English Stone Chumash, published by ArtScroll in 1993, did not cite this practice, but from the second edition onward the verses from Yoel are there, along with instructions in English that there are those who add them.

Summary

In the pre-printing era most Ashkenazi communities read Hoshea 12:14 for Vayetze and everyone read Ovadia for Vayishlach. This changed due to a mistake in the Venice chumash of 1517, after which most chumashim listed Hoshea 12:14 as the Ashkenazi Haftara for Vayishlach and Hoshea 11:7 for Vayetze. Magen Avraham noted this error, but mentioned only the correct Haftara for Vayetze, leading Noheg Katzon Yosef, Amsterdam chumashim, and after them the Chayei Adam and Sha’arei Efraim, to claim that Hoshea 11:7 is the Ashkenazi Haftara for Vayishlach. As time passed, and possibly due to the influence of the Vilna Gaon, the practice reverted to what it originally had been, to read Ovadia for the Haftara of Vayishlach.

[1] The topic of this article is the development of the Ashkenazic practices regarding these Haftaros. Any mention of other practices is just an aside. I would like to thank R’ Avraham Grossman for editing the original Hebrew and my brother R’ Yehoshua Duker for editing the English translation. I would also like to thank Dr. Gabriel Wasserman, R’ Dr. Eliezer Brodt, R’ Elli Fischer, R’ Mordechai Weintraub, my uncle Dr. Joel Fishman, and the staff of the National Library of Israel for their assistance and input.
[2] Goldshmidt Ed. Vo. 2. Krios Vahaftaros, p. 589
[3] Hilchos Krias Hatorah Ch. 4. P. 53.
[4] Keren Re’em edition, Vol. 3 29:23 (p. 29).
[5] Albeck edition, Hilchos Krias Hatorah p. 181.
[6] The Yotserot of R. Samuel the Third, Vo. 1 227-229
[7] Piyutei R Yehuda BiRabbi Binyamin (Elitzur ed.) pp. 113-114.
[8] See Fried, “Haftarot Alternativiot Befiyuttei Yanai Ush’ar Paytanim Kedumim” Sinai 2. He states one of my main claims there; i.e., that the change of the Haftara began at the onset of the printing era, but he does not mention specifics.
[9] Cambridge T-S A-S10241, B14.22, B14.88, B14.95, B15.5, B16.21, B20.2 B20.4 20.14 Cambridge Lewis-Gibson MISC 25.53.16.
[10] See list by Y. Ofer https://faculty.biu.ac.il/~ofery/papers/haftarot3.pdf
[11] T-S AS19.241, B20.2, 4,14, B14.62c, 125, B15.5
[12]  T-S B15.2, B20.2, 4.
[13] T-S B16.21
[14] Pp. 107-108
[15]  ibid.
[16] ibid.
[17] pp.214-215
[18] See Ofer
[19] Ms. Par. 2168.
[20] Ms. Lon Bl Add. 9408, Kennecott 3 (the last 3 verses are not vowelized),
[21] Hahogas Beis Haknesses DK”K Amsterdam, Proops ed. p. 519 , and Machon Yerushalayim ed. p. 221. It is not clear whether or not the Ashkenazim, who established their community there in 1632, adopted the practice of the Sephardim who had arrived in the city a half century earlier, or whether they had another Ashkenazi source. Concerning Ashkenazi Amsterdam practices in general, see the introduction to the Machon Yerushalayim edition pp 41-42.
[22] Concerning Pratensis and the publication of the chumash in general, see, Penkower, J.  “Mahadurat HaTanach Harishona Bomberg Laor V’Reishit Beit Defuso,” Kiryat Sefer, 1983 pp. 586-604.
[23] Meginei Eretz edition, Dyhernfurth (today Brzeg Dolny), Shabtai Meshorer pub.
[24]  This is the case in the chumashim published by Levy, H. in 1735, Atias J. in 1700, and Antonis A. in 1719, all in Amsterdam, as well as the di Foc. Florence, 1755.
[25] 179:2 pp. 239-240 Machon Shlomo Auman ed.,
[26] שמר in the original.
[27] שמר in the original.
[28]  p. 240
[29] Concerning the errors in the book see the introduction to this edition pp. 17-19, as well as Shorshei Minhag Ashknenaz, Hamburger R.B. vol. 2, pp. 250-251.
[30] Printed in same edition of Noheg Katzon Yosef, p. 441. Besides the chumashim (discussed later on) that discuss the Frankfurt practices, similar to what is cited in the Tzon Nachalos, this practice is also mentioned in Frankfurt by Divrei Kehillos, Geiger, R SZ, p. 369, but this source is later, as it is from 1864.
[31] Halacha 16.
[32] The book has Hoshea 12:13 as its Haftara for Vayetze. He lists Hoshea 11:7 as the Haftara for Vayishlach, followed by Ovadia under the headline “יש מפטרין הפטרה זו”. In a Haftara book with Mendelssohn’s bi’ur published by Shmidt A., in Vienna in 1818, all of the halachos mentioned in the Be’er Yitzhak were quoted, with the exception of the one with regard to Vayetze-Vayishlach. It is possible that the publisher was aware of the error here and did not want to insert it. Moreover, in the luach published by Shmidt for Vienna in 1805, he listed Hoshea 12:13 as the Haftara for Vayetze and Ovadia for the Haftara of Vayishlach, and it could be that he did not want to give the impression that the dominant practice is different from what he wrote there. The guidelines from Be’er Yitzchok, with the omission of this one, were also printed in chumashim published in Feurth by Tzendarf, D. in 1801, and another in Livorno by Prizek, A. in 1809.
[33] Published in 1720.
[34] Salzbach (1802, 1820), Livorno, 1795. Paris 1809.
[35] Siman 6:6:1.
[36] Magen Avraham was added as the source in the Krauss edition of 2013.
[37] See introduction to Krauss edit. p. 6.
[38] See “Hebrew Printing” by Fuks, L. Translated from Dutch in “European Judaism” 5:2 (summer 1971).
[39] See “Hebrew Book Trade in Amsterdam” Fuks-Mansfeld R. G. in Le Magasin de l’univers: the Dutch Republic as the centre of the European book trade: papers presented at the international colloquium, held at Wassenaar, 5-7 July 1990 / edited by C. Berkvens-Stevelinck [et al.].
[40] See Fuchs ibid.
[41] See Auman edition. Intro. p. 16.
[42] This matter is discussed at length in Zera Yaakov, Zaleznik, R.S.Z. S. 138
[43] 28:22
[44] Menachem Mann and Ziml ed. Vilna, 1829, and 1839. Huffer ed. Zhovkva 1837, Wachs Jósefów, 1839. Menachem Mann and Ziml ed. Vilna, 1839. Shklover ed. Warsaw, 1840.
[45] Published in Dubno.
[46] 9:18.
[47] S. 25 at the end
[48] Berlin, 1882.
[49] This is the case in the Mendelssohn Biur they published between 1848-1853, Tikkun Soferim in 1860, and again in 1864.
[50] Publisher unknown.
[51] Published by Menachem and Simcha Zisl, sons of R’ Boruch.
[52] Later luchos from Vilna listed Ovadia as the Haftara for Vayishlach. I was unable to read what it said for Vayetze on the 1880 copy I saw. No Haftara was listed in the 1890 edition, as only Haftaros that had alternative practices were mentioned, and Hoshea 12:13 for Vayetze had become quite widespread among Ashkenazim by them, leaving no need to mention it.
[53] There was an earlier version in 1872 but I have not been able to locate it.
[54] This includes chumashim published in Vilna by Rosenkrantz in 1893 and Metz in 1913, and a chumash published in New York by the Jewish Morning Journal (דער מארגען זשורנאל) in 1914.
[55] Ibid.
[56]  Luach in 1879
[57]  Found in luchos printed there annually through 1887-1890, as well as in 1894 in Vienna by Sturm, D. Luchos are the source for the other practices listed here as well.
[58] Now Bratislava from 1870, 1892, 1893, and 1894. Printed in Vienna by Elinger, M.
[59] Eger in Hungarian  1889.  Printed in Vienna by Engalder.
[60] Today Presov  1887. Printed in Vienna by Ster, D.
[61] Pronounced “Gossach”, the ancestral home of my wife’s family. Today it is called Sečovce. 1888. Printed in Vienna.
[62]  1888. This appears to be the last time there is a record of the Haftaros being read that resulted from the misprinting in the Venice chumashim.
[63]  Machon Yerushayaim ed. Vol II. p. 195.
[64] p. 12
[65] Ashkenaz here refers to western Germany.
[66]  These instructions are found in Haphtoroth / translated & explained by Mendel Hirsch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy. London, 1966. I believe this is the last time they were given.
[67] Now Kaliningrad
[68] See Pinkas Beis Hakneses DK”K Posna, Mirsky S.K. in Brocho l’Menachem: essays contributed in honor of Menachem H. Eichenstein, rabbi of the Vaad Hoeir, United Orthodox Jewish community, St. Louis, Missouri  published by the Vaad Hoeir, United Orthodox Jewish community, 1956. What is written there, that the Haftara for Vayetze is “VVayivrach Yaakov” from S. 11 is clearly a mistake in the numbering.
[69] 1947 onward.
[70] Minhagei Beis Medrash Hayashan DK”k Berlin, 1937.
[71] Minhagei Beis Hakanesses D’Khal Adas Yisrael, Berlin 1938.
[72] Heard orally from Henry Ehreich of London, as well as on the website of the Muswill Hill Synagogue. https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=kZzoTE7ZiRKq7OeCnFVtgCP2qaUuqJtpwP27

A chumash was published by Valentine in the U.K. in 1868 with an English translation that had Ovadia as the main Haftara for Vayishlach, qualifying that some communities read Hoshea 11:7.
[73] First Edition, published in 1929 in both London and New York.
[74] p. XIII, Sefer Haftaros Lifi Minhag Chabad, Kehot, New York.
[75] In “Luach Halalachos Vihamingim LChu”L Lishnas 5779 (Weingarten edition) these practices were cited from Luach Vilna. In R. Tucazinsky’s luach he recommends that those communities that read the Haftara from a scroll that has the entire text of “Trei Asar” refrain from reading from Micha, as it is a violation of the principle not to skip to somewhere when it takes more to time to roll the scroll then for a translator to complete translating the previous verse.
[76] Nothing about this appears in the luach for 1995 and this does appears in 2000 onward.  I was unable to obtain the luchos in the interim. In 2005 it is written “כתוב בחיי אדם” and nothing else, most likely a printer’s error.

Your mundane affairs are forbidden on it [Shabbat] and also to calculate accounts; Reflections are permitted and to arrange matches for maidens; To arrange for a child to be taught Scripture, to sing a song of praise.

Here is the letter of R. Mazuz that appears at the end of the volume.

It seems to me that R’ Moshe must hold that the prohibition on Kol Isha depends on whether a person is used to hearing women sing. R’ Moshe holds like the Aruch Hashulchan that nowadays one can say Shema in front of a woman with uncovered hair because the reality is that we are constantly confronted with such hair and therefore it is no longer arousing. For this to make sense we need to understand the Gemara in Berachos when it says “sear b’isha erva” to mean that hair could be ervah, meaning I would have thought that ervah by definition could only refer to parts of her body, ka mashma lan that hair despite not being skin can be ervah. However it won’t actually be ervah unless it is normally covered. Since the language of the Gemara is exactly the same (as is the source) it follows that the gemara means that Kol Isha could be ervah despite not physically being attached to the body at all. However, just as R’Moshe says that our constant exposure to uncovered hair makes sear no longer be ervah, the same logic dictates that if someone has been listening to women sing all his life kol isha will not be ervah. Arguably it can also be situational so that if someone has been going to the opera all his life such singing will not be kol isha, but pop music will be. It seems to me that this heter should apply to almost all Modern Orthodox men. This would explain how Rabbi Tendler could say that R’ Moshe held that the prohibition is situational despite R’ Moshe’s tshuva apparently holding it is forbidden. It depends on who is asking the question and the time, place and manner of the singing.