Can A Segulah Free an Agunah? Jewish Beliefs and Practices for Locating a Drowned Body

Can a Segulah Free an Agunah? Jewish Beliefs and Practices for Locating a Drowned Body

By Bency Eichorn

Bency Eichorn learns in kollel and, on the side, has been researching about various segulos. For his wedding he authored a book, Simchas Zion, discussing the segulah of keeping the afikomom from year-to-year. The post below is a small part of a much larger project on this segulah and has been adapted for the blog.

In light of the recent drowning of Los Angeles’s Naftoli Smolyansky A”H, much discussion has ensued about the segulah performed to recover his body. This same segulah, which involves floating a loaf of bread and candle in the water to locate the missing corpse, last year when Toronto Rabbonim considered performing it in order to locate the missing body of Eli Horowitz A”H, who had drowned the previous year. There is much skeptism regarding this segulah, some consider it witchcraft and claim that it has no basis in Judaism, deriving instead from non-Jewish sources. In this article, I will outline the development of similar segulot used throughout the ages and discuss how these methods were practiced by Jews and non-Jews alike. As my research on this topic is ongoing, I do not attempt to draw conclusions, but rather I hope to draw attention to primary and little-noted sources for these segulot. In effect, this will indicate how wide-spread these segulot were, specifically among Jews. This will suggest that their origins extend further than the tale recounted in Twain’s Hucklebery Finn and can be traced to early Jewish sources.

The Floating Wooden Dish

Among the segulot noted in Jewish sources used to locate a missing drowned body, is a practice involving taking a wooden dish and floating it in the water above the general area where the body went missing. According to the tradition surrounding this segulah, the dish will float to the spot where the body lies and then stop. The first and earliest source for this segulah that I could presently locate is from the year 1618 in a well known sefer minhagim written by R’ Yosef Yuzpa Han Norlingen [1]. He writes, that “I have a tradition of a segulah to locate a body that drowned; and this is the correct way it should be performed: Take a wooden dish [ke’oh’rah],[2] place it on the water to float by itself, until it rests on the spot where the body is lying.” The work continues with an anecdote about a certain man named Meir, who drowned in Lake Pidikof and whose body was found using this particular segulah. Interestingly, the passages closes with the note “that if this segulah really works, it could have amazing implications, for it could help women who would otherwise have to be agunot for the rest of their lives.”

The procedure for this segulah is rather straightforward; all that must be done is to place a dish on the water and it will float to the drowned body. This segulah seems to have been quite popular as it is mentioned in many seforim, particularly sifrei segulah such as the Noheg Ketzon Yosef (grandson of R’ Yosef Yuzpa Han Norlingen),[3] the Taamai Haminhagim,[4] Refuah Vechaim,[5] Rafael Hamalach,[6] Hoach Nafshainu,[7] Mareh Hayeladim,[8] Yosef Shaul,[9] and the Segulas Yisroel.[10]

This amazing segulah is the earliest Jewish method noted as having been used to locate a drowned body and seems to be an exclusively Jewish practice. A search of a number of non-Jewish sources, works of history, superstition, and mythology, has not brought to light an instance of this particular practice of locating a drowned body. Thus to my knowledge, it does not seem to have ever been used by a non-Jew.[11]

The Floating Loaf of Bread

The second segulah attested to in the Jewish sources as being used to locate a drowned body is to float a loaf of bread instead of a bowl. Similar to the previous method it is believed that when the bread is left alone in the water it would float to the location of the body.

The earliest source for this segulah that I have found thus far can be traced to the year 1734 by Rabbi Dovid Tebal Ben Yaakov Ashkenazi.[12] He writes, “to locate one that drowned, throw a loaf of bread into the water [where he drowned] and the place where the bread stops [sholet] that is where the body is located.”

This segulah is later recorded in Over Orach, a sefer of segulot, teffilot and halachot regarding traveling. In his discussion of general segulot, the author writes “[i]f one drowned, a segulah to find the body is to take a loaf of bread and throw it in the area of water where the person drowned, and the bread will float to the location of the drowned body.” He finishes his description of the segulah by testifying that, “[t]his segulah has been performed in the past and it is known that it produced positive results”[13].

A similar practice of using bread to locate a drowned body is recorded in a Yizkor book for the community of Mlawa, a shtetl in pre-World War II Poland. In this book, under the subject of communal beliefs in segulot, the following is recorded, “if someone drowned while bathing, people would come there [to the place he or she drowned] with long iron poles, to search for the body. To aid in their search, they would throw a loaf of bread, on top of which was a burning candle, into the pool next to the brick factory.[14] ” I found this belief, of using bread to locate a drowned body, recorded in a number of sifrei segulot, including, the Hoach Nafshainu,[15] Mareh Hayeladim,[16] Rafael Hamalach,[17] Yosef Shaul,[18] and the Segulas Yisroel.[19]

Thus, in the Jewish sources this method of locating drowned bodies is evidenced in a few but reputable sources. In contrast, it is mentioned in many non-Jewish sources. As early as 1586 we find that Thomas Hill mentions this practice as he records “[t]o find a drowned person…take a white loaf, and cast the same into the water, neer ye suspected place, and it will forth-with go directly over the dead body, and there abide.[20] Not long after in the year 1664, Oliver Heywood records an instance in which this practice was actually used to help find a missing corpse.[21]

Alternative Versions of the Floating Bread

As time went on, the method used by non-Jews seems to have changed. As early as the year 1767, the belief developed that a loaf of bread was not enough, but that the loaf of bread should be filled with quicksilver and only then should it be set afloat on the water. Sylvanus Urban, in The Gentleman’s Magazine, describes this change in a testimony. He writes that in Newbury, Berkshire, “After diligent search had been made in the river …a two penny loaf, with a quantity of quicksilver put into it, was set floating from the place where the child, it was supposed, had fallen in, which steered its course down the river upwards of a half a mile… when the body happening to lay on the contrary side of the river, the loaf suddenly tacked about … and gradually sank near the child.”[22] This loaded loaf was called by many ‘a St. Nicholas’[23] and its occasional effectiveness was attributed by the cynical to eddies in the water.

This method was practiced and recorded many times over in the non-Jewish sources. Occasionally, it was even recorded that it worked. However, on most occasions, this practice yielded no positive results. Recorded testimonies of this method in the non-Jewish sources include the years 1849 [24], 1878 [25], 1879 [26], 1884 [27], 1885 [28], 1891 [29], 1921,[30] [31]and 1925.[32] There are many more recordings of this procedure, but the above sources should suffice to indicate the widespread belief in the efficacy of the practice.[33]. Indeed, according to scholars of Mark Twain, the belief that quicksilver, or mercury, would make bread float to a point over a submerged body was widely held in Britain.. This particular version of the method to locate drowned bodies was apparently based on an purported etymological connection concerning the biblical ”bread of life” and ”quick” or ”living” silver, so called because of the flowing form of mercury.[34]

The method of using bread with a candle on top of it, as recorded above as a practice of the Jews of Mlawa, is recorded in non-Jewish sources as well. However in the non-Jewish sources it is supplemented with the addition of quicksilver. The first record of this practice is in the year 1886, written by Henderson. He writes, “A loaf weighted with quicksilver, if allowed to float on the water, is said to swim towards and stand over, the body; when a boy, I have seen persons endeavoring to discover the corpse of the drowned in this manner in the River Wear…and ten years ago, the friends of Christopher Lumley sought for his body…by the aid of a loaf of bread with a lighted candle in it”[35]. Again, in the year 1891, in the Journal of Science,[36] it is written, “[i]n Brittany, when the body of a drowned man cannot be found, a lighted taper is fixed in a loaf of bread, which is then abandoned to the retreating current. When the loaf stops, there it is supposed to the body will be recovered.[37] The lit candle was referred by some, as just being a way to mark the course of the floating loaf at night.[38]

However, in Belgium, they would merely float a lit candle accompanied by the reading of a formula.[39] Indeed, already in 1578, Bornenisza recorded that a candle alone was used to locate the drowned. He writes, “[i]n Hungary if somebody drowns, a lighted wax candle is placed in a dish and where the flame goes out, there the drowned man lies.”[40] This may indicate that the method recorded above of a loaf of bread together with a candle on it, was a corruption of the method to use just a candle. It is interesting to note that the record in the Jewish sources of using the method of a candle is from the people of Mlawa, if so more research is needed to ascertain whether this method originated with Jews. In any event, the method of using a candle alone can be viewed as separate, third, method of locating a missing, drowned body.

The Use of an Amulet to Locate Missing Bodies

A fourth method used by Jews to locate a missing drowned body involves floating an amulet. R’ Yonathan Eibeshutz, remembered by Jews today as an eminent Talmudist, distributed many such amulets. He issued them in Metz, where he was Rabbi, and later in Hamburg, Altona, and Wandsbeck, where he later served as chief Rabbi.

During this time R’ Eibeshutz, together with a number of other Rabbis, was condemned by R’ Yaakov Emden as being a follower of Shabtai Tzvi and his Messianic cult. This led to the famous controversy between these two great Rabbis. One of the complaints of R’ Emden was R’Eibeshutz’s writing and distributing of amulets. Among the many amulets, one was shaped like a written parchment and was used to find the missing body of one who had drowned.[41]

In a treatise written by R’ Emden against R’ Eybeshutz’s amulets, which he named Sfas Emes,[42] he mentions the amulet that R’ Eybeshutz supposedly wrote to find a missing, drowned body.

Interestingly, a similar usage of amulets is found in the non-Jewish sources as well. In a correspondence of Notes and Queries, it is recorded how a corpse in Ireland was discovered by means of a wisp of straw around which was tied a strip of parchment, inscribed with certain kabalistic characters written by a parish priest.[43] – [44]

Aside from the practices that bear a similarity to those evidenced in Jewish sources, many additional methods for locating drowned bodies are attested to in the non-Jewish records. Among such non-Jewish practices for locating a drowned body, one that is akin to the previously mentioned methods, includes placing a shirt of the person who drowned in the water so that it will float to the spot of the missing body.[45] It was also believed that straw or a bundle of straw should be floated on the water so that it would float to the spot of the body.[46] Some people have thrown in a lamb (or goat) in an attempt to locate a missing body.[47] A curious custom, practiced in Norway, is to row to and fro with a rooster in a boat, expecting that the bird will crow when the boat reaches the spot where the corpse lies in the water.[48] Certain Native American tribes would float chips of wood, while other groups would float wooden cricket bats or wooden bowls.[49] The effectiveness of the method of floating bread or any other item in the water to find a sunken corpse was attributed by many to natural and simple causes. In all running streams there are deep pools formed by eddies, in which drowned bodies would likely be caught. Any light substance thrown into the current would consequently be drawn to that part of the surface over the centre of the eddy hole.[50]

Another interesting method involves the use of drums. People searching for a drowned body would row down the river slowly beating on a big drum and according to the belief, if they came to the part of the river in which the dead body was immersed, a difference in the sound of the drum would be distinctly noticed.[51]

Another non-Jewish practice is related in one of the classics of American literature, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, which was published in the year 1884. The novel relates the story of a of a young boy from St. Petersburg, Missouri (a thinly veiled cover for Hannibal, Missouri, where Twain spent most of his youth) who tries to run away from civilization with an escaped slave named Jim. The book paints a picture of the pre-Civil War South through the dialects and habits of the characters, through their adventures and misadventures, and through their attitudes and the way their attitudes change during the story. One of those attitudes is the inclination to superstition.

In one of the most humorous episodes, Huck has run away from being ‘civilized’ by Miss Watson, his foster aunt, and is hiding on an island. He has covered his tracks with the blood of a pig, so that it looks as if he has been murdered:

“Well, I was dozing off again, when I thinks I hear a deep sound of “boom!” away up the river. I rouses up and rests on my elbow and listens; pretty soon I hear it again,. I hopped up and went and looked out a hole in the leaves, and I see a bunch of smoke laying on the water a long ways up- about the area of the ferry, and there was the ferry boat, full of people, floating along down. I know what was the matter now. “Boom,” I see the white smoke squirt out of the ferry-boat’s side. You see, they was firing cannon over the water, trying to make my carcass come to the top.”

Shortly after the canon firing, “Huck happened to think how they always put quicksilver in loaves of bread and float them off because they always go right to the drowned carcass and stop there.”

I have discussed earlier the latter belief of using bread with quicksilver to locate a missing drowned body. As Twain writes in the preface to Tom Sawyer, “[t]he odd superstitions touched upon were all prevalent among children and slaves in the West at the period of this story.”[52] The first method mentioned by Twain of using a canon was actually not only a belief he heard about, but something he experienced firsthand. In the annotated Huckleberry Finn, Hearn observes that once when he was thought to have drowned, young Mark Twain witnessed a similar scene as the townspeople of Hannibal fired cannons over the water to raise him to the surface. He recalled in a later letter on February 6, 1870, “I jumped over board from the ferryboat in the middle of the river that stormy day to get my hat, and swam two or three miles after it [and got it] while all the town collected on the wharf and for an hour or so, looked out across toward where people said Sam Clemens (Mark Twain) was last seen before he went down.”[53]

The method of shooting a canon to locate a drowned body is also recorded in Notes and Queries. “A few years ago when two men were drowned in the Lune, I believe the same experiment was tried [bread with quicksilver]. Guns also were fired over, and gunpowder was so contrived as to explode in the bottles containing it beneath the surface, but one of the bodies has never been found.”[54] In a second citation in Notes and Queries, it is written, “Heavy gun firing was in progress yesterday in the marshes, and there is a strange but widespread belief among the riverside residents that a cannon tends to bring the drowned to the surface.” [55]The superstition is also mentioned in Edgar Allen’s Poe’s 1842 story, Mystery of Marie Roget.[56]

A reason for the purported effectiveness of this method is offered in Radford’s Encyclopedia of Superstition,[57] where he describes a widespread British superstition that, “a gun fired over a corpse thought to be lying at the bottom of the sea or a river, will by concussion break the gall bladder, and thus cause the body to float.”

It seems Radford took the above fact for granted, for, scientifically, firing a canon over water is not likely to cause a gall bladder to burst. Even if it does rupture, it is strictly internal and there is no effect on the buoyancy since the body’s overall density remains unchanged. However, if the skin is broken and the bowels come loose, then the body’s density may increase due to water entering the body and air and other gasses escaping. This actually allows for a greater chance of the body sinking.[58] Accordingly, firing the cannon over the water would cause the opposite affect than what the superstition alleges. The only factor that could aid in the retrieval of the body that the firing of the cannon could cause a concussive effect which might jar loose a body snagged in weeds on the bottom of the water. So firing a canon might raise a body, although not for the reasons that the superstition gives.[59]

To returning to the Jewish sources, there seems to have been four different segulot used to locate a drowned body, each one involves floating an object in the water, either a wooden bowl, bread, a candle or an amulet. Each individual method seems to have once been a separate practice of its own. However in a number of instances the separate segulot are recorded as being performed together. It can be assumed that in these instances the person performing the segulah was aware of methods and combined them in the hopes of a more effective result.

There is limited testimony as to the effectiveness of these segulot; this may be due to the fact that they have rarely been subjected to controlled experimentation in the past. Like many segulot, they remain shrouded in mystery. The questions that remain are: From where did these segulot develop? Are all of them of early origin? Are they all solely of Jewish origin?

I would like to conclude this article, by stating that the world of Segulot and Kemi’ot [amulets] is very large and unexplored. Many of the seforim on this topic are rare and unavailable, while others remain in manuscript form. These seforim may have the missing pieces to the entire puzzle of the methods and sources of segulot. As material is continuously printed and made more available, my hope is the history of segulot will be made much more clear.[60]

[1] Rabbi Yosef Yuzpa Han Norlingen, Yosef Ometz, Jerusalem 1975 ed., pg. 352. Born in Frankfort 1570. It is probably correct to assume, the fact that the sefer was finished in 1618 [even though it was only first printed in 1648 see intro. Ibid.], and he was born in 1570, that this belief in this segulah was current before 1618 and certainly in the late 1500’s.

[2] The word used in the Yosef Ometz is ke’oh’rah, which can be translated as a dish or bowl. The word ke’oh’rah comes from the root kar which means sunk, compared to keeka’ah which means to engrave (etch inside). See The Kunkurdantzyah Dictionary to The Tanach by Dr. Shlomo Madelkarn, Jerusalem 1972, pg. 1035, ke’oh’rah. See also Marcus Jastrow, Dictionary of The Talmud, Jerusalem, pg. 1397, ke’oh’rah, therefore it would be correct to assume that ke’oh’rah is a dish, that is a slightly sunken in, like a bowl or even a plate that’s center is lower then it’s border.

[3] R’ Yosef Yuzpa Dashman Segal, Noheg Ketzon Yosef, Tel Aviv, 1979,pg. 122, s.v. “segulas.”

[4] R’ Avraham Yitzchok Sperling, Sefer Taamai Minhagim, Jerusalem 1957 ed. [f.p. Lvov 1894], pg. 569.

[5] R’ Chaim Palagi, Refuah Vechaim, Jerusalem 1997 ed. [f.p. Izmir 1879], pg, 141.

[6] R’ Yehudah Yudal Rosenberg, Rafael Hamalach, Jerusalem 198? ed. [f.p. Piotrkow 1911], pg. 41, s.v. “yedeyot.”

[7] R’ Avaraham Chamuoy, Hoach Nafshainu, Jerusalem 1981 ed., [f.p. Izmir 1870], pg. 185 s.v. “water.”

[8] R’ Rafael Uchnah, Mareh Hayeladim, Jerusalem 1987ed. [f.p. Jerusalem 1900], pg, 48a, s.v. “drowned;” id. at 66b s.v. “water.”

[9] R’ Shaul Feldman, Yosef Shaul, Piatrikov 1911, pg. 83. It is interesting to note that he adds there “take hot bread.”

[10] R’ Shabtzi Lifshutz, Segulas Yisroel, Jerusalem 1991 ed. [f.p. Jerusalem 1946], pg. 132. s.v. “drowned.” He brings it in the name of the Refuah Vechaim.

[11] The only similar (but note the same, for they are only similar in the fact that they consist of floating a piece of wood or pot similar to a bowl) methods found in non Jewish sources is in Notes And Queries, Oct. 4, 1851, pg. 251, The Journal of Science, NY, Dec. 4, 1891. Nicolas B. Dennys, The Folklore of China, Amsterdam 1968. “Sir James Alexander, in his account of Canada [L’ Acadie, 2 vol., 1849, Pg. 26] writes: “The Indians imagine that in the case of a drowned body, its place may be discovered by floating a chip of cedar wood, which will stop and turn round over the exact spot. An instance occurred within my own knowledge, in the case of Mr. Lavery of Kingston Mill, whose boat overset, and himself drowned near Cedar Island; nor could the body be discovered until this experiment was resorted to.” See also Linda J. Ivanits, Russian Folk Belief, 1989, pg. 73 (pg. 222 note 64) “A pot (or wooden cup) filled with hot coals and incense and with candles attached to the sides was placed on the surface of the water; the victim’s body was believed to lie under the spot where the pot stopped floating.”[Thanks to Professor Daniel Shvarber for pointing out this source to me.] Also the use of a wooden cricket bat in 1925 as recorded by Notes And Queries, Oct. 18. 1851, Pg. 297 [Also in Jan 30, 1886, Pg. 95] ” An Eton boy, named Dean, who had lately come to school, imprudently bathed in the river Thames where it flows with great rapidity under the ‘playing fields,’ and he was soon carried out of his depth, and disappeared. Efforts were made to save him or recover the body, but to no purpose; until Mr. Evans, who was then, as now, the accomplished drawing-master, threw a cricket bat into the stream, which floated to a spot where it turned round in an eddy, and from a deep hole underneath the body was quickly drawn.

[12] Beis Dovid, Rabbi Dovid Tebal Ben Yaakov Ashkenazi, Wilhermsdorf, Pg. 31.

[13] R’ Shimon Ben R’ Meir, Over Orach, Lemberg 1865, pg. 8. The Sefer Over Orach was really an adaptation and extension of a sefer printed about 1646 in Krakow, by R’ Yaakov Naftoli Ben Yehudah Leib of Lublin the Sefer was originally called Derech Hayoshor. [see Kiryat Sefer, 1933/34, 10, pg. 252]. It seems that segulah is one of the added segulas of R’ Shimon Ben Meir, as this segulah only first appears in Over Orach by R’ Shimon Ben R’ Meir in the Karlsaruah 1764 ed. pg. 172, which seems to be the first or at least the second printing of the sefer in the life time of the latter Auther . In addition to the fact that this segulah is not brought at all by R’ Yaakov Naftoli Ben Yehudah Leib in Derech Hayosher.

[14] David Shtokfish, Jewish Mlawa, Tel Aviv 1984, pg. 486.

[15] Ibid. pg. 55.

[16] Ibid. sub. Of water, pg. 66b.

[17] Ibid , the author brings this belief in the name of a earlier source however I had trouble locating his source.

[18] Ibid, pg. 83.

[19] Ibid. pg. 195 sub. Water. Also see his Kuntres Even Segulah pg. 406.

[20] Thomas Hill, Natural Conclusions, 1586, D3. Qouted by Iona Opie and Moira Tatem, A Dictionary of Superstitions, Oxford University Press 1989, pg. 34, subject, Body: locating in water.

[21] Oliver Heywood, Autobiography c.a. 1664, Turner ed., III 1883, pg. 89. ‘Mr. Rawsthorne of Lumb and Mr. Thomas Bradshaw walked out and after they had drunk a cup of ale returned home. Going in the night by a pit side Mr. R. fell in; Mr. B. leaped after him to take him out because he could swim, they were both drowned. Mr. R. swam at top, Mr. B. could not be found. A women made them cast in white loaf and they doing so it would it would not be removed from over the place where he was, so they took him up, and they were buried together. A sad family it was, my brother being eye witness there of.

[22] Gents. Mag, 1767, pg. 189. Quoted in A Dictionary of Superstitions ibid. See also Notes And Queries [Oct 4, 1851, Pg. 251, 1851-s1, iv, pg. 148, June 15, ’78 5th s. Ix. pg. 478] “In looking through the chronicle of the Annual Register for 1767, I came across the following entry, which clearly shows that the superstition referred to by…was at the time current in Berks: The following odd relation is attested as a fact. An inquisition was taken at New Bury, Berks, on the body of a child near two year old who fell onto the river Kennet and was drowned. The jury brought in their verdict, accidental death. The body was discovered by a very singular experiment, which was as follows. After diligent search had been made in the river for the child to no purpose, a two penny loaf with a quantity of quicksilver put into it was set floating from the place where the child it was supposed had fallen in, which steered its course down the river upwards a half a mile, before a great number of spectators, when the body happening to lay on the contrary side of the river, the loaf suddenly tacked about and swam across the river, and gradually sunk near the child, when both the child and loaf were immediately brought up with grabbers ready for that purpose.”

[23] Collin de Plancey, ‘Dictionnaire Critique des Reliques et des images miraculeuses.’ tom:ii, pg 212, Paris 1821. “In rural regions of France a perforated loaf called St. Nicholas is thrown in the river, which it would float down on, and stop as soon as it gains the spot with the corpse underneath, after turning three times around.” Quoted in the Notes And Queries July 26, 1924 pg. 61.

[24] Notes And Queries [5th s. IX June 15, ’78 pg. 478] ” In January 1849, when the pier at Morecambe was being constructed, the stone for which was procured near Halton, the boat conveying the workmen from the quarry across the river Lune to the village was upset, and eight of the men were drowned. The villagers were confident that quicksilver placed inside a loaf would enable them to find the bodies, but the last corpse was not discovered until nearly three months after the accident.” Also See June 29, 1878 pg. 516.

[25] Notes And Queries [ibid.] “A few years ago, when two young men were drowned in the Lune, I believe the same experiment [ a loaf with filled with quicksilver] was tried.” See also Notes And Queries [5th s. IX Jan 5, ’78 pg. 8] “A young women singularly disappeared at Swinton, near Sheffield. The canal has been unsuccessfully dragged, and the Swinton folk, are now going to test the merits of a local superstition, which affirms that a loaf of bread containing quicksilver, If cast upon the water, will drift to, keep afloat, an remain stationary over any dead body which may be immersed out of sight.”

[26] Notes And Queries [Feb 8, 1879 Pg. 119].

[27] This belief was echoed and written in the famous work of Mark Twain in The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in 1884 see later in this article

[28] Notes And Queries, [Jan. 2, 1886 pg. 6], brings a extract from the Stamford Mercury Dec. 18, 1885. I quote: “at Ketton ….touching the death of Harry Baker..who was believed to have walked into the ford….however in obedience to the wish of Baker’s mother, a loaf charged with quicksilver was cast into the water , and it came into a standstill in the river at.. the corpse was brought up…”

[29] Science, New York December 4, 1891. Article: Drowning Superstitions, “There are many curious modes of discovering the dead body of a drowned person, a popular notion being that its whereabouts may be ascertained by floating a loaf weighted with quicksilver, which is said at once to swim towards, and stand over, the spot where the body lies. This is very widespread belief, and instances of its occurrence are, from time to time recorded. Some years ago, a boy fell into the stream at Shereborne, Dorsetire, and was drowned. The body not have been recovered for some days, the mode of procedure adopted was thus: A four pound loaf of best flour was procured, and a small piece cut out of the side of it, forming a cavity, into which a little quicksilver was poured. The piece was then replaced, and tied firmly in its original place. The loaf thus prepared was thrown into the river at the spot where the body fell, and was expected to float down the stream till it came to the place where the body had lodged, but no satisfactory results occurred.”

[30] Man, Myth & Magic vol. 3, Richard Lavendish, New York 1970, pg. 322. Sub. Bread, “A remarkable quality formerly ascribed to bread was its power, to react to the presence of a drowned body. It was believed that a loaf weighted with quicksilver and place it in the water would be irresistibly drawn towards the place where the body lay. As recently as 1921 a corpse was discovered after this method had been tried at Wheelock in Cheshire.”

[31] Notes And Queries [7th s. XL May 2,’91 pg. 345] ” I found the following strange story among some news paper cuttings, unfortunately but it must have not occurred many years ago, and was taken from the globe: Adelaide Amy Terry, servant to Dr. Williams, of Brentford, was sent to a neighbor with a message on Sunday morning, and she did not return, and was known to be very short sighted, it was feared she had fallen into the canal, which was dragged without success. On Tuesday an old barge women suggested that a loaf of bread in which some quicksilver had been placed should be floated in the water. This was done, and the loaf became stationary at a certain spot. The dragging was resumed there, and the body recovered.

I had imagined this means of discovering the whereabouts of a drowned body peculiar to the fisher folk of the south of Ireland, where on two separate occasions I knew it to be resorted to, and each time successfully. I heard nothing of the quicksilver, only of the loaf becoming attracted, as it were above the place where the drowned man lay.”

[32] Yorkshire Observer 5, May 14 1925, Amesbury, Wilts. Quoted in A Dictionary of Superstitions ibid. “The missing nursemaid was last seen on the bridge over Avon, and one of the theories, is that she may have got into the river, it was decided to carry out an experiment. The method, And old custom, had been used with success at Bristol some years ago, Mercury was placed in a loaf of bread, attached to a long line. The idea is that the bread, floating over, a body, would hover there, heavy rains apparently interfered with the experiment, for no result was obtained.” See in Notes And Queries, [5th s. Ix Jan 5, ’78 pg. 8] which records how a young women drowned in Yorkshire and the folk are going to test a local superstition see there further.

[33] Yorkshire Observer 5, May 14 1925, Amesbury, Wilts. Quoted in A Dictionary of Superstitions ibid. “The missing nursemaid was last seen on the bridge over Avon, and one of the theories, is that she may have got into the river, it was decided to carry out an experiment. The method, And old custom, had been used with success at Bristol some years ago, Mercury was placed in a loaf of bread, attached to a long line. The idea is that the bread, floating over, a body, would hover there, heavy rains apparently interfered with the experiment, for no result was obtained.” See in Notes And Queries, [5th s. Ix Jan 5, ’78 pg. 8] which records how a young women drowned in Yorkshire and the folk are going to test a local superstition see there further.

[34] Thomas A. Tenny, The Mark Twain Journal.

[35] Henderson, Northern Counties 43-4, 1886. Quoted by A Dictionary of Superstitions ibid.

[36] ibid.

[37] Then later I found very similar in Notes And Queries [Quoting All The Year Round vol. xvi pg. 3], “At Guingamp [Brittany] when the body of a drowned man cannot be found a lighted taper is fixed in a loaf of bread which is then abandoned to the retreating current. Where the loaf stops they expect to discover the body.” See also Tekla Domotor, Hungarian Folk Belief, Bloomington 1981, pg. 62. “If somebody drowns, a lighted wax candle is placed in a dish and where the flame goes out, there the drowned man lies.” See also Linda J. Ivanits, Russian Folk Belief, 1989, pg. 73 (pg. 222 note 64) “A pot (or wooden cup) filled with hot coals and incense and with candles attached to the sides was placed on the surface of the water; the victim’s body was believed to lie under the spot where the pot stopped floating.”

[38] See Notes And Queries, [Feb. 8, 1879 Pg. 119].

[39] Hazlitt ‘Faith and Folklore’ 1905, vol. I, Pg. 193. Quoted in Notes And Queries [July 26, 1924 Pg. 62].

[40] Hungarian Folk Beliefs, Teklu Domotoc, Indiana 1981, pg. 62. Quoting Peter Bornenisza , Temptation of the Devil, 1578.

[41] Jewish Encyclopedia, 1901-1906, vol. 1, pg 549. sub. Amulet.

[42] R’ Yaakov Emden, Sfas Emes, Jerusalem 1981[F.p. Altona 1875], pg. 19. See R’ Eybeshutz’s own defense in sefer Luchos Eidus, Lemberg 1887. See also The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1925, pg. 549.

[43] Notes And Queries [Oct. 18 1851, pg. 298]. “I heard the following anecdote from the son of an eminent Irish judge. In a remote district of Ireland a poor man, whose occupation at certain seasons of the year was to pluck feathers…..he sank….they dragged the river for his body, but in vain; and in apprehension of serious consciences to themselves should they be unable to produce the corpse, they applied to the parish priests, who undertook to relieve them, and to “improve the occasion” by the performance of a miracle. He called together the few neighbors, and having tied a strip of parchment, inscribed with cabalistic characters, round a wisp of straw; he dropped this packet where the man’s head was described to have sunk, and it glided into still water where the corpse was easily discovered [it is not clear if it made the corpse rise or it floated to the spot where the corpse was sunk]. Quoted in Journal of Science ibid. See also The Folklore of China ibid.

[44] See also JSTOR vol. 12, no 1,pg. 7, about a Chinese amulet. See also S. M. Swemer in article, A Chinese –Arabic amulet.

[45] See Journal of Science ibid. “Not many months ago a man was drowned at St. Louis. After search had been made for the body, but without success, the man’s shirt, which he had laid aside when he went in to bathe, was spread out on the water and allowed to float away. For a while it floated and then sank, near the spot, which was reported, the man’s body was found. See also JSTOR vol. 2, no. 7, pg. 307, “A Story from Pennsylvania – August Melching was drowned, on a recent afternoon in the Codorus Creek, near York, while swimming. The body could not be found for some time, when one of the searchers suggested that his shirt be thrown into the water, claiming that it would float to where the body was. The suggestion was acted on and the garment was thrown into the water where it was thought that he had disappeared. The shirt instantly shot out then stopped then circled about a short time and in another moment disappeared under the water. A young man present on the creeks bank then dove to where the shirt was seen to sink, and found the body of the young man where the shirt disappeared. The singularity of the incident, in the fact that the shirt was found clinging to the dead man’s body. Two gentlemen who were on the opposite sides of the creek at the time this occurred corroborant the truthfulness of the incident. This gives credence to the ancient belief that the clothing of a drowned man thrown into the water will float to the body. Philadelphia Inquirer.” See also Hazlitt, ‘Faith and Folklore,’ 1905 vol. i, pg. 193. , Quoted in Notes And Queries, [July 26 1994, Pg. 62], usage of the button of a waist coat belonging to the drowned.

[46] JSTOR vol. 4, no. 3, pg. 357, in a batch of Irish Folk-lore, no 11, “A drowned body is searched for by floating a bundle of straw on the surface of the water; it is supposed to stop and quiver over the body.” See also A Dictionary of Superstitions ibid. which brings from Folklore, 1893, pg 357. [Co. Cork] “A drowned body is searched for by floating a bundle of straw on the surface of the water, it is supposed to stop and quiver over the body.” On more about floating wheat and the sort to recover drowned bodies see ‘Ta-tshing-Yih-tung ch,’ 1743, tom lii, where Yen Pin [A.D. 1355] floated a puppet made of sheaf to recover his mother’s remains. Quoted in Notes And Queries, [July 26, 1924 pg 61].

[47] See Journal of Science ibid, “In Java (and in some parts of China) a live sheep is thrown into the water, and supposed to indicate the position of the body by sinking near it [but the objects used for this purpose vary largely in different countries].” See also The Folklore of China ibid.

[48] Notes And Queries [June 11, 1898 Pg. 466], see also the Journal of Science ibid., and E. Lloyd in Peasant Life in Sweden, 1870, Pg. 135. Exactly the same method is pursued for the same purpose since time unknown in China and Japan as recorded in Ueda, southern Chinese usages in connection with calendar, Minzoku to Rekishi, vol. iv, pg. 278 Tokyo 1920. Thus in Japan, the famous drama, ‘Sugawara Denjuukagaini’ composed A.D. 1746, exhibits a character who floats a board a cock in a pond where his wife is drowned. Also Akishima’s ‘Kisoji Meisho Dzue’ 1807. The Chinese and Japanese sources are all brought in Notes And Queries [July 2, 1924 pg. 61].

[49] See note 14.

[50] Notes And Queries,[Oct. 18, 1851 Pg. 298, also in Jan. 30. 1886 Pg. 95.] See above about the boy from Eton .

[51] Notes And Queries [June 17, 1893 Pg. 466]. Quoting the Suffolk Times and Mercury of Friday Nov. 4, 1892.

[52] See Daniel G. Hoffman, Form and Fable in American Fiction [New York: Oxford University Press 1961. See also JSTOR vol. 32, no 1, pg. 49 in an article Jims magic: Black or White?. See The Annotated Huckleberry Finn by Michael Patrick Hear; published by Clarkson N. Potte, Inc, New York, 1981. See also Mark Twain, An Illustrated Biography by Geoffry C. Ward, Daycon Duncan, and Ken Burns, Published by Alfred A. Knopf, NewYork, 2001.

[53] Mark Twain’s letters to Will Bowen 1941 pg.19.

[54] Notes And Queries, [5th s. 1x, June 15, ’78. pg. 478. Also in Feb. 8, 1879 Pg. 119] ” A few weeks ago while an English merchantman was unloading off one of the Black Sea ports- near Batoum, I think it was- a man swept overboard by a heavy sea and drowned. The body disappeared; but two days afterwards certain Russian guns on shore happened to fire a salute. “That will bring him up!” said a seaman on board. “Not yet” said another; “wait until the fourth day.” On the fourth day the Russians guns fired again; and during the firing, the drowned man’s corpse rose to the surface, not far from the ship…… “you see sir” he added, “it’s the gun firing bursts the gall inside the corpse, and then it rise; but it must be on the fourth day.”

[55] [Oct. 5th 1878. Also in June 29, 1878 pg. 516], “Many years when I was a school boy, an old man was accidentally drowned in a northern river, and I recollect that several men fired guns on both sides of the river, in the belief, that by doing so the body would rise to the surface- by concussion, it is to be presumed.”

[56] In Edgar Allen’s Poe’s 1842 story Mystery of Marie Roget [in Poe’s ‘Tales of Mystery and Imagination’ edit. Routledge, Pg. 72, col 2, and p. 77, col. 2] “All experiences has shown that drowned bodies, or bodies thrown into the water immediately after death by violence, require from six to ten days for sufficient deposition to take place, to bring them to the top of the water. Even where a cannon is fired over a corpse, and it rises before at least five or six day’s immersion, it sinks again if let alone.’ See Notes And Queries [Aug. 12, 1993. Pg. 138] where Nauta argues on the whole “experience”.

[57] Ibid. Also this belief was echoed in Notes and Queries [Feb. 8, 1879, pg. 119] quoting the belief of a sailor, “That it’s the gun firing bursts the gall bladder inside the corpse and then it rises.” Also in N&Q [June 29, 1878 pg. 516] “The body would rise to the surface –by concussion, it is to presumed.” See also Denham Tracts, 1895:ii 72. A variation of the on this principle was to fill bottles with gun powder and contrive to explode them under water [Notes and Queries 5s:9, 1878, 478].

[58] A cadaver sinks as soon as the air in its lungs is replaced with water. Once submerged, the body stays underwater until the bacteria in the gut and chest cavity produce enough gas–methane, hydrogen sulfide, and carbon dioxide–to float it to the surface like a balloon. (The buildup of methane, hydrogen sulfide, and other gases can take days or weeks, depending on a number of factors.) If you wait long enough, the body will almost always surface.

[59] Regarding some of the last points mentioned, some of the information was taken from an article printed on Straight Dope [www. Straightdope.com] and from a letter I received from Professor Mary Barile of Boonville, Mo.

[60] This article is only a small piece of a much more in depth research project almost ready to be printed. My manuscript consists of over a hundred pages; it includes a study of the origins, early development and the reasons for this segulah in Jewish as well as non-Jewish communities. Due to the lack of funding printing of this research has been held off. Any one interested in helping out financially and dedicating the work to Eli Howoritz and Naftoli Smolyansky is invited to contact me. Furthermore, any comments or questions can be directed to me at Bneic@hotmail.com.

A Knife, Is it A Dangerous Gift for Rosh haShana?

A Knife, Is It A Dangerous Gift for Rosh Hashanah?
By: Bency Eichorn
I. R. Nachman of Breslov’s Position on Knife GivingAs Erev Rosh Hashanah approaches, let me remind you of a popular trend some people, prior to Rosh Hashana, buy knives for their households, or as presents for others. Why all this enthusiasm? Some will explain that buying a new knife for Rosh Hashana is a popular segulah for livelihood. This segulah is so powerful that many wives insist that their husbands buy a new knife each approaching Rosh Hashana. This custom will be discussed in length in a different article. The topic that I wish to discuss here is the other extreme, the widespread superstition that people should avoid buying knives as presents for others, in the belief that possible dangers linger with the giving of a knife. This once very popular superstition has not diminished through time. Recently, I experienced this belief during a simcha of mine. I received many interesting gifts, yet one stuck out. It was a beautiful silver knife, with a single dollar. The giver explained that the dollar was meant to thwart the dangers which linger with the giving of a knife.[1] Immediately a famous quote of Karl Goldmark [2] was whispered into my ears: “Civilized people lose their religion easily, but rarely their superstitions.”
The giving of gifts to friends, family members or the host of a happy occasion is part of our ancient customs. [3] It is found in the Bible as early as the story of Eliezer, the humble servant of Abraham, who is given gifts by his master to give when Eliezer finds a wife for Isaac. When Eliezer meets Rivka and realizes that she is the perfect wife for Isaac, he gives her gold, silver and garments, and to her mother and brother, precious things [Braishis 24:52].[4] This gift was a way of bridging a connection between two people who had no connection before. Then, soon after, Jacob gives Eisav a huge gift consisting of two hundred female goats, and twenty male goats, two hundred ewes, and twenty rams, thirty nursing camels with their colts, forty cows, and ten bulls, twenty female donkeys, and ten male donkeys [Braishis 32:13-20].‘The ritual of giving a present’ is a very integral part of the Jewish culture today as well. [5] Often, gifts are exchanged at family occasions, be it at a brit, bar mitzvah, or wedding. A knife is a very common wedding gift, given its practicality as a kitchen utensil, or its significance as a Judaic piece. However, this gift is often avoided by many people as it is considered a danger in the world of superstition. After much research on this topic, this superstition does not seem to have any concrete basis in central Jewish religious belief.The earliest Jewish source to mention the danger of giving a knife as a gift is an 18th century work, in the name of the great Chasidic Master, Rabbi Nachman of Breslov [1772-1810]. Reb Nosson, a disciple, recorded all the teachings which he heard directly from his teacher. In Sefer Sichot HaRan[6], R. Nosson quotes his teacher, R. Nachman, who in turn refers to a tradition from his great-grandfather, the Holy Baal Shem Tov [Rabbi Yisroel Ben Eliezer, 1698-1760, known by his acronym The Besh”t] and the founder of the Chasidic movement. “In the name of the Baal Shem Tov, that a knife should not be given as a present, which means one should not give his friend a knife for a present.”[7]
Rabbi Nachman did not provide an explanation for this belief. Rather, he refers to it as a tradition that should be guarded and accepted. The fact that his ultimate source is the Besh”t indicates that this belief was not known to the public at large; rather, it was a tradition solely of the Besh”t. Only much later, Rabbi Shabtzi Liphshutz writes in his Shemira Mealyah,[8] based on the Talmud in Baba Metzia 27b, “People do not generally lend a moneybag, a purse because people superstitiously believe [Rash”i there] that by doing so they transfer their good fortune to the borrower.” Rabbi Shabtzi Liphshutz [9] explains that “for the same reason I have a tradition that one should not give his friend a knife for a present.” An additional reason I recently saw states that knives are symbloic of one’s livelihood, therefore one can forfeit his livelihood by giving another a knife.[10] After quoting the tradition of not giving a knife as a present, Rabbi Shmuel Hakatan [11] cites a Midrash,[12] where Resh Lakish told R’ Yehudah, “take nothing from anyone, then you will not have to give anything to anyone.” While sitting there, a woman came and brought him a slaver with a knife on it. He took the knife and returned the salver. Subsequently, a royal courier saw the knife, took a liking to it, and carried it away.[13]
Rabbi Yitzchok Yosef Lerner shlita”h, in his amazing work, Shemiras ha-Guf veha-Nefesh, writes,“There are those that don’t give a knife as a gift to a friend.”[14] This same religious belief is cited in several other contemporary works.[15] II. Potential Problems with this CustomAs we have discussed, the main danger associated with giving a knife as a present is the belief that this action can transfer one’s good fortune, ‘mazal,’ from the giver to the receiver. However, it is difficult to apply the Talmud in Baba Metzia 27b, which appears to be limited to lending a purse or a money bag but not anything else. Assuming arguendo that this principle does apply to knives, the question that must be asked is why are knives singled out over any other present? It is worth stating at the outset that this entire belief regarding gifting knives may be nothing but a belief of the common folk, adapted from the gentiles of the times of the Talmud, who had an incredible influence on the Jews,[16] a point to which we shall return.
Another point to consider is that the earliest source for this belief is Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, who is claiming the source as the Besh”t. It is impossible that Rabbi Nachman heard about this belief directly from the Besh”t as he was not alive during the Besh”t’s lifetime. Therefore, it must be that Rabbi Nachman heard about this belief from a family member, as they were descendents of the Besh”t, or that he heard it from a non-relative in the name of the Besh”t. Because Rabbi Nachman did not hear about this belief directly from the Besh”t, this already casts some doubt on its authenticity, or, at the very least, something was lost in the transmission of this custom. For example, it’s possible that this belief was influenced by gentile practices that occurred in the Besh”t’s lifetime, and then attributed to the Besh”t [17]. Or, it’s possible that this belief is based on a one time occurrence, in which the Besh”t ruled not to give a knife as a present. This would explain why no other disciple of the Besh”t has recorded this belief.This leads us to the obvious problem of why no one else before Rabbi Nachman record this belief, including any of the other disciples of the Besh”t.For example, Rabbi Boruch of Mezhbizh (1753-1811), a grandson of the Besh”t, and, according to many, his supposed successor, does not mention this superstition. To the contrary, Rabbi Boruch of Mezhbizh practiced the opposite of this custom. In a letter to Rabbi Menachem Mendal of Vitebesk he writes, “Please accept from me a minor gift a silver knife and fork, and it should be accepted as a good offering.”[18] Another disciple, who lived a little while later, Rabbi Yaakov Yitzchak of Lublin, otherwise known as The Chozeh of Lublin, would distribute knives to his chasidim on Rosh Hashonah as a segulah for wealth. He is recorded as saying “he [God] ‘cuts’ life for all living beings and as it says he opens his hands and the last letter of each word is the Devine name of wealth.”[19]
Because of the previous point, Rabbi Pinchas Epstein zt”l, in his notes [20] on the Shemira Mealyah, limits the danger of giving knives as a present. He writes, “the reason that the Lubliner had no problem giving knives to his chassidim is because when the knives are brand new knives for the purpose of giving as a segulah, then there is no danger.” Rabbi Epstein zt”l makes an important distinction between giving new and used knives as a present.[21] Although Rabbi Epstien zt”l asserts that “this distinction is very logical” this distinction is difficult to accept as no one else, including Rabbi Nachman and the Shemirah Mealyah make such a distinction. III. Iron in Jewish Thought Perhaps, R. Nacham’s version of the Besh”t’s belief stems from the Biblical and Talmudic (mystical) concept that iron (and the like) should not be present in a place where blessing is found. This concept is based on a verse in Exodus (20:22) “And if you make for me an alter of stones, do not build it of hewn stones; for by wielding your tool you have profaned them,” and on another verse in Devarim (27:5) “An alter of stones, do not wield an iron tool over them.” The Mishnah in Midos (3:4) echoes this idea, “Brought thence whole stones upon which no iron (tool) had been wielded, for iron invalidates (the stones of the alter even) by contact …they did not plaster them with iron trowel lest it touch (the stones) and render (them) invalid…”The Torah does not explain how the alter is profaned by using iron to cut its stones. It was left to Chazal, who explained it in the Mishnah ibid. and Mechilta de-Reb Yishmael.[22] As the Mechilta explains, the alter has the ability to lengthen a man’s life (by way of atonement). It is therefore improper that iron, which is used to shorten man’s life (when used as weapons), come in contact with the alter.[23]That is was constructed without iron was the alter’s perfection. Therefore, there are Rishonim who expain that if the alter came in contact with iron, the material that contradicts its essence, it was deemed profane.[24] There are Rishonim, however, who understood that when iron coexists with the mizbeach, it brings negativity and actual danger into the world.[25]
For a long period of time, iron symbolized the sword, a weapon used to shorten man’s life. Therefore, people were careful not to associate iron with blessing, specifically with the blessing of long life. Many saw it as an actual danger.In the medieval times this concept was applied to a knife left on the table, specifically during Birchat Hamazon. The table which people eat on is considered an alter. As the Talmud [26] explains in the name of Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar, “when the Beis Hamikdash was around the alter would atone for Israel, but now the table of a person atones.” Therefore, many laws associated with the alter and the concept of the alter’s sanctity applies to today’s table,[27] including covering the knife during Birchat Hamozon.[28] A knife, made of iron, and the antithesis of blessing, should not be exposed at the “mizbeach table,” specifically during Birchat Hamazon, which is the epitome of blessing.In the same vein, we find that a sword should not be brought into a shul, as prayer lengthens life and a knife shortens life.[29] This concept seems far extended from the original concept which applies to iron on the mizbeach. However, as far extended as it may seem, the reality is that iron (sword/knife) is an antithesis to prayer and the two cannot coexist. It seems clear that the concepts of covering the knife during Birchat Hamazon, and not bringing a knife/sword into a shul, did not proceed medieval times.The Besh”t extended the original law of not placing iron on the mizbeach even further. For example, he preferred not to use an iron mezuzah cover. This is recorded by Rabbi Abraham David Wahrman (1770–1840) in his Da’as Kedoshim.[30] “I heard in the name of the Besh”t that it is better not to place the mezuzah in an iron holder. It is comparable to what Chazal reasoned that it is improper that a thing that shortens ones life should be placed with a thing that lengthens one’s life. The Torah states in the krias shema [Devarim 11:2] that it is in order to lengthen one’s life, and Chazal said this is going on the mitzvah of mezuzah. Also with regard to any metal, one should be careful not to use it as the mezuzah holder.”[31] The Da’as Kedoshim comments on this. “I don’t know if the person that heard this from the Besh’t added the part about all metal, for from Chazal it seems that only by iron do we apply the concept that it is something that shortens one’s life.”[32]
Later, the concept of not placing a mezuzah in an iron holder was recorded in R’ Shabtzi Liphshutz’s Segulas Yisroel[33] and R’ Matzliach Mazuz’s Abiah Segulos,[34] both in the name of the Besh”t.It seems that the Besh”t extended the prohibition of iron on the mizbeach to any circumstance involving iron and blessing (especially of lengthening one’s life), explaining that the two should not coexist.Therefore, one can understand why the Besh”t would prohibit giving a knife as a present. A knife, symbolic of shortening life, is not the ideal item with which to convey messages of love, peace, and blessing. As well, there is a concept of “al tiftach peh sattan.”[35] We do not want the exchange of knives to rouse the Satan to act morbidly. In addition, there may be intrinsic danger in a transaction involving an item which symbolizes death (such as a knife). According to this belief, there is no difference between a new and old knife.In conclusion, it would seem that Rabbi Nachman had a tradition (not to give a knife as a present) from the Besh”t that was unknown to the rest of his disciples.[36] What is certain is that this belief, as a Jewish custom, stems exclusively from the Besh”t. There is no mention of this belief, as a Jewish custom, prior to the Besh”t, and those that record it after his lifetime are all his disciples, or followers.[37]
IV. Non-Jewish Sources Regarding Gifting KnivesAmongst the non-Jews, the superstition of not gifting knives was very widespread and mention of it precedes the first Jewish source by a few hundred years. However, the reason given for this superstition differs from the explanations recorded in Jewish sources. Non Jewish sources, dating back to the year 1470, explain that if a knife is given as a present, it can “cut up,” or destroy love and friendship.The earliest non Jewish source to mention the already widespread superstition preceded Rabbi Nachman by over 300 years. The Gospelles of Dystaues records, “he that gyueth [gave] a payre [pair] of knues [knives] ti his lady paramour on newe yeres daye [on new years days] knowe that theyr loue shall ware colde [know[ing] that their love shall become cold [severed]].”[38] In 1578, Peter Bornemisza echoed this belief in his book, On the Temptation of the Devil, as he writes, “one ought not to give one’s financee a knife.”[39] Soon after ,in the year 1611, Francis Davidson in Peotical Rapsodi writes,“a paire of kniues: Fortune doth giue this paire of Kniues to you. To cut the thred of loue if ’t be not true.” [40]
From its earliest source in the year 1470, this belief could be found in many different parts of the world, especially in England and America.[41] Eventually, around the year 1654,[42] this belief extended not only to knives but to any sharp [metal] tool or object as well, such as pins and scissors. Giving sharp objects as gifts, just like knives, was believed to carry danger, and, it appers that people accepted these “prohibitions.”[43]
In the year 1707,[44] we find that the non-Jews thought up a solution to the danger of giving sharp items/knife as a present. This solution has been employed by both non-Jews [45] and by many Jews up to present day. [46] Specifically, the solution entails the recipient to give money or an item of value to the giver, in return for the knife. I assume that by giving money to the giver, it is considered as the recipient bought the knife, and the knife loses its status as a gift. There is no danger in buying a knife.It is interesting to point out that this non Jewish belief is recorded in the general beliefs of the Iraqi Jews. They believed that one should not give his friend a knife as a present [for the reason given by the gentiles]. However, if the recipient gives the giver a minimal amount of money, then it is permitted.[47] I would assume that the Iraqi Jews were influenced by this very popular belief of the non Jews.Although inconclusive, this widespread superstition of the Gentiles (not to give a knife as a present) may have played a role in the development of the Jewish belief. This claim is not definite; rather an assumption gleaned from the evidence at hand. Hopefully, with ongoing research on this topic, definite evidence will surface and prove the exact origins of this belief, practiced by many Jews.

[1] See later in the article for a comparative study of non Jewish beliefs, which they believe by the receiver giving a dollar you can defend the dangers of such a present. It seems however this relative not only did she possess a non-Jewish superstition and protection(this way of protection does not have to be exclusive to non Jews for it just makes the knife as an acquisition instead of a present), she also mixed it up and gave me the dollar (I am not complaining!).[2] Karl Goldmark (1830-1915), Viennesse Jewish music teacher, composer, and conductor. His autobiography, was translated into English in 1927 under the title Notes from the Life of a Viennese Composer.[3] Whatever the origin of this tradition is, according to one scholar, giving presents is one of the oldest, universal, acts in human history. Horst A. Wessel, The Babylonian Laws, Oxford 1968, pp. 311-13, 343, 377. [4] See Richard Booker, Here Comes The Bride: Jewish Wedding Customs And The Messiah, (Houston: Sounds of the Trumpet, 1995), p. 78; Roni Weinstein, Marriage Rituals Italian Style, Brin: 2004, pp. 262-310. For the custom of the bride gifting presents to the groom see Hershavitz, Otzar kol Minhagai Yeshurun, p. 27; S. M. Lehrman, Jewish Customs and Folklore, London 1949, pp. 143, 149. On giving present upon attending a wedding, see Hershavitz, Otzer Kol Minhagai Yeshurun, p. 30. [5] For the custom of giving gifts on Purim, Chanuka, and marriage occasions to the Rabbi’s see Zohar Chai, Veyairah, Midrash Hanelam 115. For giving charitable gifts to poor by inviting them over Shabbos night, sponsoring candles and Torah covers to the synagogue, funding dowries, and hospital care see Chazeres Hoatoroh, Israel 2008, p. 48;, Hershavitz, Otzar Kol Minhagai Yeshurun, p. 449, . In the Cairo Geniza we find all types of gifts given. See S.D. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, (University of California Press: 1993) vol. III, p. 22 (gifts from a brother to his sister); id. pp. 167-68 (gifts from husband to his wife); id. vol. I, p. 167 (gifts amongst friends). [6] Sichot Haran no. 9. First printed in 1798-99. Maaglei Tzedek pg. 3a. This tradition is also found in Baal Shem Tov al Hatorah, Parshas Re’ah in the Mekor Mayim Chaim, no. 6.[7] This is not to say that Rabbi Nachman held that a knife had no good usages the world of segulah’s. In Sefer Hamidos, Bayis II 8, R. Nachman is recorded as offering that upon entering a new house bring in a sword or knife. See also, id. segulah II 7, to one who got mute pass a knife… Ibid Segulah II 10, upon entering a new house bring in a knife or sword [See Shaul Mieslish, Sefer Ani Mamin,Israel 1996, pg. 9, brings the very same segulah]. Regarding iron being a positive source to fight off evil and evil spirits, see Joshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition, New York: 1984, pp. 160, 258, 313 n.14. Frazer, Folklore in the Old Testament, vol. I, p. 521, (“It is said among high caste Hindoos of the Punjab, a Bridegroom on entering the bridal chamber always carries an iron weapon with him to drive away the evil spirits that haunt him.”). Similarly, Trachtenberg, id. p. 174, cites a similar belief by some Jews. Frazer, id. p. 521, records that some brought daggers to drive away evil spirits. [8] Notes on Sefer Shemiras Hanefesh,Yisroel Matisyahu Auerbach, Lemberg: 1871; Shemiras HaNefesh, New York 1992, Preisler ed. no. 153 p. 59.[9] Id. no. 85 p. 59.[10] Segulos Habaal Shem Tov Vetalmidov, Magen Yeshuos Yisroel, 1999, no. 81, in the name of the Sichos Hara”n, notes therein.[11] Rabbi Shmuel Hakatan, Tiferes Shmuel, grandson of Rabbi Shmuel Kaminikar, New York 1926, p. 216. [12] Braishis Rabbah, Vayishlach 87:12.[13] As I wrote it is only an allusion because you can’t prove from here that you should not give a knife as a present. [14] Shemiras Haguf VeHanefesh, Jerusalem 1987, p. 304 siman 243:2[15] Segulos Yisroel,[printed without name of author] Jerusalem 1998, p. 55. Segulos Habaal Shem Tov Vetalmidov, Magen Yeshuos Yisroel, 1999, no. 81. Mechon Zera Avraham, Chazeres Hoatoroh, Israel 2008, p. 344.[16] See Tosfos there that asks why you don’t transgress the prohibition of … c.f. Reshash and Maharatz Chayos, Pischei Teshuvah Y.D. 179:3, and the Toras Chaim. See, Rabbi Yehudah Yudel Rosenberg, Refael Hamalach, p. 14 sub. Hatzlocha, that brings the Gemarah that one should be careful not to lend to his friend his wallet or money belt because by doing so, he will sell or give away his mazel. See also Shaul Mieslish, Sefer Ani Mamin, Israel: 1996, p. 97 also records this precaution.[17] See Baal Shem Al Hatorah for many more segulos that originated from the Besh”t.[18]See Botzina Denehorah, Jerusalem: 2007; Igros Hakodesh, p. 176. Yitzchok Warfel, Sefer Hachasidus, Tel Aviv: 1957 p. 10. See also Aron Surasky, Israel 2000, II pp. 73-74. See also Siach Sarfie Kodesh, Bnai Brak 1989, part 4, pg 141, num. 51, a story “where a great holy Tzaddik sent Rabbi Menachem Mendal of Kotkz a knife as a present. The Kotkzer would not accept the present and said even a one time acceptance can ruin a friendship. It was assumed that he didn’t accept it because because it was not Toveled first. [However it could be explained that the reason he would not accept the present is because he knew of the danger of accepting a knife as a present].See also Yisroel Wasertil, Yeshua Verachamim, p. 19, also in Kovetz Ohr Yisreol, Monsey 1997, p. 128, that Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Bidderman of Lelov would go out on Erev Rosh Hashanah and buy lots of knives and give each of his sons a knife for Rosh Hashanah.[19] R. Mordechai Meneshchiz, Rishfai Aish Hachodosh, Jerusalem: 1997, Kuntres Zichron Tov, p. 72, no. 12. R’ Avraham Yitzchok Sperling, Israel 1982 ed., Shabbath, pg. 118, Num. 246 Notes there. [20] Shemirah Mealyah ibid. pg. 151.[21] It can be assumed that because the giver never used the knife, his mazel is not associated with it, and therefore cannot be transferred when given over to another person. [22] End of Parshas Yisro. See also Toras Kohanim, Kedoshim Perek 11 Halacha 9. Yalkut Shemoni, Kedoshim, no. 624. Midrash Aggadah, Jerusalem: 1971, p. 194 for a alternative reading. [23] See James George Frazer, The Golden Bough, New York 1966, III, Taboo And the Perils Of The Soul, pg. 230, in which he writes “Amongst the Jews no iron tool was used in building the Temple at Jerusalem or in making an alter.” See there in which he brings from early Gentiles sources that they too, held iron as a taboo.[24] As explained in length by the Ramba”n and Tur Ha’oruch Al Hatorah Shemos ibid they write, “Sherak lehidur hamitzvah.” [25] See Rabbeinu Ephraim Al Hatorah, Jerusalem: 1992, Shemos ibid., After writing that iron should not be in contact with the mizbeach because the mizbeach lengthens a man’s life and iron shortens ones life. Therefore one who brings weapons into a shul shortens his life. So it would seem that he connected these to rules for he saw an actual danger by iron being in contact with the mizbeach. See Joshua Trachtenberg, op cit., p. 298 n.5, where he gives a new reason for the danger of a knife and applies it to the covering of a knife by Brichat Hamozon and to the prohibition of bringing a knife into a shul.[26] Chagigah 27a, Menochos 97a. See also Zohar Shemos, Teruma, pg, 153b. [27] Brought by Rabbi Nachman, Sefer Hamidos, Jerusalem p. 52. For a lengthy discussion on this subject see Daniel Sperber, Minhagai Yisroel, Jerusalem: 1994, p. 161.[28] Rokeach no. 332, Shnersohn ed. Jerusalem: 1967, p. 230. Sefer Chasidim, Margolios ed. no. 102, p. 136. See also Minhag Yisroel Torah no. 167. For a lengthy discussion on this topic see the upcoming Yerushosainu. [29] See Kol Bo, Avraham ed. Jerusalem: 2007, p. 334. R’ Moshe of Pramamsla, Mateh Moshe, London: 1958 p. 118.[30] Hilchos Sta”m Hilchos Mezuzah no. 289:1.[31] The Daas Kedoshim ibid. concludes, “however, one does not have to be extra careful.” See R’ Dovid Sperber, Teshuvas Afrakasta Deanyah, Romania: 1940, p, 88, responsum no. 99 (explaining that this means that the proper thing is to be careful). The author asked Rabbi Chaim Kenevsky Shlita”h winter 2008, “Should one be careful not to have a mezuzah holder made of iron”? He answered “that there are those that are makpid, however I am not.”[32] The Magen Avraham end of siman 180, explictly writes that the whole hakpadah is with regard to iron. R’ Moshe Tzvi Landau, Mezusas Melochim, p. 42b, cites the Besh”t that one should be careful not to use a holder of iron, but is not clear that this custom should also apply to all metal and he continues that even regarding iron one does not have to be so stringent not to use it. See R’ Uri Fievel Halevi Braudstien, Mikdash Me’at, where he argues that one does not have to be careful not to have a holder of iron. R’ Yehuda Shienfeld, Osrei Legefen, Jerusalem: 2002, p. 393, responsum no. 551, asserting that the hakpadah is only with metal that you make a knife or sword, such as iron and even copper you should try to be careful not to use it, but other types of metal is fine to use. But see, R’ Dovid Sperber, Teshuvas Afrakasta Deanyah, who asks that it would seem from the poskim that it is not so clear that it doesn’t apply to the also to other metals and on the contrary it would seem it is also prohibited. See also Ohr Yisroel, Monsey N.Y. 2000, 5-1-(17), p. 147.[33] R’ Shabtzi Liphshutz, Segulas Yisroel, Jerusalem: 1993, p. 191.[34]R’ Matzliach Mazuz, Abiah Segulos, Tel Aviv: 2001, p. 19.[35] See Joshua Trachtenberg ibid. pg. 56-57 to what extent people took to be careful not to give any ideas to the Sattan.[36] An explanation to how the Lubliner and others had no problem to buy knives and give them out to others is because if it is for Rosh Hashanah or even a segulah or if it was a present to other for Shabbos Kodesh then there is no danger as the Mitzvah protects. Also it may be offered that if it was bought directly for others so it is like they bought it themselves. [37] We find many instances where Jews gave a knife as a present without hesitation. See Avraham Yari, Masoet Eretz Yisroel, p. 476; see also Hagar Salomon, The Hyena People, California: 1999, pp. 43-44; David Biale, Cultures of the Jews, New York: 2002, p. 984. The people of the Beth Israel are recorded as giving a gift of knives to their Christain friends at the occasion of a wedding. These gifts carried particular symbolic meanings charged with hidden messages. The Manestricher Rebbe, Rabbi Yitzcok Yoel Rabinowitz zt’l although knowing of the belief of the Baal Shem Tov he would still give silver challah knives as a present Lekovod Shabbos (as heard from his son). The present Belz Rebbi shlita”h often gives challah knives a gifts. [As heard from Chasidim]. When the author asked Rabbi Chaim Keneyevski Shlita”h Winter 2008 “Should one be careful not give a knife as a present and is there a source for this superstition “? He answered he never heard of such a thing.[38] Gospelles of Dystaues, pt. 2 xx. (quoted in A Dictionary of Superstitions, Opie & Tatem, Oxford: 1989, p. 217). The Gospel was written around 1470 is an anonymous work that appears to have many contributors, in 1507 it was translated into English a nd published by editor Wynkyn de Worde.[39] Quoted in Teklu Domotoc, Hungarian Folk Beliefs, Indiana: 1981 p. 62.[40] Poetical Rapsodie 6, F. Davidson, 1611, Minors Poems 91:11.[41] Notes and Queries Feb 8, 1890, p. 117, From Two Wise Men and All the Rest Fools, A Comicall Morall, 1619, attributed to George Chapman: Levita: ‘what! Knives? O, I will not take them in any wise: they will cut love.’ See also John Gay, Sheppards Week 26 [Tuesday II 101-102], quoted in a Dictionary of Superstitions and in N&Q Feb. 8, 1890 pg. 117, I quote ‘But woe is me! Such presents luckless prove, for knives; they tell me, always sever love. See Dictionary of superstitions ibid. with many source See North Carolina Folklore, Frank Brown, North Carolina 1961, vol. 6, pg. 632 num. 4650, pg. 473-4 num. 3578-80 [brings may different sources from north American recordings]. Also see Funks and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, 1972, pg. 584. See also A Dictionary of English Folklore, Jacqueline Simpson & Steve Roud, Oxford University Press 2000, pg. 205. See Notes and Queries, Sept. 16, 1893. pg. 231. N&Q. July 22, 1893, pg. 78, Rev. Samuel Bishop, head master of Merchant Taylor’s School 1783-95. wrote the following line on the subject, on presenting a knife to his wife: ‘a knife, they say, dear girl, cuts love, mere modish love it may, for any tool of any kind, can separate what was never joined.’ [A very interesting exclusion to the superstition and a very light look by Bishop of such a known belief]. J.S.T.O.R., Superstition from Oregon, Donald M. Hines, pg. 6 of 14. giving a knife as a gift is bad luck as it cuts friendship. Also Superstition and Maxims from Dutchess Count, N.Y. by Gertuse Barnes 4 of 7, you must not thank any one when given a knife or a pin or anything sharp it will cut the friendship.[42] See Dorthy Osborne, letter 13-15 Jan. 1654, quoted in a Dictionary of Superstitions p. 345 (“Did not you say once you knew where good French tweezes were to bee had? Send me a prayer, they shall cut noe love”). Also in 1707, letters from Elizabeth Wentworth quoted id.(“Dearest brother, I give you a grate many thanks for the siszers you sent me by Mr. Shokman. I gave him six spences for fear that should not cute love one your side: but for mine ‘tis well grounded to fear ather siszers or knife cutting of it”). Also in 1711 in Spectator July 14, quoted in ibid pg. 309 I quote: ‘This very old women had a reputation of a witch… There was not a maid in the parish that would take a pin of her, though she should offer a bag of money with it. See Connoisseur 20 Feb.,1755, quoted in A Dictionary of Superstitions ibid I quote: ‘neither would on any account run the risk of cutting love, by giving or receiving such a gift as a knife or a pair of scissors.’ [43] See a Dictionary of Superstitions id. and p. 309, 345, with many sources. North Carolina Folklore ibid. pg 634, num 4651-4653, and pg. 474, num 3579-3580. N&Q Feb. 24., 1912, pg. 157. A Dictionary of English Folklore ibid, Funk and Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore ibid. [44] See Letter from Elizabeth Wentworth [Wentworth Papers ed. Cartwright, 76] Feb, 1707, quoted in A Dictionary of Superstition ibid pg. 345. I quote ‘Dearest brother, I give you a grate many thanks for the siszers you sent me by Mr. Shokman. I gave him six spences for fear that should not cut love one your side…See also Grose, Provincial Glossary, superstition 63. brought in a Dictionary of Superstitions ibid. pg. 217 and in a dictionary of English folklore ibid, I quote: ‘ it is unlucky to gift a knife, scissors, razor, or any sharp or cutting instrument, to one’s mistress or friend, as they are apt to cut love and friendship. To avoid the ill effects.. a pin, a farthing, or some trifling recompense, must be taken.’[45] See A Dictionary of Superstitions ibid. pg. 217 and pg. 345 pg. 309. North Carolina Folklore ibid. pg. 473 num 3578, a Dictionary of English Folklore ibid, Funk and Wagnalls standard dictionary of folklore ibid, N&Q May 15, 1858 pg. 391, and in Dec. 14, 1889 pg. 469. Feb. 24 1912 pg. 157. J.S.T.O.R. The Journal of American Folklore vol 36. by Martha Warren Beck [Superstitions collected from American College girls] pg. 4. num. 36, Some West Sussex Superstitions 1878 [lingering in 1860] collected by Charlotte Latham pg. 12 9th of 63, num. 43.[46] For an example, I saw brought down that Reb Tzvi Aryeh Rosenfeld said over that once he went to visit Reb Avraham Sthernhauz zt”l a previous leader of Breslov, and he gave Reb Avraham a challah board and knife. Reb Avraham agreed to accept the board but not the knife until he paid for it. [47] Otzar Hasegulot, Avraham Ben Yaakov, Jerusalem 1991, pg. 124.

R. Chaim Vital and his Unknown Work Sefer ha-Pe'ulot

R. Chaim Vital and his Unknown Work Sefer ha-Pe’ulot:

A Work on Science, Medicine, Alchemy and Practical Magic.

by: Eliezer Brodt

ספר הפעולות רבי חיים ויטאל, תש”ע, תלט עמודים כולל מבוא ומפתחות

A few years back, in a post at the Seforim blog discussing the history of plant known as baladur, I mentioned a sefer, Refuah Ma’asiyot le-Rav Chaim Vital. At the time, I only briefly touched upon this work. What follows is a more detailed discussion of the recently published edition as well as the history and substance of the work. The author is R. Chaim Vital, the most famous student of the Arizal. This work was virtually unknown, and is a collection of science, medicine, alchemy and kabbalah ma’asiyot (practical magic). In 2007, Professors Amar and Buchman published a part of this manuscript, entitled Refuah Ma’asios L’Rav Chaim Vital. A few months ago, someone printed the whole manuscript and provided a different title, Sefer ha-Pe’ulot.

As mentioned above, the author is R. Chaim Vital (1543- 1620). R. Vital is most well-known in the realm of kabbalah, and, specifically, as being the primary student of the Arizal entrusted with disseminating the Arizal’s works. R. Vital’s reputation, however, wasn’t confined to the Arizal’s teachings and kabbalah. R. Vital was well-represented in the niglah (revealed Torah) arena. R. Vital studied niglah with R. Moshe Alschich and R. Vital received (real) semikha during the time when such semikha was being given in Sefat.[1] Unfortunately, we do not have much of his writings in niglah with the few exception where his son quotes R. Vital in his son’s various works. For example, five responsa of R. Vital appear in Shu”t Baer Mayim Chaim (82-86) and the various pesakim scattered in his son’s works Chochmas Nashim, Chaim Shnayim Yeshalayim, and some of R. Vital’s other statements appear in Tosetos Chaim on Rashi. [2].

In Sefer ha-Chezyonot, R. Vital records R. Karo’s admonition to R. Alschich regarding R. Vital’s study in niglah:צוה מהר”ר יוסף קארו ז”ל למורי הר’ משה אלשיך בשם המלאך המגיד הדובר בו שיזהר מאוד ללמדני בכל יכלתו, כי אני הוא העתיד לישאר אחריו בדור ההוא ממלא מקומו של מהרי”ק (חזינות א:ג).

M. Benayhu in his work Toldos ha-Ari quotes R. Chaim Hakohen, a student of R. Vital, regarding R. Vital:וגם היה מקפיד מאוד שלא לכתוב קמיעות גם בתפילה לא הי’ מאריך כל כך רק אמר מלה במלה. והי’ אומר שאני רוצה ללמוד בשעה שאני זו שאני מאריך, וגם לא כאותן שמתפללין כל היום. והי’ לומד כל היום וכל הלילה (ספר תולדות האר”י, עמ’ 243)

For all the Kabbalah aspects related to R. Vital see Y. Avivi work’s Binyan Ariel, which caused great controversy, and his more recent three volume masterpiece Kabbalat ha-Ari. See also Lawrence Fine, Physicians of the Soul, Healers of the Cosmos.

Much has been written about Vital’s famous autobiography, Sefer ha-Chezyonot, (see here and here) G. Scholem sums up some of the history of the work:

ספר החזיונות יצא לאור מתוך כתב יד המחבר על ידי אהרן זאב אשכולי. ירושלים מוסד הרב קוק ג’ שלום כתב: אחרי הופעת הספר מיחו כמה רבנים בפני מוסד הרב קוק על שלא גנזו ספר זה וגרמו בזיון לתורה, וביניהם ראובן מרגליות מת”א שכתב להם שכתב היד בוודאי מזוויף מן האחרונים! (ספריית גרשום שלום בתורת הסוד היהודית, א, #4331)

Returning to the Sefer ha-Pe’ulot, it was first mentioned in brief by Gershon Scholem in Alchemie und Kabbala [recently translated into English by Klaus Ottman]. The alchemy section of this book was discussed by Raphael Patai in his book, Jewish Alchemists. Meir Benayahu discusses it in various places in his writings (amongst them in his book on the Ari and in two articles in Korot (9:3-17,9:91-111). Gerrit Boss, wrote an extensive article on this book called “Hayyim Vital’s Practical kabbalah and Alchemy; a 17th Century book of secrets” in the Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy, Volume 4, pp. 54-112. In this article Boss reorders the book, as the book, as it is appears in the manuscript isn’t a model of clarity, doing an excellent job of putting each remedy into its proper categories. [Boss also criticizes the discussion of Patai on the topic of alchemy in relation to this work.]. Yosef Avivi briefly discusses in his catalog of the Musayif collection (Ohel Shem, pp.191-93) as that it where this manuscript came from. The whereabouts of the actual manuscript today are a mystery, rumors are that it is sold page by page for a segulah, and each page fetches a large sum of money.
More recently, Prof. Zohar Amar and Yael Buchman in published two articles in Sinai (121:231-38 and 125:202-215) they focus upon the various halachic aspects discussed in this work. Buchman also wrote her doctorate on this work of R. Vital, Aspects of Material Culture, Realia and Medicine in the works of Rabbi Hayyim Vital (1543-1620), Bar Ilan Univ., (Heb). Buchman’s main focus is not the kabbalah parts but rather the science and medical aspects of this work. She demonstrates, at length, that this is an excellent document to give us a picture of the medical world during that time period. She also has an additional article about this work based on her doctorate in Katedra (99:48-64). In 2007, Buchman and Amar printed part of this book, Refuah Ma’asiyot le-Rav Chaim Vital. But, they printed only the medical portion. This edition, however, is very useful in understanding the medical aspects of the sefer. They note that a volume on the realia part is being prepared.
What makes Sefer ha-Pe’olot especially interesting is that we see R’ Chaim Vital in a different light than previously known. In the first part of this work we see him as a doctor of sorts. He provides remedies to people for all kinds of illnesses, in all areas of health, asthma, infertility, headaches, toothaches and much more. Much of the advice was based on Segulos or the like. In this work he shows a familiarity with real medical procedures from that time period. He quotes various pieces of medical advice that he had had read in various medical works.
We already were aware of Vital’s interest in science as he wrote a work called Sefer ha-Techuna related to astronomy. But, in Sefer ha-Pe’olot aside from showing him to be very involved in medicine we also see him interested in other things. For example, Vital provides in-depth descriptions of how to make wine, various milk products and the making of honey. He has a lengthy discussions of how to remove stains from clothes, how to dye garments, how to make ink and reeds for writing. These discussions are a gold mind of information for those studying realia of various time periods of Eretz Yisroel. Realia is a prime topic of interest for Professor Amar and Bochman and they deal with that in their excellent introduction to Refuah Ma’asiyot le-Rav Chaim Vital. This is also the main focus of Bochman’s previously mentioned doctorate. As Bochman writes in her doctorate ”this manuscript… is the sole Hebrew source originating in 16th century EY still known today, which discusses directly and in detail different aspects of material culture, realia and medicine. He thus provides a rare insight into the daily routine of the Jewish community in EY during this period, of the problems it faced and the ways in which those problems were solved.” Gerit Bos in his above cited article (pp. 59-62) also touches a bit on this aspect of realia. Bochman suggest an interesting reason for R. Vital interest in writing about all these practical things such as wine making dyeing, cheese making etc. ”R. Chaim Vital’s purpose in writing about everyday issues is in fact a reflection of his Halachic world view. A study of his Halachic and practical teachings confirms that R. Vital preferred to make the goods he needed himself rather than buying them from gentiles. In order to do so he had to find ways of simplifying the manufacturing process of many products. He succeeded, and thus avoided the Halachic problems raised as a result form purchasing from foreign sources.”

Other Ideas Discussed in Sefer ha-Pe’olot

Another large section of this work is segulos and kabbalah masiyot. This section contains many parts, many of which R. Vital writes he tested and used successfully, other recipes he tested and they did not work and yet others which he heard from reliable sources that they worked but he had not independently tested. All these sections, however, are not in any order. He returns to the same topic than goes to another and comes back to it again and again. Bos in his previously mentioned article does a nice job of organizing some of it into topics. There are methods for all kinds of things just to list a few: methods preventing Ayin Hara, bones stuck in a throat, finding out which woman one will marry, talking to dead people, how to deal with plagues, ways to track down thieves, dealing with enemies and help having children. I will discuss a few of these ‘recipes ‘and a little about them in other sources.

She’elot Chalom – Asking Questions via DreamsHe includes many methods to find out information via dreams (pp. 11-12, 193, 250-51, 265, 276). We find many methods and instances for performing a dream question and answer from the Geonic period into the Middle Ages the process is generally referred to as שאלת חלום. One of the most famous works which was written utilizing this method is the Shu”t Min ha-Shamyim. Much has been written on this topic in general, as the use of such a procedure appears to run afoul of Rabbinic rule that Torah is not in heaven (Torah lav ba-shamayim). A nice collection of material on this topic has been collected by A. Heschel in a classic article printed in the Sefer Hayovel Lekovod Alexander Marx (see especially pp. 183-186, 195-208). R. Reven Margolis in his edition of Shu”t Min ha-Shamayim also does a great job of putting together the material on the topic. One should also read the introduction of R. Aron Marcus to his edition of Shut Min Ha-shmayim. Recently this topic has been dealt with in a doctorate by M. Goldstein called Histayos Begormim Min Hasmayim Be Hachras Halacha. See also the forthcoming article on this topic from Professor Kanarfogel called ”’For its not in heaven’: Dreams as a Determinant of Jewish Law and Practice in Northern Europe During the High Middle Ages”. See also Hagar Kahana-Smilansky, “Aristotle on Sleep and Wakefulness: A Medieval Hebrew Adaptation of an Unknown Latin Treatise,” Aleph 10:1 (2010): 67-118; (especially at the end of the piece); A. Kuyt, Hasidut Askenaz on the Angel of Dreams, in Creation and Re-creation in Jewish Thought. Yuval Harrari, “‘The Opening of the Heart’: Magical Practices for Gaining Knowledge, Understanding and Good Memory in Judaism of Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages,” in Shefa Tal: Studies in Jewish Thought and Culture presented to Bracha Sack, eds., Z. Gries, H. Kreisel, and B. Huss (Beer Sheva, 2004), 336-344. See also. M. Idel, Mekubulim Shel Leiylah. See also the manuscript of a sefer Segulot from Italy available here p. 8,12,14,19,21,24 (of the PDF).Shadal writes about his father:ומה תאמר אם אגיד לך כי גם אדוני אבי זצ”ל היה עושה לעת הצורך שאלת חלום על פי חכמת קבלה מתות מה שלמד בס’ הברית, והשיג לפעמים חלומות צודקים כוללים הגדת עתידות שנתקיימו (ויכוח על חכמת הקבלה, עמ’ 125 [על אביו וספר הברית ראה: פרקי חיים (שולוואס) עמ’19 ]).
Interestingly to note while looking for early sources that mention the Beshet, G. Scholem (The Latest Phase, (Heb.), p. 119) found one from the Shages Aryeh where he said:
ואמר כל מה שהבעל שם טוב ידע היה הכל על ידי שאלת חלום בכל לילה.And one quoted from manuscript by S. Dubnov:
זכרתי בהיות הרב המפורסם הבקי בחכמת אלקות מוה’ ישראל בעל שם זצ”ל עשה שאלת חלום והראו לו שנשמת אבי מורי ז”ל נשמת רב אלפס, ובעבור שלא חבור הרב אלפסי בסדר קדשים בא אדמ”ו לתקן זה (תולדות החסידות, עמ’ 484).Just for bibliographical purposes G. Scholem got the exact sources wrong it was the Gra who said it and not the Shages Aryeh – he misread the source. It says:
גם אמר שהגאון אמר על השאגת אריה שהוא מרבה אחר הפלפול והשאגת אריה אמר על הגאון זצ”ל שהוא מרבה בפשטות. ועוד אמר שהבעל שם טוב מה שידע הי’ על ידי שאלות חלום בכל לילהThis is from a list of statements that R. Chaim Volzhiner told a student of his printed in the Tosfos Maseh Rav (p.18b, #113). Scholem understood that the whole statement was from the Shages Aryeh, as R. Chaim Volzhiner also studied with him. But, the statement following the period is really a new piece and is going back to the Gra which is what most of the sefer is material R. Chaim heard from the Gra. Today we have other manuscripts which contain this statement and confirm that this statement was made by the Gra and not by the Shages Aryeh, see Keser Rosh, (last chapter #13); Eliach, Kol Hakosev Lechaim, p. 239. Be that as it may it is clear the Gra held that the Beshet used this method often. But, R. A. Kemlar in his work Dor De’ah (p. 29) writes that Beshet was very anti using such methods. The source for R. Kemlar was probably R. Aron Marcus who makes this claim in his Keses Hasofer on Shut Min Ha-shmayim (p.8) and he used his works extensively.
There is another possible source of the Besht using dreams and that is regards to eating Chadash:וסיפר שהבעל שם טוב שאל בחלומו על חדש בזמן הזה איך הדין. וענו לו שלאחר פטירת הב”ח צ”ל ציינו את הגהינם ארבעים יום מחמת שהיה צריך זה לכבוד הב”ח. ובבוקר עמד הבעל שם טוב זצ”ל ושלח להביא שכר מחדש ושתהו. ואמר כדאי הב”ח שמתיר לסמוך עליו (זכרון טוב, פיעטרקוב תרנב, דף יב ע”א אות יא).This story is very famous and has been dealt with at length by Y. Mondshine here. I will quote two sources from Mondshine’s article as this leads us into this next topic. He shows that how the story developed and to when this piece of the Besht and a dream was added to it. See also Pardes Yosef, Vayikra, p. 274; R. G. Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beyadnu, 2, pp. 512-24.Even if The Besht did not use dreams he used other methods such as השבעת עליית הנשמה as it is clear from the famous document אגרת עליית הנשמה. For the sources on this see Y. Mondshine, Shivhei ha-Besht, pp. 233-39; Shivhei ha-Besht (Rubenstein ed.), pp. 92-3; M. Rosman in Founder of Hasidism: A Quest for the Historical Ba’al Shem Tov pp. 99-113; E. Etkes, Baal Shem, (heb.), pp. 292-301.[Completely off topic but in light of tumult of two hundred and fiftieth Yarzheit of Beshet, Scholem in the earlier quoted lecture missed another early source about the Besht- in the Shem Hagedolim the Chida writes:אור החיים… ושמענו כי עתה בפולוניא הם מחשבים אותו הרבה ונדפס עוד שני פעמים ונתעורר זה על ידי שהרב החסיד קדוש מהרר”י הגיד גדלות נשמת מהר”ח הנזכר (שם הגדולים, ערך אור החיים).How To: Exorcisms
R. Vital brings methods to remove dybukim, shedim and/or reuach rah that may attach themselves to people (pp. 176, 208, 222, 258-59). For recent discussion, on this topic see: J.H. Chajes, Between Worlds Dybbuks, Exorcists and Early Modern Judaism. See also J.H. Chajes, Jewish Exorcism: Early Modern Traditions and Transformations, pp.386-398, in Judaism in Practice, Ed. L. Fine; D. Ruderman, Kabbalah, Magic and Science, pp. 55-58; G. Nagel, Sipurei Dybuk Besafrus Yisroel; Dybbuk and Maggid: Two Cultural Patterned of Altered Consciousness in Judaism, AJS Review, 21:2(1996):341-366; Nishmat Chaim, 3:10; Ish ha-Emunah, p.45; C. Hamberger, Three Worlds, (heb.), 3:69-70. There is even a story of the Gra and a Dybbuk, see Ha-goan, pp. 499-502. For an additional story with a Dybuk in Lita, see Y. Kotick, What I saw,(Heb.), ed. D. Assaf (end of chapter eight); Etkes, Baal Shem, (heb.), p. 290; See also Emet le-Ya’akov, p.264. On the Chasam Sofer and a Dybuk see Chut ha-Mishulash, pp. 38a-38b. See also this great article from Y. Mondshine here.
Some other well-known sources on dybukim:וכבר שמענו בזמננו זה מפי מגידי אמת הגדה מפורסמת שיקרה לאנשים נופלים נרדמים בבטול חושיהם ומפיהם יצא עתק לדבר ולהשיב ושפותותיהם בלתי נעות וקול דברים יוצא מגרונם שואלים ומשיבים כענין. וכן ראיתי כתב בא מצפת תוב”ב בשנה הזאת שנת ש”ס לפ”ק לענין אשה שהיתה נופלת כן (מעשי ה’ מעשה בראשית פרק ב, עמ’ יב .).The Simchas Hanefesh writes:

ואני הכרתי בק”ק טשאכטשב ילד בן שלש שניים שהיה דובר סודות התורה גדולים, והוא עצמו לא ידע מאי קאמר. גם בק”ק ליסא היתה בתולה אחת שהיתה מגדת סודות התורה ואחר כך הוברר הדבר שהיה זה קליפה… ובהיותי מתגורר במדינות פולין אירע שם מעשה כזה, באשה cאחת שדבק השד ימים כלילות ולבסוף הרג את ילדיה (שמחת הנפש, עמ’ נב-נג).

Earlier I cited a story of the Ba’al Shem and his dream in relationship to the Bach and eating Chadash. I quoted that Y. Mondshine has demonstrated that this is not the exact story and as tends to happen stories they get additions and undergo changes over time. The Chida in Shem Hagedolim writes:

ראיתי להרב מהר”ר רפאל בספרו תוס’ שבת… בהקדמתו… דרוח אחד נתגלה באיש אחד והרוח בתוך דבריו היה מסיח לפי תומו דכאשר עלה לשמים הרב ב”ח כרוזא קרי בחיל פנו מקום לר’ יואל מקרקא (שם הגדולים, ערך הרב הגאון גדול בדורו מהר”ר יואל סירקי”ס).

Rav A. Landau brings:

וקבלתי מישישים בשם צדיקים קדושים זי”ע דהמעשה שהביא בשם הגדולים… מהכבוד הנעשה לרבינו הב”ח… היה בשביל היתר החדש שהמציא הוא ז”ל (צלותא דאברהם, ב, עמ’ תריט).

Segulot for Better Memory-Petihat Lev

Another group of ideas mentioned in this work are methods related to helping ones memory (pp. 270, 299). Some of which are for Petihat Lev (pp. 270, 329, 348). One of the methods he mentions is eating baladur (p. 348, 343) which has been the subject of its own post:
פתיחת לב לחכמי צרפת וכך היו נוהגים לעשות לבניהם וכך היו נותנין להם בכל בוקר… ונקרא בלאדור קטן… (עמ’ שמח)The subject of Petihat Lev has been discussed much in recent literature. This concept of Petihat Lev is found in many different sources where people used to do all kinds of things to help with memory and understanding Torah enabling one to understand and recall the Torah effortlessly. One example something done for Petihat Lev of this are the customs relating to the educational initiation ceremony of young boys still done today in many circles.Professor Y. Ta Shema printed a piece from manuscript (included in his Kneset Mechkarim 1:154) from a work written in 1294 called Sefer Hamaskil which gives us a little insight into this Petihat Lev it says: ומאותו היום שאכלו אדם הראשון ניתנו לו חדרדים בלבו לקבל כוח רוח עץ הדעת, שהוא רוח מעורבב מטוב ורע, ויש לו לאדם כמה חדרים בליבו, כל חדר ממונה על ממשלת חכמה אחת, חדר זה ממונה על מלאכת החרש… ובאמצעית הלב יש חדר גדול המקבל רוח שכל עץ הדעת ושותין ממנו שאר חדרים כולו. נסתם חדר אחר או שנים נסתמים ממונים עליהם, כאשר אתה רואה קצת בני אדם שהם סכלים בחכמות העולם והם חכמים גדולים בחכמת המלאכים. ובזמן שהחדר האמצעי כולו סתום, ואין הרוח יכול להתפשט מתמלא המוח עשן ומשתטה”.Some general sources on Petihat Lev can be found in: Ephraim Kanarfogel, in his Peering through the Lattices, Mystical, Magical and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period (pp. 140-41,156, 237), Ivan G. Marcus, Rituals of Childhood, Jewish Acculturation in Medieval Europe (p. 28), and in the excellent article by Yuval Harrari, “‘The Opening of the Heart’: Magical Practices for Gaining Knowledge, Understanding and Good Memory in Judaism of Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages,” in Shefa Tal: Studies in Jewish Thought and Culture presented to Bracha Sack, eds., Z. Gries, H. Kreisel, and B. Huss (Beer Sheva, 2004), 303–347 (available here). See also in his recent book Ha-Kishuf ha-Yehudi ha-Kodom picture 20 (at the end of the book) and the very recent Yeruschatanu 4:48. See also the manuscript of a sefer Segulot from Italy available here pp. 7,20, 30 (of the PDF).
Remedies Against Lilith Another batch of remedies discussed by R. Vital are ways to prevent Lilith (p. 203, 140, 216). R. Vital writes that he used one particular procedure over two thousand times:בענין לילות… הנה פעמים רבות לאין קץ יותר מאלפים פעמים כתבתי אותם…”During the sixteenth century, many were concerned about Lilith. For example, R. Eliyahu Bocher [Elias Levita] (1469-1549) writes in his classic work Sefer Ha-Tishbi, in his entry for Lilith:לילת… נמצא כתוב, שאותן מאה ושלושים שנה שהיה אדם פרוש מחוה באו שדים ונתחממו ממנו והוליד שדין ורוחין ומזיקין. ובמקום אחר מצאתי ארבע נשים הם אמות השדים, לילית ונעמה ואוגרת ומחלת… ובספר בן סירה בשאלה הששית ששאל נבוכדנצאר אותו, וזה לשונו מפני מה הבנים מתים כשהם בני שמונה ימים? אמר לו, מפני שלילית הורגת אותם, והאריך שם הרבה, וקצתי לכותבם כי אינני מאמין בהם, אך מנהג פשוט בינינו האשכנזים שעושין עגול סביב כותלי החדר ששוכבת בה היולדת עם נתר או גחלים וכותבין בכל כותל אדם חוה חוץ לילית, ובפתח החדר מפנים כותבין שמות שלשה מלאכים אלו… כמו שהמסרה להם לילית בעצמה בשעה שרצו המלאכים האלו להטביע אותה בים, כל זה מבואר היטב בספר בן סירה, יעיין שם מי שמאמין בו. (ספר התשבי, ערך לילית).A little later R. Chaim Me-Friedberg (c. 1520-88), the Maharal’s brother, writes: “וכן המנהג לעגל את החיות בעת לידתם אחר שם שכובים על המטה, כדי שלא ישלוט בהם רוחין ולילין, וכל כן כותבים לילית חוץ בהזכרת שלשה שמות של המלאכים (ספר החיים, ספר חיים טובים פרק ח). R. Zev Rabinowitz offers a very different perspective on this custom, after quoting the words of the Tishbi, R. Rabinowitz writes:”ועוד בזמננו מצוי בינינו קמיע זה נדפס על נייר ותולין אותו למעלה מכל דלת שבבית היולדת. והמנהג למהר לתלותו תיכף אחר הלידה מפני חשש סכנה לדעת ההמון וגדוליו. וב”ה כי בטלתי קמיע זה (אשר לא ממקור טהור נובע) מביתי… והיולדת ובניה היו שלמים ובריאים, כי שומר ישראל ישמור מכל רע את כל הבוטח בו בלי שום כלי סגולה, תמיה תהיה עם ה’ (שערי תורת בבל, עמ’ 498)There are many articles devoted to the topic of Lilith see for example R. Reven Margolis in his Malechei Elyon. Additionally, Gershom Scholem wrote a few essays in which he collected a lot of the material on the topic and for recent updated versions of these essays see his work Shedim Ruchos and Neshmos edited by E. Leibes pp. 61-102 [also printed in his Mechkrei Kabalah, pp. 201-24] Although Scholem quotes many excellent sources including many from manuscript and he was aware of the manuscript Sefer ha-Pe’olot (as mentioned earlier) of R. Vital he does not quote with regard to Lilith. He also does not quote the source from Sefer ha-Chaim. See Mivchar Kitvei Mordechai Gimpel Shnaver, pp.4-6; Y. Stal notes to his edition of R. Y. Hachassid’s Amaros Tehoros. pp. 176-77; N. Rubin, Reshis ha-Chaim, pp. 56-59. See also D. Sperber, The Jewish Life Cycle, pp. 26-31; C. Hamberger, Three Worlds, (heb.), 3:7-9; Y. Dan, Toldot Torat ha-Sod ha-Ivrit, 2:532-37. See also this recent work which is devoted to the topic available here.
Bibliomancy Another interesting method found in this sefer is the method of gorel using a Chumash to find out what to do:
ואני הצעיר הכותב קבלתי שצריך לעשות הגורל הנז’ בחומש מכתיבת יד שאין בו כי אם חמשה חומשי תורה ואפילו לא הפטרות. והשלך שבעה שביעיות שהם מט, ומן שער החמישים יוצא כזה השלך ז’ עלין… (עמ’ קפט)This concept has been used by many and is more recently the subject of two books, Gorel Hagra and Hegyon ha-Gorel from E. Martzbach. See also Bromberg’s book, Me-Gedolei ha-Torah veha-Chasidut on the Marsham, pp. 129,144; Eliach in his book Ha-Goan, pp. 1110-1127; Alei Tamar, Shabbat, pp.83-4; R. Reuven Margolis, Mekor Chesed, p.214.

How To: Kefisot ha-Derech

R. Vital provides a method for ‘Kefisios haderech’ (p.278), or traveling at hight speed (before the advent of the Concorde). Additional methods for kefisiot ha-derekh can be found in many different early documents. In the collection Teshuvos ha-Geonim ha-Chadoshot we find a teshuva to Rav Hai Goan about this topic which says:

ודבר ברור ומפורסם לאנשי ספרד ומסורת בידם מאבותיהם כי מר נטרונאי גאון ז”ל בקפיצת הדרך בא אליהם מבבל ורבץ תורה וחזר וכי לא הלך בשיירא ולא נראה בדרך. וכמה ספרים מצויין אצלינו כתוב בהם מהשמות וכמה שמות מלאכים וצורת חותמות ואומ’ הרוצה לעשות כך והרוצה להגיע לכך יכתוב כך וכך כמו זה על כך וכך ויעשה כך ויתקיים לו המעשה (תשובות הגאונים החדשות, מהד’ עמנואל סי’ קטו, עמ’ 125).This Teshuva has been printed earlier in a few places amongst them in Perush le-Sefer Yetzirah Li-Ha-Ri Barcelona (p.103). It is worth reading the most complete version of this teshuva in S. Emanuel edition as it is the most comprehensive discussion of magic etc. in a Rabbinic source from that time period. Especially, as always it is worth reading, Emanuel’s excellent notes there (pp.121-46). See also R. Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture, Yale University Press 1998, pp.142-147 and Tzemichat ha-Kehillah ha-Yihudit be-Artzot ha-Islam 275-78; Yuval Harrari, Ha-Kishuf ha-Yehudi ha-Kodom, pp. 258-61; J.Tractenberg, Jewish Magic And Superstition: A Study In Folk Religion, p. 88; Louis Jacobs, Theology in The Responsa, pp. 18-21; Y. Dan, Toldos Torat ha-Sod he-Ivrit, 3:154-72. Another early source where we find kefisiot ha-derekh mentioned is in Megilat Achimatz (pp. 20-21). A later source for kefisiot ha-derekh can be found in R. Katzenelenbogen’s Yeish me-Nechlin, p. 65, 96. See also the manuscript of a sefer Segulot from Italy available here p. 13 (of the PDF). See also R. Margolis in the back of his edition of Sefer Chasidim pp. 586-89 and G. Nigal, Magic Mysticism and Hasidism, Heb. ,pp. 33-42,170-77. The Chida even brings in Shem Hagedolim (entry on R. Vital) a story of R. Vital himself doing kefisiot ha-derekh.For an amusing yet unsuccessful account of an attempt to do ‘Kefisios haderech’ see A. Ber Gotliber, Zikhronot u-Maseot, p. 120:אני וחברי אמרנו ננסה הפעם אחת מנפלאותינו הנה נא ידענו לעשות קמיע על קפיצת הדרך מה לנו לשבת בעגלה רתומה לסוסים נלכה ברגלנו והקמיע על צווארנו, ונראה מה יהיה, ונעש כן… ויהי העם רצים בסוסים אחרי מרכבת הרב, ואנחנו, אני ויעקב יוסף, רודפים אחריהם ברגל, כגיבור ששנו לרוץ אורח ברגלינו, לא הלכנו עוד כל ימי חיינ… ימים רבים הייתי כלוא אחר כך בביתי ולא יכולתי צאת ובוא כי רגלי בצקו, והכאב גדול מאוד, כי לא נוסיתי באלה,
R. Yakov Emden writes about kefisiot ha-derekh:

מן המקרא נראה שאפילו הנביאים לא היו משתמשים בשם ללכת בקפיצה שהרי אליהו הנביא הגדול שבנביאים אחרי משה רבינו הלך נבוך במדבר ארבעים יום… (הגהות על עירובין דף מג ע”א).

Automatic Writing
R. Vital brings a method for ‘automatic writing’ which basically via using a Shem so that the pen writes itself (p.175).
The Chida writes in his travels that the Shach was able to perform this feat:עוד סיפור שהש”ך היה יודע שם הכותב והוא היה מדבר והקולמוס כותב מאליו ומשו”ה כתב כמה ספרים (מעל טוב השלם, עמ’ 144)
R. Luria writes about his uncle the Radal (printed in the introduction of many editions of the Radal’s Pirkei De R’Eliezer) who writes:כח מהירת הכתיבה אשר חחנו הש”י הי’ מפליא עיני כל רואי עד שהיה כמפורסם לכל שזכה להשבעת הקולמוס, ובפרט כי היה נמצא בכתב יד במגלת סתרים שלו סדר השבעת הקולמוס.
On automatic writing see also, M. Benayhu, Ha-Chida pp. 292, 563-68, and the important comments of Y. Tishbi, in Mishichut be-Dor Gerush Sefard u-Purtchagal, pp.55-56.
There is even a story with the Chida and ‘automatic writing’ see Sefer Ha-Chida p.191 where he was in Paris and he saved the King’s son from drowning and as the story goes the queen asked him what he wanted as a reward:
שתבקשי מהמלך שיתן לי רשות כדי שנוכל ליכנס ולראות הספריה של פאריס המפורסמת בכל העולם. אשת המלך עשתה רצונו מפני הטובה שקדם ועשה לה התחיה את בנה, ביקשה מבעלה ונתן לו רשות לזמן קצר, דהיינו שלושה ימים, כל יום שתי שעות, מפני שהדבר קשה עליו בפרט לאיש יהודי. לפיכך הוצרך החיד”א להשתמש בשבעות הקולמוס, כלומר שהיה משביע את הקולמוס בשמות הקדוש שיכתוב מאליו כל מה שירצה בקלות מרובה ובזמן מועט. בשלושה ימים אלה בלבד הספיק כמעט להעתיק כל מה שרצה בקיצור, ואחר כך התחיל ללמוד ולהתבונן בהם כראוי והוציא מהם כמה דברים חדשים ויקרים שהאיר את העולם בהם.Evil Eye
This work is full of methods to remove the evil eye see pp. 175, 194, 241, 298-99.Torat Chaim writes

שענין עין הרע הוא ניצוץ ושפע רע ומזיק היוצא מן העין ומגיע דבר הנראה אליו ונדבק בו… (תורת חיים, ב”מ, דף פד ד”ה מה דגים).

C. Hamberger, Three Worlds, (2:145) in his excellent chapter on the Torat Chesed writes regarding the Torat Chaim:

הרב חשש מאוד לעין הרע,, לבד שלא אמר הח”י פרק משנה בפני כל איש, עוד כשבא אליו איש שלא נתיישר בעיניו, כשהלך האיש, אמר הרב פלוני הביט עלי עין הרע, ונכנס למטבח והקיא, לפיכך בכל לילה כשהלכו כל האנשים הוצרכו שנים ממכיריו לאמר לפניו את הלחש לעין הרע של החיד”א בשמו… (שלשה עולמות, ב, עמ’ קמה)

Chazon Ish writes:

מסודות הבריאה כי האדם במחשבתו הוא מניע גורמים נסתרים בעולם המעשה ומחשבתו הקלה תוכל לשמש גורם להרבה ולחרבן של גשמים מוצקים, וכדאמר פסחים נ’ ב’ כיון דנפיש אפחזייהו שלטא בהו עינא… ובשעה שבני אדם מתפעלים על מציאות מוצלחה, מעמידים את מציאות זו בסכנה, ומ”מ הכל בידי שמים וכל שלא נגזר עלי’ בדין שמים לאבדן הדבר ניצל, אבל שכנגזר הדבר לאבד, מתגלגל הדבר לפעמים על ידי שמת עין תמהון על הדבר ועל ידי זה הוא כלה… (חזון איש, הערות מסכות ב”ב סי’ כא, עמ’ רנה ע”א)

R. Gedalih Nadel writes:

שיש מציאות של עין הרע- זה דבר ברור. זה לא מעשה שדים וכשפים, אלא זהו רגש של קנאה, ומסירת דין לשמים… (בתורתו של ר’ גדליה, עמ’ קס-קסא).

R. Y. Kamentsky writes

ענין עין הרע שיכול להזיק, הוא מציאות גמורה, וכמו שמצינו כן בדברי חז”ל, ומכל מקום מזיק רק למי שחושש לעין הרע, ולמי שאינו חושש אינו מזיק… (במחיצת רבנו, עמ’ רכט-רל).

For some additional sources on evil eye. See: Nishmat Chaim, 3:27; R. David de Silva, Pri Megadim p.50; R. Yosef Zecariah Stern, Maymar Talchoet ha-Aggadot, p.13; R. Eliyahu Gutmacher, Sukkat Sholom, pp.84-85; Seder Eliyahu, p. 21; Shu”t Kol Mevaser, 2:7; S. Ashkenazi, Avnei Chain, pp. 221-253; C. Hamberger, Three Worlds, 3:7-10; Ish HaEmunah, p. 81. See also Yuval Harrari, Ha- Kishuf ha-Yehudi ha-Kodom, pp. 298-302 and his piece in The Literature of the Sages (pp. 534-36).
It is worth quoting about this from the satirical work Ketav Yosher:

ויש לי ידיעות גם כן בחכמת הרפוא… ולא יאמין אדוני שלמדית חלילה חכמה הזאת בספרי הגוי’ ובכנסיה שלהם, שמו שיעשו פריצי בני עמונו חלילה! האם אין ספרי רפואות הרבה מאוד כמו מפעלות אלדים ושער אפרים מלאים סגולות ורפואות שאין בכל חכמי הגוים השגה לדעת דבר מהם לפי שהם למעלה מן הטבע, ואנכי ידעתי להסיר עין הרע בלחש… וכיוצא באלה (כתב יושר, דף ח ע”א).

On this work see M. Pelli, ‘Saul Berlin’s Ktav Yosher: The Beginning of Satire in Modern Hebrew Literature of the Haskalah in Germany,’’ in Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, XX (1975), pp. 109-127 see also this recent post [strangley enough KY is not listed in the classic work Parody in Jewish Literature].

Segulah of the Afikomon
Many people have the custom to save a piece of the afikomon after Pesach for various reasons R. Vital writes: לשתוק הים מזעפו כזית מצה שמורה מן האפקומין תשליך לד’ רוחות הספינה… (עמ’ רמא).This custom of saving the afikomon has been dealt with by many, most recently by Bentcy Eichorn in his Simchat Zion (73 pps.). The earliest source he found at the time mentioning this segulah was from the Tur Brekes a talmid of R. Chaim Vital. In this work we have R. Vital himself recording this custom. One famous personality who actually used this segulah was Sir Moses Montefiore. See Cecil Roth, Personalities and Events in Jewish History, p. 85. See also Abigail Green, Moses Montefiore: Jewish Liberator, Imperial Hero (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2010, pp. 83 and 447 n.104. [Thanks to Menachem Butler for this last source]. See also Gamliel Ben Pedahzur, The Book of Religion, Ceremonies and Prayers of the Jews, London 1738, p. 78 where he says it is used to prevent Evil Eye. [On this work see Cecil Roth, Personalities and Events in Jewish History, p.87-90, David B Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key, pp. 242-49]. See also See also D. Sperber, The Jewish Life Cycle, p. 585. Another source (not cited by B. Eichorn) is found in the rare book from R. Dovid Askenazi called Beis Dovid (available here) p. 46b. This work is quoted often by H. Pollack in his Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806).

Miscellaneous How Tos
Another method which R. Vital brings in this collection is how to have a angel visit you to teach you Torah (p. 299). The most famous person to have had this experience was R. Yosef Karo. For the most extensive discussion on this see J.Z. Werblowsky, Joseph Karo: Lawyer and Mystic. I hope to return to this topic shortly. For an earlier source of somone who had a angel visit him see R. Aron Marcus in his Ha-chasidut (p.242).

Another rather strange method found in this work is how to kill one’s enemy (p. 209) but later on he says:

ודע כי אין זה מותר אלא להורג שונא גוי אבל לשונא ישראל אסור אם משום לא תקלל חרש ואם מפני ששופך דמו והורגו… (עמ’ רסח).

R. Vital brings the known Segulah of saying Eliyhua Hanavi on Motzei Shabbat:

להרוויח פרנסתו בלי צער ויגיעה. בכל מוצאי שבת כשאומר ההבדלה יאמר שבעים פעמים אליהו הנביא לא פחות ולא יותר ואחר כך יכווין בלבו שם… (עמ’ רעו).

Interestingly enough when mentioning a segulah for שאלת חלום on Motzei Shabbas he also mixes in Eliyhua Hanavi.

שאלת חלום במוצאי שבת כשירצה ליישון ירחץ פניו וידיו ויאמר אליהו הנביא אליהו הנביא… (עמ’ שנג).

לדוד מזמור לה’… יאמר מזמור זה בליל ראשונה של ראש השנה ובליל יום הכיפורים קודם קדיש בתרא… ולא יחסרו לו כל ממזונותיו כל השנה ההיא… (עמ’ שכה).

On this topic see: R. Yosef Toemim (Pri Megadim) in Noam Megadim, 14b; the sources in Y. Goldhaver, Minhaghei Kehilot, 2:31; A. Brover, Zicronot Av u-Beno, p. 353, and my article in Yeruschnu 2:211.

This work has a few methods for one to use to determine the gender of a fetus (p. 214, 349, 357). R. Vital’s apparent permissive view on learning the gender of a fetus may provide support for the position which allows for one, today, to ask their doctor what one is having – as I had heard some people felt it is problematic.

R. Vital explains that reciting Parshas ha-Akieda helps for many things:להנצל מגנבים או לכל צרה תאמר כל פרשת העקידה בכונה שלימה (עמ’ קעו)

Elsewhere in this work R. Vital writes a method to help one stay up:
להקיץ בלילה ולא יאנוס אותך השינה אומר… (עמ’ רלז)Bos already points out that this probably has to do with the custom of Tikun Chatzos and staying up afterwords. See also Elliott Horowitz, “Coffee, Coffeehouses, and the Nocturnal Rituals of Early Modern Jewry,” AJS Review 14:1 (Spring 1989): 17-46.
Eating olives
About eating olives R. Vital writes:ראיתי במופת כי הרגיל לאכול זיתים הרבה… מביא שכחה גדולה לאדם ההוא (עמ’ כא).
R. David de Silva (son of the Pri Chodosh) writes in his work Pri Megadim:הזית עצמו עם היות שאמרו רז”ל בגנותו שהוא מטמטם את הלב, עכ”ז האוכל מעט מהם עם מזון בתוך הסעודה מחזק האיצטומכא וגורם תאות המאכל (פרי מגדים, עמ’ 123).

On eating olives see: Zecher Aseh, pp. 406-09 and Shmirat Ha-guf Ve-Hanefesh pp. 38-41. On olives in general see Z. Amar, Agriculture Produce in the Land of Israel in the Middle Ages, (heb.), pp.136-64.

About raising doves R. Vital writes:
יונים… המגדלים בתוך ביתו הוא בהכרח שימותו אחד או שנים מאנשי הבית בשנה ההיא. גם שאר היונים שמעתי שאינן סימן טוב לגדלם בבית לא לסבת הבנים ולא לסבת מיעוט ההצלחה בממון. ולכן טוב להתרחק גם מלגדל תורים… (עמ’ שיח) There is a nice comment from the Netziv on this topic: יש להתבונן למה שלח שני עופות הללו דווקא ערב ויונה. והלא יש הרבה עופות שפורחים טוב יותר מהם. ותו מאין היה רשות לנח להוציאם מן התבה לפני הזמן היציאה לכולם על כן היה נראה לפי הפשט דעורב ויונה הללו לא היו מן הזוגות שנכנסו להחיות זרע בדבר ה’. אלא בשביל שהיה נח לפני מי המבול כאחד מן השרים שמנהגם הי’ גם אז לגדל עורבים ויונים. כדאיתא בפ’ מפנין ונכנסו גם המה בכלל וכל ביתך כמ”ש לעיל והי’ מנהג העורב הגדל בבית שלא לשלחו במרחקים משא”כ יונה היא מלומדת לכך לשאת מכתבים למרחוק ולהביא דבר בפיה… (העמק דבר, נח, ח:ז).On this topic in general see: Tzar Balei Hachaim p. 237-40; R. Lerner in Shmirat Ha-guf Ve-Hanefesh pp. 709-11; Kovetz Eitz Chaim, 5:334-349.
R.Vital quotes about being a sandek at a Bris Milah:
גם מי שהוא סנדקוס לנימול אחד לא יהיה פעם אחרת סנדקות בשנה ההיא כי ח”ו א’ משני הנמולים ימות בשנה ההיא. אבל צוואת רבינו יהודה החסיד ז”ל היא שלא יהיה אדם א’ סנדקות לשני ילדים אחים בני איש אחד (עמ’ קמד).We see in this piece he was aware of the famous Tzavah of R. Yehudah Hachassid yet he disagreed with it.Sources of this work
As mentioned much of the material from this book is collected from many different sources one such source is R. Yeuhdah Aryeh Modena work Sod Yesharim first published in 1595. This work of Modena as described by Howard E. Adelman in “Success and Failure in the Seventeenth-Century Ghetto of Venice: The Life and Thought of Leon Modena, 1571-1648,” (PhD dissertation, Brandeis University, 1985), (p. 334) as a collection of “cures remedies and magic… was collected from Galen, a second century Greek Physician, Italian folklore and popular Italian books . . . These show no relation to Talmudic or medical rabbinic traditions.” What is a bit interesting regarding R. Vital use of this source is aside from much of Modena’s work being sourced from non-Jewish works, Modena was very anti-Kabbalah and even against the teachings of the Arizal and still R. Chaim Vital quotes a large part of this work. See also Z. Gries, Safrut Ha-Hanhagot, p.95.
Rashi and Kabbalah
R. Chaim Vital brings a method from Rashi saying certain shemot (p. 223). This would be an addition source to show that Rashi was familiar with kabbalah. For more on this see my Bein Kesseh Leassur, p.177. For additional sources on this see: Chasdei Dovid, Sotah 159a; A. Berliner, Ketavim Nevcharim, vol. 2, p. 212; Zunz, Toldot Rashi, p. 25b; M. Idel, Kabblah, New perspectives, p. 238; Shadal, Vechuach Hakabalah, p.8; Maznei Zedek, p.239. See also R. Yitchack Dimin Akko who writes:ואילו היה רש”י ז”ל מקובל בסודות התורה לא היה שותק מלומר דברי כוונת רז”ל במאמר זה ובמקומות רבים ששתק, ואע”פ שהאיר עיני הגולה בתורה שבכתב ותורה שבעל פה וכל רז ממנו לא נעלם זכרו לחיי עולם (מאירת עינים, פרשת בהר, עמ’ רכט).
Maharam Me-Rutenberg and Kabbalah
Another person R. Chaim Vital brings a method from is Maharam Me-Rutenberg saying certain shemot (p. 222). M. Gudeman in Ha-Torah ve-Hachaim (1:135) writes that the Maharam had nothing to do with kabbalah. But, R. Aron Marcus in his Ha-chasidut (p.242) demonstrates that Gudeman was wrong. More recently, Ephraim Kanarfogel, in his Peering through the Lattices, Mystical, Magical and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period (pp. 115-24) demonstrates quite conclusively that Maharam had plenty to do with Kabbalah.
Another person R Chaim Vital brings (p.96) a method for someone having difficulty giving birth, is from the Marash Serlov. Marash Serlov was famous from his work on Mishnayois printed in many editions of Yachen Uboez called Melakhet Shlomo. But until now we did not have any sources connecting him to these kind of things.[Bos already point this out in his article (p.84)]
What Rashi and Arizal were learning when they died
A rather interesting historical statement found in this work is:
גם כל רב ישיבה שלומד בישיבתו אחד מג’ מסכתות אלו והם יבמות ונדה ובבא בתרא הוא מסוכן שימות טרם ישלים אותה לקרותה. ורש”י ז”ל נפטר במסכת בתרא ומורי זלה”ה נפטר בהיותו קורא מסכת יבמות דרך בקיאות עם תלמידיו (עמ’ קמד).There are a few points of interest here one, he lists only these three volumes, Yevamot, Niddah, and Babba Batra are dangerous omitting the ones that other earlier sources list as being dangerous like Chulin and Moed Koton. Two, he brings the well-known legend that Rashi died while writing on Bava Basra. Three, he records something which had been unknown until now that the Arizal died while teaching Yevomos. Fourth, why is it considered dangerous to learn because they died during these Mesectos other great Gedolim died while learning other ones so are they dangerous to learn to?
On Rashi dying while writing on Bava Basra Koreh Hadores brings the famous question that many ask (he brings it from R. Shlomo Algazi): if Rashi died in middle of writing his work on Baba Batra, how is it that others say he died while working on Makot? R. Conforte’s seemingly obvious answer is that Rashi must have been working on both at the same time (p.56).Another point about Rashi dying while working on Baba Batra is made by the Sredei Eish:במסכת בברא בתרא בפרק חזקת הבתים כתוב כאן מת רש”י ואחר כך מתחיל פירוש רשב”ם, והנה, אנשי המדע עמלו ולא גילו עד היום את הקבר של רש”י, הם לא מצאו אותו, האם זה בטרויש או בוורמש, החוקרים אינם יודעים אבל הלומדים יודעים! במסכת בבא בתרא נפטר, הוא מת בתוך הגמרא. וכך נאמר על משה רבינו ולא ידע איש את קבורתו אבל הוא מת בתוך התורה. הקב”ה כתב לו במצבה ולא קם עוד בישראל כמשה, ואת הזכות הזו היתה גם לרש”י, הוא מת במסכת בבא בתרא, לא צריך לחפש קברו פה הוא חי ופה הוא מת, זהו האידיאל של תלמיד חכם אמיתי”. (לפרקים, עמ’ תר).A different version of the story is:

, כאשר התחילו ללמוד מסכת בבא בתרא: בדף כט ע”א באמצע העמוד נפסק פירוש רש”י ובמקומו בא עד סוף המסכת פירוש נכדו הרשב”ם, כשלאחר סיום דברי רש”י מופיע משפט בשתי גירסאות א’ עד כאן פירוש רש”י זצ”ל וב’ כאן מת רש”י. ואמר הגר”י זצ”ל בתקיפתו, שרק הגירסא הראשונה נכונה: “רש”י לא מת הוא עדיין חי ויוסיף לחיות בתוכנו, כי אנחנו עוסקים במשנתו ובפרשנותו ומתפללים בדבריו ומתייגעים בכל עת ובכל שעה! (לפרקים, עמ’ 58)

For more on this topic of Rashi and when he died see: A. Berliner, Le-Toldos Pirushei Rashi, pp.194-195 who deals with if Rashi literally died here while writing. See also Y. Epstein, Tarbitz, 4:183,185; E. E. Auerbach, Bal’e Hatosfos, p. 39, 50; A. Grossman, The Early Sages of France, (Heb.), p.217; R. Y. Sofer, Menuchot Sholom, 4:104-105.

About this piece missing in the Pesaro edition printed by Soncino See R. N. Rabinovitz, Mamar Al ha-Dfasot ha-Talmud, p. 21; Marvin Heller, Printing the Talmud, p.119.
Influence of this work on Chida
This work clearly had an influence on the Chida as one can see in his travels, Magel Tov he writes:
ולזה הוצרכתי להזכר שם קודש משמירת הדרך… (עמ’ 47).Elsewhere in the Magel Tov he writes:ובתוכם ראיתי ספר מופלא מכ”י מהרח”ו זצ”ל בקבלה מעשית וחכמת הצירוף וענינים אחרים… (עמ’ 59).We find him using Kabblah Maasios in his travels (p. 91), performing pidyonis (p.75,87) gorel (p.70) and שאלת חלום (p.116). We have a whole collection of his שאלת חלומות printed in Ha- Chida (pp. 556-563) For more on the Chida and Kabblah Maasios see Ha-Chida pp. 134-140. It is unclear why the editor of this new edition does not assume, as many others do, that the Chida had the Sefer ha-Pe’ulot. A possible proof (but not a strong one) to the opinion of the editor of this new Sefer ha-Pe’ulot could be is that in his travels the Chida brings a segulah to prevent someone from going off the derech (p.121, p. 76). But, although Vital, in Sefer ha-Peulot, (p. 188), records one segulah for this problem, the Chida’s is different from, Chida’s is from the Rema Mepano. Now it could very well be because he knew this one worked and not because he was not aware of the one in the Sefer ha-Pe’ulot.

Alchemy

Alchemy in Jewish Sources

A large part of this work is about alchemy (pp. 98-132). For a general background on this topic See Richard Kieckhefer, Magic in the Middle Ages, pp.133-39. Steinschneider argued [as quoted by Tractenberg (Jewish Magic And Superstition: A Study In Folk Religion, University of Pennsylvania Press 2004; p.356] that alchemy is really a non-Jewish topic and only much after its inception did Jews pick it up. However, after reading Gershon Scholem study on the topic Alchemie und Kabbala, which was recently translated into English by Klaus Ottman, I would disagree with Steinschneider. [Thanks to Menachem Butler to alerting me to this translation]. More recently R. Patai has written a complete work on the topic called The Jewish Alchemist, this book is composed of most of the material on the topic in print and in manuscript form. Just to mention a few sources on the topic. See also Gershon Scholem, Shedim Ruchos and Neshmos edited by E. Leibes pp. 183-85.

For other sources on Jewish alchemists some of which are cited in the works of Scholem and Patai some not.The Kuzari writes:כבר ראינו חרפת כל מי שהשתדל בדבר מהדרכים האלה מבעלי הכמי”א ובעלי הרוחניות. ואל תשיבני ממה שיכולים עליו האנשים מבריאת בעלי חיים בעשות הדבורים מבשר הבקר, והיתושים מהיין, כי זה איננו משעורם וחכמתם, אבל הוא מנסיונות שמצאום, כאשר מצאו המשגל יהיה ממנו הולד, ואין לאדם בה יותר מהנחת הזרע באדמה, שהיא מזומנת לקבולו ולהצלחתו בה ושעור הערכים שראויה להם הצורה האנושית איננו כי אם ליוצרה יתברך. וכן שעור האומה החיה הראויה לחול הענין האלהי בינה, איננו כי אם לאלהים לבדו, וצריך לשמוע אותו השעור והערך ממנו, ואל יתחכם אדם על דברו, כמו שאמר: אין חכמה ואין תבונה ואין עצה לנגד ה’. ואיך אתה רואה התחבולה שנתדמה לאבותינו ללכת אחריהם ולא נתחכם אנחנו בתורה (כוזרי, מאמר ג אות כג)…. כמו זה טעו בעלי הכמי”א והרוחניים. הכמיים חשבו שישערו האש הטבעית במשקליהם עד שיהיה להם מה שירצו, ותהפך להם העצמים, כאשר תעשה אש החום הטבעי בחיים אשר יהפך המזון לדם ובשר ועצם ושאר האיברים, וטורחים למצוא כאש הזאת. והתעו אותם נסיונות שמצאו אותם במקרה לא משעורם (שם, אות נג).In the Cheshek Shlomo on the Kuzari (recently printed from manuscript) he writes that this passage is referring to alchemy and he then goes on describe the process (p. 312-313). See also the Kol Yehudah in both places in his work on the Kuzari. Another early source on the topic is the Ibn Ezra:מי זהב. כן שמו. והגאון אמר צורף זהב. ואחרים אמרו רמז לעושים זהב מנחושת ואלה דברי רוח (אבן עזרא, וישלח, לו:לט).Elsewhere he writes: כי יש דבר שיושם באש עם הזהב, ומיד ישרף ויהיה שחור, ולעולם לא ישוב זהב. וזה דבר מנוסה ואמת הוא (אבן עזרא, כי תשא, לב:כ)The Tzfnos Paneiach and Ohel Yosef (both commentaries on Ibn Ezra) understand these places to be refering to alchemy (see also the Michokei Yehudah). Mendelson in his Biur – Nesivot Sholom writes (Shemot):וכן עמדו בעל החימ”יא הדור האחרון על הנסיון הזה, ואמרו שכשתערב מלח טר”טרי עם גפרית תוכל לפרר את הזהב באש עד אשר דק כעפר.
In the Middle Ages there was a manuscript that was supposedly authored by the Rambam containing methods to do alchemy. Scholem, in his work on alchemy (p. 18) and in his famous article on the Rambam becoming a Mekubal (Mechkarei Kabalah, p. 195) explains that it is incorrect to associate the Rambam with this manuscript. See also Y. Shilat, Igres HaRambam 2:693. But, Vital, in Sefer ha-Pe’olot (p. 345) references a method for alchemy that he attributes to the Rambam.
R. Yosef Kaspi writes:כי אין ספר שמלאכת אלכימיאה היא מלאכה אמתית, עד שהיודעה הנה תחת הנחשת יביא זהב (משנה כסף, עמ’ 18) R. Eliezer Ashkenazi in his Maasei Hashem writes (Thanks to my friend Zev Schonbrun for this source):
הצעה שביעית. שכל הידיעות נכללו תחת שני סוגים עליונים, אחת ידיעת הטבעיות, ושנית, ידיעת האלהיות אשר המה למעלה מן הטבעיות. ואמנם הידיעה באלהיות כאשר תושג על אמתותה היא אין בה רק טוב, כמ”ש (תהלים ה, ה) לא יגורך רע, אבל הידיעה בטבעיות אפילו שתשיג אותה על אמתותה בין שתדע מצד החכמה הטבעית להחריב עיר אחת או שתדע לבנותה ולהעמידה הכל יקרא ידיעה, וכן כאשר תדע לעשות באלכימיי”א מהנחשת זהב או מהזהב נחשת עם היותו רע תקראנה ידיעה בטבעיות (מעשה ה’, מעשה בראשית, פרק טז, עמ’ 49).

One of the more famous people involved with alchemy was R. Yehudah Aryeh Modena as he writes in his autobiography. See The Autobiography of a Seventeenth Century Venetian Rabbi, Leon Modena’s Life of Judah at p. 102. Modena describes how he got involved with alchemy and spent much money on it. Additionally, in his Midbar Yehuda Modena writes:

חושבי מחשבות לעשות בזהב ובכסף, יודעים כי הטביע ה’ בטבע המתחכות בפרט, יסוד דק אשר בכח אש אולאנביקו יוציאוהו מהם, ונשאר המעט מחזק את המרבה ומתקיים זמן רב בלי הפסד (מדבר יהודה, דרשה טז).
See also his Arei Noam, p. 30 And His Iggerot, p. 98. For more about Modena on this topic see Howard E. Adelman in “Success and Failure in the Seventeenth-Century Ghetto of Venice: The Life and Thought of Leon Modena, 1571-1648,” (PhD dissertation, Brandeis University, 1985), (pp. 231-32, 328-29).R. Delmedigo writes:ומשבח אני אמציאים איזו מלאכה לתעולת הרבים, ועסקי בעלי מהפכת המתכות חכמי פילוסופי הארלקימיאה המארים לעין אמתות התפלספותם (מצרף לחכמה, פרק ז).R. Emden on Alchemy
R. Yakov Emden discusses alchemy in a few places in his writings:גם מדוע החריש ממלאכת האלקימיא הנכבדת, אשר יש בה ברכה, גם למי שלא עמד בסודה התכליתי, תועלתה רב בחלק הנגלה ממנה, ממנה תוצאות רפואות הרבה, חיים ומות בקרבה, ואוהביה יאכל פריה (מטפחת ספרים, פרק ט, עמ’ קה).Elsewhere he writes:
על החלק העלם שבחכמת הטבע הנקרא אלקומיא שהיא חלק המעשי שבה להכיר ולידע הפרדת היסודות… שמא היינו מודים שהיא ססעיף ממעשה בראשית (מגדל עוז, אוצר הטוב, מוסר ד, אות י, דף כה ע”א)Additonally he writes:הרואה חכמי או”ה… ראוי לברך ברכה זו…ואפילו הגיעו למדרגה שיוכלו לשנות העצמים ממיני המתכות, כמו שאומרים בעלי האלקימיאה, מכל מקום היא מלאכה, ויוכל אדם לקבלה במסורת מבלי עיון. אמנם אשר השיג אותה על פי עיון ולימוד, שהעמיק להתחכם באותו מלאכה… כדומה שיתכן להקרא חכם (מור וקציעה, סי’ רכ”ד).In another place he writes:דוגמת זה מה שהפליגו בעלי האלקימיא לספר בשבח עוצם מעלת רפואה תעלת כללית. שאם אמת נכון הדבר בפיהם לדעתי היא באה מספר רפואות של שלמה המלך… ונראים הדברים שרבותינו חכמי המשנה והתלמוד היו בקיאין באותו חכמה וממנה נתעשרו כל העושר העצום המפולג ראב”ח… ראב”ע, ור”ע ורבי נכדו… וכיוצא בהם רבים שזכו לעושר שיעור שלא יאומן כי יספור על מלכי ארץ (אגרת בקורות, דף כו ע”א).See also his Shu”t Sheliot Yavetz (1:41, at the end). I was rather surprised to find no real discussion of this topic in Jacob J. Schacter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works,” (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988). In R. Patai, The Jewish Alchemist he has a chapter on R. Emden but it is missing most of the above quoted sources.Sefer ha-Brit writes:לכן… שאסור להשתמש בקבלה מעשיית כי הקליפות מתדבקים מאד באדם העוסק… ולכן מפתין אותו ומטין אותו לדרכים לא טובים ומגלים לו ממשלת שדים ועניני הבל עולם הזה במלאכת האלכימיה… (ספר הברית, חלק ב, מאמר יא פרק א)
R. Dov Ber Torish writes:אך הכה המחקר באלפיו והסכלות ברבבותיה, ועד היום לחט חרב הסכלות מתהפכת בעולם ועצומים הרוגיה (גנזי המלך, עמ’ 79).Another intresting person who was involved in alchemy was Mordechai Levison as he helped A. Nordeskjold translate his work A Plain System of Alchemy into English. See D. Ruderman in Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe, pp.345-357 esp. p. 348. See also this work Mivchar Kisvei Mordechai Gimpel Shnaver put out by S. Sprecher p. 7. See also, Moshe Pelli, Mordechai Gumpel Schnaber, “The First Religious Reform Theoretician of the Hebrew Haskalah in Germany,” JQR, New Series, Vol.64, No.4, (Apr.1974), pp.289-313; Moshe Graupe Heinz, “Mordechai Gumpel Shnaber-Levison The Life, Works and Thought of a Haskalah Outsider,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book, 41 (1996) 3-20. Thanks to on the main line for these last two sources. See also here.
R. Samuel Falk, aka “The Ba’al Shem of London,” who was a very colorful character was also a student of alchemy (his portait apears on the cover of Patai’s book-it is him and not the founder of Hassidut as been errouneously attributed). The Chida writes about him:

וסיפרו על בעל שם מלונדריס שמואל פולאק בן הרב יהושע פלאק נפלאות ולובש בגד זהב ואותיות חקוקות בו מעשה ידיו ויש לו חרב שפורחת, וכל עסקו ביערים ובשפת הים בהתבודדות והוא היה אומר שמתעסק לטובת העולם והוא משבט יהודה ומעשיו לא נתעסק אדם זה ת’ שנה והוא מלך על ארץ תבל שהלך הוא בשבילי הים… וכיוצא בזה שאר שטיות שהולך ביער שהוא מששת ימי בראשית, והנגלה הוא שיש לו ממון הרבה (מעגל טוב, עמ’ 155). [3]

Recently an entire book came out on the subject of gold from R. Yisroel Dandorovitz called Ha-Nechmadim me-Zahav. This book is twenty three chapters of different aspects related to gold. He uses many seforim, including many obscure sources, and puts together many nice original ideas. Chapter eleven is devoted to the subject of alchemy. [This chapter first appeared in the Eitz Chaim Journal (Vol. 8, 288-309)]. He brings many sources on the subject. Just to point out a few small minor points with this chapter. When discussing both Modena and R. Emden although he brings some of the sources I mentioned he does not bring all of them. When disucssing Ibn Ezra he brings the Pirish Nisvos Olam not realizing that this is Mendelssohn as he is quoting this from a secondary source. He also was not aware of neither Scholem or Patai’s work on the subject. A few additional sources worth noting that Dandorovitz didn’t include: Mekor Baruch (3:1224) where R. Epstein has a amusing story about the subject. According to the story he was going to go into partnership with someone to make gold based on a recipe he found in an old sefer. See also Pardes Yosef (2:331); Shliti Giborim, p. 399; Meor ha-Chaim, (Drashos of the Or Hachaim Hakodosh), p. 82.

Scholem already notes (ibid. p.49) that this piece is lacking in the Eshkoli edition of the Sefer ha-Chizyonot. But, it is unclear why this statement was removed. While it is clear that R. Vital engaged in the study of alchemy and that due to the Arizal’s negative views towards the topic abandoned it, it is unclear if Vital picked alchemy back up after the Arizal’s death. This newly published work, which was penned after the Arizal’s death suggests that Vital still showed an interest in alchemy even after the Arizal died. But, the editor of the Sefer ha-Pe’ulot suggests (p.1) that while R. Vital may have remained interested in the subject after the Arizal told him to stop he never returned to actually practicing it.

Kabbalah Masiyot

I would just like to point out one last very important issue about kabbalah masiyot (practical kabbalah) in general. Some feel that this sefer, Sefer ha-Pe’olot, is full of silly stuff – all kinds of weird and wacky segulos and it is even an embarrassment to R. Chaim Vital to print this work. The truth is this is not so at all and it is not an embarrassment to him at all. Furthermore, as I will demonstrate the printing of this sefer is very important. I will elaborate why and in the process give some insight into this kind of genre of seforim.

In the late 1600’s – early 1700’s we find an explosion of segulah type seforim being printed. Some of these works appeared in over seven or eight editions demonstrating great popularity. Titles of these works include: Sefer Shem Tov Koton, Amtacat Binyomin, Sefer Zechirah, Mifolot Elohyim and Tolodot Adam. These books were the subject of an excellent docotrate by C. Martus, Sefer Segulotum ve-Refuot be-Ivrit, Tachnetam u-Mekorotum, Heb, (hopefully it will be in book form shortly). Zev Gries also deals with this books in his excellent work Safrut Ha-Hanhagot. Even more recently worth mentioning is the sefer Segulot Yisroel this work is a collection full of segulot from many seforim and it is full of many nice haskomot first printed in 1905 and since than has been printed many times.

All of these seforim are full of segulot for all kinds of things, many of which were based on using methods of Kabblah Maasiot. Kabblah Maasiot is done through various methods some with saying certain shemios others using kemyios.
R. Eliyahu Bahur writes in his definition of kemyiot:

קמיע… ונראה לי שהוא לשון קימעה בדברי רבותינו.. שפירשו מעט, ולפי שמשימין בקמיע פתקין קטנים עם כתיבה מעוטה בראשי תיבות וגימטריאות של שמות קדושים והשבעות לפכיך נקרא קמיע (ספר תשבי, ערך קמיע). [4]

Many of these people were called Balei Shem as R. Dembinzer writes:

ולאלה אנשי מופת אשר קמו בתוך בני ישראל מן השרידים אשר רוח ה’ נוססה בם לפעול ישועות בקרב הארץ ע”י תפלתם או על פי קבלת מעשיות, היו רגילים לתת להם כנוי בעל נס או בעל שם (כלילת יופי, א, דף עח ע”ב).

R. Tamar writes:

והנה היו בעלי שם בדורות שלפנינו כמו רבי אליהו בעל שם, זקנו של החכם צבי שיצר גולם בכח שמות הקדושה… וכמו המהר”ל מפראג… ואחרים בדורות שלפנינו שכולם פעלו ישעות ורפואת בכח שמות הקדושים ומפני כן קראו להם בעל שם (עלי תמר, אלון שבות תשנב, א, יומא, עמ’ שנב בסוף) [5]

Now, to be sure, all these works have impressive haskamot and, as I noted above, these works were printed many times. The problem is that of what is contained in these works appear to run counter to the Mishna in Avot (1:13) which says:

“ודישתמש בתגא, חלף”The source for this is a Mishna in Avot de Rebbe Nosson which says

ודאשתמש בתגא אבד ואזיל ליה כיצד שכל המשמתש בשם המפורש אין לו חלק לעולם הבא (סוף פ’ יג) [6]

The Semak brings from R. Yehudah Hachassid

וראיה מרבינו יהודה חסיד שהזהיר לתלמידיו שלא לילך לחופה מפני לסטים שבדרך והלכו ובטחו במה שידעו להזכיר את השם הלכו והזכירו ונצולו בחזרה אמר להם אבדתם העולם הבא אם לא תשובו בלא שום הזכרת השם ותמסרו נפשכם להריג’ והלכו ונהרגו (סמ”ק, מצוה ג).

R. Yosef Gitilah writes

ואם באמת היה ביד החכמים הראשונים שמות הקדושים מקובלים מפי הנבאים…והיו יכולים לחדש בהם אותות ומופתים בעולם. לא היו משתמשים בהם לצרכם רק בעת הגזירה לפי שעה או על צד קידוש השם (שערי אורה, שער א, דף א ע”א).

In order to understand this issue, it is worth quoting the words of R. Chaim Vital

“וזהו סוד ענין קבלה מעשית… ולכן אסור להשתמש בה, כי בהכרח יתדבק גם ברע המתדבק בטוב וחושב לטהר נפשו ומטנפה בסבת הרע ההוא. וגם אפילו שישיג, הוא אמת בתערובת שקר… וטומאת הקלפות מתדבקות באדם המתקרב להשיג על ידי קבלה מעשית, ולכן שומר נפשו ירחק מהם… וקח ראיה מרבי יוסף דילא ריינ”י ורבי שלמה מולכו שנשתמשו בקבלה מעשית ונאבדו מן העולם וכל זה לסבה הנזכר כי אין טוב בלתי רע. ולא עוד אלא שמכריחים אותן בעל כרחן על ידי השבעות ואז מפתים אותן ומטין אותן לדרכים לא טובים עד שמאבדים נפשם, וגדולה מזו כי כל דרכי ההשבעות האלו העלימום הראשונים ואין אנו בקיאים היטב בדרכיהן וראוי להתרחק מהם בתכלית” (שערי קדושה, ירושלים תשמה, חלק ג שער ו, עמ’ צו ).R.Yakov Emden writes pretty much the same thing:
“טפשים מתעתעי’ כבן כוזביא… ר’ שלמה מולכו ורא”ל וזולתם המשתמשי’ בהשבעות וקבלה מעשית. פתאום עברו ונענשו אף על פי שהיתה כוונה לטובה (מגדל עוז, זיטאמיר תרלד, בית מדות, עליית הטבע, אות ז, עמ’ 242).

See also J.J. Schacter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden’s Iggeret Purim,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History,2, p. 444. A very interesting bibliographic; piece was printed by S. Sprecher from Mordechai Levison (here) (for more on him see above):

בהיותי בעיר אלטונא בשנת תקטו לפ”ק כתבתי אגרת שלומים להרב מהור”ר יעקב חונה פה בעיר עמדין על דבר הקמיעות שכתב הרב מהור”ר יהונתן… אתם הרעשתם את הארץ על דבר הקמיעות כאילו שוא שקר ותפל, אמת הרמב”ם זצ”ל הכחיש השמות כולם באמרו הפתאים ראשונים בארו שקרים ובוא הספרים שחברו לידי אנשים רכי לבב… נזכר בש”ס… רק שכחו ובימים בא אחד ליסדו…

R. Eliyahu Gutmacher writes

אבל להיות עוסק במעשה בקבלה מעשית ודאי לא. אם לא אותן אשר הגיעו ידיעה על ידי גילו אליהו או זולת זה ממופתים ברורים שכן הוא רצון ה’ ברוך הוא שיעסקו, שבאו בשביל זה לעולם, ונשמתן מסוגל לזה. ומזה היה התנאים והאמוראים ואחרי זה בדורות שעסקו כך. אבל זולת זה לא לבד שיתרחק ממעשה, לענ”ד גם ממעשה, לענ”ד גם בדרישת הידיעה איך נעשה אין לכנס, כי קשה המעצר בעת הצורך מלחפש היתר (צפנת פענח, מאמר ט).

R. Chaim Vital explains why in the times of the Tanaim and Amoraim Kabblah Maasiot was allowed and used:

“וזהו סוד שמוש פרקי היכלות שנשתמשו בו רבי נחוניא ורבי עקיבא ורבי ישמעאל ואנשי-כנסת-הגדולה, ואחר-כך נשכחו גם דרכי השמושים ההם. ועוד אחרת, כי נאבד טהרת אפר פרה בזמן האמוראים עד זמן אביי ורבא, כנזכר בתלמוד, ולכן לא נשתמשו מאז ואילך בעלית הפרדס…” (שערי קדושה, שם, עמ’ צו).

I elaborated on this point in my sefer Bein Kesseh Leassur (pp. 97-111) and here.
But the issue we must deal with is how did all these people write methods of kabblah maasiot to use we do not have the efer Parah Adumah today and even more problematic it is against the Mishna in Avot? A partial answer for this can be found in the introduction of Mifolot Eloyhim where R. Yoel Bal Shem writes:

שיש שמות הקדושים מאד מאד שאין צריכם טררה כלל ע”ד הלא כה דברי כאש והפעולות שהם מגדר הזה אם הם אמתיות בלי טעות מותר לפועל בהם בזמן הזה בלי אפר פרה ועי”ז יש קידוש השם שרואים בחוש נפלאות השם יתברך והבקיאים בקבלה מעשיות יודעים זאת” (מפעלות אלקים, [בתוך: ספרים קדושים מחכמי ספרד], ברוקלין תשמ”ה, דף ג ע”ב- ד ע”א).

But even with this fact it still does not explain how this works out with the Mishna in Avot which provides a blanket prohibition against any use of kabbalah maasiot.

Furthermore there is a great danger in using kabbalah maasiot. Sefer Chassdim writes,

R. Vital brings some one who used it who got hurt (p. 188) See also Sefer Chasdim # 211; R. Katzenelenbogen, Yeish Manchlin, pp. 88-90; Ephraim Kanarfogel, Peering through the Lattices, Mystical, Magical and Pietistic Dimensions in the Tosafist Period, p. 209

כי כל דרכי השבעות העלימו הראשונים ואין אנו בקיאין בהם וכל מה שנמצא כתוב בספרים מן הקבלה המעשיות והשבעות ופעולות יהיה בכתב או בדפוס רובם ככלם משובשים הכל הבל ואין בם מועיל… ונאמנה תדע שכל ההשבעות ופעולות אשר תמצא כתוב בכתב יד או בדפוס ומתיחסים בשם המקובלים הראשונים המפורסמים רובם ככולם מזוייפים ומשובשים כמה מהם נשתבשו על ידי העתקות באורך הזמן וכמה מהם הראשונים בעצמם שבשו אותם בכוונה כדי שלא ישתמשו בהם כמו ספר ברית מנוחה וספר רזיאל וכדומה (ספר הברית, חלק ב, מאמרי יא, פרק א-ב).

Matzav ha-Yosher:

Based on all these sources and others, R. Yakov Hillel comes out very strongly against using kabbalah maasiot. One of his main concerns is as mentioned even if one can use kabbalah maasiot it is very possible the texts of the various Shemios are wrong. But, R. Hillel needs to then account for these collection of very popular seforim mentioned above, all of which are full of kabbalah Maasiot. But, even more problematic is this sefer, Sefer ha-Pe’olot, of R. Vital especially as mentioned above R. Vital is against using kabbalah maasiot. For this R. Hillel answers that R. Vital collected this for himself and never intended to print it (p.271). R. Yakov Hiller deals with this topic in his Shu”t va-Yeshev ha-Yam (1:13) and in his very famous and popular work Tomim Teheyeh. This sefer received numerous important haskomos and is devoted to discourage people from going to people who claim to do all kinds of miracles. The editor of the Sefer ha-Pe’ulot echos R. Hillel’s justification (intro, p.18) although he apparently was unaware of R. Hillel’s discussion regarding Sefer ha-Pe’olot. R. Hillel claims based on his reading of the diary of the Chida that the Chida saw Sefer ha-Pe’olot but then he immediately returned it (p. 59). I believe this is an incorrect reading of the diary as eventually a few years later he did go through the sefer and keep it as is clear from that very same page in the diary. But even more importantly I am not sure R. Hillel is correct in his over all picture that he is presenting as I will explain.

It is true that there are many sources against using kabbalah maasiot as I listed some of them. Now I do not have a proper explanation for this at this time. However, I would like to point out that through out our history we find many people that did all kinds of things with kabbalah maasiot. From Chazal throught Geonim [7] Rishonim until late Achronim.[8] As Y.Harari writes: “In recent decades nothing short of a revolution has taken place in the way we understand ancient Jewish magic and its place within the broad spectrum of Jewish culture in Palestine and Babylonia, in the mishna and Talmud period.”

In order to see this one just has to read through the works of: R. Thompson, Semitic-Magic its origins and Development; J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic And Superstition: A Study In Folk Religion, University Of Pennsylvania Press 2004; regardingthe use of magic during the times of Chazal see: S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, pp. 97-114; J. Naveh, S. Shaked, Magic Spells and Formulae; E. E. Auerbach, Chazal, pp. 82-88, 103-114; Y. Gafni, Yehudi Bavel Be-Tkufos Hatalmud, p. 167-176; Y. Dan, Toldot Torat ha-Sod ha-Ivrit, 2:474-505; E. Kanarfogel, Peering through the Lattices, Wayne State University, 2000; G. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic A History, Cambridge University, 2008 and H.J. Zimmels, Magicians Theologians Doctors, New York 1952 p.35, 194. See also the recent excellent study of Yuval Harrari, Ha-Kishuf Ha-yehudi Ha-kodom available for purchase here. See also the articles of Yuval Harrari (p.521-564) and Michael D. Swartz (p.393-420) in The Literature of the Sages. See also the bibliography in D. Ruderman in Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe, pp. 380-82. See also the many articles of Meir Bar Ilan some of which are avialable here see also D. Ruderman, Kabbalah, Magic and Science, pp. 102-120. See also this excellent bibliography from Scott Noegel.

There is a very nice exhibit of this currently at the Bible Lands Museum in Jerusalem (see here) “Angels & Demons, Jewish Magic Through The Ages,” which shows the acceptance of all this in to Jewish life. They even printed a very nice edition of this display with articles from the top academics of the field called Angels and Demons.

Now it is true that there were frauds amongst them [9] but many of them were great people. As I already mentioned there were many works full of kabbalah maasiot printed. These books were very popular as we know form the many times they each were printed. Some of them were written by big Mekubalim and many of these works have impressive haskomot.

Recent years has seen an explosion of studies related to the Baal Shem Tov and who he was. A while ago Professor Etkes wrote a excellent article in which he documents the phenomena of Balei Shem who were active in Europe before the Baal Shem Tov. [This article was than printed as the first chapter in his book on the Beshet.] This theory was expanded upon much more by Professor Rosman in the first chapter of his excellent work Founder of Hasidism: A Quest for the Historical Ba’al Shem Tov. The Baal Shem was continuing with this accepted path, except that he was much more successful and famous than of all the previous Balei Shem. In this article he shows that these people were known as great people and that we have reliable accounts of them. There methods were based for a large part on kabbalah maasiot and seemed to have been accepted. All this seems to show that the use of kabbalah maasiot was common practice. This article of Etkes has been accepted and used by most who have written on the topic. [10] Just to give one example of this to put the significance of this in perspective. Today there is an accepted custom to recite Ledovid during the month of Elul and Tishrei. Many groups were skeptical of this custom saying the earliest source for this custom was the Chemdat Yomim-a highly controversial work. However research has shown pretty conclusively that the first sources for this custom predates the Chemdat Yomim by a while as it is found in some of these segulah Seforim. More so based on a fascinating autobiography recently printed from Manuscript from a very learned Rav at that time period we see he writes good things about the author of the earliest source – R. Binyomin Ba’al Shem. All this shows that this minhag was started by a very special person – R. Binyomin Ba’al Shem.

Now the printing of this work of R. Chaim Vital just gives us one more work to add to such lists. The importance of this is that R. Vital was a great mekubal and a godol Hador in his time, much more famous and important than all the other authors known to have written on this subject to date. Even more so is that he obviously did not have a problem with using kabbalah maasiot. This sefer is full of examples of kabbalah maasiot many of which he says he himself tried and used one of which I quote earlier he used over two thousand times!

הנה פעמים רבות לאין קץ יותר מאלפים פעמים כתבתי אותם.

Now it is quite strange that R Chaim Vital was doing this as I previously mentioned that he was very against the use of kabbalah maasiot for a few reasons so why was he himself using it? It is even stranger because as I brought earlier R Chaim Vital’s oppsition to Shlomo Molcho because he practiced kabblah maasiot. [See M. Idel, “Shlomo Molcho as a Magician,” Sefunot, 1985, pp. 83-119]. But, according to Sefer ha-Pe’olot R. Vital himself also engaged in kabbalah masiyot! [As an aside in the otherwise excellent work of R. Hamberger Mishchei Sheker Umisnagdheim he blacklists R. Molcho because of the above statement of R. Chaim Vital. In so doing, Hamberger ignores all the rest of the positive opinions of great people about him in light of this work it is even stranger to do so. I hope to return to this issue in a full article in the near future]. So according to all this even if R. Hillel is correct that the book was not meant to be published but the issue at hand is did he practice kabbalah maasiot and the answer is from this book we see he definitely did!

Some say that he wrote this work before he met the Arizal but that is not true simply because he quotes the Arizal a few times in this work always in context of him being dead already (pp.144, 148, 265) and as I quoted earlier he even mentions when the Arizal died what he was learning (p.144). Be that as it may it is clear that his opinion on this topic needs clarification. [Amar and Buchman also address this problem in their work Refuah Maasiot le-Rav Chaim Vital, pp. 59-60].

Just a few words on this recent edition. The editor chose rather wisely not to bother putting in almost any footnotes. Rather he focused on trying to print an accurate and legible version of the complete text. On the Hyde Park forum there as a rather vicious fight about this new edition. Someone claimed that it was full of mistakes and that he did not transcribe the text of the manuscript properly. This is rather ironic as in the beginning of this new sefer the editor accuses Amar and Bochman for not transcribing the manuscript accurately (unfortunately typical of charedei work to criticize academics). The editor defended himself rather well (in my opinion) showing that the copy of the manuscript he was working with was very hard to read. After finding a clearer copy the editor went back and fixed many words he was unsure of there proper reading. These corrections are available from the editor. My personal opinion after carefully reading the whole fight was that the person who was criticizing this new version had an agenada which was because he himself was working on printing the sefer (see here). A copy of the manuscript is available on Otzar Hachochma.

The reason I say it is wise that the editor did not even attempt to put in notes is because it would have taken him years to decipher the basic sources for all the information mentioned in this work. This work is huge and is full of material in all areas as I mentioned. It would require consulting with experts in many different fields. A few years back in the journal Mekabtziel from Mechon Ahvat Sholom printed a few pages from this work. It appeared that they planned on printing the whole work with notes but it is unclear if they will publish the complete work. Although I am not sure what exactly motivated the editor of this new edition to to print this work, I thank him for it as I am sure many others do. Another thing of note is that he did make sure to consult Yosef Avivi the noted expert on Kabbalah especially of R Vital. He included a nice introduction and indexes. In truth the index could have been better but it is still very helpful. He has indexes for names of people of various shemios and of the plants brought down and the like brought in this work I do not necessarily agree with all that he writes in the introduction. For example, he claims this is not the work the Chida used I disagree (see above). He also writes the Arizal is only mentioned once this also is not true he is quoted a few times just see the index of this work which lists five times.

One rather interesting thing he writes in the beginning of the work is

מודעה ואזהרה ספר זה נועד לעיון בלבד ולא לשימוש מעשי, והעושה מפעולותיו על דעתו ובאחריותו הוא עושה. שומר נפשו וגופו ירחק מלעשותן, והיה שלום

Refuah Maasios L’Rav Chaim Vital Amar and Buchman also write this:

לשימת לב הקוראים ספר זה מסכם מידע רפואי, היסטורי ומסורתי ואין להשתמש בתרופות או בטיפולים המוזכרים בו מבלי להיוועץ ברופא. המחברים אינם אחראים לכל נזק שעלול להיגרם מהשימוש במידע הכלול בספר זה ודוחים מראש כל תביעה בנושא זה.

If one is interested in purchasing a copy of this work contact Bieleisein or the editor at hapeulot@gmail.com. It is not being sold in stores and was printed in a limited edition. If you already purchased a copy of the sefer you can get a few pages of corrections from the editor at the same e mail address.

[1] The document that attests to R. Vital’s semikha was puplished by M. Benayahu in his article on semikha in Sefer Hayovel Leyitzchak Baer, p. 266.

[2] See my Bein Kesseh Leassur, pp. 43-47. Additionally biographical information regarding R. Vital can be found in Koreh ha-Dorot, p. 149; D. Tamar, Eshkolot Tamar, pp. 81-115; M. Benayahu, Tolodt ha-Ari, index under R. Hayyim Vital; A. David, Aliyah ve-Hityashivot be-Eretz Yisrael be-Me’ah ha-T”Z, 167-69. Regarding R. Moshe Alshich see David, id. at 195; M. Benayahu, Yosef Beherei, 233-55; M. Idel, Messianic Mystics, pp. 165-69. See also the new edition of Eitz Hadas Tov of R. Chaim Vital where they printed an extensive biography on him. For a bibliography of his works see; N. Ben Menachen, Timron, 2, 265-334.

[3] Much has been written about him first by Hermann Adler, “The Baal Shem of London,” Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England 5 (1908): 148-173, and idem, “The Baal-Shem of London,” in A. Freimann and M. Hildesheimer, eds., Festschrift zum siebzigsten Geburtstage a. Berliner’s: Gewidmet von Freunden und Schülern (Frankfurt: J. Kaufmann, 1903), 1-9ץ Than Cecil Roth in his article, “The King and the Cabalist,” Essays and Portraits in Anglo-Jewish History (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1962), 139-162 this was based on lectures he gave on the radio. Roth had some autobiographical material about him from Falk’s personal attendant’s diary which is what he based his article on. More recently Falks own autobiography has been discovered and a Hebrew critical edition has been printed by Mosad Bialik called ‘Me-Bal Shed Le-bal Shem’, edited by Michal Oron. An English translation of this work by the Littman Library is forthcoming.

R. Yakov Emden accused him of being a secret Sabbatian. However Oren writes based on what we have from Falk he can not find conclusive proof of this. See his Michal Oron, “Dr. Samuel Falk and the Eibeschuetz-Emden Controversy,” in Karl Erich Grozinger and Joseph Dan, eds., Mysticism, Magic and Kabbalah in Ashkenazi Judaism: International Symposium Held in Frankfurt a.M. 1991 (Berlin & New York, Walter de Gruyter, 1995), 243-256. See also on this point Marsha K. Schuchard, “Dr. Samuel Jacob Falk: A Sabbatian Adventurer in the Masonic Underground,” in Matt D. Goldish & Richard H. Popkin, eds., Millenarianism and Messianism in Early Modern European Culture: Jewish Messianism in the Early Modern World (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2001), 203-226; idem, “Yeats and the ‘Unknown Superiors’: Swedenborg, Falk, and Cagliostro,” in Marie Mulvey Roberts & Hugh Ormsby-Lennon, eds., Secret Texts: The Literature of Secret Societies (New York: AMS Press, 1995), 114-168. See also David B. Ruderman, Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key, pp.161-169 and R. Patai, The Jewish Alchemist, p. 455-462. See also R. Hamberger Mishchei Sheker Umisnagdheim, p. 694. I would like to thank Menachem Butler with his help for some of these sources. See also here and here.

One last side point related to the Baal Shem of London the famous Picture of the Baal Shem is not of him but is rather a picture of the Baal Shem of London see Richard I. Cohen, “The Rabbi as Icon,” Jewish Icons: Art and Society in Modern Europe (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998), 125-126 (figure 68) and 287n26-27. See also G. Scholem (The Latest Phase,(heb.), p. 147, 388. See also here.

[4] על קמיע: ראה י’ הררי, הכישוף היהודי, ירושלים תשע, עמ’ 167-179; שמואל וזאב ספראי, משנת ארץ ישראל, מסכת שבת, א, ירושלים תשסט, עמ’ 222-224.

[5] וראה: ח’ ליברמן, אהל רח”ל, א, ניו יורק תש”מ, עמ’ 5; ז’ גריס, ספרות הנהגות, עמ’ 50; ג’ נגאל, מאגיה, מיסטיקה וחסידות, ישראל תשנ”ב, עמ’ 13-32 וראה הערות עמ’ ו153-170; ר’ משה דוד צ’צ’יק, ישורון (שם, עמ’ תרסה הערה 6).

[6] ראה בפירושו של רבינו בחיי, בתוך: ר’ מרדכי קצנלנבוגן, (מהדיר) משנת ראובן, ירושלים תשס”ה, עמ’ קפד, ובפירוש לר’ יעקב ב”ר שמשון, שם. וראה ש’ עמנואל (מהדיר), תשובות הגאונים החדשות, ירושלים תשנ”ה, עמ’ 133. וראה בפירוש של ר’ עובדיה מברטנורא שהביא דברי האבות דר’ נתן בשם ‘שמעתי’. וראה סיכום חשוב בכל זה בדברי ר’ יעקב הלל, שו”ת וישב הים, ירושלים תשנ”ד, א, סי’ יג; ובספרו תמים תהיה, ירושלים תשנו; ור’ ראובן מרגליות בהערותיו לשו”ת מן השמים, ירושלים תשמ”ח, עמ’ נד-נו.

[[7 ראה פירש ספר יצירה לר’ יהודה ברצלוני, (מהדיר: ש’ הלברשטאם), ירושלים תשל”א, עמ’ 103: “שאלה לרבינו האי ז”ל… כי ראוי פלוני אדם ידוע מבעלי השם…”. וראה ש’ עמנואל (מהדיר), תשובות הגאונים החדשות, ירושלים תשנ”ה, עמ’ 124. וראה: ב’ קלאר, מגילת אחימעץ, ירושלים תשל”ד, עמ’ 22: “והזכיר הרב השם בכח היד…”. וראה מ’ בן-ששון, צמיחת הקהילה היהודית בארצות האסלאם קירואן, 800-1057, ירושלים תשנ”ז, עמ’ 275-278; R. Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture, Yale University Press 1998,
p.142-147.

[8] כמו הבעל שם טוב, [עליו ובפרט על נקודה זה ראה: ע’ אטקס, בעל השם, ירושלים תשסב; מ’ רוסמן, הבעש”ט מחדש החסידות, ירושלים תש”ס]; והבעל שם ממיכלשטאט, [עליו ראה בעל שם ממיכלשטאט, ירושלים תשמ”ג].

See also The Master of An Evil Name: Hillel Ba’al Shem and his Sefer Ha- Heshek, Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern,AJS Review 28:2 (2004),217-248;Moshe Idel, ‘Jewish Magic from the Renaissance period to early Hasidim, Religion Science and Magic in Concert and Conflict, Ed. J. Neusner, E. Freichs, P. Flesher pp. 82-117.

Another interesting source of a great person who knew Kabblah Maasios was R. Avrhom Simcha, the nephew of R. Chaim Volzhiner. The Netziv writes in his Hesped on R. Avrhom:אבל בפטירת הגאון מוהרא”ש זצ”ל אשר היה משיירי תלמידי הגאון אביר הרועים מוהר”ח זצ”ל והי’ מקובל ממנו כמה ענינים וסודות, וגם קבלה מעשית אשר היה מועיל הרבה בזה, רחוק שיעמיד אחר במקומו, באשר כי אין בדורות אלו ממי ללמוד ומי יבוא לעסוק באלו… (דרשות הנצי”ב, דרוש יח).To make this even more interesting recently a letter of the Netziv was printed about a amulet for a woman giving birth in the letter the Netziv writes:ודבר קמיע זו קלה וקצרה כאשר הנני שולחה לך, ומסודרת היא מפי הצדיק ר’ אברהם שמחה צ”ל אמנם אמר לי שאינו יודע אם תועיל ממני, באשר אין כל הנשמות מסגולות לכאלה, והיינו אתמחי גברא כמובן. ותאמין לי מחמדי כי עוד היום איני יודע אם היא לתועלת כאשר היתה באמנה מיד חותני זצ”ל או מיד הצדיק הנ”ל. הן אמת שהנשים המילדות אומרות שמועיל בכל זה איני מאמין כל כך. ומכל מקום הנני נותנה כדי לחזק בזה לב היולדת באשר חזוק הלב הוא דבר גדול… (ספר זכרון תפארת רפאל, עמ’ פו-פז).
In the Matzav Hayashar he brings while discussing writing segulos:וכן שמעתי אומרים על הר”ר יצחק אבד”ק וואלאזין כידוע ומפורסם עוד היום מכמה מיני מעשיות אלא שאין דרכי להעלות בכתב סיפורי מעשיות והיינו שכוונתו היתה בזה שזכותו וזכות אביו הרב הצדיק ז”ל יגן על מותו האדם (מצב הישר, ב, דף ט ע”ב ).

As an aside for an interesting piece about R. Chaim Volzhiner and his knowledge in Kabbalah See what R. Eliyhu Rugler writes – printed by E. E. Auerbach, Meckarim Bmadyaei Hayehadus, 1, p. 415.

R. Eliyahu Gutmacher writes:ויש הכרח ממני לכתוב כאן בקיצור, שבל יאמר מי: הלא נשמע כמה מעשיות אשר נעשים על ידך בעזה”י להציל מצרות רבות, אין זאת רק על ידי קבלת מעשית. וכאשר הגעתי אגרת ממרחק מחכם גדול… בהיותי שאני בקי בקבלה מעשיות ארחם לעשות בבזה שנתייאש מכל הרופאים. בקראי זאת נפלה עלי להיות חשוד בכך… קודם כל אודיע כי בכל התאמצות דחיתי מעלי כל הבא, אבל ראיתי סיבות נפלאות שכן היה רצון ה’. באשר שגדולי ישראל הסיעו הנדכאים עלי. ומה היה לי לעשות אם באו אב ואם ואחד מקרוביהם והביאו לי בנם, בוכים וצועקים לרחם. ישבתי ללמוד עם בחורים בבית המדרש והובא נער מן י”א שנה בכתף אביו וצעק לרחם עליו… והנער לא היה יכול לדבר מאומה… וקולו פעמים בנביחה ככלב ופמעים כעגל…וגם כל העוברים דרך העיר בשמעם עניניו לביתו לראות הנפלאות. ואני ידעתי שאין לי מאומה במה לרפאותו. בכל זאת חשבתי הלא ד’ ברוך הוא שולחו… ולקחתי ספר תהילים ובמקום שנפל אמרתי, והבאתי לכל תיבה כוונה לענין שלפני. וכוונתי היטב בשורש האותיות, ובמיוחד בהזכרת השם הקודש… פתאום הוציא הנער קול אשר נבהלו כולם, והראה באצבע למקום אחד. ואמרתי מהר לפתוח החלון, וכן היה ודיבר הנער ואמר יצאה אחת מן המכשפות ממנו ופתחתי לראות בבטנו כי אמר עוד שלש מכשפות בו… ואמרתי כיון שיש עת רצון אתפלל עוד. וכאשר אמרתי שוב בערך ד’ מינוטין שוב צעק בקול אשר בכל השכונה ברחוב ההוא נבהלו והחלון היה פתוח ושוב אמר הנה כולם יצאו… והיה כזה עוד בכמה אשר יש לכתוב כמעט ספר מכל הענינים, והכל היה בעל כרחי שהפיל עלי בכח. ורק על ידי תפלות ובקשות ולפעמים גם סגולות השכיחות… (עי”ש עוד דברים חשובים בזה, צפנת פענח, מאמר ט).
R. Eliyahu Gutmacher became a famous Baal Mofos. Eventually he published an ad in the Ha-maggid to beg people to stop coming and sending him letters for help. See Mechitav me-Eliyahu, pp. 89-91; See also Bromberg’s book, Megedolei ha-Torah veha-Chasidut on R. Gutmacher, pp. 143-152 where he prints some letters from manuscripts of R. Gutmacher about this.

[9] ר’ משה חגיז במשנת חכמים, ירושלים תשלד, דף לה ע”א, סוף אות ר”מ כתב: “כי נשבע אני שראיתי ודברתי עם כמה וכמה אנשים שהיו מחזיקין אותם ההמון למקובלים בעל קבלה ובעלי שם ולא היו יודעין דין דק”ש ונטילת ידים… והיהו כותבין על עצמן הרב הגדול החסיד”. ר’ יעקב עמדין במור וקציעה סי’ רכד כתב: “והמודיעים חדושים בטבע על ידי קבלה מעשית… אבל כבר אבדה חכמה זו מבנים. והמתפארים בה בדור זה בארצות האלה כפי שידענו מזויפים הם רמאים, אוחזי עינים לפתאים, כמו שנתברר בימינו הרבה”.

It is worth quoting here the words of the Ketav Yashar which I brought earlier:

ויש לי ידיעות גם כן בחכמת הרפואה שהתירה התורה, ולא יאמין אדוני שלמדית חלילה חכמה הזאת בספרי הגוי’ ובכנסיה שלהם, שמו שיעשו פריצי בני עמונו חלילה! האם אין ספרי רפואות הרבה מאוד כמו מפעלות אלדים ושער אפרים מלאים סגולות ורפואות שאין בכל חכמי הגוים השגה לדעת דבר מהם לפי שהם למעלה מן הטבע, ואנכי ידעתי להסיר עין הרע בלחש… וכיוצא באלה (כתב יושר, דף ח ע”א).

[10] To show further evidence to Etkes’s theory my friend M. Checick showed me the following source:

בשו”ת גאוני בתראי (סימן סג) ישנה תשובה מאת ר’ שמשון מייזליש אב”ד זאלקווא והגליל (חתן ר’ אביגדור הורוויץ מקאמינקא חתן ר’ צבי הירש מייזליש) בענין אשה שהודתה שזינתה תחת בעלה. סיבת הודאתה היא מגפה שפקדה את העיר, ואיימו על הקהל שיביאו בעל שם שיגלה בשל מי הסער הזה, ומתוך חששה – הודתה. וכך מספר ר’ שמשון: “אירע בימות הקיץ שעבר, בהיות בעו”ה מדת הדין ר”ל מתוח על העיר הזאת במיתות הילדים ר”ל. ועל רעיונו סליקא לשלוח לק”ק ראזדיל לכבוד הרב המאור הגדול המפורסם אב”ד נ”י אשר מוחזק בהמון ישראל שלפעמים מגלה מצפונים של בני אדם, ואולי יתוודע החטא אשר כאש בערה, ומה עשה ה’ ככה ומה חרי האף הגדול הזה. ושמעה אשה אחת זאת, ואמרה לבעלה ולפני בית חמיה: אל ישלחו חנם – מאיתי יצא הרע, שבהיותי פעם אחת ישינה בבית גיסי ובא עלי גיסי…”.

ראה: ע’ אטקס, בעל השם, ירושלים תשסב, עמ’ 15-53 [=’מקומם של המאגיה ובעלי השם בחברה האשכנזית במפנה המאות הי”ז-הי”ח’, ציון, ס, תשנה, עמ’ 69-104]; 04]; מ’ רוסמן, הבעש”ט מחדש החסידות, ירושלים תש”ס, עמ’ 23-40; מ’ אורון, מ’בעל שד’ לבעל שם, תל אביב תשסג, 13-27;ח’ פדיה,הדגם החברתי דתי כלכלי בחסידות בתוך: צדק ועדה, עורך: ד’ אסף, ירושלים תשס”א, עמ’ 363-367

See also G. D. Hundret, Jews in Poland- Lithuania In The Eighteenth Century, University of California Press 2004, pp. 142-153; G. Dynner, Men of Silk, pp. 137-147.

וראה: ג’ שלום השלב האחרון עמ’ 100 ועמ’ 110;ז’ גריס, ספרות ההנהגות, ירושלים תש”נ, עמ’ יט ועמ’ 97; הנ”ל, הספר כסוכן תרבות, תל אביב תשס”ב, עמ’ 41מ’ פייקאז’ בימי צמיחת החסידות, עמ’ 136 -137 [וראה על זה א’ רובינשטין, עלי ספר, יד עמ’ 184-186

על כל ספרים אלו והשפע על ההמון ראה: ח’ מטרס, ספרי סגולתם ורפואות בעברית תכנים ומקורות, עובדה לשם קבלת תואר דוקטר, האוניברסיטה העברית, ירושלים תשנ”ז. והנ”ל, ‘מבריאת אדם- להבראתו: עיונים בספרי סגולת ורפואות’, עמ’ 147-164, בתוך ספר היובל לכבוד י’ דן,

Creation and Re-creation in Jewish Thought, Mohor Siebeck 2005.

H. Pollack in Jewish Folkway in Germanic lands pp.113-145

See also Nimrod Zinger, ‘Natural’ And ‘Unnatural’ Causes For Illness In The Writings Of Ba’alei Shem, Doctors And Patients Among German Jews In The Eighteenth Century,” in Giuseppe Veltri and Maria Diemling, eds., The Jewish Body: Corporeality, Society, and Identity in the Renaissance and Early Modern Period (Leiden: EJ Brill, 2008), 127-55; Nimrod Zinger, “Our hearts and spirits were broken: The medical world from the perspective of German-Jewish patients in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,” Leo Baeck Institute Yearbook 54:1 (2009): 59-9; Nimrod Zinger, “The Baal Shem and the Doctor: Medicine in the Daily Life of German Jews, 1648-1770,” (PhD dissertation, Ben-Gurion University, 2010; Hebrew). Thanks to Menachem Butler for the last three sources.

Visiting Zoos in Halacha

By Eliezer Brodt

This article originally appeared in Ami Magazine (2012) Issue #88. This version has a few updates. I hope to return to this subject shortly. For a more expanded version of this article see my article in Yeshurun 26 (2012), pp. 853–874 (PDF available upon request).

Zoos are hotspots on Chol Hamoed. Standing together with the rest of Brooklyn or Yerushalayim, trying to give your children a glimpse of a penguin or seal or elephant, is always a pleasant way to spend a day. But what do the poskim have to say about visiting the zoo? [1]

The Gemara in Berachos (58b) notes that if one sees a monkey or an elephant he should make the brachah “M’shaneh habriyos.”This halachah is brought in the Tur and Shulchan Aruch. [2] There are a few questions to ask about this brachah. How often should the brachah be made? That is actually a machlokes Rishonim. The Ravi, known as the second Raavad, says that one makes this brachah of “M’shaneh habriyos” only once in 30 days on any specific animal, i.e., a particular elephant. However, if you see another animal, that is, a second elephant, you can make another M’shaneh Habriyos even within 30 days of the first brachah. [3] The Radvaz quotes this Ravi. [4] However, the Tur quotes a Raavad that one only makes such a brachah once in a lifetime, as the effect that seeing this animal has on a person is a onetime thing. The Tur himself argues and says that, as the Ravi said, after 30 days one can make a brachah on the same animal again. The Mechaber paskens like the Raavad, and the Rema paskens like the Tur. The Shulchan Aruch Harav says when we say that this brachah is made only once in a lifetime, that refers to each kind of animal. [5] This is the opinion in Rabbi Aaron Eichorn’s Mishnah Berurah [6] as well
as that of Rav Elyashiv,[7] among others. However, the Shulchan Shlomo [8] and Aruch Hashulchan argue and are of the opinion that one can make the brachah again on this same animal after 30 days. [9] This is also the opinion of the Chazon Ish. [10]

Is this brachah limited to the elephant and monkey, which are mentioned in the Gemara?

From many Rishonim, it would seem that there is something special about an elephant and a monkey, since that is all they list. [11] The Meiri writes that it’s because these animals are similar to humans. From the Preisha it appears that it is specifically a brachah on the monkey and elephant because they are very different from other animals. [12] Rabbi Aaron Eichorn also says this brachah is only on elephants and monkeys. [13] Rabbi Yaakov Emden writes that this brachah is specifically for the elephant and monkey, because the monkey has some features similar to man, and the elephant is very strong and smart as well as large.[14] Maharash Serlio writes that he heard from Reb Meshulam that the reason why we only make a brachah of “M’shaneh habriyos” on monkeys and elephants is that after the mabul G-d punished mankind and turned many into elephants and monkeys. He says that is the reason monkeys look similar to humans and elephants understand humans. [15] The Chazon Tov, a work devoted to explaining all the dreams listed at the end of Maseches Berachos, notes that based on this Reb Meshulam, we can understand the Gemara in Berachos which says that if someone sees a monkey or elephant in a dream it’s not a good sign. That is because they were originally humans who were turned into animals. [16]

However, Rabbi Yair Chaim Bacharach says that someone brought to his town a strange-looking cow with two heads and he allowed people to make “M’shaneh habriyos” on this creature. [17] It would appear from him that this brachah is not limited to these specific animals, but he is unclear which others one can make a brachah on.[18] Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach also says that one can make a “M’shaneh Habriyos” on any peculiar animal, not only on an elephant or monkey, but he doesn’t specify which.[19]

From what the Chida records in his travels (more on this shortly), it appears he held that this brachah is made only on an elephant, since he records that he saw many different animals at different times and yet he only made a “M’shaneh habriyos” on an elephant. He writes, for example, that he saw lions at least two different times but did not make a brachah on them. In the Leket Yosher, written by a student of the Rabbi Yisrael Isserlein, author of the Terumas Hadeshen, it is explained that Rav Isserlein once went on Shabbos to see two lions, because he had never seen a lion. [20] He did not make a brachah “M’shaneh Habriyos,” and it would appear that he too held that one only makes such a brachah on elephants and monkeys.

Are there any problems with going to a zoo? Is it important to go to the zoo to make a brachah “M’shaneh habriyos,” or even just to see animals?

Rabbi Moshe Greenwald, in Shut Arugos Habosem, writes very clearly that it is not permitted to go to the circus to view animals to make a brachah “M’shaneh habriyos.” [21] Rabbi Eliezer Deutsch writes the same in his Shut Prei Hasadeh. [22] According to these Acharonim, one can ask whether it would be permitted to go to a zoo.

Rabbi Avraham Lipshitz says that one may go to a zoo to make a brachah of “M’shaneh Habriyos.” He writes that if it was not permissible, how would one ever make such a brachah? However, he says one is not obligated to go to the zoo in order to do it. [23] According to this, would it be permissible to go to the zoo to see animals that one does not make a brachah “M’shaneh Habriyos” on?

One of the most fascinating figures of Jewish history in the past few hundred years was the Chida. He was born in 1724 in Jerusalem and died in 1807 in Livorno. One of the most prolific writers, he wrote on an extremely wide range of subjects, covering all areas of Jewish studies. He wrote on Chumash, Nach, Shas, halachah, derush, kabbalah, mussar, klalim, and bibliography. He authored over 60 works, but not all were printed in his lifetime and some still only exist unpublished in manuscript form. What is even more fascinating is that he did much of his writing while traveling. For a good part of his life, he traveled as a messenger, raising money for the community of Chevron. One work of the Chida that is less known is his travel diary, Maagel Tov. This work, which records his travels in Europe and elsewhere, was only published in full for the first time in 1934 by Aaron Freiman. Part of this work was printed in 1879, and another part was printed in 1910. In addition, some sections were published in journals, including a partial French translation. More recently it was translated into English. [24]

As you might expect, it is fascinating on many fronts. It provides numerous observations of many different Jewish communities of the time. In addition to being enlightening in the area of history, these documents are also very rich for those interested in the world of Jewish sefarim. To me it is clear that he never intended for this work to be printed, as it includes personal information about himself and the people he visited. In general, such works are very important because they give us a rare glimpse into the mind of the author, and this work certainly
does that. [25]

The Chida records a few times that he visited a zoo (or other place with animals) during his travels. [26] In one place (mentioned earlier) the Chida, after describing at length the exact details of an elephant, writes that he made the brachah “M’shaneh habriyos.” [27] Various works on halachah quote this to point out that the Chida visited the zoo. But there are other important things to learn from his diaries. One is that it is completely permissible to go to a zoo, since he writes that he did so numerous times. [28] Two, I would say that from the fact that the Chida went to see animals numerous times during his travels, one must be obligated at least at some point in one’s lifetime to see animals to make a “M’shaneh habriyos”—not like Rabbi Avraham Lipshitz. Three, if one looks at the list of the animals that the Chida says he saw, there are many on which one does not make a brachah—and yet he went to see them. There must therefore be something significant about going to see animals besides the brachah. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef concludes, based on the Chida and Rabbi Isserlin, that it is certainly permissible to go to a zoo to see the animals. [29] Other gedolim who went to the zoo and made “M’shaneh habriyos” on these animals were the Divrei Chaim, [30] the Munkatcher Rebbe,[31] Rabbi Yaakov Shalom Sofer [32] and the Steipler.[33]

But the question remains: Why did the Chida go to see animals more than once? It was not to make a “M’shaneh habriyos,” since he records that he did so only on an elephant. Why did the Terumas Hadeshen go see a lion, on Shabbos, if he was not making a brachah?

Meir Benayhu merely says that the Chida was a curious person who wanted to investigate all sorts of phenomena. We find that he examined plants and other items during his travels. [34]

Rabbi Kinreti writes that the Terumas Hadeshen specifically went on Shabbos because on Shabbos a talmid chacham can be mevatel Torah for oneg Shabbos. [35]

However, I will demonstrate that there is much more involved in going to the zoo. A first point: In 1841, Yosef Schoenhack began printing his work Toldot Haaretz, which deals with natural sciences. One volume is all about zoology, dealing with the different animals mentioned in Chazal. He received a haskamah [approbation] from Rabbi Yaakov Zvi Mecklenburg, author of Hakesav V’hakaballah. In this lengthy but beautiful haskamah, Rabbi Mecklenburg writes about the importance of such a work, explaining that listing all the animals helps one realize the greatness of G-d and the greatness of the creation of the World. He cites the statement in Chovos Halevavos, that when a person sees the
wisdom of the world and its workings, a person will want to emulate the Creator. Further, by studying all the animals that exist, many areas of Chazal can be properly understood, especially in Aggadah. I would suggest that if this is what Rabbi Mecklenburg says about reading about animals, how much more does it apply to actually seeing them. We know the famous rule Eino domeh shemiah leriah: Seeing is much better than just hearing.

I would like to elaborate a bit more on both aspects mentioned by Rabbi Mecklenburg about the benefits of learning about animals. Similar to the Chovos Halevavos quoted by Rabbi Mecklenburg, the Rambam writes that the way to attain love for G-d is to analyze His actions and creations to see the great wisdom in how they work.[36]

The Sefer Habris also mentions that this is the importance of studying animals. [37] Rabbi Hillel Posek actually permits one to go to a zoo for this reason. [38]

Another similar aspect of studying animals can be understood via a manuscript of Rabbeinu Yehudah Hachasid, printed for the first time a few years ago, which was based on the theme of zecher asah linifle’osov—He made a remembrance for His wonders. [39] This work uses various mysteries of creation and aspects of animal nature to show that G-d intentionally created the world in an amazing way that is beyond human comprehension and logic to clearly show that it was He who created it. Thus, going to a zoo to observe and study animals can help a person reach a better appreciation of G-d and His creations, by seeing that there are things beyond our comprehension. [40]

As an aside, it could be that this theme of Rabbeinu Yehudah Hachassid, of zecher asah linifle’osov, could explain why the brachah of “M’shaneh Habriyos” is said specifically on the elephant. In Perek Shirah, the elephant says, “How great are Your actions, G-d! Your thoughts are deep.” Rabbi Shmuel Kimchi writes in his commentary to explain this passage that an elephant is an incredible creation, and only G-d knows why it is made in that way; His exact intentions are beyond us. [41] This idea is very similar to the idea of Rabbeinu Yehudah Hachasid in his work.

Another similar concept is alluded to in the famous quote attributed to Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch upon returning from a visit to the Swiss Alps. “Now I can answer properly when Hashem asks me in the world of truth, ‘Did you see my Alps?’”[42]

Rav Hirsch also writes:

“I almost believe that all you homebodies will one day have to atone for having stayed indoors, and when you seek entrance to see the marvels of Heaven they will ask you, ‘Did you see the marvels of G-d on earth?’ Then, ashamed, you will mumble, ‘We missed that opportunity.’ “How different were our rabbis in this respect. How they breathed, felt, thought and lived in G-d’s marvelous nature. How they wanted to awaken our senses for all that is sublime and beautiful in Creation. How they wanted to teach us to fashion a wreath of adoration for G-d out of the morning’s rays and the evening blush, out of the daylight and the night shadows, out of the star’s glimmer and the flower’s scent, out of the roar of the sea and the rumble of the thunder, the flash of the lightning. How they wanted to demonstrate to us that every creature was a preacher of His power [emphasis added], a monitor of our duties; what a Divine revelation they made of the book of nature.”[43]

Another great person who made similar observations was Rabbi Menachem Friedman. In 1929 Rabbi Friedman who was the Chassdic Rebbe of Itzkan, printed his work Al Yoffee which was incredible work all about the Torah’s attitude to beauty. The work concludes with an autobiographical chapter all about his visits to Switzerland and Italy and how he from time to time looking and observing everything around him the he would think how amazing and wonderful Gods creations are. [44]

The truth is that all this can possibly be tied to a Yerushalmi brought down by numerous Rishonim [45] and even brought down l’halachah
by the Magen Avraham. [46] Reb Moshe Hakohen, a nephew of the Rosh, in his work Sefer Hamaskil, writes that every year a person should make sure to buy each kind of fruit so he can make a brachah on each of them, since the Yerushalmi says that everyone will have to give an account of what he saw and did not eat. One is supposed to enjoy the creations of G-d, and if he does not, he will have to give an account of why not. [47]

I think this explains why the Chida made the effort numerous times to see animals. This could also be the reason why the Terumos Hadeshen went to see the lions. It could also explain why the Chida visited many gardens during his travels. [48]

Rabbi Mecklenburg, in the abovementioned haskamah, points out that observing animals helps us understand many things. The truth is that
this knowledge is also necessary in order to understand the many chapters in Chumash that list which animals are kosher and which are not. Rabbi Yosef Fried authored a work on hilchos shechitah and treifos that had illustrations of every part of the animal’s body. In his haskamah to this work, the Aderes wrote that such a volume is extremely beneficial for both student and teacher, in that it increases one’s understanding of the halachos. [49] The commentary of Rabbi Dovid Zvi Hoffman on Vayikra demonstrates how a proper understanding of animals helps us comprehend the Chumash. [50] It is also needed to help one understand Perek Shirah. Rabbi Hillel Posek writes a similar reason permitting one to visit a zoo, [51] as does Rabbi Nosson Gestetner. [52]

Interestingly, Rabbi Gedaliah Nadel traveled outside Eretz Yisrael in order to visit a large collection of birds and animals, which he studied in great detail to understand which are kosher and which are not. [53]

One can perhaps go even further and say that Chazal derived a real understanding of animals from actually seeing them, as is obvious from the lists compiled by Rabbi Yehoshua Heller [54] and Rabbi Yekusiel Kemelhar [55] and others.[56] This, too, could perhaps explain the Chida’s visits, which were to enrich his understanding of the Torah.

There is another point that we can learn from the Chida: Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Koidenover writes in his work Kav Hayashar that although one is supposed to make a “M’shaneh habriyos” when seeing certain animals, one should not stare at them but rather just look at them quickly and make the brachah. He writes that looking at “impure” (i.e., not kosher) animals can cause spiritual problems.[57] One could claim that both the Chida [58] and Rabbi Yisrael Isserlin did indeed see non-kosher animals—lions and elephants— but that they looked at them quickly just to make the brachah. But the Chida’s description of the elephant shows that he definitely did not just look at it for a second, make a brachah, and leave, but rather that he observed it for some time.

There is much to gain from going to the zoo.

Notes

1. For more on all this see my recent article in Yeshurun 26 (2012), pp. 853–874. See also: Rav Ovadiah Yosef, Chazon Ovadiah (Tu Beshevat), Jerusalem 2007, pp. 453–456; Rabbi Betzalel Stern, Ohalecha B’amitecha, Jerusalem 2005, pp. 173–174; Rabbi Shlomo Schneider, Shut Divrei Shlomo 4, Brooklyn 2009, Siman 532; Rabbi Yitzchak Eshkoli, Tzaar Balei Chaim, Ofakyim 2002, pp. 211-216; Rabbi Dovid Yosef, Halacha Berurah, 11, Jerusalem 2010, Siman 225; Rabbi Ari Zivotofsky, “Praising God at the Zoo”, Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, LXII, Fall 2011, pp. 43–53; Ten Da’at: A Journal of Jewish Education, Vol. XVI, Rabbi Moshe Bleich, “The Halakhah Corner: Visiting the Zoo,” pp. 10–22 [thanks to Rabbi Ari Zivotofsky for this source]; Rabbi Eliyahu Ariel, Sefer Shaar ha-Ayin (Modiin Illit, 2008; Hebrew), pp. 118–125, 350–356; Rabbi Shmuel Shtitzburg, Sharei Halacha, Beit Shemesh 2003, p. 471. Another other important source on this topic worth mentioning is the beautifully written chapter ‘Jews, Zoos and Teddy Bears’, in Rabbi Natan Slifkin, Man And Beast, Brooklyn 2006, pp. 13-38.

2. Aruch Chaim, siman 225. In general, any reference in this article to which I do not give a citation can be found in this siman.

3. Shut Ravi, siman 33. He only says Kushi, not elephant, but it would appear the same applies, because one makes the same brachah on both ”M’shaneh habriyos.”

4. Shut Radvaz, 1:296.

5. Seder Bircat Hanenin, 13:13.

6. Bircat Habayis, Munkacz 1893, Shaar 29:12.

7. Ibid., 29.

8. Shulchan Shlomo, ad loc.

9. Aruch Hashulchan, ad loc.

10. Rabbi Eliyahu Ariel, Sefer Shaar ha-Ayin, p. 417.

11. See my Yeshurun article (above note 1), pp. 861–864.

12. Ibid.

13. Bircat Habayis, Munkacz 1893, op. cit., Shaar 29:13.

14. Meor U’ketziah, ad loc.

15. Meleches Shlomo, Kelayim
8:6.This issue is not simple, because Chazal in Sanhedrin say that
after the Dor Haflagah, not the Dor Hamabul, was when they became
monkeys. There is also no mention of anyone becoming elephants. See Rav Yaakov
Kaminetsky in his Emes Le-Yaakov on Shulchan Aruch, ad loc., p.
107. See also the important sources collected by Rabbi Dovid Weiss, Megadim
Chadashim, Berchos, Jerusalem 2008, p. 502–504; idem, Megadim Chadashim,
Bereishis, Jerusalem 2010, pp. 212–214. See also the Shevet Mussar,
ch. 47; Rabbi Eliyahu Ariel, Sefer Shaar ha-Ayin (Modiin Illit, 2008;
Hebrew), pp. 410–411. For more on all this see my recent article in Yeshurun
26 (2012), p. 863. Worth mentioning related to all this is the story I heard
from Rabbi Nosson Kaminetsky about his father, Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky, who was
flying business class from Israel to the States and was seated near Yerucham
Meshel, chairman of the Histadrut at the time. The two were shmoozing.
Meshel saw that Rav Yaakov’s son and granddaughter kept coming in from the
economy section to check if they could be helpful to him. He marveled that
there was such kibbud av, and compared it to his own situation where his
children and granchildren hardly visited him. Rav Yaakov answered that since
he, Meshel, believes in Darwin, that man evolved from the monkey, there is no
reason for them to respect him. They are another generation farther from the
monkey; he should be respecting them. He, Rav Yaakov, believed that Adam was
G-d’s handiwork and our children are another generation removed from that
glory. They therefore respect someone closer to Creation.

16. Chazon Tov, Jerusalem 1998, pp. 173–175.

17. Mekor Chaim, ad loc.

18. Yalkut Avraham, ad loc., writes that his father made such a brachah on a twoheaded human being that he saw in Vienna.

19. Halichos Shlomo, Tefilah, p. 290.

20. Leket Yosher, Jerusalem 1964, p. 66.

21. O. C. siman 39.

22. Volume 3, siman 173.

23. Yalkut Avraham, New York
2002, pp. 64–67.

24. Benjamin Cymerman, The Diaries of Rabbi Ha’im Yosef David Azulai,
Jerusalem 1997. 25 This work has been explored very carefully in a few recent
works, most notably in Meir Benayahu’s masterpiece on the Chida entitled Ha-Chida,
first printed in 1959. This work was also used in the articles of various
scholars in the important work Sefer Ha-Chida, which Meir Benayahu
edited that same year. In 2006 a collection of Letters and history about the
Chida was printed by Shlomo Vankin called Igrot V’haskomot Rabbenu HaChida.
This work contains lots of useful information about the Chida and makes use of
these travels in his work. More recent work on these travels was done in an
article by Matthias B. Lehmann, “Levantinos and Other Jews: Reading H. Y. D.
Azulai’s Travel Diary,” Jewish Social Studies [n.s.] 13:3
(Spring/Summer 2007): 1-34. In 2010, a very good M.A. was written about these
travels by Oded Cohen: Ma’agel Tov of R. Hayyim Yosef David Azulai
(HIDA)—Meeting Between Tradition and Modernity, MA, Tel-Aviv University,
2010, Hebrew. More recently, my articles in Yeshurun 26 (2012), pp.
853-874; Yeshurun 26 (2012), pp. 907–939; Hapamon 4 (2012), pp.
81–86. See also Yaacob Dweck, ‘A Jew from the east meets books from the west’, Jewish
Culture in Early Modern Europe, Essays in honor of David B. Ruderman,
Edited by Richard Cohen and others,
Pittsburg 2014, pp. 239-249.

26. Ma’agel Tov, [will be
quoted as M.T.], Jerusalem 1934, p. 5, 68, 32, 68, 69. For fish,
see p. 82. For a peacock, see p. 92, 93. He also visited many different
gardens; see p. 5, 81-82, 91-92, 98, 105, 150–151, 154, 155–156. See also his Midbor
Kademos, beis: 22.

27. M.T. pp. 69-70.

28. M.T., p. 5, 32, 68, 69.

29. Yabiah Omer, 4, O.C. 20. See also his Chazon Ovadiah (Tu B’Shvat), pp. 453–455.

30. Tehillat Chaim, 2, Bnei Brak 1995, pp. 183–184.

31. Nimikei Aruch Chaim, 225; Rabbi Shabtzvi Liphshitz, Sefer Ha-Eshel, erech Baalei Chaim, 24.

32. Toras Chaim, 225:16.

33. Orchos Rabbeinu, 1. p. 94

34. Ha-Chida, Jerusalem 1959, p. 88, 161.

35. Leket Yosher, Jerusalem 2010, p. 142. I will hopefully return to this topic in a future article.

36. Yesodei Hatorah, 2:2.

37. Sefer Habris, 1, end of Maamar 14, Ch. 8. I heard from Rav Don Segal at a hesped for Rav Shach that Rav Shach used to study the Sefer Habris specifically for this reason, to gain a deeper appreciation for G-d and his world.

38. Shut Hillel Omer, O.C.
144.

39. This work was first printed by
Israel Ta-Shma, See his Studies in Medieval Rabbinic Literature, vol. 1,
Jerusalem 2004, pp. 181–207. A more recent critical edition was printed
by Yaakov Yisroel Stal, Amoros Tehoros Chizonis Upinemis, Jerusalem
2006.

40. This is based on the
introduction of Y. Stal to the previously mentioned edition. For more on this
work see Joseph Dan, History of Jewish Mysticism and Esotericism: The Middle
Ages, vol. V, Jerusalem 2011 [Hebrew], pp. 393–423.

41. Perek Shirah, Jerusalem
2005, p. 39. Chazon Tov, (Jerusalem 1998, p. 65), adds that the reason
why the word pelah is used in relation to the elephant (besides being
related to its name) is because it is a true wonder. It is huge, and all its
features are large, but at the same time it can move very fast.

42. Rabbi Eliyahu Klugeman, Rabbi
Samson Raphael Hirsch, New York 1996, p. 320.

43.
Collected Writings of Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch 8, 1995, p.
259.

44. Al Yoffee, p. 45. On this
fascinating person see David Assaf, Caught in the Thicket (heb.),
Jerusalem 2006, pp. 283-316; on this work see ibid, pp. 299-300.

45. For an impressive listing of Rishonim
who quote this Yerushalmi, see M.M. Honig, “On the New Edition of Sefer
Hamaskil of R. Moshe Ben R. Eliezer Hacohen,” Yerushaseinu (2006), pp.
218–220.

46. Magen Avraham, ad loc.,
14.

47. Sefer Hamaskil, Jerusalem
2004, pp. 48–49.

48. M.T., p. 5, 81–82, 91–92, 98,
105, 150–151, 154, 155–156.

49. The sefer was
unfortunately never printed but the haskamah was, in the introduction to
Rav Fried’s Shut Ohel Yosef, New York 1903.

50. See also Rabbi Avraham Mi-shayer
Aryeh, Shiltei Giborim, Jerusalem 2010, pp. 228-251.

51. Shut Lehoros Nosson, 4, Bnei
Brak 1985, Siman 68.

52. Shut Hillel Omer, O.C.
144.

53. Mili De-Hespeidah, Bnei
Brak 2005, p. 80.

54. Moaz Hadas, Jerusalem
1903, pp. 35a–36a.

55. Ha-Talmud U-maddah Ha-tevel,
Jerusalem 1984, pp. 78–79.

56. See Rabbi Dr. Isaac Herzog, Judaism
Law and Ethics, London 1974, pp. 161– 165.

57. Kav Hayashar, Jerusalem
1993, p. 8. See also Rabbi Yitzchak Eshkoli, Tzaar

Balei Chaim, Ofakyim 2002,
pp. 217-218.

58.
The Chida saw other non-kosher animals see M.T. p. 5, 32, 68, 69.

Crafting the Commandments

Albert D. Friedberg’s Crafting the Commandments has just appeared. The Seforim Blog is happy to present the following excerpt from the book’s conclusion.

Scholars have ascribed far too much importance to Maimonides’ enumeration of the commandments and far too little to the motivations that lay behind his appropriation of R. Simlai’s aggadah as the basis for the enumeration and to the significance that Maimonides attached to this aggadah. The proximate reason for creating an enumeration was his need to have a reasoned and methodical outline of all Torah legislation in front of him, a reminder of topics to guide his preparation of the upcoming code of law, a massive and unique undertaking. Thus we find him saying in the introduction to the ShM [Sefer ha-Mitzvot]:

All this [I would do] in order to guard against omitting any topic [emphasis added] from discussion, for only by including them in the enumeration of the commandments [heading the various treatises] would I insure against such omission.

This sense is reinforced by some of the Rules, especially Rules 7 and 10-14, which are essentially taxonomic rules rather than definitions of what constitutes a mitsvah. I posited that the logically unnecessary identification of this outline with R. Simlai’s count of 613 commandments owed its existence to Maimonides’ desire to incorporate the two fundamental beliefs of the Jewish faith, God’s existence and His oneness, into the legal realm, and thus transform their intellection into obligations, a dramatic departure from the preceding geonic paradigm. I inferred this conclusion from a dispassionate and unapologetic assessment of the mitsvah count. Maimonides stretched the meaning of mitsvat ‘aseh well beyond its common rabbinic usage, relying uncharacteristically on an aggadah of questionable legal worth, a homiletic creation with didactic aims and no pretensions of being precise, and resorted to a contrived and hardly compelling logic to arrive at the numerical target, likely fully aware of the variant results that could be legitimately obtained.

The enumeration, qua a reasoned list of commandments, has diverted the attention of the countless students of his works ever since the ShM left his hands. But I posit that it was not R. Simlai’s dictum that 613 commandments were given to Moses at Sinai that was significant, but rather R. Hamnuna’s accompanying exegesis. Maimonides used R. Hamnuna’s midrashic exegesis that the verses I am the Lord thy God and Thou shalt have no other God before Me specifically formed part of the count of 613 commandments to prove that to intellect the existence of God and His oneness constituted a positive, performative obligation. The credibility of R. Hamnuna’s exegesis was even more firmly established when Maimonides inferred from its language what he believed was a theological truth: the nature of the commandments to believe in the existence of God and to believe in His oneness was categorically distinct from the nature and motivation underlying the rest of the commandments. He explained this distinction by averring that the former were philosophically demonstrable truths, capable of being apprehended without the medium of revelation, while the latter were only conventions, necessitating the mediation of a lawgiver and prophet.

The two articles of faith occupy the most prominent position in the MT, appearing in the opening lines of the Sefer ha-Madda’. In a letter to his disciple, Joseph b. Judah, Maimonides wrote that he undertook to compile a code of law in his zeal for the glory of God, “in seeing a nation bereft of a truly comprehensive book (diwan) of law, and bereft of clear and correct [theological] notions.” Only the inclusion of these two beliefs in the canon of law could have satisfied the requirements of “a truly comprehensive book (diwan)” containing “correct theological notions.” In sum, the unequivocal and unique statement found in R. Simlai’s aggadah, that the beliefs in God’s existence and His oneness constituted positive obligations, led Maimonides to appropriate the aggadah, adopt its numerical value of 613, and conflate it with the outline that he was preparing—all despite the constraints that it imposed.

In the second half of the book, I turned my attention to the sub-section of positive commandments and drew some conclusions from the way they are described and defined in the Halakhot. While my readings hinged on what Maimonides actually wrote, I recognized that, being human, Maimonides was bound to make the occasional mistake. That said, the exceptional (but more than occasional) omission of the formulaic phrase “X is a mitsvat ‘aseh” at the start of a topical discussion held my special attention because of the implausibility of it being forgotten: the phrase is rich, bold, highly informative, and consistent with Maimonides’ sustained interest for making categorical distinctions. Additionally, and just as importantly, my readings focused on how Maimonides expressed himself. The rhetoric, the literary presentation of his ideas, and the logic of composition mattered as much to me as the slight inferences one could arrive at by noting the absence or presence of a particular term, elements which have constituted the more traditional way of studying his works.

I began the book’s second section by noting that in the Halakhot, Maimonides moves away from the contrived artificiality adopted in the ShM of using the term mitsvat ‘aseh to designate all types of legal themes: here he applies the term to a very specific case, that of an absolute and unconditional obligation. Combing scriptural and rabbinic sources, Maimonides searches for clear indications of unconditional commands and imperatives to perform well-defined acts. These he designates boldly and prominently at the commencement of each topical
discussion, with a formulaic phrase that states that the directive at hand is a mitsvat ‘aseh. Where Maimonides withholds the mitsvat ‘aseh designation, I theorized that he must have done so because the scriptural and/or rabbinic evidence was insufficient to make such a determination. I tested for this evidentiary insufficiency, and when confirmed, I theorized further that under the influence of reigning Islamic legal theory (which was also heavily if not wholly influenced by rabbinic thinking), Maimonides opts for a softer definition. As a result, certain scriptural directives are categorized as recommendations rather than orders, wise pieces of advice rather than commands. Supporting these with scriptural proof texts, he labels them with the solo term mitsvah, a label that he also uses to designate rabbinical directives. The scriptural mitsvot include such prominent directives as to love and fear God, to imitate Him, to appoint a king, to heed the call of a prophet, to rebuke the sinner, to honor the wise, to testify in court, and a few others.

I conjectured further that Maimonides deliberately withheld the scriptural designation from certain commandments that had been labeled as scriptural in the ShM when the plain reading of the scriptural text did not appear to provide sufficient evidence for them, even when rabbinic interpretation suggested otherwise. To this end, he chose an artful but somewhat concealed literary device to designate them as such, the participle of correct practice. This is the case with such prominent practices as the recitation of the Shema, the binding of the tefillin, the writing and placing of the mezuzah and the study of Torah.

In the heavily politicized atmosphere of Cairo, where Rabbanites were both assiduously courted and continuously attacked by sectarian groups (largely Karaites) over the role of the oral law in interpreting Scripture, Maimonides chose to keep his radical opinions hidden yet recoverable. When applied to the legal sections of the Torah, Maimonides’ peshateh di-qera hermeneutics would likely raise hackles among his own co-religionists and, worse yet, give comfort to the deniers of the oral law. His carefully planted literary cues could lead the reader who is familiar with rabbinic terminology and unburdened by popular and superficial conclusions to discover the Master’s true opinion or at the very least sense his ambivalence.

Maimonides was informed by a hermeneutics of peshateh di-qera that was firmly and demonstrably anchored in the Andalusian tradition. His insistence on presumed philological validity, however, left him uneasily placed, uncomfortably close to sectarian investigation and interpretation. Ironically, this led him at times to mount a struggling defense of his own traditional Rabbanite views, well aware that the plain sense of Scripture did not lend convincing support for such a stance.

Consciously or unconsciously, Maimonides navigated his legal system between the Rabbanites and the Karaites, upholding the former’s respect for authoritative tradition and the latter’s insistence on relying only on philologically informed readings. Maimonides’ extraordinarily novel application of peshateh di-qera to the halakhic corpus threatened the very foundations of a Rabbanism, one that was intimately intertwined with the Talmud and its authority. Nahmanides understood this too well when he criticized Rule 2:

[F]or this book of the master, its content is delightful, full of love [based on Song of Songs 5:16] except for this principle, which uproots great mountains of the Talmud and throws down fortified walls of the Gemara. For the students of the Gemara, this notion is evil and bitter. Let it be forgotten and not said.

Of course, Maimonides would not have conceded this point: he would have maintained that his paradigm flowed quite naturally from the pages of the Talmud. Did not the Talmud’s quest for peshateh di-qera support the distinction between divine and man-made law? Did not the rabbis of the Talmud acknowledge that explicitly stipulated scriptural laws enjoyed an epistemic advantage over and a distinction from man-made laws? To Maimonides the answer to these two questions was a resounding yes.

Thanks to his remarkable codification, Maimonides left an indelible mark on Jewish law. Unfortunately, an important part of his jurisprudence, the exquisitely fine distinctions he made between divine and human law and between command and advice, was never fully appreciated, perhaps because of its radical import—or perhaps because Maimonides, for his own good reasons, hid many of these contributions behind formulaic omissions, terminological nuances, and subtle literary devices. It is this rich and layered nuancing that in some modest way I have tried to recover.

Legacy Judaica Spring 2021 Auction

By Dan Rabinowitz and Eliezer Brodt

Legacy Auction Judaica is holding its Spring auction on May 30th (link) and it provides us the opportunity to discuss some interesting bibliographical and historical books and items.

Item #7 is the first edition of Charedim printed in 1601. This is the first appearance of R. Elazar Azkiri’s song Yedid Nefesh in print. For a full discussion of this Tefilah see Bentcy Eichorn, Zemirot Zion, pp. 91-106. This volume also has many unidentified glosses.

Another entry of note is Item #147, the Hida’s copy of the 1545 edition of the Sifra with what may be his marginalia.

An item with important glosses is Item #160 which has the notes of R’ Chaim Sofer known as ‘the Hungarian R’ Chaim,’ on the work Sharei Torah. See also Item #61 which has glosses from R’ Hirsch Berlin.

Item #79, is the first edition, Seder Zera’im. While small portions of the Tiferes Yisrael commentary on the Mishna proved controversial, this volume contains the approbation of R. Akiva Eiger, who is also listed on the subscriber list.

Another controversial work, the late R. Nosson Kamenetsky’s Making of a Godol, is Item #97. This is the first edition, not the later edition which censored material from the first. We discuss some of the controversy, bans, and differences between the editions, in a series of articles here, here, here, and here.

Also a controversial work is Item #100, Pulmus haMussar which discusses the dispute regarding the Mussar movement. Revealing the inner machinations between the parties proved controversial itself and Pulmus was printed just once and it has never been reprinted. Regarding this work, see Eitam Henkin, Ta’arokh le-fani Shulkhan, 123-139.

Item #136’s description contains an interesting cryptic note about the copy of Pe’as Hashulchan: “Includes the rare final page of corrections and polemics”.

Here is the story behind this sentence: In 1799 one of the earliest authorized works of the Gra printed was the Shenos Eliyahu. In the back there was a section called Likutim.

Here is the text of the Gra Related to Mesorah:

In 1821 R’ Wolf Heidenheim wrote about this:

This is what R’ Shklover is referring to in the last page of his work without naming who he was referring to:

Interestingly enough R’ Yitzchaki of Bnei Brak in an article in Yeshurun 5 (1999) pp. 535-537 concludes that R’ Heidenheim was correct. In later editions of the Pe’as Hashulchan has the piece of R’ Shklover added into the proper place in the important introduction of the work. (Thanks to Y. Yankelowitz for his sources and materials).

Another work of the Gra is the first edition of the Biur ha-Gra on Shulhan Orakh (Item #137). This edition removed many standard commentaries (Taz, etc.) but not the Be’er ha-Goleh because he was related to the Gra. A Shulhan Orakh with just the Gra’s commentary proved not viable because when people purchased a Shulhan Orakh they wanted all the standard commentaries in addition to the Gra’s. In the middle of the publication of the Even ha-Ezer volume the publishers decided that they would include the other commentaries even if it meant moving the Gaon’s commentary to the bottom, they received permission from R. Chaim Volozhin to do so.

About Item #18 Messechtas Purim see our discussion earlier on the blog here.

Item #25 is Peirush Megilas Achashverosh, Venice 1565. The description states:

R. Zechariah ben Saruk (1450-c. 1540), was one of the great Chachamim of Spain… With an important introduction, which provides a rare historical glimpse into the travails of Jews who were exiled from Spain as well into as other challenges of that period.

Worth quoting is part of another piece from this interesting introduction:

שהראשונים הניחו לנו לדבר אבל לא לקנטר ואני תמה מאד מן החכם העניו ה”ר שמואל די בידאש נ”ע איך נפל ברשת מאמר האומר אין משיבין על הארי אחר שמת? וזה לשתי סבות הא’ שהוא ידוע לקטני עריסה [רץ המונחים בעריסה] כי קטנם עבה ממתנינו, וההקש והערך שיש בין ידיעתם לידעתנו הוא בערך גלגל ערבות אל נמלה אחת, השנית שהחכמים ההם ע”ה שחברו מה שחברו, האירו לנו בחיבוריהם מפיהם אנו חיים, אם כן מה נהיה כפויי טובה ששתינו מים זכים מבורם ועתה נקנטר כנגדם. ובעת שאמר החכם הנזכר על בעל העטור והרא”ש והרמב”ם ז”ל שהוכו בסנורים, ודברים אחרים, זרים לכל חכם לב לאומרם מאשלי רברבי. ותמהני מחכמתו שאני הייתי מכיר אותו היטב שהוא חכם ועניו איך אמר בהקדמת ספרו מה שסתר אחר כך בספרו? כי אמר בהקדמתו שהסתירה אשר לא יכוןי הסותר לבייש את האשר נעלם ממנו דבר, כי אין זה מורידו מחזקתו. והאמת כן הוא. ובספרו, כשחלק על הגאונים הנזכרים אמר שהוכו בסנורים

ונראה לי דילמא מר נאים כדנפק שמעתתיה מפומיה, כמו שאמרו על רבי יהושע בן לוי, כדאיתא במסכת נדה פרק המפלת. ולא זו בלבד הזהיר לנו חז”ל, אבל גם כן אמרו במוסריהם שלא יחלוק אדם על רבו אפילו בעודו בחיים חייתו, ולכן אמרו בירושלמי לית ריש לקיש מתריס כלפי רבי יוחנן, למפיגל עליה לאפוקי מיניה עובדא. העובדא היה שהוראה רבי יוחנן לתלמידו ריש לקיש שהצפורן אינה מטמא, כמו שהמחלוקת הוא בירשלמי במסכת הורית פרק כהן משוח

ובעבור שזה האיש היה חשוב במדותיו, נאמר שזה היה כשגגה שיוצא מלפני השליט ולכן בכל מה שחלק כנגד גאונים עולם, לא אדבר אלא באחד, בעבור שנשבעתי ואקיימה להיות כנגד כל איש שיחלוק נגד הרא”ש והרמב”ם ז”ל וכו’

על כל שאר הדברים שהטיח כנגדם, ובפרט נגד הראב”ע ז”ל אשר אחר חתימת התלמוד היה רשום ככל הגאונים, אף אלפי שהיה הוא גאון, וראו מה שכתב עליו הרמב”ם לבנו, והוא היה חכם כולל ושלם בכל חכמה. ואנכי ראיתי חדושי הראב”ע ממסכת קידושין [ותוס’ הביאו בקידושין לו א], והם בתכלית הדקות האימות, ובא החכם ר’ שמואל די וידאש, האל יכפרהו לומר עליו, ולא אמר אמת ואינו נכון ודברים אחרים, שאינם ראויים לדבר כנגד האשל הגדול הראב”ע. ומה שאמרתי לא הייתי אומר, אלא שנקרת בפי’ אחד שלו מהמגלה הזאת

Last year this rare work was reprinted based on the first edition and manuscripts with notes and a useful introduction about the work.

Item #37 is the rare work Tal Oros. This work is almost completely unknown to most poskim. One important exception was the Magen Avraham who quoted it numerous times in his classic work on Shulchan Aruch. For additional information about this author see this earlier post on the blog (here).

Previously we have mentioned how we can learn about works found in different people’s libraries. Item #163 is the Beis Halevi’s copy of the classic work of the Malbim on Orach Chaim which sadly was never completed.

An interesting bibliographical scoop about this work can be found in an interview in Mishpacha Magazine in the September 4, 2019 (Issue #776, p. 50) by Rabbi Yonason Sacks. He describes purchasing the Malbim’s own copy which had an important gloss to a specific passage.

The catalog’s letters section is always an important way to learn about interesting unknown historical documents and the like.

Item #229 we learn about a newspaper written in Yeshivas Telz for Purim. This tradition is found already in Volozhin as described by Shaul Stampfer and continues until today.

Item #182 is another Letter of R. Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, author of the Orakh ha-Shulhan.

This letter has a very interesting passage (which the entry downplays) we already wrote about back in 2007 (here). In this letter he wrote not to write to R’ Spektor as he is מוקף מסביב and write to the Netziv even though he is sick.

Shockingly enough R’ Chaim Kanievskey advised R’ Horowitz, the editor of this edition, not to edit out this line.

Item #224 must be highlighted as this is an incredible manuscript, which relates to the famous controversy in Yerushalayim in the 1880’s.

This is a letter from 1887 written by R. Yosef Dov ha-Levi Soloveitchik, the author of the Bes ha-Levi, to his friend R’ Hildesheimer. The catalog description states in part:

During the late 1880’s the old Yishuv of Yerusholayim, then led by the great R. Yehoshua Leib Diskin, was supported by the “Chalukah” system, which was funded by Jews from the Diaspora… He continues that there is still one place that the plague of secular studies has not infiltrated and that is Yerusholayim, and despite the fact that scoffers want to implement secular studies there, the Yishuv, under the leadership of “Rabbeinu HaGadol Me’or Ha’Golah Yochid B’Doreinu B’Torah V’Yirah HaGaon MaHaRIL Diskin Shlit”a, have prevailed and held on to their sacred tradition. However, those who are opposed to the Chachomim are totally persistent in their publications against the Yishuv and the MaHaRIL”. The Beis Ha’Levi therefore requests that R. Hildesheimer publicize that he disagrees with this view, and that he reaffirm that it is forbidden for the school system in the Old Yishuv, which was constituted primarily of students with Lithuanian backgrounds, to implement these changes…

In this letter we see the incredible respect that the Beis Halevi had from R’ Yehoshua Leib Diskin, something known to us from many other sources.

R’ Hildesheimer’s role in this controversy has been discussed a bit by David Ellenson, Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy, pp. 110-112,123-126.

Many aspects of this fascinating controversy have been dealt with by R’ Eitam Henkin HY”d in various articles.

One important point is from the Beis Halevi letter it sounds like all Lithuanian Gedolim sided with R’ Diskin but this is not so simple at all. R’ Shmuel Salant definitely did not agree with R’ Diskin on this. IYH this will be discussed at greater length in the future.