Mikra Pashut: A New Reading of the Tanakh

David Curwin

David Curwin is an independent scholar, who has researched and published widely on Bible, Jewish thought and philosophy, and Hebrew language. His first book, “Kohelet – A Map to Eden” was published by Koren/Maggid in 2023. Other writings, both academic and popular, have appeared in Lehrhaus, Tradition, Hakirah, and Jewish Bible Quarterly. He blogs about Hebrew language topics at www.balashon.com. A technical writer in the software industry, David resides in Efrat with his wife and family.

I have read the Tanakh in many translations. In my youth, I began with the Koren Jerusalem Bible, continued with the 1985 JPS edition, and came to appreciate R. Aryeh Kaplan’s The Living Torah. More recently, I have enjoyed the literary translations produced by Robert Alter, Everett Fox, and the new Koren edition, among others. Each edition, in its own way, makes the Bible a book to be read.

In Hebrew, the situation is different. There is no shortage of Chumash and Tanakh editions  – ranging from traditional to modern – each offering layers of commentary and interpretation. Hebrew speakers have countless tools to learn the Bible, to chant it ritually, to analyze it verse by verse. Even modern commentaries such as Daat Mikra, while aiming to elucidate the peshat, are constructed as learning tools, not as continuous reading experiences. By contrast, readers of translations in other languages can pick up a Bible and read it as a flowing narrative, aided by paragraphs and punctuation that match modern literary conventions.

Mikra Pashut, edited by biblical researcher Dr. Avi Shveka with the guidance of an editorial committee and published by Koren under its Maggid imprint in 2024, seeks to change this. The Hebrew-only edition spans four hardcover volumes- Torah, Prophets I, Prophets II, and Writings – and remains faithful to the Masoretic text while using modern punctuation and layout to create a seamless reading experience. It strips away the tools that have shaped the text for centuries – verse numbers, chapter breaks, parashah divisions, and cantillation marks. That absence may startle traditional readers at first, but once that surprise fades, they may discover how enjoyable and revealing it is to read the Tanakh continuously, uncovering new dimensions in a text they thought they knew.

Opening any volume immediately shows how different this edition is. The layout transforms the Tanakh into something that can be read fluently, without commentary mediating every line. Shveka and his team provide a substantial Hebrew introduction that explains the project’s history and the reasoning behind its editorial decisions. In addition to this general introduction, each biblical book comes with a brief preface focusing on issues specific to its punctuation and layout. While the introduction does not detail every individual punctuation and design choice, it sets out the principles that guided the work. This review draws on the editorial principles outlined in the introduction and how they are reflected in the edition’s design. While Mikra Pashut is entirely in Hebrew, understanding how it was designed and why these choices were made is of interest to anyone concerned with how we encounter the biblical text.

The editor and his context

Avi Shveka’s project continues a family tradition of innovation in access to Jewish texts. His father, Prof. Yaacov Choueka (1936–2020), played a central role in the development of the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project, which transformed rabbinic scholarship by making classical sources digitally searchable. (Mikra Pashut is dedicated to his memory.) Just as Choueka removed technological barriers – developing tools that made rabbinic literature digitally searchable – so his son Avi removes barriers of format, the conventions that have kept Hebrew readers from simply reading the Bible.

To carry out this vision, Shveka assembled an editorial committee representing diverse perspectives and backgrounds. Members included Rabbi Chaim Sabato (Rosh Yeshivat Yeshivat Birkat Moshe, Ma’aleh Adumim), Rabbi Yuval Cherlow (Rosh Yeshivat Yeshivat Orot Shaul, Tel Aviv), Prof. Haggai Misgav (Hebrew University), Prof. Noam Mizrahi (Head of the Bible Department, Hebrew University), Dr. Hillel Gershuni (researcher, editor, translator), Ayal Fishler (director of Machon Maaliyot), and Avishai Magence (Koren Publishers). This collaboration ensured that the edition drew on rabbinic tradition, literary analysis, and academic scholarship, while keeping the biblical text itself untouched.

This edition is deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. It preserves the sanctity of the biblical text and builds on the insights of generations of commentators. At the same time, it reflects that tradition’s awareness that every era must find its own ways to make the text accessible, and it responds to that need with a format that speaks to contemporary Hebrew readers.

A reader’s edition

Mikra Pashut is explicitly a reader’s edition. Its title, meaning “Plain Scripture” (and implying a “simple reading”), reflects its ambition to present the biblical text in a clear, straightforward manner focused on the peshat. Shveka notes that it was designed in a format as similar as possible to a regular modern Hebrew book. It is not a study Bible and not a tool for ritual chanting; it is a text meant to be read from start to finish.

The visual presentation makes this clear. Mikra Pashut begins from the austere model of a Torah scroll, which contains only the unpunctuated, unvocalized words of the text with no divisions between verses. The scroll’s starkness preserves the primacy of the words themselves. Building on that foundation, this edition introduces only what is necessary for modern readability: the traditional vowels are included to make the sometimes archaic or confusing Hebrew words more accessible, but the page remains free of commentary, Targum, and Masoretic notes. Verse numbers are absent from the body of the text. The words appear in justified paragraphs, with clear indentations. Each page header combines two elements: the traditional chapters and verses covered on that page, along with a brief title summarizing the section’s content. These headings function like chapter titles in a modern book, guiding the reader through the narrative without offering commentary.

The re-division of chapters is particularly significant. Shveka chose not to retain the breaks of the weekly Torah portions (parashat hashavua), which were set according to a variety of considerations and not always primarily to separate distinct topics. Nor did he follow the Christian chapter divisions, introduced in the 13th century by Archbishop Stephen Langton, which are often based on thematic reasoning but in many cases are debatable and, in some places, clearly mistaken. Instead, he created a new chapter division based on literary units. This is, as he notes, the first time in roughly eight centuries that a Hebrew Bible has introduced a new division of chapters. 

For example, the traditional Christian division ends Genesis 1 with the sixth day of creation and oddly begins chapter 2 with the description of the seventh day. The Masoretic division, followed in standard Hebrew Bibles, keeps the seventh day together with the other six in the first chapter and starts the second with the verse, “Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created. On the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven” (Genesis 2:4), which then continues into the Adam narrative. Shveka’s edition instead splits Genesis 2:4 itself: “Such is the story of heaven and earth when they were created” closes the creation account, while “On the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven” opens the story of Adam.

Within these larger sections, the text is further divided into passages and paragraphs that follow shifts in narrative, dialogue, or thematic focus. Lists, such as genealogies or censuses, are arranged with each item on its own line. Poetry – including Psalms, prophetic oracles, and the Song of Songs – is laid out in parallel lines, often in two columns, highlighting the symmetry of biblical verse. Unlike most editions, where all text appears in a uniform block style, this formatting reflects the different genres within the Tanakh and makes their structure immediately visible to the reader.

The decision to omit chapter and verse numbers also follows this logic. These markers were historically created to aid study, allowing readers to locate verses quickly, but they were never intended to serve the experience of reading. Since this edition encourages smooth, uninterrupted reading, such references would only disrupt the flow. For those who still desire them, the chapter and verse ranges are provided discreetly in the page headers without breaking the continuity of the text.

Modern punctuation as parshanut

Shveka’s most radical innovation is the use of modern punctuation. This edition adds all the marks familiar to contemporary readers: commas, periods, colons, question marks, exclamation points, quotation marks, and parentheses. Dialogue appears in quotes, with long speeches indented as block text. Lists begin with colons. Parentheses, never before used in a printed Tanakh, enclose digressions or editorial asides embedded in the text. Unlike in academic editions, their use here does not indicate that the enclosed passage is uncertain or suspected of being a later addition; rather, it highlights material that functions as an aside within the narrative. The aside in Genesis 2:12 about the gold of Havilah – “(And the gold of that land is good; bdellium and onyx stone are there)” – is enclosed in parentheses, signaling its role as a tangential note.

These choices highlight the narrative’s structure and dramatic flow. This edition also makes distinctive use of semicolons, more frequent than in most modern Hebrew texts, because biblical clauses are often only loosely connected to the main sentence. A comma would obscure their near-independence, while a period would separate them too sharply; the semicolon preserves their intermediate status. Exclamation marks, also used more liberally than modern literary norms, reflect the dramatic tone of prophecy and biblical poetry. Shveka notes that he is not editing Isaiah as a modern literary editor might, but seeks to convey the intensity of the original voice. When a sentence functions as a dramatic declaration or impassioned cry, it receives an exclamation point – even if many appear close together on the same page. The prophet or poet, he insists, has the right to cry out, and the punctuation mirrors that urgency.

The omission of ta’amei hamikra (cantillation marks) also reflects this philosophy. Cantillation is invaluable for liturgy, but it was never intended as a full guide to syntax. The accents do not always follow the peshat, and the considerations of those who set them were not purely grammatical; they also reflected musical needs, patterns of symmetry, and even halakhic factors. Moreover, even if the original motives were grammatical, we cannot simply reverse-engineer them to determine how modern punctuation should match their intent.

For similar reasons, the edition could not rely on a single commentary, such as Rashi, to determine punctuation. Rashi does not always adhere to the peshat, and his commentary only addresses select passages and phrases, leaving vast portions of the text without guidance. No commentary answers all the grammatical and structural questions required for punctuating the entire Tanakh. Shveka and his committee therefore made independent editorial decisions, informed by a broad range of traditional and modern interpretations.

Every translation of the Tanakh uses full, modern punctuation. No one would expect a modern reader to engage with a translation that lacks these aids, since punctuation dramatically improves the reading experience. Translations, by their nature, must address every question of grammar and syntax because every word and phrase must be interpreted. This made them a particularly valuable resource for Mikra Pashut: unlike commentaries, translations cover the entire text consistently and reveal how meaning can be clarified through structure. Shveka consulted translations, especially into English, as an important reference point, though never following them mechanically.

Ultimately, this punctuation is not neutral. It is, as Shveka acknowledges, a form of parshanut – interpretation. Every comma, every period is a decision. Genesis 4:8 illustrates this: the Masoretic text leaves Cain’s words hanging –  “And Cain said to Abel his brother” – without reporting what he said. Shveka’s punctuation must choose whether to treat this as a complete sentence or as an introduction to dialogue. This edition chose the former. Such decisions inevitably align with some interpretations and exclude others. While all these editorial choices carry interpretive weight, Shveka presents them as aids to reading, not as claims of authority.

Faithfulness to the Masoretic text

While the layout and punctuation are new, the words themselves remain exactly as the Masoretic tradition preserves them. The editors never considered modernizing spelling or grammar. The sacred text itself is untouched; only its framing has changed. This includes the treatment of ketiv/qere – the traditional system in which a word is written one way (ketiv) but read differently (qere). Unlike in a traditional Tanakh, in this edition, the qere appears in the main body of the text, in a lighter font to indicate its status as the read form, while the key is placed at the bottom of the page. This subtle change emphasizes how the text is encountered in actual reading, while still preserving the integrity of the written tradition.

Taken together, these choices highlight that Mikra Pashut’s only “commentary” is the formatting itself. Its headings, paragraphs, and punctuation serve to guide the reader without adding explanation.

Reading Instead of learning

As Shveka notes in the introduction, “the Mikra, as its name implies, was intended for kri’ah – reading.” The editorial choices all serve the edition’s central purpose: to make the Tanakh readable in Hebrew. While commentaries can be valuable, they inevitably create a barrier to continuous reading, breaking the flow of the text and steering attention toward interpretation rather than the words themselves. Mikra Pashut removes that barrier by presenting the text in clear, uninterrupted form, with layout and punctuation that guide the reading without reliance on additional commentary. It is not an edition for traditional study, liturgical use, or verse-by-verse analysis with commentary. Instead, it invites readers to experience the Tanakh as narrative and poetry – an experience long available through translations in other languages but now offered to Hebrew readers in the original.

In this sense, the project parallels Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz’s Talmud edition, which made the text’s language and structure accessible while still demanding intellectual engagement. Shveka’s formatting likewise enables comprehension and contemplation, freeing readers to think about the content.

The distinction is not between Mikra Pashut and any single edition such as Mikra’ot Gedolot. It is between editions for learning – which dominate in Hebrew – and editions for reading, which Hebrew readers have lacked. As Shveka argues, in every other language the Bible can be read as a book; Hebrew readers should not be denied that.

Impact of format

The format itself shapes meaning. Traditional printings – with their verses, chapters, and commentaries – frame the Bible as a text to be dissected. Mikra Pashut frames it as a text to be absorbed. Its use of white space between textual units recalls the Torah’s gaps between sections, giving the reader room to pause and reflect. The layout draws attention to patterns, structures, and nuances that might otherwise be lost.

For serious students, this edition will not replace traditional formats. In practice, many will use both: a standard Tanakh for learning and Mikra Pashut for reading. The two serve different, complementary purposes.

Reception

So far, the edition has been met with curiosity and praise. Educators value how it allows students to read without technical distractions. Readers report discovering new details in familiar passages. Some have expressed discomfort with the removal of verse numbers or the interpretive nature of punctuation. Yet no major public condemnation has emerged. One online commenter quipped that “until a sharp pashkevil is issued – either by the Eidah Chareidis or by Har Hamor – the book won’t get the proper publicity.”

The lack of controversy may be because, despite its innovations, this edition does not threaten the sanctity of the text. The Tanakh Ram project, edited by biblical scholar Avraham Ahuvya and first published in 2010, translated the Bible into Modern Hebrew and quickly became the subject of heated debate. Many critics argued that replacing the biblical language with contemporary phrasing undermined the sacred character of the text. Mikra Pashut, by contrast, leaves the Masoretic text entirely unchanged. It does not translate or paraphrase the Bible but merely reframes it typographically, preserving its language while making it easier to read.

Conclusion

Mikra Pashut offers something unprecedented: a Tanakh that Hebrew readers can read with the same ease that others experience through translation. It preserves the Masoretic text unchanged while reimagining its form through modern punctuation, literary divisions, and thoughtful design.

This edition does not aim to replace traditional bibles for study. It stands alongside them, offering a complementary way to engage with Scripture. By lowering the barriers to reading, it allows the biblical text to speak for itself – clearly, directly, and continuously.

In doing so, Avi Shveka and his team have created more than a new edition: they have opened a new path to encountering the words of the Tanakh, one that begins with reading and only afterward moves to interpretation.

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

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.

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.”

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:

Rav A. Landau brings:

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.

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:

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.

R. Akiva Yosef Schlesinger, Tikkat Shofar on Shabbat & plagiarism (of course)

Menachem Mendel has a very good post discussing the issues and the history regarding the propriety of blowing the shofar on Rosh HaShana when it falls on Shabbat. A central figure in this discussion is R. Akiva Yosef Schlesinger. R. Schlesinger is perhaps best known for his book Lev haIvri a commentary on the last will and testament of the Hatam Sofer. In this book, which perhaps can be used to trace much of Haredi ideology today, the bulk is devoted to putting down the “reformers.” He discusses Mendelssohn’s Biur, speaking in the vernacular and a host of other issues. There is no doubt he held what many would consider extremists views. R. Schlesinger has a less well known side – his love of Israel and dislike or almost vehement hatred of inertia.

R. Schlesinger who was born and raised in Hungry emigrated to Israel. When he got to Israel, at the time, most people were supported by the various kollelim. These kollelim would be set up by country, Hungarian Kollel etc. (the American Kollel was controversial). These kollelim in turn wielded tremendous power – they had the money. R. Schlesinger took a very dim view of these kollelim. First, he felt the money was not given out based upon need and merit, rather it was given based upon status and connections. Additionally, this system only ensured that people would never actually try and make money themselves. To be clear, these kollelim did not only support people learning full time, rather, almost everyone was supported by them.

R. Schlesinger came out strongly against the kollelim and decided to set up his own system. This system he outlined his book Kollel HaIvirim. First, he explains his system would be democratic. He explains that the Torah requires one to follow the majority. This is so, even when a Godol or the like holds different views. He proves this by pointing to the system of the Sanhedrin. There, they did not just go with greatest Rabbi on the Sanhedrin, rather, they started polling the views of the lowest one. (p. 7).

According to R. Schlesinger’s system the Kollel or Board would be in charge of almost everything. They would oversee the education of the children. He advocated for marriage at 18 and then a 3 year period to devote to study. However, R. Schlesinger notes, not too many people are successful at just studying Torah full time, therefore, the Kollel should see who is not or who does not have an interest and they should learn a proper profession. This study should not be half hazard. Instead, they should study from a expert and devote a significant amount of time to this endeavor. He includes agriculture among these professions. (p. 9-10)

R. Schlesinger did not shy away from accountability. Even today many religious organizations do not have open books. R. Schlesinger, however, advocated for a yearly accounting which would be sent to all where they could view all the expenses and the accounting of the Kollel. (p.11).

He also seems to have taken what today would be considered a religious Zionist view of the then current status of Israel. Although at the time, Israel was under the rule of the Turkish government, due to the fact, they were fairly benevolent he understood that it was already then – long before the founding of the State of Israel – the messianic era. Specifically, he points to the Talmudic passage which explains the only change during the messianic era will be the removal of government oppression (אין בין עולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכיות בלבד). (p. 19) Additionally, he chides his former countrymen on their aversion to move to Israel. He says R. Isaiah Horowitz in the 16th century moved to Israel although it took a year to do. Today, he says, it is easy. The government gives anyone who wants a pass and it on the fast ships and rail it takes a mere 10 days. (p. 16).

Although it was fairly safe, R. Schlesinger was aware there still should be a security force. Thus, he advocated for a month long rotation for everyone. These watchers would serve for a month and then others would take their place. He says they should do so even on Shabbat. (p. 26b).

He wanted everyone to have a flag. There would be a general Kollel haIvrim flag with white, green, purple and turquoise. Then each shevet would have their own as well. (p. 27).

All of these plans met with serious resentment from the established Kollelim. They viewed him as undermining their system and way of life. So, as anyone who wants to get someone in trouble does – they searched his books to find something they could ban. Sure enough, they were successful. In his book Bet Yosef Hadash, which is on the Bet Yosef, he discusses a terrible problem and attempts to find a satisfactory answer. In Russia at the time there was forced conscription for a 25 year period. This was a Jewish death sentence – some people, were taken as young as 8. So, some would flee Russia and move to Israel to avoid this. At times, their wives refused to come. R. Schlesinger, therefore, discusses the possibility of getting around the Herem of Rabbenu Gershon on two wives. R. Schlesinger’s enemies, however, accused him of doing away with and not respecting the Herem.

They consigned his books to the fire and put a ban on them.

In the end, however, his students (and he had many) were successful in setting up the city of Petach Tikvah (see here for more). They wanted R. Schlesinger to join them, and he did. He purchased land, but to honor his father in law, purchased it in his father in laws name.

Unfortunately, this had terrible ramifications. When R. Schlesinger returned to Hungary to gain support for his movement, his enemies went to his father in law. His father in law was old and could not take this. His father in law signed over the land he owned in Petach Tikvah, the land which was the culmination of R. Schlesinger’s dream to his enemies, the Hungarian Kollel. R. Schlesinger then attempted to get it back. He did win some court victories. His opponents, however, used his own means against him. They ignored the pronouncements of the Bet Din, knowing that R. Schlesinger would never go to a non-Jewish court.

It seems that not only was R. Schlesinger a tragic figure, but other things he touched as well. Shmuel Weingarten was an avid Zionist. He published, among other things, a book demonstrating the collection of anti-Zionist letters in Dovev Siftei Yeshanim were forgeries. At the end of his life he obtained letters sent to R. Schlesinger’s group (although they don’t mention it, Weingarten shows they in fact were)and published them in a volume titled B’Shevach Yishuv Ha’aretz. These letters were from many Rabbis, some who were not that well known. Weingarten, as he notes, had to spend considerable effort tracking down and providing biographical information about these persons. He also transcribed the letters. He, unfortunately, did not live to see this book published.

In 1999/2000 some in Beni Brak B. Margolius (most likely a woman due to the lack of first name), published a book, Ragli Mevasar. This book is divided into three parts. The first two are biographies of R. Schlesinger and his father in law. The last part are the very same letters originally published by Weingarten. Additionally, they include the very same biographies that Weingarten did. There is absolutely no attribution at all! I have included a page from each were the reader can see how they are the same. The top page is from Weingarten and the bottom from Ragli Mevasar. None of the library catalogs I have seen note that this is plagiarized.

---

Censorship: The Autobiography of R. Eliyahu David Rabinowitz, ADeReT

Censorship: The Autobiography of R. Eliyahu David Rabinowitz, ADeReT

There are a handful of rabbinic autobiographies, R. Yehuda Areyeh of Modena, Hayyei Yehudah, R. Yaakov Emden, Megillat Sefer, and a few others.[1]  One of the more recent rabbinic autobiographies is that of R. Eliyahu David Rabinowitz, otherwise known as Aderet.  This work, was first published in the journal, Ha-Peles edited by Aderet’s nephew, Eliyahu Akiva Rabinowitz.  Only a portion of the autobiography appears in Ha-Peles. However, the editor did give us the title of this work for posterity.  Although Aderet did not title the work, in Ha-Peles it appears under the title, Seder Eliyahu, this title remains today.[1a] In reality, Seder Eliyahu is one part of three part work, the second part, Nefesh David, records various customs (and has been reprinted a few times), and the third part, regarding how to handle Aderet’s body after his death, Achar Eliyahu or Acharei David, apparently was never written. 

Aderet’s autobiography was first published in its entirety in 1983 by Mossad ha-Rav Kook.   The Mossad received the manuscript from Aderet’s grandson.  As will become apparent, much of what was written, prior to 1983, regarding Aderet is lacking because  prior to its publication in 1983,  his autobiography was virtually unknown.  As an aside, the New Encyclopaedia Judaica reuses the article on Aderet from the original Encyclopaedia Judaica and is but one example of the shortcomings of the New Encyclopaedia, for more examples see Dr. Leiman’s critique here, and Dr. Havlin’s critique here, and Dr. Richler’s critique here of the New Encyclopaedia Judaica. 

The 1983 edition, however, has been out-of-print for years, and this year, some of Aderet’s desendents republished Seder Eliyahu (additionally, they also reprint Nefesh David in this volume).  The editors of this new edition thank Mossad ha-Rav Kook for allowing them to reprint this work.  But, in their introduction, they argue that Aderet “never intended to publish this work and allow others to read it, instead, it was meant for his family.” Seder Eliyahu, Jerusalem, 2010, at 7 (“Jer. ed.” or “New Edition”).  Based upon this assertion, the editors of this edition justify “removing various passages that were never intended for outsiders to read.”  Id. at 9.  They explain that whenever they removed text “three lines (- – -) serve to indicate missing text.”  Id.  As we shall see they are inconsistent at best at using the three dash device and many instances of removal are not noted. 

Regarding the claim that Aderet never intended this book to be published. The original publication in 1983 includes the entire text with no omissions.  Recall that this text was obtained by Mossad ha-Rav Kook from Aderet’s grandson, we have no indication that he objected to publishing the entire text.  Moreover, the first time the autobiography (partially) appeared in Ha-Peles much of the “offensive” material was included. Recall that Aderet’s nephew was the editor of Ha-Peles  and he saw no need to censore anything. Finally, although there may be some indications that an autobiography was merely written for family members and not intended for broader publication, this device is common in autobiographies.  R. Emden also implies that he didn’t intend his autobiography to be widely distributed, but as Dr. Schacter demonstrates, Emden wanted others to read it.[2]  Indeed, according to Schacter, R. Emden’s autobiography can be classified as “that of ‘autobiography as polemic.'”  As Emden writes of his purpose, “[i]n order that the sun of my righteousness should shine forth . . . [and because] many of [my enemies] libelous writings will certainly remain extant in the world for some time.  Therefore, necessity has compelled me to clarify my case before God and man. . . . Behold [this autobiography] will serve as a vindication for me, for my children and my descendants.”[3] Thus, “there is equally no question that the overriding primary impetus behind Megillat sefer was a desire on the part of Emden to clear his name and vindicate himself in his controversy with Eybeschutz,” and “[t]here is no doubt that it is the Emden-Eybeschutz controversy that serves as the ‘center of gravity’ for” Megillat Sefer.[4]  Of course, for R. Emden to be publicly vindicated, presumably the public would need to be aware of the work.[5]

With Emden’s motives in mind, it is important to distinguish Aderet’s work.  While Aderet includes descriptions of others in his work, and, at times, some of these descriptions are far from flattering, it does not appear that Aderet was looking for vindication or had a polemic motive in mind.  While Aderet did not get along with his constituents in Ponovitch, that dispute was mainly surrounding Aderet’s salary and how the community treated him.  Aderet wasn’t involved in any global disputes like the Emden-Eybeschutz controversy and thus Aderet wasn’t required to vindicate himself.  Moreover, Aderet ultimately came out on top, becoming Chief Rabbi of the Ashkenazim in Jerusalem.  Thus, he was well-respected and had no reason to resurrect his image – his image was already good.

Perhaps a better understanding of some of the material as it relates to others in Seder Eliyahu may be better understood by looking at Marcus Mosley’s comments[6] and quote from Rousseau: 

Autobiography operates upon an entirely different set of criteria. For the autobiographer, the significance of the other is determined solely by the role that he or she plays in the formation of the self, regardless of social standing. Thus Rousseau, in the “Neuchatel” variant of the preamble to the Confeinddow: “The relationships I have had with several people compel me to speak as freely of them as of myself. I can only succeed in making myself known by making them known also.” Many of the more decisive encounters with the other in the shaping of the autobiographer’s self occur in the years of childhood and adolescence. Parents, teachers, schoolmates, and domestic staff may thus achieve a prominence in the autobiography that would, in the memoir, be reserved for generals and prime ministers, renowned men of letters, and so on. This is not to say that the formative encounters with the other in an autobiography are restricted to the historically obscure. But when the great do drift in and out of the pages of an autobiography, it is often not on account of the qualities that granted them this status that they are recalled.

Thus, Aderet’s comments about others, most notably regarding R. Yitzhak Elchonon Spector, may be understood as merely providing insight into Aderet’s own life rather than commenting on R. Spector, for example.

The new edition of Seder Eliyahu, however, leaves out much of Aderet’s comments about others, depriving the reader of fully understanding the Aderet as well as distorting history.  We will provide all the examples of where the new edition has altered or removed material from the 1983 edition. 

Biography of Aderet

The basic outlines of Aderet’s biography are not in dispute.  Here are the highlights.  Aderet was born, with his twin, on the first day of Shavout in 1843.  His father was a rabbi and Aderet’s family were descendant from famous rabbinic figures from both his father’s and mother’s side.  When he was five, his mother died and his father remarried.  At twelve, Aderet began writing his first sefer, and began wearing tefflin for his entire twelth year.  At thirteen, he had his bar mitzvah and, contrary to the custom, was allowed to read the haftorah for the first day of Shavout. This haftorah is typically reserved for the rabbi or a talmid hakham due to the content of the haftorah.  But, Aderet’s father argued that it was appropriate for his son to read the haftorah.  Soon after his bar mitzvah he completed his first work with his twin brother, Shevet Achim.  At fifteen he became engaged to girl, and soon after was appointed rabbi of Ragali.  The engagement didn’t end well. His fiancee’s mother died and the step-mother was lax in her observance and the marriage was called off.  But, in due course, Aderet was engaged again to the daughter of a prominent family in Ponovitch.  This time, Aderet went through with the wedding.  He remained in Ponovitch, supported by his in-laws, and studied in a small bet midrash.  In 1875, Aderet was selected to be the rabbi of Ponovitch.  In 1893, the town of Mir approached Aderet to become its rabbi.  Aderet accepted.  Ponovitch, however, wanted its rabbi to remain, but, after receiving advice from various rabbis, eventually, Aderet left and went to Mir.  In 1901 he was invited and accepted to become Chief Rabbi of the Ashkenazim in Jerusalem.  On the 3rd of Adar I, 1905, Aderet died in Jerusalem.

Aderet is known as having a phenomenal memory.  He was also a prolific author, but much of his writings remained in manuscript.  In the last decade or so, many of his books have been published, a bibliography of which will appear soon. 

The above provides a basic outline of Aderet’s biography, but a close examination of his autobiography provides additional detail.    

Autobiography of Aderet

There are a few important gaps in Aderet’s biography that can be filled only by utilizing his autobiography.  For example, Aderet’s father’s second wife.  If one reads some of the biographies, she is mentioned only in passing.  But, Aderet explains she was no minor figure.  To the contrary, it appears that Aderet’s step-mother and his father had a horrible marriage.  Indeed, Aderet couldn’t stand her and he was especially bothered the way she treated his father.  After Aderet’s father died, Aderet immediately left town as he couldn’t bear remaining with her.  He turned down his father’s position as rabbi of Vilkomer because that would mean he would have to live in the same city as his step-mother.  Aderet recalls bitterly how he sped home once and therefore missed out on meeting various rabbis only to find out that his step-mother hadn’t told anyone he was coming and no one was there when Aderet returned causing him to miss meeting the rabbis and not seeing family.

Some biographies make it appear that Aderet had a great relationship with the people of Ponovitch.  These biographies point to the fact that when Mir approached him, Ponovitch tried its hardest to keep Aderet. But, in his autobiography Aderet explains how horrible the people of Ponovich were to him.  They paid him almost nothing and even that little amount wasn’t always timely.  He was so poor that he didn’t have his own bed and had to sleep on a few chairs.  Although Aderet had some of his children die and others were sick, for the most part, the people of Ponovitch made his life even more difficult.  The town didn’t help when he had sick children.  One particularly shocking incident was one of the Ponovitch community members became gabbi.  Aderet didn’t like waiting between Kabbalat Shabbat and Ma’ariv because waiting only meant that people ended up talking and not acting as one should in Shul.  The gabbi, however, wanted to talk and wanted a break.  Thus, when Aderet asked the hazzan to immediately begin ma’ariv, the gabbi told the hazzan “it’s not time yet.”  This type of maltreatment by the Ponovitch community members was not uncommon.  Therefore, when Mir came knocking, and, although Mir was a significantly smaller community, Aderet wanted to get out of Ponovitch and accepted Mir’s offer.

As Aderet was almost always looking to leave Ponovitch, he competed for a job in Riga.  And, although he was the most qualified candidate, the position was given to someone else. Aderet lost out on the position because R. Yitzhak Elchonon Spector backed Aderet’s rival.  Aderet was extremely upset at R. Yitzhak Elchonon and even sent a very nasty letter to R. Yitzhak Elchonon.  R. Yitzhak Elchonon’s reaction was that “the letter was so disrespectful that but for Aderet’s reputation as a talmid hakham, he [R. Yitzhak Elchonon] would see to it that Aderet couldn’t even get a job a beadle in a bet midrash.”  Aderet was so embittered by this episode he remarks that he never forgave R. Yitzhak Elchonon. This was not the only time Aderet had a falling out with R. Yitzhak Elchonon.  At a rabbinic conference, led by R. Yitzhak Elchonon, there was a miscommunication which R. Yitzhak Elchonon took personally.  As such, R. Yitzhak Elchonon refused to entertain anything else during the conference and the conference was totally unsuccessful. Aderet was appalled that R. Yitzhak Elchonon’s personal feelings didn’t allow the conference to produce anything of value. 

Aside from making Aderet’s life miserable, the treatment of the town of Ponovitch also forced Aderet to allow his son-in-law, R. Abraham Isaac Kook, to leave and take up his own rabbinic position.  Although Ponovitch had promised Aderet a higher salary, the town never came through and thus Aderet couldn’t support his daughter and son-in-law.  In his autobiography, he describes how heartbroken he was when his son-in-law and daughter left. 

Comparison of the New Edition and 1983 Edition of Aderet’s Autobiography


As noted above, the editors of the New Edition provide that they have removed material from Seder Eliyahu, and that they have noted any time anything is removed.  This is false.  Although it is true that the editors have removed material but they have not always noted when they did so.  At times removed material is noted by “- – – ” in the text, many times there is no indication that anything is missing.  Moreover, the editors are inconsistent when they alter the text.  That is, in correcting typos or when removing abbreviation, sometimes they note they are altering the text and other times they do not.  Of course, this omission is less serious than wholesale removal of text, but consistency is still important.  For example, in the 1983 edition many persons are only referred to in abbreviated form, while in the New Edition their full name is used; thus the original reads “my uncle רפ”ק” while in the New Edition it reads “my uncle Rabbi Pinchus Cantor.”  The editors don’t note that they have inserted his full name; however, whenever the text uses an abbreviation to refer to R. Shmuel Mohilever – “הגרש”מ” in the New Edition they provide his full name but do so in brackets indicating an insertion into the text. Compare 1983 ed. pp. 84 &  92 & Jer. ed. at 71 & 76. It is unclear why they decided to consistently indicate this insertion and not others.

Turning the censored materials. These materials can roughly be divided into three categories.  (1) materials that mention Zionism or are related to Zionism; (2)  in this category we include what is best described as negative comments about women and marriage; and (3) personal attacks or observations about other Rabbis.  We must note that many of these omissions have been cataloged here as well.

First Category – Zionism

Items from this category include material that appears in the footnotes to the 1983 edition as well as items in the text itself.  The New Edition resuses almost all the footnotes that appear in the 1983 edition but leave out information when that information relates to Zionism.  Thus:

1983 ed. (p. 17 n.5) provides a footnote when the text mentions R. Moshe Telsher “for more information see Sefer Zikhron le-[Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook] 1945″  Jer. Ed. (p. 15) doesn’t include this note at all. 

1983 ed.  (p. 28 n.14) contains a citation to Maimon’s Sa’arei ha-Meah, Jer. ed. (p. 26 n. 17) removes citation no notation anything is missing.

1983 ed. (p. 29 n.16) explains that R. Mordechai Gimpel Yaffo “was one who espoused emigration to Israel and himself emigrated in 1888”, Jer. ed. (p. 23 n.19) removes this text without notation.

1983 ed. (p. 59 n.46) regarding R. Mordechai Elisberg, the note explains “one of the leaders of the Hovvei Tzion movement,” Jer. ed. (p. 57 n.55), removes this text, no notation.

1983 ed. (p. 72 n.57) regarding R. Shmuel Mohliver “was the head and founder of the Hovvei Tzion movement,” Jer. ed. (p. 69 n.68) removes this text, no notation.

1983 ed. (p. 102 n.78) explaining that the author of Chavush Pe’ar “is R. Kook,” Jer. ed. (p. 96) the note is missing.

We should noted that the editors of the Jerusalem edition didn’t excise every Zionistic mention.  Instead, they retain the sentence “the Hovvei Tzion chapter in Bialystok requested that I [Aderet] give a derasha.”  Jer. ed. at 81.  Similarly, Aderet describes how heart broken he was when his son-in-law and daughter had to leave because Aderet couldn’t support them and how happy Aderet was when he met up with his son-in-law later that year and spent time together.  In the text, however, Aderet doesn’t identify by name his son-in-law.  The New Edition retains the footnote from the 1983 edition which identifies the son-in-law as “The Gaon R. Abraham Isaac Kook ZT”L.”  Jer. ed. at 60 n.57.

Second Category – comments about women

The vast majority of these changes relate to women, and specifically, when there was martial discord or divorce.  There are essentially two women whose mention is censored, Adert’s step-mother and Aderet’s nephew’s first wife.  As mentioned above, Aderet had serious issues with his step-mother and he is very vocal about those problems in his autobiography.  Additionally, Aderet’s nephew’s first marriage didn’t work out.  The first wife was the daughter of R Eliezer the chief rabbi of Anchin but she was uninterested in leading a religious life and thus this marraige ended in divorce.  Whenever mention of either of these two women occurs in Seder Eliyahu the Jerusalem edition leaves them out.  Thus, there is no mention in the Jerusalem edition that Aderet didn’t get along with his step-mother and that the nephew’s first wife wasn’t religious. Rather than explain what is missing each time, as the excised portions are generally similar, we have indicated where a passage relating to Aderet’s feelings about his step-mother is missing and where the excised passage relates to the non-religious first wife of Aderet’s nephew.  We will, however, indicate where there is missing text and the editors of the new edition fail to note that they have removed text.

Step-mother

1983 ed. (18-19) lacking in Jer. ed. (16) noted with – – –

1983 ed. (23) lacking in Jer. ed. (21) no notation

1983 ed. (35) lacking in Jer. ed. (33) noted with – – –

1983 ed. (37) lacking in Jer. ed. (35) noted with – – –

1983 ed. (46) lacking in Jer. ed. (44) noted with – – –

Non-religious wife

1983 ed. (64) lacking in Jer. ed. (60) no notation

1983 ed. (71) lacking in Jer. ed. (68) noted with – – –

There is one final example that arguably fits in this category although it relates to neither of the above mentioned women.  Instead, this instance relates to Aderet spening time in Vienna and meet R. Shlomo Netar.  As part of their conversation R. Netar related some of his problems to Aderet.  One related to his wife who is described – in the 1983 ed. (42)- as “the really horrible woman, may God save us, who is the granddaughter of R. Simcha Bunim Peshischa (or so I [Aderet] recall).” This quote is lacking in the Jer. ed. but is noted with – – -.

We should note that much of the material regarding Aderet’s step-mother appears, in toto, in a separate biography of Aderet that is appended to the beginning of Hiddushei ha-Gaon ha-Aderet, Machon Kitvei Yad ha-Aderet be-Artzot ha-Brit, Israel, 2003.  This is somewhat ironic in that this biography is very careful what it mentions, or doesn’t mention.  Specifically, although Aderet’s son-in-law (and, ultimately, after the untimely death of Aderet’s daughter and remarrying Aderet’s niece, became Aderet’s nephew), R. Abraham Isaac Kook, wrote a fine biography of Aderet, Adar ha-Yakar, and Kook’s biography is used in the biography appearing in Hiddushei, R. Kook’s name is never mentioned.  That is, the mention of R. Kook was controversial (this may be related to the fact that the publisher of this volume is a member of the Satamar sect).[7]  But, regarding Aderet’s step-mother, all that material appears in the biography in Hiddushei.  See Hiddushei, at pp. 4, 6, 8 and 10 almost all of which are taken, almost verbatim, from the autobiography. Thus, even without access to the autobiography, any reader can find the relevant passages. 

Third Category – personal observations or attacks on other rabbis

Some of these negative assesments relate to R. Yitzhak Elchonon although comments about other rabbis are also censored. 

1983 ed. (60-61) discussing Aderet’s failed bid to become Riga’s chief rabbi, and, specifically, how R. Yitzhak Elchonon sunk Aderet’s bid.  Additionally, Aderet notes that he sent R. Yitzhak Elchonon a very nasty letter explaining how disappointed Aderet was with R. Yitzhak Elchonon’s involvement and decision to pick someone else.  Jer. ed. (68) the entire story is missing and there is no notation anything was removed.  

1983 ed. (62) Aderet expresses his displeasure with some Ponovitch residents regarding salary negotiations and essentially calls them animals.  Jer. ed. (69) lacking the name calling, no notation anything is missing.

1983 ed. (78) Aderet records the comments of a beadle who questioned R. Yitzhak Elchonon’s authority.  Jer. ed. lacking but noted with – – – .

1983 ed. (79) Aderet meets someone who is wearing two pairs of teffilin neither of which are in their proper place.  Aderet goes on to explain while this person passed himself off as a miracle worker, in reality he was a fraud.  Aderet says the person “is the author of the book Kav Chen.”  This must be incorrect.  The author of Kav Chen, R. Noach mi-Koruv, died in 1855, but Aderet says this meeting took place in 1890. What is more likely is that Aderet was referring to the publisher of Kav Chen, R. Noach’s grandson, R. Hayyim Moshe Ze’ev.  In all events, rather than attempting to correct or ascertain who Aderet is referring to, the Jer. ed. (75) “solves” the problem by removing the passage “the author of the book Kav Chen” and replace it with – – -. 

1983 ed. (83) Aderet mentions “Leib Grabman” who involved the secular authorities in a communal dispute.  Jer. ed. removes “Leib Grabman” and replaced with – – -.  

1983 ed. (87-88) Aderet discusses a rabbinic conference he attended.  In attendence was also R. Yitzhak Elchonon who became personally insulted after a miscommunication.  As such, R. Yitzhak Elchonon refused to allow passage of any of the many “good ideas” the conference attendees offered.  To add insult to injury, in the Jewish press, R. Yitzhak Elchonon blamed the poor result on everyone else.  Jer. ed. (84) removes the entire story and replaced it with – – -.  

1983 ed. (91) Aderet describes some rather insulting behavior directed at him by members of the Ponovitch community, including the gabbi ignoring Aderet.  Jer. ed. (85) leaves out these stories and replaces them with – – -.

1983 ed. (93) after the Aderet leaves Ponovitch a very prominent member of the Ponovitch community died suddenly and “some people said his death was because he failed to show Aderet proper respect and to pay Aderet on time.  As such Aderet is said to have cursed the dead man and his family.”  Jer. ed. (86) removed and replaced with – – -.  

1983 ed. (98) discusses a plan, by persons unconnected to Aderet, to trick R. Yitzhak Elchonon that was ultimately unsucessful. Jer. ed. (91) removed and replaced with – – – .

1983 ed. (99) Aderet details how various rabbis/roshei Yeshiva of Mir weren’t completely honest with Aderet.  Aderet refers to these persons by name.  Jer. ed. (92) removed entirely and replaced with – – -.

1983 ed. (103-04) Aderet details attempts at thwarting him from becoming a teacher at Yeshivat Mir.  Jer. ed. (97) removed and replaced with – – -.  Inetrestingly, much of the background and history of this incident is found in Pinchus Lipschutz’s – the editor of Ya’ated Ne’eman – book Peneni Chen, Monsey, 2000, p. 17 (thanks to a Seforim Blog reader for this citation).  

Additional Comments Regarding Aderet’s Autobiography

Aside from the issues raised above, it should be noted that Aderet’s biography is full of facinating information both about him and his contemporaries as well as of general interest to students of Jewish history, custom, and law. While we intend to devote an entire post to the full contents of Seder Eliyahu we wanted to provide a few particularly interesting passages from Seder Eliyahu.  All of the following examples appear in both editions of Seder Eliyahu.  As mentioned above, Aderet, when he was in Vienna, met R. Shlomo Netar, who was also bookseller and who studied in the Yeshiva of Hatam Sofer.  R. Netar related that he was in class with Hatam Sofer’s son, R. Shimon Sofer (eventual author of Michtav Sofer), was in the same class.  R. Shimon Sofer “was often hit with sticks [by the teacher] and this was at the request of R. Shimon’s father,” Hatam Sofer.  1983 ed. at 42; Jer. ed. at 40.

A few halacha/custom related items.  Aderet records that when he travelled by ship, once the gangplank was lifted and the ship was underway he recited tefillat ha-derekh.  Someone on board the ship questioned this practice arguing that since the ship hadn’t left the city limits, one cannot recite teffilat ha-derekh.  Aderet, however, responded by distinguishing between normal overland transport and ships (and presumably airplanes).  Aderet explained that when going overland there is a fear that one may decide to return home thus one needs to wait until leaving the city limits, the point of no return.  But, once one is onboard a ship and the gangplank is removed one can’t leave and therefore one can immediately recite teffilat ha-derekh. 1983 ed. at 42; Jer. ed. at 40.

Another time, Aderet also advocated for a novel halachic position.  In this case, Aderet wanted to personally perform the circumcision of his son. But, the circumcision fell on Saturday, and, as Aderet hadn’t ever performed a circumcision previously, the rule is that one cannot perform their first circumcision on Saturday.  Aderet, however, argued that the prohibition on performing one’s first circumcision on Saturday applies if one is circumcising someone other than their own child. That is, as there is a unique obligation to circumcise one’s child that trumps the prohibition against performing the first circumcision on Saturday.  Aderet marshalled various sources that supported his position and presented his argument to R. Yosef Zechariah Stern (an equally impressive contemporary) who rejected Aderet’s argument.  Aderet concludes that he “decided to refrain from deciding law in way that runs counter to Shulchan Orach and thus would appear strange to the public.”  1983 ed. 52; Jer. ed. at 51.  

On one Saturday, there was a communal rift which resulted in the secular authorities confiscating the shul’s sefer torah.  Thus, the shul didn’t complete the weekly mandatory reading.  Although Aderet ended up hearing the reading in another shul, Aderet argued that the shul whose sefer torah was confiscated was required the next week to make up the reading it missed.  He argued this position to R. Aaron Halberstam, son of R. Hayyim Halberstam, the Sanzer Rav.  R. Aaron disagreed.  He explained that the torah reading obligation is communal in nature and so long as a community shul recited the proper reading, those in the community that missed it need not repeat it.  Aderet, however, argued that while one needs a minyan and thus is communal in nature, there is an individual obligation to read the weekly portion and if one shul didn’t hear the weekly portion then they need to recite it the next week.  [Hida in his diary/travelouge seems to support Aderet’s postion, see Ma’agel Tov ha-Shalem when he too missed the torah reading].  1983 ed. at 80; Jer. ed. at 77.

One final story relating to custom.  Aderet spends some time on why he picked particular names for his children. One name, however, is particularly noteworthy.  Aderet named one of his sons Mordechai Yonah.  Aderet explains that he picked Yonah because “of [his] mother’s name” Tova which is the Yiddish equivalent of Yonah.  This practice indicates that Aderet wasn’t bothered giving a boy a woman’s name or that naming for someone does not necessarly means using the same form as the original name.  1983 ed. at 51; Jer. ed. at 50.

Post Script Regarding Aderet’s Works & Works About Aderet

Besides for not using the Aderet’s autobiography at all or enough. It is worth pointing out that in the past recent years there has been a virtual explosion of the Aderet’s works which, until now, have remained in manuscript.  The Aderet authored over one hundred works although most still remain in manuscript and are scatered all over the world in various collections.

A few notable works of Aderet that have recently been published.  Mechon Ahavat Shalom has printed eight volumes of Aderet’s works, and, in addition, have published many shorter pieces  in their journal Mekabziel. Worth noting is the recent lengthy correspondence which Machon Ahavat Shalom printed between the Aderet and Yakov Reifman. Mechon Yerushalayim has printed three volumes of the Aderet’s comments on Humash aside from the many pieces they have printed in their journal Moriah. Additionally, there are some other volumes that have been printed from manuscripts. One worth mentioning is the Over Orach which was printed by Mechon Me’or the editor of this work proudly told me how he took out many pieces from this manuscript before printing it for the public as he felt it was not “kovod” for the Aderet. Now this censorship isn’t mentioned anywhere in the work.  Besides for the significance of the Torah found in these works which will be the subject of its own post including a in depth bibliography and description of the works. There is also much important material about Aderet’s life that can be gleaned from these recently published works. 

Below is a (non-comprehensive) list of articles discussing Aderet’s biography, although some are better than others:

Ehad be-Doro, vol. 1, 191-202
Seder Parsheyot le-Aderet, vol. 1, Machon Yerushalyim, Jerusalem, 2004, 329-99 (includes bibliography)
Shlomo Albert, Aderet Eliyahu, Jerusalem, 2003
Hiddushei ha-Gaon ha-Aderet, Machon Kitvei Yad ha-Aderet be-Artzot ha-Brit, Israel, 2003, Katzman 1-42.
Moshe Tzinovitz, Ishim u-Kehilot, Tel Aviv, 1990 128-30
Moshe Tzinovitz, Mir, Tolodot Yeshivat Mir, Tel Aviv, 1981, 175-83
Rabbotenu she-beGoleh, Jerusalem, 1996, vol. 1, 121-28
Asher Yetzaveh, Mechon Ahavat Shalom, Jerusalem, 2004, vol. 1, pp. 395-425 (Nefesh David is reprinted in this work, however, the editors fail to mention that they copied it from the 1983 ed.). 

  

Notes:

[1]  See Jacob J. Schacter, “History & Memory of Self:  The Autobiography of Rabbi Jacob Emden,” in Jewish History & Jewish Memory, Essays in Honor of Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, eds. E. Carlebach, J. Efron, D. Myers, Brandeis University Press, 1998, 429 and nn. 6-8 discussing these autobiographies and providing additional examples. Emden’s autobiography, the Kahana edition is available online at here, and here with Gershom Scholem’s notes. Scholem penned his own autobiography (although it only covers a small portion of his life), Gershom Scholem, From Berlin to Jerusalem, tr. Harry Zohn, New York, 1980. Elliot Horowitz discusses Scholem’s autobiography in Horowitz’s article, “Confessions of a Jewish Autobiography Reader,” in JQR (n.s.), 95 (1), Winter 2005, pp. 74-80 & Saverio Campanini, “A Case for Sainte-Beuve, Some Remarks on Gershom Scholem’s Autobiography,” in Creation & Re-Creation in Jewish Thought, eds. R. Elior & P. Schafer, Paul Mohr Verlag, 2005, pp. 363-400.  More recently, Scholem’s diaries have also been published, Lamentations of Youth:  The Diaries of Gershom Scholem 1913-1919, ed. & tr. A.D. Skinner, Cambridge, Mass, 2007, a review appears here.   

Returning to Emden’s autobiography aside from the Kahana edition linked to above, there is another edition published by Abraham Bick-Shauli in Jerusalem in 1979, however, Schacter has serious reservations about this edition.  Schacter’s assesment of Bick-Shauli’s edition is that it “is absolutely and totally worthless.”  Schacter, id. at 446 n.13.  Of late, someone attempted to question the authenticity of Emden’s autobiography, Schacter’s comments are equally appropriate regarding this work as well.

Regarding Modena’s autobiography, see also Ariel Rathaus, “Leon Modena’s Autobiography & His Realistic Poetics,” in Italia, ed. Robert Bonfil, Conference Supplement Series, 1, Magnes Press, Jerusalem, 2003, 131-42. Of course, regarding Modena one should always consult Howard Ernest Adelman, Success & Failure in the Seventeenth Century Ghetto of Venice:  The Life of Leon Modena, 1571-1643, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brandeis Univ., 1985, and this post by Yitzhak and this follow-up post on Ishim ve-Shitos. Modena’s autobiography is available in excellent editions in both Hebrew and English (part of which is online at Google books here), The Autobiography of a Seventeenth-Century Venetian Rabbi: Leon Modena’s Life of Judah, ed. Mark R. Cohen, Princeton Univ. Press, 1998 (English) & Sefer Hayyi Yehuda, ed. Daniel Carpi, Tel Aviv Univ., Tel Aviv, 1985. 

Additionally, regarding Jewish autobiography generally this discussion here, and see  M. Stanislawski, Autobiographical Jews, Essays in Jewish Self- Fashioning, Univ. Washington Press, 2004.  Thanks to both Menachem Butler and Eliezer Brodt for providing many of these sources.

[1a] The Ha-Peles piece has a very nice footnote where Aderet’s sister’s erudition is described.  “She knew Hebrew and the Talmudic language. During the winter, on Friday nights, she would sit by the fire and study the responsa literature of the rishonim, such as the responsa of Rashi, Rambam, Rosh and similar titles that don’t contain pilpul. She was fluent in many responsa.  She also studied the Sefer Hassidim daily.”  She was so well-versed in Sefer Hassidim that her father, when he was unsure of a citation in Sefer Hassidim would ask her. Eliyahu Akiva Rabinowitz also records that after Aderet published an article in Yagdil Torah she read it and asked an insightful question, which Aderet subsequently published, in her name, in Yagdil Torah.  See ha-Peles, 720 n.2.

[2]  See id. at 438 and nn. 58-59 (Schacter offers citations to other similar works who employ this device).

[3] Id. at 431 quoting Megillat Sefer, Kahana ed. (“with slight corrections from the manuscript”) pp. 54-55. 

[4] Id. at 433.  

[5] Assuming that Schacter is correct regarding Emden’s motives, the lingering question is why wasn’t Megillat Sefer published during Emden’s lifetime or soon after? Emden had his own press and was not shy about publishing his own works that defended his position, no matter how controversial those works were.  Why didn’t Emden do the same with his autobiography?  Unfortunately, Schacter doesn’t address this question, perhaps in his forthcoming translation of Megillat Sefer, he will provide more background regarding the publication of Megillat Sefer.

[6] Marcus Mosley, “Jewish Autobiography:  The Elusive Subject,” in JQR (n.s.), 95, 1 (Winter 2005), 25.   

[7] The author of this biography, however, is not Satmar.  The author of the biography portion is R. Eliezer Katzman who is perhaps the only person who has demonstrated the similarities between various positions of R. Abraham Isaac Kook and the Satmar Rebbi.  See Eliezer Katzman,  in Ketonet Yosef, ed. D. Gotlieb et. al. New York, 2002.   

---

Daniel Sperber’s New Book – “The Path of Halakha”

As was noted in a prior post, Prof. Daniel Sperber has published another book – Darkah shel Halakha Kiryat Nashim b’Torah. As the title implies the main focus of the book is to discuss the permissablity of women being called to the Torah. Much has already been written on the topic, however, Prof. Sperber’s focus is distinct. He focuses on two aspects (aside from other halachic considerations) kavod ha’briyot and more generally, how halakha has adapted over time. In his inimitable fashion he marshals terrific sources – the footnotes contain a treasure trove of material. It is especially interesting to see, for instance, R. Yissocher Frand and Prof. Michael Silber cited in the same footnote.

The book, however, is not limited to the narrower issue of women and Torah reading but instead, there is an extensive discussion throughout regarding changes which happened throughout history in the halakhic practice. To clarify any ambiguity Prof. Sperber includes an appendix listing many laws from the Shulhan Arukh which are no longer practiced in the same manner as advocated by the Shulhan Arukh. He also has chapters or appendixes devoted to specific instances [interestingly, he doesn’t mention the tosafot, Moed Katan, 21a, s.v. elu which appears to support his thesis] where there have been changes in practice, including inter alia menstruating women attending the synagogue, the Bat Mitzvah ceremony, and even the inclusion of an ezras nashim (women’s section) in the synagogue. In this last one, we are provided with a terrific history of architecture of synagogues from the Temple period onward.

There are, however, a few places where, Prof. Sperber is not as comprehensive as he is in some of his previous works. While these are a mere handful of footnotes, nevertheless it is worth noting. For instance, in a note he discusses the issue of blowing shofar when Rosh Hashanah falls on Shabbat. While his sources are rather impressive, he misses (on purpose perhaps?) the Mo’adim l’Simcha’s discussion [although he does mention an entire work on the topic which I was unaware – Shofar b’Rosh haShana sh’Chal L’hiyot b’Shabbat, by R. Menachem Bornstein]. Or where he discusses the historic evidence of whether it is permitted to read the newspaper on Shabbat he mentions the controversy about the translation of R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein’s Mekor Barukh which states the Netziv read the paper on Shabbat. Prof. Sperber doesn’t mention that there is now a entire book devoted to the topic, R. Y. S. Bifus, Mikrayei Kodesh HaKiryah haMutteres ve’haAssurah b’Shabbat, Jerusalem, 2003 (122 pages) as well as Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter’s article “Facing the Truths of History,” Torah u-Madda Journal 8 (2000): 200-273 [PDF]. These are minor points and should not take away from the whole of the book.

Of course, the ultimate subject matter is the propriety of women and reading the Torah. In this area, Prof. Sperber is very convincing. Again, the sources used are wide ranging. Irrespective of one’s views on the topic, there is much to gain by this book. In fact, whether one is even interested in the particular topic of women and Torah reading is really no matter, this book is worthwhile reading.

The book can be purchased at Biegeleisen books in the US, or it is published by, and can be obtained from, Rubin Mass in Israel.