Hidden Treasures in Jewish Medical History at the British Library: A Post Cyber-Attack Homage

Rabbi Edward Reichman, MD

On October 28, 2023, the British Library (BL) fell victim to one of the worst cyber-attacks in British History.[1] Though its precious holdings thankfully remained physically unperturbed, access by scholars across the globe to the online catalog of its massive and formidable collection, some 170 million items, was disrupted. This incident shook the world’s bibliophiles to the core, and its impact on the academic community is both inestimable and ongoing. From a Jewish perspective, the BL houses one of the world’s greatest Judaica/Hebraica collections, and these unprecedented events remind us not to take for granted the value of this hallowed institution for Jewish scholarship. As of this writing, attempts to access the British Library’s Hebrew Collection online yielded the following results:[2]

In the light of this event, I feel compelled to share the lesser known, though not insignificant, contribution of the BL to the study of Jewish medical history. I explore some exceedingly rare and important items which reflect on the education of Jewish medical students in Early Modern Europe. Most are unica, found only in the BL, and all have previously escaped notice of Jewish medical historians.

I. Congratulatory Poems for Jewish Medical Graduates of the University of Padua

From the Middle Ages through much of the Early Modern period Jews were barred by Papal decree from medical training at European universities. The University of Padua in northern Italy was the first university to officially admit Jewish students for formal medical training, and its role in Jewish medical history has been well-studied. In the early seventeenth century there evolved a practice of writing congratulatory poetry for the Jewish medical graduates of the university. This poetry, which I have discussed previously in this blog,[3] appears in broadside, printed and manuscript form. The BL has unique examples in both broadside and manuscript.

A. Broadsides

The majority of the extant broadsides of this genre are found in the National Library of Israel and the Library of the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, but the BL’s collection is substantial and contains the very earliest known examples. The BL broadsides, which took me some years to locate, are found in three miscellaneous folders and are not itemized or described in the BL catalog. A scholar of Italian Jewish history[4] directed me to an old shadow NLI catalog, still accessible online until recently, that had skeletal information about a few of these poems in the BL, but no shelfmarks were noted.[5] The librarians of the BL were unaware of these broadsides. After some years, I incidentally came across a reference to a folder of miscellaneous Hebrew broadsides in the BL and hoped that the medical poems would be among them. With the assistance of a young scholar in London,[6] who manually investigated the files on my behalf, I was ultimately able to identify all the poems.

I have identified a total of 57 different printed congratulatory broadsides for Jewish Padua medical graduates, copies of some of which can be found in multiple libraries. The BL holds a total of fourteen different broadside medical poems, nine of which are not found elsewhere.[7] Some of the personalities who are either authors or recipients of these poems include Salomon Conegliano,[8] Isaac Hayyim Cantarini,[9] and Shmuel David Ottolenghi.[10]

While the earliest poem in the JTS Library is from 1643, and in the NLI from 1664, the BL holds two broadsides from the year 1625, the earliest known examples of this genre. Below is an example of one of the 1625 poems:

Year: 1625
Graduate: COLLI, Marchio di Salomon (Machir ben Shlomo)[11]
Author: KOHEN (Katz), Shabtai ben Meir

The following, also only found in the BL, is a rare example of a congratulatory medical broadside for which the author provides a cipher for his name.

Year: 1643
Graduate: BINGEN, Salomon di Abram (Shlomo ben Avraham)[12]
Author: Only the first name is provided, and even this is done through a cipher. No last name is provided.
Location: British Library[13]

Below is the cipher for author’s first name, which I invite the reader to decipher.[14]

(While I am aware of the answer for this cipher, there is another author’s cipher whose solution remains unknown:[15]

Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.)

These early examples are important not only for assessing the beginnings and duration of the congratulatory medical broadsides but for evaluating their artistic elements as well. For example, there are stylistic aspects of the two earliest broadsides in the BL that are not found in any subsequent broadsides.[16]

B) Congratulatory Poems in Manuscript

I have identified dozens of congratulatory poems for Padua graduates that are found only in manuscript. Some are written as if templated for publication as a broadside. There is one manuscript congratulatory poem in the BL that solves a mystery which plagued the great Jewish scholar Meir Benayahu. In an article about a group of physician-poets in Early Modern Italy,[17] Benayahu published a transcription of a lengthy poem[18]written in honor of the graduation of Salomon Lustro from Padua in 1697.[19] Below are a few stanzas at the end of the poem as published by Benayahu.

Since the authorship is not explicit, Benayahu, through creative analysis of assumed allusions in the final lines, suggests Isaac Hayyim Cantarini as the likely author.

Unbeknownst to Benayahu, another manuscript copy of the same poem is found in the BL.[20] The same final verses appear below, though with a different layout:

There is also another key difference, an additional line.

The last line provides the name of the author, one Yitzḥak the son of Yedidia Zecharia meUrbino. As described in the introduction to the manuscript, after Urbino died, his son, Yedidia Binyamin, collected his father’s poetic writings into an untitled manuscript volume, now housed in the BL. This volume contains two poems for Lustro.

II. Training of Jewish Medical Students in the Netherlands and the Sloane Dissertation Collection

In the early to mid-seventeenth century, medical schools in the Netherlands began allowing Jewish medical students to matriculate. Scholars have explored this chapter of Jewish medical history.

Isaac Van Esso[21] and Hindle Hes[22] have produced lists of the Jewish physicians who trained and practiced in the Netherlands; Yosef Kaplan has written extensively about many of these physicians;[23] Manfred Komorowski has amassed an invaluable biobibliographical index of Jewish physicians in the 17^th-18^th centuries,[24] which includes those from the Netherlands; and Kenneth Collins has addressed the transition of the training of Jewish medical students from Padua to the Netherlands.[25]

The most famous of these Dutch medical schools was the University of Leiden. As opposed to Padua, Leiden routinely required the writing and presentation of dissertations as part of its curriculum. These dissertations are an invaluable source for the history of Jewish medical education, and while the aforementioned scholars have included them in their works to varying degrees, there is more to be learned from them.

Here I distinguish between two categories of dissertations, something not typically noted by Jewish medical historians. While some dissertations were written as part of curricular course work, much like today’s term paper, there was a separate requirement for every student to complete a comprehensive dissertation as a prerequisite for graduation. These graduation dissertations are invariably headlined with the specific phrase “Dissertatio (or Disputatio) Medica Inauguralis.” I shall refer to the non-graduation dissertations as curricular dissertations. The curricular dissertations where generally not preserved by the universities and were thought to be of less significance. Historians often are unaware of the distinction between the two.

This example is the graduation dissertation of Josephus Abarbanel, nephew of Menaseh ben Israel and cousin of Samuel ben Israel, who also trained at (but did not graduate from) Leiden.[26] Note the Jewish or Hebrew date for the year, 5415, something unique to the dissertations of Leiden Jewish graduates.

While the University of Leiden holds many of these dissertations, its collection is not complete. According to librarians and historians, with respect to student dissertations, there is a major gap, or “black hole” in the holdings of the Library of the University of Leiden for the years 1610-1654.[27] It is precisely this period that comprises the cradle of Dutch Jewish medical student training.

Fortunately, there is another major repository of Leiden dissertations, found ironically outside of the Netherlands, that partially fills this lacuna. The physician/scientist Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753) amassed an impressive collection of plants, minerals, anatomical specimens, printed works, and manuscripts, mostly relating to the fields of medicine and natural history. This collection now resides in the BL. Sloane’s printed book collection includes a large number of medical dissertations submitted at Dutch universities (Amsterdam, Utrecht, Harlingen, but primarily Leiden), in particular a magnificent set of Leiden medical dissertations covering the period of 1593-1746. There are 53 volumes all bound in white vellum, with each volume holding some 20 to 75 dissertations,[28] including exceedingly rare curricular dissertations. In 1997, Jaap Harskamp produced a comprehensive catalog of the dissertations in the British Library based on the Sloane collection.[29]

Many of these works found are not found in any of the major libraries or universities in the Netherlands. Among these handsome volumes we find the dissertations of the earliest Jewish students to study at Leiden, allowing us to gain a window into the nature of their training. Abarbanel’s dissertation pictured above is part of this collection.

Here I highlight the value of this collection for the study of Jewish medical history. In particular, two of the curricular dissertations, authored by Jewish medical students, have been previously overlooked. They both represent “firsts” in the field. We also explore the importance of this collection as an untapped resource for a Padua-esque practice in the Netherlands.

A) Benedict De Castro- the First Jewish Student to Matriculate at the University of Leiden and his Newly Discovered Dissertation

The de Castro Family is an illustrious Sephardic Jewish family of Spanish and Portuguese origin that produced many prominent physicians over the centuries.[30] After the onset of the Inquisition, members of the family emigrated to Bordeaux, Hamburg, and to cities in the Netherlands.

Rodrigo de Castro was a Portuguese physician who escaped the inquisition to Hamburg. He authored a landmark work on gynecology, De Universa Mulierum Medicina, and was held in great esteem by both the medical and Jewish communities. His youngest son was Benedict (also known as Benedictus a Castro, Baruch Nahmias or Benito).[31]

Benedict was a physician to nobles and royalty, including Christina, Queen of Sweden, to whom he dedicated a medical work in 1647.[32] Due to his success, he was the victim of attacks by Christian doctors and Lutheran clergy. One particularly virulent diatribe precipitated his publication of a pseudonymous polemical defense entitled Flagellum Calumniantium.[33] In this work, famous among the apologetic works of Jewish physicians, he counters the lies and slanders and enumerates the great achievements of Jewish physicians.

There is no consensus among scholars as to the medical education of de Castro, something we clarify here for the first time. Friedenwald simply assumes, not unreasonably, that he was a graduate of Padua, though he adds a question mark in the text.[34] Koren writes, “graduated in Leyden,”[35] while Komorowski[36] lists him as a graduate of the University of Franeker (Netherlands). Ruderman acknowledges that “it is not clear from what university he graduated.”[37]

There is no record of Benedict de Castro ever attending Padua, though his brother Daniel graduated in 1633.[38] The university records from this period are generally complete[39] and have also been specifically examined for Jewish graduates.[40]

On November 16, 1620, at the age of 23, we have record of Benedict matriculating to the University of Leiden Medical School,[41] making him the first Jewish student to attend this prestigious institution.

Our next record of Benedict’s medical training is a dissertation he composed in Leiden in 1621, which is part of the Sloane Collection at the BL.

This document has previously escaped notice of Jewish historians. Does this mean that Benedict graduated from Leiden? This dissertation is headlined as a “Disputatio Medica,” sans the word “inauguralis.” It is thus a rare curricular dissertation, confirming Benedict’s continued education at Leiden, though not his graduation. Its historical significance lies in the fact that it is both a dissertation of the first Jewish medical student to attend the University of Leiden (and possibly any Dutch university), as well as the earliest extant dissertation written by any Jewish medical student.

According to the Archivist at the University of Leiden, students had to re-enroll before the secretary every year. However, there are large gaps in these re-enrollment records for this period.[42] From this specific period, only the records of 1622 survived (the previous re-enrollment record is from 1607, and the next is from 1650). De Castro was indeed registered in February, 1622,[43] but there is no record of his ever graduating from Leiden.

There is however a record of Benedict’s matriculating and graduated from another Dutch institution, the University of Franeker.[44] He matriculated on August 3, 1624:

We have a record of his graduation just one month later, on September 3, 1624.[45] A copy of the original archival record of his graduation is below.

As opposed to today, when a student must attend a certain number of years in a university as a prerequisite to obtaining a degree, universities of this period, and in particular in the Netherlands, often gave exams and imprimatur to those who studied elsewhere, either formally or not, but passed the required examination demonstrating the required knowledge and competence.[46] It is thus not inconceivable that Benedict’s previous study at Leiden essentially prepared him for his graduation exams at Franeker. He would not be the only one to take this path. Some decades later, Isaac Rocamora, on the recommendation of Menaseh ben Israel, matriculated at the University of Franeker on March 29, 1647, and received his degree just two days later, on April 1, 1647.[47] Rocamora had also studied previously in Leiden. While we can conjecture as to the reason de Castro elected to complete his studies at Franeker, the basis for Rocamora’s decision is revealed in a letter by Gerhard Johann Voss to Anthony van der Linden, Rector at the University of Franeker, written at the behest of Menaseh ben Israel.[48] Below is a translation of the relevant section followed by a copy of the original letter:

Yesterday, Rabbi Menaseh ben Israel came to see me, accompanied by Isaac Rocamora, a Portuguese Jew. The latter has been studying medicine for the last two years and has made such progress that he is confident that his standard is such as to qualify him for the highest degree in the subject. Owing to his slender means, he prefers that Academy (i.e., University of Franeker) where the fees of graduation are least. This Rocamora has been warmly recommended to me by your friend, Menaseh…

I suspect de Castro’s motivation for transfer may have also been financially motivated.

De Castro was well respected in the Jewish community and at least one subsequent Leiden graduate, David Pina, dedicated his dissertation to him in 1678:

Pina highlights that de Castro served as physician to Queen Christina of Sweden.

B) David de Haro- The First Jewish Medical Graduate of the University of Leiden and his Newly Discovered Dissertation

While Benedict de Castro may have been the first Jewish medical student to attend Leiden, he did not have the distinction of being its first Jewish medical graduate. That would fall to David de Haro. I have elsewhere explored de Haro’s medical education and his challenges as a Jewish student at Leiden, unearthing some remarkable archival documents.[49] One of these documents is de Haro’s 1631 medical dissertation from Leiden.

As with de Castro, this is not de Haro’s graduation dissertation, or “Dissertatio Medico Inauguralis,” and was written for Professor Franco Burgersdijck’s course at the university. This dissertation is also housed in the BL,[50] though inexplicably not part of the Sloane collection. [51] De Haro graduated in 1633 as the first Jewish medical graduate of the University of Leiden.

In March of 1637, shortly after de Haro’s untimely death, we find that his personal library was put up for auction, and a catalog of the holdings was published.[52] According to one scholar, this may be the first printed sales catalog of a book collection of a Jewish owner.[53] Among the offerings, which include medical and Hebrew religious works, we find a copy of Benedict de Castro’s apologetic work (see #23 in the list below)

De Haro’s library also contained a copy of Benedict’s father’s classic work, De Morbis Mulier.[54]

Below is a list of the Hebrew books of de Haro’s collection that were offered for auction, many of which would be found in a Jewish library today.

One of the offerings is of a somewhat medical nature, Shevilei Emunah (#12). This work, written by Meir ben Isaac Aldabi (1310–1360), the grandson of R. Asher ben Yeĥiel, is a compilation of theories in philosophy, theology, psychology, and medicine. The material was culled from the existing literature of that time,[55] as stated by Aldabi in his introduction, but unfortunately there are no references, for which R. Aldabi apologizes. Many rabbinic authorities throughout the centuries turned to this work as a reference for medical knowledge.

C) Congratulatory Poetry for Jewish Medical Graduates in the Netherlands

The congratulatory poetry for the Jewish medical graduates of Padua was most often published as broadsides. Though underappreciated for their medical historical value, these attractive ephemera of Hebrew poems, as well as broadsides of other kinds, have long been prized by collectors for their general Jewish historical and artistic value. As such, they are primarily found in Jewish libraries. Little-known to even those in the field of Early Modern Jewish poetry, the custom of writing congratulatory poetry for Jewish medical graduates continued in the Netherlands (17th-18th centuries) and Germany (18th-19th centuries). However, instead of being published as free-standing broadsides, the poems were appended to medical dissertations with less visibility and circulation. (Padua students were not required to complete graduation dissertations, necessitating the publication of the poems independently.) Furthermore, medical dissertations are not typically found in Jewish collections. While comprehensive treatment of this second chapter of congratulatory poetry remains a desideratum, the BL’s Sloane Dissertation Collection has some rare examples of these “hidden” poems. One example is below:

Graduate: Jehosua Worms (Leiden-1687)
Author: Shlomo (AKA Zalman) ben Yehuda Levi Pikart

There were later physicians named Worms, a father and son, Asher Anshel Worms and Simon Wolf Worms. Perhaps Joshua was the father of Asher Anshel, though I have as yet found no evidence of such. Asher Anshel wrote Seyag Le Torah, a masoretic commentary on the Torah. The work was published posthumously by his son Simon. It was circulated in manuscript prior to publication and was apparently plagiarized by Joseph Heilbronn,[56] a fact alluded to in the book’s introduction. Asher Anshel also wrote also wrote a commentary on the song from the Hagaddah, Chad Gadya,[57] as well as books on algebra and chess. Simon Wolf graduated Geissen in 1768 with a dissertation on the topic of the impurity of the male reproductive seed (tumat zera). This is one of the more unique dissertation topics of a Jewish student I have come across.[58]

III. A Correction to the BL Catalog

While acknowledging the BL’s immense contributions to Jewish scholarship, including Jewish medical history, I humbly submit one very minor correction which might possibly lead scholars to an erroneous conclusion. Above we briefly discuss David de Haro and identify him as the first Jewish medical graduate of the University of Leiden, in 1633. However, perusal of the Sloan Leiden dissertation collection reveals an entry for a dissertation for Jahacobus de Paz from 1631.[59] This dissertation is not found in the University of Leiden Library.

Below is the catalog entry:

A careful analysis of the actual dissertation[60] below reveals that de Paz was Jewish, as he is identified as “Hebraeus,” and that this is a copy of his graduation dissertation, titled “Disputatio Medica Inauguralis.” Perhaps we were in error, and in fact de Paz is the first Jewish medical graduate of Leiden, completing his studies in 1631?[61]

Examination of both the cover and content of the dissertation provides an answer to this question. The bottom of the dissertation’s front cover, which typically lists the date, seems have been torn off the bottom of this copy. The BL catalog lists the publication date as 1631. This date is most certainly derived from the faint penciled numbers on the front cover to the right of the emblem:

How and when these numbers came to be written, and whether they were even meant to refer to the year of publication, I suspect we will never know. But a closer inspection of the dissertation contents reveals that the date of 1631 is decidedly in error. While not found ubiquitously in all of Leiden’s student dissertations, it was common for the students to include a dedication page. Dedicatees included mentors, family members, religious leaders and medical colleagues. Below is a copy of de Paz’s dedication page.

At the bottom of the list, we find the Jewish physicians Isaac Naar[62]  and Josephus Abrabanel (with the variant spelling, adding to the age-old debate, though Josephus himself spelled it Abarbanel).[63] Both Abrabanel, whose dissertation is pictured above, and Naar, graduated Leiden in 1655. Below is Naar’s dissertation:

Indeed, university records clearly list the graduation date of Jahacobus de Paz as July 4, 1658.[64] Here is a dissertation from the same year of another Jewish student, side by side with de Paz.

(Parenthetically, the students Abarbanel, Naar, Moreno, and likely de Paz used the Jewish version of the calendar year on the cover of their dissertations.) Thus, David de Haro still retains his distinction as the first Jewish medical graduate of the University of Leiden.

Conclusion

We have shared just a few of the British Library’s treasures that relate to Jewish medical history. Our picture of the training of Jewish medical students in Early Modern Europe, from the earliest Italian congratulatory poems to the earliest Jewish medical dissertations in the Netherlands, would be wholly incomplete without the library’s contributions. Yet, this is but one epithelial cell to an entire human body with respect to the library’s broader impact.

While I will of course completely overlook the British Library’s trivial and largely inconsequential misdating of de Paz’s dissertation, it behooves us all not to overlook nor take for granted their outsized contribution to the Jewish community’s and the world’s knowledge and scholarship.

The Birkhat ha-Mazon as an Early Modern Supplementary Prayerbook

Morris M. Faierstein Ph.D.

morrisfaierstein.academia.edu

The opportunity to meet the liturgical needs of the Jewish community in the age of printing presented both possibilities and problems for the publishers and printers who wished to publish prayerbooks. Unlike biblical and rabbinic texts that were the same for all Jewish communities, prayerbooks were very diverse with different communities having their own rites and sub-rites. Another problem was what to include and what not to include in the text of given prayerbook. To include everything that one might need for the whole cycle of the year, was not practical as one sixteenth century printer explained in his introduction:

“Observing that the material in this work is constantly increasing, that it is attaining the size of the Shulhan Arukh … and has become too cumbersome to be carried into the synagogue, the present publisher, with a pure heart, decided to print the siddur in two volumes, the first to contain the daily prayers, and the second the prayers for the holy days. This arrangement will enable one to purchase either part, as he may desire.”[1]

In addition to the division of the prayerbooks into one for the daily and weekly prayers and a second volume for the annual holidays, more specialized texts were published like Kinot for the Ninth of Ab, and the Passover Haggadah. The subject of this study is a subgenre of the daily /weekly prayerbook. It is called Birkhat ha-Mazon or Siddur Berakhah[2] but is very different from the modern publications of this name. The Early Modern prayerbook typically had the regular prayers but did not include all the other prayers and rituals that were not part of the synagogue services but still played an important role in Jewish religious life. The Seder Tefillot, as it was commonly called, contained the standard prayers for the morning [Shaharit], afternoon [Minchah] and evening [Ma’ariv] services for weekdays and Sabbaths, and occasionally added the special prayers for the New Moon [Rosh Hodesh]. These prayerbooks also had to be adjusted to the specific rite of its intended market. The Ashkenazi prayerbook usually came in either the Ashkenazi rite, which meant Germany, and the Polish rite,[3] which covered the area from Bohemia eastward to Poland and Lithuania. These prayerbooks did not normally include the special prayers for holidays. To solve this problem, another genre of prayerbook was created, called the Mahzor. This was not the large medieval Mahzor that contained the whole cycle of the year’s prayers along with rules and laws.[4] Rather it was small book that contained those parts of the High Holiday and Festival services that were unique to those occasions and not included in the standard prayerbook. Jacob ben Abraham of Meseritz, who published a Mahzor in 1599 describes the situation that he saw that convinced him of the need publish his Mahzor. He writes in his preface:

Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel, forever and ever, who helped me to print small Mahzorim for the whole year according to the Ashkenazi Rite, in order to benefit the public. I saw the great need for every Jew, and particularly in this time when Jews travel and make journeys from land to land, city to city, and place to place, with merchandise and for other needs. I decided to print a small Mahzor to lighten their load, and it should be in the hands of everyone. In particular, the visitors to the fair in the holy community of Frankfurt, on the three Pilgrim Festivals and the High Holy Days. It should be in their hands, to bring it with them to the holy community, to the fair where God has been gracious to me, and to fulfill their [religious] obligations in this way. I saw with my own eyes, the visitors standing outside the synagogue, running back and forth, and not paying attention to the cantor reciting the piyyutim. The reason for this is that each person does not have a Mahzor in their hand. Therefore, I was awakened, and many householders in the holy community of Frankfurt agreed with me, to print this Mahzor so that it will be in the hands of everyone, like this small prayerbook. With it, everyone will be able to fulfill their [religious] obligation.[5]

Another group of prayers and rituals that were missing from the Early Modern prayerbook were a whole variety of prayers and rituals that were not part of the normal prayer service but were integral to Jewish religious life. To meet the need for a collection of these prayers, another type of prayerbook which contained the prayers and rituals of Jewish life, was created, called, Birkhat ha-Mazon or Seder Berakhot.[6] This subgenre of prayerbook has not been the subject of previous scholarly study. The term Birkhat ha-Mazon has come to refer in the modern world to a small pamphlet containing the Grace after meals [Birkhat ha-Mazon] along with Sabbath songs and occasionally some other additions. The Early Modern Birkhat ha-Mazon was a much larger and more significant source of religious rituals and prayers. It was the repository for the prayers and rituals that were not part of the statutory daily prayers but were integral to the cycle of Jewish life and the rhythms of the Jewish calendar.

This study of the Early Modern Birkhat ha-Mazon as a supplementary prayerbook is preliminary for several reasons. First and foremost, it is based on a sample and not on a comprehensive survey of every work bearing this title. There are at least 25-30 editions of books entitled Birkhat ha-Mazon and Siddur Berakhot that can be found in the classic bibliographies of the Hebrew Book that are not included in this study.[7] A certain percentage of these are the small pamphlet that only includes the Birkhat ha-Mazon and some Sabbath songs, like the modern pamphlets of this name. My sample consists of twenty-four editions that I was able to download and examine the complete text. The publication dates ranged from 1563 to 1780. Seventeen editions are titled Birkhat ha-Mazon and are Ashkenazi in their ritual. All of these editions are bilingual, Hebrew-Yiddish. Six other editions were published in Italy and represent the Ashkenazi (3), Sephardi, Italian, and Rome (one each) rites. These editions are all in Hebrew but may have directions or brief discussions applicable laws and rules in a different language.[8] The last edition is the most unusual. It was published in Amsterdam in 1640 and has Hebrew and Spanish texts on facing pages.[9] The editions I chose to study were based on availability. The parameters were from the beginning of printing until 1800. I included every edition that I was able to find digitized and readable online or downloadable, so that a thorough description of the contents would be possible. Each edition included in this study is described in the Appendix.

The selection of prayers that were included in all of these editions, Ashkenazi, and Italian/Sephardi, are more or less similar. All of them include Festival prayers that are not part of the synagogue liturgy and prayers for the major life cycle events. Beyond that there is some variation in the exclusion or addition of prayers that were not as central. The sequence of some of the prayers also varies, but these variations are not of consequence for this study. They are editorial decisions made by the printer. The most significant difference between the two groups is the bilingualism of the Ashkenazi editions. All of them are bilingual, with most of the prayers translated into Yiddish along with the Hebrew originals. Occasionally a prayer or group of prayers will only be in Hebrew. Most commonly, the prayers relating to the circumcision ceremony and the redemption of the firstborn are only in Hebrew. On the other hand, the prayers relating to the wedding ceremony are usually translated. This is understandable, since in the first two cases, a rabbi or specialist officiates and translation of the prayers is not important, since everyone understands what is happening and why. On the other hand, people who are not fluent in Hebrew might have an interest in the meaning of the blessings that are part of the wedding ceremony.

The prayers of the Italian/Sephardi editions are completely in Hebrew and do not have translations. Even the Italian edition for the Ashkenazi rite does not have Yiddish translations of the prayers. All of the sixteenth and seventeenth century editions have instructions only in Hebrew. The two eighteenth century editions, published in 1737 and 1739, for the Italian and Ashkenazi communities in Italy respectively, have instructions in Italian, in the Latin alphabet. Most unusual is the Amsterdam, 1640 edition, which has a long Introduction in Spanish, and the text is completely translated with facing pages of Hebrew and Spanish. This edition was prepared for the recently organized community in Amsterdam whose members had a low level of Hebrew knowledge, which explains the variation for the Spanish–Portuguese community in Amsterdam.

Another interesting question is the introduction of kabbalistic elements, which were introduced into different communities at different times and ways. The earliest kabbalistic influence is found in the Venice, 1623. It includes the three Sabbath hymns attributed to Rabbi Isaac Luria. They were to be sung at the beginning of the three Sabbath meals, one for each meal. These hymns were mentioned only once more, for a second time in the Venice, 1739 Seder Berakhah. The Ashkenazi Birkhat ha-Mazon has no explicit kabbalistic material before the Frankfurt am Oder, 1753 edition. It includes for the first time the suggestion to sing Shalom Aleichem and Eshet Hayil before the Friday night meal.[10] The Prague, 1773 edition also recommends these two hymns and]adds the suggestion to recite Psalm 137 before the Birkhat ha-Mazon during the week and Psalm 126 instead on the Sabbath and Festivals.[11]

The question of Early Modern Ashkenazi bilingualism needs some clarification. There was a clear division between public worship and private worship and study. Public worship was only in Hebrew and the prayerbooks published for worship were only in Hebrew, though many did have brief instructions in Yiddish. On the other hand, Yiddish was a tool for study and was acceptable for private prayers by women and others who might not understand the meaning of the Hebrew prayers. Tehinnot, prayers of petition, in Yiddish are well known and both women and even men would pray in Yiddish at appropriate occasions.[12] However, when one moves into the realm of the texts used for public worship, prayerbooks and Humashim, to follow the Torah reading in the synagogue, are always in Hebrew. At most we find prayerbooks that have brief instructions in Yiddish.

There are a few prayerbooks and Humashim that might challenge this conclusion and need to be considered. I found three editions of Yiddish prayerbooks in the course of my research that should be considered. The oldest published Yiddish prayerbook was published by Joseph ben Yakar in Ichenhausen, 1555. The Introduction makes it clear that it was published for women who did not understand Hebrew, so that they could study it and understand the meaning of the prayers.[13]The second prayerbook was published in Mantua in 1562 and reprinted in Venice, in 1599. This prayerbook is unusual in that it was bilingual, Hebrew and Yiddish. It was the only one that I could find that was bilingual. The printer offers very little in the way of explanation for the publication. He writes in the title page, “Prayer book for the whole year, in Hebrew and Yiddish, the like of which you have never seen. men and women will see that nothing is missing. Blessed be the one who made it for us with such skill.”[14] Similarly, there were Humashim published in Yiddish, but they too were for personal study or for educational use to teach children. They could not have been used to follow the Torah reading in the synagogue.[15]

The purpose of this preliminary study has been to establish the existence of the Birkhat ha-Mazon/ Siddur Berakhah as a distinct subgenre within the broader category of Jewish liturgical texts. Many questions remain about these texts. Why do the particular prayers vary from edition to edition? Are there things that should have been included that were not, and vice versa? What is their place in Jewish society? The editions published in Western and Central Europe are bilingual, while the Italian editions are only in Hebrew. We know that Ashkenazi Jews in Italy abandoned Yiddish for Italian as early as 1600.[16] Sephardi and Roman Jews in Italy bever used Yiddish. Was Yiddish a liturgical language or just a language of study is an important question. A preliminary conclusion is that was used as a language of study and private prayer, but Hebrew remained the language of public prayer. There are other questions that may be of interest to experts in the history of Jewish prayer and its development. These remain for further research and study.

Birkhat ha-Mazon Editions

The majority of editions do not have a Preface, colophon or other paratexts beyond the title page. In the few case where these items are found, they will be included. Some editions are illustrated. This has been noted. The list of prayers in each individual work follows the sequence found in that edition. It is worth noting that there is no standard order, as one finds in Hebrew prayerbooks.

Libraries where the digitized editions are found.

Basel – University of Basel Library, online
FKT – Digitized Yiddish book collection, University of Frankfurt, online
HB – Hebrewbooks.org
NLI National Library of Israel, digitized books, online

Part I. Birkhat ha-Mazon editions. All of these editions have all or a majority of the prayers in both Hebrew and Yiddish. Occasionally, a few prayers are only in Hebrew.

1. Prague, 1580? [NLI][17]

2. Contents.

1. Title page is missing. 2. Begins in middle of Zemirot. 3. Havdalah. 4. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Song for Shabbat Hanukkah. 7. Purim Song. 8. Purim Reshut. 9. Wedding ceremony. 10. Circumcision ceremony. 11. Redemption of the first born. 12. Eruv Tavshilin. 13. Kapparot. 14. Visiting the cemetery on the eve of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 15. Shema before sleeping. 16. Kiddush for Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot. 17. Passover Haggadah. Ends ¾ through the Haggadah, end is missing. [95 pages]

2. Basel, 1600. [Basel]
1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon

Songs printed in Hebrew and in Yiddish that the women understand what they are blessing or what the songs say, and also the blessings that they are obligated to recite over all food, before and after. Also, over wine, and over fruit, and all drinks. I also added the Four Questions [the Passover Haggadah], which has not yet been found in any bentshen, and also how we do things on Passover, as will be shown below.

Commissioned by Jacob son of Abraham, of blessed memory, Tihinger, along with Jacob son of Abraham, of blessed memory, Pollak, who is called Jacob the Bookseller, from the land of Reisen, from the holy community of Mezeritz of Lithuania, near Brisk.,
Here in Basel the great city.
At the press of Konrad Waldkirch and household.
In the year, “Bestow Your faithful care on those devoted to You”[18] [360] in the small counting.

2. Preface.

I, Jacob ben Abraham, may his memory be for a blessing, the writer, have published this Yiddish bentshen for all pious women. Therefore, dear ladies, pay attention to me and buy the book quickly, so that I may rush home to my wife and children as soon as possible, for I have been in German lands for three years. I pray to God that my children are not ashamed by the fact that I carried around books. I hope that no one will speak badly of me. I behaved well in this endeavor, and I was held in esteem by others. My name is Jacob the bookseller; I am known throughout the German lands. I hope to have a good reward for fulfilling the commandment from this. In all the communities they ask for me, when will the bookseller come here, so that he might bring us books? At home, I did not have, because of our many sins, anything to eat, when I was in the land of Reisen. However, in Germany, God almighty did not forget my need. I hope to Him that I will also not, heaven forbid, forget Him. Therefore, I have had this Yiddish bentshen published. Your heart will rejoice in it. I hope you will always think well of me when I will be far from you. Therefore, dear ladies, buy it quickly from me, so that I will soon be able to run to my wife and children, since I have been away too long. My wife and children will be worried about me. With this you will be worthy that you will soon come to the Holy Land. This prays your servant, Jacob Pollack, bookseller.

3. Contents.

1. Psalm 23. 2. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Purim songs. 7. Purim Reshut. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 10. Kapparot. 11. Prayers for visiting Cemetery. 12. Circumcision ceremony. 13. Shema at Bedtime. 14. Sabbath Kiddush. 15. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah. 16. Kiddush for Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot. 17. Havdalah for festivals when the second day is a Sabbath. 18. Passover Haggadah. 19. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 20. Al ha-Michyah. 21. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. [150 pages]

3. Wilhermsdorf, 1687. [NLI – Has Illustrations].

1. Title Page.

Seder Birkhat ha-Mazon

The Zemirot printed in Hebrew and in Yiddish. The Ma Nishtana [Haggadah] also beautifully and finely printed with all of the illustrations, as in the large Haggadot, with good paper and ink: As we find in the Italian Haggadot with Yiddish on the side, much nicer than the previous ones. With many laws in Yiddish on the side: This was newly produced.

Under the rule of our lord, Baron Wolfgang Julius, General Field Marshall, His Highness, May his lordship be glorified and magnified, and he have long life, amen selah.
Printed here in the holy community of Wilhermsdorf
By the printer, Isaac son of Leib Yudel’s Katz, of blessed memory, of the Gershuni family.
“Satisfy us with Your Goodness”[19][447], in the small counting.

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Zemirot. 3. Havdalah. 4. Hanukkah. 5. Song for Shabbat Hanukkah. 6. Purim songs. 7. Purim Reshut. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the First Born. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Shema for bedtime. 14. Passover Haggadah. 15. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. [104 pages]

4. Dyhernfurth, 1692. [HB – Has Illustrations.]

1. Title Page.

Seder Birkhat ha-Mazon

The Zemirot printed in Hebrew and in Yiddish. The Ma Nishtana [Haggadah] also beautifully and finely printed with all of the illustrations, as in the large Haggadot, with good paper and ink: As we find in the Italian Haggadot with Yiddish on the side, much nicer than the previous ones. With many laws in Yiddish on the side: This was newly produced.[20]

Printed here in Dyhernfurth
By the noble Rabbi Shabbetai Bass, may his Creator protect him, from Prague:
Printed in the year, “Please, my blessing” [452], in the small counting.
Cum Licentia Superiorum

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Zemirot. 3. Havdalah. 4. Hanukkah. 5. Purim. 6. Wedding ceremony. 7. Circumcision ceremony. 8. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 9. Kapparot. 10. Shema for bedtime. 11. Kiddush for Sabbath and Festivals. 12. Passover Haggadah. [100 pages]

5. Wilhermsdorf. 1694 (?).[20] [Basel – Has Illustrations.]

1. Title Page.

Seder Birkhat ha-Mazon

The Zemirot printed in Hebrew and in Yiddish. The Ma Nishtana [Haggadah] also beautifully and finely printed with all of the illustrations, as in the large Haggadot, with good paper and ink: As we find in the Italian Haggadot with Yiddish on the side, much nicer than the previous ones. With many laws in Yiddish on the side: This was newly produced.

Under the rule of our lord, Baron Wolfgang Julius, General Field Marshall, His Highness, May his lordship be glorified and magnified, and he have long life, amen selah.
Printed here in the holy community of Wilhermsdorf
By the printer, Isaac son of Leib Yudel’s Katz, of blessed memory, of the Gershuni family.

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Zemirot. 3. Havdalah. 4. Hanukkah. 5. Song for Sabbath of Hanukkah. 6. Purim. 7. Wedding ceremony. 7. Circumcision ceremony. 8. Redemption of the Firstborn. 9. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 10. Kapparot. 11. Shema for bedtime. 12. Kiddush for Sabbath and Festivals. 13. Passover Haggadah. 14. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. [100 pages]

6. Frankfurt a. Main, 1696. [NLI].

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon for Satiety and not for Hunger

Bless us, Lord our God

This Bentshen is printed according to the customs of Ashkenaz and Poland together, so that everyone should be able to understand the Hebrew and the Yiddish with ease. Therefore, you pious men and women, look at this new Bentshen. Nothing like it has been printed before, with Vayishlach and Ribono shel Olam that we recite Saturday night.

The flower of the staff ,in the small counting.
Aaron of the house of Levi [456]
Printed in Frankfurt am Main
In the new Press of Juspa Tadir Katz

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Zemirot. 3. Havdalah. 4. Hanukkah. 5. Purim Reshut. 6. Wedding ceremony. 7. Circumcision ceremony. 8. Redemption of the firstborn. 9. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 10. Kapparot. 11. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 12. Prayers for visiting cemetery before High Holy Days. 13. Tehinnot on the eve of the High Holy Days. 14. Shema for bedtime. 15. Kiddush for Sabbath and Festivals. 16. Passover Haggadah. 17. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. [95 pages]

7. Frankfurt a. Oder, 1701. [NLI –Has Illustrations.]

1. Title Page.

Seder Birkhat ha-Mazon

The zemirot printed in Yiddish. The Ma Nishtana [Haggadah] also beautifully and finely printed with all of the illustrations, as in the large Haggadot, with good paper and ink: As we find in the Italian Haggadot with Yiddish on the side, much nicer than the previous ones. With many laws in Yiddish on the side: This was newly produced.

Printed in the year 461, in the small counting.
Here in the holy community of Frankfurt am Oder
Under the rule of our lord, His Majesty, king of Prussia, Fredrick the Third, and Grand Duke of Brandenburg. May God elevate his majesty and his kingdom, higher and higher, amen.
Printed in the press of the noble Michael Gottschalk:
Commissioned by the noble Rabbi Gershon Wiener from Frankfurt am Oder:

2. Contents.

1. Psalm 23. 2. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Shabbat Hanukkah. 7. Purim Reshut. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the firstborn. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Shema at bedtime. 14. Kiddush for Sabbath, Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 15. Havdalah when second day is Saturday night. 16. Passover Haggadah. [115 pages]

8. Amsterdam, 1701. [NLI].

1. Title page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon

This Bentshen is printed according to the customs of Ashkenaz and Poland together, so that everyone should be able to understand the Hebrew and the Yiddish with ease. Therefore, you pious men and women, look at this new Bentshen. Your children will rejoice when they read in this Bentshen. Through this you will be worthy to soon come into the land of Israel. May the Messiah of David come speedily in our days. Amen, so may it be His will:

In Amsterdam
In the House of and commissioned by the young man Emanuel son of the venerable Joseph Athias, of blessed memory
“Then Israel sang this song”[Exodus, 15:1], in the small counting [461]

2. Contents.

1. Psalm 23. 2. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Shabbat Hanukkah. 7. Purim songs and Reshut. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the firstborn. 11 Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 14. Prayers for visiting cemetery before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 15. Shema at bedtime. 16. Kiddush for Sabbath, Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 17. Passover Haggadah. 18. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 19. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 20. Yiddish prayer to be recited every day before the prayers. 21. Additional prayers after Havdalah. 22. Counting the Omer. [143 pages]

9. Amsterdam, 1702. [NLI].[22]

1. Title page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon

The Bentshen according to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. I hired someone who made the rhymes so that one should be able to sing them with one’s own tune, very beautifully. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have not spared any money, and all the mistakes from the previous Bentshen corrected, and everything has been placed in its proper order. The has never been anything like it in the world. I know that everyone will be well pleased, and nobody will be disappointed with what he paid for it.

Commissioned by the young man, Solomon son of Rabbi Joseph Katz, of blessed memory, Proops, bookseller.
In Amsterdam
In the House of the young man Emanuel son of the venerable Joseph Athias, of blessed memory
In the year, “The writing was God’s writing” [Exodus, 32:16], [462]

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Kiddush for Sabbath. 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Purim songs. 9. Wedding ceremony. 10. Circumcision ceremony. 11. Redemption of the firstborn. 12. Eruv Tavshilin. 13. Kapparot. 14. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 15. Prayers for visiting cemetery before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 16. Shema at bedtime. 17. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 18. Passover Haggadah. 19. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 20. Yiddish prayer to be recited every day before the prayers. [141 pages]

10. Frankfurt a. Main, 1713. [FKT].

1. Title page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon for Satiety and not for Hunger
The Bentshen according to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland

Set very evenly to live by it. At the end as at the beginning nothing has been spared. Beautiful print and paper. It will not be too expensive for anyone, sharply printed and beautiful, so that the women and maidens will be able to understand. No money has been spared for it, and many mistakes corrected. One will see that not much remained standing. I did what I could, and with this it has an end. The Holy One should send us the Messiah soon, and the exile should soon be removed from us, speedily in our days. May the Lord our God bless us. Amen, so may it be His will:

Printed here in the holy community of Frankfurt am Main, with the fonts of
Amsterdam
In the year, “When you have eaten your fill, give thanks to your God” [Deuteronomy, 8:10], in the small counting

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Kiddush for Sabbath. 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Shabbat Hanukkah. 7. Purim songs. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Eruv Tavshilin. 11. Kapparot. 12. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 13. Shema at bedtime. 14. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 15. Passover Haggadah. 16. Passover Haggadah. 17. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 18. Prayers for Kiddush ha-Levanah. [93 pages]

11. Amsterdam, 1722. [NLI – Has Illustrations].

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon
According to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland
The Bentshen

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. We have made the rhymes in Yiddish so that one should be able to sing them, with one’s own tune, very beautifully, and it will please everyone. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. Each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have included much more in this printing. One can see everything in it, how many illustrations are in it, and to honor the Holy One. In order that children become accustomed to like the commandments. Everything is placed in order, and it’s like has not yet been seen in the world.

In Amsterdam
Commissioned by and at the press of
Rabbi Solomon son of Rabbi Joseph Katz, of blessed memory, Proops, bookseller.
In the year, “The Lord your God will bless all your enterprises” [Deuteronomy, 14:29], in the small counting [482]

2. Colophon.

This expanded Bentshen and all sorts of books, which make it exceptional. It can be purchased from the printer himself, the famous bookseller, Rabbi Solomon, Katz, may His Creator protect him, Proops, living in the Broad Street in Amsterdam.

3. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Kiddush for Sabbath. 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Purim. 9. Wedding ceremony. 10. Circumcision ceremony. 11. Redemption of the firstborn. 12. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 13. Kapparot. 14. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 15. Prayers for visiting cemetery before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 16. Shema at bedtime. 17. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 18. Passover Haggadah. 19. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 20. Yiddish prayer to be recited every day before the prayers. [141 pages]

12. Amsterdam, 1723. [HB – Has Illustrations].[23]

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon
According to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland
The Bentshen

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. We have made the rhymes in Yiddish so that one should be able to sing them, with one’s own tune, very beautifully, and it will please everyone. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. Each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have included much more in this printing. One can see everything in it, how many illustrations are in it, and to honor the Holy One. In order that children become accustomed to like the commandments. Everything is placed in order, and it’s like has not yet been seen in the world.[24]

In Amsterdam
In the house and press of
Rabbi Isaac, son of, Jacob De Cordova bookseller
In the year, “All who are inscribed for life in Jerusalem” [Isaiah, 4:3], in the small counting [483]

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Kiddush for Sabbath. 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Purim. 9. Wedding ceremony. 10. Circumcision ceremony. 11. Redemption of the firstborn. 12. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 13. Kapparot. 14. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 15. Prayers for visiting cemetery before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 16. Shema at bedtime. 17. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 18. Passover Haggadah. 19. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 20. Yiddish prayer to be recited every day before the prayers. [142 pages]

13. Frankfurt a.M., 1727. [HB – Has Illustrations].

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon
According to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland
The Bentshen

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. We have made the rhymes in Yiddish so that one should be able to sing them, with one’s own tune, very beautifully, and it will please everyone. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. Each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have included much more in this printing. One can see everything in it, how many illustrations are in it, and to honor the Holy One. In order that children become accustomed to like the commandments. Everything is placed in order, and it’s like has not yet been seen in the world.[25]

Printed here in the holy community of Frankfurt am Main
Commissioned by and published by the printers
Rabbi Zalman, son of, Rabbi David Aptrood, may he live long:
And Moses, son of, Rabbi Jonah Gomberg, of blessed memory
In the fonts of Amsterdam:
In the year, “The Lord your God will bless all your enterprises” [Deuteronomy, 14:29], in the small counting [487]
Printed by Henrich Bayerhefer

2. Colophon.

Bentshen and all sorts of books can be obtained for purchase without exception, from the printers themselves, the famous bookseller, the famous, Moses, son of, Rabbi Jonah Gomberg, of blessed memory, who lives near the Jews bridge in Frankfurt am Main:

3. Content.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Kiddush for Sabbath. 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the firstborn. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 14. Shema at bedtime. 15. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 16. Passover Haggadah. 17. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. [93 pages]

14. Homburg a.d.Hohe, 1727. [NLI – Has Illustrations]

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon
According to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland
The Bentshen

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. We have made the rhymes in Yiddish so that one should be able to sing them, with one’s own tune, very beautifully, and it will please everyone. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. Each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have included much more in this printing. One can see everything in it, how many illustrations are in it, and to honor the Holy One. In order that children become accustomed to like the commandments. Everything is placed in order, and it’s like has not yet been seen in the world:[26]

Printed here in the holy community of Homburg an der Hohe
Established by Seligman, son of, Itzik Rothschild
In the fonts of Amsterdam:
In the year, “The Lord your God will bless all your enterprises” [Deuteronomy, 14:29], in the small counting [487]

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Kiddush for Sabbath. 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the firstborn. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 14. Shema at bedtime. 15. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 16. Passover Haggadah. 17. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. Missing some pages at the end. [82 pages]

15. Frankfurt a. O., 1753. [NLI – Has Illustrations]

1. Title Page.

This edition is missing the title page and several pages at the beginning. Bibliographical information is taken from NLI catalog entry.

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Tehinnah for women to be recited after candle lighting on Friday night. 3. Tikkunei Shabbat [Includes Shalom Aleichem and Eshet Hayil].[27] 4. Zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Hanukkah. 7. Shabbat Hanukkah. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of the firstborn. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 12. Kapparot. 13. Prayers for visiting cemetery. 14. Shema at bedtime. 15. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah, and Festivals. 16. Passover Haggadah. [83 pages]

16. Prague, 1773. [NLI – Has Illustrations]

1. Title Page.

Seder Birkhat ha-Mazon

With all the laws, Zemirot, Shema before bed, Kiddush for the whole year, Wedding ceremony, Circumcision and Redemption of the Firstborn, Kapparot, Prayers recited at the cemetery, Passover Haggadah. Also, with the Yiddish translation and all the illustrations included. This is very necessary, so come running and buy this. Pay what you can afford. The Messiah should come in our days, amen.

Printed here in Prague

Under the rule of the noble lady …[28] Maria Theresa, Queen of Hungary and Bohemia … and Austria … may her kingdom flourish, and may no stranger occupy her throne, and may her honor and her kingdom exceed that of her fellows, for length of days forever. Amen, so may it be Your will.

Gedruckt zu Ding in der Kakischen Buchdruck[29]

2. Colophon.

Completed, Praise to the Lord, Creator of the world
By the worker in the holy craft the typesetter and printer, Rabbi Selig, son of, Rabbi Wolf Bak, craftsman, judge, and teacher, here in Prague, may his memory be for a blessing.
By the worker in the holy craft the typesetter, the young man, David son of Lipman Bak, may his Creator protect him.
By the worker in the holy craft the printer, Lieberl, son of Rabbi Meir Stroz, of blessed memory. Grandson of Rabbi Lieberl, Rabbi, and teacher, here in Prague, author of Sefer Matitya’

3. Contents.

1. Proper practices for meals. [these are all in Yiddish]. 2. Hand washing, with laws relating to it, and Psalm 23. 3. Viduy [Confession] in the singular. 4. Good customs before eating, along with tehinnot to be recited. 5. Laws of ha-Motzi blessing and proper practices relating to meals. 6. “By the waters of Babylon” [Psalm 137] and “A song of Ascent when we returned to Zion” [Psalm 126]. These are recited before the Birkhat ha-Mazon.[30] 7. Laws and rules relating to Birkhat ha-Mazon. 8. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 9. Shema before bed. 10. Laws relating to lighting candles on the Sabbath and other festivals. 11. Laws relating to Friday night, including the following prayers, Shalom Aleichem, a Tehinnah, and Eshet Hayil.[31] 12. Laws relation to the recitation of Kiddush. 13. Kiddush. 14. Kiddush for Festivals. 15. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah along with customs for Rosh Hashanah. 16. Zemirot for Shabbat. 17. Havdalah, preceded by laws and customs. 18. Laws and customs for Sanctification of the New Moon, along with appropriate prayers. 19. Laws and prayers for Hanukkah candle lighting. 20. Shabbat Hanukkah. 21. Laws concerning the Fast of Esther and Purim. 22. Wedding ceremony. 23. Circumcision ceremony. 24. Redemption of the Firstborn. 25. Laws and customs for Shavuot. 26. Tehinnot for visiting cemetery. 27. Laws and customs for the Ninth of Ab. 28. Kapparot. 29. Laws relating to Yom Kippur and the Sukkot. 30. Laws of Passover and text of the Haggadah. 31. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. [151 pages]

17. Fürth, 1780.[32][FKT]

1. Title Page.

Birkhat ha-Mazon
According to the custom of Ashkenaz and Poland
The Bentshen

We have had it printed anew, with many more blessings and accompanying laws. Also, translated the zemirot completely differently. This is because much was missing in previous translations. Therefore, everyone laments that that they cannot have any understanding from the Yiddish translation. We have made the rhymes in Yiddish so that one should be able to sing them, with one’s own tune, very beautifully, and it will please everyone. For women and maidens who do not understand Hebrew. Each law is placed separately. It will be a wonder for the one who reads it. I have included much more in this printing. One can see everything in it, how many illustrations are in it, and to honor the Holy One. In order that children become accustomed to like the commandments. Everything is placed in order, and it’s like has not yet been seen in the world.

Printed here in the holy community of Fürth
In the house and praiseworthy and learned press of, Rabbi Itzik, may his Creator protect him, son of Rabbi David, of blessed memory.
In the fonts of Amsterdam:
In the year, “The Lord your God will bless all your enterprises” [Deuteronomy, 14:29], in the small counting [540]

2. Contents.

The contents of this edition are also a reprint of the Amsterdam, 1722 edition. [78 pages]

Part II. Italian and Spanish editions. All of the editions in this section are from the NLI.

1. Mantua, 1563. [NLI]

1. Title page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the Ashkenazim
See, this is new, containing the blessings for things that are enjoyed. Everyone who sees its explanations and additions will appreciate it.
Here in Mantua
Under the rule of our lord, his majesty Duke Gulielmo Gonzaga
By Rabbi Joseph son of Rabbi Jacob, of blessed memory of Padua

2. Colophons.

a. First Colophon.

Completed

To the blessed Lord I give pleasantries that we have lived to this time, to benefit the populace, young and old. They should praise the name of God with them, since the exalted task of the making of these zemirot completely, with the addition of the prayer, “the compounding of the incense” and other beautiful things. On the twelfth of Adar I, 323 [1563], in the small counting.

Here in Mantua
By Rabbi Joseph son of Rabbi Jacob, of blessed memory of Padua

b. Second Colophon.

Completed, praise to the Lord of the world

Rosh Hodesh Adar II, 323 [1563], in the small counting, by Jacob of Gezolo and Rabbi Joseph son of Rabbi Jacob, of blessed memory of Padua

3. Contents.

1. Psalm 23. 2. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Shabbat Hanukkah 7. Purim. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Shema before bedtime. 10. Circumcision ceremony. 11. Redemption of Firstborn. 12. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom].13. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 14. Kapparot. 15. Pitum ha-Ketoret.[33] 16. Prayers for visiting Cemetery. 17. Funeral prayers. 18. Birkhot ha-Nehenin with explanations. 19. Sabbath Kiddush. 20. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah. 21. Kiddush for Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot. 22. First colophon. 23. Passover Haggadah. 24. Second colophon. [103 pages]

2. Venice, 1617. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the holy community of Sepharad:
Printed at the request of the humble Abraham Haver Tov:
Commissioned by their excellencies
Pietro and Lorenzo Bragadin
In the house of Giovanni Kiutz, in the year 377 [1617]
Apresso i Clar. Sig. Pietro Lorēzo Bragadin

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Sabbath Kiddush. 3. Havdalah. 4. Shema before bedtime. 5. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 6. Sanctification of the New Moon. 7. Hanukkah. 8. Purim. 9. Passover Haggadah. 10. Kiddush for Rosh Hashana, Shavuot, Sukkot. 11. Blessings for Lulav, Sukkah. 12. Wedding ceremony. 13. Circumcision ceremony. 14. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 15. Prayer upon leaving the city. 16. Prayer when someone has a miracle happen for him. 17. Prayer after bathroom use. 18. Prayer before bloodletting. 19. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 20. Deathbed confession. 21. Prayers for mourners. 22. Laws of slaughtering. [110 pages]

3. Venice, 1623. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the holy community of Ashkenazim, may their Creator protect them:
Commissioned by and printed by their excellencies, Pietro and Lorenzo Bragadini:
In Venice, in the year, 5383 [1623]
In the house of Giovanni Coliani
Appresso gli Illustris. Sig Pietro e Lorenzo Brag.

2. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Azamer Bishevakhin, Asader be-Seudeta, Bnei Heichalah.[34] 3. Zemirot. 4. Havdalah. 5. Hanukkah. 6. Shabbat Hanukkah 7. Purim. 8. Wedding ceremony. 9. Circumcision ceremony. 10. Redemption of Firstborn. 11. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 12. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 13. Kapparot. 14. Prayers for visiting Cemetery. 15. Funeral prayers. 16. Birkhot ha-Nehenin with explanations. 17. Miscellaneous Blessings. 18. Sabbath Kiddush. 19. Kiddush for Rosh Hashanah. 20. Kiddush for Pesach, Shavuot, Sukkot. [77 pages]

4. Amsterdam, 1640. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
Orden de BENDICION conforme el uso K. K. de Sepharad.
Añadido y acrescentado en muchas cosas a las prededentes imprensiones.
Estampado en casa de IMANUEL Benbeniste, Año 5400.

2. Introduction.

It has a seven-page Introduction, “To the Reader.” The prayers are in Spanish and Hebrew on facing pages. The Spanish is written in the Latin Alphabet.

3. Contents.

1. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 2. Sabbath Kiddush. 3. Havdalah. 4. Shema before bedtime. . 5. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 6. Sanctification of the New Moon. 7. Hanukkah. 8. Purim. 9. Passover Haggadah. 10. Kiddush for Rosh Hashana, Shavuot, Sukkot. 11. Blessings for Lulav, Sukkah. 12. Wedding ceremony. 13. Eruv Tavshilin and Eruv Hazerot. 15. Prayer upon leaving the city [Tefillat ha-Derekh]. 16. Birkhot ha-Nehenin. 17. Deathbed confession. 18. Prayers for mourners. 19. Circumcision ceremony. 20. Redemption of the Firstborn. [191 pages]

5. Venice, 1673. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the holy community of Rome, may their Creator protect them:
Including everything that was previously done:
“I greatly rejoice in the Lord, my whole being exults in my God” [Isaiah, 61:10] [1673]
In Venice
At the Bragadin press
IN VENETIA, M.DC.LXXIII
Nella Stamperia Bragadina. Per Christoforo Ambrosini.
Con Licenza de Superiori, e Pruilegio

2. Contents.

1. 1. Psalm for the Day, from Sunday to Friday. 2. Laws concerning Birkhat ha-Mazon [Hebrew]. 3. Birkhat ha-Mazon 4. A brief Birkhat ha-Mazon for workers having their meal at the place of their employer. 5. A piyyut to be recited Friday evening before prayers, composed by R. Judah Moscato [in the same place and time as Lekha Dodi would be in other communities. 6. Piyyutim for Shabbat [many same as Zemirot]. 7. Psalm 92 and other Psalms to be recited before the meal on Friday night. 8. Kiddush for Shabbat. 9. Zemirot. 10. Psalms 111, 15 recited for Shabbat. 11. Prayers and songs for conclusion of Shabbat. 12. Havdalah. 13. Sanctification of the New Moon. 14. Hanukkah. 15. Purim. 16. Passover Haggadah. 17. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 18. Kiddush for Rosh Hashana, Shavuot, Sukkot. 19. Circumcision ceremony. 20. Redemption of the Firstborn. 21. Engagement and wedding ceremony. 22. Funeral service. 23. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 24. Shema before bedtime. 25. Prayer for travelers. 26. Havinenu prayer. 27. One Hundred blessings [various prayers]. 28. Birkhat ha-Nehenin. [175 pages]

6. Venice, 1737. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the holy community of the Italians, may God protect them:
Con tutte le dichiarationi In volgare, & Haggadah Con la sua cerimonia ben Distinta.
Printed for the desire of the pleasant student Gad, son of the physician, Rabbi Isaac Foa may his Creator protect him
In Venice
NELLA STAM. BRAGADI.
Con Licenza de Superiori.
In the year, “Yea, you shall leave in joy” [Isaiah, 55:12], in the small counting [1737]

2. Contents.[35]

1. Psalm for the Day, from Sunday to Friday. 2. Zemirot. 3. Sabbath Kiddush. 4. More zemirot. 5. Havdalah. 6. Sanctification of the New Moon. 7. Hanukkah. 8. Purim. 9. Passover Haggadah. 10. Counting the Omer. 11. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 12. Kiddush for Rosh Hashana, Shavuot, Sukkot. 13. Wedding ceremony. 14. Circumcision ceremony. 15. Redemption of the Firstborn. 16. Prayers for Ninth of Ab. 17. Funeral service. 18. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 19. Shema before bedtime. 20. Havinenu prayer. 21. Prayer for travelers. 22. One Hundred blessings [various prayers]. [107 pages]

7. Venice, 1739. [NLI]

1. Title Page.

Order of Blessings
According to the custom of the holy community of Ashkenazim, may their Creator protect them:
With greater vigor for the ancients
Con tutte ie dichiarationi In volgare; Et l, הגדה Con la sua cerimonia ben Distinta.
Now printed anew
In Venice
Nella Stamparia Vendramin, Con Licenza de Superiori,
In the year 5499, in the large counting.

2. Colophon.

By the one who works in the holy craft, David the son of the sage Raphael Hayyim Bueno, of blessed memory.

3. Contents.[36]

1. Psalms 23. 2. The psalms for each day of the week. 3. Birkhat ha-Mazon. 4. Three Sabbath Hymns by R. Isaac Luria.[37] 5. Zemirot. 6. Havdalah. 7. Hanukkah. 8. Shabbat Hanukkah. 9. Purim. 10. Kapparot. 11. Prayers for eve of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. 12. Kiddush for Sabbath. 13. Kiddush for Rosh Hashana, Shavuot, Sukkot. 14. Passover Haggadah. 15. Counting the Omer. 16. Eruv Tavshilin and Hazerot. 17. Wedding ceremony. 18. Circumcision ceremony. 19. Redemption of the Firstborn. 20. Funeral service. 21. Bettering a bad dream [Hatavat Halom]. 22. Shema before bedtime. 23. Prayer for travelers. 24. Pitum ha-Ketoret.[38] 25. Havinenu prayer. 26. Birkhat ha-Nehenin. 27. One Hundred blessings [various prayers]. [99 pages]

[1] Quotation from, J.D. Eisenstein, “Prayerbooks.” Jewish Encyclopedia. 12 Vols. New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1909, 10: 172.[28]
[2] The former term is used in the Ashkenazi realm while the latter term is used by Sephardi and Italian communities.
[3] In medieval rabbinic literature, it is also called minhag Ostreich (Austria).
[4] A well-known example of the medieval Mahzor is the Mahzor Vitry, by Simcha of Vitry.
[5] This is taken from the Preface to the Mahzor for the Whole Year, published by the partners, Jacob bar Abraham o.b.m. Tihinger and second, Jacob bar Abraham o.b.m from the holy community of Meseritz of Lithuania, in the land of Reisen, who is called Jacob the Bookseller. Basel: Waldkirch, 1599. For more details see, Joseph Prijs, Die Basler Hebräischen Drucke. Freiburg im Breisgau: Urs Graf Verlag, 1964, No. 157.
[6] For convenience, the term Birkhat ha-Mazon will be used to describe both, but as we will see, their contents and format are similar.
[7] These include: M. Steinschneider, Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana. 2 Vols. Berlin: Friedlander, 1852-1860, Nos. 2599 – 2658; C.B. Friedberg, Bet Eked Sefarim. 4 Vols. Tel Aviv: Friedberg, 1951, s.v., Birkhat ha-Mazon; Y. Vinogard, Ozar Sefer ha-Ivri. Jerusalem: Institute for Computerized Bibliography, 1994, s.v., Birkhat ha-Mazon.
[8] These details are included in the discussions of the individual editions in the Appendix.
[9] The Spanish text is in the Latin alphabet.
[10] Faierstein, Morris M. Jewish Customs of Kabbalistic Origin. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013, 39.
[11] Ibid. 18-20.
[12] The role of Tehinnot is discussed at greater length in,Morris M. Faierstein, “The Earliest Published Yiddish Tehinnot (1590–1609). Hebrew Union College Annual 91 (2020): 157–206.
[13] For more details about this edition and the text of the Introduction see, A. M. Habermann, “The Printer Hayyim Shachor, His Son Isaac, and his Son-in-Law Joseph ben Yakar.” Studies in the History of Hebrew Printers [Hebrew]. Jerusalem: Reuben Mass, 1978, 122–124, No. 17.
[14] Chava Turniansky, and Erika Timm. Yiddish in Italia: Manuscripts and Printed Books. Milan: Associazione Italiana Amici dell’Uuniversità di Gerusalemme, 2003, 22, No. 13 and 24, No. 14.
[15] This is discussed in my forthcoming monograph, The Early Modern Yiddish Bible: From the Mirkevet ha-Mishneh to Blitz and Witzenhausen. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, forthcoming.
[16] This is documented in Turniansky, and Timm, Yiddish in Italia.
[17] The bibliographical information for this text is taken from Isaac Yudlov, Sefer Ginzei Yisrael: Osef Dr. Yisrael Mehlman. Jerusalem: National and University Library, 1985, No. 271.
[18] The verse is from Psalms, 36:11.
[19] The phrase is taken from the Sabbath morning Amidah prayer.
[20] This text is the same as the Wilhermsdorf, 1687 edition.
[21] This edition does not have a date on the title page and there is no colophon. According to Isaac Ben-Jacob, Otzar ha-Sefarim. Romm: Vilna, 1880, 88, no. 663, lists a second Wilhermsdorf edition in 1694. Perhaps this is that edition. This copy is found in the Basel University library.
[22] Yudlov, Sefer Ginzei Yisrael, No. 273.
[23] This edition is a copy of the Amsterdam, 1722 edition. The publisher is different.
[24] The Yiddish text is the same as the Amsterdam, 1722 edition.
[25] The Yiddish text is the same as the Amsterdam, 1722 edition.
[26] The Yiddish text is the same as the Amsterdam, 1722 edition.
[27] This is the first edition that contains these kabbalistically influenced hymns.
[28] This indicates words that can’t be read.
[29] This and a number of other things are approximations, as the print is indistinct.
[30] These are kabbalistic innovations. See, Morris M. Faierstein, Jewish Customs of Kabbalistic Origin. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2013, 18-20.
[31] Ibid., 39. This was also introduced by the Safed kabbalists.
[32] This edition is the same as the Amsterdam, 1722 edition.
[33] A group of prayers relating to the incense in the Temple. It was believed to be a protection against the plague.
[34] These three passages are from the Zohar and are recommended by Rabbi Isaac Luria to be recited at the three Sabbath meals. See, Faierstein, Jewish Customs of Kabbalistic Origin, 40-41. It is particularly interesting that it is quite early to be included in a prayerbook and particularly in an Ashkenazi one.
[35] This edition has discussions of applicable laws and instructions in Italian in the Latin alphabet.
[36] This edition has instructions in Italian, written in the Latin alphabet.
[37] For more details, see the Venice, 1623 edition above.
[38] A group of prayers relating to the incense in the Temple. It was believed to be a protection against the plague.

Franciscans and More; “Repulsive” Practices; Saul Lieberman, Abraham Joshua Heschel, and R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg

Marc B. Shapiro

1. Following up on what I wrote here and here about the term צעירים (Franciscans) and other expressions used with reference to Catholic religious orders, Brian Schwartz called my attention to a couple of relevant sources. In Milhemet Hovah (Constantinople, 1710), p. 14a, R. David Kimhi mentions a theological argument he had with one of the חכמי הצעירים. In Ginzei Nistarot (1868), vol. 2, p. 10, R. Jacob of Venice in his anti-Christian polemic mentions the צעירים and the דורשים (Dominicans). I also found a mention in the text of the Tortosa Disputation, ibid., p. 47. R. David Kimhi refers to the צעירים and the דורשים in his letter about the Maimonidean controversy found in Kovetz Teshuvot ha-Rambam ve-Igrotav, sec. 3 (Iggerot Kanaut), p. 4.[1]

There are no doubt many other such references in medieval texts and there is no need to elaborate any further. However, there is one other point worth noting. In the version of Nahmanides’ Disputation printed in Judah Eisenstein, Otzar Vikukhim, p. 89, it reads: וחכמי הצעירים והדורשים והחובלים. The last word, החובלים, is not found in the version published in Chavel’s edition. What does החובלים mean?

In his note Eisenstein tells us that החובלים are Cordeliers, which is how the Franciscans were called in France.[2] In fact, the Cordeliers were only one branch of the larger Franciscan order. The word cordelier refers to the rope that Franciscans wore around their waist.

חובלים, together with Cordeliers, appears in R. Avigdor Tzarfati’s Torah commentary:[3]

מכאן רמזה תורה אותן החובלים קירדליי”ש והייקופינ”ט ההולכים יחפים שעתידין להכעיס את ישראל

In this text we also have a new word, הייקופינ”ט. This is just an alternate spelling of the word יקופש. In Da’at Zekenim mi-Ba’alei ha-Tosafot, Deut. 32:21, it refers to החובלים ויקופש as people who bring trouble upon the Jews. So what does this word יקופש mean? In R. Aharon Yehoshua Pessin’s Midah ke-Neged Midah [4] he knows that החובלים refers to Franciscans and suggests that יקופש means “Capuchin.” However, the Capuchin order, which is a branch of the Franciscans, was only founded in the sixteenth century, so the Tosafists could not have mentioned it. יקופש actually refers to the Jacobins,[5] which is how the Dominicans were called in medieval France.

2. Readers might recall that in my post here I mentioned the late Dr. Shlomo Sprecher’s characterization of two segulot as “repulsive.”[6] I then cited another example of a segulah which I believe falls into this category (and see also my post here). However, the obvious point, which I mention here, is that what our generation regards as repulsive was not always regarded so in a different generation and culture.

Following the post in which I discussed Dr. Sprecher’s article, a few people sent me examples of things that were accepted in previous generations but today would be regarded as repulsive. Many of these examples are from general society and relate to standards of hygiene, food, etc., but a few came from Jewish texts as well. One reader sent me this interesting post by Tomer Persico that deals with the matter. He mentions, among other things, the following shocking remedy recorded in R. Hayyim Vital, Sefer ha-Peulot, p. 321, that appears to recommend a blatant halakhic violation. (It is doubly shocking when one remembers how seriously this sin is viewed in Lurianic Kabbalah, and this fact alone should perhaps lead us to reject the authenticity of the comment.)

לנכפה [לריפוי אדם הסובל ממחלת הנפילה], יקחו נער א’ [אחד] שמימיו לא ראה קרי ויוציאו ממנו שכבת זרע, ואותו הקרי ושכבת הזרע ימשחו בו שפתותיו של החולה ומעולם לא יחזור החולי ההוא

Jeremy Brown, in his recent National Jewish Book award winning volume, The Eleventh Plague: Jews and Pandemics from the Bible to COVID-19 (Oxford, 2023), p. 77, mentions another recommendation, this time to avoid bubonic plague. Among the ingredients to be consumed are “a little of the first urine” produced in the morning and “a small quantity of dried human feces, dissolved in wine or rose water, to be taken while fasting.”[7]

In the post here referred to above, I dealt with metzitzah ba-peh. Subsequently, I found that R. Leon Modena, in his response to the heretic Uriel da Costa, rejects the latter’s claim that metzitzah ba-peh is disgusting because the mouth speaks the word of God while the sexual organ is impure.[8] The medieval anti-Jewish polemicist, Raymond Martini, had earlier attacked metzitzah ba-peh as an “abominable act.”[9]

R. Moshe Mordechai Epstein has a perspective at odds with many other Lithuanian sages in seeing metzitzah as essential to the mitzvah of circumcision, not simply a medical procedure.[10] He also sees metzitzah ba-peh as crucial to the fulfilment of this mitzvah, again, in opposition to what was the standard approach in Lithuania (as opposed to among the Hasidim). As he puts it, if metzitzah ba-peh is not a basic part of the mitzvah, no one would have ever advocated such an action that, in any other circumstance, would be regarded as utterly repulsive.

אשאל שאלה מאלה האומרים כי מציצה היא רק משום סכנה, וע”כ די ברטית סמרטוטין, מאותם אשאל, נשער נא בנפשינו, אילו לא הי’ מצוה ולא הי’ נהוג אצלינו לעשות המציצה, ואחד הי’ רוצה לעשות המציצה בפה, בודאי היינו קוראים אחריו מלא כי אין לך מתועב יותר מזה ליקח אבר פצוע לתוך הפה. ומה גם אותו האבר. ולא עוד אלא למצוץ הדם, הלא הדבר גועל נפש ממש חלילה (אם אינה מצוה) . . . מי זה חסר לב יאמר כי הנהיגו דבר כזה בלי מצוה . . . בענין המציצה כאשר היא מצוה קדושה לתקן הנפש, אין בה גיעול ח”ו, קדושה וטהורה היא המצוה, אהובה וחביבה מרוממת רוחניות הנפש, אבל אילו לא הי’ מצוה רק הכשר כדי שלא יסתכן הולד מהדם, איך נוכל לומר שיהי’ נהוג בישראל ענין מתועב כזה, חלילה וחלילה. הלא האמת ברור לכל, כי המציצה היא מצוה קדושה בעצמה דוקא באופן הזה למצוץ דוקא בפה

3. In my last post here I spoke about Saul Lieberman, so let me add a few more points. In Tovia Preschel’s Ma’amrei Tuvyah, vol. 6, p. 231, he discusses Lieberman’s investigations into obscure words in rabbinic literature, and is reminded of how Sherlock Holmes can always find the answer:

כשאתה רואה אותו מצרף קו לקו ותג ותג להוכחה ברורה ומוריד מעל המלים את המסווה שמאחוריו מתחבאת משמעותן האמיתית – עולה בלבך המחשבה: הרי זה שרלוק הולמס, האמן-הבלש, של שפתנו

ואמנם נקראים כמה ממחקריו בענייני לשון כסיפורים של סר ארתור קונן דויל. דומה עליך שהנך רואה את שרלוק הולמס מרצה לידידו ועוזרו ואטסון כיצד סימנים ועקבות קטנים ובלתי-ברורים מוליכים אותו לפענוחו של תעלומות גדולות

ר’ שאול ליברמן – תורה למד בישיבות, חכמה קנה באוניברסיטאות – אך אמנות הבלשות מנין לו

Preschel then notes that in the little free time that Jabotinsky had, he liked to read detective stories. Preschel wonders, does Lieberman also do so? He adds that he was never brazen enough to ask Lieberman about this.

לפעמים אני הוגה בלבי: אולי גם ר’ שאול בין קוראי ספרות זו, עת הוא נח מעמלה של תורה, בשעה שאינה לא יום ולא לילה? אך עדיין לא העזתי לשאול אותו כל כך

Preschel’s insight is amazing. In Lieberman’s letter to Gershom Scholem, dated July 31, 1947,[11] Lieberman writes about how during the summer vacation, when he is away from New York and has free time, he reads detective stories![12]

ומכיוון שבכפר אני מתיר לעצמי לבטל קצת את הזמן הריני קורא לפעמים ספרות בלשית. וכשבא מאמרך לידי נמשכתי אחריו באותה מתיחות ממש כאילו אני קורא a detective story

Earlier in Ma’amrei Tuvyah, vol. 6, pp. 229-230, Preschel provides the answer to something I had thought about. If you look at a number of the title pages of Lieberman’s books you see that his name is in smaller print than that of his father.

Other than in Lieberman’s books, I don’t recall ever seeing this on a title page. Fortunately, Preschel asked Lieberman about this and Lieberman explained that this is “minhag Yisrael”. Lieberman showed Preschel what R. Hayyim Benveniste writes in Sheyarei Kenesset ha-Gedolah, Tur, Yoreh Deah 240:8, that when one signs his name together with that of his father, yesh nohagim that the father’s name is written above as a sign of respect. What this means is that the father’s name written with bigger letters so that it stretches above the son’s name.

Here is the page in R. Benveniste’s work where he also provides an example.

Preschel concludes:

“פותח שערים” אני. אצבעותי מישמשו בהרבה ספרים. שערים רבים ראיתי. צא ובדוק אם תמצא מחברים שנהגו מנהג רם ונשגב זה בשערי ספריהם. ואם תמצא – מעטים הם, נער יספרם

Since we have been speaking about Lieberman, here is a treat for all the Lieberman fans: A letter from Lieberman to Abraham Joshua Heschel in which we see a bit of Lieberman’s mischievous humor.[13]

And while mentioning Heschel, here is another letter to him from R. Pinchas Biberfeld.[14]  

From this letter we learn something that until now was completely unknown, namely, that Heschel attended lectures of R. Jakob Freimann at the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary. In Edward Kaplan’s book on Heschel, Prophetic Witness, pp. 106, 256, he mentions that Heschel would frequently eat at Freimann’s house on Shabbat, and that Heschel contributed an article — his first academic publication — to the Freimann Festschrift.

R. Pinchas Biberfeld was the son of the legendary physician-rabbi Eduard Biberfeld, and he received semikhah from the Berlin Rabbinical Seminary. Here is a copy of his semikhah.[15]

The semikhah, dated Feb. 7, 1939, is signed by R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg and R. Samuel Gruenberg. R. Weinberg was forced to leave Germany not long after this, and R. Gruenberg  and R. Biberfeld were fortunate to also get out and immigrate to Eretz Yisrael. While in Israel R. Biberfeld edited the Torah journal Ha-Ne’eman. You can read about him here on Wikipedia, and here is an interview he gave.

Biberfeld’s German name was Paul, and he was named after Paul von Hindenburg![16] People today often don’t realize how integrated into German society the German Orthodox were, and the naming of Paul Biberfeld is a great example of this.[17] In some ways, the German Orthodox were even more attached to their non-Jewish surroundings than today’s American Modern Orthodox, whose Americanness is usually expressed in a shared low culture with non-Jewish society (e.g., television, music, and sports), rather than in high culture and patriotism, both of which were part of the German Orthodox ethos.

R. Immanuel Jakobovits’s father was a well-known German rabbi, Julius Jakobovits, and yet he was comfortable naming his son after Immanuel Kant.[18] (R. Jakobovits’s Hebrew name was Yisrael.) In Michael Shashar, Lord Jakobovits in Conversation, pp. 10-11, Jakobovits explains (and it is obvious that he did not know the story of Paul Biberfeld’s name):

I may be the only rabbi in the world named after a non-Jew – Immanuel Kant, who was a native of Koenigsberg [where Jakobovits was born] and never left it.[19] The city was also known as “Kantstadt” [the city of Kant]. My father was one of Kant’s admirers, and when I was born he wanted to call me Israel, after one of his uncles, but at that time in Germany it was not acceptable to call a Jewish child Israel. Accordingly, he searched for a name beginning with I and ending with L, and so he gave me Kant’s name, Immanuel.

I don’t know why it was not acceptable in 1920s Germany for a Jewish child’s “secular” name to be Israel. 

Returning to Heschel, when he first came to the United States he was teaching at the Reform Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati. Here is a letter from Louis Ginzberg to Heschel that provides information that until now has not been known.[20]

From this letter, we see that Heschel was in discussions about a job at Dropsie College. Ginzberg urges him to accept this position if offered, and notes that the atmosphere at HUC was not in line with Heschel’s outlook. This never came to be, and Heschel accepted a position at the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1946 where he spent the rest of his life.

I think readers will find the next two letters of interest, as we see that Heschel was in discussions to teach at Yeshiva College and its Bernard Revel Graduate School.[21]

There are two other documents from the Heschel Archives that I would like to call attention to as they are of great historical interest. Unfortunately, they were not available to me when I wrote Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy. First, I must note that a few months ago the Jewish Historical Institute of Warsaw published a wartime list of rabbis in the Warsaw Ghetto. You can see it here. The list is not complete. For one, it does not mention R. Jehiel Jacob Weinberg, whom as I discuss in Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy was very involved in the Warsaw ghetto rabbinate and also served as the head of a committee to assist rabbis and yeshiva students. Also not mentioned in the Hebrew document is R. Kalonymous Kalman Shapiro, the Piaseczno Rebbe.

In a letter dated May 25, 1941, R. Weinberg wrote to Heschel from the Warsaw Ghetto.[22] Here is the envelope that R. Weinberg used. I include both sides of the envelope. As you can see, Heschel was living at Henry Street on the Lower East Side. Also note R. Weinberg’s address on the reverse as well as the Nazi stamp.

Here is the letter in which R. Weinberg asks Heschel for assistance with the emigration of rabbis in the ghetto. Because of German censorship, R. Weinberg’s letter had to be written in German. (We have other letters from R. Weinberg sent from the Ghetto and they too are written in German.)

 

It is interesting to see how R. Weinberg’s letter divides the rabbis between the truly outstanding and the others who, while also praised, are placed on a lower level. (R. Kalonymous Kalman Shapiro does not appear on the list.) While in the end, none of the rabbis were permitted to emigrate, the letter is clearly making a distinction between the rabbis. It is saying that if only limited opportunities to emigrate are available, that the order should be the rabbis in list 1, followed by list 2, and then list 3 and 4. This is a clear case where the greater rabbis were going to be saved first.[23]

The letter we have just seen, which is not addressed to a particular individual, and also the letter below, were sent to a number of people, not specifically to Heschel. You can see this in the letter below by how Heschel’s name is inserted at the beginning. Yet I have never seen other copies, which is why we have to be grateful that Heschel saved everything.

In a letter dated June 15, 1941, R. Weinberg again wrote to Heschel from the Warsaw Ghetto. Here are both sides of the envelope, followed by the letter, and this time R. Weinberg spelled the street name “Henry” correctly.

 

In this letter, R. Weinberg speaks about American Jewish assistance in sending money and food, and helping with emigration from Warsaw. The letter is accompanied by two lists, lengthier than what we saw in the first letter, divided again into what may be the more important figures and the others. But I am not certain if this is the significance of the division here, as there are some differences in how the names are divided in the two letters. 

On the first list here you can see R. Kalonymus Kalman Shapiro at no. 20, with his address — that we know from other sources as well — 5 Dzielna. Other than R. Weinberg, did any of the rabbis on the two lists survive?

* * * * * * *

[1] This letter is difficult to read, as the sage he degrades for informing on Maimonides to the Church may be R. Jonah Gerondi.
[2] See also Ben Yehudah’s dictionary, s.v. חובל; Dov Yarden, “Hovel Nazir Franciscani,” Leshonenu 18 (1953), pp. 179-180.
[3] Perushim u-Fesakim le-Rabbenu Avigdor ha-Tzarfati (Jerusalem, 1996), p. 445.
[4] (Jerusalem, 2009), p. 157 n. 20.
[5] See Leopold Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literature (Berlin, 1845), p. 181.
[6] One of these segulot is that barren women should swallow the foreskin of newly circumcised boys in order to help them conceive a male child. For more sources on this practice, see Zev Wolf Zicherman, Otzar Pelaot ha-Torah, vol. 4, pp. 486-487. R. Yehoshua Mamon, Emek Yehoshua, vol. 1, Yoreh Deah, nos. 31-32, argues that this practice is forbidden according to Torah law. Regarding mohalim being buried with the foreskins they cut off, as a form of protection after death, see R. Joseph Messas, Otzar ha-Mikhtavim, vol. 2, no 986. Regarding women consuming the placenta, see R. Mordechai Lebhar, Menuhat Mordechai, no. 38.
[7] Regarding eating portions of a corpse and ground-up skull of non-Jews, and why rabbis permitted this, see my post here. Repulsive language is also noteworthy. R. Uri Feivish Hamburger, Urim ve-Tumim (London, 1707), p. 8a, first word of line 3, is the only example I know where a certain inappropriate word appears in a sefer. According to this source, even in the early eighteenth century the word was regarded as taboo.

It could be that this word is no longer really regarded as repulsive, only a little unseemly. It even appears in the title of eminent philosopher Harry G. Frankfurt’s #1 New York Times bestselling book, published by Princeton University Press. See here.

While Jews are obligated to speak in a dignified manner, there is an exception when it comes to speaking about idolatry. See Megillah 25b, where among other things it states: “It is permitted for a Jew to say to a gentile: Take your idol and put it in your shin tav [i.e., shet, buttocks].” This is the Koren translation and Soncino and Artscroll translate similarly. Yet I was very surprised to find that in Shabbat 41a Soncino twice translates כנגד פניו של מטה as “near his buttocks”, when it is obvious that the proper translation is “over his genitals”.
[8] Magen ve-Tzinah, p. 6b. Let me take this opportunity to correct a common error. R. Leon Modena called himself Yehudah Aryeh mi-Modena. But in Italian he called himself Leon Modena (not Leon de Modena). Modena himself tells us this. See Hayyei Yehudah, ed. Daniel Carpi (Tel Aviv, 1985), p. 33:

אני חותם עצמי בנוצרי ‘ליאון מודינא דה ויניציאה‘, ולא דה מודינא‘, כי נשארה לנו העיר לכנוי ולא לארץ מולדתנו, וכן תמצא בחבורַי הנוצרים בדפוס

[9] See Lawrence Osborne, Poisoned Embrace: A Brief History of Sexual Pessimism (New York, 1993), p. 128. Regarding Martini, see Richard S. Harvey, “Raymundus Martini and the Pugio Fidei: A Survey of the Life and Works of a Medieval Controversialist” (unpublished masters dissertation, University College London), available here. Shimon Steinmetz pointed out to me that the famous non-Jewish Hebraist Johann Buxtorf (1564-1629), in his discussion of metzitzah, does not express any revulsion. He merely notes that this was not commanded by Moses. See here. It would be interesting to examine how other Christian scholars and Jewish apostates of previous centuries described metzitzah.
[10] She’elot u-Teshuvot Levush Mordechai, no. 30. The expression he uses in the passage, קוראים אחריו מלא, comes from Jer. 12:6.
[11] The letter was published by Aviad Hacohen, “Ha-Tanna mi-New York,” Madaei ha-Yahadut 42 (5763-5764), p. 298.
[12] After I wrote this, I learned that R. Yitchak Roness made the exact same point. See here.
[13] The original is found in the Heschel Archives, Duke University, Box 2, Folder 2.
[14] The original is found in the Heschel Archives, Duke University, Box 10, Folder 3.
[15] The original is found in the Leo Baeck Institute; see here.
[16] See Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition (New York, 1992), p. 480 n. 124. Breuer also mentions that a hasidic synagogue in Leipzig was renamed the “Hindenburg Synagogue.”
[17] See Jacob H. Sinason, The Rebbe : The Story of Rabbi Esriel Glei-Hildesheimer (New York, 1996), p. 128:

[Dr. Eduard Biberfeld] looked at the war against the Czar’s Russian empire as a kind of holy war against the dark forces responsible for the systematic persecution of Jews. He named one of his sons after the victorious German general, just as the Jews in Hellenistic times had called their children after Alexander the great. (Even to the extent of adopting Alexander as the Shem Hakodesh.)

The last sentence means that people with the name Alexander would be called up to the Torah with this name, as they would not have a corresponding Hebrew name as was often the case with German Orthodox Jews who had both a “secular” name and also a Hebrew name.
[18] Regarding Kant, Dr. Isaac Breuer had a picture of him on his wall, together with R. Samson Raphael Hirsch. I asked Breuer’s son, Prof. Mordechai Breuer, if the Holocaust had any effect on how he viewed Kant, who was, after all, an important part of German culture. As I expected, his answer was “no,” and even after the Holocaust the picture of Kant was not taken down.

The pictures on one’s walls obviously reflect an outlook. Alexander Altmann writes as follows about his father, R. Adolf Altmann, Rabbi of Trier:

Significantly, five pictures adorned his study, those of the “Hatam Sofer”, S.R. Hirsch, Graetz, Herzl and Mendelssohn, representing the orthodox tradition, old and new, Jewish History, the Zionist dream, and the philosophical quest respectively. These images had been the formative influences of his youth, and they continued to guide him.

“Adolf Altmann (1879-1944), A Filial Memoir,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 26 (1981), p. 160.
[19] Although often repeated, this is actually incorrect. We know that Kant did leave Koenigsberg on a few occasions, including for his father’s funeral, but he never was more than 30 miles or so from his home. I mentioned this in one of my classes on R. Elijah Benamozegh, see here, while referring to the report the latter only left Livorno twice in his life.
[20] The original is found in the Heschel Archives, Duke University, Box 20, Folder 2.
[21] The originals are found in the Heschel Archives, Duke University, Box 22, Folder 2. These letters are referred to in Edward K. Kaplan, Spiritual Radical: Abraham Joshua Heschel in America, 1940-1972 (New Haven, 2007), pp. 61, 65.
[22] The Weinberg letters in are found in the Heschel Archives, Duke University, Box 22, Folder 2.
[23] For another example where rabbis (and their families) were chosen to be saved before others, see Steven Lapidus, “Memoirs of a Refugee: The Travels and Travails of Rabbi Pinchas Hirschprung,” Canadian Jewish Studies 27 (2019), pp. 73-74. Lapidus quotes from a letter from R. Oscar Fasman, at that time in Ottawa:

Here we are not dealing with only seventy individuals. These seventy embody a wealth of Jewish sacred learning, the like of which can no longer be duplicated, now that the European Yeshivoth are closed. In these people we have that intensive tradition of Torah which buoyed up the spirit of Israel. Thus, we are saving not merely people, but a holy culture which cannot be otherwise preserved. When the U.S. admitted Einstein, and not a million other very honest and good people who asked for admission, the principle was the same. It is certainly horrible to save only a few, but when one is faced with a problem of so ghastly a nature, he must find the courage to rescue what is more irreplaceable.

Disenchantment with Zionism?

Leon Roth and Yeshayahu Leibowitz on the Qibyā Raid

Warren Zev Harvey^[1]

The infamous Qibyā reprisal raid (peʿulat tagmul), led by Major Ariel Sharon, later to become Israel’s Prime Minister, was the first military operation for which the young State of Israel was severely condemned by the UN, major nations, and the world Jewish community. It was carried out on the night of October 14, 1953, in response to many terror attacks by Arab fidāʾiyūn who had infiltrated Israel from Jordan, from the vicinity of the village of Qibyā. In particular, the raid was carried out in response to an attack on the town of Yehud, in which Sultana (Suzanne) Kanias, her three-year-old daughter Shoshana, and her one-and-a-half-year-old son Benny were murdered. Her thirteen-year-old son, Yitzhak, was seriously wounded, and died three years later. The raid was officially named “Operation Shoshana.”

When they saw the Israeli soldiers approaching, most of the men of Qibyā fled, and the village was conquered easily. The Israelis blew up more than 40 buildings, killing 69 residents, mostly women and children.

In the wake of the Qibyā raid, many leading Jewish personages in both Israel and the Diaspora wrote responses to it, probing its ethical and political dimensions.^[2]

Among those responding were two of the foremost Maimonidean philosophers of the 20^th century, Leon Roth (1896-1963) and Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1903-1994), both renowned professors at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Roth’s response (“The Moral Issue”) appeared as a Letter to the Editor in The Jewish Chronicle (London) on 4 December 1953.^[3] Leibowitz’s response (“After Qibyā”) appeared in the Israeli biweekly Beterem on 15 December 1953 and 15 January 1954. Roth’s intervention came near the close of a sustained Anglo-Jewish debate (October 23 – December 11, 1953), initiated by The Jewish Chronicle’s editorial “Right Is Might.”^[4] Participants in this debate included Norman Bentwich (twice),^[5] Selig Brodetsky, Abraham Cohen (twice), Albert Montefiore Hyamson, Harry Samuels, Ernst Akiba Simon,^[6] Sefton David Temkin, and Robert Weltsch. Leibowitz’s response, by contrast, inaugurated a long Israeli debate (December 15 – March 15), whose participants included Rabbi Benjamin (Yehoshua Radler-Feldman / Hatalmi), Yuval Elitzur (twice), Amitai Etzioni, Pepita Haezraḥi (twice), Eliezer Schweid, and Ernst Akiba Simon (twice).

Leon Roth, known in Hebrew as Ḥayyim Yehudah Roth (ח״י רות, Ḥerut = Freedom), was born in London and educated at Oxford.^[7] He was the older brother of the historian Cecil Roth.^[8] During World War I, he served as a lieutenant in the Jewish Legion of the British Army. He co-founded the Department of Philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1928 together with Samuel Hugo Bergmann, and became its first Aḥad Haʿam Professor.^[9] He later served as Rector of the University (1940-1945) and Dean of Humanities (1949-1951). He was the author of many lucidly argued works in English and Hebrew on Greek, medieval, and modern philosophy, including Spinoza, Descartes, and Maimonides (1924) and Judaism: A Portrait (1960).^[10] In July 1951, at the age of fifty-five, he resigned his chair at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and returned to England,^[11] despite efforts by the University and senior figures in the Israeli government to persuade him to remain.^[12] He died suddenly of a heart attack on 2 April 1963 while visiting Wellington, New Zealand, where he is buried.^[13]

Yeshayahu Leibowitz was born in Riga and studied chemistry and medicine at Berlin and Basle. He was the older brother of the Bible scholar, Neḥamah Leibowitz. He moved to Jerusalem in 1935, and taught biochemistry, organic chemistry, and neurophysiology at the Hebrew University. During Israel’s War of Independence, he served as a platoon commander in the Haganah. A selection of his trenchant Hebrew essays on Jewish philosophy appeared in English translation under the title, Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State (1992). He was fifty years old when he wrote his response to the Qibyā raid, an intervention that marked the beginning of his long and influential engagement with the tensions between political sovereignty, religious commitment, and moral responsibility.

In his response to the raid, Roth asked two main questions: (1) Do we as Jews today have an obligation to traditional Jewish values? (2) What manner of human beings could have carried out the Qibyā raid? In his response to the raid, Leibowitz, in effect, engaged with Roth’s two questions, and gave thought-provoking replies. Although Leibowitz did not mention Roth, it seems clear that he had read his response and was in conversation with it – at least with regard to the second installment (January 15), if not also with regard to the first one (December 15).

Roth’s Response

Whereas the debate in the Jewish Chronicle had focused on whether Diaspora Jews should publicly criticize the Israelis, Leon Roth was interested in a different question. His concern, rather, was Judaism itself. “The problem,” he wrote, “is whether…Judaism…can acquiesce in this incident.” The Qibyā raid, he continued, “is the type of action which we have been accustomed to say that Judaism taught the world to condemn and from which Jewry itself has so often suffered.” If we do not censure the Israeli raid, we hypocritically deny our own sacred values and our own past. Roth asked: “Shall we still be able to say that we demand one law for all and that we do not do to others what we do not wish others to do to us? That the lex talionis is not Jewish; that we abhor the spilling of blood, even of animals; that we are commanded in the Pentateuch to care for the non-Jew (‘love the stranger’), as was noted by the rabbis of another day, thirty-six times?… Dare we repeat the old commonplace of which we were once so proud that Jewish courts were so careful to avoid the shedding of blood that they disallowed all circumstantial evidence and in practice all but abolished the death penalty?” In other words, if we abandon our Jewish values, can we still consider ourselves Jews?

This was Roth’s first question. Do we as Jews today have an obligation to traditional Jewish values? However, he also had a second question, namely: What manner of human beings could have carried out the Qibyā raid?

Roth phrased his second question as follows: “The real tragedy is…for the Israelis… What manner of men are these who could contrive this action, or what persons could carry it out? And what manner of men are those who, arrogantly dismissing the moral issue, bemuse themselves and us with their Realpolitik?” If the conduct of the Israelis was not Jewish, then what was it?

Roth left his two questions unanswered. It was up to Leibowitz to answer them.

Leibowitz’s Response

Like Roth, Leibowitz begins his response to the Qibyā raid by raising the question of our relationship today as Jews to our traditional values. However, he does not speak simply about “Jews,” but Jews in the State of Israel. The “true religious and moral significance” of our Jewish political independence, he argued, is that it is “a test” or “a trial” (Hebrew: nissayon, like the nisyonot of Abraham) of our traditional values. In the Diaspora, Leibowitz explained with wry irony, we enjoyed “spiritual benefits from conditions of exile, foreign rule, and political impotence.” We spoke well about morality, but our morality “was never tested.” Diaspora existence (Hebrew: galut) “was a form of escapism.” True, we did not engage in mass murder, but we did not have an army to do so. We did not have the power to be moral. We could suffer for our values, but could not act on their behalf. “Now we are being tested.”

The notion that morality presupposes power is of course Nietzschean. But not only Nietzschean. The distinguished Israeli philosopher of education, Ernst Akiba Simon, who was the only personage who participated in the debates on Qibyā in both the Jewish Chronicle and Beterem, called Leibowitz’s attention to a relevant passage in Rabbi Judah Halevi’s philosophic dialogue, The Kuzari, I, 113-114.^[14] In that passage, Halevi’s rabbinic protagonist boasts to the King of the Khazars that the Christians and the Muslims are engaged in terrible wars, but we Jews are virtuous, meek, and do not kill anyone. The King immediately retorts: “Your humility is not by choice! As soon as you have a moment of triumph, you’ll kill too [idhā aṣabtum ẓafra, qataltum]!”^[15]

Again like Roth, Leibowitz distinguishes between our traditional values and Realpolitik. It is possible to find a moral justification for the Qibyā raid, but “we shouldn’t try to do so,” because it was an atrocity (zevaʿah). He compared the Qibyā raid to the raid on the city of Shechem by Jacob’s sons (Genesis 34).^[16] The sons gave a moral justification for their act, saying: “Should one deal with our sister as with a harlot?!” (ibid., v. 31). Nonetheless, Jacob cursed the act, saying: “Simeon and Levi…weapons of violence their kinship… Cursed be their anger… I will scatter them” (ibid., 49:5-7). There are acts, insisted Leibowitz, that may be morally or politically justifiable, but are accursed. He concluded his response to the Qibyā raid with the chilling words: “We may find ourselves erecting our Third Commonwealth upon the curse of Jacob our Father.”

Leibowitz also engaged with Roth’s second question, “What manner of men are these who could contrive this action,” carry it out, or defend it?^[17] In his own response, Leibowitz asks: “From where have these youths come who felt no inhibition…to perform the atrocity?” Leibowitz, unlike Roth, gives an explicit answer. He replies: “They were nurtured on the values of a Zionist education… Their conduct is among the consequences of applying the religious category of holiness [Hebrew: qedushah] to social, national, and political interests… The concept of holiness – which is absolute and beyond all categories of human thought and evaluation – is transferred to the profane. From a religious standpoint only God is holy, and only His imperative is absolute. All human values…are profane… Country, state, and nation… are never holy… They are always subject to criticism.” The moment secular Zionist education transformed the old religious categories, like “holiness,” into social, national, or political categories, it created a generation of Israelis who did not have the ability to criticize their government. They held the State and its policies to be sacred. The secularization of religious concepts is accordingly dangerous and can be fatal. Leibowitz never tired of preaching: Only God and His commandments are “holy” or absolute. The orders of David Ben-Gurion or Ariel Sharon should always be subject to criticism. It was, according to Leibowitz, the secularizing Zionist education that made possible the atrocity of Qibyā.

Disenchantment with Zionism?

Both Roth and Leibowitz devoted decades to the creation of a renewed Hebrew culture in Zion. In the years before the proclamation of the State of Israel, both lectured and wrote extensively on questions of government, citizenship, and education with an eye to preparing Palestinian Jews for independence. Yet both were controversial personalities, who were at times accused of anti-Zionism and even treason. When in 1947 Roth advocated the extension of the British Mandate in Palestine, he was widely denounced as a traitor.^[18] Roth had argued that the required conditions for Jewish independence had not yet been achieved, and the premature proclamation of the Jewish State would necessarily lead to a bloody war with the Arabs whose end could not be foreseen. Similarly, when in the 1980s Leibowitz advised young Israeli soldiers to refuse to serve in the occupied territories,^[19] he was widely denounced as a traitor.

Did Roth or Leibowitz ever become disenchanted with Zionism?

Roth left Israel in the summer of 1951. His abrupt departure (Hebrew: yeridah) was related to his disappointment with the nationalistic policies of the newly proclaimed State, in particular the discrimination against its Arab citizens. However, he never stated that he was disenchanted with cultural Zionism.

After his departure from Israel, Roth lectured throughout the world on the subject of Judaism, emphasizing its ethical and universalist dimensions. In his classic 1960 book, Judaism: A Portrait, he does not discuss Zionism at all. He avoids the subject entirely.^[20] However, he does discuss the Land of Israel. Although he criticizes Rabbi Judah Halevi’s version of Judaism, which he characterizes as “a mystical and geographical nationalism,”^[21] he stresses that when Halevi himself, like the rabbinic protagonist of his Kuzari, ascended to the Land of Israel, he did so ultimately because of a “moral ideal,” that is, “he journeyed to the Holy Land in order to live the life of holiness.”^[22] Roth himself, while rejecting “mystical,” “geographical,” and Realpolitikal Zionism, remained faithful to the Zionism of his youth, a Zionism based on moral idealism and holiness. The Land of Israel, he wrote, “is the land where Judaism was begotten and flourished, and where its holy men, under the influence of the divine spirit, lived the life of holiness.”^[23] Nonetheless, he chose to conclude his Judaism: A Portrait with a paean to Jewish universalism: “As God is found everywhere, so man can live everywhere. He can survive even in the inside of a whale. And just as God can put man there, so from there can man seek for God, and so too can God find man [Jonah 2:1-11]. ‘Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations’ [Psalms 90:1].”^[24] Not Jerusalem, not London, but the Lord is our dwelling place.

As for Leibowitz, he was very often asked if he had become disappointed with Zionism, and he always gave the same answer. No, he replied, all his expectations for Zionism have been fulfilled. He never expected Zionism to solve our moral or religious problems. Zionism, for him, was simply a program to achieve Jewish political independence in the Land of Israel.^[25] “We were fed up being ruled by the gentiles,” he used to say. Zionism, as he understood it, was intended to provide a political arena in which individual Jews could struggle for their own diverse values and aspirations. It was intended to provide only the arena, not the values and aspirations.

Leibowitz may never have become disappointed in Zionism, but there were, I believe, three times when he became disappointed in Israelis.

The first disappointment came right at the beginning of the State. In the years preceding its proclamation, Leibowitz had called upon the Palestinian rabbinic authorities to prepare Jewish law for the governance of a modern state (hilkhot medinah). He entreated them to enact bold halakhic rulings concerning government, technology, and economics, subjects which had understandably been neglected in the Diaspora. However, after the establishment of the State, it became quite clear that neither the rabbis nor the religious public were desirous of enacting such rulings. This lack of a will for halakhic initiative on the part of religious Israelis profoundly disappointed him.

The second disappointment was the Qibyā raid. Leibowitz became disappointed in the secular (or secularizing) Zionist education, but still believed that those Israeli youth who were educated in the religious Zionist schools were immune to the distorted nationalism that he had perceived among the perpetrators of the Qibyā raid.

The third disappointment came after the Six-Day War with the radicalization of the Religious Zionist public. This was surely Leibowitz’s greatest disappointment. The religious Zionist youth, reared on torah u-mitzvot, who he had thought should be immune to aberrant nationalism, had now become the most nationalistic and least critical of all sectors in Israeli society. This was a hard blow that left Leibowitz staggered and reeling for the rest of his life.

Qibyā and Us

Written more than seventy years ago, the responses of Leon Roth and Yeshayahu Leibowitz to the Qibyā raid confront difficult existential questions which remain pertinent in today’s Israel and for today’s Zionism. The admonitions of those two maverick Maimonideans have not lost their relevance. Far from it, they have become more urgent.

Appendix 1

Reproduced here is the original page featuring Leon Roth’s Letter to the Editor (“Professor Roth on the Moral Issue”), The Jewish Chronicle (December 4, 1953): 21.

Appendix 2:

Reproduced here is the full exchange of correspondence between Leon Roth and Sir Leon Simon following Roth’s public remarks in the United States in June 1947 opposing the proposed partition of Palestine. The documents include Simon’s letter conveying the protest of the American Zionist Emergency Council, Roth’s reply rejecting the accusations, and related communications. The texts are reproduced here in full, without alteration, from Jan Katzew, “Leon Roth – His Life and Thought: The Place of Ethics in Jewish Education” (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997), Appendix, pp. 355-358.

Appendix 3

Reproduced here is Leibowitz’s original article “After Qibyā,” Beterem, no. 189 (15 December 1953): 7 (Hebrew).

Appendix 4

Reproduced here is Leibowitz’s follow-up article, “Letter – Commentaries on Qibyā,” Beterem, no. 191 (15 January 54): 21 (Hebrew).^[26]

Appendix 5:

Reproduced here is the Hebrew text of “After Qibyā” as it appears in Yeshayahu Leibowitz’s 1954 book Torah u-Mitzvot ba-Zeman ha-Zeh. Passages reproduced from the original Beterem article of 15 December 1953 (see above, Appendix 3) are printed in plain font. Material drawn from the follow-up article in Beterem of 15 January 1954 (see above, Appendix 4), written in reply to Pepita Haezraḥi, appears in bold. Material first added in Torah u-Mitzvot ba-Zeman ha-Zeh is underlined.

The original December 15 text was copied in Torah u-Mitzvot ba-Zeman ha-Zeh with only minor changes; e.g., “emet, lefanim nahagnu” instead of “emet, anaḥnu nahagnu”; or “maʿaseh zevaʿah shel hereg” instead of “maʿaseh yeʾush shel hereg.”

The material deriving from the January 15 article was incorporated in it with many stylistic changes; e.g. “ha-problematikah ha-musarit ha-maḥridah” instead of “ha-problematikah ha-musarit ha-gedolah”; or the placement of “ha-hadgamah, etc.,” before “maʿaseh Shekhem, etc.,” instead of vice versa. It will be noted that Leibowitz’s well-known criticism of the secularization of religious concepts seems to have had its origin in his reply to Pepita Haezraḥi. His remarks about “tzur yisraʾel” repeat an urban legend. In point of fact, the dictum mentioning tzur yisraʾel was included already in the early draft of the Declaration of Independence by Mordecai Beham and Harry Davidowitz, written around April 22, 1948.^[27]

The controversial paragraph on the Jerusalem “tzaddiqim,” added in Torah u-Mitzvot ba-Zeman ha-Zeh, illustrates the chasm in those days between Leibowitz and the Hebrew University “peace camp,” which consisted of famed professors like Samuel Hugo Bergmann, Martin Buber, Judah Leon Magnes, Gershom Scholem, Ernst Akiba Simon.” Roth also was not usually considered to be one of the members of that camp. See Bergmann’s article cited above, note 7.

The final sentence originally read: “al naqim et beytenu,” etc., which is stronger, simpler, and less preachy than the revised version.

After Qibyā

The text was also translated by the philosopher Eliezer Goldman on the basis of later versions, while taking into consideration the earlier ones, as published in Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 185-190, 277.

Appendix 6

Halakhic Engagements with the Qibyā Raid and the Renewal of the Laws of War

By Menachem Butler

The present appendix situates the halakhic discussion of the Qibyā raid within the context of recent scholarly efforts to recover, contextualize, and critically assess Jewish legal discourse on sovereignty, military service, and war in the State of Israel. It does not seek to adjudicate the halakhic permissibility of Qibyā, but rather to map the emergence, structure, and internal tensions of the halakhic discourse the episode generated.

Among the more recent of these scholarly efforts is the Milḥemet Mitzvah series, edited by Aviad Hacohen, Yitzchak Avi Roness, and myself. This multi-volume project is devoted to the halakhic, historical, and ideological foundations of military obligation in modern Israel, bringing together newly translated primary sources alongside contemporary scholarship in order to reconstruct the formative debates through which categories such as milḥemet mitzvah, collective obligation, and the relationship between Torah study and national defense were rearticulated under conditions of Jewish statehood.^[28] A forthcoming volume in the Milḥemet Mitzvah series will extend this inquiry to the Qibyā raid and its halakhic aftermath, situating the episode within the longer arc of post-1948 Jewish legal reflection on war, retaliation, and civilian harm. Whereas the volumes published to date focus primarily on the War of Independence and its immediate halakhic reverberations, the events of October 1953 mark a subsequent – and in many respects decisive – moment in the development of modern halakhic thought on warfare. The halakhic debates of 1948 were largely oriented toward questions of obligation, authority, and participation in collective defense; Qibyā, by contrast, compelled a direct confrontation with issues that had previously remained largely implicit, including the legitimacy of retaliatory violence, the halakhic status of civilian populations, and the reconciliation of inherited legal norms with the operational realities of modern warfare.

At the center of the halakhic discourse on Qibyā stands Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli’s extended responsum, which quickly became the unavoidable point of reference for subsequent Religious Zionist engagement with the episode and, more broadly, with questions of war, responsibility, and state violence.^[29] Written in close proximity to the events of 1953, it constitutes one of the earliest systematic attempts to evaluate Qibyā through halakhic reasoning rather than through moral intuition or political necessity. Its enduring influence lies not only in its substantive conclusions, but in the methodological seriousness with which it applies classical legal sources to a modern military operation involving civilian casualties. As the literature surveyed here demonstrates, the responsum quickly assumed a canonical role, shaping subsequent Religious Zionist halakhic treatments of military force and the limits of legitimate violence under conditions of Jewish sovereignty.

Beyond ethical, philosophical, or political reactions, Qibyā also generated a sustained halakhic discourse that sought to situate the events within inherited legal categories while testing their elasticity in the face of modern military power. This body of writing reflects neither straightforward apologetics nor wholesale repudiation, but a concerted effort to articulate norms of legitimacy and restraint within a legal tradition long shaped by political powerlessness. Rabbi Yisraeli’s responsum first appeared in Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, a journal founded in the early years of the State of Israel by leading figures within the Religious Zionist movement to confront, in a systematic halakhic register, the unprecedented challenges posed by Jewish sovereignty.^[30] Conceived as a forum for the renewal of hilkhot medinah – of the laws of statehood – the journal brought together senior rabbinic authorities from Israel and the Diaspora to deliberate questions of governance, security, agriculture, economics, and public authority that had long remained underdeveloped in the absence of Jewish sovereignty. Under Rabbi Yisraeli’s editorial leadership, Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah rejected both apologetics and abstract theorization, insisting instead on rigorous engagement with concrete realities and on the integration of classical halakhic mastery with intimate knowledge of contemporary conditions.

The programmatic ambitions of Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah were articulated with unusual clarity by Rabbi Yisraeli himself in a contemporaneous interview reflecting on the aims and methods of the forum he edited.^[31] From the outset, he rejected the assumption – prevalent even among committed religious thinkers – that “the laws of state and society do not exist at all within the Torah,” insisting instead that Jewish law is capable of sustaining “ordinary political life” without recourse to miracles or messianic suspension. Against both those who regarded the state as a theological aberration and those who treated halakhah as relevant only to the private sphere, Rabbi Yisraeli framed the task of the forum as reconstructive rather than apologetic: to recover areas of halakhah long relegated to the category of “law for the messianic era” and to clarify them through sustained engagement with classical sources and contemporary realities alike. It was precisely this commitment – to determining positions “not on the basis of moral agitation or political excitement alone, but on the basis of solid halakhic sources” – that governed the inclusion of the Qibyā raid among the journal’s most urgent and controversial subjects. Read against this backdrop, Rabbi Yisraeli’s responsum on Qibyā emerges not as an exceptional intervention prompted by political pressure, but as a paradigmatic test case within the programmatic framework of Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, oriented toward collective responsibility and the exercise of coercive power by a Jewish state. Published as “The Qibyā Incident in Light of Halakhah,”^[32] the responsum exemplifies the journal’s ambition to subject even the most morally fraught acts of state violence to sustained halakhic scrutiny rather than rhetorical evasion. In this capacity, it functions as the foundational text for the halakhic discussion of Qibyā and as a formative intervention in the development of Religious Zionist legal thought on war and sovereignty.

A crucial caveat is therefore in order. The halakhic engagement with Qibyā examined here unfolded largely in advance of, and largely independent from, the broader moral reckoning with the operation in Israeli public discourse. As Efrat Seckbach has shown, Qibyā was framed for decades within Israeli collective memory as a tragic, defensive, or even necessary act, and only much later came to be stabilized as a paradigmatic moral transgression.^[33] The early rabbinic and halakhic discussions surveyed in this appendix thus did not emerge in response to sustained public condemnation, nor were they shaped by a settled moral consensus regarding the operation’s illegitimacy. Rather, they developed within a discursive environment in which the moral meaning of Qibyā remained fluid, contested, and largely underdetermined in the public sphere. This temporal and discursive disjunction is analytically significant: it cautions against retrojecting later ethical judgments onto early halakhic reasoning and underscores that these responsa were formulated in a context where halakhic analysis functioned not as post hoc legitimation, but as an initial site of normative articulation under conditions of unresolved moral uncertainty.

Unlike Professor Leon Roth’s moral indictment or Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz’s theological warning, Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli’s intervention is deliberately juridical: it insists that Qibyā be evaluated as a matter of halakhic classification rather than moral expression or prophetic protest. He opens his analysis by sharply delimiting the scope of halakhic categories traditionally invoked to justify violence outside the context of war. He examines, and ultimately rejects, the applicability of rodef, judicial punishment, and collective liability, emphasizing that none can justify the foreseeable killing of non-combatants, especially children. This refusal to rely on expansive constructions of culpability constitutes an important boundary-setting move and signals resistance to dissolving halakhic distinctions under the pressure of political exigency.

Having rejected these alternatives, Rabbi Yisraeli treats milḥamah as the sole halakhic category within which the events of Qibyā can be assessed. War, in his account, is governed by norms distinct from those that regulate interpersonal violence or judicial punishment: it is structured by collective agency and strategic necessity rather than individualized culpability. On the basis of classical discussions of siege warfare and national defense, he argues that halakhah does not require absolute differentiation between combatants and civilians where such distinctions cannot be operationally maintained. Yet this claim is narrowly framed. Civilian harm is neither trivialized nor treated as halakhically neutral, and Qibyā is not presented as unproblematic. Instead, the operation is situated within ezrat Yisrael miyad tzar – assistance to Israel against an enemy threat – understood as a form of defensive war oriented toward deterrence and protection. This classification permits halakhic authorization of the operation while leaving intact a residue of moral unease that resists full juridical resolution.

The most consequential element of the responsum lies in Rabbi Yisraeli’s treatment of milḥemet mitzvah. He rejects the claim that defensive war is obligatory solely by virtue of pikuaḥ nefesh, noting that halakhah does not, as a rule, require one to endanger one’s life for the sake of others. To address this problem, he recasts defensive war as a binding collective obligation, grounded not in emergency rescue but in biblical models of national preservation and reprisal. In doing so, he relocates the normative basis of military action from individual ethical calculus to communal responsibility, thereby providing a conceptual structure that would prove influential for later halakhic discussions of warfare. Yet the responsum does not resolve its own tensions. Rabbi Yisraeli repeatedly signals unease and declines to subsume Qibyā under familiar categories of punishment or self-defense. The argument moves between legal authorization and acknowledged moral disquiet, registering the pressure placed on inherited halakhic frameworks by the conditions of modern, state-sponsored violence.

Subsequent halakhic and scholarly treatments of Qibyā have largely proceeded from Rabbi Yisraeli’s responsum.^[34] These later authors have extended, modified, or even contest his conclusions, but they all have done so within the conceptual framework he set in place.^[35] The responsum thus operates less as a conclusive ruling than as a point of orientation, shaping the terms in which questions of halakhic authorization and the moral burdens of sovereignty would thereafter be posed.

The reception of Rabbi Yisraeli’s responsum has been mapped most systematically by Professor Gerald J. Blidstein,^[36] who reconstructs the emergence of a post-Qibyā discourse in which Rabbi Yisraeli’s analysis furnished later decisors with a conceptual grammar for addressing civilian harm within the logic of war. By relocating the discussion from individualized self-defense to the framework of collective warfare, the responsum made it possible to engage questions of civilian casualties without negating civilian status – a shift that both constrained and expanded the scope of permissible violence. Blidstein devotes particular attention to the post-Qibyā expansion of rodef. Whereas classical halakhah construes the rodef narrowly, later writers increasingly attribute derivative responsibility to civilian populations through functional analogies that blur the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. What concerns Blidstein is not merely the expansion itself, but the manner in which it proceeds: descriptive claims about the realities of modern warfare are allowed to perform normative work without explicit halakhic argument. This slippage between descriptive realism and legal authorization constitutes the central ethical risk identified in Blidstein’s essay. Modern warfare undoubtedly challenges classical distinctions, but difficulty alone does not license their abandonment. When empirical claims dictate legal conclusions, halakhah risks mirroring military practice rather than governing it; Qibyā thus becomes emblematic of the moral hazards confronting halakhic reasoning under conditions of sovereignty.^[37]

A wider historical and jurisprudential framing is offered by Professor Arye Edrei, who situates Qibyā within a longue durée narrative of halakhic reactivation. In his account, Jewish law entered modernity with the laws of war largely dormant, and the advent of sovereignty transformed war from an abstract category into an unavoidable halakhic reality.^[38] Within this framework, Qibyā marks a shift from questions of the obligation to wage war (jus ad bellum) to questions of how war is to be conducted (jus in bello).^[39] Rabbi Yisraeli’s responsum exemplifies this shift through its methodological boldness: classical categories are not merely applied but reconfigured in order to address deterrence, civilian entanglement, and asymmetric warfare. Edrei emphasizes the ambivalence of this renewal – necessary for halakhic relevance yet destabilizing long-standing assumptions about civilian immunity and proportionality. He further traces the interpretive trajectory from Qibyā to later conflicts, particularly Lebanon, showing how early interpretive decisions acquired precedential force. While acknowledging internal pluralism and critique, Edrei argues that sovereignty established a shared framework in which war became central to halakhic self-understanding, thereby exposing halakhic discourse to the pressures inherent in regulating state violence.

The internal complexity of Rabbi Yisraeli’s position is examined by his disciple, Rav Prof. Neria Guttel, who situates the Qibyā responsum within Rabbi Yisraeli’s broader intellectual biography and his sustained involvement in the institutions of Religious Zionism.^[40] Rav Guttel opens with a polemical claim: Rabbi Yisraeli has been remembered within the movement through what he describes as a “rather flat, highly plastic, and one-dimensional image,” whereas his actual halakhic posture was “far more complex.” This mischaracterization, Rav Guttel argues, obscures the disciplined character of Rabbi Yisraeli’s legal reasoning.^[41] In the case of Qibyā, his refusal to extend the categories of rodef or collective punishment is presented not as moral hesitation but as fidelity to halakhic boundaries that resist ideological inflation. At the same time, Rabbi Yisraeli’s decision to legitimate the operation within the framework of war reflects his acceptance of what Rav Guttel elsewhere describes as the inescapable responsibilities generated by sovereignty and institutional participation. For Rav Guttel, this combination of legal authorization and acknowledged discomfort belongs to a broader pattern of rebuke issued from within loyalty rather than from withdrawal. The responsum thus exemplifies a mode of halakhic engagement that neither sanctifies state violence nor dissociates itself from it, and Rav Guttel cautions that later readings which extract permissive conclusions while neglecting this internal tension risk reproducing precisely the flattening of Rabbi Yisraeli’s thought that his essay seeks to correct.^[42]

A more narrowly focused doctrinal analysis is offered by Yitzchak Avi Roness, who examines Rabbi Yisraeli’s reconceptualization of milḥemet mitzvah. Challenging the grounding of defensive war in pikuaḥ nefesh, Roness argues that Rabbi Yisraeli instead relocates it within a theory of collective obligation rooted in national preservation.^[43] This move expands the halakhic space for legitimating military action while simultaneously exposing the ideological dimensions of interpretive choice. Roness further shows how this reconceptualization is operationalized in Qibyā, where retaliatory action is legitimated as part of an ongoing defensive war rather than as an immediate act of rescue; while enhancing doctrinal coherence and halakhic relevance, the shift weakens the internal tools available for critique, increasing reliance on strategic judgment and assessments of national interest.

Taken together, this body of halakhic literature demonstrates that the moral and political unease elicited by Qibyā was neither external to Jewish legal thought nor resolved outside it, but was internalized, debated, and reformulated within halakhic categories themselves. Far from functioning merely as a vehicle of retrospective legitimation, halakhic discourse became a sustained arena of normative contestation, in which inherited legal frameworks were pressed to account for the realities of sovereign violence, retaliation, and civilian harm. Readers approaching Qibyā primarily through ethical theory or political critique may therefore profit from attending to these halakhic engagements, not as exercises in doctrinal closure, but as serious and often unsettled attempts to articulate responsibility, restraint, and moral remainder within a legal tradition newly compelled to confront the burdens of political power.

Appendix 7

Ariel Sharon on the Qibyā Operation:

A Contemporaneous Record of the 1965 Eshkol-Sharon Meeting

By Menachem Butler

The following is an annotated English translation of an Historical Document from the 1965 meeting between Levi Eshkol and Ariel Sharon, as recorded contemporaneously by Eshkol and published by Arnon Lamfrom and Ze’ev Elron.^[44]

A revealing retrospective window onto the logic of Qibyā is provided by this document. Speaking twelve years after the operation, amid a bitter intra-Zionist political struggle, Sharon rejected the claim that Qibyā marked a departure from prior practice, maintaining instead that most earlier reprisal actions had likewise targeted civilians and that the later distinction between military and civilian objects was largely retrospective. The novelty of Qibyā, in his account, lay not in intent but in its successful outcome: the seizure of an entire village, the large-scale demolition of houses, and the operation’s deterrent impact on the Arab population, its achievement of security, and its “restoration of honor to the IDF. Civilian deaths are acknowledged but minimized: he was aware of no more than a dozen men killed in the conquest of the village, but unaware of the deaths of the many women, children, and others who were hiding silently in the houses. Read against the contemporaneous responses of Leon Roth and Yeshayahu Leibowitz, this document does not resolve the moral problem of Qibyā so much as confirm its depth, exemplifying – without euphemism – the subordination of ethical language to state power, deterrence, and prestige that Roth feared Judaism could not survive and that Leibowitz denounced as the sacralization of the profane.

Historical Document

Ariel Sharon came on the initiative and with the knowledge of the Chief of Staff [Yitzhak Rabin].

He wishes to set matters on their factual truth. Ben-Gurion’s declaration concerning Qibyā motivates him.

I [Sharon] carried out the act and reported it. This group [Rafi] is capable of anything. The tendency is not a matter concerning Pinhas Lavon. The matter is directed against civilian objects, to bind the government’s hands from action. On the other hand, there is a feeling that we are not responding [today] sufficiently and adequately. The public expects action. Ben-Gurion’s intention is [on the one hand] to bind [the government], and [on the other hand] in order to cause the government to fail.

At a house gathering in Nazareth, [Shimon] Peres said that the army and the paratroopers [–]. He spoke of their contributions [operations?] and also related many military secrets. This is not fair.

And now to the matter of Qibyā. Ben-Gurion says that in his time operations were carried out against military objects, and that Pinhas Lavon is responsible for the operation against civilian objects. He [Sharon] examined and found that this is not correct and not true. Moshe Dayan also scoffs. It is true that in that period [before the establishment of Unit 101 in the summer of 1953] these operations simply did not succeed. There was an operation against Sharafat [Sharfaṭ] near Jerusalem, 7.2.1951. The mukhtar’s house and additional houses were blown up. On 8.2.1951, in Dir Bṭut [Balut], an attack on civilians that did not succeed.

25.9.1951, an attack on a-Ṣafi – Dead Sea, did not succeed, although five civilians were killed.

6.1.1952, three attacks: I. Beit Jala, II. Beit Furiq, III. Idna – Beit Govrin.

23.1.1953, two attacks on Falama near Qalqilya.

18.5.1953 [19.5.1953], operations against the village of Husan near the approaches [Mavo] of Beitar. An operation against Far‘un near Tulkarm. An operation near Midya near Ben Shemen. And against Bedouin civilians in the south along the Beersheba–Hebron road.

Almost all the operations were not carried out properly. Most of the operations in those days were carried out against civilians. Both Tawfiq [1960] and Nuqeib [1962] were also operations against civilians.

Precisely against military objects did operations begin in the days of Pinhas Lavon: the raid on the Legion camp at ‘Azzun – [east of] Qalqilya, after the murder of a Jew in Ra‘anana, end of June 1954. The aggressive operation against an Egyptian position near Kissufim.

Ariel [Sharon] was wounded there.

A third operation – the kidnapping of Legion personnel at Beit ‘Ur al-Tahta, Lower Beit Horon, near Latrun. Another operation against the police station at Tzurif in January 1955 was not carried out; we were turned back en route because of new information. In the days of Pinhas Lavon there was strict insistence on meticulous execution. He himself received reprimands for deviation. There was a severe prohibition on using fire in houses prior to inspection with flashlights.

And now Qibyā.

He, Ariel, planned and was responsible for the execution. He was on site. He led the men. He checked the houses, gave instructions what to blow up. There were [?] five names there. The order was no different from other orders: to blow up the maximum number of houses and to strike men, exactly as in all orders for previous operations. The difference was that this time the operation succeeded, and incidentally it had a first-degree impact on the Arabs, as well as on the IDF – which had almost previously lost its prestige – and also on the Arabs. The Arabs were not accustomed to large and successful operations on our part. They had become accustomed to the IDF coming and blowing up some house at the edge of the village. This time the IDF came, took control of the village. There was a deathly silence in the village. There were 10–12 fatalities, all during the occupation and penetration action. This was reported already in the morning [after the operation].

But 40–50 [people] were blown up in houses. Apparently some of the inhabitants hid in the houses; we did not see them. In one case, an explosives officer heard the crying of a child after he had already ignited the fuse. He endangered himself, jumped into the house, and took the girl out. After that, no people were seen.

I was summoned to Ben-Gurion three or four days later in Jerusalem. I reported on the operation. He was satisfied with the operation and said: “It is not important what the world will say. What is important is what the Arabs in the region will think.” The conversation ended.

A month before he resigned – his final resignation – he summoned me and asked whether perhaps I remember who gave the order in the Qibyā operation. I answered that I do not remember who gave the order; I remember to whom I reported the operation. He, Ben-Gurion, said: “I was ashamed of that operation.” And Ariel said: “I do not know what your view of it is today. I will remind you of what you said to me then.” I repeated his words and explained to him how the operation was carried out. Ben-Gurion did not retract his words and said that he had been ashamed at the time.

In any event, Ben-Gurion knows the truth and heard the description from me, and the things that he, Ben-Gurion, said then [thus!], 1963. He was also angered to hear my words.

And further: all along, the situation and the manner of searching for a way against Pinhas Lavon influenced me [Sharon]. Moshe Dayan also mocks the way and the method of theirs [of the Rafi people] to seek means to blacken Pinhas Lavon.

1. This article is based on a talk given at the Limmud Festival, Birmingham UK, December 2025. A Hebrew version appeared in Yashar, 21 January 2026, available here. See also my more extensive discussion: Warren Zev Harvey, “After Qibyā: Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Leon Roth, and Neḥamah Leibowitz,” in Aviezer Ravitzky, ed., Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Between Conservatism and Radicalism: Reflections on His Philosophy (Jerusalem: Van Leer Institute, 2007), 354-365 (Hebrew), available here. I thank Mr. Menachem Butler for providing links to various relevant materials, adding much historical and bibliographical information to the notes, and authoring the important Appendices 6 and 7. ↑
2. See Efrat Seckbach, “The Qibyā Operation in Israeli Public Memory, 1953-1985,” Iyunim Bitkumat Israel, no. 27 (2017): 274-301 (Hebrew), available here, who documents that the dominant Israeli public opinion initially tended to see the operation as justified, minimized civilian casualties, and avoided moral evaluation, but from the mid-1970s onward, in the wake of the Yom Kippur and Lebanon Wars, Qibyā came to be remembered as a paradigmatic moral transgression.On the halakhic dimensions of the Qibyā raid, including contemporary rabbinic responses and their later reception, see Appendix 6, by Menachem Butler, “Halakhic Engagements with the Qibyā Raid and the Renewal of the Laws of War.” ↑
3. Leon Roth, “Letter – Professor Roth on the Moral Issue,” The Jewish Chronicle (4 December 1953): 21, reprinted in Raphael Loewe, “Note,” in Leon Roth, Is There a Jewish Philosophy? Rethinking Fundamentals (Oxford: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1999), xviii-xx, available here. See also below, Appendix 1. The British discussion of the Qibyā raid was exacerbated by the intervention of Dr. Cyril Garbett, Archbishop of York: “Archbishop Accuses Israel: ‘Cruel Massacre’ of Arab Villagers,” The Jewish Chronicle (13 November 1953). The Board of Deputies of British Jews issued an immediate reply, rejecting his censure as “provocative and one-sided” (ibid.). ↑
4. “Right Is Might,” The Jewish Chronicle (October 23, 1953): 16. David F. Kessler was the Chronicle’s managing director and John Maurice Shaftesley its editor. On the editorial’s contemporary reception, see David Cesarani, The Jewish Chronicle and Anglo-Jewry, 1841–1991 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 206, who shows it was widely regarded as an important moral statement. It was praised by Ernst Akiba Simon and Selig Brodetsky, and endorsed by Rabbi Leo Baeck who personally congratulated Kessler. It was sharply criticized by the Israeli Embassy in London, although Ambassador Eliahu Elath later conceded to Kessler that the criticism had been warranted. ↑
5. In his first intervention (“Israel Border Conflict – The Deputies’ Statement, 23 October 1953), Bentwich repudiated an apologetic statement issued by the Board of Deputies in response to the Foreign Office’s censure of Israel, and he criticized the Qibyā action as “a shocking indefensible act which violates the fundamental ethic of Judaism.” In his second intervention (“Professor Bentwich’s Reply,” 27 November 1953), he responded directly to Rabbi Abraham Cohen, President of the Board of Deputies. He rejected his claim (20 November 1953) that condemnation of the reprisal raid was permissible only for those who could swear they themselves would not retaliate in a similar situation, and he insisted that he himself would oppose the Qibyā action “in any circumstances.” Roth’s December 4 letter continued Bentwich’s criticism of Cohen’s opinion that although the Qibyā action was morally wrong, Jews should not hasten to condemn it. ↑
6. Simon, Professor of Education at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, was in England in October 1953 on a lecture tour under the auspices of the Leeds Zionist Association and the Zionist Federation. In his lectures Simon emphasized the tension between Jewish moral consciousness and political existence, warning that “Israel will not solve your educational problem – you must solve it yourself,” and calling for “a new equilibrium between Jewish consciousness and Jewish existence.” See “Needs of Jewish Education: Professor Simon’s Lectures,” The Jewish Chronicle (October 9, 1953): 5. ↑
7. See Raphael Loewe, “Memoir about Leon Roth,” in Raphael Loewe, ed., Studies in Rationalism, Judaism and Universalism – In Memory of Leon Roth (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966), 1-11, available here. ↑
8. See Irene Roth, Cecil Roth, Historian Without Tears: A Memoir (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1982), 114, for an anecdote from Irene and Cecil Roth’s 1935 visit to Palestine. When in Safed, Cecil Roth mentioned to “an elderly man clad in a long silk caftan” that he had a brother in Jerusalem named Leon: “[T]he man grew excited. ‘Do you mean Professor Leon Roth, the philosopher?’ he said in surprise. ‘How is it possible that you did not say so at once? To have such an eminent scholar in one’s family and not to proclaim it from the housetops – this I cannot understand.’ Then he continued, ‘I, too, am something of a philosopher. I have published a number of pamphlets on the subject.’ Cecil had never heard of these pamphlets, but he was amazed at the fact that their author, a complete stranger and seemingly far removed from western Jewish thought, should know of his family.” See also Cecil Roth, “Types Seen in Palestine,” Opinion: A Journal of Jewish Life and Letters 5, no. 12 (October 1935): 13-15; and idem, “Jerusalem, Paradise of Ethnologist,” The Palestine Post (30 April 1935), reporting a visit to his brother in Jerusalem. ↑
9. See Samuel Hugo Bergmann, “On the Figure of Prof. H. Y. Roth,” Haaretz Literary Supplement (12 April 1963): 3 (Hebrew); and Neve Gordon and Gabriel Motzkin, “Between Universalism and Particularism: The Origins of the Philosophy Department at the Hebrew University and the Zionist Project,” Jewish Social Studies 9 (2003): 99-122; and see also Tal Meir Giladi, “Jerusalem Divided: The Hebrew University’s Philosophy Department Between Rotenstreich and Bar-Hillel,” in Yfaat Weiss and Uzi Rebhun, eds., The History of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: The Nation-State and Higher Education (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2024), 767-798 (Hebrew). See soon Niv Perelsztejn, “The Genesis of Israeli Philosophy, 1917-1967: Cross-cultural Dialogue or Academic Isolation” (Ph.D. dissertation, Haifa University, to be submitted in Spring 2026). ↑
10. For a list of his publications, see Raphael Loewe, “Bibliography of the Writings of Leon (Hebraice Hayyim Yehudah) Roth,” in Raphael Loewe, ed., Studies in Rationalism, Judaism and Universalism – In Memory of Leon Roth (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966), 523-536, available here. ↑
11. The Israeli press framed Roth’s departure as an expression of disillusionment with the policies of the State and the University. See, e.g. “Prof. Roth Returns – Disillusioned – to England,” Maariv (15 March 1951): 4 (Hebrew), available here. ↑
12. Loewe reports that Roth’s resignation was met with resistance not only by the University but also by senior figures in the Israeli establishment, who regarded him as a major national asset and sought to retain him through offers of high office. Proposals were made that he assume the presidency of the University or, alternatively, enter the government as Minister of Education; but “he was not to be dissuaded,” and in July 1951 he returned to England. See Loewe, “Memoir about Leon Roth,” 1-11, esp. 5, available here. ↑
13. A photograph of his tombstone, taken by Mr. Menachem Butler during an Aseret Yemei Teshuvah visit to Karori Cemetery in Wellington, New Zealand, on Sunday, 23 September 2012, as part of his High Holiday tour of New Zealand, has been published in David Assaf, “A Book Dedication: ‘I Will Go and Return to My First Husband’ – A Farewell Gift from Ḥayyim Yehudah Roth,” The OnegShabbat Blog (11 March 2012), available here. (Note: the post was originally published in March 2012 and has been updated periodically in subsequent years, including the addition of the tombstone photograph.) ↑
14. Ernst Akiba Simon, “Letter – After Qibyā and Rabbi Judah Halevi,” Beterem, no. 190 (1 January 1954): 21 (Hebrew). ↑
15. Warren Zev Harvey, “Judah Halevi on War and Morality,” in Aviad Hacohen and Menachem Butler, eds., Praying for the Defenders of Our Destiny: The Mi Sheberach for IDF Soldiers (Cambridge, MA: The Institute for Jewish Research and Publications, 2023), 317-318, available here. ↑
16. See Elliott Horowitz, “Genesis 34 and the Legacies of Biblical Violence,” in Andrew R. Murphy, ed., ‪The Blackwell Companion to Religion and Violence (Blackwell Publishing, 2011), 163-182, available here. ↑
17. The discussion of Roth’s second question does not appear in Leibowitz’s original article of 15 December 1953, but was introduced only in his follow-up piece of 15 January 1954, and was written in explicit response to Pepita Haezraḥi, “Thoughts on Humilitas,” Beterem, no. 190 (1 January 1954): 9-11 (Hebrew); see below, Appendix 4. Since Leibowitz’s discussion appeared a full six weeks after Roth’s letter in the Jewish Chronicle, there is no reason to doubt that he was influenced by it. The length and thoughtfulness of Leibowitz’s reply to Dr. Haezraḥi reveals the great respect he had for the independent-minded young philosopher, then 32. ↑
18. Nearly three decades ago, my student Rabbi Dr. Jan Katzew documented the controversy that erupted in 1947 around Leon Roth’s public opposition to the proposed partition of Palestine. While on a visit to the United States on behalf of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Roth was quoted in “Professor Gives Some Opinions on Palestine,” Los Angeles Times (3 June 1947): 4, arguing that partition was impracticable and warning that it would leave “two sore spots that will eventually lead to violence.” His remarks, made less than six months before the United Nations vote on partition, provoked heated reactions from American Zionist leaders, who accused him of anti-Zionist agitation. In a letter of protest, Sir Leon (Arie) Simon, then Chair of the University’s Executive Council and later its President, cited a telegram from the American Zionist Emergency Council charging that “Professor Leon Roth of Hebrew University is now in America … making political statements gravely prejudicial to the Jewish cause.” Roth rejected the accusation as “untrue to fact, slanderous and damaging,” insisting on his right, “after twenty years’ fruitful work in Jerusalem,” to criticize prevailing policies. See Jan Katzew, “Leon Roth – His Life and Thought: The Place of Ethics in Jewish Education” (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1997), 72-74; the full exchange between Roth and Simon is reproduced below in Appendix 2 (from Katzew’s appendix, pp. 355-358). ↑
19. See Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), 241-248. ↑
20. When taken to task by Shubert Spero for omitting reference to the State of Israel and Zionism, Roth responded: “I fancy that the reviewer has fallen into the conventional confusion between the ‘Land of Israel’ and the ‘State of Israel.’ The State of Israel has worries which neither I nor your reviewer can, or has the right to try to, solve; but are they, all or in part, connected with Judaism? In any case would it not be wiser for us to try and make up our minds first what Judaism is and only afterwards…what our attitude to the new State is to be?” See Leon Roth, “Communications – Are There Authoritative Beliefs?” [Response to Shubert Spero], Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought 5, no. 1 (Fall 1962), 123-124, available here. After forsaking the State of Israel in 1951, Roth devoted his final years to trying to clarify what Judaism is. ↑
21. Leon Roth, Judaism: A Portrait (New York: Viking Press, 1960), 104. ↑
22. Ibid., 107. ↑
23. Ibid., 107. ↑
24. Ibid., 230-231. ↑
25. See, Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State, pp. 191-192. ↑
26. In this article, Leibowitz responded to Pepita Haezraḥi, “Thoughts on Humilitas,” Beterem, no. 190 (1 January 1954): 9-11 (Hebrew); and Rabbi Benjamin, “The Plain Sense Is Not Sufficient…,” ibid., 11 (Hebrew). ↑
27. See Warren Zev Harvey, “Theopolitical Notes on Israel’s Declaration of Independence,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 56 (2021): 338-346, available here. ↑
28. Milhemet Mitzvah, vol. 1: Halakhic Foundations, Religious Authority, and Military Service in Israel’s War of Independence, eds. Aviad Hacohen, Yitzchak Avi Roness, and Menachem Butler (Cambridge, MA: The Institute for Jewish Research and Publications, 2025), available here; and Milhemet Mitzvah, vol. 2: Religious Leadership and Halakhic Responsibility in the Military Service Debate, eds. Aviad Hacohen, Yitzchak Avi Roness, and Menachem Butler (Cambridge, MA: The Institute for Jewish Research and Publications, 2025), available here. ↑
29. See Neria Guttel, “Missing from the Book – Review of War in Light of Halakhah,” in Aviad Hacohen, Yitzchak Avi Roness, and Menachem Butler, eds., Milhemet Mitzvah, vol. 2: Religious Leadership and Halakhic Responsibility in the Military Service Debate (Cambridge, MA: The Institute for Jewish Research and Publications, 2025), 318-328, who offers a detailed analysis of the systematic marginalization of Religious Zionist halakhic treatments of war in the Encyclopedia Talmudit and the editors’ deliberate preference for citing ḥaredi authorities while excluding Religious Zionist halakhic thinkers. ↑
30. See Aharon Kampinsky, “Torah Publications,” in Rabbinism and Politics in Religious Zionism (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2024), 37-52, on the establishment of Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah as a halakhic forum for questions of sovereignty, governance, security, and agriculture in the early years of the State of Israel; see also Asher Cohen and Aharon Kampinsky, “Religious Leadership in Israel’s Religious Zionism: The Case of the Board of Rabbis,” Jewish Political Studies Review 18, nos. 3-4 (Autumn 2006): 119-140. ↑
31. “Creators on Their Works – Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli: Editor and Reviewer,” ha-Tsofeh Literary Supplement (7 January 1955): 5-6 (Hebrew), available here. ↑
32. Shaul Yisraeli, “The Qibyā Incident in Light of Halakhah,” Ha-Torah ve-ha-Medinah, nos. 5-6 (1953-1954): 71-113 (Hebrew), available here, and later revised and expanded as “Military Actions for the Protection of the State,” in ʿAmud ha-Yemini (Tel-Aviv-Jaffa: Moreshet, 1966), 162-199 (Hebrew). ↑
33. See Efrat Seckbach, “The Qibyā Operation in Israeli Public Memory, 1953-1985” (cited above, n. 2). Her otherwise comprehensive study does not engage the contemporaneous halakhic discussions of Qibyā, treating them neither as part of Israeli public discourse nor as relevant to the formation of public memory. This omission accords with her focus on secular political, cultural, and media arenas, but it also underscores the extent to which halakhic discourse operated in a largely parallel register, marginal to the sites in which Israeli collective memory of Qibyā was shaped. The absence of halakhic material from this historiography thus reinforces the claim that early rabbinic and halakhic engagements with Qibyā unfolded independently of the later moral reckoning traced here. ↑
34. See Michael J. Broyde, “Just Wars, Just Battles, and Just Conduct in Jewish Law: Jewish Law Is Not a Suicide Pact!,” in Lawrence H. Schiffman and Joel B. Wolowelsky, eds., War and Peace in the Jewish Tradition (New York: Yeshiva University Press, 2004), 1-43, available here, who treats Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli’s responsum on the Qibyā incident as the earliest sustained modern halakhic engagement with civilian harm in asymmetric warfare and traces its subsequent elaboration in the pages of Teḥumin. In his reading, Rabbi Yisraeli’s argument is taken to permit the targeting of civilians who materially assist hostile operations through a widened application of the rodef doctrine, extending even to indirect or expressive forms of support. This analysis reflects a later stage in the reception of Yisraeli’s responsum, in which its categories are preserved but pressed beyond the narrower limits they bear in the original text. ↑
35. See also Aviad Hacohen, “Ethics and War: A Select Bibliography,” in Eli Bloom, ed., Arakhim be-Mivhan Milhamah: Values in the Test of War – A Symposium in Memory of Ram Mizrachi (Jerusalem: Moreshet, 1985), 252-256 (Hebrew), available here. ↑
36. Gerald J. Blidstein, “The Treatment of Hostile Civilian Populations: The Contemporary Halakhic Discussion in Israel,” Israel Studies 1, no. 2 (Fall 1996): 27-45, available here; and Gerald J. Blidstein, “The Ethical and Legal Status of Hostile Civilian Populations in Contemporary Halakhic Thought,” State, Government, and International Relations, vols. 41-42 (1997): 155-170 (Hebrew), available here. ↑
37. See also his related articles in Gerald J. Blidstein, “The Massacre at Shechem, Collective Punishment, and Contemporary Halakhic Thought,” Et Ha-Da’at 1 (1997): 48-55 (Hebrew), available here; Gerald J. Blidstein, “The Ethics of Warfare Revisited,” Me’orot Journal 6, no. 2 (2008): 2-5, available here; and Gerald J. Blidstein, “The Case of Shechem: Maimonides’ Normative Reading,” in Daphne Barak-Erez and Gidon Sapir, eds., Essays in Honour of Izhak Englard (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2010), 375-387 (Hebrew), available here. ↑
38. Arye Edrei, “From Qibyā to Beirut: The Renewal of the Jewish Laws of War in the State of Israel,” in Yossi Goldstein, ed., Yosef Daʿat: Studies in Modern Jewish History in Honor of Yosef Salmon (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, 2010), 95-127 (Hebrew). An earlier version appeared in Arye Edrei, “Law, Interpretation, and Ideology: The Renewal of the Jewish Laws of War in the State of Israel,” Cardozo Law Review 28, no. 1 (October 2006): 187-227, available here. ↑
39. See Suzanne Last Stone, “The Jewish Law of War: The Turn to International Law and Ethics,” in Sohail H. Hashmi, eds., Just Wars, Holy Wars, and Jihads: Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Encounters and Exchanges (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012), 342-363. ↑
40. See Neria Guttel, “‘He Whom One Loves, He Rebukes’: The Complexity of Rav Shaul Yisraeli’s Attitude toward the Personalities, Institutions, and Philosophy of Religious Zionism,” in Yishai Arnon, Yehuda Friedlander, and Dov Schwartz, eds., Studies in Religious Zionism: Developments and Changes (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2012), 145-167 (Hebrew), available here. ↑
41. See also Neria Guttel, “The Rabbinate and the State,” ha-Tsofeh Literary Supplement (22 June 2001): 11-12 (Hebrew). ↑
42. See further Neria Guttel, “Combat in an Area Dense with Civilian Population,” Teḥumin, no. 23 (2003): 18-31 (Hebrew), expanded and published in Neria Guttel, “Combat in an Area Dense with Civilian Population,” in Eyal Karim, ed., Ha-Milhamah ba-Terror (Kiryat Arba: ha-Makhon le-Rabanei Yishuvim, 2006), 43-105 (Hebrew), available here. Although not concerned with the Qibyā responsum as such, the article addresses the same operational problems that first emerged there and illustrates how later halakhic discussion of civilian harm can press earlier categories toward more permissive conclusions while leaving aside the hesitations and limits that shape Rabbi Yisraeli’s original analysis. ↑
43. Yitzchak Avi Roness, “Halakhah, Ideology and Interpretation: Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli on the Status of Defensive War,” Jewish Law Association 10 (2010): 184-195, available here. ↑
44. Arnon Lamfrom and Ze’ev Elron, “Historical Document: Meeting of Levi Eshkol and Ariel Sharon Concerning the Qibyā Operation – Jerusalem, 3 September 1965,” Yesodot, no. 6 (2024): 269-282 (Hebrew), available here; and see also Ariel Sharon, “The Operation That Restored the IDF’s Honor,” Yediot Ahronoth (18 October 1992): 8-9, 11 (Hebrew), available here, which retrospectively casts the operation as a necessary assertion of deterrence that successfully restored the IDF’s military standing, but gives little attention to the operation’s legal or moral ambiguity. ↑