Chanukah Controversies, Customs and Scholarship: A Roundup & Update

Chanukah Controversies, Customs and Scholarship: A Roundup & Update

We are working on creating a better system to navigate past posts [please contact us at Seforimblog-at-gmail if you are interested in volunteering]. In the interim, here is a collection of Chanukah-related posts along with some new material:

(As an aside, the Seforimblog’s internal style guide uses the Ashkenazic transliteration of the holiday name. Nonetheless, each author has the freedom to use whichever they prefer.)

Controversies and Contested History

Nearly every aspect of Chanukah has sparked debate. The holiday’s most famous miracle, the oil burning for eight days, became the center of a 19th-century controversy involving the polyglot Chaim Zelig Slonimsky. Both Zerachya Licht (“חז״ל ופולמס חנוכה“) and Marc Shapiro (“The Hanukkah Miracle“) examine this dispute and whether the eight-day miracle was authentic or constructed. Licht explores Slonimsky’s fascinating life in greater detail in his two-part series on “Chaim Zelig Slonimsky and the Diskin Family” (part 1 and part 2). Slonimsky’s other Chanukah legacy, coining the Hebrew term sivivovon for dreidel, is discussed in this post (it pre-dated Ben Yehuda). Other linguistic terms are discussed with characteristic thoroughness by Mitchell First, tracing both “The Identity and Meaning of the Chashmonai” and “The Meaning of the Name Maccabee.” For an earlier treatment of the latter term, see Dan Rabinowitz’s post here. Meanwhile, the divergence between Ashkenazic and Sephardic practices extends even to the menorah lighting ritual itself. Zachary Rothblatt traces “The History behind the Askenazi/Sephardi Divide Concerning Lighting Chanukah Candles.” Reuven Kimmelman’s “The Books of Maccabees and the Al HaNissim Prayer for Hanukah” reveals how the liturgy itself represents a melding of different historical traditions.  While Marc covers another liturgical item,  a potential Maccabean Psalm (here), which opens another window into the holiday’s ancient textual layers.

Games, Mathematics, and Mythmaking

The dreidel’s supposedly ancient Jewish pedigree is thoroughly debunked in “April Fools! Tracing the History of Dreidel Among Neo-Traditionalists and Neo-Hebraists.” Despite persistent legends that brave Jews used dreidels to disguise Torah study during Greek persecution, the game has no such heroic origins. That hasn’t stopped it from generating interesting mathematical questions: which player has the best advantage? How long does a typical game last? Thomas Robinson and Sujith Vijay tackle the latter in “Dreidel Lasts O(n²) Spins.”

Dreidel wasn’t the only Chanukah game. Card-playing customs are explored in “The Custom of Playing Cards on Chanukah,” which highlights an often-overlooked source for Jewish practice: Pauline Wengeroff’s Rememberings: The World of a Russian-Jewish Women in the Nineteenth Century.

Customs, Food, and Forgotten Practices

Many Chanukah customs center on food and celebration. Eliezer Brodt surveys these in “The Customs Associated with Joy and their More Obscure Sources,” and discusses the distribution of real and chocolate coins at the end of this post. But not all customs have survived or been remembered. Eliezer’s very first post for Seforimblog back in 2006, “A Forgotten Work on Chanukah, חנוכת הבית,” examined an obscure Chanukah text, Chanukas ha-Bayis, cited by Magen Avraham. (That initial post launched a prolific collaboration—Eliezer has since contributed dozens of articles, completed his Ph.D. dissertation on the Magen Avraham, and published many books.) His “The Chanukah Omission” identifies a missing tractate, with an update available in his recent talk here, along with a discussion of another lesser-known tractate that touches on Chanukah and involves censorship.

The Menorah in Text and Image

The menorah has been reproduced in countless forms, from the famous depiction on the Arch of Titus to manuscripts, printed books, and ephemera. Steven Fine’s The Menorah: From the Bible to Modern Israel (Harvard, 2016) offers the most comprehensive treatment of how this symbol shaped Jewish identity, and Fine continues to publish on the topic, recent articles are available on his Academia page. The exhibition catalog In the Light of the Menorah: Story of a Symbol (Israel Museum, 1998) contains excellent essays in both Hebrew and English, though oddly, the English version omits nearly all the notes. Another strange omission mars L. Yardeni’s earlier The Tree of Light: A Study of the Menorah (1971): Daniel Sperber notes in his Minhagei Yisrael (vol. 5, 171*) that Yardeni drew extensively on his Journal of Jewish Studies article but credited him only sporadically.

None of these works, however, addresses the menorah in early Hebrew printed books. For that, see our article “The Image of the Menorah in the Early Printed Hebrew,” along with the comments adding further examples.

New and Notable

Daniel Sperber has just published Mei Chanukah, a new work on the berita associated with Chanukah. Due to timing, it will likely only be available in Israel this year. If anyone knows of US distributors, please note them in the comments.

Not all recent scholarship meets the same standard. Akiva Shamesh’s review highlights serious deficiencies in Mitzva Ner Ish u-Beyoto. In another review, “Yemi Shemonah,” Shamesh addresses the “famous” Bet Yosef question: why eight nights of Chanukah rather than seven?

Sefer Minhagim, 1724, Gross Family Collection

Chanukah Samach!



Ba-Yamim ha-Hem Ba-Zeman ha-Zeh: Were Jews Involved in Iran’s First Political Upheaval?

Ba-Yamim ha-Hem Ba-Zeman ha-Zeh: Were Jews Involved in Iran’s First Political Upheaval?

Aton M. Holzer

The Persian Empire was founded via the conquests of Cyrus II following his rise to the Anshan throne in 559 BCE. Cyrus, celebrated in the Hebrew Bible as the liberator whose decree permitted the Return to Zion, was succeeded by his son Cambyses, who is not mentioned in the Bible. Cambyses was followed for a brief period by his brother [or someone claiming to be] Bardiya (known in Greek sources as Smerdis or Tanyoxarces), until Darius I overthrew him.

The Behistun inscription of Darius I, an ancient trilingual text carved into a rock face at Mount Bīsotūn, which overlooks the main road from Babylon to Media, presents the case for Darius’s royal legitimacy. It begins by tracing Darius’s lineage back to the mythical royal ancestor Achaemenes and his son Teispes, great-grandfather of Cyrus, and then recounts his struggle against Gaumâta, a Median magus (priest) who, in Darius’s telling, impersonated royal heir Bardiya.

Gaumâta declared his rebellion on 14 Viyakhna (the eleventh month) from atop Mount Arakadris and was crowned on 9 Garmapada (the fourth month).[1] He was ultimately defeated by a coalition of seven nobles, including Utana, son of Thukhra, and was executed by Darius on 10 Bagayad (the seventh month). Traditionally, modern scholarship has viewed Darius’s claims of royal ancestry and Smerdis’s imposture as fabrications to justify a coup d’état, but this assumption has recently been called into question.[2]

26 …Darius the King 27 declares: This is what was done by me when the king 28 I did become. The son of Cyrus, of our family, Cambyses by name — 29 he was the king here. Of that Cambyses [there] was a brother, 30 Smerdis by name, having the same mother and father as Cambyses. And then Cambyses 31 struck down that Smerdis. When Cambyses struck down Smerdis, 32 it did not become known among the people that [he] had struck down Smerdis. And then Cambyses 33 went to Egypt. And when Cambyses went to Egypt, the people grew treacherous, 34 and thus deceit rose rampantly in both Persia and Media and 35 in the [Empire’s] other lands. Darius the King declares: Later, 36 there was one man, a Magian, Gaumâta by name, and he rose up from Paishiyauvada. 37 [There is] a mountain in Persia named Arakadri. From there, when fourteen days of the month of Viyakhna 38 were completed, he rose up, [and] he deceived the people [saying] thus: 39 “I am Smerdis, the son of Cyrus who [is] brother of Cambyses.” 40 Thereupon, all the people became rebellious against Cambyses and went over to him, [Smerdis], 41 Persia and Media and the other lands, [and] he seized the kingdom. 42 Nine days were completed in the month of Garmapada [when] he seized the kingdom thus. 43 And then Cambyses died by his own hand …

48 … Darius the king declares: There was no man, 49 neither Persian nor Median nor any among our family who could render that Gaumâta 50 kingdom-deprived. The people feared him greatly, 51 lest he would strike down the numerous people who knew him previously as Smerdis; 52 lest he would strike down the people on account of this: “Lest he who would know me [would know that] I am not Smerdis, 53 the son of Cyrus.” No one dared to say anything 54 against Gaumâta the Magian until I came. After that, 55 I asked Ahura Mazda for help, [and] Ahura Mazda bore me aid. 56 Ten days of the month of Bagayad were completed when, with a small number of men, 57 I struck down that Gaumâta the Magian and those men who 58 were his foremost allies. [There was] a fortress called Sikayauvati, a land called Nisaya, 59 in Media, [and] there I struck him down. I seized the kingdom [from] him, [and] by the will 60 of Ahura Mazda, I became king. Ahura Mazda bestowed the kingdom to me…[3]

…Says Darius the king: These (are) the men who were there then when I slew Gaumâta the Magian, who called himself Bardiya; then these men cooperated as my allies; Intaphernes (Vidafarnah) by name, the son of Vayaspara, a Persian; Otanes (Utāna) by name, the son of Thukhra, a Persian; Gobryas (Gaubaruva) by name, the son of Mardonius, a Persian; Hydarnes (Vidarna) by name, the son of Bagabigna, a Persian; Megabyzus (Bagabuxša) by name, the son of Daduhya, a Persian; Ardumaniš by name, the son of Vahauka, a Persian.[4]

The information from the Behistun inscription is enriched by Herodotus and fragments from Ctesias’ now-lost Persica, which are preserved in the writings of the Byzantine scholar Photius. In Herodotus’ Histories (3.68-3.87), a Persian noble named Otanes is depicted as the chief conspirator against the impostor Smerdis/Gaumâta-Bardiya, rather than Darius, who is actually the last to join the conspiracy. It was Otanes’ daughter, Phaedyme, one of Smerdis’ wives, who discovered the imposture because Smerdis lacked ears, which had been removed by Cyrus as punishment for earlier misdeeds (in Ctesias’ account, it is not a queen, but a eunuch, who informs the entire army of the deception). Otanes invited Aspathines and Gobryas for a discussion, and each subsequently recruited another conspirator. Darius joined them last, but quickly became the most vocal. They entered Smerdis’ palace without difficulty, and carried out the assassination.

The subsequent events in Herodotus also differ from Darius’ account. According to Herodotus, The Seven convened shortly after Smerdis’ death to discuss the future form of government. Otanes proposed a democracy, Megabyzus suggested an oligarchy (or aristocracy), and Darius advocated for a monarchy. After four members sided with Darius in favor of monarchy, they then needed to determine who would become King. They agreed on a competition: the one whose horse neighed first at dawn would become King. Otanes declined, leaving six conspirators to meet the next day. Darius prevailed by means of a ruse, and thus became the King of the Achaemenid Empire.

While the Behistun inscription portrays Darius as an unquestionable leader and future King, Herodotus downplays his significance and adds numerous details to the events, though the eventual outcome and main points of the revolt, including the names, remain unchanged. The seven conspirators became the most important officers of the empire, and the families of each of these seven continued to play key roles in Achaemenid governance until Alexander’s conquest.[5]

But one conspirator played an outsized role in the Empire’s affairs. Herodotus describes:

These were the three opinions presented at the meeting, and after the other four of the seven men decided in favor of the last one, Otanes, despite his eagerness to establish isonomy, recognized that he had lost the argument, and he now addressed them all: “My comrades, it is clear that one of us must become King, and whether he who will be entrusted with the administration of the kingdom is chosen by lot, by the majority of the Persians, or by some other method, I shall not compete with you, for I wish neither to rule nor to be ruled. So I now withdraw from this contest on the following condition: that neither I nor my descendants will be subject to you.” When he had stated this requirement, the other six agreed to it, and so he took no part in the competition among them but stood aside with an attitude of neutrality. And even now, Otanes’ family is the only free one among the Persians; it submits to rule only as much as it wants to, although it does not transgress Persian laws. The remaining six then deliberated about how they could most fairly establish one of themselves in the position of King. First they all agreed that if the kingship did go to one of them, Otanes and his descendants would be granted yearly allotments of Median clothing and every other gift thought to be most honorable in Persia. They decided to grant him these gifts because he had been the first to plan the conspiracy and bring them all together. And in addition to these perquisites for Otanes, they resolved to establish other privileges that they would share in common: they agreed that anyone of the seven would be allowed to go into the palace without an official to announce him, unless the King happened to be sleeping with a woman at the time, and that the King would not be permitted to marry a woman from any families other than their own… (Histories 3.83-3.84)[6]

In Herodotus’ account, Otanes advocates for Persia to transition to a democracy. Scholars[7] often view this debate as an apocryphal reflection of Herodotus’ own thoughts on governance, influenced by the democracy-oligarchy conflicts at the onset of the Peloponnesian War. Nonetheless, Herodotus himself notes contemporaneous skepticism, and asserts that Otanes nonetheless championed democracy (6.43). When outvoted in favor of maintaining the monarchy, Otanes relinquishes any claim to kingship, requesting only that he and his descendants be granted independence from royal rule (3.83). Ultimately, Darius triumphs among the six remaining contenders by resorting to deceit in a contest. Otanes, identified as “one of the seven,” reappears in Herodotus (Histories 3.141.1) as a commander of the Persian army. He is further noted as the father of Amestris, Xerxes I’s wife, and as the general during the campaign against the Greeks in 480 (7.61.2). This is forty-two years after the conspiracy – at which time Otanes already had a grown daughter in Bardiya’s harem – which would make Otanes, if living, quite old for such a task.

Pierre Briant[8] argued that the Otanes who led the campaign in 480, whom Herodotus identifies as the father of Amestris, was a different individual altogether. Rüdiger Schmitt posits that Herodotus may have been mistaken about the general in 480, who probably was one of Otanes’ sons, but maintains that Amestris was indeed Otanes’ daughter – such a royal marriage would have made good sense, in order to further cement the Darius-Otanes lineal alliance.[9]

In the Biblical Book of Esther, Xerxes’ wife is Esther. The historicity of Esther, once roundly rejected in scholarly circles, has recently gained some support. A recent article by faculty at the University of Tehran (!)[10] highlights numerous details within the Masoretic text of Esther that could only have arisen from direct familiarity with “the details of the administrative system, rules, and customs of the Achaemenian Empire and court,” without mediation by Greek sources. Coupled with the fact that Esther contains many Persian loanwords but no Greek ones, this evidence supports dating Esther, at the latest, to the end of the Achaemenid empire or the very beginning of the Hellenistic period—i.e., a time when the Achaemenid dynastic line was still a living memory. Scholars have suggested that the name Esther might be an apocopated form of Amestris, and the name given for her father, avi hayil, meaning ‘father of the soldiers,’ could be a title rather than a proper name, indicating a military commander.[11]

Following out this line of thinking – granting historicity to both the book of Esther and Persian and Greek sources, to the maximum extent possible – leads to some interesting possibilities.

In the Biblical book, Esther’s apparent selection through a contest might have been a strategic charade by Xerxes, a king known for cosmopolitanism and promoting equality among his subjects,[12] to give the impression of being open to marriage alliances with his diverse peoples, even as the contest for chief queen was really among a much smaller pool – since he preferred to marry a Persian from one of the seven families, in consonance with the agreement of the seven. (Otanes is explicitly identified as a Persian in the Behistun inscription.)

But how could Esther be both Persian and Judean?

One might suggest that Otanes’ Persian credentials were fabricated. The “Persians” were not averse to fabricating their own fictional ancestries; indeed, some skeptics suggest that even Darius I might have done so concerning his royal lineage as depicted in the Behistun Inscription.[13] Or perhaps Amestris was a product of intermarriage, Persian by her father but of a Judean mother — the question of whether ethnicity is passed in a patrilineal or matrilineal manner was unresolved in the early years of empire, both are reflected in the evidence, and concerns with the details of adjudicating conflicts of ethnicities are actually hashed out in the “constitutional laws,” data of Darius, as preserved at Behistun and Naqsh-e Rostam.[14]

But none of this is necessary. Recent studies argue that Persian ethnicity, in the early Achaemenid period, was actually a new construct:

“To be ‘Persian’ is unlikely to have denoted partaking in a cultural identity that was the direct heir and linear continuation of a migrant Indo-Iranian identity; instead, it meant to subscribe to a relatively new and inclusive identity, informed by both Elamite and Indo-Iranian traditions and developed and transformed pari passu with the incredible dynamism from which the Persian empire emerged… Of course, it may well be that in certain aspects of being ‘Persian’ the Indo-Iranian side was or became dominant, but that is not the essence: what matters is that both founding traditions were transformed and merged to the extent that one may speak of a new ethnicity or ethnic identity – the Persian ethnogenesis.”[15]

Judean ancestry or worship of the God of Israel, even if professed, would not have posed a barrier, in Achaemenid eyes, to identification with the constructed Persian ethnicity; Mazdaism, in whatever form it may have taken, was not confirmed as the ruling class’ religion until or after Darius,[16] and many cults continued to be worshipped in the Persian heartland.[17] The possibility that Amestris’ late “Persian” father-Darius co-conspirator Otanes, the commander of Persian forces, was of Judean ancestry and even creed, is thus not at odds with any Achaemenid imperial marriage policy. Nonetheless, once Darius embraced Zoroastrianism as the official state religion, and “Judaism” emerged as a distinct ethnicity,[18] the Persian nobleman’s family would have had reason to hide both.

If Otanes is indeed the character identified in the Megillah as avi hayil, a “crypto-Jew”, he might just have been the greatest shtadlan of all time. According to the Behistun inscription, Gaumâta had either destroyed or halted work on temples of which he disapproved — “the temples which Gaumâta, the Magian, had destroyed, I restored to the people.” Whether or not the disruption of Cyrus’s promise to rebuild the Jewish Temple was a motivating factor in Otanes’ conspiratorial intervention, Darius’s unusually fervent and forceful insistence on the reconstruction of the Jewish Temple (Ezra 6:11-12) makes good sense if a repayment of a debt to his good friend and benefactor.

This could potentially also resolve a longstanding crux interpretum in Esther (3:2-4): why did Mordechai refuse to bow to Haman? If we consider Herodotus’ account – which indicates that Otanes’ family remained free from subjugation to Darius’ descendants – it might explain why Mordechai[19] chose to uphold the privilege their ancestor had secured and refrained from bowing before the king or his representatives.

In a highly original and ambitious article[20] published some time ago, which rejects Herodotus in favor of the historicity of Esther (and Daniel), Chaim Heifetz posited that Gaumâta—as a magus-priest and religious absolutist linked to the ancient Median religion—was engaged in a religious conflict against the abstract (imperial form of) Zoroastrianism, which Jews and their religion found to be a more natural ally. He suggests that Haman “the Agagite” was a literary-theological construct derived from historical memory of Gaumâta. According to this reading, the very first Persian regime change—the overthrow of genocidal religious fanatics—bears a striking resemblance to the last, kein tihiyeh lanu.

  1. Incidentally, the anniversary of the date recorded in II Melakhim 25:3 as that of the breaching of the walls of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. 14 Adar is of course Purim, and 10 Tishrei is Yom Kippur – fascinating but not more than that, given no evidence of Judean-Persian calendrical synchronization. ↑
  2. Amir Ahmadi, “The Bīsotūn Inscription-A Jeopardy of Achaemenid History.” Journal of Archeology and Ancient History 27 (2020) 1-55; .‏Zarghamee, Reza. “A Contribution to the Discourse Regarding a Teispid-Achaemenid Dynastic Divide.” Ancient History Bulletin 39 (2025) 3-4, 86-124. ↑
  3. Translation by Scott L. Harvey, Winfred P. Lehmann, and Jonathan Slocum, Old Iranian Online, Lesson 8: Old Persian, archived at https://lrc.la.utexas.edu/eieol/aveol/80 and accessed January 14, 2026.↑
  4. Translation by Herbert Cushing Tolman, The Behistan Inscription of King Darius (Vanderbilt University, 1908),‏ 35. ↑
  5. Libor Pruša, “Seven Against Mage: Darius and His Co-Conspirators,” Sapiens ubique civis 3 (2022), 27-56.‏ ↑
  6. Translations of Herodotus are from Robert B., Strassler, ed., The Landmark Herodotus: the Histories (Vintage, 2009). ↑
  7. Farane Zaidi, “The Controversies and Skepticisms of the Constitutional Debate in Herodotus 3.80-82.” Ipso Facto: The Carleton Journal of Interdisciplinary Humanities 3 (2024), 49-62; Breno Battistin Sebastiani, “Herodotus’ Allusions to Democracy in Books 7 and 8: Between Heuristic Device and Purposeful Action,” Greece & Rome 72:2 (2025), 203-223.‏ ↑
  8. Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire (Eisenbrauns, 2002), p. 135. ↑
  9. Rüdiger Schmitt, Iranische Anthroponyme in den erhaltenen Resten von Ktesias’ Werk (Verlag der ÖAW, 2006), 174-176.‏ ↑
  10. Morteza Arabzadeh Sarbanani, “Revisiting the Book of Esther: Assessing the Historical Significance of the Masoretic Version for the Achaemenian History.” Persica Antiqua 3:4 (2023), 19-32. ↑
  11. Robert Gordis, “Religion, wisdom and history in the book of Esther: a new solution to an ancient crux.” Journal of Biblical Literature 100:3 (1981), 359-388; Mitchell First, “The Origin of Ta ‘anit Esther.” AJS Review 34:2 (2010), 309-351. ↑
  12. Kristin Kleber, “Taxation in the Achaemenid Empire.” Oxford Handbooks Online. Classical Studies. Oxford University press, 2015. See also Aton Holzer, “Esther, Feminist Ethics, and the Creation of Jewish Community,” The Lehrhaus, March 13, 2022, archived at https://thelehrhaus.com/scholarship/esther-feminist-ethics-and-the-creation-of-jewish-community/ and accessed January 15, 2026. ↑
  13. Pierre Briant, “Achaemenids.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Classics, 2015. ↑
  14. Hilmar Klinkott, “How to Govern an Empire? The Inscriptions of Darius I As a Constitutional Program,” archived at https://pourdavoud.ucla.edu/video/how-to-govern-an-empire-the-inscriptions-of-darius-i-as-a-constitutional-program/ and accessed February 22, 2023. ↑
  15. Wouter FM Henkelman, “Humban and Auramazda: Royal Gods in a Persian Landscape,” in Henkelman, Wouter FM, and Céline Redard, eds., Persian Religion in the Achaemenid Period-La religion perse à l’époque achéménide. (Harrassowitz Verlag, 2017), 302. ↑
  16. Philip G. Kreyenbroek, “Zoroastrianism under the Achaemenians: A non-essentialist approach.” In J. Curtis, St. J. Simpson. L., eds., The world of Achaemenid Persia: history, art and society in Iran and the ancient Near East (I.B. Tauris, 2010), 103-109. ↑
  17. Wouter FM Henkelman, “Practice of worship in the Achaemenid heartland.” A Companion to the Achaemenid Persian Empire 2 (Wiley, 2021), 1243-1270. ↑
  18. Aton M. Holzer, “Esther, Empire, and the Emergence of Jewish Ethnicity,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 56:4-5 (2025), 371-395.‏ ↑
  19. And possibly others from Otanes’ family, had they been stationed at the king’s gates rather than leading armies — see Herodotus Histories 7.62 and 7.82. ↑
  20. Chaim S. Heifetz, “Malkhut Paras U-Madai be-Tekufat Bayit Sheini u-Lefaneha – Iyun Mehudash,” Megadim 14 (1991), 78-147. ↑


Gems from Rav Herzog’s Archive (Part 1 of 2): Giyus, Professor Lieberman and More

Gems from Rav Herzog’s Archive (Part 1 of 2):
Giyus, Professor Lieberman and More
By Yaacov Sasson
A tremendous resource that will be of great interest to Seforim Blog’s readers has been made available to the public. The entire archive of the great Rav Yitzchak Eizik Halevi Herzog, Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of Israel, has been scanned and is now available online.[1] The archive contains hundreds of files on a wide range of topics, including Rav Herzog’s Piskei Halacha and Torah novellae, extensive correspondence on Israeli politics, Rav Herzog’s efforts to save Jews of Europe, and much more. Each file is dedicated to a specific topic, and many of these files contain upwards of a hundred pages of material. In short, the archive is a veritable treasure trove, and will be of great interest to those who are students of Torah, Halacha and Jewish history. Much of Rav Herzog’s Torah has been published in his numerous seforim; however, there is a significant amount of unpublished material in the archive. The purpose of this article is to make readers aware of some of the gems found in the archive, in particular the significant unpublished material. I have only begun to look through the vast amount of material that is available, and I am certain that there is much more to be found. The following are a select number of documents and files that I think will be of interest to the Seforim blog’s readers.
I Giyus Bnai Yeshivot
The archive contains an entire file dedicated to the always controversial issue of giyus bnai yeshivot, whether yeshiva students ought to be drafted to the army or exempted from the draft.[2] Within this file, there is an approximately 50-page kuntres written by Rav Herzog in 1948, dedicated to a halachic analysis of the topic. To the best of my knowledge, this very significant kuntres was never published, and it does not appear in any of Rav Herzog’s seforim.[3]
Rav Herzog addresses the issue in an extremely thorough manner, and deals with a wide variety of relevant sources and issues, such as the definition of milchemet mitzvah, and the words of the Rambam at the end of Hilchot Shemita VeYovel, among other issues. For example, on page 27, he discusses the possibility of milchemet mitzvah in the absence of a king, and concludes that milchemet mitzvah is still possible if the community of Jews living in Eretz Yisrael approves of the war. On page 12, Rav Herzog suggests, based on a diyuk, that the Rambam’s words at the end of Hilchot Shemita VeYovel exempting talmidei chachamim from waging war do not apply to a war of ezrat yisrael miyad tzar. (A similar reading of the Rambam was suggested by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, in “The Ideology of Hesder” (Tradition Fall 1981), and was reprinted in Leaves of Faith Volume 1.) Rav Herzog also makes a fascinating contention (on page 2), that the British were the current-day manifestation of Esav, putting forward their split hoof and hypocritically claiming to seek justice, while quietly attempting to undermine the Jewish cause by supporting their enemies. It is obviously not feasible to summarize a 50 page kuntres in a single blog post; I will simply present Rav Herzog’s main conclusion. Rav Herzog suggests (pages 12 and 34) that yeshiva students should not be subject to giyus malei, full conscription, even during wartime. Rather, they should be subject to giyus chelki, partial conscription of a few hours a week, doing what Rav Herzog terms “hishtatfut” in the war effort, such as local shemira and the like.
While this was Rav Herzog’s halachic conclusion in the kuntres, when the issue of forced conscription became a potential reality ten years later, Rav Herzog sent a heartfelt letter to Ben-Gurion, pleading for the exemption of bnai yeshivot, since they are already conscripted to the security of Torah and the heritage of Am Yisrael, and their Torah learning is a shield for Am Yisrael. This letter, which is found in the file of Rav Herzog’s correspondence with Ben-Gurion[4], appears below:

Another noteworthy document in the file on giyus bnai yeshivot is a 1948 telegram from the Roshei Yeshiva of the American yeshivot, expressing their shock at the possibility of giyus bnai yeshivot, and urging Rav Herzog and Rav Uziel to make sure that bnai yeshivot remain exempt from army service. The telegram appears below, as well as my transcription of the telegram into Hebrew:
נבהלנו מאד לשמוע שאומרים לבטל השחרור של בני ישיבות ולקחתם לצבא. הדבר נוגע לנפש ורוח חיי אומתנו ויגרום חילול השם בין הגויים המשחררים בני ישיבות מעבודת הצבא אפילו בשעת מלחמה. השתדלו בכל תוקף להעביר רוע הגזירה, ואין מעצר להש[ם] להושיע. בשם כל הישיבות,

Kotler Gordon Grosowski Zaks Joffen Levenstein Kalmanowitz Kamenetzki Bloch Belkin Shatz[k]es Soloveitchik Feinstein Ehrenfeld Hutner Lifshitz Leibowitz Korb Ruderman Rothenberg[5]
The telegram is especially noteworthy because of the appearance of the names of the Charedi Roshei Yeshiva, such as Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Reuven Grozovsky, Rav Moshe Feinstein etc. together with the names of the more modern Roshei Yeshiva of RIETS: the Rav, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik, and Dr. Samuel Belkin. Such collaboration would seem to be almost impossible in later years.
II Professor Saul Lieberman on Rav Herzog’s Torat Ha-Ohel
Rav Herzog maintained a close relationship with Professor Saul Lieberman, as Dr. Marc Shapiro has mentioned previously on the Seforim blog[6], and noted in his “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox”, page 22.[7] It should therefore come as no surprise that Rav Herzog’s archive contains correspondence between him and Lieberman. The letter that appears below was sent by Lieberman to Rav Herzog, and contains Lieberman’s haarot on Rav Herzog’s Torat Ha-Ohel, his sefer on the Rambam’s Hilchot Sanhedrin.[8] In this letter, Lieberman first discusses the proper girsaot in the relevant Rambam and the gemara in Makot regarding minuy dayanim. He then addresses Rav Herzog’s question of how it could be possible that bnai noach have a more extensive obligation of dinim than do Yisrael,[9] and Lieberman offers an elegant yeshiva-style distinction between dinei yisrael and dinei bnai noach to answer the problem. (A similar distinction was offered by Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, in Beit Yitzchak 8, page 89, and reprinted in his Minchat Aviv.) He offhandedly mentions that Rav Menachem Kasher had recently “acquired” some of his material, and then bemoans the fact that RY”D is too involved in the ol ha-tzibur and is not dedicating himself sufficiently to his Torah study, although he has the potential to become the Gaon Ha-Dor.
Lieberman’s letter appears below, and a transcription appears in Appendix A.
It is most likely that the RY”D to whom Lieberman referred was Rav Yaakov David Herzog, Rav Herzog’s son, as the context within the letter is dealing with Rav Herzog’s family. Rav Yaakov David had already published a scientific/critical edition of Mishnayot Brachot/Peah/Demai in 1945, at the young age of 24, and Lieberman wrote a Foreword to the volume.[10] Rav Yaakov David Herzog was eventually selected as Chief Rabbi of Great Britain in the 1960s, but declined the post due to his ill health.[11]
I also entertained the possibility that the RY”D to whom Lieberman referred is the Rav, Rav Yosef Dov Soloveichik. While this seems unlikely, it would fit nicely with the comments made by Rabbi Jacob Radin, as quoted by Rav Aaron Rakeffet[12], contrasting the Rav and Lieberman:
You know that I have attended classes in both the Seminary and the Yeshiva. I have studied with Professor Lieberman and the Rav. The Professor lectures a few times a week. He hurriedly finishes and rushes back to his research. Outside of his formal lectures, he is barely available to the students. On the other hand, the Rav is never alone. He has never finished a lecture on time. He always goes overtime. He remains in the classroom afterwards to carry on the Talmudic give and take with the students who cannot part from him. Even when he rises to leave, his disciples surround him and the discussion continues…This is the basic manifest difference between these two prodigious scholars.[13]
On Lieberman’s mention of Rav Kasher, this is the page that Lieberman referenced from Tosefet Rishonim:
And the page from Rav Kasher’s article in Sinai, Volume 18:
A number of the rather obscure sources in Rav Kasher’s lengthy footnote 2 appear to be taken from Lieberman’s Tosefet Rishonim.
III The Lieberman Ketuba
As is well-known, Lieberman introduced a new clause into the ketuba in the early 1950s in order to alleviate the aguna problem. The clause stipulated that the couple recognizes the authority of the beit din of the Rabbinical Assembly, and that upon dissolution of the marriage, the beit din would be empowered to administer penalties as it sees fit. The aim of these penalties would be to pressure the husband to give a get. In a number of letters from the 1950s (in a file regarding Even HaEzer issues[14]), Rav Herzog mentions that he himself came up with such an idea many years earlier when he was still Chief Rabbi of Ireland. He envisioned a separate document which would empower the beit din of London to administer financial penalties on a husband withholding a get. He mentions that he is unsure of Professor Lieberman came up with this idea himself, or if Lieberman actually got the idea from Rav Herzog.

Rabbi Emanuel Rackman wrote that it was widely believed that the Lieberman clause was examined by Rav Herzog, and that he had no objections.[15] This belief is certainly false, as Rav Herzog penned a strong protest to the proposed addition to the ketuba.[16] Rav Herzog’s main protest was due to the authority granted to the Conservative beit din. It is possible that the root of this misconception (that Rav Herzog approved of the Lieberman clause) is the fact that Rav Herzog independently envisioned a similar document or agreement, and that he entertained the possibility that Lieberman actually got the idea from him.
IV The Epstein Proposal
Another fascinating exchange between Rav Herzog and Lieberman is found in Rav Herzog’s file dedicated to Reform[[17] and Conservative Jewry[18], and relates to the Rabbinical Assembly’s 1957 attempt to resuscitate the Epstein proposal. Rabbi Louis Epstein had proposed, in his 1930 book Hatzaa Lemaan Takanat Agunot, that every husband, at the time of marriage, ought to designate his wife as a shliach to deliver her own get, in order to eliminate the aguna problem in the case of a missing husband or a get-refuser. The proposal was never implemented, in large part due to Orthodox opposition. In May of 1957, the Rabbinical Assembly attempted to resuscitate the Epstein Proposal at their Annual Convention at the Concord Hotel in Kiamesha Lake, New York. However, this attempt to revive the Epstein proposal must be viewed in light of the politics within the Conservative movement at that time. The following is an excerpt from the Presidential Report of Rabbi Aaron Blumenthal at the Rabbinical Assembly Convention[19]:

Note in particular Rabbi Blumenthal’s comments that the Seminary is an Orthodox institution, that its synagogue has separate seating and does not use the Rabbinical Assembly siddur, and that practically every faculty member added to the Talmud faculty in the last 15 to 20 years thinks of himself as an Orthodox Jew and has little regard for the Conservative movement. Given that Lieberman was the de-facto Rabbi of this synagogue, and that Lieberman ensured that the synagogue did not use the Rabbinical Assembly siddur, and that the synagogue maintained separate seating until Lieberman’s death[20], it would seem that Rabbi Blumenthal’s words were directed primarily at Lieberman, who arrived at the Seminary some 17 years prior.
It is against this backdrop that the Rabbinical Assembly passed a Resolution that the Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards review the Epstein proposal and submit a plan for its implementation.
The report below from the National Jewish Post and Opinion makes clear that the left wing of Conservative Judaism felt that the Lieberman ketuba did not go far enough in addressing the aguna problem and therefore sought to institute the Epstein proposal. On the other hand, the more traditional wing of Conservative Judaism, led by Rabbi Louis Finkelstein, Chancellor of JTS, wanted the proposal referred to a joint committee made up of JTS faculty and RA members. Rabbi Blumenthal’s complaint about the Orthodox character of the Seminary faculty was not just an observation, but also a charge to the RA regarding the Epstein proposal, that they not allow the Seminary faculty to torpedo the proposal. Rabbi Finkelstein’s group lost the vote 92-88, in what was, in a sense, a repudiation of Lieberman’s Orthodox influence, and a rejection of his ketuba as too Orthodox and not impactful enough.[21] The majority of the RA membership was prepared to head in a more liberal direction.
After the passage of the Rabbinical Assembly resolution, the Agudat HaRabbanim turned to Rav Herzog in the letter below, asking him to intervene and prevent this breach of kedushat hamishpacha beyisrael.[22] (It is not clear to me why they termed the Epstein proposal nisuin al tnay, or conditional marriage, which is a different attempted mechanism to prevent aguna situations.)
In response to the request of Agudat HaRabbanim, Rav Herzog turned to Lieberman in the letter below, asking him to intervene and prevent the implementation of the proposed nisuin al tnay.[23] (Rav Herzog apparently understood the proposal to be literally one of conditional marriage, and thus referred Lieberman to the book Ain Tnay Benisuin, rather than the book LeDor Acharon, mentioned in the Agudat HaRabbanim letter, which deals with the Epstein proposal.)
In response to Rav Herzog’s letter, Lieberman sent Rav Herzog the very fascinating letter below. (A transcription of this letter appears in Appendix B.) Lieberman tells Rav Herzog that the Orthodox Rabbis are simply looking for excuses to make machloket, that Rabbi Finkelstein strongly protested the re-introduction of the Epstein proposal (as we noted was reported in the National Jewish Post), and that the President of the Assembly (Rabbi Blumenthal) also denied the claim of the Agudat HaRabbanim. He then says that the entire purpose of his revised ketuba was to bury the possibility of the Epstein proposal! He also mentions that some Orthodox Rabbis have claimed that any wedding which uses the new ketuba is invalid, and the kiddushin are not tofsin. (I have been unable to find any documented source of a Rabbi who made such a claim. I would be indebted to any of the readers who could provide such a source.) Lieberman concludes by assuring Rav Herzog that he would be the first to protest the implementation of the Epstein proposal, and that such a nevala could never happen while he is at the Seminary.
Rabbi Blumenthal’s denial was in fact reported by the JTA.[24] He said that the Assembly only authorized a committee to re-study the problem.
Some points remain unclear to me, as Rabbi Finkelstein’s group did indeed lose the vote, and the RA did pass a resolution that the Rabbinical Assembly Committee on Jewish Law and Standards submit a plan for the implementation of the Epstein proposal. I find it hard to understand Rabbi Blumenthal’s denial, or how Lieberman could claim that the Orthodox Rabbis were simply seeking machloket, when the RA passed a resolution for implementation (even documented in the RA Proceedings), with the left-wing defeating the traditional wing.
(to be continued)
Appendix A
Letter from Lieberman to Rav Herzog about Torat Ha-Ohel
בע”ה אור ליום ד’ פרש’ לך תש”ט
לידידי הגאון הגדול האמתי מרן רי”א הלוי הירצוג, לב”ב ולכל הנלוים עליו שלום רב.
היום קבלתי את יקרת כ”ג ואעשה כמובן כבקשתו. והנה נזכרתי שאני חייב התנצלות לכ”ג על שתיקתי הממושכה. היו כמה סיבות וטעמים לדבר. את ספרו היקר קבלתי בזמנו ונהניתי מאד מחידושיו הנפלאים ובקיאותו המפליאה. לא רציתי להטריד אותו בהערותי שמא יראה נחיצות נמוסית להשיב, והרי מכיר אני את טרדותיו המרובות, ולמה להעמיס עליו עוד משא? כדי שלא יהי’ מכתבי כשטר הדיוטות ארשום לו כמה דברים קלים שאינם צריכים עיון ומו”מ. דברי הר”מ בפ”א מהל’ סנהדרין ה”ב קשה להגיה, וכנראה שלדעת הר”מ אין כלל מצוה למנות דיינים בחו”ל, כפי שהבין בו הרמב”ן בפרש’ שופטים, וכן משמע מלשונו של הר”מ בסה”מ עשין קע”ו ומקורו הוא הבבלי במכות ספ”א[25] לפי גירסת המאירי שם: “אבל בחו”ל אי אתה מושיב בכל פלך ופלך ובכל עיר ועיר.” והוא מביא שם את גירסת התלמוד שלנו בשם “ויש גורסים” ומסיים: ולא נראה כן. ואשר לפסק הר”מ בספ”ט מה’ מלכים נראה שהוא חלק בין ב”נ ובין ישראל. שהרי ישראל מצווים למנות שופטים כמ”ע של שופטים ושוטרים תתן לך, ואפילו יצוייר שנהיה בטוחים שישראל לא יעברו על שום עברה ג”כ מצוה למנות שופטים. ברם ב”נ מחוייב למנות שופטים רק מפני שהוא מצווה על הדינין, כלומר שישגיח שלא יעברו על מצות ב”נ. ואם לא מנה שופטים בפלך ועבר אחד מהם עברה ולא דנו אותו כלם חייבים מיתה (שהרי כל אחד ראוי לדון יחידי), אבל כ”ז שלא עברו עברה אינם חייבים מיתה על מינוי דיינים אפילו לשיטת הר”מ.[26] ועיין ביד רמה נו ע”ב וברש”י ד”ה כך נצטוו, ומלשונו של הרמ”ה משמע שכן היה לפניו מפורש בגמרא שבני נח הוזהרו מחמת “ושפטו.”
בענין גר העמלקי (דף נ”ו) עיין מ”ש החיד”א ביעיר אוזן, עין זוכר מערכת ג’ אות א’ דברים מחוכמים מאד.
[בעני]ן מכת מרדות (צ”ט) עיין בשו”ת [הר]שב”ש סי’ תר”י וציינתי לו בתוספת ראשונים ח”ב צד 170 (עכשיו ראיתי שידידנו הרב כשר קנה במשיכה מספרי שם את כל החומר ופרסמם בסיני.)
כפי שאמרתי לא ארבה בדברים שצריכים לינה בעומקה של הלכה, ואני מקוה שנוכל לדבר ע”ז אי”ה פה אל פה.
על כמה דברים שנתחדשו אצל כ”ג באופן פרטי שמענו מאורחים וידידים היורדים מהתם להכא ושמחנו מאד לשמוע שכלתו הכבודה ב”ה נתרפאה לגמרי. מצטער אני מאד שרי”ד[27] שלנו נושא בעול הצבור ואינו מתפנה לגמרי לעולה של תורה. הרי עדיין הוא צעיר ויכול להיות לגאון הדור. ומדי דברי בו נזכרתי ששאל אותי מקום הירושלמי: התלמיד תוך ד’ אמות ברם הרב אפילו חוץ לד’ אמות והשבתי לו שירושלמי כזה אין לפנינו. ואעפ”י שכן הוא האמת בכ”ז שכחתי באותה שעה שכן מביא הריטב”א בסוכה כ”ח בשם הירושלמי.
אצלנו אין כל חדש. אנו יושבים ומצפים לגאולה שלמה, ייתי ונחמיניה.
בפ”ש מבית לבית
הנני מעריצו ומוקירו וידידו הנאמן
שאול ליברמן
הייתי מכיר טובה מאד לרבנית שתחי’ אם תודיע לנו בפרוטרוט על חיימקה שיחי’ ומשפחתו ועל רי”ד אהובנו.[28]
Appendix B
Letter from Lieberman to Rav Herzog about the Epstein Proposal
בעה”י יום ה’ פרש’ מטות תשי”ז
לכבוד ידידינו הגאון הגדול האמיתי מרן הרי”א הלוי הירצוג הרב הראשי לא”י ברכה ושלום רב.
יקרת כ”ג מי’ תמוז הועברה אלי לכרם מרתה[29], ומאד מאד התפלאתי שכ”ג האמין לדיבת הרבנים כאן. אמנם בכנסיית הרבנים השמרנים דברו על עיון מחדש בשאלת תנאי בקידושין, אבל ד”ר פינקלשטיין יצא בכל תוקף נגד חידוש העיון. ונשיא הכנסיה הנ”ל הכחיש בעצמו את דיבת הרבנים. אבל הללו מחפשים רק אמתלאות למחלוקת. כל עניין הכתובה היה כדי לקבור לגמרי את שאלת התנאי. הסברתי להם שאם ליחיד אפשר פעם לחשוב ע”ז הרי לרבים אין הדבר בא כלל בחשבון שהתנאי יעשה ע”פ דין, וישתקע הדבר ולא יעלה שוב על הפרק. וכולם הסכימו ל[י]. עכשיו יש מהם שבאים בטענות ואומרים: הרי הרבנים הארתודוכסים טוענין שאף הכתובה נעשתה שלא כדין, ויש מהם (כלומר מהרבנים הארתודוקסים) שאמרו שהמתחתן בכתובה החדשה אין הקידושין תופסין, והאשה מותרת בלי גט (ממש לא יאומן כי יסופר! אבל לצערי נאמרו הדברים), א”כ הרי מוטב לעשות תנאי בקידושין, ולהפטר מכל שאלת העגונה בבת אחת. והנני מבטיח את כב”ג שאין לשמועה שום יסוד, אחרת הייתי אני בין הראשונים למחות, וכל זמן שאני בסמינר לא יתכן שיעשו נבלה כזו.
בפ”ש ובברכה לכל המשפ[חה]
בהערצה ובידידות
שאול [ליברמן]
[1] See here.
[2] See here.
[3] A short one-page summary of the kuntres appears in R’ Zorach Warhaftig’s Chuka Leyisrael, page 236. However, R’ Warhaftig neglects to mention that Rav Herzog advocated only giyus chelki.
[4] See here.
[5] Every name on the telegram is relatively well known, except for Rothenberg. I assume this is Rav Moshe Rothenberg, founder of Yeshivat Chachmei Lublin of Detroit. See Toldot Anshei Shem page 126, here.
[6] See here.
[7] For the following sections related to Lieberman, I made extensive use of Dr. Shapiro’s “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox.”
[8] See here.
[9] Here in Yeriot Ha-Ohel 1.
[10] See here. Interestingly, Lieberman signed the Foreword as “Saul Lieberman, Dean, Harry Fischel Institute, Jerusalem”, even though Lieberman had been teaching in JTS for five years already. (In the Foreword, he notes that the publication of the volume coincided with Harry Fischel’s 80th birthday, in 1945.) In fact, Lieberman’s name appeared atop the Harry Fischel Institute’s stationery as late as 1949 (can be seen in Rav Herzog’s file on Machon Harry Fischel.) It would appear that Lieberman continued to serve in some capacity as Dean of the Harry Fischel Institute even after he left Israel to come to America. Incredibly, he held one foot in each world simultaneously, as Dean of the Harry Fischel Institute and Professor in JTS, a fact that has heretofore eluded his biographers. My good friend Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin reports in the name of Mr. Carmi Schwartz, Executive Vice President of the Council of Jewish Federations, that Lieberman willed most of his considerable life savings to the Harry Fischel Institute after his death, and not to JTS.
[11] See here.
[12] Mentor of Generations, page 119.
[13] For more on the Rav and Lieberman, see Rav Rakeffet’s “A Note on R. Saul Lieberman and the Rav”, in Tradition, Winter 2007. Also noteworthy is the following story that appears in Rav Hershel Schachter’s Mipninei Ha-rav:
The head of the Seminary who gave the shiur with which the Rav disagreed so vehemently is none other than Lieberman. Warren’s visit to the Seminary was covered on the front page of the New York Times (September 14, 1957.) (For a humorous account of how Lieberman sipped tea through a sugar cube that weekend in the presence of former president Harry Truman, see “The Rabbi as Symbolic Exemplar” by Jack Bloom, page 37.) Here is the New York Times’ account of Lieberman’s shiur:
A similar account of the shiur appears in the Sentinel (September 26, 1957)
Regarding Lieberman’s suggestion that the principle of Ain Adam Meisim Atzmo Rasha is predicated on the presumption of teshuva, there appears to be another difficulty, in addition to that raised by the Rav. The gemara in Makot 13b states:
חייבי מיתות ב”ד אינו בכלל מלקות ארבעים שאם עשו תשובה אין ב”ד של מטה מוחלין להן
The gemara states explicitly that teshuva is not efficacious in absolving a sinner of capital punishment, which would seem to contradict Professor Lieberman’s thesis. My good friend Rabbi Dovid Bashevkin has offered the following original suggestion to resolve the problem. Professor Lieberman might have believed that the gemara in Makot which states that teshuva does not absolve capital punishment is referring to after gmar din, when the sinner has already been tried and sentenced. At that point, teshuva is no longer effectual. However, the principle of Ain Adam Meisim Atzmo Rasha applies before trial and sentencing, and teshuva would absolve a sinner before sentencing. This reading of the gemara in Makot is certainly plausible, although it does run contrary to the reading of the Noda B’Yehuda (Orach Chaim 34, s.v. ela), who assumes that the gemara is referring to before gmar din as well. Additionally, it would seem difficult to assume that a confession is indicative of teshuva if a sinner is aware that he can absolve himself of punishment by simply admitting his guilt in beit din. However, this approach would explain why the Rav raised a difficulty based on the words of the Raavad, and not the gemara in Makot, as the gemara in Makot is not a conclusive proof.
[14] See here.
[15] “Conflict and Consensus in Jewish Political Life”, page 120, also cited in “Saul Lieberman: the Man and his Work”, page 45. My thanks to my good friend Dr. Josh Lovinger for bringing this to my attention.
[16] Techuka leYisrael al pi Torah, volume 3 page 210.
[17] The correspondence in that file also shows the effort that Rav Herzog expended in an attempt to prevent the Reform movement from gaining any foothold whatsoever in Israel.
[18] See here.
[19] Proceedings of the Rabbinical Assembly of America 21, 57th Annual Convention (1957), pages 41-42.
[20] See here.
[21] National Jewish Post and Opinion, June 14, 1957.
[22] See also Hapardes, Tamuz, 1957 for details of the protest arranged by Agudat HaRabbanim.
[23] This letter also appears in “Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox”, Hebrew section, page 6.
[24] See here.
[25] Makot 7a
[26] This would also answer the (similar) question of the Gvurot Ari in Makot 7a, s.v. UveChu”l.
[27] As mentioned, I believe that this refers to Rav Yaakov David Herzog.
[28] Future president of Israel, Chaim Herzog, and Rav Yaakov David Herzog.
[29] Martha’s Vineyard.


Some Highlights of the Mossad HaRav Kook Sale of 2018

Some Highlights of the Mossad HaRav Kook Sale of 2018
By Eliezer Brodt
For over thirty years, starting on IsruChag of Pesach, Mossad HaRav Kook publishing house has made a big sale on all of their publications, dropping prices considerably (some books are marked as low as 65% off). Each year they print around twenty new titles. They also reprint some of their older, out of print titles. This year they have printed some valuable works, as they did last year. See here, here and here for a review of previous year’s titles.
If you’re interested in a PDF of their complete catalog, email me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com
As in previous years, I am offering a service, for a small fee, to help one purchase seforim from this sale. The sale’s last day is Sunday. For more information about this, email me at Eliezerbrodt-at-gmail.com. Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.
What follows is a list and brief description of some of their newest titles.
הלכות פסוקות השלם, כרך ג, על פי כת”י ששון עם מקבילות מקורות הערות ושינויי נוסחאות, מהדיר: יהונתן עץ חיים.
תורת חיים תהלים, ג’ חלקים
This work is a continuation of their excellent Toras Chaim series which is very useful. To date they have done Chumash, Avot (2 volumes), 5
Megilot (3 volumes), Mishlei (2 volumes) and Hagadah Shel Pesach.
This item just arrived from the printer so it did not make it into the Catalog.
דניאל עם פירוש אבן עזרא, פירוש הקצר והארוך ע”פ כ”י ומבוא, מהדיר ר’ מרדכי שאול גודמן

תוספות הרא“ש, מועד קטן ועבודה זרה
חיבור התשובה למאירי, ע”פ כ”י כולל מבוא הערות וביאורים מר’ משה צוריאל
שו“ת הרמ“א, מהדורת אשר זיו
This is a reprint of the famous critical edition of Asher Ziv’s Shut HaRama.
אגרת המופת, רבי שמואל אבן ג’אמע, הלכות יורה דעה בכשרכות בע”ח עם המקור בערבית והערות בעריכת הרב ניסים לוי
רש“י מסכת נדרים, ליקוטי פירושי רש”י מספרי הראשונים על המסכת ע”י ר’ יואל פלורסהיים
תהלים עם פירוש באר אברהם, מר’ אברהם בן הגר”א, ע”פ כ”י
שבחי ארץ החיים, רבי פסח הכהן פינפער, שבחה של ארץ ישראל
ופקדת נווך, ר’ ארז אברהמוב, הפרשת קטן מאיסורים,
המידות לחקר הלכה, חלק ב, ר’ משה אביגדור עמיאל
פתח ההצלה מטנג‘יר, אסתר פרבשטין ואילה נדיבי, רני רייכמן לעזרת יהודי אירופה
מאמרי טוביה, חלק ג, לר’ טוביה פרשל, 510 עמודים
Last year I wrote about the first two volumes as follows:

Just a few years ago, the great Talmid Chacham, writer and bibliographer (and much more), R’ Tovia Preschel, was niftar at the age of 91. R’ Preschel authored thousands of articles on an incredibly wide range of topics, in a vast array of journals and newspapers both in Hebrew and English. For a nice, brief obituary about him from Professor Leiman, see here. Upon his passing, his daughter, Dr. Pearl Herzog, immediately started collecting all of his material in order to make it available for people to learn from. Already by the Shloshim a small work of his articles was released. A bit later, she opened a web site devoted to his essays. This website is constantly updated with essays. It’s incredible to see this man’s range of knowledge (well before the recent era of computer search engines). A few months ago, Mossad HaRav Kook released volume one (424 pp.) containing some of his essays, and right before Pesach volume two was released (482 pp.) This is an extremely special treasure trove of essays and articles on a broad variety of topics. It includes essays related to Halacha, Minhag, bibliography, Pisgamim, history of Gedolim, book reviews, travels and personal encounters and essays about great people he knew or met (e.g.: R’ Chaim Heller, R’ Abramsky, R’ Shlomo Yosef Zevin, R’ Meshulem Roth, R’ Reuven Margolis, Professor Saul Lieberman). Each volume leaves you thirsting for more. At least another two volumes are in preparation by his daughter, Dr. Pearl Herzog. I wish her much Hatzlacha in this great service for readers of all kinds all over the world.

Here is a table of contents of the latest volume:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, back in print are the following older titles:
בעקבות היראה, לר’ אברהם אליהו קפלן
אגרות צפון לר’ שמשון רפאל הירש
שו“ת מן השמים מהדיר ר’ ראובן מרגליות הלל צייטלין,
ספרן של יחידים

 



Towards a Bibliography About Realia and Chumash, specifically relating to the Mishkan and Bigdei Kehunah

 Towards a Bibliography About Realia and Chumash, specifically relating to the Mishkan and Bigdei Kehunah 
By Eliezer Brodt
Learning Chumash and Nach is extremely important for many reasons. Over time it became a neglected subject (why is the subject of a different post IY”H) and in many circles is still true today. Sadly, many people remain with the images of the various stories from Tanach the way they heard it in their youth without a genuine understanding of the events. I strongly believe that learning Tanach properly (by both students in school and adults) could help with some of the issues we face today. In recent years there have been attempts to fix this problem but there is still much work to be done.[1] There are many works out there to help one deepen their understanding of Tanach, each focusing on different aspects.
In this post I will limit myself to mentioning some of the recent, general works on the topic that I feel can help. However, the main focus of the post will be a listing and description of works to help one learn Parshiyos Terumah through Pekudei, with emphasis on works that focus on the Realia. I will also quote some general sources of the significance of understanding the Realia. Eventually I will return to add more works and Parshiyos to this list. I will also deal with other aspects of learning Tanach. Just to mention one area to help one understand Chumash which I dealt with a bit in the past – that is Via learning Targum Onkelos properly, see here and here.
General works
 
אמנון בזה, עד היום הזה, שאלות יסוד בלימוד תנ”ך, ידיעות ספרים, 470 עמודים.
היא שיחתי, על דרך לימוד התנ”ך, בעריכת ר’ יהושע רייס, מכללת הרצוג תשע”ג, 264 עמודים
בעיני אלוהים ואדם, האדם המאמין ומחקר המקרא, בעריכת יהודה ברנדס, טובה גנזל חיותה דויטש, בית מורשה ירושלים תשע”ה, 487 עמודים
Moshe Sokolow, Tanakh, An Owner’s Manual, Authorship, Canonization, Masoretic Text, Exegesis, Modern Scholarship and Pedagogy, Urim 2015, 219 pp.
David Stern, The Jewish Bible, A Material History, Washington Press 2017, 303 pp. [Beautifully produced]
Yitzchak Etshalom, Between the lines of the Bible, Genesis, Recapturing the Full meaning of the Biblical Text (revised and Expanded), Urim/OU Press, NY 2015, 271 pp.
Yitzchak Etshalom, Between the lines of the Bible: Exodus: A study from the new school of Orthodox Torah Commentary, Urim/OU Press, NY 2012, 220 pp. [On this work see here]
See also the incredible site ALHatorah.org which is extremely useful.
Also, worth mentioning is the new series which I am enjoying so far:
יואל בן נון, שאול ברוכי, מקראות עיון, רב תחומי בתורה, יתרו,  278 עמודים
יואל בן נון, שאול ברוכי, מקראות עיון, רב תחומי בתורה, 608 עמודים
See their Website for more information here.
Many years ago, when I was in fourth Grade, my Rebbe, Rabbi Zacks (who loved seforim) taught us the Parshiyos of Terumah etc. While learning it he would take out this fancy and expensive book with color pictures of the various Kelim in the Mishkan and of the Bigdei Kehunah to help us better understand what we were learning. He was using visual aids of pictures to help the students understand Chumash. I recall that when it was Friday of Parshas Terumah there was non-stop knocking on the classroom door, because Rabbeyim from different classes sent students to borrow the sefer so that they too could show their classes the pictures while learning Parshas Hashavuah. A few years later I recall someone bringing and setting up a real model of the Mishkan and Kelim to our school. All this helped us understand the Chumash a bit better.
A few years ago I heard a shiur in Jerusalem from the prolific Rabbi Yechiel Stern on Visual aids for learning, as he had written many such seforim to help students. He described that at first there was much opposition to what he was doing but eventually it became more and more accepted.
At the time I realized that this was something that the academic world was busy with for well over hundred years and wrote on this numerous works. However, that obviously would not help the case to get mainstream Yeshivos to use these works even when the authors were frum and the like. (See further on).
However, the truth is that there were many Gedolim who had realized the significance of using Visual aids while teaching and of understanding the Realia while learning Chumash.
Just to list some sources.
R’ Sofer writes about the Chasam Sofer:
לתכלית גדול הזה לברר הלכה לאמיתו ולהעמיד כל ענין על בוריו הי’ לו לכל שיעורי תורה כלים מיוחדים מדודים מאתו בדקדוק הדק היטב להראות לתלמידיו וכן הי’ לו בארגז מיוחד שני צורות תבנית זכר ונקבה מעשה אומן מופלא והיו נעשים פרקים פרקים וכל חלקי הפנימים מעשה חדש נפלא ללמוד וללמד חכמת הניתוח ולא הראה זה רק לתלמידים מובהקים אשר יראת ה’ אוצרם בעת למדו אתם הלכות נדה וכדומה.[2]
Regarding the Minsker Godol after he got his first position, he sat with the head Dayan to see exactly how to Pasken. His reason for this was:
 “מעולם לא ראיתי הדברים האלה במציאות, וכל ידיעותי אינן רק מהעיון והלימוד בספרים…”.[3]
In a Haskamah of the Aderet he writes as follows:
בואו ונחזיק טובה להרב המובהק הנ’… אשר המציא להשכיל להטיב לצעירי התלמידים להקל מעליהם למוד ההוראות במקצוע הל’ שחיטה וטריפות בהמציאו ציורים ותמונת מכל אבר ואבר לכל פרטי מוצאיו ומובאיו על פי מקורים נאמנים… התענגתי מאד לראות חיבורו סי’ אהל יוסף נחמד למראה וטוב למעשה לא לבד לצעירי התלמידים אשר לא ראו ניתוח בעלי חיים מעודם, כי אם גם למוריהם, כי יקל הלימוד לתלמידיהם להורותם הלכה למעשה על כל פרט ופרט לאמר בזה ראה וקדש”.[4]
In the extremely interesting autobiography of Eliezer Friedman he writes:
מצאתי אצל אחד… ספר רבני ובו לוח הריאה וציורים. אנכי הייתי אז בקיא מאוד ביורה דעה. ראיתי כי באמת נחוץ לחניכי הרבנים לומדי היו”ד, לוח הריאה אבל לא כזה שמצאתי שאינו אומר כלום… צירתי עלי גליון גדול, צורת הריאה, אונותיה ואומותיה וכל סוגי השאלות אשר אפשר להוליד בהלכות ריאה. הכל מצויר בצבעים שונים, צבעים טבעיים כפי הלקוי והמחלה אשר ידובר עליהן בש”ס ופוסקים. על כל לקוי, הצגתי אות מספרי ובצד הציור כתבתי בקצור נמרץ שם הלקוי, תמצית דעות הפוסקים והחלט הדין להטריף או להכשיר, את הציור אזה הראיתי לגאונים ר’ נפתלי צבי יהודה מוולואזין ור’ שלמה הכהן מווילנא. הם סמכו ידעם על הציור להשתמש בו הלכה למעשה, ואמכור אותו למדפיסים ראם בווילנה. גם סמיכה להורות ולדון נתנו לי (ספר הזכרונות, עמ’ 136).
See also the important introduction related to this in Rabbi Moshe Leib Shachor, Bigdei Kehuna (pp.10-11).
Turning to these Parshos in Chumash in Particular.
In 1612, R’ Abraham Portaleone (1542-1612), a Talmid Chochom and medical doctor, printed in Mantua his encyclopedic masterpiece Shiltay HaGiborim. This work deals in great depth with every aspect of the Mishkan and Mikdash, with a tremendous focus on Realia. For example, when dealing with the Kitores, he methodologically investigates every aspect of it (pages upon pages) drawing upon his expert knowledge in sciences and command of ten languages. Similarly, when discussing the stones of the Choshen, he tries to identify the stones, using these same tools, while covering other aspects related to them. When dealing with the music and the instruments used in the Beis Hamikdosh, he again devotes many pages to the subject, explaining it via knowledge of the Realia. This last section on Music was the Subject of a PhD dissertation in 1980 written in Tel Aviv by Daniel Sandler.
In a lecture about this work, Prof. Zohar Amar said as follows (one can see it here or read it here):
רבנו אברהם הצליח להקיף ולהתמודד בחיבורו עם נושאים שונים ומגוונים הקשורים למקדש, כמו תוכנית מבנה המקדש וכליו, הקרבנות הראויים לעלות למזבח, בגדי כהונה, אבני החושן, סממני הקטורת, עצי המערכה, תפקידי הלויים, ובהם שירה וזימרה, שמירה, וכן סדר התפילות והקריאה בתורה ועוד נושאים רבים. בכל אחד מהנושאים שעסק, הוא הפגין ידע ובקיאות מעוררת השתאות, בתחומי הזואולוגיה, הבוטניקה, מנרולוגיה, מוסיקה, רפואה, טכנולוגיה ועוד ועוד. בעצם לפנינו חיבור אנציקלופדי רחב היקף,  האנציקלופדיה הראשונה שנכתבה על המקדש.
 
אז מה הופך את רבנו לחוקר ? ראשית, רבנו אברהם היה בעל ידע נרחב בכל הספרות היהודית לדורותיה, ובהקדמתו הוא מנה כמאה מקורות בהם השתמש, החל מספרות חז”ל, הגאונים, הראשונים וחכמים בני תקופתו. אולם מקורות הידע שלו לא הצטמצמו לארון הספרים היהודי, אלא הוא היה בקיא גם בכל מכמניה של הספרות הקלאסית, היוונית, הרומית והערבית, וספרות המדע שהתפתחה בתקופתו. רבנו אברהם ניחן באחד מכלי המחקר החשובים ביותר והיא ידיעת שפות. על פי עדותו בהקדמה הוא השתמש בחיבורו בעשר שפות: איטלקית, ארמית, גרמנית, צ’יכית, יוונית, לטינית, ספרדית, ערבית, פרסית וצרפתית.
In 2010 Mechon Yerushalyim and Mechon Shlomo Uman put out a beautiful, annotated edition of this special work (47+709 pp). At the end of the thorough introduction they are very open and quote  Prof. Amar as follows:
אולם פרופ’ זהר עמר העיר בצדק שלצורך הוצאת מהדורה מדעית מלאה של הספר נדרשת עוד עבודה רבה מאוד. מדובר בספר מסובך עם מאות רבות של מונחים בשפות לועזיות שונות, והוא דורש התמודדת עם הספרות הקלאסית היוונית והלטינית (כמו אריסטו, תיאופרסטוס, פליניוס, דיוסקורידס וסטארבו) מחד, וספרות ימיו של רבנו המחבר (כמו חיבוריהם של פרוספר אלפין ואחרים) מאידך, ויש צורך להשוות את כל הציטוטים עם המקורות עצמם על רקע העובדה שהמחבר הוא הראשון שמביא את תרגומם בעברית. מעבר לכך חייבים לזהות באופן שיטתי את כל הצמחים, בעלי החיים והמינרלים שבספר, ולהתחקות אחרי תהליכי ייצור וטכנולוגיה המוזכרים בו (למשל ייצור סבון). כל זה דורש מחקרים נוספים בעזרת מומחים לתחומים השונים, והרבה הרבה זמן (יתכן שכדאי יהיה להוציא בעתיד נספח מדעי למהדורה זו.
Although what Amar writes is very true, what they did do is extremely useful.
Just to add one more source about R’ Abraham Portaleone: See the two excellent chapters devoted to him by Andrew D. Berns, in his recent book The Bible and Natural Philosophy in Renaissance Italy, Cambridge 2015, pp. 153-230. One chapter focuses on his correspondence with his Gentile colleagues found in an unpublished manuscript of his. The other chapter deals with R’ Abraham Portaleone’s sections devoted to the Kitores.
Over the centuries other works were written devoted to explaining the Realia of the Mishkan and Mikdash (hopefully one day I will compile a detailed list). In 1891 a work called Mikdash Aron was printed’ a bit later the same author printed another work also devoted to this subject called Parshegen.
Rav Kasher writes about this work as follows:
וראיתי להעיר כאן על ספר זה, שמוקדש לביאור מעשה המשכן וכל כליו, הלוחות וספר תורה ולחם הפנים. המחבר עשה מלאכה גדולה, שערך הכל בקצור נמרץ והכניס הרבה, חומר על כל אלה ,ענינים בעשרים דפים (40 עמוד) ונראה, מתוך ספרו שהשקיע בו הרבה זמן ויגיעה גדולה. אמנם הסדר שלו הוא מוזר. מחבר זה סדר לו פנים וביאור. הפנים נכתב באופן סתמי ומוחלט שהקורא חושב שהוא מועתק מאיזה, מקור והביאור נותן המקורות, וכל מעיין משתומם לראות אין שבכל ענין וענין כותב לו בפנים דברים שהם השערות גרידא מהרהורי לבו שאין להם שום מקור ויסוד ,והרבה פעמים מציין מקורות אבל לא הבין הדברים כראוי, וכותב להיפך מהמבואר בראשונים כי דרכו הוא בלשון מדברת גדולות ולכן אין לסמוך על דבריו רק צריכים לבדוק המקורוות ותמה אני על א׳ מהגדולים המסכים על ספרו בהערות להוצאה שניה, מהספר מביא שכמה מהגדולים בזמנו פלפלו עמו וכנראה, שלא נפנו לקרוא בעיון בהספר, לכן לא העירו להמחבר על עיקר גישתו שאינה נכונה [תורה שלמה, כב, מילואים, עמ’ 23].
 Rav Kasher writes he does not understand how one of the Gedolim who gave a Haskamah did not comment. This appears to be a strange story and requires further investigation of the various editions of the work. The author has various letters from Gedolim and brings various comments he received from them about the work. One of the Gedolim who he was in correspondence about his works was the Netziv. Interestingly, the Netziv writes in one of these letters:
תבנית הארון והלוחות כבר שלחתי להגרש”מ כמבוקשו…
[Some of the letters were reprinted in Igrot Netziv, pp. 39-41 but not all of them. I have no explanation for this].
Of interest is what the author writes describing how he came to writing this work and his meeting with R’ Meir Simcha
Besides for publishing works on the Mishkan others built models. R’ Tuviah Preshel collected a bunch of accounts of people who actually built such models of the Mishkan to help people understand it  (See Ma’amarei Tuvia, 1, pp. 412-419 available here).
One work in particular which still has not been outdated is the Living Torah from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. Although his translation on the whole torah is very important, the sections on these Parshiyos are extremely special and useful.
Turning to specific “ingredients” we find mentioned in these parshiyos time and time again. There are a few works of Zohar Amar relevant, all of which investigate the particular topic from the early sources until recent developments. See for example:
זהר עמר, בעקבות תולעת השני הארץ ישראלית, תשס”ז, 106 עמודים
זהר עמר, ספר הקטורת, תל אביב תשס”ב, 197 עמודים
זהר עמר, הארגמן, פורפורה וארג’ואן במקורות ישראלועוד בירורים בענייני התכלת, תשע”ד, 281 עמודים
In it he writes:
במסגרת המחקר פיצחתי כ-11000 קונכיות של ארגמונים לצורך מיצוי צבע מהם (עמ’ 13).
See also
ר’ ישראל ראזענבערג, קונטרס מרכבו ארגמן, והוא בירור מהות צבע ארגמן מדברי חז”ל עד האחרונים וביאור המסורה בזה [וגם יתבאר בו מהות תולעת שני], נד עמודים.
I am specifically avoiding listing material on תכלת as there has been a recent explosion on the topic (especially of note are the booklets coming out of Lakewood). Someone needs to put out a proper bibliography of all the works on this hot topic. Just to mention three recent discussions related to the topic.
I, See Dovid Henshke’s recent article in Assif 5 (2018)
פתיל תכלת וגידלי ציצית בירורים בקיום מצות תכלת בציצית
Available here
II,
ר’ יהושע ענבל, קוציו של ארגמון, האוצר יא (תשע”ח), עמ’ רעא-שיב.
A PDF is Available upon request.
Three Listen to this Shiur – specifically the Part from Rabbi J. D. Bleich.
The Aron
 
A special article devoted to literary all aspects of the Aron is from R’ Menachem Silber, published in Sefer HaZicron LeRebbe Moshe Lipshitz (1996), pp. 229- 272. The Article is titled ארון העדות ולוחות הברית: צורתם ותבניתם. The article is written very concise, in an encyclopedic style, includes hundreds of footnotes and  is well worth ones time to go through.
An interesting point related to this article is in a publication of Encyclopedia Talmudit where they discuss various issues related to their publication:
ערך לוחות הברית, לאורך זמן רב פקפקנו אם יש לו מקום באנצ”ת. הנושא אינו הלכתי ממש, ניתן לראותו יותר כרקע להלכה, שיש להניחם בארון שבקדש הקדשים, ולדעת הרמב”ן יש מצוה מיוחדת לעשות ארון לצורך הלוחות, כגון אם נמצא אותם בלי ארון. אכן ענין זה כבר נידון כללית בערך ארון. והנה סמוך לסוף הכרך קבלנו מאחד מלומדי האנצ”ת עבודה יפה שהוא ערך בנושא, ובקשנו לראות אם היא מתאימה לנו. במבט ראשון אכן נראתה דומה לערך באנציקלופדיה, וכאן המקום להודות לו מקרב לב. זה עורר אותנו לשיקול מחדש, ובסופו של דבר הערך נכתב, ולמעשה השתנה מהמסד עד הטפחות, והלומד ימצא בו ריכוז של סוגיות שונות בתלמוד בבלי וירושלמי, סביב צורתם של הלוחות.
I assume they got a copy of Rabbi Silber’s article and this helped them change their minds. See the entry in Encyclopedia Talmudit, 37, pp. 143-150. In Footnote # 21 they quote the article (I think they should write out the authors name).
See also
ר’ עזריאל לעמל כ”ץ, קונטרס מנוחת השכינה, מראי מקומות וביאורים בענין הארון, ביאור מקיף בענין מנוחת השכינה על הארון, נצחון ישראל, נגד האויבים ע”י נשיאת הארון למלחמה, ושמות של הקב”ה שהיו מונחים בארון, ועוד, תשע”ו, צח עמודים
Lechem Hapanim
 
For information about all aspects of the of Lechem Hapanim: See the excellent entry in one of the most recent volumes of Encyclopedia Talmudit, 37, pp. 483-591
About making of Lechem Hapanim see:
זהר עמר, חמשת מיני דגן, תשע”א, עמ’ 129-172
 
On the Menorah throughout the ages: 
 
See Daniel Sperber, “The History of the Menorah”, Journal of Jewish Studies 16:3-4 (1965) pp. 135-59, and in his Minhaghei Yisroel, 5, pp. 171-204. Daniel Sperber in Daniel Sperber Articles, Reviews and Stories 1960-2010, Jerusalem 2010, p. 11.
See also the very interesting new work on the subject from Steven Fine, The Menorah, From the Bible to Modern Israel, Harvard University Press 2016, 279 pp.  [For a review on this work see here]. Related to this and a recent display he arranged see here.
Baraita De-Melekhet Ha-Mishkan
 
A much earlier “neglected” work important to use when learning these parshiyos is Baraita De-Melekhet Ha-Mishkan.
For Meir Ish Shalom’s edition see here. R’ Chaim Kanievsky commentary on this work is available here. A recent critical edition of this work was done by Robert Kirschner, Baraita De-Melekhet Ha-Mishkan: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Translation, 1992, 320 pp. For a review of this edition see Chaim Milikowsky, “On Editing Rabbinic Texts: A Review-Essay of Baraita de-Melekhet ha-Mishkan: A Critical Edition with Introduction and Translation by R. Kirschner”, JQR 86 (1996), pp. 409-417 (here). For a recent commentary on this work see:
ר’ חיים דיס, דברים אחדים, אנטווערפען תשע”א, על ברייתא דמלאכת המשכן, בגדי כהונה ועוד, תקנו עמודים
This work is available free in PDF here.
Two other random works I will mention here are:
רבינו שמעיה השושני, סוד מעשה המשכן, כ”י, [מדורו של רש”י], מהדיר: ר’ גור אריה הרציג, 2013, 20 עמודים.
יעקב שפיגל, לשון הזהב (חישוב הזהב הנדרש לכלי המשכן והמקדש) לר’ יצחק בן שלמה אלאחדב, בד”ד 12 (תשס”א), 5-34
Bigdei Kehunah
 
An important work that had tremendous impact on many of those related to Wissenschaft as well as those who identified with the Haskalah movement was R’ Azariah de Rossi’s Meor Einayim. This work, first printed in Mantua in 1573, was really a few hundred years ahead of its time. However, for a long period of time it remained underaappreciated and, in some circles, even banned. De Rossi’s book was an attempt to deal with the chronological and intellectual history of Judaism during the Second Temple and early Rabbinic periods. The author devoted a considerable amount of space towards understanding Chazal and Aggadah. De Rossi employed critical methods, including philology, going back to translating early original documents from their source languages. Many of these methods eventually became the trademark of Wissenschaft.[5] Zunz wrote the first definitive study on the history and usage of this work, emphasizing its importance.[6] The work also influenced people affiliated with the “GRA school”, such as RaShaSh and Netziv (who quotes it in relation to the Bigdei Kehuna).[7] One lengthy section of this work is devoted to the Bigdei Kehuna (See his Imrei Bina, Ch. 46-50) where he has a lengthy discussion based on Rishonim and other sources such, as Yosifon and Philo. While I am not sure if R’ Abraham Portaleone in his Shiltei HaGiborim, also printed in Mantua a bit later, made use of the Meor Einayim‘s discussion, it’s worth mentioning that he also deals extensively with the Bigdei Kehuna.
One outstanding work on the topic of the Bigdei Kehuna is Rabbi Moshe Leib Shachor, Bigdei Kehunah (1971) 447 pp.
For a review on this book see Daniel Sperber, Daniel Sperber Articles, Reviews and Stories 1960-2010, Jerusalem 2010, p.51 who writes about it:

It is the work of a true Talmid Chacham with a tremendous Bekiyut… applying the traditional methods… to a relatively unexplored field… The depth and detail of treatment is sometimes most astounding… His sharpness and his critical abilities glimmer through the printed words… This book has a wealth of information on a little-known subject. It is clearly written, well organized….

An older work on Bigdei Kehunah is available here.  For a recent book on this subject see:
ר’ זאב לופיאן, לשרת בקודש, ירושלים תשע”ו, בעניני בגדי כהונה, תפו עמודים
See also
ר’ ישראל גארדאן, קונטרס לב ישראל, בעניני האפוד והחושן, ללוס אנג’לס תשע”ג, 123 עמודים
See also
זאב ספראי, משנת ארץ ישראל, יומא, עמ’ 249-269
The stones of the Choshen
 
Recently much has been written on the Stones of the Choshen.
See
     .זהר עמר, החן שבאבן, אבני החושן ואבנים טובות בעולם הקדום, תשע”ז, 350 עמודים
See also the important article on the topic from Rabbi Yankelowitz:
זיהוי אבן החושן על פי תרגום השבעים והתרגומים הארמיים, חצי גיבורים י (תשע”ז), עמ’ תעח-תקמא.
A pdf is available upon request.
See also the chapter of Andrew D. Berns, in his recent book The Bible and Natural Philosophy in Renaissance Italy, Cambridge 2015, pp. 109-152, “The Grandeur of the Science of God” David De Pomi and the stones of the High Priests Breastplate. The Chapter is specifically devoted to understanding David De Pomi of the Tarshish stone in his Tzemach Dovid[8] where he identifies it as the diacinto and mentions the Segulos of this stone.
Appendix:
It appears that even though some will use visual aids and Realia for teaching Chumash,  many are nervous about introducing Realia when learning Talmud. See here, here and here for some recent discussions on the subject. [For Earlier posts related to this see here and here] Although I personally am not sure how one can say its not important or relevant (but I am biased and tainted from Academia already). I suspect that part of the issue is that the fear is at times the outcomes might clash with Halacha. This itself has many ramifications and is an explosive topic which I hope to return to someday.
To cite just one example, over ten years ago I wrote:

One of the greatest poskim of the past century, R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, was famous for how he consulted experts and tried to understand the exact facts before issuing a pesak. This is evident in all his writings on all of the modern-day issues. One example: In recent years there has been much written on the bottle cap opening of shabbat — it even has its own huge sefer (as virtually everything else does these days) on the topic! One of the rabbanim who has been involved with this topic for years is R. Moshe Yadler, author of Meor Hashabbat, where he has written on this topic and spent many hours speaking to many gedolim about it. When he was researching the topic he made sure to track down every type of bottle, he visited factories to see how bottles are made so that he would be able to understand exactly how it is made so he would be able to pasken properly. When he gives a shiur about this topic he comes with a bag full of all types of caps to demonstrate to the crowd the exact way it is made, etc. He told me once that he spoke to R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach about this many times. At one point he requested R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach to put in writing all his pesakim on the subject to which the latter did. R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s son told R. Yadler that his father sat for three days with a soda bottle in front of him the whole time he was writing the teshuvah and he kept on taking it on and off.

Yet elsewhere we find R’ Shlomo Zalman writes in regards to some of the discoveries of Yehudah Felix:
קיבלתי יקרת מכתבו מעולם לא אמרתי לשנות מהמסורת והשו”ע וכמו שאין שומעין לפרופ’ פליקס (שהוא שומר מצוות) ששבולת שועל הוא לא מה שקוראים העולם, ואין שומעין לו ומברכין מזונות, וכן הוכיח באותות שתמכי הנקרא חריין לא היה כלל בזמן חז”ל ואין יוצאין בזה מרור, ואעפ”כ אין שומעין לו נגד המסורות. וכ”ש בענין זה שמפורש בשו”ע וכידוע (ר’ צבי גולדברג, מסורתנו, ירושלים תשס”ג, עמ’ 6).
For another article against Felix see R’ Yonah Merzbach, Aleh LeYonah (2102), pp. 535-539. About Y. Felix see Zohar Amar article in Jerusalem and Eretz Yisroel 4-5(2007), pp. 7-10. Available here.

[1]  In the next version of this article I will cite sources about this, IYH.

[2]  חוט המשולש, כט ע”א.

[3] הגדול ממינסק, ירושלים תשנ”ד, עמ’ 51.

[4] שו”ת אהל יוסף, ניו יורק תרס”ג, בהקדמה.

[5] On this work there is extensive literature. See for example Bezalel Safran: Azariah de Rossi’s Meor Eynaim, PhD, Harvard 1979 (Thanks to Menachem Butler for this source); Robert Bonfil: Azariah De’ Rossi Selected chapters from Sefer Meor Einayim, Jerusalem 1991; Lester Segal: Historical Consciousness and Religious Tradition in Azariah de’ Rossi’s Meor Einayim, New York 1989.

[6] Toledot Rabi Azariah min ha-Adumim, Kerem Hemed 5 (1841) pp. 131-58; Tosefot le-Toledot R’ Azariah min ha-Adumim, Kerem Hemed 7 (1843) pp. 119-24.

[7] Gil Perl, The Pillar of Volozhin:  Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin and the World of Nineteenth-Century Lithuanian Scholarship, Boston: Academic studies Press 2013, pp.105-126. This is the subject of a future article.

[8] On the Tzemach Dovid see Shimon Brisman, History and Guide to Judaic Dictionaries and Concordances, Ktav 2000, p. 61, 290.



There is No Bracha on an Eclipse

There is No Bracha on an Eclipse
By Rabbi Michael J. Broyde
Rabbi Michael Broyde is a law
professor at Emory University School of Law and the Projects Director in its
Center for the Study of Law and Religion.  His most recent Torah sefer is
entitled “A Concise Code of Jewish Law For Converts”.  This letter was written to someone after a
shiur on why there is no bracha on seeing a solar eclipse.
1.      You are correct that I said that I thought there was no bracha on an eclipse.  I had not seen Rabbi Linzer’s teshuva at the time that told that to you this, as it was not circulating on the internet at the time that I prepared for my shiur and I did not see it until Sunday, the day after the shiur.  I try to cite as much as relevant in these classes and his thoughts are clearly relevant.  He is a stellar writer on interesting topics of halacha and I read his material consistently.  I had seen that Rabbi Eliezer Melamed in Peneni Halacha Laws of Brachot 15:6 and note 5 which does permit a bracha on an eclipse.
2.      Having said that, I would not change my mind at all in light of Rabbi Linzer’s teshuva and remain opposed to reciting a bracha over an eclipse for many reasons explained below.
3.      First, as many have noted, the giants of halacha are quite divided over the question of whether the listing in the Shulchan Aruch is paradigmatic or particular.  Some make no blessings other that for matters listed in the codes and other treat them as examples.  That dispute alone inspires me to be cautious, although I could be persuaded that the paradigmatic approach is correct and one could then make a bracha on a waterfall.  I have yet to see a clear proof that such a view is correct, but it does seem more intuitive.[1]  Yet, safek brachot lehakel is present.
4.      Second, and more importantly, if you look closely in the classical achronim, you see not a single achron who actually endorses saying a bracha on an eclipse.  Not a single one.  It is true that there is a dispute about whether the list in the Mishna is all inclusive or not (as many note, see Shar HaAyin 7:6), but even those who are of the view that the Mishnah’s list is merely examples, not a single achron actually endorses making a bracha on an eclipse as opposed to a volcano or some other natural wonder, which some clearly do permit a bracha on.  The group that favors expansive brachot on natural wonders endorse stalagmite caves, waterfalls, water geysers, volcanoes and many more: but not eclipses.  If you look, for example in Shar HaAyin 7:6 (the classical work on this topic) one sees this most clearly: even those who endorse making brachot on waterfalls, or other amazing facets of creation are uncertain נסתפק)) if one make a bracha on an eclipse, and we all know that when a posek is נסתפק, that posek does not make a bracha.[2]
a.       This contrast is made clear in the context of Rabbi Shmuel Halevi Wosner — who is the most clear and direct articulator of the view that list of wondrous sightings in the Shulchan Aruch are just examples, and one makes the bracha of oseh maaseh bereshit even on other wonders.  In Shar HaAyin page 431 he states directly that one makes a blessing on many wondrous things unlisted in the codes and he explains that “Volcanos are not present in our lands and thus are unmentioned in the Shulchan Aruch” and that it is “obvious” that one makes a blessing on them.  However, on eclipses he states “solar eclipses are mentioned a few times in the Gemera, and thus on the question of whether one needs to make a bracha when one sees them, needs more thought.[3]”  He does NOT endorse making a bracha on an eclipse. In fact, I am unaware of anyone other than Rabbis Melamed and Linzer who actually endorse the view in favor of making a bracha on an eclipse, (rather than merely ponders the possibility of such a bracha).  Rabbi Wozner’s point is important: this is not a modern issue – eclipses were well known for a few millennium, and silence in the Jewish Law codes is telling.  To the best of my knowledge the dispute about the eclipses is between two views: (1) Absolutely Not and (2) Maybe.  There is no (3) Yes view in the classical rabbinic literature for eclipses.  (That is why the listing of reasons why an eclipse might be different from other wonders below is important.)

5.      Why is an eclipse different from a stalagmite cave or a volcano?  I could think of a few reasons from a halachic perspective, even to those who believe that the Mishna’s list is not inclusive.

a.       Many perceive them to be a siman raah – a bad sign, either because of superstitious reasons or because darkness in the middle of the day is practically bad – and there is no blessing on bad omens (as Rabbi Moshe Feinstein is quoted in Mesorat Moshe 2:51).
b.      Because one sees nothing in an eclipse (as it is an absence of light, rather than a presence) and we do not make brachot on absences.
c.       Because the bracha of oseh maaseh breseshit does not apply to things whose existence can be mathematically predicted, but are merely rare: eclipses are not anomalies, but a product of the universes’ cycle of life, and more under the berkat hachama rule.
d.      Because full eclipses are exceedingly rare and partial eclipses are almost impossible to “see” without modern eclipse glasses (a 75% eclipse hardly is noticed on a functional level) and are naturally invisible.
e.       For other reasons that are less obvious related to the fact that these have to be wonders from “creation” and these are not from creation.
f.       Because some thought that eclipses were punishments and thus no blessing was ordained.[4]
6.      Based on all this, one can say that eclipses could be different from all other created natural anomalies as a matter of Jewish law and are not covered by the general idea of a wonder such that a blessing should be made. To my surprise, even as the primary source of the view that one can make a bracha on wonders beyond the Mishna’s list is Rabbi Wozner and he explicitly notes that eclipses are different from volcanoes, waterfalls, geysers and many other rare natural phenomena, the secondary codifiers of the last generation have completely missed this distinction.  Instead both Shar HaAyin 7:6 and Penenia Halacha Laws of Bracha 15:5 link the dispute about volcanoes and waterfalls with eclipses and state that one who permits a bracha for volcanoes and waterfalls would do so for eclipses as well, when in fact that is incorrect.  Eclipses were known in Talmudic times and yet no bracha was noted: that bothers Rabbi Shmuel Wozner, who permit a bracha on an erupting volcano, not to permit a bracha to be recited on an eclipse, by noting that he is uncertain if a bracha is proper.[5]
7.      Additionally, let me add a thought of my own about modern times and bracha’s over wonders.  The Shulchan Aruch OC 228:3 limits even the mountains that one can make a bracha on to such mountains in which the hand of our Creator is clear and apparent. (ולא על כל הרים וגבעות מברך, אלא דווקא על הרים וגבעות המשונים וניכרת גבורת הבורא בהם.)  I think in our modern times, with modern science explaining all of these events, no mountains or valleys ever meet the criterial of make it clear (to normal people) that God is in charge of the universe.  Based on this, I would not make any extensions of this halacha beyond its minimums recorded in the Shuchan Aruch because I think that the test for determining whether we can add to this list is and make a bracha is וניכרת גבורת הבורא בהם.  Given the secular environment we live in, I think no natural astrological events meets that bill in modern times so I only – at most — make such brachot on the things that the halachic tradition directly directs me to do, like lighting or thunder or great mountains and certain rivers. I would not make such a bracha on an erupting volcano or a solar eclipse, as seeing such does not cause normal people in my society to experience God.  (There are two formulations of my claim, each slightly different.  The first is experiential, in that I think that most people in my society do not sense any awe of God at an eclipse.  Second, even if any particular person does (and I do not doubt that some do), they cannot make the bracha since most people in America do not so sense God through these events and that is the halachic test found in the Shulchan Aruch.  The sense of wonder has to be obvious to normal people and that is lacking in the world we live in.
8.      Finally, all attempts to actually endorse making a bracha on an eclipse run directly against the combined force of both (1) the minhag, which is not to make a bracha and (2) the rule of ספק ברכות להקל. These two together make it difficult for any moreh horah to argue convincingly that there is clear proof that bracha should be made.
9.      I have consciously not engaged with Rabbi Linzer’s very worthwhile point (which I more or less agree with) that “we strive to bring our religious lives and our halakhic lives in sync” exactly because (as he himself notes) this calculus is limited to cases where there is a dispute between poskim about what to do.  Here, to the best of my knowledge, there is no dispute and since there is no classical halachic authority who actually says “yes make a bracha on an eclipse” there is no grounds to examining very important meta issues used to resolve disputes (since there is no dispute).
10.  Based on all of this, I would not make a bracha on an eclipse.
11.  Having said that, I am happy to endorse other forms of religions veneration for one who feels such wonder.
a.       One can certainly say this bracha without שם ומלכות.
b.      I am also somewhat comfortable with someone making this blessing in Aramaic (see Shulchan Aruch OC 167:10, 187:1 and 219:4) although I am aware of the view of Iggrot Moshe OC 4:20:27, but find the view of the Aruch Hashulchan OC 202:3 more analytically compelling.
c.       Both the suggestions of Rabbi Chaim David Ha-Levi (Responsa Aseh Lecha Rav, 150) that one recited va-yevarech david (Chronicles. 1:29:10) and adding “who performs acts of creation” at the end and of Rabbi David Lau, current Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi of Israel, to recite Tehillim 19 and 104 are completely reasonable as well.
d.      Other innovative non-bracha based solutions are also reasonable.
12.  On the other hand, those who attended an eclipse – I myself traveled to Rabun Georgia, an epicenter for the total eclipse and sat in total darkness at for three minutes in the middle of the day and did not feel any closer to the Almighty as Creator of the World during the eclipse than I did after or before — can feel free to engage in no innovative religious observance at all without feelings that they are deficient in any way.
13.  I welcome readers to direct me to a source written by an achron which directly discusses eclipses and permits a bracha.  (Please feel free to email me.) So far, I have only seen that the group that permits a bracha for an eclipse does so based on a putative ruling of Rabbi Wozner and others to permit such a bracha, which upon closer examination is not present.  I am willing to ponder the possibility that there is an achron who permits such a bracha even as others do not – that posek argues that all wonders deserve a bracha and the listing in paragraph 5 above about why eclipses are different from other wonders is incorrect – To the best of my knowledge, that is a theoretical position that is not actually adopted.

[1] I am inclined to the more expansive view because the formulation in the Beit Yosef in Tur OC 228.
[2] This is an important point.  Rabbi Wozner has the right as a morah horah to assert that he rules that the mishna’s list is not inclusive and that volcanoes get a bracha (which is exactly what he says, as does Rabbi Nissan Karletz in the same work on page 466).  When one asks him “how can he rule that a bracha needs to be recited, others disagree, and then the matter is in doubt”, Rabbi Wozner responds by stating that he sees no doubt and thus he feels a bracha should be recited.  When Rabbi Wozner states that he has doubt about this matter, he is being clear that this is exactly a case of doubt and no blessing should be recited.
[3] Let me add that eclipses are discussed in the rishonim and codifiers as well, with no mention of a bracha.  See Darchai Moshe on Tur OC 426 and the works cited by Rabbi Linzer in footnote 2 of his teshuva (see here).
[4] It is clear from the recounting of the Chafetz Chaim that he did not say a bracha on an eclipse.  See here.
[5] This is found both Shar HaAyin and Penine Halacha as well as Rabbi Linzer’ teshuva.  Shaar Haayin 7:6 is strict on the whole matter and does not permit a bracha practically on even volcanoes an water falls, so the mistake in that work – linking volcanoes and eclipses — is merely one of conceptual classification, but Peninia Halacha rules that המברך לא הפסיד (“one who makes the blessing is doing nothing wrong” for “volcanic eruptions, geyser, waterfalls and both lunar and solar eclipses” when it is clear to this writer that the source he is sighting – he cites Rabbi Wozner! – does not adopt that view.  (On page 466 of Shar HaAyin, Rabbi Nissan Karlitz is asked “Is the blessing oseh maaseh bereshit similar in that things that are wonders and not found in the Shulchan Aruch like an erupting volcano or a spouting geyser or other similar phenomena, also requiring a bracha” and Rabbi Karlitz answer “Logic indicates that such is the case also,” but no explicit discussion of eclipses, which could be different.