A Short Note Regarding an Illustrated Title Page and A Possible Unicum

There are a series of books, Seder ha-haʻarakhah ve-haHanhagah, that record the tax law and taxes paid by the Mantuan community and were published in Mantua. [1] The taxes were calculated by communally elected assessment formulators.  The taxes were used to support the entire communal infrastructure, including the administration of communal organizations and funds for the poor.  As today, each person would provide an accounting of their funds reducing their taxable income based upon recognized deductions and certain exempted property. The formulators were wholly responsible for the determination of the specific levied taxes and could reject suspect ax filings and impose fines.

The first edition was published in 1651 and each edition covers three years, of which the National Library has 17 editions. The British Library holds 12, seven that are not in the National Library’s collection. Vinograd lists 22 editions, six in neither library. [2] (A full bibliography appears below)

There is, however, at least one edition in the series that was not published in Mantua, the most logical location, but in Venice by Bragadin in 1711.  The likely reason for the change in venue is that from 1707-1712, there were no books printed in Mantua. [3] Nonetheless, these records were so important that the community went to Venice to publish the records.

Steinschneider, based upon Wolf’s bibliography, does identify this edition of the work. [4] But the book is not extant in the Bodleian Library.[5]  Nonetheless, no modern bibliography, e.g. Vinograd or Friedberg, records the Venice edition nor does the National Library or any other library I can identify (based on a search of WorldCat) own a copy of the book.  There is one copy, however, in the Gross Family Collection in Tel Aviv, and is possibly a unicum – the only extant copy.  Although as Judge Meyer Sulzberger, himself an avid book collector, noted that caution is necessary when identifying a unica, because “that the great weakness about a unicum is that presently one or two other people are found to have the book, and instead of contently agreeing that each of them has a unicum, each feels the value of his possession has been materially impaired.”  To this we can add that without concrete evidence of the book’s singularity, there may be private collections or public ones whose holdings are insufficiently cataloged to make a confident identification regarding the rarity of any book.  Indeed, Sulzberger provides many examples of books thought to unica, only to be identified as “merely” rare.[6]

I should also note that the Venice copy has a nice title page with Moses and Aaron. (For a discussion of depictions of Moses and Aaron on Hebrew title pages see our earlier post here.)   A very similar title page appears on a later book printed in Mantua, 1720, Mishlei ve-Eiov, although in this instance it is David and Solomon who flank the title.

Additionally, the depiction of the Moses, Aaron, Solomon and David are similar to the ones that appear – Rambam, Rashi, R Yosef Karo, Rama, and the author – on the Gur Areyeh, a commentary on Shulkhan Orakh, Mantua, 1722.

There are two editions of this book printed within a year of one another.  The second printing lacks the images entirely and the first they only appear in Orakh Hayyim, and, although not noted in bibliographies or articles regarding the book, in at least one example the title pictorial title pages also appears in Yoreh Deah.

The remaining three (or two) volumes do not contain the images.  This led some to speculate that the images were deliberately removed, and that page was ripped out at the behest of the Mantua rabbinate and a variety of theories are offered, ranging from concern over reproducing human image to the inclusion of the author among such a distinguished group was egotistical, that the Rambam lack ed peyot, or that the portraits are just not flattering. [7]

But, both the claim of censorship and the rationale are unsupported.  Most extant copies include that page and there are many earlier examples of books containing human images including of biblical figures, many without peyot, or not dressed in flattering clothing.  There is no independent evidence to suggest anything other than a benign reason, perhaps the woodcuts wore out.  This aligns with the fact that the printer was known for crude lettering so much so that it nearly lost its ability to print at all and only survived because another party stepped in. Thus it is unlikely the lack of the portraits in the later volumes is an instance of censorship.[8]

* The identification of the Gross edition as a unicum is only preliminary and still a work in progress.  The author encourages anyone with additional information regarding this edition to comment or send an email to seforimblog@gmail.com

[1] See Shlomo Simonshon, Tolodot ha-Yehudim be-Duhosot Mantua, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1963), 274-86; see also Marvin J. Heller, The Seventeenth Century Hebrew Book: An Abridged Thesaurus, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 957.

[2] For the NLI listing see here;   Diana Rowland Smith, Second Supplementary Catalog of Hebrew Books in the British Library 1893-1960, vol. 2 (London:  British Library, 1994), 599; Joseph Zedner, Catloglouge of the Hebrew Books in the Library of the British Museum (London, 1867), 510 recording Mantua 1759; Yeshayahu Vinograd, Otsar ha-Sefer ha-Ivri (Jerusalem:  Machon Lebibliograhia Memuhshevet, 1994).

[3] See Ch. B. Freidberg, Tolodot ha-Defus ha-Ivri be-Italia:  Be-Midenot Italiah, Aspnyah-Portugal, ve-Turgemah she-Melfenim (Tel Aviv:  Bar-Yeda, 1956), 20.  Friedberg does not explain the cause of the stoppage.

[4] Moritz Steinschneider, Catalogus Librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana (Berollini:  Ad. Friedlander, 1852-1860) columns 625-66; Johann Christoph Wolf, Bibliothecae Hebraeae, vol. 3 (Hamburg:  Christoph Felgineri Viduam, 1827), 1207-08 (Steinschneider’s citation to Wolf should be corrected to read vol. 3 and not vol. 2).

[5] See A.E. Cowley, A Concise Catalogue of the Hebrew Printed Books in the Bodleian Library (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1929), 410 (listing only Mantua).

[6] Meyer Sulzberger, “Books and Bookmen,” Menorah XXXVI (Jan. 1904), 38-40. For other Hebrew unica see Marvin J. Heller, “Unicum, Fragments, and Other Hebrew Book Rarities,” Judaica Librarianship 18 (2014), 130-53.

[7] See Shmuel Weiner, Daat Kedoshim:  Pesak Herem:  Mazkeret Rabanei Italiah (Petroberg: Berman Press, 1897), 38**; Aviad Cohen, “Diuknot Hakhamim:  Bein Halkha le-Maashe,” Mahnayim 10 (1995). See Mifal ha-Bibliographia ha-Ivrei entry Gur Areyeh .

One scholar viewed the selection of personages to grace the title page as an indication of their imporatance.  Specifically the inclusion of the Mahril was used to demonstrate his unique contribution to the formation of the Shulchan Orakh.  See Yisrael Peles, Mevo ve-Hosafot le-Sefer Mahril (Jerusalem:  Machon Yerushalim, 2016), 258. (Thanks to Eliezer Brodt for providing this source).

[8] Friedberg, Tolodot ha-Defus ha-Ivri, 20-21. For another example of spurious reasons for a change to the title page, see Dan Rabinowitz, “Sheti ha-Girsot shel Shu”t ha-Bakh, Mahadurot Frankfort TN”Z:  Totsot shel Shikul Tsniut, Sha’arim be Shut ha-Bach,” Alei Sefer  21(2010), 99-112.

Bibliography of Seder ha-Ha’arakhah

Mantua, 1651(BL)

Mantua, 1656 (NLI)

Mantua, 1670 (V)

Mantua, 1675 (BL)

Mantua, 1679 (NLI)

Mantua, 1682 (V)

Mantua, 1685 (V)

Venice, 1711 (Gross)

Venice, 1714 (Wolf)

Venice, 1717 (Wolf)

Mantua, 1722 (BL)

Mantua, 1722 (BL) (& a variant)

Mantua, 1726 (NLI)

Mantua, 1729 (V)

Mantua, 1732 (NLI)

Mantua, 1735 (NLI)

Mantua 1737 (BL)

Mantua, 1739 (NLI)

Mantua, 1743 (BL)

Mantua, 1747 (NLI)

Mantua, 1750 (NLI)

Mantua, 1753 (NLI)

Mantua, 1756 (NLI)

Mantua, 1759 (NLI)

Mantua, 1773 (BL)

Mantua, 1777 (NLI)

Mantua, 1780 (NLI)
Mantua, 1783 (V)

Mantua, 1786 (NLI)

Mantua, 1789 (NLI)

Mantua, 1793 (V)

Mantua, 1795 (NLI)

Mantua, 1798 (NLI)

An Unpublished 1966 Memorandum
from Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan Answers Questions on Jewish Theology

Marc B. Shapiro and Menachem Butler

Professor Marc B. Shapiro holds the Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Chair in Judaic Studies at the University of Scranton, and is the author of many books on Jewish history and theology. He is a frequent contributor at the Seforim blog.

Mr. Menachem Butler is Program Fellow for Jewish Legal Studies at The Julis-Rabinowitz Program on Jewish and Israeli Law at Harvard Law School. He is an Editor at Tablet Magazine and a Co-Editor at the Seforim Blog.

Over the last ten years Professor Alan Brill has written a series of blogposts, as well as a recent scholarly article on the perennially interesting, yet historically mysterious, rabbinic theologian, Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan (1934-1983).[1] It was from these posts that many have learned about what Kaplan was doing before he burst onto the wider Jewish literary scene in the early 1970s through his writings and public lectures. He passed away in 1983 at the age of 48.[2]

Rabbi Aryeh (Leonard M.) Kaplan was born in the Bronx in 1934, and studied at Mesivta Torah Vodaath in New York, and at the Mirrer Yeshiva in New York and in Jerusalem. In 1953, 20-year-old Aryeh Kaplan joined the group of students assembled by Rabbi Simcha Wasserman under the guidance of Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky to establish a yeshiva in Los Angeles,[3] and three years later in 1956 received his rabbinic ordination (Yoreh Yoreh, Yadin Yadin) from Rabbi Eliezer Yehuda Finkel of the Mirrer Yeshiva of Jerusalem, and from the Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel. After receiving his ordination, Aryeh Kaplan began his undergraduate studies and, in 1961, earned a B.A. in physics from the University of Louisville, and two years later, an M.S. degree in Physics from the University of Maryland, in 1963. While studying towards his undergraduate degree, Aryeh Kaplan taught elementary school at the pluralistic Eliahu Academy in Louisville, and corresponded with Rabbi Moshe Feinstein about some of the challenges that he encountered.[4] He then worked for four years as a Nuclear Physicist at the National Bureau of Statistics in Washington DC.

In February 1965, Rabbi Kaplan and his wife and their two small children moved to Mason City, Iowa, where he was invited to serve as a pulpit rabbi at Adas Israel Synagogue, a non-Orthodox congregation with forty member families. It would be his first pulpit. He remained at that pulpit until July 1966. During his time in Mason City, Rabbi Kaplan and his wife were very active in all aspects of their synagogue activities. Rabbi Kaplan led services and delivered a sermon each week at the Friday Night Service at Adas Israel Synagogue, hosted a Talmud Torah and taught about Jewish tradition to the youth in the community. He was a member of the National Conference on Christians and Jews, and regularly hosted visiting religious groups to the synagogue and participated in interfaith meetings and on panels alongside religious leaders of other faiths. In all of his delivered remarks, Rabbi Kaplan would type out each sermon prior to its delivery and maintain copies of these addresses within his personal archives; to date, these sermons have not yet been published.

It was during Rabbi Kaplan’s time in Mason City that he authored a fascinating eleven-page-typescript memorandum, dated February 22, 1966, that, thanks to the research discovery of Menachem Butler, we are privileged to share with the readers of The Seforim Blog in the Appendix to this essay.[5]

Kaplan was responding to questions sent out by the B’nai B’rith Adult Jewish Education bureau in Washington DC on matters of basic Jewish theology.[6] We see from the letter that like many other rabbis who were serving in frontier communities, Kaplan maintained a camaraderie with those among the non-Jewish clergy. He was even a member of the “Ministerial Association,” and together with his wife was “founder and chairman of the local chapter of Ministerial Wives.” As one who often hosted non-Jewish groups at the synagogue, Kaplan was well equipped to place Jewish concepts and practices within a context that would make sense for Christians, and this is clearly seen in how he formulates his answers in the letter.

Although Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s memorandum is self-explanatory, there are a few points of theological interest that are worth calling attention to:

1. Right at the beginning, Kaplan notes that Jews have no official dogmas, and that in many cases Jewish opinions vary widely.

2. Kaplan states unequivocally that Maimonides does not believe in a literal resurrection. In support of this statement he cites Guide 2:27. If all we had were the Commentary on the Mishnah and the Guide, it would make sense to assume that when Maimonides refers to the Resurrection of the Dead that he intends immortality, not literal resurrection. Even the Mishneh Torah can be read this way, and Rabad, in his note on Hilkhot Teshuvah 8:2, criticizes Maimonides in this regard: “The words of this man appear to me to be similar to one who says that there is no resurrection for bodies, but only for souls.” Furthermore, in Hilkhot Teshuvah 3:6, in speaking of the heretics who have no share in the World to Come, Maimonides writes: והכופרים בתחית המתים וביאת הגואל, “Those who deny the Resurrection and the coming of the [messianic] redeemer.” Throughout his works Maimonides is clear that the ultimate reward is the spiritual World to Come. So how could he not mention among the heretics those who deny the World to Come, and only mention those who deny the Resurrection? It appeared obvious to many that when Maimonides wrote “resurrection of the dead” what he really meant is the spiritual “World to Come.”

As noted, if the works mentioned in the previous paragraph were all we had, then one would have good reason to conclude that for Maimonides resurrection of the dead means nothing other than the World to Come. Yet it is precisely because people came to this interpretation that Maimonides wrote his famous Letter on Resurrection in which he states emphatically that he indeed believes in a literal resurrection of the dead, after which the dead will die again and enjoy the spiritual World to Come. It is true that some have not been convinced by the Letter on Resurrection and see it as an apologetic letter that does not give us Maimonides’ true view, but such an approach means that one is accepting a significant level of esotericism in interpreting Maimonides, as we are not now concerned with a passage here or there but with an entire letter that one must assume was only written for the masses. Since Kaplan ignores what Maimonides says in his Letter on Resurrection, I think we must conclude that, at least when he wrote this letter, he did not regard it as reflecting Maimonides’ authentic view.[7] In Kaplan’s later works, there is no hint of such an approach to Maimonides.[8]

3. In discussing Jesus, Kaplan writes: “In this light, we can even regard the miracles ascribed to Jesus to be true, without undermining our own faith, since his message was not to the Jews at all.”[9]

APPENDIX:

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan: Response to “Questions Christians Ask Jews” (1966)

[INSERT IMAGES 1-13]

Notes:

[1] See Alan Brill, “Aryeh Kaplan’s Quest for the Lost Jewish Traditions of Science, Psychology and Prophecy,” in Brian Ogren, ed., Kabbalah in America: Ancient Lore in the New World (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 211-232, available here. See also Tzvi Langermann, “‘Sefer Yesira,’ the Story of a Text in Search of Commentary,” Tablet Magazine (18 October 2017), available here.

[2] A complete biographical portrait of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan remains a scholarly desideratum.

For appreciations of his writings, see “Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan: A Tribute,” in The Aryeh Kaplan Reader: The Gift He Left Behind (Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 1983), 13-17; Pinchas Stolper, “Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan z”l: An Appreciation,” Ten Da’at, vol. 1, no. 2 (Spring 1987): 8-9; Baruch Rabinowitz, “Annotated Bibliography of the Writings of Aryeh Kaplan, Part 1,” Ten Da’at, vol. 1, no. 2 (Spring 1987): 9-10; Baruch Rabinowitz, “Annotated Bibliography of the Writings of Aryeh Kaplan, Part 2,” Ten Da’at, vol. 2, no. 1 (Fall 1987): 21-22; and Pinchas Stolper, “Preface,” in Aryeh Kaplan, Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 1993), ix-xi, among other writings.

[3] See Nosson Scherman, “Rabbi Mendel Weinbach zt”l and The Malbim,” in A Memorial Tribute to Rabbi Mendel Weinbach, zt”l (Jerusalem: Ohr Sameyach, 2014), 13-14, available here; as well as Nissan Wolpin, “The Yeshiva Comes to Melrose,” The Jewish Horizon (March 1954): 16-17.

[4] See responsum by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein as published in Shu”t Iggerot Moshe, Orah Hayyim, vol. 1 (New York: Noble Book Press, 1959), 159 (no. 98), dated 13 July 1955.

Discovery of additional correspondences between Rabbi Moshe Feinstein and Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan during those years would be of great scholarly interest and of immense historical value.

[5] Menachem Butler is also preparing for publication the typescript text of a sermon (“If This Springs From G*D…”) that Rabbi Kaplan delivered the previous month in January 1966, and where he reveals details about a conversation that he had with Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, director of the Los Alamos Project and father of the Atom Bomb.

[6] Menachem Butler writes two interesting details that, though beyond the narrow scope of this essay, are nonetheless of historical worthiness to consider when reading this memorandum:

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s memorandum of February 1966 was written several months *prior* to the famous symposium of “The State of Jewish Belief:” hosted by Commentary in August 1966, and republished shortly-thereafter under the different title The Condition of Jewish Belief: A Symposium Compiled by the Editors of Commentary Magazine (New York: Macmillan, 1966), and reprinted more than two decades later in The Condition of Jewish Belief (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1988). One wonders how Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan might have responded to the five questions sent by Commentary to 38 rabbis and scholars from around North America.

Returning to questions submitted by B’nai B’rith, it should be noted that the 21 questions were composed by Rabbi Morris Adler on behalf of the B’nai B’rith Adult Jewish Education bureau, a commission that he chaired from 1963-1966, and that he was murdered several weeks after the memorandum was submitted by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. It is for this reason that I believe that these responses had not been published.

The circumstances of Rabbi Adler’s assassination are that a gunman shot him multiple times during Shabbat morning services in front of hundreds of his congregants at his synagogue in Michigan. Rabbi Adler passed away from his wounds sustained in the attack nearly a month later. For a brief bibliographical portrait, see Pamela S. Nadell, Conservative Judaism in America: A Biographical Dictionary and Sourcebook (New York: Greenwood Press, 1988), 31-32; and for a full book-length account of the episode, see T.V. LoCicero, Murder in the Synagogue (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1970), as well as his followup volume in T.V. LoCicero, Squelched: The Suppression of Murder in the Synagogue (New York: TLC Media, 2012), available to be ordered here.

[7] For brief discussion, see Isaiah Sonne, “A Scrutiny of the Charges of Forgery against Maimonides’ ‘Letter on Resurrection’,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research, vol. 21 (1952): 101-117; see also Jacob I. Dienstag, “Maimonides’ ‘Treatise on Resurrection’ – A Bibliography of Editions, Translations, and Studies, Revised Edition,” in Jacob I. Dienstag, ed., Eschatology in Maimonidean Thought: Messianism, Resurrection, and the World to Come (New York: Ktav, 1983), 226-241, available here.

[8] See Aryeh Kaplan, Maimonides’ Principles: Fundamentals of Jewish Faith (New York: National Conference of Synagogue Youth, 1984), Aryeh Kaplan, Immortality, Resurrection, and the Age of the Universe: A Kabbalistic View (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Publishing House, 1993), among other publications.

[9] The notion that in the past non-Jews have performed miracles much like the Jewish prophets needs further analysis, which Marc B. Shapiro will attempt in his forthcoming book on Rav Kook. As well, in Toledot Yeshu Jesus is described as performing miracles, but this is explained by Jesus having made use of God’s holy name.

I take this opportunity to encourage you to think about writing your autobiography. Your great father did so, and all of kelal Yisrael benefited from it. The same would apply to you.

Here and there you can find hints in German printed sermons disapproving going to the opera. When I went to the opera as a boy of 13-14 years my father did not express his dissatisfaction. I don’t know if Hirsch was an opera lover, but I know that he went to concerts when he was at a holiday resort.

I know of no Orthodox rabbi in Germany who regularly visited the opera. This applies also to Rav S.R. Hirsch. Very musical as he was, he sometimes visited a concert, especially while on holidays, but never, to the best of my knowledge, the opera.

None of the pupils covered their heads all day. I know there were nominally orthodox homes where heads were covered only for prayers and the like. One such case is documented not in Frankfurt, but in Munich. See Adolph Fraenkel’s biography of his father Sigmund Fraenkel, one of the leading members of Bavarian Orthodoxy.

is obviously dealing with cases which, when the hat was removed, left the head without any cover. Carrying a kippah underneath the hat was very unusual in Germany. If that had been the case, Hoffmann would certainly have mentioned it. By the way, I remember that the principal of the school had his head always covered with a kippah, as did other teachers who carried the title of rabbi.

I left the Hirsch school in Frankfurt in 1934. The rule of uncovered heads while studying “secular” subjects (a concept which should not have actually been used at a school adhering to the principle of Torah im Derech Eretz) was enforced without exception (it was not enforced upon teachers who served as rabbis in one of the local synagogues). However, during the last years of the school’s functioning, when the impact of the Nazi regime became increasingly palpable, pupils and teachers reacted by covering their heads in “secular” subjects as well.

In Binyamin Shlomo Hamburger’s new biography of Rabbi Merzbach, pp. 17-18,[5] he says that German rabbis were obligated by law to receive a university degree. As a blanket statement this is false. Yet I believe that there were some times and places when the government did require this. Do you know any particulars about this, i.e., where and when this was required? Also, was Hirsch’s school co-educational (i.e., boys and girls). If so, were the classes mixed or only the school?

There was certainly no German law requiring rabbis to have a university degree. In mattters of religion the many German states (“Laender”) were autonomous. At the beginning of emancipation there were states which passed administrative rules concerning the qualifications of rabbis. There were no such regulations anywhere in the Weimar period.There were no mixed classes in S.R. Hirsch’s school except in the very first years when enrol which is present [!] and also in the very last years when students and teachers were continually disappearing. However, throughout its existence the girls’ school (“Lyceum”) and the boys’ school were in separate wings under one roof and one principal and adminstration. Co-education was very rare in Germany before WWI.

There was some congregational singing in Orthodox synagogues, but usually the choir sang those portions, with the congregation singing or humming with the choir.

My father z.l. had two semichot morenu. In Germany no one was titled “Rabbi” unless he was an officiating rabbi, which my father was not. Here in Israel the title of rabbi, gaon, etc. has undergone a process of inflation and my father is regularly referred to as rabbi, which in his case is more justified than in many others.

I cannot vouch that my grandfather never accidentally found himself in the presence of Rabbi Horovitz. He certainly tried hard to avoid this. The social rift in Frankfurt between the two orthodox congregations was proverbial. It existed even between different branches of the same family. There were quite a few members of the IRG, even such that were not also members of the other community, who transgressed the tabu [against entering the Gemeinde synagogue] and their number probably increased after World War I. There was no Austritt indoctrination in the IRG school, probably out of consideration for the students whose parents were non-members. There were also members of the faculty who were less than enthusiastic Austritt fanatics.

Leaving aside your study a certain affinity occurred to me between Rav Weinberg and R. Jacob Emden.

To what you write about R. Weinberg’s responsum about co-education in the Yeshurun organization, I might add that in the late fifties I wrote to R. Weinberg asking him whether his p’sak was applicable to the Esra movement in Israel in which I was active. He never replied, but sent word by a messenger encouraging me to continue my educational activity without swerving to the right After his death I discovered that he had asked two of his students in Montreux to draft a response to my letter. The drafts are in my possession. They contradict each other. One of the two authors now teaches at a yeshiva in Bene Berak.

The “Frauengitter” mentioned in my note on p. 375 is the common German translation of mechitzah. It signifies some sort of lattice which was put on top of the parapet which surrounded the women’s gallery (or balcony). The parapet was low enough to allow the women to watch what was going on in the men’s hall downstairs. The lattice (“Gitter”) did not quite conceal the women from the men’s eyes; its significance was mainly symbolical. The lack of this lattice was one of the compromises made here and there with the Reform synagogues where women sat on the balcony, yet in full view of the men since there was no lattice.

The letter is quite important. R. Hirsch was asked about the relative significance of the Sabbath in Jewish law. I guess the question arose through some discussion with German authorities. They compared the Sabbath to the Christian Sunday. R. Hirsch showed by citing biblical and rabbinical sources that in Jewish law and practice the Sabbath ranked much higher than any other day of rest or festival.