The Physicians of the Rome Plague of 1656, Yaakov Zahalon and Hananiah Modigliano

The Physicians of the Rome Plague of 1656, Yaakov Zahalon and Hananiah Modigliano
Reclaiming a Long-Lost Role and the
Only Known Example of Father and Son Diplomas

By Edward Reichman

Ellen Wells of the Smithsonian Libraries wrote,[1] “The plague of Rome of 1656 was one of the best recorded medical events of the 17th century. It was referred to in most major political and ecclesiastical histories, in diplomatic correspondence and in personal memoirs. Books and pamphlets were issued in profusion. Commemorative prints were published …” The Jewish physician Yaakov Zahalon[2] contributed to this documentary phenomenon from the Jewish perspective.[3] Zahalon is one of the most famous physicians in Jewish history, and his book Otzar HaHayyim, published in Venice 1683, is one of only few original Hebrew medical treatises written in the premodern era. Therein, Zahalon added to the personal memoir genre of the plague.[4]

In the context of his discussion of pestilential fevers and plague, Zahalon records his recollections, both medical and non-medical, of the Bubonic Plague in Rome of 1656.[5] This passage is well-known and has been partially translated by Friedenwald.[6] It is in this passage that we read of Zahalon preaching from the balconies of the Rome Ghetto due to the closure of synagogues during the plague, an account recalled frequently over this past year.[7]

Zahalon was clearly present and practicing medicine in Rome during the epidemic, as he mentions a first-hand encounter with a patient, Shabtai Kohen, who died with fever and groin swelling, typical of bubonic plague. Zahalon diagnosed an intestinal hernia, despite the insistence of the non-Jewish physician that the patient had succumbed to plague. A diagnosis of plague would have necessitated quarantine of Kohen’s entire household. A postmortem exam confirmed Zahalon’s diagnosis. Yet, Zahalon’s exact role during the plague has remained elusive.

Regarding the administration of medical care in the Ghetto during the plague, Zahalon identifies a number of medical roles. An isolation house, called a Lazaretto, was set up in the Ghetto to accommodate those afflicted with plague.[8] The medical care in the Lazaretto was provided by Samuel Gabai, and his father, Ciroccio (Mordechai), who succumbed to the plague.[9]

Zahalon discusses the division of the ghetto into three sections, each with its appointed physician.[10]

The three physicians who equally divided the medical care of the city were Hananiah Modigliano, Gavriel Lariccia, and Yitzhak Zahalon. Who were these three physicians?

On Lariccia, I have found no additional information, and it is possible that this mention by Zahalon may be the only historical record of his existence. As recorded by Zahalon, Lariccia died during the plague.

On Modigliano, we are fortunate to have archival material. Hananiah Modigliano was a graduate of the University of Siena in 1628 and was one of a mere eleven Jewish graduates from this university from the years 1543 to 1695.[11] His medical diploma is extant and housed in the Jewish Theological Seminary Library.[12]

The invocation reads “In Dei Nomine Amen” (in the Name of God, Amen). While I have not seen any other diplomas of this period from the University of Siena,[13] there are a number of extant medical diplomas from this period issued by the University of Padua. The typical Padua diploma invocation reads “In Christi Nomine, Amen” (in the Name of Christ, Amen). The only diplomas that deviated from this norm were those of non-Christian students, in particular diplomas of Jewish graduates. Virtually every Jewish graduate’s diploma begins with the invocation, “In Dei Aeterni Nomine.” It is possible that the University of Siena made the same accommodations for its Jewish graduates as did Padua, few as they may have been.[14] Modigliano was also identified as a Jew in his diploma, with the word “Hebreo” appearing after his name:

This was also commonly found in the diplomas of the Jewish graduates of Padua, where the word “Hebreus” or “Iudeus” would typically, though not always, follow the name of the Jewish graduates.

We next hear of Modigliano on August 14, 1650, when upon the departure of Rafael Corcos,[15] the Roman Jewish community appointed three new worthy teachers, one of whom was the doctor Hananiah b. Rafael Modigliano.[16] As reported by Zahalon, Hananiah tragically died while serving as a physician for the Jewish community in Rome during the Bubonic Plague of 1656.

Modigliano’s son Raphael was also a physician, as well as a rabbi.[17] Extant medical diplomas of Jewish students are exceedingly rare, yet in this case, we are fortunate not only to possess a copy of Hananiah’s diploma, but we also possess the diploma of his son Raphael as well.[18] This is the only known case of extant father and son diplomas. A copy of his medical diploma from the University of Ferrara in 1662 is below:[19]

The invocation, similar to his father’s diploma, reads, “In Dei Nomine, Amen,” and he is likewise identified as “Hebreus.”

Of note, the document explicitly restricts his medical practice to Jewish patients.

We also have record of Raphael delivering weekly Shabbat sermons in the synagogue in Siena. Moses ben Samuel ben Bassa of Blanes records in his manual for preachers, Tena’ei ha-Darshan,[20] that both he and Raphael Modigliano would deliver weekly sermons, after which they would each provide constructive criticism of the other’s sermon.

What of our third and final physician, Yitzhak Zahalon? Regarding the third of the Jewish plague physicians for Rome in 1656, the author does not reveal additional details about him, despite their sharing the same last name. A few sentences later, however, Yaakov Zahalon enumerates the fatalities of the plague at around eight hundred deaths and mentions his cousin, the young skilled surgeon, Yitzhak Zahalon, amongst the casualties.

This has led at least one scholar to identify the physician in charge of one third of the city as the same Yitzhak Zahalon, the surgeon and cousin of Yaakov, the author. Sosland writes, “Three Jewish doctors are mentioned by Zahalon as having charge over the patients. One of them was a first cousin of our author, a certain Isaac Zahalon, a “skilled surgeon” who died toward the end of the epidemic.”[21]

With the physicians in charge of the medical care of the Lazaretto, as well as the different sections of the Ghetto, accounted for by name, we are left to wonder about the role, if any, the author, Yaakov Zahalon, played during the plague. As Sosland notes, “as to the exact role Jacob filled, we have no direct knowledge.”[22]

Zahalon’s medical work was published in Venice in 1683, and unlike the work of his rough contemporary, Tuviya Cohen, whose Ma’aseh Tuviya has been reprinted numerous times, has not yet merited even a second printing.[23] There is however one extant manuscript of Zahalon’s Otzar HaHayyim housed in the Vatican,[24] dated from no later than 1675, and it is in this manuscript that we find the solution to the riddle of Zahalon’s role in the administration of medical care to the Jews in the Rome Ghetto during the plague.

The manuscript appears to reflect that Otzar HaHayyim was initially part of a larger multi-section work entitled Ohalei Yaakov Otzar HaHokhmot. Zahalon’s medical work is labelled as section two, Hokhmat HaRefuah, the only section in the Vatican manuscript.

Below is the section describing the division of the city into three sections, each with its respective physician.

There is one key difference in this passage between the printed edition and the manuscript version. The physician in charge of the third section of the city is not Yitzhak Zahalon, whose identity is ambiguous, but rather, Yaakov ben Yitzhak Zahalon, none other than the author himself! A part of the name was accidentally omitted in the printed work. Zahalon refers to himself here in third person. This correction now facilitates a better understanding of the next sentence in the text, in which Zahalon continues to refer to himself, expressing gratitude to God for having rescued him from the ravages of the plague.

In this vein, I conclude with a comment on Zahalon’s conclusion to his plague passage. Despite the unspeakable tragedies experienced by the Jewish community, Zahalon ends his plague discussion by sharing a positive, though bittersweet, thought reflecting the continuity of the Jewish community:

As a good sign for the people of Israel, a pregnant woman named Zivia, the wife Yitzhak Mondolfo, contracted the plague, and though confined to the Lazaretto, was able to deliver a healthy child, whom she was able to nurse for a period before her demise. In the final line of this section in the printed work, we read that the child was still alive “until today,” and that his name was Efraim Levi. Though Zahalon’s book was published in 1683, this line appears in the manuscript, thus “until today” would be some twenty years after the plague.

While this indeed is some form of consolation, the manuscript adds an additional sentence which yields a far more powerful conclusion.

“And the circumcision was performed there (in the Lazaretto), and I say to you by your blood you shall live, and I say to you by your blood you shall live.” Zahalon concludes with the phrase from Yechezkel 16:6 which is traditionally recited as part of the circumcision ceremony. The allusion here to the plague is obvious.

Omitting this last sentence denies us not only the additional factual information about the performance of the circumcision in the Lazaretto, itself a remarkable event, but also Zahalon’s homiletic flourish which marked the community’s (re)birth after the tragedies of the plague. As I write these words, we are still in this midst of the Covid 19 pandemic, though the dissemination of the vaccines portends, God willing, for its cessation in the near future. These final intended words of Zahalon resonate deeply with us today, perhaps even more so than they would have when Otzar HaHayyim was published, some three decades after the plague.

[1] Ellen B. Wells, “Prints Commemorating the Rome 1656 Plague Epidemic,” Annali dell’Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza di Firenze 10 (1985), 15-21.
[2] On Zahalon, see Harry A. Savitz, “Jacob Zahalon, and His Book, ‘The Treasure of Life,’” New England Journal of Medicine 213:4 (July, 1935), 167-176; Harry Friedenwald, “Jacob Zahalon of Rome: Rabbi, Physician, Author and Moralist,” in his The Jews and Medicine 1 (Ktav Publishing House: New York, 1967), 268-279; J. Ph. Hes, “Jacob Zahalon on Hypochondriasis,” (Hebrew) Koroth 4:5-7 (December, 1967), 444-447; A. Danon, A. Kadar and D. V. Zaitchek, “Physiology and Pathology of Lactation in Zahalon’s Work,” (Hebrew) Koroth 4:11-12 (December, 1968), 667-678; D. Margalit, “Shmirath Habriuth by Maimonides and Comment by R. Jacob Zahalon,” (Hebrew) Koroth 5:1-2 (September, 1969), 96-98; Yehoshua Leibowitz, “R’ Yaakov Zahalon Ish Roma uPizmono liShabbat Hannukah 1687,” Sefer Zikaron liHayyim Enzo Sereni: Ketavim al Yehudei Roma (Shlomo Mayer Institute: Jerusalem, 5731), 166-181; Jonathan Jarashow, “Yakov Zahalon and the Jewish Attitude Towards Medicine,” Koroth 9:9-10 (1989), 725-736; Zohar Amar, Maimonides’ Regimen Sanitatis: Commentary of R. Jacob Zahalon on “Hilchot Deot” – Chapter Four, With an Added Brief Preface to the Treatise Ozar ha-Hayyim (Hebrew) (Neve-Tzuf, 2002); Samuel Kottek, “Pediatrics in the work Otzar HaHayyim of Jacob Zahalon,” (French), in Gad Freudenthal and Samuel Kottek, eds., Melanges d’Histoire de la Medicine Hebraique: Etudes Choisies de la Revue d’Histoir de la Medicine Hebraique (1948-1985) (Brill: Leiden, 2003), 183-207; Eliezer Brodt, Bein Keseh Le’Asor (Jerusalem, 5768), 184-185; Eliezer Brodt, “Segulot leZikaron uPetihat haLev,” Yerushateinu 5 (5771), 337-360, esp. 352; Michal Altbauer-Rudnik, “Love For All: The Medical Discussion of Lovesickness in Jacob Zahalon’s The Treasure of Life (Otzar Ha-Hayyim),” in Asaph Ben-Tov, Yaakov Deutsch and Tamar Herzig (eds.) Knowledge and Religion in Early Modern Europe: Studies in Honor of Michael Heyd (Brill: Leiden, 2013), 87-106. For discussion of the sources of Zahalon’s medical work, see Iris Idelson-Shein, “Rabbis of the (Scientific) Revolution: Revealing the Hidden Corpus of Early Modern Translations Produced by Jewish Religious Thinkers.” American Historical Review 126, no. 1. Forthcoming, March 2021.
[3] For the response of the Italian Jewish community to plagues in this period, including the plague in Rome of 1656, see Yaffa Kohen, The Development of Organizational Structures by the Italian Jewish Communities to Cope with the Plagues of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (Hebrew) (Doctoral Dissertation: Bar Ilan University, submitted Tishrei, 5740). I thank Naomi Abraham, librarian at Bar Ilan University, for her truly exceptional efforts in making this dissertation available to me in the midst of the Covid pandemic.
[4] For more on this passage and on the plague in the Jewish Ghetto of Rome, see Yehoshua Leibowitz, “Bubonic Plague in the Ghetto of Rome (1656): Descriptions by Zahalon and by Gastaldi,” (Hebrew) Koroth 4: 3-4 (June, 1967), 155-169; Kohen, op. cit., 72-95.
[5] Y. Zahalon, Otzar HaHayyim (Venice, 1683), 21a-21b. Elsewhere we have discussed the Jewish physicians of the 1631 plague in Padua. See E. Reichman, “From Graduation to Contagion: Jewish Physicians Facing Plague in Padua, 1631” Lehrhaus (thelehrhaus.com), September 8, 2020.
[6] See H. Friedenwald, “Jacob Zahalon of Rome,” in his The Jews and Medicine (Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore, 1944), 268-279.
[7] On Zahalon’s abilities and reputation as an orator, see Henry A. Sosland, A Guide for Preachers: The Or HaDarshan of Jacob Zahalon—A Seventeenth Century Italian Preacher’s Manual (Jewish Theological Seminary: New York, 1987). On the plague sermons, see pgs. 23-28.
[8]  See, for example, Guenter Risse, “Seventeenth-century Pest Houses or Lazarettos: Rome 1656,” in his Mending Bodies, Saving Souls: A History of Hospitals (Oxford University Press, 1999), 190-214.
[9] On the medical members of the Gabai (and Zahalon) families, see S. Plashkes, “Two Jewish Medical Families in 17th Century Italy: Gabai and Zahalon,” (Hebrew) Koroth 3:1-2 (October, 1962), 97-99.
[10] Otzar HaHayyim 21b.
[11] Israele Zoller, “I Medici Ebrei Laureati a Siena negli Anni 1543-1695,” Revista Israelitica 10 (1913), 60-70 and 100-110. In contrast, the University of Padua counts 127 Jewish medical graduates from 1617 to 1695. See A. Modena and E. Morpurgo, Medici E Chirurghi Ebrei Dottorati E Licenziati Nell’Universita di Padova dal 1617 al 1816 (Italian) (Forni Editore, 1967). For Jewish graduates of Padua earlier than this period, see D. Carpi, “Jews who received medical degrees from the University of Padua in the 16th and early 17th centuries,” (Hebrew) in Scritti in Memoria di Nathan Cassuto (Ben Tzvi Publishers: Jerusalem, 1986), 62-91.
[12] JTS, MS 8519. I thank Sharon Liberman Mintz for bringing this diploma to my attention. As part of my research interest in Jewish medical history, I have sought out copies of medical diplomas of Jewish students from previous centuries. Sharon, aware of this interest, notified me of a medical diploma in the JTS collection. The record does not identify the graduate but lists the University of Siena as the granting institution. I had never seen a diploma of a Jewish medical student from this institution; the majority of extant medical diplomas of Jewish students are from the University of Padua. However, due to the Covid 19 pandemic, access to the original diploma, stored in the remote site of the library, has been impossible. Fortunately, the National Library of Israel had taken black and white photographs of this document some years ago, and I was able to acquire copies. Since the onset of the pandemic, I have been focusing of the history of pandemics in Jewish medical history. When I received the copies of the diploma, and read the name, Hananiah Modigliano, it sounded familiar to me. It was a short while until I realized that I had seen the name mentioned in Zahalon’s passage on the plague.
[13] As per the librarian for the University of Siena Archives, the university does not possess any diplomas of this period.
[14] On the differences in the diplomas of Jewish medical graduates of the University of Padua, see E. Reichman, “Confessions of a Would-be Forger: The Medical Diploma of Tobias Cohn (Tuviya Ha-Rofeh) and Other Jewish Medical Graduates of the University of Padua,” in Kenneth Collins and Samuel Kottek, eds., Ma’ase Tuviya (Venice, 1708): Tuviya Cohen on Medicine and Science (Muriel and Philip Berman Medical Library of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Jerusalem, 2019), in press; E. Reichman, “The ‘Doctored’ Medical Diploma of Samuel, the Son of Menasseh ben Israel: Forgery or ‘For Jewry’?” Seforim Blog (https://seforimblog.com) (forthcoming).
[15] The Corcos family was a prominent Jewish Italian family. Another Jewish graduate of the University of Siena was Isaac Corcos, who graduated in 1654. See Zoller, op. cit. He may have been a relative and possibly a brother of Raphael Corcos.
[16] See H. Volgstein and P. Reiger, Geschichte der Juden in Rom, 2 vol (Berlin, 1895-1896), 267.
[17] On Raphael Modigliano, see Asher Salah, La Republique des Lettres: Rabbins, ecrivains et medecins juifs en Italie au XVIIIe Siecle (Brill: Leiden, 2007), 428-429.
[18] What makes this even more exceptional is that Hananiah’s diploma is the only known Jewish diploma from the University of Siena, and Raphael’s diploma is one of only two known Jewish diplomas from the University of Ferrara, the other being from 1802 (Samuel Vita Della Volta).
[19] The diploma was originally part of the Valmadonna Trust Library, Ms. 292, and is now incorporated into the National Library of Israel, system n. 990000822160205171. See Benjamin Richler, The Hebrew Manuscripts in the Valmadonna Trust Library (Valmadonna Trust: London, 1998), n. 269.
[20] Columbia University Library, Ms. X 893 T 15, p. 15a. See Sosland, op. cit., 82-83.
[21] Sosland, op. cit., 25. Others just listed the name as Isaac Zahalon without comment. See H. Volgstein and P. Reiger, Geschichte der Juden in Rom, 2 vol (Berlin, 1895-1896), 212-213.
[22] Sosland, op. cit., 25.
[23] Some years ago, Chaim Reich, a”h, of Renaissance Hebraica, produced a high-quality reproduction of Otzar HaHayyim. I thank Rabbi Eliezer Brodt, who owns one of these copies, for this information.
[24] The manuscript is available online at https://digi.vatlib.it/mss/detail/Vat.ebr.466. On this manuscript see, Malachi Beit-Arié and Nurit Pasternak, Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library (Vatican City, 2008), 405. I have only compared the manuscript to the printed edition for this brief passage. A comprehensive comparison remains to be done.



Jewish Treasures From Oxford Libraries

JEWISH TREASURES FROM OXFORD LIBRARIES

By Paul Shaviv

Ed. Rebecca Abrams and Cesar Merchan-Hamann / Bodleian Library, University of Oxford, 2020 / ISBN 978 1 85124 502 4 / Available in the USA via Amazon $55

307pp, 140 full-colour plates

Oxford,[1] the ‘City of Dreaming Spires’, is one of the world’s greatest repositories of Hebraica and Judaica, both books and manuscripts.

This sumptuous volume was initiated at the encouragement and support of Martin J. Gross, a New Jersey philanthropist and Jewish community activist. It is a bargain at the price. The book is absolutely handsome – the quality of the printing is outstanding, and it is printed on 135gsm paper.

The core of ‘Jewish Treasures from Oxford Libraries’ describes seven collectors and their eponymous collections, which together constitute the Hebraica holding of the Bodleian library; plus a description of smaller, but important, holdings of some individual College libraries; and the Genizah fragments held in Oxford. There are additional essays describing the history of the Bodleian itself, and the role of successive Librarians in encouraging the acquisition of Hebrew (and other ‘Oriental’) manuscripts; of the great cataloguers (Neubauer and Cowley); and of other benefactors, including the amazing figure of John Selden.[2]

Each chapter is written by different scholars. Archbishop Laud (1573–1645), by Giles Mandelbrote; Edward Pococke (1604-1691) by Benjamin Williams; Robert Huntington (1637-1701) by Simon Mills and Cesar Merchan-Hamann; Benjamin Kennicott (1718-1783) by Theodor Dunkelgrun; Matteo Luigi Canonici (1727-1805) by Dorit Raines; Rabbi David Oppenheim (1664-1736) by Joshua Teplitzky; and Heimann Joseph Michael (1792-1846) by Saverio Campanini. Each describes the biography of the collector, the characteristics and most important items of their collection, and how and why they amassed them.

The first thing that readers will note is that only the last two are Jewish. Even in the case of David Oppenheim, his unique collection of approximately 4,500 printed books and just under 1,000 bound volumes of manuscripts languished in storage in Europe until Revd. Alexander Nicoll, the Regius Professor of Hebrew, engineered its purchase by the Library. Otherwise they are a parade of Anglican Divines and Christian Hebraists (except Canonici, who was a Jesuit), witness to the intense interest (and expertise) in Hebrew and Jewish Studies by non-Jewish scholars in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The stories of the collections are fascinating. Ambassadors, merchants and missionaries all have a part in purchasing (and pursuing) manuscripts. A special place seems to be occupied by the ‘Chaplains’ attached to the Embassies – one can surmise that they both had some expertise in Hebrew, even if rudimentary, and also perhaps time to devote to the ‘hunt’. We visit the great cities of the ‘Orient’ – Constantinople, Damascus, Aleppo, Cairo, and of Europe – Italy, Spain and Germany.

The objectives and interests of each collector were different. Some – Oppenheim is the obvious example – were happy to scoop up whatever was on the market. Kennicott was interested in Biblical material, resulting in his two-volume study of variations in extant biblical texts. Along the way, each of them acquired examples of the most magnificent decorated and illuminated works, covering the entire span of Judaica – texts, contracts, ketubot, from every place. The calligraphy itself is to be savoured and enjoyed. As mentioned, the 140 full-colour (and often full-page) plates do all of this justice.

Although overshadowed by Cambridge, Oxford too has significant Genizah holdings – described by Nadia Vidro. These were acquired in the nineteenth century and pre-dated Solomon Schechter’s bulk removal of the Genizah contents to Cambridge. They are apparently strong in Talmudic texts, and also include an autograph copy of Rambam’s Mishneh Torah – complete with alterations and editing notes. Adolph Neubauer sifted through the material; kept the largest fragments, often complete or semi-complete pages – and rejected the remainder, which were sold on to Elkan Adler. Neubauer could not foresee the techniques available later, and utilized in Cambridge, to read, identify and reap the benefits of the tiniest pieces.

It is very difficult to summarize such a wide-ranging work in a short review. I am left with several thoughts:

  • In the case of the Bodleian, their holdings were purchased, not plundered, although the circumstances by which the objects came into the possession of previous owners is not necessarily known. The scholarship, and enthusiasms, of the Christian Hebraists, familiar to scholars, is of course little appreciated in today’s wider Jewish community. Were it not for them, many, many of these works would be lost. Were it not for the conscientious curation and preservation of these books and manuscripts by non-Jewish, mainly academic, libraries, they would almost certainly be lost, and even if they existed, would probably be far less accessible.

  • The sheer aesthetic beauty of many of the manuscripts speaks of a different culture. Even if, as is surmised, many were illustrated by non-Jewish professional artists[3] – they were commissioned by Jewish patrons. Even the almost-certainly Jewish artists (of Ketubot and the like) seem to show a joyfulness absent from our contemporary production of texts; which I take as a reflection of a certain dour outlook and philosophy. The same comment could be made about the narrowness of contemporary religious publishing compared to the width of thought, concern and scholarship of our forebears.

  • On a different perspective, as an (ex-pat) Anglo-Jew, and a former graduate student of Jewish Studies at Oxford (way back in the 1970’s!), I have to again sigh at the neglect of its own treasures by the Anglo-Jewish community[4]. Even the initiator of this project hails from New Jersey! Perhaps a ray of optimism may come from the fairly recent appointment of Prof. Judith Olszowy Schlanger as head of the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies (formerly housed at Yarnton Manor)? Until now, most of the OCHJS Presidents have been specialists in one or another aspect of the ancient world, or of other, wider areas of Jewish study. This is not to disparage any of these eminent scholars in any way whatsoever! But Professor Olszowy Schlanger has already published on Anglo-Norman and pre-Expulsion manuscripts; perhaps we will see fresh scholarship on English and European rabbinic study from her Presidency, from still-to-be-researched corners of the Bodleian!

A great read, a great book to possess, and – happy are they who may receive this book as a perfect gift!

[1] The city has a rich Jewish history of its own, which is thought to date back to 1075. Two (!) complementary websites both give excellent information and resources about Jewish Oxford. The first site, sponsored by the local Jewish community, whose supervisory committee includes one of the editors of the volume under review, is www.oxfordjewishheritage.co.uk . Clicking on the small window labelled ‘Jewish Heritage’ in the middle of the homepage of Oxford Chabad www.oxfordchabad.org opens up a surprisingly academic and scholarly range of material on Jewish Oxford. Both recommended!
[2] The present Bodley Librarian, Richard Ovenden, writes a Foreword; Cesar Merchan-Hamann a general Introduction; Rahel Fronda writes on the smaller College collections; and Piet van Boxel on the cataloguers. Mr. Martin J. Gross, the book’s ‘prime mover’, contributes an elegant Preface!
[3] See, for example, plate 114, from Ms. Michael 627 – from a Yom Kippur mahzor, where a non-Jewish artist, not knowing which way up the Hebrew is written, has the illustrations drawn upside down on the page.
[4] Painfully, the single most important Anglo-Jewish artefact, the dated pre-Expulsion Chumash mss, shown to H.M. The Queen to demonstrate the depth of Jewish experience in England, was sold at the Valmadonna Auction. The purchaser remains anonymous. It is not known if it is still in the UK. If it is, it is neither displayed nor accessible. The Bomberg Talmud, also sold by the Valmadonna Trust, is now in New York City after being in Westminster Abbey for centuries.



The Greatest Story in the Annals of Jewish Book Collecting

The Greatest Story in the Annals of Jewish Book Collecting
 By Jeremy Brown

Jeremy Brown is the author of New Heavens and a New Earth; The Jewish Reception of Copernican Thought. He writes on science, medicine and the Talmud at Talmudology.com 

As we approach the end of Masechet Yevamot in the Daf Yomi cycle, it seems appropriate to reflect on a legendary story in the annals of Jewish bibliography. This story involves King Henry VIII, the laws of Yevamot, and the greatest private Jewish library in the world.
About thirty years ago, while a medical student in London, I had the good fortune of visiting the Valmadonna Trust Library, that greatest of private Jewish libraries. (How I got there is another story for another time). And while there, I held the Talmud that certainly once belonged to Westminster Abbey. It may also have been owned by Henry VIII, who had brought a Bomberg Talmud from Venice in order to help him end his marriage to Catherineof Aragon, the first of his many wives. The story of Henry VIII’s purchase of the Bomberg Talmud – the first complete printed Talmud – actually hinges on Yevamot, and whether the rules of levirate marriage, or yibum, applied to him. 
Catherine of Aragon was actually a widow, having first been married to Henry’s younger brother Arthur. About six months after Catherine married Arthur he died childless, and in 1509 his older brother Prince Henry married his widow.  One more thing to know: Catherine claimed that her marriage to Arthur had never been consummated; this is important later in the story. (And here is an interesting historic footnote: it was Catherine’s parents, Ferdinand and Isabella who had expelled the Jews from Spain.)
By 1525, Prince Henry had become King Henry VIII, and has had one daughter with Catherine. He wanted a son, and now wished to marry Ann Boleyn. There was, however, a problem:  what was he to do with Catherine, his existing wife?  Divorce, remember, was tricky for this Catholic King. And here is where the Talmud comes in.  
Henry argued that his marriage to Catherine should be dissolved since it was biblically forbidden for a man to marry his sister-in-law. (Henry claimed years earlier that he could marry her because the marriage to his brother had not been consummated. See, I told you that was important information…)
But as we from Masechet Yevamot, the Bible commands a man to marry his widowed sister-in-law if his brother died without children. Since Arthur died childless, it could be argued that Henry was now fulfilling the biblical requirement of levirate marriage – known as yibum. If that was the case, the marriage was kosher and could not be dissolved
How was this conundrum to be resolved? Let’s have Jack Lunzer, the custodian of the library, tell the story. (You can also see the video here. Sorry about the ads. They are beyond our control.) 
As Lunzer tells us, the Talmud was obtained from Venice to help King Henry VIII find a way to divorce his wife (and former sister-in-law) Catherine, and so be free to marry Ann Boleyn. In fact, it’s a little bit more complicated than that. Behind the scenes were Christian scholars who struggled to reconcile the injunction against a man marrying his sister-in-law found in one part of the Bible, with the command to do so under specific circumstances, found in another. In fact the legality of Henry’s marriage had been in doubt for many years, which is why Henry had obtained the Pope’s special permission to marry.
John Stokesley, who later became Bishop of London, argued that the Pope had no authority to override the word of God that forbade a man from marrying his brother’s wife. As a result the dispensation the Pope had given was meaningless, and Henry’s marriage was null and void. In this way, Henry was free to marry.  But what did Stokesley do with the passages in Deuteronomy that require yibum?  He differentiated between them.  The laws in Leviticus, he claimed, were both the word of God and founded on natural reason. In this way they were moral laws; hence they applied to both Jew and Christian.  In contrast, the laws found in Deuteronomy, were judicial laws, which were ordained by God to govern (and punish) the Jews – and the Jews alone. They were never intended to apply to any other people, and so Henry’s Christian levirate marriage to Catherine was of no legal standing. There was therefore no impediment for Henry to marry Ann. As you can imagine, this rather pleased the king.
It remains unclear whether the Valmadonna Library Bomberg Talmud is indeed the very same one that Henry had imported from Venice. According to Sotheby’s and at least one academic, it actually came from the library of an Oxford professor of Hebrew, who bequeathed it to the Abbey. In any event, a Bomberg Talmud lay undisturbed at Westminster Abbey for the next four hundred years.  How Lunzer obtained it for his library is possibly the greatest story in the annals of Jewish book collecting. In the 1950s there was an exhibition in London to commemorate the readmission of the Jews to England under Cromwell. Lunzer noted that one of the books on display, from the collection of Westminster Abbey, was improperly labeled, and was in fact a volume of a Bomberg Talmud. Lunzer called the Abbey the next day, told them of his discovery, and suggested that he send some workers to clean the rest of the undisturbed volumes.  They discovered a complete Bomberg Talmud in pristine condition, and Lunzer wanted it. But despite years of negotiations with the Abbey, Lunzer’s attempts to buy the Talmud were rebuffed.  
Then in April 1980, Lunzer’s luck changed. He read in a brief newspaper article that the original 1065 Charter of Westminster Abbey had been purchased by an American at auction, but because of its cultural significance the British Government was refusing to grant an export license. Lunzer called the Abbey, was invited for tea, and a gentleman’s agreement was reached. He purchased the Charter from the American, presented it to the Abbey, and at a ceremony in the Jerusalem Chamber of Westminster Abbey the nine volumes of Bomberg’s Babylonian Talmud were presented to the Valmadonna Trust. It’s a glorious story, and it’s so much better when Lunzer himself tells it, as he does here: (You can also see the video here,and end it at 14.35. We continue to apologize for those ads.)

The Valmadonna Trust Library – all of its 13,000 books and manuscripts, including the Westminster Abbey Talmud, is now on sale at Sotheby’s in New York. It can be yours for about $35 million.  But if you buy it, you must agree to two conditions set by Lunzer: that the Library remain whole, and that it be made available to scholars. In that way, just as I once held that magical Talmud, others may continue to do so. 


R. David Nieto’s Matteh Dan, Life on Other Planets and Jewish Reactions to Copernicus

R. David Nieto’s Matteh Dan, Life on Other Planets and Jewish Reactions to Copernicus

by Eliezer Brodt

 

R. David Neito and the Mateh Dan

R. David Nieto was born in 1654 in Venice and died in England in 1728. Aside for being a tremendous talmid hakham, Nieto also had degrees in science, philosophy, and was a medical doctor. He was a Rav, Dayan and Darshan in Leghorn for a while. He then was hired to be Rav of the Sefardi Kehila in England in 1701. Besides for being a multi-talented Rav, he was a prolific writer authoring numerous works. Including on dealing with the calendar Pascologia, another work, De la divina Providencia was authored in his own defense after he gave a sermon claiming that G-d and nature are one, some people in the community called him a heretic for this. A copy of this sermon was sent to the Chacham Zvi who defended R. Nieto. This defense was printed in his Shu”t Chacham Zvi (#18). This incident is also mentioned in R. Jacob Emden’s autobiography Megilat Sefer (Bick Ed.),(p.55). See also Chida in Shem Hagedolim (Erech Mateh Dan) who quotes this; C. Dembeister, Klelas Yofee 1:95b; Cecil Roth, Essays and Portraits in Anglo Jewish History (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1962), 118; Jacob J. Schacter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works,” (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), pp. 272 & 331; David B. Ruderman, Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 317-318]. See also here and here.

Another of R. Nieto’s works is Esh Dat which was written against Nechemiah Chiyyon. As far as halakhic literature we do not have any printed works but R. Nieto did produce works in this field yet they remain in manuscript until today (see Cecil Roth ibid.), one was recently auctioned off at a Asufa auction. Most of his works have never been translated into Hebrew.

Much has been written on R. Nieto in general, just to cite a few sources: see Moritz Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, (1967) p. 263; Israel Zinberg, Toledot Safrut Yisrael, vol. 3, pp. 243-44; especially Cecil Roth, Essays and Portraits in Anglo Jewish History, 113-29, later translated into Hebrew in the Mossad Rav Kook 1968 edition Mateh Dan; Raphael Loewe, “The Spanish Supplement to Nieto’s Esh Dath,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 48 (1981): 267-296; and David B. Ruderman, “Jewish Thought in Newtonian England: The Career and Writings of David Nieto (In Memory of Jacob J. Petuchowski),” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 58 (1992): 193-219, later expanded in his work, Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe, 310-31; and the recently published article by Matt Goldish, “The Spirit of the Eighteenth Century in the Anti-Sabbatean Polemics of Hakham David Nieto,” in Jeremy D. Popkin, ed., The Legacies of Richard Popkin (=International Archives of the History of Ideas – Archives internationales d’ histoire des idées, no. 198 [2008]), 229-243. See, as well, Menachem Butler, “Hakham David Nieto and Hakham Zebi,” the Michtavim blog (14 November 2008), available here, which includes, as well, a picture of R. Nieto. Additionally, R. Nieto is mentioned in the excellent work of historical fiction by David Liss, A Conspiracy of Paper, pp. 109-10. David B. Ruderman shows in his Jewish Enlightenment in an English Key (Princeton Press, 2000), pp.185-86, that R. Nieto was the first Jewish thinker to grapple with Newton in his works although not by name.

R. Nieto is most well known for his Matteh Dan or the Kuzari Hashenei. First printed in 1714, this edition was issued in three versions at the same time, one in Hebrew one in Spanish and one in both Hebrew and Spanish. The Spanish only edition is exceedingly rare. According to one source there are but three complete copies of this edition extant. See Israel Solomons, “David Nieto and Some of his Contemporaries,” in Jewish Historical Society of England Transactions, vol. XII (1931) pp. 26-27. All of the various versions of the first edition include a drawing of Rabenu Hakodesh on the title page which some speculate was done by Nieto as he was an artist (see Roth, ibid, p. 128, but he is mistaken in claiming the drawing was of Moshe when the legend underneath the portrait states that is Rabbenu Hakodesh and the figure is pointing at a book that has the word “Mishna” in large letters). In 1779 the Matteh Dan was reprinted with a beautiful Haskama from the Shages Aryeh (also mentioned by the Chida in his Shem Hagedolim entry on R. Nieto). The title page of the 1884 edition of the Mateh Dan mentions these two Gedolim (Shages Aryeh and Chida) and the Chacham Zvi all endorsing this work. The Steipler (Chayhe Olam) includes the Mateh Dan in a small list of recommended reading material on emunah and refers to the Mateh Dan as “הספר הנפלא”. This work is quoted in many seforim just to cite a few: R. Y. Heller. Maoz Hadas, p. 35a, Meshiv Nefesh (p.18a), R. Kemlar in Talmud u-Maddah numerous times (pp. 16, 31, 58, 69) Shut Beis Mordecahei (#63) and even in some of the recent works on Bircas ha-Chammah, see, e.g., R. J. D. Bleich, Bircas Hachammah, p. 58; R. M.M. Gerlitz, Bircas Hachamah KeHilchosah,p.148; R. A. Brisk, Otzar Hazemanim, pp. 209, 225, 238. R. Meshulam Roth created a curriculum for his yeshiva, he included the Kuzari Hashnei as an essential sefer for his talmidim to read (among other interesting things in the program; see Mivasar Ezra, p.177, and Mivasar Vomer, p. 119); R. Meir Shapira even asked R. Roth if he could use the latter’s curriculum for Yeshivat Chachemei Lublin (see Mivasar Ezra, p. 172).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 1968, Mossad ha-Rav Kook published an edition of the Mateh Dan based on the first printing. This edition is visually very nice, they did a nice job of laying out the sefer including a table of contents before each section of the sefer. But the notes although are helpful are very minimal [all quotes in this post are from this edition].

A few months ago a new English critical-edition of R. David Nieto’s Matteh Dan was translated from the Hebrew by Louis Loewe and completed by Raphael Loewe, published by the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ Congregation of London, and Mechon Haktav of Jerusalem. This work was edited and prepared for publication by Yehuda Hershkowitz. This new edition is two volumes including a beautiful facsimile edition of the first printing on high quality paper leather bound. The facsimile volume reproduces the original edition of Hebrew with a Spanish translation on the side. The English translation had been done in 1845 by Louis Loewe. [I am aware that there is another English translation of this work published by Yashar Books, although it is only a partial translation and I never had a chance to see it.] This translation of L. Loewe was reprinted in this new set with some of the translation adjusted to our current English but as a whole remains the same. Many small useful notes were added in by the editors Raphael Loewe and Yehuda Hershkowitz. Besides for the nice interesting introduction by R. Loewe this new edition has an excellent overview by Yehuda Hershkowitz entitled “A Brief Survey of Calendar Making” (pp. 318-48). The purpose of Hershkowitz’s overview is to aid the reader in understanding the fifth section of Mateh Dan which deals with the calendar. Some other additions found in this edition were the many comments of R. Moshe Rimoni written in 1794 which were already included in the Mossad Rav Kook edition. In addition to this Yehuda Hershkowitz printed for the first time a manuscript from 1819 written by R. A. Lampronti about life on other planets.This manuscript comes from the now well known Valamadonna collection of Jack Lunzer.

I would like to highlight some of the very many points of interest in the Matteh Dan. The work pretty much starts where the Kuzari ends (hence the alternative title – Kuzari ha-Sheni), and the main focus of the Mateh Dan is to defend the legitimacy of Torah Shel bal Peh. It is written in debate format similar to the Kuzari. In the introduction of his work he writes:

ולפי שיש מחלוקות על מלך כוזר הראשון ועל מלכותו… יש אומרים שהרב המחבר המציא בדעתו מלך ומלכותו אשר לא היה ולא נברא. ויש אומרים שמעשה שהיה כך היה ככתוב בספר כדי שלא לאפושי במחלוקות על הכוזרי שלי אני מודיע נאמנה לכל קורא בספרי שלא נהיה כדברים האלה כי מלבני אני בודאם

The sefer is divided into five sections. In the first section he sets out to prove that the Jews always had Torah Shel Bal Peh from the times of Moshe and onwards. He shows how various Mitzvas its impossible to understand if we do not have Torah Shel Ba’al Peh. One of the many nice pieces in this section that he writes when dealing with the prohibition of carrying on Shabbas (p.12):

איסור משא קל כמעט שמפורש בתורה שהרי דוד המלך ע”ה אמר בדבר ה’ שמים נעשו ובכן היתה הבריאה ביום הראשון אמר השם יתברך יהי אור ויהי אור… ויכלו השמים והארץ וכל צבאם וכתבי וישבות ביום השביעי. נמצא שכששבת לא שבת אלא ממאמר בעלמא שהוא דבר שאינו יכול לגרום לו ליאות ויגעה משני טעמים חדא מפני שבו יתברך שהוא בלתי תכלית וכחו בלתי בעל תכלית לא יתכן ליאות ויגעה ב’ שאפילו תימה ח”ו שהיה ראוי לכך אי אפשר שייעף ויגע על הוצאת שתי מלות בכל יום בלבד נמצינו למדים שהקב”ה שבת ממה שלא היה יכול לייגעו בב’ טעמים, ולכן האיש הישראלי אשר ישבות ממשא כבד בלבד לא ישבות כמו ששבת הקב”ה אבל כשישבות אף ממשא קל אזי באמת שומר שבת מחללו ומחזיק בבריתו יתברך.

In section two he continues proving the truth of Torah Shel Bal Peh. A nice piece in this section is while proving that the esrog is the fruit the Torah requires one to take on Succos he writes (p.25):

בחג הסוכות אמר הכתוב ולקחתם… פרי עץ הדר… ואפשר שהכוונה היא על רמון נאה… אבל הם ז”ל פירשו שהוא אתרוג דווקא ופסלו כל מה שאינו אתרוג ממש כפי הסימנים אשר מסרונו אף על פי שיהיה מאותו המין, וזה גורם הוצאה רבה ועגמת נפש גדולה ליושבי ארצות ואקלים הקרים לפי שצריך שיביאו להם אתרוג מארץ הרחוקים לחוג בו את חג הסכות בהוצאה רבה. ולא עלתה תלונותי כי אין ציבור עני, אלא שלפעמים יש להם ההוצאה אבל לא השבח של המצוה כגון כשלא הגיע לידם אלא בתוך ימי החג או אחריו התאימין אדוני המלך שאנשים חכמים ונובנים בדו כל זה מלבם טעם ויסוד אחר אלא להתשרר על הצבור.

When dealing with the writing of the Mishnayos he writes (p.43):

אלא אפילו לאותן שנזכרו בהם תנאים באין חולק עליהם שכולם קבלה, לפי שרבינו הקודש לא היה אלא מלקט ומסדר ופוסק מה ששמע ואסף מימי התנאים אשר היו לפניו עד האחרונים אשר הוא אחד מהם.

When talking about asmactos he says (p.52):

אסמכתא… כח משפט חז”ל לסמוך העיקר המקובל על איזה פסוק אף על פי שהוא רחוק במטחוי קשתת מפשוטו, כי זה אינו אלא לעורר הזכירה. ובכן ברמז בעלמא סגי, כמו שעושין בני אדם, שקושרין קשר בסודר לזכור איזה דבר.

This understanding of asmactos follows the Rambam and other Rishonim yet there are other Rishonim disagree, at times rather sharply. For example, the Ritva who writes:

ומשום הכי קתני ר”ע שאמר הקב”ה אמרו לפני מלכיות זכרונות וכו’ שכל מה שיש לו אסמכתא מן הפסוק העיר הקב”ה שראוי לעשות כן אלא שלא קבעו חובה ומסרו לחכמים, וזה דבר ברור ואמת, ולא כדברי המפרשים האסמכתות שהוא כדרך סימן שנתנו חכמים ולא שכונת התורה לכך, ח“ו ישתקע הדבר ולא יאמר שזו דעת מינות הוא, אבל התורה (העידה) [העירה] בכך ומסרה חיוב הדבר לקבעו [ל]חכמים אם ירצו כמו שנאמר ועשית על פי הדבר אשר יגידו לך, ולפיכך תמצא החכמים נותנין בכל מקום ראיה או זכר או אסמכתא לדבריהם מן התורה כלומר שאינם מחדשים דבר מלבם וכל תורה שבע”פ רמוזה בתורה שבכתב שהיא תמימה וח”ו שהיא חסירה כלום (ריטב“א, ראש השנה דף טז ע”א).

This topic is dealt by many just to list some sources see: R. Yosef Engel, Beit Haotzar,1:190; R. Meshullam Roth, Shu”t Kol Mivasar, 2:21-22; Mivasar Ezra, 20-22; R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, Yeshurun 20:678; R. Yonah Martsbach, Aleh Yonah, 101-105; R. Gedaliah Nadel, Betorato Shel Rav Gedaliah, pp. 28-30; R. Gedaliah Nadel, Mila Dehespeda, pp. 130-31. In section three he discusses many specific points in regard to Torah Shel Bal Peh just to list some of the many interesting ones: When dealing with how exactly did arguments begin in Klal Yisrael in the times of the talmedei of Hillel and Shamaei he goes has a lengthy historical discussion of that period to explain what happened listing all the terrible decrees and persecutions that the Jews went through at that time. At the end the Kuzari asks him (p.65):

אבל מה תשיב על שכחת דברים הנוהגים בכל יום כגון קידוש והבדלה שמצינו בית שמאי ובית הלל חולקים בקידוש אם מברכין על היום תחילה או על היין וכן בהבדלה… וכי לא ראו ולא שמעו איך היו מקדשים אבותם ורבותם בשבתות וימים טובים, היאמן כי יספור ששכחו דברים כאלו שהם תמידים? אמר החבר: אין מקום לקושייתך משום דקי”ל סדר ברכות אין מעכבות… ולכן בראשונה כל אחד ואחד היה מקדים או מאחר שהיה רוצה, עד שבאו בית שמאי ובית הלל ועמדו למנין על סדר הברכות ונפסקו ההלכה. ואף על פי כן אם הקדים המאוחרת או איחר המוקדמת יצא. וכן יש לומר בכל המחלוקות שתמצא מזה המין…

[This answer applies to all such questions which others have dealt with at length like how did a argument between Rashi and Rabenu Tam evolve over the order of the Parshiyos in Tefilin why didn’t they check what previous generations did. The answer in short which is given is both were done by some.]

When dealing with the famous question dealt with by many of why can’t Amoraoim disagree with Tannoim he writes (p.68):

שלא חילקו האמוראים על התנאים מפני שהכירו שהיו גדולים מהם בכל הבחינות ודלא כמו שכתב הכסף משנה שקבלו על עצמם שלא לחלוק…

Then he writes that there is a constant yeridot ha-dorot when it comes to people’s knowledge (a point which not all agree with) so he wonders why do we say הלכה כבתראי. So he answers:

על דרך המשל הידוע שננס רוכב על גבי ענק רואה יותר ממה שרואה הענק אף על פי שהננס הוא כנמלה לגבי הענק.

Much has been written on this משל see the Alpha Beta Kadmita Deshmuel Zeriah from R. Shmuel Ashkenazi pp. 322-27; see also S. Leiman, “Dwarfs on the Shoulders of Giants,” Tradition 27:3, pp. 90-94 in both of these articles, the Kuzari Hashenei is not included. Just to add three more sources on the topic, not on either of the previously mentioned extensive lists see Simchat Hanefesh, p. 112; R. Y. Heller, Maoz Hadas, p.34b; A. Lipshitz, Avos Atorah Levonim. p. 175 n.6. On this topic in general see; I. Ta-Shmah, Halacha, Minhag Umitzyius Baskenaz, pp. 58-79; Daniel Sperber, Netivot Pesikah, p. 31 n.51, Joseph Davis, Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller Portrait of a Seventeenth- Century Rabbi, pp. 46-47, and A. Melamad, Al Kesefei Anakim. When listing the מצות דרבנן he writes that (p.72) they are:

מגלה, חנוכה, נר שבת ויום טוב, הלל , עירובין, נטילת ידים, יום טוב שני של גליות, שבעת ימי המשתה, שבעת ימי אבלות וארבע תעניות.

Not all agree with this listing as this topic has been discussed at great length in his usual incredible style by R. Shmuel Ashkanazi in Kovetz Beis Aron ve-Yisrael (issue # 35, pp. 97-114 and issue #38, pp.139-154). While discussing the reason why we do not blow Shofar when Rosh Hashonah falls out on shabas he writes about the masses of the Jews at the time (p.80):

שרוב עם בני ישראל היו עמי הארץ ומיעוטא דמיעוטא היו חכמים, וכיון שרובא היו עמי הארץ ממילא לא היו בקיאין בדוקדוקי מצות ולכן כשחל ראש השנה וסוכת בשבת ילך אצל בקי עם השופר או עם הלולב כדי שיתקע או יברך לו או כדי ללמוד נטילתו או ברכותו ויוליכנו ארבע אמות ברשות הרבים ויבוא לידי איסור סקילה ואף את יתרו בו לא ישמע לקול מוריו כי יאמר שאינו רוצה לבטל המצוה.

When discussing the topic of why we have two days of Yom Tov even thought we understand the calendar today he writes (p.83):

שאם מלך המושל בארץ ישראל קודם ביאת משיחנו ועודנו בגלות יתן רשות לישראל לשבת על אדמתם ולמנות עליהם סנהדרין יחזור העיבור ליושנו והיו מקדשין על פי הראיה כימי קדם קדמתה ואז לא היינו חוגגין לעולם יחד ביום אחד אלא לפעמים ג’ משום שכל דבר שבמנין צריך מנין אחר להתירו, וכיון שכל ישראל הרחוקים מארץ ישראל קבלו עליהם לעשות שני ימים להסתלק מן הספק, צריך שיסכימו כולם גם כן לבטל תקנה זו וזה איפשר דרך טבע מפני שאנו מפוזרים ומפורדים בין כל האומות העולם אחת הנה ואחת הנה ויש כמה וכמה מבני ישראל במדינות רחוקות, אשר אין אנו יודעים זה מזה ולא יש דרך הכרה ביניהם ובינינו בשום פנים, כגון במלכיות פרס והודו וכוש, ובמלכות גינה וטארטאריאה, כפי מה שמצאתי ראיתי בספרי המלחים והההלכים.

R. Menachem Kasher (Torah Shelemah, vol. 13, p. 129) already points out that the Meshech Chochma (Bo, 12:1) and others say the same thing. In section four he deals with many topics related to Chazal and their knowledge in science. He begins this section dealing with what exactly are the seforim chizonim that chazal prohibit one from learning and why are they prohibited (pp. 97-100). He is of the opinion as are many others that there is a connection between kabalah and philosophy (p. 98). He shows that chazal had great knowledge in philosophy (pp. 129-57), geometry, and mathematics including a whole lengthy discussion of the mathematical Gemaras in Succah (pp. 113-25). He also deals at great length showing there tremendous knowledge in understanding the calendar etc. (pp. 182-90). Many others have also shown Chazal knowledge in all areas of science just to mention one interesting work on the topic is R. Y. Kemhlar’s Hatalmud Vmadei Hatevel. In addition R. Nieto also has a lengthy discussion showing there expertise in the and anatomy of humans and animals (pp. 104-06). Others have also shown this for example see Meshiv Nefesh (p. 14b, 22a) R. Aron Marcus, Keses Hasofer (p. 78) and Hatalmud Vmadei Hatevel (p. 24). One additional source related to this is found in Chut Hamishulash (p.29a) where he 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.

After this R. Nieto brings that “the Kuzari asked him “(pp. 106-07) “I have no doubt that they knew science etc. but how did they have time to learn and time for the sciences”. To which R Nieto replied that they although some were real experts in science like Shmuel but most just knew what was necessary for them to understand those areas of Torah that required such knowledge.

R. David Nieto and life on other planets

He writes about life on other planets a very interesting thing (p. 128):

ר’ מאיר אגוז מצא תוכו אכל קליפתו זרק. וכן ראוי לנו לעשות בסברות חכמי האומות, שכל מה שהוא מנגד לתורתנו הקדושה והתמימה בין שבכתב בין שבעל פה שקץ תשקצנו ותעב תתעבנו כי חרם הוא, אבל מה שאינו נגד דבריה ולא נגד פירושה הרשות ביד כל איש ישראל להאמין או למאן בו לפי שכלו. ובכן כיון שאין שטן ואין פגע רע להאמין שכל הכוכבים בין המהלכים בין הקובעים בגלגל השמיני הם עולמות אשר בהם מכל בעלי חיים, בצדקתה החזקת ולא ארפה. ואפשר שלזה כיוונו רז”ל כשכתבו בסוף מסכת עוקצין עתיד הקב“ה הוא להנחיל לכל צדיק וצדיק שלש מאות ועשרה עולמו.

R. Pinchas Hurwitz in his Sefer Habris (pp.33-34) also says there could be life on other planets bringing proof from various Chazal and Zohar including the some of the same Chazal that R. Nieto uses.

However not everyone understands this Chazal literally just to list one other explanation R. A. Shor writes:

טעם מספר ש”י עולמות נראה לפי שעשרת הדברות יש בהן תר”ך אותיות נגד תרי”ג מצות ושבע מצות בני נח במספר כת”ר עליון ונראה שכנגדן יש לו לאדם תר”ך עולמות אלא לפי שהאדם נברא דו פרצופין זכר ונקבה ויקרא את שמם אדם וכן כל הנשמות זכר ונקבה נבראו ובין שניהם נשלם ונעשה האדם במלואו וטובו לשמור ולעשות את כל מצות ה’ לכך גם אותן תר”ך עולמות יחדיו יחלוקו מחציתן לזכר ומחציתן לנקבה והיינו ש”י עולמות לכל צדיק וצדיק (תורת חיים, סנהדרין, דף ק ע”א).

[On this Toras Chaim see R. S. Askanazi in Kovetz Beis Aron Vyisroel (issue #38, p.142)]. R. Yosef Zechariah Stern (Ma’amar Betalocas Aggaddos, p. 45) suggests even more that there is a printing mistake and it should say two (שני) not three hundred and ten (ש”י) worlds. [As an interesting bibliographical note R. Yakov Shor [Mishnat R. Yakov, p. 41] this chazal is not really the end of Ukztin rather it was stuck in from elsewhere because we like to end with something good]. This topic has been dealt with by many see for example the Ri Barcellona in his work on Sefer Yetzirah (pp.171-173) where he writes:

יח אלף עלמות שברא… שאפשר שזה העולם חביב לפניו יותר מכל שאר העלמות כי אולי באותן השאר עולמות לא נתן להם תורה… ואולי אפשר נמי לומר כי באותן היח עולמות אין בהם בריות בחטא ועון כמו באלה ואולי אותן הבריות מלאכים רוחות הן שברא המקום לכבודו או אולי קרובים להן והן בלא חטא שאין יצר הרע שולט בהן…

As mentioned earlier, Y. Hershkowitz printed for the first time a manuscript from R. Lampronti about life on other planets where the author deals with this topic at length. See also R. Chasdaei Crescas in Or Hashem (4:2), his rebbe, R. Albo in Ikryim (4:2); Ma’aseh Tuviyyah, 3:1; Sefer Elim, (p. 141a), Kol Yehudah (commentary on Kuzari 2:20 p. 68); Aryeh Kaplan, The Aryeh Kaplan Reader, pp. 170-75; A. Korman, Hemunah Hayisreleis, pp. 275-77; Evulutzyah ve-Yehadus pp.139-40; Y. Shabtei, Sha’ar Yosef vol. 1, p. 152; R. Kemeil, Shar Reveun, p. 269; N. Lamm in Challenge, pp. 354-98. When R. Nieto deals with the hard to understand famous Gemaras of Raba Bar Bar Chanah he writes (p.171):

שמא שנראה דבר תמוה ובלתי ראוי להאמין, כגון מה שסיפר רבה בר בר חנא מההוא טייעא, הוא דבר מורגל במקומות רחוקים מגלילותינו ואם נראה זר בעינינו הוא מפני חסרון ידיעתנו, לא מפני שהדבר בעצמו בלתי אפשר.

In section five he deals with explanation of how our calendar works very extensively and in depth. This section is not easy to understand if one does not have proper background.Just to mention one point from this section as its Inyana Deyomah and many are bothered with this issue – if the calendar according to Shmuel is off so why do we Pasken like him:

.(שמואל היה יודע שיעור שנת רב אדא ומכיר בו שהוא אמיתי ונכון, אך ביקש דרך קצרה וקלה להמון העם ואותה נתן להם למען ידעו בחשבון הגס שיעור השנה בקירוב בלי דקים וחלקים (ויכוח חמישי, אות קמו

[On this topic see: R. Alexander Moshe Lapides, Toras Hagoan R. Alexander Moshe pp.6-8; R. J. D. Bleich, Bircas Hachammah, pp.58-64; R. A. Brisk, Otzar Hazemanim, pp.223-226; R. M.M. Gerlitz, Bircas Hachamah KeHilchosah, pp. 145-59; R. Yehuda Hershkowitz, The Sun Cycle, pp. 137-38] Some other topics he deals with: are stars alive (pp. 125-26), how many Jews were there in the time of the second Beis ha-Mikdsash (pp. 79-80), the invention of the barometer and thermometer (p. 148) and a whole section on explaining the Thirteen Midos that we use to darshan (pp. 89-95). R. Nieto writes that R. Srug was a Talmid of Arizal (p. 99). This point has been dealt with by many, see the fabulous discussion by Y. Avivi in his recent classic work Kabballas ha-Ari (1:224-44); see also R. S. Deblitski, Benu Shenosu Dor Vedor, pp. 50-52; E. Katzman, Toldos Hamegalah Amukos, pp. 36-39; R. A. Marcus, Keses Hasofer, p.6. R. Nieto seems to hold that the Asra Harugei Malchus died during the same time frame (p. 64). This difficult historical riddle has been dealt with by many just to list some sources see Erchei Tanaim Vamorim, (Blau Ed.) vol. 2, pp. 708-15; S. Kraus in his series of articles in Hasholach 1925 (recently reprinted in Mered Bar Kochchba, pp. 239-76) and the recent book on the topic by E. Vilnar, Asreh Harugei Malchus printed by Mossad Rav Kook. R. Zev Rabanowitz writes when talking about this:

ובכלל רואים אנו, שמחברי אגדות כאלה לא היו בקיאים בדברי הימים ובסדרי הדורו, ורבותינו ז”ל הקדמונים בתמימותם האמינו לאגדות הכתובות וייסדו את פיוטיהם על פיהם למען עורר מספד והרבות בכי, ובזמננו מצוה להסירם מן המחזורים והקינות, כי דובר שקרים לא יכון נגד ה’ ותמה אני על הקדמונים שכבר ידעו ולא מחו מלומר פיוטים כאלה. ואולי מחו ולא נשמעו (שערי תורת בבל, עמ’ 410).

R. Nieto and Copernicus

One of the more famous things which R. Nieto is famous for is not accepting Nicolaus Copernicus‘s theories that the earth revolves around the sun and is not stationary.

He writes:

מיום ברוא אלהים אדם ועד קרוב לזמנו כל יושבי תבל ושוכני ארץ האמינו שהששה כוכבי לכת הם גופים חשוכים שמקבלים האור מהשמש, שהוא אחד מהם והגדול שבהם. ועתה האחרונים המציאו שהם ארצות ושהארץ אשר אנו יושבים היא אחת מהן, מפני שסוברים שהשמש באמצע בלי תנועה כמלך במסבו והששה מקיפים… ואם אדם ימאן בסברא הקודמת ויאמין בזאת תחזיקהו למין או אפיקורוס?… ודאי שמתקבלות על הסברא, אבל אין אנו יכולים להחזיק במונח הזה במה שהוא מבטל תנועת השמשף דביהושע כתיב שמש בגבעון דום … הרי שסובב והולך כשאר כוכבי לכת. ואף על פי שבעלי הסברא הזאת נתחבטו לתרץ הקושיא לריק יגיעו, כי אין תשובתם מספקת ולכן נטשתיה וגרשתיה מהסתפח בנחלת ה’… אמרו שהנביא אמר שמש בגבעון דום מפני המון העם דסבירא להו שהשמש מהלך ואינו יודע תנועת הארץ (כוזרי השני, ויכוח רביעי אות קי-קלב. וראה שם אות רנח, וויכוח חמישי אות ד).

The first reference to Copernicus, but not by name in Jewish literature, is by the Maharal who writes:

וכמו שבא אחד שהיה נקרא בעל תכונה חדשה, אשר נתן ציור אחר וכל אשר הבינו הראשונים אשר לפניהם ונתנו הראשונים ציור ומהלך לכוכבים ומזלות ולגרמים השמים סתר את כלם ונתן ציור חכמה חדשה רק שהוא עצמו כתב כי עדיין לא יוכל ליישב את הכל (נתיבות עולם, נתיב התורה, פרק יד).

[See Andre Neher in Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century (Littman Library, 1986), pp. 208-10]. The first reference to Copernicus by name in Jewish literature is by David Ganz in his small work Magen Dovid (of which only one known copy survives in Bodleian Library) first printed in Prague in 1612 (a year before he died). Quoted by Neher, idem p.1; see also, Y. Elbaum, Pseichot ve-Hestagrot, p. 250. What is even more interesting is this small work received Haskomos from R. Yom Tov Heller (author of the Tosfos Yom Tov), R. Ephraim Lenshitz (Klei Yakar) and R. Y. Cohen (son in law of Maharal) all these people were talmidim of the Maharal.[For a copy of this interesting and rare Haskamah of the Tosfos Yom Tov see; M. Hershkowitz, Shnei Kruvim, pp. 105-111; see also J. Davis, Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller Portrait of a Seventeenth- Century Rabbi, pp. 90-91. In Ganz’s other work, Nechmad Ve-Naim (which is really part of Magan Dovid), there is also reference to Copernicus but this work was first printed in 1743. Quoted by Neher, idem, p. 197. In both these works Ganz refers to Copernicus in a very positive light. Although, M.Steinschneider in Jewish Literature writes (p.262) that although Ganz was acquainted with the system of Copernicus Ganz follows the Ptolemaic system. But see the in depth discussion of Neher, idem, pp. 200-04, 224-28; see also A. Ziv, Ha-Ramah, p. 83. Another early reference to Copernicus is by R. Y. Delmedigo in Sefer Elim printed in 1629. In this work as well Copernicus is mentioned in a very positive light. What is even more significant about Ganz and Delmedigo endorsing of Copernicus is because besides for both of them being great Talmedei Chachamim they were both expert astronomers having trained by the worlds greatest experts of their times (Ganz by Tycho Brahe and Delmedigo by Galileo). [For more on Ganz in general see R. M. Strashun, Mivchar Kesavim pp. 234-42; A. Ziv, HaRamah, pp. 82-85;Y. Elbaum, Pseichos Vehestagros, pp. 250-52 and index]. However Nieto was not the only one to oppose Copernicus R. Tuviyyah Cohen did so earlier and much sharper as he writes in Masseh Tuviyyah first printed in 1707:

ראוי לכל פילסוף אלקי שיבטל דעת קופירניקוש ונלוים עליו כי כל אותן ראוי’ שהביא הוא וחבריו הם נגד כתבי הקדוש ודברי נבאי אמת הנאמנים בדבריהם מפני שכתוב בקהלת והארץ לעולם עומדת אבל כפי דעת קופירניקוש איננה עומדת כלל והשמש לא יזרח ולא ישקע… ואם כדבריו כן הוא למה כתוב וזרח השמש ובא השמש… הנך רואה שבכמה מקומות הפסוקים יתנו עידיהן ויצדקו שתשמש והלבנה יותר הכוכבים מסבבים סביב הארץ ולא שהארץ מסבבת סביב השמש ואם יבוא קופירניקוש בטענותיו וראיותיו ומופתיו כזביות אף אתה הקהה את שניו… ודע מה שתשיב לו כי בכור שטן הוא (מעשה טוביה, חלק ב, סוף פרק ג-ד).

[On R. Tuviyyah Cohen and Copernicus see David B. Ruderman, Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe, pp. 231 & 239-40.] Besides for these two Gedolim opposing Copernicus, R. Yonsan Eybshutz who was also knowledgeable in Astronomy was also opposed as he writes in 1779:

ועבור זה נתטפשו הרבה מתוכנ’ קופרניקוס וסעייתו באמרם שהארץ מסבב אבל שקר נחלו והאמת עד לעצמו כי הארץ לעולם עומדת… (יערות דבש, חלק א, דרוש ד, דף לו ע”א).

(Neher, idem, p. 253, is incorrect when he writes that Eybshutz was positive towards Copernicus’ theory). Here, again, we have Eybshutz’s antagonist, R. Yakov Emden, arguing and defending Copernicus as Emden writes:

ויקרא אלקים ליבשה ארץ… יש מפרשים מלשון רץ וכן פירשו רבותינו ז”ל שרצתה לעשות רצון קונה. ויהיה מזה גם כן סעד לדעת בעלי תכונה החדשה (קאפירניקוס) שהארץ סובבת, ולא תקשי מוהארץ לעולם עומדת [קהלת א’, ד’] כאשר מבואר במקום אחר בס”ד (סידור יעב“ץ, אשכול, ח”ב, מעמדות ליום שלישי, עמ’ תקפח).

As a bibliographical point the way R. Emeden concludes this piece is by saying כאשר מבואר במ“א בס”ד (and that is how it is in the first edition). For some reason some, (R. M.M. Gerlitz, Bircas Hachamah KeHilchosah, p. 31, Y. Bloch, Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso, p.40 and some earlier prints of the siddur) understood this to be an abbreviation that R. Yakov Emden was referring to a work of his called מכתב אלקים which was never printed. While it true that he authored such a work it and it appears to have been lost but it does not talk about such topics based on the extant quotes [See Y. Rafel, Arshet, 3:276 & J. J. Schacter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works,” (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), p.143-144] we have from it from although one can never be sure for certain and the abbreviation could just mean simple כאשר מבואר במקום אחר בס”ד.

[On R. Emden comment see The Sun Cycle by R. Yehuda Hershkowitz p. 18 n.78; J. Elias edition of The Nineteen Letters, p.43]

Although R. Emden writes positively about Copernicus here elsewhere R. Emden writes very negatively about the science of astronomy on the whole including Copernicus:

חכמת התכונה של אומת העולם, רחוקה מכליותי לייחס דעת זו המגונה לרז”ל חלילה וחס להו לרבנן קדישי שיתפארו בחכמת הגויים. רעיוני אנשי העולם הבודים מלבם חכמה שאין לה עיקר ויסוד רק כפי העולה על רוחם נשענים על יסודות הנולדות במוחם לקרב כל דבר אל השכל להוליכו במנהגי הטבע המוחש. ועם כל זה הם עצמן נבוכים מאד. ומודים שאין מציאות אמתי לגלגל יוצא מרכז וגלגל נושא והדומה להם… והרבה כאלה קשות נמצאו באותה חכמה ונתחלקו לכתות כתות בהנחותיה ולא נחו ושקטו גלגלי רעיוניהם. עד שהמציאו תכונה חדשה לגמרי מקרוב באה לא שערוה ראשוניהם (וי”א שנמצא גם בקדמונים מאד מי שחשב עליה כזאת של קופירניקוס) יהי מה אינה ראויה להקרא חכמה כלל. אחר שאינה אל דמיונות ורעיונות ודתיה שונות כפי מחלוקת לבב בני אדם אשר חכמה מה להם… (עץ אבות, אבות פרק ג משנה יח).

[About R. Emden, Copernicus and astronomy in gerneral see: J. J. Schacter, “Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works,” (PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), p.620-621,685 nt.55].

André Neher, “Copernicus in the Hebraic Literature from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century,” in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr. – Jun., 1977), pp. 211-26 and in his Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century (pp. 251-60) concludes (p. 253): “With the exception of the two earliest works, which we shall speak about in a moment, [Nieto and Cohen, E.B.] all the works on this list remained in the tradition of the pioneers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries: that is to say they were theologically positive towards Copernicus, even if they had practical reservations.” To demonstrate his point he lists many sources of mainstream Gedolim in favor of Copernicus.

Natan Slifkin writes in The Challenge of Creation (p.127): “It was not only the Church that strongly opposed the insights of Copernicus. With few exceptions, the rabbis of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries condemned Copernican astronomy as being opposed to Scripture and as being scientifically flawed. It contradicted the simple meaning of the Scriptural statement that “the world stands forever”, as well as the account in Joshua of time halting by the sun miraculously standing still (as opposed to the earth standing still). “In a footnote listing sources for this statement, Slifkin also refers the reader to Neher; However, in reality, Neher concludes just the opposite. Another positive quote about Copernicus is found in the Yad HaKetnah first printed in 1800 anonymously:

לכת פילוסופים הקדמונים לפני שנים אלפים דעתם שכדור הארץ סובב תמיד. והשמים וכל צבאם עומדים. והפילוסופים שאחריהם קיימו וקבלו, שכל הגללים סובבים והארץ לעולם עומדת. ואחר כך בימים האחרונים זה קרוב לשלשה מאות שנים קם פילוסוף חכם מופלג והחזיק בדעת הקדמונים שהארץ סובבת והשמים עומדים. וחיבר על זה חיבר נפלא עמוק עמוק עד שמתקן כל דרכי התכונה לדעתו וכמובא בהקדמת הספר נחמד ונעים שחיבר בעל המחבר צמח דוד (יד הקטנה, שער י, שער דרכי הניסים, פרק ד).

There are those who show Copernicus theory is found in the Zohar:

ובספרא דרב המנונא סבא, פריש יתיר דהא כל ישובא מתגלגלא בעיגולא ככדור אלין לתתא ואלין לעילא וכל אינון בריין משניין בחזווייהו משינויא דאוירא כפום כל אתר ואתר וקיימין בקיומייהו כשאר בני נשא, ועל דא אית אתר בישובא כד נהיר לאלין חשיך לאלין לאלין יממא ולאלין ליליא, ואית אתר דכוליה יממא ולא אשתכח ביה ליליא בר בשעתא חדא זעירא )זוהר, ויקרא, דף י ע”א).

R. Herzog writes about this (translated from English):

תיאוריה הקשורה לשמו של קופרניקוס… הענין מוזכר באופן לא מפורש במקורות התנאיים. ניסוח מלא ישנו בזוהר בפסקה המצוטטת משמו של רב במנונא סבא. שאלת ייחוסו של ספר הזוהר אינה נוגעת לעניין כי רבי משה די לאון שאליו מייחסים המבקרים את החיבור הנפלא נפטר זמן רב לפני קופרניקוס… (יהדות חוק ומוסר, עמ’ 102)

R. Aron Marcus, writes about this:

יש לציין כי הזוהר מבטל את השיטה הפטולמאית, כבלתי מדעית ונוטה לצד השיטה הקופרניקאית, שהקדים אותה במאות שנים. נוסף על כך לפי דעתו של ר’ שמעון בר יוחאי, הרי השקפות של בני דורו בשטח התכונה, אינן אלא סברות של הדיוטות… (החסידות, תל אביב תשיד, עמ’ 78.).

Interestingly enough A. Neher claims in his Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century (pp. 104-05) that one could imagine that this was written by a pupil of Copernicus! The truth is that R. Yakov Emden on this Zohar writes

:כל ענין זה הולך על דרך חכמי מחקר לא על דרך רז”ל בתלמוד (מטפחת ספרים, עמ’ לז).

However R. Moshe Kuntz (Ben Yochai, p. 81) does not have a problem with Chazal saying this including the Zohar as he has other indications from Chazal like this. But others show that there might be a contradiction in the Zohar about this [see: R. Shpitzer, Nevrashet, Vol.2, p.18a; R. M.M. Gerlitz, Bircas Hachamah KeHilchosah, pp.29-30 and Y. Bloch, Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso, pp.21-22]. C. Solonski in his introduction to his Kochva Deshvet, (p.14) also brings this Zohar to show that Chazal held like Copenicus. R. P. Hurwitz in his Sefer Habris (p.99) brings the Zohar when dealing with Copernicus but after a lengthy discussion he concludes by disagreeing with Copernicus (pp.98-102). [About this Zohar, See also R. Schick, Seder Haminhaghim, 2:24b; Y. Levi, The Science in Torah, pp.115]. The Chasam Sofer who was known for his knowledge in astronomy [see: Chut Hamishlush p. 29a & Zichronis Vmesoros Al Hachasam Sofer, pp. 58, 102, 305] writes about Copernicus in a work he started writing on astronomy (see ibid p.305) after quoting the Yavetz:

מעניני גלגלים וככבי לכת… . דמזה סיוע לכת קאפירניקוס שהארץ סובבת, ולא תקשי מוהארץ לעולם עומדת כאשר מבואר במקום אחר, עכ”ד. הנה במ”ש שאין קושיא מוהארץ לעולם עומדת, הדין עמו לפע”ד, לא דבר שם מסיבובי ארץ בגלגל, כי גם לדעת הזאת אין הכוונה שהארץ תסוב על צירה, אלא כל הכדור היסודות כמות שהוא, הוא מתגלגל, אשר הארץ באמצעי לו… מכל מקום אין בידי לדחות קופארניקוס ולא צד שכנגדו כי ראיותיהם עצומות משני הצדדים. ולדעת אותה הכת יש לנו תנועה חדשה, מלבד ג’ תנועות שהזכרתי בפרק דלעיל שסימנם אמ”י, ועתה יתחדש התנועה הסבובי’, אמנם אין לנו עסק בדעת זאת הכת, ונייח (ונייחס) תנועה הסבובי’ לגלגלים שאין להם תנועה אחרת זולתי הסבובים הלז (שו“ת חת“ס, קובץ תשובות, סי’ כו, לאחרונה נדפס גם במאורות הסופר, עניני קידוש החמה, עמ’ צח).

[As an aside the Chasam Sofer was a very big fan of the Yavetz besides for what he writes about Mitpachat Seforim:

הנה נמצא בשכונתך ס’ מטפחת ספרים למהריעב”ץ תמצא שם כי דבר גדול דבר הנביא ז”ל בענין זה הלא ישתוממו רואיו וד”ל (שו“ת חת“ס, חו”מ ליקוטים, סי’ נט)

See also B. Hamberger, Moriah, 17:1 pp.237-238 who cites many sources about the Chasam Sofer and Yavetz]. Elsewhere the Chasam Sofer writes about Copernicus:

אשר חלק ה’ אותם לכל העמים יש לפרש על פי דאיתא דקופערניקוס אחד מחכמי העמים אמר דהארץ סובבת לקבל אור השמש דאיך עצם השמים הטהורה יסבב וישמש את הארץ והאחרים הביאו ראייה כנכדו דאם הארץ מסבב איך אפשר שיזרוק חץ בעוף וישיגהו ויפול שם כיון שהארץ כבר השתנה מקומה ועל זה השיב די”ל דהארץ וכל אשר עליה וגם האויר מסבב האמנם ראייותיו מכח השכל שאינו רואי שישמש העליון לתחתון הוא רק לפי דיעות האומת העולם אבל לנו בני ישראל אדרבא הארץ אשר בה בני אדם וישראל עם קדושו הם תכלית הבריאה ובעבורם נברא העולם תבל וכל אשר בה וגלגלי השמים ושמי השמים לצורך האדם ואם כן ראוי שישמשו שאר חלקי העולם לעולם התחתון שבו ישראל וגם עי”ז כל העולמות הם אחד ולתכלית אחד נברא דלא כדעת האוה”ע שכל אחד הוא עולם בפני עצמו ולתכליתו נברא וזה שאמר אשר חלק ה’ אותם לכל העמים דאצלם הוא חלק משא”כ אצלנו הכל חד (תורת משה, פ’ ואתחנן, דף טו ע”א).

R. Y. Margolis a Talmid of the Chasam Sofer who also was an expert on astronomy (Zichronis Vmesoros Al Hachasam Sofer, p.305) writes:

אמנם מי שיאמן בה’ ובתורתו ויאמן כי הקב”ה בא במתן תורה ונגלה על סיני הר קטן לא יוקשה אם השמש שהיא א’ ממשרתיו תשמש את הארץ אשר עליה האדם הלומד התורה הזאת, וראי’ מבוררת ממה שאמר הכתוב ויתן אותם אלקים ברקיע השמים להאיר על הארץ הרי’ מבואר כי המאורות הגדולים נבראו להשתמש את הארץ (חזון למועד, סי’ א אות א, וראה גם סוף סי’ח וסי’ ט אות ד).

In 1889 R. Y Ginsburg, printed a sefer on astronomy called Ittim Levinah he endorses Copernicus theories in a few places in the sefer (pp. 7,9 & 409-10). The significance of this sefer is that it received many nice Haskomos from great Gedolim in Europe of the time (over twenty are printed and he received even more) amongst them the Adres, R. Eliezer Moshe Horowitz, R. Eliezer Gordon and R. Eliyhua Chaim Miesles.[See also Archos Rabenu, 1:282-283]. However a few years later a work was printed in Jerusalem called Nevrashet through out the work the author R. Shpitzer attempts to “prove” that Copernicus is wrong scientificaly and is against the Torah (see for example vol. 1, pp. 30b-36b, Vol.2, pp. 5a-12a,14b-17a). He goes so far as to write (1:31a) that none of the Rabonim who gave haskomos to the sefer Ittim Levinah noticed that he goes with Copernicus theories. He brings someone (2:17b) who says that R. Y. Leib Diskin was asked how does Copernicus work out with the Torah:

וזרח השמש ובא השמש וגו’ וענה לו שהכתוב אמר לפי ראות עיני האדם.

But he denies that R. Y. Leib Diskin ever said such a thing [see also Y. Bloch, Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso p.40]. Even recently there are those who still say that Copernicus is Kefirah see here. Other recent source that do not appear to acknowledge Copernicus is Bircas Hachammah called Otzar Hazemanim by R. A. Brisk where he writes (p.3):

מעגל היומי של השמש: השמש סובבת את הארץ בכל יום… ובהערה 5: יש לציין כי לאסטרונמיה המודרנית ישנה הבנה אחרת בכל מהלכי גרמי השמים היא טעונת שהארץ סובבת סביב השמש ולא השמש סביב הארץ…

Even more recently Y. Bloch put out a booklet called Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso, 56 pages long demonstrating that Copernicus besides for being against the Torah is false scientifically. In Bircat Hachamah Betekufoseah, R. Genot brings (p.131) from R. Chaim Kanievseky who says:

כי הנוקט כך הריהו כמכחיש מסורת וכופר באמונתנו.

On Copernicus see: Arshet, 2:190 it appears that there was an argument about this between R. A. Worms author of Meorei Or and E. Carmoly [thanks to Dan Rabinowitz for this source]; M. Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 190; C. Solonski, Kochva Deshvet, pp.7-9; R. Zvi Cohen, Bircat Hachamah, pp. 65-68; A. Korman, Evulutzyah Vyehadus pp. 52; R. M.M. Gerlitz, Bircas Hachamah KeHilchosah, pp.26-34; see also N. Gutel in Hishtanyois Nateviyum Be-halacha pp. 172, 183 where he deals with R. Lampronti’s opinion in Pachad Yitzchack on this and p. 190 where he deals with R. Kook’s approach to this. See, David B. Ruderman, Jewish Thought and Scientific Discovery in Early Modern Europe, pp. 266-67 regarding R. Lampronti’s opinion; see also idem, p. 351; David B. Ruderman, Kabbalah, Magic and Science, pp. 99-100; J. Davis, Yom-Tov Lipmann Heller Portrait of a Seventeenth- Century Rabbi, p.167; see also the very recent excellent doctorate of Shua Englman, Harav Samuel Strashun (HaRaShaSh) VHaggahot Al Talmud Bavli, Bar Ilan 2009, p.223. [See also some comments in this thread.]

After completing this post R. Chaim Rapoport sent me an article of his on Jewish attitudes on Copernicus which will be published shortly, in the next Or Yisroel (I did not incorporate any of his sources into this post). See also his Bircat Hachamah Al Pei Minhag Chabad, pp.48-50. [My understanding of this topic in general was enhanced greatly from the work of André Neher, ‘Copernicus in the Hebraic Literature from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century’ in Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr. – Jun., 1977), pp. 211-226 and in his Jewish Thought and the Scientific Revolution of the Sixteenth Century especially pp. 169-228 & 251-60, but see Y. Tzvi Langerman’s reservations about Nehr’s work in Langerman’s review of Nehr’s work in Isis, vol. 81, no. 1, (Mar. 1990), pp. 105-07, (thanks to Dr. J. Brown for this source)]. In conclusion this sefer is full of important information it’s a shame that none of the editions I have seen have a proper index to the sefer. However as one can see from just from the few samples I brought this sefer has a wealth of material and should be studied. One only hopes that someone will collect all of R. Nieto’s writings translate them (both in other languages and from manuscript) into Hebrew and print a critical edition of these works including a real critical edition of this sefer Mateh Don. Until than one will have to do with this useful new edition. This edition is available for purchase by Biegeleisen, and for more information contact Yehuda Herskowitz at seforimlover-at-yahoo.com.

Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso

I mentioned the recent booklet printed by R. Y. Bloch called Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso, 56 pages long demonstrating that Copernicus besides for being against the Torah is false scientifically. I am not in any way qualified to deal with the scientific aspects of this booklet but I would like to point out some inaccuracies in the booklet not dealing with science. In the beginning he writes how the Rambam already writes not like Copernicus (pp. 9-11), that the earth is stationary and its Kefirah to go against this (I am just writing the gist as he builds it up much better but my point is still true) even though some say that the Rambam in the first four chapters of Hiclos Maadah is not Torah so one can argue on but he claims that this is a false Shita about the Rambam and it is against our Emunah to say such a thing he writes:

והגיד לי מרן הגאון רבי יהודה זאב סגל זצוקל המ”מ ממאנטשעסטר דאפילו הי’ אומר כן בעל החת”ם סופר או הנודע ביהודה לא היינו מקבלים דברים כאלה ממנו…

Now the first problem with this is that we have a very well known Godol who does say exactly what R. Bloch says is kefirah to say and that is R. Yakov Kamentsky who writes:

ודברי הרמב”ן אלה הם שעמדו לי בשעה שראינו איך שבני אדם יורדים מעל המטוס על ידי סולם על גלגל הלבנה וחשבתי בלבי מה יענה כעת הרמב”ם ז”ל שכתב שהלבנה היא בעלה צורה רוחנית… אבל כפי שאנחנו מתייחסים לדברי הראשונים שסוברים אנו בגדר של אלו ואלו דברי אלקים חיים אם כן אע”פ שבמקום זה אין הלכה כמותו אבל שיהיו דבריו דברי טעות לא יכלתי להשלים, ואם טעה הרמב”ם בהלכות יסודי התורה מדוע לא יטעה בהלכות שבת וכדומה? והנראה בזה דהנה לכאורה יש לתמוה על כל העינינם שכתב הרמב”ם בארבע הפרקים הראשונים של הלכות יסודי התורה…ובעל כרחנו אנו צריכין לומר שמה שמסר לנו הרמב”ם בפרקים אלו אין זה לא מעשה מרכבה ולא מעשה בראשית אלא כתב כל הד’ פרקים אלה מדעתו הרחבה מתוך ידיעות בחכמת חציונות כלומר שלא מחכמת התורה… ואין לדמות טעויות בהלכות אלו לטעויות בהלכות שבת וכדומה (אמת ליעקב על התורה, עמ’ טו-טז).

[He is not the only one to say such a thing see: Sefer Habris, pp.27-28 & my Bein Kesah L’Asur, p.182].

However, even if one does not want to side with R. Yakov Kamentsky, one can turn to the Rambam himself and what he writes about Chazal’s knowledge of astronomy:

לא תבקש ממני שיסכים כל מה שזכרוהו מענין התכונה למה שהענין נמצא, כי החכמות הלמודיות היו בזמנים ההם חסרות, ולא דברו בהם על דרך קבלה מן הנביאים, אבל מאשר הם חכמי הדורות בענינים ההם, או מאשר שמעום מחכמי הדורות ההם, ולא מפני זה אומר בדברים שאמצא להם שהם מסכימים לאמת שהם בלתי אמתיות או נפלו במקרה, אבל כל מה שאפשר לפרש דברי האדם עד שיסכים למציאות אשר התבאר מציאותו במופת, הוא יותר ראוי באדם המעולה המודה על האמת לעשותו (מורה נבוכים, חלק ג סוף פרק יד).

So if the Rambam could write such a thing on chazal so why can’t somone say the same about the Rambam’s knowledge of astronomy [See also R. Gedaliah Nadel, Betoroso Shel R’ Gedaliah, pp. 79-80].Another mistake in this work is on p. 42 R. Y. Bloch writes that Tycho Brahe was a friend of R. Yonsan Eybshutz. That is simply impossible as Tycho Brahe was born in 1546 and died in 1601 and R. Yonsan Eybshutz was born in 1690! Another inaccuracy in this work is that he claims that the Chasam Sofer was against Copernicus (pp. 32-34) but he fails to quote the statement of the Chasam Sofer in its entirety which is quoted above where the Chasam Sofer specifically writes about Copernicus:

דמזה סיוע לכת קאפירניקוס שהארץ סובבת, ולא תקשי מוהארץ לעולם עומדת כאשר מבואר במקום אחר, עכ”ד. הנה במ”ש שאין קושיא מוהארץ לעולם עומדת, הדין עמו לפע”ד, לא דבר שם מסיבובי ארץ בגלגל, כי גם לדעת הזאת אין הכוונה שהארץ תסוב על צירה, אלא כל הכדור היסודות כמות שהוא, הוא מתגלגל, אשר הארץ באמצעי לו… מכל מקום אין בידי לדחות קופארניקוס ולא צד שכנגדו כי ראיותיהם עצומות משני הצדדים. ..

He only quotes the last line which I put in bold but not the whole piece which shows the Chasam Sofer did not hold its in issue when it contradicts the possuk. Furthermore he gives much more weight to what I brought earlier from Chasam Sofer in Toras Moshe than this piece which is a work on the topic of astronomy. One last point about this work is that he says it is also very problematic to claim דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם to answer all the Pesokim against Copernicus (pp. 23-25). On this a great godol R. Yonah Martzbach who besides for being a Rosh Yeshiva of Kol Torah with R. Shlomo Zalman Aurbach, Martzbach was also a mathametician [On R. Yonah Martzbach see the excellent work from R. B. Hamberger, R. Yonah Martzbach Pirkei Chayov Darco Upolov], writes at length specifically when dealing with Copernicus and says it is not Kefirah and he specifically says that

דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם: לבעלי רוח הקדוש ולהם בלבד מתגלים דברי הטבע וחוקיו מתוך פסוקי המקרא בדברי חז”ל. אנשים אחרים עלולים לטעות בהם. לא נכתבה תורה להיות ספר מדעי הטבע ולא לשם כך אמרו חז”ל מה שאמרו. מי שרצה והיו אי פעם כאלה להוכיח שיש קצת לשמים ממזרח וממעריב, ושהאדמה שטח היא ולא כדורית, הסתמכו על מאמרי חז”ל וטעו, כי לא הבינו ש’דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם’… וכן דיברו חז”ל, וכן מצוי במליצות תפלותינו ותשבחותינו, ואין המלים אלא לבוש חציוני לדברים עמוקים מאוד מאוד, וחידות להביע בהם סודות… ויש שדיברו בלשון ידיעות תקופתם אל בני דורם. וככל שאדם ירחיב ידיעותיו ישנה דיבורו, אלא שדבר ה’ יעמוד לנצח ודברו ניצב בהלכותיו וברעיונתיהם הנשגבים ומחשבותיהם הטמונות בלבוש דבריהם (עלה יונה, עמ’ עג-עד).

This Kuntres Hashemesh Begevorso is available for purchase at Biegeleisen and Girsa.



The Hanukkah Miracle

The Hanukkah Miracle

Marc B. Shapiro
In an earlier post I mentioned that I hoped to write about the nineteenth-century dispute about the historicity of the Hanukkah miracle of the oil. This dispute broke out after the publication of Hayyim Zelig Slonimski’s article claiming that Maimonides did not believe in the miracle. Fuel was added to the fire when R. Samuel Alexandrov publicly supported Slonimski and argued that the miracle of the oil was intended to be understood in a non-literal fashion, with the oil representing Torah. (He later retracted this view, presumably due to public pressure.) There is no longer a need for me to write in any detail about this matter after Zerachyah Licht’s recent comprehensive Seforim Blog post here, which also includes Slonimski’s original article.[1]
However, there are a few points I would like to add.
In my post here I wrote:
To give an example . . . of how [R. Samuel Moses] Rubenstein’s later thought broke with tradition, see his Ha-Rambam ve-ha-Aggadah (Kovno, 1937), p. 103, where he claims that the story of the miracle of Hanukkah is almost certainly a late aggadic creation, and like many other miracle stories in aggadic literature was not originally intended to be understood as historical reality:[2]
ספק הוא אם הנס של “פך השמן” הוא אפילו הגדה עממית קדומה, קרוב שהוא יצירה אגדית חדשה מבעל הברייתא עצמו או מאחד מבעלי האגדה, ונסים אגדיים כאלו רבים הם בברייתות וגמרא ומדרשים ע”ד ההפלגה כדרכה של האגדה. ולבסוף הובן נס זה למעשה שהיה. עיין שבת כ”ג א’. [טעם ברייתא זו הובא גם במגילת תענית (פ”ט) אבל כמו שנראה היא הוספה מאוחרת, ועיין (שם) ובפסיקתא רבתי (פיסקא דחנוכה) עוד טעם להדלקת נרות חנוכה[.
During the most recent Hanukkah I was using R. Joseph Hertz’s siddur, the Authorized Daily Prayer Book. Based upon how he describes the holiday and the lighting of the menorah, omitting any mention of the miracle of the lights (pp. 946-947), I assume that he also didn’t accept it literally. Note how he states that the lights were kindled during the eight-day Dedication festival, and this is the reason for the eight days of Hanukkah, rather than offering the traditional reason that the eight days of Hanukkah commemorate the eight days that the menorah miraculously burnt.
Three years to the day on which the Temple was profaned by the blaspheming foe, Kislev the 25th 165, Judah Maccabeus and his brethren triumphantly entered the Holy City. They purified the Temple, and their kindling of the lights during the eight-day festival of Dedication—Chanukah—is a telling reminder, year by year, of the rekindling of the Lamp of True Religion in their time.
Ad kan my words in the prior post. Some time ago I was asked if I know of any other traditional authors who deny the literalness of the Hanukkah miracle. It could be that R. Isidore Epstein should be added to the list, as in his classic work Judaism he describes Hanukkah and the kindling of lights, but mentions nothing about the miracle. However, unlike Hertz whose comments were in a siddur and directed to Jews, Epstein’s book is directed towards a general reader, and can still be used as a college text. Understandably, one would hesitate to include in such a book anything about a miracle. Yet I think it is telling that he does not even say something like, “according to tradition a cruse of oil with enough for one day burnt for eight.”
Another traditional author who must be mentioned in this regard is R. Zev Yavetz. Here is his picture.
And to remind people of what Slonimski looked like, here is his picture.[3]

And here is a picture of R. Alexandrov.
Yavetz was one of the leaders (and founders) of the Mizrachi movement, and Kfar Yavets, a religious moshav, is named after him. After his death, R. Kook wrote about how Yavetz was able to combine Torah and secular wisdom without being negatively affected and distorting religious values.[4] Yavetz is best known for his writings on Jewish history. His magnum opus is his 14 volume Toldot Yisrael. In volume 4, pp. 89-91, he discusses the Hanukkah story.

As you can see, there is no mention of the miracle of the oil. The eight day holiday is portrayed as a commemoration of the original eight day celebration that took place when the Temple was rededicated. I don’t think there is any other conclusion that can be drawn other than that Yavetz did not regard the miracle of the oil as an actual historical event.

In 1900 R. Aryeh Leib Feinstein published his Elef ha-Magen. On p. 35b he writes that whereas R. Judah (bar Ilai) believed in the Hanukkah miracle, R. Yose and R. Judah ha-Nasi did not, and that is the reason why R. Judah ha-Nasi did not include the laws of the Hanukkah lights in the Mishnah.
חיוב נר חנוכה עתה אינו בשביל המלוכה רק מפני הנס שנעשה בפך השמן שהדליקו בו שמונה ימים, ואף שגם טעם זה תלוי במחלוקת שבין ר’ יודא ור’ יוסי בהוריות [יא ע”ב] שלדעת ר’ יודא נסים רבים אירעו בשמן המשחה, ור’ יוסי חולק עליו שלא היה בו שום נס, ומטעם זה ג”כ השמיט רבי דיני נר חנוכה, ולא הזכירו בשום משנה, רק מזכירו לענין ניזקין בשם ר’ יודא שפוטר החנוני, לפי שר’ יודא לשיטתו סובר שנר חנוכה הוא מצוה לזכר הנס שאירע בפך שמן המשחה. אבל רבי פוסק כר’ יוסי לפי שנימוקו עמו. אך התלמוד אוחז בזה כר’ יודא לפי שהנס מהשמן כבר נתפרסם בהאומה.
On p. 36a Feinstein refers to the dispute between Slonimski and the rabbis, and says that many good Jews adopted Slonimski’s position. He tells us that he informed Slonimski that the dispute between him and the rabbis was actually an old dispute.
ואחריו נמשכו עוד רבים וכן שלמים שמהרו ויחליטו כדבריו . . . והראיתיו לדעת שבאמת ענין זה כבר דשו בו רבים, ונחלקו עליו משפחות משפחות, וביחוד ר’ יודא ור’ יוסי בהוריות. אך בכ”ז רבינו הקדוש אף שנטה למלכות בית דוד ולדעת ר’ יוסי, לא ערב לבו לנגוע במנהג ישן שקימו וקבלו עליהם הדורות שלפניו.
Not long ago I was listening to some recordings from R. David Bar-Hayim of Machon Shilo. One of them is entitled “The Story of the Macabees, part 2.” You can find it here. In this lecture, beginning at minute 27, R. Bar-Hayim explains that in his opinion there was no miracle of the oil, and it is simply a legend that developed in Babylonia, “because without that Hanukkah makes no sense for a Jew in galut.” Rather than attempt to summarize his perspective, it is preferable for readers to listen to his entire shiur.
Because of his originality, I would not have been surprised had R. Chaim Hirschensohn adopted the same sort of approach. Yet this is not the case, and R. Hirschensohn writes that the Hanukkah miracle was the final open miracle in Jewish history, by which he means that after this Jewish history is to be explained in a more naturalistic way, just like the history of other peoples. However, he adds that it must also be recognized that the very existence of the Jewish people over so many years in exile is itself a miracle.[5]
נר חנוכה הוא חותם הניסים בדברי ימי עמנו, כמלאכי חותם הנביאים.
אחרי נצחון החשמונאים החלו אצלנו דברי הימים כאשר לכל העמים, אם שאין ספק שגם מקודם היה לנו דברי הימים אבל המסופר לנו המה רק מעשה ניסים ובתוכם עלינו לבקש גרעיני דברי הימים, אבל המסופר לנו אחרי מלחמת החשמונאים כלו דברי הימים אבל הדברי הימים בעצמו הוא כלו מעשה נסים כי בארצות הגולה בנס אנו עומדים.
Since Slonimski claimed that Maimonides did not believe in the Hanukkah miracle, I think it is worth noting that although Maimonides could have stated that Hanukkah commemorates the military victory or the rededication of the Temple, he actually appears to say that the entire holiday is in commemoration of the lighting of the Menorah.[6] There are many sources[7] that state that the real miracle commemorated by Hanukkah is not the oil but the military victory, but this does not seem to be Maimonides’ perspective. Here is what he writes in Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Hanukkah 3:2-3[8]:
ב. וכשגברו ישראל על אויביהם ואיבדום בחמישה ועשרים בחודש כסלו היה ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור אלא פך אחד ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד והדליקו ממנו נרות המערכה שמונה ימים עד שכתשו זיתים והוציאו שמן טהור.
ג.  ומפני זה התקינו חכמים שבאותו הדור שיהיו שמונת הימים האלו שתחילתן מלילי חמישה ועשרים בכסלו ימי שמחה והלל ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס וימים אלו הןן הנקראין חנוכה.
In fact, this is the talmudic perspective as well. Shabbat 21b asks what is the reason for the holiday of Hanukkah (מאי חנוכה), and rather than speak about the military victory or rededication of the Temple all it mentions is the miracle of the oil. Many will find this strange, since can this really be the reason for the holiday? It is one thing to say that this is the reason for the eight days of celebration, but can this be the reason for the holiday itself? The Sheiltot of R. Ahai Gaon[9] preserves another version of the talmudic text. Instead of מאי חנוכה it reads מאי נר חנוכה. With this as the question, the answer which explains about the miracle of the oil makes much more sense.[10]
Slonimski did not argue that Maimonides’ philosophy does not leave room for the Hanukkah miracle. He simply pointed out that when Maimonides records the talmudic story of the miracle he leaves out three words: נעשה בו נס. Here is the relevant section of the talmudic text in Shabbat 21b. I have underlined the crucial words:
וכשגברה מלכות בית חשמונאי ונצחום בדקו ולא מצאו אלא פך אחד של שמן שהיה מונח בחותמו של כהן גדול ולא היה בו אלא להדליק יום אחד נעשה בו נס והדליקו ממנו שמונה ימים לשנה אחרת קבעום ועשאום ימים טובים בהלל והודאה.
Here is what Maimonides writes in Hilkhot Hanukkah 3:2, and as you can see the underlined words do not appear.
וכשגברו ישראל על אויביהם ואיבדום בחמישה ועשרים בחודש כסלו היה ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור אלא פך אחד ולא היה בו להדליק אלא יום אחד בלבד והדליקו ממנו נרות המערכה שמונה ימים עד שכתשו זיתים והוציאו שמן טהור.
According to Slonimski, the omission of the words נעשה בו נס indicates that Maimonides does not believe that there was any miracle. Rather, Maimonides is telling us that since there was not enough oil to last for more than one day, they used a little of the oil on each of the eight days, until they were able to get more oil.
A weakness in Slonimski’s argument, which of course was pointed out, is that in the very next halakhah, 3:3, Maimonides appears to explicitly mention the miracle.
ומדליקין בהן הנרות בערב על פתחי הבתים בכל לילה ולילה משמונת הלילות להראות ולגלות הנס
 
It is hard to see the underlined words as referring to anything other than the miracle of the oil.
Needless to say, Slonimski would have been very happy to learn that these underlined words, although they appear in the standard printed editions of the Mishneh Torah going back to early printings, do not appear in manuscripts and are not authentic (and have thus been removed from the Frankel edition). Presumably, these words were added by someone to “correct” Maimonides’ omission of the miracle of the oil.[11] (Slonimski, who did not know that להראות ולגלות הנס was a later addition, was forced to claim that these words referred to the military victory.[12])
If this was all we had to go by, I might agree that Maimonides is hinting to us that he did not accept the historicity of the miracle of the oil. However, if we examine Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Hanukkah, chapter 4, we find that Maimonides mentions “the miracle,” and again, the miracle he refers to appears to be that of the oil.[13]
In 4:12 he writes:
מצות נר חנוכה מצוה חביבה היא עד מאוד וצריך אדם להיזהר בה כדי להודיע הנס ולהוסיף בשבח הא-ל והודיה לו על הנסים שעשה.
In 4:13 he writes
הרי שאין לו אלא פרוטה אחת ולפניו קידוש היום והדלקת נר חנוכה מקדים שמן להדליק נר חנוכה על היין לקידוש היום הואיל ושניהם מדברי סופרים מוטב להקדים נר חנוכה שיש בו זכרון הנס.
 
Isn’t the most likely understanding that these two halakhot refer to the miracle of the oil? In 4:12 he first mentions “the miracle,” which I believe refers to the miracle of the oil, and then mentions “the miracles” in plural, which would also include the military victory. I don’t believe that Maimonides generally leaves esoteric hints in the Mishneh Torah, so I don’t think leaving out the words נעשה בו נס are intended to hint to us that he rejects the historicity of the miracle. In fact, since Maimonides denies the historicity of some events recorded in the Bible, regarding them as dreams or visions, it would not have been a theological problem for him to do so with the miracle of the oil, the source of which is a talmudic aggadah. However, as we have seen, he seems to explicitly affirm this miracle in the Mishneh Torah. Therefore, one who wants to claim that Maimonides did not believe in the miracle (despite what he says in the Mishneh Torah), will have to base this claim on an interpretation of Maimonides’ approach to miracles as set out in the Guide.
As mentioned, Slonimski’s rejection of the miracle of the oil created a great controversy, but what appears to be unknown is that he was not the first of the Hebrew writers to bring this matter to the fore. The newspaper Ha-Magid published articles by both maskilim and traditional Torah scholars. On December 9, 1868[14] Nahum Bruell[15] published an article which states: “In truth, the story of this miracle is not accepted by all sages of the Talmud and Midrash.” He then cites Pesikta Rabbati, ch. 2, which asks why we light נרות on Hanukkah. Its answer is not the story of the miracle but that after the Jews entered the Temple they took eight spears and put נרות on them.
נכנסו לבית המקדש מצאו שם שמונה שפודין של ברזל וקבעו אותם והדליקו בתוכם נרות.
Bruell also cites the medieval tosafist R. Isaac ben Judah ha-Levi who in his Pa’neah Raza,[16] in explaining why the Hasmoneans decreed lighting of the נרות, mentions nothing about the miracle:
נסמכה פרשת נרות לחנוכת המזבח וע”ז סמכו בית חשמונאי לתקן נרות בחנוכה
Although Bruell cited this text to show that not everyone accepted the Hanukkah miracle, I find it impossible to believe that R. Isaac (or any other medieval Ashkenazic sage) did not accept the traditional story of the miraculous burning of the oil. If I am correct that R. Isaac’s explanation is not in place of the Hanukkah miracle but only to offer an additional explanation, then perhaps even a text like Pesikta Rabbati cites the explanation it does, not because it did not know or accept the story of the miraculous oil, but because it wanted to offer another explanation, perhaps one not as well known.
Bruell further suggests that the talmudic aggadah about the Hanukkah miracle was never meant to be taken literally:
ואפשר גם בתשובתם על השאלה מאי חנוכה רמזו לנו כעיון גדול ועמוק כי אין מעצר לד’ להושיע ברב או במעט ואם גם נמשכו כל כוכבי התקוה ורבים חללו את ברית קדש מ”מ מפך שמן טהור המונח בחותמו של כה”ג דהיינו משארית הצדיקים אשר יחזיקו במעזם ויבטחו בד’ נעשה נס, יבא עזרם מעם ד’ עשה שמים וארץ ועוד יזרח להם אור התשועה.
One more point worth noting is about the number 8. According to the traditional story of the miracle of the oil, what is special about the number 8? Most people have probably heard the reason, also accepted by Maimonides, Hilkhot Hanukkah 3:2, that in the days of the Hasmoneans this is how long it would take for those in Jerusalem to get new olive oil.[17] I never understood this explanation as why should getting new oil be a problem. It is not like olive trees are a rare thing in the Land of Israel. In any event, this explanation does not appear in the Talmud but is first found in a geonic responsum.[18]
למה אנו עושין שמונה ימי חנוכה מפני הנס שאירע שטמאו יונים וכו’. ומה טעם יש לשמנה לילות ולא הספיקו ממנו פחות או יותר.
מפני שהשמנים באים מחלקו של אשר כדכתיב (דברים לג, כד) וטובל בשמן רגלו ומקום היה לו שנקרא תקוע כדאמרינן תקוע אלפא לשמן שממנו השמנים יוצאים ומשם עד ירושלים היה מהלך שמנה ימים בין הליכה וחזרה והכי אמרינן במנחות ולפיכך המתין להם עד שיביאו משם שמן טהור וזה שנעשה להם נס לשמנת ימים.
There are a number of difficulties with this responsum. To begin with, we are told that olive oil came from the area of the tribe of Asher which is in the extreme north of the Land of Israel. This information is based on the fact that in Moses’ blessing for the tribe of Asher in Deuteronomy 33:24, he states, “let him dip his foot in oil.” This means that there would be lots of olive trees in Asher’s territory, but since there were plenty of olive trees closer to the Temple, why did they have to travel all the way to the land of Asher which, we are told, would require an eight day round trip. Even if one supposes (without any evidence) that normally they would go there since that was where the best olive oil was to be found, if they only had enough to light the menorah for one day, it is hard to imagine that they would not set out to find olive oil closer to the Temple.
The next point in the responsum is that there was a specific place in Asher’s territory called Tekoa, and that was where the oil came from. It cites Menahot 85b where the Mishnah states that “Tekoa ranks first for the quality of its oil.” Yet as I’m sure most people reading this know, Tekoa is near Jerusalem in the territory of Judah, not in the land of Asher. II Chronicles 11:5-6 states: “And Rehoboam dwelt in Jerusalem, and built cities for defense in Judah. He built even Bethlehem, and Etam, and Tekoa.”
As proof for the statement that it would take eight days to travel to the north and back in order to get the olive oil, we are told והכי אמרינן במנחות. Yet nowhere in Menahot is this information found. In Sefer Abudarham, Seder Hadlakat Ner Hanukkah, this geonic passage is quoted, but instead of referring to Menahot, we are told that the information is found in the Jerusalem Talmud. The same reference to the Jerusalem Talmud also appears in Hiddushei R. Yehonatan mi-Lunel, Shabbat 21b, and Sefer ha-Eshkol, ed. Auerbach, vol. 2, p. 20. For those who assume that Auerbach’s edition of Sefer ha-Eshkol is a forgery, this reference is just another example of the work incorporating passages from other writings.
I don’t have an answer as to why anyone assumed that the oil had to come from the land of Asher, but as for the city of Tekoa, it could be that there was another city also named Tekoa, in addition to the one we know about in the territory of Judah. The Soncino Talmud, Menahot 85b, informs us that both Graetz and Bacher think that the Tekoa mentioned there is in the Galilee, which could be said to include part of the territory of Asher.[19] Furthermore, Samuel Klein, the leading geographer of the Land of Israel, also argues that there was a city named Tekoa in the Galilee.[20]
What about the Tekoa that Amos came from? If you look at R. David Kimhi’s commentary to Amos 1:1, he tells us that Tekoa was a large city in the land of Asher (see also his commentary to Amos 7:10). In his commentary to II Samuel 14:2, he writes, quoting the Talmud in Menahot 85b (except for the first four words):
העיר בחלקו של אשר דכתיב ביה וטוב בשמן רגלי שמושך שמן כמעין
The biblical story Radak is commenting on is when Joab fetched a wise woman from Tekoa and told her to go to King David and pretend to be a mourner. I am surprised that Radak would assume that Joab was summoning a woman from all the way in the territory of Asher. In his response to Radak, R. Profiat Duran (Efodi[21]) states that it is obvious that the story is dealing with a city near Jerusalem.[22]
והשכל הישר ישפוט כי תקוע היה קרוב לירושלם כי איך ישלח לקרות אשה מארץ אשר היה רחוק מירושלם.
Again we have to ask, just because a city named Tekoa happened to be known for its olive oil, why should anyone assume that it is in the territory of Asher? The fact that the tribe of Asher was blessed with having a lot of olive trees in its territory does not mean that the other tribes did not also have a good supply. In fact, it appears to me that the peshat of Menahot 85b, where the Mishnah speaks of Tekoa as having good olive oil, is that it is speaking about the Tekoa near Jerusalem.[23] It is true that in the talmudic discussion Tekoa and the land of Asher are mentioned regarding olive oil, but their only connection would seem to be this, not that Tekoa has anything to do with Asher’s territory.[24]
Jeremiah 6:1 states: “Gather the sons of Benjamin from the midst of Jerusalem, and blow the horn in Tekoa.” Here Jeremiah is telling the tribe of Benjamin, who lived near Jerusalem, to blow the horn in Tekoa in order to warn the people about the danger from the approaching enemy. Malbim on this verse comments that Tekoa is part of Asher. I don’t understand how Malbim could view this as peshat. Why would the people of Benjamin travel to the territory of Asher to blow the shofar? This territory was occupied by foreign troops, the local inhabitants having been deported a long time before. Here are Malbim’s words:
העיזו אתה בני בנימין התאספו מקרב ירושלים, כי בני בנימין לא היו מבני העיר ורצו לחסות שם בירושלים, אומר כי יתרחקו משם, וגם בתקוע שהוא בחלק אשר, תקעו שופר.
Based on Jeremiah 6:1, Efodi states that Tekoa is actually in the territory of Benjamin and not, as I mentioned before, in Judah’s territory.[25]
Returning to our discussion of the Hanukkah miracle, R. Sharon Shalom recently published a very interesting book entitled Mi-Sinai le-Ethiopia (Tel Aviv, 2012). This book, which is a code of halakhah for Ethiopian Jews, has haskamot from R. Nachum Rabinovitch and R. Shabtai Rappaport. It is significant in that it takes into account that it is not so easy for the older generation of Ethiopian Jews to entirely reject their traditions in order to become modern rabbinic Jews. As such, R. Shalom permits certain things that would not make sense in the larger Jewish world but are part of what he terms “Ethiopian halakhah.” For example, R. Shalom permits Ethiopian Jews, especially of the older generation, to carry items regarded as muktzeh when this is related to holy matters, for example, bringing money to synagogue on the Sabbath for charity. This was not regarded as prohibited in Ethiopia and R. Shalom allows the practice to continue today (pp. 170-171).
This is a fascinating book as it attempts to slowly ease the Ethiopian community into the wider halakhic community rather than requiring an immediate abandonment of long-standing practices, something that would certainly be demanded by haredi poskim. You can see R. Shalom discuss his book here, and he is introduced by R. Rappaport.
While the book deserves detailed analysis, I only want to call attention to one additional point that is relevant to this post. Here is R. Shalom’s discussion of Hanukkah, from pp. 214-215 in the book. There is no mention of the Hanukkah miracle in explaining why we celebrate an eight day holiday.

 

I would like to call readers’ attention to a short essay by R. Nosson Fried on Megilat Antiochus.[26] Here is the title page.
R. Fried points out that in the version of Megilat Antiochus that he published in Kovetz Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael[27] there is no mention of the miracle of the oil. He is quite surprised by this for as he says, “this is the central miracle in commemoration of which they established the lighting on Hanukkah.” He adds that this miracle is not mentioned in Al ha-Nisim or in Pesikta Rabbati which has a good deal to say about Hanukkah. He then notes that all of the Eretz Yisrael paytanim, which includes Yanai and R. Eleazar ha-Kalir, and some of the European paytanim also do not mention the miracle. (Other European paytanim, such as R. Menahem ben Machir, do mention the miracle.) How can this be explained?
R. Fried’s answer is quite unexpected (p. 8): “The sages of the Land of Israel in the time of the Talmudim and Midrashim knew nothing about the miracle of the cruse of oil.” He explains that the story of the miracle is a Babylonian tradition and thus was not known in the Land of Israel, or even by some of the early European paytanim. He writes (p. 9):
שכל אותן המקורות הקודמים, החל מספרי החשמונאים וכלה בפייטני א”י ומקצת מפייטני אירופה הקדמונים, לא ידעו כלל שאמנם היה נס בשמן . . . [הנקודות במקור] לשיטתם נקבע חג החנוכה לזכר הנצחונות והנסים שאירעו לבני חשמונאי במלחמותיהם נגד היונים.
Coming from a haredi writer this is quite surprising, and let me explain why. All of the scholars who have argued against the historicity of the miracle of the oil have pointed out that none of the oldest texts dealing with Hanukkah mention this miracle. This includes 1 and 2 Maccabees, the earliest version of Megilat Ta’anit, tannaitic texts, and Josephus. Josephus even suggests a different explanation for why the holiday is called “Lights.” Those who defend the historicity of the miracle have to explain why these sources chose not to mention it.Before Fried, no traditional author had ever suggested that the miracle story was unknown to the tannaim and later rabbinic authors, and that is for an obvious reason. If you say that the tannaim did not know the miracle, to say nothing of the authors of the Book of Maccabees 1 and 2, the earliest version of Megilat Ta’anit, and Josephus, how is it possible that someone who lived a few hundred years later in Babylonia would know about the miracle? By saying that the people who lived in the Land of Israel close to the time of the events did not know the miracle, Fried is providing an argument that the miracle never happened and that the much later story recorded in the Babylonian Talmud is an aggadah which is not to be regarded as historical but rather teaches a lesson as many aggadot do. In other words, Fried’s argument leads to the same conclusion as Slonimski and R. Alexandrov, and for some reason he doesn’t see it.

R. Tuvyah Tavyomi has another approach to the matter.[28] He claims that since the miracle of the oil was only seen by a small group, the leaders of the generation were afraid that the masses, many of whom were hellenized, would not believe the story and thus not adopt the holiday. Therefore, they ordained the lighting of נרות without giving a reason, hiding the real reason from the people. The masses would believe that it was because of the military victory, while those who knew that holidays are only proclaimed for “out of the ordinary” miracles, they would find out about the story of the oil and would certainly believe it. According to R. Tavyomi, this explains why in the Al ha-Nissim prayer which is to be said by all people there is no mention of the miracle of the oil.
Finally, I was surprised that an article by Avraham Ohayon could be published in Shenaton Shaanan, the annual of Shaanan, a religious teachers college.[29] Ohayon’s article not only critically examines the story of the Hanukkah miracle, which he calls מיתוס נפ”ה (נס פך השמן)  (p. 59), but concludes that that it is most likely that the miracle never happened and was invented by the Sages for religious reasons. On pp. 58-59 he writes:
שתיקתם של המקורות ההיסטוריים, ובמידה מסוימת גם של חז”ל ומקורות הלכתיים בעניין נפ”ה – מעוררת שאלות בקשר למשמעות העובדתית של נס זה: האם הנס התרחש, וכתוצאה ממנו קבעו חז”ל את סממניו ההלכתיים, או שכדי לקבוע הלכות לדורות היה צריך קודם לסמוך להם נס?
חלק הארי של המקורות דלעיל – מחזק יותר את קיומה של האפשרות השנייה. . . .
חז”ל החילו שני שינויים במהותו של החג, ושניהם קשורים זה בזה:
האחד – שינוי עיקרו של הנס, מסגידה לניצחון הצבאי – לנס על-טבעי שהוא נפ”ה.
השני – הענקת צביון דתי לחג על-ידי קביעת איסורים שונים, תפילות מיוחדות ומצוות הדלקת הנרות שמונה ימים – כזכר לנפ”ה.
In a note on this passage, Ohayon cites Gedaliah Alon who explains what would have led the Sages to invent the Hanukkah miracle:
[אלון] תומך בדעה השנייה מן הטעם, שחז”ל רצו להשכיח את שם החשמונאים וגבורתם מזיכרון האומה, ואולם לא יכלו לעקור את חג החנוכה גופו. לכן קבעו טעם אגדי ובדרך זו “קיפלו” בו את תקופת החשמונאים, שהרי סיפור נפ”ה התחיל ממקורות חז”ל בלבד. הוא מביא גם נימוקים ליחס זה של חז”ל לחשמונאים.
Nothing Ohayon writes would be surprising if it appeared in a general academic journal, but as mentioned, his article appeared in a religious journal and that is what I find significant.
Returning to R. Samuel Alexandrov, who as mentioned at first supported Slonimski, Geulah bat Yehudah has a nice article on him[30] as does Ehud Luz,[31] and there is a master’s dissertation on him by Tsachi Slater.[32] Yet I would like to call attention to a few things that these authors have not mentioned. To begin with, R. Alexandrov reports that after the death of R. Shemariah Noah Schneersohn he was asked to take the latter’s place as rav of Bobruisk (R. Alexandrov’s place of residence), yet he refused this offer.[33]
In Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (1932), pp. 86-87, R. Alexandrov offers a provocative suggestion in explaining why Maimonides was so opposed to rabbis taking money from the community. He calls attention to Hullin 132b which states: “R. Simeon says. A priest who does not believe in the [Temple] service has no portion in the priesthood.” Rashi explains this to mean a priest who thinks the Temple service is nonsense and rather than having been commanded by God was invented by Moses. As for having no portion in the priesthood, Rashi explains that he does not receive a portion of the sacrificial meat.
Maimonides, Hilkhot Bikurim 1:1, codifies the law as follows:
וכל כהן שאינו מודה בהן אין לו חלק בכהנים ואין נותנין לו מתנה מהן.
According to R. Alexandrov, this is the key to understanding why Maimonides opposes rabbis taking money from the community. R. Alexandrov assumes based on what Maimonides writes in the Guide of the Perplexed that he did not really believe in the value of sacrifices. )R. Alexandrov himself did not believe that there would ever be a return to the sacrificial system.[34]) He further states that Maimonides realized that if he were a kohen he would have no portion in the priestly dues. Since the rabbinate, as the religious leadership of the community, replaces the old system of the kehunah, Maimonides reasoned that just as if he were a kohen he could not receive any priestly dues, so too as a rabbi he could take nothing from the community.
בספרו המורה הלא איננו מודה בקרבנות לפי המובן המורגל, ולכן חש בנפשו הנפש היפה שאין לו חלק במתנות כהונה . . . [הנקודות במקור] ובכן על פי טבעו ורוחו אוסר לקבל שכר רבנות, כי אמנם הרבנות הוא דמות זעיר אנפין של הכהונה בימים הקדמונים, כנודע.
R. Alexandrov also says a few things that some haredi readers will appreciate. For example, he explains Avot 2:2:  וכל תורה שאין עמה מלאכה סופה בטלה וגוררת עון in a very original fashion. He understands מלאכה to mean the work of creating Torah novellae! This passage in the Mishnah is always used against the Israeli haredi approach of shunning work in favor of study, and I have never seen a good justification offered as to why the Mishnah’s words can be so easily set aside. Yet with R. Alexandrov’s explanation, this is no longer a problem.[35]
ומה שאמר “כל תורה שאין עמה מלאכה סופה בטלה וגוררת עון”, יש לכוין על מלאכת החדוש והפלפול וההגיון בתורתנו, ואומר כי תורה שאין עמה מלאכה ר”ל מלאכת החדוש סופה בטלה כי באמת רק כח החדוש הנותן פנים להתורה הקדושה בכל דור ודור לפי הרוח השורר אז, הוא הוא המקיים את התורה הישנה בעם ישראל.
* * * * *
1. Dov Weinstein called my attention to the following very significant responsum by R. Ovadiah Yosef that appeared in the journal Beit Yosef, Iyar 5776, no. 169. Over a century ago, R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron suggested a way of “cleansing” a mamzer by having the husband send his wife a get and then void it before it is delivered. According to the Talmud, in such a case the marriage is to be regarded as annulled despite the fact that the husband voided the get. The problem the Sages had to deal with was if the husband was allowed to void a get after having sent it, the woman who received it would not know that it was invalid and would remarry. Although it would not be her fault, such a situation would result in her future children being mamzerim. The way around this was to decree that in such a case her original marriage was to be regarded as never having been actualized, something which the rabbis have authority to do. R. Schwadron’s originality comes in suggesting that this mechanism could also be used to solve the problem of mamzerut even after the fact, since if the original marriage is annulled in this fashion, by sending a get and then cancelling it before delivery, there is no subsequent adultery. This proposal, which was never put into practice by R. Schwadron, is discussed by R. J. David Bleich in Contemporary Halakhic Problems, vol. 1, pp. 162ff.
R. Ovadiah’s responsum is of great importance since his approach would solve the problem of mamzerut in many case. In earlier years, R. Isser Yehudah Unterman suggested that R. Schwadron’s approach be followed in a particular case,[36] and R. Zvi Pesach Frank actually did so in another case.[37]

2. Is it significant that a haredi website recently published an article from a woman in which she argues that women should be able to become halakhic authorities? Was the website just looking to stir up trouble or is this a sign of something afoot even in the haredi world?
3. There has recently been a problem with the commenting whereby many comments that have Hebrew in them are rejected as spam. One of the rejected comments was by R. Moshe Maimon and is very insightful. Responding to R. Hershel Schachter’s point, discussed here, that Daas Torah authorities must be poskim, R. Maimon wrote:
Here is the Rambam’s formulation of the ‘Daas Torah’ concept:

כן ראוי להמון שימסרו הנהגתם לנביאים בעלי העינים באמת, ויסמכו על מה שיודיעום שהדעת הפלונית אמתית והדעת הפלונית שקר. ואחר הנביאים – החכמים הדורשים יומם ולילה הדעות והאמונות, עד שידעו ויכירו האמת מן השקר.

I don’t recall seeing this passage from אגרת תימן (Sheilat ed. p. 149) quoted in the various articles on the subject, but at any rate it seems to serve as a clear repudiation of Rav Schachter’s view that only poskim can issue Daas Torah directives.
Regarding Daas Torah, someone challenged my statement in my post here that R. Kanievsky actually declared in a formal way that R. Steinman is to be regarded as the new leader. Readers can look at the actual words where R. Kanievsky indeed declares that everyone is “obligated” to follow what R. Steinman says. (An English translation is found here.) I don’t know of any other such declaration in Jewish history. The gedolim have always been “created” by the religious community at large, and the gadol ha-dor (when there has been such a figure) emerged from this group of gedolim based on public acknowledgment. Yet here we have a declaration from one gadol establishing who the gadol ha-dor is and obligating everyone to follow his guidance. Will this be the new model in the haredi world for how to determine who the gadol ha-dor is?

Thanks to the person who doubted what I wrote, I was motivated to find R. Kanievsky’s statement and I see that I did say something incorrect. I wrote that R. Kanievsky’s statement was made after R. Elyashiv’s death, but in fact it was made shortly before R. Elyashiv’s passing, when he was no longer in the position to serve as leader of the generation.

 

[1] One source not cited by Licht is a recent article by Yisrael Rozenson that focuses on R. Alexandrov and the miracle of the oil. “‘Asukh shel Shemen Ehad,’ Al Nes ve-Hukiyut be-Mishnato shel Shmuel Alexandrov,” Badad 30 (Elul 5775), pp. 103-116.
[2] There is a good deal of interesting material in R. Rubenstein’s Ha-Rambam ve-ha-Aggadah. Relevant to what I mentioned in the text is that R. Rubenstein claims that many aggadot are not intended to be viewed as historical, and he refers to a number of such examples. See e.g., p. 101, that when the Talmud states that Solomon came up with the idea of an eruv, this is not to be taken literally but only means that it is an old idea which was later attributed to Solomon.
והמצאת היתר זה נעשה בזמן מן הזמנים שלא נדעהו, ומפני שתקנה זו היא המצאה מחוכמת מאד מאנשים חכמים נתנו למיסדי התקנה שם שלמה ואמרו שבשעה שתקן שלמה ערובין וכו’ והוא מאמר אגדי.
He also mentions that some aggadot about biblical figures were created for their dramatic effect and that those who take them literally are missing the point. See p. 94:
אבל באמת ספורים כאלו אינם מעשיות שהיו לא בהקיץ ולא בחלום אלא הן יצירות דרמטיות במעלי האגדה כיד השירה הטובה עליהם. ויצירות כאלו הרבה הן בש”ס ובמדרשים וביחוד מהאנשים הקדמונים שנזכרו בתנ”ך. עיין לדוגמא האגדה ע”ד האבן שבקש עוג מלך הבשן לזרוק על ישראל (ברכות נ”ד א’ [צ”ל ב’]) [מחזה התולי משונאי ישראל המבקשים להמיט רעה על ראשי ישראל וחוזר על ראשיהם עצמם בעטים של ישראל]. והאגדה ע”ד מיתתו של דוד שבת ל’ א’ [צ”ל ב’]) [מחזה על יקרת ערך החיים]. והאגדה ע”ד מפלתו של המן (מגילה ט”ז א’) [מחזה נקמי]. והאגדה ע”ד דוד וישבי בנוב (סנהדרין צ”ה א’) [מחזה מרחמי האב על זרעיו . . .] כל אגדות כאלו אינן מעשיות שהיו אלא יצירות דרמטיות.
I know there are some people who treat aggadot as if they are historical, but when it comes to the sort of aggadot mentioned by R. Rubenstein, do any really disagree with his understanding?
[3] It is perhaps noteworthy that Slonimski’s two sons apostatized and it appears that Slonimski himself, despite being an observant Jew, deserves some blame for this. See Eliyanah Tzalah, “Tenuat ha-Hitbolelut be-Polin,” in Yisrael Bartal and Yisrael Guttman, eds., Kiyum ve-Shever: Yehudei Polin le-Doroteihem (Jerusalem, 1997), pp. 344-345. See also Avraham Aryeh Akaviah, “HaZaS, Hayyim Yehiel Bornstein, Pesah Shapira,” Areshet 5 (1972), p. 387.
[4] S. Arnst, Sefer Yavetz (Tel Aviv, 1934), pp. 34-35.
[5] Apiryon 2 (1925), pp. 99-100.
[6] He also leaves no doubt that the obligation to light the menorah dates from the Hasmonean period. I say this even though R. Moshe Sternbuch argues that Maimonides agrees with R. Sternbuch’s own view that the obligation for individuals to light the Menorah only dates from after the destruction of the Temple. See Moadim u-Zemanim, Hanukah, vol. 6, no. 89. For a rejection of R. Sternbuch’s position, see R. Simhah Lieberman, Bi-Shevilei ha-Nisim, p. 11. R. Lieberman’s many volumes encompass vast areas of Torah scholarship and show incredible erudition. Yet for some reason, I hardly ever see his works quoted, while other books which don’t approach his level of scholarship are quoted very often.
[7] See R. Simhah Lieberman, Bi-Shevilei ha-Nisim, pp. 52ff.; R. Menahem Kasher, Divrei Menahem, vol. 4, pp. 134ff.
[8] This point is made by R. Yaakov Koppel Schwartz, Likutei Diburim (Brooklyn, 2015), p. 159.
[9] Parashat Va-Yishlah, section 26 (p. 177 in the Mossad ha-Rav Kook edition with the commentary of R. Naphtali Zvi Judah Berlin). This source was noted by Nahum Bruell, “Mai Hanukkah,” Ha-Magid, Dec. 2, 1868, p. 373, and Jacob Reifman. See Reifman’s letter in Or ha-Mizrah 18 (Tishrei 5729), p. 95. Regarding this matter, R. Naphtali Zvi Judah Berlin mentions Bruell by name in Ha-Amek She’alah, vol. 1, p. 178. For some reason, the Netziv refers to Bruell as בעל המגי’ which is strange, as Bruell only contributed articles to Ha-Magid but was not the editor.
[10] The Sheiltot, vol. 1, p. 178, preserves another important alternate text of the Talmud. Our version of Shabbat 21b reads: ולא היה בו להלדיק אלא יום אחד
The Sheiltot reads:  ולא היה בו להדליק אפילו יום אחד
The word I have underlined means that the oil they found was not even enough for one day. This means that the burning of the oil for the complete first day was also a miracle, and thus provides an answer to the famous question why there is an eighth day of Hanukkah if there was enough oil for one day, meaning that the miracle was only for seven days.
Of all the answers to this question, the strangest one has to be that of R. Yerahme’el Yisrael Yitzhak Danziger (1853-1910), the Rebbe of Alexander. He claims that the cruse of oil they found was completely empty, and this empty cruse produced enough oil for eight days. He says this even though the Talmud, Shabbat 21b, states explicitly that they found .פך אחד של שמן See R. Danziger, Yismah Yisrael (Bnei Brak, 2007), vol. 1, p. 98a  (Hanukkah, no. 58).
[11] Another addition that is not found in manuscripts is in 3:2 where Maimonides writes:
ונכנסו להיכל ולא מצאו שמן טהור אלא פך אחד
The standard printed versions read:  .ולא מצאו שמן טהור במקדש Even though the word במקדש is not found in manuscripts in this case for some unknown reason Frankel includes this mistaken word in his text and only in the textual note on the page informs the reader that it is not found in the manuscripts.
[12] Ha-Tzefirah, Nov. 28, 1892, p. 1069.
[13] R. Abraham Joel Abelson, the editor of the Torah journal Keneset Hakhmei Yisrael, which appeared from 1893-1900, polemicizes against those who deny the miracle of the oil. Yet interestingly enough, he accepts Slonimski’s point that Maimonides does not mention the miracle, and even explains why Maimonides omits it. Contrary to what I have written, he assumes that the miracle Maimonides refers to in Hilkhot Hanukah, ch. 4, is the military victory, as the lighting of the candles is a commemoration of this (Keneset Hakhmei Yisrael 6 [1896], p. 131.).
אין מקום כלל להקשות על הרמב”ם מה שלא הביא ביד החזקה מהנס של פך השמן, כי אין מדרכו לכתוב בכל הלכותיו טעמים עליהן כידוע, וגם נס פך השמן הלא רק כעין טעם על מה שקבעו הזקנים ימי החנכה לדורות . . . ועיקר הנס הלא הי’ במלחמות החשמונאים שע”ז קבעו להדליק נרות חנכה גם לדורות ולהודות ולהלל לשמו הגדול.
[14] “Mai Hanukkah,” p. 382.
[15] Bruell was the grandson of R. Nahum Trebitch, chief rabbi of Moravia and predecessor to R. Samson Raphael Hirsch in this position. Bruell himself became rabbi of the Reform community of Frankfurt in 1870, succeeding Abraham Geiger.
[16] Beginning of parashat Be-Ha’alotkha.
[17] As we know, the oil in the Temple was made impure by the Greeks, as the Talmud, Shabbat 21b, states: טמאו כל .השמנים שבהיכל
What does this mean? How could the oil have been made impure and what about the halakhic principle of טומאה הותרה בציבור which would have allowed them to light the menorah even with impure oil? Daniel Sperber argues that when the word “impure” is used it does not mean טמא in a technical ritual sense. Rather, it means that the oil was uses for idolatrous purposes and in a colloquial sense it was regarded as טמא. See Sperber, “Al ha-Mesorot be-Hanukat ha-Bayit,” Sinai 54 (1964), pp. 218-225.
[18] Otzar Geonim, Shabbat: Teshuvot, p. 23. See also Meiri, Beit ha-Behirah, Shabbat 21b; R. Nissim, Shabbat, p. 9b in the pages of the Rif, s.v. תנו רבנן.
[19] I haven’t found the reference in Bacher. For Graetz, see Geschichte der Juden (Leipzig, 1893), vol. 4, p. 183.
[20] Eretz ha-Galil (Jerusalem, 1967), pp. 20-21. R. Israel Horowitz also believes that there were two cities named Tekoa. See his Eretz Yisrael u-Shkenoteha (Vienna, 1923), index, s.v. Tekoa.
[21] Duran is known as Efodi because this is how his commentary on Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed was named by the first printer. Yet he actually referred to himself as Efod אפד, not Efodi. This is usually understood to be an acronym of אני פרופיאט דוראן. Yet Norman Roth sees this as unlikely. He assumes that the name Efod alludes to Arakhin 16a which states that the efod atones for idolatry, “i.e., he sought atonement for his own conversion and for others in his generation.” See Roth, Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (Madison, 2002), p. 192. See also Maud Kozodoy, The Secret Faith of Maestre Honoratus: Profayt Duran and Jewish Identity in Late Medieval Iberia (Philadelphia, 2015), pp. 4-5, 20, 25-26.
[22] Ma’aseh Efod (Vienna, 1865), p. 199. See also Abarbanel, II Sam. 14:2, who cites Efodi.
[23] See R. Yehosef Schwartz, Divrei Yosef, vol. 3, pp. 14a-b.
[24] Regarding oil and the tribe of Asher, there is a theory that the Bene Israel of India, who for centuries were engaged in oil pressing, originated from the upper Galilee which was famous for its oil. See Shirley Berry Isenberg, India’s Bene Israel (Berkeley, 1988), p. 8.
[25] See Ma’aseh Efod, p. 199.
[26] Megilat Antiochus Murhevet (n.p., 1992).
[27] No. 38 (Kislev-Tevet 5752), pp. 111-121.
[28] Tal Orot  vol. 1, pp. 91ff. This source is cited by Yaakov Rosenblum in Datche 17 (27 Kislev 5768), p. 11.
[29]  “Nes Pakh ha-Shemen ve-Derekh Hatma’ato be-Halakhah,”Shenaton Shaanan 19 (2014), pp. 47-60.
[30] “Rabbi Shmuel Alexandrov,” Sinai 100 (1987), pp. 195-221.
[31] “Spiritualism ve-Anarchism Dati be-Mishnato shel Shmuel Alexandrov,” Da’at 7 (1981), pp. 121-138.
[32] “Leumiut Universalit: Dat u-Leumiut be-Haguto shel Shmuel Alexandrov” (unpublished master’s dissertation, Ben Gurion University, 2014). See also Slater’s recent article, “Tziyonut Ruhanit Datit – Dat u-Leumiut be-Haguto shel Shmuel Alexandrov,” Daat 82 (2016), pp. 285-319.
[33] Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (Jerusalem, 1932), p. 56.
[34] See Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (Vilna, 1907), p. 12, where R. Alexandrov writes as follows to R. Kook:
ואמנם כן היא שהמוסריות המתפתחת מעצמה באה להחליט כדעת האומר שכל הקרבנות בטלים . . . גם אנכי הנני מסכים כי כל הקרבנות בטלים מפני שלא היו קדושים רק לשעתן.
In Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (1932), p. 24, he speaks of the abolishment of sacrifices as a natural result of humanity’s developing sense of morality:
הנה נודעה היא למדי השקפת הרמב”ם ע”ד עבודת הקרבנות איך היתה מוכרחת בזמן הקדום ואיך היא נבטלת לאט לאט מעצמה ע”י התפתחות הרוח של האדם, ובאופן שמין האדם מבטל מעצמו את מצות הקרבנות וכל אבזרייהו מבלי הופעה דתיית  משמי מרומים, והנה תקון דתיי כזה הוא תקון שהזמן עושה, כלומה זה נעשה על פי התפתחות המוסריית האנושיית התלויה בזמן, ובאופן שהכל נעשה יפה בעתו ובזמנו, ולו עמדו כעת מתקנים במין האדם הנאור שהיו חפצים להנהיג את עבודת הקרבנות מחדש אז היה החפץ הזה נדחה מפני המוסריות האנושיות המנגדת לעבודה דתיית כזאת בכל כחה, ואין כל ספק כי יד המוסרית תהיה על העליונה כי לכל זמן ועת לכל חפץ תחת השמים.
In another letter to R. Kook, Mikhtevei Mehkar u-Vikoret (1907), p. 15. Alexandrov explains that the reason why in their day so many of the Orthodox youth, including sons of rabbis, were “going of the derech,” is because they saw their fathers up close and this turned them off religion.
רואה אנכי כי הנסבה הראשית להרחקת בני הרבנים והחרדים מדרכי אבותיהם ואשר עפ”י הרוב הלכו למקום שלא ישובו עוד לנו הוא מפני שנסתכלו במעשי אבותיהם לפני ולפנים . . . כמובן מעצמו שישנם אבות ובנים יוצאים מן הכלל אבל הרוב הניכר הנראה לעינים ילמדנו דעת כי שחת ישראל דרכו מחטאת כהניו ונביאיו ודור לפי פרנסו.
[35] Tal Tehiyah (Vilna, 1897), p. 8a.
[36] Shevet mi-Yehudah, vol. 2, no. 12.
[37] Details of this will be provided in a future post.


Purim and Parodies

Purim and Parodies

by Eliezer Brodt

Happiness During the Month of Adar and its Discontents

The month of Adar begins a time of joy, as the mishna says “mi shenechnas Adar marbim b’simcha.” Interestingly, it’s been noted here that this halacha is not codified by either the Rambam or Shulchan Orach. R. Yissachar Tamar in his classic work on Yerushalmi, Ali Tamar, notes that some have suggested that this is the reason why many shuls in Europe hung signs proclaiming Mi Shenechnas Adar with pictures of bottles of wine and Jews happy was to announce this halacha! [1] Furthermore, the Ali Tamar provides additional sources that demonstrate that some were punctilious about in their observation of this halacha and would begin celebrating from rosh hodesh Adar. In light of this concept we could perhaps understand how many halchahos are relaxed during and around Purim-time. For example, after the destruction of the Bes HaMikdash, Chazal enacted a prohibition against “”.שחוק This is recorded in the Gemara (Berchos 31a):

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי: אסור לאדם שימלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה, שנאמר: ‘אז ימלא שחוק פינו ולשוננו רנה’, אימתי – בזמן שיאמרו בגוים הגדיל ה’ לעשות עם אלה. אמרו עליו על ריש לקיש, שמימיו לא מלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה מכי שמעה מרבי יוחנן רביה.
This is codified in Shulchan Orach (O.C. siman 560, 5) to which the Taz (ibid) comments:
בשם רבינו יונה דמשמע גם שלא בזמן הגלות דלא כנוסח הטור שכתב בגלות הזה ונלע”ד שיש חילוק בזה דלענין שמחה שאינו של מצוה ודאי אסור אפי’ שלא בזמן הגלות למלא פיו שחוק אבל בשמחה של מצוה היה היתר בזמן שב”ה קיים כגון שמחת בית השואב’ ושמחת דוד שהיה מכרכר בכל עוז ובזמן הגלות ערב’ כל שמחה ואפי’ בשמחה של מצוה כגון בחתונה או פורים מ”מ לא ימלא פיו שחוק כנלע”ד נכון:
Thus, according to the Taz, even during happy events such as a wedding or Purim, there is a a restriction on שחוק. R. Yosef Engle in his Dershos Otzros Yosef (Vienna 1921, pg 36-37) and R. Teichtel author of the Aim Habonim Semechaih, in his Shu”t Mishnat Sachir (# 2) both justify the minhag of Klal Yisroel everywhere to be joyous at weddings and on Purim. [R. Yosef Engle seems to take this concept a bit further than R. Teichtel as he even justifies cross dressing].

In fact, we find times that chazal themselves allowed שחוק as we find מילתא דבדיחותא in Chazal. Those instances, however, appear to be limited to when the purpose was waking a sleeping or otherwise uninterested audience and involving them in Torah study.

Setting aside the opinion of the Taz who holds that שחוק is prohibited even on Purim, it appears that many disagreed with this position. This is borne out by various halachos that relate to Purim. For instance, the Rema in Hilchos Purim (696 end) writes some allow cross dressing and wearing shatnes d’rabanan. Additionally, if someone damaged his friends property due to simchas Purim they do not have to pay. And, perhaps most notable, getting drunk which in general is very much frowned upon. While the Rama and others seems to permit these actions many disagreed for example R. Shmuel Aboab in his Sefer Zichronos [2] writes very strongly against these actions.

Another Italian rabbi, R. Shmuel Me-Sha’ar Areyeh, who was a contemporary of the Rama Me-Fano, writes similarly in his (still in manuscript) commentary on the Bet Yosef [3] :

אין לסמוך על דברי זאת ההגהה לחטוא, לא לענין מלובשי איש ואשה, ולא בכלאים דרבנן, ולא בגזל אפילו כל שהוא, ושומר נפשו ירחקו מהם ולא יסמוך על המתיר כי אין בידו דבר ברור להיתר, ולא כתבו כן הפוסקים הראשונים ובמקום אחר הוא כתב: “מנהגים הללו בורות הם ויש להמנע מהם”.
And more recent the Orach Ha-shulchan writes:
ועכשיו בעונותינו הרבים ערבה כל שמחה ואין אנו נוהגים לשמוח כל כך עד שיבא להיזק ולכן עכשיו כשהזיק חייב לשלם ואפילו בזמן הקדמון חייב בנזק הגוף A bit later he elaborates:
ומה שנהגו בימים קדמונים בלבישת פרצופים משעטנז ושל איש לאשה עכשיו לא נהגו כן וכן מי שהזיק חייב לשלם דעתה בעונותינו הרבים ערבה כל שמחה ואין אנו במדריגה זו [ומ”ש הרמ”א בסעיף ח’ הוא לקיים מה שנהגו בימיו ולא עכשיו]: [4]
Parodies for Purim

In light of the above, we see that while there is some dispute about how far one can go on Purim, joyful acts (depending on their degree) are encouraged. Parodies and plays (this topic will be dealt with in my next post) which were written and some preformed during Purim-time.
Israel Davidson writes in the introduction to his classic work on this topic, Parody in Jewish Literature, [5] the following:

“The Range of Jewish parody is as wide as the range of general parody. The Jewish parodist has invaded every department of literature and every walk of life. He has drawn upon the various phases of Jewish life for his subject matter and upon the various forms of Jewish literature for his models. . . . It would indeed be easy to make a collection of representing the bible, Talmud, midrash liturgy zohar codes… It is equally no exaggeration to say almost all the great movements in modern Jewish history are reflected in Jewish parody . . . on the other hand the study of this branch of Jewish literature will also reveal the serious side of Jewish humor. . . . Tears and laughter lie very closely together in Jewish humor, and the Jewish parodist is not always a mere clown, but more often is a preacher disguised in the garb of a jester. Like general parody Jewish parody has a moral aim. It is opposed to every kind of untruth to bombast to hypocrisy.”

In this post I would like to point out a few such parodies to show some general customs which are mentioned in them, with a specific eye towards Purim. One of the earliest such pieces was a piyut printed in the Machzor Vitri (p. 583) to say during Ma’ariv of Purim. It starts out saying:
ליל שיכורים הוא זה הלילה, לשמוח ביין הטוב ולגילה… בליל הזה ישכרו כל יצורים…
This piece was authored by a Menachem ben Aron. It has been debated from exactly which time period this piece was written but Davidson believes that he was active as early as 1140 and as late as 1244. Rav Zevin and others note that it is quiet strange to allow such a crazy piyut to be said during Ma’ariv. But, Rav Zevin does point out that although the halacha is not to get drunk on Purim at night at least in the times of R Eliezer Fleckles people definitely did get drunk then.[6] A. Haberman reprinted a much lengthier version of a piuyt composed in 1695, by a dayan, for the whole Ma’ariv.[7]
Although there are no real sources that one has to get drunk on the night of Purim I did find Rav Nissim Goan writes:
ושנהגו בלילי פורים לעשות מדורות האש וקופצין עליהן אית ליה נמי עיקיר.
This seems to imply that there is a some notion of שחוק or שמחה on Purim night. This custom of Rav Nissim Goan is brought down by the Sefer Hamanhig, Avudraham and others.[8]

One of the most famous parodists in Jewish history was Emanuel HaRomi author of the infamous Machberes Emanuel (also called Sefer Hamachberes). Davidson calls him “the father of of exegetic parody and one of its best masters.” This work was written in circa 1321-28. This work includes a good bit of parodies. One of the parodies is a very detailed description of the excessive drinking and drunkenness of people in his time on Purim.[9] [10]

Just to quote one line from this particular parody as it is extremely graphic:
יצאתי אם השר בימי הנעורים אחר סעודת פורים, לראות בשחוק השכורים…ויאמר כי היא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא והשכרות והפריצות ביום הזה ערמה וקצתם יחולו במחולות בחורים וגם בתולות…
As is very well known this work was banned by the Beis Yosef [11] who writes very strongly against it:
מליצות ומשלים של שיחת חולין ודברי חשק, כגון ספר עמנואל, וכן ספרי מלחמות, אסור לקרות בהם בשבת; ואף בחול אסור משום מושב לצים ועובר משום אל תפנו אל האלילים לא תפנו אל מדעתכם; ובדברי חשק, איכא תו משום מגרה יצר הרע; ומי שחיברן ומי שהעתיקן, וא”צ לומר המדפיסן, מחטיאים את הרבים.

Although the Beis Yosef wrote strongly against it R. Shmuel Askenazi pointed out to me a very interesting source. The Chida in his Shem Hagedolim [12] writes as follows:

שמעתי שאמרו בעל הפרשים שבאיוב יקרא האדם פ’ רלב”ג וירוה צמאוני ובמשלי יקרא פ’ עמנואל ובתהלים יקרא פ’ ר’ דוד קמחי ואתנח סימנא שפת אמת תכון לעד. אמת ר”ת איוב משלי תהלים. לעד ר”ת לוי עמנואל דוד והם כסדרן.
What the Chida is saying is that the best work on Mishlei was written by Emanuel!

One other point of interest about this work: I found in the list of works for students to learn thought out a new school system written by R. Meshulam Roth the great Galicianer posek at the request of R. Meir Shapiro amongst the many interesting things he wanted talmdim to read was the Sefer Machberes![13]

Another one of the earliest parodies written was called Mesechtas Purim, written by R. Kallonyms ben Kallonyms (1286-1328) a good friend of Emanuel Haromi.[14] This parody was perhaps the most famous one written on Purim which inspired many others especially of note was two others written a little later by the Ralbag.[15] Masechtas Purim was first written between 1319-1322 and printed in 1513, again in 1552 than again in 1871. This was written in the style of gemarah including drashos and everything found in regular sugyos – mimicking the talmudic style very well. Most of the humor is clean and not pocking fun at anyone. Davidson devotes a large part of his book to discussing the various editions of Masechtas Purim with many important notes. Haberman provides all the printings of this book in a facsimile edition of this sefer which he printed. As many other books this to was banned, by many, most notably R. Shmuel Aboab (siman 193). Others who opposed these works were authors of Chemdas Hayomim, Beris Mateh Moshe and the Chida.[16] At some points certain versions of Mesechtas Purim were even burned![17]

Haberman, however, points out a very interesting observation on all this and that is that this work of Mesechtas Purim was not banned immediately. Rather, it was only much later that any bans were directed at Mesechtas Purim. According to Haberman, this demonstrates that in the beginning there was no great opposition against it. He writes it is clear from the writings of R. Kalonymus and the Ralbag that it was just for Simchas Purim with no evil intent at all.[18] Besides for this both R. Kalonymus and the Ralbag were known as great people and not latzanim. To support this theory a bit one just has to read the end of the edition of R. Kalonymus where he writes:

ולמה השלים המסכתא בפרק אין קורין לפי שאין קורין בו אלא בשעה שאינו לא יום ולא לילה שלא נכתב אלא לשחוק בעלמא לשחוק האנשים ביום פורים והקורא בו לא הפסיד אלא כמי שקורא בספרי רפואות ובדברים המועלים לגוף ואינן מזיקין לנפש…
To support Haberman’s theory even more I quoted earlier that the Orach Hashulchan writes about all the actions permitted according to the Rema that nowadays we are not on the level of this and they are prohibited but in those days it appears they were on a higher level so it was permitted.

Be that as it may, these parodies are great sources for information of Purim in their respective author’s times as Davidson notes. Just to list some of the many things which Davidson notes we see described in them is gambling [19], playing backgammon,[20] , mock hanging of haman [21] excess drinking and eating all kinds of foods (in one list there is over twenty seven types) [22].

Another interesting thing we find in R. Kalonymus’ Mesechtas Purim is the making of a Purim King. It would seem that from here developed in many towns and yeshivas there was a concept called a Purim rav where a rav was hired who would make fun of the local rav or rosh yeshivah. One additional source of doing this can be found in the travelogue of the Chida.[23]

Another interesting point I think we see in R. Kalonymus’ Mesechtas Purim is the custom of dressing up more specifically cross dressing. Many of those who have discussed [24] this topic note an early source from the Sefer Hamaskil [25] a nephew of the Rosh who writes:

טובה תנחל ושלוה תירש אם תשמור מלאו דלא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה כגון בחורים הנותנים צעיך בראשיהם ולובשים בגדי נשים בחנוכה ובפורים ואל תהיה כאחד מהם בדבר הרע הזה ואפילו אם תעשהו לשם מצוה יצא השכר בהפסד.

Another early source which many have noted is from R. Kalonymus author of Mesechtas Purim in his work Even Bochen when talking about Purim he writes:

ובארבעה עשר לחודש אדר, בחורי ישראל לכבוד ולהדר… זה ילבש שמלת אשה ולגרגרותיו ענקים… וזה יתחקה כאחד הרקים תף ומחול שמחה ושלישים. אלו עם אלו אנשים עם נשים…

I think that in Mesechtas Purim there is another source on this which no one seems to have mentioned on this where R. Kalonymus writes:

רבי דניאל איש כפר … הוה יתיב בבי מדרשא שאלו מקמיה מהו למעבד מחולא בפורייא אמר להו אנשים לבד והנשים לבד מותר איתביה רבי שחקו והכתיב אז תשמח בתולה במחול בחורים וזקנים יחדו אמר ליה רבי דניאל האי קרא לעתיד לבא הוא דכתיב ולעתיד לבא אין יצר הרע שולט שנאמר והסירותי את לב האבן מבשרכם ונתתי לכם לב בשר.. אבל בזמן הזה יצר הרע שולט האנשים לבד והנשים לבד מותר אבל אנשים ונשים אסור שהרי אמרו חכמים זמרן גברי וענין נשי פריצותא זמרן ונשי וענין גברי כאש לנעורת כל שכן לחול במחול אנשים ונשים יחד שהוא אסור לימא מסייע ליה לא תלבש אשה לא בגדי צבעונין ולא כלי פשתן המגוהצין ולא תסור מראש חדש אדר עד ששה עשר בו טעמא מאי שלא תחול במחול אם האנשים…

One thing lacking when it comes to Mesechtas Purim is a critical edition. Although Davidson did an excellent job in general on Mesechtas Purim it could still use a critical edition explaining what each point in the meschtah is based on.

On the subject of parodies I would just like to mention one other parody. This parody is called the Sefer Hakundos, It was printed in Vilna in 1824. This parody was written by a maskil as a vicious attack on the Jews of the time pocking fun at many things. The plus about this parody is we get a very interesting glimpse into Jewish life in those days – very detailed. This parody was very rare and almost unknown except by a few scholars. Until recently in 1997 Professor M. Zalkin reprinted it in a critical edition by Mercaz Dinur, with an excellent introduction giving a complete historical background of who possibly wrote this work why it was written so sharply and about the different versions of this work that seemed to exist. The introduction by Zalkin is 30 pages and the actual text of the sefer is twenty seven pages. He includes over four hundred very helpful notes to the actual text to the work explaining many points. Although he did an excellent job I feel that he could have added even more sources and commented on points which for some reason he did not.

Zalkin notes how the authorship was debated and discusses all the possibilities offered to its authorship. [26] According to some scholars it was even banned and burned. [27] If one reads this whole work one can very well understand why it would have been burned as it was a very cynical work. I would just like to mention the style of this work briefly and give some samples of sources one can find in it especially in regard to Purim.

To begin with this work was titled Sefer Hakundas – kundas means trickster. We find in different memoirs such as in Zecronot Av Ubno (p. 206) and in Eiryati Mottlee (pp. 178-179) such a term (see also Zalkin Introduction pp. 9-10) it was a kid who was a big trouble maker who was everywhere in everything. The style of this work is its eleven chapters written like a Shulchan Orach dealing with “halchos of the kundas” it goes thru his jobs where he hangs out how to identify one – from his clothes what he eats, which things he is from the first ten to do – what he does in shul and on yom tov.

Just to give some examples of what he did that help us get a glimpse into life in those days:

בימים שאומרים יעלה ויבא… כשמגיע באמצע התפלה למקום הכרזה מרים קולו באמירתו בכדי להשמיע לכל העם וכשסיים תפלתו מחוייב לסבב בבית המדרש אצל כל הנערים ולשאול מהם אם לא שכחו לאמרו. ואם הודה לו אחד מהם ששכח מיד הוא רץ לשואל את פי המורה שם ומעמידו לתפילתו. (עמ’ 52) Another Example:

פטרוהו מספירה. רק בשעת ספירה מחוייב להיות בבית המדרש והסופר ההולך לשאול מה שפגמתי בספירה, מחוייב להשיב לו תיכף ומיד. כי הקונדס מחוייב לידע היסוד והכלל. ובתוך כך מחוייב לשאול לבני אדם איזה יום היום הוא בספירה וכשיגידו לו מחוייב לצעוק בקול גדול עכשיו ספור בלא ברכה כי הגדת לי יום הספירה (עמ’ 57).
Another Example:
גם פרטוהו מקידוש לבנה. רק שמחוייב להיות בכל מקום שמקדשין ויקדים שלום עליכם לכל אדם (שם)
Another Example:

בשעה שהחכם יושב ודורש בבית המדר. אזי הוא נמצא אחורי בית המדרש בין בני גילו וקודם הדרשה כשבית המדרש מלא מפה לפה מחוייב הקונדס לדוחק את עצמו ביניהם להיות צופה ומביט בפני הדרשן וחוזר לעבודתו וכצאתו מבית המדרש הוא צועק בקול רק אל הנערים אשר בגילו אי איך האב אים שון גיזעהן עד שישמע הדרשן (עמ’ 62).
Specifically, discussing Purim it says:

בפורים מחוייב להכות המן בכל עת שיזכרוהו בבקעת של עץ בכל כחו עד משליכין אותו. או משתקין אותו. ואם הקונדס מאריך בהכאה עד שמשליכין אותו מבית המדרש לגמרי. אז אשרי לו ואשרי יולדתו. ובשעת קריאת המגילה כשהחזן קורא המן מחוייב לצעוק בכל כחו ברוך הבא (עמ’ 67).[28]
Just to conclude with one last parody as the famous expression goes ” As mein Ret shon vegen Korech.” This parody deals with drinking of wine called Hatikun. It was written in the form of a shulchan orach on the topic of the Chassidish custom of “tikkun.” In doing so it pokes lots fun at the Chasdic Minhag of observing tikun. The authorship of Hatikun has been debated. Davidson (p. 219) writes that it was written by a David Apotheker. But Rabbi B. Oberlander in his excellent series of articles on the infamous forgery Yerushalim al Seder Kodshim (that is being turned into a full length book) demonstrates that the author is none other than Friedlander the forger of the Yerushalmi on Kodshim. (Or Yisrael, no. 15, 1999, 174-75)
Notes:

[1] Alei Tamar, Megilah pg 3-4.

[2] Quoted by M Benayhu, Yosef Becherei, pp. 495, 483. On this very interesting personality see Benayhu, ibid pp. 415- 520.

[3] Sefer Zichronos pp. 61-64

[4] Aruch Ha-shulchan, 695:10 and 696:12.

[5] Israel Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature, p. xix (available for free download here). [All of my quotes from Davidson are from this work]. This work is an incredible job on the topic of Jewish parodies. He does a terrific job of covering the entire history and pointing out many fascinating things in his many discussions. He also has an extensive section on the various parodies written for Purim especially Mesechtas Purim. Besides this he includes an excellent bibliography of all the various parodies that he tracked down four hundred and twenty one in total.

[6] Davidson, ibid pg 4; A. Haberman, Iyunim Bshira Ubpyuit, p. 311; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, 6, p. 211, Moadim Be-halacha, p. 246, see also Alei Tamar pp. 13-14 about eating seuda at night. Interestingly, it appears that in Otzar Yad Hayyim (p. 1) that he was unaware of this whole piece was a joke, as he uses this line to “prove” that drinking wine of Purim night will destroy our enemies.

[7] A. Haberman, Iyunim Bshira Ubpyuit, pp. 303-306.

[8] S. Abramson, Rav Nissim Goan, p. 278; Sefer haManhig, Mossad Harav Kook ed. vol. 1, p. 249 (see notes therein); Abudraham p. 209. It appears that this has to do with the custom of hanging of a mock Haman mentioned in note 21.

[9] See Machbres Emauel Haromi – Dov Yardan edition, machbres twenty five pp. 451-469. On this edition it is well worth reading the excellent review and notes from R. S. Askenazi printed in Kiryat Sefer 35, pp. 157 -162, omitted from the bibliography of R. Ashkenazi’s writings in Alpha Beta Kadmita deshmuel Zerah.

[10] On Emanuel Haromi in general see: M. Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 176, Landshuth, Amudei Havodah pp. 304-305; Davidson, ibid, pp. 17-19; Y. Zinberg, Toldos Safrus Yisroel, 1, pp. 387-410; A. Haberman, Toldos Hapiyut Ve-hashira, vol. 2, pp. 43-61; Dov Yardan in his intorduction to his edition of Machbres Emauel Haromi pp. 11-18.

[11] On the banning of Machberes Emanuel see: Beis Yosef, (O. C. 307:16); Moshe Carmily, Sefer Ve-sayif pp. 40-44; A. Haberman, Toldos Hapiyut Ve-hashira, vol. 2, pp. 56-58.

[12] Shem Hagedolim, Marches Seforim: Kuntres Achron printed at the end of letter beis. This work on Misheli was one of the first books ever printed in Naples 1487. It was reprinted in a limited facsimile edition in 1981 with an excellent introduction.

[13] Printed in back of his R. M. Roth Mevaser Ezra on Ibn Ezra p. 176. To be sure R. Roth was not a liberal, as is well known with the incident when he was supposed to receive the Kook prize with Saul Lieberman and he refused. See: Igros of R. M. Roth recently printed; Marc B. Shapiro, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, pp. 27-36.

[14] On R. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus much has been written already see: Y. Zinberg, Toldos Safrus Yisroel, vol. 1, pp. 411-427; Uberto Cassuto in the intro of the facsimile edition of Mesechtas Purim printed by A. Haberman in 1978; A. Haberman, Toldos Hapiyut Ve-hashira, vol. 2, pp. 142-149; A. Haberman Iyunim Bshira Ubpyuit, pg 162-179; C. Shirman, Toldos Ha-shira Haivirit Be-sefard, pp. 514-541

[15] The author of the Megilat Setharim and Sefer Chabakuk was a mystery until Davidson correctly identified it to be none other than the famous Ralbag: Davidson, ibid 131-133. The Ralbag authored Megilat Setarim around the year 1332 and Sefer Chababkuk a little before. See also C. Shirman, Toldos Ha-shira Haivirit Be-sefard, pp. 527-528.

Another parody that Mesechtas Purim inspired was Mesechtas Chanuka. See Areshet, 3, page 173-192 (not the one mentioned by davidson on pg 39).

[16] Sources against Meschtas Purim See: Davidson ibid, xxi; A. Haberman, Iyunim Bshira Ubpyuit, p. 312; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel,6, pp. 204-205, Maran V’Rabanan, 2, p. 90,

[17] See Steinschneider, Arshet, 4, p. 88, Moshe Carmily, Sefer Ve-sayif p. 248.

[18] A. Haberman, Iyunim Bshira Ubpyuit, pp. 273, 303.

[19] On gambling on Purim see Davidson, ibid pp. 31, 145; H. Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), pp. 181, 329.

[20] On playing backgammon on Purim see Davidson, ibid p. 146.

[21] On mock hangings of Haman see; R. S. Schick, Sefer Haminhaghim p. 51 a; Davidson, ibid, p. 21-22; E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, pp. 93-106.

[22] Davidson ibid, p. 22.

[23] On Purim Rav see: the account in Magel Tov of the Chida pp. 138- 139; A.S.Sachs, Worlds that Passed, pp. 232-234 has a very descriptive account of this; Davidson pp. 26-27, 30-31; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, 6, pp. 202-203. see also M. Breuer, Ohelei Torah, pp. 418-419; Pinchas Torborg in his memoirs also writes about the purim Rav in Volzhin but it was not around in his times he just said he heard about it from people from before his time. (Pirkei Zichronois p. 197). R Ovadih Yosef is very aginst this concept see Chazon Ovadia pp. 201-203.

[24] On cross dressing see: Aven Bochen, Haberman ed. p. 30; R. M. M. Honig, Yerushcanu, 1, p. 240; Professor Y.Speigel forthcoming article on the topic.

On dressing up on Purim in general see: Hyam Isaacs, Ceremonies Customs Rites and Traditions of the Jews, in 1836 (second edition) where he writes (p. 91) “Both male and female dress themselves in all kinds of Gaudy dress . . .”; Chida in his travels, Magel Tov, p. 139; The memoirs printed by M. Richarz, Jewish Life In Germany, pp. 83, 159; H. Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), pp. 184, 331-332; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel,6, pg 192-200; R. G. Oberlander, Minhag Avosenue Be-yadneu, vol. 1, pp. 293- 306; Moadim Le-simcha pp. 443- 458; R. Ovadih Yosef is very aginst this concept see Chazon Ovadia pp. 199-201.

[25] On the Sefer Hamaskil in general see R. M. M. Honig, Yerushcanu, vol. 1, pp. 196-240.

[26] On authorship of this work see; Y. Zinberg, Toldos Ha-safrus Be-yisroel, vol. 6, pp. 356-357; Davidson, ibid, p. 211; Zalkin intoduction pp. 15-21.

[27] On the banning of this work see; Y. Zinberg, Toldos Ha-safrus Be-yisroel, vol. 6, p. 226; Moshe Carmily, Sefer Ve-sayif p. 238; Zalkin intoduction pp. 21-22.

[28] On banging during Megilah at the mention of Haman’s name, see the following sources: In the sefer Eshkol Hakofer from Zeror Hamaor in his work on Megilat Esther:

ועל סמך זה יש היום מקומות יכו שתי אבנים זה על זה בהזכרת המן בקריאת המגלה בבית הכנסת (עמ’ צו)

R. Yehudah Aryeh Modean writes in his Shulchan Orach:

ונוהגים קצת בשמעם בקריאה השם המן לשקשק ולשרוק כעין סימן למחות זכרו (עמ’ 84)

In the Present State of the Jews written in 1675, Lancelot Addison (p. 182) writes: “both the women and children… at the naming of Haman make a hideous noise with their hands and stamping with their feet”. [Thanks to S. From on the Main line for this book]

In the Ceremonies of the Present Jews written in 1728 we find “and as often they hear the name of Haman pronounced they clap their hands or beat the benches to signify that they curse him.” (p. 44) [Thanks to S. From on the Main line for this book]

In the book of Religion Ceremonies And Prayers of the Jews by Gamaliel Ben Pedazhur written in 1738, he writes (p. 43), “and every time the reader pronounces the name haman in reading… all the jews young and old stamp their feet on the floor by the way of treading haman down and the children have generally Hammers with them at the Synagogue…”

Hyam Isaacs in Ceremonies Customs Rites and Traditions of the Jews, printed in 1836 (second edition) writes (p. 89) “and as often as the reader mentions the name Haman… it is customary for the children , who have little wooden hammers to knock against the wall as a memorial that they should endeavor to destroy the whole seed of Amalek.”

S. Ansky writes in his memoirs of World War One, The Enemy at his Pleasure (p. 284): “On purim I went to Synagogue to hear the reading of the book of Esther. At the the mention of Haman’s name the children traditionally make noise say by clapping but when these children tried to clap. Though very softly, their frightened parents hastily shushed them. Why didn’t they let the children make noise? I asked somebody afterword. Someone might object he stammered. Try and prove that they meant the ancient haman and not the present one.”

See also: D. Sperber’s book on the topic – Keisad Macim Es Haman 47 pages; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, vol. 3, pp. 156-159; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, vol. 6, pp. 244-256; E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, pp. 274- 276; Moadim Le-simcha, pp. 299-323; Minhag Avosenue Be-yadneu, vol. 2, pp. 307-324.