Tracing the history of eating milchigs on Shavuos

by Eliezer Brodt

In this post I would like to deal with tracing the early sources for the minhag of eating milchigs on Shavuos. A version of this article was printed last year in the Ami Magazine (# 119). This post contains a few corrections and additions to that version. A much more expanded version of this article will appear in Hebrew shortly (IY”H). Eating the vast array of customary dairy delicacies on Shavuos including, of course, cheesecake, is a minhag that very few people find very difficult. But what is the source of this minhag? This minhag goes back at least to the times of the Rishonim, and varied explanations for it also do.[1] That the minhag of milchigs on Shavuos was observed widely in recent history is very clear. For example, in an informative nineteenth-century Lithuanian memoir, the author describes the milk-based Yom Tov atmosphere:

“And at home there was again roasting and baking namely, many butter cakes! On this Holiday you especially ate all milk and butter dishes. The traditional cheese blintzes with sour cream, a kind of flinsed, were essential… On the second day of Shavuos… a happy mood prevailed; we drank fine aromatic coffee and ate butter cakes and blintshikes.”[2]

In Yeshivas Volozhin, after staying up the whole night, the whole yeshiva would take part in a milchig kiddush at the Netziv’s house.[3] We find the same thing in the Lomza Yeshiva; they had a kiddush after davening with cheesecakes and the like. [4] The question is, where did this minhag of eating milchigs on Shavuos come from? The Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch do not make any mention of it. In this article, I will trace some of the earliest known sources that we have for this minhag and discuss some of the reasons that are given. This is not an attempt to cover all aspects of this rich minhag, I hope to return this in the future. [5]One of the earliest mentions of this minhag can be found in a Pesach drasha from the Rokeach (1165-1240), which was printed from a manuscript for the first time just a few years ago. [6] Another one of the earliest sources is found in the very interesting work Malmed Hatalmidim from Rav Yaakov Antoli. Rav Antoli was born around 1194 in Provence, in southern France. He married the daughter of Rav Shmuel Ibn Tibon, the famous translator of the Moreh Nevuchim into Hebrew. The Malmed Hatalmidim was only first printed in 1866, with the haskamos of many gedolim, but the manuscript form had been used before that by many Rishonim, most notably the Avudraham.Rav Antoli writes that the custom is to eat milk and honey on Shavuos. He explains that this is because Torah is compared to milk and honey. Since milk is a very important food, so too, the mitzvos of the Torah are food for the soul, he says.[7]

Another early source for eating milchigs is found in the work Even Bochen from Rav Kalonymos ben Kalonymos (1286-1328)[8], where he describes milchig breads made with honey and formed into the shape of a ladder. (We’ll return to the ladder-shaped breads shortly).

Yet another early source can be found in the works of Rav Aharon Hacohen Miluneil (died around 1330) in his early work Kol Bo and in his later work Orchos Chaim. He writes, like the Malmed Hatalmidim, that on Shavuos people have the custom to eat milk and honey because Torah is compared to milk and honey. Women also bake challos with four heads, he says, as a zecher to the lechem hapanim. He says that others dip matzahs left over from Pesach into the spice known as zefrin since it causes happiness.[9] Rav Avigdor Hatzorfoti (died 1275) brings a remez (hint) from the Torah for the minhag. The passuk about Shavuos says, “Ubyom habikurim bihakriyvchem mincha chadasha lashem beshivuaschem.” The beginning letters of the last three words spell out chalav, milk.[10] This minhag is also found in the following early sefarim: the minhagim of the Maharam Merutenberg (written by a talmid of his)[11], Terumas Hadeshen[12], Maharil[13], Rav Isaac Tirina (born around 1380)[14], Meshivas Nefesh from Rabbi Yochanon Luria (1382)[15], Rama[16], Seder Hayom (printed in 1599)[17], Yosef Ometz (1570-1637)[18], and the Shelah Hakodesh (1570-1635).[19]

Aside from the reasons already mentioned, many additional reasons for this minhag have been given over the years. Recently, close to 150 reasons were collected by Rabbi Moshe Dinin in a small work called Kuntres Matamei Moshe. Here are a few reasons and some interesting points related to them. Rav Elyakyim Horowitz says that we eat milchigs because Dovid Hamelech died on Shavuos. The halacha is that when a king dies, all of the Jews have the status of an onen and are not permitted to eat meat.[20] This same reason can also be found in the work of Rabbi Shimon Falk.[21] Rav Avrohom Hershovitz brings the Mishna at the end of Avos, which says that one of the 48 ways the Torah is acquired is through not indulging oneself. Since meat is considered an indulgence, we eat milk products during the chag of Matan Torah as a reminder that this is the way to acquire Torah.[22] Rav Mordechai Leib Zaks points out that in the parsha of Bikurim it says that Hashem gave us the land of milk and honey. Therefore he suggests that the custom is to eat milchigs on the Yom Habikkurim to give thanks to Hashem for giving us the land of milk and honey and as a reminder of the mitzvah of bikkurim, which only included the fruits of Eretz Yisrael, the land of milk and honey.[23] Rabbi Yeshuyah Singer in Zichron B’sefer (printed in 1900) writes an interesting reason which he had heard. The Torah was given on Shabbos. The meat they had prepared before learning the halachos of shechita was assur to eat. It is not permitted to shecht on Shabbos. Therefore Bnei Yisrael had to eat milchigs, as they could not eat the food that they had prepared beforehand.[24]

The Mishna Berurah mentions a similar reason that he heard in the name of “gadol echad.” Immediately after Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah, they were unable to eat anything but milchigs. The reason for that is because the preparation of kosher meat is very involved. A kosher knife and kosher utensils are necessary. Since this takes a long time, they just cooked milchigs.[25] Who is the “gadol echad” mentioned here? Rabbi Nachum Greenwald located this idea in the work Toldos Yitzchak, first printed in 1868. This idea is mentioned in the name of Rabbi Levi Yitzchak from Berditchev. It is interesting that the Chofetz Chaim did not say the name of the person he heard this idea from.[26] A similar idea can be found in the work Geulas Yisroel first printed in 1821. Rabbi Kapach says that the Jews in Yemen expressed wonder at those who ate just milchigs on Shavuos. They did not like the reason given (as we mentioned before) that the meat slaughtered prior to Matan Torah would be neveilah afterwards, because they argued that only the Erev Rav were unable to shecht before Matan Torah. The rest of the Jews, they claimed, were shechting before Matan Torah, just as we know that the Gemara says that Avraham Avinu kept all the mitzvos of the Torah before they were given.[27] However this statement is not so simple, because even if they were shechting and doing mitzvos before it is heavily debated what that would be considered, since their status as Jews may have changed during Matan Torah. According to many it would follow that after Matan Torah they would need to kasher the utensils and shecht new animals.[28]

Rav Yissachar Teichtal deals with a related issue. He asks that since the Torah was given on Shabbos and they couldn’t shecht and their prior shechita was not kosher, how did they fulfill the obligation of eating meat on Shabbos?[29] Rav Teichtal first mentions the answer of the Zichron Basefer quoted above, which is that they didn’t eat meat that Shabbos. However, Rav Teichtel disagrees. He has an interesting answer to explain how they did indeed have meat on this Shabbos. Basing himself on various sources, he says that they had meat created through the Sefer Yetzirah. The Gemara relates that there were those who were able to create an animal via the Sefer Yetzirah; Rav Teichtal says that that was done here.[30] The Toldos Yitzchak, quoted above, from Reb Levi Yitzchak Berditichever, gives another answer. There is a concept in halacha called Hoiel v’ishtrei ishtrei, which means that if something was permitted at one time, it remains muttar. It follows that they were permitted to eat anything they had prepared beforehand and did not have to throw out their dishes. Then he says that even though it was permitted, the Yidden were stringent and didn’t eat the meat. Since they were accepting the Torah that day, they wanted to be machmir.

A similar idea is found when Moshe Rabbeinu, as a baby, didn’t nurse from a non-Jew even though it was permissible. It appears that this idea is based on a concept found in numerous sources, called chinuch shanei. It means that the first time we do something, we do it in the best way possible, even if other ways are permitted. Moshe Rabbeinu could have been nursed from a non-Jew, but since he was the one who was going to get the Torah, he was kept from doing it. So too, here, the Yidden were machmir by not eating what was entirely permissible.[31]

Speaking of Moshe Rabbeinu, an original reason for this minhag is given by Rabbi Yitzchak Weiss, who says that Moshe Rabbeinu was found by the daughter of Pharaoh on Shavuos. Since they tried to give him milk from a non-Jew and he refused, we eat dairy to remind us of that.[32]

Cheesecake on the clock

Rav Dunner, in a recent article on the topic, lists many gedolim who ate the milchig seudah at night, including the Chazon Ish, Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Yechezkel Abramsky, and others.[33] It is questionable whether or not there is an obligation to eat meat at night on Yom Tov.[34] In other sources, we see the opposite. There were people who specifically ate milchigs during the day—for example, the Volozhin and Lomza yeshivas, which I mentioned earlier, where there was a kiddush with cheesecake after davening.[35] This is also what the Darchei Teshuvah suggests one should do to avoid many different halachic issues.[36]

There is much discussion in the poskim whether it is permitted to eat milchigs first during the day, and then wait and eat meat. There’s also discussion about how long to wait. Some wait an hour before eating meat. Other poskim deal with the question of whether there is an obligation to bentch after the milchig kiddush.[37] For example, the Knesses Hagedolah (1603-1673) writes that he ate milchigs and honey, then he benched, and after he waited an hour, he ate fleishigs.[38]

However it’s pretty clear that the Magen Avrohom argues when he writes:

ועבי”ד סי’ פ”ט דא”צ להפסיק בב”ה [בברכת המזון] אם אינו אוכל גבינה קשה (סי’ תצד:ו).[39]

What’s interesting is that certain mekubalim did not eat milk the same day they ate meat products. Rabbi Eliyahu de Vidas, author of the Reishes Chochma (d. 1579), in his work Tosos Chaim writes that one should wait 24 hours(!) after eating meat before eating milk. According to this, it wouldn’t be possible to eat milk after meat on Shavuos![40] The Yosef Ometz quotes the Shelah, who says that he would wait 24 hours after meat to eat milk.[41] But later on (in siman 854), he says that people were lenient about this on Shavuos.

Interestingly enough, the Tzror Hamor even says that one should not eat meat within 24 hours of eating milk, and vice versa.

לפי קבלת קדמונינו בא לאסור בשר בחלב. ואמר לא תבשל. ולא אמר לא תאכל. לרמוז לנו כפי חכמי האמת כי אסור לאכול בשר ואחר כך חלב. וכן אסור לאכול חלב ואחר כך בשר. ואעפ”י שנתנו חכמים שיעורים בזה. כבר כתב רשב”י ז”ל כי כמו שאסור חלב אחר בשר. כך אסור לאכול בשר אחר חלב. ודינם שוה לענין השיעור שהוא עד שיתעכל המזון שבמיעיו. שהם כמו שש שעות שהוא זמן מסעודה לסעודה. כי הבישול האמור כאן על בישול האצטומכא הוא. בענין שלא יתבשלו הבשר והחלב באצטומכא בזמן אחד. ולפי שיש אצטומכא מאחרת העיכול. ליראי ה’ ולחושבי שמו אין לאכול גבינה ובשר ביום אחד. וכל שכן בשר וגבינה. וכן נוהגים המדקדקים במצות ואנשי מעשה. והטעם בזה לפי שאין ראוי לערב הכוחות אלו באלו. כח הדין בכח הרחמים. וכח הרחמים בכח הדין. כי הבשר הוא מדת הדין בסוד קץ כל בשר. כי מנפש ועד בשר יכלה הצר. והחלב הוא סוד הרחמים הגמורים המלבינים עונותיהם של ישראל. כאומרו כשלג ילבינו. והחטא הוא אדום בסוד הלעיטני נא מן האדום האדום הזה. ולכן יש להפרידם זה מזה כל אחד על כנו. ואת כל עורב למינו (צרור המור, משפטים, כג:יט).

According to this there would be appear to be no way to eat both milk and meat on Shavuos. The Toras Chaim is also very concerned with this issue of eating meat after milk; he says not to eat milchigs on Shavuos.[42] However, other rabbanim were to the other extreme. The Rokeach writes that his great uncle used to eat cheese, then wash his mouth out and immediately eat meat.[43] There is also a talmid of the Terumas Hadeshen who writes in his work Leket Yosher that his rebbi did the same[44]

From honey to milk

It would appear that this minhag of eating milchigs ties in with another minhag of Shavuos and perhaps is derived from there.[45] When the talmid of the Maharam Merutenberg brings among the minhagim of the Maharam the minhag to eat milchigs on Shavuos, he brings it right after he brings another minhag: “Special cakes with pesukim on them are made for children as they begin to learn on Shavuos these are made to help them have an open heart [for learning].” There are numerous sources in Rishonim (such as Rokeach and Machzor Vitri) that on Shavuos when a boy begins to learn an elaborate ceremony is performed in which they eat from specially prepared cakes and dip their fingers in honey while saying certain pesukim.[46] This is done to help the boy’s mind open up and is a special segulah to help him remember what he learns. (Some sources do not mention that this was done on Shavuos; most do.)

This ceremony was done on Shavuos because it is the day we received the Torah. Interestingly, we find sources for a few hundred years in the Rishonim that this minhag continued, at least in German circles. But it appears to have eventually been forgotten. The Shach cites the Rokeach as having mentioned the minhag but says that now it is not done.[47] Rabbi Dovid Ginsburg writes that he only found out about this minhag later on in life and had he known about it earlier he would have definitely done it for his children.[48]

Rav Yaakov Emden writes that the reason that in earlier times the children excelled in their Jewish education as opposed to in his times was due to that they stopped doing this ceremony quoted in the Rishonim![48] Recently this minhag has been revived as part of the upsherin ceremony. Be that as it may, it is possible that this minhag of eating honey and sweets on Shavuos actually led to the minhag of eating of milchigs, because honey has always been associated with milchigs. As mentioned earlier, some made special milchig breads in the shapes of ladders. In the work Even Bochen from Rav Kalonymos ben Kalonymos we find an explanation, that the gematria of sulam (ladder) is Sinai. The Yosef Ometz and others bring different reasons connecting a ladder and Shavuos.[49]

Professor Daniel Sperber suggested that the reason why the bread is shaped in the form of a ladder is that it ties in to the ceremonies for children who begin learning. To get the children to ask what is going on we make the breads in an interesting shape, similar to our methods of getting them to ask at the Pesach seder.[50]

[1] There are many collections of material on this issue see for example Rabbi Pinchas Schwartz, Minchas Chadasah, pp. 38-44; Rabbi S. Deblitski, Kuntres Hamoyadim, pp. 37-40; Kovet Eitz Chaim (Bobov) 6 (2008) pp. 239-242; an excellent collection of material in Pardes Eliezer, pp. 227-316; Rabbi Freund, Moadyim Lisimcha 6, pp. 490-505 ; Rabbi Yitzchack Tessler, Pininei Minhag, pp. 292-319; Rabbi Oberlander, Kovetz Or Yisroel, 32:104-120 and later updated in his Minhag Avosenu Beyadneu. See also YehudahAvidah in his work on Yiddish foods, Yiddishe Macholim, pp. 43-44; M.Kosover,Yiddishe Macholim, p. 75, 77, 98.
[2] Pauline Wengeroff, Memoirs of a Grandmother, 2010, p.150.
[3]Reshumot 1, p. 340.
[4] See Pirkei Zichronos, (2004) p. 359
[5] I hope to return to many other aspects of the minhag in the near future.
[6] Drasha Lepesach, ed. Simcha Emanuel (2006), p. 39, 110. See the important comment on this from my friend M. M. Honig in Pininei Minhag, p. 292.
[7] Malmed Hatalmdim, p. 121b. I hope to return to this work in a future article; for now see my article in Yeshurun, 24 (2011), p. 457.
[8] Even Bochen, p. 34. Mahratz Chiyos in his Kol Sifrei (p. 236) quotes this as an early source for eating milchigs. Both Matai Moshe (siman 692) and Mekor Chaim quote this work when talking about eating milchigs on Shavuos. On Rav 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 IyunimBshira Ubpyuit, pg 162-179; C. Shirman, Toldos Ha-shira Haivirit Be-sefard, pp. 514-541.
[9] Orchos Chaim, p. 78a, Kol Bo, siman 52. Most are not aware that this work was authored by the same person. There were actually those that thought the Kol Bo was authored by a woman; see my Bein Kesseh L’essur (2010) p. 143.
[10] See Rav Avigdor Hatzorfoti, p. 478 See his Pirush Rav Avigdor Cohen Tzedek printed in the Toras Chaim edition of Megillas Rus, 2011, p. 53. On Rav Avigdor Hatzorfoti see Simcha Emanuel, Shivrei Luchos, pp. 173-181; E. Kanarfogel, Peering through the Lattices, pp. 107-109.
[11] Minhaghim of Maharham, p. 30.
[12] Leket Yosher, p. 103
[13] Minhaghim p. 85
[14] Sefer Minhaghim, Reb Isaac Tirina (2000) p. 67-68. To be more exact this minhag is in the section which is called Hagahos haminhagim. It is unclear exactly who the author is of that section but it assumed to have been written rather early on. On all of this, see S. Spitzer in his introduction to this edition pp. 17-18.
[15] Meshivas Nefesh, p. 185. On the dating of this work see Rabbi Yakov Stahl, Deutsche 84, (2010) p. 6.
[16] See Igros Moshe OC 1:160. On this topic see this excellent article by my friend Rabbi Yehudah Spitz here.
[17] Seder Hayom Shavuos p.78
[18] Siman 854
[19] Shelah, Mesechtas Shavuos, p. 30a.
[20] Zichron Yerushlayim, p. 153. In Reshumot 1, p. 350 we find that some made a special seudah because of this and finished Sefer Tehillim.
[21] Shut Shem Mishomon, OC, 2:4, p.15.
[22] R. Avraham Eliezer Hershkowitz, Otzar Kol Minhaghei Yeshrun (St. Louis, 1918),p. 201
[23]Zemanim, (1951) p. 53 See also his Mili Demordechai, p. 125. For another connection between bikkurim and eating milchigs see Rabbi Shlomo Schick, Seder Minhaghim 1 (1880)pp. 83b-84a.
[24] Zichron Besefer, p. 122. See Emes Leyakov (Shulchan Aruch) p. 215 where Rav Yaakov suggests this reason himself and adds some points.
[25] Mishna Berurah 494:12. See also Rav Tzvi Farber, Sefer Moadyim, p. 26 (and see there for some other reasons). See also Rabbi Aron Misnik, Minchas Ahron, pp. 102-106; Pardes Eliezer, pp. 279-282.
[26] The Chofetz Chaim did not have a problem quoting chassidic sources; he quotes the Shulchan Aruch Harav numerous times. On the Chofetz Chaim and chassidus see what I wrote in the article “Censorship in the Sefer Chofetz Chaim,” here.
[27] Halichos Teiman, p. 31. See also Keser Shem Tov, 4 p. 16 who has a similar issue.
[28] The status of the Yidden before Matan Torah and the mitzvos performed then has been discussed in numerous works I hope to return to this topic at a later date. See also Rabbi Oberlander (above, note 1) p. 632- 633.
[29] Shut Mishnat Sachir, siman 136.
[30] Much has been written on how one creates something based on the Sefer Yetzirah and if one can use what has been created through such a method for a mitzvah or the like. I hope to return to this topic at a future date.
[31] A subject I hope to return to in the future.
[32] Elef Kesav, 1, p. 64.
[33] Kovet Eitz Chaim (Bobov) 6 (2008) p. 240
[34] See Eitz Chaim Ibid. See Darchei Tesuvah, 89:19.
[35] See Pirkei Zicronos, (2004) p. 359.
[36] Darchei Tesuvah, 89:19.
[37] See Darchei Tesuvah, 89:14; Dershot Mishnat Sachir, 2, pp. 347-348.
[38] Shiurei Kness hagedolah, 494. See Shut Sich Yitzchack, 234. On this topic see this excellent article by my friend Rabbi Yehudah Spitz here.
[39] I will deal with this Magen Avrhom at great length in the near future B”n.
[40] See Tosas Chaim, 2008 p. 79. In the back of this edition there is a lengthy Peirush Ir Hachaim, pp. 245- 249 and for in-depth discussion of this topic see the Pardes Eliezer pp. 233- 238. I will deal with this at greater length in the near future B”n.
[41] See Yosef Ometz, siman 137.
[42] Toras Chaim, Chullin 83a. However it is worth pointing out that the Toras Chaim in Bava Metzia 86b, says that the reason for eating milchigs on Shavuos is to show the malachim that we are careful about basar b’cholov and that when we eat milk we are careful to do everything halacha says to do before we eat meat.
[43] See Drasha of the Rokeach, p. 39
[44] Leket Yosher, p. 103
[45] This idea was suggested by my friend M.M. Honig. Rabbi Oberlander (above, note 1) also suggests this point. D. Sperber in his Minhagei Yisroel 3, p. 139 also connects the two.
[46] See my article on this in Yerushacheinu, 5 (2011) pp. 337-360 especially pp. 344-347.
[47] Shach, 245:8.
[48] See my article in Yerushacheinu (ibid), p. 347 note 65.
[49] Migdol Oz, p. 32.
[50] Others have different shapes and reasons; see Rav Yehoshua Falk, Choshevi Machsvos p. 152. See also M. Gidman , Hatorah Vehachaim 3, 108; H. Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), p. 102, 277
[51] Minhagei Yisroel 3, p. 139.

New Seforim and books 2014

by Eliezer Brodt

Although the world, has been shifting more and more to E- books, seforim and books are still being printed in full force in the Jewish world. What follows is a list of new seforim and books I have seen around in the past few months. Some of the titles are brand new others are a bit older. I am well aware that there are new works worth mentioning that are not included. Due to lack of time I cannot keep track of every book of importance nor comment properly on each and every work. I just try to keep the list interesting. For some of the works listed I am able to provide a Table of contents or a sample feel free to email me at eliezerbrodt@gmail.com. I hope you enjoy!

ספרים

1. פיוטים לארבע פרשיות, קרובץ לפורים עם פירוש רש”י ובית מדרשו [ניתן לקבל תוכן הענינים], רלט עמודים

2. פירוש רש”י למסכת ראש השנה, מהדורה ביקורתית, מהדיר אהרן ארנד, מוסד ביאליק,

3. ספר משלי עם פירוש הרוקח, מכ”י ע”י ר’ אליעזר שווארץ, רכב עמודים

4. ספר המצות להרמב”ם, השגות הרמב”ן עם ביאורים והערות, שרשים, חלק א, ר’ שלמה אריאלי, שלט עמודים

5. אהבה בתענוגים, לר’ משה בן יהודה חלק א מאמרים א-ז, איגוד העולמי למדעי היהדות, [מהדיר: אסתי אייזנמן], 355 עמודים

6. פירושים פילוסופיים של רבי ידעיה הפניני, על מדרשי רבה, תנחומא, ספרי ופרקי דרבי אליעזר, מתוך כ”י, אוצרות המגברב, 351 עמודים

7. תלמוד מסכות עדיות, למהר”ש סיריליאו, על פי כ”י, אהבת שלום, 73 + שיג עמודים [מצוין]

I hope to return to this special work shortly.

8. ר’ יעקב פראג’י, שו”ת מהרי”ף החדשות, מכ”י, מכון טוב מצרים, שפט עמודים

9. ר’ אליעזר נחמן פואה, דרכי תשובה, על ענין התשובה עם קונטרס בקשות ווידויים כפי הזמן על פי כ”י, שפט עמודים [מצוין]

10. תפארת ישראל, מגילת ספר על מגילת אסתר, להרשב”ץ האחרון [נדפס לראשונה בשנת שנ”א], שסג עמודים

11. ר’ זאב וואלף אולסקר, חידושי הרז”ה, [אחד מגדולי חכמי הקלוז דבראד בזמן הנודע ביהודה], ב’ חלקים, [מהדיר: ר’ אהרן וויס], חלק גדול על פי כת”י, חידושי מסכת ברכות, שיעורי תורה, דיני חדש, מכירת חמץ, הערות בשו”ע, [מצוין] כולל מבוא על הספר מאת דר’ מעוז כהנא, תרלא +רפג+117 עמודים, מכון זכרון אהרן

12. הדרת קודש, מדרש הנעלם מגילת רות, גר”א, מהדיר: ר’ דוד קמנצקי, מוסד רב קוק, שמא עמודים

13. ר’ ישראל איסורל מפאניוועז’, מנוחה וקדושה, תיח עמודים

A few years ago I wrote about this sefer and the censorship of various parts. This new editions is complete. What is interesting is that the censored edition had a Haskamah from Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach while the new edition is uncensored, based on the advice of Rabbi Steinman and Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky.

14. ר’ יהודה ב”ר נתן הלוי, מחנה לויה, על הלכות שמחות למהר”ם מרוטנברג, מכון המאור, תקנט עמודים

15. סדר הכנסת שבת מאת אדמו”ר הזקן, [זמנים], עם ביאור ר’ שלום דובער לוין, קלב עמודים

16. ר’ אליהו הכהן האתמרי, בעל שבט מוסר, מגלה צפונות, שמות, [עם מפתחות], תרסב עמודים

17. דרשות וחידושי רבי אליהו גוטמאכר, ויקרא, רסז עמודים

18. יד דוד על התורה, רבי דוד אופנהיים, מכון נצח יעקב, שלח עמודים ומפתחות של סג עמודים

19. תורת חכמי מיץ, מכ”י, ביאורים, חידושי סוגיות ודברי אגדה על פרשיות השבוע ועל המועדות, [מה’שאגת ארה’, יערות דבש, רבינו שמואל הילמן, רבינו אברהם ברודיא רבינו אהרן וורמסר עוד], שכח עמודים

20. שו”ת נחל אשכול, כולל שו”ת מ’ ר’ צבי אויערבך, ורבו ר’ יעקב באמבערגער, וגם שו”ת עוללות אביעזר ופסקי דינים מאת ר’ יוסף זינצהיים, ושו”ת עזרי מקדש, מכון שמרי משמרת הקדש, שמד עמודים, [מצוין]

21. משפט שלום, מהרש”ם, חושן משפט סי’ קעה-רלז, רמא- רצ, שני חלקים

22. מהרש”ם, תכלת מרדכי מועדים, תפא עמודים

23. צפנח פענח, על מסכת ברכות, מתוך גליונות הגמרא שלו, מכון המאור, תקכג עמודים

24. ר’ אברהם יצחק הכהן קוק, לנבוכי הדור, [מצוין] ידיעות ספרים, 366 עמודים

25. פנקס בית הדין בחרבת רבי יהודה החסיד מיסודו של מרן רבי שמואל סלנט, תרס”ב- תרפח, פסקים והכרעות דין בענייני הציבור והיחיד הוראות בענייני הלכה ומנהג, תקנות וחזקות, מכון הרב פרנק, שסח עמודים

26. אוסף מכתבים ממרן בעל ‘ברכת שמואל’, נדפס ע”י ר’ קלמן רעדיש, סח עמודים

27. ר’ אלחן ווסרמן, קונטרס דברי סופרים עם מילואי דעת סופרים, גליונות חזון איש וקהילות יעקב ומפתחות, שנב עמודים

28. ר’ עובדיה יוסף, חזון עובדיה, שבת חלק ו, שסד עמודים

29. ר’ רפאל בנימין פוזן, פרשגן, ביאורים ומקורות לתרגום אונקלוס, שמות, 780 עמודים, [מצוין]

30. ר’ שמואל קמנצקי, קובץ הלכות חנוכה, רנ עמודים

31. ר’ שמואל קמנצקי, קובץ הלכות שבת, א, תשפט עמודים

32. ר’ מרדכי אשכנזי, שערי תפילה ומנהג, ביאורים בנוסח התפילה בסידור רבינו הזקן ובמנהגי התפילה, א, תפילות חול וברכת המזון, תקלח עמודים

33. קנה בינה, מגן אברהם המבואר, הל’ שבת סי’ רמב-ש, תיד עמודים

34. ר’ יצחק וויס, בינה לעתים חנוכה, קי עמודים

35. אם הבנים שמחה [ראה כאן]

36. ר’ מנחם שורץ, מנחת אליהו, עיונים בעמוק הפרשיות, בראשית, תתקי עמודים

37. פסקי הגרי”ש, קובץ קיצור הלכות, או”ח, שנכתבו ע”י ר’ יוסף ישראלזון, ריג +63 עמודים

38. חידושי מנחת שלמה, סוכה, לר’ שלמה זלמן אויערבאך, שיח עמודים

39. ר’ יעקב בלויא, נדרי יעקב, הלכות נדרים ושבועות, תלד עמודים

40. ר’ דוד כהן, מזמור לדוד, מאמרים בסדר פרשיות התורה ומועדי השנה, חלק ב, תקנו עמודים

41. ר’ יצחק שילת, רפואה הלכה וכוונות התורה, 278 עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן עינינים והקדמה]

42. אנציקלופדיה תלמודית כרך לב [כפרות-כתבי קודש] [ניתן לקבל תוכן הענינים]

43. אנציקלופדיה תלמודית כרך לג [כתובה – לא יומתו אבות על בנים] [ניתן לקבל תוכן הענינים]

44. ישורון, קונטרס חנוכה ופורים תיד עמודים

45. סידור אור השנים, לבעל הפרד”ס, ר’ אריה ליב עפשטיין, אהבת שלום, תתקצג עמודים

46. סידור עליות אליהו אשכנז מהדורה שניה, 817 עמודים

47. סידור אזור אליהו, כמנהג רבנו הגר”א ע”פ נוסח אשכנז, מהדורה תשיעית, [כיס]

48. קובץ מאמרי טוביה פרשל לרגל מלאת השלשים לפטירתו, 149 עמודים

49. קובץ מאמרי טוביה פרשל, כרך ב, 129 עמודים

50. ספר בנות מלכים, עניני לידת הבת בהלכה ובאגדה, קס עמודים

51. ר’ זאב זיכערמאן, אוצר פלאות התורה, שמות, תתקא עמודים

52. ר’ שריה דבליצקי, תנאים טובים, תנאים בכוונת השמות הק’, נז עמודים

53. ר’ יאיר עובדיה, קונטרס הלכה ומציאות בזמן הזה, כללים ביחס ההלכה כלפי המציאות, 75 עמודים

54. ר’ דוד פלק כנור דוד, חדושים ובאורים בפיוטי זמירות שבת קודש, תצה עמודים

55. ר’ ישראל מורגנשטרן, החמשל בשבת בזמנינו, קכ עמודים

56. משוש דור ודור, מסכת חייו וקצות דרכיו בקודש של מרן רבנו יוסף שלום אלישיב זצוק”ל, חלק א, 442 עמודים

57. ר’ דוד אברהם, מפיו אנו חיים, תולדות רבינו חיים פלאג’י, מכון ירושלים, שה עמודים

58. ר’ בן ציון בערגמאן, מיכאל באחת, פרקי חייו והליכותיו בקודש של רבנו מיכאל אליעזר הכהן פארשלעגער, תלמיד של ה’אבני נזר’, תלא עמודים [כולל מכתבים חשובים ועוד]

59. ר’ נחום סילמן, אדרת שמואל, לקט הנהגות ופסקים של רבי שמואל סלנט, כולל קובץ ימי שמואל, פרקי חיים, תש”ן עמודים [ניתן לקבל דוגמא]

60. מסורה ליוסף, עיונים במורשתו של ר’ יוסף קאפח, הלכה ומחשבה, חלק ח, 597 עמודים

61. ר’ חיים קדם, נהג כצאן יוסף, משנתו החינוכית של הרה”ג יוסף קאפח, 219 עמודים

62. ר’ מרדכי שפירא, דברות מרדכי, בדיני ברכת מעין שלש, קונטרס בענין אחיזת הבשמים בשמאל בהבדלה, רעח עמודים

63. ר’ דוד יוסף, הלכה ברורה, ה’ אמירה לנכרי בשבת, ב’ חלקים

64. ר’ יצחק אדלר, תדיר קודם, כללים ובירורי הלכה בדין תדיר ושאינו תדיר תדיר קודם, שפ עמודים הגדות

1. הגדה של פסח מיטיב נגן, להגאון ר’ יעקב עמדין, עם הוספות מכתב יד המחבר [ניתן לקבל דוגמא], ר’ בומבך, כולל הדרשות ‘פסח גדול’ ו’שערי עזרה’.

2. ר’ אליעזר אשכנזי הגדה של פסח עם פירוש מעשי ה’ החדש עם באורים והערות, מהדיר: ר’ יהושע גאלדבערג, שלא עמדים

3. הגדה של פסח, עם פירוש הגר”א כפי שהדפיס תלמידו רבי מנחם מענדיל משקלאוו עול פי דפוסים קדמונים, נערך ע”י ר’ חנן נובל, קפג עמודים + פירוש הגר”א לשיר השירים, צח עמודים

4. רבי בנימין גיטעלסאהן, הגדה של פסח עם באור נגיד ונפיק, [נדפס לראשונה בתרס”ד בסיוע של האדר”ת], עם הרבה הוספות חדשות הערות ותיקונים שהעלה המחבר בכתב ידו בגליון שלו, נפדס ע”י ידידי ר’ שלום דזשייקאב, רנב עמודים [מצוין]

קבצים

1. המעין גליון 208

2. המעין גליון 209

3. ישורון כרך ל [מצוין] [ניתן לקבל תוכן הענינים] [כולל בין השאר חומר חשוב על ר’ יעקב עמדין מכ”י וגם הרבה חומר מאת הגאון ר’ חיים לוין]

–
כידוע, לפני כמה שנים יצאה בהוצאת מאגנס ספר גדול ממדים ע”י ד”ר בנימין בראון בשם: ‘החזון איש’ הפוסק, המאמין המהפכה החרדית. הספר זכה לכמות חריגה של ביקורות, פנימיות וחיצוניות. לאחרונה גם קובץ ישורון הדפיס מאמר גדול על הספר ובקובץ החדש הגיב ד”ר בנימין וגם הכותב של המאמר הראשון, יהושע ענבל, הגיב לתגובה. בגלל חסר מקום בקובץ ישורון הדפיסו רק חלק של שני מאמרים אלו. באינטרנט עלו שני המאמרים השלמים, שאפשר לשולח למי שמבקש.

4. אור ישראל גליון סח

5. עץ חיים גליון כא

6. מן הגנזים, ספר ראשון, ‘אוסף גנזים מתורתם של קדמונים גנזי ראשונים ותורת אחרונים דברי הלכה ואגדה, נדפסים לראשונה מתוך כתב יד, תטז עמודים

7. קובץ אסיף, שנתון איגוד ישיבות ההסדר, ב’ חלקים, 413+414 עמודים, תלמודהלכה תנ”ך ומחשבה [מלא חומר חשוב]

8. ארזים, גנזות וחידושי תורה, חלק ב מכון שובי נפשי, תתכב עמודים

מחקר וכדומה

1. מסכת סוכה, פרקים ד-ה, משה בנוביץ, 802 עמודים

2. אסופה, ארבעה מאמרים מאוצרות הר”ש אשכנזי שליט”א [‘העלם דבר וטעות סופר’, ‘הגונב מן הספר’, ‘הרמב”ם כמתרגם מלשון התלמוד ללשון המשנה’, ‘מילונות עברית כיצד’?], ערך והשלים והביא לבית הדפוס, יעקב ישראל סטל, בהשתתפות אליעזר יהודה בראדט, כריכה רכה, 166 עמודים.

3. שלום רוזנברג, בעקבות הזמן היהודי, הפילוסופיה של לוח השנה, ידיעות ספרים, 383 עמודים

4. אסופה ליוסף, קובץ מחקרים שי ליוסף הקר, מרכז זלמן שזר, [מצוין], ניתן לקבל תוכן ענינים, 596 עמודים

5. גבורות ישעיהו, דרישות וחקירות אמרות ברורות על ישעיהו צבי וינוגרד, בהגיע לשנת הגבורות, נדפס במאה עותקים בלבד, 110 עמודים [ניתן לקבל תוכן ודוגמא]

6. שליחות, מיכאל ויגודה, 1008 עמודים, המשפט העברי

7. ר’ דוד משה מוסקוביץ, המבוא לספרי הרמב”ם, [פירוש המשניות, ספרי המצות, משנה תורה] ניתן לקבל דוגמא,

8. אייל בן אליהו, בין גבולות, תחומי ארץ ישראל בתודעה היהודית בימי הבית השני, ובתקופת המשנה והתלמוד, בן צבי, 348 עמודים, [מצוין]

9. יעל לוין, תפילות לטבילה, 29 עמודים [ראה כאן] [להשיג אצל המחברת ylevine@013net.net]

10. יוצרות רבי שמואל השלישי [מאה העשירית] ב’ חלקים, מהדירים: יוסף יהלום, נאויה קצומטה, בן צבי, 1139 עמודים

11. קובץ על יד כרך כב [ניתן לקבל תוכן ענינים]

12. יואל אליצור, מקום בפרשה, גיאוגרפיה ומשמעות במקרא, ידיעות ספרים, 480 עמודים, [מציון]

13. זר רימונים, מחקרים במקרא ופרשנותו מוקדשים לפר’ רימון כשר, ניתן לקבל תוכן העינים, 640 עמודים

14. משנת ארץ ישראל , שמואל וזאב ספראי, דמאי, 293 עמודים

15. משנת ארץ ישראל שמואל וזאב ספראי, מעשרות ומעשר שני, 460 עמודים

16. משנת ארץ ישראל, אבות, זאב ספראי, 390 עמודים

17. תרביץ, פב חוברת א, [מצוין] [ניתן לקבל תוכן], 216 עמודים

18. נטועים, גליון יח, 214 עמודים

19. בד”ד 28

20. דעת 76, עדות לאהרן, ספר היובל לכבוד ר’ אהרן ליכטנשטיין, הוצאת בר אילן, 304 עמודים

21. ברכה זעק, ממעיינות ספר אלימה לר’ משה קורדובירו ומחקרים בקבלתו, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון, 262 עמודים.

22. עמנואל טוב, ביקורת נוסח המקרא, מהדורה שנייה מורחבת ומתוקנת, נ+411+32 עמודים

23. ליאורה אליאס בר לבב, מכילתא דרשב”י, פרשת נזיקין, נוסח מונחים מקורות ועריכה, בעריכת מנחם כהנא, מגנס, 392 עמודים

24. שד”ל, הויכוח, ויכוח על חכמת הקבלה ועל קדמות ספר הזוהר, וקדמות הנקודות והטעמים, כרמל,41+ 142 עמודים

25. יחיל צבן, ונפשו מאכל תאוה, מזון ומיניות בספרות ההשכלה, ספריית הילל בן חיים, 195 עמודים

26. רחל אליאור, ישראל בעל שם טוב ובני דורו, שני חלקים הוצאת כרמל,

27. מאה סיפורים חסר אחד, אגודת כתב יד ירושלים בפולקלור היהודי של ימי הביניים, עם מבוא והערות מאת עלי יסיף, אוניבריסיטת תל אביב, 351 עמודים

28. רוני מירון, מלאך ההיסטוריה דמות העבר היהודי במאה העשרים, מגנס, 388 עמודים

29. יצחק נתנאל גת, המכשף היהודי משואבך, משפטו של רב מדינת ברנדנבורג אנסבך צבי הריש פרנקל, ספריית הילל בן חיים, 211 עמודים

30. טל קוגמן, המשכילים במדעים חינוך יהודי למדעים במרחב דובר הגרמנית בעת החדשה, מגנס 243 עמודים

31. נעמי סילמן, המשמעות הסמלית של היין בתרבות היהודית, ספריית הילל בן חיים, 184 עמודים

32. שמואל ורסס, המארג של בדיון ומציאות בספרותנו, מוסד ביאליק

33. יהושע בלאו, בלשנות עברית, מוסד ביאליק

34. יוסף פרל, מגלה טמירין, ההדיר על פי דפוס ראשון וכתבי-יד והוסיף מבוא וביאורים יונתן מאיר, מוסד ביאליק. ג’ חלקים. כרכים ‘מגלת טמירין’ כולל 345 עמודים +מח עמודים; כרך ‘נספחים’ עמ’ 349-620; כרך ‘חסידות מדומה’ עיונים בכתביו הסאטיריים של יוסף פרל, 316 עמודים.

35. קרן חוה קירשנבום, ריהוט הבית במשנה, הוצאת בר אילן, 342 עמודים

36. מאיר רוט, אורתודוקסיה הומאנית, מחשבת ההלכה של הרב פרופ’ אליעזר ברקוביץ, ספריית הילל בן חיים, 475 עמודים

37. גלעד ששון, מלך והדיוט, יחסם של חז”ל לשלמה המלך, רסלינג, 243 עמודים

38. יומנו של מוכתר בירושלים, קרות שכונות בית ישראל וסביבתה בכתביו של ר’ משה יקותיאל אלפרט [1938-1952], בעריכת פינסח אלפרט ודותן גורן, הוצאת אוניברסיטת בר אילן,414 עמודים

39. אהרן סורסקי, אש התורה, על ר’ אהרן קוטלר, ב’ חלקים

40. ר’ משה סופר, המנהיג, תרפ”א- תשע”ד, פרקי מוסף ממסכת חיו המופלאה של מרן ר’ עובדיה יוסף, 525 עמודים

41. ר’ יחיאל מיכל שטרן, מרן, תולדות חיין של מרן רבי עובדיה יוסף, שפג עמודים,

42. ר’ דב אליאך, ובכל זאת שמך לא שכחנו, חלק ב, זכורות בני ישיבה שיחות אישיות עם בחורי ישבות של פעם, 399 עמודים

43. ר’ אליהו מטוסוב, עין תחת עיון, כיצד חוקרים אישים בישראל, אודו הרמב”ם והצדיק רבי משה בן רבינו הזקן [כנגד דוד אסף ועוד], 202 עמודים

44. שואף זורח, בסערות התקופה במערכה להעמדת הדת על תילה, מכון דעת תורה, 739 עמודים

45. ר’ עובדיה חן, הכתב והמכתב, פרקי הדרכה והנחיה באמנות הכתיבה התורנית, [מהדורה שניה], תמד עמודים

46. קתרסיס יט, [פורסמה תגובה של בנימין בראון למאמר הביקורת של פרופ’ שלמה זלמן הבלין שפורסמה בגליון הקודם של קתרסיס, וגם תגובה של שלמה זלמן הבלין לתגובה של בראון] Available upon request

English

1.
Dialogue, 4, 305 pp.-

2.
Hakirah 16, 246+45 pp.

3.
Benjamin Richler, Guide to Hebrew
manuscript collections, Second revised edition, Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities, 409 pp. [TOC available]

4.
Chaeran Y. Freeze & Jay Harris [editors], Everyday
Jewish life in Imperial Russia, Select Documents, Brandeis University
Press, 635 pp

5.
Rabbi Daniel Mann, A Glimpse at Greatness,
A study in the work of Lomdus (Halachic Analysis), Eretz Hemdah, 262 pp.

This work deals with four great Achronim; the Machaneh Ephrayim, K’tzot
HaChoshen, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, and the Minchat Chinuch. The author
provides a brief history of each one of these Achronim and then he delves into
their methods. He provides four samples of Torah of each one of these Achronim
with the background of the related sugyah and presents their methods clearly.
It’s a more in-depth version of Rav Zevin classic work Ishim Vishitos in
English. A Table of contents is available upon request.

6.
Rabbi Binyamin Lau, Jermiah, The fate of a
Prophet, Maggid- Koren, 225 pp.

7.
Moshe Halbertal, Maimonides Life and
thought, Princeton University Press, 385 pp.

8.
Rabbi Mordechai Trenk, Treasures,
Illuminating insights on esoteric Torah Topics, 244 pp

9.
Daniel Sperber, On the Relationship of
Mitzvot between man and his neighbor and man and his Maker, Urim Press 221
pp.

10.
Rabbi Dovid Brofsky, Hilkhot Mo’adim,
Understanding the laws of the Festivals, Maggid-Koren, 753 pp.

11.
Rabbi Moshe Meiselman, Torah Chazal and
Science, Israel book Shop, 887 pp.

12.
Rabbi J. David Bleich, The Philosophical
Quest of Philosophy, Ethics, Law and Halakhah, Maggid-Koren, 434 pp. This
book is beautiful and will hopefully get its own post in the near future.

Legacy Judaica Spring 2021 Auction

By Dan Rabinowitz and Eliezer Brodt

Legacy Auction Judaica is holding its Spring auction on May 30th (link) and it provides us the opportunity to discuss some interesting bibliographical and historical books and items.

Item #7 is the first edition of Charedim printed in 1601. This is the first appearance of R. Elazar Azkiri’s song Yedid Nefesh in print. For a full discussion of this Tefilah see Bentcy Eichorn, Zemirot Zion, pp. 91-106. This volume also has many unidentified glosses.

Another entry of note is Item #147, the Hida’s copy of the 1545 edition of the Sifra with what may be his marginalia.

An item with important glosses is Item #160 which has the notes of R’ Chaim Sofer known as ‘the Hungarian R’ Chaim,’ on the work Sharei Torah. See also Item #61 which has glosses from R’ Hirsch Berlin.

Item #79, is the first edition, Seder Zera’im. While small portions of the Tiferes Yisrael commentary on the Mishna proved controversial, this volume contains the approbation of R. Akiva Eiger, who is also listed on the subscriber list.

Another controversial work, the late R. Nosson Kamenetsky’s Making of a Godol, is Item #97. This is the first edition, not the later edition which censored material from the first. We discuss some of the controversy, bans, and differences between the editions, in a series of articles here, here, here, and here.

Also a controversial work is Item #100, Pulmus haMussar which discusses the dispute regarding the Mussar movement. Revealing the inner machinations between the parties proved controversial itself and Pulmus was printed just once and it has never been reprinted. Regarding this work, see Eitam Henkin, Ta’arokh le-fani Shulkhan, 123-139.

Item #136’s description contains an interesting cryptic note about the copy of Pe’as Hashulchan: “Includes the rare final page of corrections and polemics”.

Here is the story behind this sentence: In 1799 one of the earliest authorized works of the Gra printed was the Shenos Eliyahu. In the back there was a section called Likutim.

Here is the text of the Gra Related to Mesorah:

In 1821 R’ Wolf Heidenheim wrote about this:

This is what R’ Shklover is referring to in the last page of his work without naming who he was referring to:

Interestingly enough R’ Yitzchaki of Bnei Brak in an article in Yeshurun 5 (1999) pp. 535-537 concludes that R’ Heidenheim was correct. In later editions of the Pe’as Hashulchan has the piece of R’ Shklover added into the proper place in the important introduction of the work. (Thanks to Y. Yankelowitz for his sources and materials).

Another work of the Gra is the first edition of the Biur ha-Gra on Shulhan Orakh (Item #137). This edition removed many standard commentaries (Taz, etc.) but not the Be’er ha-Goleh because he was related to the Gra. A Shulhan Orakh with just the Gra’s commentary proved not viable because when people purchased a Shulhan Orakh they wanted all the standard commentaries in addition to the Gra’s. In the middle of the publication of the Even ha-Ezer volume the publishers decided that they would include the other commentaries even if it meant moving the Gaon’s commentary to the bottom, they received permission from R. Chaim Volozhin to do so.

About Item #18 Messechtas Purim see our discussion earlier on the blog here.

Item #25 is Peirush Megilas Achashverosh, Venice 1565. The description states:

R. Zechariah ben Saruk (1450-c. 1540), was one of the great Chachamim of Spain… With an important introduction, which provides a rare historical glimpse into the travails of Jews who were exiled from Spain as well into as other challenges of that period.

Worth quoting is part of another piece from this interesting introduction:

שהראשונים הניחו לנו לדבר אבל לא לקנטר ואני תמה מאד מן החכם העניו ה”ר שמואל די בידאש נ”ע איך נפל ברשת מאמר האומר אין משיבין על הארי אחר שמת? וזה לשתי סבות הא’ שהוא ידוע לקטני עריסה [רץ המונחים בעריסה] כי קטנם עבה ממתנינו, וההקש והערך שיש בין ידיעתם לידעתנו הוא בערך גלגל ערבות אל נמלה אחת, השנית שהחכמים ההם ע”ה שחברו מה שחברו, האירו לנו בחיבוריהם מפיהם אנו חיים, אם כן מה נהיה כפויי טובה ששתינו מים זכים מבורם ועתה נקנטר כנגדם. ובעת שאמר החכם הנזכר על בעל העטור והרא”ש והרמב”ם ז”ל שהוכו בסנורים, ודברים אחרים, זרים לכל חכם לב לאומרם מאשלי רברבי. ותמהני מחכמתו שאני הייתי מכיר אותו היטב שהוא חכם ועניו איך אמר בהקדמת ספרו מה שסתר אחר כך בספרו? כי אמר בהקדמתו שהסתירה אשר לא יכוןי הסותר לבייש את האשר נעלם ממנו דבר, כי אין זה מורידו מחזקתו. והאמת כן הוא. ובספרו, כשחלק על הגאונים הנזכרים אמר שהוכו בסנורים

ונראה לי דילמא מר נאים כדנפק שמעתתיה מפומיה, כמו שאמרו על רבי יהושע בן לוי, כדאיתא במסכת נדה פרק המפלת. ולא זו בלבד הזהיר לנו חז”ל, אבל גם כן אמרו במוסריהם שלא יחלוק אדם על רבו אפילו בעודו בחיים חייתו, ולכן אמרו בירושלמי לית ריש לקיש מתריס כלפי רבי יוחנן, למפיגל עליה לאפוקי מיניה עובדא. העובדא היה שהוראה רבי יוחנן לתלמידו ריש לקיש שהצפורן אינה מטמא, כמו שהמחלוקת הוא בירשלמי במסכת הורית פרק כהן משוח

ובעבור שזה האיש היה חשוב במדותיו, נאמר שזה היה כשגגה שיוצא מלפני השליט ולכן בכל מה שחלק כנגד גאונים עולם, לא אדבר אלא באחד, בעבור שנשבעתי ואקיימה להיות כנגד כל איש שיחלוק נגד הרא”ש והרמב”ם ז”ל וכו’

על כל שאר הדברים שהטיח כנגדם, ובפרט נגד הראב”ע ז”ל אשר אחר חתימת התלמוד היה רשום ככל הגאונים, אף אלפי שהיה הוא גאון, וראו מה שכתב עליו הרמב”ם לבנו, והוא היה חכם כולל ושלם בכל חכמה. ואנכי ראיתי חדושי הראב”ע ממסכת קידושין [ותוס’ הביאו בקידושין לו א], והם בתכלית הדקות האימות, ובא החכם ר’ שמואל די וידאש, האל יכפרהו לומר עליו, ולא אמר אמת ואינו נכון ודברים אחרים, שאינם ראויים לדבר כנגד האשל הגדול הראב”ע. ומה שאמרתי לא הייתי אומר, אלא שנקרת בפי’ אחד שלו מהמגלה הזאת

Last year this rare work was reprinted based on the first edition and manuscripts with notes and a useful introduction about the work.

Item #37 is the rare work Tal Oros. This work is almost completely unknown to most poskim. One important exception was the Magen Avraham who quoted it numerous times in his classic work on Shulchan Aruch. For additional information about this author see this earlier post on the blog (here).

Previously we have mentioned how we can learn about works found in different people’s libraries. Item #163 is the Beis Halevi’s copy of the classic work of the Malbim on Orach Chaim which sadly was never completed.

An interesting bibliographical scoop about this work can be found in an interview in Mishpacha Magazine in the September 4, 2019 (Issue #776, p. 50) by Rabbi Yonason Sacks. He describes purchasing the Malbim’s own copy which had an important gloss to a specific passage.

The catalog’s letters section is always an important way to learn about interesting unknown historical documents and the like.

Item #229 we learn about a newspaper written in Yeshivas Telz for Purim. This tradition is found already in Volozhin as described by Shaul Stampfer and continues until today.

Item #182 is another Letter of R. Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, author of the Orakh ha-Shulhan.

This letter has a very interesting passage (which the entry downplays) we already wrote about back in 2007 (here). In this letter he wrote not to write to R’ Spektor as he is מוקף מסביב and write to the Netziv even though he is sick.

Shockingly enough R’ Chaim Kanievskey advised R’ Horowitz, the editor of this edition, not to edit out this line.

Item #224 must be highlighted as this is an incredible manuscript, which relates to the famous controversy in Yerushalayim in the 1880’s.

This is a letter from 1887 written by R. Yosef Dov ha-Levi Soloveitchik, the author of the Bes ha-Levi, to his friend R’ Hildesheimer. The catalog description states in part:

During the late 1880’s the old Yishuv of Yerusholayim, then led by the great R. Yehoshua Leib Diskin, was supported by the “Chalukah” system, which was funded by Jews from the Diaspora… He continues that there is still one place that the plague of secular studies has not infiltrated and that is Yerusholayim, and despite the fact that scoffers want to implement secular studies there, the Yishuv, under the leadership of “Rabbeinu HaGadol Me’or Ha’Golah Yochid B’Doreinu B’Torah V’Yirah HaGaon MaHaRIL Diskin Shlit”a, have prevailed and held on to their sacred tradition. However, those who are opposed to the Chachomim are totally persistent in their publications against the Yishuv and the MaHaRIL”. The Beis Ha’Levi therefore requests that R. Hildesheimer publicize that he disagrees with this view, and that he reaffirm that it is forbidden for the school system in the Old Yishuv, which was constituted primarily of students with Lithuanian backgrounds, to implement these changes…

In this letter we see the incredible respect that the Beis Halevi had from R’ Yehoshua Leib Diskin, something known to us from many other sources.

R’ Hildesheimer’s role in this controversy has been discussed a bit by David Ellenson, Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy, pp. 110-112,123-126.

Many aspects of this fascinating controversy have been dealt with by R’ Eitam Henkin HY”d in various articles.

One important point is from the Beis Halevi letter it sounds like all Lithuanian Gedolim sided with R’ Diskin but this is not so simple at all. R’ Shmuel Salant definitely did not agree with R’ Diskin on this. IYH this will be discussed at greater length in the future.

Hillel Noach Magid Steinschneider’s Ir Vilna

Hillel Noach Magid Steinschneider’s Ir Vilna
by Dan Rabinowitz

Vilna being one of the most important cities in Jewish history has a fair amount written about it. One of the classic works discussing the history and persons of Vilna is that of Hillel Noach Magid Steinschneider‘s Ir Vilna. This book was originally published in 1900 by the Romm press. This was only the first volume and Steinschneider envisioned publishing a second volume in short time, however, due to financial constraints he was unable to do so. Steinschneider did was not a historian by profession and instead was employed as a stone etcher for burial monuments – hence his surname Steinschneider which means “stone cutter.” [1] Although he was not a professional historian, his work on Vilna was universally recognized. He not only write this book on Vilna but was also intimately involved with Shmuel Yosef Fuenn’s work on Vilna – Kiryah Ne’emana. Steinschneider gave Fuenn material and eventually, in the second edition, wrote extensive notes. [2]

As for Steinschneider’s own work, it was not until 2003 Magnes published the second volume of this work (and included a nice introduction both about Steinschnider and his work). In part, the reason Steinschneider was unable to publish the second volume, was because people were hesitant to purchase just one volume of a multi-volume work. I have heard people make the same comment about the second volume, namely, they don’t only want the second of two volumes. But, now this has been remedied as someone has republished the first so both are now in print. (Both are available at Biegeleisen of Boro Park 718-436-1165.)

Aside from the importance of this work for the history of Vilna, there is also something curious in this addition – the publishers introduction. Steinschneider included information about all the important (and lesser important) people in Vilna. In doing so, he includes information [3] which from an Orthodox perspective some would find objectionable. Rather than censor this material out or not reprint this at all, the editors deal with this up front. In the introduction they note that Steinschnider was a maskil and that his writing was influenced by the haskalah. They also note that he included people who others found objectionable. For instance they state that Steinschneider discusses the poet “Abraham Dov Lebensohn (Adam HaKohen)” of whom the Hafetz Hayyim would add ימ”ש (may his name be erased).

But, at the end, the publishers explain they decided that even though there was “פסולת” (lit. chaff) the good content outweighed the bad and therefore they have decided to republish this book.

Of course, this is stark contrast to numerous contemporary instances of either removal of the פסולת or not reprinting books that contain any פסולת at all.

Hillel Noach Magid Steinschneider

Notes:
[1] See Ir Vilna vol. 2 p. 1.
[2] Id. at 4-7 for how extensive Steinschneider’s involvement was.
[3] Although it is the second volume which is more or less dedicated to biographies and history of maskilim the first volume also contains some of that information as well.

Some Notes on Censorship of Hebrew Books

Some Notes on Censorship of Hebrew Books

by Norman Roth

Habent sua fata libelli (Books have their fate)

One of the tragedies of the Inquisition and the Expulsions – both from Spain and Portugal– which has received very little attention is the destruction and loss of Hebrew manuscripts and books. Since the printing of Hebrew books in Spain began many years before the Expulsion, this loss involved printed books as well as manuscripts. Indeed, due to these losses, since only fragments survive of some of the earliest examples of Hebrew printing in Spain it may be impossible to ever know with certainty when this printing actually began. [1]

The edict of Expulsion (1492) caught the Jews of Spain completely by surprise. Even though extensions were granted, it was not always possible to arrange for the transport of books, perhaps especially for the several thousand Jews of northern Castile who had to make their way on foot across the border into Portugal. [2] Many of the Jewish exiles of 1492 returned from Portugal and North Africa in that year and in 1493, as well as later years, to be baptized and live again in Spain. Fernando and Isabel permitted these conversos to keep Hebrew and Arabic books as long as they were not about the Jewish law or glosses and commentaries to the Bible, or, specifically mentioned, the Talmud or prayer books. A Jew of Borja who returned after the Expulsion and converted to Christianity reported that a Jewish cofradía (religious brotherhood) of that town had left 55 books valued at 4,000 jaqueses, but he wanted no part of the books because he had converted.[3]

Portugal

Isaac Ibn Faraj, one of the exiles from Portugal, reported that the king had ordered that all the books which the Jews had brought with them from Spain were to be collected and burned. Nonetheless, not all books were, in fact, burned. Another source reveals that long after the Jews were expelled from Portugal, the king of Morocco sent Jewish delegates there, one of whom was a qabalist who asked permission to see a famous biblical manuscript brought by the Jews from Spain, and this manuscript was among the books seized by the king and kept in a “synagogue filled with books.”[4]

Levi Ibn Shem Tov and his two brothers, apparently the great-grandsons of the Spanish qabalist Shem Tov b. Joseph (not, as usually stated, Shem Tov b. Shem Tov), advised King Manoel to seize all the Jewish books. Their intention had also been to burn the Sefer ha-emunot of their great-grandfather, because of his criticism of Maimonides, but they became afraid because of an order of the king not to burn any Jewish books, and therefore they hid the book in a synagogue in Lisbon. When the Jews were expelled from Portugal, those Jews who had been appointed by the king to search out and seize all books discovered this hidden manuscript and brought it, along with portions of the yet-unpublished Zohar, to Turkey (these men were Moses Zarco, Isaac Barjilun, Moses Mindeh [?], and apparently Solomon Ibn Verga, author of the semi-fictitious chronicle Shevet Yehudah). This undeniably accurate testimony appears to contradict the eyewitness account of Ibn Faraj mentioned earlier. Either he was confused, or else the king issued contradictory orders at different times.[5]

Italy

In 1533 the Talmud was, once again, condemned to the flames in Italy, and with it also legal codes or summaries derived from the Talmud. As in Spain and Portugal, censorship of all Jewish books was under the jurisdiction of the Inquisition. In 1568 a second, more sweeping, destruction of Hebrew books was carried out. Not only Jews, but even Christians, who dared to print such prohibited Hebrew books were subject to punishment, such as exile in the case of Jews, or loss of license in the case of Christians. Rabbi Judah Lerma, perhaps the first Sefardic author who so declared himself, proudly, on the title page of his book, published his Lehem Yehudah, a commentary on Avot, in Sabionetta (1554).

In his introduction to the work, printed by Tuviah Foa, he states he had already had it printed in the previous year, but the decree consigning to the flames the Talmud and Jacob Ibn Habib’s famous anthology of the talmudic agadah had also caught his work, as well as the laws of Isaac al-Fasi, and the entire edition of 1500 copies of his book (a very large printing for the time) was burned. (Later he was able to purchase, at great cost, one copy which had been saved by Gentiles; if that copy had survived until today it would certainly be the rarest Hebrew book in the world.)

David Conforte (1618-1685) also briefly cited this introduction, noting that his maternal grandfather Yequtiel Azuz, a grammarian and qabalist who lived in Italy, lost his own copy of the Talmud in the burning which took place in the same year. Ironically, a later Judah Lerma, a rabbi in Belgrade, an apparent descendant of Judah Lerma, also lost most of the edition of his own responsa in a fire in that city (ca.1650), but at least that was a natural disaster. [6]

Shortly after the burning of the Talmud, Rabbi Samuel de Medina of Salonica, who already had news of the event, wrote that because of this, and the general religious persecution taking place in Italy, any Jew who remains there “without doubt shows no fear for his soul or his Torah,” for were it not so how would a Jew dare remain there? Furthermore, he wrote, it is impossible even to study Torah (Talmud) in Italy. Therefore, all Italian Jews should come to the Ottoman empire to live, since “the soul and body and also possessions are immeasurably safer in this kingdom.”[7]

Marranos and Censorship

In addition to this loss of manuscripts and books, the invention of printing brought with it a new fear, that of censorship. Much has been written about the censorship of Hebrew books at the hands of Christians, but less known is the “internal” censorship practiced particularly by “Marranos,” or descendants of those who converted to Christianity and then decided to become Jews. They often brought with them the inherited Catholic condemnation of people (excommunication, as in the case of Spinoza) and of books which they judged to be offensive.

Amsterdam. Some descendants of Portuguese Jews who had converted to Christianity eventually fled to Italy, where they decided to go to Amsterdam and convert to Judaism. One of the most famous of these was Miguel (Daniel Levi) de Barrios (1635-1701), who was one of the greatest literary figures of the time. He was publicly condemned for visiting “a land of idolatry” (Spain, or Portugal?) and for public profanation of the Sabbath. The publication of his allegorical masterpiece Coro de las musas (1672) was immediately condemned by the Mahamad (official council of the Jewish community). Even more serious was the reaction to his next work, Harmonia del mundo (1674), which was prohibited altogether and was denounced by the famous Rabbi Jacob Sasportas (who led the campaign against Shabetai Sevi) as “converting our Torah into a profane book, making of it a poetic version.” In 1690 his Arbol de vidas [sic; the error is perhaps due to an unconscious influence of the Hebrew plural hayim, “life”) appeared and was also immediately condemned, or more specifically the “conclusions” he appended to it were condemned. The Mahamad prohibited anyone possessing, selling or giving a copy of it to any other Jew on pain of excommunication. Finally, in 1697 he was again condemned for writing a letter to the magistrate of Hamburg which the Mahamad considered potentially injurious to the “Nation” (the community). Thus did the “Nation” honor one of its greatest writers. [8]

Germany. Already in the latter part of the sixteenth century we find mention of some few Portuguese “new Christian” merchants in Germany. One of the most important cities where these “Marranos” settled was Hamburg. In 1612 a five-year contract was made by the Senate of Hamburg with the “Portuguese Nation” (the Marranos) granting them freedom of trade and residence, but stipulating that no synagogue was to be maintained nor were they to “offend” the Christian religion. They could bury their dead in Altona or wherever they chose. The population was not to exceed 150 individuals. In 1617 the original contract with the Senate was renewed for another five years, in return for a payment of 2,000 marks, and again in 1623.[9]

Having grown up and been educated in such an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in Portugal, it is perhaps not surprising that Marranos, new converts to Judaism, applied hardly less intolerant measures of censorship within their own communities. For example, the “offensive” books of Manuel de Pina (a Jew) were ordered burned by the Sefardic communities of Amsterdam and of Hamburg (1656). In 1666 the Mahamad of Hamburg ordered copies of Moses Gideon Abudiente’s book Fin de los dias (“End of days”) sealed and locked in the community safe “until the time for which we hope arrives;” i.e., until the “end of days”! Furthermore, it was decided to impose a fine on any member of the community who kept a book which did not have the “Imprimatur” (!) of the Mahamad.[10]

England. In 1664 the Saar Asamaim (Sha ar ha-Shamayim) synagogue enacted the Escamot or Acuerdos adapted from those of Amsterdam. In turn, these ordinances were adopted by the communities of Recife (Brazil), Curaçao and New Amsterdam (New York). These enactments included a prohibition on the printing of books in Hebrew, Ladino, or any other language without the approval of the Mahamad.[11]

Italy. Fear of the Inquisition and of general problems which could be caused by negative references to Spain led to Jewish censorship even of the liturgy. Thus, the Sefardic mahzor printed in Venice in 1519 (second edition in 1524) already omitted the Spanish Hebrew lamentations referring to the attacks on the Jewish communities in 1391;[12] nor was any reference to the Expulsion permitted. In a prayer book, Imrey Na’im, published probably by Menasseh b. Israel (Amsterdam, 1628-30), appeared a poem which seems to be a general lamentation on Jewish suffering, but which Bernstein has shown is found in its original form in the prayer book for fasts, Arba’ah Ta’aniyot, printed in Venice in 1671, when there was no longer fear of an Inquisition. There, in fact, the prayer is a lamentation on the Expulsion.[13]

No doubt there are other examples of Jewish “self-censorship” in this period, but it is hoped that this brief introduction will serve to arouse interest in the topic.

Notes

[1] For information on early printing, and fragments of talmudic tractates, in Spain and Portugal, see my Dictionary of Iberian Jewish and Converso Authors (Madrid, Salamanca, 2007), pp. 39-40 (Nos. 35-37), pp. 56-58 (Nos. 86-101. The second edition of the Torah commentary of Moses b. Nahman (“Nahmanides”) was also printed at Lisbon, 1489.
[2] On censorship of Hebrew books in Spain already before the Inquisition, books owned by conversos, etc., see my Conversos, Inquisition, and the Expulsion of the Jews from Spain (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1995; revised and updated paper ed., 2002), index; seeespecially p. 103, Jews called upon to examine Heb. books owned by conversos, and p. 242.
[3] Miguel Angel Motis Dolader, Expulsión de los judíos del reino de Aragón (Zaragoza, 1990), vol. 2, pp. 338-39.
[4] Elijah Capsali, Seder Eliyahu zuta, ed. Aryeh Shmuelevitz, Shlomo Simonsohn, and MeirBenayahu (Jerusalem, 1975-83), vol.1, p. 238.
[5] Text edited from Ms. by Meir Benayahu in Sefunot 11 [1971-78]: 261, and cf. there p. 234 onLevi Ibn Shem Tov, and p. 246 on Isaac Barjilun, or Barceloni. He and Moses Zarco may have been the important tailors in Portugal, the former the court tailor of João II, mentioned in Maria Jose Pimenta Ferres Tavares, Os judeus em Portugal no século XV (Lisbon,1982-84) vol. 1, pp. 156, 252, 361 and 301. On the Jewish official Judas Barceloni at that time, see ibid. vol. 2, p. 669.
[6] See Abraham Yaari, Meqahrei sefer (Jerusalem, 1958), p. 360, citing the full introduction of Judah Lerma’s commentary; Conforte, Qore ha-dorot (Berlin, 1846; photo rpt. Jerusalem, 1969), pp. 40b and 51b. As have virtually all scholars, Yaari ignored Conforte, and therefore did not mention the second Judah Lerma in his own discussion of books lost in fires (p. 47 ff.).
[7] She’elot u-teshuvot, hoshen mishpat (Salonica, 1595), No. 303; cited in Meir Benayahu, ha-Yahasim she-vein yehudei Yavan le-yehudei Italiah (Tel-Aviv, 1980), pp. 93-94 (my translation);see there also for other important material relating to this and to censorship, pp. 95-97.
[8] See the excerpt of Arbol de la vida in Barrios, Poesía religiosa, ed. Kenneth R. Scholberg (Madrid [Ohio State University Press], s.a. [1962]), p. 99.
[9] Alfredo Cassuto, “Contribução para a história dos judeus portugueses em Hamburg,” Biblos (Coimbra University) 9 (1933): 661; see also Hermann Kellenbenz, Sephardim an der unteren Elbe (Wiesbaden, 1958 [ Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtsschaftsgeschichte No. 40] ), pp. 31-32.
[10] “Protocols” (of the Sefardic of Hamburg); summarized in Jahrbuch der jüdisch- literarischen Gesellschaft 6 (1909); 7 (1909); 10 (1915); 11 (1916); see 7: 183; 11: 27-28.
[11] Miriam Bodian, “The Escamot of the Spanish-Portuguese Jewish Community of London, 1664,” Michael 9 (1985): 23-24, No. 30 (text; in [barbaric] Spanish). Earlier editions and studies are Lionel Barnett, ed., El libro de acuerdos (Oxford, 1931), and N. Laski, The Laws and Charities of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ Congregation of London (1952).
[12] For these, see the translations in the journal Iberia Judaica 3 (2011): 77-113.
[13] Simon Bernstein, ed. #Al naharot Sefarad (Tel-Aviv, 1956), pp. 23, 25, 26-28.

How the “Songs of the Day” Were Chosen

How the “Songs of the Day” Were Chosen

By David Farkas*

The morning prayer service concludes with the Song of the Day, the שיר של יום. All of them are taken from Tehillim, the Psalms. The question is, why were these particular Psalms selected for the different days of the week?

This question is squarely addressed by the Gemara. For this reason, understandably, most commentaries to the Siddur that address it simply refer to the relevant passage, and proceed no further. Yet, as we shall see, the matter does not quite end there alone.

The Custom

During the Temple period, when the daily Tamid offering was brought by the Kohanim, the Levites would accompany the service with song while the drink offerings were poured. Which songs? The Mishna in Tamid (7:4) tells us:

הַשִּׁיר שֶׁהָיוּ הַלְוִיִּם אוֹמְרִים בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים (תהילים כד:א) לַה’ הָאָרֶץ וּמְלוֹאָהּ תֵּבֵל וְיֹשְׁבֵי בָהּ. בַּשֵּׁנִי הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים (מח:ב) גָּדוֹל ה’ וּמְהֻלָּל מְאֹד בְּעִיר אֱלֹקינוּ הַר קָדְשׁוֹ. בַּשְּׁלִישִׁי הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים (פב:א) אֱלֹקים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת-קל בְּקֶרֶב אֱלֹקים יִשְׁפֹּט. בָּרְבִיעִי הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים (צד:א), קל נְקָמוֹת ה’ קל נְקָמוֹת הוֹפִיעַ וְגוֹ’. בַּחֲמִישִׁי הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים (פא:ב) הַרְנִינוּ לֵאלֹהִים עוּזֵּנוּ, הָרִיעוּ לֵאלֹקי יַעֲקֹב. בַּשִּׁשִּׁי הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים (צג:א) ה’ מָלָךְ גֵּאוּת לָבֵשׁ לָבֵשׁ ה’ֹ’. בְּשַׁבָּת הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים (צב:א) מִזְמוֹר שִׁיר לְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת, וכו’.

As one can see, each day a different Psalm was sung, including, in order, Psalms 24, 48, 82, 94, 81, and 93. On Shabbos the Levites would recite Psalm 92, מזמור שיר ליום השבת. This was the custom of the Levites during the times of the Temple.^[1]

The selection of Psalm 92 for Shabbos appears relatively straightforward. Though the tannaim debate whether the “Shabbos” refers to Saturday or a future world to come, the connection of the Psalm to some kind of “Shabbos” is apparent on the surface and will not concern us here. But what about the remaining six weekdays? What connection do these Psalms have with the various days of the week?

The Gemara in Rosh Hashana 31a addresses the question head-on:

תניא רבי יהודה אומר משום ר”ע, בראשון מה היו אומרים, לה’ הארץ ומלואה, על שם שקנה והקנה ושליט בעולמו. בשני וכו’ – על שם שחילק מעשיו ומלך עליהן. בשלישי וכו’ – על שם שגילה ארץ בחכמתו והכין תבל לעדתו. ברביעי וכו’ – על שם שברא חמה ולבנה ועתיד ליפרע מעובדיהן. בחמישי וכו’ – על שם שברא עופות ודגים לשבח לשמו. בששי וכו’ – על שם שגמר מלאכתו ומלך עליהן. בשביעי היו אומרים (צב) מזמור שיר ליום השבת ליום שכולו שבת.

It is far from clear what these interpretations mean. Rashi gives an explanation for most of them. Other Rishonim, like Rabbeinu Chananel and Rabbeinu Bechaye (Exodus 29:40) offer additional explanations of the passage, or various nuanced differences of Rashi’s explanations. All, however, base their words on the sparse language of the Gemara.

And yet, an intellectually honest reader must admit, if only to himself, that these explanations seem, upon review, very forced. For example, Rashi explains that the Tuesday Psalm, which opens with the words
אֱלֹקים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת קל,
was chosen because on this day God exposed the land masses, paving the way for animal and vegetative life and ultimately, for God’s assembly, Israel, which is situated on land. Thursday was selected because when Man sees the myriad species of birds that were created this day, his soul is uplifted, causing him to sing the words הַרְנִינוּ לֵאלֹקים עוּזֵּנוּ.

Can these ideas really be called the theme of the Psalm? Do these Psalms focus on the concepts mentioned by the Gemara, or are the phrases merely mentioned among the other verses? Could not one employ similar methods of drush to read the same concepts into almost any other Psalm?

While not exactly common, commentators will occasionally explain a Mishna differently from the Gemara, if it does not affect practical halacha.^[2] Thus, the question must be asked: Is this passage in Rosh Hashana the last word on the subject?

Suggested Explanations – The Traditional Approach

As a matter of fact, it is not. Several attempts have been made to explain the connection between the days and the Psalms, independently of the Gemara. The following is a brief survey of these explanations, the first two of which can be found in a comprehensive book on the subject of the Song of the Day, by R. Peretz Shmuel HaLevi Mantel, entitled שירת שמואל – על אמרת שיר של יום (Bnei Brak 2003).^[3]

The Chasam Sofer (R. Moshe Sofer, 1762–1839) in his collected Drashos (Vol. I, p. 12) references the Gemara’s explanations, and finds them “very forced”. ( הנה טעמים שאמר התנא דחוק מאד לכוון דבר יום ביומו). Instead, the Chasam Sofer posits that the seven days represent seven distinct periods of history. The first period was a time when God’s glory filled the earth, hence the Sunday Psalm speaks of לה’ הארץ ומלואה. In the second period wickedness began to prevail, and so God restricted His glory to Jerusalem and the Temple; hence, the Monday Psalm speaks of גדול ה’ ומהולל מאד בעיר אלוקינו הר קדשו . In the third period wickedness extended further and so God restricted his presence to the 4 cubits of halacha, or stated otherwise, to Judges; thus, the Tuesday Psalm speaks of אלוקים נצב בעתת אל בקרב אלוהים ישפוט. In a similar fashion the Chasam Sofer explains the ensuing days of the week – with no attempt to conform to the words of the Gemara.

The Vilna Gaon (1720 – 1797)) in his commentary to Tamid also offers an independent explanation, citing a statement in the Zohar to the effect that each Song of the Day corresponds to a thousand years of the eventual six thousand years the world is destined to endure, the final day of Shabbos referring to a time to come after the initial 6,000 year period. Having established this background, the Gaon adopts a similar approach as the Chasam Sofer in characterizing each thousand-year period, and then finding a reference in the Psalms to that period. Thus, for example, in the third thousand the Torah was given and holiness descended unto the world, hence the reference in the Tuesday Psalm to אלוקים נצב בעדת קל. In the fourth thousand the Temple was destroyed, prompting God to promise revenge, and hence the Wednesday reference to God as קל נקמות.

A problem with this approach, as noted by the aforementioned R. Mantel, is that there is actually no such passage in the Zohar. (In fact, as will be shown presently, the Zohar offers a completely different explanation, at least for the Monday Psalm.) The 6000-year duration of the world is well-known from various Talmudic passages, but there is no known statement connecting the Song of the Day to this tradition. Presumably, R. Mantel suggests, the Gaon was referring to Rashi’s statement in Avoda Zara 9a that “the six thousand years correspond to the days of the week, and Shabbos refers to the calm that will befall the world in the seventh thousand.” This statement, however, makes no connection whatsoever to the Songs of the Day.

In addition to the foregoing explanations, one can also find other suggestions that do not truly accord with the passage in Rosh Hashana. Some, like R. Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin (1823 – 1900) ostensibly make efforts to work their suggestions into the words of the Gemara, but it is quite apparent that they are really offering their own interpretations. The unique style of R. Tzadok makes his words sometimes difficult to understand, and almost impossible to translate, without copious explanatory notes. The interested reader is referred to the article שיר של יום בתורת ר’ צדוק הכהן by R. Yishayahu Hadari (סיני # נג, תשכ”ג עמודים עה-צא).

Finally, there are also individual explanations that, although structured to appear merely as commentary to the above Gemara, a close reading shows they are really the commentator’s own explanations. The Ben Ish Chai, for example, states that the Sunday Psalm is auspicious (a סגולה) for one’s livelihood, which is why it is recited communally after the evening prayers on Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur. Thus, the first day of the working week is appropriate for its recitation. The Zohar (Vayikra 56b Margolios ed.) states that the Monday Psalm was selected for the second day because the sons of Korach who authored it sing for their brothers doomed to sit by the entrance of hell, which was created on the second day.^[4] Rabbeinu Bechaye (Ibid.) asserts that the Thursday Psalm was selected because it speaks of God redeeming us from Egypt, and we find Biblical comparison of Pharoah to a crocodile; hence, the Psalm is recited on Thursday, the day such creatures were created.^[5] As one can see, none of these explanations are actually founded on the words of the Gemara.^[6]

From the foregoing, it is apparent that the passage in Rosh Hashana, though it looms large over all discussion on the topic, is not necessarily the last word. Even the greatest of Rishonim and Achronim have offered alternative explanations. Yet, while they are not based on the Gemara that actually addresses the question, all these explanations are still based on other Gemaras or Midrashim that seem to bear on the topic. However, there is another approach that must be explored as well.

The Non-Traditional Approach

The Bar Ilan University publishes a weekly D’var Torah, under the auspices of the official campus Rabbi. In a short, 2-page article for the 2008 edition of פרשת בחוקתי, Dr. Rachel Reich observes the following: In each of the Psalms for the week, the name of God appears in the numbered word associated with the day.

That is, the brief note of introduction to the Psalm (the כותרת, i.e, לדוד מזמור, מזמור לאסף, etc.) should be set aside, focusing only on the actual Psalm itself. On Sunday, the opening phrase is לה’ הארץ ומלואה – the name of God for the first day appears as the first word. On Monday, the Psalm begins גָּדוֹל ה’ וּמְהֻלָּל מְאֹד – again, the name of God for the second day appears as the second word. On Tuesday the phrase is אֱלֹהִים נִצָּב בַּעֲדַת-קל, the name of God again appears as the hyphenated third word for the third day. On Wednesday אֵל נְקָמוֹת ה’ קל נְקָמוֹת הוֹפִיעַ it appears as the fourth word for the fourth day. On Thursday it is הַרְנִינוּ לֵאלֹהִים עוּזֵּנוּ, הָרִיעוּ לֵאלֹקֵי יַעֲקֹב, the fifth word for the fifth day, and on Friday we have ה’ מָלָךְ גֵּאוּת לָבֵשׁ לָבֵשׁ ה’ֹ again, the name of God appears as the sixth word, on the sixth day.

This explanation is so simple and straightforward that one might perhaps doubt it for that reason alone. It can’t be that simple! And indeed, Dr. Reich herself acknowledges several problems with this solution. For one, these are not the only Psalms that have God’s name in the right spaces. For example, in Psalms 3 and 8 God’s name appears as the first word. In Psalm 9 it is the second word. Why, then, should these particular Psalms have been chosen among the others? It might also be noted that in some of these Psalms, the name of God also appears prior to the appearance under the word corresponding to the correct day. These indeed represent problems with the proposed solution.^[7]

In an article I came upon years after writing this article, Rabbi Dr. Raymond Apple also cites Dr. Reich’s explanation.^[8] While acknowledging the suggestion to be ingenious, Dr. ApplDe finds the suggestion too mechanical, and thinks it doubtful that the priests and poets of the First and Second Temples favored such “artificial devices.” Dr. Apple concludes, “There is no clear reason why particular psalms were designated to be recited on different days of the week” and “the reason why they were originally chosen remains a mystery.”^[9]

Nevertheless, I believe Dr. Reich has hit upon the truth. Some might say that the very simplicity of the solution is itself the best indication of its truth.^[10] Certainly, this explanation is not radically different from other Mishnayos that are explained by the Gemara by way of numerical explanations, such as gematriyos. The Mishna in Nazir (1:3) for example, positing thirty days as the default length of Nezirus, or Shekalim (1:3), requiring Kohanim to also contribute the annual half-shekel, are each explained by the Bavli and Yerushalmi respectively to be based on Gematrias of the word יהיה and זה. Thus, methodologically speaking, attributing an ancient practice to a numeric basis, even when the source Mishna doesn’t say so explicitly, is perfectly sound.

However, I also believe Dr. Reich is correct because there are other Talmudic passages that I think take the matter beyond doubt. Further, I do not think the questions she herself asks are problematic, and to the contrary, I think they work hand in glove together with the passage in Rosh Hashana to give us the complete picture we need.

Synthesis

A clue to the ultimate resolution lies, I believe, in how the Psalms are identified both in the Mishna and in the Gemara. Notice that each Psalm is identified only by the first line in the Psalm. Psalms are not always so identified in Rabbinic literature. In fact, they are often referred to by their nicknames: Thus, for example:

Psalm 91 is referred to as שיר של פגעים, ויש אומרים שיר של נגעים (Shavuos 15a).
Psalm 136 is referred to as הלל הגדול. (Taanis 19a).
145 is referred to as אשרי, a word not actually part of the Psalm. (Brachos 4a)

In other words, Psalms are sometimes referred to by nicknames that reflect their character. By marked contrast, then, in the Mishna of Tamid and the Gemara of Rosh Hashana, where no character-defining name is given, and where the Psalm is identified only by the first line, we can infer that it is indeed only the opening line of the Song that is significant, because of the placement therein of God’s name.^[11]

The clincher, though, I believe, comes from a passage at the end of Sukka (55a). There we find as follows:

תניא בחולו של מועד בראשון מה היו אומרים (תהלים כט:א) הבו לה’ בני אלים בשני מה היו אומרים (נ:טז) ולרשע אמר אלהים בשלישי מה היו אומרים (צד:טז) מי יקום לי עם מרעים ברביעי מה היו אומרים (צד:ח) בינו בוערים בעם בחמישי מה היו אומרים (פא:ז) הסירותי מסבל שכמו בששי מה היו אומרים (פב:ה) ימוטו כל מוסדי ארץ ואם חל שבת באחד מהם ימוטו ידחה.

In this passage the Gemara details the Psalms the Levites would sing during the Chol HaMoed service. But when referring to the relevant Psalm, the Gemara identifies it specifically by the verse within the Psalm that is alluded to. Again, contrast this with our Mishna and Gemara, which both only identify the Psalm by the first verse. This is especially apparent in the Thursday and Friday Psalms (81 and 82) which are mentioned both in this Chol HaMoed passage, and in the Song of the Day passage with which we began. They thus make for a clear contrast: For purposes of Chol HaMoed, they are identified by specific verses within the Psalm; but for the Song of the Day, they are identified only by their first verse. Thus, it is apparent that the Song of the Day was selected because of something in, and only in, the first sentence. Thus, one may be justified in thinking that the placement of the name of God in the first sentence is indeed the reason these Psalms were selected.^[12]

The sole remaining question then, is why were these particular Psalms chosen, when there are other Psalms that also have God’s name appearing on the first or second or third word? It is here where the Gemara’s explanation comes in. If we are correct, then R. Akiva, the author of the passage in Rosh Hashana, almost certainly understood that the reason these Psalms were chosen was for the simple and easily-grasped reason that God’s name was said at the right point, exactly as posited by Dr. Reich. (There may even have been some kind of musical way of underscoring this point to the pilgrims gathered in the Temple.) But why those Psalms more than any other Psalm in which the name appears on the right word? It is because of the underlying reasons explained in the passage. Because, asכתבי קדש , the Psalms contain layers of inspired meaning, and R. Akiva saw the connection between these Psalms and the items created on the days in which they were to be read.

In short, what emerges from all this is that R. Akiva’s explanation in the Gemara is drush to the halacha embodied in the Mishna. The halacha of what song to sing is based on the simple and straightforward reason of where the name of God appears in the Psalm. Stated otherwise, perhaps, the halacha looks at the exterior form and format of the Psalm. The drush behind it, by contrast, explains why these Psalms were selected out of a number of other possibilities. By focusing on the character of the day, as reflected in the items created on the various workdays, it looks to the inner meaning, rather than the exterior. The halacha and the drasha come together, like the voices of the Levites themselves, in perfect harmony.^[13]

*David Farkas is an attorney in Cleveland. His notes on the Talmud Bavli were recently published by Machon Aleh Zayis as HaDoresh Vi-HaMivakesh.

Even today the custom continues, see Rambam סדר תפלות כל שנה (Warsaw-Vilna Ed.) stating: נהגו מקצת העם לקרוא בכל יום אחר תחנונים אלו שיר מזמור שהיו הלוים אומרים בבית המקדש באותו היום.The custom of the formal declaration preceding the actual Psalm, היום יום פלוני של שבת, entered the Siddur, like certain other customs, by way of the Kitzur Shla, and appears to be based on the comments of the Ramban in Shemos (20:7) urging the daily mention of Shabbos. See סדור עליית אליהו. ↑
See the comments of Tosfos Yom Tov to Nazir 5:5 אף על פי שבגמרא לא פירשו כן, הואיל לענין דינא לא נפקא מינה ולא מידי, הרשות נתונה לפרש וכו’.. The comments of Tosfos Yom Tov are actually based on the interpretation of Rambam there, and both are cited approvingly by Rashash to Pesachim 74a, who states “וכבר הרשנו הרמב”ם בפרק ה’ דנזיר משנה ה’ לפרש משנה נגד הגמרא היכא דליכא נפקותא לדינא, עיין שם בתוי”ט ועיין מה שכתבנו בברכות מ”ט ב במשנה שגם הגר”א ז”ל עשה כן.” ↑
This book was also cited by Eliezer Brodt on Seforim Blog here, https://seforimblog.com/2009/09/source-for-recitation-of-ledovid/ and see also Dan Rabinowitz’s article here https://seforimblog.com/2006/09/custom-of-reciting-ldovid-hashem-ori. ↑
See Shemos Rabbah (15:22) ↑
See Ezekiel 29:3 הִנְנִי עָלֶיךָ פַּרְעֹה מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם הַתַּנִּים הַגָּדוֹל הָרֹבֵץ בְּתוֹךְ יְאֹרָיו. (I have translated תנים הגדול as “crocodile”. It might also be translated as serpent or sea monster.) ↑
The alternative explanations cited in this paragraph are all mentioned by R. Mantel in his comprehensive book mentioned above.With brilliant insight, R. Yechezkel Katzenelbogen (1667-1749) in שו”ת כנסת יחזקאל ס’ קט posits that the Tannaitic debate in the Gemara alluded to above over the meaning of the Song for Shabbos hinges upon whether or not King David, as the author of the Psalms, intended the selected Psalms to be associated with the various days of the week, or the Levites merely selected them based on their own interpretation of them. R. Yechezkel’s understanding is based on a very fine reading of the text, which, unfortunately, would require background well beyond the scope of this inquiry. ↑
Dr. Reich, after acknowledging these difficulties, concludes her article with a sincere request, “אם ידע מישהו להציע הסבר אחר לבחירת מזמורים המכונים שיר של יום, תבא עליו ברכה.” And indeed, the Dvar Torah drew a response several weeks later, in the פרשת נשא edition of the Bar Ilan weekly, from Dr. Gavriel Cohen. In addition to pointing out the significant flaw that Dr. Reich failed to mention the Gemara in Rosh Hashana, Dr. Cohen also notes that others had addressed the issue as well. It is from Dr. Cohen’s letter that I learned of Rabbi Mantel’s sefer, as well as the above-mentioned article of Rabbi Hadari. Dr. Cohen’s letter also references an explanation of Meir Hillel Ben Shammai, in a 91-page monograph entitled שיר של יום בעבודת התמיד. Ben Shammai claims, based on a reading of I Chronicles (16:7-36) that the Psalms mentioned in the Mishna were not exclusive, and in fact, the Levites would often change them to whatever they felt was appropriate This monograph, however, also fails to cite the Gemara (or any other commentator) on the topic, and I found it speculative and unconvincing. ↑
Jewish Bible Quarterly, Vol. 42, no. 2, April-June 2014. ↑
Id. Interestingly, Dr. Appel also cites the explanation of the Zohar, but without a source. As mentioned above, there actually isn’t any source for this Zohar. He does, however, cite secondary sources, Biurei Ha-Gra and Kehati to the Mishna in Tamid we began with. ↑
See various encyclopedia entries for the logical principle known as Occam’s Razor. ↑
To be sure, Rashi’s explanation of the passage too, perhaps based precisely on the above point, also focuses on the first line. However, the forced nature of Rashi’s interpretation still exists, and it is clear from other commentators cited above (including Maharsha on the passage) that they felt the explanation of the Gemara rests also upon other verses later in the Psalm. ↑
In a passage just before the passage we opened with in Rosh Hashana, the Gemara also refers to the Thursday Psalm (81) as הסירותי מסבל שכמו and not by citing the first verse. However, the Gemara there is referring to the second half of the Psalm, and thus the point is not as strong as the Chol HaMoed passage in Sukkah. ↑
I thank Dr. Eliezer Brodt for his review of this article and all the Torah I have learned from home over the years. Dr. Brodt drew my attention to the sources in fn.3, and also adds the following: על הנושא כולו ראה: יעקב שפיגל, ‘דרך קצרה בלשון תנאים ועל פשט ודרש במשנה’, אסופות ד (תש”ן) עמ’ ט-כו; חנן גפני, ‘פשט ודרש במשנה: לגלגוליה של מסורת מבית מדרשו של הגר”א’, סידרא כב (תשס”ז), עמ’ 5-19; הנ”ל, פשוטה של משנה ↑