Of Twice-Told Tales and Ockham’s Razor: A Response to R. Moshe Haberman

Of Twice-Told Tales and Ockham’s Razor: A Response to R. Moshe Haberman

By Elli Fischer

Elli Fischer is an independent writer, translator, and rabbi. He is editor of Rabbi Eliezer Melamed’s Peninei Halakha series in English and cofounder of HaMapah, a project that applies quantitative analysis to rabbinic literature. He is a founding editor of The Lehrhaus, a web magazine of contemporary Jewish thought, and his writing has appeared in numerous Jewish publications. He holds degrees from Yeshiva University, rabbinical ordination from Israel’s Chief Rabbinate, and is working toward a doctorate in Jewish History at Tel Aviv University.

R. Moshe Haberman’s fascinating recent post on the Seforim Blog, “The Twice-Told Tale of R. Yonason Eybeshutz and the Porger,” traces the provenance of a single copy of the first edition of R. Eybeschutz’s כרתי ופלתי in order to resolve an old and puzzling question about a reference to an apparently nonexistent view of the Semag. The answer – that the reference to Semag (סמ“ג) in the printed edition is a typo and should actually be סה“נ, or Sefer Ha-Nikur – was first suggested in 1930 by Rabbi Solomon M. Neches and further clarified by Prof. Shnayer Leiman. Rabbi Neches claimed that this typo was corrected by R. Eybeschutz himself, as the author’s copy of the work was extant, owned by R. Neches, and contained the handwritten emendation. The case seemed to be closed.

However, upon inspection, it seemed that the book was not owned by the author, but by a different R. Yonason Eybeschutz. The conclusion of R. Haberman’s article is that this copy of the 1763 edition of כרתי ופלתי was owned by two different (and unrelated) people named Rabbi Yonasan Eybeschutz.

The post also states that Rabbi Neches, a leading rabbi in Los Angeles (and, as Fred MacDowell discovered, mesader kiddushin at the wedding of Elaine Ackerman to Jerome L. Horowitz, a.k.a “Curly” of the Three Stooges) from the 1920s until his death in 1954, who claimed to have the book in his possession in 1930, did not really have it in Los Angeles in 1930. Rather, he had seen it in his youth in Ottoman Palestine. The copy remained in Eretz Yisrael until 1963, when it was purchased by UCLA through sponsorship of the Cummings family and sent with tens of thousands of other items to Los Angeles. In other words, rather than take R. Neches at his word, that he possessed the book in Los Angeles in 1930, and presumably kept it until his death in 1954, whereupon his personal library was dispersed, R. Haberman posits that the book never reached American shores, let alone R. Neches’s shelves, during his lifetime, yet arrived in the city where he served within a decade of his passing.

The story thus contains two owners who coincidentally shared the name Rabbi Yonason Eybeschutz (RYE), and there is no connection between the fact that it was a Los Angeles rabbi who first mentioned this very item in 1930 and the fact that the item itself was in Los Angeles in 1963. Rather, the book made its way from Europe to Ottoman Palestine some time before 1910 (while its prior owner, the second RYE, was still alive in Poland). There it was viewed by a teenage R. Neches, who remembered, 20 years later, a marginal gloss he found therein. Meanwhile, the book itself falls off the grid for half a century before resurfacing in 1963, in an auction.

After reading the post, I decided that such a great story, filled with the most unlikely coincidences, deserved a Footprint. As I started documenting the copy’s provenance, however, the narrative began to unravel. As I will show, there is a much simpler narrative of the book’s provenance.

R. Haberman determines that two different RYEs owned the book because one signature specifies ownership by “Rabbi Yonasan Halevi Eybeshutz of Leshitz” and another signature bears resemblance to the signature of the original, 18^th century RYE, author of כרתי ופלתי. Thus, it must have been owned by both RYE of Leshitz and RYE the author. Since R. Neches owned at least one book by RYE of Leshitz, namely, שער יהונתן, he, too, must have discovered that two distinct RYEs owned the book.

The problem with this theory is that there is no “Rabbi Yonasan Halevi Eybeshutz of Leshitz”. Rather, in the early 20^th century, there were two RYEs. One was the rabbi of Kock (Kotzk) and later of Łosice (Leshitz), Poland and author of תפארת יהונתן. He was not a Levi, and he passed away in c. 1915. The second (or third) RYE, who was indeed a Levi, lived in the Praga district of Warsaw and perished in 1943. He was the author of שער יהונתן among other works, and on the title page that appears in Appendix B of R. Haberman’s post, you can see that the author is listed as living in Warsaw, and there is no mention of Leshitz/Łosice.

The pictures that accompany R. Haberman’s post show clearly that the RYE who owned this copy of כרתי ופלתי was from Łosice, but he does not sign that he was a Levi – because he wasn’t. With this in mind, we can now revisit the question: Is there any indication that the original RYE owned the book as well, or can we attribute everything to the non-Levi RYE of Leshitz?

After a bit of searching, I found an item related to RYE of Łosice on an auction site. This item, a copy of R. Eliyahu Mizrahi’s ספר מים עמוקים (Berlin, 5538/1778), contains both the stamp and signature of RYE of Kotzk (before his arrival in Leshitz). Here his signature is immediately to the left of the word ספר.

And here is his stamp (the smaller one):

The auctioneers also included a picture of a marginal note that the owner inscribed in the book, in the name of one Rabbi Isaac of Leszno (Lissa), son of the rabbi of Mezrich (presumably Międzyrzecz, Poland, in Prussia, close to both Leszno and Lozice, and not Mezhyrichi, Ukraine, home of the famed Maggid, or Międzyrzec Podlaski, in eastern Poland):

(Here is another item that contains RYE of Leshitz’s handwriting.)

Moreover, I am no graphologist, but the two RYE signatures that R. Haberman compares in his post seem far from identical. In the signature of the 18^th-century RYE, the leg of the ה is more curved, the bottom of the נ does not extend very far below the line, the ת has a shorter leg, and the top of the ן begins at the same level as the tops of all the other letters. Sure, there is some superficial similarity, but it seems very far from dispositive.

Rather, Ockham’s Razor would encourage us to adopt the simpler explanation, namely, that copy of כרתי ופלתי was owned by only one Rabbi Yonason Eybeschutz: the rabbi of Kotzk and then Leshitz, who died in the early 20^th century. It was he who wrote the gloss referring to ספר הניקור – an answer that has the ring of truth and which there seems to be no reason to reject, even if the answer was not provided by the author himself. If anything, RYE of Leshitz deserves his due as the one who resolved this question.

Let us now turn to the question of where the book was at various points. Here, the suggestion that R. Neches viewed the book in Eretz Yisrael prior to 1910, when he emigrated to the US, seemed impossible, as the previous owner – whether RYE of Leshitz or RYE Halevi of Warsaw – lived in Europe. When, why, and how would the book have made its way to Ottoman Palestine without its owner? Moreover, R. Neches’s language seemed to indicate quite clearly that the book was in his possession, in Los Angeles, in 1930. This received further confirmation from commenter Ben Sommerfield, who notes that in another article, from 1951, R. Neches again mentioned that the copy of כרתי ופלתי is in his possession and even includes a facsimile of the page with the marginal note. We can thus conclude that the book was in possession of R. Neches in Los Angeles from 1930 to 1951.

In order to have been included in the Cummings Collection, then, the book would have had to get from Los Angeles to Israel and back to Los Angeles in a span of 12 years – 9 years if we presume that R. Neches kept it until his death in 1954. While not impossible, here again, another explanation seems far more likely.

In an article in HaMa’ayan (56:1 [215], Tishrei 5776, pp. 101-2), R. Yaakov Yitzchak Miller, who located the copy of כרתי ופלתי together with R. Haberman (they thank one another in their respective articles), correctly identifies the previous owner of the copy as RYE of Leshitz (even comparing the signature in the copy to the signature in other auctioned items – in which there are likewise marginalia) and thus dismisses R. Neches’s claim that this was the author’s copy. R. Miller also notes (n. 2 ad loc.) that much of R. Neches’s library was donated to UCLA. It would seem far more likely that this copy of כרתי ופלתי was donated to UCLA from R. Neches’s estate than that it was sent to Israel, appended to a much larger collection, and then purchased by UCLA several years later.

So what are we to make of Prof. Arnold Band’s confirmation that כרתי ופלתי was part of the collection whose purchase he orchestrated in 1963, and of the fact that the book is listed in the UCLA catalog as part of the Cummings collection? In my view, the likely answer is that the 1963 purchase indeed included a copy of כרתי ופלתי – perhaps UCLA’s copy of the Vienna 1819 edition. It takes nothing away from Prof. Band and his efforts to secure this collection to suggest that it seems highly unlikely that he remembers, after 57 years, a detail that he never mentioned before about a signature in one specific book out of 30,000. Perhaps he remembered that the purchase included a copy of כרתי ופלתי, even an old one. Or perhaps he mixed up the 1819 copy with the 1763 copy after the former’s arrival in Los Angeles, resulting in the library miscataloging R. Neches’s 1763 copy. Either way, a cataloging error seems more likely than the scenario suggested by R. Haberman.

The final timeline would then look something like this: The copy was owned by RYE of Leshitz until his death in 1915. At some point between 1915 and 1930, R. Neches purchased it – perhaps from a dealer who obtained items from the estate of RYE of Leshitz and convinced buyers that they had been owned by the far more famous 18^th century RYE. It remained in R. Neches’s possession until his death in 1954, whereupon it was donated to UCLA and miscataloged.

Some Observations Regarding Approbations for Hebrew Books

Haskamot (rabbinical approbations) to Hebrew books have an very interesting history. There are a few different forms of haskamot, perhaps the most important form is that which granted the author and/or publisher a copyright. Typically, the haskamah would prohibit republishing the particular book for a period of ten or fifteen years, etc. In some instances, it was not only the particular book but any book in the field. For example, the haskamah to R. Yom Tov Lipmann Heller's edition of the Mishna with his commentary, Tosefot Yom Tov (Prague 1617) provides that "it is prohibited from printing any Mishnayot with any commentary for four years."[1] The history of this particular form haskamah begins with the approbation that appears on the first Rabbinic bible (Venice 1517). As Jordan Penkower has previously provided, the approbation which appears at the end of Chronicles states that it is forbidden [for] any one under the penalty of excommunication and also the loss of the books in the territories of the Holy Roman Church, to print or cause to be printed these books with the Targum or without the Targum and the Hebrew Commentaries of the Bible for the space of ten years from 1515.[2]This approbation is somewhat unique for Hebrew books as it was not given by a Rabbi but instead by Pope Leo X. Indeed, the version of this bible which contains this approbation was also dedicated to the Pope. Felix Pratensis, the editor and former Jew (he became a Augustin monk), explains in the dedication that the very idea of including the Targumim is favorable to the Church. He explains that the text we have added the ancient Hebrew and Chaldee Shcola, to wit the common Targum and that of Jerusalem. These contain many obscure and recondite mysteries, not only useful, but necessary to the devout Christian. We have wished with good reason to publish the whole under the sanction of your name [Leo X], for whereas on this book the foundation and the entire superstructure of Christianity rests, you are revered by us as the chief head of the Christian Church on earth and no one can deny the appropriateness of the dedication to you of our work. Another odd approbation appears in the book printed much later in Lemberg, 1878. This book, Peni Abraham, authored by R. Abraham Abba Seelenfreund includes approbations dated years before the book was ever published. For example, R. Meir Perles' approbation is dated 1852. But, that approbation is not unique in the history of approbations. In fact, the first Ashkenazik approbations, appearing in R. Shlomo Luria's Hakmat Shlomo (Krakow 1581) contains the approbation of R. Kalman of Worms dated 1542. Instead, the odd approbation is that of R. Yitzhak Meir Alter, the Gerrer Rebbi otherwise known as the Hiddushei ha-Rim. The reason this approbation is odd does have to do with the date. Specifically, it is dated, Rosh Hodesh Tamuz, 1870. The problem is that R. Alter died some four years earlier on the 23 of Adar 1866! Now it is possible that instead of 5630 (1870) it should read 5620 (1860) and the letter Chuf was inadvertently changed to a Lamed, but in all events, it is a rather interesting slip of the pen.[3] Now, it is not only the approbation that is of interest, in fact, R. Seelenfreund himself was somewhat of a character. According to the brief biography by R. Yekutiel Yehuda Greenwald,[4] R. Seelenfreund ended up divorcing his first wife during sheva Berakhot. Additionally, although R. Seelenfreund was the Rabbi in Zaloshick (Poland) for a period of time, in 1875 he took a position in Kosice, Hungary for a short period of time. While R. Seelenfreund was considered Ultra-Orthodox, as the term was used by the Hungarians, Kosice, as were many cities in Hungry was split between three Jewish factions, Reform, Ultra-Orthodox and Status Quo. R. Seelenfreund was appointed Rabbi of the Status Quo synagogue and thought that his relationships with Ultra-Orthodox Rabbis would allow him to remain to be viewed as such. Indeed, on his first sefer, Pras Avot (Lemberg 1865), he obtained the approbation of R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson. It was R. Nathanson's suggestion for the title of the book to be Pras Avot. It appears that R. Seelenfreund, however, was very wrong in his calculation regarding Kosice. He eventually left Kosice and returned to Zaloshick but not before relationships between himself and the community broke down. He even published a small book, Kol Shover Shekarim (Kosice 1878) to defend himself. It is unclear why much of this history of R. Seelenfreund does not appear in Cohen's biography of R. Seelenfreund from Hakmei Hungaria.[5] It appears that Cohen was unaware that R. Seelenfreund left Kosice or that he published Kol Shover Shekarim.

[1] For this and other similar approbations see Nahum Rakover, Copyright in Jewish Sources (Israel 1991), 150-53 (Hebrew). Both Rakover's work as well as Benayahu's, see infra n3, break new ground on the issue of approbations. The new edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, however, does not use any of these sources. In fact, the new version merely reprints the earlier article on haskma which appeared in the 1971 edition and is seriously lacking. This is but another example of how the new version has significant gaps. See Shnayer Z. Leiman's review of the new edition here and Shlomo Zalman Havlin's additional note on the topic here. [2] The translation of this and the next quote is taken from Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (Ktav Press 1966), 935-36, 946.[3] In addition, Pratensis claims that this edition was unique as the prior editions "hav[e] almost as many errors as words in them" and that "no one has attempted [such an edition] before." Ginsburg in his discussion about this edition shows, however, that in fact previous editions were (close) to error free. Ginsburg bemoans the fact that "Felix Pratensis should have been betrayed to resort to such unfair expedients." But, it is possible that Pratensis' claim regarding the novelty of the work was necessary in part due approbations. Not Rabbinic approbations but the approbation of the Venetian Senate. This is so, as in 1517 the Senate passed a law that would abolish all printing monopolies (copyrights) and hence forth would only grant monopolies for works which "are new or which have never been printed before." Horatio Brown, The Venetian Printing Press (London 1891), 74. Indeed, Bomberg, the printer of this edition had appealed to the Senate for a monopoly when he began printing in 1515 and which the new law abolished. See Meir Benayahu, Copyright, Authorization & Imprimatour for Hebrew Books Printed in Venice (Israel 1971), 17 (Hebrew). Thus, it is possible that Pratensis claim of novelty was to argue implicitly that this book qualified for a monopoly even under the new law as it was a "new" book. [4] Y.Y. Greenwald, "The Descendants of the Rema and their Influence in Hungary," Sinai 28 (1951): 85-87 (Hebrew). [5] Y.Y. Kohen, Hakmei Hungaria (Israel 1997), 342.

Lag B’Omer through the eyes of a Litvak in 1925

Lag B’Omer through the eyes of a Litvak in 1925[*]
By Shimon Szimonowitz

Dov Mayani (1903-1952)

A Static and Evolving Chag

Lag B’Omer has infiltrated Jewish culture as a bona fide holiday. While the day is celebrated throughout the Jewish world, it tends to take on added significance in Eretz Yisrael. This age-old disparity has seen a little easement, probably as a result of enhanced communication between the Promised Land and the rest of the world, but the difference is still obvious.

R. Chaim Elazar Shapira of Munkács[1] (1868-1937) states, as a point of fact, “It has been the custom for hundreds of years in the holy land, especially in Meron, to make se’udos accompanied by dancing and music on Lag B’Omer. He goes on to state that conversely, in Chutz L’Aretz, although Chasidim do make Se’udos, “to also have music and dancing as in Meron would be very bizarre[2] since it is not practiced in our lands.”[3] There is no question that a lot has changed since the publication of that Teshuva in 1922.[4]

The purpose of this article is to travel back in time and view Lag B’Omer through the eyes of a Lithuanian Yeshivah student studying in the Chevron Yeshivah in 1925. By comparing his attitude to the festivities to the ones prevalent currently, we can bear witness to the evolution that Lag B’Omer has undergone outside of Eretz Yisrael in the last hundred years. At the same time, it will underscore how little it has changed in Eretz Yisrael.

On his first Lag B’Omer in Eretz Yisrael,[5] in May of 1925, Dov Mayani (1903-1952)[6] penned a letter[7] to his close friend Ari Wohlgemuth[8] who was in Europe at the time.[9] In exquisite prose,[10] Mayani vividly describes the Lag B’Omer celebration in Eretz Yisrael. One can sense surprise and even a measure of bewilderment which Mayani in turn thought he would provoke in his friend back home as well.

Dr. Joseph Wohlgemuth – Ari’s father

On one hand, we see from this letter that very little has changed in almost a century regarding how Lag B’Omer is celebrated in Eretz Yisrael. On the other hand, we see how much has changed in the rest of the world. Today we are accustomed to the festivities in Meron and we see similar events taking place all over, even outside of Eretz Yisrael. What was entirely novel to a Lithuanian Yeshiva student and his German counterpart in 1925 has now become the norm in many circles.

The letter includes many other interesting and valuable tidbits of information regarding the Chevron Yeshiva,[11] but for the purpose of this article we will focus only on the portion concerning Lag B’Omer.

Presented below is a translation of said excerpt of the letter.

The letter

B’Ezras HaShem, Chevron Ir HaKodesh Tibaneh V’Sikonen, Tuesday- Behar Bechukosai

Chavivi!

[Following several handwritten pages concerning various important matters, Mayani continues…] Now I will write to you about our life [in Chevron] … Let me now go over to lighter matters.[12] Today is Lag B’Omer. Today is the day that the entire Yeshiva was desperately[13] waiting for, since they are now able to remove the mask[14] of hair which was covering their faces. You should know that here [in Eretz Yisrael] there are more stringent customs. Starting from Pesach, no man may raise a hand to touch his beard.[15] [The beard] grows and increases until it matures; the hair sprouts and there is no respite from it.[16] Picture for yourself, that even mine [=my beard] got big and wide, and I already have an idea what I will look like in the future.

Dov Mayani with his friend Yitzchak Hutner in 1928

Rabbi Dov Mayani in his later years

And now on to the topic of the fires… You should know that here there is a custom of lighting a bonfire on Lag B’Omer. And what do they do? They light a bonfire and all the people of the moshav gather next to it and they sing and dance. The source of the custom seems to be in Kabala but it used to have a different character.[17]

Lag B’Omer is the Hilula [lit. a celebration] of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the anniversary of his death. It is brought in the Zohar that his disciples would come to his grave and light candles in his memory and they would spend the day as a quasi-holiday.[18] The Mekubalim in the days of the holy Ari z”l [R. Yitzchak Luria (1534-1572)] renewed the custom and through the influence of Chasidim and their entire sect[19] it was adopted by the entire nation. It is self-understood what kind of form it has already taken on by now…

On the day [of Lag B’Omer] they gather from the entire land [Eretz Yisrael], mostly from the Chasidim, Sefardim, and the Bucharim, at the grave of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai in Meron, near Tzefas, and they make a big fire and they light candles and oil; all that they can get their hands on.[20] They throw all kinds of clothes into the fire, expensive items, and notes with requests on them.[21] This custom, although opposed by many of the Gedolim, still remained strong, and the masses believe in it and in its powers[22] It used to be a Yom Tov of Chasidim and Anshei Ma’aseh, but now it has the character described above, and it is certainly not appropriate to be excited about it.

From all corners of the Land, they come with their sick children, and with the young ones which are to get a haircut for the first time[23] and the hair is then thrown into the fire etc. They break out in dances and circles.[24] In short, these festivities are celebrated with magnificence and splendor.[25]

Lighting of smaller fires is also done throughout the land. In Chevron the townspeople made a fire last night and they invited the entire Yeshiva. The Hanhala [management] of the Yeshiva itself with the Rav [Rabbi Moshe Mordechai Epstein (1866-1933)] at its helm didn’t respond to the invitation at all, and declared that it totally doesn’t recognize it [= the festivities]. But many of the Yeshiva students came to see, and I[26] too was among the onlookers.

They went climbed up on to the roof after Ma’ariv and lit a large bonfire at the center and sang a Chasidic song. The students of the Yeshiva joined in spontaneously and many of them danced around the fire. It was an amazing sight, albeit a bit wild and lacking Jewish flavor. In didn’t find favor in my eyes at all, but it was interesting to watch.

Mainly it was a Chag for their children[27] who went around with fireworks[28] in their hands and with beaming and shining faces.

Analysis

[1] “…here there are more stringent customs…”

Mayani comments that in Eretz Yisroel there are more stringent customs regarding shaving during Sefirah. In HaHar Hatov (p. 49) it is suggested in a footnote that it can be deduced from this comment that in Berlin [whence Wohlgemuth hailed] they were lax regarding the customs of the Sefirah days.

I believe this to be in error. It seems that Mayani was referring to the difference in custom between Lithuania and Eretz Yisroel. In Lithuania, religious Jews refrained from shaving only from Rosh Chodesh Iyar until Lag B’Omer [18 days] and then again from Lag B’Omer until the Sh’loshes Yemei Hagbala [13 days], thus never allowing the beard to grow too long. See Aruch HaShulchan (493:6) where he confirms this to be the custom in Lithuania”.[29] In Eretz Yisrael, the Yeshiva students felt compelled to conform to the local custom which was to observe Sefirah from Pesach until Lag B’Omer. Since they couldn’t shave from Erev Pesach, it forced them to grow their beard for twice as long as they had been accustomed to in Europe.

Regarding laxity with Sefirah, R. Eliezer Brodt pointed me in the direction of a letter dated May 10, 1938, in which Ernst Guggenheim, a French Yeshiva student who traveled to study in the Yeshiva in Mir, reports “everyone has a dirty beard, but in other yeshivot, like the one in Brisk, for example, the whole Yeshiva, with the Rosh Yeshiva in the lead, shaves during this period” (Letters from Mir: A Torah World in the Shadow of the Shoah pp. 127-128). Guggenheim writes again about his beard on May 29^th (ibid p. 137) “I wear a quite gorgeous beard at this moment, six-week-old and cleaned on Lag B’Omer. It’s not simply a piece around the chin, but a collar à la Hirshler before he trimmed it. Moreover, soon I will make it disappear even though it is already popular at the Yeshiva.” See Nefesh HaRav p. 191.

[2] “Lag B’Omer is the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai, the anniversary of his death”

Lag B’Omer is not mentioned anywhere in the Mishnah or Talmud. An early reference to it can be found in the name of R. Zerachya HaLevi of Gerona (c. 1125-1186). Accordingly, R. Zerachya was in possession of an old Sephardic manuscript of the Talmud which alludes to the fact that Rabbi Akiva’s disciples ceased to die on that date.[30] R. Menachem HaMeiri (1249 – 1306) is probably one of the earliest sources to explicitly mention the day of Lag B’Omer. [31] Despite that fact that these Provencal sages[32] do mention this day as the end of the mourning period, they do not mention it as a reason to celebrate it in any shape or form.

There is also very little in the classical Poskim regarding the origins of Lag B’Omer. R. Moshe Isserls (1520-1572), based on Maharil, simply states that one must ‘celebrate a bit’[33] on Lag B’Omer.[34] The Vilna Gaon (1720-1797) indicates that the reason for celebration is the fact that the disciples of Rabbi Akiva ceased to die on that day.[35] This would also appear to be the reason given by the Maharil. The problem is, as pointed out by R. Aryeh Leibish Balchubar (1801-1881), that the reason they stopped dying is because there were none left. Why would this be a reason to celebrate?[36]

R. Avraham Gombiner (c. 1635-1682) relates in the name of R. Chaim Vital (1542-1620), that someone once said Nachem [a prayer with an expression of mourning] on Lag B’Omer and was punished.[37] It would seem that this event was unrelated to Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai or his place of burial. R. Aaron Alfandari (c. 1700–1774) questions this omission and points out that the reason why the man was punished is only because he said Nachem on the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and not because it was Lag B’Omer… if it was because of Lag B’Omer”.[38] R. Menachem Mendel Auerbach (1620-1689) prefaces the abovementioned story by saying that it is the custom in Eretz Yisrael to visit the graves of Rabbi Shimon and his son Rabbi Elazar on Lag B’Omer. He identifies the anonymous man mentioned by R. Gombiner as a Rabbi Avrohom HaLevi, and adds that R. Yitzchak Luria delivered a message from Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai to R. Avrohom HaLevi, that the latter is going to be severely punished for saying Nachem on the day of “my happiness”.[39]

Regarding R. Alfandari’s argument that Lag B’Omer was not the reason for R. Avrohom Halevi’s punishment, but rather due to the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, R. Chaim Yosef Dovid Azulai (Chida, 1724-1806) suggests that Lag B’Omer and Hilula of Rabbi Shimon are one and the same. In other words, the source of celebration on Lag B’Omer was the fact that it was the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon. Still, R. Alfandari viewed these as mutually exclusive. In any event R. Azulai also concedes that the opposition to saying Nachem was confined to the place of Rabbi Shimon’s burial. Interestingly enough, R. Azulai ends his remarks by praising R. Gombiner’s ambiguous wording since it leads to what he sees as a positive conclusion, that one should celebrate on Lag B’Omer regardless of whether he is at the gravesite of Rabbi Shimon or not. He merely points out that the intensity of the celebration is greater near the gravesite.

Although we now know that Lag B’Omer is the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon, we are still left in the dark regarding the exact reason for celebration. The most popular explanation is the one which Mayani mentions here, that it was the anniversary of Rabbi Shimon’s death. R. Azulai mentions this possibility, but elsewhere in his writings he questions it. R. Dovid Avitan in his notes on the Birkei Yosef, argues that R. Azulai’s conclusion was that it was not the anniversary of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai’s death. This is corroborated by a more reliable manuscript of R. Shmuel Vital’s (1598 – 1677) writings. Instead R. Azulai suggests that perhaps Lag B’Omer was the day that Rabbi Shimon began studying Torah at the feet of Rabbi Akiva.

Lag B’Omer has confounded many halachic authorities throughout the generations.[40] For a more comprehensive treatment of this subject, the reader is referred to R. Eliezer Brodt’s Seforim Blog article: http://seforim.blogspot.co.il/2011/05/printing-mistake-and-mysterious-origins. and for a great lecture on the subject, Professor Shnayer Leiman’s the strange history of Lag B’Omer is strongly recommended.

[3] “…at the grave of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai in Meron, near Tzefas…”

It is safe to say that nowadays the name Meron garners instant recognition among most religious Jews. Yet in 1925 this was apparently not the case. Mayani felt compelled to identify Meron as being situated “near Tzefas.” The Chasam Sofer, in his teshuva about the Lag B’Omer festivities, writes that “they gather from all over in the holy city of Tzefas to celebrate the Hilula of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai”.[41] Throughout the entire Teshuva he fails to mention Meron by name. While it is true that in those days they would gather from all over the Land and converge in Tzefas and then go on to Meron, as recorded by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Kaminetz (1800-1873) in his Koros Ha’itim, it is still noteworthy that the Chasam Sofer does not mention the name of the town. When discussing the custom of gathering in Meron on Lag B’Omer, R. Aryeh Leibish Balchubar also feels a need to add that this takes place in the village Meron “which is near Tzefas”.[42]

[4] “They throw all kinds of clothes into the fire, expensive items… opposed by many of the Gedolim…”

The custom of throwing expensive clothes into the fire in honor of Rabbi Shimon is well documented. One of the earliest descriptions available is found in a letter written by a student of R. Chaim Ben-Attar (1696-1743) in which he writes that R. Chaim went to Meron the day after Purim of 1742 and “lit many clothes” in honor of the Tanna.[43] R. Menachem Mendel of Kaminetz (1800-1873) is an early eyewitness who describes how this was practiced on Lag B’Omer itself. He relates that they would sell the honor of igniting the fire for a large sum of money and the one who bought it would take a large scarf in good wearing condition, light it, and throw it into a bowl of oil. Additional historical accounts of burning clothes are compiled in the introduction to the 2011 edition of R. Shmuel Heller’s Kevod Malachim.

This custom merited the ire of R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson (1808–1875). In a Teshuva concerning an event that took place in 1842, R. Nathanson writes that he has a lot to say about the custom of burning clothing in honor of Rabbi Shimon on Lag B’Omer. He maintains that “they are transgressing the prohibition against wasting[44] and are engaging in superstitious practices[45] which are forbidden”. He adds that this custom was obviously not practiced in the days of the Ari z”l and he is certain that R. Yosef Karo would not have allowed it. R. Nathanson ends off by saying that he guarantees that if they were to take all that money [wasted on the burning of clothes] and use it to support the poor of Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai would derive much more pleasure from it.[46] These very sentiments are also expressed by the Sephardic Rishon L’Tzion, R. Rafael Yosef Chazan (c.1741 – 1820).[47]

In 1874 the Chief Rabbi of Tzefas, R. Shmuel Heller (1803-1884), authored a pamphlet named Kevod Malachim, in which he vehemently defended this practice and thereby encouraged its continuation despite of the abovementioned opposition. For a more comprehensive treatment of this fascinating subject, the reader is referred to Prof. Daniel Sperber’s Minhagei Yisroel vol. 8 pp. 72-83.

It is also possible that Mayani was referring to the Teshuva of R. Moshe Sofer (1762–1839) in which he takes issue in general with the festivities in Meron. According to R. Moshe Sofer, turning a day on which no miracle occurred into a Chag, constitutes a transgression of the commandment against adding to the Torah.[48] Allusion to the lighting of the fires is treated with similar disapproval.[49]

Kever of Rabbi Shmuel Heller

[5] “It used to be a Yom Tov of Chasidim and Anshei Ma’aseh…”

Mayani obviously did some research on Lag B’Omer. In a letter dated April 25, more than a week before Lag B’Omer, he writes:

Here in the Land, Lag B’Omer, the anniversary of the death of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and many of his disciples, is a great Chag for the people of the Yishuv. Originally it was [intended] only for the Talmidim and people of a high caliber, but now ‘that there are scarcely any men of high caliber and there is an influx of big-mouths and strongmen’, it has lost it pure character. I heard from people in Jerusalem that very few of the very pious[50] visit the village of Meron on that day.[51]

This sentiment that Lag B’Omer used to be celebrated in a more spiritual manner in earlier times is found in some other sources as well. Among others, R. Nathanson (שואל ומשיב מהדורה חמישאה סימן לט) argues that in all probability back in the days of the Ari z”l, they would only learn by the graveside of Rabbi Shimon and recite prayers so that he should awaken the mercy of Heaven.

[6] “…sang a Chasidic song…”

From his letter one gets the sense that Mayani was a bit prejudiced against chasidim as was typical of a Lithuanian Misnaged. This happens to be far from the truth. On his farewell trip leaving Europe he stayed by a Chasid who was an Agudah leader and in addition to discussing with him Torah topics, Dov Mayani learned many Modzhitzer Nigunim during his stay. According to his daughter this encounter made a deep impression on Mayani’s musical style.[52] She also says that in general her father had an affinity toward Chasidus.[53]

Nevertheless, Mayani can be critical at times of what he called a “Chasid Shoteh”. In a letter describing his fellow passengers on the boat trip to Eretz Yisrael, Mayani describes a Belzer Chasid whose entire Judaism was encompassed in his sidelocks, his beard, his long gabardine, despised Lithuanians, and minimized interaction with any other kind of people (תמצא לו החברה חסיד בלזאי שוטה, אשר כל יהדותו בפאותיו וזקנו וקפוטתו תלויות, ושונא הליטווקים תכלית שנאה וממעט מכל שיח ושיג עם אנשים אחרים.). On the other hand, in that same letter, he describes a Chasid of Chabad in glowing terms, as someone he considers to be a Lamdan and an important man… (גם חסיד ליטאי, מחסידי חב”ד איש למדן וחשוב בעירתו אשר ירד מגדולתו ועשרו לרגל המלחמה ובעוד כוחו עמו עולה לארץ ללמד בה ולהאחז בה).

Later in his life he came even closer to Chasidus. His daughter Rivka states that despite his Lithuanian upbringing and education, her father possessed a Chasidic soul.[54] He especially appreciated the emphasis placed on music. In his later years, he became close to some Chasidic leaders such as R. Yisrael Alter (1895-1977) and R. Simcha Bunim Alter (1898-1992). He was even asked by the latter to deliver sermons in the Gerrer Yeshiva in Tel Aviv in 1941. He also forged a close relationship with R. Chaim Meir Hager of Viznitz (1887-1972) and Reb Arele Roth of Jerusalem (1894-1947), and even prayed with a Gartel given to him by R. Hager.[55]

[*] I would like to express my appreciation to Professor Shlomo Tikochinsky (See note below) and my friend Eliezer Brodt for providing me with important sources for this article. A tremendous debt of gratitude is owed to my mother for spending her precious time editing this article. I also need to mention my friends R. Eli Reisman and Binyamin Steinfeld for reviewing this document and offering insightful edits that have been incorporated in the final version. Many thanks also go to R. Shaul Goldman for reviewing it and contributing to its style and final form.
[1] חלק ג סימן ס
[2] “כזרות יחשב”
[3] “כיון שזהו אינו נוהג פה במדינתנו”
[4] Here the present Munkatcher Rebbe can be seen lighting a Lag B’omer fire and dancing in front of it. This is a clear deviation from the teshuva of his Grandfather, the Minchas Elazar. While one can be sure that he found good reason to institute the change, for our purposes this observation helps document the evolution of the Chag.

The same change has recently been observed in Satmar. The present Satmar Rebbe of Monroe is on record for having once spoken out against bonfires on Lag B’omer in Chutz La’aretz, saying that they are against the custom, yet he later reversed himself and instituted perhaps the biggest bonfire festivity outside of Eretz Yisroel. See here for more details and for a link to his original speech against bonfires. See also חידושי תורה מהר”א ט”ב תשס”א אמור/ל”ג בעומר p. 194 where the Rebbe writes:

וזה הענין מה שנוהגין גם בחוץ לארץ להדליק נרות ומאורות בלילה הזה…

[5] He arrived in Eretz Yisrael on the tenth day of Shevat 5685 (February 4^th 1925).
[6] He was born Dov Karikstansky. In Yeshiva, he was nicknamed ‘Berel Grodner’ after his hometown Grodno. Shortly after arriving in Eretz Yisrael he Hebraized his surname to Mayani. See אעברה נא p. 71 for the story behind the name change.[7] The letter was transcribed in its original Hebrew and published by his daughter Rivka Monowitz in the digital supplement to her אעברה נא, called ההר הטוב. The letter begins on p. 46 of ההר הטוב. Pictures of the original letter were supplied to me by Professor Shlomo Tikochinsky who transcribed the letters published in ההר הטוב. Almost the entire portion of the letter presented here also appears in the original Hebrew in Tikochinsky’s latest and most fascinating book, למדנות מוסר ואליטיזם p. 243. Prof. Tikochinsky was also kind enough to supply me with the pictures of Dov Mayani.
[7] Ari studied together with Dov at the Slobodka Yeshiva in Europe. Later they studied together at the Berlin seminary where they both became attached to the legendary Rabbi Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan. Ari was from Berlin, where his father Dr. Joseph Wohlgemuth served as a professor of Talmud and Jewish philosophy at the Rabbinical Seminary. The younger Wohlgemuth was constantly struggling to reconcile his “Yekkeshe” upbringing with his Eastern European Lithuanian Mussar education. In this matter Dov and Ari were soulmates who worked together to synthesize these two different worlds. (See אעברה נא p. 127)
[8] Ari studied together with Dov at the Slobodka Yeshiva in Europe. Later they studied together at the Berlin seminary where they both became attached to the legendary Rabbi Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan. Ari was from Berlin, where his father Dr. Joseph Wohlgemuth served as a professor of Talmud and Jewish philosophy at the Rabbinical Seminary. The younger Wohlgemuth was constantly struggling to reconcile his “Yekkeshe” upbringing with his Eastern European Lithuanian Mussar education. In this matter Dov and Ari were soulmates who worked together to synthesize these two different worlds. (See אעברה נא p. 127)
[9] We can assume that Ari was in his native Germany at the time. One can also glean this information from the last few lines of this letter. Dov writes to Ari that he and another student at the Yeshiva were debating whether Graetz’ book ‘Geschichte der Juden’ [History of the Jews] begins with the Exodus or only after Joshua conquered Eretz Yisroel. Dov says that he remembers reading a half a year ago in a Russian translation of the book about the Exodus, but his friend insists that the book only begins after they entered Eretz Yisroel. He asks Ari to take a look at the book and let him know who is right. It would seem that since Ari was in Berlin he was in the position to easily look up the answer.

For the benefit of the curious reader, it is worth noting that there was merit to both sides of the argument. Graetz begins with the crossing of the Jordan, but then goes back to describe the Exodus. See here.
[10] The letter was written in beautiful Hebrew. It is quite amazing that a Yeshiva student in 1925 mastered Modern Hebrew. See אעברה נא p. 34 for a discussion regarding how Mayani mastered the relatively new language.
[11] There are many interesting parts to the letter, but it is worth mentioning in particular Mayani’s description of Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer’s (1870 – 1953) visit to the yeshivah. Rav Isser Zalman was a brother-in-law of the Slobodka Rav and Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Moshe Mordechai Epstein. Mayani writes that Rav Isser Zalman came to spend the weekend in the city of Chevron to which his brother-in-law had just relocated from Slobodka. He describes an exciting shiur which Rav Isser Zalman delivered on Sunday. He adds that Rav Isser Zalman is a more outstanding Magid Shiur [ר”מ יותר מצויין] than his brother-in-law Rav Moshe Mordechai. He also praises Rav Isser Zalman’s personality by noting that he is a very gentle sweet person with a young spirit which draws his students. Mayani also shares that Rav Isser Zalman had a Yahrtzeit and davened all the Tefillos for the Amud. One cannot help but smile while reading that the musical Mayani admits that he “begrudgingly” (בדיעבד שבעתי מזה רב רצון) immensely enjoyed Rav Isser Zalman’s davening.
[12]Earlier in the letter Mayani tells Wohlgemuth about how he spent the “יום הזכרון” dedicated in memory of their joint Rebbe, the legendary Rav Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan. In spite of the fact that the Alter of Slobodka had an unspoken agreement with Rav Avraham Eliyahu that the latter was not to attract Slobodka students to the Berlin Seminary, Mayani was attracted to R. Kaplan when he visited Slobodka and subsequently joined R. Kaplan in Berlin. This went against the Alter’s view that the Seminary was only for German-born students who grew up with a “Torah im Derech Eretz” upbringing. See אעברה נא p. 45.
[13] “בכיליון עיניים”
[14] “מעטה”
[15] “לנגוע בזקנו”
[16]

Utilizing a clever play on the words of the prophet Yechezkel (16:7), Mayani writes:

“ויגדלו וירבו ויבואו בעדי עדים, השער צמח ואין נגדו עזרה”

[17] “ואף צביון לגמרי אחר היה לו”
[18] “ומא דפגרא”
[19] כת was a derogatory term used by Misnagdim when referring to Chasidim.
[20] “ל אשר ידם מגעת”
[21] “ופתקאות בקשה”
[22] “סגולות”
[23] This custom has many sources and is beyond the scope of this article.
[24] “מחול”
[25] “פאר והדר”
[26] “אני הקטן”
[27] In many sources, Lag B’Omer is described as a day focused on children. Among others see Minhagim of Worms (מנהגי וורמיישא ח”א אות צה וח”ב עמוד קע”ה) were it is described as a relaxed day in which the teachers provide their students with goodies.
[28] In the source, it says אבוקות קטנות – “Feuerwerke”. In HaHar Hatov it is mistakenly transcribed as “Feueraserke”.
[29] וכן המנהג שלנו.
[30] See Sefer HaManhig הלכות אירוסין ונישואין סימן קו.
[31] בית הבחירה יבמות סב, ב וע”ע תשב”ץ חלק א סימן קעח.
[32] R. Zerachya, Me’iri, Sefer Hamanhig were all from the Province. See also Kaftor V’Ferach (פרק ז עוד בענין טבריה) where another Provincial sage mentions Lag B’omer as the end of the mourning period.
[33] מרבים קצת שמחה ואין אומרים תחנון.
[34] רמ”א סימן תצג סעיף ב.
[35] ביאור הגר”א שם ד”ה ומרבים.
[36] שו”ת שם אריה סימן יד.
[37] מגן אברהם שם סעיף ב.
[38] יד אהרן שם.
[39] עטרת זקנים שם.
[40] R. Yosef Shaul Nathanson (שואל ומשיב מהדורה חמישאה סימן לט) questions why one would celebrate the anniversary of a Tanna’s death. He points out that on the anniversary of Moshe Rabbeinu’s death on the seventh of Adar it is customary to fast, so why would we celebrate on the anniversary of Rabbi Shimon’s death:

תמהתי דהרי אדרבא במות צדיק וחכם יש להתענות ואנו מתענין על מיתת צדיקים ואיך נעשה יום טוב במות רבינו הגדול רשב”י ז”ל ובמות מבחר היצורים משה רבינו ע”ה אנו עושין ז’ אדר בכל שנה ואם הזוהר קרא הלולא דרשב”י היינו לו שבודאי שמחה לו שהלך למנוחה אבל אותנו עזב לאנחה.

R. Aryeh Leibish Balchubar (שו”ת שם אריה סימן יד) penned a responsum in which he criticized the “newfangled” custom of turning a Yahrtzeit into a day of celebration. He insinuates that the Chasidim are responsible for what he sees as a deviation, and he chastised them for doing so:

בימים ההם ובזמן הזה החלו בני עמנו במקצת מחוזות, כמו וואלין פאדליא אוקריינא ועוד, לשלוח ידם במנהגים שנהגו בהם אבותינו ואבות אבותינו מעולם.. ועתה באתי לדבר על מה שכתב הרמ”א ביורה דעה ס”ס ת”ב בשם הרבה פוסקים קדמונים שמצוה להתענות יום שמת בו אביו או אמו… ומשנים קדמוניות נהגו כן כל מדינתנו והוא מנהג וותיקין שנתיסד מקדמונים ואין אדם רשאי לבטלו אם לא ע”פ אונס.

R. Balchubar writes that the Chasidim bring proof from the celebrations on Lag B’Omer that a Yartzeit is a cause for celebration. As can be expected he rejects their claim, by saying that it is not the reason why we celebrate Lag B’Omer:

ואומרים כי חלילה להתענות ביום מיתת הצדיק רק מצוה להרבות בשמחה וראייתם ממה שמרבים בשמחה בל”ג בעומר על קרב הצדיק בוצינא קדישא רשב”י כידוע שמתאספים שמה מכל הארצות ומדליקים שם הדלקות ומאורות רבות וששים ושמחים במקום מנוחתו בכפר מירון הסמוך לצפת. ואומרים בתר רשב”י אנן גררינן וממנו אנו לומדים לעשות כן להצדיקים האלה הקדושים אשר בארץ. ומה שנהגו עד כה להתענות ולהתאבל ביום זה, הוא נתקן רק לפני אנשי ההמון ואנשים פשוטים אשר צריכים להתאבל במיתתם, לא הצדיקים והחסידים המפורסמים אז הוא יום שמחתם כידוע מהמעשה בכתבים ובמגן אברהם וכו’ ומזה נתפשט המנהג הרע הזה כמעט בכל האנשים כי כל אחד יאמר אבי היה צדיק וחסיד וכו’ וכדי לבטל פטפוט דבריהם ושיחה בטלה שלהם נגד תורה שלמה שלנו…

After rejecting the possibility that a Yahrtzeit is a reason for celebrating, R. Balchubar continues with a lengthy discussion regarding the cause for celebration on Lag B’omer.
[41] שו”ת חתם סופר יורה דעה סימן רגל
[42] שו”ת שם אריה סימן יד
[43] אגרות ותשובות רבינו חיים בן עטר אגרת ז’
[44] בל תשחית
[45] דרכי אמורי
[46] שואל ומשיב מהדורה חמישאה סימן לט
[47] חקרי לב מהדורה בתרא יורה דעה סימן יא
[48] בל תוסיף
[49] שו”ת חתם סופר יורה דעה סימן רגל
[50] היראים
[51] ההר הטוב עמ’ 43-44.
[52] אעברה נא עמ’ 58
[53] שם עמ’ 63
[54] היה בעל נשמה חסידית
[55] אעברה נא עמ’ 262-263

The Cup for the Visitor: What lies behind the Kos Shel Eliyahu?

The Cup for the Visitor: What lies behind the Kos Shel Eliyahu?

By: Eliezer Brodt

In this post I would like to deal with tracing the early sources for the Kos Shel Eliyahu. A version of this article was printed last year in Ami Magazine (# 65). 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).

One of the memorable parts of the seder night is during Shefoch Chamascha when we open the door for Eliyahu Hanavi to come inside and drink from the Kos Shel Eliyahu. Children all over the world look carefully to see if there is less wine in the cup after he leaves, while many adults ‘accidently’ shake the table to make sure that there is less wine. What are the sources of this custom? When do we pour the kos of wine and what should we do with the leftover wine from the kos—drink it, spill it out, or save it? In this article I hope to trace this custom to its earliest known sources and to discuss some other aspects of the seder night related to this topic.[1]

I would like to point out that my intention in this article is not to collect all the sources and reasons on these specific topics but rather to focus on the earliest sources and how these various minhagim came about.[2]

To begin with, it is worth pointing out that as far as we know today, there is no mention of the concept of Kos Shel Eliyahu in all of the literature that we have from the Geonim and Rishonim. Neither is there mention of it in the Tur, Shulchan Orach, Rema, or other early commentators on the Shulchan Orach.

One of the earliest mentions of a Kos Shel Eliyahu can be found in Rabbi Yaakov Reischer’s (1660-1733) work, Chok Yaakov, on Hilchos Pesach, first printed in 1696, in Dessau. He wrote that in his area, people had the custom to pour an extra glass of wine and call it Kos Shel Eliyahu.[3] He does not mention a reason for this custom, or at what point during the seder it is done, nor does he connect it to the opening of the door during Shefoch Chamascha or the idea Eliyahu Hanavi comes to the Seder.

Rabbi Chaim Benveniste (1603-1673), famous for his work Knesses Hagedolah, in his work on Pesach called Pesach Meuvin, first printed in 1692, writes that he saw some Ashkenazi Jews that leave an empty glass in the middle of the table for the leftovers of each cup of wine, and they call it Kos Shel Eliyahu. He writes that he liked this minhag so much that he started doing it himself, and he drank this glass during the Meal.[4] Here too, there is no connection made between the Kos Shel Eliyahu and opening the
door during Shefoch Chamascha for Eliyahu Hanavi.

In 1728, Rabbi Moshe Chagiz (1671-1751), printed part of a work of his, on minhagim, in the back of Sefer Birchat Eliyahu[5]. He writes that he was asked about the custom of Ashkenazi Jews to pour a cup of wine at the beginning of the seder for Eliyahu Hanavi, and that after the seder the head of the household slept next to this full glass of wine. Rabbi Moshe Chagiz was asked if observing this custom was a problem of nichush [divination].

Rabbi Chagiz replied that it was not a problem of nichush at all. He explained that the reason for this custom was similar to the reason we prepare a special chair for Eliyahu Hanavi at a bris milah.[6] Eliyahu Hanavi witnesses that the bris is performed. So too, on Pesach, Eliyahu Hanavi is supposed to be a witness that the Korban Pesach is done properly. The Korban Pesach is dependent on milah, since the halacha is that only someone with a bris milah can eat the Korban Pesach.[7] However it is important to point out that according to this reasoning, Eliyahu Hanavi does come to the seder, but it would seem that this would apply only during the times when the Korban Pesach was eaten.

New early sources for Kos Shel Eliyahu

Until 1984 these were the three earliest sources that made any mention of Kos Shel Eliyahu. In 1984, Rabbi Binyomin Nuzetz printed parts of a manuscript of Rabbi Zeligman Benga on Pesachim. Rabbi Benga was a grandson of Rabbi Menachem Tzioni and a close talmid of the Maharil, and he died around 1471. Rabbi Benga writes that he noticed some people pour a special glass of wine and call it Kos Shel Eliyahu. He writes that a possible reason for this is that we pour wine for Eliyahu Hanavi, since we are expecting him to come and he will need wine for the Arba Kosos.[8] This source helps us date the Kos Shel Eliyahu a few hundred years earlier than previously thought. Previously, the earliest source was printed in1692. What is interesting about this source is that he was not sure where the minhag came from and, again, he mentions no connection to Shefoch Chamascha.

In 1988, the department in Machon Yerushalayim that prints early works of German Jewry printed two volumes from manuscript from Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash (1604-1678) of Worms. Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash writes that it was the custom in Worms at the beginning of the seder to pour one extra cup of wine. Just as we say in the Haggadah, “Kol dichfin yesev v’yachul,” we prepare a glass for the guest who might come. This glass is called Kos Shel Eliyahu since this is the guest we await. Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash brings another reason why it is called Kos Shel Eliyahu:
because it is a segulah to say “Eliyahu” to get rid of mazikim [destructive forces], and we do various things on the seder night to chase away the mazikim.[9]

In 1985, a manuscript of Rav Yaakov Emden was printed in the Kovetz Kerem Shlomo of Bobov. This manuscript contained Rav Yaakov Emden’s notes on the Pesach Meuvin of Rabbi Chaim Benveniste. He says that there is a minhag to have a Kos Shel Eliyahu but not to pour leftover wine in a cup for him—that would not be an honor for him at all. He points out that the Chazal say not to drink from a cup that someone else drank from.[10]

Additional Reasons for Kos Shel Eliyahu

Rabbi Aron of Metz (1754-1836) suggested that the origin of the Kos Shel Eliyahu is that on Pesach the head of the household does not pour for everyone. Therefore, out of convenience, people would leave a big cup in the middle of the table for everyone to take from. Once the children started asking what the cup was for, they would tell them it was a cup for Eliyahu Hanavi.[11]

Rabbi Mordechai Gimpel Yaffe suggests an original possibility for the Kos Shel Eliyahu. The halacha is that when one makes a seudah he should leave over a little space empty as a zecher l’churban. He says that on Pesach, a glass of wine was left over as a zecher l’churban. It was called Kos Shel Eliyahu to represent the hope that Eliyahu Hanavi would come quickly to correct the Churban.[12]

Rabbi Shimon Falk asks the following question: The halacha is that one cannot bring a full loaf of bread to the table before bentching, since it looks like one is doing it for some form of idol worship. So why isn’t it a problem to prepare a glass of wine for
Eliyahu Hanavi? Rabbi Falk suggests that it this might the reason we do not find any mention of a Kos Shel Eliyahu in the Gemara, but today, when there is no one amongst the goyim who worship in this manner, it’s not a problem.[13]

Maharal Haggadah

In 1905, in Warsaw, Rabbi Yudel Rosenberg printed the Haggadah of the Maharal which he claimed was from a manuscript of the Maharal’s son in law. In this Haggadah there is a lengthy discussion of the number of glasses of wine one should drink at the seder. The Maharal concludes that one has to drink five cups of wine and that this fifth cup is the Kos Shel Eliyahu.[14] If this is correct we have an early source for Kos Shel Eliyahu, the Maharal, and based on his words we would have many more early sources, since various Rishonim listed by the Maharal mentions the fifth glass of wine.

However, it has been proven that, although Rabbi Rosenberg was a tremendous talmid chacham, he was also a forger. He may have possibly had good intentions behind his forgeries.[15] His most notable forgery was the story about the Maharal’s golem.[16]
Rabbi Avraham Benidict devoted two articles to proving that this Haggadah is a forgery.[17] One of the points he discusses relates to our topic. In 1582, the Mahral publised his work about Pesach and the seder titled Gevuros Hashem. In this work, the Maharal writes that one may drink a fifth cup, but he doesn’t connect the fifth cup to Kos Shel Eliyahu.

The Fifth Cup of Wine

However, whether or not the Maharal said that one has to drink a fifth cup, and whether or not he says that this is the Kos Shel Eliyahu, there are others that make a connection between the fifth cup and Kos Shel Eliyahu. A small introduction is needed. The Mishnah at the beginning of Arvei Pesachim says that even a poor person has to have four cups of wine at the seder. Later on, the Mishna and Gemara discuss exactly when the cups should be poured and drunk. The Gemara (119a) says that Reb Tarfon held that the fourth cup should be drunk after we say Hallel Hagadol. Many Geonim and Rishonim interpret this to be referring to a fifth cup of wine. In 1950 Rabbi Menachem Kasher printed a booklet collecting all the Geonim and Rishonim that deal with this issue and he showed that many held that one should, but does not have to, drink a fifth cup of wine.[18] It is worth noting that in Teiman[19] and in Italy,[20] many people drink a fifth cup of wine at the seder because of this. None of the sources that Rav Kasher collected tie this fifth cup to the Kos Shel Eliyahu.

Some bring in the name of the Gra,[21] others in the name of Rabbi Ephraim Zalman Margolis,[22] an interesting explanation for the development of the Kos Shel Eliyahu. There is an argument in the Gemara in Pesachim (119a) whether one needs to drink the fifth glass of wine. There is no final halacha given. Because we are not sure what to do, we prepare a cup of wine, but do not drink
it. The reason it is called Kos Shel Eliyahu is that Eliyahu is going to come and tell us what the din is.[23]

So according to this Gra, Kos Shel Eliyahu is not really a new concept. It always existed, as the numerous sources that Rav Kasher collected demonstrate, but it was not called Kos Shel Eliyahu.

Many times we have different versions of something said over in the name of the Gra. Sometimes that is because things were added to what he actually said. In this case, one version has the Gra saying this idea a bit differently, that the opinion in the Gemara that one should drink a fifth cup of wine was Reb Eliyahu, so the fifth cup is called Kos Shel Eliyahu after him. This version concludes that this reason was revealed to the Vilna Gaon because his name was Eliyahu, as well. The problem with this version is that as far as we know there was no Tanna or Amorah with the name Eliyahu and that the person who said to drink a fifth cup of wine was Reb Tarfon.[24]

Be that as it may, it is likely that there are early sources for a fifth cup of wine at the seder and at some point its name became Kos Shel Eliyahu. But none of these explanations (except for that of Rav Moshe Chagiz) tie the cup to Eliyahu coming to the seder.

The Custom of Opening the Door

There is a custom of many that before we begin saying Shefoch Chamascha someone opens the door. What is the source for this minhag? One of the earliest sources of keeping the door open the whole night of Pesach is found in the Geonim. Rav Nissim Gaon says that one should be careful to leave open the doors the whole night.[25] The Manhig explains that this is because the night of Pesach is Leil Shimurim and if Eliyahu will come the door will be open and we would be able to run and greet him.[26] The Rama writes in the Darchei Moshe that because of this we open the door when saying Shefoch Chamascha, to show that we believe in Hashem and that Moshiach should come.[27] So it is clear from this that there is some connection between Shefoch Chamascha and Moshiach coming, but there is no mention in the Geonim and Rishonim that Eliyahu comes when we open the door. Rather it is understood to be a preparation for his eventual coming. It is worth pointing out that not everyone said Shefoch Chamascha[28]
and that there are many different versions of what is said by Shefoch Chamascha.[29]

Rabbi Yosef Hann Norlingen (1570-1637) writes in Yosef Ometz (first printed in 1723) that in Frankfurt there was a custom that when the door was opened by the head of the house at Shefoch Chamascha someone would come in the door, to show our belief that Moshiach will come.[30]

However, Rabbi Yair Chaim Bachrach of Worms writes in Mekor Chaim that the minhag that some had to have the form of a person appear when the door was opened at Shefoch Chamascha was not proper.[31]

Woodcuts and Pictures From Early Haggadahs

Some have claimed that there is no basis for a connection between Shefoch Chamascha and Eliyahu coming to the seder. However, as I will demonstrate, this is not so. Some of the earliest Haggadahs printed include many woodcuts and pictures of various aspects of the seder. These Haggadahs are a great resource to help find early sources of how various things were done at the seder.[32] Regarding Eliyahu Hanavi coming to the seder, Professor Sperber noted[33] that in a few of these Haggadahs there are pictures by Shefoch Chamascha of a man on a donkey in some of them he is being led by someone, for example, in the Prague Haggadah printed by Gershon Cohen in 1527.[34] The pictures were updated in a Haggadah printed in Prague in 1560. Another early Haggadah that has such pictures by Shefoch Chamascha can be found in the Haggadah printed in Mantuvah in 1550.[35] Yosef Guttman collected fifteen illustrated Haggadah manuscripts from the fifteenth century which all show a man on a donkey by Shefoch Chamascha.[36] From all this evidence it is clear that already a few hundred years ago there
was a belief that when the door is opened by Shefoch Chamascha that there is a connection to Eliyahu Hanavi and Moshiach.

Mantua 1550:

Prague 1556:

Prague 1590:

Sleeping Near the Kos Shel Eliyahu

In 1958, Rabbi Yosef Avidah wrote a small work devoted to gathering all the known information about the Kos Shel Eliyahu. He makes the following interesting observation. Rabbi Moshe Chagiz writes that the custom was that the head of the house slept near the Kos Shel Eliyahu the whole night but he does not say why. He suggests that the reason for this was similar to the reason for sleeping with the door unlocked to show we eagerly await Eliyahu’s and Moshiach’s arrival. He goes further to show that there is an early source for this minhag. The Leket Yosher writes that his Rebbe, Reb Yisroel Isserlin, author of the Terumas Hadeshen,
used to sleep on Pesach on the bed that he leaned on during the meal and he does not know what his reason for this was.[37] Rabbi Avidah suggests that he was sleeping there to remind himself of the concept that on Pesach night we show that we eagerly await Moshiach.[38]

It is interesting to note that the Likutei Chaver from Rabbi Chaim Plaut, a talmid of the Chasam Sofer, writes that the Chasam Sofer would keep the cup the entire night and use it for Kiddush the next morning.[39] This would seem to have a connection to the same idea.

However it is worth pointing out that these don’t point to a connection between Kos Shel Eliyahu and Shefoch Chamascha.

Opening the Door and Zugos

Another nice possibility given to explain the opening of the door by Shefoch Chamascha is from the Bais Halevi. The Rama says we open the door to show that it’s Leil Shimurim. The Bais Halevi comments that according to this it would make more sense to open the door at the beginning of the seder not at the end specifically when we say Kol dichfin yesev v’yachul ?[40] He answers that the Gemara in Pesachim (109 b) asks how can there be a halacha to drink four cups of wine if there is a danger to eat or drink things in pairs—which is known as zugos. The Gemara answers since it is Leil Shimurim, there is no danger. So the Bais Halevi says that we specifically open the door when the fourth cup is drunk to explain to the person who would ask why isn’t there a problem of zugos. We show him that it’s not a problem because it is Leil Shimurim as we open the door.[41]

Additional Reasons for Opening the Door by Shefoch Chamascha

A similar explanation for the opening of the door specifically by Shefoch Chamascha is suggested by Rabbi Yosef Zechariah Stern. He says the Gemara in Pesachim says another way that there is no problem of zugos is if one opens the door to the street. So that is why we open the door specifically at this point in the seder.[42]

Others suggest the reason for the opening of the door by Shefoch Chamascha was to show the gentile neighbors that the accusations against the Jews about using blood of Christians and the like are false.[43] Rabbi Shmule Ruzuvski suggested that the

possible reason why the door is opened by Shefoch Chamascha is that when we used to eat the Korban Pesach the halacha
is that one cannot take any of it out of the house so they used to lock the door. After bentching, they would go to the roof to say Hallel, so they opened the door.[44]

A Very Original Explanation for this Custom of Eliyahu Hanavi and the Seder

One possible explanation of why Eliyahu Hanavi is associated with the seder could be the following: Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamash writes[45] that on Pesach night we say Eliyahu and Moshiach will come because mazikin run away from a place where they recite Eliyahu’s name. He says that because of this some make a picture of Eliyahu and Moshiach for the children so that the children seeing it will say “Eliyahu,” causing the mazikin to disappear.[46] Interestingly enough he writes that this could also be the reason it is called Kos Shel Eliyahu to get rid of the mazikin.[47] According to all this, what lies behind saying Eliyahu’s name at the seder is simply a desire to get rid of mazikin.
Earlier I mentioned the Bais Halevi and others who say that the opening of the door at the seder by Shefoch Chamascha is to get rid of mazikin. According to Rabbi Yuzpeh Shamsash this was the also reason some used to draw pictures of Eliyahu and Moshiach.

Eliyahu Actually Comes

There are quite a number of stories concerning Eliyahu at the seder just to list some of them:

The Yismach Moshe once sent some of his chassdim to eat the seder with the Chasam Sofer. When they returned they told him that \in the middle something strange happened. A farmer came in. He drank a cup of wine that the Chasam Sofer gave him and then the Chasam Sofer drank from the cup after him. The Yismach Moshe told them that this was Eliyahu Hanavi.[48]

The Chiddushei HaRim once was speaking about the greatness of the Nodeh B’Yehuda. He said that when the Noda B’Yehuda would say Shefoch Chamascha he would escort Eliyahu Hanavi all the way to the street. The Noda B’Yehuda said, “It’s not that I actually see him, but rather \that I believe so strongly that he does come to everyone, and this emunah is better than gilui Eliyahu![49]

Rabbi Yitchock Weiss writes that Rabbi Shneur Lublin, author of the Shut Toras Chesed, did not allow anyone to eat at his seder,
He also told said that Eliyahu or a messenger comes to every great person on the night of the seder.[50]

The Belzer Rebbe would great Eliyahu when he opened the door by Shefoch Chamascha.[51]

Rabbi Yitchock Weiss writes that Rabbi Chaim Gottlieb of Stropkov would be visited by Eliyahu Hanavi at the seder. Many
wanted to come to see this so they asked him permission to come. He answered, “Why not?” While they were there, they fell into a deep sleep until the seder was over.[52]

Conclusion

In conclusion there are definitely early sources that talk about a fifth cup of wine at the seder. According to some, this fifth cup at some point started being called Kos Shel Eliyahu. Starting from the late 1400s we find that people would pour a special kos, and call it Kos Shel Eliyahu. I have shown that there are early sources for opening the door at Shefoch Chamascha that give various reasons. I also showed that there are many drawings by Shefoch Chamascha of a man on a donkey and Eliyahu found in the early manuscripts and printed illustrated Haggadahs. This would logically lead us to conclude that there was a belief that he did indeed come to visit when the door is opened and I offered another possible explanation for all this. May we be zocheh for Eliyahu to come with Moshiach this year at the Leil Haseder.

NOTES

[1] For sources on this topic that helped me prepare this article See Rabbi Yosef Zecharia Stern, Zecher Yehosef, pp. 39-40; Rabbi Moshe Weingarten, Seder Ha-Aruch 1 (1991), pp.576-582; Shmuel & Zev Safrai,Haggadas Chazal, (1998), pp.177-178; Rabbi Gedaliah Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beydenu, 2, pp. 392-409; Rabbi Tuviah Freund, Moadim Li-Simcha (Pesach), pp. 358-376; Pardes Eliezer, pp. 180-243. These collections of sources were useful but it is worth noting that much earlier than all these collections many of the sources on this topic were already collected by Rabbi Yosef Avidah in 1958, in a small work called Koso
Shel Eliyahu. As I mentioned a few weeks ago I recently reprinted this work with additions from the author’s copy. Another earlier useful article on the topic is from Yehudah Rosenthal, Mechkarim 2, pp. 645- 651. For general useful collections of material related to Eliyahu Hanavi see the two volume work Romot Gilod from Rabbi Eliezer Veisfish, (2005) and the earlier work of Aharon Weiner, The Prophet Elijah in the Development of Judaism (1978). I would like to thank my good friend Yisroel Israel for help with the beautiful pictures to accompany this article.

[2] I hope to return to all this in my forthcoming article in Hebrew on this topic.

[3] Chok Yaakov, end of Siman 480.

[4] Pesach Meuvin (1997), p. 124, #182.

[5] See also the end of his Shut Shtei Lechem. Rabbi Freund (above note 1), p. 359 was apparently not aware of where this piece was printed first. This explanation is also brought in Rabbi Dovid Zecut, Zecher Dovid, Mamar Rishon, Chapter 26, pp. 174-175. See Elisheva Carlbach, The Pursuit of Heresy, (1990) esp. pp. 247-249.

[6] I hope to return to this topic in a future article.

[7] See Hagadat Baer Miriam of Rabbi Reven Margolis (2002), p. 90-91 where Rabbi Magolis brings a similar idea from the Toras Emes.

[8] Moriah, 13, (1984), n. 146-147, p. 17. See Chidushei MaHarz Binga, (1985), p.195.

[9] Minhaghim De-Kehal VerMeizah, (1988), p. 85-86.

[10] Kovetz Kerem Shlomo, 76 (1985) p. 7

[11] Meorei Or, Pesachim. On this work see the important article of Yakov Speigel, Yerushaseinu 3 (2009, pp. 269-309.

[12] Techeles Mordechaei in Keser Kehunah, (2004), p. 40. See also his Hagadas Mordechai, p. 75.

[13] Shut Shem Mishimon, (2003) 2, pp. 100-101.

[14] Hagdah Shel Pesach, Loshon Limudim , 1905, pp. 65-66.

[15] See Meir Bar Ilan, Alei Sefer 19 (2001), pp. 173-184.

[16] On all this see the excellent work from Dr. Shnayer Leiman, 2004, The Adventure of the Maharal of Prague in London. See also E. Yassif, Ha-golem Me-Prauge U- Massim Niflayim Acharyim, (1991).

[17] See Moriah 14 (1985) n. 3-4, pp. 102- 112; Moriah 16 (1989) n. 9-10, pp. 124- 130. See also Y. Yudolov, Otzar Hagadas, p. 171, #2299; Rabbi Shlomo Fischer, Tzefunot 3 (1989) p. 69.

[18] Kos Chemeshi, Later reprinted in the back of Haggadah Shelimah, pp. 161-177. See also Yosef Tabori, Pesach Dorot, (1996), pp. 325-341; Shmuel & Zev Safrai,Haggadas Chazal, (1998), pp. 40-41.

[19] See Rabbi Yosef Kapach, Ha-Liechos Teiman (1968), pp. 22-23. See also Rabbi Y. Ritzabi, Aggadata Depischa, (1996), pp. 388-390; Moshe Garba, Mechkarim BeSidurei Yeiman 1 (1989), pp. 139-141

[20] See Machzor Roma (1485), p. 73b [in the facsimile edition of this Machzar printed in 2012]. See also Sefer Ha-Tadir, (1992), p. 217.

[21] See the excellent article of Rabbi Y. Avidah in Hatzofeh (1958) which I
recently reprinted in his Koso Shel Eliyahu pp. 53-57where he explains why he does not believe that the Gra actually said this idea.

[22] Hagdah Shel Pesach shel Haflah.

[23] See Likutei Tzvi, p. 28; Pineinim MeShulchan Ha-Gra, pp. 112-113; Hamoer Ha-godol, pp. 126-127. See also Rabbi Yeruchem Fishel Perlow in his notes to the Chidushel Dinim Mei-Hilchos Pesach, pp.29-30 who gives this explanation himself. See also A. Hopfer, Ha-Tzofeh Le-chochmas Yisroel, 11 (1927), pp. 211-21; Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Shalmei Moed, p. 404.

[24] This version appears in the beautiful Haggadah Beis Avrhom- Beis Aron (p.117b) where the author heard this from The Belzer Rebbe T”l in the name of the Gra. On all this see Yaakov Speigel, Yeshurun 7 (2000), p. 728-730. See also Shut Ber Sheva, end of siman 73; Rabbi Yosef Zecharia Stern, Mamar Tahaluchos HaAgdot, p. 26.

[25] Rav Nissim Goan, (Abramson) p. 278.

[26] Sefer Ha-Manhig, 2. p. 423-424. See Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, 3, pp. 81-82.

[27] For a discussion of the opening of the door see Rabbi Yosef Avidah, Koso Shel Eliyahu, pp. 4-8. See also his work Bershis Be-mlitzah Ha-ivrit, (1938), pp. 40-43. For an early illustration of the opening of the door at Shefoch Chamascha see Therese and Mendel Metzger, Jewish Life in the Middle ages, (1982),p. 380.

[28] For example, in Italy they did not say it. See Machzor Roma (1485); Machzor Moscovitz, (2005), p.29. See Yitzchack Yudolov, Kovetz Mechkarim Al Machzor Ki-Minhag Bnei Roma (2012), pp. 17-18.

[29] See Daniel Goldshmidt, Haggadah Shel Pesach (1960), pp. 62-64; Haggadah Sheilmah, pp. 177-180. See also Yosef Tabori, Mechkarim Betoldos Halacha (forthcoming), pp. 370-389; Shmuel & Zev Safrai,Haggadas Chazal, (1998), pp.174-175.

[30] Yosef Ometz , p. 172, #786.

[31] Mekor Chaim, end of Siman 480.

[32] See Cecil Roth, Areshet 3 (1961, pp. 7-30, especially, pp. 14-1. See also Richard Cohen, Jewish Icons, (1998), pp. 90-100; U. Schubert, Emunos HAsefer HaYehudit (1993); Marc Epstein, The Medieval Haggadah: Art, Narrative, and Religious Imagination (2011), especially, pp. 80-84.

[33] Minhaghei Yisroel 4, pp. 168-170.

[34] On this haggadah see Y. Yudolov, Otzar Haggadas, p. 2, # 7-8. See also Rabbi Charles Wengrov, Haggadah and Woodcut, (1967), pp, 69-71; the introduction to the 1965 reprint of his Haggadah; Yosef Yerushalmi, Haggadah and History, plate 13; See also Yosef Tabori, Mechkarim Betoldos Halacha (forthcoming), pp. 461-474.

[35] On this rare Haggadah see Y. Yudolov, Otzar Haggadas, p. 3, # 14.

[36] The Messiah at the Seder—A Fifteenth Century Motif in Jewish Art, pp. 29-38 printed in Sefer Rephael Mahaler (1974). See also his Hebrew manuscript Painting (1978), pp. 98-99. See also the Illustration of the Washington Haggadah 1478 in Betzalel Narkiss, Hebrew Illuminated manuscripts, pp. 140-141,34.

[37] Leket Yosher, p. 86.

[38] Koso Shel Eliyahu, pp. 12-13.

[39] Likutei Chaver Ben Chaim, 5 (1883), p. 110 b.

[40] The truth is as previously mentioned originally that was indeed the custom.

[41] Bais Ha-Levi, Parshas Bo, p. 15. The Chasam Sofer says this same idea in his notes to Shulchan Orach, 480.

[42] Rabbi Yosef Zecharia Stern, Zecher Yehosef, p. 39. See also Mishna Zicron (1923), p. 138; Rabbi Tzvi Farber, Kerem Hatzvi, p. 79. See the comments of the Dvar Yehoshuah on this printed in Hagadat Baer Miriam of Rabbi Reven Margolis (2002), p. 91.

[43] Likutei Tzvi, p. 29; Rabbi Shlomo Schick, Siddur Rashban, p. 32; Hagaddas Ha-Malbim (1883), p.50 (editor’s note).

[44] Mikrai Kodesh (Harri), p. 548.

[45] Rabbi Oberlander and Freund (above note 1) incorrectly thought that this comment is from the Chavos Yair.

[46] Minhaghim De-Kehal VerMeizah, (1988), p. 87. Rabbi Gedaliah Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beydenu, Rabbi Tuviah Freund, Moadim Li-Simcha, and Pardes Eliezer, all quote this piece of Rabbi Shamash But they did not realize what he was really saying.

[47] Minhaghim De-Kehal VerMeizah, p. 86.

[48] Orchos Hasofer, p. 115.

[49] Or Pnei Yitchak, p. 16.

[50] Elef Kesav, p. 21.

[51] Elef Kesav, p. 72.

[52] Elef Kesav, p. 97.

Review of Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-I…

Review of Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghimby Eliezer Brodt and Dan Rabinowitz
Yaakov S. Spiegel, Amudim be-Tolodot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghim (Chapters in the History of the Jewish Book Scholars and their Annotations), Ramat Gan, 20052, 689 pp.

In 1996, Bar Ilan Press published Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghim from Professor Yaakov S. Spiegel. Shortly thereafter, this edition sold out due to its popularity. A few years later Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Kitevah ve-haTakah (volume two) was published. More recently, Amudim be-Toldot Sefer ha-Ivri Haghot u-Maghim was reprinted with over seventy five pages additional pages full of many important additions. In this new edition, Spiegel apologizes to the people who purchased the first edition of his work and would now have to buy the new one if they want the updates. Spiegel offered that the requirement for a completely new edition rather than an addendum was out of his control. Although the importance and quality of the book will be obvious shortly, it has not been reviewed or discussed properly in academic journals except for a short review on Hamayan (37, 3: 69-75). This post hopefully is a start in rectifying this omission. This volume is the first of two (current) volumes discussing the History of the Jewish book – specifically the creation and alteration of the Jewish books. That is, this volume covers annotating or editing texts. Essentially, this work is divided into two parts, (Spiegel divides it into four parts) the first, discusses the permissibility of editing texts and the second discusses annotators and editors.  The first portion begins with the sugyah of editing texts in the time of the Mishana (sifrei torah) and moves into the topic of the prohibition of having a unedited sefer. These two chapters play an important role in the background of this topic of editing seforim. Spiegel then moves into the era of the geonim and rishonim dealing at great length with there methods of editing or annotating texts. He discuses at great length the methods of Rabbenu Gershom, Rashi and Rabbenu Tam. As is well known Rabbenu Tam prohibited the editing or annotating texts Spiegel discusses the complete background of Rabbenu Tam's opinion going through the myriad of sources when Rabbenu Tam's restriction applies. This discussion includes an analysis of Rabbenu Tam's work Sefer Hayashar and his famous disagreement with R Meshulem. Spiegel, as he does in each of the chapter, quotes all the previous sources on the topics and rechecks it all carefully and comes out with many new important conclusions. Spiegel then proceeds to deal with the different works of haghot in the times of rishonim and the nature of these works. Of particular interest is his sections on the Haghot Ashrei (pp. 183-90) and on the Ravad's comments on the Ramabam discussing if those comments are plain haghot or hasaghot (pp. 198-207). The second section of the book surveys the story of Haghot u-Maghim from the beginning of the printing press, in approximately 1456, until 1840. He begins with chapters on the importance of the printing press (see also pp. 300-06) and moves in to the job of the annotators and editors and their methods. Dealing with topics such as, did Rabbenu Tam only speak to instances where one is erasing the text and substituting another but if one merely notes an alternative reading and preserves the original that is OK? Or, is it only applicable to manuscripts or does it apply to printed works as well? The distinction being, in the case of a manuscript, that manuscript may be the only copy and, if one alters the text, the original is forever lost. Additionally, Spiegel discusses at length the important question of whether one can correct texts based on logic or textual support. An interesting section is where he brings a bunch of sources that there is a special will from God that these mistakes happened and should remain (pg 262-269). There are chapters on the various 'editors' such as R. Betzalel Ashkenazi, R. Yoel Sirkes (Bach), Maharshal, Maharsha, Maharam, R. Jacob Emden, R. Y. Pick, Gra, Rashash, and a host of others. For each one Spiegel discusses which version of the Talmud they were addressing their emendation and whether their emendations were based on manuscript evidence or their own determination that the text was corrupted. These questions are very important. For example, Spiegel notes that the Maharshal (p. 315) and Maharsha (p. 323) did use manuscript evidence many times whereas the Maharam (p. 325) did not use manuscript evidence frequently.   As to the Bach's emendations, Spiegel notes that weren't published until the 19th century, but the Bach's comments were addressed at earlier, different version of the Talmud. Thus, at times, it is unclear what the Bach is changing. Indeed, Spiegel shows how some commentaries have misunderstood the Bach's comments. Spiegel deals with at length what the Bach's goals were. Spiegel also shows that there were additions to the work after the Bach's death. As to the Bach's usage of manuscripts Spiegel shows it's still not proven that the Bach used them as most of the changes can be found in Ein Yakkov.   Spiegel devotes a long chapter dealing with the Gra notes amongst the topics he discusses are what was the Gra's point in his comments, and to why there are contradictions in his notes on Shas to his other writings (pg 450). As to the question of whether the Gra used manuscripts Spiegel concludes that it appears that he did not [although he did visit libraries and saw old seforim (pg 454-457)]. Another whole section Spiegel devotes to is discussing Rabinowich's Dikdukei Soferim at length. This is especially important in that Dikdukei Soferim is a collection of variant readings of the Talmud. As many great Rabbis of Rabinowich's time praised this work, this tends to show these Rabbis' position on emending texts. Spiegel shows the may people who used it and how those who did not use it could have benefited from availing themselves to Dikdukei Soferim. Spiegel deals with various theories why it was not used widely. He concludes that it appears that the Dikdukei Soferim is becoming more widespread. He even quotes recent sales of Dikdukei Soferim and notes how quick it sold out after being reprinted after being out of print for quite a while. Although a Otzar haChochma search comes up with well over 2000 hits in over a thousand seforim (of course not all this are good hits as there search engine is still limited although useful). It still does not appear that the Dikdukei Soferim is used widely in the main yeshiva circles. Perhaps that will change.
Spiegel deals extensively with the position of the Hazon Ish regarding manuscripts. This topic, one which has gotten much attention (see, e.g. the Shnayer Z. Leiman, Kook, Moshe A. Bleich articles in Tradition, Hevlin in Meah Shearim as well as the articles in Beis HaVaad), is discussed in detail with the backdrop of all the nuances Spiegel raises throughout this work. Spiegel discusses the curious fact that the Chazon Ish himself did sometimes use the manuscripts of Gemarah when learning (p. 567 n.126). Spiegel concludes this section with a discussion on to more recent printings of the Shas such as the shas Vilna, Frankel and Oz veHadar. It appears that the methodology of both Shas Vilna (the original one) and Oz veHadar in deciding which texts to use etc are not clear. This is especial important to know with Oz veHadar what the methods that they use as they advertise as if they are making incredible important changes but one only wonders what they are ad on what basis they are made. The last section of the sefer is devoted to the various annotators and editors to various editions of the Ramabam including the editions of Bragadin and Justintine. Spiegel also deals with when were the divisions of halachot put into the Rambam (pp. 637-638). He also deals at length with the Amsterdam edition and the comments of R. Sholom Leon and showing its influence on later editions. R. Sholom Leon authored other seforim including Mesectas halacha Le moshe miSinia which was recently printed in a annotated edition including a nice introduction. The editor of this new edition was not aware of Spiegel discussion regarding R. Leon. Spiegel has an interesting discussion about a third work called Merkevet ha-Mishna by R. Leon that was not known to many people and thus people made a mistake attributing a source (pp. 648-49). It is amazing to see Spiegel's mastery of the Talmud and the sources with all its nuances throughout the book. The amount of classical seforim quoted and discussed is breathtaking many very rare works are quoted. Another point is the respect and tone he uses when he speaks about all the authors, a problem some have with many academic books. Another thing is he is not embarrassed to admit mistakes he made – he could have easily left out a specific footnote instead he writes it and explains that he made a mistake (see, e.g., p. 259).  From the above, it should be apparent that this book contains a wealth of information regarding the issue at hand, emending texts. While that alone would be enough to recommend in the strongest terms this book, it must be noted that Spiegel, mainly in the many footnotes, covers an amazing amount of tangential topics. Here are some examples:p.29 n. 8 Spiegel has a discussion about the sefer Kol Dodi quoted by Agnon (for more on this work see this post ).p. 41 n.12 sources regarding the custom of placing a possul sefer torah in the ark and whether this violates the prohibition of "al tiskon be-ohelkha" (one should not have uncorrected texts in their home).
p. 65 n.105 testimony from R. Yaakov Katz that Rav Hai Goan was a copyist.
p. 75 n.153 noting that la"z the term used to indicate a translation should not contain the quote mark as it is not an abbreviation.
p. 80 n.177 noting that Krochmel in his Moreh Nevukeh haZeman quotes the Mahritz Heyos only as "Hakham Eched."
p. 89 n.29 discusses R. Zevin's offhanded comment that the rishonim did not use "nusach aher."
p. 102 n.110 discusses "nusach Sefard" and whether it is more reliable.
p. 103 n.115 notes that although a statement from the Rosh (responsa, klal 20, no. 20) is used by multiple authors to show that Ashkenazik customs have a long history, those many authors ignored the other implication of the statement regarding the "nusach haTalmud shel beni Ashkenaz."
p. 105 n.123 who authored rashi on Horyois.p.105 n. 126 if one learnsa small daf is it considered a Complete daf.p.107 n.132 discussing the issue of when the Talmud records a pusuk differently than our Sifrei Torah. p. 131 n.14 corrections of rashi that were later added into the printed edition of Shas.p. 142 n.55 when Rashi says Hachei Garseninon did he have a different version in front of him.
p. 170 n.64 the common meaning of the word "sefer" – as in yodeah sefer which sefer?
p. 218 n.7 Spiegel explains the melitza used by the printers of the 1494 Nevim to describe what they did. The melitza includes the line "lower the high and raise the lower" (Ezekiel 21:31). Dr. M. Glaser explained that in the early printing presses the letters would be set and they faced upwards, the printer would coat them in ink and then place the paper on top. This is in contrast to how writing was done previously – from above.
p. 230 n.67 citing examples of books where the Soncino press accused the Bomberg press of using (illegally?) Soncino editions.
p. 234 n.79 discussing the alleged apostasy of Yakkov ben Hayyim Ibn Adoniyahu, the editor of the Mikrot Gedolot and other seminal texts.
p. 268 n.95 many sources that say the Havah Minah of the gemarah is true and important. p. 318 -21 he discusses the methods of R Dovid Meubin a talmid of the Maharshal in annotating the Gemarah including many general rules that he mentions in his sefer.p. 329 -35 discuses the notes of the Levush on shas if they were really from him and dealing with R. Zechariah criticism on this.p. 426 n.18 discuses about Fogelman work on R. Menasha Milyah.p. 464 n.167 the Gra's opinion on the laining on Rosh Chodesh.p. 540 n.29 the plagiarism of the Tolodos Adam.p. 587 n.41 deals with a bit if Chaim Bloch was a forger.p. 652 n.185 Kapach opinon on the Teshuvos of Rambam to Chachemei Lunel.  In the academic world Spiegel work has gotten some attention for his discussion of the Chazon Ish and manuscripts. Specifically, Benny Brown in his unpulished dissertation, The Hazon Ish Halakhic Philosophy, Theology and Social Policy As Expressed in His Prominent Later Rulings (Hebrew) pp. 129-40, & Appendix pg 111- 113 deals with Spiegel's discussions with comments and additions. As has been noted here Sperber in his recent work Nesivos Pesikah uses Spiegel's discussions on this topic. And, in his doctorate on R. Betzalel Askenazi B. Toledano uses Spiegel's comments on R. Betzalel. Finally, others have used Spiegel's work, but as Spiegel notes only sometimes do they give Spiegel credit, (see here for more and see the introduction p. 13 and the notes therein and page 183 n.132).  Finally, although Spiegel's work is very comprehensive, there are some additions to some of the topics discussed in the sefer:   In the beginning of the book Spiegel has a chapter about אין כותבין ספרים תפלין ומזוזות במועד ואין מגיהין אות אחת אפילו בספר העזרה בספרים אחרים גורסים ספר עזראTo add to his long list of sources see Archaei Tanamim Vamorim (Rebbe of Rokeach) (Blau edition 2:666-67) and R. Meshulam Roth, Shut Kol Mevaser 2:2823. For the chapter (pp. 39-83) about המחזיק בספר מוטעה אל תשכן באהליך עולה see Efodi in his Maseh Efodie p. 18 in the introduction. For his chapter about Rabbenu Tam's methods of amending texts see also R. Yakov Shor (intro to Sefer haIttim p. vii) where he says he followed Rabbenu Tam's method in his edition of the Sefer haIttim and did make corrections on the actual text.  In chapter twelve where he discusses the Mesectos which are not learned (407-414) Spiegel mentions Nedarim as not being learnt (p. 407). See also the Merei in his Seder Hakabbalah (p. 128 Ofek Edition) where he writes דעו בעדות נאמנה שלא נשנית מסכת נדרים בישיבה זה ק' שנהOn Nedarim see also R. Reven Margolis, Mekharim beDarkei HaTalmud, pp. 81-84; R. Zevin, Sofrim Veseforim (geonim) pp. 46-48; the extensive discussion of R. Zev Rabanovitz in his Shaerei Toras Bavel (pp. 299-310). About Meschates Moed Koton see the important comment of R. Yissacar Tamar, Alei Tamar Moed Koton pg 312; and Yeshurun 20:702. Another mesectah not really learnt in the time of the Rishonim was Mesectas Avodah Zarah see; Professor Chaim Solovetick, Hayayin Byemei Habenyaim pp. 133-36. When discussing Meshtas Chagigah (pg 409) he brings the famous story from the Menorot haMeor that:מעשה בתלמיד אחד, שהיה מתייחד במקום אחד, והיה למד בו מסכת חגיגה. והיה מהדר ומהפך בה כמה פעמים, עד שלמד אותה היטב והיתה שגורה בפיו, ולא היה יודע מסכתא אחרת מן התלמוד זולתה, והיה שונה בה כל ימיו. כיון שנפטר מן העולם הזה, היה לבדו באותו בית שהיה לומד בו מסכת חגיגה, ולא היה שום אדם יודע פטירתו. מיד באה אשה אחת, ועמדה עליו, והרימה קולה בבכי ובמספד, ותרבה אנחתה וצעקתה, כאשה שהיא סופדת על בעלה, עד אשר נקבצו ההמון, ואמרה להם, ספדו לחסיד זה, וקברוהו בכבוד גדול, וכבדו את ארונו, ותזכו לחיי העולם הבא, שזה כבדני כל ימיו ולא הייתי עזובה ולא שכוחה בימיו. מיד נתקבצו כל הנשים וישבו עמה סביב למטתו ועשו עליו מספד גדול, והאנשים נתעסקו בתכריכיו ובכל צרכי קבורתו, וקברו אותו בכבוד גדול. ואותה אשה בוכה במר נפש וצועקת. אמרו לה, מה שמך. אמרה להם, חגיגה שמי. וכיון שנקבר אותו חסיד נעלמה מן העין אותה אשה. מיד ידעו שמסכת חגיגה היתה, שנראית להם בצורת אשה, ובאה בשעת פטירתו לספוד לו ולבכותו ולקברו בכבוד, מפני שהיה שונה בה ושוקד עליה ללמוד אותה. והלא דברים קל וחומר, ומה חסיד זה שלא למד אלא מסכתא אחת בלבד כך, הלמד תורה הרבה ותלמוד הרבה ומעמיד תלמידים הרבה על אחת כמה וכמה. It should be noted that there are eleven versions of the story see S. Askenazi notes to Kav Hayashar and updated to 15 versions in his Alpha Beta Kadmita Deshmuel Zeria pp. 331-36. [These sources were not know to Y. Hacohen in his new annotated edition of the Magid Mesharim (p. 292). The Otzar Yad Chaim (pg 198) goes so far as to say that because of this story some say it's a segulah to learn this Mesechtah on a yarzheit. [See also Megedaim Chadashim introduction to Chaggiah.] In regard to The famous abrevation ענ"י which Mescetas were hard add R. Emden who writes on the Zohar which says עני איהו תמן בסימן עירובין נדה יבמות "בנה סוד על הלצה בעלמא, שהיתה מצויה בפי עוסקי התלמוד בישיבה, שלא יכלו לירד לעמקן של מסכתות הללו החמורות מאד, מחמת ריבוי החלוקות החדודות שבהן, הודו ולא בושו בעניות דעתם וקוצר יד השגתם, שלא יכלו להשוות כל הסוגיות השונות והסתירות הנמצאות בהן, לתרצם וליישבם כדרך שעשו בשאר כל המסכתות, חוץ מאלו קשות ולא מצאו כל אנשי חיל ידיהם. ונתנו בהן סימן על דרך הצחות, שלא יתפלא אדם, גם אם יאמר החכם למצוא פשר דבר לא יוכל, שכבר צווחו בהן קמאי דקמאי ולא אסקו בידייהו, אלא כמאן דמסיק תעלא מבי כרבא ועניא דקרי אבבא, היאומן שדברים כאלה יצא מפי תנא, אין צריך לומר מפי משה רבנו וא משאר נשמות מעולם הנעלם". (מטפחת ספרים עמ' מו).  See also S. Askenazi, Alpha Beta Kadmita Deshmuel Zeria pp. 422-24. For General sources on this topic of which Mesctas were learnt (partially based on Spiegel) see M. Breuer, Ohelehi Torah, pp. 90-94. On page 280 Spiegel discusses the famous correction of a godal that the beracha of Pidyon Haben is אשר קרש עובר and not אשר קדש he brings some attribute it to R. Chaim Berlin. In the Zecher Daver, the Aderes has a fascinating chapter showing fifty seven examples how a kutzo shel yud makes a difference. The Aderes cites his friend, R. Chaim Berlin, who told him this (p. 20). On this see also R. Chanoach Erentru in his Eiyunim Bdevrei Chazal Vleshonoim pp. 144-45; R. Yissacar Tamar, Alei Tamar Shekalim (p. 17) writes he does not believe it's a mistake.Additionally, although Spiegel cites to one of Prins' books discussing this issue, פרנס לדורו p. 460 a discussion regarding this topic appears on page 455 of the same book as well as the other book from Prins, פרנס לדורות on page 270. On pp. 287-88 Spiegel discusses the Tana De be Eliyeahu with the perish Zikukin Denoroah Ubiyorin. But, see the strong words of the Radal against this pirish in his intro to Pirkei de Reb Eliezer p. 11 saying how this is what the Cherem against changing texts was referring to. See also A. Epstein (Kesavim vol 2, pp. 368-69); M. Ish Sholom, intro to his edition of Tana De be Eliyhu (pp. 4-7). Although Spiegel writes at the outset of his list of those who used Dikdukei Soferim that its not complete – the following can be added: R Sholom Albeck in his incredible sefer, Mishpachet Sofrim where he used the Dikdukei Soferim on almost every page (this sefer has a very warm haskamahs from the Maharsham and R Eleyahu Meisles amongst others). Another work well worth mentioning is the Shaerei Toras Bavel from R Zev Rabanovitz he also used Dikdukei Soferim extensively [in his work on Yerushalmi he also amends texts – but according to R Zevin in Sofrim Vseforim a bit to much]. Another person who used the Dikdukei Soferim was R. Greubart in Chavalim Beniymim (last page of volume 3, he also mentions seeing a shas from 600 hundred years ago in Chicago). Another person who used it was R. Yeruchem Leiner in his Tifres Yeruchem (pp. 115, 189). Another is R. Elyashiv in his teshuvot (1: p. 478) and in his work on Sotah he uses the Munich ed. in the Talmud HaYisraeli edition (p. 234). A Bar Ilan search shows that others not included in Spiegel list use or used it such as Beis Mordechaei and Shevet haLevei (four times), the latter being very interesting as he is close to the camp of Chazon Ishnicks. Bar Ilan search also shows that some of the Gedolim which Spiegel shows used it used it even more than he shows such as R Zodok and the Or Someach.   In Spiegel's discussion of the Adres using Dikdukei Soferim Spiegel does not have too many sources (p. 491). To add to this: first in Knesses haGedolaih the Adres uses it in at least two places – these two pieces are now printed in back of his Har haMorieah printed by Ahavat Sholom pp. 253 and 254. In his sefer Megilat Simanim which explains all the Simanim in Shas he used the Dikdukei Soferim numerous times (see index) this work was printed after Spiegel printed his sefer. In his Tefilah leDovid (Ahavat Sholom edtion pp. 8-9,23, 25, 121, 125, 137) (which is the best edition of thos work) we see he was involved in switching texts some times based on manuscripts of Rishonim. On page 500 Spiegel leaves one thinking that A. Epstein was not pro the Dikdukei Soferim, which is not true at all (see Epstein's Kesavim vol 2 p. 354) where he criticizes Halevei for בכל ספרו לא נמצא זכר החיבור הנחמד דקדוקי סופרים, שנאספו ובאו בו נוסחאות כתבי יד שונים וספרים עתיקים. (see also pgs 83,51,357).  Another very interesting passage in regarding Dikdukei Soferim was written by A. Berliner:בדרכי לברלין השתמשתי בשעת הכושר לבקר במינכן את ידידי המלומד רבינוביץ ולהציץ למעבדתו הרחונית בה נעשית היצירה הגדולה דקדוקי סופרים שהכרך הששי מאותו הספר הענקי יצא בזמן האחרון. כאן השתוממתי והתפעלתי מאוסף כתבי היד ודפוסים יקרי המציאות, המשמשים יסוד לרבינוביץ בעבודתו. ובאמת ניתן לומר, שאותו מפעל גדול ונהדר, להוציא את התלמוד הוצאת ביקורתית על יסוד כתבי היד ואינקונאבלים הוא מפעל לאומי, הראוי לתמיכה מצד כל אלה, שיש להם הבנה למדעי היהדות ולב פתוח ועד לקידומם. איני יודע חתימה נאה לפרשת מסעי מאשר להביע את משאלתי מי יתן ואותו מפעל גדול יוכתר בהשלמה וסיום מוצלחים". (ששה חדשים באיטליה עמ' עב). On page 426 Spiegel deal with the reliability of M. Fogelman (Plungin) see the interesting piece by A. Korman in Musagim Behalcha p. 203. See also the recent article from D. Kamentsky in Yeshurun vol 20.  On pages 428-29 Spiegel deals a little with the Kol Hatohar. It should be added the recently printed work Olam Nistar Bemaddei Hazman by R.Shucat pp. 262-91 (see also this post discussing Shucat's work generally.)   To the disscusion of Chazon Ish and manuscripts see also Maseh ish 1:93; 2:72, 218; 3:92  Finally to add to Spiegel's sources on pages 555, 569 regarding the yarhzeit of Yehoshua bin Nun. R. Hamburger, in his Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz (3:262) points to one such source that Lag b'omer is the yarzeit. Additionally, in the Megillas Ta'anis, the last section, there's a section called Megilas Taanis Basra. In many versions of this text, the death of R' Yehoshua bin Nun is on Lag b'omer. Professor Shulamis Elitzur, in a recent incredible book, Lama Tzamnu, deals with this at great length and brings many early sources from ancient piyutim which verify this (pp. 18, 26, 34, 39, 66, 120, 126, 172).

Inverted Nuns

While Mississippi Fred recently discussed the missing nun (that is the Hebrew letter and not the people), last week we were treated to those Oh, Inverted ~~World~~ Nuns. Although, today this odd textual device is standard at least in its use, although there are some variations as to exactly how one does it (Sefardim do it more like a z and Ashkenazim have the upside down backwards nuns -more about this later). You can see some examples here, including one where the text was changed.

In fact, it is far from clear whether one should do this at all. Most notably, R. Shlomo Luria (Maharshal) argued that the Talmudic passage this custom is based upon only mandates the typical break for a parsha and not any upside down or otherwise letters. The passage only states that a sign should be made for this parsha and nothing more. He argues that such letters in the Torah render the Torah passul (unfit for use). R. Luria also notes the lack of uniformity in presenting such nuns, there are 19 different ways he came across to make the nuns. Some even flip the nuns of the text of the Torah and do not place the strange letters prior to and after the parsha in question. Thus, according to R. Luria, all of our Torahs which contain such nuns are passul.

R. Yechezkial Landau (Noda B’Yehuda), however, among others, defends the custom. He claims that the use of such a non-letter i.e. an upside down or z shaped non-letter is the key to allowing such a practice. As since this is not a letter at all therefore it is just a sploch of ink which doesn’t render the torah unfit for use.

Although the nuns in last weeks reading are almost universal, there is another inverted nun in the Torah that is attested to by R. Shlomo Yitzhaki (Rashi) which, it seems, is not accepted at all. Rashi at the end of Parshat Noach says that the name of Abraham’s father, Haran has an inverted nun. But this doesn’t appear at all. (Another missing nun as it was.)

For more on this topic see here and here. Read She’alot u’Teshuvot Maharshal, no. 73; She’alot u’Teshuvot Mahram m’Lublin, no 75; She’alot u’Teshuvot Noda B’Yehuda, vol. 1 yoreh Deah no. 73; R. Menachem Mendel Kasher, Torah Shelmah, vol. 29 p. 124-130 (where he provided pictures of the various methods of writing the nuns); C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible p. 341; Shnayer Z. Leiman, “The Inverted Nuns at Numbers 10:35-36 and the Book of Eldad and Medad” in Journal of Biblical Literature 93:3 (Sept. 1974): 348-55; Saul Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 38-43; Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible p. 54-55.