Azariah de’ Rossi’s Annotations on Sefer ha-Kuzari: Identification and Preliminary Analysis

Abstract

This article presents the identification of annotations on a 1547 Venice edition of Sefer ha-Kuzari (The Kuzari) as the work of the Italian-Jewish scholar Rabbi Azariah de’ Rossi (min ha-Adummim). The identification is based on detailed paleographic comparison between these annotations and de’ Rossi’s verified notes on a manuscript of Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed (Paris, BnF MS hebr. 691). The article examines the nature of these annotations, their sources, and their significance for understanding de’ Rossi’s interpretative approach and his conception of the relationship between these two major philosophical works.

Introduction

Rabbi Azariah de’ Rossi (1511-1578), one of the most important Jewish scholars in 16th-century Italy, combined traditional Jewish learning with innovative Renaissance research methodologies in his major work Me’or Einayim (The Light of the Eyes).[1] His research spanned various fields, from historiography and chronology through philology and source criticism to philosophy and natural sciences.

Among the works that were central to de’ Rossi’s study were Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed and Judah Halevi’s Kuzari. He frequently quoted and referenced these two works in Me’or Einayim, using their ideas as a foundation for his discussions.[2] It appears that de’ Rossi not only quoted and discussed these works but also systematically edited and annotated them.

Chapter 1: Identification of the Annotations

The manuscript of the Guide for the Perplexed preserved in the National Library of France (hebr. 691) includes de’ Rossi’s explicit ownership signature: “This book, the Guide, gracious dweller of heights, belonged to me, Azariah son of Moses min ha-Adummim”.[3] Alongside this signature, numerous marginal notes appear, some signed with the initials “A.E.” (Amar Azariah). These notes provide a reliable reference point for identifying his handwriting.

In January 2025, two hundred Judaica items from Mr. Klagsbard’s estate were offered for sale at the Kedem auction house’s 100th public auction. Among them was lot 96, a copy of Sefer ha-Kuzari in Judah ibn Tibbon’s translation, second edition, Venice 1547. While browsing through the catalog and attached images, I was excited to identify the previously unidentified annotations as written by Rabbi Azariah de’ Rossi.[4] A detailed paleographic comparison between the notes on his copy of the Guide and those on the Kuzari confirmed this identification. The similarity is evident in all characteristics: writing style, letter forms (particularly alef, final mem, and qof), and consistent use of certain abbreviations.

Beyond the similarity in the handwriting itself, similar editorial patterns can be identified in both works. In both texts, de’ Rossi created detailed tables of contents at the beginning of the book, using the same system of notation and reference. Additionally, the notes in both works are organized similarly in the margins, with consistent use of square brackets to indicate additions and completions.

Providence arranged that while the copy was sold to a private collector, it was photographed and made publicly accessible in the “Ktiv” digital platform of the National Library of Israel.

Chapter 2: Nature and Sources of the Annotations

Analysis of the annotations on the Kuzari reveals several layers of corrections and notes. The annotations can be classified into two types, similar to his notes on the Guide for the Perplexed. The first type consists of brief interpretative notes, where he generally appears as a concise yet profound philosophical commentator. The second type comprises quotations from other commentators. In his notes on the Guide, he quotes from Narboni, Ibn Kaspi, and a previously unknown commentator named Rabbi Abraham Kashlar.⁵ In his notes on the Kuzari, he quotes from Abraham Ibn Ezra’s biblical commentary, from Rabbi Nathanel ibn Kaspi’s commentary on the Kuzari, and from other commentators. An example of a quotation from Ibn Kaspi appears in his note on the science of music in Book II:65, which is found in Ibn Kaspi’s autograph manuscript, as we shall discuss below.

In the Kuzari, we also find systematic and extensive corrections to Judah ibn Tibbon’s translation as it appeared in the 1547 Venice edition before him. The Ibn Tibbon family played a crucial role in medieval Hebrew translation: Judah ibn Tibbon (c. 1120-1190), known as “the father of translators,” established their translation tradition and produced the first Hebrew translation of the Kuzari. His son Samuel (c. 1150-1230) became renowned for his precise translation of Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, while Samuel’s son Moses, though also active as a translator, was considered less rigorous than his predecessors.

De’ Rossi believed, as he explicitly stated in his work Imrei Binah,[6] that this Kuzari translation was flawed since it was not produced by Samuel ibn Tibbon, whom he considered the most authorized translator of philosophical works. Interestingly, de’ Rossi made a significant historical error: he was unaware that the translator was actually Judah ibn Tibbon, the patriarch of the family, and instead believed it was Moses ibn Tibbon, Samuel’s son, whose translation methodology he criticized. This misidentification led de’ Rossi to approach the text with particular critical attention, though ironically, he was correcting the work of the very founder of the translation tradition he admired.

In our copy, we can see that de’ Rossi’s corrections to the translation drew upon several distinct sources:

1. Translation corrections based on Judah ben Cardinal’s version, which was available to de’ Rossi.[7] A clear example of this is the correction of the term “Karaites” at the beginning of the book, which does not appear in the Venice edition but matches Cardinal’s translation.[8]

2. Corrections based on Judah ibn Tibbon’s own revisions, which were written as alternative readings. These corrections appear in the margins of various Kuzari manuscripts.[9]

3. Original translation suggestions by de’ Rossi himself, which were later incorporated into subsequent editions.[10]

To understand the sources of these corrections, we must first understand the history of Judah ibn Tibbon’s translation of the Kuzari. As David Zvi Baneth demonstrated in his foundational research, ibn Tibbon’s translation reached us in two distinct basic versions:

1. The first, which Baneth termed “Version T,” reflects ibn Tibbon’s original translation language.

2. The second, “Version S,” is a later adaptation.

Although the two versions are closely related, they differ in their translation methodology and language: Version S presents a more precise and consistent translation that strives to adhere to the Judeo-Arabic original and to translate each term uniformly.

Additionally, as Bar-Asher has shown, another layer of translation by Samuel ben R. Judah ben Meshullam entered ibn Tibbon’s translation. [11] This scholar initially intended to translate the entire book himself but, upon seeing ibn Tibbon’s translation, refrained from completing a full translation. The question of whether he translated the book based on ibn Tibbon’s translation or merely wrote corrections in the margins of ibn Tibbon’s translation remains unresolved.

Over the generations, these versions became intermingled, and later copyists combined them indiscriminately. This process gave rise to mixed and complex versions, which were also reflected in the first printed editions of the book.

Examination of de’ Rossi’s copy, with his annotations on the 1547 Venice edition, shows that he attempted to grapple with this complexity. He utilized various sources to determine the precise text – Judah ben Cardinal’s translation that was available to him, as he testifies in his book Imrei Binah, making his notes a potential source for identifying Cardinal’s largely lost annotations.[12] He also used the margins of Kuzari manuscripts that documented additional versions of ibn Tibbon’s translation, as well as adding notes of his own.

Chapter 3: The Influence of De’ Rossi’s Notes on Rabbi Judah Moscato’s Kol Yehudah

Professor Avishai Bar-Asher’s comprehensive study of the Hebrew translations of the Kuzari and the evolution of Judah ibn Tibbon’s translation[13] concludes with these words:

“It is to be hoped that the discovery of additional material—in other documents preserving translation fragments, in the extensive material preserved in the margins of manuscripts of ibn Tibbon’s translation in its various versions, or in secondary copies that have not yet been examined—will help to further evaluate the hypotheses and preliminary conclusions proposed in this study.”

It appears that one of the most important documents for understanding the evolution of ibn Tibbon’s translation from the edition published with the Kol Yehudah commentary onwards is this document containing de’ Rossi’s annotations.

We will examine two of de’ Rossi’s annotations that demonstrate his influence on Rabbi Judah Moscato, author of Kol Yehudah, which became the canonical commentary on the Kuzari from its first publication in Venice in 1594 until today.

The first concerns a textual matter. In the Kuzari, Book II:57, it states:

.אמר הכוזרי: אתם היום במבוכה גדולה מאלה החובות הגדולות, ואיזו עדה תוכל לשמור כל הסדר הזה

“The Khazar king said: You are today in great confusion regarding these great obligations, and which congregation could maintain all this order.”

De’ Rossi was convinced this translation was incorrect. In his Me’or Einayim, he criticizes it and rejects Ibn Kaspi’s attempt to justify it. He notes there that Ben Cardinal translated “in confusion” as “in quiet and rest”.[14] In the margins of his personal copy, he included ibn Tibbon’s alternative translation, “indeed in return and tranquility,” but also proposed his own correction: he crossed out the word “in confusion” and wrote above it “in rest.”

Notably, not by coincidence, the reading “in rest” appears in all editions of the Kuzari with Kol Yehudah onwards, to the puzzlement of Munk and other scholars who wondered about the source of this reading.[15]

It seems likely that de’ Rossi’s suggested correction found its way into Rabbi Judah Moscato’s work, as we find evidence of his influence in other places as well.

Here is another source that apparently shows such influence. In Book II:65, the Kuzari discusses the excellence of music, stating:

…אמר הכוזרי: שמה בלי ספק נגמרה ושמה היתה מעוררת הנפשות, כאשר יאמר עליה, שהיא מעתקת את הנפש ממדה אל הפכה

“The Khazar king said: There, without doubt, it was perfected and there it would stir the souls, as it is said of it that it transfers the soul from one disposition to its opposite…”

De’ Rossi writes in the margin:

כנגן דוד לפני שאול להעביר רוחו הרעה וכנגן אלישע בהסתלקות הנבואה. וכבר חשב האפודי שלזאת הסבה כתוב בקצת מזמורי תהלים למנצח, לפי שהיה השיר המיוחד למזמור ההוא ממה שינצח כח או כחות מה מהנפש להשיבם להיושר והנכון

“Like David’s playing before Saul to remove his evil spirit, and like Elisha’s playing when prophecy departed. The Efodi already thought that for this reason it is written in some psalms ‘To the chief musician,’ because the song designated for that psalm was among those that would overcome some power or powers of the soul to return them to uprightness and propriety.”

These words are not found in any of the Efodi’s known works, but it appears that in de’ Rossi’s memory, he confused the Efodi with Rabbi Nathanel ibn Kaspi. The latter writes in his commentary on this passage:[16]

כאשר ראינו משאול כאשר ביעתתהו רוח רעה והיה כנגן דוד לפניו סרה מעליו הרוח הרעה ההיא כמו שמבואר מהספור, והיה בהיות אלהים אל שאול ולקח דוד את הכנור ונגן בידו ורוח לשאול וכו’. וכן היתה חכמת המושאיקא מעוררת הנפשות, כי מצד התלות השכל האינושי בחומר ישיגהו פעמים עכירות ובהלה ושכחה, ובה יקנו יתרון המעלות ויקנו המדות ויחזיקו התכונות. וכן יסירו הנגונים חליי הנפש ויכוונוה לקבל רוח הקדש. ובזה ינוצחו קצת תכונות רעות שבנפש ויוכנעו לעבודת האל, על כן כתב למנצח מזמור לדוד. ולהיות חכמת הנגון בנוייה על סדר הערכים, ר”ל על סדר הערך והיושר מסודר ומתוקן כראוי, על כן אמר דוד שיר המעלות

“As we saw with Saul when an evil spirit troubled him and when David played before him the evil spirit departed from him, as is clear from the story, ‘And it happened, when the spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took a harp and played with his hand; then Saul would become refreshed,’ etc. Thus the science of music would stir the souls, for due to the attachment of the human intellect to matter, it sometimes experiences turbidity, confusion and forgetfulness, and through it they acquire excellence of virtues and acquire good traits and strengthen dispositions. Thus the melodies remove the illnesses of the soul and prepare it to receive the holy spirit. In this way certain evil dispositions in the soul are overcome and subdued to divine service, therefore it is written ‘To the chief musician, a psalm of David.’ And because the science of music is built on the order of proportions, that is, on the order of proportion and uprightness arranged and established properly, therefore David said ‘A Song of Ascents.'”

It seems quite clear that de’ Rossi summarized and abbreviated ibn Kaspi’s comments here, making them the source of his note, though he mistakenly attributed them to the Efodi.

Now, I can find no logical explanation for Rabbi Judah Moscato’s words elsewhere, unless we say that he saw de’ Rossi’s words in this note and understood them in an interesting way.

This is what Rabbi Judah Moscato writes in his book of sermons, Nefutzot Yehudah:[17]

ומקרא מפורש הוא, יבקשו איש יודע מנגן בכינור. והיה בהיות עליך רוח אלהים רעה, וניגן בידו וטוב לך. ועל כתפות האפודי היתה זאת שומה, אל מול פניו, לעומת מחברתו, כי על כן נאמר בקצת המזמורים למנצח, להיות השיר המיוחד אליהם מועיל מאד לנצח התכונות שבנפש, להכניעם ולהשיבם אל תיקון היושר לעבודת האל יתברך. הוא דבר בעל הכוזרי, בהפליגו בשבחי המוסיקה הנמצאת מאז באומתנו, וזו לשונו, מאמר ב, סימן סה: שמה, מבלי ספק, נגמרה ונשלמה, ושמה היתה מעוררת הנפשות, כאשר ייאמר עליה שהיא מעתקת את הנפש ממידה אל הפכה. ע”כ

“And it is an explicit verse, ‘Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp. And it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon you, that he shall play with his hand, and you shall be well.’ And upon the shoulders of the ephod this was placed, before him, opposite its joining, for therefore it is said in some psalms ‘To the chief musician,’ as the song designated for them was very beneficial for overcoming the dispositions of the soul, to subdue them and return them to proper rectification for the service of God, blessed be He. This is what the author of the Kuzari said, in his praise of the music found then in our nation, and this is his language, Book II:65: ‘There, without doubt, it was perfected and completed, and there it would stir the souls, as it is said of it that it transfers the soul from one disposition to its opposite.’ End quote.”

It is quite clear that these are the same ideas that originated in ibn Kaspi’s commentary. But how did the words “and upon the shoulders of the ephod this was placed” enter into R. Judah Moscato’s discussion? What does the ephod, and specifically “Efodi,” have to do with King David? It must be that de’ Rossi’s words were before him, and he interpreted the word “Efodi” as referring to David’s ephod.

Conclusion

The identification of Azariah de’ Rossi’s annotations on the Kuzari sheds light both on his interpretative approach and on his influence on subsequent generations. Analysis of the annotations reveals a scholar combining expertise in commentarial literature with meticulous textual criticism, drawing on various sources and traditions. Particularly interesting is his influence on Rabbi Judah Moscato, who incorporated some of his corrections into his Kol Yehudah commentary, which became the canonical commentary on the Kuzari. These annotations thus join a series of testimonies to de’ Rossi’s significant contribution to the development of Jewish exegesis in the late Renaissance period.

The discovery of his annotations on the Kuzari, alongside his known annotations on the Guide for the Perplexed, allows us to better understand his relationship to these two major philosophical works and his conception of the connection between them. Further research into these annotations may shed light on additional questions concerning the textual history of the Kuzari and the development of its interpretation.

[1] On Azariah de’ Rossi, see: Yom Tov Lipmann Zunz, “The Life of R. Azariah min ha-Adummim,” Kerem Hemed 5 (1841), pp. 131-158; 7 (1843), pp. 119-124; Benedetto Levi, Della vita e delle opere di Azaria de’ Rossi [The Life and Works of Azariah de’ Rossi] (Padua: Crescini, 1868); Isaac A. Twersky, “Azariah de’ Rossi 1511-1578,” Katif 6-7 (1969), pp. 175-185; Bezalel Safran, “Azariah de Rossi’s Meor Eynaim” (PhD diss., Harvard University, 1979); Robert Bonfil, “Reflections on the Place of Me’or Einayim by Azariah de’ Rossi in the Cultural Environment of Italian Renaissance Jewry,” Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century (1983), pp. 23-48; Meir Benayahu, “The Polemic Over Rabbi Azariah de’ Rossi’s Me’or Einayim,” Asufot 5 (1991), pp. 213-265; Hannah Liss, “The Art of Rhetoric as Peshat? Renaissance Jewish Biblical Exegesis in the Case of Judah Messer Leon and Azariah de’ Rossi,” Tarbut 9 (2000), pp. 103-124; Joanna Weinberg, The Light of the Eyes of Azariah de’ Rossi, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001; Eadem, “On the Shoulders of Rabbis: The Study of Ancient History in Azariah de’ Rossi’s Writings,” Jewish Studies Quarterly 22 (2007), pp. 49-55; Carmi Horowitz, “Titus and the Gnat in Posen, Prague, and Ferrara: Polemics on Aggadic Interpretation in the Sixteenth Century,” Carmi Sheli [My Vineyard] (2012), pp. 99-116.
[2] See Azariah de’ Rossi, Me’or Einayim, ed. David Cassel (Vilna, 1866; repr. Jerusalem: Makor, 1970); Reuven Bonfil, The Writings of Azariah de’ Rossi, with Introduction and Notes (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1991), pp. 11-130. See also Joanna Weinberg, ed., The Light of the Eyes: Azariah de’ Rossi (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), cited above n. 1, for de’ Rossi’s engagement with The Kuzari, as indicated in the index, pp. 789-790, and for his use of The Guide for the Perplexed, as referenced in the index, p. 793.
[3] Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, MS hebr. 691, fol. 1r.
[4] Another significant discovery related to Rabbi Azariah de’ Rossi emerged at a public auction: the actual ban (herem) issued by the rabbinical court of Rabbi Joseph Karo (the Beit Yosef) against de’ Rossi’s work Me’or Einayim. This remarkable document, bearing the signatures of eight sages from Safed, was found affixed to one of the surviving copies of Me’or Einayim and was subsequently offered for sale at the “Genazym” auction house. This artifact provides tangible evidence of the considerable controversy that surrounded de’ Rossi’s innovative historical-critical approach to rabbinic literature upon its publication, prompting formal condemnation from one of the most authoritative rabbinical courts of the sixteenth century.
[5] On his commentary to the Guide for the Perplexed and its identification through quotations in de’ Rossi’s notes, see Y. Seewald, ‘Abraham Kashlar’s Commentary on the Guide for the Perplexed: Its Identification, Circle, and Influence on Azariah de’ Rossi’ (in press).
[6] Yemei Olam chapter 36, Cassel edition p. 308 [with full translation of the Hebrew quote to follow]
[7] Yemei Olam, ibid.: “And I remember that I saw Judah ben Cardinal’s translation in part of the Kuzari…”
[8] Cf. Bar-Asher, “Hebrew Translations of the Kuzari,” Sefunot 13 (2023), pp. 185-189.
[9] Such is the annotation found in Ibn Kaspi’s autograph, to Kuzari II:57, “at this time in tranquility and rest” (Paris MS Heb. 677 fol. 47r), which is an annotation by ibn Tibbon, and de’ Rossi copies it in the margin. Similarly, in I:1 – “my soul, in my opinion,” documented in manuscripts as an “alternative version” by ibn Tibbon.
[10] Such is the annotation to Kuzari II:57, replacing “in confusion” with “in rest.”
[11] Cf. Reimund Leicht, “Shemuel ben Yehudah of Marseille: A 14th Century Provençal Translator and Re-Translator, and his Re-Translation of Judah ha-Levi’s Sefer ha-Kuzari” (in process); cited in Bar-Asher, note 7 above.
[12] See Bar-Asher, note 7 above, on the various sources for locating remnants of Cardinal’s translation.
[13] See note 7 above.
[14] See notes 5, 6, and 9 above.
[15] See note 9 above.
[16] See note 8 above, fol. 55v.
[17] First Sermon, Bnei Brak 2000, p. 5.

Translations of Rabbi Judah Halevi’s Kuzari

Translations of
Rabbi Judah Halevi’s Kuzari

by Daniel J. Lasker

Daniel J. Lasker is Norbert Blechner Professor of Jewish Values at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, in the Goldstein-Goren Department of Jewish Thought. He has published widely in the fields of medieval Jewish philosophy, the Jewish-Christian debate, and Karaism.

This is Professor Lasker’s third essay at the Seforim
blog.

On the occasion
of the publication of:

ספר הכוזרי. הוא ספר הטענה והראָיה לדת
המושפלת לרבי יהודה הלוי

תרגם מערבית-יהודית לעברית בת זמננו

מיכאל שוַרץ

הוצאת הספרים של אוניברסיטת בן-גוריון
בנגב, באר-שבע, תשע”ז

R. Judah Halevi,
The Book of Kuzari. The Book of Rejoinder and Proof of the Despised Religion,
translated by Michael Schwarz

Beer Sheva, 2017

The
publication of Prof. Michael Schwarz z”l’s new modern Hebrew translation of
Rabbi Judah Halevi’s Judaeo-Arabic Book of Kuzari provides a good
opportunity to discuss previous versions of this seminal book of Jewish thought
and to evaluate the advantages that Prof. Schwarz’s translation has over other
renditions. Prof. Schwarz (1929-2011), who completed a draft translation before
he died over five years ago, was a scholar of Jewish and Islamic philosophy
whose best-known publication has been his translation of Maimonides’ Guide
of the Perplexed. After an unfortunate delay, the Kuzari has now been
published by the International Goldstein-Goren Center for Jewish Thought at
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, in its series “Library of Jewish Thought,”
under the editorship of Prof. Haim Kreisel.[1]

Less
than thirty years after R. Judah ben Samuel Halevi completed his Book of
Kuzari[2] in approximately
1140, it became one of the first Judaeo-Arabic compositions to be translated
into Hebrew. This pioneering translation marked part of the cultural transfer
of Andalusian Jewish culture, written in Judaeo-Arabic, into Hebrew, and was accomplished
in 1167 by R. Judah ben Saul Ibn Tibbon, “the father of the translators.” As
the centers of Jewish intellectual life moved to Christian areas where Hebrew
was the predominant Jewish literary language, it was only through this
translation that the Kuzari was known to generations upon generations of
Jews. The Kuzari’s readers were moved by its unwavering defense of
Judaism, its description of Jewish singular chosenness, and its love of Zion.
Halevi’s life story, including his departure from Iberia and, according to
legend, his martyrdom at the gates of Jerusalem, only strengthened the
resonance of the book (on this legend, see here). Extensive commentaries were written on the basis of the
Ibn Tibbon translation by authors who neither understand Arabic nor were able
to appreciate the Islamic context in which the Kuzari was written. Judah
Halevi’s defense of Judaism made a great impact on Jewish thought and achieved
canonical status.[3]

With
the birth of Jewish studies in the nineteenth century, scholars began
publishing original texts in academic editions. Thus, Hartwig Hirschfeld
(1854-1934), working with Oxford-Bodleian Ms. Pococke 284, the only complete,
or almost complete, version of the work, produced a first edition of the
original Judaeo-Arabic text of the Kuzari.[4] He published with it a
version of the Ibn Tibbon translation which was partially corrected to
correspond to the Judaeo-Arabic version, but not in a consistent manner. Thus,
Hirschfeld changed some passages in the Hebrew despite their being attested in
all the Ibn Tibbon manuscripts and editions, but left other problematic
passages untouched.[5] The Hirschfeld Ibn Tibbon text achieved wide
distribution when it was used by Avraham Zifroni as the basis of his edition of
the Kuzari, and many contemporary editions of the Hebrew Kuzari
are based on Zifroni’s work.[6] Meanwhile, Hirschfeld’s Judaeo-Arabic publication
has been supplanted by the superior edition of David Zvi Baneth and Haggai
Ben-Shammai.[7]

The
Judah Ibn Tibbon translation of the Kuzari is an adequate translation, despite
some misunderstandings. It follows the Tibbonide practice of maintaining the
syntax and word order of the original Arabic to the extent possible and often
translating the same underlying Arabic term with one Hebrew equivalent. It may also
be a better witness to the original text of the Kuzari than the unique Judaeo-Arabic
manuscript which was copied in Damascus over 300 years after the composition of
the original book. For professional students of medieval Jewish philosophy, or
those with close familiarity with medieval Hebrew, it is readable and achieves
its goal of making the work accessible to non-Arabic readers. Yet, there is
still no acceptable edition based on the best manuscripts of this translation.
In addition, as a means of communicating the extent of Judah Halevi’s thought
to the contemporary reader of modern Hebrew, it is less than ideal. Thus, since
the 1970’s, a number of new Hebrew translations of the Kuzari have
appeared.

The
first of these translations was presented by Dr. Yehudah Even Shmuel (1886-1976)
in 1973.[8] The first edition included a long introduction, a vocalized and
punctuated text, short notes and many extensive indices, and was praised for
the clarity of its Hebrew and its accessibility to contemporary readers.
Subsequently it was published in paperback with just the text and short notes,
an edition which has sold well and is used as a textbook for high schools and
universities. At first, the novelty of a medieval philosophical work in
readable modern Hebrew seems to have compensated for the imprecision of the
translation.[9] Oftentimes, the translator offered more of a creative
paraphrase than an exact translation, and there were sections where Even Shmuel
attempted to tone down considerably Judah Halevi’s view of Jewish essentialism.[10]
Many key terms were translated by different Hebrew words, making it impossible
for the reader to note the importance of these words, most of which have
resonances from the Islamic and Arabic realms. Thus, Halevi’s great debt to his
non-Jewish cultural context was effectively hidden by this translation.
Scholars soon realized that this edition of the Kuzari could not be used
for academic purposes.

Despite
its drawbacks, or perhaps because of its advantages, the Even Shmuel
translation went unchallenged for over 20 years. In the mid-1990’s, I heard
Rabbi Yosef Kafiḥ (1917-2000), the well-known editor and translator of
Judaeo-Arabic texts, reply to a question as to why he did not translate the Kuzari
as he had translated so many other classics. He responded that he had prepared
such a translation many years previously but had decided not to publish it
because he did not want to appear as competing with Even Shmuel. Nonetheless, Kafiḥ
finally did publish his own translation in 1997,[11] following his custom of
presenting the original Judaeo-Arabic and the Hebrew translation in parallel
columns.[12] This translation has neither the clarity nor the extensive
notation of Kafiḥ’s earlier translations; most of his comments are devoted to
attacking Even Shmuel’s translation. In his introduction, Kafiḥ explains that
he had begun translating the Kuzari when he was a student in a class led
by Rabbi David Cohen (the Nazir, 1887-1972) at Merkaz Harav Yeshiva in 1947-48,
where he was made responsible for comparing Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew with the
Judaeo-Arabic in the Hirschfeld edition.[13] Repeating what he had said in
public, namely that he had waited so long to publish this translation because
of his desire not to appear as a competitor with Even Shmuel, he then goes on
to attack Even Shmuel’s translation mercilessly. He even states that Rabbi
Judah Halevi composed one of his dirges when he realized that his Kuzari
would be translated by Even Shmuel.

Despite
Rabbi Kafiḥ’s great erudition in Judaeo-Arabic, and the general readability of
his other translations, the Kuzari does not match his previous work.
Whether this was a result of the fact that the translation was, indeed, a
product of his youth before he had perfected his Hebrew style, or was the work
of an aged man who did not review his earlier drafts, it did not succeed in replacing
the Even Shmuel translation as the generally accepted Hebrew version of the Kuzari.
My own experience with Israeli students has been that Kafiḥ’s Hebrew is not
much more understandable than that of Judah Ibn Tibbon, and, despite the
convenience of having the original Judaeo-Arabic text available, it was not a
very good pedagogical tool. Sometimes I preferred using the Ibn Tibbon text
which is available in a number of formats, such as in Yediot Aharonot’s Am
ha-sefer project[14] and on-line.

There
exists one more contemporary translation of the Kuzari into Hebrew and
that is the one produced by Rabbi Itzhak Shailat (b. 1946).[15] Shailat is
known for his editions and translations of medieval Judaeo-Arabic texts, such
as Maimonides’ Epistles. Although Shailat’s introduction and notes to
his editions demonstrate a conservative, harmonistic and pietistic approach to
his authors, his translations are generally accurate. His methodology, however,
is to reproduce Tibbonide Hebrew as much as possible, giving his translations a
classical, rather than modern, feel. Hence, his Kuzari should be seen as
an update of Ibn Tibbon rather than as an independent creation.

Before
discussing the new Hebrew translation, it might be useful to refer to
translations into other languages. In addition to editing the Judaeo-Arabic
text of the Kuzari, and producing an edition of Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew
translation, Hartwig Hirschfeld also translated the book into English.[16] This
work was reissued many times, often with minimal attribution to Hirschfeld.[17]
The abridged translation of the Kuzari by Prof. Isaac Heinemann
(1876-1957) which appeared independently in Oxford, 1947, and was later
incorporated in the widely distributed Three Jewish Philosophers,[18] is
greatly dependent upon Hirschfeld. In addition to questions of accuracy, the
language of these translations is difficult for the contemporary English
reader.

In
an attempt to present a clearly written English version of the Kuzari
which could be used by laypeople, Rabbi N. Daniel Korobkin (b. 1964) published
a translation on the basis of the Ibn Tibbon version, relying on the
interpretations of the classical commentators Judah Moscatto and Israel of
Zamosc.[19] Although achieving its goal of readability, the author’s ignorance
of Arabic and the scholarly literature on the Kuzari are the cause of
multiple errors of translation and annotation. Ibn Tibbon’s Hebrew translation
of the Kuzari is included in the book, but since it is based on the
Hirschfeld/Zifroni edition (the exact source is not noted in the book), and the
English translation is based on older editions, there are inconsistencies
between the Hebrew and the English. Subsequent to the Korobkin translation, other
English editions of the Kuzari have appeared, but apparently none of them
is based on the Judaeo-Arabic original.[20]

A
scholarly, readable English translation of the Kuzari from the original
has long been a desideratum. In fact, Prof. Lawrence V. Berman (1929-1988)
began the work on such a translation before his untimely death. The project was
inherited by Prof. Barry S. Kogan (b. 1944) and is scheduled to appear as part
of the Yale Judaica Series. This project has been long delayed, but Prof. Kogan
has been very generous with sharing drafts of this translation with colleagues,
a number of whom have used its clear and accurate renditions in their own
publications. One can only hope that there will not be much further delay until
the translation appears in print.[21]

This
leads us to the recently published Hebrew translation of the Kuzari by
Prof. Michael Schwarz. Following the pattern established in his translation of
Maimonides’ Guide, Schwarz presents an eminently readable rendition of
the book. As in the case of his other translations, the work combines accuracy
with readability. His language is elegant, eschewing the many foreign words
which have entered contemporary Hebrew. He highlights words which appear in
Hebrew in the Judaeo-Arabic original by using a bold font so the reader knows
that this is Halevi’s Hebrew, not Schwarz’s.

As
noted above, one of the challenges with a translation of the Kuzari is
how to capture the Islamic/Arabic flavor of the work. Despite its reputation as
the most Jewish of the medieval Jewish philosophical treatises, recent research
has demonstrated the extent to which the Kuzari is steeped in Islamic concepts.[22]
This can be seen by its use of a number of key terms which are repeated
throughout the book, such as ṣafwa (the choicest, translated as segulah,
as found in other translations, despite Prof. Schwarz’s reservations); al-amr
al-ilāhī (divine order, translated ha-davar ha-‘elohi, as per Kafiḥ,
in contrast to Ibn Tibbon’s ha-ʿinyan ha-‘elohi); ijtihād (fervent
striving or innovating new laws, translated as hit’amẓut, hishtadlut, or ḥiddush
halakhah), or qiyās (analogous reasoning or general rationalism,
translated heqesh or higgayon). Since it is not always possible
to use the exact same translation in every context, the translator must find a
way of informing the reader of the underlying key term. Schwarz solves this
problem by drawing up a list of recurring Arabic concepts and noting each time
one of them is used. He then explains these terms in a special glossary devoted
to their explication. Some important Arabic words which are used less often are
explained in the textual notes. In addition, the notes provide references to
Halevi’s sources or further explications.

Scholarly
analyses of the Kuzari are extensive, and as in the case of Schwarz’s
translation of the Guide, the notes are full of references to this
secondary literature. Although he does not say so in his very short preface,
one can assume that as was the case in the Guide, the reference to a
particular article or book does not necessarily imply endorsement of the
material found therein. The annotations are there for comprehensiveness, and
the alert reader is enjoined to examine them carefully. The bibliography
occupies 36 pages. In addition, there are indices of sources and a general
index of topics and places.[23]

When
Part One of Prof. Michael Schwarz’s translation of the Guide was first published
by Tel-Aviv University Press in 1997, I offered the opinion that despite the
fact that it was the best available Hebrew version of Maimonides’ masterpiece,
I was not sure it would replace the other available translations, partially
since traditional Jewish readers might be wary of a university provenance and
the reliance on non-Jewish sources.[24] I believe that my estimation has been
proven wrong, since the translation’s clear superiority to the competition has
made it indispensible.[25] It is to be hoped that the same widespread
acceptance of the Schwarz translation of the Guide will be repeated in
the case of the Schwarz translation of the Kuzari, since it is, without
doubt, the best Hebrew Kuzari available.

Notes:

[1]
Books from this series are produced by the Mosad Bialik Publishing House. The
Schwarz Kuzari can be ordered here.
The translation is preceded by an introduction which Prof. Schwarz asked me to
write and which he approved a few weeks before his death. [Editor’s Note:
Professor Schwarz’ edition of the Kuzari can be purchased via Bialik or by
contacting (Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com) — where the book will be available at the
same Book Week price. Portions of the proceeds of this sale help support the efforts of the Seforim Blog.]

[2] The title, The
Book of Rejoinder and Proof of the Despised Religion, is in accordance with
a Geniza fragment; a slightly different title appears in the one full Judaeo-Arabic
manuscript mentioned below. The title of Ibn Tibbon’s translation, Sefer
ha-kuzari, was that which was known to centuries of Hebrew readers, and it corresponds
to the title, al-kitāb al-khazarī (“The Book of the Khazar”), found in
Halevi’s famous autograph letter from the Geniza.

[3] See Adam
Shear, The Kuzari and the Shaping of Jewish Identity, 1167–1900,
Cambridge 2008. Another medieval translation, by Judah ben Isaac Cardenal, has
not survived.

[4] Das Buch
al-Chazarî des Abû-l-Hasan Jehuda Hallewi; im arabischen urtext sowie in
der hebräischen übersetzung des Jehuda Ibn Tibbon, herausgegeben von Hartwig
Hirschfeld, Leipzig, 1887. The manuscript is now classified as Neubauer
Catalogue Oxford ms. 1228, and it is freely available on-line (here).

[5] See Daniel
J. Lasker, “Adam and Eve or Adam and Noah? Judaeo-Arabic and Hebrew
Versions of the Same Books,” Pesher Nahum. Texts and Studies in Jewish
History and Literature from Antiquity Through the Middle Ages Presented to
Norman (Naḥum) Golb, ed. Joel L. Kraemer and Michael G. Wechsler et al.,
Chicago, 2012, pp.141-148.

[6] The Zifroni
edition, Warsaw, 1911, published under his original name Zifrinowitsch,
included many valuable notes. Subsequent editions generally omitted these
notes.

[7] Judah
ha-Levi, Kitāb al-radd wa-ʾl-dalīl fi ʾl-dīn al-dhalīl (Al-kitāb al-khazarī),
ed. David H. (Zvi) Baneth and Haggai Ben-Shammai, Jerusalem, 1977.

[8] The
Kosari of R. Yehuda Halevi, Translated Annotated and Introduced by Yehuda
Even Shmuel, Tel Aviv, 1972. On Even Shmuel, né Kaufman, see Ira Robinson, “The
Canadian years of Yehuda Kaufman (Even Shmuel): Educator, Journalist, and
Intellectual,” Canadian Jewish Studies, 15 (2007), pp. 129-142.

[9] See, e.g.,
Michael Schwarz’s effusive review in Kiryat Sefer, 49 (5734), pp.
198-202. Many years later, Prof. Schwarz told me that he no longer held the
views he expressed in that review.

[10] For
instance, the term ṣarīḥ/ ṣuraḥa’, meaning “native-born,” and indicative
of Halevi’s essentialist view of the Jewish chosenness, is glossed over in
1:115; 2:1; and 5:23; see Daniel J. Lasker, “Proselyte Judaism, Christianity
and Islam in the Thought of Judah Halevi,” Jewish
Quarterly Review, 81:1-2 (July-October, 1990): 75-91 (Hebrew version: in Ephraim Hazan and Dov Schwartz, eds., The
Poetry of Philosophy. Studies on the Thought of R. Yehuda Halevi,
Ramat-Gan, 2016, pp. 207-220).

[11] Sefer
ha-kuzari le-rabbeinu Yehuda Halevi zẓ”l, Kiryat Ono, 5757.

[12] Kafiḥ states
that he used the text published by Hirschfeld, correcting it according to the
Baneth-Ben-Shammai edition. A comparison of texts indicates that he did not
always follow Hirschfeld and Ben-Shammai. In fact, in the edition and Hebrew
translation, he accepted certain emendations in the order of the text and the
re-assignment of sections from the King to the Sage, and vice versa, e.g.,
3:25-31. These departures from the original are very similar to ones made by
Even Shmuel (both mention the opinion of Rabbi Ben-Zion Hai Uziel).

[13] Cohen’s
class notes were published many years later as a commentary on the Kuzari
under the title Ha-kuzari ha-mevu’ar, edited by Dov Schwartz, Jerusalem,
1997.

[14] Judah
Halevi, Sefer ha-kuzari, Tel Aviv, 2008 (with my introduction). The text
is vocalized and section headings have been added (not by me), but it is not a
scientific edition.

[15] Jerusalem,
2010. In his introduction (p. 5), Shailat writes that he was aware that Prof.
Schwarz was working on a translation, but he decided to go ahead with his own
project because it was unclear when the Schwarz translation would be ready and
unlike Schwarz’s rendition into modern Hebrew, Shailat was translating it into
medieval Hebrew.

[16] Judah
Hallevi’s Kitab al Khazari, translated from the Arabic with an introd. by
Hartwig Hirschfeld, London, 1905.

[17] E.g., the
edition by Schocken Publishing House, The Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith
of Israel (various editions), which mentions H. Slonimsky as the author of the
introduction on the cover of the book, but requires one to search well to find
out that it was Hirschfeld’s translation.

[18] Cleveland,
1960, with many reprints.

[19] Yehuda
HaLevi, The Kuzari. In defense of the Despised Faith, translated and
annotated by N. Daniel Korobkin, Northvale, N.J., 1998.

[20] Amazon.com
lists many editions of the Kuzari. I have been unable to check them
personally. As far as I know, they are all dependent upon the Hebrew.

[21]
Reference should be made as well to the excellent French translation by Prof. Charles
Touati (1925-2003), executed on the basis of the Judaeo-Arabic original: Juda
Hallevi, Le Kuzari. Apologie de la religion méprisé, traduit sur le
texte original arabe confronté avec la version hébraïque et accompagné d’une
introduction et de notes par Charles Touati, Louvain, 1994.

[22] My student
Ehud Krinis discusses Shi’ite influence; see his God’s Chosen People: Judah
Halevi’s Kuzari and the Shīcī Imām Doctrine, Turnhout 2014. For Sufi influence, see Diana Lobel, Between
Mysticism and Philosophy: Sufi Language of Religious Experience in Judah
Halevi’s Kuzari. Albany, NY 2000.

[23] The indices
were produced by Prof. Schwarz’s son, David Zori, who took upon himself the
responsibility of transforming his father’s draft into publishable form.
Editorial work on the text was done by Ayal Fishler.

[24] Jewish Studies, 37 (1997): 267-271
(Hebrew).

[25] An edition
of Schwarz’s Guide, without the notes and with some corrections, was
issued by Yediot Aharonot in the Am ha-sefer series, Tel-Aviv, 2008. The
translation was also at one time freely available on-line until Tel-Aviv
University Press removed its site. Accessing it on-line is still possible, but
it is not as easy as it once was.

The Legend of R. Yehuda Halevi’s Death: Truth or Fiction & the Cairo Genizah

The Legend of R. Yehuda Halevi’s Death: Truth or Fiction & the Cairo Genizahby Eliezer Brodt

A few years ago on the Seforim Blog I dealt with the famous legend of R. Yehuda Halevi’s death (link). More recently in Ami Magazine (# 32) I returned to this legend and related topics. This post contains new information as well as corrections that were not included in those earlier articles.

R. Yehuda Halevi was born in the year 1075 in Toledo, Spain, and died in 1141.[1] He is famous in Jewish history for being a great paytan,[2] authoring hundreds of beautiful piyutim. However, he is even more famous for authoring one of the most important Jewish philosophical works of all time, the Kuzari. This work is written in dialog form between a king and a Jew who is persuaded to convert to Judaism. The Jew defends Yiddishkeit, dealing with many issues of philosophy and various Mitzvos among other topics. This work was written by R. Yehuda in Arabic, but was translated into Hebrew in 1167. It was learned by many throughout the centuries, and numerous works were written to explain it.[3] The Kuzari had a tremendous impact on Jewish thought through the centuries and continues to do so today. In this article, I hope to deal with two legends told about R. Yehuda Halevi: one about how he met an untimely death when he got toEretz Yisroel [4] and the other about him being the father-in-law of Ibn Ezra.

Among the more famous kinos that we recite on Tisha B’Av is Tzion Halo Tishali. This piyut is about the author’s passion to walk on the holy soil of Eretz Yisrael and to pray at the Kevarim. Throughout the Kuzari and in many of his piyutim we find a strong emphasis of his love for Eretz Yisroel[5]. R’ Yosef Dov Soleveitchik, when talking about R’ Yehuda Halevi in his lectures on the Kinos, said “Rabbi Yehuda Halevi adored everything about Eretz Yisroel; he was madly in love with Eretz Yisroel. I have never known anyone so in love with Eretz Yisroel as Rabbi Yehuda Halevi. There were many others who went to Eretz Yisroel, but they did not confess their love for the land in such terms as he did”.[6]

Already in the Machzor from Worms written in 1272 and in the Nuremburg Machzor written in 1331 we find this kinah was said on Tisha Bav. The piyut, however has become famous for a different reason.[7]

In the Artscroll commentary on the Kinos, R. Avraham Chaim Feuer writes:

An ancient manuscript states that R. Yehuda Halevi composed this kina while journeying towards Eretz Yisroel and recited it when he reached Damascus, facing the direction of Zion. Although many historians believe that R. Yehuda Halevi only got as far as Egypt, never even reaching Damascus, tradition has it that he finally reached Jerusalem (circa 1145).[8] There he fell to the ground in a state of ecstasy… As he was embracing the dust near the temple mount, he was trampled and killed by an Arab horseman.[9]

R’ Yosef Dov Soleveitchik, when talking about R’ Yehuda Halevi in his lectures on the kinos, said,

“While we know that he left for Eretz Yisroel, we know nothing about him from the date of his departure from Egypt. A story is told, I do not know if it’s true, that when he arrived in Eretz Yisroel, he fell on the soil… at that very moment a Bedouin on a horse rode over him and killed him. Now they say there is documentary evidence that he died in Egypt on his way to Eretz Yisroel. I do not know about it.”[10]

The story has certainly entered Jewish popular culture. In 1851 Heinrich Heine published his Romanzero, and in the section of ‘Hebrew Melodies’ he writes of “Jehuda ben Halevy’s” death at the hands of an “impious Saracen” horseman:

Calmly flow’d the Rabbi’s life-blood,

Calmly to its termination

Sang he his sweet song.—his dying

Sigh was still—Jerusalem!

In this article I intend to discuss this legend of R. Yehuda Halevi’s death. Did he actually reach Eretz Yisrael? When did he compose the piyut of Zion Haloeh Tishali? Why did he want to go to Eretz Yisroel so badly, considering that it was very dangerous in his time?

By the way of introduction, it is worth noting the words of R’ Elazar Ezkiri in his classic work Sefer Chareidim. He says that everyone is supposed to love Eretz Yisroel and go there… therefore the Amoraim would kiss the ground when they came,[11] and it’s good to recite the piyut Shir Yedidus composed by R’ Yehuda Halevi . . . [12] Apparently Rav Yehuda Halevi is considered a first stop for expressing such affection.

R. Abraham Zacuto (1452-1514) in Sefer Yuchsin (first printed in 1566) writes that “R. Yehuda Halevi was fifty [years old] when he came to Eretz Yisroel and he is buried together with his first cousin, Ibn Ezra.”[13] Later, however, R. Zacuto writes that R. Yehuda Halevi is buried with R. Yehuda bar Ilay in Tzefat.[14] Setting aside the apparent contradiction regarding R. Yehuda Halevi’s burial place, in both of these descriptions R. Yehuda Halevi is depicted as having actually made it to Eretz Yisrael. Notably absent, however, is the legend of an Arab/Bedouin horseman killing him.

The earliest source for the Arab horseman legend only appears in R. Gedaliah Ibn Yachia’sShalsheles Hakabbalah, first published in Venice in 1587, over four hundred years after R. Yehuda Halevi died. He states that he heard this legend from “an old man”.[15] Although theShalsheles Hakabbalah appears to be the source for R. Feuer’s statement above, the Shalsheles Hakabbalah has one addition to the legend — omitted by R. Feuer — that R. Yehuda Halevi recited the kinah of Zion Halo Tishali right before the Arab horseman killed him.[16]

The next time that this legend appeared in print, after its mention in the Shalsheles Hakabbalah, is by R. David Conforte (1618-1678) in his Koreh Hadoros (first printed in Venice, 1746),[17] followed by R. Yechiel Halperin (1660- 1749) in Seder Hadoros (first printed in Karlsruhe, 1769).[18] It was then repeated by R. Wolf Heidenheim in his edition of the Kinos. R. Yehosef Schwartz (1804-1865) in his Tevous Haaretz also brings this legend.[19] By the 19th century, this legend became, perhaps, the most famous story about R. Yehuda Halevi, since not much else was known about him.

Adam Shear called attention to an edition of the Kuzari printed in 1547 which says on the front page:כוזרי חברו בלשון ערבי החכם הגדול אבי כל המשוררים רבי יהודה הלוי הספרדי ז”ל אשר קדש שם שמים בויכוחו הישר הזה… (ראה: ארשת א, עמ’ 67).

This term is usually used for martyrdom. Shear suggests that perhaps it comes from this story, later mentioned by the Shalsheles Hakabbalah,[20] although he concludes that the idea is far-fetched.

In 1840 R. Shmuel David Luzzatto (ShaDaL) in his collection of the Diwan containing the poems of R. Yehuda Halevi, Besulas Bas Yehuda, questions the legend on the grounds that Jerusalem was in the hand of Christians at the time, and Arabs were not allowed in the city. Furthermore, even if there were Arabs around, they would not have done such a brazen act right at the city gate.[21] So Shadal concludes that he died on his way from Egypt, never even reaching Eretz Yisroel.[22] S. Fuenn accepts the conclusion of Shadal.[23] R. Michael Sachs in his work Die religiöse Poesie der Juden in Spanien also accepts Shadal’s conclusion because he notes that while Ibn Ezra refers to him in his work on Chumash he does not mention anything unique about his death,[24] he just says שאלני ר’ יהודה הלוי מנוחתו כבוד.Around the same time R. Matisyahu Strashun reached the same conclusion, perhaps independently. In a letter written in 1841, he questioned the veracity of the legend,[25] alsopointing out that Jerusalem in the times of R. Yehuda Halevi was ruled by Christians and not by Arabs. R. Strashun allows that although it is possible that R. Yehuda Halevi composed Zion Halo Tishali when he got to Jerusalem — not that we know that he did — the part of the story about the Arab killing him is certainly not true. As a general matter, R. Strashun notes that it is well known that the Shalsheles Hakabbalah is an unreliable source.[26]Simon Dubnov suggests that there is a kernel of truth to the story –that some Crusader must have killed a Jew right after he arrived in Eretz Yisroel.[27]Israel Zinberg suggests that, most likely, R. Yehuda Halevi returned home to Spain after visiting Eretz Yisrael, based on the fact that R. Shlomo Parchon, a student of R. Yehuda Halevi who lived in Spain, quotes a statement from R. Yehuda Halevi “after R. Yehuda Halevi was in Egypt”.[28]Specifically, R. Yehuda Halevi had told Parchon that he was doing teshuva and therefore no longer composing.[29] Zinberg therefore argues that this statement to Parchon must have taken place after R. Yehuda Halevi was in Egypt; thus R. Yehuda Halevi must have returned to Spain.[30] David Kaufmann also used R. Shlomo Parchon as a source to deduce how R. Yehuda Halevi died. Kaufmann points out that had R. Yehuda Halevi died in such a spectacular fashion as the legend has it, R. Shlomo Parchon would have been sure to note it. Since R. Parchon makes no note of this extraordinary death, R. Yehuda Halevi must have died a natural death.[31] InAmudei Avodah, Landshuth also questions the legend due to lack of evidence that R. Yehuda Halevi ever made it to Eretz Yisrael.[32]

In regard to the piyut, Zion Haloh Tishali, Leser Landshuth cites different opinions about where it was written: either in Spain, Damascus, or Syria.[33] Yitzhak Baer[34] and David Kaufmann cite a manuscript housed at Oxford which says that R. Yehuda Halevi said this piyut when he got to Yerushalayim.[35]

Earlier I mentioned that the Sefer Yuchasin writes that R. Yehuda Halevi was fifty years old when he came to Eretz Yisrael, and he is buried with his first cousin, Abraham Ibn Ezra. Later he writes that he is buried with R. Yehuda bar Ilay in Tzefas. In the Travels of R. Benyamin of Tudela, written around the year 1170, which is only thirty years after the R. Yehuda Halevi died, R. Benjamin records that he visited the grave of R. Yehuda Halevi in Tiveriah.[36] It’s interesting to note that in the travels of R. Pesachya of Regensburg which were written right after R. Benyamin of Tudela’s (around 1180) there is no mention of the grave of R. Yehuda Halevi.[37]

In the travels of R. Yitzchak ben Alfurah, written around 1441, he also writes that he visited the graves of Ibn Ezra and R. Yehuda Halevi.[38] In a different anonymous list of Kevarim in Eretz Yisroel from the fifteenth century, recently printed from manuscripts from the Ginsburg Collection, it also records that Ibn Ezra and R. Yehuda Halevi are buried next to each other.[39]All of these sources provide strong evidence that R. Yehuda Halevi actually made it to Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, an anonymous traveler in 1473[40] and R. Yosef Sofer in 1762 write that they visited the grave of Ibn Ezra but make no mention that R. Yehuda Halevi is buried there as well.[41] In the travels of R. Moshe Yerushalmi from 1769, he writes that he visited the graves of Ibn Ezra and R. Shlomo Ibn Gabirol , but no mention is made of the grave of R. Yehuda Halevi.[42] A manuscript from the author of the Koreh Hadoros, seems to indicate that R. Yehuda Halevi was buried in Jerusalem.[43] It should of course be noted that the location of Ibn Ezra’s death in Eretz Yisroel is itself problematic. Although Sefer Yuchasin brings the opinions that he is buried in Eretz Yisroel, he initially states that he died in Calahorra, Spain. Furthermore, Rabbi Moshe of Taku – an earlier source than Sefer Yuchasin – writes of a legend told to him by Jews of England that Ibn Ezra died there, after encountering a number of sheidimwhich appeared to him as black dogs.

Another piece of evidence can be found inn some early manuscripts, where we find before the kinah the following superscription:

זאת הקינה יסד ר’ יהודה קשטלין לפני הר ציון

But even more than that Rabbi Holzer discovered in a manuscript written before 1300 (which he is preparing for print) , which has the following statement:

יסוד רבינו יהודה הלוי הקשטלין אשר יסדה תחת הר ציון בבואו לירושלים עם המלך מספרד וראה הר ציון שמ(ו)[ם] נשא את קולו ובכה על חורבנו ואמר ציון הלא תשאל

See The Rav Thinking Aloud, p. 222. I would like to thank Zecharia Holzer for bringing this source to my attention. What is important about these sources is that they are before theShalsheles Hakabbalah.

To sum up, there are early sources which imply that R. Yehuda Halevi did indeed arrive in Jerusalem. But with regard to the legend that he was trampled at the gates as soon as he got there, it is much more questionable.

Over one hundred years ago the Cairo Genizah was discovered and collected from an attic of theBen Ezra shul. Due to this incredible find, every area of Jewish literature and history has been greatly enriched.[44] Just to list some of the many areas that were enhanced by this discovery: many works of the Geonim and manuscripts related to the Rambam were found[45] as well aspiyutim of great people. Knowledge of Jewish history, especially from the time period of the Geonim[46] and onwards was greatly improved by this discovery. Additionally, many years after the Cairo Genizah was originally found and its great treasures published, even more discoveries were made based on documents that were supposed to have been discarded since they were thought to have no value. Many of these later discoveries were made by the great Genizah scholar Shlomo D. Goitein. Starting in 1954, Goitein printed his discoveries with his explanations of the material in various journals and then later on, in his classic series A Mediterranean Society which documents in great detail every aspect of Jewish life based on those finds.

One area that benefited greatly from the later discoveries of Goitein was the history of R. Yehuda Halevi. Before this discovery, the biography of R. Yehuda Halevi was written by the early scholars of Jewish history such as Shadal[47], David Kauffman, Chaim Schirmann and many others. Their work was based heavily on the poems of R. Yehuda Halevi, for this was just about the only source. These poems existed in many manuscript collections. For example, R. David Conforte (1618-1678) in his Koreh Hadoros mentions seeing one such collection.[48] Before the aforementioned discoveries, all that was known about R. Yehuda Halevi was that he was a great poet, a medical doctor,[49] and an Askan. He was possibly a talmid of the Rif[50]and was certainly close with the Ri Migash, and may have even been his secretary for a short time.[51]And of course, in addition to his piyutim he was most famous for his important work of Jewish thought, the Kuzari.

However, among the Genizah discards Shlomo D. Goitein found many documents relating to R. Yehuda Halevi, all written around 1130-1141, including many in R. Yehuda Halevi’s own handwriting! Many of these documents can be viewed online today. Starting in 1954, Goitein printed his discoveries with his explanations of the material, in various journals, mostly inTarbitz. Later on, in his classic multi-volume A Mediterranean Society (volume V, pp. 448-468), he included an excellent chapter on R. Yehuda Halevi based on all the material which he had found over the years. Most of his interpretations of the material he discovered have been accepted by Professors C. Schirmann and Ezra Fleischer, renowned experts on Piyut.

In A Mediterranean Society, Goitein writes, “a full publication of all the geniza letters referring to Judah Halevi would fill a book.”[52] Although Goitein never got around to writing that book, in 2001, Professors Moshe Gil and Ezra Fleischer did write such a book. The title of the book isYehuda Halevei U’vnei Chugo, and it is a six hundred and forty page study of all the material from the genizah discovered by Goitein relating to R. Yehuda Halevi. This book includes all the original documents (55!) with notes and an in-depth history of all that can be gleaned from these letters. The discoveries of Goitein, followed by Gil and Fleischer are simply astounding.

For the purposes of this article, we will focus on discoveries related to R. Yehuda Halevi’s journey to Eretz Yisrael[53]. The relevant documents were written by a Cairo business man named Abu Said Halfon who was a very close friend of R. Yehuda Halevi. I should mention at the outset, that we have more in depth information of R. Yehuda Halevi’s last year of his life from these letters than we have of the rest of his life. It is also incredible to see from these letters how popular R. Yehuda Halevi was and how beloved he was by everyone.[54] This was before the Kuzari was widely read and learned, since R. Yehuda Halevi had just completed this work right at that time. A description of him from the letters reads, “God has been beneficent to you and sent you the quintessence and embodiment of our country our refuge and leader the illustrious scholar and unique and perfect devotee rabbi Judah the son of Halevi”.[55]

What follows is a brief time-line of R. Yehuda Halevi’s journey to Eretz Yisrael based on the research of the aforementioned professors.[56] In 1129, when R. Yehuda Halevi was fifty four years old, he decided to make the journey to Eretz Yisrael. In the year 1130, R. Yehuda Halevi began his journey. He intended to travel through Egypt. We don’t know why he didn’t. But we do know that he ended up in North Africa. In North Africa, he became good friends with Ibn Ezra. For some unknown reason, he ended up back in Spain.[57] Not too much information is known about why this journey to Eretz Yisrael did not end up happening. Ten years later, in 1140, R. Yehuda Halevi began the journey again. He ended up in Alexandria on September 8. He had intended to leave from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael immediately, but was delayed. He ended up staying in Cairo until Pesach. After that he returned to Alexandria. A few days before Shavuos of 1141, he boarded the boat, and on Shavuos, he set sail to Eretz Yisrael.[58] A letter written about 6 months later indicates that R. Yehuda Halevi was no longer alive. It seems that he was alive for 2 months in Eretz Yisrael and that he died in either Tammuz or Av.[59] We don’t have any information about his stay in Eretz Yisrael. It would seem that either he got sick or died a natural death. From the documents there is no clear answer as to whether the legend is true or not (except by omission). It’s rather disappointing that with all the manuscripts discovered in the Cairo Geniza that enriched us with an in-depth, heavily detailed history of R. Yehuda Halevi’s last years until he left to Eretz Yisrael, we do not know anything more, but of course the documents could not refer to the unnatural death if that had not happened or been dreamed of yet.

However, there is one letter written three months after the death of R. Yehuda Halevi that does seem to indicate that perhaps the legend is true. The letter reads as follows (the ellipses appear in the original):

ולא נעלם ממנה אודות רבינו יהודה הלוי הצדיק החסיד זק”ל אשר עליו באמת ניבאו נביאי האמת עין לא ראתה, ההיה גבור ביראת אלהים ובתורתו, ומאמרי פעליו מעידים צדקו, באודותיו ירונו כצפורים בעתותן למנוחת עולם הוטע כבוד גן אלהים, וברמה הוא נשא נס גדולותיו והליכות גבורותיו, אשר תרונה ביקרו, והתיקר… וביקרו, ותמונת ה’ הביט… בשדה צען להאירה… זק”ל לא… צור… מחנה שדי… להתנחל לרשת… עזי…וישם… בדמות השכינה ובמראה… בשערי ירושלים

This letter was first printed by Jacob Mann in 1920 but he dismissed the possibility that it was referring to the author of the Kuzari.[60] Goitein highlights the line “ולא נעלם ממנה אודות רבינו יהודה הלוי הצדיק החסיד זק”ל,” which would seem to indicate that his death was not natural (calling him a kadosh is typically reserved for martyrs). Note that the last words, בשערי ירושלים, would seem to support the legend. However, the letter is damaged and hard to read so one cannot say anything conclusively. However Fleischer is willing to use the letter, even with its missing parts, to support the legend. Especially since, he says, the author of the letter used the word קדוש twice in the phrase זק”ל instead of the usual ז”ל. He also has other proofs from a careful reading of the letter. Fleischer concludes from this that the legend about R. Yehuda Halevi’s death is not so far-fetched. In light of this possibility, Fleisher notes, that one should be careful not to make fun of legends.[61] Additionally ,there is also another letter in this collection that refers to R. Yehuda Halevi as a kadosh.[62]

We have shown, in light of the documents discovered in the Cario Genizah that R. Yehuda Halevi did indeed make it to Eretz Yisroel. And it would seem that there is also a good chance that the story that the Shalsheles Hakabbalah brings is true, and that he died a strange death through unnatural causes. The question remains as to why he decided to go to Eretz Yisroel at that time.[63] There were no real communities of any sort there, traveling was dangerous, and he was an older man. It is clear from many of his poems and especially from specific passages that he had a tremendous love for Eretz Yisroel. Professor Elchanan Reiner notes that he was one of the first known people that actually made the dangerous voyage to Eretz Yisroel in the times of the Rishonim. Reiner says that it was due to his strong desire to daven there, especially at various Kevarim.[64] There is strong support for this, especially in his kina Zion Halo Tishali,where he mentions this desire to daven at the kevarim. Ezra Fleischer suggests that R. Yehuda Halevi thought others would follow him to Eretz Yisroel.[65]

Goitein writes: “one might argue that the themes of Israel’s uniqueness, of the holiness of Palestine… are overdone in the Kuzari and in Ha-levi’s poetry. They are but for good reasons. It was a time of extreme urgency. Constant and gruesome warfare was going on in Spain. As Judah Ha-Levi emphasizes in his poems, whenever Christians and Muslims fought each other, the Jews were affected most by the disturbance of peace. The feeling of impotence in the absence of any signs of relief was dangerous forebodings of despair and loss of faith… All in all, the voice of encouragement ringing out from Ha-levi’s poems was stronger than whimpers of despair.”[66]

Rabbi Yehuda Leib Gerst, without seeing what Goitein wrote, suggested that since this was a time that Jews were downhearted, especially about Eretz Yisroel, he wanted to reawaken love for Eretz Yisroel. Even though it was dangerous to go at that time and it seems that many tried to convince him not to go, he still gave up everything: family, friends and a comfortable life style. He writes that even if the story of the Shalsheles Hakabbalah did not happen exactly as he heard it, his trip to Eretz Yisroel still caused a tremendous Kiddush Hashem.[67]

Although R. Yehuda Halevi’s trip did increase the Jewish people’s hope and did increase its emphasis on Eretz Yisrael, it is not clear that this was his own personal intention for going. In one of the letters discovered in the Geniza, it sounds as if he wanted to go quietly. He knew his days were numbered and he wanted to be in Eretz Yisrael alone.[68]

There is one last point worth mentioning: R’ Shlomo Yosef Zevin wrote a beautiful piece that shows that in addition to the Kuzari being a philosophical work, it also has many halachic aspects and was accordingly used by many.[69] One recent example is in the famous controversy between the Chazon Ish and many other gedolim regarding the placement of the International Dateline – specifically regarding which day the bochurim of the Mir yeshiva should celebrate Yom Kippur in Japan. One of the main sources on the topic of the Chazon Ish was the Kuzari.[70]Regarding the halachic aspect of going to Eretz Yisroel, the Kuzari writes that it is a Mitzvah even nowadays, making him one of the earliest sources to say such a thing. Even more importantly, he says one should go even if it’s dangerous.[71] In this light, it is evident why he made this trip: he held that he was halachically obligated to even though it was dangerous![72]

I would like to conclude with one last point that is related to all this. I mentioned earlier that R. Abraham Zacuto in Sefer Yuchasin writes that “R. Yehuda Halevi was fifty [years old] when he came to Eretz Yisroel and he is buried together with his first cousin, Ibn Ezra.[73] Now we know that there was certainly a strong connection between Ibn Ezra and R. Yehuda Halevi. D. Kaufmann gives a listing of the many times which Ibn Ezra quotes R. Yehuda Halevi throughout his works.[74] In addition, there are many other places in his works which clearly indicate that R. Yehuda Halevi had a great influence on his works.

R. Azariah de Rossi, in his Me’or Eynaim, writes that R. Yehuda Halevi was Ibn Ezra’s father-in-law (chapter 42). Koreh hadoros also brings this down. R. Immanuel Aboab in his Bemavak ‘al Erko shel Torah, written in 1615, claims that Ibn Ezra was both R. Yehuda Halevi’s son-in-law as well as a cousin.[75]

The Shalsheles Hakabblah brings a legend which he had heard about how exactly Ibn Ezra became the son-in-law of R Yehuda Halevi.[76] The gist of the story was that R. Yehuda Halevi was working on a poem and he got stuck. He left his notebook open and went away, and when he returned, he found the poem completed. It turned out that Ibn Ezra had completed it, and because of this, R. Yehuda Halevi let him marry his only daughter. There are many versions of this story, but strangely, if this were true, in the many times that Ibn Ezra quotes the Kuzari in his works, he never once refers to him as his father-in-law.[77]

R. Yehuda Al-charizi writes in his Sefer Tachkemoni, (written between 1195-1234) that Ibn Ezra had a son Yitzhak who was also a great poet but he tragically left the proper path, apparently converting to Islam.[78] Some took this as a license and went so far as too say that any of the problematic ideas[79] mentioned in the writings of Ibn Ezra were added in by this son.[80] For many years scholars were searching for more details about this sad saga. Finally they found a collection of Yitzchak’s poems which they hoped would shed some light on the matter, but the owner wanted a ridiculous sum of money for it. It was not purchased, and during the Second World War it was lost. Eventually, the collection was found and printed but it turned out that it did not really shed much light on this story.

However, in the same documents that Goitein found about R. Yehuda Halevi, there were many mentions of Yitzchak Ibn Ezra (some in the documents written by R. Yehuda Halevi himself). Both Goitein and Fleischer concluded that although R. Yehuda Halevi was not the father-in-law of Ibn Ezra, his son Yitzchak did marry R. Yehuda Halevi’s only daughter.[81] They go so far as to show that Yitzchak and his wife, R. Yehuda Halevi’s daughter, were supposed to follow him to Eretz Yisroel eventually. So there was indeed a family connection between Ibn Ezra and R. Yehuda Halevi. There is even a letter with instructions from R. Yehuda Halevi for a Yehuda ibn Ezra which some want to suggest was his grandson, son of Yitzchak![82] In Sefardi communities it is not unique at all to name after a living relative.

In conclusion I have shown based on documents from the Cario Genizah that it is likely that the legend recorded by Shalsheles Hakabbalah regarding R. Yehuda Halevi is true and he did indeed make it to Eretz Yisroel and that he died an unusual death. We also see from these documents that the legend which is brought by many that there was a family connection between R. Yehuda Halevi and Ibn Ezra is also true, as Yitzchak, Ibn Ezra’s wayward son married R. Yehuda Halevi daughter.

I would just like to conclude with a great quote from the Chazon Ish which I think is very appropriate here:

דברי הימים וקורות עולם הם מאלפים הרבה את החכם בדרכו, ועל תולדות העבר ייסד אדני חכמתו. ואמנם בהיות האדם אוהב לחדש ולהרצות לפני הקהל, נצברו הרבה שקרים בספרי התולדות, כי בן אדם אינו שונא את הכזב בטבעו, ורבים האוהבים אותו ומשתעשעים בו שעשועי ידידות, ועל החכם להבר בספורי הסופרים לקבל את האמת ולזרות את הכזבים, וכאן יש כר נרחב אל הדמיון, כי טבע הדמיון למהר ולהתקדם ולהגיד משפט, טרם שהשכל הכין מאזני משפט לשקול בפלס דבר על אפנו, והדמיון חוץ משפטו כרגע, מהו מן האמת ומהו מן הכזב (אמונה ובטחון, פרק א אות ח).

[1] For his basic history see Y. Baer, A History of the Jews in Christian Spain, 1, pp. 66-77;Encyclopedia Judaicia, 11, pp. 492-501; Yehudah Halevi, A. Doron, Ed. 1988 and the sources in note 4. See also S. Werses in B-Orach Maadah, (Aron Mirsky Jubilee volume), pp. 247-86.

[2] See for example what R. Menahem di Lonzano writes:כי היה מנהג ישראל… לשורר לש”י בליל שבת… וחשובי קדמוני המשוררים… ורבי יהודה הלוי… (דרך חיים, דף כג ע”א).

[3] Its influence is the subject of the beautiful book, A. Shear, Kuzari and the Shaping of Jewish Identity, 1167-1900, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008 (based on his Phd, The Later History of a Medieval Hebrew Book, Studies in the Reception of Judah Halevi’s Sefer Ha Kuzari, University of Pennsylvania, 2003).

[4] For some more information on R’ Yehuda Halevi in relation to this topic: See; D. Kaufmann, Mechkarim Besafrus Haivrit Byemei Habenyim pp. 166-207; C. Schirmann, Toldos Hashirah Haivrit Besefard Hamuslamit, pp. 441-443; M. Ish Sholom, Kivrei Avos, 1948, pp. 190-192;Kovetz R. Yehudah Halevi, 1950, pp. 47-65; Y. Burlu, R’ Yehuda Halevi, 1968; Zev Vilnay,Matzevos Kodesh Beretz Yisroel 2:298-299; E. Reiner revisited this in, Pilgrims and Pilgrimage to Eretz Yisrael (1099-1517),(PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988), pp. 30-33; T. Ilan, Kivrei Tzadikim, 1997, p. 255; A. Shear, The Later History of a Medieval Hebrew Book, Studies in the Reception of Judah Halevi’s Sefer Ha Kuzari, (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania), 2003, pp. 95, 513-514; Y. Yahalom, Judah Haevi: A life of Poetry, Jerusalem 2008, pp. 7-8; R. Scheindlin, The Song of the Distant Dove: Judah Halevi’s Pilgrimage (Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.150-152, 249-252; Hillel Halkin, Yehuda Halevi (New York: Nextbook/Schocken, 2009), pp. 236-242. See also Lawrence J. Kaplan, The Starling’s Caw’: Judah Halevi as Philosopher, Poet, and Pilgrim, Jewish Quarterly Review 101:1 (Winter 2011): 97-132; David J. Malkiel – Three perspectives on Judah Halevi’s voyage to Palestine, Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2010, 1–15. (Thanks to Menachem Butler for the last two sources).

[5] For more sources on R. Yehuda Halevi and his love of Eretz Yisrael, see: D. Kaufmann, (supranote 4), pp. 193-194; A. Shear, supra, pp. 516-517; C. Schirmann, Letoldos Hashirah Vehadramah Haivrit, vol. one, pp. 319-341; C. Schirmann, Toldos Hashirah Haivrit Besefard Hamuslamit, pp. 466-480. Franz Kobler, A Treasury of Jewish Letters, vol. one, p. 155; Abraham Haberman,Toldos Hashirah Vhapiyut, vol. one, p. 185; R’ Yosef Dov Soleveitchik, Lord is Righteous in All His Ways: Reflections on the Tish’ah Be-Av Kinot,pp. 304-312.

[6] R’ Yosef Dov Soleveitchik, Lord is Righteous in All His Ways: Reflections on the Tish’ah Be-Av Kinot,p. 304.

[7] On this Piyut and how famous it became see A. Doron in B-Orach Maadah, (Aron Mirsky Jubilee volume), 1986, pp. 233-238[=Yehudah Halevi, A. Doron, Ed. 1988, pp. 248-254]; B. Bar Tikvah, Sugot Vesugyot Be-fiyut Hapravencali VeHakatloni, pp. 395-425; I. Davidson, Otzar Ha-shira Ve-hapiyut, 3, pp. 321-322.

[8] Below I demonstrate that this date is incorrect and that the correct death date is 1141.

[9] The Complete tisha B’av Service, 1998, p. 328. See also R. Yakov Weingarten, Kinos Ha-Mifurush, 1988, p. 43, 276; Rabbi Berel Wein, Patterns in Jewish History, 2011, pp. 75-76 (as an aside its worth mentioning that this book is excellent).

[10] The Lord is Righteous in All His Ways: Reflections on the Tish’ah Be-Av Kinot, p. 303. [I would like to thank my friend Rabbi Dov Loketch for bringing this source to my attention]. In the new edition of the Rav’s Kinos this is recorded slightly differently.

[11] See the Gemarah at the end of Kesuvot.

[12] Sefer Chardeim, p. 208. See also his Mili Deshmayhu, pp. 4-5. The truth is the author ofShir Yidddus was not R. Yehuda Halevi, see R. Menachem Krengel in his notes to Shem Hagedolim, p. 35a; I. Davidson, Otzar Ha-shira Ve-hapiyut, 1, p. 348.

[13] p. 217, Filipowski ed.

[14] id., p. 219.

[15] Shalsheles Hakabbalah, p. 92.

[16] Shalsheles Hakabbalah, p. 92.

[17] Koreh Hadoros, p.33. He writes that he heard it from ‘old people’ and then saw it in theShalsheles Hakabbalah.

[18] Seder Hadoros, p. 201

[19] Tevous Haaretz, p.443. Benjamin the Second, in his book, Asia & Africa from 1846-1855, also brings down this story (p.13) but it only appears in the English edition of his work not in the Hebrew.

[20] A. Shear, Kuzari and the Shaping of Jewish Identity, 1167-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, pp.162-163.

[21] Besulas Bas Yehuda, pp. 25-29.

[23] Knesset Yisroel,1, p. 400.

[24] Die religiöse Poesie der Juden in Spanien, Berlin: Veit, 1845, pp. 287-291.

[22] Interestingly enough, David Kaufmann uses other evidence to prove that the poems of R. Yehuda Halevi indicate that Jerusalem was under Christian rule (Mechkarim Besafrus Haivrit Byemei Habenyim p. 194). See also Sefer Yerushalyim 1099-1250; M. Ish Shalom, Betzalon Shel Malchus, p. 234. A.M. Luncz in his edition of Tevous Haaretz, p. 443 also did not believe the story.[25] See my article in Yeshurun 24 (2011), pp. 467-468.[26] Mivchar Kitavim, pp. 215-216. See also Chida, Shem Hagedolim, Vol. 1, p. 2, Vol. 2, p. 24; A. David, Mifal Histographi shel Gedaliah Ibn Yachi, Baal Shalsheles Hakabbalah,(PhD dissertation, Hebrew University Jerusalem, 1976) and E. Yassif in Sippur Ham Haevrei pp. 351-371.[27] Kovetz R. Yehudah Halevi, 1950, p. 29. See also A. Aderet, Itineraries in Yiddish to Eretz Yisroel in the 17th and 18th century, (Heb.), Phd Bar Ilan 2006, p. 236.

[28] Machberes Hauruch p. 5.

[29] Independently, we know that during R. Yehuda Halevi’s stay in Egypt he was a prolifi composer. Perhaps, what is meant by the above story, is that he was going to limit the focus of future compositions, not that he was abandoning composing entirely.

[30] Toldos Safrus Byisroel, vol. 1, p. 115. On this trip to North Africa see Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chugo, p. 192.

[31] Mechkarim Besafrus Haivrit Byemei Habenyim p. 195.

[32] Amudei Avodah, p.70.

[33] Amudei Avodah, p.76.

[34] Kinos p. 130.

[35] Mechkarim Besafrus Haivrit Byemei Habenyim p. 195. Shadal writes it was written in Spain.

[36] There are actually various readings of these words in the manuscripts, but Adler accepts this as the correct reading See his edition of The Itinerary of Benjamin of Tudela, London 1901, p. 29. R. Scheindlin (note 5), p. 276 disagrees with Adler’s reading.

[37] See Masos Eretz Yisrael, pp. 51-53 and Kovet Al Yad 13:267-269.

[38] Avraham Yari, Masos Eretz Yisrael, p. 110. Also see J. Prawer, Toldos Hayehudim Bemamleches Hazelvonim, p. 150

[39] Kovet Al Yad 14:292.

[40] Masos Eretz Yisroel, p. 113.

[41] Iggrot Eretz Yisroel, p. 301.

[42] Masos Eretz Yisroel, p. 438. I would venture to say the author confused R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel with R. Yehuda Halevi. Both being famous composers, they are sometimes confused. Furthermore, we have no source that R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel ever came to Eretz Yisrael (aside from a very late letter written in 1747 printed in Egrot Eretz Yisrael, p. 273). (See also David Kaufmann, p. 205 and Sinai, vol. 28, p. 290). I have written about this elsewhere. See also R. Moshe Riescher, Sharei Yerushlayim. p. 151, 145.

[43] Sinai vol. 28, p. 284.

[44] There are a great many articles on this topic see: R. Brody in B. Richler, Hebrew Manuscripts: A Treasured Legacy, Ofek 1990, pp. 112-133; N. Danzig, A Catalogue of Fragments of Halakha and Midrash from the Cairo Genizah in the Elkan Nathan Adler Collection of the Library of The Jewish Theological Seminary of America (New York, 1997), 3-39 (Hebrew); A. Hoffman and P. Cole, Sacred Trash: The Lost and Found World of the Cairo Geniza (New York: NextBook/Schocken, 2011). See also E. Hurvitz, Catalouge of the Cairo Geniza Fragments in the Westminster College Library, Cambridge, N.Y. 2006

[45] See for example Yehsurun, 23 (2010), pp. 13-34; S. D. Goitein Moses Maimonides, Man of Action – A Revision of the Master’s Biography in Light of the Geniza Documents, Hommage à Georges Vajda: études d’histoire et de pensée juives. Louvain: Peeters 1980, pp. 155-167.

[46] R. Brody, The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998)

[47] Shadal first printed a collection of his poems in 1840 but, continued working on it for the many years. Right after he died, in 1864 the Mekizei Nirdamim Publishing House printed as its first work a more complete edition of R. Yehuda Halevi’s poems from Shadal.

[48] p. 32.

[49] D. Kaufmann, (note 5), p. 175; C. Schirmann, Toldos Hashirah Haivrit Besefard Hamuslamit, p. 437; Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chugo, p. 177.

[50] D. Kaufmann, (note 5), p. 169.

[51] D. Kaufmann, (note 5), p. 170; C. Schirmann, Toldos Hashirah Haivrit Besefard Hamuslamit, p. 435; Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chugo, p. 59, 122; Y.Ta- Shema, Rebbe Zerachia Halevi, 1992, p. 37.

[52] A Mediterranean Society, p. 462.

[53] There is a lot related to R. Yehuda Halevi in these documents unrelated to this article. Such as an autograph letter where he discusses why he wrote his classic work Kuzari. See Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chugo, pp.182-184; A Mediterranean Society, p. 456, 465; Mordechai A. Friedman, Judah Ha-Levi on Writing the Kuzari: Responding to a Heretic, in B. Outhwaite and S. Bhayro, eds., ‘From a Sacred Source’: Genizah Studies in Honour of Professor Stefan C. Reif (Leiden 2011), 157-169. (Thanks to Menachem Butler for this last source). Some of the other autograph letters show him dealing with Pidyon Shivuyim. See A Mediterranean Society, p. 462-465; Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chug, p.178-181. See also Mordechai A. Friedman, “On Judahha-Levi and the Martyrdom of a Head of the Jews: A Letter by Halfon ha-Levi ben Nethanel,” in Y. Tzvi Langermann and Josef Stern, eds., Adaptations and Innovations: Studies on theInteraction between Jewish and Islamic Thought and Literature from the Early Middle Ages to the Late Twentieth Century, Dedicated to Professor Joel L. Kraemer (Leuven: Peeters, 2007), 83-108.

[54] Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chugo, pp. 202-203. See also R. Yehuda Al-charizi, Sefer Tachomoni, 1952, pp. 46-48

[55] Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chugo, p. 330. The translation is from S. Goitein, A Mediterranean Society, volume V, p. 289.

[56] See also C. Schirmann, Toldos Hashirah Haivrit Besefard Hamuslamit, pp. 421-480.

[57] This is the trip mentioned above from R. Shlomo Parchon. It is pretty clear that he was good friends with Ibn Ezra even before this.

[58] Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chugo, p. 483. On the significance of his departure being on Shavuos see Y. Ta-Shema, Halacha, Minhag U-mitzios Be-Ashkenaz 1100-1350, 2000, p. 179; J. Katz, The Shabbes Goy, 1989, pp. 35-48.

[59] Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chugo, pp. 253-254, 494, 495.

[60] The Jews in Egypt and in Palestine under the Fatmid Caliphs, 1, 1920, pp. 224-225.

[61] Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chugo, pp. 254-256, 484-490. See also Goitein in Tarbitz, 46:245-250.

[62] Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chugo, p. 256, 496.The truth is this proof alone is not enough as a friend pointed out to me in Genizah documents we do find זקל and זל for example if one looks in the Shut of R. Avraham ben HaRambam printed by Goitein, in 1937 which is based on documents from the Cario genizah one will see זל, זצל andזקל for זל andזצל see p. 1,4, 7,10,13,26 & many more place. Forזקל see p. 9,104, 161,170. A search on the Princeton Genizah Project shows thatזל and זצל are much more common than זקל but זקל does appear over 36 times.

[63] For other possible explanations why R. Yehuda Halevi wanted to go to Eretz Yisroel see. S. Abramson, Kiryat Sefer, 29 (1953), pp.133-144; David J. Malkiel – Three perspectives on Judah Halevi’s voyage to Palestine, Mediterranean Historical Review, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2010, 1–15. Also see J. Prawer, Toldos Hayehudim Bemamleches Hazelvonim, pp. 154-156.

[64] Reiner, (note 5).

[65] Pe’amim 68, pp. 4-15.

[66] A Mediterranean Society, volume V, pp. 449-450. On the political situation in the times of the Kuzari, see Y. Baer, Mechkarim, pp. 251-268.

[67] Peletas Beis Yehudah, 1971, pp. 84-88. (I would like to thank my friend Rabbi Eli Meir Cohen for bringing this source to my attention.)

[68] Yehudah Halevei U’vnei Chugo, p. 205.

[69] Le-Or Ha-Halachah, 2004, pp. 358- 377.

[70] Chazon Ish, Kuntres Yud Ches Shoess, p. 186. See also Genazim Ve-shut Chazon Ish, pp. 205-290 just printed this week [make sure to get it while it is still around] See also here for an interesting work on the topic. See B. Brown, Ha-Chazon Ish, 2011, pp. 612-637. See also R Alexander Moshe Lapides, Toras Hagoan Rebbe Alexander Moshe, p. 20, 23; see also R Chaim Zimmerman, Agan Ha-sahar, p. 427. R. Aryeh Rabinowitz, Toras Haolam Ve-Hayehadus, part 4, 29a. [As an aside, on this author see what the Chazon Ish writes:

וראיתי להגאון האדיר ר’ אריה ממינסק בספרו באר היטב… (חזון איש, קדשים ס’ כו אות טז).

The Chazon Ish does not use such language frequently. [Thanks to my Uncle, Rabbi Sholom Spitz for pointing out this source to me].

The truth is this whole issue is not so simple as the Ravad comments on the Baal Ha-Maor:

והריח אשר הריח מן הכוזרי ומחבורי רבי אברהם ב”ר חייא הספרדי כי הם פירשו ההלכות הללו על זה הדרך עצמו והוא מתעטר בעדים שאינם שלו, אין לנו ללמד מדברי מי שאינו מאנשי התלמוד לפי שהם מסבבים פני ההלכה לדבריהם כאשר לא כן. וכבר שמענו כי הנשיא רבי יצחק ב”ר ברוך ז”ל שהיה בקי בזו החכמה והיה בקי בהלכה שבר את הדברים האלה ויישר כחו ששבר… ועם כל זה ואריכות דבריו אין הלכה יוצאה לאור מדבריו, רק ממה שכתב בספר הכוזרי…יוצא לאור לפי הסברא ההיא(כתוב שם, לראב”ד, ראש השנה ה ע”א).

He is complaining that he plagiarized from the Kuzari but we do not pasken like him anyways…and was not a talmudist! The truth is it is possible that the Chazon Ish gave much more weight to Kuzari as he held there is no such thing as being a Baal Aggdah alone. I am referring to the censored passage from the Chazon Ish Emunah U-bitchon where he writes:

אלה שלא זכו לאור הגמ’ בהלכה, המה משוללים גם מאגדה באפיה האמיתי. כי בהיותו חסר לב חכמה, אי אפשר לו לקנות מושגים שמימיים אמיתיים, גם אינו מסוגל ללימודים מישרים. ומה שהזכירו בגמ’ בעלי אגדה – היינו חכמים בהלכה שהוסיפו עיונם גם באגדה, אבל לא יתכן להיות ריק מהלכה ולהיות בעל אגדה. ויתכן אנשים שעסקם בהגיונות בני אדם כעין פילוסופי’ ריקנית, פעם במדות פעם בקורות הדורות ועוד כיוצא בהם, ומשתדלים לקבוע הגות לבם במסגרת התורה, ויתכן שיצליחו למשוך לב השומעים ולהנעים זמירות באזני המקשיבים. ואמנם אלה אין להם חלק בתורה, לא בהלכה ולא באגדה, כי כיסוד ההלכה יסוד האגדה. אין אגדה הגיון לב – האגדה היא חלק התורה שקבלנוה דור אחר דור, אשר מסרה משה ליהושע ויהושע לזקנים וכדתנן באבות. ולהיות בעל אגדה החובה להיות בקי במקרא בתורה בנביאים וכתובים, להיות בקי בכל אגדות שנאמרו בגמ’ בקיאות נאמנה, להיות בקי במדרש בקיאות שנונה ומסודרת, ואחר כך לשאת ולתת בהן בהבנת המסקנות שבהם, וכמו שלא יתכן חכם בהלכה בלא קנין הבקיאות המרובה.

So the Kuzari had to be a star Talmudist too. On this issue see Y.Ta- Shema, Rebbe Zerachia Halevi,1992, p. 4; I. Twersky, Rabbad of Posquieres, p. 266.

On these censored pieces of the Chazon Ish see B. Brown, Ha-Chazon Ish, 2011, pp. 166-167 (and see here). It’s worth mentioning these pieces have been finally printed in an authorized version from the family this week in a work called Genazim Ve-shut Chazon Ish, pp. 106-112.Besides for the Ravad writing against the Kuzari on this topic see also in the sefer Divrei Chachomim on the dateline, p. 27:

וראיתי כי אין ללמוד להלכה מדברי הכוזרי הנ”ל, כי כמו שאין למדין הלכה מן ספרי המקובלים… כן אין למדין הלכה מן ספרי מחקר ודרוש כהכוזרי…

[71] Kuzari, 5:23.

[72] See Y. Zisberg, Medieval Rabbinic Attitudes towards the Land of Israel and the Religious Obligation of its Settelment, (PHd Bar Ilan 2007), pp. 48-57 who has an excellent discussion on this topic.

[73] It is not clear if Ibn Ezra ever even made it to Eretz Yisroel see N. Ben Menachem, Inyani Ibn Ezra, pp. 182-190, 239; Uriel Simon, Transplanting the Wisdom of Spain to Christian Lands: The Failed Efforts of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra, Simon Dubnow Institute Yearbook 8 (2009) 139-189; Zisberg, supra, pp. 58-68. Regarding where he is buried see: M. Ish Sholom, Kivrei Avos, 1948, p.189; Zev Vilnay, Matzevos Kodesh Beretz Yisroel 2:299; T. Ilan, Kivrei Tzadikim, 1997, p. 255.

[74] supra p. 206. See also Yakov Reifman, Iyunim BeMishnat Harav Ibn Ezra, 1962, pp. 95-97, 56; N. Ben Menachem, Inyani Ibn Ezra, pp. 225-233; Y. Ibn Shmuel, Kuzari, pp. 371-372; E. Fleischer, Hashira Haivrit Besefard, 2, pp. 266-267. However see A. Shear, Kuzari and the Shaping of Jewish Identity, 1167-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008, p. 23 and his doctorate, The Later History of a Medieval Hebrew Book, Studies in the Reception of Judah Halevi’s Sefer Ha Kuzari, (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2003, pp. 96-97) who concludes that Ibn Ezra did not see the Kuzari’s work.

[75] p. 247.

[76] pp. 92-93.

[77] N. Ben Menachem, Inyanei Ibn Ezra, pp. 233-240, 346-356 collected many version of this Legend. See also: R. Dovid Ganz, Tzemach David, p. 121; R. Yosef Sambori, Divrei Yosef, p. 100;Shut Chavos Yair, siman 248; R’ Yosef Dov Soleveitchik, Lord is Righteous in All His Ways: Reflections on the Tish’ah Be-Av Kinot, p. 304-305; Kovetz R. Yehudah Halevi, 1950, pp. 84-93. See also A. Shear, Kuzari and the Shaping of Jewish Identity, 1167-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. p. 298.

Interestingly enough the Meiri in his Seder Hakablah and the Sha’ari Zion make no mention of this relationship between Ibn Ezra and R. Yehuda Halevi.

[78] Sefer Tachkemoni, 1952, p. 45.

[79] A topic worthy of its own article in the Future B”h.

[80] N. Ben Menachem, Inyani Ibn Ezra, p. 255.

[81] Yehuda Halevei U’vnei Chugo pp. 148-173. Many agree with this suggestion but some still disagree (see ibid, pp. 250-251). See Halkin, (note 5) pp. 330-335. For more on this whole sad affair with the son of Ibn Ezra see E. Fleischer in Toldos Hashirah Haivrit Besefard Hanotzrit, pp. 71-92; E. Fleischer, Hashira Haivrit Besefard, 2, pp.264-270. See also Y. Levine, Avrhom Iban Ezra, 1970, p. 17.

[82] Yehuda Halevei U’vnei Chugo pp. 491-494. See also E. Fleischer, Hashira Haivrit Besefard, 2, pp. 270-273; D. Kaufmann (note two), p. 190, 201.

Interestingly enough the Meiri in his Seder Hakabbalah and the Sha’ari Zion make no mention of this relationship between Ibn Ezra and R. Yehuda Halevi.

Some Recently Published Seforim

Some Recently Published Seforim
by: Eliezer Brodt

Here is short list of some recently published seforim on the market. This is only a partial list but we wanted to highlight some notable seforim.

1. The Safari commentary, Mishnayot Mishnat Eretz Yisroel, on Meschect Yoma. This is but one of the many new volumes of this commentary that are coming out at a rapid speed. I hope they continue coming out at such speeds.
2. Zohar Amar’s Esrogei Eretz Yisroel. This volume is a continuation of his work, published last year, Arbat ha-Minim. As the title suggests, the new book focuses on the Etrog in particular and especially the various etrogim on the market today.
3. R. Yitzchack Shilat has retranslated the Kuzari from Arabic.
4. R. Hamberger, of Mechon Morshet Ashkenaz, has just written a beautiful three volume masterpiece on Yeshivat Fuerth, Ha-Yeshiva ha-Rahma be-Fiord.
5. R. Nebentzal on Chol Hamoed.
6. R. Weiss author of Megadim Chadashim on various volumes of Shas, (the works are well-known for containing interesting things) has put out a volume on Chumash Breshis (673 pp.).
7. R. Y. Weiss, Binah le-Etim, two volumes on Tishrei (from Mechon Shem Olam).
8. Volume 23 of Yeshurun. This volume is beautiful; although smaller in size than previous volumes in content it is better (in my opinion). The main highlights are the articles regarding R. N.N. Rabinowich, author of Dikdukei Sofrim, including many letters of his (many of which had not been printed), his notes on Shem ha-Gedolim and a section on Geniza Charsoin. I will be returning to this volume in its own post hopefully very soon.
9. A reprint, and retypeset edition of Chibat Yerushalayim, all about Eretz Yisroel.
10. As far as other Torah journals there are new issues of Or Yisroel, Hamayan (it’s even already upon line), Eitz Chaim and Heichel Ha-Besht.

11. Volume three of Iggerot R. Hayyim Ozer.

In the academic world there also has been some activity. Of note from Ben Tzvi is three volumes of collected article of E. Fleischer on Piut and a marriage guide for Chasanim from the 1700s. From Magnes there is a nice book from A. Melamaed, Rehokot ve-Tavahkot.

The Legend of R. Yehuda Halevi’s Death: Truth or Fiction?

The Legend of R. Yehuda Halevi’s Death: Truth or Fiction
by Eliezer Brodt

Among the more famous kinos that we recite on Tisha B’Av is Zion Halo Tishali. This kinah was written by one of the greatest paytanim, R. Yehudah Halevi author of the classic Kuzari. This piyut is about the author’s passion to walk on the holy soil of Eretz Yisrael. In the Artscroll commentary on the kinos, R. Avraham Chaim Feuer writes

an ancient manuscript states that R. Yehuda Halevi composed this kina while journeying towards Eretz Yisroel and recited it when he reached Damascus, facing the direction of Zion. Although many historians believe that R. Yehuda Halevi only got as far as Egypt, never even reaching Damascus, tradition has it that he finally reached Jerusalem (in 1145). There he fell to the ground in a state of ecstasy. . . . As he was embracing the dust near the temple mount, he was trampled and killed by an Arab horseman.

In this post I intend to discuss the above legend of R. Yehuda Halevi’s death, did he actually reach Eretz Yisrael? When did he compose the piyut of Zion Haloeh Tishali? I will conclude with a discussion on R. Yehuda Halevi’s connection to R. Abraham Ibn Ezra. I do not, however, intend to discuss R. Yehuda Halevi’s classic work the Kuzari nor his life in general for more on those topics one can see the excellent study by Adam Shear, “The Later History of a Medieval Hebrew Book, Studies in the Reception of Judah Halevi’s Sefer HaKuzari” (PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 2003); soon to be printed in book form.

R. Abraham Zacuto (1452-1514) in Sefer Yuchsin (first printed in 1566) writes that “R. Yehuda Halevi was fifty [years old] when he came to Eretz Yisroel and he is buried together with his first cousin, the Ibn Ezra.” (p. 217, Filipowski ed.). Later, however, R. Zacuto writes that R. Yehuda Halevi is buried with R. Yehudah Bar Elayh in Tzefat. (idem., p. 219). Setting aside the apparent contradiction regarding R. Yehuda Halevi’s burial place, in both of these descriptions R. Yehuda Halevi actually made it to Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, the legend of an Arab horseman killing him is absent. The earliest source for Arab horseman legend appears in R. Gedaliah Ibn Yachi, Shalsheles Hakabbalah (first published in Venice, 1587) and he states that he heard this legend from “an old man” (p. 92). Although the Shalsheles Hakabbalah appears to be the source for the R. Feuer’s statement, the Shalsheles Hakabbalah has one addition to the legend — omitted by R. Feuer — that R. Yehuda Halevi recited the kinah of Zion Halo Tishali right before the Arab horseman killed him.

The next time that this legend appeared, after the mention in the Shalsheles Hakabbalah, is by R. David Conforte (1618-c.1678) in Koreh Hadoros (first printed in Venice, 1746), p. 13, followed by R. Yechiel Halprin (1660- died sometime between 1746-1749) in Seder Hadoros (first printed in Karlsruhe, 1769), p. 201, it is then repeated by R. Wolf Heindheim in his edition of the Kinos. By the 19th century, this legend became perhaps the most famous story about R. Yehudah Halevi as not much else was known about him.

R. Matisyahu Strashun, however, questions the legend. He explains that Jerusalem, in the times of R. Yehuda Halevi, was ruled by Christians and not by Arabs. R. Strashun allows that although it is possible R. Yehuda Halevi composed Zion Halo Tishali when he got to Jerusalem — not that we know that he did — but the part of the story with the Arab killing him is certainly not true. As a general matter, R. Strashun notes that it is well known that the Shalsheles Hakabbalah is not a reliable sefer at all (Mivchar Kitavim, pp. 215-216). R. Shmuel David (ShaDaL) Luzzatto in his collection of poems from R. Yehuda Halevi, Besulas Bas Yehuda (Prague, 1840), also questions the the legend due to the Christian and not Arab control during the time of R. Yehuda Halevi. Further, even if there were Arabs around they would not have done such a blatant act right at the city gate (pp. 25-26). So Shadal concludes that he died on his way from Egypt never even reaching Eretz Yisroel. Interestingly enough, David Kaufmann uses other evidence to prove that the poems of R. Yehudah Halevi have Jerusalem under Christian rule (Mechkarim Besafrus Haivrit Byemei Habenyim p. 194).

Israel Zinberg writes that most likely R. Yehuda Halevi returned home to Spain, after visiting Eretz Yisrael, based on the fact that R. Shlomo Parcon, a student of R. Yehuda Halevi who lived in Spain, quotes a statement from R. Yehuda Halevi “after R. Yehuda Halevi was in Egypt” (Machberes Hauruch p. 5). Specifically, R. Yehuda Halevi had told Parcon that he was doing teshuva and therefore no longer composing. Independently, we know that during while R. Yehuda Halevi was in Egypt he composed much, Zinberg therefore argues that this statement to Parcon must have taken place after R. Yehuda Halevi was in Egypt, thus R. Yehuda Halevi must have returned to Spain (Toldos Safrus Byisroel, vol. 1, p. 115). David Kaufman also uses R. Shlomo Parcon to adduce how R. Yehuda Halevi died. Kaufman points out that had R. Yehudah Halevi died in such a spectacular fashion as the legend has it, R. Shlomo Parcon was sure to note it. As R. Parcon makes no note of an extraordinary death, R. Yehuda Halevi must have died a natural death. (Mechkarim Besafrus Haivrit Byemei Habenyim, p. 195). In Amudei Avodah, Landshuth also questions the legend due to lack of evidence that R. Yehuda Halevi ever made it to Eretz Yisrael. (p. 70).

In regard to the piyut, Zion Haloh Tishali, Landshuth brings different opinions where this was written, in Spain or Damascus, Syria (p. 76). Yitzhak Baer (Kinos p. 130) and David Kaufmann (supra, p. 195) cite an manuscript — housed at Oxford — which says that R. Yehuda Halevi said this piyut when he got to the Yerushalayim. Shadal writes it was written in Spain (supra).

Earlier I mentioned that the Sefer Yuchsin writes that R. Yehuda Halevi was fifty years old when he came to Eretz Yisrael and he is buried with his first cousin, Abraham Ibn Ezra. Later he writes that he is buried with R. Yehuda Bar Elayh in Tzefas. In the Travels of R. Benjamin of Tudela, written around 1170 – thirty years after the R. Yehuda Halevi died – Benjamin records that he visited the grave of R. Yehuda Halevi in Teveriah (there are actually various readings of these words in the manuscripts, but Adler accepts this as the correct reading; p. 29). In the travels of R. Yitzchak Ben Alfurah, written around 1441, he writes that he visited the grave of the Ibn Ezra and R. Yehuda Halevi (Avraham Yari, Masos Eretz Yisrael, p. 110). Both of these provide strong evidence that R. Yehuda Halevi actually made it to Eretz Yisrael. Nevertheless, an anonymous traveler in 1473 (Masos Eretz Yisroel, p. 113) and R. Yosef Sofer in 1762 (Iggrot Eretz Yisroel, p. 301) write that they visited the grave of the Ibn Ezra but make no mention that R. Yehuda Halevi is buried there as well. In the travels of R. Moshe Yerushalmi from 1769, he writes that he visited the graves of the Ibn Ezra and R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel (Masos Eretz Yisroel, p. 438). I would venture to say the author confused R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel with R. Yehuda Halevi both being famous composers and are sometimes confused. Furthermore, we have no source that R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel ever came to Eretz Yisrael (aside from a very late letter written in 1747 printed in Egrot Eretz Yisrael, p. 273). (See also David Kaufmann, p. 205 and Sinai, vol. 28, p. 290). In a manuscript from the author of the Koreh Hadoros (printed in Sinai vol. 28, p. 284) it seems that the R. Yehuda Halevi was buried in Jerusalem.

Over one hundred years ago the Cairo Genizah was accidentally discovered and due to this incredible find every areas of Jewish Literature and History have been greatly enriched. Before this discovery the history of R. Yehuda Halevi written by the early scholars of Jewish History was based on the poems of Halevi that were printed by Shadal and others. However, much has been discovered in Geniza Manuscripts in the past sixty odd years which adds an incredible amount of detailed information to what we knew about the end of R. Yehuda Halevi’s life including original autograph letters of Halevi. [One can view some of these online here, and here is an example of one of documents relating to R. Yehudah Halevi.] These discoveries were made by the great scholar of the Cairo Genizah, Shlomo D. Goitein. Starting in 1954, Goitein printed his discoveries with his explanations of the material, in various journals mostly in Tarbitz. Later on, in his classic A Mediterranean Society (volume V, pp. 448-468), he included an excellent chapter on R. Yehuda Halevi based on all the material which he had found over the years. Most of his interpretations of the material he discovered have been accepted by Professors C. Sherman and Ezra Fleischer. In A Mediterranean Society Goitein writes “a full publication of all the geniza letters referring to Judah Halevi would fill a book.” (p. 462). Although Goitein never got around to writing such a book, in 2001 Professors Moshe Gil and Ezra Fleischer did write such a book. The title of the book is Yehudah Halevei U’bnei Chugo this book is a six hundred and forty page study of all the material from the genizah discovered by Goitein. This book includes all the original documents with notes and an in-depth history of all that can be gleaned from these letters. It is simply incredible to read what Goitein and than Gil and Fleischer discover in these letters.

The relevant documents are from a Cairo business man named Abu Said Halfon who was a very close friend of R. Yehuda Halevi. What follows is a brief time line of R. Yehuda Halevi’s journey to Eretz Yisrael based on the research of these professors. In 1129, when R. Yehuda Halevi was fifty four years old he decided to make the journey to Eretz Yisrael. In the year 1130, R. Yehuda Halevi began his journey. He intended to travel through Egypt. We don’t know why he didn’t. But we do know that he ended up in North Africa. In North Africa, he became good friends with the Ibn Ezra. For some unknown reason, he ended up back in Spain. Not too much information is known about why this journey to Eretz Yisrael did not end up happening. Ten years later, in 1140, R. Yehuda Halevi began the journey again. He ended up in Alexandria on September 8. He had intended to leave from Egypt to Eretz Yisrael immediately, but was delayed. He ended up going to Cairo until Pesach. After that he returned to Alexandria. A few days before Shavuos of 1141, he boarded the boat, and on Shavuos, he set sail to Eretz Yisrael. In a letter written about 6 months later indicates that R. Yehuda Halevi was no longer alive. It seems that he was alive for 2 months in Eretz Yisrael. We don’t have any information about his stay in Eretz Yisrael. It would seem that either he got sick or died a natural death. There is no clear answer whether the legend is true or not. It’s rather sad that with all the manuscripts discovered in the Cairo geniza that enriched us with an in-depth, heavily detailed history of R. Yehuda Halevi’s last years until he left to Eretz Yisrael, does not tell us anything more. However, there was one letter written three months after the death of R. Yehuda Halevi that does indicate that perhaps the legend is true. The letter (the ellipsis appear in the original) says as follows:

ולא נעלם ממנה אודות רבינו יהודה הלוי הצדיק החסיד זק”ל אשר עליו באמת ניבאו נביאי האמת עין לא ראתה, ההיה גבור ביראת אלהים ובתורתו, ומאמרי פעליו מעידים צדקו, באודותיו ירונו כצפורים בעתותן למנוחת עולם הוטע כבוד גן אלהים, וברמה הוא נשא נס גדולותיו והליכות גבורותיו, אשר תרונה ביקרו, והתיקר… וביקרו, ותמונת ה’ הביט… בשדה צען להאירה… זק”ל לא… צור… מחנה שדי… להתנחל לרשת… עזי…וישם… בדמות השכינה ובמראה… בשערי ירושלים

This letter was first printed by Jacob Mann, Goitein highlights the line ולא נעלם ממנה אודות רבינו יהודה הלוי הצדיק החסיד זק”ל which would seem to indicate that his death was not natural (calling him a kodesh is typically reserved for a martyrs) and especially the end where it says בשערי ירושלים but the letter is damaged and hard to read so one can not say anything conclusively. But Fleischer (pg 255) is willing to use the letter even with it’s missing parts to support the legend! Especially, he says, the author of the letter using the word קודש twice in the phrase זק”ל instead of the usual ז”ל. From this concludes Fleischer that we are not far off at all about Halevi death. Fleischer concludes by noting that one should be careful not to make fun of legends!

Notes:

There was certainly a strong connection between the Ibn Ezra and R. Yehudah Halevi. Professor D. Kaufman (supra p. 206) gives a listing of the many times which the Ibn Ezra quotes Halevei throughout his works. R. Azariah de Rossi, in his Me’or Eynaim, writes that R. Yehuda Halevi was the Ibn Ezra’s father-in-law (chapter 42). Koreh hadoros also brings that he heard this (p. 13). Shalsheles Hakabblah brings a whole legend which he had heard how exactly the Ibn Ezra became the son-in-law of R Yehudah Halevi (pp. 92-93). Interestingly enough the Meiri in his Seder Hakablah and the Sha’ari Zion make no mention of this relationship between the Ibn Ezra and R. Yehuda Halevi. Both Goitein and Fleischer say that although R. Yehuda Halevi was not the father in law of the Ibn Ezra the son of the Ibn Ezra, Yitzhak did marry R. Yehuda Halevi’s only daughter (see Yehuda Halevei U’bnei Chugo pp. 247-251). However, M. Gil writes that in the end Goitein changed his mind and realized there was no relation through marriage (p. 250-251). Also, see N. Ben Menachem, Inyai Ibn Ezra, pp. 224-240, 346-356 regarding the relationship between Ibn Ezra and Yehuda Halevi including any relationship through marriage.
It is worthwhile noting that R. Immanuel Aboab in his Bemavak ‘al Erko shel Torah, written in 1615, claims that the Ibn Ezra was both R. Yehuda Halevi’s son-in-law as well as a cousin. (p. 247).

On this topic in general see also: Adam Shear, The Later History of a Medieval Hebrew Book, Studies in the Reception of Judah Halevi’s Sefer Ha Kuzari, pp. 95, 513-514; C. Shirman, Toldos Hashirah Haivrit Besefard Hamuslamit, pp. 441-443. On the Ibn Ezra and Eretz Yisrael in general, see N. Ben Menachem, Sinai, vol. 10 p. 276 and onwards; see also N. Ben Menachem, Inyai Ibn Ezra, pp. 182-190.

More sources on R. Yehuda Halevi and Eretz Yisrael see: Adam Shear, supra, pp. 516-517; C. Shirman, Letoldos Hashirah Vehadramah Haivrit, vol. one, pp. 319-341; C. Shirman, Toldos Hashirah Haivrit Besefard Hamuslamit, pp. 466-480. Franz Kobler, A Treasury of Jewish Letters, vol. one, p. 155; Abraham Haberman, Toldos Hashirah Vhapiut, vol. one, p. 185;

On the reliability of Shalsheles Hakabbalah in general see: A David’s doctorate and E. Yassif in Sippur Ham Haevrei pp. 351-371)