The JNUL has just put up the first Hebrew bibliography, Siftei Yeshenim. This work is written by R. Shabbtai Bass. R. Shabbtai is perhaps most well known for his commentary on Rashi ‘al haTorah titled Siftei Hakhamim.

R. Shabbtai was born in 1641 in Kalisz, Poland. When he was 14, both his parents were killed in a pogrom by the Cossacks. R. Shabbtai went to Prague. It was in Prague where he would gain his last name and begin his career as a printer. In Prague he began taking music lessons and became a bassist for the Altneushul. He, in all likelihood participated in that shul’s choir which would weekly welcome in the Shabbat with musical accompaniment. [Later on, this music would become central to the debate of allowing for an organ in the Shul as well as playing music in any religious services]. R. Shabbtai took his musical calling seriously and the printers mark he used had musical elements to them. [The two relevant ones are reproduced on the side]. Additionally, he became known as alternatively, R. Shabbtai the Bassist Singer or just R. Shabbtai the Bassist. Aside from gaining an interest in music as well as his general Torah education, he also studied Latin while in Prague.

From Prague, R. Shabbtai, went west, eventually ending up in Amsterdam. It was during these travels he visited numerous libraries and began compiling his bibliography. [Although he did begin the project in Prague, it seems to have really taken off after he left.] In 1680, he published the bibliography in Amsterdam and titled it Siftei Yeshenim the lips of the sleeping ones. This title is appropriate for many reasons. First, it comes from Shir haShirim which has the highest density of book titles, and thus, I think is appropriate for a book listing books. Second, as R. Shabbtai points out in his introduction where he offers ten reasons for bibliography, just reciting the names of books the ignorant can earn a similar reward to those who actually study them. R. Shabbtai based this upon R. Isaiah Horowitz (Shelah).

This work lists about 2,200 titles. Of these, 825 were manuscripts. R. Shabbtai provides an index by category at the beginning of the book. Although the bulk of the lists are books by Jewish authors, he also included about 150 Judaica works by non-Jewish writers.

The work was “updated” in 1806 by Uri Zvi Rubenstein, however, he “demonstrated weak bibliographical abilities and his effort is to be considered a step backwards in the history of Jewish Bibliography.” (Brisman at 13).

After spending about 5 years in Amsterdam, R. Shabbtai he moved to Dyhernfurth and opened his own press. He began to print works of Polish Rabbis and printed some of the seminal works on Halakha. He printed R. Shmuel b. Uri Shraga’s commentary on Even Ezer, the Bet Shmuel as well as R. Avrohom Abeli’s commentary, Mogen Avrohom.
While he was in Dyhernfurth, he hoped to reprint his Siftei Hakhamim which had been printed in Amsterdam in 1680. He had made extensive corrections and additions which he hoped to include. During the interim, he found out that the publisher in Amsterdam was also readying a reprint and had secured the normal copyright harems. Thus, R. Shabbtai was forced to buy out the Amsterdam printer so he could reprint he own book! This is of particular interest in one’s understanding of copyright under Jewish law. It would seem from this case that the author does not automatically hold a copyright to his own works. Instead, copyright is dependent upon who has a money interest. Unfortunately, none of the many articles or books on Jewish law and copyright cite or discuss this case.

R. Shabbtai’s commentary on Rashi has been reprinted many, many times, and now is standard fare even with Humashim which contain no other commentaries other than Rashi and Onkelos. However, this commentary is typically an abriged version – Ikar Siftei Hakhamim. This abrigment was done by the famed Romm Press in Vilna in the 1872 edition of their Torah Elokim. Although we don’t know for certain who did the abrigment as the title page just allows “two talmdei hakamim” were the ones who did this. It is assumed these would have been editors at the Romm Press. At that time R. Mordechi Plungin was the editor at the press. He was involved with the printing of many “classics” such as the Eiyn Yakkov and the Shulkhan Orakh. In this last book, although he always remain anonymous and never takes any credit for anything he does, he included in Yoreh Deah a few comments under the title Miluim. Now, some don’t like R. Plungin (he was a maskil) most notably the father of the Hazon Ish. Thus, in the Tal-man edition of the Shulkahn Orakh his comments were excised.

So, if one follows that opinion, one should view as important and sensitive task as abriging a commentary with some skepticism. Perhaps, as the editors remained anonymous this hasn’t been noticed – yet. Or, the two talmdei hakamim were not R. Plugin. Be it as it may, R. Shabbtai, the bassist, printer, bibliographer, has left an indelible mark across numerous disciplines.

Sources. For biographical sources, you can look at any one of these as they all just regurgitate what the others prior to them do without adding much, if anything. EJ vol. 4 col. 313. Friedberg, B. History of Jewish Typography of Amsterdam et. al., Antwerp, 1937, 53-64; Y. Rafel, Sinai vol. 8 and 9 reprinted in his Rishonim v’Achronim; and the JE here. See also on R. Shabbtai and Jewish bibliograpy in general S. Brisman, “A History and Guide to Judaic Bibliography.” It is worth reading Zinberg’s nice biography of R. Bass in The History of Jewish Literature, vol. 6, pp. 150-52.

For his printers marks, see Ya’ari, Printers marks. On his Siftei Hakhamim see the new bibliography on Rashi commentary, P. Krieger, Parshan-Data, p. 41-46.

Finally, there is a discussion regarding the first edition of Siftei Yeshanim and why in some edition a Siddur is apended to it. For this, see H. Liberman, Ohel Rochel vol. 1 p. 370-71.

Some have recently posted regarding the status of non-Jews vis-à-vis Jews. Although, they are more focused upon the medieval time period, I though it would be instructive to discuss a more contemporary view. This view, is striking in its breath as well in its authorship.

R. Yechiel Heller, author of the teshuvot Amudi Ohr, is well-known in Yeshiva circles. While respona literature is generally not studied as one of the commentary on Talmud, there are at least two of R. Heller’s responsa which are standard fare in Yeshivot when studying Talmud. (One is a discussion regarding toch k’edi dibur k’dibur and the second deals with misasek). However, R. Heller has a lesser known responsum, which does not appear in his Amudi Ohr but in a different and rare work. This work, Sheni Perakim’al Davar haHov l’Ohev haKazar (Two Chapters on the Obligation to Love the Czar) printed in St. Petersburg in 1852. One of these chapters is authored by R. Heller. In this chapter he makes a very novel and very important arguement regarding the status of non-Jews.

R. Heller argues that non-Jews today, have the status of Geri Toshav. This is so even without any formal acceptance of that status. R. Heller explains that such formal acceptance is necessary only for individuals, but when an entire nation (he focuses on Christians) falls into the category there is no need for any formal acceptance. Today, he argues, the nations of the world more or less follow the seven Noahide laws (he explains idolatry for this catogry allows for shituf) and therefore automatically considered geri toshav.

This position has tremendous ramifications which R. Heller himself notes. Specifically, all the laws in the Talmud regarding non-Jews are not applicable to geri toshav. Thus, R. Heller explains, that yayin nesach is not applicable with a ger toshav. Nor is the special prohibition against selling weapons, returning a lost object, or yihud (seclusion). Additionally, one can lend with usery to a ger toshav. All of this, R. Heller explains, is applicable to the non-Jewish people we find our self living with.

This stunning opinion did not go unchallenged. There are those who question whether, without a formal acceptance one can be considered a ger toshav. In fact, there is an entire work written to refute R. Heller’s position, however, this work is still in manuscript form and has never been printed. (If someone is willing, I would like to get a copy of this from the JNUL- you can email me).

However, it is important to note, that irrespective of whether this position is the correct one, at the very least it is an important historic position, one that bears further dissemination and study.

Sources: For more on R. Heller see R. E. Katzman’s biography, “Mofet haDor, HaGoan R. Yechiel Heller ZT”L – Ba’al Amudi Ohr” in Yeshurun 4 (1998) 648-681; 682-695 (reprint of the eulogy of R. David Luria for R. Heller); R. A. Mandelstamm, Sheni Perakim, St. Petersburg, 1852; Peli [R. Pinchas M. Heilprin] Iggeret Cheil Bet HaElyi, The Jewish National and University Library Ms. Heb. 8°5224, [1855].

The names utilized for Seforim are rather unique. As opposed to most cultures who title their books based upon their content (think Da Vinci Code about a code Da Vinci did), Jewish book titles, for the most part, have no relationship to their content. Additionally, for many, the title of the books supersedes that of the actual author to such an extent that many authors are only known by their book titles. So while many are aware of the Shach and the Taz (shortened forms of the titles Siftei Kohen and Turei Zahav commentaries on the Shulhan Orakh most are not aware who actually wrote these works. Instead, one would say “(the) Shach says” etc. Now if we were to return the above titles, Siftei Kohen – the Lips of the Priest and the Turei Zahav the Pillars of Gold, from first glance one would assume the former is about Priests while the latter is about either metallurgy or perhaps some Indiana Jones like pillars.

Some have been critical of the use of such obscure titles for Jewish books. Isaac D’Israeli the father of Statesman Benjamin (Isaac was the one to remove himself and his family Benjamin included and convert them to Christianity after Isaac was angered over his synagogues dues) was highly critical of such titles, in his Curiosities of Literature he writes:

The Jewish and many oriental authors were fond of allegorical titles, which always indicate the most puerile age of taste. The titles were usually adapted to their obscure works. It might exercise an able enigmatist to explain their allusions; for we must understand by The Heart of Aaron,” that it is a commentary on several of the prophets. “The Bones of Joseph is an introduction to the Talmud. The Garden of Nuts, and The Golden Apples,” are theological questions, and The Pomegranate with its Flower,” is a treatise of ceremonies, not any more practised. Jortin gives a title, which he says of all the fantastical titles he can recollect, is one of the prettiest. A rabbin published a catalogue of rabbinical writers, and called it Labia Dormientium, from Cantic. vii. 9. Like the best wine of my beloved that goeth down sweetly, causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak. It hath a double meaning, of which he was not aware, for most of his rabbinical brethren talk very much like men in their sleep. Almost all their works bear such titles as bread,— gold, —silver, —roses, —eyes,— &c., in a word, anything that signifies nothing.

Isaac Reggio (perhaps it is the Isaacs) was equally critical, in his introduction to Delmigido’s Behinat HaDa’at. “Amongst the incorrect customs which has been exacerbated over time . . . when authors title their books with titles that do not speak to content, or at best they use titles which only hint to the books content which can only be decoded after reading the introduction . . . there are those who use titles which contain the authors name.” Reggio then proceeds to list some of thcategories those catagories. “There are those who use titles from the vessels in the Temple ארון עדות,מזבח הזהב, מנורת המאור, שלחן ארבע, זר זהב, קערת כסף or some use the clothing of the priest for titles שרשות גבלות, המצנפת, מעשה אפוד, משן אהרן, כליל תכלת,” and the list goes on.
Reggio mentions two catagories of interest, one the author placing his name (or hinting to it) and the other hinting to the content via an obscure title. As to the second there was such a book reviewed by the Jewish Chronicle (London)

Very wittily is the pun-title, City of Sihon (Heb: Ir Sichon), for a mathematical book by R. Joseph Zorphathi, alluding to Numb. xxi 27, “For Hesbon (reckonin [caculating]) is the City of Sihon.”

Jewish Chronicle (London), June 21, 1889, page 15

There are also similarly titled or pun titled books which are hinting at the name of the author. For instance authors whose name was Avrhom utilize puns on various verses relating to Avrohom. So we have the books Pesach haOhel (1691) which is referencing that Gen. 18:1; Yukach Na (1881); Sa’du Lebchem (1881) both referencing Gen. 18:4-5.
Then we have books which are not as creative and just use the persons name in the title. Perhaps the person to go wild with this theme was R. Hayyim Palaggi. Who wrote over 25 seforim and almost all carry the name Hayyim in the title. So we have Otzrot haHayyim, Genzi Hayyim, Darki Hayyim, U’Baharta B’Hayyim, Zechirah L’Hayyim, Huke’ Hayyim, Hayyim b’Yad, Hayyim V’Shalom etc. (you get the picture).
Asided from these we have other books which make reference to something that happened in the authors life, generally unrelated to content of the book. So we have Homat Aish (1799) a commentary on the Ibn Ezra’s song Tzama Nafshe which was written soon after the author lost his house and all to a fire. He decided to write this in the hope it would prevent a future fire. Or we have the various books written by blind people, Eynai Avrohom and the like which generally reference eyes or sight.
Aside from these curiosities, there is still the final one of substituting the authors name for that of his book. Menachem has a rather interesting story related to this practice here.

Perhaps the reason for this practice can be gleaned from the following story was told. There was a city which was filled with less than learned or interested people who were in need of a rabbi. However, when each candidate would come through they would be turned off by the populace. The town decided to do something about this and had commisioned tombstones with famous personages such as the Shach, Taz, Rama etc. and placed them in the graveyard. With the next candidate they made sure to tour the cemetary. Needless to say, although the rabbi had some misgivings he decided to take the job figuring if the Shach etc. were here it couldn’t be all that bad. After he accepted one of the townspeople took him aside and told him the truth immediately the Rabbi complained saying he was tricked. However, the town board explained he was not. As in the various cities where the Shach, Taz etc are actually buried they study their works and the Talmud says that when one studies the works their lips move – they are still alive. In this town, however, no one studies any of their wotrulyd they are truely dead here. Perhaps the idea that the Torah of the person is the most important thing and the authors derive life from that caused some to substitute their works.
Sources: Zlotkin, Shemot haSeforim and entire work devoted to the names of books; Y. S. Spiegel, Amudim b’Toldot HaSefer Haiviri, Ketiva v’Hataka, 384-428 discussing the use of the authors name in the title (Spiegel’s two volumes of Amudim are excellent and are a must read for anyone interested in the history of Seforim); for a list of books about various events, famine, jailing, blind people etc. see A. Yaari, Mekeri Sefer. [Thanks Menachem for the Jewish Chronicle (London) citation.]

There is what appears at first glance to be a technical passage (although some may find it of interest on its own) in the Talmud dealing with the issue of which types of impurity bars one from Torah study. The Talmud states “הזבים והמצורעים ובעולי נדות קורין בתורה ושונין מדרש הלכות והגדות ובעלי קרי אסור בכולן” “A zav, a metzorah, boli niddot, are permitted to read from the Torah, study Midrash, Laws, and ‘agadot, however a ba’al keri can study none of these.” So according to this all these types of men, as this is in the masculine, are able to study these things even though they have some level of impurity. This is how it appears in the Talmud Bavli.

However, the Jerusalem Talmud and the Tosefta preserve a different reading. They have both men and women in the list. Hence “זבין וזבות נדות וילדות קורין בתורה וכו” “zavim and zavot (the feminine) and menstruating women, and a women who just gave birth can read from the Torah etc.” according to this reading women would need to know whether they could engage in study of Midrash and Law etc. So what happened?

Lieberman states “I think that the women would intentionally removed [from the Munich manuscript of the Talmud Bavli and hence our corrupted texts] and were replaced with men.” So the menstruating women were replaced with a man who had marital relations with a menstruating woman. And instead of a woman who gave birth we have a metzorah. The reason is obvious to have the Talmud discussing whether women in this state of impurity could study these texts assumes that they regularly studied them, something that for some may not have been accepted.

Sources: Saul Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim vol. 1, 15; Jerusalem Talmud, Berakhot, 3:4; Talmud Bavli Berakhot 22, a; Tosefota, Berakhot 2 :12; Lieberman, Tosefta K’Peshuto p. 20.

The Vilna edition of the Shas printed by the Romm Press has become the standard edition of the Shas. This Shas had many important additions and corrections that prior ones did not. One of those was the inclusion of the comments of R. Jacob Emden.

However, it appears that one comment, a rather important one was left out. R. Emden in Gitten page 60 made a comment regarding the Hassidim, this does not appear in the Vilna Shas. In the Mozonim edition they partially rectified this by providing a partial transcription of the passage. But it seems they were unable to reproduce the entire passage and thus, even in their edition it contains numerous ellipses. Now, in the most recent volume of the journal Ohr Yisrael, R. M.M. Goldstein has provided the complete passage. As will be apparent, this is a very important passage. R. Goldstein got this from the manuscript of R. Emden’s comments which is now housed in the Oxford Library. In the article, R. Goldstein provides of copy of the original manuscript.

In it R. Emden discusses Kabbalah and that this subject is really only for a select few. (He also explains the term aggadah in relation to kabbalah). He then continues to explicate the limited distrubution of kabbalah and says

ואינו מתגלה אלא ליחידי סגולה לא עמוד איש בליעל ורע בסודה, ולהוציא גם ממה שנהגו מתחסדים חדשים מקרוב באו לעסוק בספר הזוהר ואר”י בקבע, ועשו תלמוד והלכות עראי וטפל, אין חפץ ה’ בהם, הלא מזקנים נתבונן שעיקר למודם ותורתם לא היה אלא בנגלה בלבד, וסתרי תורה לא היה נמסרים אלא ליחיד עמוד בחצי ימיו על פי תנאי פרישות הרבה כמו שאמרו פרק אין דורשין, ואף זה לא אשכח ותני רק למבין מדעתו וחכם, והללו עשו פומבי לדבר פתאים בל ידעו מה, כסילים נעדרי דעת, השה אלוה חכמה ולא חלק להם בבינה

[kabbalah] should only be given to a limited set of person, one who can understand its secrets, this excludes the new hassidim who spend their time reading the Zohar and the works of the AR”I, but only spend amount of time on the Talmud and the laws, God does not want them, from our ancestors we have learnt that the majority of ones time should be only in the revealed Torah, the seceret Torah was only for special ones, who where older [at the mid point in life] with conditions of ascetism as is described in the Talmud Haggiah, it is only given to those who can understand by themselves, however, these [the hassidim] they make public things which should be private to those who don’t know anything, idiots totally lacking in knowledge, God who gives wisdom did not give them understanding.

While this is not the only critique R. Emden had of Hassidim it is curious that the Romm printers did not inlcude it. Unfortunatly we don’t know why. It was not as if the Romm press was considered particularly friendly with Hassidim. In fact, one of the reasons Hassidim used the Shapira press was they viewed the Romm one as not in line with Hassidic values. This was so, as the Romm press printed works of maskilim. But, now that this passage has been printed one can hope that in future editions of the Shas this will be included, in it entirety.

Sources: R. M.M. Goldstein, Iyunim u’Biurim b’Mishnato shel Rabbenu haYavetz, in Ohr Yisrael vol. 43 (Nissan 5766) 203-215; for another passage in R. Emden’s writings discussing Hassidim see Wilensky, Hassidim u’Mistnagdim, p. 380; for more on what the Romm edition included see their Achrit Davar at the end of Niddah.