Berakhot Koren Talmud Bavli and Ein Aya

by Chaim Katz

Berakhot Koren Talmud Bavli (KE) is a translation (into English) of Rav Adin Even-Yisrael Steinsaltz’s Hebrew edition of tractate Berakhot. It comprises the text of the Talmud, the in-line commentary, the explanation of foreign words, the mini-studies (iyunim), the biographies of selected sages, the description of cultural objects (hahayim), descriptions of fauna and flora and more. As far as I’ve noticed, they never mention in the front matter nor in the advertising blurbs that they added informational notes that don’t appear in the original edition, but there are more than 100 new notes in Berakhot KE.

In this paper, I’d like to present an overview of the new notes, and specifically examine the notes based on Ein Aya [1] – Rav Kook’s commentary to Ein Yaakov. [2]

I had a few questions about the notes based on Ein Ayah:

In the Hebrew edition, Rav Adin created a bibliography of all the sources he used to compile his explanations. The list contains about 100 entries that stretch from Baal Halakhot Gedolot and Sheiltot (8th century) to Rabbi Akiba Eger (died 1837), the Hatam Sofer (died 1839), and commentaries printed in the Vilna Shas and the Vilna Ein Yaakov, e.g., Maharatz Chajes (died 1855), Rav Samuel Strashun (died 1872), Rav Hanokh Zundel the author of Etz Yosef (died 1867). Rav Adin did not incorporate any 20th century authors in his commentary. KE made an exception and included Rav Kook. What is the reason?
Ein Aya is not really an explanation of Ein Yaakov. Rav Kook points out in its introduction that his work uses Ein Yaakov as a starting point. However, his goal was to expand the literature of Aggadah and produce a new type of reading material based upon ethical ideas in Jewish philosophy, kabbalah, musar and hassidut. Does KE realize that Ein Aya is not a commentary like the others?
Ein Aya is very long. A haggadic statement that Maharsha devotes 15 lines of explanation to, is discussed by Rav Kook in about 60 lines (30 lines of double column text). How will KE summarize all that material? [3]

First, I’ll briefly review some of the new notes in KE and then examine a few passages quoted from Ein Aya. The following are new:

1 KE Daf 16b (page 112) has a biography of Rav Safra which is copied from the Hebrew edition Moed Kattan 25a

2 KE Daf 57b (page 371) has a biography of Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha copied from Gittin 58a

3 KE Daf 64a (page 409) has a note about the Chaldean astrologers, which is copied from the Hebrew Shabbat 156b.

4 KE Daf 17b (page 115) has a note about Jesus the Nazarene copied from the Hebrew Edition Sotah 47a.

5 KE Daf 9b, (page 59) there is a note about tekhelet, similar but different from the notes in Menahot 38a .

6 KE Daf 12b, (page 82) has a long note about tzizit – ritual fringes

7 KE Daf 13b, (page 91) there’s a definition of kavanah – intent

8 KE Daf 13b, (page 92) has a diagram of the placement of the tefillin on the arm and hand.

9 KE Daf 56b, (page 365) has a note describing a lion.

10 KE Daf 56b, (page 367) has a note describing an elephant.

11 KE Daf 41a, (page 270) has notes for: radish, olive, wheat, barley, and fig. The following page has a definition of a date.

12 KE Daf 59a (page 382) has a note about a rainbow.

13 KE Daf 7a, (page 42) has an unattributed explanation based on the words: “When I wanted you did not want . . . “. The explanation is from Maharsha.

14 KE Daf 10a, (page 64) has a comment concerning the relationship of the Holy One Blessed is He and the world. This explanation comes from Etz Yosef.

15 KE Daf 11b, (page 74) has an unattributed very long note about abounding love אהבה רבה and eternal love אהבת עולם. The note is taken verbatim from The Long Shorter Way (Chapter 4 – Two Ways of Loving G-d) [4].

16 KE Daf 51a, (page 323) has a clarification of a statement made by the angel Suriel. This is from the Maharsha.

17 KE Daf 58a, (page 374) has an explanation concerning the statement: “When Samaria was cursed, its neighbors were blessed”. The explanation comes from Anaf Yosef.

18 KE Daf 17a (page 114) There is a short note about the “Divine Presence” (although it’s not the first time that the word שכינה appears in the tractate.)

My sense is that the Steinsaltz Hebrew edition only introduces a note when there is a problem (on the page) that the additional note might solve. KE relaxes this constraint. I’ll illustrate this difference using the first example in the above list. We read in our Gemara:

After his prayer, Rav Safra would add: “May it be Your will, G-d our G-d, that You make peace among the members of the heavenly court…”

Rav Safra is one of many sages quoted. There is no problem that needs to be solved. The KE has a biography of Rav Safra that ends this way:

Since Rav Safra was an itinerant merchant, he never established his own yeshiva and did not spend much time in the study hall. Therefore, there were those among the Sages who held that he was unlike other Rabbis, that all are required to mourn their passing.

This is a strange piece of information which doesn’t look like it belongs in a biography. However, the Talmud Moed Kattan 25a, records the following discussion:

When R. Safra died, the students did not rend their clothes for him, since, they said, we have not learned from him. Abaye argued with them: Does the baraita say: ‘When a teacher dies’? Rather it says ‘when a scholar dies’. Moreover, every day in the study hall we discuss his interpretations of the halakha.

KE’s biography was copied from Rav Adin’s biography in Moed Katan.

There are many other examples of notes in KE that were copied from one location to another. They usually don’t fit very well in the destination location. In general, the notes regarding the religious objects add value. The notes describing the obvious (e.g., lion and elephant) are probably included for their esthetics.

Concerning Ein Aya: First, I’ll present the note, my translation and the Hebrew text of Ein Aya side by side and then I’ll discuss the note briefly.

1 KE Daf 9a (Page 57), Ain Aya Berakhot 1 112

When the children of Israel were redeemed from Egypt, they were redeemed only in the evening. And when they left, they left only during the day:

There are two separate elements to the transition from slavery to freedom. First, the slave acquires a personal sense of freedom and becomes master of his own fate. Second, he becomes free in the eyes of others, i.e., he is perceived by those surrounding him as a free man and has the potential to influence them. With regard to the children of Israel, the first element enabled them to receive the Torah and elevate themselves with the fulfillment of G-d’s commandments. The second element provided Israel with the opportunity to become a “light unto the nations.” Therefore, the redemption was divided into two stages. The first stage, in which they acquired private, personal freedom, took placed at night; the second stage, which drew the attention of the world to the miracle of the Exodus, took place during the day.

R. Aba said: All agree that when Israel was redeemed from Egypt, they were redeemed specifically during the night, and when they left Egypt, they left specifically during the daytime.

Redemption from slavery to freedom in general has two effects on an entire nation: 1) An inner liberation and exaltedness that it senses when it exchanges the submissiveness of slavery for autonomy and self-determination. 2) A freedom to perform actions that impact the world.

In Israel these two effects are more pronounced. For the inner freedom is the beginning of their own perfection – developing holy behaviors in Torah, its mitzvot and its wisdom. While the outer public freedom allows Israel to be a light to the nations. A great part of the latter mission has already been accomplished even in our time and will be fully completed when G-d has compassion on His nation. For from Zion will the Torah go forth (Is. 2:3), Even the people in the far-way lands will wait to hear Torah of Israel (Is. 42:4)

Therefore, the redemptions are divided into two parts. When Israel was redeemed from Egypt – the inner redemption – this occurred during the nighttime. For the main point is not publicity or exposure to others, but a strong sense of their inner liberation. When they left, they specifically left during the daytime, publicly and openly for all the nations of the world to see, to demonstrate their worldly mission of instructing, benefiting and illuminating all of mankind with the light of G-d as it is written: Nations will walk in your light, kings in your glorious light. (Is. 60 3)

א”ר אבא הכל מודים כשנגאלו ישראל ממצרים לא נגאלו אלא בערב, וכשיצאו לא יצאו אלא ביום .

הגאולה מעבדות לחירות בכלל, פועלת בכלל עם-שלם שני עניינים. האחד הוא החופש שירגיש בנפשו התרוממות שיצא מכלל שפלות העבדות ונעשה בן חורין ואדון לעצמו. והשני הוא הפעולה הנגלית בעולם, בהיותו עם חפשי חי ופועל.

ובישראל עוד יתר שאת לשני אלה, כי החופש הפנימי הוא התחלה לשלמות עצמם, בקדושת המדות בתורה ומצותי’ וחכמתה. והחופש הגלוי החיצוני, הוא עומד בישראל להיות לאור גויים, כאשר כבר נעשה חלק גדול מזה גם לעת כזאת, ויגמר בתכליתו לעת ירחם ד’ את עמו, כי מציון תורה תצא ולתורת ישראל איים ייחלון.

ע”כ נחלקו הגאולות לשני חלקים, כשנגאלו ישראל ממצרים הגאולה הפנימית, היינו מבערב, שע”ז אין העיקר הידיעה והפרסום של זולתם, כי אם ההרגשה הטובה בחופשתם הפנימית. וכשיצאו לא יצאו אלא ביום, ביד רמה גלוי לכל יושבי תבל, להורות על פעולתם הגלויה בעולם, להשכיל להיטיב לכל ברואי בצלם להאיר באור ד’, כדבר שנאמר “וְהָלְכוּ גוֹיִם לְאוֹרֵךְ וּמְלָכִים לְנֹגַהּ זַרְחֵךְ

KE skipped the nuance that Rav Kook was speaking about nations and not individuals. It also decided that redemption occurs in two stages, while Rav Kook only said that redemption has two components to it. They stopped short and didn’t capture the emphasis that Rav Kook placed on enlightening the nations (probably with the Noachide laws), but on the whole, it’s a fairly accurate summary.

2 KE Daf 10b, (page 65), Ain Aya Berakhot 1 141

From the chambers [kirot] of his heart – Often prayer is viewed as an act that combines the spiritual and the intellectual. There is a cognitive awareness of the necessity to turn to G-d in our time of need. When there is a pressing need, calling for a higher level of prayer, there can be an authentic call emanating from a person’s very heart, as the Psalmist declares: “My heart and my flesh sing for joy unto the living G-d” (Psalms 84:3)

Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed. Why wall? Rabbi Shimon b Lakish said: From the walls of his heart.

There is a prayer that accompanies emotions that are intellectual, when the intellect perceives the value of the necessity of praying and recognizes the great worth of prayer. For the intellect is associated with the spirit of the heart, which resides in the chamber of the heart.

However, when one fortifies oneself in prayer so much so that the body’s powers are aroused by the feelings generated by prayer, then the prayer affects the body, not just the soul. This is called praying from the walls of the heart. Namely, not just with the spirit, which is in the chamber of the heart, but also with physical vitality as it written: my heart and my flesh sing to the living G-d (Psalms 84:3)

ויסב חזקי’ את פניו אל הקיר ויתפלל. מאי קיר ארשב”ל מקירות לבו

יש תפילה שבאה ברגש שכלי, שהשכל משקיף על ערך הנחיצות להתפלל ומכיר גדולת ערך התפילה. והנה השכל מיוחס לרוח הלב השורה בחלל הלב.

אבל כשמגביר ברחמים עד שגם כוחות הגופניים מתפעלים מרגשי התפילה, ונמצא שהתפילה פועלת על הגוף לא על הנפש לבדה, נקרא שמתפלל מקירות הלב. כלומר לא מהרוח לבדו שהוא בחלל הלב, כ”א גם בהתפעלות בשרית, כמו שכתוב “לבי ובשרי ירננו אל אל חי”.

This is a more difficult piece, particularly because we don’t relate to the view that (one side of) the heart is filled with spirit. We don’t identify with the description of the heart as a source of emotion and we no longer think of intellect affecting the flesh of the heart (but that’s another discussion).

The main problem with KE’s translation, is that Rav Kook is speaking here about the influence that prayer has on the person. He’s not speaking about “a higher level of prayer . . . an authentic call emanating from a person’s very heart”. He’s saying that a person can change himself through prayer. He can change his thoughts (chamber of the heart) and he can even change his character (walls of the heart). KE’s translation misses all of this. It misses the distinction between walls and chamber, and it misses the connection to the verse from Psalms that Rav Kook cites.

(It’s not the right place now to trace the history of the idea that the person refines and elevates himself through prayer. See maybe Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch on Devarim 11:13, or Rabbi Soloveitchik’s Shiurim l’Zecher Aba Mori z”l volume 2, page 29 and other places there.)

3 KE Daf 63b, (page 408), Ain Aya Berakhot 9 344

Matters of Torah are only retained by one who kills himself over it [5]

While educators often try to make Torah study easier because they believe that doing so will lead students to accumulate more information and Torah knowledge, their approach is fundamentally flawed. The significance of Torah education is qualitative, not quantitative. It is not the sheer volume of knowledge amassed; it is the quality of the Torah wisdom that is attained. Simplistic, facile methods of study do not facilitate deep understanding. That can only be achieved through hard work and serious effort

The school of R. Yannai taught: What is the meaning of (Mishle 30:33) The culturing of milk produces fermented milk (yogurt) … In whom do you find fermented milk of Torah, in the one who spits out the milk he nursed from his mother.

There are many educators who pride themselves for introducing methods that make learning simpler. They imagine they’ll benefit the world by transmitting lessons and knowledge of Torah in an undemanding way, eliminating the need to for a person to work.

This assistance is misguided. Knowledge isn’t measured by quantity but by quality, according to depth and perceptiveness that enable the student to apply the knowledge to any situation. More so regarding Torah knowledge, which is measured by the profound impression on the student in his ethical personality, virtuous behavior, and pure fear of Heaven.

Success will come when the studies do not follow an easy and undemanding curriculum. For through exertion and mental effort, a person is elevated to ethical behaviors, and turns with love and longing toward wisdom and holiness. The learning affects him such that he’s entirely dedicated and devoted to his lessons. Learning specifically with great effort produces a deep understanding, clarity in knowledge, and the pleasing way of serving G-d, fearing Him, and purifying one’s character.

Studies that are acquired easily, without exertion and tremendous struggle will always be superficial, frozen and detached from the person’s inner soul. They will have minimal impact on his behavior and personality.

Therefore, the fermented milk of Torah, the choice purified portion of Torah, the key aspect, clarified by deep thought and profound understanding that strengthens the soul in the fear G-d, and in the ways of holiness in whom will it be found? Only in one who was raised laboring in Torah and acquired Torah by following the beaten paths of strenuous effort and great toil; who distances himself from his childhood pleasures so that his Torah was not acquired though childish games. He spits out the sweet milk he nursed from his mother

אמרי דבי ר”י: מאי דכתיב (משלי ל לג): “כי מיץ חלב יוציא חמאה במי אתה מוצא חמאה של תורה? – במי שמקיא חלב שינק משדי אמו עליה”

רבים הם הפדגוגים המתנשאים להביא דרכים להקל את עול הלימוד, וחושבים שיביאו ברכה לעולם בהקנותם את הידיעות והלימודים התורניים באופן קל, שלא יצטרך האדם להיות עמל בהם.

תועלת הדבר אינה אמנם אלא מתעה, כי הידיעות לא תימדדנה על פי כמותם כי אם על פי איכותם, על פי עומק ההבנה וחריפות השימוש בהם לכל חפץ.ביותר לימודי התורה, על פי גודל הרושם שפועלים על הלומד, לענין התכונה של המוסר המעשים הטובים ויראת ה’ הטהורה.

ובזאת יהיה מועיל רק הלימוד שאינו בא בדרכים קלים ונוחים לקלוט, כי על-ידי היגיעה ועבודה שכלית מתעלה האדם למידות נעלות, ולהיות נוטה אל השכל ואל כל דברי קודש באהבה וחפץ לב, והלימוד פועל עליו להיות כולו נתון ומסור ללימודיו. על-כן יצא מהלמוד שעל-ידי היגיעה דווקא, עומק ההבנה והידיעה הברורה עם הפעולה הרצויה לעבודת ה’ ויראתו וכל טהרת המדות.

אבל הלימודים הנכנסים באופן קל, בלא יגיעה ועבודה כבירה, ישארו לעולם שטחיים וקפויים, עומדים מחוץ לנפשו של אדם הפנימית, ופועלים מעט על מעשיו ועל יצרי לבבו.

ע”כ חמאה של תורה, הברור והמובחר שבה, העיקרי, המחוור בעומק רעיון ושום שכל והמרבה אומץ הנפש ביראת ה’ ודרכי קודש במי תמצא? רק במי שנתגדל על עבודת התורה בעמל, וקנה אותה בדרכים כבושים שע”י יגיעה ועבודה רבה, שעמדו לו להתרחק מן הילדות וכל געגועיה, לבלתי קנותם בדרך שעשועי ילדים, כ”א מקיא חלב שינק משדי אמו עליה

KE, missed the point here as well. Rav Kook isn’t speaking about education or Torah education. It’s not about “deep understanding that can only be achieved through hard work and serious effort”

He’s speaking about love of G-d. The fermented milk of Torah represents the Torah studies that, under the proper conditions, lead the person to the love of G-d. Knowledge isn’t sufficient; one must labor and exert himself in these Torah studies and only then will they succeed in leading him to holiness.

(The basis of Rav Kook’s idea might be in the Sifre Devarim (on Deut. 6 6) quoted by Maimonides Book of Commandments, Positive #3, “You shall love G-d your G-d with all your heart’, can I know how to love G-d? The Torah therefore says: These words which I command you today shall be upon your heart. Thus, you will come to recognize the One who spoke and the world was created and you’ll cling to His ways.)

4 KE Daf 10a, (page 62), Ain Aya Berakhot 1 128

David… resided in five worlds and said a song of praise corresponding to each of them:

There is a tremendous difference between looking upon an experience in a superficial manner and reflecting upon it and contemplating it. An individual who merely sees the external will not come to understand the deeper, spiritual significance of a given experience or encounter. Natural events like pregnancy, birth and nursing may seem to be mundane events experienced by humans and animals alike. However, one with a higher level of spiritual discernment will appreciate the vast difference between man and animal. King David’s songs of praise, uttered at every stage of life, attest to the magnitude of his sensitivity to G-d’s beneficence and to his appreciation of His role in the world.

He lived inside his mother’s womb and offered songs of thanksgiving; he went out into the air of the world…

One who looks at the real world superficially cannot recognize the grandeur and beauty of the majesty of G-d nor the splendour of the human soul, as his perception of the real world is based exclusively on obvious visible traces of wisdom. In the words of the Duties of the Heart, (Hovot HaLevavot by Bahya ibn Pakuda Spain 11th century): based on the obvious visible traces of wisdom in the real world, both the intelligent man and the fool are equivalent.

On the other hand, the truly gifted person will find hidden insights in the very things that didn’t inspire or elevate the person who looks at the world superficially. The truly gifted person will recognize the line of kindness that extends through all creations from their beginnings to their ultimate purpose. He will appreciate G-d’s wonders and thank Him. With happiness he will sing for G-d and for His goodness. He will recognize the majesty of his own soul that perceives the grandeur of the glorious King. Therefore, David (peace to him), who combined in himself depth of knowledge with sweet Divine song, sang about things that are discerned only with wisdom and deep contemplation.

He lived inside his mother’s womb…

Seemingly, there is no reason to be amazed. The experience is similar for a human or any other animal that doesn’t speak. In the womb, the human embryo is just like an amphibian or a lizard, the lowest rungs in the animal hierarchy.

But when he reflects deeply, that in this lowly state all organs and limbs, which will serve the loftiest powers of the soul, are being completed. Not one is missing. If so, how great is the work taking place in the womb for the design of a person. Then, being so far from perfection, all the material and spiritual abilities he will later need are developing so that he’ll develop into a refined ethical person, who embraces in his brain and mind, the foundations of the world and its infinite expanses.

דר במעי אמו ואמר שירה, יצא לאויר העולם . . .

הבדל יש בין המסתכל רק בהשקפה שטחית על המציאות, הוא לא יוכל להכיר רוממות ה’ והדר גאונו ועם זה הוד נפש האדם, רק מהדברים הגלויים בסימני החכמה שבמציאות. כדברי חוה”ל, שבסימני החכמה הגלויים המשכיל והכסיל שוין בהם.

אבל החכם האמיתי, הוא יחדור אל סימני החכמה הצפונים, שלעין הרואה רק חיצוניות הדברים לא יולד מהנה שום רוממות נפש. אבל החכם האמיתי, יכיר החוט של חסד ההולך בכל המעשים כולם מהתחלתם עד מטרתם, ויכיר נפלאות השם ית’ ויודה לשמו. ומטוב לב ישיר על ד’ ועל טובו, ויכיר הוד נפשו המכרת את הדרת מלך הכבוד. ע”כ דוד ע”ה שבו חובר עומק הדעת עם נועם השירה האלהית, אמר שירה על הדברים שרק בחכמה והשקפה רבה יוכר הודם ופלאם.

דר במעי אמו, לפי החיצוניות אין להפליא כ”כ, מקרה האדם בזה כמו שאר החיים הבלתי מדברים, אז הוא במדרגת השרצים ג”כ שהם במדרגה הנמוכה של מערכת החי.

אבל כשהתבונן, כי בהיותו במצב הנמוך הזה אז נגמרו ונוצרו כל יצוריו כולם, וכל האיברים המשמשים לכוחות הנפש היותר נשגבות אחד מהם לא נעדר. א”כ מה רבה התכונה הנעשה בבטן המלאה ביצירת האדם, שאז במצב רחוק משלמות והתפתחות כזה, צריכים שיוכנו לו כל הכוחות וכל הכלים הרוחניים והגשמיים שיצטרכו לו בהיותו אדם המעלה, המחבק זרועות עולם ומרחבי אין קץ בדעו ושכלו.

Here too, I think, KE missed the point. It’s not about “the vast difference between man and animal”, which Rav Kook never mentioned. Rav Kook picks the theory of recapitulation to explain David’s song. According to the theory (which was immensely popular in the second half of the 19th century), the stages of embryonic development correspond to adult stages in the evolution of the species (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny). That’s why Rav Kook writes: the human embryo is then like an amphibian. But the theory is based on superficial similarities. The truly wise man looks beyond the superficiality and sees that each embryonic phase is not an evolutionary ancestor, but a point on a line extending from the person’s beginning to his birth. Each point on the line contains a hidden potential that will unfold and finally develop into a moral and ethical man. The insight (probably disproves the theory and) results in a greater appreciation of the Creator’s kindness, which is the song of praise that David sings.

We can now come back and answer the three questions that I posed earlier. 1) KE is not looking at Ein Aya as a typical commentary; that’s why they had no problem including Rav Kook’s words in the Berakhot volume. Additionally, I guess, the writers or editors have an admiration and affinity for Rav Kook and wanted to include some writings of his. 2) KE knows that in quoting a section from Ein Aya they are not explaining the text of the Talmud. Instead, they are attempting to follow the path of Ein Aya; to add thoughts and reading material of an ethical nature to KE. 3) It looks (at least in these few examples) that KE translated only the first few sentences of the Ein Aya section and then wrote up their own conclusions. They probably didn’t read to the end of the Ein Aya section(?), or if they did, they decided to “keep it simple”. I guess this can be excused too. In one of these notes they did write “see Ein Aya” instead of just attributing the section to Ein Aya.

Maybe the new notes in KE Berakhot aren’t of the same calibre as the original notes in the Hebrew edition. Still, they make the learning more interesting and more attractive. For this we should be thankful.

[1] Ein Aya is a work by Rav Kook on the Aggadah in Ein Yaakov, published by Makhon HaRav Tzvi Yehuda, Jerusalem. It consists of 4 volumes covering Berakhot and most of Shabbat. Though it was written over 100 years ago it was only published recently (approximately between 1995 and 2005). The text is also available at https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/
[2] Ein Yaakov is a collection of aggada from the Talmud Babli, by Rabbi Yaakov Ibn Habib (died 1516)
[3] I’m using as my example: Daf 3a “Rabbi Eliezer said: The night consists of three watches… during the first watch a donkey brays, during the second the dogs howl, during the third the infant nurses from its mother and a wife speaks with her husband”
[4] The Long Shorter Way, Discourses on Chasidic Thought, by Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz, edited and translated by Yehuda Hanegbi, Koren/Maggid Publishers. Based on a series of lectures delivered by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz on Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi’s classic Chasidic work, the Tanya.
[5] There is a printing mistake here. They mixed up the passage’s key words (דיבור המתחיל) with another comment. I’m not sure if this mistake affected the subsequent translation.

A Source for Rav Kook’s Orot Hateshuva Chapters 1 – 3

A Source for Rav Kook’s Orot Hateshuva
Chapters 1 – 3

By
Chaim Katz, Montreal

Rav Kook begins the
first chapter of his Orot Hateshuva [1] as follows:

We
find three categories of repentance: 1) natural repentance 2) faithful repentance
3) intellectual repentance.

את התשובה אנו מוצאים
בשלש מערכות: א) תשובה טבעית, ב) תשובה אמונית, ג) תשובה שכלית

He defines natural repentance:

(תשובה טבעית) הגופנית סובבת את כל העבירות נגד חוקי הטבע, המוסר והתורה, המקושרים עם חוקי
הטבע. שסוף כל הנהגה רעה הוא להביא מחלות ומכאובים . . . ואחרי הבירור שמתברר אצלו הדבר, שהוא בעצמו בהנהגתו הרעה אשם הוא בכל אותו דלדול החיים שבא לו, הרי הוא שם לב לתקן את המצב

The
natural physical repentance revolves around all sins against the laws of nature
ethics and Torah that are connected to the laws of nature. All misdeeds lead to
illness and pain . . . but after the clarification, when he clearly recognizes that
he alone through his own harmful behavior is responsible for the sickness he
feels, he turns his attention toward rectifying the problem.

Rav
Kook is describing a repentance that stems from a feeling of physical weakness
or illness. He also includes repentance of sins against natural ethics and
natural aspects of the Torah. A sin of ethics might be similar to the חסיד שוטה, who takes his devoutness to foolish
extremes (Sotah 20a). A sin in Torah might be one who fasts although he is
unable to handle fasting (Taanit 11b דלא מצי לצעורי נפשיה) [2].

R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, in his
collection of sermons Likutei Torah [3], also recognizes three types of
repentance. Homiletically, he finds the three types in Ps. 34, 15.

סור מרע, ועשה
טוב, בקש שלום ורדפהו.

He also relates the
types
to three names of G-d that appear in the text of the berachos that we
say:

ברוך
אתה ד’ אלוקינו

According
to R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the first level of repentance relates to the Divine
name Elokim (In Hassidic thought, repentance (teshuva or return) is
taken literally as ‘returning to G-d’, not only as repentance from sin.) The mystics
of the 16th century connected the name Elokim to nature.

אלוקים בגימטריא הטבע

The word Elokim is numerically equivalent to the word for nature (hateva).
[4]

In the sermon, Elokim
is also related to ממלא כל עלמין, the immanence of G-d, which may have
something to do with the laws of nature.

R. Kook describes the second level of repentance as
follows:

אחרי התשובה הטבעית
באה האמונית, היא החיה בעולם
ממקור המסורת והדת

After the natural repentance comes a repentance based on faith. It subsists
in the world from a source of tradition and religion.

R. Shneur Zelman
of Liadi describes the second type of repentance as a return to the Divine
name Hashem, the Tetragrammaton. This
name signifies the transcendence of G-d, the name associated with the highest
degree of revelation, the name of G-d that was revealed at Sinai and that is
associated with the giving of the Torah.

Rav Kook’s third
level of repentance:

התשובה השכלית היא . . . הכרה ברורה, הבאה מהשקפת העולם
והחיים השלמה . . . היא מלאה כבר אור אין קץ

The
intellectual repentance . . . is a clear recognition that comes from an encompassing
world and life view. . . . It is a level filled with infinite light.

R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi describes the third level of as a return through
Torah study to the level of the Or En Sof, the infinite self-revelation
of G-d. It is a return to אתה
to Thou.

In
summary, R. Shneur Zalman discusses three types of teshuva, (although the
sources only speak about two types: תשובה מיראה , תשובה מאהבהYoma 86b). These three teshuva
categories form a progression. Rav Kook also speaks of a threefold progression:
a return based on nature, a return based on faith, and a return based on
intellect. [5]

R. Kook did study Likutei Torah. This is documented in a book called Mazkir HaRav
by R. Shimon Glicenstein (published in 1973) [6]. R. Glicenstein was Rav Kook’s
personal secretary during the years of the First World War, when Rav Kook
served as a Rabbi in London.

On page 10, R. Glicenstein writes:

One time on the eve of the holiday of Shavuot, I entered
the Rav’s room and I found him running back and forth like a young man. He was
holding Likutei Torah (the section on the Song of Songs) of the Alter
Rebbe (the Rav of Liadi) in his hand. With sublime ecstasy and great emotion, he
repeated a number of times: “Look, open Divine Inspiration springs out of each
and every line of these Hassidic essays and exegeses”.

מכל שורה ושורה שבמאמרי
ודרושי חסידות אלה מבצבץ רוח הקדש גלוי’

bcb

The second chapter of Orot Hatshuva is titled Sudden
Repentance and Gradual Repentance. The chapter consists of three short
paragraphs: the first describes the sudden teshuva as a sort of spiritual flare
that spontaneously shines its light on the soul. The second paragraph explains gradual
teshuva is terms of a constant effort to plod forward and improve oneself without
the benefit of spiritual inspiration.

These ideas also find a parallel in the Likutei
Torah [7]. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi discusses
two levels of Divine service (not two levels of repentance). In one a spontaneous
spiritual arousal comes from above (itaruta de le-eyla) initiated by G-d as a
Divine kindness, without any preparation on man’s part. In the other (itaruta
de le-tata) man serves G-d with great exertion and effort, taming and refining his
own animal nature, without the benefit of any Divine encouragement.

Rav Kook’s third paragraph is difficult to understand.
Rav Kook begins by describing again the sudden repentance:

התשובה העליונה באה מהברקה של הטוב הכללי של הטוב האלהי השורה בעולמות כולם

The sublime teshuva is a result of a flash of the general
good of the G-dly good, which permeates all worlds.

The paragraph then continues on a seemingly different
track.

והיושר והטוב שבנו
הלא הוא בא מהתאמתנו אל הכל, ואיך אפשר להיות קרוע מן הכל,
פרור משונה, מופרד כאבק דק שכלא חשב.
ומתוך הכרה זו, שהיא הכרה אלהית באמת,
באה תשובה מאהבה בחיי הפרט
ובחיי הכלל

The rightness and goodness within us, does it not come
from our symmetry with the whole. How can we be torn from the whole, like an
odd crumb, like insignificant specs of dust?

From this recognition, which is truthfully a G-dly
recognition, comes repentance from love in both the life of the individual and
the life of the society.

I have a feeling that this paragraph is also related to
something in Likutei Torah. R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (in the sermon just mentioned)
relates that people complain to him because they feel a spirit of holiness that
arouses them to emotional prayer for a only a short duration of time (sometimes
for a few weeks). Afterwards the inspiration ceases completely and it’s as if
it never existed. He responds, that they should take advantage of those periods
of inspiration when they occur, not just to enjoy the pleasure of prayer, but
also to change their behavior and character for the better. The state of inspiration
will then return.

I
think Rav Kook, in his own way is dealing with the same issue. Obviously, the
goal is the sudden, inspired teshuvah, but how do we get there? How do we take
the exalted periods of awareness and inspiration and regulate them, so that
they are more deliberate, intentional and continuous. I can’t say I understand
the answer, but I think Rav Kook is saying that if we recognize that we are
part of the “whole” and not separate then we will get there.

bcb

In the third
chapter, Rav Kook, distinguishes between a detailed teshuva relating to
specific individual sins and a broad general teshuva related to no sin in particular.
He writes (in the second paragraph):

וישנה עוד הרגשת תשובה
סתמית כללית. אין חטא או חטאים של עבר עולים על לבו, אבל ככלל הוא מרגיש בקרבו שהוא
מדוכא מאד, שהוא מלא עון, שאין אור ד’ מאיר עליו, אין רוח נדיבה בקרבו, לבו אטום

There is another repentance emotion, which is broad and general. The person
is not conscious of any past sin or sins, but overall he feels crushed. He
feels that he’s full of sin. The G-dly light doesn’t enlighten him, he is not
awake; his heart is shut tight.

The concept of a
teshuva that is independent of sin is also found in Likutei Torah:

התשובה אינה דוקא
במי שיש בידו עבירות ח”ו אלא אפילו בכל אדם, כי תשובה הוא להשיב את נפשו שירדה מטה מטה ונתלבשה בדברים גשמיים אל מקורה ושרשה

Repentance isn’t
only for those who have sinned (may it not happen), but it’s for everyone.
Teshuva is the return of the soul to its source and root, because the soul has
descended terribly low, and focuses itself on materialistic goals. [8]

R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi also discusses
the same symptoms as Rav Kook.

בזמן הבית הי’ הקב”ה
עמנו פנים אל פנים בלי שום מסך מבדיל . . .

משא”כ עכשיו בגלות
מחיצה של ברזל מפסקת ונק’ חולת אהבה שנחלשו חושי אהבה ואומר על מר מתוק

When
the temple stood, when the Holy One blessed is He was with us face to face
without any concealment . . . However now in exile there’s an iron partition
that separates us. We are lovesick, meaning our love is weak. We don’t
distinguish bitter from sweet.

כעת בגלות מחמת כי הלב
מטומטמת אין המח שליט עלי’ כ”כ

כי
עבירה מטמטמת לבו שלאדם ונקרא לב האבן

Now
in exile because the heart is shut down, the mind hardly can arouse it. Sin has
shut down the heart and it’s called a heart of stone. [9]

bcb

The
organization of the first three chapters of Orot Hateshuva, presents another
sort of problem: How are the types of teshuva in the three chapters related? Is
the intellectual teshuva of chapter one different from the sudden teshuva of
chapter two and different from the general teshuva of chapter three?

I suggest that
the arrangement of the three chapters follows the categories
of עולם שנה ונפש,
(which are found in Sefer Yetzirah). The first chapter examines natural return,
faithful and intellectual return. These are connected to נפש – one’s personality and understanding. The
second chapter deals with repentance and its relationship to time (שנה). Repentance
is either sudden or gradual. The third chapter speaks about a
return motivated by a specific sin or motivated by a general malaise. This can
possibly be associated with space/location (עולם); the world (or the specific sin) is
located somewhere outside of the person and motivates the person to return. Explanations based on the three dimensions of עולם שנה ונפש occur in a number of places in Likutei
Torah. [10]

[1]
here, and here

[2]
I saw these two examples in Rav Kook’s Ein AY”H, (here).

In
the following paragraph, Rav Kook speaks about a natural spiritual, repentance
––pangs of remorse (if the sinner is an otherwise upright individual) that
motivate the sinner to perform teshuva.

[3] Likutei Torah Parshat Balak 73a. The sermon begins with the words מה טובו. There are
(shorter) versions of the sermon published in other collections. (here)

[4]
Quoted also in the second part of Tanya, (Shaar Hayichud Vhaemunah)
beginning of chapter 6. The statement is usually attributed to R. Moshe
Cordovero, (Pardes Rimonim)

[5] Possibly both R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi and R. Kook
relied on an earlier source that I’m unaware of. Maybe R. Kook and R. Shneur Zalman arrived at a similar
understanding independently.

[6] R. Tzvi Yehudah Kook wrote the introduction to the book. From the introduction,
it looks like R. Glicenstein had given R. Tzvi Yehudah his essays and notes so
that they could be published. (here)

[7] Parshat Vayikra
page 2b, on the words אדם
כי יקריב מכם (here).

[8] Shabbat Shuva page
66c and Balak page 75b.

[9] Parshat Re’eh page 26a, Shir ha Shirim page 36a.

[10] Parshat Hukat
page 64d. Obviously, I don’t think that Rav Kook’s use of olam, shana, nefesh, (if
he’s in fact using that breakdown) comes specifically from Likutei Torah.

The Yom Tov Lecture of R. Eliezer Hagadol

The Yom Tov Lecture of R. Eliezer
Hagadol

By Chaim Katz, Montreal

Our
Rabbis taught in a baraita: R. Eliezer was sitting and lecturing about
the laws of the festivals the entire day. A first group left and he said: these
people own pithoi (huge storage containers).
A second group left and he said: these people own amphorae (smaller
storage containers). A third group left . .
. A forth group left . . . A fifth group . . . When a sixth group started to leave. . . He
looked towards his students and their faces turned white. He said: “my children, I wasn’t speaking to you, but to
those who left, who abandon eternal life and busy themselves with mundane life.”
When the students were dismissed he said to them: “Go, eat delicacies, and
drink sweet drinks . . . for today is a holy day . . .”

The
baraita has: “who abandon eternal life and busy themselves with mundane
life”. But isn’t the joy of the
festival a mitzva? Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is that joy of the festival
is a reshut as was taught: Rabbi Eliezer says: A person on Yom Tov has
no way except to eat and drink or to sit and study [Torah]. R. Yehoshua says: divide [the time], half for
eating and drinking and half for the study hall. (Betza 15b) [1]

To
summarize: 1) R. Eliezer was critical of
those who walked out during his lecture. 2) R. Eliezer’s criticism is in
agreement with his opinion that eating on the festival is not a mitzvah. 3)
However, he believes that eating is valid on a holiday and is equivalent to study
on a holiday. 4) R. Eliezer encourages
his students to eat delicacies and drink sweet beverages after the lecture has
ended.

Something
doesn’t seem right.

In his book on R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus ,
Professor Yitzhak D Gilat, writes:

From R. Eliezer’s reaction to the groups
leaving the study-room, it appears that the alternative of eating and drinking
is merely a hypothetical one . . . In
practice he disapproves of it. [2]

I think there
is another way to reconcile the different aspects of the story but first some
background:

The
definition of a derasha (the term for R. Eliezer’s lecture) is a talk
(usually related to the current Sabbath or holiday) that was delivered to the
general public. It had a standard form, and was delivered at a specific time.
[3]

An
eye-witness description of a derasha from the time of the Gaonim
exists: [4]

The
head of the yeshiva of Sura opens the lecture (with a verse) and the meturgaman
stands near to him and proclaims his words to the people. When the head of the yeshiva
lectures, he lectures with awe. He closes his eyes and wraps himself in his tallit,
even his forehead is covered. While he lectures, no one in the congregation
makes a sound or says a word. If he senses that someone in the audience is
speaking, he opens his eyes and a dread of trembling falls upon the entire
congregation…

The derasha was delivered either at
night (the eve of yontov), or in the morning (after the Torah Reading)
or during the afternoon [5].

R. Eliezer probably did not lecture the
entire day, [דורש
כל
היום
כולו]. He probably lectured for only part of
the day. Parallels prove this point:

1. They said about R. Yohanan ben Zakai that
he was sitting in the shade of the Temple sanctuary lecturing the entire day. (Pesahim 26a)

דתניא אמרו עליו על רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שהיה יושב בצילו של
היכל ודורש כל היום כולו

R.
Yohanan b Zakai couldn’t have sat in the shade all day unless he started on the
west of the heichal and later moved himself (and the audience) to the
eastern side of the heichal. It’s likely that his derasha took
place in the afternoon, when shadows extend towards the east. [6]

2. They
immediately sat him [Hillel] at the head and appointed him nassi over them
[the Sanhedrin]. He lectured the entire day on the laws of Passover. (Pesahim
66a)

מיד הושיבוהו בראש ומינוהו נשיא עליהם. והיה דורש כל היום
כולו בהלכות הפסח

As
the Gemarah describes, they first searched for someone who could tell
them what to do when the eve of Passover falls on the Sabbath. They found
Hillel. They interviewed him. He presented his arguments, but his reasoning was
rejected. He argued a different way and his reasoning and halakha were accepted.
They offered him the leadership of the Sanhedrin and he accepted. They gathered
the people and he gave the derasha. All that must have taken some time,
which leads to the conclusion that he also lectured during the second part of
the day.

To summarize:

1) The people who attended the derasha were mainly regular shul-goers –
members of the community.

2) Although R. Eliezer’s disciples where also present, the people who left the
lecture before it ended were the regular shul-goers. [7]

3) R. Eliezer’s lecture took up only part of the day. Based on the expressionדורש כל היום כולו , the derasha probably took place in the latter part of the afternoon, (like
the derashot of his teacher and his teacher’s teacher).

4)
Therefore, we can conclude that R. Eliezer expected his
congregants to eat a yomtov meal and they most probably already did so
before the derasha started. He holds that you can observe the holiday either
by eating or by learning Torah – but neither of these activities has to last the
entire day.

The
climax of the story, the phrase “they abandon eternal life and busy themselves
with mundane life”, also needs to be explained. The sentence is used a number
of times in the Talmud, but it has a bit of a different meaning each time it’s
used. The primary sense is in Taanit 21a: Ilfa and R. Yohanan decide to leave
the beit-ha midrash in search of a more financially secure lifestyle. At
the start of their journey, an angel is heard saying, they are “abandoning
eternal life and occupying themselves with mundane.”

However, in our story
the simple straightforward meaning doesn’t fit. How
were the congregants abandoning eternal life by leaving the lecture early? They certainly heard more Torah on this day
than they heard on a regular work day. And why were they more engaged in the
mundane today while eating a holiday meal compared to when they eat a normal week-day
meal on any other day? [8]

Which
leads to another point – we aren’t very
familiar with R. Eliezer and his halakhic opinions. We
know he had an affinity for Beit Shammai (and was maybe the last of the Beit
Shammai) and we know that the sages and most of his own disciples distanced
themselves from him and his teachings were not preserved. [9]

R.
Shaul Lieberman in his commentary to the Tosefta of Berakhot, tells us
something about R. Eliezer that I believe is the key to understanding our
story.

We
read in the Tosefta (Berakhot 4:1):

לא ישתמש אדם בפניו ידיו ורגליו אלא לכבוד קונהו שנא’
(משלי טז)
כל פעל ה’ למענהו

One
should not use his face hands or feet but in honor of his Maker as it says:
Everything G-d creates, He creates for its specific purpose. (Proverbs 16:4)

Professor
Lieberman explains: [10]

לפי פשוטו משמעו שלא ישתמש אדם בהם להנאתו גרידא אלא לכבוד שמים ואם הוא עושה כן הרי כבוד שמים מתירן לו בהנאה.

A
person is not to act solely for his own pleasure but is to act for the honor of
heaven. When he acts this way, his intention for the sake of heaven grants him a
license to enjoy the pleasure.

R.
Lieberman continues and demonstrates that this is the position of Hillel.
However Shammai has a different approach; Shammai regards physical pleasure as
something to be accepted only grudgingly or maybe even involuntarily:

Everything
you do should be for the sake of Heaven, like Hillel. . . .
“Where are you going Hillel”, “I’m going to do a mitzvah.” “What mitzvah
Hillel?” “I’m going to the bath-house.” “Is that a mitzvah”, “Yes . . . ”

But
Shammai wouldn’t say that, rather he would say “let us fulfill our obligation
to this body of ours.” [11]

Prof.
Lieberman points out that R. Eliezer follows and practices the teaching of
Shammai. [12]

Returning
now to our story: R.
Eliezer however, views the yontov food like ordinary week-day food, i.e.
שמחת יום טוב רשות,
and being an ordinary meal, the physical pleasure of the food or drink cannot be
fully enjoyed. [13]

R. Eliezer expects his community to follow
his own rulings and practices. [14] He suspects that the groups who left before the lecture concluded
were returning home to drink wine and enjoy tasty food for the physical
pleasure of eating and drinking. They were abandoning eternal life – the life of eating purely without
thinking of the physical pleasure and were engaged in the temporal life of
self-indulgence. [15]

Yet, R. Eliezer could still be conciliatory
to his students and encourage them to eat and drink delicacies in honor of the
holiday because he knew they would eat their food in a befitting way and live
up to his teaching and principals.

I believe it’s possible to clarify the
positions of R. Eliezer based on writings of Maimonides. [16] Starting with Sefer
Ha Mitzvot:

ואחרי עיניכם – זו זנות שנאמר: ויאמר שמשון
אל אביו וגו’ (שופטים יד, ג (הכוונה באמרם זו זנות רדיפת התענוגות והתאות הגופניות
והעסקת המחשבה בהן תמיד.

The Sifre interprets . . . don’t follow after your eyes (Numbers
15:39) this refers to promiscuity (zenut) . . . including the pursuit of pleasure and pursuit
of physical gratification as well as the constant wishful thinking about them.
[17]

In the Guide, Maimonides expands this
point. [18]

There are some – a partition separates
between them and G-d, the collection of dimwits, who suppress their faculty of
thinking about ideas, who pursue only the sensory feeling which is our greatest
disgrace – the sense of touch. They have no thought or notion except for
thoughts of eating, sex and nothing else . . .

In contrast, the ideal person whom everyone should emulate fits the
following profile [19]

[people] for whom all compulsory
materialness is humiliating and disgraceful; a flaw which is forced upon them, especially the
sense of touch, which is humiliating to us as Aristotle wrote, that moves us to
desire eating, drinking and sexual acts, which must be minimized as much as
possible. One must be discreet and pained when engaged in it, not make it the
subject of our speech, not talk about it freely, not sit in assemblies for
these purposes but rather control of all of these needs and reduce them to the
essential minimum as much as we can.

R. Eliezer follows this ideal. I would
argue this is not asceticism. R. Eliezer is doing the same things that everyone
else does. His feelings are different (and that affects his behavior somewhat),
but his feelings follow from his understanding of the Torah’s instruction: לא תתורו,
and by definition, carrying out the rules
of the Torah is not called asceticism.

In the 5th chapter of the
introduction to his commentary on Abot, Maimonides speaks about dedicating
one’s actions for the sake of heaven, לשם שמיים:
[20]

Know that this level is an outstanding and
difficult accomplishment that is reached by very few, after very much practice.
If there is a man who behaves this way I don’t consider him inferior to the
prophets. Someone who uses all of his powers and directs them solely for the
sake of G-d, who doesn’t perform any big or small activity or speak a word
unless that activity or word brings one toward virtue . . .

Maimonides’ idea of “for the sake of
heaven” is that certain activities are forbidden unless they are performed for the
sake of heaven. These activities include listening to music, studying science,
spending time on appreciating art or nature and others like them.

For “required” mundane activities like
eating, bathing and so on, the intention for the sake of heaven is also
necessary and permits two things. 1) It allows more elaborate activities (e.g.,
to eat a tasty more elaborate meal, as in Baba Kama 72a- אכילנא בשרא דתורא).
2) It also allows one to enjoy the pleasure associated with the activity
according to Hillel. As we’ve seen, R. Eliezer disagrees with the second point.
[21]

Rabbi Moshe Sokol defines Neutralism: [22]

Pleasure in itself is neither good nor
bad. Pleasurable activities are also, in themselves, neither good nor evil.
Pleasurable activities derive their value only instrumentally, either by
considering the consequences . . . or by
considering the intentions of the person engaging in the pleasurable activity .
. .

I believe that R. Eliezer is also a
neutralist because he is not forbidding any permitted pleasurable activity. If a
“mundane” pleasurable activity is clearly a mitzvah, (eating matzah
at the seder(?)), then I would guess the pleasure can probably be
enjoyed. If it’s not a mitzvah then the pleasure can’t be enjoyed.

I saw a midrashic source, which at first
glance seems to describe R. Eliezer’s asceticism.

The
Beit Hamidrash of R. Eliezer was shaped like a stadium. There was a special stone
there which was reserved for R. Eliezer to sit on. Once R. Yehoshua came in and
began to kiss the stone saying this stone is like Mount Sinai and the one who
sat on it is like the Ark of the Covenant. [23]

Why
did R. Eliezer sit on a stone? But this is an invalid question. Everyone in the
beit–hamidrash sat on the floor and this had nothing to do with
asceticism (see Yevamot 105b). The
teacher however didn’t sit on the floor but sat a little higher, maybe on a
stone like this one [see note 24].

The same midrash describes R. Eliezer’s
school:

One
time R. Aqiba was late in coming to the beit hamidrash. He sat
outside. A question was asked. They said the halakha is outside . . .
the Torah is outside . . . Aqiba is outside. They cleared a way and he
came and sat in front of the feet of R. Eliezer. [25]

It
sounds like the students sat (cross-legged) on the ground in concentric circles
around R. Eliezer. R. Eliezer sat (cross-legged) on his stone and R. Aqiba (the
most senior student) sat directly at R. Eliezer’s feet. [26]

If
this arrangement was also in place during R. Eliezer’s derasha, then the
first group – the group of congregants that left the earliest were probably sitting
(on the ground) on the outermost concentric circle closest to the exit so that
they could easily make their get-away. The other groups (who were also planning
on leaving early), also sat on the ground nearer to the exit. The students however,
who planned on staying until the end sat closest to their teacher R. Eliezer.

[1]

ת”ר מעשה ברבי אליעזר שהיה יושב ודורש כל היום כולו בהלכות
יום טוב יצתה כת ראשונה אמר הללו בעלי פטסין כת שניה אמר הללו בעלי חביות כת שלישית אמר הללו בעלי כדין כת רביעית
אמר הללו בעלי לגינין כת חמישית אמר הללו בעלי כוסות התחילו כת ששית לצאת אמר הללו
בעלי מארה נתן עיניו בתלמידים התחילו פניהם משתנין אמר להם בני לא לכם אני אומר אלא
להללו שיצאו שמניחים חיי עולם ועוסקים בחיי שעה בשעת פטירתן אמר להם לכו אכלו משמנים
ושתו ממתקים ושלחו מנות לאין נכון לו כי קדוש היום לאדונינו ואל תעצבו כי חדות ה’ היא
מעוזכם

אמר מר שמניחין חיי עולם ועוסקין בחיי שעה והא שמחת יום טוב
מצוה היא רבי אליעזר לטעמיה דאמר שמחת יום טוב רשות דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר אין לו
לאדם ביום טוב אלא או אוכל ושותה או יושב ושונה ר’ יהושע אומר חלקהו חציו לאכילה
ושתיה וחציו לבית המדרש.

[2] Yitzhak D Gilat, R. Eliezer ben
Hyrcanus A Scholar Outcast Bar-Ilan University press 1984, p 279 (English
edition).

[3] In the Practical Talmud Dictionary by Rabbi
Yitzhak Frank, s.v. דורש this example is
quoted (Sota 40a):

R. Abbahu and R.
Hiyya b Abba happened to come to a certain town. R. Abbahu taught aggada; R.
Hiyya b Abba taught halakha. Everyone
abandoned R. Hiyya b. Abba and went to hear R. Abbahu.

רבי אבהו דרש באגדתא רבי חייא בר אבא דרש בשמעתא שבקוה כולי
עלמא לרבי חייא בר אבא ואזול לגביה דר’ אבהו

[4] Quoted on page 1 of the introduction to Sheiltot
d’Rav Achai
ed. Rabbi Samuel K. Mirsky (Jerusalem, 1960) from Medieval Jewish
Chronicles Seder ha-Ḥakhamim ve-Korot ha-Yamim, (Part ii, page 84)
edited by Adolf (Avrohom) Neubauer.

עד שפותח ראש ישיבת סורא והתורגמן עומד עליו ומשמיע דבריו לעם. וכשדורש דורש באימה וסותם את עיניו

ומחעטף בטליחו עד שהוא מכסה פדחחו. ולא יהיה בקהל בשעה שהוא דורש פוצה פה ומצפעף ומדבר דבר .וכשירגיש באדם שמדבר פותח את עיניו ונופל על הקהל אימה ורעדה. וכשהוא גומר מתחיל בבעיא ואומר

[5] R. Ezra Zion Melamed in Mavo Lsifrut
Hatalmud page 74. (However the derasha of the head of the Sura
Yeshiva on the occasion of the nomination of the exilarch (previous note) was
given before the reading the Torah.)

[6]
Mishna Midot 2:1

הר הבית היה חמש מאות אמה על חמש מאות אמה רובו מן הדרום, והשני לו מן המזרח, והשלישי לו מן הצפון,
ומיעוטו מן המערב. מקום שהיה רוב מידתו,
שם היה רוב תשמישו.

The
temple mount was five hundred cubits by five hundred cubits. Most of the free
space was on the south; then on the east; then on the north; and the smallest
area was on the west. The larger the area the more it was used.

[7] Artscroll translated: the first group of students
left . . . the second group of students
. . .

[8]
The same phrase also appears in Shabbat 10a and there too the plain meaning
doesn’t fit well:

Rava
saw R. Hamnuna prolonging his prayers and said: They abandon eternal life and
busy themselves with the mundane.

Aside
from the plural language, how could one describe prayer (service of the heart
(Taanit 3a)) as “mundane”? A friend
(res) suggested that if this is the same Rav Hamnuna who was criticized by Rav
Huna for being single (Kiddushin 29b) and if he still wasn’t married by now
then Rava might be telling him that he is abandoning eternal life (marriage and
potential children), and busy with prayer , which is temporal because it
benefits only himself. Or if it’s the
same Rav Hamnuna who in Berakot 31a taught an approach to prayer based on
Hannah’s prayer, then maybe Rava, who was a descendent of Eli the Priest (Rosh
Hashana 18a – manuscripts), like his forbearer, misunderstood this type of
prayer and considered it to be mundane.

[9] R. Ezra Zion
Melamed, Pirkey Mavo Lsifrut Hatalmud (Jerusalem 5733), p. 64.

[10] R. Saul Lieberman
Tosefta kiPheshuto, Berakhot, p. 56, explaining the beginning of the
4th chapter.

[11]
Solomon Schechter ed, Abot de-Rabbi Nathan, Vienna, 1887, Recession B,
chapter 30. Page 33b

שמאי לא היה אומר כך אלא יעשה חובותינו עם הגוף הזה

[12] Nedarim 20b

[13]
Mishna Betzah (5:2), reshut is a voluntary type of action that has a
certain dimension of mitvah-bility to it.

כל שחייבין עליו משום שבות, ומשום רשות, ומשום מצוה בשבת–חייבין עליו ביום טוב אלו הם משום רשות–לא דנין, ולא ולא מקדשין, ולא חולצין, ולא מייבמין

[14]
R. Eliezer also said: one may cut down trees to make charcoal for manufacturing
iron tools to perform a circumcision on the Sabbath . . . Our Rabbis taught: In R. Eliezer’s
locality they would follow his teaching and cut down trees to make charcoal to
make iron tools to circumcise a child on the Sabbath – Shabbath 130a

[15] Rambam
Shebitat Yom Tov 6:18 writes:

The people gather early in the morning in
the synagogues and houses of study. They say the prayers, read the Torah
relevant to the day and return home to eat. They go to the houses of study,
read [Torah], recite [Mishna] until after noon.
They say the afternoon prayers and return home to eat and drink for the
remainder of the day and night.

R.
Kapah notes that they return home to eat (after shaharit), but return
home to eat and drink after the minha prayer. Here too, R.
Eliezer mentions the household items used mainly to store wine.

[16]
I assume that vis-à-vis these philosophical teachings, there was no “rupture
and reconstruction” to interrupt between the times of Chazal and Rambam.

[17]
Sefer HaMitzvoth, (Neg. 47) Rabbi
Kapah’s edition:

“ואחרי עיניכם”
– זו זנות שנאמר: ויאמר שמשון אל אביו וגו’ (שופטים יד, ג (הכוונה באמרם זו זנות רדיפת התענוגות והתאות הגופניות
והעסקת המחשבה בהן תמיד.

[18]
Guide section III, chapter 8, R. Kapah’s edition. (R. Kapah, in his Sefer
Hamitvot points out this parallel)

אבל האחרים שמסך מבדיל בינם לבין ה’ והם עדת הסכלים, הרי בהפך זה, ביטלו כל התבוננות ומחשבה במושכל, ועשו תכליתם אותו החוש אשר הוא חרפתנו הגדולה, כלומר: חוש המישוש, ואין להם מחשבה ולא רעיון כי אם באכילה ותשמיש לא יותר

[19]
Guide section III, chapter 8, R. Kapah’s edition.

כל הכרחי החומר אצלם חרפה וגנאי ומגרעות שההכרח מחייבם,
ובפרט חוש המישוש אשר הוא חרפה לנו כפי שאמר אריסטו אשר בו מתאווים אנו האכילה והשתייה והתשמיש, שראוי
למעט בו ככל האפשר, ולהסתתר בו ולהצטער בעשייתו. ושלא ייחד בכך שיחה ולא ירחיב בו דיבור, ולא יקהל
לדברים אלה, אלא יהיה האדם שולט על כל הצרכים הללו, וממעט בהן ככל יכולתו, ולא יקח
מהן כי אם מה שאי אפשר בלעדיו.

[20] Shemone Perakim, Chapter 5, internet
edition here.

ודע, שהמדרגה הזאת היא מדרגה עליונה מאוד וחמודה.
ולא ישיגוה אלא מעטים,
ואחר השתדלות רבה מאוד. וכשתזדמן מציאות-אדם, שזה מצבו, לא אומר, שהוא למטה מן הנביאים,
רצוני לומר: שיוציא כוחות-נפשו כולם וישים תכליתם האלוהים יתעלה לבד,
ולא יעשה מעשה קטון או גדול,
ולא יבטא מילה, אלא שאותו מעשה או אותו ביטוי יביא ל”מעלה” או ל”מה שמביא אל מעלה”.

[21]
I don’t think Maimonides discusses the pleasure associated with physical
activities performed for the sake of heaven. I noticed that in In The Sages
– Their Concepts and Beliefs E.E. Urbach
(Jerusalem 1978 Heb.), page 299, the author understands that according
to Shammai there is no concept of acting for the sake of heaven when it comes
to activities that fulfill bodily needs like eating, washing and so on, but I
don’t understand why the author says so.

[22]
Attitudes Toward Pleasure in Jewish Thought, Moshe Z. Sokol, in Reverence,
Righteousness and Rahamanut – Esssays in Memory of Rabbi Dr. Leo Jung ed.
Jacob J. Schacter, page 300-304

[23]
Shir Hashirim Rabba 1:3 לריח שמניך טובים

ובית מדרשו של רבי אליעזר היה עשוי כמין ריס, ואבן אחת הייתה שם והיתה מיוחדת לו לישיבה. פעם אחת נכנס רבי יהושע התחיל ונושק אותה האבן ואמר: האבן הזאת, דומה להר סיני, וזה שישב עליה, דומה לארון הברית.

[24]
Magdala stone (via Google images) http://www.antiquities.org.il/article_eng.aspx?sec_id=25&subj_id=240&id=1601

[25] Shir Hashirim Rabba 1:3

פעם אחת שהה רבי עקיבא לבא לבית המדרש בא וישב לו מבחוץ. נשאלה שאלה: זו הלכה, אמרו: הלכה מבחוץ. חזרה ונשאלה שאלה. אמרו: תורה מבחוץ. חזרה
ונשאלה שאלה. אמרו: עקיבא מבחוץ. פנו לו מקום. בא וישב לו לפני רגליו של רבי אליעזר.

[26]
The story in Berakhot 28a (and Yerushalmi Berakhot 4:1 (daf 32b in mechon-mamre
and snunit sites), (the question about the obligation of the evening prayer), speaks
about a beit–midrash with benches. Maybe the meeting place of the
Sanhedrin was different and they didn’t sit on the floor?

Rabbi Zeira – Forgetting the Teachings of Babylon

Rabbi Zeira – Forgetting
the Teachings of Babylon

By Chaim Katz

We read in the Talmud (Baba Metziah
85a):

R. Zeira, when he moved to the land of
Israel, observed a hundred fasts to forget the teachings of Babylonia, [1] so
that they should not disturb him.
He fasted another hundred times so that R.
Elazar should not die during his years and the responsibilities of the
community not fall upon him.He fasted another hundred times so that
the fire of Gehenna should have no power over him.

Figure 1 From the first print of Baba Metziah Soncino, Italy 1489

There are some difficulties with R. Zeira
forgetting the teachings of Babylonia:

1) Both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmud
contain many interactions between sages who travelled from the land of Israel
to Babylon or from Babylon to the land of Israel. These sages shared their own teachings
and traditions with their counterparts. By forgetting Babylonian teachings, R.
Zeira is choosing not to participate in this knowledge transfer. Why? [2]

2) R. Zeira is mentioned many times in
the Jerusalem Talmud and sometimes he transmits in the name of his Babylonian
teachers. Many of these exchanges clearly took place when he already was in the
land of Israel. How can he transfer Torah information that he has supposedly forgotten?
[3]

3) The Talmud (Shabbat 41a) relates that
when R Zeira was about to leave for the land of Israel, he went out of his way to
hear one more teaching from his teacher, Rav Yehuda. Why would he go to the trouble of amassing
more Babylonian teachings if he intended to immediately forget them?

4) Forgetting one’s learning purposefully
isn’t a pious thing to do. The Mishna Pirkei Avot 3:10 strongly discourages it,
as does the Talmud: R. Elazar said: One who forgets a word of his learning (Talmud)
causes his descendants to be exiled – Yoma 38b. Resh Laqish said: One who forgets a word of his learning (Talmud)
transgresses a negative commandment – Menachot
99b.

We can find a simple solution to these
questions in one of the manuscripts of Baba Metzia, written around 1137
and housed in the National Central Library in Florence. The manuscript disagrees
with the premise that R. Zeira ever forgot his learning:

R. Zeira fasted so that he would not
forget the teachings of Babylon.

He observed another forty fasts so that
R Il’a should not die in his lifetime.

He observed another forty fasts that the
fire of Gehenna should have no power over him.

Figure 2 Florence
Manuscript BM 85a

As far as I know, this manuscript is unique among the
manuscripts that exist today in defining “not to forget” as the purpose R.
Zeira’s fast. [4] The manuscript is also attractive for a couple of other reasons:

The passage is shorter here
than in the standard version. The explanations “when he moved to the land of
Israel”, “so that it should not disturb him”, [5] “so that the responsibilities
of the community not fall upon him” are all missing. This reduction most likely
indicates that the manuscript reflects an early version of the story – a
version in which marginal commentary had not yet been copied (inadvertently) into
the text.

The paragraph that precedes the story of
R. Zeira (in all versions) tells of Rav Yosef (R. Zeira’s colleague) who also observed
a series of three sets of forty intermittent fasts. The purpose of Rav Yosef’s
fasts was to guarantee that the knowledge of the Torah would not depart from
himself, from his children and from his grandchildren. The goal of Rav Yosef’s
fasts seems to agree with the goal of R. Zeira’s fasts; to remember (i.e., not
forget) the teachings of Babylonia.

According to this manuscript, all of R.
Zeira’s fasts have something in common with each other. He fasted so he would
not forget, he fasted so that R. Ila’i would not die, and he fasted so that the
fire of Gehina would not harm him. He always seems to be fasting so that
something should not happen.

However, many authorities have discussed
the standard version, and no one (as far as I know) has relied on this reading
to resolve the original questions. [6]

Here
are some of the classical interpretations that attempt to solve the problems of
R. Zeira’s forgetting.

Rashi
writes (BM 85a) that the students in the land of Israel were not בני מחלוקת, were not contentious, ונוחין זה לזה, they were pleasant to each other] . . . ומיישבין את
הטעמים בלא קושיות ופירוקין and they explained their reasoning without challenging each
other with difficulties and rebuttals.

According
to Rashi , R. Zeira forgets the “atmosphere” of the Babylonian academies. [7]

Maharsha (1555-1631), disagrees with
Rashi. He argues that the sages in the land of Israel do engage in questioning
and answering like their counterparts in Babylonia. He cites the Gemara (Baba Metzia 84a) where
R. Yohanan says about Reish Laqish: he
would raise twenty-four objections, and I would reply with twenty-four answers.

Therefore, Maharsha explains that
possibly the Babylonian piplul was faulty and similar to a style of piplul
that existed in his own time דוגמת חילוקים
שבדור הזה. He objects to this style of questioning and answering because it
distances one from the truth, and can’t help one rule on halakhic issues. Accordingly,
R. Zeira fasted in order to forget how to piplul the Babylonian way.

Abravanel (1437-1508) in his commentary
on Pirkei Avot (on the Mishna in chapter 5 which begins: There are four types
who study with the sages) writes somewhat similarly. The problem with the one who
is compared to a sponge, who soaks up everything – is that he retains things
that are untrue. In the search for truth, there are necessary steps which themselves
are untrue: כי לא תברר האמת כי אם בהפכו truth can only
be evaluated when compared with its opposite. R. Zeira fasts to forget the stages in
the arguments of the Babylonian Talmud that were untrue.

In summary, all three of these
interpretations agree that R. Zeira didn’t literally forget the Babylonian
teachings. He forgot the “atmosphere” of the Babylonian academies or the
interim discussions that took place there. [8]

I’d like now to give some examples of
how the story of R. Zeira is presented in some early Hassidic sermons, to show
how the Rebbes and their audiences understood the story of R. Zeira. These
sources aren’t concerned with explaining our Gemara; R. Zeira’s story is cited
to support an ethical or moral lesson.

Torah Or is a collection of sermons by
R. Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1745-1812). On
page 69c, in a discussion about spiritual worlds, the author says:

The purpose of the river diNur, (fiery
river (or maybe fiery light)), in which the soul submerges itself as it passes from
this world to Gan Eden, is to erase its memories of this physical world. If the
soul remembers its encounter with materiality, it can’t experience Gan Eden.
And when the soul goes from the lower Gan Eden to the higher Gan Eden it also must
pass through a river diNur to forget the comprehension and pleasures of the
lower Gan Eden. (Zohar part 2 210a) This is the idea in the Gemara: R. Zeira
observed 100 fasts to forget the Talmud of Babylonia even though he had studied
it with devotion.

In Likutei Moharan (ch. 246), R. Nachman
of Bratslav (1772 – 1810) writes:

A
person sometimes has to feel self-important גדלות, as it says (2
Chronicles 17:6) His heart was elevatedויגבה לבו in
the service of G-d. This helps the same way
as fasting helps. For when one needs to attain an understanding or needs to
reach a higher level, he has to forget the wisdom he had previously acquired. R.
Zeira fasted to forget the Talmud of Babylon in order to reach a greater level
of comprehension – the level of the Talmud of the land of Israel. Similarly through self-importance, one forgets
his wisdom . . .

In these examples of Hassidic thought there
is no difficulty with the idea that R. Zeira forgets his learning in order to reach
higher spiritual plateau. Forgetting is a purification process that is both
necessary and exemplary. [9]

Returning now to the literal sense of the
Gemara:

R. Issac Halevi (Rabinowitz)
(1847-1914), the author of Dorot Harishonim addresses our problem in a footnote
(Dorot II p 427 footnote 93). He posits that in R. Zeira’s time there were already two canonized
collections of Talmudic material arranged around the Mishna; each in its own
distinct form and style.

כבר הי׳ להם סתמא דהש”ס על המשנה שגרסו כבר במטבע קבועה,
וכן הי׳ להם אז כבר גם בארץ ישראל.

R. Zeira chose to
forget the Babylonian Talmud (as it existed in his time), because it interfered
with his studies in the land of Israel.

According to this
interpretation, R. Zeira forgot only the redaction or arrangement of the
teachings he had learned. He didn’t forget
the teachings themselves (or the study method). [10]

I’d like to suggest
an original explanation. It’s based on passages in the Talmud about R. Zeira
and additionally can explain why only R. Zeira decided to forget the teachings
of Babylon when he moved to the land of Israel.

1)
R.
Yitzhak b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Eleazar: The halakha agrees with R.
Jose b. Kipper. R. Zeira said: “If I
merit, I’ll go there and learn the halakha from the Master himself”. When R.
Zeira came to the land of Israel he found R. Eleazar and asked him: “Did you
say: The halakha is in agreement with R. Jose b. Kipper?” – Nidda 48a

2)
R.
Zeira said to R. Abba b Papa: When you go there, detour around the Ladder of
Tyre and visit R. Yaakov b Idi. Ask him if he heard from R. Yohanan if the
Halakha is like R. Aqiba or not – Baba Metziah 43b

3)
R
Zeira, commented: How can you compare R Binyamin b Yefet’s version of R.
Yohanan’s statement with the version of Rabbi Hiya b Abba. R Hiya b Abba was
precise when he studied the halakhic traditions from R Yohanan but R. Binyamin
b Yefet was not precise. Moreover, R Hiya b Abba reviewed his learning (Talmud)
with R. Yohanan every thirty days. – Berachot
38b

4)
R.
Nathan b. Tobi quoted R. Johanan . . . Rabbi Zeira asked: “Did
R. Johanan say this?” Yes, he answered. Rabbi Zeira recited this teaching forty
times. R. Nathan said to R. Zeira: Is this the only teaching that you have
heard or is it a teaching that is new to you? R. Zeira replied: “It’s new to
me. I wasn’t sure if it was taught in the name R. Yohanan or R Yehoshua b
Levi.” – Berachot 28a

We
see that the teachings of the land of Israel (especially R. Yohanan’s) did
reach R. Zeira while he was still in Babylon [11]. R. Zeira, however, didn’t really
trust these teachings. Sometimes he thought they were attributed incorrectly,
or their content was not accurate. He doubted if a statement in the name of R.
Eleazar was correct. [12] He was unsure if R. Yohanan agreed with R. Aqiba’s
position or not. He distinguished between the different amoraim who
transmitted teachings. In general he looked at Torah that reached Babylon as
something that was possibly unreliable, inaccurate or “damaged in transit”.

R. Zeira was
only able to resolve his doubts when he moved to the land of Israel and learned
the Torah of the land of Israel there. He then forgot the imprecise version of
these teachings that he had previously memorized in Babylon – “the teachings of
Babylon”. He could forget them because they were superseded by accurate
teachings that he now received in the land of Israel. [13]

I’d like to thank Reb Gary Gleam who
provided the cabbage rolls and coffee, and the late night sounding board.

————————————————————————————————————————–

[1] תלמודא בבלאה is sometimes translated
as Babylonian Talmud, which I think is an anachronism. I will use the translation
“Babylonian teachings”. All the available manuscripts have תלמודא דבבל = the teachings of Babylonia. The phrase Talmuda
dBabel or Talmuda Babelah occurs only here
(Google). Talmud in the sense of teachings occurs many times, often in
comparison to mikra or mishna.

[2]
Compare Rosh Hashana 20b: “When R. Zeira went up [to the land of Israel], he
sent [a letter] to his colleagues [in Babylonia] . . .” R.
Zeira didn’t break off all contact with the old country. He taught them what he
heard and learned in the land of Israel.

[3] See Goldberg, Abraham. “Rabbi Ze’ira
and Babylonian Custom in Palestine” (Hebrew) Tarbiz vol. 36 1967 (pages
319-341), for examples of Babylonian traditions that R. Zeira brought to the
land of Israel. The following quote is from the online abstract:

“R.
Zeira is the outstanding figure among many who came from an area of unmixed
Babylonian tradition and who tried to impose their own Babylonian practice upon
Palestinian custom.”

[4]
The crucial word דלא, is crossed-out
in the manuscript, but I’m assuming that the strikethrough is not the work of
the original sofer. (Didn’t scribes write dots on top of the words they
wanted to erase?) The facsimile shows a number of other emendations that were written
after the manuscript’s creation.

[5] The words “so that it should not disturb
him” would be out of place in this version of the story, since according to
this version, R. Zeria never forgot the Babylonian teachings, but the idea is
that the text is short. There is a geniza fragment from The Friedberg
Project for Talmud Bavli Variants and it is equally as short. (Note
that it matches the standard editions with regard to the goal of R. Zeira’s
fast.)

Figure
3 Geniza fragment
of our Baba Metziah 85a

Translation of the geniza fragment:

R. Zeira observed forty fasts to forget
the teachings of Babylon.

He fasted another forty times that R
Il’a should not die in his lifetime.

He fasted another forty times that the fire of
Gehenna should have no power over him.

[6]
The author of Dikduke Soferim mentions this version but doesn’t suggest that its
reading is better than the standard one. Dikduke Sofreim has written elsewhere
that this specific manuscript belonged to Christians who translated (into Latin)
passages that were regularly used against Jews in inter-faith disputations.
There’s no Latin on this page, but you can see Latin on some other pages.

[7]
Rashi mentions his source as Sanhedrin 24a. He understands that the students of
Babylon were antagonistic to each other unlike the students in the land of
Israel who were pleasant to each other. Rashi apparently was thinking of this in
his commentary on the prayer of R. Nehunya ben HaKanah – Berachot 28b. The
prayer reads: “May it be Your will that I don’t make a mistake in a halakhic
ruling, and that my colleagues rejoice with me . . .” Rashi
understands the prayer this way – May it be Your will that I don’t make a
mistake in a halakhic ruling and my colleagues make fun of me.

[8]
The explanations of Maharsha and Abravanel have prompted subversive
interpretations by the school of the German Jewish historians of the
Talmud. In the Soncino translation of
Shabbat 41a, the translator, Rabbi DR. Freedman (1901-1982) writes: “Weiss, Dor, III, p. 188, maintains that R.
Zera’s desire to emigrate was occasioned by dissatisfaction with Rab Judah’s
method of study; this is vigorously combatted by Halevi, Doroth, II pp. 421 et
seq.”

Jacob Neusner’s
in his book A History of the Jews in Babylonia page 218, also questions the
idea that sages of the land of Israel rejected the Babylonian methods of study,
and finds “Halevi’s strong demurrer quite convincing”.

[9]
In this context, the Talmudic statement: גדולה עבירה לשמה ממצווה שלא לשמה – מסכת הוריות י’ ע”ב may be somewhat
relevant.

[10] I’m not sure, according to R.
Halevi, did R. Zeira also forget the
anonymous Talmudic layer (stam or redactor) that existed in his time?

[11]
The first of these conversations definitely took place in Babylon. The fourth
interaction occurred in the land of Israel but revises a teaching that R. Zeira
probably heard in Babylonia. The middle two quotes are may describe R. Zeira in
Babylon, but even if they occurred when R. Zeira was already in the land of
Israel, they reflect doubts that he had while in Babylon. The number 40 in the last example is also
remarkable. He repeats something 40 times in order to remember. He fasts 40
times to forget.

[12]
R. Eleazar teaches without citing his source but everyone knows that his
teachings are R. Yohanan’s (Yerushalmi Berakot 2:1 and Yerushalmi Shekalim 2:5).

[13] R. Zeira didn’t forget the native
Babylonian teachings, authored and recorded by the Babylonian amoraim. He
never doubted their accuracy. He brought those teachings to the land of Israel
and enriched the Torah of the land of Israel with them.

Running on the Inclined Plane of the Altar in the Second Temple

Running
on the Inclined Plane of the Altar in the Second Temple

by Chaim Katz

בראשונה …
רצין ועולים בכבש, וכל הקודם את חברו לתוך ארבע אמות זכה

We read in the Mishna:

[The priests used to
compete for the honor of separating and removing ashes from the altar] by
sprinting up the ramp. Whoever was the first to reach the top four cubits was
entitled to remove the ashes. Mishna
Yoma 2:1

One
of the first authorities to question the practice described in this mishna was
Eliezer ben Samuel of Metz who lived in the 12th century. He was a Tosafist and
a student of Rabbenu Tam. In his Sefer Yereim
(Negative 311), he compared the description given in this mishna with a
conflicting description given in the Mekilta DeRabbi Yishmael: (Masechta
d’bhodesh parsha 11):

מה ת״ל אשר לא
תגלה ערותך עליו שלא יפסיע פסיעה גסה אלא עקב בצד גודל וגודל בצד עקב

What do you learn from
the verse “don’t go up to my altar by stairs so that your nakedness isn’t
revealed near it” (Ex. 20:23) [1] – that one doesn’t take large strides when
stepping up to the altar, rather heel-next-to-toe and toe-next-to-heel.

Apparently,
the Mekilta DeRabbi Yishmael forbids not only running on the ramp, but even
forbids regular, normal, walking on the ramp.

Another
Tosafist, R. Moshe of Coucey (13th century) in his Tosafot Yeshanim on Yoma 22b
re-raised the problem. Over the years and centuries, many others suggested ways
of resolving this difficulty. [2]

A
solution occurred to me based on the idea that maybe the priests who sprinted
to the top of the ramp were acting improperly and not following the teaching of
the sages. Our sources report a number of temple practices that were initiated
by groups who followed their own teachings. For example: the practice of
lighting incense outside the kodesh ha kedoshim on Yom Kippur (Yoma 19b), the
practice of not offering the water libation on the altar on sukkot (Yoma 26b), the practice of following a
different calendar and bringing the omer offering on Sunday (Menahot 65). [3]

Although
I don’t have a proof that the races on the ramp were improper, the Talmud
itself encourages this perception (Yoma 23a):

ת”ר מעשה
בשני כהנים שהיו שניהן שוין ורצין ועולין בכבש קדם אחד מהן לתוך ארבע אמות של
חבירו נטל סכין ותקע לו בלבו עמד רבי צדוק על מעלות האולם ואמר אחינו בית ישראל שמעו … געו כל העם בבכיה בא
אביו של תינוק ומצאו כשהוא מפרפר אמר הרי הוא כפרתכם ועדיין בני מפרפר ולא נטמאה סכין

We read in a baraita. It
once happened that two priests were racing up the ramp … when one got close to the other and stabbed him …
R. Zadok stood on the steps of the temple and eulogized the slain priest:
Listen my brothers the house of Israel … All the people burst into tears. The
father of the young priest had meanwhile found his slain son in his death
throes, “The knife is still ritually clean”

The
obvious contrast between the father who “cared more about the purity of the
temple vessels than about the murder” and the people who were present listening
to R. Zadok and weeping, demonstrates that the priest (the father) didn’t see
himself as part of the community who was present in the temple nor did he share
the priorities of the rabbis. [4]

If
so, there really is nothing to reconcile: a priest is never allowed to run on
the ramp. Historically, there was a time when the rabbis had little control
over what the priests did. The Mishna is describing one of those times.
However, when the circumstances changed and the rabbis had the opportunity,
they stopped the racing and substituted the lottery in its place. [5]

Standing
in Prayer

The
Mekilta’s teaching is not quoted in the Babli, but is quoted in the Yerushalmi,
albeit in a different context. We read in the Yerushalmi (Talmud Berakot 1:1):

זהו שעומד ומתפלל צריך להשוות את רגליו. תרין אמורין רבי לוי ורבי סימון חד אמר
כמלאכים וחד אמר ככהנים. מאן דאמר ככהנים
לא תעלה במעלות על מזבחי שהיו מהלכים עקב בצד גודל וגודל אצל עקב. ומאן דאמר כמלאכים ורגליהם רגל ישרה.

One who stands up to
pray must hold his feet together. Two teachers: R. Levi and R. Simon. One of
them says: like angels. The other one says: like priests. The one who refers to
priests quotes: “Don’t go up to my
altar by stairs” (Ex. 20:23). They walked
with heel-next-to-toe and toe-next-to-heel. The one who refers to angels quotes:
“Their legs were as one straight leg” (Ez. 1:7)

It
isn’t very clear how to visualize that the kohen walking on the ramp towards
the altar, serves as a source and paradigm for the custom of standing with
one’s feet together during the amidah prayer. Many commentaries therefore,
found a practical difference between these two opinions: if we compare
ourselves to angels, then we stand with our feet together and parallel to each
other; however if we compare ourselves to priests, then we stand in prayer with
one foot in front of the other. [6]

The
Oxford manuscript of the Mekilta has a slightly different description of the
way the priest walked up the ramp. Based on the manuscript and a careful
reading of the rest of the passage in the standard editions, the comparison
between walking on the ramp and standing with our feet together in prayer is
much more straightforward:

אלא גודל בצד
עקב ועקב בצד עקב ועקב בצד גודל

Rather toe-next-to-heel
and heel-next-to-heel and heel-next-to-toe

According to the
manuscript, the priest stood with his feet together before taking every step.
Instead of taking a full step (moving his heel about 20 inches) he took half
steps (moving his heel about 10 inches each time). [7]

In
addition, when the Mekilta teaches that the priest walked heel next to (בצד)
toe, it doesn’t mean that he moved one
foot completely ahead of the other, with the back of the heel of one foot
touching or parallel to the top of the toe of the other foot. Rather the priest
took even smaller steps so that the length of the big toe of one foot was “next
to” or parallel to the heel and lower instep of his other foot. I experimented
and found for me, at each step my heel only moved forward about 6 inches. At this pace the legs are hardly parted.

This
is all to say that if you were present in the courtyard of the Israelites
(about 50 feet away from the priest walking up the ramp), you would see the
priest standing with his legs held together heel to heel 50% of the time
(assuming all steps took an equal length of time). Even when he was “walking”,
he moved his legs so slightly apart that he would appear to be standing still.
The long robe he wore that reached down to his ankles also helped to conceal
his movement. Picture the priest walking up the ramp as someone standing still
on a slowly moving sidewalk or some similar example. He looks almost
motionless, as he inches forward smoothly towards the top of the altar. (I did a test on level ground. Walking this way, it took me a little more
than three minutes to cover about 32 cubits).

It’s likely that both
amoraim in the Yerushalmi agree that we pray with feet held together parallel
to each other. They each cite a
different pasuk, but they’re expressing the same idea.[8]

On the level of the aggadah,
there may be a different lesson from each teaching. We’re fortunate to have R.
Kook’s aggadic interpretation on the meaning behind aligning one’s feet
together in prayer like the angels: [9]

המתפלל צריך שיכוין רגליו, שנאמר ורגליהם רגל
ישרה. הרגלים משמשים פעולת ההליכה ופעולתהעמידה. לפעולת ההליכה עיקר שימושם הוא
במה שהם נפרדים, בפעולת העמידה עיקר שימושם הואבמה שהם מתאחדים. במהלך שלמות האדם
יש הליכה, להוסיף לקנות שכליות ומעלות מדותיות. וישעמידה, היינו שהדברים שקנה יהי’
קנינם חזק בנפשו, לא יפסידם איזה שינוי וגירעון במצבו…
ובזההאדם
מתדמה לפי יכולתו לשכלים העליונים, שקניני שלמותם חזקים במציאותם, בהיות ג”כ
עיקרתעודתם לעמוד בשלימותם ולא להוסיף עליו.ובזה ג”כ
נכללת השתדלות האדם בתפילה שתהיינה מעלותיו קנויות אצלו ומוטבעות

Legs are used for
walking and standing. In the activity of walking, the legs’ usefulness consists
in their being parted; in standing, in being held together. To advance towards
perfection, to progress in virtuous conduct and intelligence, man must move. To
entrench in his personality what he has already acquired, man must stand still.
He must not allow any change for the worse in his circumstances to let him lose
what he possesses…Torah is essentially designed to increase man’s perfection
and exaltation. It is referred to as ‘a path’… Tefillah impresses virtues
already acquired making them stable and enduring. Here man is likened, to the
extent that he is capable, to the supreme intelligences whose perfection is
firmly ingrained in their selves – their intrinsic function being to preserve
their perfection, not to add to it [10]

I’m
not capable of extrapolating a similar lesson from the comparison with priests
walking up the ramp. However, I feel that we have a enough key words to associate the way the priests
walk up to the altar with ideas like refinement, growth and free choice on one
hand, and ideas like slow change on the other.
With this in mind we can at least get a fuzzy feeling for the difference
between standing with our feet together in prayer like angels and standing with
our feet together like priests walking up the ramp.

__________________________________________________

[1] I notice that in some humashim the pasuk is numbered 22 instead of 23. I was looking in some modern editions of Moreh Nebukhim, and saw two editions that reference this pasuk as 26 (following non-Jewish chapter and verse (?)).

[2] The common approach to synchronizing the two taanaitic sources is a compromise. Kohanim may run or walk quickly on the ramp but must take smaller than normal strides. Another approach claims that the mekilta’s opinion is rejected and priests may run normally on the ramp. Some present an opposite view and understand the mishna as a description of priests running towards the ramp, but not running on the ramp. And some interpret the mekilta to be talking about the altar itself – the kohanim may run on the ramp but may not take big strides when walking on the top of the altar. I’m sure there are more solutions.

[3] Racing or competing seems very Hellenistic. Megillat Taanit lists a number of semi-holidays that were established when the rabbis prevailed over the temple priests.

[4] Maybe this obsession with purity in the
temple identifies these priests as Sadducees as in the Mishna Para 3:6 “they
would touch the kohen who was about to prepare the ashes of the red heifer
because the Sadducees believed…”. But even if the priests weren’t Sadducees or
Boethusians, they might still have been ignorant of the teaching of the Rabbis.
The Mishna mentions high-priests who were illiterate. The Sifra mentions
priests who had to rely on the sages to tell them if a leprous mark was clean
or unclean.

[5] The Talmud explains that running up the ramp
was discontinued because it was too dangerous. It doesn’t say that the race was
improper on unlawful. However, R. Saul
Lieberman discusses something similar in Hellenism in Jewish Palestine page 139
in the chapter about The Three Abrogations of Johanan the High Priest. He
writes that “the Rabbis were sometimes reluctant to reveal the reasons which
moved them to enact a new law. Moreover, in order to make the people accept a
new ordinance the Rabbis occasionally substituted some formal legalistic
grounds for the real motive.” He’s speaking there, (in one of the examples),
about the knockers who stunned the animal by hitting it on the head before
slaughtering it. The Talmud says the reason this practice was abolished,
because it made the animal treif, but the Tosefta gives a different reason for
abolishing the practice – because it mimicked what was done in the heathen
temples.

[6] One of the first to present this
interpretation is the Talmidey Rabbenu Yona page 5a of the Rif on Berakhot .
Many commentators of the Yerushalmi have given the same explanation.

[7] This variant is quoted in the Mekilta, Horowitz-Rabin
edition, (end of Yitro) p. 245 (line 2) and is visible online here. R. E.Z. Melamed in Essays in Talmudic
Literature (Heb.) Iyunim b’Sifrut
HaTalmud) published in Jerusalem by Magnes press in 1986, (the original article
was published in Tarbitz in 1935), demonstrates that the Oxford manuscript is
much more accurate and authentic than the early print of the Mekilta that
Horowitz reproduced as the main text of his edition. On the other hand, the two
other manuscripts of the Mekilta, which are displayed on the web site mentioned
above, are identical to the printed version with respect to this sentence.

According to the Oxford Mekilta manuscript the
Kohen walked this way on the ramp: stand with your left foot ahead of your
right foot. Take a small step forward with your right foot until your two feet
are aligned. Move your right foot
forward again so that it is ahead of your left foot. Now move your left food
forward until your two feet are aligned.
Move your left foot forward again. Note that you’re moving the same foot
two times in a row.

[8] compare (for example):
Zeiri of Dihavet said to Rabhina, “You derive that idea from that pasuk and we
derive the same idea from this pasuk.” – Taanit 7b

[9] The Babli, Berakot
10b, has the comparison to angels but not the comparison to priests. R. Kook’s
comment is printed in the Siddur Olat Ray”h , (in the anthology portion)
just before the Amidah. This section was
probably taken from his Ayn Ay”h commentary on Babli Berakot #153. I don’t
have access to the printed Ayn Ay”h. The online version (without the editor’s
notes) is here.

[10] This paragraph is
the work of Rabbi Leonard Oschry, in his English translation of Netiv Binah
called Meditations on the Siddur by B.S. Jacobson, published by Sinai
Publishing, Tel Aviv, Israel 1966. There is also an English translation of R.
Kook’s explanation by Rabbi Chanan Morrison here.

An (almost) Unknown Halakhic Work by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi and an attempt to answer the question: who punctuated the first edition of the Shulhan Arukh?

An (almost) Unknown Halakhic Work by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of
Liadi and an attempt to answer the question: who punctuated the first edition
of the Shulhan Arukh?

by Chaim Katz

Chaim Katz is a
database computer programmer in Montreal Quebec. He graduated from McGill
University and studied in Lubavitch Yeshivoth in Israel and New York.

In 1980, the late Rabbi Yehoshua Mondshine
published a manuscript, which was a list of chapters and paragraphs (halakhot and se’fim), selected by Rabbi Shneur
Zalman of Liadi (RSZ), from the Shulhan Arukh (SA) of Rabbi Yosef Karo.[1]
(RYK)

Figure 1: Part of the list of halakhot prepared by Rabbi
Shneur Zalman and the preliminary and concluding notes written by R. Isakhar
Ber.

R.
Isakhar Ber, who copied the original manuscript, explained the purpose of the
list in a preliminary remark:

A concise study method
of essential laws from the beginning of Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim until the end of the Shabbat laws – to know them
fluently by heart, from Admur (our master, teacher and Rebbe), our teacher
Zalman of Liozna.

R.
Isakhar also added an epilogue:

I copied all of the
above, from the beginning until the laws of Pesah, but I didn’t check it
completely to verify that I copied everything correctly and G-d willing when
there’s time I will check it. Prepared and researched by the Rabbi and Gaon,
the great light, the G-dly and holy, our teacher, Shneur Zalman, may his lamp
be bright and shine, to know it clearly and concisely, even for those people who
are occupied in business. Therefore I thought I won’t withhold good from the
good. Isakhar Ber, son of my father and
master … Katz, may his lamp be bright, of the holy community of Shumilina and
currently in Beshankovichy.

The
manuscript was probably composed (or at least copied), between the years
1790-1801, when RSZ lived in Liozna. The existence of this list isn’t
acknowledged in any source that Rabbi Mondshine was aware of, and obviously the
list was never published in book form, either because RSZ
decided not to publicize it or because the list was simply put aside and
forgotten.

RSZ
wasn’t the first who envisioned a popular digest of the SA. Rabbi Yehuda Leib
Maimon lists four works that preceded the famous Kitzur Shulhan Arukh.[2]
They preceded RSZ’s work as well and are all quite similar although they also
have their differences.

Figure 2: First edition of Shulhan Tahor by Rabbi Joseph Pardo (from
Hebrewbooks.org). The page summarizes three and a half chapters of the original
Shulhan arukh. Note how the author sometimes combines the words of RYK with the
words of Rema (line 11).

Shulhan Tahor covers Orakh Hayim and Yore Deah.
Others have a narrower scope and cover only Orah Hayim. RSZ covers even less.
Some collections are abbreviated extensively; others include more details.[3]
There are variations in the language and content; some quote opinions of later
authorities, some quote Kabbalah, some re-cast the language of the SA and some
retain the language as much as possible.

Figure 3: Pardes Rimonim by Rabbi Yehudah Yudil Berlin, (from
Hebrewbooks.org), composed in 1784. Note the author quotes Ateret Zekenim, (R.
MM Auerbach, published in 1702). The additions in parenthesis are by the
publisher of the 1879 edition.

The authors of each of these works possibly had
two goals in mind. One of the goals was to make the basic rules and practices
of the SA more accessible. To this end, certain subjects or details were left
out because they were too technical for the chosen audience. Other rules were
omitted because the situations to which they applied happened only infrequently
(בדיעבד). Many regulations
were left out because daily life and its circumstances had changed so much
since the sixteenth century.

The other goal,
and arguably the primary goal, was to provide a text of law that could be
memorized. In the introduction to Shulhan Tahor, the author’s son writes:
“every man will be familiar and fluent in these laws (שגורים בפי כל האדם)”. Likewise, the
author of Pardes Rimonim defines the purpose of his work: “so that the reader
will be fluent in these rules (שגורים
בפיו)
and will review them each month”. In
the introduction to the Shulhan Shlomo, the author writes: “Put these words to
your heart and you won’t forget them”, and the motive of R. Shneur Zalman’s
work is: “to know [these laws] fluently by heart”.

Figure 4: Introduction of Rabbi Yosef Karo – from the first edition
of the Shulhan Arukh, published in Venice in 1565 where memorization is
emphasized (from the scanned books at the website of the National Library of
Israel, (formerly the Jewish National and University Library.)

The
tradition of memorizing practical laws goes back to RYK himself, and probably
goes back even earlier.[4]
RYK writes in the introduction to his Shulhan Arukh:

I thought in my heart
that it is fitting to gather the flowers of the gems of the discussions [of the
Beit Yosef] in a shorter way, in a clear comprehensive pretty and pleasant
style, so that the perfect Torah of G-d will be recited fluently by each man of
Israel. When a scholar is queried about a law, he won’t answer vaguely.
Instead, he will answer: “say to wisdom
you are my sister”. As he knows his sister is forbidden to him, so he knows the
practical resolution of every legal question that he is asked because he is
fluent in this book… Moreover, the
young (rabbinical?) students will occupy themselves with it constantly and
recite its text by heart…

I’m
working on a phone version of RSZ’s work using the first print of
RYK’s SA for that portion of the text. However, (aside from the difficulty of
text justification in an EPUB), there is one typesetting decision that I’m
wondering about. The first edition of
the SA is punctuated with elevated periods and colons. The colons always separate each halakha, but
infrequently colons appear in the middle of a halakha. Sometimes followed by a
new line and sometimes not. The periods may appear in the middle of a halakha,
sometimes followed by horizontal white space and sometimes not.

Hebrew printing (of holy books) hasn’t changed all that
much in the past 450 years; the colons at the end of each paragraph are present
in most current editions of the Shulan Arukh, but the periods, colons and white
space in the middle of the paragraphs have largely been ignored in subsequent
prints.[5]
Do I try and duplicate this punctuation or not? Here are two examples where I
replaced the elevated period and colons with modern periods, but tried to keep
the original layout.

Figure 5: Note the raised periods and colons in the first print
(from the National Library of Israel web site).

Figure 6: Screenshot of a digital version of R. Shneur Zalman’s
composition. Note periods and line feeds.

Figure 7: Facsimile of the first print of Shulhan Arukh – beginning
of chapter 11. See the colons in in the fourth halakha.

Figure 8: Screenshot of my smart phone version of R. Shneur Zalman’s
list – chapter 11

I think it’s possible that
the punctuation of the first edition of the SA was copied from RYK’s manuscript. Prof.
Raz-Krakozkin writes: He (Karo) insisted on personally supervising its
publication and made sure that the editors followed his instructions[6]. On
the other hand, I can’t explain why the punctuation marks occur so rarely.

To help decide if RYK
punctuated his manuscript before sending it to the printers, we can compare
other manuscripts that were printed then. For example, the Yerushalmi was first
printed in Venice (1523) from a manuscript, which is still extant today.

Figure 9: Facsimile of the first print of the Jerusalem Talmud
(Berakhot 1:1), with raised periods to separate word groups from the scanned
books at the website of the National Library of Israel, (formerly the Jewish
National and University Library.)

The printed version of the
Yerushalmi has elevated periods that delineate groups of words. These markings
are already found in the source manuscript in the exact same places.

Figure 10: Facsimile of Leiden manuscript of the Jerusalem Talmud
(1289 CE), Brakhot 1:1 from the Rabbinic Manuscripts on line at the National
Library of Israel web site, (formerly the Jewish National and University
Library).

Prof. Yaakov Sussmann[7]
speaks of two possibilities concerning the origin of the
Talmud Yerushalmi’s punctuation. The punctuation may be relatively recent – the
scribe punctuated the text or the punctuation existed in the manuscript that
the scribe copied from. Alternatively,
the punctuation might be a reduction or simplification of cantillation marks
that were common in much older rabbinic manuscripts. Either way, the printers
didn’t invent the punctuation.

Our editions of the Gemara (the Babylonian Talmud) have colons (“two
dots”) in strategic places.[8]
These colons already exist in one of the first Talmud editions – the Bomberg
Talmud (Venice 1523).

Figure 11: Facsimile of a page of Bomberg Talmud (Betza 21a) showing
colons. (The horizontal lines near the colons are either blemishes, or markings
by hand.) Note the horizontal white space after the colons.

Most volumes of the Bomberg
edition were not printed from manuscript, but were copied from the Talmud
printed by Joshua Moses Soncino in 1484[9].
In the Soncino Talmud, we find separators in the exact places as the colons of
the Bomberg edition. The Soncino Talmud had two types of
punctuation: a top comma (or single quote mark) that marks off groups of words
(like the Yerushalmi has) and a double top comma (double quote mark). When
Bomberg printed his edition (40 years later), his printers replaced the double
commas with colons (and dropped the single commas).

Figure 12: The bottom of a page in Soncino, coresponding to the same
page (21a) in Betza. Note the two elevated commas, where we have a colon and
the subsequent horizontal white space. (The Soncino Talmud does not have the
same pagination as us). From the National Library of Israel web site.

Figure 13: Top of the next page in the Soncino edition, corresponding
to our Betza 21a. Note again 2 commas where we have a colon.

It would be difficult to trace the origins of the colons much further.
We don’t know which manuscripts were used by the printers of the Babylonian
Talmud, and in any case the many Talmud burnings in the 1550’s in Italy
destroyed most of the manuscripts that were there. Nevertheless, there is at
least one old manuscript that has punctuation marks similar to what we find in
the Soncino Talmud.

Figure 14: Snippet from Gottingen University Library Talmud
manuscript showing the upper double comma separator for the same page – Betza
21a (From the Rabbinic Manuscripts on line at the National Library of Israel
web site, (formerly the Jewish National and University Library).)

The Gottingen manuscript is a Spanish
manuscript from the early thirteenth century[10] – almost three hundred years older than the Talmud printed
in Soncino. It doesn’t have the upper single commas that Soncino edition has,
but it does have the same double comma in the same places that the Soncino
print has. Just to repeat: the pauses
represented by colons, that we see in our Talmud are at least 800 years old!

It’s at least possible (likely?) that RYK’s own SA manuscript was
punctuated just as the Talmudic manuscripts that he studied from were.

Summary

I introduced RSZ’s
abbreviated (Kitzur) SA, and discussed it in the context of other similar
works. I mentioned that the authors aimed at producing collections of relevant laws
that could be memorized. I noted that the first edition of the SA was punctuated
differently from following versions. I suggested (based on comparisons with
early printed Talmuds) that the punctuation was probably the work of RYK and
not the work of the printers.

[1] Mondshine, Y. (Ed.).
(1984). Migdal Oz (Hebrew), Kfar Habad: Machon Lubavitch , pp. 419-421. Dedicated to the memory of Rabbi
Azriel Zelig Slonim ob”m. Essays on Torah and Hassidut by our holy Rabbis, the
leaders of Habad and their students, collected from manuscripts and authentic
sources and assembled with the help of the Almighty.

[2] Maimon, Rabbi Yehuda
Leib, The history of the Kitzur Shulhan Arukh (Hebrew), published in Rabbi Shlomo
Ganzfried, Kitzur Shulhan Arukh, Mossad Harav Kook Jerusalem Israel 1949. The
earlier works mentioned are: Shulan Tahor by R. Joseph Pardo,edited/financed by
his son David Pardo, Amsterdam 1686. Shulan Arukh of R. Eliezer Hakatan by Eliezer Laizer Revitz printed by his
son-in-law R. Menahem Azaria Katz, Furth
1697. Shulhan Shlomo by Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Mirkes printed in Frankfort
(Oder) 1771. Pardes Rimonim by R. Yehuda Yidel Berlin, composed in 1784 and
printed for the first time in Lemberg (Leviv) 1879.

[3] RSZ’s digest from the
beginning until the end of chapter 156 contains 18,000 words while the same
portion of the big Shulhan Arukh contains approximately 40,000 words. A word is
loosely defined as a group of characters separated by a space or by spaces.

[4] In the introduction to
the Mishne Torah, Maimonides writes: “I divided this composition into legal
areas by subject, and divided the legal areas into chapters, and divided each
chapter into smaller legal paragraphs so that all of it can be memorized.” See: Studies in the Mishne Torah, Book of
Knowledge Mossad Harav Kook, Jerusalem (Heb.) by Rabbi José Faur for a
discussion and explanation of the study methods of Middle Eastern Jews (page 46
and following pages, especially footnote 60).

[5] The National Library of
Israel, (formerly the Jewish National and University Library) has the edition
of the Shulhan Arukh printed in Krakow in 1580. This is the second version with
the notes of the Rema (which was first printed in 1570) and it doesn’t have the
original punctuation marks.

[6] “From Safed
to Venice: The Shulhan ‘Arukh and the Censor” (in: Chanita Goldblatt, Howard
Kreisel (eds.), Tradition, Heterodoxy and Religious Culture, Ben
Gurion University of the Negev (2007)
91-115).
A.M. Haberman, The First Editions of the Shulhan Arukh
(Heb.) on the daat.ac.il web
site, (from the journal Mahanaim # 97 1965 p 31-34.) suggests that the
editor/corrector of the first edition, Menahem Porto Hacohen
Ashenazi created its table of contents.
See also the discussion about who created the chapter headings, (a
pre-requisite for the table of contents), in Gates in Halakha (Heb.), Rabbi
Moshe Shlita, Jerusalem 1983, page 100. He argues that the chapter headings of
the Shulhan Arukh could not be the work of Rav Yosef Karo.

[7] Talmud Yerushalmi
According to Ms Or 4720 of the Leiden University Library, Academy of the Hebrew
Language Jerusalem 2001 Introduction by Yaakov Sussmann.

[8] Cf. Rashi in the
beginning of Leviticus “What is the purpose of the horizontal white-space (in
the text of the Torah)? It gives Moshe some space to contemplate between a
section and the next section, between a topic and the next topic. (Rashi Lev. 1:1 s.v. vayikra el Moshe (2nd)
from the Sifra.

[9] Raphael Nathan Nata
Rabbinovicz. Essay on the printing of the Talmud (Hebrew).

[10] M. Krupp in The Literature of the Sages,
Oral Torah, Halakha, Mishna, Tosefta, Talmud, External Tractates (Compendia
Rerum Iudaicarum Ad Novum Testamentum)

Fortress Pr; 1987 Part 1 Shmuel Safarai ed, p 352.

Berakhot Koren Talmud Bavli and Ein Aya