Parshat Tetzaveh. Greek letter Chi and Tav in Paleo-Hebrew

Parshat
Tetzaveh. Greek letter Chi and Tav in Paleo-Hebrew

By Chaim
Sunitsky

Rashi[1] on Parshat
Tetzave writes that the priests were anointed with oil, poured in the shape
of the Greek letter כי.[2] One would assume this is referring to
letter Χ[3] – 22nd
letter of the Greek alphabet which sounds somewhere between English K and H[4]. This
letter spelled χῖ in Greek, is usually spelled “Chi” in English and indeed if one wanted to write it
in Hebrew, he would probably transcribe it as כי
(where Chaf is intended without dagesh). Moreover[5], when
Hebrew names are transliterated into Greek, Chi is used for Hebrew Chaf. In
addition, if the Talmud meant this letter it becomes clear why it didn’t use an
example of any Hebrew letter, as this shape is not found in Ashuri script of
Hebrew.

Despite all this
evidence we find various other shapes offered by the Rishonim[6]. In
fact in our printed editions of the Gemora only in Rashi on Kritot (5b) the printed
illustration looks like an “X.” Some of Rambam’s editions (Kelei Hamikdash 1:9)
also printed this shape, but the Frankel edition of Rambam[7]
claims that neither Rashi nor Rambam had this shape in mind and it was changed
later by some publishers[8]. Still,
one is inclined to think that the correct explanation is that it is the letter
X, and most Rishonim simply didn’t know Greek or have access to find out, and the correct tradition regarding
the shape of “Greek Chi” was forgotten, despite the fact that it pertains to
many halachot[9].

Before we go on, I’d
like to make another interesting point: Greek X has the same shape as the last
letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew. Let us first examine the relationship of Greek
letters to Phoenician[10] and Paleo-Hebrew[11]. R.
Shaul Lieberman[12]
brings a very interesting idea with regards to the letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew. We
find in Yehezkel (9:4) that Tav was marked on the foreheads of people to
distinguish the righteous from the wicked who were sentenced to death. According
to Hazal (Shabbat 55a) the mark was the actual letter Tav. As we mentioned this
letter in Paleo-Hebrew looked like the Greek Chi (X)[13] and
indeed became symbolic for a number of reasons[14]. R.
Lieberman brings that the X shape was used for crossing out a debt and was
therefore represented an annulment of a bad decree. On the other hand, Tav was pronounced
similarly to Greek Theta, whose shape was also associated with a death sentence[15]. We
thus have a double association of Tav (X) with Theta and with Chi. (Note in
general that while most letters in Greek alphabet clearly come from respective[16] letters in Phoenician[17],
there are a few Greek letters, where it’s not certain which Phoenician letter
they correspond to and the Greek X is one of them[18].)

R. Lieberman further proposes
that originally the symbol of X written in blood was taken to mean forgiveness (crossing
out the decree) while X in ink was symbolic of death sentence (verdict written
in ink). However, since X has a shape similar to a cross, the early Christians started
to utilize cross in blood as symbolic of atonement, and therefore our sages
reversed that symbolism[19].

Coming back to the
shape of “Greek Chi,” it seems logical that the Hazal’s tradition is based on
an earlier tradition that the shape was that of letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew[20] –
the last letter of the alphabet. It’s also possible that there was some
connection between the “sign” on the forehead in Yehezkel and the anointing of
a High Priest. Though the correct shape of this letter became subject to
multiple disputes over time, we may now be able to restore its ancient
symbolism[21].

[1] On verse 29:7
based on the Talmud (Kritot 5b, Horayot 12a). He also brings the same shape in
verse 29:2 in regards to the way oil was poured on the meal offerings.

[2] In some places
instead of Chi Yevanit there are versions that say Chaf Yevanit, but the
preferred girsa is Chi. While it is possible if the original version had Chi,
some copyists changed it to familiar Chaf, but if the original was Chaf, why would
someone change it to Chi? It is also possible that the Hazal themselves
sometimes used an expression Chaf Yevanit and sometimes Chi Yevanit.

[3] See additions
to Aruch by R. Benjamin Mussafia (Erech כי יונית) and Tiferet Yisrael on Menachot 6:3 and
after the last Mishna in the 10th perek of Zevachim.

[4] The Russian
letter Х (kha) also comes from it, and it is usually transliterated as kh into
English (e.g. Mikhail Gorbachev).

[5] We will discuss
this in the 17th footnote below. Similarly for those Greek words that
made it into rabbinical Hebrew, כ is generally used for χ (e.g. אוכלוסא –
populace – όχλος). However there are some exclusions, as קנקנתוס (or קנקנתום) has the first letter χ in Greek but for
some reason is not spelled with כ but with ק.

[6] See Rabeinu
Gershom on Kritot 5b and Menachot 74b, Rashi (ktav yad) on Menachot 74b and Kritot
5b, Tosafot Menachot 75a, Rashi on Shemot 29:2, Rambam, Perush Hamishna
Menachot 6:3, Rash and Rosh on Mishna Kelim 20:7, Meiri, Horayot 12a.

[7] In the end of
Frankel’s edition they have a section where variant girsaot are brought.

[8] At least one of
the “corrections” is based on “Mesoret Hashas” in Horayot 12a, but Frankel’s
Rambam points out that Rashi’s explanation on the Gemora actually contradicts
this shape. Indeed Rashi writes different explanations in various places and the
shapes in our editions include that of Hebrew Chet (Horayot) and Tet (Menachot)
and Nun (Torah commentary to Shemot, but Tosafot quote him as mentioning the
shape of a Gimel there, see also the super-commentaries on Rashi, Shemot 29:2
and the English Artscroll where all the variant shapes of Rashi are explained).
Tosafot (ibid) also mentions Kaf and that is the shape in some editions of
Rambam. They also seem to understand Aruch to mean a shape like ^ (similar to a
Greek Lambda). These shapes are reasonably similar, they all contain a type of
semicircle (כ,ט,נ) with
possibly a sharp angle (^) or two angles (ח), see Tzeda Laderech super commentary on
Rashi ibid. None of these shapes look even remotely similar to X. (Note also
that Lekach Tov on Shemot 29 apparently has a shape of Kappa, but I didn’t find
anyone who agrees with this).

[9] See for
instance Menachot 74b-75a regarding pouring oil on certain types
meal-offerings; also this crisscross shape seems to be mentioned in Kelim 20:7,
see TIferet Yisrael there. We find another shape based on the Greek Gamma used in
various halachot (e.g. Kelim 28:7, Pesachim 8b, Baba Batra 62a, Zevachim 53b
and many other places) which was preserved quite well (see commentators to
these sugias).

[10] This is ancient
Canaanite script very close to Paleo-Hebrew. Note that Ramban (Bereshit 45:12)
and Ibn Ezra (Yeshayahu 19:18, see also his perush hakatzar to Shemot
21:2) knew that Canaanites spoke the Hebrew language, (though Hazal also thought
that Hebrew was a somehow unique Holy Tongue used only by Avraham and his
descendants, see for instance Sotah 36b).

[11] This ancient
Canaanite Hebrew script is called Ktav Ivri, see Sanhedrin 21b. In times
of Rishonim the shape of Ktav Ivri letters was not too well known
(see Haara Nosefet printed in the end of Ramban’s Torah commentary, how when he was shown an ancient coin with Ktav Ivri he had to ask a Samaritan to read it for
him). Still these letters apparently did retain some influence in certain
communities. Some Yemenite Jews actually make Shin-Dalet-Yod with Tefillin
straps on their hands in Ktav Ivri, not like the prevalent custom to make a
Shin and Dalet in Ashuri script. R. Reuven Margolios proposed that our
“four-headed” Shin on the left side of Tefillin Shel Rosh is actually based on
the Shin in Ktav Ivri (which looks similar to English “W”).

[12] “Greek in
Jewish Palestine”, pages 185-191.

[13] And
interestingly both are the 22nd letters of their respective
alphabets.

[14] Besides being
the last letter of the alphabet this letter is taken by Hazal to stand for life
or death (Shabbat 55a), but the primary reason for its symbolism according to
R. Lieberman is its shape.

[15] This tradition
was also preserved in R. Bahye to Yitro (20:14) who discusses why there is no
letter Tet in the 10 commandments and associates Tet and Theta with death: כי לשון טיט”א סימן הריגה, see also comments of R. Chavel ad loc. in the name of Emuna
Vibitachon.

[16] On an unrelated
topic I’d like to mention that R. Reuven Margolios (HaMikra Vehamesora, 22)
wanted to prove, based on the shape of Paleo-Hebrew letters, that the so called
Arabic numbers (that are assumed to have come from India) were actually
invented by Jews. I find this theory far-fetched. If one looks at the
Paleo-Hebrew alphabet only Bet, Dalet and Het seem to look like 2, 4 and 8 and
moreover the shape of the “Arabic numerals” changed drastically over time and
in the times “the Jews” could have possibly invented them, they didn’t look
similar to the way we write them today. As for his other proofs that sometimes
we find gematrias of numbers used together with the position of the
digits as for example in Midrash (see Theodor Albeck edition of Bereshit
Rabbah, 96) about the number of animals Yakov had: קבזר : מאה ותרתין רבוון ושבעה אלפין ומאתיין (1027200) that uses קב
(102) then ז (7) and thenר (200), at most this shows
that for very large numbers they already started using some letters to indicate
thousands and ten-thousands (רבבות) separately. Similarly we write for year 5776: תשעו ’ה, but this is a far
stretch from system developed in India where the value of each digit depends on
its position. Indeed the Rishonim that R. Margolius himself mentions all
attribute this to Indian system. (As a side point, just to illustrate the advantage
of current mathematics symbols, look at the Rif on Pesachim, 23b, where he
calculates the reviit in terms of cubic fingers. In current notation, his
calculations taking half a page, would take one line: 3*243/(40*6*4*4)=10.8=2*2*2.7.)

[17] Many of them
look like Phoenician letters, except they are inverted vertically, since in
Greek the writing is from left to right.

[18] Certainly this
letter can’t come from Tav since it is pronounced completely differently. Note
that the issue of correspondence between Greek and Phoenician letters is not
related to the issue of how various Hebrew letters were transliterated in the
Septuagint and other Greek translations of Hebrew writings. By the time these
translations were made, the pronunciation of many letters changed both in
Hebrew and in Greek. For example, Theta is usually used to transliterate Tav,
and Tau to transliterate Tet, while their origins are the opposite: Tau came
from Tav, and Theta from Tet, as their names and shapes indicate. Perhaps by
the time of Septuagint the Tav without dagesh was pronounced in some areas closer
to English “th” and so was Theta, and that’s why the translators chose to use
Theta for Tav. Similarly, Mitchell First in an article “The Meaning of the Name
‘Maccabee,’ ” (available on this blog here), writes that Kuf is usually
transliterated as Kappa and Kaf-Chaf as Chi, even though originally the Greek
letter Kappa came from Kaf-Chaf. The reason for this might be similar, at the
time of these translations, the pronunciation of Chaf and Chi was similar,
while Kuf sounded like Kappa. (Other examples of this include Samech that is transliterated
as Sigma, not as Xi which originally came from it, but sounded at the times of
Septuagint like English X=KS, not S; similarly in Greek words used by Hazal,
Sigma is transliterated not as Sin from which it came but as a Samech, possibly
because at that time Sin and Samech were pronounced the same but since Sin is
written as Shin, Samech was chosen to make it clear the sound is S, not Sh.)

[19] See the
above-mentioned sugia in Shabbat 55a. We find occasionally that the sages had to
change the explanation “keneged haminim,” see for example Sanhedrin 31b, see
also Berachot 59a, 12a.

[20] It’s not
surprising that they used a Greek letter rather than not well known Paleo-Hebrew.
Moreover they sometimes used Greek letters instead of Ashuri, see Shekalim 3:2.

[21] It might be
possible to suggest that in medieval times this shape was purposefully
misrepresented, especially when dealing with the way anointing is performed.
The associations regarding Messiah, “the anointed one,” with anointing an X on
the High Priest’s head would certainly make many Jews living in Christian lands
recoil. Later on, this may have influenced the Jews living in Muslim lands.
Interestingly the Frankel edition of Rambam and R. Kapach (in his edition of Rambam’s
Mishna commentary) bring that in the manuscript attributed to Rambam’s own
writing (Kritot), the picture of Chi was blotted out.

Regarding Haftarah on Simchat Torah and the daily obligation to recite 100 blessings

Regarding Haftarah on Simchat Torah and the daily obligation to recite 100 blessings

Chaim
Sunitsky

It is well known that
Simchat Torah is not mentioned anywhere in the two Talmuds or Midrashim[1]. In
fact we have no proof that in the times of Talmud they used to finish the Torah
cycle reading on Simchat Torah. The prevalent minhag in the land of Israel was
to read the Torah not in one year but approximately in three[2]. In
fact it seems that every synagogue read at its own speed[3]
without any established cycle, so speaking of the specific “day” when they
would finish the reading is meaningless[4].

However in Babylon
where they read Torah in one year, it is important to establish when did they
finish? One would assume that reading in one year meant finishing on Shabbat
before Rosh Hashanah[5] or
Shabbat before Yom Kippur (since the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom
Kippur while technically being already in the next year are also related to the
previous year[6].)
Indeed R. Rueben Margolis[7]
claims that the original custom was to finish reading the Torah cycle on
Shabbat before Yom Kippur[8]. One
of his proofs is the statement in the Talmud[9] that
R. Bibi bar Abaye wanted to finish reading all parshiyot on the eve of
Yom Kippur, and when he was told this day should be reserved for eating, he
decided to read earlier. Had they finished the cycle after Yom Kippur, why
didn’t R. Bibi bar Abaye instead postpone it for later[10]?
This idea also explains the tradition that there are altogether 53 parshiyot
in the Torah[11],
and therefore Nitzavim and Veyelech[12]
should be counted as one. According to this all 53 parshiyot were always
read on Shabbat and there never was a special parsha that is read only
on Yom Tov[13].

Even though the Talmud
(Megilah 31a) mentions that on Simchat Torah, “Vezot Habracha” is read,
there is absolutely no proof that they read the entire parsha till the
end of Torah. What is more likely is that this parsha was chosen for
this particular day of Yom Tov, just as all other parshiyot chosen for
various holidays in the same sugia. Maybe the reason is that they wanted
to finish Sukkot with the general blessing of all the Jewish tribes[14].

This also explains the
Haftorah for this day. According to the Talmud (ibid) it is from the prayer of
Shlomo (Melachim 1:8:22) right before the Haftorah of the previous day
(1:8:54). The prayers and blessings of Shlomo fit perfectly with the prayers
and blessings of Moshe[15].
However our custom is to say the Haftorah from the beginning of Yehoshua.
Indeed the Tosafot (Megilah 31a) ask why our custom this contradicts the Talmud[16]?
However according to the assumption that only during Gaonic times did we start
reading the entire last parsha of the Torah on the second day of Shmini
Atzeret[17], it
makes sense that this caused the change in Haftorah, as the beginning of Sefer
Yehoshua is a natural continuation of the Torah and it starts with the death of
Moshe.

The second topic of
this post is regarding the obligation[18] to
make 100 blessings every day. This is codified as halacha in the
Shulchan Aruch[19].
However the common practice seems to be not to count[20] the
number of blessings and make sure to say 100 every day. Indeed on the holiest
day of our year – Yom Kippur[21] it’s
virtually impossible to make so many blessings. Indeed the Brisker Rav – R.
Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik is quoted as counting the blessings he made every day
except on Yom Kippur since making 100 blessings on Yom Kippur is impossible
anyway, he did not even try to make as many as he could[22].

Another problem is that
most women who don’t pray 3 times a day almost never pronounce 100 blessings per
day. This led some poskim to write that women are not obligated in this
mitzvah[23].

All of this led some Rishonim
to look for alternative ways one can be considered to have made 100 blessings.
One of approaches it to count some of the blessings one hears as if he made
them[24].
Another approach is to count the prayer “Ein Kelokenu” as a number of
blessings[25].
This approach obviously seems somewhat farfetched[26].

In this short article
we will try to see if the is a different reason why the practice of 100
blessings was not originally followed by the majority of Jews. It is known that
not all halachik obligations are treated equally[27].
There are various reasons for this[28] but
at least one has to do with traditionally following what our ancestors did. If
the Jews originally resided in areas where the majority of grain was “yashan[29]” and
later moved to northern countries where the crop is planted after Passover and
all the grain of that crop is “chadash”, they continued ignoring the
prohibition against it[30].
Similarly the Brisker Rav said the reason very few people ever ask a rabbi
questions regarding trumot and maaserot is because they never saw
their parents who lived outside the Land of Israel do so[31].

At times however it
seems that the Jewish people originally followed an alternative opinion in halacha
and later when the Shulchan Aruch paskened according to a different
opinion the old custom did not change[32]. In
my humble opinion it seems the custom of making 100 blessings a day was also
originally not obligatory[33], and
even when the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch effectively made it so, the people
continued not to “count their blessings”.

The wording of the
Talmud (Menachot 43b) is as follows:

תניא
היה רבי מאיר אומר חייב אדם לברך מאה ברכות בכל יום שנאמר ועתה ישראל מה ה’ אלקיך שואל
מעמך רב חייא בריה דרב אויא בשבתא וביומי טבי טרח וממלי להו באיספרמקי ומגדי

It was taught[34]: R.
Meir used to say, a man is bound to say one hundred blessings daily, as it is
written, “And now, Israel, what doth the L-rd thy G-d require of thee[35]”? On
Sabbaths and on Festivals R. Hiyya the son of R. Awia endeavored to make up
this number by the use of spices and delicacies.

The obvious question is
why does the Talmud mention only R. Hiyya ben Awia as making a special endeavor
to compensate the missing blessings[36]?
What did everyone else do? It would seem logical that if there was a legal obligation
for everyone to make 100 blessings, the Talmud should have asked: and how do we
make up for missing blessings on Shabbat and Yom Tov[37]? It
would seem that R. Meir does not actually require to count the blessings one
makes during the day and make sure there are 100, and only one sage went out of
his way to always make 100 blessings. We similarly find other laws of the
Talmud that are stated as actual prohibitions but are possibly only
stringencies. These examples may include the prohibition of entering a business
partnership with an idolater or the prohibition of lending money without
witnesses[38].
Similarly the Rashba[39]
considers the prohibition against drinking bear with idolaters to be just “the
custom of holy ones (minhag kedoshim)”.

Even more compelling is
the version of the statement of R. Meir in Tosefta and Yerushalmi (end of Berachot)
implies that one would just normally end up[40]
making 100 blessings on regular weekdays:

תני
בשם רבי מאיר אין לך אחד מישראל שאינו עושה מאה מצות בכל יום. קורא את שמע ומברך לפניה
ולאחריה ואוכל את פתו ומברך לפניה ולאחריה ומתפלל שלשה פעמים של שמונה עשרה וחוזר ועושה
שאר מצות ומברך עליהן

We learned in the name
of R. Meir that every Jew does [at least] 100 mitzvot [by making 100 blessings]
every [week]day. He reads Shma with blessings before and after[41],
eats bread with blessings before and after[42], and
prays 3 times 18 blessings[43] and
does other mitzvot[44] and
makes blessings on them.

I found the same proofs
in the Metivta edition of the Talmud in the name of R. Yerucham Fishel Perlow[45]. He
also brings that R. Meir’s statement in our Talmud Bavli is according to some versions:
מאה ברכות חייב
אדם לברך בכל יום[46] and he suggests it can be translated as “100 obligatory
blessings does one make per [week]day” rather than “100 blessings is one
obligated to make per day”. He also brings some Gaonim and Rishonim
who understood that the mitzvah of making 100 blessings a day is not a full
obligation[47].

In conclusion I’d like
to mentions that obvious: this article was only meant to explain why many are
not as careful about the law of making 100 blessings per day as they are
regarding other laws contained in the Shulchan Aruch right next to this law
(i.e. the laws of morning blessings). This short essay is definitely not meant
as a halachic guide. We certainly should try to fulfil the letter of the law by
either listening carefully on Shabbat and Yom Tov to the blessings on the Torah
and Haftorah as well as the repetition of Shmone Esre[48], or
eat a few snacks which contain foods that require different blessings[49].

[1] It is however
mentioned in the Zohar 3:256b.

[2] Megilah 29. It
was already linked to their general dividing many of the sentences into much
smaller verses (Kidushin 30a).We may actually have this preserved in Devarim
Rabbah where each new chapter starts with: Halacha, Adam MeYisrael and we have
21 such beginnings instead of 10 or 11 for parshiyot of Sefer Devarim.

[3] See Hiluke
Minhagim between Eretz Yisrael and Babel.

[4] Although they
would presumably make the “siyum” and celebrate when they did indeed finish the
Torah (see Kohelet Rabbah 1:1).

[5] See Levush, 669
who gives a somewhat strange explanation that the reason we don’t finish the
cycle of Torah reading by Rosh Hashanah is to “deceive the Satan”.

[6] GR”A to Sifra
Detzniuta, see also a similar idea in TB Rosh Hashanah 8b.

[7] Shaare Zohar,
Megilah 30b, Nitzutze Zohar 1:104b, 3rd note.

[8] He seems to
claim this for Eretz Yisrael but it seems more reasonable to say this is true
regarding Babel.

[9] Berachot 8b.

[10] Indeed for us
the halacha is that someone who didn’t read the parsha on time, should finish it
before Simchat Torah.

[11] See for example
Tikune Zohar, 13th Tikun, GR”A there.

[12] Indeed at the
end of these two parshiyot we have one Masoretic note that counts all their
verses together – 70, rather than 30 verses for Nitzavim and 40 for Vayelech as
is usual for other parshiyot that are sometimes joined. Regarding their
splitting see also Tosafot, Megilah, 31b and Magen Avraham, 228.

[13] According to
this on certain years, when there was no Shabbat between Yom Kippur and Sukkot,
two other parshas were joined.

[14] See Sefer
Hamanhig, Sukka.

[15] See also Rashi,
Megilah 31a that Shlomo sent away the people on the eight day and this is why
the Haftorah for Shmini Atzeret was taken from this chapter.

[16] See also Rosh
and Tur that claim our custom is based on Yerushlami, but this is found not in
our Yerushalmi.

[17] Note that one
can’t bring any proof for this from the fact that the Talmud (Megilah 30a) does
not mention that on Simchat Torah 3 Sifrey Torah are taken out as it mentions
regarding Hanukkah that falls on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh, and regarding Rosh
Chodesh Adar that falls on Shabbat. Aside from being an argument from silence,
the custom to read a passage regarding the mussaf sacrifice from Parshat
Pinchas is not of Talmudic, but of Gaonic origin (see Bet Yosef, 488). So we
would at most expect there to be two Torah Scrolls on the second day of Shmini
Atzeret, but if our argument is correct, they read only from one scroll.

[18] Talmud,
Menachot 43b. There are some sources that seem to attribute this law to King
David (Bemidbar Rabbah 18:21).

[19] Orach Chaim
46:4.

[20] On a typical
weekday one pronounces 100 brachot anyway due to large number of blessings in 3
Shmone Esre prayers (3*19=-57). However on Shabbat and Yom Tov the 4 Amidahs
with 7 blessings each make only 28 blessings, and the only way to make 100
blessings is by eating fruits and snacks and smelling fragrances throughout the
day.

[21] Even though we
pray five Amidahs on Yom Kipur, each has only 7 blessings and since there are
no meals throughout the day we can only compensate the missing brachot by
smelling various fragrances and making blessings on them.

[22] See Tshuvot
Vehanhagot 4:153. Others say one should
still try to maximize the number of blessings even if you can’t reach 100 (R.
Haim Kanevsky quoted in Dirshu edition on Mishna Berura, 46).

[23] Shevet Halevi
5:23, Tshuvot Vehanhagot 2:129. However R. Ovadia Yosef (Halichot Olam,
Vayeshev) obligates women in making 100 blessings.

[24] See Orach Chaim
284:3.

[25] See Machzor
Vitri,1; Sidur Rashi,1; Rokach; Kol Bo, 37.

[26] See Sefer
Hamanhig, Dinei Tefillah (page 31) ולפי דעתי אין שורש וענף
לזה המנהג.

[27] The GR”A explains
that the statement in the Talmud (Shabbat 155b): “there is no one poorer than a
dog or richer than a pig” hints to two prohibitions: eating pork and speaking
lashon hara (evil speech). While every Jew is careful about the former (this
mitzvah is “rich”), very few people fully keep the latter (and this mitzvah is “poor”).

[28] Some mitzvot
are just very difficult to keep, like the obligation for every man to write his
own Sefer Torah.

[29] The five main
grains that took root after Passover are forbidden to be eaten until the day
after next Pesach and are called “chadash” – new [crop]. The grain from the
old, permitted crop is called “yashan” – old. Some poskim hold that the
prohibition does not apply outside the land of Israel, but the GR”A thought
these laws are applicable everywhere.

[30] See the GR”A
Yore Deah 293:2 אלא שנמשך ההיתר שהיו זורעין קורם הפסח.

[31] Similarly the
Chofetz Chaim says the reason most people ignore the prohibition against evil
speech is also because their parents did not stop them from speaking Lashon
Hara from childhood (Haga in the end of his 9th chapter of Chofetz
Chaim).

[32] I brought an
example of this in an article about mezuza, where it seems there used to be an
opinion followed that a house with more than one entrance only requires one mezuza.

[33] It is
interesting that according to the Manhig (quoted above) ונראין
הדברי’ שאחר שיסדן משה רבינו ע”ה שכחום וחזר דוד ויסדם לפי שהיו מתי’ ק’ בכל יום Moshe first instituted this law and it was
later “forgotten” and reinstituted by David. I am not sure how it’s possible
that this law would ever be “forgotten”.

[34] I am quoting
Soncino’s translation.

[35] There are a few
different interpretations regarding how this verse hints to 100 blessings, see
Rashi and Tosafot.

[36] See Hida,
Machazik Beracha to Orach Chaim 290.

[37] See similar
logic in Tosafot Baba Metzia 23b that we don’t pasken like Rav that meat that
was not watched becomes forbidden since the Gemora asks: “how does Rav ever eat
meat” and does not ask: “how do we eat meat”. See also Rosh, Pesachim 2:26 that
only one sage was careful to start the “Shmira” of matza so early, and
therefore the halacha for us does not follow him (Yabia Omer 8:22:24).

[38] See for example
Ritva, Megillah 28a, see also Ran on the Rif, end of first perek of Avoda Zara.

[39] See Bet Yosef,
Yore Deah 114 in the name of Torat Habayit.

[40] It’s also
possible R. Meir’s statement is in realm of agada rather than halacha.

[41] That’s 7
blessings.

[42] If he eats 2
meals a day and makes Birkat Hamazon with a cup of wine, he will make 2+4+2
blessings during each meal, i.e. 16 blessings a day.

[43] 57 blessings.

[44] The blessings
on tefillin and tzitzit make 2 or 3 blessings, blessing on the washing hands
and two or three blessing on the Torah add another 5-7 blessings. Altogether we
get 7+16+57+5/7=85/87 blessings. If we add all the morning blessings we will
get more than 100.

[45] Commentary to
R. Saadia’s Sefer Hamitzvot (Aseh 2).

[46] This is the
Girsa of Tur and some other Rishonim.

[47] See R. Perlow
on Sefer Hamitzvot quoted above.

[48] At any rate one
should listen carefully and if there is a small minyan, when people don’t pay
attention to the blessings on the Torah or to the repetition of Shmone Esre,
they cause a “bracha levatala”.

[49] For example an
apple, some watermelon, a piece of chocolate and some cake will add 4 blessings
before and 2 after.

Traditional Jewish source for the “Seven Deadly Sins”

Traditional
Jewish source for the “Seven Deadly Sins”

By Chaim Sunitsky

In Christianity as well
as in western culture there is a well-known concept of “Seven Deadly Sins”
usually enumerated as: pride, covetousness, lust (understood as illicit sexual desire),
envy, gluttony, anger and sloth. In particular this theme is well known through
the art of Hieronymus Bosch.

Even though there is no
clear biblical source for this particular list of sins, in general the number
seven plays a major role in the Bible and in particular the concept of some
“seven sins” is thought to come from Mishle (6:16): שֶׁשׁ
הֵנָּה שָׂנֵא ה וְשֶׁבַע תּוֹעֲבַות נַפְשׁוֹ (there are six things
Hashem hates and [altogether] seven that are abomination to Him).

In traditional Jewish
literature the number seven[1] certainly
plays a very important role. The Talmud (Sukkah 52a) mentions seven “names” (or
types) of Yetzer Hara and in a different place (Eruvin 19a) seven names of
Gehinom. The Zohar (Hechalot in Parshat Pekude) associates the two with each
level in Hell ruled by a different aspect of the Satan. One would therefore expect
some list of “seven deadly sins” in our literature as well. However it would come
as a surprise to find the list that is almost identical.

Still such a source
does exist. The GR”A[2]
comments on the Agada in Berachot (4b) that the Angel of Death flies in eight
steps (מלאך המות בשמונה):

ששמונה
סבות המיתה על האדם הם , אחת מחמת חטא אדה״ר וז׳ מחמת ז׳ ראשי עבירות שהם גרם כל העבירות
והם התאוה והקנאה והגאוה שהוא הככוד והכילוה שהוא עין הרע והזנות שהוא היצה״ר ושנאת
הבריות והבטלה והיא שביעית נוק׳ לשבת בית ובה כלולין ד׳ כידוע והוא מ”ש שיחת הילדים
כו׳ וישיבת כו׳. וז׳ שמות יש ליצה”ר הידועים וז׳ מדורות ז׳ ראשי תנינים וז׳ גשרים
לס”א וז׳ של להט החרב המחהפכת צבוע כו׳ וז׳ עונשים של התורה ד׳ מיתות ב״ד ומיתה
ביד״ש וכרת ומלקות

Because there are eight
causes of death, one due to the sin of Adam and seven due to the seven main
transgressions that cause all other sins and they are the תאוה (desire for gratification which can in our case mean gluttony[3]) קנאה (envy), גאוה
(pride) that is also ככוד (honor), כילות (stinginess) that is bad eye, זנות (illicit sexual desire) that is Yetzer
Hara, שנאת הבריות (hatred of others) and בטלה (sloth). And this [sloth] is the seventh – feminine[4] “to
sit at home[5]”
and it includes 4 as it is known, like it says “childish conversation etc and
sitting [with ignoramuses[6]].” And
there are seven known names of Yetzer Hara, and seven “heads” of the snake and
seven bridges of the “Sitra Achra” and seven of the rotating sward that turns
from hyena etc and seven types of punishments: four types of execution by Bet
Din, death at the hands of Heaven, Karet and flogging.

Regarding his words “seven
of the rotating sward that turns from hyena” he is referring to an Agada in
Baba Kama (16a) about six species turning into one another every seven years
and the person not bowing down at Modim turning into a snake:

צבוע
זכר לאחר שבע שנים נעשה עטלף עטלף לאחר שבע שנים נעשה ערפד ערפד לאחר ז’ שנים נעשה
קימוש קימוש לאחר שבע שנים נעשה חוח חוח לאחר שבע שנים נעשה שד שדרו של אדם לאחר שבע
שנים נעשה נחש והני מילי דלא כרע במודים

The male hyena after
seven years turns into a bat, the bat after seven years turns into an arpad (possibly
a species of bat), the arpad after seven years turns into kimmosh[7], the
kimmosh after seven years turns into a choach, the choach after seven years
turns into a demon. The spine of a man after seven years turns into a snake if
he doesn’t bow when reciting Modim[8].

The GR”A’s comments on
this Agada in Baba Kama are similar to his comments in Berachot: the six
animals are hinting to 6 active (masculine) sins and the seventh – to the
passive (feminine) sin of laziness:

תניא
צבוע זכר כו׳. הן ז׳ קשרים דתנינא דלהט כו׳ לכן הן מתהפכין והשביעית דנוק׳ שלכן נעשה
נחש והראשונה בדכורא לכן נעשה שד

“They are seven knots
of the snake of the “rotating [sward]” etc and therefore they turn into each
other and the seventh one is the feminine and therefore he [who doesn’t bow at
Modim] becomes a snake (fem) while the first [six] are masculine and therefore
he turns to a demon (masc)”.

R. Avraham, the Vilna
Gaon’s son explains the words of his father as follows:

הן
ז׳ קשרים דתנינא דלהט פי׳ דלהט חרב המתהפכת שמתהפכת לשבעה גוונים הם ז׳ ראשי עבירות
שהם גרם כל העבירות , והם התאוה והקנאה והגאוה שהוא הככוד, והכילות שהוא עין הרע ,
והזנות שהוא יצה”ר, ושנאת הבריות, והבטלה והיא שביעית נוק׳ לשבת בית

The seven knots of the
snake of the “rotating sward” meaning the “rotating sward” turns into seven
types of seven major sins that are a cause of all other sins and they are the תאוה, קנאה,
גאוה that is ככוד,
כילות that is bad eye, זנות that is Yetzer Hara, שנאה and בטלה. בטלה is the seventh [passive] feminine
“to sit at home”.

The correspondence of the
GR”A’s list of seven deadly sins and the non-Jewish list is almost exact with the
exception of שנאה (hatred) being used instead
of anger (כעס), and even these two are closely related.
The main question becomes: what is the GR”A’s source for this specific
collection of transgressions?

It seems that the
GR”A’s source is Mishnayot in Avot. The first three sins are mentioned in 4:21הקנאה והתאוה והכבוד that
cause מוציאין את האדם מן העולם to take the person
out of this world. The next three sins are in 2:11: עין הרע, ויצר הרע, ושנאת הבריות and they also “take the person out of this world[9]”. The
last of the seven sins includes the four types of time wasting mentioned in
Avot 3:10. These four also said to “take the person out of this world[10]”.

In conclusion I propose
that the collection of the “Seven Deadly Sins” that are a source[11] of all
other transgressions[12] is
found in Judaism.[13]

[1] Of course in
Kabala this number is very important as it relates to seven lower Sefirot.

[2] The GR”A didn’t
write a commentary to all agadot like Maharsha or Maharal, we only have his
words on Berachot and some of Shabbat, Megillah, Baba Kama, Baba Batra and
Bechorot; much of his commentary is hard to understand but his son R. Avraham
helps us in his super-commentary.

[3] As the other
main “desire” for sexual gratification is mentioned separately later.

[4] In Kabala
action is associated with male and passivity with female. The first six sins
are related to six “masculine” Sefirot of Sitra Achra and the Seventh – to
Malchut or Nukva – the passive “feminine” Sefira.

[5] See Yeshayahu
44:12. Kabalistic literature uses this verse to refer to the feminine aspect –
Nukva.

[6] See Avot 3:10 שנה של שחרית, ויין של צהרים, ושיחת הילדים, וישיבת בתי כנסיות של
עמי הארץ, מוציאין את האדם מן העולם.
The GR”A is hinting that sloth includes 4 different types of empty wasting time
just as Malchut is known to include 4 separate aspects.

[7] According to
the English Artscroll and Soncino, kimosh and choach are types of thorns, but
it seems that this agada is talking about various animals. Indeed Rashi (Hoshea
9:6) brings that according to Targum Yonatan on this verse kimosh and choach
are some kinds of animals. (Hebrew Artscroll also brings the possibility that choach
and kimosh are animals.)

[8] Regarding how
Modim is related to this the GR”A gives a mystical explanation that is beyond
the scope of the present article.

[9] See also GR”A
on Mishle 21:4 that there is a correspondence between the sins mentioned in these
two mishnayot. I presume it is similar to the correspondence between the
Sefirot Hesed-Gevurah-Tiferet and the lower level Netzach-Hod-Yesod. The GR”A
also writes there that these sins correspond to the qualities of students of
Balaam (see Avot 5:19).

[10] Indeed these
are the only 3 Mishnayot in Pirke Avot that use the expression: מוציאין את האדם מן העולם

[11] Note how the
qualities of a person are in a sense more fundamental than the actions, see the
beginning of R. Hayim Vital’s “Shaare Kedusha” and “Even Shlema” written by the
students of the GR”A according to the teachings of their Rebbe.

[12] Interestingly
even the Hebrew article in Wikipedia on the “Seven Deadly Sins” assumes it’s a
Christian concept and does not mention that this concept has a source in
Judaism as well.

[13] It might even
be that this idea came from Judaism into early Christianity.

Parshat Ki Tisa. The Anointing Oil Revisited.

Parshat
Ki Tisa. The Anointing Oil Revisited.

By Chaim Sunitsky

In this parsha we have
the instructions of how to make anointing oil:

וְאַתָּה
קַח לְךָ בְּשָׂמִים רֹאשׁ מָר דְּרוֹר חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וְקִנְּמָן בֶּשֶׂם מַחֲצִיתוֹ
חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם וּקְנֵה בֹשֶׂם חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם וְקִדָּה חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת
בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְשֶׁמֶן זַיִת הִין

All the proportions of
the ingredients are clearly explained except the second. Moshe had to take 500
(shekalim[1]) of
Mar Dror. Kinamon (probably cinnamon) “its half, 250”, K’ne – 250 and Kida –
500. The peculiar expression “its half, 250” is explained in the Talmud (Kritot
5a) to mean that 250 shekalim is taken twice. According to this the expression
“its half” is explaining the half of the weight of Kinamon and that it is
“gezeriat hakatuv” that this spice is not taken at once but rather as two
halves, 250 shekalim each. The total weight of the spices is then
500+250*2+250+500=1750.

Needless to say this
explanation does not seem to be the straightforward meaning of the verse. It is
a lot simpler to consider that mahatzito (its half) is explaining the previous
weight: while Mar Dror is 500, Kinamon is only half of that – 250. Still
practically all the commentators follow the view of our Talmud and even Rashbam
who usually explains according to what he believes to be the pshat. The words
of Rabeinu Bahya (30:23) are that this explanation is the kabala of Hazal
(presumably from Sinai) and that we already knew that half of 500 is 250, so if
we explain the Torah according to the simple meaning, these words are
redundant. However it was noticed already in Biur of Mendelssohn[2] that
our taamim don’t support this explanation, as they should have used a mesharet
to connect “mahatzito” to the next words[3]. He
leaves this as a question of why Baal Hataamim didn’t follow Hazal[4].

However Shadal in his
Chumash commentary brings from Yerushalmi Shekalim[5] (6:1)
that the total weight of the 4 spices was 1500. This implies that the weight of
Kinamon was only 250 as is the straightforward meaning of the verse[6]. We
thus find support for our Mesorah that followed a different tradition and there
was no clear “Mesorah from Sinai” that this verse should be read as the Bavli
suggests[7] but
rather this was one of possible interpretations in out Gemora.

[1] All the weights
are in shekalim although in some sources (Yerushlami Shekalim 6:1) the weights
seem to be in “mane” and not shekalim, it is probably based on a scribal error

[2] See also “Vikuach”
of Shadal (page 96) where he tries to prove from here that the tradition of
taamim is not from Ezra otherwise our Mesorah would not contradict this.

[3] Instead we have
a “tipcha” that connects this word to the previous phrase.

[4] In general the
Tosafot on Shabbat 55b already noticed that our Mesorah sometimes doesn’t
follow the Talmud. We usually follow the Mesorah in regards to the laws of
writing of the Torah. Moreover, the opinion of Masoretic scholars may have
influence on other laws like writing a “get” (see Bet Shmuel at the end of the
laws of writing names of men and women printed after siman 129 of Even Haezer;
see also GR”A, Even Haezer 129:51).

[5] Another
interesting contradiction between Bavli and this perek of Shekalim is the
number of tables in the Second Temple. The Mishna in Shekalim seems to imply
that there was only one table in the Heichal (and therefore presumably one
Menorah), but Talmud Bavli (Yoma 51b) implies that the Second Temple had 11
tables and 11 Menorot just like the First Temple (see Tosafot Rid ad loc who
notices this contradiction). Maybe at the time after the victory of Hanukkah
when the Jewish people were poor, there was only one Menorah and one table, and
at some later time more were made.

[6]Most
commentaries to Yerushalmi say this except for R. Shlomo Sirilio who changes
the girsa in Yerushalmi so as not to contradict the Bavli.

[7] While we are at
it, I’d like to add that regarding Ketoret, where the Torah mentions only 4
species, and Hazal add 7 more, that maybe the remaining 7 spices are not a Sinaic
tradition, see Shir Hashirim Rabbah 3:7 and Ramban (30:34). This would explain
why R. Natan could add Kipat Hayarden and not break the prohibition of “Bal
Tosif”. Maybe the Torah allows taking small quantities of various other spices
as long as the main ingredients were the 4 enumerated in the Torah in equal
proportion.

Evening Prayer Revisited

Evening
Prayer Revisited

Chaim
Sunitsky

There is a dispute in
Tamud Bavli (Brachot 4b) as to whether one should say Shma with Brachot
before or after Shmone Esre during the evening prayer. The opinion of R.
Yohanan is that Shma is said first while the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi is
that Shmone Esre is said before the Shma. Moreover, while R. Yohanan holds that
Shma is followed by Shmone Esre immediately, according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi
Shmone Esre can be recited separately and Shma with its blessings does not have
to follow immediately after. The practice of all Jews today is to follow R.
Yochanan.

Most Rishonim[1] and
the Shulchan Aruch rule like R. Yohanan and indeed this seems to be the opinion
of the Babylonian Talmud. This is called being “Somech Geula leTefila”, meaning
the blessing of Gaal Yisrael (Who Redeemed Israel) is recited immediately
before the Shmone Esre. At first sight
it seems that the last blessing after evening Shma (Hashkivenu – let us go to
sleep) only makes sense according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi. Indeed, Talmud Bavli
(ibid) asks how the blessing of Hashkivenu would not be considered an
interruption between Geula and Tefila according to R. Yochanan? It answers that
it is considered “long Geula” (or continuation of the Geula). Our thesis is
that in Palestine in Talmudic times, the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi was
the more accepted shita and moreover that they used to say Hashkivenu as the
last blessing before going to sleep (as we say Hamapil[2]).

Rashi (Brachot
2a) brings in the name of Talmud Yerushlami: Why do we say Shma in the
synagogue in the evening, even though this is done before[3] the
earliest time to fulfil the obligation? It answers that we do this כדי לעמוד בתפלה
מתוך דברי תורה

While it seems from
Rashi that they said Shma with the blessings before Shmone Esre[4], the Tosafot
(ibid) in the name of R. Tam[5] says that
they used to simply recite Shma without blessings before Maariv, just like we
say Ashre before Mincha. Later on they would say Shma with the blessings
following R. Yehoshua ben Levi. Indeed
the sugia further in the same Yerushalmi (1:1) supports this interpretation entirely[6]:

מילתיה אמרה שאין אמר דברים
אחר אמת ויציב מילתיה דרבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר כן רבי שמואל בר נחמני כד הוה נחית
לעיבורה הוה מקבל רבי יעקב גרוסה והוה רבי זעירא מטמר ביני קופייא משמענא היך הוה
קרי שמע והוה קרי וחזר וקרי עד דהו’ שקע מיניה גו שינתיה ומאי טעמא רבי אחא ור’
תחליפא חמוי בשם רבי שמואל בר נחמן רגזו ואל תחטאו אמרו בלבבכם על משכבכם ודומו
סלה מילתיה דר’ יהושע בן לוי פליגא דרבי יהושע בן לוי קרי מזמורים בתרה …

It discusses if it’s
permitted to speak after one already said the blessings after evening Shma[7]. It
mentions R. Yakov Grosa used to not speak after he said Shma with blessings,
and then mentions R. Yehoshua ben Levi[8] who
used to still say various psalms afterwards[9].

From the Yerushalmi it
seems that most people used to say Shmone Esre during the daytime, and later
ate their meal[10]
and laid down to sleep[11] saying
the evening Shma with blessings.[12]

We can also explain from
here how the shita of Bet Shamai regarding saying evening Shma while laying
down could have developed. It is unlikely that Shma in the evening was
pronounced in normal position and then in some generation Bet Shamai suddenly
ruled that one has to literally lie down to say it. A more likely scenario is
that it was the norm to recite the evening Shma while lying down and the
dispute of Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai arose as to whether this is the
requirement or is merely done for convenience so as to not interrupt and fall
asleep immediately.

Another obscure shita
we can now explain is in Zohar Hadash (Bereshit 17d in Mosad HaRav Kook
edition). It mentions that the idea of praying with “redness of the sun”
applies to Maariv, not Mincha[13] like
our Talmud (Brachot 29b). In light of the shita of R. Yeshoshua ben Levi
we can understand this. It seems the ideal time for Maariv according to this
was around sundown. However one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of Shma at this
time. It is also interesting that in Tosefta (Brachot, 3:2) the opinion
of R. Yossi is mentioned that Maariv should be recited at the time of “Neilat
Shearim”.

In conclusion, it seems
that there were some communities where the norm was to recite Shmone Esre of the
evening prayer before Shma with blessings, and these communities apparently
recited the last blessing of Shma (Hashkivenu) in place of our Hamapil.

[1] I am currently unaware of any Rishon that paskened not like R. Yohanan, however
the Meiri writes that “majority” pasken like R. Yohanan, so there must have
been some who did not.

[2] Indeed Yerushlami does not mention the blessing of Hamapil, but it seems they
used to say Hashkiveinu as the last Bracha and fall asleep afterwards. It’s
interesting that our siddurim added Hashkivenu without Hatima at the Seder of
going to sleep even though in reality for us this brocha is not necessary since
we have Hamapil.

[3] It was normal to say the evening Shmone Esre in Eretz Yisrael during day time,
before stars come out (possibly because of the danger to go outside at night as
their synagogues were outside of the city).

[4] As many do today when praying early Maariv.

[5] See also Rosh (Brachot 1:1) and Korban Netaniel (10).

[6] See the commentaries from Baal Sefer Haredim and R. Chaim Kanievky.
It’s possible that Rashi did not see this whole sugia in Yerushlami but only
saw a quote of it in a Gaonic source. In general regarding use of Yerushalmi in
Rashi, see Saul Lieberman’s letter to Solomon Zeitlin published at the end of Saul
Lieberman and the Orthodox by R. Marc Shapiro, see also the discussion from
Homat Yerushalaim printed in the beginning of standard Yerushalmi
editions.

[7] The Yerushalmi calls the blessing after “Emet Veyatziv” as this was their
Nusach, but our Nusach in the evening is “Emet Veemuna”.

[8] Of course R. Yehoshua ben Levi followed his own shita and said Shma with
Brachot after Shmone Esre. Note that the same sugia before in Yerushalmi also
discusses whether it’s permitted to speak after “Emet Veyatziv”. It continues
with והא תני אין אומר דברים אחד אמת ויציב פתר לה באמת ויציב של שחרית.

[9] This is mentioned in our Talmud (Shevuot 16b) as well.

[10] And the prohibition of eating before Shma did not apply since they read Shma
already even though they did not fulfill their obligation or because they were
eating before the time of Shma arrived.

[11] For
those who did not immediately go to sleep, the Yerushalmi (ibid) indeed
mentions that they should recite Shma (with blessings) before midnight.

[12] Interestingly even at later times when many communities had a custom to say the
evening prayer early, some people recited Shma without Brachot. R. Hai Gaon (Tshuvot
Hagaonim Hahadashot – Emanuel, 93; this tshuva is brought in Rosh
1:1 and Bet Yosef 235) suggests that the one who is found in such a
congregation should only say Shma without blessings and pray Shmone Esre
together with them, but later one say Shma with Brachot.

[13] Indeed the Talmud there states that in Palestine they cursed the one who prays
Mincha so close to sundown as it may lead to missing the time. Obviously this
does not apply to Maariv for which there is plenty of time afterwards.

Mezuzah Revisited. Parshat Vaetchanan.

Mezuzah
Revisited. Parshat Vaetchanan.

By
Chaim Sunitsky.

Rashi on
this Parsha (Devarim 6:9) says that since the word Mezuzot is
written without the Vav[1], only
one Mezuzah is necessary. It’s generally assumed that Rashi can’t argue with a
clear Talmudic statement that every door of the house needs a Mezuzah[2] and
therefore he can’t be understood at face value. However the custom in many
places in Medieval Europe had always been to only affix one Mezuzah per house[3]. We
will now try to examine if indeed there ever was a tradition that supported
this minhag.

The Rema makes a
unique statement in Yoreh Deah (287:2): “The commonly spread minhag in
these countries is to attach only one Mezuzah per house and they have nothing
to rely on”. This statement is very unusual. Rema is known for
supporting Jewish minhagim and it’s very common for him to use the
expression “common minhag” often followed by a statement that this minhag
should not be changed, or at least that this minhag can be relied on.
Here however the Rema is saying just the opposite: the minhag has
nothing to rely on and a “yere Shamaim” person should affix the Mezuzot
on every entrance.

It’s hard to understand
how this incorrect “minhag” could have possibly become wide spread. R. Yissachar
Dov Eilenburg[4]
(the author of Beer Sheva on the Talmud) suggested that this mistake became
widespread due to incorrect understanding of our Rashi. However I find
it strange if the previous minhag was to affix a Mezuzah on every
doorpost, how would it change in many countries simply because they misunderstood
the Rashi’s Torah commentary[5]. As
for the correct understanding of Rashi, two possibilities were offered:
either Rashi is saying that we don’t have to affix two Mezuzot on each
doorframe[6], or
that Rashi is following the opinion of R. Meir that if an entrance has
only one doorpost on the right, there is a need to affix Mezuzah (despite the
lack of second doorpost[7]). As
for Rashi’s actual drasha[8]
we don’t see it in any known source in Hazal[9].

In general there was[10] some
attempt to explain the custom of affixing only one Mezuzah based on the fact
that many of the inside rooms in their houses were not clean enough, but this
does not explain what people relied on when the house itself had more than one
entrance[11].
However Rashi[12]
on our Gemorah brings an interpretation according to which if a house
has exactly two entrances, it needs only one Mezuzah on the more commonly used
entrance, since the other entrance is batela (is unimportant) compared
to the first one. Only if the house has more than two entrances then we don’t
say that two entrances are batelim to the one commonly used entrance.
Maybe then Rashi on the Chumash is following his shita and
saying that a house (or room) with two entrances requires only one Mezuzah. Interestingly,
in Yerushalmi[13]
there is even a stronger statement that seems to imply that only one entrance per
house requires a Mezuzah:

בית
שיש לו שני פתחים נותן ברגיל היו שניהן רגילין נותן בחזית היו שניהן חזית נותן על איזה
מהן שירצה

The simple meaning of Yerushlami
seems to contradict the Talmud Bavli and imply that only the entrance that’s
used more often needs the Mezuzah. If he uses both entrances equally, then the
Mezuzah is affixed to the “stronger” entrance and is they are equally strong,
one can affix the Mezuzah on either entrance.

To conclude we seem to
have found a possible explanation of Rashi according to the simple
meaning of his words[14] and
a possible justification for the old minhag in Europe[15]. Needless
to say our words are only theoretical and Baruch Hashem that minhag has
disappeared a long time ago and every Orthodox Jew today affixes a Mezuzah on
every entrance.

[1] Apparently Rashi
implies that Mezuzot is written without the second Vav and can be read as Mezuzat.
Our scrolls written according the Mesorah, Rambam (Sefer Torah
2:6), Semag (Asin 22) and Minhat Shai have the first Vav
between two Zain’s missing, but Leningrad scroll (used on Bar Ilan disk)
in fact has the second Vav missing. It’s also possible that Rashi meant
that as long as some Vav is missing we can “transfer” the missing Vav to the
last position and thus read the word as Mezuzat. See also Minhat Shai,
Shemot 12:7. Interestingly the famous statement of the GR”A that
there are 64 different Tefilins one would need to put on to fulfil all opinions
does not consider the various opinions about how to write various words like “mezuzot”,
“totafot”, which would bring the numbers of different Tefillins to hundreds.

[2] See for
instance Menachot 34a.

[3] In this article
we only discuss if there is any justification for the custom of affixing one
Mezuzah on one’s home. See however Semag (Asin 3) that there were
some people in Spain who did not affix Mezuzot at all, and see there in Asin
23 some weird “justification” they used for their “minhag”.

[4] In his super-commentary
on Rashi called Tzeda Lederch and his “Beer Maim Chaim” usually
printed in the end of Beer Sheva.

[5] To say nothing about the fact that Halacha is
rarely learned from a Torah commentary as Rashi does not “pasken”
there.

[6] In Yalkut
Shimoni on Mishley (remez 943) indeed there is an opinion
that each of the doorposts requires two Mezuzot, but our Gemorah (Menachot
34a) does not hold like this opinion and does not even mention it (see also Shu”t
Minchat Yitzchak 1:9).

[7] Obviously the
Biblical word Mezuzah means not the parchment but the pole itself, so one Mezuzah
in Rashi means one doorframe.

[8] Which Rabeinu
Bahya quotes as words of Razal.

[9] See however Mordachai
(962) who brings in the name of Rif that R. Meir and Rabonan who
argue about the above law apparently learn from the spelling of Mezuzot. It may
be according to this girsa, not found in our Rif, R. Meir had no
Vav and Rabonan had a Vav in the word “Mezuzot” in Devarim 6:9. The
Talmud mentions that R. Meir was a scribe and it’s possible he had some
especially accurate scrolls that were different from the more commonly used
ones (his “Torah scroll” is mentioned in Midrashim, see for instance Bereshit
Rabbah 94:9). Our Gemora however only mentions the learning from “Mezuzot”
with the Vav to support the shita of Rabonan (see also the first Tosafot
on 34a).

[10]
See Maharil, Minhagim, Laws of Mezuzah, 1 and Tshuvot 94 . In practice the
Maharil and Rema did not accept these explanations.

[11] See also Shu”t
Divrey Yatziv Yore Deah 191 who proposes that maybe only the Mezuzah on the
outside doorpost is a Biblical command, but the question of a house with two
entrances still remains.

[12] Menachot 33a
starting with words Holech Achar Haragil and 34a starting with words
Af Al Gav Deragil Beechad.

[13] The end of Megila,
34a (see however second perek of Tractate Mezuzah, in Vilna Shas
it’s printed at the end of the volume with Avoda Zara). Even if our
interpretation off the Yerushalmi is correct, if the house has many
rooms, it would seem to need a Mezuzah for each one even according to Yerushalmi.

[14] In Sefer
Zechor Leavraham on Rashi in Likutim in the back the author
also interprets Rashi to mean only one Mezuza is needed. He proposes
that Rashi quotes a lost Midrash similar to the one preserved in Yalkut
Shimoni I quoted above. According to the author the dispute there is not whether
the Mezuzah is placed on both sides of one entrance but whether there is a need
for a Mezuzah on every entrance of the house.

[15] It’s known that
many European communities started in Italy, where Yerushalmi was often
followed to a greater extent than Bavli and therefore it’s possible that
the earliest settlers in France and Germany were told only to affix one Mezuzah
on the main entrance leading to the street. Regarding inside rooms, maybe they
did not have any since simple houses had only one room in those times or maybe
they relied on some of the weak reasons mentioned in Maharil (who
rejects them) but regarding the outside doors if there are only two they may
have followed Rashi and if some of their houses had more than two entrances
they may have followed Yerushalmi or some other lost opinion (partially
preserved in the Yalkut Shimoni).