1

The Humble Artichoke

|
The New York Times recently discussed a novel ruling of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate.  The Rabbanut held that artichokes fall into the category of prohibited foods.  This is not because they are listed as such in the Torah. Rather the expansion of the biblical category is because of a secondary concern, the presence of insects.  Those insects may reside in the heart which without opening the tight leaves that comprise the vegetable one is unable to determine if insects are present, thus, eating artichokes whole risks also ingesting insects.

Jews in Italy, however, took issue with this ruling. They pointed to a long-standing tradition of eating artichokes whole after deep frying.  That tradition places the creation of the dish sometime in the 16th century in the Jewish ghetto in Rome. Indeed, their preparation is so intertwined with Jews, in Italian it is called Jewish-style artichoke—Carciofo alla giudia.  Today many travel books include this delicacy among those to try in Italy listing various kosher restaurants that offer the Jewish Artichoke.  The Rabbi of Rome refused to reform the practice of Italian Jews and continues to eat and provide his hechsher to restaurants which serve this vegetable prepared in the traditional manner.[1]  

The history of how the fried artichoke became associated with Jews is somewhat murky but likely dates at least to the 16th century.  But we have even earlier manuscript evidence that artichokes were eaten by Jews.  Indeed they were eaten at a time when Jews were especially punctilious regarding food, Pesach.  A number of medieval haggadot contain illustrations of marror, most include a leafy green of some type.  Two haggadot, the Rylands and the Brother, composed in the mid/late-14th century depict marror as an artichoke. [2]  

[1] Regarding the autonomy of the local rabbinate see Teshuvot haRosh, Klal 21, 8-4, 9-2, and generally the sources collected in HaMahkloket beHalakha,  Hanina Ben-Menahem, Neil Hecht, Shai Wosner, eds., vol. 2 (Boston:  Institute of Jewish Law Boston University School of Law, 1993), 753-820. 
Students of history will recall that this is not the first time that the norms and traditions of the Italian Jews came into conflict with the different prevailing norms among other groups of Jews. In the controversy engendered by the publication of the pamphlet Divrei Shalom ve-Emet by Naftali Herz Wessely in the aftermath of Emperor Joseph II’s Edict of Toleration, which called for educational reform among his Central European subjects. After his pamphlet was found objectionable and insulting by leading rabbis, Wessely wrote to rabbis in Italy, believing that many of the ideas he was advocating, like a graded curriculum, a non-exclusive emphasis on Talmud, and use of the general vernacular, were well within the norms of their tradition. In fact, with the exception of only one of the Italian rabbis, R. Ishmael Ha-kohen of Modena, all the others agreed and supported him and helped the controversy die out. These aspects of the Wessely affair are discussed in Lois C. Dubin, “Trieste and Berlin: The Italian Role in the Cultural Politics of the Haskalah,” chapter 8 in Jacob Kats, ed., “Towards Modernity: the European Jewish Model” (New York, 1987) and the series of articles by Yisrael Natan Heschel in Kovetz Beit Aharon ve-Yisrael 8 (1993) titled “דעתם של גדולי הדור במלחמתם נגד המשכיל נפתלי הירץ וויזל.”
[2] The Rylands Haggadah manuscript is discussed in Katrin Kogman-Appel, Illuminated Haggadot from Medieval Spain: Biblical Imagery and the Passover Holiday (University Park:  Penn State University Press, 2006) 91-97.  The Brother manuscript has recently been reprinted in full with an excellent introduction by Marc Michael Epstein in addition to other relevant articles.  The Brother Haggadah:  A Medieval Sephardi Masterpiece in Facsimile (New York:  Thames and Hudson, 2016).  For a discussion of the identification of marror see Zohar Amar, Merrorim: Hameshet Minei haMarror sheAdam Yotseh Bahem Yedei Hovato bePesach (Modiin [], 2008). 


The Head Movements of Shema’

|
THE HEAD MOVEMENTS OF SHEMA’

by Bezalel Naor

Rabbi Bezalel Naor is a multifaceted scholar, recognized as the leading interpreter of R. Kook in the English language. His newest book is The Limit of Intellectual Freedom: The Letters of Rav Kook. It can be purchased from his website, www.orot.com.

The most important utterance in Judaism is the Shema’: Shema’ yisrael adonai eloheinu adonai ehad. (Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.) This declaration of the absolute unity of God is the cornerstone of our faith. By Biblical mandate, a Jew recites the Shema’ twice daily, be-shokhbekha u-ve-kumekha (“when you lie down and when you rise up”). See Deuteronomy 6:7.

All of the above is quite famous. What remains today a little known fact is that once upon a time this recitation was accompanied by head movements to the four directions, and up and down. This practice is recorded both in the Ge’onim (post-Talmudic Babylonian sages) and the Rishonim (medieval European sages).[1] The basis for this observance is the following statement in the Talmud:

Symmachus says: “Whoever prolongs the word ehad (“one”), his days and years are prolonged.

Said Rav Aha bar Ya’akov: “And [specifically] the letter dalet [of ehad].”

Said Rav Ashi: “Provided he does not speed up the letter het [of ehad].”

R. Yirmiyah was sitting before R. [Hiyya bar Abba]. He saw that he was prolonging overly much. He said to him: “Once you have proclaimed Him King above and below, and to the four winds of heaven, you need not any further.”[2]

Rashi, the eleventh-century exegete of Troyes, France, comments: “Proclaimed Him King above, etc. – You have prolonged the amount [of time] necessary to think in your heart that the Lord is one in heaven and on earth and its four directions.”

This is a disembodied approach; no mention in Rashi of actual body movements. The visualization of heaven and earth and the four cardinal points is purely mental.

However, if one consults the commentary of Rabbi Menahem Ha-Me’iri of Perpignan, Provence (1249-1306) one finds an added dimension: “The amount of lengthening the letter dalet is that required to picture in the heart that He, blessed be He, rules over heaven and earth and the four winds of the world. And for this reason, it is customary to tilt the head and move it to these sides. Nevertheless, if one prefers not to tilt the head, one need not, because the thing depends not on the tilting of the head and its movements, but rather upon the feeling of the heart.”[3]

Me’iri revisits this theme in his commentary to Tractate Sukkah when discussing the na’anu’im or waving of the lulav (palm frond) during the Sukkot festival. There, he opines that both in regard to the movement of the lulav during the recitation of Hallel and the movement of the head during Shema’, only a to-and-fro and up-and-down movement is called for (as opposed to the four directions, and up and down). “Even that which they said. . .to prolong the word ehad (“one”) sufficiently to proclaim Him King above and below and in the four winds of the world, even this necessitates only a movement to the two directions, and below and above. Furthermore, some say that in ehad no movement is necessary, only picturing in the heart.”[4]

Neither is Me’iri the only Provencal commentator to bear witness to the practice of head movements. His contemporary Rabbi David ben Levi of Narbonne writes: “How long? Long enough to proclaim Him King, etc. – Some interpret that one proclaims Him King by moving one’s head. And so interpreted Rabbenu Hai, of blessed memory.”[5]

In Provence, where we find most evidence of the head movements, there were some who found the practice ludicrous (huka ve-itlula).[6] Perhaps, these authorities took exception not so much to the movements themselves, as to the fact that as often happens in the case of rituals, the simple folk focus on the externals rather than on the inner awareness which is the essence.[7]

The German codifier Rabbi Jacob ben Asher (d. Toledo, Spain before 1340) defended the practice of the head movements accompanying Shema’:

One must prolong the dalet of ehad the amount [of time] necessary to think in one’s heart that the Holy One, blessed be He, is unique in His world, above and below, and in the four winds of the world. There are some accustomed to tilt the head according to the thought, above and below, and to the four directions. Some object to the practice because of the statement of the Rabbis, “He who recites Shema’ should not gesticulate with his eyes or lips.”[8] My father, of blessed memory, used to say that one need not heed [their words], for there, the gesticulations are for an extraneous purpose, and interrupt the concentration, but here, the gesture is a requisite of the concentration and brings it about (tsorekh ha-kavvanah ve-goremet otah).”[9]

Rabbi Joshua Boaz Baruch (Italy, d. 1557) offers a very graphic description of the head movements of Shema’:

This is the amount [of time] to prolong the word ehad: one third in the letter het and two thirds in the letter dalet. How does one proclaim the Kingship? Up and down during the het, and in the four directions during the dalet.[10] And one concentrates while moving the head up and down, to the east and to the west, to the north and to the south . . .[11]

One can only speculate what happened to these head movements. Whereas the movements of the lulav or palm frond continue in full force to this day, wherever Jews are found, we are not aware of any community that has retained the custom of moving the head during Shema’, though as we have seen, it was once widespread in communities as diverse as Babel (today Iraq), Provence, Spain and Italy.

One of the most provocative statements found in Rav Kook’s Orot is this:

We dealt much in soulfulness; we forgot the holiness of the body.[12]

Perhaps these head movements of Shema’ are a “mitsvah yetomah” (orphan mitsvah) due for revival.[13]

Notes

[1] These head movements of the Shema’ are not to be confused with those employed in the so-called school of “Prophetic Kabbalah” founded by Abraham Abulafia (b. 1240), although it is possible that Abulafia was inspired in this respect by the earlier tradition surrounding the Shema’. Prof. Gershom Scholem was struck by the similarity between the Abulafian technique (especially the technique of breathing) and Indian Yogic practices. Perhaps Scholem was unaware of the Judaic practice surrounding Shema’. It is possible though, that Scholem would have regarded even this practice, stretching back at least as far as Rav Hai Gaon, as influenced by Yogic or Sufic tradition. See Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York, 1971), pp. 139, 144; Aryeh Kaplan, Meditation and Kabbalah (York Beach, ME, 1985), pp. 55-114.

[2] Talmud Bavli, Berakhot 13b. The words “Hiyya bar Abba” are bracketed in the standard Vilna edition. In the parallel discussion in Talmud Yerushalmi, Berakhot 2:1, rather than R. Hiyya bar Abba, it is Ze’ira who apprises R. Yirmiyah that he needn’t overly prolong the recitation. R. Aryeh Leib Yellin (Yefeh ‘Einayim) suggests that the text of the Bavli be emended to “R. Zeira” to conform to the Yerushalmi.

[3] R. Menahem ben Shelomo ha-Me’iri, Beit ha-Behirah, Berakhot, Dikman ed. (Jerusalem, 1965), p. 42.

[4] R. Menahem ben Shelomo ha-Me’ri, Beit ha-Behirah, Sukkah, Liss ed. (Jerusalem, 1966), p. 133.

[5] R. David ben Levi of Narbonne, Sefer ha-Mikhtam in: Hershler ed., Ginzei Rishonim / Berakhot (Jerusalem, 1967), p. 28. This comment of Rabbenu Hai ben Sherira Gaon (939-1038) to Berakhot 13b first crops up in the Sefer ha-Eshkol of Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac, Av-Beit-Din of Narbonne (d. 1158). See Albeck ed., Sefer ha-Eshkol, p. 14; included in B.M. Lewin ed., Otsar ha-Ge’onim, Vol. I – Berakhot (Haifa, 1928), Perushim, p. 13. Cf. Rabbi Nathan ben Yehiel of Rome, Arukh, s.v. bar pahatei.

[6] Sefer ha-Mikhtam ibid.; R. Asher of Lunel, Orhot Hayyim, chap. 18.

[7] For example, Rabbi Hayyim El’azar Shapira of Munkatch (Munkacevo) explained the custom of reciting the verse Atah har’eita la-da’at [“Unto you it was shown, that you might know, that the Lord is the God; there is none else besides Him”] (Deuteronomy 4:35) on Simhat Torah at the opening of the Ark before commencing the hakafot or circumambulations with the Torah scroll in hand, as an antidote to any perverse notions that might creep into the common mind. By declaring the absolute unity of God, we stave off any misguided tendency to deify the Torah. See Rabbi Hayyim El’azar Shapira, Sha’ar Yissachar, Simhat Torah. Cf. Rabbi Meir Simha Cohen of Dvinsk, Meshekh Hokhmah (Riga, 1927), Exodus 32:19 who explains that Moses smashed the Tablets of the Law to prevent their deification by the worshipers of the Golden Calf.

[8] Yoma 19b. There, included in the prohibition is gesticulating with the finger(s).

[9] Rabbi Jacob ben Asher, Tur, Orah Hayyim.

[10] The Hebrew letters also signify numbers. Thus, het has the numerical value of 8; dalet, the numerical value of 4. The head movements up and down allude to the seven heavens and earth, a total of eight. It is appropriate that they occur during recitation of the letter het. The movements in the four directions of the compass occur during the recitation of the letter dalet.

On the practical level, one may question how it is possible to prolong the sound of the letter dalet (twice as long as the letter het!) when the consonant dalet is a stop or plosive. The question is based on ignorance of the correct pronunciation of the Hebrew letters. In the Ashkenazic community, the differentiation between dalet degushah (hard dalet, indicated by the dot or dagesh mark) and dalet rafah (soft dalet, lacking the dagesh or dot) was lost. In the Oriental communities, this tradition was maintained. In truth, only the hard dalet has the “d” sound; the soft dalet is pronounced “th” as in the English word “the.” In phonetics, such a sound is referred to as a “continuant,” as opposed to a “stop” or “plosive.” As the dalet of ehad is soft, the word is properly pronounced “ehath.” Adhering to these basic rules of the Hebrew language, the dalet of ehad may certainly be drawn out. See Rabbi Nahum L. Rabinovitch, Yad Peshutah (Jerusalem, 1984), Hil. Keri’at Shema 2:9 (p. 64). For the record, there were several Ashkenazic gedolim who were sensitive to the refinements of Hebrew pronunciation, as practiced by the Oriental communities. In the previous generation, Rabbis Joseph Elijah Henkin and Jacob Kamenecki expressed such concerns, to name but two.

[11] R. Joshua Boaz Baruch, Shiltei ha-Gibborim to Mordekhai, Berakhot (Vilna ed., 46a).

[12] See Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook, Orot (Jerusalem, 1950), Orot ha-Tehiyah, chap. 33 (p. 80); Naor trans., Orot: The Original 1920 Version (Spring Valley, NY, 2004), p. 189.

[13] Rabbi Jacob Moses Harlap, the eminent disciple of Rav Kook, wrote that the revival of mitsvot that have fallen into desuetude is a cure for the malady of our generation of neshamot she-be-‘olam ha-tohu (souls of the World of Chaos), whose vessel is too narrow to contain the great light due to penetrate it. This thought is expressed in a letter Rabbi Harlap wrote in 1946 upon the occasion of the renewed “Hakhel” ceremony. Published as an appendix to Rabbi J.M. Harlap, Mei Marom, Vol. V (Nimmukei ha-Mikra’ot) (Jerusalem, 1981). Cf. the essay entitled “Ha-Neshamot shel ‘Olam ha-Tohu” (The Souls of the World of Chaos) in: Rabbi Abraham Isaac Hakohen Kook, Orot (Jerusalem, 1950), pp. 121-123.

Postscript: In an email to Marc Shapiro, Rabbi Naor adds that R. Kalonymos Kalmish Shapira of Piaseczna advocated these head movements. Unfortunately, he can’t locate the precise source. Perhaps one of the readers can help out.

Postscript 2: Eliezer Brodt adds: See Eric Zimmer, Assufot 8 (1994), Tenuchos Vetenuot Haguf Beshaat Keriat Shema, pp. 343-368. For some reason it is not included in the collection of his articles called Olam Keminhago Noheg.



Hadaran: Who is going down to the pit of destruction?

|
Hadaran: Who is going down to the pit of destruction?
by Leor Jacobi
A siyum of a masechet of gemorah is truly a joyous occasion, usually the culmination of many weeks of rigorous group study; challenging, edifying, and uplifting. The centerpiece of the siyum is undoubtedly the customary recitation of the unique kaddish and special additional prayers framing the accomplishment as an integral link in the chain of dissemination of Torah – from the tannaim and amoraim whose divine words we ponder, to the great rishonim and ahronim who guide us in revealing their talmudic treasures and infusing them into the modern world.
Fortunate is our lot! Our gratitude is expressed in the prayer of Rabbi Nehunia Ben HaKana[1]:
מודים אנחנו לפניך ה’ אלהי ששמת חלקינו מיושבי בית המדרש ולא שמת חלקינו מיושבי קרנות שאנו משכימים והם משכימים אנו משכימים לדברי תורה והם משכימים לדברים בטלים אנו עמלים והם עמלים אנו עמלים ומקבלים שכר והם עמלים ואינם מקבלים שכר אנו רצים והם רצים אנו רצים לחיי העולם הבא והם רצים לבאר שחת שנאמר וְאַתָּה אֱלֹהִים תּוֹרִדֵם לִבְאֵר שַׁחַת אַנְשֵׁי דָמִים וּמִרְמָה לֹא יֶחֱצוּ יְמֵיהֶם וַאֲנִי אֶבְטַח בָּךְ
Our exalted state can only be fully appreciated when contrasted with that of those not fortunate enough to join us in the beis hamidrash. The Yoshvei Kranos, identified by Rashi as idle shopkeepers who waste their time in frivolous conversation, are deprived of the rich rewards of Torah study, both in this world and in the next. They are to be pitied and even disdained for their boorish lack of concern for lofty matters.
The prayer proceeds a step further, however, in the concluding verse from Tehillim 55:24, cursing the ignorant with early death, destruction, and perhaps even damnation! And you, HaShem, lower them into the pit of destruction, murderous swindlers, may they not live out even half their expected lifespan. Are they really so wicked? At our joyous simcha, shouldn’t we rather be resolving to help inspire and mekarev these poor folk?
Did the creator of this prayer, Rabbi Nehunia Ben HaKana, or anyone from Hazal recite this verse? (If so, there would certainly be a a good reason for it.) A survey of the sources reveals a resounding: no. Not only does it not appear in Gemara Brachos 28b, but it does not appear in any of the known manuscripts, Rambam[2], or any of the many poskim rishonim that quote the prayer. Early versions of the Hadaran prayer do not include the verse either! See the attached photo of the early Venice and Soncino editions of the Talmud.[3] Nowhere. Gornisht.



In his Sefer Divrei Torah (Mahadura 5)the Munkasczer rebbe, an avid bibliophile, indicates that the verse should be omitted.

The verse only appears in one known halachic source: Halachot of Rif (Rabbi Yitzhak Alfasi). See below (1st edition, Constantinople 1509):

Why would Rif add this verse? He is usually involved with editing away verses from the Gemorrah, not adding them! Does it reflect an ancient custom of his? Why didn’t any of the great Rishonim who studied Rif cite this verse?[4] Ra’ah in his commentary on Rif quotes the entire prayer without mentioning the verse! None of the many known manuscript versions of Rif mention the verse![5] Its earliest known appearance in this prayer is in the first printed edition of Rif (published almost exactly 500 years ago, רס”ט, in Constantinople). Why did the publishers include the verse?
The answer may lie in a marginal gloss of one lone manuscript version of Rif[6].



In the left hand side of the manuscript, one can see that a later scribe added a citation to a verse. Only a few letters are visible in the microfilm: שנ’ כי לא ת
This is clearly referring to a different verse! Without a doubt, it is the same verse cited at the end of the version of the prayer found in the Talmud Yerushalmi:
כִּי לֹא תַעֲזֹב נַפְשִׁי לִשְׁאוֹל לֹא תִתֵּן חֲסִידְךָ לִרְאוֹת שָׁחַת[7]
“For you will not abandon my soul to the grave, you will not allow your pious one to see (his) destruction.”
This verse is most fitting and proper here as a conclusion of the prayer. It lacks all of the problematic vitriol of the commonly found verse. This scribal addition undoubtedly represents an ancient custom[8], which the printers of Constantinople may have been unfamiliar with.[9] The verse they substituted, however, was certainly most familiar to them in a different context:
משנה מסכת אבות פרק ה
אבל תלמידיו של בלעם הרשע יורשין גיהנם ויורדין לבאר שחת שנאמר (תהלים נ”ה) ואתה אלהים תורידם לבאר שחת אנשי דמים ומרמה לא יחצו ימיהם ואני אבטח בך:
The students of Bilaam are certainly deserving of such a curse, for they are involved in sorcery, treachery, and other wickedness – if only they would be idle as the shopkeepers, that would be a tremendous improvement!
The custom of reciting Pirkei Avos on Shabbos afternoon dates back to time immemorial, and as a result of the regular study, many have mastered its teachings literally by heart. It doesn’t seem at all far-fetched to assume that the printing of this verse in Rif was a simple oversight. Eventually the verse entered into the hadaran prayer as we know it.
The prayer of Nehunia Ben HaKana is also found in many printed prayer-books in its original form, to be recited upon leaving the Beis HaMidrash. It is usually located just after shaharith.[10] Many of these contain the verse, such as the prayerbook printed by Rav Ya’akov Emden on his private press[11]. But many do not contain the verse.[12]
Rambam ruled that upon entering and exiting it is obligatory to recite the prayer of Nehunia Ben HaKana[13]. The Shulhan Aruch also follows his psak. In order to further facilitate the fulfilment of this duty, printers have recently begun printing the prayer in the inside front covers of their gemorrahs and mishnayos, including the verse. The editors of Artscroll are the most democratically accommodating – they include the verse in parenthesis. You can decide whether to say say it or not.

It’s well worth noting that a precedent to this custom of the printers is found in the Pesicha to the famous Tosafos Yom Tov commentary on the mishna by Rav Yom Tov Lipman Heller. He writes that since the recitation of these prayers is obligatory, and since many are unfamiliar with them, as they do not appear in the siddur (of his time), that he is printing them, according to the nusach of the RIF. And his nusach follows the printed version of RIF. He does not explain why he chose the RIF’s version over that of the Talmud, but it seems clear that he did not have access to manuscripts of RIF, and, unfortunately, relied on corrupted printed versions. It’s also unclear as to whether his concerns for proper nusach were with the concluding prayer at all, or with the prayer recited upon entering the House of Study, whose wording is much more varied between different manuscripts and printed versions. It could be that this “endorsement” of the Tosafos Yom Tov to the printed version of RIF contributed to the eventual inclusion of the verse in later printings of the Hadaran prayer at the end of tractates and later, in prayer-books.
Hopefully, our good friends, the “yoshvei kranos” will be taking part in a daf yomi shiur and joining us at the next siyum, reciting the Hadaran along with us, and meriting Olam HaBa!
Appendix
Theaters and circuses, the Talmud Yerushalmi (and Rav Kook)
(By a happy coincidence, David Segal recently posted at the Seforim Blog on this very topic!)

We are not the first ones to find the prayer in the hadaran to be overly contentious. No less an illuminary than Rav Avraham Yitzchak Kook, OBM, the first chief Rabbi of Israel, was deeply disturbed by this prayer’s tone. Yoshvei Kranos are today’s ba’alei batim. They keep mitzvos and give tsdakah. The takanah to read the torah on Monday and Thursday is for them, so they should not go too long without hearing words of torah. It goes completely against the grain of Hazal to curse them! In fact, even without the verse, why should they be punished at all?
Rav Kook proposed a truly fantastic solution. A corruption occurred in the text: the yoshvei קרנות of the Talnud Bavli are really yoshvei קרו”ת, roshei teivos for קרקסיות andתרטיות , those who patron theaters and circuses, which in fact, is the exact nusach of the version of the prayer found in the baraisa of the Talmud Yerushalmi!
What exactly goes on in these theaters and circuses? The gemarah in Avodah Zara 18b states that they are essentially a moshav leitzim, foolish and irreverent. Another opinion cited there is that these were much more nefarious centers of Avodah Zara and Shfichus Damim, gladiator sports, public executions and like. Historically, both of these opinions seem correct – theaters and circuses where occasionally more pernicious activities took place. All in all, they don’t seem to be much too different than the modern versions of popular “entertainment”[14].
The curse of Rav Nehunia’s prayer is directed against these insidious people who waste away their free time in such sordid foreign entertainments, as opposed to the Torah-true who spend their free time immersed in learning in the beis hamidrash or in prayer in the beis kneses, even if during the work-day they are but simple “idle” shopkeepers. In this context, even the dubious additional verse is somewhat appropriate[15].
Rav Kook went so far as to call for “correcting” the nusach of the prayer and adopting the version of the Talmud Yerushalmi! That proposition certainly has merit, but is it really the true intention of the Talmud Bavli itself?[16] Perhaps this is not the only suggestion of his that, in retrospect, seems a bit far-fetched.[17] However, it seems that his insight into the tradition of the Talmud Yerushalmi and its stark opposition to “theaters and circuses” teaches a lesson which is especially pertinent today, and can deepen our appreciation of the importance of this truly enigmatic prayer.

Here are Rav Kook’s words (you may click this image to read a larger copy):

The original version of the prayer appears to be found in the Talmud Yerushalmi, produced under the glare of Greco-Roman culture with its ubiquitous theaters and circuses. In Sasanian Babylon, these cultural expressions were unheard of, hence they were restated as the more familiar yoshvei kranos. In contrast, our modern secular culture of entertainment is, for the most part, a western one, and hence the version of the Talmud Yerushalmi takes on crucial added significance today.

Many thanks to Moshe Bloi, Ezra Chwat and Shamma Friedman. All errors are, of course, mine.

Note: This article is based on one which originally ran in Kolmos of Mishpacha magazine and they take no responsibility for the content here. You can read the original article here.

UPDATE 8/18/2011: A song has recently been composed as a result of this article and discussions surrounding it’s Hebrew and English versions. The song lyrics consist of only the two verses and highlights the contrast between them musically.

Here the composer explains the composition in Hebrew and provides a link to the previous Hebrew discussion which inspired it:

[1] Brachos 28b. The Hadaran prayer has been adapted to the inclusive plural form, מודים אנו, rather than the original singular מודה אני
[2] See attached photo of the Tefillah in Commentary on the Mishna, that Rambam himself copied by his own hand!


[3] Note that the order in the prayer is switched around, probably in order to end on an upbeat, good note.
[4] In the back of the new Oz V’Hadar gemarras, the Magid Ta’alumos is cited, who explains that the verse is included in order to end the prayer on a positive note (!), v’ani evtah boch, insead of be’er shachas. The same explanation is offered by the Dinover rebbe, the the author of the classic Bnei Yesoschar, in his Maggid Ta’alumah (פרעמישלא תרל”ו) in his commentary v’Heye Bracha, referring to the inclusion of the verse by the Tosafot Yom Tov in the introduction to his monumental commentary on the Mishna. He makes no reference to the Rif. Perhaps he thought that the verse was added to the Rif according to the Tosafos Yom Tov? It’s worth noting that both the Maggid Ta’alumos and the Maggid Ta’alumah have the same observation on the inclusion of this verse, independently!
[5] Thanks to Dr. Ezra Chwat, of the Israel National Library Manuscript Department, who is preparing a new critical edition of Rif (scheduled to be used in the upcoming edition of Shas Lublin), for allowing me to utilize his forthcoming work. Further, he guided me to four additional “less reliable” manuscripts which are not utilized centrally in preparing his new edition. None of them contain the verse either.
[6] Oxford Huntington 135:
[7] תהלים פרק טז, י
[8] A fascinating new Teshuva by Rav Yitzhak Ratsaby of Benei Brak has been published (Ma’ayan Nissan 5770) on the exact question addressed in this article, the inclusion of the concluding verse in the prayer of Rav Nehunia ben Hakana (link). There, Rav Ratsaby cites Yemenite prayer-books and Teshuvot which demonstrate that the custom of reciting the verse from the Talmud Yerushalmi (like the scribe of the RIF manuscript) continued among certain Yemenite kehillot until almost the present day. Unfortunately, Rav Ratsaby did not check manuscript versions of RIF, and thus understands that the talmud of the RIF himself contained the problematic verse, leading him to propose far-fetched justifications for the custom. Here is my response (Ma’ayan Tammuz 5770).
[9] Although it seems quite doubtful that the printers had this exact manuscript in front of them, it seems likely that they had a similar manuscript. Dr. Ezra Chwat doubts that the Oxford Huntington manuscript was used by the printers as there are many discrepancies between it and the printed version of Rif. It serves as the primary manuscript for Dr. Chwat’s new edition of RIF. According to Dr. Chwat, the manuscripts can be used to resolve many seeming contradictions between RIF and RAMBAM!
[10] So that one may go מחיל אל חיל, from the beis hakneses to the beis hamidrash.
[11] Rav Yitzhak Ratsaby, in his recent tshuva (see note above) argues that the custom in Rav Emden’s siddur was only to recite part of the verse, but it seems more likely that this was simply a printer’s abbreviation. The reliability of the wordings found in this siddur are quite questionable, based on Rav Ya’akov Emden’s own testimony in the introduction that many texts were simply copied from other prayer-books.
[12] Among current prayer-books: the accurate Tefillas Yosef and Ezor Eliahu do not include the verse. Siddur Vilna, on the other hand, does contain the verse.
[13] Commentary on the Mishna. See Levush and Aroch HaShulhan (Orach Haim 110) for explanations as to why many do not recite the prayers.
[14] Internet anyone?
[15] This fact was noted independently in the recent Responsa of Rav Yitzhak Ratsaby, Ma’ayan Nisan 5770
[16] The Aderes in Tefilas Dovid, p.12, states that yoshvei kranos are also engaged in nefarious activities, as seen in the Talmud Yerushalmi. He claims that yoshvei kranos here doesn’t follow its normal meaning, going against Rashi. Rav Kook was the Aderes’ son-in-law so its not surprising that they both have the same approach in understanding the Bavli according the the Yerushalmi. Rav Kook probably favored Rashi’s interpretation of yoshvei kranos, and hence, was forced to actually alter the text of the Bavli.
[17] Rav Kasher, in Torah Shleima, Vol 15 page 140, dismisses Rav Kook’s theory entirely, claiming that the version of the Talmud Bavli is the original one! His proof is the fact that a parallel to the bavli appears in Pirkei Avot d’Rebi Nathan A. However, that collection is widely recognized to post-date the Bavli itself, which it widely quotes from.


Tu be-Shevat Sabbatianism

|

See here for our earlier post discussing the potential linkage between Tu be-Shevat (or Tu B’Shevat)customs and Sabbatianism. See here, here, and here for other customs that may have similar likages. And, finally, see here for a collection of articles on Sabbatianism generally.



Review: Minhagei Lita

|

Minhagei Lita, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Poliakoff, Baltimore: 2008, 116 pp.


The author’s stated purpose is to “clarify for present generation the authentic customs of Lithuanian Jewry in prayer and in common Jewish practice” and highlight the Torah true approach and values that form the underpinnings” of those customs.  Minhagei Lita at 3.  Aside from the difficulty in determining what the author means by “common Jewish practice,” “Torah true approach” this book, unfortunately, has little value. This book, which is really a screed, suffers from numerous problems, which we will highlight below. This book has so many flaws that I was not even going to review it, but it seems to have garnered some media attention and thus we have decided to review the book.
The author apparently spent eight years in Telshe Yeshiva in Lithuania, between 1930-38. It does not appear, according the brief biography at the end of the book, that the author went anywhere other than Telshe.  See id. at 101-02.  He makes no mention of visiting more established and larger Lithuanian cities of Vilna, Kovno, or Mintz for example.  Indeed, in his introduction, he provides that he is “not so presumptuous and foolish to claim knowledge of all or even most of the area of Lithuanian avodah.”  Id. at 4.  But, throughout the book, the author fails to remember this disclaimer.   Instead, for example, the author asserts that “the minhag in Lithuania was to beat the Aravos,” id. at 48, or that the neither “in the Telshe Yeshivah or anywhere else in Lithuania,” id. at 50, did they repeat to the two readings of the zekher.  How the author knew that these customs were uniform throughout Lithuania is unclear.
This is not the only piece of his own advice the author ignores. The author records a conversation where another Lithuanian Jew bemoans the current state of Judaisim and particular its failure “to walk humbly with G[o]d?” Id. at 61 Poliakoff agrees this sentiment but a few pages later states about himself, without irony, that “I am much more of a scholar and more pious than many people in Baltimore who denigrate the eruv.”  Id. at 74.  Additionally, Poliakoff decides that he can offer his own “novel” solution to solving the agunah problem and dispensing with the second day of Yom Tov. The idea that in one fell swoop he can deal with these weighty issues doesn’t smack of humility. Moreover, in dealing with both of these issues, as well as others in the book, Poliakoff’s lack of awareness of relevant sources is stunning. He seems to think that only with the very recent technological advances is the Yom Tov Sheni issue problematic.  Of course, since communication has been improving for hundreds of years, many, many people have raised and dealt with the issue of continuing to keep a second day for Yom Tov.  See, for example, J. Katz, Divine Law in Human Hands, Magnes Press: 1998, 255 ff.  Perhaps, as Poliakoff appears to still live in Baltimore, which to my knowledge, has no good Judaic library he had no access to these sources.  When it comes to agunah, his “novel” solution is annulment.  Of course, as anyone who has even the most basic familiarity with the history of the agunah issue knows that this approach has been raised on countless occasions.  For a recent comprehensive history, one just needs to read the comprehensive articles in Yeshurun on this topic (many of which are online at Hebrewbooks, and thus, mitigates Polikoff’s unfortunate status as a Baltimorian). Maybe Polikoff will suggest in his next book that his has novel approach to Pesach where he wants to abandon the prohibition against kitnyot.
This is not the only example where a better library would have assisted him.  He asserts that “one of the new trends today is to pronounce the word for rain in the second brachah of the amidah – gashem. The traditional pronunciation has always been, geshem.” Minhagei Lita, at 22. First, this is not a “new” trend, it was started in the early 1800s.  Second, there is much written on this topic that could have clued him in on this.  There are at least three books that are entirely devoted to this issue.  See, e.g., Hayyim Kraus’s books, Mekhalkhel Hayyim, Jerusalem, 1981 and Ot Hayim, Beni Brak, 1984.  Polikoff also asserts that there that is only “recent” is pointing one’s little finger at the torah during the hagbah ceremony.  His “proof” that is a custom that has no basis and is a new one is that he “asked a person whom [he] noticed performing this act why [the pointer] did it and from where he learnt it.” The pointer “was unable to find a traditional source for it.”  Just to be clear, Poliakoff, based upon one persons failure to elicit a source, proves his point.  Rabbi Hayyim Palagei in Lev Chaim, Orach Chaim (167:6) records this custom as does the Yalkut Me’am Lo’ez (Deut. 27:26) records this custom as well as others. I am not suggesting that these sources end the discussion, or if this is an appropriate custom, but merely that the notion that there are no traditional sources is wrong. 
Then, we get to, for lack of a better descriptor, the really silly things that Poliakoff says.  For example, he asserts that it is a “misconception” that a mourner should lead the prayers, instead a mourner is only supposed to say kaddish. Minhagei Lita at 32. As an initial matter, this is a highly questionable assertion, but let’s assume he is correct.  Based upon this assumption, Poliakoff then goes on to complain that sometimes people have decided to take upon themselves to lead the services not for a dead relative that would render them an avel but a grandfather for example.  As they are doing this for hesed they should have priority over an actual avel in leading the prayers.  So, according to Poliakoff, if you are leading the prayers in memory of your great uncle Bob then you are somehow doing more hesed than if you are merely leading the prayers for one’s father John who died two weeks ago.  Why if for Uncle Bob are you doing a hesed  are you not doing it for John? Or we have the especially silly comment since “more than fifty percent of marriages today contracted by the parties themselves end in divorce, we ought to consider whether we would not be better off if we required the consent of the parents to contract a marriage.” Id. at 79.
Poliakoff, is quick to offer his own sociological take on why it is current customs and practices don’t conform with his limited experience in Telshe Yeshiva in Lithuania.  According to him this was in part brought about by the rise of the ba’al teshuva movement. Id. at 55.  I assume the argument is that since ba’al teshuva don’t have their own family customs, they relied too heavily on books, books like the Mishna Berurah, which, according to Poliakoff don’t accurately represent the Lithuanian practice. But, did all ba’al teshuva become religious via the same experiance that Rambam attributes to Abraham? That is, was it based solely on their own introspection, did they not have teachers who were not ba’alei teshuva, teachers who presumably had their own traditions and customs that they could impart to their ba’alei teshuva students? Did these ba’ale teshuva take over all the yeshivas and shuls and institute their “new” non-traditional customs and force everyone else to follow them?  Of course, as Hayyim Soloveichik points out in his own article on this topic, people today may be too willing to rely upon books rather than tradition (ahh what a idyllic world we would have if we all only followed the advice of Fiddler on the Roof) but this suggestion of Poliakoff seems too much of a generalization. For his broader point that people have uncritically accepted certain customs, there is no doubt that he is correct.  The fault with his work, however, is that he provides little basis for this criticism other than his own displeasure.  To be sure, there are numerous books and articles discussing this phenomenon, indeed, one of his examples, the pronunciation of kaddish was discussed on this site here.  And had Poliakoff done even minimal research he could have located similar objections that would have bolstered his understanding of what minhagei lita was comprised of. 
In all, if one is looking for what the customs were in Telshe, Poliakoff provides some of that and is especially strong when he limits himself to that topic. But, as of late, Telshe as a Yeshiva has been dying a slow death, it is unclear what relevance that will have to most.  For a comprehensive work on minhagei lita, however, we will still have to wait for that.

 

Update:  I have learned that this book was never intended to be a presentation of minhagei Lita, Telshe, or any other customs.  Instead, the book was written for personal reasons and was not expected to generate such press.  Thus, according to representations I received, no halakhic or any other conclusions were to be drawn from this book.  The sole conclusion that is excepted is that it is “proper” to kill the messenger. 



Women, Simchat Torah, and Censorship

|

Women, Simchat Torah, and Censorship
By: Eliezer Brodt
A recent book, Mi-pehem, (Bnei Brak,2008), collects interviews that were conducted with various Gedolim. One interview was conducted with Rebbetzin Ginsburg the daughter of R. Yechezel Levenstein. In the course of this interview she described the Simchat Torah celebration at the Mir in Europe:אבל שמחת תורה בישיבה היה משהו
מיוחד. הנשים עמדו בפינת בית המדרש מאחורי מחיצה, ומחכות בהתרגשות לתחילת
ההקפות! (מפיהם, עמ’ 199).


According to this interview, women in the Mir were behind the Mechetziah. But, I recall hearing from others that witnessed Simchat Torah in the Mir in Europe that the women were not behind a Mechetziah. Indeed, when, looking up this source of this interview I realized it was a Hebrew translation of an English article that appears in Daughters of Destiny published by Artscroll. The quote in the original reads: “The woman would stand in a corner of the bais medrash separated from the men and wait excitedly for the Hakofos to begin” (p.76). Thus, according to the original woman were not standing behind the Mechetziah during the ST celebration.

Avraham Ya-ari in his important work on ST, Toldos Chag Simchas Torah provides additional sources discussing woman’s participation in ST celebration from various communities. These sources parallel the original interview of Rebbetzin Ginsburg that women were not behind a Mechetziah but they came in to the Beis hamedrash on this night to watch the dancing up close (pp.251-252).Aside from woman entering the BM on ST woman participated in other parts of the celebration. For example, in Worms we find:מנהג שמחת תורה… מנהג נשים
בין מנחה למעריב הנ”ל באים במלבושיהן היקרים והנאים הטובים שיש להם. ובאם
בחצר החיצון של בית הכנסת ולפני הפתח החיצון של בית הכנסת דנשים ורוב הנשים בפרט
נשים בחורות מחברי’ יד ליד ובראשם נשי חתן תורה וחתן בראשית, והולכין בעיגול סביב
סביב ומשוררין יגדל, וזמירות שרגילין לשורר לכבוד החתן וכלה והכל לכבוד התורה ואחר
כך הולכין לבית הכנסת שלהם… (ר’ יוזפא שמש, מנהגים דק”ק וורמיישא,
א, עמ’ רכ). In Baghdad R. Dovid Sasson describes another custom with woman on ST:בכפור, בשמיני עצרת ובשמחת
תורה מוציאם בכל בתי הכנסת את כל ספרי התורה ומניחים אותם בהיכל והאנשים
והנשים הולכים מבית כנסת לבית כנסת לנשק כל ספר וספר וקוראים זאת זייארה (מסע
בבל, עמ’ רכז)In truth something similar to this (but not on ST only on HR and YK) is found earlier in the letters of R. Ovadia Bartenurah where he describes a custom that he saw:גם ראיתי בליל יום הכיפורים
ובליל הושענא רבה אחר שסיימו הצבור תפלת ערבית, פותחים הנאמנים שני שערי ההיכל
צפונה ונגבה ויושבים שם כל הלילה עד הבוקר, ובאות הנשים משפחות מפחות למשתחוות
ולנשק הספרי תורה, ובפתח האחד תכנסנה ונכחו תצאנה. וכל הלילה, זו נכנסת וזו
יוצאת… (אגרת א”י, עמ’ 106).One other point regarding woman and Simchat Torah is Rivkah Tiktiner (died in 1605) composed a song for Simchat Torah in Yiddish. Tiktiner is famous for being the first Jewish woman who wrote a complete work called Minkes Rivkah. Yaari suggests that this song was song while the woman decorated the Sifrei torah (Toldos Chag Simchas Torah, p.464). This song was recently reprinted by Y. Levine with an introduction and a translation in Hebrew (Simchat Torah Leyad). On Rivkah Tiktiner, see Levine’s Introduction (ibid); Z. Gris, Hasefer Kesochen Tarbus, p.172 and here.

Another custom which women are involved in on Simchat Torah is the throwing of the fruit to the children. On this topic see also Y. Gibralter in his memoirs of Kovno who writes:זלמן טרקניסקי הגבאי הראשי נהג לשבת לאחר הקידוש בשמחת תורה כששק מלא תפוחי עץ גדולים ויפים בידיו ולחלקם לילדים כפי שמבוא בהלכה בבית המוסר דקדקו בהלכה בתכלית הדקדוק (יסור
יסרוני, עמ’ 110).This custom has been the subject of many articles see recently: Avraham Ya’ari, Toledot Chag Simchat Torah, 231-237; Daniel Sperber, Minhagei Yisrael 6:140-154; Shlomo Hamberger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz 4:430-461; Yechiel Goldhaber, Minhagei Hakehilos, 2:147-152; . Y. Tessler, Heichel ha-Besht 20:75-100; Ohr Yisrael 41:187.