While doing research for a forthcoming article on the topic of saying דרשות at wedding celebrations, I kept noticing secondary sources citing to the work שמחת הנפש. Yet, after obtaining many editions of the שמחת הנפש I was still unable to locate the quotes regarding wedding speeches! After a while, I came across a citation to a specific edition of the שמחת הנפש and came to the realization that there was a second volume to this title, one that is very rare, and has only reprinted once. While the first volume was reprinted numerous times, it was this second volume of שמחת הנפש that contained the information I needed. It was in 1926 that Professor Yaakov Shatsky published an edition of שמחת הנפש which includes this second section and thus I was finally found the elusive source!

The question remained, though, as to why this source was not in all the other editions that I had looked at; in order to understand why, a discussion of שמחת הנפש is warranted.

The author of the שמחת הנפש was ר’ אלחנן קירכהן – son-in-law of the famous author of קב הישר, R. Tzvi Hirsch Kaidanov – was born in 1666 in קירכהן (hence his surname) which is not far from Hamburg. ר’ אלחנן קירכהן was a quite a Talmid Hakham and is evident from his sefer and correspondences with many גדולים of his time such as ר’ יהונתן אייבשיץ. (See בינה לעתים הלכות יום טוב פרק א הלכה כג ; שמחת הנפש, ירושלים, תשנ”ט Introduction, pp. 31-32 ; כל בו על אבילות .עמוד 200-201)

ר’ אלחנן קירכהן wrote seforim on many topics, but only one of his other seforim, חידושים מספר (see שמחת הנפש, Shatsky ed., 1926, pp. 29-30.), was published and the others still remain in manuscript. It seems from his writings that he was a professional darshan. It is also clear that he traveled all over Europe, as throughout the sefer, he gives accounts of his travels. In 1707, he printed anonymously the first two parts of what would ultimately become his famous work, שמחת הנפש. The first two parts were printed many times in many places, while the third part, the one printed in 1727, was printed only once. (See Shatsky’s introduction, especially pp. 23-28, where there is an extensive bibliography of the exact printings. See אוצר הספרים לבן יעקב ; עמוד 594 אות 864.)

It is this mysterious third part, which is very rare; indeed, few copies exist in libraries worldwide. In 1926, however, it was reprinted by Professor Yaakov Shatsky in a facsimile edition.

Many important personages praised שמחת הנפש. For example, ר’ יהונתן אייבשיץ (in his יערות דבש, א, דרוש יב, באמצע), strongly praise the שמחת הנפש ;ר’ יוסף מאיר אב”ד האנובר in his הסכמה writes that one could פסקן from this sefer, a point we will return to later! (הסכמה למהודרא פירדא תפז); the חתם סופר also spoke very highly of the sefer, (הסכמה של ר’ שמעון סופר למהדורת פאקש תרנט, Intro to the ירושלים edition pg 36-37.)

ר’ שמען סופר writes that his father, the כתב סופר, used to learn theשמחת הנפש on שבת with his sister. He also writes that within the copy of the שמחת הנפש of his grandfather, ר’ עקיבא איגר, he had seen comments in the sefer. Interestingly enough, we find that ר’ עקיבא איגר quotes from the sefer in his notes שלחן ערוך גליון רע”א סי’ תרצו סעיף ד. The sefer was among the list of seforim in the library of ר’ פנחס קאטצענאליבויגען. (See יש מנחלין עמוד נ אות קכב; and Dan’s post Ghosts, Demons, Golems and their Halachik Status about ר’ פנחס קאטצענאליבויגען.) In 1898, in Faux, Hungary, at the suggestion of ר’ שמעון סופר, a copy of שמחת הנפש was reprinted with a פירוש by ר’ יהודה קרויס. For other examples of those praising the שמחת הנפש, see the introduction to the most recent edition by ר’ שמואל לוריא.

שמחת הנפש was extremely popular amongst the general populace as is evident from the fact that it was reprinted throughout Europe at least twenty-eight times. Even the most recent edition (a Hebrew translation) was reprinted just a year later. What is so exceptional about the sefer? I believe that the answer lies in the way it was written. With its very captivating and down-to-earth language, the sefer speaks to the reader in a clear manner and keeps one interested using many stories and parables (seeתולדות ספרות ישראל עמוד 103-108.) In addition, שמחת הנפש was an excellent halakhic guide for the masses for regular day-to-day situations.

Unfortunately as with many of our seforim, at one point this book was banned, and even, according to some, burnt. Zinberg explains that the reason it was burnt was because at the end of the first volume, there is a second part containing halakhot, about which the printer wrote in the shar blatt “שלחן ערוך, אורח חיים ויורה דעה ומנהגים של כל השנה.” People felt it was dangerous to give a sefer which allowed the masses to easily find the law (תולדות ספרות ישראל,ד, עמוד 107 ; ספר וסייף, עמוד174-176). This was despite the fact, as mentioned previously, thatר’ יוסף מאיר אב”ד האנובר says in his הסכמה to the sefer, that one couldפסקן from the sefer, and despite the fact that ר’ עקיבא איגר actually did פסקן from it. However, after this one incident, there is no indication of any other strong opposition as is self evident from the amount of subsequent printings.

As mentioned previously, שמחת הנפש is composed of three volumes. The author lists the contents of his sefer on the title page. Amongst them are: (1) מוסר and תוכחה with many משלים ומעשיות; (2) Proofs of why one should not get upset about anything, as everything that happens is from G-d and for ones benefit; (3) Proof of the existence of the נשמה; (4) The הלכות of the whole year including הלכות for woman on חלה ונדה (this was the second part of the first volume). In his introduction he adds that he wrote the part of הלכות because there are many places where people do not haveרבנים to ask there questions to. So he included the הלכות so everyone could now what to do. He even writes that one could rely on it not like other seforim that have many mistakes. (This is in contrast to many Halakha seforim where the author writes “do not rely on me.”) This last part stating that one could rely upon the sefer, however, was not reprinted in all the editions of the sefer. In the introduction he writes even more clearly the goal of the sefer:

“I prove that one does not have to worry I give many solutions to deal with pain… I show that the נשמה is created to serve g-d. With this I have included all the דינים, so one should know how to serve him. All that you do should be with שמחה therefore I called the sefer שמחת הנפש.”

In 1727 he wrote a third part which (called part two). This part consists of הלכות ומוסר in the form of songs for שבת, יום נוראים, סוכות, פסח, חנוכה, פורים, חתונה, מילה, וכל השנה. He even included the musical notes for the songs. The inclusion of musical notes was an innovative method of giving mussar. The author’s goal was to reach the masses, even the people who lived in the villages he had visited and had seen that they were negligent in many of the areas discussed in the sefer.

שמחת הנפש, is a practical, down to earth book. We can see this through many points mentioned in the sefer such as: when doing תשובה , one should do it slowly and not be too hard on oneself with excessive fasting (ירושלים ed., p. 154); don’t hit a child before age four (Idem at p. 175); a recurring theme throughout the book is the author comforting people who lost children (Idem at pp. 27,28,30,55,62), which was a common occurrence in those days. The author mentions that he himself also lost a child (Idem at p. 47). שמחת הנפש contains many interesting topics, such asנשמות, ניסים , andשדים . The sefer is full of interesting stories about these topics, some of which the author was eyewitness to or was actually involved in. For example, in the chapter on demons, the author writes that he personally saw a boy of three speaking about concepts of Torah and Kabbalah that he didn’t understand (Idem at p. 52). He also mentions that when he was in Poland, there was a woman whose children were killed by a demon (Idem at p. 53). Also mentioned in שמחת הנפש is the famous legend that when the רמב”ם died, his ארון traveled to ארץ ישראלby itself (Idem at p.106). [For more on this legend see ספר יוחסין עמ’ 220;שלשלת הקבלה עמ’ ק ;במאבק על ערכה של תורה עמ’ 246;אגרת ארץ ישראל (יערי) עמ’ 302;ארשת חלק ו עמ’ 63]

The book quotes from a wide range of sources: חז”ל, ראשונים, ספרי קבלה, and many interesting seforim such as: צרי היגן, שבט מיהודה, נשמת חיים, מקוה ישראל, מסעות ר’ בנימן and many others. It is evident that the author must have had access to an unusually extensive library for his time.

שמחת הנפש is a pretty much untapped wellspring of מנהגים of Germany. The reader can also get a clear picture of life in those times, especially in the small villages. As the author traveled, he wrote מוסר based on what he felt the people he met on his travels were lax in.

One of the first people who tapped into this source was Zinberg (תולדות ספרות ישראל חלק ד עמ’ ,144-146,102-110). After that, Professor Simcha Assaf quotes the שמחת הנפש once in his masterpiece, (מקורות לתולדות החינוך בישראל, א, עמוד 164-165). Professor Yaakov Shatsky printed his edition after that. After Professor Shatsky,אברהם יערי used it a few times in his classic work תולדות חג שמחת תורה (pp. 320, 328, 378, 465, 476, 505). Then Professor Jacob Rader Marcus introduced it to Herman Pollack who quotes from it extensively in his book, “Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands,” as a quick look in the Pollack’s book and its footnotes will show. Despite this, today the שמחת הנפש is a pretty much unknown book in the field, with the exception of Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger, who uses it as a source in his books on minhagim. To the extent that Professor Zev Gris in his book ספרות ההנהגות which is devoted to the topic of the seforim of מוסר והנהגות and their impact, does not even mention it. But later on, it seems that the book was brought to his attention. He discusses the שמחת הנפש in a later book of his, called הספר כסוכן תרבות (pp. 58, 69, 96). In his analysis of Jewish Attitudes toward Gambling, Leo Landman refers to שמחת הנפש as he writes:

“A seventeenth century German moralist complained bitterly about some professional gamblers who would pawn their Talit and Tefillen or their Arba Kanfot in order to raise money for gaming.”

See his “Jewish Attitudes toward Gambling the Professional and Compulsive Gambler,” Jewish Quarterly Review 57:4 (April, 1967): 311.

Some interesting samples of מנהגים and daily life that are mentioned in the sefer are: saying יגדל every day ירושלים) ed., p. 89), dinnim of זכר לחורבןsuch as leaving a spot in the house unpainted (Idem at pp. 75,123), חתן and כלה fasting on the day of their chupah (Idem at p. 174). The reader is able to see from the book which areas people were negligent in. For example: they were not careful about shaving with a razor (Idem at p. 94), and people used to play cards all night (Idem at p. 121). The author describes how the people dealt harshly with each other in business matters (Idem at p. 149). He speaks againstחזנים that do not understand what they’re davening and says that this is a cause for the long galus (Idem at pp. 153-154). Interestingly, he writes that parents sent their kids to dance school (Idem at p. 122).

All of the above is in the first part of volume one. The following are examples from the second part of the volume which is, in a sense, a complete handbook on אורח חיים andיורה דעה . When the author talks about ראש השנה, he says, “we do not sleep onראש השנה, rather we learn the whole day but it’s worse not to sleep and talk”.דברים בטלים (See הלכות ראש השנה עמוד נח סוף העמוד.)

He also includes an extensive chapter on תחומין as it seems many villages were lax in this area (See “Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands,” p. 323 note 104; ירושלים ed., pp. 30-31). In the third part, (called volume two) which is written in song, as previously mentioned, the author speaks against women that drank excessive amounts of alcohol at wedding and בריתי מילה (vol. two, p. 18). People in the villages children dealt with the farm animal’s onשבת (see תולדות ספרות ישראל עמוד 145), and people wrote מגלת אסתר on paper (Idem).

One topic which is dealt with throughout the sefer is tznius. The author goes so far as to say that the reason why many Jews died in ת”ח ות”ט and other גזירות was because of lack of tznius (ירושלים ed., pp. 64, 124). Examples of tznius the people of his times were lax in include: men and women who weren’t married to each other danced together in public, some women were very involved in dressing in order to be attractive to men. In contrast to all this, the author was told that in Turkey, the people were so careful with tznius that men hardly ever saw women. Women didn’t go to shul, and when guests stayed in someone’s house, the man of the house didn’t allow his wife and daughters to see the guests (Idem at p. 64).

Another issue the author takes a strong stance was the education system. In the first part of the sefer, he recommends that when starting to teach children to learn, you ought to begin with תנ”ך and דקדוק. Only after that should one continue on to משנה and גמרא. That’s the only way people will have success in learning. He states that many people leave the field of learning at a young age, and because they don’t know the basics of תנ”ך and דקדוק, they can’t understand the tefillos they say daily. To quote the sefer, “I’m writing this in German so that everyone can understand, especially women who are busy with child raising. The women should not think that their sons have to learn גמרא at an early age. The מהר”ל and others already said that one should first learn תנ”ך, then דקדוק, and only then move on to משנה and גמרא.” He repeats this in the third part of the sefer, in short, where he mentions that people only teach their children גמרא and not תנ”ך. (See מהדורת תפז עמוד יח. Professor Simcha Assaf in מקורות לתולדות חינוך בישראל only quotes the last source on education.)

In conclusion, the שמחת הנפש is a truly unique sefer. The first part of שמחת הנפש was translated but it could use much more extensive notes. It would be very worthwhile for someone to undertake to translate all three parts of the sefer with extensive footnotes, as was recently done to Gluckel von Hameln.

Many editions of the שמחת הנפש is available online here, including the first – the 1707 edition as well as the rare 1727 edition. Aside from שמחת הנפש the site, from the Frankfurt University Library, contains over 700 Yiddish prints, all free.

Menachem Mendel has a very good post discussing the issues and the history regarding the propriety of blowing the shofar on Rosh HaShana when it falls on Shabbat. A central figure in this discussion is R. Akiva Yosef Schlesinger. R. Schlesinger is perhaps best known for his book Lev haIvri a commentary on the last will and testament of the Hatam Sofer. In this book, which perhaps can be used to trace much of Haredi ideology today, the bulk is devoted to putting down the “reformers.” He discusses Mendelssohn’s Biur, speaking in the vernacular and a host of other issues. There is no doubt he held what many would consider extremists views. R. Schlesinger has a less well known side – his love of Israel and dislike or almost vehement hatred of inertia.

R. Schlesinger who was born and raised in Hungry emigrated to Israel. When he got to Israel, at the time, most people were supported by the various kollelim. These kollelim would be set up by country, Hungarian Kollel etc. (the American Kollel was controversial). These kollelim in turn wielded tremendous power – they had the money. R. Schlesinger took a very dim view of these kollelim. First, he felt the money was not given out based upon need and merit, rather it was given based upon status and connections. Additionally, this system only ensured that people would never actually try and make money themselves. To be clear, these kollelim did not only support people learning full time, rather, almost everyone was supported by them.

R. Schlesinger came out strongly against the kollelim and decided to set up his own system. This system he outlined his book Kollel HaIvirim. First, he explains his system would be democratic. He explains that the Torah requires one to follow the majority. This is so, even when a Godol or the like holds different views. He proves this by pointing to the system of the Sanhedrin. There, they did not just go with greatest Rabbi on the Sanhedrin, rather, they started polling the views of the lowest one. (p. 7).

According to R. Schlesinger’s system the Kollel or Board would be in charge of almost everything. They would oversee the education of the children. He advocated for marriage at 18 and then a 3 year period to devote to study. However, R. Schlesinger notes, not too many people are successful at just studying Torah full time, therefore, the Kollel should see who is not or who does not have an interest and they should learn a proper profession. This study should not be half hazard. Instead, they should study from a expert and devote a significant amount of time to this endeavor. He includes agriculture among these professions. (p. 9-10)

R. Schlesinger did not shy away from accountability. Even today many religious organizations do not have open books. R. Schlesinger, however, advocated for a yearly accounting which would be sent to all where they could view all the expenses and the accounting of the Kollel. (p.11).

He also seems to have taken what today would be considered a religious Zionist view of the then current status of Israel. Although at the time, Israel was under the rule of the Turkish government, due to the fact, they were fairly benevolent he understood that it was already then – long before the founding of the State of Israel – the messianic era. Specifically, he points to the Talmudic passage which explains the only change during the messianic era will be the removal of government oppression (אין בין עולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכיות בלבד). (p. 19) Additionally, he chides his former countrymen on their aversion to move to Israel. He says R. Isaiah Horowitz in the 16th century moved to Israel although it took a year to do. Today, he says, it is easy. The government gives anyone who wants a pass and it on the fast ships and rail it takes a mere 10 days. (p. 16).

Although it was fairly safe, R. Schlesinger was aware there still should be a security force. Thus, he advocated for a month long rotation for everyone. These watchers would serve for a month and then others would take their place. He says they should do so even on Shabbat. (p. 26b).

He wanted everyone to have a flag. There would be a general Kollel haIvrim flag with white, green, purple and turquoise. Then each shevet would have their own as well. (p. 27).

All of these plans met with serious resentment from the established Kollelim. They viewed him as undermining their system and way of life. So, as anyone who wants to get someone in trouble does – they searched his books to find something they could ban. Sure enough, they were successful. In his book Bet Yosef Hadash, which is on the Bet Yosef, he discusses a terrible problem and attempts to find a satisfactory answer. In Russia at the time there was forced conscription for a 25 year period. This was a Jewish death sentence – some people, were taken as young as 8. So, some would flee Russia and move to Israel to avoid this. At times, their wives refused to come. R. Schlesinger, therefore, discusses the possibility of getting around the Herem of Rabbenu Gershon on two wives. R. Schlesinger’s enemies, however, accused him of doing away with and not respecting the Herem.

They consigned his books to the fire and put a ban on them.

In the end, however, his students (and he had many) were successful in setting up the city of Petach Tikvah (see here for more). They wanted R. Schlesinger to join them, and he did. He purchased land, but to honor his father in law, purchased it in his father in laws name.

Unfortunately, this had terrible ramifications. When R. Schlesinger returned to Hungary to gain support for his movement, his enemies went to his father in law. His father in law was old and could not take this. His father in law signed over the land he owned in Petach Tikvah, the land which was the culmination of R. Schlesinger’s dream to his enemies, the Hungarian Kollel. R. Schlesinger then attempted to get it back. He did win some court victories. His opponents, however, used his own means against him. They ignored the pronouncements of the Bet Din, knowing that R. Schlesinger would never go to a non-Jewish court.

It seems that not only was R. Schlesinger a tragic figure, but other things he touched as well. Shmuel Weingarten was an avid Zionist. He published, among other things, a book demonstrating the collection of anti-Zionist letters in Dovev Siftei Yeshanim were forgeries. At the end of his life he obtained letters sent to R. Schlesinger’s group (although they don’t mention it, Weingarten shows they in fact were)and published them in a volume titled B’Shevach Yishuv Ha’aretz. These letters were from many Rabbis, some who were not that well known. Weingarten, as he notes, had to spend considerable effort tracking down and providing biographical information about these persons. He also transcribed the letters. He, unfortunately, did not live to see this book published.

In 1999/2000 some in Beni Brak B. Margolius (most likely a woman due to the lack of first name), published a book, Ragli Mevasar. This book is divided into three parts. The first two are biographies of R. Schlesinger and his father in law. The last part are the very same letters originally published by Weingarten. Additionally, they include the very same biographies that Weingarten did. There is absolutely no attribution at all! I have included a page from each were the reader can see how they are the same. The top page is from Weingarten and the bottom from Ragli Mevasar. None of the library catalogs I have seen note that this is plagiarized.

There is an excellent book in which a women describes growing up in Lithuana in the early and mid 1800’s. This book, Rememberings, originally written in German, has recently been translated into English. The author, Pauline Wengeroff, grew up in a traditional Orthodox home. She records a terrific amout of customs and how life was then. Eventually, due in part to the influence of the haskalah she, her husband and her family did not remain Orthodox. The book was fully translated and the complete unedited version is available online for free here (although there seems to be issues with the first part) or you can purchase a more readable version here.

There is a terrific story relating to Yom Kippur and how, perhaps, some customs get started.

In Europe, it was somewhat common to have what was known as a zoger (a man) or zogerkes (a woman). This, literaly translated, means a sayer or repeater. This person served to allow women who otherwise could not read to be able to recite the proper prayers. The zoger would say the prayer and this was then repeated. When it was a man doing this, he had to crawl into a barrel which was put in the women’s section.

With this background we can now move to the story as recorded by Pauline Wengeroff.

“On Yom Kippur the zogerke was supposed to recite the paryer in a tearful voice.” The butcher’s wife was hard of hearing so “she begged the zogerke to pray a little louder: she’d give her an extra large liver from the shop if she [the zogerke] would do it for her. The zogerke answered in her weepeing prayer voice, weaving her reply into the recitiation: ‘The same with the liver, the same without the liver.’ A moment later the men were startled to hear the entire women’s gallery sob aloud in a full voice: ‘The same with the liver, the same without the liver.'”

The story continues when one of the women were leaving Shul and another was entering. The one coming in asked what they were up to, to which she got the reply

“Nu, the prayer about the liver.” “Liver? Last year we didn’t say anything like that!” “Today, efsher (maybe), because it’s a leap year . . .”

This Saturday night many begin to say the Selichot prayers. There is one prayer in particular that has raised question throughout the centuries, Machnisei Rachmim. This prayer, which asks the angels to take our prayers is controversial. The reason for the controversy is that we generally avoid praying to angels, instead, we pray to God. Now, in truth there are many, many prayers that are either directly or indirectly addressed at angels, but Machnesi Rachmim is perhaps the most overt although one should keep this point in mind should one decide to Machnisei Rachmim.

Already from the times of the Geonim, they have dealt with angels in prayers (they said it was ok). As the generation progressed there were those who questioned this and claimed these prayers ran afoul of the prohibition of praying to someone other than God. This debate was brought to head in the 18th century in Italy, where both camps were represented by long letters for and against. In the end, it was decided that it was ok for people to continue saying these prayers. Of course, this decision did not appease those who thought it was blasphemous to do so, and the debate continued on (as almost all Jewish debates).

In the case of the 18th century debate, the various positions were recorded in one of the earliest Jewish encyclopedias, Pachad Yitzhak. Those who said it was ok based this upon two authorities (although there are others, some of which they were aware of and some of which they were not). These two were the Etz Shetul commentary on R. Joseph Albo’s Sefer HaIkkrim (first printed Venice, 1618) and the commentary on the Machzor, Hadrat Kodesh (this commentary was first printed in 1567 in Lubin, however, this commentary was then “updated” in the Prague by the editor R. Moshe Shedel. This Prague edition was reprinted numerous time, however, in all these early editions there was no specific title to the commentary and instead was called “haMifaresh.” The title Hadrat Kodesh was first used in the 1600 Venice edition and then in subsequent reprints.) [What is of passing interest, and one wonders whether it precipitated this controversy, is that this commentary was just republished right before the debate broke out in Venice 1711 – this editions title page is reproduced below. As one can see it is very elaborate with rather interesting illustrations. Additionally, the Hadrat Kodesh commentary relating to the above discussion from this edition is also reproduced below.] On the other hand, the opponents discounted the justifications offered by these two (at times in rather irreverent terms) and claimed based upon a simple reading these types of prayers were prohibited. Two leading Rabbis were called to adjudicate the matter, and as I mentioned above, they ruled the practice could continue. One, R. Shmuel Abaob, actually had to respond again as the opponents refused to accept his initial decision.

One of the other more common places this comes up is in the prayers Shalom Alechim said on Friday nights. Again, this is more or less the same debate regarding the stanza asking the angels for a blessing. R. Jacob Emden in his Siddur as well as his commentary on the Tur/Shulchan Orakh actually offers the same justification as that of the Hadrat Kodesh and then realizes that it is the same and they would be equally applicable. R. Emden ultimately decided to remove all the passages from Shalom Alechim with the exception of the first stanza (although in most purported editions of R. Emden’s Siddur including the most recent one, the entire Shalom Alechim appears.)

All of the above and more was collected in an article which appeared in the journal Yeshurun. This article was so good and so comprehensive it was then plagiarized in the book Mo’adim l’Simcha. In fact, R. Fruend the “author” of Mo’adim l’Simcha even took the errors which appear in the Yeshurun article. For instance, they cite to the work Sheboli haLeket no. 252 when the correct citation is to 282; and Fruend repeats this. Fruend, seems to have a very different view of plagiarizing than is currently accepted. He does cite to the Yeshurun article a few times, but this does not absolve his copying verbatim of the article. This is not the only time Fruend does this. Instead, he does this over and over again with many of the articles which appear in his books. Sometimes he gives passing credit to the original authors and sometimes he doesn’t. While it is somewhat troubling that Fruend does this, it is worthwhile pointing out that Fruend’s books, Mo’adim l’Simcha are very good (in part because he uses excellent sources) and at the very least compiling and condensing the many articles on the many topics he covers is worthwhile. Finally, not everything in his books is plagiarized, instead, there are whole articles which are Fruend’s and they are also very good.

Sources: R. Dr. Shlomo Sprecher, “The Controversy About Machnesi Rachmim” in Yeshurun no. 3 p. 706-729; R. Fruend, Mo’adim l’Simcha, vol. Elul – Tishrei p. 37-62; also for more Machnisei Rachmim including manuscript evidence see S. Emmanuel’s article available here. Of course, the above does not discuss the more general question of whether one should say any piyuttim which is for another post.

A fairly universal custom is to recite the passage from Psalms l’Dovid Hashem Ori twice a day during the month of Elul. A question which has received renewed scrutiny recently is where this custom came from. The most obvious answer is the work Hemdat Yamim. This work, however, is rather controversial. Many claim this book (which has many other well-accepted customs) was written by Nathan of Gaza, the prophet of the infamous false-Messiah Shabbetai Zevi. Thus, if the Hemdat Yamim is in fact the source, that would not be a good thing.

So, some have claimed that in fact there is another source for the recitation of l’Dovid HaShem during Elul. They point to the book Shem Tov Kotton. In this book, which is a collection of additionally kabbalistic prayers, there is a mention to say l’Dovid HaShem during Elul. The problem, however, is that a) Shem Tov Kotton only says to do so on Monday and Thursday and the 10 days of repentance but not everyday in Elul; (b) he also says that not only one should say l’Dovid but also additionally prayers some of his own compilation and others such as the 13 middot haRachmim and the Psalm Rananu Tzadikim; (c) finally, he says to say l’dovid HaShem immediately after Shmonei Esreh. So it would seem that in all likelyhood the Shem Tov Katton is not the source of our custom to say l’Dovid daily, at the end of prayers, without any additional prayers.[1]

So we are back to square one. Lest one despair some have come to fill this gap. They say anyways the Shem Tov Koton would not have been the best source as they would rather this custom ultimately come from the Ari’zal (which the Shem Tov Koton would not). Now, some just claim the Hemdat Yamim is really a student of the Ari and is perfectly kosher. This solves everything, but that is not the general consensus. Instead, they have located that R. Hayyim haKohen who was known as student of the R. Hayyim Vital and himself an important conduit for the Ari’zal’s writtings, says to say l’Dovid HaShem during Elul. Now, as it was we have a Ari’zal source so the custom has been saved.

Not so fast. First, a rather interesting work was recently redone and republished on the Shir Shel Yom. This book, Shirei haLevim, is everything and anything having to do with the Shir Shel Yom. The book, discusses all the Ari”zal’s customs as connected to the Shir Shel Yom, the book was originally published in 1677. However, no where in this book is there any discussion of l’Dovid, which tends to show that although the author was well versed in all the other Ari’zal’s Shir Shel Yom customs, it seems not this one. Thus, it seems doubtful this custom actually emerged from the Ari’zal.

But, even more questionable is that in the manuscript from which R. Hayyim Kohen’s comments were published that manuscript contains nothing about l’Dovid haShem instead, it appears the publisher inserted into the R. Hayyim’s work. And as already has noted by some (see Yudolov’s comments for the entry of Sha’arei Rachmim [No. 0182652] on the Bibliography of the Hebrew Book 1470-1960) many insertations to the work in question, the Sha’arei Rotzon, are found in the Hemdat Yamim.

2007 Update: Also, it is worth pointing out the lengths persons will go to obscure the Hemdat Yamim source. For instance, in the Siddur Alyiyat Eliyahu and the Machzor by the same editor, Mikrai Kodesh, in both these siddurim the editor offers the following as the source for l’Dovid: “Sha’arei Tefilah which attributes this custom to R. Hayyim Kohen, a student of the AriZa”L, Shem Tov Koton.” So, the earliest source is this work Sha’arei Tefilah which attributes it tho R. Hayyim Kohen – this apparently is a new source, which, although we have seen other sources which attribute it to R. Hayyim we saw that source was questionable at best. While the editor did not explain which of the many Sha’arei Tefilah he is referring to[2], in fact he is referring to R. Ya’akov Raccah’s work published in 1870. Now, as this work is published in 1870 and supposedly is the source for what R. Hayyim Kohen who died in 1655 and authored many of his own works which discuss similar topics should immediately be a red flag . When one actually looks at the Sha’arei Teffilah the quote (p. 48) one sees that he is not the source, instead, all the Sha’arei Teffilah does is quote the Sha’arei Rotzon, which, as noted above, we now know is not actually a quote from R. Hayyim, and instead merely the later insertation of the editors of that work. Now, why would the editor go so far out of his way to reference a rather obscure work from the late 19th century as the first source for this custom but never make any mention of the earlier source Hemdat Yamim at all? It would seem that he wanted to avoid as much as possible any connection to this source.

Notes:
[1] R. Katz, in Divrei Yosef (p. 175) uses the differences between the custom advocated for the Hemdat Yamim – l’dovid should be recited prior to selichot, as a “proof” that our custom can not be based upon Hemdat Yamim. Katz, however, is silent about the numerous differences between our custom and what the Shem Tov Koton advocates for.

[2] It is especially ironic that the editor did not explain which Sha’arei Tefilah he is referencing as the editor spends a considerable portion of his introduction castigating R. Shlomo Zalman Hanau’s Sha’arei Tefilah (the most well-known work with the title Sha’arei Teffilah) for numerous precieved sins. Such a bland citation my lead an innocent reader to make the grave error that the editor is now citing to this “horrible” work.

Sources: Shirei HaLevim was reprinted and retypeset in the book Shirat Shmuel; on l’Dovid see Ohr Yisrael no. 1 by R. Katz (reprinted in his Divrei Yosef); Shem Tov Koton, Chernowitz, 1855 12a-13a (available online at Hebrewbooks.org; R. Goldhaber, Minhagei Kehillot vol. 2 p. 8 (he is the source for the manuscript evidence) Goldhaber’s work is generally excellent; on Hemdat Yamim (the recent controversy) see R. M. Tzuriel’s recent reprint and his introduction; R. N. Greenwald “The Attitudes of the Leaders of Hassidim towards the book ‘Hemdat Yamim’,” Hechal HaBesht no. 6; 34-64; R. Mondshien’s response in the next issue of Hechal HaBesht and Greenwald’s response to R. Mondshein in that issue; for even more on Hemdat Yamim as well as where you can get your own copy for free see my prior post here ; for more on R. Hayyim Kohen, see here about half way down the page.

“If men be judged wise by their beards and their girth, Then goats would be the wisest creatures on Earth.”

With the High Holidays approaching one of the more interesting attributes which takes a more prominent position is that of shaving or facial hair. Of course, prior to any Shabbat or Yom Tov, one is supposed to shave and take a haircut. Yet, for the High Holidays, there is a special emphasis on facial hair. One of the attributes that the Hazan should have is a beard. Although a beard is not the only qualification for the Hazan, nor is it the dispositive one, it is still mentioned. The importance of the beard is mentioned in the Hazan’s prayer prior to the Mussaf prayers. In that prayer, he lists some of his possible faults including his lack of a full beard (זקן מגודל). [As an aside, this prayer is public and a general one listing in a general manner the various shortcomings everyone really has, Artscroll has that one should say silently some of the faults which seems to belie the fact that every hazzan says this thus removing any individual stigma. Yet, were I pray most years, the Hazzan goes one step further and says half if not more silently. I don’t know if this is due to his immense piety or in fact all those things are applicable to him or perhaps he doesn’t think any of those are applicable and is really just skipping them.]

While the Torah prohibits shaving one’s face with a razor, according to most, one can still remove facial hair. There is a long and tortuous debate about what exactly one can use to remove facial hair, however, putting that aside, it is assumed that there are permissible methods of removal. Now, aside from the straight halakhic (Jewish Law) debate there is another issue that is implicated in removing one’s beard – kabbalah. Some hold that although one is not prohibited from shaving according to a strict reading of the law, one must still be cogent of the kabbalah, which they argue, prohibits any trimming or shaving of the beard.

While some claim kabbalah prohibits shaving, there are others who question this. This debate while ostensibly centered around the interpretation of kabbalah texts, instead revolves around the practice of a single person, R. Menachem Azariah of Fano (Rama m’Fano).

The Rama m’Fano was considered one of the greatest kabbalisits of his generation. He authored many important works on kabbalah and was considered, among many, the heir for Lurianic kabbalah. Thus, his practices regarding shaving can shed light on whether kabbalah really advocates for a beard or if one can still conform with kabbalah and be clean shaven.

R. Shabbtai Baer (d. 1674) in his Be’er Esek was asked whether kabbalah mandates that one keep a beard. He replied by first discussing all the relevant texts and in the end makes the argument that perhaps in the Diaspora kabbalah doesn’t mandate growing a beard. He then gets to the crux of what would become the debate for the next 300 years – the practice of the Rama m’Fano. R. Baer states that he attempted to find out exactly what the practice of the Rama m’Fano was in this area. He learnt that every Friday, the Rama m’Fano would trim his beard or shave his beard “as is the custom in Italy.” And in fact, his students, including R. Baer’s father in law, followed in the practice of their teacher and also shaved. As R. Baer correctly points out, someone of the stature of the Rama m’Fano, obviously is extremely telling for whether kabbalah mandates keeping a beard. From his evidence, R. Baer concludes that kabbalah can not mandate keeping a beard.

Yet, R. Baer’s testimony regarding the Rama m’Fano did not go unchallenged. R. Yosef Ergas, in his Divrei Yosef claims R. Baer got it wrong. Specifically, R. Ergas investigated the practice of the Rama m’Fano as well. R. Ergas came to contrary conclusion than that of R. Baer – the Rama m’Fano had a full beard and he never shaved. R. Ergas’s evidence is based upon a portrait of the Rama m’Fano. In this portrait the Rama m’Fano has a full beard.

This debate continued on to the 19th century with R. Moshe Sofer (Hatam Sofer) and R. Eliezer Shapiro (Munkatcher Rebbe). R. Sofer was asked the very same question as R. Baer was, whether one shouldn’t shave based upon kabbalah. After first professing that “we do not follow kabbalah” and that “he does not occupy himself with that which is hidden” he then goes on to discuss the Rama m’Fano. He uses, as did R. Baer, the Rama m’Fano to demonstrate that kabbalah does not mandate a full beard. Instead, R. Sofer points out that based upon testimony the Rama m’Fano did not keep a beard.

R. Shapiro in his Minhat Eliazer takes strong issue with R. Sofer. He notes that R. Sofer’s evidence must be based upon the Be’er Esek and R. Shapiro argues that R. Ergas’s portrait of the Rama m’Fano has settled this issue and R. Shapiro alleges that had R. Sofer been aware of R. Ergas’s evidence R. Sofer would never have said what he did.

So, in the end, it seems in part this hinges on the portrait of the Rama m’Fano. Well in 1904 in a biography on the Rama m’Fano, the author included a portrait of the Rama m’Fano. In this portrait it is clear as day the Rama m’Fano has a full beard. In fact the author of the biography, devotes a chapter to the beard of the Rama m’Fano. He claims, however, with his publication of the portrait this issue is truly settled. What the author neglects to mention is how in the world do we actually know this in fact is the portrait of the Rama m’Fano. Although the author does provide how he obtained the portrait, no where on the portriat does it actually state this is the picture of the Rama m’Fano. Now, if you will recall, even R. Joseph Ergas testimony regarding the portrait was rather late – close to 125 years after the Rama m’Fano died. R. Baer, in fact, was actually much closer, at least in time, to the Rama m’Fano, and had his father in law who studied under the Rama m’Fano personally to talk to. Thus, it would appear that although the author with the publication of this portrait deemed this issue settled, in fact it is far from settled.

This was not the only (possibly) erroneous portrait to be brought into the debate about beards. The famous portrait of Maimonides was also discussed in the beard context. There are those who claim based upon their reading of Maimonides that using scissors on the beard is prohibited. The question then becomes, the portrait of Maimonides clearly shows a trim beard. The issue with this line of inquiry is that the portrait doesn’t necessarily depict Maimonides at all. This portrait was first published in 1744 and was allegedly based upon a medallion – a medallion which was never produced or seen by anyone other than the one who published it. You can see this portrait as well as the page from the book it originally from here (scroll down half way).

Finally, it is worth noting that Jews, even important Rabbis were far from universal in their facial hair. R. David Nieto is a good example. In this portrait, he has a wig and is sporting a stilleto beard which one assumes was the style of the times. R. Joseph Baer Solovetchik during the 1950s had a goatee.

Sources: Shu’t Be’er Esek no. 70; Shu’t Divrei Yosef, no. 28, Shu’t Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayyim no. 159; Shu’t Minhat Eliezer, vol. 2 no. 48; see also, Elliot Horowitz, “The Early Eighteenth Century Confronts the Beard: Kabbalah and Jewish Self-Fashioning,” Jewish History 8 (1994):95-115; and by Horowitz as well, “On the Significance of the Beard in Jewish Communities in the East and in Europe in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times,” Pe’amim (1994):124-148 [in Hebrew].

There is much more on this topic, however, I can’t right now provide a complete bibliography.