A Comment of Rashi Found Only in “Defusim Me’Ucharim”

On Shemot 31:15 

By Eli Genauer

Summary:

We find a lengthy comment attributed to Rashi which is only found in what is termed “Defusim Me’Ucharim”. The comment first appears in the Sefer Yosef Da’at (Prague 1609) who attributes it to a D’fus Yashan and a Klaf Yashan Noshan. I did not find it in any of the over 60 manuscripts I checked nor in any early printed edition.[1] It was incorporated into subsequent printed editions on a very uneven basis from the 1600’s to 1800’s but now seems to be part of the mainstream text of Rashi.

שמות ל“א

(טו) שֵׁ֣שֶׁת יָמִים֮ יֵעָשֶׂ֣ה מְלָאכָה֒ וּבַיּ֣וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֗י שַׁבַּ֧ת שַׁבָּת֛וֹן קֹ֖דֶשׁ לַה’ כׇּל־הָעֹשֶׂ֧ה מְלָאכָ֛ה בְּי֥וֹם הַשַּׁבָּ֖ת מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת׃

רש“י: From Al Hatorah based on Leipzig 1

שבת שבתון – היא מנוחת מרגוע ולא מנוחת עראי. קדש לה’ – שמירת קדושתה לשמי ובמצותיי.

Leipzig 1

Munich 5 has the same text

Rashi HaMevuar (Oz Vehadar 2017, also included in all Oz VeHadar editions) has an extra comment (starting from a second Dibur HaMatchil of שַׁבַּ֧ת שַׁבָּת֛וֹן ) in parentheses.[2] The footnotes do not explain what the source was.

Rashi HaMevuar then states in their section of Chilufai Girsaot that it is not in any early printed edition.[3]

Rashi Hashalem ( Mechon Ariel, Shemot Volume 4, 2005) says that it is included in some later editions (Defusim Me’Ucharim) but does not comment on it source or authenticity.[4]

Torah Shlaimah of Rav Menachem Kasher, Jerusalem 1959, uses similar language by saying that this additional comment of Rashi can be found in Defusim Achronim.

Avraham Berliner (Zechor L’Avraham Berlin 1867) attributes this comment only to Yosef Da’at and puts it below the line. In the 1905 Frankfurt am Main edition it is not included.

This is how it is presented in Yosef Da’at:

 

גירסת דפ״ס (דפוס ?) ישן

והוא סוף הדבור בספרים אחרים ואחר כך הדבור קדש לה׳ כו׳ כך מצאתי ברש״׳ קלף ישן נושן

There seems to be three sources, a D’fus Yashan, Sefarim Achairim, and a Klaf Yashan Noshan.

Although there is some speculation that the Rashi Yashan Noshan is the manuscript known as Hebrew Union College Library, Cincinnati, OH, USA Ms. JCF 1, it does not appear there.

https://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/digitallibrary/pages/viewer.aspx?&presentorid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990000621880205171-1#|FL150557494

Question: Is Yosef Da’at the first source for later editions which include this comment and if so, when was the comment added to printed editions?

Despite Yosef Da’at statement that this comment was found in a Dfus Noshan, I did not find any printed editions which include this comment until after the printing of Yosef Da’at.[5] One might have expected to see it in an edition of Chumash printed immediately following Yosef Da’at in 1609, and that would be in the Hanau edition of 1611-1614. That edition had the כללים לשימוש רש“י בתרגום which were first printed in Yosef Da’at and was identified as one of the more important ones in setting the text of Rashi in subsequent editions.[6] But the comment is not included there.

The first time I could find this extended comment in print was in an edition of Rashi printed in Amsterdam in 1669

אמשטרדם : דפוס דוד די קאשטרו תארטס

It includes the כללים לשימוש רש“י בתרגום which we find in Yosef Da’at indicating that the editor was most likely familiar with this edition.

Amsterdam 1669 Yosef Da’at

None of the early Meforshai Rashi, such as Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh, comment on this statement.[7] Additionally, although Yosef Da’at attributes the comment to Klaf Yoshan Noshan, I did not find it in any of the manuscripts I checked.[8]

Manuscripts aside from Leipzig 1, HUC JCF 1, Munich 5 (see above) and Berlin 121(see footnote vi) which don’t have it

Access to links for these manuscripts through Al HaTorah[9]:

https://alhatorah.org/Commentators:Online_Rashi_Manuscripts

12th Century (?): –

Oxford CCC 165 (Neubauer 2440)

13th Century:

Hamburg 13 (1265), Hamburg 32 (Steinschneider 37), Oxford-Bodley Opp. 34 (Neubauer 186)

London 26917 (Neubauer 168) (1272), Berlin 1221, Berlin Qu 514 (1289) , Florence Plut.III.03 (1291)

Vatican Urbinati 1 (1294), Paris 155, Parma 2708, Parma 2868, Parma 3081

13th-14th Century:

Parma 3204 (De Rossi 181), Weimar 651, Berlin 1222, Berlin 121, Paris 156, Paris 157

British Library Harley 1861 (Margoliouth 169), British Library Harley 5709 (Margoliouth 170)

British Library Harley 5708 (Margoliouth 171), Vienna Cod. Hebr. 220 (Schwarz 23)

14th Century:

Parma 3115 (1305), Parma 3256 (1312), Frankfurt 19 (1340), Paris 48, Paris 37, Vienna Cod. Hebr. 3 (Schwarz 24)

London 19665 (Margoliouth 174) London 26924 (Margoliouth 175), London 26878 (Margoliouth 177)

London 22122 (Margoliouth 178), Oxford-Bodley Mich. 384 (Neubauer 187) (1399)

14th-15th Century:

British Library Harley 5655 (Margoliouth 180), Paris 159, Breslau 11 (Saraval 5)

15th Century:

Oxford-Bodley Opp. 35 (Neubauer 188) (1408), Breslau 102 (Saraval 12) (1421)

Breslau 10 (Saraval 7) (1449), Frankfurt 152, Paris 158, London 19653 (Margoliouth 181)

Conclusion

Aside from the Klaf Yashan Noshan cited by Yosef Da’at, this extended comment most likely was in a small minority of manuscripts. The fact that it made it into mainstream study of Rashi seems tied to its inclusion in Yosef Da’at.

“What if the Maharal of Prague Had Access to Leipzig 1 and Other Manuscripts?”

On Shemos 23:19 – Rashi on ראשית בכורי אדמתך

By Eli Genauer

Summary: There is a statement in Rashi which appears in the overwhelming majority of early Rashi manuscripts, and in early printed editions. But because Gur Aryeh and others did not have access to these manuscripts, and because they felt that what Rashi said was incorrect, they ascribed the statement to a טעות סופר. Knowing that Rashi really did write these words might have changed their approach to this Pasuk.

שמות כ“ג

(יט) רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית ה’ אֱלֹקיךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ

Rashi in Al HaTorah based on Leipzig 1:

ראשית בכורי אדמתך – אף השביעית חייבת בביכורים, לכך נאמרה אף כאן

Sefaria records it the same except it adds בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ at the end.

ראשית בכורי אדמתך. אַף הַשְּׁבִיעִית חַיֶּבֶת בְּבִכּוּרִים, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר אַף כָּאן בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ.

Oz VeHadar Rashi HaMevuar records it as above without parentheses but comments that there are some who do not include this comment because one is not Chayav in Bikurim during Shemittah.

The discussion in their Miluim section records many opinions on this matter. It concludes by saying that this statement of Rashi contradicts a statement of his in Yevamot, thereby leaving the impression that the statement in Shemot 23:19 is questionable.

Artscroll Rashi Sapirstein Edition (1994) records these words in parentheses to indicate that there is a true doubt whether Rashi wrote them.[1]

Artscroll notes that “Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh argue that it cannot be Rashi’s work”, but that Nachalat Yaakov defends this version of Rashi.[2]

Chumash Ateret Rashi (Jerusalem 1998) records the words without parentheses but only cites Gur Aryeh who say that Rashi did not write them and Mizrachi who says that there are Seforim which don’t have them.

The position of Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh is based on the fact that they feel that the Halacha is that during the Shemitah year one is not obligated to bring Bikurim. Mizrachi cites some “Nuschaot” which do not have this comment and Gur Aryeh writes that this comment is בודאי טעות סופר

Mizrachi:

ראשית בכורי אדמתך אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים לכך נאמר אף כאן בכורי אדמתך. ברוב הספרים כתיב אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים. ונראה לי שאשר הביאם לזה הוא מפני שראו של גבי וביום השביעי תשבות פירש אף בשנה שביעית לא תעקר שבת ממקומה שלא תאמר כוּ ולגבי שלשה פעמים בשנה פירש ג“כ לפי שהעניין מדבר בשביעית הוצרך ללמד שלא יסתרסו ג’ רגלים ממקומן חשבו שלגבי בכורים נמי שלא יהיו הבכורים נדחין ממקומן ולכך אמרו אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים ואין הדבר כן שהרי במכילתא שנו גבי וביום השביעי תשבות נאמר כאן שבת בראשית לעניין שביעית שלא תסתרס עניין שבת בראשית ממקומה ולגבי ג’ פעמים בשנה שנו נאמר שלשה רגלים בשביעית שלא יסתרסו ג’ רגלים ממקומן ואלו לגבי ראשית בכורי אדמתך שנו למה נאמרה פרשה זו לפי שנאמר ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה אין לי אלא פירות משקין מניין ת“ל תביא בית ייּ אלהיך

מ“מ אבל בקצת נוסחאוּ אינו כתוב אלא בכורי אדמחך אדם נכנס לתוך שדהו כוּ

Gur Aryeh:

אף השביעית חייב בבכורים. בודאי טעות סופר הוא, דאיך שייך דיהיה השביעית חייב בביכורים, שאיך קורא אני כאן “ועתה הבאתי ראשית פרי האדמה אשר נתת לי” (דברים כו, י), דהא לא לו נתן, ואיך שייך שחייב בביכורים:

Yosef Da’at writes that these words are in some sefarim and not in other sefarim, (בספרים אחרים אינו ), and that “מהר״ל(גור אריה) מוחק ורא״ם(ר׳ אליהו מזרחי) מיישב״

Berliner in Zechor L’Avraham (Berlin 1867) lists only Erfurt #2 (which is now known as Berlin 1222) as a manuscript which doesn’t have these words (“ליתא בכתב יד ערפערט ב׳“). He also cites Mizrachi, Divrei Dovid and Gur Aryeh as saying these words are a ta’us sofer.[3]

Here is Berlin 1222 (13^th-14^th century) which doesn’t have the comment:

Berliner cites[4] Divrei Dovid דיהרנפורט 1689:

What needs to be determined is whether Rashi wrote these words or not. If he in fact did, one would then need to understand the background to Rashi’s comment but one would not be able to argue that it is a טעות סופר or put forth arguments against this Girsa “MiSevara”.

Gur Aryeh does not cite any books or manuscripts without these words, only that it was בודאי טעות סופר . Berliner cites only one manuscript without this Nusach. Divrei Dovid cites קצת ספרים which do not have it as does Yosef Da’at. Mizrachi says that ברוב הספרים כתיב אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים …… אבל בקצת נוסחאות אינו כתוב אלא בכורי…. Mizrachi does not say if those נוסחאות were books or manuscripts.

We started by citing Leipzig 1 which has this statement in Rashi. To claim that it was a טעות סופר would mean that this mistake ended up involving either Rav Shemayah or Rabbeinu Makhir. ^v These words are in 13 manuscripts from the 13^th century I checked aside from Berlin 1222.[6] I feel it is easier to explain why these words were not included in one manuscript, (possibly for the reasons cited by Gur Aryeh and Mizrachi) than to argue that the words were not written by Rashi and were added by Sofrim later on.

Berlin 1221:

Parma 3081:

Oxford Bodley Opp. 34 (Neubauer 186):

London 26917 (Neubauer 168) – same as Hamburg 13 with “שלא תאמר”:

Berlin Qu 514:

Florence Plut III 03:

Vatican Urbanati 1:

Paris 155:

Parma 2708:

Parma 2868 is the only manuscript in this group which doesn’t have these words of Rashi embedded in the text, but rather has them written on the side:

Four Perplexing Words in Rashi

By Eli Genauer

Shemot Perek 11, Pasuk 9:

(ט) וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, לֹא-יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיכֶם פַּרְעֹה–לְמַעַן רְבוֹת מוֹפְתַי, בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃

Al HaTorah (based on the manuscript Leipzig 1) records Rashi’s comment on למען רבות מופתי as follows:

רש“י: למען רבות מופתי – מכת בכורות, וקריעת ים סוף, ולנער את מצרים.

Here is Leipzig 1:

Artscroll Sapirstein edition (Brooklyn 1994) adds the words “מופתי שנים, רבות שלשה” in brackets at the beginning.

The words appear without any type of parentheses in Mikraot Gedolot HaBahir 2005. Oz Vehadar HaMevuar also has the words without parentheses. [1][2] 

It seems then that in some newer editions, the words מופתי שנים, רבות שלשה are an integral part of Rashi’s comments. Oz Vehadar explains those words as follows:

But there is a perplexing issue with the presentation of Oz Vehadar. It explains the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” based on Rav Ovadiah MiBartenura, in the sefer attributed him called עמר נקא. I expected to see the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” in the portion quoted in עמר נקא but we don’t find them at all in the quotation from Rashi, rather it appears like this:

It is clear that those words were not in Rav Ovadiah’s text of Rashi.

It is also odd that Oz Vehadar Rashi HaMevuar would have those words as an integral part of Rashi because it acknowledges that those words are missing from the defusim rishonim and from the critical editions of Avraham Berliner: “In Rome (רומא), Dfus Rishon (דפוס ראשון Reggio di Callabria) and Avraham Berliner (רא״ב Zechor L’Avraham Frankfurt a/M 1905) the (four)words are missing.”

Aside from the early editions just mentioned, the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” are not found in Soncino 1487, Zamora 1487, Lisbon 1491 or Napoli 1492.[3]

Here is Zamora:

Rashi HaShalem ( Mechon Ariel, 4^th Volume 1992)doesn’t have it or even comment on it.

Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi ( Sefer Mizrachi Venice 1527) has a long comment on Rashi but does not include those words in his citing of what Rashi said:

למען רבות מופתי מכת בכורות וקריעת ים סוף ולנער את מצרים.

Avraham Berliner who was cited above (Berlin 1867 and Frankfurt am Main 1905) does not have “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” either:

Most importantly, the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” do not appear in any Rashi manuscript from the 40 I examined from 12^th to the 15^th century. As shown above, Leipzig 1 does not contain those words.[4]  Here is another example of an early manuscript without the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה”:

Berlin 1221

Based on not finding those words in any manuscript I examined, and the fact that the words were not recorded in any early printed edition, nor were they included by Berliner, nor do they appear in the Vienna 1859 Mikraot Gedolot of Shlomo Zalman Netter, nor mentioned in any way by Rashi HaShalem, I feel comfortable saying that the words“מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” most likely were not written by Rashi. So where did they come from and how did they get to be included in such prominent editions such as Artscroll (where they appear in brackets) and Oz VeHadar Rashi HaMevuar?

As mentioned, the words are not in any manuscript nor in any early printed edition of Rashi. Going forward in the history of printing, they don’t appear in any edition of Rashi all through the 1500’s and 1600’s including the important Bomberg Venice 1518 and 1526 Mikarot Gedolot, Rashi and Chizkuni Venice 1524, Venice 1538, and Sabionetta 1638.

Here is the important Rashi edition of Sabionetta 1557 where the four words are missing:

The first time that I found the extra words included in print is in Yosef Da’at (Prague 1609) Though ordinarily the author Rav Yosef ben Yissachar cites a source for his additions, here he does not.

He just says כן נראה לי –כנ״ל. It is unclear to me whether he had a manuscript which had the words “מופתי שנים רבות שלשה” or it was just his opinion that they be added to explain the words of Rashi which followed.

It does not appear in an edition of Rashi printed soon after Yosef Da’at, that of Amsterdam 1644:

Nor in the first edition of Siftei Chachamim of Amsterdam 1680 ( which often includes the edits of Yosef Da’at) or the Amsterdam Chumash of 1682.

It is not in Dhyenfurth 1693 nor in Berlin 1705 or Frankfurt an der Oder in 1728 and even later there in 1784. It is not in Fuerth 1841 or Vienna 1831 or Vienna 1859 (Netter) nor Warsaw 1861.

The first edition after the Yosef Da’at in which I found it was in Amsterdam 1749:

It is also in Amsterdam 1757:

Amsterdam 1797 has it also with no parentheses,

The words are included in the highly regarded edition of Zhitomir 1870:

It is also in Bait Dovid Lemberg 1909 w/o parentheses.

I find this case to be quite unusual. There are words that most likely were not written by Rashi which have made it into mainstream editions today. They appear because of a comment made by Yosef Da’at where it is not even clear if he meant them to be included in the text of Rashi. Normally when Yosef Da’at introduces some words, they are included in the first edition of Siftai Chachamim in 1680 but here they don’t show up until the mid-1700’s. They appear from then onwards in some editions and some do not have them. The very influential Mikraot Gedolot of Vienna and Warsaw do not have them. Those editions usually set the standard for those that followed but here that is not the case.

“Did The Bach Really Draw a Cow?” Eruvin 20 b – Hagahot HaBach on Rashi “הא אתמר עלה”

Eli Genauer

Summary

The diagram in the first edition of the Bach (1824) is much more accurate than how it is depicted in later editions, especially the Vilna Shas. The Bach’s picture features a long feeding trough, (an אבוס), whereas Vilna and others show it looking more like something attached to the animal. The Zhitomir Shas compounds the error by leaving out an essential characteristic of the situation under discussion. The new editions of the Talmud get it much better. The one diagram I found in a manuscript and the diagram in the Soncino Pesaro edition of 1515 (which was based on a manuscript) are very close to the drawing in the Bach (1824).

The picture in the Bach focuses on the relationship between an animal, its feeding trough and a well. One of the key words here is אבוס which is the feeding trough.[1]

מסכת עירובין :משנה י״ז׃

[2]משנה: עושין פסין לביראות …… From Sefaria

MISHNA: One may arrange upright boards [פסין] around a well (in the Reshut Harabim in order to permit drawing water from the well on Shabbat.) [A well is usually at least four Tefachim wide and ten Tefachim deep. Therefore, it is considered a Reshut HaYachid, and it is Asur to draw water from it on Shabbat, as that would constitute a violation of the prohibition to carry from a Reshut HaYachid into a Reshut HaRabim. The Chachamim therefore sometimes made a Kulah that a virtual partition may be built in the area surrounding the well, so that the enclosed area could be considered a Reshut HaYachid.]

Perush Chai (see here):

Gemara on 20b

The Gemara discusses a case where the owner fills a bucket and gives water to an animal or fills a bucket and then pours water into a trough from which the animal then drinks

לא ימלא אדם מים ויתן בשבת לפני בהמתו, אבל ממלא הוא ושופך והיא שותה מאיליה

A person may not fill a bucket with water and hold it before his animal on Shabbat; but he may fill it and pour it out (into a trough.) The animal then drinks of its own accord.

הא אתמר עלה אמר אביי הכא באבוס העומד ברשות הרבים גבוה עשרה טפחים ורוחב ארבעה וראשו אחד נכנס לבין הפסין

The Gemara qualifies the case of pouring water into a trough by saying that the above Baraita is dealing with a cow standing inside a house with windows open to the Reshut HaRabim, eating from a trough that stands in the Reshut HaRabim that is ten tefachim high and four tefachim wide, ( meaning it is a Reshut HaYachid), and one end of this trough extends into the area between the upright boards surrounding a well. Here is what it looks like.

Source: Chavruta English (see here, p. 14).

רש״י –הא איתמר עלה כו‘

הא איתמר עלה כו‘ – כלומר כי בעינן ראשה ורובה בדלא נקיט לה וכי הוי ראשה ורובה שרי וברייתא דקתני לא ימלא ויתן הוא עצמו לבהמתו הא תרצה אביי לקמן דלאו בבהמה העומדת ברה“ר וראשה ורובה בין הפסין עסקינן אלא בבהמה העומדת בבית וחלונות פתוחות לה לרה“ר ואיבוס מתוקן לה )ב”ח( לפניה ברה“ר גבוה י‘ ורחב ד‘ דהוי רה“י ונותן לה שם תבן ומספוא מרה“י וראש האיבוס נכנס לבין הפסין ואשמעינן דלא ימלא מן הבור ויגביה הדלי על ראש האיבוס וילך דרך רה“ר ויטלטל הדלי על האיבוס לפני בהמה ואע“ג דקיי“ל עומד אדם ברה“ר ומטלטל ברה“י בהמוצא תפילין (לקמן עירובין ד‘ צח:). הכא אסור:

The portion of Rashi relevant to the diagram in the Bach is in bold.

בבהמה העומדת בבית – It is a case where the animal is standing in the house which has windows open to the Reshut HaRabim and a trough is positioned in front of it in the Reshut HaRabim and it is 10 tefachim high and 4 tefachim wide which makes it a Reshut HaYachid, and the owner puts animal feed(תבן ומספוא) into the trough in the Reshut HaYachid and the front portion of the trough enters into the area between the upright boards (בין הפסין)

In the Vilna Shas (Eruvin,1881) in the middle of this description in Rashi, there is an indication to look at the Hagahot HaBach.

The Hagahot HaBach are suggestions for textual emendations in the Talmud and Rashi, copied from the notes that the author added to his copy of the Talmud. The Bach died in 1640 but these suggested emendations were not printed until 1824. Here is the title page of this original edition:

The picture is in the bottom right corner of the Daf and looks like this:

Here it is straightened out:

It has all the elements mentioned in Rashi…an animal standing in a house (with a window) connected in some way to an אבוס which extends through the Reshut HaRabim and into the area between the upright posts surrounding the well. Nevertheless, I had two issues with this depiction

1. Did the Bach really draw a picture of an animal in his Gemara?

2. The אבוס does not look like a trough positioned on the ground that has substantial dimensions. (10 tefachim high and 4 tefachim wide).

In the first edition of the Hagahot HaBach ( Warsaw 1824), the picture looks like this:[3]

We have all the elements described in Rashi, but the house and animal are depicted by words rather than pictures. The crucial אבוס could easily be a feeding trough which stands on the ground and has significant enough dimensions to make it a Reshut HaYachid. I find this depiction a more accurate one than what appeared in the Vilna Shas.

What was the origin of the depiction in the Bach? We know that the Bach emended the text based on manuscripts he had, or by using his logic to arrive at the proper text.[4] It would be nice if we could find a manuscript with a similar depiction, as this might give us a clue to the source of the Bach. Fortunately, there are two such sources.[5] 

Source #1- Rashi-Commentary on Talmud Bavli (Eruvin and Betsah)

The Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford Oxford England Ms. Opp. Add. Qu. 23 –15^th century (1426-1475), online here.

Emphasis:

Compared to printed Bach:

There is no indication of where the animal is standing, but otherwise it is quite similar, especially its depiction of the אבוס.

Source #2:

Soncino Pesaro 1511(?) – First printed edition of Eruvin.[6] Its source was from manuscripts.

Compared to printed Bach:

There are some differences with the depiction of the Bach, mainly in the positioning of the animal, but this depiction also shows the אבוס being a long substantial structure.[7]

After the printed edition of the Hagahot HaBach appeared in 1824, those Hagahot began to be included in printed Gemarot.[8] I was able to find a number of editions containing this diagram which were printed between 1824 and 1881 when the Vilna edition was published.

The first I examined was Vilna/Horodna 1836 which included the Hagahot Ha’Bach after the Peirush Mishnayot of the Rambam. It was the first printed edition to include these Hagahot on Eruvin after 1824.[9] We already see major changes from the first edition, including the picture of the animal and the change to the depiction of the אבוס. [10]

The second printing I examined was Chernowitz 1847. This printing retained the exact diagram of the 1824 edition:

The third is in the normally reliable Zhitomir edition of 1862.[11] It completely misplaces the אבוס by not having it extend into the area surrounding the well.

It turns out that the depiction attributed to the Bach appearing in the first printed edition of Hagahot HaBach is more in line with the words of Rashi than the “improvements” to that depiction made in subsequent editions.[12]

An “Artscroll” ™ Illustration in the Vilna Shas–Masechet Shabbat 98b

By Eli Genauer

לזכר נשמת אבי מורי ר׳ יעקב קאפל בר׳ משה יהודה הלוי גענויער ז״ל. היארצייט שלו י״ד סיון.

For those studying Daf Yomi this week, there is a unique diagram that appears on Shabbat 98b. In the Vilna Shas one can see a closeup “picture” of one of the boards of the Mishkan (“קרש“) which would make Artscroll proud.[1] While one might be familiar with diagrams that appear in the Talmud, those diagrams illustrate comments in the rishonim, mainly Rashi. Most of these are called out specifically by Rashi: “kazeh” “like this.” Artscroll, however, includes their own illustrations beyond those from any of the rishonim. Yet, they were not the first publishers of the Talmud to do so. Indeed, this diagram on page 98b is a much earlier example of a publisher electing to incorporate their own diagrams into the text.

Diagrams in Printed Editions of the Talmud

The use of diagrams is attested to in numerous manuscripts. These diagrams appear in Rashi, Tosefot and even were used by the Geonim.

When manuscripts gave way to printing in the late 1400’s and early 1500’s, those diagrams were excluded in the early printed editions of the Shas. When Daniel Bomberg published the first complete edition of the Shas in the early 1500s, he did not include the actual diagrams, but instead left a space for the book’s owner to pencil in the relevant diagrams (how they would know what the diagram looked like is left unanswered).

Finally starting with 1697, (the Berman Shas of Frankfurt on der Oder) did diagrams start to reappear in the empty spaces (mostly in Eruvin and Sukkah).

What was the source of those diagrams in the Berman Shas and in ones that were printed soon after in the early 1700’s? There were three sources, the Maharshal, Maharsha, and Mahram of Lublin.

This is the Shaar Blatt from the Frankfurt on der Oder 1697 edition:

The Maharshal is the key point person when it comes to diagrams. He had the 2^nd edition of the Bomberg Shas (printed circa 1528) and made his notations there. He recognized the importance of the Shas being printed but also the dangers that lay in the fact that if there was a mistake, it would find its way into thousands of hands. He lived at a time when there were still manuscripts around, and he made his corrections based on those manuscripts and also his own logic. Since he had the status of an Adam Gadol, his own logic carried much weight. Originally, he did not set out to write a book with his corrections. Like the Ba’ch, he just made the corrections in his own Gemara. After he died though, his sons printed Sefarim which reflected his notes.[2] Therefore, if in the late 1600’s or early 1700’s you were printing a Shas, and you looked at a previous edition and in Rashi it said “Kazeh” and there was a space, you would look at the Chochmas Shlomo. If he had added a diagram, you would place that diagram in the empty space and feel comfortable that it had good Yichus. There were times that there wasn’t an empty space that the Chochmas Shlomo shows a diagram, and in that case, the printers usually added it.

The 1715 Amsterdam Edition of the Talmud

A complete edition of the Talmud was first published in Amsterdam in the 1640s by Immanuel Benveniste. In the 17^th and 18^th centuries Amsterdam was counted among the most important cities for the printing of Hebrew books and there were many well-known publishers that followed Benveniste and they printed many important works yet none of them attempted to reprinting the Talmud. Only some sixty years later did Amsterdam see a Talmud come off its presses. This one, that began in 1714, was never completed.

R. Judah Aryeh Loeb ben Joseph Samuel of Cracow appealed to Samuel ben Solomon Marsheses and Raphael ben Joshua de Palasios prominent members of the Amsterdam Sephardic community and asked them to print a new edition of the Talmud. Neither had ever published a book. In 1710, Loeb unsuccessfully sought to publish an edition of the Talmud in Frankurt. Now, in Amsterdam he sought to try again. Marcheses and Palasios formed a printing house specifically to print a “fine and accurate edition,” in an environment that “the workers would not be hurried so that they could work with care, reducing errors, and under the supervision of … the dayyan of the Ashkenaz Rabbinic Court of Amsterdam who would help establish the correct text.”[3] An emissary was sent to visit various Jewish communities to collect subscribers and reduce the burden of the significant printing costs. Relevant to diagrams, the emissary came bearing a gift, the Amsterdam 1710 edition of R. Jacob ben Samuel Bunim Koppelman of Brisk’s (1555-94) Omek Halakahah (first printed in 1510), a book that includes many diagrams to explain difficult passages of the Talmud.[4]

The first volume, Berakhot, was published in 1714[5] and the editors note the sources for their text and likely for the diagrams as well.

1. Chochmas Shlomo

2. Chochmas Manoach

3. Chidushei Halachos of the Maharsha

4. Maharam Lublin

5. Sifrei Hashas of Yosef Shmuel ben Zvi – seemingly these were concentrated on Zeraim, Kodshim and Taharos

The volume on Meseches Shabbos was published in 1715 and the top 4 appear in the Hakdamah:

The Source and Purpose of the Diagram in Shabbos 98b

The Gemara in Masechet Shabbat on Daf 98a and b deals with the laws of carrying and discussing some of the details of the boards (“קרשים“) which made up the walls of the Mishkan.[6] These board were comprised of a complex system designed to keep each board straight and provide sufficient support for the entire structure of the Mishkan. Indeed, if one examines modern editions of the Talmud, there is an illustration that appears on the page. But where did it come from and more importantly what is its purpose? As we will show, the first edition to incorporate this diagram was the 1715 Amsterdam edition of the Talmud.

This is how it appears in the 1715 edition.

This image was reprinted in the Vilna Shas in a slightly clearer format although with the same detail and is a bit easier to analyze.

 

The picture primarily shows that there were three rods (“בריחים”) that connected one board to the next. The rods on the top and bottom went through outer rings, but the rod in the middle went through the width of the board.( “עובי הקרש“) It also shows the sockets on the bottom (“אדנים“) and the grooves (“ידות“) inserted in them which provided stability to the boards as they stood.

As discussed above, manuscripts of Gemarot though generally do not contain pictures, and a check on the invaluable website “Hachi Garsinan” shows that no manuscript of these pages has a picture to illustrate what a board looked like.[7] One might expect Rashi in his description of some of the statements of the Gemara to state his opinion and then write “כזה” (“ like this” ) Then we could expect to find an illustration in any of the number of Rashi manuscripts we have, and we could expect that this illustration (or an empty space for it) would appear in subsequent printed editions. Here we have none.[8]

The most relevant Rashi appears to his comments regarding how the boards stood miraculously.[9] But It does not discuss the fact that the middle rod went through the thickness of the board, but rather the miraculous nature of how the rod bent as it turned the corner. Another potential relevant Rashi explains the statement “the Sages taught, the bottoms of the beams (kerashim) were grooved and the sockets were hollow.” This deals with a completely different aspect of the beams which is how they were shaped on the bottom (and only according to Rabbi Nechemya). Thus, it is unsurprising that the manuscripts of Rashi do not include this diagram.

It was only in the 1715 edition does this illustration first appear. Yet, in the case of the picture of the keresh on Shabbos 98b, we do not find this picture in any of the sources identified by the Amsterdam publishers, not the Maharshal, Chochmas Manoach, Chidushei Halachos of Maharsha, or in Maharam Lublin.

First, we must identify what the diagram is attempting to illustrate. Rather than the more common form of diagrams, this one is not an illustration tied to one of the rishonim, rather it is illustrating two statements of the Gemara, one in the middle of the Daf and one at the very bottom. This, despite the fact that the diagram appears close to Rashi’s commentary on the page, seemingly tying it to his commentary.

Instead, the illustration is the independent product of the Amsterdam publishers and intended to elucidate the text of the Gemara, what did the board system look like. The Mesivta edition of Oz Vehadar also understands that this picture illustrates the words והבריח התיכון בתוך הקרשים. They indicate that Tziyur 6 which except for the detail on the bottom looks very similar to the one in the Vilna Shas, illustrates that statement.

In truth, the main part of the picture showing the middle rod going through the width of the board is not at all aligned with a comment of Rashi. Understanding that it just tries to give a picture of the “קרש” will make it easier to understand for people who study this page. This illustration is designed to explicate the text of the Talmud itself and was the entirely the idea of the publishers of the Amsterdam Talmud.

Why did the editors of the Amsterdam 1715 Shas insert a picture like this? Perhaps they were inspired by diagrams that appeared in a book called Omek Halacha by Jacob ben Simcha Bunim Koppelman which had just been reprinted in Amsterdam in 1710 and was even used in the fundraising campaign for this edition of the Talmud.[10] It has a picture of the grooves that fit into the sockets that is associated with the second aspect of this picture.

Yet, the Amsterdam publishers did not reprint the Omek Halakha’s crude diagram. Like the text and the other aspects of this edition, they included a much clearer and more detailed diagram that is infinitely more helpful in understanding the complicated text. Adding such a picture to a Daf of Gemara was a revolutionary act at that time and once added, it became part of Tzurat HaDaf that we have until today.

The Maharsha’s Map of Yerushalayim – A Taus Sofer?

“ברכות סא: “הנפנה ביהודה

רש”י – ירושלים בארץ יהודה היא בצפונה של ארץ יהודה בגבול שבין יהודה לבנימין

By Eli Genauer

תנו רבנן, הנפנה ביהודה לא יפנה מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום, ובגליל לא יפנה אלא מזרח ומערב. ורבי יוסי מתיר, שהיה רבי יוסי אומר לא אסרו אלא ברואה ובמקום שאין שם גדר ובזמן שהשכינה שורה. וחכמים אוסרים

Explanation of Rabbi Steinsaltz per Sefaria, the William Davidson edition of the Talmud

In this context, the Sages taught: One who defecates in Judea should not defecate when facing east and west, for then he is facing Jerusalem; rather he should do so facing north and south. But in the Galilee which is north of Jerusalem, one should only defecate facing east and west. Rabbi Yossi permits doing so, as Rabbi Yossi was wont to say: They only prohibited doing so when one can see the Temple, where there is no fence, and when the Divine Presence is resting there. And the Rabbis prohibit doing so.

רש״י-“הנפנה ביהודה ”

הנפנה ביהודה לא יפנה מזרח ומערב – אחוריו למזרח ופניו למערב ולא אחוריו למערב ופניו למזרח מפני שירושלים בארץ יהודה היא בצפונה של ארץ יהודה בגבול שבין יהודה לבנימין ויש מארץ יהודה הימנה [למזרח] עד סוף ארץ ישראל והימנה למערב עד סוף ארץ ישראל שארץ יהודה על פני כל אורך ארץ ישראל היא מן המזרח למערב כרצועה ארוכה וקצרה ואם יפנה מזרח ומערב יהיה פרועו לצד ירושלים או פרועו שלפניו או פרועו שלאחריו אבל צפון ודרום יפנה ובלבד שלא יפנה כנגד ירושלים ממש בדרומה של ארץ יהודה

Focusing in on the description of where Yerushalayim is located, it says “Because Yerushalayim is in Eretz Yehuda in the north of Eretz Yehuda, on the border between Yehuda and Binyamin, and there is a part of Yehudah which extends to the east until the edge of Eretz Yisroel, and extends westward until the edge of Eretz Yisroel, because Eretz Yehuda extends the entire length of Eretz Yisroel from east to west as a long and short strap.”

Maharsha – “הציור כזה” – Maharsha draws a map to illustrate the words of Rashi

Vilna Shas – courtesy of hebrewbooks.org

The first thing to consider is does the Maharsha mean that there was a ציור in Rashi?

It does not say “כזה” in Rashi

There was no space left open for a picture in the Bomberg edition of 1520 or the Soncino edition of 1484. This indicates there was no picture on the manuscript that served as the basis for the printed edition. Often חכמת שלמה (Prague 1582) will add a picture or diagram if it was missing from the Bomberg Shas. Here there is no indication of a missing picture in חכמת שלמה.

This manuscript of Rashi on Berachos also does not contain a diagram

The British Library, London, England Or. 5975

Conclusion: Maharsha is drawing a diagram of what he understands Rashi to be saying

We do not have the Ksav Yad of the Maharsha on Berachot so our best knowledge of what he actually drew comes from the Defus Rishon. How was the map represented in that edition?

There were multiple first editions of Chidushei Halachot of Maharsha. The first few Masechtos were printed anonymously. The main one was printed in 1612. Berachos was printed in Lublin in 1621

First edition of Berachos 1621- The picture is the same as the Vilna Shas

courtesy of hebrewbooks.org

Is the map correct? Does it represent the words of Rashi?

Yerushalayim is represented as being half in Yehuda and half in an area described as Binyamin and Galil. One may argue that the map was not drawn to an exact scale but it seems clear that part of Yerushalayim extends into Binyamin:

The words of Rashi say “Yerushalyim is in Eretz Yehuda in the north of Eretz Yehuda, on the border between Yehuda and Binyamin”. (שירושלים בארץ יהודה היא בצפונה של ארץ יהודה בגבול שבין יהודה לבנימין ) This seems to mean that Yerushalyim is contained within Yehuda and does not extend into Binyamin/Galil.

Ginzei Yosef (Bilgoraj 1932 by יוסף אלטר בן מרדכי אפשטיין) calls the map in the Vilna Shas a Taus Sofer and corrects the map to show Yerushalayim completely contained in Yehuda.

courtesy of hebrewbooks.org

There is some space on the east and west sides of Yerushalayim, meaning that Yerushalayim is between the eastern and western borders but does not extend to either border. (see the extra line drawn in on the west side of Yerushalayim). This is in line with the words of Rashi ויש מארץ יהודה הימנה [למזרח] עד סוף ארץ ישראל והימנה למערב עד סוף ארץ ישראל

This is also the opinion of Rav Tziyon Kohen Yehonatan (Djerba 1872-1931) in his Sefer Sha’arei Tziyon ( Dejerba 1932) courtesy of hebrewbooks.org

ולענד״ן שטאות סופר נפל בציור וצריך לצייר בענין שתהיה ירושלים כולה נכנסת בגבול של יהודה ולא כמו שכתוב בספרים שהציור הוא שמקצתה בגבול יהודה ומקצתה בגבול של בנימין דאם כן גם מזרח ומערב בארץ בנימין אסור לפנות כשיהיה כנגד ירושלים ודו״ק. 

He adds that if Yerushalayim in fact extended any distance into Binyamin, it would require those in Binyamin to also be aware of whether they were facing Yerushalyim or not.

The Sefer D”vash Tamar (Warsaw 1897) by Rabbi Dovid Teitelbaum of Mezeritch draws the map in a similar manner. In this map you can clearly see space between Yerushalayim and the western and eastern borders of Yehuda:

How is the map represented in the newer editions of the Talmud?

Oz Vehadar (Mahaduras Friedman, 2006, Page 42 Maharsha section, Hagahaos V’He’aros) copies the map of Ginzei Yosef but does not have a line on the western side of Yerushalayim. It seems to indicate that Yerushalayim extends to the western border of Yehuda which is incorrect.

Vilna HaChadash (2006 page 36 in the Maharsha section) redraws the map of the Vilna Shas but still has Yerushalayim extending into Binyamin:

Vagshal (Mahaduras Neherdea, 2008 page 27, Maharsha section) is similar to Vilna HaChadash:

Conclusion: Once something is “uploaded” into the print medium, it has a tendency to remain as it was first printed. In this case, the effects of what many have termed a Taus Sofer have remained for 400 years.