Book Announcement: New edition of the Seder Hadorot

By Eliezer Brodt

ר’ יחיאל היילפרין, סדר הדורות, מאנסי תשפא, חלק שני: סדר התנאים והאמוראים, ב’ חלקים, [אות א, 820 עמ’\ אותיות ב-ט, 717 עמ’]

This post serves a dual purpose; first, to describe in some detail a new edition of a very important work: Seder Hadorot, and thus make the Seforim Blog readership aware of its recent publication. The second purpose of this post is to make this sefer available for purchase to those interested. Part of the proceeds will be going to support the efforts of the Seforim Blog. The seforim are also available for purchase at Mizrahi Books [here]. Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for more information about purchasing it or for sample pages of this new work.

The study of Jewish history for itself, as well noting those who pursued this study are very important topics and IY”H I hope to write about it at length. One of the classic works of Jewish history printed in the past few hundred years is the Seder Hadorot, authored by Rabbi Yechiel Halperin, Av Beis Din of Minsk (1660–1742). Seder Hadorot was first printed in 1769, after the author’s passing, by his grandson and included many Haskamot of Gedolim of the time. Since then, the work has been reprinted numerous times and, as a very authoritative work on the subject, has been quoted thousands of times.

Many sources which made use of this work also cast bright light upon the author’s prodigiousness. One such source can be found in a fascinating piece at the end of R’ Pinchas of Poletsk’s Droshot:

קורות הזמן כאשר יעדתי גלל כן כתבתי בקצרה את חכמי הזמן שנתגלה אורם בהתחלת ימי וקודם מעט כמו עשר שנים, והיה דור דעה ויצאו לדפוס ונתפזרו בישראל לתורה ולתועדה ולהוראה ולפלפול וחריפות, הראשון הרב הגדול הגאון ר’ יונתן מפראג שיצאו ספריו לאור עולם,… והרב הגאון הגדול בעל המחבר ס’ סדר הדורות, כאשר נודע בספריו הקדושים יצאו לאור עולם… [פעולתי השמיני, ב, עמ’ תצה-תצו]

We thus find R’ Halperin listed as one of the great Gedolim in a generation that had many giants.

One significant point of his work is, it demonstrates that R’ Halperin, one of the great Gedolim of his time, saw fit to invest much time on history, as a topic for itself and even stressed its importance in his lengthy introduction.

We find the work quoted by Gedolim already close to its printing; e.g., R’ Yosef Steinhart, in a teshuvah to his extraordinary brother-in-law R’ Yeshaya Berlin, wrote:

ואחר כותבי הדברי’ האלה בא לידי ספר נקרא סדר הדורות נדפס מחדש בשנת תקכ”ט עם הסכמה גם ממני וראיתי שם, בסדר תנאי’ ואמוראים … [שו”ת זכרון יוסף, סוף סי’ טו].

Perhaps one of the greatest comments about this work was by the Chida who wrote in his Shem Hagedolim:

סדר הדורות מהגאון מהר”ר יחיאל אב”ד דק”ק מינסק… ובחלק התנאים ואמוראים הן הראנו את כחו בתלמוד ועוצם בקיאותו דכל רז לא אנס ליה כאשר יסתכל המעיין… והרגיל בו יכיר גדולתו כי הבבלי והירושלמי והמדרשים כמאן דמונח בכיסתיה, והקדמתו הארוכה והנוראה ותקוני הש”ס שאחריה וחלק התנאים והאמוראים מבהילים את הרעיון מראות נפלאות ופלאי פלאות בקיאותו וחפ”ש מחופש בכלהו ספרי דבי רב אשר היו עמו במחיצתו [שם הגדולים, מערכת ספרים, אות ס [ח] סדר הדורות]

This particularly powerful description is all the more impressive when we consider the Chida‘s almost unrivaled expertise in history.

However, from the first printing of the work and onward numerous typos crept in and more and more were created over time with each subsequent printing. Another issue with the sefer is that many of the author’s abbreviations were misunderstood leading to erroneous readings. Additionally, many paragraphs were transposed or similarly garbled and all too often the author’s true intent was misunderstood, left cryptic or worse.

In 1878-1882, R’ Naftoli Maskeleison published an edited edition of Seder Hadorot, in an attempt to correct these major issues, after having spent twenty years working on the project. This edition received many impressive Haskamot.

The original work of the Seder Hadorot contains three sections:

סדר ימות עולם סדר הדורות; תולדות אישים ומאורעות מאז בריאת העולם ועד סמוך לדורו של המחבר

סדר התנאים ואמוראים; תולדות התנאים והאמוראים

שמות בעלי מחברים וכל הספרים בערך א”ב מסודרים. מדור מיוחד למחברים ומדור מיוחד לספרים

Now, after close to two decades of work, a new version of the Seder Hadorot was recently released by Rabbi Yeshaya Miller and Rabbi Yitzchok Hager of Monsey, New York. The two volumes just published are just the beginning of the lengthy, encyclopedic work, covering the Seder Hatannaim V’amoraim section, letters Aleph (820 pp.) and Beis-Tes (717 pp.).

This section of the Seder Hadorot is the most important and original part of the work, and where the author’s intellectual prowess is clearly displayed, as highlighted by the Chida’s remarks (quoted above). Hence the editors’ decision to begin the printing of their edition of the work from this section, hoping IYH to continue on to the rest of the work. [The rest of the work is finished they are just working on preparing it for print].

With regard to this section’s importance, it’s worth quoting the Shoel Umeshiv‘s Haskamah to the Dikdukei Soferim:

מו”ה רפאל… ועמד על כל אות ואות מה שנמצא מכפי הדפוסים אשר נמצאו בידינו… כי הוא יהיה לנו לעינים לעמוד על עומק כוונת הש”ס על פי הגרסות החדשות הנמצאות שם גם בחלוף שמות התנאים והאמוראים ומואד שמח לבי בזה… והתועליות הגדולות אשר יצאו מזה אם בשמות התנאים והאמוראים אשר נמצאו בהשינוים וכבר האריך בזה… בעל הסדר הדורות בהקדמתו והגאון מהרי”ב ולבי אומר לי אם היו רואים השינוים האלה הנמצאים בכ”י וראשונים היה שמחים לקראתם

Many years ago, during one of my first meetings with R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi z”l, the Seder Hadorot came up. He asked me if I knew someone named Yeshaya Miller from Monsey who had been working on the sefer. At the time, R’ Ashkenazi was very excited about this and eagerly awaited its publication.

R’ Shmuel Ashkenazi wrote in a Letter to the Editors of this edition:

זה לי רבות בשנים יחלתי למהדורה מתוקנת של סדר הדורות. ואולם נער הייתי גם זקנתי ולא ראיתי מי שיקבל על עצמו את העבודה הקשה הזאת. והנה שמחתני בפעלך ובצפיתי אצפה לחזות בנועם הופעת ח”א בעגלה ובז”ק כשהוא מתוקן ומקובל [אגרות שמואל, ג, עמ’ 1588]

A few weeks ago, I received several copies of this new edition. I began going through the edition and was simply blown away by the editor’s tremendous investment and efforts in producing a stunningly masterful critical edition of Seder Hadorot. I elaborate:

The editor’s state:

הגהה מדויקת על פי דפו”ר, קארלסרוא תקכט; חלוקת הקטעים; כותרות קצרות לפני כל ענין; השוואה לכת”י רבינו המחבר שרשם בגליוני ספר יוחסין; בדיקת כל מקור בספרי דפוס וכת”י בדקדוק רב; השלמת אלפי ציונים; העתקת לשונות הספרים שצויינו בספר

Simply put, they invested years upon years in checking and double checking every source mentioned; literally every word was examined and researched to understand the author’s intent. This was accomplished by consulting early editions of R’ Halperin’s sources thus verifying his readings and comments. Many of these sources were extremely rare, however the editors spared no effort or cost in tracking down each and every source, thus enabling them to better understand each comment.

The following excerpt, sampled from just one footnote serves to give us a small glimpse of the prodigious amount of effort invested into this editorial endeavor:

אבוה דשמואל ולי עיילי לבית הכנסת. דשף ויתיב בנהרדעא והתפללו שם (ראש השנה כד ב, עבודה זרה, מג ב) כתב מסעות בנימן בעיר שפיתה בית הכנסת שנבנה מאבנים ועפר ירושלים

שפיתה. לא ידוע לנו מאיזה דפוס העתיק רבינו את הכתיב “שפיתה”. בדפוסי קושטא שג, פרייבורג שמג, ליידן שצג (שני הדפוסים), אמשטרדם תנא: “שפיתיב” (וכן העתיק בוקסטורף בספרו ‘טיבריאס’, באזל 1620, עמ’ 25). במסעות ר’ בנימין דפוס פיררא שיו: “שיפיתיב”. ובדפוס אמשטרדם תנח: “שפי’ תיב”. על הכתיב “שפיתיב”, במקום “שף יתיב”, ראה: המגיד שנה כא חוברת 25 עמ’ 237; ירחון הכרמל שנה ד עמ’ 274; מקור ברוך לר”ב עפשטיין חלק ג דף תשלה ע”א-ע”ב

בית הכנסת “דשף ויתיב” נבנה מאבני ירושלים ועפרה על ידי יכניה ואנשי גלותו, כמו שכתוב – בנוסחאות שונות – באגרת רב שרירא גאון עמ’ 62-61; תשובת רב האי גאון, בתוך: תשובות הגאונים – שערי תשובה סי’ עא; ערוך ערך שף השני; רש”י ראש השנה כד ב ד”ה דשף, ועבודה זרה מג ב ד”ה דשף; ספר התרומה הלכות ארץ ישראל; כפתור ופרח פרק י, חלק א עמ’ רלג, ועוד

מסורות שונות בנוגע למקום בית הכנסת זה וקורותיו, מובאות בסבוב העולם לר’ פתחיה (אוצר מסעות עמ’ 52); שו”ת הרשב”א חלק ח סי’ ד; שו”ת צדקה ומשפט הקדמת ר’ עזרא ראובן דנגור; עלי תמר זרעים ב עמ’ע

While working on this edition they discovered R’ Halperin’s personal copy of Sefer Yuchasin by R’ Avraham Zaccuto, which he used and even wrote numerous glosses along the margins, thus enabling R’ Miller and R’ Hager to further decipher many previously cryptic passages in Seder Hadorot. All of R’ Halperin’s glossa are included in the notes of this edition.

However, the editors did not simply content themselves with referencing R’ Halperin’s sources; wherever possible but further searched after the first edition of every source mentioned in Seder Hadorot — and in many cases, even the manuscript copies. This was done to avoid relying solely upon possible mistaken information R’ Halperin may have been exposed to, due to errata introduced in subsequent printings of his sources.

Other important additions to this new edition are: punctation to enhance readability; the creation of title and section headings to each entry, thus dividing the contents into material that can be easily and expediently perused; graphically differentiating between R’ Halperin’s comments and his base text, Sefer Yuchasin, by varying the fonts used. This last point is quite crucial; R’ Halperin quotes Sefer Yuchasin extensively, all the while interspersing his own thoughts and comments and differentiating between the two authors enables the reader to better comprehend the Seder Hadorot. Finally, I must note that the typesetting is beautifully done and makes reading the work an absolute pleasure.

The new edition includes a section titled: Likutei He’aros. In the editors’ words:

לקוטי הערות: אלפי הערות שנלקטו מפי ספרים וספרים, הנושאים ונותנים בדברי רבינו המחבר, מהן שהיו עד עתה בכת”י ומהן שכבר נדפסו; מופיעות כאן לראשונה הערות מכת”י החיד”א, בעל שער בת רבים הגה”ק משימאני, בעל איתן אריה, בעל אפרקסתא דעניא, מרן הגרח”ק, ורבים אחרים

Many Gedolim and scholars have commented on this work since it was first printed. In this section, literally thousands of comments and additions from numerous manuscripts and printed works were collected and printed in a very organized manner.

A third section of this edition is Meluiyim:

מילואים: הרחבת דברים במקומות שראינו צורך לתת השלמה, בירור נוסף ועיון מעמיק לענינים הנידונים בספר ובלקוטי הערות; בירורי גירסאות רבות על פי עדי נוסח קדומים; הצעת דעות, פירושים והערות שונות לכל הקשור לעניני הספר; העתקים לשונות ארוכים שלה הכילם הגליון בפנים

This section is devoted to lengthier pieces devoted to elaborating upon particular passages in Seder Hadorot. The research invested in this section is simply incredible; no stone was left unturned.

One example of this: Seder Hadorot lists three hundred and thirty mentions of ר’ אליעזר הגדול in the Mishnah. In their almost ten-page elaboration of this in this section, the editors examine each of these mentions. This is extremely valuable to scholar and researcher alike, as many passages are attributed to ר’ אלעזר בן שמוע.

In conclusion: this outstanding new edition of this incomparable work is truly masterful and I eagerly await the completion of this set.

Legacy Judaica Spring 2021 Auction

By Dan Rabinowitz and Eliezer Brodt

Legacy Auction Judaica is holding its Spring auction on May 30th (link) and it provides us the opportunity to discuss some interesting bibliographical and historical books and items.

Item #7 is the first edition of Charedim printed in 1601. This is the first appearance of R. Elazar Azkiri’s song Yedid Nefesh in print. For a full discussion of this Tefilah see Bentcy Eichorn, Zemirot Zion, pp. 91-106. This volume also has many unidentified glosses.

Another entry of note is Item #147, the Hida’s copy of the 1545 edition of the Sifra with what may be his marginalia.

An item with important glosses is Item #160 which has the notes of R’ Chaim Sofer known as ‘the Hungarian R’ Chaim,’ on the work Sharei Torah. See also Item #61 which has glosses from R’ Hirsch Berlin.

Item #79, is the first edition, Seder Zera’im. While small portions of the Tiferes Yisrael commentary on the Mishna proved controversial, this volume contains the approbation of R. Akiva Eiger, who is also listed on the subscriber list.

Another controversial work, the late R. Nosson Kamenetsky’s Making of a Godol, is Item #97. This is the first edition, not the later edition which censored material from the first. We discuss some of the controversy, bans, and differences between the editions, in a series of articles here, here, here, and here.

Also a controversial work is Item #100, Pulmus haMussar which discusses the dispute regarding the Mussar movement. Revealing the inner machinations between the parties proved controversial itself and Pulmus was printed just once and it has never been reprinted. Regarding this work, see Eitam Henkin, Ta’arokh le-fani Shulkhan, 123-139.

Item #136’s description contains an interesting cryptic note about the copy of Pe’as Hashulchan: “Includes the rare final page of corrections and polemics”.

Here is the story behind this sentence: In 1799 one of the earliest authorized works of the Gra printed was the Shenos Eliyahu. In the back there was a section called Likutim.

Here is the text of the Gra Related to Mesorah:

In 1821 R’ Wolf Heidenheim wrote about this:

This is what R’ Shklover is referring to in the last page of his work without naming who he was referring to:

Interestingly enough R’ Yitzchaki of Bnei Brak in an article in Yeshurun 5 (1999) pp. 535-537 concludes that R’ Heidenheim was correct. In later editions of the Pe’as Hashulchan has the piece of R’ Shklover added into the proper place in the important introduction of the work. (Thanks to Y. Yankelowitz for his sources and materials).

Another work of the Gra is the first edition of the Biur ha-Gra on Shulhan Orakh (Item #137). This edition removed many standard commentaries (Taz, etc.) but not the Be’er ha-Goleh because he was related to the Gra. A Shulhan Orakh with just the Gra’s commentary proved not viable because when people purchased a Shulhan Orakh they wanted all the standard commentaries in addition to the Gra’s. In the middle of the publication of the Even ha-Ezer volume the publishers decided that they would include the other commentaries even if it meant moving the Gaon’s commentary to the bottom, they received permission from R. Chaim Volozhin to do so.

About Item #18 Messechtas Purim see our discussion earlier on the blog here.

Item #25 is Peirush Megilas Achashverosh, Venice 1565. The description states:

R. Zechariah ben Saruk (1450-c. 1540), was one of the great Chachamim of Spain… With an important introduction, which provides a rare historical glimpse into the travails of Jews who were exiled from Spain as well into as other challenges of that period.

Worth quoting is part of another piece from this interesting introduction:

שהראשונים הניחו לנו לדבר אבל לא לקנטר ואני תמה מאד מן החכם העניו ה”ר שמואל די בידאש נ”ע איך נפל ברשת מאמר האומר אין משיבין על הארי אחר שמת? וזה לשתי סבות הא’ שהוא ידוע לקטני עריסה [רץ המונחים בעריסה] כי קטנם עבה ממתנינו, וההקש והערך שיש בין ידיעתם לידעתנו הוא בערך גלגל ערבות אל נמלה אחת, השנית שהחכמים ההם ע”ה שחברו מה שחברו, האירו לנו בחיבוריהם מפיהם אנו חיים, אם כן מה נהיה כפויי טובה ששתינו מים זכים מבורם ועתה נקנטר כנגדם. ובעת שאמר החכם הנזכר על בעל העטור והרא”ש והרמב”ם ז”ל שהוכו בסנורים, ודברים אחרים, זרים לכל חכם לב לאומרם מאשלי רברבי. ותמהני מחכמתו שאני הייתי מכיר אותו היטב שהוא חכם ועניו איך אמר בהקדמת ספרו מה שסתר אחר כך בספרו? כי אמר בהקדמתו שהסתירה אשר לא יכוןי הסותר לבייש את האשר נעלם ממנו דבר, כי אין זה מורידו מחזקתו. והאמת כן הוא. ובספרו, כשחלק על הגאונים הנזכרים אמר שהוכו בסנורים

ונראה לי דילמא מר נאים כדנפק שמעתתיה מפומיה, כמו שאמרו על רבי יהושע בן לוי, כדאיתא במסכת נדה פרק המפלת. ולא זו בלבד הזהיר לנו חז”ל, אבל גם כן אמרו במוסריהם שלא יחלוק אדם על רבו אפילו בעודו בחיים חייתו, ולכן אמרו בירושלמי לית ריש לקיש מתריס כלפי רבי יוחנן, למפיגל עליה לאפוקי מיניה עובדא. העובדא היה שהוראה רבי יוחנן לתלמידו ריש לקיש שהצפורן אינה מטמא, כמו שהמחלוקת הוא בירשלמי במסכת הורית פרק כהן משוח

ובעבור שזה האיש היה חשוב במדותיו, נאמר שזה היה כשגגה שיוצא מלפני השליט ולכן בכל מה שחלק כנגד גאונים עולם, לא אדבר אלא באחד, בעבור שנשבעתי ואקיימה להיות כנגד כל איש שיחלוק נגד הרא”ש והרמב”ם ז”ל וכו’

על כל שאר הדברים שהטיח כנגדם, ובפרט נגד הראב”ע ז”ל אשר אחר חתימת התלמוד היה רשום ככל הגאונים, אף אלפי שהיה הוא גאון, וראו מה שכתב עליו הרמב”ם לבנו, והוא היה חכם כולל ושלם בכל חכמה. ואנכי ראיתי חדושי הראב”ע ממסכת קידושין [ותוס’ הביאו בקידושין לו א], והם בתכלית הדקות האימות, ובא החכם ר’ שמואל די וידאש, האל יכפרהו לומר עליו, ולא אמר אמת ואינו נכון ודברים אחרים, שאינם ראויים לדבר כנגד האשל הגדול הראב”ע. ומה שאמרתי לא הייתי אומר, אלא שנקרת בפי’ אחד שלו מהמגלה הזאת

Last year this rare work was reprinted based on the first edition and manuscripts with notes and a useful introduction about the work.

Item #37 is the rare work Tal Oros. This work is almost completely unknown to most poskim. One important exception was the Magen Avraham who quoted it numerous times in his classic work on Shulchan Aruch. For additional information about this author see this earlier post on the blog (here).

Previously we have mentioned how we can learn about works found in different people’s libraries. Item #163 is the Beis Halevi’s copy of the classic work of the Malbim on Orach Chaim which sadly was never completed.

An interesting bibliographical scoop about this work can be found in an interview in Mishpacha Magazine in the September 4, 2019 (Issue #776, p. 50) by Rabbi Yonason Sacks. He describes purchasing the Malbim’s own copy which had an important gloss to a specific passage.

The catalog’s letters section is always an important way to learn about interesting unknown historical documents and the like.

Item #229 we learn about a newspaper written in Yeshivas Telz for Purim. This tradition is found already in Volozhin as described by Shaul Stampfer and continues until today.

Item #182 is another Letter of R. Yehiel Mikhel Epstein, author of the Orakh ha-Shulhan.

This letter has a very interesting passage (which the entry downplays) we already wrote about back in 2007 (here). In this letter he wrote not to write to R’ Spektor as he is מוקף מסביב and write to the Netziv even though he is sick.

Shockingly enough R’ Chaim Kanievskey advised R’ Horowitz, the editor of this edition, not to edit out this line.

Item #224 must be highlighted as this is an incredible manuscript, which relates to the famous controversy in Yerushalayim in the 1880’s.

This is a letter from 1887 written by R. Yosef Dov ha-Levi Soloveitchik, the author of the Bes ha-Levi, to his friend R’ Hildesheimer. The catalog description states in part:

During the late 1880’s the old Yishuv of Yerusholayim, then led by the great R. Yehoshua Leib Diskin, was supported by the “Chalukah” system, which was funded by Jews from the Diaspora… He continues that there is still one place that the plague of secular studies has not infiltrated and that is Yerusholayim, and despite the fact that scoffers want to implement secular studies there, the Yishuv, under the leadership of “Rabbeinu HaGadol Me’or Ha’Golah Yochid B’Doreinu B’Torah V’Yirah HaGaon MaHaRIL Diskin Shlit”a, have prevailed and held on to their sacred tradition. However, those who are opposed to the Chachomim are totally persistent in their publications against the Yishuv and the MaHaRIL”. The Beis Ha’Levi therefore requests that R. Hildesheimer publicize that he disagrees with this view, and that he reaffirm that it is forbidden for the school system in the Old Yishuv, which was constituted primarily of students with Lithuanian backgrounds, to implement these changes…

In this letter we see the incredible respect that the Beis Halevi had from R’ Yehoshua Leib Diskin, something known to us from many other sources.

R’ Hildesheimer’s role in this controversy has been discussed a bit by David Ellenson, Rabbi Esriel Hildesheimer and the Creation of a Modern Jewish Orthodoxy, pp. 110-112,123-126.

Many aspects of this fascinating controversy have been dealt with by R’ Eitam Henkin HY”d in various articles.

One important point is from the Beis Halevi letter it sounds like all Lithuanian Gedolim sided with R’ Diskin but this is not so simple at all. R’ Shmuel Salant definitely did not agree with R’ Diskin on this. IYH this will be discussed at greater length in the future.

Book Announcement: New Work on the Kabbalah of the Ramban

By Eliezer Brodt

פירושי וחיבורי תלמידי הרשב“א על קבלת הרמב“ן, תש“ט עמודים, מוסד הרב קוק

One of the most important classical commentaries on the Torah is that of R. Moses Nachmanides, Ramban (See here). In addition to his more straightforward comments, the commentary contains significant kabbalisitic ones as well.  Usually, these will be introduced by ועל דרך האמת. Many skip these parts when learning the work. Almost immediately after the composition of the commentary, students of kabbalah, most notably those of the school of the Rashba, devoted entire works to explain those sections of the Ramban. A new volume collects all of these works.  This volume, edited by Joshua Sternbuch, Rabbi Dovid Kamenetsky and others, are republished from manuscripts with notes, in one beautifully printed volume, by Mossad Ha-Rav Kook. (Previously most of these works were printed in various places, but not easy to find or use).

The volume includes a very useful introduction about the works in the volume (A PDF of it is available upon request) and includes numerous indexes.

Here is the Table of Contents:

New Sefer Announcement

By: Eliezer Brodt

פירוש התורה לרבינו אברהם בן הרמב“ם, ספר בראשת, תרעח עמודים

פירוש התורה לרבינו אברהם בן הרמב“ם, ספר שמות, תתלב עמודים

מאמר על הדרשות ועל האגדות לרבינו אברהם בן הרמב“ם, מעיתיק השמועה, [בירורים בתולדות חכמי התלמוד] צז+צ עמודים

Recently the second volume of R. Avraham b. HaRambam’s perush on Chumash Shemot was released (832 pp.). This new edition was edited by Rabbi Moshe Maimon and was published in a beautiful edition by Machon Aleh Zayis.

Last Year Rabbi Maimon published the first volume (678 pp.) and the volume on R. Avraham’s Ma’amar Al Ha-Derashot.

What follows is a short description of the work. IY”H I hope to very shortly publish on the Seforim Blog an interview with the author where he describes more at length his work on R. Avraham b. HaRambam and his new edition of the Perush.

The Perush of R. Avraham b. HaRambam was first rescued from centuries of obscurity in 1958, when Dr. Ephraim Weisenberg of London translated into Hebrew the centuries-old manuscript owned by Oxford University, from its original Arabic. Weisenberg’s edition included the original Arabic along with a translation and commentary, accompanied with footnotes incorporating comments of other biblical commentators as well as works of the Rambam.

It has never been reprinted in full, and although the translated (but un-annotated) text has in fact been reprinted and marketed several times, these editions are also out of print and have long been unavailable to the public.

Among the highlights of this new edition of R. Maimon is that he has retranslated many hundreds of difficult words and passages from the original Arabic, utilizing advances made in the field by leading Judeo-Arabic experts.

In addition, since the initial publication of the commentary, amazing strides have been made in Genizah research which have transformed the field of Judeo-Arabic studies in general, and the Geonic-Andalusian tradition in particular. Many of the sources employed by R. Avraham in his writing of the commentary are now being made available in the form of critical editions of the works of R. Saadia and R. Shmuel b. Chofni Gaon. The result has been the identification of many obscure sources referenced by R. Avraham, as well as the clarification of untold number of passages in his commentary.

Both volumes are enhanced with essay length introductions (and copious and erudite footnotes) that trace the history of R. Avraham’s Perush, his commentarial style, and his particular contribution to the Maimonidean strain of the Andalusian tradition so prominently on display in his Perush. This new edition is a welcome addition to any serious student of Biblical commentary, and, together with the annotated edition of R. Avraham’s Ma’amar Al Ha-Derashot (Essay on Rabbinic Homilies) released by Rabbi Maimon last year, are a great contribution to Rabbinic studies in general and Maimonidean studies in particular.

Email me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com for parts of the introduction and some sample pages of this special new work.

Copies are available for purchase at Beigeleisen (Brooklyn), Judaica Plaza (Lakewood), and Tuvia’s (Monsey) as well as through many other fine retailers.

On can purchase it online through Mizrahi’s Bookstore at this link.

In Eretz Yisrael, if you’re interested in purchasing copies contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

New volume of Mekhilta Journal Announcement

By Eliezer Brodt

מכילתא, כתב עת לתורה ולחכמה, ר‘ עדיאל ברויאר, יעקב ישראל סטל ומשה דוד צ‘צ‘יק (עורכים), גליון ב, כסלו תשפ“א, 323 עמודים

Volume two of the new Journal Mekhilta just came out. Similar to the first issue it has an all-star lineup of writers on great topics.

Copies of this volume are available for purchase through me (while the limited edition lasts) and will help support the efforts of the Seforim Blog. Contact me at Eliezerbrodt@gmail.com

For sample pages contact me at the above email.

Copies of the first issue are still available.

Here is the Table of contents of the new volume.

Is there a rotten apple in the Tu-BeShevat Fruit Basket?

By Dan Rabinowitz and Eliezer Brodt

[This post is heavily updated from an earlier Seforim Blog post – here]

Some claim that the origins of the custom to celebrate Tu-beShevat as a holiday that includes eating fruits and other rituals, is Sabbatean. In the main, this assertion is based upon identifying  the work Hemdat Yamim as the source for Tu-beShevat as a holiday and eating fruit and other rituals.  Thus, an article in Ha’aretz trumpets, “The New Year for the Trees, Isn’t it for Sabbatai Zvi.” And the National Library of Israel’s blog includes a post “The Holiday of Tu-beShevat is an Auspicious Time to Pray for the Only (?!) Jewish False Messiah.”  They even include this photoshopped image.

However, a closer look at the history reveals, that although some of the customs on Tu-beShevat can be traced to Hemdat Yamim the actual celebration dates much earlier. Contrary to the popular song, Tu-beShevat hegihu hag ha-ilannot, the 15th of Shevat was not a “chag” of the trees.  Instead, the earliest discussions regarding Tu-beShevat do not mention any holiday associated with the day.  The first Mishna in Rosh Hashana, identifies the 15th of Shevat as the new year for trees.  This designation merely defines how to calculate annualized tithes and is otherwise silent as to the significance of the date.  One can’t tithe fruits from one year using a different year’s fruits. Thus the 15th of Shevat is the cut-off point. [For other contemporaneous examples see Safrai, Mishnat Erets Yisrael, Mesekhet Rosh HaShana (Jerusalem:  Mehlelet Lifshitz, 2011), 305-06]. It was not until R. Gershom’s time that there were any of the traditional holiday markers, but only that fasting is prohibited.

The first mention of the custom to eat fruit and other holiday rituals appears in 16th century Machzor, published between 1548 and 1550. 

That Machzor follows the Ashkenazi rite and includes a discussion of customs according to that rite and the commentary of R. Benyamin ha-Levi Ashkenazi, Ma’aglei Tzedek. He was the rabbi of the Ashkenazi community in Saloniki (of contemporary interest is that he records the death of four of his sons during a plague).   This source, however, was not well-known, and, historically, a different, later, source is identified.  For example, Avraham Ya’ari in his otherwise comprehensive article claims that R. Issachar ibn Susan (c. 1510-1580) is the first mention.  Susan, in his Ibur Shanim, published in 1578, provides that “the Ashkenazim have the custom [on Tu-beShevat] to eat many fruits in honor of the day,” confirming the custom recorded in the Machzor.  1578 was the first authorized printing of R. Susan’s work but not the first time this custom is associated with him.  In 1564, Shlomo Rie published Susan’s Tikkun Yissachar.  (Ibur Shanim 48b and Tikkun Yissachar 62a).  Susan, in Ibur Shanim, accuses Rie of publishing an unauthorized edition, one that contains errors and unacknowledged additions by Rie. Ibur Shanim includes a corrected and otherwise only slightly modified version of Tikkun Yissachar.  [See Susan’s introduction; see also Yaakov Shmuel Spiegal, Amudim be-Tolodot Sefer ha-Ivri: Hadar Mechaber (Jerusalem, 2018), 321-22.]

Mention of this custom also appeared in a Judeo-German Minhagim book first published in 1590. “The custom is to eat many fruits as it is the New Year of the trees.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the community of Worms, there was a rather interesting variation of the custom. As R. Jousep Schammes (1604-1678) in his custom-book states:

On Purim and the 15 of Av and Shevat these were vacation days for the Rabbis, . . . [on the 15th of Shevat] one says tehina even during the morning prayer. It is a vacation day for the students and the teachers, especially the younger students, it is a day of feasting and joy for or the teachers and their students. The custom is for the teachers to distribute whiskey to the students and make merry with them.”  Minhagei [de-Kehilah Kedosha] Vermisai le-Rebi Joszpa Shamesh (Jerusalem:  Machon Yerushalim, 1988), 249-50, no. 211.

Magen Avraham

The Magen Avraham cites the Tikkun Yissachar as the earliest source for the custom to eat fruits on the 15th of Shevat.  This, despite the fact that he had accessed, and indeed quotes on many occasions, the Machzor with the Maageli Tzedek commentary. See, e.g.,

נה:יז, פח:ג, קלא:י, תכז:א, תלא:ה, תלז:יז, תכז:א, תנ:יב, תנג:יא, תקפא:ד, תקפא:ז, תקפא:ח, תקפב:ח, תקפג:ב תקפד:ג, תקפט:ד, תרכד:ז, תרכט:ה, תרנא:יט, תרנא:כא, תרנח:יב, תרסא:, תרע:ב [2X], תרעב:ה, תרעג:ז, תרפא:א, תרפח:יא, תרצ:יט, תרצא:ח

While he had access to the Machzor, he did not have access to the Tikkun Yissachar.  The Magen Avraham quotes the Tikkun Yissachar on a few occasions, but always via a secondary source. See Brodt Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century (PHD Bar Ilan 2015), pp. 68-69. The Mekor Chaim in O.C. 686:1 is the first to point to the Machzor for this minhag.

The halachot in the Machzor were collected by  Yitzhak Hershkowitz ed., Maglei Tzedek (Jerusalem, 2000), pp. 156-157.  Regarding R. Benyamin see Y.S. Emmanuel, Matsavos Saloniki, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1973), 36, 68-69; Meir Benayahu, “Rebi Shmuel Yaffa Ashkenazi,” in Tarbiz, 42 (1973), 423-24 and note 37; M.S. Molcho, Matsevot Bet ha-Olamin she Yehudi Saloniki (Tel Aviv, 1975), 59-60; Yitzhak Rivkin, “Dikdukei Soferim,” in Kiryat Sefer 4 (1927), 278 no. 32; Daniel Goldschmidt, Mehkerei Tefillah u-Piyyut, 252-65, Meir Benayahu, Defus ha-Ivri be-Kremonah (Jerusalem, 1971), 141-78. About Knesset Hagedolah and being a Sabbatean see Brodt, Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 56; Brodt, Yeshurun 35 ( 2016 )p. 775; See also the recent work, R. Shmuel Ashkenazi, Igrot Shmuel (2021)-, 1, pp. 4-5. 

R. Shmuel Ashkenazi

As the Seforim Blog just published Iggrot Shmuel from R. Shmuel Ashkenazi (see here and here) we reprint two letters from his collection, one discussing the origins of the holiday of the 15th of Shevat and the other Hemdat Yamim.

Notes:

Additional sources discussing the 15th of Shevat, see  Meir Rafeld, Netivi Meir, (2013), 185-189; R Mandelbaum, Tehilah Ledovid (Jerusalem, 1993);  Guttman, Otzar TuBeshvat.

Tikkun Yissachar was republished in 1988 with an excellent introduction from R. Betzalel Landau.  Most recently, in 2019, it was reprinted and re-typeset, with additional notes. This edition also includes R Landau’s introduction and another introduction of material about the work. See also Elisheva Carlebach, Palaces of Time: Jewish Calendar and Culture in Early Modern Europe (London: Belknap, 2011),  51-58; יוסף הקר, ‘יששכר אבן סוסאן עליית כוהנים לתורה בשמחת חתנים’, בתוך: ‘מנחה למנחם’, קובץ מאמרים לכבוד ר’ מנחם כהן, בעריכת חנה עמית, אביעד כהן וחיים באר, ירושלים תשס”ח, עמ’ 79-97

Regarding Hagiz, see Elisheva Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1990).

After the Birkat Eliyahu was published it was attacked by some rabbis.  See Meir Benayahu, “Sefarim she-Hiburum R. Moshe Hagiz she-Hotsyim le-Or,” in Ali Sefer 4 (1977), 143, 150-52; see also Shlomo Yaakovovitch, “Sefer Shehitot u-Bedikot le-R’ Yaakov Weil,” in Tsefunot 4 (1989), 112; Carlebach, Pursuit of Heresy, 247-49. Regarding R. Eliyahu see Y. Halpern, Pinkas Vaad Arba Arotsot (Jerusalem, 1990) 362; Tzvi Horowitz, Le-Tolodot ha-Kehilot be-Polin (Jerusalem, 1989), 1.

The literature on Hemdat Yamim is substantial and we hope to return to the work in an upcoming post.  For the most recent discussion see Y. Goldhaber, “Le-Birur Zehuto shel Mehaber Hemdat Yamim,” in  Sefer Zikhoron le-Professor Meir Benayahu, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Karmel, 2019), 873-908.

Huss’s article appears as Boaz Huss, “Ha-Ets ha-Nehmad ben Yishi Hayi al ha-Adama: al Mekoro ha-Sabbatai shel Seder 15 Shevat,” in Sefer Zikhoron le-Professor Meir Benayahu, vol. 2 (Jerusalem: Karmel, 2019), 909-20.