The Perils of Ignoring Precedent:
Alterations in the Kaddish Prayer
by Dan Rabinowitz

Recently there has been a renewal in interest in the structure and make up of the liturgy or siddur. While there have previously been critical editions of the siddur or articles on topics related to the siddur,[1] today’s renaissance of the siddur has been precipitated by a different series of events. Specifically, this has been fostered by the publication and republication of some important source material on the topic; these include, among others R. Shabbetai Sofer of Przmysl’s Siddur Rav Shabbetai Sofer and R. Jacob Emden’s Luach Eresh.[2] The Siddur Rav Shabbetai is key in the development of the siddur, in so far that this edition was considered by many to be considered the edition par excellence of the siddur.[3]

While there has been a flurry of source material, at the same time there has been movement in the opposite direction – a movement which tends to ignore this rich legacy and instead has decided issues of the siddur not based upon critical investigation but rather on reliance on sources that my not be trustworthy. The results have been less than salutary.

One example of both of these trends – the new evidence as well as a seemingly blindness to this evidence – can be found regarding the punctuation of the kaddish prayer.

The Early Evidence Regarding Kaddish

There is a dispute how to punctuate the first two words in kaddish – yisgadel v’yiskadesh (as well as other words in the kaddish, as will become apparent). The controversy is whether they have a patach or a tzeirei under the letter dalet.

The historical evidence is absolute – all the early siddurim punctuate these words with a patach.[4] For example, starting from the 1475 (?) Selichot,[5] the 1486, Soncino Machzor,[6] 1519, Prague Teffilot m’Kol HaShana,[7] 1536, Ausberg Machzor k’seder HaAshkenazim, [8] 1541 Bolonga Machzor k’fei Minhagi k’k Roma, [9] and the 1616 Hanau Seder Teffilot k’Minhag Ashkenaz u’Polin [10] all punctuate the first two words of the kaddish with a patach.[11]

The first to raise and discuss the issue of the punctuation was R. Shabbetai Sofer.[12] In his monumental introduction he discusses the proper pronunciation of the kaddish.[13] He cites the two possibilities mentioned above – a patach or a tzeirei. He explains that the evidence from the Bible seems to point to both. Specifically, he points to contradictory verses in the Book of Daniel. One verse has the word yisgadal with a tzeirei while the other has it with a komatz. R. Sofer explains that the latter must have been punctuated with a patach. The reason is this word appears at the end of the verse. When words appear at a stopping point with a komatz, their regular form can only be with either a segol or a patach. In this case it would be a patach. Thus, we have two verses which seem to lend credence to both readings.

R. Sofer, continues and explains that although one may argue that since the verse has the word yisgadal with a tzeirei that would be the more correct pronunciation, this is not the case. He rejects this due to other grammatical considerations. R. Sofer explains that at least one word in the kaddish passage must be punctuated with a patach and thus, “to keep the words the same (l’zaveg et ha’melot) all should be punctuated with a patach.”[14]

Thus, R. Sofer was the first to entertain the notion the word should be punctuated with a tzeirei and he rejected this reading. Additionally, based upon the proof texts R. Sofer marshals from numerous biblical verses, it is clear that he made no distinction between whether the words are Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact, it seems R. Sofer was treating the bulk of kaddish as Hebrew. He discusses other words in kaddish and their counterparts in the Bible.[15]

Perhaps, aside from the grammatical considerations, R. Sofer also wanted to justify the long standing practice regarding the pronunciation. If this is the case, he does not mention precedent. But, one can not rule this out as a possible subconscious motive.[16]

The First Change to Kaddish

For the first to actually advocate for the alteration of the pronunciation to a tzeirei, we need to wait until the early 18th century.[17] In the early 18th century, R. Shlomo Zalman Hanau (Katz) published a work on Hebrew grammar entitled, Binyan Shlomo.[18] He published this at the relatively young age of 21.[19] In this work he advanced that the correct pronunciation of the kaddish is with a tzeirei.[20] But, it is not only the first two words. Instead, based upon the rules of grammar all similarly constructed words in kaddish should also have a tzeirei. Thus, yisbrach, yispaer, and v’yisromam all have a tzeirei.[21]

While at first R. Hanau only wrote a grammar work, he eventually incorporated his alterations into both his work on the siddur – Sha’ari Teffilah[22] – as well as his edition of the siddur – Bet Teffilah.[23] In this instance, this alteration to the kaddish only appears in his siddur.[24] In his siddur, he punctuates the kaddish with a tzeirei throughout.[25] Thus, he has a tzeirei for yisbrach, yispaer, and v’yisromam in the kaddish. Additionally, he is thoroughly consistent in his siddur, any other instance of either the same formulation or the same word, R. Hanau always uses the tzeirei. For example, the same opening words of kaddish appear in the prayer after the removal of the Torah. There R. Hanau has a tzeirei for ‘al ha-kol yisgadel v’yiskadesh.[26] In the Shemoneh Esreh where a similar formulation appears – v’al kulam yisbrach v’yisromam again R. Hanau has a tzeirei.[27] As we shall see, most who followed him were not nearly as careful in their punctuation even when they adopted R. Hanau’s understanding of the kaddish punctuation.

Before we leave R. Hanau, we must first understand how his contemporaries viewed his alterations. When he published his Binyan Shlomo aside from the change in kaddish he also took issue with many of his predecessors understanding of Hebrew grammar. It seems that he did so in a less than respectful fashion. In light of this, he was threatened with a ban on his book unless he would print a retraction of his harsh comments. Needless to say, R. Hanau complied. At the end of his Binyan Shlomo he inserted a page (somewhat smaller than the rest of the book) asking forgiveness from those he may have offended.[28]

Not only was his Binyan Shlomo controversial, but his works on the siddur were as well. R. Jacob Emden’s Luach Eresh is a rebuttal of many of R. Hanau’s changes.[29] R. Emden whose was well known for his acerbic remarks spared none for R. Hanau. He accused Hanua of even forging an approbation Hanau received from R. Emden’s father- R. Tzvi Ashkenazi (Hakham Tzvi).[30]

Thus, it seems far from clear whether R. Hanau’s alteration regarding kaddish would in fact be accepted.[31] In fact, based upon his reputation and the historical precedent this alteration would not be accepted. But, due to two unrelated events, his change has gained more and more credence as time has passed.

The Siddurim Which Followed R. Hanau

While R. Hanau was a singular individual whose own edition of the siddur was printed once, he still had a tremendous impact on the development of the siddur. His influence was felt through the inclusion of some of his changes in two important editions of the siddur. The first is Wolf Heidenheim’s and the second is Seligmann Baer. Both of these siddurim included many[32] of Hanau’s changes.[33]

But, for this change to kaddish these siddurim which did not have qualms about incorporating other changes did not for this. Instead, the prevalence of this change is due to two entirely different events. In fact, Seligmann Baer in another of his works, defends the use of the patach.[34]

The Two Events Which Precipitated the Inclusion of R. Hanau’s Change

The first event[35] which promoted R. Hanau’s alteration was the inclusion of it in R. Yosef Teomim’s Peri Megadim. In his comments on the kaddish, R. Teomim includes R. Hanau’s alteration of a patach to a tzeirei.[36]

While at first glance this may appear strange, incorporating a change of questionable accuracy from a questionable source, a closer look at both R. Teomim’s life as well as his own comments, clarifies why he did so. Originally of Eastern European stock, R. Teomim spent two years in Berlin. During this time he studied in the Beit Medrash of Daniel Yaffo. At the time, this Beit Medrash was populated by the leading maskilim of Berlin. It seems that R. Teomim studied with them and may have been exposed to some of the literature. At the very least, R. Teomim appears to have studied one on one with R. Yitzhak Satnow, a leading maskil and a propend of numerous alterations to the siddur.[37]

R. Teomim absorbed the some of the general ideas which were flourishing in Berlin at the time. R. Teomim advocates for a sweeping reform of the education system. He advocates for a more structured system which includes an emphasis on Bible and proper Hebrew.[38] This is reminiscent of some of the later changes advocated by R. Naftali Hertz Wessley another of the leading Berlin maskilim. It is one of these suggestions which returns us to R. Hanau.

R. Teomim provides a list of books he recommends one teach their child. One of these is one of the works of R. Hanau. Specifically, R. Teomim lists R. Hanau’s work on grammar, Tzohar L’Tevah,[39] as one of these texts.[40] Therefore, far from rejecting the innovations of R. Hanau, R. Teomim embraced him and his works. Thus, his citation to R. Hanau in the kaddish is not an anomaly but instead perfectly in line with R. Teomim’s general view of R. Hanau and these sorts of innovations.

While R. Teomim’s citation to Hanau should not be viewed as an anomaly, a later citation should be. R. Yisrael Meir Ha-Kohen (Kagan), otherwise known as the Hafetz Hayyim, in his Mishneh Berurah discusses the proper pronunciation of the kaddish. In doing so, he cites the comments of R. Teomim that the words yisgadel v’yiskadish should be pronounced with a tzeirei.[41] The Hafetz Hayyim did not display the same view towards the haskalah or to innovation as R. Teomim did. Thus, his comment which, when properly traced to its source, should be viewed as nothing less than shocking. One can not say, as was the case with R. Teomim, that the Hafetz Hayyim agreed with or advocated for any of the books or application of R. Hanau. One imagines had the Hafetz Hayyim been aware of the true nature of this comment, he would not have followed it.[42]

Furthermore, one assumes that had the Hafetz Hayyim known of the clear and unambiguous tradition regarding the pronunciation of the kaddish he would not have offered this alternative reading. But, rather ironically, due to the import and the popularity the Hafetz Hayyim’s Mishneh Berurah enjoys today, R. Hanau’s alternation has become the norm in some circles.

We have now discussed the first strange use of R. Hanau’s position on the kaddish. The second to advocate for this pronunciation was allegedly the Vilna Gaon or the Gra. In the posthumous collection of his customs, Ma’aseh Rav, the Gra is recorded as saying the first two words of kaddish with a tzeirei. The rational offered is that these words are in Hebrew as opposed to the rest of kaddish which is in Aramaic.

As an initial matter, it bears mentioning, that although today many have blindly accepted anything mentioned in this collection of customs, Ma’aseh Rav, as in fact the practice of the Gra, this is far from a certainty. When this book was first printed R. Hayyim of Volozhin, in his approbation,[43] already noted at least two possible errors. It is unclear whether the two he mentions explicitly are the only ones or there are others as well.[44]

Putting aside, however, the problems with the Ma’aseh Rav generally, in this specific instance it is far from clear the comment attributed to the Gra is actually correct. According to the Masseh Rav the rational for the change in the punctuation is the classification of the words as Hebrew and not Aramaic. Yet, we have seen already that R. Sofer makes no such distinction. In fact, he assumes they are in fact Hebrew, but still one should pronounce them with a patach. Thus, the fact that these words may or may not be Hebrew is a distinction without difference. It does not immediately follow that once one has decided the words are Hebrew they must be pronounced using a tzeirei.

The Strange Repercussions of the Alteration of the First Two Words of the Kaddish Elsewhere in the Siddur.

Even assuming the custom as recorded in Masseh Rav is correct, the change in punctuation of those two words raises additional problems. As mentioned before there are other words which are either similar to the grammatical structure of the first two words in kaddish and in at least one case in the siddur the very same words appear – all of which are in Hebrew. Thus, these words should get the same treatment as the kaddish words, i.e. be punctuated with a tzeirei. But, in siddurim which claim to follow either the position of the Gra[45] or that of the Chofetz Hayyim, only the kaddish has been altered and the rest retain a patach.

As here has been a renewed interest in the Gra and his customs and those who follow him, there is no lack of siddurim which this point has been borne out. In the first siddur based upon the Gra – Ishe Yisrael – kaddish (the first two words) get a tzeirei while the other instances throughout the siddur all get a patach. In the more recent Siddur Vilna although the change appears in kaddish in the Shemoneh Esreh where the similar formulation appears there is no change.[46] The Siddur Aliyot Eliyahu which was “edited and reset from anew . . . with great care . . . based upon the text of . . . the Gra” changes the first two words of kaddish. Yet, when it comes to both the Shemoneh Esreh and the very same words – yisgadel v’yiskadesh after the removal of the Torah – it employs a patach.[47]

In the recently printed Yom Kippur Machzor which includes the commentary and customs of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik the same result occurs. This Machzor which also includes a list of R. Soloveitchik’s relevant customs, includes that of R. Soloveitchik’s views on kaddish. One these customs “based on the tradition of the Vilna Gaon that the opening two words of Kaddish” should be pronounced with a tzeirei. This is so because those “two words are Hebrew words . . . and the proper Hebrew pronunciation of each of those words is with a tzeirei.”[48] The editors are not satisfied with the mention of this custom at the beginning of the book, instead, each and every time kaddish appears they make mention of this custom. While they are punctiliousness regarding kaddish they make no mention by either the shemoneh esreh nor by the very same words after the Torah is removed.[49]

To be fair at least one siddur which is based upon the Gra has been partially[50] consistent. In the Siddur Ezor Elyiahu, when the actual words yisgadal v’yiskadah appear during the removal of the Torah, the editor changes those as well to a tzeirei. He notes explicitly that this change is an extension of the Gra’s custom regarding the kaddish.[51]

The problem of altering the kaddish text but retaining the other examples in the siddur was already noted in the late 18th century! R. Isaac Satanow in decries the “haughty simpletons (am aratzim)” who change the kaddish to a tzeirei but fail to note the others. These who “speak in contradictions,” Satanow applies the verse in Proverbs (18:2) “a fool does not delight in understanding.”[52] The expression “better leave well enough alone” is extremely apt.[53]

In conclusion, it would seem that perhaps what may be viewed as a minor change has much broader implications. These implications include the propriety of the change itself as well as the consequences of the change. It seems that many were unaware of these outcomes and both made the change without full awareness of the history. Further, they were also oblivious to the necessity to alter other portions of the text as well. As one scholar has put it “the critical study of Jewish liturgy is in any case too important to be left exclusively to the ‘daveners’!”[54] In the end, unfortunately, these words have proven to be extremely prescient.

Notes:
[1] For critical edition of the siddur see, e.g., Seligmann Baer, Avodat Yisrael (Rödelheim, 1868); Wolf Heidenheim’s series on siddurim and machzorim published in the 19th century; Machzor l’Yamin Noraim, ed. Daniel Goldschmit (Jerusalem, 1970); Shlomo Tal, Rinat Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1972).
There has also been a significant amount written on the siddur, both its development as well as the text itself. See, e.g., Leopold Zunz, Die Ritus des Synagogalen Gottesdienstes (Berlin, 1859); Abraham Berliner, Ketavim Nivcharim (Jerusalem, 1969); Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (Philadelphia, 1993), trans. of the original 1913 German edition; B.S. Jacobson, Netiv Binah (Tel Aviv, 1964); Daniel Goldschmidt, Mehqerei Tefillah u’Piyyut (Jerusalem, 1978); Naftali Wieder, Hitgabshut Nusach HaTefillah ba-Mizrach uva-Ma’ariv (Jerusalem, 1998); Stefan Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History (Cambridge, 1995).
[2] D. Yitzhaki ed., Luach Eresh, Otzoranu (Toronto, 2001). This edition includes other works related to R. Emden’s work as well. While both of these speak to the Ashkenaz Rite (more correctly the Ashkenaz-Polish Rite) there has also been a renewed interest in the Nusach Sefard Rite (the Hassidic not to be confused with those who originated in the Eastern countries) as well. Some of these early prayer books have been republished including Y. Koppel, Kol Ya’akov (Jerusalem, 2005-2006); Siddur Admor HaZakan, Kehot (Brooklyn, 2005). There has also been a critical edition of the Siddur haAriZal published as well, Siddur ha-Ari, ed. Daniel Rimmer (Betar, 2004).
[3] On the import of this edition see S. Reif, Shabbetai Sofer and his Prayer-book (Cambridge University Press, 1979); Siddur Rav Shabbetai Sofer, ed. Yitzhak Satz, vol. 1 (Baltimore, 1987): 7-10 (all citations to the Siddur R. Shabbetai are to this edition).
[4] There is one exception – the Lisbon 1490 (?) Teffilot m’Kol HaShana. In this edition these two words have a komatz. This appears to be in error. This error is based upon the use of the verse in Daniel 11 which has the word yisgadal with a komatz. But, the only reason for the komatz there is due to its placement in that verse, at the end. Shabbetai Sofer records that this error continued to his day. He says “one should not pronounce the word with a komatz like I heard one incorrect hazzan do, perhaps [this hazzan] did so due to the verse in Daniel, but the hazzan was unaware that the reason it was punctuated with a komatz was because it was at the end of the verse.” Siddur R. Shabbetai Sofer, vol. 1, no. 17, p. 83.
[5] Non-paginated, appearing on the Hebrew University copy (which I have used for the other citations and all are available online) at page 10 (all page citations are to the “page” the relevant quote appears in the online version).
[6] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 10. Only the second word – v’yisgadash is punctuated (with a patach) in this edition. Yet, there is no reason to assume the first word would be punctuated in a different manner.
[7] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 196.
[8] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 2.
[9] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 13.
[10] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 55.
[11] Additionally the following twenty-four machzorim or siddurim use the patach: 1490 Napoli, Seder Teffilot; 1503 Fano, Machzor; 1526, Venice Machzor k’Minhag Roma; 1527, Venice, Machzor k’Minhag Aram Soba, 1527 Prague; 1527 Pissarro; 1528 Constantinople, Seder k’Nusach Romania, 1530 Prague; 1532 Constantinople, Machzor l’Rosh HaShana v’Yom Kippur k’Minhag Sefardim; 1551 Lublin; 1562 Mantua, Teffilot m’Kol HaShana; 1566 Lublin; 1567 Lublin; 1584 Venice Machzor; 1585 Cracow Machzor l’Sholosh Regalim; 1598 Venice, Machzor; 1601, Venice, Seder Teffilot k’Minhag K’K Sefard; 1608, Hanau, Machzor l’Sholosh Regalim; 1623, Hanau; 1647, Amsterdam, Teffilot; 1661, Amsterdam, Seder Teffilot Sefardim; 1699/1700, Venice, Machzor Hadrat Kodesh; 1713, Berlin, Teffilah Derekh Si’ah ha-Sadeh; 1727, Amsterdam, Siddur HaShelah. As is apparent, the use of the patach is not dependent upon custom – sefard versus ashkenaz – or geographic location.
[12] R. Sofer lived from c. 1565-1637. His death date reflects the find in the Jewish Theological Seminary library of a manuscript of R. Sofer’s defense of R. David Kimhi’s Sefer HaShorashim which R. Sofer notes was completed in 1637. Reif, in his work on R. Sofer had dated R. Sofer’s death as 1635. R. Sofer’s siddur was first published in 1617 in Prague although nothing remains of this edition. The current edition was published from a manuscript.
[13] Siddur R. Shabbetai Sofer, vol. 1, no. 17, p. 83.
[14] Idem.
[15] See Rief, op. cit., at p. 29-38 discussing considerations in punctuating the siddur.
[16] R. Sofer’s student, R. Hayim Bokhner also defends the use of a patach even though he also considers the first two words of kaddish to be in Hebrew. See R. Hayim Bokhner, Or Hadash (Amsterdam, 1671): 46b. Specifically, R. Bokhner cites to the verse in Psalms 104:1 as a similar conjugation which contains a patach. On R. Bokhner see Yitzhak Yudolov, “HaGa’on Rebi Hayim Bukhner Z’tl Mehaber Sefer Or Hadash,” in Birkat HaMazon l’Mh”r Shabbetai Sofer (2002): 274-276.
[17] This was noted by Hayim A. Cohen, “Yitgadal v’Yitkadash (Iyun b’Zemichat shel Mesorot HeGiyah Hadasha),” Mesorot 8 (1994): 59-69. While Cohen’s article contains some of the history of this change, he neglects some of the historical evidence and does not note what perverse consequences the changes have had on modern-day siddurim.
[18] Binyan Shlomo (Frankfort a. Main, 1708).
[19] He was born in 1687.
[20] Binyan Shlomo (Frankfort a. Main, 1708): 79b-80a. Hanau does not deal with R. Sofer. The reason for this omission is that in all likelihood he was unaware of R. Sofer’s comments. Instead, R. Hanau address the comments of R. Yitzhak b. Shmuel of Posen in his Siach Yitzhak. There, R. Yitzhak makes the claim the words in kaddish should be punctuated with a patach.
[21] See id.
[22] First published (Jessnitz, 1725).
[23] Also published in Jessnitz that same year.
[24] This is contrary to the incorrect assertion in the Makhon Yerushalayim edition of the Shulhan Arukh. They erroneously claim this comment appears in his Sha’ari Teffilah. This appears no where in the Sha’ari Teffilah. Instead, it seems the editor of this edition was unaware of R. Hanau’s siddur and thus was forced to locate any place they could attach as a source for R. Hanau.
[25] Bet Teffilah p. 29a.
[26] Idem., p. 40a.
[27] Idem.,at 21b.
[28] See non-paginated page which follows page 108 in his Binyan Shlomo.
[29] See David Yitzhaki’s Introduction to the Luach Eresh p. 26-66. While Yitzhaki is incorrect in some of his assertions – he is correct in that Hanau’s changes were viewed with distain by some. For more on this issue, see Jacob J. Schacter, Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), chapter four, passim.
[30] This was later proved to be incorrect. The actual approbation was located and it appears that in fact R. Hanau did receive it. See Dukkes, Hakmei AH”V (1908): 55. This source appears to have escaped the notice of Jacob J. Schacter; see his introduction to the new edition of Luach Eresh (24), where he credits Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald’s 1954 biography with this find. Additionally, see Jordan Penkower, “Minhag and Massorah: On the Recent Ashkenazic Custom of Double Vocalization of Zekher Amalek,” in Iyuni Mikra U’Parshanut 4 (1997): 127-128 [Hebrew], where he provides other examples of R. Emden’s over zealousness and questionable tactics in this debate. Yitzhaki, supra n. 29, appears to either have been unaware of Penkower’s article or chose to ignore it. Many of Penkower’s findings contradict Yitzhaki’s assertions.
[31] Prior to the discussion below, there is but one siddur which incorportates R. Hanau’s change. In the Altona 1826 edition of the Machzor edited by R. Meir Ganz, he changes kaddish as well as the other permutations to a tzeirei. R. Ganz in his introduction says he was careful with the grammar of the Machzor, however, he does not provide a source for this or any of his alterations.
[32] These include, inter alia, the change in the yehi ratzon following birkat ha-sachar from yashlet to tashlet.
[33] These siddurim also included some of the changes of R. Isaac Satanow, who will be discussed in more detail below. The inclusion of these changes has disturbed some. This is so, as these siddurim were considered the “gold standard” and the lack of deference towards precedent many found difficult to reconcile. Additionally, Heidenheim’s edition received the blessing of one of the great opponents toward change, R. Moshe Sofer (Hatam Sofer). In the Haredi press there has been some discussion on how to reconcile these seemingly incongruous events.
[34] See Seligmann Baer, Tosa’ot Hayyim, reprinted in R. Jacob Emden, Luach Eresh (2001), Kitzerat haOmer, pp. 497-500.
[35] It is noteworthy that Heidenhiem did not include this change in any of his editions of the siddur. While Heidenhiem did include other such alterations this one was apparently went too far.
[36] Misbetsot Zahav, no. 55. Although it is unclear why, R. Teomim only applies R. Hanau’s proposition for the first two words in the kaddish and not the complete kaddish as R. Hanau actually has it.
[37] See Satnow’s comments in his edition of the Kuzari (Berlin, 1795) p. 2, where he claims to have studied with R. Teomim. Additionally, many of Satanow’s books contain approbations from R. Teomim. While some of these are undoubtedly forgeries, there is no reason to assume they all are. On Satnow see Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature vol. 5, chap. 7, p.112 et. seq.; Fuenn, Kennest Yisrael, Vilna 1886, s.v. Yitzhak Satanow. For biographical information on R. Teomim see R. Tzvi Yehezkel Michelson, Toledot Yosef, in R. Teomim’s Sefer Notrikin (Bilguria, 1910 [Jerusalem, 1964; photomechanical reproduction]), non-paginated introduction.
[38] See his introduction to his commentary on the Shulhan Arukh especially Iggeret Shnei no. 6. R. Teomim provides to lists of recommended reading/teaching materials in his letters. The recommendation for R. Hanau’s book only appears in the second listing.
[39] First printed (Berlin, 1733). It seems the famed town of Volozhin had as their single book of Hebrew grammar present in the Beit Medrash, this work of R. Hanau. See Gershon David Hundert, “The Library of the Study Hall in Volozhin, 1762: Some Notes on the Basis of a Newly Discovered Manuscript,” Jewish History 14 (2000): 237.
[40] Id.
[41] See Mishna Berurah, 56:2; Sha’ar haTzion, id.
[42] It is unclear whether R. Teomim would have either followed this in practice. The siddur Hegyon Lev, ed. Eliezer Landshuth (Königsberg, 1845) which is based upon the comments of R. Teomim, does not alter the punctuation of the kaddish. While it is possible that Landshuth was either unaware or ignored the comments of R. Teomim, it is at least worthwhile to point out this incongruence.
[43] Perhaps it was to avoid his criticism that his approbation was removed from the 1857 and the 1858 editions. See Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Books of the Vilna Gaon (Jerusalem, 2003), #812, 814 (while Vinograd notes the missing approbation in the 1857 edition he neglects to mention it was missing in the 1858 edition as well).
[44] See Penkower, op. cit., at 85-87 discussing problems with the Ma’aseh Rav.
[45] The Gra never wrote or published his own edition of the siddur. Instead, the siddurim which purport to be that of the Gra are only attempting to reconstruct what they view what the Gra would have done had he in fact edited a siddur.
[46] Siddur Vilna (Jerusalem, 1994): 55 (kaddish), 107 (Shemoneh Esreh passage).
[47] Siddur Aliyot Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 1999): 45 (kaddish where the editor notes his change is based upon the Chofetz Hayyim and the Gra), p. 79 (shemoneh esreh), p. 297 (yisgadel v’yiskadesh with a patach).
[48] Yom Kippur Machzor with Commentary Adapted from the Teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, (New York, 2006): xxxv. The formulation of this custom is in and of itself problematic. One assumes that R. Soloveitchik did not alter kaddish due to the Maaseh Rav, but instead he followed the custom of his own father and grandfather.
[49] See, e.g., p. 18 (shemoneh esreh) and p. 464 (v’al ha’kol yisgadal v’yiskadah with a patach).
[50] There is no change to the Shemoneh Esereh or the other words in kaddish which contain the same grammatical structure.
[51] Ezor Eliyahu ‘al pe Nusach HaGra (Jerusalem, 1998): 216. Additionally, it bears noting that ArtScroll retains the correct punctuation utilizing a patach for kaddish.
[52] Isaac Satanow, Iggeret l’Bet Teffilah (Berlin, 1769): 21a,b. Satanow himself in his later work, Va’Yetar Yitshak (Vienna, 1815): 47- 48, advocates change to a tzeirei of the kaddish. He claims, contrary to R. Sofer, that there are three verses which illuminate this question of punctuation. While one, Daniel 11:36 points to the patach the other two, Daniel 11:37 and Isaiah 10:15 point to a tzeirei and therefore “two defeat one.” Id. Satanow, however, is consistent and changes the other formulations as well. See id. at 44 on tisromam.
[53] What is rather ironic is that the Siddur Aliyot Eliyah, contains a diatribe against Satanow and his alterations. It would seem that the same criticism could be applied to the itself.
[55] Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, op. cit. at 10.

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.

There is a new journal published by מכון מורשת אשכנז titled ירושתנו. This מכון is well known for producing some excellent works, amongst them זכרונות ומסורות על החת”ם סופר and the four volumes ofשרשי מנהג אשכנז . This journal they promise to put out once a year but only time will tell, as anyone familiar with this מכון knows; they do great work but it takes forever for the seforim to come out. Many reasons have been given as to why that is so (money amongst them) however, the main reason I feel is because they strive for perfection – which is the biggest mistake many make as the משנה in אבות says לא עליך המלאכה לגמור.

With this in mind I would like to review this work (not in-depth so as to keep your interest). There are articles on all topics – basically whatever your interest you’re sure to find something there.

This sefer has about thirty articles including many articles which include hereto unpublished Torah from the great גדולים of אשכנז.

Amongst them from the בעל חינוך בית יהודא ,ערוך לנר ,רב הירש ,רב עזריאל הילדסהימר ,ר’ יונה מרצבך and ר’ דוד הקשר. There is an in-depth discussion as to the שיעור מיל according to the קליר between ר’ יצחק אדלר and ר’ יונה מרצבך. For those interested in poetry there is a great piece from the מהר”ם מרוטנברג on חנוכה which includes many interesting things about חנוכה. There is another article on the זמר of דרור יקרא and a piece on שירה during davening in general.

There are a few articles on contemporary halakhic issues such as הגעלת כלים from the בעל שמירת שבת כהלכתה and on יארצהייט when it’s a leap year.

Besides this there are about six articles on מנהגים all of the articles just whet one’s appetite – leaving one feeling that suddenly they took the משנה of שלא עליך המלאכה לגמור too far. For instance, one article discusses the custom of waiting between milk and meat is an extreme example of having too little information. I and many others were waiting for an exhaustive article on the topic – this is not it. Even the article from the generally great ר’ בנימן שלמה המבורגר (the author of the works שרשי מנהג אשכנז), discussing קדיש after קריאת התורה, leaves us feeling teased. We are used to much more from such an expert on מנהגים. He probably wants to save it for his own works שרשי מנהג אשכנז – which we are anyway long overdue for another one.

There are, however a few stand out articles. There is an important article from Professor יעקב שפיגל, whose articles and books are consistently excellent, discussing the בית יוסף’s usage of ראשונים – specifically which editions the בית יוסף had in front of him. שפיגל covers, among others, the שבלי הלקט and the sefer אגור. This is very important in fully understanding the בית יוסף in general and his sources.

After שפיגל’s article there is a much talked about article from ר’ מרדכי הוניג. This article is a review of a recent printing of the ספר חסידים החדש from the nephew of the רא”ש, sometimes referred to as the ספר המשכיל. This sefer has many many interesting things on many topics many of whichר’ הוניג is kind enough to point out – he has extensive comments from a wide range of sources. One can only hope that one day he puts out this sefer with all his notes and the many more I am sure he could have put in this article of 45 pages. Perhaps he was keeping with the above themeלא עליך המלאכה לגמור.

After that there is an article, from ר’ יחיאל גולדהבר, on ר’ עזריאל הילדסהיימר during his time in אייזנשטט. Although the article is good, it appears he missed out on one important source from ר’ עזריאל הילדסהיימר’s daughter all about her father. See Gertrude Hirschler and Shnayer Z. Leiman, “Esther Hildesheimer Calvary: The Hildesheimers in Eisenstadt,” Tradition 26:3 (1992): 87-92.

After that there is an extensive article on the life of ר’ יוסף אלטמאן including many items from rare German newspapers.

The articles conclude with a short piece from ר’ אברהם סולומון about a future edition of דברי קהלת from שלמה גייגר that he plans on publishing. דברי קהלת is, of course, an extremely important source for מנהגים and anyone familiar with the sefer will definitely understand the great necessity for such a job as it’s a very hard sefer to use but one could only hope that the authors dream comes true and he is able to put out the work as he intends to.

Finally, the inaugural issue of ירושתנו also includes a לוח השנה של מנהגי בית הכנסת לבני אשכנז בארץ ישראל and two articles in English.

Rabbi Eliezer Brodt of Jerusalem has authored articles in the journals Ohr Yisrael and Yeshurun, both familiar to many readers of the Seforim blog, and is contributing what is hoped to be the first of many guest-posts.

While learning הלכות חנוכה, I noticed that the very first מגן אברהם quotes a sefer called חנוכת הבית. I had never heard of the sefer before, and I was curious about it. I asked several people about the sefer until I found someone who was familiar with it. He was kind enough to purchase it for me. I started reading through the sefer last week, and I completed it over shabbos. It was a fascinating read.

In the introduction, the author begins with a list of questions about the נוסח of הנרות הללו. He then proceeds to answer his questions with the interesting concept that almost all of the הלכות חנוכה are hidden in the text of הנרות הללו. I believe that this is a virtually unknown idea, as I have yet to see this concept quoted in any sefer about חנוכה — including the outstanding sefer חזון עובדיה by ר’ עובדיה יוסף. Even the generally exhaustive מפתח על שבתי פרנקל on מסכת בבא קמא in the גמרא relating to חנוכה he makes no mention of his piece on this גמרא!

Not much is known about ר’ שאול בן ר’ דוד, the author of חנוכת הבית. His date of birth appears to have been around the year 1570. We do know that he learned from the מהרש”ל השני and ר’ הירש שור, the father of the תורת חיים. He was a ראש ישיבה in Russia. ר’ שאול wrote a few seforim, the most well known being טל אורות on the ל”ט מלאכות of שבת. The טל אורות received many very חשוב הסכמות, including הסכמות from the מהרש”א, the כלי יקר and the של”ה. It’s quoted by the מגן אברהם and מרכבת המשנה many times. A beautiful edition was reprinted in ירושלים in 1996. Another sefer by this author is תפלת הדרך which was printed by his son in 1641 [this book includes an unusual illustration of a ship at sea on the last page]. The sefer חנוכת הבית was first printed in פראג in 1616. It was not reprinted until in 1981 in a photo offset version. It was reprinted a year later, and in 2002, a very nice edition with notes was printed.

חנוכת הבית seems to be almost completely unknown to many bibliographers. The חיד”א makes no mention of it in his שם הגדולים although he has two entries on the author. The bibliographer יצחק בן יעקב has two separate entries on the sefer, one of which says “this might be the sefer that the מגן אברהם quotes a few times,” but he doesn’t write any details about it. Then two entries later he talks about our sefer showing he never saw it – because it’s the same one that the מגן אברהם mentions.

As previously mentioned, חנוכת הבית starts with the concept that almost all of הלכות חנוכה are hidden in הנרות הללו. There are three additional parts to the sefer. The first is a song which contains many of the halachos of חנוכה in the lyrics. Another part is מליצות based on הלכות חנוכה containing clever גמטריות and kabbalistic ideas about חנוכה. The third part is a דרשה connecting פרשת תצוה to חנוכה in many ways. The author was fond of writing in song. He also wrote similar kinds of songs in his work ט”ל אורות. In his introduction to ט”ל אורות, he writes that he likes this method because it’s a great memory tool. We have other songs he composed, such as a song in the שלשלת הקבלה, which was a הספד on his רבי, the מהרש”ל השני. Another song he wrote could be found in one of the manuscript’s of סידור שבתי סופר, which was written by his nephew.

חנוכת הבית discusses almost all the important topics related to חנוכה and makes many interesting points. The author goes through many of the גמרות in מסכת שבת about חנוכה at great length. He deals with topics such as the famous question of the בית יוסף. (See סקווירא תשסג p. 33), why חנוכה isn’t nine days because of ספיקא דיומא (Idem at p. 50), why the מנורה wasn’t טמא etc (Idem at p. 36). He takes sides on some of the big halachick questions in the פוסקים such as whether to light נר שבת or נר חנוכה first (Idem at p. 58), whether to make הבדלה before נר חנוכה on מוציא שבת or not (Idem at p. 60), and many other topics. The author also takes a stance in the big controversy about the נוסח of the ברכות. Like the מהרש”ל, he says that the correct way is to say שלחנוכה as one word (Idem at p. 32). The sefer mentions that the מהר”י סגל lit נרות in the place where he gave his שיעור (Idem at p. 120). Also mentioned is the reason for the מנהג to eat milchigs on חנוכה (Idem at p. 136). חנוכת הבית is also the earliest known source for giving gifts on חנוכה. In his song, the author uses the words “לחלק מתנות.” In the הלכה part of the sefer, he writes that one should give צדקה, especially to the children who are learning תורה (Idem at p. 72, 83). It is this statement the מגן אברהם quotes when he quotes from the חנוכת הבית. The חנוכת הבית is quoted another time by the מגן אברהם in הלכות פסח.

Sources:

שלשלת הקבלה עמוד קנ; מגן אברהם סימן תפט סעיף ז ובהלכות חנוכה ריש סימן תרע; אוצר הספרים אות ח מספר 732 ו734; והמבוא של הטל אורות באריכות שיצא לאור בירושלים תשנ”ו

While we have previously discussed how the Besamim Rosh to this day remains an enigma, there are two important texts which may have bearing on this issue. Benjamin Richler has been kind enough to provide additional information about these two sources. We therefore pick up from Benjamin Richler at the Jewish National and University Library:

There are two sources concerning the Besamim Rosh that researchers would like to consult but cannot find.

One is a manuscript copy that belonged to Abraham Geiger and was briefly described in the list of Geiger’s manuscripts presented to the Hochschule für die Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin in Hebraeische Bibliographie, 17 (1877), p. 11, no. 3.[1] According to the description the manuscript that may have been an autograph was dated 1757 and includes the introduction by R. Zvi Hirsch Berlin. Until 1984, nothing was known about the fate of the manuscripts in the Hochschule; it was assumed that the Nazis confiscated the library but it was not found after the War. In 1984 Sotheby’s offered a collection of Hebrew manuscripts for sale and before the sale it was identified as belonging to the Hochschule. These books had been smuggled out of Germany before the War. [2] Two of the manuscripts in Geiger’s list were not included in the sale. One of them is the Besamim Rosh. For years after 1984 it was considered lost, but recently it came to light in a collection of archives and manuscripts looted by the Nazis and later captured by the Red Army. These documents and books were kept in what was called the “Special Archives” recently renamed “The Center for Safekeeping of Historical Collections of Documentation” in the Russian State Military Archives in Moscow. The manuscript was microfilmed for the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in Jerusalem where I examined it. The manuscript seems to be a neat copy, rather than an autograph draft, and when compared with the printed edition, I could find no significant differences in the text. I must admit, however, that I only checked a few passages at random, especially the beginning and end. My impression is that the manuscript is written in an Ashkenazic script of the 18th century. It may have been the copy that was sent to print or a copy that was made for R. Tzvi Hirsch before it was printed.

The second source that has not been examined for decades, perhaps for over a century, is a copy of the first edition with notes and additions by R. Saul Berlin himself. This copy was described by Shemuel Wiener who edited קהלת משה, the catalogue of the library of Moshe Aryeh Leib Friedland donated to the Institute of Oriental Studies in the Academy of Sciences of Russia located in St. Petersburg. [3] While the Friedland Library survive the War unscathed, and the manuscripts are accessible at the Oriental Institute, the 14,000 printed books were sent to storage and according to a senior fellow of the Oriental Institute who tried to extract this volume, it is impossible to locate any titles as the books are piled up to the ceiling in no particular order. Until premises are found to shelve the collection, the annotated copy of Besamim Rosh will remain inaccessible.

Sources:
[1] Geiger’s name is not mentioned in the description, but Moritz Steinschneider, the editor of HB who probably wrote the descriptions, identified Geiger as the owner in his Vorlesungen über die Kunde hebräischer Handschriften (Berlin 1897), p. 64, n. 29.

[2] The manuscripts were in the possession of Prof. Alexander Guttmann, formerly a professor in the Hochschule, who claimed that the manuscripts were given to him in 1936 for safekeeping. After it became known that the MSS were originally the property of the Hochschule, the State of New York disputed the sale. A settlement reached by the parties resulted in the formation of the Judaica Conservancy Foundation, a joint undertaking of Jewish institutions of higher learning in the United States, England and Israel. Twenty-two lots, including nineteen MSS sold at the auction, were recalled and given to the Foundation, which deposited them in the libraries of some of its members. It also authorized the proceeds of the sale of two of the MSS, to be awarded to Guttmann in consideration of his role in saving the MSS.

[3] Volume 1, Petersburg 1893, no. 1793, Wiener noted that the manuscript was purchased from the bookseller and scholar R. Raphael Nathan Rabinovicz, author of Dikdukei Soferim.

What follows is an original contribution by noted scholar Benjamin Richler to the Seforim blog. Any typographical errors are my fault alone. — Dan

Biographical blurb: Benjamin Richler was born in Montreal, graduated from Yeshiva University in 1960 and from the Hebrew University Graduate Library School in 1963. From 1965 to 1995, he served as the Librarian at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts at the Jewish National and University Library, on the Givat Ram Campus of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. From 1995-2005, he was the Director (now retired) of the Institute. His books include Hebrew manuscripts, a treasured legacy (Cleveland-Jerusalem 1990); Guide to Hebrew Manuscript Collections (Jerusalem, Israel Academy of Sciences, 1994); The Hebrew Manuscripts in the Valmadonna Trust Library (London 1998); Hebrew manuscripts in the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma (Jerusalem 2001); Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library, edited by Benjamin Richler (in preparation, to be published in 2007). His three dozen articles (in Hebrew and English) include: “Isaac Abravanel’s ‘lost’ commentary on Deuteronomy,” in Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century I (1999), 199-204; “Resources for the study of Tosafist literature at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts,” in Rashi et la culture juive (1997), 383-392; “Rabbeinu Tam’s ‘lost’ commentary on Job,” in The Frank Talmage Memorial Volume I (1993), 191-202; “The scribe Moses ben Jacob Ibn Zabara of Spain; a Moroccan saint?” in Jewish Art, 18 (1992), 141-147; “Manuscripts of Moses ben Maimon’s ‘Pirke Moshe’ in Hebrew translation,” in Koroth 9:3-4 (1986), 345-356; “Resources for the history of medicine at the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts,” in Koroth 8:9-10 (1984), 407-413; “A Hebrew paraphrase of the Hippocratic Oath (from a fifth-century manuscript),” in Medical History 22:4 (1978), 438-445 (with S. Kottek).

The manuscripts in the collection of the great bibliophile Heiman (Hayyim) Joseph Michael (1792-1846) were purchased in 1848 by the Bodleian Library in Oxford University. One of the manuscripts [1] was described by Adolf Neubauer in his Catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library (Oxford 1886), no. 1265 as:

מורה דרך commentary on the 1st part of the Moreh han’N’bokhim by Gershom. …He quotes R. Abraham Broda and מהר’ לובלין (f. 8). For the enumeration of the author’s books in his preface, see Steinschneider’s מפתח האוצר, p. 324.[2]

Steinschneider listed the following works by the author, Gershon[3]: דבר הלכה; בדי שולחן on Shulchan Arukh; חיקור דין responsa; דבר תורה on the Torah ; מאמר אסתר on Megillat Esther; דבר הגדה on the Haggadah; מליצת עיקרים on the 13 Principles of Faith and extracts and sermons.

Most of these works are not recorded in any bibliography, and the full name and identity of the author remained a mystery to Steinschneider.

Another manuscript in the Jewish National and University Library, MS Heb. oct. 711[4], contains commentaries on the Torah, Ruth and Eikhah (Lamentations), based on philosophical and scientific perspectives. The anonymous author quotes Moses Mendelssohn and Copernicus, among others. He mentions several other books he composed, including some of those listed in his preface to מורה דרך , namely מאמר אסתר and דברי הגדה as well as משאת הגרשוני on the 13 Principles of Faith – perhaps another title for מליצת עיקרים on the 13 Principles listed above – as well as commentaries or novellae on the Prophets, Moreh Nevukhim and others. One of the works he mentions is a sermon titled אבל יחיד. The author mentions an explanation he heard from Rabbi Avraham Tiktin, the dayyan of his community ושמעתי פי’ … מהגאון מה’ אברהם טיקטין אב”ד קהילתינו. Needless to say, none of these other sources are recorded in bibliographies.

We can now establish that our author, Gershon, was a pupil, of R. Avraham Tiktin, or at least a resident of the same city in which R. Tiktin officiated. R. Avraham b. Gedaliah Tiktin (1764-1820), was a Rabbi in his birthplace Schwersenz (Polish: Swarzedz) near Posen (Poznan), then in Lenshits (Leczyca) and from 1803 in Glogau and from 1816 until his death in Breslau. We can assume, then, that Gershon resided in one of these communities. Which one? The answer is supplied by a manuscript in the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, MS 646, a copy of אבל יחיד, the sermon mentioned in the JNUL manuscript. It contains a 24 page eulogy (“hesped”) on R. Avraham Tiktin written or composed in Schwersenz on the eve of Rosh Hodesh Shevat 5581=January 3, 1821 by גרשון היילפרין or היילפרון (Gershon Heilprin or Heilpron).

A search for other works by the author listed in the Oxford and Jerusalem manuscripts revealed a manuscript in the Jewish Theological Seminary – University of Jewish Studies (Országos Rabbiképzo Intézet – Zsidó Egyetem) in Budapest titled משאת הגרשוני. It is a curious work based on the Thirteen Principles of Moses b. Maimon and its 169 folios include a Fourteenth Principle that incorporates all the other principles and contains a critique of Kant’s theories on the soul. It also includes some explanations of passages in Moreh Nevukhim, on difficult verses in the Bible and a commentary on the piyyut “Ehad Mi Yodea” in the Passover Haggadah. One section התילדות המשפחה deals with the the practice of assigning family surnames and delves into gynecology quoting physicians from Heraclitus until contemporary experts. He describes the wonders of the microscope and relates how a physician in Danzig showed him the sperm of a rooster under a microscope (f. 14r). There are a few poems by the author with the acrostic Gershon b. Meir, that establish the name of the author. The title page reads:

חלק ראשון מספר משאת הגרשני הוא מאיר עינים לאמונת והדיעות האמיתית מוסד על שלשה עשר העיקרים מהרמב”ם ז”ל, יוסף עליו עיקר הארבע עשר הכולל כל העיקרים ונקרא … עיקר הכולל בו אמצא ויכוח עם החכם קאנט בענין השארות הנפש … והראיתי מקורה ממקום נורא נקרא מקור הפילסופיאה … והוספתי התילדות המשפחה ותפארת אדם ופירש על כמה מאמרי ספר המורה להרמב”ם ז”ל וספר המידות לאריסטו … ומאמרי חז”ל הנאמרים בדרך חידה ומשלים … גם מהדברים המוקשים ביותר בתורה ובנביאים ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורס .

Additional information about the author is found in an inscription by his son, Pinchas Heilbronn, on the title page in which he adds the date of his father’s death, 9 Heshvan 5629=October 25, 1868 אמר פינחס בן מ”ר גרשון הילבראנן ניפטר ט חשון תרכ”ט.

We have now identified the author of these four manuscripts, Gershon b. Meir Heilprin or Heilbronn. We can assume that since he studied under R. Avraham Tiktin or audited his lessons in Schwersenz where Tiktin officiated until ca. 1800 when Gershon was in his late teens or older, that Gershon was born around 1780-1785 and lived well into his eighties, residing for most or all of his life in Schwersenz. On the basis of the cross references to his works in the various manuscripts we can date them approximately. מורה דרך is perhaps the earliest of his works to survive, though by the time he wrote it he had already composed four or five other books or essays. אבל יחיד was composed in 1821. משאת הגרשני is mentioned in the compilation in the Jerusalem manuscript which is the latest composition of Gershon’s extant. If משאת הגרשני on the 13 Principles is the same work on the Principles entitled מליצת עיקרים in the Oxford manuscript then it should be considered the earliest work by Gershon to survive.

The figure that emerges from his extant writings is one of a talmid chacham, or at least of one fairly well-versed in Bible, Talmud and the writings of the Rambam with leanings towards the haskalah. He is familiar with some of the works of Aristotle and the teachings of Kant, though we cannot know if he read Kant in German or if his knowledge is from second-hand sources. He is interested in the sciences and has at least an elementary understanding of biology, astronomy and geography. Yet he remains an enigma. Apart from these four manuscripts no other details about Gershon Heilprin have surfaced. If he was so little known, why should Heiman Michael acquire a manuscript of his? Michael obviously acquired the manuscript before his own death in 1846. Was he offered the manuscript for sale? Did he purchase it because he considered it a worthwhile addition to his collection or did Gershon send it to him hoping to receive a generous donation? Likewise, we do not know how the other manuscripts reached the libraries in Budapest, Cincinnati and Jerusalem that now preserve them. It is ironic that so many unpublished works by better known rabbis and scholars did not survive the ravages of time and the Holocaust while four manuscripts by an otherwise unknown personality remained intact and are kept in libraries on three continents.

This detective work could not have been accomplished without a union catalogue of all the Hebrew manuscripts in the world. While no such tool encompasses 100% of all existing Hebrew manuscripts, there is available on the internet a catalogue that describes over 90% of this corpus, namely the catalogue of the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.

For over fifty years the Institute has been collecting microfilms of Hebrew manuscripts and its present holdings of 75,000 manuscripts together with the 8,000 original manuscripts deposited in the Jewish National Library represent an estimated 90-95% of all known Hebrew codices.

In the near future, I hope to write another entry at the Seforim blog about the Institute of Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts in the Jewish National and University Library in Jerusalem.

Sources:
[1] MS Mich 126, listed as no. 658 in the posthumous catalog of his library אוצרות חיים (Hamburg 1848).
[2] The reference is to Moritz Steinschneider’s appendix on manuscripts אוצרות חיים (Hamburg 1848).
[3] Neubauer called him Gershom, but Steinschneider called him Gershon.
[4] There is no record in the Jewish National Library concerning prior provenance or from whom the manuscript was acquired. We can assume that it was acquired in the early 1930’s. The catalogue of Hebrew manuscripts in the Library by B.I. Joel, רשימת כתבי-היד העבריים … (Jerusalem 1934), describes octavo manuscripts numbered 1-719, but, strangely, omits no. 711, even though the manuscript was in the Library by 1934.