1

Identifying Achashverosh and Esther in Secular Sources

|
Identifying Achashverosh and Esther in Secular Sources 
By Mitchell First 

This article is a summary of a longer article which will appear in his forthcoming book Esther Unmasked: Solving Eleven Mysteries of the Jewish Holidays and Liturgy (Kodesh Press), pp. 129-167.

     In this article, we will explain how scholars were finally able to identify Achashverosh in secular sources. We will also show that Esther can be identified in secular sources as well. Finally, we will utilize these sources to shed light on the story of the Megillah.Before we get to these sources, we have to point out that an important clue to the identity of Achashverosh is found in the book of Ezra.
Achashverosh is mentioned at Ezra 4:6 in the context of other Persian kings. The simplest understanding of Ezra 4:6 and its surrounding verses is that Achashverosh is the Persian king who reigned after the Daryavesh who rebuilt the Temple,[1] but before Artachshasta. But what about the secular sources? Was there any Persian king known as Achashverosh or something close to that in these sources?

     Until the 19th century, a search in secular sources for a Persian king named Achashverosh or something close to that would have been an unsuccessful one. Our knowledge of the Persian kings from the Biblical period was coming entirely from the writings of Greek historians, and none of the names that they recorded were close to Achashverosh. The Greek historians (Herodotus, mid-5th cent. BCE, and the others who came after him) described the following Persian kings from the Biblical period: Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes.
    We were thus left to speculate as to the identity of Achashverosh. Was he to be equated with Artaxerxes? This was the position taken by the Septuagint to Esther. Was he to be equated with Cambyses? Or was he, as Ezra 4:6 and its surrounding verses implied, the king between Daryavesh (=Darius I) and Artachshasta (=Artaxerxes I). But why did the Greeks refer to him as Xerxes, a name at first glance seeming to have no relation to the name Achashverosh?
    It was only in the 19th century, as a result of the decipherment of Old Persian cuneiform inscriptions from the ancient Persian palaces, that we were able to answer these questions. It was discovered that the name of the king that the Greeks had been referring to as “Xerxes” was in fact: “Khshayarsha” (written in Old Persian cuneiform). This name is very close to the Hebrew “Achashverosh.” In their consonantal structure, the two names are identical. Both center on the consonantal sounds “ch”, “sh”, “r”, and “sh.” The Hebrew added an initial aleph[2] (a frequent occurrence when foreign words with two initial consonants are recorded in Hebrew), and added two vavs. Interestingly, the Megillah spells Achashverosh several times with only one vav, and one time (10:1) spells the name with no vavs.
     Thereafter, at the beginning of the 20th century, Aramaic documents from Egypt from the 5th century B.C.E. came to light. In these documents, this king’s name was spelled in Aramaic as חשירש, חשיארש and אחשירש. The closeness to the Hebrew אחשורוש is easily seen.
     How did Khshayarsha (consonants: KH, SH, R, SH) come to be referred to by the Greeks as Xerxes?
  • The Greek language does not have a letter to represent the “sh” sound.
  • The initial “KH SH” sounds of the Persian name were collapsed into one Greek letter that makes the “KS” sound. A tendency to parallelism probably led to the second “SH” also becoming “KS,” even though “S” would have been more appropriate.[3] Hence, the consonants became KS, R, KS (=X,R,X).
  • The “es” at the end was just something added by the Greeks to help turn the foreign name into proper Greek grammatical form.[4]
    (It was for this same reason that the Hebrew משה  became “Moses” when the Bible was translated into Greek.)

 

  Identifying Khshayarsha/Xerxes with Achashverosh thus makes much sense on linguistic grounds. Critically, it is consistent with Ezra 4:6 which had implied that Achashverosh was the king between Daryavesh (=Darius I) and Artachshasta (=Artaxerxes I).[5]
    We have an inscription from Khshayarsha in Persian which lists the countries over which he ruled. Among the countries listed are “Hidush” and “Kushiya,” most likely the Hodu and Kush of the Megillah.[6]
    Now that we have identified Achashverosh in secular sources, we can use these sources to provide some biographical information. Xerxes reigned from 486-465 BCE, when the Temple was already rebuilt. It was rebuilt in the reign of his father Darius I in 516 BCE. According to Herodotus, Xerxes was the son of Darius by Atossa, daughter of Cyrus. Xerxes was also the first son born to Darius after Darius became king. These factors distinguished him from his older half-brother Artabazanes, and merited Xerxes being chosen to succeed Darius. At his accession in 486 BCE, Xerxes could not have been more than 36 years old (since he was born after the accession of Darius in 522 BCE).
    The party in which Vashti rebelled took place in the third year of the reign of Achashverosh (1:3), and Esther was not chosen until the 7th year (2:16). Why did it take Achashverosh so long to choose a replacement? It has been suggested that Xerxes was distracted by his foreign policy. In the early years of his reign, Xerxes ordered a full-scale invasion of Greece. Xerxes went on the invasion himself, which took him out of Persia commencing in the spring or summer of his 5th year and continuing through part of his 7th year.[7] This invasion ended in defeat.
     From the secular sources and a solar eclipse that took place in the battles, it can be calculated that Xerxes did not return to Susa until
the fall of 479 B.C.E.[8] Tevet of Achashverosh’s 7th year, when Esther was chosen, would have been Dec. 479/Jan. 478 B.C.E. Accordingly, Esther was taken to the palace shortly after Xerxes’ return.
    Do we have any evidence in secular sources for the main plot of the Purim story, the threat to destroy the Jews in the 12th year (3:7)? We do not, but this is to be expected. No works from any Persian historians from this period have survived. (Probably, no such works were ever composed.) Our main source for the events of the reign of Xerxes is Herodotus and his narrative ends in the 7th year of Xerxes.[9]
    Interestingly, there is perhaps a reference to Mordechai in a later narrative source. The Greek historian Ctesias,[10] who served as a physician to Artaxerxes II, mentions a “Matacas” who was the most influential of all of Xerxes’ eunuchs. (Probably, “eunuch” was merely a
term used to indicate a holder of a high position in the king’s court.) “Matacas” suggests a Persian name with the consonants MTC, which would be very close to the consonants of the name Mordechai, MRDC.[11]  The information provided by Ctesias bears a significant resemblance to the last verse in the Megillah, which records that by the end of the story, Mordechai was mishneh (=second) to the king.[12]
(Perhaps we do not have to take mishneh literally; the import may merely be “very high official.”)
    Most interesting is what happens when we analyze the secular sources regarding the wife of Xerxes. According to Herodotus, the wife of Xerxes was named Amestris, and she was the daughter of a military commander named Otanes. (In the Megillah, Esther is described as the daughter of Avichail.) Ctesias records that Amestris outlived Xerxes. Moreover, in the further details that Ctesias provides, Amestris is involved in royal affairs even in the reign of her son Artaxerxes.[13] Neither Herodotus nor Ctesias use a term like “queen” for her, but their description of Amestris fits what we would call today the “queen.” Neither gives any indication that Xerxes had any other wife.
    Some postulate that Amestris is Vashti. But this is extremely unlikely since there is nothing in Herodotus or Ctesias to indicate any loss of
status by Amestris. Others postulate (based on verses such as Est. 2:19 and 4:11[14]) that Esther was never the main   wife of Xerxes, but was one of other wives of a lesser status. See, e.g., Chamesh Megillot, Daat Mikra edition (published by Mossad Harav Kook), introduction to Esther, p. 6. The problem with this approach is that the clear impression that one receives from the Megillah is that Esther was the Persian wife of the highest status from the time she was chosen in the 7th year of the reign of Achashverosh through the balance of the years described in the book. See, e.g., verse 2:17 (va-yasem keter malkhut be-roshah va-yamlikheha tachat Vashti).
    The approach that seems to have the least difficulties is to postulate that Amestris is  Esther and that Herodotus simply erred regarding her ancestry. Although Herodotus traveled widely in the 460’s and 450’s B.C.E., he probably never set foot in Persia. His information about Persia is based on what was told to him orally. Every scholar knows that he could not possibly be correct on a large percentage of the details he reports (whether about Persia or any matter). Also, the impression that one receives from the Megillah is that Esther did not disclose her true ancestry for several years. Whatever rumors about her ancestry first came out may be what made their way to Herodotus.[15]
    It is striking that the name Avichayil means military commander.[16] It is not so farfetched to suggest that Avichayil might have had another name which resembled the name Otanes.  The Megillah tells us that Esther had another name, Hadassah.
   Herodotus tells a story depicting the cruelty of Amestris. Amestris takes revenge on another woman by cutting off her body parts and throwing them to the dogs. Ctesias writes that Amestris ordered someone impaled, and had fifty Greeks decapitated. But scholars today know not to believe all the tales told by the Greek historians about their enemies, the Persians. (Herodotus, known as the “Father of History,” is also known as the “Father of Lies.” The reputation of Ctesias as a historian is far worse; he is widely viewed as freely mixing fact and fiction.)
    Although he never says it explicitly, one gets the impression from Herodotus that he believed that Amestris was the wife of Xerxes even in the first seven years of Xerxes’ reign. But it would be understandable that Herodotus might have had such a belief. According to the Megillah, Vashti was gone by the third year of Xerxes. Xerxes reigned 18 years after that. To Herodotus and his informants, Vashti may have been long forgotten.
    We have no Persian sources for the name of the wife of Khshayarsha. But close examination of the name “Amestris” supports its identification with Esther. The “is” at the end was just a suffix added to turn the foreign name into proper Greek grammatical form (just as “es” was added at the end of “Xerxes”). When comparing the remaining consonants, the name of the wife of Xerxes is recorded in the Greek historians as based around the consonants M, S, T, and R, and the name as recorded in the Megillah is based around the consonants S, T, and R. Out of the numerous possible consonants in these languages, three consonants are the same and in the same order! Probability suggests that this is not coincidence and that the two are the same person. Probably her Persian name was composed of the consonants M, S, T, and R, and the M was not preserved in the Hebrew. (One source in Orthodoxy that has suggested the identification of Esther with Amestris, without any discussion, is Trei Asar, Daat Mikra edition, published by Mossad Harav Kook, vol. 2, appendix, p. 3.)

—-   
    Once we realize that Achashverosh is Xerxes, it becomes evident that the asher haglah  of Esther 2:6 cannot be referring to Mordechai. King Yechanyah was exiled in 597 B.C.E. If Mordechai was old enough to have been exiled with King Yechanyah, he would have been over 120 years old when appointed to a high position in the 12th year of Xerxes. Moreover, Esther, his first cousin, would not have been young enough to have been chosen queen a few years earlier. One alternative is to understand verse 2:6 as referring to Mordechai’s great-grandfather Kish.[17] Another alternative is to view the subject of 2:6 as Mordechai, but to read the verse as implying only that Mordechai came from a family that had been exiled.
                                                                     —-
   The identification of Achashverosh with Xerxes does not fit with the view of the Talmud. According to the Talmud (Megillah 11b, based on Seder Olam chap. 29), Achashverosh reigned between Koresh and Daryavesh. In this view, the Temple had not yet been rebuilt at the time of the events of the Megillah. (In the view of Seder Olam and the Talmud, the Persian period spanned the reigns of only three Persian kings. This is much shorter than the conventional chronology. The conventional chronology is set forth in the Table below. For more information about this discrepancy, see my Jewish History in Conflict: A Study of the Major Discrepancy Between Rabbinic and Chronology, Jason Aronson, 1997).
    That the king intended to be depicted in the Megillah was Khshayarsha/Xerxes is accepted by legions of scholars today, even if they question the historicity of the story. Within Orthodoxy, some sources that accept the identification of Achashverosh with Xerxes include: Chamesh Megillot (Daat Mikra edition), R. Isaac Halevy,[18] R. Shelomoh Danziger,[19] R. Avigdor Miller,[20] R. Adin Steinsaltz,[21] R. Yoel Bin-Nun,[22]  R. Yehuda Landy,[23] and R. Menachem Liebtag.[24]
    The Megillah (10:2) implied that we could search outside the Bible for additional information regarding Achashverosh. I trust that this
search has proven an interesting one!
                                                             ——
     Table: The
main Persian kings from this era and their dates (B.C.E.):
Cyrus              539-530
Cambyses [25]   530-522
Darius I         522-486
Xerxes           486-465
Artaxerxes I  465-424[26]
Darius II        423-404
Artaxerxes II 404-358
Artaxerxes III 358-338
Arses             338-336
Darius III      336-332
Mitchell First works as an attorney in Manhattan and lives in New Jersey, and is available to lecture on this topic. He can be reached at MFirstatty@aol.com
[1]
Admittedly, this is an oversimplification, since the Daryavesh who rebuilt the
Temple is mentioned both at Ezra 4:5 and at Ezra 4:24.  See further below, n. 5.
[2]
Both the Elamite and the Akkadian versions of the name Khshayarsha also had an
initial vowel. In Elamite,“i”, and in Akkadian, “a”. See Edwin M. Yamauchi, Persia
and the Bible (1990), p. 187.
The name of the king is found in Aramaic in
the panels of the Dura-Europos synagogue (3rd century C.E., Syria)
without the initial aleph.
[3]
That the transmission of foreign names is by no means an exact science is shown
by how the name of  the son of Xerxes
was recorded by the Greeks. The Greeks preserved the “Arta” of the first part
of his name, Artakhshaça, but then just tacked on “xerxes,” the name of his
father, as the second part of his name!
[4]
I.e., convert it into the nominative case.
[5] With regard to verse 4:24, the proper understanding of
this verse is as follows. The author of the book of Ezra decided to digress,
and to supplement the reference to accusations made against the Jews in the
reigns of Koresh through Daryavesh with mention of further accusations against
them in the reigns of the subsequent kings, Achashverosh (Xerxes) and
Artachshasta (Artaxerxes I). Verse 4:24 then returns to the main narrative, the
reign of Daryavesh. The role played by verse 4:24 is that of “resumptive
repetition.” This is the interpretation adopted by the Daat Mikra
commentary to Ezra (pp. 27 and 35) and by many modern scholars. See the
references at Richard Steiner, “Bishlam’s Archival Search Report in Nehemiah’s
Archive: Multiple Introductions and Reverse Chronological Order as Clues to the
Origin of the Aramaic Letters in Ezra 4-6,” Journal of Biblical Literature
125 (2006), p. 674, n. 164. This understanding of verse 24 only became evident
in modern times when it was realized that linguistically Achashverosh was to be
identified with Xerxes.
[6]
Roland G. Kent, Old Persian: Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, p. 151 (2d ed.,
1953).
[7]
Many find allusions in the Megillah to the preparation for the invasion and to
the invasion. See, e.g., Esther 1:3 and 10:2.
[8]
See, e.g., William H. Shea, “Esther and History,” Andrews University
Seminary Studies 14 (1976), p. 239. In the Persian system of regnal reckoning,
485 BCE was considered year 1 of Xerxes. 486 B.C.E. was only the accession
year.
[9]
See Pierre Briant, From Cyrus to Alexander (2002), pp. 7 and 516. In his
narrative of events up to the 7th year, Herodotus does make some
tangential references to events after the 7th year. For example, he
refers to Artaxerxes a few times, and he tells a story about something that
Amestris did in her later years. (She had fourteen children of noble Persians
buried alive, as a gift on her behalf to the god of the underworld.) Later ancient sources write about the
assassination of Xerxes.
[10] The Persica of Ctesias only survives in quotations or summaries by others. For this
particular section of Ctesias, what has survived is a summary by Photius (9th cent.)
[11]
Another version of Photius reads “Natacas” here. But this difference is not so significant.
“N” and “M” are related consonants, both being nasal stops; it is not uncommon
for one to transform into the other.
[12]
See also Est. 9:4.
[13]
This means that Artaxerxes I (who empowered Ezra, and later Nechemiah) was
technically Jewish!
[14]
Est. 2:19 refers to a second gathering of maidens, after Esther was
chosen. Est. 4:11 records that Esther had not been called to the king for 30
days.
[15]
It is sometimes claimed that Esther could not have been the wife of Xerxes
because Herodotus (3,84) tells of an agreement between Darius I and his six
co-conspirators that the Persian king would not marry outside their families.
One of the co-conspirators was named Otanes. But Herodotus nowhere states that
the Otanes who was the father of Amestris was the co-conspirator Otanes. Briant
writes that if Amestris had been the daughter of co-conspirator Otanes,
Herodotus would doubtless have pointed this out. See Briant, p. 135. Therefore,
implicit in Herodotus is that Xerxes married outside the seven families.
[16]
I would like to thank Rabbi Richard Wolpoe who first made this observation to me.
[17]
That the name Mordechai may be based on the name of the Babylonian deity Marduk
also suggests that Mordechai was born in exile.
[18]
Dorot ha-Rishonim: Tekufat ha-Mikra (1939), p. 262.
[19]
“Who Was the Real Akhashverosh?,” Jewish Observer, Feb. 1973, pp. 12-15.
[20]
Torah Nation (1971), pp. 40 and 42.
[21]
Talmud Bavli, Taanit-Megillah, p. 47, ha-Hayyim, and p. 50, ha-Hayyim.    .
[22]
Hadassah Hi Esther (1997), p. 49, n. 8. (This work is a collection of
articles by various authors.)
[23] Purim
and the Persian Empire (2010), pp. 40-42.
[24]
For additional sources in Orthodoxy that accept the identification of
Achashverosh with Xerxes, see Jewish History in Conflict, pp. 178-79.
[25]
Cambyses’ name was discovered to be “Kabujiya” in Persian. His name is recorded
as כנבוזי in Aramaic documents from Egypt from the 5th
cent. B.C.E. He did not reign enough years to be Achashverosh. Nor did he reign
over Hodu. See Jewish History in Conflict, p. 167. Although he is not
mentioned in Tanakh, his reign is alluded to at Ezra 4:5 (in the word ve-ad).
[26]
Another king named Xerxes reigned 45 days after the death of his father
Artaxerxes I.


Purim roundup

|
Since Purim is almost upon us, here are some older Seforim Blog posts dealing with Purim themes (arranged chronologically):
Purim, Mixed Dancing and Kill Joys (3.06.2006); Mahar”i Mintz permitted cross dressing and mixed dancing on Purim. Also discussed are other rabbinic reactions to Purim merrymaking.
Review of Reckless Rites by Elliott Horowitz (4.07.2006). This controversial book subtitled “Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence” discusses incidents of Jewish violence toward non-Jews on Purim and the way Jewish historians sometimes downplayed these incidents.
Tussle Over Horowitz’s Book (10.11.2006) discusses the resulting fallout of this book, whose thesis was disliked by Hillel Halkin in Commentary.
The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature: A Historical-Culinary Survey (2.28.2007), a classic post by Eliezer Brodt on this relatively recent Jewish custom.
Judah Wistinetzky and Mishloach Manot to his American friends (3.02.2007); Menachem Butler points out a post by Ari Kinsberg about a sefer distributed as a mishloach manot gift to the author’s friends.
Purim and Parodies (3.17.2008) by Eliezer Brodt. Eliezer discusses everything from a humorous Purim piyut included in Mahzor Vitry, to Kalonymus ben Kalonymus’s Massekhet Purim to the very rare Sefer Ha-kundas, a 19th century parody of the laws of trouble-making in the style of the Shulhan Aruch.
The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature: A Historical-Culinary Survey Revisited by Eliezer Brodt (3.18.2008). Eliezer revisits his post, updated with many additions and corrections.
“‘Most of all you’ve got to hide it from the kids…’ Reading Esther before Bed” by Elliott Horowitz (2.25.2010). This post discusses bible tales adopted for children in softened form.
The Origin of Ta’anit Esther by Mitchell First (3.3.2011). In this recent post, it is argued that this fast’s origin is even later than the original She’iltot (8th century).
***
Also, here are a few Purim posts from fellow-traveller On the Main Line:
A duel fought with swords on Purim, 1891 a duel fought with swords on Purim, between a Jew and a modern-day Haman.
How Moses Montefiore spent his time on Purim – giving matanot la-evyonim.
1841 Purim in New York, to bang at Haman’s name or not to bang?


The Origin of Ta‘anit Esther

|

The Origin of Ta‘anit Esther

By Mitchell First

Introduction

The origin of this fast has always been a mystery. A fast on the 13th of Adar is not mentioned in the Megillah. Nor is such a fast mentioned in Tannaitic or Amoraic literature. Megillat Ta‘anit, compiled in the first century C.E., includes the 13th of Adar as a day upon which Jews were prohibited from fasting. A widespread view today is that the fast arose as a post-Talmudic custom intended to commemorate the three days of fasting initiated by Esther in Nissan. There are Rishonim who take this approach.[1] But Geonic Babylonia is where the fast first arose and this approach is not expressed in any of the sources from Geonic Babylonia. Moreover, the statements in these sources are inconsistent with this approach. I am going to suggest an approach to the origin of the fast that is consistent with the material in the Babylonian Geonic sources.

I. The Earliest Sources That Refer To A Practice Of Fasting On The 13th

The earliest sources that refer to a practice of fasting on the 13th are the following: – One of the four she’iltot for Purim included in the She’iltot of R. Ahai Gaon, a work composed in 8th century Babylonia. – An anonymous Babylonian Geonic responsum that made its way into Midrash Tanhuma (Bereshit, sec. 3). (The discussion in this responsum and in the She’iltot is very similar.) – A responsum of R. Natronai, head of the academy at Sura from 857-865 C.E. This responsum refers to the fast as פורים תענית. [2] – The Siddur of R. Se‘adyah (882-942).[3] Here, the fast is referred to as אלמגלה צום (=the fast of the Megillah).[4] The Siddur of R. Se‘adyah was composed in Babylonia.[5] – An index to a collection of Babylonian Geonic responsa.[6] The compiler of the index recorded the first few words of each responsum. In our case, the compiler recorded: לנפול אנו רגילין באדר יוש יג[7] ובתענית. The responsum itself is no longer extant. The responsum itself is no longer extant. – A responsum addressed to R. Hai (d. 1038).[8] This responsum inquires whether, in the case of a hakhnasat kallah that occurs on a fast day such as the 13th of Adar, the one who makes the blessing on the kos of berakhah is permitted to drink. – An anonymous Babylonian Geonic responsum that includes the following statement: השני אדר של כי”ג מתענין נמי הראשון אדר של וי”ג.[9] II. Analysis According to Robert Brody, the four she’iltot for Purim were probably not in the original She’iltot when it left the hands of R. Ahai in the 8th century. They were authored in a later stage.[10] She’ilta #79, the one which refers to fasting on the 13th of Adar, is even more problematic than the other three. After the first few lines in Aramaic, the balance of this she’ilta is almost entirely in Hebrew, unlike the rest of the She’iltot. Careful comparison of she’ilta #79 with the Geonic responsum that made its way into Midrash Tanhuma suggests that the Geonic responsum is the earlier source.[11] It is reasonable to work with the assumption that this responsum dates from the eighth or ninth centuries. This responsum adopts a very unusual interpretation of the sections of the Mishnah at the beginning of Tractate Megillah. These sections permit villagers to fulfill their Megillah obligation on the 11th, 12th, or 13th of Adar, on yom ha-kenisah, under certain conditions. In the plain sense of these sections, yom ha-kenisah refers to Mondays and Thursdays, and the teaching is that the reading for the villagers is allowed to be advanced to these days when the villagers enter, or gather in, the cities. But in the interpretation adopted by the Geonic responsum, yom ha-kenisah means the fast of the 13th of Adar (= the day on which the Jews gather to fast). The reading for the villagers is allowed to be advanced because the date of the observance of the fast day is being advanced due to a prohibition to fast on shabbat and ‘erev shabbat that is being read into the Mishnah. In this interpretation, the advanced fast day is a day upon which the reading for the villagers is allowed. The Geonic responsum included in Midrash Tanhuma reads as follows: They asked: It was taught that the Megillah may be read on the 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th, but not earlier or later. R. Judah said that this rule is only in effect when the calendar is established by the testimony of witnesses and Israel dwells on its own land, but in our times…the Megillah can only be read on the proper date (=the 14th or 15th). Does the halakha follow the first opinion or does it follow R. Judah? They responded: According to both R. Judah and the first opinion, the Megillah can only be read on the proper date. The following is what the first opinion meant. Towns that were surrounded by walls at the time of Joshua son of Nun read on the 15th. Villages and cities read on the 14th, but villages may advance their reading to yom ha-kenisah. When the Mishnah taught that the Megillah may be read on the 11th, 12th, 13th, etc., that applied to one who is engaged in fasting, as it was taught at the end of the Mishnah: “but villages may advance their reading to yom ha-kenisah.” What is yom ha-kenisah? The day of gathering, as it is stated (Meg. 2a): The thirteenth was a day of gathering for all (Heb: yom[12] kehillah la-kol hiy), as it is written (Est. 9:1-2): “in the 12th month, the month of Adar, on its thirteenth day… the Jews gathered themselves (Heb: nikhalu) in their cities.” They gathered themselves and decreed a fast on the 13th of Adar. But the 14th was a holiday, as it is written (Est. 9:17) “and they rested on its 14th and made it a day of feasting and gladness.” In Shushan ha-birah, they only rested on the 15th. Therefore, Shushan and all walled towns read on the 15th and make that a festive day. When the Mishnah taught that “the Megillah may be read (on the 11th, 12th, 13th …)” that concerned one who is engaged in fasting, because it is forbidden to engage in fasting on shabbat. If the 14th falls on the first day of the week, it is forbidden to fast on shabbat. It is also forbidden to fast on ‘erev shabbat, because of the necessity of preparing for shabbat. Rather, the fast is advanced to Thursday, which is the 11th of Adar. If the 14th falls on shabbat, it is forbidden to fast on ‘erev shabbat because of the necessity of preparing for shabbat. The primary reason for a fast day is the recital of selihot and rahamim, and reciting these (instead of preparing for shabbat) will detract from honoring the shabbat. Honoring the shabbat is more important than a thousand fasts, for honoring the shabbat is a commandment from the Torah, while the fast is a rabbinic decree (Heb: ta‘anit de-rabbanan). The Torah commandment of honoring the shabbat takes precedence over the fast, a rabbinic decree. Hence the fast is advanced to Thursday, the 12th. If the 14th falls on ‘erev shabbat, the fast is observed on Thursday, which is the 13th. This is set forth in the Mishnah. How does this occur? If it falls on a Monday, villages and cities read that day and walled towns read the next day. If it falls on shabbat or the first day of the week, villages advance the reading to yom ha-kenisah, etc. But when the 9th of Av falls on shabbat, the fast is postponed until after shabbat, since this fast was instituted as a punishment. Therefore, the fast is postponed and not advanced. One of the cases discussed in the above responsum is the case of the 14th falling on shabbat. Almost certainly, this was not something still occuring at the time this responsum was composed.[13] This suggests, as does a close reading of the responsum, that the responsum is not describing a practice of fasting on the 13th that was occurring in its time. It is only interpreting M. Megillah 1:1-2, the ninth chapter of the book of Esther, and a statement in the Talmud (Meg. 2a: yod-gimmel zeman kehillah la-kol hiy), and describing a practice of fasting on the 13th that theoretically occurred in ancient times, according to the interpretations it was offering. The interpretation of yom ha-kenisah expressed in the Geonic responsum is far from its plain sense. If M. Megillah 1:1-2 was referring to the advancement of the reading to a fast day, the term we would expect it to use would be yom ha-ta‘anit. Moreover, M. Megillah 1:3 includes the following statement by R. Judah: “When [may the reading be advanced]? In a place where they enter (makom she-nikhnasin) on Monday and Thursday.” This strongly suggests that the term yom ha-kenisah at M. Megillah 1:1-2 refers to Mondays and Thursdays. Finally, an anonymous Talmudic discussion at Megillah 4a-b understands yom ha-kenisah as a reference to Mondays and Thursdays.[14] The interpretations expressed of Est. 9:1-2 and of the Talmudic statement yod-gimmel zeman kehillah la-kol hiy are far from plain sense interpretations as well. The critical question in determining the origin of the fast of the 13th of Adar is what motivated these unusual interpretations. Obviously, one possible motivation was an attempt to justify an existing practice to fast on the 13th. But I am going to suggest something entirely different that motivated these interpretations. Then we can understand the practice of fasting on the 13th as having originated as a consequence of the interpretations. As I mentioned, the responsum included in Midrash Tanhuma was from Babylonian Geonim, and it is reasonable to work with the assumption that it dates from the eighth or ninth centuries. As documented in my article, a major issue of halakha in this period was the permissibility of fasting on shabbat.[15] The unusual interpretations can be explained under the assumption that the authors were responding to and opposing contemporary practices of fasting on shabbat and ‘erev shabbat. Interpreting yom ha-kenisah the way they did enabled them to cite M. Megillah 1:1-2 as a source which prohibited fasting on shabbat and ‘erev shabbat. In their interpretation, the reading for the villagers is allowed to be advanced because the date of the observance of the fast day is being advanced, due to a prohibition to fast on shabbat and ‘erev shabbat that they were reading into the Mishnah. The practices that the authors of the unusual interpretations could have been responding to could have been: 1) the practice in Babylonia of fasting on the shabbat before Yom Kippur, 2) practices in Babylonia of fasting on shabbat as a form of repentance or piety, or by those whose ideal shabbat consisted of studying or praying all day, or by those who enjoyed fasting, or 3) practices of fasting on shabbat in Palestine in the above contexts. It is also possible that the main motivation of the authors of the unusual interpretations was opposition to a practice of fasting on ‘erev shabbat. I suggest that the unusual interpretations expressed in the Geonic responsum arose as a result of one or more of these polemical motivations. This led M. Megillah 1:1-2 to be interpreted to imply a prohibition to fast on shabbat and ‘erev shabbat. A new “tradition” about an ancient fast on the 13th of Adar was the result. One clue that the authors were responding to contemporary practices of fasting on shabbat and ‘erev shabbat is that the responsum includes a polemical line stressing the importance of honoring the shabbat: “honoring the shabbat is more important than a thousand fasts…”[16] The early 9th century polemical letter of Pirkoy ben Baboy uses almost the same language: “One who delights in one shabbat is greater than one who sacrifices a thousand sacrifices and (fasts) a thousand fasts.”[17] The main weakness with my approach to the origin of the fast is the argument that it is not likely that a Mishnah would be polemically interpreted to such an extent that the interpretation would result in the observance of a new (assumed to be ancient) fast day. My response is that those who authored the interpretation did not foresee that a new fast day would come be observed as a result of their interpretation. That the fast of the 13th of Adar did not arise as commemoration of the three days of fasting initiated by Esther is seen from the name for the fast day in the earliest sources. The responsum of R. Natronai is the earliest source that refers to the fast by a name, and it refers to the fast as Ta‘anit Purim. Of the four sources in the Geonic period from Babylonia and its environs that refer to the fast by a name, most likely none of them calls it Ta‘anit Esther.[18] When the Babylonian Geonic sources express or imply something about the origin of the fast, what is consistently expressed or implied is that the fast is a rabbinic obligation, and not merely a post-Talmudic custom. For example, the Geonic responsum included in Midrash Tanhuma refers to the fast as a de-rabbanan. Moreover, an anonymous Geonic responsum takes the position that, in a leap year, one fasts even on the 13th of the first Adar. Most likely, it takes this position because it views fasting on the 13th of Adar as an obligation, based on the interpretation of Est. chap. 9 expressed in the Geonic responsum included in Midrash Tanhuma. If it viewed the fast as a post-Talmudic custom meant to commemorate fasting that took place in Nissan, a fast on the 13th of the second Adar would almost certainly have been viewed as sufficient. In my article, I documented four sources that refer to a Palestinian practice of fasting three days (on a Monday-Thursday-Monday cycle) in Adar. These sources are: Massekhet Soferim (chaps. 17 and 21), and three other sources that have come to light from the Genizah. The Palestinian practice almost certainly was a commemoration of the three days of fasting initiated by Esther in Nissan.[19] That the Palestinian practice was understood as a commemoration of the three days of fasting initiated by Esther probably contributed to the name for the Babylonian fast of the 13th evolving into Ta‘anit Esther.[20]

 

This essay is a brief summary of my recent article that appeared in Mitchell First, “The Origin of Ta’anit Esther,” AJS Review 34:2 (November 2010): 309-351, and is adapted with the permission of Cambridge University Press.
[1] An early example is probably Maimonides. An erroneous period and vav (the vav of ובי”ג) made their way into the standard printed text of his Hilkhot Ta‘aniyyot 5:5, after the sixth word. (The necessary corrections have already been made in the Frankel edition.) The corrected text reads: המן בימי שהתענו לתענית זכר באדר בי”ג להתענות אלו בזמנים ישראל כל ונהגו (Est. 9:31) שנאמר דברי הצומות וזעקתם… Maimonides clearly states that the custom of fasting on the 13th is only of recent origin, and that it is a commemoration of a fast that took place in the time of Haman, i.e., in Nissan. Maimonides is forced to cite to Est. 9:31 because chapter 4 does not expressly state that the Jews of Shushan fasted in response to Esther’s request.
[2] Robert Brody, Teshuvot Rav Natronai Bar Hilai Ga’on, 303-04, responsum # 177.
[3] Siddur Rav Se‘adyah Ga’on, eds. Israel Davidson, Simhah Assaf, and Yissakhar Joel, 258 and 319-338.
[4] Ibid., 319.
[5] It was not composed in Palestine, where R. Se‘adyah lived earlier. Ibid., intro., 22-23.
[6] Louis Ginzberg, Geonica, vol. 2, 67-68.
[7] Ginzberg suggests that the correct reading is shel or yom.
[8] Shelomoh Wertheimer, Sefer Kohelet Shelomoh, 14.
[9] Louis Ginzberg, Ginzey Schechter, vol. 2, 136.
[10] Brody, Le-Toledot Nusah Ha-She’iltot, 186 n. 5, and The Geonim of Babylonia and the Shaping of Medieval Jewish Culture, 209 n. 29. Structurally, they are deficient as she’iltot. Also, there is some variation in the manuscripts with regard to their location in the work. This suggests that they were later additions, attemped to be integrated into an already fixed work.
[11] It is organized and concise, and seems to reflect an attempt to record an official interpretation of M. Megillah 1:1-2. She’ilta #79, on the other hand, seems to be taking for granted an already established explanation of M. Megillah 1:1-2 that it is reiterating and commenting upon.
[12] Megillah 2a and she’ilta #79 have zeman instead of yom.
[13] When the 14th of Adar falls on shabbat, the upcoming Yom Kippur would fall on Friday. Already in the time of R. Yose b. Bun (c. 300), the 14th of Adar was not being allowed to fall on shabbat or Monday, so that Yom Kippur would not fall on Friday or Sunday. See Y. Megillah 1:2 (70b), EJ 5:49, and Yosef Tabory, Mo‘adey Yisra’eil Bi-Tekufat Ha-Mishnah Ve-Ha-Talmud, 28. See also Rosh Ha-Shanah 20a. She’ilta #79 stated explicitly that the 14th of Adar no longer fell on shabbat in its time.
[14] The severe difficulties with interpreting yom ha-kenisah as the 13th of Adar are noted by many authorities. Interestingly, there exists a manuscript of Megillah 2a (NY-Columbia X 893 T141) in which this interpretation (taken from the She’iltot) is included on the Talmudic page. The statement included is: למכתב צריך ולא בעריהם נקהלו היהודים שנ׳ היא לכל קהילה זמן עשר שלשה אחא רב פיר׳ …לתענית ישראל בו שמתכנסין תענית יום דהוא It is therefore incorrect to state that the fast of the 13th of Adar is nowhere mentioned in the Talmud!
[15] See my article, 335-339. Much of the relevant material is found at Ozar Ha-Ge’onim, Yom Tov, secs. 41-49.
[16] The material in the Geonic responsum and in she’ilta #79 is very similar. But the passage “honoring the shabbat is more important than a thousand fasts” is found only in the Geonic responsum. The fact that the responsum does not illustrate seven scenarios, but only illustrates the scenarios of the 14th falling on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, also suggests that the main motivation for its interpretations was related to shabbat and ‘erev shabbat.
[17] Ozar Ha-Ge’onim, Yom Tov, 20, sec. 41. This was a polemical letter written to the Jews of North Africa and Spain, instructing them that Palestinian customs should not be followed. Pirkoy, a Babylonian Jew, tells us that he was a disciple of someone named Rava who was a disciple of R. Yehudai. (R. Yehudai was head of the academy at Sura from approximately 757-761 C.E.) Pirkoy writes that many of the Palestinian customs originated as emergency measures during times of persecution, or were customs resulting from ignorance. It was only in Babylonia that accurate traditions were preserved. Among the Palestinian practices that Pirkoy criticizes was their practice of fasting on shabbat.
[18] The four are: R. Natronai, R. Se‘adyah, Al-Biruni, and the expanded version of Seder Parshiyyot Shel Yamim Tovim Ve-Haftarot Shelahen. R. Natronai refers to the fast as Ta‘anit Purim. R. Se‘adyah refers to the fast as אלמגלה צום. Al-Biruni, a Moslem scholar of Persian origin (writing in 1000 CE), calls the day “the fasting of Alburi” (Purim). Seder Parshiyyot probably dates from the late ninth or early tenth century. It includes a shortened version of the responsum of R. Natronai that had referred to the fast. There are only three manuscripts of the expanded version of Seder Parshiyyot, none of which was actually copied in Geonic Babylonia. Two of the manuscripts read Ta‘anit Esther, while one reads Ta‘anit Purim. Since R. Natronai’s original responsum read Ta‘anit Purim, it seems likely that the manuscript of Seder Parshiyyot that reflects this reading has preserved the original reading and that the other reading originated with a copyist altering the name to fit the name for the fast prevailing in his locale. Massekhet Soferim refers to sheloshet yemey zom Mordekhai ve-Esther. But the reference is to the Palestinian practice of fasting three days on a Monday-Thursday-Monday cycle. Massekhet Soferim was most likely composed in the 9th or 10th century, in a community under Palestinian influence, such as Italy or Byzantium. See Debra Reed Blank, “It’s Time to Take Another Look at at “Our Little Sister” Soferim: A Bibliographical Essay, JQR 90 (1999): 4 n. 10, and M. B. Lerner, “The External Tractates,” in The Literature of the Sages, ed. Shmuel Safrai, 399-400.
[19] This Palestinian practice may even have preceded the Babylonian practice of fasting on the 13th, although this cannot be proven.
[20] See my article, 333, n. 98. The fast of the 13th was already known in some areas as Ta‘anit Esther by the 11th century. Ibid., 332-333.


Elliott Horowitz – “”Most of all you’ve got to hide it from the kids…’ Reading Esther before Bed”

|
Elliott Horowitz teaches at Bar Ilan University and is co-editor of Jewish Quarterly Review.
This is his fourth contribution to the Seforim blog. We hope that you enjoy.
“”Most of all you’ve got to hide it from the kids…’:
Reading Esther before Bed”

Elliott Horowitz
“The problem of selecting Bible stories for the early grades is an especially difficult one,” wrote Emanuel Gamoran in his introduction to the first volume of Lenore Cohen’s Bible Tales for Very Young Children (2 vols, 1934-36), of which he was the editor. “Not all stories of the Bible are suited to the needs of little children,” continued Gamoran, who was an American Reform rabbi, and a disciple of the pioneer Jewish educator Samson Benderly,[1] “nor should all those children be told them in their entirety. In some instances certain details should be omitted.” In comes as little surprise, then, that in the second volume of Cohen’s Bible Tales the book of Esther contains only a single casualty – the evil Haman, who by the king’s order is hanged on the gallows he had prepared for Mordecai. No mention is made of the death by hanging of Haman’s ten sons, or of the more than 75,000 non-Jews killed, with the king’s permission, by Mordecai’s coreligionists. This was clearly one of those instances in which, according to Rabbi Gamoran, “certain details should be omitted.”
The identical omissions had been made three years earlier in a biblical anthology for children (The Children’s Bible: Selections from the Old and New Testaments) whose contents were “translated and arranged” by two distinguished non-Jews: Henry Sherman, who headed the “department of religious literature” at Charles Scribner’s Sons, which published the book, and Charles Foster Kent, who, as indicated on the frontispiece, was “Woolsey Professor of Biblical Literature in Yale University.”[2] The same editorial policy had earlier been followed by the American children’s writer Frances Jenkins Olcott (1873-1967) in her delightful Bible Stories to Read and Tell, published by Blue Ribbon Books in 1916.
Cohen and Gamoran, then, followed a venerable tradition in saving their “very young” readers from any knowledge of the sad fate of Haman’s sons. Yet they could arguably have followed the model of their British coreligionist Mrs. Philip Cohen in her two-volume Bible Readings with My Children (2nd ed., 1899). In her retelling of the book of Esther she acknowledged that not only Haman, but also his “ten sons were hanged on the gallows which their father had set up for Mordecai.”[3] Moreover, unlike Frances Olcott, who omitted mention of the permission given the Jews by Ahasuerus to defend themselves, and Messrs. Sherman and Kent, who included “the king’s “command that the Jews who were in every city should gather together and protect their lives,” but said nothing about the consequences thereof, Mrs. Cohen felt that it was safe to tell children that “the Jews, in defending themselves, killed numbers of their enemies.”
Mrs. Cohen’s justly popular anthology went through several editions, the fourth of which appeared in London in 1923. In that same year the future (but now lamented) Bible scholar Nahum Sarna was born in London. Not surprisingly, it was from that anthology that he acquired his earliest knowledge of Scripture. Reminiscing decades later about how he came to devote his life “to the study and teaching of the Hebrew Bible,” Sarna, then recently retired from Brandeis University, recalled that among his “earliest and most agreeable recollections is my father reading to me every Shabbat, with unfailing regularity from a little two-volumed work entitled Bible Readings with my Children by a Mrs. Philip Cohen. I am not certain, but I believe I was about three years old when the regimen began.”[4]
II
Bible Readings with my Children was not the first such anthology produced for Jewish children in Victorian England. Already in 1877 Ellis Davidson had published The Bible Reader under the explicit “sanction” of Britain’s Chief Rabbi Nathan Marcus Adler.[5] It was intended, as its subtitle indicated for the Use of Jewish Schools and Families, With the Addition of Questions on the Text, and Moral Reflections on Each Chapter. Davidson’s Bible Reader contained material from the popular book of Esther, but not much from the book’s brutal ending. Thus, anticipating Sherman and Kent’s Children’s Bible of 1930 readers were informed of the permission granted the Jews by Ahasuerus “to destroy, to slay, and to annihilate any armed force…that might attack them, with their children and their women,” but learned nothing of the consequences of that permission. Davidson did find a way to include the deaths of Haman’s sons, which both the Children’s Bible and Frances Olcott’s earlier Bible Stories later chose to omit, but he did so at the cost of changing the biblical story. They “were slain in battle,” and only afterwards hanged, wrote Davidson, “to show the people how utterly the whole house of Haman was degraded, and in order that future assaults might be prevented.”[6]
During the 1890’s two graduates of Oxford, each of whom had been at Balliol College when it was headed by the legendary Benjamin Jowett (1817-93), brought out their own biblical anthologies intended – at least in part – for young readers. The first of these to appear was John William Mackail’s Biblia Innocentium: Being the Story of God’s Chosen People Before the Coming of Our Lord…upon Earth, Written Anew for Children (1892). Mackail (1859-1945), who was born on the Isle of Bute and whose father was a minister of the Scottish Free Church, had overlapped as an undergraduate at Balliol with Claude Montefiore (1858-1938), who was a great nephew of the renowned Sir Moses. It is likely that they knew each other, since neither – unlike the bulk of their classmates – was an Anglican product of a posh “public school.” Both were also among the college’s most distinguished students; achieving “firsts” in the demanding course of study known as Greats (Literae Humaniores) in which their classmate George Nathaniel Curzon (a former Etonian and future viceroy of India) received only a “second.”[7]
In 1896 Montefiore, who was presumably familiar with Mackail’s Biblia Innocentium (which had appeared in a second edition in 1893) brought his Bible for Home Reading (1896), a two-volume anthology “with comments and reflections for the use of Jewish parents and their children. ” In certain respects Montefiore’s anthology followed the limitations that both his coreligionist Davidson and his former classmate Mackail had imposed upon themselves. No mention was made, for example, of the rape of Dinah in Genesis 34 or the subsequent massacre perpetrated by her brothers in Shechem. Yet with regard to the book of Esther Montefiore took a diametrically different approach. Whereas both previous Victorian anthologies, the one Jewish and the other Christian, had informed their readers of the permission granted the Jews to defend themselves but not of the bloody consequences thereof, Montefiore decided to include all the chpaters of Esther in their entirety despite what he acknowledged as the “religious and moral deficiencies.” These, he claimed, had been “ignored or explained away” by some, but also “exaggerated and falsely labelled” by others.” The best solution, he believed was to let readers, young and old, judge for themselves.
There were other ways of dealing with the book’s “religious and moral deficiencies” when presenting its contents to young readers. In his Story of the Bible: first published in 1904, Jesse Lyman Hurlbut (1843-1930), a Methodist Episcopal clergyman, reported not only that “Haman died upon the gallows that he made for Mordecai, but also that his sons “were put to death for their father’s evildoing.” He added, however, that this had been done “according to the cruel usage of those times.”[8] In contrast to Ellis Davidson’s clumsy attempt, in 1877, to make the hanging of Haman’s sons more palatable to his younger readers, Hurlbut, a native of New York, showed that it was possible to add without detracting.
Notes:
[1] On both Gamoran and Benderly, see Penny Schine Gold, Making the Bible Modern: Children’s Bibles and Jewish Education in Twentieth-Century America (Ithaca, 2004).
[2] H. A. Sherman and and C. F. Kent, The Children’s Bible (New York, 1933), 223-25.
[3] Mrs. Philip Cohen, Bible Readings with my Children, two volumes (rev. ed. London, 1899), II, 336.
[4] Nahum Sarna, “Ruminations of a Jewish Bible Scholar,” Bible Review 4:3 (June 1988). See also the obituary by Tom Long in the Boston Globe (25 June 2005).
[5] On Davidson, see Geoffrey Cantor, “‘From nature to nature’s God’: Ellis A. Davidson—mid-Victorian educator, moralist, and consummate Designer,” Jewish History 23:4 (December 2009): 263-388.
[6] On Davidson’s work and its treatment of the book of Esther, see Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (2nd ed., Princeton, 2008), 24.
[7] On Montefiore at Balliol and the impact on the college of Jowett, see Horowitz, Reckless Rites, 25, and the sources cited there.
[8] Hurlbut, Story of the Bible: For Young and Old (Philadelphia, 1952).


The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature (Revisited)

|
The Origins of Hamentashen in Jewish Literature: A Historical-Culinary Survey Revisited*
By Eliezer Brodt

I. Introduction

As Jews, most of our holidays have special foods specific to them; and behind each culinary custom, lays enveiled the reasoning behind them. Shavuot brings with it a vast array of customary dairy delicacies – in some parts of the world, cheesecake is practically obligatory – not to mention different customs in regard to how and when to eat them. Rosh Hashanah in renowned for the different fruits and vegetables eaten as physical embodiments symbolizing our tefillot; Chanukah has fried foods (no trans-fats please); whether latkes sizzling in the frying pan, or the elusive Israeli sufganiyot (jelly doughnuts) seen for a month before but not to be found a minute after Chanukah’s departure, and on the fifteenth of Shevat a veritable plethora of fruits are sampled in an almost ‘Pesach Seder’-like ceremony. Of course, on Purim we eat hamentashen.

Hamentashen. Those calorie-inflated, Atkins-defying, doughy tri-cornered confections filled with almost anything bake-able. The Mishpacha reports that this year in Israel alone, an astounding 24.5 million hamentashen will be sold, weighing 1225 tons, and yielding an approximate 33 million NIS in sales.[1] The question that many will be asking themselves is “where did this minhag to eat hamentashen come from?”

Recently I started researching this topic; thus far (and I hope to find more) my results are as follows.

II. Origins

The earliest source I have located so far can be found in the first Jewish comedy called Ztachus Bedechusa Dekidushin. This play was written in Hebrew by Yehudah Sommo (1527- 1592) from Italy. He was a friend of R. Azariah Men Hadomim and is even quoted in the Meor Eynamim (at the end of chapter eighteen). This comedy was written for Purim as he writes in the introduction:

הוא ספר חדש מדבר צחות אשר בדה מלבו פ’ בימי בחרותו לצחק בו בימי הפורים ובשעת חדוה

In one of the scenes the following conversation take place:

יאיר: אם בדברים כאלה אכפרה פניו, כבר יש לי קושיא אחת אשר ייעפו כל תוספי התורה להתירה, כי הנה כתוב במגלת פורים “ויתלו את המן” ובפרשת בלק נכתב בפירוש “ויאכלו בני ישראל את המן”. ואיך יאכלו היהודים הנשמרים מכל רע את נבלת התלוי ההוא ואל הכלב לא ישליכו אותה?

יקטן: גם זה ראיתי אני וכבר תרץ הקושיא הזאת רב בלעם בן בבי בשם אביו: כי מה שאמרה התורה “ויאכלו את המן” היא אזהרה וציווי לנו שנאכל בימי הפורים האלה מאזני המן – הן המה הרקייקם הנעשים בסולת בלולה בשמן, וזהו שאמר אחרי כן “וטעמו כצפיחית בדבש”.

יאיר: יפה פירוש בן ביבי זכור לטוב!

Professor Schirman who printed this play from manuscript notes that רב בלעם בן בבי is the name of one of the characters in the Massekhet Purim of R. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus. [2] In connection with Yehudah Sommo’s play, it is possible to understand an engmatic statement in the Tishbi. Specifically, R. Elijah Bocher writes:

ערך “מנלן”- מנלן להמן מן התורה שנאמר ויאכלך את המן, גם זו מלה מורכבת מן ב’ מלות אן ולן
R. Yeshaya Pick in his notes on the Tishbi asks, the Gemarah in Chulin which asks this same question has a different source for Haman min Hatorah where does the Tishbi get this Chazal from? He suggests that maybe he had different chazal which we do not have. However in the new edition of Tishbi they printed notes of R. Mazauz who suggests that it is highly probable that there was no such Chazal rather the Tishbi was referring to the famous lezunuot about eating hamntashen. This suggestion is all the more probable after seeing the words of Yehudah Sommo in his play written a little after the Tishbi.[3]

The next source I have located is in the poetry of the brothers Yakov and Emanuel Pranosish (1618- 1703) in one piece [4] they write:

אמנם נזרק העט ונקצר ענינים,

כי יום פורים זה בא, נכין לו מעדנים,

נכין מרקחות ממתקים מכל מינים,

נגדיל אזני המן מאזני השפנים,

Ben-Yehudah, in his dictionary also cites to a manuscript excerpt of a Purim comedy penned by R. Yehudah Aryeh de Modena, where he is supposed to mention this food Hamantashen.[5]
Mention can also be found in some liturgical parodies [6] from the seventeenth-century, where it includes references to eating hamentashen:

שתו אכלו אזני המן

Thus, from the above, it seems that the original word was aznei Haman the name Hamantashen only came later.

In an 1846 cook book called The Jewish Manual by Lady Judith Cohen Montefiore we find a recipe for “Haman fritters.”[7] R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, in his Mekor Barukh, relates the following interesting anecdote which highlights the importance his grandfather placed on eating hamentashen:

One year in the beginning of the month of Adar he [my grandfather] noticed that the bakeries were not selling hamentashen. When he inquired as to why this was so, he discovered that there was a shortage of flour. He promptly went ahead and gave the biggest bakers in the city a large sum of money to enable them to buy flour to bake hamantsashen.[8]

In a nineteenth-century Lithuanian memoir again the import of hamentashen is apparent. The author recalls that “my sister spent the day preparing the baked delicacies of Purim. Most important were the hamentashen.”[9] R. Michael Braver in his excellent memoir of Galicia written in the mid 1800’s also describes the sending of Hamantashen on Purim. [10] A. S. Sachs in his memories on shtetl life notes that his “grandma would add a Haman-tash for the kiddies” in the meshloach manot.[11] Chaim Hamburger also mentions the baking of Hamantashen on purim in his memoirs. [12]. Professor Simha Assaf, in an article describing Purim, also writes that people made special foods called hamentashen.[13] Shmarya Levin recollects in his autobiography with great detail the hamentashen:

The much-loved little cakes, stuffed with nuts and poppy seed, which are called ‘Haman’s ears’ – sometimes ‘Haman’s pockets’ – had been prepared for us in vast numbers. Their shape alone was a joy. They were neither round, like rolls, nor long, like the loaf; with their triangular shape they were like nothing else that we ate during the year. The stuffing was made of poppy-seeds fried in honey, but there was not enough of it, so we used to eat the cake cagily, in such wise that with every mouthful we got at least a nibble of honeyed poppy seed.[14]

Similarly, David Zagier in his memoirs of Botchki writes about his childhood there: We commemorated Purim . . . Lesser Miracles came in the wake of the Purim miracle . . . the invention of Hamentashen, the best cakes one could dream of, all poppy seed and honey (p. 69).[15] We also find hamentashen being eaten in Amsterdam[16] and Jews from Bucharia, as well, make אזני המן, similar to hamentashen. [17] לאה אזני המן מנין is a comedy listed in Avraham Yari’s bibliographical listing of comedies.[18]

III. Other possible early origins for Hamentashen

As we can see, the custom of eating hamentashen is widespread and common from at least the 16th century. In fact, R. Shmuel Ashkenazi pointed to some sources which may demonstrate that hamentashen were eaten even earlier. Ben Yehuda in his dictionary claims that as early as the time of the Abarbanel (1437-1508), hamentashen were consumed. The Abarbanel, discussing the food which fell from heaven, the mon, describes these cakes as:[19]

וצפיחית הוא מאכל הקמח מבושל בשמן כצורת צפחת המים הנאכל בדבש והוא כמו הרקיקים העושים מן הבצק כדמות אזנים מבושלות בשמן ויטבלו אותם בדבש ויקראוהו אזנים

This sounds like our hamentashen although there is no reference to eating them on Purim. But R. Ashkenazi pointed out to me that if this is the source, you might then be able to suggest that hamentashen was already eaten much earlier, as this piece of the Abarbanel is word for word taken from R Yosef ibn Kaspi who lived several hundred years earlier (Kaspi was born in 1298 and died in 1340)!

Another possible early source for our Hamentashen could perhaps be found thru the words of Emanuel Haromi. In Machbres Emanuel [20] he writes:

מה אומר המן? לכל זמן

וזרש? לא תקלל חרש!

And then again:

ואם אמר: ארור המן וזרש! ישיבון: אל תקלל, דוד, לחרש!

Dov Yardan when he was preparing his excellent critical edition of Machbres Emanuel composed a list of statements of Emanuel that Yardan was unable to locate sources for. One of these was this line regarding Haman’s deafness. Yaran suggests that this maybe this has to do with why we eat aznei Haman! And maybe that is also tied to the banging and using of gragers when we say Haman name. [21] Interestingly Dov Sadan also writes in his youth he used to hear that Haman was deaf.

So to conclude it seems from all this that the original word was aznei Haman the name Hamantashen only came later and earliest origins are from Italy. [22]

IV. Ta’am ha-Hamentashen

Irrespective when the custom of eating hamentashen began, the question we need to now explore is why hamentashen, what connection do hamentashen have with Purim?

Hayyim Schauss explains that in actuality the origins of the hamentashen are not Jewish, rather, we originally appropriated them from another culture. He explains that “the hamentashen are also of German origin. Originally they were called mohn-tashen, mohn meaning poppy seed and tashen meaning pockets and also signified dough that is filled with other food stuffs. The people therefore related the cake to the book of Esther and changed the mahn to Haman [due to its similarity]. In time the interpretation arose that the three cornered cakes are eaten because Haman wore a three cornered hat when he became prime minister to Ahasuerus. The three corners were also interpreted as a symbolic sign of the three patriarchs whose merit aided the Jews against Haman.”[23]

Another reason offered for eating hamentashen also deals with the meaning (more correctly a pun) of the word – hamentashen, because Haman wanted to kill us out and Hashem weakened him, preventing him from doing evil to us. Thus, the treat is called המן תש (Hamen became weakened). Eating these pastries is representative of our faith that the same result will befall all our antagonists.[24]

The next reason offered by Menucha u-Kedusha has to do with the pastry itself, more specifically, how the filling is hidden. Until the events which occurred on Purim, the Jews were accustomed to open miracles like those in their battle with Sisra, whereas the Purim miracle appeared to be through natural events – only Mordechai knew that this was a miracle. To remember this, we eat pastries that the main part – the filling – is hidden in the dough, similar to the miracle which was hidden in nature. The filling chosen was specifically zeronim (seeds – poppy seed – mahn) to remind us of Daniel having eaten only seeds (and not non-kosher food) while in captivity at Nevuchadnezar’s court. Furthermore, according to this source the triangular shape also has meaning. The Talmud (Megillah 19b) records a three way argument from where to start reading the megillah. As the halakhah is to follow all three opinions and start from the beginning, we cut the pastries in triangular shape to symbolize our accordance to all three opinions. Another reason mentioned in Menucha u-Kedusha for the filling is based on the writings of R. Moshe Alsheikh, who states the Jews did not really think they were going to get completely wiped out until Mordechai finally convinced them so. The possibility arises that Mordechai was afraid to keep on sending out letters, so pastries were baked and the letters hidden therein. These pastry-letters saved the Jews; in turn we eat filled pastries. This reason is a bit interesting for itself, but what is even more interesting is that he never calls the pastries hamentashen.[25] A possibility might be kreplach, meat filled pockets boiled in soup, but the theory is unlikely as kreplach are not something special eaten exclusively for Purim – we eat it other times such as Erev Yom Kippur and Hoshana Rabah.

R. Yaakov Kamenetsky offers yet another reason for eating hamentashen on Purim. As we eat the hamentashen and eating is a form of destroying the item being eaten. Therefore, in eating hamentashen, we are fulfilling the commandment (figuratively) of destroying Amalek we are eating Hamen.[26]

Yom Tov Lewinsky and Professor Dov New both suggest that the reason for eating the hamentashen is because the custom in the Middle Ages was to cut off the ears of someone who was supposed to be hung,[27] to remember that we eat pastries from which a part had been cut off. Another point mentioned both by these authors is an opinion that the filling in the pastries [this is specific to poppy seeds] is in remembrance to the 10,000 silver coins that Haman offered to contribute to Achashverosh’s coffers.[28]

Aside from the general merrymaking on Purim, there is also a long tradition of written fun. Specifically, since the famous Massekhet Purim of R. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus (1286-1328), there have been many versions of these type of comedies written throughout the ages. One such was R. Avraham Mor, Kol Bo LePurim (Lemberg, 1855), which is a complete sefer all about Purim written to be humorous. Included therein is a question regarding changing the way hamentashen should be made from a triangle to make them square shape! He answered that it would be terrible to make hamentashen square. If the hamentashen are square they would have four corners which in turn would obligate the attachment of tzitzet like any clothes of four corners.[29]

One last interesting point in regard to hamentashen can be found within Prof. Elliott Horowitz’s recent book-length discussion related to Purim[30] where he notes that as recent as 2002, a Saudi ‘scholar’ Umayna Ahamad al Jalahma claimed that Muslim blood can be used for the three cornered hamentashen.[31] Horowitz also notes that in middle of the Damascus affair in 1840, a work from 1803 was discovered which claimed that Christian blood was used in the ingredients for Purim pastries.[32] Again in 1846, Horowitz writes that “on the holiday of Purim it was claimed the Jews would annually perform a homicide in hateful memory of Haman, and if they managed to kill a Christian the Rabbi would bake the latter’s blood in triangular pastries which he would send as mishloach manot to his Christian friend.”[33] In 1938 the Jews were once again accused of murdering an adult Christian and drying his blood to be mixed into the triangular cakes eaten on Purim.[34]

Thanks to Rabbis Y. Tessler, A. Loketch and Yosaif M. Dubovick, and the two anonymous readers, for their help in locating some of the sources.

* This article has been heavily updated from last year’s version with many important additions and corrections.

Notes
[1] Mishpacha (27 Shevat 5767), 30.
[2] This play was printed for the first time from manuscript by C. Shirman in a critical edition in 1946 and than reissued by him with additions in 1965. This piece with the quote of aznei Haman can be found in the second edition on page 67. This particular passage was also reprinted by Shirman in his Letoldos Hashira vHadrama Haivrit, 2, pg 52-53. Shirman includes a nice introduction and background on Yehudah Sommo printed in both these places.

This play is the first known play performed for Purim. From this time period and onwards we have a very rich literature of plays and musicals. They were performed especially on Purim but on other occasions such as Simchas Torah and weddings (Shirman, Ibid, pp. 63-67; 80 -85). To be sure these plays were also met with opposition most notable by R. Samuel Abhuv [See, Shu”t Davar Shmuel, siman daled and Shirman, ibid pg 47, 56]. This is the one and the same that was against Meschtas Purim and cross dressing. However, it could be there was not so much out rage against it as the Rabonim felt it was a lost battle or the lesser of two evils to go to ones of Gentiles. Of the many play writers some were very famous gedolim most notable the author of Ikrei Dinim, R. Moshe Zechuto and the Ramchal. This whole topic has been dealt with very much in depth by C. Shirman in his Letoldos Hashira VHadrama Haivrit, 2, pgs 44-94. On the Ramchal see: Shirman, ibid, pg 84-85 and 161-175.

This era in Italy was followed by a long period of Yiddish plays many of which were collected by C. Shmirk. Until today in many circles especially yeshivas plays are performed on Purim. In Europe some of the plays were performed by the bochrim to raise money for themselves. In many memoirs we have accounts of how much the masses enjoyed these plays. Just to list a few of the very many sources on this topic. See the accounts in Pauline Wengeroff, Rememberings: The World of a Russian-Jewish Woman in the Nineteenth Century pp. 31- 32; A. S. Sachs, Worlds That Passed, pp. 232-234 ; Zechronot Av Ubeno, p. 356.

On purim plays in general much has been written see: Israel Abrahams, Jewish life in the Middle Ages, pgs 260- 272; H. Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), pp. 184- 190 and 332-335; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel,6, p. 201 who writes this was from outside influences; M. Breuer, Ohele Torah, pp. 418-419; E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, pp. 84-87;
[3] New edition of Tishbi p. 162.
[4] Printed in Kol Shirei Yakov Pronsish p. 363. On these brothers see the Introduction printed in this edition. See also: C. Shirman, Letoldos Hashira vHadrama Haivrit, 2, pp. 57, 138.
[5] Though I was unable to pin-point the comedy, it might be the one called La Reina Esther; see Mark R. Cohen, The Autobiography of a Seventeenth-Century Venetian Rabbi: Leon Modena’s Life of Judah (Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 235. This play was written in Italian and is extremely rare. Recently Marina Arbib wrote an excellent article called ‘The Queen Esther Triangle: Leon Modena, Ansaldo Ceba and Sara Copio Sullam’, printed in the book Aryeh Yeshag pp. 103-135. See also C. Schirman, Letoldos Hashira vHadrama Haivrit, 2, p. 55.
[6] Israel Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature (New York, 1907), p. 193.
[7] Lady Judith Cohen Montefiore, The Jewish Manual (London, 1846)
[8] R. Barukh ha-Levi Epstein, Mekor Barukh (vol 1, p. 974)
[9] Pauline Wengeroff, Rememberings: The World of a Russian-Jewish Woman in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Bernard Dov Cooperman, trans. Henny Wenkart (University Press of Maryland, 2000), p. 29.
[10] Zechronot Av Ubeno, p. 24.
[11] A. S. Sachs, Worlds That Passed (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1928), p. 229.
[12] Shlosha Olmos, 3, p. 22.
[13] Simha Assaf, Sefer Hamoadim, p. 29.
[14] Forward from Exile: The Autobiography of Shmarya Levin, ed. and trans. Maurice Samuel (Jewish Publication Society of America, 1967).
[15] Botchki, p. 69.
[16] Minhagei Amsterdam p. 149 # 12
[17] Yalkut ha-Minhagim, pg. 210
[18] Hamachazeh Ha-Ivri, p. 76 n.654.
[19] Parashat Beshalach, end of chap. 16; [This source is also quoted in the Otzar ha-Lashon ha-Ivrit, however the editors simply describe it as a “phrase from the Middle Ages” (vol 1 p. 59).] When I first wrote this suggestion from R. Askenazi, R. M. Honig pointed out to me that it is more likely that they were referring to Sufganyuos as it is evident from the words of Rav Mamion the father of the Rambam where he says:

אין להקל בשום מנהג ואפילו מנהג קל. ויתחייב כל נכון לו עשית משתה ושמחה ומאכל לפרסם הנס שעשה השם יתברך עמנו באותם הימים. ופשט המנהג לעשות סופגנין, בערבי אלספינג, והם הצפחיות בדבש ובתרגום האיסקריטין הוא מנהג הקדמונים משום שהם קלויים בשמן לזכר ברכתו (כלומר לנס שבפך שמן)

(See my earlier post on this). This could be further supported with the words of Emanuel Haromi in Machbres Emanuel where he writes (p. 168):

בכסליו… ואחרת תבשל הרקיקים, וצפחית ומעשה החבתים.
This could be another early source for Sufganyuos. However in light of these words of Yehudah Sommo where he says:

לנו שנאכל בימי הפורים האלה מאזני המן – הן המה הרקייקם הנעשים בסולת בלולה בשמן, וזהו שאמר אחרי כן “וטעמו כצפיחית בדבש”.
So it could very well be that the Abarbanel and Kaspi were referring to Hamantashen.
[20] Machbres Emanuel pp. 109, 169. According to this that the possible source for eating aznei Haman comes from Emanuel Haromi! It is not clear if he had a source from Chazal for this statement that Haman was deaf as much of what he says is based on Chazal. However there is a good chance that this was just a joke of his. This would not be the first time that a joke of his became accepted in our regular literature. R. Askenazi pointed out to me one such example in the Tur Al Hatoroah, Bresheis (pg 7) where he writes as follows:

ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתתה עמדי הוא נתנה לי מן העץ ואכל. לפי הפשט שהכתני בעץ עד כי שמעתי לדבריה.
The source for this is really Emmanuel Haromi (pg 400) where he writes:

ויגש העשרי ויאמר: אמר נא, פלא יועץ מה רצה הכתוב באמרו היא נתנה לי מן העץ והיה לו לומר מפרי העץ, לפי הנראה ועתה אמר נא, בחסדך מה פרוש בו אתה רואה? ואען ואמר: חייך, ידידות נפשי! פרוש הפסוק הוא: היא נתנה לי מן העץ על ראשי ודכאה לארץ חיתי עד שאכלתי על כרחי, שלא בטובתי.

R. Askenazi noted that this pirish which was meant as a joke was accepted by many besides for the Tur amongst them the Moshav Zekanim R. Yakov Meveinia.
[21] Yedah Haam, 3, p. 70.
[22] See the excellent article of Dov Saden printed in his work Shay Olomos (pp. 25-38) on the development of this word hamantashen, based on an incredible wide range of sources. This piece helped me find some of the rather unknown sources. See also Yehudah Avidah in his work on Yiddish Foods ‘Yideishe macholim’ pp. 46-49. See also Dov New, Machanaim (# 43) and the recent issue of the Kulmos (#60) p. 17.
[23] Hayyim Schauss, The Jewish Festivals (Random House, 1938; Hebrew, 1933), p. 270. The source for the first reason can be found in Judah David Eisenstein, Otzar Dinim u-Minhagim (New York, 1917), p. 336, and for the last reason in Yitzhak Lifshitz, Sefer Ma’atamim (Warsaw, 1889), p. 86.
[24] Avraham Eliezer Hershkowitz, Otzar Kol Minhaghei Yeshrun (St. Louis, 1918), p. 131. See also R. Cohen in his book Puirm VChodesh Adar, pp. 116-117 and R. Kamile, Shar Reveun, p. 206.
[25] R. Yisrael Isserl of Ponevezh Sefer Menucha u-Kedusha (Vilna, 1864), pp. 271-72.
[26] Yaakov Michoel Jacobs, Bemechitzas Rabbeinu: Hagaon Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky, zt”l (Feldheim, 2005), p. 142.
[27] Yom Tov Lewinsky, Sefer Hamoadim (pp. 153-154); Dov New, Machanaim # 43. New quotes a piece from Yashar which I have been unable to locate on this topic if any one knows its location please be so kind as to let me know. This source is also quoted by Ben Yehuda in his dictionary under the entry aznei.
[28] Ibid.
[29] R. Avraham Mor, Kol Bo LePurim (Lemberg, 1855), pg. 6. See Israel Davidson, ibid. pg 234-235, #191.
[30] Elliott Horowitz, Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (Princeton University Press, 2006)
[31] Ibid, p. 9.
[32] Ibid, p. 218.
[33] Ibid, p. 219.
[34] Ibid, p. 228.


Purim and Parodies

|
Purim and Parodies

by Eliezer Brodt

Happiness During the Month of Adar and its Discontents

The month of Adar begins a time of joy, as the mishna says “mi shenechnas Adar marbim b’simcha.” Interestingly, it’s been noted here that this halacha is not codified by either the Rambam or Shulchan Orach. R. Yissachar Tamar in his classic work on Yerushalmi, Ali Tamar, notes that some have suggested that this is the reason why many shuls in Europe hung signs proclaiming Mi Shenechnas Adar with pictures of bottles of wine and Jews happy was to announce this halacha! [1] Furthermore, the Ali Tamar provides additional sources that demonstrate that some were punctilious about in their observation of this halacha and would begin celebrating from rosh hodesh Adar. In light of this concept we could perhaps understand how many halchahos are relaxed during and around Purim-time. For example, after the destruction of the Bes HaMikdash, Chazal enacted a prohibition against “”.שחוק This is recorded in the Gemara (Berchos 31a):

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יוחאי: אסור לאדם שימלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה, שנאמר: ‘אז ימלא שחוק פינו ולשוננו רנה’, אימתי – בזמן שיאמרו בגוים הגדיל ה’ לעשות עם אלה. אמרו עליו על ריש לקיש, שמימיו לא מלא שחוק פיו בעולם הזה מכי שמעה מרבי יוחנן רביה.
This is codified in Shulchan Orach (O.C. siman 560, 5) to which the Taz (ibid) comments:
בשם רבינו יונה דמשמע גם שלא בזמן הגלות דלא כנוסח הטור שכתב בגלות הזה ונלע”ד שיש חילוק בזה דלענין שמחה שאינו של מצוה ודאי אסור אפי’ שלא בזמן הגלות למלא פיו שחוק אבל בשמחה של מצוה היה היתר בזמן שב”ה קיים כגון שמחת בית השואב’ ושמחת דוד שהיה מכרכר בכל עוז ובזמן הגלות ערב’ כל שמחה ואפי’ בשמחה של מצוה כגון בחתונה או פורים מ”מ לא ימלא פיו שחוק כנלע”ד נכון:
Thus, according to the Taz, even during happy events such as a wedding or Purim, there is a a restriction on שחוק. R. Yosef Engle in his Dershos Otzros Yosef (Vienna 1921, pg 36-37) and R. Teichtel author of the Aim Habonim Semechaih, in his Shu”t Mishnat Sachir (# 2) both justify the minhag of Klal Yisroel everywhere to be joyous at weddings and on Purim. [R. Yosef Engle seems to take this concept a bit further than R. Teichtel as he even justifies cross dressing].

In fact, we find times that chazal themselves allowed שחוק as we find מילתא דבדיחותא in Chazal. Those instances, however, appear to be limited to when the purpose was waking a sleeping or otherwise uninterested audience and involving them in Torah study.

Setting aside the opinion of the Taz who holds that שחוק is prohibited even on Purim, it appears that many disagreed with this position. This is borne out by various halachos that relate to Purim. For instance, the Rema in Hilchos Purim (696 end) writes some allow cross dressing and wearing shatnes d’rabanan. Additionally, if someone damaged his friends property due to simchas Purim they do not have to pay. And, perhaps most notable, getting drunk which in general is very much frowned upon. While the Rama and others seems to permit these actions many disagreed for example R. Shmuel Aboab in his Sefer Zichronos [2] writes very strongly against these actions.

Another Italian rabbi, R. Shmuel Me-Sha’ar Areyeh, who was a contemporary of the Rama Me-Fano, writes similarly in his (still in manuscript) commentary on the Bet Yosef [3] :

אין לסמוך על דברי זאת ההגהה לחטוא, לא לענין מלובשי איש ואשה, ולא בכלאים דרבנן, ולא בגזל אפילו כל שהוא, ושומר נפשו ירחקו מהם ולא יסמוך על המתיר כי אין בידו דבר ברור להיתר, ולא כתבו כן הפוסקים הראשונים ובמקום אחר הוא כתב: “מנהגים הללו בורות הם ויש להמנע מהם”.
And more recent the Orach Ha-shulchan writes:
ועכשיו בעונותינו הרבים ערבה כל שמחה ואין אנו נוהגים לשמוח כל כך עד שיבא להיזק ולכן עכשיו כשהזיק חייב לשלם ואפילו בזמן הקדמון חייב בנזק הגוף A bit later he elaborates:
ומה שנהגו בימים קדמונים בלבישת פרצופים משעטנז ושל איש לאשה עכשיו לא נהגו כן וכן מי שהזיק חייב לשלם דעתה בעונותינו הרבים ערבה כל שמחה ואין אנו במדריגה זו [ומ”ש הרמ”א בסעיף ח’ הוא לקיים מה שנהגו בימיו ולא עכשיו]: [4]
Parodies for Purim

In light of the above, we see that while there is some dispute about how far one can go on Purim, joyful acts (depending on their degree) are encouraged. Parodies and plays (this topic will be dealt with in my next post) which were written and some preformed during Purim-time.
Israel Davidson writes in the introduction to his classic work on this topic, Parody in Jewish Literature, [5] the following:

“The Range of Jewish parody is as wide as the range of general parody. The Jewish parodist has invaded every department of literature and every walk of life. He has drawn upon the various phases of Jewish life for his subject matter and upon the various forms of Jewish literature for his models. . . . It would indeed be easy to make a collection of representing the bible, Talmud, midrash liturgy zohar codes… It is equally no exaggeration to say almost all the great movements in modern Jewish history are reflected in Jewish parody . . . on the other hand the study of this branch of Jewish literature will also reveal the serious side of Jewish humor. . . . Tears and laughter lie very closely together in Jewish humor, and the Jewish parodist is not always a mere clown, but more often is a preacher disguised in the garb of a jester. Like general parody Jewish parody has a moral aim. It is opposed to every kind of untruth to bombast to hypocrisy.”

In this post I would like to point out a few such parodies to show some general customs which are mentioned in them, with a specific eye towards Purim. One of the earliest such pieces was a piyut printed in the Machzor Vitri (p. 583) to say during Ma’ariv of Purim. It starts out saying:
ליל שיכורים הוא זה הלילה, לשמוח ביין הטוב ולגילה… בליל הזה ישכרו כל יצורים…
This piece was authored by a Menachem ben Aron. It has been debated from exactly which time period this piece was written but Davidson believes that he was active as early as 1140 and as late as 1244. Rav Zevin and others note that it is quiet strange to allow such a crazy piyut to be said during Ma’ariv. But, Rav Zevin does point out that although the halacha is not to get drunk on Purim at night at least in the times of R Eliezer Fleckles people definitely did get drunk then.[6] A. Haberman reprinted a much lengthier version of a piuyt composed in 1695, by a dayan, for the whole Ma’ariv.[7]
Although there are no real sources that one has to get drunk on the night of Purim I did find Rav Nissim Goan writes:
ושנהגו בלילי פורים לעשות מדורות האש וקופצין עליהן אית ליה נמי עיקיר.
This seems to imply that there is a some notion of שחוק or שמחה on Purim night. This custom of Rav Nissim Goan is brought down by the Sefer Hamanhig, Avudraham and others.[8]

One of the most famous parodists in Jewish history was Emanuel HaRomi author of the infamous Machberes Emanuel (also called Sefer Hamachberes). Davidson calls him “the father of of exegetic parody and one of its best masters.” This work was written in circa 1321-28. This work includes a good bit of parodies. One of the parodies is a very detailed description of the excessive drinking and drunkenness of people in his time on Purim.[9] [10]

Just to quote one line from this particular parody as it is extremely graphic:
יצאתי אם השר בימי הנעורים אחר סעודת פורים, לראות בשחוק השכורים…ויאמר כי היא מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא והשכרות והפריצות ביום הזה ערמה וקצתם יחולו במחולות בחורים וגם בתולות…
As is very well known this work was banned by the Beis Yosef [11] who writes very strongly against it:
מליצות ומשלים של שיחת חולין ודברי חשק, כגון ספר עמנואל, וכן ספרי מלחמות, אסור לקרות בהם בשבת; ואף בחול אסור משום מושב לצים ועובר משום אל תפנו אל האלילים לא תפנו אל מדעתכם; ובדברי חשק, איכא תו משום מגרה יצר הרע; ומי שחיברן ומי שהעתיקן, וא”צ לומר המדפיסן, מחטיאים את הרבים.

Although the Beis Yosef wrote strongly against it R. Shmuel Askenazi pointed out to me a very interesting source. The Chida in his Shem Hagedolim [12] writes as follows:

שמעתי שאמרו בעל הפרשים שבאיוב יקרא האדם פ’ רלב”ג וירוה צמאוני ובמשלי יקרא פ’ עמנואל ובתהלים יקרא פ’ ר’ דוד קמחי ואתנח סימנא שפת אמת תכון לעד. אמת ר”ת איוב משלי תהלים. לעד ר”ת לוי עמנואל דוד והם כסדרן.
What the Chida is saying is that the best work on Mishlei was written by Emanuel!

One other point of interest about this work: I found in the list of works for students to learn thought out a new school system written by R. Meshulam Roth the great Galicianer posek at the request of R. Meir Shapiro amongst the many interesting things he wanted talmdim to read was the Sefer Machberes![13]

Another one of the earliest parodies written was called Mesechtas Purim, written by R. Kallonyms ben Kallonyms (1286-1328) a good friend of Emanuel Haromi.[14] This parody was perhaps the most famous one written on Purim which inspired many others especially of note was two others written a little later by the Ralbag.[15] Masechtas Purim was first written between 1319-1322 and printed in 1513, again in 1552 than again in 1871. This was written in the style of gemarah including drashos and everything found in regular sugyos – mimicking the talmudic style very well. Most of the humor is clean and not pocking fun at anyone. Davidson devotes a large part of his book to discussing the various editions of Masechtas Purim with many important notes. Haberman provides all the printings of this book in a facsimile edition of this sefer which he printed. As many other books this to was banned, by many, most notably R. Shmuel Aboab (siman 193). Others who opposed these works were authors of Chemdas Hayomim, Beris Mateh Moshe and the Chida.[16] At some points certain versions of Mesechtas Purim were even burned![17]

Haberman, however, points out a very interesting observation on all this and that is that this work of Mesechtas Purim was not banned immediately. Rather, it was only much later that any bans were directed at Mesechtas Purim. According to Haberman, this demonstrates that in the beginning there was no great opposition against it. He writes it is clear from the writings of R. Kalonymus and the Ralbag that it was just for Simchas Purim with no evil intent at all.[18] Besides for this both R. Kalonymus and the Ralbag were known as great people and not latzanim. To support this theory a bit one just has to read the end of the edition of R. Kalonymus where he writes:

ולמה השלים המסכתא בפרק אין קורין לפי שאין קורין בו אלא בשעה שאינו לא יום ולא לילה שלא נכתב אלא לשחוק בעלמא לשחוק האנשים ביום פורים והקורא בו לא הפסיד אלא כמי שקורא בספרי רפואות ובדברים המועלים לגוף ואינן מזיקין לנפש…
To support Haberman’s theory even more I quoted earlier that the Orach Hashulchan writes about all the actions permitted according to the Rema that nowadays we are not on the level of this and they are prohibited but in those days it appears they were on a higher level so it was permitted.

Be that as it may, these parodies are great sources for information of Purim in their respective author’s times as Davidson notes. Just to list some of the many things which Davidson notes we see described in them is gambling [19], playing backgammon,[20] , mock hanging of haman [21] excess drinking and eating all kinds of foods (in one list there is over twenty seven types) [22].

Another interesting thing we find in R. Kalonymus’ Mesechtas Purim is the making of a Purim King. It would seem that from here developed in many towns and yeshivas there was a concept called a Purim rav where a rav was hired who would make fun of the local rav or rosh yeshivah. One additional source of doing this can be found in the travelogue of the Chida.[23]

Another interesting point I think we see in R. Kalonymus’ Mesechtas Purim is the custom of dressing up more specifically cross dressing. Many of those who have discussed [24] this topic note an early source from the Sefer Hamaskil [25] a nephew of the Rosh who writes:

טובה תנחל ושלוה תירש אם תשמור מלאו דלא ילבש גבר שמלת אשה כגון בחורים הנותנים צעיך בראשיהם ולובשים בגדי נשים בחנוכה ובפורים ואל תהיה כאחד מהם בדבר הרע הזה ואפילו אם תעשהו לשם מצוה יצא השכר בהפסד.

Another early source which many have noted is from R. Kalonymus author of Mesechtas Purim in his work Even Bochen when talking about Purim he writes:

ובארבעה עשר לחודש אדר, בחורי ישראל לכבוד ולהדר… זה ילבש שמלת אשה ולגרגרותיו ענקים… וזה יתחקה כאחד הרקים תף ומחול שמחה ושלישים. אלו עם אלו אנשים עם נשים…

I think that in Mesechtas Purim there is another source on this which no one seems to have mentioned on this where R. Kalonymus writes:

רבי דניאל איש כפר … הוה יתיב בבי מדרשא שאלו מקמיה מהו למעבד מחולא בפורייא אמר להו אנשים לבד והנשים לבד מותר איתביה רבי שחקו והכתיב אז תשמח בתולה במחול בחורים וזקנים יחדו אמר ליה רבי דניאל האי קרא לעתיד לבא הוא דכתיב ולעתיד לבא אין יצר הרע שולט שנאמר והסירותי את לב האבן מבשרכם ונתתי לכם לב בשר.. אבל בזמן הזה יצר הרע שולט האנשים לבד והנשים לבד מותר אבל אנשים ונשים אסור שהרי אמרו חכמים זמרן גברי וענין נשי פריצותא זמרן ונשי וענין גברי כאש לנעורת כל שכן לחול במחול אנשים ונשים יחד שהוא אסור לימא מסייע ליה לא תלבש אשה לא בגדי צבעונין ולא כלי פשתן המגוהצין ולא תסור מראש חדש אדר עד ששה עשר בו טעמא מאי שלא תחול במחול אם האנשים…

One thing lacking when it comes to Mesechtas Purim is a critical edition. Although Davidson did an excellent job in general on Mesechtas Purim it could still use a critical edition explaining what each point in the meschtah is based on.

On the subject of parodies I would just like to mention one other parody. This parody is called the Sefer Hakundos, It was printed in Vilna in 1824. This parody was written by a maskil as a vicious attack on the Jews of the time pocking fun at many things. The plus about this parody is we get a very interesting glimpse into Jewish life in those days – very detailed. This parody was very rare and almost unknown except by a few scholars. Until recently in 1997 Professor M. Zalkin reprinted it in a critical edition by Mercaz Dinur, with an excellent introduction giving a complete historical background of who possibly wrote this work why it was written so sharply and about the different versions of this work that seemed to exist. The introduction by Zalkin is 30 pages and the actual text of the sefer is twenty seven pages. He includes over four hundred very helpful notes to the actual text to the work explaining many points. Although he did an excellent job I feel that he could have added even more sources and commented on points which for some reason he did not.

Zalkin notes how the authorship was debated and discusses all the possibilities offered to its authorship. [26] According to some scholars it was even banned and burned. [27] If one reads this whole work one can very well understand why it would have been burned as it was a very cynical work. I would just like to mention the style of this work briefly and give some samples of sources one can find in it especially in regard to Purim.

To begin with this work was titled Sefer Hakundas – kundas means trickster. We find in different memoirs such as in Zecronot Av Ubno (p. 206) and in Eiryati Mottlee (pp. 178-179) such a term (see also Zalkin Introduction pp. 9-10) it was a kid who was a big trouble maker who was everywhere in everything. The style of this work is its eleven chapters written like a Shulchan Orach dealing with “halchos of the kundas” it goes thru his jobs where he hangs out how to identify one – from his clothes what he eats, which things he is from the first ten to do – what he does in shul and on yom tov.

Just to give some examples of what he did that help us get a glimpse into life in those days:

בימים שאומרים יעלה ויבא… כשמגיע באמצע התפלה למקום הכרזה מרים קולו באמירתו בכדי להשמיע לכל העם וכשסיים תפלתו מחוייב לסבב בבית המדרש אצל כל הנערים ולשאול מהם אם לא שכחו לאמרו. ואם הודה לו אחד מהם ששכח מיד הוא רץ לשואל את פי המורה שם ומעמידו לתפילתו. (עמ’ 52) Another Example:

פטרוהו מספירה. רק בשעת ספירה מחוייב להיות בבית המדרש והסופר ההולך לשאול מה שפגמתי בספירה, מחוייב להשיב לו תיכף ומיד. כי הקונדס מחוייב לידע היסוד והכלל. ובתוך כך מחוייב לשאול לבני אדם איזה יום היום הוא בספירה וכשיגידו לו מחוייב לצעוק בקול גדול עכשיו ספור בלא ברכה כי הגדת לי יום הספירה (עמ’ 57).
Another Example:
גם פרטוהו מקידוש לבנה. רק שמחוייב להיות בכל מקום שמקדשין ויקדים שלום עליכם לכל אדם (שם)
Another Example:

בשעה שהחכם יושב ודורש בבית המדר. אזי הוא נמצא אחורי בית המדרש בין בני גילו וקודם הדרשה כשבית המדרש מלא מפה לפה מחוייב הקונדס לדוחק את עצמו ביניהם להיות צופה ומביט בפני הדרשן וחוזר לעבודתו וכצאתו מבית המדרש הוא צועק בקול רק אל הנערים אשר בגילו אי איך האב אים שון גיזעהן עד שישמע הדרשן (עמ’ 62).
Specifically, discussing Purim it says:

בפורים מחוייב להכות המן בכל עת שיזכרוהו בבקעת של עץ בכל כחו עד משליכין אותו. או משתקין אותו. ואם הקונדס מאריך בהכאה עד שמשליכין אותו מבית המדרש לגמרי. אז אשרי לו ואשרי יולדתו. ובשעת קריאת המגילה כשהחזן קורא המן מחוייב לצעוק בכל כחו ברוך הבא (עמ’ 67).[28]
Just to conclude with one last parody as the famous expression goes ” As mein Ret shon vegen Korech.” This parody deals with drinking of wine called Hatikun. It was written in the form of a shulchan orach on the topic of the Chassidish custom of “tikkun.” In doing so it pokes lots fun at the Chasdic Minhag of observing tikun. The authorship of Hatikun has been debated. Davidson (p. 219) writes that it was written by a David Apotheker. But Rabbi B. Oberlander in his excellent series of articles on the infamous forgery Yerushalim al Seder Kodshim (that is being turned into a full length book) demonstrates that the author is none other than Friedlander the forger of the Yerushalmi on Kodshim. (Or Yisrael, no. 15, 1999, 174-75)
Notes:

[1] Alei Tamar, Megilah pg 3-4.

[2] Quoted by M Benayhu, Yosef Becherei, pp. 495, 483. On this very interesting personality see Benayhu, ibid pp. 415- 520.

[3] Sefer Zichronos pp. 61-64

[4] Aruch Ha-shulchan, 695:10 and 696:12.

[5] Israel Davidson, Parody in Jewish Literature, p. xix (available for free download here). [All of my quotes from Davidson are from this work]. This work is an incredible job on the topic of Jewish parodies. He does a terrific job of covering the entire history and pointing out many fascinating things in his many discussions. He also has an extensive section on the various parodies written for Purim especially Mesechtas Purim. Besides this he includes an excellent bibliography of all the various parodies that he tracked down four hundred and twenty one in total.

[6] Davidson, ibid pg 4; A. Haberman, Iyunim Bshira Ubpyuit, p. 311; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, 6, p. 211, Moadim Be-halacha, p. 246, see also Alei Tamar pp. 13-14 about eating seuda at night. Interestingly, it appears that in Otzar Yad Hayyim (p. 1) that he was unaware of this whole piece was a joke, as he uses this line to “prove” that drinking wine of Purim night will destroy our enemies.

[7] A. Haberman, Iyunim Bshira Ubpyuit, pp. 303-306.

[8] S. Abramson, Rav Nissim Goan, p. 278; Sefer haManhig, Mossad Harav Kook ed. vol. 1, p. 249 (see notes therein); Abudraham p. 209. It appears that this has to do with the custom of hanging of a mock Haman mentioned in note 21.

[9] See Machbres Emauel Haromi – Dov Yardan edition, machbres twenty five pp. 451-469. On this edition it is well worth reading the excellent review and notes from R. S. Askenazi printed in Kiryat Sefer 35, pp. 157 -162, omitted from the bibliography of R. Ashkenazi’s writings in Alpha Beta Kadmita deshmuel Zerah.

[10] On Emanuel Haromi in general see: M. Steinschneider, Jewish Literature, p. 176, Landshuth, Amudei Havodah pp. 304-305; Davidson, ibid, pp. 17-19; Y. Zinberg, Toldos Safrus Yisroel, 1, pp. 387-410; A. Haberman, Toldos Hapiyut Ve-hashira, vol. 2, pp. 43-61; Dov Yardan in his intorduction to his edition of Machbres Emauel Haromi pp. 11-18.

[11] On the banning of Machberes Emanuel see: Beis Yosef, (O. C. 307:16); Moshe Carmily, Sefer Ve-sayif pp. 40-44; A. Haberman, Toldos Hapiyut Ve-hashira, vol. 2, pp. 56-58.

[12] Shem Hagedolim, Marches Seforim: Kuntres Achron printed at the end of letter beis. This work on Misheli was one of the first books ever printed in Naples 1487. It was reprinted in a limited facsimile edition in 1981 with an excellent introduction.

[13] Printed in back of his R. M. Roth Mevaser Ezra on Ibn Ezra p. 176. To be sure R. Roth was not a liberal, as is well known with the incident when he was supposed to receive the Kook prize with Saul Lieberman and he refused. See: Igros of R. M. Roth recently printed; Marc B. Shapiro, Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, pp. 27-36.

[14] On R. Kalonymus ben Kalonymus much has been written already see: Y. Zinberg, Toldos Safrus Yisroel, vol. 1, pp. 411-427; Uberto Cassuto in the intro of the facsimile edition of Mesechtas Purim printed by A. Haberman in 1978; A. Haberman, Toldos Hapiyut Ve-hashira, vol. 2, pp. 142-149; A. Haberman Iyunim Bshira Ubpyuit, pg 162-179; C. Shirman, Toldos Ha-shira Haivirit Be-sefard, pp. 514-541

[15] The author of the Megilat Setharim and Sefer Chabakuk was a mystery until Davidson correctly identified it to be none other than the famous Ralbag: Davidson, ibid 131-133. The Ralbag authored Megilat Setarim around the year 1332 and Sefer Chababkuk a little before. See also C. Shirman, Toldos Ha-shira Haivirit Be-sefard, pp. 527-528.

Another parody that Mesechtas Purim inspired was Mesechtas Chanuka. See Areshet, 3, page 173-192 (not the one mentioned by davidson on pg 39).

[16] Sources against Meschtas Purim See: Davidson ibid, xxi; A. Haberman, Iyunim Bshira Ubpyuit, p. 312; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel,6, pp. 204-205, Maran V’Rabanan, 2, p. 90,

[17] See Steinschneider, Arshet, 4, p. 88, Moshe Carmily, Sefer Ve-sayif p. 248.

[18] A. Haberman, Iyunim Bshira Ubpyuit, pp. 273, 303.

[19] On gambling on Purim see Davidson, ibid pp. 31, 145; H. Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), pp. 181, 329.

[20] On playing backgammon on Purim see Davidson, ibid p. 146.

[21] On mock hangings of Haman see; R. S. Schick, Sefer Haminhaghim p. 51 a; Davidson, ibid, p. 21-22; E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, pp. 93-106.

[22] Davidson ibid, p. 22.

[23] On Purim Rav see: the account in Magel Tov of the Chida pp. 138- 139; A.S.Sachs, Worlds that Passed, pp. 232-234 has a very descriptive account of this; Davidson pp. 26-27, 30-31; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, 6, pp. 202-203. see also M. Breuer, Ohelei Torah, pp. 418-419; Pinchas Torborg in his memoirs also writes about the purim Rav in Volzhin but it was not around in his times he just said he heard about it from people from before his time. (Pirkei Zichronois p. 197). R Ovadih Yosef is very aginst this concept see Chazon Ovadia pp. 201-203.

[24] On cross dressing see: Aven Bochen, Haberman ed. p. 30; R. M. M. Honig, Yerushcanu, 1, p. 240; Professor Y.Speigel forthcoming article on the topic.

On dressing up on Purim in general see: Hyam Isaacs, Ceremonies Customs Rites and Traditions of the Jews, in 1836 (second edition) where he writes (p. 91) “Both male and female dress themselves in all kinds of Gaudy dress . . .”; Chida in his travels, Magel Tov, p. 139; The memoirs printed by M. Richarz, Jewish Life In Germany, pp. 83, 159; H. Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), pp. 184, 331-332; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel,6, pg 192-200; R. G. Oberlander, Minhag Avosenue Be-yadneu, vol. 1, pp. 293- 306; Moadim Le-simcha pp. 443- 458; R. Ovadih Yosef is very aginst this concept see Chazon Ovadia pp. 199-201.

[25] On the Sefer Hamaskil in general see R. M. M. Honig, Yerushcanu, vol. 1, pp. 196-240.

[26] On authorship of this work see; Y. Zinberg, Toldos Ha-safrus Be-yisroel, vol. 6, pp. 356-357; Davidson, ibid, p. 211; Zalkin intoduction pp. 15-21.

[27] On the banning of this work see; Y. Zinberg, Toldos Ha-safrus Be-yisroel, vol. 6, p. 226; Moshe Carmily, Sefer Ve-sayif p. 238; Zalkin intoduction pp. 21-22.

[28] On banging during Megilah at the mention of Haman’s name, see the following sources: In the sefer Eshkol Hakofer from Zeror Hamaor in his work on Megilat Esther:

ועל סמך זה יש היום מקומות יכו שתי אבנים זה על זה בהזכרת המן בקריאת המגלה בבית הכנסת (עמ’ צו)

R. Yehudah Aryeh Modean writes in his Shulchan Orach:

ונוהגים קצת בשמעם בקריאה השם המן לשקשק ולשרוק כעין סימן למחות זכרו (עמ’ 84)

In the Present State of the Jews written in 1675, Lancelot Addison (p. 182) writes: “both the women and children… at the naming of Haman make a hideous noise with their hands and stamping with their feet”. [Thanks to S. From on the Main line for this book]

In the Ceremonies of the Present Jews written in 1728 we find “and as often they hear the name of Haman pronounced they clap their hands or beat the benches to signify that they curse him.” (p. 44) [Thanks to S. From on the Main line for this book]

In the book of Religion Ceremonies And Prayers of the Jews by Gamaliel Ben Pedazhur written in 1738, he writes (p. 43), “and every time the reader pronounces the name haman in reading… all the jews young and old stamp their feet on the floor by the way of treading haman down and the children have generally Hammers with them at the Synagogue…”

Hyam Isaacs in Ceremonies Customs Rites and Traditions of the Jews, printed in 1836 (second edition) writes (p. 89) “and as often as the reader mentions the name Haman… it is customary for the children , who have little wooden hammers to knock against the wall as a memorial that they should endeavor to destroy the whole seed of Amalek.”

S. Ansky writes in his memoirs of World War One, The Enemy at his Pleasure (p. 284): “On purim I went to Synagogue to hear the reading of the book of Esther. At the the mention of Haman’s name the children traditionally make noise say by clapping but when these children tried to clap. Though very softly, their frightened parents hastily shushed them. Why didn’t they let the children make noise? I asked somebody afterword. Someone might object he stammered. Try and prove that they meant the ancient haman and not the present one.”

See also: D. Sperber’s book on the topic – Keisad Macim Es Haman 47 pages; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, vol. 3, pp. 156-159; Sperber, Minhagei Yisroel, vol. 6, pp. 244-256; E. Horowitz, Reckless Rites, pp. 274- 276; Moadim Le-simcha, pp. 299-323; Minhag Avosenue Be-yadneu, vol. 2, pp. 307-324.