1

פורים בגבעת שאול – דיוקה של שמועה

|
פורים בגבעת
שאול – דיוקה של שמועה
מאת הרב שלמה הופמן
עורך השנתון ‘ירושתנו’
silhof@neto.bezeqint.net
ירושלים היא כיום העיר היחידה הידועה בבירור כמוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון שקריאת המגילה נעשית בה ביום ט”ו לחודש אדר. עם היציאה מן החומות ובניית השכונות החדשות סביב העיר הישנה, התעוררה השאלה עד להיכן מתפשטת ירושלים – אם להחשיבה כחלק בלתי נפרד ממנה אם מדין “סמוך ונראה”. דיון זה עדיין לא נפשט בשכונותיה הרחוקות יותר של ירושלים – כשבחוד חנית הויכוח עומדת לה שכונת רמות הנעשית בכל שנה ושנה אגודות אגודות. קונטרסים וספרים ללא מספר נדפסו בענין. באחד הספרים שחובר על ידי תושב רמות[1], מציין המחבר בשער הספר את מקום מושבו: “רמות על יד ירושלים” – ומינה אתה כבר למד את דעתו והכרעתו בענין. אמנם בשכונותיה הקרובות לירושלים העתיקה והנמשכות מהן, הוכרע המנהג וההלכה לעשות את יום הפורים בחמשה עשר בו. למול הכרעה זו, ניצב, כדעת יחידאה[2], רבי יחיאל מיכל טוקצינסקי בעל ‘לוח לארץ ישראל’ הוותיק, אשר קבע בספרו[3] וכך הונצח בלוחו עד עצם היום הזה:
ובנוגע לירושלים החדשה – דע ש”הסמוך ונראה לכרך” באורו הסמוך ונראה לעיר העתיקה. וכל שכונה הרחוקה יותר ממיל מחומת ירושלים מימי יהושע… אין דינן כהכרך…
אף הוא מוסיף ומציין את הגבולות המדוייקים בשטח: ולדעתנו מן בית זקנים הספרדי והלאה למערב העיר (כיום רחוב “גשר החיים” ע”ש הגרימ”ט זצ”ל)… – צריכים לנהוג כבעיירות הספקות… וכמנהל מוסדות עץ חיים ונכסיה – ובכללם שכונת ‘עץ חיים’ העומדת מחוץ לגבולות ירושלים שקבע – עשה מעשה למעשה, ובלוחו – הממשיך לצאת לאור על ידי בנו וכיום ע”י נכדו, מופיעה מידי שנה בשנה ההודעה הקבועה דלהלן:
לידיעת האורחים בירושלים בשכונת עץ חיים (מול התחנה המרכזית בכניסה לירושלם) קורין המגילה בברכה בליל ויום י”ד. תפילת ערבית שעה… תפילת שחרית שעה…
כפי שניתן להבין מכותרת ההודעה, אין מנין זה משמש אלא את “האורחים בירושלים”, וכבר העירו והעידו כי: “גם שם כמדומה שאין אחד מבני המקום גופא מעיז לברך, אלא אחד הבא מעיר פרוזה וחוזר לשם בלילה וחוזר ובא למחרת בבוקר”[4]. רש”י זוין בדברי בקרותו על הלוח תמה וכותב: “יש להתפלא על המחבר: כל שנה ושנה הוא חוזר ומפרסם דעתו זו בלוחותיו, בשעה שהוא רואה ויודע שלמעשה נוהגים אחרת. כל ירושלים החדשה קוראת בט”ו”[5].
באוירת הימים, יובא תיאורו של מחבר נוסף התמה על דעת הרב טוקצינסקי, ומחדד את תמיהתו באמצעות משל: …במחילת כבוד תורתו אינני מבין את דבריו בענין סוף מהלך מיל מחומת ירושלים, דלפי דבריו נגמר המיל באמצעו של רח’ גשר החיים וכי רח’ זה חוצה בין סמוך לירושלים לבין רחוק מירושלים, זאת אומרת שהבתים העומדים במזרחו של רח’ זה הם סמוכים לירושלים והבתים העומדים במערבו של רח’ זה הם רחוקים מירושלים. ובכן ברח’ זה ביום י”ד אדר קרה מעשה כעלעלם, יהודי היושב במס’ 9 ברח’ זה קרה שבליל י”ד אדר לקח את המגילה ללכת לבית הכנסת “זכרון בתיה” במס’ 12 במערבו של רח’ זה בכן הוא צריך לשמוע את המגילה בליל י”ד, אמנם בבואו לבית הכנסת הנ”ל לעגו ממנו כל המתפללים באמרם אליו הלא פורים היוא בליל מחרת ולא בלילה הזה, כמובן שזה היהודי הטמין את המגילה התפלל ערבית כרגיל מבלי הזכרת “על הנסים”, זה היהודי חזר לביתו לאכול ארוחת ערב כרגיל, באמצע ברכת המזון שמעה אשתו שאינו מזכיר על הנסים צעקה עליו על שאינו מזכיר על הנסים הלא פורים היום הזכיר על הנסים והחליט שהיום פורים, בבקר הלך לבית הכנסת הנ”ל ומגילה בידו בכדי לשמוע את קריאת המגילה, והנה המקרה של אתמול בלילה חזר גם היום והפעם נזפו בו קשות היתכן שיהודי יתבסם לפני תפלת שחרית, וזה היהודי הטמין את המגילה התפלל שחרית בלי הזכרת על הנסים וחזר לביתו לאכול ארוחת בקר כרגיל, אחרי הארוחה אמר לשאתו שהוא הולך לעבודתו, אשתו שמעה זאת צעקה והזעיקה את השכנים בקול גדול ראו בעלי נהיה עבריין אינו שומר את מצוותיו של יום הפורים, בכן זה האומלל נפשו בשאלתו שיורו לו מה לעשות שיינצל מהלעג של חבריו ומצעקותיה של אשתו, זה סיפור חלמאי שקרה ביום י”ד אדר ברח’ גשר החיים בירושלים[6].
על ההכרעה בשכונת גבעת שאול, מספר הרב שלמה זלמן זוננפלד בספרו על תולדות זקנו רבי יוסף חיים זוננפלד, תחת הכותרת “דייקן בלשון רבו”:
כאשר נתעורר ענין קריאת המגילה בשכונות החדשות אשר בפרברי ירושלים, והרב מיכל טוקצינסקי הנהיג קריאת המגילה בי”ד ובט”ו בשכונת “עץ חיים”, וטען שכן יש לנהוג גם בבית היתומים דיסקין, בי”ד בברכה ובט”ו בלא ברכה. טען כנגדו הגרא”י קוק ואמר: הלא רוצים אנחנו להרחיב את גבולותיה של ירושלים בבחינת “פרזות תשב ירושלים”, ואתה בא לצמצמה. פנו למורנו ושאלו לדעתו, והוא השיב: “יודע אני כי מורי ורבי הרב מבריסק רכש את המגרש שעליו עומד בית היתומים, והוא כתב אז ופירסם שהוא רכש מגרש בירושלים עבור בית היתומים, ואם אתם קורין את המגילה בבית היתומים בי”ד, נמצאתם אומרים ששם לא ירושלים, והרי רבינו דייקן בדבריו היה, ומזה אנו מסקינן להלכה, לקרוא רק בט”ו ולא בי”ד”[7]. משמועה זו למדים אנו, כי לכשנדייק בלשון המהרי”ל דיסקין, נמצא כי הורה בבירור כי שכונת גבעת שאול – בכלל ירושלים היא. שמועה זו התפרסמה ואף נתקבלה להלכה, הרב אבגדֹר נבנצאל רבה של ירושלים העתיקה השיב כסמך לשאלה שנשאל: …שאר ירושלים …מה שקורין בה מגילה בט”ו, הוא מפני שהכל נמשך אחר העיר העתיקה, כי בתים שמחברים. כשבנו את “בית היתומים דיסקין” ואז עוד לא היו בתים שיחברו לשאר העיר, נשאל מרן רבי יוסף חיים זוננפלד זצ”ל על זמן קריאת המגילה שם, והשיב שהיות וכשהמהרי”ל דיסקין אסף כסף לבנות בית יתומים, הוא אמר שהוא אוסף כסף בשביל בית יתומים “בירושלים” אז זה ירושלים…[8]
אלא שדא עקא!
הרב נפתלי צבי פרוש-גליקמן, מספר בזכרונותיו על תולדות בית היתומים דיסקין: בית היתומים דיסקין נוסד בשנת תר”מ על ידי מרן הגאון קוה”ק רבי יהושע ליב דיסקין זצוק”ל גאב”ד בריסק… ראשיתו של המוסד באחת החצרות של הרובע היהודי בעיר העתיקה, רק בשנת תרנ”ד, רכש עבורו הגאון מבריסק זצוק”ל בית מיוחד… לאחר פטירתו של מרן הגאון זצוק”ל עלה לירושלים, בנו יחידו הגאון רבי יצחק ירוחם דיסקין זצ”ל שפרש חסותו על מוסד מיוחד במינו זה… בשנת תרפ”ד זכיתי להתמנות להיות גבאי וחבר ההנהלה של בית היתומים… כאשר עלתה על הפרק שאלת רכישת אדמה לבנין בית היתומים, הוזמנתי על ידי הגר”י דיסקין לבדוק את ההצעות השונות ולחוות את דעתי… לאחר מכן הוצעו שני מגרשים אחרים, האחד המקום שעליו בנוי היום לתפארת הבנין הגדול של בית יתומים דיסקין… המנהלים העדיפו את המקום הראשון…[9]
היכן היה ה”בית המיוחד” ש”רכש עבורו הגאון מבריסק זצוק”ל” – לא נתפרש כאן, אך כמובן לא היה זה בשכונת גבעת שאול – שנוסדה רק בשנת תר”ע[10]. ומעניין לציין אל דברי ההיסטוריון וחוקר בתי ירושלים ושכונותיה, שבתי זכריה, אודות בית הספר תחכמוני:
מוסד מפורסם זה התקיים בשכונה [-מקור ברוך] עשרות שנים. בית הספר הגיע אל השכונה בשנת תרפ”ט (1929)… מלכתחילה נבנו בנייניו של בית הספר עבור בית היתומים דיסקין, אך משום מה לא עבר בית היתומים למקום, ובזמן מלחמת העולם הראשונה שימש הבניין כקרסטין לצבא התורכי. לאחר מכן שימש המקום לתעשיות שונות… היום שוכן בו תלמוד תורה המסורה…[11]
את מקורותיו – אין ש’ זכריה מציין, אך מבין השיטין ניתן לשער כי בניית בנין זה בעבור בית היתומים – אמנם היתה לפני מלחמת העולם הראשונה, אבל לאחר פטירת הרי”ל דיסקין (שנפטר בשנת תרנ”ח). על אחת כמה וכמה שרכישת המגרש בגבעת שאול – נעשתה שנים רבות לאחר מכן – וכאמור בעדותו וזכרונותיו של רנ”צ פרוש-גליקמן – לאחר שנת תרפ”ד.
המעשה ביסודו – היֹה היה, אלא שכדרכן של שמועות, השתנה בהורקה מכלי אל כלי. ואם אמנם רבי יוסף חיים זוננפלד, “דייקן בלשון רבו” היה, אך מעבירי השמועה לא דייקו בלשון סיפורם. כך מספר הרב אברהם משה קצנלנבוגן בשם זקנו בעל המעשה:
במרומי השכונה “גבעת שאול” בדרך העולה לירושלים, נבנה מוסד בית היתומים דיסקין, שהגה ויסד הגאון מבריסק רבינו יהושע לייב זצ”ל, ואת הבנין הקים בנו הגאון רבי יצחק ירוחם זצ”ל. המוסד השתקם שם בר”ח ניסן תרפ”ז, ובאותה תקופה, היתה גבעת שאול, שכונה שוממה, זרועה בתים בודדים, ומובן שעד החומות של העיר העתיקה, לא היה רצף של ישוב. לשנה הבאה (תרפ”ח) כשבירכו חודש אדר, התעוררה השאלה, כיצד ינהגו בקריאת המגילה, המתגוררים בבית היתומים. הפוסקים היו חלוקים בדעותיהם, חלקם סבר שיש לקרוא את המגילה ביום י”ד מאחר והעיר העתיקה אינה נראית, והמקום לא סמוך, אחרים אמרו שמחמת הספק צריכים לקרוא גם בי”ד וגם בט”ו. בין החולקים ניצב זקיני מורי ורבי הגאון רבי רפאל זצ”ל שסבר כי חייבים לקרוא אך ורק ביום ט”ו, כפי שקוראים בירושלים עיה”ק. פסק ההלכה על מוסד דיסקין הדריך את מנוחתם של כמה מחכמי ירושלים, ולכשנתוועדו בצוותא הוחלט לשאול את פי הגאון רבי יוסף חיים זוננפלד זצ”ל. וכך סיפר זקיני מו”ר הגאון זצ”ל: כששטחתי את הענין לפני רבי יוסף חיים זצ”ל סיפר לי, כי ידוע לו שהגאון רבי יהושע לייב זצ”ל, יסד את המוסד שלו בירושלים דוקא, ולא במקום אחר, ואם נקבע שאת המגילה קוראים בי”ד ולא כמו בירושלים, בט”ו, נאלץ להקים בית חדש למוסד דיסקין במקום שקוראים בו בט”ו. ומאז קוראים שם בט”ו[12].
לכשנדייק בלשון עדות בעל המעשה זה נמצאנו למדים, כי לא הוראה של מהרי”ל דיסקין היתה כאן, אלא הוראה של רבי יוסף חיים זוננפלד – שהוסיף בשנינות: על פי הוראתו של מהרי”ל דיסקין, מוסד בית היתומים צריך לשכון בירושלים דווקא, ואם אנחנו נסיק שגבעת שאול אינה ירושלים, עלינו להעביר את המוסד למקום אחר – מקום בו אנו סבורים שהוא ירושלים.
ראוי לציין כי דעתו של מהרי”ל דיסקין עצמו בענין זה נדפסה בספרו: “ולענין סמוך לא משכחת לה כלל, דכל שאין שיעור מיל פנוי בינתים חשיבא סמוך”[13].
[1]
ספר שערי זבולון, חובר ע”י ר”ז שוב, בשנת תשמ”ט.
[2]
רש”ד דבליצקי, ירושלים הרים סביב לה, בני ברק תשמ”ט, עמ’
9 כותב: “למעשה מצאנו לו אך חבר אחד והוא הגאון ר’ משה נחמיה כהניו
מחאסלאוויץ זצ”ל בתורה מציון משנת תרמ”ז, ולא נהוג עלמא כוותיהו”.
[3]
עיר הקדש והמקדש, ח”ג ירושלים תשכ”ט, פרק כז.
[4]
רש”ד דבליצקי, שם. וראה דברי רי”מ טוקצינסקי בספרו
הנ”ל שם עמ’ תכז.
[5]
רש”י זוין, סופרים וספרים, ח”א תל אביב תשי”ט, עמ’
359.
[6]
רא”ב קעפעטש, חומות ירושלים, ירושלים תשמ”ט, עמ’ י-יא.
(על משל זה, העיר רבי שלמה זלמן אויערבאך: “עלות השחר קובע ולא כל רגע”
– שם בספר עמ’ ל).
[7]
רש”ז זוננפלד, האיש על החומה, ח”א ירושלים תשל”ה,
עמ’ 214-215.
[8]
ר”א נבנצאל, סבו ציון, ירושלים, עמ’ פא.
[9]
רנ”צ פרוש-גליקמן, (רמ”ע דרוק עורך), שלשה דורות
בירושלים, ירושלים תשל”ח, עמ’ 172-173.
[10]
י’ שפירא, ירושלים מחוץ לחומה, ירושלים תש”ח, עמ’ 139.
[11]
ש. זכריה, ירושלים של מטה, ירושלים תשס”ג, עמ’ 311.
[12]
רמיי”ל דיסקין, אהלים – מגילה (עורך: רא”מ קצנלנבוגן),
ירושלים תשנ”ג, עמ’ תמט.
[13] שו”ת מהרי”ל דיסקין, קונטרס
אחרון סי’ ג אות קג. (וראה עוד בדברי תלמידו רצ”מ שפירא, ציץ הקדש, ח”א
סי’ נב).


Mishloach Manot of Rabbis and Scholars

|
In honor of Purim, and in memory of Tovia Preschel, the Seforim Blog is happy to present the following.
Mishloach Manot of Rabbis and Scholars
By Tovia Preschel

 

     Rabbis, scholars and writers used to send on Purim—in addition to the traditional Mishloah Manot—spiritual food to their dear ones: a song, a study, even an entire book, they had written.
     In this article only a few of such “manot” (“portions”, “gifts”) can be mentioned.
     Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz, the author of Lekha Dodi—wrote a commentary on the Book of Esther and sent it as a Purim present to his future father-in-law.
     In the introduction to the commentary, he tells us how he came to write it.  It was in 1529, with the approach of Purim, the season for sending gifts, he felt extremely bad, for he did not know what present he could give to Yitzchak HaKohen, his future father-in-law, the father of his bride.  Finally he decided to write a commentary on the Book of Esther and send it to R. Yitzchak.  He was sure that he would enjoy the present, for the man was a lover of Torah.  The commentary was, indeed, very well received by the entire family.  Alkabetz’ future brother-in-law Yosef HaKohen, even wrote a poem in its honor.
     The commentary which the author called Manot HaLevi (“Gifts of the Levite”—Alkabetz was a Levite), was first printed in Venice in 1585.
     Rabbi Moshe Isserles the great Halakhic authority of Ashkenazi Jewry served as rabbi and Rosh Yeshiva in Cracow. In 1556 he was forced to leave Cracow because a plague ravaged the city. He moved temporarily to Szydlowiec. Food was scarce and Purim could not be celebrated
with “feasting and gladness.”  However, Rabbi Isserles sought delight and joy by immersing himself in the study of the Book of Esther.  He wrote a commentary on the Megillah and sent it as a Purim present to his father, who was one of the leaders of Cracow’s Jewish community.  The commentary which was named by Rabbi Isserles Mahir Yayin, was first printed in Cremona, Italy, in 1559.
     On Purim of the year 1629, Rabbi Moses Samson Bachrach who served as rabbi in Worms and in other communities, wrote a song for the welcoming of the Sabbath.  He composed it for his wife, “that she might play it on an instrument.”  The song was published in the periodical Shomer Zion HaNeeman in the year 5619 (1858-1859).
     R. Yekuthiel (Gordon) ben R. Yehuda Leib of Vilna left his native country in order to study medicine in Padua, Italy.  During his stay there he became a disciple of R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto.  After his return to Poland he resided in Grodno and Brest Litovsk.  On the occasion of Purim he sent to R. Shlomo Zalman Segal Sinzheim, a communal leader, a poem telling the story of Esther.  The initial letters of the words of each line of the poem form the word Megilla (in the first line, the initial letters are read from right to left; in the second line they should be read backwards from left to right; in the third line—again from right to left; in the fourth—from left to right; and so on).
     The poem was printed by L. Schlossberg in Vienna in 1879. 1
           

 

1 Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi, famous 16th century rabbi who served in various communities, dedicated his commentary on the Book of Esther, called Yosef Lekah, to Don Joseph Nassi, but we do not know whether he actually sent him a copy as a gift for Purim.
משלוח מנות של מחברים
מאת טוביה
פרשל
“משלוח מנות של מחברים”, בשם זה פירסמתי ב”הדואר” (ח’ אדר תשל”א) מאמר על יצירות ספרותיות שמחבריהן שלחו אותן מנה לפורים לרעיהם. יורשה לי היום, לרגל חג הפורים הבא עלינו, לציין עוד כמה “מנות שבכתב”. הרב אליהו פרץ, שהיה רב באדריאנופל במאה השמונה-עשרה, כתב שירים לעת-מצוא.  בפורים שלח לידידו ר’ משה דאנון שיר כמנה לחג:
האין כלבבי תשורה להביא יהא נא כתבי למשה למנה יכופל בטעם כמו אז להעם יטועם ויונעם למשה למנא ומנות לחכו יתעב כדרכו מתוקות
בערכו, למשה למה נא.
השיר נדפס על-ידי אברהם דאנון בספרו “תולדות בני אברהם” (פרסבורג תרמ”ז, עמ’ 123).[1] דוד כהן צדק, בעודו ילד, שלח לאביו הסופר יוסף כהן צדק כמנה לפורים שיר בשם “שלום אסתר”. “הנני שולח בזה את פטר רחם עטי לכהן צדק…לא לכבודי, אך לכבוד בית אבא, הנני מכבדך היום במנחתי הדלה הזאת במקום משלוח מנות…” כתב במכתב שליווה את השיר. אביו שלח באותו יום, יום הפורים, את השיר יחד עם “אגרת פורים”, פיליטון על המתרחש בעולם המדיניות, לבן אחותו—וגם הדפיס שניהם, את “אגרת פורים” ואת השיר “שלום אסתר” בעתונו “המבשר” (י”ח אדר ב, תרכ”ב). לחג הפורים תרל”ו שלח א. ב. שוויצר מאמר על המתימטיקאי והממציא, ר’ אברהם שטרן עם תמונה משלו, אותה מצא בכתב, עת רוסי ישן, לחיים זליג סלונימסקי, שהיה חתנו של שטרן.  הוא שלח אלה לחז”ס כמנחת-חג שיוכל “לתתה למנה גם לפני קוראי “הצפירה”. ואמנם הדפיס סלונימסקי את המאמר עם התמונה בעתונו (י”ב אדר) תחת הכותרת “משלוח מנות לפורים”.[2] בגליון האחרון של “אור המזרח” (תשרי-טבת תשל”ד) פורסמו מכתב-יד שנשרד מן השואה, חידושי תורה ששלח ר’ ישראל פנחס פיוטרקובסקי, אברך חסידי מלודז’, בשנת תרצ”ה, משלוח מנות לחותנו.  לחידושי תורה הקדים שיר בן שלושה בתים, בו הוא אומר בין היתר:
אלה הכינו מרקחות ומגדנות ואלה בשר צלי אש שמו באגנות ואנוכי עשות במתכונתם ידי קצרה לאלה יין ושמן בטנים ושקדים
בכלי כסף צרוף מזוקק שבעתיים. ואני שיקויי מי לחץ ולחמי עצבה…
על כן הוא שולח לחותנו משלוח מנות מפירות לימודו.[3]

 

[1]   אברהם דאנון מספר בספרו כי במאה הי”ח היו בתוגרמה שכתבו שירי פורים “ותחת כי ישלח משורר לרעהו ממתקים ומגדנות…יקום מניו בפרי עטו ובניב שפתיו ובזמירות יריע לו”.     בסוף “אגרת פורים” הנזכרת לקמן כותב יוסף כהן צדק לבן אחותו כי אין לו זמן “לשיר לכבודך היום, יום בו יצאו כל בעלי השיר בשירם ובזמרם”, מכאן, שגם במזרח-אירופה היו, במאה הי”ט משכילים שכתבו ביום הפורים שירים לכבוד רעיהם. במאמרי הקודם הזכרתי שירים שמיכ”ל ויל”ג שלחו לידידים “משלוח מנות”.  בין שירי רבי”ל נמצא מכתב שכתב אותו לכבוד א. ל. מנדלשטם בפורים תר”ח (“אשכול הסופר”, וארשה תר”ס, עמ’ 56-57).  יתכן ששלח לו אותו מנחה לחג. [2]  דברי הכותב כי מאמרו הוא הראשון על שטרן בספרות העברית אינם מדוייקים.  עוד בשנת תרכ”ד הופיע ב”הנשר” (ה’ וי”ג סיון) מאמר על שטרן מאת אלכסנדר חיים שור מדרהוביץ. באותו גליון של “הצפירה” בא גם מסופרו באודיסה אלימלך ווקסלר (“איש נעמי”) מאמר “משלוח מנות” לקוראי העתון, ותוכנו דרשה לפורים של הרב ד”ר שוואבכר, שהיה רב בית-הכנסת של אנשי ברודי באודיסה. ברם, כפי שציינתי כבר במאמרי הראשון, הנני מביא רק יצורות שנשלחו מנות לחג לאנשים מסויימים, להוציא מן הכלל כאלה שמתחילה הוגשו מנחה לכלל ציבור הקוראים. [3]   ב”בצרון” (שבט-אדר תשל”ג) פירסם א. ר. מלאכי, מתוך ארכיון ייוו”א בניו-יורק, אגרת-ברכה מליצית ששלח איש לרעהו, שהיה מלפנים גם רבו, “משלוח מנות” לפורים.


Talmudic Humor and Its Discontents

|
Talmudic Humor and Its Discontents
by Ezra Brand
In honor of Purim, I’d like to discuss a few aspects of humor in the Talmud[1]. But first, a short overview of topic of Jewish humor in general.
A lot has been written about Jewish humor[2]. A very good overview of Jewish humor, in general, is that of Avner Ziv in the second edition of Encyclopedia Judaica, under the entry “Humor”[3]. However, most of the piece is about Jewish humor from the eighteenth century and on, with only a little bit at the beginning about humor in Tanach, the Talmud, and the time of the Rishonim. He writes a fascinating few lines in the beginning of the entry:
What is generally identified in the professional literature as Jewish humor originated in the 19th century, mainly, but not
exclusively, in Eastern Europe. Today in the U.S., Jewish humor is considered as one of the mainstreams of American humor.
At the beginning of the 19th century, sense of humor was not associated with Jewishness. Herman Adler, the chief rabbi of
London, felt impelled to write an article in 1893 in which he argued against the view that Jews have no sense of humor. It is perhaps interesting to note that not only Jews but non-Jews as well consider today “a good sense of humor” as one of the noble characteristics of Jews.
Even H.N. Bialik had a similar sentiment about the lack of humor in earlier Jewish sources[4]:
“To our great distress, there is very little humor in our literature. It is hard to find five continuous lines in Tanach with humor.” The above-mentioned Avner Ziv writes elsewhere: “Even in the Talmud there appear references (though few) to humor, but in total there is not a “treasury” of humor […] not until the end of the 19th century did there appear anything but a few references to Jewish humor.”
However, David Lifshitz begs to differ. In 1995, he wrote an entire doctorate on the topic of humor in the  Talmud[5]. He wasn’t the first to collect pieces of humor from the Gemara. Israel Davidson collected humorous pieces from throughout Jewish literature in chronological order, starting from Tanach and ending with Modern Hebrew literature[6].
A few articles discuss different aspects of humor in the Talmud, and there are some seforim that collect humorous pieces from the Gemara[7].  However, by far the most comprehensive discussion is that of Horowitz.
As mentioned, Lifshitz wrote an entire dissertation on the topic, running to 312 pages. He writes that the view that there isn’t a substantial amount of humor in earlier sources is mistaken. He feels that this mistake stems from the fact that there has been little research done on the subject of humor in the Gemara, which in turn stems from the fact that humor is looked at as lowly “leitzanus.” Therefore, the great amount of humor in the Gemara was ignored.
Critical Humor
One specific aspect of humor in the Gemara is critical humor[8]. Although not necessarily the best example of humor in the Gemara, this genre of humor caused some uncomfortableness[9], which I will also discuss.
Here are some Gemaras where critical humor is used, taken at random. (Translations are from Soncino, with slight changes[10].)
1  Kiddushin 79b[11]:
R’ Yosef son of R’ Menasia of Davil gave a practical ruling in accordance with Rav, whereupon Shmuel was offended and exclaimed, “For everyone [wisdom] is meted out in small measure, but for this scholar it was meted out in large measure!”
2) Yoma 76a[12]:
And it long ago happened that R’ Tarfon, R’ Yishmael and the elders were seated and occupied with the portion referring to the manna, and also R’ Eleazar of Modi’in commenced [to expound] and said: “The manna which came down unto Israel was sixty cubits high.” R’ Tarfon said to him: “Modite! How long will you rake words together to bring them up against us?” –He answered: “My master! I am expounding a Scriptural verse.”
Beitza 24a[13]:
3
R’ Yosef said in the name of R’ Yehuda in the name of Shmuel: “The halacha is as Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel”. Abbaye said to him: “The halacha is [etc.], from which it would follow that they [the Sages] dispute it!” –He said to him: “What practical difference does it make to you?” –He replied to him: “It should be for you as a song” [Rashi: “This is a parable of fools […] ‘Study!’ the student says to the fool: learn both truth and mistakes, and it will be for you as a song!”].
A famous responsum of the Chavos Yair, R’ Yair Chaim Bachrach, discusses the harsh language sometimes used by one Amora against another[14]. This tshuva was made famous by the Chafetz Chaim, who printed it at the beginning of his Chafetz Chaim.[15] The Chavos Yair is at great pains to show how each “insult” is in fact a subtle compliment. For example, he says that when R’ Sheshes says, as he often does, on a saying of Rav, “I say, Rav said this statement when he was sleeping,” that this is fact a display of R’ Sheshes’ great respect for Rav that he never could haved erred so easily. A more difficult kind of attack to explain is the “ad
hominem” attack, where one Amora attacks another Amora personally.
Interestingly, some want to say that these kinds of attacks are much more frequent in the Bavli than in the Yerushalmi. In a Hebrew article by Yisrael Ben-Shalom, “ואקח לי שני מקלות לאחד קראתי נעם ולאחד קראתי חבלים”[16], the author shows many instances of negative criticism by Chachamim in the Bavli that don’t appear in their parallels in the Yerushalmi. Recently, R’ Achikam Kashet has drawn up a long list of 82 basic differences between the Bavli and the Yerushalmi in his very impressive אמרי במערבא (n.p. 2010). This difference is number 53 (page 889)[17].
Later, the Ra’avad was one of the more harsh attackers. When he disagreed, he did so in very strong terms. In general, he was most harsh in his hassagos on the Razah. The following is one of the harsher attacks[18]:
הנה שם השם שקר בפיו וזאת עדות על כל שקריו ופחיזותיו אשר אסף רוח בחנפיו להנבא שקרים ולהתעות הפתיים והסכלים בעדיי אחרים אשר נתעטר בהם ספרי הסירוס אשר חיבר.
Closer to our own time, R’ Yitzchak Isaac Halevy, author of Dorot Harishonim, is famous for his harsh language he used against people he disagreed with. While in his magnum opus, Dorot Harishonim, this language is generally used against maskilim and non-Jews, his harshness was not limited to them. R’ Halevy’s biographer notes[19]:
While Halevy had his reasons which led him almost singlehandedly into battle against the foremost historians, he, in turn, became the target of a formidable list of critics […] Undoubtedly, Halevy’s sharp pen was an added factor that irked many to retaliate in kind. Halevy’s inordinate style of writing might have been a carryover from a number of classic rabbinical works […] Thus Halevy’s correspondence relating to his own followers at times was penned in a tone which was similar to that reserved for the targets of his ire in the Dorot Harishonim.
After discussing many sources in Chazal of negativity, Efrayim Elimelech Urbach writes that although in the Beis Medrash the Chachamim could be very harsh with each other, in the “real world” a big stress was put on talmidei chachamim looking out for each other, and on the respect that a talmid chacham deserves.[20]It seems clear that although internally there were strong disagreements, towards the outside, there was strong cohesiveness, and the less disagreement and strife exhibited in public, the better[21].  In other words, what goes on the Beis Midrash, stays in the Beis Midrash! In our own time, one of the controversial passages in R’ Natan Kamenetski’s Making of A Godol was the story of R’ Aharon Kotler calling a red-headed student who interrupted his shiur with a question “parah adumah.” Marc Shapiro, in one
of his recent posts (paragraph 3), makes the same point: that certain off the cuff remarks were never meant to be publicized.
To end off on a
not-so-Purim-like note, I’d like to note a word of caution. In our own time, where recording devices are ubiquitous, talmidei chachamim must be far more careful about what they say and how they say it. Even if a talmid chacham says something in a setting where it is perfectly acceptable, such as in a “Beis Medrash”-like setting, with a recorder the statement can easily be spread outside these “walls.” We have reached a point where עין רואה ואזן שומעת, וכל מעשיך בספר נכתבין (Avos 2:1) is not
just true in Shamayim, but on Earth also.
[1] In a previous post on the Seforim Blog, Eliezer Brodt discussed some parodies from medieval times and on. Another previous
post discussed some modern Purim parodies. Some of my favorite modern parodies are those by Moshe Koppel, a Professor of Computer Science in Bar-Ilan University, who has contributed to the Seforim Blog. Professor Kopple has produced a number of parodies of “pashkevillim.” (“Pashkevillim”—“broadsides” in English—are large notices stuck on walls in Chareidi neighborhoods,
especially in Meah Shearim. They are often polemical, and written in a flowery
Hebrew.) (For a review of the Valmadonna’s collection of broadsides see here). A sampling of these parodies, as well as an interview with Koppel, can be seen here. A parody of his about fundamentalist anti-science is a favorite of R’ Natan Slifkin.
[2] See the bibliography in Eli Yassif, The Hebrew Folktale, Bloomington 1999,  pg. 500 n. 96; see also the bibliography of the Encyclopedia Judaica article in the next footnote.
[3] Volume 9, pg. 590-599. It first appeared in the 1986-1987 Yearbook, one of the many yearbooks that were published as a supplement to the first edition of Encyclopedia Judaica.  I remember reading that the reason that there wasn’t an entry on “Humor” in the first edition of the Encyclopedia is because the editors couldn’t find someone someone qualified to write it. I could not find the source for this recently.
[4] ח”נ ביאליק, דברים שבעל פה, ספר ראשון, דביר, תל אביב תרצ”ה, עמ’ קמד. This quote and the next are taken from Lifshitz, Humor (see next footnote), pg. 11.
[5] דוד ליפשיץ, איפיונו ותיפקודו שההומור בתלמוד, חיבור לשם קבלת התואר דוקטור לפילוסופיה, רמת גן תשנ”ה. I have not read enough of the doctorate to get a feel for how good of a job he did. One major lack in this work is an index, especially since such a large amount of texts from the Talmud are quoted.  It is often difficult to find where a source is discussed.
[6] אפרים דוידזון, שחוק פינו, חולון תשל”ב. The layout is very similar to that of Bialik’s “Sefer Ha’agadah,” which Davidson was clearly influenced by. Many translations of passages from Aramaic to Hebrew are taken from Sefer Ha’agadah (with ascription).
[7] See, for example, בנימין יוסף פארקאש, עת לשחוק, הוסיאטין תרע”ד.
[8] These sources in the Gemara are brought by Lifshitz, Humor, pg. 158-183. See also a wide variety of sources in this vein which are brought and discussed by E.E Urbach in his Sages (Hebrew ed.), pg. 557- 564.
[9] R’ Yitzchak
Blau, at the beginning of a lecture entitled “Does the Talmud have a Sense of
Humor?” (available on YU Torah) only
mentions the following categories “play on words”; “slapstick”; “sharp lines”.
He does not mention critical humor, even though it is fairly common in the
Gemara, for obvious reasons. As an aside most of the lecture is not about the
Talmud and humor, but how someone should spend his free time. R’ Blau’s opinion
on the matter has caused some controversy, see Hirhurim blog here
and here.
[10] The Soncino translation is now available in the public domain, see Torah Musings blog here.
[11] Lifshitz, Humor, pg. 160.
[12] Lifshitz, Humor, pg. 165
[13] Lifshitz, Humor, pg. 172.
[14] Siman 152.
[15] In later editions of Chafetz Chaim, this addition is generally printed at the end.
[16] In דור לדור: משלהי תקופת
המקרא ועד חתימית התלמוד, ירושלים תשנ”ה, עמ’ 235-250.
[17] R’ Kashet made a similar list of basic characteristics (in Hebrew “לשיטתם”), this time with specific Tannaim and Amoraim, in his earlier, \just as impressive, קובץ יסודות וחקירות (Yerushalayim 2004). The issue of “Leshitasam” is a fascinating topic in its own right. Research into this topic only began in the mid-eighteenth century, especially with the publishing of R’ D.Z. Hoffman’s (German) Mar Samuel. This sefer/book caused a small storm \in its time.
[18] Quoted by
Twersky, Rabad of Posquierres, Cambridge 1962, pg. 121 n. 24. See
Twersky there for more such examples. For a list of hassagos of this sort in
the Ra’avad’s hassagos on Mishneh Torah, see Davidson, Moses Maimonides: The
Man and His Works, Oxford 2005, in the chapter on Mishneh Torah.
[19] R’ Asher
Reichel, Isaac Halevy, New York 1969, pg. 64-65.
[20] Pg. 564
(idem, footnote 10).
[21] The Gemara
itself seems to say so explicitly. See the story in Sanhedrin 31a, where the
Gemara first brings a halacha regarding a member of a beis din that has just paskened:
תנו רבנן מניין לכשיצא לא יאמר הריני מזכה וחבירי מחייבין אבל מה אעשה שחבירי רבו עלי תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך ואומר (משלי יא, יג) הולך רכיל מגלה סוד
The Gemara then goes on to bring the following story:
ההוא תלמידא דנפיק עליה קלא דגלי מילתא דאיתמר בי מדרשא בתר עשרין ותרתין שנין אפקיה רב אמי מבי מדרשא אמר דין גלי רזיא:
It is not clear what the nature of the “secret” thing that had happened in the beis medrash was. Rashi simply says that the talmid
spoke lashon hara. It is possible that in the heated discussion in the beis medrash, someone had made an off the cuff remark that was not meant to be heard outside the walls of the beis medrash. When the talmid revealed what was said 22(!) years later, he was expelled from the beis medrash for his impropriety. Alternatively, it is possible that he had revealed some internal disagreement about a halacha that the Chachamim wanted to appear unanimous, similar to the case of the psak of a beis din brought before. Either way, the story proves our point.


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.