Tracing the History of Shavuos Night Learning

Tracing the History of Shavuos Night Learning

By Eliezer Brodt

This article will trace some of the earliest sources for the Minhag observed by many to stay up learning Torah throughout the entire night of Shavuos.[1] At the outset I would like to note that the focus of this article will be not be about the exact seder that was learned i.e. Tikun Lel Shavuos.[2]

Different versions of this article originally appeared in the Kulmos Supplement of Mishpacha in 2014 and then in English in 2015. I returned to all this in my doctorate Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century.[3] This post contains important additions to some of the earlier versions. One day I hope to update it properly.

That the minhag of staying up on Shavuos night to learn was observed widely in recent history is very clear. For example, the author of a nineteenth-century Lithuanian memoir describes how her brothers would stay up the entire night.[4]

In a memoir about Yeshivas Lomza, the author writes in passing “after staying up the whole night, the whole yeshiva would take part in a milchig kiddush at the Rosh Yeshiva’s house”.[5]

Chaim Grade writes: “On the First night of Shavuoth, the lamps in the Beth Medrash and the candelabra were still lit well past midnight. The benches were packed with men from the courtyard and from the neighboring streets who, as the custom on this night, came to study until dawn.”[6] Grade’s books are fiction, but his descriptions are based on life in Vilna.

A bochur describing Shavous in the Mir to his parents in 1938, writes in passing that the bnei hayeshiva had stayed up the whole night learning.[7]

Rav Chaim Stein, Rosh Yeshivah of Telz wrote an incredible World War II diary chronicling his great Mesiras Nefesh for whatever mitzvos he was able to do during that time. He also describes staying up the entire night learning.[8]

Earliest sources

But what are the earliest sources for this practice? It is not mentioned by either R. Yosef Caro or the Rama in Shulchan Aruch’s discussion of the halachos of Shavuos.

One of the earliest printed sources for this custom is a work entitled Sefer Ha-Mussar, authored by Rav Yehudah Kalatz and first printed in 1537, which states that there was a custom to stay up throughout both nights of Shavuos to learn various parts of Tanach and Kabbalah.[9] Today we know that the prior written source for this piece is Rav Dovid ben Rav Yehudah Hachassid.[10] This piece is also printed in the Mateh Moshe of Rav Moshe Meis (1591) without citing its source.[11] In 1558, the Zohar was printed for the first time, and in it we find that “righteous ones” would learn Torah during the entire night of Shavuos.[12] These words of the Zohar are already quoted in two early and important collections of material culled from the Zohar, the Mareh Cohen of Rav Yisachar Katz,[13] first printed in 1588 and in the Yesh Sachir of Rav Yisachar M’Karmintz,[14] first printed in 1609. It is also brought down in important works such as Rav Moshe Makir’s classic Seder HaYom [first printed in 1599],[15] Tikunei Shabbos (1613),[16] Tur Barekes (1650),[17] Heichal Hakodesh (1653)[18] and Sha’arei Tzion (1662).[19]

Who followed this minhag in earlier times?

From the Zohar it appears that this practice is limited to yechidei segulah, select spiritually exalted individuals. This is also how it appears that some sources that quote this Zohar, such as the Heichal Hakodesh, Magen Avraham,[20] Eliyah Rabba[21] and Me’orei Or,[22] understood it.

A number of gedolei Torah themselves wrote of having stayed up learning the whole night of Shavuos. In his Sefer Chizyonos, R’ Chaim Vital writes that he stayed up the whole night of Shavuos learning with the Arizal.[23] The Chida writes in the account of his travels[24] and in his autobiographical cheshbon hanefesh of having done so,[25] as does the Aderes.[26]

But other sources seem to have understood that this is a custom to be followed by all. Rav Moshe Makir in his Seder HaYom writes so clearly, and indeed, in a letter he wrote circa 1610 to Poland, Rav Shlumiel of Tzefas describes how everyone stayed up to learn on Shavuos night in keeping with the Seder HaYom.[27] The Shelah Hakadosh also describes how everyone stayed up learning, as did Rav Moshe Prague in a letter written in 1650 describing the scene in Yerushalayim.[28]

Thus, we see that what was originally a minhag only for the very learned evolved in a few decades into a practice observed by the broad masses. One may conjecture that the spread of the minhag occurred due to the fact that some of the seforim that mentioned it were very popular and widely read.

The promise of the Arizal

Another possible catalyst for the popular adoption of this minhag was the promise of the Arizal that “he who stays up the whole night learning will survive the year and not suffer any harm during the entire year.” This guarantee first appeared in a work called Shulchan Aruch Shel Ha-Arizal printed in 1650,[29] and was later reprinted in numerous widely-read works such as Sha’arei Tzion and Sefer Zechirah.[30]

Relatedly, R. Yosef Kapach, discussing the observance of this minhag in Teiman, writes that this night is a special time during which the gates of Heaven are open for the acceptance of tefillos. He cites a legend of a woman who was looking outside a window and she asked for her head to be made bigger. When that occurred, she could not get her head back inside through the window. It thus became necessary to feed her for the duration of the Yom Tov by means of a ladder, and it was only after Yom Tov, when the window could be broken, that she was finally extricated.[30]

The Visit of the Magid on Shavous night

Yet another reason this minhag may have become so widespread relates to the Maggid, the Heavenly emissary that would regularly visit the Beis Yosef to teach him Torah. The Shelah Hakadosh quotes from a lengthy letter that Rav Shlomo Alkabetz wrote describing the events of one particular Shavuos.[32]

Rav Shlomo Alkabetz writes that he and Rav Yosef Caro along with some others in their circle decided to stay up the whole night of Shavuos learning a specific seder limud from Tanach and Mishnayos. At about midnight, a voice was heard emanating from the throat of Rav Yosef Caro praising them for staying up to learn Torah and advising them that it would be even more praiseworthy if they were to do so with a minyan. And, indeed, the next night, the scene was repeated, this time with a minyan present.

This letter was first printed in 1646 in the introduction to the first edition of the Magid Meisharim, which records the teachings that the Magid conveyed through the Beis Yosef. It was then reprinted by the Shelah Hakadosh in 1648[33] and in the very popular and somewhat controversial anonymous work Chemdas Yomim in 1731.[34]These last two sources contributed to widespread knowledge of the story of the Magid of the Beis Yosef, which, in turn, enabled the minhag of learning throughout Shavuos night to become even more popular.

Why doesn’t Rav Yosef Caro mention this minhag?

In order to consider some possible reasons for the Rav Yosef Caro’s omission of this minhag from both his Shulchan Aruch and his commentary on the Tur, despite the fact that he was personally told by the Magid about the great importance of remaining awake throughout Shavuos night to learn Torah, it is important to first discuss some issues related to the Magid Meisharim.

Many Gedolim merited visits from Magidim who taught them secrets of Torah, but the most famous person to have been so visited was Rav Yosef Caro. Magid Meisharim, the work that emerged from those visits, is comprised mostly of Kabbalistic teachings, although there is some Halachic discussion there as well. Was that work intended only for Rav Yosef Caro or for the general Jewish populace as well? When there is a contradiction between this work and the Shulchan Aruch, according to which of these works are we to rule?

From the fact that numerous Poskim quote from the Magid Meisharim in their halachic works, it would seem that that at least some of the material was intended for everyone. One famous example concerns eating meat on Rosh Hashanah, which the Magid told Rav Yosef Caro not to do.[35] The Magen Avraham and other poskim bring this down, implying that they felt the halachic material in this work is applicable to the masses.[36] Many other examples this are collected in a series of articles written by Rav Klieres in the Torah journal Tzefunot.[37] However, the Munkatcher Rebbe held that the Magid Meisharim was intended for Rav Yosef Caro alone.[38]

A careful examination of the sefer shows that it also contains many hanhagos, practices that are not mandated by Halacha per se, but are recommended for a righteous person to adopt. Some feel that these pieces were meant for the masses, whereas others are of the opinion that these too were meant only for Rav Yosef Caro to follow.[39] Staying up on Shavuos night could be an example of such an hanhaga.[40] There is no halachic obligation to do so, but, as we have seen, it was widely practiced by righteous people, and sometimes the masses adopt such practices.

However, Rav Yaakov Emden brings from his father, the Chacham Tzvi, that the Magid Meisharim did not influence his halachic rulings in any way.[41] In his siddur, Rav Yaakov Emden writes that it is well-known that the Beis Yosef and Rav Shlomo Alkabetz stayed up Shavuos night and were visited by the voice of the Magid, but that this does not obligate the masses to follow suit.[42]

Based on the above, it becomes understandable why R. Yosef Caro did not cite the custom to stay up on Shavuos night in his halachic works despite knowing very well its importance from his Shavuos night experience with the Magid. As important a practice as it is, in his opinion it was not intended for the broader community.

The principle of Lo BaShamayim Hi and the Magid

In truth, there may well be more to the story of why Rav Yosef Caro did not bring this custom down in his halachic works. The Gemarah in Bava Metzia (59b) sets forth is the principle of “Lo BaShamayim Hi“, meaning that the halachic process is not influenced by other-worldly revelations such as a Heavenly voice telling us what to do, or the like.[43] Rav Akiva Yosef Schlesinger uses this axiom to explain why we do not find Rav Yosef Caro bringing anything he learned from the Magid in his Beis Yosef or Shulchan Aruch.[44] This general approach is found by numerous Achronim to dismiss material found in such ‘heavenly’ works to reach halachic conclusions. To list some: R. Alexander Moshe Lapidus,[45] R. Aron Mi-Pinsk,[46] R’ Yitzchack Issac Chaver,[47] and R. Yaakov Emden.[48]

However, the question remains as to why the principle Lo BaShamayim Hi did not prevent various poskim from citing works like that of the Magid in halachic discussions. For example, numerous poskim quote rulings from the Sh’ailos v’Teshuvos Min Hashamayim, in which a rishon collected the responses he received from Heaven in his dreams to questions he had posed before going to sleep.[49]

One possible explanation as to why some poskim cite these works is based on an idea found in the work Seder Mishnah by Rav Zev Wolf Boskovitz.[50] Rav Boskovitz writes that one can rely on such works when their conclusions are not contradicted by anything in Shas.

Other achronim, however, hold that the principle of Lo BaShamayim Hi is applicable under all circumstances and thus, we are not to rely on works like the Magid Meisharim and Sh’ailos v’Teshuvos Min Hashamayim for practical guidance. Perhaps, then, Rav Yosef Caro held a similar position as these achronim and for this reason never quotes the Magid in his halachic works.

The Magen Avraham and the Shavuos night minhag

One final point: According to most of the early sources for this Minhag, it is based on Kabbala and was originally intended only for the most learned of the community, but eventually became the minhag of the masses too. However, it is interesting that the Magan Avraham, after quoting the Zohar as the earliest source for this minhag, gives his own reason for it.

He writes, based on the Midrash, that at Har Sinai, the Jews slept during the night before the giving of the Torah, and Hashem had to awaken them. As a form of teshuvah for our ancestors’ lack of zeal and appreciation for the Torah at Har Sinai, we stay up the entire night learning.[51]The Magen Avraham thus turned a Kabbalastically based custom into one with a basis in the revealed Torah.

Moreover, while most of the sources deal with the special seder of learning one is supposed to follow on Shavuos night, the Magan Avraham does not mention such a seder limud, choosing instead to address various halachic questions that arise for those who stay awake through the night, such as the halachos relating to Netilas Yadyim, Birchas Hatorah, the bracha on the Talis and Kriyas Shema Al Hamitah, thereby further giving a halachic focus to this Kabbalistically rooted minhag. In so doing, the Magen Avraham, a preeminent work on Orach Chaim, may have helped ensure the widespread adoption of the minhag of learning throughout Shavuos night.

[1] There are many collections of material on this subject. The most in depth treatment is that of R. Binyomin Hamberger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, 3, pp. 268-364. For additional useful material see : Yosef Yahlom, Alei Eyin, pp. 125-146; R’ Mordechai Spielman, Tiferes Tzvi, pp. 74-79; Meir Bar-Ilan, Mechkarei Hachag 8 (1997), pp. 28-48; Moshe Chalamish, HaKabbalah Betefilah Uminhag, pp. 595-612; R’ Yakov Hillel, Shut Shorshei Hayam, 2:12; Pardes Eliezer, pp. 70-171; Moadim L’simcha 6, pp. 420-448; Rabbi Yitzchak Tessler, P’ninei Minhag, pp. 120-166. See also Herman Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), pp. 191-192. For a very interesting article connecting this minhag to the availability of coffeesee Elliott Horowitz, ‘Coffee, Coffeehouses, and the Nocturnal Rituals of Early Modern Jewry,’ AJS Review 14:1 (Spring 1989), pp. 17-46 and Assaf Nabarro, Tikkun from Lurianic Kabbalah to Popular Culture, PhD dissertation, Ben Gurion University 2006, pp. 87.

[2] For this see the sources in note one. See also most recently this article from Eli Stern.

[3] Eliezer Brodt, Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century, PhD, Bar Ian University) July 2015, pp.354-360.

[4] Pauline Wengeroff, Memoirs of a Grandmother, 2010, p.150.

[5] See Pirkei Zichronos, (2004), p. 359

[6] Rabbis and Wives, p. 159.

[7] Letters from the Mir, p. 145

[8] Mi-Telz Ad Telz, p.212, 362.

[9] Sefer Hamusar, p. 59a. For information about this work see the introduction to the facsimile edition printed in Jerusalem 1973.

[10] Or Zarua, p. 233, first printed in its entirety from manuscript in 2009. See Chalamish (above, note 1), pp. 596-597; Eliezer Brodt, Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 355, fn. 117.

[11] Mateh Moshe 3:694.

[12] Zohar, Emor p. 88a

[13] Mareh Cohen, p. 117, 280. On this work see Zev Gries, Safrut Hanhaghot, pp. 41-42, 71-75.

[14] Yesh Sachir, p. 33b.

[15] Seder HaYom, p. 183.

[16] About this work see Eliezer Brodt, Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century, PhD dissertation, Bar Ian University, pp. 264-278

[17] Siman 494.

[18] Heichal Hakodesh, p. 60a.

[19] About this work see the appendix to this earlier post here.

[20] Magen Avraham, 494: introduction.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Od LaMoed, p. 33a.

[23] Sefer Chizyonos, 4:17 (end).

[24] Ma’agel Tov, p. 66, 154. See my article in Yeshurun 26 (2012), pp. 853-874 for more about this work.

[25] Sefer HaChida, 2, pp. 534, 538,539,540, 544.

[26] See his Nefesh Dovid, p. 129 [printed in the back of Seder Eliyhau]. In his work Har Hamoriah, he describes a time when he was ill on Erev Shavuos but that evening felt well enough to stay up and learn [first printed in Shnos Dor Vedor, 1. p.125 and then in Har Hamoriah, p. 59].

[27] First printed by Simcha Assaf, Kovetz Al Yad 3, p. 131.

[28] Masos Eretz Yisroel, p.300.

[29] See Eliezer Brodt, Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century, PhD dissertation, Bar Ian University, pp.191-198

[30] Sefer Zechirah, p. 258. On this work, see my Likutei Eliezer, pp. 13-25.

[31] Halichos Teiman, p. 32

[32] Shelah, Shavuos, pp. 29b-30a. About this letter see: Rabbi Leopold Greenwald, Harav R’ Yosef Caro Uz’mano, pp. 197-199; Tzvi Werblowsky, Joseph Karo, Lawyer and Mystic, pp. 19-21, 108-114; A. Ya’ari, Ta’alumot Sefer, p. 106; Y. Tishbi, Chikrei Kabalah UShlucoseha, 2, pp. 391-393; Dovid Tamar, Mechkarim Betoldot Hayehudim B’Eretz Yisroel, pp.195-196; R’ Blau, Kulmos, 100 (2011), p.14,29.

[33] See Chalamish (above note 1), p. 599.

[34] On this work, see my Likutei Eliezer, p. 2.

[35-36]] On this subject see my Likutei Eliezer, pp. 90-100. For a new approach to all this see most recently Eliezer Brodt, “The Relationship of the Magen Avraham to the Work Magid Meisharim, Yeshurun 35 (2016), pp. 738-787. Also see Eliezer Brodt, Halachic Commentaries to the Shulchan Aruch on Orach Chayim from Ashkenaz and Poland in the Seventeenth Century, PhD dissertation, Bar Ian University, pp. 284-290.

[37] Tzefunot 6 (1990), pp. 79-86; 8 (1990), pp. 23-31; 9 (1991), pp. 25-33.

[38] Nimukei Orach Chaim, 426:1.

[39] See Meir Benayahu, Yosef Bechiri, pp. 396-401; Tzvi Werblowsky, Joseph Karo, Lawyer and Mystic. See also Likutei Eliezer, pp. 100-103.

[40] This is not found in the Magid Meisharim that we have today. But the Chida has already written that the sefer that is extant today is only a small part of the original work.

[41] Torat Hakanaot, p. 48a.

[42] Siddur Rav Yaakov Emden, 2, p. 159.

[43] For a very useful summary of material about this, see Encyclopedia Talmudis, 33, pp. 869-882. M. Goldstein, The Assistance of Celestial Bodies in Halachic Decisions, (heb.), PhD dissertation, Bar Ilan University 2004.

[44] Beis Yosef Hachadash, p. 424.

[45] Toras HaGaon R’ Alexander Moshe, p. 328.

[46] Tosfos Aron, p. 42a.

[47] Magan Vtzinah, pp. 27b-28a.

[48] Torat Hakanot, p. 48a.

[49] About this work, see Rav Aron Marcus’ and Rav Reuven Margolios introductions to their respective editions of Sh’ailos v’Teshuvos Min Hashamayim. See also E. Kanarfogel, “For its not in Heaven: Dreams as a Determinant of Jewish Law and Practice in Northern Europe During the High Middle Ages,” Studies in Medieval Jewish Intellectual and Social History (2012) pp. 111-143; Unpublished lecture of Pinchas Roth, “Questions and Answers from Heaven: Halakhic Diversity in a Medieval Community”; Pinchas Roth, “Responsa from Heaven: Fragments of a New Manuscript of “She’elot u-Teshuvot min ha-Shamayim” from Gerona,” Materia Giudaica 15-16 (2010-2011) pp. 555-564; Likutei Eliezer, pp.59-63.

[50] Seder Mishnah, Madah, pp. 113-114.

[51] See the Radal’s notes to Pirkei D’Rabi Eliezer, Perek 41: 41-42.

Towards a Bibliography of seforim related to Shavous and Megilas Rus (new and old)

By Eliezer Brodt

In this post I intend to start a list towards a more complete bibliography to the various seforim (new and old) and articles related to Shavous. I hope to update it much more in the future as my computer (with all my information just died).

When learning the Halachos of Shavous, one is struck how the Tur does not mention anything special for Shavous except for instructions related to davening and Keriyas Hatorah. The only custom he mentions that is unique to Shavous is saying Azharot. Rabbi Yosef Caro in both of his works, Beis Yosef and Shulchan Aruch pretty much follows in this path. In the Codes is not until the Rema that some of the famous customs related to this Yom Tov are brought down, such as the custom of placing flowers in shuls and houses, the custom of eating Milchigs and eating special lechem to remember the Shtei Halechem. Only afterwards through the writings of the Matteh Moshe, Knesses Hagedolah and especially the Magen Avraham are the other customs related to this Yom Tov brought forward, among them, when exactly is one supposed to daven Maariv Shavous night, staying up the whole night learning, saying Akdamus, using a special Trope when leining the Aseres Hadibros,and leining Megilas Rus[1].

The first work worth mentioning, as its one of my all time favorites, is Rav Zevin’s Moadim Be-halacha. In this work he has four pieces, none of which needs my approval ! – related to Shavous. He has a general piece, one related to various issues about the Shtei Halechem, another related to Megilas Rus and one related to various aspects of Aseres Hadibros.

Regarding general aspects of Aseres Hadibros one should see the collection of articles in the volume called
Aseres Hadibros edited by B. Segal (Magnes Press, 1986) and the work
Aseres Hadibros Ve-keriyas Shema from Moshe Weinfeld (2001).

For a discussion of the special Trope used when leining the
Aseres Hadibros see the article from Amnon Shiloah in the volume
Aseres Hadibros edited by B. Segal. See also Rabbi Dovid Yitzchaki in the back of his edition of Luach Eresh pp. 524- 540; the series of articles of Y. Laufer (available here, here and here) [special thanks to my good friend Mr. Yisroel Israel for bringing this to my attention]; this article from Y. Ofer.

For discussion of the custom to stand during the leining of
Aseres Hadibros see this earlier post by Dan Rabinowitz available here and especially the sources listed at the end. To add to the usage of the Teshuvos Harambam mentioned there, see Rav Zevin, Moadim Be-halacha, p. 389-390. See also what I mention here, and also Rabbi Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beyadenu, pp.605-622.

Regarding Shtei Halechem see the excellent work Birchat Haaretz from Rabbi Y. Mashbaum available here.

Regarding the time when to daven Maariv Shavous night see Rabbi Binyomin Hamburger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, 4:344-369.

Regarding staying up Shavous night, see R. Hamburger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz, 3:268-364, where he traces this minhag and deals with, at great length, the minhag of saying Tikun. See also Professor Moshe Chalamish, Ha-Kabalah, pp. 595- 612. See also J.D. Wilhelm, “Sidrei Tikkunim,” in Alei Ayin: Essays Presented to Salman Schocken (Jerusalem: Schocken 1948-1952), pp. 125-146, (Hebrew). Of course I must mention my good friend Menachem Butler’s favorite article relating to all this, Elliott Horowitz, “Coffee, Coffeehouses, and the Nocturnal Rituals of Early Modern Jewry,” AJS Review 14:1 (Spring 1989) pp. 17-46. For other Halachic issues related to staying up all night see the recent work, Ha-niyur Kol Ha-laylah.

Regarding saying Akdamot see this earlier post from Dan Rabinowitz available here. See also Rabbi Dovid Yitzchaki in the back of his edition of Luach Eresh, pp. 541-542. See also Jeffrey Hoffman, “Akdamut: History, Folklore, and Meaning,” Jewish Quarterly Review 99:2 (Spring 2009) pp. 161-183.

Regarding the custom of saying Azharot on Shavous see what I wrote here. I hope to update this post in the near future. Meanwhile, see what I wrote in Yeshurun 25:447-449.

Another area worth learning about is Bikurim. For this I recommend the volume of the Safrai Family from their series of Mishnas Eretz Yisrael.

Regarding the custom of placing flowers in Shul and at home, see the works of Rabbi Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beyadenu, pp. 573-604 and the collections of material found in Moadim Li-simcha and Pardes Eliezer.

Regarding the custom of eating Dairy on Shavous, much has been written. See the works of Rabbi Oberlander, Minhag Avosenu Beyadenu, pp. 623-647 and the collections of material found in Moadim Li-simcha and Pardes Eliezer. Recently Rabbi Moshe Dinin collected 160 reasons (!) for this custom in Kuntres Matamei Moshe (2008). Even more recently Rabbi Yosef Ohev Zion printed a work called Yoma De-atzartah (2009) [thanks to Yissochor Hoffman for bringing this work to my attention]. For important discussion related to this topic see the articles of my friend Rabbi Yehudah Spitz available here and here.

Related to this one should read the great article by Aviad A. Stollman, “Halakhic Development as a Fusion of Hermeneutical Horizons: The Case of the Waiting Period Between Meat and Dairy,” AJS Review 28:2 (November 2005) pp. 1-30 (Hebrew) [expanded from his M.A. on Perek Kol Habassar.

Another custom that originally took place on Shavous was when a child turned three they used to conduct a special seder with eating cakes and reciting various pesukim and the like. This custom was dealt with by many; for a recent discussion of this topic, including sources, see my article in Yerushasenu 5 (2011), pp. 337-360. [A PDF is available upon request].

Another issue of interest worth mentioning related to Shavous is the plagiarism of the highly controversial Sefer Chemdas Yamim discussed many times on this blog (see here). Isaiah Tishbi in his various essays where he proves the plagiarism’s of the Chemdas uses many different topics related to Shavous. See the collection of his articles Chikrei Kabbalah Veshiluchoseh pp. 374-376 (regarding when to daven Maariv), 382-383 (which day was Matan Torah), pp. 389-391 (regarding standing during Aseret hadibrot), pp. 391-393 (regarding the Maggid visiting the Beis Yosef on Shavous night) and pp. 340-341 (regarding eating meat after milk).

Here is a listing of some general works related to Shavous that deal with many of the above aspects and more:

א. ר’ שלמה קלוגר, קהלת יעקב, ירושלים תשס”ו, תמז עמודים.

ב. ר’ פנחס שווארטץ, מנחה חדשה, תרצ”ז, נו עמודים.

ג. ר’ יצחק ווייס, בינה לעתים, בני ברק תשסד.

ד. ר’ שריה דבליצקי, קיצור הלכות מועדים, תשס”ו, פב עמודים.

ה. ר’ אבוגדר נבנצל, ירושלים במועדיה.

ו. ר’ עובדיה יוסף, חזון עובדיה, יום טוב, ירושלים תשס”ג.

ז. ר’ אהרן מיאסניק, מנחת אהרן, ירושלים תשס”ח, רצב עמודים.

ח. ר’ גדליה אבערלאנדער, מנהג אבותינו בידינו, מאנסי תשס”ו.

ט. פרדס אליעזר.

י. ר’ טוביה פריינד, מועדים לשמחה, ירושלים תשס”ח.

יא. ר’ יצחק טעסלער, פניני המנהג, מונסי תשס”ח, תצב עמודים, ספר זה כולל אלפי מקורות וס”ד פרקים על עניני החג.

יב. ר’ יוסף חיים אוהב ציון, יומא דעצרתא, ירושלים תשס”ח.

Over the centuries numerous works have been written explain this Megilah. Just to mention a few: until last year the best collection of Rishonim was in the Toras Chaim edition printed by Mossad Rav Kook. This edition has the commentaries of nine Rishonim printed based on manuscripts.

A few year ago the Even Yisrael company printed a nicely done edition which had a few Rishonim and Achronim. But I cannot offer an opinion if it does not have mistakes and the like. More recently they reprinted this, adding many more Rishonim and Achronim. If one is interested in buying any one volume related to Rus this is the best to buy for your money, as you get a bunch of commentaries all in one volume.

Another work worth mentioning is called Tosfos Haslem this is a collection from many different manuscripts of the Baalei Hatosfos on the Megilah.

Another work on Rus worth mentioning is the Shoresh Yeshai from Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz. There are many editions of this work, but I recommend the one printed a few years ago edited by Rabbi Shmuel Askhkenazi, as it includes a very good introduction, many notes and some very useful indices.

Another beautiful work on Rus worth learning through is the Meshivos Nefesh from the Bach. This perush goes through everything related to the megilah very thoroughly. He also wrote a work on Rashi called Be’er Mayim. This work was printed many times.

Another work is the Torah Sheleimah continuing in the path of Rabbi Menachem Kasher’s Torah Sheleimah on the Torah, collecting the many Midrashim on the Megilah. However the great notes of Rav Kasher are definitely missed by many.

Another work I enjoyed on Rus was from Rabbi Yosef Zechariah Stern – one of my favorite Gedolim – his bekius here is simply remarkable (as it is in all his other works).

Another collection of useful works on Megilas Rus was printed a few years ago by my good friend Rabbi Moshe Hubner. The title of the volume is Uryan Toilessyah (314 pp.). This volume contains four works, the first being his own called Uryan Toilessyah. The style of this work is to deal with many of the issues that come up while learning the Megilah.The questions and answers are based on a very wide range of sources. He also includes many nice ideas of his own to various problems. It is very organized clear and to the point. He also printed three other earlier works, the first being Invei Hagefen first printed in 1863, the second being Rishon Mekor Hachaim first printed in 1697. He also reprinted some Teshuvos and articles related to Shavous from his grandfather Rabbi Shmuel Hubner, author of the Nimukei Shmuel. [A few copies of this work are still available; email me for more details].

This year a few more important works related to Megilas Rus were just printed. First worth mentioning is the Mikraot Gedolot Haketer from Bar Ilan. This series began a few years back and has fallen asleep for awhile. Last week the project “woke up” and five volumes were released in the small size. The point of this series is to offer the most accurate texts of various Rishonim on Tanach based on all the manuscripts.

Another excellent work just printed is the Eshkol Hakofer from Rabbi Avraham Sbba, author of the Tzeror Hamor (259 pp.). This work had been printed many years ago based on one manuscript but this edition is printed based on numerous manuscripts and contains many pieces not found in the printed edition. This work is simply beautifully done, with a nice introduction and many useful notes.

Another great work that just was printed for the first time was the Toldos Shlomo by Rabbi Shlomo Kluger (436 pp.).

Another new work on Megilas Rus is called Megilas Rus Im Otzros Hameforshim (482 pp.) This work contains a few sections the first part contains separate extensive perushim on Targum, Rashi, Rav Yosef Kara and Ibn Ezra’s perushim. Besides for this, it contains an extensive peuish on the Megilah. Another section has in-depth lengthy discussions on various topics related to the Megilah, Rus and David Hamelech. As the bibliography at the end of the sefer shows it is based on many seforim.

Another work worth mentioning is the Ke-Motzo Shalal Rav on Rus and Shavuos. This work continues in the path of Rabbi Rosenthal’s earlier works on chumash and Yomim Tovim with the same name, collecting and presenting nice material, written clearly, and easy to understand related to Rus and Shavous from famous and less famous works.

Regarding whether or not to stand for the recitation of the Aseres Hadibros, see here. Thanks thanks for Yissachar Hoffman for sending me this. In the work Shiurei Rav Elyashiv on Berachos (p. 93) it says that he says its assur to stand based on this teshuvah of the Rambam. I will add that I davened for many years at Rav Elyashiv’s minyan on shabbos. I always wanted to see if he would sit or stand but he almost always got that aliya – until one time he did not and I was able to see that he indeed stayed seated!

[i] The Rema mentions this minhag earlier (490:9) but not in hilchos Shavous.

Yom Tov Sheni and the Customs With Regard to Travelers

Yom Tov Sheni and the Customs With Regard to Travelers

By J. Jean Ajdler

J. Jean Ajdler of Brussels, Belgium, is a civil and structural engineer. He has published articles about medieval Jewish astronomy, the history of the Jewish calendar, and Talmudic metrology, and is the author of Hilkhot Kiddush ha-Hodesh al-pi ha-Rambam (Jerusalem: Sifriati, 1996).

This is his first contribution to the Seforim blog.

Abstract: In ancient times the customs of the communities were extremely variable the one from the other. Each community had its own customs and it was very jealous of them. Therefore very precise rules ensured the equilibrium between them at the level of the travelers between these communities. The introduction of the printing with the publication of the Shulhan Arukh in the sixteenth century constituted the globalization of the Jewish society and contributed to the standardization of the Jewish rules and customs and the progressive disappearing of the local minhagim. However one great difference between Israel and the Diaspora survived; Israel keeps only one festival day while the Diaspora keeps two festival days. It is today the greatest difference of custom still extant and the dramatic increase of travel has given more acuteness to the problem. The aim of this article is the examination of the rules of priority of the customs in general, and that of the second festival day in particular, at the level of the travelers. We first examine the general problem of the minhagim: we examine the Talmudic sources and their understanding and the consecutive rulings. We acknowledge a great confusion in the understanding of the reference texts and a great diversity in the rulings.

Afterwards we examine the problem of the second festival days with regard to the travelers. In the case of the travelers from Israel to the Diaspora the divergences remain restricted. The Israelis traveling abroad do not keep two festival days but they may not distinguish themselves from the local Jews. The problems still today under discussion are whether the Israelis traveling abroad are allowed to perform work secretly, how they should behave outside a Jewish settlement, how long and under which conditions they can take advantage of their quality of Israelis. As for the travelers from the Diaspora to Israel, It seems even likely that the problem was not grappled with in the Talmud. There is a great confusion among the rulers: the overwhelming majority ruled that the travelers behave completely like in the Diaspora, some ruled that the travelers behave completely like Israelis and some ruled that they should adopt the severity of the two first opinions. We show that the first opinion has also weak points and is not better justified than the two others so that the problem remains theoretically open.

I. Introduction.

Yom Tov sheni shel Galluyyot was definitively instituted in about 325 when the Palestinian rabbis, probably under the leadership of Rabbi Yosi, began to send to Egypt and Babylonia, in advance, the data of the coming year. But at the same time, they invited them to go on keeping two festival days, in order to be able to react in the case of a disruption of the communication of the calendar data. There is much discussion in the rabbinic literature about the status of the second festival day. According to one opinion, the second festival day has the status of a minhag i.e. a custom. It is even an important minhag;[1] the violator of the second festival day is punished by beating or excommunication by contrast with the violator of a plain minhag.

The institution of the second festival day is characterized by the recitation of the Hallel and of all the benedictions, including the Sheheheyanu, exactly as on the first festival day, although one does generally not recite a benediction on a minhag.[2]

According to a second opinion the observance of the second festival day is the result of a takana obliging us to go on keeping the second festival day as if we were still doubting, as it was the case when the Babylonians did not yet know the fixing of the month.

However the application and extension clauses of the second festival day seem to work like a minhag.

If we paraphrase R’ Solomon Meiri, we can say that yom tov sheni shel galluyyot is a

מנהג דרך תקנה, it is a minhag which was introduced through a formal takana, in other words it is a minhag which was upgraded to the status of a takana. The takana is thus to go on keeping the former minhag.

The difficulty of giving a precise juridical status to the second festival day is probably the origin of the great confusion existing in the application of the rules of the second festival day by the travelers between Israel and the Diaspora and vice versa.

This confusion is still increased by the divergences between the rulers about the laws of the observance of the minhag by the travelers. If it were a pure takana to keep a second festival day outside of Israel, then the observance of this second day would depend only on the geographical localization of the person. As mentioned above the rules of yom tov sheni work also like a minhag and its obligations, as for a minhag, seem more to be “personal obligations” or חובת גברא which follow the travelers in their travels through the customs.

A third element could interfere with the issue. The takana instituting the second festival day was sent to Babylonia and was accompanied by a justificatory message. Indeed we find in the next quotation from B. Beitsah 4b:

והשתא דידעינן בקביע דירחא מאי טעמא עבדינן תרי יומי, דשלחו מתם, הזהרו במנהג אבותיכם בידכם, זמנין דגזרו המלכות גזירה ואתי לאקלקולי.

And now, when we know the fixing of the moon, why are we observing two festival days? Because they sent from Palestine the following order: be careful to maintain the practice of your late parents. It could once happen that the authority enacts [unfair] laws [again the Jews] and you could be wrong [if you observe only one day].

It is thus possible that this message was intended for people living abroad exclusively while people traveling from Babylonia to Israel were perhaps excluded from the beginning on. Indeed there was no danger of disruption of the communications and the information about the calendar for people traveling in Israel. It is thus not certain at all that the takana instituting the second festival day was intended for those people traveling to Israel and staying temporarily during the festival.[3]

Finally it must be noted that the rabbinic thought was much influences by the position of Maimonides’ ruling that the obligation of keeping two festival days does not depend on the distance from Jerusalem nor from the position of the place in Israel or abroad but it depends only on the exact situation which prevailed at the examined place at the time of the messengers, whether the messengers came along at this place or not. According to Maimonides and some other authorities, in most modern settlements in Israel one should keep two festival days. Therefore, according to these authorities, the obligation of keeping two festival days is not restricted to the Diaspora.

We know also from R’ Estori ha-Farhi (Kaftor va-Ferah chap. 51) that during the fourteenth century the rule was according to Maimonides and therefore they kept two festival days in Ramla but in the neighboring Lod they kept only one festival day.

In B. Pesahim 51b the travel of Rav Safra from Israel to Babylonia was detailed directly after the study of the problem of the traveler between two places having different minhagim. Visibly the Talmud considers that there is a profound analogy between keeping the second festival when traveling from Israel to Babylonia and traveling from a town where they do work on the morning of the 14th of Nissan to a place where they don’t. By contrast we don’t find in the Talmud any evidence about the converse situation of a traveler coming from abroad to Israel. However the overwhelming majority of the rulers considered that the problem of the keeping of the second festival day by the travelers between Israel and the Diaspora and vice versa must be deduced from the rules applicable to the travelers between two towns with different positions about the minhag of working on the morning of the 14th of Nissan. Therefore, in a first stage we will examine thoroughly how the traveler must behave with regard of the minhag during his travels.

II. The Minhag and the Travelers.

A. Talmudic references.

The problem of the minhag and the travelers is raised in many quotations in the Talmud.

1. Mishna Pesahim IV: 1.

Where it is the custom to do work on the eve of Passover until midday [like in the Province of Judah], one may do [work]; where it is the custom not to do [work, like in the Province of Galil], one may not do [work]. He who goes from a place where they work to a place where they do not work, or from a place where they do not work to a place where they do work, we lay upon him the restrictions of the place from where he departed and the restrictions of the place where he has gone; and a man must not act differently [from local custom] on account of the quarrels [which would ensue]

2. B. Pesahim 51a.

When Rabbah bar Bar Hannah came [from Palestine to Babylonia] he ate of the stomach fat. Now Rav Awira the Elder and Rabbah son of Rav Huna visited him; as soon as he saw them he covered it [the fat] from them. When they narrated it to Abaye he said to them “he has treated you as Cutheans.” But does not Rabbah bar Bar Hannah agree with what we learned: “we lay upon him the restrictions of the place from where he departed and the restrictions of the place where he has gone”?

Said Abaye: That is only [when he goes] from [one town] in Babylonia to [another] in Babylonia, or from [a town] in Palestine to [another in] Palestine, or from [a town in Babylonia to [another in] Palestine; but not [when he goes] from a place in Palestine to [another] in Babylonia, [for] since we submit to them [and accept their jurisdiction] we do as they. Rav Ashi said: you may even say [that this holds good when a man goes] from Palestine to Babylonia; this is however where it is not his intention to return, but Rabbah bar Bar Hannah had the intention of returning.

3. B. Pesahim 51b.

Rav Safra said to Rabbi Abba: for instance I, who know the fixing of the month, in inhabitated places I do not work [when I happen to be in Babylonia] because it is a change [which would lead to] strife. How is it in the wilderness? – Said he to him: thus did Rabbi Ammi say: in inhabited regions [of Babylonia] it is forbidden; in the desert it is permitted.[4]

4. B. Hulin 18b.

When Rabbi Zeira went up [to Palestine] he ate there an animal [which was slaughtered in that part of the throat] which was regarded as a deflection by Rav and Samuel.

But does not Rabbi Zeira accept the rule: [when a person arrives in a town] he must adopt the restrictions of the place which he has left and also the restrictions of the place he has entered? – This rule applies only when one travels from town to town in Babylonia or from town to town in the land of Israel, or from the land of Israel to Babylonia; but when one travels from Babylonia to the land of Israel, inasmuch as we are subject to their authority, we must adopt their customs. Rav Ashi said: you may even hold that the rule applies when one travels from Babylonia to the land of Israel, but only when this person intends to return. Rabbi Zera, however, had no intention to return to Babylonia.

5. B. Hulin 110a.

Rami bar Tamri, also known as Rami bar Dikuli, of Pumbeditha, once happened to be in Sura on the eve of the Day of Atonement. When the townspeople took all the udders [of the animals] and threw them away, he immediately went and collected them and ate them. He was then brought before Rav Hisda who said to him: why did you do it? He replied, “I come from the place of Rav Judah who permits it to be eaten.” Said Rav Hisda to him,” But do you not accept the rule: [when a person arrives in a town] he must adopt the restrictions of the town he has left and also the restrictions of the town he has entered.” He replied, “I ate them outside the [city’s] boundary.”

B. The Exegesis of the Mishna.

At the first glance the meaning of the Mishna is evident. There is however a great confusion in the understanding of this Mishna. The great difficulty results from the existence in the Mishna of divergent impositions: laying upon the traveler the restrictions of the place from where he departed and the restrictions of the place where he has gone.

The problem is to decide whether these two impositions must be considered separately, in different situations, whether the one or the other, but not both together or if they must be considered together because they play simultaneously. In this last contingency, we must find genuine situations where both impositions can work together.

1. The understanding of Maimonides (Rambam Hilkhot Yom Tov VIII: 20),[5] R’ Nissim Gerondi (Ran) (Rif Pesahim 17a: .רבה בר בר חנה), R’ Ovadiah of Bertinoro (commentary on Mishna Pesahim IV: 1) and R’ Isaac bar Sheshet Perfet (Ribash no. 44).

The Mishna speaks about a traveler who does not intend to settle and who will go back to his place of origin. We lay upon the traveler the restrictions of his place of origin when he goes from a place where they do not work to a place where they work. Conversely we lay upon the traveler the restrictions of the place where he has gone when he goes from a place where they do work to a place where they don’t. By contrast if the traveler intends to settle at the new place he adopts the customs of the new place whether these customs are more restrictive or less restrictive. As for the consideration about the necessity that a man must not act differently than the local customs, Abaye considers that this consideration is related to the first case, when the traveler goes from a place where they do work to a place where they do not in order to avoid disputes. By contrast when the traveler goes from a place where they do not work to a place where they do, he really singularizes himself by not working. Rava said that this consideration can also apply to the second case, when the traveler walks from a place where they do not work to a place where they work. Indeed when a tourist walks and does not work and even if the countrymen walk and do not work it is not a singularity.[6] According to this explanation the two contradictory impositions do not work together, they work separately in different situations.

2. The understanding of Tossafot (B. Pesahim 51a רבה בר בר חנה and B. Hulin 18b הני מילי.), Tur (Orah Hayim 468:4) and R’ Jonathan ha-Kohen of Lunel (Rashba I:337).

The Mishna must be considered as taught in different cases:[7]

n When the traveler does not intend to settle and will go back home, we lay upon him the restrictions of the place from where he departed.

n When the traveler intends to settle at the new place, we lay upon him the restrictions of the place where he has gone.

3. The Provencal understanding (Meiri [Beit ha-Bekhira on B. Hulin 18b and on B. Pesahim 51a and b], Kolbo [end of the laws of Hamets and Matsah] and Orhot Hayim) or the introduction of an intermediate case.

n When the traveler intends to settle at the new place, we lay upon him the restrictions of the place where he has gone.

n When the traveler intends to go back home immediately,[8] he behaves according to the customs of the place from where he departed. But he is not allowed to behave according to the less restrictive customs of the place from where he departed before people who are not scholars.

n When the traveler intends to go back home later,[9] then he must behave according to the restrictions of both places; the place from where he departed and the place where he is now staying temporarily.

Meiri writes that this is his opinion and this was also the ruling of his teachers. He found afterwards that Rabad referred to this explanation. He writes also that there are other explanations and even reasoning that the right mind cannot endure.

Thus the Mishna, which speaks of both the restrictions of the place from where the traveler departed and the place where the travelers stays provisory, corresponds to the case of a traveler who intends to go back home after a certain delay (according to Meiri: thirty days). This explanation allows solving the apparent contradiction between Rav Ashi in the quotations 2 and 4. In quotation 2, Rav Ashi understands that the Mishna refers to a case when the traveler does not intend to return home. In quotation 4, Rav Ashi understands that the Mishna refers to a case when the traveler does intend to return home. In fact in both cases the traveler intends to go back home later, after a delay (of more than thirty days). In quotation 2 this situation is considered as if he does not intend to go back home with regard of going back home immediately. In quotation 4, the same situation, going back home after thirty days, is considered as intending to go back home with regard of settling in the new place.

4. There are other explanations of the Mishna but these explanations consider particular situations like going from a place in Babylonia to a place in Palestine or vice versa. These solutions seem farfetched because the Mishna seems to be general and not restricted to very special cases.[10]

C. The ruling of Maimonides (Hilkhot Yom Tov VIII: 20).

The ruling of Maimonides has been at the origin of many discussions about its true meaning.

He who goes from a place where they work to a place where they do not work should not work in a Jewish settlement because of the fear of quarrels but he is allowed to work in the desert. He who goes from a place where they do not work to a place where they do work should not work. We lay upon him the restrictions of the place from where he departed and the restrictions of the place where he has gone. However he should not appear in front of them as if he is idle because of the interdiction to work. A man must never act differently [from local custom] on account of the quarrels [which would ensue].

And similarly he who intends to come back to his place of departure, behaves according to the customs of his place, whether they are more or less severe than the local customs, yet at the condition that he does not do it in front of the local people on account of the quarrels.

This passage is constituted by two different parts. The first part is the transcription of the Mishna Pesahim IV:1[11] slightly adapted by the introduction of the concepts of settlement and desert which correspond to the influence of the passage about the query of Rav Safra in B. Pesahim. The second part seems similar but it presents differences. The two parts are connected by a coordination conjunction וכן מי that we translated by “and similarly.” The challenge is to explain these two passages and their coordination in the respect of all the Talmudic quotations.

This coordination conjunction means at the first glance “and similarly he who…” But its meaning was fiercely disputed. The use of a computer program shows that Maimonides used this conjunctionוכן מי 62 times in the Hibbur. It is used to connect two passages when the second corresponds to a case leading to a similar, but not necessarily identical, conclusion as in the first passage. He used also וכן כל מי three times but the first passage begins one time also by כל. Anyhow the two expressions seem to have the same signification. When there is no similitude but a real opposition between the two cases Maimonides uses the conjunction אבל מי (36 times in the Hibbur). Therefore the plain explanation of this quotation is to consider that both passages are parallel and deal with the case of the traveler who intends coming back home and not settling in the new place.

1. The Plain Understanding:

In the first passage we deal with working on the morning of the 14th of Nissan. Apparently working is a special activity that cannot be performed discretely and therefore it is absolutely forbidden. The second passage deals with other customs in general which can be hidden and performed discretely. The difficulty is that Maimonides must choose between the two contradictory statements of Rav Ashi; he accepts the statement of Rav Ashi in B. Hulin 18b that the Mishna refers to a traveler who wants to go back to the place from where he came and, although he rules like Rabba bar Bar Hanna he must reject the statement of Rav Ashi in B. Pesahim 51a; this remains also a difficulty. (Maimonides rules like Rabba bar Bar Hanna but rejecting the answer of Rav Ashi, he has no answer to the objection of the Talmud.) The great commentator R’ Nissim on Rif (Rif 17b entry רבה), and R’ Isaac bar Sheshet (Teshuvot, no. 44) understood the Talmudic passages according to this understanding, giving precedence to the statement of Rav Ashi in Hulin 18b. Among later authorities Magen Avraham, Ba’er Heitev, Be’er ha-Gola and Mishna Berura adopted the same understanding of this quotation of Maimonides, recopied in Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 468:4.

2. The Second Understanding:

A second understanding, at the first glance surprising, is to consider that the first passage and, necessarily, the Mishna deals with someone who will settle in the new place and not come back. By contrast the second passage deals with a traveler who will come back to the place from where he came. The consequences of this understanding are surprising and moreover not accepted by the halakha. Indeed, according to the first passage people settling in a new place must behold the customs of their place of origin all their life.[12] A consequence of this ruling would be that people coming from the Diaspora and settling in Israel would be obliged to go on keeping two festival days all their life. Conversely people coming from Israel with the intention to settle abroad would be allowed to perform work on the second festival day before reaching a Jewish settlement.[13]

This understanding was first championed by the Maggid Mishneh who considered that the first passage correspond to the case when the traveler wants to settle without the intention to come back. He must give the precedence to the statement of Rav Ashi in Pesahim 51a and reject the statement of Rav Ashi in Hulin 18b. This position was followed by Gra, Hok Yakov, Shakh (on Yoreh Deah 214) and Peri Hadash in their commentaries of Maimonides’ quotation in Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 468:4.

D. The ruling of Meiri, Orhot Hayim and Kolbo.

Their ruling is consistent with the Provencal understanding explained above, introducing a third intermediate case. It is important because it was influential. R’ David ibn Abi Zimra ruled according to this opinion in a responsum (Radvaz IV: 73 also called no. 1145) about the travelers from Palestine to Egypt.[14] It was for him the only manner to solve the contradiction between the two statements of Rav Ashi in B. Hulin 18b and B. Pesahim 51a.

In this responsum Radvaz distinguished three cases:

n Going back immediately.

n Going back later.

n Settling definitively.

R’ Joseh Karo copied this ruling of Orhot Hayim in Beit Yoseph (Tur Orah Hayim 496) and abridged it Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 496:3.

E. The Ruling of Tur.

His ruling is consistent with the ruling of Maimonides according to its plain understanding (opinion 1).

F. The Ruling of R’ Yoseph Karo in Shulhan Arukh.

Shulhan Arukh raised the issue at four different places.[15] Of special interest is the ruling of Orah Hayim 468:4, where he recopied the text of Maimonides (Hilkhot Yom Tov VIII:20, mentioned above), which seems to contradict the other rulings and more specifically Orah Hayim 496:3. It is accepted that the ruling of O.H. 468:4 is an abridged version of the original text of Orhot Hayim. We are dealing in this chapter with working on the morning of the 14th of Nisan and therefore the abridgment of the text of Orhot Hayim makes sense because it is forbidden to perform work whether the travelers comes back immediately or later. Therefore the text mentions only two cases, settling in the new place or going back to the first place without making the difference between going back immediately or later. But finally he never mentioned clearly in Shulhan Arukh the existence of three cases so that the doubt subsists about his definitive ruling; does he rule like Orhot Hayim, which he copied in Beit Yoseph O.H. 496 or does he rule like Tur and Maimonides (opinion 1)? Similarly the commentators differed about the meaning of the ruling of Orah Hayim 468:4 where he copied Maimonides.[16]

Anyhow the position of R’ Karo in Shulhan Arukh is problematic because he quoted two contradictory passages of two different authors.[17]

III. The Second Festival Day and the Traveler Going from Palestine to the Babylonia:

The quotation in B. Pesahim 51a about Rav Safra is generally considered as referring to his travel from Palestine to Babylonia. This is indeed the only plausible manner to understand how Rav Safra knew the fixing of the month before undertaking his travel.[18] Furthermore he asked his query to Rabbi Abba, a Palestinian Amora; this could only be before his undertaking of a travel to Babylonia.

There is a great unanimity between the rulers that in the direction Palestine-Diaspora, the obligation of keeping the second festival day is a personal obligation. Therefore Palestinians traveling to the Diaspora are not subjected to the obligation of the second festival day. However they are forbidden to perform work[19] on the second festival day when they are in a Jewish settlement. Outside of the techum around the town of this Jewish settlement they are allowed to perform work.[20]

Nowadays the dramatic increase of the travels is the cause of new responsa about the behavior of Israelis abroad. Because of the modern social conditions, with Israelis on mission abroad for one or even many years can prevail themselves of their status of Israelis, the tendency is to lengthen the delay allowing to prevail of the status of Israelis and even to be lenient about the interdiction of performing work discretely. However the rulers do not put at all the emphasis on the absolute necessity for Israelis abroad to behave officially as if they kept two festival days, as it is strictly required by the halakha. In weak communities, where a part of the attendance of the festival office is composed by Israelis (teachers and member of the Israeli mission), their absence at the offices on the second festival day is a very detrimental singularity. The danger is not anymore a possibility of dispute; it is the whole institution of Yom Tov Sheni which they endanger.

IV. The Second Day Festival and the Traveler Going from Babylonia to Palestine:

It is generally considered that this case was not considered in the Talmud and therefore we have not a model case which could allow solving the problem from the first source. However two important Rishonim have understood that the passage about the travel of Rav Safra in B. Pesahim 51a refers to a travel from Babylonia to Palestine.[21]

A. Foreigners Traveling to Israel Behave as in the Diaspora and keep two festival days.

The overwhelming majority of the rabbis compared the problem of the second festival day by the visitors of the Diaspora traveling in Israel to that of the observance of divergent minhagim between two different places. In responsa Yabi’a Omer VI: 40, we find an exhaustive enumeration of the main rulers championing this opinion. This approach considers that the foreigners keep two festival days abroad while Israelis keep one festival day in Israel. The case of the foreigners on a visit to Israel is solved according to the rules of the precedence of the minhagim. In other words, it seems that this particular problem had not been solved by the order sent from Israel to the Diaspora to go on keeping two festival days. In fact this comparison is strange because the status of the second festival day is certainly higher than a minhag like working on the morning of the 14th of Nissan, it seems more comparable to working on the same day after noon. Furthermore, if the behavior of the foreigners on a visit in Israel is regulated by the rule of the precedence of the minhagim, of rabbinic order, we can object that the positive obligation of tefilin of Torah order should have the precedence on this rule of rabbinic order.[22]

Therefore the responsum written on this issue by R’ Moses Feinstein shows originality and distinguishes itself from the others. He accepts the principle that during the period of the observation calendar, a foreigner visiting in Palestine had no doubt any more in the whole Diaspora about the true festival day and kept only one festival day. Now he says, after the institution of the second festival day, we have no more any doubt about the true festival day and we must however keep the second festival day although we know that it is a weekday. This obligation is personal and not territorial, there is no difference whether the foreigner is abroad or on a visit in Israel. As today we know all the fixing of the month, there is no more difference between Israel and abroad as it was the case before the institution of the second festival day.

In other words, according to this responsum, the obligation for the foreigner visiting in Israel, to keep two festival days derives directly from the order sent to the Diaspora, to go on keeping the customs of their elders and observing two festival days. Therefore the obligation is of the same nature than that of the foreigners living abroad and this explains why there are exempted from tefilin on this second festival day. The consequence of this special situation, as noted by R’ Moses Feinstein in his responsum, is that the condition of the foreigner visiting in Israel appears to be more sever today than at the epoch of the observation calendar.

However:

n Where does he know from that the obligation of keeping two festival days is personal and has not a territorial aspect?

n It seems that this responsum is based on the generally accepted explanation that the fear of forgetting the Thora and the rules of the calendar, which was the justification of the institution of the second festival day, exists not only abroad but also in Israel and therefore the order sent to the Diaspora is still valid in Israel. The only difference is that this order was not addressed to the Israelis. Now, as soon as we explain that in reality the fear was about the disruption between Israel and the Diaspora, it no more evident that the order was applicable upon the foreigners visiting in Israel.

n The fact that the conditions of the foreigner on visit in Israel would be more severe today than at the time of the messengers is problematic. Indeed Maimonides had met a similar situation about the late Eruv and he was objected by all the commentators, beginning with R’ Abraham ben David.[23] The argument was that the situation could never be more severe after the Takana than before. This principle was accepted by all the rulers and the Shulkhan Arukh did not follow Maimonides. Therefore the argumentation of R’ Moses Feinstein remains problematic.[24]

B. Foreigners traveling to Israel behave as Israelis and keep one festival day.

It is important to examine the commentaries of R’ Hananel and Ravan. Indeed these two authorities are generally considered as belonging to the supporters of the first opinion. Or analysis will show that they are supporters of the second opinion.

1. R’ Hananel.

R’ Hananel explains the passage as follows:

“In my situation, when I know the fixing of the month and the people of my place keep two festival days, when I want to come up from Babylonia, where we observe two festival days, to Palestine, where they observe only one festival day, in a settlement [in Palestine] I don’t observe the second festival day,[25] but in the desert [of Palestine where I am alone without other Jews, and I know for sure that the second festival day is a weekday] how should I behave?[26] Am I submitted to the strictness of the place from where I came? Rabbi Abba answered him: this was the ruling of Rabbi Ami. Among a Jewish settlement [in Palestine] it is forbidden [to observe the second festival day] but in the desert of Palestine it is allowed.[27]

Critical examination of this interpretation.

n Just before the passage about the query of Rav Safra occurs in the Mishna the passage: “the one who goes from a place where they do (“osin”) to a place where they do not perform (“ein osin”) work. The verb “osin” means to perform work and does not mean to observe the second festival day.

However the following references support the interpretation of R’ Hananel:

Kiddushin 31a: “avidna yoma tava le-rabanan.”

Kiddushin 39b: “de-avdin lei yom tov.”[28]

n Second, Rav Safra, in a settlement in Palestine does not observe the second festival day, why? Even if one is not allowed to distinguish oneself because of the fear of dispute, why should one not be allowed to respect discretely the second festival day according to the opinion of Rava? Rava has indeed said that the fact of walking idly (as opposed to walking with a purpose) is not to be considered as a singularity because there are always people in the streets and the market walking idly.

However R’ Hananel does not seem to have the reading “because of the fear of dispute” as in our Talmudic text. It is also likely that the reason why Rav Safra keeps only one festival day in a settlement in Palestine is because the messengers come along at this place and the people know the fixing of the month. He keeps only one festival day because otherwise it would appear as “mossif.” In the desert of Palestine, where the messengers don’t come along, keeping two festival days does not seem as “mossif.”

n Third the interpretation given for “be-yishuv assur, be-midbar mutar” is difficult.

In the desert, one is not allowed to observe the second festival day. One is either obliged or forbidden to observe a second day, but certainly one is not merely allowed.

However “mutar” could be the formal opposite of “assur”; but it would not mean

that he is allowed but he is obliged to keep two festival days in the desert.

Another possible explanation of the passage of Rav Safra could be the following:

Rav Safra says that he is not performing any work on the second festival day in a [Jewish] settlement [in Babylonia,[29] although he knows the fixing of the month]. He doubted however, when he is in the desert [of Palestine, i.e. when he has already reached Palestine but did not yet reach a settlement] whether he is forbidden to perform any work because of the severity of the place from where he came, or if he is allowed to perform work in the desert [of Palestine because he knows the fixing of the month]. Rabbi Abba answered: this was the ruling of Rabbi Ami, in a settlement in Babylonia it is forbidden to perform work; in the desert of Israel it is allowed.

We could then conclude that in a settlement in Palestine, where the messengers came along and all the population knew the fixing of the month, Rav Safra was, a fortiori, allowed to perform work on the second festival day and was not submitted to the severity of the place whence he came from.

This second interpretation is also acceptable; it solves the difficulties of the first interpretation but it introduces new difficulties:

n Why must Rav Safra mention that in a settlement in Babylonia he is not allowed to perform work on the second festival day?

In fact Rav Safra knows the fixing of the month and he could have imagined performing work discretely.

n Why is Rav Safra allowed to perform work in the desert of Israel and is he not submitted to the severity of the place from where he came as he is a traveler and intends to go back home?

Apparently in the desert of Israel, by contrast with Babylonia, the fact that he knows the fixing of the month is sufficient to allow him working on the second festival day.

The difference between these two interpretations is the status of Rav Safra in the desert of Israel: according to the first interpretation he keeps two festival days in the desert, according to the second interpretation he keeps only one festival day in the desert.

We will however see that the text of Ravan, although very similar to that of R’ Hananel, must necessarily be understood according to this second interpretation of the commentary of R’ Hananel.

2. R’ Abraham bar Nathan (Ravan).

Ravan often follows the commentary of R’ Hananel; this is also the case here. However, we note some minor, at the first glance, differences. They have a decisive influence of the interpretation.

Ravan writes: “I, who know the fixing of the moon and the people of my place hold two festival days, when I travel to Palestine, where they hold only one day, in a [Jewish] settlement in [Babylonia][30] I do not perform work [on the second festival day] because of the strictness of the place where I am.[31] In the desert of Palestine, am I allowed to perform any work during the second festival day, which I know is a weekday because of the severity of the place from where I came or not? Rabbi Abba answered: this was the ruling of Rabbi Ami. In a [Jewish] settlement [in Babylonia] it is forbidden to perform any work, in the desert [of Palestine] it is allowed. As Rav Safra[32] asked him about the desert in Palestine, we can conclude that in all the places of his land [Babylonia] it is forbidden [to perform work on the second festival day].”[33]

Thus in the desert of Israel and a fortiori in any settlement in Israel, Rav Safra was allowed to perform work on the second day of the festival.

In the case of a normal person who did not know the fixing of the month it is likely that in the desert of Israel he would not be allowed to work on the second festival day but in a settlement in Israel he was certainly allowed.

3. Conclusion.

The conclusion is clear: R’ Hananel and Ravan agree that Rav Safra was allowed to perform work on the second festival day when he was staying in a settlement in Palestine[34] during one of his travels from Babylonia to Palestine.[35] However in the desert of Israel the situation is less clear: according to Ravan he was allowed[36] but as for R’ Hananel the answer depends on the interpretation adopted.[37]

However all the other authorities[38] wanted to conclude that R’ Hananel and Ravan impose the keeping of two festival days by the travelers in Israel.

4. The responsum of Hakham Tsevi.[39]

You asked me about people of the Diaspora traveling to Israel; how should they behave during the festivals, like Israelis or like foreigners?

According to my humble view they must observe the festivals like Israeli people and this [matter] must not be considered as a severity of the place from where they came.

Not only this is the case for prayers, benedictions and Torah reading which are in fact no severities of the place from where he came; indeed if someone wants to adopt a more severe conduct and pray the prayer of the festival when it is not the time of this festival, he commits a transgression. But even on the level of the performance of work on the second festival day during their stay in Israel they are allowed. Indeed if all the inhabitants of the traveler’s place would settle in Israel they would certainly be forbidden to keep two festival days in the same way as someone who sleeps eight day in the sukkah is beaten. The same rule is valid for Pesah and Shavuot: if someone keeps an additional day he transgresses the interdiction of “bal tossif”. The rule that they gave “we lay upon him the severity of the place from where he came” is only valid in the case when the people living in the place of the severity are allowed to observe their more severe behavior even if they settle in the place of the leniency. But if they are forbidden to observe their more severe behavior in the place of the leniency, we do not impose this rule. Even the original statement [which represents the basis of the modern institution of Yom Tov Sheni] that they sent from Israel: be careful to maintain the practice of your late parents. It could happen that the authorities enact [unfair] laws [against the Jews] and you could be wrong [if you observe only one day] is only valid abroad. The possibility to be wrong because of the disruption of the communication of the calendar] exists only in their country outside of Israel but when the traveler is in Israel he cannot be wrong!

Now in Israel it is forbidden to add a festival day and Israeli people cannot add one day with regard of what is written in the Torah, they are forbidden to adopt a more severe attitude [than prescribed]. Therefore people traveling to Israel are forbidden to keep two festival days during their stay, even a provisory stay because the obligation to keep one festival day is dictated by the place where they are [Israel] and the rule about the severity of the place from where they came does not play in this case. And I wrote what seemed to me [correct]. Tsevi Askenazi s”t.[40]

5. Critical Analysis of this Responsum.

The responsum is based on the following arguments:

n Generally we compare this problem with the rule of the minhagim. But praying the prayer of the festival cannot be considered as a severity with regard of the prayer of a weekday.

n Forbidding the performance of work during the second festival day is certainly a severity but the rule of the severity of the minhagim does not play in our case. Indeed if a foreigner settles in Israel he will be forbidden to observe to festival days because of the order of “bal tossif”. In such a situation we cannot oblige a traveler to keep two festival days.[41] Thus in such a situation when the settler is forbidden to keep the second festival day, we cannot oblige the traveler to keep the second festival day and forbid him performing any work.

n The takana instituting the second festival day was introduced out of fear that the Jews of the foreign counties would lose the contact with Israel and would not keep the right festival day. Such a fear does not exist when these foreigners are on visit in Israel. The takana was not intended for them.

The responsum would perhaps have been more persuasive if it had been articulated as follows:

n From the motivation of the takana instituting the second festival day it appears that it was not addressed to the foreigners during their provisory stay in Israel because at this particular moment they could have no doubt about the Jewish calendar.[42]

n We must still examine the problem at the light of the rules of the priority of the minhagim. But the rule of the priority of the minhagim does not play in our case. Indeed if a foreigner settles in Israel he will be forbidden to observe to festival days because of the order of “bal tossif”. In such a situation we cannot oblige the traveler to keep two festival days.

n Even if one does not accept this reasoning we must still observe that as for the positive obligations of the second festival day (prayer, benedictions and Thorah reading) we cannot consider them as more severe customs.

n I would even add the following point. Yom Tov Sheni includes three points: first the positive obligations of the festival second the interdiction of performing work and third the suppression of the obligation of wearing tefilin.[43] But as soon as we are outside of the takana there is an obligation of tefilin and the rule of the priority of the minhagim must at least abide by this obligation.

6. The refutation of this Responsum by R’ Jacob Emden.

It is generally accepted that R’ Jacob Emden, the son of Hakham Tsevi refuted his father’s argumentation in responsa She’elat Yabets I, no. 168. The supporters of the first opinion have generally used the argument of the refutation of Hakham Tsevi by his son in order to eliminate the second opinion.[44] Let us examine this refutation and its main arguments.

n R’ Jacob Emden follows the theory of Rambam Hilkhot Kiddush ha-Hodesh III according which we keep today one festival day only in the places where we know that the messengers arrived and the people kept one festival day at the time of the calendar of observation. Therefore one must keep two festival days in all the new places. Therefore he argues, there is no interdiction, in principle, to keep two festival days in Israel.

n R’ Jacob Emden seems to understand Rambam, Hilkhot Yom Tov VIII: 20 according to the understanding of Maggid Mishneh that the traveler, even when he settles in a new place, must go on keeping the customs of his former place. Therefore he thinks that the Jews settling in Israel must go on keeping discreetly two festival days.

n R’ Jacob Emden ascertains that when there are two communities in a town with different customs or ruling there is no danger of dispute and of separation.[45] Therefore, he says, as soon as the number of foreigners, settling in Israel, is sufficient to have an independent quorum, they are allowed to celebrate publicly the second festival day. They should go on and keep the two festival days publicly.

n The message and order instituting the second festival day because of the fear of unfair laws against the Jews and the fear that they forget the Torah was not sent only to the Diaspora but it concerned also the inhabitants of Israel. Today there is no difference between Israel and the Diaspora; they know all the fixing of the month. The reason of the institution of the second festival day applies to all the Jews without distinction. If he did not fear [to introduce new habits] he would say that all the inhabitants of Israel must keep two festival days.

It appears that the responsum is based on very problematic early beginnings; first that one keeps two festival days in Israel in places which did not exist during the time of the Mishna and the Talmud (third century) and had not a Jewish population, second that one beholds always, after settling in a new place, the customs of the former place. These two principles are not accepted by the halakha. Further he ascertains that communities can go on and keep two festival days and former customs officially after settling in Israel.

This responsum accounts for the exalted and exaggerated positions adopted sometimes by R’ Jacob Emden. In any case it cannot be considered as a serious refutation of his father responsum. On the contrary this responsum is a model of logic, rigor, concision and originality.

7. Other authorities supporting the second opinion.

Only a little number of authorities supported the opinion of Hakham Tsevi. However, as we established above, Hakham Tsevi was probably preceded by R’ Hananel and Ravan who championed the opinion that foreigners visiting in Israel, keep only one day. Among these other authorities we can distinguish R’ Saul Nathansohn who adopted a similar position, at least in theory (Sho’el u Meshiv, 3rd edition no. 28). R’ Shneur Zalman of Liady in Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav ruled also that foreigners, on a visit to Israel, keep only one festival day.[46] He notes however that there are opponents.[47]

We must further notice that the problem of the foreigners visiting Israel was apparently not raised nor in the Talmud nor in the Rishonim. This could be considered as an indication that their status does not pose a problem and is identical with that of the Israelis. A similar consideration could be expressed about R’ Joseph Karo who did not raise the issue in Shulkhan Arukh. However he had raised the issue and followed the opinion 1 in his responsa Avkat Rokhel 26 and one should admit that he changed his mind.[48] When going from the Diaspora to Israel, the obligation of Yom Tov Sheni would be a territorial obligation and not a personal obligation.[49]

C. Foreigners traveling in Israel do not keep two festival days, they wear tefilin on the second day but they do not perform work on this day.[50]

This position was adopted by R’ Shmuel Salant, longtime chief rabbi of Jerusalem during the second part of the nineteenth-century. R’ Yehiel Mihel Tikochinsky, his pupil wrote in his book Ir ha-Kodesh ve ha Miqdash that R’ Salant was inclined to rule according to the ruling of Hakham Tsevi. R’ Salant considered as certain that during the period of the empirical calendar by vision and messengers, when they kept the second festival day out of doubt, foreigners on visit in Palestine had no doubt and kept only one festival day. Therefore, he argued, today the rule cannot be more severe than at that epoch. As he dared not ruling as Hakham Tsevi because his teacher R’ Israel of Shklov had ruled according to the opinion 1 (Pe’at ha-Shulkhan, Hilkhot Erets Israel, chap 2, $ 15), he adopted an intermediate position considering the most severe aspects of both opinions. Therefore he advised not to keep the second festival day and to wear tefilin but to refrain on the second festival day from any work, normally forbidden on the second festival day.

The contemporary posek R’ Nahum Eliezer Rabinovitch of Maale Adumim has a similar position and he considers that one must behave according to the ruling of R’ Shmuel Salant. R. Rabinovitch finds in the text of Maimonides an allusion to the status of the foreigner visiting in Israel and the Israeli visiting abroad. The Israelis keep two festival days even when they travel abroad and the foreigners keep only one festival day when they are in Israel (Yad Peshutah, Hilkhot Talmud Torah VI: 14, 11, p. 477-478).

In Yabia Omer VI: 40, R. Ovadiah Yosef mentions that R’ Abraham Isaac Kook ruled that one should adopt the severe points of the responsum of Hakham Tsevi, thus to behave like the severe aspects of both opinions.

It is interesting to note that the problem is still with us and new responsa are still written on this issue. Even the champions of the majority opinion are sensitive to the new situations. In many instances, a specific element like the ownership of a house in Israel or the regular celebration of the three festivals in Israel or even the rental of an apartment in Israel on annual basis are generally considered by the champions of the opinion 1, as a sufficient element allowing keeping the festivals as the Israelis.

V. General conclusion.

The aim of the present article was analyzing the complex problem of the priority of the minhagim and explaining the evolution from the Talmudic references until the halakha in Shulkhan Arukh. Today the general problem has lost its acuteness and has more a historical interest. The difficulty of the problem results from the difficulty to understand clearly the Talmudic sources and their apparent contradictions. We have seen that these difficulties were at the origin of a great number of interpretations.

We examined also the problem of Yom Tov Sheni shel Galuyyot with respect to the travelers between Israel and the Diaspora and vice-versa. It appears that the case of the travelers from Israel to the Diaspora is examined in the Talmud; the traveler in his quality of Israeli is dispensed from keeping the second festival day and therefore his conduct during this day is determined by the rules of the priority of the minhagim, in the respect of the susceptibility of the local population. The converse situation, the case of the traveler from the Diaspora to Israel was not considered in the Talmud (this is at least the general understanding, but there are opposed opinions) and Shulhan Arukh did not raise the issue. Therefore there is much uncertainty in the treatment of the problem. The general opinion was to treat the problem on the same way as the symmetrical problem and to assimilate it to a problem of priority of minhagim. Others considered that we are out of the scope of application of this rule and there was never a problem at all so that the issue depends only on the localization of the traveler. A foreigner keeps two festival days abroad but only one day in Israel. The absence of true evidence leads to the rare situation that the three possible attitudes have their champions. We show that the majority opinion has also its weak points and the minority opinion is theoretically much stronger that one could imagine.

[1] This expression is from R’ Zerahia ha-Levi on the Rif on B. Pesahim, p. 17a.

[2] See “Yom Tov Sheni Shel Galuyyot: The True Signification of the Second Day Festival,” the Seforim blog (forthcoming).

[3] Even today the overwhelming majority of the Rabbis believe that the reason invoked for the institution of the second festival day was the fear of unfair laws against the Jews causing to forget the Torah and the Jewish calendar. Such a fear exists everywhere, Israel included. Therefore the foreigners visiting in Israel are still subject to this danger and therefore they are submitted to the obligation of the second festival day. The Israelis should also fear the same danger but the takana instituting Yom Tov Sheni was not addressed to them.

[4] The translation is here according to the generally accepted understanding that Rav Safra was traveling from Palestine to Babylonia. Although he knew the fixing of the month, he did not perform work on the second festival day when he was in a Jewish settlement in Babylonia because of the fear of dispute. This reason did not exist in the wilderness and therefore Rabbi Ammi allowed him working on the second festival day because he knew the fixing of the month.

[5] In fact there are two different understandings of the meaning of Maimonides. We have adopted here what seems the genuine understanding. This problem will be examined later.

[6] See Novellae of R’ Samuel Strashun (Rashash) ad locum.

[7] .לצדדין

[8] Meiri writes: before thirty days.

[9] Meiri writes: after a delay of more than thirty days.

[10] Such special situations to which the Mishna must be reduced in order to satisfy both impositions, can be found in responsum I: 337 of Rabbi Solomon ben Adret (Rashbah) and in the novellae of R’ Hezekiah da Silva on Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 468:4.

[11] See quotation 1 above.

[12] We will see later that R’ Jacob Emden in responsa Yabets, no. 168, championed such an opinion and understood Maimonides according to this second opinion.

[13] This is the opinion of R’ Zerahia ha-Levi, see ha-Maor ha-Katan on the Rif on Pesahim. Rabad ad locum opposed vehemently this opinion.

[14] As for the definition of going back immediately he gives the examples of people coming to Egypt to buy merchandise or people going to Israel to visit tombs. As for going back later he proposes the examples of people coming to Egypt for an enterprise or trade or people going to Israel for learning.

[15] Shulhan Arukh: Orah Hayim 468:4 (about working on the morning of Nisan 14th), 496:3 (about Yom Tov Sheni and the travelers from Israel to the Diaspora), 574:1-2 (about fasting for travelers between two places having different fast days) and Yoreh Deah 214:2 (about the rules of the communities and the travelers).

[16] See above the two interpretations of the ruling of Maimonides Hilkhot Yom Tov VIII: 20.

[17] Even if we consider that R’ Yoseph Karo changed his mind and considered only two cases in O.H. 468:4 and if we consider that O.H. 496:3 must be understood according to the first and plain understanding, there remains even though a contradiction. Indeed in 496:3 (according to the text of Orhot Hayim) he writes that the traveler is allowed to work on the second festival day as long as he is outside a Jewish settlement, even if he intends to settle there. In O.H. 468:4 (according to the text of Maimonides) he writes that the traveler is allowed to perform work in the desert (outside the settlement) if he intends to come back and apparently not if he intends to settle.

[18] For a plausible explanation of his knowledge of the fixing of the month, see J. Jean Ajdler, “Rav Safra and the Second Festival Day: Lessons About the Evolution of the Jewish Calendar,” Tradition 38:4 (Winter 2004): 3-28.

[19] Even discretely. According to Tosafot it is impossible to perform work discretely.

[20] According to R’ Zerahia ha-Levi, even someone who wants to settle outside of Israel is allowed to perform work outside the tchum of the Jewish settlement as long as he did not reach the Jewish settlement. Ritva agrees with this ruling. R’ Nissim rules that the one who wants to settle is already forbidden to perform work in the desert of Israel. Rabad seems to rule that as soon as the Palestinian leaves the boundaries and enters the Diaspora, he is forbidden of performing any work on the second festival day.

[21] R’ Abraham Bornstein of Sochaczew asked himself (responsa Avnei Nezer Vol 1, no. 354; 43) why the great rulers did not rule the story of Rav Safra. In fact Maimonides certainly refers to this story in Hilkhot Yom Tov VIII: 20 when he writes .לא יעשה בישוב אבל עושה הוא במדבר From the same responsum n° 354; 50, it appears that he understood the ruling of Maimonides like Maggid Mishneh, i.e. the first part referring to the case that the traveler does not intend to come back.

[22] One could make the same objection for Yom Tov Sheni in the Diaspora. But here the answer is that the Rabbis have the power, when they make enactments, to suppress an order of the Torah, see response of R’ Solomon ben Aderet I:61. By contrast, for the foreigners visiting in Israel, if their obligation of keeping Yom Tov Sheni does not derive from the original takana but from a general rabbinic rule of priority of minhagim, then the positive order of the torah should have the precedence.

[23] Hilkhot Yom Tov VI: 14.

[24] I have already heard the following argumentation. Even at the time of the observation calendar, the foreigners on pilgrimage in Israel were keeping the second festival day according to the rule of the priority of the minhagim. Therefore, today, we must still behave according to their custom. In fact this argumentation seems rather a Yeshiva argumentation but it is not likely that this was really the conduct of the pilgrims. Now even if this were the case, it is certain that the pilgrims wore the tefilin on the second festival day during their stay in Palestine because it is a positive law of the Torah with precedence on a minhag. Therefore it is likely that either the pilgrims wore the tefilin and did not keep the second festival day because of its contradictory character or they abstained from performing work on this day. Anyhow this argumentation could sustain the opinions 2 or 3 but certainly not the opinion 1, according which the foreigners traveling in Israel keep two festival days.

[25] R’ Hananel does not mention in his text “because of the fear of dispute” as in our Talmudic text. It is not certain whether he had the same reading as us. Nevertheless from Nahmanides’ Milhamot Hashem on the Rif on B. Pesahim 17a, we see that this was indeed the Spanish reading.

[26] Whether I should not keep two festival days because I know the fixing of the month or I should because I am still submitted to the place whence I came from.

[27] This exegesis is in accordance with the ruling of R’ Tsevi Ashkenazi in response Hakham Tsevi no. 167. R’ Meir Don Plotski from Ostrow understood R’ Hananel on the same way. See Even Shelema on Ravan, who does not accept this interpretation.

[28] Furthermore R’ Hananel writes in the beginning of his commentary “and people of my place hold (“osin”) two festival days.”

[29] We cannot explain that he means a settlement in Palestine. Indeed, in a Jewish settlement in Palestine the messengers come along and the population knows the fixing of the month. If, despite these circumstances, Rav Safra does not perform work in this settlement, why would he be allowed to perform work in the desert of Palestine where there are not messengers coming along. Or conversely if Rav Safra is allowed to perform work in the desert of Israel, a fortiori he must be allowed to perform work in a settlement of Israel.

[30] R’ Moses Sofer in his Novellae on Pesahim and R’ Ehrenreich in Even Shelemah on Ravan understood that it speaks about a settlement in Israel. R’ Ovadia Yoseph in Yehaveh Da’at VI: 40 recopied their arguments. According to their explanations, Rav Safra was forbidden to perform work in a settlement in Israel, likely because of the strictness of the place from where he came. But why was he allowed to perform work in the desert of Israel? Rabbi Moses Sofer writes that in the settlement working is forbidden on the second festival day because of מנהג אבותינו בידינו . But in the desert there is no status, there is no tradition of the elders and the obligation of Yom Tov Sheni depends on the geographical localization but it is not a personal obligation. I could not, unfortunately, understand him. If Rav Safra is allowed to work in the desert where there is no tradition and no status, no messengers coming along, a fortiori that he is allowed to work in a settlement in Israel where there is a tradition, were the messengers come along, were the population knows the fixing of the month and where there is thus a status of holding only one day. Conversely, if Rav Safra, in a settlement in Israel, is still submitted to the strictness of the place from where he came, a fortiori in the desert, where the messengers do not come along, he should be forbidden to work on the second festival day.

[31] Those Rabbis who understand that we speak here about a settlement in Israel must correct the text and instead of שם they must correct into משם. By contrast the text of Ravan fits perfectly our interpretation.

[32] The reading of Ravan is Rav Hisda but we maintained Rav Safra in order not to complicate things.

[33] The reasoning of Ravan works only with our interpretation. Rav Safra does not perform work in a settlement in Babylonia but he asked whether he was allowed to perform work in the desert of Israel. Ravan concludes that it was clear for him that it was forbidden to perform work in the desert of Babylonia. But if we consider that Rav Safra began with the statement that he does not perform work in a settlement in Israel and he asked afterwards whether he was allowed to perform work in the desert of Israel, how can Ravan conclude that it was clear for him that he was forbidden to perform work in the desert of Babylonia?

This reasoning has no basis. Why was it more evident that it is forbidden in the desert of Babylonia than in the desert of Israel?

[34] R’ Shneur Zalman of Liady in his Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayim 496:11 ruled that a foreigner traveling in Israel observes one festival days but he added that there are authorities which oppose this ruling. Apparently he refers his ruling to Ravan; this is also the opinion of R’ Tsevi Pesah Frank in Mikra’e Kodesh, Pesah 2, p. 195 note 1. However all the other authorities wanted to conclude that R’ Hananel and Ravan impose the keeping of two festival days by the travelers in Israel.

[35] It is interesting to note that all the later commentaries did not follow this approach of a travel from Babylonia to Palestine but they considered a travel from Palestine to Babylonia. I had attributed this change to the difficulties of the exegesis of the commentaries following the first approach. But finally at the end of the study of the commentaries of R’ Hananel and Ravan, it seems that these commentaries are genuine and well argumentative. The change of approach could be justified by the fact that Rav Safra consulted Rabbi Abba, an eminent Palestinian Amora (born and educated in Babylonia). This could be only before a travel from Palestine to Babylonia.

[36] But it is likely that it was the case because he knew the fixing of the month.

[37] According to the first interpretation he was forbidden and according to the second interpretation he was allowed.

[38] R’ Moses Sofer in his Novellae on Pesahim, Commentary Even Shelemah on Sefer Ravan ad locum, R’ Ovadia Yoseph in Yabi’a Omer VI: 40.

[39] Responsum no. 167.

[40] Hakham Tsevi and later his son R’ Jacob Emden signed by Tsevi Ashkenazi s”t and Yabets S’t.Hakham Tsevi had learned under R’ Elijah Covo in Salonika, he assumed the Sephardi tittle hakham and adopted even Sephardi customs and the name Ashkenazi. S”t may be the common abbreviation of ספרדי טהור used by his teacher orסופו טוב or still סימן טוב.

[41] Imagine that in the middle of the second festival day he decides to settle in Israel. He would suddenly in the middle of Yom Tov Sheni, pass from the regime of “obliged to keep two festival days” to the regime of “forbidden to keep two festival days.”

[42] Hakham Tsevi understood thus correctly that the fear of the Palestinians leaders was that the disruption of the communication between Palestine and the Diaspora would endanger the calendar of the Diaspora. It is the first time that we meet an explanation of the reason of the institution of the second festival day different than that of Rashi in B. Beitsa 4b.This approach is very original. The incorrect understanding of the exact fear of the Palestinian Rabbis who sent the order of the second festival day to the Diaspora is at the origin of a great confusion, at such a point that R’ Jacob Emden thought that people settling in Israel should go on and keep two festival days in Israel.

[43] Those who consider that Yom Tov Sheni is a minhag and not a takana, cannot explain why we are exempted from the Tefilin. Only a takana, and certainly not a minhag, and the power of the sages to give to their enactments the same power as a Torah order, can explain that the order of keeping the two festival days includes the exemption and even the interdiction of wearing the tefilin. See response of R’ Solomon ben Aderet I: 61.

[44] This is indeed what we read in responsa Yabi’a Omer VI: 40.

[45] According to the principle: לא תתגודדו. This principle is generally accepted.

[46] In note 18 of the Shulkhan Arukh ha-Rav it refers to Ravan. However according to the commentary Even Shelema on Ravan (B. Pesahim 51b) the author, R’ Schneur Zalman refers to Hakham Tsevi. But in Miqra’e Kodesh, Pesah vol.2 p. 195 note 1, R’ Tsevi Pesah Frank refers to Ravan. In the new edition (New York 2007) of the Shulhan Arukh ha-Rav with new references, R’ Levine refers to R’ Hananel, Ravan and Hakham Tsevi. I thank R’ Samuel Pinson of Brussels who showed me this last edition.

[47] In note 19 of the Shulkhan Arukh ha-Rav it refers to Ravan. Of course it is impossible to have the same reference in both note 18 and note 19.

[48] A similar argumentation was proposed to explain the apparent contradiction about the time of the beginning of Bein ha-Shemashot between O.H. 261 and Yoreh Deah 266.

[49] In contradiction with the situation of the traveler going from Israel to the Diaspora where the obligation is a personal obligation and not a territorial obligation.

[50] We speak of those specific works that are normally forbidden on the second day.

Lag Ba-Omer and Upsherins in Recent Jewish literature: Revisionist History and Borrowing and Plagiarism

Lag Ba-Omer and Upsherins in Recent Jewish literature:

Revisionist History and Borrowing and Plagiarism
By Eliezer Brodt

In this post I would like to touch upon some of the topics relating to Lag Ba-Omer through a discussion of the latest volume of R. Tuviah Freund’s Moadim le-Simcha.

By way of introduction, in the past few years, the field minhaghim, specifically the research and investigation of sources and reasons for custom has expanded exponentially. To be sure, from early rishonim and onwards we have many books discussing minhag. But, only more only more recently, did the systematic study and collecting of sources as they relate to minhag really start. The basic idea underlying this particular area of research involves digging up as many sources as one could related to a particular minhag and then to try and put together a comprehensive picture of the development of the specific minhag. This is a time consuming process. To begin with, one has to carefully track down early sources, figure out who is earliest source, and then try to understand the reasons given for the custom on the whole. Additionally, one has to be mindful of who influenced whom, separate the development from the original unadulterated custom, as customs, being the product of human development tend to themselves to develop over time. The older a minhag is, the more difficult a challenge as the possible source texts multiply and patience is required to put together the whole puzzle.

The recent interest in the field has produced many articles and books. Although many of these articles rely on one another, proper attribution varies widely. Some authors always give credit, while others just “borrow” sources and still others take entire text portions without any attribution. At times, to obscure this misappropriation, the order of the original article is changed although the text remains the same.

Bar-Ilan University professor Daniel Sperber, in the introduction to his eighth and final volume of his Minhagei Yisrael, catalogues and comments on many recent works minhag. In an earlier volume he published a bibliography on minhagim by Prof. Yosef Tabory.

The Moadim le-Simcha Series

In this genre, one of the more recent and popular books is Moadim le-Simcha, by R. Tuviah Freund. The sixth volume of this series has just been published. The volumes follow the yearly holiday cycle and this latest volume covers the holidays appearing in the months of Iyyar and Sivan.

R. Freund first publishes portions of the books in the newsweekly Hamodia (Hebrew). Then, he updates them and collects and arranges them according to the months. Overall, the material found in this collection is excellent. R. Freund uses a wide range of sources and it is obvious that he works hard to put out a good product. Moreover, just collecting this disparate material in one place is admirable.

But, aside from doing his own research – a task that is obviously quite time consuming – R. Freund employs two other methods that ultimately allow him to produce these books. As I have elaborated on in the past, Machon Otzar ha-Poskim has a card catalogue comprising thousands of topics with a phenomenal amount of sources related to those topics. R. Freund, as other contemporary authors, uses these cards to get a head start (alternatively, sometimes the cards provide everything) on the articles in Moadim le-Simcha. R. Freund freely acknowledges, at the beginning of each volume, that he relies on these cards.

As we have previously noted, another source of R. Freund’s materials, however, goes unacknowledged. On many topics, not necessarily all, he locates a key article of a talmid hakham or academic scholar, and then R. Freund proceeds to use their material. At times he mentions the original source in a random footnote while on other occasions he makes no mention at all.

Of course, there is no problem using someone else material so long as the source is clearly noted at the outset of the chapter that you used it and you are adding on your own finds. To be sure R. Freund is not the only who fails to properly note all of his sources; many authors do this today both in the traditional rabbinic and academic communities, and this is not a new phenomenon. Indeed, below, we will see another such example.

Setting aside this methodological issue, Moadim le-Simcha also suffers from lack of proper organization. Chapters do not flow into one another like they should, content is not put in chronological order and many times sources are not given. One other issue is one can always find more material touching on the topics covered in Moadim le-Simcha. Although this is not a criticism of R. Freund but is an issue anytime someone attempts to collect material on minhagim. Overall, however, Moadim le-Simcha is well worth one’s money as it does have a wealth of information some of which will not be found else where on many interesting topics relating to the months of the year.

Moadim le-Simcha, volume 6 – The Customs relating to the Months of Iyyar & Sivan

As mentioned above, the latest volume of this series covers Iyar and Sivan. The first article is a lengthy one covering the issues of becoming bar-mitvah during the sefirah period. This one section is over ninety pages. The next topic is Pesach Sheni. The next eight articles cover topic that are connected with Lag Ba-Omer. The final section covers Shavous topics.

It is the Lag Ba-Omer section, however, that will be the focus of our discussion. Topics covered include the recent minhag called ח”י רוטל (pp. 146- 148), bows and arrows on Lag Ba-Omer (pp. 155-58),[1] and the origins of bonfires on Lag Ba-Omer and burning clothing. There is then a detour to discuss the more general custom of lighting candles at graves year-round. Then we return to Lag Ba-Omer with a discussion of Upsherin and a section on peyos, after which he discusses the custom of learning at the kever of the Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (“Rashbi”), followed by a chapter on the halakhic discussions relating to Kupas (charity) of Rashbi. On the topic of Rashbi, R. Freund turns to the controversial topic of authorship of the Zohar, as well as some general aspects of studying Kabbalah. Then we have another detour to discuss visiting graves of Tzadkim in general. He concludes this section with a discussion of the minhag to go to the kever of Shmauel ha-Navi on the forty-third day of Sefirat ha-Omer.

We now turn to the content of these chapters and Lag Ba-Omer generally.

Traditionally, the sefirah period is considered a time of mourning. The most well-known reason given – offered by the rishonim – is the mourning is due to the death of students of R. Akiva who died during this time of the year. Because this is deemed a mourning period, we refrain from shaving, taking haircuts, dancing, listening to music and making weddings, etc. Interestingly, some seem to think that there is an additional minhag during this time of abstaining from purchasing new clothes in order to avoid making a shehecheyanu; however, this is wrong. Many poskim write that people erroneously confuse the sefirah period restrictions with those customarily applied during the three weeks. Indeed, during the three weeks, one should refrain from buying new clothes to avoid a shehecheyanu, but during sefirah no such halakha applies. For example, the Mishnah Berurah writes that if during sefirah [493:2]:

מ”מ אם נזדמן לו איזה ענין שצריך לברך עליו שהחיינו יברך

The source for this ruling is the Ma’mar Mordechai who writes:

לא מצאתיו בשום ספר ראשון או אחרון ואין ספק שנשתרבב זה המנהג ממה שכתוב בשלחן ערוך לקמן סי’ תקנא דטוב ליזהר מלומר שהחיינו בין המצרים על פרי או על מלבוש

While this is the halakha, today we do know that in fact there is some bases for refraining from shehecheyanu during sefirah. As many manuscripts have come to light, one of these manuscripts reflects this customs. In fact, this topic was comprehensively covered by R. Gedaliah Oberlander in his journal Ohr Yisroel, and later reprinted in his collection on minhaghim called Minhag Avosenu be-Yadenu (Merkaz Halakhah, 2005). There is much to add on this topic and I hope to return to it in a future post at the Seforim blog. While on this topic of shehecheyanu during sefirah, it is worth noting that one of the earliest sources reflecting this custom is the Leket Yosher. R. Zilber, quoted by R. Ben David, in his article in Tzohar, uses this example to question the authenticity of the Leket Yosher. Basically, they argue the Leket Yosher must be a forgery as this custom is only attested to in recent times. But, as I mentioned R. Oberlander demonstrates that there are many sources for the shehecheyanu restriction aside from the Leket Yosher. (Also, R. Ben David, in a later issue of Tzohar admitted that the fact the Leket Yosher may confirm what was believed to be a later custom is meaningless and disavowed his reliance on R. Zilber.)

Prof. Daniel Sperber (Minhagei Yisrael 1:101-117) posits that the mourning customs during sefirah are mainly due to the crusades, as many of the most horrific events of the crusades took place during the sefirah period. As evidence, Sperber notes that in Ashkenaz there was a custom to refrain from cutting one’s nails – a terrific extension of symbolic mourning. Moreover, in Sefer Assufot [printed in a few places- see Meoros ha-Rishonim p. 89] it says:

ועוד נראה לי מה שאין נושאין נשים בין פסח לעצרת, מפני צער הקהלות בכל המלכות, ומתענין עליהם ומזכירין נשמות באותן השבתות ומצטערין ודואגין עליהן באותו הפרק

In Spanish sources, however, we find that they were much more lenient some going so far to permit marriage during the sefirah period. (For one example of this leniency, see the manuscript published by Meir Benayahu,Yosef Bechiri [Jerusalem, 1991], 518-20).

Now for some reason or reasons all these prohibitions are lifted on Lag Ba-Omer. Additionally, there is a custom to celebrate on Lag Ba-Omer, while to a more limited degree in many places, but especially in Meron at the Kever of Rashbi. In Meron there are great celebrations with music and dancing and the like on Lag Ba-Omer. The obvious question, however, is why?

Now I will not even attempt to provide all the answers offered, but in a moment I will point the interest reader to additional sources. There are many early sources for simcha on Lag Ba-Omer, also that tachanun is omitted, marriages are allowed and so is shaving. In some rishonim the reason given is because the students of Rabbi Akiva stopped dying on Lag Ba-Omer. This reason, however, provides no insight into the connection between Meron and specifically Rashbi and Lag Ba-Omer.

One of the most famous reasons explaining the connection between Rashbi and Lag Ba-Omer – if you ask anyone this will probably be their reply – is because the Rashbi died on Lag Ba-Omer. Assuming for a moment this is factually correct, it is quite strange that we celebrate Rashbi’s death. We don’t find any other yahrzeit that we celebrate it in such a way and we had many other great people die besides for Rashbi, Avraham, Moshe, David HaMelech, etc. – none of whose death we celebrate with bonfires. Another problem is that neither chazal nor any of the rishonim mention Rashbi dying on Lag Ba-Omer. These questions and others were addressed by the Hatam Sofer in his teshuvot. In fact, because of these problems, he was very skeptical – to put it very mildly – of this celebration that takes place at Meron.

As an aside, an unknown sources about this whole topic is a statement found in some versions of Toledot Ha-Arizal (Sefer ha-Ari, 219) it is also found in a manuscript of the Chida which says:

בימי מרן (ר’ יסוף קארו) הסכימו שלא יעשו ישראל הערביים מחול בל”ג בעומר על ציון רשב”י. ונראה למרן וב”ד שהוא זלזול שאוכלים ומרקדים, ונכתבה ולא נחתמה. בלילה חלם מרן עם הרשב”י וא”ל שתבא מגפה גדולה בעבור זו ההסכמה, כי רצונו שישמחו בהללולא, ולמחר קרע את ההסכמה

With this introduction regarding Lag Ba-Omer, we can now turn to the Moadim le-Simcha’s discussion of Lag Ba-Omer customs.

He starts the topic of Lag Ba-Omer with a nice list of issues regarding Lag Ba-Omer giving the impression that this list indicates the progression of the articles. The reader is quickly disabused of this notion as R. Freund jumps from topic to topic at times returning to earlier topics with no discernable order. After carefully reading the Lag Ba-Omer section, I decided to compare R. Freund’s work with that of R. Betzalel Landau’s [author of ha-Goan mi-Vilna] on Lag Ba-Omer called מסע מירון. R. Landau’s sefer is a collection of articles printed in 1966 and as is the case with R. Freund, R. Landau’s articles also first appeared in the Hebrew weekly Hamodia. R. Landau’s work is printed along with the Maseh Meron of R. Mendel Rabin. R. Landau’s articles deal with everything connected to Lag Ba-Omer, from the visiting of Meron and the accompanying celebration to Upsherin and much more. It is written beautifully, well organized and has excellent sources including manuscripts and many rare seforim.

After comparing the material, I noticed that R. Tuviah Freund basically lifted all the material from R. Betzalel Landau with one big difference: where R. Landau presents the material in very organized fashion, R. Freund does not. To be sure, Freund adds much material to the topics discussed by Landau and Freund covers areas not covered by Landau. On the other hand, Freund omits many interesting topics and sources relating to this day that he should have dealt with such as discussion of the song Bar-Yochai.[2] The point is not that Freund used the sources collected by Landau but rather at the outset of the articles Freund should note his debt to Landau and reference the reader to Landau’s work for its additional materials. In fact, in passing on at least two occasions Freund mentions “Mase Meron” indicating that indeed he was aware of and used Landau’s work. To make this even more bizarre, the only times Freund cites Landau, in truth, Landau was merely quoting from Avraham Yaari, Iggerot Eretz Yisrael (Tel Aviv, 1943), a work that Freund uses directly in other places (379-384). In other words, the times he does mention Landau’s work it was almost unnecessary while where Freund should mention it he does not. Is it to say that only here he used Landau work and the rest he found himself? I find it hard to believe and quite silly – there is no problem to use someone else’s material as long as you give them proper credit.

A Revisionist History of Lag Ba-Omer and Another Example of Plagiarism.

Before returning to the rest of R. Tuviah Freund’s Moadim le-Simcha, we need to examine another recent article that appeared in the journal Yeshurun (no. 15) authored by R. Moshe Blau. R. Blau’s article is devoted to Lag Ba-Omer and is well organized and clearly written – a model for R. Freund to learn from. While these facts distinguish R. Blau’s article from Freund’s, Blau actually has something in common with Freund – Blau too plagiarized.

Again, Blau uses information that appears elsewhere without mentioning the sources. Specifically, Blau plagiarized from Avraham Yaari, Meir Benayahu, Betzalel Landau, and possibly even R. Yaakov Hillel, as I will demonstrate below.

As I mentioned earlier many traditionally many claim the yarzheit of Rashbi is on Lag Ba-Omer. While this claim is well-known the source of this tradition is more difficult to locate. Avraham Yaari and Meir Benayahu show that the earliest source to mention Lag Ba-Omer as the yarzheit of Rashbi is none other than the Hemdat Ha-Yamim. (R. Yaakov Hillel also confirms this on page 13 in his Aid ha-Gal ha-Zeh.)

There were some, however, who attributed the Lag Ba-Omer death date of Rashbi not to Hemdat Ha-Yamim but to R. Hayyim Vital, whose source was the Arizal. In truth, it is a mistake to give R. Vital credit for this. The source of this mistake was based on a simple printing mistake in one version of the Prei Etz Chaim which was first printed in 1782 – available here. (For more on this edition see R. Yosef Avivi, Binyan Ariel, pp. 68-71.) That edition reads:

והטעם שמת רשב”י ביום ל”ג בעומר כי הוא מתלמידי רבי עקיבא הנ”ל שמתו בספירת העומר

The Chida already writes that this is a mistake and instead of שמת, one letter is missing and the correct reading is שמחת רשב”י. So it is not a reference to Rashbi’s death day at all. Avraham Yaari demonstrates that other sources aside from the Prei Etz Chaim confirm this reading of שמחת. Meir Benayahu also concludes this is the correct reading using manuscripts. Finally, R. Yakov Hillel also writes that it is clear from viewing many manuscripts of the Prei Etz Chaim that it is a mistake. [3]

Turning to the origins of going to Meron, again, Avraham Yaari, in an article in Tarbiz 22 (1951) has a very detailed piece showing how the custom of going to Meron was taken from an earlier custom of going on Pesach Shnei to the kevarim of Hillel and Shamai in Meron. Soon after Yaari published this article, Meir Benayahu penned a strong rebuttal (Sefunot 6 pp. 11-40), and is again summarized in Sefer Vilnai 2:326-330). According to Benayahu, the custom of going to Meron was begun by the “Mekubeli Sefat.” Irrespective of whose side one falls, both articles are full of interesting facts about the development of this Lag Ba-Omer. In my opinion, Benayahu appears to have the upper hand. More recently, Tel Aviv University professor Elchanan Reiner revisited this topic in his incredible dissertation, “Pilgrims and Pilgrimage to Eretz Yisrael (1099-1517),” (PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1988), 295-320. (Hopefully, Dr. Reiner will publish this in book form.)

Returning to Freund’s article on Lag Ba-Omer, there is no doubt he used both Landau and Benayahu, as he quotes them in his notes. At the end of his article, Freund raises the older, although less known, custom of going to the grave of Shmuel ha-Navi (again close to Lag Ba-Omer) (p. 384). In doing so Freund quotes an early source for this custom, a source that is only in manuscript. But, Freund provides no citation where this source can be found. In fact this comes from Yaari (neither Landau or Benayahu mention it) who notes that this was originally published in Jacob Moses Toledano, “Teudot mikkitvey-yad,” Hebrew Union College Annual 4 (1927): 449-466, quote at 458. So either Freund was perusing random old copies of HUCA or more likely, he found Yaari’s article on Lag Ba-Omer and neglected to mention that.

Coming back to Blau’s article, the general idea of Blau in his article is after dealing with all the sources of why Lag Ba-Omer is different than the rest of Sefirat ha-Omer. His new ideas which he brings to the table are that 1) the earliest source for Lag Ba-Omer being the death of Rashbi is from Hemdat ha-Yamim. This point was already made by both Yaari and Benayahu. 2) The printings of Prei Etz Chaim contains a printing error (Blau shows this to be the case from various manuscripts he checked). Again, not a new point, while it is nice that he prints in the article copies of the various manuscripts but this also was already shown to be the case by Benayahu much earlier. 3) Finally, at the end of his article he brings from a manuscript that R. Yosef Karo wanted to stop the going to Meron but did not. Blau, however, concludes that this fact is not mentioned by the Chida because the Chida did not believe this manuscript was legitimate. This whole major manuscript is brought by Yaari and Benayahu. The text itself is printed in Benayahu’s Sefer HaChida. Additionally, R. Landau also discusses this point. None of this is noted by Blau. All in all this leads to the conclusion that much of Blau’s article is premised, without attribution, on Yaari’s, Benayahu’s, and Landau’s works on the topic.

As an aside both R. Yaakov Hillel and R. Ovadiah Yosef (Yabia Omer 5:35 and Hazon Ovadiah, p. 274) do not encourage going to Meron on Lag Ba-Omer due to the situation of pritzus there. R. Hillel is also against going on these types of hilulas throughout the year.

In actuality, while it is difficult to connect with the death of Rashi, there is another important person who perhaps did die on Lag be-Omer, Yehoshua ben Nun. (See R. Hamberger, Shoreshei Minhag Ashkenaz 3:262). In Meglias Ta’anis, the last section, there is a part titled Meglias Ta’anis Batra. In many versions of this text, it places Yehoshua ben Nun’s death on Lag be-Omer. Professor Shulamis Elitzur, in her excellent book, Lamu Tzamnu, deal with the death date of Yehoshua ben Nun at length. She cites to many early piyutuim that mirror this reading found in Meglias Ta’anis. (See Lamu Tzamnu pp. 18, 26, 34, 39, 66, 120, 126, 172.) Generally, Lamu Tzamnu is a scientific edition of Megilas Tannit Batra. For further on this, see also her Piyyutei R. Pinchas ha-Kohen, pp. 240 & 693. See also, Landau, p. 71, who errs in this regard based on a faulty manuscript; S. Leiman, “The Scroll of Fasts: The Ninth of Tevet” in J.Q.R., vol. 74, pp. 174-95, esp. pp. 174-79; Reiner, op. cit., pp. 289-90.

Moadim le-Simcha on Upsherin and Peyos

Now that we have covered the two latest discussions of Lag Ba-Omer and their similar faults, we return to the rest of Moadim le-Simcha. Freund’s next major topic is that of Upsherin. The problem with this article is that it is not objective.

The source for the Upsherin custom is highly problematic. R. Benyamin Shlomo Hamberger, Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz 3:251-267, attacks it for the following reasons: there is no mention of this custom in any of the rishonim. Now do not say they did not bother to write it down as we have very detailed discussions from the rishonim about this time period in a Jewish boy’s life how to take him to cheder etc. (discussed by R. Hamburger at great length in volume two of his Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz 2:502-532) but there is no mention of the Upsherin custom.[4] Furthermore, he shows from many places in the times of the rishonim they cut their hair long before three years old. Another big question dealt with by Yaari and later on in more detail by Hamberger is the attributing the custom of Upsherin on Lag Ba-Omer to the Arizal. This attribution is problematic as it is documented that the Arizal did not cut hair the entire sefirah – including Lag Ba-Omer. This particular issue M. Benayahu does not find to be such a problem as it could be what he did to his son and what he himself did were two different things. Another issue R. Hamberger raises is even if there is such a minhag what does it have to do with Rashbi and where do we find such a thing to give a haircut in a grave yard? Further more he brings sources [amongst them a National Geographic Magazine!] which claim that it come from outside – Arabic influences. R. Hamburger does defend it a little that it still makes sense to keep if it comes from outside sources. However after seeing all this documentation of R Hamburger notes that it makes sense why we can not find sources in litvishe or Hungarian sources – as there are no early sources in rishonim!

Professor Sperber [Minhagei Yisrael 8: 13-30] takes Hamberger’s discussion much further documenting how this comes from many completely outside ancient sources. R. Yechiel Goldhaber (author of the Minhagei ha-Kehillos) told me that he just saw a manuscript of a letter of R. Akiva Yosef Schlesinger who writes very sharply that this whole custom is taken form outside sources. Generally, Freund has no problem mentioning R Hamburger as he quotes this very same volume in another chapter of his in this sefer – saying Tikun on shavuos night. But when it comes to using Hamberger to question or examine Upsherin, Freund seems unable to do so.

After this chapter Freund has a section all about the customs of peyos including different opinions about wearing it behind ones ears. A careful reading of this chapter shows he stole much [and he could of stolen even more] from Yitzchak (Eric) Zimmer’s chapter in his Olam Keminhago Noheg (Mercaz Zalman Shazar, 1996) devoted to these topics.

Freund continues with a chapter on the development of the tomb over Rashbi’s kever and its history. He has a lot of important information on it. I would add to it the last section of M Benayhu previously mentioned article (which I think for sure Freund was well aware of on this topic of Meron in general).

The Zohar and its History

In connection with Rashbi, Freund examines the Zohar, its authorship and other topics related to the learning of the Zohar. This topic really deserves its own series of posts but for now I will just point out three issues. He does not mention that there was any opposition to the authorship of the Zohar. Now I understand perfectly well why he does not mention Yehudah Aryeh (Leon) Modena and others but there is one work which definitely deserves mention and that is the Mitpachat Seforim from R. Yaakov (Jacob) Emden. This work is not an attempt to undermine Kabbalah at all but rather it shows that there was some tampering done to the Zohar by different people. To be sure this work was considered very important by many as the Hatam Sofer writes in a teshuvah [Choshen Mishpat Likutim, 59] to someone:

הנה נמצא בשכונתך ס’ מטפחת ספרים למהריעב”ץ תמצא שם כי דבר גדול דבר הנביא ז”ל בענין זה הלא ישתוממו רואיו וד”ל

Interestingly enough a few years back this sefer was printed by someone than it was put in cherem by the badatz! The printer was cursed by sefardi mekubalim and he died within the year! This edition of the sefer is now considered very rare. Indeed, included in the introduction to this edition, are other sources attesting to the importance of the Mitpachat Seforim. Additionally, R. Eliezer Waldenberg, in his Tzizt Eliezer cites the Mitpachat Seforim. (Tzitz Eliezer 9:51 and 21:5).

Another issue I have with this chapter is he does not even mention the famous discussion of the poskim regarding contradictions between Kabbalah and halakha; much has been written on this I will not even bother to cite sources.

One other issue with this chapter is at the end he lists commentaries on the Zohar although he does not claim to make a comprehensive list there are some strange omissions. One is the work of R. Reuven Margoliyot on the Zohar it is extremely important with all his comments as he draws parallels from all over chazal another thing he does is he references many halakhic discussions from the Zohar. Besides for this R. Margoliyot deals with all the questions which R Emden raises in his Mitpachat Seforim. R. Shlomo Zevin, Soferim ve-Seforim, has a beautiful review of R. Margoliyot’s work. One other important work that is not listed is Tiferet Zvi from R. Spielman. Thus far it is only six volumes, going up until chumash Vayikra. This work is literally an encyclopedia on the Zohar dealing with the hundreds of halakha and kabbalistic topics relating to the Zohar [see the comment of Professor Yisrael M. Ta-Shma, ha-Niglah she-b’Nistar, 109 n. 13]. It is very ironic that during R. Spielman lifetime he had to peddle his seforim going door to door begging people to buy them and now it is a very hard to find to purchase.

Finally, Freund discusses visiting kevarim in general – he includes a special section about Kohanim. Here Freund writes openly at the outset that he used an earlier work but he should have been aware there is a much more through and important work on the topic from R Spielman called Zion Lenefesh Chayah.

General sources:
All about Lag Ba-Omer (much of the material overlaps) see R. Shlomo J. Zevin, Moadim Bahalcha pp. 359-64; S Ashkenazi in Avnei Chain pp. 103-11; Pardes Eliezer.

For personal accounts of Lag Ba-Omer see Chanina Mizrachi Yehudei Paras (Tel Aviv, 1959), 29-34. For a Christian traveler account from 1838 see Maseh ha-Notzrim, 496 see id., 517-18 for another account.

Others used to go to Kever of Shimon Hazadik see: Nachlas Yosef [2: 42]; Eiyur Hakodesh ve-Yoshveha p. 43. See a Christian traveler account from 1838 in Maseh ha-Notzrim p. 448 – he mentions that they cut the hair there.

On going to Meron in general see: Kivrei Avos pp. 179-81; The excellent collection from Z Vilani in his Mazavos be-Eretz ha-Kodesh pp. 117-150.

On Shmuel ha-Navi and visiting his grave, see Lamu Tzamu pp. 177-180; Reiner op. cit. pp. 306-320

Notes:
[1] On using bow and arrows on Lag Ba-Omer: see the sources listed by Landau, ibid pp. 124-26 [At this point I am unable to find the source for the riddle of the Malbim that Landau brings.] Moadim le-Simcha pp. 155-59; Pardes Eliezer pp. 229-49; ha-Koton ve-Halachosov chapter 24 p. 59 n. 22; Kundes p. 49 [see here on this work]; Zikhronot Av u-Beno p. 231; Zikhronot me-Rav Litai p. 245 [on this work see here]; A.S. Sachs, Worlds that Passed (Philadelphia, 1928), 112.

[2] About the song Bar-Yochai (which he choose not to talk about it at all), see Landau piece in Maseh Meron; the excellent study by Professor Moshe Hallamish, in Hakabblah, 507-531. See also Hallamish’s Hanageios Kabbalios be-Shabbat pp. 300-03. On general songs composed for Rashbi see Hallamish in Hakabblah pp. 259-83.

[3] R. Yaakov Hillel deals with all this in his sefer Aid ha-Gal ha-Zeh printed two years ago. This is a nice sefer all about Lag Ba-Omer and the Zohar. He has many interesting chapters including the origins of the Zohar the importance of learning Zohar and how to learn it. Another chapter he has is on the topic of contradictions between Kabbalah and halakha. He also has a chapter on Torah Lav Min hashamaayim and its relation to pesak halakha. He also deals with this topic in a few other places in his notes on Moreh Betzbah of the Chidah. It is worth seeing the latest edition, page 159 and onwards, as it is updated from the 1980 edition. He also dealt with this in his journal Mekabtzeal (25: 45-59). R. Hillel definitely saw what Benayahu writes on the topic but he does not credit him at all.

[4] For more on this see Ivan Marcus in Rituals of Childhood (Yale, 1996) and in his Jewish Lifecycle (Washington, 2004).

The Custom of Akdamut on Shavuot

R. Brodt has already discussed the custom of azharot on Shavous, I wanted to discuss another Shavous custom – akdamut. Akdamut is the poem in Aramaic which is said around the time of the reading of the Torah on the first day of Shavuot.

This poem, composed by R. Meir ben Isaac who lived in Worms in the 11th century. He was also know as R. Meir Sha”tz (Shiliach Tzibor). The poem itself describes what happens in heaven when the angels sing their praises to god as well as god’s relationship with the Jewish people. The earliest source which records the custom to say akdamut is R. Ya’akov Molin (MaHRiL). The custom is then mentioned in most of the traditional codifiers of Ashkenazic custom.

The placement of akdamut is the subject of some controversy. According to the earliest sources which record the custom, they place the recitation of akdamut after the first passuk is read from the Torah. This was the accepted custom for many years. In the 17th century some began to question the propriety of interrupting the Torah reading with this poem. This controversy was brought to head in Venice where there were both Ashkenazim and Sefardim. As the Sefardim did not say akdamut at all, they found it highly questionable whether one can insert such a late poem in the middle of the Torah reading. This became a large controversy in Venice. The question was raised about the propriety of Ashkenazi customs in general and whether the Sefardic majority (in Vencie) could pass judgment on customs which they do not follow.

R. Ephraim HaKohen was asked a host of questions related to this controversy. First, can a Sefardic court decide about the propriety of an Ashkenazic custom, or are they considered “suspect” as they do not follow that custom? Second, is the custom of akdamut correct – to read it after the first passuk? And, finally, what is the effect of Sefardic customs vis-à-vis Ashkenazic ones when one group is in the majority?
He responded that first, there is no issue of a Sefardic court deciding on the customs of Ashkenazim. But, he explained that although in Venice the majority is comprised of Sefardim, that fact alone does not affect the Ashkenazic custom – as majority is not decided by a raw majority of people, but rather, a majority of people who follow a particular custom. Thus, you would look only at the Ashkenazic community to decide this issue based on majority. Or as he puts it “the majority of Sefardim is nothing when it comes to Ashkenazim.”

Finally, he discusses whether it is correct to pause and recite akdamut during the Torah reading. He explains that this is a correct custom, in part, because those who decided to do this to begin with were obviously aware of this issue and decided to do so anyways. He concludes that as this is a well-established custom it should remain in effect.

While R. Ephraim HaKohen spent a considerable amount of time justifying this practice (it is a very long responsa), his descendant R. Ya’akov Emden felt, irrespective of his great-grandfather, that it was wrong to interrupt the Torah reading. In his siddur, R. Emden takes issue, recognizing that although his great-grandfather justified the practice, there can in fact be no justification. The only proper place is prior to the start of the entire Torah reading – but one can not interrupt the Torah reading for akdamut. R. Emden argues that R. Ephraim’s assumption that the ones who instituted akdamut also knew about this problem, is meaningless. R. Emden explains that the early Ashkenazim had no problem interrupting in all sorts of instances for piyyutim, thus it is unsurprising to find they did it again here. But, R. Emden, says when it is no longer acceptable to recite many piyyutim there can be no justification for reciting akdamut during the Torah reading.

A similar stance to that of R. Emden is found in R. David ben Shmuel haLevi’s work – Turei Zehav or TaZ. He also complains about interrupting the Torah reading with this piyyut.

Based himself upon the same concerns as R. Emden and the TaZ, R. Aryeh Gunzberg (Sha’agas Aryeh) when he took the Chief Rabbi position of Metz argued that the community should change their custom from reciting akdamut after the first passuk and move it before the Torah reading. The community, however, would have none of that and refused to agree to the change. The Sha’gas Aryeh then threatened to leave Metz. In the end, the “compromise” was the Sha’agas Aryeh only came to the main Shul four times a year to give a derasha in protest of the community keeping their custom of akdamut.
Although one may justify the practice, as R. Ephraim HaKohen did, based upon the notion this is an established custom, the ultimate question is why was this established in the Torah reading at all? In the journal Ve’Laket Yosef, an interesting explanation is offered. Akdamut is in Aramaic, and it was the custom to have a translator during the Torah reading. This translation was done into Aramaic. There are two rather estoric readings – the Torah reading of the first day of Shavuot and the haftorah of the second day of Shavuot. Perhaps, prior to attempting to translate these difficult readings, the translator offered a justification and request from the congregation to allow him to translate this. Akdamut was the translators introduction – thus as his first time he would translate would be after the first verse – his introduction, and akdamut is after the first verse.

Setting aside when one is supposed to say akdamut, who was R. Meir the author? R. Meir lived in Worms, but the custom in Worms was not to say akdamut. This is a bit strange as one would assume the author’s home town would say his piyyut. R. Yehuda Leib Kirchheim, one of the recorders of Worm’s custom and history, says that once someone read akdamut in a beautiful fashion, and with a tremendous amount of concentration and right after he finished – he died. Thus, they stopped saying akdamut in Worms. However, R. Kirchheim, argues that this can not be the reason akdamut is not said as this would only prove how great akdamut is, it would not justify not saying it (although one could argue that it is a great piyyut, but after the person died, in Worms, they couldn’t find anyone else to recite it).

There are all sorts of legends told about R. Meir. Although it is typically understood that R. Meir Shatz was a chazzan, there is another explanation to this name. There is a legend which has a priest challenging the Jews in Worms to a debate. This threw the Worms Jewish Community into a tizzy, they didn’t know what to do. R. Meir stood up and said someone should go to the other side of the sambatyon river. The rabbi responded, fine – you be the one to go. Well R. Meir went off, first to Israel to ask a kabbalist where the sambatyon river is and then on to the sambatyon. When he got there, sure enough, the river was impassable, except on Shabbos. Although he would have been prohibited from crossing the river on Shabbos, as he was doing so only to save the lives of those in Worms, he did so. He found someone to go back and defend the Worms community. But, R. Meir got stuck, as he no longer had a dispensation to cross the river – there was no longer any mortal danger as he had found someone, so he remained behind the sambatyon river. According to this legend, Sheliach Tzibor – or the community emissary is literal and not a chazzan.

It is unclear where R. Meir is buried, some say in Tiberius, others place him somewhere in Europe.

Sources:

R. Ephraim HaKohen, Sha’arei Ephraim, no. 10; Va’yelaket Yosef, no. 175 (1916); Landshuth, Amudei Avodah, pp. 164-65; Jacobson, Netiv Benah, vol. 4, pp. 99-105; R. Weinstock, Sheni Asar Shevtei Yisrael, pp. 70-77; Yuspah Shames, Minhagi Worms, vol. 1 ; Grossman, Hakmei Ashkenaz, 292-96; Frankel ed., Goldschmit Shavous Machzor, pp. 28-35; T. Rabinowitz, Iyunei Halacha, vol. 2 pp. 452-67; Hamburger, Gedolei haDoros ‘al Mishmar Minhag Ashkenaz, pp. 108-112.Also, see A. Habermann, Toldos HaPiyyut V’hashirah, vol. 2, p. 184 where he says that akdamut is in Aramaic as it is such a marvelous piyyut if it was in Hebrew (a language the angels can understand) the angels would be jealous. For further online sources see here, here and here.

The Custom of Azharot on Shavous

The Custom of Azharot on Shavous
by R Eliezer Brodt

The Yom tov of Shavous called Yom Matan Torahsenu as it is the day we received the Torah thousands of years ago at Har Sinai. It has many minhaghim that we do to remind us of this such as putting up grass and flowers or eating dairy dishes. Another minhag which many Jews have is to say azharot today. In this post I would like to discuss a bit of interesting bibliographic information about some specific azharot and their authors. On this topic, we will (1) discuss the numbering of the mitzvos in general; (2) next the meaning of azharot; (3) those who took exception to reciting the azharot; and (4) specifically which azharot are frowned upon.

In order to understand this topic a small introduction is needed. According to most opinions Jews are commanded to follow 613 mitzvos from the Torah. While 613 the most common number used, it is actually disputed by a few people. R Yeruchem Fischel Perlow records that R Yonah Ibn Ganach questioned the number. A little later than R. Ibn Ganach, we find that the Ibn Ezra questions this number and does so at great length in his Yesod Moreh, Shar Shenei (pg 91 and onwards). After that we find that the famous kabbalist R. Yosef Gikatilla, says (in his K’lalei Hamitzvos Erech Manah) that it’s impossible to give a number to the mitzvos. The Ramban also questions this number at length in the beginning of his work on the mitzvos. Gersonides (RaLBaG) in his commentary on shmos also questions the number (pg 76 Mossad Harav Kook edition). If we now skip a few hundred years, there is an interesting statement, attributed to the Gra, recorded by his brother R Avrohom at the beginning of his work Ma’alos haTorah where he has the Gra saying that the 613 is only the shoroshim (see there at length and the menucha vekedusha pg 20). R Shlomo Zalman Auerbach writes that this is the reason why we do not find that the Gra wrote on this area although he wrote on every other area of torah (Halichos Shlomo, Shavous, pg 374) due to its unending nature.

Aside from the above opinions, the 613 number has been accepted by most. After one agrees on a final number, the next question is commandments are included in this number. There was two main groups of numbers counters – the BaHaG who gave one listing of the 613 mitzvos and for a few hundred years this was the accepted method of counting the commandments. Then along came the Rambam with many arguments on the BaHaG’s method of counting which he devotes his introduction to his Sefer haMitzvos where he explains why he why he argued against the other shitos and counted the ones he did. Afterwards a whole collection of literature has been written on this topic from many rishonim and achronim.

Besides for the actual count of the mitzvos, there were many composers in the era of the Geonim and Rishonim who composed poems (piyyutim) counting the mitzvos some of these poems are known as azharot.

First, what is the meaning of the word Azharot? Professor Ezra Fleischer writes (Shirat Hakodesh Haivrit B’yemi Habenyayimm pg 73) that it’s not clear from where did the name אזהרת come from, it appears to be the opening sentence of a piyyut now lost. Others point out that אזהרת is the gematriah of 613. Moritz Steinschneider writes (Jewish Literature pg 159) that these piyyutim were based on halachic subjects which instruction was to be given on the Shabbos before the Yom tovim therefore they were called azharot meaning instructions. There are also azharot said on Shabboas Hagodal. A sample of one from R Klonomius can be found in the Shomer Zion Haneman (issue 95-97 year תרטו) (see also Davidsin Otzar Hashira Vhapiyyut vol 2 # 1042). Professor Ezra Fleischer also writes (Shirat Hakodesh Haivrit B’yemi Habenyayimm pg 384) that others such as R Yehudah Halevi wrote azharot for Pesach.

Zunz says the earliest azharot we have are from the end of Eighth century called אתה הנחלת (see also Otzar Haseforim from Ben Yakov pg 33). Amongst the other early ones we have are from R Saddiah Goan, R Binyomin ben Shmuel, R Eliyha haZaken R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and R. Yitchack Albargeloni.

The Chida in Shem Hagedolim says that the recitation of azharot on Shavous, is done by most Jews. Much earlier we find in the Tzeda laDerach (mamar 4 klal 4 perek 6) that in Spain they said from R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel’s and in Ashkenaz and France they said the one from R. Eliyahu Hazakan The Abudrham (p. 246) also brings that they said from R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel. Even earlier we find both the Siddur Rav Amram Goan (Goldshmidt edition pg 131) and R Saddiah Goan (pg 156 and onwards) also discuss when exactly azharot were said during mussaf. R Saadiah Goan went even further he writes that he saw that everyone says during mussaf the 613 mitzvos from a piyyut called אתה הנחלתה (the earliest known azharot) but saw that it was missing a bunch of mitzvos so he composed a completely new version including all the mitzvos. One of the versions he composed was showing the 613 mitzvos in the asres hadebros (see the article of R Shmual Askenazi in Kovetz Beis Aaron V’yisroel 1991 issue 5 pg 109-114).

The Shelah, Sedar Hayom, and Chida bring that there were those that said the azharot of R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel when they stayed up Shavous night (See Shorshei Minhag Ashkenaz Vol 3 pg 296-298).

The reason for saying the azharot on Shavous suggests Profesor Frankel is perhaps based on a medrash which says that at matan torah the Jews were told after every mitzvah do you accept it with all its applications and after each one they said yes so it could be on shavous the day we got the torah we do this as its like a review of what happened than (Goldshmidt Machzaor Pg 11).

Aside from all the above, not everyone was so enamored with azharot. Two people specifically – Ibn Ezra and the Rambam – were against at least some azharot.

The Ibn Ezra writes in his Yesod Moreh (Bar Ilan 2002 pg 107) “that the authors of azharot are like people who count the blades of grass mentioned in the medical books not realizing the purpose of each one thus these people count the same thing twice because its mentioned twice.” The Rambam writes in his introduction to Sefer haMitzvos while talking about the different minyan hamitzvos that “there are many azharot from Spain and you can not blame them for making mistakes as they were composers not Rabanim.”

It is possible that the Rambam’s opinion was influenced by Ibn Ezra. In the Rambam’s last will and testament, he spoke highly of Ibn Ezra and recommended his son R. Abraham study Ibn Ezra. (See the Koreh haDoros pg 19 and R Emanuel Abuhav in his Bemavak Al Archa Shel Torah pg 247). But, using this source would be a mistake. As was already noted by the Mahrshal who questions whether in fact the will attributed to the Rambam is in fact from the Rambam. Similarly, R Yakov Emden in his Mitpachas Seforim (pgs 101-02) also writes that it must be a forgery. Today, Yitchzach Shilat, has demonstrated conclusively that in fact the will, attributed to the Rambam is a forgery. (Iggros Harambam vol 2 pg 697-698; see also G Scholem in Mechkeria Kabblah Vol 1 pg 190). While the will may not be real, this is still some evidence that the Rambam was influenced by the Ibn Ezra’s work Yesod Moreh in general (see R Yeruchem Fischel Perlow in his introduction to his work on R Saddaih Goan pg 15).

Setting aside where the Rambam got this anti-azharot idea, the next issue is which azharot were the Rambam and Ibn Ezra disapproving of?

R Chaim Heller in his notes (#34) on the Sefer Hamitzvos references a teshuva written by the Radbaz (vol. 3 siman 645) where the Radbaz writes that the Rambam is referring to Reb Shlomo Ibn Gabriel. R Y. Kapach also writes the Rambam is referring to R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and R Yitzchack Albargeloni. The Sefer HaYechsin (pg 219) also assumes the Rambam was referring to both R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and R Yitzchack Albargeloni. The Koreh Hadoros when quoting the Rambam’s above statement about the azharot takes this attribution one step further where the Koreh Hadoros just includes in the quote from the Rambam R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and R Yitzchack Albargeloni making it appear as if the Rambam says these names specifically. Landshuth, in his Amudei Avodah also assumes the Rambam is referring to R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel (pg 313).

The attribution to R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel is problematic, mainly because it seems both him and his piyyutim where highly regarded. Although the Tashbatz already writes in his Zohar Harokea (a commentary on azharot of R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel) that this composer was not a great expert in Talmud; most others dispute this characterization. The Rogachaver Goan in his notes (see also Tiferes Zvi on the Zohar Vol 1 pg 189) on the Tashbatz writes that it’s a chutzpah to write such a thing on this amazing composer! [In a joking manner I wanted to suggest its strange that the Rogatchver would stick up for a a rishon as its well known he argued on Rishonim all the time so I wanted to suggest that he wanted to defend R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel so that he would be able to argue on the Tashbatz.]

But one thing we see from this for certain is that the Rogatchver held he was a great Talmud Chacham. Further more there is a different teshuvah (vol 3 siman 532) from the Radvaz where he writes that R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel was a great person and Ibn Gabriel’s words are holy! This would seem to contradict the previously quoted words of the Radbaz. R. Matsyahu Strashun (Mivchar Kesavim Pg 116-118) suggests because of this apparent contradiction and some others that the Radbaz lived a very long life of 110 years and he wrote over 2000 teshuvot so its possible that over this great length of time he forgot his own earlier words.

R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel’s contemporaries also held him in high regard. The Ravad (Sefer Hakablah pg 81) Meiri (Sefer Hakablah, Ofek ed., pg 136) Avudraham and Yechsin all call him a great chacham. In one place the Sefer haYeuchsin writes that לא קם כמוהו לפניו ואחריו. The Chida also writes that it can not be that the Rambam was referring to R Shlomo ibn Gabriel. R Yeruchem Fischel Perlow in his work on the Sefer haMitzvos of the Rasag he calls R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel a Godal. The Yechsin writes (and from there the Tzemach Dovid and Koreh Hadoros) that he was the rebbi of Rashi! However R Shmuel Askenazi already points out that the years are impossible because Rashi was ten years old living in France when R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel died in Spain (see his notes to the Kav Hayashar pg 20).

The Kav Hayashar writes that R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel was a great mekubal. The Sefer Metzref Lechochma even (pg 9b) brings that he created a woman golem! (see M Idel, Golem pg 200 and 343) This story shows he was familiar with kabblah maseyois.

There is a famous story brought down by many people [Shalsheles Hakablah (pg 89) Yesod Yosef (perek 87) Kav Hayashar (perek 86) Sefer Zechirah (pg 243) others bring down this story with R Shlomo Alkabetz see Amodei Ha’avodah pg 310.] in regard to R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel’s death. A non-Jew was jealous of Ibn Gabriel’s wisdom so he killed him burying him under his fig tree. In time, the tree started bearing excellent figs, so great were these figs, that the king heard about it. The king wanted to know what his trick to get such good figs. The fig tree owner obviously did not want to reveal his secret. The king was not satisfied and had the fig tree owner tortured. The fig tree owner eventually confessed that he killed a Jew and buried him there. The king had the fig tree owner killed.
The Kav Hayashar and others use the above story to demonstrate the authors of our piyyutim were great people so we should be say them having the authors name in mind and that his merits should help us. However R. Shmuel Ashkenazi has already pointed out based on the Sefer Tachmoni that this story is not true and instead, R. Shlomo Ibn Gabriel died at the age of twenty nine from a harsh sickness in 1040 (see his notes to the Kav Hayashar pg 19 not the date 1070 given by the Sefer Yuchsin and Zinberg Toldos Hasafros B’yisroel vol 1 pg 72 For more on his sickness see Chaim Shirman in Toldos Hashira Haivrit b’Sefard Hamuslamit pg 265-268).

Abraham Haberman brings down in his Toldos Hapiyyut V’haShira (vol 1 pg 179) a legend from a Temani manuscript that describes the story behind R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel writing of his azharot. R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel was learning in a Yeshivia where the Rebbe had a daughter of marriageable age. The Rebbi said who ever gives me a new fruit can marry her. That night R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel wrote the azharot gave it to the Rebbe and the Rebbe announced the engagement. They got married eruv Shavous!

Another piyyut which R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel is famous for is Keter Malchus which in nusach Sefard machzorim it was said on Yom Kippur at night others say it during the day (see I. Davidson, Otzar Hashira Vehapiyyut # 581). Many people discuss how there are many kabblastic concepts in this piyyut (see Chaim Shirman, Toldos Hashira Hivrit B’sefard Hamuslmit pg 331-345).

Besides for composing songs R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel authored a few seforim one called Tikin Midos Hanefesh others attribute to him the Mivchar Pinenim. However besides for this he authored another sefer which was a classic in philosophy called Mekor Chaim. An interesting thing happened with it it was translated to Latin called Fons Vitae and it became a world classic but the authors name was written as Avicebron and know one knew that a Jew was the real author. In 1846, S Munk figured out that it’s really from R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and he printed it. Eventually it was printed in Hebrew. There has been much written on this sefer to show that R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel was familiar with kabblah (see G. Scholem, Mechkeria Kabblah Vol 1 pg 39-66).

[For more on R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel see Elbogen, Hatefilah B’yisroel pg 258-259: Zinberg in Toldos Safrus B’yisroel vol 1 pg 34-73: A Haberman Toldos Hapiyyut Vehashira vol 1 pg 175-180: Chaim Shirman in Toldos Hashira Hivrit bsefard hamuslmit pg 257-345.]

From all this, it is clear that neither the Rambam or Ibn Ezra were referring to Ibn Gabriel, so we now turn to another candidate – R Yitzchack Albargeloni. R. Albargeloni lived in the era of the Rif and Ravad. The Sefer Hakabalah also says that R. Albargeloni was a great talmid chacham who wrote works on Kesuvos and Eruvin. The Meiri in Sefer HaKabbalah also (pg 134) writes that he was a great chacham. These works of his on kesuvos and eruvin were lost however Profesor Ta-Shma has found some pieces of his in other works of Rishonim (See his Hasafrut Haparshnut Le’talmud volume 1 pg 168-169). Besides for this he also translated the sefer Mekeach umemkar of Rav Hai Goan from Arabic to Hebrew when he was thirty five years old (see amudei havodah pg 126 and Or hachaim Chaim Michael pg 510). Thus the Chida writes the Rambam was not referring to R Yitzchack Albargeloni.

Another early composer of azharot which was recently found active before R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel and R Yitzchack Albargeloni was from R Binyomin Ben Shmuel. Professor Ezra Fleischer printed them in kovetz al yad (vol 11 pg 1-77) R Binyomin lived according to Zunz before Rashi in the first half of the eleventh century. According to some he was the brother of R Yosef Tov Elem. [For more on this Rishon see Fleischer in his extensive intro to his work and Professor A Grossman in Chachmei Tzarfat Harishonim pg 47-51.]

Another early composer of azharot – before R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel was R Eliyayhu Hazakon his azharot are quoted in Tosafot throughout shas and by many other Rishonim so its highly unlikely that the Ibn Ezra and Rambam were referring to him. The Marshal (shut siman 29) and Chida write that he was the brother in law of Rav Hai Goan but recent historians show that he might have been mistaken and he was a bit later than that See Prof A Grossman in Chachmei Tzarfat Harishonim pg 88-90 . [For a listing of the rishonim who bring him down see Amudei Avodah pg 14-15: Chaim Michael, Or Hachaim pg 180: Davidson, Otzar Hashira Vehapiyyut vol 1 #6022 and the introduction of the Mezack Azharot by R Yisroel Shaprio.] Professor A Grossman discusses his life and works at great length in his work Chachmei Tzarfat Harishonim pg 84-107.

Many commentaries were written on these different azharot by Rishonim and Achronhim. On the azharot of R Saadiah Goan we have the excellent encyclopedic work of R Yeruchem Fischel Perlow where he basically has and average of ten pages per every word of R Saadiah Goan he also discusses all the other opinions of the geonim and rishonim on the relevant topics. On the azharot of R Yitzchack Albargeloni we have the commentary Nesiv Mitzvosecha from R Shaul Hakohen from Gerba (he also wrote on the azharot of R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel.) On R Eliyhau Hazakan we have an early in depth commentary from him printed in the Kovetz al Yad (vol 11 part 1) from E Kuffer from some talmidim of talmidi Rabenu Tam. In 1900, R Mordechaei Slutski printed a pirish called Hiddur Zakon. This work has haskamas from the Meshech Chochma and Minchas Borouch. In 1972 R Yisroel Issur Shaprio (son of R Refael Shaprio) wrote an excellent in depth work called Matzack Azharot where he has a lengthy commentary on every word of R Eliyahu Hazakan. In 2001, Yitzhach Meiseles put out a complete critical edition of these azharot.

On the azharot of R shlomo Ibn Gabriel we have many works amongst them the Tashbatz’s Zohar Ha’rokeah. The Zohar Ha’rokeah has its own recent extensive edition from R A David including many useful footnotes and the notes of the Shoel U’mashiv, Rogatchver, R Yeruchem Fischel Perlow and R Menachem Kasher. A while back in a sinai a few pieces of the Adres’s notes were printed on the azharot of R Shlomo Ibn Gabriel.

Another person who we find wrote a commentary on the azharot of אזהרת ראשית was R Shmuel Chassid the father of R Yehudah Hachassid but they are only in manuscript as of now (see E E Aurbach ed., Arugot Habosem vol 4 pg 89 ) For a complete history of R Shmuel Hachassid see the article from Abraham Epstein in his Ketvim vol 1 pg 247-268.

So at least these few authors can not be the ones the Ibn Ezra and Rambam were referring to. So the Chida writes it must be they were referring to the many other composers of azharot. It is clear that this is the case as the Ramban writes in the beginning of his notes on the Rambam shorshim that there were many piyyutim and azharots written of the mitzvos.

General sources see: Chida in Shem Hagedolim Erech Azharot: Elbogen, Hatefilah b’yisroel pg 163: Extensive introduction of Prof. Yonah Frankel in the Goldshmidt Machzor on Shavous pg 11-14 and pgs 36-48: Introduction of R. A. David to his Zohar Harokeah.