Legacy of Rabbi Dr. Abraham J. Twerski, Zt”L,More on “
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
New volume of Mekhilta Journal Announcement New volume of Mekhilta Journal Announcement By Eliezer Brodt מכילתא, כתב עת לתורה ולחכמה, ר‘ עדיאל ברויאר, יעקב ישראל סטל ומשה דוד צ‘צ‘יק (עורכים), גליון ב, כסלו תשפ“א, 323 עמודים Volume two of the new Journal Mekhilta just came out. Similar to the first issue it has an all-star lineup of writers on great topics. Copies of this volume are available for purchase through me (while the limited edition lasts) and will help support the efforts of the Seforim Blog. Contact me at [email protected] For sample pages contact me at the above email. Copies of the first issue are still available. Here is the Table of contents of the new volume. What if the Maharal of Prague Had Access to Leipzig 1 and Other Manuscripts? “What if the Maharal of Prague Had Access to Leipzig 1 and Other Manuscripts?” ראשית בכורי אדמתך On Shemos 23:19 – Rashi on By Eli Genauer Summary: There is a statement in Rashi which appears in the overwhelming majority of early Rashi manuscripts, and in early printed editions. But because Gur Aryeh and others did not have access to these manuscripts, and because they felt that what Rashi said was incorrect, they ascribed the statement to Knowing that Rashi really did write these words .טעות סופר a might have changed their approach to this Pasuk. שמות כ“ג (יט) רֵאשִׁ֗ית בִּכּוּרֵי֙ אַדְמָ֣תְךָ֔ תָּבִ֕יא בֵּ֖ית ה’ אֱלֹקיךָ לֹֽא־תְבַשֵּׁ֥ל גְּדִ֖י בַּחֲלֵ֥ב אִמּֽוֹ Rashi in Al HaTorah based on Leipzig 1: ראשית בכורי אדמתך – אף השביעית חייבת בביכורים, לכך נאמרה אף כאן adds בִּכּוּרֵיSefaria records it the same except it .at the end אַדְמָתְךָ ראשית בכורי אדמתך. אַף הַשְּׁבִיעִית חַיֶּבֶת בְּבִכּוּרִים, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר אַף כָּאן בִּכּוּרֵי אַדְמָתְךָ. Oz VeHadar Rashi HaMevuar records it as above without parentheses but comments that there are some who do not include this comment because one is not Chayav in Bikurim during Shemittah. The discussion in their Miluim section records many opinions on this matter. It concludes by saying that this statement of Rashi contradicts a statement of his in Yevamot, thereby leaving the impression that the statement in Shemot 23:19 is questionable. Artscroll Rashi Sapirstein Edition (1994) records these words in parentheses to indicate that there is a true doubt whether Rashi wrote them.[1] Artscroll notes that “Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh argue that it cannot be Rashi’s work”, but that Nachalat Yaakov defends this version of Rashi.[2] Chumash Ateret Rashi (Jerusalem 1998) records the words without parentheses but only cites Gur Aryeh who say that Rashi did not write them and Mizrachi who says that there are Seforim which don’t have them. The position of Mizrachi and Gur Aryeh is based on the fact that they feel that the Halacha is that during the Shemitah year one is not obligated to bring Bikurim. Mizrachi cites some “Nuschaot” which do not have this comment and Gur Aryeh בודאי טעות סופר writes that this comment is Mizrachi: ראשית בכורי אדמתך אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים לכך נאמר אף כאן בכורי אדמתך. ברוב הספרים כתיב אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים. ונראה לי שאשר הביאם לזה הוא מפני שראו של גבי וביום השביעי תשבות פירש אף בשנה שביעית לא תעקר שבת ממקומה שלא תאמר כוּ ולגבי שלשה פעמים בשנה פירש ג“כ לפי שהעניין מדבר בשביעית הוצרך ללמד שלא יסתרסו ג’ רגלים ממקומן חשבו שלגבי בכורים נמי שלא יהיו הבכורים נדחין ממקומן ולכך אמרו אף השביעית חייבת בבכורים ואין הדבר כן שהרי במכילתא שנו גבי וביום השביעי תשבות נאמר כאן שבת בראשית לעניין שביעית שלא תסתרס עניין שבת בראשית ממקומה ולגבי ג’ פעמים בשנה שנו נאמר שלשה רגלים בשביעית שלא יסתרסו ג’ רגלים ממקומן ואלו לגבי ראשית בכורי אדמתך שנו למה נאמרה פרשה זו לפי שנאמר ולקחת מראשית כל פרי האדמה אין לי אלא פירות משקין מניין ת“ל תביא בית ייּ אלהיך מ“מ אבל בקצת נוסחאוּ אינו כתוב אלא בכורי אדמחך אדם נכנס לתוך שדהו כוּ Gur Aryeh: אף השביעית חייב בבכורים. בודאי טעות סופר הוא, דאיך שייך דיהיה השביעית חייב בביכורים, שאיך קורא אני כאן “ועתה הבאתי ראשית פרי האדמה אשר נתת לי” (דברים כו, י), דהא לא לו נתן, ואיך שייך שחייב בביכורים: Yosef Da’at writes that these words are in some sefarim and and that ,( בספרים אחרים ) אינו,not in other sefarim מהר״ל(גור אריה) מוחק ורא״ם(ר׳ אליהו מזרחי) מיישב״“ Berliner in Zechor L’Avraham (Berlin 1867) lists only Erfurt #2 (which is now known as Berlin 1222) as a manuscript which He also .(“ליתא בכתב יד ערפערט ב׳“) doesn’t have these words cites Mizrachi, Divrei Dovid and Gur Aryeh as saying these words are a ta’us sofer.[3] Here is Berlin 1222 (13th-14th century) which doesn’t have the comment: :דיהרנפורט Berliner cites[4] Divrei Dovid 1689 What needs to be determined is whether Rashi wrote these words or not. If he in fact did, one would then need to understand the background to aטעות Rashi’s comment but one would not be able to argue that it is .”or put forth arguments against this Girsa “MiSevara סופר Gur Aryeh does not cite any books or manuscripts without these words, Berliner cites only one manuscript . בודאי טעות סופר only that it was which do not have it קצת ספרים without this Nusach. Divrei Dovid cites ברוב הספרים כתיב אף השביעיתas does Yosef Da’at. Mizrachi says that Mizrachi does .…חייבת בבכורים …… אבל בקצת נוסחאות אינו כתוב אלא בכורי .were books or manuscripts נוסחאות not say if those We started by citing Leipzig 1 which has this statement in Rashi. To would mean that this mistake ended up טעות סופרclaim that it was a involving either Rav Shemayah or Rabbeinu Makhir. v These words are in 13 manuscripts from the 13th century I checked aside from Berlin 1222.[6] I feel it is easier to explain why these words were not included in one manuscript, (possibly for the reasons cited by Gur Aryeh and Mizrachi) than to argue that the words were not written by Rashi and were added by Sofrim later on. [1] This comment is in parentheses in all Artscroll Chumashim, including the Stone Chumash. While the Artscroll series on Chumash is one of the only modern editions which has this comment in parentheses, it has enjoyed unparalleled distribution. According to its website, the Stone Chumash alone has been printed over a million times. “The Stone Edition of the Chumash, — with 1.5 million copies in print, is the Chumash of choice in the English-speaking world. Its flowing, inspiring translation and commentary speak to today’s Jews.” [2] This is how it is presented in Yosef Hallel. .טעות סופרIt is unclear to me whether Mizrachi says that it is a [3] while Berliner ורא״ם(ר׳ אליהו מזרחי) מיישבYosef Da’at writes that .טעות a סופרlists Mizrachi as one who says that the words are Artscroll seems to put Gur Aryeh and Mizrachi together in opinion. [4] This is how it appears in Berliner 1905 (Frankfurt am Main). [5] This manuscript was written in the 13th century by R. Makhir b. Karshavyah, who states that he produced it from a copy of the commentary transcribed and annotated by Rashi’s own secretary, R. Shemayah. R. Makhir not only copied Rashi’s base commentary from R. Shemayah’s manuscript, but he also reproduced many of the marginal glosses contained in R. Shemayah’s text, a good number of which R. Shemayah explicitly attributes to Rashi himself. (From Al HaTorah) [6] Here is a group of manuscripts, aside from Leipzig 1 shown above, available through Al HaTorah “Selected Online Rashi Manuscripts-13th Century:” https://alhatorah.org/Commentators:Online_Rashi_Manuscripts Oxford CCC165 (Neubauer 2440) (This one is from the 12th century): Munich 5: Hamburg 32 ( Steinschneider 37): שלא תאמר הואל ופטורה מן המעשר תהא פטורה אף Hamburg 13 adds :מבכורים״ Berlin 1221: Parma 3081: Oxford Bodley Opp. 34 (Neubauer 186): שלא“London 26917 (Neubauer 168) – same as Hamburg 13 with :”תאמר Berlin Qu 514: Florence Plut III 03: Vatican Urbanati 1: Paris 155: Parma 2708: Parma 2868 is the only manuscript in this group which doesn’t have these words of Rashi embedded in the text, but rather has them written on the side: Tzevi Hirsch of Nadworna’s Sefer Alpha Beta Tzevi Hirsch of Nadworna’s Sefer Alpha Beta by Marvin J. Heller[1] By the riches of the sea they will be nourished, and by the treasures concealed in the sand. (Deuteronomy 33:19). Sefer Alpha Beta (1799) Nowy Dwor Courtesy of the National Library of Israel A primary component of the corpus of Hebrew literature is ethical works. The Torah is replete with examples of virtuous deeds, such as the patriarch Abraham’s numerous acts of kindness, and moral principles and commandments are a primary component of the taryag (613) mitzvot. Subsequent ethical works are innumerable, among the earliest and undisputedly the most popular being Pirkei Avot Pirkei Avot, the last tractate of Mishnayot in Seder Nezikin, was redacted in the third century C. E. It has since been copied, studied regularly, and been the frequent subject of commentaries. First printed in the incunabular period, it continues to be reprinted to the present-day. The popularity of Avot is attested to by the number of editions, both independently and together with eitherMishnayot or prayer books. Dr. Steven Weiss records, in his authoritative bibliography on Avot, from the first printing through 2015, 1,503 such editions.[2] Among the many other frequently reprinted ethical works are such classics as R. Bahya ben Joseph ibn Paquda’s (second half of 11th century) Ḥovot ha-Levavot; R.