Who is Buried in the Vilna Gaon’s Tomb? A Contribution Toward the Identification of the Authentic Grave of the Vilna Gaon

Who is Buried in the Vilna Gaon’s Tomb? A Contribution Toward the Identification of the Authentic Grave of the Vilna Gaon by Shnayer Z. Leiman 1. Prologue This essay attempts to identify the authentic grave of the Vilna Gaon (d. 1797).1 As will become apparent, it surely is not the grave that Jewish pilgrims are shown today when they visit Vilna. We shall attempt to identify his על פי שני עדים :authentic grave by applying the biblical rule a matter is established by the testimony of two“ יקום דבר witnesses.” We shall cite two different kinds of witnesses. ,.i.e ,תורה שבכתב One witness will represent primarily literary evidence. The other witness will represent .i.e., oral history , תורה שבעל פה primarily 2. Introduction Three Jewish cemeteries have served the Vilna Jewish community throughout its long history. The first Jewish cemetery, often called by its Yiddish nameder alter was north of the early modern ,(בית עולם הישן :feld (Hebrew Jewish Ghetto of Vilna, and just north of the Vilia River (today called the Neris) in the town of Shnipishok. It served as the main Jewish cemetery until 1830, when, due to lack of space, it was closed by the municipal authorities. The following photograph, taken in 1912, presents an aerial view of the first Jewish cemetery, looking north from Castle Hill in the old city. One can see the Neris River flowing south of the cemetery; portions of the fence surrounding the cemetery; and the house of the Jewish caretaker of the cemetery near the north-western entrance to the cemetery. (Each of the following images may be enlarged and viewed in higher resolution by clicking on them.)

Such famous rabbis as R. Moshe Rivkes (d. 1671), and R. Avraham Danzig (d. 1820), author ,באר הגולה author of were buried in der alter feld. See the following ,חיי אדם of .in the old cemetery חיי אדם photograph for the grave of the

The second Jewish cemetery, in use from 1831 until 1941, was east of Vilna proper, on a mountain overlooking the nearby neighborhood called Zaretcha. Here were buried famous Maskilim such as Adam Ha-Kohen Lebensohn (d. 1878), and famous rabbinic scholars such as R. Shmuel Strashun (d. 1872), R. Avraham Avele Pasvaler (d. 1836), R. Shlomo Ha-Kohen (d. 1906), and R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzenski (d. 1940). With 70,000 graves in place in 1940, the second cemetery ran out of space, and a third Jewish cemetery was acquired and dedicated by the Vilna Jewish community shortly before the outbreak of World War II. It lies north-west of central Vilna, in Saltonishkiu in the Sheshkines region, and is still in use today by the Jewish community in Vilna. The Vilna Gaon, who died in 1797, was, of course, buried in the first Jewish cemetery. That cemetery was destroyed in the Stalinist period circa 1950, but just before it was destroyed we are informed by the sources that the Gaon was moved, perhaps temporarily to the second cemetery,2 but certainly to the third cemetery, where he rests today. Let us enter the third cemetery and stand before the Ohel ha-Gra.

It is a modest and narrow Ohel. When one enters the Ohel, one sees seven graves laid out from left to right, with five tombstones embedded in the wall at the heads of the graves. The tour guides inform the visitors that the Gaon is buried in the fourth grave from the left. Indeed, directly above his grave, embedded in the wall, is a tombstone that clearly identifies the grave as that of the Gaon. One wonders who else is buried in the Ohel. The narrow confines of the Ohel, and the poor lighting in the Ohel, make it almost impossible to read the tombstones. One American publication identifies the others as R. Shlomo Zalman, the father of the Gra (d. 1758); R. Avraham, the son of the Gra (d. 1809); R. Yehoshua Heschel, Chief Rabbi of Vilna (d. 1749); R. Shmuel b. Avigdor, last Chief Rabbi of Vilna (d.1793); R. Avraham and Avraham b. Avraham, the ;חיי אדם Danzig, author of legendary Ger Zedek of Vilna. Another American publication presents a different list that includes R. Moshe Rivkes, .and Traina, the mother of the Gaon , באר הגולה author of the In Israel, several published lists know for a fact that R. Shmuel Strashun was moved together with the Gaon, and now rests in the new Ohel. All these accounts are imaginary.3 When one reads the accounts of the reinterment of the Gaon, and of those buried in his Ohel today, it becomes apparent than more than bodies were moved. Wherever possible, the original tombstones were moved together with the dead and then reset at the head of the graves. All one has to do is read the tombstone inscriptions in order to identify who was moved. Reading from left to right, buried in the Ohel ha-Gra are: 1. R. Zvi Hirsch Pesseles (d. 1817). A relative of the Gaon, whose grandfather, R. Eliyah Pesseles (d. 1771), helped finance the Gaon’s study activity. 2. R. Yissachar Baer b. R. Shlomo Zalman (d. 1807). A younger brother of the Gaon, he was a master of rabbinic literature who was also adept in the exact sciences. 3. R. Noah Mindes Lipshutz (d. 1797). Distinguished Kabbalist, He .נפלאות חדשות and פרפראות לחכמה he was the author of married Minda (hence: Mindes), the daughter of R. Eliyahu Pesseles, mentioned above (grave 1). A close associate of the Gaon during his lifetime, he and the Gaon share a single tombstone in death. 4. The Gaon. 5. Minda Lipshutz (date of death unknown). She was the daughter of R. Eliyah Pesseles and the wife of R. Noah Mindes Lipshutz. 6. Devorah Pesseles (date of death unknown). She was the wife of R. Dov Baer Pesseles, a son of R. Eliyahu Pesseles, and the mother of R. Zvi Hirsch Pesseles (grave 1). The seventh grave is unmarked, that is, it is without a tombstone. The tour guides will tell you that it contains the ashes of Avraham b. Avraham, the legendary Ger Zedek of Vilna.4 A pattern emerges. Clearly, the original plot in the Shnipishok cemetery belonged to the Pesseles family, one of the wealthiest and most distinguished in Vilna. The Gaon found his resting place here due to the generosity of his relatives and friends in the Pesseles family. More importantly, when a hard decision had to be made in 1950 or so regarding who should be moved from the old cemetery in Shnipishok, it was not the greatest rabbis who were moved and reinterred. It was neither R. Moshe Rivkes, nor R. Yehoshua Heschel, nor R. Shmuel b. Avigdor, nor R. Avraham Danzig, nor R. Shmuel Strashun. Nor was it the Gaon’s father, mother, or son. It was the Gaon and the persons to his immediate right and left; the Gaon saved not only himself, but also those buried in proximity to him. 3. The Problem While the identification seems reasonable, the ordering of the graves is problematic. Anyone familiar with traditional Jewish cemeteries will know that some keep men and women separate, while others are mixed. Clearly, the old Jewish cemetery in Shnipishok was mixed. But even when mixed, husbands and wives tended to be buried next to each other. So too mothers and sons. Yet in the Ohel ha-Gra, R. Zvi Hirsch Pesseles is buried at the extreme left, whereas his mother Devora is buried at the extreme right. Neither is buried next to his or her spouse. Even more puzzling is the fact that the Gaon rests in between Rabbi Noah Mindes Lipshutz and his wife Minda Lipshutz. Now it may be that Rabbi and Mrs. Lipshutz were not on speaking terms, but this was hardly the way to decide where the Gaon should be buried.

The problem assumes prodigious proportions when we ,קורות בית-העולמין הישן בוילנה examine Israel Klausner’s published in Vilna in 1935. Klausner visited the Shnipishok Jewish cemetery, recorded some of the tombstone inscriptions of its most famous rabbis and, more importantly, drew a precise map of the location of each grave. It is important to note his orientation, as he drew the map. Klausner stood at the northern entrance to the Jewish cemetery, looking southward toward the Vilia River. See the depiction of the Ohel ha-Gra in Klausner’s map. The graves in the Ohel ha-Gra, from left to right, are numbered 20-27. Some of those numbers represent two graves of persons buried immediately next to each other. Klausner, in his narrative, identifies the occupants of graves 20-27 as follows: ר’ שלמה זלמן אבי הגר”א (a .20 ר’ אליהו (b שתדלן (ר’ יהודה ב”ר אליעזר (יסו”ד (a .21 (חיה אשת ר’ יהודה ב”ר אליעזר (יסו”ד (b ר’ צבי הירש פעסעלעס .22 דבורה פעסעלעס .23 מינדה פעסעלעס ליפשיץ .24 ר’ נח מינדעס ליפשיץ (a .25 הגר”א (b ר’ ישכר בער אחי הגר”א .26 ר’ יהושע העשיל ב”ר שאול .27 This, then, is a complete list of all those who were buried in the original Ohel ha-Gra in the old Jewish cemetery. That Klausner has the order perfectly right can be seen from the following photograph.

in פ”נ הגאון רבינו אליהו Notice the inscription the center of the photograph, near the roof-top of the Ohel. Turning to the extreme left of the Ohel, where the roof slopes down almost to the ground, one can see two grave markers above a single tombstone. When enlarged, the inscriptions above the פ”נ אבי :(tombstone clearly read (from left to right exactly in the order recorded by ,ר’ אליהו שתדלן and הגר”א Klausner (see above, grave number 20). When we compare Klausner’s list with the present occupants of the Ohel ha-Gra, it becomes clear that those who moved the Gra from the first to the third cemetery, moved the graves numbered 22-26, a total of six persons altogether, from the original Ohel ha- Gra. The seventh grave, unmarked, remains unidentified and could have come from any part of the old cemetery, and not necessarily from the Ohel ha-Gra. When we enter the Ohel ha-Gra today, we need to bear in mind that we are entering from the south and looking north. We see the mirror image of what Klausner depicted on his map. Thus the expected order today should be: The expected order solves all our problems. On the extreme right, Devorah and her son R. Zvi Hirsch are buried next to each other. In the center, R. Noah and his wife Minda are buried next to each other. And the Gra is second from the left. It is the actual order that creates our problem. Devorah and R. Zvi Hirsch are separated; neither is buried next to his or her spouse. The Gra is buried in between R. Noah Lipshutz .אין זה אומר אלא דרשני .and his wife Minda One more piece of evidence needs to be introduced before we attempt to solve the problem. Israel Cohen, British Zionist and world traveler, visited Vilna twice before World War II. Regarding the Shnipishok cemetery, he records the following: Most famous of all is the tomb of the Gaon Elijah, who lies in the company of a few other pietists on a spot covered by a modest mausoleum which is entered by an iron- barred door. The tombstones, with long eulogistic epitaphs, are not enclosed within the mausoleum, but stand at the back of it, in close juxtaposition and closely protected by a thick growth of shrubs and bushes.

Israel Cohen, Vilna (Philadelphia, 1943), pp. 415-416. Cf. his Travels in Jewry (New York, 1953), pp. 149-150. 4. The Solution It seems obvious that those who moved the Gaon to the new Jewish cemetery made one slight adjustment relating to the ordering of the graves. They moved R. Zvi Hirsch from the extreme right to the extreme left. We will never know with certainty why they did so. What was gained, perhaps, is that now all the males were together on the left, and all the females were together on the right. By moving R. Zvi Hirsch to the extreme left, the Gra was now the third grave from the left. But the actual order today appears to have the Gra as the fourth grave from the left, and buried in between R. Noah and his wife Minda. We need to remember that in the old Jewish cemetery the tombstones were outside the Ohel ha-Gra, each tombstone opposite the remains of the person it described, with text of the tombstone facing in a northerly direction. Indeed, every tombstone in the old Jewish cemetery was placed opposite the remains of the person it described, with the text of the tombstone facing in a northerly direction.

We also need to remember that the Gra and R. Noah shared one tombstone.5

The Gra’s epitaph was on the right side of the tombstone; R. Noah’s epitaph was on the left side of the tombstone. This was in perfect order, since inside the Ohel, the Gra was to the left of R. Noah, and R. Noah was to the left of, and next to, his wife Minda. In the new Jewish cemetery, the six graves were laid out exactly as in the old cemetery, with the exception of R. Zvi Hirsch as indicated. But it was decided to place the original tombstones inside the Ohel, at the head of each of the graves. Instead of facing in a northerly direction, with texts that could be read only by standing outside the Ohel, the tombstones, now reversed, faced in a southerly direction, with texts that could be read only when standing inside the Ohel. Doubtless, this was done in order to protect the historic tombstones from exposure to the elements, from deterioration, and from vandalism. Also, the tombstones now immediately identified who was buried in each grave. Unfortunately, when the single tombstone shared by the Gra and R. Noah was reversed and set up inside the Ohel, it automatically (and wrongly) identified the third grave from the left as R. Noah, and the fourth grave from the left as the Gra, and caused a split between R. Noah and his wife. In fact, the Gra is the third grave from the left, and R. Noah is the fourth grave from the left – and R. Noah is properly buried next to his wife Minda. In other words, all Jews who visit the grave of the Gra today, pray, and leave qvitlach, at the wrong grave (i.e., at the grave of R. Noah Mindes Lipshutz). The above solution was based upon an examination of the literary evidence, and upon an examination of עד photographs preserved mostly in books. I call this תורה one witness), that is, the testimony of) אחד i.e., the literary evidence). But a matter established) שבכתב by only one witness is precarious at best.6 Intuitively I was persuaded by the one witness, but hesitated to put the solution in print until more evidence was forthcoming. בבחינת Fortunately, a surprise second witness has come forward .i.e., oral history). Rabbi Yitzhak Zilber (d) תורה שבעל פה 2003) was a courageous Jew who lived most of his life under Soviet repression between the years 1917 and 1972, before ultimately settling in Israel. He published a riveting autobiography in Russian in 2003. It has since been translated into Hebrew and English. In his autobiography, Zilber describes how in 1970, under Communist rule, he visited the Ohel ha-Gra in Vilna. The Jew who took him to the Ohel had participated in the transfer of the Gra from the first Jewish cemetery in Shnipishok to the third Jewish cemetery in Saltonishkiu. As they stood before the Gaon’s grave, the Jew turned to Zilber and said:7 Remember the following forever: the Gaon’s tombstone is above the fourth grave from the left, but the Gaon’s body is in the third grave [from the left].

A matter is established by the“ !על פי שני עדים יקום דבר testimony of two witnesses.” NOTES 1 This essay should not be confused with an earlier essay of mine with a similar title, “Who is Buried in the Vilna Gaon’s Tomb? A Mysterious Tale with Seven Plots,”Jewish Action, Winter 1998, pp. 36-41. The primary focus of the earlier essay was on the identification of the six persons buried together with the Vilna Gaon in his mausoleum (the Ohel Ha-Gra). The primary focus of this essay is on the identification of the grave of the Vilna Gaon himself. A version of this essay was read at a conference in honor of Professor Daniel Sperber, held at Bar-Ilan University on June 13, 2011. It is presented here in honor of the Vilna Gaon’s 215th yahrzeit on 19 Tishre, 5773. 2 The claim that the Vilna Gaon was moved temporarily from the first to the second Jewish cemetery appears, among many other places, ,(Tel-Aviv, 1993) וילנא ירושלים דליטא חרבה ,.in Y. Alfasi, ed דער יידישער בית-עולם אין ווילנע” ירושלים,“ ,p. 9; Y. Epstein .October-November 1996, pp. 5-6; and N.N ,דליטא Shneidman, Jerusalem of Lithuania (Oakville, Ontario, 1998), p. 161. An examination of eye-witness accounts of the reburial of the Gaon, and of much other evidence, yields the ineluctable conclusion that the Gaon was moved only once, directly from the first to the third Jewish cemetery. 3 See the references cited in the Jewish Action essay (above, note 1). 4 So reads the Hebrew sign above the entrance to the Ohel Ha- Gra. But the Ohel Ha-Gra was constructed over a three-year period between 1956 and 1958. I cannot say with certainty when the sign first went up, but logic dictates it did not go up before there was an Ohel. In all the early photographs of the Ohel I have seen, there was no sign at all. It surely wasn’t there during the period of Soviet domination of Lithuania, which means it first when up sometime after 1991. As such, it is hardly evidence for who is buried in the Ohel Ha-Gra. More importantly, one of the participants in the reinterment of the Vilna Gaon testified that he and his colleagues wanted to move the remains of Avraham ben Avraham, the Ger Zedek of Vilna, but could not locate his ashes in the old Jewish cemetery. See R.Yitzchak Zilber, To Remain a Jew (Jerusalem, 2010), pp. 389-390. 5 For side by side transcriptions of the epitaphs on their tombstone, in clear Hebrew font, see R. Noah Mindes .Brooklyn, 1995), p. 17) פרפראות לחכמה ,Lipshutz 6 I was plagued by the remote possibility that the movers, precisely because the shared tombstone required the Gaon to be to the right of R. Noah, switched the remains of the Gaon and R. Noah, and deliberately buried the Gaon in between Minda and R. Noah. (I considered this a remote possibility, because it is highly unlikely that any rabbi would allow such tampering with who was buried to the immediate left and right of the Gaon. As is well known, R. Hayyim Zvi Shifrin [d. 1952] presided over the reinterment of the Gaon. See R. Yaakov Jerusalem, 1981], pp. 26-30.) If so, all] קול יעקב ,Shifrin the tombstones are accurately positioned in the Ohel Ha-Gra, even today. Cf. my deliberations in American Jewish Monitor , October 24, 2003, p. 18. 7 R. Yitzchak Zilber, op. cit. (above, note 4), p. 389.

On some new seforim, Copernicus, saying Ledovid , Moses Mendelssohn and other random comments

On some new seforim, Copernicus, saying Ledovid , Moses Mendelssohn and other random comments By Eliezer Brodt

Here is a list of recent seforim and books I have seen around in the past few months. This is not an attempt to list everything or even close to it; rather it’s just a list of seforim and books on many random topics, which I have seen while shopping for seforim. I enumerated a few titles which I have a Table of Contents for. Please feel free to e-mail me for them.

1. רשב”ץ על מסכת ברכות, אהבת שלום, עם הערות של ר’ דוד צבי הילמן

In this work they claim to have double checked the manuscript, thereby fixing some mistakes in the earlier edition of Rav Hilman. They included all of Rav Hillman’s notes

2. חידושי הריטב”א, מהדורא בתרא, על מסכת קידושין מוסד רב קוק 3. מנחת יהודה פירוש לתורה לר’ יהודה בן אלעזר מבעלי התוסופת, מכתב יד, על ספר בראשית, מוסד רב קוק, מהדיר: פר’ חזוניאל טויטו, מבוא של 176 עמ’ ורכ עמודים טקסט 4. אבן עזרא, קהלת, מוסד רב קוק 5. ספר המחלוקות, ספר הפשוטים, ר’ יהושע בועז [בעל ה’שליטי גיבורים’] ג’ חלקים, נדפס לראשונה מכתב יד על הספר ראה כאן 6. אגרות ותשובות רבינו חיים בן עטר, בעל האור החיים הקדוש מכתב יד, כולל תפילה, ליקוטי שמועות, תשובות ופסקים, מכתבים, קינות, הספדים, רעה עמודים.

This volume is nicely done, and it contains many new pieces never before printed. One thing that I found strange is when citing the sources for the various pieces, he did not bother to mention that some of them were already printed many years ago by Binyomin Klar in various journals. Later on they were collected in a volume called Rabbi Chaim Ibn Attar, printed by Mossad Rav Kook in 1951. Oddly enough they do quote some of the original places where Klar had printed the pieces first

7. עטרת ראש לר’ לוי מקאנדי, על מסכת ברכות. 8. יין ישן בקנקן חדש, על מסכת ברכות, מכון הדרת חן, תתקצב עמודים, אסופות חיבורים עתיקים מגדולי האחרונים שהיהו גנוזים מעיני הלומדים, בעריכה חדשה בתוספות מראה מקומות מפתחות ותולדות, [עשרים ספרים]. בין הספרים, ולא עוד אלא, בכור שור, גפן פוריה, ויאמר שמואל, לווית חן, מלך שלם, מירא דכיא, גנזי יוסף, למנצח דוד, זרע יעקב, ארץ החיים, איי הים, רוב דגן, מעיל שמואל, קהלת יעקב, צרור החיים, לשמוע בלימודים, ברכת דוד, מכתב לחזקיהו, ילקוט הגרשוני. 9. מבוא המסורה, ר’ יוסף קלמן מקאסוויע, נדפס בווארשא תרמ”ט, 112 עמודים.

This work, first printed in 1862 and again in 1889 deals, with the subject of the Masorah by Rabbi Yosef Kalman. One of the points of interest to me about this work is that it received many different haskamot from gedolim of the time. This of interest because the first 15 pages of the work quotes many passages from R. Eliyahu Bachur’s classic work on the subject, including his controversial opinion about the post-Talmudic origin of the nekkudot. Now in the comments on the bottom of the page the author writes that this was already disproven (more on this shortly) but he had no problem to quote this controversial opinion in the main text of the work without arguing on it in the main body or censuring the Tishbi in any form. This is in sharp contrast to the work Nekudot Hakesef printed in 2001.

Now what is interesting is that the person who just printed this new work (someone from Bnei Brak) felt he had to add in one comment to this sefer, so right in the beginning of this long quote from R. Eliyahu Bachur he added in the following:

עיין בספר מגדל עוז מר’ יעקב עמדין בעלית הכתיבה ראיות מכריעות נגד דעת הנ”ל של רא”ב

What’s interesting is that on the next page the original author of the sefer writes:

אמר המאסף וכבר השיג עליו בזה בעל אמרי בינה מהזוה”ק והאידרא שהנקודות היו קודם חתימת התלמוד ע”ש באורך הביאו הרמבמ”ן בהקדמתו על התורה ע”ש I am positive that the recent printer of this sefer did not realize who this was. The original author of this sefer is quoting the Meor Einayim from Rabbi Azariah Min Hadomim who is quoted by Moses Mendelssohn in the introduction to his Chumash, where Mendelssohn quotes him in regard to the origin of the Nekudot. Possibly we can see from this another piece of evidence that it was not considered so bad to quote from Mendelssohn at that time, and especially how well known Mendelssohn’s introduction was. Apparently the printer did not refers to Mendelssohn. For a הרמבמ”ן realize the initials recent case of someone not realizing what these initials are see he work on the Koheles falsely attributed to the Malbim by Oz Vehadar [See Yeshurun 25 pp. 724-735, (PDF available upon request)]

One more addition to all this, in 1870 Rabbi Yosef Kalman put out another sefer on the subject called Shaar Hamesorah which received haskamot from Litvish Superstars of the time. In the introduction he returns to the subject of the origin of nekkudot and again he quotes the Meor Einayim of Rabbi Azariah, who is quoted by Moses Mendelssohn. However here he makes a strange mistake of thinking that the Rabbi Azariah quoted by Mendelssohn was the Rama Mepano!

Returning to the work Mevo Hamesorah, one last discussion of his worth nothing is about Ibn Ezra and his opinion of the origin of Nekudot (pp. 104-105). [For more on the subject of Nekudot see Dan Rabinowitz’s excellent article available here; Jordan Penkower, The Dates of Composition of the Zohar and the book Bahir (Heb.) Cherub Press; Rabbi Dovid Rothestein work available here. See also my Likutei Eliezer, pp. 71-72]

10. יד יהודה, ר’ יהודה לנדא, תשובות פסקים וכתבים, מכתב יד, קלו עמודים 11. חמודי דניאל עם פ’ רחבת ידים 12. חמודי דניאל על הלכות נדה, נדפס לראשונה מכתב יד בתוך ספר מעין בינה על מסכת נדה 13. קשר תורה, [לקשר סוף התורה לתחילתה] נדפס פעם ראשונה ווילנא תרסז, ר’ יצחק מו”צ בעיר ריטווא, 112 עמודים. 14. קול חיים, סדרי לימוד ותפילות להגיע האדם לגיל שבעים שנה ואילך, ר’ חיים פאלאג’י, מכון אהבת שלום 15. הקללה לברכה, הלכות איסור קללה, ר’ מרדכי גרוס, קמה עמודים 16. מנהג אבותינו בידינו, ר’ גדלי’ אבעלראנדר, ביאורים ובירורים במנהגי ישראל מקורותיהם ושרשי טעמיהם, שבת, נישואין שונות, תסד עמודים, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.

This volume is a collection of Rabbi Oberlander’s articles originally printed in the journals Or Yisroel and Heichel HaBesht as well as other places. These essays are very organized and well written on a wide range of interesting topics, all based on a nice collection of sources. I highly recommend this work. Of course one can always add to such . לא המלאכה עליך לגמור collections of material here but

17. אני לדודי, שיחות מוסר וחיזוק לחודש אלול וימים נוראים, ר’ שריה דבליצקי, קעג עמודים 18. ישא יוסף, אורח חיים חלק ב, ר’ יוסף אפרתי, רכו עמודים 19. הטבילה בהלכה ואגדה, ר’ משה סופר, תסד עמודים 20. ביד נביאך, בעניני הפטרות ונביאים, כולל אסופות תשובות ומאמרים בהלכה ואגדה, פרקי הלכה בעיני הפטרה וכתיבת נביאים, כולל כת”י של האדר”ת על נביאים וכתובים בשם ‘נביאים טובים’, הלכות הפטרה להגר”ש דבליצקי, וס’ סימנים על עניני הפטרה ונביאים, תרב עמודים 21. שעות שוות בהלכה, כולל מחקר וסקירה על תולדות הפחתות מדידית הזמן לאורך הדורות, ר’ יצחק זילבער, שצ עמודים 22. שמות בארץ, שמות אנשים, ממשנתו של מרן ר’ חיים קניבסקי, דיני וענייני שמות אנשים ונשים ובשווי שמות בשידוכין, וקו’ שמות נשים, ר’ צבי יברוב, קלט עמודים 23. ברכת הלבנה, הלכות ומנהגים, ר’ יוסף אדלר, קב עמודים 24. בים דרך, מאמרי עולם חלק א, ר’ מיכל זילבר, שסז עמודים 25. גם אני אודך על ענייני ברכת כהנים, ר’ גמליאל רבינוביץ, תרלב עמודים 26. ספר פת שחרית כהלכה, ר’ יששכר דוב הופמן, צו עמודים

This is another work from the author of the now-famous recent ..work all about sneezing in Jewish law

27. מאורות הגר”א, חלק ב, ר’ רובין, שפ עמודים 28. ר’ ראובן פרידמן, כי עת לחננה, הליה וישיבה בארץ ישראל, 490 עמודים, מוסד רב קוק 29. ר’ ישראל גארפינקל, כיצד מרקדין, בענין ריקודין של מצוה מצוה טאנץ, רמח עמודים 30. חזון עובדיה, שבת חלק ה, ר’ עובדיה יוסף הל’ צובע, קושר ומתיר, תופר צד ממחק כותב ומוחק, השמעת קול, בונה, אוהל, מתקן מנה, תד עמודים 31.הלכה ברורה חלק יג, ר’ דוד יוסף, סי’ רמב-רנב, תקלו +צ+נד עמודים 32. זהב לבושה, איסור פאה נכרית, הלכה הגות מחשבה, שכד עמודים 33. לוח ההלכות והמנהגים לשנת תשע”ג, 372 עמודים 34. קוטנרס האינטרנט בהלכה, קב עמודים 35. ישועות כהן, ר’ יהושע אדלר, ביאור סוגית קוי התאריך, צג עמודים 36. ספר תהלים עם פירוש מפורש, כולל ביאורים על תרגום כתובים ר’ לייביש דיייטש, תק”ח עמודים 37. שערי חג הסוכות, הלכות סוכה, ד’ מינים הו”ר שמיני עצרת ושמחת תורה, ר’ יהודה טשזנר, תקל עמודים 38. קובץ תשובות חלק ד, ממרן ר’ אלישיב זצוק”ל, שכט עמודים, כולל מפתחות על לארבע כרכי קובץ תשובות, 73 עמודים 39. הערות במסכת ברכות, מר’ אלישיב זצוק”ל, תקמא עמודים 40. כתבי הגרי”ש, בהלכה ואגדה, מכתבי יד של ר’ אלישיב זצוק”ל, ימים נוראים וסוכות, קס עמודים 41. אשרי האיש, פסקי מרן הגרי”ש אלישיב זצוק”ל, יורה דעה, ב’ חלקים נלקט ע”י ר’ יחזקאל פיינהנדלר 42. רישא דגולתא הספדים על ר’ אלישיב זצ”ל 43. שו”ת פוע”ה מניעת הריון, קובץ שאלות רבני פוע”ה ותשובות של פוסקים, 141 עמודים 44. באמונה שלימה, ר’ יוסף בלאך, תרם עמודים This work is written by Rabbi Yosef Bloch, who is a well-known Talmid Chacham from Monsey. In this volume Rabbi Bloch deals with many “hot” issues related to Emunah, bringing many interesting discussions to the table. Just to list a few side points of his: he brings that some say that the Chazon Ish’s work Emunah Ubitachon was never supposed to be printed (pp. 69-70) as the Chazon Ish never wanted it printed. He also deals with a piece that was censored from later versions of the Emunah Ubitachon (p. 39). He brings numerous sources against the Ralbag (pp. 140-141). He has a radical statement about what chazal mean when they say “there is wisdom by the :(Gentiles” (pp. 301-302

דכל חכמת הגוים הוא בדברים גשמיים דוקא וכגון מכוניות סעלפאון כלי השחתה למלחמה וכדומה, שם ורק שם יש להם חכמה,… ברוחניות אין להם שום מגע והבנה כלל, ותיקון העולם הוא עצמו איבוד חכמיהם וזה כלל גדול בהבנת ענין חכמת האומות בברזל ובעצים ואבנים ובאלקטריק יודעים קצת, בצומחים יודעים פחות מזה בגופות בעלי חיים יודעים הרבה פחות מזה, בגוף האדם עוד הרבה פחות מזה, בחכמת התכונה השמיימית עוד הרבה פחות בנפשיות האדם יודעים משהו ממשהו ממש , בחכמה עליונה אפס מוחלט לא כלום!

He has a radical explanation for the famous Gemarah about killing lice on Shabbas (pp. 305-307). Another very interesting discussion of his is about the sugyah of Elu Ve- .(elu Divrei Elokim Chayim (pp. 308-323

A few years ago I wrote a few comments (here) about Rabbi Bloch’s work against Copernicus. I recently revisited the topic in the last issue in Hakirah. In this new volume Rabbi Bloch includes his anti-CopernicanEssay but with various updates. If one reads the essay carefully one can see many of these updates he is referring to points in my article. Hopefully in the future I will deal with all the issues he raises but for now I would just like to mention two points at :(one point he writes (p. 358

ולא מצאתי אחד מגדולי ישראל מכל הדורות שיחזיקו אפילו במקצת דמקצת כדעת התוכנים ומה שהעידו בשם קדוש ה’ המהרי”ל דיסקין זצוק”ל דהיהו סבר ככה, שקר העידו בו דלא כך היה מעשה אלא שענה שלואל דאין הכרח נכד התוכנים מלשון הברכה כמדומה ממה שנקראת ברכת החמה אבל מעולם לא יצא מפיו הקדוש דנקט איהו כהתוכנים.

I honestly have no idea what he is talking about but as I :brought in my article (p.29) the source says as follows

“וכן אמר לי ידידי הרב וכו’ ר’ אבנר נ”י בעל המחבר סי’ ציר נאמן, בתורת עדות ששמע מפי רבנו הקדוש רשכבה”ג מהרי”ל דיסקין זצוק”ל שהשיטה החדשה אינה מופרכת. ושאל לו מן הכתוב בקהלת א’ וזרח השמש ובא השמש וכו’ הולך על דרום כו’ וענה לו שהכתוב אמר לפי ראות עיני האדם”.

I also explained there (p. 31) why this sources is very reliable. But what bothered me even more was what he writes .there on pg. 359

ומה שכמה מהמשגיחים וראשי הישיבות מהדור הקודם נ”ע כתבו דרך אגב בין הדברים בספריהם… כשיטת קופעריקוס, אין מזה שום הוכחה כלל לדעת התורה בענין הזה, דלא באו אותם הגאונים זללה”ה ליקח עמדה בהדיון הזה, דלא היתה זו הסוגיא שלהם ולא ידעו שיש בזה סתירה להשקפת התורה שלא ניסו בכגון אלו ולא עיינו בה, ונסתמכו דכיון דככה אומרים הכל מסתמא הוכיחו התוכנים דהאמת כן הוא, ולא ירדו לסוף דעתם של התוכנים לידע שכוונתם עקירת האמת ואין מדבריהם ז”ל הוכחה של כלום, וכאילו לא אמרו כלום בנידון הזה

Now besides for the haughtiness of this statement the only Rosh HaYeshiva I quoted in my article that wrote an essay very pro Copernicus was Rabbi Yonah Mertzbach someone who had a college degree in these areas so I am not really sure what he .is talking about

One last source related to this topic of Copernicus was brought to my attention in a collection of things by Rabbi Zerach Shapiro who was close with the Chazon Ish (part of this booklet was printed in Yeshurun volume 26) where he asked the :Chazon Ish about Copernicus

בענין מה מסתובב השמש או כדור הארץ, אמר שאין הכרעה בדברי חז”ל.

One last point in regard to Rabbi Bloch’s book is he prints an unprinted essay of his father’s, extremely anti Zionistic and the Mizrachi from 1943 (p. 115-116). I think the reason why he is printed this letter here, while it may otherwise seem out of place, is rather simple. In the same issue of the Hakirah where my essay about Copernicus appeared he saw another article froms Elazar Muskin, When Unity Reigned Yom ha’azmaut 1954 which deals with Rabbi Bloch positive attitude to Yom .ha’azmaut

קבצים 1 המעין גליון 203, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים 2. אור ישראל גליון סה, שפג עמודים, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים 3. היכל הבעל שם טוב, גליון לד, קצב עמודים 4. מוריה גליון שעג-שעד 5. ארזים, גליון א, גנוזות וחידושי תורה, מכון שובי נפשי, תקפח עמודים [כולל רס עמודים של כת”י על ענינים שונים] 6. קובץ בית אהרן וישראל גליון קסב, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים. This issue includes another attack on Rabbi Dovid Kamentsky (PDF available upon request].

7. עץ חיים גליון יח, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים 8. ישורון חלק כז, תתקמ”ב עמודים, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים

One piece worth mentioning in this issue is the complete manuscript of the Meishiv Nefesh printed for the first time, .(edited by Rabbi Yehudah Hershkowitz (59 pp

מחקר ועניינים שונים 1. גאון ההוראה אחרי 50 שנה: היסטוריה, הגות, ריאליה; קובץ מחקרים בעקבות יום העיון במכללת אפרתה על הרב צבי פסח פראנק / עורך – ישראל רוזנסון, קע עמודים, מכללת אפרתה. 2. המסע ,האחרון מאתיים שנה למסעו בעל התניא בעיצומה של מלחמת נפוליאון תקע”ב-תשע”ב, [לאור מסמכים ותעודות, חדשים גם ישנים, וגם סיפורים ושמועות דרושים ומאמרים], יהושע מונדשיין, 378 עמודים. 3. נתיבי מאיר, אסופות מאמרים, מאיר רפלד, 456 עמודים ]ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים]

This is a beautiful collection of Dr. Rafeld’s articles on a very wide range of topics. Some of the articles relate to Rishonim on Chumash and many others relate to the world of minhag and Tefilah. There is also a nice collection of important articles related to the Maharshal and his generation (one of Rafeld’s specialties). All these articles show a great .breadth and depth in each of their perspective subjects 4. הרב פנחס הירשפרונג, מעמק הבכא הנאצי, זכורנות של פליט, 215 עמודים 5. ר’ יחזקאל סופר, במאי קמיפלגי, הפולמוס המשיחי בתנועת חב”ד, 408 עמודים 6. הלבוש היהודי באירופה במהלך הדורות, הלכה, מנהגים, גזירות מאבקים, תקנות, מנחם מקובר, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים. 7. אביר הרועים, קורות העתים הנהגתו ומשנתו של ר’ עובדיה יוסף, משנת תרפ”א-תשי”א,יעקב ששון, 320 עמודים 8. רבן של ישראל, מראות קודש ממרן פוסק הדור הגרי”ש אלישיב זצוק”ל, 219 עמודים 9. יש”א שלום, הערכתו של הגרי”ש אלישיב זצ”ל כלפי מרן הראי”ה קוק זצ”ל, 58 עמודים 10. הדף היומי, ר’ דוד מנדלבוים 11. רועה ישראל, על ר’ ישראל יעקב פישר, חלק ב 12. יהדות התורה והמדינה, ר’ אוריאל צימר, בירור רעיוני קצר בשאלת היחס לציונות ולמידנה עם קצת פרקי היסטוריה מן העבר הקרוב, 47 עמודים, 13. מפיהם אני חיים, ר’ משה קנר, מאמרים על תלמוד בבלי וירושלמי, רב האי גאון, רבינו גרשום, רש”י בעל התוספות, מהר”ם מרוטנבורג וגדולי ספרד, 375 עמודים. 14. משונצינו ועד וילנא, תולדות הדפסת התלמוד, ר’ יעקב לופיר, 310 עמודים,

.I hope to review this book at length here shortly

15. משה אידל, שלמויות בולעות קבלה ופרשנות, ידיעות ספרים, 695 עמודים 16. רשימת הפירסומים, יוסף דן, תשי”ח-תשע”ב, 205 עמודים 17. יעקב לאטס, פנקס קהילות רומא, שע”ה-תנ”ה, כולל מבוא והערות, מכון יצחק בן צבי, 409 עמודים 18. משנת ארץ ישראל, שמואל, זאב, וחנה ספראי, מסכת פאה 19. משנת ארץ ישראל, שמואל, זאב, וחנה ספראי, מסכת כלאים

After recently completing Seder Moed they are now almost .finished with Seder Zerayim

20. צדיק יסוד עולם, השליחות הסודית והחוויה המיסטית של הרב קוק, סמדר שרלו, 444 עמודים, אונברסיטה בר אילן 21. דעת גליון 73 22. מקראות גדולות – `הכתר`-שמות א`-מהדורה מוקטנת 23. משה פלאי, עטרה ליושנה, המאבק ליצירת יהדות ההשכלה, 501 עמודים, קיבוץ המאוחד 24. ללמוד את שפת המולדת, מאמריו של י”ל גורדון בשנים 1881-1882, [מאמרי ביקרות על ספרים ועוד], מוסד ביאליק, ספריית דורות, 367 עמודים 25. כִּתַאבּ אַלנֻּתַף: פירושו הדקדוקי של ר’ יהודה חיוג’ לספרי נביאים בעיבוד עלי בן סלימן מאת אהרן ממן ואפרים בן-פורת, אקדמיה ללשון העברית 26. פרקי עיון בעברית החדשה ובעשייה בה מאת משה בר-אשר, אקדמיה ללשון העברית 27. מקורות ומסורות, סדר ניזקין, דוד הלבני, מגנס 28. ההלכה: הקשרים רעיוניים ואידאולוגיים גלויים וסמויים, מגנס 29. סידור תפילות בלאדינו, סלוניקי, המאה השש עשרה, מכון יצחק בן צבי 30. רעואל וחבריו פרשנים יהודיים מביזנטיון מסביבות המאה העשירית לספירה, גרשון ברין, אוניברסיטת תל-אביב 31. רבי חיים בן עטר ופירושו אור החיים על התורה, אלעזר טויטו, 291 עמודים, מכללת אורות ישראל 32. מחשבת ישראל ואמונת ישראל, בעריכת דניאל לסקר, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון, 293 עמודים בעברית, 186 עמודים באנגליש, ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים.

This volume has many interesting articles. Worth mentioning is Marc Shapiro’s Is there a Pesak for Jewish Thought and David Shatz ‘s article Nothing but the truth? Modern Orthodoxy and the Polemical uses of History. In the first footnote Shatz mentions Marc Shapiro’s posts on the Seforim Blog. Much can be added to this essay but of note is footnote 28 where he :writes

To be clear, academics, I find, generally shun blogs that are aimed at a popular audience because the comments are often, if not generally, uninformed (and nasty). A few academics do read such blogs, but do not look at the comments. One result of academics largely staying out of blog discussions is that non-experts become viewed as experts. Even when academics join the discussion, the democratic atmosphere of the blog world allows non-experts to think of themselves as experts and therefore as equals of the academicians. Some laypersons, though, as I said earlier, are indeed experts in certain areas of history.

33. חקרי קבלה ותפילה, משה חלמיש, אוניברסיטת בן גוריון, 458 עמודים ניתן לקבל תוכן העניינים

This work is a collection of twenty five articles by Professor Hallamish about tefilah and kabbalah. Some of these articles appeared in print in various journals, festschrifts and memorial volumes, others are supposed to appear soon, and some were written specially for this volume. They all share the common denominator that they are based on research of an incredible amount of manuscripts and rare volumes. I have no idea how he had patience to open up that many books! Based on these discoveries Hallamish shows the influence of Kabbalah on tefilah. One can also find wealth of information on nussach of Tefilah in these volumes. There is a lot to comment on .different points on this volume

Just to make one small comment as it relates to Elul and a subject I have written about. In chapter thirteen he deals with sources for the custom of saying Ledovid in Elul. He brings early sources for saying it all year around. He quotes the Siddur Shaarei Rachamim which brings this custom to say Ledovid. Now the importance of this find is that this siddur is based on R.Chaim Hacohen who was a Talmid of Rabbi Chaim Vital. If this source is reliable then we have an earlier source for this custom. The first person (not noted by Hallamish) to point to this siddur for an early source for saying Ledovid in Elul was Rabbi Yakov Rokeach in his work Shaarei Tefilah, first printed in 1870. Now it’s well known that the editor of this siddur, Chaim Abadi, added in lots from the Chemdas Yamim and other sources so it’s not so simple if one can consider this siddur a reliable source. However, recently Rabbi Goldhaber checked up the many manuscripts of the actual siddur of R. Chaim Hacohen and found that the custom of saying Ledovid does not appear anywhere in it. Recently part of this siddur was printed by Mechon Zichron Aharon and the custom of Ledovid does appear inside this siddur. So based on this new printed siddur Hallamish has a .very early source for saying Ledovid

First of all what is clear is this is not a source to say Ledovid specifically during Elul but rather an early source to say Ledovid the whole year around. Earlier in this siddur where R. Chaim Hacohen has various chapters of Tehilim to be said on special days he does not include Ledovid to be said during Elul. However at the end of davening Ledovid appears in this new siddur. But more importantly one has to be careful to read the fine print on the page as above where it is printed to say Ledovid in small print the editor adds in that saying Ledovid here does not appear in the original manuscript! Now all this is rather strange; why did he bother adding this in? This is not the place for it as it should be earlier in the siddur with the other chapters said on special days. Even more interesting is that the editor of this siddur says that they decided that four of the manuscripts are authentic but all others have parts added in so they are not going to print all added in pieces so the question is why did they choose to add in Ledovid .and add nothing else in this printed version

A few months back I mentioned that the new work by David Assaf Hazitz Unifgah appeared in print. I noted that a complete bibliography of the sources that were used for writing this book was printed in the recent volume of Mechkarei Yerushalayim 23 (2011) pp. 407-481. This was not included in this new work. Recently this bibliography appeared on line here.

English

1. The Tent of Avraham, Gleanings from the David Cardozo Academy, edited by Nathan Cardozo, Urim Press. 232 pp. 2. Inside Stam, A complete buyers Guide, Rabbi Reuvain Mendlowitz, Israel bookshop, 440 pp. 3.Edward Fram, A Window on Their World: The Court Diaries of Rabbi Hayyim Gundersheim Frankfurt am Main, 1773-1794, Wayne State Univ Press, 653 pps.

What’s Wrong With Wealth and Honor?

What’s Wrong With Wealth and Honor? by Eli Genauer

Below, we will present some timely notes regarding an English/Hebrew Machzor for Rosh Hashana which was printed in England in 1807. We will touch upon a variety of issues, and thus first present general backgrounds regarding Hebrew printing in London, the prayer for the state, and Kol Nidrei.

Hebrew Typography in London The earliest use of Hebrew typography in England is sometime in the middle to the late 1520s. Of course, at that time, Jews were banned from England and the earliest works containing Hebrew type in England were produced for non-Jews.

The prize of first was thought to go to Thomas Wakefield’s publication of his address regarding “Three Languages” – Hebrew, Arabic and Chaldean (Oratio de laudibus et utilitate trium linguarum [link]). The type, as you can see, was quite primitive. This lecture was given in 1524, and as the book itself is undated, it was assumed that the lecture was published soon after it was given. Thus, many dated it to 1524/25. Wakefield, a noted Hebraist, actually spends the majority of the book discussing Hebrew and the other two languages get short shrift.[1] Recently, however, the dating of this work has been challenged and been shown to likely incorrect. The author, in the self- described “Holmesian manner,”[2] highlights the various persons Wakefield claims to have tutored in Hebrew and the honorifics used to describe those persons.[3] Based upon some of the descriptions, it seems likely that Wakefield’s work was not published prior to 1527 and most likely in 1528. [4] This conclusion, coupled with the dating of another work by a different author, unseats Wakefield’s book claim to first. Instead, Richard Pace’s Praefatio in Ecclesisten, printed in August 1527, is the most likely candidate for the first use of Hebrew typography in England.[5] Here is a sample:

It took nearly two hundred years after the appearance of Hebrew typography for the first Hebrew book published for a Jewish audience in England. The controversy surrounding R. David Nieto’s remarks and their affinity or lack thereof to Spinoza would produce the first printed Jewish Hebrew book in England. The first was a very small one, only a few pages, of a responsum written by R. Tzvi Ashkenzi, in R. Nieto’s defense, and published in 1705. It included both Spanish as well as Hebrew (available here).[6] For more on R. Nieto and this controversy, see the Seforim Blog’s earlier post here. The Prayer for the Welfare of the State The prayer for the welfare of the king or ruler is ancient. Many point to the statements of Ezra as well as the passage in Avot as early sources for the prayer. A variety of rationales are offered for this obligation. For example, Rabbenu Yonah interprets the need for these prayers as indicative of a Universalist worldview, which requires all humans to display empathy for one another. In order to effectuate that goal, Jews therefore pray for not only the Jewish leaders but also the secular one. R. Azariah di Rossi, claims that the prayer carries a pacifist message as he emphasizes the lack of allegiance to a specific ruler or country and thereby transforms the prayer into one arguing for peace among all nations. The earliest extant prayers are from the Geniza, and can be dated to between 1127 and 1131. The prayer is for the “Fatimid caliph al-Amir bi-ahkam Allah who ruled Egypt and its regions during the years 1101-1131.” See S.D. Goitein, “Prayers from the Geniza for Fatimid Caliphs, the Head of the Jerusalem Yeshiva, the Jewish Community and the Local Congregation,” in Sheldon R. Brunswick, ed., Studies in Judaica, Karaitica and Islamica: Presented to Leon Nemoy on His Eightieth Birthday (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1982), 47-57.[7] In this instance, the prayer includes not only a prayer for the secular ruler, but also a prayer for the local Rosh HaYeshiva. Additionally, it blesses all of the Rosh HaYeshiva’s deceased predecessors, providing a nice genealogy. Goiten posits that these prayers may have been written in response to specific historical events and may not be indicative of the general practice in 12th century Egypt. See id. at ___. The earliest sources, however, do not include the modern formulation of HaNoten Teshua. Instead, early on there was a lack of conformity regarding this prayer. Kol Bo records the custom but indicates that each community had its own practices. But, none used the HaNoten Teshua formulation. The first extant example of HaNoten Teshua is found in a Spanish manuscript dated between 1479-92.[8] Ironically, this example was prepared for King Ferdiand V, who, in 1492, issued the expulsion order. It appears that with the expulsion and dispersion of the Spainish Jews, the HaNoten Teshua was disseminated throughout the Jewish world. Indeed, the inclusion of this prayer in Yemenite rites, appears to undermine a major thesis of the noted Yemenite scholar, R. Yosef Kapach. He asserts that the rite presents a pristine rite, unchanged over hundreds of years. But, as the Yememite rite includes HaNoten Teshua, which is from the 15th century, indicates that the Yemenite rite is less pristine than Kapach would have it. [9] The prayer is also linked to the readmission of Jews into England. Menasseh ben Israel in his plea for readmission of the Jews to England (link) provides the full text – in English – of the HaNoten to demonstrate the Jews’ loyalty to their rulers.[10] A English Hebrew Machzor Printed in London The Jewish Encyclopedia notes “In 1794 David Levi published an English version of the services for New-Year, the Day of Atonement, and the feasts of Tabernacles and Pentecost, and thirteen years later gave a new version of the whole Mahzor. This second edition was “revised and corrected” by Isaac Levi, described as a “teacher of the Hebrew Language.” The Machzor features a frontispiece with various engravings of the Jewish holidays. The engraving for Shavuos features Moshe Rabbeinu dressed in a manner probably unknown 3,000 years ago, and holding the Aseres HaDibros with the numerical sequence from left to right. Yom Kippur correctly shows two identically sized “Se’irim” as per our tradition.

If you look closely at the name of the engraver, you will see that it was done by an R. Gavey. I tried to find out more about R. Gavey and finally came upon a website which dealt with his family. I sent an email to the address listed and waited and waited. Two years later, I received the following response from a fellow in Australia: “Robert Gavey b.1775 London was my 4xGreat Grandfather. He is listed as an engraver. Both his father and grandfather were watch makers. Robert Gavey’s daughter Harriot Angelina Gavey married my 3x Great Grandfather whose son James Fletcher emigrated to Australia 1852. The Fletchers were originally Huguenot silkweavers with the surname Fruchard and I believe the Gavey’s would have been Huguenots also.”

It turns out that Robert Gavey’s Australian descendent had a copy of his certificate of indenture as an engraver to a goldsmith named William Norris. Robert was 15 years old at the time (1790) and his period of indenture lasted for seven years. He promised not get married during that time period or play cards or dice. He also was forbidden to frequent taverns or playhouses or engage in any act which would cause his master a loss of money. (Click to see a large, high-resolution image.) The certificate of indenture was signed in May of 1790 which was noted as the thirtieth year of the reign of George III who is described as the king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland. Speaking of George III, he received much better treatment in this Machzor than in our American Declaration of Independence. On our side of the pond, we know George III as a man who “ has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.” As part of the agreement by Cromwell to allow Jews back into England, the Jews promised to always pray for the welfare of the ruler. Accordingly, this Machzor blesses King George in this manner: This is not the only edition that continued to praise the monarch. Isaac Lesser, published the first complete machzor in the United States in 1837-38, for the Spanish and Portuguese rites with an English translation. Lesser’s translation relies heavily upon that of David Levi’s translation.[11] In an attempt to sell his machzor in both the United States as well in other English-speaking locals, he includes two version of the prayer, one asked that God “bless, preserve, guard, assist, exalt, and raise unto a high eminence, our lord the king.” The other, replaced this phrase with the request that God “bless, preserve, guard, and assist the constituted officers of the government.”[12]

The person who finally brought the prayer for the government more in keeping with American democratic values was Max Lilienthal (1814-1882).[13] While some had been willing to change the prayer, they did so only in the vernacular but retained the Hebrew HaNoten Teshua. Lilienthal, however, totally reworked the prayer, altering its tone and focus. Lilienthal removes all mention of kings, focuses on the country more than its rulers, and seeks to bestow God’s blessing, not on the ruler but on all the inhabitants of the land. This version was included in Henry Franks’s Teffilot Yisrael, a siddur containing the Orthodox liturgy. This siddur was first published in 1848, and reissued in more than 30 editions. As Sarna notes, the acceptance of the prayer is somewhat ironic in that Lilienthal, later became part of the American Reform movement, was the author of a prayer that became the standard even in Orthodox siddurim.[14] Id. at 436. Aside from changing the text of the prayer to fit American sensibilities, how the prayer was recited was also changed. Congregation Shearith Israel, in New York, after the revolutionary war, “ceased to rise for Hanoten Teshu’ah. According to an oral tradition preserved by H.P. Solomon, ‘the custom of sitting during this prayer was introduced to symbolize the American Revolution’s abolition of subservience.’”[15] The United States was not the only country to undergo significant changes to its governmental structure. France, in 1787, abolished (temporarily) the monarchy. After which the prayer for the welfare of the government was radically changed. Instead of praying for the benefit of kings and rulers, the French prayer focuses upon the Republic and its people. All the biblical verses included bless the people and not the king. [16] The prayer begins “Look down from your holy place on our land, the French Republic, and bless our nation, the French people, Amen.” Other changes to the prayer, due to time and place, were common. For example, during the height of the Sabbati Zevi messianic frenzy, two versions of the prayer were produced, not asking to bless the secular ruler, but, instead, blessed Shabbati Zevi. Today, the most significant change to this prayer has been the new prayer on behalf of the State of Israel. The authorship of the prayer as well as its use is subject to controversy.[17] In the most recent “Prayer For the State” news, French President François Hollande, specifically invoked this prayer when discussing French Jews’ relationship to the state. He included in his remarks, translated in NYRB, commemorating the round-up of Jews at the Vélodrome d’Hiver: “Every Saturday morning, in every French synagogue, at the end of the service, the prayer of France’s Jews rings out, the prayer they utter for the homeland they love and want to serve. ‘May France live in happiness and prosperity. May unity and harmony make her strong and great. May she enjoy lasting peace and preserve her spirit of nobility among the nations.'”

Kol Nidrei The Yom Kippur volume of this set contains a detailed “apology”for the Kol Nidre prayer. The Jews endeavored to incorporate themselves into general society and felt the need to emphasize that their word was binding on them. Kol Nidre was seen as indicating otherwise, so an explanation of the prayer was seen as necessary, both for Jew and Gentile. (See Y. Goldhaver, Minhagei Kehilot, Jerusalem: 2005, pp. 209-19 on the history of Kol Nidre and the controversy.) It concludes as follows.

Finally, I would like to focus on the special prayer said during the Yamim Noraim when the Torah is taken from the Aron Kodesh. It first appeared in the Siddur Shaarey Tzion of Rabbi Nathan Hanover and begins with the words “Ribbono Shel Olam”. In it we ask Hashem to remember us for a long and good life, with everything that comes along with that. We include in our request that Hashem should provide us with “Lechem Le’echol, Beged Lil’Bosh, V’Osher V’Chavod”. Let us see how David Levy translates these words.

As you can see, the request for “wealth and honor” is nowhere to be found in the English translation. I was curious about this and asked Dan Rabinowitz for his opinion. He offered that it is possible that this Machzor was printed at a time when the English community was quite interested in the Hebrew language. Non-Jewish scholars eagerly bought any books printed in Hebrew. As such, it could be that Levy decided to leave out the reference for our desire for wealth and honor because, well, maybe it was a bit too pushy on our part.

I hope all of you are blessed with a Shana Tova, even one that includes within it the promise of wealth and honor. [1] See Marvin J. Heller, The Sixteenth Century Hebrew Book, Brill, Leiden:2004, entry for Oratio and pp. 959-60 and the sources cited therein. But see Brad Sabin Hill, Incunabula, Hebraica & Judaica . . .” Ottawa:1981, #52 asserting that 1561 is the earliest introduction of Hebrew typography to England. It is unclear what the basis of that assertion is.

[2] Richard Rex, “Review: Robert Wakefield On Three Languages 1524,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 42:1 (Jan. 1991) 159. [3] Richard Rex, “The Earliest Use of Hebrew in Books Printed in England: Dating Some Works of Richard Pace & Robert Wakefield,” Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, Vol. 9, No. 5 (1990), 517-25. [4] Id. at 517-18. [5] Id. at [6] See B. Roth, The Hebrew Printing Press in London, Kiryat Sefer 14 (1937), pp. 97-99. [7] See also, Fenton, [8] See Aaron Ahrend, “Prayers for the Welfare of the Monarchy and State,” in Aaron Ahrend, ed., Israel’s Independence Day: Research Studies (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1998), 176-200 (Hebrew). This date is contrary to Schwartz who incorrectly posits that there is no evidence of HaNoten Teshua prior to the 16th century, and none in pre-expulsion Spain. See Barry Schwartz, “Hanoten Teshua: The Origin of the Traditional Jewish Prayer for the Government,” in HUCA, 57, (1986) 113-20. Sarna appears unaware of Ahrend’s article as he continues to assert that HaNoten Teshua was not composed prior to the 16th century. See Jonathan Sarna, “Jewish Prayers for the United States Government: A Study in the Liturgy of Politics and the Politics of Liturgy,” in Ruth Langer & Steven Fine, eds., Liturgy in the Life of the Synagogue: Studies in the History of Jewish Prayer (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 207 & n.9 link( ). [9] See Ahrend, “Prayers for the Welfare,” at 183. [10] See Menasseh ben Israel, The Humble Address to his Highness the Lord Protector, 1655. [11] Leeser was not the first American to utilize Levi’s translation. The first Hebrew prayer book published in the United States, The Form of Daily Prayers (Seder Tefilot), New York, 1826, also includes an English translation by Solomon Henry Jackson. Jackson, who emigrated to the United States from London, also relied heavily upon Levi’s translation. Jackson, in the introduction, indicates that HaNoten Teshua was adapted for U.S. audience, in fact, the Hebrew remained the same, only the “translation” was altered. See Sarna, Jewish Prayers, 213.

Additionally, some time in the 1820s, there was an attempt to reprint Levi’s machzor in the United States. A prospectus was issued, but Levi’s machzor was never reprinted in the United States. See Yosef Goldman,Hebrew Printing in America 1735-1926, Brooklyn, NY, 2006, no. 33. The first appearance of HaNoten Teshua in the United States is found in the first prayer book published in the United States. Isaac Pinto’s holds that honor. In his English only edition whose first volume was published in 1761 with the second volume published in 1766, he includes HaNoten Teshu’ah. [12] Jonathan Sarna, “Jewish Prayers for the United States Government,” at 215.

[13] See Jonathan Sarna, “A Forgotten 19th-Century Prayer for the United States Government ,” in Hesed ve-Emet, Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs, ed. Magness & Gitin, Atlanta, Georgia, 1998, 431-40.

[14] Today, however, the most widely used Orthodox siddur in the United States, Artscroll, does not include the prayer in any form in its standard editions. It is unclear why Artscroll omitted this very old prayer.

[15] Sarna, Jewish Prayers, at 210. [16] Moshe Katon, “An Example of the Revolution in the Hebrew Songs of the French Jews,” Mahut 19 (1997) 37-44, esp. 37-8.

[17] See Aharon Arend, “The Prayer for the Welfare of the Monarchy and Country, in Arend ed., Pirkei Mehkar le-Yom ha- Atzmot, Ramat Gan: 1998, 192-200.

Introduction to The Song of Songs (An Excerpt) by Amos Hakham

Introduction to The Song of Songs (An Excerpt) by Amos Hakham Translated by David S. Zinberg Amos Hakham passed away on August 2, 2012 at the age of 91. The following is an unofficial translation of an excerpt from the Introduction to his commentary on the Song of Songs, published in 1973 by Mossad Harav Kook, in the Da’at Mikra series of Bible commentaries.

The selection below is an outstanding example of Hakham’s distinct approach, in both his Introduction and commentary, characterized by uncompromising scholarship coupled with faithfulness to tradition. Here and in his other writings, he displays a profound mastery of the Bible and the literature of the Sages, a keen eye for subtle literary and linguistic features of the text, a love of Jewish tradition, and a genuine religiosity that is never cloying. His style is marked by a fluid, graceful clarity. With courage and sensitivity, Hakham confronts one of the most challenging subjects in traditional biblical exegesis. Hakham’s presentation is transparent and honest rather than pedantic. First, he cites a broad range of general approaches and specific theories, from both traditional and modern sources. He then carefully and fairly evaluates each view, adds his own observations and, finally, offers a conclusion.

Biblical quotations are from the New JPS Version, except for translations inconsistent with Hakham’s understanding of the verse. The translation of a passage from Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah is from I. Twersky, A Maimonides Reader (New York: Behrman House, 1972). Where valuable, I have included Hakham’s original Hebrew in square brackets. Hakham’s footnotes are not included in this translation.

______The Content and Meaning of the Song of Songs in the Literal Sense The Song of Songs, in the natural sense of Scripture [peshuto shel mikra], is about a man’s love for his beloved woman [ahavat ha-dod le-ra’eyato], and the woman’s love for him. The question of continuity and division is critical for understanding the Song of Songs, and there are a variety of views on the subject. Aggadists tended to interpret its verses independently, each conveying its own idea. Opposing this method, Rashi wrote in his Introduction: “There are many aggadot on this book . . . but they are inconsistent with the syntax of Scripture and the sequence of the verses. I have endeavored to follow the natural sense of the verses and to interpret them sequentially . . .” Indeed, one who studies Rashi’s commentary on the Song of Songs will find that he attempts to interpret the entire book as a single, continuous poem. For Rashi, the continuity of the Song of Songs lies mainly within its referent [nimshal], which is Israel’s history from its origin to the end of days. R. Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted the Song of Songs in similar fashion, though Ibn Ezra also tried to find continuity within its literal sense. In his commentary, the Song of Songs is a chronology of events taking place between two lovers. A number of modern biblical scholars attempted to follow this approach to its logical conclusion; they maintained that the Song of Songs is a single, continuous poem written in the form of a dramatic dream vision. But adherents of this view are forced to posit far-fetched interpretations and to take many verses out of context. Other scholars held that the Song of Songs is an anthology of several poems (excerpts of poems, for the most part) — composed in various periods and provenances — which were compiled haphazardly at a later time. The most plausible approach, I believe, is as follows: The Song of Songs is not a continuous chronology of two lovers, and it is certainly not a drama. But neither is it an anthology of poetic excerpts. Rather, it is an anthology of complete poems written by a single author on a single subject, following a specific methodology and purpose. The poems are sometimes brief and simple, sometimes lengthy and complex. Nevertheless, for the most part they are self- contained units. In the commentary, I have assigned a unique title to each poem and have also noted its division into sections or stanzas. Often, the divisions are ambiguous; other commentators have split or combined the poems differently. But these are merely details which do not undermine the central thesis that the Song of Songs is an anthology of complete poems. As mentioned, the overall theme of the poems is the love between the dod and his ra’eyah. However, there are several differing opinions regarding the circumstances in which the poems were composed. Rashi (in the Introduction to his commentary) says that the ra’eyah in the Song of Songs is a “widow of the living,” i.e., her husband has abandoned but has not divorced her, and she longs for him in her songs. He consoles her, promising that he will yet return. Ibn Ezra reads the Song of Songs as the story of a preadolescent girl, whose beloved is a shepherd, guarding a vineyard. Modern biblical scholars have suggested that the poems in this book do not describe events which took place between a particular pair of lovers but, instead, these songs were popular at wedding banquets. As proof, some point to a statement of the Sages forbidding the use of lyrics from Song of Songs in drinking halls (Sanhedrin 101a; Tosefta Sanhedrin 12:5). Because the Sages prohibited such a practice, their argument goes, this was in fact the original custom. It was eventually forbidden, they say, due to deteriorating moral standards and out of fear that it might create an atmosphere of levity leading to the desecration of the sacred. Among those who maintain that the Song of Songs comprises wedding songs, some suggest that the name “Solomon” — appearing seven times in the book — refers not to King Solomon, but to the groom, who is likened to a king. In light-hearted humor, he is caricatured as “Solomon.” Some have claimed that these songs were originally sung at festivals for Israelite girls, such as the dance festival at Shiloh recorded in Judges (21:21), and the festival mentioned at the end of Mishnah Ta’anit (4:8) as well as the Targum to Lamentations, on the phrase “her maidens are unhappy” (1:4). The most reasonable approach, I believe, is as follows: Although the Song of Songs does include dance songs (e.g., “Turn back, turn back, O maid of Shulem!” 7:1), one cannot claim that all the poems are dance songs. It is likely that the poet borrowed phrases from dance songs and embedded them, as necessary, within his poems. Likewise, some of the poems may have originally been wedding songs — at least one, ending in the words, “Eat, friends, drink deeply, beloved” (5:1), is an obvious example; it is a call to the diners at a wedding banquet to eat and drink — but one cannot generalize this to all the poems. Most likely, the portraits of the lovers within the Song of Songs depict a variety of circumstances. In some, the lovers may be formally unconnected; in others, they may be betrothed, at their wedding banquet, or already married. Also, the notion that every “Solomon” is a metaphor for the groom seems far-fetched. Sometimes, “Solomon” is simply King Solomon himself. The love portrayed in the Song of Songs is untainted and pure. It is entirely within the bounds of that which is appropriate, permissible, and accepted. No divine or human obstacle stands in the way of their love. The ra’eyah brings her dod to her mother’s home; that is, everything is conducted according to custom and convention, and with the family’s approval. The ra’eyah does have desperate moments. But although she calls herself “lovesick” (2:5, 5:8), she is referring to an intense longing for her beloved rather than an emotional crisis. At times, the ra’eyah refuses her dod, and the dod may elude her and disappear, but that does not mean that there was animus between them. Instead, this dynamic should be understood as “a rejection with the left hand, and an embrace with the right.” The ra’eyah is treated cruelly by her brothers, but they do not keep her away from her beloved. They are intent only on increasing their possessions but, in the end, they relinquish what is hers. Whether the entire Song of Songs refers to a single pair of lovers, or describes multiple couples, is a significant question. That is, can all that is said of the dod and the ra’eyah be conflated within the portrait of an individual man or woman? There do not appear to be substantive contradictions between the different descriptions of the dod and ra’eyah; we may thus assume that the book intends to describe different circumstances or events in the lives of a pair of lovers who actually lived at some point in time. I do not mean to suggest that everything recounted in the Song of Songs should be taken as a narrative or that it only describes events that actually took place between two specific individuals. The very nature of poetry is to portray circumstances more beautifully and more perfectly than they really are. Here too, the primary goal of the Song of Songs is to present an ideal portrait of the innocent love between a dod and his ra’eyah. But the descriptions are based on reality. The dod portrayed in the Song of Songs is a shepherd. His sheep are never mentioned explicitly in the poems, but “shepherd” is used several times as his alternate name. Although there appear to be instances where “shepherd” is used a metaphor for the dod, wandering the hills and tending his gardens like a grazing gazelle, he is initially depicted as a real shepherd, as implied by the verse, “Where do you pasture your sheep? Where do you rest them at noon?” (1:7). Possibly, because he would wander the countryside with his sheep, he mentions the names of several places scattered far and wide throughout the land. It is also possible that because he was a shepherd, he compares his love’s beauty to flocks of goats and ewes. But there is no hard evidence that compels us to interpret the text this way. Nevertheless, we may infer from Scripture that he roamed the mountains (“leaping over mountains”; 2:8), which is consistent with shepherding. The image of the dod is depicted with all the emotion and intensity of one who is “lovesick.” Scripture suggests that he was tall (“preeminent among ten thousand,” “stately as the cedars”; 5:10,15), that his hair was “curled, and black as a raven” (5:11), his cheeks were ruddy and bearded (“his cheeks are like beds of spices”; 5:13), and he was a swift runner (2:9, 8:14). The ra’eyah is also tall, with an upright posture (“Your stately form is like the palm”; 7:8), her hair is black (“Your hair is like a flock of goats”; 4:1), and her complexion is dark as well (“because I am swarthy”; 1:6). The white of her teeth, which “bear twins” (6:6), stands out against her dark face. Her movement and her gait are full of grace (“How lovely are your feet in sandals, O daughter of nobles!”; 7:2). She is called a “daughter of nobles,” and the poems imply that she was from a well-to-do family: She wears costly perfumes, and her brothers offer her a “silver battlement” (8:9). They own vineyards, but she too has a vineyard of her own. Her brothers direct her to tend the vineyards, and she also tends to sheep (perhaps at the advice of her dod, so that he might see her more easily: “Go follow the tracks of the sheep, and graze your kids by the tents of the shepherds”; 1:8). The portrait in the Song of Songs suggests that her brothers treated her heavy handedly, forcing her to work in the vineyards. She knew her dod previously and, unbeknownst to her brothers, fell in love with him; to them, she was still a child. After much time elapsed, the brothers were finally inspired to provide for their sister’s upcoming marriage, only to discover that she had already found her intended.

God is never mentioned in the Song of Songs. This is likely one of the motivations for the Sages’ pronouncement that “every ‘Solomon’ in the Song of Songs is divine” (Shavu’ot 35b). But the question remains why God is not mentioned explicitly. Commentators and thinkers have said that the holiness of a text is not determined by tallying its divine names. Just as there are texts whose sacredness is self- evident even without reference to God, so is the untainted and sacred love depicted in the Song of Songs. Nevertheless, it seems that the poet deliberately excluded the explicit form of God’s name from the text. Possibly, because the poems — in their literal sense — were originally meant to be recited as expressions of love between a groom and bride, it was feared that they might not always be recited in purity, and for this reason God’s name was omitted. It is also possible the omission contains a moral statement, related to Rava’s comment (Mo’ed Katan 18b), that a lover may not solicit divine intervention in the hope of marrying his love. It is also worth noting that the dod and ra’eyah are nowhere mentioned by name. They address each other not by proper name, but by pet name, like dodi, ra’eyati, and many others. The ra’eyah’s friends are called “Daughters of Jerusalem,” and the dod’s friends are called “companions” [haverim], “friends” [re’im], and “beloved” [dodim]. This is a known biblical feature, in which male or female characters may remain anonymous for the duration of a lengthy and detailed narrative.

The Song of Songs as a Parable of Divine Love In the Midrash, the Sages offered many allegorical interpretations of the Song of Songs, taking its earthly love as a parable for the love between God and Israel. This notion is based on prophecies in which God’s covenant with Israel is symbolized by the marriage covenant between a man and his beloved wife. The great medieval Jewish exegetes interpreted the Song of Songs within this conceptual framework and objected strenuously to the idea that its meaning is limited to its literal, natural sense of the love between a man and woman. It is well known that the term “parable” [mashal] in the Bible, as well as in Hebrew generally, has several different meanings. Many types of parables are found in the Bible (and not all parables are explicitly termed “parables”). The parable in the Song of Songs is apparently not the type in which the referent displaces the literal sense but, instead, adds a nobler and more sacred meaning to the natural meaning. That is, although the natural, literal sense refers to the love between a flesh-and-blood dod and ra’eyah, by virtue of the fact that their love is wholesome, innocent, pure, and holy, it is worthy of serving as a representation and a model for a more exalted love. Support for such an approach can be found in the statements of the Sages and Jewish scholars throughout history. Indeed, while the Sages of the Midrash interpreted the Song of Songs’ love as that between Israel and God, they also interpreted it naturally, viewing the dod and the ra’eyah as two human beings. For example, in R. Yohanan’s exegesis of the verse, “I have come to my garden, my own, my bride” (5:1; see the commentary, in the poem’s summary section) [In the summary of that poem, Hakham cites Vayikra Rabba (9:6): “The Torah teaches you proper etiquette: A groom may enter the bridal chamber only after receiving his bride’s consent. First, (the bride) says, ‘Let my beloved come to his garden and enjoy its luscious fruits’ (4:16); and only then (in the next verse, the groom responds), ‘I have come to my garden, my own, my bride’ -dsz]. This is linked to the idea, appearing frequently in the literature of the Sages, that all aspects of marital relations are rooted in holiness and allude to holy matters. For this reason, the marriage blessings include the following: “The barren will surely rejoice when her children return to her joyfully. Blessed are you, God, who brings joy to Zion with her children.” From the formulation of this blessing, we may infer that the joy experienced by every bride and groom represents the joy associated with the redemption and the ingathering of the Diaspora. There are many kabbalistic teachings which take aspects of marital relations as symbols of lofty matters.

We should also draw attention to the mistaken notion that the Sages interpreted the Song of Songs allegorically because they considered its natural sense to be unworthy of the Holy Scriptures. It is not so. Some of the greatest exegetes have noted that one must not even contemplate the idea that a prophetic text would employ something inherently offensive to suggest that which is holy and pure. Rather, just as the referent is holy, so is the allegory. The fact that the prophets compare the covenant between God and Israel to the marriage covenant suggests that the latter is sacred and noble. The Sages have said, “If a married man and woman are worthy, God’s presence dwells with them” (Sotah 17a). As noted, many exegetes interpreted the Song of Songs allegorically, viewing the ra’eyah as an emblem for Israel and the dod for God. Thus, the love between the dod and the ra’eyah represents God’s love for his people and Israel’s love for God. In the Midrash, the Sages followed this exegetical method. Likewise, the Targum translated the Song of Songs allegorically and ignored its literal sense. Many such midrashim are embedded in Jewish liturgical poetry [piyyutim]. On Passover, several communities once recited — some still do — piyyutim based entirely on the Song of Songs, from start to finish, on the subject of God’s love for his people and the promised redemption. Many piyyutim for other occasions include phrases from the Song of Songs; such phrases were a quintessential part of the piyyut vocabulary and, subsequently, entered popular usage. The great medieval exegetes such as Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and others, were also of the view that the Song of Songs allegorizes God’s love for his people. The difference between the approach of Rashi and Ibn Ezra and that of the Midrash is as follows: The Midrash generally ignores the allegory entirely and exclusively addresses the referent. The exegetes, on the other hand, also address the literal sense of the allegory. Furthermore, they attempt to connect adjoining verses and to find context and continuity within the Song of Songs as a whole. In their view, the Song of Songs includes hints regarding all of Jewish history, from its origins until the end of days. The hints are not of a general nature; they refer to specific future events. Thus, for example, Rashi interprets the verse, “Before I knew it, my desire set me mid the chariots of Ammi-nadib” (6:12) as an allusion to the civil war between the Hasmonean brothers John Hycranus and Aristobulus, which led to Israel’s subjugation by Rome. They saw the Song of Songs as a prophetic or visionary work. But there are those who do not accept — within the natural sense of the book — interpretations predicting future events. However, this objection does not undermine the view which sees the love in the Song of Songs as emblematic of God’s love for his people. All the midrashim and the exegesis cited above view the ra’eyah as a “collective personification,” representing Israel as a whole. However, some exegetes emphasize that God’s love applies to each Jew individually and they thus identify the ra’eyah with the devout soul, serving God out of love and longing for Him. The Bible does contain expressions supporting the notion that the devout’s yearnings for God are represented by human love, e.g.: “We long for the name by which you are called” (Is. 26:8); “My soul thirsts for you, my body yearns for you” (Ps. 63:2); “My soul is attached to you” (Ps. 63:9). See also Hagigah 15b where the verse “Draw me, let us run after you” (Song 1:4) is said to refer to R. Akiva, who “entered the orchard” of divine wisdom in peace, and left in peace. Maimonides writes in the Laws Concerning Repentance (10:3): What is the love of God that is befitting? It is to love the Eternal with a great and exceeding love, so strong that one’s soul shall be knit up with the love of God, and one should be continually enraptured by it, like a lovesick individual, whose mind is at no time free from his passion for a particular woman, the thought of her filling his heart at all times, even when sitting down or rising up, when he is eating or drinking. Even more intense should be the love of God in the hearts of those who love Him. And this love should continually possess them, even as He commanded us in the phrase, “with all your heart and with all your soul” (Deut. 6:5). This, Solomon expressed allegorically in the sentence, “for I am sick with love” (Song 2:5). The entire Song of Songs is indeed an allegory descriptive of this love. See also what Maimonides states in Guide of the Perplexed, Section III, at the end of chapter 51. Many exegetes followed this approach by interpreting the details of the Song of Songs as allusions to the inner spiritual life of devout lovers of God; their feelings, longings, uncertainties, doubts, failures, and triumphs in attaining their goal, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord. A number of them saw allusions to scientific and philosophical subjects — as they understood them — within the detailed descriptions of the book. Among the adherents of this approach are R. Samuel ben Judah ibn Tibbon (translator of the Guide of the Perplexed), R. Joseph ibn Aknin (a disciple of Maimonides), R. Joseph ibn Kaspi (a commentator on the Bible and on the Guide), and R. Meir Malbim. R. Abraham ibn Ezra and R. Isaac Arama (author of the Akedat Yitzhak) rejected this type of exegesis. In their respective Introductions to the Song of Songs, they underscored the obligation to remain completely faithful to the Sages, and they rejected the conception of the Song of Songs as an allegory of anything other than the love between God and his people. Yet it appears that their statements were not directed at Maimonides. His words stand firm, and we may take the yearnings of love in the Song of Songs as faithful expressions of the worshiper’s yearnings for God. However, in Maimonides’ view, the allegory applies to the general theme of the book, but we should not attempt to draw parallels between details of the allegory and details of the referent. We must also mention the kabbalistic approach to the Song of Songs. Generally, “we are not to delve into hidden things”; as R. Isaac Arama writes in the Introduction to his commentary on the Song of Songs, he does not wish to address kabbalistic interpretations. Still, it was the kabbalists who, in recent times, popularized its study — or, at least, its recitation — among the Jewish populace. Based on their commentaries, the custom of reciting the Song of Songs before the Service for Welcoming the Sabbath has become widespread. In simple terms, the kabbalistic view is essentially this: The love in the Song of Songs represents the longing of creation for its Creator, the longing of worlds detached and distant from their origin to return and reunite with their Maker. However, for our purposes we must emphasize that for kabbalists, that which takes place in the supernal realms is reflected in (or, casts a shadow upon) the events of our world. The reflection is revealed in multiple stages and by various means. Thus, we may conclude, a variety of hermeneutics of the Song of Songs are possible: The literal interpretation, describing the love between a man and woman; the midrashic, referring to God’s love for his people; the hermeneutic which speaks of the devout’s love for God; the mystical interpretation, which is about the love that permeates all of creation. For kabbalists, each hermeneutic points to the same essential idea, even if revealed in a variety of ways and in different stages. The Book of Disputes between East and West

The Book of Disputes between East and West or A Treasury of Alternate Customs from the Land of Israel and from Babylon

Translated and Annotated by Leor Jacobi

Based primarily on the Margulies Edition with additions from the Appendices of the Miller and Lewin Editions

Menahem Av, 5772 Jerusalem After the translation of the text itself, various additional items are added, some of them never before published. Also included is a translated summary of major sections of Margaliot’s introduction, along with comments and updates. Round brackets reflect text found in only certain Hebrew manuscripts as indicated by Margulies in his Hebrew edition. Square brackets contain English insertions of this translator. 1. People of the East sit while reading the Sh’ma. The residents of the Land of Israel stand. 2. People of the East do not mourn for a baby [who has died] unless he has reached 30 days [of life]. The residents of the Land of Israel [mourn] even if he is only a day old. (He is like a fully- grown groom [=man]) 3. People of the East will allow a nursing mother to marry within twenty-four months of the death of her baby. Residents of the Land of Israel require her to wait twenty-four months, lest she come to kill her son. 4. People of the East redeem the firstborn with twenty-eight (and a half) royal pieces of silver. Residents of the Land of Israel use five shekels, which are equivalent to seven (and a third) royal pieces of silver. 5. People of the East exempt a mourner [from observing laws and customs of mourning, if the relation expired just] before a festival, even a moment [before]. Residents of the Land of Israel only exempt a mourner from the decree of seven days [of mourning] if at least three days have elapsed before the festival. 6. People of the East forbid a bride from [having relations with] her husband for the full seven [days] for she is considered to be a menstruating as a result of the relations. The residents of the Land of Israel (say) that since his removing of her hymen is painful [it is an external wound and] she is permitted immediately. 7. The marriage contract of the People of the East consists of twenty-five pieces of silver (and their dowry). The residents of the Land of Israel (say) that anyone who [obligates himself] to less than two hundred for a maiden or one hundred for a widow, is effecting a promiscuous relationship. 8. People of the East permit [the use of] an oven (during Passover), based on the source: “[We may] roll the Passover [lamb] in the oven at sundown.” (Mishnah Shabbat 1:11) Residents of the Land of Israel (say): “Disregard the Passover [lamb] since it is a sacrifice, and we [even] desecrate the Sabbath on account of it.” 9. People of the East do not wash [= ritual immersion] after experiencing a seminal emission or after relations (since they reason that “we are in an impure land”). Residents of the Land of Israel (do wash after a seminal emission or relations, and) even on the Day of Atonement (for they maintain that those who have seen emissions should wash in secret on the Sabbath and on the Day of Atonement) as a matter of course, [which they learn] from the example of Rabbi Yosi bar Halafta, who was seen immersing himself on the Day of Atonement. 10. People of the East permit gentile butter [alternatively: cheese], (saying) that it cannot become impure. Residents of the Land of Israel forbid it on account of (three things: because of) milk which was expressed by a gentile (without a Jew observing him, because of gentile cooking) and because of impure fat (which it might be mixed with). 11. People of the East say that a menstruating woman may perform all types of household duties except for three things: mixing drinks, making the bed, and washing his face, hands, and legs. According to the residents of the land of Israel, she may not touch anything moist or household utensils. Only reluctantly was she permitted to even nurse her child. 12. People of the East do not say recite eulogies [alternatively: the prayer “tsidduk ha-din”] in the presence of the dead (during the in-between days of the festival). Residents of the Land of Israel do recite these before him. 13. People of the East do not rip up a divorce contract. Residents of the Land of Israel rip it up. [Acc. to Lewin, this may have originally referred to whether a mourner rips his garment during the intermediate days of a festival.] 14. People of the East have mourners come to the synagogue each day. Residents of the Land of Israel do not allow him to enter, with the sole exception of the Sabbath. 15. People of the East do not clean their posteriors with water. Residents of the Land of Israel do cleanse themselves [with water], (based on the source:) A generation which considers itself pure … [but has not cleaned itself from its excrement.] (Proverbs 30:12) 16. People of the East [permit one to] weigh meat on intermediate days of the festival. Residents of the Land of Israel forbid hanging it on a scale, even just to keep it away from rodents, (based on the source: “One may not operate a scale at all.” – Mishna Beitza 6, 3)

17. People of the East circumcise [babies] over water and then dab [the water] onto their faces, (from here: “and I will wash you with water, [rinse your blood off of you, and anoint you with oil]” – Ezekiel 16:9) Residents of the Land of Israel circumcise over dust, from here: “Also, due to the blood of your covenant have I sent your prisoners free from a pit with no water in it.” (Zechariah 9:11) 18. People of the East (only) check the lungs. Residents of the Land of Israel (check) eighteen types of disqualifications. 19. People of the East only recite a blessing [= grace after meals] over [a cup of] diluted wine. Residents of the Land of Israel (will recite a blessing) when it is fully potent. 20. When thurmusin [beans] and tree-fruit are served to People of the East simultaneously, they recite the blessing for fruit of the tree and set aside the beans. Residents of the Land of Israel recite a blessing on thethurmusin , since everything is included in “[the fruits of] the earth.”

21. On the Sabbath, people of the East break bread on two loaves, for they expound: “a double portion of bread” (Exodous 16:21) [which fell on the Eve of the Sabbath]. Residents of the Land of Israel break bread exclusively on a single loaf, so that the [lesser] honor of the Eve of the Sabbath will not intrude upon [the honor of] the Sabbath.

22. People of the East spread their hands [= recite the priestly blessing] during fasts and on the on the ninth of Av as part of the evening benedictions. Residents of the Land of Israel only spread their hands during the morning services, with the sole exception of the Day of Atonement.

23. People of the East will not slaughter a newly-born animal until the eighth day. Residents of the Land of Israel will slaughter even a newborn, for [they maintain that] the prohibition of the eighth day applies only to sacrifices. 24. People of the East do mention the word mazon [=nourishment] in the blessings of grace after dining. Residents of the Land of Israel consider mazon to be [the] central [component of the blessings] (for everything else is peripheral to mazon].

25. A ring does not sanctify marriage according to people of the East. Residents of the Land of Israel consider it [sufficient to] fully sanctify a marriage.

26. People of the East individually redeem the second tithe and the planting of the fourth year. Residents of the Land of Israel only redeem them in [the presence of] three [men].

27. The divorce contracts of people of the East contain two ten-letter words [‘dytyhwyyyn’ and ‘ditiṣbyyyn’]. Those of the residents of the Land of Israel contain three ten-letter words [the third is not known]. 28. People of the East bless the [bride and] groom with seven blessing. Residents of the Land of Israel recite three [blessings, which have been forgotten]. 29. According to people of the East, the prayer leader recites the priestly blessing (before the congregation) [in the absence of Kohanim]. Residents of the Land of Israel do not (allow the prayer leader to recite the priestly blessing, for they expound [from the verse]: “So they shall put my name” (Numbers 6:27) that it is strictly forbidden for anyone to “put” the holy name), unless they are Kohanim.

30. People of the East forbid bread baked by a gentile, but will consume gentile bread if a Jew threw a piece of wood into the fire. Residents of the Land of Israel forbid it (even with the wood, for the wood neither forbids nor permits. When are they lenient? In cases when there is nothing [else] to eat, and already a day or two have passed without consuming anything. It was thus permitted to revive his soul so that his soul should be maintained, but only from a [gentile] baker who has never brought meat into his bakery, even though it considered a [separate] cooked dish.)

31. People of the East carry coins from place to place on the Sabbath. Residents of the Land of Israel (say) that it is forbidden to even touch them. Why? Because all types of work are done with them. 32. People of the East recite: “meqadesh ha-shabbat,” [who sanctifies the Sabbath]. Residents of the Land of Israel recite: “meqadesh Yisrael v’yom ha-shabbat” [who sanctifies Israel and the Sabbath day]. 33. Among people of the East, a disciple does not greet his master with: shalom”.“ Among residents of the Land of Israel a disciple greets his master [by saying]: “shalom unto you, rabbi.”

34. According to People of the East, if a yevama [=a woman automatically betrothed to the brother of her deceased husband] should marry [another man] without halitza [=a legal procedure which frees her from this betrothal] and her yavam [=the brother] should return from overseas, he performs the halitza (to her) and she remains with her (second) husband. Residents of the Land of Israel remove [=forbid] her from both of them.

35. People of the East exempt a yevama from halitza [only] once the baby is thirty days old. According to residents of the Land of Israel, even if only the head and most of the body emerged alive, and even for only a moment (before the father died), she is fully exempt from halitza and from yivum [and may remarry freely], (for they expound: “If he has left seed, she is exempt.”)

36. People of the East turn their faces (towards the congregation) and their backs towards the aron [=closet containing the Torah scroll]. Residents of the Land of Israel [are positioned with] their faces towards the aron. 37. According to people of the East, one [scribe] writes the divorce contract and another signs along with the writer. Among residents of the Land of Israel, one writes and two [others] sign. 38. People of the East marry the [bride and] groom on Thursday. Residents of the Land of Israel [marry] on Wednesday, (according to the law: “a maiden marries on Wednesday.” – Mishnah Ketubot 1:1) 39. People of the East perform labors on the intermediate days of the festivals. Residents of the Land of Israel do not do them at all. Rather, they eat and drink and exert their [energies in learning] Torah, (for the sages have taught that: “it is forbidden to perform labors on the intermediate days of the festivals.”)

40. People of the East begin [the initial act of] intercourse with genital insertion in the natural manner. Residents of the Land of Israel use a finger [to break the hymen and enable conception through the first act of intercourse. Alternatively, to verify virginity.]

41. People of the East observe two festival days. Residents of the Land of Israel observe one, (as per the commandment of the Torah.)

42. People of the East forbid the Kohanim from blessing the congregation if they have long, unkempt hair. [Alternatively: with their heads uncovered]. Among residents of the Land of Israel Kohanim do () [in fact bless the congregation with long, unkempt hair.]

43. People of the East whisper the eighteen benedictions while praying. Residents of the Land of Israel [pray] out loud, in order that people should become familiar with them.

44. People of the East count the Omer only at night. Residents of the Land of Israel count during the day and at night.

45. People of the East circumcise with a razor. Residents of the Land of Israel use a knife.

46. (People of the East mix a remedy for circumcision from donkey dung and cumin. The residents of the Land of Israel do not do this.)

47. According to people of the East, the prayer leader and the congregation read the weekly [Torah] portion [of the annual cycle] together. Among residents of the Land of Israel, the congregation reads the weekly portion and the prayer leader [reads] the weekly [triennial] orders. 48. People of the East celebrate Simhat Torah [the festival of the completion of the Pentateuch] every year. Residents of the Land of Israel celebrate it once every three-and-a-half years. 49. People of the East bless the Torah while it is being [re-]inserted [into theAron ]. Residents of the Land of Israel bless both while it is being inserted and while being removed, (according to scripture and law, as per the verse: “and upon its opening the entire nation stood.” – Nehemia 8:5) 50. (According to people of the East, a Kohen may not bless the congregation until he has married. Residents of the Land of Israel [allow him to] bless even before he has married a woman.) 51. People of the East do not carry a palm branch [when the first day of the festival of Tabernacles falls] on the Sabbath. Rather they take a myrtle branch. Residents of the Land of Israel (carry both the palm and the myrtle on the first day of the festival which falls on the Sabbath, according to the verse:) “And you should take for yourselves” (Leviticus 23:40) [which is expounded to include:] “on the Sabbath.” (Bavli Sukkah 43a)

52. (Residents of the Land of Israel permit the consumption of daytra fats. Residents of Babylon forbid it.)

53. People of the East permit [the consumption of] broad beans which a gentile has boiled, and also locusts. Residents of the Land of Israel forbid it, (since they mix their boiled meat with their boiled fruits [= produce].) 54. People of the East do not blow sirens before the onset of the Sabbath. Residents of the Land of Israel sound three sirens. 55. According to people of the East, Kohanim lift their hands [to bless the people] three times on the Day of Atonement. Residents of the Land of Israel [bless] four times on that day: shaharit, musaf, minha, and neila.

56. (*). Residents of Babylon permit [the consumption of] milk [from a cow] which a gentile has milked, [even] without a Jew having watched him, provided that there are no unclean animals in his flock. Residents of the Land of Israel forbid its’ consumption. (This item is found in only one manuscript. Thus, Margulies doubts whether it is included in the original collection; however, he maintains that it is historically authentic and thus included it in the commentary section.) Margulies’ running commentary has not been translated. [Translator’s note on additional items: There are four different types of items and it is important to distinguish between them. A. Items which appear in multiple versions of the Geonic list collections, the main body of the present work. B. Items which appear to have been added to certain manuscript versions of the list after its “publication,” during the Geonic period or shortly thereafter. This includes items 46, 50, and 56, and possibly others. Since they may actually be remnants of the original list and do appear in the manuscripts, Margulies and Lewin did include them in attempting to produce a critical version of this text itself. [Elkin’s 1998 Tarbiz article hints that the original work may have been smaller than Margulies supposed and hence more of the text translated above would fall into this category.] C. Items which are culled from external Geonic literature and provide direct testimonial evidence for the historical validity of these distinctions. They could conceivably have been included in the original list, but for one reason or another were not. This describes Lewin’s additions, and the first section of Miller’s additions. D. Items which were deduced from prior Talmudic literature. Kaftor w’Ferah seems to have pioneered this field, picked up and extended by Miller and others. It should be noted that these items should all be evaluated separately, as they do not necessarily constitute testimonial evidence and rather, in some cases, may be merely theoretical.] Additional items collected by R. Yoel HaKohen Miller (1878) From Masekhet Sofrim: 56. People of the East recite kaddish and borkhu with ten men. People of the Land of Israel [recite] with seven (10:7) 57. People of the East respond “Steadfast are you” after the reading of the prophets while sitting. Residents of the Land of Israel [respond] while standing. (13:10) 58. People of the East fast before Purim. People of the Land of Israel [fast] after Purim, based on Nikanor. (17:4, from Tosefta) 59. People of the East recite Kedusha each day. People of the Land of Israel only recite it on the Sabbath and Festival days. (Tosafot Sanhedrin 37b ad. Loc. Mknp, citing Geonim Compiled by Miller from Kaftor w’Ferah of Rabbi Ashtori HaParḥi (Isaac HaKohen ben Moses, 1280-1366), deduced from talmudic sources: 60. People of the East do not ordain judges. People of the Land of Israel do ordain. (Sanhedrin Chapter 1) 61. People of the East conclude [the threefold benediction]: “for the land and the fruit.” People of the Land of Israel [conclude]: “for the land and its fruit” (Berakhot, 6th chapter) 62. People of the East first plow and then sow seeds. People of the Land of Israel first sow and then plow. (Sabbath, 7th chapter) 63. People of the East do not chase after idol worship [in order to destroy it]. People of the Land of Israel do chase after it. (Sifre Devarim Re’eh 61) 64. People of the East do not collect fines. People of the Land of Israel do collect in court. (end of Ketuvot ch. 3…) 65. People of the East permit a brown citron [for use among the four species]. People of the Land of Israel forbid it. (Sukkah, ch. 3) 66. People of the East grind with a small mortar on a festival day. People of the Land of Israel forbid it (Beitza, ch. 1) 67. People of the East [formally] begin the meal [and apply its laws] once the belt has been released. People of the Land of Israel [begin] once the hands have been washed. (Shabbat, ch. 1) 68. People of the East maintain that one who purchases a slave from a gentile, who does not wish to become circumcised [immediately], may postpone and continue deliberations up to twelve months. People of the Land of Israel do not allow any delay lest sanctified food become defiled through contact with him. (Yevamot 48b) 69. People of the East do not transfer bones of the dead from little caves to small holes in caves [where presumably whole cadavers could not fit,] in order to bury other dead. People of the Land of Israel do transfer [bones]. (Rav Hai Gaon, as cited by Ramban, in Torat ha-adam) Collected by Miller from Sefer Erekh Millin by Rabbi Solomon Judah Loeb Rapoport (SHIR) 70. People of the East first marry and then learn Torah. People of the Land of Israel learn Torah first and then marry. (Kiddushin 29b) 71. People of the East recite nineteen blessings. People of the Land of Israel recite eighteen blessings. (Rabbenu Yeshaya ha- Zaqen, RID, in his commentary to Ta’anit, cited here) 72. People of the East do not mention “dew” during the summer. People of the Land of Israel do mention it. (PT Ta’anit ch. 1, Berakhot ch. 5) 73. People of the East are not concerned with “pairs.” People of the Land of Israel are concerned. (Pesahim 110) [in all manuscript and printed versions of the Talmud known to me it appears in reverse and was apparently copied by mistake here.] I would now like to present some very special additions of Rabbi Benjamin Wolf Singer (1855-1930). R. Daniel Sperber published a volume of his hiddushim/novella. See his biography of the author here and here. Much more about him later. I hope to devote a future post to Rabbi Singer and his brother. These notes have never before been published, and were found in the form of his handwritten notes in the back of his personal copy of Miller’s edition of the work, now housed in the Bar Ilan University central library. The notes follow the extra hiluqim of Kaftor v’Ferah, ShIR, and Miller which we have just translated above. Apparently, they inspired Rabbi Singer to continue their work on the very same page! His notes look like this: (Click for large, high-resolution images)

What follows is the best I could do for a transcription. All of the main points are clear, but not all of the references. Even this I couldn’t have done without a lot of assistance from my friend R. Yehezkel Druk, who is responsible in no small part for the many corrections and additions in Moreshet L’Hanhil’s volumes of the new Friedman Shulhan Arukh.

Hopefully, some of the readers viewing at home can decipher some more of this. If you can, please comment! A translation and more follows. תוספות חלופי מנהגים של ר’ בנימין זאב זינגער א. מחלמ”נ [=מחלפי מנהגים?] דבבבל לא קפדו אטבילת קרי עיין ברכות כ”ב. ובא”י קפדו. ע’ ירושלמי שם פ”ג ה”ב, תמן נהגין כו’ ע”ש. ב. בבבל שובתין מתוך מריעין, שבת לד: מנהג אבותיהן בידיהן. ע”ש. ג. בבבל קרו הלל בר”ח ובא”י לא. תענית כח: מנהג אבותיהן בידיהן. ע”ש. ד. בבבל קרו פרסא עי’ (חולין) פסחים צג: וצ. ולהיפך בא”י קרו רק ד’ מילין. עי’ ירושלמי ברכות פ”א ה”א ושם נסמן [וירושלמי שבת סוף פרק קמא עד ד’ מיל ועיין יומא כ:] ואותה ?הכחיי? עצמה דרבי יהודה דאיתא בפסחים פרסא היא בירושלמי במילין. והא דבחולין קכב: עד ד’ מיל דאמר בשם רבי ינאי ורשל”ק [ריש לקיש] בני ארץ ישראל. ועי’ ברכות טו ע”א [אבל לאחוריה אפילו מיל אינו חוזר [ומינה] מיל הוא דאינו חוזר הא פחות ממיל חוזר] סוטה מו: [וכמה א”ר ששת עד פרסה ולא אמרן אלא רבו שאינו מובהק אבל רבו מובהק שלשה פרסאות] סנה’ ה: [ותניא תלמיד אל יורה הלכה במקום רבו אלא אם כן היה רחוק ממנו שלש פרסאות כנגד מחנה ישראל] סוכה מד: [אמר אייבו משום רבי אלעזר בר צדוק אל יהלך אדם בערבי שבתות יותר משלש פרסאות] ושם נראה דראב”ץ [=רבי אלעזר בר צדוק] בבלי היה מדאמר בלשון פרסי ועי’ תו'[ספתא] ב”ק פ”ח מ”ט [אין פורסין נשבין ליונין אלא אם כן היה רחוק מן היישוב שלשים ריס] ל’ ריס (והיינו ד’ פרסי) ועי’ נדה כד: תניא אבא שאול אומר ואי תימא רבי יוחנן כו’ ורצתי אחריו ג’ פרסאות ה. לדעת בני א”י ד’ מפתחות ביד הקב”ו ולדעת הבבלי ג’ עיין ריש תענית ומאיר עיני חכמים דף מב: וכיוצא בזה ברכו’ ג’ ע”ב רבי אומר ד’ משמרות רבי נתן ג’ ונראה שבא”י קיימו מספר ד’ ובבל ג’ ו. ירושלמי פ”ק דראש השנה תמן חשן [תמן חשין לצומא רבה תרין יומין] ? יומא רבה ב’ יומי’ ועי’ סה”ד [סוף הלכה ד’] שאבוה… בשמת ע”י זה [פני משה מסכת ראש השנה פרק א: “תמן חשין לצומא רבא תרין יומין. בבבל היו אנשים שחששו לעשות מספק ב’ ימים יה”כ ולהתענות ואמר להן רב חסדא למה לכם להכניס עצמיכם למספק הזה שתוכלו להסתכן מחמת כך הלא חזקה היא שאין הב”ד מתעצלין בו מלשלוח שלוחים להודיע לכל הגולה אם עיברו אלול ואם אין שלוחין באין תסמכו על הרוב שאין אלול מעובר. ומייתי להאי עובדא דאבוה דר’ שמואל בר רב יצחק והוא רב יצחק גופיה שחשש ע”ע וצם תרין יומין ואפסק כרוכה ודמיך. כשהפסיק מן התענית ורצה לכרוך ולאכול נתחלש ונפטר. ועל שהכניס עצמו לסכנה מספק לא הזכירו שמו להדיא ואמרו אבוה דר’ שמואל בר רב יצחק”.] ז. ירושלמי ברכות פ”ב ה”א כך אינון (בבלאי) נהגין גביהון זעירא לא שאל בשלמיה דרבה ח. עי’ ירושלמי סוכה פ”ד ה”א ושביעית פ”א ה”ז ועיין שם פ”ד ה”א או’ רבי יוחנן לרבי חייה בר בא בבלייא תרין מילין סלקון בידיכון מפשיטותא דתעניתא וערובתא דיומא שביעייא. ורבנן דקיסרין אמרין אף הדא מקזתה ועי’ בבלי סוכה מד. ?? ט. יוסף בבבלי יוסי בירושלמי עי’ ?יבמות? קג ע”א 7. ברכות פ”ח ה”א ירו’ אמר אר”י ב”ר נהיגין תמן במקום שאין יין ש”צ עובר לפני התיבה ואומר ברכה אחת מעין שבע וחותם במקדש ישראל ואת יום השבת. ועי’ ?רא”ש? ?? י”ב שלא מצאנו כן בבבלי 8. עיין ברכות נ. בבבל נהגי כרבי ישמעאל ברכו א”ה המבורך – וירושלמי פ”ז דברכות ה”ד [נדצ”ל: ה”ג] נראה דבא”י כר”ע 9. ירושלמי ברכות פ”ז ה”ד [נדצ”ל: ה”ג] נראה דבא”י כשקראו כהן במקום לוי לא בירך שנית ובבבל מברך. עיין שם. תוס’ גיטין נט: [ד”ה כי קאמרינן באותו כהן, והשווה תוספת לוין סו’ י”ג וי”ד] 10. פסחים נו: בענין ברוך שכמל”ו [שם כבוד מלכותו לעולם ועד] דבא”י אומרין אותו בקול רם מפני המינין ובנהרדעא בחשאי שאין שם מינין מב.. לר.. גבי ר’ אבהו ב’. [אולי הכוונה לצטט ויכוח של מין עם ר’ אבהו.]

Here is a loose translation without the references:

1. In Babylon they were lax regarding the requirement for one who experienced seminal emissions [Ba’al Qeri] to immerse himself in a mikva. In the Land of Israel they were stringent. 2. In Babylonia they commence the Sabbath in the midst of the blowing of the shofar teru’ah — They retain their fathers’ practice. (Sabbath 35b) 3. In Babylon, they read the hallel on the day of the New Moon. In the land of Israel they did not (Ta’anit 28b, “They retain their fathers’ practice”). 4. In Babylon [a large unit of length] is referred to as a “parsa.” On the other hand, in the land of Israel, it is referred to as “four mil.” [miles] 5. According to the understanding of the sages of the Land of Israel there are four keys in the hands of the holy one, blessed be he. According to the understanding of the sages of Babylon, there are three. 6. In Babylon there were sages who fasted two Days of Atonement due to uncertainty as to on which day the new month begins. 7. The Babylonians do not greet [rabbinic authorities], so Z’eira [respected their custom and] did not greet Rabbah when he visited. 8. Rabbi Yohanan said to Rav Hiyya bar Bo: “The Babylonians have brought two [customs] up with them: full prostration on the fast days and the taking of the willow on the seventh day [of Sukkot]. The Rabbis of Caesarea added bloodletting [to the list] as well. 9. In the Babylonian Talmud we find: “Yosef.” In the Jerusalem Talmud: “Yosi.” 10. (7) “There, in Babylon, when there is no wine, the prayer leader descends to the bima and recites the one blessing in place of seven and concludes with meqadesh Israel v’et yom hashabbat.” However, in the Babylonian Talmud we do not find this. 11. (8) In Babylon the custom followed Rabbi Ishmael in reciting “borkhu et hashem hamevorakh.” It appears that in the Land of Israel they followed Rabbi Akiva [instead]. 12. (9) Is seems that in the Land of Israel, when a Kohen was called to the Torah reading in the absence of a Levite, he would not recite a second blessing. In Babylon he recites the benediction.

13. (10) In the Land of Israel they recite “Barukh shem kavod malkhuto l’olam va’ed” out loud because of the heretics. In Nehardea they whisper it since there are no heretics there.

As you can see, the numbering switches from Hebrew to Latin after tet. This is probably because the tet resembles a six, so he followed it up with seven. Remember, these were just personal notes, not intended for publication, obviously. Rabbi Singer’s mind was on more important things, as the erudition of his notes speaks for itself. Anyway, who was Rabbi Singer? We’ll return to that at the end of this post. Here in the middle of the work there is a citation apparently to a Yalkut in Parshat VaYeshev, but I can’t make heads or tails of it.

Appendix to Lewin’s edition. The articles originally appeared in Sinai 10 and 11.

Like Zinger, Lewin also noted the additional Hiluqim in Miller’s volume and decided to add more. Instead of adding exclusively from Talmudic sources, Lewin leaned more on Geonic sources, of which he was the great master. Some of these additions are quotations, and some Lewin formulated himself. 1. After completion [of the section from the public reading], the reader blesses: “Blessed are you … ruler of the world, rock of ages, righteous of all generations, the steadfast deity …” Then the congregation promptly rise and say: “Steadfast are you, he, the Lord, our G-d, and steadfast is your word. Steadfast, living, and lasting is your name and it’s utterance. Always will you rule over us forever and ever.” This is one of the disputes between the sons of the East and the sons of the West, for the sons of the East respond while sitting whereas the sons of the West [respond] while standing. 2. In Zoan, Egypt, which is called Fustat [today part of old Cairo], there are two synagogues: one for the people of the Land of Israel, the al-Shamiyin congregation [=the “Yerushalmi”, this name is still used today to refer to a Jewish Yemenite branch] (It is named after Elijah, of blessed memory [?, see below]). The other is the congregation of the people of Babylon, the al-Iraqiyn congregation. They do not observe the same customs. (Selections from Yosef Sambari,Seder HaHakhamim, Neubauer I, p. 118. On page 137 it states that the congregational synagogue then still in use was built before the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem.) One, (the people of the Land of Israel) stands during kedusha, while the other, (that of the residents of Babylon) sit during kedusha. (Rabbi Avraham ben HaGra, Maspiq l’ovdei hashem. In the 1989 edition published by Nissim Dana, page 180, the opinions appear in reverse order) 3. It is written in the responsa of the Geonim that the residents of the Land of Israel recite kedusha only on the Sabbath, since it is written [in Isaiah 6:2] that the Hayot have six wings. Each wing sings praises corresponding to the days of the week. When the Sabbath arrives, the Hayot say to the holy one, blessed be he: “We do not have another wing!” He replies to them: “I have another wing which sings praises to me, as in (Isaiah 24:16): “From the end [literally: wing] of the world we have heard song.” (Tosafot Sanhedrin 37b, ad. loc. Mikanap, Miller 59) 4. We do not recite kadish or borkhu with any less than ten [men]. Our sages in the west recite it [in the presence] of [even] seven [men]. They explain themselves according to the verse: “bifroa p’raot …” (Judges 5:2) according to the number of words [in the verse = seven. See also verse 5:9.] Some recite it with even six [men] since [the word] borkhu is the sixth [word in the verse]. (Some base this opinion on Psalms 68:27, which contains six words – Avudraham) 5. R. Joseph said: How fine was the statement which was brought by R. Samuel b. Judah when he reported that in the West [Israel] they say [in the evening], “Speak unto the children of Israel and thou shalt say unto them, I am the Lord your God, True.” (Berakhot 14b, Soncino translation). Still now, several cities [alternatively: regions] in the Land of Israel observe this custon in the evening. They reason that shema and v’haya im shamoa, [the first two paragraphs], are observed both day and night, whereasva’yomer is only observed during the day [as per Mishna Berakhot 2:2]. (Hilkhot Gedolot 1, Hilkhot Berakhot 2, p. 37, second Hildesheimer edition) 6. The sages of the Land of Israel behave as follows: they recite the evening prayers and later they read the Shema in its proper time. They are not concerned about connecting [the blessing ending with] geula to the evening prayers. (Sha’arei Teshuva 76, See Otzar HaGeonim for a list of numerous rishonim and collections who cite this responsum.) 7. Conserving a festival which begins after the Sabbath, it is still maintained in the Land of Israel that a fourth blessing is recited separately… but as for us, Rab and Samuel instituted for us a precious pearl in Babylon: “Just judgements and true Torah.” (attributed to Rav Hai Gaon, Otzar HaGeonim Berakhot, Perushim p. 46) 8. On the final day of the festival miṣwot u’ḥuqim and bekhor are read (Megilah 31a, acc. to mss. Munich and rishonim). Rav Hai Gaon explains this passage as a mnemonic sign: 1. There are those who read “for this miṣwa” (Deut. 30:11) and this is still read in the Land of Israel. 2. There are those who read from “im be’ḥuqotai until “qomemiut.” (Lev. 26:3-13) 3. There are those who read: “kol ha’bekhor” (Deut 15:19). We read “kol ha’bekhor.” (various sources, Otzar HaGeonim Megillah, p. 62, no. 230) 9. Upon the conclusion of the Day of Atonement, residents of the Land of Israel blow qashraq [=tashrat, a serious of various tones]. Residents of Babylon only sound one plain blow in remembrance of the jubilee. [From here until the end, Lewin composed most of the statements himself based on the sources he provides.] 10. The three fast days – Ta’anit Esther – are not observed consecutively, but rather, separately: Monday, Thursday, and Monday. Our sages in the Land of Israel were accustomed to fast after the days of Purim, on account of Nicanor and his company. Also, we delay [unpleasant] payment and do not predicate it. (Masekhet Sofrim 17) 11. Residents of the Land of Israel would not actually fully prostrate themselves on fast days. Residents of Babylon would actually fully prostrate themselves. 12. Residents of the Land of Israel did not read Hallel at all on the day of the New Moon. Residents of Babylon read it while skipping sections [an abbreviated version]. 13. Among residents of the Land of Israel, the first reader from the Torah recites the beginning blessing, and the last reader recites the final blessing. According to the residents of Babylonian, each and every reader blesses before and after the reading, since [members of the congregation may be] coming and going [during the readings and thus miss one or the other]. 14. In the absence of a Levite, residents of the Land of Israel would call a second Kohen to read from the Torah in his place. Residents of Babylon would call up the very same Kohen again who just read the first portion. 15. Residents of the Land of Israel permitted writing [Torah] scrolls on the skins of pure animals even if they were not slaughtered according to specifications of dietary laws. Residents of Babylon forbade this since they were not slaughtered. Translated summary of selected sections of Margaliot’s introduction Margulies’ Table of Contents [The entire Table of Contents of Margulies has been translated. However, only a summary of chapter 2 and the text of the original work itself have been translated here.] Chapter 1 Relations between Babylon and the Land of Israel from the close of the Talmudic period until the close of the Geonic period 1. The end of the Talmudic Period 2. The Geonic period 3. Attitudes towards divergent customs until the Geonic period 4. Attitudes of Babylonian Geonim to the customs of the Land of Israel Chapter 2 The Book of Disputes between East and West, the nature of the work and its use by Rabbinic and Karaite Jews. 1. The name of the work 2. The author, his period, and locale 3. Purpose of the work 4. Characteristics and scope of the book 5. Language and sources 6. Legal sources and historical development of the disputes 7. Use of the book by Geonim 8. Use of the book by Rabbinic legal authorities 9. Use of the book by Karaites 10. Scholars who have studied the work Chapter 3 Textual sources of the Book of Disputes, Printed Editions and Manuscripts 1. Text versions, families and formation 2. The first group 3. The second group 4. The third group 5. This edition’s presentation and stemmatic diagram of source relationships 6. The varying order of the disputes in all of the versions 7. The text Presentation of the actual text with variant apparatus Sources, History, and Development of the Disputes [Systematic Commentary] Chapter 1 is a general introduction to the context of the work and is not translated at this time Chapter 2 Summarized in translation 1. The name of the work The work appears in numerous manuscript versions and cited by various Rishonim. Virtually every single one has a different title for the work – all variations on the same descriptive theme. [Both the variation in titles and the descriptive nature suggest that the work may have been not only anonymous, but also untitled. It was simply a list drawn up by a sage, copied and possibly added to.] The majority of sources contain a variation of the root ḥlq in the title, including the first printed edition (1616, starts at middle of page) included at the end of Bava Kamma in Yam shel Shelomo, by the great Ashkenazi sage Rabbi Solomon Luria, better known as Maharshal (1510-1573).

I don’t know who decided to include the work in Maharshal’s edition, it led some to believe that the Maharshal himself collected it, a point justly disputed by Rav Avraham ben HaGra [see below]. Margulies is perplexed as to why Miller chose a title based on the root ḥlp, which only appears in a few secondary sources like Ravya, Rosh, and Tur. [Lewin also followed Miller on this point. It seems that the selection of this root was designed to minimize the controversial nature of the work. As Lewin stresses in his introduction, this is a work of divergent customs, not disputes regarding actual Torah law. The reader can evaluate both titles, which have themselves both been translated here as “alternates”. In this writer’s opinion, both of the roots may be “alternate” variations of one original word (probably from the root ḥlq) as the letters peh and qof are graphically similar. A supporting example of variation between these very same words is found in The Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon in the “French” manuscript branch. See Lewin’s edition, page 22, left column, note 19. There you will find a manuscript with precisely such an alternate reading. Also of note is that certain Islamic literature which records divergent legal opinions is referred to as kḥilaf. See here, beginning of intro. On the other hand, an 11th century Karaite work is entitled Ḥilluq ha-qara’im we-ha- rabbanim] 2. The author, his period, and locale The author is anonymous, and we have no clue as to his identity.

The first serious recorded attempt to date the work is by Rabbi Abraham ben Elijah of Vilna, the son of the famous GRA, in his work Rav P’alim, p. 126. He was uncertain as to whether the work was authored by amoraim or in a later period. [His chief concern here is disproving the erroneous theory that the Maharshal himself collected the work from various rabbinic sources.] Miller was able to hone in closer, from the savoraim at the close of the Talmudic period to the beginning of the Geonic period. Margulies provides considerable evidence that the work was composed around the year 700. That is, after the Arab conquest and before Rav Yehudai Gaon. According to Miller, our author was a native of the Land of Israel and familiar with Babylonian customs through travel to Babylon.Western Aramaic and Western Hebrew forms abound. In fact, the very composition in Hebrew suggests composition in the land of Israel, the language of the “Minor” Talmudic tractates produced there during the Geonic period, as well as Hebrew translations ofEastern Aramaic Babylonian Geonic works themselves. Margulies points out that since Miller’s publication, new evidence has emerged from the Cairo geniza which shows that after the Arab conquest, Babylonian Jews migrated to the Land of Israel and formed their own separate congregations in Tiberias, Ramla, and Mivtzar Dan (Panias-Banias), with the most likely speculative location for our author being Tiberias, which was a native Torah center that may have already boasted a Babylonian community during the Talmudic period. 3. Purpose of the work

According to Miller, the work was designed to oppose the Babylonian side in the dispute between the two great Torah centers. He points out that many more explanations are offered in support of the “Yerushalmi” side than the Babylonian. Later, Miller appears to backtrack and seems to conclude that the work is simply meant to impartially catalog the various discrepancies. Margulies accepts the claims regarding the basic “Yerushalmi” orientation, but understands the purpose more subtly. Rather than taking a confrontational stance, the work merely seeks to explain and rationalize the local customs and decisions to the new Babylonian immigrants who were not aware or respectful of the locals. No attempt is made per se to reject the validity of the Babylonian customs themselves and at times the author troubles himself to explain them only. 4. Characteristics and scope of the book

The items in the work are haphazardly arranged with only occasional grouping according to topic. It is nowhere near complete in cataloging all of the items of dispute. According to Miller, the complete version of the work has not yet been transmitted to us. [This understanding may underly many efforts to expand on this list, discussed in the Appendix.] Margulies disagrees, on the basis of the numerous manuscript examples at his disposal. According to him, the author never meant to compile an exhaustive list. 5. Language and sources It has already been pointed out that the work was composed in “Yerushalmi” Hebrew. A list of words and phrases is provided by Margulies along with parallel examples from Talmudic and Geonic “Yerushalmi” literature. He supposes that many more parallels would be found in halakhic works from the period and region which are no longer extant.

[This section is of considerable philological interest especially regarding Geonic material in Hebrew which may be of uncertain provenance.] 6. Legal sources and historical development of the disputes Most of the items can be documented partially in other Talmudic and Geonic literature. As would be expected, there is a high level of correspondence between the “Yerushalmi” side and the Jerusalem Talmud; also, between the Babylonian side and the Babylonian Talmud. Most of the items appear to predate the collection and stem from the Talmudic period, many probably earlier, from the Tannaitic period. In some cases, a Tannaitic dispute may have been transmitted unresolved to both regions and eventually decided differently in each locale in a purely internal manner. Conversely, sometimes entirely external factors may drive the discrepancies in later periods as well. Of special interest is following the disputes from the Geonic period until the end of the period of the Rishomin signified by the publication of the Shulhan Arukh. In general, the Babylonian side prevailed as their hegemony increased, but in a number of cases, the position native to the Land of Israel in fact dominated, especially when it did not contradict any explicit statements in the Babylonian Talmud. This tradition was especially strong in Tsarfat and Ashkenaz (France and Germany) as opposed to Sepharad (Spain), which historically remained tied to the Babylonian Geonim. The influence of the Land of Israel side is especially noticed in the house of study of the great Rashi and his students (items 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 25, and more).

The period following the publication of the Shulhan Arukh is not discussed systematically in Margulies’ commentary since to a large extent geographic boundaries were erased by the free transfer of books from one region to another and a great amount of cross-fertilization occurred. Nevertheless, it is noted that a number of disputes remain with us to this very day between Ashkenazi and Sepharadi communities. 7. Use of the book by Geonim

In Babylonian Geonic responsa literature, a number of disputes are addressed, but apparently not through direct exposure to the work. It is more likely that the inquirers from the Land of Israel or North Africa might have been motivated in their queries by exposure to concepts from the work. However, the later European collections of Geonic material did see fit to gather material from this work into their nets. The collection known as Sha’are Tsedeq includes no fewer than eleven items culled from the disputes.

In a few cases, items from the collection are attributed to Babylonain Geonim themselves, but it is difficult to rely on any of these attributions and most were clearly added by the later compiler.

8. Use of the book by Rabbinic legal authorities Many of the great authorities were most probably unaware of the work as they never cite it or it’s contents. Others who do cite it generally cite only sections known to them through second or third-hand rabbinic sources. Geographic location was clearly a major factor. In France and Provence use was much more pronounced than in Spain. The work seems to have reached different locations at different times. By the 14th century the work seems to have been lost for the most part, as only citations from by previous authorities are ever quoted.

One reason for the neglect of this work may have been it’s brevity. [For example, the usual explanation for the grouping of the twelve prophets in one scroll, and today in one volume, is so that the small books would not become lost.] However, a more compelling reason appears to be the negative impression that the work made on certain authorities, most notably, Nahmanides, Ramban (Avodah Zara 35b). It was (correctly) perceived that the work contains material which contradicts the Babylonian Talmud, already considered supremely authoritative. Methods of study which stressed a proper historical understanding of all legal points of view would become common in rabbinic circles well before the modern period, but at the time they were not yet developed. If an opinion could not be utilized for determining the halakha, it was not deemed worthy of further inquiry. Nahmanides is the only early Spanish sage who even mentions the work, so it is not at all surprising that he considers it outside the pale of legal precedent. Possibly, the Spanish Sages resisted the work as a result of the utility that Karaites received from it and quoted from it. They may have suspected the work of being a Karaite forgery. In contrast, early Provencal authorities made ample use of the work. They include: Rabbi Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne (Eshkol), Rabbi Isaac ben Abba Mari of Marseilles (Ittur), and Rabbi Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel (Manhig). The textual versions cited by the Provencal sages are similar to those found in the Geonic Responsa collections which appear to be most original. Ashkenazi sages also utilized the work widely, but the stylized textual citations indicate that they were generally quoting secondary and tertiary rabbinic sources rather than the work directly. The sages include: Rabbi Eliezer bar Nathan of Mainz (Ra’avan, Even Ha-Ezer), Ravya, Tosafot, Rabbi Eliezer of Metz (Yereim), Sha’arei Dura, Machzor Vitry.

From the fourteenth century on mention and discussion of the work seems to virtually disappear. A most notable exception is Rabbi Ashtori HaParḥi (Isaac HaKohen ben Moses, 1280-1366) in hisKaftor w-Ferah, who traveled from France to the Land of Israel, on which his work focuses. He cites the work according to versions not attested to otherwise among French sages. [Furthermore, he took an interest in expanding upon the principle of the work as seen in the additions which Miller culled from it. See below after the main body of the translation.] Students of the Maharam of Rottenberg, such asHagahot Maimoniot, Mordechai, and Rabbenu Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh) mention the work haphazardly. Other sages who cite the work includeRikanati, Tashbatz, Agur, Or Zarua, and Shiltei Giborim. None of the early or later sages undertook an elucidation of the entire work – they left this important work for us to do! 9. Use of the book by Karaites

Karaites took a much keener interest in the disputes than Rabbanites. This is not at all surprising. The Rabbanites claimed to possess an authoritative Talmudic tradition handed down from the earlier sages. Every known dispute amongst the Talmudic sages themselves was utilized in order to argue against these claims. From Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai to disputes amongst the Babylonian Geonim themselves, the Karaites seized upon the disputes between East and West eagerly. The first Karaite sage to quote the work is Jacob Qirqisani (10th century). Since he cites the work in an overtly apologetic manner (read: missionary), he was wont to exaggerate and even forge sections of the work. Thus, it goes without saying that his work cannot be utilized uncritically. Nevertheless, despite this cautionary note, his early explanations can at times be very useful in understanding the nature of the disputes themselves.

He explains his interest in the disputes very clearly. According to him, the disputes between East and West were more extensive than the disputes between the Rabbanites and the Karaites, but nevertheless, claims of heresy were never leveled and a spirit of tolerance reigned between the communities. So too, the Karaites should be accepted by the Rabbanites . This stance led him to exaggerate at times the extent of the disputes which were considered normative. Thus, even though the majority of the disputes concern extra-legal customs, he would attempt to thrust them into the body of the legal arena as exemplars of radical opinions. If at times he may have honestly misunderstood the disputes, in some of them it appears that he was making a cynical attempt misrepresent them and create confusion to advance his rhetorical purposes. One example which stands out is a dispute which Qirqisani appears to have invented out of whole cloth, an out and our forgery not attested to in any other versions of the work:

“People of Babylon do not permit one to betrothe a woman with [the fruit of] the seventh year. People of the Land of Israel permit this. Therefore, the betrothals of that year in the Land of Israel are not considered by the Babylonians to effect marriage, and their children are not valid.” [According to Mordekhai Akiva Friedman (Madaei HaYahadut 31), a maculation of taba’at to shevi’it resulting from graphic similarity between the letters tet and shin led item 25 to be misconstrued by Qirqisani in this manner. If Lewin did not mention this possibility, at the very least, he noticed the similarities and listed them together in his collection.] From Qiqisani’s time on, Karaites have continued to utilize the work in their own disputations with Rabbanites. As we saw earlier, this may have led to the work’s falling out of favor among Rabbanites in regions where Karaites were active. 10. Scholars who have studied the work 1. Rabbi Abraham ben Elijah of Vilna, the son of the GRA, in Rav Pe’alim 2. Dr. P. P. Frankl in Monatscrifft, 1871 (Heft 8), p. 352-363 (available through compactmemory) 3. R. Yoel HaCohen Miller, 1878 4. A. H. Weiss, Dor Dor v’Dorshav, Additions to vol. 3, p. 285-, 1883 5. Rabbi Gershon Hanoch Leiner, the Admor of Radzin, in his commentary to Orchot Hayyim, mentions that he has composed commentaries on 50 disputes from the work. This has not been published and according to Margulies may no longer be extant. 6. R. Yehudah Meshil HaKohen, Kneset Hokhmei Israel 1, 60 and 91, 1893 7. R. Ezra Altshuler, Tosefta, 1899. According to Lewin and Margulies, he plagiarized Miller (3 above) without mentioning him at all, even copying his printing errors. Someone should do a study on this work and figure out if the accusations are justified. Both Eliezer Brodt and I suspect that R. Ezra did, in fact, add plenty of his own material and didn’t see anything wrong with copying transcriptions from a previous edition. This version of the Hiluqim has been republished with additional notes from the Aderes. 8. R. Hayyim Stahon, Eretz Hayyim, 1908 9. R. Ya’akov Shor, Ner Ma’aravi in HaMe’asef, 1910 [for a complete listing of all issues containing this serial column, see Simha Emanuel’s index, entry 98]. These were .כתבי וחדושי הגאון רבי יעקב שור זצ”ל reprinted in 10. R. Dr. Benjamin Menashe Lewin, Otzar HaGeonim, [Otzar Hiluf Minhagim, 1942. Lewin’s edition was prepared more or less simultaneously as Margulies’ edition. Forthcoming from R. Yosaif Mordechai Dubovick is a study on the various versions of Lewin’s publication.] 11. Dr. Dov Revel, Horev 1,1. 12. [After over a Jubilee of reliance on the two critical editions of Marulies and Lewin, without further critical study, Ze’ev Elkin re-opened the field with his 1997 Tarbiz article focusing on the earliest manuscripts of the work, which are all of Karaite origin. He questioned several of Margulies conjectures. Elkin later became a member of the Knesset. 13. R. Dr. Uzi Fuchs, Netuim 2003. An examination of the Rothschild manuscript and its role in the development of the various textual variants.] Hillel Neuman in Ha-Ma’asim 2011 discusses several items from this related work in passing. This is a new revised version of his 1987 master’s thesis (Hebrew University). Chapter 3 Textual sources of the Book of Disputes, Printed Editions and Manuscripts [This technical section has not been translated, except for the last section, the text itself, found at the beginning of this article. According to Elkin’s 1997 article the textual analysis may be in need of an update and revision.] Now that we are finished duscussing the Hiluqim, we can return to the question about who Rabbi Benjamin Zev Singer was. Rabbi Singer published Hamadrich, a Talmudic anthology, in collaboration with his brother, Rabbi Abraham Singer of Varpalota in 1882 andDas Buch der Jubiläen (Die Leptogenesis) in 1898 as “Wilhelm Singer.” Also, Neue Lehrmethode für den hebräischen Lese- und Sprachunerricht in der ersten .אור חדש ,Klas in 1867, with an additional Hebrew subtitle This is a slim German Sefer Mesores for learning the Hebrew alphabet, davvening, handwriting, and selected phrases in Judeo-German.Singer is identified as a hauptschullehrer, a schoolteacher. R. Daniel Sperber published a volume of Rabbi Singer’s novella/hiddushim on Tractate Shabbat in 1986 and included a biography of him: That biography is incorporated in a list of his many unpublished Hebrew works still in manuscript which are housed in boxes at Bar Ilan. Apparently University of Toronto houses manuscripts of his writing in German (maybe Hungarian, too, but he wrote both of his books in German. I noticed that at least one of the items Singer listed above (four mil) is apparently given fuller treatment in these manuscripts. Given the sheer quantity of his output, I suspect that many more items in the list are as well. On the title page of the book, Singer lists a couple of learned review articles in German of the Miller volume. See it here:

One review appears in Graetz’s Monatsschrift, 1879, pp. 87-91 (Heinrich Graetz took over as editor after Zecharias Frankel); the other is in Brüll’s Jahrbuecher, vol. 4, pp. 169-173. (Both are available at www.compactmemory.de.) A couple of other articles are listed here as well, after the fact. At the top, the aforementioned 1871 Monatsschrift article of Dr. P. P. Frankl (listed by Marguleis), p. 357. At the bottom, an additional Brüll Jahrbuecher article from the first volume of the series, p. 44, where Talmudic customs of the Galil and Judah are discussed.

It is quite interesting to see that the Rabbi Singer brothers, the authors of HaMadrich, featuring haskamot of R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spector, the Netziv, and (over a hundred!) gedolim, had an openness to modern scholarship which accommodated Graetz and even Brüll, a reform rabbi who for a time headed the congregation in Frankfurt opposite R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch. This openness is also manifest in the very existence of R. Singer’s volume on the book of Jubilees, Seforim Hitzoni’im. Another point worth mentioning is that HaMadrich is essentially a collection of chapters to be learned by beginning and intermediate students all in one volume with an eclectic running commentary. That work was briefly touched on in this forum previously, but it would be more interesting to explore in greater detail exactly how eclectic it was once we have a clearer picture of the depth of lomdus and of academic scholarship displayed by the authors of this first “Artscroll.” This “openness” of the Singer brothers did not appeal to everyone. R. Yehoshua Monsdhein’s article on HaMadrich details the controversy surrounding the work. It is difficult to piece together exactly to what extent the opposition was to any change whatsoever in the education process, and to what extent it was towards entrusting the enlightened Singer brothers to this task. If it can be compared were these haskamot procured (many of them probably after the controversy already developed!) any more successful than the ones in Rabinowitz’s Dikdukei Sofrim? How many lomdim actually learned with HaMadrich? It was only reprinted once and then again twenty years ago. Back to the Hiluqim notes, It seems to me that except for the first Monatsschrift review, the additional three references were added in pencil by another hand, perhaps R. Singer’s brother R. Abraham, who worked closely with him on HaMadrich. But probably not the other way around. I consulted with R. Yechiel Goldhaber – he thinks that these notes are in the same style as the published hiddushim on Shabbat, and that seems quite reasonable. Thanks to Lucia Raspe for deciphering these journal references, and to Sara Zfatman for the assist. — Translator’s note: Thanks to Avi Kessner for suggesting and sponsoring this project, also for proofreading and valuable comments. I am indebted to Sander Kolatch and the Kolatch Foundation for general assistance during the year. Eliezer Brodt provided several useful references, without which this post would have been much poorer. The Guetta, Jacobi, and Peled families who continue with their unfailing support, especially my wife Dana, who makes it all possible. This translation is dedicated to my father, Nathan ben Tzipporah, in the hope that he should enjoy a complete and speedy recovery.