Daf Ditty 104: The Sound of (Shabbes) Music

1

once went to בש ת . אלוע using a wheel on שדקמה תיב We may draw water from the two wells in the בש ת commented that the person was אלוע and בש ת A man knocked on the door on. השנמ בר visit however, defended the person and said; musical , הבר .by making noise with his knocking ללחמ . בש ת sounds on אל רסא ו אלא לוק לש יש ר – only is it סא ו ר produce to

We learned in the Mishna: One may draw water from the Cistern of the Exiles by means of a wheel. The Gemara relates: Ulla happened to come to the house of Rav Menashe when a certain man came and knocked at the door. Ulla said: Who is that? May his body be desecrated, as he desecrates by producing a sound.

2

onto a metal plate for לכ י only allows causing the noise of water dripping from a רב י י את The but not for a regular person, apparently because even making non-musical הלוח the sake of a ? סא ו ר sounds that would help wake a person, is

Rabba said to him: The Sages prohibited only a pleasant musical sound on Shabbat, not the rasping sound of knocking on a door. raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: One may draw up wine from a barrel with a siphon [diyofei], and one may drip water from a vessel that releases water in drops [miarak], for an ill person on Shabbat.

The Gemara infers: For an ill person, yes, this is permitted, but for a healthy person, no, one may not do so, what are the circumstances? Is it not the case that he is dozing off and they wish to waken him, and as they do not want to alarm him due to his illness, they do it by means of the sound of water poured from a vessel? And one can learn from here that it is prohibited to

3 produce a sound on Shabbat, even one that is unpleasant, as the Sages permitted this only for an ill person.

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, it is referring to an ill person who is awake and whom they want to have fall asleep, and to this end they let water fall in drops, producing a sound that is heard as melodious.

4

The Gemara asks: However, with regard to that which Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: Women who play with nuts by rolling them on the ground until they collide with each other, it is prohibited for them to do so; what is the reason for this prohibition? Is it not because knocking nuts together produces a sound, and any production of a sound is prohibited?

The Gemara rejects this contention: No, it is prohibited because perhaps they will come to level the holes. As small holes in the ground will interfere with their game, they might level them out and seal them up on Shabbat, which is prohibited as building.

For if you do not say that this is the reason, there is a difficulty with that which Rav Yehuda said: Women who play with apples, this is prohibited, as what production of a sound is involved there? Apples do not produce a sound when they collide with each other.

Rather, the reason is that they will perhaps come to level holes, and the same reasoning applies to nuts.

5

MAKING NOISE ON SHABBOS

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:1

The Gemara relates that when Ula heard someone knock on the door on Shabbos, he declared that the person desecrated Shabbos when he produced a loud noise. Rabah replied that noise on Shabbos is forbidden only when it musical.

Tosafos

Is one permitted to make non-melodious noise on Shabbos?

1 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-104.htm

6

תופסות ה"ד יכה סירג וקב סרטנ אלא אה רמאד .בר . ...ררא האאסט ק יג יההדתפו

Tosfos discusses why both were taught. 2. Tosfos discusses how we rule.

המיתו תרת י ברד המל ל י מ ר ר

Why did Rav need to teach both?

והימו י ' ' ל אדחד ללכמ התרבח רמתיא התרבח ללכמ אדחד ל ' ' י והימו

We can say that one was inferred from the other.

'רו ח' סרג יכה אלא אה ןכ( הארנ גהל ,הי ןכו אוה )ח"רב רמאד בר הדוהי םישנ תוקחשמה גאב ו ז םי וכ 'ו יזוגבתקשהםש הוי ררא )"באה כ ה ה אנ ן( האא כ ר ח ר

R. Chananel's text says "rather, this that Rav Yehudah said that women who play with nuts..." (this shows that making any sound is forbidden)!

אל עמתשמד אלק יכ זמז ימו שוריפ זש קרו דחא לבקמו דחא תעמשהב לוק רוסאד לוק תעמשהב דחא לבקמו דחא קרו זש שוריפ ימו זמז יכ אלק עמתשמד אל

[Our Daf answers] "no, it makes a sound like cymbals. I.e. one throws one [nut] and catches another, making a forbidden (i.e. pleasant) sound.

רדהו רמאק אלאו אה רמאד בר הדוהי םישנ תוקחשמה םיחופתב וכ ' ינשמו אל םושמ וושא י י ג תומוג ייוש ומא ישו 'ו יות וחמ ינ דה ב מדא לו מקרה

[The Gemara] later says "but this that Rav Yehudah said that women who play with apples...", and answers "no, [that] is due to evening out holes." i. NOTE: In our text of R. Chananel, Rav Yehudah said so in the name of Shmuel. It seems that in Tosfos' text of R. Chananel, Rav Yehudah said so in his own name.

אתשהו ירת נע י י נ י רוסיא יעמשא נ ןנימארסא ע ר תה

Conclusion: Now, [Rav Yehudah] teaches two matters of Isur. (One may not play with apples lest he even out holes. One may not play with nuts due to making sound.)

והימו יא ן תוחמל םישנב יתו תוקונ בטומד והיש יגגוש ן לאו והי זמ ידי ןייז וי א גו וי טמ וו ת םשבתחל א המ

Psak: However, one should not protest against women and children [who play with apples or nuts], for it is better that they be Shogeg and not Meizid.

'רפ ח' אתכלהד אלועכ וליפאד לוק יאש נ ו לש ריש רוסא ריש לש ו נ יאש לוק וליפאד אלועכ אתכלהד ח' 'רפ

7 TOSFOS (above) cites the RIF and REBBI YEHUDAH BAR BARZILAI (the author of SEFER HA'ITIM) who rule that one is permitted to make non-musical noise on Shabbos. Although Ula prohibited any noise, the Halachah follows the view of Ameimar, who permitted non-melodious noise. Ameimar allowed the people of Mechuza to use a well with a pulley even though it made a considerable racket.

RABEINU CHANANEL, however, rules that one may not cause noise on Shabbos, even if it is not musical. The MAHARAM (in a responsum cited by the HAGAHOS ASHIRI) suggests that Rabeinu Chananel prohibits noise only when one is interested in the sound that is produced (for example, a knock on a door in order to get the attention of those inside). If the noise is merely a by-product of another act (such as noise that emanates from a loose piece of metal jewelry), it is permitted. (See also SEFAS EMES.)

Although Ula prohibited the use of a noisy pulley to draw water from a well, there must have been some type of benefit gained from the squeak of the pulley. Alternatively, the pulley produced an especially loud noise which could be heard by many, and therefore it is prohibited to use such an object. (MAHARAM).

HALACHAH:

Orach Chayim 338:1

Producing noise from an instrument is forbidden, but knocking on the door or other things that are not musical are allowed. Rem"a: Similarly, if you do no action, it is allowed. Therefore, those who call their friends by making their mouths sound like birds are permitted to do such on Shabbat (Hagahot Alfasi). It is forbidden to bang on the door with the ring attached to the door, even though one has no musical intentions, because in any event, the ring is made especially for that purpose, and it is forbidden. Therefore, it is forbidden for the sexton to bang on the door to call the using a tool. Rather, he should bang with his hand (the Agur and Beit Yosef in the name of Piskei in Eruvin).

8

SHULCHAN ARUCH (OC 338:1) records the opinion of Tosfos and the Rif who rule that only musical noise may not be produced on Shabbos. The BI'UR HALACHAH writes that this is the common practice today.

However, the VILNA GA'ON argues and maintains that the Halachah follows Ula (whose view is supported by the Yerushalmi). Therefore, one is not permitted to make noise on Shabbos unless the noise serves no purpose at all (as the Maharam writes; however, even the Vilna Ga'on permits the use of a noisy well-pulley, as the Bi'ur Halachah points out).

The Vilna Ga'on agrees that one is permitted to make noise in a manner that is "k'l'Achar Yad," that is, with a Shinuy. Accordingly, one may clap his hands with a Shinuy even to a musical beat (OC 339:3 and Bi'ur Halachah ibid.).

REMA adds that one may not use a utensil that was made specifically to produce noise (such as a door-knocker) since one may be tempted to use the utensil to produce a musical beat (The Bi'ur Halachah, however, permits the use of such an object in extenuating circumstances, based on the ruling of the RAMBAM in Perush ha'Mishnayos.)

The MISHNAH BERURAH (338:2) points out that one may make non-musical and non- rhythmical noise with an object that is not made for making noise. For example, one may bang pots together in order to wake up a person.

There are some who permit telling a non-Jew to play an instrument at weddings.

Rema: Even telling a non-Jew to fix the instrument is allowed because of the honor accorded to the groom and bride, but in other situations, this is forbidden (Mordechai in Perek Mashilin). However, in our times, we tend to be lenient with respect to clapping and dancing for a reason that will be explained in the next chapter

(Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was asked once about chassidim who dance on Shabbes. He responded that that kind of dance (shuffling in a circle) differs from the kind of dancing at a wedding. He called this type “halicha be’alma” (!))

Forbidding Making Noise on Shabbat

9 Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:2

In connection with activities that are permitted specifically in the Temple precincts, the Mishna on our daf mentions that water could be drawn from water holes in the Mikdash (Temple) using a water wheel. There were several types of water wheels that existed in Temple times that were used to draw water. This one makes use of a rope and wheel system to raise the bucket containing water. More advanced techniques were also used. This one is based on sketches from Rome and Alexandria. The system is powered by an animal (or, in this sketch, a person) and draws a strong, steady stream of water for agriculture and similar needs. he Gemara concludes that these techniques were forbidden on Shabbat outside the Mikdash because of a Rabbinic ordinance established because of concern that the water will be used not only for immediate needs, but for watering fields, as well. An additional consideration that the Gemara suggests is that these might be forbidden because of the noise that they make. Several cases are raised, all of which appear to be outlawed because they make noise.

For example, Ulla complains that someone who knocked on the door was involved in Shabbat desecration. He is corrected by Rabba, who says that it is only the creation of music that is problematic. Ulla's position is taken very seriously by the in . The relates that Ilai spent the night outside his house rather than knock on the door to gain entrance.

Another case raised by the Gemara is a game of nuts played by women. In this game, a board is placed against the wall and nuts are thrown against it. The player whose nut successfully hits others gets to keep them. Such games were played throughout the generations; Rashi reports that they were played in his day, and even today such games are still played.

Here, too, the Gemara rejects the suggestion that it is forbidden to play such games on Shabbat because of the noise that is made and concludes that it is because these games, when played on the dirt floor, may lead the players to fill in holes in the ground, which is forbidden on Shabbat.

2 https://www.steinsaltz-center.org/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=68446

10

The Singing Shochet!

Our Daf relates that Ulla felt that any sounding of a noise is prohibited on Shabbos, even knocking on a door with one’s fist. Rabbah held that the only sounding of noise which is prohibited is where the sounds create a song. This means that in order to be prohibited, it must be a pleasant sound which is pleasing to hear.

Rif and Rambam (Hilchos Shabbos 23;4) rule according to the lenient opinion of Rabbah. The only sounds which are disallowed are when they create a series of sounds which are discernible as a song. Making banging or knocking sounds is allowed.

He brings a proof to this ruling from a .( כה י ה דת Rabeinu Chananel rules according to Ulla (see story in the Yerushalmi where Rebbe Ila’uh once came home late from the Beis Midrash and he found that his family was sleeping. He stayed outside and slept outside the door of his house, because he did not want to knock on the door on Shabbos.

The Tur cites these two approaches in the halachah, and he notes that even according to the strict opinion of Rabeinu Chananel, it could be that the only time knocking alone is considered prohibited is when the person making the sound needs the noise which he makes, as we find regarding a person who knocks on a door to get other people’s attention. However, if the noise is only incidental, even Ulla would agree that the noise does not have to be avoided. For example, if a bracelet has a hollow core, and a stone is placed in it, moving the bracelet would be allowed, because the noise being made is of no significance.

and on the sifrei which רפ ו תכ The Achronim deal with the propriety of placing bells on the will be moved on Shabbos. The Taz (Yoreh De’ah 282) writes that because the main purpose of

11 fastening these bells on the Torah is in order to create a sound (so that people will hear it coming and be able to stand up in reverence of the Torah), even if the one carrying it has no intent for the ringing of the bells, this would be prohibited. Shach disagrees, and he holds that the noise generated is for the sake of alerting people to stand, which is a mitzvah. The one opening the paroches also does not have intent to create these sounds. Therefore, he permits it.

Mishnah Berura (338:#6) cites the Sha’arei Efraim who says that if a community has the custom to handle a sefer Torah with these bells, we should not protest against it. However, it is better if the sefer Torah does not have these bells on Shabbos.3

Our Daf relates that Ulla visited the house of R’ Menasheh and a man came and knocked on the door producing a sound.

Ulla strongly criticized this person for violating the Rabbinic prohibition against producing sounds on Shabbos out of concern that one may repair a musical instrument.

Rabbah responded that ’s injunction is limited to musical sounds rather than all sounds. The author of Teshuvas Yehudah Ya’aleh1 was asked about the status of a slaughterer who was found playing a musical instrument on Shabbos. The slaughterer claimed that it was done inadvertently in that he forgot it was Shabbos and for his part he was prepared for any course of repentance that the rov advises.

The rov who was presenting the question acknowledged that desecrating a Shabbos-related Rabbinic prohibition once would not disqualify someone as being fit to serve as a slaughterer but someone who plays a musical instrument desecrates Shabbos numerous times since he played many notes in the course of playing music and should thus be disqualified.

Yehudah Ya’aleh responded that it is true that each note that is played constitutes a separate violation. This is evident from our Gemara in which Ulla criticized the fellow for knocking and producing even one sound.

Although there was a disagreement whether a knock violated the Rabbinic injunction, all opinions agreed that a single musical sound would violate the injunction. However, it does not seem that he should be categorized as a mumar for what he did unless he was accustomed to play music on Shabbos.

Although it is true that he violated the Rabbinic injunction numerous times over the course of his playing a song, nevertheless, once one starts playing a song it is considered a single violation since these sets of notes are played as a single entity rather than as separate and disparate notes.

3 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin%20104.pdf

12 Additionally, there are many authorities who maintain that one does not become disqualified unless he violates a Biblical prohibition.

Nevertheless, it is appropriate to suspend his slaughtering privileges until he completes the course of repentance as formulated by the rov.

A slaughterer must have impeccable awe of Hashem and forgetting that it was Shabbos demonstrates a weakness in his awe of Hashem.

Creation of Sound on Shabbat and Yom Tov

Rav Moshe Taragin writes:4

The Gemara in our daf mentions a prohibition against using a utensil to generate sound on Shabbat. claims that only lyric or musical sound is forbidden, whereas Ulla and Abaye seem to prohibit the production of ANY sound. Most side with Rava because of his successful defense against several questions originally cited to debunk his position. Rabbenu Chananel appears to agree with the more stringent position of Ulla prohibiting any type of sound. This position is supported by the Yerushalmi, which also appears to issue a sweeping prohibition.

What remains unclear from the Gemara in our daf is the REASON that creating sounds should be forbidden in the first place.

A likely basis appears in a related Gemara in Beitza (35b). The Mishna prohibits dancing and clapping on Yom Tov and the Gemara clarifies that these activities are forbidden because they are typically associated with formal song and dance. Engaging in these activities may lead to repairing musical instruments, which itself is forbidden because of tikkun manah - repairing any item is equivalent to construction. Presumably, Rava and Ulla extend this reason to any FORM of sound emission. Not only clapping but creating sound through any device may cause a person to repair musical instruments. Rava and Ulla merely debate what type of sound would create this peril, with Ulla taking a more stringent view.

However, Abaye's questioning of Rava in the Gemara may lead to and interesting alternative. Abaye seeks to prove that even non-musical sounds are forbidden by citing a source banning the use of a water pipe which issues a comforting sound. He demonstrates from this source that "alodi kola" - creating any sound is forbidden. By employing the term "alodi," which literally means "giving birth" to sound, Abaye may be asserting a different basis for the prohibition against the emission of sound – molid, creating new items - which is forbidden on Shabbat.

Of course, this assumes that we can extend the prohibition of molid to sound creation. The Gemara in Shabbat discusses the prohibition of molid regarding creating fragrances on Shabbat. Some authorities felt that the molid notion could be extended to any new "creation," as

4 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur16-creation-sound-shabbat-and-yom-tov

13 routine as that may be. For example, Rav Yitzchak Shmelkes, in his famous responsa known as Beit Yitzchak, forbade electricity on Shabbat because he deemed the creation of a flow of electric current to be molid. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach refutes this notion, claiming that any 'routine' action cannot be deemed molid. This debate may influence the ability to view molid as a potential source for the prohibition of sound emission.

In theory, molid may serve as the source for the sound emission prohibition even according to Rava, who limited the prohibition to musical sound. According to his view, not every ethereal sound would be considered significant enough to breach the violation of molid. Only by creating beneficial sound would a person transgress the prohibition of molid.

In fact, this concept that sound emission may be prohibited because of molid and not only because of the fear of repairing musical instruments - appears in the presentation of the Shulchan Arukh, who, like most decisors, adopted Rava's position. In siman 378, he cites the situation of generating sound through utensils, but he does not link the prohibition to the fear of repairing musical instruments. In the subsequent siman, he lists the prohibition of clapping and dancing and does in fact trace the issue to the concern of repairing instruments. Perhaps, then, the Shulchan Arukh agreed to this distinction: Generating sound through utensils is considered molid and forbidden, as long as the sound is musical or rhythmic in nature. Dancing and clapping are not forbidden because they generate sound but because they are actions associated with song and raise the concern of repairing musical instruments.

The question as to whether the prohibition of "sound generation" stems from the fear of repairing instruments or an independent issue of molid affects several interesting secondary questions. Chief among these questions is a fascinating position cited by the Beit Yosef in the name of the Aggur and adopted by the Rama. They claim that Rava's qualification that only musical sounds are forbidden applies to general utensils. Regarding an instrument used specifically to emit sound, ANY SOUND - –even non-musical - is forbidden. Since the adopts this limitation, any item that is intended for the generation of sound may not be used on Shabbat regardless of the sound which it emits. In fact, in many European hamlets, the shamash, whose job it was to awaken villagers to shul, would strike a different object when creating this noise on Shabbat.

Most commentators have a difficult time explaining this limitation; perhaps the aforementioned discussion may justify this limitation. If general sound emission is forbidden because it may lead to instrument repair, it would be difficult to apply greater stringency to specifically designed instruments which emit non-musical sound. The entire prohibition is based around the concern of repairing musical instruments. Based on this model, Rava limited the issur to musical sounds. Why should a scenario including general non-musical sound emitting items run a greater risk of repairing MUSICAL instruments ??

If, however, the prohibition stems from the concern of molid, perhaps the following logic may be suggested. Rava limited the prohibition to musical sounds because general sounds are not significant enough to be considered molid. However, any sound emitted from an instrument SPECIFICALLY INTENDED toward THAT SOUND is automatically considered significant, and molid has been breached.

14

A second issue may pertain to the question of emitting sound without performing any action on Shabbat. Would a person be allowed to leave the radio on during Shabbat? In this particular situation, a different concern may ban this behavior; we might not allow loud activities which may raise suspicion regarding Shabbat violation. For example, one may not allow his water mill to continue running on Shabbat, for this may invite suspicion that he started the mill on Shabbat (a Biblical prohibition)(see Rama OC 152). Similarly, leaving a radio blaring might imply that he turned the radio on during Shabbat, and it would therefore be forbidden. Beyond this concern of inviting suspicion, however, would automatic genesis of sounds - commenced before Shabbat - violate the prohibition against emitting sound?

Conceivably, if the prohibition stems form the concern that instruments will be repaired, any presence of musical sound may advance that danger. If the prohibition surrounds the CREATION of sound and the transgression of molid, only active creation during Shabbat would cause this violation.

Prohibitions Relating to Producing Sound on Shabbat

Rabbi Josh Flug writes:5

There are a number of prohibitions recorded in the Talmud relating to the production of certain types of sound. In this issue, we will present these prohibitions and provide practical applications to these prohibitions.

Our Daf notes that there is a prohibition against engaging in an activity for the purpose of producing sound on Shabbat.

The Gemara records a dispute as to whether this prohibition includes all forms of sound or whether it is limited to music.

Most Rishonim are of the opinion that the conclusion of the Gemara is that only music is prohibited.

RAMBAM Hil Shabbat 23:4

5 https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/737920/rabbi-josh-flug/prohibitions-relating-to-producing-sound-on-shabbat/

15

One may wait for nightfall at the Shabbat boundary to attend to the needs of a bride and the needs of a corpse, such as to bring him a coffin and shrouds. If a gentile brought flutes on Shabbat in order to play music during the eulogy and funeral procession, a Jew may not eulogize with them as accompaniment, unless they were brought from a nearby location within the Shabbat boundary and transporting them did not include any violation of halachah. If gentiles made someone a coffin and dug him a grave on Shabbat, and they then changed their minds and decided to give it to someone else, a Jew may be buried in it. However, if it was initially intended for a Jew, a Jew may never be buried in it.

Rambam (1135-1204), Hilchot Shabbat 23:4 (above) also follows the opinion that the prohibition is limited to music. He explains that the prohibition is a rabbinic prohibition based on a concern that it may lead one to fix a musical instrument. Fixing a musical instrument constitutes a biblical violation of the melacha of makeh b'patish, the prohibition against completing the production of an item.

R. Meir Simcha HaKohen of Dvinsk (1843-1926), ad loc., notes that according to the opinion that all forms of sound are prohibited, the prohibition is based on a more general rabbinic prohibition to create something new (See Beitzah 23a). Rambam adds that the prohibition includes tapping on the floor or the table with one's finger for the purpose of producing music.

R. Ya'akov Landau (15th century), Sefer Ha'Agur no. 518, quotes the opinion of Maharil that although it is permissible to produce non-musical sound, it is prohibited to do so using an instrument designed to produce sound. Therefore, it is prohibited to use a door-knocker to knock on the door on Shabbat. R. Yosef Karo, Beit Yosef, Orach Chaim no. 338, explains that if it is an instrument designed to produce sound, there is a concern that one will attempt to produce music with it. Rama (1520-1572), Orach Chaim 338:1, codifies the opinion of Sefer Ha'Agur and rules that one should not use a door-knocker to knock on the door. Rather one should use his hands.

R. Yehoshua Boaz ben Shimon Baruch (d. 1557), Shiltei HaGibborim, Eruvin 35b, rules that it is permissible to whistle in order to get someone's attention. He presents two reasons for this ruling. First, whistling is not a significant action since one does not use one's hands or instruments. Second, it is permissible to produce a musical sound if one's intent in producing the sound is not for the purpose of producing music. Rama, op. cit, writes that it is permissible to get someone's

16 attention by whistling and writes that the reason why it is permissible is that there is no significant action involved in whistling.

R. Avraham Gombiner (c.1633-1683), Magen Avraham 338:2, notes that there is a practical difference between the two reasons presented by Shiltei HaGibborim. According to the first reason, the permissibility is based on the fact that one is using one's mouth instead of one's hands or an instrument. As such, it is permissible to whistle a tune. According to the second approach, it is only permissible to whistle if one does not intend to produce music. Magen Avraham follows the opinion of Rama that the permissibility is based on the first reason and therefore permits whistling for the purpose of producing music.

The Prohibition against Dancing and Clapping

The Mishna, Beitzah 36b, states that it is prohibited to dance and clap on Shabbat. The Gemara, ad loc., explains that the reason for the prohibition is based on a concern that these activities may lead one to fix a musical instrument.

Tosafot, Beitzah 30a, s.v. T'nan, note that this prohibition does not apply nowadays because the average individual is not adept at fixing musical instruments and therefore, the concern that one will fix an instrument is mitigated. R. Karo, op. cit., notes that since most Rishonim don't distinguish between nowadays and early times, they imply that they disagree with Tosafot.

Furthermore, Maharik (c. 1420-1480), in his responsa (no. 9) - which were written after the publication of Tosafot- discusses the prohibition against dancing and clapping and does not mention that one may be lenient regarding this prohibition. Nevertheless, Rama, Orach Chaim 339:3, notes that the opinion of Tosafot may be a justification for those who don't observe this prohibition.

R. Moshe Feinstein (1895-1986), Igrot Moshe, Orach Chaim 2:100, questions the opinion of Tosafot. Even if it is true that we are not as adept at fixing musical instruments, a rabbinic decree is binding regardless of whether the reason still applies. How then can Tosafot assert that the decree is no longer binding? R. Feinstein suggests that the opinion of Tosafot is based on the implication of the Gemara, Beitzah 30a, that this decree did not enjoy widespread acceptance in Talmudic times. A decree that is not universally accepted at the time of its inception does not have the status of an ordinary decree. Therefore, if the reason does not apply, the decree is not binding. R. Feinstein concludes that while this explanation justifies the practice of dancing and clapping on Shabbat, it is nevertheless proper to be stringent on the matter.

17 There are a number of additional leniencies relating to dancing and clapping on Shabbat. First, Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat 23:5, permits certain forms of clapping if they are performed in an irregular manner. This ruling is codified by Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 339:3.

Second, R. Yechiel M. Epstein (1829-1908), Aruch HaShulchan 339:9, suggests that the prohibition against dancing only applies to a dance that corresponds to specific song. It is permissible to dance in a generic manner that does not relate to a specific song.

R. Yehoshua M.M. Ehrenberg, D'var Yehoshua 2:44, provides a similar leniency. Third, Rabbeinu Chananel (990-1053), Beitzah 37a, defines dancing as lifting up one leg as one puts down the other. As such, R. Ovadia Yosef, Yechaveh Da'at 2:58, writes that it is permissible to "walk" in a circle of people as long as one foot remains on the ground.

Violating the Prohibition Passively

R. Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi (Ra'aviah c. 1140-1220), Avi Ha'Ezri no. 796, rules that it is permissible to ask a non-Jew to play a musical instrument at a wedding meal that takes place on Shabbat.

This ruling is codified by Rama, Orach Chaim338:2 (see above).This ruling implies that the concern that one might fix a musical instrument only applies in a situation where one is actively involved in an activity. If one is passively listening to music, there is no prohibition. Nevertheless, Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 338:5, contends that the prohibition can be prohibited passively.

For this reason, he rules that it is prohibited to set up a system before Shabbat that will play music on Shabbat. Regarding Ra'aviah's leniency to allow non-Jewish musicians on Shabbat, Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chaim 338:10, contends that it is based on Ra'aviah's own leniency to allow the non-Jew to actually fix the instruments on Shabbat in order to provide music for the wedding meal. Therefore, there is no concern that a Jew would fix the instruments. [Aruch HaShulchan notes that in general, one should not rely on Ra'aviah's leniency because it is based on a number of minority opinions.]

R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (1910-1995), Minchat Shlomo no. 9, notes that there is an additional reason why it is prohibited to set up a system before Shabbat that will play music on Shabbat. Rama, Orach Chaim 252:5, rules that it is prohibited to set up any system before Shabbat that will result in a prohibited activity that is audible to the public. This prohibition, known as hashma'at kol (producing sound), is based on a concern that one who hears the sound will think that the system was initiated on Shabbat. [This prohibition is not limited to musical instruments and applies to all sound producing systems. The sources for this prohibition were discussed in a previous issue.]

18

Rama does allow setting a grandfather clock before Shabbat because when it rings on Shabbat, everyone knows that it was set in advance. R. Auerbach adds that in general, the criterion for determining whether it is permissible to set up a system before Shabbat that will produce sound on Shabbat is whether the system is normally set in advance or whether the system is normally activated immediately before use. If the system is normally set in advance, there is no concern for hashma'at kol. If the system is normally activated immediately before use, the concern applies. As such, R. Auerbach notes that one may not setup a radio or music player to activate on Shabbat because they are systems that are normally activated immediately prior to use.

Rabbi Yair Hoffman writes:6

“Alexa, what is the temperature in Jerusalem today?” “Alexa, can you wake me at 7:40 tomorrow morning for Minyan?”

6 http://www.5tjt.com/the-amazon-echo-and-shabbos-2/

19 “Alexa, can you shut off the air conditioner in the living room?” “Alexa, please play me some of Abie Rottenberg’s ‘Dveikus’ music.”

THE ECHO

The Amazon Echo, answering to the name “Alexa,” is one of the latest technological innovations that has come out of Amazon’s special Lab126 offices in Silicon Valley, California. Amazon Echo is essentially a voice-command device with functions that include answering almost unlimited factual questions, playing music, controlling smart devices, and real-time fact finding. The device looks somewhat like a black Shabbos-lamp and consists of a 9.25-inch tall cylinder speaker with a seven-piece microphone array. The speakers include a woofer and a tweeter which delivers such remarkable sound quality that it makes iPhone’s Siri sound, well, nebbish.

HALACHIC QUESTIONS

Like most technology, Amazon Echo carries with it a number of fascinating halachic questions. What are the prohibitions associated with its use on Shabbos? If one avoids using the name “Alexa” in conversation, may one leave it plugged in on Shabbos? Is there any circumstance in which it may be used? When the word Alexa is used, the Echo awakens and a blue light circles around at the top of the device.

THE KEY FINDER

A number of years ago, a new product came on the market that helped you find your keys. If you lost your keys you could either whistle or clap and the device attached to your key chain would begin to emit a musical tone that would help you locate the missing key chain. Was one permitted to do so on Shabbos, and is there a parallel between that device and Alexa?

20 FASCINATING READING OF RAMAH

The Tzitz Eliezer (Volume XVII #16) had a remarkable reading of the Ramah in Orech Chaim siman 338:1. Based on The Gemora in our daf Rav Yoseph Karo in his Shulchan Aruch writes that making a noise with an instrument (or vessel) is forbidden. However, banging on a door or other such item when it is not in a musical form is permitted. The Ramah add the words, “It is likewise permitted if he is not engaging in an action (such as making noises with the mouth).” The Tzitz Eliezer reads this Ramah as even permitting a non-action — when it is in a musical form. The Aruch HaShulchan also questions what the Ramah may be referring to, and provides an alterbative understanding of his words than that of the Tzitz Eliezer. He understands the Ramah as coming to differentiate why using one’s hands to bang on a table would be forbidden but it would be permitted to place one’s hand in the mouth to make a bird-sound. Thus, according to the Aruch HaShulchan, the Ramah would not be permitting a non-action when it results in a musical form.

GEMORAH IN BAVA METZIAH

Furthermore, the position of the Tzitz Eliezer, however, even in regard to the key locator is not so simple. The issue may depend upon the exact understanding of the Gemorah’s discussion in Bava Metziah 90b. There, Rav Yochanan and Raish Lakish debate whether the Torah’s commandment not to muzzle an ox while it works can be violated through mere words and not physical action. Rav Yochanan holds that there is in fact a violation when done just through speech, while Raish Lakish holds that there is not. Since we do rule like Rav Yochanan in this case, we need to understand how this corresponds with the idea that one does not get malkos on a violation where there is no physical action involved (also a statement of Rav Yochanan.) Most Meforshim explain that here the words caused a physical action to come about (See Tosfos and Maggid Mishna Hilchos Schirus 13:2). According to this understanding, the words that cause the

21 Amazon Echo to go into action may indeed be forbidden. The Rashbam, however, has a different understanding of this Gemorah.

ANALAGOUS TO MICROPHONE

But aside from all this, the Amazon Echo is more analogous to leaving a microphone on over Shabbos. This is true for two reasons: Firstly, seven microphones are being left on over Shabbos and a computer chip is deciphering the converted electrical signals. The second reason is that the voice-activation is causing the device to respond. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l would thus forbid the Echo on account of Avusha Milsa (Minchas Shlomo Vol. I 9:2). Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l (Igros Moshe Vol. III Siman 55; Vol. IV Siman 84) has three distinct halachic issues that would apply here to the Amazon Echo too. He would forbid it on account of Molid Kol Chadash. He writes this regarding microphones alone, certainly it would apply to the additional factor of Alexa’s responses. Rav Moshe also has an issue with the changing of the form of the electrical impulse into louder sound. Finally, Rav Moshe believed that microphones fell under the prohibition of gzairah shema yesakain kli shir — one may come to fix or make a musical instrument. All three of Rav Moshe’s rationales would be even more applicable regarding the Echo. Rav Vosner zt”l (Shaivet HaLevi Vol. I #66) forbids microphones on account of being mezalzel (disrespecting) the honor of Shabbos. All this would certainly be even more applicable regarding the Echo.

DOES IT NEED TO BE UNPLUGGED?

But does the Echo have to be turned off before Shabbos? This author believes that it does because the device actually hears and processes every word that is being said. This is done by its Texas Instruments DM3725 ARM Cortex-A8 processor and with its 256MB of LPDDR1 RAM. This processing is Naichah lay, something that the owner is desirous of, because the owner wants

22 it not to respond to everything. We want Alexa to filter out all other words and only respond to the start-up word – “Alexa.” Luckily, there is a mute button on the device itself.

Are there circumstances when it can be used? It would seem not, and even if it were a case of Pikuach Nefesh, the Echo cannot really accomplish anything useful.

As an interesting aside, Rav Moshe rules (Igros Moshe YD Vol. II #4) that when a Shochet, in fact, does violate the prohibition of using a microphone it is forbidden to eat from his Shechita. This would also most certainly be the case if he were to be using his Amazon Echo.

Rabbi Doniel Neustadt writes:7

Question: Why did the restrict clapping and dancing on Shabbos and Yom Tov?

Discussion: Our Daf1 records that the Rabbis prohibited playing musical instruments on Shabbos and Yom Tov because musical instruments often need to be tuned, a potential violation of the Shabbos Labor of Makeh b’patish.2 Not only did they prohibit all different types of musical instruments, but they also included all other noise-making objects, such as bells, whistles and rattles.3

The Rabbis of the Talmud 4 went even further. They decreed that certain actions which could lead to the playing of musical instruments should also be restricted, even if at the moment there are no musical instruments present or even available. Apparently, they were concerned that such an atmosphere could lead a creative individual to forget that it is Shabbos, and fashion a makeshift musical instrument on the spot. 5 Thus they banned clapping and dancing as well, since these are activities which generate an atmosphere in which music is played.

7 https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5773-vayakhel/

23 Question: Nowadays, does the Rabbinic injunction against clapping and dancing on Shabbos and Yom Tov still apply?

Discussion: While all authorities agree that the original edict against playing any kind of instrument remains in effect nowadays, 6 there are conflicting opinions whether or not the additional decree against clapping and dancing is also in effect. Some argue that nowadays we no longer have the ability or talent to fashion a musical instrument on the spot, so we should not prohibit activities that could lead to the fashioning of musical instruments. 7 Others hold that the original Rabbinic decree applied only to dance movements which required musical accompaniment, not to the unstructured and informal circle dancing popular today. 8 For whatever reason, the fact remains that it became customary for people to clap and dance on Shabbos and Yom Tov, and the poskim did not strenuously object to this behavior. 9 While it behooves a ba’al nefesh (a person who is especially meticulous in his mitzvah observance) to refrain from clapping and dancing10 on Shabbos and Yom Tov (except on Simchas Torah 11 ) ─ especially for non-mitzvah purposes12 ─ and many people are careful about it, 13 the basichalachah follows the opinion of the poskim who hold that nowadays, the Rabbinic decree against clapping and dancing14 is no longer applicable. 15

Question: When the Rabbis restricted clapping on Shabbos and Yom Tov, was applauding also included?

Discussion: No, it was not. The original injunction against clapping only included clapping to a specific rhythm or beat, since that type of clapping may lead to the fashioning of musical instruments. Applause, clapping to wake someone from his sleep or any other type of clapping not done to a specific rhythm, is permitted. 16 The same halachah applies to banging on a table top with one’s fist or fingers. If it is done in order to silence a crowd or catch someone’s attention, it is permitted, since it is not a rhythmic beat. Beating on the table top to a specific beat, however, is included in the Rabbinic injunction against clapping and dancing, and should be avoided by those who do not clap and dance on Shabbos even nowadays. Tapping a bottle or a glass with a spoon or a fork to a specific rhythm or beat should be avoided by everyone, since this is similar to using non-musical instruments (such as a rattle) to produce a musical sound, and may have been included in the original injunction against playing musical instruments which applies nowadays as well. 17

Footnotes:8

8 1. Eiruvin 104a. 2. As explained by Rambam, Hilchos Shabbos 23:4. 3. Rama, O.C. 338:1.

24

Confession

I was walking on West End Ave one summer erev Shabbat and had some time before attending Kabbalat Shabbat at my father in law’s shul (Young Israel of the West Side). I passed 86th street where Bnei Jeshurun would hold services earlier and saw throngs of people standing in line to

4. Beitzah 30a. 5. As explained by Sha’ar Efrayim, O.C. 36, quoted in Minchas Elazar 1:29. 6. Beiur Halachah 339:3, s.v. lehakel. 7. Tosafos, Beitzah 30a. See also Ritva, Shabbos 148b. 8. Aruch ha-Shulchan 339:9; Lev Avraham 42. 9. Rama, O.C. 338:2, 339:3. 10. Clapping with a shinui is permitted according to all opinions; O.C. 339:3; Mishnah Berurah 338:1. 11. Mishnah Berurah 339:8. 12.Mishnah Berurah 339:10. 13.Kaf ha-Chayim 339:13-14 and Yechaveh Da’as 2:58. 14.Certainly merely walking around in a circle while singing is permissible according to all views; DevarYehoshua 2:42-4; Yechaveh Da’as 2:58 (footnote). 15. Minchas Elazar 1:29; Igros Moshe, O.C. 2:100. Even those who do not dance on Shabbos are permitted to do so during bein ha-shemashos; Eishel Avraham, Tanina, O.C. 299:10. 16. Mishnah Berurah 338:1, 339:9; Shemiras Shabbos k’Hilchasah 28:36. 17. Based on Beiur Halachah 339:3, s.v. lehakel.

25 enter. What was so attractive about this shul (other than the location of the movie “Keeping the Faith”? I wondered in to see some 800 people davening together. There was music to accompany the Carlebach melodies, there was a silent moment before Kriyat Sh’ma where you could hear a pin drop, there was dancing after Lecha Dodi…I had never heard musical instruments before during a Shabbat service. I found myself weeping. What had happened to orthodoxy? Why was this alive in ways I had never experienced before? I was overcome with grief.

How had we come to this place in time and history? I present some historical framing below as a balance to the Rishonim quoted above.

The Jacobson Temple (right), Seesen.9

"The granite promontory in the deep may stand firm and unchanged amidst the waves and storms that beat upon it, but human institutions cannot withstand the agitations of free, active and

9 On 17 July 1810, Jacobson opened a prayer house in Seesen, to serve the modern Jewish school he founded earlier. He named it "temple", a rather common designation at the time, borrowed from the French and used also by traditional Jewish houses of prayer. Certain that the lack of decorum drove the young away from synagogue, he abridged the service, introduced both prayers and an edifying sermon in German (very different from the old talmudic discourse in Yiddish), and confirmation ceremony for children. Contrary to prevalent custom, no lattice hid from view the women sitting separately at the upper story. A choir and an organ accompanied the prayer: instrumental music in synagogue was almost unknown among Ashkenazim, and the organ was strongly associated with church services

26 progressive opinion. Whilst laws are stationary, things are progressive. Any system of laws that should be made without the principle of expansibility, that would, in some measure accommodate them to the progression of events, would have within it the seeds of mischief and violence." =Judge

A. P. Butler, Charleston, SC, 1846.

Eric Daniel Rosenstein writes:10

The Enlightenment marked a large shift in thought and action in the western world over the course of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Joseph II, the ruler of the Habsburg Empire who placed enlightenment principles at the heart of his philosophy on governance, understood "from his reading of Voltaire and Montesquieu ... the relationship between economic growth and social and religious freedoms."1

In 1789, he accordingly passed a series of Toleration Acts integrating into the general population; that same year, the French revolution gave Jews full citizenship in France "and in other regions conquered by the revolutionary forces and ideology .... Once begun, the political emancipation of the Jews continued unabated for several decades throughout Western and Central Europe."2

Previously excluded from most forms of mainstream life, European Jews now had to find a place in a new world marked by increased tolerance and the wealth of new opportunities it afforded them. Maskilim (sing. maskil), a term derived from the Hebrew word for the Enlightenment (), referred to those Jews who took advantage of their change in status and embraced the opportunity to pursue a rigorous secular education, to hold previously forbidden occupations, and to move into the urban centers of culture.3

Moses Mendelssohn, an Enlightenment philosopher, attempted to aid Jews in integrating the Haskalah intellectually, but without compromising ages of tradition and history.4 He was not a reformer per se, but did advocate that Jews should receive a modern education that would expose them to a broader scope of ideas, which would prepare them to engage their new surroundings.5 To that end, Mendelssohn translated the Torah into German in much the same way that Luther had encouraged vernacular translations of Scripture for personal study. His edition - and those that followed from other maskilim - differed from Rosenstein - 2 Protestant translations in that he wanted "to leave behind a Bible translation that relied on traditional Jewish interpretations rather than on Protestant scholarship.t" Unwilling compromise any of his religious practices, Mendelssohn's translation represents his effort to provide maskilim with a modernized connection to Judaism as they entered non-Jewish centers of urban opportunity.

Post-Napoleonic Europe ultimately afforded the Jews increased freedom to participate in the urban business world. Although they excelled, their religious identity and practices became a hindrance to participating in the larger national, Protestant context. Dietary laws became impractical for negotiating social circles. Standing out by wearing skullcaps, different clothing, and a long beard

10 https://scholar.dickinson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=student_honors

27 was detrimental to business opportunities. Going to pray three times a day and following the halakha (Jewish law) of daily life was simply unfeasible for sustaining a business, causing one maskil to conclude, "one should be 'a person outside of the home and a Jew in one's home."' 7

In the burgeoning spirit of nationalism, the state began to take more direct control over the population and abolished traditional sources of authority thereby fracturing the previously insular Jewish community. "The ghetto was formally abolished. Communities lost their limited autonomy and their jurisdiction over all but strictly ritual matters; the rabbi ceased to be a judge and became both preacher and teacher.t" One 1792 Prussian edict gave authority on religious matters to the heads of every household; thus, without the rabbis' centralized communal authority over religious life, "religious harmony among some city Jews" devolved into familial divisions over "degrees of observance without apparent rhyme or reason."9 Rosenstein - 3

As Jews became accustomed to living in high culture, they began to compare their forms of religious practice to the order and decorum of their neighbors' Christian services. As reformer rabbi and scholar Ismar Elbogen explains, 'The splendor of the outside world attracted them; the Synagogue appeared to them dark and gloomy.'"

The traditional Jewish service, especially on Shabbat, was increasingly viewed as a long and disorderly affair performed in Hebrew, a language many assimilated Jews could not sufficiently understand. Jews could come and go as they pleased, talking to friends during the service. When they did participate, the mumbled and cacophonous responses to the hazzan (prayer leader) often interrupted his excessively florid chanting, which seemed more an individual performance than an act of prayer. Conversely, beautiful urban churches provided their parishioners with the appealing music of an organ, which led a congregation in hymns by maintaining tempo, melody, and harmony. Reverends preached to their congregation in the vernacular and provided edification through the art of sermon.

Faced with this comparison, urbanized Jews seeking to maintain a meaningful Jewish identity thought it prudent to institute changes to the service in order to make Jewish ritual more attractive to themselves and to those fully assimilated Jews who no longer participated in Jewish communal life. Liturgical changes, which included reducing the service length or translating sections into the vernacular for ease of comprehension, differed between , and even traditionalist congregations made changes to their services by adding a vernacular sermon.

Given the range of changes being made, it was difficult to identify a leading "reform" congregation, but the noticeable installation and Rosenstein - 4 use of an organ in a synagogue, made it a predominant symbol of these new attitudes toward worship in Jewish services.

Music had always been a modernizing force in Judaism; Musicologist and rabbi Geoffery Goldberg stresses that the music of the synagogue has always been "inseparable from the Jewish community's struggle for emancipation."!'

One precursor to the introduction of the organ stems from as early as the seventeenth century, when Italian Jews of the early Baroque period adopted polyphonic singing for worship. The Jewish

28 composer Salomone Rossi set worship texts in this style, stirring up controversy and eventually winning rabbinic approval.

Although polyphonic choral singing is not directly related to the organ, the example supports Goldberg's claim that polyphonic singing was a musical innovation that modernized worship, much as the organ would two centuries later.

Of the possible reforms to the nineteenth-century service, the organ in particular brought order and decorum - a mantra for later reformers - to the worship, and was a foil to the excesses of the hazran. 13

Essential to the later organ debate is the organ in the Altneushule11 (OldNew Synagogue), for which no historical record of any problems concerning halakha exists.14 The community

11 Old New Synagogue or Altneuschul The Old-New Synagogue, or Altneuschul, completed in 1270, in gothic style, situated in Josefov, Prague, is Europe's oldest surviving medieval synagogue of twin-nave design, and was demolished in 1867 and replaced by the Spanish Synagogue. Spanish Reform congregation synagogue The Spanish, active reform congregation synagogue, built in 1868, in Arabesque style architecture, on the site of the 12th-century Altneuschul, which was the oldest synagogue in the Prague ghetto and is the most recent synagogue in the Prague Jewish Town.

29 purchased an organ for worship as early as 1594 and Prague's synagogue developed a tradition of instrumental music until 1745 when Empress Maria Theresa expelled Jews from the region.15

Because the community did not feel that playing the organ raised legal issues in halakha, nineteenth-century reformers invoked the precedent as a powerful argument in the debates over their introduction of the organ. Conversely, traditionalists disputed the precedent in these debates as part of their effort to stem the tide of reform.

Establishing the Organ Precedent:

The German Cases Positionality and Power among Maskilim:

Equipped with an organ and as history goes, in the years 1836 to-1845, František Škroup, the composer of the Czech national anthem, served as organist in this synagogue. It is was named the Spanish Synagogue for its impressive Moorish interior design, influenced by the famous Alhambra.

30 A Historical Context for the Organ Debate Israel Jacobson, a wealthy German maskil, became concerned with the religious schism between the indifference of the cultured Jews and the rest who "[observed] traditional forms which however religiously significant they may once have been, had lost much of their former power to impress'? With wealth came political prestige, and King Jerome, 's brother who "wanted easy and efficient centralized control over a maximally integrated Jewish population," made Jacobson head of a Jewish in the in 1808.17 In his position as head of the Westphalian Jews, Jacobson followed Mendelssohn's emphasis on a well-rounded secular education and opened a school for Jewish children in the capital city of Cassel, combining secular knowledge with the moral and ritual underpinnings of Judaism.

The services held in the school's chapel, which "met with such favor," included vernacular readings of the prayers and scripture and congregational hymn singing." 18 Jacobson also built a synagogue in Cassel in 1810 that included an organ and exemplified those reforms he deemed necessary to aestheticize worship throughout Westphalia.19 As Goldberg explains, "Protestantism provided the aesthetic norms[,] German prayers, an organ, and hymns," which replaced the standards of worship found wanting "against the modem standards of the non-Jewish world."20

Through these reforms, Jacobson attempted to strike a balance between tradition and modernization, and while he had the inclination, intelligence, and means to work for religious progress, he lacked the overarching scholarly and philosophical background to accomplish his goal." Rosenstein - 7 Although Jacobson thought these reforms were the key to revitalizing the service, he did not realize that there was a larger philosophical issue among maskilim involving a souring attitude toward the rabbinic claim to their legislative mandate. 22

The Kingdom of Westphalia and the Jewish Consistory fell with Napoleon's defeat and the Treaty of Paris, and Jacobson subsequently relocated to . Upon his move to the Prussian capital, Jacobson initiated similar reforms to those made in Cassel. Because he did not have a system of synagogues under his control, he gathered a group of like-minded Jews and opened his home to them for services. When the liturgically reformed services, which included organ accompaniment, grew to include roughly four hundred people on some , the reformers chose to move their services to the larger home of Jacob Herz Beer.23

These private services continued, with some gaps, until 1823 when the Prussian king Frederick William III finally succeeded in closing the Beer synagogue. He feared that a new, reformed Jewish sect might attract Christians or reduce the number of fully acculturated Jews, who were generally targets for conversion by Christian missionaries. Through this action, the king sought to drive reformers back to the traditionalist services they no longer enjoyed, imploring "that the divine services of the Jews must be conducted in accordance with the traditional ritual and without the slightest innovation in language, ceremonies, prayers, or songs."24

Although reform in Berlin appeared to be a failure, maskilim throughout Europe took notice of the success and popularity of the private, reformed services. Edward Kley, previously a preacher in Beer's synagogue, moved to in 1817 and in organizing the community's maskilim, transformed the debates between reformers and traditionalists from private grumblings into public vitriol. In December of Rosenstein - 8 that year, Kley and the young Hamburg maskilim founded

31 a congregation that sought to "restore dignity and meaning to Jewish worship ... by the recitation of some prayers in the vernacular, by a German sermon, and by choral song with organ accompaniment."25 Following Christian models, they erected a balcony in the rear of the sanctuary with space for both an organ and choir, whereas the private synagogues kept their organs on the ground floor.26

The congregation attracted "Jews who had not visited a synagogue for fifteen years," demonstrating the success of this new model for sustaining a Jewish identity for maskilim.27 Perhaps aware that Shabbat organ use came close to violating Jewish law, Jacob Herz Beer commissioned Eliezer Lieberman to collect t'shuvot (rabbinic opinions) from European rabbis confirming the legality of the organ use and other practices of reform.28

Lieberman, an Austrian legal scholar with reform sympathies, compiled the t'shuvot into a book he titled Nogah haTredek: (The Radience of Righteousness) and published his own defense of reform entitled Or Nogah (Radient Light).29 Traditionalists responded vehemently to both works in a compilation of twenty-two t'shuvot entitled Eleh Divrei haBrit (These Are the Words of the Covenant).

Jews seeking to retain their Jewish identity while existing in an urban environment faced the challenge of proving to themselves that sustained connection to Judaism was still relevant in a world of business opportunities, scientific inquiry, and bourgeois sensibility. Urban Jews' declining ability to pray and read scripture in Hebrew was one reason for Mendelssohn and others to write a Torah commentary in a vernacular German, yet written in Hebrew Rosenstein - 9 characters. Mendelssohn also "hoped that his translation would enable German Jews 'to understand sayings of wisdom [and they] may go and seek the word of the Lord without [relying on] the translations of Christian scholars."'30

By weaving famous Jewish commentaries into the text, Mendelssohn was able to produce a new, elegant "vernacular translation that would preserve in some form a Jewish outlook on the text, repossessing it for Jews and reclaiming it for Judaism."31 When maskilim uneducated in the intricacies of the wanted to learn scripture, they did not need to look toward a Protestant translation containing a theologically Christian bias; they could learn from a translation written expressly for a Jewish sensibility.

The Jewish difficulty in carving out a niche in the Haskalah stemmed from difficult issues of positionality, including assimilation into the urban, national setting, maintenance of their sense of belonging, and the feeling of being increasingly disconnected from traditionalism or orthodoxy. Although Nicholas Till argues that the public domain of the new nationalism was, in theory, "free of the partisanship of politics, religion or class," the reality suggests that this neutral public sphere still contained religious symbolism of the dominant Protestant culture.32

Affected by the latent religious symbolism, reforming Jews began to emulate the architectural model of churches as a means of promoting their own status and integrating into the public sphere. 33 Toleration initiated by Joseph II and Napoleonic civics did lead to more Jewish freedom, but with the fall of Napoleon, European powers lapsed into old patterns of behavior toward the Jews as informed by centuries of perceiving the Jew as "Other."

32

For over a millennium, Catholic and then Protestant theology presented the Jew as this Other - a perpetual example of what happens to those who do not accept Jesus. This theology Rosenstein - 10 vilified the Jews on the corporate level even as churchgoers might patronize, or have a meaningful relationship with, individual Jews in their communities.34 Political law, tended to follow in the spirit of the ecclesiastical teachings against Jews.

Jeremy Cohen notes, "Christians saw a definite need and place for the Jews" in that they acted as living witnesses to the "historical basis for christological prophecy" and to the "deplorable wretchedness of their error" such that they will ultimately accept Christianity before the end of days.35 Jews were not to be exterminated like the practitioners of the indigenous European religions; they were to be protected and kept in a lower social standing-tolerated yet subjected to humiliation and conversion attempts with the expectation that the eventual conversion of the Jews would lead to the Second Coming. For a Jew to convert, however, he had to disavow all ties with his community of birth.

Reformers avoided such a drastic step by finding a middle ground that would preserve Jewish forays into the public-and predominantly Christian-spheres of business and commerce. By altering some Jewish practices-instituting order and decorum, edifying vernacular sermons, shorter services-reformers could buttress themselves against total assimilation by maintaining important Jewish cultural connections.

Moreover, emulating Protestant models naturally alleviated fear of an Other, leading to increased Jewish acceptance in the Protestant context. Synagogues began to take on the imposing characteristics of some churches. Jews commissioned organs to bring sonority to services and curtail the vanity of a hazzan, Hybridizing worship by attempting to provide an experience closer to that of the Christian served two purposes. First, updating Jewish practice ameliorated the disaffection of some Jews to their faith, causing potential converts to rethink a total withdrawal from their communities and thus Rosenstein - 11 preserve a larger Jewish communal identity.

Second, from a non-Jewish perspective, Jews began to look less like an Other and more like any other Protestant sect. By lessening their negative theological perception, Jews attempted to make inroads into centers of power and culture by differentiating their public and private roles so as to ease individual relationships with Christian neighbors and businessmen.

Due to these acts, maskilim cultivated a tense relationship with traditionalists even as they prayed in unified communities. The two parties' ideologies were shifting apart, but before the desire to employ an organ in worship catalyzed a debate, the two sides lacked enough of an ideological disjunction to warrant a break.

Maskilim had no desire to continue the old modes of worship and practice in which they saw cacophony and atrophy. At the same time, the vehemence of the traditionalists' response in Eleh Divrei haBrit, the collected t'shuvot against the changes made in the , betrays a deeper history of social, political, and religious factors than one might expect from a simple legal disagreement.

33 The tradition of rabbinic study and law making that had dominated Ashkenazic communities had generated an insurmountable mass of law, opinion, and debate that was impossible to master. In the socio-political hierarchies of the Jewish community, the learned rabbi and his students constituted the upper classes; study was the spiritual means to reach God. 36 Everyone in the community was expected to study, but only those with the means to devote a lifetime to studying the texts and grasping sections of law led the community.

This spurred an increasing distance between rabbis who legislated and everyday Jews who had to focus on making a living; as a result, many Eastern European Jews were drawn to the Hasidic movement, which taught that a connection to God came from personal, ecstatic devotion over a life dedicated to study.37 Rosenstein - 12 City maskilim, on the other hand, tended to leave the study and practice of Judaism for the new opportunities afforded them through integration into urban life.

The objections from the traditionalist rabbis in Eleh Divrei haBrit stem from the legal mindset of these rabbis, who were distant from the rest of their communities and attempting to preserve the traditions of Judaism amidst Enlightenment realities. The only formal means they had to accomplish this preservation was through legal arguments founded in centuries of text, commentaries, and precedent. The rabbis considered the study of religious law to be the highest form of divine service.

Rabbinic tradition also asserted their legislative authority by claiming an unbroken chain of their teachers back to Moses on Mt. Sinai. Given that rabbinic law and tradition is imbued with divine, Mosaic authority, violating these laws almost equates to breaking a commandment found in the Torah.

Therefore, mustering legal arguments for or against reform contains overtones of God's approval or disapproval. Maskilim bristled at the rabbinic practice of asserting divine authority through religio-legal arguments and defining an objective moral and spiritual superiority. When Jacob Herz Beer asked for t'shuvot justifying the organ, he requested the same types of religio-legal arguments, not to assert a divine authority but to argue for reform in a language with which traditionalists could identify.

34

Central Synagogue New York (Reform Jewish)

Early German T'shuvot:

Hamburg In Nogah ha'Tredek, Or Nogah, reformers argued that it was acceptable for a gentile to play the organ for Shabbat and weddings. In Eleh Divrei haBrit, traditionalists disagreed using strong polemics so as not to yield to the reformers' corrupting ideas and practices. The competing sets of t'shuvot drew from several types of sources to justify their arguments.

Carrying the most weight in argumentation are the verses found in the Written Torah (Five Books of Moses) and to a lesser degree the books of Prophets and Writings. The next authoritative source is the Talmud, which contains the Oral Torah and several layers of discussion and law following it. Following these classical sources are legal compendia such as ' Mishneh Torah and Josef Caro's Shulchan Arukh with a gloss by Moses Isserles. Between the three compilations there are several core issues that structure the basic shape of the debate.

35 The first dealt with whether the organ could be considered a "Christian instrument," given its widespread use within European churches. If the organ were considered Christian, the reformers would have to negotiate a major legal injunction against imitating the worship of the pagans' strange gods (Avodah Zarah).

However, evidence in the Talmud suggesting a proto-organ used in the ancient Temple overrides the identification of the organ as solely a "Christian" instrument. Another debated principle involved a ban on instrumental music out of mourning for the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. As mentioned previously, both reformers and traditionalists used the Prague organ as precedent to support their side. The Prague community used an organ prior to the liturgical beginning of Shabbat and, as the practice was fully accepted at the time, traditionalists were hard- pressed to refute the precedent.

Finally, the Rosenstein - 15 arguments dealt with the definition of Shabbat as a day of rest and whether the playing of an instrument fell under the legal definition of work forbidden on the holy day. The reformers first attempted to claim that the Temple used an early form of the organ, which would serve as a very strong precedent supporting its use in synagogues.38 It argued further that the organ was not "explicitly" a Christian instrument because not all churches used them. If it were explicitly a Christian instrument, it would be banned according to the biblical verse, "You shall not walk in their ways. "39 This verse in Torah serves as a legal basis for non-assimilation and differentiation from non-Jews in the vicinity.

The reformer Aaron Chorin argued that this injunction only applied contextually to those practices that were intrinsically idolatrous or which facilitated and contributed to idolatry. Following a pagan practice that enhanced the glory of God was not prohibited and, therefore, employing the organ was permitted. Charin reasoned further that the "Christian" organ was not a forbidden instrument of pagan idolatry because post Talmudic commentators considered Christians to be "less pagan" due to monotheistic similarities. Therefore, the organ was permissible''

Most traditionalists disagreed with Chorin about the Temple's proto-organ, disregarded his logic regarding pagan worship, and reiterated the extent to which the organ was associated with Christian worship at the time. One traditionalist made the unverifiable claim that proto-organs were placed in pagan temples for the express purpose of worship, thereby placing its appropriation in direct violation of "you shall not walk in their ways."

Charin acknowledged that music was banned out of mourning for the destruction of the Second Temple, but cited an important commentator who reasoned that "musical accompaniment was permitted for the sake of observing a commandment" like public Rosenstein - 16 prayer." One traditionalist rabbi "conceded the point that there was some traditional legal justification for permitting the organ to be employed in a synagogue service."42

However, he continued that the exception to the ban should not be extended beyond vocal music given that "in our generation ... where the lawless among our people have publicly increased ... and where many publicly profane the Sabbath, we have no right at all to permit such a thing."43 This line of reasoning represents the traditionalists attempt to define a boundary that would separate them unequivocally from the reformers.

36

Finally, Chorin addressed the fact that there were communities (referring to Prague) that had used an organ during Friday evening worship.44 Reformers considered this precedent, uncontested in its time, to give considerable weight to their arguments given the legal saying, "the custom of the people Israel is Torah [law]."45

The Prague community was not a reform-minded congregation and their acceptance of the practice created a powerful precedent for reformers that the traditionalist rabbis could not ignore. One traditionalist attempted to limit the scope of the precedent by stressing that the practice happened in only one synagogue and should not apply to all of European Jewry.46

Another claimed that the Prague community had acted in error, due to their false understanding that the organ was used in the Temple, and called their use of the organ "an erroneous custom. "47 Traditionalist rabbis also raised a further, important, Talmudic point of logic explaining that the organ's use violated the Shabbat ban on work.48 The Talmud argued that if an instrument broke while in use on Shabbat, one would be tempted to fix it immediately.49 Because acts of repair are forbidden as work on Shabbat, any instrument was categorically banned from Shabbat worship. I" Rosenstein - 17 As the traditionalists

As the traditionalists countered the reformers' arguments, they employed polemic and acerbic language in their t'shuvot. One rabbi explained that the authors of Nogah ha'Tzedek were the "wicked of the earth," and the book itself was an "evil darkness" spouting "devilish lies."51 Multiple rabbis dismissed Aaron Chorin in particular for mediocre scholarship and attacked his character as a way of delegitimizing his arguments.52

One rabbi even declared the entire Hamburg congregation to be neither Christians nor Jews.53 In the face of what they considered rampant transgression of the law, the rabbis exclaimed that Jews were categorically forbidden to change liturgy, prayer language, or to add instrumental music in any way. In some measure, the traditionalists' harsh language served to accomplish their goal; musicologist Tina Fruhauf argues that the tone of the traditionalist response was enough to prevent "other Jewish congregations in the subsequent three decades [from following] the Hamburg model'"

Although other congregations chose not to adopt the organ in the period between the 'Hamburg debate' and the Frankfurt decision, the former inspired some Jewish lay leadership to embrace radical positions that threatened even the more reform-minded rabbis. Going so far as to propose moving Shabbat to Sunday, these lay leaders only had assimilation in mind and little regard for Jewish tradition. Rabbis who had advocated for reform were now in the position of trying to slow the rush of progress.

Footnotes

1.Nicholas Till, Mozart and the Enlightenment: Truth, Virtue and Beauty in Mozart's Operas (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1992), 88.

2 Richard I. Cohen, "Urban Visibility and Biblical Visions: Jewish Culture in Western and Central Europe in the Modern Age," in Cultures of the Jews: A New History, ed. David Biale (New York: Schocken Books, 2002), 732-733.

37 3 Cohen, Urban Visibility, 733.

4 was grandfather to the composer Felix Mendelssohn.

5 David Philipson, The Reform Movement in Judaism, rev. ed. (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1931), 8.

6 Cohen, Urban Visibility, 766.

7 Ibid., 736.

8 Eric Werner, A Voice Still Heard ...: The Sacred Songs of the Ashkenaric Jews (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1976), 192.

9 Michael A. Meyer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 12.

10 Ismar Elbogen, A Century of Jewish Life, translated by Moses Hadas (1944; repr., Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1953), xxxv.

11 Geoffrey Goldberg, "Jewish Liturgical Music in the Wake of Nineteenth-century Reform," in Sacred Sound and Social Change: Liturgical Music in Jewish and Christian Experience, ed. Lawrence A. Hoffman and Janet R. Walton (Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame Press, 1992), 59.

12 For more information see S. Simonsohn, "Some Disputes on Music in the Synagogue in Pre-Reform Days," Proceedings of he American Academy for Jewish Research 34 (1966): 99-110.

13 Tina Fruhauf, The Organ and Its Music in German-Jewish Culture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 38-41. The cantorial star of the mid-nineteenth century, Salomon Sulzer argued for the organ and its role in easing congregational participation. He explained, "Only the organ is in a position to lead, to control, to cover dissonances ... The organ allows the hazzan to perform his priestly function independently of his personal artistic ability and at the same time protects him from that self-satisfied pseudo-artistry that often attacks aesthetic beauty, ... protects him from those trivial vocal Rosenstein - 51 ornamentations misused by provincial cantors a way of trying to appeal to the masses, or that weepy Polish virtuosity that drives the younger generation-most of whom have some musical training- to flee from the house of God" (emphasis added). A. Z. Idelsohn, Jewish Music in Its Historical Development (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1929), 205. The harzan tradition began as members of the community acted as the communal prayer leader for a given service. The specialized musical modes, melodies, and themes make up the nusach for any given worship service. There are many different forms of nusach. Some differ between Shabbat and the rest of the week. There is a different nusach for the time of day, and a different nusach for each holiday. A learned community member might know the nusach for many of these different permutations of events, but not for the yearly occasions. An individual tasked with remembering and retransmitting via the oral tradition the many forms of nusach with his skilled voice was known as a harzan and was hired by a community to serve not just as a prayer leader, but as a source for Jewish life. As the oral tradition progressed, chants became increasingly embellished sometimes in an attempt to get at the emotion in the text. Increasingly, leading the congregation and conveying emotion on behalf of the community devolved into a performance of long melismatic passages of single syllables interrupted by rapid text declamations leading to the next melismatic syllable. They "devoted themselves more and more to music, and began to consider all other communal functions as burdens." Reformers did not appreciate the increased Jack of clarity in the liturgy due to these excesses and Sulzer felt this could be remedied through the organ.

14 Fruhauf, 25.

15 Ibid., 23-24; Idelsohn, Jewish Music, 205.

16 Philipson, 13.

17 Meyer, 32. Jews do not do well historically with centralized control. The Westphalian consistory was marked with passive resistance to Jacobson's reforms, and after the fall of the Kingdom of Westphalia, the idea of centralization of practice never happened again. In fact, the foundational documents to the Union for American Hebrew Congregations - the American associative body of Reform Jewish synagogues - explicated that the Union would never attempt to force specific practices upon their constituent synagogues.

18 Philipson, 14; Meyer, 38.

38 19 Philipson, 15.

20 Goldberg, 60, 59.

21 Philipson, 13-14.

22 Ibid., 15. Rabbinic tradition stems from the ability of a rabbi to trace his lineage of teachers back to Moses. Their claim to legislative mandate comes from the idea that Jews received both a Written Torah (The Five Books of Moses) and an Oral Torah that, among Rosenstein - 52 other things, fills in explanatory gaps on the details of ritual not found in the Written Torah. The Rabbis - an extension of the Pharisaic tradition - claimed stewardship of the Oral Torah and amidst Roman persecution, wrote down the Oral Law and associated discussions into the Mishnah. Later rabbis commented on the discussions and compiled the Talmud. Based on these classical rabbinic texts, rabbis - working from the assumption that the previous generation's decisions were correct because they lived closer to Mosaic revelation - refined and clarified the law. One practice the reformers disliked was the rabbinic tendency to "build a fence around the Torah," wherein the rabbis were so fearful of transgressing a commandment in the Written Torah, that they enacted layers of legal safeguards around the law so there was no chance of breaking the commandment. One illuminating example is the Orthodox practice of having two dishwashers for separate sets of milk and meat kitchen items - stemming from the Torah commandment "you shall not boil a kid in its mother's milk" (Deut. 14:21). Many of the laws of kashrut (dietary laws) come from building this fence. Because the previous generation of rabbis was infallible, laws could only be added such that by the time of the Enlightenment, following the practices of traditional Judaism was so difficult to achieve and hard to accept by acculturated Jews. Eventually, maskilim called for a purge of "rabbinism" and a return to the essential spirit of Judaism without the stilted trappings of rabbinic tradition.

23 Meyer, 46-48; Peter Gradenwitz, The Music of Israel: From the Biblical Era to Modern Times, 2nd ed. (Portland, OR: Amadeus Press, 1996), 269-270. Jacob Herz Beer was the wealthiest Jew in Berlin at the time having made his money from sugar refineries. Though his son, composer Giacomo Meyerbeer, had ideological reservations with organ use, according to contemporary descriptions of the Beer synagogue, this did not stop Beer from placing an organ in the synagogue he had created by knocking down three walls in his home.

24 Philipson,

25. Frederick William III shut the Beer synagogue before because it was operating outside the traditionalist community. When the main Jewish synagogue was being rebuilt, however, Beer's home was designated one of the sanctioned alternatives for the community during the years of construction and reform-style services occurred there until 1823. 25 Meyer, 54.

26 Ibid., 55.

27 Ibid., 55.

28 Fruhauf, 30. Throughout the first millennium, Jews migrated and settled further from the traditional centers of religious authority. The educated elite feared loss of centralized control while those communities of immigrating Jews lacked educated authorities to settle disputes and questions of religious import. Out of this vacuum arose a system, she'elot u't'shuvot (questions and answers), wherein a community would write the regional Jewish scholar of note with a pressing and usually communally existential Rosenstein - 53 question. The scholar would then reply to the community with his t'shuvah (answer) after weighing the varying hierarchies of legal principles and possible t' shuvot that exist as prior precedent. This system was, and remains today, the primary means of religious authorities to offer legal arguments and/or decrees on contemporary issues whether or not anyone asks them a question.

29 Ibid., 30.

30 Moses Mendelssohn, Introduction to Netivot Hasha/om (Berlin, 1784), as cited in Cohen, Urban Visibility, 766.

31 Cohen, Urban Visibility, 766-767.

32 Till, 91.

33 Cohen, Urban Visibility, 744-748.

34 Ivan G. Marcus, "A Jewish-Christian Symbiosis: The Culture of Early Ashkenaz," in Cultures of the Jews: A New History, ed. David Biale (New York: Schocken Books, 2002), 462.

35 Jeremy Cohen, The Friars and the Jews: The Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982), 20- 21

39

36 Gershon David Hundert, Jews in Poland-Lithuania in the Eighteenth Century: A Genealogy of Modernity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 11-12, 80-86.

37 The author is indebted to Dr. Eliezer Shore, whose seminar on the history of Hasidism in 2009 provided a first forum for these ideas.

38 Attempting to prove one way or another based on discussions in the Talmud the existence of a proto-organ in Classical antiquity is complicated. For more detailed information, see Fruhauf, 11-17.

39 Lev. 18:3.

40 David Ellenson, "A Disputed Precedent: The Prague Organ in Nineteenth-century Central-European Legal Literature and Polemics," in After Emancipation: Jewish Religious Responses to Modernity (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 2004), 124.

41 Moses Isserles, Orach Chayim, 560:3, as cited in Ellenson, 124.

42 Ellenson, 126.

43 Rabbi Hirtz Scheur, Eleh Divrei ha-Brit, Letter 2, as cited in Ellenson, 126. Rosenstein - 54

44 Ellenson, 124; Fruhauf, 23. In order to comply with halakha prohibiting work on Shabbat, the synagogues in the Prague community with an organ simply stopped playing it prior to the recitation of Psalm 92 - the liturgical point during the Friday night Kabbalat Shabbat (Receiving Shabbat) services that Shabbat officially begins. 45 Ellenson, 125.

46 Ibid., 126.

47 Ibid., 129.

48 Fruhauf, 31. At that point in history, organs needed the wind provided by the manual labor of someone pumping the bellows and this would have been considered a class of work. The rabbis did not bring up this issue. Fruhauf surmises that this was because "treading the bellows was not considered a devotional part of Jewish worship [that] may have been performed by a non-Jewish person employed" by the synagogue.

49 Talmud Bavli (Brooklyn, NY: 2003), Beitza 36b. 5° Fruhauf, 31.

51 Ellenson, 127. 52 W. Gunther Plaut, The Rise of : A Sourcebook of !ts European Origins (New York: The World Union for Progressive Judaism, 1963), 35.

Bibliography https://scholar.dickinson.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=student_honors

I end with a quote from Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks:12

There are certain questions in Jewish life which in order to answer, what do you do? You open a book; either a Shulkhan Arukh, or Responsa literature or the Talmud and you elicit a ruling from the sources. Why is that so? The reason is that those issues never change. Whether the issues regard shabbat, kashrut, taharat mishpacha, it makes no difference if you asked the question in

12 OU Convention 1997 “Tikkun Olam”

40 1897, 1997 or 2097. The issues never change, and the answers never change. I call this kind of Torah by a very ancient name, and that is “Torat Kohanim” because the kohen, the priest, was the first role model in Jewish history of the enduring structure of kedusha; the eternity in the midst of time. Torah as chayei olam — eternal life– in the midst ofchayei sha’ah — finite life. That is one kind of Torah all of us are familiar with. It is for most of us all the Torah that there is.

However, there is another kind of Torah as well. It is much more rare, and the truth is that it is much more rarely needed; I call it “Torat Nivi’im” — Torah not of the priest but of the navi, the prophet. While a kohen represents eternity, a navirepresents history. We know that the prophets were the first people in all of civilization and certainly the greatest of all time to see G-d in history. They saw history itself as a coherent narrative; a story with a beginning, middle and end, a journey through time with a destination. Kohanim were sensitive to the things in Judaism which never change; while prophets were sensitive to things which do change – things in which today’s challenge are different then the day before. Why? Because we are on a journey. The destination never changes but we move, and where we are today is not necessarily where we were yesterday so each day has a new challenge. That is Torat Nivi’im; it needs a special kind of sensibility to deal with questions of that kind.

41