Parshat Tetzaveh. Greek letter Chi and Tav in Paleo- Hebrew

Parshat Tetzaveh. Greek letter Chi and Tav in Paleo-Hebrew By Chaim Sunitsky Rashi[1] on Parshat Tetzave writes that the priests were anointed with oil, poured in the shape One would assume this is referring [כי.[of the Greek letter 2 to letter Χ[3] – 22nd letter of the Greek alphabet which sounds somewhere between English K and H[4]. This letter spelled χῖ in Greek, is usually spelled “Chi” in English and indeed if one wanted to write it כי in Hebrew, would probably transcribe it as (where Chaf is intended without ). Moreover[5], when Hebrew names are transliterated into Greek, Chi is used for Hebrew Chaf. In addition, if the Talmud meant this letter it becomes clear why it didn’t use an example of any Hebrew letter, as this shape is not found in Ashuri script of Hebrew. Despite all this evidence we find various other shapes offered by the Rishonim[6]. In fact in our printed editions of the Gemora only in Rashi on Kritot (5b) the printed illustration looks like an “X.” Some of Rambam’s editions (Kelei Hamikdash 1:9) also printed this shape, but the Frankel edition of Rambam[7] claims that neither Rashi nor Rambam had this shape in mind and it was changed later by some publishers[8]. Still, one is inclined to think that the correct explanation is that it is the letter X, and most Rishonim simply didn’t know Greek or have access to find out, and the correct tradition regarding the shape of “Greek Chi” was forgotten, despite the fact that it pertains to many halachot[9]. Before we go on, I’d like to make another interesting point: Greek X has the same shape as the last letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew. Let us first examine the relationship of Greek letters to Phoenician[10] and Paleo-Hebrew[11]. R. Shaul Lieberman[12] brings a very interesting idea with regards to the letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew. We find in Yehezkel (9:4) that Tav was marked on the foreheads of people to distinguish the righteous from the wicked who were sentenced to death. According to Hazal ( 55a) the mark was the actual letter Tav. As we mentioned this letter in Paleo-Hebrew looked like the Greek Chi (X)[13] and indeed became symbolic for a number of reasons[14]. R. Lieberman brings that the X shape was used for crossing out a debt and was therefore represented an annulment of a bad decree. On the other hand, Tav was pronounced similarly to Greek Theta, whose shape was also associated with a death sentence[15]. We thus have a double association of Tav (X) with Theta and with Chi. (Note in general that while most letters in Greek alphabet clearly come from respective[16] letters in Phoenician[17], there are a few Greek letters, where it’s not certain which Phoenician letter they correspond to and the Greek X is one of them[18].) R. Lieberman further proposes that originally the symbol of X written in blood was taken to mean forgiveness (crossing out the decree) while X in ink was symbolic of death sentence (verdict written in ink). However, since X has a shape similar to a cross, the early Christians started to utilize cross in blood as symbolic of atonement, and therefore our sages reversed that symbolism[19]. Coming back to the shape of “Greek Chi,” it seems logical that the Hazal’s tradition is based on an earlier tradition that the shape was that of letter Tav in Paleo-Hebrew[20] – the last letter of the alphabet. It’s also possible that there was some connection between the “sign” on the forehead in Yehezkel and the anointing of a High Priest. Though the correct shape of this letter became subject to multiple disputes over time, we may now be able to restore its ancient symbolism[21]. [1] On verse 29:7 based on the Talmud (Kritot 5b, Horayot 12a). He also brings the same shape in verse 29:2 in regards to the way oil was poured on the meal offerings. [2] In some places instead of Chi Yevanit there are versions that say Chaf Yevanit, but the preferred girsa is Chi. While it is possible if the original version had Chi, some copyists changed it to familiar Chaf, but if the original was Chaf, why would someone change it to Chi? It is also possible that the Hazal themselves sometimes used an expression Chaf Yevanit and sometimes Chi Yevanit. [3] See additions and Tiferet (כי יונית to Aruch by R. Benjamin Mussafia (Erech Yisrael on Menachot 6:3 and after the last Mishna in the 10th perek of Zevachim. [4] The Russian letter Х (kha) also comes from it, and it is usually transliterated as kh into English (e.g. Mikhail Gorbachev). [5] We will discuss this in the 17th footnote below. Similarly for those Greek words that is generally used for χ כ ,made it into rabbinical Hebrew – אוכלוסא .e.g) populace – όχλος). However there are some exclusions, as has the first letter χ in Greek but for (קנקנתום or) קנקנתוס .ק but with כ some reason is not spelled with [6] See Rabeinu Gershom on Kritot 5b and Menachot 74b, Rashi (ktav yad) on Menachot 74b and Kritot 5b, Tosafot Menachot 75a, Rashi on Shemot 29:2, Rambam, Perush Hamishna Menachot 6:3, Rash and Rosh on Mishna Kelim 20:7, Meiri, Horayot 12a. [7] In the end of Frankel’s edition they have a section where variant girsaot are brought. [8] At least one of the “corrections” is based on “Mesoret Hashas” in Horayot 12a, but Frankel’s Rambam points out that Rashi’s explanation on the Gemora actually contradicts this shape. Indeed Rashi writes different explanations in various places and the shapes in our editions include that of Hebrew Chet (Horayot) and Tet (Menachot) and (Torah commentary to Shemot, but Tosafot quote him as mentioning the shape of a there, see also the super-commentaries on Rashi, Shemot 29:2 and the English Artscroll where all the variant shapes of Rashi are explained). Tosafot (ibid) also mentions Kaf and that is the shape in some editions of Rambam. They also seem to understand Aruch to mean a shape like ^ (similar to a Greek Lambda). These shapes are reasonably similar, they all contain a type of with (כ,ט,נ) semicircle see Tzeda ,(ח) possibly a sharp angle (^) or two angles Laderech super commentary on Rashi ibid. None of these shapes look even remotely similar to X. (Note also that Lekach Tov on Shemot 29 apparently has a shape of Kappa, but I didn’t find anyone who agrees with this). [9] See for instance Menachot 74b-75a regarding pouring oil on certain types meal-offerings; also this crisscross shape seems to be mentioned in Kelim 20:7, see TIferet Yisrael there. We find another shape based on the Greek Gamma used in various halachot (e.g. Kelim 28:7, Pesachim 8b, Baba Batra 62a, Zevachim 53b and many other places) which was preserved quite well (see commentators to these sugias). [10] This is ancient Canaanite script very close to Paleo-Hebrew. Note that Ramban (Bereshit 45:12) and Ibn Ezra (Yeshayahu 19:18, see also his perush hakatzar to Shemot 21:2) knew that Canaanites spoke the , (though Hazal also thought that Hebrew was a somehow unique Holy Tongue used only by Avraham and his descendants, see for instance Sotah 36b). [11] This ancient Canaanite Hebrew script is called Ktav Ivri, see Sanhedrin 21b. In times of Rishonim the shape of Ktav Ivri letters was not too well known (see Haara Nosefet printed in the end of Ramban’s Torah commentary, how when he was shown an ancient coin with Ktav Ivri he had to ask a Samaritan to read it for him). Still these letters apparently did retain some influence in certain communities. Some Yemenite Jews actually make --Yod with straps on their hands in Ktav Ivri, not like the prevalent custom to make a Shin and Dalet in Ashuri script. R. Reuven Margolios proposed that our “four-headed” Shin on the left side of Tefillin Shel Rosh is actually based on the Shin in Ktav Ivri (which looks similar to English “W”). [12] “Greek in Jewish Palestine”, pages 185-191. [13] And interestingly both are the 22nd letters of their respective alphabets. [14] Besides being the last letter of the alphabet this letter is taken by Hazal to stand for life or death (Shabbat 55a), but the primary reason for its symbolism according to R. Lieberman is its shape. [15] This tradition was also preserved in R. Bahye to Yitro (20:14) who discusses why there is no letter Tet in the 10 commandments and associates Tet and Theta .see also comments of R ,כי לשון טיט”א סימן הריגה :with death Chavel ad loc. in the name of Emuna Vibitachon. [16] On an unrelated topic I’d like to mention that R. Reuven Margolios HaMikra( Vehamesora, 22) wanted to prove, based on the shape of Paleo-Hebrew letters, that the so called Arabic numbers (that are assumed to have come from India) were actually invented by Jews. I find this theory far-fetched. If one looks at the Paleo- only , Dalet and Het seem to look like 2, 4 and 8 and moreover the shape of the “Arabic numerals” changed drastically over time and in the times “the Jews” could have possibly invented them, they didn’t look similar to the way we write them today. As for his other proofs that sometimes we find of numbers used together with the position of the digits as for example in Midrash (see Theodor Albeck edition of Bereshit קבזר : מאה:Rabbah, 96) about the number of animals Yakov had קב that uses (ותרתין רבוון ושבעה אלפין ומאתיין (1027200 at most this shows ,(ר (and then200 (ז (then 7 ((102 that for very large numbers they already started using some letters to indicate separately. Similarly we (רבבות) thousands and ten-thousands but this is a far ,תשעו ’ה :write for year 5776 stretch from system developed in India where the value of each digit depends on its position. Indeed the Rishonim that R. Margolius himself mentions all attribute this to Indian system. (As a side point, just to illustrate the advantage of current mathematics symbols, look at the Rif on Pesachim, 23b, where he calculates the reviit in terms of cubic fingers. In current notation, his calculations taking half a page, would take one line: 3*243/(40*6*4*4)=10.8=2*2*2.7.)

[17] Many of them look like Phoenician letters, except they are inverted vertically, since in Greek the writing is from left to right. [18] Certainly this letter can’t come from Tav since it is pronounced completely differently. Note that the issue of correspondence between Greek and Phoenician letters is not related to the issue of how various Hebrew letters were transliterated in the Septuagint and other Greek translations of Hebrew writings. By the time these translations were made, the pronunciation of many letters changed both in Hebrew and in Greek. For example, Theta is usually used to transliterate Tav, and Tau to transliterate Tet, while their origins are the opposite: Tau came from Tav, and Theta from Tet, as their names and shapes indicate. Perhaps by the time of Septuagint the Tav without dagesh was pronounced in some areas closer to English “th” and so was Theta, and that’s why the translators chose to use Theta for Tav. Similarly, Mitchell First in an article “The Meaning of the Name ‘Maccabee,’ ” (available on this blog here), writes that Kuf is usually transliterated as Kappa and Kaf-Chaf as Chi, even though originally the Greek letter Kappa came from Kaf-Chaf. The reason for this might be similar, at the time of these translations, the pronunciation of Chaf and Chi was similar, while Kuf sounded like Kappa. (Other examples of this include Samech that is transliterated as Sigma, not as Xi which originally came from it, but sounded at the times of Septuagint like English X=KS, not S; similarly in Greek words used by Hazal, Sigma is transliterated not as Sin from which it came but as a Samech, possibly because at that time Sin and Samech were pronounced the same but since Sin is written as Shin, Samech was chosen to make it clear the sound is S, not Sh.) [19] See the above-mentioned sugia in Shabbat 55a. We find occasionally that the sages had to change the explanation “keneged haminim,” see for example Sanhedrin 31b, see also Berachot 59a, 12a. [20] It’s not surprising that they used a Greek letter rather than not well known Paleo-Hebrew. Moreover they sometimes used Greek letters instead of Ashuri, see Shekalim 3:2. [21] It might be possible to suggest that in medieval times this shape was purposefully misrepresented, especially when dealing with the way anointing is performed. The associations regarding Messiah, “the anointed one,” with anointing an X on the High Priest’s head would certainly make many Jews living in Christian lands recoil. Later on, this may have influenced the Jews living in Muslim lands. Interestingly the Frankel edition of Rambam and R. Kapach (in his edition of Rambam’s Mishna commentary) bring that in the manuscript attributed to Rambam’s own writing (Kritot), the picture of Chi was blotted out.

Regarding on Simchat Torah and the daily obligation to recite 100 blessings

Regarding Haftarah on Simchat Torah and the daily obligation to recite 100 blessings Chaim Sunitsky It is well known that Simchat Torah is not mentioned anywhere in the two Talmuds or Midrashim[1]. In fact we have no proof that in the times of Talmud they used to finish the Torah cycle reading on Simchat Torah. The prevalent minhag in the land of Israel was to read the Torah not in one year but approximately in three[2]. In fact it seems that every synagogue read at its own speed[3] without any established cycle, so speaking of the specific “day” when they would finish the reading is meaningless[4]. However in Babylon where they read Torah in one year, it is important to establish when did they finish? One would assume that reading in one year meant finishing on Shabbat before Rosh Hashanah[5] or Shabbat before Yom Kippur (since the 10 days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur while technically being already in the next year are also related to the previous year[6].) Indeed R. Rueben Margolis[7] claims that the original custom was to finish reading the Torah cycle on Shabbat before Yom Kippur[8]. One of his proofs is the statement in the Talmud[9] that R. Bibi bar Abaye wanted to finish reading all parshiyot on the eve of Yom Kippur, and when he was told this day should be reserved for eating, he decided to read earlier. Had they finished the cycle after Yom Kippur, why didn’t R. Bibi bar Abaye instead postpone it for later[10]? This idea also explains the tradition that there are altogether 53 parshiyot in the Torah[11], and therefore Nitzavim and Veyelech[12] should be counted as one. According to this all 53 parshiyot were always read on Shabbat and there never was a special parsha that is read only on Yom Tov[13]. Even though the Talmud (Megilah 31a) mentions that on Simchat Torah, “Vezot Habracha” is read, there is absolutely no proof that they read the entire parsha till the end of Torah. What is more likely is that thisparsha was chosen for this particular day of Yom Tov, just as all other parshiyot chosen for various holidays in the same sugia. Maybe the reason is that they wanted to finish Sukkot with the general blessing of all the Jewish tribes[14]. This also explains the Haftorah for this day. According to the Talmud (ibid) it is from the prayer of Shlomo (Melachim 1:8:22) right before the Haftorah of the previous day (1:8:54). The prayers and blessings of Shlomo fit perfectly with the prayers and blessings of Moshe[15]. However our custom is to say the Haftorah from the beginning of Yehoshua. Indeed the Tosafot (Megilah 31a) ask why our custom this contradicts the Talmud[16]? However according to the assumption that only during Gaonic times did we start reading the entire last parsha of the Torah on the second day of Shmini Atzeret[17], it makes sense that this caused the change in Haftorah, as the beginning of Sefer Yehoshua is a natural continuation of the Torah and it starts with the death of Moshe. The second topic of this post is regarding the obligation[18] to make 100 blessings every day. This is codified as halacha in the Shulchan Aruch[19]. However the common practice seems to be not to count[20] the number of blessings and make sure to say 100 every day. Indeed on the holiest day of our year – Yom Kippur[21] it’s virtually impossible to make so many blessings. Indeed the Brisker Rav – R. Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik is quoted as counting the blessings he made every day except on Yom Kippur since making 100 blessings on Yom Kippur is impossible anyway, he did not even try to make as many as he could[22]. Another problem is that most women who don’t pray 3 times a day almost never pronounce 100 blessings per day. This led some poskim to write that women are not obligated in this [23]. All of this led some Rishonim to look for alternative ways one can be considered to have made 100 blessings. One of approaches it to count some of the blessings one hears as if he made them[24]. Another approach is to count the prayer “Ein Kelokenu” as a number of blessings[25]. This approach obviously seems somewhat farfetched[26]. In this short article we will try to see if the is a different reason why the practice of 100 blessings was not originally followed by the majority of Jews. It is known that not all halachik obligations are treated equally[27]. There are various reasons for this[28] but at least one has to do with traditionally following what our ancestors did. If the Jews originally resided in areas where the majority of grain was “yashan[29]” and later moved to northern countries where the crop is planted after Passover and all the grain of that crop is chadash“ ”, they continued ignoring the prohibition against it[30]. Similarly the Brisker Rav said the reason very few people ever ask a rabbi questions regarding trumot and maaserot is because they never saw their parents who lived outside the Land of Israel do so[31]. At times however it seems that the Jewish people originally followed an alternative opinion in halacha and later when the Shulchan Aruch paskened according to a different opinion the old custom did not change[32]. In my humble opinion it seems the custom of making 100 blessings a day was also originally not obligatory[33], and even when the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch effectively made it so, the people continued not to “count their blessings”. The wording of the Talmud (Menachot 43b) is as follows: תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר חייב אדם לברך מאה ברכות בכל יום שנאמר ועתה ישראל מה ה’ אלקיך שואל מעמך רב חייא בריה דרב אויא בשבתא וביומי טבי טרח וממלי להו באיספרמקי ומגדי It was taught[34]: R. Meir used to say, a man is bound to say one hundred blessings daily, as it is written, “And now, Israel, what doth the L-rd thy G-d require of thee[35]”? On Sabbaths and on Festivals R. Hiyya the son of R. Awia endeavored to make up this number by the use of spices and delicacies.

The obvious question is why does the Talmud mention only R. Hiyya ben Awia as making a special endeavor to compensate the missing blessings[36]? What did everyone else do? It would seem logical that if there was a legal obligation for everyone to make 100 blessings, the Talmud should have asked: and how do we make up for missing blessings on Shabbat and Yom Tov[37]? It would seem that R. Meir does not actually require to count the blessings one makes during the day and make sure there are 100, and only one sage went out of his way to always make 100 blessings. We similarly find other laws of the Talmud that are stated as actual prohibitions but are possibly only stringencies. These examples may include the prohibition of entering a business partnership with an idolater or the prohibition of lending money without witnesses[38]. Similarly the Rashba[39] considers the prohibition against drinking bear with idolaters to be just “the custom of holy ones (minhag kedoshim)”. Even more compelling is the version of the statement of R. Meir in Tosefta and Yerushalmi (end of Berachot) implies that one would just normally end up[40] making 100 blessings on regular weekdays: תני בשם רבי מאיר אין לך אחד מישראל שאינו עושה מאה מצות בכל יום. קורא את שמע ומברך לפניה ולאחריה ואוכל את פתו ומברך לפניה ולאחריה ומתפלל שלשה פעמים של שמונה עשרה וחוזר ועושה שאר מצות ומברך עליהן We learned in the name of R. Meir that every Jew does [at least] 100 mitzvot [by making 100 blessings] every [week]day. He reads Shma with blessings before and after[41], eats bread with blessings before and after[42], and prays 3 times 18 blessings[43] and does other mitzvot[44] and makes blessings on them. I found the same proofs in the Metivta edition of the Talmud in the name of R. Yerucham Fishel Perlow[45]. He also brings that R. Meir’s statement in our Talmud Bavli is according to some versions: מאה ברכות חייב and he suggests it can be translated as [אדם לברך בכל יום[46 “100 obligatory blessings does one make per [week]day” rather than “100 blessings is one obligated to make per day”. He also brings some Gaonim and Rishonim who understood that the mitzvah of making 100 blessings a day is not a full obligation[47]. In conclusion I’d like to mentions that obvious: this article was only meant to explain why many are not as careful about the law of making 100 blessings per day as they are regarding other laws contained in the Shulchan Aruch right next to this law (i.e. the laws of morning blessings). This short essay is definitely not meant as a halachic guide. We certainly should try to fulfil the letter of the law by either listening carefully on Shabbat and Yom Tov to the blessings on the Torah and Haftorah as well as the repetition of Shmone Esre[48], or eat a few snacks which contain foods that require different blessings[49].

[1] It is however mentioned in the Zohar 3:256b. [2] Megilah 29. It was already linked to their general dividing many of the sentences into much smaller verses (Kidushin 30a).We may actually have this preserved in Devarim Rabbah where each new chapter starts with: Halacha, Adam MeYisrael and we have 21 such beginnings instead of 10 or 11 for parshiyot of Sefer Devarim. [3] See Hiluke Minhagim between Eretz Yisrael and Babel. [4] Although they would presumably make the “siyum” and celebrate when they did indeed finish the Torah (see Kohelet Rabbah 1:1). [5] See Levush, 669 who gives a somewhat strange explanation that the reason we don’t finish the cycle of by Rosh Hashanah is to “deceive the Satan”. [6] GR”A to Sifra Detzniuta, see also a similar idea in TB Rosh Hashanah 8b. [7] Shaare Zohar, Megilah 30b, Nitzutze Zohar 1:104b, 3rd note. [8] He seems to claim this for Eretz Yisrael but it seems more reasonable to say this is true regarding Babel. [9] Berachot 8b. [10] Indeed for us the halacha is that someone who didn’t read the parsha on time, should finish it before Simchat Torah. [11] See for example Tikune Zohar, 13th Tikun, GR”A there. [12] Indeed at the end of these two parshiyot we have one Masoretic note that counts all their verses together – 70, rather than 30 verses for Nitzavim and 40 for Vayelech as is usual for other parshiyot that are sometimes joined. Regarding their splitting see also Tosafot, Megilah, 31b and Magen Avraham, 228. [13] According to this on certain years, when there was no Shabbat between Yom Kippur and Sukkot, two other parshas were joined. [14] See Sefer Hamanhig, Sukka. [15] See also Rashi, Megilah 31a that Shlomo sent away the people on the eight day and this is why the Haftorah for Shmini Atzeret was taken from this chapter. [16] See also Rosh and Tur that claim our custom is based on Yerushlami, but this is found not in our Yerushalmi. [17] Note that one can’t bring any proof for this from the fact that the Talmud (Megilah 30a) does not mention that on Simchat Torah 3 Sifrey Torah are taken out as it mentions regarding Hanukkah that falls on Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh, and regarding Rosh Chodesh Adar that falls on Shabbat. Aside from being an argument from silence, the custom to read a passage regarding the sacrifice from Parshat Pinchas is not of Talmudic, but of Gaonic origin (see Bet Yosef, 488). So we would at most expect there to be two Torah Scrolls on the second day of Shmini Atzeret, but if our argument is correct, they read only from one scroll. [18] Talmud, Menachot 43b. There are some sources that seem to attribute this law to King David (Bemidbar Rabbah 18:21). [19] Orach Chaim 46:4. [20] On a typical weekday one pronounces 100 brachot anyway due to large number of blessings in 3 Shmone Esre prayers (3*19=-57). However on Shabbat and Yom Tov the 4 Amidahs with 7 blessings each make only 28 blessings, and the only way to make 100 blessings is by eating fruits and snacks and smelling fragrances throughout the day. [21] Even though we pray five Amidahs on Yom Kipur, each has only 7 blessings and since there are no meals throughout the day we can only compensate the missing brachot by smelling various fragrances and making blessings on them. [22] See Tshuvot Vehanhagot 4:153. Others say one should still try to maximize the number of blessings even if you can’t reach 100 (R. Haim Kanevsky quoted in Dirshu edition on Mishna Berura, 46). [23] Shevet Halevi 5:23, Tshuvot Vehanhagot 2:129. However R. Ovadia Yosef (Halichot Olam, Vayeshev) obligates women in making 100 blessings. [24] See Orach Chaim 284:3. [25] See Machzor Vitri,1; Sidur Rashi,1; Rokach; Kol Bo, 37. [26] See Sefer ולפי דעתי אין שורש וענף (Hamanhig, Dinei Tefillah (page 31 .לזה המנהג [27] The GR”A explains that the statement in the Talmud (Shabbat 155b): “there is no one poorer than a dog or richer than a pig” hints to two prohibitions: eating pork and speaking lashon hara (evil speech). While every Jew is careful about the former (this mitzvah is “rich”), very few people fully keep the latter (and this mitzvah is “poor”). [28] Some mitzvot are just very difficult to keep, like the obligation for every man to write his own . [29] The five main grains that took root after Passover are forbidden to be eaten until the day after next Pesach and are called “chadash” – new [crop]. The grain from the old, permitted crop is called “yashan” – old. Some poskim hold that the prohibition does not apply outside the land of Israel, but the GR”A thought these laws are applicable everywhere. [30] See the GR”A .אלא שנמשך ההיתר שהיו זורעין קורם הפסח Yore Deah 293:2 [31] Similarly the Chofetz Chaim says the reason most people ignore the prohibition against evil speech is also because their parents did not stop them from speaking Lashon Hara from childhood (Haga in the end of his 9th chapter of Chofetz Chaim). [32] I brought an example of this in an article about mezuza, where it seems there used to be an opinion followed that a house with more than one entrance only requires one mezuza. [33] It is ונראין (interesting that according to the Manhig (quoted above הדברי’ שאחר שיסדן משה רבינו ע”ה שכחום וחזר דוד ויסדם לפי שהיו Moshe first instituted this law and it was מתי’ ק’ בכל יום later “forgotten” and reinstituted by David. I am not sure how it’s possible that this law would ever be “forgotten”. [34] I am quoting Soncino’s translation. [35] There are a few different interpretations regarding how this verse hints to 100 blessings, see Rashi and Tosafot. [36] See Hida, Machazik Beracha to Orach Chaim 290. [37] See similar logic in Tosafot Baba Metzia 23b that we don’t pasken like Rav that meat that was not watched becomes forbidden since the Gemora asks: “how does Rav ever eat meat” and does not ask: “how do we eat meat”. See also Rosh, Pesachim 2:26 that only one sage was careful to start the “Shmira” of matza so early, and therefore the halacha for us does not follow him (Yabia Omer 8:22:24). [38] See for example Ritva, Megillah 28a, see also Ran on the Rif, end of first perek of Avoda Zara. [39] See Bet Yosef, Yore Deah 114 in the name of Torat Habayit. [40] It’s also possible R. Meir’s statement is in realm of agada rather than halacha. [41] That’s 7 blessings. [42] If he eats 2 meals a day and makes with a cup of wine, he will make 2+4+2 blessings during each meal, i.e. 16 blessings a day. [43] 57 blessings. [44] The blessings on tefillin and tzitzit make 2 or 3 blessings, blessing on the washing hands and two or three blessing on the Torah add another 5-7 blessings. Altogether we get 7+16+57+5/7=85/87 blessings. If we add all the morning blessings we will get more than 100. [45] Commentary to R. Saadia’s Sefer Hamitzvot (Aseh 2). [46] This is the Girsa of Tur and some other Rishonim. [47] See R. Perlow on Sefer Hamitzvot quoted above. [48] At any rate one should listen carefully and if there is a small minyan, when people don’t pay attention to the blessings on the Torah or to the repetition of Shmone Esre, they cause a “bracha levatala”. [49] For example an apple, some watermelon, a piece of chocolate and some cake will add 4 blessings before and 2 after.

Traditional Jewish source for the “Seven Deadly Sins”

Traditional Jewish source for the “Seven Deadly Sins” By Chaim Sunitsky In Christianity as well as in western culture there is a well-known concept of “Seven Deadly Sins” usually enumerated as: pride, covetousness, lust (understood as illicit sexual desire), envy, gluttony, anger and sloth. In particular this theme is well known through the art of Hieronymus Bosch. Even though there is no clear biblical source for this particular list of sins, in general the number seven plays a major role in the Bible and in particular the concept of some שֶׁשׁ :(seven sins” is thought to come from Mishle (6:16“ there are six) הֵנָּה שָׂנֵא ה וְשֶׁבַע תּוֹעֲבַות נַפְשׁוֹ things Hashem hates and [altogether] seven that are abomination to Him). In traditional Jewish literature the number seven[1] certainly plays a very important role. The Talmud (Sukkah 52a) mentions seven “names” (or types) of Yetzer Hara and in a different place (Eruvin 19a) seven names of Gehinom. The Zohar (Hechalot in Parshat Pekude) associates the two with each level in Hell ruled by a different aspect of the Satan. One would therefore expect some list of “seven deadly sins” in our literature as well. However it would come as a surprise to find the list that is almost identical. Still such a source does exist. The GR”A[2] comments on the Agada in Berachot (4b) that the Angel of Death flies in eight :(מלאך המות בשמונה) steps ששמונה סבות המיתה על האדם הם , אחת מחמת חטא אדה״ר וז׳ מחמת ז׳ ראשי עבירות שהם גרם כל העבירות והם התאוה והקנאה והגאוה שהוא הככוד והכילוה שהוא עין הרע והזנות שהוא היצה״ר ושנאת הבריות והבטלה והיא שביעית נוק׳ לשבת בית ובה כלולין ד׳ כידוע והוא מ”ש שיחת הילדים כו׳ וישיבת כו׳. וז׳ שמות יש ליצה”ר הידועים וז׳ מדורות ז׳ ראשי תנינים וז׳ גשרים לס”א וז׳ של להט החרב המחהפכת צבוע כו׳ וז׳ עונשים של התורה ד׳ מיתות ב״ד ומיתה ביד״ש וכרת ומלקות Because there are eight causes of death, one due to the sin of Adam and seven due to the seven main תאוה transgressions that cause all other sins and they are the (desire for gratification which can in our case mean גאוה ,(envy) קנאה ([gluttony[3 stinginess) that is) כילות ,(honor) ככוד pride) that is also) illicit sexual desire) that is Yetzer) זנות ,bad eye sloth). And) בטלה hatred of others) and) שנאת הבריות ,Hara this [sloth] is the seventh – feminine[4] “to sit at home[5]” and it includes 4 as it is known, like it says “childish conversation etc and sitting [with ignoramuses[6]].” And there are seven known names of Yetzer Hara, and seven “heads” of the snake and seven bridges of the “Sitra Achra” and seven of the rotating sward that turns from hyena etc and seven types of punishments: four types of execution by Bet Din, death at the hands of Heaven, Karet and flogging. Regarding his words “seven of the rotating sward that turns from hyena” he is referring to an Agada in Baba Kama (16a) about six species turning into one another every seven years and the person not bowing down at Modim turning into a snake: צבוע זכר לאחר שבע שנים נעשה עטלף עטלף לאחר שבע שנים נעשה ערפד ערפד לאחר ז’ שנים נעשה קימוש קימוש לאחר שבע שנים נעשה חוח חוח לאחר שבע שנים נעשה שד שדרו של אדם לאחר שבע שנים נעשה נחש והני מילי דלא כרע במודים The male hyena after seven years turns into a bat, the bat after seven years turns into an arpad (possibly a species of bat), the arpad after seven years turns into kimmosh[7], the kimmosh after seven years turns into a choach, the choach after seven years turns into a demon. The spine of a man after seven years turns into a snake if he doesn’t bow when reciting Modim[8]. The GR”A’s comments on this Agada in Baba Kama are similar to his comments in Berachot: the six animals are hinting to 6 active (masculine) sins and the seventh – to the passive (feminine) sin of laziness: תניא צבוע זכר כו׳. הן ז׳ קשרים דתנינא דלהט כו׳ לכן הן מתהפכין והשביעית דנוק׳ שלכן נעשה נחש והראשונה בדכורא לכן נעשה שד “They are seven knots of the snake of the “rotating [sward]” etc and therefore they turn into each other and the seventh one is the feminine and therefore he [who doesn’t bow at Modim] becomes a snake (fem) while the first [six] are masculine and therefore he turns to a demon (masc)”. R. Avraham, the Vilna Gaon’s son explains the words of his father as follows: הן ז׳ קשרים דתנינא דלהט פי׳ דלהט חרב המתהפכת שמתהפכת לשבעה גוונים הם ז׳ ראשי עבירות שהם גרם כל העבירות , והם התאוה והקנאה והגאוה שהוא הככוד, והכילות שהוא עין הרע , והזנות שהוא יצה”ר, ושנאת הבריות, והבטלה והיא שביעית נוק׳ לשבת בית The seven knots of the snake of the “rotating sward” meaning the “rotating sward” turns into seven types of seven major sins that are a cause of all other sins תאוה, קנאה, and they are the ככוד, that is גאוה and שנאה ,that is Yetzer Hara זנות ,that is bad eye כילות is the seventh [passive] feminine בטלה. בטלה “to sit at home”. The correspondence of the GR”A’s list of seven deadly sins and the non-Jewish list is almost exact with the hatred) being used instead) שנאה exception of .and even these two are closely related ,(כעס) of anger The main question becomes: what is the GR”A’s source for this specific collection of transgressions? It seems that the GR”A’s source is Mishnayot in Avot. The first three sins are that הקנאה והתאוה והכבודmentioned in 4:21 to take the person מוציאין את האדם מן העולם cause עין הרע, :out of this world. The next three sins are in 2:11 and they also “take the person out of ויצר הרע, ושנאת הבריות this world[9]”. The last of the seven sins includes the four types of time wasting mentioned in Avot 3:10. These four also said to “take the person out of this world[10]”. In conclusion I propose that the collection of the “Seven Deadly Sins” that are a source[11] of all other transgressions[12] is found in .[13]

[1] Of course in Kabala this number is very important as it relates to seven lower Sefirot. [2] The GR”A didn’t write a commentary to all agadot like Maharsha or Maharal, we only have his words on Berachot and some of Shabbat, Megillah, Baba Kama, Baba Batra and Bechorot; much of his commentary is hard to understand but his son R. Avraham helps us in his super-commentary. [3] As the other main “desire” for sexual gratification is mentioned separately later. [4] In Kabala action is associated with male and passivity with female. The first six sins are related to six “masculine” Sefirot of Sitra Achra and the Seventh – to Malchut or Nukva – the passive “feminine” Sefira. [5] See Yeshayahu 44:12. Kabalistic literature uses this verse to refer to the feminine aspect – Nukva. שנה של שחרית, ויין של צהרים, ושיחת הילדים, See Avot 3:10 [6] וישיבת בתי כנסיות של .עמי הארץ, מוציאין את האדם מן העולם The GR”A is hinting that sloth includes 4 different types of empty wasting time just as Malchut is known to include 4 separate aspects. [7] According to the English Artscroll and Soncino, kimosh and choach are types of thorns, but it seems that this agada is talking about various animals. Indeed Rashi (Hoshea 9:6) brings that according to Targum Yonatan on this verse kimosh and choach are some kinds of animals. (Hebrew Artscroll also brings the possibility that choach and kimosh are animals.) [8] Regarding how Modim is related to this the GR”A gives a mystical explanation that is beyond the scope of the present article. [9] See also GR”A on Mishle 21:4 that there is a correspondence between the sins mentioned in these two mishnayot. I presume it is similar to the correspondence between the Sefirot Hesed-Gevurah-Tiferet and the lower level Netzach-Hod- Yesod. The GR”A also writes there that these sins correspond to the qualities of students of Balaam (see Avot 5:19). [10] Indeed these are the only 3 Mishnayot in Pirke Avot that use the מוציאין את האדם מן העולם :expression [11] Note how the qualities of a person are in a sense more fundamental than the actions, see the beginning of R. Hayim Vital’s “Shaare Kedusha” and “Even Shlema” written by the students of the GR”A according to the teachings of their Rebbe. [12] Interestingly even the Hebrew article in Wikipedia on the “Seven Deadly Sins” assumes it’s a Christian concept and does not mention that this concept has a source in Judaism as well. [13] It might even be that this idea came from Judaism into early Christianity. Parshat Ki Tisa. The Anointing Oil Revisited.

Parshat Ki Tisa. The Anointing Oil Revisited. By Chaim Sunitsky In this parsha we have the instructions of how to make anointing oil: וְאַתָּה קַח לְךָ בְּשָׂמִים רֹאשׁ מָר דְּרוֹר חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וְקִנְּמָן בֶּשֶׂם מַחֲצִיתוֹ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם וּקְנֵה בֹשֶׂם חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם וְקִדָּה חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ וְשֶׁמֶן זַיִת הִין All the proportions of the ingredients are clearly explained except the second. Moshe had to take 500 (shekalim[1]) of Mar Dror. Kinamon (probably cinnamon) “its half, 250”, K’ne – 250 and Kida – 500. The peculiar expression “its half, 250” is explained in the Talmud (Kritot 5a) to mean that 250 shekalim is taken twice. According to this the expression “its half” is explaining the half of the weight of Kinamon and that it is “gezeriat hakatuv” that this spice is not taken at once but rather as two halves, 250 shekalim each. The total weight of the spices is then 500+250*2+250+500=1750. Needless to say this explanation does not seem to be the straightforward meaning of the verse. It is a lot simpler to consider that mahatzito (its half) is explaining the previous weight: while Mar Dror is 500, Kinamon is only half of that – 250. Still practically all the commentators follow the view of our Talmud and even Rashbam who usually explains according to what he believes to be the pshat. The words of Rabeinu Bahya (30:23) are that this explanation is the kabala of Hazal (presumably from Sinai) and that we already knew that half of 500 is 250, so if we explain the Torah according to the simple meaning, these words are redundant. However it was noticed already in Biur of Mendelssohn[2] that our taamim don’t support this explanation, as they should have used a mesharet to connect “mahatzito” to the next words[3]. He leaves this as a question of why Baal Hataamim didn’t follow Hazal[4]. However Shadal in his Chumash commentary brings from Yerushalmi Shekalim[5] (6:1) that the total weight of the 4 spices was 1500. This implies that the weight of Kinamon was only 250 as is the straightforward meaning of the verse[6]. We thus find support for our Mesorah that followed a different tradition and there was no clear “Mesorah from Sinai” that this verse should be read as the Bavli suggests[7] but rather this was one of possible interpretations in out Gemora.

[1] All the weights are in shekalim although in some sources (Yerushlami Shekalim 6:1) the weights seem to be in “mane” and not shekalim, it is probably based on a scribal error [2] See also “Vikuach” of Shadal (page 96) where he tries to prove from here that the tradition of taamim is not from Ezra otherwise our Mesorah would not contradict this. [3] Instead we have a “tipcha” that connects this word to the previous phrase. [4] In general the Tosafot on Shabbat 55b already noticed that our Mesorah sometimes doesn’t follow the Talmud. We usually follow the Mesorah in regards to the laws of writing of the Torah. Moreover, the opinion of Masoretic scholars may have influence on other laws like writing a “get” (see Bet Shmuel at the end of the laws of writing names of men and women printed after siman 129 of Even Haezer; see also GR”A, Even Haezer 129:51). [5] Another interesting contradiction between Bavli and this perek of Shekalim is the number of tables in the Second Temple. The Mishna in Shekalim seems to imply that there was only one table in the Heichal (and therefore presumably one Menorah), but Talmud Bavli (Yoma 51b) implies that the Second Temple had 11 tables and 11 Menorot just like the First Temple (see Tosafot Rid ad loc who notices this contradiction). Maybe at the time after the victory of Hanukkah when the Jewish people were poor, there was only one Menorah and one table, and at some later time more were made. [6]Most commentaries to Yerushalmi say this except for R. Shlomo Sirilio who changes the girsa in Yerushalmi so as not to contradict the Bavli. [7] While we are at it, I’d like to add that regarding Ketoret, where the Torah mentions only 4 species, and Hazal add 7 more, that maybe the remaining 7 spices are not a Sinaic tradition, see Shir Hashirim Rabbah 3:7 and Ramban (30:34). This would explain why R. Natan could add Kipat Hayarden and not break the prohibition of “Bal Tosif”. Maybe the Torah allows taking small quantities of various other spices as long as the main ingredients were the 4 enumerated in the Torah in equal proportion.

Evening Prayer Revisited

Evening Prayer Revisited Chaim Sunitsky There is a dispute in Tamud Bavli (Brachot 4b) as to whether one should say Shma with Brachot before or after Shmone Esre during the evening prayer. The opinion of R. Yohanan is that Shma is said first while the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi is that Shmone Esre is said before the Shma. Moreover, while R. Yohanan holds that Shma is followed by Shmone Esre immediately, according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi Shmone Esre can be recited separately and Shma with its blessings does not have to follow immediately after. The practice of all Jews today is to follow R. Yochanan. Most Rishonim[1] and the Shulchan Aruch rule like R. Yohanan and indeed this seems to be the opinion of the Babylonian Talmud. This is called being “Somech Geula leTefila”, meaning the blessing of Gaal Yisrael (Who Redeemed Israel) is recited immediately before the Shmone Esre. At first sight it seems that the last blessing after evening Shma (Hashkivenu – let us go to sleep) only makes sense according to R. Yehoshua ben Levi. Indeed, Talmud Bavli (ibid) asks how the blessing of Hashkivenu would not be considered an interruption between Geula and Tefila according to R. Yochanan? It answers that it is considered “long Geula” (or continuation of the Geula). Our thesis is that in Palestine in Talmudic times, the opinion of R. Yehoshua ben Levi was the more accepted shita and moreover that they used to say Hashkivenu as the last blessing before going to sleep (as we say Hamapil[2]). Rashi (Brachot 2a) brings in the name of Talmud Yerushlami: Why do we say Shma in the synagogue in the evening, even though this is done before[3] the earliest time to fulfil the obligation? It answers that we do כדי לעמוד בתפלה this מתוך דברי תורה While it seems from Rashi that they said Shma with the blessings before Shmone Esre[4], the Tosafot (ibid) in the name of R. Tam[5] says that they used to simply recite Shma without blessings before , just like we say Ashre before . Later on they would say Shma with the blessings following R. Yehoshua ben Levi. Indeed the sugia further in the same Yerushalmi (1:1) supports this interpretation entirely[6]: מילתיה אמרה שאין אמר דברים אחר אמת ויציב מילתיה דרבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר כן רבי שמואל בר נחמני כד הוה נחית לעיבורה הוה מקבל רבי יעקב גרוסה והוה רבי זעירא מטמר ביני קופייא משמענא היך הוה קרי שמע והוה קרי וחזר וקרי עד דהו’ שקע מיניה גו שינתיה ומאי טעמא רבי אחא ור’ תחליפא חמוי בשם רבי שמואל בר נחמן רגזו ואל תחטאו אמרו בלבבכם על משכבכם ודומו סלה מילתיה דר’ יהושע בן לוי פליגא דרבי יהושע בן לוי קרי מזמורים בתרה … It discusses if it’s permitted to speak after one already said the blessings after evening Shma[7]. It mentions R. Yakov Grosa used to not speak after he said Shma with blessings, and then mentions R. Yehoshua ben Levi[8] who used to still say various psalms afterwards[9]. From the Yerushalmi it seems that most people used to say Shmone Esre during the daytime, and later ate their meal[10] and laid down to sleep[11] saying the evening Shma with blessings.[12] We can also explain from here how the shita of Bet Shamai regarding saying evening Shma while laying down could have developed. It is unlikely that Shma in the evening was pronounced in normal position and then in some generation Bet Shamai suddenly ruled that one has to literally lie down to say it. A more likely scenario is that it was the norm to recite the evening Shma while lying down and the dispute of Bet Hillel and Bet Shamai arose as to whether this is the requirement or is merely done for convenience so as to not interrupt and fall asleep immediately. Another obscure shita we can now explain is in Zohar Hadash (Bereshit 17d in Mosad HaRav Kook edition). It mentions that the idea of praying with “redness of the sun” applies to Maariv, not Mincha[13] like our Talmud (Brachot 29b). In light of the shita of R. Yeshoshua ben Levi we can understand this. It seems the ideal time for Maariv according to this was around sundown. However one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of Shma at this time. It is also interesting that in Tosefta (Brachot, 3:2) the opinion of R. Yossi is mentioned that Maariv should be recited at the time of “Neilat Shearim”. In conclusion, it seems that there were some communities where the norm was to recite Shmone Esre of the evening prayer before Shma with blessings, and these communities apparently recited the last blessing of Shma (Hashkivenu) in place of our Hamapil.

[1] I am currently unaware of any Rishon that paskened not like R. Yohanan, however the Meiri writes that “majority” pasken like R. Yohanan, so there must have been some who did not. [2] Indeed Yerushlami does not mention the blessing of Hamapil, but it seems they used to say as the last Bracha and fall asleep afterwards. It’s interesting that our siddurim added Hashkivenu without Hatima at the Seder of going to sleep even though in reality for us this brocha is not necessary since we have Hamapil. [3] It was normal to say the evening Shmone Esre in Eretz Yisrael during day time, before stars come out (possibly because of the danger to go outside at night as their synagogues were outside of the city). [4] As many do today when praying early Maariv. [5] See also Rosh (Brachot 1:1) and Netaniel (10). [6] See the commentaries from Baal Sefer Haredim and R. Chaim Kanievky. It’s possible that Rashi did not see this whole sugia in Yerushlami but only saw a quote of it in a Gaonic source. In general regarding use of Yerushalmi in Rashi, see Saul Lieberman’s letter to Solomon Zeitlin published at the end of Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox by R. Marc Shapiro, see also the discussion from Homat Yerushalaim printed in the beginning of standard Yerushalmi editions. [7] The Yerushalmi calls the blessing after “Emet Veyatziv” as this was their Nusach, but our Nusach in the evening is “Emet Veemuna”. [8] Of course R. Yehoshua ben Levi followed his own shita and said Shma with Brachot after Shmone Esre. Note that the same sugia before in Yerushalmi also discusses whether it’s permitted to speak after “Emet Veyatziv”. It continues והא תני אין אומר דברים אחד אמת ויציב פתר לה באמת ויציב של with .שחרית [9] This is mentioned in our Talmud (Shevuot 16b) as well. [10] And the prohibition of eating before Shma did not apply since they read Shma already even though they did not fulfill their obligation or because they were eating before the time of Shma arrived. [11] For those who did not immediately go to sleep, the Yerushalmi (ibid) indeed mentions that they should recite Shma (with blessings) before midnight. [12] Interestingly even at later times when many communities had a custom to say the evening prayer early, some people recited Shma without Brachot. R. Hai Gaon (Tshuvot Hagaonim Hahadashot – Emanuel, 93; this tshuva is brought in Rosh 1:1 and Bet Yosef 235) suggests that the one who is found in such a congregation should only say Shma without blessings and pray Shmone Esre together with them, but later one say Shma with Brachot. [13] Indeed the Talmud there states that in Palestine they cursed the one who prays Mincha so close to sundown as it may lead to missing the time. Obviously this does not apply to Maariv for which there is plenty of time afterwards.

Mezuzah Revisited. Parshat Vaetchanan.

Mezuzah Revisited. Parshat Vaetchanan. By Chaim Sunitsky. Rashi on this Parsha (Devarim 6:9) says that since the word Mezuzot is written without the Vav[1], only one Mezuzah is necessary. It’s generally assumed that Rashi can’t argue with a clear Talmudic statement that every door of the house needs a Mezuzah[2] and therefore he can’t be understood at face value. However the custom in many places in Medieval Europe had always been to only affix one Mezuzah per house[3]. We will now try to examine if indeed there ever was a tradition that supported this minhag. The Rema makes a unique statement in Yoreh Deah (287:2): “The commonly spread minhag in these countries is to attach only one Mezuzah per house and they have nothing to rely on”. This statement is very unusual. Rema is known for supporting Jewish minhagim and it’s very common for him to use the expression “common minhag” often followed by a statement that this minhag should not be changed, or at least that this minhag can be relied on. Here however the Rema is saying just the opposite: the minhag has nothing to rely on and a “yere Shamaim” person should affix the Mezuzot on every entrance. It’s hard to understand how this incorrect “minhag” could have possibly become wide spread. R. Yissachar Dov Eilenburg[4] (the author of Beer Sheva on the Talmud) suggested that this mistake became widespread due to incorrect understanding of ourRashi . However I find it strange if the previous minhag was to affix a Mezuzah on every doorpost, how would it change in many countries simply because they misunderstood the Rashi’s Torah commentary[5]. As for the correct understanding of Rashi, two possibilities were offered: either Rashi is saying that we don’t have to affix two Mezuzot on each doorframe[6], or that Rashi is following the opinion of R. Meir that if an entrance has only one doorpost on the right, there is a need to affix Mezuzah (despite the lack of second doorpost[7]). As for Rashi’s actual drasha[8] we don’t see it in any known source in Hazal[9]. In general there was[10] some attempt to explain the custom of affixing only one Mezuzah based on the fact that many of the inside rooms in their houses were not clean enough, but this does not explain what people relied on when the house itself had more than one entrance[11]. However Rashi[12] on our Gemorah brings an interpretation according to which if a house has exactly two entrances, it needs only one Mezuzah on the more commonly used entrance, since the other entrance is batela (is unimportant) compared to the first one. Only if the house has more than two entrances then we don’t say that two entrances are batelim to the one commonly used entrance. Maybe then Rashi on the Chumash is following his shita and saying that a house (or room) with two entrances requires only one Mezuzah. Interestingly, in Yerushalmi[13] there is even a stronger statement that seems to imply that only one entrance per house requires a Mezuzah: בית שיש לו שני פתחים נותן ברגיל היו שניהן רגילין נותן בחזית היו שניהן חזית נותן על איזה מהן שירצה The simple meaning of Yerushlami seems to contradict the Talmud Bavli and imply that only the entrance that’s used more often needs the Mezuzah. If he uses both entrances equally, then the Mezuzah is affixed to the “stronger” entrance and is they are equally strong, one can affix the Mezuzah on either entrance. To conclude we seem to have found a possible explanation of Rashi according to the simple meaning of his words[14] and a possible justification for the old minhag in Europe[15]. Needless to say our words are only theoretical and Baruch Hashem that minhag has disappeared a long time ago and every Orthodox Jew today affixes a Mezuzah on every entrance.

[1] Apparently Rashi implies that Mezuzot is written without the second Vav and can be read as Mezuzat. Our scrolls written according the Mesorah, Rambam (Sefer Torah 2:6), Semag (Asin 22) and Minhat Shai have the first Vav between two Zain’s missing, but Leningrad scroll (used on Bar Ilan disk) in fact has the second Vav missing. It’s also possible that Rashi meant that as long as some Vav is missing we can “transfer” the missing Vav to the last position and thus read the word as Mezuzat. See also Minhat Shai, Shemot 12:7. Interestingly the famous statement of the GR”A that there are 64 different Tefilins one would need to put on to fulfil all opinions does not consider the various opinions about how to write various words like “mezuzot”, “totafot”, which would bring the numbers of different Tefillins to hundreds. [2] See for instance Menachot 34a. [3] In this article we only discuss if there is any justification for the custom of affixing one Mezuzah on one’s home. See however Semag (Asin 3) that there were some people in Spain who did not affix Mezuzot at all, and see there in Asin 23 some weird “justification” they used for their “minhag”. [4] In his super-commentary on Rashi called Tzeda Lederch and his “Beer Maim Chaim” usually printed in the end of Beer Sheva. [5] To say nothing about the fact that Halacha is rarely learned from a Torah commentary as Rashi does not “pasken” there. [6] In Yalkut Shimoni on Mishley (remez 943) indeed there is an opinion that each of the doorposts requires two Mezuzot, but our Gemorah (Menachot 34a) does not hold like this opinion and does not even mention it (see also Shu”t Minchat Yitzchak 1:9). [7] Obviously the Biblical word Mezuzah means not the parchment but the pole itself, so one Mezuzah in Rashi means one doorframe. [8] Which Rabeinu Bahya quotes as words of Razal. [9] See however Mordachai (962) who brings in the name of Rif that R. Meir and Rabonan who argue about the above law apparently learn from the spelling of Mezuzot. It may be according to this girsa, not found in our Rif, R. Meir had no Vav and Rabonan had a Vav in the word “Mezuzot” in Devarim 6:9. The Talmud mentions that R. Meir was a scribe and it’s possible he had some especially accurate scrolls that were different from the more commonly used ones (his “” is mentioned in Midrashim, see for instance Bereshit Rabbah 94:9). Our Gemora however only mentions the learning from “Mezuzot” with the Vav to support the shita of Rabonan (see also the first Tosafot on 34a). [10] See Maharil, Minhagim, Laws of Mezuzah, 1 and Tshuvot 94 . In practice the Maharil and Rema did not accept these explanations. [11] See also Shu”t Divrey Yatziv Yore Deah 191 who proposes that maybe only the Mezuzah on the outside doorpost is a Biblical command, but the question of a house with two entrances still remains. [12] Menachot 33a starting with words Holech Achar Haragil and 34a starting with words Af Al Gav Deragil Beechad. [13] The end of Megila, 34a (see however second perek of Tractate Mezuzah, in Vilna Shas it’s printed at the end of the volume with Avoda Zara). Even if our interpretation off the Yerushalmi is correct, if the house has many rooms, it would seem to need a Mezuzah for each one even according to Yerushalmi. [14] In Sefer Zechor Leavraham on Rashi in Likutim in the back the author also interprets Rashi to mean only one Mezuza is needed. He proposes that Rashi quotes a lost Midrash similar to the one preserved in Yalkut Shimoni I quoted above. According to the author the dispute there is not whether the Mezuzah is placed on both sides of one entrance but whether there is a need for a Mezuzah on every entrance of the house. [15] It’s known that many European communities started in Italy, where Yerushalmi was often followed to a greater extent than Bavli and therefore it’s possible that the earliest settlers in France and Germany were told only to affix one Mezuzah on the main entrance leading to the street. Regarding inside rooms, maybe they did not have any since simple houses had only one room in those times or maybe they relied on some of the weak reasons mentioned in Maharil (who rejects them) but regarding the outside doors if there are only two they may have followed Rashi and if some of their houses had more than two entrances they may have followed Yerushalmi or some other lost opinion (partially preserved in the Yalkut Shimoni).