The Rogochover and More: Excursus on Fasting

The Rogochover and More: Excursus on Fasting

Marc B. Shapiro

Relevant to what appeared in the last post (see note 13), I wish to mention some leniencies regarding fast days that contradict mainstream halakhah. I have also included other interesting material regarding the fast days.

1. R. Israel Jacob Fischer, dayan on the beit din of the Edah Haredit, stated that in our day all pregnant women up until See .פחות מכשיעור the ninth month must eat on Yom Kippur his haskamah to R. Baruch Pinchas Goldberg,Penei Barukh (Jerusalem, 1985), where he writes:

כיום הזה שנחלשו הדורות, ועשרות רבות של נשים מפילות ע”י התענית, צריכין כל הנשים המעוברות עד החודש התשיעי לאכול ביוהכ”פ פחות מכשיעור.

For a criticism of this great leniency, which contradicts Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 617:1, see R. Eliezer Waldenberg, Tzitz Eliezer, vol. 17, no. 20. Elsewhere, R. Fischer states that pregnant women are forbidden to fast on Tisha be-Av.

מעוברת אסורה להתענות בת”ב, ואין כאן דין שיעורים, כי במקום סכנה לא גזרו חז”ל

See Even Yisrael, vol. 9, no. 62. This too is at odds with Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 554:5, which rules that pregnant women are obligated to fast on Tisha be-Av.

In an article on the OU website[1] R. Y. Dov Krakowski writes:

There are those who are Noheg that pregnant women do not even begin to fast on Tisha B’Av (there is very little if any Halachik backing to this hanhaga, but many of the chosheve senior Poskim have such a Mesorah. I have personally heard this from many family members who heard this from my great uncle the Veiner [!] Rov Zetzal and from my wife’s grandfather Harav Lipa Rabinowitz who says it in the name of his grandfather the Sundlander Rov Zatzal).

R. Yosef David Weissberg also reports that many halakhic authorities rule that in contemporary times pregnant women are not obligated to fast on Tisha be-Av.[2]

2. R. Akiva Joseph Schlesinger writes that he has a tradition from the Hatam Sofer that pregnant and nursing women should only fast on Yom Kippur, and even women who are not pregnant should only fast on Tisha be-Av and the other fast days if they are very healthy.[3] He also quotes an oral tradition from the Hatam Sofer which seems to be saying that if he had the authority, he would have abolished the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av. (See note 4 for another source where the Hatam Sofer says this explicitly.)

ובפרט אחרי כי בא חולשא לעולם, שמענו מהחת”ס זיע”א שאמר אי לאו דמיסתפינא כלפי ד’ תעניות חוץ מיוהכ”פ ות”ב מטעם חשש סכנה לכמה בני אדם, ובפרט לנשים ה’ ירחם, ולא להניח לבנותיו להתענות חוץ מהנ”ל.

His last words are not entirely clear. I think they mean that he would have preferred not to allow his daughters to fast except on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, but not that he did so ולא להניח but ולא הניח לבנותיו in practice. He does not say .לבנותיו

The editor adds a note explaining the passage just quoted, but he misunderstands what R. Schlesinger means when he He also mistakenly מטעם חשש סכנה לכמה בני אדם. writes understands the passage to mean that the Hatam Sofer forbade all women to fast, other than on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.

כאן כתב רבינו פסק החת”ס לענין שאר תעניות, דהיה אוסר להתענות לכל הנשים ואפילו למי שאינם מעוברות ומניקות, ולאנשים היה מתיר לכמה בני אדם אי לא דמסתפינא, אבל לנשים החליט להיתר.

R. Schlesinger also states that the rabbis did not allow women to fast except for Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av. בענין התעניות, בחולשתינו, רבותינו לא הניחו לנשים להתענות חוץ מט”ב ויוהכ”פ.

R. Schlesinger himself suggests that the women not fasting should give some money to charity and fast a few hours or even abstain from food the evening before the fast actually begins.

Returning to the Hatam Sofer’s comment that if he had the authority, he would abolish the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, the exact same thing was said by R. Abraham Joshua Heschel of Apta. He added that on Yom Kippur, who needs to eat (since we should be so involved in our prayers), and on Tisha be-Av, who is able to eat (as we should be so focused on mourning what we have lost)?[5]

אם הייתי בכוחי הייתי מבטל כל התעניתים חוץ מיום המר והמנהר (הוא ט’ באב), שאז מי יוכל לאכול. וחוץ מיום הקדוש והנורא (הוא יום כפור), דאז מי צריך לאכול.

R. Abraham also reported that he was told by his teacher, R. Elimelech of Lizhensk, that if he could find two others to join with him, he would abolish “the fasts” (presumably, everything except for Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av).[6]

3. R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabia Omer, vol. 10, Orah Hayyim no. 39, discusses the laws of a nursing woman and the various fasts. On p. 503, in the hosafot u-miluim, he adds:

מש”כ להקל במינקת שאפילו הפסיקה להניק אם היא בתוך כ”ד חודש ללידה פטורה מלהתענות ג’ צומות ותענית אסתר. יש להסתייע ממ”ש הגאון בעל דרכי תשובה בשו”ת צבי תפארת סוף סי’ מח: וז”ל: ודע כי שמעתי מפה קדוש של מורי הגאון הקדוש אדמו”ר רבי יחזקאל משינאווא זצללה”ה, שאמר, כי הוא מקובל מגאוני וצדיקי הדור הקודמים זצ”ל, שכל אשה שעומדת עדיין בימים שיכולה ללדת, ובימי הצומות היא חלושת המזג, אפילו היא בריאה ושלימה, נכון יותר שלא תתענה, ורק לאחר שיפסוק זמנה מללדת עוד, אם תהיה בבריאות תשלים אותם התעניות, לחיים ברכה ושלום. ע”כ

This is a fascinating passage as R. Ovadiah is quoting R. Zvi Hirsch Shapira in the name of R. Ezekiel Halberstam of Shinova, who himself is passing on a tradition from earlier geonim and tzadikim, that women of childbearing age, even if they are not pregnant, do not have to fast if they feel weak. This ruling is in contradiction to Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 550:1, which states that women are also obligated to fast on the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz and Tzom Gedaliah, and does not give any exemption if they feel weak (as pretty much everyone feels a little weak when fasting). As we have already seen, R. Akiva Joseph Schlesinger states that “our rabbis” did not allow any women, not just those of childbearing age, to fast on these days.

R. Meir Mazuz, Sansan le-Yair (2012 ed), p. 354, notes this passage of R. Zvi Hirsch Shapira and reacts very strongly:

והוא נגד חז”ל חכמי התלמוד וכל הפוסקים שלא התירו רק למעוברת ומניקה. ומזה למדו רוב המורות והתלמידות בבית יעקב בימינו שלא לצום כל ד’ תעניות, ואוכלות בריש גלי בשעת ההפסקה כאילו לא היו ד’ תעניות בעולם ולא תיקנו אותם הנביאים.

Is R. Mazuz correct that most teachers and students at Bais Yaakov schools do not fast on the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah, and Ta’anit Esther? I know that in the yeshiva world many do not fast, but my question is, is this really the majority, and are there any differences between Bais Yaakov schools in the U.S. and Israel? (Even though R. established by the prophets, I am ד’ תעניות Mazuz refers to assuming he means the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah, and Ta’anit Esther, as religious women of all stripes fast on Tisha be-Av.)

See also here where R. Yitzhak Yosef states that he heard that in some seminaries they tell the young women that they do not have to fast except for Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.

When I told a friend about what this post is focused on, he mentioned that he knows that many women do not fast other than on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, but that he never heard of a “mainstream” posek who had this position. From R. Mazuz’s harsh comment it seems that he too assumes that there is no real halakhic basis for the practice of not fasting. My response to my friend, which I now share with readers, is that you can’t get any more mainstream than the great R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, and this was indeed his position. In Halikhot Shlomo: Moadei ha-Shanah, Nisan-Av, p. 401 n. 16, the following appears: ולענין נשים הי’ דרכו של רבנו להשיב לשואלים שהמנהג במקומותינו היה שהנשים אינן מתענות כלל, ואף הנערות, מלבד תשעה באב ויוהכ”פ. אבל לאנשים אין להקל כלל בד’ תעניות ותענית אסתר יותר מהבמואר בפוסקים.

It is hard to criticize women for not fasting on the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah, and Ta’anit Esther when R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach saw no problem with this practice.

As with R. Mazuz, R. Eliezer Shlomo Schik,here , uses the expression “4 fast days” and it refers to the 10th of Tevet, 17th of Tamuz, Tzom Gedaliah and Ta’anit Esther. He notes that the practice in Breslov is that no women fast on these days. I have been told that among other hasidic groups there is variation. Some women fast on these days, others never fast, and some do not fast if they are married and of childbearing age. (In discussing unusual leniencies, there is no need to mention standard kulot that deal with pregnant and nursing women.)

R. Yohanan Wosner, a dayan in the Skverer community, writes that while some permit married women of childbearing age to forego the fasts (other than Tisha be-Av and Yom Kippur), there are those who permit even unmarried women to do so.[7]

In R. Simhah Rabinowitz’s Piskei Teshuvot, Orah Hayyim 550:1, he states that a few great figures (gedolei ha-dorot) were lenient and permitted all women of childbearing age to forego the fasts (other than Tisha be-Av and Yom Kippur). I must note, however, that none of the figures he refers to were halakhic authorities. The first source he cites was mentioned by me in the last post, note 13.[8] In it we see that the hasidic master R. Nathan David of Szydłowiec said that no women of childbearing age should fast, except for on Yom Kippur. The fact that he said that even on Tisha be-Av such women should not fast is, I think, quite radical. The passage also records a subversive comment from R. Ezekiel of Kozmir about how the Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah, who instituted the fast days, are embarrassed now because they did not anticipate the much weaker recent generations. R. Ezekiel The point of such a comment was presumably to “give cover” for those who find it difficult to fast and thus choose not to. ושמעתי מחסיד ישיש א’ שנסע להרה”ק ר’ יחזקאל מקאזמיר ז”ל שהוא היה מקיל גדול בתעניות, ואמר שאנשי כנסה”ג שתקנו התעניות מתביישין על שלא הסתכלו בדורות אלו, וסיפר כמה ענינים מקולותיו שהיה קשה לי לכתוב, ובשם רבינו הקדוש ז”ל מפאריסאב שמעתי שאמר בזה”ל מוזהר ועומד אני מהה”ק ר’ נתן דוד ז”ל משידלאווצע לדרוש ברבים ששום אשה שראויה עדיין לילד לא תתענה כ”א ביום הקדוש, ולכן עכ”פ אדרוש זאת לידידיי.

The second source R. Rabinowitz cites is a report that R. Menahem Mendel of Kotzk said that with women one must be lenient when it comes to the fast days, as they need strength to give birth.[9]

שמעתי מהה”ג מהו”ר מאיר בארנשטיין ז”ל ששמע מפ”ק כ”ק מרן הקדוש זצוקלל”ה מקאצק דבאשה יש להקל בתעניות משום שצריכה כח להוליד בנים.

This is a very sensible statement which incidentally all poskim would agree with. But contrary to what R. Rabinowitz states, it says nothing about exempting women of childbearing age from any fast days. It only says that when dealing with such women the posek should be lenient.

The final source R. Rabinowitz quotes is from R. Ezekiel Halberstam of Shinova which was mentioned already.

4. R. Sadqa Hussein (1699-1772) was the leading rabbi in Baghdad in his day. He ruled that no pregnant women should fast on Tisha be-Av, as it was so hot in Baghdad that fasting created a situation of sakanat nefashot.[10]

5. Here is a fascinating section of a 1953 letter from Joseph Weiss to Gershom Scholem.[11] It provides evidence that there was a time that members of the Ruzhiner “royal family” did not complete the fast of Tisha be-Av.[12] Do any readers know anything about this?

It could be that this practice relates to the tradition that R. Israel of Ruzhin died at the premature age of 54 as a result of fasting on Yom Kippur. Ahron Marcus writes:[13]

הוא נפטר מצמאון הלב שנגרם לו, כעדות הרופא המפורסם מלבוב, ד”ר יעקב רפפורט, ביום הכפורים האחרון תרי”א, כאשר התגבר על הבולמוס של צמא והשלים את תעניתו, מבלי לגמוע טיפת מים במשך היממה. הרבנים הנוכחים, אשר מורי הרבי שלמה רבינוביץ זצ”ל גינה את מבוכתם, לא העיזו להתיר לו את השתיה, על אף הדין המפורש בשולחן ערוך במקרה כזה. הוא הסתפק בכך, שטבל את קצות אצבעותיו בקערת מים ונשם את ריח המים, ובזה הגביר את ענוייו. המסכנים לא הבינו, כי גופו של אותו צדיק, על אף כפיפותו המוחלטת לכוחות הנפש, היה נתון לחוקי טבע רגילים. הוא לא שב לאיתנו, ונסתלק בג’ מרחשון.

In discussing this story, R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin writes:[14]

ומכל הרבנים הגדולים שהיו שם לא עלתה אף על דעת אחד מהם, שאם הצדיק אמר כן, בודאי הוא מרגיש כי בנפשו הוא, ויש פקוח נפש בדבר. שתקו הרבנים ומכיון שלא התירו לו, סבל הצדיק, וקפצה עליו מחלת הלב, שקורין “הערץ-וועסער זוכט”, ומאנה להרפא. מחלתו נמשכה עד יום ג’ מרחשון, ונשמתו הטהורה עלתה אז לגנזי מרומים.

This is obviously an extreme example of being “frum” at someone else’s expense, in this case at the expense of literally his life.

Regarding R. Israel of Ruzhin, it is also recorded that he said that if someone feels a little bit weak he should not fast.[15]

וכשם שמצוה לשמור ישראל מעבירה כן מצוה ליזהר לכל איש אם יש לו מעט רפיון כח שלא יתענה.

It is not clear if this advice refers to all fasts, including Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.

Since the above-mentioned permission to eat on Tisha be-Av – and no doubt this also applied to the other fast days aside from Yom Kippur – was reserved for members of the Ruzhin “royal family,” it reminded me of a passage in R. Moses Sofer, Hatam Sofer al ha-Torah, vol. 2, p. 165a (haftarah for parashat Pekudei). The Hatam Sofer states that in theory, if one is able to focus all of his intentions on the glory of God, without getting any physical benefit, then it would permissible to eat on Yom Kippur. But he adds that this is something that only gedolei Yisrael can accomplish.

דודאי לאכול ביה”כ לשם מצוה אם אדם יכול לכוון כל מחשבתו לכבוד ה’ בלי שום כונה אחרת להנאת הגוף אזי היא צורך גבוה כמו קרבנות נשיאים ועוד טוב ממנו ויפה דנו ק”ו אך מי יכול לעמוד בזה כ”א גדולי ישראל שהרי משום כך ס”ל לאבא שאול [יבמות לט ע”ב] מצות חליצה קודם למצות יבום לרוב העולם שאינם יכולי’ לעמוד על מחשבתם שלא לכוון להנאת הגוף.

6. R. Joseph Mordechai Yedid Halevi, Yemei Yosef (Jerusalem, 1913), vol. 1, Orah Hayyim, no. 9, states that scholars and melamedim, if their fasting will affect their learning or teaching, are not obligated in any of the fasts other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av.

7. The practice in Stockholm used to be that the community ended the fast of the 17th of Tamuz nine and a half hours after hatzot, which is before it is dark. This practice was defended by R. Benjamin Zvi Auerbach in hisNahal Eshkol, Hilkhot Tisha be-Av, p. 16 n. 1. I have heard from R. Chaim Greisman, the Chabad rabbi in Stockholm, that today they end the fast of 17th of Tamuz when it is dark. According to the times provided on www.chabad.org, in 2018 this will be at 11:38pm, with the fast beginning that morning at 12:51am (alot ha-shachar).[16] R. Michael Melchior, the chief rabbi of Norway, informs me that they also end the fast at darkness. This means that in 2018 in Oslo the fast of the 17th of Tamuz will end at 12:19am, with the fast beginning at 1:20am.[17]

R. Aaron Worms, Meorei Or, vol. 4 (Be’er Sheva), p. 14b, writes as follows about the northern European countries:

וכבר שמענו שהקילו רבנים קדמונים במדינו’ ההם לסיים תעניתם בצום הרביעי וצום החמישי בעוד היום גדול בשעת חשיכה לרוב גלות ישראל ואף שתענית שלא שקעה עליו חמה לאו תענית שאני התם שמעקרא לא קבלו יותר מרוב ישראל.

Notice how he also refers to ending Tisha be-Av tzom( ha- hamishi) when it is still daylight. The justification he offers is the same as was later given by R. Auerbach, but R. Auerbach’s justification was only stated with regard to the 17th of Tamuz, not Tisha be-Av.

8. R. Ernst Gugenheim, Letters from Mir (New York, 2014), p. 106, wrote as follows in 1938:

Tomorrow [the day before Purim] will be a day of fasting. Here [in the Mir Yeshiva], they are rather meikil with respect to this viewpoint, and many bachurim, too weak, do not fast completely. It is true that every day for them is a day of half-fasting, such that they are quite weakened.[18]

9. R. Mordechai Eliyahu ruled that a pregnant or nursing woman can break her fast on Tisha be-Av if she is having difficulty fasting, and she does not need to ask a halakhic question. Rather, she is to determine herself if it is too difficult for her.[19] In 2007, because it was very hot on Tisha be-Av, R. Eliyahu ruled that no pregnant women needed to fast.[20]

10. R. Shmuel Salant was very liberal when it came to the fasts other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av. If someone merely said that he was thirsty and wished to drink, R. Salant would immediately tell him to do so. If someone told R. Salant that fasting was difficult for him, R. Salant would permit him not to fast, and he did not ask for any particulars from the questioner. This was based on a teaching he had from R. Isaac of Volozhin, “that one safek sefeka related to pikuah nefesh pushes aside many fasts.”[21] Once, on a fast day between minhah and maariv, he heard someone say that he was thirsty and was waiting for maariv so that he could drink. R. Salant immediately got the man a cup of water and told him to drink it.[22]

A similar approach is recorded with regard to R. Meir Shapiro[23].

והיה אומר כי בדורות החלשים כבימינו כל מה שאוכלים הוי ככדי חייו, וצום הוי כסכנה לאנשים רבים, ולכן התיר להרבה לאכול בימי צום.

11. R. Haim Ovadia, a contemporary liberal Orthodox rabbi, argues that the minor fasts (which include all fasts other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av) are optional in today’s day and age. See his discussion here. He concludes his analysis as follows:

In the current state of the Jewish people in Israel and abroad, the Talmudic rule demands that fasting on the minor fast days should be optional, and according to Ha’Meiri, fasting would even be forbidden, maybe because it shows lack of gratitude to God. For that reason, one who chooses not to fast on these days cannot be considered one who breaches the law, and can definitely rely on the ruling of Rashba. Hopefully, in the coming years, more and more individuals will choose to acknowledge the fact that we leave [!] in better times and develop a more positive worldview, and as a result maybe persuade the rabbinic leadership to reassess the situation and leave us with only two fast days, Tisha Be’Av and Yom Kippur, thus making those two much more meaningful.

12. R. Herschel Schachter, Nefesh ha-Rav, pp. 261-262, writes:

כשהורי רבנו התחתנו, שלח הגר”ח להודיע להכלה מרת פעשא שא”צ להתענות ביום חתונתה, כי כך היה דן כל אדם בזה”ז כחולה שאב”ס, שא”צ להתענות בשאר תעניות [ואפי בט’ באב, כדעת המחבר (תקנ”ד ס”ו) והאבני נזר (חאו”ח סי’ תכ”ט), ודלא כדעת הט”ז (שמה סק”ד), (כן שמעתי)] חוץ מביוה”כ. . . . נהג רבנו להתענות בכל התעניות, ואפילו ביאה”צ.

R. Schachter cites R. Chaim Soloveitchik as saying that today everyone is regarded as suffering from a non-life-threatening illness and thus there is no obligation to fast other than on Yom Kippur. He adds that R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik did not follow this view but fasted on all the fast days, including when he had yahrzeit.

This is a radical view, as I do not know anyone else who stated that other than Yom Kippur, there is no longer an obligation to fast, even on Tisha be-Av. I must note, however, that there is no real source for this report in the name of R. Chaim. I spoke to R. Schachter about this and he told me that there is also a story that R. Chaim left a will stating that people should not fast on Tisha be-Av. Again, there is no source for this report, and like many such stories it is hard to know if there is any truth to it. Had R. Chaim felt strongly about this matter he could have announced his supposed view to his community, but he never did so.

There is something else that should be mentioned in this regard. The late Professor Aaron Schreiber told me that he heard from R. Simcha Sheps, who studied in Brisk, that one day on the 17th Tamuz he visited the Brisker Rav, R. Isaac Zev Soloveitchik, in Jerusalem. He entered the Brisker Rav’s home and found him at the table eating! It is hard to know how much faith we can put in such a report as with the passage of time people’s memories can change. Someone I know was told by R. Ahron Soloveichik that the Brisker Rav ate on Tishah be-Av, but this was for a medical reason, not because of any halakhic rationale regarding the current binding nature of the fasts.

13. The Ben Ish Hai, parashat Shoftim (first year), no. 17, rules that a groom – the same would apply to a bride – within the week of his wedding does not fast on Tzom Gedaliah, 10th of Tevet, Ta’anit Esther, and 17th of Tamuz. [24] He adds this was the practice in Baghdad.[25] (The exemption from fasting on Ta’anit Esther is mentioned by many others.[26])

R. Ovadiah Yosef is more stringent in this matter. He states that only if the 17th of Tamuz is pushed off to Sunday (and this would apply to the other fasts as well), then the bride and groom do not need to fast.[27]

R. Elijah Mani, another Baghdadi, records an additional liberal opinion (which he himself does not accept) in line with what the Ben Ish Hai wrote.[28]

נשאלתי אם החתן חייב להתענות [בעשרה בטבת]. ואני שמעתי ממורי הי”ו [הרב עבדאללה סומך] ששמע מהרב הגדול משה חיים זלה”ה, שאומר לחתן כרצונו אם תרצה להתענות ואם תרצה שלא להתענות.

14. R. Shmuel Wosner, Shevet ha-Levi, vol. 8, no. 261, states that someone who flies from Israel to the United States on a fast day such as the 17th of Tamuz does not need to wait until it is dark in the United States in order to break his fast. Rather, he can break the fast at the time that it is over in I ביום תענית וכמו בי”ז בתמוז Israel. Since R. Wosner writes assume that he excludes Tisha be-Av from this lenient ruling.[29]

15. In my post here I discussed the original halakhic approach of R. Yitzhak Barda. When it comes to the fast days he also has an original perspective in that he holds that on Tzom Gedaliah, 10th of Tevet, Ta’anit Esther, and 17th of Tamuz, one can break the fast at sunset rather than waiting until darkness, which is the standard practice. See here. This is a more lenient position than his earlier approach found in his Yitzhak Yeranen, vol. 3, no. 20 and vol. 5, no. 41, where he only permits one to break the fast of the 10th of Tevet at sunset when the fast is on Friday.

16. In Teshuvot ha-Geonim: Shaarei Teshuvah, no. 325, the following appears:

זקן חלש שהיה מתענה ובתוך התענית שעבר עליו רובו של יום בתענית וכבר בא לידי חלישות בענין שחושש לסכנה מאכילין אותו אפילו ביום כיפור ולא שבקי ליה דימות וגמרינן מההיא עוברה דהריחה כו’ כ”ש אם הוא זה זקן נכבד שאם ימות ויסתכן על תענית זה יהיה הפסד לרבים.

This geonic responsum has been cited numerous times and no one saw anything problematic with it. However, in 1995 R. Yehiel Avraham Silber published his Birur Halakhah: Telita’ah, and he has a different perspective.[30] He states that “there is no doubt” that this responsum is a forgery. His reason is that nowhere in halakhic discussions ofpikuah nefesh is consideration ever given to whether a person is “honorable”. as a זקן נכבד Yet in the geonic responsum it speaks of a factor to be considered in permitting someone to break his Yom Kippur fast, as his life is not just an individual matter but is of importance to the community as a whole.

R. Silber writes:

תשובות הגאונים שערי תשובה נדפס לראשונה בשאלוניקי בשנת תקס”ב – תקופת הנסיון של עקירת התורה על ידי זיופים; סמוך לזה בשנת תקנ”ג יצא לאור לראשונה הספר שכולו זיוף בשמים ראש.

I think all readers can see that his argument has no basis whatsoever. Furthermore, the appearance of Besamim Rosh, a rabbinic forgery published by a maskil in Berlin in 1793, has absolutely nothing to do with a volume of responsa published in 1802 Salonika, a place far removed from any Haskalah influence. R. Silber’s claim is so unreasonable that I would never even refer to it in an academic article, and only mention it here as another curiosity from the world of seforim.

17. Here is a fascinating text that was called to my attention by R. Chaim Rapoport. It appears in R. Samuel Elijah Taub’s Imrei Esh (Jerusalem, 1996), p. 186, and has been subsequently included in other works.

R. Taub, the Modzitzer Rebbe (1905-1984), states that his forefather, R. Ezekiel of Kozmir (1772-1856), was lenient with all the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be- Av.[31] He then says that R. Ezekiel was very opposed to Tzom Gedaliah, and used to say that in Heaven Gedaliah is embarrassed that they established a fast day in his memory. Earlier in this post I cited a passage from R. Abraham Yelin that mentions how R. Ezekiel said thatAnshei Keneset ha- Gedolah are now embarrassed for having instituted the fast days (see the source in n. 8). R. Yelin also writes that “it is difficult for him to record” some of R. Ezekiel’s leniencies regarding the fast days.[32]

R. Ezekiel’s opposition to Tzom Gedaliah was such that in his beit midrash it was declared that whoever wishes to fast on this day should leave Kozmir. We can thus assume that none of R. Ezekiel’s followers fasted on Tzom Gedaliah. Does anyone know if this antinomian view about Tzom Gedaliah continued among his descendants, which include the rebbes of Modzitz?

18. There is a joke in the “frum” world which goes as follows: There are three reasons not to fast on Tzom Gedaliah.

1. It is a nidcheh (as he was killed on Rosh ha- Shanah).[33]

2. Even if he was not killed he would not have been alive today.

3. He would not have fasted for me if I was killed.

While this is only a joke, R. Ephraim Bilitzer records that it was widely reported that certain hasidic rebbes said that Gedaliah was troubled in heaven by the fact that thousands of Jews fasted on his account.[34] Therefore, followers of these hasidic rebbes did not fast on Tzom Gedaliah. R. Bilitzer finds it hard to believe such stories, but after what we have seen with R. Ezekiel of Kozmir, it is obvious that, at least with regard to R. Ezekiel, this was indeed the case.

Would R. Ezekiel, or any other hasidic rebbe who told his followers not to fast on Tzom Gedaliah, be impressed by R. Bilitzer’s very non-hasidic objection?

הלא דין הוא בש”ע להתענות ומה זה שנהגו שלא להתענות נגד הש”ע

After all, the Shulhan Arukh also gives the times for prayer, and a number of hasidic rebbes ignored these as well.[35]

In general, it should not surprise us to find hasidic rebbes with lenient approaches to fast days. R. Bilitzer himself informs us that R. Yissachar Dov Rokeah, the Belzer Rebbe, told his followers who were with him for the High Holy Days that anyone who felt the least bit weak on Tzom Gedaliah should immediately eat. This is a very lenient approach, and if followed by the Jewish world at large it would mean, I think, that not many teenagers would fast on this day. While fasting gets easier as one gets older, my experience has been that most teenagers find it at least a little bit difficult to fast.

The following story, about R. Solomon of Radomsk, even shows great leniency with regard to Tisha be-Av. I am sure readers will wonder why R. Solomon thought it was necessary for people to drink when the fast was just about over. If he wanted people to break the fast, why not have them drink earlier in the day?[36]

היה נוהג להקל בתעניות. פעם אחת, בערב תשעה באב ארעה שרפה בבית בנו, והיו הכל טרודים בכבוי השרפה. לפני גמר התענית, בשעת בין השמשות, הלך אל הבאר, הסמוכה לבית המדרש, וצוה לכל אחד לשתות מים.

Here is another interesting passage, from R. Abraham Yelin, Derekh Tzadikim, p. 13b, no. 44: It states that R. Mordechai of Nes’chiz used to pray minhah when it was already dark. However, on the 17th of Tamuz he finished maariv when it was still light. It is true that this text does not mention actually eating when it was still light, but isn’t that the implication of the passage? What else could it be coming to tell us, without having to be too explicit? I can’t imagine that it means that they finished maariv early so that people could go home and be ready to eat as soon as the fast was over.

It was not only hasidic rabbis who had such a liberal perspective (and I have already referred to R. Chaim Soloveitchik). Here is a story that was told by a hasidic rabbi to the grandson of R. Baruch Bendit Gliksman.[37] (R. Baruch Bendit was a misnaged.[38]):

פעם ישבתי ביום תענית בליטומירסק ולמדתי יחד עם בן גיסי, האדמו”ר רבי חנוך העניך מאלקסנדר וחתן גיסי, רבה של לודז הג”ר יחזקאל נומברג. נכנס אלינו זקנך הג”ר בנדיט מלאסק ומיני מזונות בידו, דורש מאתנו כי נטעום מעט ונפסיק את התענית, אמר: “מובטחני כי תהיו פעם מורי הלכה בישראל, לכן עז רצוני כי תלמדו להקל בתעניתים”.

Returning to Tzom Gedaliah, I found an interesting passage in R. Yitzhak Meir Morgenstern’sShe’erit Yaakov on Tractate Megillah.[39] He writes:

וראיתי דיש אנשים שנהגו להקל בצום גדליה כשנוסעים בדרך, ותמהתי עליהם איה מקורם.

R. Morgenstern is not referring to Modern Orthodox people. He is referring to those in his own hasidic circle, and he tells us that among them there are some who do not fast on Tzom Gedaliah when they are traveling. He wonders what the source for this practice is and is not able to find a good justification. For the purposes of this post, however, the very fact that he acknowledges the existence of a laxity when it comes to Tzom Gedaliah is significant.

R. Raphael Aaron Ben Shimon (1848-1928), the chief rabbi of Cairo, also speak of laxity regarding the fast days other than Tisha be-Av and Yom Kippur.[40] However, unlike R. Morgenstern, he was referring to a traditional Sephardic community rather than a haredi population.

בעון פשתה המספחת להקל בתעניות הצבור חוץ מט’ באב ויוה”כ

I think R. Ben Shimon’s description is also applicable to many in the Modern Orthodox world, at least in the United States. That is, while they are careful to fast on Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av, this is not the case regarding the other fast days. But unlike what we have seen with R. Morgenstern, no one would think to ask if there is any halakhic support for this. Even those who eat on the fast days know that their behavior is not in line with halakhah.[41]

[1] I mention the source since I was surprised that the OU would post an article written in “yeshivish” rather than converting it to standard English. [2] Otzar ha-Berit (Jerusalem, 2002), vol. 1, 5:2. [3] She’elot u-Teshuvot Rabbi Akiva Yosef, vol. 1, no. 174. [4] See Minhagei Rabotenu ve-Halikhoteihem (Jerusalem, 2009), p. 317, citing the book Elef Ketav, no. 671: החת”ס זלה”ה אמר, אם היה בכוחו היה מבטל כל התעניתים זולת ת”ב ויוה”כ. Megillah 5b states that R. Judah ha-Nasi wished to abolish the fast of Tisha be-Av but the Sages disagreed. Another version recorded ibid., is that he only wanted to abolish Tisha be-Av if it was postponed to Sunday, but the Sages disagreed. [5] Yalkut Ohev Yisrael (Jerusalem, 1998), p. 124. [6] R. Israel of Ruzhin, Irin Kadishin, parashat Va-Yikra (p. 19a). When the text mentions abolishing “the fasts”, I don’t think it is merely referring to individual fasts that pious people undertake, as the term “abolish” would not seem to fit in that context. [7] Hayyei ha-Levi, vol. 6, Orah Hayyim no. 95. It is interesting that some treat unmarried women with more leniency than men, because when it comes to the fast of the 20th of Sivan, commemorating the Chmielnicki massacres,Shaarei Teshuvah, Orah Hayyim 580:1, writes: שמעתי בימי חרפי שנכתב בפנקס הארצות שהגזרה היא לבן י”ח בזכר ולבת ט”ו בנקבה. For some reason, when it came to the fast of the 20th of Sivan the rabbis wanted 15-year-old girls to fast, but boys were only supposed to do so from the age of 18. [8] R. Abraham Yelin, Derekh Tzadikim (Petrokov, 1912), pp. 13b-14b. [9] R. Abraham Pitrokovski, Piskei Teshuvah (Jerusalem, 2001), no. 88 (Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, p. 88). [10] See R. Hussein, Tzedakah u-Mishpat (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 10. [11] Gershom Scholem ve-Yosef Weiss: Halifat Mikhtavim 1948-1964 (Jerusalem, 2012), p. 102. [12] Rabbi and Mrs. Samuel Sperber, mentioned in the letter, are the parents of Professor Daniel Sperber. [13] Ha-Hasidut, trans. M. Shenfeld (Tel Aviv, 1954), p. 223. See also R. Yissachar Tamar, Alei Tamar, Yoma, p. 396, who records in the name of the Rebbe of Husiatyn a different version of what R. Israel did with the water placed before him. לרה”ק מריזין היתה לו דלקת גדולה בפיו וביחוד על השפתיים מתוך הצימאון הגדול, והעמידו לפניו קערה עם מים קרים כדי ששפתיו יתקררו מעט ע”י האדים היוצאים ממים קרים. [14] Sipurei Hasidim (Tel Aviv, 1957), vol. 2, p. 85. [15] Irin Kadishin, parashat Va-Yikra (pp. 19a-b). [16] This time for alot ha-shahar is accompanied by the following note: “On this date at this location the sun does not set far enough below the horizon to use the standard calculation. The Chabad custom is to use Chatzot for this time.” [17] These times were given to me by R. Melchior. Chabad’s site has the fast in Oslo ending at 12:18am (one minute earlier than R. Melchior) and beginning at 1:20am (the same time as R. Melchior). There are significant differences between these times and the times that appear on the popular myzmanim.com. On the latter site it says that this year in Oslo the fast begins at 2:48 am, which is significantly later than the official community practice and the Chabad practice. Myzmanim.com states that the fast ends according to R. Tukatzinsky at 12:34am, which, we are told, is the emergence .This is a later time than that of R .ג’ כוכבים בינונים of Melchior and Chabad. For Oslo, myzmanim.com does not give a time for the end of the fast according to R. Moshe Feinstein. There are also divergences when it comes to Stockholm. As noted, the Chabad site has the fast of the 17th of Tamuz this year beginning at 12:51am and ending at 11:38pm. Myzmanim.com has the fast beginning at 2:25am and ending at 11:45pm according to R. Tukatzinsky and at 12:09am according to R. Moshe Feinstein. Readers can correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that people who will be in Oslo or Stockholm on the 17th of Tamuz (or any other day for that matter) are halakhically permitted to rely on what appears on myzmanim.com in opposition to the local community’s practice. [18] Among other passages that readers will find interesting is p. 160: I have already gedavent [prayed] and listened to the weekly Inyan of Reb Chatzkel – Yechezkel [Levenstein]. He has already spoken very often against thedatsche = vacations, wanting only the weak or sick bachurim really to go rest, but I observe he has not had much success in this respect and that there will be exactly the same number leaving. On the other hand, the yeshiva had gotten into the habit of rowing on the lake – but a single Inyan sufficed to bring an end to this custom from one day to the next – which constituted in a way a chillul Hashem, because in doing it the bachurim put themselves in the same category as the town people. Yet, is it not correct that, since the Torah is different from everything that exists, a ben Torah is distinguished by his behavior from his entire entourage? In Yiddish, it’s much better. I am sure that on my arrival in Mir, I would not have been able to understand that it was base to ride a bicycle or to go rowing. It is obvious that these restrictions are only valid here in this place, but you can also see how much the städtische [city dwellers] feel respect or anger to the yeshiva-leit. On p. 96 he writes: “Our milk is purely Jewish milk, but the butter comes from goyim and is subject to no shemira of any sort.” [19] R. Moshe Harari, Mikraei Kodesh: Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, p. 220 n. 6. [20] R. Harari, Mikraei Kodesh: Hilkhot Ta’aniyot, p. 221 n. 7. [21] Aderet Shmuel (Jerusalem, 2014), p. 145. [22] Ibid., p. 146. [23] R. Natan Lubert, She’erit Natan (Ashdod, 2013), p. 147. [24] R. Solomon Laniado of Baghdad found the Ben Ish Hai’s position so astounding that he claimed that there is a printing error, and the text should be corrected to say that the groom needs to fast on all days except for Ta’anit Esther. See his letter in R. Yitzhak Nissim, Yein ha-Tov, vol. 2, Even ha-Ezer no. 2. (The title of R. Nissim’s book is often pronounced Yayin ha-Tov, but that is incorrect. See Song of Songs 7:10.) [25] The Ben Ish Hai’s testimony about the practice in Baghdad is problematic, as his contemporary, R. Elisha Dangor, writes that the practice in Baghdad is that the groom does fast in the week of his wedding, with the exception of Ta’anit Esther. See Gedulot Elisha (Jerusalem, 1976), Orah Hayyim 549:5. R. Ovadiah Yosef, Halikhot Olam, vol. 2, p. 211, cites the Ben Ish Hai’s student, R. Joshua Sharbani, who says that the because the Ben Ish Hai was so busy and involved in Torah study, he is not such a reliable source for the practices of Baghdad. שהרב בן איש חי לא היה בקי כל כך במנהגי בגדאד לרוב טרדתו ושקידתו בתורה This is quite a surprising this to say, as the Ben Ish Hai lived in Baghdad so how could he not be aware of things? Yet R. Ovadiah Yosef finds support for R. Sharbani’s comment in a responsum of R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Hayim Sha’al, vol. 2, no. 35:2. R. Azulai cites a few examples where R. Joseph Karo testifies as to what the accepted practice was, and yet we have evidence that contradicts what R. Karo states. R. Azulai explains the reason for R. Karo’s mistake: ויתכן שלרוב קדושתו וטרדת לימודו לא דקדק וסבר שהמנהג כך ואינו כן [26] See R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yehaveh Da’at, vol.2, no. 78. [27] Yehaveh Da’at, vol. 3, no. 37. In Yalkut Yosef: Kitzur it states that a ,(מילה במועדי השנה) Shulhan Arukh 265:13 groom can only eat on the pushed-off fast day afterhatzot. [28] Ma’aseh Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 2017), no. 119. [29] In an earlier responsum, Shevet ha-Levi, vol. 7, no. 76, he does not say to break the fast when it is over in Israel. Rather, he says that one can break the fast when one feels weak. [30] See Birur Halakhah: Telita’ah, Orah Hayyim 618. [31] It is interesting that he quotes R. Ezekiel as saying something very similar to what I cited earlier in this post from R. Abraham Joshua Heschel of Apta: בשחור מי יכול לאכול – והכוונה היתה לתשעה באב שהוא יום חורבן ואבילות, ומי יכול אז לאכול. ובלבן מי צריך לאכול – היינו ביוהכ”פ ומי צריך לאכול, הרי בני אדם כמלאכים. [32] Yelin, Derekh ha-Tzadikim, pp. 13b-14a. [33] This is how the joke was told to me. While many indeed assume that Gedaliah was killed on Rosh ha-Shanah, Maimonides believes that he was killed on the third of Tishrei. See Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Ta’aniyot 5:2. On the assumption that he was killed on Rosh ha-Shanah (which is the dominant opinion), and the fast day was pushed off from its actual date, does this mean that every year Tzom Gedaliah has the status of a pushed-off fast day, with the various leniencies that go with it? Most say no, but there are some who say yes. R. Yair Rosenfeld has recently discussed the matter in Ha-Ma’yan 56 (Tishrei 5777), and he concludes (p. 18): לאור זאת, יולדת במקום שמנהג הנשים לצום בד’ צומות יכולה להמנע מהצום, וכן אבי הבן, ובצורך גדול אף הסנדק והמוהל, מתענים ולא משלימים. כן יש להוסיף שאף חתתן בשבעת ימי המשתה יכול להקל בצום זה כדינו בצום נדחה. [34] Yad Efraim (Tel Aviv, 1970), no. 29 (p. 206, third numbering). This book is found on Otzar ha-Hokhmah together with many other books from R. Bilitzer. It is worth noting that most of his books on Otzar ha-Hokhmah, including six volumes of responsa, are still in manuscript. It appears that there is no money to prepare these works for publication, and they were therefore put on Otzar ha-Hokhmah in manuscript form. Fortunately, his handwriting is easy to read. [35] The other objection of R. Bilitzer is that Tzom Gedaliah is not on account of the death of Gedaliah per se, but due to what befell the Jewish people in the Land of Israel as a consequence of his death. Even if this is correct, R. Bilitzer’s anger with the reported hasidic flaunting of Tzom Gedaliah apparently caused him to exaggerate somewhat. In his defense of fasting on Tzom Gedaliah, R. Bilitzer states that what happened to the Jews after Gedaliah’s death “was like the destruction of the Temple.” Furthermore, it seems that the fast has more to do with Gedaliah the individual than R. Bilitzer is willing to acknowledge. I say this because some authorities have pointed to leniencies with regard to Tzom Gedaliah precisely because it is a pushed-off fast (i.e., it does not take place on the day of the event it commemorates). This shows the centrality of Gedaliah the individual and the importance of the day of his assassination to the fast. If the entire focus was on what befell the Jewish people after his death, the actual date of his death, and the resulting issue of a pushed-off fast, would not have any real significance. I cannot locate the source at present, but Gerson Cohen, chancellor of the Jewish Theological Seminary, had no liking for Tzom Gedaliah. He wondered why a fast was declared in memory of a man he called “a Quisling.” Yet if Gedaliah is to be regarded as a Quisling, does that make Jeremiah, who told the Jewish people to accept Babylonian rule, a “Tokyo Rose”? [36] Moshe Tzvi, “Ha-Tiferet Shlomo” me-Radomsk (Bnei Brak, 1989), p. 182. [37] Yehuda Leib Levin, Beit Kotzk (Jerusalem, 1959), vol. 2, p. 159. [38] See Pinhas Gliksman, Ir Lask ve-Hakhameha (Lodz, 1926), p. 43. [39] There are actually two such volumes. I am referring to the first one that appeared (it has no date), p. 32. [40] Nehar Mitzrayim (Jerusalem, 2007), Hilkhot Tefillin, no. 4 (p. 14). [41] The one exception to this generalization would be the congregants and followers of R. Haim Ovadia. As we have seen in this post, R. Ovadia claims that the fast days other than Yom Kippur and Tisha be-Av are not obligatory. Thus, his congregants and followers would not regard eating on these fast days as deviant. As far as I can tell, no other liberal Orthodox rabbis have adopted R. Ovadia’s position.

Tracing the history of eating milchigs on Shavuos

Tracing the history of eating milchigs on Shavuos by Eliezer Brodt In this post I would like to deal with tracing the early sources for the minhag of eating milchigs on Shavuos. A version of this article was printed last year in the Ami Magazine (# 119). This post contains a few corrections and additions to that version. A much more expanded version of this article will appear in Hebrew shortly (IY”H). Eating the vast array of customary dairy delicacies on Shavuos including, of course, cheesecake, is a minhag that very few people find very difficult. But what is the source of this minhag? This minhag goes back at least to the times of the Rishonim, and varied explanations for it also do. [1] That the minhag of milchigs on Shavuos was observed widely in recent history is very clear. For example, in an informative nineteenth-century Lithuanian memoir, the author describes the milk-based Yom Tov atmosphere: “And at home there was again roasting and baking namely, many butter cakes! On this Holiday you especially ate all milk and butter dishes. The traditional cheese blintzes with sour cream, a kind of flinsed, were essential… On the second day of Shavuos… a happy mood prevailed; we drank fine aromatic coffee and ate butter cakes and blintshikes.”[2] In Yeshivas Volozhin, after staying up the whole night, the whole yeshiva would take part in a milchig kiddush at the Netziv’s house.[3] We find the same thing in the Lomza Yeshiva; they had a kiddush after davening with cheesecakes and the like.[4] The question is, where did this minhag of eating milchigs on Shavuos come from? The Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch do not make any mention of it. In this article, I will trace some of the earliest known sources that we have for thisminhag and discuss some of the reasons that are given. This is not an attempt to cover all aspects of this rich minhag, I hope to return this in the future.[5] One of the earliest mentions of this minhag can be found in a Pesach drasha from the Rokeach (1165-1240), which was printed from a manuscript for the first time just a few years ago.[6] Another one of the earliest sources is found in the very interesting work Malmed Hatalmidim from Rav Yaakov Antoli. Rav Antoli was born around 1194 in Provence, in southern France. He married the daughter of Rav Shmuel Ibn Tibon, the famous translator of the Moreh Nevuchim into Hebrew. The Malmed Hatalmidim was only first printed in 1866, with the haskamos of many gedolim, but the manuscript form had been used before that by many Rishonim, most notably the Avudraham. Rav Antoli writes that the custom is to eat milk and honey on Shavuos. He explains that this is because Torah is compared to milk and honey. Since milk is a very important food, so too, the mitzvos of the Torah are food for the soul, he says.[7] Another early source for eating milchigs is found in the work Even Bochen from Rav Kalonymos ben Kalonymos (1286-1328)[8], where he describes milchig breads made with honey and formed into the shape of a ladder. (We’ll return to the ladder-shaped breads shortly). Yet another early source can be found in the works of Rav Aharon Hacohen Miluneil (died around 1330) in his early work Kol Bo and in his later work Orchos Chaim. He writes, like the Malmed Hatalmidim, that on Shavuos people have the custom to eat milk and honey because Torah is compared to milk and honey. Women also bake challos with four heads, he says, as a zecher to the lechem hapanim. He says that others dip matzahs left over from Pesach into the spice known as zefrin since it causes happiness.[9] Rav Avigdor Hatzorfoti (died 1275) brings a remez (hint) from the Torah for the minhag. The passuk about Shavuos says, “Ubyom habikurim bihakriyvchem mincha chadasha lashem beshivuaschem.” The beginning letters of the last three words spell out chalav, milk.[10] This minhag is also found in the following early sefarim: the minhagim of the Maharam Merutenberg (written by a talmid of his)[11], Terumas Hadeshen[12], Maharil[13], Rav Isaac Tirina (born around 1380)[14],Meshivas Nefesh from Rabbi Yochanon Luria (1382)[15], Rama[16], Seder Hayom (printed in 1599)[17], Yosef Ometz (1570-1637)[18], and the Shelah Hakodesh (1570-1635).[19] Aside from the reasons already mentioned, many additional reasons for this minhag have been given over the years. Recently, close to 150 reasons were collected by Rabbi Moshe Dinin in a small work called Kuntres Matamei Moshe. Here are a few reasons and some interesting points related to them. Rav Elyakyim Horowitz says that we eat milchigs because Dovid Hamelech died on Shavuos. The halacha is that when a king dies, all of the Jews have the status of an onen and are not permitted to eat meat.[20] This same reason can also be found in the work of Rabbi Shimon Falk.[21] Rav Avrohom Hershovitz brings the Mishna at the end of Avos, which says that one of the 48 ways the Torah is acquired is through not indulging oneself. Since meat is considered an indulgence, we eat milk products during the chag of Matan Torah as a reminder that this is the way to acquire Torah.[22] Rav Mordechai Leib Zaks points out that in the parsha of Bikurim it says that Hashem gave us the land of milk and honey. Therefore he suggests that the custom is to eatmilchigs on the Yom Habikkurim to give thanks to Hashem for giving us the land of milk and honey and as a reminder of the mitzvah of bikkurim, which only included the fruits of Eretz Yisrael, the land of milk and honey.[23] Rabbi Yeshuyah Singer in Zichron B’sefer (printed in 1900) writes an interesting reason which he had heard. The Torah was given on Shabbos. The meat they had prepared before learning the halachos of shechita was assur to eat. It is not permitted to shecht on Shabbos. Therefore Bnei Yisrael had to eat milchigs, as they could not eat the food that they had prepared beforehand.[24] The Mishna Berurah mentions a similar reason that he heard in the name of “gadol echad.” Immediately after Bnei Yisrael accepted the Torah, they were unable to eat anything but milchigs. The reason for that is because the preparation of kosher meat is very involved. A kosher knife and kosher utensils are necessary. Since this takes a long time, they just cooked milchigs.[25] Who is the “gadol echad” mentioned here? Rabbi Nachum Greenwald located this idea in the work Toldos Yitzchak, first printed in 1868. This idea is mentioned in the name of Rabbi Levi Yitzchak from Berditchev. It is interesting that the Chofetz Chaim did not say the name of the person he heard this idea from.[26] A similar idea can be found in the work Geulas Yisroel first printed in 1821. Rabbi Kapach says that the Jews in Yemen expressed wonder at those who ate just milchigs on Shavuos. They did not like the reason given (as we mentioned before) that the meat slaughtered prior to Matan Torah would be neveilah afterwards, because they argued that only the Erev Rav were unable to shecht before Matan Torah. The rest of the Jews, they claimed, wereshechting before Matan Torah, just as we know that the Gemara says that Avraham Avinu kept all the mitzvos of the Torah before they were given.[27] However this statement is not so simple, because even if they were shechting and doing mitzvos before it is heavily debated what that would be considered, since their status as Jews may have changed during Matan Torah. According to many it would follow that after Matan Torah they would need to kasher the utensils and shecht new animals.[28] Rav Yissachar Teichtal deals with a related issue. He asks that since the Torah was given on Shabbos and they couldn’t shecht and their prior shechita was not kosher, how did they fulfill the obligation of eating meat on Shabbos?[29] Rav Teichtal first mentions the answer of the Zichron Basefer quoted above, which is that they didn’t eat meat that Shabbos. However, Rav Teichtel disagrees. He has an interesting answer to explain how they did indeed have meat on this Shabbos. Basing himself on various sources, he says that they had meat created through the Sefer Yetzirah. The Gemara relates that there were those who were able to create an animal via theSefer Yetzirah; Rav Teichtal says that that was done here.[30] The Toldos Yitzchak, quoted above, from Reb Levi Yitzchak Berditichever, gives another answer. There is a concept in halacha called Hoiel v’ishtrei ishtrei, which means that if something was permitted at one time, it remains muttar. It follows that they were permitted to eat anything they had prepared beforehand and did not have to throw out their dishes. Then he says that even though it was permitted, the Yidden were stringent and didn’t eat the meat. Since they were accepting the Torah that day, they wanted to be machmir. A similar idea is found when Moshe Rabbeinu, as a baby, didn’t nurse from a non-Jew even though it was permissible. It appears that this idea is based on a concept found in numerous sources, called chinuch shanei. It means that the first time we do something, we do it in the best way possible, even if other ways are permitted. Moshe Rabbeinu could have been nursed from a non-Jew, but since he was the one who was going to get the Torah, he was kept from doing it. So too, here, theYidden were machmir by not eating what was entirely permissible.[31] Speaking of Moshe Rabbeinu, an original reason for this minhag is given by Rabbi Yitzchak Weiss, who says that Moshe Rabbeinu was found by the daughter of Pharaoh on Shavuos. Since they tried to give him milk from a non-Jew and he refused, we eat dairy to remind us of that.[32] Cheesecake on the clock

Rav Dunner, in a recent article on the topic, lists many gedolim who ate the milchig seudah at night, including the Chazon Ish, Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Yechezkel Abramsky, and others.[33] It is questionable whether or not there is an obligation to eat meat at night on Yom Tov.[34] In other sources, we see the opposite. There were people who specifically ate milchigs during the day—for example, the Volozhin and Lomza yeshivas, which I mentioned earlier, where there was a kiddush with cheesecake after davening.[35] This is also what the Darchei Teshuvah suggests one should do to avoid many different halachic issues.[36] There is much discussion in the poskim whether it is permitted to eat milchigs first during the day, and then wait and eat meat. There’s also discussion about how long to wait. Some wait an hour before eating meat. Other poskim deal with the question of whether there is an obligation tobentch after the milchig kiddush.[37] For example, the Knesses Hagedolah (1603-1673) writes that he ate milchigs and honey, then he benched, and after he waited an hour, he ate fleishigs.[38] However it’s pretty clear that the Magen Avrohom argues when he writes: ועבי”ד סי’ פ”ט דא”צ להפסיק בב”ה [בברכת המזון] אם אינו אוכל גבינה קשה (סי’ תצד:ו).[39] What’s interesting is that certain mekubalim did not eat milk the same day they ate meat products. Rabbi Eliyahu de Vidas, author of the Reishes Chochma (d. 1579), in his work Tosos Chaim writes that one should wait 24 hours(!) after eating meat before eating milk. According to this, it wouldn’t be possible to eat milk after meat on Shavuos![40] The Yosef Ometz quotes the Shelah, who says that he would wait 24 hours after meat to eat milk.[41] But later on (in siman 854), he says that people were lenient about this on Shavuos. Interestingly enough, the Tzror Hamor even says that one should not eat meat within 24 hours of eating milk, and vice versa. לפי קבלת קדמונינו בא לאסור בשר בחלב. ואמר לא תבשל. ולא אמר לא תאכל. לרמוז לנו כפי חכמי האמת כי אסור לאכול בשר ואחר כך חלב. וכן אסור לאכול חלב ואחר כך בשר. ואעפ”י שנתנו חכמים שיעורים בזה. כבר כתב רשב”י ז”ל כי כמו שאסור חלב אחר בשר. כך אסור לאכול בשר אחר חלב. ודינם שוה לענין השיעור שהוא עד שיתעכל המזון שבמיעיו. שהם כמו שש שעות שהוא זמן מסעודה לסעודה. כי הבישול האמור כאן על בישול האצטומכא הוא. בענין שלא יתבשלו הבשר והחלב באצטומכא בזמן אחד. ולפי שיש אצטומכא מאחרת העיכול. ליראי ה’ ולחושבי שמו אין לאכול גבינה ובשר ביום אחד. וכל שכן בשר וגבינה. וכן נוהגים המדקדקים במצות ואנשי מעשה. והטעם בזה לפי שאין ראוי לערב הכוחות אלו באלו. כח הדין בכח הרחמים. וכח הרחמים בכח הדין. כי הבשר הוא מדת הדין בסוד קץ כל בשר. כי מנפש ועד בשר יכלה הצר. והחלב הוא סוד הרחמים הגמורים המלבינים עונותיהם של ישראל. כאומרו כשלג ילבינו. והחטא הוא אדום בסוד הלעיטני נא מן האדום האדום הזה. ולכן יש להפרידם זה מזה כל אחד על כנו. ואת כל עורב למינו (צרור המור, משפטים, כג:יט). According to this there would be appear to be no way to eat both milk and meat on Shavuos. The Toras Chaim is also very concerned with this issue of eating meat after milk; he says not to eat milchigs on Shavuos.[42] However, other rabbanim were to the other extreme. The Rokeach writes that his great uncle used to eat cheese, then wash his mouth out and immediately eat meat.[43] There is also a talmid of the Terumas Hadeshen who writes in his work Leket Yosher that his rebbi did the same[44]. From honey to milk

It would appear that this minhag of eating milchigs ties in with another minhag of Shavuos and perhaps is derived from there.[45] When the talmid of the Maharam Merutenberg brings among the minhagim of the Maharam the minhag to eat milchigs on Shavuos, he brings it right after he brings another minhag: “Special cakes with pesukim on them are made for children as they begin to learn on Shavuos these are made to help them have an open heart [for learning].” There are numerous sources in Rishonim (such as Rokeach and Machzor Vitri) that on Shavuos when a boy begins to learn an elaborate ceremony is performed in which they eat from specially prepared cakes and dip their fingers in honey while saying certain pesukim.[46] This is done to help the boy’s mind open up and is a special segulah to help him remember what he learns. (Some sources do not mention that this was done on Shavuos; most do.) This ceremony was done on Shavuos because it is the day we received the Torah. Interestingly, we find sources for a few hundred years in the Rishonim that this minhag continued, at least in German circles. But it appears to have eventually been forgotten. The Shach cites the Rokeach as having mentioned the minhag but says that now it is not done.[47] Rabbi Dovid Ginsburg writes that he only found out about this minhag later on in life and had he known about it earlier he would have definitely done it for his children.[48] Rav Yaakov Emden writes that the reason that in earlier times the children excelled in their Jewish education as opposed to in his times was due to that they stopped doing this ceremony quoted in the Rishonim![48] Recently this minhag has been revived as part of the upsherin ceremony. Be that as it may, it is possible that this minhag of eating honey and sweets on Shavuos actually led to the minhag of eating of milchigs, because honey has always been associated with milchigs. As mentioned earlier, some made special milchig breads in the shapes of ladders. In the work Even Bochen from Rav Kalonymos ben Kalonymos we find an explanation, that the gematria of sulam (ladder) is Sinai. The Yosef Ometz and others bring different reasons connecting a ladder and Shavuos. [49] Professor Daniel Sperber suggested that the reason why the bread is shaped in the form of a ladder is that it ties in to the ceremonies for children who begin learning. To get the children to ask what is going on we make the breads in an interesting shape, similar to our methods of getting them to ask at the Pesach seder.[50]

[1] There are many collections of material on this issue see for example Rabbi Pinchas Schwartz, Minchas Chadasah, pp. 38-44; Rabbi S. Deblitski, Kuntres Hamoyadim, pp. 37-40; Kovet Eitz Chaim (Bobov) 6 (2008) pp. 239-242; an excellent collection of material in Pardes Eliezer, pp. 227-316; Rabbi Freund, Moadyim Lisimcha 6, pp. 490-505 ; Rabbi Yitzchack Tessler, Pininei Minhag, pp. 292-319; Rabbi Oberlander, Kovetz Or Yisroel, 32:104-120 and later updated in his Minhag Avosenu Beyadneu. See also Yehudah Avidah in his work on Yiddish foods, Yiddishe Macholim, pp. 43-44; M. Kosover, Yiddishe Macholim, p. 75, 77, 98. [2] Pauline Wengeroff, Memoirs of a Grandmother, 2010, p.150. [3] Reshumot 1, p. 340. [4] See Pirkei Zichronos, (2004) p. 359 [5] I hope to return to many other aspects of the minhag in the near future. [6] Drasha Lepesach, ed. Simcha Emanuel (2006), p. 39, 110. See the important comment on this from my friend M. M. Honig in Pininei Minhag, p. 292. [7] Malmed Hatalmdim, p. 121b. I hope to return to this work in a future article; for now see my article in Yeshurun, 24 (2011), p. 457. [8] Even Bochen, p. 34. Mahratz Chiyos in his Kol Sifrei (p. 236) quotes this as an early source for eating milchigs. Both Matai Moshe (siman 692) and Mekor Chaim quote this work when talking about eating milchigs on Shavuos. On Rav Kalonymus ben Kalonymus much has been written already see: Y. Zinberg, Toldos Safrus Yisroel, vol. 1, pp. 411-427; Uberto Cassuto in the intro of the facsimile edition of Mesechtas Purim printed by A. Haberman in 1978; A. Haberman, Toldos Hapiyut Ve-hashira, vol. 2, pp. 142-149; A. Haberman Iyunim Bshira Ubpyuit, pg 162-179; C. Shirman,Toldos Ha-shira Haivirit Be-sefard, pp. 514-541. [9 Orchos Chaim, p. 78a, Kol Bo, siman 52. Most are not aware that this work was authored by the same person. There were actually those that thought the Kol Bo was authored by a woman; see my Bein Kesseh L’essur (2010) p. 143. [10] See Rav Avigdor Hatzorfoti, p. 478 See his Pirush Rav Avigdor Cohen Tzedek printed in the Toras Chaim edition of Megillas Rus, 2011, p. 53. On Rav Avigdor Hatzorfoti see Simcha Emanuel, Shivrei Luchos, pp. 173-181; E. Kanarfogel,Peering through the Lattices, pp. 107-109. [11] Minhaghim of Maharham, p. 30. [12] Leket Yosher, p. 103 [13] Minhaghim p. 85 [14] Sefer Minhaghim, Reb Isaac Tirina (2000) p. 67-68. To be more exact thisminhag is in the section which is called Hagahos haminhagim. It is unclear exactly who the author is of that section but it assumed to have been written rather early on. On all of this, see S. Spitzer in his introduction to this edition pp. 17-18. [15] Meshivas Nefesh, p. 185. On the dating of this work see Rabbi Yakov Stahl, Deutsche 84, (2010) p. 6. [16] See Igros Moshe OC 1:160. On this topic see this excellent article by my friend Rabbi Yehudah Spitz here. [17] Seder Hayom Shavuos p.78 [18] Siman 854 [19] Shelah, Mesechtas Shavuos, p. 30a. [20] Zichron Yerushlayim, p. 153. In Reshumot 1, p. 350 we find that some made a special seudah because of this and finished Sefer Tehillim. [21] Shut Shem Mishomon, OC, 2:4, p.15. [22] R. Avraham Eliezer Hershkowitz, Otzar Kol Minhaghei Yeshrun (St. Louis, 1918),p. 201 [23]Zemanim, (1951) p. 53 See also his Mili Demordechai, p. 125. For another connection between bikkurim and eating milchigs see Rabbi Shlomo Schick, Seder Minhaghim 1 (1880)pp. 83b-84a. [24] Zichron Besefer, p. 122. See Emes Leyakov (Shulchan Aruch) p. 215 where Rav Yaakov suggests this reason himself and adds some points. [25] Mishna Berurah 494:12. See also Rav Tzvi Farber, Sefer Moadyim, p. 26 (and see there for some other reasons). See also Rabbi Aron Misnik,Minchas Ahron, pp. 102-106; Pardes Eliezer, pp. 279-282. [26] The Chofetz Chaim did not have a problem quoting chassidic sources; he quotes the Shulchan Aruch Harav numerous times. On the Chofetz Chaim and chassidus see what I wrote in the article “Censorship in the Sefer Chofetz Chaim,” here. [27] Halichos Teiman, p. 31. See also Keser Shem Tov, 4 p. 16 who has a similar issue. [28] The status of the Yidden before Matan Torah and the mitzvos performed then has been discussed in numerous works I hope to return to this topic at a later date. See also Rabbi Oberlander (above, note 1) p. 632- 633. [29] Shut Mishnat Sachir, siman 136. [30] Much has been written on how one creates something based on the Sefer Yetzirah and if one can use what has been created through such a method for a mitzvah or the like. I hope to return to this topic at a future date. [31] A subject I hope to return to in the future. [32] Elef Kesav, 1, p. 64. [33] Kovet Eitz Chaim (Bobov) 6 (2008) p. 240 [34] See Eitz Chaim Ibid. See Darchei Tesuvah, 89:19. [35] See Pirkei Zicronos, (2004) p. 359. [36] Darchei Tesuvah, 89:19. [37] See Darchei Tesuvah, 89:14; Dershot Mishnat Sachir, 2, pp. 347-348. [38] Shiurei Kness hagedolah, 494. See Shut Sich Yitzchack, 234. On this topic see this excellent article by my friend Rabbi Yehudah Spitz here. [39] I will deal with this Magen Avrhom at great length in the near future B”n. [40] See Tosas Chaim, 2008 p. 79. In the back of this edition there is a lengthy Peirush Ir Hachaim, pp. 245- 249 and for in-depth discussion of this topic see the Pardes Eliezer pp. 233- 238. I will deal with this at greater length in the near future B”n. [41] See Yosef Ometz, siman 137. [42] Toras Chaim, Chullin 83a. However it is worth pointing out that the Toras Chaim in Bava Metzia 86b, says that the reason for eating milchigs on Shavuos is to show the malachim that we are careful about basar b’cholov and that when we eat milk we are careful to do everything halacha says to do before we eat meat. [43] See Drasha of the Rokeach, p. 39 [44] Leket Yosher, p. 103 [45] This idea was suggested by my friend M.M. Honig. Rabbi Oberlander (above, note 1) also suggests this point. D. Sperber in his Minhagei Yisroel 3, p. 139 also connects the two. [46] See my article on this in Yerushacheinu, 5 (2011) pp. 337-360 especially pp. 344-347. [47] Shach, 245:8. [48] See my article in Yerushacheinu (ibid), p. 347 note 65. [49] Migdol Oz, p. 32. [50] Others have different shapes and reasons; see Rav Yehoshua Falk, Choshevi Machsvos p. 152. See also M. Gidman , Hatorah Vehachaim 3, 108; H. Pollack, Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands (1648-1806), p. 102, 277 [51] Minhagei Yisroel 3, p. 139.

Mishloach Manot of Rabbis and Scholars

In honor of Purim, and in memory of Tovia Preschel, the Seforim Blog is happy to present the following. Mishloach Manot of Rabbis and Scholars By Tovia Preschel

Rabbis, scholars and writers used to send on Purim—in addition to the traditionalMishloah Manot—spiritual food to their dear ones: a song, a study, even an entire book, they had written. In this article only a few of such “manot” (“portions”, “gifts”) can be mentioned. Rabbi Shlomo Alkabetz, the author of Lekha Dodi—wrote a commentary on the Book of Esther and sent it as a Purim present to his future father-in-law. In the introduction to the commentary, he tells us how he came to write it. It was in 1529, with the approach of Purim, the season for sending gifts, he felt extremely bad, for he did not know what present he could give to Yitzchak HaKohen, his future father-in-law, the father of his bride. Finally he decided to write a commentary on the Book of Esther and send it to R. Yitzchak. He was sure that he would enjoy the present, for the man was a lover of Torah. The commentary was, indeed, very well received by the entire family. Alkabetz’future brother-in-law Yosef HaKohen, even wrote a poem in its honor. The commentary which the author called Manot HaLevi (“Gifts of the Levite”—Alkabetz was a Levite), was first printed in Venice in 1585. Rabbi Moshe Isserles the great Halakhic authority of Ashkenazi Jewry served as rabbi and Rosh Yeshiva in Cracow. In 1556 he was forced to leave Cracow because a plague ravaged the city. He moved temporarily to Szydlowiec. Food was scarce and Purim could not be celebrated with “feasting and gladness.” However, Rabbi Isserles sought delight and joy by immersing himself in the study of the Book of Esther. He wrote a commentary on the Megillah and sent it as a Purim present to his father, who was one of the leaders of Cracow’s Jewish community. The commentary which was named by Rabbi Isserles Mahir Yayin, was first printed in Cremona, Italy, in 1559. On Purim of the year 1629, Rabbi Moses Samson Bachrach who served as rabbi in Worms and in other communities, wrote a song for the welcoming of the Sabbath. He composed it for his wife, “that she might play it on an instrument.” The song was published in the periodical Shomer Zion HaNeeman in the year 5619 (1858-1859). R. Yekuthiel (Gordon) ben R. Yehuda Leib of Vilna left his native country in order to study medicine in Padua, Italy. During his stay there he became a disciple of R. Moshe Chaim Luzzatto. After his return to Poland he resided in Grodno and Brest Litovsk. On the occasion of Purim he sent to R. Shlomo Zalman Segal Sinzheim, a communal leader, a poem telling the story of Esther. The initial letters of the words of each line of the poem form the word Megilla (in the first line, the initial letters are read from right to left; in the second line they should be read backwards from left to right; in the third line—again from right to left; in the fourth—from left to right; and so on). The poem was printed by L. Schlossberg in Vienna in 1879. 1

1 Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi, famous 16th century rabbi who served in various communities, dedicated his commentary on the Book of Esther, called Yosef Lekah, to Don Joseph Nassi, but we do not know whether he actually sent him a copy as a gift for Purim. משלוח מנות של מחברים מאת טוביה פרשל “משלוח מנות של מחברים”, בשם זה פירסמתי ב”הדואר” (ח’ אדר תשל”א) מאמר על יצירות ספרותיות שמחבריהן שלחו אותן מנה לפורים לרעיהם. יורשה לי היום, לרגל חג הפורים הבא עלינו, לציין עוד כמה “מנות שבכתב”. הרב אליהו פרץ, שהיה רב באדריאנופל במאה השמונה-עשרה, כתב שירים לעת- מצוא. בפורים שלח לידידו ר’ משה דאנון שיר כמנה לחג: האין כלבבי תשורה להביא יהא נא כתבי למשה למנה יכופל בטעם כמו אז להעם יטועם ויונעם למשה למנא ומנות לחכו יתעב כדרכו מתוקות בערכו, למשה למה נא. השיר נדפס על-ידי אברהם דאנון בספרו “תולדות בני אברהם” (פרסבורג תרמ”ז, עמ’ 123).[1] דוד כהן צדק, בעודו ילד, שלח לאביו הסופר יוסף כהן צדק כמנה לפורים שיר בשם “שלום אסתר”. “הנני שולח בזה את פטר רחם עטי לכהן צדק…לא לכבודי, אך לכבוד בית אבא, הנני מכבדך היום במנחתי הדלה הזאת במקום משלוח מנות…” כתב במכתב שליווה את השיר. אביו שלח באותו יום, יום הפורים, את השיר יחד עם “אגרת פורים”, פיליטון על המתרחש בעולם המדיניות, לבן אחותו—וגם הדפיס שניהם, את “אגרת פורים” ואת השיר “שלום אסתר” בעתונו “המבשר” (י”ח אדר ב, תרכ”ב). לחג הפורים תרל”ו שלח א. ב. שוויצר מאמר על המתימטיקאי והממציא, ר’ אברהם שטרן עם תמונה משלו, אותה מצא בכתב, עת רוסי ישן, לחיים זליג סלונימסקי, שהיה חתנו של שטרן. הוא שלח אלה לחז”ס כמנחת-חג שיוכל “לתתה למנה גם לפני קוראי “הצפירה”. ואמנם הדפיס סלונימסקי את המאמר עם התמונה בעתונו (י”ב אדר) תחת הכותרת “משלוח מנות לפורים”.[2] בגליון האחרון של “אור המזרח” (תשרי-טבת תשל”ד) פורסמו מכתב-יד שנשרד מן השואה, חידושי תורה ששלח ר’ ישראל פנחס פיוטרקובסקי, אברך חסידי מלודז’, בשנת תרצ”ה, משלוח מנות לחותנו. לחידושי תורה הקדים שיר בן שלושה בתים, בו הוא אומר בין היתר: אלה הכינו מרקחות ומגדנות ואלה בשר צלי אש שמו באגנות ואנוכי עשות במתכונתם ידי קצרה לאלה יין ושמן בטנים ושקדים בכלי כסף צרוף מזוקק שבעתיים. ואני שיקויי מי לחץ ולחמי עצבה… על כן הוא שולח לחותנו משלוח מנות מפירות לימודו.[3]

[1] אברהם דאנון מספר בספרו כי במאה הי”ח היו בתוגרמה שכתבו שירי פורים “ותחת כי ישלח משורר לרעהו ממתקים ומגדנות…יקום מניו בפרי עטו ובניב שפתיו ובזמירות יריע לו”. בסוף “אגרת פורים” הנזכרת לקמן כותב יוסף כהן צדק לבן אחותו כי אין לו זמן “לשיר לכבודך היום, יום בו יצאו כל בעלי השיר בשירם ובזמרם”, מכאן, שגם במזרח-אירופה היו, במאה הי”ט משכילים שכתבו ביום הפורים שירים לכבוד רעיהם. במאמרי הקודם הזכרתי שירים שמיכ”ל ויל”ג שלחו לידידים “משלוח מנות”. בין שירי רבי”ל נמצא מכתב שכתב אותו לכבוד א. ל. מנדלשטם בפורים תר”ח (“אשכול הסופר”, וארשה תר”ס, עמ’ 56-57). יתכן ששלח לו אותו מנחה לחג. [2] דברי הכותב כי מאמרו הוא הראשון על שטרן בספרות העברית אינם מדוייקים. עוד בשנת תרכ”ד הופיע ב”הנשר” (ה’ וי”ג סיון) מאמר על שטרן מאת אלכסנדר חיים שור מדרהוביץ. באותו גליון של “הצפירה” בא גם מסופרו באודיסה אלימלך ווקסלר (“איש נעמי”) מאמר “משלוח מנות” לקוראי העתון, ותוכנו דרשה לפורים של הרב ד”ר שוואבכר, שהיה רב בית-הכנסת של אנשי ברודי באודיסה. ברם, כפי שציינתי כבר במאמרי הראשון, הנני מביא רק יצורות שנשלחו מנות לחג לאנשים מסויימים, להוציא מן הכלל כאלה שמתחילה הוגשו מנחה לכלל ציבור הקוראים. [3] ב”בצרון” (שבט-אדר תשל”ג) פירסם א. ר. מלאכי, מתוך ארכיון ייוו”א בניו-יורק, אגרת-ברכה מליצית ששלח איש לרעהו, שהיה מלפנים גם רבו, “משלוח מנות” לפורים.

TU BISHVAT: TREE AND THOU

TU BISHVAT: TREE AND THOU by Alan Zelenetz Rabbi Alan Zelenetz, M.Phil. has been professionally involved in Jewish education, academia, and independent scholarship for more than twenty-five years, including leadership positions as principal of Torah and General Studies of Yeshivah of Flatbush Middle Division and Director of Curriculum Development of Teachers College Innovations, Columbia University.

DYNAMIC GREEN From their cosmic vantage point in outer space, NASA satellites orbiting our planet beam down real-time streaming video of Earth’s surface. They reveal that 75% of our world is “a relatively unchanging ocean of blue,” the remaining 25% “a dynamic green” terra firma, confirming the dominance of vegetation and the fecundity of plant life on dry land. It’s not difficult for us to re-imagine NASA’s spectacular photographs as screenshots capturing the magnificence of the third day of Creation described in Sefer Bereishit, the Book of Genesis – a gathering of waters followed by growing grass and the flourishing of flowers and trees. NASA’s cutting edge science and technology provide a God’s-eye view of the plant world unique to our modern day and age, but the variety and beauty of Earth’s species of flora has been the subject of literary poets for millennia. From Ovid of Ancient Rome, who sings of elms and oaks and laurel trees transformed, to the 18th century Scottish lyricist Robert Burns, whose “O my Love’s like a red, red rose” remains, perhaps, the best known simile in verse, the botanical side of nature has forever held fascination for us humans who share our globe and gardens with the kingdom of plants. In his fantasy epic, Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien goes so far as to envision the Ents, a noble race of walking, talking trees, while contemporary American poet Louise Glück personifies a real flower, “The Red Poppy,” which speaks to us in a floral first person, “I have / a lord in heaven/ called the sun, and open / for him, showing him / the fire of my own heart…” Though talking trees are nothing if not a prime example of poetic license, there are many scientists today who embrace the metaphor in their practice. In a recent New Yorker essay, “The Intelligent Plant,” journalist Michael Pollan reports the latest research in plant biology. He describes attempts to prove (not without controversy and critics) that plants are capable of cognition and communication, and he includes as an example a leaf’s ability “to signal other leaves to mount a defense” against impending infestation by insects. Astonishing as is the scientific hypothesis of “thinking” plants, emotionally stirring as is the imagery of poets, they ought to be comfortably familiar to us as Jews, who have been sensitive to our seed-bearing cohabitants on earth literally since the beginning of traditional Jewish time. FIRST PLANT YOUR SAPLING Had there been an ancient Green Party, the Torah would have been its platform. The very first pages of the Jewish Bible introduce humankind at its origin, woman and man implanted with divine purpose in the Garden of Eden. Commenting on this edenic scene, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch intuits God’s purpose: the destiny of humankind and the earth is Paradise. By working the earth, human beings raise “its purely physical nature into playing a part in the…moral purposes of the world…we are shown what we should be, how we should live, how this world of ours would form a paradise…” Several Books later, Sefer Devarim offers one of the most celebrated examples of the Written Law’s ethical and ecological sensitivity, “Lo tashchit…do not destroy [fruit-bearing] trees by wielding an ax against them, for from them you will eat, do not cut them down.” Based on this proscription, Judaism derives an overriding moral principle known as bal tashchit, prohibiting any random destruction or wanton waste in all walks of life. An Aggadic passage in the Oral Law carries Judaism’s recognition of the sanctity of plant life on Earth to an extraordinary extreme: Rabbi Yochanan used to say, “If you are about to plant a sapling and a cry goes out, ‘Come, hurry, theMoshiach is here!’, be certain first to plant your sapling, then go and greet the Messiah.” Yes, our Jewish love affair with fruit, flower, and foliage has, indeed, been an eternal one. We can already discern the strains of a love song in Talmudic times when the Sages teach us how to bless the trees “who” share our lives, “Tree, O tree, with what should I bless you? Your fruit is already sweet…Your shade is plentiful… May it be G‑d’s will that all the trees planted from your seeds should be like you . . .” And it continues in our own day and age, when Yossi Klein Halevi reminds us – in describing a young Israeli kibbutznik’s attempt to preserve a tactile encounter with the fruit he harvests by machine – “If you don’t say good morning to the tree, he had learned from the old- timers, the tree won’t say happy new year to you.” WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT TU BISHVAT To speak of plant life and Judaism is to speak, of course, of Tu Bishvat, the day marked in the Mishnah and on the Jewish calendar as our New Year of Trees. This designation carries specific halachic obligations regarding agricultural tithes, both in the ancient and contemporary lands of Israel. But, true to our theme, we keep here to the celebratory and symbolic aspects of the holiday. In his Ziv ha’Minhagim, Rabbi Yehudah Dov Zinger paints a scene of ”the bare fruit tree in the dead of winter showing little sign of vitality; nonetheless, as its New Year of 15 Shevat approaches, life begins to course through its roots once again, it revives with the flowing sap.” And Eliyahu Kitov, in Sefer ha’Toda’ah, explains why the fifteenth of Shevat is considered a rosh ha’Shanah and celebrated, “…because [Tu Bishvat] has an aspect of praise of the land, as this is the time that the soil renews its vigor and the fruits are full and praiseworthy, which is what the land is known for…Thus, the day the land renews itself is, indeed, a day of great joy for all of Israel.”

To reiterate, in Jewish thought and practice a tree is no simple metaphor. The trees of Tu Bishvat are at the essence of our understanding the interrelatedness of God’s world. The Torah, in fact makes the comparison over and over. In both Tehillim and in the Talmud we find fruit trees and cedars breaking into songful praise of God. And the prophet Isaiah declares explicitly, “For as the days of a tree shall be the days of my people.” Indeed, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the last Lubavitcher Rebbe, pointedly asks us to “reflect on the lessons we can derive from our affinity with our botanical analogue.” The Rebbe goes on to suggest that, just as a tree’s primary components are its roots, trunk, branches, leaves, and fruit, so, too, people’s spiritual lives consist of the same: “The roots represent faith, our source of nurture and perseverance. The trunk, branches and leaves are the body of our spiritual lives – our intellectual, emotional and practical achievements. The fruit is our power of spiritual procreation – the power to influence others, to plant a seed in a fellow human being and see it sprout, grow and bear fruit.” A WALK WITH RAV KOOK This identification of human being and tree is the foundation of the moral dimension of Tu Bishvat. It is the living Torah teaching us Chesed, to feel compassion for all living things, and it is embodied in a living example recounted in the memoirs of Reb Aryeh Levin, who recalls an early afternoon stroll with Rav Kook in the fields of Jaffa: “On the way, I plucked some branch or flower. Our great master was taken aback; and then he told me gently, ‘Believe me: In all my days I have taken care never to pluck a blade of grass or a flower needlessly, when it had the ability to grow or blossom. You know the teaching of the Sages that there is not a single blade of grass below, here on Earth, which does not have a heavenly force (or angel) above telling it, Grow! Every sprout and leaf of grass says something, conveys some meaning… Every creature utters its song…’ ”

In I And Thou, philosopher Martin Buber explores how, as human beings, we come to understand the world by interacting with the others, the objects, and the creatures all around us. Buber posits a higher level of human existence that depends upon a series of “I/Thou” relationships, the most exalted of which is with the Divine, “One who truly meets the world goes out also to God.” Not surprisingly, Buber turns to a tree to help define his idea of an “I/Thou” relationship, asserting that “…as I contemplate the tree I am drawn into a relation, and the tree ceases to be an It…Whatever belongs to the tree is included…its conversation with the elements and its conversation with the stars…I encounter…the tree itself.” A TREE’S EMBRACE In her book Celebrate!, author Lesli Koppelman Ross catalogues many Jewish holiday practices and customs throughout history and from around the globe. Kabbalists early on created a Tu Bishvat seder that has been perpetuated in many fruits and many forms, ranging from the mystic to the ecological to the feminist, down to our own day. In some Mediterranean Jewish communities on Tu Bishvat “women would embrace trees at night, praying for fertility and many children. In Salonica, it was believed that the trees themselves embrace on Tu Bishvat, and anyone seeing them do so would have his/her wish fulfilled.” And so we seem to circle back, within a Jewish frame of reference now, to Tolkien’s Ents and Ovid’s trees and transformations. The French linguist Émile Benveniste made the observation that “ ‘personal pronouns’ are never missing from among the signs of a language, no matter what its type, epoch, or region may be. A language without expression of person cannot be imagined.” Poet Maureen N. McClane offers her own riff on Benveniste’s thought, “To command you, to address you, I must think you. ’I’ must think ‘you. And yet even as I think you I interfuse you with my own nature…” On Tu Bishvat, “I” must think “Tree,” “Tree” must think “Thou.” We may even, in homage to Benveniste, pun on the “Tu” in Tu Bishvat and think of it as “tu,” the French second person pronoun of affection and familiarity, reminding us that You, the trees of Shevat, and we, the people of this planet, share earthly and earthy roots from which we draw succor of body, mind, and spirit. In our oneness we join voices in celebration of our Creator.

R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Kitniyot, R. Judah Mintz, and More

R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin, Kitniyot, R. Judah Mintz, and More Marc B. Shapiro 1. The last post dealt with R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin and I pick up with him here. Before moving forward, I have to thank R. Moshe Maimon who sent me a PDF of the essay attributed to R. Zevin which I discussed in the last post. It comes from the hebrewbooks.org hard drive that was released some time ago.[1] You can see it here. I also thank R. Eliezer Brodt who pointed out that both R. Zvi Pesah Frank and R. Eliezer Waldenberg deal with the essay.[2] One of the most famous examples of haredi censorship relates to R. Zevin. In his classic Ha-Moadim ba-Halakhah, in the section “Ha-Tzomot”, end of ch. 5 (p. 442 in the most recent edition), in discussing if one still needs to do keriah upon seeing the destroyed cities of Judea, R. Zevin writes: מסתבר, שעם שיחרורן של ערי יהודה משלטון נכרים והקמת מדינת ישראל (אשרינו שזכינו לכך!) בטל דין הקריעה על אותן הערים. This is not an extreme Zionist statement. It is simply an expression of happiness that the State of Israel came into being. I have no doubt that the typical haredi agrees that this was a good thing (and see in particular the comments of R. Moshe Feinstein quoted later in this post). However, even this very “pareve” statement was too much for Artscroll. Here is how Artscroll translated this passage The( Festivals in Halachah, vol. 2, p. 294): It could be argued that since the liberation of the cities of the Judean hills from gentile rule, the law of rending the garment for these cities may no longer be in force.

,מסתבר The first thing to notice is that while R. Zevin wrote which must be translated as “it is reasonable”, “it makes sense”, or something similar, Artscroll has turned this into a tentative argument (“it could be argued”). Yet this is not what R. Zevin is saying. “It could be argued” implies that R. shows מסתבר Zevin is on the fence on this matter, while clearly what his view is.[3] However, the really egregious action of Artscroll comes later in this sentence where Artscroll deletes mention of the establishment of the State of Israel and, most significantly, !אשרנו שזכינו לכך :R. Zevin’s feeling of joy at this event I have learnt that the men who run Artscroll did not originally know about the censorship just mentioned. They never authorized any distortion of the translation and were surprised to find out what had been done. Yet once learning what had happened, they never took any steps to correct the translation and even defended the alterations. To this day, the matter has not been rectified. It is one thing if in its own works Artscroll tolerates or even encourages distortions, but to take the work of someone else, especially a great Torah scholar, and “correct” it so as to bring it into line with haredi “Daas Torah” is unforgivable. Furthermore, it is a violation of a sacred trust which every translator should be cognizant of. I also wonder if there isn’t a real issue of geneivah involved. If you sell a book supposed to be a translation, and you alter the translation, it is not merely a matter of geneivat da’at but real thievery, since you are selling a product that is not authentic.[4] When this matter was raised in Tradition by Jack Feinholtz, Rabbis Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz replied by quoting one of the translators, Meir Holder:[5] Mr. Holder has, for many years, maintained the closest contact with Rav Zevin’s family and has been a prime force in the dissemination of this great Tzaddik’s writings, in both Hebrew and English. It is unthinkable that he would tolerate or engage in any attempt to misrepresent Rav Zevin’s thoughts. . . . According to Mr. Holder, the lines which Mr. Feinholtz quotes were added to the edition published just a few months after the State of Israel was founded, a time when Rabbi Zevin and others still held high hopes for the spiritual impact of the State upon the lives of those Jews living there. As time went on, Rabbi Zevin became disappointed and, in the opinion of the members of his own family, his final Halachic opinion with regard to the law of rending garments on seeing the Judean hills is more accurately reflected in the Artscroll translation than in the version of the passage cited by Mr. Feinholtz. There is a good deal of falsehood here. To begin with, other than Shemirat Shabbat ke-Hilkhatah, I think Ha-Moadim ba- Halakhah has been reprinted more times than any other modern halakhic text. Neither R. Zevin nor his family ever made any changes to the work. So who are these mysterious family members that Mr. Holder consulted with? R. Nahum Zevin, the one grandson of R. Zevin who is a haredi rabbi, is completely honest in his descriptions of his grandfather’s strong Zionist feelings.[6] R. Nahum tells anyone who asks that the change in the English translation was done without his (or anyone else in the family’s) knowledge or approval. He completely rejects the attempts to distort his grandfather’s legacy, as his grandfather never moved from his Zionist outlook. Thus, in addition to what has already been noted, the distortion of R. Zevin’s words must be seen as a betrayal of the family’s trust. (See also the second to last paragraph of the Hebrew article included in this post.) More offensive than Artscroll’s distortion of R. Zevin’s halakhic opinion is the omission of his words of thanks for the creation of the State, an omission that goes unmentioned in the letter of Scherman and Zlotowitz. In a typical debating tactic, they offer a response that allows them to pretend that the only issue being discussed is R. Zevin’s halakhic view of rending garments rather than the deletion of his comments about the State of Israel. (Regarding the first matter, does this really have anything to do with Zionism? Is there anyone today, even among the non-Zionist haredim, who rends his garment upon seeing the cities of Judea?[7] Even when it comes to mekom ha-mikdash it seems that for many the practice of keriah has fallen by the wayside, and a number of people have written to justify this. And while I am on the topic, is there any halakhic justification for people not to do keriah when they see places like Bethlehem that have been returned to Arab rule?[8]) Before going further, let me present a short article in Hebrew written by a friend of mine that also details Artscroll’s fraudulence in this matter. בשו”ת אגרות משה או”ח ח”ה סימן לז כתב, וז”ל: בענין חיובים דקריעה על ראיית ירושלים וראיית מקום המקדש, ודאי הוא חיוב, כמפורש בברייתא דמו”ק דף כ”ו ע”א. וגם על ערי יהודה איתא שם דקורע, ואיפסק כן ברמב”ם פ”ט מאבל ה”ב, ויותר מפורט בסוף פ”ה דתעניות. ובטור וש”ע סימן מיוחד באו”ח סימן תקס”א, וגם ביו”ד סוף סימן ש”מ . . . . [אבל] עתה שבחסדי השם יתברך אין מושלים האומות על ערי יהודה ועל ירושלים, והם גם מיושבים, הוא טעם גדול שלא לקרוע, אף שעדיין לא באה הגאולה ע”י מלך המשיח ואנו מתפחדים מהאומות, אין , לקרועדהא הקרא שלמדים משם שצריך לקרוע על ערי יהודה . . . ויבואו אנשים משכם משלו ומשמרון שמנים איש מגלחי זקן וקרעי בגדים וגו’, הרי באו אחר שנחרבו ממש, שאין ללמוד מזה אפילו ליום אחד קודם החורבן, אף שהיה ידוע על ידי ירמיהו הנביא ועוד כי יהיה החורבן. כלו שכן עתה שמקווים אנחנו שמלך המשיח יבוא בקרובכשיהיו כל ערי ישראל על מכונם, שאין צורך לקרוע. אבל כשרואה מקום המקדש שעדיין הוא בחורבנו, ולא שייך שיבנה אלא על ידי מלך , המשיחצריך לקרוע בפשיטות. וכשיבוא מלך המשיח במהרה בימינו, אף אם נימא שיהיה קצת זמן עד שיבנה, יורנו מלך המשיח וסנהדרין איך לעשות עכ”ל.

וכ”כ הגאון ר’ שלמה יוסף זווין זצ”ל בספרו “המועדים בהלכה” בפרק חמישי של חלק “הצומות” (במהדורת תשמ”ג – עמוד תמב), שגם טרם מלחמת ששת הימים “מסתבר שעם שיחרורן של ערי יהודה משלטון נכרים והקמת מדינת ישראל (אשרינו שזכינו לכך!) בטל דין הקריעה על אותן הערים”. עכ”ל. אמנם בתירגום “המועדים בהלכה” לאנגלית שנעשה בחסות הוצאת “ארטסקרול-מסורה” חלק שני (הוצאת “מסורה” תשמ”ב), עמוד 294, עשו המו”ל שני שינויים לקטע זה: (א) במקום “מסתבר” כתבו “יש מקום לטעון”; (ב) השמיטו מ”ש הרב זוין: “והקמת מדינת ישראל (אשרינו שזכינו לכך!)”. וכבר עוררו על שינויים אלו במכ”ע “טראדישען” ה’תשמ”ז-ח (במדור ‘מכתבי הקוראים’) – ראה מ”ש מר ג’ק פיינהאלץ (טראדישען 22:4, עמוד 120).

העורכים הכלליים של ספרי “ארטסקרול” (הרבנים מאיר זלאטאוויץ ונתן שרמן שיחיו) התייחסו לטענת מר פיינהאלץ במכתב למערכת “טראדישען” [שנדפס ב”טראדישען” שם]. במכתב זה הצדיקו את השינויים האמורים, אשר לפי דבריהם נעשו בשיתוף פעולה עם מר מאיר הולדר ז”ל, (בעל בית הדפוס “הלל” בירושלים עיה”ק, שעמד בראש מלאכת התירגום, ואשר הי’ שותף לארטסקרול בההו”ל של ספרי הרב זוין באנגלית), על יסוד מסורה בע”פ שקיבל הלה ממשפחת הרב זוין. לפי מסורה זו, סיגנון השורות המופיעות ב”המועדים בהלכה” בלה”ק (עד עצם היום הזה) ע”ד ביטול דין קריעה על ערי יהודה אינן מתאימות לסוף דעתו של הרב זוין. שורות אלו ניתוספו ע”י הרב זוין במהדורת הספר שי”ל כמה חדשים לאחרי התייסדות מדינת ישראל, נכתבו בתקופה שהיו, להרב זוין (ולאחרים כמותו), תקוות גדולות לעתידה של המדינה ולהשפעתה על החיים הרוחניים של הגרים בארץ ישראל. ברבות הזמן בטלו סיכויים אלו, אז התאכזב הרב זוין וחזר בו ממ”ש ב”המועדים בהלכה” הנ”ל. עכת”ד מסורת מר הולדר.

הרבנים שרמן וזלאטאוויץ טוענים שאין להעלות על הדעת שמר הולדר, שהי’ [לפי דבריהם] מידידי בית הרב זוין ואיש רב פעלים בהפצת “כתבי הצדיק הזה” [=הגרש”י זוין] זצ”ל, הי’ חשוד על נתינת יד למזייפים. עאכו”כ שלא הי’ עושה בעצמו שום שינוי ב”המועדים בהלכה” שאינו בהתאם גמור ל”מחשבת הרב זוין”. ע”פ שנים עדים אלו (הרבנים שרמן וזלאטאוויץ) הסיגנון המופיע ב”המועדים בהלכה” מהדורת ארטסקרול משקף ביתר דייקנות את משנתו האחרונה של הרב זוין בקשר לחיוב קריעה על ערי יהודה.

[יש לציין שגם במהדורא חדשה של “המועדים בהלכה” שנדפסה ע”י “ארטסקרול” בשנת תשנ”ט – בה תיקנו כמה שגיאות וכיו”ב – עמדו הרבנים זלאטאוויץ ושרמן על משמרתם והניחו את הגירסא החדשה (שע”פ מסורת מר הולדר) במקומה. לאידך גיסא, בכל המהדורות של “המועדים בהלכה” שי”ל בלה”ק לאחרי פטירתו של הרב זוין (שראיתי) נמצאות השורות הנ”ל כצלמן וכתבניתן במהדורות שראו אור בחייו].

מר הולדר כבר שחל”ח וע”כ אין אפשרות לברר אצלו אם אכן הי’ ממעתיקי השמועה ומה באמת היתה מדת מעורבתו בהשינויים הנ”ל, שע”פ העדים הנ”ל נעשו ע”פ מסורת שקיבל ממשפחתו של הגרש”י זוין. [אם אמת נכון הדבר שמר הולדר הי’ מחולל השינוי, צע”ק שלא מצא מר הולדר לנכון לעשות השינויים במהדורת “המועדים בהלכה” שהו”ל באותה תקופה בלה”ק, ועכ”פ לציין בשוה”ג שהנדפס אינו אלא משנה ראשונה של המחבר]. ובכל אופן, נ”ל שטענות הרבנים זלאטאוויץ ושרמן [ומר הולדר?] ע”ד עמדתו של הגרש”י אינן עומדות בפני הביקורת, ומפני כמה טעמים. [מקצת מטענות א-בדלהלן כבר הביע בשעתו מר טרי נאוועטסקי במכתב תגובה לטענות הרבנים הנ”ל ונדפס במכ”ע טראדישען שם 23:1 עמוד 98 ואילך].

(א) מאז היווסד מדינת ישראל נדפס ספר “המועדים בהלכה” בכו”כ מהדורות בחייו של הרב זוין [ מהדורא שניה – ירושלים תש”ט; מהדורא שלישית – ירושלים תשי”ד; מהדורא חמישית – תל אביב תשט”ז; מהדורא שישית – ירושלים תש”כ. ועוד]. הרב זוין עשה כמה כמה תיקונים והכניס כמה וכמה הוספות קטנות וגם גדולות במהדורות השונות של הספר. על כן, למרות שבספרו זה “לא נתכוון המחבר להקנות לקוראיו דינים ופסקים” (הקדמת הרב זוין ל”המועדים בהלכה”), מ”מ בהתחשב עם זה ש”הספר נועד בעיקר לקהל הרחב . . . מורים ומחנכים” (הקדמה הנ”ל שם) מסתבר שאם באמת חזר בו הרב זוין לא הי’ מניח משנה ראשונה במקומה, וע”ד האמור (איוב יא, יד. כתובות יט, ע”ב) “אל תשכן באהליך עוולה”. ומדחזינן שבענינים אחרים אכן שינה, הוסיף וגרע [אפילו בכה”ג שלא הי’ מקום לחשוש לביטול מצוה או לאפרושי מאיסורא], ובנדו”ד השאיר את הדברים על מכונם, מסתבר לומר שבאמת לא חזר בו, וחזקה על חבר שאינו מוציא מתח”י דבר שאינו מתוקן.

(ב) אין התשובה ממין הטענה כלל, דאם אמנם על השינוי מ”מסתבר” ל”יש מקום לטעון” [אין ולאו ורפיא בידי’] אנו דנים, אכן יש מקום להסברא שהתאכזבותו ממצבה הרוחני של מדינת ישראל גרם להרב זוין לנטות מצידוד חזק [“מסתבר”] לביטול חיוב קריעה [כשיטת האג”מ הנ”ל] ל”הלכה רופפת” [“יש מקום לחלוק ולומר”] בענין זה, וע”פ המבואר לקמן בפנים שיש אומרים דשלטון מדינת אינו בגדר שלטון ישראל. אבל אין אכזבה זו דורשת (1) העלמת שם “מדינת ישראל”, שם שהרבה הרב זוין להשתמש בו בכ”מ. (2) השמטת ביטוי של שמחה והודי’ להשי”ת – “אשרינו שזכינו לכך” – על הקמת המדינה. הגע בעצמך: אין ספק שהגרמ”פ (שהי’ מחברי מועצת גדולי אגודת ישראל) גם הוא התאכזב ממצב היהדות בארץ ישראל תחת שלטון מדינת ישראל [ראה מ”ש באג”מ יו”ד ח”ב סמ”ה בא”ד ש”במדינת ישראל, אין אנו אחראין להנהגת המלכות דשם שהיא בעוה”ר אצל כופרים ומומרים ואין מתחשבים עם . . . כל איסורי התורה החמורים ביותר והמפורשים בגמרא ובקראי”. וראה גם אג”מ חו”מ ח”ב סו”ס סט, ועוד], ואעפ”כ כתב באג”מ בשנת ,תשמ”א וכנ”ל, עתה“ שבחסדי השם יתברך אין מושלים האומות על ערי יהודה ועל ירושלים [הוא טעם גדול שלא לקרוע]”, הרי שהעברת השלטון מידי האומות לידי ממשלת ישראל הוא מ”חסדי השי”ת”! ואם הגרמ”פ הי’ מודה להקב”ה על חסד זה, מה הכריח את הרבנים זלאטאוויץ ושרמן לעשות את הרב זווין (שגם בסוף חייו פירסם בקהל רב שהוא נוהג להצביע עבור רשימת המפד”ל) לכפוי טובה שאינו מכיר בניסו?

והוא העיקר: יחסו החיובי של הרב זוין למדינת ישראל בא לידי ביטוי בעוד מקומות מפיו ומפי כתביו. הנה שתי דוגמאות לכך: (1) בספרו “לאור ההלכה” (מהדורא שניה, תל אביב תשי”ז, כמה שנים לאחרי הקמת המדינה) תיקן את מאמרו “המלחמה” והוסיף בה דברים שלא היו יכולים להכתב במהדורא הראשונה של המאמר שהדפיס לפני הקמת המדינה (ב”לאור הלכה” ירושלים ה’תש”ו), ובתו”ד (עמוד סה) כתב לאמר: “בימינו אנו שזכינו לתקומת מדינת ישראל העצמאית, משוחררת מעול מלכויות . . . הרי מלחמת השחרור ברור שהיו לה כל דיני מלחמת מצוה וחובה”. [גם ספר “לאור ההלכה” חזרה ונדפסה כמ”פ (במשך ימי חיי הרב זוין) עם תיקונים והוספות, ומשנה זו לא זזה ממקומה]. (2) (2) בראיון שהעניק למכ”ע “הצופה” שי”ל לראש השנה ה’תשל”ו קרוב לשלשים שנה לאחרי הקמת מדינת ישראל וכשנתיים לפני פטירת הרב (בשנת תשל”ח). באותו ראיון אמר הרב זוין: “הרי מדינת ישראל עם כל ליקוייה הרבים בשטח החינוך הלא-דתי וכו’ הרי עם כל זה עלינו לראות את צדדיה החיוביים: הלא רק בחמש השנים האחרונות בלבד היא הצילה יותר ממאה אלף יהודים מטמיעה מוחלטת ושמד רוחני ברוסיה הסובייטית, אשר רבים מהם לומדים עתה כאן בבתי ספר דתיים ואף בישיבות; ועוד היד שלנו נטוי’ לקלוט מהם בעז”ה כהנה וכהנה”.

לית דין צריך בושש שהרב זוין, שהכיר מקרוב את תהליך התפתחות אופיה הרוחני של מדינת ישראל, כבר ידע היטב בשלהי שנת תשל”ה את כל מה שיש לדעת ע”ד צביונה החילוני של מדינת ישראל, ובכל זאת הרי שלך לפניך, שהביע את הערכתו הרבה להקמת מדינת ישראל וחזר והדגיש באר היטב שלמרות כל חסרונותי’ וליקויי’ (‘רבים הם ואי אפשר לפורטם’) הרי הקמת המדינה בארץ ישראל והרווחה בגו”ר שהביאה לעם ישראל הינה זכי’ גדולה וה”ה מהטובות הגדולות שעשה הקב”ה לעמו ישראל וחייבים אנו להודות להקב”ה על קיומה. וא”כ אי אפשר לומר שהשמטתתיבות ההודאה על קיומה של המדינה [“אשרינו שזכינו לכך”] הולמת את שיטת הרב זוין לאחרי אכזבתו. אמנם למרות כל הנ”ל לא מלאני לבי לבטל מסורתם של מר הולדר ויבלחט”א הרבנים שרמן וזלאטאוויץ עד שהתקשרתי עם משפחת הרב זוין ע”מ לברר וללבן את הדבר. ה’משפחה’ שאיתה עמד מר הולדר בקשר מתמיד, ה”ה הרה”ג ר’ נחום זווין שליט”א, רב בעיה”ק חיפה ת”ו. [בנו יחידו של הגרש”י זווין נלב”ע בחייו, ובנו הרב נחום ירש את הכתבים וכו’ של הגרש”י והוא הוא שמכר את רשות ההדפסה באנגלית למר הולדר]. בשיחה טלפונית שקיימתי עם הרב נחום ביום חמישי י”ד טבת ה’תשס”ד אמר לי בלשון צחה וברורה שלא היו דברים אלו מעולם. הרב נחום זוין נתן לי רשות לפרסם בשמו את אשר מסר לי בענין זה: (א) עד יומו האחרון לא זז הגרש”י מעמדתו ויחסו החיובי למדינת ישראל, עמדה שהתבטאה בכמה משיטותיו והנהגותיו [ולדוגמא: עד שנתו האחרון עלי אדמות ועד בכלל נהג הגרש”י לומר הלל (בלי ברכה) ביום העצמאות וביום ירושלים]. (ב) מעולם לא שמע ממנו שחזר בו משיטתו ע”ד חיוב הקריעה על ערי יהודה, ועד היום הזה (שהודעתיו ע”ד השינויים הנ”ל ב”המועדים בהלכה” מהדורת ארטסקרול) לא ידע אפילו שהי’ אי פעם איזו סברא והו”א (בתוך המשפחה או מחוצה לה) לומר שהגרש”י שינה את דעתו בנידון, ולמותר להגיד שמעולם לא דיבר, לא דבר ולא חצי דבר, לא עם מר הולדר ולא עם שום נציג הוצאת ארטסקרול, על דבר ענין זה. והשתא הדברים מחוורים כשמלה, שמעולם לא היתה ולא היתה יכולה להיות ‘מסורת חשאית’ ממשפחת הרב זוין בנדו”ד, כי מעולם לא חזר בו הרב זוין מדעתו הראשונה, ואין שום סתירה כלל במשנת הגרש”י שהיתה קב ונקי. אין כאן המקום להאריך בהשערות, על מה ולמה החליטו המו”ל של כתבי הגרש”י באנגלית לעשות בדבריו כבתוך שלהם ולייחס אליו דברים שהם זרים לרוחו. מה שחשוב למבקשי האמת הוא, בירור דעתו של הרב זוין בנידון, ולזה הגענו בעז”ה – ואין שמחה כהתרת הספיקות. [דא”ג: ראה זה פלא! לאחרונה יצא לאור “תלמוד בבלי מסכת מועד קטן” מהדורת שוטנסטיין (דפוס “מסורה” ה’תשנ”ט) תחת השגחת הרבנים זלאטאוויץ ושרמן, ושם דף כו ע”א הערה 43 ציינו (בקשר לחיוב קריעה על ערי יהודה וירושלים בזמן ) הזהלדברי הגרמ”פ באג”מ ח”ה הנ”ל, שם כתב שבזמן הזה בטל חיוב קריעה גם על ירושלים עיר הקודש, ולא ציינו כלל להפוסקים הרבים המובאים לקמן בפנים דס”ל שחיוב קריעה על ירושלים במקומו עומד, גם לא ציינו לעמדתו הרופפת של הרב זווין (ע”פ ‘מסורת מר הולדר’) שקנתה שביתה במהדורתם של “המועדים בהלכה” לפיה איןלהחליט שחיוב קריעה (אפילו על ערי יהודה – ובמכ”ש על ירושלים) בטל בימינו. וצע”ג].

In Saul Lieberman and the Orthodox, I called attention to two other examples of censorship (omitting Lieberman’s rabbinic title) in Artscroll’s translation of R. Zevin, so it is obvious that the translators felt it was OK for them to take liberties with the text. I know from speaking to people in the haredi world that this sort of thing is very distressing to them. It is no longer surprising when we see censorship and intentional distortions in haredi works. We even expect this and are surprised when a haredi work is actually honest in how it presents historical matters and issues that are subject to ideological disputes. Yet it doesn’t have to be this way. There is no fundamental reason why haredi works can’t express their position without the all-too-common falsehoods. I think the ones most offended by this are those who are part of the haredi world and believe in its ideology, and don’t understand the need to resort to distortions in order to further the truth.

In a recent post I gave an example of fraudulence when it came to a haredi newspaper’s obituary of Louis Henkin, the son of R. Joseph Elijah Henkin. In this post, I mentioned that R. Henkin sent his sons to Yeshiva College. R. Eitam Henkin kindly sent me this picture of the tombstone of R. Henkin’s son, Hayyim, who predeceased his father.

It is noteworthy that R. Henkin saw fit to mention on the tombstone that Hayyim was a student at Yeshiva College (= Yeshivat R. Yitzhak Elhanan). I would now like to point to an unintentional error in Artscroll’s translation of Ha-Moadim ba-Halakhah. Before last Pesah I took out my copy of The Festivals in Halachah. In reading the chapter on kitniyot, p. 118, I came across the following. By way of reply, Rav Shmuel Freund, “judge and posek in the city of Prague” published the pamphletKeren Shmuel, in דין ומו”צ בק”ק פראג)) which he demonstrates at length that no one has the authority to make these prohibited items (kitnios) permissible. I immediately suspected something wasn’t right, and when I looked at דיין מו”ש דק”ק the original I saw that R. Freund was described as דין became דיין מו”ש ,In translating these words into English .פראג since the English version puts vowels on the Hebrew) ומו”צ this latter point is) בק”ק became דק”ק and ,(דין became דיין words only a minor error). R. Zevin’s description of R. Freund is put in quotation marks since it is taken from the cover of his Keren Shmuel, as you can observe here. The translators (who must never have seen the title page ofKeren and assumed that it was a מו”ש Shmuel) didn’t know what to make of They therefore “corrected” R. Zevin’s text. This is .מו”צ mistake for one of those cases where a few well-placed inquiries would have solved the translators’ problem. Some of the blame for this error should be laid at the feet of R. Zevin, for he never bothered explaining is and he should have realized that that the typical reader מו”ש what (and translator) wouldn’t have a clue as to its meaning.[9] refers to the highest beit din in Prague, as used in the מו”ש stand מו”ש But what do the letters .בית דין מו”ש and דיין מו”ש phrases for?[10] This is the subject of an essay by Shaul Kook,[11] and he points out that there has been uncertainty as to the meaning In fact, R. Solomon Judah Rapoport, who was chief rabbi [מו”ש.[of 12 was unaware of the ,בית דין מו”ש of Prague and a member of the meaning.[13] After examining the evidence, Kook concludes This appears to mean that all the .מורה שוה stands for מו”ש that dayanim on the beit din were regarded as having equal standing. ,of Prague actually served as an appeals court בית דין מו”ש The something that was found in other cities as well, even going back to Spain.[14] R. Yair Hayyim Bacharach, Havot Yair, no. 124, refers to and the new edition ,אפילאנט one of the dayanim on this beit din as דיין of Havot Yair helpfully points out that the meaning of this is [לערעורים.[15 Some people have the notion that the appeals court of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate is a completely new concept, first established during the time of R. Kook. This is a false assumption.[16] (The Chief .(בית דין הגדול is also known as בית דין לערעורים Rabbinate’s R. Moshe Taub has called my attention to another error in the translation of Ha-Moadim ba-Halakhah. In discussing what should be done first, Havdalah or lighting the menorah, R. Zevin writes (p. 204): ברוב המקומות נתקבל המנהג שבבית מבדילים קודם, ובבית הכנסת מדליקים קודם The translation, p. 89, has this sentence completely backwards: “Most communities have adopted the following custom: at home – Chanukah lights are lit first; in the synagogue – Havdalah first.” Since we are on the issue of errors in Artscroll, here is another one which was called to my attention by Prof. Daniel Lasker. In the commentary to Numbers 25:1, Artscroll states: After Balaam’s utter failure to curse Israel, he had one last hope. Knowing that sexual morality is a foundation of Jewish holiness and that God does not tolerate immorality – the only wrath , is when it is,אף time the Torah speaks of God’s anger as provoked by immorality (Moreh Nevuchim 1:36) – Balaam counseled Balak to entice Jewish men to debauchery. Yet Rambam does not say what Artscroll attributes to him. Here is what appears in Guide 1:36: Know that if you consider the whole of the Torah and all the books of the prophets, you will find that the expressions are ,[קנאה] ”and “jealousy ,[כעס] ”anger“ ,[חרון אף] ”wrath“ exclusively used with reference to idolatry. The Rambam says that the language of “wrath” is only used with reference to idolatry, but somehow in Artscroll idolatry became (sexual) immorality. This text of the Moreh Nevukhim is actually quite a famous and difficult one, and the commentators discuss how is only used with reference to ויחר אף Maimonides could say that idolatry when the Torah clearly provides examples of the words in other contexts. In his commentary, ad loc, R. Kafih throws up his hands and admits that he has no solution. ושכאני לעצמי כל התירוצים לא מצאו מסלות בלבבי, והקושיא היא כל כך פשוטה עד שלא יתכן שהיא קושיא, אלא שאיני יודע היאך אינה קושיא Returning to the issue of kitniyot, in a previous post I raised the question as to why, according to R. Ovadiah Yosef, all Sephardim and Yemenites who live in Israel are to follow the practices of the Shulhan Arukh but he doesn’t insist on this when it comes to Ashkenazim. If R. Joseph Karo is the mara de-atra, shouldn’t this apply to Ashkenazim as well?[17] I once again wrote to R. Avraham Yosef and R. Yitzhak Yosef seeking clarification. Here is R. Avraham’s letter. Unfortunately, his history is incorrect. To begin with, it is not true that all of the Ashkenazim who came on aliyah before the “mass aliyah” (which apparently refers to the late nineteenth century) adopted the practices of the Sephardim.[18] It is also not true that the beit din established by the Ashkenazim in the nineteenth century is the beit din of the Edah Haredit. The Edah Haredit is a twentieth-century phenomenon. The historical successor of the beit din of R. Shmuel Salant was the Jerusalem beit din of which R. Kook was av beit din, as he was the rav of Jerusalem (and R. Zvi Pesah Frank served on the batei din of both R. Salant and R. Kook). The Edah Haredit beit din was a completely new creation. As for the Yemenites, Moroccans, and Iraqis, when the great immigration of these groups occurred, many thousands came on aliyah together, (i.e., as complete communities) and thus they never saw themselves as required to reject their practices in favor of the Shulhan Arukh. The fact that they didn’t establish special batei din is irrelevant. In fact, R. Avraham’s last paragraph is a good description of how these communities arrived in the Land of Israel, and is precisely the reason why their rabbinic leaders almost uniformly rejected R. Ovadiah Yosef’s demand that they adopt the Shulhan Arukh in all particulars. Here is R. Yitzhak Yosef’s letter to me, which has a different perspective.

He cites R. Joseph Karo’s responsum, Avkat Rokhel, no. 212, which requires newcomers to adopt the practices of the community to which they are going even if they come as large groups. He then says that Ashkenazim never adopted this viewpoint, but instead held to the opinion of R. Meir Eisenstadt Panim( Meirot, vol. 2, no. 133). According to R. Eisenstadt, only individuals who come to a town must adopt the local practice, but not if they come as a group and establish their own community.[19] Let me now complicate matters further. If you recall, in the earlier post I discussed how R. Ovadiah Yosef’s writings assume that Ashkenazim have to abstain from kitniyot on Pesah. I raised the question if an Ashkenazi could “become Sephardi” and thus start eating kitniyot (and also follow Sephardic practices in all other areas). R. Avraham Yosef wrote to me that this is permissible while R. Yitzhak Yosef wrote that it is not. R. Yissachar Hoffman called my attention to the fact that in the recent Ma’yan Omer, vol. 11, p. 8, R. Ovadiah was himself asked the following question: אשכנזי שרוצה לנהוג כמו הספרדים במנהגים ולדוגמא לאכול קטניות בפסח, אך רוצה להמשיך ולהתפלל כנוסח אשכנז. האם הדבר אפשרי. R. Ovadiah replied: יכול רק בקטניות, אך עדיף שבכל ינהג כמרן What R. Ovadiah is saying (and see also the editor’s note, ad loc., for other examples) is that R. Avraham’s answer is correct, namely, that an Ashkenazi can “become Sephardi” (and eat kitniyot). It is significant that R. Ovadiah allows such a person to continue praying according to Ashkenazic practice. Here are the pages.

2. On my recent tour of Italy I spent a good deal of time speaking about the great sages of Venice and Padua. One such figure was R. the son ,מהרשי”ק Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen (1521-1597), known as of the famous R. Meir Katzenellenbogen, known as Maharam Padua. While R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen is basically forgotten today, he was the most important Venetian rabbi in his day. He was also the father of Saul Wahl, who became famous in Jewish legend as Poland’s “king for a day.”[20] In 1594, R. Katzenellenbogen’s collection of derashot, entitled Shneim Asar Derashot, appeared. Here is the title page. When the volume was reprinted in Lemberg in 1798, the publisher made , מהר”י מינץ an error and on the title page attributed the volume to the son of Maharam Padua. Apart from not knowing who the author of the volume was, the publisher also didn’t realize that R. Judah Mintz (died 1508[21]) was the grandfather of Maharam Padua’s wife, meaning that he was the great- grandfather of R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen. When the volume was reprinted in Warsaw in 1876 the publisher recognized the problem but confounded matters. Rather than simply correcting the mistake from the 1798 title page by attributing the volume to R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen, he kept the information from the mistaken title page but tells the reader is none other than “R. Samuel Judah Mintz”, a מהר”י מינץ that previously unheard of name. The most recent printing has gets it even worse. ,is simply omitted ,שנים עשר דרשות ,Now the original title of the book דרשות מהר”י מינץ and the book is called The authentic R. Judah Mintz of Padua is known for his volume of responsa that was published in Venice in 1553, together with the responsa of R. Meir Katzenellenbogen. Here is the title page. R Judah Mintz’s responsa were reprinted in Munkacs in 1898 together with a lengthy commentary by R. Johanan Preshil. The book was also reprinted in 1995, edited by R. Asher Siev. Unfortunately, Siev was unaware of the 1898 edition. He also makes the mistake (see p. 353) of stating that R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen because his mother’s family name was מהר”י מינץ was referred to as Mintz. I have seen no evidence that he was ever referred to as such in his lifetime or in the years after, and as mentioned, this was simply a printer’s mistake. I consulted with Professor Reuven Bonfil and he too is unaware of any reference to Katzenellenbogen being referred to which supports my assumption that this all goes back to ,מהר”י מינץ as the mistaken title page.[22] 3. In my last post I mentioned how in years past there were shiurim combining students from Merkaz and Chevron and also Merkaz and Kol Torah. This is obviously unimaginable today. For another example showing how Yeshivat Kol Torah has changed, look at this picture, which appears in Yosef and Ruth Eliyahu, Ha-Torah ha-Mesamahat (Beit El, 1998), p. 105.

I guarantee you that even on the hottest of days, none of the Kol Torah students will be wearing shorts. For those who don’t know, Kol Torah was founded by German Orthodox rabbis and was originally very different than it is today. Here is how it was described upon its founding, in a short notice in Davar, August 27, 1939.

It is hard to imagine today, but this was a yeshiva that actually intended for some of its students to take up agriculture. See also here which cites R. Hayyim Eliezer Bichovski, Kitvei ha-Rav Hayyim Eliezer Bichovski (Brookyn, 1990), p. 180, that the Chafetz Chaim said that yeshiva students in Eretz Yisrael should learn nine months a year and work the land the other three months Speaking of shorts, here are a couple of pictures showing how the boys of the German Orthodox separatist Adass Jisroel community looked when playing sports (also notice the lack of kippot). This was the community of R. Esriel Hildesheimer and R. David Zvi Hoffmann. The pictures come from Mario Offenburg, ed., Adass Jisroel die Juedische Gemeinde in Berlin (1869-1942): Vernichtet und Vergessen (Berlin, 1986). Here is how the girls dressed for sports, also with shorts and sleeveless. And here is how the boys and girls looked when not at a sporting event. These pictures come from Max Sinasohn, ed.,Adass Jisroel Berlin (Jerusalem, 1966).[23] 4. Some people didn’t appreciate the humor in my post with regard to the Gaon R. Mizrach-Etz. I think they should lighten up, and in a previous post, available here, I gave some references to humor in rabbinic literature. This was followed up by a more extensive post by Ezra Brand, available here. According to the commentary Siftei Hakhamim, it is not just the talmudic sages who would at times show their humorous side, but on at least one occasion Moses thought that God himself was joking with him! Rashi .ועתה אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך :In Ex. 33:13 Moses says to God explains this to mean: “If it is true that I have found favor in Your eyes.” This means that Moses was in some doubt as to whether he found favor in God’s eyes, but this is problematic since in the previous verse Moses quotes God as saying to him, “you have also found favor in My eyes.” So if God told Moses that he found favor in His eyes, how can Moses be in doubt and say to God, “If I have found favor in Your eyes”? Here is the Siftei Hakhamim. According to Siftei Hakhamim, Moses was in doubt if he really found favor in God’s eyes, since even though God said he did, perhaps God was joking just like people joke around! דלמא מה שאמרת מצאת חן בעיני מצחק היית בי כדרך בני אדם 5. I want to call readers’ attention to a recent book,Shevilei Nissan, which is a collection of previously published essays from R. Nissan Waxman. There is lots of interesting material in the book, and let me mention just a few things. In Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters, p. 75 n. 302, I referred to R. Yaakov Avigdor’s strong criticism of R. Hayyim Soloveitchik’s approach. R. Avigdor also criticized R. Solomon Polachek, the Meitchiter. R. Waxman was a student of the Meitchiter, and on p. 23 n. 1, he comes to his teacher’s defense. On p. 150, R. Waxman, who was the rav of Lakewood, mentions the problem of how some yeshiva students are halakhically more stringent than their teachers. He quotes R. Yaakov Kamenetsky in the name of R. Aharon Kotler how a student once visited R. Kotler and when the latter offered the student some cookies, the student was reluctant to take before asking which bakery they came from. (Perhaps this behavior can be explained by what I have heard – and maybe someone can confirm this – that in R. Aharon Kotler’s day the Lakewood bakery Gelbstein was not under hashgachah, and yet R. Kotler bought his challot from it. See also here and here The original post referred to in these links has definitely been taken down.) On p. 233, R. Waxman notes that even though we have the principle, “A Jew who sins remains a Jew”, in actuality, it is possible for a Jew to so remove himself from the Jewish people (e.g., apostasy) that as far as most things are concerned, he is indeed no longer regarded as Jewish. This essay was written concerning the “Brother Daniel” case, and R. Waxman’s approach is similar to that of R. Aharon Lichtenstein who also wrote a famous article on the topic, “Brother Daniel and the Jewish Fraternity,” republished in Leaves of Faith, vol. 2, ch. 3. On pp. 251ff., R. Waxman deals with Menahem Mendel Lefin’s Heshbon ha- Nefesh, an influential mussar text which as many know was influenced by a work of Benjamin Franklin. 6. I want to also call readers’ attention to two other books recently sent to me. The first is R. David Brofsky,Hilkhot Moadim: Understanding the Laws of the Festivals. This is very large book (over 700 pages) dealing with the Holidays and is a welcome addition to the growing number of non-haredi halakhah works in English.. In a future post I hope to deal with it in greater depth. The second book is Haym Soloveitchik, Collected Essays, vol. 1, published by Littman Library, my favorite publisher. This book is required reading for anyone with an interest in the history of medieval halakhah. I was happy to see that it also includes two essays that appear here for the first time. Furthermore, Soloveitchik’s classic essay on pawnbroking (which was his first significant article) has been expanded to almost double the size of the original. In the new preface to the essay, he writes: “Every essay is written for an imagined audience, and mine was intended for the eyes of Jacob Katz, Saul Lieberman, and my father.” [1] I also must point out that someone involved with hebrewbooks.org informed me that the essay was not removed from the site because it was viewed as “problematic”, but because they were requested to do so by one of the members of R. Zevin’s family who claimed to hold the copyright to the work. This is obviously a false claim, since as we have seen there is no proof that R. Zevin wrote the essay. [2] See R. Waldenberg, Hilkhot Medinah, vol. 2, pp. 14, 60, 62, and R. Frank’s haskamah, ibid., pp. 17. [3] See Jack Feinhotz’s letter in Tradition 22 (Winter 1987), p. 120. R. Zevin’s view, that there is no need forkeriah , was also advocated by R. Reuven Katz, Sha’ar Reuven (Jerusalem, 1952), p. 32. [4] See Terry Novetsky’s letter in Tradition 23 (Summer 1987), pp. 98-99. [5] Tradition 22 (Winter 1987), p. 120. [6] In the interview with R. Zevin that appeared in my last post, R. Nahum’s comments tended to be somewhat dogmatic, even “haredi”, and should be contrasted with his grandfather’s words. [7] Even among the vast majority of Lubavitchers this is the case (so I am informed by R. Chaim Rapoport). This is quite strange since the Rebbe held that you have to do keriah. What this shows us is that not everything advocated by the Lubavitcher Rebbe was adopted by his hasidim. [8] See R. Dov Lior, Devar Hevron (Kiryat Arba, 2009), Orah Hayyim no. 567 See .מו”ש Even the incredibly learned Meir Benayahu was stumped by [9] this page from his Tiglahat be-Holo Shel Moed (Jerusalem, 1995), p. 21.

Regarding Benayahu, a recent book argues that the missing pages of the Aleppo Codex were not destroyed in Aleppo, but were actually stolen by Benayahu after arriving in Jerusalem. See Matti Friedman, The Aleppo Codex (Chapel Hill, 2012). although this ,מ”ש I have found one occasion where it is written [10] is probably a typo. See R. Yaakov Reischer, Shevut Yaakov, vol. 2, no. 129. R. Reischer was a member of this beit din, [11] Iyunim u-Mehkarim (Jerusalem, 1963), vol 2, pp. 179ff. [12] In the Vilna Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah, there is a commentary by R. Jacob Emden. Yet R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, Menuhat Shalom, vol. 6, p. 116, shows that it was not written by him, and one of his proofs is implying that the ,הגאון אב”ד וב”ד מו”ש that the commentary refers to author lived in Prague. [13] See Kook, Iyunim u-Mehkarim, p. 180. [14] See Simhah Assaf, Batei ha-Din ve-Sidreihem Aharei Hatimat ha- Talmud (Jerusalem, 1924), ch. 11. אפילאנט See ibid., pp. 80ff. for other examples of [15] [16] This statement should not be taken to imply that the leading rabbis in Eretz Yisrael were happy with the institution of this court, which was pretty much forced upon them by the British. See Amichai Radzyner’s book-length article, “Ha-Rav Uziel, Rabanut Tel Aviv-Yafo, u-Beit Din ha-Gadol le-Irurim: Sipur be-Arba Ma’arakhot”Mekhkerei Mishpat 21 (2004), pp. 120-242. [17] R. Ovadiah Hadaya, in his approbation to R. Amram Aburabia, Netivei Am (Jerusalem, 1964), states that everyone in Jerusalem should follow “minhag Yerushalayim”. If his opinion is accepted, it would mean the end of any Ashkenazic practices in the city. [18] Regarding earlier in the nineteenth century, see Yehoshua Kaniel, “Kishrei ha-Edot be-Inyanei Halakhah u-Minhag bi-Yerushalayim ba-Meah ha-Yod Tet,” Morashah 4 (5736), pp. 126-136. In the eighteenth century, the Vilna Gaon was of the opinion that Ashkenazim who come on aliyah should indeed adopt Sephardic practices. See Bezalel Landau, Ha-Gaon he-Hasid mi-Vilna (Jerusalem, 1978), p. 250, n. 30. [19] This has indeed been the Ashkenazi approach, yet R. Abraham Danzig disagreed. See Hokhmat Adam: Sha’ar Mishpetei ha-Aretz 11:23: נ”ל דהבאים לא”י אם יקבעו עצמם בעיר שיש שם מנין אעפ”י שהבאים הם מרובים יש להם דין יחיד וחייבים לנהוג חומרי מקום שהלכו לשם ופקעו מהם החומרות שהיו נוהגין במקומם. [20] As far as I know, R. Samuel Judah Katzenellenbogen was the first great rabbi to have his picture made (unfortunately, it no longer exists). See R. Moses Porti, Palgei Mayim (Venice, 1608), p. 6b (referred to by R. Gedaliah Oberlander,Minhag Avoteinu be- Yadenu [Monsey, 2012], p. 451): והלא אנכי הייתי הראשון שבקשתי להציב תמונתו לנגד עיני ע”י הצייר ואותה לקחתי לי והצבתיה בבית מדרשי לקיים מה שנאמר והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך While this picture was hung in the beit midrash, see this post where I mention how R. Pinchas Teitz took down the poster of R. Elchanan Wasserman that I hung up in a room used for tefillah. (R. Porti’s Palgei Mayim is devoted to the famous dispute about the mikveh in Rovigo.) [21] The standard biographies all record that R. Judah Mintz lived a very long life. This is based on R. Joseph Yavetz,Hasdei Ha- Shem (Jerusalem, 1934), Introduction, p. 9, where R. Yavetz’s son כבן מאה mentions that R. Mintz recitedbirkat ha-hamah when he was This would have been in 1505, and he lived another three years .שנה after that. R. Meshulam Fishel Behr,Divrei Meshulam (Frankfurt, 1926), pp. 147ff., rejects the younger Yavetz’s testimony and claims that R. Mintz died in his seventies. See, however, R. Naftali Yaakov ha-Kohen, Otzar ha-Gedolim (Haifa, 1967), pp. 35ff. [22] See also Jewish Encyclopedia, s.v. Katzenellenbogen, Samuel Judah. R. Yissachar Hoffman called my attention to She’elot u-Teshuvot Hakham Zvi, no. 15, where R. Samuel Judah מהר”י Katzenellenbogen is (mistakenly?) referred to as See also R. Aryeh Yehudah Leib Lifshitz, Avot Atarah .מפאדואה le-Vanim (Warsaw, 1927), p. 48 n. 44 [23] When I was in high school in the early 1980s, in the New Jersey- New York yeshiva league only the girls of Bruriah wore sweat pants during basketball games (and the boys were not allowed to attend home games). At the other high schools the girls wore shorts. Today, the league requires all girls to wear sweat pants (i.e., not even long shorts). For a wonderful discussion of the yeshiva basketball league, see Jeffrey S. Gurock,Judaism’s Encounter with American Sports (Bloomington, 2005), ch. 7. Gurock discusses how for six years in the early 1950s, Yeshiva Chaim Berlin was part of the basketball league together with the Modern Orthodox co-ed high schools, something that could never happen today. During this time co-ed schools had cheerleaders, and this was a major factor in forcing Chaim Berlin to leave the league. (Mesivta Tifereth Jerusalem was also in the league for two years.) When I mention cheerleaders, don’t think of current NFL cheerleader outfits. Here, for example, is how the Brooklyn Central girls looked (from Gurock, p. 143). Yet Gurock, ibid., points out that “as the 1950s progressed, the Brooklyn Central cheerleaders’ skirts also got shorter and shorter.” (Speaking of short skirts, anyone who has looked at Modern Orthodox yeshiva high school yearbooks from the early 1970s will see that the mini-skirt craze was also tolerated at these institutions.)

Wine Strength and Dilution

Wine Strength and Dilution by Isaiah Cox June 2009 Isaiah Cox trained as an historian at Princeton, and conducted postgraduate work in medieval history at King’s College London. He is also a technologist, with over 50 patents pending or issued to date. [email protected] There is a common understanding among rabbonim that wines in the time of the Gemara were stronger than they are today.[1] This is inferred because we know from the Gemara that wine was customarily diluted by at least three-to-one, and as much as six-to-one, without compromising its essence as kosher wine, suitable for hagafen. While repeated by numerous sources and rabbonim, the earliest suggestion that wines were stronger appears to be Rashi himself.[2] [3] In the Torah, wine is mentioned many times, though there is no mention of diluting it. The only clear reference to diluted wine in ancient Jewish sources is negative: “Your silver has become dross, your wine mixed with water.”[4] In ancient Israel, wine was preferred without water.[5] Hashem would provide “a feast of fats, and feast of lees — rich fats and concentrated lees,”[6] ‘lees’ being shmarim, the sediment from fermentation. Lees are the most flavorful and strong part of the wine, particularly sweet and alcoholic – more like a fortified port than a regular wine.[7] Yet if we jump forward to the time of the Mishna and Gemara: wine was considered undrinkable unless water was added?! In Rashi’s world, wine was drunk neat, and he concludes that wine must have been stronger in the past. We could work with this thesis, except that there is a glaring inconsistency: the Rambam a scant hundred years later shared the opinion of the Rishonim: we require wine for the Arba Kosot to be diluted “in order that the drinking of the wine should be pleasant, all according to the wine and the taste of the consumer.”[8][9] We need not believe that wine was stronger both during the time of the Gemara, and in Rambam’s day — but not for Rashi sandwiched between them. Indeed, Rambam seems to put his finger on the nub of the issue: the preferences of the consumer.[10] Today we drink liquors that are far more powerful than wine (distillation as we know it was not known in Europe or the Mediterranean until centuries after the Rambam): cask strength whiskies can be watered down by 4:1 and achieve the same alcoholic concentration as wine – but we like strong whiskies. Wine itself can be distilled into grappa, and we enjoy that drink without adding water. Given sweet and potent liqueurs like Drambuie, it seems quite logical that if wine could be made more alcoholic, we would enjoy it that way as well. While the Mishnah and Gemara are clear that wine should be drunk diluted, the opinion that wine was too strong to drink came from later commentators, writing hundreds of years later. In the Gemara itself, Rav Oshaya says that the reason to dilute wine is because a mitzvah must be done in the choicest manner.[11] Indeed, the Gemara itself seems to allow that undiluted wines were drinkable – it was just not considered civilized behavior. A ben sorer umoreh, a rebellious son, is one who drinks wine — wine which is insufficiently diluted, as gluttons drink.[12] In other words, undiluted wine was drinkable, but it was not the civilized thing to do. A review of the history of civilizations reveals the origin of the preference for diluting wine: Greek culture. The first mention of diluted wine in Jewish texts is found in the apocrypha: about 124 BCE, “It is harmful to drink wine alone, or again, to drink water alone, while wine mixed with water is sweet and delicious and enhances one’s enjoyment,”[13] The source, it is critical to point out, was written in Greek, outside the land of Israel. Greek culture and practices started being influential in the Mediterranean in the final two centuries BCE, and by the time of the Gemara, had become the dominant traditions for all “civilized” people in the known world. When the Mishna was written, for example, all educated Romans spoke Greek, and Latin had become the language of the lower classes. Greek customs were the customs of all civilized people. And Greeks loved to dilute their wine. Earlier in the latter part of the second century Clement of Alexandria stated: It is best for the wine to be mixed with as much water as possible. . . . For both are works of God, and the mixing of the two, both of water and wine produces health, because life is composed of a necessary element and a useful element. To the necessary element, the water, which is in the greatest quantity, there is to be mixed in some of the useful element.[14] Today, wine is not diluted; the very thought of it is repulsive to oenophiles. But just as in Isaiah’s day diluted wine was considered poor (and concentrated dregs were considered choice), the Greeks only liked their wine watered down.[15] We have hundreds of references to diluting wine in ancient Greece through the late Roman period – ancient Greeks diluted wine that Israelites preferred straight. In Greece, wine was always diluted with water before drinking in a vase called “kratiras,” derived from the Greek word krasis, meaning the mixture of wine and water.[16] As early as the 10th Century BCE (the same time as Isaiah), Greek hip flasks had built-in spoons for measuring the dilution. [17] Homer, from the 8th or 9th Century BCE, mentions a ratio of 20 to 1, twenty parts water to one part wine. But while their ratios varied, the Greeks most assuredly did not drink their wine straight.[18] To Greeks, ratios of just 1 to 1 was called “strong wine.” Drinking wine unmixed, on the other hand, was looked upon as a “Scythian” or barbarian custom. This snobbery was not based solely on rumor; Diodorus Siculus, a Greek (Sicilian) historian and contemporary of Julius Caeser, is among the many Greeks who explained that exports of wine to places like Gaul were strong in part because the inhabitants of that region, like Rashi a millennium later, liked to drink the wine undiluted. This fact leads us to an inescapable conclusion: there is no evidence that Greek wine was any stronger than that of ancient Israel, Rome, Egypt, or anywhere else. Greeks and Romans liked their wine with water. Ancient Jews and Gauls liked the very same wine straight up.[19] We know that it was the same wine, because wine was one of the most important trade products of the ancient world, traveling long distances from vineyard to market. A major trade route went from Egypt through ancient Israel to both northern and eastern climes.[20] Patrick McGovern, a senior research scientist at the University of Pennsylvania, and one of the world’s leading ancient wine experts, believes wine-making became established in Egypt due to “early Bronze Age trade between Egypt and Palestine, encompassing modern Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and Jordan.”[21] [22] By the time of the Gemara, Hellenistic cultural preferences had become so common that nobody even thought of them as “Greek” anymore; civilized people acted in this way. Rambam would no more have thought having water with wine to be a specifically Greek custom than we would consider wearing a shirt with a collar to be the contamination of our Judaism by medieval English affectations. Another possible reason why certain peoples preferred their wine watered down[23] is that ancient wine was more likely to cause a hangover. The key triggers for a hangover are identified as follows: 1. A bad harvest. If you are drinking wine that comes from a country where a small change in the climate can make a big difference to the quality of wine (France, Germany, New Zealand), then in a bad season the wine contains many more substances that cause hangovers. 2. Drinking it too young. Almost all red wines and Chardonnay are matured in oak barrels so that they will keep and improve. If you drink this wine younger than three years there will be a higher level of nasties that can cause hangovers. If left to mature these nasties change to neutral substances and don’t cause hangovers. As a rule of thumb, wine stored in oak barrels for six months should be acceptable to drink within the first year. If the wine is stored for twelve months or more in oak barrels, it should then be aged at least four years. Some winemakers have been known to add oak chips directly into the wine to enhance flavors (especially in a weak vintage and especially in cheaper wines); this can take years to become neutral.[24] In other words, in the ancient world, with less precise agriculture, and minimal control over fermentation – and the common consumption of young wine that was not kept in barrels, the wine was surely “stronger” in the sense that the after-effects were far more potent, meriting dilution. We can also explain the Rashi/Rambam difference of opinion using cultural norms. Greek culture, which dominated the Mediterranen and Babylonia for hundreds of years, ceased to be dominant in Gaul and elsewhere in Northern Europe after the decline of the Roman Empire. But in the Mediterranean, region, Greek and Roman customs remained dominant in non-Muslim circles for far longer. Rashi was in France, where the natives had never preferred their wine diluted. The Rambam was in Alexandria, where wine, made anywhere in the Mediterranean region (including Israel) had been drunk with water for a thousand years.

Part II A Brief History of Wine Technology and Dilution Wine is one of mankind’s oldest inventions; the archaeological record shows wine dating back to at least 3000 BCE, and the Torah describes Noach consciously and deliberately planting a vineyard and getting inebriated. But technology has changed a great deal since then, not always for the better. For starters, wine was always basically made the same way: crush the grapes and let them ferment. Grapes are a wondrous food, in that they collect, on their outer skins, the agents for their own fermentation. Yeast, of various kinds, settle on the exterior skin, and as soon as the skin is broken (when the grape is crushed), the yeasts mix and start to react with the sweet juice inside. The problem is that there are thousands of different yeasts, and while some of them make fine wine, many others will make an alcoholic beverage that tastes awful.[25] Additionally, there are many bacteria that also feast on grape juice, producing a wide range of compounds that affect the taste of the finished product. The end result, in classic wine making, was that the product was highly unpredictable. Today, sulfites (sulphur dioxide compounds) are added as the grapes are crushed, killing the native yeast and bacteria that otherwise would have fermented in an unpredictable way. Then the winemaker adds the yeast combinations of his choice, yielding a predictable, and enjoyable product. Today, virtually every wine made in the world includes added sulfites for this very reason. Adding sulfites prior to fermentation was NOT employed in the ancient world, and was only pioneered two centuries ago. There is no mention of killing the native yeast in the Gemara or in the Torah, nor of adding sulfites. With the advent of Pasteur in the 19th century, and a new understanding of the fermentation process and of yeasts, the process of winemaking turned from an art to a cookbook science. Wines steadily improved as winemakers learned to add sulfites and custom yeasts, leading to today’s fine wines. Ancient Ancient Late Europe, Europe Israel and Greece and Early Roman – medieval 16th 19th century Egypt Rome Century to present onward Controlled Poorly Poorly Poorly Sulfides Controlled fermentation understood. understood, with understood, with became environments Unstable unstable results. unstable results. known, and became the results.[26] Salt-water was Salt-water was then norm. Though when often added to often added to consciously wine was the must to the must to applied. boiled before control control fermentation, fermentation.[28] fermentation.[31] it allowed Wine cellars were Wine cellars were for a more sometimes sometimes controlled fumigated prior fumigated prior product.[27] to crushing the to crushing the grapes.[29] grapes.[32] Grape Juice was known, and could be made to keep.[30] Storage of wine was another matter. The ancient world was better at preserving wine after it was made. In the ancient world (from Egypt through Greece and early Rome), wine was kept in amphorae. Amphorae are earthenware vessels, typically with a small mouth on top. The amphorae were sealed with clay, wax, cork or gypsum. The insides of the amphorae, if made of clay, were sealed with pitch, to make them airtight. It was well understood that if air got in, the wine would turn bad, and eventually to vinegar. Some amphorae were even made of glass, and then carefully sealed with gypsum, specifically to preserve the wine. Wine Strength and Dilution With proper amphorae, if the wine was good when it went into the vessel, it was quite likely to be good when it was retrieved, even if it was years later. The Egyptians and Greeks and Romans had vintage wines – wines that they could pull out of the cellar decades after it had been made.

But amphorae represented the pinnacle of wine storage, unmatched until the glass bottle was invented in the 19th century. Around the time of the destruction of the Second Beis Hamikdash, the technology shifted. Barrels became prevalent[33], and remained the standard until the advent of the glass bottle in the 19th century. Barrels are made of wood, and they breathe. Without proper sealing, wine that is uncovered, untopped or unprotected by insufficient sulfur dioxide has a much shorter shelf life. Once a wine goes still (stops fermenting), it’s critical to protect it.[34] Ancient Ancient Late Europe, Europe Israel and Greece and Roman – 16th 19th Egypt Early Rome medieval Century century to onward present Storage Sometimes Amphorae Sealed Wooden Wine sealed with good wine is barrels bottles amphorae; seals.[36] valued.[38] continue. are used. sometimes Sulfur candles Even so, For the poor were sometimes amphorae fell first time ones.[35] used. Romans out of use, since the and Greeks and were time of continued to replaced with the Beis add salt wooden Hamikdash, water when the barrels, wine can wine was which be safely sealed – as breathe. stored for well as But Gemara a long boiling and forbids time. using sulphur in pitch.[37] korbanos.[39] Predictability proved to be another major problem for winemakers, especially in the ancient world. Ancient Ancient Late Europe, Europe Israel and Greece and Roman – 16th 19th century Egypt Early Rome medieval Century to present onward Predictability If Unpredictable. Slightly Very Excellent. of product the wine was Very much a more good. Advances in good when “buyer beware” predictable, Storage understanding sealed, market, with as sulfides was good, the role of predictability no warranty, were in yeast and was excellent. and a belief sometimes barrels. bacteria, and But sulfides in mazal to used. the addition were not keep wine of understood good.[40] selected wine well enough to yeasts means make the raw that wine is product highly consistently predictable. drinkable. Marcus Porcius Cato (234-150 B.C.), refers to some of the problems related to the preservation of fermented wine. In Cato alludes to such problems when he speaks of the terms “for the sale of wine in jars.” One of the conditions was that “only wine which is neither sour nor musty will be sold. Within three days it shall be tasted subject to the decision of an honest man, and if the purchaser fails to have this done, it will be considered tasted; but any delay in the tasting caused by the owner will add as many days to the time allowed the purchaser.”[41] Pliny, for example, frankly acknowledges that “it is a peculiarity of wine among liquids to go moldy or else to turn into vinegar; and whole volumes of instructions how to remedy this have been published.”[42] Sulfites, which are used now for fermentation and also for stored wine, were in occasional (if not consistent) use in the ancient world as well. The Gemara speaks of “sulfurating baskets,” for example.[43] It is well-documented that by 100 B.C.E. Roman winemakers often burned sulfur wicks inside their barrels to help prevent the wine from spoiling.[44] They also sealed barrels and amphorae with sulfur compounds, with the same goal. The practise was not universal, and it was not well understood, so results varied widely. Freshly pressed grape juice has a tendency to spoil due to contamination from bacteria and wild yeasts present on the grape skins. Not only does sulfur dioxide inhibit the growth of molds and bacteria, but it also stops oxidation (browning) and preserves the wine’s natural flavor.[45] From the Romans until the 16th Century, wine preservation in the barrel was not reliably achieved; throughout the medieval and early modern period all wine was drunk young, usually within a year of the vintage.[46]… wines kept in barrels generally lasted only a year before becoming unpalatable. In the 16th century, Dutch traders found that only wine treated with sulfur could survive the long sea voyages without it turning to vinegar. [47] 15th century German wine laws restored the Roman practise, with the decree that sulfur candles be burned inside barrels before filling them with wine, and by the 18th century sulfur candles were regularly used to sterilize barrels in Bordeaux. The sulfur dioxide left on the container would dissolve into the wine, becoming the preservative we call sulfites. Even then, they were clever enough to realize that the sulfur addition improved wine quality.[48] Ancient Ancient Late Europe, Europe Israel and Greece and Roman – 16th Century 19th Egypt Early Rome medieval onward century to present Shelf Boiled Variable, By Shelf Vintage life wine lasted a but could be the time of life is wines once long time, excellent. the Gemara, somewhat again making Vintage wines wine only 3 longer, as exist. storage and existed, and years old sulfides are Corks exports less old wines were was rediscovered. allow for risky, at the prized.[50] considered Bottles were wine to cost There were no very old. introduced in age in a of reduced corks, so wine Wine aged the late 17th bottle – quality.[49] did not very poorly. century. Corks the breathe in And the also come into tradeoff storage.[51] Romans use. is that abandoned shelf life the use of is more sulfites in limited wine than in storage.[52] the ancient world.[53] In the ancient world, wine flavorings appear to be as old as wine itself! The oldest archaeological record of wine-making shows that figs were used in the wine as well – as we have said, wine made without benefit of sulfites, will be unpredictable at best; fig juice would sweeten the wine and make it more palatable.[54] But with all the added flavorings in the world, the process itself often led to some pretty unattractive results. The impregnation with resin has been still preserved, with the result of making some modern Greek wines unpalatable save to the modern Greeks themselves. … Ancient wines were also exposed in smoky garrets until reduced to a thick syrup, when they had to be strained before they were drunk. Habit only it seems could have endeared these pickled and pitched and smoked wines to the Greek and Roman palates, as it has endeared to some of our own caviare and putrescent game.[55] When Hecamede prepares a drink for Nestor, she sprinkles her cup of Pramnian wine with grated cheese, perhaps a sort of Gruyere, and flour.[56] The most popular of these compound beverages was the (mulsum), or honey wine, said by Pliny (xiv. 4) to have been invented by Aristaeus. Ancient Ancient Late Europe, Europe Israel and Greece and Early Roman – 16th Century 19th Egypt Rome medieval onward century to present Flavorings Highly Added Became Post-fermentation, Virtually variable, and in copious less common, flavorings are unheard usually quantities and as it is almost never of; to add added.[57][58] varieties, acknowledged used. a flavour almost surely to that Wine from a bottle to wine cover odd tastes flavorings is consistently would be and were to more pure in the considered oxidation caused cover modern age than it a gross by poor failings in ever was before. insult to manufacture and the wine. the storage winemaker, techniques.[59] and the Cornels, figs, noble medlars, roses, grape cumin, itself. asparagus, parsley, radishes, laurels, absinthium, junipers, cassia, peppers, cinnamon, and saffron, with many other particulars, were also used for flavouring wines.[60] Greeks added grated goat’s milk cheese and white barley before consumption of wine.[61] Discriminating Romans even kept flavor packets with them when they traveled, so they could flavour wines they were served in taverns along the way. Trade also changed greatly over time. The ancient Mediterranean was a hotbed of trade, and wine was also shipped overland. Many wine presses and storage cisterns have been found from Mount Hermon to the Negev. Inscriptions and seals of wine jars illustrate that wine was a commercial commodity being shipped in goatskin or jugs from ports such as Dor, Ashkelon and Joppa (Jaffa). The vineyards of Galilee and Judea were mentioned then; wines with names like Sharon, Carmel and from places like Gaza, Ashkelon and Lod were famous.[62] Wine was a major export from ancient Israel. This situation was mirrored in Greece and Rome. Wine was traded throughout the Mediterranean (it was as easy to ship wine 100 miles by ship as it was to haul it 1 mile across land). But Roman wines were popular, and were shipped overland to Gaul and elsewhere. In the later Roman period, the spread of winemaking inland (away from the convenient Mediterranean) meant that wines were rarely shipped far. The wine trade remained for the benefit of the very wealthy for over a thousand years, only resuming in the 16th and 17th centuries. And today, of course, the wine trade is ubiquitous, with wines available from around the world. Grape juice was almost always fermented; before Pasteur, avoiding the fermentation of wine was not well understood, and any grape juice that is not sulfated will ferment if yeast is added to it. Still, the concept of grape juice was understood before wine – the butler squeezed grapes directly in Pharoah’s cup, after all. And the Gemara calls it “new wine.”[63] It certainly could be drunk then, though it was far from achieving its full potency. Ancient Ancient Europe, Europe Israel and Egypt Greece through medieval 16th Century 19th century onward to present Cultural In Drunkenness Dilution Social consumption Israel, wine was was is seen as a drinking is drunk straight. http://seforim.blogspot.com/2012/10/wine-strength-and-dilution.html#_ftn64″ way to cheat praised; wine Drunkenness was name=”_ftnref64″ title=””>[64] the consumer; is drunk to discouraged; self wine was consumed in large quantities. common in achieve the control lower class same buzz the praised. taverns. Greeks praised. It is evident that wine was seen in ancient times as a medicine (and as a solvent for medicines) and of course as a beverage. Yet as a beverage it was always thought of as a mixed drink. Plutarch (Symposiacs III, ix), for instance, states. “We call a mixture ‘wine,’ although the larger of the component parts is water.” The ratio of water might vary, but only barbarians drank it unmixed, and a mixture of wine and water of equal parts was seen as “strong drink” and frowned upon. The term “wine” or oinos in the ancient world, then, did not mean wine as we understand it today but wine mixed with water. Usually a writer simply referred to the mixture of water and wine as “wine.” To indicate that the beverage was not a mixture of water and wine he would say “unmixed (akratesteron) wine.”[65] There is some question whether or not what “wine” and “strong drink” Leviticus 10:8, 9, Deuteronomy 14:26; 29:6; Judges 13:4, 7, 14; First Samuel 1:15: Proverbs 20:1; 31:4,6: Isaiah 5:11, 22; 28:7; 29:9; 56:12; and Micah 2:11. “Strong drink” is most likely another fermented product – beer. Beer can be made from any grain, and would be contrasted with wine most obviously because it was substantially less expensive (typically 1/5th the cost, in ancient Egypt) while still offering about the same alcohol content.[66] (Yeast works the same way in both). Ancient Ancient Europe, Europe Israel and Greece through medieval 16th Century 19th Egypt onward century to present Watered Isaiah Greeks Wine Consumer down refers to watered down wine, as they is not never watered wine preferred to drink large diluted, at drinks perjoratively. quantities. They knew of least not in wine people who drank undiluted better known to wine, but considered it a establishments be barbaric practise.. Wine was diluted. customarily diluted with water in a three-to-one ratio of water to wine during Talmudic times.[67] Still even the famously strong Falernian wines were sometimes drunk straight.[68] Why did people water down wine? One possibility, given in Section I is that certain wines were more likely to cause a hangover. [69] The more commonly suggested solution than the presence of hangover-inducing components, is that wine served as a disinfectant for water that itself might be unsafe. Today, we know this is true. Drinking wine makes our water safer to drink, and it also helps sanitize the food we eat at meals when we drink wine. Living typhoid and other microbes have been shown to die quickly when exposed to wine. [70] Research shows that wine (as well as grape juice)[71], are highly effective against foodborne pathogens[72] while not significantly weakening “good” probiotic bacteria.[73] In one study, it was shown that wine that was diluted to 40% was still effective against foodborne pathogens, and drier wines were much better at killing dangerous bacteria. The ancients believed that wine was good for one’s health[74], even if they didn’t have the faintest idea why this was so. Microbes were only discovered in the 19th century, and ancient medicine was in many respects indistinguishable from witchcraft. Still, it seems hard to deny that Romans and Greeks at least grasped some of the medicinal value of the grape; wines were a common ingredient in many Roman medicines.[75] And given the antibacterial powers of wine, it is obvious that a patient who drank diluted wine instead of water would be helping his body by not adding dangerous microbes when the body was already weakened by something else. Still, the evidence remains anecdotal. The Torah does not mention wine as having medicinal benefits, though the New Testament does suggest wine as a cure for poor digestion[76] – entirely consistent with what we know about wine’s antibacterial properties. And as noted by the Jewish Encyclopedia, the Gemara reflects many of Galen’s positions on the health-giving qualities of wine: Wine taken in moderation was considered a healthful stimulant, possessing many curative elements. The Jewish sages were wont to say, “Wine is the greatest of all medicines; where wine is lacking, there drugs are necessary” (B. B. 58b). … R. Papa thought that when one could substitute beer for wine, it should be done for the sake of economy. But his view is opposed on the ground that the preservation of one’s health is paramount to considerations of economy (Shab. 140b). Three things, wine, white bread, and fat meat, reduce the feces, lend erectness to one’s bearing, and strengthen the sight. Very old wine benefits the whole body (Pes. 42b). Ordinary wine is harmful to the intestines, but old wine is beneficial (Ber. 51a). Rabbi was cured of a severe disorder of the bowels by drinking apple-wine seventy years old, a Gentile having stored away 300 casks of it (‘Ab. Zarah 40b). “The good things of Egypt” (Gen. xlv. 23) which Joseph sent to his father are supposed by R. Eleazar to have included “old wine,” which satisfies the elderly person (Meg. 16b). Until the age of forty liberal eating is beneficial; but after forty it is better to drink more and eat less (Shab. 152a). R. Papa said wine is more nourishing when taken in large mouthfuls. Raba advised students who were provided with little wine to take it in liberal drafts (Suk. 49b) in order to secure the greatest possible benefit from it. Wine gives an appetite, cheers the body, and satisfies the stomach (Ber. 35b).[77] Others have made the bolder argument — that the core purpose of dilution was to purify water for drinking.[78] The ancients began by adding wine to water (to decontaminate it) and finished by adding water to wine (so that they didn’t get too drunk too quickly). A letter, written in brownish ink on a pottery shard dating from the seventh century BC, instructs Eliashiv, the Judaean commander of the Arad fortress in southern Israel, to supply his Greek mercenaries with flour, oil and wine. The [Israel Museum in Jerusalem] exhibition’s curator, Michal Dayagi-Mendels, explains that the oil and flour were for making bread; the wine was not for keeping them happy, but for purifying brackish water. To prove her point, she displays a collection of tenth-century BC hip flasks, with built-in spoons for measuring the dosage.[79] While the archaeological record is strong in this respect, the lack of textual support, in this author’s opinion, means that there is more evidence that wine was diluted for cultural reasons than because there was a conscious understanding that wine made water safe to drink. Ancient Ancient Late Europe Israel and Greece and Roman – 19th century to Egypt Early Rome medieval present Used No Mainstay Mainstay With for health direct for for safer water, wine not reasons evidence medicine; medicine; as important. perceived perceived Recently, wine is as valuable as valuable prized for its to health to health resveratrol for health and longevity, instead of anti- microbial properties as previously. [1] “Up to and including the time of the Gemara, wines were so strong that they could not be drunk without dilution…. Nowadays, our wines are not so strong, and we no longer dilute them.” Rabbi Avraham Rosenthal (link), “During the time of the Talmud, wine was very concentrated, and was normally diluted with water before drinking. “Rav Ezra Bick (link), “In Talmudic times, wine was sold in a strong, undiluted form, which only attained optimal drinking taste after being diluted with water.” Rabbi Yonason Sacks, (link), “Records indicate that the alcohol content of wine in the ancient days was very high. Therefore, it was a common practice to dilute the wine with water in order to make it drinkable.” (link), “In ancient times, wines were powerfully strong and adding water to dilute their taste and power was common. … Pure wine, undiluted with water, is highly concentrated and difficult to drink. Rabbi Gershon Tennenbaum, (link), “In the days of the Talmud the wine was so strong and concentrated that without dilution it was not drinkable.” Zvi Akiva Fleisher, (link), “During the time of the Talmud, wine was very concentrated, and was normally diluted with water before drinking.” Rav Yair Kahn, (link), “Our wines, which are considerably weaker than those used in the days of Chazal, are better if they are not diluted.” (link) [2] Rashi on Berachos 50b [3] Wine naturally ferments to no more than 16% alcohol (typically 12-14%) before the alcohol kills the yeast off. Alcohol boils away at a lower temperature than water, so boiling wine does not concentrate it. And without the technology of distillation (which was not known in the ancient world), the only practical method that might have concentrated the alcohol in a wine would be to add plaster of paris; water would be absorbed, and the alcohol would be concentrated. But we have no evidence that this was done; it would have been far more than a mere flavoring. (see) [4] Isaiah 1:22 [5] Spices and flavorings, on the other hand, were considered fit for guests and offerings: Proverbs 9:2,5 and Isaiah 65:11 both refer to wine which is “mem-samech-ches”, meaning that it has been spiced and is ready to serve. This is the best of wine, though as warned in Proverbs 23:30, such wine has dangerous side effects. This is entirely consistent with what we know of wine flavorings in the ancient world (see Part II): spices made wine more palatable, so it could more easily be consumed to excess. [6] Isaiah 25:6 [7] Dr. Uprichard adds: Fermentation is the conversion of complex sugars, via glucose and pyruvic acid into ethanol and CO2. Natural yeasts die when the alcohol content of their culture medium (i.e. the liquid that is being produced for human consumption) exceeds a certain limit. Limit varies depending on the yeast and other factors, but is generally somewhere between 12-15% alcohol by volume. For wine to be stronger, it has to be fortified. Fortification is a process in which spirit is added to the wine. There are many fortified wines made around the world. However there are only two basic ways of fortification: 1: The Sherry Method – the must, which is a mixture of juice, pulp, skins and seeds, is fermented out, leaving a dry wine. The spirit is then added. Consequently all sherry method wines are dry to begin with. If the final style of wine is other than dry, sweetening is added prior to bottling. Sherry was invented in the 8th Century, CE. 2: The Port Method – the must is only partly fermented, and the process is stopped by the addition of sufficient spirit to prevent the yeast working. ie the alcohol content is raised to a level which kills the yeasts and leaves much of the sugar unfermented. Consequently port-method wines are generally sweet. Adding sugar will feed the process but only until the yeasts (which are effectively the enzymes in the reaction) are used up (or in this case killed off). The Rambam, who diluted wine, did NOT consider fortified wine to be suitable for Kiddush; his wine was unfortified, and undistilled, and therefore could not exceed 15-16% alcohol. [8] Hilchot Chametz UMatzah 7:9 [9] Rambam considered young new wine (presumably only lightly fermented) to be distinctly unhealthy (see). [10] It is clear that personal and cultural preferences remain very important when talking about whether to use wine or grape juice for Kiddush or the Arba Kossos. Rav Soloveitichik writes that if one does not enjoy wine, he should use grape juice for the Arba Kosot, as that will be a pleasant drink according to his taste. [11] Berachos, 50b [12] Sanhedrin 70a. The Greeks had the same standard: to drink wine diluted 1:1 was repudiated as disgraceful (see). [13] II Maccabees 15:39 [14] Instructor II, ii, 23.3—24.1 [15] Athenaeus quotes Mnesitheus of Athens: “The gods has revealed wine to mortals, to be the greatest blessing for those who use it aright, but for those who use it without measure, the reverse. For it gives food to them that take it and strength in mind and body. In medicine it is most beneficial; it can be mixed with liquid and drugs and it brings aid to the wounded. In daily intercourse, to those who mix and drink it moderately, it gives good cheer; but if you overstep the bounds, it brings violence. Mix it half and half, and you get madness; unmixed, bodily collapse.” [Odyssey IX, 232.] [16] http://www.allaboutgreekwine.com/history.htm [17] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/city-life-jerusalem-from-wat er-to-wine-and-back-1098746.html [18] Pliny (Natural History XIV, vi, 54) mentions a ratio of eight parts water to one part wine. In one ancient work, Athenaeus’s The Learned Banquet, written around A.D. 200, we find in Book Ten a collection of statements from earlier writers about drinking practices. A quotation from a play by Aristophanes reads: “‘Here, drink this also, mingled three and two.’ Demus. ‘Zeus! But it’s sweet and bears the three parts well!’” [19] http://www.mmdtkw.org/VRomanWine.html. Why did the Greeks enjoy diluted wine, and the Jews of ancient Israel preferred it straight? We cannot be certain of the answer, but it is clear that the Greeks praised drinking very large quantities; it was a feature of every meal, which regularly lasted for hours. For them, wine was a necessity, and the culture rotated around its unrestrained consumption – the Greeks drank by the gallon. Undiluted wine, however, cannot be drunk by the gallon. Greeks liked to get drunk, but they wanted it to take time. Ceremonious, sociable consumption of wine was the core communal act of the Greek aristocratic system. [http://tinyurl.com/cmlsbu]. By contrast, in the Torah wine is consistently praised – in moderation. Drunkenness is never a virtue in Judaism, and the shucking off of self control and loss of inhibitions that was part and parcel of Dionysian rites is considered unacceptable to G-d fearing Jews. So wine, in full strength, was praised and consumed, but consumption for its own sake was not encouraged. [20] Hundreds of clay jars of wine (with a total volume of some 4,500 liters (118.78 gallons) were buried with one of the first Egyptian kings, Scorpion I (about 3150 B.C.E.). Analysis of the clay shows that the jars were made in the modern Israel-Palestine region. http://www.answers.com/topic/wine-in-the-ancient-world [21] http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/002316.html [22] Had there been any significant qualitative difference between wine grown in one place as opposed to another, it would be apparent by the archaeological and written records we have; the ancient Greeks, for example, spent a lot of ink writing about wine, with no mention that any wine was significantly stronger than any other. [23] Proposed by Brian Foont [24] http://www.beekmanwine.com/prevtopas.htm [25] As written about a modern wine that is made without sulfides: “we had an organic, ‘no sulfite added’ chardonnay on the menu. It was an amazing wine to behold. That is when it wasn’t brown and vaguely reminiscent of sewage, which was about one out of every four bottles.” http://winekulers.com/11_1_08.htm . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeast#Wine for more information about the process in general. Ancient wineries, lacking modern sanitation, would have had a much lower “success” rate. [26] Egyptian wines cannot have been very stable because the grapes were picked and crushed in August, then were slowly crushed and pressed and then rapidly fermented, all in the summer heat. http://www.answers.com/topic/wine-in-the-ancient-world [27] http://tinyurl.com/dl5ypr . Though according to oeniphiles, boiling the wine at any time destroys the flavor. Boiled wine was not allowed as a korban, though it would have led to a more predictable (if mediocre) product. Terumos 11:1 – Rabbi Yehuda, in a minority opinion, considers boiled wine to be superior. [28] “Some people—and indeed almost all the Greeks—preserve must with salt or sea-water.” Columella, On Agriculture 12.25.1. Columella recommended the addition of one pint of salt water for six gallons of wine. [29] http://tinyurl.com/d38a7j [30] Fresh must, when boiled, could have been stored in amphorae and kept sweet, and this could be the boiled wine mentioned in the Gemara. Certainly we don’t need to speculate in the case of the Romans, as http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/3. html writes: Columella gives us an informative description of how they did it: “That must may remain always as sweet as though it were fresh, do as follows. Before the grape-skins are put under the press, take from the vat some of the freshest possible must and put it in a new wine-jar; then daub it over and cover it carefully with pitch, that thus no water may be able to get in. Then sink the whole flagon in a pool of cold, fresh water so that no part of it is above the surface. Then after forty days take it out of the water. The must will then keep sweet for as much as a year.” [Columella, On Agriculture 12, 37, 1]… This method of preserving grape juice must have been in use long before the time of Pliny and Columella, because Cato (234-149 B.C.) mentions it two centuries before them: “If you wish to keep grape juice through the whole year, put the grape juice in an amphora, seal the stopper with pitch, and sink in the pond. Take it out after thirty days; it will remain sweet the whole year.” [Marcus Cato, On Agriculture 120, 1.] [31] “Some people—and indeed almost all the Greeks—preserve must with salt or sea-water.” Columella, On Agriculture 12.25.1. [32] http://tinyurl.com/d38a7j [33] Barrels have many advantages: they are less expensive and less prone to breakage; they stack and roll, and generally allow for easier transportation. The downside of a shortened shelf life for the wine was apparently considered an acceptable price to pay for these advantages. [34] http://www.winemakermag.com/stories/article/indices/34-sulfite /765-wine-wizard-revealed-a-top-10-winemaking-questions [35] In Egypt, the clay jars were slightly porous (unless they were coated with resin or oil), which would have led to a degree of oxidation. There was no premium on aging wine here, and there are records of wine going bad after twelve to eighteen months. http://www.answers.com/topic/wine-in-the-ancient-world [36] Jeremiah 48:11, Moab is compared to a container of fine wine that is not disturbed: “therefore its taste has stayed in it, and its scent was not diminished.” Unsealed wine in the ancient world was known to lose its essence. [37] http://tinyurl.com/d38a7j [38] The foster-mother of Abaye is authority for the statement that a six-measure cask properly sealed is worth more than an eight-measure cask that is not sealed (B. ‑3. 12a) [39] John Kitto’s Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature says: “When the Mishna forbids smoked wines from being used in offerings (Manachoth, viii. 6, et comment.), it has chiefly reference to the Roman practice of fumigating them with sulphur, the vapor of which absorbed the oxygen, and thus arrested the fermentation. The Jews carefully eschewed the wines and vinegar of the Gentiles.” But presumably smoked wines were acceptable for consumption, even if not for offerings? [40] Rab said that for three days after purchase the seller is responsible if the wine turns sour; but after that his responsibility ceases. R. Samuel declared that responsibility falls upon the purchaser immediately upon the delivery of the wine, the rule being “Wine rests on the owner’s shoulders.” R. ‑Hiyya b. Joseph said, “Wine must share the owner’s luck” (B. B. 96a, b, 98a). If one sells a cellarful of wine, the purchaser must accept ten casks of sour wine in every hundred (Tosef., B. B. vi. 6). [41] On Agriculture, Chapter 148. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cato/De_Agri cultura/J*.html . Cato shares the opinion of Rav: “For three days after purchase the seller is responsible if the wine turns sour; but after that his responsibility ceases.” B. B. 96a. [42] www.biblicalperspectives.com/books/wine_in_the_bible/3.html [43] Berachos 27b, line 14. [44] http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fg20040813wc.html [45] http://www.ecowine.com/sulfites.htm [46] Wine and the Vine: An Historical Geography of Viticulture and the Wine Trade Tim Unwin [47] http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/fg20040813wc.html . Even snakes could recognize the dropoff in quality– only boiled wine, if it were left uncovered, could be drunk the next morning (Avodah Zarah 30a). [48] http://www.goosecross.com/education/sulfites.html [49] Yerushalmi, on Terumos 11:1 notes that cooked wine is inferior in quality to uncooked wine, but is superior in the sense that it lasts longer. [50] “The good things of Egypt” (Gen. xlv. 23) which Joseph sent to his father are supposed by R. Eleazar to have included “old wine,” which satisfies the elderly person (Meg. 16b). At the great banquet given by King Ahasuerus the wine put before each guest was from the province whence he came and of the vintage of the year of his birth (Meg. 12a). In Rome, wines were preferred to be aged anywhere from 10 to 25 years. In fact, the Emperor Caligula was once presented with a 160 year old vintage that was considered a supreme treat. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/ wine.html [51] Vintage wines of the ancient world were lost when sealed amphorae were replaced with wooden barrels at the end of the second century, AD (Techernia, 1986), and their reappearance had to await the development in the 17th century of glass bottles stoppered with cork. From “Wine and the Vine: An Historical Geography of Viticulture and Wine Trade” [52] If William Younger is to be believed, the Romans had entirely abandoned sulfites by the end of their millenium of winemaking. http://www.winecrimes.com/winecrimes/ [53] Singer, Holmyard, Hall et cie “History of Technology” [54] http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/002316.html [55] http://chestofbooks.com/food/beverages/Drinks-Of-The-World/Rom an-Wines.html [56] Aelian (V. H. xii. 31, quoted by http://chestofbooks.com/food/beverages/Drinks-Of-The-World/Cla ssical-Wines-Greek-Wines.html [57] To prevent wine from becoming acid, moldy, or bad-smelling a host of preservatives were used such as salt, sea-water, liquid or solid pitch, boiled- down must, marble dust, lime, sulphur fumes or crushed iris. [58] The aroma, taste and texture of Egyptian wines are lost to us, but in any case the wine was often flavored with herbs and spices before being consumed. [http://www.answers.com/topic/wine-in-the-ancient-world] [59] (1) “alun‑mit,” made of old wine, with a mixture of very clear water and balsam; used especially after bathing (Tosef., Dem. i. 24; ‘Ab. Zarah 30a); (2) “‑3afrisin” (caper-wine, or, according to Rashi, Cyprus wine), an ingredient of the sacred incense (Ker. 6a); (3) “yen ‑ìimmu‑3in” (raisin-wine); (4) “inomilin,” wine mixed with honey and pepper (Shab. xx. 2; ‘Ab. Zarah l.c.); (5) “ilyoston”, a sweet wine (“vinum dulce”) from grapes dried in the sun for three days, and then gathered and trodden in the midday heat (Men. viii. 6; B. B. 97b); (6) “me’ushshan,” from the juice of smoked or fumigated sweet grapes (Men. l.c.); not fit for libation; (7) “enogeron,” a sauce of oil and garum to which wine was added; (8) “api‑3‑mewizin,” a wine emetic, taken before a meal (Shab. 12a); (9) “‑3undi‑mon” (“conditum”), a spiced wine (‘Ab. Zarah ii. 3); (10) “pesinti‑mon” (“absinthiatum”), a bitter wine (Yer. ‘Ab. Zarah ii. 3); [60] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text.jsp?doc=Perseus%3Atex t%3A1999.02.0103%3Aact%3D3%3Ascene%3D2 and http://tinyurl.com/djtrzl [61] http://tinyurl.com/cny5jx [62] http://www.wines-israel.co.il/len/apage/20029.php [63] Rabbi Hanina B. Kahana answers the question: “How long is it called new wine?” by saying, “As long as it is in the first stage of fermentation . . . and how long is this first stage? Three days.” Sanhedrin 70a. [64] The Greeks were aware of the results of excessive consumption of wine, and it was recommended that wine be diluted with water in order to avoid this. It was also seen as socially stigmatizing to drink undiluted wine, and this was often seen as “a habit confined to barbarians”. The Romans were also well aware of the results of drunkenness, and Pliny’s famous comment “in vino verias” is not to be a disinterested observation, but a chastisement of those who “do not keep to themselves words that will come back to them through a slit in their throat.” [http://www.mta.ca/faculty/humanities/classics/Course_Material s/CLAS3051/Food/Wine.html ] [65] http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/Bible/Doctrines/Holiness/D rugs%20&%20Alcohol/Wine- Drinking%20in%20New%20Testament%20Times.htm [66] Beer is typically less alcoholic than wine; typical brewing yeast cannot survive at alcohol concentrations above 12% by volume. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer Wine can run to 15-16%. [67] R. Eliezer says “boreh pri hagefen” is pronounced only when the wine has been properly mixed with water. [68] Catullus wrote: Postumia more tipsy than the tipsy grape. But water, begone, away with you, water, destruction of wine, and take up abode with scrupulous folk. This is the pure Thyonian god. [ http://ammonastery.wordpress.com/2008/03/16/wine-le-vin/ ] . Falernian wines were as strong as fifteen or sixteen percent alcohol. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/ wine.html [69] Proposed by Brian Foont [70] http://tinyurl.com/cnzwes [The Origins and Ancient History of Wine By Patrick McGovern, Stuart James Fleming, Solomon H. Katz] [71] Grape juice and wine are much more beneficial to health than beer with the same alcohol content – other properties of the grape, even before fermentation, are good for people. This means that diluted grape juice (and boiled grape juice or wine) also had health benefits even without alcohol. [72] such as Helicobacter pylori, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium and Shigella boydii, [73] edt.missouri.edu/Fall2008/Thesis/DasA-121208- T11486/research.pdf [74] A passage in the Hippocratic writings from the section “regimen in Health” draws upon this basic assumption: “Laymen…should in winter…drink as little as possible; drink should be wine as undiluted as possible…when spring comes, increase drink and make it very diluted…in summer…the drink diluted and copious.” [http://www.mta.ca/faculty/humanities/classics/Course_Material s/CLAS3051/Food/Wine.html – Hippocrates dates from 400 BCE] Drugs such as horehound, squills, wormwood, and myrtle-berries, were introduced to wine to produce hygienic effects. [75] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Rome_and_wine The Romans believed that wine had both healing and destructive powers. It could heal the mind from depression, memory loss and grief as well as the body from various ailments-including bloating, constipation, diarrhea, gout, halitosis, snakebites, tapeworms, urinary problems and vertigo. Cato wrote extensively on the medical uses of wine, including espousing a recipe for creating wine that could aid as laxative by using grapes whose vines were treated to a mixture of ashes, manure and hellebore. He wrote that the flowers of certain plants like juniper and myrtle could be soaked in wine to help with snakebites and gout. Cato believed that a mixture of old wine and juniper, boiled in a lead pot could aid in urinary issues and that mixing wines with very acidic pomegranates would cure tapeworms.[23] The 2nd century AD Greco-Roman physician Galen provides several details about how wine was used medicinally in later Roman times. In Pergamon, Galen was responsible for the diet and care of the gladiator. He made liberal use of wine in his practice and boasted that not a single gladiator died in his care. For wounds, he would bath them in wine as an antiseptic. He would also use wine as analgesic for surgery. When Galen became the physician of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, he worked on developed pharmaceutical drugs and concoctions made from wine known as theriacs. The abilities of the these theriacs developed superstitious beliefs that lasted till the 18th century and revolved around their “miraculous” ability to protect against poisons and cure everything from the plague to mouth sores. In his work De Antidotis, Galen notes the trend of Roman tastes from thick, sweet wines to lighter, dry wines that were easier to digest.[14] [76] Paul commands Timothy to use alcohol with his water due to his frequent illness (1 Timothy 5:23). Evidently Timothy had been drinking only water, and that was causing sickness. [77] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=201&letter=W& search=wine#599 [78] Inhibitory activity of diluted wine on bacterial growth: the secret of water purification in antiquity, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, Volume 26, Issue 4, Pages 338-340 P.Dolara, S.Arrigucci, M.Cassetta, S.Fallani, A.Novelli [79] http://www.independent.co.uk/news/city-life-jerusalem-from-wat er-to-wine-and-back-1098746.html