The Perils of Ignoring Precedent: Alterations in the Kaddish Prayer

The Perils of Ignoring Precedent: Alterations in the Kaddish Prayer by Dan Rabinowitz

Recently there has been a renewal in interest in the structure and make up of the liturgy or . While there have previously been critical editions of the siddur or articles on topics related to the siddur,[1] today’s renaissance of the siddur has been precipitated by a different series of events. Specifically, this has been fostered by the publication and republication of some important source material on the topic; these include, among others R. Shabbetai Sofer of Przmysl’s Siddur Rav Shabbetai Sofer and R. Jacob Emden’s Luach Eresh.[2] The Siddur Rav Shabbetai is key in the development of the siddur, in so far that this edition was considered by many to be considered the edition par excellence of the siddur.[3] While there has been a flurry of source material, at the same time there has been movement in the opposite direction – a movement which tends to ignore this rich legacy and instead has decided issues of the siddur not based upon critical investigation but rather on reliance on sources that my not be trustworthy. The results have been less than salutary.

One example of both of these trends – the new evidence as well as a seemingly blindness to this evidence – can be found regarding the punctuation of the kaddish prayer.

The Early Evidence Regarding Kaddish

There is a dispute how to punctuate the first two words in kaddish – yisgadel v’yiskadesh (as well as other words in the kaddish, as will become apparent). The controversy is whether they have a patach or a tzeirei under the letter dalet.

The historical evidence is absolute – all the early siddurim punctuate these words with a patach.[4] For example, starting from the 1475 (?) ,[5] the 1486, Soncino Machzor,[6] 1519, Prague Teffilot m’Kol HaShana,[7] 1536, Ausberg Machzor k’seder HaAshkenazim, [8] 1541 Bolonga Machzor k’fei Minhagi k’k Roma, [9] and the 1616 Hanau Seder Teffilot k’ Ashkenaz u’Polin [10] all punctuate the first two words of the kaddish with a patach.[11]

The first to raise and discuss the issue of the punctuation was R. Shabbetai Sofer.[12] In his monumental introduction he discusses the proper pronunciation of the kaddish.[13] He cites the two possibilities mentioned above – a patach or a tzeirei. He explains that the evidence from the Bible seems to point to both. Specifically, he points to contradictory verses in the Book of Daniel. One verse has the word yisgadal with a tzeirei while the other has it with a komatz. R. Sofer explains that the latter must have been punctuated with a patach. The reason is this word appears at the end of the verse. When words appear at a stopping point with a komatz, their regular form can only be with either a segol or a patach. In this case it would be a patach. Thus, we have two verses which seem to lend credence to both readings.

R. Sofer, continues and explains that although one may argue that since the verse has the word yisgadal with a tzeirei that would be the more correct pronunciation, this is not the case. He rejects this due to other grammatical considerations. R. Sofer explains that at least one word in the kaddish passage must be punctuated with a patach and thus, “to keep the words the same (l’zaveg et ha’melot) all should be punctuated with a patach.”[14]

Thus, R. Sofer was the first to entertain the notion the word should be punctuated with a tzeirei and he rejected this reading. Additionally, based upon the proof texts R. Sofer marshals from numerous biblical verses, it is clear that he made no distinction between whether the words are Hebrew or Aramaic. In fact, it seems R. Sofer was treating the bulk of kaddish as Hebrew. He discusses other words in kaddish and their counterparts in the Bible.[15]

Perhaps, aside from the grammatical considerations, R. Sofer also wanted to justify the long standing practice regarding the pronunciation. If this is the case, he does not mention precedent. But, one can not rule this out as a possible subconscious motive.[16]

The First Change to Kaddish

For the first to actually advocate for the alteration of the pronunciation to a tzeirei, we need to wait until the early 18th century.[17] In the early 18th century, R. Shlomo Zalman Hanau (Katz) published a work on Hebrew grammar entitled, Binyan Shlomo.[18] He published this at the relatively young age of 21.[19] In this work he advanced that the correct pronunciation of the kaddish is with a tzeirei.[20] But, it is not only the first two words. Instead, based upon the rules of grammar all similarly constructed words in kaddish should also have a tzeirei. Thus, yisbrach, yispaer, and v’yisromam all have a tzeirei.[21]

While at first R. Hanau only wrote a grammar work, he eventually incorporated his alterations into both his work on the siddur – Sha’ari Teffilah[22] – as well as his edition of the siddur – Bet Teffilah.[23] In this instance, this alteration to the kaddish only appears in his siddur.[24] In his siddur, he punctuates the kaddish with a tzeirei throughout.[25] Thus, he has a tzeirei for yisbrach, yispaer, and v’yisromam in the kaddish. Additionally, he is thoroughly consistent in his siddur, any other instance of either the same formulation or the same word, R. Hanau always uses the tzeirei. For example, the same opening words of kaddish appear in the prayer after the removal of the Torah. There R. Hanau has a tzeirei for ‘al ha-kol yisgadel v’yiskadesh.[26] In the Shemoneh Esreh where a similar formulation appears – v’al kulam yisbrach v’yisromam again R. Hanau has a tzeirei.[27] As we shall see, most who followed him were not nearly as careful in their punctuation even when they adopted R. Hanau’s understanding of the kaddish punctuation.

Before we leave R. Hanau, we must first understand how his contemporaries viewed his alterations. When he published his Binyan Shlomo aside from the change in kaddish he also took issue with many of his predecessors understanding of Hebrew grammar. It seems that he did so in a less than respectful fashion. In light of this, he was threatened with a ban on his book unless he would print a retraction of his harsh comments. Needless to say, R. Hanau complied. At the end of his Binyan Shlomo he inserted a page (somewhat smaller than the rest of the book) asking forgiveness from those he may have offended.[28]

Not only was his Binyan Shlomo controversial, but his works on the siddur were as well. R. Jacob Emden’s Luach Eresh is a rebuttal of many of R. Hanau’s changes.[29] R. Emden whose was well known for his acerbic remarks spared none for R. Hanau. He accused Hanua of even forging an approbation Hanau received from R. Emden’s father- R. Tzvi Ashkenazi (Hakham Tzvi).[30]

Thus, it seems far from clear whether R. Hanau’s alteration regarding kaddish would in fact be accepted.[31] In fact, based upon his reputation and the historical precedent this alteration would not be accepted. But, due to two unrelated events, his change has gained more and more credence as time has passed.

The Siddurim Which Followed R. Hanau

While R. Hanau was a singular individual whose own edition of the siddur was printed once, he still had a tremendous impact on the development of the siddur. His influence was felt through the inclusion of some of his changes in two important editions of the siddur. The first is Wolf Heidenheim’s and the second is Seligmann Baer. Both of these siddurim included many[32] of Hanau’s changes.[33]

But, for this change to kaddish these siddurim which did not have qualms about incorporating other changes did not for this. Instead, the prevalence of this change is due to two entirely different events. In fact, Seligmann Baer in another of his works, defends the use of the patach.[34]

The Two Events Which Precipitated the Inclusion of R. Hanau’s Change

The first event[35] which promoted R. Hanau’s alteration was the inclusion of it in R. Yosef Teomim’s Peri Megadim. In his comments on the kaddish, R. Teomim includes R. Hanau’s alteration of a patach to a tzeirei.[36]

While at first glance this may appear strange, incorporating a change of questionable accuracy from a questionable source, a closer look at both R. Teomim’s life as well as his own comments, clarifies why he did so. Originally of Eastern European stock, R. Teomim spent two years in Berlin. During this time he studied in the Beit Medrash of Daniel Yaffo. At the time, this Beit Medrash was populated by the leading maskilim of Berlin. It seems that R. Teomim studied with them and may have been exposed to some of the literature. At the very least, R. Teomim appears to have studied one on one with R. Yitzhak Satnow, a leading maskil and a propend of numerous alterations to the siddur.[37]

R. Teomim absorbed the some of the general ideas which were flourishing in Berlin at the time. R. Teomim advocates for a sweeping reform of the education system. He advocates for a more structured system which includes an emphasis on Bible and proper Hebrew.[38] This is reminiscent of some of the later changes advocated by R. Naftali Hertz Wessley another of the leading Berlin maskilim. It is one of these suggestions which returns us to R. Hanau.

R. Teomim provides a list of books he recommends one teach their child. One of these is one of the works of R. Hanau. Specifically, R. Teomim lists R. Hanau’s work on grammar, Tzohar L’Tevah,[39] as one of these texts.[40] Therefore, far from rejecting the innovations of R. Hanau, R. Teomim embraced him and his works. Thus, his citation to R. Hanau in the kaddish is not an anomaly but instead perfectly in line with R. Teomim’s general view of R. Hanau and these sorts of innovations.

While R. Teomim’s citation to Hanau should not be viewed as an anomaly, a later citation should be. R. Yisrael Meir Ha-Kohen (Kagan), otherwise known as the Hafetz Hayyim, in his Mishneh Berurah discusses the proper pronunciation of the kaddish. In doing so, he cites the comments of R. Teomim that the words yisgadel v’yiskadish should be pronounced with a tzeirei.[41] The Hafetz Hayyim did not display the same view towards the haskalah or to innovation as R. Teomim did. Thus, his comment which, when properly traced to its source, should be viewed as nothing less than shocking. One can not say, as was the case with R. Teomim, that the Hafetz Hayyim agreed with or advocated for any of the books or application of R. Hanau. One imagines had the Hafetz Hayyim been aware of the true nature of this comment, he would not have followed it.[42]

Furthermore, one assumes that had the Hafetz Hayyim known of the clear and unambiguous tradition regarding the pronunciation of the kaddish he would not have offered this alternative reading. But, rather ironically, due to the import and the popularity the Hafetz Hayyim’s Mishneh Berurah enjoys today, R. Hanau’s alternation has become the norm in some circles.

We have now discussed the first strange use of R. Hanau’s position on the kaddish. The second to advocate for this pronunciation was allegedly the Vilna Gaon or the Gra. In the posthumous collection of his customs, Ma’aseh Rav, the Gra is recorded as saying the first two words of kaddish with a tzeirei. The rational offered is that these words are in Hebrew as opposed to the rest of kaddish which is in Aramaic.

As an initial matter, it bears mentioning, that although today many have blindly accepted anything mentioned in this collection of customs, Ma’aseh Rav, as in fact the practice of the Gra, this is far from a certainty. When this book was first printed R. Hayyim of Volozhin, in his approbation,[43] already noted at least two possible errors. It is unclear whether the two he mentions explicitly are the only ones or there are others as well.[44]

Putting aside, however, the problems with the Ma’aseh Rav generally, in this specific instance it is far from clear the comment attributed to the Gra is actually correct. According to the Masseh Rav the rational for the change in the punctuation is the classification of the words as Hebrew and not Aramaic. Yet, we have seen already that R. Sofer makes no such distinction. In fact, he assumes they are in fact Hebrew, but still one should pronounce them with a patach. Thus, the fact that these words may or may not be Hebrew is a distinction without difference. It does not immediately follow that once one has decided the words are Hebrew they must be pronounced using a tzeirei.

The Strange Repercussions of the Alteration of the First Two Words of the Kaddish Elsewhere in the Siddur.

Even assuming the custom as recorded in Masseh Rav is correct, the change in punctuation of those two words raises additional problems. As mentioned before there are other words which are either similar to the grammatical structure of the first two words in kaddish and in at least one case in the siddur the very same words appear – all of which are in Hebrew. Thus, these words should get the same treatment as the kaddish words, i.e. be punctuated with a tzeirei. But, in siddurim which claim to follow either the position of the Gra[45] or that of the Chofetz Hayyim, only the kaddish has been altered and the rest retain a patach.

As here has been a renewed interest in the Gra and his customs and those who follow him, there is no lack of siddurim which this point has been borne out. In the first siddur based upon the Gra – Ishe Yisrael – kaddish (the first two words) get a tzeirei while the other instances throughout the siddur all get a patach. In the more recent Siddur Vilna although the change appears in kaddish in the Shemoneh Esreh where the similar formulation appears there is no change.[46] The Siddur Aliyot Eliyahu which was “edited and reset from anew . . . with great care . . . based upon the text of . . . the Gra” changes the first two words of kaddish. Yet, when it comes to both the Shemoneh Esreh and the very same words – yisgadel v’yiskadesh after the removal of the Torah – it employs a patach.[47]

In the recently printed Yom Kippur Machzor which includes the commentary and customs of R. Joseph B. Soloveitchik the same result occurs. This Machzor which also includes a list of R. Soloveitchik’s relevant customs, includes that of R. Soloveitchik’s views on kaddish. One these customs “based on the tradition of the Vilna Gaon that the opening two words of Kaddish” should be pronounced with a tzeirei. This is so because those “two words are Hebrew words . . . and the proper Hebrew pronunciation of each of those words is with a tzeirei.”[48] The editors are not satisfied with the mention of this custom at the beginning of the book, instead, each and every time kaddish appears they make mention of this custom. While they are punctiliousness regarding kaddish they make no mention by either the shemoneh esreh nor by the very same words after the Torah is removed.[49]

To be fair at least one siddur which is based upon the Gra has been partially[50] consistent. In the Siddur Ezor Elyiahu, when the actual words yisgadal v’yiskadah appear during the removal of the Torah, the editor changes those as well to a tzeirei. He notes explicitly that this change is an extension of the Gra’s custom regarding the kaddish.[51]

The problem of altering the kaddish text but retaining the other examples in the siddur was already noted in the late 18th century! R. Isaac Satanow in decries the “haughty simpletons (am aratzim)” who change the kaddish to a tzeirei but fail to note the others. These who “speak in contradictions,” Satanow applies the verse in Proverbs (18:2) “a fool does not delight in understanding.”[52] The expression “better leave well enough alone” is extremely apt.[53]

In conclusion, it would seem that perhaps what may be viewed as a minor change has much broader implications. These implications include the propriety of the change itself as well as the consequences of the change. It seems that many were unaware of these outcomes and both made the change without full awareness of the history. Further, they were also oblivious to the necessity to alter other portions of the text as well. As one scholar has put it “the critical study of Jewish liturgy is in any case too important to be left exclusively to the ‘daveners’!”[54] In the end, unfortunately, these words have proven to be extremely prescient.

Notes: [1] For critical edition of the siddur see, e.g., Seligmann Baer, Avodat Yisrael (Rödelheim, 1868); Wolf Heidenheim’s series on siddurim and machzorim published in the 19th century; Machzor l’Yamin Noraim, ed. Daniel Goldschmit (Jerusalem, 1970); Shlomo Tal, (Jerusalem, 1972). There has also been a significant amount written on the siddur, both its development as well as the text itself. See, e.g., Leopold Zunz, Die Ritus des Synagogalen Gottesdienstes (Berlin, 1859); Abraham Berliner, Ketavim Nivcharim (Jerusalem, 1969); Ismar Elbogen, Jewish Liturgy: A Comprehensive History (Philadelphia, 1993), trans. of the original 1913 German edition; B.S. Jacobson, Netiv Binah (Tel Aviv, 1964); Daniel Goldschmidt, Mehqerei Tefillah u’Piyyut (Jerusalem, 1978); Naftali Wieder, Hitgabshut HaTefillah ba-Mizrach uva-Ma’ariv (Jerusalem, 1998); Stefan Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History (Cambridge, 1995). [2] D. Yitzhaki ed., Luach Eresh, Otzoranu (Toronto, 2001). This edition includes other works related to R. Emden’s work as well. While both of these speak to the Ashkenaz Rite (more correctly the Ashkenaz-Polish Rite) there has also been a renewed interest in the Nusach Sefard Rite (the Hassidic not to be confused with those who originated in the Eastern countries) as well. Some of these early prayer books have been republished including Y. Koppel, Kol Ya’akov (Jerusalem, 2005-2006); Siddur Admor HaZakan, Kehot (Brooklyn, 2005). There has also been a critical edition of the Siddur haAriZal published as well, Siddur ha-Ari, ed. Daniel Rimmer (Betar, 2004). [3] On the import of this edition see S. Reif, Shabbetai Sofer and his Prayer-book (Cambridge University Press, 1979); Siddur Rav Shabbetai Sofer, ed. Yitzhak Satz, vol. 1 (Baltimore, 1987): 7-10 (all citations to the Siddur R. Shabbetai are to this edition). [4] There is one exception – the Lisbon 1490 (?) Teffilot m’Kol HaShana. In this edition these two words have a komatz. This appears to be in error. This error is based upon the use of the verse in Daniel 11 which has the word yisgadal with a komatz. But, the only reason for the komatz there is due to its placement in that verse, at the end. Shabbetai Sofer records that this error continued to his day. He says “one should not pronounce the word with a komatz like I heard one incorrect hazzan do, perhaps [this hazzan] did so due to the verse in Daniel, but the hazzan was unaware that the reason it was punctuated with a komatz was because it was at the end of the verse.” Siddur R. Shabbetai Sofer, vol. 1, no. 17, p. 83. [5] Non-paginated, appearing on the Hebrew University copy (which I have used for the other citations and all are available online) at page 10 (all page citations are to the “page” the relevant quote appears in the online version). [6] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 10. Only the second word – v’yisgadash is punctuated (with a patach) in this edition. Yet, there is no reason to assume the first word would be punctuated in a different manner. [7] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 196. [8] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 2. [9] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 13. [10] Non-paginated Hebrew University copy at page 55. [11] Additionally the following twenty-four machzorim or siddurim use the patach: 1490 Napoli, Seder Teffilot; 1503 Fano, Machzor; 1526, Venice Machzor k’Minhag Roma; 1527, Venice, Machzor k’Minhag Aram Soba, 1527 Prague; 1527 Pissarro; 1528 Constantinople, Seder k’Nusach Romania, 1530 Prague; 1532 Constantinople, Machzor l’Rosh HaShana v’Yom Kippur k’Minhag Sefardim; 1551 Lublin; 1562 Mantua, Teffilot m’Kol HaShana; 1566 Lublin; 1567 Lublin; 1584 Venice Machzor; 1585 Cracow Machzor l’Sholosh Regalim; 1598 Venice, Machzor; 1601, Venice, Seder Teffilot k’Minhag K’K Sefard; 1608, Hanau, Machzor l’Sholosh Regalim; 1623, Hanau; 1647, Amsterdam, Teffilot; 1661, Amsterdam, Seder Teffilot Sefardim; 1699/1700, Venice, Machzor Hadrat Kodesh; 1713, Berlin, Teffilah Derekh Si’ah ha-Sadeh; 1727, Amsterdam, Siddur HaShelah. As is apparent, the use of the patach is not dependent upon custom – sefard versus ashkenaz – or geographic location. [12] R. Sofer lived from c. 1565-1637. His death date reflects the find in the Jewish Theological Seminary library of a manuscript of R. Sofer’s defense of R. David Kimhi’s Sefer HaShorashim which R. Sofer notes was completed in 1637. Reif, in his work on R. Sofer had dated R. Sofer’s death as 1635. R. Sofer’s siddur was first published in 1617 in Prague although nothing remains of this edition. The current edition was published from a manuscript. [13] Siddur R. Shabbetai Sofer, vol. 1, no. 17, p. 83. [14] Idem. [15] See Rief, op. cit., at p. 29-38 discussing considerations in punctuating the siddur. [16] R. Sofer’s student, R. Hayim Bokhner also defends the use of a patach even though he also considers the first two words of kaddish to be in Hebrew. See R. Hayim Bokhner, Or Hadash (Amsterdam, 1671): 46b. Specifically, R. Bokhner cites to the verse in Psalms 104:1 as a similar conjugation which contains a patach. On R. Bokhner see Yitzhak Yudolov, “HaGa’on Rebi Hayim Bukhner Z’tl Mehaber Sefer Or Hadash,” in Birkat HaMazon l’Mh”r Shabbetai Sofer (2002): 274-276. [17] This was noted by Hayim A. Cohen, “Yitgadal v’Yitkadash (Iyun b’Zemichat shel Mesorot HeGiyah Hadasha),” Mesorot 8 (1994): 59-69. While Cohen’s article contains some of the history of this change, he neglects some of the historical evidence and does not note what perverse consequences the changes have had on modern-day siddurim. [18] Binyan Shlomo (Frankfort a. Main, 1708). [19] He was born in 1687. [20] Binyan Shlomo (Frankfort a. Main, 1708): 79b-80a. Hanau does not deal with R. Sofer. The reason for this omission is that in all likelihood he was unaware of R. Sofer’s comments. Instead, R. Hanau address the comments of R. Yitzhak b. Shmuel of Posen in his Siach Yitzhak. There, R. Yitzhak makes the claim the words in kaddish should be punctuated with a patach. [21] See id. [22] First published (Jessnitz, 1725). [23] Also published in Jessnitz that same year. [24] This is contrary to the incorrect assertion in the Makhon Yerushalayim edition of the Shulhan Arukh. They erroneously claim this comment appears in his Sha’ari Teffilah. This appears no where in the Sha’ari Teffilah. Instead, it seems the editor of this edition was unaware of R. Hanau’s siddur and thus was forced to locate any place they could attach as a source for R. Hanau. [25] Bet Teffilah p. 29a. [26] Idem., p. 40a. [27] Idem.,at 21b. [28] See non-paginated page which follows page 108 in his Binyan Shlomo. [29] See David Yitzhaki’s Introduction to the Luach Eresh p. 26-66. While Yitzhaki is incorrect in some of his assertions – he is correct in that Hanau’s changes were viewed with distain by some. For more on this issue, see Jacob J. Schacter, Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), chapter four, passim. [30] This was later proved to be incorrect. The actual approbation was located and it appears that in fact R. Hanau did receive it. See Dukkes, Hakmei AH”V (1908): 55. This source appears to have escaped the notice of Jacob J. Schacter; see his introduction to the new edition of Luach Eresh (24), where he credits Yekutiel Yehudah Greenwald’s 1954 biography with this find. Additionally, see Jordan Penkower, “Minhag and Massorah: On the Recent Ashkenazic Custom of Double Vocalization of Zekher Amalek,” in Iyuni Mikra U’Parshanut 4 (1997): 127-128 [Hebrew], where he provides other examples of R. Emden’s over zealousness and questionable tactics in this debate. Yitzhaki, supra n. 29, appears to either have been unaware of Penkower’s article or chose to ignore it. Many of Penkower’s findings contradict Yitzhaki’s assertions. [31] Prior to the discussion below, there is but one siddur which incorportates R. Hanau’s change. In the Altona 1826 edition of the Machzor edited by R. Meir Ganz, he changes kaddish as well as the other permutations to a tzeirei. R. Ganz in his introduction says he was careful with the grammar of the Machzor, however, he does not provide a source for this or any of his alterations. [32] These include, inter alia, the change in the yehi ratzon following birkat ha-sachar from yashlet to tashlet. [33] These siddurim also included some of the changes of R. Isaac Satanow, who will be discussed in more detail below. The inclusion of these changes has disturbed some. This is so, as these siddurim were considered the “gold standard” and the lack of deference towards precedent many found difficult to reconcile. Additionally, Heidenheim’s edition received the blessing of one of the great opponents toward change, R. Moshe Sofer (Hatam Sofer). In the Haredi press there has been some discussion on how to reconcile these seemingly incongruous events. [34] See Seligmann Baer, Tosa’ot Hayyim, reprinted in R. Jacob Emden, Luach Eresh (2001), Kitzerat haOmer, pp. 497-500. [35] It is noteworthy that Heidenhiem did not include this change in any of his editions of the siddur. While Heidenhiem did include other such alterations this one was apparently went too far. [36] Misbetsot Zahav, no. 55. Although it is unclear why, R. Teomim only applies R. Hanau’s proposition for the first two words in the kaddish and not the complete kaddish as R. Hanau actually has it. [37] See Satnow’s comments in his edition of the Kuzari (Berlin, 1795) p. 2, where he claims to have studied with R. Teomim. Additionally, many of Satanow’s books contain approbations from R. Teomim. While some of these are undoubtedly forgeries, there is no reason to assume they all are. On Satnow see Zinberg, A History of Jewish Literature vol. 5, chap. 7, p.112 et. seq.; Fuenn, Kennest Yisrael, Vilna 1886, s.v. Yitzhak Satanow. For biographical information on R. Teomim see R. Tzvi Yehezkel Michelson, Toledot Yosef, in R. Teomim’s Sefer Notrikin (Bilguria, 1910 [Jerusalem, 1964; photomechanical reproduction]), non-paginated introduction. [38] See his introduction to his commentary on the Shulhan Arukh especially Iggeret Shnei no. 6. R. Teomim provides to lists of recommended reading/teaching materials in his letters. The recommendation for R. Hanau’s book only appears in the second listing. [39] First printed (Berlin, 1733). It seems the famed town of Volozhin had as their single book of Hebrew grammar present in the Beit Medrash, this work of R. Hanau. See Gershon David Hundert, “The Library of the Study Hall in Volozhin, 1762: Some Notes on the Basis of a Newly Discovered Manuscript,” Jewish History 14 (2000): 237. [40] Id. [41] See Mishna Berurah, 56:2; Sha’ar haTzion, id. [42] It is unclear whether R. Teomim would have either followed this in practice. The siddur Hegyon Lev, ed. Eliezer Landshuth (Königsberg, 1845) which is based upon the comments of R. Teomim, does not alter the punctuation of the kaddish. While it is possible that Landshuth was either unaware or ignored the comments of R. Teomim, it is at least worthwhile to point out this incongruence. [43] Perhaps it was to avoid his criticism that his approbation was removed from the 1857 and the 1858 editions. See Vinograd, Thesaurus of the Books of the Vilna Gaon (Jerusalem, 2003), #812, 814 (while Vinograd notes the missing approbation in the 1857 edition he neglects to mention it was missing in the 1858 edition as well). [44] See Penkower, op. cit., at 85-87 discussing problems with the Ma’aseh Rav. [45] The Gra never wrote or published his own edition of the siddur. Instead, the siddurim which purport to be that of the Gra are only attempting to reconstruct what they view what the Gra would have done had he in fact edited a siddur. [46] Siddur Vilna (Jerusalem, 1994): 55 (kaddish), 107 (Shemoneh Esreh passage). [47] Siddur Aliyot Eliyahu (Jerusalem, 1999): 45 (kaddish where the editor notes his change is based upon the Chofetz Hayyim and the Gra), p. 79 (shemoneh esreh), p. 297 (yisgadel v’yiskadesh with a patach). [48] Yom Kippur Machzor with Commentary Adapted from the Teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, (New York, 2006): xxxv. The formulation of this custom is in and of itself problematic. One assumes that R. Soloveitchik did not alter kaddish due to the Maaseh Rav, but instead he followed the custom of his own father and grandfather. [49] See, e.g., p. 18 (shemoneh esreh) and p. 464 (v’al ha’kol yisgadal v’yiskadah with a patach). [50] There is no change to the Shemoneh Esereh or the other words in kaddish which contain the same grammatical structure. [51] Ezor Eliyahu ‘al pe Nusach HaGra (Jerusalem, 1998): 216. Additionally, it bears noting that ArtScroll retains the correct punctuation utilizing a patach for kaddish. [52] Isaac Satanow, Iggeret l’Bet Teffilah (Berlin, 1769): 21a,b. Satanow himself in his later work, Va’Yetar Yitshak (Vienna, 1815): 47- 48, advocates change to a tzeirei of the kaddish. He claims, contrary to R. Sofer, that there are three verses which illuminate this question of punctuation. While one, Daniel 11:36 points to the patach the other two, Daniel 11:37 and Isaiah 10:15 point to a tzeirei and therefore “two defeat one.” Id. Satanow, however, is consistent and changes the other formulations as well. See id. at 44 on tisromam. [53] What is rather ironic is that the Siddur Aliyot Eliyah, contains a diatribe against Satanow and his alterations. It would seem that the same criticism could be applied to the itself. [55] Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer, op. cit. at 10.

Rabbi) ספר קושיות :Review Yaakov Stal)

(Rabbi Yaakov Stal) ספר קושיות :Review By Rabbi Eliezer Brodt The .ספר קושיות Recently a new sefer hit the stores called publisher, Rabbi Yaakov Stal, is well known, having already ר’ established his name with his editions of two seforim by אמרות and another called ספר גימטריאות one called יהודה החסיד Like his previous works, once again .טהורות חיצוניות ופנימיות he has done a great job. I would like to discuss his latest book a bit. While Rabbi Stal was working on his various projects a friend introduced him to a recently discovered manuscript which was in the form of questions and answers. His interest raised, he immediately began working on editing it for print. Unfortunately, when he was close to finishing the sefer, another more complete manuscript was found forcing him to go through the whole volume again comparing, correcting, and adding the additions. (A third manuscript has been located, but he was not able to see it as it resides in a private collection). The result of all this labor is this beautiful .ספר קושיות sefer titled is unknown, but based on various ways קושיות The author of the of identifications he seems to be from the time period of the thus dating the book to מהר”ם מרוטנברג of the תלמידים approximately the 14th century. The way this was deduced was by examining which works the author quotes. Not finding any it can be assumed that the author ,רא”ש quotes later than the is from the same era. Along these lines, Rabbi Stal composed a list of all sources quoted by name thereby showing that the thus giving ,חסידי אשכנז author had been heavily influenced by the reader yet another clue as to the identification of the author

The idea of the sefer, in short, is explanations of accepted These .מדרשים ואגדות halakhot and minhagim as well as various explanations are all posed in the form of questions and answers. Some of the answers are very simple; straightforward quotes from the Gemara; others are more interesting, questions that no one else discusses. The range of topics is amazing; there are 392 questions and answers some of the 392 topics include a few parts. The topics are about many areas such as .נישואין and תפילה, שבת יום טוב, קבורה, מילה

While some of the topics the author does not add much to what has already been said by earlier sources, many times he adds interesting points. There are also many things that Rabbi Stal could not find any similar sources to (I will give examples soon). All in all, this sefer is very interesting and easy to go through, many of the topics are things many people are curious about. The sefer comes included with an extensive index; with just a quick perusal one is appraised to the many interesting topic there are in the sefer.

I would like to give a partial list of some of the things found in this volume; just to give one a taste of this wonderful work. that we have other sources for מנהגים First, in the area of pg 24), covering the knife) שבת include: wearing white on ליל one should light נרות pg 73), how many) ברכת המזון during pg 209), the order how one) חתונה pg 85), candles by the) שבת with לולב should cut his fingernails (pg 130) and burning the .(pg 168) חמץ the

Second, topics that, as of now, this sefer is the only source ,(pg 8) קידושין during the עדים for include: hitting the pg 136), signs how to) ערב תשעה באב putting ashes on ones head should not go to חתן pg 190), that a) כשר tell if an animal is pg 206) and if one is) שנה ראשונה during בית הקברות the sitting in the bathroom and hears someone learning he has to cover his ears (pg 221).

In other areas there are many gems of great interest such as before marrying her (pg 270). Another מגייר הגר was אברהם point of interest is a discussion of the sources for the names of the months (pg 75-79). (I really would like to include much more but I want to save some of these gems for the reader to see himself.)

The footnotes are beautiful; Rabbi Stal attempts to reference almost everything relevant to the topic discussed in the body sources, and expounds בעל הקושיות of the text. He provides the is trying to add. He includes all the בעל הקושיות on what the through the help of the Bar Ilan חז”ל cross-references in Responsa program (which he uses expertly). He also cross- who deal with these topics; here we ראשונים references all the in many בקיאות can see Rabbi Stal’s great knowledge and not searchable on any computer program to date. One ראשונים can only find this by going through these seforim and indexing פיוטיםas he finds them. He does the same with the מציאות the quoted by the author; all annotated against נוסחות התפילה and the best editions printed to date. Aside from this, Rabbi Stal has beautiful discussions on many topics, such as whether or on Yom Tov as well, (pg שבת rest only on גיהנם persons in was written (pg 27-31) and why תפילה והוא רחום why the ,(59 .(pg 38) בשמים for הדסים one should use

Another point of interest worth mentioning are the many nice points provided from Prof. Simcha Emanuael, a recognized authority in the field of unknown manuscripts. Many of these points are from otherwise unknown sources in manuscripts.

It is often stated that it’s much easier to criticize someone else’s efforts rather than doing so oneself. Further, in this case critique was particularly difficult, as (Full Disclosure:) Rabbi Stal is also a good friend. Still, I would like to point out two issues with his work on this sefer.

A point I feel lacking is that while at times he does the reader the favor of referencing articles on the topics that discusses, many times, however, he failed to ספר קושיות the reference relevant articles. For example, when discussing the he quotes extensively from the אלול topic of fasting during pg 49) but when) יעקב גרטנר classic article of Professor pg 174) he) חתןof throwing wheat on the מנהג talking about the in ר’ בנימן המברגר fails to mention the extensive article by volume 3, pp. 392-429). There are two answers) שרשי מנהג אשכנז why Rabbi Stal did not quote this article. One, unfortunately when he works he does not have all his seforim in front of him. Two, had he quoted all of the interesting sources on each topic, this sefer would have been 1000 pages long, so he had to cut down the sources. This leads me to the next criticism; the length of the notes. regarding this sefer he ר’ שמואל אשכנזי While talking with mentioned the following point. The footnotes although they are good and very interesting many times the same exact thing could have been written shorter. He said that we find this ability to write in an exact way was very hard even many ר’ שמואל בן חפני did not have this ability such as ראשונים The most famous person .אברבאנאל and the גאון הר”י ברצלנוני who excelled at writing very little and including everything The main reason why Rabbi Stal did not .רש”י in his words was do such is simple editing takes a lot of time (more time than writing lengthier) which he wants to use to put out more works. So in the end, the lengthy footnotes could have been better served by including more material but at the same time careful editing.

Yigdal: A Case Study in Modern Customology

Yigdal: A Case Study in Modern Customology by Dan Rabinowitz Another blog recently raised the question about the origin of saying Yigdal at the end of services on Friday night. Specifically, they wanted to demonstrate that this custom is not a “modern” or “Young Israel” custom and instead was very old. Although in practice today, this view is perhaps the prevalent custom with most yeshivot and similar minyanim not reciting this and Young Israel and those similar do. In an attempt to refute this postion, the Hertz siddur was marshaled. Chief Rabbi Joseph H. Hertz records that in 1722 in England they said Yigdal Friday night, thus, according to that post, demonstrating the Yigdal custom is old (or at least from 1722).

While the above provides a basic introduction, this topic, and that of Yigdal in general, deserves greater explication.

First, to establish when people said Yigdal on Friday night, a check of early siddurim is necessary. Today this can be done online via the JNUL’s digital project which has numerous early siddurim. The earliest I have located which contains Yigdal is in the 1486 edition of the siddur. From then on, in just about every subsequent edition of the siddur, Yigdal appears at the end of Friday night prayers. This is the case irrespective of the nusach. These early siddurim then show that, at least from the late 15th century on, the almost universal custom was to say Yigdal Friday night. [This is not to say the recitation Friday night is the only custom, in fact there are others, but merely to point out the custom of reciting Yigdal on Friday night has a clear precedent.]

We now must turn to see if there are other issues with the recitation of Yigdal which would label it as “modern.” Admittedly in this search we are somewhat handicapped in that we don’t know what would qualify as a “modern” or as some refer to it “Young Israel” custom, thus, we are forced to utilized gross generalizations, which unfortunately may not be the exact definition of “modern.” Perhaps, as the study of Hebrew grammar has been referred to by some as “modern” it is an emphasis upon grammar which makes Yigdal “modern.” This, however, is not borne out by the commentaries. To the contrary, many grammarians disapprove, on grammatical grounds, of Yigdal. For example, R. Yitzhak Satanow, in both his earlier work on prayer – Iggeret l’Bet Teffilah – and his later and more comprehensive work – V’etar Yitzhak decries the grammar in Yigdal. He notes that Yigdal, among other Hebrew poems, uses incorrect grammar to satisfy the meter of the poem. R. Shelomoh Zalman Hanau also makes the same point. So it would appear there is not an overemphasis on grammar, rather the opposite is the case, it actually presents some grammatical problems.

R. Jacob Emden disapproves of Yigdal because it makes it seem that there are only thirteen requirements to Judaism, while in fact there are many, many others. While this may be an issue with Yigdal it is equally a problem with reciting the Ani Ma’amin prayer which many do at the end of the daily prayers. Additionally, this does not speak to the specific question at hand – reciting Yigdal on Friday night, and not, as these authorities would have it, never. Even though many do not say Yigdal Friday night, and in some siddurim today it does not appear there, many still include it as part of the morning prayers. Again, it appears this would not be the issue with the Friday night recitation.

Now, we must turn to the authorship of Yigdal. For many years it was an open question who actually authored Yigdal. As there is no clear acrostic it was difficult to prove conclusively who was the author. Some said since it is based upon Maimonides’s formulation of the Thirteen Principles of Faith he must also be the author. Others said it was R. Yehiel b. Barukh. They argued his name appears in the last verse of The first option, the .ברוך” עדי עד“ and יחי אל – Yigdal Maimonidian authorship, is somewhat problematic for two reasons. First, although Maimonides did formulate Thirteen Principles that does not mean he then wrote every single thing about them which followed. In fact Yigdal is not the only poem to use the Rambam’s principles – there are about ninety-one poems which utilize the Rambam’s principles. Second, at first glance it appears that one of the principles is actually missing from Yigdal. The principle that does not appear is limiting pray to God and no other. But, this has been solved by noting there is in all likelihood a very small error in the text of Yigdal. Two very similar letters – the Resh and the it should יורה למכותו Daled – have been switched. Instead of (Meaning, thank or praise his (God’s .יודה למלכותו read kingdom and “God’s” kingdom alone.

In the 19th century, R. Samuel David Luzzatto (“Shadal”) claimed to have discovered the real author of Yigdal. He did so based upon two manuscripts he called attention to. These Yigdal. Thus, we סדר was ר’ דניאל בן יהודה הדיין state that now have explict evidence of who was the author – we have an author’s byline as it was.

Although this would have appeared to settle the issue, it did not. Soon after, Shadal’s thesis was challenged and instead another person was claimed to be the true author of Yigdal – Immanuel b. Isaac of Rome. The basis for this assertion was Immanuel has a similar poem to Yigdal which actually contains the word Yigdal and then continues to go through the Thirteen Principles of Faith. Additionally, Immanuel’s name can be .לעמו אל – found in Yigdal

But what to do with the manuscript Shadal found which explicitly states it was not Immanuel but instead Daniel b. Yehudah? According to those who espouse Immanuel as the authored- but instead – חיבר author, they note the word is not .which typically means edited – סדר

Now if in fact Immanuel did author Yigdal it would be somewhat understandable why some may take issue with Yigdal. The Yigdal corollary appears in Immanuel’s Machberet, which also contains some risqué poems. This was offensive to some and R. Yosef Karo actually mentions this book by name, a somewhat unusual occurrence in his Shulhan Arukh, and says one should not read it on the .

Nevertheless, it appears the consensus on the authorship of as edited. So סדר Yigdal follows Shadal and declines to read we are left with a rather innocuous author of Yigdal. So, on its face it seems there is nothing which leads to the conclusion that Yigdal is a “modern” custom. Instead, in all likelihood the reason that some do not say Yigdal is not due it modernity but rather due to a modern concern. This concern is that of the 16th century Kabbalist, R. , (“Ari”). The Ari states that certain poems were written without the necessary kabbalistic intent and therefore they should not be recited – Yigdal is one of them. Thus, it would seem that this modern concern is why some have stopped saying Yigdal on Friday night.

Sources: As mentioned above, one can see the siddurim which include Yigdal Friday night at the David and Fela Shapell Family Digitization Project at the Jewish National and University Library; Iggeret l’Bet Teffilah (Berlin, 1772): 7b-8a; Y. Satanow, V’etar Yitzhak (Vienna, 1815): 9; Landshuth, Amudei Avodah (Berlin 1857): 101; D. Oppenheim, “Ha’arot ve-Heherot ‘al Shir Yigdal v’Yud Gimel Ikkarim,” in HaMaggid 11:21 (29th May 1867): Immanuel of Rome, Machbarot, Steinschneider ed. (Lemberg, 1870): 39, end of the fourth section; Samuel David Luzzatto, Mevo l’Machzor Beni Roma, p. 44; Reifmann, Michtavim, in HaKarmel, Shana Bet, 103-04, 165-66; Hartwig Hirschfeld, “Immanuel of Rome and Other Poets on the Jewish Creed,” Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 5:4 (April, 1915): 529-542; idem., “The Author of the Yigdal Hymn,” Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 11:1 (July, 1920): 86-88; Alexander Marx, “A List of Poems on the Articles of the Creed,” Jewish Quarterly Review (n.s.) 9:3-4 (January, 1919): 305-36; Jacob J. Schacter, Rabbi Jacob Emden: Life and Major Works (unpublished PhD dissertation, Harvard University, 1988), 327; Marc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, pp. 17-20.

Simchat ha-Nefesh: An Important But Often Ignored Work on German Jewish Customs

Simchat ha-Nefesh: An Important But Often Ignored Work on German Jewish Customs By Eliezer Brodt While doing research for a forthcoming article on the topic of at wedding celebrations, I kept noticing דרשות saying Yet, after .שמחת הנפש secondary sources citing to the work I was still unable to שמחת הנפש obtaining many editions of the locate the quotes regarding wedding speeches! After a while, I שמחת הנפש came across a citation to a specific edition of the and came to the realization that there was a second volume to this title, one that is very rare, and has only reprinted once. While the first volume was reprinted numerous times, it that contained the שמחת הנפש was this second volume of information I needed. It was in 1926 that Professor Yaakov which includes this שמחת הנפש Shatsky published an edition of second section and thus I was finally found the elusive source!

The question remained, though, as to why this source was not in all the other editions that I had looked at; in order to .is warranted שמחת הנפש understand why, a discussion of son-in-law – ר’ אלחנן קירכהן was שמחת הנפש The author of the R. Tzvi Hirsch Kaidanov – was ,קב הישר of the famous author of hence his surname) which is not far) קירכהן born in 1666 in was a quite a Talmid Hakham and ר’ אלחנן קירכהן .from Hamburg גדולים is evident from his sefer and correspondences with many בינה לעתים הלכות See) .ר’ יהונתן אייבשיץ of his time such as יום טוב פרק א הלכה כג ; שמחת הנפש, ירושלים, תשנ”ט (כל בו על אבילות .עמוד Introduction, pp. 31-32 ; 200-201 wrote seforim on many topics, but only one of ר’ אלחנן קירכהן ,.Shatsky ed ,שמחת הנפש see) חידושים מספר ,his other seforim 1926, pp. 29-30.), was published and the others still remain in manuscript. It seems from his writings that he was a professional darshan. It is also clear that he traveled all over Europe, as throughout the sefer, he gives accounts of his travels. In 1707, he printed anonymously the first two parts .שמחת הנפש ,of what would ultimately become his famous work The first two parts were printed many times in many places, while the third part, the one printed in 1727, was printed only once. (See Shatsky’s introduction, especially pp. 23-28, where there is an extensive bibliography of the exact (.אוצר הספרים לבן יעקב ; עמוד 594 אות printings. See 864

It is this mysterious third part, which is very rare; indeed, few copies exist in libraries worldwide. In 1926, however, it was reprinted by Professor Yaakov Shatsky in a facsimile edition.

ר’ ,For example .שמחת הנפש Many important personages praised strongly ,(יערות דבש, א, דרוש יב, באמצע in his) יהונתן אייבשיץ הסכמה in his שמחת הנפש ;ר’ יוסף מאיר אב”ד האנובר praise the from this sefer, a point we will פסקן writes that one could also חתם סופר the ;(הסכמה למהודרא פירדא תפז) !return to later הסכמה של ר’ שמעון סופר) ,spoke very highly of the sefer (.edition pg 36-37 ירושלים Intro to the ,למהדורת פאקש תרנט used to ,כתב סופר writes that his father, the ר’ שמען סופר with his sister. He also writes that שבת on שמחת הנפשlearn the ר’ עקיבא ,of his grandfather שמחת הנפש within the copy of the ,he had seen comments in the sefer. Interestingly enough ,איגר quotes from the sefer in his notes ר’ עקיבא איגר we find that The sefer was among the .שלחן ערוך גליון רע”א סי’ תרצו סעיף ד .ר’ פנחס קאטצענאליבויגען list of seforim in the library of ,and Dan’s postGhosts, Demons ;יש מנחלין עמוד נ אות קכב See) ר’ פנחס Golems and their Halachik Statusabout In 1898, in Faux, Hungary, at the suggestion (.קאטצענאליבויגען was reprinted with a שמחת הנפש a copy of ,ר’ שמעון סופר of For other examples of those praising .ר’ יהודה קרויס by פירוש see the introduction to the most recent edition ,שמחת הנפש the .ר’ שמואל לוריא by was extremely popular amongst the general populace שמחת הנפש as is evident from the fact that it was reprinted throughout Europe at least twenty-eight times. Even the most recent edition (a Hebrew translation) was reprinted just a year later. What is so exceptional about the sefer? I believe that the answer lies in the way it was written. With its very captivating and down-to-earth language, the sefer speaks to the reader in a clear manner and keeps one interested using תולדות ספרות ישראל עמודmany stories and parables (see was an excellent halakhic שמחת הנפש ,In addition (.103-108 guide for the masses for regular day-to-day situations.

Unfortunately as with many of our seforim, at one point this book was banned, and even, according to some, burnt. Zinberg explains that the reason it was burnt was because at the end of the first volume, there is a second part containing halakhot, about which the printer wrote in the shar blatt People ”.שלחן ערוך, אורח חיים ויורה דעה ומנהגים של כל השנה“ felt it was dangerous to give a sefer which allowed the masses תולדות ספרות ישראל,ד, עמוד 107 ; ספר) to easily find the law This was despite the fact, as mentioned .(וסייף, עמוד174-176 to הסכמה says in his ר’ יוסף מאיר אב”ד האנוברpreviously, that from the sefer, and despite the פסקןthe sefer, that one could ,from it. However פסקן actually did ר’ עקיבא איגר fact that after this one incident, there is no indication of any other strong opposition as is self evident from the amount of subsequent printings. is composed of three שמחת הנפש ,As mentioned previously volumes. The author lists the contents of his sefer on the with many תוכחה and מוסר (title page. Amongst them are: (1 Proofs of why one should not get upset (משלים ומעשיות; (2 about anything, as everything that happens is from G-d and for The (נשמה; (ones benefit; (3) Proof of the existence of the 4 חלה ונדה for woman on הלכות of the whole year including הלכות (this was the second part of the first volume). In his because הלכות introduction he adds that he wrote the part of to ask רבניםthere are many places where people do not have so everyone could הלכות there questions to. So he included the now what to do. He even writes that one could rely on it not like other seforim that have many mistakes. (This is in contrast to many Halakha seforim where the author writes “do not rely on me.”) This last part stating that one could rely upon the sefer, however, was not reprinted in all the editions of the sefer. In the introduction he writes even more clearly the goal of the sefer:

“I prove that one does not have to worry I give many is created נשמה solutions to deal with pain… I show that the so one ,דינים to serve g-d. With this I have included all the should know how to serve him. All that you do should be with ”.שמחת הנפש therefore I called the sefer שמחה

In 1727 he wrote a third part which (called part two). This שבת, יום in the form of songs for הלכות ומוסר part consists of He .נוראים, סוכות, פסח, חנוכה, פורים, חתונה, מילה, וכל השנה even included the musical notes for the songs. The inclusion of musical notes was an innovative method of giving mussar. The author’s goal was to reach the masses, even the people who lived in the villages he had visited and had seen that they were negligent in many of the areas discussed in the sefer. is a practical, down to earth book. We can see this ,שמחת הנפש through many points mentioned in the sefer such as: when doing one should do it slowly and not be too hard on oneself , תשובה ed., p. 154); don’t hit a ירושלים) with excessive fasting child before age four (Idem at p. 175); a recurring theme throughout the book is the author comforting people who lost children (Idem at pp. 27,28,30,55,62), which was a common occurrence in those days. The author mentions that he himself contains many שמחת הנפש .(also lost a child (Idem at p. 47 The sefer . שדיםand , נשמות, ניסיםinteresting topics, such as is full of interesting stories about these topics, some of which the author was eyewitness to or was actually involved in. For example, in the chapter on demons, the author writes that he personally saw a boy of three speaking about concepts of Torah and that he didn’t understand (Idem at p. 52). He also mentions that when he was in Poland, there was a woman whose children were killed by a demon (Idem at p. 53). is the famous legend that when the שמחת הנפש Also mentioned in by itself (Idem atארץ ישראל traveled to ארון died, his רמב”ם ספר יוחסין עמ’ 220;שלשלת p.106). [For more on this legend see הקבלה עמ’ ק ;במאבק על ערכה של תורה עמ’ 246;אגרת ארץ ישראל [(יערי) עמ’ 302;ארשת חלק ו עמ’ 63

חז”ל, ראשונים, :The book quotes from a wide range of sources צרי היגן, שבט :and many interesting seforim such as ,ספרי קבלה .and many others מיהודה, נשמת חיים, מקוה ישראל, מסעות ר’ בנימן It is evident that the author must have had access to an unusually extensive library for his time. of מנהגים is a pretty much untapped wellspring of שמחת הנפש Germany. The reader can also get a clear picture of life in those times, especially in the small villages. As the author based on what he felt the people he מוסר traveled, he wrote met on his travels were lax in.

One of the first people who tapped into this source was After .(תולדות ספרות ישראל חלק ד עמ’ ,Zinberg (144-146,102-110 once in his שמחת הנפש that, Professor Simcha Assaf quotes the .(מקורות לתולדות החינוך בישראל, א, עמוד masterpiece, (164-165 Professor Yaakov Shatsky printed his edition after that. After used it a few times in his אברהם יערי,Professor Shatsky ,pp. 320, 328, 378, 465, 476) תולדות חג שמחת תורה classic work 505). Then Professor Jacob Rader Marcus introduced it to Herman Pollack who quotes from it extensively in his book, “Jewish Folkways in Germanic Lands,” as a quick look in the Pollack’s book and its footnotes will show. Despite this, is a pretty much unknown book in the שמחת הנפש today the field, with the exception of Rabbi Shlomo Hamburger, who uses it as a source in his books on minhagim. To the extent that which is devoted ספרות ההנהגות Professor Zev Gris in his book ,and their impact מוסר והנהגות to the topic of the seforim of does not even mention it. But later on, it seems that the book in a שמחת הנפש was brought to his attention. He discusses the .(pp. 58, 69, 96) הספר כסוכן תרבות later book of his, called In his analysis of Jewish Attitudes toward Gambling, Leo :as he writes שמחת הנפש Landman refers to

“A seventeenth century German moralist complained bitterly about some professional gamblers who would pawn their Talit and Tefillen or their Arba Kanfot in order to raise money for gaming.”

See his “Jewish Attitudes toward Gambling the Professional and Compulsive Gambler,” Jewish Quarterly Review 57:4 (April, 1967): 311. and daily life that are מנהגים Some interesting samples of (ירושלים every day יגדל mentioned in the sefer are: saying such as leaving a spot in theזכר לחורבן ed., p. 89), dinnim of fasting on כלה and חתן ,(house unpainted (Idem at pp. 75,123 the day of their chupah (Idem at p. 174). The reader is able to see from the book which areas people were negligent in. For example: they were not careful about shaving with a razor (Idem at p. 94), and people used to play cards all night (Idem at p. 121). The author describes how the people dealt harshly with each other in business matters (Idem at p. 149). He that do not understand what they’re חזניםspeaks against davening and says that this is a cause for the long galus (Idem at pp. 153-154). Interestingly, he writes that parents sent their kids to dance school (Idem at p. 122).

All of the above is in the first part of volume one. The following are examples from the second part of the volume יורהand אורח חיים which is, in a sense, a complete handbook on he says, “we do ,ראש השנה When the author talks about . דעה rather we learn the whole day but it’s ,ראש השנהnot sleep on הלכות ראש השנה See) דברים בטלים.”worse not to sleep and talk (.עמוד נח סוף העמוד as it seems תחומין He also includes an extensive chapter on many villages were lax in this area (See “Jewish Folkways in ed., pp. 30-31). In ירושלים ;Germanic Lands,” p. 323 note 104 the third part, (called volume two) which is written in song, as previously mentioned, the author speaks against women that בריתי מילה drank excessive amounts of alcohol at wedding and (vol. two, p. 18). People in the villages children dealt with and ,(תולדות ספרות ישראל עמוד see 145) שבתthe farm animal’s on .(on paper (Idem מגלת אסתר people wrote

One topic which is dealt with throughout the sefer is tznius. The author goes so far as to say that the reason why many Jews was because of lack of גזירות and other ת”ח ות”ט died in ed., pp. 64, 124). Examples of tznius the ירושלים) tznius people of his times were lax in include: men and women who weren’t married to each other danced together in public, some women were very involved in dressing in order to be attractive to men. In contrast to all this, the author was told that in Turkey, the people were so careful with tznius that men hardly ever saw women. Women didn’t go to shul, and when guests stayed in someone’s house, the man of the house didn’t allow his wife and daughters to see the guests (Idem at p. 64).

Another issue the author takes a strong stance was the education system. In the first part of the sefer, he recommends that when starting to teach children to learn, you Only after that should one .דקדוק and תנ”ך ought to begin with That’s the only way people will .גמרא and משנה continue on to have success in learning. He states that many people leave the field of learning at a young age, and because they don’t know they can’t understand the ,דקדוק and תנ”ך the basics of tefillos they say daily. To quote the sefer, “I’m writing this in German so that everyone can understand, especially women who are busy with child raising. The women should not think מהר”ל at an early age. The גמרא that their sons have to learn then ,תנ”ך and others already said that one should first learn He repeats ”.גמרא and משנה and only then move on to ,דקדוק this in the third part of the sefer, in short, where he and not גמרא mentions that people only teach their children Professor Simcha Assaf in .מהדורת תפז עמוד יח See) .תנ”ך only quotes the last source on מקורות לתולדות חינוך בישראל education.) is a truly unique sefer. The שמחת הנפש In conclusion, the was translated but it could use much שמחת הנפש first part of more extensive notes. It would be very worthwhile for someone to undertake to translate all three parts of the sefer with extensive footnotes, as was recently done toGluckel von Hameln.

,is available onlinehere שמחת הנפש Many editions of the including the first – the 1707 edition as well as the rare sitethe, from the שמחת הנפש edition. Aside from 1727 Frankfurt University Library, contains over 700 Yiddish prints, all free.

A Look at Makhon Moreshet Ashkenaz’s New Journal: Yerushateinu

A Look at Makhon Moreshet Ashkenaz’s New Journal: Yerushateinu By Eliezer Brodt titled מכון מורשת אשכנז There is a new journal published by is well known for producing some excellent מכון This .ירושתנו and the four זכרונות ומסורות על החת”ם סופר works, amongst them This journal they promise to put . שרשי מנהג אשכנזvolumes of out once a year but only time will tell, as anyone familiar knows; they do great work but it takes forever מכון with this for the seforim to come out. Many reasons have been given as to why that is so (money amongst them) however, the main reason I feel is because they strive for perfection – which is לא עליך says אבות in משנה the biggest mistake many make as the .המלאכה לגמור

With this in mind I would like to review this work (not in- depth so as to keep your interest). There are articles on all topics – basically whatever your interest you’re sure to find something there.

This sefer has about thirty articles including many articles גדולים which include hereto unpublished Torah from the great .אשכנז of

בעל חינוך בית יהודא ,ערוך לנר ,רב הירש Amongst them from the There is .ר’ דוד הקשר and ,רב עזריאל הילדסהימר ,ר’ יונה מרצבך according to the שיעור מיל an in-depth discussion as to the For those .ר’ יונה מרצבך and ר’ יצחק אדלר between קליר מהר”ם interested in poetry there is a great piece from the which includes many interesting things about חנוכה on מרוטנברג and a דרור יקרא of זמר There is another article on the .חנוכה .during davening in general שירה piece on

There are a few articles on contemporary halakhic issues such יארצהייט and on בעל שמירת שבת כהלכתה from the הגעלת כלים as when it’s a leap year. all of the מנהגים Besides this there are about six articles on articles just whet one’s appetite – leaving one feeling that .too far שלא עליך המלאכה לגמור of משנה suddenly they took the For instance, one article discusses the custom of waiting between milk and meat is an extreme example of having too little information. I and many others were waiting for an exhaustive article on the topic – this is not it. Even the the) ר’ בנימן שלמה המבורגר article from the generally great after קדיש discussing ,(שרשי מנהג אשכנז author of the works leaves us feeling teased. We are used to much ,קריאת התורה He probably wants to save .מנהגים more from such an expert on which we are anyway – שרשי מנהג אשכנז it for his own works long overdue for another one.

There are, however a few stand out articles. There is an whose articles ,יעקב שפיגל important article from Professor בית and books are consistently excellent, discussing the בית specifically which editions the – ראשונים s usage of’יוסף שבלי covers, among others, the שפיגל .had in front of him יוסף This is very important in fully .אגור and the sefer הלקט .in general and his sources בית יוסף understanding the s article there is a much talked about article’שפיגל After This article is a review of a recent .ר’ מרדכי הוניג from ,רא”ש from the nephew of the ספר חסידים החדש printing of the This sefer has many .ספר המשכיל sometimes referred to as the ר’ הוניגmany interesting things on many topics many of which is kind enough to point out – he has extensive comments from a wide range of sources. One can only hope that one day he puts out this sefer with all his notes and the many more I am sure he could have put in this article of 45 pages. Perhaps he was .לא עליך המלאכה לגמורkeeping with the above theme

ר’ on ,ר’ יחיאל גולדהבר After that there is an article, from Although the .אייזנשטט during his time in עזריאל הילדסהיימר article is good, it appears he missed out on one important s daughter all about her’ר’ עזריאל הילדסהיימר source from father. See Gertrude Hirschler and Shnayer Z. Leiman, “Esther Hildesheimer Calvary: The Hildesheimers in Eisenstadt,” Tradition 26:3 (1992): 87-92.

ר’ After that there is an extensive article on the life of .including many items from rare German newspapers יוסף אלטמאן

ר’ אברהם סולומון The articles conclude with a short piece from that he שלמה גייגר from דברי קהלת about a future edition of is, of course, an extremely דברי קהלת .plans on publishing and anyone familiar with the sefer מנהגים important source for will definitely understand the great necessity for such a job as it’s a very hard sefer to use but one could only hope that the authors dream comes true and he is able to put out the work as he intends to.

לוח also includes a ירושתנו Finally, the inaugural issue of and two articles השנה של מנהגי בית הכנסת לבני אשכנז בארץ ישראל in English.