Apostates and More, Part 2

Apostates and More, Part 2

Marc B. Shapiro

Continued from here

1. Another apostate was Rabbi Nehemiah ben Jacob ha-Kohen of Ferrara, who was an important supporter of R. Moses Hayyim Luzzatto during the controversy about him.[1]Here is the the final page of the haskamah he wrote in 1729 for R. Aviad Sar Shalom Basilea’s Emunat Hakhamim. R. Isaac Lampronte, in a halakhic discussion in hisPahad Yitzhak, refers to Nehemiah, but not by name.[2] He calls him .In R .אחד מן החכמים רך בשנים אשר אחרי כן הבאיש ריחו כנודע Hananel Nepi and R. Mordechai Samuel Ghirondi, Toldot Gedolei Yisrael (Trieste, 1853), p. 229, they write about Obviously, “Ishmaelite” is a .שאח”כ נעשה ישמעאלי :Nehemiah code word for Christian.[3] The story reported by Samuel David Luzzatto is that Nehemiah used to go to prostitutes, and when the rabbis found out about this they removed the rabbinate from him. Too embarrassed to remain in the Jewish community, Nehemiah apostatized.[4] Cecil Roth cites another Italian source that Nehemiah converted so he could marry a Christian woman. Unfortunately, his son and three daughters apostatized together with him (his wife had apparently already died).[5]

Another apostate who should be mentioned is Michael Solomon Alexander (1799-1844), first Anglican bishop in Jerusalem. Before his apostasy, Alexander was a rabbi.[6]

Rabbi Abraham Romano of Tunis also became an apostate. He converted at the end of the seventeenth century when R. Meir Lombrozo was appointed a dayan in his place. After Romano converted, he became well known as a Islamic preacher, and after his death his tomb was venerated by Muslims. He was known as Sidi Sofiane, and the street in Tunis with this name is named after him.[7] It is reported that in the nineteenth century R. Uziel Alheikh, author of the halakhic work Mishkenot ha-Ro’im, would recite Kaddish at Romano’s grave so God would forgive his sin.[8]

I am sure many readers have heard of Rabbi Israel Zolli, the chief rabbi of Rome who converted after the Holocaust. Not so well known is Rabbi Daniel Zion, who was the chief rabbi of Bulgaria and after World War II served as a rabbi in Jaffa. When it became known that he was a believer in Jesus, he was forced out of his rabbinic position. There is a good deal online about Zion, and entries inEnglish and Hebrew on Wikipedia.

Rabbi Hayyim Asher Hoffmann was another modern rabbi accused of working with missionaries. He was in Argentina at the beginning of the twentieth century, and wrote a haskamah for R. Menahem Mendel Hirschhorn’s 1904 bookMagid le-Yisrael. Here is the title page of the book, followed by the haskamah.

In 1907, R. Mordechai Amram Hirsch of Hamburg informed Jewish leaders in Buenos Aires that Hoffmann had worked in the Christian mission in Hamburg. Not long after this, Hoffmann committed suicide.[9]

Hoffmann is not the only rabbi to have committed suicide. In his recent article in Hakirah, Moshe Ariel Fuss deals with R. Moshe Soloveichik’s great dispute with the Polish Agudat Ha- Rabbanim. He also discusses the suicide of one of the dayanim of Tomashov, which was related to the dayan’s role in the dispute.[10]

There was another rabbi and author of a sefer who committed suicide. Let me preface this story with some other relevant information. In the early 1990s there was a project at the Harvard library to put thousands of rare Hebrew books on microfiche. This would then be sold to major university libraries. It was a wonderful idea and involved considerable expense on the part of the company, K.G. Saur, which was carefully photographing the books. (I used to watch the photographer doing his work.) It was very costly to purchase the more than ten thousand fiches, but for a library that wanted to instantly have access to almost five thousand rare Hebrew books, this was a great solution. You can see a 1994 ad for the project here.

Unfortunately for this project, advancing technology made it obsolete almost immediately upon completion. The ability to access rare books online, on hebrewbooks.org, Otzar ha- Chochma, Google Books, and other sites, meant that microfiche readers went the way of typewriters. (I still haven’t gotten rid of my own microfiche reader, as I never know if it might come in handy).

Harvard put out a catalog advertising the microfiche set, which discussed the different genres of books included. The catalog also had pictures of a few of the title pages of the books. Here is one of the pages in the catalog.[11] Here is a clearer picture of the title page. The book is Derekh Yam on Tractate Meilah by Rabbi Mordechai Nahman Stieglitz, published in 1900. At the time (almost thirty years ago), I thought nothing of this, and just assumed that Derekh Yam was a random book that was picked for inclusion in the catalog. However, someone who knows a lot about seforim told me that there is no question that Derekh Yam was not randomly picked. He said that whoever chose to use this title page, when there were so many others that could have been picked, must have done so as an inside joke for the benefit of those who knew the history of Rabbi Stieglitz (which at the time I knew nothing about).

Derekh Yam is a fine commentary on a tractate that not so many have written about. Understandably, then, when people study Meilah this is one of the books they will turn to. And why not, seeing that the book has haskamot from such great figures as R. Isaac Schmelkes, R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron, and R. Aryeh Leibush Horowitz? It also includes an approbation and a lengthy responsum (pp. 47a-58a) by R. Joshua Horowitz, the Rebbe of Dzikov (Stieglitz’s hasidic group[12]) and author of a number of volumes with the title Ateret Yeshuah.

Shortly following the appearance of Derekh Yam, Stieglitz’s life took a different turn. He not only left Poland but abandoned Torah observance as well. Meir Wunder writes that “he went to study at the University of Berlin (and not Vienna).”[13] Wunder’s information that Stieglitz studied in Berlin presumably came from Yehudah Rubenstein (see below), but I don’t know why he felt the need to correct the error that he studied in Vienna, as I haven’t seen anyone make this claim.

It could be that Stieglitz did study in Berlin (though I know of no evidence for this), and to be sure one would need to check the archives of the University of Berlin. However, Rubenstein and Wunder were unaware that Switzerland was Stieglitz’s primary academic place of study, and his 1908 doctoral dissertation is from the University of Bern. It deals with Baraitot in TractateBerakhot in the Bavli and Yerushalmi. You can see it here. As was typical in those days in Germany and Switzerland, the doctoral dissertation is short and insignificant. It never ceases to amaze me how easy it was in those countries to receive a doctorate.

Yehudah Rubenstein says the following about Stieglitz:[14] When his book Derekh Yam appeared it was greatly praised by Torah leaders and had an impact on talmudic scholars. It also included a long responsum from R. Joshua entered Stieglitz and he abandoned רוח שטות Horowitz. Later, a his wife and children and went to Berlin to study, where he abandoned Torah observance and fell in love with the daughter of a banker, whom he married after divorcing his wife. He then went to New York where he went into business and made a lot of money on Wall Street. However, during the Depression Stieglitz lost his money and committed suicide.[15]

Rubenstein also notes that Dzikover hasidim, at the command of their rebbe, collected all the copies of Derekh Yam that they could find, from synagogues and private homes, and destroyed them. He concludes:

והספר דרך ים הוא יקר המציאות, כי נשארו ממנו טופסים מועטים.

What used to be a rare book is now, thanks to modern technology, at everyone’s fingertips. Even if, as a result of this post, the book is removed from hebrewbooks.org and Otzar ha-Chochma, you can still see Harvard’s copy here.

In 1976, the descendants of R. Joshua Horowitz published Ateret Yeshuah: Likutei Teshuvot ve-Haskamot. In the introduction it states that the book includes all the responsa and approbations of R. Horowitz found in the writings of others. However, they purposely did not include the approbation and responsum found in Derekh Yam.[16]

Returning to apostasy by rabbis who produced seforim, I have previously mentioned R. Profiat Duran, the Efodi (see here), and an article by Joseph Hacker has recently appeared which further complicates matters.[17] Let me first note that in Latin documents his name appears as Perfeyt, so from now on this is how I think we should pronounce it. Second, and here Hacker follows on Maud Kozodoy’s earlier research,[18] we have evidence that not only did Duran convert (this we already knew), but that he remained a Christian for the rest of his life, even when he had left Spain and could have returned to Judaism. If that wasn’t enough, both Kozodoy and Hacker believe that he married a Christian woman, as the wife to whom he left his possessions had a different name than his first wife. Yet this latter point is not conclusive. It could be that the woman he was married to at the end of his life was a Jewish woman who apostatized, either the original wife who changed her name on conversion, or a second wife. How Duran continued to write anti-Christian polemical works while living as a Christian is still a mystery.[19] His famous grammatical work, Ma’aseh Efod, the introduction to which Professor Isadore Twersky loved to study with his graduate students,[20] was also written while he was a Christian.

When the information about his life eventually filters out to the Orthodox world, presumably he will no longer be cited as an authority (although all evidence points to his important commentary on Maimonides’ Guide being written before his conversion so perhaps that can still remain in the canon).[21]

I must also mention R. Levi Ibn Habib (ca. 1480-1541), the great sage of Jerusalem. As a young man in Portugal, he converted (or was converted) to Christianity. We don’t know if at this time he was living with his father, R. Jacob Ibn Habib, who is famous for editing the Ein Yaakov. Later, R. Levi journeyed to Salonika where he was together with his father.

We do not know the precise details of R. Levi’s conversion. Scholars often write about Jews being subjected to “forced conversion.” This can mean that one is told he must convert or he will be killed. In this circumstance, Jewish law requires martyrdom, and Jewish history knows of many who chose this path.[22] Yet people who were not strong enough to accept martyrdom, and converted to Christianity to save their lives, are routinely described as forced converts.

The other meaning of forced conversion is using actual physical force to baptize someone, as occurred in Portugal. R. Levi was in Portugal in 1497, when Jewish life there came to an end. Many Portuguese Jews converted “willingly”– in addition to the strong Christian pressure to convert, some did so to be freed from slavery or after their children were taken from them, as this was the only way to get them back. There was also the unusual circumstance that the King ordered the Jews not yet baptized to be baptized against their will, literally by physical force. (Mainstream Catholic teaching did not regard this as a valid baptism, unlike the case of one who converted to save his life, as this latter act was taken out of free will).[23] As mentioned, we do not know whether R. Levi converted “willingly” or not, but we do know that he lived as a Christian after this conversion. In the great dispute over the revival of semikhah between R. Levi and R. Jacob Berab, R. Berab saw fit to allude to R. Levi’s conversion as a means of discrediting him. This is quite surprising, as one is not supposed to remind a ba’al teshuvah of his previous sins. Here are some of R. Berab’s words which are clearly designed to contrast his pure history with R. Levi’s history, which included living as a Christian (and thus having a Christian name).[24]

שת”ל מיום הגרוש והשמד שבספרד לעולם הייתי מורה הוראות בישראל . . . ועם היותי ברעב ובצמא ובחוסר כל לעולם הלכתי בדרכי השם יתברך ונתעסקתי בתורתו . . . ות”ל שמעולם לא נשתנה שמי אי רבי קרו לי השתא רבי הווי קרי לי אז וזה שמי לעולם . . סוף דבר שת”ל לעולם השתדלתי שלא ילך להתרעם עלי שום אות מאלף ועד תי”ו, רצוני לומר שלא נתחלל שם שמים על ידי בשום אחד מהאותיות כדי שלא יעלו לשמים להתרעם עלי

R. Levi was understandably quite offended by R. Berab’s words. He expresses his pain that R. Berab would attempt to publicly humiliate him by bringing up the difficult timein Portugal. He makes it clear that he is speaking for many others who were also in his unfortunate circumstance.[25]

לישנא בישא טובא איכא הכא, ובמקום שהיה לו לחכם להודות על האמת ולהשיב כהלכה גרם לשפוך דמי ולהלבין פנים בהזכירו אלי עונות ראשונים . . . לא לכבודי ח”ו כי אם לכבוד כל אותם שנמצאו באותה הצרה ושמו עצמם בסכנות רבות וברחו ולא ראו בטובה עד שזכו להיות בעלי תשובה ורבים מהם נפטרו לחיי הע”ה

R. Levi also mentions that he was not yet a bar onshin when he converted. The evidence we have shows that he was older than 13 in 1497, so when he says that he was not yet abar onshin, it must mean that he was under the age of 20. This is in accord with an aggadic statement in Shabbat 89b that God does not punish for transgressions in the first twenty years.[26] The Zohar, Bereishit 118b, also states that while an earthly beit din punishes from age 13, the Heavenly Court does not punish for sins committed before age 20.[27] R. Levi further states that despite his difficult circumstances, in his mind he remained a Jew, loyal to the one true God. While others changed his name to a Christian name, he himself never changed. He adds that while he did not merit to die al kiddush ha-shem, he hopes to achieve a complete repentance for his past. Here are some of R. Levi words, full of pathos:[28]

ואומר כי אני לא אחלל בריתי ברית התורה להשיב לזה החכם על פי דרכו . . . גם לא אכחיש המובן מדבריו בהגדלת אשמתי ולא אציל עצמי בדברתי לומר שאף אם שנו שמי בעונתי בשעת השמד אני לא שניתי, ובוחן לב וחוקר כליות יודע כי תמיד אותו יראתי, ואם לא זכיתי לקדש שמו לבי יחיל בקרבי מפני זעמו הגם שעדיין לא הייתי בר עונשין בבית דינו כלל, מכל זה לא אומר ח”ו כי שקר התנצלותי, ועוד כי יוסיף פשע על חטאתי, אדרבה אבכה יומי ולילי אוי לי אללי ואודה עלי פשעי ואומר ידעתי יי’ רשעי ופשעי וזדוני כי רבו למעלה ראש משורש פורה רוש, ואשמותי גדלו עד לשמים, אבל בטחתי על רוב חסדיך ונשענתי על רוב רחמיך, וכשם שזכיתני לצאת מן ההפכה והבאתני אל העיר ההוללה בתוך השנה להיות שונה שם בכל יום הלכה עד היום שיש יותר מארבעים שנה, כך תזכני להיות בעל תשובה שלמה, ומה גם עתה בהיותי עולב עלבון גדול אשר כזה על לא חמס בכפי, ואתה אדון הסליחות אלדי הרוחות ראה בדמעות אשר זלגו עיני עתה באנחות ויהיו בבית גנזיך מונחות לעת צאת נפשי, ואולי תזכה בהן לשוב למנוחות

It is one thing for contemporaries to slug it out and attack each other. However, that was hundreds of years ago, and in the intervening centuries both R. Levi and R. Berab have been included in the canon of gedolim. R. Berab has the additional distinction of having given semikhah (the real kind) to R. Joseph Karo. As such, we are dealing with important figures who are each deserving of great respect. This is why I found it so unusual that a twentieth-century rabbi, Benjamin Trachtman, who came to the defense of R. Levi, showed considerable disrespect for R. Berab.

R. Trachtman was a rabbi in a few different places in the United States and Israel, and author of a number of works. In 1930 he was rabbi in Mishwaka, Indiana (near South Bend) when he published his book, Shevet Binyamin. Here is the title page.

The book comes with a number of “haskamot,” among them from R. Moshe Mordechai Epstein and R. Isaac Sher. From the “haskamot” we learn that R. Trachtman had been a student at the Chevron Yeshiva. I put the word haskamot in quotation marks, since even though that is what the letters at the beginning of the book are called, they are not haskamot at all as they have nothing to do with the book. Rather, they testify to R. Trachtman’s Torah knowledge and most of the letters are semikhah certificates.

I find it hard to believe that R. Trachtman’s teachers, and the others whose letters appear in the book, would have approved of his judgment of R. Berab, found on p. 93 of his book. He states that in looking at the dispute between R. Levi and R. Berab, you can see the difference between a person who has mussar values and one who is “lacking mussar and middot”! He claims that R. Berab is an example of someone who had great Torah knowledge but was lacking in the area of ethics. I find it incomprehensible that a twentieth-century scholar would speak this way about one of the recognized Torah sages of centuries ago.

משם יש לראות את הנפ”מ בין אדם בעל מוסר שכל דבריו שקולים במשורה בחשבון ודעת לאדם חסר המוסר והמדות, והינו[!] כי אחד מהדברים אשר אדם נכר בהם הוא בכעסו, בעת אשר מחלוקת לו עם חבירו, והנה המחלוקת של שני החכמים הנ”ל אם כי המחלוקת היה לש”ש לדינא אבל בכל זאת יש לראות שם גם זה הסוג מחלוקת של אנשים השוטים והמחלוקת מזה הסוג בולט הרבה מדברי הר”י בי רב, כי בדבריו אנו רואים התנפלות עזה בדברים בוטים כמדקרות חרב ועלילות מזויפות על הרלב”ח אשר א”א בשום אופן שמחשבון יצאו הדברים ואדרבה הרלב”ח אף כי גם הוא אינו מחריש לו אבל דבריו בנחת נשמעים במתינות ובישוב כנראה משם . . . ואל תאשימני על בואי לבקר את הר”י בי רב כי נתן לי רשות בדבריו, וסוף סוף אנו רואים בחוש גם עתה כי הוא שני דברים נפרדים כי יש למצוא תלמידי חכמים אשר גאונותם בתלמוד הוא עד למאוד וכשבאים לסוגיא “יכיר יכירנו לאחרים” הם נכשלים באופן פשוט אשר בשום אופן אין לחפות עליהם, אם לא כי יצאו מגדר המוסר

Also worth noting is Jacob Katz’s comment at the end of his classic article on the semikhah controversy. Nor can we ignore the fact that Berab’s personal attacks on ben Habib, and the recounting of his “old sins,” were not germane. He did not dare to give explicit expression to the serious accusation about ben Habib’s conversion in his youth; instead he couched it in words of self-praise (“I myself never changed my name”). Such a tactic is evidence of an emotional need to pretend that one has done nothing wrong, which is a sign of an uneasy conscience.[29]

I must also mention R. Isaac Bar Sheshet, the great Rivash. Did the Rivash actually convert to Christianity during the anti-Jewish persecution of 1391? There is no mention of this in any Hebrew documents. However, in 1983 Jaume Riera published an article in Sefunot based on documents from the Spanish archives which show that during the 1391 anti-Jewish attacks, the Rivash, who served as rabbi of Valencia, converted to Christianity. This is attested to in three separate documents, two of which refer to the rabbi of Valencia and one of which identifies the Rivash by name. The documents show that while many Jews were killed in Valencia during the attacks, most converted to save their lives and the large synagogue was turned into a Church.[30]

We do not know the exact circumstances that supposedly led the Rivash to convert, and the only important detail in this regard that we learn from the documents is that the Rivash’s death sentence was revoked after his apostasy. Riera offers a suggestion to explain why Rivash chose to convert, but this is based on nothing other than Riera’s vivid imagination. Yet Riera’s imaginings, which conjured up “false witnesses,” a “disgraceful crime,” and other completely fictional events, are presented in the Wikipedia entry on Rivash as actual fact.

In 1391 there occurred the great persecutions of the Jews of Spain in consequence of the preaching of Fernandes Martinez. On the first day of the persecutions, the younger brother of King John I summoned Isaac on July 9, 1391. He explained that to be able to restrain and cease the bloodshed, it would be necessary to promulgate an organized conversion of the Jews, which should obviously start with the communal leaders. Some of the leaders did relent to the heavy pressure laid upon them; but not Isaac, who held steadfast to his faith. After a couple of days, the officials set up false witnesses to testify against Isaac for a disgraceful crime. Due to this accusation, Isaac was condemned to death, by burning at the stake in the city’s central square. On July 11 Isaac was immersed, donned the robe of a Dominican and received the name Jaume De-Valencia.

Around a year and a half after the supposed conversion the Rivash escaped to Algeria, where he was known as a great posek whose responsa remain among the most important ever written. He died in 1408.

Did the Rivash convert? There were a number of rabbis, admittedly not of the Rivash’s level, who converted to Christianity in Spain, so the idea is not impossible. We also have to remember that the conversion of the Rivash, if it indeed occurred, was also only a temporary event. I do not think it casts aspersions on a great rabbi if we find that when faced with the terrible choice, he did not choose martyrdom. Everyone realizes that this is never an easy choice. This was especially the case in Spain which, unlike Germany, never had a culture extolling Jewish martyrdom (and we know that large numbers of Spanish Jews chose conversion over death).

In analyzing this matter, the real issue that experts should focus on is how reliable are the government documents. R. David Bar Sheshet is a descendant of the Rivash and recently published a biography of his illustrious forefather. Some might be surprised that in an “Orthodox” biography he deals with the matter of the supposed conversion. However, being that this is by now a well-known “fact,” it is basically impossible to ignore. Not surprisingly, Bar Sheshet argues against the claim that the Rivash converted.[31] Yet this is not simply a hagiographic perspective, and I myself am not convinced. If indeed the Rivash converted, the Church would presumably have used this as a propaganda tool, yet we have no evidence that this was ever done. Furthermore, does it make sense that no Jewish sources of the time mention the apostasy of such a prominent rabbi?[32]

Among my hobbies are visiting the graves of great Torah sages, and this hobby has taken me around the world. What about visiting the graves of the Rivash, and also R. Simeon ben Zemah Duran, the Tashbetz, both of whom are buried in Algiers?[33] Recently, I was in a Paris airport waiting for my flight to Tunisia. At very next gate was a flight to Algiers. Yet despite how easy it would be to travel there, I have yet to go. There is no Jewish community in the city and I don’t know how safe it is to visit Jewish sites. One day when I am convinced it is safe, I will travel there, much like I will travel to Baghdad to visit the grave of the Ben Ish Hai.

Fortunately, one person did make the trek to Algiers. He has put online pictures of the cemetery where the Rivash and R. Simeon ben Zemah Duran are buried, having been moved there from the original cemetery at the end of the nineteenth century. Even before the move they had been given new tombstones.[34] See his website here.

This is the Rivash’s grave. The picture is taken from the just mentioned website. This is R. Duran’s grave. The picture comes from the same website. Excursus

Due to the censor, or perhaps even self-censorship, in certain European prayer books negative expressions directed against idolatry, and hence bearing a possible anti-Christian interpretation, were turned into anti-Islamic expressions. See Leopold Zunz,Die Ritus des synagogalen Gottesdienstes (Berlin, 1919), p. 222. Halakhic works were also affected. See, for example, R. Abraham Danzig, Hokhmat Adam 153:1, where some printings have:

ואם שרוי הוא בין ישמעאלים

Every reader should easily grasp that in this .does not really mean Muslims ישמעאלים passage

Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 9:4 reads:

הנוצרים עובדי עבודה זרה הן ויום ראשון יום אידם הוא. לפיכך אסור לשאת ולתת עמהן בארץ ישראל יום חמישי ויום ששי שבכל שבת ושבת. ואין צריך לומר יום ראשון עצמו שהוא אסור בכל מקום

In the textual notes in the Frankel Mishneh Torah, they cite a manuscript that reads:

ישמעלים [!] עובדי ע”ז הן ויום ששי יום אידם . . . ואין צריך לומר יום ששי עצמו

In the Shabbat morning Amidah, we read:

וגם במנוחתו לא ישכנו ערלים

Steinschneider noted that some texts replacearelim with “Ishmaelites.” See Polemische und Apologetische Literatur in arabischer Sprache zwischen Muslimen, Christen und Juden (Leipzig, 1877), p. 374. This change of text was done in Christian countries for obvious reasons and should fool no one. Thus, it is surprising that Salo W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, vol. 6, p. 327 n. 15, writes as follows about the version that contains “Ishmaelites”:

This was hardly an invention of later generations of Jews who, living in Christian countries, sought to avoid difficulties with censors. . . . If Maimonides, in his formulation, substitutes arelim (uncircumcised) for “Ishmaelites” (cf. M.T. Seder Tefillot at the end of the second book; here switched to the Musaf prayer), this was merely in line with his general preference for Islam as against Christianity. This is complete nonsense. Maimonides did not substitute arelim for “Ishmaelites.” The text he had, which is the authentic text of the prayer, included the word arelim.

Here is a responsum of R. Eliezer Isaac Fried, from Hut ha- Meshulash, no. 28. This responsum is cited in many of the discussions dealing Islam and halakhah, in particular with reference to mosques. In my article on the topic from many years ago I too cited this source. See “Islam and the Halakhah,” Judaism 42 (Summer 1993), p. 337.

I recently had occasion to look at this responsum again, and I see that everyone has misunderstood it. It is obvious that R. Fried is not really speaking about building a mosque but a church. When, in the responsum, he speaks of placing the crescent in the mosque, this is really code for crucifix. In fact, the entire responsum assumes that he is speaking about a religion of avodah zarah, which is the obvious sign that he is really speaking about Christianity.

My excuse for misreading the responsum years ago is that I was young and unsophisticated. However, it is very surprising to me that many great talmidei hakhamim have also cited this responsum without realizing that it is not really referring to Islam. See also here where I discuss a mistake by R. Judah Aszod who assumed that in a particular responsum the Hatam Sofer was discussing candle lighting as part of a religious celebration in India, when it is obvious that the Hatam Sofer is really referring to the practice of European Christians.

For an example of self-censorship in the opposite direction, namely, the removal of references to Islam, see this page of a responsum of R. Rahamim Joseph Franco,Sha’arei Rahamim (Jerusalem, 1881), vol. 1, Orah Hayyim, no. 5, p. 8b .(ושוב look at the paragraph beginning) 2. I would like to mention some more mistakes I have found in the ArtScroll siddur and machzor. I believe that it is worthwhile to call attention to such mistakes, not only for their own sake, but because ArtScroll has made corrections in the past when these types of errors have been pointed out, and they no doubt will continue to do so in the future. I myself have noticed a number of corrections that ArtScroll has made, and it could be that the example I will now discuss is an additional one, but I have not personally seen the correction. In response to an earlier post, R. Elazar Meir Teitz informed me that in the prayer recited before taking the היטיבה Torah out of the Ark on Shabbat morning, in the words ברצונך ArtScroll mistakenly puts the accent in ,ברצונך את ציון on the penultimate syllable (and when we sing these words with the popular tune the accent is indeed on the penultimate syllable). I checked my ArtScroll siddurim and machzorim and that is indeed where the accent is. However, I have been told that in the new printings of at least one of the various ArtScroll siddurim (but not of the machzorim) this has been corrected and the accent is now on the final syllable. Can any reader confirm that this is indeed the case?

I noticed over Yom Kippur that ArtScroll has a very strange :prayer. We say על חטא translation in the

ועל חטא שחטאנו לפניך ביודעים ובלא יודעים

ArtScroll translates this: “And for the sin that we have sinned before You against those who know and against those who do not know.” I am certain that this is a mistake, and means, “with knowledge or without ביודעים ובלא יודעים that knowledge,” in other words, “wittingly or unwittingly.” I assume ArtScroll was driven to its translation because earlier ביודעים ובלא Thus, if .בזדון ובשגגה in the prayer we say means “wittingly or unwittingly,” then it is repeating יודעים בבלי what was earlier said. Furthermore, we also say earlier so this would seem to be more of the ,בדעת ובמרמה and דעת same. Yet I do not think that a prayer with repetitions creates difficulties, and in this case, I think it makes more sense than translating the passage the way ArtScroll does. I am curious to see if readers agree with me.[35]

The final mistake I would like to call attention to is one that is found in most siddurim and collections of zemirot, so ArtScroll is in good company. It is noteworthy that the Koren siddur and the new RCA siddur get it right. The old RCA-De Sola Pool siddur also got it right.

:it states ,ברוך א-ל עליון In the Sbbath song

ואשרי כל חוכה מאת כל סוכה שוכן בערפל

The meaning, as translated by ArtScroll, is:

Praiseworthy is everyone who awaits a double reward From the One Who sees all but dwells in dense darkness.

Here is how the Hebrew page appears in the ArtScroll Zemiroth,[36] p. 186. The problem here is that if you look at the Hebrew you can see כל- .that the English has not been translated properly does not mean “the One Who sees”, but “everyone who סוכה has kamatza which means that it is כל sees.” The word connected to the following word. In the Zemiroth, ArtScroll puts the makef in, just like almost always in the Masoretic with kamatza has amakef .[37] But the כל text of Tanakh meaning of the passage is the same even without the makef, and in the siddur ArtScroll does not include it.

In order for the passage to mean “the One Who sees all,” the must have a holam.[38] This point is actually made by כל word R. Nota Greenblatt, who states that the version found in has akamatz , is כל ArtScroll and many others, where the word nothing less than heresy since God has been replaced by humans.

3. I want to call readers’ attention to an important volume that has just appeared. Seforim Blog contributor R. Moshe Maimon has published the first volume of his edition of R. Abraham Maimonides’ commentary on Genesis. Maimon’s improvements on the earlier translation from the Arabic make the work a pleasure to read. His explanatory notes are simply fantastic, taking into account all relevant sources, both traditional and academic, that can illuminate the text. This will now become the standard edition of R. Abraham’s commentary, and I can think of no greater honor for Maimon than this. Hopefully, this publication will lead to a surge of interest in the commentary of R. Abraham, much like R. Kafih’s new translation of Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah did for this work. The book is available at Biegeleisen, and can also be purchased online at Mizrahi books here.

[1] See Isaiah Sonne, “Avnei Binyan le-Korot ha-Yehudim be- Italyah,” Horev 6 (1941), pp. 100ff.; Elisheva Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy: Rabbi Moses Hagiz and the Sabbatian Controversies (New York, 1990), pp. 237ff. [2] This is noted by Carlebach, The Pursuit of Heresy, p. 331 n. 18. [3] See Excursus [4] Peninei Shadal (Przemysl, 1888), p. 12. See the recent discussion of Nehemiah by Yaakov Spiegel in Hitzei Giborim 11 (2019), pp. 1146ff. Spiegel mentions that Torah writings from Nehemiah remain in manuscript. He also notes that in a recent printing of Basilea, Emunat Hakhamim, Nehemiah’s haskamah was removed (and perhaps surprisingly, the printer acknowledged that it was removed). [5] Cecil Roth, Studies in Books and Booklore (Farnborough, England, 1972), p. 44 (Hebrew section). [6] See Alexander’s appendix to John Hatchard, The Predictions and Promises of God Respecting Israel (London, 1825), p. 38. See also Kelvin Crombie,A Jewish Bishop in Jerusalem (Jerusalem, 2006), p. 13, and the entry on him in the Dictionary of National Biography, here. [7] R. Joseph Tanugi, Toldot Hakhmei Tunis (Bnei Brak, 1988), pp. 233-234; R. Abraham Khalfon, Ma’aseh Tzadikim (Jerusalem, n.d.), p. 309. [8] L’Univers Israelite, Oct. 7, 1932, available here; André N. Chouraqui, Between East and West: A History of the Jews of North Africa, trans. Michael M. Bernet (Philadelphia, 1968), p. 72. [9] See Victor A. Mirelman, Jewish Buenos Aires, 1890-1930 (Detroit, 1990), p. 89. [10] “Ha-Rav Moshe Soloveichik u-Ma’avakav be-‘Moetzet Gedolei ha-Torah’ ve-‘Agudat ha-Rabbanim’ be-Polin,”Hakirah 25 (2018), p. 47. [11] I thank Menachem Butler for sending me this image. [12] See Yehoshua Mondshine, Ha-Tzofeh le-Doro (Jerusalem, 1987), p. 37. [13] Entzyklopedia le-Hakhmei Galizia, vol. 5, col. 154. [14] Ha-Darom (Tishrei 5723) 16 p. 150. [15] Another rabbi who met an unfortunate demise was R. Isaiah ha-Levi, author of the first Ba’er Heitev on the Shulhan Arukh (not Ba’er Heitev found in the standard editions). R. Meir Eisenstadt, Meorei Esh, beginning of parashat Shemini, tells us that on his way to Eretz Yisrael, R. Isaiah, his wife, and daughter were killed in a fire in their hotel. Regarding the different commentaries with the nameBa’er Heitev, see R. Yehiel Dov Weller in Yeshurun 17 (2006), pp. 825ff.

In the old translation of Maimonides’ commentary ונהרג על זה :to Mikvaot 4:4, he writes about a certain rabbi This led to all sorts of speculations about which .באמה ובזרוע rabbi was killed. However, this is a mistaken translation. See R. Kafih’s note in his new translation, and also his commentary to Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Mikvaot, vol. 2, p. 461. In a future post, I will mention a few rabbis who were killed by Jews, as well as cases of attempted murder. For now, I merely want to call readers’ attention to Prof. Shnayer Leiman’s email published in Chaim Dalfin’s new book,Torah Vodaas and Lubavitch (Brooklyn, 2019), p. 203.

There was a rabbi who allegedly was killed by mobsters. I heard from reliable sources that he was beaten, rolled in the snow and left to die. (Perhaps the goal was to frighten him, not kill him.) He survived the ordeal, but died shortly thereafter from pneumonia. The rabbi was Rabbi Yaakov Eskolsky, famous author and Rabbi of the Bialystocker Shul on the Lower East Side. I’m not aware of any written account that mentions this.

Leiman also mentions that Rabbi Israel Tabak, the son-in-law of R. Eskolsky, in discussing his father-in-law’s death mentions nothing about any foul play. See Tabak,Three Worlds (Jerusalem, 1988), p. 156.

R. Eskolsky served as a rabbi in Scranton for a few years. See his biography here. I previously wrote a bit about him here. In Tabak’s book, p. 152, it mentions that R. Eskolsky celebrated Thanksgiving, and that at a Thanksgiving dinner Tabak attended, he “emphasized the significance of Thanksgiving Day for our people who came to the United States from Eastern Europe, and especially from Russia. Coming to America, the land of freedom and opportunity, was like emerging from darkness into light and certainly deserved to be marked by thanksgiving, both to G-d and to America that treated its citizens so well.” I believe that for any non- hasidic rabbi in America in the early part of the twentieth century, the notion that there was something religiously problematic with celebrating Thanksgiving would have been incomprehensible.

Shimon Steinmetz sent me this picture from the Forverts, Oct. 23, 1930. I find it fascinating that R. Eskolsky served as a justice on the “Jewish Arbitration Court.”

[16] See Yehoshua Mondshine, “Aminutan shel Iggerot ha-Hasidim me-Eretz Yisrael,” in Katedra 64 (1992), p. 89 n. 152. [17] “Perfeyt Duran be-Italyah ve-Goral ha-Sefarim ha-Ivriyim Aharei Meoraot 1391,” Ba-Derekh el ha-Modernah: Shai le-Yosef Kaplan (Jerusalem, 2019), pp. 61-91. [18] The Secret Faith of Maestre Honoratus (Philadelphia, 2015), pp. 20, 28. [19] See Kozody’s suggestions to explain this, Secret Faith, pp. 30ff. Regarding when his polemical works were written, see Benzion Netanyahu, The Marranos of Spain (Ithaca, 1999), pp. 221ff. [20] Twersky discusses this text in “Religion and Law” in S.D. Goitein, ed., Religion in a Religious Age (New York, 1974), pp. 69-82. Regarding Twersky, I recently discovered this video of one of Chaim Grade’s lectures at Harvard from October 1981, and Twersky introduces him at the beginning. Unfortunately, only the first part of the lecture appears in the video. If anyone knows if the second part exists, please let me know. Menachem Butler was kind enough to send this page from the Boston Jewish Advocate, Oct. 22, 1981, announcing the Grade lectures. Grade had earlier lectured at Harvard in 1977. Regarding these lectures, see Allan Nadler’s recollections here. [21] Here is the first page of an article by Yehudah Hershkowitz that appeared in Yeshurun 9 (2001), p. 572. Note how Duran is referred to as “Rabbenu”. The author is aware that Duran apostatized, but he, like everyone before him, assumed that Duran later returned to Judaism. [22] Regarding martyrdom, R. Moshe Feinstein makes an interesting point in Iggerot Moshe, Yoreh Deah III, no. 108 (p. 353). We all know that a convert must accept the mitzvot for the conversion to be valid. What about if a convert honestly states that while he accepts the mitzvot, if confronted with violating a prohibition for which martyrdom is required, he knows that he will not have the courage to be martyred? Is this to be regarded as rejecting a commandment which means that he cannot be converted? R. Moshe says no, as acceptance of the mitzvot means that you intend to fulfill them under normal circumstances, and extreme cases such as those that involve martyrdom do not impact this acceptance. [23] For R. Elijah Capsali’s report of the forced conversion, by actual physical force, see Abraham Gross, Struggling with Tradition (Leiden, 2004), p. 81. See also the Christian report in E. H. Lindo, The History of the Jews of Spain and Portugal (New York, 1970), p. 330. Another forced convert in Portugal who later became famous was R. Solomon Ibn Verga, author of Shevet Yehudah. R. Joseph Garson, who later escaped to Salonika, also appears to have undergone forced conversion in Portugal. See Joseph Hacker, “Li-Demutam ha-Ruhanit shel Yehudei Sefarad be-Sof ha-Meah ha-Hamesh Esreh,” Sefunot 2, new series (1983), pp. 29ff. As with R. Levi, we do not know the circumstances of the forced conversions of R. Ibn Verga and R. Garson. Since it appears that R. Jacob Ibn Habib was also in Portugal in 1497, then presumably he too was converted, either “willingly” or not. See, however, Marjorie Lehman, The En Yaaqov: Jacob ibn Habib’s Search for Faith in the Talmudic Corpus (Detroit, 2012), pp. 26-27. Regarding whether R. Isaac Karo was in Portugal then, or if he succeeded in leaving prior to the mass conversion, see Karo, Derashot R. Yitzhak Karo, ed. Shaul Regev (Ramat-Gan, 1995), pp. 9-10. [24] Kuntres ha-Semikhah, in Teshuvot R. Levi Ibn Habib, no. 147, section 4 (p. 39 in the new edition). [25] Ibid., no. 148 section 5, p. 52. [26] R. Solomon ben Adret, She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rashba, vol. 6, no. 179, explains that this is because a person’s intellect is not sufficiently developed until age 20. [27] R. Moses Sofer rejects the notion that one is not punished by Heaven for sins committed before age 20. See She’elot u-Teshuvot Hatam Sofer, vol. 2, Yoreh Deah no. 155. For more on this matter, see R. Pinchas Zabihi, Ateret Paz, vol. 3, no. 1, andhere . [28] Teshuvot R. Levi Ibn Habib, no. 148, section 5 (p. 53 in the new edition). [29] Divine Law in Human Hands (Jerusalem, 1998), p. 170. [30] Riera, “Le-Toldot ha-Rivash bi-Gezerot 1391,” Sefunot 17 (1983), pp. 11-20. [31] Rabbi Yitzhak Bar Sheshet (Beitar Ilit, 2017), pp. 83ff. [32] In this post, I have not dealt with accusations of rabbis’ apostatizing that arose in the contexts of disputes. For an example where hasidim accused one of their mitnagedic opponents, R. Leib Rakowski of Plock, of apostasy and also of marrying a non-Jewish woman, see Marcin Wodzinski, Studying Hasidism (New Brunswick, N.J., 2019), p. 120. This occurred after they tried to beat up the rabbi. See ibid., p. 119. This .ארג’יל In rabbinic literature Algiers is written as [33] is due to the influence of the Spanish exiles who settled in North Africa, as in Spanish Algiers is pronounced as Argel. I was surprised to see that a generally careful scholar, Tuvia Preschel, Ma’amrei Tuvyah, vol. 1, p. 58, recorded the following false information.

הם [יהודי אלג’יר] לא רצו לכתוב אלגיר שהיא מלשון אלה וגם “גירא בעיניך השטן” וע”כ הסבו שם העיר לארג’יל, לשון אור וגיל וסימנה טוב

[34] Regarding the transfer of the remains, see Bar Sheshet, Rabbi Yitzhak Bar Sheshet, pp. 83ff. [35] In his Derashot Kol Ben Levi, p. 130, R. Jehiel Michel :as follows ביודעים ובלא יודעים Epstein’s explains

היודעים המה העבירות שאין להם מבא בהיתר כלל והלא יודעים הם המותרות מההיתר שאין האדם מרגיש בנפשו כלל שזהו חטא וא”כ אין ידוע כלל שחטאנו לפניך For a homiletic explanation that is found in many different sources, see R. Zvi Hirsch Ferber, Siah Tzvi, p. 162:

וזה שאנו מתודים על חטא שח”ל ביודעים, זה שהגיע להוראה ואינו מורה, ובלא יודעים, שלא הגיע להוראה ומורה

Yisrael Meir Lau,Yahel Yisrael: Avot, ch. 4, p. 246, writes:

בלא יודעים – הכוונה לחטא שחטאנו, מחמת שהיינו במצב של “לא יודעים”, שבאשמתנו לא ידענו את הדין, ועברנו על העבירה בלא לדעת כלל שיש בכך איסור. חומרתו של מעשה הנעשה “בלא יודעים” היא, ממש כמעשה הנעשה “ביודעים”, ועל שניהם כאחד אנו מתוודים ומבקשים שהקב”ה יסלח לנו ביום הכיפורים

[36] My copy was published in 1979. Later, ArtScroll changed the transliteration to Zemiros. with kamatz is pronounced askamatz katan. The only כל [37] and Proverbs ,כל עצמתי :exceptions in Tanakh are Psalms 35:10 and כל In these cases there is no makef after .כל אחי-רש :19:7 therefore it is pronounced as kamatz gadol.

Isaiah 40:12 is another biblical verse with the :without a makef and it too has a kamatz gadol כל word

וכל בשלש עפר הארץ here is completely different than all other כל Yet the word in Tanakh. This passage means, “and כל appearances of comprehended the dust of the earth in a shalish-measure.” The The .כלל we are all familiar with is from the root כל word כול. in Isaiah 40:12 is from the root כל word 38]] I found another mistake in ArtScroll’s version of the song, and again, many others, including Koren and the new RCA siddur, make the same mistake. Yet the RCA-De Sola Pool siddur gets it right, as does Birnbaum. In the first stanza it ArtScroll vocalizes the last word as .עד אנא תוגיון reads “tugyon” (shuruk, holam) Yet this is a verse in Job 19:2 and the correct pronunciation is “togyun” (holam, shuruk). ArtScroll puts the accent .רוחו בם נחה The fifth stanza ends on the penultimate syllable. However, in the context of נחה in the song, where all the other stanzas have the parallel rhyming word with the accent on the last syllable, I don’t should also be read with the נחה think there is any doubt that accent on the last syllable, despite what the grammatical rule may say.

The History behind the Ashkenazi/Sephardi divide concerning lighting Chanukah candles

The History behind the Ashkenazi/Sephardi divide concerning lighting Chanukah candles

By Zachary Rothblatt

Zachary Rothblatt learned in Kerem B’Yavneh, Ner Yisroel, and will be receiving Semicha soon from RIETS. He is finishing a graduate degree in Bible and Talmud at the Bernard Revel Graduate School for Jewish Studies. He is a Judaic studies teacher at the Idea School in Tenafly, New Jersey.

One of the most famous halachic debates of Chanukah is the debate concerning how many sets of candles a family should light. Ashkenazim believe, with some variances, that each family member should light a menorah, while Sephardim believe that only one menorah should be lit per family. In this essay I would like to map out the history of how lighting Chanukah candles has been practiced and attempt to explain why in fact Ashkenazim and Sephardim do as they do.

The Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 671:2) records the Sephardic practice of lighting only one set of candles per family. Rema (ad loc) records that the widespread minhag in Ashkenazi communities is for each member of the household to light his or her own set of Chanukah candles. The notes that this is a unique situation in that Sephardim (ס״ק א‘) Taz follow the opinion of Tosafot and that Ashkenazim follow the opinion of the Rambam. Some have taken this as proof of cross-cultural interaction between Sephardim and Ashkenazim. Beit Yosef does indeed say that Sephardic custom is based conceptually on Tosafot and Darkei Moshe Ha’Aruch says that Ashkenazi practice is based on the Rambam. That may be true from a conceptual standpoint. From a historical perspective, I believe the bases of these minhagim are to be found elsewhere.

The details of the Rabbinic commandment to light Chanukah candles are found in the Babylonian Talmud (Shabbat 21b) as well as in the Scholion of Megillat Ta’anit. For our purposes, the textual differences between the two corpora and internally within the manuscripts of the Bavli are negligible. The Talmud quotes a Baraita[1]:

ת”ר מצות חנוכה נר איש וביתו והמהדרין נר לכל אחד ואחד והמהדרין מן המהדרין ב”ש אומרים יום ראשון מדליק שמנה מכאן ואילך פוחת והולך וב”ה אומרים יום ראשון מדליק אחת מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך

The Sages taught: The mitzvah of Chanukah is each day to have a light kindled by a person, the head of the household, for himself and his household. And the mehadrin, i.e., those who are meticulous in the performance of mitzvot, kindle a light for each and every one in the household. And the mehadrin min hamehadrin, who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree as to the nature of that adjustment. Beit Shammai say:On the first day one kindles eight lights and, from there on, gradually decreases the number of lights until, on the last day of Hanukkah, he kindles one light. And Beit Hillel say: On the first day one kindles one light, and from there on, gradually increases the number of lights until, on the last day, he kindles eight lights.

The first level of the mitzvah is defined as one candle per family. The second level, mehadrin, mandates a candle for each member of the family (See later for a discussion concerning who is to light these candles). The level of Mehadrin min HaMehadrin is debated by Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel. As per the general rule we follow Beit Hillel. The fundamental question is whether the third level of Mehardin min Hamehadrin is in addition to the second level, i.e. each household member should have a menorah and light from one to eight candles, or that only one menorah should be lit in such a manner. This point is debated between Rambam and Tosafot, as referenced earlier.

Tosafot writes as follows (ad loc s.v. V’hamehadrin)[2]

והמהדרין מן המהדרין. נראה לר”י דב”ש וב”ה לא קיימי אלא אנר איש וביתו שכן יש יותר הידור דאיכא היכרא כשמוסיף והולך או מחסר שהוא כנגד ימים הנכנסים או היוצאים אבל אם עושה נר לכל אחד אפי’ יוסיף מכאן ואילך ליכא היכרא שיסברו שכך יש בני אדם בבית:

It seems to Ri (Isaac of Dampierre, 12th century) that Beit Shammai and Beit Hilel are referring only to “Man and his household” because in this way there is more beautification of the Mitzvah because there is something recognizable when he keeps adding or leaving out (candles) which corresponds to days that are entering or exiting. However, if he makes a candle for each one (i.e. each member of his household gets his own candle), even if he adds (candles) from this moment and onwards, there is nothing recognizable, because (the people) would think that so is the number of people in the household. (i.e. in this case, instead of attributing the increase or decrease in candles to the intention of the owner to match the corresponding day of Chanukah, people would attribute it to the intention to match the number of people in the household.)

Ri feels that for the Mehadrin min HaMehadrin only one set of Chanukah candles should be lit in order to preserve the distinctiveness of each day. We will return to the Tosafot later.

Rambam writes as follows (Mishneh Torah 4:1-3)[3] רמב”ם הלכות מגילה וחנוכה פרק ד:א-ג

א. כמה נרות הוא מדליק בחנוכה, מצותה שיהיה כל בית ובית מדליק נר אחד א בין שהיו אנשי הבית מרובין בין שלא היה בו אלא אדם אחד, והמהדר את המצוה מדליק נרות כמנין אנשי הבית נר לכל אחד ואחד בין אנשים בין נשים, והמהדר יתר על זה ועושה מצוה מן המובחר מדליק נר לכל אחד ואחד בלילה הראשון ומוסיף והולך בכל לילה ולילה נר אחד.

ב. כיצד הרי שהיו אנשי הבית עשרה, בלילה הראשון מדליק עשרה נרות ובליל שני עשרים ובליל שלישי שלשים עד שנמצא מדליק בליל שמיני שמונים נרות.

ג. מנהג פשוט בכל ערינו בספרד שיהיו כל אנשי הבית מדליקין נר אחד בלילה הראשון ומוסיפין והולכין נר בכל לילה ולילה עד שנמצא מדליק בליל שמיני שמונה נרות בין שהיו אנשי הבית מרובים בין שהיה אדם אחד.

1. How many lamps should one light on Chanukah? It is a commandment that one light be kindled in each and every house whether it be a household with many people or a house with a single person. One who enhances the commandment should light lamps according to the number of people of the house – a lamp for each and every person, whether they are men or women. One who enhances [it] further than this and performs the commandment in the choicest manner lights a lamp for each person on the first night and continues to add one lamp on each and every night.

2. How is this? See that [if] the people of the household were ten: On the first night, one lights ten lamps; on the second night, twenty; on the third night, thirty; until it comes out that he lights eighty lamps on the eighth night.

3. The widespread custom in all of our cities in Spain is that all of the people of the household light one lamp on the first night. And they continue to add one lamp on each night, until it comes out that one lights eight lamps on the eighth night – whether the people of the household were many or whether it was [only] one man.

Maimonides writes his personal opinion that Mehadrin min HaMehadrin is defined as each individual having a set of candles and adding to it successively over the days of Chanukah. He notes though that the common Minhag in Spain was for a family to only light one set of candles.

As we have seen the Rema codifies the minhag of each individual family member lighting his or her own Chanukah candles. In Darkei Moshe Ha’Aruch he explicitly quotes this idea in the name of Rambam. Similarly, Maharshal in his responsa (no. 85), says the Ashkenazi minhag is based on Rambam. Rav Dovid Novhardoker (19th century) in his Shut Galya Masechet (Responsa no. 6) believes this is an incorrect reading of the Rambam. He believes that a precise reading of the Rambam leads to the conclusion that only one individual should light all the candles corresponding to the number of individuals in a house, .(מדליק עשרה) based on Rambam’s use of the singular form of the verb He argues forcefully that there is no source for the concept of each individual lighting his or her own menorah in any Rishon and worries that there may be a concern of bracha l’vetala to follow the standard Ashkenazi minhag.

It is entirely possible that Rema and Maharshal disagreed with the validity of the inference of the Galya Masechet. It’s also possible that they were merely trying to find an early source that is conceptually similar to Minhag Ashkenaz and weren’t concerned for the particular details.

The objections of the Galya Masechet notwithstanding, Rav Ariav Ozer Shlit”a of Yeshivat Itri has pointed[4] to early Geonic evidence that there is a concept of an individual lighting of the Menorah. The relevant responsum is found in a number of places, and in some sources is attributed to the mid-9th century Suran Gaon Sar Shalom b. Boaz. The Genizah version (published in Geonica, no. 343) reads as follows:

גאוניקה 343 (וכן בשי׳ בעשרת הדברות ובשע״ת וה״פ ומובא בטור סי׳ תרע״ז)

ואנשים הרבה בחצר אחת שורת הדין אם משתתפין כולן בשמן יוצאין כולם בנר אחת מדנר שיש לה שתי פיות עולה לשני בני אדם ומדר׳ חונא מילא קערה שמן וכו׳ ומדר׳ זורא מראש הוה משתתפנא בפריטי אלמא בשותפות סגיא אבל הרוצה לחבב ולהדר מצות כל אחד ואחד מדליק נר לעצמו דתנו רבנן מצות נר חנוכה נר איש וביתו והמהדרין נר לכל אחד וא׳ וכו׳ The basic issue in the responsum concerns the possibility of multiple individuals living in one courtyard using one menorah. The Gaon says they technically can chip in together to use one set of candles. Ideally though, they should each light his own menorah as we find concerning the Mehadrin of the Talmud. This reading of the Talmud assumes that the 2nd level of Mehadrin is in fact an individual obligation for each member to light, unlike the Galya Maseches.

It terms of other Geonic material there is an important Genizah find (T-S G2.132 1v) that as of now has only been published in a footnote.[5] The fragment reads as follows:

כחשבון הנפשות, שאם יש חמשה מדליק חמשה או עשרה מדליק עשרה. והמהדרין מן המהדרין הוא טעם שלישי מופרש מן הטעמים הראשונים ובו נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל ולא בר…ם ומצוה מן המובחר לעשות כדברי בית הלל כטעם השלישי להדליק לילה הראשונה נר אחד ומיכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך נרות וכך אנו נוהגין מדליקין אנו לילה הראשונה נר אחד בשניֿ שני נרות וב…מוסיפין נר.. ש

It appears the source is saying that the 3rd level is to only light one set of Chanukah candles. If this is the correct inference this would indicate that what eventually became the ‘Sephardic’ custom was already being practiced at a very early period, possibly even in one of the Geonic yeshivot.

As well, In the Siddur of R’ Saadya Gaon[6] we find the following interesting comment (quote is from Assaf’s Hebrew translation)

ומצוותיו הן להדליק נר על פתח כל דירה שלנו, מן ליל כ״ה כסליו עד סוף שמונה ימים, ומהדר ישים נר לכל נפש מאנשי הבית.

Rav Saadya curiously only mentions the 2nd level of Mehardrin. This may be an innocuous omission or it may be an indication that it was not common to light according to the level of Mehadrin min haMehadrin. R. Elazar Hurvitz notes a parallel between Rasag’s words and a Gaonic responsum he published.[7] The responsum contains surprising details both concerning the practice mentioned by the questioner and the Gaon’s response. It reads: ואשר כתבתם, מנהגנו בחנוכה להדליק בהיכל שמנה נרות, בלילה ראשונה עושין אחת משמאל ושבע לימין ובכל לילה מעתיק אחת מימין לשמאל ע(ל)(ד) לילה שמיני יעשו כולן לשמאל. יודיענו אדונינו גאון היאך עושה. שיש מי שאמר ששה עשרה, שמנה מימין ושמנה משמאל. ילמדינו אדונינו היאך מנהגכם וכיצד נעשה. אנו מנהגינו בבית להדליק כמנין אנשים שיש בבית, כדתנן המהדרין נר לכל אחד ואחד. ובבתי כנסיות עושין כבית הלל, לילה הראשון מדליק אחד, מכאן ואילך מוסיף והולך, ואין עושין כלום מהן מימין, וכך יפה לעשות.

The questioner mentions his own minhag to light eight candles every night! What distinguished one night from the next is that every night one candle was moved from the left to the right. The questioner inquires as to what the Gaon’s practice is, as he has heard some recommend lighting 16 candles (!), eight to the right and eight to the left. The Gaon answers that in fact his minhag is to only fulfill the level of Mehardin min HaMehadrin in the synagogue, while at home the minhag was to perform the 2nd level of mehadrin. So we have explicit proof that there were Gaonim who only lit the level of mehadrin, and Rav Saadya is likely precise in his formulation.

As quoted above, Maimonides noted that the widespread Spanish minhag was for each family to light only one set of Chanukah candles. This minhag is attested in several sources, including the Gaonic responsum above. Another early source for the minhag is the 12th century siddur of Rabbi Shelomo b. Natan.[8] While scholars had originally thought R. Shlomo was from Sijilmassa, Morocco, there has been a growing lack of consensus on the issue. Uri Erlich[9] has suggested the possibility that R. Shlomo was from an area near Aleppo, Syria.

Other later evidence for Spanish practice comes from, among other sources, Ritva,[10] Rabbi Hayim of Toledo,[11] and the Nimukei Yosef.[12] From all these sources it is apparent that the Sephardic custom has unquestionably been to light one set of Chanukah candles per family, in variance with Rambam’s own opinion.

The same minhag is attested in Provence by, among others, both Meiri[13] and Rabbi Meiri HaMeili.[14] Against this, R. Yehonatan of Lunel in his novellae on the Rif[15] says that for Mehadrin min HaMehadrin each individual should have their own set of candles. It is very possible that R. Yehonatan, an avid follower of Rambam, followed Rambam’s personal opinion on the matter. It is unclear if such was ever practiced by a Provencal community.

Returning to Ashkenazic practice, the first explicit source for the minhag to have every individual light appears in the writings of Maharil (c. 1365-1427). Both in his responsa[16] and in the Sefer Maharil,[17] Maharil says the current minhag is for each individual to light, explicitly saying they do not follow the opinion of the Ri. Additionally, Maharil and his students[18] devote significant discussion concerning the possibility for a husband to light separate Chanukah candles when not home (The sources take for granted that even within Minhag Ashkenaz a couple would light only one set of candles, hence the question). These issues were debated extensively by scholars, but no prior discussion of this topic appears. While it is an argument from silence, this alone makes one wonder how popular was the current Minhag Ashkenaz before Maharil (one could also suggest that the minhag used to be that spouses lit their own candles, but this contradicts the simple reading of Shabbat 23a).

Looking through the Ashkenazic Halachic material that precedes Maharil one finds repeated mention of the opinion of Ri that there should be only one set per family. The Mordechai explicitly endorses Ri[19] and quotes that it is the minhag (both in our printed version as well as in Vatican ms. 141, which is the manuscript most authentic to the original Mordechai). As well, the opinion of the Ri is codified in the Agudah[20] (early 14th century), by R. Mendel Klausner[21] (early 14th century) in his Pesakim, and by R. Hizkiya of Magdeburg (late 13th century) in his Pesakim.[22] Not a single source belies any suggestion of the later Ashkenazi minhag.

This leads us back to Tosafot. From the presentation of Tosafot as it appears in our printed Gemaras there is no way of telling how the approach of the Ri related to the contemporaneous practice of lighting in 12th century France and Germany. I had even seen a number of years ago someone cautiously propose that the reason that Mehadrin min HaMehadrin was up for debate in Tosafot was because Jews did not actually light Mehadrin min HaMehadrin and there was no set minhag. A review of the manuscript evidence of Tosafot solves this issue. Guenzburg ms. 636 contains a unique Tosafot on Shabbat authored by a student of Ri.[23] The version of Ri in that manuscript reads as follows:

והמהדר’ין מן המהדרין בית שמי וכו’.נר’אה לר’ דלא קאי אנר לכל אחד ואחד כדי לקיים המנהג .שלנו וטעם נותן ר’בי לדבר דהא לא הוי פרסומי ניסא דהא לא ידיע כמה ימים עברו וכמה יש לבא. וא”ת בפחות או ביתר ידיע שיש בלילה אחת יותר או פחות מחבירתה. בהא לא מינכר משום דאמרי אינשי נתרבו או נתמעטו בני הבית. מ”ר.

In this version, the Tosafot writes that Ri offered this explanation of the sugya specifically in order to substantiate the minhag! This is also found explicitly in the version of Tosafot that appears on the side of the Rif in many manuscripts, and is known as Tosafot Alfas. These Tosafot were gathered by Rabbi Yisrael b. Yoel, also known as R. Zuslein, in the 14th century. He seems to also be the collator of the Rashi on the Rif.[24] His version of Tosafot appears as follows[25]

המהדרין נר לכל אחד נר׳ לר”י שיש הידור כב”ה ליל ראשון אחת ומוסיף כל לילה אחת כמו שאנו נוהגי דאז איכא הכר כל הימים כנגד ימים הנכנסים אבל אם עושה נר לכל אחד ואחד ואפי’ יוסיף מכאן ואילך ליכא הכר שהנכנסים יסברו שכך דרך יש בני אדם בבית…

While not as direct as the previous Tosafot, it is clear that the Ri is explaining the Gemara to be in consonance with the minhag. In fact, upon reexamination, it appears that the Mordechai is in fact just quoting this exact version of the Tosafot when he writes

ולמהדרין נר לכל א’ נראה לר”י שיש יותר הידור לב”ה לילה הראשון א’ ומוסיף בכל לילה א’ כמו שאנו נוהגין…

It turns out then that originally the minhag for Ashkenazim and Sepharadim was the same. Only in the late 14th century is there any explicit evidence of a counter minhag. It is plausible that the rupture of the Black Plague and the related pogroms could have been a factor. Why specifically the minhag would have switched to requiring more people to light candles, and hence cost more money, would be unclear. But that is not the end of the discussion on Minhag Ashkenaz. Some scholars disagreed with the Ri’s reading of the gemara. They presumably thought it was too farfetched to think that Mehadrin min haMehadrin does not directly build on Mehadrin. Two sources provide a very different way to defend the minhag of lighting only one set of candles. The first is found in the margins of Frankfurt Ms. Oct 81, which is a copy of the Piskei Mahariach on Shabbat.[26] The anonymous author, quoting his father R. Shlomo’s Tosafot, writes as follows:

מתוספות מורי אבי ה”ר שלמה נר”ו, וא”ת למה אין אנו עושין כמו מהדרין, שפירושו נר אחד לכל אחד מבני הבית. טעמא שלא יאמרו הגוים שעושין כשפים בשביל שאין רואין בכל בית בשוה:

While he mentions Mehadrin, I believe he is really inquiring as to why we don’t similarly mandate that each individual light his or her own menorah for Mehadrin min haMehadrin. He says that there is a concern that the non-Jews will think that the Jews are engaged in witchcraft if they see different numbers of candles in different houses. R. Avraham Shoshana in his notes on the Mahariach notes that Ritva quotes the same idea.[27] He writes

ופי’ הר’ יוסף דלהכי אין אנו כמהדרים ולא כמהדרים מן המהדרים פן יחשדו בכשפים (כי) אם היה לכל אחד נר.

This opinion of R. Yosef is immediately contrasted in the Ritva with the Ri. R. Shoshana suggests that this R. Yosef is in fact none other than Ri Porat, a 12th century Tosafist who disputes the Ri concerning a number of Chanukah topics. If this is true then even as early as the 12th century the Ri and Ri Porat were debating if it is possible to read the gemara in accordance with the minhag. Ri Porat is suggesting that there is an external factor that is causing the minhag to differ from dina d’gemara. According to this logic, if circumstances would change it would be appropriate for each individual to light his or her own menorah. This approach may have been a factor behind the switch within minhag Ashkenaz.

There may be some evidence from medieval Italy that would suggest they lit multiple sets of Chanukah candles. The Riaz (13th century) explicitly endorses the opinion that each individual should have their own set of candles.[28] Like Ri MiLunel, it is entirely unclear from the source whether such was practiced in any institution. Unlike Provence though, we do not have the same unequivocal evidence about what the Italian minhag was. In Sefer Tanya, a 13th century work modeled to a large degree on Shibbolei HaLeket, the author writes the following[29]

מצות נר חנוכה מדליק נרות כנגד כל בני הבית ולפחות נר אחד לכולן. ויום ראשון מדליק בה פתילה אחת. וביום שני שתים. וכן מוסיף והולך עד יום השמיני

The Tanya begins by saying that “the candles are lit ‘kneged’ all the members of the house, and at minimum one candle for everyone.” He then begins to describe the level of mehadrin min hamehadrin. From the flow of his comments it seems that kneged means that candles are lit according to the number of household members, and it is possible to add to each set as per mehadrin min hamehadrin, like the Riaz.

Many of the manuscripts of Mahzor Bnei Roma carry a common set of Halachot. Six manuscripts[30] I surveyed all state that on the 25 of Kislev we begin lighting candles

כל אחד ואחד בביתו

Which could be understood that every individual member of the household lights his or her own set of candles. The parallel text is found in Sefer HaTadir[31] (Italy 14th century) that states.

וכן בכל בתי בני ישראל שמנה לילות זו אחר זו כל בעל הבית לעצמו ובכל לילה מוסיפין פתילה אח׳ עד שיעלו בליל האחרון לסכום שמנה.

Which is clear that only the head of the household lights candles. So it is possible there were two competing minhagim in Italy and one may have even influenced minhag Ashkenaz but the data currently is too meager to fully resolve the issue.

[1] Translation and elucidation from The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, available on Sefaria.org. Transliteration slightly changed. [2] Translation from Sefaria.org with some changes [3] Translation from R. Francis Nataf (2019) available on Sefaria.org [4] In one of his weekly shiurim that are then typed, I can’t currently find the original write-up. תשובות Transcription is my own from the original fragment (4 [5] הגאונים עם תשובות ופסקים מחכמי פרובינציה (ישיבה אוניברסיטה תשנ״ה עמוד 233 הערה [6] סידור רס״ג עמודים רנד-רנה מהד׳ ש. אסף ירושלים תש״ה שם חלק ב׳ תשובה צא עמודים 232-233 והערה (n. 5) [7] תשובות הגאונים הנ״ל 2 [8] סידור רבי שלמה בן נתן ירושלים תשנ״ה (עמוד עג) בתרגום (vol. 4 (pages 23-26 ,כנישתא In [[9 והמדהרים .Commentary on BT Shabbat ad loc, s.v [10] צרור Student of Rashba (late 13th- early 14th cen.), in his [[11 החיים. משפט חנוכה וראש חדש ,page 110 הדורת ש’ חגי ירושלמי, ירושלים תשכ”ו סימן ב׳ Blau ,והמהדרין מן המהדרין .Commentary on BT Shabbat ad loc, s.v [[12 ed. page 34 link מצות .In his commentary Beit HaBechirah on BT Shabbat ad loc, s.v [13] חנוכה מצות נר on Shabbat ad loc, sv ספר המאורות In his commentary [[14 Blau ed. Page 69 ,חנוכה נר איש וביתו .9b in the pagination of the Rif, s.v [15] 16]] No. 145 [17] In the chapter on Chanukah section 8 ׳עיין חידושי דינין והלכות למהר”י ווייל סימן לא, תרומת הדשן סימן [18] קא, לקט יושר הל׳ חנוכה, ושו”ת מהר”י מברונא סימן נ [19] רמז רע בדפוס [20]שבת פרק ב׳ סימן לב׳ link [21] שבת פרק ב׳ דף כ: מהד׳ בלוי עמוד של״ב [22] Piskei Mahariach Shabbat 21b, page 162 in the Blau ed. link תוספות ר״י It has been published by Machon Ofeq under the title [23] הזקן ותלמידו 24]] For more information concerning the Tosafot written on the Rif see the article from R’ Avraham Chavatzelet of Machon Yerushalayim in Moriah (Yr. 18, Gilyon 11-12, Shevat 5753, Pp 95-102) [25] Text is transcribed from British Library Add. Ms. 17049 [26] These notes were published as the Gilyon in both Rabbi Blau’s ed. (see note 22) and in R. Shoshana’s edition of the Piskei Mahariach on תוספות ר״י הזקן Shabbat (which is included at the end of vol. 3 of ותלמידו) והמדהרים .Commentary on BT Shabbat ad loc, s.v [[27 28]] In his Pesakim on Shabbat 21b [29] Warsaw 1879 ed. page 77 link, I’ve also compared it with ms. versions. [30] Paris ms. hebr. 599, Parma nos. 2221, 2228, 2405, 3132, and Saraval no. 60 [31] Published by Blau from Parma 2999, Sefer HaTadir also appears in the margins of Mahzor Bnei Roma in Lon BL ms. Harley 5686, text is found in Blau on pgs 204-205 link

Lecture Announcement: Dr. Marc Shapiro

The Seforim Blog is pleased to announce that esteemed Seforim Blog contributor Dr. Marc Shapiro is speaking at Young Israel Beth-El of Boro Park, 4802 15th Avenue in Brooklyn, this coming Saturday night December 21 at 8pm.

The title of his talk is “Judaism and Islam: Some Historical and Halakhic Perspectives”. Should we celebrate birthdays or not? Is it better to ignore them?

Should we celebrate birthdays or not? Is it better to ignore them? By Rav Binyamin Wattenberg

This post was originally an answer posted on july 25 2016 on the French website techouvot.com (https://www.techouvot.com/feter_les_anniversaires-vp46393.html).

The author agreed to have it translated into English but did not review the translation.

The author, Rav Binyamin Wattenberg teaches Talmud in Neuilly sur Seine, France, among other talmudic activities (techouvot.com…)

This subject is widely debated in our sefarim. Some are convinced that it is entirely a “non-Jewish” custom which is important not to follow, but I think that it is rather because of ignorance of what has been written on the subject.

I will try to summarize the different rabbinical positions with their reason, and as we will see we can find anything and everything.

GOOD MAZAL

The Yerushalmi Rosh Hashana (III, 8) relates that Amalek placed soldiers on their birthday at the battle front because they would have a good “mazal” and Moshe had to “mix mazalot”. Korban Haeda explains that by raising his hands, Moshe “mixed / disturbed” the Mazalot to counter the good mazal of Amalek’s warriors.

This idea is also found in the Chida who writes (Chomat Anakh, Iyov 3) on behalf of the Kabbalists that the birthday is a day of good mazal.[1] That would explain the wish of the day: Mazal Tov!

There is also Rabbi Tsadok Hacohen Rabinovicz of Lublin in his Resisei Layla (Divrei Chalomot 20) who writes that a man has nothing to fear on his birthday and while the Gmara Kiddushin (38a) says that Tzadikim die on their birthday (and therefore have something to fear about), it is because for them, death is an accession to a higher level (and is therefore a positive occasion).[2]

There is a more plausible explanation of the Maguen Avraham in his Zayis Raanan on Yalkut Shimoni (‘Habakkuk 3) who answers that it is a blessing for the tzaddik to die on his birthday because “the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and completes the years of the righteous from day to day” (Kiddushin 38a, Sotah 13b and Rosh Hashana 11a).[3]

But some consider that this good mazal on this day concerns only non- Jews (like Amalek).[4]

This is perhaps why we find several authors who are very reluctant about the idea that a Jew could celebrate such a day.

AGAINST CELEBRATING:

For example, in his Torah Shleima (Vayeshev p.1522 note 49), Rav Menachem Kasher quotes a manuscript (Chemat Hachemda) commentary on Bereshit 40, 20, that still today, non-Jews celebrate birthdays (meaning that Jews do not).[5]

Certainly, in the Gmara (Moed Katan 28a) we are told that Rav Yossef celebrated his 60th birthday, but that also indicates that he did not celebrate his other birthdays – neither he nor the other Amoraim – and it is only for its 60th that he wished to celebrate because – as he says it – it excluded Karet’s punishment.

The Minchat Elazar (the Munkasz’ Rebbe) writes[6] that there is nothing to celebrate on one’s birthday since the Sages tell us (Eruvin 13b) that it would have been better for the man not to be born.[7]

It is also the position of many authors, such as : Rav Horovitz of Strasbourg (and then of Badats of Jerusalem) in his Shout Kinian Torah Bahalacha (III, §21), Arugat Habossem (II, §215),[8] Abelsohn (Shut Knesset Avraham Yoel, §6 p.116 – linked with Shut Etz Chaim),[9] R. Tsadok Hacohen (Likutei Maamarim §13, p.140), the Klausenburg-Sanz Rebbe (Michtevei Torah II, 82 p.55), Rav Shlomo Zalman Bloch (Hatzadik R. Shlomo, p.29, ot 18), Patsovsky rav (Pardes Yosef Vayeshev Milouim p.48 and in the new edition, Bereshit II, p.777), Rav Dunner (Leket Sheelot Hametzuyot IV, p.13 and Kol Hatorah 65, p.164), Rav Stern (Beer Moshe) and Rav Wozner (Shevet Halevy) both quoted by Rav Harfenes in Beit Vaad LaChachamim (adar 2009, p.356), Shut Lehorot Natan (IX, §5, 9),[10] Gdulat Yehoshua (Chelek 2, Hakdama), Rav Shmuel Mohliver (Midei Chodesh BeChodsho, II, Jerusalem 1957, p.192 and Shana Beshana 1976, p.237).

In Hapeles (shana III, 1903, p.633) it cites the Beer Yitzchak of rav Itzchak Ber Levinzohn (p.34) stating that birthdays were non-Jewish holidays close to Avoda zara, although this Rav himself was close to Haskala![11]

The Kinian Torah Bahalacha (III, §21) is also opposed to celebrating birthdays, and quotes in support the Vizhnits’ Rebbe, Ahavat Israel, who refused to make a seuda for his 70th birthday and recited a lot of Tehilim and Bakachot instead.[12]

Rav Israel of Rouzhin also vigorously refused the surprise birthday organized by his wife and dismissed all the guests.[13]

The Otsar Kol Minhaguei Yeshurun (4th ed., §XXVII, 4, p.60 and 3rd ed., St Louis 1917-8, Hashmatot §14, p.304) considers that celebrating one’s birthday is a non-Jewish custom and the only character in the Choumash that one finds celebrating his birthday is Paro.[14]

It seems that it is also the opinion of the Aderet in his Nefesh David (p.129) who did not appreciate when we wished him a happy birthday, saying that it was never a holiday among the Jews and that the only one that one finds celebrating his birthday in the Chumash is Pharaoh, while the Gmara Erouvin (13b) tells us that it would have been better not to be born … He even states that he tries to forget that it is his birthday because it causes him great sadness[15] (because “it is better not to be born …”).[16]

He emphasizes, however, that the Tzadikim have something to celebrate their birth, according to the opinion of Tosfot (Avoda Zara 5a).

He nevertheless rejoiced on the day of his 60 years for the same reasons as Rav Yosef in Moed Katan (28a), as he wrote in a letter (Eder Hayakar II, Igrot, p.93, §14 ).

Not that you have to be ashkenaz to oppose birthdays. The Rav Chalfon Moshe HaC ohen in his Yad Moshe (Vayeshev, §63 daf 70b) writes that the custom of celebrating birthdays is very present in Europe, but we (the Jews) mark this date with fasting and repentance, preferring in this the useful to the pleasant.

There is in any case a very clear tendency to connect the birthday party to Pharaoh and that would therefore be considered as a “non- Jewish” rejoicing.[17]

IN FAVOR OF CELBRATING BIRTHDAYS :

However, one could just as easily see things differently.

For the Sadigura Rebbe,[18] if the Torah tells us that there was a celebration in honor of Pharaoh’s birthday, it is not in vain, it is here for us to learn that we must celebrate birthdays. And even though Pharaoh is not a good person, the fact that the Torah mentions it indicates it has to be a followed practice. He brings as a support we learn the principle of not mixing two feasts ein( mearvin simcha bessimcha) from the Torah relating the habit of the non-Jews and particulary Lavan (see Bereshit XXIX, 27 and see Yeroushalmi Moed Katan I, 7) ; and Lavan is also the source for the idea of the seven days of wedding’s festivities.

Therefore, it should not be considered as a non-Jewish minhag, and there is no problem of Chukot hagoyim in celebrating birthdays (see also Shut Beth David, §176).

Rabbi Meir Mazouz also writes (annotations on Ben Ish Chai shana 1, Ree §7, p.580) that he has heard that some people are against celebrating birthdays but since he remembers reading that the Baal Shem Tov was celebrating his – on Elul 18th – and deduces that there is no problem.[19]

His brother-in-law, Rav Yitzchak Berdah, is even clearer in his Shut Yitzak Yeranen (V, §54) and validates the birthdays minhag by writing that those who do so have whom to rely upon.

Rav Nissim Karelitz (Chut Hashani, §195, 1, 6 p.215), unlike Rav Zeldner cited above, does not seem to consider it problematic to offer a birthday present.[20]

Ben Ish Chai (I, Ree, §17) writes that it is a good custom to celebrate birthdays every year and note that some are celebrating the anniversary of their circumcision, indicating that in his family, they usually follow the first minhag (= celebrate the day of birth).[21]

R. Avraham Pallagi in his Veavraham Zaken (Yod, §19) mentions also the minhag of celebrating birthdays. Yabia Omer (VI, WH, §29) also finds this positive.

The custom of a birthday seuda, has also been endorsed by multiple and different authors such as’ Havot Yair (§70), Shout Beth Israel (Landau) (§32), Beer Moshe (Yeroushalaimsky) (Maamar Zikhron Tov, daf 138a, §5).

The Tiferet Israel, in his will prompts his children to mutually wish each other good wishes on the days of their respective birthdays (Hamaayan -Tamuz 1971- ot 6).

It is also a habit taken seriously by Loubavitsh Chassidim. The chabad literature is full of advice and remarks on to conduct oneself on one’s birthday and even tracks sources for it in Kabbalah Shaarei( Halakha UMinhag II, §302).

We also find many Tzadikim who have celebrated their birthdays themselves.

Rabbi Avraham Pallagi already mentioned, celebrated his birthday every year from the age of 70 – according to the testimony of his son Rabbi Avraham Pallagi (Tsavaa Mechaim §40 and see also Guinzei Chaim, yud §16). And this is also the case of Rabbi David Chazan quoted in Yishrei Lev (daf 2b).[22]

We also find the Midrash Sechel Tov (XL, 20 ; p.247) stating that “the majority of “people” enjoy (mechavevim) their birthday, rejoice and make a feast”. (But it’s not clear if he speaks only of gentiles or also of jews.)

The Ktav Sofer probably did not celebrate each of his birthdays with great fanfare, but celebrated his 50th one publicly (seeShut Ktav Sofer Y “D, §148).[23]

We also know – as mentioned above – that Rav Yosef celebrated his 60th birthday (Moed Katan 28a).

And this habit was followed by several rabanim, such as the Trumat Hadeshen, quoted by his pupil (Leket Yosher II, Y “D, p.40), or the Tshortkov Rebbe and the Rudzimin’s Rabbi both cited by R.A Nayerman in his Toafot Reem (volume 1, Warsaw 1936, p.30, §23).

We also find the idea of especially​​ thanking G-d on one’s 60th birthday, as Pele Yoets in his Chesed Laalafim (§221-230, sk.8, p.372) who advocates reciting Shehechiyanu without shem UMalchut or else to prepare a fruit or a new garment for that. This is also the Ben Ish

Chai’s opinion (I, Ree, §9) for the 60th and 70th birthday.

For the 70th birthday, we find in Shut Chavot Yair (§70) that it is necessary to recite Shehechiyanu (without restriction). But this opinion is not followed and the Chida (Birkei Yosef-Shiyurei Bracha

§223, sk.2) will impose the same restrictions as for 60th birthday, i.e without pronouncing the name of G-d or wearing a new garment (or eating a new fruit).

See as well the Pri Megadim Mish( Zahav §444, sk.9), Shut Tzitz Eliezer (XVIII, §33), Shut Tshuva Meahava (II, §239), Samach Nefesh (erekh Shehechyanu), Rabbi Avraham Pallagi (Tsavaa Mechaim, §40), Hagahot Chatam Sofer (O.C §225), Shut R. Yedidia Tia Weill (Y “D §106 p.224 of the recent edition), Kaf Hachaim (§223, sk.28), Shut Beth Israel (Landau) (§32), Shut Beth David (§176), Chesed Laalafim (§221-23, sk.8), Divrei Israel (II, p.175) and Afarkasta Deania (I,

§123), who all oppose reciting shehchiyanu “only because of the 70th birthday”, since this blessing should only be recited for the situations indicated by Chazal, as Shut Olat Shmuel (Kauder) writes (I, §22 ).[24]

However, it will still be necessary to mark the hit. The Chafetz Chaim, for his 70th birthday, invited rav Elchanan Wasserman and rav Yossef Shlomo Kahaneman for a little cake and drink and recited Shehechiyanu! (Mishnat Yaakov II, §225).

But according to other sources Hechafetz( Chaim, chayav UPealo, p.312), he did it (on his 70th birthday) on a new garment.[25]

The Chafetz Chaim also celebrated his 90th birthday and finished his Beth Israel that day (see Hechafetz Chaim, chayav UPealo, p.25).

I was myself invited to the 80th birthday (the last one) of my teacher Rabbi Chaim Yaakov Rottenberg (see Shut Beth Israel -Landau- §32), he did not recite shehechiyanu, but there was cake anyway.

Rav Fishman-Maïmon also celebrated his 80th birthday, and Rav Reuven Margulies participated to the “party” (Machanayim LXXII of Elul 5722 -1962, page 41).

Rav Nathan Adler, from London, traveled to Hanover, Germany for his mother’s 80th birthday (Letter from Rav Shlomo Eiger, printed in Igrot Sofrim, 1, p.83).

It seems that Rav Sonnenfeld also “celebrated” his 80th birthday and Rav Mendel Alter (son of the Sfas Emes) presented him his wishes despite some hesitation about the dubious origin of the birthday minhag (see his letter printed in Kerem Shlomo – Bobov – vol.205, p.47).

But for the 60 years, it is likely that there was nothing dubious, since his older brother, since the Imrei Emes, organized his (the Imrei Emes) 60th birthday party and during the meal he explained the reason for rejoicing, i.e Moed Katan 28a (Shut Maharaav – R. Avraham Binyamin Zilberberg – NY 1941, Volume 2, §61).

Returning to the 70th birthday, Rav Schneebalg (Shut Shraga Haméir IV, §69) was in favor of celebrating it.

Sdei Chemed also celebrated his (Hameassef X, Tevet 5665, IV, p.43 and p.46), and it is also the case of the Vizhnitz rebbe who celebrated it joyfully with his pupils (Israel Saba Kadisha, II, p. 177). This is also what Rav Michael Goldberger did.[26]

In 1860, for Shir’s 70th birthday (Rav Shlomo Yehuda Rapoport), his students had prepared a feast and honors for him, but he refused the honors, humbly explaining that he was born in the year Takan / TIKEN (1790) but he has not been Metaken – Ma Tikanti? (Toldot Shir of Bernfeld, p.126).

See also Voice of Truth (p.282-3) or in Hebrew Kol Chotsev (p.263-4) about the 70th birthday of Rav Schwadron.[27]

We ca find another rationale for the celebration of the 70th birthday. In the Mekor Chesed (Rav Reouven Margulies) on Sefer Chasidim (§213, note 1 ), it brings that the Yerushalmi (Yevamot VIII, 3) states that a plague occurs (at least) once every 60 or 70 years. Therefore, whoever reaches his 70 years has certainly escaped the plague that has declared “in his day”, and that’s a good reason to make a “seudat Hodaa”!

Finally, we even find in the Orchot Chaim (Bukhner) (Krakow edition 1654, §16) that the 60th and 70th birthday’s meals are of the nature of a Seudat Mitzvah.

We realize therefore that many (to the exception of those mentioned in the previous part) view positively the birthday party, and especially those of the 60th and 70th one. But we still have to define what should be done to celebrate a birthday properly. HOW TO CELEBRATE?

On one’s birthday, it is proper to :

– as we have seen bless Shehechyanu on a fruit or a new garment (Shut Guinzei Yossef §4, 2 quoting his father-in-law, Rav Deutsch, author of Shut Pri Hassadé);

– give a lot of tzedakah (R. Chaim Pallagi inTzedaka Lechaim – maarechet ayin §555)

– make it a “day of prayer” (Melitsei Esh p.54)

– dedicate this day or at least most of it for divine service (Torat Shalom-Schneersohn-p.398 ; Kerem Habad II, p.102 ; see also Hapardes, year 62 volume 9, p.2 on the name of the Lubavitsh Rebbe)

– learn a lot (Shut Hillel Omer, O “H §139).[28]

One should also be careful to reserve a moment for introspection and Cheshbon Hanefesh over the past year, as theChut Hameshoulash (Munkasz edition 1893, volume 1, daf 59b-60a footnote) brings about the Ktav Sofer who had locked up hiself on his birthday (54th one) and someone who mistakenly entered the room found him sitting on the floor crying, and asked him what was happening to which he replied that he was crying over the loss of time over the past years (see also the preface to Ktav Sofer Al Hatorah, p.29)

In Shut Hadar (§18), the author states that his master – the Rav of Stretin – wanted to have an aliyah to the Torah on his birthday (which is not feasible every year …). In the same vein, the Divrei Yechezkel Shraga (parshat Vayakel) and the Tehilat Caim (p.409) bring down that the Divrei Yechezkel of Shinova wanted to be shaliach tzibur on his birthday (which is practicable more often). And this is also what R. Shaul Broch did (Shaul Behir Hashem, Ashkavta derabbi, p.275)

See also Torat Shalom (p. 406) who – for his birthday – advocates having an aliyah to the Torah, giving tzedakah, adding moments of prayer, tehilim, study and introspection, blessshehechiyanu on a fruit or a garnment (etc).

I have also read in the name Spinka Rebbe quoted in the Shut Chakal Yitzchak (I, 3) that it is appropriate on one’s birthday, to take upon oneself the commitment on something one knows he has to work on.[29]

There is also a notion of making a Siyum on a birthday.

Several rabanim wanted to make a siyum on their birthday, the Terumat Hadeshen did one on his 60th birthday (Leket Yosher II, Y “D, p.40).

See also Leket Hakemach (131) that it is appropriate to mix this rejoicing with a siyum massechet.

Thus, the Chatam Sofer planned that the end of the cycle of chumash study with his pupils falls on his birthday – the 7th Tishri (Minhaguei CS, VII, §14, p.31).[30]

His son Ktav Sofer also completed a massechet each year on his birthday (Chout Hameshoulash ed Munkasz 1893, Volume 1, daf 59b footnote).

Another fact deserves to be emphasized:

In the Sheerit Natan (p.392 ; quoted in Or Israel 46, p.249) we find a very particular siyum minhag that was taking place at Yeshivat Chachmei Lublin, every 7th Adar, birthday of the Rosh yeshiva Rabbi Meir Shapira (initiator of the study of Daf Yomi). Talmud treatises were “dispatched”, and each student took a massechet or half of it, in order that they altogether fnished Shas in one night, so that on the next day, the 7th of Adar, they were all together making a great Siyum Hashas with the Rav.

All this being said, personally, I will be tempted to give an argument in favor of those who celebrate their birthdays, but I have not seen any Acharon underlining this aspect (except Torat Shalom -Schneersohn (p.399-400 ) I found recently):

The halacha is to celebrate annually a miracle that would have happened to us (see Mishna Berura end of §218), for example the one who survives a fatal accident must celebrate this event every year.

If it is so, given the great danger of a baby birth, one could consider that it is necessary to celebrate the miracle of his birth each year.

True, nowadays, in civilized countries, the risk of miscarriage is pretty much reduced and infant mortality has also fallen down, B “H, but if the minhag has been implanted since a time when it was not the case, we may continue this custom because the danger is still not totally absent.

Only that according to this, it should also be that each mom celebrates the birthday of each of her children, because she also escaped death that day.

And, according to this rationale, we should celebrate the Hebrew date rather than the civil one.[31]

Anyway, even if no halakhic argument would push to celebrate the birthdays (and it is probable because we proved Moed Katan 28a that the Amoraim did not celebrate any birthday, only Rav Yosef distinguished itself by celebrating 60 years old – and only that one …), there is another reason, especially for children: nowadays this custom is widespread and children are sometimes misled and are tempted to move away from family. It is beneficial to show each child in the family that he is important and at least one day a year, we celebrate together. He becomes the hero of a day.

See also, a bit in this way, Kitvei Reb Eizik (Schwei) (p.273) and Torat Shalom (p.405).

At the time of the Talmud, it was not necessary, but today it can be according to the situations, the families and the place.

It would be inappropriate to say that since the Amoraim did not celebrate them, we must refrain from doing so.

To refrain from them at their time meant nothing particular, because no one was celebrating them (among the Jews at least). Today it would have another meaning for the child …

It cannot be said that he fails to celebrate, but that those who are accustomed to it should not lose it under a “religious” pretext, they must perhaps channel its spirit and enhance it by making it look, more “kadosh”, by giving more meaning to it.

See also Shut Mayim Hahalacha (Metzger) (IV, §46) who writes that it is necessary to know how to give a kedusha spirit to birthdays and not to celebrate them in frivolity.

More generally, Rav Shach used to say (see Machshevet Zkenim p.342 and also p.141 and 332) that each birthday brings us closer to death, so why rejoice? That is why only the “ben aliya”, the one who progresses from year to year in the Torah, must rejoice, because each passing year carries a new advance in Avodat Hashem, so it is closer to Chayei Netsach, the reverse of death, for the tzaddikim are called alive even after their death (Brakhot 18a).

Once a rav had suggested to the great and famous Rav Yechezkel Lewinstein – when he was mashgiach of Ponovez – to suppress the minhag of the “Santukha” (small celebration among friends of the Yeshiva when one of them is engaged) for it is systematically engaged in flattery to highlight the qualities of the chatan and the speaker, in a laudatory spirit, sometimes praises too much, which necessarily leads to a uncontrollable feeling of pride so repudiated by Baalei Moussar.

Rav Lewinstein exclaimed: “Once in the life of a man it happens that his friends give him compliments and even that you want to suppress?! “

IN CONCLUSION: It is perfectly legitimate to wish and celebrate birthdays, but you must know how to do it.

Those who are not used to accompany a family snack with Cheshbon Hanefesh are not required to adopt this minhag. But those who already celebrate this day with a small party should not abandon this beautiful habit because of some rabbis who grumble against birthdays; as we have seen, the rabbis who attached importance to these moments of rejoicing are very numerous and to the extent that one does not feast bestially but for a constructive purpose, with a feeling of Hodaa, Tshuva and introspection, it’s a very good Minhag.

[1] See also Ben Yehoyada Brachot 28a, that if a miracle happens on one’s birthday, it does not diminish his merits… [2] It seems that some Tzadikim were not so happy to leave this world. The story that is told about the Gaon or the ‘Hazon Ish (or others, depending on the version), who would have cried before dying while saying regret a world where we can buy mitzvot for some pennies like Tzitzis, shows us that feelings are mixed …. [3] Which means that by dying on that day, it indicates that they could have died before but have benefited from an extension, so it is “positive”. [4] Taam Vodaas Bereichit XL, 20, however, see Nefesh Chaya (Orach Chaim §580). [5] From Rav Aharon Zeldner’s Mate Aharon (p.68) it is deduced that giving a gift to a friend on his birthday is a non-Jewish custom not to follow. [6] Minchat Elazar in his Divrei Torah (V, §88). [7] This argument seems strange. In fact, we find in the prayers, all kind of different expressions of gratitude to G-d for the life He gives us (the Gomel, for example), which seems to indicate that life has its interest …

Moreover, Ramban (Shemot XIII, 16) writes that we must thank G-d for creating us.

We must therefore temper the teaching quoted (Erouvin 13b), since it is impossible to interpret it as if God had made a mistake by creating us!

It is only from men’s viewpoint that he would have been noach“ “, pleasant/easier, to not have been created. Easier, certainly, but not “preferable” since G-d knows what He does. [8] But his son Shut( Migdalot Merkachim, O.C, §31) greatly relativizes his father’s opposition by explaining the very particular context of this responsum and the specific case of the person who was concerned. Shut Vayaan Yossef (§73) also diminish the opposition of Arugat Habossem stating he was only opposed to big feasts, but not to small family party at home (see also in the same way Kvod Chachamim (Jerusalem 1982 – p.208, rav Meir Eisenstein’s maamar). [9] See also in his Knesset Chachmei Israel, kountras 3, §66, 4 daf 65b and Kountras 6, §115, 1 daf 125a. [10] Though he tolerates a birthday meal if it is exclusively reserved for scholars, as Rav Yossef did in Moed Katan 28a – see Lehorot Natan IX, § 5, 11. [11] Rav H.D Halévy (Asse Lecha Rav IV, §26) has not read it, but writes that it is obvious that there is no issur Avoda Zara nor Chukot Hagoyim, because the Avoda Zara part was only the sacrifices they brought to their gods, but to celebrate a birthday is in itself a healthy idea. [12] He quotes also his grandfather Rav Pinchas Chaim Horovitz, the Pitcha Zuta, whom he was surprised to see on his birthday – on the 18th Tamouz 1938 – crying while reading Tehilim. He explained to his grandson (the Ahavat Israel) that he was crying over the suffering he had cause to his mother when he was born 80 years earlier … However, see how Rav Eisenstein (Zichron Shlomo, p.214 and following) rejects every argument of Rav Horovitz. [13] Shout Knesset Avraham Yoel – Abelsohn – §6 p.116 and Knesset Chachmei Israel §115, 1 daf 125a. [14] He also states that when the pupils of Rav Yitzchak Elhanan Spektor of Kovno in 1889 wanted to celebrate the anniversary of his 50th year in the rabbinate, he was firmly opposed it – but this was not really a birthday [Actually, it was for his 25th years (not the

50th) in Kovno, as we see in Hatzfira (No. 68) and later on in Shana Beshana (1976, p.237), even if it was already his 52th in the rabbinate in different cities].

The opposition of the Rav was also published in Hatzfira (No. 77 – 11 Nissan 1889) and for more on this subject see Toldot Yitzchak p.114 of Rav Yaakov Lifshitz, Darkenu (shana II , guilion 3, p.16) and Pardes Yosef (Vayeshev Miluim p.48) who quotes several opponents of birthdays, including “the Toldot Yitzchak of an Italian rav with the Kotna rav’s haskama” [There is indeed a Toldot Yitzchak of the rav Yitzchak Luzzato but it is a book of poems and songs which does not contains neither an approval of the Kotna’s rav, nor opposition to birthdays party. In fact, the Pardes Yossef mixed up when copying the references on this subject from the Darkenu (op cit) which quotes Toldot Yitzchak and then Kochav MiYaakov of an Italian rav with approval of Kotna’s rav (in the Kochav MiYaakov it’s p.54)].

As an aside, many other rabanim did not mind celebrating the anniversary years of their rabbinate or action for Torah, often by the publication of a sefer Hayovel, as for R. Shimon Schkop for his 50 years of teaching (see what Moshe Avigdor Amiel writs in this collection, in 1943 there will also be a sefer Hayovel for him), Rabbi Meir Shapira from Lublin (in 1930) for his 20 years in the service of the Torah, Rav Fishman-Maïmon for his 50 years (in 1926), sefer Hayovel for Rav Rabinovicz’s 70th birthday (NY 1930), another for 70 years of rav Azriel Hildesheimer (Shay Lemora), and for his rav, rav Yitzchak Bernays, for whom his 25 years of rabbinate in Hamburg were celebrated with great fanfare in 1846 (Shana Beshana 5736 p.238). [15] Rabbi David Pardo, author of many sfarim including Lamnatzeach LeDavid and Chasdei David, writes at the end of his commentary

Shoshanim LeDavid that he finished it on his 34th birthday, 1st Nissan 1752, and it does not seem to sadden him at all … [16] But he himself writes in his Har Hamoria (Ahavat Shalom ed., P.59) that he requoted the Bracha of Shehechiyanu for his birthday with great joy! [However, in this instance, he was sick, with 41 ° C fever (!) and thought he would pass away. So, when he had the strength to pray Shavuos Maariv BeTzibur, he rejoiced (and thus the Shehechiyanu blessing). Especially since having been born in Shavuot, he perhaps said it for the Yom Tov, although he wrote that he requoted it for his birthday). [17] We also find some who were opposed to the celebration of a death day (yohrtseit) of a tzaddik! In 1890, some wanted to celebrate the 50 years of the death of Chatam Sofer, but his students, Rav Naftali Sofer (see the beginning of Kountras Beth Efraim printed at the end of Et Sofer Volume 2) and Rav Yehuda Modern (strange name for a disciple of Chatam Sofer, symbol of the opposition to modernism deviating from the massoret) for whom it was a non-Jewish custom directly inspired by Maskilim who had recently (in 1886) celebrated the 100 years of the death of their master Mendelssohn, opposed it. “Yohrtzeit” yes, but “specifically for the 50th years”, no ! (Leket Shoshana (1942, §19) and Beth Vaad Lachachamim (Nissan 5771, p.463)). It is the idea that there would be a particular reason to celebrate only the symbolic years because “round”, which displeased these Rabanim.

Personally, I do not see why this notion should be classified as heretical / non-Jewish, if not – and it is this their real motive – in my opinion – because of the likeness with the Maskilim whose aspirations were rarely holy. The Rabanim at that time were doing everything to remove their flock from the Maskilim in order to stop the spread of the Haskala “virus”, it is a kind of prophylactic disposition. It would have been purely conjunctural, so, nowadays “the prohibition” would no longer be appropriate, but disbanded. And it is probably what could explain why for the 100th years of the death of Chatam Sofer (in 1940), they published a Sefer Hazikaron with a great ceremony in Pressburg, presided over by R. Akiva Sofer himself. [18] Quoted in Messilot-Kislev 5747 ; see also Abir Yaakov – of the Sadigura Rebbe- p.161 [19] He does not remember where he has read this about the Baal Shem Tov, but I suppose it’s in Chabad literature, for example inSefer Hasichot (1943, p.154, 187), Kountras Chay Elul, and Kerem Chabad (II, p.100). [20] See also Rav Halevy in Assé Lecha Rav (IV, §26) for whom there is also no problem. [21] Shut Beer Eliyahu (Katz) (II, Y “D §32) writes that, in his opinion, the advantage of the day of circumcision can only concern the first twelve birthdays, but from the Bar Mitzvah and on, it is more logical to celebrate the day he took upon himself to commit to the mitzvos, which is birth. [22] See the Knesset ChaChmei Israel – kountras 3 – §115, 1 for which only birthdays of 60 and 70 deserve attention, but not the following ones. [23] see Afarkasta Deania (I, §123) who is surprised about it because it seems to be against his father’s position. In fact, the Chatam Sofer states (Torat Moshe, Vayera, Bereshit XXI, 8) that Avraham used to celebrate every year on his son Yitzchak’s circumcision day – not his birthday. [24] This rationale is rejected by the Tshuva Meahava for whom the Chavot Yair is not absurd (when advocating the shehechiyanu blessing in other occasion than those of takanat chazal) because, as the Bach (où, O.C 225 ?) writes, it is a bracha that has been instituted on man’s joy (and not only on the precise situations listed by chazal.

The Komarno Rebbe (Chulchan Hatahor §223, 7) sides with the Chavot Yair and indicates – at odds with all the poskim listed- to recite the bracha (he often has marginal positions in this book).

See also Rav Shlomo Tzvi Shik (Shout Rashban I, §61). According to whom, Chavot Yaïr does not hold one should recite shehechiyanu (!), but he personally thinks we should. [25] Hard to know who to trust when the two are also contradicted by Rav Shlomo Zalman Bloch who, when he heard that the Chafetz Chaim would have given a small snack for his 70th birthday, exclaimed : “Sheker Gomur! Dos iz nit kein arbeit far Chofetz Chaim, s’iz nit a yiddishe weg!” (Hatzadik R. Shlomo, p.29, ot 18). In other words, according to him, it is absolutely impossible for the Chafetz Chaim to do so, because it is not “Jewish” to celebrate his birthday … (see Or Israel 24, p.193 note 103). [26] see Shut Rashban I, §61 where Rav Shik wrote to him that he learned from his son (the son of rav Goldberger) that his father (rav Michael Goldberger) was about to celebrate his 70th birthday and according to him (rav Shik) it would be appropriate to recite Shehechyanu, and that he himself, if he was able to attend, would have recited it (because of Haroe et chavero achar 30 yom) as well as shechalak MeChoChmato liyereav (which is recited at the sight of a great sage in Torah). [27] To celebrate the 70th years of a Tzadik is noble and desirable according to the Chesed LeAvraham (Brudno) (volume 2, pticha, p.6 §4)

We also find the idea of ​​rejoicing on the birthday -at least a tzadik’s one- in the Midrash Tanchuma (Pekoudei XI) which states that G-d wished to mix the joy of the Mishkan with the joy of the birthday of Yitzchak (the 1st Nissan).

See also Tosfot and Rosh (Nazir 14a) explaining there is a doubt arising when someone says “I will be as Moshe the 7th adar” (is he Nazir or not?) because this person might allude to Moshe’s death a sad day when mourners engage in a Nezirut, or he alludes Moshe’s birthday a day of celebration and joy …

Still on the subject of celebrating important people birthdays, it seems (from see Oshea (VII, 5) “yom malkenou” and Metzudas David, ad loc) that contrary to what Rav Fraenkel writes in his Labar-mitzvah Encyclopedia (p.217), Jews did celebrate their kings’ birthdays, who explains that this is the birthday of the king and there was a feast. However, Malbim (ad loc) explains otherwise. [28] In yeshivos, the custom is to “have a mishmar”, i.e to study all the night of the 20 years anniversary. [29] If we do not find one (we are a great tzaddik or we do not understand the concept), we can always work on acquiring a ” Jewish spirit “. In fact, it is sometimes thought that doing all the mitzvot makes us a good Jew, but the truth is that we can do lots of mitzvot, pray three times a day, put on tfilin and tzitzit, keep Shabbat, eat strictly kosher etc. … and yet … being far from a true Judaism.

The Piaseczner Rebbe, R. Kalmish Shapiro (killed by the Nazis in Trawniki camp on 4th Heshvan 1943 after being deported from the Warsaw Ghetto in April 1943 following the insurrection), had a diary in which he wrote on his 40th birthday (19 Iyar 1929) that he should take a commitment on himself, but that he does not know what to take as “kabala” this year, “to study more? it seems to me that I’m not wasting a moment in my schedule; stay away from Taavos ? Baruch Hashem I am not dependent on any material Taava ; so what do I lack ? What I lack … is being “a Jew”! I feel like a human form, with its colors and shapes etc. to which only one thing is missing: the Neshama! Master of the world! … This is what I wish for this year (from now on), I want to convert and become a Jew! “(Quoted in Mimaayanot Hanetsach p.294). [30] However, in the Shut Afarkasta Deania (§123), he quotes the Chatam Sofer as being opposed to choosing the birthday rather than circumcision day (see on this subject Or Israel 49, p.142, note 46). [31] But Zichron Shlomo (Jerusalem 1994, p.219) emphasizes that according to the idea that birthdays are days of good Mazal (as mentioned in the first part), as it is related to the stars (mazalot), one must follow the solar/civil calendar ! But more on this (which date someone should celebrate) in a future post.

Keter Shem Tov: A Study in the Entitling of Books, Here Limited to One Title Only

Keter Shem Tov: A Study in the Entitling of Books, Here Limited to One Title Only[1]

by Marvin J. Heller

Entitling, naming books is, a fascinating subject. Why did the author call his book what he/she did? Why that name and not another? Hebrew books frequently have names resounding in meaning, but providing little insight into the contents of the book. This article explores the subject, focusing on one title only, Keter Shem Tov. That book-name is taken from a verse “the crown of a good name (Keter Shem Tov) excels them all (Avot 4:13). The article describes the varied books with that title, unrelated by author or subject, and why the author/publisher selected that title for the book.

1. Simeon said: there are three crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty; but the crown of a good name (emphasis added, Keter Shem Tov) excels them all (Avot 4:13).

“As a pearl atop a crown (keter), so are his good deeds fitting” (Israel Lipschutz, Zera Yisrael, Avot 4:13).

Entitling, naming books, remains, is, a fascinating subject. Why did the author call his book what he/she did? Why that name and not another? Hebrew books since the Middle-Ages often have names resounding in meaning, but providing little insight into the contents of the book. A reader looking at the title of a book in another language, more often than not, is immediately aware of the book’s subject matter. This is not the case for many Hebrew titles, the name having been selected by the author for any one of a number of reasons, least of all the book’s subject matter, but rather the intention is/was to give the book “the crown of a good name (Keter Shem Tov).”

Book titles have been addressed in both books and articles. Menahem Mendel Slatkine wrote a two volume work, Shemot ha- Sefarim ha-Ivrim: Lefi Sugehem ha-Shonim, Tikhunatam u- Te’udatam (Neuchâtel-Tel Aviv, 1950-54) on book names; it has been the subject of encyclopedia articles in both The Jewish Encyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Judaica; and such authors as Abraham Berliner, Joshua Bloch, and Solomon Schechter have written articles on book titles, all this apart from this subject being mentioned in passing in numerous other works. I too have addressed the subject, first in “Adderet Eliyahu; A Study in the Titling of Hebrew Books,” describing about thirty books with that single title, two only related to each other, and in “What’s in a name? An example of the Titling of Hebrew Books,” describing varied books taken from a single verse “Your neck is like the tower of David built with turrets, on which hang one thousand bucklers, all of them shields of mighty men (Song of Songs 4:4).[2]

What then is the justification for yet another article on the same subject? It is, as suggested above, the allure of how authors of varied unrelated works came to entitle their books, reflective of their intellectual or emotive processes or objectives. The title selected here, Keter Shem Tov, unlike Adderet Eliyahu, is not the title of as large a number of books, but the titles here are certainly as varied as those in the previous articles. Indeed, the works so entitled are sufficiently different, again providing insight into authors’ thoughts and, perhaps, an article of interest to the reader. We will not attempt to second guess or analyze an author’s motives, all of whom intended their book to have the crown of a good name (Keter Shem Tov), but rather we will let the authors speak for themselves when describing their books

In several instances, books are so entitled as to reflect the author’s name, Shem Tov. The use of a line fromAvot , to reiterate the injunctions noted previously (“Adderet”), rather than directly using the author’s name, is to avoid violating R. Judah ben Samuel he-Hasid of Regensburg’s (c.1150-1217) proscription to not do so, so as to not benefit from this world, thereby decreasing one’s portion in the world to come, or to not reduce their offspring and the good name of their progeny in this world.[3] The Roke’ah (R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms, c. 1165–c. 1238), however states at the beginning of the introduction to his Roke’ah, that everyone should inscribe his name in his book, as we find in theTanna de-Vei Eliyahu.[4] Indeed, the Sefer ha-Roke’ah, is so entitled because the numerical value of the family name, Roke’ah It .(אלעזר=equals his personal name, Eleazar (308 ,(רקח=308) is, therefore, permissible to allude to the author’s name, for example, a Shem Tov using the titleKeter Shem Tov, a quotation from Avot. Indeed, a substantial number of the books described here refer to the author’s name.

Our selection encompasses homilies on the Torah, Kabbalah on the Tetragrammaton, halakhah and minhagim (customs), the sayings of the Ba’al Shem Tov, in praise of Sir Moses Montefiore, a letter on behalf of the Jewish community in Tiberias, and a highly unusual work on the Dead Sea scrolls. Finally, this article is a vignette, no more no less, an insight into and, in a manner of speaking, a photograph of one manner of how Hebrew books are named.

Several caveats. First, our Keter Shem Tovs are organized within subject categories, beginning with 1) discourses, both literal and kabbalistic on the Torah, followed by 2) halakhah and minhag (custom), 3) biographical and related anecdotal works, 4) miscellanea, all ordered chronologically within category, and concluding with 5) a brief summary. Secondly, our approach will be somewhat expansive, the variousKeter Shem Tovs giving us entry into related aspects of Hebrew printing and Jewish history. Lastly, while the number of works entitled Keter Shem Tov is not large, that notwithstanding, our examples are an overview and not meant to be all inclusive or comprehensive but intended as an interesting insight into an aspect of Hebrew book practice.

I Discourses, Literal and Kabbalistic on the Torah

Keter Shem Tov, R. Shem Tov ben Jacob Melamed, Venice, 1596: Our first Keter Shem Tov is a commentary on the Torah by R. Shem Tov ben Jacob Melamed. It was printed in Venice (1596, 20: 136, 16 ff.) at the press of Matteo Zanetti. This Zanetti, a member of the famous Venetian printing family of that name, established his print-shop on the Calle de Dogan, publishing seven books from 1593 to 1596. Among his titles, in addition to Shem Tov Melamed’s Keter Shem Tov, are R. Nathan Nata Spira’s (Shapira) Be’urim, R. Bezalel Ashkenazi’s responsa, and R. Solomon le-Bet ha-Levi’s Divrei Shelomo.

The title page has the decorative frame employed by Zanetti on several of his books with a smaller frame in the center about the text. The title-page states that, Keter Shem Tov

As is its name so is his name good and his deeds confirm it of him. It is a commentary on the Torah of HaShem written by the sage, the complete, in every book and wisdom.

Shem Tov Melamed

Whose precious light shines throughout [may

God shield him].

Edited patiently by the lofty and exalted

Samuel ibn Dysoss [may God watch over him] Keter Shem Tov excels

(ונרננה (Printed in the year, “that we may rejoice 1596=5356 and be glad [all our days]” (Psalms 90:14) from the creation.

The introduction, from a student of the author, R. Samuel ben Solomon Segelmassi follows (2a), then a page of verse from the editor Samuel ibn Dysoss, the text (3a-136a), his apologia (136b), indexes (1a-16a), errata (16a), and the colophon (16b), which states that it was completed, “on the very day that Moses went up to the firmament (6 Sivan) and the Egyptians drowned in the sea (21 Nissan), in the year, “Then Job 28:27), from) (ויספרה (he saw it, and declare it 1596=5356 the creation.” It is unclear why there are two apparently contradictory completion dates. The text is in two columns in rabbinic type, excepting headings and initial words.

In the introduction Samuel ben Solomon writes that one who knows matters in truth and faithfully,

“shall come back with shouts of joy” (Psalms 126:6), “to perceive the words of understanding” (Proverbs 1:2) and this is the first intent of every man who presumes in his heart (Esther 7:5) to write “goodly words” (Genesis 49:21) in a book to leave after him a blessing. . . . It is a commentary on the holy Torah, “high and lofty” (Isaiah 6:1, 57:15), on each and every parshah . . .

The introduction continues that it containsderashot (discourses) according to the literal meaning, casuistic (pilpul), and very sharp. In the following paragraph we are informed that not everything that was said on every parshah was printed because of financial restraints. In the apologia ibn Dysoss adds a familiar plaint for the period, type set late erev Shabbat could not be properly corrected. Moreover, the compositors, not Jewish and not fully familiar with Hebrew and Hebrew letters, did that which was right in their eyes, and for which he should not be held responsible.

That the title clearly alludes to the author’s name, R. Shem Tov ben Jacob Melamed, is further suggested by the last line of verse at the end of the introduction, which states that “you will find that the crown of a good name (KETER SHEM TOV) excels them all. This is, as noted above, that authors’ names were frequently employed in book-titles, but, in keeping with the injunction of R. Judah he-Hasid, indirectly, here by referencing a quote from Avot.

Shem Tov Melamed was also the author ofMa’amar Mordekhai (Constantinople, 1585), a commentary on Megillat Esther, printed by Joseph Jabez. Melamed is described on the title of this work as a physician.

Keter Shem Tov, Amsterdam, R. Abraham ben Alexander (Axelrad) of Cologne, c. 1810-16: A kabbalistic Keter Shem Tov on the Tetragrammaton by R. Abraham ben Alexander (Axelrad) of Cologne (13th century). In Judaism the Tetragrammaton, the four letter divine name, is not directly expressed but instead referred to with a euphemistic name for God. The title-page describes this Keter Shem Tov as, This is the gate of the Lord: the righteous shall] זהלציב enter through it] (Psalms 118:20)

Sefer

Keter Shem Tov

One of three books in my hand in manuscript, as described in my apologia. They are Keter Shem Tov and the commentary of the Ramban (R. Moses ben Nahman, Nachmanides, 1194–1270) on Shir ha-Shirim (Song of Songs). I have first printed one book only due to limited means. If the Lord will so decree I will publish the other two books. . . .

Although the title-page refers to three books two only are mentioned. The third work, noted in the editor’s apologia, is a commentary on the Merkavah of Ezekiel. Keter Shem Tov is not dated, so that various bibliographic sources date it as 1810 or 1816. The title-page is embellished by the Proops’ family press-mark, consisting of the kohen’s spread hands at the time he pronounces the priestly blessing. This edition ofKeter Shem Tov (80: 5, 7 ff.) was printed in Amsterdam by David ben Jacob Proops. The Proops’ press, founded by Solomon Proops in 1704, was the longest lasting and most productive of the Hebrew printing-houses in Europe in the eighteenth century; it would continue to print Hebrew books until the mid-nineteenth century when, in 1869, the widow of David Proops sold the press to the Levissons, who printed until 1917.

Abraham, a student of R. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms (c. 1176–1238, Roke’ah), traveled through Spain between approximately 1260 and 1275, where he reportedly studied with R. Solomon ben Adret (Rashba, 1235–1310), the latter praising Abraham’s oratorical skills. Keter Shem Tov, as noted above, deals with the Tetragrammaton and also the Sefirot, addressing sacred names, using gematriot and synthesizing the mysticism of the Ashkenaz pietists (Hasidim) and Sephardic Kabbalistic methodologies.[5] Here too the reason for the title is not explicitly stated but, given the subject matter, is obvious.

This is not the first printing of Abraham ben Alexander’s Keter Shem Tov. It appeared earlier, included in a collection entitled Likkutim me-Rav Hai Gaon (Warsaw, 1798), under the title Ma’amar Peloni Almoni (ff. 26-32a). It has since been reprinted several times, often among collections of other works.

Ma’or va-Shemesh, R. Shem Tov ben Abraham ibn Gaon, Livorno, 1839: The next Keter Shem Tov, by R. Shem Tov ben Abraham ibn Gaon, is also a kabbalistic discourse on the Torah, this part of a larger multi-volume work entitledMa’or va-Shemesh (Livorno, 1839, 80: [3], 3-11, [1], 128 ff.) printed by Eliezer Menahem Ottolenghi. The inclusion of Ma’or va-Shemesh represents a more expansive view of works entitled Keter Shem Tov as it is an independent work included in a larger collection of dissertations. The author (compiler) of Ma’or va-Shemesh, R. Judah ben Abraham Coriat (d. 1787) of Tetuán, was a scion of a distinguished Moroccan family.

1. Shem Tov ibn Gaon (c. 1287-c. 340) was born in Soria, Spain and went up to Eretz Israel in 1312, settling in Safed where he wrote most of his books. He was a student of R. Solomon ben Adret (Rashba, 1235–1310) and R. Isaac ben Todros (13th cent.). Best known of ibn Gaon’s titles is Migdal Oz, on Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah as well as several works in manuscript. Keter Shem Tov, his first book, was reportedly written in Spain, while Rashba was still alive.[6]

The title-page of Ma’or va-Shemesh has a frame comprised of verses, all from Psalm 119: “O how I love your Torah! It is my meditation all the day” (Psalms 97);

“O that my ways were directed to keep your statutes!) (5);

“The sum of your word is truth; and every one of your righteous judgments endures for ever” (160);

“So shall I have an answer for him who insults me; for I trust in your word” (42);

“So shall I have an answer for him who insults me; for I trust in your word” (162);

“I have more understanding than all my teachers; for your testimonies are my meditation” (99); “Great peace have those who love your Torah; and nothing can make them stumble” (165).

An additional verse is employed for the date, “This Book of the Torah shall not depart from your mouth; but you shall .(Joshua 1:8) ”(הזה מפיך והגית בו (meditate on it 1839 = 599 The title too is from Psalms, “The day is yours, the night also is yours; you have prepared the light and the sun (Ma’or va-Shemesh)” (Psalms 74:16).

The text of the title-page notes several of the authors whose kabbalistic works comprise Ma’or va-Shemesh, notably the Ari ha-Kadosh (R. Isaac Luria, 1534 – July 25, 1572), R. Moses ben Nahman (Ramban), Sefer ha-Malkut, and R. Judah ben Attar, Coriat’s maternal grandfather. The verso of the title-page has a pressmark, a lion rampant holding thistle under crown and below it the phrase Gur Aryeh Yehudah. This device was used previously in Livorno by Eliezer Saadun. When employed by Ottolenghi the lion has been turned to face right, it having previously faced left.[7]

There are introductions from R. Elijah Benamozegh and Abraham ben Judah Coriat, the former comprised of five paragraphs, each beginning with the word Kol and concluding with Judah, the latter’s introduction comprised of eight paragraphs, each beginning with Ben and concluding with Av. The text is comprised of several kabbalistic works, among them Shem Tov ben Abraham ibn Gaon’s Keter Shem Tov (ff. 25-54a), here not explicitly stated but rather entitled Perush Sodot ha-Torah. Shem Tov was a kabbalist, who studied with the Rashba and R. Isaac ben Todros. He was greatly influenced by the Ramban (R. Moses ben Nachman), reflected in his Keter Shem Tov, which is a kabbalistic super-commentary on Ramban’s Torah commentary. Here too, the title comes from the author’s name, Shem Tov.

A small portion of ibn Gaon’s Keter Shem Tov was printed previously (ff. 41b-44a), in R. Jehiel ben Israel Luria Ashkenazi’s Heikhal ha-Shem (Venice, 1601), on the ten Sefirot, Likkutei Kabbalah Kadmonim.

This much expanded version of Keter Shem Tov is based on an 1810 manuscript prepared by R. Elijah Lombroso.

II Halakhah and Minhag

Keter Shem Tov, R. Shem Tov ben Isaac Gaguine, Kaidan, Lithuania, 1934: An encyclopedic work on the varied customs and liturgy of eastern and western Sephardim and Ashkenazim by R. Shem Tov Gaguine (Gaguin, 1884-1953). Gaguine, scion of a famous Moroccan Rabbinical dynasty which emigrated to Palestine from Spain, was a great-grandson of R. Hayyim Gaguin the first Hakham Bashi of Eretz Israel in the Ottoman Empire and a great-great grandson of the kabbalist Sar Shalom Sharabi. Gaguine, who received semicha (ordination) from R. Hayyim Berlin, served as a dayyan in Cairo, rabbi and dayyan in Manchester, England, Rosh Yeshivah of Judith Montefiore Theological College, Ramsgate, and, from 1935, as head of Sephardi Medrash Heshaim in London.[8]

This Keter Shem Tov is comprised of seven volumes, the first two published in 1934, and the last four published posthumously by his son Dr. Maurice Gaguine. The complete work has been republished several times.

As noted above, Keter Shem Tov is a comprehensive work describing the liturgy and customs of eastern and western Sephardim and of Ashkenazim, accompanied by detailed footnotes from the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds and later halakhic authorities. Although most of the entries explain more familiar customs, many are unusual. Example of the latter are:

The custom in [Eretz Israel and Syria, Turkey and Morocco] when the father, grandfather, father-in-law, one’s rabbi, or elder brother has an Aliyah, to stand on one’s feet until he returns to his place, and to go to them, kiss their hand and receive a blessing (I:213).

An unusual custom of the Sephardim in the city of Algiers is the phrase “marror zeh (this marror)” is said three times and then thrown to the ground, and afterwards picked up and returned to the ka’arah (Seder plate).[9]

Why is the marror called hasa or hazeret (lettuce or horse raddish)?

The Ashkenaz custom is to take, in place of hazeret a type of dry radish called in their language hrain, which is as sharp as mustard and does not have a bitter taste. The Sephardic custom is specifically hazeret. . . . (III: 158-59).

Keter Shem Tov, R. Avishai Taharani, Jerusalem, 2000: Another work on halakhah and customs, this most specific, described on the title-page as “a treasure of all the halakhot and personal customs concerning naming sons and daughters” by R. Avishai Taharani. The title-page continues that in it are explained the basic guidelines for giving names “by whose observance man shall live” (Leviticus 18:5, Ezekiel 20:11, 13, 21). Also addressed are the names that one should refrain from using.

In the introduction (pp. 1-23) to this two volume work, Taharani informs that he has so entitled the book, based on the injunction of the Roke’ah (above), as well as several other works. He has done so, however, withgematriot (numerical equivalencies) for “Avishai Taharani ben my lord which (אבישי טהרני בן לאדוני ואבי יצחק (and father Isaac 977 The text is ”.(כתר שם טוב (corresponds to Keter Shem Tov 977 wide ranging, comprehensive, and accompanied by detailed footnotes. Several examples of the more unusual entries in the text are:

If a father errs and calls his son or daughter with two names, forgetting that the additional name was given to another child, there are those who say that until thirty days he may change the name (I:118).

Some say that if one has a child from an unmarried woman, the child should be called with a name that predates [the time of the] Patriarch Abraham or with a name that is not customary, for example, Dan, so that he will be judged according to his problem. There are places that it is customary to give these names to those who are kosher and Heaven forfend one should come to question those who are kosher (I: 237-38).

Some say that one should not call [a child] with one of the names that predates the Patriarch Abraham, for example: Adam, Noah, and all who call by a name that predates the Patriarch Abraham is not in the category of one who “labors in the Torah, and does not give pleasure to his Creator” (cf. Berakhot 17a). (I:397-400).

It is permissible to shorten a name, whether for a son or a daughter, as long as that name is used only casually, and it is best to use the full name at least once a day in order that the short form dies not become customary (II:110-13).

In a lengthy footnote to the third entry concerning names that predate the Patriarch Abraham a source for the entry is given, ha-Mabit (R. Moses ben Joseph of Trani, 1500 – 1580). It is followed by a number of contrary sources by other prominent rabbis, and then a lengthy discussion. That this Keter Shem Tov has proven to be a relatively popular work is evident from the publication of two additional editions, the last in 2007.

Keter Shem Tov, Kollel Keter Shem Tov, Kiryat Bialik, 2002: Collection of discourses and responsa on Shulhan Arukh Hoshen Mishpat by rabbis from the Kollel Keter Shem Tov in Kiryat Bialik, located in the vicinity of Haifa. There is an introduction from R. Mahluf Aminadav Krispin, Chief Rabbi of Kiryat Bialik, followed by the text, comprised of nineteen articles, including one by the Rosh Yeshiva R. Solomon Shalosh. Examples of the articles are 5) “on the prohibition turning to secular courts” by R. Efied Hagibi, member of the Kollel; 6) finding a relative or one who is unfit among the judges by R. David Alharar, member of the Kollel; 9) witnesses who have fulfilled their charge” by R. Evied Elul, member of the Kollel; 11) “the obligation of rent after divorce, the portion in the residence” by R. Abraham Atlas, av bet din, Haifa; 14) “acquisition through forgiveness (relinquishment) by R. Solomon Shalaoh; and 19) “the wages of a worker and contractor who did not provide the agreed upon benefit” by R. Abraham Atlas.

The title-page numbers the volume as no. one, but it is not known whether additional volumes were published.

III Biographical and Related Anecdotal Works

Keter Shem Tov, R. Aharon ben Zevi ha-Kohen of Apta, Zolkiew, 1794/95: The most popular of our Keter Shem Tovs, based on the printed editions, is the collection of tales and stories of the remarkable and astounding deeds of the Ba’al Shem Tov (R. Israel ben Eliezer, Besht, c. 1700–1760), founder of the Hasidic movement, as well as his recorded sayings, assembled from the works of his disciples. This collection of tales and sayings was assembled by R. Aaron ben Zevi Hirsch ha-Kohen of Opatow (Apta).

The book is in two parts, each with its own title-page but identical text, except that the first title-page is dated with a chronogram, the second title-page, printed a year later, is Perhaps .(תקנ”ה (dated in a straightforward manner, 1795 = 555 the reason that the second title-page is so dated is that the first title-page exists in two forms, the rare first title- ואת יק רpage, is dated “and the glory of his splendid majesty ,Esther 1:4), which is incorrect) ”(תפארת גדולתו (544 = 1784 the book having been printed a decade later. The error was likely quickly caught, for the corrected and much better known ואת יקר תפא רתtitle-page has the same chronogram, now reading ,the yod in the second word enlarged and emphasized ,גדולתו for a correct total of 554 (1794).[10] The variants are recorded separately in several bibliographic works.[11]

The title-page informs that that much of the contents are from the works of R. Jacob Joseph ben Zevi ha-Kohen av bet din of Polonnoye (d. c. 1782), the Ba’al Shem Tov’s leading disciple, that is, Toledot Ya’akov Yosef, Ben Porat Yosef, and Zafenat Pa’ne’ah, as well as discourses, also from other works. Among these latter sources are Likkutei Amorim and the sayings of the Ba’al Shem Tov, all collected by R. Aaron ben Zevi Hirsch ha-Kohen of Opatow (Apta).

In addition to the variations to the first title-page, the second title-page also exists in two formats, with, unlike the first title-page, some textual variations. Within the text of the book, despite Aaron ben Zevi Hirsch ha-Kohen’s comments that he has assembled the Ba’al Shem Tov’s words from the above mentioned titles, he did not, in fact, merely transcribe them in toto, nor did he distinguish which were the words of the Ba’al Shem Tov and those of Jacob Joseph.[12]

Keter Shem Tov has an approbation from R. Menachem Mendel of Liska, followed by the famed Iggeret Hakodesh, a letter from the Ba’al Shem Tov to his brother, dated Rosh Ha-Shanah, 1747, in which he relates that his soul ascended to heaven where he met with the Messiah, and then the text. This Keter Shem Tov, as noted above, has proven to be an enduring and popular work; it was printed soon after in Korezec (1797), Lemberg (1809) and several times afterwards there, in numerous other locations, and continues to be republished to the present.

Keter Shem Tov, Abraham Menahem Mendel Mohr, Lvov (Lemberg), 1847: Sir Moses Montefiore (1784–1885) was one of, if not the most prominent member of English Jewry in the nineteenth century. Cecil Roth described him as “the most notable Jew, and indeed one of the most notable Englishmen, of the 19th century by virtue of his outstanding philanthropic work extending over a period of three-quarters of a century, into his venerable old age.”13 Montefiore traveled to the Middle East during the Damascus Affair, to Russia, Morocco, and Rumania on behalf of persecuted Jewry, as well as providing leadership and support of Jewry at home and in Eretz Israel. His indefatigable efforts on behalf of world Jewry are recorded and acknowledged in books, articles, and newspapers, several works entitled Keter Shem Tov.

The first Keter Shem Tov praising Sir Moses Montefiore is by Abraham Menahem Mendel Mohr (1815–1868), a scholarly maskil, author of a number of Hebrew and Yiddish books. The title-page states that it is, Keter Shem Tov

For the chief, holy prince

The praiseworthy, the righteous, the dear, who sows righteousness and brings forth salvation. Our teacher, Moses Baron from Montefiore [May his Rock and Redeemer protect him], prince of the holy land. And the pure wife of his youth, the honorable lady, the modest, the wisdom of women “is a crown to her husband” (Proverbs 12:4), the lady Judith “blessed shall she be above women in the tent” (Judges 5:24). . . . The title-page continues that the text includes some of the righteousness and perfect kindness on behalf of the Jews in Russia. A small book, (80: 16 pp.: Joseph Schnander), the text begins with verse, with the header “from Moses to Moses there was none like Moses” normally referring to Maimonides but here applied to Montefiore. The verse beginning,

“Moses ben Amram brought Israel out from the burdens of Egypt

and Moses Montefiore redeemed them from death to life.

Moses ben Amram “struck the rock, so that the waters gushed out” (Psalms 78:20)

and Moses Montefiore softened the heart of stone with “words of lips” (cf. II Kings 18:20, Isaiah 36:5). . . .

The volume concludes with a letter of appreciation from Sir Moses Montefiore.

A Ladino (Judeo-Spanish) version of Mohr’s Keter Shem Tov was printed in Salonika (1850, 80: 48, 53-80 ff.) together with two other works, Tiferet Yisrael on the Rothschilds, and Ma’aseh Eretz Israel on Eretz Israel from the destruction of the Temple to the nineteenth century. Among the many other works either praising or including a section on Montefiore are Kol Kitvei Rabbi Ya’akov Saphir ha-Levi (Jerusalem, 1934), the writings of R. Jacob Saphir (1822–1886), an emissary of the Jewish community in Jerusalem and the author of Even Saphir on the Jewish communities in such varied places as Yemen, Egypt, India, and India that he visited. In Kol Kisvei is a section entitled Keter Shem Tov Kenaf Renanim Sir Moses Monrefiore, accompanied by a cameo of Montefiore.

Yet another Keter Shem Tov about Montefiore was published by Hayyim Guedalla (London, 1884). The Hebrew title-page is followed by an English title-page that states,

The Crown of A Good Name

a brief account

of a few of the

Doings, Preachings, and Compositions On

Sir Moses Montifieore’s Natal Day,

November 8th, 1883,

on which he was favored with a succession of telegraphic

Congratulations from the QUEEN OF ENGLAND and many

Eminent People of all Creeds.

Below is the quote fromPirke Avot. The text includes congratulatory letters from the Queen, the Duke of Edinburgh, many others, and special services in both Hebrew and English. In addition, many other publications relate to Moses Montefiore, among them, albeit this not directly pertinent to the article but of interest as a further example of how widespread the high esteem in which the venerable Sir Moses Montefiore was held, is the title page of the October 20. 1883 Harper’s Weekly Journal of Civilization (New York), with a full cover portrait of Montefiore.

Keter Shem Tov (Ehrenkranz des guten Rufes), R. Josef Natonek, Budapest, 1880: German Keter Shem Tov by Josef Natonek in honor of Rabbi Dr. Moritz Landsberg (1824-80), son of R. Elias Landsberg (1800-79). Except for a Hebrew header the title page is entirely in German, as is the text (32 pp.), with only occasional Hebrew.

The title, Ehrenkranz des guten Rufes, is our “crown of a good name,” a Festgabe zum fünfundzwanzigjährigen Amtsjubilaeum des Dr. M. Landsberg, Rabbiner zu Liegnitz dargereicht von Rabbiner Josef Natonek em Rabbiner und Schriftsteller verfasser, that is a festive volume presented to Landsberger on the twenty-fifth jubilee of his service as rabbi in Liegnitz, by R. Josef Natonek (1813-92), a rabbi and author. Landsberg, doctor of philosophy educated in Berlin, became, in 1854, the rabbi of Legnica. Born in Rawicz, He served as rabbi for twenty-five years until his death in Liegnitz (Legnica, Silesia).[14] Landsburg was also the author of a number of studies on the history of medicine, particularly in ancient times, published for the most part in the journal Juno, published by von Henschel.[15]

At the end of the volume is a two page Stammbaum (family tree) of the Landsberg family.

IV Miscellanea

Keter Shem Tov, R. Solomon Zalman ben Zevi Hirsch ha-Kohen, Livorno, c. 1789: Our next Keter Shem Tov is a quarto sized page printed in Livorno in c. 1789 for the Hassidic Tiberius Kollel Ashkenazim. It informs that R. Solomon Zalman ben Zevi Hirsch ha-Kohen (d. 1799) is an emissary of the Merciful One and of us (the Ashkenaz Hasidic community of Tiberias). The letter is signed by twenty-one rabbis.[16]

The letter begins with a reference to Keter Shem Tov followed by a list of honorifics “but the crown of a good name (Keter Shem Tov) excels them all. To our brothers in the exile, a treasured people, ‘a kingdom of priests and a holy nation’ (Exodus 19:6), keepers of the faith, princes and chieftains, princes and leaders, ‘a lampstand all of gold’ (Zechariah 4:2) Torah scholars and rabbis.”

It informs about their joy in the merit to live in Eretz Israel. Until now they had relied upon support from the country from which they had come; but now, however, due to war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, they could no longer depend on that funding, so that they are now turning to Jews in other lands for support. Indeed, in describing the situation the letter notes the dire financial situation and that the land “‘is infested with bandits’ (Yevamot 115a, 122a) ‘the task masters hurried them’ (Exodus 5:13), they ‘lie in wait for blood’ (Micah 7:2). . . . ‘But now our soul is dried away; there is nothing at all (Numbers 11:6)’”

Solomon Zalman had traveled twice previously as an emissary to Russia (1779-81/1784-85), but this was his first trip to Western Europe. Avraham Yaari relates that Solomon Zalman’s undertaking was not without objection. The Sephardic community protested that the Hasidic community, which had previously received support from Eastern Europe, a venue now closed to them, was, by sending an emissary to Western Europe, entering into the domain of the general Tiberias community. The dispute was resolved several years later when joint representatives of both communities went to Eastern Europe.[17]

The letter begins with that part of the phrase fromAvot referring to Keter Shem Tov intimating that a way one obtains the “crown of a good name (Keter Shem Tov)” is through good deeds and charity, which, as noted above, is “As a pearl atop a crown (keter), so are his good deeds fitting,” certainly appropriate for an appeal for the destitute community in Israel, the subject of the ourKeter Shem Tov.

Keter Shem Tov, Shani Tzoref, Ian Young, Editors; Piscataway, NJ, 2013: A highly unusual Keter Shem Tov, this the proceedings of a conference on the Dead Sea scrolls held in memory of the late emeritus professor Alan David Crown in late 2011 at the University of Sydney, Mandelbaum House. This volume is part of a series entitled Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts published by Gorgias Press, which describes itself as “an independent academic publisher of books and journals covering several areas related to religious studies, the world of ancient western Asia, classics, and Middle Eastern studies.” Among their subject matter is Ancient Near East, Arabic and Islam, Archaeology, Bible, Classics, Early Christianity, Judaism, Linguistics, Syriac, and Ugaritic.

Professor Alan David Crown (1932-2010) in whose memory this book was published, was Professor in Semitic Studies at the University of Sydney, and a renowned scholar and author. As noted on a website referring to him the title relates to the name Crown (Keter), for “He may have inherited the name Crown from his parents, but he earned the title ‘CROWN’ – the Crown of Torah, through his own merit, his sharp intellect and his deep respect for scholarship.”[18] The editors are Dr. Shani Tzoref, Ph.D., Skirball Department of Hebrew and Judaic Studies, New York University and currently a Qumran Institute Fellow, Seminar für Altes Testament, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, and Dr. Ian Young, Associate Professor, Chair of Department at the University of Sydney, Australia, teaching Classical Hebrew and Biblical Studies.

This edition of Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts 20: Keter Shem Tov (x, 400 pp.) is comprised of sixteen articles on various subjects in the field of Qumran studies (Dead Sea scrolls) from scholars in the field. The articles encompass the development and phases of Qumran scholarship; textual transmission of the Hebrew Bible, including Samaritan texts and Masada Biblical Scrolls; reception of Scripture in the Dead Sea Scrolls; community and the Dead Sea Scrolls; and eschatology and sexuality in the So- Called Sectarian Documents from Qumran; and the Temple and the Dead Sea Scrolls.

V Summary

This concludes our survey of books with the title Keter Shem Tov. As noted above, the article is vignettes of books so entitled. There is no single pattern in the use of the title, it being applied to a wide variety of books. There are discourses on the Torah, both literal and kabbalistic, works on Jewish law and customs, biographic or anecdotal, and several miscellaneous works, among them an appeal for support of Jewish communities in the Holy Land and on the Dead Sea scrolls. The title Keter Shem Tov has been chosen because it refers to an author’s name, for example, R. Shem Tov Melamed, R. Shem Tov ibn Gaon, and R. Shem Tov Gaguine; bibliographical works such as those referring to the Ba’al Shem Tov, Sir Moses Montefiore, and Rabbi Dr. Moritz Landsberg; and more diverse works, such as one being the novellae of a Kollel, the Dead Sea scrolls, and even topically related as in R. Avishai Taharani’s Keter Shem Tov, which actually deals with laws and customs applicable to names.

We began by noting that the title of Hebrew books, unlike books in other languages, may have “been selected by the author for any one of a number of reasons, least of all the book’s subject matter; rather the intention is/was to give the book ‘the crown of a good name (Keter Shem Tov)’.” Indeed, not one book in this article, with the possible exception of Taharani’s Keter Shem Tov, indicates its subject matter by the title. What each of these examples do have in common, is the intent to associate the name of the author, subject, or even organization with the Mishnah in Pirke Avot, which states,

1. Simeon said: there are three crowns: the crown of Torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty; but the crown of a good name (emphasis added, Keter Shem Tov) excels them all (Avot 4:13).

[1] I would like to thank Eli Genauer for reading the article and his comments and my son-in-law, R. Moshe Tepfer, for his assistance and research in the National Library of Israel, including getting the 1789 Livorno illustration from [2] Marvin J. Heller, “Adderet Eliyahu; A Study in the Titling of Hebrew Books,” in Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book (Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2008), pp. 72-91; idem. “What’s in a name? An example of the Titling of Hebrew Books,” in Further Studies in the Making of the Early Hebrew Book(Brill, Leiden/Boston, 2013) pp. 371-94. [3] Judah he-Hasid, Sefer Hasidim (Jerusalem, 1973), ed. Re’uven Margaliot, pp. 210-11, n. 367 [Hebrew]. [4] Eleazar ben Judah, Sefer Roke’ah ha-Gadol (Jerusalem, 1967), ed. Barukh Shimon Shneurson, .p 1 [Hebrew]. [5] Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah (New York, 1974), p. 51. [6] Shimon Vanunu, Encyclopedia Arzei ha-Levanon. Encyclopedia le-Toldot Geonei ve-Hakhmei Yahadut Sefarad ve-ha-Mizrah IV (Jerusalem, 2006), pp. 2152 [Hebrew]. [7] Avraham Yaari, Diglei ha-Madpisim ha-Ivriyyim (Jerusalem, 1943, reprint Westmead, 1971), pp. 96, 174 no. 160, [Hebrew]. [8] Shimon Vanunu, Encyclopedia Arzei ha-Levanon. Encyclopedia le-Toldot Geonei ve-Hakhmei Yahadut Sefarad ve-ha-Mizrah IV (Jerusalem, 2006), pp. 2155-56 [Hebrew]. [9] In contrast, the Mishnah Berurah (477:1:5) quotes the Shelah ha-Kodesh who states that ” have seen people of status who kiss the matzah and the marror . . . all to cherish the mitzvah.” [10] Such errors and their corrections are known as stop-press corrections. Sheets were proof read while the press-run was under way; while it certainly was preferable to correct the sheets before the run began, reading also took place while the run was under way. When the corrector would find an error he would stop the run, remove the forme, quickly correct the error, and resume printing. Unless substantial, stop-press corrections did not necessitate disposing of the previous sheet – four pages in a folio, more so in a smaller format – but rather both the altered states and the originals are used. In such a case, there will be variant copies of the book, consisting of sheets printed from forms in both the earlier and later states, as is the case here. [11] The copy with the misdated title-page in the Chabad- Lubavitch Library is attractively bound in a soft brown that ,כתר שם טוב ב”ק אדמו”ר שליט”א leather, the cover stamped is, it was in the private library of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneeersohn (1902–94). The reading room librarian, R. Zalman Levine, informs me that to his knowledge this is the only book so bound, and that it “was given to the rebbe with this binding. [12] Keter Shem Tov (Brooklyn, 1972), p. v [Hebrew]. [13] Cecil Roth, “Moses Montefiore, 1784-1885,” in Essays and Portraits in Anglo-Jewish History (Philadelphia, 1962), p. 262.+ [14] As an aside, Jewish settlement in Lieignitz can be traced to the Middle Ages, interrupted by pogroms, the first in 1447 due to a dispute between Elżbieta, Duchess of Legnica with Jewish bankers, who demanded that she return a loan. Liegnitz is best remembered for a battle that took place there in 1241, when a Polish-German Army lead by Duke Henry II of Silesia engaged invading Mongol near the town. The Mongols were victorious, collecting nine sacks of ears from their fallen enemies, all of whom perished. [15] Klatzkin, Jacob and Ismar Elbogen, editors, Enyclopaedia Judaica: Das Judentum in Geschichte und Gegenwart 10 (Berlin, 1928-34), p. 619. [16] The signatories are R. Abraham ben Alexander Katz of Kalisk; R. Matthias ben Hayyim; R. Moses ben Menahem Mendel; R. Jehiel Michal ben Hayyim; R. Moses ben Abraham Segal; R. Eliezer Sussman; R. Asher ben Eliezer; R. David he is the Katan, rav of Bohava Yeshain; R. Joshua ben Noah Altshuler; R. Israel ben Jacob; R. Israel ben Judah; R. Judah Leib ben Joseph; R. Moses ben Uri Shapira; R. Jehiel Michal ben Abraham; R. Joseph of Zimigrad; R. Samuel ben Isaiah Segal; R. Aryeh Leib ben Nathan; R. Aaron ben Isaac; R. Aaron ben Meir; R. Joseph of Poloskov; and R. Nathan Nata ben Eli of Brod. [17] Avraham Yaari, Sheluhei Eretz Yisrael II (Jerusalem, 1951, reprint Jerusalem, 1997), pp. 619-28 [Hebrew]. [18] http://learning.mandelbaum.usyd.edu.au/about-us/alan-crown/

New Journal Announcement: Mekhilta

New Journal Announcement

By Eliezer Brodt

מכילתא, כתב עת לתורה ולחכמה, ר‘ יואל בינדר, עדיאל ברויאר, יעקב ישראל סטל ומשה דוד צ‘צ‘יק (עורכים), גליון א, כסלו תש“פ, 364 עמודים A new Journal just came out tonight called Mekhilta. The volume begins with their mission statement and will be published biannually.

The first issue has an all-star lineup of writers on great topics. Some of the writers are Professor Simcha Emanuel & Rabbi Yakov Stahl (on the Minhag of saying Pitum Haketoros); I have written about both of them in the past (here and here).

Some less familiar names are Rabbi Leibish Weiss, (see here for an article of his on the blog) and Rabbi Moshe Hillel. Readers might be familiar with Hillel’s various recent works (printed in limited editions) on some forged works, including Megilat Kuzin and Agudat Shmuel (on the strange Hagahot found in many editions of Rashi on Nach) or his excellent work Ohel Ram on the Gerer Rebbe’s seforim library.

Another article is authored by Rabbi Adiel Breuer on the Hachi Garsinan Talmud site. Rabbi Adiel is well known for his expertise and writings dealing with Geonica and Rishonim.

Another article worth a shout out is from an old friend Rabbi Mordechai Honig. In this article, Honig reviews another friend’s recent incredible work, Rabbi Yakov Stahl’s NaHagu BiYisroel on various Minhaghim related to the Daled Minim. The book draws on an extremely wide range of sources including archeological material and includes one hundred and seventeen pictures. [Copies of this work are still available for purchase.]

The longest article in this volume (178 pp.) is from Rabbi Yosef Avivi and deals with the authorship and authenticity of the famous work Kol HaTor attributed to the Gra. Avivi is famous for numerous masterpieces. Worth mentioning is his most recent four-volume work on Rav Kook where he demonstrated a new way to read R’ Kook (showing him to be even greater than he was thought to be up until now) and his very special three volume work mapping out the Arizal’s Kabbalah.

A few years ago, I heard from some friends that Avivi had an unpublished work on the subject of the Kol HaTor and I hoped that it would see the light of day. This work is included in this new journal. Academics and scholars have been debating this book heavily over the years; just a few months ago Professor Emanuel Etkes authored a work on the subject. It’s written in Avivi’s unique style and will surely generate discussion and debates just as his other works have done. Its timing is perfect as yet again the academic world is busy with the Gra this year as it’s the three hundredth year from his birth. I am aware of three conventions dedicated to him so far.

Copies of this volume are available for purchase through me (while the limited edition lasts) and will help support the efforts of the Seforim Blog. Contact me at [email protected]

Here is the Table of contents of the new journal.