Daf Ditty Eruvin 28

'Our little babe,' each said, 'shall be Like unto thee' - 'Like unto thee!' 'Her mother's' - 'Nay, his father's' - 'eyes,' 'Dear curls like thine' - but each replies, 'As thine, all thine, and nought of me.'

What sweet solemnity to see The little life upon thy knee, And whisper as so soft it lies, - 'Our little babe!'

For, whether it be he or she, A David or a Dorothy, 'As mother fair,' or 'father wise,' Both when it's 'good,' and when it cries, One thing is certain, - it will be Our little babe.

Richard Le Gallienne

1

2

The Gemara relates that when Rabbi Zeira was exhausted from his studies, he would go and sit at the entrance to the academy of Rav Yehuda bar Ami, and say:

When the Sages go in and out, I shall stand up before them and receive reward for honoring them, as it is a mitzva to honor Torah scholars.

Too tired to engage in actual Torah study, he sought a way to rest while fulfilling a different mitzva at the same time.

3

Once, a young school child was leaving the study hall. Rabbi Zeira said to him: What did your teacher teach you today?

He said to him: The proper blessing for dodder is: Who creates the fruit of the ground; the proper blessing for green grain is: By Whose word all things came to be.

Rabbi Zeira said to him: On the contrary, the opposite is more reasonable, as this, the green grain, derives nourishment from the ground, whereas that, the dodder, derives nourishment from the air, and it is fitting to recite a blessing over each item in accordance with its source of nourishment.

The Gemara concludes: The halakha is in accordance with the young school child. What is the reason for this?

4 This, the dodder, is fully ripened produce, and that, green grain, is not fully ripened produce. If produce is not fully ripened one can only recite the blessing: By Whose word all things came to be.

And that which you said: This, the green grain, derives nourishment from the ground, whereas that, the dodder, derives nourishment from the air, this is not so.

Dodder also derives nourishment from the ground, for we see that when the prickly shrub is cut off, the dodder attached to it dies. This shows that dodder also derives its nourishment from the ground, albeit indirectly.

Halacha

Orach Chayim 204:1

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:1

The requirement to have a meal jointly owned by the residents of the courtyard who need to create a group eiruv leads the Gemara to bring the opinions of sages who discuss what is considered food that will live up to this condition.

Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of R' Shmuel bar Sheilat, who said in the name of Rav: One may establish an eiruv with cheap and unimportant produce such as cress, purslane, and sweet clover, but one may not establish an eiruv with green grain or with unripe dates.

5

Ĥalaglogot appear to be Portulaca oleracea, or common purslane, an annual plant that grows close to the ground and spreads out on fields. It grows mainly during the summer months in Israel and nearby countries. It is gathered for food and can be eaten fresh or pickled – sometimes it is even grown specifically for that purpose. According to most of the early commentators, gudgedaniyyot can be identified as one of the melilotus, or sweet clover plants.

6 P. oleracea is one of very few plants able to utilize both CAM and C4 photosynthesis pathways, for a long time believed to be incompatible with each other despite biochemical similarities.2

P. oleracea will switch from C4 to CAM pathways during times of drought and there is transcription regulation and physiological evidence for C4-CAM hybrid photosynthesis during mild drought.3

2 http://www.thepharmajournal.com/archives/2017/vol6issue9/PartB/6-8-66-259.pdf 3 Ferrari, Renata C.; Bittencourt, Priscila P.; Rodrigues, Maria A.; Moreno‐Villena, Jose J.; Alves, Frederico R. R.; Gastaldi, Vinícius D.; Boxall, Susanna F.; Dever, Louisa V.; Demarco, Diego; Andrade, Sónia C.S.; Edwards, Erika J.; Hartwell, James; Freschi, Luciano (2019). "C 4 and crassulacean acid metabolism within a single leaf: Deciphering key components behind a rare photosynthetic adaptation". New Phytologist.

7

These wild plants grow tall and have pods that contain one or two seeds. Generally speaking, they are used to feed animals, but they are certainly fit for human consumption.

In the past it was also used for medicinal purposes; the Gemara suggests that it was known as a prophylactic. Ĥaziz (green grain) is a general term for the green parts of various types of grain that are mainly used as animal fodder. Kafniyot are wild dates that do not ripen properly.

Another plant that cannot be used for the eiruv is a kor. The kor (heart of palm) refers to the top of the stem of the palm. Although it is not fruit, as it is part of the tree itself, it is edible – the inner section of the trunk top is white and tasty and is considered something of a delicacy.

In the time of the Talmud heart of palm was eaten both boiled and fried.

Since removing the kor from the palm tree had the effect of preventing future growth and development of the tree, it was only cut off from a date palm that they decided to cut down.

8 Rav Ĥilkiya bar Toviya said: One may establish an eiruv with glasswort.

The Gemara expresses astonishment: Does it enter your mind that one may establish an eiruv with glasswort? People do not eat glasswort.

Rather, one may establish an eiruv with the herb from whose ashes glasswort is prepared, as it is fit for human consumption before it is burnt.

The kalya is identified as the Salicornia europaea or Common Glasswort which has pods but no leaves. It grows wild to a height of 10 – 14 centimeters in swampy areas.

The ashes of this plant contain a high concentration of potassium, which was used to produce soap and clothing detergent.

As an edible plant, it was, however, also used for food.

Salicornia europaea is edible, either cooked or raw.

In the UK, it is one of several plants known as samphire (see also rock samphire); the term samphire is believed to be a corruption of the French name, herbe de Saint-Pierre, which means "St. Peter's herb"

9

Rav Mordechai Kornfeld writes:4

Our Daf states that when one plants Shechalayim and Gargir seeds in order to use the greens (Yerek) of those plants, he must separate Ma'aser from both "the greens and the seeds" that grow.

If he plants them in order to use the seeds that they produce, he must separate Ma'aser from both "the seeds and the greens" that grow.

Why does the Gemara differentiate between Shechalayim and Gargir that are planted for their greens and ones that are planted for their seeds, if there is no difference in Halachah?

In both cases, one must separate Ma'aser from both the greens and the seeds.

4 https://www.dafyomi.co.il/eruvin/insites/ev-dt-028.htm

10 Tosafos

תופסות ה"ד ערזל ירשעתמ ן ערז ו קריו ר רעמעז הדתפו

Tosfos explains why they were taught as separate clauses.

המית יאמא אל בריע נתו י והל ןערז ערזל וא קריל ירשעתמ ן ערז ו קריו ר רעמקי ו רל עז ול ת בי ל אאהי

Question: Why didn't he teach both together - if he seeded them for the seeds or for Yerek, he tithes the seeds and Yerek!

ו רמוא 'ר ' י אכיהד ןערזד קריל וה י קרי רקיע רשעתמו לכה רחא הטיקל קריכ יב ן קרי יב ן ערז בקי ןי רכהילראלהרעמ רי ר הקי ןרדאיד ררו

Answer (Ri): When he seeded them for Yerek, the Yerek is primary, and everything, i.e. the seeds and Yerek, is tithed based on when it is picked, like Yerek;

ו םא ערז ערזל רשעתמ לכה רבעשל רחא ןמז וארה י רשעמל ערז אלו רתב הטיקל רתב אלו ערז רשעמל י וארה ןמז רחא רבעשל לכה רשעתמ ערזל ערז םא

1. If he seeded them for seeds, everything is tithed retroactively, based on the time proper for Ma'aser or seeds, and not based on when it was picked, like Yerek;

יכהלו אנת אשירב קרי ערזו אפיסבו ערז קריו אשירבד קרי רקיע אפיסבו ערז רקיע ערז אפיסבו רקיע קרי אשירבד קריו ערז אפיסבו ערזו קרי אשירב אנת יכהלו 2. This is why it taught in the Reisha Yerek and seeds, and in the Seifa seeds and Yerek, for in the Reisha the Yerek is primary, and in the Seifa the seeds are primary.

אקפנו הנימ ימנ ןיינעל ןמ הערה לע הפיה קרישכד רקיע יוה קרי הפי ערזשכו רקיע יוה ערז הפי יוהו ןמ ערזה ערזה ןמ יוהו הפי ערז יוה רקיע ערזשכו הפי קרי יוה רקיע קרישכד הפיה לע הערה ןמ ןיינעל ימנ הנימ אקפנו לע יה קר ןמ הפיה לע הערה לע הפיה ןמ

Another consequence is regarding tithing from the bad on the good. When the Yerek is primary, the Yerek is considered good. When the seeds are primary, the seeds are considered good, and [tithing] seeds on Yerek is from the good on the bad.

ןכו עמשמ ימלשוריב קרפב ]יעיבר[ :תורשעמד ]יעיבר[ קרפב ימלשוריב עמשמ ןכו

Support: The Yerushalmi in Ma'aseros connotes like this.

TOSFOS (DH l'Zera) explains that there is a difference between Shechalayim and Gargir planted for their seeds and Shechalayim and Gargir planted for their greens. Intent at the time they were planted is the main factor used to determine the primary produce of the plant (Ikar).

Any other product from a plant is considered secondary (Tafel). This rule affects a number of Halachic considerations.

11 First, the Halachah is that one may not separate Terumah from poor quality produce ("Ra") on behalf of high-quality produce ("Yafeh").

In the case of Shechalayim and Gargir, the part of the vegetable for which it was planted is considered the higher quality produce ("Yafeh"), while the other fruit is deemed poorer quality ("Ra"). For example, if one planted these vegetables for their greens, he may not separate the seeds as Terumah on behalf of the greens.

Second, the type of Ma'aser that must be separated from vegetables (greens) is determined by the time at which they are harvested. For example, vegetables harvested before Rosh Hashanah of the third year of the Shemitah cycle are subject to the obligation of Ma'aser Sheni. Vegetables harvested after Rosh Hashanah of the third year are subject to Ma'aser Ani.

In contrast, the type of Ma'aser that must be separated from seeds is determined by the time at which the plant reaches a third of its full growth. Seeds from a plant that reached a third of its growth before Rosh Hashanah of the third year are subject to the obligation of Ma'aser Sheni. Seeds from a plant that has reached a third of its growth after Rosh Hashanah of the third year are subject to the obligation of Ma'aser Ani.

If Shechalayim or Gargir plants grow during the second year but are picked in the third year, which type of Ma'aser must one separate from them? If one planted them for their greens, he must separate Ma'aser Ani. If one planted them for their seeds, he must separate Ma'aser Sheni.

In the course of its deliberations here, the Gemara tells us that when R' Zeira felt weak, he would sit outside the door of R' Yehuda, so that he could stand up in honor of the rabbis that entered and exited the house.5

Kav V'Yashar (Chap. 45) learns from this Gemara a general principle, that a person should strive to always occupy himself with mitzvos.

He states that he received a tradition from "Anshei Ma'aseh" ("Men of Deeds") that when they found themselves idle — i.e., not involved in performing any specific mitzvah — they would finger their tzitzis and look at them.

5 https://www.dafdigest.org/masechtos/Eruvin/Eruvin%20028.pdf

12 He explains that from a Kabbalistic perspective as well, looking at tzitzis is an activity of great weight which helps in the process of restoring the Divine Presence to its proper place in the world.

The Kav v'Yashar reveals a little of the Kabbalistic significance of looking at tzitzis, with a fascinating gematriya: A person looks at the tzitzis with two eyes. An eye, in Hebrew, is Ayin — the numerical equivalent of 130, so two eyes are the numerical equivalent of 260.

.in the Torah) is the numerical equivalent of 590 תציצ The word tzitzis itself (which is spelled Together, the two numbers equal 850, the numerical equivalent of the word techeles. Hence, posits the Kav v'Yashar, a person who focuses his eyes on his tzitzis fulfills the purpose of techeles even in our day and age.

The Gemara further examines the baraita cited earlier. The Master said that Rabbi Yehuda says: Heart of palm is like a tree in all its legal aspects, except that it may be bought with second-tithe money. The Gemara asks: Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is identical to that of the first tanna.

JASTROW

13 Rav Ezra Bick writes:6

I. Rav Yehuda's View

The Aramaic word kora refers to the edible "soft part of the palm" (Rashi, s.v. kora). The Gemara (Berachot 36a) brings a dispute between Rav Yehuda and Shemuel as to whether one who eats kora recites borei peri ha- adama or she-ha-kol nihya bi-dvaro.

The Gemara discusses the view of Shemuel, who relegates kora to the status of she-ha-kol. However, before we analyze the reasons presented for Shemuel's position, let us first inquire as to the reason underlying Rav Yehuda's view. If Rav Yehuda dismisses Shemuel's arguments for reciting she-ha-kol, why does he not require borei peri ha-etz? After all, the palm clearly has the halakhic status of a tree, as evidenced by the fact that one recites ha- etz when partaking of its fruit – dates. Thus, if the kora is an edible fruit of the palm tree, why shouldn't it warrant the berakha of borei peri ha-etz?

The Ra'a in our sugya raises this question and suggests the following explanation:

"Rav Yehuda says [one recites over kora] borei peri ha-adama, for he considers it a fruit. But nevertheless, one does not recite borei peri ha-etz, even though it is a tree, because whenever IT ITSELF IS NOT A FRUIT, it is not appropriate to recite over it and call it 'peri ha-etz,' but rather 'peri ha-adama,' [which refers to something] suitable for consumption [and] that grows from the ground, since it is no worse than vegetables."

The Ra'a's answer, that "it itself is not a fruit," may be explained as follows. The part of a tree called a "fruit" earns this title not simply because it is edible, but because from a botanical standpoint, it is a "fruit" – meaning, the part of a tree that is created each year from the fertilization of flowers, and which has seeds. The Hebrew word peri evolves from the word for reproduction – as in "peru u-revu" – and a peri is thus defined as that part which is meant to be the basis of the tree's reproduction. Accordingly, the Ra'a establishes that even an edible substance growing on a tree cannot necessarily be termed "peri ha-etz" if it does not meet the definition of a peri.

But the question then arises, why does one recite over such a substance borei PERI ha-adama, if it does not qualify as a "peri"? The Ra'a answers that anything that grows from the ground is considered "peri ha-adama," such as vegetables, which are leaves, and not botanical fruits. However, this distinction, between "peri ha-etz" and "peri ha-adama," requires explanation. Why does the term peri ha-etz apply only to botanical fruits, whereas peri ha-adama refers to any substance that grows from the ground?

The answer lies in the basic difference between trees and vegetables. The Gemara (40b) establishes that for purposes of the berakha of borei peri ha-etz, we define "tree" as follows: "That when you remove its fruit, the branch that can produce [fruit] again remains. But if when you remove its fruit the branch that can produce [fruit] again does not remain, one does not recite over it [the fruit] borei peri ha-etz, but rather borei peri ha- adama." Thus, the term "peri ha-etz" refers to a tree that remains in existence continually and produces fruits that can be removed without affecting the tree itself. I believe that this is in fact the meaning of the expression "borei peri ha-etz": the "peri" is the product of some other item, which is not a fruit, but rather an enduring entity. The berakha of borei peri ha-etz stems from the contrast between the enduring entity that produces, and the fruit that grows from it.

6 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/shiur-03-masekhet-berakhot-36a-kora-and-definition-peri-0

14 Vegetables and other plants that grow annually from the ground are all defined as peri ha-adama – including vegetables that are just leaves (such a lettuce) and those that may be considered "fruits" from a botanical standpoint, such as tomatoes. These are all considered peri ha-adama because the enduring entity that produces them is the ground itself, and the edible substance that grows from it is the entire plant.

Therefore, the Ra'a explains, the berakha of borei peri ha-etz applies strictly to botanical fruits, which features the aforementioned relationship with the permanent tree that produces them. If, however, one partakes of a different portion of the tree, such as the kora, which is essentially a branch, one cannot recite borei peri ha-etz, since the kora is not a "fruit" that contrasts with the permanent tree. One does, however, recite borei peri ha- adama, because every plant, be it a vegetable or a tree, is a "peri ha-adama" – an edible substance produced from a permanent entity, which, in this case, is the ground.

It emerges, then, that the term "peri ha-adama" does not precisely correspond to "peri ha- etz." The berakha of peri ha-adama does not pertain specifically to vegetables, but rather to all edible items produced from the ground. Fruits and all edible parts of trees are also included under the category of peri ha- adama, and thus when one eats an edible portion of the tree over which he cannot recite borei peri ha-etz, he recites borei peri ha-adama.

Until now we have dealt exclusively with the position of the Ra'a. Might we, however, suggest different answers for our original question, of why Rav Yehuda requires reciting borei peri ha-adama over kora, rather than borei peri ha-etz?

Two alternate possibilities may be considered. First, one might argue that kora does not represent the ikar peri – the primary fruit of the tree. Since palm trees produce a more significant fruit – dates – the kora cannot therefore be considered the fruit of the palm. This approach differs from the Ra'a's explanation in that it denies the kora's status as a "peri" not due to an objective standard that kora fails to meet by virtue of its essential properties, but rather due to its relative unimportance as compared to other parts of the tree. Dates, which are the primary goal of growing a palm and its main edible component, triumphs over the kora in achieving the status of a peri, effectively denying the kora this status.

These different approaches will yield practical ramifications in a situation of a tree with an edible branch and no edible fruit. Practically speaking, the kora sold today ("heart of palms") grows on special palm trees planted specifically for this purpose, which, in many instances, do not produce any fruit. According to the second explanation, this type of kora should require the berakha of borei peri ha-etz, whereas the Ra'as position, that restricts borei peri ha-etz to botanical fruits, would require reciting borei peri ha-adama over kora grown from such trees.

Another possibility is to extend the Gemara's explanation of Shemuel's position to Rav Yehuda. Shemuel maintains that one recites she-ha-kol over kora because, as the Gemara explains, it eventually hardens. This property renders kora ineligible for the status of a peri of any type, as we will see later. Rav Yehuda disagrees and applies the general title of peri even to a substance that ultimately hardens. With respect, however, to the berakha of borei peri ha-etz, a clear distinction must exist between the tree and the fruit (due to the reason described earlier in explaining the Ra'a's position). The fact that the kora eventually hardens and becomes inedible like the actual palm tree itself undermines this contrast. It therefore cannot be considered a fruit of the tree and must be rather seen as part of the tree itself. This is due not to its botanical function, as the Ra'a explained, but rather to it physical properties. The result, however, is similar: despite the kora's current edibility, it is not sufficiently separated from the tree in terms of its essential quality to warrant the berakha of borei peri ha-etz.

15 This third explanation might assume practical significance in cases of trees with edible substances which are not botanical fruits, but do not harden. According to this approach, such substances would, indeed, warrant the berakha of borei peri ha-etz, insofar as they are edible foods that grow from a hard, inedible tree.

II. Shemuel's View

Shemuel maintains that one who eats the kora of a palm recites she-ha-kol, because, as the Gemara explains, it eventually hardens. At first glance, Shemuel believed that this property of the kora renders it ineligible for the status of a peri, because it is basically part of the inedible tree.

The edible kora is simply a temporary stage and thus not reflective of the item's essential status. One recites the berakha of borei peri ha-etz over an item with the formal halakhic status of a peri, a status that defines the item of which one partakes. If an item lacks this formal status, then one recites a berakha merely over the personal benefit he derives from its consumption, and thus recites the generic berakha of she-ha-kol.

The Gemara challenges this position from the halakha mandating the recitation of borei peri ha-adama over a radish, which also ultimately hardens. According to Shemuel, just as the eventual hardening of the kora negates its status as peri ha-etz, so should this property render the radish ineligible for inclusion in the category of borei peri ha-adama, and it should therefore require a she-ha-kol. The Gemara answers that one plants a radish plant primarily to produce radishes, whereas the palm is planted specifically for the dates, not for kora.

Two approaches may be taken in understanding the relationship between this answer and the original explanation given for Shemuel's position – that the kora ultimately grows hard.

The Rashba understood that the Gemara retracts the first explanation and views Shemuel's position in an entirely new light. Shemuel requires a she-ha-kol because people do not plant palms with the kora in mind. Accordingly, if one indeed plants palms specifically to grow kora, as is done today, one would not recite she-ha-kol, but rather borei peri ha-adama. (See section I for an explanation why one would not recite borei peri ha-etz.) The rationale underlying this position is that the status of peri ha-etz hinges on the intent of those who planted the tree. "Peri" means the intended goal of the process of growing a tree. An accompanying by-product cannot be deemed a "fruit," and thus one who partakes of it recites only the generic berakha over personal benefit – she-hakol.

The Rosh, by contrast, states explicitly that Shemuel's position results from a combination of both explanations given in the Gemara. In order for a product of a tree to lose its status of peri ha-etz, it must be a substance that eventually hardens, and that does not represent the intended result of the tree's planting.

In explaining the Rosh's comments, we might suggest that in truth, the primary factor underlying Shemuel's view, as he himself indeed states, is the eventual hardening of the kora. This eventuality strips the food of its status as a peri, since its current edibility does not reflect its true status, at which it is unsuitable for consumption.

But if people plant the tree specifically to produce this substance, then its current state indeed reflects the primary intent of the planting; hence, we should not look to its future stages in determining its essential status. The planter's intent works to establish the current stage as the final stage, since this is, indeed, the final, intended stage of development envisioned by the planter. Thus, its eventual hardening is of no consequence. And so the radish, despite its eventual hardening, qualifies as peri ha-adama, whereas kora cannot be deemed a peri, since it ultimately hardens and does not signify the primary intent of the palm's planting.

16

Our Daf discusses the status of kora with respect to other halakhot. It emerges from the Gemara's discussion that according to all views, kora lacks the formal status of food with regard to the ability to contract tum'at okhelin (the status of ritual impurity applicable to foods).

This halakha accommodates Shemuel's position, that one who eats kora recites she-ha-kol, since it does not have the formal status of a peri. Indeed, the Ritva (there in Eiruvin) explains that kora is ineligible for tum'at okhelin because it eventually hardens and the palm is not initially planted with the kora in mind. (Note that the Ritva adopts the Rosh's approach to our sugya, rather than the Rashba's.)

The Ritva thus enlists Shemuel's reasoning with regard to berakhot as the basis for the Gemara's ruling in Eiruvin concerning tum'at okhelin. The question, however, arises, how would Rav Yehuda explain the halakha established in Eiruvin? After all, he presumably accepts the Gemara's ruling that kora does not contract tum'at okhelin, which seemingly indicates that it lacks the formal status of food. But if this is the case, then how could Rav Yehuda mandate reciting borei peri ha-adama over kora?

The most likely answer is that Rav Yehuda does not accept the restriction of birkat ha-peirot (namely, borei peri ha-etz and borei peri ha-adama) to items bearing the specific identity of either a peri ha-etz or peri ha- adama. Although kora indeed lacks the formal status of food or a peri as far as its essential classification is concerned, nevertheless, one recites a berakha as an expression of praise to the Almighty in which he describes that which he eats. With respect to this halakha, anything that grows from the tree may be termed peri ha-etz, and anything that grows from the ground may be described as peri ha-adama. We may draw evidence to this theory from an earlier sugya, where Rav Yehuda holds that one recites borei peri ha-adama over raw wheat flour, regardless of the fundamental change the wheat undergoes through the process of grinding. We might suggest that Rav Yehuda follows consistently his own position, that birkat ha-peirot does not require the formal halakhic status of a peri.

Tosefot addresses the issue of soft green almonds, which are edible for a brief period after the almond's blossoming in springtime. Over the course of the summer, the almond hardens and develops a shell, while the seed inside ripens, thus developing into the familiar almond nut. Tosefot rules that if one eats soft almonds in the springtime, then according to Shemuel, he recites she-ha-kol, because it eventually hardens and does not represent the primary intent of the tree's planting.

The Ra'a, however, disagrees, claiming that since the almond is itself a botanical fruit, it is not subject to Shemuel's halakha. Earlier, we encountered the Ra'a's position that one does not recite borei peri ha-etz over an item that does not have the formal status of a fruit. The Ra'a now adds that a botanical fruit earns the berakha of borei peri ha-etz even if it ultimately hardens. The Ra'a appears to have grouped all fruits into two categories, the first being items essentially defined as botanical fruits, and the second consisting of other edible items grown from the ground, which we consider peri ha-adama by virtue of their edibility. If a fruit of this second type will eventually harden and become inedible, it loses its status as a peri, since that status evolves solely from the given item's edibility. However, an item essentially defined as a peri may earn that status even if it eventually hardens, so long as it is edible in its current state.

17 Other citations of Reb Zeira: Berachot 46a

The Gemara recounts: Rabbi Zeira took ill. Rabbi Abbahu went to visit him and resolved: If the little man with the scorched legs, a nickname for Rabbi Zeira, is cured, I will make a festival, a feast, for the Sages.

Rabbi Zeira was cured and Rabbi Abbahu made a feast for all the Sages. When it came time to break bread, Rabbi Abbahu said to Rabbi Zeira: Master, please break bread for us.

Rabbi Zeira said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with that halakha of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said: The host breaks bread? Rabbi Abbahu broke bread for them.

When the time came to recite the blessing, Rabbi Abbahu said to Rabbi Zeira: Master, recite Grace after Meals on our behalf. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Doesn’t the Master hold in accordance with that halakha of Rabbi Huna of Babylonia, who said: He who breaks bread recites Grace after Meals?

"God will deal kindly with you (Ruth 1:8)" .

18 Rabbi Chanina son of Ada says, "He will deal (ya'aseh)" is what is written (k'tiv), "as you dealt with the dead" when you were occupied with their shrouds, "and with me" when they renounced their ketubot.

Rabbi Zeira says: "This book [of Ruth] does not have anything in it concerned with impurity or purity nor what is forbidden and that is permitted.

So why is it written? To teach us the greatness of the reward for acts of loving-kindness."

Ruth Rabba 2:14

The Gemara relates: Rami bar Tamrei, who was the father-in-law of Rami bar Dikkulei, had the leg of the letter vav in the term: “And the Lord slew [vayaharog] all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:15), written in his phylacteries, severed by a perforation.

He came before Rabbi Zeira to clarify the halakha. Rabbi Zeira said to him: Go bring a child who is neither wise nor stupid, but of average intelligence; if he reads the term as “And the Lord slew [vayaharog]” then it is fit, as despite the perforation the letter is still seen as a vav. But if not, then it is as though the term here: Will be slain [yehareg], written without the letter vav, and it is unfit.

What is the meaning of Reb Zeira’s constant inviting yanuka (a kid) to represent the norm?

Bio

Rabbi Zeira was born in Babylonia, where he spent his early youth. He was a pupil of Ḥisda, of Huna, and of Judah b. Ezekiel in Pumbedita. R. Zera was a student of R. Yehudah b. Yehezkel in Babylonia. Yet he greatly yearned to move to the Land of Israel and fasted for 100 days before he could feel worthy to do so. There, he studied under R. Elazar b. Pedat and R. Abahu and became known as the Pious Man of Babylonia.

He associated also with other prominent teachers of the Babylonian school, including Rav Nachman, Hamnuna, and Sheshet, who called him a great man. His love for the Holy Land led him to decide upon leaving his native country and emigrating to Israel. This resolve, however, he kept secret from his teacher Judah, who disapproved of any emigration from Babylonia. Before

19 leaving, he spied upon Judah while the latter was bathing, and the words which he then overheard he took with him as a valuable and instructive memento.

A favorable dream, in which he was told that his sins had been forgiven, encouraged him to undertake the journey to the Holy Land. and before starting he spent a hundred days in fasting, in order to forget the dialectic method of instruction of the Babylonian schools, that this might not handicap him in the Land of Israel. His journey took him through Akrokonia, where he met Hiyya bar Ashi, and through Sura. When he reached the River Jordan he could not control his impatience, but passed through the water without removing his clothes. When jeered at by an unbeliever who stood by, he answered, "Why should not I be impatient when I pursue a blessing which was denied even to Moses and Aaron?". (Avodah Zara 16b)

Arrival in the Land of Israel: calling of him names

Rabbi Zeira's arrival in the Land of Israel and his first experiences there have been recorded in various anecdotes. He was small of stature and of dark complexion, for which reason Assi called him "Black Pot", according to an expression current in Babylonia; this name possibly also contained an allusion to his sputtering manner of speech.

Perhaps with reference to a malformation of his legs, he was called "the little one with burned legs," or "the dark, burned one with the stubby legs". But a different explanation of this is given in Bava Metzia 85a, where it is said that he fasted in order to merit protection from the fires of Gehenna and that he then tested himself every thirty days by sitting in the fire without coming to harm, until one day the sages distracted him (cast an eye upon him) and his legs were burned. Thus, these nicknames throw light upon Zeira's ascetic piety.

Rabbi Zeira was highly esteemed by Abbahu, the rector at Caesarea, of whom he considered himself a pupil. He was ordained rabbi, a distinction usually denied to members of the Babylonian school, and though in the beginning he refused this honor, he later accepted it on learning of the atoning powers connected with the dignity.

Because of the difficult route taken by Zeira to attain the rabbinate, when finally ordained, his fellow jurists humorously called out before him: "Even though she painted not her eyes with antimony, neither darkened her cheeks with rouge, nor braided her hair, yet is she still a damsel of exceptional beauty!", lines traditionally cited at weddings.

Upon receiving semicha, his title changed from Rav to Rabbi.

His relationship to kids:

20 And Rabbi Zeira said: A person should not say to a child: I will give you something, and then not give it to him, because he thereby comes to teach him about lying, as it is stated:

And they deceive everyone his neighbour, and truth they speak 4 ד שׁיִאְו וּהֵﬠֵרְבּ ,וּלֵּתָהְי תֶמֱאֶו אֹל אֹל תֶמֱאֶו ,וּלֵּתָהְי וּהֵﬠֵרְבּ שׁיִאְו not; they have taught their tongue to speak lies, they weary ;וּרֵבַּדְי וּדְמִּל םָנוֹשְׁל רֶבַּדּ - ,רֶקֶשׁ ,רֶקֶשׁ .themselves to commit iniquity הֵוֲﬠַה .וּאְלִנ הֵוֲﬠַה Jer 9:4

“They have taught their tongues to speak lies”. One must not accustom a child to fail to honor commitments.

Yanukah: child, childhood, wunderkind

Derush Chidushei HaLevana Yom Tov Lipman Heller 6:1

Troping on the verse: Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast Thou founded 3 ג יִפִּמ ,םיִלְלוֹע םיִקְנֹיְו -- ָתְּדַסִּי - {strength, {N ֹע :ז because of Thine adversaries; that Thou mightest still the ןַﬠַמְל ;יֶרְרוֹצ תיִבְּשַׁהְל ,בֵיוֹא ,בֵיוֹא תיִבְּשַׁהְל .enemy and the avenger מוּ תִ ְ ַנ ֵ קּ .ם ִמ Psalm 8:2-3

21

22

The Yenukah from the Village of Sichnin was a child prodigy mentioned a few times in the Zohar and was the son of Rav Hamnuna Saba.

The Yenukah is buried in the Beis Hachaim of Tzfat. There are two opinion of where he is buried. Traditionally his Kaver was shown to be located in a cave above and to the left of Kever Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya, whose entrance is right near the Kever of Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Nun, a student of the Arizal.

In a recent study by Yisrael Meir Gabbay and Ohalei Tzadikim based on descriptions by early visitors to the Kever, he instead establishes its location in the cave of Rabbi Yakov Beirav.7

Rav Yonatan Chipman writes: 8

Rav Hemnuna Sabba’s Wunderkind of the Zohar

In Zohar, parashas Balak, we encounter a figure seen in several places in the Zohar—the yanuka or child prodigy. This lad is remarkable, not only for his extraordinary knowledge of Torah (both revealed and esoteric—here, he delivers a series of off-the-cuff Kabbalistic homilies), not only for

7 When Rabbi Nachman of Breslov came to Tzfat during his trip to Eretz Yisroel (1777) he visited the cave of the Yenuka. Until that time people refrained from entering the cave out of fear that a viperous snake lived in it. After Rabbi Nachman entered and emerged unscathed other people started entering as well.

8 http://hitzeiyehonatan.blogspot.com/2009/07/balak-zohar.html

23 his meticulous piety, but also for his preternatural spiritual perceptions and powers—which include scathing criticism of the Companions themselves!—and an aura of mystery that surrounds him. Besides everything else, it’s a good story on the simple human level.

Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Yehudah were walking on the way. They came to the village of Sakhnin, where Rav Hemnuna Sabba had lived, and lodged at the home of his wife [i.e., widow], who had one small son who was in school all day. On that day he left school and came home. He saw these sages, and his mother said to him: Approach these holy men and get a blessing from them. He approached them, but before he came to them he turned back. He told his mother: I don’t want to approach them, because they did not read the Shema today, and I have been taught thusly: Whoever did not read Shema at the proper time is under a ban the entire day. They heard him and were astonished, so they lifted their hands and blessed him. They then said: Surely, that is how it was. Today we were involved in caring for a certain bride and groom who didn’t have their needs and had postponed their marriage, and there was nobody else to act on their behalf. Hence we acted on their behalf, and did not read the Shema in its proper time. For one who is engaged in a mitzvah is exempt from performing another mitzvah.

Zohar III: 186a-187a:

The unusual nature of this boy (child? lad? youth?) is shown straightaway in his reluctance to follow his mother’s instruction to show respect to these distinguished visitors and is reinforced by his outspoken and unabashed criticism of their behavior, of which he could only know through supernatural means.

They said to him: My son, how did you know this? He said to them: From the smell of your clothing when I approached you. They were astonished; after that they sat down and washed their hands and broke bread. Rabbi Yehudah’s hands were soiled, but he washed his hands and said the blessing [this seems to refer to the Garce after Meals, as per below] without washing. He [the yanuka] said to him: If you are disciples of Rav Shemaya the Pious, you ought not to recite the blessing with soiled hands, for one who blesses with soiled hands is subject to the death penalty.

It is not clear whether the boy accepted R. Yehudah and R. Yitzhak’s earlier explanation for their failure to recite Shema (which was perfectly legitimate halakhically); in any event, here he catches one of them out in another ritual violation.9 This is exacerbated by their failure to respect the tradition they had received from their saintly teacher, Shemaya the Pious. Meanwhile, the yanuka delivers the first of a series of Kabbalistic homilies:

The child began by saying: “When they enter into the Tent of Meeting, they shall wash their hands with water and not die” (Exod 30:20). We derive from this scriptural verse that one who is not careful about this and appears before the King with soiled hands is culpable of the death penalty. What is the reason? Because a person’s hands sit upon the heights of the world. There is one finger in a person’s hand which is the same finger that Moses lifted up. It is written, “And you shall make bars of acacia wood, five for the frame of the sanctuary on one side, and five for the frame of the sanctuary on the opposite side” (Exod 26:26-27). And it says, “The middle bar shall span through,

9 He adds: Incidentally, at this late date, well after the Destruction and the Hadrianic Persecutions [circa 135 CE], it’s difficult to imagine that this is the same Shemaya as is familiar from the zugot in Pirkei Avot—but who knows? (sic)

24 from one end to the other” (ibid., 28). Now, lest you think that that middle bar was not among those five, it is not so; rather, that middle bar was among the five: two on one side, two on the other, and one in the middle. And this was the central bar, the pillar of Jacob, the secret of Moses, like the five fingers of a human being. And this middle bar is in the center, greater and more sublime than the others, and through it all the others are sustained. And these five boards correspond to the five hundred years during which the Tree of Life goes out. And the holy covenant is awakened by the five fingers of the hand…

The five fingers of the hand, to which the practical rule of washing hands apply, opens up an entire world of associations: the five boards that held the Sanctuary together; and, in turn, the cluster of five sefirot found in the center of the Sefirotic “map”—Hesed, Gevurah, Netzah, and Hod, which surround Tiferet, ”the pillar of Jacob,” the central sefirah which harmonizes and mediates among the extremes: the “middle bar that spans from one end to the other.” In the imagery of the sefirot as Adam Kadmon, the archetypal human being, Tiferet is the torso, to which the four limbs are connected. Moses, who in some schemes is Nezah, is also part of the central column of the sefirot: Yaakov and Moshe, as Tiferet and Da’at, hold the entire structure together.

More generally, the Yanuka’s homilies are all focused on examples of specific halakhot or ritual practices and customs and their Kabbalistic rationales, showing himself, despite his youth, as a sage whose scope of knowledge and thought equally embrace halakhah and aggadah/Kabbalah. We continue here:

Rabbi Judah said: My son, what is your father’s name? The lad was silent for a moment; then he went over to his mother and kissed her. He said to her: Mother, they asked me about father…. His mother answered him: My son, have you examined them? He said: I have examined them and have not found them fitting. His mother whispered to him, and he returned to them. He said: You asked me about father. Now, he has departed this world, but every day when sublime pious men come on the road, he follows after them as if he were a beggar. And if you are sublime holy people, how is it that you did not notice a beggar walking after you?! But before I saw you [i.e., as really are] and now too I see you, for father never sees [a wise man] without following him with his donkey, so as to carry the burden of Torah. Since you did not merit to see father going after you, I will not tell you who my father is. Rabbi Judah said to R Yitzhak: It seems to me that this lad is not a human being [an expression of astonishment; meant as hyperbole, not that he is literally not human].

In this brief exchange, we see the Yanuka imbued with a deep sense of belonging to a kind of spiritual elite—so much so that his very identity, the name of his father, is a secret that must be kept from all but the holiest and purest of men. Equally strange, R. Yitzhak and R. Yehudah seem to accept with grace and humility the insult implied by his telling them that they are not worthy of knowing his name!

They ate their meal, while the lad said new and wondrous words of Torah. Upon finishing they said: “Come, let us say Grace.” He said to them: You have spoken well, for the Holy Name is not to be blessed until the Invitation (i.e., Zimmun) is said. He then quoted the verse: “I will bless the Lord at all times” (Ps 34:2). He said: the permissive form, “I will bless” (or: “let me bless”) is used, for when a man sits at the table, the Shechinah is there, and the Other Side is also there. But when a man invites the company to bless the Holy One,

25 the Shechinah takes her place above to receive the blessings, and the Other Side is subdued. But if a man does not invite the company to bless, the Other Side hears and pushes in, so that he may have a share in that blessing.… [He then elaborates as to why this danger doesn’t exist in the case of other blessings, such as that over fruit. The scene then concludes:] Rabbi Judah said: Happy is our lot, for never until this moment have, I heard these things. Assuredly, I say, this is no son of man…..

They again kiss him and give him blessings; the Yanuka presents several more Kabbalistic homilies on a variety of interwoven subjects, until they finally prepare to say Grace. The conclusion of the scene is particularly moving: Zohar III: 187b-188a:

They came and kissed him as before, and they said: “Come, let us say Grace.” He said: I shall say Grace, for all that you have heard thus far has been from me. I shall thereby fulfill in myself the verse, “He that has a bountiful eye shall be blessed” (Prov 22:9), which may be read as “shall bless.” Why? Because “he has given of his bread to the poor” (ibid.). You have eaten of the bread and food of my Torah. When they came to Rabbi Shimon, they told him all that had happened. R. Shimon was greatly astonished, and said: He is a mighty rock, and is worthy of this and even more than one can imagine. He is the son of Rav Hemnuna the Elder. R. Eleazar was very excited and said: I must go to see that Flaming Lamp. But R. Shimon said: His name will not be known in the world, because there is something very exceptional about him. It is the light of the anointing of his father which shines on him from the supernal light, and this secret is not to be divulged among the Companions.

Small Part of the Martyred Admor, the Yanuka, Rabbi Yosef Yom Tov of Stropkov's Siddur

26 Herb Weiner writes a tender story about a current day Yanuka10

When I decided last February, during a visit to Israel, to attend a much-heralded wedding of the children of two great Hasidic dynasties that was to take place in the town of B'nai Brak near Tel Aviv. Sorele, the granddaughter of the Vishnitzer Rebbe, was to marry Berele, the future Rebbe of Belz, and about thirty thousand guests were expected from all parts of the world—among them dozens of important Rebbes representing other Hasidic dynasties. Invitations, I was told, had even been sent to a hundred Rebbes who were already in the Heavenly Garden of Eden but who, presumably, would not mind interrupting their studies in that higher academy in order to attend the wedding—for according to Hasidic doctrine, the upper and the lower worlds are utterly dependent upon each other. The “quickening below” brings about the “quickening above,” is how the Zohar puts it.

About the Vishnitzer line of Hasidism I knew only that they prided themselves on a rich musical tradition, but I was somewhat better informed about the House of Belz. According to legend, the founder of that dynasty, a certain 19th-century Polish rabbi named Sholem (who was descended from the famous Rokeach family of Amsterdam) resolved one day to fast and stay awake for 1000 successive nights studying Torah in order that he might, as promised in Kabbalistic tradition, attain to a mystic communion with the prophet Elijah. With the help of his wife, who stayed up along with him, holding a candle so that he could see to study, he completed the ordeal, and on the thousand-and-first night, Elijah appeared to teach him mysteries of Torah. Though it was not given to Rabbi Sholem's wife to learn these secrets, she too was later permitted to hear Elijah's voice and she received from him the promise that one day her offspring would light up the world even as she had lit up the night for her husband.

After these beginnings, the House of Belz grew so rapidly that it was not unusual for five- thousand Hasidim to travel to Belz in order to spend the holidays with Rabbi Sholem. The oldest son of Rabbi Sholem was called Yehoshuele, and when he became the Belzer Rebbe

10 https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/herbert-weiner-2/a-wedding-in-bnai-brak/ July 1965

27 after his father's death, the dynasty began to issue a weekly newspaper called “Strengtheners of Religion.” The third Belzer Rebbe, whose name was Yissachar Dov Rokeach, made trips to Hungary, Rumania, Czechoslovakia, and other countries, adding thousands of Hasidim to the House of Belz with each trip.

The fourth Rebbe was Arele, a man of fragile health, who spent most of his time alone studying Torah. It was in the time of Reb Arele that the Nazi holocaust burst upon the Jewish world. The relatively passive Hasidim were slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands. When the Nazis came to Poland, it was learned that at the head of the list, scheduled for deportation and murder, was Aaron Rokeach, the Rabbi of Belz. His followers hid him in a nearby village and one of them, who resembled Arele physically, volunteered to stay behind and wait in the Rebbe's house for the Germans. They came, seized the man, tortured and killed him—only to discover later that the real Belzer was still alive, whereupon a search was started. The Hasidim gathered a large sum of money, jewelry, and other objects of value. By bribing some German officers, they managed to smuggle their Rebbe over the border and into Budapest, where his younger brother joined him. The two brothers—both of whose wives and children were left behind and soon killed by the Nazis—resolved never to part from each other. Dressed as Rumanian peasants, their beards shaven, they were both smuggled across further borders and finally reached Syria, from whence they made their way to Palestine.

28 When the Palestinian followers of Belz heard that their Rebbe had arrived, a large group of them came to meet him, bringing with them the traditional silken black gown and fur shtreimel. At first, it is said, the Rebbe did not want to put them on, saying it was all “too late,” but he yielded finally to the pleas of his Hasidim and agreed to act as their Rebbe once more, though on condition that he take up residence in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem. The Rebbe never remarried but his younger brother did, and in time a son, Yissachar Dov—called Berele—was born to him, thus making it likely that the Belzer line would not end with the death of Arele and his brother.1 But the joy in the court of Belz was short-lived, for the father of the infant died of a heart attack soon after the child's birth. The Hasidim then came to the child's mother and told her that he must be educated as one destined for Hasidic royalty. The mother resisted, not wanting to be separated from her son, and a compromise was eventually arranged whereby Berele would live at home with his mother but would study with the Hasidim. Thereafter the residents of Yehudah Halevi Street in Tel Aviv became accustomed to seeing a little boy wearing white stockings, with a gilded little hat on his head, walking through the streets to school, accompanied by an honor guard of Hasidim. After school, the child would return home, change his clothes, and play with the children of the neighborhood.

When Berele reached the age of eight, his uncle the Rebbe died, and the Hasidim would no longer be put off. The mother finally yielded and the child was sent to study at the Belzer Yeshivah in Jerusalem. The years passed, and Berele saw less and less of his mother. But the Hasidim rejoiced, for it was becoming clear that they had found in this boy a future Rebbe. They called him the Yanuka—a term used in mystical tradition for a child prodigy to whom even elder Hasidim would come in order to learn Torah and receive blessings. After Berele's bar-mitzvah, the Belzer Hasidim began talking about a marriage for him, many “offerings” having been made from other Hasidic dynasties. The Belzer elders remained noncommittal until word came from the Rabbi of Vishnitz that his granddaughter Sorele might be available for a shidduch ; negotiations then began in earnest. The mother of the Yanuka visited the bride

29 and gave her approval. The next day the Yanuka visited the Court of Vishnitz in B'nai Brak and met with the grandfather of his future bride.

He did not, of course, meet the bride. That meeting took place three days before the wedding in the form of a brief encounter consisting of a traditional dance where bride and groom were momentarily “united” by a handkerchief. At the wedding itself the pair would again dance, this time the “Kosher Dance,” according to the custom of Belz. The bride would hold the edges of the bridegroom's long cloak and they would dance about for a few moments while the crowd clapped and sang.

David Ruderman writes:11

In the year 1620,' Abraham b. Naphtali Hirsch Schor, the head of the rabbinical court of Satanov, Poland, wrote to Rabbi Mordecai b. David Katz of the neighboring community of Lvov (Lemberg) about a "great and terrible act of God which I heard and saw with my own eyes here in the holy congregation of Satanov." R. Abraham related the following story:12

... Here in the holy congregation of Gr6dek (Gorodok) three parasangs away from Satanov, there lives a man named R. Gedaliah with a small four-and-a half-year-old son. The youth is a mere boy having no superiority in his studies over the rest of the children of his age. But when his father began to study the Hebrew alphabet and the prayer book with him and saw that the holy spirit rests upon him, he subsequently brought the boy before me to the holy congregation of Satanov to test him. And I tested him several times-a hundred times and more-myself along with my colleagues who were with me and we saw the work of the Lord and his wonders, for He is exceedingly great. I asked him: "Please tell me the beginning of the halakhah learned today." He immediately related the halakhah, answering: "Rabbi Ashi said that our Mishnah states: I can likewise prove," etc.

Rabbi Abraham then proceeded to question the boy about various passages in the Zohar, asking the father to have his son quote from specific pages. The child answered correctly even when the

11https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/57067550/006._David_B._Ruderman_- _Three_Contemporary_Perceptions_of_a_Polish_Wunderkind_of_the_Seventeenth_Century.pdf?1532507679=&response- content- -rgyDLrCxcpoEK-oqqmYTRbDbN6UgpQ~A__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA 12 THREE CONTEMPORARY PERCEPTIONS OF A POLISH WUNDERKIND OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY by DAVID RUDERMAN University of Maryland

30 rabbi failed to mention a specific page but only placed his finger on a particular passage in the book hidden from the child but apparently not from his father. The boy was even able to read the rabbi's mind, quoting precisely biblical passages which Rabbi Abraham had been contemplating, again through the mediation of the father.

In light of such an incredible demonstration, the rabbi could only conclude that "the boy knows what is in the heart of man and this can only be a spirit of prophecy." He was especially impressed by the child's ability when he considered that the boy still had not learned to read fluently but occasionally mispronounced words and was generally very shy.

The single source known to scholars of this entire story together with the account of its diffusion throughout Poland had been Joseph Solomon Delmedigo, the Italian Jewish physician, scientist and philosopher. In his Hebrew work Sefer 'Elim, first published in Amsterdam in 1629, Delmedigo quoted R. Abraham's letter in full, mentioned how its contents had reached Lvov and Vilna, and also reproduced another letter from his own disciple, Moses Metz, addressed to a Karaite, Zerab b. Nissim, in which Delmedigo's own role in the entire affair was described.

Metz's letter was an account of how he and Delmedigo had traveled to the town of Grodek to observe first-hand the spectacle of the precocious child who had become by that time such a cause c6l1bre that "all the Polish rabbis and with them several thousand Jews feared to see him." But the shrewd Delmedigo was capable of exposing the deception of the Gr6dek child prodigy:

For immediately when my teacher [Delmedigo] saw that he needed his father, he detected a trick whereby he [the father] would give him clues in code. For example, for the letter "aleph," he would say "yes" to him in Yiddish; for "bet," "good"; for "gimel," "right" and so on. And the questioner had to ask the question through his father and his father would elicit an answer from him [the boy], placing in his mouth the letters with these pseudonyms so that he would recite the letters without vowels or vocalization and his father would interpret and vocalize them.13

Delmedigo confirmed his initial suspicion by testing the child without the assistance of his father and immediately "the trick was made known to all the congregation." Metz further explained how the father had made a handsome profit from his guile and how the rabbis finally excommunicated the father when they learned of his deceitful behavior. The boy died soon after; Metz could not ascertain the cause. Metz also acknowledged that even after his teacher had publicly exposed this imposter, some ardent followers continued to believe in him, and he strongly admonished those who uncritically accepted such popular superstitions "for they are the affairs of women and the masses."

13 The entire letter of Schor to Katz was first published by Joseph Solomon Delmedigo in Sefer 'Elim (Amsterdam, 1629), p. 65.

31

What had apparently begun as a local incident in a small Polish town had eventually become a matter of international significance. From Gr6dek to Lvov, to Lublin and Vilna, and finally to Modena and even Safed, reports of the Polish youth had indeed made him a celebrity. And what had originated as merely the tale of a precocious child with an unusual aptitude for reciting passages from the Talmud and Zohar had ultimately become a saga of imposing dramatic appeal which now included an engaging portrait of a miraculous boy sung to by angels, capable of proving false a Christian libel brought against Jews, possessing no less than the secrets of the divine redemption, and ascending in fire to his heavenly abode. Delmedigo's bold assertion that he had shown "to all the world" the trick of the child of Grodek had obviously made little impact on what may have been a considerable number of people.

Of course, the story of the Polish wonderchild was not without precedent in earlier Jewish literature. The motif of a child prodigy unraveling the secrets of the divine had captivated the imagination of many Jews for centuries. One need only consider the abundance of stories in rabbinic literature on the infancy and youth of biblical heroes like Cain, Noah, and Moses-in particular their miraculous abilities to speak when new-born babe relationship of children and prophetic capacity was further underscored by such rabbinic statements as those that proclaimed that, since the destruction of the Temple, prophecy was taken away from the prophets and wise men and assigned to fools and infants, or that, since the destruction, the world only existed in the vain utterances of infants14

An exceedingly rich source of the wonderchild motif was the literature of the Jewish mystics, particularly the Zohar. The stories of young children with wondrous abilities appearing before wise men and other adults with startling revelations of mystical knowledge were especially favorite subjects to the author of the Zohar. In fact, Abraham Yagel himself in his discussion of the Gr6dek child did not miss the parallel between these kabbalistic stories and the Polish marvel.15

The phenomena of wonderchildren were not merely the imaginative products of Jewish literary invention; they had also become by the seventeenth century a part of the historical memory of the Jewish community. At the end of the thirteenth century, the Spanish Jewish community had encountered a boy prophet similar in many respects to the prodigy of Grodek. In a well-known responsum of R. Solomon b. Adret, the rabbi described an unusual child in Avila who, while ignorant and untutored, had experienced angelic visions which inspired him to write a book of biblical commentaries.

For Adret, the most puzzling aspect of this spectacle was that an uneducated child was capable of composing written treatises of remarkable erudition. Although the biographies of the Avila and Gr6dek children are not altogether similar, the parallel between the two did not escape the attention of either R. Abraham HIayyim Schor or R. Abraham Yagel.

14 Beit ha-midrash, ed. Adolf Jellinek, 6 vols. (Leipzig and Vienna, 1853), 1: 56: B.T. Shabbat 119b; B.T. Bava Batra 12a;

15 Zohar, 3: 186a-192a, translated into Hebrew in Isaiah Tishby and Fischel Lachower, Mishnat ha-Zohar, 2 vols. (Jerusalem, 1957-61), 2: 66-89.

32 Both referred to Adret's responsum and both suggested an analogy between the two boys, although for Schor the Grodek youth was clearly more remarkable. What both observers could not have failed to note in studying the two figures was the common eschatological import of their prophetic statements. In the case of the Spanish child, his visions were directly related to an inspired Joachimite apocalyptic literature appearing at the end of the thirteenth century. In fact, Avila itself had emerged as a conjectured place of origin of the Messiah who was to appear in 1295. The aura of messianic anticipation was also manifest in the Gr6dek child who, according to the testimonies of both Schor and Yagel, was pressed by his contemporaries to prognosticate when the messianic redemption would come.

The Christian parallel:16

Two examples of child prophets who appeared in medieval Christian society, both of whom, he emphasized, were uneducated and simple folk:

Observe what happened to the seventeen-year-old girl who was a shepherdess during the time of Charles VII the king of France who was surrounded by the armies of the English king which almost took from him [Charles] his entire kingdom.

But this young maiden arose, aroused herself from her slumber, gathered her strength, left her flock in the field, went to King Charles and told him what she told him; for the essence of her words was that she desired to lead his armies and to be victorious over his enemies. And the king trusted her word and placed her in charge of his army; and she girded her weaponry and fought the king's enemies and was victorious over them with great honor.

And chroniclers of that time sang her praises as if she were skilled in war from her youth and knew her enemies' strategy in war.39 And who would believe the account of the child born in England named Merlin who revealed future events and secret things and who transcribed in a document before the kings and nobles all that would happen to them in the end of days, in addition to all the incredible feats he accomplished in the days of his youth which were recorded in the chronicles of that kingdom.

Similar fascination with wonderchildren prevailed in England as well in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.66 English literature of this period preserves numerous accounts of wondrous and prodigious children. Especially significant was the revival of interest in the most famous child prophet of England, Merlin, whose prophecies were republished and enthusiastically received by the English reading public of the seventeenth century.

16 MS Moscow-Giinzburg 129, fol. I10lOv: •,mh i vo n,'t~ 2'rxn "T1an 'fMn ,y' n- ',r n'i bob -T25 cbrn nnK n 13n1 X17, "IVX 5D nX I,'Ivm ',oMl ,105 P-=-O" :100 mDnMIMI "Ino Tbna min lm5b'b on ,rn "-an n mo 1 1: anK ,rbfi, , n ewv m 'lmnin. On Merlin, see Edward Anwyl, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, s.v. "Merlin"; Keith Thomas, Religion and the Decline of Magic (London, 1971), pp. 394-410. The parallel which Joseph Dan noted between the Gr6dek child and Merlin ("Notes," p. 233) was thus mentioned already in 1620 by Yagel. On earlier ancient Near Eastern parallels of the Merlin legend see Moses Gaster, "The Legend of Merlin," Studies and Texts in Folklore, Magic, Medieval Romance, Hebrew Apocrypha and Samaritan Archaeology, 2 vols. (New York, 1971), 2: 965-84.

33

A typical example of the wise child motif in English literature of the period is the saga of Charles Bennett of Manchester, preserved in four separate literary accounts in 1679. Charles, who came from a simple English family, was alleged to speak Latin, Greek, and Hebrew at the age of three without having received any instruction. He was soon brought to London where he was tested by certain churchmen on various biblical subjects and in each of the languages he claimed to know. His audience was astounded by his correct responses. Finally, he asked to speak only three words to King Charles II and subsequently prophesied his own death nine days later. Despite their differing religious backgrounds and associations, the Gr6dek child and the Bennett lad were remarkably similar creatures.17

Jung on Wunderkind

One might tentatively offer, in conclusion, a tempting hypothesis suggested by a reading of C. G. Jung's essay on the motif of divine children.18

For Jung, the child motif in Western and Eastern literature represents or personifies certain instinctive data of the dark, primitive psyche. The child myth emerges in a culture where man has become unchildlike and artificial and has lost his roots.

The sudden appearance of a wonderworking child represents a vehement confrontation with primary truth or with the original unconscious and instinctive state of humanity. Jung understood the miraculous child's emergence as inevitable, coming to compensate, correct, or "heal" the one- sidedness or extravagances of the conscious mind.

A common feature of all child myths was that the child who possessed extraordinary powers still remained defenseless, in continual danger of extinction.

The adversities of the child were to Jung a symbolic representation of the inevitable conflict between the youthful bearer of a "high consciousness" and his surroundings.

In short, the divine child myth graphically represented the yearning of a civilization in turmoil and unsure of itself to recapture its pristine origins and its deepest roots.

17 On Charles Bennett, see W. E. A. Axon, "The Wonderful Child," Chetham Miscellanies, n.s., I (Manchester, 1902). For other examples of wonderchildren in England during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see the cases mentioned in Axon's introduction as well as that of the boy of Bilson who claimed to have the devil in him in 1622, discussed in Richard Hunter and Ida Macalpine, Three Hundred Years of Psychiatry 1533-1860 (London, 1963), pp. 100-1. 68. C. G. Jung and Ciroly Ker6nyi, Essays on A Science of Mythology, pp. 70-100. 18 C. G. Jung and Ciroly Ker6nyi, Essays on A Science of Mythology, pp. 70-100. Compare Otto Rank's somewhat different psychoanalytic interpretation of the birth myth of the hero in his The Myth of the Birth of the Hero, pp. 65-96. For Rank, the mythmakers who fantasized about the extraordinary childhoods of their heroes were investing the latter with their own infantile history.

34

A Latter day yanuka

Aharon Kliger and Aryeh Ehrlich write:19

19 https://mishpacha.com/perfect-harmony-6/

35 We’re outside, waiting for the Yanuka.

It’s silent in the deserted courtyard of the little shul, for even though coronavirus restrictions have been eased and the streets have again come to life, most people are in bed at this hour. But we’re waiting — and then we see him. Soon we’re face to face with this bashful young man who’s taken the Torah world by storm — self-effacing, unremarkable in appearance, but so remarkable in the impact he’s had on the lives of the thousands who flock to him, hanging on his every word.

He’s really just a young avreich, yet his shiurim are an attraction for the masses, from all ages and stages: elderly chassidim and litvish talmidei chachamim and everything in between. When he sits on the dais of packed halls, expounding on all parts of Torah by heart, the brim of his hat is just about covering his eyes, and at the same time that he’s electrifying the crowd with his depth and breadth, he seems to be melting into himself, erasing his very yeishus. After all, he’s just a vessel, a kli — it’s not about him at all. And then, when the shiur is over, the spellbound audience already knows what to expect: A Roland keyboard is brought out and this shy genius — the Yanuka, as he’s been known since his teenage years (a reference in the Zohar to souls who already from childhood are exceptional in their Torah knowledge) — will begin to play a medley of stirring songs sure to awaken slumbering souls.

His name is Rav Shlomo Yehudah Beeri (to most people, he’s simply known as Rav Shlomo Yehudah), and although he’s not really a yanuka anymore — he’s 32 years old — he’s still decades younger than many of his followers. Aside from the fact that he commands such respect despite his young age, his popularity has skyrocketed even though he doesn’t peddle yeshuos, kameios, or mystical deals. His merchandise is pure Torah — all of it, on the tip of his tongue.

The shul where we meet has just been reopened for the public, but even during weeks of closure, the ezras nashim was still his private learning space. This is like his second home, and as he invites us in and flicks on a small light, we take our seats in the shadows.

“There are times when we need to serve HaKadosh Baruch Hu with mochin dekatnus (a state of constricted consciousness),” Rav Shlomo Yehudah says, explaining to himself as much as to us why the shul has been empty, bereft of its beloved worshippers. “Sometimes this is decreed on a person, on a family, a city, village, and sometimes it is an entire generation. In our generation, it has apparently been decreed that people must pay attention to the tachlis, to the main point. To stop everything and reflect. It’s like HaKadosh Baruch Hu is telling the world, ‘Enough,’ after people started to think that everything is permitted. They had their money, were confident in their way of life. When you live like that, you might consider yourself a ma’amin, but how much do you really unconditionally trust in Hashem?”

The problem in our day, says Rav Shlomo Yehudah, is that when we daven, it’s not out of desperation, it’s not with a sense of absolute dependence on HaKadosh Baruch Hu. “Once, a person would go out to the market and ask Hashem to send him parnassah or to bring rain to water his field or to bring fish to come to where he’s fishing. Today people have emunah because it says you’re supposed to have emunah, but they don’t really live it on an experiential level in their lives.”

36 The Rav doesn’t sound upset or bitter though — he’s just stating a point, going with the flow of things as they’ve been decreed to be. In fact, that’s how he’s always lived his life, from the time he was a poverty-stricken child moving from place to place through Eretz Yisrael, Europe, and back with his parents. “People think they know Who HaKadosh Baruch Hu is and what Torah is, and then, Hashem suddenly does something that no one can process, shaking up the order of Creation,” Rav Shlomo Yehudah explains. “Once we understand that we have no grasp of the Creator and really begin to serve Him with temimus and with awe, no longer being so sure we have all the answers and instead looking with respect at everyone simply because they have a tzelem Elokim, then perhaps the this pandemic will be annulled, b’ezras Hashem.”

He believes that the violation of the tzelem Elokim — through lashon hara and sinas chinam — is even hinted to in the current lockdown rules. “The isolation period for those who’ve come in contact with coronavirus is 14 days, like the isolation for the metzorah who speaks lashon hara,” the Yanuka clarifies. “The metzorah had to sit alone outside the camp, the quintessential social distancing. So, our work now is to draw closer to the soul of the other, to feel with the other and be aware of his needs. And that,” says Rav Shlomo Yehudah, “is the way forward, as it appears to me.”

As a bochur, Rav Shlomo learned privately with Chacham Gedalia Chaim, a well-known elderly Yemenite mori and baki in all of Torah. Although Chacham Gedaliah was 65 years older than Rav Shlomo, he treated the young scholar with utmost respect, referring to him as “mori verabi.”

It wasn’t long before Shlomo Yehudah began to gain renown among the talmidei chachamim of Jerusalem. Rav Moshe Halberstam ztz”l, a venerated posek and member of the Eidah Hachareidis beis din, enjoyed speaking with him in learning, and foretold of greatness for him.

But as Shlomo Yehudah’s name began to spread, he reacted, shunning all media and fleeing from photographers. Today, Rav Shlomo Yehuda realizes that it’s unavoidable, yet even though he agreed to let our photographer do his job, he lowered his eyes and hunched into himself, clearly not one to pursue the limelight.

“The solution to retention is actually quite simple once it’s broken down,” the Yanuka explains. “It involves connecting what you learn with the inner part of your soul. If a person experiences something that frightens or distresses him, he’ll remember every detail of it, even after much time has passed. And similarly, when a person does something from a place of ahavah, he remembers that thing as well. So when we contemplate the words of Chazal, not just what they’re saying, but who they were, how they were steeped in Torah at all costs, through poverty and fear of persecution and endowed with transmitting Hashem’s Will to the future generations, we can attach ourselves to them, soul to soul, and it brings us to remember things in a way that are etched in all the layers of our mind and soul.”

A talmid of the mekubal Rav Sroya Deblitzky ztz”l said of Rav Shlomo Yehudah: “I found what Rav Sroya was looking for all the years. The Rav wrote, ‘We needed a gadol who will unite all the parts of the holy Torah, yet, due to our great sins, we do not have someone like that in our orphaned generation.’ Yet now, we’ve merited this gift — a talmid chacham that knows all parts of Torah, and connects it to people of all streams.”

37

Rav Moshe Mordechai Karp of Modiin-Illit says the Yanuka is an “echad umeyuchad, singular in our generation, mara dekula Oraisa. And in his humility, he is a true vessel of kabbalas haTorah, as Rav Lavitas Ish Yavneh instructed in the Mishnah, ‘Me’od me’od hevei shefal ruach.’ ”

While Rav Shlomo Yehudah doesn’t peddle mysticism and shies away from giving brachos, Rav Shlomo Busso, a grandson of the Baba Sali and an admor in his own right, praised him at the engagement of his daughter, telling how a brachah he gave was instantly fulfilled.

In fact, we notice that this scion of Yemenite mekubalim has in front of him a kamea of sorts — a tiny locket — with a picture of the Rogatchover Gaon.

“I always keep the picture of the Rogatchover with me,” Rav Shlomo shares. “I put it on the table while I’m learning. He’s my inspiration as a symbol of true ahavas Torah. And although he was very sharp and known to be impatient in the face of ignorance, it actually came from a place of deep humility. He once gave semichah to someone who really didn’t know much, and people were shocked. They didn’t understand how the Rogatchover could do such a thing, and he explained: ‘I asked him a question and he replied that he did not know the answer but b’ezras Hashem when a case would be presented he would ask the rav in his city who would surely know….’

“Then the Rogatchover explained: ‘When I ask someone, and he says he doesn’t know, or he’ll look it up or he needs to think — then I can give him semichah because I know he will clarify the halachah. But when I ask a person and he tries to answer from all kinds of places — responses that

38 are neither correct nor precise — how can I trust to give such a person semichah?’ Those were the people he spoke against sharply.”

39