5. daniel sperber - scientific disciplines

STUDIES IN JEWISH THOUGHT AND IDENTITY

1

LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES

AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD

THE ROBERT M. BERENCOLLEGE

DANIEL SPERBER

BEIT MORASHA OF JERUSALEM

22 33

© Robert M. Beren CollegeBeit Morasha of Jerusalem

The Academic Center for Jewish Studies and LeadershipPOB 29253, Jerusalem 91292 Israelwww.bmj.org.il ISSN 1565-8007

Shevat 5766 / February 2006

We acknowledge with thanks the permission of Jason Aronson Publishers/Rowman and Littlefield Publishing Group and the Orthodox Forum/RIETSto republish the first part of Daniel Sperber’s now-expanded article: “On theLegitimacy of Scientific Disciplines for True ‘Learning’ of the Talmud” byDaniel Sperber, from the 1997 book Modern Scholarship in the Study of Torah, edited by Shalom Carmy.

22 33

P R E F A C E

It is with great pleasure that I present to the discerning public this first essay in our new Studies in Jewish Thought and Identitypublication series.

In bringing to the public a selection of original research and opinion writing penned by Beit Morasha faculty and associates, this series seeks to stimulate public on, and consideration of, contending approaches to the central religious and philosophical issues for contemporary committed Jews.

This first offering – a provocative and far-reaching essay by theRobert M. Beren Distinguished Professor of Talmud at Beit Morasha – is an excellent example of the type of scholarship we seek to engender: outstanding traditional Torah scholarship integrated with modern research, exegetical methodology and academic discipline.

Beit Morasha of Jerusalem was founded almost fifteen years agowith the aim of creating a sophisticated, well-rounded and sensitive intellectual leadership capable of being the catalyst for a new Jewish and Zionist identity for Israel.

In the army, in school systems, in politics and in communities across the country, Beit Morasha facilitators and graduates of the Robert M. Beren College are at the forefront of innovative Jewish and Zionist identity initiatives.

Beit Morasha’s burgeoning reputation has drawn significantfunding and growing support from the finest philanthropies andmost discerning donors in the Jewish world. We are building the Jewish leadership of tomorrow.

Prof. Benjamin Ish-Shalom

Founder and Rector

44 55

BEIT MORASHA OF JERUSALEM was founded in 1990 to confront the erosion of Israel’s Jewish and Zionist foundations. Its Robert M. Beren College prepares and empowers a leadership capable of promoting Jewish and Zionist identity. These leaders serve as the catalyst for a new understanding between religious and secular Jews. The College’s rigorous course of study and research draws upon the finestintellectual traditions in the worlds of Torah and academic scholarship. In cooperation with Bar-Ilan University, it offers postgraduate degree programs in Talmud and Jewish Philosophy. Beit Morasha facilitators and Robert M. Beren College graduates are at the forefront of innovative Jewish and Zionist identity initiatives in the common acculturating institutions in the lives of Israelis -- the Israel Defense Forces, educational systems, government, and in diverse communities across the country. STUDIES IN JEWISH THOUGHT AND IDENTITY

The Studies in Jewish Thought and Identity series serves as a forum for publication or re-publication of research and other writing on contemporary issues penned by Robert M. Beren faculty, students and associated scholars. Publication of an essay by Robert M. Beren does not imply endorsement of the author’s views or conclusions.

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Officers: Mr. Jay Pomrenze, Chairman of the Board; Rabbi Dr. ShlomoRiskin, President and Co-Founder; Prof. Benjamin Ish-Shalom, Founder and Rector. Members: Moshe Barner, Lee Botnick, Barbara Finger, Mendi Gertner, Charlotte Green, Andrew Groveman, Amos Hermon, Isi Liebler, Yitzhak Meiron, Chaim Nagus, Marta Schwarcz, Dr. Eli Silver

SENIOR FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATION

Rabbi Dr. Yehuda Brandes, Dean of the Beit Midrash for MenRabbi Dr. Benjamin Lau, Dean of The Moshe Green Beit Midrash: Fostering Women’s Leadership in Torah U’MadahProf. Shalom Rosenberg, Israel Henry Beren Professor of Philosophy and head of the Philosophy Dept.Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sperber, Robert M. Beren Professor of Talmud and head of the Talmud Dept.Ms. Michal Tikochinski LL.B., Assistant Dean, Beit Midrash for WomenDr. Alon Goshen-Gottstein, head of the Institute for the Study of Rabbinic ThoughtDr. Moshe Hellinger, senior research fellow, Prof. Ernest Schwarcz Institute for Ethics, Judaism and StateMr. Paul Wimpfheimer, Executive DirectorMr. Edmond Hasin, Director of Robert M. Beren CollegeRabbi Dr. Eliav Taub, Dean of Students and Director of External StudiesMr. Amichai Berholz, Director of Beit Morasha Press

Robert M. Beren College is affiliated with Ohr Torah Stone Institutions

Avi Chai: A Founding and Ongoing Supporter

44 55

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

This study seeks to demonstrate that there is a clear need to use scientific discipline when examining rabbinic texts.These disciplinesinclude textual clarification based on manuscripts and early printededitions, philological studies to ascertain the exact meaning of difficult terms, seeing the text in its historical, sociological andliterary settings, and the use of material (archeological) evidence in many cases in order to understand the physical aspects of an object discussed and for its sitz im leben. Without the appreciation of these methodologies we often miss the main point of the text, and in some cases even err as to the practical halachic implications thereof.

In the first part of this study I have outlined the necessity of sucha critical approach, both to the texts that were first formulated inoral or manuscript form, and also those composed after the advent of printing. In the second part I have given a number of concrete examples of the sort of errors – of varying seriousness – on the part of great authorities, who did (or could) not utilize these methodologies, thus understanding their vital necessity in our times where the means of their use are readily available to us.

77

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R

Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sperber is the Robert M. Beren Distinguished Professor of Talmud and head of the Talmud Dept. at Beit Morasha of Jerusalem. He also is the Milan Roven Professor in Talmudic Research at Bar-Ilan University, and President of its Institute for Advanced Talmudic Studies. A 1992 Israel Prize recipient for his academic achievements in the fields of Jewish art, Talmudic historyand philology, Prof. Sperber is the author of the epic seven-volume scholarly work Minhagei Yisrael (Mossad Harav Kook), and a leading figure in religious-secular dialogue.

Born in 1940 in a remote castle in Wales, where his parents had set up a German children’s refugee camp, Rabbi Prof. Daniel Sperber’s unusual roots serve as the background for his unique scholarly career. He studied at the Kol Torah yeshiva in Jerusalem, then received a B.A. in art history from the Courtnauld Institute of Art, and a Ph.D. in Ancient History and Hebrew Studies from University College, both of London, England. At Bar-Ilan University, he has served as chairman of the Talmud department, Dean of the Faculty of Jewish Studies, director of Bar-Ilan’s Basic Jewish Studies Program; and was founder of the Bar-Ilan University Press and the university’s Jewish Art program and Jewish Art Museum.

Prof. Sperber’s specialties: Jewish history of the Roman Period from a social-economic and agrarian viewpoint, Talmudic philology, text editing and commentaries on minor Talmudic tractates, ancient Jewish numismatics, everyday life in Talmudic times, and history and development of minhagim (customs). Many of Prof. Sperber’s more than 350 scientific articles and 20 books are enriched withillustrations by the author. Recently published: Magic and Folklore in Rabbinic Literature, The City in Roman Palestine and The Halachic Customs of Israel: Sources and History, Volume 7.

As Chairman of the National Council for State Religious Schools, he was instrumental in establishing a number of groundbreaking educational institutions, including: Israel’s first religious highschool specializing in the arts, for women; a yeshiva high school in Mitzpeh Rimon with an emphasis on ecology; a rehabilitation-learning center for religious high school dropouts with a history of

88 99

drug abuse and psychological problems; and yeshiva high schools of the arts across the country, with an emphasis on the plastic arts, drama, photography, theater and communications media. His aim: to provide a far greater variety of models of religious education and to advance the status of modern religious women.

As the founder of Yad Tamar Congregation in Rehavia, Jerusalem, Prof. Sperber served as the community’s spiritual leader and Rabbi for over twenty-five years. Among his greatest sources of pride: hislarge family, including his American-born educator wife and their ten children, ranging from a twenty-six year-old daughter to a nine-year old adopted Ethiopian-born daughter.

A leader in religious-secular reconciliation, Prof. Sperber was a member of the Tzameret Committee, formed to resolve Jerusalem’s Bar-Ilan Road controversy. He was a co-founder of Beit Morasha of Jerusalem. Prof. Sperber is Chairman of the Committee on National Religious Education at the Ministry of Education. He is a member of the Hebrew Language Academy and the Council for Archeology at the Ministry of Education.

88 99

PA R T I

There is a well-known jibe attributed to the yeshiva world and directed against those involved in the academic study

of Talmud. “We (“Yeshivahleit”) wish to know what Abbaye and Rava said, but they (the academics) want to know what they wore.” Now it is clear that anyone who devotes himself exclusively to the externals of talmudic literature, such as historical background, philology and linguistic characteristics of Babylonian Aramaic, and so forth, will be missing the main point of learning. But, on the other hand, those who believe they are involved in real learning, but lack certain systematic disciplines, often miss the point of the sugya, and may even err when attempting to derive from it a psak halakha. In terms of the jibe with which we opened, at times it is indeed important to know also what Abbaye and Rava wore.

Let us demonstrate this with two examples. Who constitutes for us a greater paradigm, or role model, of classical talmudic learning than Rashi? In one of his responsa we read as follows:

Once I saw the master (Rashi) praying without a girdle. I was puzzled and said: How is it that he is praying without

10

DANIEL SPERBER LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD

11

his loins girdled? Surely they said in Tractate Berakhot (24b), that one may not pray without a belt, and the reason is that one’s heart should not behold one’s privy parts. And he (Rashi) replied: It seems to me that in those times the sages did not wear trousers, but merely long cloaks that went down close to their ankles1 and all their clothes were closed front and back, left and right. Therefore they stated that one may not pray without a girdle, for they had nothing to separate the heart from the privy parts other than the girdle. (And indeed it seems likely that they had no trousers, for in Tractate Shabbat…[120a] we have learned in a Mishna what one saves from a fire, and eighteenitems of clothing that a person may save on Shabbat are there enumerated…but trousers are not mentioned.)2 But we do wear trousers3, and even without a belt there is a clear separation between the heart and the privy parts, and therefore we may pray without a belt.4

We see then that Rashi’s views as to talmudic costume led him to

rule halakhically on a certain issue, or at any rate to justify an existing custom.5 He probably visualized them wearing something akin to the contemporary garb [fig. 1].6 Actually his explanation isbased on a conjecture, and borne out only tentatively by oblique talmudic evidence.

When we look into the issue more closely, we find that in point of fact it is somewhatmore complex and problematic. For while indeed it is true that the Bavli does apparently not list trousers among its eighteen garments and reads ÔÈ˜¯ÙÒ È˘Â, (which Rashi explains as ˘ÏÂ˘ÈÈÙ, probably meaning faissole, straps around the legs),7 the Yerushalmi (Shabbat, 15d) reads: ÔÈ˜È¯·Ò È˘8 ÔÈ˜¯·‡ È˘Â. ÔÈ˜¯·‡ probably corresponds with the Latin braccae (in Greek: βράκαι, “trousers, pantaloons”),9 an article of attire well-attested in Roman

Figure 1

10


11

times [figs. 2,3]. It is true that they were less commonly worn by Romans than by the Northern nations, such as the Celts—indeed the word is of Celtic o r i g i n 1 0 — o r Asians, such as the Persians. However, in the second century C.E., the period of the Mishna

and Baraita, they appear to have been worn in Rome as well (though later forbidden by the emperor Honorius in 397 C.E.).11

Now the attestation of the word in the Yerushalmi, and indeed elsewhere in Palestinian rabbinic literature,12 makes it clear that trousers were known of, and worn, in talmudic Palestine. Furthermore, ÌÈÈÒÎÓ, meaning trousers, are also found in rabbinic literature (e.g., M. Kelim 27:2, etc.). This strongly calls into doubt Rashi’s supposition, and makes his reasoning suspect. That Rashi was ruling in accordance with the Bavli and not the Yerushalmi—with which he may not have been acquainted13—is a specious argument. For he based his ruling on an assumption as to real-life practices in talmudic times, and the assumption has been shown to be questionable. One may, of course, choose to separate the various elements in this responsum, accepting the sevarah (speculative

reasoning), that “the heart may not see the privy parts”, but rejecting the supposition that rabbis did not wear trousers and the proof for this from the Bavli. And in that case, the talmudic directives in B.

Figure 2

Figure 3

12


13

Berakhot 24b would be addressed to people wearing loose cloaks, but not to people wearing trousers. Be this as it may, what remains significant is that Rashi (or his disciples) apparently regarded theissue of whether the Tannaim wore trousers or not as meaningful to his argument, and hence consequential to his own style of prayer, and possibly to ours, too, for that matter. Thus, at times, knowledge of everyday life in talmudic times can play a significant role inthe understanding of a talmudic text, and even in the subsequent process of halakhic ruling.14

Here I should like to give a second example also related to clothing. We begin with that which we find in M. Nidda 8:1:

A woman who has seen a bloodstain on her body adjacent to her genital area is (ritually) unclean; (if the bloodstain is) not adjacent to her genital area, she is clean…(If) she has seen it on her garment (˜ÂÏÁ): below the belt (¯Â‚Á) she is unclean, above the belt she is clean. (If) she has seen it on the sleeve of her garment: if the sleeve reaches below the line of her genital area, she is unclean; if it does not, she is clean. (If) she had been taking it off and putting it on during the night, anywhere she finds a bloodstain on it renders herunclean, since it returns (¯ÊÂÁ ‡Â‰˘ ÈÙÓ); and the same applies to a pallium (ÌÂÈÏÙ· ÔÎÂ).

R. Ovadia Bertinoro explained: “ ‘since it returns (¯ÊÂÁ ‡Â‰˘ ÈÙÓ)’ – sometimes the top of the garment twists down to the genital area; ‘a pallion’ (his text is ÔÂÈÏÙ) – a mitpahat (˙ÁÙËÓ) with which she covers herself…” Tiferet Yisrael, n.8, also explained: “a mitpahat with which she covered her head, specifically without tying it, sothat it was possible that it would twist towards her genital area.” They both followed in the footsteps of the author of the Arukh, who defined the word “ÌÂÈÏÙ” in this Mishna as “a mitpahat withwhich she covers herself.” Kohut has already pointed out (Aruch Completum, 6:345-346) there that in this he followed the author of Perush ha-Gaonim le-Seder Taharot, who explains that the word ÔÂÈÏÈÙ found in M. Kelim 29:115 and M. Nidda 8:116 is derived from Greek and means mitpahat (see the editor’s note there, p. 114, n. 8, who determines that the author was referring to πιλίον, pileum, a felt hat).

The Mishna commentary Tosefot Yom Tov questioned and discussed in-depth the Bertinoro’s explanation to Nidda 8:1: “…it also troubles me that he wrote mitpahat here, and in general a mitpahat

12


13

is not a garment so large that she would cover herself in it, as the ‘three mitpahot’ of M. Kelim 24:14 prove, and (we see) from what I wrote there at the beginning of ch. 29, etc.” The Mishna Aharona also questioned Bertinoro’s approach: “The Rabbi explained it as a mitpahat with which she covers herself, and, according to this, the word is superfluous in the Mishna, since there is no differencethen between a haluk [the garment mentioned previously in the same Mishna] and a mitpahat.” Later he brought the Rambam’s commentary on this Mishna, who wrote (according to the Kafah translation) that ÔÂÈÏÙ is Â· ˙¯‚ÂÁ˘ ¯ÂÊ‡‰ (a belt she fastens). Thus, the Mishna Aharona wrote that “according to the Rambam, who explains it as a belt, it is possible to say that it is the apron (¯ÈÒ) women wear, with which she does not even cover herself, since it commonly twists around, as we teach in the tenth chapter of Shabbat, etc.”

Rashi (Nidda, 57b) wrote: “ ‘ÒÂÈÏÂÙ· ÔÎÂ’ – a ma’aforet (˙¯ÂÙÚÓ) with which she covers herself, an iril in ‘the foreign tongue’ (Old French).” Since this iril is apparently a headscarf, 17 we may infer that Rashi too follows the Gaon’s approach. On the basis of Rashi’s explanation, the Tur (Yore De’a, 190) writes: “and so is the law, if it [the bloodstain] is found on the ma’aforet with which she covers her head, etc.” See Beit Yosef there (s.v. ‰˙È‰ ˘¢ÓÂ) who in a forced explanation of the Rashba, wrote that this is the case “specificallywhen she covers her hair with a robe (˜ÂÏÁ) or cloak (ÔÂÈÏÙ‡), just as a loose covering without tying it well, but if she ties it well on her head, and when she wakes up she also finds it well-tied, it is obviousthat she does not need to worry about it [i.e., the bloodstain], since we see that it [the garment] has not turned around and has not twisted to and fro” (quoted in the Tosefot Yom Tov). On the basis of Rashi’s explanation, the Maggid Mishne explains the Rambam in Issurei Biah, 9:11: “ ‘…and also her belt (¯ÂÊ‡), anywhere blood it found on it—she is unclean’ Mishna: the Mishna reads ‘ÔÂÈÏÙ· ÔÎÂ’, and there are those who explain it as a ma’aforet with which she covers her head” (see Tosefot Yom Tov there).

The Gaon’s explanation is difficult (as is Maimonides’), since italready says explicitly in M. Nidda 8:1 that: “(If) she has seen it on her garment: …above the belt she is clean,” and there is no place further above the belt than the scarf around her head! To say that the garment is so long that part of it reaches her genital area and that she is therefore unclean (like the rule for a bloodstain found

14


15

on a sleeve of such length), would be a forced reading. Rather, we must conclude that all of the garment could reach that area, and, as the Mishna says, “it returns” from place to place. Clearly, then, the commentator conflated the pilium-ÔÂÈÏÈÙ-πιλίον of M. Kelim withthe pallium-ÔÂÈÏÙ-παλλίον (‘Mantel’) of Nidda, as Epstein wrote.18 In the Aruch Completum (ibid), we read that R. Binyamin Mustafiyacame to the same conclusion.19

Indeed, one of the features of the pallium was its versatility: it could be worn in many ways and styles, at times in direct contact with the skin, without an undergarment beneath it, though more often as an outer garment. In the words of Rich:20

A garment of this nature might be adjusted upon a person in various ways according as the fancy of the wearer or the state of the atmosphere suggested; and, as each arrangement presented a different model in the set and character of its folds, the Greeks [and the same was true for the Romans] made use of a distinct term to characterize the particular manner in which it was put on, or the appearance it presented when worn.

Later, he summarized the major styles:

1. επίβληµα. Meaning literally that which is thrown on or over…when the center of one of its sides was merely put on to the back of the neck and fastened round the throat, or on one shoulder, by a brooch (fibula), so that all the fourcorners hung downwards…

2. αναβολή. Meaning…that which is thrown up…i.e. when the part which hangs down on the right side…was taken up, and cast over the left shoulder…When thus worn, the brooch was not used; and the blanket, instead of being placed on the back, at the middle of its width, was drawn longer over the right side to allow sufficient length forcasting on to the opposite shoulder…

3. περίβληµα. Meaning…that which is thrown round one…so adjusted as completely to envelope the wearer all round from head to foot… Women also wore the pallium…as well as men, and adjusted it upon their persons with the same varieties that have already been described, as evinced by numerous works of art both in sculpture and in painting.

14


15

He also brings proof from a painting in Pompeii (from the mishnaic period) in which two women wear pallia (the plural form), each in a different manner.21 We learn from here that: The pallium22 is a garment which is wrapped around the majority of the body; it is sometimes worn on its own directly over the skin; and while it can be worn in different styles, it is never fastened tightly, moving easily back and forth over the body. Therefore, since most of it can come into contact with most parts of the body, it is a perfect example of a garment that “returns” from place to place, and so the Mishna rules that “anywhere she finds a bloodstain on it renders her unclean”.23

We see, then, that the confusion between pallium and pilium, which may look identical in the Hebrew transcription, brought about an unlikely interpretation of the Mishna, which found its way into the law books, causing some consternation among poskim. However, familiarity with the nature of talmudic clothing—in this case—clarified the whole issue.

This will be even more evident in the next example from hilkhot Shabbat. The Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 317:1, rules as follows:

He who ties a permanent knot (‡ÓÈÈ˜ Ï˘ ¯˘˜) [on Shabbat], and one which is the work of an expert (ÔÓÂ‡ ‰˘ÚÓ), such as the cameleers’ knot or sailors’ knot…and all such similar knots [is guilty]. But if the knot he ties is not that of an expert, though it is permanent, he is exempt.

R. Yisrael Meir ha-Cohen of Radin, in his classic Mishna Berura and Be’ur Halakha, has lengthy descriptive analyses of the various views of the Rishonim as to what constitutes a “permanent knot”, and the differing degrees of prohibition pertaining to these knots. One may summarize his findings as follows:

1. According to the Rif, Rambam and R.Yosef Karo:

a) A permanent knot is one that is never untied (i.e., that in the first place was tied for an unlimited period of time andthat can remain tied forever), and is also that of an expert. Tying such a knot on Shabbat entails bringing a purification(˙‡ËÁ) offering.

b) A permanent knot that is not that of an expert, or an expert knot that is not permanent—tying it is forbidden, but entails no purification offering.

16


17

c) A knot that is not that of an expert and is not permanent may be tied.

2. Rashi, Rosh, and other Rishonim, on the other hand, rule that the main consideration is not the nature of the knot, and whether it is that of an expert or not, but:

a) If it is intended to last permanently, it is forbidden, and one who ties it is obligated to bring a purification offering,even if is not that of an expert.

b) If it is intended to be a temporary knot, it is forbidden, but one does not bring a purification offering for tying it.

c) A knot that one unties on the same day, even if it is an expert knot, is permitted.

3. Some opinions have it that any knot that will be untied within a week has the same halakhic status as a knot that will be untied in the same day.

Now the source of all these different views is to be found in the first mishnayot of Shabbat ch.15 and the corresponding sugyot

in B. Shabbat 111bff. There we read as follows:

Mishna 1. These are the knots for which they [that tie them on Shabbat] are culpable: cameleers’ knots, and sailors’ knots…R. Meir says: One is not accounted culpable if one ties a knot which can be untied with one hand.

Mishna 2. There are some knots for which one is not accounted culpable as one is for a cameleers’ knot or a sailors’ knot. [Thus] a woman may tie up the [corners of a] slit in her shift, or the strings of a hair net or belt…A bracelet may be tied to a belt but not to a rope; but R. Yehuda permits this. R. Yehuda laid down a general rule: no one is accounted culpable for any knot which is not permanent.

We see then, that Mishna 1, when wishing to explain what is a permanent knot, gives the example of a sailor’s knot (and a cameleer’s knot). The Talmud (B. Shabbat 111b) then further elaborates this point as follows: “What is a sailor’s knot? If you say it is the knot they tie onto the isterida, that is not a permanent knot. No, it is the knot… of the isterida itself.” This brief passage is the crux of the whole halakhic issue, for in it the setama de-Gemara24

16


17

(the anonymous portion of the sugya) explains to us what constitutes a “permanent knot”. And the understanding of this passage clearly depends upon the understanding of the word isterida, if that is the correct reading. I have discussed this word elsewhere in considerable detail.25 There I demonstrated—convincingly, I believe—on the basis of Gaonic traditions, that the correct reading is actually istedira, and that this is the (otherwise unattested) Greek nautical term for “parral” (*ιστοδειρη, “collar of a mast”). The parral is a rope twisted into a ring; its ends have been permanently married into one another to thus forming a ring or collar that holds together the ship’s yardarm to the mast. Through it is looped the halyard, with a slipknot, and this halyard is used to raise and lower the yardarm and sail into place on the mast. [fig. 4.]26 Without anydoubt the parral has been permanently knotted (married), and it is equally clear that this has been done by an expert (mariner). Thus, even without going any further into the rest of the sugya,

Figure 4

18


19

we see that the correct lexicographic explanation of the technical term appears to corroborate the main normative halakhic opinion of the Rif, Rambam, and R.Yosef Karo, namely that a permanent knot is one that is knotted by an expert and is intended never to be untied. To arrive at this conclusion, which is surely significant forthe understanding of the sugya, as well as for the establishment of the normative pesak, we had to determine the correct reading of the text (on the basis of manuscripts and early testimonia), interpret (and emend slightly) an obscure Gaonic gloss, rediscover (or reconstruct) a very rare Greek technical term belonging to Roman nautical jargon, and corroborate our findings with concrete evidencefrom contemporary reliefs and mosaics.27

Every step in this process of research was directly aimed at the true comprehension of the talmudic sugya and the resultant halakhic applications. In principle, the use of manuscript sources was no different from that of learning a gloss (hagaha) of the Bah or the Vilna Gaon; and reference to Byzantine-Greek dialectic dictionaries was no different from the use of the Arukh. Furthermore, only after extensive search and examination of Roman archaeological findings did we uncover that corroborative evidence without whichthe laconic (and the slightly corrupt) Gaonic gloss could not be intelligently comprehended. And this gloss contains the major source for understanding the sugya. Thus a full understanding of the whole talmudic complex necessitates the use of, and, of course, competence in a number of so-called secular discipline—linguistics, classical archaeology, and so forth. This is really a rather obvious point, but apparently it needs to be stressed and re-stressed in our day and age, when the gap between “learning” and “studying” is growing ever broader.28

There exists a school of scholarship that is primarily involved in unraveling the different strata of the talmudic sugya on the

basis of stylistic, linguistic, and logical criteria. 29 There is, I submit, nothing radically new in this approach. Already the Geonim, such as Rav Sherira in his famous epistle, informed us that certain passages in the Talmud are Saboraic, that is, post-Amoraic.30 And since the end of the Amoraic period is also “sof hora’a”31, the end of a period of pesak32, it is surely essential (or at least valuable) to know which elements of the talmudic text postdate that point of “sof hora’a”.

18


19

Hence, the search after Saboraic passages, and their characterization by language, style, and logical argument, is surely an integral part of ‡˙ÎÏÈ‰„ ‡·ÈÏ‡ ‡˙˙ÚÓ˘ È˜ÂÒ‡Ï, understanding the talmudic text in order to derive from it the practical halakha.

Indeed both the Geonim and the Rishonim were constantly aware of the stratification of the talmudic text. Thus, for example, the Ritvato Bava Metzia 3a: “All this formulation…is not an integral part of the Gemara, but the wording of Rav Yehudai Gaon, and the scribes inserted in into the Gemara proper, and there are many such cases in our tractate….” And so also in his commentary to Ketubot 34b he writes: “And our great teacher [i.e., the Ramban] explained that that section is not the wording of the Gemara, but the interpretation of Rav Yehudai Gaon, of blessed memory, and one should not deduce from here with regards to another text….”33

Furthermore, attempts have been made to distinguish between the words of the Amoraim and the explanatory glosses in anonymous sections of the Gemara (“setama de-Gemara”),34 and this led to a whole flourishing area of talmudic research in recent times.35

However, this distinction was already clearly made be the Rishonim, and most especially by Ba’alei ha-Tosafot.36 Thus, for example, the Tosafot in Shevuot 25a (s.v. Samuel) explain: “One may thus say that this is not a part of Samuel’s dicta, but that the Gemara explains thus according to his view, and there are many examples of this in the Talmud.” And the Tosafot to Yevamot 8a (s.v. ki) even goes so far as to say: the Talmud erred in [understanding] the statement of Rava(!).37 Apparently, the Tosafot found it legitimate to suggest that the later anonymous stratum of the Gemara contains misunderstandings of earlier Amoraic statements. For in their eyes these late anonymous glosses were less reliable and less canonic. Thus, the Ritva to Bava Metzia 40a writes: “And even though the above sugya explains thus …it is a sugya de talmuda be-alma [i.e., this is not an authoritative passage], and does not constitute a contradiction (kushia) to Rav Hisda.”

The great and saintly sage and scholar, R. Yehiel Yaakov Weinberg (who followed in the footsteps of his mentor R. David Zvi Hoffmann) was himself involved in this kind of methodological analysis.38 He surely believed that while doing so he was fully engaged in “limud Torah.” Let us cite a passage from one of his classic studies.39 First he brings numerous examples of Rishonim

20


21

who were obviously aware of the distinctions we have mentioned, and who solved difficult problems by positing that certain passageswere, for example, “an explanation that was written in the margin and [subsequently] copied into the books.”40 He then continues:

From these examples, and many others like it, we see that the Rishonim recognized these additions through their sharp understanding, and this recognition sufficed them, and [hence]they did not attempt to solve contradictions with forced brilliance. However, our teachers, the greatest of the Aharonim, who established for us the [mainstream] path of understanding sugyot and whose books constitute the introduction to all who enter into the world of talmudic learning, abstained from going along this path of unraveling the sugya into its component parts, presumably out of fear lest the authority of the holy Talmud be lessened and undermined, and in this way the basis upon which the halacha is founded will collapse. The truth is, however, that this method of study in no way touches upon the principles of our received halakha. Such views are determinations of those Torah giants [i.e., Aharonim] and are holy to us, and God forbid we move away from their words even in the smallest degree. Nonetheless, there is in this method of research special importance for the clarification of sugyotand the understanding of their issues. How many wondrously difficult problems, which can only be solved in the most forcedfashion or tiresomely sagacious argumentation, simply vanish in the blink of an eye in the light of such examinations, and passages, so obscure that scholars despaired of finding solutions for them,suddenly became crystal clear of themselves.

He himself admits, then, that the latter-day giants of Torah scholarship (with the exemption of a few lone examples, the Vilna Gaon, the Neziv, R. D.Z. Hoffman, etc.) abandoned this line of research. He nonetheless strongly affirms its legitimacy. He does,however, briefly mention in passing the possible dangers connectedwith this methodology, namely that the authority of the talmudic text might be called into doubt, and the basis of practical halakha be undermined. He easily dismisses these considerations, probably for two (unstated) reasons:

1. He trusted that all involved in deep talmudic study had the greatest of respect for the basic integrity of the text, and any approach of the type described above would be

20


21

borne out by traditions from the Geonim and Rishonim, by incontrovertible stylistic evidence, and by closely reasoned and wholly convincing deductive analysis. 41

2. Perhaps it was his view that such discoveries do not affect practical halakha, as already established by the classical poskim.42

However, had he been confronted with a situation where a whole new basis for talmudic study was being promoted, one dealing almost exclusively with the separation of strata, and where the lion’s share of explanations depended upon the supposition that members of the latter strata had, at best, only a partial understanding of the statements of the predecessors from the earlier strata, he would have doubtless been filled with consternation, and, we suspect, beenmore cautious in his own practice of methodology, and certainly extremely critical of this whole “new school”. Is it then merely a question of degree? Could he have set limits and parameters for the use of such a critical methodology? If it is essentially legitimate, how can it be limited in its application? Or is it perhaps a question of the ability of the researcher, his control of the sources, and the stringency of his methodology?

For example, how would have R. Weinberger viewed the works of Professor David Weiss-Halivni, one of the most erudite, brilliant, and scholastically effective practitioners of this new school?43 Of course, we cannot answer for him. But if we take the conclusions of R. Irwin Haut as acceptable to the open-minded traditionalists, Halivni’s work has much to be credited for, and is undoubtedly of value to traditional talmudic scholarship.44 There are questions of emphasis and degree; Haut feels that Halivni’s penchant for “literary solutions”, as opposed to legal ones, is a little too weighted.45 But he does not contest the legitimacy of his approach, or for that matter, the competence of Halivni’s praxis. Perhaps he feels that this “new approach” should be used as a kind of last resort, when all traditional legalistic deductive reasoning has proved unsatisfactory. But ultimately this too is a subjective criterion, and probably no two people would agree on how to judge that point.

One possible criticism of any methodology that posits the lack, or partial understanding, of the later talmudic authorities of the dicta of their predecessors is that such a view diminishes our respect for those ancient giants. It also posits that we understand the material better

22


23

than did the later Amoraim. Can our latter-day understanding be superior to those of the earlier masters? They are angels compared to us mere mortals, and if they were mortals, then compared with them we are on the level of base animals (cf. B. Shabbat 112b). How dare we measure ourselves against them, even to the extent of correcting them?46 To this we may respond in a number of ways. Either like Rashi to Shevu’ot 3b: “A mistaken student wrote this in the margin, and the copyists [subsequently] put it into the Gemara,” that is, this is not really of genuine talmudic pedigree and authority; 47 or like Rashi to Sanhedrin 10b; “It is the custom of the tanna (the amoraic memorizers of tannaitic texts) to err as to the reading and miss out a word by lapse of memory; but he does not switch words…”. That is to say, textual errors were unconsciously introduced into the text already in amoraic times by professional memorizers, who were not necessarily scholars. Indeed, they were likened to baskets laden with stacks of manuscripts. They could quote by heart, and knew not what they spake (see B. Megilla 28b, B. Sota 22a).48

Actually, the Geonim had already addressed themselves to the question of how blatant errors infiltrated the talmudic text. In a well-known Gaonic responsum in Teshuvot Geonim Kadmonim (78),49 dealing with mistaken biblical readings in the Talmud, we read:

…But you must examine carefully in every case when you feel uncertainty [as to the credibility of the text] what is its source (Â¯˜ÈÚ „ˆÈÎ), whether a scribal error, or the superficiality of a second-rate student (È„ÈÓÏ˙„ ‡ÙË˘È‡ˆÈ·¯˙)50 who was not well versed… after the manner of many mistakes found among those superficial second-ratestudents, and certainly among those rural memorizer who were not familiar with the biblical text. And since they erred in the first place…[they compounded their error].51

Or perhaps we may respond that though we be midgets compared to those erstwhile giants, once we have succeeded in clambering onto their shoulders, we see further than they, and our horizon is broader than theirs. (This, as is well-known, is the usual justification forthe standard ruling: È‡¯˙·Î ‡˙ÎÏ‰, the halakhah follows the view of the latter authority.) Without pursuing this well–trodden area of discussion any further,52 I believe we can state, without too much hesitation, that the criticisms we raised can be properly rebutted,

22


23

leaving the methodology, where practiced with wisdom, respect, and restraint, methodologically legitimate.

We now turn to the question of the use of manuscripts and the discovery of alternative readings. Can we emend rabbinic texts on the basis of such testimonia, and what may be the long-term effect of such emendation upon the normative halakhah? The position of the Hazon Ish is fairly well known on this issue:53

I received your [material]. I found in them nothing new. [As to] the photographs of the manuscripts, it is not my way to pay attention to them. For we do not know who wrote them,54 and we may well assert that the scribe wrote them according to his wont. And it is well known that one does not rely too much on new discoveries,55 but only on the works of the poskim that were handed down without interruption from generation to generation.56

Elsewhere he writes:57

You suggested an explanation of the sugya…emending the Gemara on the basis of Ms. Munich [cod. hebr. 95]. Surely [you cannot claim] that all the leading scholars throughout the generations from the time of the Rishonim untill now did not get to the true meaning [of the passage], because a scribe erred and added something of his own in his Gemara text and misled all the sages. I will have nothing of it…For the Rishonim were prepared to lay down their lives on behalf of the manuscripts that they had in their hands and divine providence protected them so that the Torah be not forgotten from Israel. And when they started to print the Talmud, the leading scholars of the day toiled endlessly to produce a correct and accurate text.58 Albeit, at times, one can benefit from a manuscript to weed out errors that havecrept in over the ages. But an opinion that was licensed by all the rabbis, without any doubt ever being raised, heaven forbid us destroying it.59

My good friend and very learned colleague Professor Sid Leiman dealt with the Hazon Ish’s view on this matter in an authoritative article in Tradition60, and I need not repeat his conclusions. However, I think it is fair to say that the position of the Hazon Ish is hardly mainstream. For throughout the generations the greatest Torah authorities made judicious use of variant readings

24


25

and traditions, emended texts and rules accordingly. From the earliest Geonim, through the early Rishonim, such as Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam, to the later Rishonim, like the Maharshal, and the early Aharonim, such as the Bah and finally to the giants of morerecent times, the Vilna Gaon , the Neziv, and so forth, all these and very numerous others, made a constant use of this methodology. To return to Ms. Munich 95, when R. Raphael Nathan Rabbbinovicz published his monumental Dikdukei Soferim in the second half of the nineteenth century,61 in which he systematically gave the alternative readings of the Munich manuscript,62 he received the highest approbations from the greatest authorities of his time: R. Yosef Shaul Nathansohn, R. Ya’akov Ettlinger, R. Yitzhak Elhanan Spektor of Kovno, the Ktav Sofer, R. Shlomo Kluger, and so forth. And the Gaddol of Minsk, R. Yeruham Leib Perlman, wrote of it:63 “Come let us give thanks to the author of Dikdukei Sofrim, who copied out [talmudic] readings from the ancient manuscripts, and oft-times enlightened us with them.” Indeed, his volumes were used by R. Raphael Shapiro of Vienna, author of Torat Raphael, R. Yeruham Perla in his monumental commentary to Sa’adya Gaon’s Sefer ha-Mitsvot, R. Meir Simha ha-Cohen of Dvinsk, author of Or Sameah, R. Menahem Mendel Kasher, in his Torah Sheleima, and similar works. On further thought, the words of the Hazon Ish become even less readily understandable,64 especially in view of the fact that he himself made numerous textual emendations when he felt it was necessary.65 It certainly does not represent the main trend in traditional Torah scholarship. Perhaps it represents an attempt on his part to offset a tendency to overestimate the importance of new discoveries, manuscripts, Rishonim, and so forth, rather than part of a systematic philosophy of halakhah.

Paradoxically enough, one of the Hazon Ish’s very daring emendations in the Talmud is actually born out by the Munich manuscript he so denigrated. Thus in B. Berakhot 35b we read: “The earlier generations used to bring the fruits in [to their houses] over roofs and through courtyards…in order not to have to separate their tithes.” The Hazon Ish writes: “The word ‘courtyards’ is clearly an error, for the main way of entry is through the courtyards” (Ma’asrot, 5:15). He bolsters his emendation with suitable references— B. Gittin 81a, B. Bava Metzia 88a, B. Menahot 67b, and Rambam Ma’asrot 4:1—in all of which this word is missing. And so, indeed it is in the Munich manuscript, as cited by Rabinovicz in his

24


25

Dikdukei Soferim to Berakhot (p.193). Furthermore, Rabinovicz, in long note (n.4, ad loc.), discussed this matter, proving that since the talmudic statement in Berakhot “is that of Rabbi Yohanan, and he holds that a courtyard obligates tithes, and everyone agrees that a courtyard obligates tithes [at least] by Rabbinic ruling,” the word should indeed be deleted. He also notes that the Tzelah already pointed this out. (And see the continuation of his lengthy note, with additional comments of the Av Beit Din of Lvov). The Hazon Ish, then, could have gained an additional verification of his emendationfrom the manuscript, and added argumentation from Rabinovicz’s comments.

Clearly, then we should not place too much credence on the printed page, especially of the late editions, and certainly one should not regard the printed edition as in any way canonic. And in order to underscore our warning not overly to rely on the printed versions of ancient texts, and the dangers inherent in doing so, we shall bring just one example as a sort of cautionary tale.

Professsor Saul Lieberman, in his ha-Yerushalmi ki-Phshuto,66 discusses the passage in Y. Pesahim 2:2 (29a), which according to the editio princeps reads a follows:

øÂ‰Ó ÁÒÙ‰ ¯Á‡Ï ¨¯˘Ú ‰˘Ï˘· ÂˆÓÁ ¯È˜Ù‰.¯˙ÂÓ ¯Ó‡ ˘È˜Ï Ô· ÔÂÚÓ˘ ß¯ Æ¯Ò‡ ÔÁÂÈ ß¯

He renounced ownership of his leaven on the thirteenth [of the month of Nissan]—what is [its status] after the Passover? R. Yohanan forbade it. R. Simon ben Lakish said: “It is permitted.”

R. Baer Ratner, in his Ahavat Tsiyon ve-Yerushalayim (ad. loc.),67 cites six testimonia from Rishonim (Rashba, Ittur, Ramban, Rabbeinu Yeruham, Ritva and Recanati) that the reading is „È˜Ù‰, “he deposited”, and that the Yerushalmi is discussing a deposit of leaven before Pesah, presumably in the hands of a gentile (see Ritva and Recanati). According to this the Yerushalmi is asking what is the status of his leaven after the Pesah and Rabbi Yohanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish differ on this point. The reading in the Recanati is even more interesting, for it runs as follows:68

øÂ‰Ó ÁÒÙ‰ ¯Á‡Ï ¨ÈÂ‚ „È· ÂˆÓÁ „È˜Ù‰He deposited his leaven in the hands of a gentile, what is its status after the Passover?

26


27

Lieberman demonstrates conclusively that all these six testimonia have no validity whatsoever, “as is usually the case with him (i.e., Ratner).”69 For anyone with a scent (ÁÈ¯) of Torah will understand that this reading is impossible.”70 He goes on to prove this from the continuation of the Yeushalmi itself, and shows that every one of the passages in the Rishonim must be emended in accord with the true Yerushalmi text. Thus the passage in the Rashba is found in another parallel place, and there the reading is ¯È˜Ù‰. The Ramban has in the editio princeps: ¯È˜Ù‰. Rabbeinu Yeruham was quoting from the Rosh, which reads: ¯È˜Ù‰. Internal evidence is brought to correct the reading in the Ritva and the Recanati. In the latter case, the context makes it completely clear what is the correct reading. Thus the whole passage reads:

¯ÊÁ˘ ÈÙ ÏÚ Û‡ ¯˜Ù‰ ÈÂ‰ ˙ÂÎÊÏÂ ¯ÂÊÁÏ ˙Ó ÏÚ ¯È˜ÙÓ‰˘ ˙„ÓÏ ‡‰ÆÂ· ‰ÎÊÂ

øÂ‰Ó ÁÒÙ ¯Á‡Ï ¨ÈÂ‚ „È· ÂˆÈÓÁ ®°© „È˜Ù‰ ∫‰Ú˘ ÏÎ ˜¯Ù„ ‡Â‰‰Â¯È˜Ù‰ Ì‡ Ï·‡ ÆÏÏÎ ¯È˜ÙÈ ‡Ï ‡Ó˘Ï ˘ÈÈÁ„ ÂÈÈ‰ ¨¯ÂÒ‡ ¯Ó‡ ÔÁÂÈ ß¯

Æ˙È˘È¯Ù„Î È¯˘ È‡„Â·Thus you have learned that he who renounced ownership, this is a true renunciation of ownership, even if afterwards he regains ownership. And that which [we have learned] in [the Yerushalmi] chapter Kol Shaßa: „È˜Ù‰(!) his leaven in the hands of a gentile, what is [its status] after the Passover? R. Yohanan says it is forbidden—This is because he suspects that he might not really have renounced ownership. But if he did, it is certainly permitted, as we have explained.

Here, then, two errors made their way into the text: ¯È˜Ù‰ turned into „È˜Ù‰, making nonsense of the strain of halakhic argumentation. And ¯˘Ú ‰˘ÂÏ˘· must have been abbreviated in later editions to ‚¢È·, which was later interpreted as standing for ÈÂ‚ „È·. Thus “the thirteenth [of Nissan]” turned into “in the hand of a gentile”!71 Obviously the leaven had to be deposited into the hands of a gentile, since had it been deposited with a Jew, in no way could it be construed as permissible after the Passover. Therefore, if it was deposited –„È˜Ù‰—it had to be in the hands of a non-Jew. So there is a sort of internal logic in this perverse corruption.

Now even though it is true “that anyone with a scent of Torah” should have understood that this reading is patently absurd,

26


27

nonetheless the garbled version of the Yerushalmi was used by R. Hayyim Ha-Cohen Rappaport in one of his responsa72 to amend the Yerushalmi, and this corrupt passage formed the basis of his practical ruling. Some time later, Rappaport’s ruling was cited by R. Nahum Moshe Yerushalimsky:73 “Even though what he writes in his responsum is against the views of many gedolim, nevertheless, he does have a great pillar upon which to support himself, especially when great loss (‰·Â¯Ó „ÒÙ‰) is involved.”74

Let us give yet another example of the importance of a critical approach to the printed text, and, in addition, the importance of bibliographic knowledge, again taken from the field of halakha. InShulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 685:7 we read:

There are those who say that Parshat Zachor (Deut. 26:17-19) and Parshat Para Aduma (Numbers 19) have to be read mi-de-Oraita [by a command of biblical authority]. Consequently, villagers who do not have a minyan [quorum of ten] must come to a place where there is a minyan on those Sabbaths [when those portions are read] so as to hear these readings which are de-Oraita [in a minyan].

The author of the Shulhan Arukh , R. Yosef Karo, expresses the same opinion, that Parshat Para is also mi-de-Oraita, in a different halakhic context in Orah Hayyim 146:2, where he writes: “and all the aforesaid has no relevance to Parshat Zakhor and Parshat Para, which have to be read in a quorum of ten mi-de-Oraita” However, as R. Yehezkel da Silva (1659-1698) in his Peri Hadash (to Orah Hayyim 146:2) asks: “whence do we know that Parshat Para [is mi-de-Oraita]?” Similarly, the Shela argues that Parshat Para is not mi-de-Oraita. And so the Bah (see Orah Hayyim 685).

R. Yosef Karo (Beit Yosef, Orah Hayyim 685), however, cited his source for the opinion that Parashat Para is also mi-de-Oraita, namely: “The Tosafot in the beginning of chapter ‡¯Â˜ ‰È‰ (Megillah, 17b) wrote that these are the chapters which have to be read mi-de-Oraita, such as Parshat Zachor and Parshat Para Aduma.” Furthermore, R. Israel Isserlein, in his Terumat ha-Deshen (108), wrote that the Tosafot Ketzarot75 to Berakhot chapter two explains that Parshat Zachor and Parshat Para must be read min ha-Torah (i.e., mi-de-Oraita). However, in the Tosafot as we have them in our editions, both in Berakhot and in Megillah there is no mention made of Parshat Para. In Megillah 17b, s.v. Ï·, and

28


29

Berakhot 13a, s.v. ÔÂ˘Ï‰, it is implied that only Parshat Zakhor is mandatory mi-de-Oraita. So too in Haggahot Asheri to Berakhot chapter six (seven) (cited in Terumat ha-Deshen, ibid., and thence in Magen Avraham to Orah Hayyim 685) we are told that Parshat Zakhor must be read in [a quorum of] ten mi-de-Oraita. Likewise, the Tosafot Sens (ibid.) knew of no reading of biblical authority other than Parshat Zakhor.

On the basis of the above evidence, the Vilna Gaon, in his note to the Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayyim 685), wrote:

“and Parshat Para” (citation from the Shulhan Arukh)—In our Tosafot there is no mention [of Para] neither in Berakhot nor in Megilla 17b. Similarly, in [Haggahot] Asheri, chapter 6, there is no mention of anything other than Zakhor. And [R. Karo] chanced upon a corrupt version [of the Tosafot texts].

The truth of the matter is, however, somewhat different. The Maharshal,76 wrote as follows:

ÔÎÂ ‡Â‰ ˙ÂÚË ∫·¢Â ˜ÁÓ ‰ÓÂ„‡ ‰¯Ù≠ßÂÎÂ ˘„Â˜‰ ÔÂ˘Ï· ‰¢„· ßÒÂ˙Æ‰ÏÈ‚Ó„ ßÒÂ˙·

Tosafot s.v. ˘„Â˜‰ ÔÂ˘Ï·, etc. [The words] Para Aduma [are] to be deleted, and the following marginal note added: This is an error, and so too in Tosafot to Megilla.

Now the Maharshal’s emendations were all incorporated into the text of the third Lublin edition of the Talmud, printed between the years 1617 and 1634 (see note 58), and as a result from that edition onward in all subsequent printings of the Talmud the words Parshat Para Aduma are, indeed, absent. Understandably, then, neither the Peri Hadash nor the Vilna Gaon, who had access to the emended talmudic text, could find any mention of Parshat Para in either ofthe Tosafot. However, in earlier editions of the Talmud, prior to those emendations based on the Maharshal’s corrections, the words Parshat Para Aduma do appear, as already noted by the remarkable scholar, the Hida. In his Petah Einayyim to B. Berakhot (14b, Livorno, 1790) , he writes as follows:

“And chapters which have to be read mi-de-Oraita, such as Parshat Zakhor…” So [is the reading in] our versions, and it is on the basis of the emendation of the Maharshal in

28


29

[his] Hokhmat Shlomo. But the old (i.e., original) reading is: Parshat Zakhor and Parshat Para, and it was cited by the Beit Yosef and the Bah in Orah Hayyim 685.

Furthermore, such a reading is found in Tosafot Rabbi Judah (b. Isaac) Sir Leon to Berakhot, ibid. (ed. R. Nissan Sachs [Jerusalem, 1949], p.161, especially no.37, pp.161-2). Incidentally, this version was noted by the Hida in his Mahazik Berakha to Orah Hayyim 146:1, as it was, too, in Tosafot Rabbeinu Peretz to Berakhot ibid., (ed. M. Hershler [Jerusalem, 1984]), p.240; and also in Tosafot Rosh, ibid. (apud Berakha Meshuleshet [Warsaw, 1863; reprint Jerusalem 1968]). And this same view is found in the Rashba to Berakhot, ad loc.,77 and in the Ritva to Megillah ibid. (ed. I.M. Stern [Jerusalem, 1976], col. 120; see editor’s note 44. Likewise, see Tosafot-Rosh to Sotah 33b (ed. J. Halevy Lipshitz [Jerusalem, 1968], p. 66; and see editor’s note 15.)78

Indeed, a careful examination of our Tosafot in Berakhot will reveal traces of the original reading. For the Tosafot reads as follows: “…aside from the chapters which one has to read mi-de-Oraita, such as Parshat Parah.” But why write “chapters” in the plural if there is only one example of such a case? Clearly, then, the original reading had at least two examples of chapters that one must read mi-de-Oraita. (This point was already noted by Sachs, Tosafot Rabbi Judah Sir Leon [p.162].) Thus it was not the Beit Yosef who chanced upon a faulty version of the Tosafot, as the Vilna Gaon thought, but, quite to the contrary, it was the Gaon who studied in an emended version of the Talmud and its supercommentaries, one which did not preserve the original readings.79

Of course, there is a view that printed books are more valuable than manuscripts. We may refer to the words of R. Moshe Hagiz, who writes that “…we do not have [reliable] scribes in our days, and the majority of the scribes are spoiled and their quill has been corrupted.”80 Consequently, he says, he does not quote from manuscripts, only from printed books (with the exception of the Zohar).81

However, he is speaking of manuscripts written during his own day, after the advent of printing. But ancient manuscripts have a somewhat different status; for they were assiduously checked and corrected before they were allowed into a private house.82

30


31

That is not to say that we should always give credence to readings in manuscripts. At times, even when a group of manuscripts all agree as to a reading, it may still be incorrect, as Lieberman very brilliantly demonstrated in his review of L. Finkelstein’s edition of Sifre to Deuteronomy.83 An intelligent reading of the text, based on a sound knowledge of rabbinic reasoning and a broad acquaintance with the literature, is always a prime prerequisite for critical textual analysis in this area.

If real learning aims at getting to the true meaning of the talmudic passage, it must concern itself with the accuracy of the text and

the meaning of the words. This is self-evident, and probably would go uncontested by the yeshivah world. But these requirements necessitate the competence in philological and lexicographical disciplines, rarely to be found in the standard yeshivah “bohur” (student). Perhaps the advantages to be gained from such long and hard-won knowledge is so marginal that the investment in them is not considered worthwhile. But is the process of their mastery to be viewed as bitul Torah? If it is intended to deepen one’s understanding of Torah, surely it comes within the category of “amala shel Torah”, the toil and labor of Torah!

In addition, I would suggest that an understanding of the historical and real-life contexts within which the Tanna’im and Amora’im made their statements is necessary for a full understanding of the text. This might well be contested by our theoretical polemic “yeshivah bochur”. He might argue that the legal opinions of the Sages are meta-historical: they are not dependent upon historical periods and changes, but upon some kind of absolute logic and unchanging ethical values. Indeed this is the position of those of its dogmatist school.84 Some have even gone so far as to liken law to mathematics, whose laws are immutable and correct in any context. But this is an extreme position held by few. When different principles come into play it is not because the rules have changed but because the situation or context has changed.85 We shall not enter into this complex arena of philosophical argumentation. Suffice it tosay that even the positivist-dogmatist would agree that in order to understand why a certain “absolute” legal principle (sevarah) is used in a specific text, one has fully to understand the context or

30


31

situation in which it was formulated or to which it refers.86 Again this seems obvious. But let us approach it somewhat differently:

When reading a contemporary responsum on a technological issue, such as the use of a refrigerator on Shabbat, or a dishwasher on Yom Tov, if the author of the responsum has, as is usually the case, not given any technical data, such as the company that produced the machine and its model number, the principles upon which it functions, the date of when the question was raised, and so forth, we may find ourselves needing to reconstruct it. For such information isoften crucial to the subsequent relevance of the responsum. One has to know whether the light switches on and off as the door opens and closes, what degree of heat is reached, whether thermostatic controls are used, and so forth.87 Or again, many a responsum dealing with the issue of smoking (on Yom Tov, e.g.) from before a certain date is based on the supposition that smoking is healthful!88 Whereas since the dangers involved in smoking have been scientificallydetermined and widely publicized, the tone of the responsum has radically changed.89 Thus, a knowledge of the historical context of the responsum may be essential to determine its validity and relevance for present day pesak.

The situation is not essentially different when dealing with ancient halakhic sources. A fuller understanding of all aspects of the text is not only legitimate but also essential. Hence, we should approach any given talmudic passage with all newfound disciplines available to us. At the same time we must be humble enough to realize that ultimately our conclusions will never move out of the realm of conjecture. Nonetheless, we may have understood the sugyah a little more, a little deeper, and a little better. We may have solved some additional problems that irked the earlier authorities. And we will have advanced in our limud Torah.90

3333

PA R T I I

In this section, we will offer five examples that typify thephenomenon of error in interpretation. The first example is a

matter of exegesis of the Talmud and has no practical ramification;the second is a question of liturgy, where the “correct” wording of a prayer is at stake; the third and fourth are actual halakhic issues; and the fifth example deals with the application of one of the principlesof halakhic ruling. All of these examples illustrate what kind of mistakes can be made when the scientific methods available todayare not employed. These examples, which are somewhat random in nature and few in number, nonetheless demonstrate that we are obliged to adopt these systematic methods in order to avoid such pitfalls.

34


35

A) As stated, the first example has no practical ramifications;rather, it concerns a problematic explanation of a section of the Yerushalmi, one that stems from a failure to check manuscript editions of the text.

In the standard printed editions of Y. Pesahim 5:1 (31a), there is a difficult passage:

ßÂ‚Â ¨ÔÈ„ ˙È· ·‡ ÆÂ„ÓÏ ˙Â·‡Ó ˙ÂÏÈÙ˙ ∫¯Ó‡ ÈÂÏ Ô· Ú˘Â‰È ß¯R. Yehoshua ben Levi said: The prayers were learned from the Forefathers. The Head (“Father”) of the Court, etc.

The first section, Â„ÓÏ ˙Â·‡Ó ˙ÂÏÈÙ˙, is familiar to us from theparallel passages in B. Berakhot 26b, and Y. Berakhot 4:1, but the following words, ÔÈ„ ˙È· ·‡, have no apparent meaning here, and the commentator Korban Ha’Eda concludes simply that these words are to be omitted: ®ÔÈÒ¯‚ ‡ÏΩ) ‚¢Ï ÔÈ„ ˙È· ·‡. However, even when seeking to erase an “incorrect” text, an attempt should be made to understand how it was formed. In contrast to Korban ha-Eda, the commentator Penei Moshe gave the following explanation:

Ô¢È„ ˙¢È· ·¢‡. This (acronym) represents what is said there (in the Talmud): Abraham established the shaharit prayer, as it is written: “Abraham rose up in the morning, etc.” (Gen. 22:3), and (the sages) learned the morning prayer from Abraham, and this is (the letters) ·¢‡. [He apparently means the ‡ of Ì‰¯·‡ (Abraham) and the · of ¯˜Â· (morning).] And his son Yitshak established the afternoon prayer, which (the sages) learned from that which is written about him, “to converse in the field” (Gen. 24:23),and this “conversation” is a form of prayer, etc., and this is (the letters) ˙¢È· (which stand for) Ô˜˙ ˜ÁˆÈ Â· (his son Yitshak established), which refers to that which is written about him in the afternoon, which is the minha prayer. (The letters) Ô¢È¯ stand for Ya’akov, who established the ma’ariv prayer, which they learned from the verse, “he struck upon the place” (Gen. 28:11), and this “striking” is a form of prayer, for it is written about ‰È¯ (song of supplication) and ‰ÏÈÙ˙, “do not strike me” (Jer. 20:16); and the Talmud abbreviated this to a hint and a sign. Another possibility is to follow the text as it is in the books: ÔÈ„ ˙È· ·‡ [with

34


35

ÔÈ„ instead of Ô¢È¯], which signifies that just as the head ofthe tribunal is called the father of the court since everyone learns from him, so too we learn the prayers from the Forefathers.

How forced are the words of this great commentator,1 perhaps the greatest of all the commentators on the Yerushalmi? One senses his lengthy deliberations, as he first offers a correction-corruption ofthe text and then provides an alternative approach no less farfetched than the first.

Furthermore, attention should be paid to the fact that there is a dot in the text between the words “Â„ÓÏ” and “·‡”, which indicates that they are two separate topics. This dot is found already in the first printing of the Yerushalmi (Venice, 1523, 31d), which is, as iswell known, the progenitor of (almost) all the other editions of the Yerushalmi [fig. 5].

Scholars have already demonstrated that this first printing is basedon the Leiden Manuscript (cod. Scal. 3), which is the most complete manuscript of the Yerushalmi known, and was penned in 1289.2 The person who prepared the manuscript for printing was an apostate Jew named Jacob ben Hayyim ibn Adoniyahu3, about whom it was said: ·Â˜‰ ¯Â¯ˆ· ‰¯Â¯ˆ Â˙Ó˘ ‡‰˙ (“May his soul be bound up in the perforated bundle” instead of the customary ÌÈÈÁ‰ ¯Â¯ˆ, “bundle of life”). He erased words and corrected them according

Figure 5

36


37

to his understanding, and the text as “proofread” by him became the basis of the first printing and those thatfollowed.

Of course, the author of Penei Moshe, R. Moshe Margolies, could not have consulted the Leiden Manuscript, which was not available to him, and so he could not have discovered what is written in this section of the manuscript. However, today, when we check the manuscript (or its facsimile edition), we see that there are additional words that the aforementioned proofreader erased, and that the original text was:

Â˙Â‡ Â„È¯Â‰ ‡Ï ÎÙÚ‡ „Ú ˘¯‚ ˙È· ·‡ Â˙Â‡ ÂÈÓ ‡Ï‡ Â˙ÏÂ„‚Ó ÔÈ„ [fig. 6]

The first word, “˘¯‚”, meansthat the following material is included in a different section of the Talmud as well.4 An early scribe, not wanting to recopy the whole section again here, skipped over it and noted a gap between Â„ÓÏ ˙Â·‡ and Â˙ÏÂ„‚Ó Â˙Â‡ Â„È¯Â‰ ‡Ï ÎÙÚ‡ ÔÈ„ ˙È· ·‡ Â˙Â‡ ÂÈÓ ‡Ï‡ with this word.

This section in its entirety is found in Y. Berakhot

Fig

ure

6

36


37

4:1, and in the Leiden Manuscript it spans more than three pages (from the bottom of page 29 to the end of page 32) [fig. 7]. Theearly scribe skipped over all of this, marking the gap with the aforementioned ˘¯‚, while the proofreader of the Venice edition erased this marker and left us with a difficult passage, leavingonly a lone telltale dot in its place. That proofreader also apparently made a line under the words ¯Ó‡ ÈÂÏ Ô· in Berakhot to remind himself that the whole passage is found elsewhere as well.

Here we see that two strange, difficult explanations givenby one of the greatest commentators on the Yerushalmi stemmed from not checking the source in its manuscript form.5

B) The second example is a question of liturgy that was explained well by R. Ya’acov Hayyim Sofer (grandson of R. Hayyim Palache) in his book, Ma’amar Ya’akov (Jerusalem, 1992, p.120 f.). He was asked if the line in the Shabbat mussaf prayer, È·‰Â‡‰ Ì‚Â Â¯Á· ‰ÏÂ„‚ ‰È¯·„ should be changed to what seems to be

Fig

ure

7

38


39

more grammatically correct and appears in most prayer books: Ì‚Â Â¯Á· ‰ÏÂ„‚ ‰È¯·„ ÌÈ·‰Â‡‰.

Over the course of twenty pages, demonstrating an amazing grasp of the sources, he proves that the original text is È·‰Â‡‰ Ì‚Â and rules that it should not be changed. He also demonstrates that the “amended” version was created by the well-known grammarian, R. Shlomo Zalman Hanau, who printed a siddur titled Sha’arei Tefilla (Jessnitz, 1725) in which he “corrected” the texts that were“faulty” according to those rules of Hebrew grammar he considered correct. The sages of that generation “leapt up and were enraged that R. Hanau did violence to the siddur and garbled and perverted innumerable texts in the prayer book of the Ashkenazim” (Ma’amar Ya’akov, p.124).

One of the harshest critics of R. Hanau was R. Ya’akov Emden6, who devoted a special treatise, Luah Eres, to the refutation of the former’s “corrections” and the reestablishment of the proper text (Altona, 1869; a new edition by D. Yitshaki, Toronto, 2001). Interestingly, in R. Emden’s own siddur, Amudei Shamayim (Altona, 1745-1748) the text is “ÌÈ·‰Â‡‰ Ì‚Â”7, and we would seemingly be justified in assuming that, in this instance, he agreedwith R. Hanau’s correction. [fig. 8.]

However, this assumption would be false, since R. Emden writes in Luah Eres (1.117.45):

“ÌÈÓ· Â‰ÂÏÏ‰”(Ps. 150:4) R.Z.H. added the letter Yod here, and this is a great mistake. I also made this mistake, since my siddur [Amudei Shamayim] was printed from my copy of Beit Tefilah [the siddur of R. Hanau], and I did not makethe effort to fix all of the mistakes in it first, even thoughI proofread them before I gave them to the worker, as I apologized in the introduction to the second section of Luah Eres.

(See Ma’amar Ya’akov, p.126.) In addition, R. Sofer (p.127) quotes R. Emden’s comments on the printing of his siddur, Amudei Shamayim, in his book of responsa, Sheilat Ya’avets (Lemberg, 1884) 2.17.9b:

But first I will make a general point about my book,Amudei Shamayim (and the building of the tower8). They were produced with great urgency, without any prior preparation, organization or transcription, and were

38


39

not subjected to clarifying analysis and scrutiny…and so this labor came upon me suddenly, and the Lord’s hand was firmly upon me, bringing me to shoulder the burdenof the kingdom of heaven, and perform the labor which many need. The worker stood over me, pressing, for his

Figure 8

40


41

daily bread depended on it. Therefore, I could not delay and postpone the mitzva, and was not concerned that some things were not fully explained…

Thus, we can see that R. Emden’s siddur was reprinted from R. Hanau’s siddur, without a systematic correction of the text. Only a close reading of all of R. Emden’s writings on the topic allows us to understand the nature of his siddur and that it does not contradict the conclusion that the proper text is “‰È¯·„ È·‰Â‡‰”.

All of this teaches us that we are obliged to check as carefully as possible not only the manuscripts of early sources nor even just the first printed editions, but also the relatively late editions of workscompiled in the age of printing, and to learn how they were formed and the nature of their reliability in order to avoid the pitfalls in our path.

C) The third example is of far greater consequence, since it relates directly to the decision of a vital, practical matter of Halakha. The lenient halakhic ruling of R. Avraham Yitshak HaCohen Kook permitting the sale of farmland in Israel to gentiles for the entire Sabbatical year in order to circumvent Sabbatical prohibitions is well known. This leniency is based on three principles:

1) The Sabbatical year is today only a rabbinical law (Ô·¯„Ó).

2) There is a lack of clarity about which year is the Sabbatical year.

3) Purchase of land in Israel by a gentile exempts it from the Sabbatical laws. (Even though this last point is a matter of great controversy, one may follow the lenient approach in accordance with the famous rule ‡ÏÂ˜Ï Ô·¯„ ˜ÙÒ – when there is uncertainty pertaining to Rabbinic rulings, we may rule leniently.)

All of this was spelled out by R. Kook himself in great detail in his important book, Shabbat Ha’Arets (Jerusalem, 1910).9

One criticism of his position was that the sale of land in Israel to a gentile is prohibited by the Torah, since the rabbis explain the phrase ÌÁ˙ ‡Ï (Deut. 7:2) to mean “do not grant them (idolaters) a landholding” (see B. Avoda Zara 5a), and thus constitutes a more

40


41

severe violation of biblical halakha than the transgression of the rabbinical laws of the Sabbatical year.10

In response to this criticism, R. Kook penned an additional aspect in his argument for leniency: in a time of urgency (˜Á„‰ ˙Ú˘), it is possible to rely upon the opinion of the Bah, who disagrees with R. Yosef Karo, and rules that Ishmaelites are not included in the category of idolaters to whom the Torah prohibits giving gifts or selling land in the verse “ÌÁ˙ ‡Ï”. R. Ovadiah Yosef repeated this argument,11 and ruled that it is permitted “to sell land in the Land of Israel to an Ishmaelite who is not an idolater.” His reasoning is as follows:

It would seem that this matter is the subject of controversy between two great authorities, since in Beit Yosef, Hoshen Mishpat, 249, he wrote: “and what our teacher [Tur] wrote, that it is forbidden to give a gift to an idolater, does not exempt the Ishmaelite (who is not an idolater), but rather the partial proselyte (·˘Â˙ ¯‚), who has accepted the obligation of the Noahide Laws, and this is the one for whom we are commanded to provide sustenance.” On this the Bach wrote: “His words [those of the Beit Yosef] are difficult, for if so, why did our teacher write “to anidolater” and thus leave room for the misinterpretation that Ishmaelites are exempt?…According to this, the Ishmaelites, who live within a religious framework and are not idolaters, and believe in His Divinity, May He Be Blessed, certainly it is permitted to give them gifts [and, by the same logic, to sell them land], following the opinion of the Bach…etc.

R. Yosef bolstered his claim by adding the following point: “and this is also the logical implication of the words of Tosafot, Yevamot 23a… who wrote that ‘establishing a covenant with all idolatrous nations is forbidden as in “ÌÁ˙ ‡Ï”’(and they repeated this at the end of their comments).”

Indeed, this is the sense of the Bah’s words as they are found in the (standard) texts which were available to R. Kook and R. Yosef. However, it has already been noted that this section of the Bah was tampered with by censors12, and in the new edition of Tur,13, this section was printed in its full, original form (p.422):14

42


43

It is forbidden to give a gift to an idolater. Beit Yosef wrote that “this does not exempt Ishmaelites, but rather exempts the partial proselyte, he who has accepted the Seven Noahide Laws, and this is the one for whom we are commanded to provide sustenance [but all the other gentiles have the same status].” His words are difficult:why would our teacher write “idolater” and thus leave room for the misinterpretation that Ishmaelites are exempt? [And it is my humble opinion that since the authorities do not tolerate the mention of the word “gentile” (ÈÂ‚) in an uncomplimentary way, they removed the word “gentile” and wrote instead “idolaters”. But the real text of Our Teacher’s books is: “It is forbidden to give a gift to a gentile15, etc.” as it says in the end of the first chapter ofAvoda Zara.

Here we see clearly that according to Bah it is forbidden to give a gift to any gentile whatsoever, and the same applies to the sale of land in Israel to a gentile is also forbidden, and only permitted to the partial proselyte who has accepted the obligation of the Seven Noahide Laws. As a result, we can only conclude that R. Kook’s additional argument is invalid, and his leniency is in fact partially based on the censor’s corruption of the text, hardly a reliable source!

The same holds true for the additional proof brought by R. Yosef, since it was also based on the text which appears in regular editions, whereas inspection of that passage in Tosafot (Yevamot 23a) as it is found in the first printing of the Babylonian Talmud (Venice, 1520)reveals the following: (fig. 9)

that verse—is written about the Seven Nations, and even though the verse “ÌÁ˙ ‡Ï” is also written, there in the firstchapter of Avoda Zara we established that it applies to all nations…and even though “ÌÁ˙ ‡Ï” refers to all nations.

Clearly, in their original form Tosafot explain that the prohibition of “ÌÁ˙ ‡Ï” applies to all nations, including Ishmaelites, and only censorship brought about the addition of the acronym ‡¢ÚÚ, which stand for ÌÈÏÈÏ‡ ˙„Â·Ú È„·ÂÚ, (idol worshipers), creating the phrase “all idolatrous nations”. In fact, this acronym was not inserted at the close of Tosafot’s comments, and the phrase remains “since ‘‡Ï ÌÁ˙’ applies to all nations”.16

Therefore, these two proofs are null and void, since they have been

42


43

Figure 9

44


45

shown to be based on the correction-corruption by the censor, and they do not support the claim that land in Israel may be sold to an Ishmaelite; indeed, the original texts of these sources prove just the opposite17, that the prohibition of “ÌÁ˙ ‡Ï” applies to all non-Jewish nations.

D) The fourth example relates to a very serious issue: the relationship between the text of the Tanakh found in the Talmud and the commonly used Masoretic text, in particular when the Talmudic version is the source text for an important halakha.18 The question is: which version should we adopt in writing our Torah scrolls, and which will render Torah scrolls unfit for use. The most famoussugya on this topic is the one which deals with the question “Ì‡ ˘È ?˙¯ÂÒÓÏ Ì‡ ˘È Â‡ ‡¯˜ÓÏ”, “Does the traditional vocalization of the Scripture take precedence in interpretation, or does the traditional Scriptural text without vowels take precedence?,” a sugya which appears in several places in the Talmud. We will cite part of one sugya, the one found in B. Sanhedrin 4a:

For we learned: Beit Shammai say, “All (offerings) whose blood was sprinkled on the external altar in one portion [i.e., instead of the normative two sprinklings], atone… and the purification offering (˙‡ËÁ) [requires at least] twoportions. And Beit Hillel say, “Even when he has given a purification-offering in one portion he has atoned.” AndRav Huna said, “What is the reasoning of Beit Shammai? [They follow the way the Torah is read aloud:] ˙Â¯˜ ˙Â¯˜ ˙Â¯˜, here we have six [sprinklings], four for (the optimal performance of) the mitzvah, two as a minimum requirement. And Beit Hillel [following the way the Torah is written] say, “‘˙¯˜ ˙¯˜ ˙Â¯˜’, here we have four sprinklings, two for the mitzvah and one as a minimum.

However, the Masoretic text reads, “˙¯˜”(Lev. 4:25), “˙¯˜”(ibid, 30), “˙¯˜”(ibid, 34), without the letter Â (vav) in all three places.

Later in that sugya (4b) we read:

Does everyone agree that the vocalization takes precedence? Do we not learn: ˙ÂÙËËÏ ¨˙ÙËËÏ ¨˙ÙËËÏ—Here we have four. (These are) the words of Rabbi

44


45

Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: the proof is superfluous; ËËis two in Katfi, and ËÙ is two in Africi.

From here the rabbis derived the halakha that the four passages contained in tefillin should be placed in four separate compartmentsin the tefillah shel rosh.19 Tosafot wrote there:

This is problematic, since in none of these instances is there a vav between the pey and the tav. Some explain that since the word is written ˙ÙËÂËÏÂ, we take the vav from the beginning and insert it at the end…This is difficult…andRabbeinu Tam explains that the vav in “˙ÙËÂËÏÂ” is the source, and that our text is as follows: “,˙ÙËËÏ ¨˙ÙËËÏ ˙ÙËÂËÏÂ, here we have four.”

Tosafot points out that in the Masoretic text (found in our Humashim) the letter vav is missing at the end between the pey and tav, “˙ÙËÂËÏÂ”(Ex. 13:15), “˙ÙËËÏ”(Deut. 6:8), “˙ÙËÂËÏ” (ibid, 11:18). Therefore, four passages cannot be learned from here, only three can, and this is what precipitates the various explanations, which are palpably forced.

Various Rishonim labored to resolve the contradiction between the Masoretic text and the Talmudic quotations of the Tanakh.20 Rashba, in a responsa attributed to Ramban (232), was asked:

Question: Is a Torah scroll rendered unfit by missing orextra vowels that contradict the Masorah? For I say that the Masoretic texts are not better than the Talmudic ones…I do not wonder about the Aggadic interpretations…rather…in the matter of ˙¯ÂÒÓÏ Ì‡ ˘È Â‡ ‡¯˜ÓÏ Ì‡ ˘È…I thought to fix them, but I am overawed by this matter…let me knowyour opinion about this.

Response: It is my opinion that, yes, indeed, no changes should be made to the Torah scrolls according to the Masorah or midrashei aggadah…Nevertheless, whatever comes as part of an halakhic ruling in the Talmud, such as ˙Â¯˜ ˙¯˜ and ÎÒ· and ÙËÂË…in such cases we certainly do correct the minority, and so it is in every instance, even missing or extra vowels should be corrected according to the majority, for the Scripture says so in the verse: “follow the majority” (Ex. 23:2), and we teach in Sofrim [6:4, pp.169-170, in the Higger edition, New York, 1937]:

46


47

“Three Torah scrolls were kept in the Temple court…and they would sustain two and nullify one.”21

This means that in every place where the Talmudic quotation of a verse contradicts the Masora, the text found in majority of books, i.e. the Masora, should be adopted. Indeed, in his famous work, Kesset ha-Sofer, R. Shlomo Ganzfried ruled this way (Sec.2, Prologue, Ch. 25, p.25): “we find that in some places our teachers, masters of theTalmud, disagree with our teachers, masters of the Masora, and we follow the masters of the Masora.” Later in that work (p. 103a, in Lishkat ha-Sofer, his commentary on Kesset ha-Sofer) he wrote:

In the book Minhat Shai he wrote, and I quote: “I have already prefaced to you that in every place that the Talmud or Midrash contradict the Masora with regard to missing and extra vowels, we follow the Masora…(this applies) not only to Aggadic interpretations…rather even when Halakha is derived from it… and what the Minhat Shai said makes the most sense, that the masters of the Masora disagreed with the masters of the Talmud and the Halakha is like the masters of the Masora…etc.

As stated, Kesset ha-Sofer based his comments on those of Minhat Shai22 (R. Yedidya Shlomo Norzi, died in 1616), on Lev. 4:34:

And as I have already prefaced, wherever the Talmud or Midrash contradict the Masora with regard to missing or extra vowels, we follow the Masora, and (this applies) not only to Aggadic interpretations…rather even when Halakha is derived from it…and in the She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Ramban (=Rashba), Ï¢Ê, No. 232, he was asked about this... and Ramban answered him that in every instance, even regarding missing and extra vowels, we fix theminority of Torah scrolls according to the majority, for the Scripture says so in the verse “follow the majority (Ex. 23:2).”23

Furthermore, the book Kesset ha-Sofer received an endorsement from Hatam Sofer [=R. Moshe Sofer], which was printed at the front of the book:

…so I instruct all of my students who are obligated to heed my voice, that from the day when the aforementioned Kesset ha-Sofer is printed, from then on they should not give permission or grant license to any scribe unless he

46


47

is knowledgeable and well-versed in this book, just like the butchers (shohatim) who receive certification…and ascribe who does not know this book will be disqualifiedfrom his craft, and will review his lessons as the rabbi requires. Thus I instruct my sons and students, May God Bless them, etc.

Thenceforth, all the scribes in Hatam Sofer’s sphere of influencehad to pen their scrolls according to the instructions of Kesset ha-Sofer, who determines, among other things, that when the Talmudic quotations of the Tanakh contradict the Masoretic text, the latter is to be followed.

We have seen that R. Ganzfried’s ruling is based on the comments of Minhat Shai, who in turn relied on the responsum of Rashba (attributed to Ramban). However, the text of Rashba’s responsum is missing a few lines, contains errors as well as garbled phrases.24 The original text can be reconstructed from the responsum of Radbaz, vol. 4, no.101 (=1172), who wrote:

…rather, the essence of the matter is what I will tell you, that in every case of an extra or missing vowel from which the Talmud derives halakha, such as “˙¯˜ ˙Â¯˜” and such as “˙ÎÂÒ ˙ÂÎÂÒ” …in these and other such cases, the Torah scrolls should be fixed they contradict theTalmud. But when there is an extra or missing vowel from which Halakha is not derived, rather only Midrashic interpretation is made, we shall not alter any scroll according to interpretation or according to the Masora, rather we follow the majority, for this is no better than all major and minor laws about which we say, “follow the majority”, and so we should correct scrolls according to the majority of scrolls in a matter which does not pertain to Halakha…since Rashba was already asked about this matter, and he, may his memory be a blessing, answered that, “Yes, indeed, no changes should be made to the scrolls according to the Masora or midrashei aggada”…and at the end he wrote: “Nevertheless, whatever comes as part of a halakhic ruling in the Talmud …in this case we certainly do make the correction. And in every place, even missing or extra vowels, we correct according to the majority, for

48


49

the Scripture says so in the verse “follow the majority”, and we taught in Masechet Sofrim…etc.25

This is also explicit in the words of R. Shimon ben Tsemah Duran (died 1444) in She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Tashbetz, sec.3, no. 160:

But Rashba has already written in a responsum that we do not rely on Midrashim to fix Torah scrolls, and leave themas they are, except where halakha is derived, such as ˙ÎÒ ˙ÂÎÂÒ ˙ÎÒ and ˙Â¯˜ ˙¯˜ ˙¯˜ and the like.26

From here we can see that Rashba’s original words are the exact opposite of what Minhat Shai, followed by Kesset ha-Sofer, understood from the defective text of his responsum.

The halakhic ruling that emerges from Rashi’s original words is the one reached by Hida in his book, Le-David Emet (Jerusalem, 1988), p.18:27

(When there is) any extra or missing letter that leads to a halakhic ruling according to the Talmud, such as ˙¯˜ ˙ÂÎÂÒ ˙ÎÂÒ ˙Â¯˜, the Torah scrolls should be corrected (according to the Talmud).28

Indeed, we saw above that the garbled version of Rashba’s opinion has determined the halakhic practice in Ashkenaz ever since the publication of Kesset ha-Sofer due to the endorsement-decree of Hatam Sofer. However, it should be noted that Kesset ha-Sofer was first published in 1835 as a 35-page volume [fig. 10]. To this volumealone Hatam Sofer gave his endorsement before his death in 1839. An expanded version of Kesset ha-Sofer was printed in Hungary in 1871, over thirty years after Hatam Sofer’s death, and then repeated many times [fig. 11]. Naturally, Hatam Sofer’s endorsement wasalso included in the expanded version, which is 138 pages long, since it includes extensive additions and corrections29 in an added section called Lishkat ha-Sofer [fig. 12]. Only in this section do wefind the rule that “we follow the masters of the Masora”. However,Hatam Sofer’s endorsement of the book never related to this section, and who knows if he would have granted it at all after reading this section.

E) As a final example, we will cite the words of R. Yitshak Nissimat the end of his essay “Hagahot ha-Rema Al ha-Shulhan Arukh” (in: Sinai, Sefer Yovel, Jerusalem, 1958, p.39):

48


49

At the end of our words we will mention another matter about which the later authorities disagreed since they did not have a precise knowledge of the date of Rema’s death. Kenesset ha-Gedola30 wrote in the name of Masset

Figure 10

50


51

Binyamin [by R. Benjamin Aharon son of R. Avraham Selnick, Cracow, 1633] (Ch. 27) that Rema was a later authority than Maran [=R. Josef Karo]. The author of

Figure 11

50


51

Masset Binyamin, who was Rema’s student, certainly knew that Rema had died before Maran, and he wrote this because the glosses were written after Shulhan Arukh was, whereas the Sepharadi authorities wrote that only one who outlives another is considered the later authority.31 R. Avraham Adadi already noted in his book, Vayikra Avraham32, that all of this work out if we say that

Fig

ure

12

52


53

Rema died in 1580, as is written in the text of the divorce contract (get). However, according to what the Hida wrote, that Rema died in 1573, in is impossible to consider Rema the later authority, since the tsaddik’s departure came three years before Maran’s. Once we know that Rema died three years before Maran, Maran is certainly more to be considered the later authority.

The explanation of his words is as follows:33 In the Even ha-Ezer section of Shulhan Arukh, 154, in the first edition that includedRema’s glosses (Cracow, 1580), in the section dealing with the divorce contract (seder ha-get), p.53a-b, the following is printed [fig. 13]:

Figure 13

52


53

Gloss: And the text of the divorce contract used in these countries, in particular in this city, has already been spelled out at the beginning of this chapter: “On the third day of the week, the third day of the month of Sivan, in the year five thousand three hundred

Here the column ends, and below it is printed the word “thirty”. The next column reads:

hundred and forty since the Creation of the world, according to the count we keep here in Casimir, known as Casimere…

From this language in Rema’s gloss, some claimed that he was still alive in “the year five thousand three hundred forty since theCreation of the world”, meaning 5340/1580, since he wrote this date in his text of the divorce contract. However, anyone who examines this text closely will see that the original version was “five thousandthree hundred [and] thirty”, and the word thirty, which serves as the page-marker34 below the column, should also be at the head of the next column. However, the printers changed the date to “fivethousand, three hundred and forty”, leaving out the page-marking word “thirty”, and adding the word “hundred” a second time. They did this, of course, in order to “update” the text, since this edition was published in the year “five thousand three hundred and forty”!R. Nissim has already demonstrated in his essay (p.33) that Rema died on the eighteenth of Iyyar, Lag B’Omer 1572/5332, three years before R. Yosef Karo.35 As a result, we conclude that R. Karo is, in this sense, the later authority whose halakhic decisions take precedence.

As stated above, these five examples should serve as a warningfor us that we need to check the halakhic sources printed in our books as carefully as possible when we come to study, and all the more so when we come to decide the halakha. For these books not infrequently have been distorted or corrupted, missing lines and even entire sections, sometimes according to the one who prepared the manuscript for printing, sometimes at the bidding of the censor, and sometimes due to the carelessness of the scribe or printer. All those who are committed to Halakha should make every effort to examine the original source and establish the proper text.36

54

LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD

55

Part I

1 As, for example, in the Beit Alfa mosaic (6th century) where Abraham, in the binding of Isaac is clothed in such a manner.

2 Elfenbein (infra, n. 4) printed this section in brackets, perhaps indicating that it is not a part of Rashi’s statement, but a later gloss by a disciple. I here assume that this is part of Rashi’s statement. The whole responsum is found in Or Zarua I, sec. 128, 45a, and at the end it is written: ·˙ÂÎ‰ Ï¢ˆÊ ‰ÓÏ˘ È·¯ ÂÈÈ‰ Â·¯Â ¨ßÚÓ˘ ß¯ ·¯‰ ‡Â‰, that is to say Rashi (Rabbi Solomon b. Isaac), and also in Shiltei ha-Gibborim to the Mordechai to Shabbat chapter 1. On R. Shmayah, see A. Grossman, The Early Sages of France (Jerusalem, 1995), index of names, p.625b (Hebrew).

3 For a description of “leg-garments” during the XI-XIII centuries in Western Europe, see C. Koehler, A History of Costume (New York, 1963), p.136,. See also Knaur’s Kostümbuch: Die Kostümgeschichte aller Zeiten von Henry Harald Hansen (Munich & Zurich, 1984), no.77, fig. 162.

4 Teshuvot Rashi, ed. Elfenbein (New York, 1943), no. 262, pp.305-306. On the use of trousers in medieval France, see G. W. Rhead, Chats on Costume (London, 1906), pp.69, 114 (referring to Strult, Dress and Habits of the English People (1842)). See my additional comments in my Minhagei Yisrael, vol.7 (Jerusalem, 2003), p.96, note 7.

5 See note 1. Cf. Ch. Tchernowitz’s comment in Ha-Goren 10 (1928).

6 From A. Rubens, A History of Jewish Costume (New York, 1973), p.86.

7 See Darmesteter and Blondheim, Les Gloses françaises… (Paris, 1929), no. 456, p.62.

8 ÔÈ˜È¯·Ò = συβρίκον (σουβρίκον) “outer garment,” superaria. See E.A. Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Period (Cambridge, MA. and Leipzig, 1914; reprint, Hildesheim and New York, 1975), p.1001a, s.v. συβρικός; S. Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter 8a, s.v. ÔÈ˜È¯·Ò.

9 S. Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter in Talmud, Midrash und Targum (Berlin, 1898), p.8 s.v. ÔÈ˜È¯·‡.

10 It is related to Scottish breeks, English breeches and Old English brèć, etc.

11 See Codex Theodosianus 14.10.3; Lampridius, Alexander Severus 40. See W. Smith, W. Wayte, and G.E. Marindin, A Dictionary of Greek and Latin Antiquities, vol. 1 (London, 1890), pp.314-315. See further R.A. Gergel, “Costume as Geographic Locator: Barbarians and Prisoners on Cuirassed Statue Breastplates”, in The World of Roman Costume, ed. J.L. Sabesta and L. Bonfanto (Madison and London, 1994), p.197, who describes a remarkable cuirassed statue from Sabratha in Libya (p.198, fig. 12.7), which celebrates the Flavian conquest of Judaea.(See C.C. Vermeule, Berytus 13 (1959), p.44, no. 85, pl. 8, fig. 25.)

E N D N O T E S

54


55

He describes the Jewish male captive seated in a pile of oval shields, wearing a sagum around his torso and fastened at his right shoulder, and also, surprisingly according to Gergel, wearing bracae. Gergel adds: “In this particular instance, the costume worn by the two captives on the Sabratha breastplate is principally the product of artistic license and bears no correspondence to actual Jewish costume: Jewish males do not wear trousers.” However, we may call into doubt Gergel’s definitivestatement, as Jews did, on occasion, wear trousers. See further A.T. Croom, Roman Clothing and Fashion (Stroud, 2000), pp.54-56; and C.H. Kraeling, The Synagogue, (New Haven, 1979), index: Clothes, Trousers. Figures. 2 and 3, are taken from Smith’s Dictionary ibid. Trajan’s column was dedicated to the emperor in 113 C.E. See L. Rossi, Trajan’s Column and the Dacian War (London, 1971), for a full discussion of the column.

12 Yelamdenu to Gen. 3:22, apud Aruch s.v. ÔÈ˜¯·; see Aruch Completum, vol. 2, ed. A. Kohut, p.201b.

13 There has been a good deal written on this subject. See, e.g., A.Y. Bromberg, Rashi ve-ha-Yerushalmi (Jerusalem, 1945), and R. Zvi Hirsch Chayes’ glosses to Ta’anit ad fin., and his Imrei Binah, sec. 5ff.

14 In fact, Rashi’s assumption does seem to be partially correct, namely that the sages did not usually wear trousers, but merely cloaks. See, e.g., B. Shabbat 118a, on R. Yossi’s glima, ÌÎÁ „ÈÓÏ˙ Ï˘ ˜ÂÏÁ, in B. Bava Batra 57b, etc. Indeed, trousers were not so common. See S. Krauss, Kadmoniyyot ha-Talmud 2/2 (Tel Aviv, 1945), p.216; on girdles, see pp.217-227; and on undergarments, pp.200-215. For a full discussion of the girdle, “gartel”, one should add the halakhic element of “hikon”, “ÔÂÎ‰”; see B. Shabbat 10a, Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim 91:2; a full discussion is presented in J. Lewy’s Minhag Yisrael Torah, vol. 1 (New York, 1990), pp.141-143, and, more recently, my Minhagei Yisrael, vol.7, pp.94-107, where I treated this issue in considerable detail. For a similar issue, see Mishna Berura 2:1.

15 Der Gaonäische Kommentar Zur mischnaordnung Teharoth, Y.N. Epstein ed. (Berlin, 1921), p.74.

16 Ibid, p.114, line 2.

17 See A. Darmester & D. S. Blondheim, Les gloses françaises, p.103, no. 752: “‘Orel’ écharpe pour couvrir surtout la tête”. Following their lead, see R. Y. Gukovitsky, Sefer Targum ha-La’az (London, 1985), p.7, no.115 and M. Katan, Otzar ha-La’azim (Jerusalem, 1984), p.161, no. 2442.

18 Der Gaonäische Kommentar , p.114, n. 8.

19 Despite the fact that Kohut did not accept his opinion; see there and compare with Arukh ha- Shalem, volume 1, p.217a, entry ÔÂÈÏÈÙ‡, and Krauss’ note in Tosafot ha-Arukh ha-Shalem, p.329, on entry ÌÂÈÏÙ.

20 A. Rich, A Dictionary of Roman and Greek Antiquities (London, 1893).

56


57

21 See further, Smith’s Dictionary, vol.2, pp.318-22, entry pallium; and also Darenberg et Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquités Grecques et Romaines, pp.285-293, entry pallium.

22 It should be noted that the pallium was not particularly popular in Rome, as we find in Smith’s Dictionary, vol.2, p.322a, in W.C.F.Anderson:

In Rome itself the Greek mantle [i.e., pallium -- D.S.], never became naturalized, though under the name pallium, it was well known to them as the distinctive mark of a Greek. Indeed, palliatus is used as meaning Greek, in opposition to togatus, meaning Roman, not only in the well-known division of comedies into palliatae and togatae, but apparently in ordinary speech. Conservative Romans regarded it as beneath their dignity to wear a pallium, and we find it cast up as a reproach againstScipio Africanus (Liv. 29.19) and Rabirius (Cic. Pro Rab. 9.25) that they did so. Cicero speaks with indignation of Verres (Verrem 5.33.86), “stetit soleatus praetor populi Romani pallio purpureo tunica talari”, and even under the Empire Germanicus offended some people by adopting a “par Graecis amictus” (Tac. Ann. 2.59).

23 See further what I wrote in my Material Culture in Eretz-Israel During the talmudic Period (Jerusalem, 1993), pp.132-140 [Hebrew].

24 We shall not go into the question of the possible dating of the setama de-Gemara, but merely note that it is probably late Amoraic. Halivni himself has changed his position on this issue several times as is evident from a comparison of the various introductions to the different volumes of his Sources and Traditions (see note 43).

25 See my Nautica talmudica (Ramat Gan and Leiden, 1986), pp.40-44.

26 Ibid, p.42.

27 Nautica talmudica, ibid. A further corollary of the issue of the “permanent knot” may be found in the responsa Avnei Nezer, Orah Hayyim, 183, on the knots on phylacteries. See, on this, Y. Lewy, Minhag Yisrael Torah, p.72.

28 I have elaborated on this issue in greater detail in my Material Culture, citing many examples, and hence I shall not here pursue this point any further.

29 See, most recently, S. Friedman’s excellent, Talmud Arukh – BT Bava Mezi’a VI: Critical Edition with Comprehensive Commentary (Jerusalem, 1997). For a methodological introduction to this approach, see S. Friedman, “A Critical Study of Yevamot X with a Methodological Introduction,” in: H.Z. Dimitrovsky (ed.), Texts and Studies: Analecta Judaica vol. 1 (New York, 1977), pp.283-321 [Hebrew] (henceforth Yevamot X).

30 See, e.g., B.M. Levin, Rabbanan Savorai ve-Talmudam (Jerusalem, 1937), pp.26ff.; A. Aptowitzer, Ha-Tzofeh le-Hokhmat Yisrael 4 (1875), pp.17-19. The material has been summarized, with a full bibliography, by Friedman, Yevamot, pp.284ff. On the Savoraim in general, see Y.E.

56


57

Ephrathi, Tekufot ha-Savora’im ve-Sifruta (Petah-Tikva, 1973), and my own entry in the Encyclopedia Judaica, 14:920-921, s.v. Savoraim, and in Ha-Encyclopedia ha-Ivrit, 25:424.

31 On ‘sof horaah’, see S. Albeck, Sinai: Sefer Yovel, ed. Y.L. ha-Cohen Maimon (Jerusalem, 1958), pp.57-73, and Ch. Albeck, ibid., pp.73-79. See also D. Rosenthal, Tarbiz 49 (1979-1980), pp.52-61 (with relevant biography).

32 On this concept see M. Elon, Jewish Law (Philadelphia and Jerusalem, 1994), vol. 3, p.1091-1093. See also the very important study of S.Z. Havlin, in Researches in Talmudic Literature, (Jerusalem, 1983), pp.148-192 [Hebrew], especially 160-162.

33 See the plentiful material cited by Friedman, Yevamot, pp.84ff.

34 See note 24 above.

35 See, e.g., the numerous writings of the late Avraham Weiss (and his disciples), and, more recently of David Halivni Weiss, etc.

36 See Freidman, Yevamot X, pp.287ff.

37 See Freidman, Yevamot X, pp.290.

38 Y.Y. Weinberg, Mehkarim be-Talmud (1937-1938; reprint [posthumously in his Seridei Eish, vol.4], Jerusalem, 1969); see Friedman, Yevamot X, p.288.

39 Seridei Eish, pp.119-120.

40 Ra’avia, Weinberg, ibid., p.119.

41 See Weinberg, ibid., p.114.

42 Infra, note 44.

43 See mainly his series Sources and Traditions: A Source Critical Commentary on the Talmud [Hebrew], Moed (Jerusalem, 1975, 1982); Nashim (Tel Aviv, 1968); Nezikin (Jerusalem, 1993-2003); etc. See my review of the first volume in The Jewish Review (May 1969). A veryinstructive example of the significant effect of the use of this kind ofliterary analysis on practical contemporary halakhic issues may be found in E. Schohetman’s “Kiddushin Mahmat Ones”, Sinai 105 (1990), p.118, and again in his “Hafka’at Kiddushin”, Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri 20 (1997), pp.354-355. There he seeks to demonstrate that the passage in B. Bava Batra 48b, beginning “he acted in an unseemly fashion towards her, therefore they did unto him in an unseemly fashion, and annulled his marriage…”, is not part of the original sugya there, but was transferred from B. Yevamot 110a, meaning that the sugya in Bava Batra does, in fact, not discuss “annulment of marriage”. This has very considerable implication for an understanding of the concept of hafka’at kiddushin (annulment of marriage), which Schochetman argues, bolstering his view with citations from classical authorities, that annulment of marriage can only be affected by a court when a get (bill of divorce) is also given. He explains that the annulment process, mentioned in B. Ketubot 3a, B. Gittin 33a, B. Yevamot 90b, and B. Gittin 73a, can,

58


59

in certain circumstances described in the above sources, validate the get, otherwise invalid, thus annulling the marriage, but without a get- a situation described in Bava Batra 48b- no such annulment can be effected (p.359). Such a conclusion greatly reduces the possibilities of utilizing the concept of hafka’at kiddushin as a possible solution – one of several – to solve the problem of the recalcitrant husband who is unwilling to grant a bill of divorce to his wife, even after the court (beit din) has ruled that he is obligated to do so. See further the comments of A.A. Edrei, “The Beit Din’s Prerogative and Marital Law,” Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri 21 (1998-2000), pp.30-31.

44 I. H. Haut, The Talmud as Law or Literature (New York, 1982). Certainly his questions are no less meaningful and provocative than those of Rabbi J.H. Dünner, chief-rabbi of Amsterdam (1874-1912), whose “Anotations Criticae” (Hagahot) to the Bavli, Yerushalmi, Tosefta and Midrashim, have been reprinted by Mossad ha-Rav Kook under the title 3 ,„¢ˆÈ¯‰ È˘Â„ÈÁ vols. (Jerusalem, 1981-1983). Halivni suggested answers that are usually more to the point. On Dünner, see the late Professor Benjamin De-Fries’ biographical essay and appreciation at the beginning of vol. 1 of Mossad ha-Rav Kook reprint (pp.9-32). De-Fries raises the ideological question: “However, R. David Zvi Hoffman raised the issue of psak: would not [Dünner’s] Hagahot in the present form be utilized, against his will, to undermine the whole structure of the Shulhan Arukh?…But one may answer that critical research comes only to delineate lines of growth and development of the halakha in a scientific fashion, but is not intendedto refute the halakha and its conclusions in its dogmatic and mature form…[The scientific approach] recognizes stages of development andthe strange vicissitudes of evolution which at times bring about changes in interpretation and mutation of forms. But in practice we accept the psak as it is derived from the sugya, and as it evolved into its finalform…[p.31].” See De-Fries’ continued analysis.

45 Haut, pp.70-71.

46 For a similar such question in the later periods of halakhic development, see E. Schohetman’s excellent article, Bar Ilan 18/19 (1985), 170-195, as to the problem of ÌÈÂ˘‡¯‰ ÏÚ ÊÚÏ ˙‡ˆÂ‰, casting doubts or aspersion on the earlier authorities.

47 See R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer (great-grandson of the Kaf ha-Hayyim), Yehi Yosef (Jerusalem, 1991), p.132. Sometimes this is formulated thus: ‰ÈÏÚ ÌÈ˙Á È˘‡ ·¯ ¯· ¯Ó Â‡Ï (this passage does not bear the signature of [the editor of the Talmud] Mar Bar Rav Ashi), i.e., not really a part of the Talmud.

48 See S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1962), p.88, 90, 92, 97-98, etc. See also the important study of B. Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Copenhagen, 1961). On B. Sota 22a, see E.S. Rosenthal, Iranica Antiqua 1, (1982), p.73, n. 23; J.C. Greenfield, Joshua Finkel, Festschrift (New York, 1974),

58


59

pp.63-69, summarizes as follows: “It is clear then that the term retnā dĕmagūshūtā refers to a specific type of oral instruction in which theaccent was placed on memorization of a text without comprehension of the context. The retna itself sounded like indistinct murmuring and mumbling to the outsider since it was in all likelihood recited in an unaccentuated monotone. The sort of tannā who could do no more than repeat the text since he came under the category of ˘Ó˘ ‡ÏÂ ‰˘Â ‡¯˜ Á¢˙ was aptly compared with the ‡˘Â‚Ó.”

49 Ed. Cassel (Berlin, 1848; reprint, Tel Aviv, 1964), 23b.

50 See, e.g., B. [M.] Levin, Otzar ha-Geonim to Berakhot (Haifa, 1928), ha-Perushim, pp.8-9: “‡¯Ó‚ Â‰Ï ÛÈË˘È‡ ‰ÏÎ ßÈÙ ÈÚ„È ‡Ï„ ‡ÓÚ ¯‡˘ÂÆÆÆ Æ…‡˙˘ ‰ÏÂÎ„ ‡˙ÈÈ˘¯Ù ‰· ÂÙÈÒÂ‡Â ÂÚËÂ” (From R. Yehuda b. Barzilai of Barcelona, Sefer ha-Ittim, ed. J. Schorr [Berlin, 1902], p.244.) I shall not go into the question of what is the Tarbiza here. I hope to deal with this question elsewhere. See also Otzar ha-Geonim to Megilla (Jerusalem, 1933), pp.6-7, and R. Brody’s comments on this Gaonic responsum in Talmudic Studies 1, ed. Y. Sussman and D. Rosenthal (Jerusalem, 1990), pp.238, note 9, pp.264-265 [Hebrew]. This phenomenon was already noted by Isaak Halevy in his Dorot Harischonim, vol.3 (Berlin and Vienna, 1923), p.228.

51 The bracketed words are a free translation. Cf. Teshuvot ha-Geonim Harkavy (Berlin, 1887; photographic reprint, Jerusalem, 1966), sec. 229, p.107; and Menahot 82b, Aruch Completum, vol. 8, ed. A. Kohut, p.273, s.v. ı·¯˙, etc.

52 See I.M. Ta-Shma’s detailed study of this principle in Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri 6/7 (1979-1980), pp.205-423, and, recently, in his talmudic Commentary in Europe and North Africa, vol.2 (Jerusalem, 2004), ch. 9 [Hebrew]. See further on the history of this concept R.K. Merton, On the Shoulders of Giants (New York, 1965); D. Zlotnik, “The commentary of Rabbi Abraham Azulai to the Mishna,” PAAJR 40 (1972), pp.147-168; M. Raffeld, Sidra 8 (1992), pp.119-140; J. Woolf, ibid. 10, 1994, pp.57-59; S. Wosner, “Hilhheta ke-Batrai- A New Perspective”, Shenaton ha-Mishpat ha-Ivri, 20, (1995-1997), pp.151-167 [Hebrew]; A. Melamed, On the Shoulders of Giants (Ramat Gan, 2003) [Hebrew].

53 Kovez Iggerot, ed. S. Greinemann, vol.2 (Bnei Brak, 1990), no.23, p.37.

54 This, of course, is not always the case. For example, the well-known Leiden manuscript of the Yerushalmi (cod. Scaliger 3) was copied in 1280 by R. Yehiel ben R. Yekutiel ben R. Benjamin ha-Rofeh, who was the author of the very popular edifying Ma’alot ha-Middot, and a considerable scholar. See Lieberman’s introduction in the Kedem photographic edition (Jerusalem, 1971). Such is the case with numerous manuscripts whose colophons survive. This, then, is a rather questionable generalization.

60


61

55 This is a very complex issue that requires an extensive study in its own right. Here we shall merely point out that the majority position among the poskim is that the principle of hilkheta ke-batrai, we follow the latest opinion, does not apply if the later authority was unaware of the opinions of earlier authorities. And when this is the case, we assume that had he known this earlier opinion, he would have judged accordingly. Hence, we follow the earlier opinion, especially if it is that of a Rishon. See, for example, Rema, Hoshen Mishpat 25:2: “But if at times there is a responsum of a Gaon which was not mentioned in the books, and we find them (later on) differing from him, we do nothave to follow the later authorities, because it is possible that they did not know the view of the Gaon, and had they known they would have withdrawn their view (Maharik, sec. 94).

This, as mentioned above, is the majority view, see Kenesset ha-Gedola to Yoreh De’a 37, Beit Yosef, no. 50, 149. See further on this matter, R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, Beit Ya’akov (Jerusalem, 1985), p.19, n.5, 52-53; and his Tiferet Yitzhak (Jerusalem, 1981), pp.46, 115, etc. Hence, discoveries of new early texts of Geonim and Rishonim should certainly be taken into account. A case in point is the Meiri, who was only recently fully discovered, and in whose writings we find numerouspsakim of relevance to our day. (See Beit Ya’akov, p.52, n.17). See, eg., R. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabia Omer, vol.4, Orah Hayyim 24:11, who writes that “if the Aharonim, who ruled stringently [on a certain issue] had known the words of Meiri (to Rosh ha-Shana 28b), who plainly holds the opposite view, they would certainly have abandoned their own conclusions in favor of his” (p.103). And so too in vol. 4, Orah Hayyim 5:1, he writes, “and had the aforementioned Aharonim seen the responsum of R. Abraham son of the Rambam, they would surely not have differed from him” p.48. See further his introduction to that volume.

In fact, I suspect that the Hazon Ish himself would agree with his view. This we may derive from the following: the Tur, Hoshen Mishpat, 280, quotes the Rama in such a fashion that the Rama’s words contradict themselves. The Beit Yosef points this out but is left with the question outstanding (ÔÂÈÚ ÍÈ¯ˆ), while the Darkei Moshe and the Derisha and the Perisha struggle to solve the contradiction. The Hazon Ish (Hoshen Mishpat 15) rightly points out that “the [full] reading is found in the printed edition, and because the Beit Yosef and the Rema did not have the Rama’s work they found difficulties with the Tur’s text. But now thatwe have been graced with the writing of the Rama, the copyist’s error has been revealed to us.” (The Rama’s Yad Rama was first publishedin Salonika 1790, Bava Batra, and Salonika 1798, Sanhedrin. Rabbi Joshua Falk, the latest of the three aforementioned authorities, died in 1614.) See S.Y. Zevin, Ishim ve-Shitot (Tel Aviv, 1966), p.327.

However, in the meanwhile, my good friend and very learned colleague, Rabbi Professor S.Z. Havlin points out that the issue is somewhat more complex than I made it out to be. First, he noted already implicitly

60


61

in an article, published in Ha-Ma’ayan 8:2 (1968), p.36, that this “discovery” of the Hazon Ish was first published by R. ShimonSchkop in his Sha’arei Yosher (Warsaw, 1928), 5:11. The Hazon Ish then discussed this same issue (without alluding to R. Schkop) in his brother’s journal, Knesset Yisrael, vol. 8, in an article under the name of ‡ÏÈÂ ˘È‡ (“Man of Vilna”), published in Vilna in 1912 (sec. 79, pp.119-124) and thence to Hazon Ish, Hoshen Mishpat. 15. (In a note at the end of the Knesset Yisrael article he wrote as follows: “Also in Sha’arei Yosher…he discussed this issue at length, and concluded by saying that it is imperative [‰ÂˆÓ] to declare that the Rema’s ruling is incorrect. However, according to what we have explained above, the ruling of the Rema is valid and Moshe [alluding to the Rema’s personal name] is true and his Torah is true.” In a very complex discussion, the Hazon Ish attempts to demonstrate that despite the error that crept into the text of the Rema, the resultant ruling nonetheless stands. He ends his discursive argumentation: “˙È˙ÈÓ‡ ‡¢Ó¯‰ ˙‡¯Â‰Â…” (and the ruling of the Rema is true). It would therefore appear that his aim was to demonstrate that the textual error does not, in fact, lead to an error in the operative halakha. For the whole issue of the effect of the discovery of new sources upon present-day halakha, see Havlin (ibid., pp.35-37), and most recently the excellent study by R. Moshe Bleich, “The Role of Manuscripts in Halakhic Decision-Making: Hazon Ish, His Precursors and Contemporaries,” Tradition 27 (1993), 22-55.

A further aspect of this issue may perhaps be seen in the frequently found argument that one does not have to follow a specific early authoritybecause he did not yet know the Zohar, which was only revealed after his time. See, for example, Lewy, Minhag Yisrael Torah, pp.107, 132, etc. See also, similarly, other outstanding halakhic sources, such as the responsa of the Maharam (Rabbi Meir b. Barukh) of Rothenburg. See, for example, R. Josef Katz, She’erit Yosef, ed. Ziv, (New York, 1984), sec. 62, p.149, etc. The argument is, of course, that if they had known the Zohar, they would have ruled in accordance with it. And the same argument is applied to the rulings of the Ari . Thus, for example, R. Yitzhak Barda (Responsa Yitzhak Yeranen, vol. 3, sec. 13) writes, “had the Poskim known what the Ari knew, they would have reversed their opinions.” So too, the Hida writes (Birkei Yosef, Orah Hayyim, 421:1, etc.), “We follow him (the Ari) often even when he rules contrary to Maran (=R. Yosef Karo). For the rabbis maintained (kim le-hu Rabanan), that had Maran heard the words of the Ari, he would have changed his mind.” (See M. Hallamish, Kabbalah in Liturgy, Halakhah and Customs [Ramat-Gan, 2000], chapter 5, p.117-145 [Hebrew].)

Yet another aspect of this issue, and a very important one, is the relationship between the Hazon Ish’s position and the principle of hilkheta ke-batrai, the law is in accordance with the late authority. The rationale behind this principle is that, though we may be lesser intellects than our predecessors, of inferior knowledge and shallower understanding, we stand like midgets upon their shoulders, the

62


63

shoulders of giants. And, hence, we have a broader horizon than they do, see farther than they do. (See note 52 above.) Thus, for example, the Radbaz, in his responsa, vol. 8 (B’nei Brak, no date), sec. 141, writes:

For if you do not say so, you have left no place for any of the latter-day authorities to make any innovation ®˘Â„ÈÁ Ì˘ ˘„Á˙È˘© or add any point ®˜Â„˜„ ÌÂ˘ ‡ÏÂ© neither in reasoning nor learning ®‡¯Ó‚ ‡ÏÂ ‡¯·Ò ‡Ï©, for we will say to him: If what you say is true, the earlier authorities would have said it. But this is not so. For no one’s knowledge is complete, other than He to whom is perfection., may He be blessed…For the latter-day authorities saw what the earliest ones did not see…and the writings of their predecessors and built upon them, and made their innovations, and it is for this reason we say the law is in accordance with the later authority….[p.108]

It would then seem, at least at a superficial level, that the Hazon Ish’sview is not consonant with this widely accepted position in Jewish law, and constitutes a reversal from the normative trend in halakhic development. This question requires further careful examination. For yet a fuller understanding of the Hazon Ish’s viewpoint on the development of the halakhah, see Hazon Ish, Kodashim, Terefot 5:8; Nashim, Ishut 27:3; and Orah Hayyim, Kuntres ha-Shiurim, p.115. And on this, see most recently the discussion of R. Zalman Menahem Koren in Birurim be-Hilkhot ha-Ra’aya, ed. M.Z. Neriah, A. Stern, and N. Guttel (Jerusalem, 1992), pp.433-442. See the continuation of this article (pp.442ff) for an exposition of Rav Kook’s view as to Rema, Hoshen Mishpat 28, discussed above in this note. I have digressed somewhat at length in this issue, but this is because I believe it is an issue central to the understanding of the mechanism and development of halakha.

56 And see Hazon Ish Orah Hayyim, p.115, col. 2, sec. 6: “…and even though one does not rely on manuscripts representing a noncontinuous tradition…”, etc. For an interesting comparison, see Minhagei Ziditchov, ed. Josef Gottleib (Jerusalem, 1971), Hosafot Minhagim, no. 102, p.17: ‡Â‰˘ ˘È‡ ÈÙÓ ˘È‡ Ï·Â˜Ó ‡Â‰˘ ¯Ú ¯ÙÒ ‰ÊÈ‡Ó „ÂÓÏÏ ¯ÂÒ‡ Â‰ÈÏ‡ ÈÙÓ One may not study from any book other than one which has a direct continuous tradition that it is from Elijah [the Prophet]:

For references, see editor’s note, ibid.

57 Kovez Iggerot, vol.1, no. 32, p.59.

58 Presumably, he is talking about the first Venice edition, 1520 onward,which was printed by the Christian printer Daniel Bomberg. However, the text was prepared by scholars, such as Rabbi Hiyya, a Venetian rabbi (mentioned in She’elot u-Teshuvot Binyamin Ze’ev, sec.71), Israel Cornelius Edelkind of Padua, some of whom did a very poor job, so that the text is replete with errors. See Rabbi R. Rabinovicz, Ma’amar al Hadpasat ha-Talmud, ed. A.M. Habermann (Jerusalem, 1952), pp.35-43, especially pp.40-41.

62


63

It should be further pointed out that in Bomberg’s printing house, as well as the printing house in Cremona, apostate Jews were used as proofreaders, typesetters, etc., such as Vittorio Aliano in Cremona (Rabbinowicz, Ma’amar, p.39, n.8), Yaakov ben Hayyim ibn Adionyahu in Venice, who prepared the Leiden manuscript of the Yerushalmi (n. 4 above) for the first Venice edition c. 1523, and whomay have converted later on in life. See further on Bomberg and his prints, Marvin J. Heller, Printing the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1992), p.135 et seq. Then he also discusses whether Cornelius Adelkind, who worked with Bomberg, was an apostate (pp.159-161). Additional apostates that worked as his assistants were Fra Felice de Prato and Isaiah Parnas… “all individuals of stature” (ibid. p.159).

Perhaps the Hazon Ish did not know those facts about the early printing of the Talmud, or perhaps he was thinking of later editions, in which such great authorities as R. Shlomo Luria (Maharshal), R. Shalom Shachna, etc. were (directly or indirectly involved. See Rabinovicz, Ma’amar, pp.61-62, on the first Lublin edition, etc. In any case, theHazon Ish’s generalization is somewhat idealized and probably bears little relationship to the historical facts.

59 And of Kovez Iggerot, vol. 3, no. 48, p.69, and Hazon Ish to Orah Hayyim 140, par. 3, p.471.

60 Vol. 19 (1981), 301-310.

61 Variae lections in Mischnam et in Talmud Babylonicam quom ex aliis libris antiquissimus et scriptis et impressis tum e Codice Monacensi praestantissimo collectae, annotationibus instructae, 1868-1897.

62 See preceding note.

63 Yitron Or to M. Sukka 1:1.

64 See Or Yaakov by R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, apud Yehi Reuven, by R. Reuven David Nawi (Jerusalem, 1983), p.119, n.31; and see Sofer’s Berit Ya’akov, p.229.

65 See Leiman, p.310, n.21, for an example. See further Kovez Iggerot, vol. 3, no. 19, p.47., for what he wrote about the woeful textual studies of the Tosefta, and also about inaccuracies in the modern editions of the Talmud (ed. Vilna?), and Hazon Ish, Orah Hayyim, sec. 67, par. 12. See, on this, R. Ovadiah Yosef’s comments in Yabia Omer, vol. 5, “Opening Words.” The attitude of the Hazon Ish to textual emendation must be further examined and perhaps his guidelines to a consistent policy—if there be such—will be discovered.

66 Volume 1 (all that appeared) (Jerusalem, 1934), pp.397-398.

67 Pietrokov, 1908, pp.28-29.

68 Piskei Recanati, sec. 157.

69 Ha-Yerushalmi ki-Phshuto, p.398.

70 Ibid, p.397.

64


65

71 On corruption of abbreviated numbers, etc., see what I wrote in Sinai 62:5-6 (1968): 278-280, and R. Reuven Margoliot, Mehkarim be-Darkei ha-Talmud ve-Hidotav (Jerusalem, 1967), pp.21-30, 51-61. There may be another interesting example of such a corruption. The Yerushalmi in Sanhedrin 4:7, when discussing who is qualified to judgemonetary laws, including bastards (mamzerim) brings a statement in the name of Rabbi Yehuda that ÍÒ ÔÈÈ· ÌÈ˜„˜„Ó ÔÈ‡—one does not examine carefully nesekh wine. The classical commentators were unable to make any sense of this statement, which, of course, bears no relationship to its context. R. Reuven Margoliot (ibid, pp.31-33) after surveying earlier explanations and refuting them, made a bold attempt to explain the statement by suggesting that the letters ÍÒ ÔÈÈ were the initial letters of six rules concerning judgment of monetary laws. But his suggestion, though brilliant, is forced.

Louis Ginzberg, in his notes to Abraham Geiger’s Kevutzat Ma’amarim (ed. S. Poznansky [Warsaw, 1910], p.404), makes a more convincing suggestion, namely that the text read originally: ‚¢È· ÔÈ˜„˜„Ó ÔÈ‡ — one does not carefully examine [a] thirteen [-year-old], i.e., to check whether he has physical signs of maturity, but accepts him as an adult on the basis of his age. As such, it would be parallel to what we have learned in Berakhot 47b:

ÔÈ‡ ≠ ˙Â¯Ú˘ È˙˘ ‡È·‰ ‡Ï˘Â ¨ÂÈÏÚ ÔÈÓÊÓ ≠˙Â¯Ú˘ È˙˘ ‡È·‰˘ ÔË˜ÆÔË˜· ÌÈ˜„˜„Ó ÔÈ‡Â ¨ÂÈÏÚ ÔÈÓÊÓ

A child who has grown two (body) hairs [a sign of maturity] may join a zimmun, and one that has not may not join. And we do not carefully examine a child.

(See the Gemara’s discussion ad loc.) Ginzberg explains that a child who has reached the age of thirteen need not be examined for two hairs: we assume he has indeed reached physical maturity. Similarly, he argues in the case of monetary judgments. If he is thirteen, we may assume he has reached physical maturity, and as such is qualified for adult privilegesand duties. The scribe misread ‚¢È , “thirteen”, as ¢È, interpreting these as the initial letters of ÍÒ ÔÈÈ, and hence our meaningless text.

72 Mayyim Hayyim (Zitomir, 1857/8), sec. 4.

73 Minhat Moshe 4, printed in Kuntres Hukkat ha-Pesah (Warsaw, 1882).

74 See Margoliot, ibid, p.56 (where the bibliographic details require some correction).

75 See E.E. Urbach, Ba’alei ha-Tosafot (Jerusalem, 1980), pp.600-601 (and especially n. 9), that this term refers to our Tosafot to Berakhot—which are an abbreviation to the Tosafot of Rabbi Judah Sir Leon.

76 Hokhmat Shlomo to Berakhot (Cracow, 1581). On the nature of these emendations, see the excellent study of I. Ron, Rabbi Solomon Luria and the Textual Development of the Talmud (Ph.D. diss., Bar-Ilan University, 1989 [Hebrew]). The emendations were based primarily on severa (logical thought processes), rather than on manuscript evidence.

64


65

77 However, see Rashba to Megillah 17b, ed. Dimitrovsky (New York, 1965), p.72 n. 20, where he mentions only Parshat Zakhor. And see Lieberman’s note in square brackets.

78 See also Tosafot Evreux to Sota, ed. Lifshitz (Jerusalem, 1969), p.94, where we read: ‰ÙÂ¯Ú ‰Ï‚Ú ˙˘¯ÙÂ ‰¯Ù ˙˘¯Ù ¨¯ÂÎÊ ˙˘¯Ù ÔÂ‚Î

79 Furthermore, most of the testimonia of the Rishonim that we have cited were not available to him. Thus, Tosafot Rabbi Yehuda Sir Leon firstappeared in Berakha Meshuleshet (Warsaw, 1863), and so, too, Tosafot Rosh to Berakhot. The Ritva to Megilla appeared in Mikhtam le-David (Leghorn, 1782), only some five years before the Gaon died, and thenin Sudilkov, 1833, etc. So, too, the full version of Tosafot Rosh to Sota only appeared for the first time in print in 1968, in Lifshitz’s edition.Only the Rashba to Berakhot should have been available to him, as it was first published in Venice in 1523, and after being long out of printit was republished in Amsterdam in 1715, and then again in Fürth, 1751, etc. It is, therefore, not clear to me how the Gaon apparently overlooked this source. Perhaps he merely disagreed, and only stated that the Tosafot texts were corrupt.

80 Mishpat Hakhamim (Wansbach, 1733), “the twenty-seventh level”, sec. 548.

81 See I. Z. Kahana, Mehkarim be-Sifrut ha-Teshuvot (Jerusalem, 1973), p.303, n. 175.

82 See Ketubot 19b; Tur Yore De’a, sec. 179.

83 Kiryat Sefer 14 (1938), p.329-330. However, one must be very careful before emending, especially against manuscript evidence. See Lieberman, comments in Kiryat Sefer 15 (1939/40), p.56-57. Normally, of course, one would not correct a whole group of independent readings. See Tiferet Yitzhak, p.68, with copious references.

84 See I. Englard, Mishpatim 7:6 (1976), p.34-65. His seminal article was followed by a number of fascinating responses: M. Elon, Mishpatim, 8:1 (1977): 99-137; B. Shiber, Mishpatim 8:1 (1977): 91-98, etc.

85 See Albeck’s position, as described by Englard, ibid., p.60. See Albeck, Iyyunei Mishpat 3, p.710; and cf. Shiber.

86 For a quaint example of this, see Shulhan Arukh, Orah Hayyim, 275:1, and the Be’ur Halakha ad loc., s.v. ‰ ¯Â‡Ï, where there is a lengthy and detailed description of oil lamps of his day, and the difference between them and those of earlier times.

87 In contrast to the classical type of responsum, see the writings of Rabbi Levi Yitzhak Halperin, of the Institute for Sciences and Technology, such as, for example, Maaliyyot be-Shabbat (Jerusalem, 1983), pp.15ff.

88 E.g., Pnei Yehoshua to Shabbat 34b, to Tosafot s.v. ÔÈ¯È˙Ó.

89 See Rabbi Dr. M. Halperin’s essay in Emek Halakhah — Assia 1986, pp.306-310.

66


67

90 For a very thoughtful study of the differences between “learning” and “studying” Talmud, see Menahem Kahana, “Mehkar ha-Talmud ba-Universita ve-ha-Limud ha-Mesorati ba-Yeshivah,” in Be-Havlei Masoret u-Temurah (Rehovot, 1990), pp.113-142. See also the note at the end of the second section.

Part II

1 See Levi Ginsburg’s comments in his introduction to Perushim ve-Hiddushim ba-Yerushalmi, vol. 1 (New York, 1941), pp.124-125, and in the English section pp.LVI-LVII.

2 See Saul Lieberman’s Mavo le-Ktav Yad Leiden (photocopy edition of the Leiden manuscript of the Yerushalmi, Jerusalem, 1971), who refers the reader to earlier research; (Z. Frankel, Mevo ha-Yerushalmi [Breslav, 1870], p.143a; Schiller-Szinessy, Ve-Hema ba-Ketuvim, [Cantabria 1878], from p.5; etc.) See also Y.N. Epstein, Tarbiz 5, 1934, p.257; S. Lieberman Ha-Yerushalmi ki-Pshuto (Jerusalem, 1935), the introduction from p.15; and so forth. Recently, see Y. Sussman’s introduction to Talmud Yerushalmi: According to Ms. Or 4720 (Jerusalem, 2001), pp.9-40, with a detailed biography.

3 For more on this interesting character, see J.S. Penkower’s dissertation: Jacob ben Hayyim and the Rise of the Biblia Rabbinica (Hebrew University, 1982), with a detailed bibliography, and also the entry “Jacob ben Hayyim Ibn Adoniyahu in The Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation, ed. John B. Hayes, vol. A-J (Nashville, 1999), pp.558-559.

4 This word was explained by S. Lieberman in his article, “Tikkunei Yerushalmi 6” (at the end), Tarbiz 4, 1933, pp.107-110.[=S. Lieberman, Mehkarim be-Torat Erets Yisrael, ed. D. Rosenthal (Jerusalem, 1991), pp.210-213] See also E.S. Rosenthal’s comments in his Mavo le-Yerushalmi Nezikin on Ms. Escorial (Jerusalem, 1984), pp.26-28, and his article “Leshonot Sofrim,” in Sefer Yovel Shai, ed. B. Kurzweil (Ramat Gan, 1978), pp.294-297. For a detailed bibliography on this topic, see B.M. Bokser’s, An Annotated Bibliographical Guide to the Study of the Palestinian Talmud II, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, 19.2 (1979), p.180.

5 Commentators have noted this previously. See, for example, R. Issachar Tamar’s comments in his book, Alei Tamar, Moed, Part 1 (Alon Shevut, 1995), p.249. He cites R. Baer Ratner in his Ahavat Tsiyyon ve-Yerushalayim on Pesahim (Pietrokov, 1908, reprint Jerusalem, 1967), pp.74-75. Compare with his entry on Berakhot (Vilna, 1901), p.105.

6 See Y.S. Penkower on the relationship between the two in his article, “Minhag u-Masora — ‘Zekher Amalek’ be-Hamesh o-be-Shesh Nekudot,” in Iyyunei Mikra u-Parshanut 4 (Ramat Gan, 1997), pp.127-128.

66


67

7 P.371a. See my comments on this siddur in Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 2 (Jerusalem, 1991), p.303, and vol. 7 (Jerusalem, 2003), p.58, n. 58.

8 A reference to his book, Migdal Oz (Lemburg, 1884).

9 As well as in the Additions and Emendations to that work (Jerusalem, 1937).

10 She’elot u-Teshuvot Mishpat Cohen (Jerusalem, 1937), nos. 58 and 63. Indeed, there is great uncertainty whether “ÌÁ˙ ‡Ï” is a prohibition of biblical or rabbinic status. In any case, it seems clear that there was no such prohibition in the days of the Tannaim. See my Roman Palestine 200-400: The Land, Crisis and Change in Agrarian Society as Reflectedin Rabbinic Sources (Ramat Gan, 1978), pp.160-167, where I brought proofs for this. See Sefer ha-Mitzvot le-Rasag [=R. Sa’adya Gaon], with commentary by R. Yeruham Fischel Perla, (Warsaw, 1814-1817; New York, 1962), v.2, Lo Ta’aseh 13-14, p.21b, where he shows that the verse “ÌÁ˙ ‡Ï” functions as a support for rabbinic rulings according to R. Sa’adya Gaon, and that, in fact, he does not count include it in his count of Torah laws. However, it may be included in another prohibition, and may apply only to the Seven Nations, etc.

11 In his article “Be-Inyan Heter ha-Mekhira” in Torah she-be-Al Peh. 15 (1973), p.31. The article was republished with some additions in Tehumin 10 (1989), and this point is found there, pp.38-39.

12 See R. David Kahan’s books, He-Akov le-Mishor: Tikkunei Ta’uyot la-Shas Hotsa’at Vilna, with a comprehensive introduction to censorship and mistakes in the printing process (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1993), p.23, and Avraham Yagel Yitshak Yerannen: Hartsa’ot u-Ma’amarim (Brooklyn, N.Y., 2000), pp.107-108. See D. Z. Hillman, Tzefunot 1/2, 1989, pp.62-63. See further Mossad ha-Rav Kook’s edition of the Rambam’s Sefer ha-Mada, ed. S. Lieberman (Jerusalem, 1964), in a note to Avoda Zara 10.2, p.271. For more on the “work” of the censors in the Talmud, see: Elbona Shel Torah (Berlin, 1929), from p.21f., by Shafan ha-Sofer (pen-name of R. Shmuel Shraga, son of R. Shalom Feigensohn); and also R. Rafael Natan Nata Rabinovitz’s important, Ma’amar al Hadpassat ha-Talmud, ed. A.M. Habermann (Jerusalem, 1952), pp.72-73 (on the Basilia [=Basel] edition, 1878-1881); and M. Benayahu, Haskama u-Reshut bi-Defusei Venezia (Jerusalem, 1971), p.394, the entry on Censorship (‰¯ÂÊˆ); and, more recently, M.J. Heller, Printing the Talmud: A History of the Earliest Printed Editions of the Talmud (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1992), p.438a in the index, the entry on Censorship; D.Z. Hillman, Tzfunot ibid. pp.62-68.

13 Jerusalem: Makhon Yerushalayim, 1994.

14 I enclosed the lines that are not found in standard editions in parentheses.

15 It should be noted that the Rambam was not fully consistent in his use of the word “ÈÂ‚/gentile”. For in Ma’akhalot Asurot, 11:8, he wrote: “Anywhere it says in this matter that the wine is prohibited, etc…. and anywhere it says ‘gentile’ without specification, it is referring to an

68


69

idolater,”, while in Issurei Bi’ah, 12:1-10, the words “ÈÂ‚” and “‰ÈÂ‚” refer even to gentiles who are not idolaters (only in the early printings before the censors changed it to “Ì¢ÂÎÚ/idolater”). See Encyclopedia Talmudit, the entry “ÈÂ‚”, and footnotes 30-33 there. (I learned this from an as yet unpublished article by R. Zvi Neria Guttel.) See above note 13, in the Mossad ha-Rav Kook editon of Rambam, Avoda Zara 10.2 for a similar situation. For in Avoda Zara ibid he ruled as follows: “From here you learn that it is forbidden to cure idolators (Ê¢Ú È„·ÂÚ) even for pay.” And from this passage Kesef Mishne deduced that “if he is not an idolator, you may cure him for pay, and draw him out of a pit”(see B. Avoda Zara 26a). However, Rambam in a responsum (ed. J. Blau, vol. 2 [Jerusalem, 1960], no. 448, pp.725-728) was asked “concerning the Ishmaelites [=Moslems] (that he had referred to in Ma’akhalot Asurot 11.7) that are not idolaters…” There he affirms that, indeed, they are notidolaters However, in responsum 148 (ed. Blau, vol.1 [Jerusalem 1958] pp.282-284), concerning circumcision of a non-Jew he states that “there is no difference between an Ishmaelite and a Christian”, namely that all may be circumcised for the purpose of circumcision, even though they have no intention to convert. But if this circumcision is for curative purposes, it is prohibited (basing himself on B. Avoda Zara ibid.). And such is his ruling in Mila 3.7. However, in the Pe’er ha-Dor edition (no. 60) the reading is: ÂÎÂ ¯‡˘Ï Ì¢ÂÎÚ ÔÈ· ‰Ê· ˜ÂÏÈÁ ÔÈ‡Â'. See R. David Yosef’s edition of Pe’er ha-Dor (Jerusalem, 1984), p.140 (Pe’er ha-Dor was first published in Amsterdam in 1765, by R. Mordekhai Tama,and received the approval of R. Ya’akov Sasportas.), and the editor’s note 17, pp.140-141, for a detailed discussion of Rambam’s ruling on this issue.

16 This is contrary to R. Ovadia Yosef’s apparent understanding.

17 However, R. Yosef brought other proofs for his argument that “‡Ï ÌÁ˙” only applies to idolatrous gentiles and cited a responsum by Rashba (vol. 1, no. 8) that was quoted by R. Hayyim Palache in She’elot u-Teshuvot Nishmat Kol Hai (Salonika, 1832-1837), Yore De’a 54. He also directs our attention to the Meiri on Avoda Zara 20a: “Anyone from the religiously observant nations who believe in G-d, it is unquestionably permitted and proper, even if he does not know him.” Since the Meiri is commenting on the verse, “give it to the stranger in your community to eat, or you may sell it to the foreigner,” (Deut. 14:21), we may infer that he would permit selling land in Israel to such religiously observant gentiles. R. Yosef adds that R. Tsvi Pesah Frank, the chief rabbi of Jerusalem, also ruled this way in his Kerem Tsiyyon, vol. 3 (1937), p.6. See the discussion of this topic by E. Shohetman, Vayamideha le-Ya’akov le-Hok (Jerusalem, 1994), pp.20-21. Therefore, R. Yosef’s halakhic conclusion may be correct, even though (some of) his proofs are not fully substantiated.

For more on Meiri’s approach to “the religiously observant nations”, see E.E. Urbach, “Shitat ha-Sovlanut shel R. Menahem Meiri—Mekorah u-Migbaloteha,” in: Perakim be-Toledot ha-Hevra ha-Yehudit Bimei

68


69

ha-Beina’im u-va’Et ha-Hadasha (Jerusalem, 1980), pp.34-44; J. Katz, Exclusiveness and Tolerance (Jerusalem, 1961), pp.114-128 and his article “Od al Sovlanuto ha-Datit shel R. Menahem ha-Meiri,” Zion. 46 (1981), pp.243-246; Y. Blidstein, “Yahaso shel R. Menahem ha-Meiri la-Nokhri—bein Apologetica le-Hafnama”, Zion 51 (1986), pp.153-66 (especially pp.164-166 and p.156). See also Y. Ta-Shma’s observation in Tarbiz 49 (1980), p.218 (a continuation of Y. Katz’s article, Tarbiz vol. 48 (1979), pp.374-376, and D.Z. Hillman’s very useful article in Tsefunot 1 (1989), pp.65-72.

Another point should be made about Rashba’s aforementioned responsum. The question was: “And that which the youth asked you about, the question of ‘a person sends (a gift) to a gentile’ (M. Hullin, 7:2; B. Hullin 93b), how does this fit with what they have said, ‘it isforbidden to give a gift [to a gentile]’ (Avoda Zara, 20a)? And you replied that the (Mishna speaks of) one who sends a haunch (yarekh) to a gentile does not do so for free, but rather to pay him back for something, or a gentile who is not an idolater. You spoke well…” Rashba-or his petitioner-could postulate that the Mishna refers to a gentile who is not an idolater only because the wording of the Mishna is “È¯ÎÂ”. This is also the wording in the text of the Rishonim (Rashba, ed. Y.D. Ilan [Jerusalem, 1986], p.520; Ritva, ed. S. Rafael [Jerusalem, 1995] p.123, has È„Â‰È ÂÈ‡=] È¢‡, non-Jew, see note 222 there]; Rivan, ed. M.Y. Blau [New York, 1990], p.258; Meiri [New York, 1990], p.175; Hiddushei Ra’a, ed. H. Porush [Jerusalem, 1988], p.180; The Rif on Hulin with a commentary in Arabic, ed. Y. Kafah [Jerusalem, 1960], p.72; Hiddushei ha-Ri Mi-Narbona le-Hullin, ed. G. HaCohen Lazebnik [Jerusalem, 1989], p.87; and so on.) This is also the wording in the first printed edition (Venice, 1722), and in manuscript editionsof the Mishna such as the Hamburg 169 Manuscript (facsimile edition, Jerusalem, 1972), p.129 of B. Hullin, etc., while most modern editions of the Bavli (but not of the Mishna!) the wording is: Ì¢ÂÎÚ or ÌÈ·ÎÂÎ „·ÂÚ (idol worshipper).

In addition, a close inspection should be made of the distinction made by R. Estori ha-Parhi in his, Kaftor va-Ferah, ed. Y.P. Grossberg (Jerusalem, 1959), Ch.20, p.28, between Ishmaelites, who are not idolaters, and uncircumcised gentiles (ÌÈÏ¯Ú), who are considered idolaters with regard to rental of housing in Israel, but not for the purchase of land in Israel prohibited by “ÌÁ˙ ‡Ï”. He also wrote there (p.28) that the sale of land in Israel to gentiles is permitted in cases of compulsion (ÒÂ‡) etc, and that perhaps times of difficulty (˙Ú˘˜Á„‰) are no less than compulsion. Also see the Makhon le-Limmudei Mitsvot ha-Arets edition (Jerusalem, 1997), sec.1, p.195, n. 189, which offers the following version, “and the rabbi, Ba’al ha-Ittur, rules like the Yerushalmi even in a regular case”, which permits the sale of land in Israel to gentiles even where there is no compulsion. R. Yosef Blumenfeld also has this version in his edition (New York, 1958), p.315 (without any annotation), and this requires further study. On the status

70


71

of the Ishmaelites, see the Makhon le-Limmudei Mitsvot ha-Arets edition, ch. 5, pp.79-80.

18 This example is based on an excellent, comprehensive article by my good friend, S.Z. Leiman, “Masora and Halakha: A Study in Conflict”in Tehilla le-Moshe: Biblical and Judaic Studies in Honor of Moshe Greenberg (Indiana, 1997), pp.291-306. Much has been written on the evolution of discrepancies in the text of the Torah. We will mention, for example: O. Simon’s outstanding article, “Rav’a [R. Abraham ibn Ezra] ve-Radak—Shetei Gishot le-She‘elat Meheimanut Nusah ha-Mikra,” Bar Ilan 6 (1968), pp.191-239; M. Cohen, “Ha-Idea bi-Dvar Kedushat ha-Nusah le-Otiyotav u-Vikoret ha-Text,” in E. Simon, Ha-Mikra va-Anahnu, ed. A. Simon, (Tel Aviv, 1979), pp.42-68; and more recently, M. Tsippor, Al Mesira u-Masoret: Perakim be-Toldot ha-Parshanut ha-Keduma shel ha-Mikra, Tirgumo u-Mesirato (Tel Aviv, 2001), with an extensive bibliography.

19 Compare with Zevahim, 37b, Menahot 34a, Sukka 6b.

20 Several of them were noted by S. Z. Leiman, pp.293, n. 8.

21 Compare his responsum on ˙ÂÏÎ≠˙ÏÎ in Numbers 7:1, in Teshuvot ha-Rashba, ed. Dimitrovsky, vol. 1, Jerusalem, 1990, sec. 14, p.51 (and cf. Beit Yosef, Yore De’a 275 ad fin). See further “Letter ofthe Scribe Rabbi Abraham Hazzan and the Dispute Following upon his Appointment as the Person Responsible for the Sifrei Torah,” Zefunot 11/1, ed. M. Benayahu (Jerusalem, 1971-1977), pp.213-215 [Hebrew].

22 The book Minhat Shai was first printed in Mantua in 1722-1744 andreprinted in Vienna in 1813, and then in Warsaw in 1843-1845, and was inserted into Mikra’ot Gedolot. The introduction to this book, Goder Perets, was first printed in Pisa in 1820, and then in Vienna in 1813,and printed under the name Mikdash Ya in Pisa in 1819 and in Vienna in 1873.

23 See Leiman, p.304, n. 37.

24 See She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Rashba, Makhon Yerushalayim edition, (Jerusalem, 1997-2001), vol. 7, p.184, n. 21, which deals at length and in detail with this version of the text. Compare this with what I note in Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 3 (Jerusalem, 1994), p.16.

25 Radbaz continues, “Therefore, I myself went to the house of the “proofreader” [the rabbi who “corrected” the Torah scrolls according to the midrash of Rashbi, see the text of the question there], and I fixedthem and restored the crown of Torah as it had been at first, and in therest of the books. And I commanded him not to correct Torah scrolls according to midrash, rather according to the majority of scrolls, and I relied on Him, May He Be Blessed, for He knows the secrets of every heart…etc. See further in Radbaz, vol.3, no. 1200, at the end of the responsum, where he wrote that the Rashba answered: “that in every extra or missing vowel which results in halakha, such as…we rely on the masters of the Talmud, since they have already checked the matter carefully…etc.” (Apparently, he summarizes the Rashba here and does

70


71

not quote him verbatim.) For what constitutes the majority of scrolls, see the previous footnote, and Leiman, p.295, n. 16.

26 Compare this with Meiri on Kiddushin 30a: “but in this matter the Geonim agreed that since the Talmud is drawing a halakhic conclusion, such as ˙ÙËËÏ and such as ˙ÎÒ· ˙ÎÒ· and such as ÂÏ ÔÈ‡ from which they learned halakha, see there, we rely on them, on the Talmud.” Also see his book, Kiryat Sefer, ed. M. Hershler (Jerusalem, 1956), vol. 1, pp.57-58 (Leiman, pp.199-200).

27 This abbreviated version of the book, Emet le-Ya’akov, by Y. Algazi on the rules of reading from and writing Torah scrolls, was first publishedin Leghorn in 1786. R. Ya’akov Yisrael Algazi’s book was firstpublished in 1764.

28 This is also R. Ya’akov ben R. Binyamin Ha-Kohen Poppers’ opinion in She’elot u-Teshuvot Shevut Ya’akov (1741-1742), (Leiman, p.302).

29 The additions are found throughout the book, and alterations and additions are evident starting with the first section. The division intochapters of Kesset ha-Sofer is also different than in the first edition, andit should be noted that there are statements in the second addition that contradict the Hatam Sofer’s opinion. For example, in ch. 2, sec.12 (in the first edition), we find the following halakha: “and even if he wroteat first in black ink, and the ink later deteriorated and turned red, it isalso unfit for use,” with a reference to the halakha in ch. 5, sec. 23,which reads: “letters and words that have been partially erased, if they are legible enough that a child who is neither clever nor stupid is able to read them, it is permitted to write over the letters to improve and renew them, and this is not considered ‘out of order’, since the letters are presently fit, and the ink he is adding is only meant to preserve them sothey will not be further erased…etc.” In the second edition, the former halakha is found in ch. 3, sec. 2, but there is no reference to the average-child-reader test, since the latter halakha does not appear in Ch.6 of this edition, where the topic is discussed. It does appear, however, in ch .9, sec. 9, which reads: “a letter whose ink has faded somewhat, if it is still sufficiently black, it is permitted to write over it again, andthis is not ‘out of order’, since even now the letter is fit, and he isonly adding ink to clarify it and prevent it from being further erased. However, if the letter has turned red, or any color other than black, writng over it does not help, since this is ‘out of order’.” The reader is referred to Hakira 7, found in Lishkat ha-Sofer, which, as stated above, was not seen by Hatam Sofer. This halakha is discussed at length there (pp.54b-55b) including the following statement on p.55a: “therefore, it seems, according to my humble opinion, that if it is so faded that it would have been unfit if had been written that way in the first place,then when it happens afterwards it is also unfit, and writing over itdoes not help for tefillin or mezuzah since it is ‘out of order’.” Thisconclusion contradicts the opinion of the Hatam Sofer, who writes in a responsum (Yore De’a 256) that the reason for the Magen Avraham’s distinction between a defect present in the ink at the time of writing and

72


73

a defect which occurs later is that since the letters must be written in ink, and it is natural for ink to fade and turn reddish over time, faded ink is still considered ink. Therefore, writing over the faded letters is effective, while letters which are discolored from the beginning cannot be repaired, since ink must be black to be considered ink. Thus, we see that Hatam Sofer distinguishes between original defects and those which occur later. This was noted by R. Yehuda Horowitz in his book, Gilyonei Mahari (1991), pp.84-85. (Also compare what he writes there in his note on Hakira 7 on p.83.)

It is also noteworthy that Hatam Sofer, in his commentary on Hullin 17a, sought to explain R. Sa’adya Gaon’s commentary on Daniel 2:3 and reached a novel conclusion. He did not know that this section is an interpolation of a Karaite source into a commentary mistakenly attributed to R. Sa’adya Gaon. See my comments in Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 1 (Jerusalem, 1989), pp.149-153, and the important note by my friend, Professor David Henshke, in Minhagei Yisrael, vol. 4 (Jerusalem, 1995), p.247. He further explained this phenomenon in his article, “Al Halakha Hitsonit she-Nikhnesah Lifnai ve-Lifnim,” in Tarbiz 65 (1996), pp.225-229.

30 Hoshen Mishpat, sec. 175, Beit Yosef no. 125.

31 Hilkheta ke-batrai, see above Part I, notes 41, 44.

32 [Leghorn, 1865], in the Klalim section, n. 81, p.120d.

33 R. Y. Nissim explained this on p.33.

34 For more on page-markers (“shomrei ha-daf” or “shomrei gilyonot”; custodot in Latin) in printed texts, see A.M. Habermann’s book, Ha-Sefer ha-Ivri bi-Hitpathuto: mi-Simanim le-Otiyot u-mi-Megilla le-Sefer (Jerusalem, 1968), p.41. For their use in manuscripts, see M. Beit-Arié, Hebrew Codicology (Paris, 1976), pp.59 and 65.

35 R. Nissim wrote there, in footnote 12: “See the text of the inscription on his tombstone in Friedberg’s book, Luhot Zikkaron, (Drubitsch, 1897), p.8. This is also the testimony of the author of Tzemah David, who was, as is known, one of his students. Indeed, Taz on Orah Hayyim 420 wrote differently: ‘And I heard from an old man who claimed that he was in Cracow in 5333 (1573) and Rema died on Lag be-Omer’. And Hida also testifies in Shem ha-Gedolim in his entry that he heard fromhis son who prostrated himself on Rema’s tomb in Cracow and said that he saw the following words written on the tomb: ‘On the thirty third day of the Omer, the year 5333, thirty-three years old…’ It seems that R. Avraham Azulai’s memory must have deceived him, since the tombstone has survived until today and all those who have copied it write ‘5332’ (Also see Kelilat Yofi by R. Hayyim Natan Dembitzer, vol.1[Cracow, 1888], p.17b, and the addendum of R. Menahem Krengel in Shem ha-Gedolim ha-Shalem, p.71b). Also that which he wrote that he died at thirty-three is certainly a mistake, since we find in his responsa(no. 10) that he answered his relative Maharam mi-Padua about the printing of Rambam’s Mishne Torah, and it is known that this edition

72


73

was printed in Venice in the year 1550-5310, and there is no doubt that he was no longer a youth. And I saw the same thing in the addendum of the publisher of of Shem ha-Gedolim ha-Shalem there, who wrote that in the ledger of the Burial Society he was referred to as ‘an old man’ (yashish). The truth of the matter is, apparently, that as R.H. Dembitzer wrote, that ‘he judged Israel for thirty three years in Cracow’.”

For the text of the inscription see A. Ziv, Rabeinu Moshe Isserlish (Rema) (New York, 1972), p.201:

The Rabbi, the Geon, the Western Lamp, the great one of the generation, who is Moshe, Shepherd, Stone of Israel, Moshe was the Shepherd of the Flock of Israel, he did God’s righteousness and justice for Israel, spread Torah in Israel, established students for the multitudes of Israel, and from Moshe until Moshe there has risen none like Moshe in Israel, and this is the Torah of the sin-offering and the Torah of the burnt offering, which Moshe placed before Israel, in the year of 5332 here in Cracow.

As R. Nissim noted, Hida writes in Shem ha-Gedolim, no. 40, under the heading, “Moharam Isserlish” (Leghorn, 1774):

And now verily I shall say that I heard from my dearly beloved son, Shield of Avraham at his assistance, who merited visiting the tombstone in the holy community of Cracow and the following inscription is written on the tombstone of Moharam: “On the thirty-third day of the Omer in the year 5333, at thirty-three years old…” All this my dear son told me who recalled what he saw with his eyes and merited prostrating himself on their tombstones…

It seems that it was difficult for the son, R. Avraham Azulai, to read theinscription, since the Burial Society’s inscription in the margin of the tombstone (Ziv, p.22 according to Luhot Zikkaron, sec. 1) reads:

Many will be dumbstruck and wonder, how at this moment when the waves of time have surely surrounded me, we have gone from evil to evil, and also come to dig up the land, and the treacherous water have almost swept us away, and in an instant a spirit came out before God and stopped the waves. However, there is no cause to wonder, for looking on the resting places of the wise-hearted lions, from whose produce all are satiated, [we see that] it is the merit of the sages and their Torah which protected us. Behold, thus the leaders of the Burial Society, a company of friends, seeking for the dead, have risen up and through the efforts of volunteers of the people those tombstones have been renewed, so that the memory of those sages may not depart from their descendants. Renewed in Tammuz, 5554 (=1794). [fig. 14]

Therefore, in 1794 the tombstones were renovated, and Hida’s son saw them before 1774, when the treacherous waters had washed them away and it was almost impossible to read them. There is a repetition of the words “wave-Ï‚” and “heart-·Ï”, which are also the numbers 33 and 32, respectively, and thus hint at the date of Rema’s death, 33 in the Omer, and the year of his death, 5332.

74


75

The words of Tzemah David which were mentioned by R.Y. Nissim are those of Rema’s student, R. David Ganz (1541-1613), ed. M. Breuer (Jerusalem, 1983), p.142; ed. Hominer (Jerusalem, 1966), p.76: R. Moshe Isserles is the perfectly pious one who enlightened the eyes of the Diaspora with his books, Torat ha-Ola, Torat ha-Hattat and Shulhan Arukh, and established many students and spread Torah in Israel in the holy community of Cracow for about twenty years and went up to God in the year 5332 [=1573].

The printers further confused the matter of the date of his death by printing in Darkei Moshe on Yore De’a, 124:17: “Long after I had written this, I found the same thing in a responsum of R. Levi Ibn Habib which was printed in the year 5360 [=1600], sec. 41…” According to this, Rema was still alive in the year 1600-5360! She’elot u-Teshuvot ha-Ralbah [=R. Levi ibn Habib] were first printed in Venice in 1565 (5325), and the second printing wasin 1865 (5625). There is no record of a 5360 printing. Perhaps it should read 5340, but this date is also incorrect. In the Machon Yerushalayim edition of Tur, Yore De’a, they note (Hagahot ve-He’arot 65): “The words ‘year 5360’ are not found in the manuscript edition, and it seems likely that the words ‘year 5360’ are not words of Darkei Moshe…” However, they still maintain that Rema died in 5333, and this is incorrect; he died in 5332. (I checked the Sulzburg edition [1692] of Darkei Moshe ha-Shalem, sec. 23, and it seems to have 5760/Ò¢˘ ˙˘, but it is difficult to distinguish between the letters Samech/60/Ò andfinal Mem/40/Ì in that printing.)

36 See also what I wrote in my Why Jews Do What They Do: The History of Jewish Customs throughout the Cycle of the Jewish Year (Hoboken, 199), pp.128-140, for an instructive example of a custom resulting from a mistaken understanding of the Yerushalmi text, and

Figure 14

74


75

its subsequent corruptions. Recently, R. Eliyahu Soloveitchik wrote an important article in Ha-Ma’ayan 43/2 (Tevet 2003), pp.73-78, entitled “Hirhurim al Mahapekhat ha-Sifrut ha-Toranit ha-Hadasha,” where he deals with the phenomenon of new scientific editions of basic texts,such as Rambam’s Mishne Torah (by R. Shabtai Frankel), and Shulhan Arukh (Orah Hayyim and Yore De’a by Machon Yerushalayim; Hoshen Mishpat by Morasha Lehanhil; Even ha-Ezer by Makhon Rosh Pina), the resistance to this “revolution”, its origins, the criticism of this resistance and the roots of the debate. In the course of an excellent, probing analysis that shows an understanding of both sides, he brings quotations from Rishonim to demonstrate their approach to the critical analysis of the text, such as: Rambam (Malve ve-Love, 16:2):

There are versions of the Talmud in which it is written…and I have already checked the old versions and I found in them…and I received part of an old Talmud, written on parchment in the way they wrote about five hundred years ago and I found two versions of this halakhain the parchments and in both it is written…and because of this error in some of the books some of the Geonim ruled…

Ramban’s Milhamot Hashem (Bava Batra, Ch. 8, p.57b in the pages of the Rif):

After I wrote this, I merited finding this halakha in an original versionof Halakhot, with corrections in the handwriting of the righteous one (the Rif), May the memory of the tsaddik be a blessing, and I saw that he wrote the following in the margin…until here was written in that version. The eye of Our Teacher, may his memory be a blessing, saw all the deliberations of the later authorities, and he went back and erased this and corrected Chapter Mi she-Meto in this version…as is written in the versions of Halakhot…

He also cited what R. Avraham Eliyahu Kaplan wrote in his famous article on the need for a new commentary on the Talmud (Divrei Talmud, vol. 1, Jerusalem, 1958, p.19):

Talmudists in western countries make extensive use of the method of correction of the text according to alternate versions. There are those who like it so much that they would make it the only method of learning Talmud. There are also among the sharp-witted, well-versed scholars of the east those who leave the proper path and go to the other extreme; they have disregarded the alternate versions too much. This was not the path of holiness of Our Teachers, the Rishonim, z”l; into the depths of their analysis of the halakhot themselves they placed the textual precision of the language of the halakhot. One who desires truth and justice in interpretation must follow this path.

There is no doubt that this warning is very important for us.

7676


77

I N D E X

Ari R. Yitzhak b. Shelomo Luria, (Jerusalem, 1534 Safed, 1572). Founder of modern cabala

Arukh Lexicon of the Talmud by R. Natan b. Yehiel (Rome, c.1035 – 1106)

Bah Commentary on the Tur by R. Yoel Sirkes (Lublin 1561 – Cracow, 1640)

Be’ur Halakha Commentary to the Orah Hayyim section of the Shulhan Arukh by R. Yisrael Meir of Radun

Beit Yosef Commentary on the Tur by R. Yosef Karo

Bertinoro, Ovadia Rabbi and commentator of the Mishna (Italy, c. 1450 – Jerusalem, before 1516)

Darkei Moshe Commentary on the Tur by R. Moshe Isserles (see Rema)

Derisha, Perisha Commentaries on the Tur by R. Joshua Falk Katz (Lublin – Lemberg, 1614)

Yisrael Meir ha–Cohen of Radun Rabbi, ethical writer, talmudist and posek (Lithuania, 1838–1933)

Haggahot Asheri See RoshHazon Ish Pen name and magnum opus of

R. Avraham Yishayahu Karelitz (1878–1953), talmudic scholar, posek

Hida Acronym of R. Hayyim David Azulai (Jerusalem c. 1724 – Leghorn, 1807), talmudist, cabalist and historiographer

7676


77

Hoffman, David Zvi Rabbi, biblical and talmudic scholar, Verbo (Slovakia) 1843 – Germany, 1921

Kenesset ha–Gedola Supplement to the Shulhan Arukh by R. Hayyim Benveniste (Constantinople, 1603 – Smyrna, 1673)

Korban Ha’Eda Commentary on the Yerushalmi by R. David b. Naftali Fränkel (Berlin, c. 1704 – 1762)

Ktav Sofer Pen name of R. Avraham b. Moshe (“Hatam”) Sofer (1815–1871), posek and commentator

Magen Avraham Commentary to the Orah Hayyim section of the Shulhan Arukh by R. Avraham Gombiner (Gombin, c. 1635 – Kalisz, c. 1683)

Maggid Mishne Commentary on the Rambam’s Mishne Torah, by Vidal Yom Tov of Tolosa (2nd half of the 14th cent.)

Maharshal R. Solomon b. Yehiel Luria, Brest–Litovsk, 1510 – Lublin, 1574

Meiri, Menahem b. Shelomo Scholar and talmudic commentator, Provence, 1249–1316

Minhat Shai Magnum Opus of Yedidya Solomon b. Abraham Norzi (Mantua, c.1560 – after 1626), masoretic scholar

Mishna Aharona Commentary on Seder Taharot of the Mishana by R. Ephraim Yitzhak of Přemysl, 1882.

Mishna Berura Commentary to the Orah Hayyim section of the Shulhan Arukh by R. Yisrael Meir of Radun

78


79

Neziv Acronym of R. Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin (Minsk, 1817 – Warsaw, 1893), head of the Volozhin Yeshiva, posek, talmudist and biblical commentator

Or Zarua Halakhic code and talmudic commentary by R. Yitzhak b. Moshe of Vienna (Ashkenaz, c. 1200–1270)

Penei Moshe R. Moses Margolies, Lithuania, 18th cent.

Peri Hadash Commentary to the Orah Hayyim section of the Shulhan Arukh by Hizkiya di Silva (Leghorn, 1659 – Jerusalem, 1698)

Perla, Yeruham Scholar and commentator (Warsaw, 1846 – Jerusalem 1934)

Rabbinowicz, Raphael Nathan Talmudic scholar, Kovno, 1835 – Kiev, 1888

Rabbeinu Yeruham b. Meshulam Spanish talmudist, 1290–1350Radbaz Acronym of R. David Ibn

Zimra (Spain c. 1479 – Safed, 1589), talmudist and cabalist

Rama Acronym of Meir b. Todros ha–Levi Abulafia (Burgos, Spain,c. 1180 – 1244), talmudist and cabalist

Rambam R. Moshe b. Maimon, talmudist, philosopher, astronomer, and physician; Cordova 1135 – Cairo, 1204

Ramban R. Moshe b. Nahman, Spanish talmudist, exegete, and physician; Gerona, 1194 – Eretz Yisrael, c. 1270

Rashba R. Shelomo b. Avraham Aderet (Barcelona, 1235 – 1310), talmudist, halakhic authority

78


79

Rashi R. Shelomo b. Yitzhak (Troyes, 1040 – Worms 1105). Biblical and talmudic commentator, Halakhist

Ratner, Dov Baer Lithuainian talmudic scholar, 1852–1917

Rema R. Moshe Isserles, (Cracow, c. 1520 – 1572), rabbi, posek, and annotator of the Shulhan Arukh

Recanati, Menahem b. Binyamin Italian cabalist and halakhic authority, late 13th–early 14th cent.

Rif R. Yitzkah Al–Fasi, Eminent talmudist, author of the compendious Halakhot on the Talmud, 1013, Fez – Lucena, 1103

Ritva R. Yom Tov b. Avraham Ishbili (Spain, c. 1250 – 1330), talmudist

Rosh Talmudic compendium by R. Asher b. Yehiel, Germany (c. 1250 – d. Toledo, 1328). Annotated (“Haggahot Asheri”) by R. Yisrael of Krems (Austria 14th–15th cent.)

Saadya (b. Yosef) Gaon Gaon of Sura (Dilaz, Egypt, 892 – Sura, 942), talmudic and biblical commentator, linguist, philosopher

Shela Magum Opus of R. Yisha’iah b. Avraham Halevy Horowitz (Prague, c. 1565 – Tiberius, 1630), rabbi, cabalist and communal leader

Sherira (b. Hanina) Gaon Gaon of Pumbedita (c. 900 – c. 1000). His famous epistle traces the development of the “Oral Torah”

Shulhan Arukh Canonic halakhic code by R. Yosef Karo

80

DANIEL SPERBER

Terumat ha–Deshen Responsa by R. Yisrael Isserlein (c. 1490, Ratisbon – 1460, Neustadt), prominent posek of his generation

Tif’eret Yisrael Commentary on the Mishna by R. Israel Lipschütz (1782 – 1860)

Tosafot “Additions”: Critical and explanatory glosses on the Babylonian Talmud, mostly of French or German origin, 12–14th cent.

Tosefot Yom Tov Commentary to the Mishna by Yom Tov Lippman Heller (Bavaria, 1579 – Cracow, 1654)

Tur (or: Four Turim) Halakhic code by R. Ya’akov ben Asher (d. Toledo, Spain, before 1340).

Tzelah Talmudic novellae by R. Yehezkel Landau, (also author of the Noda Bi–huda)

Vilna Gaon (Gra) R. Eliyahu b. Shelomo (Vilnius, 1720–1797), prominent talmudist, biblical commentator, grammarian

Weinberg, Yehiel Yaakov Talmudic scholar and posek, Lithuania, 1885 – Jerusalem 1966

Yehudai (b. Nahman) Gaon Gaon of Sura, 760 – 764

5. daniel sperber - scientific disciplines

Documents