Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
DANIEL SPERBER
1
STUDIES IN JEWISH THOUGHT
AND IDENTITY
2
PREFACE
It is with great pleasure that I present to the discerning public
this first essay in our new Studies in Jewish Thought and Identity
publication 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 the
Robert 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 ago
with 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 significant
funding and growing support from the finest philanthropies and
most discerning donors in the Jewish world. We are building the
Jewish leadership of tomorrow.
3
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 finest
intellectual 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. Shlomo
Riskin, 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 Men
Rabbi Dr. Benjamin Lau, Dean of The Moshe Green Beit Midrash:
Fostering Women’s Leadership in Torah U’Madah
Prof. 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 Women
Dr. Alon Goshen-Gottstein, head of the Institute for the Study of
Rabbinic Thought
Dr. Moshe Hellinger, senior research fellow, Prof. Ernest Schwarcz
Institute for Ethics, Judaism and State
Mr. Paul Wimpfheimer, Executive Director
Mr. Edmond Hasin, Director of Robert M. Beren College
Rabbi Dr. Eliav Taub, Dean of Students and Director of External Studies
Mr. 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
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study seeks to demonstrate that there is a clear need to use
scientific discipline when examining rabbinic texts. These disciplines
include textual clarification based on manuscripts and early printed
editions, philological studies to ascertain the exact meaning of
difficult terms, seeing the text in its historical, sociological and
literary 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 such
a critical approach, both to the texts that were first formulated in
oral 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.
5
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
7
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: his
large 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.
8
PA R T I
9
DANIEL SPERBER
10
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
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 10— o r
Asians, such
as the Persians.
However, in the
second century
C.E., the period
Figure 2 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,
Figure 3 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.
11
DANIEL SPERBER
12
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
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 difference
then 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 · ˙¯‚ÂÁ˘ ¯Âʇ‰ (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. ‰˙ȉ ˘¢ÓÂ) who in a forced
explanation of the Rashba, wrote that this is the case “specifically
when 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 obvious
that 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 (¯Âʇ), 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 it
already 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
13
DANIEL SPERBER
14
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
15
DANIEL SPERBER
16
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
Figure 4
17
DANIEL SPERBER
18
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
19
DANIEL SPERBER
20
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
21
DANIEL SPERBER
22
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
23
DANIEL SPERBER
24
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
25
DANIEL SPERBER
26
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
27
DANIEL SPERBER
28
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
29
DANIEL SPERBER
30
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
31
PA R T I I
33
DANIEL SPERBER
34
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
Figure 5
35
DANIEL SPERBER
is found in Y. Berakhot
36
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
37
DANIEL SPERBER
38
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
Figure 8
39
DANIEL SPERBER
40
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
41
DANIEL SPERBER
42
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
Figure 9
43
DANIEL SPERBER
44
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
45
DANIEL SPERBER
46
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
47
DANIEL SPERBER
48
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
Figure 10
49
DANIEL SPERBER
Figure 11
50
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
Figure 12
51
DANIEL SPERBER
Figure 13
52
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
53
ENDNOTES
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: ·˙ÂΉ
Ï¢ˆÊ ‰ÓÏ˘ È·¯ ÂÈȉ ·¯Â ¨ßÚÓ˘ ߯ ·¯‰ ‡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 ÔȘȯ·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. ÔȘȯ·Ò.
9 S. Krauss, Griechische und Lateinische Lehnwörter in Talmud, Midrash
und Targum (Berlin, 1898), p.8 s.v. ÔȘȯ·‡.
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.)
54
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
55
DANIEL SPERBER
56
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
57
DANIEL SPERBER
58
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
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 the
accent 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˘ ‡Ï ‰˘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…‡˙˘ ‰ÏÂ΄ ‡˙ÈÈ˘¯Ù ‰· ÂÙÈÒ‡ ÂÚË” (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.
59
DANIEL SPERBER
60
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
61
DANIEL SPERBER
62
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
63
DANIEL SPERBER
64
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
65
DANIEL SPERBER
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
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
67
DANIEL SPERBER
idolater,”, while in Issurei Bi’ah, 12:1-10, the words “È‚” and “‰È‚”
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 “È‚”, 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 not
idolaters 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: ÂΠ¯‡˘Ï Ì¢ÂÎÚ ÔÈ· ‰Ê· ˜ÂÏÈÁ ÔȇÂ'. 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
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
69
DANIEL SPERBER
70
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
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 Ôȇ 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 published
in Leghorn in 1786. R. Ya’akov Yisrael Algazi’s book was first
published 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 into
chapters of Kesset ha-Sofer is also different than in the first edition, and
it 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 wrote
at first in black ink, and the ink later deteriorated and turned red, it is
also 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 so
they 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, and
this is not ‘out of order’, since even now the letter is fit, and he is
only 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 it
does not help for tefillin or mezuzah since it is ‘out of order’.” This
conclusion 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
71
DANIEL SPERBER
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 from
his 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
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
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 the
inscription, 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.
73
DANIEL SPERBER
74
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
75
INDEX
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 Rosh
Hazon 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
76
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
77
DANIEL SPERBER
78
LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY: SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES AND THE LEARNING OF TALMUD
79
DANIEL SPERBER
80