The Book of Disputes Between East and West

or

A Treasury of Alternate Customs from the Land of Israel and

from Babylon
Translated and Annotated by Leor Jacobi

Based primarily on the Margulies Edition

with additions from the Appendices of the Miller and Lewin Editions
Menahem Av, 5772
Jerusalem
After the translation of the text itself, various additional items are added, some of them never
before published. Also included is a translated summary of major sections of Margaliot's
introduction, along with comments and updates.
Round brackets reflect text found in only certain Hebrew manuscripts as indicated by Margulies
in his Hebrew edition.
Square brackets contain English insertions of this translator.
1. People of the East sit while reading the Sh'ma. The residents of the Land of Israel stand.
2. People of the East do not mourn for a baby [who has died] unless he has reached 30 days [of
life]. The residents of the Land of Israel [mourn] even if he is only a day old. (He is like a fullygrown groom [=man])
3. People of the East will allow a nursing mother to marry within twenty-four months of the death
of her baby. Residents of the Land of Israel require her to wait twenty-four months, lest she come
to kill her son.
4. People of the East redeem the firstborn with twenty-eight (and a half) royal pieces of silver.
Residents of the Land of Israel use five shekels, which are equivalent to seven (and a third) royal
pieces of silver.

5. People of the East exempt a mourner [from observing laws and customs of mourning, if the
relation expired just] before a festival, even a moment [before]. Residents of the Land of Israel
only exempt a mourner from the decree of seven days [of mourning] if at least three days have
elapsed before the festival.
6. People of the East forbid a bride from [having relations with] her husband for the full seven
[days] for she is considered to be a menstruating as a result of the relations. The residents of the
Land of Israel (say) that since his removing of her hymen is painful [it is an external wound and]
she is permitted immediately.
7. The marriage contract of the People of the East consists of twenty-five pieces of silver (and
their dowry). The residents of the Land of Israel (say) that anyone who [obligates himself] to less
than two hundred for a maiden or one hundred for a widow, is effecting a promiscuous
relationship.
8. People of the East permit [the use of] an oven (during Passover), based on the source: [We
may] roll the Passover [lamb] in the oven at sundown. (Mishnah Shabbat 1:11) Residents of the
Land of Israel (say): Disregard the Passover [lamb] since it is a sacrifice, and we [even] desecrate
the Sabbath on account of it.
9. People of the East do not wash [= ritual immersion] after experiencing a seminal emission or
after relations (since they reason that we are in an impure land). Residents of the Land of Israel
(do wash after a seminal emission or relations, and) even on the Day of Atonement (for they
maintain that those who have seen emissions should wash in secret on the Sabbath and on the
Day of Atonement) as a matter of course, [which they learn] from the example of Rabbi Yosi bar
Halafta, who was seen immersing himself on the Day of Atonement.
10. People of the East permit gentile butter [alternatively: cheese], (saying) that it cannot become
impure. Residents of the Land of Israel forbid it on account of (three things: because of) milk which
was expressed by a gentile (without a Jew observing him, because of gentile cooking) and
because of impure fat (which it might be mixed with).
11. People of the East say that a menstruating woman may perform all types of household duties
except for three things: mixing drinks, making the bed, and washing his face, hands, and legs.
According to the residents of the land of Israel, she may not touch anything moist or household
utensils. Only reluctantly was she permitted to even nurse her child.
12. People of the East do not say recite eulogies [alternatively: the prayertsidduk ha-din] in the
presence of the dead (during the in-between days of the festival). Residents of the Land of Israel
do recite these before him.
13. People of the East do not rip up a divorce contract. Residents of the Land of Israel rip it up.
[Acc. to Lewin, this may have originally referred to whether a mourner rips his garment during the
intermediate days of a festival.]
2

14. People of the East have mourners come to the synagogue each day. Residents of the Land
of Israel do not allow him to enter, with the sole exception of the Sabbath.
15. People of the East do not clean their posteriors with water. Residents of the Land of Israel do
cleanse themselves [with water], (based on) A generation which considers itself pure ... [but has
not cleaned itself from its excrement.] (Proverbs 30:12)
16. People of the East [permit one to] weigh meat on intermediate days of the festival. Residents
of the Land of Israel forbid hanging it on a scale, even just to keep it away from rodents, (based
on the source: One may not operate a scale at all. Mishna Beitza 6, 3)
17. People of the East circumcise [babies] over water and then dab [the water] onto their faces,
(from here: and I will wash you with water, [rinse your blood off of you, and anoint you with oil]
Ezekiel 16:9) Residents of the Land of Israel circumcise over dust, from here: Also, due to the
blood of your covenant have I sent your prisoners free from a pit with no water in it. (Zechariah
9:11)
18. People of the East (only) check the lungs. Residents of the Land of Israel (check) eighteen
types of disqualifications.
19. People of the East only recite a blessing [= grace after meals] over [a cup of] diluted wine.
Residents of the Land of Israel (will recite a blessing) when it is fully potent.
20. When thurmusin [beans] and tree-fruit are served to People of the East simultaneously, they
recite the blessing for fruit of the tree and set aside the beans. Residents of the Land of Israel
recite a blessing on the thurmusin, since everything is included in [the fruits of] the earth.
21. On the Sabbath, people of the East break bread on two loaves, for they expound: a double
portion of bread (Ex.16:21) [which fell on the Eve of the Sabbath]. Residents of the Land of Israel
break bread exclusively on a single loaf, so that the [lesser] honor of the Eve of the Sabbath will
not intrude upon [the honor of] the Sabbath.
22. People of the East spread their hands [= recite the priestly blessing] during fasts and on the
on the ninth of Av as part of the evening benedictions. Residents of the Land of Israel only spread
their hands during the morning services, with the sole exception of the Day of Atonement.
23. People of the East will not slaughter a newly-born animal until the eighth day. Residents of
the Land of Israel will slaughter even a newborn, for [they maintain that] the prohibition of the
eighth day applies only to sacrifices.
24. People of the East do mention the word mazon [=nourishment] in the blessings of grace after
dining. Residents of the Land of Israel consider mazon to be [the] central [component of the
blessings] (for everything else is peripheral to mazon].

25. A ring does not sanctify marriage according to people of the East. Residents of the Land of
Israel consider it [sufficient to] fully sanctify a marriage.
26. People of the East individually redeem the second tithe and the planting of the fourth year.
Residents of the Land of Israel only redeem them in [the presence of] three [men].
27. The divorce contracts of people of the East contain two ten-letter words
['dytyhwyyyn' and 'ditibyyyn']. Those of the residents of the Land of Israel contain three ten-letter
words [the third is not known].
28. People of the East bless the [bride and] groom with seven blessing. Residents of the Land of
Israel recite three [blessings, which have been forgotten].
29. According to people of the East, the prayer leader recites the priestly blessing (before the
congregation) [in the absence of Kohanim]. Residents of the Land of Israel do not (allow the
prayer leader to recite the priestly blessing, for they expound [from the verse]: So they shall put
my name (Numbers 6:27) that it is strictly forbidden for anyone to put the holy name), unless
they are Kohanim.
30. People of the East forbid bread baked by a gentile, but will consume gentile bread if a Jew
threw a piece of wood into the fire. Residents of the Land of Israel forbid it (even with the wood,
for the wood neither forbids nor permits. When are they lenient? In cases when there is nothing
[else] to eat, and already a day or two have passed without consuming anything. It was thus
permitted to revive his soul so that his soul should be maintained, but only from a [gentile] baker
who has never brought meat into his bakery, even though it considered a [separate] cooked dish.)
31. People of the East carry coins from place to place on the Sabbath. Residents of the Land of
Israel (say) that it is forbidden to even touch them. Why? Because all types of work are done with
them.
32. People of the East recite: meqadesh ha-shabbat, [who sanctifies the Sabbath]. Residents of
the Land of Israel recite: meqadesh Yisrael vyom ha-shabbat[who sanctifies Israel and the
Sabbath day].
33. Among people of the East, a disciple does not greet his master with: shalom. Among
residents of the Land of Israel a disciple greets his master [by saying]: shalom unto you, rabbi.
34. According to People of the East, if a yevama [=a woman automatically betrothed to the brother
of her deceased husband] should marry [another man] withouthalitza [=a legal procedure which
frees her from this betrothal] and her yavam [=the brother] should return from overseas, he
performs the halitza (to her) and she remains with her (second) husband. Residents of the Land
of Israel remove [=forbid] her from both of them.
35. People of the East exempt a yevama from halitza [only] once the baby is thirty days old.
According to residents of the Land of Israel, even if only the head and most of the body emerged
4

alive, and even for only a moment (before the father died), she is fully exempt from halitza and
from yivum [and may remarry freely], (for they expound: If he has left seed, she is exempt.)
36. People of the East turn their faces (towards the congregation) and their backs towards
the aron [=closet containing the Torah scroll]. Residents of the Land of Israel [are positioned with]
their faces towards the aron.
37. According to people of the East, one [scribe] writes the divorce contract and another signs
along with the writer. Among residents of the Land of Israel, one writes and two [others] sign.
38. People of the East marry the [bride and] groom on Thursday. Residents of the Land of Israel
[marry] on Wednesday, (according to the law: a maiden marries on Wednesday. Mishnah
Ketubot 1:1)
39. People of the East perform labors on the intermediate days of the festivals. Residents of the
Land of Israel do not do them at all. Rather, they eat and drink and exert their [energies in learning]
Torah, (for the sages have taught that: it is forbidden to perform labors on the intermediate days
of the festivals.)
40. People of the East begin [the initial act of] intercourse with genital insertion in the natural
manner. Residents of the Land of Israel use a finger [to break the hymen and enable conception
through the first act of intercourse. Alternatively, to verify virginity.]
41. People of the East observe two festival days. Residents of the Land of Israel observe one, (as
per the commandment of the Torah.)
42. People of the East forbid the Kohanim from blessing the congregation if they have long,
unkempt hair. [Alternatively: with their heads uncovered]. Among residents of the Land of Israel
Kohanim do () [in fact bless the congregation with long, unkempt hair.]
43. People of the East whisper the eighteen benedictions while praying. Residents of the Land of
Israel [pray] out loud, in order that people should become familiar with them.
44. People of the East count the Omer only at night. Residents of the Land of Israel count during
the day and at night.
45. People of the East circumcise with a razor. Residents of the Land of Israel use a knife.
46. (People of the East mix a remedy for circumcision from donkey dung and cumin. The residents
of the Land of Israel do not do this.)
47. According to people of the East, the prayer leader and the congregation read the weekly
[Torah] portion [of the annual cycle] together. Among residents of the Land of Israel, the
congregation reads the weekly portion and the prayer leader [reads] the weekly [triennial] orders.

48. People of the East celebrate Simhat Torah [the festival of the completion of the Pentateuch]
every year. Residents of the Land of Israel celebrate it once every three-and-a-half years.
49. People of the East bless the Torah while it is being [re-]inserted [into the Aron]. Residents of
the Land of Israel bless both while it is being inserted and while being removed, (according to
scripture and law, as per the verse: and upon its opening the entire nation stood. Nehemia
8:5)
50. (According to people of the East, a Kohen may not bless the congregation until he has married.
Residents of the Land of Israel [allow him to] bless even before he has married a woman.)
51. People of the East do not carry a palm branch [when the first day of the festival of Tabernacles
falls] on the Sabbath. Rather they take a myrtle branch. Residents of the Land of Israel (carry
both the palm and the myrtle on the first day of the festival which falls on the Sabbath, according
to the verse:) And you should take for yourselves (Leviticus 23:40) [which is expounded to
include:] on the Sabbath. (Bavli Sukkah 43a)
52. (Residents of the Land of Israel permit the consumption of daytra fats. Residents of Babylon
forbid it.)
53. People of the East permit [the consumption of] broad beans which a gentile has boiled, and
also locusts. Residents of the Land of Israel forbid it, (since they mix their boiled meat with their
boiled fruits [= produce].)
54. People of the East do not blow sirens before the onset of the Sabbath. Residents of the Land
of Israel sound three sirens.
55. According to people of the East, Kohanim lift their hands [to bless the people] three times on
the Day of Atonement. Residents of the Land of Israel [bless] four times on that day: shaharit,
musaf, minha, and neila.
56. (*). Residents of Babylon permit [the consumption of] milk [from a cow] which a gentile has
milked, [even] without a Jew having watched him, provided that there are no unclean animals in
his flock. Residents of the Land of Israel forbid its consumption. (This item is found in only one
manuscript. Thus, Margulies doubts whether it is included in the original collection; however, he
maintains that it is historically authentic and thus included it in the commentary section.)
Margulies' running commentary has not been translated.
Translator's note on additional items:
There are four different types of items and it is important to distinguish between them.
A. Items which appear in multiple versions of the Geonic list collections, the main body of
the present work.
6

B. Items which appear to have been added to certain manuscript versions of the list after
its publication, during the Geonic period or shortly thereafter. This includes items 46, 50,
and 56, and possibly others. Since they may actually be remnants of the original list and
do appear in the manuscripts, Margulies and Lewin did include them in attempting to
produce a critical version of this text itself. [Elkin's 1998 Tarbiz article hints that the original
work may have been smaller than Margulies supposed and hence more of the text
translated above would fall into this category.]
C. Items which are culled from external Geonic literature and provide direct testimonial
evidence for the historical validity of these distinctions. They could conceivably have been
included in the original list, but for one reason or another were not. This describes Lewin's
additions, and the first section of Miller's additions.
D. Items which were deduced from prior Talmudic literature. Kaftor w'Ferahseems to have
pioneered this field, picked up and extended by Miller and others. It should be noted that
these items should all be evaluated separately, as they do not necessarily constitute
testimonial evidence and rather, in some cases, may be merely theoretical.

Additional items collected by R. Yoel HaKohen Miller (1878)

From Masekhet Sofrim:
56. People of the East recite kaddish and borkhu with ten men. People of the Land of Israel [recite]
with seven (10:7)
57. People of the East respond Steadfast are you after the reading of the prophets while sitting.
Residents of the Land of Israel [respond] while standing. (13:10)
58. People of the East fast before Purim. People of the Land of Israel [fast] after Purim, based on
Nikanor. (17:4, from Tosefta)
59. People of the East recite Kedusha each day. People of the Land of Israel only recite it on the
Sabbath and Festival days. (Tosafot Sanhedrin 37b ad. Loc. Mknp, citing Geonim)
Compiled by Miller from Kaftor w'Ferah of Rabbi Ashtori HaPari (Isaac HaKohen ben
Moses, 1280-1366), deduced from talmudic sources:
60. People of the East do not ordain judges. People of the Land of Israel do ordain. (Sanhedrin
Chapter 1)
61. People of the East conclude [the threefold benediction]: for the land and the fruit. People of
the Land of Israel [conclude]: for the land and its fruit (Berakhot, 6th chapter)

62. People of the East first plow and then sow seeds. People of the Land of Israel first sow and
then plow. (Sabbath, 7th chapter)
63. People of the East do not chase after idol worship [in order to destroy it]. People of the Land
of Israel do chase after it. (Sifre Devarim Re'eh 61)
64. People of the East do not collect fines. People of the Land of Israel do collect in court. (end of
Ketuvot ch. 3...)
65. People of the East permit a brown citron [for use among the four species]. People of the Land
of Israel forbid it. (Sukkah, ch. 3)
66. People of the East grind with a small mortar on a festival day. People of the Land of Israel
forbid it (Beitza, ch. 1)
67. People of the East [formally] begin the meal [and apply its laws] once the belt has been
released. People of the Land of Israel [begin] once the hands have been washed (Shabbat, ch.
1).
68. People of the East maintain that one who purchases a slave from a gentile, who does not wish
to become circumcised [immediately], may postpone and continue deliberations up to twelve
months. People of the Land of Israel do not allow any delay lest sanctified food become defiled
through contact with him. (Yevamot 48b)
69. People of the East do not transfer bones of the dead from little caves to small holes in caves
[where presumably whole cadavers could not fit,] in order to bury other dead. People of the Land
of Israel do transfer [bones]. (Rav Hai Gaon, as cited by Ramban, in Torat ha-adam)
Collected by Miller from Sefer Erekh Millin by Rabbi Solomon Judah Loeb Rapoport (SHIR)
70. People of the East first marry and then learn Torah. People of the Land of Israel learn Torah
first and then marry. (Kiddushin 29b)
71. People of the East recite nineteen blessings. People of the Land of Israel recite eighteen
blessings. (Rabbenu Yeshaya ha-Zaqen, RID, in his commentary to Ta'anit, cited here)
72. People of the East do not mention dew during the summer. People of the Land of Israel do
mention it. (PT Ta'anit ch. 1, Berakhot ch. 5)
73. People of the East are not concerned with pairs. People of the Land of Israel are concerned.
(Pesahim 110) [in all manuscript and printed versions of the Talmud known to me it appears in
reverse and was apparently copied by mistake here.]
I would now like to present some very special additions of Rabbi Benjamin Wolf Singer (18551930). R. Prof. Daniel Sperber published a volume of his hiddushim/novella. See his biography
8

of the author here and here. Much more about him later. I hope to devote a future post to Rabbi
Singer and his brother.
These notes have never before been published, and were found in the form of his handwritten
notes in the back of his personal copy of Miller's edition of the work, now housed in the Bar Ilan
University central library. The notes follow the extra hiluqim of Kaftor v'Ferah, ShIR, and Miller
which we have just translated above. Apparently, they inspired Rabbi Singer to continue their
work on the very same page! His notes look like this:
(Click for large, high-resolution images)

A transcription follows, with assistance from my friend R. Yehezkel Druk, who is responsible in no
small part for the many corrections and additions in Moreshet L'Hanhil's volumes of the new
Friedman Shulhan Arukh.
'
." [= ?] " ." .' " ",
' ".
. , : ..
. " " . : .".
. ' () : . " ' .' " "
[ ' ]: ??
. : ' " [ ] .'
" [ [] ] [ :
" ] ' [ :
10

 ] [ :
] " [= ]
' '[] " " " [
] ' ( ' ) ' : ' '

. " ' " ' :

' ' " ' ' " ' '
. " [ ] ? ' ' ' " [
'] " [ " : .
' "
"
. '
" .
. ' "].
. " " ()
.' " " " " " " '
. '
?? .
. ' ?? "
. 7 " " ' " " "
.' ?"? ?? "
.8 . " " " [" :"] "
"
. 9 " " [" :"] " . .
' [ :" , ' " "]
. 10 : " [ ] "
.. .. ' '[ . ' ].
Here is a loose translation without the references:
1. In Babylon they were lax regarding the requirement for one who experienced seminal
emissions [Ba'al Qeri] to immerse himself in a mikva. In the Land of Israel they were
stringent.
2. In Babylonia they commence the Sabbath in the midst of the blowing of the shofar teru'ah
) They retain their fathers practice. (Sabbath 35b
11

3. In Babylon, they read the hallel on the day of the New Moon. In the land of Israel they did
not (Ta'anit 28b, They retain their fathers practice).
4. In Babylon [a large unit of length] is referred to as a parsa. On the other hand, in the land
of Israel, it is referred to as four mil. [miles]
5. According to the understanding of the sages of the Land of Israel there are four keys in the
hands of the holy one, blessed be he. According to the understanding of the sages of
Babylon, there are three.
6. In Babylon there were sages who fasted two Days of Atonement due to uncertainty as to
on which day the new month begins.
7. The Babylonians do not greet [rabbinic authorities], so Z'eira [respected their custom and]
did not greet Rabbah when he visited.
8. Rabbi Yohanan said to Rav Hiyya bar Bo: The Babylonians have brought two [customs]
up with them: full prostration on the fast days and the taking of the willow on the seventh
day [of Sukkot]. The Rabbis of Caesarea added bloodletting [to the list] as well.
9. In the Babylonian Talmud we find: Yosef. In the Jerusalem Talmud: Yosi.
10. (7) There, in Babylon, when there is no wine, the prayer leader descends to thebima and
recites the one blessing in place of seven and concludes with meqadesh Israel v'et yom
hashabbat. However, in the Babylonian Talmud we do not find this.
11. (8) In Babylon the custom followed Rabbi Ishmael in reciting borkhu et hashem
hamevorakh. It appears that in the Land of Israel they followed Rabbi Akiva [instead].
12. (9) Is seems that in the Land of Israel, when a Kohen was called to the Torah reading in
the absence of a Levite, he would not recite a second blessing. In Babylon he recites the
benediction.
13. (10) In the Land of Israel they recite Barukh shem kavod malkhuto l'olam va'ed out loud
because of the heretics. In Nehardea they whisper it since there are no heretics there.
The numbering switches from Hebrew to Latin after tet. This is probably because
the tet resembles a six, so he followed it up with seven. Remember, these were just personal
notes, not intended for publication, obviously. Rabbi Singer's mind was on more important things,
as the erudition of his notes speaks for itself. Anyway, who was Rabbi Singer? We'll return to that
at the end of this post. Here in the middle of the work there is a citation to Yalkut in
Parshat VaYeshev, which Yehuda Hershkowitz deciphered as:

' " ( ) " ' " (' )

12

Appendix to Lewin's edition. The articles originally appeared in Sinai 10 and 11.
Like Zinger, Lewin also noted the additional Hiluqim in Miller's volume and decided to add more.
Instead of adding exclusively from Talmudic sources, Lewin leaned more on Geonic sources, of
which he was the great master. Some of these additions are quotations, and some Lewin
formulated himself.
1. After completion [of the section from the public reading], the reader blesses: Blessed are you
ruler of the world, rock of ages, righteous of all generations, the steadfast deity ... Then the
congregation promptly rise and say: Steadfast are you, he, the Lord, our G-d, and steadfast is
your word. Steadfast, living, and lasting is your name and it's utterance. Always will you rule over
us forever and ever. This is one of the disputes between the sons of the East and the sons of the
West, for the sons of the East respond while sitting whereas the sons of the West [respond] while
standing.
2. In Zoan, Egypt, which is called Fustat [today part of old Cairo], there are two synagogues: one
for the people of the Land of Israel, the al-Shamiyincongregation [=the "Yerushalmi", this name is
still used today to refer to a Jewish Yemenite branch] (It is named after Elijah, of blessed memory
[?, see below]). The other is the congregation of the people of Babylon, the alIraqiyn congregation. They do not observe the same customs. (Selections from Yosef
13

Sambari, Seder HaHakhamim, Neubauer I, p. 118. On page 137 it states that the congregational
synagogue then still in use was built before the destruction of the second temple in Jerusalem.)
One, (the people of the Land of Israel) stands during kedusha, while the other, (that of the
residents of Babylon) sit during kedusha. (Rabbi Avraham ben HaGra, Maspiq l'ovdei hashem. In
the 1989 edition published by Nissim Dana, page 180, the opinions appear in reverse order)
3. It is written in the responsa of the Geonim that the residents of the Land of Israel recite kedusha
only on the Sabbath, since it is written [in Isaiah 6:2] that the Hayot have six wings. Each wing
sings praises corresponding to the days of the week. When the Sabbath arrives, the Hayot say to
the holy one, blessed be he: We do not have another wing! He replies to them: I have another
wing which sings praises to me, as in (Isaiah 24:16): From the end [literally: wing] of the world
we have heard song. (Tosafot Sanhedrin 37b, ad. loc. Mikanap, Miller 59)
4. We do not recite kadish or borkhu with any less than ten [men]. Our sages in the west recite it
[in the presence] of [even] seven [men]. They explain themselves according to the verse: bifroa
p'raot ... (Judges 5:2) according to the number of words [in the verse = seven. See also verse
5:9.] Some recite it with even six [men] since [the word] borkhu is the sixth [word in the verse].
(Some base this opinion on Psalms 68:27, which contains six words Avudraham)
5. R. Joseph said: How fine was the statement which was brought by R. Samuel b. Judah when
he reported that in the West [Israel] they say [in the evening], Speak unto the children of Israel
and thou shalt say unto them, I am the Lord your God, True. (Berakhot 14b, Soncino translation).
Still now, several cities [alternatively: regions] in the Land of Israel observe this custon in the
evening. They reason thatshema and v'haya im shamoa, [the first two paragraphs], are observed
both day and night, whereas va'yomer is only observed during the day [as per Mishna Berakhot
2:2]. (Hilkhot Gedolot 1, Hilkhot Berakhot 2, p. 37, second Hildesheimer edition)
6. The sages of the Land of Israel behave as follows: they recite the evening prayers and later
they read the Shema in its proper time. They are not concerned about connecting [the blessing
ending with] geula to the evening prayers. (Sha'arei Teshuva 76, See Otzar HaGeonim for a list
of numerous rishonim and collections who cite this responsum.)
7. Conserving a festival which begins after the Sabbath, it is still maintained in the Land of Israel
that a fourth blessing is recited separately... but as for us, Rab and Samuel instituted for us a
precious pearl in Babylon: Just judgements and true Torah. (attributed to Rav Hai Gaon, Otzar
HaGeonim Berakhot, Perushim p. 46)
8. On the final day of the festival miwot u'uqim and bekhor are read (Megilah 31a, acc. to
mss. Munich and rishonim). Rav Hai Gaon explains this passage as a mnemonic sign: 1. There
are those who read for this miwa (Deut. 30:11) and this is still read in the Land of Israel. 2.
There are those who read from im be'uqotaiuntil qomemiut. (Lev. 26:3-13) 3. There are those
who read: kol ha'bekhor (Deut 15:19). We read kol ha'bekhor. (various sources, Otzar
HaGeonim Megillah, p. 62, no. 230)

14

9. Upon the conclusion of the Day of Atonement, residents of the Land of Israel
blow qashraq [=tashrat, a serious of various tones]. Residents of Babylon only sound one plain
blow in remembrance of the jubilee. [From here until the end, Lewin composed most of the
statements himself based on the sources he provides.]
10. The three fast days Ta'anit Esther are not observed consecutively, but rather, separately:
Monday, Thursday, and Monday. Our sages in the Land of Israel were accustomed to fast after
the days of Purim, on account of Nicanor and his company. Also, we delay [unpleasant] payment
and do not predicate it. (Masekhet Sofrim 17)
11. Residents of the Land of Israel would not actually fully prostrate themselves on fast days.
Residents of Babylon would actually fully prostrate themselves.
12. Residents of the Land of Israel did not read Hallel at all on the day of the New Moon. Residents
of Babylon read it while skipping sections [an abbreviated version].
13. Among residents of the Land of Israel, the first reader from the Torah recites the beginning
blessing, and the last reader recites the final blessing. According to the residents of Babylonian,
each and every reader blesses before and after the reading, since [members of the congregation
may be] coming and going [during the readings and thus miss one or the other].
14. In the absence of a Levite, residents of the Land of Israel would call a second Kohen to read
from the Torah in his place. Residents of Babylon would call up the very same Kohen again who
just read the first portion.
15. Residents of the Land of Israel permitted writing [Torah] scrolls on the skins of pure animals
even if they were not slaughtered according to specifications of dietary laws. Residents of Babylon
forbade this since they were not slaughtered.
Translated summary of selected sections of Margaliot's introduction
Margulies' Table of Contents
[The entire Table of Contents of Margulies has been translated. However, only a summary of
chapter 2 and the text of the original work itself have been translated here.]
Chapter 1
Relations between Babylon and the Land of Israel from the close of the Talmudic period until the
close of the Geonic period
1. The end of the Talmudic Period
2. The Geonic period

15

3. Attitudes towards divergent customs until the Geonic period

4. Attitudes of Babylonian Geonim to the customs of the Land of Israel
Chapter 2
The Book of Disputes between East and West, the nature of the work and its use by Rabbinic and
Karaite Jews.
1. The name of the work
2. The author, his period, and locale
3. Purpose of the work
4. Characteristics and scope of the book
5. Language and sources
6. Legal sources and historical development of the disputes
7. Use of the book by Geonim
8. Use of the book by Rabbinic legal authorities
9. Use of the book by Karaites
10. Scholars who have studied the work
Chapter 3
Textual sources of the Book of Disputes, Printed Editions and Manuscripts
1. Text versions, families and formation
2. The first group
3. The second group
4. The third group
5. This edition's presentation and stemmatic diagram of source relationships
6. The varying order of the disputes in all of the versions

16

7. The text
Presentation of the actual text with variant apparatus
Sources, History, and Development of the Disputes [Systematic Commentary]
Chapter 1 is a general introduction to the context of the work and is not translated at this time
Chapter 2 Summarized in translation
1. The name of the work
The work appears in numerous manuscript versions and cited by various Rishonim. Virtually every
single one has a different title for the work all variations on the same descriptive theme. [Both
the variation in titles and the descriptive nature suggest that the work may have been not only
anonymous, but also untitled. It was simply a list drawn up by a sage, copied and possibly added
to.]
The majority of sources contain a variation of the root lq in the title, including the first printed
edition (1616, starts at middle of page) included at the end of Bava Kammain Yam shel
Shelomo, by the great Ashkenazi sage Rabbi Solomon Luria, better known as Maharshal (15101573).

17

I don't know who decided to include the work in Maharshal's edition, it led some to believe that
the Maharshal himself collected it, a point justly disputed by Rav Avraham ben HaGra [see below].
Margulies is perplexed as to why Miller chose a title based on the root lp, which only appears in
a few secondary sources like Ravya, Rosh, and Tur.
[Lewin also followed Miller on this point. It seems that the selection of this root was designed to
minimize the controversial nature of the work. As Lewin stresses in his introduction, this is a work
of divergent customs, not disputes regarding actual Torah law. The reader can evaluate both
titles, which have themselves both been translated here as alternates. In this writer's opinion,
both of the roots may be alternate variations of one original word (probably from the root lq) as
the letters peh and qof are graphically similar. A supporting example of variation between these
very same words is found in The Epistle of Rav Sherira Gaon in the French manuscript branch.
See Lewin's edition, page 22, left column, note 19. There you will find a manuscript with precisely
such an alternate reading. Also of note is that certain Islamic literature which records divergent
legal opinions is referred to as kilaf. See here, beginning of intro. On the other hand, an
11th century Karaite work is entitled illuq ha-qara'im we-ha-rabbanim]
2. The author, his period, and locale
The author is anonymous, and we have no clue as to his identity. The first serious recorded
attempt to date the work is by Rabbi Abraham ben Elijah of Vilna, the son of the famous GRA, in
his work Rav P'alim, p. 126. He was uncertain as to whether the work was authored by amoraim
or in a later period. [His chief concern here is disproving the erroneous theory that
the Maharshal himself collected the work from various rabbinic sources.] Miller was able to hone
in closer, from the savoraim at the close of the Talmudic period to the beginning of the Geonic
period. Margulies provides considerable evidence that the work was composed around the year
700. That is, after the Arab conquest and before Rav Yehudai Gaon.
According to Miller, our author was a native of the Land of Israel and familiar with Babylonian
customs through travel to Babylon. Western Aramaic and Western Hebrew forms abound. In fact,
the very composition in Hebrew suggests composition in the land of Israel, the language of
the Minor Talmudic tractates produced there during the Geonic period, as well as Hebrew
translations of Eastern Aramaic Babylonian Geonic works themselves. Margulies points out that
since Miller's publication, new evidence has emerged from the Cairo geniza which shows that
after the Arab conquest, Babylonian Jews migrated to the Land of Israel and formed their own
separate congregations in Tiberias,Ramla, and Mivtzar Dan (Panias-Banias), with the most likely
speculative location for our author being Tiberias, which was a native Torah center that may have
already boasted a Babylonian community during the Talmudic period.
3. Purpose of the work
According to Miller, the work was designed to oppose the Babylonian side in the dispute between
the two great Torah centers. He points out that many more explanations are offered in support of
18

the "Yerushalmi" side than the Babylonian. Later, Miller appears to backtrack and seems to
conclude that the work is simply meant to impartially catalog the various discrepancies.
Margulies accepts the claims regarding the basic "Yerushalmi" orientation, but understands the
purpose more subtly. Rather than taking a confrontational stance, the work merely seeks to
explain and rationalize the local customs and decisions to the new Babylonian immigrants who
were not aware or respectful of the locals. No attempt is made per se to reject the validity of the
Babylonian customs themselves and at times the author troubles himself to explain them only.
4. Characteristics and scope of the book
The items in the work are haphazardly arranged with only occasional grouping according to topic.
It is nowhere near complete in cataloging all of the items of dispute. According to Miller, the
complete version of the work has not yet been transmitted to us. [This understanding may underly
many efforts to expand on this list, discussed in the Appendix.] Margulies disagrees, on the basis
of the numerous manuscript examples at his disposal. According to him, the author never meant
to compile an exhaustive list.
5. Language and sources
It has already been pointed out that the work was composed in "Yerushalmi" Hebrew. A list of
words and phrases is provided by Margulies along with parallel examples from Talmudic and
Geonic "Yerushalmi" literature. He supposes that many more parallels would be found in halakhic
works from the period and region which are no longer extant.
[This section is of considerable philological interest especially regarding Geonic material in
Hebrew which may be of uncertain provenance.]
6. Legal sources and historical development of the disputes
Most of the items can be documented partially in other Talmudic and Geonic literature. As would
be expected, there is a high level of correspondence between the "Yerushalmi" side and the
Jerusalem Talmud; also, between the Babylonian side and the Babylonian Talmud.
Most of the items appear to predate the collection and stem from the Talmudic period, many
probably earlier, from the Tannaitic period.
In some cases, a Tannaitic dispute may have been transmitted unresolved to both regions and
eventually decided differently in each locale in a purely internal manner. Conversely, sometimes
entirely external factors may drive the discrepancies in later periods as well.
Of special interest is following the disputes from the Geonic period until the end of the period
of the Rishomin signified by the publication of the Shulhan Arukh. In general, the Babylonian side
prevailed as their hegemony increased, but in a number of cases, the position native to the Land
of Israel in fact dominated, especially when it did not contradict any explicit statements in the
19

Babylonian Talmud. This tradition was especially strong in Tsarfat and Ashkenaz (France and
Germany) as opposed to Sepharad (Spain), which historically remained tied to the Babylonian
Geonim. The influence of the Land of Israel side is especially noticed in the house of study of the
great Rashi and his students (items 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 25, and more).
The period following the publication of the Shulhan Arukh is not discussed systematically in
Margulies' commentary since to a large extent geographic boundaries were erased by the free
transfer of books from one region to another and a great amount of cross-fertilization occurred.
Nevertheless, it is noted that a number of disputes remain with us to this very day
between Ashkenazi and Sepharadi communities.
7. Use of the book by Geonim
In Babylonian Geonic responsa literature, a number of disputes are addressed, but apparently
not through direct exposure to the work. It is more likely that the inquirers from the Land of Israel
or North Africa might have been motivated in their queries by exposure to concepts from the work.
However, the later European collections of Geonic material did see fit to gather material from this
work into their nets. The collection known as Sha'are Tsedeq includes no fewer than eleven items
culled from the disputes.
In a few cases, items from the collection are attributed to Babylonain Geonim themselves, but it
is difficult to rely on any of these attributions and most were clearly added by the later compiler.
8. Use of the book by Rabbinic legal authorities
Many of the great authorities were most probably unaware of the work as they never cite it or its
contents. Others who do cite it generally cite only sections known to them through second or thirdhand rabbinic sources.
Geographic location was clearly a major factor. In France and Provence use was much more
pronounced than in Spain. The work seems to have reached different locations at different times.
By the 14th century the work seems to have been lost for the most part, as only citations from by
previous authorities are ever quoted.
One reason for the neglect of this work may have been it's brevity. [For example, the usual
explanation for the grouping of the twelve prophets in one scroll, and today in one volume, is so
that the small books would not become lost.] However, a more compelling reason appears to be
the negative impression that the work made on certain authorities, most notably, Nahmanides,
Ramban (Avodah Zara 35b). It was (correctly) perceived that the work contains material which
contradicts the Babylonian Talmud, already considered supremely authoritative. Methods of study
which stressed a proper historical understanding of all legal points of view would become common
in rabbinic circles well before the modern period, but at the time they were not yet developed. If
an opinion could not be utilized for determining the halakha, it was not deemed worthy of further
20

inquiry. Nahmanides is the only early Spanish sage who even mentions the work, so it is not at
all surprising that he considers it outside the pale of legal precedent.
Possibly, the Spanish Sages resisted the work as a result of the utility that Karaites received from
it and quoted from it. They may have suspected the work of being a Karaite forgery.
In contrast, early Provencal authorities made ample use of the work. They include: Rabbi
Abraham ben Isaac of Narbonne (Eshkol), Rabbi Isaac ben Abba Mari of Marseilles (Ittur), and
Rabbi Abraham ben Nathan of Lunel (Manhig). The textual versions cited by the Provencal sages
are similar to those found in the Geonic Responsa collections which appear to be most original.
Ashkenazi sages also utilized the work widely, but the stylized textual citations indicate that they
were generally quoting secondary and tertiary rabbinic sources rather than the work directly. The
sages include: Rabbi Eliezer bar Nathan of Mainz (Ra'avan, Even Ha-Ezer), Ravya,
Tosafot, Rabbi Eliezer of Metz (Yereim), Sha'arei Dura, Machzor Vitry.
From the fourteenth century on mention and discussion of the work seems to virtually disappear.
A most notable exception is Rabbi Ashtori HaPari (Isaac HaKohen ben Moses, 1280-1366) in
his Kaftor w-Ferah, who traveled from France to the Land of Israel, on which his work focuses.
He cites the work according to versions not attested to otherwise among French sages.
[Furthermore, he took an interest in expanding upon the principle of the work as seen in the
additions which Miller culled from it. See below after the main body of the translation.]
Students of the Maharam of Rottenberg, such as Hagahot Maimoniot, Mordechai, andRabbenu
Asher ben Yehiel (Rosh) mention the work haphazardly. Other sages who cite the work
include Rikanati, Tashbatz, Agur, Or Zarua, and Shiltei Giborim. None of the early or later sages
undertook an elucidation of the entire work they left this important work for us to do!
9. Use of the book by Karaites
Karaites took a much keener interest in the disputes than Rabbanites. This is not at all surprising.
The Rabbanites claimed to possess an authoritative Talmudic tradition handed down from the
earlier sages. Every known dispute amongst the Talmudic sages themselves was utilized in order
to argue against these claims. From Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai to disputes amongst the
Babylonian Geonim themselves, the Karaites seized upon the disputes between East and West
eagerly.
The first Karaite sage to quote the work is Jacob Qirqisani (10th century). Since he cites the work
in an overtly apologetic manner (read: missionary), he was wont to exaggerate and even forge
sections of the work. Thus, it goes without saying that his work cannot be utilized uncritically.
Nevertheless, despite this cautionary note, his early explanations can at times be very useful in
understanding the nature of the disputes themselves.
He explains his interest in the disputes very clearly. According to him, the disputes between East
and West were more extensive than the disputes between the Rabbanites and the Karaites, but
21

nevertheless, claims of heresy were never leveled and a spirit of tolerance reigned between the
communities. So too, the Karaites should be accepted by the Rabbanites . This stance led him to
exaggerate at times the extent of the disputes which were considered normative. Thus, even
though the majority of the disputes concern extra-legal customs, he would attempt to thrust them
into the body of the legal arena as exemplars of radical opinions. If at times he may have honestly
misunderstood the disputes, in some of them it appears that he was making a cynical attempt
misrepresent them and create confusion to advance his rhetorical purposes.
One example which stands out is a dispute which Qirqisani appears to have invented out of whole
cloth, an out and our forgery not attested to in any other versions of the work:
People of Babylon do not permit one to betrothe a woman with [the fruit of] the seventh year.
People of the Land of Israel permit this. Therefore, the betrothals of that year in the Land of Israel
are not considered by the Babylonians to effect marriage, and their children are not valid.
[According to Mordekhai Akiva Friedman (Madaei HaYahadut 31), a maculation
of taba'atto shevi'it resulting from graphic similarity between the letters tet and shin led item 25 to
be misconstrued by Qirqisani in this manner. If Lewin did not mention this possibility, at the very
least, he noticed the similarities and listed them together in his collection.]
From Qiqisani's time on, Karaites have continued to utilize the work in their own disputations with
Rabbanites. As we saw earlier, this may have led to the work's falling out of favor among
Rabbanites in regions where Karaites were active.
10. Scholars who have studied the work
1. Rabbi Abraham ben Elijah of Vilna, the son of the GRA, in Rav Pe'alim
2. Dr. P. P. Frankl in Monatscrifft, 1871 (Heft 8), p. 352-363 (available throughcompactmemory)
3. R. Yoel HaCohen Miller, 1878
4. A. H. Weiss, Dor Dor v'Dorshav, Additions to vol. 3, p. 285-, 1883
5. Rabbi Gershon Hanoch Leiner, the Admor of Radzin, in his commentary to Orchot Hayyim,
mentions that he has composed commentaries on 50 disputes from the work. This has not been
published and according to Margulies may no longer be extant.
6. R. Yehudah Meshil HaKohen, Kneset Hokhmei Israel 1, 60 and 91, 1893
7. R. Ezra Altshuler, Tosefta, 1899. According to Lewin and Margulies, he plagiarized Miller (3
above) without mentioning him at all, even copying his printing errors. Someone should do a study
on this work and figure out if the accusations are justified. Both Eliezer Brodt and I suspect that
R. Ezra did, in fact, add plenty of his own material and didn't see anything wrong with copying

22

transcriptions from a previous edition. This version of the Hiluqim has been republished with
additional notes from the Aderes.
8. R. Hayyim Stahon, Eretz Hayyim, 1908
9. R. Ya'akov Shor, Ner Ma'aravi in HaMe'asef, 1910 [for a complete listing of all issues containing
this serial column, see Simha Emanuel's index, entry 98]. These were reprinted in
".
10. R. Dr. Benjamin Menashe Lewin, Otzar HaGeonim, [Otzar Hiluf Minhagim, 1942. Lewin's
edition was prepared more or less simultaneously as Margulies' edition. Forthcoming from R.
Yosaif Mordechai Dubovick is a study on the various versions of Lewin's publication.]
11. Dr. Dov Revel, Horev 1,1.
12. [After over a Jubilee of reliance on the two critical editions of Marulies and Lewin, without
further critical study, Ze'ev Elkin re-opened the field with his 1997 Tarbiz article focusing on the
earliest manuscripts of the work, which are all of Karaite origin. He questioned several of
Margulies conjectures. Elkin later became a member of the Knesset.
13. R. Dr. Uzi Fuchs, Netuim 2003. An examination of the Rothschild manuscript and its role in
the development of the various textual variants.]
Hillel Neuman in Ha-Ma'asim 2011 discusses several items from this related work in passing. This
is a new revised version of his 1987 master's thesis (Hebrew University).
Chapter 3 Textual sources of the Book of Disputes, Printed Editions and Manuscripts
[This technical section has not been translated, except for the last section, the text itself, found at
the beginning of this article. According to Elkin's 1997 article the textual analysis may be in need
of an update and revision.]
Now that we are finished duscussing the Hiluqim, we can return to the question about who Rabbi
Benjamin Zev Singer was. Rabbi Singer published Hamadrich, a Talmudic anthology, in
collaboration with his brother, Rabbi Abraham Singer of Varpalota in 1882 and Das Buch der
Jubilen (Die Leptogenesis) in 1898 as Wilhelm Singer. Also, Neue Lehrmethode fr den
hebrischen Lese- und Sprachunerricht in der ersten Klas in 1867, with an additional Hebrew
subtitle, . This is a slim German Sefer Mesores for learning the Hebrew alphabet,
davvening, handwriting, and selected phrases in Judeo-German.Singer is identified as
a hauptschullehrer, a schoolteacher.
R. Daniel Sperber published a volume of Rabbi Singer's novella/hiddushim on Tractate Shabbat
in 1986 and included a biography of him:

23

That biography is incorporated in a list of his many unpublished Hebrew works still in manuscript
which are housed in boxes at Bar Ilan. Apparently University of Toronto houses manuscripts of
his writing in German (maybe Hungarian, too, but he wrote both of his books in German. I noticed
that at least one of the items Singer listed above (four mil) is apparently given fuller treatment in
these manuscripts. Given the sheer quantity of his output, I suspect that many more items in the
list are as well.
On the title page of the book, Singer lists a couple of learned review articles in German of the
Miller volume. See it here:

One review appears in Graetz's Monatsschrift, 1879, pp. 87-91 (Heinrich Graetz took over as
editor after Zecharias Frankel); the other is in Brll's Jahrbuecher, vol. 4, pp. 169-173. (Both are
available at www.compactmemory.de.) A couple of other articles are listed here as well, after the
fact. At the top, the aforementioned 1871 Monatsschrift article of Dr. P. P. Frankl (listed by
Marguleis), p. 357. At the bottom, an additional Brll Jahrbuecher article from the first volume of
the series, p. 44, where Talmudic customs of the Galil and Judah are discussed.
It is quite interesting to see that the Rabbi Singer brothers, the authors of HaMadrich,featuring
haskamot of R. Yitzchak Elchanan Spector, the Netziv, and (over a hundred!) gedolim, had an
openness to modern scholarship which accommodated Graetz and even Brll, a reform rabbi who
for a time headed the congregation in Frankfurt opposite R. Shimshon Raphael Hirsch. This
openness is also manifest in the very existence of R. Singer's volume on the book of
Jubilees, Seforim Hitzoni'im.

24

Another point worth mentioning is that HaMadrich is essentially a collection of chapters to be

learned by beginning and intermediate students all in one volume with an eclectic running
commentary. That work was briefly touched on in this forum previously, but it would be more
interesting to explore in greater detail exactly how eclectic it was once we have a clearer picture
of the depth of lomdus and of academic scholarship displayed by the authors of this first Artscroll.
This openness of the Singer brothers did not appeal to everyone. R. Yehoshua Monsdhein's
article on HaMadrich details the controversy surrounding the work. It is difficult to piece together
exactly to what extent the opposition was to any change whatsoever in the education process,
and to what extent it was towards entrusting the enlightened Singer brothers to this task.
If it can be compared were these haskamot procured (many of them probably after the controversy
already developed!) any more successful than the ones in Rabinowitz'sDikdukei Sofrim? How
many lomdim actually learned with HaMadrich? It was only reprinted once and then again twenty
years ago.
Back to the Hiluqim notes, It seems to me that except for the first Monatsschrift review, the
additional three references were added in pencil by another hand, perhaps R. Singer's brother R.
Abraham, who worked closely with him on HaMadrich. But probably not the other way around. I
consulted with R. Yechiel Goldhaber he thinks that these notes are in the same style as the
published hiddushim on Shabbat, and that seems quite reasonable.
Thanks to Lucia Raspe for deciphering these journal references, and to Sara Zfatman for the
assist.
--Translator's note: Thanks to Avi Kessner for suggesting and sponsoring this project, also for
proofreading and valuable comments. I am indebted to Sander Kolatch and the Kolatch
Foundation for general assistance during the year. Eliezer Brodt provided several useful
references, without which this post would have been much poorer. The Guetta, Jacobi, and Peled
families who continue with their unfailing support, especially my wife Dana, who makes it all
possible. This translation is dedicated to my father, Nathan ben Tzipporah, in the hope that he
should enjoy a complete and speedy recovery.

25