Calaméo - Besheva

54307

Some extreme statement or ban is attributed to a haredi gadol, and commenters on haredi news sites declare that Gadol X could never have made such a hurtful and counterproductive statement. Originally,, the title of Levush HaTechelet was bound between leaves 4 and 6. Isaac Leeser was born in Germany in , and received his early education there. He has a radical explanation for the famous Gemarah about killing lice on Shabbas pp.

Wednesday Evening, June 23rd , 11 Tammuz , PM at - PDF Free Download

seoauditing.ru › document › view › auction6. seoauditing.ru › newspapers › hadashot › /04/ seoauditing.ru › Units › Units › patent › yoman › Sep__1. seoauditing.ru › sale › online-3 › page. seoauditing.ru › author › admin › page.

ברויאר 6 בני ברק חוברת תשובות. Shlomo Alkabetz and indeed no contemporary sources indicate that R.

seoauditing.ru › Science › Chemistry. seoauditing.ru › chan › all_p1. The family are prominent members of a staunchly traditionalist Ḥaredi [6] The letters are in cursive form, but Neẓiv generally did not attach his letters to each other. ובאמת ספר הזוהר נכתב כמה דורות אחר רשב"י מה שנכתב ונתקבל משמו ומשאר חבריו ותלמידו שהיו בימיו, The person who answers the following question will receive it. seoauditing.ru › Book-salebook-w. seoauditing.ru › download.

‎⁨חדשות⁩ | 17 April | Newspapers | The National Library of Israel

ברויאר 6 בני ברק חוברת תשובות

ברויאר 6 בני ברק חוברת תשובות.

Wednesday Evening, June 23rd 2010, 11 Tammuz 5770, 5:00 PM at ...

  ברויאר 6 בני ברק חוברת תשובות 漫画 家 本 vol 5 河合 克敏 本

ברויאר 6 בני ברק חוברת תשובות

  ברויאר 6 בני ברק חוברת תשובות

[PDF] אבא ציווה לברוח - Free Download PDF

  ברויאר 6 בני ברק חוברת תשובות  

ברויאר 6 בני ברק חוברת תשובות. Author: admin - The Seforim Blog

  ברויאר 6 בני ברק חוברת תשובות  Aquos wifiのみ ダウンロード

ברויאר 6 בני ברק חוברת תשובות

The first edition was published in Sabbioneta in inside t ractate kidushin. Because of the decree of the burning of the Talmud on Rosh Hashana , less then a month after the publishing, almost all first edition copies were burnt. Many approbations by the rabbis of Jerusalem and Egypt. Vinograd, Izmir Part one on Zeraim and Moed.

Wandsbeck, Yisrael Bar Avraham press. Rare book. Very good condition, Wide margins, stained with age. Frankfurt-ammain, David Yakev Kranow press. He was also a Rabbi in Lichtenschtat, Metz a nd Frankfurt. Very good condition, tiny minor worming on the last leaves with almost no loss of text. Venice, Poah — Bragadin press. In two parts. S eparate title page for Lachmei Todah. On the reverse of the title page: a large illustration of the emblem of Poah press, see: A.

Title page was slightly restored at the corner. Lacking final leaf of table of errors, which is lacking in most copies. Vinograd, Venice On the title page: Part Two. With many important approbations. Furth, Itzik Bar Leib Buchbinder. Leghorn, Sadon press. Good condition, minor worming in the margins, last 3 leaves slightly damaged with a few words missing. Otzar HaHaggadot Amsterdam, Yanson press. W ith important approbations.

It is original illustration, drawn especially for this book. Part of the title page is in red ink. Zolkiew, Mordechai Stein press. W ith the text of the Tosefta. Good condition, tiny minor worming.

Part of the book was printed on blue paper. Dyhernfurth, Hersh Warsawer press. Breslau, Leib Sulzbach press. Printed as a single tractate not as part of a complete Talmud. Vinograd, Breslau Altona, Shmuel and Yehudah Bon press. Excellent condition, printed on thick, high-quality paper, original leather binding. Vinograd, Altona Leghorn, Tuvaina press. Damaged, half-leather binding. Warsaw, Avigdor Ben Yoel press Levinson.

Very good condtion, restored margins of final leaves. Very good condition, handwritten annotation on leaf Published without any identifying details for fear of the non — Jews. P art eight. Tractates Megilla and Shekalim. Munich, Separate title page for tractate S hekalim. P art nine. Tractate Sanhedrin. Magnetz, Bound together with tractate Bava Batra. P art ten. Each tractate has a separate title page.

P art eleven. Tractate Bava Batra. Bound together with tractate Sanhedrin. P art twelve. Tractate Bava Kama. P art thirteen.

Tractate Bava Metzia. P art fourteen. Tractate Zevachim Munich, P art fifteen. Tractate Menachot. P art sixteen. Tractate Chulin. Premislo, A complete, important and all-encompassing work on the Talmud Bavli. With approbations by the rabbinic leaders. Most volumes have an original half-leather binding! Vilna, Yehudah Leib Metz press. IV, 96 pp. F ifteen volumes.

Munich — Mainz — Premislo. About 21 cm. E ach volume has an additional German title page. Tractate Berachot and Zeraim.

A dditional title page for Zeraim. With a leaf of approbations by the Rabbi of Brisk Rav and the sages of Jerusalem, added after publishing.

P art Two. Tractates Betza, Chagiga and Moed Katan. Separate title page for each tractate. P art three. Separate title page for tractate Sukka. P art four. Tractates Rosh Hashana and Yoma. With a separate title page for tractate Yoma.

P art five. Tractate Eruvin. P art six. Tractate Psachim. P art seven. Tractate Shabbat. These were all given before it was discovered that the author is a plagiarist! Excellent condition, with uncut margins.

Published without the German title page and i ntroduction. The author published the Talmud Yerushalmi on Kodoshim, which later was found to be forged and a figment of his imagination. Good condition, restored margins of title page. Leghorn, Yedidyah Gabbai press. Yaari: Shluchei Eretz Yisrael pp. It is well known that Sofia had three congregations: Italian, Ashkenazi and Sephardi.

Frankfurt-am-main, Wauscht press, One of the most i mportant works of responsa ever published. Illustrated title page with drawings of angels. At the end of the book are [2] leaves with a Hebrew translation of several responsa written in Judeo-German. Very good condition, minor staining with age, wide margins. Ink stain on title page.

Sulzbach, Moshe Bloch press. The corners of some leaves were restored without loss of text. Part four. Nezikin — Shoftim. F irst title page is copper engraved. With a spanish introduction by the publisher. All four Vinograd, Amsterdam Amsterdam, Emanuel Attias press. Four parts. Part one. Mada — Zemanim. Part two. Nashim — Kedusha. Part three. Four parts in one volume.

With four title pages with decorative borders. Second edition of one of the most important works of responsa ever published. With wide margins. Restored, antique wooden binding. Leaf following title is damaged. Amsterdam, Nethanel Poah press. First edition of this important halachic work. Excellent condition, original damaged leather binding. Venice, Meir De Zarah press. Illustrated title page with a drawing of Moshe, Aharon and angels. The author was a well-known sage in his generation — and the Rabbi of Tripoli.

The other volumes were published within the years — Very good condition, half- leather binding. Izmir, Yonah Ashkenazi and David Chazzan press. T he l ast 34 l eaves i nclude t opics f rom t he T almud a nd the c ommentaries o f R ashi a ndT osafot.

I llustrated t itle p age. Only e dition. O n l eaf 73 t here i s a na nnotation w ritten i n a very old S ephardi h andwriting. Frankfurt-am-main, David Yakev Kranow press. Two parts: [1] ; [1] leaves, 32 cm. Responsa on the four parts of Shulchan Aruch. The author was a rabbi, halachic authority and rabbinic judge in Prague, Coblentz and Frankfurt for many decades. Indeed no other books by this author were published. Two title pages each with a decorative border. P rinted on high-quality paper with wide margins.

Three volumes. V olume two. Venice, De Zarah press. Very good condition, minor staining with age. Original, damaged, half-leather binding. V olume three. Beautiful title page with an illustration of Moshe and A haron. It seems that the owner was an important Rabbi, with his signature on title page. V olume five. A ll volumes are first edition. Three of five volumes of one of the most important works of responsa ever published.

Volume one was published in Venice , volume four was published in Leghorn Merkevet HaMishna On leaf three: an annotation in very old handwriting.

Vinograd, Salonica F irst part. In his introduction from ! Shalom in Tarbitz, Year 20 pages From the library of Dr. Damaged binding.

I zhmir, Y ehuda C hazzan press. Illustrated title page with a drawing of lions, the emblem of the publisher Yehudah Chazzan A. Very good condition, with wide margins.

Izhmir, Margos press. Illustrated title page with drawings of Moshe and Aharon. Vinograd Izmir VIII, 5 — 14, [1], 56 leaves, 23 cm. With poems in honor of the book. Leghorn, Vincent Palorani press. Very good condition, printed on high-quality paper. V olume four. Salonica, Mordechai Nachman — David Yisraeliga press. V olume Five. Leghorn, Petro Meitchi press. Very good condition, minor damage to margins of title page without loss of text.

Original, beautiful leather binding. With a large Ex Libris of Meir Goldschmidt. First edition of all volumes. He was born in Tunis and traveled to Jerusalem through Amsterdam in For more details about the author see: A.

Yaari, Mechkarei S efer Jerusalem , p. With emblems of Proops press. In two parts, [2], leaves, With the inside of the Shulchan Aruch. Includes novellae on t ractate Niddah. Very good condition, staining with age. Levi and his son Binyamin press.

W ith Judeo-German translation. Prague, Vinograd, Prague Makor Chaim ,[1]. Zolkiew, Avraham Y. Meirhoffer press. Later published in many editions. Leaf 19 has diagrams on the laws of Eruvin. Good condition, restored minor worming.

Offenbach, Avraham Spitz press. Two parts: [3], 32; [1] 44 leaves, 33 cm. S eparate title page for part two. At the end of the book: Kanfei Nesharim, r esponsa by rabbis of the Cohen-Adler family. Vinograd, Offenbach Constantinople, Pardo press. On leaf one: large illustraton of the temple. Restored minor worming in first and final leaves.

Leaf 25 is slightly torn at the side. Vinograd, Constantinople Prague, Franz Yosef Schol. It is also written that the book was r eceived from the the author. Excellent condition, printed on high-quality paper. Prague, Franz Yosef Schol press. Wide margins. Vinograd, Prague , Krotoschin, Monash press. The second book published in Krotoschin. Vinograd, Krotoschin 2. Kopyst, Yisrael Yaffe press. Excellent condition, wide margins. Printed on green paper. Vinograd, Kopyst On the reverse of both title pages is a prayer i n English for the well being of Queen Victoria.

Leghorn, Ottolingi press. With many approbations by rabbis of many countries. Berlin, Friedlander press. P ublished from a manuscript, f irst edition. Without the German title page and introduction at the end of the book. According to Vinograd there is no complete copy in the Jerusalem National Library. Very good condition, original binding. Posen, lithograph. Konigsberg, Gruber and Longreen press. Responsa on the four parts of the Shulchan Aruch by the well-known sage who was Rabbi of Kovno, and considered the greatest Torah leader of his generation.

These responsa were written whilst he was still Rabbi of Novardok, before he moved t o Kovno. With hand written annotations. Very good condition, some of the pages are torn without loss of text. Strengthened title page. Krotoschin — Koenigsberg. A letter from the author appears in this catalog. As in some copies, the name and place of the publisher is absent in the first part.

Leghorn, Eliyahu Ben Amozag press. Very good condition, minor worming. In he travelled to Beirut where he passed away. He was buried in sidon. Perhaps one of the readers has some insight. Stern may be the world's most prolific writer of Torah publications. In my article I referred to passages in the Zohar which traditional authorities had claimed were really later interpolations. There are examples of the opposite phenomenon as well, namely, attributing things to the Zohar that are not found there.

Meir Ibn Gabai ca. The passage is cited over and over again by aharonim in trying to show the importance of the morning washing. Yalkut Meam Loez , Deut. A few scholars actually point out that this passage is not to be found in the Zohar. Eleazar Fleckeles, Teshuvah me-Ahavah , vol. Here is p. How he derives this idea is worthy of investigation at a different time.

For now, it is important to just note that what we have here is an independent idea of a sixteenth-century Kabbalist which for some reason was misquoted by the Bah as if Ibn Gabai was citing the Zohar. This misquotation was to be repeated again and again, down to the present day. The supposed Zohar text has led to additional stringencies.

For example, the hasidic master R. Here is an interesting story that relates to the false Zohar quotation: A very learned and rich student came to study with R. Simhah Bunim of Peshischa. The story explains how the Kotzker was able to convince the young man to leave. What was it about this man that turned the Kotzker against him?

We are told the following:. So here we have a story of an emendation of a non-existent Zoharic text. And even if we assume that the man was emending the text as it appears in the Bah, we see from the story that the Kotzker thought that the quote was authentic. He was saying that you are only deserving of the death penalty if you kill someone while walking the four amot.

I then sent him a page from R. The text in Yavrov reads as follows:. My friend replied by referring me to a discussion on Hyde Park here where the text from Yavrov is also mentioned. I find this very unlikely, as the Hazon Ish is not known to have been an expert in the Zohar, and what reason would there be for him to doubt that which is quoted in numerous earlier sources? The one point that the commenter has going for him is that he is correct that there are many examples in this book, and others like it, from which we see that the author does not know how to distinguish between what should and should not be included in a book.

The commenter gives an example to illustrate this. In vol. I kid you not. Regarding this issue, R. Getting back to the supposed Zoharic passage, R. Yitzhak Abadi discusses this in Or Yitzhak , vol. Aaron Kotler did not concern himself with this. Abadi then explains that the words of the Zohar are not intended for everyone, [14] and none of the rishonim write that it is forbidden to walk four amot before washing.

Finally, I must mention that R. Hayyim Joseph David Azulai, Birkei Yosef, Orah Hayyim , recognizes that there is nothing in the Zohar about being subject to the death penalty for walking four amot.

However, he notes that both he and his forefather, R. Not finding this passage in the Zohar, this individual inserted it into his text of the Zohar in the section that deals with hand washing in the morning Zohar, vol.

Rather, whoever put it in assumed that it was an authentic Zoharic teaching, found in an alternate text, and he was inserting it where it should be. How can we explain the Bah? I think the answer is simple. That is how this error crept in which has had a great influence on Jewish religious texts and practice for hundreds of years, and yet it all goes back to a simple mistaken quotation.

Returning to my article on the Zohar, Rabbi Akiva Males called my attention to the following paragraphs that appear in an essay by R. Aryeh Kaplan. Rabbi Yitzchok deMin Acco is known for a number of things. Most questions regarding the authenticity of the Zohar were raised by him, since he investigated its authorship.

He was a personal friend of Rabbi Moshe de Leon, who published the Zohar. The whole story is cited in Sefer HaYuchasin, who abruptly breaks off the story just before Rabbi Yitzchok reaches his final conclusion. Around three years ago, someone came to me and asked me to translate parts of a manuscript of Rabbi Yitzchok deMin Acco, known as Otzar HaChaim. There is only one complete copy of this manuscript in the world, and this is in the Guenzberg Collection in the Lenin Library in Moscow.

This person got me a complete photocopy of the manuscript and asked me to translate certain sections. I stated that the only condition I would translate the manuscript is if I get to keep the copy.

This is how I got my hands on this very rare and important manuscript. Of course, like every other sefer in my house, it had to be read. It took a while to decipher the handwriting, since it is an ancient script. One of the first things I discovered was that it was written some 20 years after Rabbi Yitzchok investigated the Zohar. He openly, and clearly and unambiguously states that the Zohar was written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. This is something not known to historians, and this is the first time I am discussing it in a public forum.

But the fact is that the one person who is historically known to have investigated the authenticity of the Zohar at the time it was first published, unambiguously came to the conclusion that it was an ancient work written by Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. Leaving aside for now the important information recorded by Kaplan, there is a good deal that can be said about R.

Moses de Leon and the creation of the Zohar, and it is questionable if one can even speak of a single author. One essential point that must be recognized by all who investigate this matter is that De Leon himself was involved in other forgeries, in particular forgeries of geonic responsa. Regarding the Zohar and forgery, I think readers will also find the following interesting. In the journal Or Torah , Tevet , p. He saw the following page in R.

This is important information, as Emden confesses that his attack against the Zohar was only designed to pull the wool out from under the Sabbatians, whose ideology was linked to the Zohar. The man who wrote to Or Torah , not knowing anything about Rosenberg, asked for help from the readers.

He tried to locate the book Tzur Devash quoted by Rosenberg, but was unable. In Or Torah , Adar , pp. This is so even though Rosenberg was a respected rabbi and posek.

Here, incidentally, is the picture of Rosenberg that appears at the beginning of his Zohar translation. At times, Rosenberg would even hint to the reader what he was doing, as in Hoshen ha-Mishpat shel ha-Kohen ha-Gadol , where in the preface he mentions that part of the story also appeared in a work of Arthur Conan Doyle.

If any reader would have taken the time to find out who this was, he would have realized that we are dealing with a fictional account. At other times, however, Rosenberg offers no such hint, at least none that I am aware of, and what we have appears to be a simple forgery. That would seem to be the case here, with the phony letter from Emden.

The second correspondent in Or Torah also calls attention to R. While for a long time everyone has known that the Emden letter was a forgery, Sofer identifies another forgery. Hayyim Hezekiah Medini, the Sedei Hemed. In Or Torah , Iyar , p. Now let us turn to the incredible recent publication of a derashah by R.

Yehezkel Landau, the Noda bi-Yehudah. Eleazar Fleckeles, the outstanding student of the Noda bi-Yehudah. Ever since the publication over two hundred years ago of the strong comments of Fleckeles downplaying the authority of the Zohar, people have wondered where this came from. It just seemed strange that an 18 th th century traditional Torah scholar would express himself this way. We now have the answer.

The issue that the Noda bi-Yehudah was concerned with was the same thing that bothered Emden and Fleckeles, namely, distinguishing the authentic ancient Jewish mysticism from the many later additions that found their way into the Zohar. What caused the Noda bi-Yehudah in his later years to adopt a skeptical position, one so much at odds with his earlier outlook, is of course worthy of investigation and something for the scholars to fight over and they already have!

Regarding Fleckeles, his negative comments about the Zohar that appear in Teshuvah me-Ahavah are well known and have often been cited. Jonathan Eibschuetz as supposedly stating that one need not believe in Kabbalah. Needless to say, it is very difficult to believe that Eibschuetz could have ever expressed himself this way. In preparing for my Torah in Motion talks on R. Moses Kunitz, [21] I found another relevant text from Fleckeles that as far as I know has gone unnoticed among those who have discussed the matter.

It is also noteworthy in that it contains something extremely rare, namely, a responsum from R. Knowing that some people might doubt that the teshuvah could really have been authored by R. In Ha-Metzaref , vol. He says that if a Zoharic text is quoted by R.

Isaac Luria, R. Moses Cordovero, or R. Menahem Azariah of Fano then you can assume that it is part of the original Zohar, authored by R. Here is the relevant page, from Or Yisrael , Nisan , p. Presumably, when he was given the text he gave his word not to reveal its source. He might not have even known the source, and was only given the small passage.

So here it is now. There is a tzeirei under the yod meaning that this is not a verb. The next line reads. However, for siddurim with a tzeirei the only accurate translation is a noun. But why is it incorrect? This means that it is the vocalization that is incorrect, and that instead of a tzeirei under the yod , there should be a segol , as in the Tehilat ha-Shem siddur [24]. So my recommendation to Artscroll and Sacks would not be to change the translation, but only to change the vocalization.

After reading my last post, Ben Katz sent me an example where of all the translations, only Artscroll gets it right. The last lines of Adon Olam read:. Sacks translates as follows and Metsudah is similar :. Into His hand my soul I place,. God [25] is with me, I shall not fear;. Body and soul from harm will He keep. What this means is that God has my soul at all times, when I am awake and when I sleep, and that that is why I have no fear.

Into His hand I shall entrust my spirit. When I go to sleep — and I shall awaken! With my spirit shall my body remain. Hashem is with me, I shall not fear. In his translation, Sacks has turned the order of the sentence around. That is OK as it was done so that the rhyme works and Sacks deserves enormous credit for having most of the song rhyme in English. If it is always there, during the day and at night, there is nothing for me to place. We now can properly understand the next verse.

Since my spirit has returned and joined with my body, I know that God is with me and I shall not fear. There is a relatively new publication for all who are interested in Jewish intellectual life. Modeled after the New York Review of Books , each issue is full of great material. In the latest issue I published a translation of part of an essay by R.

Jehiel Jacob Weinberg on Berdyczewski. Only subscribers can access the essay, but everyone can see the artwork that went along with it. See here. Due to copyright restrictions, I can't reproduce the artwork in the post.

If you examine the picture of Weinberg produced by the artist, you will see that it was modeled after this picture that appears in my book on Weinberg, and also on the front cover of the soft-cover edition.

The original photograph was part of a faculty picture taken when Weinberg taught at the University of Giessen. However, the artistic reproduction adds something that is not found in the original, something that the artist assumed no rabbi should be without; see here. Only by doing this will you be taken to the main site and not have a country code in the URL. Readers outside the United States do not have access to the comments posted in the U. We don't know why this is, or how to fix it yet, but the above instruction fixes the matter.

Hayyim Hirschensohn's commentary on Rashi. The person who answers the following question will receive it. Send answers to me at shapirom2 at scranton. Tell me the only place in the Shulhan Arukh where R. Joseph Karo mentions a kabbalistic concept? I am referring to an actual concept e. If more than one person answers the above question correctly, the one who answers the following not related to seforim will win: Which is the only United States embassy that has a kosher kitchen?

If no one can answer question no. Moshe Zuriel kindly sent me the following additional sources that should be added to my list. Abraham ben ha-Gra, who for his time had a critical sense, was among those who thought that Rashi knew the Zohar.

Joseph B. Soloveitchik can be called an opponent of Daf Yomi, I was present at a shiur in the summer of where he expressed his dismay that due to the growing popularity of Daf Yomi, people were no longer studying all six orders of the Mishnah, much of which has no Talmud and is thus not included in the Daf Yomi cycle. Samuel Schonblum offers an explanation of the talmudic passage that many will no doubt claim attributes a heretical assumption to one of the Sages.

See his edition of R. I am no longer convinced of this. All Ibn Ezra says in his commentary to Ex. See the story with R. Akiva in Eruvin 21b. Why were the Sages so strident in this matter? After citing the two rabbinic passages just mentioned, R. Zvi Hirsch Chajes points to an anti-Christian motivation. See Kol Sifrei Maharatz Chajes , p. See R. Mordechai Fogelman, Beit Mordechai, part 2 , no. Those who have read R.

Zvi Elimelech of Dinov, Igra de-Firka , no. See also R. Yaakov Peretz, Emet le-Yaakov Jerusalem, , p. The section in Zuriel's book is entitled. I know some of you are laughing right now, but I am entirely serious.

Israel Pesah Feinhandler, Avnei Yoshpeh , vol. Ovadiah Yosef, Yabia Omer , vol. While on the topic of unusual halakhic subjects, let me call attention to a new book by the young scholar R.

Yissachar Hoffman, from whom I have learnt a great deal. It focuses on sneezing. In his approbation, R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin the following question: Would you have any hesitation telling someone who didn't believe in demons that it's OK to only wash one time in the morning, in accordance with the Rambam's opinion? There is something to be said for doing what klal Yisrael does even if one doesn't believe in the activity. That being said, yes, certainly, if the person is bothered about it to that extent, tell him to follow the Rambam.

Another posek wrote to me: "These are in my view simply matters of minhag yisrael, and not subject to psak in the classical sense of the word. There are questions of minhag ha'avot and the like — but in the end, I do not sense that one would be sinning if one washed only once. Meir Bar-Ilan sugests that the Zohar is the first example of what would later become a common practice: the creation of a forgery by attributing one's own work to an ancient manuscript.

In earlier times, pseudepigraphical works made no such claims. Regarding whom he had in mind, see R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer in Moriah , Av , pp. On the title page itself it is spelled in Latin letters Hamzaref ; see here. Nor, for that matter, have I ever seen an Orthodox thinker read the Bible as criticizing Solomon for this endeavor. If the construction of the Temple was such a negative event, then why on Tisha be-Av are we supposed to mourn its absence? A similar concept is found among Christians.

I am sure many are aware of the Christian prayer recited by children. Buber , 25 2: :. See also Devarim Rabbah Bereshit Rabbah parallel text in Eikhah Rabbah states:. See also Tosafot, Berakhot 12a s. The Book of Disputes between East and West. Translated and Annotated by Leor Jacobi. Based primarily on the Margulies Edition. Menahem Av, 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. People of the East sit while reading the Sh'ma. The residents of the Land of Israel stand. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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. Residents of the Land of Israel do recite these before him. People of the East do not rip up a divorce contract.

Residents of the Land of Israel rip it up. 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. People of the East do not clean their posteriors with water. Residents of the Land of Israel do cleanse themselves [with water], based on the source: A generation which considers itself pure People of the East [permit one to] weigh meat on intermediate days of the festival.

People of the East only check the lungs. Residents of the Land of Israel check eighteen types of disqualifications. Residents of the Land of Israel will recite a blessing when it is fully potent.

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 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.

Residents of the Land of Israel only spread their hands during the morning services, with the sole exception of the Day of Atonement. 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. Residents of the Land of Israel consider mazon to be [the] central [component of the blessings] for everything else is peripheral to mazon ]. 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. 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]. Those of the residents of the Land of Israel contain three ten-letter words [the third is not known]. 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]. According to people of the East, the prayer leader recites the priestly blessing before the congregation [in the absence of Kohanim]. 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? Shach are worth repeating. The two of them were close friends for decades, from before the time when R. Shach was recognized as the leader of the Lithuanian Torah world. That is why R. Elefant was able to speak to him in a way that others would never have dared. Once R. Elefant was in Bnei Brak to give a shiur, and he went to visit R.

He greeted me and asked what my lecture was about. I came here because you want to shoot the breeze. Rav Shach, you are the most powerful man in this world. You build governments, you break governments. What you say goes. His opinion counts over there in the other world. Here is some of what R. Elefant said about Saul Lieberman. I was invited to the engagement party.

The Brisker Rav was sitting next to Saul Lieberman. I saw it. That time Lieberman was persona non grata. Lieberman was good friends with Rav Hutner. They were both students of Rav Kook, and they palled around in New York back in the fifties.

They both used to go to the 42nd Street Library because there were lots of seforim there. Rav Hutner had a beard as black as coal back then. He wore a short jacket. Lieberman was once standing there in the library and who should come in but his friend, Rav Hutner. In a recent post on his blog, R. Let me offer another example that illustrates how today we take sexual abuse much more seriously than in previous years.

Here is a responsum no. Joseph Hayyim writes as follows regarding one who has sex with a child under nine years old:. In other words, he sees this as an issue of wasting seed, without any cognizance of the terrible damage done to the child. I think any modern person reading it will be surprised to see that there is no emotion shown, no reflection on the difficult circumstances of the girl.

Everything is examined from a halakhic standpoint. But this again shows how differently we approach these sorts of matters than was the case years ago. If sexual abuse is treated just like another sexual transgression, then the lenient approach some rabbis have adopted towards it makes sense.

Sexual sins have always been regarded differently than kashrut or Shabbat violations. If a rebbe was seen eating a hamburger in McDonalds or driving on Shabbat he would immediately be fired, without any opportunity to repent.

But more leeway is given when it comes to sexual sins, the reason being, no doubt, that everyone understands the power of the evil inclination in this area. A good illustration of my point is seen in R. Aaron Walkin, Zekan Aharon , vol. Walkin refuses to disqualify the shochet, and tells R. Sorotzkin that even if there were two witnesses testifying to the matter it would not change his mind, since this would only turn the shochet into a mumar le-davar ehad!

It is true that not all rabbis would have been as lenient as R. Walkin, [19] but the fact that this great posek ruled the way he did is quite significant. For the runoff quiz I asked the following:. Here is just one example, from Psalms I have added to this list in various blog posts, and we are now up to around thirty-five different sources. Yet until now I overlooked an important text, namely, a comment by Tosafot.

See Tosafot ha-Shalem , ed. Gellis, to Gen. Tosafot rejects this opinion, stating:. For another source that assumes that Ibn Ezra believes that there are post-Mosaic additions in the Torah, see R. Joseph Ibn Migash openly accepted the viewpoint that Joshua wrote the last eight verses of the Torah. Shmidman, ed. Turim New York, , pp. For whoever he was, and whatever text lay before him, he is our teacher, and his theology is our teaching. Rather than replying to this, he answers that there were amoraim who did not think that Moses wrote the last verses of the Torah.

This, however, relates to the Eighth Principle, not the Seventh. Some extreme statement or ban is attributed to a haredi gadol, and commenters on haredi news sites declare that Gadol X could never have made such a hurtful and counterproductive statement.

I specifically remember such arguments in the first few days after the ban on Making of a Godol was announced. When a few days later it becomes clear that the statement is accurate, and was indeed made by the gadol, what then are these people to do, people who just a few days prior were so adamant in rejecting the position?

Yet I am not certain about this, since the passage immediately following the one quoted above seems to offer a different perspective:. Two New Seforim for sale. Two New Seforim for sale 1. It is with great pleasure that I announce two seforim I have just printed:. A few weeks ago, while I was hunting down a rare source that R. I immediately requested the volume from the rare books stacks, and upon perusal was both surprised and then delighted to find a small packet of typed and handwritten pages of addenda and corrigenda penned by the author and folded neatly into the back of the sefer, along with a newspaper clipping of an article that he had written regarding the sefer.

My next step was to track down one of R. After searching tediously, I located a grandson of his, who graciously allowed me to reprint the original work. It seemed Divine Providence was actively at work.

I received permission from him to print this as well. Finally, to complete the current edition, I included some notes and an index to the work.

I highly recommend this work to anyone interested in understanding the development of the Minhag. Another work which I just printed is called Kunditon. My good friend Rabbi Yechiel Goldhaber has a custom to send out from time to time an e-mail which includes an article of some interesting topic; sometimes the article is divided into a few parts.

A few years ago he began issuing a series of articles dealing with the subject of the Ban on dwelling in or visiting Spain. In this series he researched an astonishing amassment of sources, some of which are still in manuscript form, others unheard of or extremely rare. His goal was to prove whether or not such a ban ever even existed, and if so, what were the exact circumstances behind the ban, and its extent and parameters. Eventually he collated the material, and published it in small paperback edition, which sold out almost immediately.

Over time, he found more material on the subject and decided to reprint the work with all these additions, as well an appendix discussing the repatriation and rebuilding of Jewish Communities in Spain. Another subject he set out to research was the tragedy of the Titanic from a Jewish perspective.

Much has been written on the Titanic but veritably nothing has been done in this field, namely the episode for itself as seen from a Jewish angle. After months of research in archives of various sorts, he decided to present out some of his material in the aforementioned e-mails.

It was then decided to print this collection in this volume as well, augmented with much additional material. Among the subjects he deals with are Agunah questions, stories of Jews who were supposed to be on the ship and were not, and Jews that were on the ship and their tragic fate.

He has a section on the dirges composed to deal with this tragedy. Finally, one large section deals with the halachic question of who is supposed to be saved first, men or women. I highly recommend this work for anyone interested in reading all about the Jewish aspects of the tragic story of the Titanic.

For more information or a table of contents of either work e-mail me at eliezerbrodt gmail. New seforim, books and some random comments. By: Eliezer Brodt.

Here is a list of some new seforim and books printed in the past few months. I am enjoying this edition so far and think it is full of very useful information. It has a few parts including an in-depth running commentary of the entire work and a collection of material from other places where the Gaon writes similar ideas.

It also includes a photocopy of one of the earlier manuscripts of the work. Just to point out some minor issues with the sefer. I do not expect him to quote the discussion of Aryeh Morgenstern in his various works such as in The Goan of Vilna and his Messianic Vision.

I am not sure where he gets this from but Shaul Stampfer in his work Families, Rabbis and Educatio n pp. Another interesting discussion of his is about how the Gra writes about dealing with children:. The last two words are only found in some versions of the manuscripts. The Author collects some sources on this subject of hitting children and even points to the Gra elsewhere which appears to contradict this.

In an appendix he quotes at length the opinion of Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky pro such methods. One last point related to this edition where the Gra writes about learning tanach. The author has an appendix about this, much can be added to this but here to he should have quoted the previously quoted work Menucha Ukedusha. A PDF of this article is available upon request. It appears to be the first of a few volumes. Anyone reading this work is sure to find many more things of great interest.

This work is well done and collects a nice amount of material on Purim of Saragossa. Just to add two important sources on this subject not quoted in this work, most likely because they do not know English, Elliot Horowitz, Reckless Rites , pp.

After being out of print for years this classic is back in print. Dialogue , volume 3. Talmudic Humor and Its Discontents. But first, a short overview of topic of Jewish humor in general. A lot has been written about Jewish humor [2]. However, most of the piece is about Jewish humor from the eighteenth century and on, with only a little bit at the beginning about humor in Tanach, the Talmud, and the time of the Rishonim.

He writes a fascinating few lines in the beginning of the entry:. What is generally identified in the professional literature as Jewish humor originated in the 19th century, mainly, but not exclusively, in Eastern Europe. Today in the U.

At the beginning of the 19th century, sense of humor was not associated with Jewishness. Herman Adler, the chief rabbi of London, felt impelled to write an article in in which he argued against the view that Jews have no sense of humor.

Even H. It is hard to find five continuous lines in Tanach with humor. However, David Lifshitz begs to differ. In , he wrote an entire doctorate on the topic of humor in the Talmud [5]. Israel Davidson collected humorous pieces from throughout Jewish literature in chronological order, starting from Tanach and ending with Modern Hebrew literature [6].

A few articles discuss different aspects of humor in the Talmud, and there are some seforim that collect humorous pieces from the Gemara [7]. However, by far the most comprehensive discussion is that of Horowitz.

As mentioned, Lifshitz wrote an entire dissertation on the topic, running to pages. One specific aspect of humor in the Gemara is critical humor [8]. Although not necessarily the best example of humor in the Gemara, this genre of humor caused some uncomfortableness [9] , which I will also discuss. Here are some Gemaras where critical humor is used, taken at random. Translations are from Soncino, with slight changes [10]. How long will you rake words together to bring them up against us?

I am expounding a Scriptural verse. Beitza 24a [13] :. This tshuva was made famous by the Chafetz Chaim, who printed it at the beginning of his Chafetz Chaim. Interestingly, some want to say that these kinds of attacks are much more frequent in the Bavli than in the Yerushalmi.

This difference is number 53 page [17]. When he disagreed, he did so in very strong terms. In general, he was most harsh in his hassagos on the Razah.

Page 29 Advertisements Column 1. Page 31 Advertisements Column 1. Page 32 Advertisements Column 1. Page 32 Advertisements Column 2. Page 32 Advertisements Column 3. Page 32 Advertisements Column 4. Page 32 Advertisements Column 5. Page 32 Advertisements Column 6. Page 34 Advertisements Column 1. Page 36 Advertisements Column 1. Page 37 Advertisements Column 1. Page 38 Advertisements Column 1. Page 38 Advertisements Column 2. Page 42 Advertisements Column 1.

Page 43 Advertisements Column 1. Page 46 Advertisements Column 1. Page 47 Advertisements Column 1. Page 52 Advertisements Column 1. Page 56 Advertisements Column 1. Page 58 Advertisements Column 1. Page 60 Advertisements Column 1. Page 61 Advertisements Column 1. Page 62 Advertisements Column 1. Page 63 Advertisements Column 1. Page 64 Advertisements Column 1.

  Newsletter

RHEA, U. Acceptance published in journal To amend the specification of the said Patent Application. Any person may oppose such grant of permission within three months from the date of this Patents Journal, as prescribed by section 67 of the Law and by regulation 99 of the Patent Regulations, Class Antenna Convention date U.

KG E. Related documents. Teshuva, Humanity and the Search for Absolute Truth. The Works of My Hands are Drowning. Slides - Rabbinics Resources Online. Download advertisement. Add this document to collection s. You can add this document to your study collection s Sign in Available only to authorized users. Description optional.

And when in the Kopyster Rebbe passed, he was succeeded by his younger brother Rabbi Shemaryah Noah Schneerson author of the Hasidic work Shemen la-ma or. Though there was a brief attempt on the part of Rabbi Shemaryah Noah Schneerson to establish himself in the city of Kopyst, eventually he returned to his rabbinate in Bobroisk, which then became the center of this branch of Habad Hasidism.

At that point, remnants of the Bobroisker Hasidim transferred their allegiance to the Lubavitcher Rebbe. In the early years of the twentieth century there erupted a.

One may find evidence of the dispute in letters of Rav Kook from this period, when as Rabbi of Jaffa he offered guidance how to come to a compromise. Thus, there are historians who would explain the tension between Bobroisk and Lubavitch as being purely financial. In general, it may be said that the Bobroisker was more progressive, more forward-looking.

The Lubavitcher was more old-school, more conservative in outlook. These different Weltanschauungen found expression on many fronts. Hafets Hayyim] fought against this proposal tooth and nail. The Bobroisker did not think it realistic to keep the Hasidim down on the farm.

Willy-nilly, establishment of a lending library in Hebron would bring secular literature to the curious eyes of Hasidic youth. While Lubavitch would have no truck with Zionism, out of the Kibbutz study-hall for advanced rabbinic students of Bobroisk there would emerge prominent rabbis of the Mizrahi or Religious Zionist movement.

In his preface to the work, Benzion Don Yahya explains that the manuscript was sent to him for publication because there is no longer a Hebrew press in Russia. On pages , the Editor traces the lineage of the Don Yahya family. Menahem Mendel served as Rabbi of Kopyst for some years, passing there in Hayyim served as Rabbi of Shklov, and after his father Shabtai s passing, as Rabbi of Drissa, until his own passing in Hayyim s son, Yehudah Leib, served as Rabbi in Shklov and Vietka, until he inherited.

In , Yehudah Leib was accepted as Rabbi of Chernigov. See below note 4. However, it should be mentioned that the communities of Vietka and Chernigov as well figure prominently in the annals of Habad Hasidism. See ibid. See Igrot Re iyah, vol. Schneerson as Rav of Haderah. Eliezer Laine and S.

Berger Brooklyn, NY: Kehot, Reviewing the second volume of Bikkurei Yehudah, Rabbi Zevin. Rabbi Zevin, himself a Habad Hasid, noted how rare it was to find in the twentieth century a Habad Hasid who combined both persona of the maskil intellectual and the oved master of contemplative prayer.

See Bikkurei Yehudah, vol. One particular statement should illustrate how extreme was Rabbi Hayyim s opposition to the new movement. The following incident took place in Minsk in when many Jews were forced to flee their homes before the German invasion and seek refuge in the large city located farther east. Pinned to the adolescent s lapel was an insignia of the Keren Kayemet le-yisrael Jewish National Fund , to which he had recently donated.

The elder Levine was adamantly opposed to the Zionist enterprise and demanded that his son remove the pin, which he found offensive. Father and son were in the midst of an intense argument when, lo and behold, they saw approaching them from the opposite direction none other than the great Rabbi Hayyim Soloveitchik.

Rabbi Soloveitchik turned to Raphael Zalman: You can ask your father. Rabbi Levine and Rabbi Soloveitchik were friends. Rabbi Levine persisted: My son wants to ask you a she elah in emunah a matter of faith. Rabbi Soloveitchik s face now assumed a serious expression. It just so happened that across the street was a church. Rabbi Hayyim responded to his young questioner: If you have a few spare kopecks in your pocket, you can place them there rather than in the pushke of the Keren Kayemes.

See Igrot la-rayah, ed. Shapiro Jerusalem, , Letter pp ; facsimile on p. Ze ev Neuman Jerusalem, , pp [3] According to his namesake and great-grandson, journalist Shabtai Don Yahya who wrote under the pen name of Sh.

Don Yahya wrote that it was said that the Rabbi of Drissa might have become one of the great men of the generation in terms of Talmudic learning, but his Hasidic exuberance stunted his academic growth. Rabbi Eliezer Don Yahya was born 4 Tammuz [i. See the epitaph on his tombstone at the conclusion of this article. Zilber s original surname was Ziyoni. A halakhic responsum of Rabbi Hayyim Don Yahya datelined [i.

Rabbi Menahem Mendel Don Yahya]. Behind the scenes, the Tagbuch was made available to Rabbi Lichtenstein by his maternal uncle, Prof. Haym Soloveitchik of Riverdale, son of Rabbi J. Soloveitchik of Boston, son of Rabbi Moshe Soloveitchik. The volume was edited by the author s son-in-law Rabbi Yitshak Neiman.

Rabbi Zevin explains that though the volume was submitted for publication in , it was not issued until , a few weeks before the author s passing. See S. Moshe Mordechai Epstein appears in a group photo on p. Rabbi Yosef Soloveichik explained the exact halakhic reasoning whereby his ancestor was able to release young Isser Zalman Meltzer from his solemn oath. This Soloveichik family tradition, which reflects Rabbi Hayyim s disapproval of Nes Ziyonah, seems to fly in the face of Yosef Rothstein s memoir, whereby Rabbi Hayyim rejoiced at Rothstein s release after he had been arrested by the Russian police: Also the Gaon Rabbi Hayyim of Brisk, of blessed memory, greatly rejoiced over me.

He received me with joy and brought me before the NeTsIV, of blessed memory, who was pleased by my return, though he did say to me that this is not the place [for activism]. A mitsvah that can be performed by others, we do not cancel for it the study of Torah [MT, Hil. Netsah Yisrael lasted until the closing of the Volozhin Yeshivah by the Russian authorities in [16] Ha-Tsiyoniyut mi-nekudat hashkafat ha-dat, pp [17] Ibid.

Usually, the way to circumvent the problem of ribit interest is by drafting a heter iska. Rabbi Tsevi Yehudah Hakohen Kook relates that when the Zionist Colonial Bank was founded, his father, Rabbi Avraham Yitshak Hakohen Kook, entered into negotiations with the Zionist officials and rabbis, which resulted in a shtar heter iska. Because of their support of the movement, both Rabbi Shelomo Hakohen and Rabbi Nahum Greenhaus suffered persecution by anti-zionist elements in Lithuanian Jewry.

See Klausner, ibid. This modern disagreement sounds vaguely reminiscent of the disagreement between Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yohanan in Talmud Bavli, Yoma 9ba. Resh Lakish said of Babylonian Jewry: God hates you. If you had gone up to the Land of Israel en masse in the days of Ezra, the divine presence would have rested in the Second Temple and there would have been a resumption of full-blown prophecy.

Now that you have gone up in pitifully small numbers dalei dalot , but a remnant of prophecy remains, the bat kol heavenly voice. Rabbi Yohanan responded: Even if all of Babylonian Jewry would have gone up to the Land in the days of Ezra, the divine presence would not have rested in the Second Temple, for it is written: God will. Though God will broaden Japheth, the divine presence rests only in the tents of Shem. Rashi explains that the divine presence was prevented from resting in the Second Temple because it was built by the Persians; the divine presence rested only in the First Temple which was built by Solomon of the seed of Shem.

Evidently, Rabbi Don Yahya like Resh Lakish was convinced that that what was crucial to effecting a spiritual revolution in Erets Yisrael was a critical mass. His opponents like Rabbi Yohanan could not be swayed that it was merely a matter of numbers. To their thinking, non-jewish influence at the very inception of the Zionist movement would preclude it from bringing about the hoped for spiritual renascence so woefully lacking in the Jewish collective.

See Ch. The letter is datelined, Jaffa, 3 Marheshvan, [5], i. Interestingly enough, in the s there emerged a theological dispute between the Rebbes of Kopyst and Lubavitch. The way it came about was in the following manner. Entitled Likkutei Torah, it was brought out in Vilna in The publishers took the liberty of incorporating into the text comments of the recently deceased Rabbi Samuel Schneersohn.

One comment of his uncle Rabbi Samuel to Parashat Noah in particular provoked the Kopyster Rebbe, this touching on the proper way to understand Rabbi Isaac Luria s metaphor of Tsimtsum. The correspondence is briefly alluded to in H. Heilman, Beit Rabbi, vol. Rabbi Dan Tumarkin. Available online at 9 [32] This issue was raised at the rabbinical conference held in St. Petersburg in The decisions reached by the. Some of the heated exchange between the Bobroisker and the Lubavitcher behind closed doors has been preserved in the memoirs of Isaac Schneersohn, one of the delegates to the conference; see I.

The chapters concerning the conference were translated from Yiddish into Hebrew by Rabbi Yehoshua Mondshine, Asifat ha-rabbanim be-rusya bi-shenat Atar, Kfar Habad, no Availble online at: 4 According to Isaac Schneersohn, it was none other than he Crown Rabbi of Chernigov who proposed abolishing the position of Kazyonny Ravin in Hebrew, Rav mi-ta am, or Crown Rabbi , thus wresting authority from the seculartrained, modern Rabbiner and consolidating communal power in the hands of the Talmudically-trained traditional Rav provided he be proficient in the Russian language.

Later, in , a group of Habad families from Hebron relocated to Jerusalem. Both studied in the Kibbutz of the Bobroisker Rebbe and received ordination from him. Eventually, with the extinction of Bobroisker Hasidism, both Telushkin and Zevin would transfer their allegiance to Lubavitch.

However, their affiliation with the Religious Zionist movement could at times. Particularly Rabbi Zevin oftentimes found himself between a rock and a hard place. See Marc B. It would be interesting to see the original of the letter, which may yet be in the hands of the heirs of Rabbi Zevin.

From the fact that the word Habad is placed in parentheses, one is inclined to assume that this is an addition on the part of an editor Rabbi Zevin? Klausner, Toledot Nes Ziyonah be-volozhin, p. Towards a Bibliography of seforim related to Shavuos and Megilas Rus both new and old updated Towards a Bibliography of seforim related to Shavuos and Megilas Rus both new and old By Eliezer Brodt Originally posted May 24, Updated June 3, In this post I intend to start a list towards a more complete bibliography to the various seforim new and old and articles related to Shavuos including many links.

I hope to update it in the future. When learning the Halachos of Shavuos, one is struck how the Tur does not mention anything special for Shavuos except for instructions related to davening and Keriyas Hatorah. The only custom he mentions that is unique to Shavuos is saying Azharot. In the Codes is not until the Rema that some of the famous customs related to this Yom Tov are brought down, such as the custom of placing flowers in shuls and houses, the custom of eating. Relations between Babylon and the Land of Israel from the close of the Talmudic period until the close of the Geonic period.

The end of the Talmudic Period. The Geonic period. Attitudes towards divergent customs until the Geonic period. Attitudes of Babylonian Geonim to the customs of the Land of Israel. Chapter 2. The name of the work. The author, his period, and locale. Purpose of the work.

Characteristics and scope of the book. Language and sources. Legal sources and historical development of the disputes. Use of the book by Geonim. Use of the book by Rabbinic legal authorities. Use of the book by Karaites. Scholars who have studied the work. Chapter 3. Text versions, families and formation. The first group. The second group. The third group. This edition's presentation and stemmatic diagram of source relationships.

The varying order of the disputes in all of the versions. The text. Presentation of the actual text with variant apparatus. Chapter 1 is a general introduction to the context of the work and is not translated at this time.

Chapter 2 Summarized in translation. 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.

It was simply a list drawn up by a sage, copied and possibly added to. 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]. 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.

See Lewin's edition, page 22, left column, note There you will find a manuscript with precisely such an alternate reading. See here , beginning of intro. The author is anonymous, and we have no clue as to his identity. He was uncertain as to whether the work was authored by amoraim or in a later period. Margulies provides considerable evidence that the work was composed around the year 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. 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.

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 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.

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. According to him, the author never meant to compile an exhaustive list. 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. 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 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.

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. Many of the great authorities were most probably unaware of the work as they never cite it or it's contents.

Others who do cite it generally cite only sections known to them through second or third-hand 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 14 th 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. 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 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. 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. From the fourteenth century on mention and discussion of the work seems to virtually disappear. He cites the work according to versions not attested to otherwise among French sages. See below after the main body of the translation. None of the early or later sages undertook an elucidation of the entire work — they left this important work for us to do!

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. The first Karaite sage to quote the work is Jacob Qirqisani 10 th 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 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 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.

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. Frankl in Monatscrifft, Heft 8 , p. Yoel HaCohen Miller, Weiss , Dor Dor v'Dorshav, Additions to vol.

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. Ezra Altshuler, Tosefta, 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 transcriptions from a previous edition. This version of the Hiluqim has been republished with additional notes from the Aderes. Hayyim Stahon, Eretz Hayyim, Ya'akov Shor, Ner Ma'aravi in HaMe'asef, [for a complete listing of all issues containing this serial column, see Simha Emanuel's index , entry 98].

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.

Dov Revel, Horev 1,1. He questioned several of Margulies conjectures. Elkin later became a member of the Knesset. Uzi Fuchs, Netuim An examination of the Rothschild manuscript and its role in the development of the various textual variants. Hillel Neuman in Ha-Ma'asim discusses several items from this related work in passing. This is a new revised version of his master's thesis Hebrew University. According to Elkin's 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. 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. 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 , , pp. Both are available at www. A couple of other articles are listed here as well, after the fact.

At the top, the aforementioned Monatsschrift article of Dr. Frankl listed by Marguleis , p. 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! 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.

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. 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! 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. Translated by David S. The question of continuity and division is critical for understanding the Song of Songs, and there are a variety of views on the subject. Aggadists tended to interpret its verses independently, each conveying its own idea. I have endeavored to follow the natural sense of the verses and to interpret them sequentially.

Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted the Song of Songs in similar fashion, though Ibn Ezra also tried to find continuity within its literal sense. In his commentary, the Song of Songs is a chronology of events taking place between two lovers. A number of modern biblical scholars attempted to follow this approach to its logical conclusion; they maintained that the Song of Songs is a single, continuous poem written in the form of a dramatic dream vision. But adherents of this view are forced to posit far-fetched interpretations and to take many verses out of context.

Other scholars held that the Song of Songs is an anthology of several poems excerpts of poems, for the most part -- composed in various periods and provenances -- which were compiled haphazardly at a later time. The most plausible approach, I believe, is as follows: The Song of Songs is not a continuous chronology of two lovers, and it is certainly not a drama. But neither is it an anthology of poetic excerpts. Rather, it is an anthology of complete poems written by a single author on a single subject, following a specific methodology and purpose.

The poems are sometimes brief and simple, sometimes lengthy and complex. Nevertheless, for the most part they are self-contained units. In the commentary, I have assigned a unique title to each poem and have also noted its division into sections or stanzas. Often, the divisions are ambiguous; other commentators have split or combined the poems differently.

But these are merely details which do not undermine the central thesis that the Song of Songs is an anthology of complete poems. However, there are several differing opinions regarding the circumstances in which the poems were composed. He consoles her, promising that he will yet return. Ibn Ezra reads the Song of Songs as the story of a preadolescent girl, whose beloved is a shepherd, guarding a vineyard. Modern biblical scholars have suggested that the poems in this book do not describe events which took place between a particular pair of lovers but, instead, these songs were popular at wedding banquets.

As proof, some point to a statement of the Sages forbidding the use of lyrics from Song of Songs in drinking halls Sanhedrin a; Tosefta Sanhedrin Because the Sages prohibited such a practice, their argument goes, this was in fact the original custom. It was eventually forbidden, they say, due to deteriorating moral standards and out of fear that it might create an atmosphere of levity leading to the desecration of the sacred.

The most reasonable approach, I believe, is as follows: Although the Song of Songs does include dance songs e. It is likely that the poet borrowed phrases from dance songs and embedded them, as necessary, within his poems. Most likely, the portraits of the lovers within the Song of Songs depict a variety of circumstances. In some, the lovers may be formally unconnected; in others, they may be betrothed, at their wedding banquet, or already married. The love portrayed in the Song of Songs is untainted and pure.

It is entirely within the bounds of that which is appropriate, permissible, and accepted. No divine or human obstacle stands in the way of their love. They are intent only on increasing their possessions but, in the end, they relinquish what is hers. Whether the entire Song of Songs refers to a single pair of lovers, or describes multiple couples, is a significant question.

I do not mean to suggest that everything recounted in the Song of Songs should be taken as a narrative or that it only describes events that actually took place between two specific individuals.

The very nature of poetry is to portray circumstances more beautifully and more perfectly than they really are. But the descriptions are based on reality. The dod portrayed in the Song of Songs is a shepherd.

Where do you rest them at noon? Possibly, because he would wander the countryside with his sheep, he mentions the names of several places scattered far and wide throughout the land. But there is no hard evidence that compels us to interpret the text this way. They own vineyards, but she too has a vineyard of her own. The portrait in the Song of Songs suggests that her brothers treated her heavy handedly, forcing her to work in the vineyards.

She knew her dod previously and, unbeknownst to her brothers, fell in love with him; to them, she was still a child. God is never mentioned in the Song of Songs. But the question remains why God is not mentioned explicitly. Commentators and thinkers have said that the holiness of a text is not determined by tallying its divine names.

Just as there are texts whose sacredness is self-evident even without reference to God, so is the untainted and sacred love depicted in the Song of Songs. This is a known biblical feature, in which male or female characters may remain anonymous for the duration of a lengthy and detailed narrative.

In the Midrash, the Sages offered many allegorical interpretations of the Song of Songs, taking its earthly love as a parable for the love between God and Israel. The great medieval Jewish exegetes interpreted the Song of Songs within this conceptual framework and objected strenuously to the idea that its meaning is limited to its literal, natural sense of the love between a man and woman.

The parable in the Song of Songs is apparently not the type in which the referent displaces the literal sense but, instead, adds a nobler and more sacred meaning to the natural meaning. Support for such an approach can be found in the statements of the Sages and Jewish scholars throughout history.

For example, in R. This is linked to the idea, appearing frequently in the literature of the Sages, that all aspects of marital relations are rooted in holiness and allude to holy matters. Blessed are you, God, who brings joy to Zion with her children. There are many kabbalistic teachings which take aspects of marital relations as symbols of lofty matters.

We should also draw attention to the mistaken notion that the Sages interpreted the Song of Songs allegorically because they considered its natural sense to be unworthy of the Holy Scriptures. It is not so. Some of the greatest exegetes have noted that one must not even contemplate the idea that a prophetic text would employ something inherently offensive to suggest that which is holy and pure. Rather, just as the referent is holy, so is the allegory. The fact that the prophets compare the covenant between God and Israel to the marriage covenant suggests that the latter is sacred and noble.

In the Midrash, the Sages followed this exegetical method. Likewise, the Targum translated the Song of Songs allegorically and ignored its literal sense. Many such midrashim are embedded in Jewish liturgical poetry [ piyyutim ]. Many piyyutim for other occasions include phrases from the Song of Songs; such phrases were a quintessential part of the piyyut vocabulary and, subsequently, entered popular usage. The difference between the approach of Rashi and Ibn Ezra and that of the Midrash is as follows: The Midrash generally ignores the allegory entirely and exclusively addresses the referent.

The exegetes, on the other hand, also address the literal sense of the allegory. Furthermore, they attempt to connect adjoining verses and to find context and continuity within the Song of Songs as a whole. In their view, the Song of Songs includes hints regarding all of Jewish history, from its origins until the end of days. The hints are not of a general nature; they refer to specific future events.

They saw the Song of Songs as a prophetic or visionary work. But there are those who do not accept -- within the natural sense of the book -- interpretations predicting future events.

Maimonides writes in the Laws Concerning Repentance :. What is the love of God that is befitting? Even more intense should be the love of God in the hearts of those who love Him. The entire Song of Songs is indeed an allegory descriptive of this love.

Many exegetes followed this approach by interpreting the details of the Song of Songs as allusions to the inner spiritual life of devout lovers of God; their feelings, longings, uncertainties, doubts, failures, and triumphs in attaining their goal, to gaze upon the beauty of the Lord. A number of them saw allusions to scientific and philosophical subjects -- as they understood them -- within the detailed descriptions of the book. Among the adherents of this approach are R.

Joseph ibn Aknin a disciple of Maimonides , R. Joseph ibn Kaspi a commentator on the Bible and on the Guide , and R.

Meir Malbim. Abraham ibn Ezra and R. Isaac Arama author of the Akedat Yitzhak rejected this type of exegesis. In their respective Introductions to the Song of Songs, they underscored the obligation to remain completely faithful to the Sages, and they rejected the conception of the Song of Songs as an allegory of anything other than the love between God and his people.

Yet it appears that their statements were not directed at Maimonides. We must also mention the kabbalistic approach to the Song of Songs. Isaac Arama writes in the Introduction to his commentary on the Song of Songs, he does not wish to address kabbalistic interpretations. Still, it was the kabbalists who, in recent times, popularized its study -- or, at least, its recitation -- among the Jewish populace. Based on their commentaries, the custom of reciting the Song of Songs before the Service for Welcoming the Sabbath has become widespread.

In simple terms, the kabbalistic view is essentially this: The love in the Song of Songs represents the longing of creation for its Creator, the longing of worlds detached and distant from their origin to return and reunite with their Maker.

However, for our purposes we must emphasize that for kabbalists, that which takes place in the supernal realms is reflected in or, casts a shadow upon the events of our world. The reflection is revealed in multiple stages and by various means. For kabbalists, each hermeneutic points to the same essential idea, even if revealed in a variety of ways and in different stages. We will touch upon a variety of issues, and thus first present general backgrounds regarding Hebrew printing in London, the prayer for the state, and Kol Nidrei.

The earliest use of Hebrew typography in England is sometime in the middle to the late s. Of course, at that time, Jews were banned from England and the earliest works containing Hebrew type in England were produced for non-Jews. The type, as you can see, was quite primitive. This lecture was given in , and as the book itself is undated, it was assumed that the lecture was published soon after it was given.

Wakefield, a noted Hebraist, actually spends the majority of the book discussing Hebrew and the other two languages get short shrift. Recently, however, the dating of this work has been challenged and been shown to likely incorrect.

It took nearly two hundred years after the appearance of Hebrew typography for the first Hebrew book published for a Jewish audience in England. The controversy surrounding R. The first was a very small one, only a few pages, of a responsum written by R. Tzvi Ashkenzi, in R. It included both Spanish as well as Hebrew available here. Nieto and this controversy, see the Seforim Blog's earlier post here. The prayer for the welfare of the king or ruler is ancient.

Many point to the statements of Ezra as well as the passage in Avot as early sources for the prayer. A variety of rationales are offered for this obligation. For example, Rabbenu Yonah interprets the need for these prayers as indicative of a Universalist worldview, which requires all humans to display empathy for one another.

In order to effectuate that goal, Jews therefore pray for not only the Jewish leaders but also the secular one. Azariah di Rossi, claims that the prayer carries a pacifist message as he emphasizes the lack of allegiance to a specific ruler or country and thereby transforms the prayer into one arguing for peace among all nations. The earliest extant prayers are from the Geniza, and can be dated to between and Brunswick, ed.

Goiten posits that these prayers may have been written in response to specific historical events and may not be indicative of the general practice in 12th century Egypt. See id. The earliest sources, however, do not include the modern formulation of HaNoten Teshua. Instead, early on there was a lack of conformity regarding this prayer. Kol Bo records the custom but indicates that each community had its own practices. But, none used the HaNoten Teshua formulation. The first extant example of HaNoten Teshua is found in a Spanish manuscript dated between It appears that with the expulsion and dispersion of the Spainish Jews, the HaNoten Teshua was disseminated throughout the Jewish world.

Indeed, the inclusion of this prayer in Yemenite rites, appears to undermine a major thesis of the noted Yemenite scholar, R. Yosef Kapach. He asserts that the rite presents a pristine rite, unchanged over hundreds of years. But, as the Yememite rite includes HaNoten Teshua , which is from the 15th century, indicates that the Yemenite rite is less pristine than Kapach would have it.

The prayer is also linked to the readmission of Jews into England. Menasseh ben Israel in his plea for readmission of the Jews to England link provides the full text - in English - of the HaNoten to demonstrate the Jews' loyalty to their rulers. The Machzor features a frontispiece with various engravings of the Jewish holidays. The engraving for Shavuos features Moshe Rabbeinu dressed in a manner probably unknown 3, years ago, and holding the Aseres HaDibros with the numerical sequence from left to right.

If you look closely at the name of the engraver, you will see that it was done by an R. I tried to find out more about R. Gavey and finally came upon a website which dealt with his family. I sent an email to the address listed and waited and waited. Two years later, I received the following response from a fellow in Australia:. Robert was 15 years old at the time and his period of indenture lasted for seven years.

He promised not get married during that time period or play cards or dice. He also was forbidden to frequent taverns or playhouses or engage in any act which would cause his master a loss of money. Click to see a large, high-resolution image. The certificate of indenture was signed in May of which was noted as the thirtieth year of the reign of George III who is described as the king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland. Accordingly, this Machzor blesses King George in this manner:. This is not the only edition that continued to praise the monarch.

Isaac Lesser, published the first complete machzor in the United States in , for the Spanish and Portuguese rites with an English translation. The person who finally brought the prayer for the government more in keeping with American democratic values was Max Lilienthal Lilienthal, however, totally reworked the prayer, altering its tone and focus.

This siddur was first published in , and reissued in more than 30 editions. As Sarna notes , the acceptance of the prayer is somewhat ironic in that Lilienthal, later became part of the American Reform movement, was the author of a prayer that became the standard even in Orthodox siddurim. Aside from changing the text of the prayer to fit American sensibilities, how the prayer was recited was also changed.

According to an oral tradition preserved by H. The United States was not the only country to undergo significant changes to its governmental structure. France, in , abolished temporarily the monarchy. After which the prayer for the welfare of the government was radically changed. Instead of praying for the benefit of kings and rulers, the French prayer focuses upon the Republic and its people. All the biblical verses included bless the people and not the king.

Other changes to the prayer, due to time and place, were common. For example, during the height of the Sabbati Zevi messianic frenzy, two versions of the prayer were produced, not asking to bless the secular ruler, but, instead, blessed Shabbati Zevi. Today, the most significant change to this prayer has been the new prayer on behalf of the State of Israel. The authorship of the prayer as well as its use is subject to controversy.

May unity and harmony make her strong and great.