www.oxfordchabad.org | Blogs | Oxford Jewish Thought (blog) - Essays by Rabbi Eli Brackman

Searching for meaning in a history of persecution and exclusion: A study of Anti-Semitism at Oxford

Wed, 20 Aug 2025 11:29:00 AM

One of the oldest hatreds in the world is what Wilhelm Marr (1819-1904), the founder of the League of Antisemites in Germany, called Anti-Semitism. This is defined by the Oxford Dictionary as ‘opposition or hostility to Jews.’ This has taken on many forms, including anti-Judaism in ancient times and the Middle Ages, racist anti-Semitism in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, and its latest mutation, Anti-Zionism, what Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks called New Anti-Semitism. In this essay, we will present a survey of Anti-Semitism in Oxford, followed by delving into the question posed in this talk: how do find meaning in a history of persecution, Anti-Semitism and exclusion.

Middle Ages

Jews were invited to settle in England from Ruel, Northern France in 1066 with the Norman Conquest. There is no evidence of Jews living in England during Roman times, though there were like traders and merchants. This period came to an abrupt end in 1290, when the edict of expulsion was made by Edward I. During this time, Jews had no rights: were subject to a blood libel in Norwich in 1144, massacre in London in 1189, massacre in York in 1190, were excluded from the Magna Carta in 1215, and forced to wear badges made from felt in the form of the tablets in 1222. After being forbidden from lending on interest in 1275, decimating the community, the coin clippings allegations in 1279, the expulsion followed in 1290. Oxford had its own cases: a deacon who converted to Judaism to marry a Jewess was burned alive outside the gate of Osney Abbey in 1222, the first known case of such a punishment for heresy, and a Jewish child, who was condemned for having mocked the healing powers of St. Frideswide in 1189, was found hanging the same day or night in the cellar of his family home. Furthermore, their cemetery was seized by Royal decree, through the local sheriff, for the building of a hospital, in 1231, after it had been purchased by the Oxford Jewry for burial in 1177, and in 1266 a cross was erected on the funeral procession route with the script ‘guilty Jews on its base. Despite the various histories of the University of Oxford, the expulsion of Jews from the city of Oxford in 1290 seems not to have been a subject of note. Nevertheless, much of the university is built on land that was formerly part of the Jewry, including Christ Church, Pembroke, Magdalen, Botanic Garden and Merton. Balliol benefited for centuries from Jewish owned land.

16^th century

In the 17^th century, Isaac Casaubon, a French Huguenot scholar, befriended Jacob Barnet, a Jewish person known as "Jacob the Jew," in Oxford around 1609. Casaubon, impressed by Barnet's knowledge of Hebrew texts, hired him as a tutor and later as a personal secretary. Barnet faced pressure to convert to Christianity, and the university planned a grand ceremony for his conversion, but he ultimately fled Oxford, was arrested, imprisoned at the Bacardo prison where he was tormented by fellows at the university for having decided not to convert to Christianity, and later exiled.

19^th century immigration

In the turn of the 20^th century, minutes of the Waynflete Society of 1899 records papers delivered with solutions to the problem of poverty-stricken Jewish refugees arriving in England from Europe. The background was, in the 19^th century, 4,750,000 Jews lived in the Russian Pale of Settlements, located in the fifteen westernmost provinces, across 350,000 square miles, bounded with restrictions and regulations. A Jew in the army could not rise beyond private, most professions were closed to him, and places where he was allowed to live were strictly limited. St. Petersburg and Moscow were barred, as most big cities. Only richer merchants, university students, long-serving soldiers, dentists, surgeons and skilled artisans were allowed into the big towns. This caused hundreds of thousands to leave the Russian empire: Between 1870 and 1880, around 350,000 Jews emigrated, the majority to America. By 1888 Sir Robert Giffen testified to the House of Commons’ Select Committee that about 40,000 people were leaving every year. The amount coming to England is indicated by the relief given by the Board of Guardians. The Board of Trade reckoned that between 1881 and 1886 the number of Polish and Russian immigrants in England rose by 50 percent. In 1881 there were 15,000 alien Jews in the whole of England and Wales, three quarters of them in London, Manchester and Leeds. In the next ten years it rose to just over 50,000 and by 1901 doubled again to 95,000, before being stemmed by the Alien Act in 1906. Thus, with an average of 4,000 a year, over a twenty year period, the Jewish population had increased by some 600 per cent. All-together around 200,000 came to settle in England, either by choice or necessity.

Immigration was caused because of a number of factors. In 1881, the assassination of Tsar Alexander II on 1^st March, was blamed on the Jews, leading to the appointment of his son, Alexander III, together with his former tutor and chief lieutenant Constantine Petrovich Pobyedonotzev, called also The Grand Inquisitor. Pogroms subsequently took place across Southern Russia, that began in April in Elizabethgrad, spread to Kiev, reaching Warsaw by the summer of 1881. The pogroms however were mostly suppressed, as Alexander III reminded that Jews were under the protection of the general laws, lasting for twenty years until the Kishiniv massacres in 1903. Meanwhile, a proclamation was made on 29^th April, 1881, to establish and safeguard the rein of government and eradicate ‘hideous sedition.’ This referred to anybody who challenged the political or religious orthodoxies of the regime. This was aimed particularly at Jews, who followed a different religion than the Greek Orthodox church, and seen to have ‘dominated’ commercial life of the country.

The trigger for immigration, however, came principally because of the anti-semitic May Laws. On 3rd May, 1882, ‘Temporary Laws’ came into effect whereby people had to prove to the authorities’ satisfaction that they had been living on their land before 3^rd May, 1882. Since Jews were not allowed to own land or house, they were leaseholders, and very often the terms were verbal, not written, leaving them with nothing to show, expelling them from the villages they had lived all their lives to the towns. This inevitably caused the town to be overrun by thousands of poor, homeless and hungry Jews looking for work. Pobyedonotzev was planning with these laws for a third of Jews to emigrate, a third to convert and a third perish. It was in this context that a mass wave of Jewish immigration arrived to England, many tricked by unscrupulous companies into thinking they were on their way to America. This led to a wave of Anti-Semitism in England.

A Royal Commission was set up by the British Government in 1902, which lasted 16 months, interviewing 175 witnesses, including local government officials from Whitechapel and Stepney, Board of Trade experts, leaders of the Jewish community, trade union spokesmen, but very few immigrants. Those interviewed were picked by Arnold White to show them as dirty and undesirable. He referred to them as ‘like a drop of prussic acid in a glass of water.’^[1]

It was in this context a discussion took place at the Waynflete Society of 1899/1900 with papers delivered with solutions to the problem of poverty-stricken Jewish refugees arriving in England from Europe. The open hostility to Jewish immigrants was manifest. The Bursar and Fellow of the College, Revd C. R. Carter, proposed extermination or intermarriage to solve the problem. Hubert Maitland Turnbull (c. 1894-1900) thought ‘Jews have not grit, no real pluck.’ A Mr. Smith suggested a European coalition should be formed to cart them off to Palestine. A more positive note was struck by Mr. Treherne (possibly a guest), who spoke up for the immigrants as deserving charity.

20^th century migration

A further wave of internal migration of Jews took place in light of the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s and 1940s. Anti-Semitism swept through the city of Oxford, before and during the Second World War, in light of the increase in size of the Jewish community in the city. Anti-Semitism in Oxford took the form of a negative attitude towards Jewish refugees, whom fled from London to escape the bombing. The Jewish population of Oxford had risen noticeably during the Second World War, as a result of the evacuation of Jewish mothers and children, blind persons, hospital patients and others from London. Reflecting the growth, instead of approximately 30 families before the war, over 200 people attended synagogue on Yom Kippur in 1939.

In the same year, it was believed there were some 200 London children in Oxford and more in the surrounding districts. During this time, numerous organisations were founded and flourished in the city and the university. This included: the Oxford University Jewish Society (OUJS); Oxford Zionist Society (formed in 1939); Oxford Women’s Zionist Society (November, 1940); Theodor Herzl society; Federation of Women Zionists (FWZ); Jewish National Fund (JNF); The Jufra Club, which served during the war as rallying point for German-Jewish women and girls, chaired for its first two years, until April, 1941, by Mrs. Ettinghausen; Oxford Jewish Youth Club (November 1940); and The Jewish Religious Union (January, 1941). In December, 1939, the local branch of the Federation of Women Zionists merged with the Oxford Zionist Society.

A Jewish Voluntary Choir was formed in Oxford in December 1940, conducted by Mr S. Alman, the musical director of the Hampstead Synagogue. Other groups formed within the community, including a knitting party, organised by Mrs J.J. Marks in April, 1941, which met every Monday evening. In January 1940, Rev J. Weinberg formed a Young People’s Social Circle, which met every Sunday evening in the Vestry Room of the synagogue. Aware of the difficulties facing Jews in Europe, a Sefer Torah, rescued from Germany, was deposited at the Oxford synagogue in November 1939, used for the first time during a special service to mark the anniversary of Kristallnacht.

Anti-Semitism in Oxford during WWII

In March 1941, the Oxford community was thought to number 5,000 and was assured of a supply of kosher meat. Thanks to Jewish Chronicle for the publicity, one of Oxford’s leading non-Jewish butchers, Mr R.A. Butterfield, had arranged for official consent for shochetim (ritual slaughterers) to slaughter at the Oxford City abattoir. Around a thousand registrations at Mr Butterfield’s establishment at the Central Market, a figure more or less maintained throughout the war, saw part of the market portioned off as a kosher meat shop with Jewish supervision. About 150 fowls were sold every week. By May, due to difficulty in obtaining live fowls, the figure had reduced by more than half. On 3 October 1941, it was reported that good relations with the Town Hall authorities was shown by the opening of the Market on Sunday, the eve of the New Year, for the first time in the history of the Market, so that Jews could have access to the butcher shop. The request was made by the local minister.

Queues for kosher meat

On 10 October 1941, it was reported by a letter from ‘Oxford Evacuee’ that there are queues for kosher meat but under control. On 17 October 1941, a letter from ‘Another Customer’ says that the ‘scenes at the kosher butchers are causing anti-Semitism. Obviously, it continued, it has been difficult for a community of 30 souls to be swollen suddenly to 2,000.’ On 24 October 1941, once again, a letter from Joseph Hirsch reported that as a member of the Oxford Jewish Congregation he wrote to the Committee on July 28 pointing out the unsatisfactory state of meat distribution. The letter was not acknowledged, however, nor a second letter to the wardens. He writes: ‘some people are buying trefa meat because of difficulty of buying kosher meat. He has been informed that some are buying trefa meat and koshering it.’ On 31 October 1941, it was reported in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle regarding the growth of anti-Semitism in Oxford, referred to in sermon in synagogue during Kol Nidrei. It stated that scenes at the kosher butcher are a cause, and reflected in advertisement columns of the local press.

Public relation problems

In Jews of Oxford, on this subject, it omits the subject of Anti-Semitism in this regard, saying rather: ‘There were public relation problems, gradually solved, in the large Jewish queues in the narrow alleys of the Covered Market, and the customers themselves complained that the shop was not kept in a clean state and that fowls were killed in the shop in the presence of women and children.’

Anti-Semitism in England during the war

Causes - press / refugees / housing shortage / middle class

In Jews of Oxford, it records there was a great deal of Anti-Semitism in England during the war. A few factors played a role in this: firstly, the press reported more in black market cases involving Jews than Jewish servicemen and deaths in service. These cases were reported also in the Oxford press. A further cause appears to have been the internment of enemy aliens in summer 1940, even though the Oxford Times was retrospectively hostile to many aspects of the mass internments. In August 1940, a lorry driver was charged with creating disaffection by telling soldiers: ‘You are mugs to fight for two bob a day, while enemy aliens are living in luxury in the Isle of Man.’

As a response to Anti-Semitism, in July 1943, a conference on anti-Semitism was held at Oxford Union Society’s Hall on Saturday. Forty delegates represented trade unions and other organisations, though no Jewish organisations were invited. The Very Rev Dean of Christ Church presided. Speeches were made by Rev R.R. Martin, Rural Dean of Oxford, Mr Bellinger, Chairman of the Oxford Trades & Labour Council, and Mrs Corbett-Ashby, Vice-president of the Liberal Party. Anti-Semitism was predicted by the Mass Observation Unit reports during the war that admittance of too many Jews will trigger Anti Semitism, playing a role in limiting immigration.

Anti-Semitism at Oxford post WWII

Antisemitism at the University of Oxford has different forms. There are two main periods in this regard: the period of exclusion when Jews were not allowed to study at Oxford, along with Catholics and other non-Christians. This lasted from the beginning of the university in the 13^th century, until 1856, when it was no longer necessary for students to accept the articles of the Christian Faith to graduate, and fellows in 1871. For Jews to be appointed fellows prior to 1871, they would have to convert to Christianity, unless there were especially invited for their knowledge of Hebrew to assist with teaching or cataloguing Hebrew books at the Bodleian Library. Nevertheless, even after 1856, opposition to Jews appointed as fellows persisted.

Controversy surrounded the appointment of Albert Einstein at Christ Church in the 1930s, Isaiah Berlin suffered from Anti-Semitism in this regard, as did Hans Krebs, surrounding his admission into a Common Room. In A history of Magdalen College, by Professor Lawrence Brockliss, it discusses resistance to appointing Jewish Fellows at the college (p. 595): ‘In a private letter of June 1948, Bruce McFarlane expressed surprise but no misgiving that four conscientious objectors, not to mention an Arab, a German and a German Jew, had been elected to fellowships that year: ‘the College is becoming almost excessively unorthodox. We only need a Chinese and an Indian to complete the transformation.’ He was first Jew to be appointed a fellow at All Souls college in 1930, and fifth to be appointed to an Oxford college.

The main change at Oxford occurred during the Second World War, when Oxford led in the effort amongst universities in taking in German Jews. Nevertheless, strains of Anti-Jewish and other ‘alien’ sentiments persist, as expressed above in 1948 at Magdalen College. This continues to be manifest in subtle manifestations up into the 21^st centurn, as for example in 2000, when a Jewish student standing in the middle of the Sheldonian theater wearing a head covering (kippah) was told to stand at the back, so he would not appear in the pictures in the middle of the hall.

Faith spaces

At the same time, while almost every college has a chapel, the university policy is not to support other faith spaces at Oxford. In 2016, however, the Vice Chancellor of the University Andrew Hamilton took the university a major step forward by providing a prayer room for Muslim students, alongside the £100m Oxford University Islamic centre, near Magdalen College, which also provides prayer space for Muslim students at the university, this has not been done for Jewish students. As recently as 2025, the University argued that no such facility is necessary for Jewish students, despite a proposal supported by Jewish students and faculty for the university to support a suitable space on George St, and that the official policy is still that the university does not support non-Christian faith spaces. Another argument was that the Muslim prayer room is for prayers only and there is no other space available for Muslim students to pray at Oxford, as the other spaces are closed to students. In reality, the Oxford University Islamic Society website states: ‘The OUISoc has got its own dedicated prayer room located in the Robert Hooke building. This is open 24/7 to all students, and many events throughout term will also be hosted here.’ The Islamic centre also conformed many students attend the Friday prayers. In addition, New College provides also a Muslim prayer room.

This opposition to providing a faith space for the Jewish students was reinforced in 2025 when a crisis in funding occurred for support of the Slager Jewish student centre and prayer hall on George St, which had become a hub for Jewish life at the university since 2006. Despite its opening in the presence of a Pro-Vice Chancellor, heads of college, faculty and students, this discrimination between faiths at Oxford remains, maintaining that faith spaces for Jewish students must be supported from outside the university. This is indeed a policy articulated in a History of Magdalen College but, while it has evolved regarding other faiths, remains in relation to Jewish students.

The argument is that the Jewish community have plenty of resources and there is already a community synagogue that supports Jewish students. Of course, there are many local churches that supports Christian students, and local mosques, and an Islamic centre that supports Muslim students, but for some reason, discrimination against Jewish students persists, despite a Jewish student wide petition proposing for this to change. The discrimination is also apparent within the Oxford University Student Union where effort for the university to support the Jewish student centre was rebuffed with the argument that the university doesn’t support other ‘fringe’ religious groups at the university, like the black Christian student community, who may also like to have their own space for worship. This discrimination is embedded at the university to such a degree that, while some faculty support the university changing its policy, some of the most senior Jewish faculty at the university are either skeptical that change will occur, while some oppose such change as undesirable.

Sukkah and Jewish Fair

In 2016, a proposal was presented to the university to allow a Sukkah to be placed in Wellington Square Gardens to help Jewish students celebrate the Jewish holiday of Sukkot. Many other campuses in the UK and round the world support the Jewish students during the festival by allowed their grounds to be used for this purpose. It’s only a 7 day holiday and the booth is erected the day before the festival and taken down on the last day before sundown. Having consulted with Jewish faculty member, the response was: ‘In principle, I think it’s a nice idea, particularly given the timing of the Hagim (festivals) this year (the beginning of Michaelmas). It would be a good statement of the university’s commitment to different faith communities.’ This request was however refused by the university admin being that it is so close to the central offices of the university. A similar request was made to Brasenose college, but also refused by the master: ‘I don’t think I can get it through Governing Body.’ Eventually, having exhausted the university grounds option, it was decided to place it on Broad St, on the street, near Balliol college, with the kind permission of the Oxford City Council. Despite the helpful cooperation of the city council, receiving even an outlet for electricity from nearby Balliol college was begrudgingly allowed for a few years, before abruptly aborted for no apparent reason other than it being an inconvenience.

Nazi and fascist tainted funding

A source of ongoing friction between the Jewish students and university is the issue of funding the university accepts from questionable sources. This issue flares up periodically, most recently when the university received in 2021 a significant donation from the Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust, which was set up by the late former motorsport boss Max Mosley and named after his late son Alexander, a St Peter's College graduate. Two Oxford colleges, St Peter’s and Lady Margaret Hall, accepted a donation from the Mosley family trust totalling more than £6.3m. According to a Daily Telegraph report, Mr. Mosley created the trust ‘to house the fortune he inherited’ from his father, Oswald Mosley, who led the British Union of Fascists in the 1930s. Despite the public outcry from the Jewish students, many of whom have family members lost during the Holocaust, the university accepted the funding, even while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Nadhim Zahawi, said the university must consult and explain the decision-making process that took place for them to have landed this donation, and to consider the ‘ethical implications’ of donations, and the views of students and wider community.’ As an effort in education about the fascist links to the donation and its implications, a lecture was hosted at the Oxford University Chabad Society by Emeritus Professor Roger Griffin, entitled: 'The Mosleys and the Oxford Laundrette.' Roger Griffin is widely acknowledged to be one of the world's foremost experts on the socio-historical and ideological dynamics of fascism, as well as the relationship to modernity of violence stemming from various forms of political or religious fanaticism, and in particular contemporary terrorism. His theory of fascism as a revolutionary form of ultranationalism driven by ‘palingenetic’ myth has had a major impact on comparative fascist studies since the mid-1990s. In May 2011 he received an Honorary Doctorate from the University of Leuven in May 2011 in recognition of his services to the comparative study of fascism. After this lecture, despite the clear problem if this association, a Jewish head of college continued to defend the university for accepting this donation.

Despite the concern of the association to the Jewish community, the University of Oxford stood its ground and put out a statement: ‘The university is aware of its position within, and responsibility to, the wider community in which we operate, and has robust and rigorous guidelines regarding the acceptance of donations and research funding.’ It added that its donors ‘have no say in setting the research and teaching programmes of the posts or infrastructure they fund, nor do they have any access to the results of research, other than publicly available material.’ Lady Margaret Hall said the donation ‘enabled a cohort of students from very diverse and low-income backgrounds to attend Oxford.’ It said the trust knew that these students came from ‘diverse and under-represented backgrounds and was pleased to support the scheme and its aims.’ The Alexander Mosley Charitable Trust said ‘none of the funds received or distributed by the trust were the proceeds of fascism. The Trust abhors racism in all its forms including the thuggery and violence of Oswald Mosley's fascist movement. We sincerely hope that the funds we donate can continue to make a positive difference.’

This was not the first time of fascist associated funding to the university was raised This occurred in 2010 regarding the Hanseatic Scholarships, founded by Alfred Toepfer. Toepfer was closely associated with numerous convicted Nazis, including SS Brigadier Edmund Veesenmeyer, the German diplomat in Budapest during the Holocaust overseeing the deportation of Jews to Auschwitz. Toepfer employed Barbara Hacke, the personal secretary to Veesenmayer from 1940-1945, as his own secretary, and Veesenmayer too was employed by Toepfer after his release from Landesberg castle, where he had been imprisoned for war crimes. A copy of Toepfer’s letter of recommendation, dated 2 October 1950, survives in the Alfred Toepfer Foundation for Hartmann Lauterbacher, a former SS Major-General and former head of the Hitler Youth. Lauterbacher was in hiding having escaped from Italian custody, and Toepfer was asked to contact an associate in Buenos Aires asking him to help Lauterbacher set up a new life in Argentina.

Daniel Johnson, Editor of Standpoint and former recipient of the Hanseatic Scholarship, said: ‘Those who administered [Toepfer’s] legacy have a duty to offer an apology to all those who were misled. Oxford can continue to endorse the Hanseatic Scholarships only if their problematic provenance is fully and openly acknowledged.’ Dr. Michael Pinto-Duschinsky warned in an article in the Standpoint of the danger of “greywashing” the Holocaust. He argued that ‘as long as the past is explained away, the moral basis for a new Europe cannot yet exist and British universities should not accept money tainted by denial.’ While in 1993, 1996 and 1999, protests led to the abandonment of annual prizes awarded by the Universities of Vienna and Strasbourg, Oxford continues to offer the Hanseatic scholarship. The description on Oxford University’s website states:

In 2010, Ansgar Wimmer, the CEO of The Alfred Toepfer Foundation F.V.S., told Cherwell newspaper: ‘for more than ten years this foundation has been actively trying to promote transparency and to face its past in a responsible manner. No one at our foundation today trivialises any aspect of Alfred Toepfer’s biography.’ At the same time, in attempting to mitigate the severity of the issue of association, in a letter to Dr. Pinto-Duschinsky, published on its website, the foundation stated that ‘as far as we know today, he did not participate directly or indirectly in the Holocaust, nor did he deny its existence.’ By this statement, however, while trying to mitigate by comparison with what could have been far worse, actual participation in the atrocities of the Holocaust, it acknowledges the problem of association and support for its perpetrators.

Despite the above, in 2025, the scholarships remain at Oxford, described as being stablished by the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Stiftung FVS to reciprocate the Rhodes Scholarships to the University of Oxford from Germany. It may be held at any academic institution in Germany, and are tenable for one or two years. The successful candidates must undertake research at doctoral or postdoctoral level; give evidence of a workable project not connected to a research degree; or obtain a German degree. Duration: One or two years (initial awards are made for only one year however award holders can apply to extend for a second year). Value: The current value of the scholarship is approximately €15,000 per annum, although travel expenses will also be covered. Number: Up to 3 awards. No mention, however, is added regarding the history of the founder of the grant, so that students can make an informed decision before applying, and the ability for students uncomfortable in this tainted scholarship to make their protest known.

This subject arose also, earlier, in 1993, when Dr. Gert-Rudolf Flick donated £350,000 a year for five years, to establish a Flick Professorship of European Thought. Dr. Flick, grandfather Friedrich, was an industrialist in Germany, in whose factories around 30,000 enslaved labourers, from the concentration camps and occupied territories, died during the war. He had close ties with the Nazi leadership — including financial direct contributions to Himmler’s infamous SS (Schutzstaffel). He was sentenced to seven years after the war, of which he served three due to good behavious, without expressing remorse. While most of his fortune was confiscated, he died nonetheless in 1972 a very wealthy person, providing his foundation a very large fortune. In 1992, the grandson, Gert-Rudolf, was appointed to the Court of Benefactors of the University of Oxford in recognition of donations he had made to the Europaeum, and in 1993 established the Flick Professorship of European Thought, attached to Balliol College. Despite the foundation’s association with Nazi Germany, the ethics committee of Oxford University concluded ‘that the money used to found the chair does not derive from objectionable practice.’ It took three years for the university to agree to return the donation, which it finally did in 1997.

Anti-Semitic speakers

Oxford has a history of inviting Anti-Semitic speakers to speak. This took place in 2007, when the Oxford Union invited Holocaust denier David Irving, described by a high court judge as ‘racist’ and ‘antisemitic’ during a libel trial, to speak on the subject of free speech, together with the leader of the British National Party, Nick Griffin. Irving served a prison sentence in Austria for Holocaust denial. More than 1,000 people signed a petition on the Downing Street website calling on Gordon Brown to condemn the talk, according to the Guardian. This had been attempted in May 2001 but was cancelled due to pressure from academics and members of the student union. Members of the Oxford Union Debating Society voted however in 2007 by a margin of two to one in favour of hosting the event.

The issue of antisemitic speakers at Oxford arose again in 2021, when the Master of St. Peter’s College, Professor Judith Buchanan, invited its alumnus Ken Loach, entitled: ‘Ken Loach in Conversation.’ Loach is a soft Holocaust denier, in the view of many, based on his views reflected in a comment he made in a discussion about accepting the history of the holocaust: ‘I think history is for all of us to discuss. The founding of the state of Israel, for example, based on ethnic cleansing, is there for us all to discuss, so don’t try and subvert that by false stories of antisemitism.’ The equating of Israel with the Holocaust is a clear definition of Anti-Semitism according to the IHRA. Despite protest by the Jewish students and Junior Common Room (JCR) at the college, including a meeting with the Master, Buchanan refused to cancel the event, issuing a statement:

As part of these conversations, a useful suggestion has been made that we might create a subsequent event in College at some point fairly soon that might address directly some of the specific issues that have been raised by this. We are very much in support of creating a broader context for these ongoing conversations. Our Equality and Diversity Lead is pleased to be part of that planning conversation to help take this forward in creative ways and for this matter to be part of the ongoing conversation both within our E&D Forum and our broader community. Ken Loach, an alumnus of St Peter’s College, has been invited by the College and The Oxford Research Centre in the Humanities to speak about two of his films. These films form part of a distinguished filmmaking career. This is the latest in a run of occasions on which Ken Loach has been invited to speak in College, all of which have previously been very well received by students. The event will be respected as advertised and we look forward to a good conversation about the films on this occasion. Significant concerns about the event have been brought clearly to the attention of College and College is committed to creating further opportunities for these concerns to be properly respected and discussed within College. St Peter’s stands vigorously against all forms of discrimination and always seeks to support students who are discriminated against. In the context of the current conversation, College affirms without reservation its very strong opposition to anti-semitism. It recognises the appalling atrocities that anti-semitism has wrought and can bring. While not believing that no-platforming is the way to pursue goals of a free and open academic community, it is committed to supporting students who find such decisions painful and to finding ways to address these questions within College as part of a broader, ongoing conversation.

New Anti-Semitism at Oxford

Arriving in Oxford in 2001, the issue of Anti-Semitism in Oxford has arisen directly effecting Jewish students and faculty at the university: the campaign to boycott Israeli academics in 2003, was initiated in April 2002 by Hilary and Steven Rose who called for a moratorium of European research collaboration with Israel, followed by Sue Blackwell in 2005. These efforts effected Israeli students, when Andrew Wilkie in 2003 barred an Israeli student from studying in his department, and individual Jewish students receiving bias against subjects of their research relating to Israel. A graduate Jewish student had his masters rejected for writing about Israel on a subject deemed unsuitable. The effort to boycott Israeli academics however failed in Oxford; the Chancellor of the university, Lord Patten, called it academic treason.

2013

A further effort was made for Oxford Junior Common Rooms to support a motion for OUSU’s name to be included in the NUS motion to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel in 2013. An effort led by Eylon Levy and fellow students however managed to rally the common rooms to overwhelmingly vote against the motion 6 to 1.

During that year there was also a debate at the Oxford Union, entitled ‘This House Believes A Two-State Solution in the Middle East is Unattainable.’ As a show of support for Israel, this motion was rejected 63-37. This followed a similar motion in 2007 for a one-state solution at the Oxford Union which was defeated 191-60.

It was at this time, February, 2013, that an Oxford college, Christ Church, invited The Respect party MP for Bradford West, George Galloway to speak against Israel in a debate. The BDS movement however distanced itself from George Galloway after the MP stormed out of a debate on Israel’s West Bank settlements at Christ Church upon learning that his opponent, third-year PPEist Eylon Aslan-Levy, is an Israeli citizen. According to Eylon Levy, the incident went as follows:

George Galloway agreed to debate Eylon as a one on one. Galloway promised ahead that he would ‘annihilate’ his opponent. Galloway arrived late, but the debate was about the two-state solution. He gave his speech why Israel should not exist. Eylon gave his speech why it should exist, and during the debate, Eylon used the word: ‘we.’ Galloway interrupted and said: ‘you said we, are you an Israeli?’ Eylon’s parents are Israeli so he has an Israeli passport. Eylon said: ‘yes, I am.’ Galloway said: ‘I have been misled, I don’t recognize Israel and I don’t debate Israelis.’ He got up and stormed out of the room. Everyone gasped, Eylon finished his speech and everyone stood and clapped. Reflecting the Anti-Semitic nature of Galloway’s behaviour, discriminating against an Israeli student because of his nationality, a spokesman for the Palestinian boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign moved to distance itself from Galloway's actions, saying the movement rejected "all forms of racism, including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism".

2016 Labour club

A serious outbreak of Anti-Semitism, however, broke out in 2016, when a student revealed that it was common for Jewish students to be referred to as ‘zios’ in the Oxford University Labour Club (OULC). The club voted to endorse Israel Apartheid Week, causing the club co-chairman Alex Chalmers to resign, stating that many members had ‘some kind of problem with Jews.’ When the Vice Chancellor attended a Friday night Shabbat dinner at the Oxford University Chabad Society, she responded to a question by saying she was unaware of any Anti-Semitism at Oxford.

October 7^th

A line can be drawn however from 2016 to the most intense outbreak of Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism at Oxford after the Hamas attacks of October 7^th, 2023, characterised as the worst attack against Jews since the Holocaust, severely traumatising Jewish and Israeli students, some with relatives and friends murdered, or taken hostage, and some without a home to return to, displaced by the war. The response of the university, without a clear condemnation of the attacks, despite having condemned Russia attacks on Ukraine, was a letter by the Vice Chancellor: ‘there is no place for antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Palestinian discrimination, or hate directed towards any faith, race, nationality or ethnic group at the University of Oxford.’

Meanwhile, Jews at Oxford became targets of harassment, bullying, and discrimination throughout the university and colleges, causing them to feel isolated, unsafe, and targeted. A frightening, hostile atmosphere for Jewish and Israeli students took over Oxford; over 100 incidents were documented over a six month period. Little support was forthcoming from the university, beyond a letter addressed to all who may be involved in the conflict. Most were not even asked if their families were alive and safe. When sharing their struggles, in some cases, it was met with indifference. At the same time, the city of Oxford became a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students, with calls to boycott Israel, denying its right to exist, with chants of ‘from the river to sea,’ and calls for violence with chants, including ‘globalise the intifada.’ An Israeli child was told they should die because they are a Zionist. An Israeli student was called an: ‘ultra Zionist.’ Oxford Palestinian Society’s instagram account shared caricatures of antisemitic nature, including a hand with a star of David bracelet pouring the blood of Palestinians into a Starbucks cup. At the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies a student in a conversation said: Israelis have ‘a complete and utter lack of humanity.’ An Israeli student was attacked online by another student when found out to be from Israel, blaming them for murder of innocent children. A student in a prestigious scholarship remarked: ‘Zionism is a death cult.’

Support for Hamas

Support for Hamas was rife. One Jewish student was told ‘antisemitic views and attacks of Hamas is a consequence of being oppressed by Jews.’ After students in a college watched the videos of the 7th of October massacre, remarked: “well deserved.” A Jewish student was told by two fellow classmates that Hamas is a part of the ‘resistance.’ An event organised by a faculty hosted a speaker who justified the massacre of the 7th of October, claiming it was simply an act of “armed resistance”. On the 9th of October, Oxford PalSoc Instagram account published a post justifying Hamas offense. A student denied Hamas’ terrorist actions, alleging that Israeli hostages were treated well by Hamas. A professor at a department retweeted: ‘it seems as if Hitler has won,’ as well as threads downplaying antisemitism and Palestinians having a right to defend themselves, justifying the Hamas terrorist attacks. Another professor called the attacks: ‘a strong message.’ A faculty member remarked at a teach-in about the war in Gaza: ‘October 7th was justified, and understood where it was coming from.’

Students denied sexual violence occurred on the 7th of October, and claimed Israel planned the massacre as pretence to occupy Gaza. An MCR motioned a statement justifying the atrocities of October 7th as resistance, understood in the context of occupation and settler colonisation. On a motion whether to condemn Hamas, students commented: ‘Hamas has nothing to do with genocide,’ despite its charter calls for ethnic cleansing of all Jews. Others said: deaths of Israeli civilians were irrelevant because there are no two sides in a genocide. An Israeli student who shared an acquaintance with one of the hostages kidnapped by Hamas and subsequently released, was told that Israeli people cannot be counted as victims as they are oppressing everyone. Another Israeli student was told antisemitic views of Hamas is a direct consequence of being oppressed by Jews. In an Oxford scholarship mailing list, a student denied that women were raped and sexually mutilated by Hamas. On the 8th of October, a member of St Cross college shared: ‘resistance is always justified.’ An Israeli faculty member was told: ‘I can’t believe you were so stupid to believe Palestinians raped Jewish women.’ The Oxford University Newcomers’ Club’s mailing list to hundreds had members calling Israeli members ignorant, racist, pathetic, and colonial members of an occupant terror state, with some justifying the attack on the 7th of October as rightful expression of oppressed people. Some student wore pins: ‘Intifada until victory.’ In October, a university department hosted a speaker who denied 7th of October took place. A student wrote on a college’s MCR group: the attack was justified - it was an operation by Palestinian liberation fighters. A professor, who compared lack of criticism towards Israel to villages near Auschwitz, remarked he understands Hamas terrorists because many of them lost their parents during the conflict.

A number of JCR and MCR statements, ignoring the Hamas atrocities, justified them ‘being a part of a history 75 years of occupation of Palestine by Israel.’ When a Jewish student complained about the one-sidedness at the department, the supervisor responded: ‘There aren’t two sides, Israel is a terrorist state and there’s nothing else.’ In an interview on social media a professor argued: ‘by launching the attack on Israel, Hamas sent a powerful message the Palestinians will not be sidelined, and Palestinian “resistance” is not dead.’ During the week of the 7^th Oct, social media posts of university members, faculty and students alike, praised Hamas with statements like: ‘victory for the Palestinian resistance, etc. An Israeli fellow was told not to grieve since they have access to shelters. The local branch of UCU voted for a motion for a third ‘intifada until victory.’ The motion was withdrawn due to legal concerns, but after the university media platforms and faculties had distributed the motion, without any objection from the university. A scholarship mailing list, a few days after the attack, claimed Israel knew ahead of the Hamas attack, and used it to justify erasing Gaza and genocide.

JCR and MCR motions

Every JCR and MCR filed one-sided motions against Israel in support of the encampments, with no mention of the 7^th October attacks, and call on the University of Oxford and individual colleges to implement the demands of Oxford Actions for Palestine (OA4P):

· Disclosure of Assets: OA4P calls for the University to annually disclose a comprehensive account of all college assets, including direct and indirect investments, land holdings, donations, and grants.

· Divestment: They demand immediate divestment from all arms companies and a pledge to divest from companies complicit in Israeli actions within five years.

· Overhaul of Investment Policy: This includes expanding ethical restrictions on investments to include all arms and military technology companies, and adding restrictions on companies complicit in Israeli actions.

· Institutional Boycotts: OA4P calls for boycotting institutional relationships with organizations that support Israeli actions.

· Rebuilding Gaza: They also demand that the university help rebuild educational institutions in Gaza that have been affected by the conflict.

An amendment was added to the motion, initially proposed at Pembroke college’s JCR, following a Jewish student raising an Anti-Semitic experience, arguing against the motion. The amendment accused Jews of weaponizing Anti-Semitism to silence legitimate criticism of Israel. This amendment was however eventually removed.

In addition to JCR and MCR motions, Oxford academic members of the University and College Union (UCU) debated a motion calling for “intifada until victory” – a term referencing violent uprising - against Israel at a meeting of union members. The motion stated that the branch believes that “only a mass uprising on both sides of the green line and across the Middle East can free the Palestinian people”.

Boycott as Anti-Semitic

The connection between the boycott of Israel and Anti-Semitism is made by David Hirsch: ‘The actual intentions of people who support this boycott are positive and antiracist; they want to help Palestinians. But were it to be instituted, the boycott would be in effect if not intent an antisemitic measure; it would normalise an exclusive focus on Jews as fit targets for exclusion and punishment.’ Larry Summers, while President of Harvard University, called BDS “anti-Semitic in effect, if not in intent.”

Vigils for the hostages

Displays for the release of the hostages were vandalised and vigils were faced with derogatory, violent comments. Posters of hostages, were torn down and often replaced with pro-Palestinian stickers. At vigils for the hostages, students shouted slogans and vandalised displays for the hostages. On one occasion, two Israeli volunteers, removing a display, coordinated with university security, mistakenly coincided with an organised pro Palestinian group, mostly students at the university, with their faces covered, tasked with destroying the displays.

Harassment

Two Israeli faculty members were confronted by students about the war. Jewish and Israeli students were targeted for harassment at university, accused of being Nazis, child-murderers, some were told: ‘Jews control the US government,’ Jews control the banks’, ‘Jews are everywhere,’ and that there are ‘too many Jews at the university,’ making it impossible to speak about the war. A Jewish student was called a Zionist, sucking up to Israel, working for the Israeli government, others were called Nazi settlers, having a Jewish nose, and that responsibility for the attacks on Israel lies only with Israel. A student was told not to put a Mezuzah on their door, as it attracts attention, while another student had his mezuzah ripped off. One student said they wouldn't date a Jew. This climate of hate caused many Jewish and Israeli students to hide their identity, out of fear of being targeted, while others stopped attending classes, going into college, and using the library. Some rusticated for two terms, feeling unsafe and unwelcome, while some considered terminating their studies all-together. 20 incidences of harassment were reported by one person, over 12 months, as he stood out for being Jewish, another was sworn at on their way to synagogue. Despite reporting, no arrests were made. Jewish students were advised by non-Jewish friends not to say their Jewish, or to wear a star of David necklace. One said: ‘glad you’re not in the room half the time, the stuff people say is completely unhinged.’ Students were told: every Israeli in culpable, Zionist crazies should go back to America, must be a Mossad agent. In a conversation about the Holocaust, a Jewish student was told: ‘everyone suffered during WWII.’

A Jewish student was harassed online: ‘all Israelis are spiteful and hateful.’ A member of the Law Faculty spoke about: ‘Israeli control over the media.’ An Israeli student was told Jewish money controls the UN, therefore it legitimises the attacks on Gaza. An Israeli student reported a classmate said: ‘zionism is racism.’ The same was said by an Oxford professor in a public event. An Israeli student was told all Israeli people wish to “cleanse Arabs”. An Israeli student was also told by a colleague all Israelis hate Palestinians and are naturally racist. An Israeli student was told to be ashamed of themself for asking their MCR to recognise Israeli deaths alongside Palestinian ones, calling them ignorant, racist, and supporters of genocide. Another Israeli student was accused of killing children in Gaza due to their nationality. An Israeli faculty member was persistently harassed to admit genocide was being performed. Stickers were put up on around the city and campus: ‘Israel Loves Genocide.’ In protests organised by Oxford Action for Palestine, at the university administration building, on 23^rd May, 2024, protesters chanted: ‘Israelis are terrorists and Israel is a terror state.’

Singling out and harassment of a Jewish students on the street happened in the following case: ‘I was walking to the park on Shabbat with a couple of friends, wearing a kippah (no Israeli flag or pin, etc). To get to the park we had to walk past where the encampment was, the original encampment outside Pitt Rivers Museum, next to uni park. I basically said: I just want to go to the park, I didn’t want any confrontation, so I’m going to walk on the other side of the road, a very wide road.’ I walked on the other side of the road, and keep walking, not to attract any attention. What happened was, a group of students were walking towards us, one of the guys walking towards us was a friend of mine. Like anyone does on the street, when you see a friend, you say ‘hello, how it going.’ After maybe speaking for about one minute, one of the guards from one of the colleges, I had seen about a minute prior, was watching me the whole time, walks around, comes over and points me out from a group of about ten of us, says: ‘You! Keep on walking!’ He was a hired external security guard for a ball Keble college was having that night. So I said: ‘why?’ He said: ‘You are being provocative.’ I said: ‘what am I doing that is provocative?’ I took my kippah off and said: ‘is this what is provocative to you?’ He said: no, you are allowed to wear whatever you want.’ So I said: ‘ok, so why are you singling me out of a group of ten people, telling me ‘walk on, because I am being provocative?’ He said: ‘I saw you looking at the camp.’ I said: ‘with all due respect, the whole point of the encampment is to look at it, and there are thousands of people are walking up and down this street every day, probably one of the busiest streets in Oxford, everyone is looking at the camp. I imagine nine of the people I am with looked at the camp. We are standing out here having a conversation about football – I was fuming, I was very upset.’

Social exclusion

Jewish and Israeli students in many cases were made to feel excluded from university life. In one case, a friend of an Israeli student was told to sever contact with their Israeli friend, for supporting genocide. An Israeli student shared that a student said in their classroom she does not want to sit with Zionists in the same class. Students in Worcester college petitioned to halt funding from a scholarship meant for Israeli students. With calls for violence heard in Pro-Palestinian protests at Oxford, including: Palestine from the river to the see, intifada, the resistance is justified, globalise the intifada, Israel is a terror state, from Oxford to Gaza: long live the intifada, “Israel, Oxford, USA, how many kids did you kill today – areas of Oxford including work places, when protests took place, became no-go area for Israelis and Jewish students. A professor singled out an Israeli student, upon identifying them, in front of the class to ask their opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When students were asked to contribute songs from their own winter holidays at a Holiday themed bop in their college, a Jewish student was told not to play a proposed Hanukkah song because of the situation in Israel. An Oxford college cancelled its participation in a co-organised annual Hanukkah party, since conducting it this year will be too explosive.

A student remarked in a class: ‘obviously Jewish pride is a bad thing.’ When a college’s Faiths and Beliefs JCR representative asked a student if they were Jewish, responding yes, the representative said: ‘what about Israel?’ Students petitioned for a prestigious scholarship to cut ties with donors who fund the Israeli places in the scholarship. When a German non-Jewish student asked for a motion at Merton College JCR to include release of the hostages in a statement, he was publicly ostracised by fellow students at the college. At the Business School of Government, nobody asked an Israeli student how your families are, no one is talking to Israelis. When Nicky Haley came to the school, they posted on the WhatsApp group that only the Palestinian girl can ask questions. Someone asked: what about the Americans? Can they ask questions too? No one replied. When others raise their hands, got picked for questions, they would defer only to the Palestinian. At the Business School of Government, it’s impossible to say that you support Israel. The class is really political, they all worked in government. If you have pro-Israel opinions, you will have no friends, no one to talk to. One girl, an American, who had lots of friends, mentioned she supports Israel, and now she has no friends. No one talks to her.

Denial of Israel’s right to exist

Denial of Israel’s to exist became commonplace, sometimes cloaked in the argument for one state. A post in a student group invited people to a lecture titled: “Palestine: is one state possible?” together with the map of Israel covered with the Palestinian flag. In another post, a moderator wrote: ‘From today, I stop using the term Israel and instead Occupied State of Palestine. Let us all change the narrative and delete that name forever.’ A Law Faculty DPhil student said: ‘we could solve this by dissolving Israel.’ A student was told: ‘all Israelis are racist.’ It was common for events for Palestine in university departments to be advertised with a picture of the state of Israel merged with the Palestinian territories, covered with the Palestinian flag or a Kafiye. A Jewish student was told that Israelis are settlers, and they get skin cancer because they are ‘white’ and not ‘native’ to the Middle-East. A student said: ‘Palestinians welcomed Jews before they stole all their land; they used to live peacefully until Zionism came along.’

No Anti-Semitism

Jewish students were denied the right to claim they were experiencing Anti-Semitism. A speaker at the Oxford Department of International Development, said: ‘There is no such thing as antisemitism today, and if you are accused of being antisemitic, ignore them’ (Palestine Discussion Series, 15.11.23). Another said: ‘antisemitism was being weaponised as a Zionist plot.’ A Jewish student’s presence at a BAME (Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic) formal dinner was questioned because: ‘Jews don't count.’ When a Jewish student was bullied with an antisemitic stereotype, the student union responded they do not understand the antisemitic nature of the incident, advising against reporting, as it would invite further victimisation and present the aggressor as a ‘victim of Zionist silencing.’ In a motion by Wadham College Student Union, it warned of ‘tokenisation and weaponization of Jewish identity.’ An admin of a college MCR chat, when confronted about advertising the encampments, responded: ‘its gross to be concerned about antisemitism.’ An Oxford professor interviewed about campus antisemitism said: ‘I think that as far as Oxford is concerned, there is absolutely no basis for claims of antisemitism or students feeling uncomfortable, let alone threatened.’ Another speaker argued: Jewish people are ‘white.’ When an Israeli student complained of antisemitism, a student shouted: ‘but you can’t ignore what’s going on in Gaza.’ An amendment was added to JCR and MCR motions, initially proposed at Pembroke college’s JCR, accusing Jews of weaponizing Anti-Semitism to silence legitimate criticism of Israel. This amendment was however eventually removed from the motion.

Encampments

During the summer term, 2024, encampments were set up for two months on university grounds by Oxford Action for Palestine, first outside the Museum of Natural History on the 6th May, and a second on the 19th May, outside the Radcliffe Camera, opposite the Bodleian Library. A list of demands, displayed for the university to agree to, included a complete boycott of Israel. The university allowed these encampments to remain in place until the 27th June, when notice was given to disband by 7th July. The encampments were supported were advertised by college common rooms college. The statement released upon the setting of the encampments called Israel a colonial state and demanded a general boycott of Israel, Israeli institutions. To be a part of the encampment, an obligatory sign-up manifesto was instituted, in which the organisers use the term ‘zionist entity,’ instead of Israel. 667 faculty members released a letter in support of the encampment, as well as the local UCU branch.

Oxford Union

Extreme hostility to Israel and open support for Hamas spilled out into the open in a debate at the Oxford Union on 28 November, 2024, tabling a motion, which overwhelmingly passed, 278 to 59, entitled: ‘This House Believes Israel Is an Apartheid State Responsible for Genocide.’ The speakers in proposition were ‘poet’ Mohammed El-Kurd, Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy, Susan Abulhawa, and activist Miko Peled. For the opposition were: Jonathan Sacerdoti, Natasha Hausdorff, Yoseph Haddad, and Mosab Hassan Yousef. The hostile framing of the motion already clarified the bias against Israel, compared, let’s say, to the motion a few months earlier, on 22^nd February 2024, on the Russia - Ukraine war: ‘This House believes Ukraine should negotiate with Russia to end the war now.’ The actual event, according to those who attended, was not a debate but a show-trial: the president of the union, instead of moderating, took sides, speaking for the motion. The first speaker, Mohammed El-Kurd began his speech: ‘there is no room for debate,’ and ended by storming out of the chamber, after saying that he refused to share a platform with his opponents. Miko Peled, who supported the motion, openly supported Hamas, saying: ‘What happened on October 7 was not terrorism - these were acts of heroism!’ When a Jewish student intervened with a point of order saying glorification of terror is a criminal offense, Peled responded: ‘Arrest me!’ to cheers from the audience. The wide support of Hamas by the audience was also evident when Mosab Hassan Yousef, who spoke against the proposition, asked for a show of hands, if they had had advance knowledge of the 7 October attacks, would have warned Israel. Less than a quarter of the crowd raised their hands. Jonathan Sacerdoti, who spoke against the motion, was heckled with expletives and called a ‘genocidal maniac.’ Natasha Hausdorff, who also spoke against the proposition, subscribed the debate ‘a dark moment in the Oxford Union’s history,’ while The Daily Telegraph called it: ‘The night that Anti-Semitism at Oxford spun out of control.’

Public displays of hate

This hostile atmosphere saw hate symbols drawn on university property. A number of swastikas were carved into toilet doors in one inside Regent's Park College, on May 22nd 2024. The Dean of the college wrote that it was an act stemming from feelings running high in College. Another swastika was discovered on the front sign of the Chabad Jewish student centre on George St, on the anniversary of the attacks, on 7^th October, 2024.

Cancellation of speakers

During this period of trauma for Jewish students at Oxford, Jewish student societies were subject to speakers cancelling their engagements or not willing to commit. A senior member of the University cancelled her address at the OU Chabad Society, a head of college cancelled his appearance twice, a head of college cancelled ‘partly due to the setting up of the Gaza support encampment on the lawn of the Museum of Natural History,’ while some heads of college politely declined. A renowned author wrote in February, 2024, first: ‘There are just too many competing elements in my life at present,’ but then clarified: ‘this is not a good time for me to interact with any Jewish community. I hope you understand.’ After being pressed, she wrote: ‘Over the past four months I have found it increasingly difficult to express my agony over the massacre of the population of Gaza when in the company of people who are practising Jews. I understand that they too are experiencing their own agony, but am extremely troubled by the killing of tens of thousands of Gazans, and the impact this has on the rest of the world. I meant to say nothing of this to you, but am concerned that you don’t leap to any assumptions. I am ardently against discrimination of any sort.’

Antisemitic at departments

According to Professor Cary Nelson the biggest problem is ‘Anti-Semitic’ departments at universities, where views are bias against Israel, not allowing broader, dissenting opinions that does not fit with a set narrative. This problem relates specifically to the subject of the Middle East, where leading academics at the Middle East centre are what Benny Morris calls ‘new historians’ defined by a new trend in Israeli historiography that sharply criticized the traditional hagiographic “Zionist” approach to writing Israeli history (Journey of Israeli History 41:2). A professor from the Middle East Centre spoke at a Friday night Shabbat dinner to the Jewish students, in 2011, arguing if only Israel would withdraw to international recognised boundaries there would be peace. Some of the faculty have openly supported Hamas. Many Jewish student complain about the set course about Israel at the university covers colonialism, discrimination against Sephardim and full litany of other negative tropes about Israeli society and its founding. In an article by Taylor and Francis in 2024, it states: ‘This is not to say that (Oxford) Middle East Centre has not – at times, and perhaps unfairly – been accused of harbouring an anti-Israel bias.’

Dismissing complaints

Complaints about hostility against Jewish and Israeli students were dismissed by the university. One director of studies responded: ‘get over antisemitism,’ while a college warden said they are uncomfortable about hosting a meeting in the college about tackling antisemitism. When a student was called a ‘Zionist Nazi’ at a protest taking place outside the department, the faculty called the protest ‘freedom of speech,’ while the Vice Chancellor referred them to the police, instead of harassment procedure. When a complaint was made to faculty about the hostile climate, the response was: ‘Oxford is often not a nice place for Israelis and Jews, and nothing can be done about it.’ Another student was advised to leave Oxford. When a nominee for NUS had antisemitic statements in his manifesto about the war, it was reported to the harassment team, who referred it dismissingly to the student union, who ignored the report altogether. When an Israeli student reported hate speech they received at the college to the provost, the student was sent a copy of the university’s official statement. When the provost shared the student’s message (without consent) with the college advisor, there was likewise no response. When an Israeli student complained to college about derogatory remarks made to them by other students, the college administrator said there is nothing to do. When pursued with the faculty, the report was also not followed up.

When reports of Anti-Semitism were been written about in the national press, the response of the University was to meet in person with groups of students and student and Jewish chaplaincy leadership. In one case, when an active student responded mass to faculty about the issue of Anti-Semitism at Oxford, the student was invited to a private meeting, which caused the student to be admitted to a mental hospital for two weeks due to the stress.

In one college, straight after Oct 7^th, people put on the college JCR facebook group chat links celebrating Oct 7^th. When the college was contacted, no action was taken. In 4^th or 5^th week of the term, flags were everywhere, offensive Anti-Semitic things were being posted in group chats, but the college did nothing. After writing to the JCR president, saying why Jewish students feel unsafe, and justifying Oct 7^th is Anti-Semitic, they responded they don’t feel comfortable asking the woman who posted that post to take it down. When contacting the college, after back and forth for a few weeks, they suggested to go to the welfare office, clarifying, this is freedom of speech and if one feels uncomfortable it’s their problem. They told the person that she made Jewish students feel uncomfortable, but she responded she doesn’t feel comfortable taking it down.

Friday Group

The issue of Anti-Semitism at Oxford led to the setting up of a group to respond formally to the issue at Oxford, called the Friday Group, periodically meeting online on Friday mornings. The group includes around fifty individuals, consisting of faculty, students and local community, including representatives of some of the Jewish organisations serving the Jewish students at Oxford. The landscape for combatting Anti-Semitism on university campuses in the UK is summarised in the ‘CST Campus Antisemitism in Britain 2022-2024’ report: There are currently over 9,000 Jewish students studying at universities across the United Kingdom, with a total of 86 active Jewish societies offering students a rich engagement with Jewish cultural and religious life during the entirety of their university experience. Both Jewish students and societies are supported by numerous communal organisations, chief amongst them are the Union of Jewish Students (UJS), University Jewish Chaplaincy (UJC) and Chabad. All of these organisations are essential in providing Jewish students access to Friday night dinners, lunch and learns, socials, guest speaker events and holiday festivities during term time.’ It is vital for efforts to combat Anti-Semitism to be as inclusive as possible, since this effort can be most effective when working collaboratively.

IHRA

The formal response by the university to the many incidences of Anti-Semitism at Oxford was they did rise to the level of the definition of Anti-Semitism or they did not ‘see their antisemitic nature.’ The reason for this is, Oxford University, unlike the UK government, distinguishes between Anti-Zionism and Anti-Semitism in intent. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) defined antisemitism in 2016 as a prejudice or discrimination against Jewish people based on hatred or hostility. This follows in principle the Oxford dictionary definition above, however, it offers clarity by including a number of examples relating to Israel, including: 1. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor; 2. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation; 3. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis; 4. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel. This definition with its examples has been accepted by countries, including the UK, and many universities around the world.

While Oxford accepted in principle the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism, two caveats, recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee, were added to ensure ‘freedom of speech is maintained in the context of discourse, without allowing antisemitism to permeate any debate.’ The caveats insist there must be also evidence of Anti-Semitic intent: a. It is not antisemitic to criticise the Government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. b. It is not antisemitic to hold the Israeli Government to the same standards as other liberal democracies, or to take a particular interest in the Israeli Government’s policies or actions, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent. These caveats in effect permits a radical agenda to boycott Israel, deny Israel’s to exist, call Jewish students ‘zios,’ set up hostile encampments and a dossier of 100 incidents against Jewish and Israeli students, since their Anti-Semitic intent cannot be proven. This view however was countered by the UK government since it permits in result and practice Anti-Semitism, as argued above by David Hirsch, and evidenced by this study. Nevertheless, Oxford and other universities, adheres to the IHRA only with the above caveats, and certainly does not view racism, as stipulated by the Macpherson definition, as ‘any incident perceived as racist by the victim or any other person,’ when it comes to the experiences of Jewish students.

Response

At a lecture in Oxford, in Aug, 2025, delivered at the summer institute of the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy (ISGAP), by Professor Emeritus of English and Jubilee Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois, Prof. Cary Nelson, proposed the following key policies, among others, to be implemented on university campuses to effectively tackle Anti-Semitism:

1. Expressly forbid department or admin units heads from making political or controversial statements and any such statement taken down.

2. Make a stronger opposition of academic boycott – Israel, China, whatever.

3. Add a statement to employment that repeated Anti-Semitic speech or postings on social media or any other public forums is grounds for denial of employment, tenure, etc.

4. Students group may reject members who do not accept defined mission.

5. Students group may not deny students on basis of race, religion, political belief not relevant to the group’s mission.

6. All religious group facilities should have their security enforced by university – paid for and guaranteed by university personnel.

7. Courses on Jewish history, culture and Anti-Semitism should be part of permanent campus curriculum.

8. Clear penalties for provable cases of Anti-Semitic harassment. Receive due process, but judgement is severe. Student should be expelled, and faculty loss of job.

9. Accept in full, without caveats, the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism.

Finding meaning in a history of persecution

The long history of Anti-Semitism reflects the history of the past two millennium. Leon Poliakov writes in his foreword to The History of Anti-Semitism: there are two hypotheses on the origin of modern Anti-Semitism: a. Anti-Semitism that arises out of Christendom, b. by virtue of the mysterious design of Providence, Jews have been assigned a role among the nations, playing it first among the so-called Noachian peoples – those practicing a religion that derives from the Hebrew Bible. This is reflected in an interpretation of the statement in the Talmud (Pesachim 87b): ‘G-d performed a charitable deed toward Israel in that He scattered them [pizran] among the nations.’

What should be a response to this phenomenon and how to find meaning and purpose within it? Two approaches to Anti-Semitism have been assimilation or enclave. These responses may mitigate friction, but does not deal with the issue: the inability for society to embrace the other. A further approach is to be steadfast in one’s identity and focus on education in society. This positive approach is found in the work of R. Menachem M. Schneerson, known as the Rebbe (1902-1994), who saw the Russia Revolution in Ukraine in 1917, witnessed the rise of Nazi Germany in 1933, and invasion of Paris in 1940. He fled, first to Vichy, then to Lisbon, from where he escaped to America, in June, 1941. His wife’s sister, Sheina, and husband perished in the Holocaust and lost his father, R. Levi Yitzchak Schneerson, in exile in the Soviet Union in 1939. His life’s aim was to combat Anti-Semitism and rebuild Jewish life after the Holocaust.

Strengthening Jewish identity

The strengthening of Jewish identity and the role of education in society can be found in a number of correspondence and lectures. In 1969, when Jews fled a Brooklyn neighborhood due to racial tension, he wrote: ‘should a Jew feel so insecure and have an inferiority complex?’ In 1970, regarding Soviet Jewry, he wrote: the antidote is strengthening the principle that Jews are responsible for one another in a positive way. Every extra effort in observing Judaism on behalf of our unfortunate brethren who are not free to observe, will directly benefit them, in precisely the same way as benefit to one part of the body benefits the whole. In 1977, to a Ukrainian Jewish socialist, he wrote: ‘since we cannot rely on the kindness of nations, it is vitally necessary that Jews everywhere should turn their hearts and minds inward, and strengthen identification with our spiritual heritage, a unifying force that has preserved our people through the ages - a tiny minority in a hostile world.’ In 1982, regarding Terezin Requiem, when Jewish prisoners played Verdi’s Requiem 16 times, directed by Rafael Schächter, as a form of resistance against the Nazis, in Theresienstadt, he wrote: ‘Anti-Jewish feeling has recently grown worse. What is important, however, is to remember the best memorial is the strengthening of a Jewish way of life.’

Education

In addition to strengthening Jewish identity, he proposed an effort to educate universal ethics and morality. In 1973, he suggested:^[2] ‘the reason for Anti-Semitism - and indifference during the Holocaust - is the inability to be altruistic.’ In 1975 he wrote: ‘Jews have a duty to encourage universal ethics and morality, law and order, without which no human society can long survive.’ In 1982, he argued: ‘discrimination against minorities is a reflection of a society that does not live up to the Divine moral precepts for all humanity, as stated in Genesis (9:1-17). In 1981, he further said: the aim of the Jewish people is to illuminate the world and make it an abode for the Divine, through education to observe the moral precepts stated in the seven Noahide laws, so behaviour of nations is to be with ‘true humanity’ (a-nu-shi-yut a-mi-tit).^[3]

A key aspect of the moral precepts is the belief in G-d. The idea that belief in G-d is a basis for morality is the underlying concept of many narratives in the Torah, including the story of the flood (Genesis 6:11), Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:4), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:20), as well as the Book of Jonah, where it states (Jonah 3:5): ‘The people of Nineveh believed G-d. They proclaimed a fast, and great and small alike put on sackcloth.’ Maimonides, laws of kings (8:10) writes: ‘Moses was commanded by the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the commandments given to Noah’s descendants.’ Applying this teaching,^[4] in 1962, he supported prayer in public schools in America. In 1963,^[5] he argued moral Noahide laws for all of humanity are Sinaitic, as the rest of Jewish law. Relating to Anti-Semitism, in 1980,^[6] and 1983,^[7] respectively, he made the argument that education about both belief in G-d and upholding principles of charity can combat Anti-Semitism and prevent another Holocaust, suggesting the secularisation of history,^[8] contributed to the horrors of the Holocaust.^[9]

Hope

The Fast of the 9^th of Av marks the time of the destruction of the two Jerusalem Temples, in 586BCE by the Babylonians and 70CE by the Romans, and the onset of exile, giving rise to Anti-Semitism for two millennium. There are two ideas which run through this day: a. tragedy in the past and present, and b. knowledge of hope for a better future. It is the recognition of the first that gives rise to the latter, imbuing a history of discrimination with meaning and ultimate purpose.

Lamentations

The principle text that conveys this duality is the book of Lamentations, by Jeremiah, with a commentary by the great grandfather of Oxford philosopher, Sir Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997), R. Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch, known as the Tzemach Tzedek (1789-1866). In his commentary to Lamentations, he offers a dual interpretation: how a verse may refer both to a curse and blessing. We will explore a few of such cases:

1. Alone

Verse 1 in Lamentations states: ‘Alas! Lonely sits the city once great with people! She that was great among nations. Is become like a widow; The princess among states is become a thrall.’ One can find a deeper meaning in this verse with a positive interpretation. It states in Psalms 48:2: ‘The L-rd is great and much acclaimed in the city of our G-d, His holy mountain.’ The phrase ‘city’ is thus ‘G-d’s kingship’ (malchut), which receives from and becomes one with the ‘ten sefirot’ above it. In exile, the idea of ‘lonely’ refers to the leper (metzora), who sits alone, as in Leviticus 13:46: ‘Being impure, that person shall dwell apart - in a dwelling outside the camp.’ This refers to an absence of the unity of G-d.’ The verse further states: ‘become like a widow:’ this refers to the inability for the soul to ascend and become one with G-d (kingship - malchut). ‘Once great with people’ refers to the rule over the seventy celestial ministers. ‘The princess among states’ refers to the three spiritual worlds.

In this passage and others in Lamentations (p. 391), R. Menachem Mendel, however, interprets the verses in the form of their transformation into a blessing, as it states in Deuteronomy 23:6: ‘But your G-d, your L-rd, refused to heed Balaam; instead, your G-d turned the curse into a blessing for you, for your G-d loves you.’ Thus, the idea of ‘alone’ mentioned in Lamentations can be found in Lamentations 3:28: ‘He sits alone in meditative stillness; indeed, he receives [reward] for it.’ Rashi explains its meaning: ‘Whoever was befallen by mourning and trouble should sit alone and wait for good [to come], for the Master of Decrees has put this decree upon him.’ The sages (Ethics of the Fathers 3:2), however, derived from this verse: ‘even one who sits and studies Torah the Holy One, blessed be He, fixes his reward, as it is said: “though he sit alone and [meditate] in stillness, yet he takes [a reward] unto himself” (Lamentations 3:28).’ In this context, ‘alone’ can mean alone with G-d.

2. Bitterly she weeps in the night

Verse 2 states despondently: ‘Bitterly she weeps in the night, her cheek wet with tears. There is none to comfort her of all her friends. All her allies have betrayed her; They have become her foes.’ The phrase: ‘she weeps in the night’ is understood in the context of Jeremiah 31:9: ‘They shall come with weeping, and with compassion will I guide them. I will lead them to streams of water, by a level road where they will not stumble. For I am ever a Father to Israel, Ephraim is My first-born.’ Weeping comes from an overwhelming revelation of G-d, as is the case with literal weeping overwhelmed by emotions, since even at ‘night’ (exile) there is ‘light,’ as it states in Psalms 139:12: ‘darkness is not dark for You; night is as light as day; darkness and light are the same.’ The phrase: ‘There is none to comfort her' – the Hebrew word: ‘ein’ (none) can be read with the same Hebrew letters: ‘ayin’ (from where?) as in Psalms 121:1: ‘I turn my eyes to the mountains; from where (m’ayin) will my help come,’ referring to G-d, as the verse continues: ‘My help comes from the L-rd, maker of heaven and earth.’ Similarly, the word ‘ein’ can be read with the same letters: ‘ani’ (I), meaning: it is I (G-d) who will comfort her, as in Isaiah 44:6: ‘Thus said G-d, the Sovereign of Israel, their Redeemer, G-d of Hosts: I am the first and I am the last, And there is no god but Me.’

3. Judah has gone into exile

Verse 3 states: ‘Judah has gone into exile because of misery and harsh oppression; When she settled among the nations, she found no rest; All her pursuers overtook her in the narrow places.’ In this verse, the word ‘galtah’ (exile) has the same etymological route as ‘giluy’ (revelation). This is made possible through being ‘settled among the nations,’ as the Talmud (Pesachim 87b) states: ‘G-d performed a charitable deed toward Israel in that He scattered them [pizran] among the nations.’ In this context, the phrase: ‘All her pursuers overtook her in the narrow places’ also refers to G-d, as it states in Psalms 23:6: ‘Only goodness and steadfast love shall pursue me all the days of my life, and I shall dwell in the house of the L-rd for many long years.’ The phrase ‘narrow places’ refers to exile, but also refers to the revelation of G-d, which transcends comprehension (supernal narrowness), as in the statement in the Tikkune Zohar: ‘no thought can comprehend Him.’

The Jewish people are therefore called a ‘hind’ in Psalms 22:1: ‘For the leader; on ayyeleth ha-shaḥar, a psalm of David.’ ‘Ayyeleth ha-shaḥar’ has two interpretations (Rashi): a. the name of an instrument, and b. concerning the nation of Israel, which is a beloved hind (ayelet hahavim), who looks forth like the dawn (Song of Songs 6:10). The Talmud (Yoma 29a) expounds on the desirability of the narrowness of the hind: ‘Why is Esther likened to a hind? It is to tell you: Just as in the case of a hind its womb is narrow and it is desirable to its mate at each and every hour like it is at the first hour, so too, Esther was desirable to Ahasuerus at each and every hour like she was at the first hour.’ By meditating how the whole world is merely a drop in an ocean, compared to G-d’s infinite greatness, we can draw from G-d’s revelation, beyond thought can comprehend, as in Psalms 118:5: ‘Out of the constraints, I called on the L-rd; the L-rd answered me and brought me relief.’

Purpose and meaning

The concept behind this dual interpretation is the idea that history in Jewish thought is not cyclical but linear. There are many social history theories, as in Alexandre Deulofeu, who developed a mathematical model of social cycles, which he claimed fit historical facts. He argued that civilizations and empires go through cycles in his book Mathematics of History, written in Catalan, published in 1951. These ideas have been discussed since Aristotle and Plato. George Modelski wrote Long Cycles in World Politics in 1987. The Jewish concept of history as linear is described in the biblical narrative of the 42 journeys of the Jews from Egypt to the Land of Israel in the book of Numbers. There is a starting point and end point in this journey when the Jews arrive at the Jordan river. Meanwhile they travel through a wasteland – the dessert. This is the Jewish history of exile and persecution. The midrash has a fascinating insight with a parable from Midrash (Tanchuma 4:10:3):

R. Tanchuma explained (why these stages are here recorded). A parable! It may be compared to the case of a king whose son was ill and whom he took to a distant place to cure him. When they returned home the father began to enumerate all the stages, saying to him, “Here we slept, here we caught cold, here you had the head-ache, etc.”

The comparison is: the king is G-d and the son is the Jewish people. The child is unwell and being taken on a journey to the spa town for healing, as human beings are imperfect need healing. There are events and sufferings that happens on the way: sleeping, cold and head ache. This refers to the first three stop from Ramses to Sukkot, where they stayed over night before journeying onward. The second is from Sukkot to Eitan, where they received the protection of the clouds of glory. The third is Pi ha-chirot (Mouth of the Rocks), where they complained that they should have rather been buried in Egypt. What is the meaning however of the phrase: When they returned home the father began to enumerate all the stages, since the Jewish people do not return – they continue onward? It refers however also to all the 42 journeys and Jewish history. At the end of which we see the purpose of the journey – the healing of humanity. In this reflection, the stops in the journey and experiences are not random but a long journey of freedom, healing, meaning and at the end we pray for redemption.

Conclusion

The history of Anti-Semitism is as old as the history of the Jewish diaspora itself. In the context of Oxford, its long history combines all its elements: Anti-Judaism in the middle ages, including exclusion until 1856 for students and 1871 for staff, outbursts of Anti-Semitism in the 1930s and 1940s, and more recently the spread of Anti-Semitism in the form of Anti-Zionism, described by Lord Sacks as the new Anti-Semitism: hatred of Jews for having a state of their own, among the nations, in their ancestral homeland. This cloaked Anti-Semitism may be the most challenging. The university is however a radically different place, since 1856, when it began to allow full participation of Jews, and other faith minorities, to study and work at Oxford. Its generosity in supporting German Jewish academics fleeing Nazi Europe in the 1930s, more than any other university in the UK, reflects an institute welcoming to all faiths and remotely racist. There, is however, much work that needs to be done, as reflected in this essay. Jewish history is nevertheless one of hope, as reflected in Jewish teaching, a belief in the power of education for universal morality, and the potential of humanity for good.

^[1] Stephen Aris, The Jews in Business (Jonathan Cape, 1970), p. 13-32.

^[2] In a letter to Zalman Jaffe (1913-2000).

^[3] Hitva’adiyot 5743, vol. 1, p. 392.

^[4] Torah Menachem 34:152, 13 Tammuz, 1962.

^[5] Likkutei Sichot 4:1094, Shavuot: The discussion takes place on the subject of the decalogue in Deuteronomy 5:19, where it states: ‘a might voice, and He did not cease.’ The idea of the unceasing word of G-d at Sinai, firstly, relates to the idea that the Divine voice continues in the learning of the Torah of each individual, and secondly, the voice heard at Mount Sinai was heard in seventy languages. The latter is manifest in the study of the Torah for Jews and the seven Noahide laws for non-Jews. The universal relevance of the Torah and mitzvot was further developed in a discourse on Simchat Torah, 1969, where a distinction was made between the transcendent nature of the mitzvot and their universal aspect: to refine the human being (Genesis Rabba 44:1). The latter is relevant to every human being through the Seven Noahide Laws that should be upheld as Divine ordinances from Sinai, just as the many additional laws given to Jews at Sinai.

^[6] Sichot Kodesh 5741, vol. 1, p. 553-554 (19 Kislev): This is in the context of a question posed on the focus of a letter written by the founder of Chabad, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, known as the Alter Rebbe (1745-1813), upon his release from Tsarist prison in 1798, in which he wrote to R. Levi Yitzchak Barditchev that: ‘unfathomable and marvelous (Isaiah 28:29) is the great and holy name of G-d that it became great and sanctified in public, especially in the eyes of all the ministers and the nations that are in all the provinces of the king (Esther 1:16).’ The Rebbe found perplexing that the Alter Rebbe spoke about the matter of his release in relation to the non-Jew, as opposed to the internal spiritual lesson that may be derived from his release, namely a renewed effort to strengthening the dissemination of the teachings of Chassidut, for which reason it was perceived he had been imprisoned. The answer he gives is that the concept found in this letter – moral behaviour of the non-Jewish officials to release the Alter Rebbe predicated on an acknowledgement of the Divine as the source of moral conduct - is based on the teaching of Maimonides in the laws of kings (8:11): the following of the seven laws of Noah must be based, not on logic, but G-d, since it is only this foundation that guarantees the moral purpose of existence, as mentioned in Isaiah 45:18: ‘G-d did not create the world a waste, but formed it for habitation.’ Drawing on the 12^th century work of Maimonides and its 19^th century application in the letter of the Alter Rebbe upon his release from Tsarist prison, the Rebbe reapplied this concept as a response to European Anti-Semitism in the 20^th century and its tragic consequences in the Holocaust. He argued that the cause of 20^th century Anti-Semitism was different than classic Anti-Semitism, namely Christian intolerance of the Jew. It was inspired by ideas found in the works of German philosophy (Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, and Heidegger), that thought human beings are autonomous, rational and ethical individuals, while the Jewish religion and the Jewish nation is heteronomous, i.e. acting in accordance with one's desires rather than reason. This belief led to them being excluded from the body politic of society as the Other. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004724410403400417?journalCode=jesa). The teachings of the Seven Noahide Laws, as presented by Maimonides, predicated on belief in G-d as the ultimate authority for a human being’s morality, then, opposes German idealism, and would thus also eliminate modern Anti-Semitism.

^[7] Torat Menachem Hitvaduyot 5743, vol. 3, p. 1326-1343 (end of Passover). On p. 1334 (section 40), it discusses the importance of promoting the Seven Noahide Laws among the nations for the benefit of the Jews, while living in exile, as was the case during the Holocaust, when there were righteous gentiles – not most or even half of the population – but they nevertheless saved tens of thousands of Jews, because they knew of the concept of charity, and opposed theft and murder.

^[8] The rationale is, as German philosopher Karl Lowith, student of Heidegger, argued, 20^th century philosophy viewed itself as a secular break with theology but in fact retained the religious idea that history is moving towards a messianic concept of perfection.

^[9] Yitshak Krauss argued that the motive of the Rebbe was part of a messianic theme. Naftali Loewenthal (Hasidism Beyond Modernity, p. 121-2) argued that, additionally, with the spread of Chabad chassidim and emissaries worldwide, there was a desire to create a ‘universe of discourse to share perspectives and communicate with the gentiles with whom they came in contact.’ I would like to argue that an important aspect of this was for the Rebbe, as a leader of world Jewry, witnessing the unceasing and even increasing phenomenon of Anti-Semitism in America and worldwide, forty years after the decimation of a third of Jewry in the Holocaust, and the inability of all previous ideas to eradicate it, a new and more effective method should be employed.

A Rosh Hashanah Essay: R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan: A Renaissance commentary on the Torah'

Tue, 1 Oct 2024 10:27:00 AM

In this essay, we will present a work of one of the great rabbis in Venice in the 16^th century. Until now much has been known about his life and illustrious family,^[1] and his important^[2] career as a doctor, but very little about his scholarship, beyond a few mentions of his views relating to Jewish communal life in Venice, Jewish mysticism and the teaching of Hebrew to non-Jews. He is also known for his interaction with Richard Croke, representative of Henry VIII, in November 1529, regarding Henry’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon. In the Oppenheimer collection at the Bodleian Library, Oxford, however, there is a manuscript of close to 400 folios of a commentary on the Torah, attributed to R. Elijah^[3] Menachem Chalfan (חלפן)^[4] ben Aba Mari, the doctor (הרופא).^[5] The little known manuscript transforms the way we perceive this distinguished Rabbi, and Jewish scholarship in Renaissance Italy. We will first explore the life and family of the author, and investigate the uniqueness of this commentary in the context of 16^th century Renaissance Italy.

Family

R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan (c. 1480 - 1550/1) was one of the first Jews who lived permanently in the Venetian Ghetto.^[6] He is the son of astronomer R. Abba Mari Chalfan, and his maternal grandfather was the leading Rabbi in Italy, R. Yosef Kolon Tzarfati (Trabiti), known as the Maharik of Mantua (c. 1410- c. 1480), the foremost authority in Jewish law in 15^th century Northern Italy, and son and disciple^[7] of R. Solomon Trabotto.^[8] R. Yosef Kolon came from Chambery in Savoy (later became modern day France in1860) before moving to Piedmont, in early 15^th century. He served as rabbi in Piove di Sacco in 1469 and then in Mestre near Venice. He later served as rabbi in Bologna and Mantua. After being banished from Mantua, he moved to Pavia, where he established a Talmudic academy. His father, R. Shlomo, came from France to Italy in 1355, and was a descendant of R. Shlomo Troy Tzarfati (1040-1105), known as Rashi. Yosef Kolon is famed for his responsa, Sha-alat u’teshuvot Maharik, first published in 1519, containing 194 responsa, covering all aspects of life of the Jews of Italy of 15^th century. He also wrote a commentary on the Torah and a commentary on Sefer Mitzvot Gadol (Semag) by R. Moses of Coucy. The source of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan’s relation to R. Yosef Colon is in a responsa by Polish halachist R. Moses Isserles (1520-1572), in Sha-alat u’teshuvot ha-Remo, ch. 56,^[9] regarding a case when a divorce bill was found to have been invalid after it had already been given. In this responsa, R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, while ruling that the person who claims the document is invalid need not be excommunicated and should be believed, he cites R. Yosef Kolon as ‘aba zikni,’ the description for grandfather in rabbinic writing.

R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan married Fioret Kalonymos (d. c.1560), daughter of R. Kalonymos ben R. Dovid, born in Naples, author of the final part (be-ta-a-mim) of R. Abraham Balmes’ Hebrew grammar, Mikve Avram,^[10] published posthumously by Daniel Bomberg.^[11] He served as a physician in Venice, and was descendant of Kalonymos of Narbonne.^[12] Elijah Menachem and Fioret had a son, R. Yechiel, who was martyred. Yechiel (ha-kadosh) had a son, R. Yitzchak of Vienna, who had two children: R. Yechiel Chalfan, and R. Chaim Menachem Man (Av Beit Din of Vienna). R. Chaim Menachem Man married Leah, daughter of R. Benjamin Aaron Slonik, author of Masat Binyamin (Krakow, 1633) and had a son R. Israel Yitzchak Man (known as Reb Isaac) (Av Beit Din of Wengrab), whose son in law was R. Rafael Dayan of Crakow.^[13] R. Yechiel Chalfan had a son, Mordechai Yollis (Tzarfati) of Cracow, brother-in-law of Shabatai Sheftel, son of the Shelah ha-Kadosh, R. Isaiah Halevi Horowitz, whose autograph, Laws of Tefillin, is held at the Bodleian Library.

The author

R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan was a rabbi, Kabbalist, composer of Piyutim,^[14] halachist and a doctor, known to have healed the wife of the important Italian literati of the 16^th century, Pietro Aretino (1492-1556). He studied Kabbalah from Spanish Kabbalist in Italy, R. Joseph Ibn Shraga (d. 1508–09).^[15] He lived in Modena in 1524, where he completed his commentary on the Torah, and cites Venice as his residence in 1545, when he wrote a responsa about teaching Hebrew to non-Jews. In 1530, he was consulted by Francesco Giorgio, on behalf of Richard Croke, regarding Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon. His main occupation was as a doctor, as Solomon Molcho, a close friend, refers to him as: ‘ha-rofe’ (the doctor). Solomon Molcho (c. 1500 – 13 December 1532), author of Chayat koneh (pub. 1709), was a former marrano from Portugal, known as Diego Pires, returned to Judaism, and became an ardent follower of David Reubeni (1490). After studying Kabbalah in Salonika, he came to Venice to speak with the publishing houses to persuade them to publish works containing the secret wonders of the Torah. Molcho was a friend of R. Dr. Jacob ben Samuel Mantino, before they parted, becoming enemies within a short time. The reason for this fall-out was that Molcho became a close friend of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, staying in his house, in 1532, as his house was a meeting place for Kabbalists and people inspired by mystical and messianic ideas. R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan was, however, a nemesis of Jacob Mantino, since Jacob Mantino did not support Henry III’s divorce, and other matters, while Chalfan did. Molcho tried to reconcile Chalfan and Mantino unsuccessfully, until Montino was forced to leave Venice due to the feued.^[16] Molcho was subsequently burned at the stake, as a heretic, in Mantua after travelling to Regensburg in a failed attempt to convince Emperor Charles V to allow him to form an army to conquer Palestine from the Ottomans. R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan subsequently created a kabbalistic chart recording some of his and Molchoʼs ideas (obtained by the Medici Library in Florence in 1570).

Sponsor of printing of Hebrew books

Chalfan had a successful career as a doctor, which provided him with an income, allowing him to be involved also in business activities, including the publication of Hebrew books. In 1546, he helped publish an important work from the Gaonim, She’iltot, published in Venice 1546, in which it states: R. Elijah Chalfan was moved by his spirit to publish the Sh’iltot.^[17] In a printed work, Benjamin Ze-ev, by R. Benjamin Ze-ev ben Mattathias, held at the Bodleian Library, Opp. 4o 609 (575 folios), one finds a full page dedication to the principle supporter of its printing, R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan. The work was published by Daniel Bomberg in Venice in 1539 (5299), and consists of a responsa covering the whole scope of Jewish law. He has also an approbation^[18] in the Jewish legal work, Tur Yoreh Deah with Bet Yosef, published in Venice 1551, including a lengthy complaint about the decline of Torah knowledge in Venice.^[19] Rabbi Chalfan had a considerable library of his own, including many medical works, a list of which has been preserved.^[20] After his passing, there is report of his wife Rabanit Chalfan, selling one of his books. At the beginning of MS Parma 653, it states: Tuesday, 4^th day of the month of Av (5311/1551), I purchased this prayer book from the Rabbanit the widow of Rabbi Elijah Halfan.’^[21]

Commentary

R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan began writing a commentary on the Torah and the Five Megillot, in February 1523 (5283), during the weekly Torah reading of ‘Eileh Mishpatim’ (Exodus 25-27). He completed the work in the city of Modena, Italy, the following year, on the first day of Rosh Chodesh Nissan, 5284, corresponding to Sunday, 15 March, 1524.^[22] This work is currently held in the Bodleian Library, as part of the Oppenheimer collection, shelf-marked MS. Opp. 722. It is written with Rabbinic and cursive Italian characters and consists of 453 folios. The actual number of folios with written text are slightly different, as the folio numbers jump from 54 to 95, and folio no. 39 is missing, resulting in really 416 folios.^[23] There is a torn^[24] unnumbered folio, with text, between folio 290 and 291. A folio is partially torn on folio 36 and folio 446 is sixfold: 446(i) - 446 (vi). The portion of Toldot is missing. There is also some inconsistency in the headings, whereby most state the name of the Torah portion, followed by the name of the commentary, like: Chaye Sara Rabot, Chaye Sara Haramban (fol. 38). For the portion of Miketz, it is in the reverse Haramban Miketz (fol. 115), suggesting it may have been added later. The title Miketz is missing altogether next to the word Rabot (fol. 114). The text contains no corrections, aside from folio. 364 in the gematriot for Re-eh, where three lines are crossed out and restarted with a different text. On folio 36, at the foot of the folio there is some text upside down, erased. Besides the above, the work is extremely well organised and structured with great consistency.

Collection

As was the trend of Rabbis of Italy to defer to the authority of the medieval classical works of halachah, as opposed to rely on their own innovations, the commentary on the Torah by R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan was similarly a work consisting of a compilation, as opposed to original commentary. It is made up of five commentaries, organised according to the portions (parshiyot) of the Torah. In the end of the commentary, he writes (fol. 395):

On every Shabbat he would read and read again all these commentaries, including Rabot, Nachmanides, Bahye, Ibn Shuaib and Sefer Gematriot. I took from each of them the ‘fine flour’ (solet naki), in my humble opinion, and wrote it down for memory. May G-d’s eyes give me the merit to study in it, myself, my children, the offspring of my children, until the end of all generations, amen, amen amen, forever and ever (sela, vaed), amen, so may it be His will.’

Written in Italian Hebrew, it is, thus, made up of five commentaries on the Torah: 1. Rabot, known as Midrash Rabbah,^[25] 2. Nachmanides (1194-1270), 3. Rabeinu Bahye ibn Asher (1255-1340), 4. R. Joshua Ibn Shuaib (c.1280 – c.1340),^[26] 5. Sefer ha-Gematriot. The latter is divided into two sections: Gematriot (numerical value of the Hebrew alphabet) and Chudishim (novalae). While the first four sections state clearly the author above the commentary, the last section is anonymous, stating just: Gematria and Chiddushim. For the first parsha of Bereishit (fol. 4), after the word Gematria, it adds: ‘roshe tevot’ (first word acronym) and ‘sof tevot’ (end of word acronym), thus including acronyms also in this section, though the vast majority are gematriot. While no part of the commentary seems to contain original ideas, the choice of authors, citations and the rephrasing of text, are clearly the authors. No reason is given for the selection of authors, but appears to cover all four levels of biblical interpretation: ‘peshat’ (plain meaning), ‘remez’ (allegory), ‘derush’ (homiletical)and ‘sod’ (Kabbalah),a style similar to the one employed by Rabeinu Bahye, as opposed to a singular level of interpretation, as Rashi, who claims to write only on the level of ‘p’shat.’^[27] In this context, the first section ‘Rabot’ is ‘midrash,’ and Nachmanides is ‘p’shat,’ alongside ‘sod’ (mystical), as he writes in his introduction. The same is the case with Rabeinu Bahye, which is inspired by Nachmanides’ work. Sefer Gematriot is ‘remez’ (allegorical).

End of work

In addition to the commentary on the Torah, the manuscript (MS. Opp. 722) includes, on fol. 405, an alphabetical dictionary of difficult Talmudic words. On fol. 434, one finds some Gematriot, and fol. 437, an alphabetical list of Talmudic proverbs. From fol. 443, different letters are presented. On fol. 447, a letter is signed by R. Azriel ben R. Solomon Dienna (d. 1536), who came from a French family, and settled in Italy, studying under R. Nethaniel Trabot. He served first as a teacher in Reggio, before moving to Pavia for 15 years. He also lived for a period in Piedmont. Around 1517, he was appointed rabbi of Sabbioneta, where he served until his passing. In his letter to Abraham ha-Kohen of Bologna in 1531 or 1535, he distanced himself from David Reubeni but supported Solomon Molcho as did R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan.^[28] On fol. 448, a letter is signed by Yechiel Tryvish. The manuscript also includes poetry by Abba Mari, the father of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, R. Kalonymos, the father-in-law of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, and R. Eliya Chalfan, the grandson of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan.^[29]

Sefer ha-Gematriot

While most of the commentary is clearly identified, the final two sections appear anonymous, with no name of author cited on the commentary folios, besides Gematriot and Chiddushim. On the first folio where gematriot can be found, for the portion of Bereishit, it adds also the heading ‘Roshei Tevot’ (acronym) and ‘Sofei Tevot’ (ends of words). What is the source material used for the section of Gematriot?

A small amount of the gematriot can be found in the following three sources:

1. The commentary of R. Jacob ben Asher (c. 1270-1340), known as Ba’al ha-Turim. This was initially written as an appetizer (par-pe-ra-ot) to his main commentary on the Torah, but, due to its popularity, ended up being published as a stand alone work in Constantinople 1514. It contains many teachings of gematria and other teachings following the method of ‘remez.’.

2. The commentary on the Torah by Tosafist Rabeinu Efraim ben Shimshon;

3. Sefer Gematriot by R. Judah ha-Chasid (1150-1217). R. Judah ha-Chasid’s Sefer Hasidim, written in Regensburg, was well known and first printed in Bologna in 1538, but his work Sefer Gematriot long assumed lost, was recently discovered complete in the National Library of Israel in Jerusalem, shelfmarked: MS. Heb. 28°7234 (63 double sided folios),^[30] published by R. Jacob Israel Setel in Jerusalem in 2005 under the title: Sefer Gematriot l’Rabeinu Yehudah ha-Chassid. The work in its original, however, has no title and no author.^[31] The work by such a name - Sefer Gematriot - is first mentioned by R. Zedekiah ben Abraham Anaw in the 13^th century, in his legal code Shibole Haleket (Siman 137),^[32] but without the name of an author. He writes: ‘I have found in Sefer Gematriot that the words in the verse (Ezekiel 4:14): ‘eat their bread, impure, among the nations’ (lach-mam ta-me ba-go-yim) has the same numerical value (gematria) as: ‘without drying the hands’ (be-lo ni-guv ya-da-yim).’ This teaching is indeed found in Sefer Gematriot (NLI Ms. Heb. 28°7234) in Vayera (2). Similarly, bibliograph R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai, known as the Chida (1724 – 1806) writes in Shem Ha-gedolim (vol. 2, letter ‘vav,’ number 3): ‘Midrash va-yechulu in Sefer gematriot, by the disciples of R. Yehudah ha-Chasid, on old parchment, in which it mentions Midrash va-yechulu.^[33] This teaching can also be found in Sefer Gematriot (Ms. Heb. 28°7234 section 166).

4. Some of the gematriot in MS Opp. 722 appear also in a work by R. Elazar ben Moshe Hadarshan, grandson of R. Yehudah ha-Chasid, held in manuscript form at Bavarian State Library, in Munich, Germany, shelfmark Cod. hebr. 221 (beginning on fol. 83).^[34] On the first folio, it states: ‘Likkutim m’Sefer ha-Gematriot al kol parsha ve-parsha (compiled from Sefer ha-Gematriot oneach Parsha), composed byR. Eliezer son of R. Moshe Hadarshan.

5. Despite teachings found in the above sources, the majority of the gematriot do not appear in those places, and none of them are called Sefer Gematria in their original, suggesting a further, more complete source exists.The work where all the gematriot may be found,^[35] with only occasional variants, perhaps when needed correcting,^[36] is an anonymous commentary on the Torah, found in the Bodleian Library, shelfmarked: MS. Opp. 27 (Neubauer catalogue no. 268) (folios 1-230),^[37] published in three volumes under the title: Pirush Harokeach al ha-Torah. For example, the gematriot for the whole Parshat Re-eh (fol. 364), totalling 50 gematriot, can be all found, without exception, with the precise wording in MS. Opp. 27,^[38] though R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan omits some of them, as he claims to only select the ‘finest of the flour’ for his commentary.^[39] As he selects when citing from the other commentaries, he does the same with Sefer ha-Gematriot. The identity of the author of this work, as R. Eleazar of Worms, is also suggested by Adolf Neubauer in his catalogue. This has been however rejected by Yosef Dan in an article in Kiryat Sefer, published in 1984 (vol. 59),^[40] claiming that the author could not have been R. Elazar of Worms, as he always encrypts his name in the opening of his works.^[41] Furthermore, the colophon of the manuscript states the author is anonymous. The title page states:

Great work on the Torah, and the five megillot, according to peshat, remez, sod, derash, and gematriot and roshei tevot (acronym). Amazing and wonderful. Contains reasons for the hidden letters in the verse of the Torah and parshiyot from the Torah, Neviim and Ketuvim. And the name of the author is unknown.’

It is however most likely from a student of the Chasidei Ashkenaz.^[42] In the title page, in the manuscript, it suggests the author might be 11^th century R. Tobiah ben Eliezer, author of Lekach Tov, known as Pesikta Zutratha, as well as a commentary on Eliezer Ha-kalil. The mention of a piyyut from Eliezer Ha-kalil in the commentary on Parshat Re-eh, fol. supports this. The lack of explicit mention of the name of the author explains why there is no explicit mention of the author of the fifth section in MS. Opp. 722 by R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan.^[43]

Identifying Sefer ha-Gematriot

The above dispute about the author of Sefer ha-Gematriot notwithstanding, the finding of all the gematria material cited by R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, in MS. Opp. 27, supports the notion that, despite omitted in the colophon, the title of this work (MS. Opp. 27) is the renowned Sefer ha-Gematriot (with the prefix ‘hei’), as recorded byR. Elijah Menachem Chalfan in his introduction to MS. Opp. 722 about the content of his commentary. This raises the possibility also that the Sefer Gematria mentioned in the Shibole ha-Leket, and the Chida^[44] may also refer to this anonymous Sefer ha-Gematriot - MS. Opp. 27.^[45]

Chidushim (novelae)

The additional section, Chiddushim (novela), which is a collection of non-gematria comments, remains however somewhat mysterious, as some of the commentary can be located in Ba’al ha-Turim, some can be found in MS. Opp. 27, and some in Rabeinu Efraim at ha-Torah, all of which includes additional material, besides just gematriot, but as many teachings cannot be found in any of these works, the source is unclear. It is argued that the Jews of Italy had midrashim that is no longer extant, as wehave midrashic material that they did not have in their possession. This would make this work unique, in that it provides us with lost material of rabbinic writings.

A further consideration: Since the index of the context of the collection of this commentary by Chalfan provided by the author does not mention any additional commentary, besides the five mentioned, the additional section ‘Chiddushim’ should be seen as part of the Sefer Hagematriot, even though most are technically not gematriot. The same is the case with Sefer Gematriot (MS. Heb. 28°7234), where you can a variety of other teachings that are not gematriot, but nevertheless included in the work called Sefer Gematriot by R. Yehudah ha-Chasid. In the case of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan in MS. Opp. 722, he chose to divide this section of the commentary into two sections: the strictly gematriot section and the part that is not strictly gematriot, placed them in a section called Chiddushim. If this is the case, the source text for the fifth section of the book (Sefer Gematriot and Chiddushim) must be from a different source, which incorporates not just the gematriot but also the Chiddushim section, which has not yet been identified. Since the index statement, written by R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, with no mention of the Chiddushim section, was written after the work was completed, as evidence from the completion date included, it is not possible to say the Chiddushim section is in truth a different source material than the gematria section and was added later as an addition, drawn from a variety of sources. The author, by writing the index statement at the end, forces us to say that the Chiddushim section is also material from the Sefer Hagematriot, the source material of which is thus as of yet remains unknown. An alternative possibility is that Sefer Ha-gematriot might referring to a collection of material from a variety of works of gematriot, as opposed to a single work. Be as it may, the final section, includes many teachings, under the title Chiddushim, which remains unidentified as to the source for the material being used.

Abridged commentary

The method how R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan chooses to cite from the above four commentaries (Rabot, Nachmanides, Rabeiny Bahye and Ibn Shuaib) is the same for all the commentaries: selective citations, omissions, rewording and abridgment of the source material.The selection from Rabot mostly includes the first verse and chapter of the Parsha in Rabot, and always in order of the verses. In many cases, however, there may be a number of midrashic teachings on a verse, but Rabbi Chalfan will select only one of them, guided by unarticulated consideration. In many cases, the selection relates to a parable that the midrash cites to explain a concept in the verse. In a great number of cases, the citation of a midrashic teaching is reworded as a shortened version of the midrash, omitting repetitions or apparent redundancies. When citing a midrashic teaching with the name of the teacher, the name is many times shortened: In Parshat Matot (Numbers Rabba 22:1), it states: Rabbi Abba of Rumanya said.’ In the citation (fol. 340), it leaves out ‘of Rumanya.’

The selection of text from Nachmanides is also many times an abridgement of a longer section. This occurs in three ways: a. a shortened citation of a lengthy comment, without changing the wording, but sufficient to express the concept that Nachmanides is discussing, In such cases, he may cite another commentator, like Ibn Ezra, as in Parshat Korach (Numbers 16:30). b. In a case where Nachmanides argues with another commentator, like Rashi, the citation will omit the first commentator, and also the question posed on the first commentator. It will instead cite just the view of Nachmanides.^[46] c. On occasion, he will cite the question (huk-sha li) that serves the rejection of the other commentator, but omit the view of the first commentator. This may be found in Shoftim 17:16 (fol. 367), relating to the reason for the prohibition for a king to have many horses. Nachmanides first cites Rashi’s reason, not to cause Israel to return to Egypt, to buy horses, followed by Nachmanides’ own explanation – for the purpose of trusting in G-d. In the manuscript, it poses the question, but omits citing Rashi’s actual comment (not to cause Israel to return to Egypt), on which the question is being posed.^[47]

The same is the case with Ibn Shuaib, whereby a few selections are cited from a whole derasha, but not always clear the methodology used for the selections, since the selections make most sense when read as part of the derasha as a whole. On occasion, citations are taken from the various parts of the derasha, summarising the idea of a particular part of the derasha. Combined, they may act as an aid to recalling the whole derasha. As in many cases, the derasha draws on a lot of varied material from all parts of the Torah, it’s possible that in 16^th century Italy, still in the infancy of printing, stand-alone citations of Ibn Shuaib themselves might have been worth citing. This can be found in parshat Re-eh where a teaching from the Jerusalem Talmud is cited regarding the extreme piety of the sages regarding returning a lost article. The citation appears to make no sense without the overall context of the derasha, but nevertheless, illuminating in its own right. The most precise part of the commentary is the Gematriot, due to the need for the gematriot to make sense, and their calculations accurate. As mentioned, it draws direct quotes from MS. Opp. 27. Nevertheless, as mentioned, not all the gematriot are cited, and it is unclear the reasoning employed by which some gematriot are recorded and some omitted.

Illuminations - Manicule

In parts of the manuscript, there appears illuminations in the form of a little hand, known as a manicule, pointing with its index finger to a particular text. This has its origin in the 12^th century, as can be found in a 12th century English text, Leges angliae (Laws of England), decorated with manicules, and became a favourite of the Renaissance humanists. They would take classical works and decorate them with pointing hands to indicate words or lines of interest. There are various styles, including a basic style of a fist with an index finger extended, some have a fist and five fingers, as found in the work of fourteenth-century Italian scholar Petrarch, while some more accurately portrayed with just five fingers.^[48] As a renaissance era work, the manuscript displays these techniques, though it’s unclear whether they were added by the author at the time of writing the commentary or later on to indicate sections of particular interest. As manicules are mostly added by the reader,^[49] it is most likely that readers of this manuscript added the manicules, explaining also the various styles of manicules in the manuscript. In the case of Chalfan MS Opp. 722, it is most likely that the readers and the ones who inserted these manicules were his family members, as he writes at the end of the commentary: he would like the work to be read by his children and progeny.

Here is a brief overview of the various styles of manicules found in the Chalfan MS Opp. 722, some with two fingers, some with three fingers, plus the index finger, while some have a cuff added to the hand. A manicule with a cuff can be found on fol. 5. On folio 6, it has two fingers plus the index finger. In both these cases (fols. 5 and 6), it’s pointing to a comment in the chidushim (novalae) on the portion of Bereishit. On fol.16, pointing to a comment in the chidushim (novalae) on the portion of Noah, ithas three fingers, plus the index, with a cuff. Onfol. 21, pointing to a comment in Rabot on Lech Lecha, ithas three fingers, plus the index finger, as can be found also on fol. 23, pointing to a comment in Rabeinu Bahye on Lech Lecha. On fol. 45, pointing to a comment in the chidushim (novalae) on the portion of Chaye Sara, the hand has no cuff at all, and the index finger is coloured in. On folio 110, pointing to a comment in the gematria section on the portion of Vayeshev, the hand has three fingers, plus an index finger, with a cuff, as can be found also on folio 347, pointing to a comment in the chidushim (novalae) on the portion of Devarim, andfol. 351, pointing to a comment byNachmanides on the portion of Va-etchanan. Two pointing hands adjacent to each other can be found on folio 34, pointing to two comments in the gematria section on the portion of Vayera. An indication to the purpose of the pointing may be gleaned from the wonderous nature of the comment being pointed to on fol. 369 - a comment byRabeinu Bahye on the portion of Shoftim: ‘I have heard that the carcass of the calf forms worms according to nature, which goes and kills the murderer wherever he is. Behold, this is a creation by the celestial ministering angel of the river, and this is a wonder of the mystery of nature.’

Bracket manicules

In addition to manicules in the form of pointing finger, one can find elongated brackets, perhaps meant to reflect also a hand, bracketing a few lines or a whole paragraph. These bracket style manicules also appear in varied forms. They are found in all parts of the commentary, not limited to a particular commentary author. In fol. 5, there is an illumination of a single bracket in the margin, highlighting a comment of Rabot on the portion of Bereishit; in fol. 10, there is a bracket in the margin, bracketing a comment of Rabot on the portion of Noah; on fol. 14, there is a bracketing of a comment byRabeinu Bahye on the portion of Noah; on fol. 101,itbrackets a comment byRabeinu Bahye on Vayishlach; on fol. 345, it brackets a comment byRabeinu Bahye on the portion of Devarim; on fol. 349, it brackets a comment on Va-etchanan Rabot; on folio 354, there is a double linked bracket, round two comments in the gematriaot section for Va-etchanan; on folio 370, there is a single bracket for two comments in gematriaot section for Shoftim. In fol. 370, 345, and others, to a lesser or greater degree, the brackets have a line projecting outward from the bracket. The most elaborate bracket can be found on fol. 133, bracketing a comment in the chidushim (novalae) section on the portion of Vayechi, relating to the end of days (acharit ha-yamim). It is unclear the purpose of these brackets and their variations, similar to the unknown precise intent of the pointing fingers. They maybe a form of footnoting, as found in early printed works.^[50]

Illuminations

Illumination in the form of word design can be found along the bottom of the four sides of folios 19-20, in the Rabot section for Lech Lecha. There is a single drawing in the manuscript that can be found on folio. 96, in the chiddushim (navalae) section for Vayetze, depicting the layout of the tents of Rachel, Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah as linked, to each other, like a cul-de-sac, off a public domain, with the front tent that of Rachel, followed by an entrance within it to Leah’s tent, followed by Bilhah and Zilpah. The picture is drawn to help better understand the biblical text (Genesis 32:34) about Laban searching for his lost idols in the tents of his daughters and maidservants, after Jacob and his family fled the house of Laban.

Mitzvah to eat meat on Rosh Hashanah - Unknown source

As mentioned above, the only unidentified complete source for a section of the Chalfan MS Opp. 722, is the section containing Chuddishim. We will present in this context an example of a teaching in the Chiddushim section, not found in MS. Opp. 27 (published as Pirush Rokeach al-ha-Torah) or any other identifiable source. This can be found as a comment on folio 365 about eating meat as a display of joy and festivities on Shabbat, Jewish festivals, and, in particular, for the purpose of this essay, on Rosh Hashanah.^[51] The teaching is based on Deuteronomy 12:20, where it states: ‘When the L-rd, your G-d, expands your boundary, as He has spoken to you, and you say, "I will eat meat," because your soul desires to eat meat, you may eat meat, according to every desire of your soul.’ The manuscript cites the words: ‘When He expands’ (ki yar-chiv), and states:

The three times it mentions ‘meat’ (basar) in the verse corresponds to the three festivals, when it is a mitzvah to eat meat. And also: brit, Shabbat, Rosh Hashanah the acronym (roshe tevot) of which makes up the word ‘ba-sa-r’ (meat), as it states (Nechemiah 8:10): ‘eat choice foods and drink sweet drinks.’^[52]

Shabbat

Due to the uniqueness of this unsourced teaching, we will present thebackground to this teaching relating to Rosh Hashanah.On the Shabbat, there is a commandment from the prophets to enjoy (oneg) the Shabbat. This is understood to refer to fish and meat. The Talmud states (Shabbat 118b):

With what does one delight in the day of Shabbat? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: With a dish of beets, and large fish, and heads of garlic. Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi said that Rav said: Even with regard to a small item and one prepared it in deference to Shabbat, it is a delight. The Gemara asks: What is the small item mentioned? Rav Pappa said: Small fried fish.

The Talmud also states (Shabbat 119a):

The sons of Rav Pappa bar Abba said to Rav Pappa: People like us, for whom meat and wine is found on our table every day, in what manner can we change it on Shabbat? He said to them: If you are accustomed to eating your meal early, make it later on Shabbat; if you are accustomed to making it late, make it earlier on Shabbat. This difference will underscore the uniqueness of Shabbat.

The implication is that this relates to a wealthy person who has plenty already, but another person may just slightly increase in the meat served to honour the Shabbat. Thus, Maimonides writes: ‘A person should have more meat, wine and treats, to the best of his ability.’ The Talmud illustrates this (Shabbat 119a):

Rabbi Abba bought thirteen plain staters [astirei peshitei] worth half a zuz of meat from thirteen butchers in deference to Shabbat, so that he would have various types of fine meat. And he would place the meats at the door hinge at the entrance to his house to hurry to bring another type of meat. And he said to the cooks, in order to rush them: Hurry and prepare it, hurry and prepare it.

The Talmud further states (Shabbat 119b):

Rabbi Abbahu at the conclusion of Shabbat a third-born calf, and he would eat one kidney from it. When his son Avimi grew up, he said to his father: Why do you waste so much? Let us leave a kidney over from Shabbat eve, and you will not need to slaughter an entire calf for that purpose. Indeed, they left the calf and did not slaughter it, and a lion came and ate it. This teaches that one should not be miserly when it comes to honouring Shabbat.

According to the midrashic work Tanna DeBei Eliyahu Rabbah (26), even if one cannot afford it, one should eat a bit of meat and drink a little of wine, in honour of the Shabbat. Maimonides codifies in Mishneh Torah, laws of Shabbat (30:10): ‘Eating meat and drinking wine on the Sabbath is a form of pleasure for a person, provided this is within his [financial] capacity.’ R. Abraham Gambiner clarifies (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 572:3): ‘one is not however obligated to eat meat on Shabbat and the festival.’^[53] In Shulchan Aruch Harav, Orach Chaim (242:1), it states: ‘There is no specific obligation to eat meat or drink wine on Shabbos. The common practice is to partake of them only because most people presumably derive pleasure from eating meat more than eating other foods and from drinking wine more than drinking other beverages. For this reason, people should be generous in their consumption of meat and wine according to their capacity and financial resources.’

Festivals

The same applies with the three festivals of Passover, Shavuot and Sukkot, where it says (Deuteronomy 16:14): ‘you shall rejoice in your festival.’ The Talmud (Jerusalem Talmud Chagigah 1:2:3) states two opinions: R. Eleazar said, joy mentioned there refers to the peace offering in the Temple. R. Joshua ben Levi said, ‘and you shall enjoy,’ even from a butcher shop (the duty to eat meat on holidays is biblical also after the destruction of the Temple when sacrificial meat is not available). Midrash Lekach Tov comments: ‘from here we derive that joy is only possible where there is meat.’ This is codified in Jewish law (Shulchan Aruch Harav, Orach Chaim (529:4): ‘one should increase the [amount of] meat, wine, and delicacies [he serves] according to his [financial] capacities.’

Rosh Hashanah

However, when it comes to Rosh Hashana, there is question whether it is considered a festival and that one should be also joyous or not? In Nehemiah 8:10, it states that Ezra said to the people on the first of the seventh month (Rosh Hashanah): ‘Go, eat the fat and drink the sweet.’ R. Sa-adiah Gaon explains that this took place on Rosh Hashana when the people wanted to fast, so Ezra told them they should eat the fat food (meat), so that the year will be fat in good deeds, since fat refers only to meat. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim (597:1): ‘One eats, drinks and is merry on Rosh Hashanah. We do not fast, whether on Rosh Hashanah, nor on Shabbos Shuva (the Shabbos of Repentance which is between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur).’ There is a dispute, however, regarding the nature of the holiday: the Jerusalem Talmud (Nedarim 5) writes that R. Yonatan would fast every year the day before Rosh Hashanah. In Peskita, it states it is a mitzvah to do so. Rav Natronai Gaon (9^th century) writes that one should fast on both days of Rosh Hashanah. Rav Hai Gaon, Rav Nachshon Gaon, Mar Shalom Gaon, and Rav Yehudai Gaon say, however, it is forbidden to fast on Rosh Hashanah, since it is called a ‘chag’ (festival) in Psalms 81:4: ‘the appointed time for the day of our festival (chageinu).’

This is also the opinion of German Tosafist R. Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi of Bonn, known as Ra’avyah (1140–1225), based on the verse in Nechemiah (8:10-12): ‘He further said to them, “Go, eat choice foods and drink sweet drinks and send portions to whoever has nothing prepared, for the day is holy to our Lord. Do not be sad, for your rejoicing in the L-rd is the source of your strength.” The Levites were quieting the people, saying, “Hush, for the day is holy; do not be sad.” Then all the people went to eat and drink and send portions and make great merriment, for they understood the things they were told,’

Also, in the Jerusalem Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 1:5), it states:

Rebbi Simon said, it is written (Deuteronomy 4:7): ‘for who is a great people.’ Rebbi Ḥama ben Rebbi Ḥanina and Rebbi Hoshaia. One said, is there a people like this people? Usually in the world a person who knows that he will stand in trial dresses in black, wears black headdress, and lets his beard grow, since he does not know how his trial will end. But Israel are not so, but they wear white, wear white headdress, cut their beard, eat, and drink, and are happy. They know that the Holy One, praise to Him, will perform wonders for them.

Similarly, in the book of I Samuel (25:36-38), it states:

When Abigail came home to Nabal, he was having a feast in his house, a feast fit for a king; Nabal was in a merry mood and very drunk, so she did not tell him anything at all until daybreak. The next morning, when Nabal had slept off the wine, his wife told him everything that had happened; and his courage died within him, and he became like a stone. About ten days later the L-rd struck Nabal and he died.

The Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 18a) comments that the delay of ten days before Nabal was struck are the ten days of repentance between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, implying that the ‘feast in his house, a feast fit for a king; Nabal was in a merry mood and very drunk’ was the celebration of Rosh Hashanah.^[54] The same dispute is found regarding the liturgy on Rosh Hashanah.^[55] Some^[56] include in the prayers the line: ‘holidays for joy, pilgrimages and times for happiness,’ as one does on the three pilgrimage festivals. Jewish law (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 582:8) says not to recite it on Rosh Hashanah. The reason given by R. Joel Sirkis, known as the Bach (1561-1640), is that these days were not given for rejoicing and gladness, but rather a time of judgement and repentance.

Foods to eat on Rosh Hashanah

There is similarly ambiguity whether there is a mitzvah to eat meat for the purpose of being joyous on the festival, as with the other three festivals. The Talmud in tractate Keritot (6a) mentions foods one should eat for a good omen for the upcoming year:

Abaye said: Now that you have said that a sign is a substantial matter, a person should be accustomed to eat, at the start of the year, gourd, fenugreek, leeks, beets, and dates, as each of these grow and multiply quickly, which is a good omen for the deeds of the upcoming year.^[57]

This is codified in Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim (583:1):

One should eat beans, leeks, beets, dates, and pumpkin. And as one eats the beans (rubiya), they say: G-d, may our merits increase (yirbu)! Eating leeks (karti), they say: G-d, may our enemies be wiped out (yekartu)! Eating dates (tamri), say: G-d, may our enemies disappear (yetamu)! Eating pumpkin (kra), say: G-d, may our judgement be ripped up (yikra) and may our merits be called out (yikrau) before You!

In the Ashkenazi tradition, R. Moses Isserles, known as the Rama adds additional foods:

Some have a custom of eating a sweet apple in honey, and saying: May a sweet year be renewed on us! This is what we do. Some eat pomegranates, and say: may our merits be as many as pomegranate seeds! And we are accustomed to eat fatty meat and all sorts of sweets.^[58]

Although the custom to eat meat is added, conspicuously, the Rama is silent whether this is for the purpose of a good omen for the deeds of the upcoming year or as a mitzvah to be joyous on the New Year, as with the other three festivals and Shabbat. The tension is found also in Chassidic teachings in the 18^th century, where Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi writes^[59] that Rosh Hashanah is not a Yom Tov, since on every Yom Tov there is a revelation of the ‘intellect’ (hitgalut mochin de-ava) of the Divine sefirot, channelled through the Divine emotions (midot), into the feminine attribute of ‘kingship’ (be-nukva). On Rosh Hashanah the flow is direct, not through the intermediary of the emotions. The result is a fear of G-d and nullification of man’s will before G-d. In a further discourse he interprets the verse in Psalms (2:11): ‘rejoice with quaking’ (gilu bi-re-a-dah), as referring to Rosh Hashanah, when joy remains inward, and does not manifest itself openly until Sukkot.^[60]

In this context, the teaching found in the commentary of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan is significant. It states: ‘it is a mitzvah to eat meat on Shabbat, a Brit Milah (circumcision) celebration, and also Rosh Hashanah, based on the verse in Nechemiah (8:10),’ thereby interpreting the verse not as merely a good omen for the increase of good deeds in the coming year, but an intrinsic mitzvah to be joyous on the holiday, as other festivals.^[61]^[62]

Connection between the collection of commentaries

There is no obvious thematic or structural connection between the different commentaries that are used to make up Chalfan’s manuscript content. The commentary of Nachmanides in a particular parsha, does not necessarily follow on or relate to the issues raised in the Rabot, and neither does Joshua Ibn Shuaib follow on or relate to Rabeinu Bahye. It appears to be a collection of commentaries relating to the parshiyot with no clear underlying connections between the different commentary authors.^[63]

As they mostly relate to the reasonings behind the mitzvot, with many of the citations beginning with the words: ‘ta’am’ (reason), followed by the symbolism or philosophical reasons for the particular mitzvah or aspect of a mitzvah, the aim of the work is aimed at presenting a comprehensive rationalisation of the mitzvot, and concepts in Judaism, similar to Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed, through the citation from the midrash and three of the commentaries: Nachmanides, Bahye and Ibn Shuaib.

Subject headings in margin

For this reason, throughout the work, to assist the reader, one can find in the margin short notes referencing the subject matter discussed in the commentary. This is done extensively and covers all of the four first sections, including Rabot, Nachmainides, Rabeinu Bahye and Ibn Shuaib. There are also repeated themes indicated, suggesting the work is not an organised collection of ideas, organised by themes, but rather a collection of commentary on the Torah, with the margin being used for subject heading, sometime a single word, like ‘Teshuvah’(repentance) or ‘din’ (law),or ‘inyan hamizbeach’ (the concept of the alter), ‘bitachon hamelech be-Hashem’ (trust of a king in G-d).^[64] This is not consistent, however as many comments don’t have a subject in the margin, suggesting it is primarily a text for study, as mentioned above, with references of subject to help the reader. The subject headings may have had a purpose to assist in researching material for classes and sermons.

Nachmanides, Rabeinu Bahye and Joshua Ibn Shuaib

The reason for selecting the three commentaries, besides Rabot, of Nachmanides, Rabeinu Bahye and Joshua Ibn Shuaib is twofold: they have interconnecting intellectual paths, making them a suitable choice for a combined commentary of the same period, and also content. Firstly, Rabeinu Bahye and Joshua Ibn Shuaib were both disciples of R. Shlomo ben (Abraham ben) Aderet, known as Rashba (1235-1310). Rashba was a disciple of R. Jonah of Gerona (c. 1200 - 1263), author of a commentary on Proverbs, Ethics of the Fathers, and R. Isaac Alfasi, known as the Rif, as well an influential work on Repentance (Sharei Teshuvah) and piety (Sharei Yir-ah). R. Jonah of Gerona was a cousin^[65] of Nachmanides, and took sides, in 1232, with his teacher R. Abraham of Montpellier, against the ‘corrupting’ convergence of philosophy and traditional Torah study, presented by Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed. He later, however, regretted this, particularly after the Franciscan burning of Jewish texts in 1242, and vowed to pray at Maimonides’ grave in Israel to beg for forgiveness.^[66] Nachmanides wrote a lamentation after R. Jonah’s untimely passing.

On a practical level, these three commentaries were printed at the time R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan wrote his commentary, reflecting their popularity, and this accessible. Rabeinu Bahye was printed for the first time in Naples 1492, and a second and third edition in Pesaro, in 1507 and 1514.^[67] A fourth edition in Venice in 1544. Nachmanides’ commentary on the Torah was first published in Lisbon in 1489. As mentioned, the work by Ibn Shuaib was published in Constantinople in 1523, the same year Chalfan’s commentary was written. A second printing took place in Krakow in 1573. Alternatively, he used a manuscript of the derashot of Ibn Shuaib, which still exists from ca. 1460-1470, entitled: pe[rush] he-hakh[am] Joshua ibn Shuaib za”l talmid ha-Rashb"a za”l al ha-Torah. The provenance is: Solomon Halberstam.^[68]

A connection between the three commentaries: Nachmanides, Rabeinu Bahye and Ibn Shuaib is that they include commentary according to Kabbalah, introduced at times with the phrase: ‘al pi kabbalah.’ The teachers of Nachmanides are R. Ezra and R. Ezriel, both Kabbalaists, disciples of R. Yitzchak Sagi Nahor, son of the R. Avraham ben David, known as the Ra-avad. Sagi Nahor studied the Kabbalah from Elijah the Prophet.^[69] Similarly, Rabeinu Bahye, followed the model of Nachmanides, who was the first major commentator to make extensive use of the Kabbalah as a means of interpreting the Torah, even though he does not reveal any of his Kabbalistic sources, other than generally referring to Sefer HaBahir and the works of Nachmanides. He only mentions the Zohar twice. In Parshat Shoftim, on the verse (Deuteronomy 15:16): ‘justice, justice pursue (Tzedek Tzedek Tirdof), he cites Sefer Habahir. In most cases, however, he just writes: ‘al derech hakabbalah’ (by way of the Kabbalah), even though the teaching can be found also in Nachmanides. Chalfan chooses to cite it as a Kabbalistic teaching from Bahye, as opposed to bringing it as part of his citation of Nachmanides. Nevertheless, the aim of brining Rabeinu Bahye is not for the purpose of citing Kabbalah, as Halfan also selects Rabeinu Bahye’s comments when it is ‘p’shat,’ as on Deuteronomy 17:3: ‘velashemesh..kasher tzivesi.’ In this case, Rabeinu Bahye cites ‘p’shat,’ followed by Kabbalah, but Chalfan only cites the ‘p’shat,’ omitting the Kabbalah on this verse. This suggests his use of Rabeinu Bahye, while it incorporates Kabbalah, it’s not the sole aim of incorporating it in his collection.

A reason Chalfan chooses the Kabbalistic comment in some cases and not in other cases, may be due to whether the Kabbalistic teaching is cited by Nachmanides. This can be seen in Rabeinu Bahye on Deuteronomy 16:20, cited by Chalfan, where Nachmanides brings the Kabbalistic interpretation also, whereas Nachmanides does not bring the Kabbalistic commentary on Deuteronomy 17:3, and is thus omitted by Chalfan. This provides a perspective in his strategy of the commentary: Halfan cites Kabbalah teachings in Rabeinu Bahye, particularly when those teachings are also found in Nachamindes. On occasion, Chalfan will cite Rabeinu Bahye when the text of Rabeinu Bahya is actually a continuation of a text also found in Nachmanides on a particular verse, already cited earlier in Halfan’s citation of Nachmanides. This can be found in Deuteronomy (parshat Shoftim) on ‘Ne-onen u’menachesh’ (fol. 368). In any event, a reason for bringing the two commentaries Nachmanides and Rabeinu Bahye is the fact that they both incorporate teachings of the Kabbalah.

The same may be said for including Ibn Shuaib. Joshua ibn Shuaib (ca 1280 - ca 1340) was a rabbi who lived in Spain, a member of an aristocratic family of Tudela, and student of Rashba, whom he frequently references in this work. He was the teacher of Menahem ibn Zerah and ibn Sahula. As mentioned, his sermons were first published in Constantinople, in 1523, and a second time in Krakow in 1573. They consist of homilies, based on sermons delivered by ibn Shuaib in the synagogue. Each sermon begins with a verse from Proverbs, interpreted literally, allegorically, or in a midrashic manner, quoting from many sources, including both the Babylonian and Jerusalem Talmuds, Midrashim, and halachic works, some of which are no longer extant and known to us only from this work. He then proceeds to creatively link various parts of the Torah portion to a broad ethical or theological theme, connected also to the verse in Proverbs cited at the beginning. In these derashot, he also quotes from Kabbalistic works, as the Sefer Yezirah, Sefer ha-Bahir, and the Zohar, as well as from kabbalistic passages in the commentary of Nachmanides.

A connection between two of the commentaries: Rabeinu Bahye and Ibn Shuaib, despite their very different styles – one a classic commentary, the other derashot (homiletical sermons), is that they both cite a verse of Proverbs in the beginning of their commentary. In the case of Rabeinu Bahye, he cites from R. Jonah’s commentary on Proverbs.^[70] Ibn Shuaib also cites a verse from Proverbs at the beginning of each week’s commentary. The method is however different, in that Rabeinu Bahye cites from R. Jonah’s commentary without a particular connection to the content of the commentary, as the commentary is verse based, with each comment explaining a particular verse, without any themed connections between the commentaries, while Ibn Shuaib selects and utilises a verse in Proverbs to construct an ethical discourse weaving through many of the verse in a particular parsha of the Torah. The selection of verses for each selection, found in Rabeinu Bahye and Ibn Shuaib, are different to each other, though some parallels can be found, as in parshat Ki Tavo from Proverbs 3:9-12: ‘Honour the L-rd with your wealth, with the best of all your income, and your barns will be filled with grain, our vats will burst with new wine. Do not reject the discipline of the L-rd, my son; Do not abhor His rebuke, for whom the L-rd loves, He rebukes, as a father the son whom he favours.

Reason for writing the commentary – Renaissance influence?

Despite no contextual reason offered by the author for writing the commentary, a few ideas will be explored as motivation for writing this collection of commentary: a. it was written with the benefit of Renaissance Italy in mind, when there was great fascination in the Hebrew language, its ancient texts and the mystery of its laws, b. Personal family inspiration to study Torah, c. combination of both: a traditional collection of classic rabbinic commentary on Torah, but written in a particular milieu, thus, in a sense, constituting a unique Renaissance period commentary on the Torah.

Dispute about teaching Hebrew and Torah

We will first explore the idea that the commentary was written with his Christian Hebraist neighbours in mind, aware of his well-known dialogue with them, including the most important Italian literati of the 16^th century, Pietro Aretino (1492-1556), who relied both on Rabbi Chalfan’s competence in medicine and knowledge of Judaism.^[71] Aretino wrote to him that ‘the Pope himself. . . should listen to your inspired voice.’^[72] An obvious aspect of the work is that it explains the reasons, including esoteric, for the laws of the Torah. Indeed, many of the citations taken from the source commentary begin with the section that says the reason for the particular mitzvah. This may be seen in the context of R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan’s declared support of teaching Hebrew to non-Jews, at a time when Christian Hebraists, during the 16^th century, had great interest in the Hebrew language and its sacred texts (Hebraica Veritas) to expand their horizon of learning. Some Christian Humanists believed that knowledge of Hebrew would allow them a more effective means to win Jews over in debate, drawing on intimate knowledge of their texts, while others thought that universal truth will only be revealed thorough the convergence of Christian teachings and the ancient Hebrew texts, including the esoteric teachings of the Kabbalah. Others had authentic interest in G-d’s sacred word in the ‘language of the Creator.’ The humanists of this persuasion included Johannes Reuchlin, Poggio Bracciolini, Giannozzo Manetti, Pico della Mirandola, Egidio da Viterbo, the Medici pope Leo X, Domenico Grimani, Francesco Zorzi, and others, who applied themselves to the study of Hebrew. Other humanists were opposed to this, as Erasmus of Rotterdam, claiming it would only reinforce the Jews in their convictions. Two of the greatest Christian thinkers to study not only Hebrew but also the Kabbalah were Pico della Mirandola and Johannes Reuchlin.

Many Jews were however forcefully opposed to the idea of teaching Hebrew to Christians, as evidenced by the case of humanist scholar Giannozzo Manetti (1396–1459), who lead his Hebrew teacher to baptism.^[73] The principal source for the opposition is the statement in the Talmud (Chagigah 13a): ‘R. Ami said: The words of Torah may not be transmitted to a gentile, as it is stated (Psalms 147:20): “He has not dealt so with any nation, and as for His ordinances, they have not known them.”’ Similarly, in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 59a): ‘R. Yoḥanan says: A non-Jew many not study Torah, as it is stated: “Moses commanded us a law [Torah], an inheritance of the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4), indicating that it is an inheritance for the Jewish people.’^[74] Maimonides, however, writes that one may teach the Torah to Christians because they believe in the Divine origin of the Torah, and will help them understand the correct interpretations.^[75]

Italian R. Isaiah b. Elijah di Trani the Younger (d. c.1280), known as Ri’az, wrote,^[76] in the 13^th century, applied a similar idea but only regarding the Prophets and the Hagiographa: ‘a Jew who teaches a non-Jew Torah is like ‘placing a stumbling block before the blind,’ but only in regard to the Pentateuch. It is permitted to teach the Prophets and the Hagiographa, as a non-Jew will see in them the promises of comfort (ne-cha-mot) told to Israel, and the beliefs that provide answers to the heretic, so that he may join the Law of Israel.’ He also was opposed to teaching midrashim and the works of the rabbis, as they would scoff at them. For this reason, R. Isaiah composed works to explain the midrashim and the intentions of the sages to remove embarrassment.

Others, like R. Johanan Treves, argued that one should not refuse instructing gentiles the study of the Hebrew language, its vocalisation and vocabulary, as well as the meaning of the Torah, since they have in any case at their disposal Greek and Latin versions of their own. This is based on a line of reasoning found in the Tosafot (Chagigah 31a), comparing it to the prohibition to (Avodah Zara 6b) hand a cup of wine to a Nazarite, who is prohibited from drinking wine, according to Biblical law. One is only liable, however, for ‘placing a stumbling block before the blind’ (Leviticus 19:14) if one hands the wine across a river, thus being the only way to receive the wine. While the Tosafot maintain it remains nonetheless prohibited to teach Torah to a non-Jew, based on the verse in Psalms 147:20: ‘He has not dealt so with any nation, and as for His ordinances, they have not known them,’ one is not violating the Biblical law of ‘placing a stumbling block before the blind.’ 16^th century R. Johanan Treves, author of Machzor Kimcha de-Avishana (Bologna 1540),claimed this is sufficient to permit teaching Torah to Christians. R. Shmuel Eliezer Edels, known as the Maharsha (1555 – 1631), author of Chidushei Aggadot, makes a distinction between the laws and their reasons and esoteric meaning. It is the latter that is negated by the verse in Psalms.

Support for teaching Hebrew to non-Jews was seen by the fact that Italian philosopher and nobleman, founder of the tradition of Christian Kabbalah, Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) and German humanist Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522), author of De rudimentis hebraicis (1506), both had Hebrew teachers. Reuchlin’s teachers were R. Jacob ben Jehiel Loans^[77] and Elijah Levita, as well as R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan. In addition, R. Obadiah Sforno, a famed Biblical commentator, taught Reuchlin^[78] between 1498 and 1500.^[79] Kabbalist R. Yochanan Alemanno (c.1435-c.1504) and Elijah del Medigo (c. 1458 – c. 1493) taught Pico. Other teachers were R. Abraham de Balmes, who taught Cardinal Grimani; Jacob Mantino, who taught Guidoi Rangoni; Elia Levita, who taught Egidius of Viterbo.

Chalfan’s responsa

In 1544, Elijah Menachem Chalfan was invited to give a halachic ruling in Venice on this subject. The question posed was: should one protest someone who teaches the Hebrew language (Lashon Hakodesh), grammar (dikduk) and scripture (mikra) for one’s livelihood to a non-Jew? Is it sinful and deserve protest or is it not necessary to protest? The responsa was compiled in a collection of rabbinic responsa by R. Abraham Joseph Graziano of Modena (d. 1685). Chalfan responded that it is permitted to teach Hebrew to non-Jews, as well as to teach the Torah on the plain level of understanding (peshat), but prohibited teaching the Kabbalah.^[80]

His constructed his view in the following argument: In Talmud Sotah 35b, it states:

The Sages taught: How did the Jewish people write the Torah? Rabbi Yehuda says: They wrote it on stones, as it is stated: “And you shall write on the stones all the words of this law” (Deuteronomy 27:8). And afterward they plastered them over with plaster. Rabbi Shimon said to him: According to your statement that they plastered over the writing, how did the nations of the world study Torah? (Rashi: was it not the case that He said to him: The Holy One, Blessed be He, granted them an extra degree of understanding, and they sent their scribes [noteirin], and they peeled off the plaster and copied it down. And on account of this matter their decree to be sent to the pit of destruction was sealed, as once the Torah was in their possession they should have studied it, and they did not study.

We derive from here that for the purpose to forfend the argument that non-Jews never had the opportunity to learn the Torah, and keep the seven Noahide laws, it is permitted to teach Torah.

In Bava Kamma (38a), it further states:

The Sages taught the following story: And the Roman kingdom once sent two military officials [sardeyotot] to the Sages of Israel, and ordered them in the name of the king: Teach us your Torah. The officials read the Torah, and repeated it, and repeated it again, reading it for the third time. At the time of their departure, they said to the Sages: We have examined your entire Torah and it is true, except for this one matter that you state, i.e., that with regard to an ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile, the owner is exempt from liability, whereas with regard to the ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whether it was innocuous or forewarned, the owner pays the full cost of the damage. But we will not inform this matter to the kingdom.

In the Jerusalem Talmud (Bava Kamma 4:3), it elaborates:

It happened that the [Roman] government sent two officials to study Torah with Rabban Gamliel. They learned from him Bible, Mishnah, Talmud, practice, and homilies. At the end, they told him: All of your teachings are beautiful and commendable except two things which you say: “A Jewish woman shall not act as midwife to a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may act as midwife for a Jewish woman; a Jewish woman shall not nurse the child of a Gentile, but a Gentile woman may nurse for a Jewish woman with her consent; what was robbed from a Jew is forbidden but from a Gentile it is permitted. At that moment did Rabban Gamliel decide that what was robbed from a Gentile be forbidden because of desecration of the Name.

Tosafot argues that teaching by force or for the purpose of conversion is not the same. R. Chalfan derives from the fact that the sages did not just teach them scripture but also Mishnah, Talmud, practice, and homilies, that it is permitted. Also, the teaching must have happened prior to them deciding to convert.

The argument against teaching Torah to non-Jews is the statement in the Talmud (Chagigah 13a):

Rabbi Ami said: The secrets of the Torah may be transmitted only to one who possesses the following five characteristics: “The captain of fifty, and the man of favour, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter” (Isaiah 3:3). And Rabbi Ami said further: The words of Torah may not be transmitted to a gentile, as it is stated: “He has not dealt so with any nation, and as for His ordinances, they have not known them” (Psalms 147:20).

R. Chalfan, however argues that the word ‘transmitted’ (mosrin), instead of ‘limud’ suggests the Talmud is talking only about the secrets of the Torah (Kabbalah) that is passed down ‘from mouth to mouth.’Also, the phrase inPsalms 147:20: ‘He has not dealt so (ken) with any nation.’ The word ‘ken’ (so) has the gematria (numerical value) of 70, the same as the value as the Hebrew word: ‘sod’ (secrets). A further argument to allow non-Jews to study Hebrew is from the Talmud Sanhedrin (59a):

Rabbi Meir would say: From where is it derived that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest? It is derived from that which is stated: “You shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances, which if a man does he shall live by them” (Leviticus 18:5). The phrase: Which if priests, Levites, and Israelites do they shall live by them, is not stated, but rather: “A man,” which indicates mankind in general. You have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torah study is considered like a High Priest. The Talmud answers: There, in the baraita, the reference is to a gentile who engages in the study of their seven mitzvot.

R. Chalfan thus concludes that since non-Jews are obligated to study the seven Noahide laws, this is only possible if they have knowledge of Hebrew. Furthermore, since in our generation there are many who have become apostates,^[81] misinterpret the Torah and spread their corrupt understanding of scripture, it is better for Jews to teach the correct meaning of the Torah, but this only applies to the Hebrew language and the plain meaning of the Torah, but not the Kabbalah.

Dispute about teaching Kabbalah to Jews

The background to this debate is the question about whether it is even permitted for Jews to study the Kabbalah. Salo Baron writes Chalfan tried to remove the prohibition of teaching the Kabbalah to Jews.^[82] There are two opposing views expressed in Jewish texts regarding the studying of the Kabbalah: The Zohar (Pikudei p. 247b) elaborates about the punishment for those who don’t study the secrets of the Torah and the reward for those who do. Similarly, in the Midrash, (Proverbs 10) it states: ‘G-d asks a person on the day of judgment: if he had studied Talmud, had he also studied the merkava?’ R. Chaim Vital (1543-1620), the foremost student of Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, writes (Sha’ar ha-Gilgulim, Introduction 11) that the study of Torah includes all four levels of interpretation, and one must study all of them to the best of one’s ability, including the esoteric, and if one leaves out one of the four, he must return in reincarnation. He bases this on the Zohar (Balak p. 202a), which compares the different levels of the study of Torah to a tree planted on a stream of water, that consists of, a stem, branches, leaves, flowers and sap, all connected to one tree.

This obligation is however limited to sages of the Torah who have ‘filled their bellies’ with the entire Talmud and works of Jewish law. This restriction is on the Talmud (Chagigah 13a):

The Rabbi Ami said: The secrets of the Torah may be transmitted only to one who possesses the following five characteristics: “The captain of fifty, and the man of favor, and the counselor, and the cunning charmer, and the skillful enchanter” (Isaiah 3:3).’“A captain offifty,” do not read it as “sar ḥamishim,” rather read it as “sar ḥumashin”; this is one who knows how to engage in discourse with regard to the five books of [ḥamisha ḥumshei] the Torah. “And the man of favor”; this is one for whose sake favor is shown to his generation, such as Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa and Rabbi Abbahu, in the house of the emperor. “The counsellor,” who knows how to intercalate years and determine months, “The cunning”; this is a student who makes his rabbis wise, “Charmer [ḥarashim],” that when he begins speaking matters of Torah, all are as though deaf [ḥershin], as they are unable to comprehend the profundity of his comments. “The skillful,” this is one who understands something new from something else he has learned. “Enchanter [laḥash]”; this one who is worthy of having words of the Torah that were given in whispers [laḥash], i.e., the secrets of the Torah, transmitted to him.

This view led to R. Shmuel Eliezer Edels, known as the Maharsha (1555 – 1631), to write that the Kabbalah should remain concealed and warned against those who preached this wisdom in public. This limitation was also the view of the great Kabbalists, including R. Chaim Vital, R. Moses Cordovero (1522-1570) (Ohr nerav 1:6 and 3:1), R. Isaiah Halevi Horowitz (1555-1630), known as the Shelah (Asara ma-marot 29b), R. Moses Isserlis (1530 – 1572) (Yorah Deah, ch. 246:4; Torah ha-olah 3:4). This apprehension continued for the generations after the 16^th century, including by R. Elijah of Vilna (1720-1797) (Commentary on Proverbs 21:17), who wrote a commentary on the Kabbalah. R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai, known as Chida (1724 - 1806) (Maerecht gedolim, erech R. Isaac Luria), as well as Kabbalist R. Moses Zacuto (c. 1625 – 1697), known as Ramaz, would study Kabbalah but only through the secondary work of the Arizal. The Chief Rabbi of Prague, Rabbi Yechezkel Landau, known as Noda b'yehuda (1713-1793) (Yoreh Deah 93), furthermore condemned those who engaged in the Kabbalah as having forsaken the two works of the Talmud, and destructive, calling his generation an orphaned generation, conceding it is best not to inform those who will not heed.^[83] Already, in the 13^th century, the rabbis who engaged in Kabbalah warned about its dangers. Nachmanides (1194-1270), who incorporated Kabbalah in his commentary on the Torah extensively, qualifies it with a warning in his introduction:

Now behold I bring into a faithful covenant and give proper counsel to all who look into this book not to reason or entertain any thought concerning any of the mystic hints which I write regarding the hidden matters of the Torah, for I do hereby firmly make known to him [the reader] that my words will not be comprehended nor known at all by any reasoning or contemplation, excepting from the mouth of a wise Cabalist speaking into the ear of an understanding recipient. Reasoning about them is foolishness; any unrelated thought brings much damage and withholds the benefit. Let him not trust in vanity, deceiving himself, for these reasonings will bring him nothing but evil as if they spoke falsely against G-d, which cannot be forgiven, as it is said (Proverbs 21:16): ‘The man that strayeth out of understanding shall rest in the congregation of the shades.’ Let them not break through unto the Eternal to gaze, For the Eternal our G-d is a devouring fire, even a G-d of jealousies.

Based on the above, Rabbi Chalfan supported^[84] and engaged personally in teaching Hebrew to non-Jews, alongside Elijah del Medigo, Johannan Alemanno, Elijah Levita and Obadiah Sforno,^[85] and also supported teaching the Oral Torah to non-Jews, more generally, as Maimonides, despite the opposition of his cousin Yochana Treves, who only allowed teaching Hebrew grammar for the sake of their better understanding the literal meaning of scripture.^[86] He also supported the study of Kabbalah by Jews, evident from his treatise on the Kabbalah, and his own work on a sefirotic tree, together with his teacher Abraham Sarfati in 1533,^[87] but in 1544, stated that he did not support the teaching of Kabbalah to non-Jews. Kabbalist R. Mordechai Dato (1527-1601) and Chalfan’s relative grammarian R. Abraham de Balmes also opposed the teaching of the Kabbalah to non-Jews, seeing its convergence with Christian thought as a danger to Jewish faith, as they would misappropriate kabbalistic imagery for their own views.^[88] We can conclude, therefore, that since his collection of commentary on the Torah incorporates mystical teachings from Nachmanides, Rabeinu Bahye and Ibn Shuaib,^[89] it would not have been written for the purpose of teaching to non-Jews, though, no doubt, it would have had a useful purpose for Jews to be more knowledgeable in the reasoning of the mitzvot to counter disparagement of Jewish law,^[90] similar to the view of R. Isaiah di-Tirani, and Maimonides’ Guide for the Perplexed.

Family heritage to study Torah

The reason for writing the collection of commentary, if not for external purposes, was to inspire his own community and, in particular his family, providing them with a text to study on Shabbat. He suggests this at the end of his commentary, where he writes: ‘May G-d’s eyes give me the merit to study in it, myself, my children, the offspring of my children, until the end of all generations, amen, amen amen, forever and ever (sela, vaed), amen, so may it be His will.’ The different manicules found in the manuscript suggests it was indeed studied with by more than one person, and from the state of the manuscript - well-worn, with some torn folios, it appears to have been well used, though unpublished.

Sefer Gematriot – a Hebraist interest

Despite the work being a traditional work, to inspire Torah study, the work reflects the humanist Hebraist society Chalfan lived in, fascinated by the Hebrew language and the Torah in its original lettering, believing they contained the hidden secrets of reality being the language of G-d in creation. There was thus interest in Venice in the device of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, as Venetian painters would inscribe scriptural quotes in Hebrew in their pictorial representations.^[91] There was a particular interest in the system of gematria and letterpermutation techniquesbyHebraist Francesco Zorzi (1466-1540), with whom Chalfan forged a connection, when he was involved in the support of Henry VIII’s divorce around 1530.^[92] Daniel Bomberg alludes to this when he writes in the introduction to Abraham Balmes’ grammar, Mikneh Avram:^[93] ‘There are Divine mysteries in the words and the letters themselves of the holy text, mysteries that cannot be perceived by means of the Latin or Greek.’ He published the 13-14^th century Kabbalistic work, Sefer Hatemunah, in 1523, attributed to 1^st-2^nd century sages R. Nehunya ben HaKanah and R. Ishmael, that focuses on the Hebrew letters. It was in this society that R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan wrote his commentary on the Torah. The inclusion of the fifth section of the commentary from Sefer Gematriot, which otherwise appears out of place,reflects the interest in this subject by the Hebraists, and his own dialogue with them, even if this may not have been his motive in including it.

Levirate marriage in the commentary

The idea that the commentary on the Torah was an internal rabbinic work for his own study and that of his family, as opposed to a work aimed for a wider readership, may be seen from a critical subject that R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan was involved in, in 1530s Venice. After writing the commentary, R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan was involved in the support for Henry VIII’s divorce from Catherine of Aragon. This period represented one of the most transformative, albeit turbulent, periods in British history, known as the reformation – the break-away of the British crown from Rome. This took place after Henry VIII was unable to receive annulment of his marriage from his sister-in-law Catherine of Aragon, to marry Anne Boleyn and produce a male heir to the throne. This issue preoccupied England between 1527 and 1535. Richard Croke who was in Bologna at the time travelled to Venice to consult the rabbis and wrote back that the Jews confirmed that while Deuteronomy allowed for levirate marriage, the law is not obligatory and not observed in practice.^[94] This was conveyed to Henry in the name of two Venetian Jewish figures: Jewish convert and professor of Hebrew Marco Raphael^[95] and physician R. Elijah Menachem Halfan.^[96] Raphael first argued that if Henry wants, he may marry a second wife according to Jewish law. When this view was rejected, Raphael suggested that based on the laws of levirate marriage the marriage was invalid. The rationale was since the purpose of the marriage was to sustain the offspring of his brother, the fact that Henry did not have a male child from Catherine, the marriage in the first place was evidently not to continue his brother’s line, thus invalidating the marriage in the first place.^[97] This opinion was included in the collection of opinions presented to Parliament. Henry however requested to receive their opinion in writing stating that the Levitical law has always been holy and intact, and never abolished or weakened. On the other hand, the law of Deuteronomy was never in force except when the conditions therein expressed were present, thus permitted by the Levitical Law, but was never observed, even by the Jews themselves, since the destruction of Jerusalem, except in matters concerning inheritance.^[98] Other rabbis were opposed, as was Physician Rabbi Jacob Mantino (d. 1549) - despite loyalist John Casale referring to him as ‘his very great friend and a most learned man,’^[99] he did not support the divorce.^[100] Rabbi of Modena Jacob Raphael ben Yechiel Chaim Peglione also did not support Henry, writing in a responsa that both Leviticus and Deuteronomy were valid and the latter was applicable when the brother had no children. In addition, the supporters of Henry were not willing to put their support in writing so as not to be seen as rebelling against the established authority.^[101] The seeking for support of Italian Jews for Henry’s position came to an end when a Roman Jew was compelled to marry the widow of his brother, who died without children.^[102] Without the support of the Jews of Italy, in June, 1530, the strategy changed to challenging the jurisdiction of the pope over England.

As the episode with Henry VIII’s divorce took place around 1530, and R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan wrote his commentary on the Torah in 1533-4, his citing of teachings relating to the portion of the subject of levirate marriage may offer some insight into his views on this topic, especially as he testifies, he would read and repeat the reading of his commentary every week. We in fact find mention of commentary relating to the laws of the levirate marriage in his commentary on the verses (Deuteronomy 25:5-10):

When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no offspring, the wife of the deceased shall not become that of another party, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty. The first child that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel. But if that party does not want to take his brother’s widow [to wife], his brother’s widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir.” The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. If he insists, saying, “I do not want to take her,” his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house! And he shall go in Israel by the name of “the family of the unsandaled one.”

In his gematria section of his commentary there are two comments on these verses, both based on the Talmud, which we will present in this context. The Talmud writes two explanations on the laws of the levirate marriage text:

1. In tractate Yevamot (54a), it states: ‘When it says (Deuteronomy 25:5): “he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty (ve-yib-mah),” it teaches that it is a valid levirate marriage even if it is performed against her will.’^[103] This is found also in R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan’s commentary in the form of a gematria. It states (MS. Opp. 722, fol. 375): The Hebrew words: ‘le-i-sha ve-yib-mah’ (as his wife and perform the levir’s duty) has the same gematria (398) as the Hebrew words: ‘ve-yib-mah ba-al kor-chah’ (perform the levir’s duty by force).

2. The Talmud states (Yevamot 101b):

When it says (Deuteronomy 25:8): “They shall speak to him,” it teaches that they give him counsel appropriate for him (ei-tzah ha-ho-ge-net lo). If he was a young boy and she was elderly, or if he was elderly and she was a young girl, they would tell him: What are you doing with a young girl? What are you doing with an elderly woman? Go be with someone like yourself, and do not bring a quarrel into your household.

R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan, in his commentary, cites also this teaching in the form of a gematria: ‘The Hebrew words (Deuteronomy 25:8): “vedib-ru ei-lav” (and talk to him) has the same gematria (265) as: ‘zo be-ei-tzah ha-ha-gu-nah’ (this is counsel appropriate for him). Both these gematriot may be found in their exact wording in MS. Opp. 27, published with the title (erroneously): Pirush ha-Rokeach al ha-Torah.

These two teachings on levirate marriage represent two opposing views on levirate marriage: the first a more cautious approach, only in a case when it is suitable, while the second, the complete opposite: it is valid even when performed by force. The first appears to reflect Rabbi Chalfan’s earlier support for Henry’s annulment of the marriage, while the second reflects a further consideration that ex post facto the marriage is valid, even under compulsion. This latter view is especially poignant considering the fact that the seeking for support of Italian Jews for Henry’s position came to an end when a Roman Jew was compelled to marry the widow of his brother, who died without child. The teaching by Rabbi Chalfan would reflect this view, thereby rejecting any purposeful connection between the commentary and the issues of the day Rabbi Chalfan’s may have been engaged in, furthering the argument that the aim of the commentary is an internal work of Torah study for his own personal and family use.

Conclusion

We have presented a recently discovered work by one of the well-known Rabbis of Venice of the 16^th century, Rabbi Elijah Menachem Chalfan. It consists of a collection of commentary on the Torah, organised by the Torah reading (parsha) of the week, each reading divided into citations from five rabbinic works: Midrash rabbo, Nachmanides, Rabeinu Bahye, Johshua Ibn Shuaib and Sefer Gematriot. We identified a compelling candidate for the anonymous part of the commentary - Sefer Gematriot, as well as exploring the sub-section ‘Chiddushim’ (novalae) that remains a mystery as to its source. One such teaching, without a source relates to the mitzvah to eat meat on Rosh Hashanah, reflecting the Jewish New Year as a time of celebration, contrary to the view of others who focus only on judgement and the call to repent. We explored the connections between the disparate parts of the commentary and possible reasons for writing the commentary, arguing that despite the author well connected with the wider society in Renaissance Italy, and a prominent teacher of Hebrew to Christian Hebraists, his commentary is a reflection of a traditionalist rabbi, with a strong desire to inspire his community and family in the path of Jewish tradition and the reading of the classic works of the commentaries of the Torah every Shabbat for all future generations. At the same time, the emphasis on citing the rational and mystical reasons for the mitzvot, as well as incorporating a medieval Ashkenazi work on Gematria, both subjects of great fascination to Christian Hebraists of his day, reflects a person who successfully straddled both the traditionalist rabbinic world of authentic tradition and rabbinic scholarship, while living well ensconced in the milieu of Renaissance Italy,

^[1] Solomon Molcho referred to his family as illustrious.

^[2] Called: ‘Rofe ha-noda’ (famed doctor) by Molcho and ‘rofa hamuvhak’ (expert doctor) by R. Benjamin Ze’ev ben Mattathias, in Oxford Opp. 4o 609, foil. 575b.

^[3] אליא (Oxford MS Opp. 4o 609, fol. 575b); אלי-ה (MS Opp. 722, fol. 395); ‘אלי (in the first page of MS Opp. 722, where it has a description of the work and the name of the author).

^[4] Salo Baron, vol. 13, p. 165, spells the surname: Halfon. In Jewish Life in Renaissance Italy, Robert Bonfil, p. 175, it spells it: ‘Halfan.’

^[5] His grandson was Dr. Elia Chalfan, was born in Prague around 1561 to Rabbi Dr. Abba Mari Chalfan and Rachel Kuh. On 5^th July, 1598 he was granted permission to move to Vienna by Emperor Rudolf II. Only 31 Jewish families lived in Vienna at that time. When in 1599, the Jews of Vienna were unable to pay a tax of 20,000 florins, they were ordered to leave Vienna on February 5, 1600 within fourteen days. All but eleven families and Dr. Elia obeyed the order, but were soon allowed to return. According to a list of Jewish families from 1600, Elia lived with his wife Rebekka bat Heschel and five children in the house of Hannsen Mader in the Wimmer Viertel, the only Jew in that part of town. The address is now Schultergasse 10. Elia died February 2, 1624 in Vienna and was buried in the old Roßauer cemetery in the Seegasse. During the Nazi era his gravestone was brought to the Zentralfriedhof Tor. IV and buried. A large fragment was recently discovered there, and it should be restored and moved back the Seegasse cemetery. The grave inscription was published by Bernhard Wachstein in 1912. According to Gerson Wolf, Studien zur Jubelfeier der Wiener Universität in Jahre 1865, p. 27 (1865), many books and manuscripts belonging to Dr. Elia Chalfan are in the Austrian National Library. These likely include manuscripts written by his ancestors from Italy Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Menachem Chalfan and the Astronomer Kalonymos ben David Kalonymos. See: https://schoenblog.com/?p=3009.

^[6] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 104.

^[7] In Shu”t Maharik 63, R. Shlomo is cited and referred as ‘Aba Mori’ (my father, my teacher): https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1142&st=&pgnum=74.

^[8] Teshuvot ha-Remo 56: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45203&st=&pgnum=246.

^[9] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45203&st=&pgnum=246.

^[10] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45883&st=&pgnum=287.

^[11] https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10283/2070/Database%20of%20Italian%20Humanists%20and%20Jews.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 17 Sep, 2024.

^[12] See: https://archives.balliol.ox.ac.uk/Modern%20Papers/gelles/Descent%20from%20Kalonymos%20of%20Narbonne%20and%20Delmedigo%20Chalfan.pdf.

^[13] Shlashelet Hayuchsin (p. 12).

^[14] Neubauer Catalogue No. 948, 6.

^[15] Moshe Idel, Kabbalah in Italy 1280-1510, p. 304. See: https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/joseph-ibn-shraga.

^[16] Chayat koneh, p. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19694&st=&pgnum=56&hilite=.

^[17] Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization), p. 190.

^[18] Kiryat Sefer (Venice, Bragadin) has an introduction by Chalfan.

^[19] Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization), p. 267: He writes: ‘Those who study and those who teach (Torah) have almost disappeared.. for the vain ones there many, and the scholars are rare, and there is no one to teach knowledge to or understand tradition, save one in a city or two in a family…then each one, who was unique in his generation, strove to leave behind him a blessing… in their compositions. They tirelessly tried to establish the halakhic ruling… setting forth markers so that the readers might find in their books a prepared table, with little difficulty. However, because of their (excessively) great wisdom and drowned in the deep waters, so that those who came after them nearly brought up broken vessels (i.e. were no successful in following in their predecessor’s steps) because of the large number of authorities and numerous books which have been published in the world since dissemination of the works pf the press (invention of printing). Each one takes the crown to himself, to compose books and to glean after the sheaves, in saying that our forefathers left us enough to show our skill..

^[20] Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization), 190, f. 10. The list may be found in Appendix 1 in the Hebrew edition of the above book, item no. 36.

^[21] Rabbis and Jewish Communities in Renaissance Italy (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization), p. 77 f.186.

^[22] MS. Opp. 722, fol. 395.

^[23] The note on the inside of the cover omits the missing folio no. 49, thus stating total 417 folios.

^[24] First page of Beha-alotecha Rabot is torn and missing.

^[25] In Re-eh Ibn Shaub cites a midrash that does not seem to appear in our midrash: A parable of a king who appoints a minister for his government and instructs him, face to face, to be responsible for his kingdom, conduct himself in particular a way, and not change from this path and instruction for any reason in the world at all, even if a person comes in my name, and brings my writ with my seal, do not believe it, but rather the minister should not do anything other than fulfil his command. Even if a number of righteous and trustworthy people come with my seal, he should not transgress, and if he does, he will forfeit his life. In the same way, we the house of Israel, were at Sinai, and we heard the commandments: ‘I am, and there be no other gods.’

^[26] At times, Chalfan cites Shuaib but adds in the same section from other places, as in Shuaib on parshat Korach, the continuation about Joseph is not found in ibn Shuaib’s drasha in the printed edition.

^[27] Many argue Rashi is also midrashic, but following his comment on Genesis 3:18 and the conversation with his grandson, Rabeinu Tam, the focus was aimed at only ‘peshat.’ This is also the view of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Mendel Schneerson in his extensive commentary on Rashi between 1965 and 1988.

^[28] https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/dienna-azriel-ben-solomon.

^[29] Neubauer catalogue of the Hebrew Manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, p. 204-5, No. 948.

^[30] https://www.nli.org.il/en/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/viewerpage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS#d=[[PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990025627120205171-1]].

^[31] Thank you to R. Yaakov Yisrael Setl, editor of Sefer Gematriot l’Rabeinu Yehudah Ha-chasid, for sharing this information.

^[32] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=8919&st=&pgnum=151.

^[33] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=30595&st=&pgnum=47.

^[34] See: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/view/bsb00103808?page=166,167 and https://www.nli.org.il/he/manuscripts/NNL_ALEPH990000823130205171/NLI#$FL50966396.

^[35] R. Chalfan leaves out a few and includes in the gematria section other teachings also, like ‘roshai tevot,’ under the heading gematria.

^[36] A variant can be found in the teaching in Bereishit about the twenty times in mentioned ‘oichlin’ (eats) in the parsha of the serpent, corresponding to the twenty fasts throughout the year. In a footnote to Pirush Rokeach al ha-Torah it states that the text needs fixing.

^[37] The NLI link to the details of the manuscript is: https://www.nli.org.il/he/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/itempage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docId=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990000882750205171.

^[38] They can be found partially in Sefer Gematriot of R. Yehudah ha-Chasid, partially in Ba-al ha-Turim, and some in Sefer ha-Gematriot of R. Elazar ben Moshe Hadarshan.

^[39] It’s unclear the intent of this statement and how he decides what is the finest.

^[40] Thank you to Yaakov Yisrael Setl, editor of Sefer Gematriot l’Rabeinu Yehudah Ha-chasid, for sharing this information and access to the article.

^[41] See the statement about the rejection of the identity of the author at: https://www.nli.org.il/he/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/itempage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docId=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990000882750205171.

^[42] Thank you to Yaakov Yisrael Setl, editor of Sefer Gematriot l’Rabeinu Yehudah Ha-chasid, for this information.

^[43] A further commentary by R. Elazar of Worms may be found in the Bodleian Library: MS. Opp. 720, Kabbalistic commentary on the five megillot. Other manuscripts in the Bodleian Library with gematriot include: MS. Opp. 41 (Neubauer 759), fol. 150-188, commentary on the Torah (Gematriot, beginning with Noach), by an unknown author; MS. Michael 46, fol. 104 (approx); MS. Opp. 202 Gematriot and Notariqon on Exodus by a grandson of R. Sh’muel of Spiers; MS. Michael 246 Gematriot on the Pentateuch by Daniel ben Hayyim Kalif of Amsterdam, originally from Hasenput in Kurland; he composed it in the year 1786. The MS. contains only the preface and the section Bereishit; MS Opp. 722, fol. 434, some Gematriot; MS. Op. 233 Aggadic notes and Gematriot on the Pentateuch, Esther, Ruth, and Lamentations, by R. Mosheh ben Isaac Engralsh of Cracow; he finished it the 7th of Shevat 5321 = 1561; MS. Opp. 721 Agadic notes and Gematriot; MS. Opp. 225 Fol. 27. Notes (mostly Gematriot) on the first 27 chapters of Genesis by a French Rabbi (followed on fol. 41 by a note on the time of the arrival of the messiah). Nos. 4 (?), 11, and 12 were written by Ezriel bar Eliezer, finished on Monday the 14th of Marcheshvan 5313 = 1512; Sha'are Binah by R. Elazar of Worms, in which, interpreting Biblical verses by the system of Gemaṭriot, he shows the origin of many haggadot of the Talmud. This work is frequently quoted by Solomon al-Ḳabiẓ, in his Manot ha-Levi.

^[44] In Sefer Gematriot, p. 18 f.70, it leaves this issues as an open question.

^[45] Likkutim m’Sefer ha-Gematriot al kol parsha ve-parsha (compiled from Sefer ha-Gematriot oneach Parsha), composed byR. Eliezer son of R. Moshe Hadarshan, Cod. hebr. 221, may therefore also have its source material the original Sefer Ha-gematriot: MS Opp. 27. Alternatively, there is a further, earlier Sefer Ha-gematriot, that is the source for both MS. Opp. 27, Cod. hebr. 221 and Chalfan’s MS. Opp. 722, which has been lost and is only known of by name and much of the material, found in the above manuscripts, and referenced by Shibole Ha-leket and Shem Hagedolim.

^[46] This can be found in Numbers 16:1. In comments on 16:1 and 16:30, the citation of Nachmanides are cases where Nachmanides is explaining the simple meaning of the text: in 16:1, it is explaining ‘to kill us in the dessert,’ and in 16:30, it is explaining the phrase ‘yivra’ and ‘the earth covers them.’ It omits however the mention the opinion of Rashi and the criticism of Rashi’s opinion, and instead brings only the section that presents the contrasting view of Nachmanides. The comment may begin with: ‘ve-ha-nir-eh be-eini’ (it seems in my eyes). This can be found in Shoftim about the reason for the prohibition in Deuteronomy 16:22: ‘And you shall not set up for yourself a monument.’ Rashi writes: ‘monuments (matzeivah) used to be cherished before G-d but became prohibited when accustomed by idolatry.’ Nachmanides rejects this view and asks: if so, alters also should be prohibited? Nachmanides gives an alternative reason: the stone monument refers to the custom to erect a large stone at the entrance of the temple for the priests to stand upon, in addition to an altar on which to bring sacrifices to their gods. They would also plant a tree outside the temple to show the way for those who visit. Now, Holy one, blessed be He, who hates their deeds, left only the altar for the purpose of offerings, etc. In this case, R. Chalfan (fol. 367) cites Nachmanides’ own view, while omitting Rashi’s opinion, as well as the question on Rashi.

^[47] Ideas of the author include: a. Sorcery have real power in the world but not in the heavens. This power however has been lost and people who practise today are like people who perform healing without knowledge causing harm, while some by chance healed. (Ibn Shueb, Re-eh). b. Anyone can become a future teller (kosem) or prophet (novi), like Pythagoras was said to have practiced divination and prophecy, following the view of Ibn Ezra. c. The concept of prophecy is the control of the power of intellect over ‘medameh’ and ‘devarim’ – follows Nachmanides (Iben Shueb, Re’eh). d. Free will – principle of Jewish faith (Rabeinu Bahye, Re-eh)

^[48] https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/09/the-manicule-a-hand-with-a-pointing-index-finger-becomes-a-common-marginalia-during-the-renaissance.html. Accessed 18 Sep, 2024.

^[49] https://library.missouri.edu/specialcollections/exhibits/show/glossary/page7. Accessed 18 Sep, 2024.

^[50] This appears in the printed Shulchan Aruch.

^[51] The proceeding comment on the folio is found in MS. Opp. 27, but the following comment about meat is not in any source. A further reference to Yomim Noroim may be found on fol. 347 relating to the word: ‘Zahav.’

^[52] In Sefer Gematria of R. Yehudah ha-Chassid, there is a related teaching about the number of times one should eat meat during the year, based on the verse (Numbers 11:19): ‘You shall eat not one day, not two, not even five days or ten or twenty, but a whole month.’ This corresponds to the 70 days, when one is obligated to eat meat, including 52 Shabbatot, 7 days of Passover, one day of Shavuot, one day of Rosh Hashanah, Erev Yom Kippur, 8 days of Sukkot, Purim. This is also found in the word titled (erroneously) Pirush ha-Rokeach al ha-Torah (MS. Opp. 27), and cited by R. Elijah Menachem Chalfan on Parshat Beh-alotecha (fol. 311).

^[53] Shulchan Aruch Harav, Orach Chaim, 242:2.

^[54] See Likkutei Sichot, vol. 24, p. 304, footnote 22: the reason for the joy on Rosh Hashanah is due to it being the time of G-d’s coronation that invokes great joy in the people: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14947&st=&pgnum=319&hilite=.

^[55] Hagahot Maimoniyot, Laws of Rosh Hashanah 1:1. Mordechai, Rosh Hashanah 1:1.

^[56] The Tur mentions different opinions on this subject.

^[57] With Rashi commentary.

^[58] In the next halacha it states: ‘Eat a head of a lamb saying: Let us be as a head and not a tail. It is also a remembrance of the ram of Isaac.’

^[59] Likkutei Torah, Nitzavim, Inyan Rosh Hashanah ve-Yom ha-Kippurim.

^[60] Likkutei Torah, Nitzavim, sos assis.

^[61] See Mishnah Chullin 5:3.

^[62] A related teaching relating to Rosh Hashanah, is found in MS Opp. 722, fol. 6 (with slight variants from MS. Opp. 27, perhaps a correction of the text, as required, as noted in the footnote in the printed edition): ‘The word ‘eating’ (achilot) is found 20 times in the parsha of the serpent (nachash), corresponding to the twenty fasts: Erev Rosh Hashana, seven days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, Yom Kippur, Monday-Thursday-Monday (fast of baha”b) after Sukkot, Monday-Thursday-Monday (fast of baha”b) after Passover, the four fasts (Fast of Gedaliah, tenth of Tevet, 17^th Tammuz, 9^th of Av) and Fast of Esther’ (total 20).’ The inclusion of Erev Rosh Hashanah and exluding Rosh Hashanah itself reflects an ambiguity about the nature of Rosh Hashanah itself. See Mordechai on Rosh Hashanah 448. In Chidushei Anshe Shel it cites that R. Yehudah ha-Chassid would fast on Rosh Hashanah.

^[63] For example in Naso, the Midrash Rabba relates to Me-ilah and the other authors to other parts of the Parsha. On occasion, as in parshat Re’eh, a theme can be found: on the prohibition to consult magicians, and witchcraft, despite the real power they possess.

^[64] Fols. 366 and 367.

^[65] R. Abraham, father of R. Jonah, was the brother of Nachmanides’ mother. Introduction to Rabeinu Bahye (Mossad Harav Kook).

^[66] Maimonides is mentioned in the Halfan’s commentary (fol. 367 ) in the context of Nachmanides’ commentary. In parshat Shoftim (Deuteronomy 18:3), it states: The Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] writes in the Moreh Nebuchim that the cheeks [are given to the priests] because they are the first part of the body, the shoulder is the first of the extremities of the body, and the maw is the first of the inwards, for the first of them all is given to the ministers of G-d’s name.

^[67] The commentary was first printed at Naples in 1492; Later editions of the commentary appeared at Pesaro, 1507, 1514 (Pesaro: https://hebrewbooks.org/42322), and 1517; Constantinople, 1517; Rimini, 1524; Venice, 1544, 1546 (Venice: https://hebrewbooks.org/24570, https://hebrewbooks.org/42321), 1559 (Riva di Trento: https://hebrewbooks.org/11507), 1566 (Venice: https://hebrewbooks.org/42472), 1726 (Amsterdam: https://hebrewbooks.org/36533), 1842 (Warsaw: https://hebrewbooks.org/30834), 1852 (Warsaw: https://hebrewbooks.org/30835), 1942 (Grosswardein: https://hebrewbooks.org/38018), and later.

^[68] https://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2004/important-hebrew-manuscripts-from-the-montefiore-endowment-n08040/lot.53.html.

^[69] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=30594&st=&pgnum=57.

^[70] MS, Bodleian Library.

^[71] See Fabrizio Lelli’s chapter: On the Mysteries of the Law: A Conversation Between Pietro Aretino and Rabbi Elijah Menahem Halfan.

^[72] https://ikonavenezia.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Ikona-Venezia-Finding-Fioretta-Images-Family-Tree.pdf.

^[73] https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/manetti-giannozzodeg.

^[74] Rashi explains the reason is because it is a form of theft for them to engage in the Torah that was given to the Jews.

^[75] Teshuvot ha-Rambam (makitze nirdamim) vol. 1: 149. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1730&st=&pgnum=299. See b’emareh habezek, vol. 2:88, f.5 that cites the view that it is only permitted to teach a non-Jew Torah if it is for the purpose of coversion, similar to the story of Hilel and the converyt in Shabbat 31a, Chiidushe Agadot..

^[76] Me-at de-vash P. 11. https://tablet.otzar.org/?lang=en#/b/150040/p/10/t/1726405251058/fs/0/start/0/end/0/c/1726405279316.

^[77] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_ben_Jehiel_Loans.

^[78] Jewish Life in Renaissance Italy, Robert Bonfil, p. 175.

^[79] https://datashare.ed.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10283/2070/Database%20of%20Italian%20Humanists%20and%20Jews.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 17 Sep, 2024.

^[80] Kaufmann, David (1897), ‘Elia Menachem Chalfan on Jews Teaching Hebrew to Non-Jews’, in The Jewish Quarterly Review 9/3: 500–508.

^[81] David Reubeni mentions he met 45 Jews in Rome who had converted to Christianity.

^[82] Salo Baron, vol. 13, p. 165.

^[83] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1497&st=&pgnum=144&hilite=.

^[84] David Kaufmann, ‘Elia Menahem Chalfan on Jews teaching Hebrew to Non-Jews,’ Jewish Quarterly Review 9 (1896), p. 500-508.

^[85] Jewish life in Renaissance Italy, Robert Bonfil, p. 174-5.

^[86] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 109-10.

^[87] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 108.

^[88] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 108.

^[89] See fols. 101 and 102, portion of Vayishlach, where it includes the Kabbalistic interpretation of Rabeinu Bahye, with subject title ‘Kabbalah’ in the margin.

^[90] Salo Baron, vol. 13, p. 165.

^[91] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 106.

^[92] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 110-111.

^[93] Fabrizio Lelli, Connecting Histories, p. 112.

^[94] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 24.

^[95] Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4, 1524-1530 – see 14 citations in the index: Raphael, Mark, a Jew, 6156, 6236, 6239, 6240, 6250?, 6266, 6300, 6375, 6398, 6414, 6541, 6656, 6786. Raphael, p. 1395. By 4^th March, 1531, Marco Rafael, who had renounced Judaism, was resident in England, and was in great favour with the King for having written against the dispensation granted by Julius II. He was employed by the Signory as a secretary in the cypher department (Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Vol. 4, 1527-1533, pages vii-xxxvii. www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol4/vii-xxxvii . Accessed 25 August, 2017). He was subsequently also rewarded by being granted a license to import six hundred tons of Gascon and two woads in 1532 (Gardner, Letters and Papers of Henry VIII, v. 485). It’s not clear if he converted before giving his opinion about the divorce or after, thus allowing him to move to England.

^[96] Son of astronomer Abba Mari Halfan, and grandson of Joseph Colon.

^[97] Yaakov Bar Yosef, H Schonfield, History of Jewish Christianity, p. 98.

^[98] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 30.

^[99] Calendar of State Papers Relating To English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Vol. 4, 1527-1533, pages vii-xxxvii. www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/venice/vol4/vii-xxxvii . Accessed 25 August, 2017.

^[100] Mantino, born in Spain, left with the expulsion of the Jews 1492, graduated in medicine from the University of Padua in 1521, and practiced first in Bologna, then Verona in 1527 and Venice in 1528, where he lived with special privileges exempted from wearing the Jewish hat (Judenhut). In 1529, he was consulted by Clement VII regarding the divorce and in reward for opposing Henry’s supporters, who also sought his support, was appointed lecturer in medicine in Bologna. In 1533 he was invited to Rome and in 1534, Pope Paul appointed Mantino as his personal physician, while serving in Rome as rabbi with the title Gaon. Between 1539-41 he was appointed professor of practical medicine at the Sapienza in Rome. In 1544 he returned to Venice and died in 1549 while accompanying, as physician, the Venetian ambassador to Damascus (Encyclopedia Judaica).

^[101] Katz, David S., The Jews in the History of England 1485-1850, p. 35.

^[102] Ibid, p. 41.

^[103] The same is true if it is against his will. See discussion in Talmud Yevamot 54a. The reason is since the consummation of a levirate marriage entails merely the completion of a marriage that is automatically in existence upon the death of the brother.

Anti-Semitism at Oxford during WWII

Mon, 20 May 2024 5:55:00 AM

One of the oldest hatreds in the world is Anti-Semitism. This has taken on many forms, from ancient times until today, giving rise to countless books, including the three volume 'History fo Anti-Senmitism' by Leon Poliakov, and countless articles on its causes and ways to counter it. The most recent form in Anti-Semitism, according to the late Lord Sacks, is a campaign against Israel's right to exist and defend itself: many times anti-Zionism masking a deeper antisemitism. In this essay, we would like to look at the more classic form of Anti-Semitism that existed in England during the Second World War at Oxford with the rise of refugees escaping the Nazis in Europe and the bombing in London.

Jewish life at Oxford during WWII

A case study is the city of Oxford, before and during the Second World War, in light of an increase in size of the Jewish community in the city. Anti-Semitism in Oxford took two forms: relating to campaign against Jewish academics seeking a university position, as in the case of Isaiah Berlin’s appointment to All Souls, Albert Einstein to Christ Church and Hans Krebs’ admission into a Common Room. The second form was a popular negative attitude towards Jewish refugees. The Jewish population of Oxford had risen noticeably during the Second World War, as a result of the evacuation of Jewish mothers and children, blind persons, hospital patients and others from London. Reflecting the growth, instead of approximately 30 families before the war, over 200 people attended synagogue on Yom Kippur in 1939.

In the same year, it was believed there were some 200 London children in Oxford and more in the surrounding districts. During this time, numerous organisations were founded and flourished, including Oxford University Jewish Society (OUJS); Oxford Zionist Society (formed in 1939); Oxford Women’s Zionist Society (November, 1940); Theodor Herzl society; Federation of Women Zionists (FWZ); Jewish National Fund (JNF); The Jufra Club, which served during the war as rallying point for German-Jewish women and girls, chaired for its first two years, until April, 1941, by Mrs. Ettinghausen; Oxford Jewish Youth Club (November 1940); and The Jewish Religious Union (January, 1941). In December, 1939, the local branch of FWZ merged with the Oxford Zionist Society.

A Jewish Voluntary Choir was formed in Oxford in December 1940, conducted by Mr S. Alman, the Musical Director of the Hampstead Synagogue. Other groups formed within the community, including a knitting party, organised by Mrs J.J. Marks in April, 1941, which met every Monday evening. In January 1940, Rev J. Weinberg formed a Young People’s Social Circle, which met every Sunday evening in the Vestry Room of the synagogue. Aware of the difficulties facing Jews in Europe, a Sefer Torah, rescued from Germany, was deposited at the Oxford synagogue in November 1939, was used for the first time during a special service to mark the anniversary of Kristallnacht.

Anti-Semitism in Oxford during WWII

This increase in the presence of Jews to Oxford led to an increase in Anti-Semitism. This occurred, most conspicuously, surrounding the circumstances related to obtaining kosher meat and its distribution. In the beginning of December, 1939, a committee was appointed by the community to examine the question of the supply of kosher meat. This was still an issue in November 1940, reflected in a notice in the Jewish Chronicle: Letter from ’Oxford Evacuee’ re kasher meat. Better than merely ’discussing’ the matter, could have invited a kasher butcher to open a shop. Orthodox Jews have to await parcels of meat from Birmingham and it is distressing to find Jewish women having to buy ‘trefa.’ In March 1941, the Oxford community was thought to number 5,000 and was assured of a supply of kosher meat. Thanks to Jewish Chronicle for the publicity, one of Oxford’s leading non-Jewish butchers, Mr R.A. Butterfield, had arranged for official consent for shochetim to slaughter at the Oxford City abattoir. Around a thousand registrations at Mr Butterfield’s establishment at the Central Market, a figure more or less maintained throughout the war, saw part of the market portioned off as a kosher meat shop with Jewish supervision. About 150 fowls were sold every week. By May, due to difficulty in obtaining live fowls, the figure had reduced by more than half. On 3 October 1941, it was reported that good relations with the Town Hall authorities was shown by the opening of the Market on Sunday, the eve of the New Year, for the first time in the history of the Market, so that Jews could have access to the butcher shop. The request was made by the local minister.

On 10 October 1941, it was reported by a letter from ‘Oxford Evacuee’ that there are queues for kosher meat but under control. On 17 October 1941, a letter from ‘Another Customer’ says that the ‘scenes at the kosher butchers are causing anti-Semitism. Obviously, it continued, it has been difficult for a community of 30 souls to be swollen suddenly to 2,000.’ On 24 October 1941, once again, a letter from Joseh Hirsch reported that as a member of the Oxford Jewish Congregation he wrote to the Committee on July 28 pointing out the unsatisfactory state of meat distribution. The letter was not acknowledged, however, nor a second letter to the wardens. He writes: ‘some people are buying trefa meat because of difficulty of buying kosher meat. He has been informed that some are buying trefa meat and koshering it.’On 31 October 1941, it was reported in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle regarding the growth of anti-Semitism in Oxford, referred to in sermon in synagogue during Kol Nidrei. It stated that scenes at the kosher butcher are a cause and reflected in advertisement columns of the local press. In Jews of Oxford, on this subject, it omits the subject of Anti-Semitism in this regard, saying rather: ‘There were public relation problems, gradually solved, in the large Jewish queues in the narrow alleys of the Covered Market, and the customers themselves complained that the shop was not kept in a clean state and that fowls were killed in the shop in the presence of women and children.’

Anti-Semitism in England during the war

This spilled over into Oxford: In January, 1941, the Mass Observation Unit reported ‘there is a lot of Anti-Semitic feelings in Oxford, particularly towards the middle-class refugees, but not the working class.’ Hostility facing Jews in Oxford involved also classic Anti-Semitic motifs. In October, a prominent Zionist official claimed to have been lured into a field by a soldier and told: ‘You are a Jew and you and your like will be turned out of Oxford. Now hand over all the money you have.’ A factor was housing shortage. Working class people were losing their accommodation to better paying middle class refugees. The issue was the influx of refugees, mostly Jews, but others also, to Oxford, doubling between December, 1939 and December, 1940 to 2,000, of whom 275 males and 702 females were enemy aliens. This led to the problem of overcrowding and tension. As a response to Anti-Semitism, in July 1943, a conference on anti-Semitism was held at Oxford Union Society’s Hall on Saturday. Forty delegates represented trade unions and other organisations, though no Jewish organisations were invited. The Very Rev Dean of Christ Church presided. Speeches were made by Rev R.R. Martin, Rural Dean of Oxford, Mr Bellinger, Chairman of the Oxford Trades & Labour Council, and Mrs Corbett-Ashby, Vice-president of the Liberal Party. Anti-Semitism was predicted by the Mass Observation Unit reports during the war that admittance of too many Jews will trigger Anti Semitism, playing a role in limiting immigration.

Approaches

There are two classic approaches to respond to Anti-Semitism: the first, make oneself less noticeable through assimilation. In Oxford, during the 1920s, this group could themselves the 'assmilationists,' as recorded in 'Jews of Oxford' by Prof. David M. Lewis. A second approach is to remain firm in one’s identity in the face of opposition and education. As then, a more constructive approach to counter Anti-Semitism in all its forms, is to remain firm and employ sound reason to argue that the path forward for civilazation is to finally remove this scourge and build a world of tolerance and peace for all people.

HAGGAI OF OXFORD

Thu, 9 May 2024 4:37:00 PM

On the site of the Osney Mill Marina, on Mill Street, Oxford, on the remains of Osney Abbey, there is a plaque, erected in 1931 by Professor of semitic languages, Herbert Loewe, commemorating one of the first known burnings at the stake for heresy in England. This was performed against Haggai of Oxford, formerly known as Robert of Reading, a deacon, who converted to Judaism, and married a Jewish woman. When ordered to recant, he refused, and an edict was passed at the Council of Oxford, convened by Stephen Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury (1150-1228), that he should be degraded and immediately delivered to the fire.^[1] This took place on Sunday, 17 April 1222 AD, corresponding to the Hebrew date: 4 Iyyar 4982.

The plaque on the former site of Osney Abbey, unveiled by Professor Charles Seligman (1870-1940), states:^[2]

Near this stone in Osney Abbey,
Robert of Reading,
Otherwise Haggai of Oxford,
Suffered for his faith
On Sunday 17 April 1222 A.D.
Corresponding to 4 Iyyar 4982 A.M

Another martyrdom took place in Oxford 333 years later, in 1555, against the three bishops of the Church of England: Hugh Latimer, Nicholas Ridley and Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who were burned at the stake for their faith during the reign of Queen Mary. Latimer and Ridley were burnt on 16 October 1555, while Cranmer was burnt five months later on 21 March 1556. A Victorian era spire-like martyrs’ memorial stands at the south end of St Giles to commemorate this event. In this essay, we will present the story told by this plaque in the primary sources, study the variants between the sources, which questions its accuracy and ways in which one can understand the context of the incident in Jewish tradition and law in 13^th century England.

1222 conversion

The mention of the Jewish martyrdom at Oxford of 1222, may be found in the annals of Walter of Coventry (flourished 1290–1300), in Memoriale Fratris Walteri de Coventria.^[3] Solomon Grayzel (1896-1980) cites the account in ‘The Church and the Jews in the 13^th century: A study of their relations during the years 1198-1254, based on the Papal letters and the conciliar decrees of the period’ (1933):^[4] ‘According to Walter of Coventry, a deacon who had converted to Judaism was at this Council (The Council of Oxford, April 17, 1222) condemned to be burned.’^[5] While the details of the case varies between the sources, the key facts may be gleaned from the following five sources, collated by English historian and jurist Frederic Maitland (1850-1906): Walter of Coventry, Ralph of Coggeshall , Henry of Bracton, Waverly, Cistercian house of Waverley and Dunstable Priory. As some of the annals record events year by year, they suggest immediate records of events as they transpired, others within a few years after the event. The recording of the incident in five annals indicates the basic facts of episode certainly occurred.

No mention

Some annals, however, do not mention the Council of Oxford at all, including the annals of Burton, Worcester, and Bermondsey.’^[6] The annals of Winchester, Tewkesbury, and also Osney, where the burning of the deacon took place, mentions the Council of Oxford, but no mention of the deacon. The absent of the mention of the account, however, does not suggest the incident did not happen, as Maitland points out, monastic annalists recorded events based on merely what might be of interest to their Abbey or ‘struck his fancy, making sometimes what seems to us a very capricious selection of facts.’^[7] One may argue, then, that a reason for the omission of the burning of the deacon convert to Judaism in the Osney annals where the event took place, may suggest an embarrassment of the incident and attempt to cover up the event in the records. The insignificance of the event can hardly be a reason, as it was recorded in the annals of other Abbeys further away. English historian and jurist Frederic Maitland FBA^[8] writes this was the only recorded death by burning in nearly two hundred years in England, until the death of William Sautre in 1402, after the authorisation of the Statute of Heresy.^[9]

Council of Oxford

The martyrdom of the deacon who converted to Judaism may be seen in the context of harsh reality of the Jews of England in the 13^th century, when the church had power and dictated policy, upheld to varying degrees, over affairs of the countries of Europe. The decree to have the deacon convert to death by burning took place at the Council of Oxford, under Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury. At the same Synod, a number of anti-Jewish laws were enacted, restricting life for the Jews of England. This included prohibiting social relations between Jews and Christians, church tithes were levied against Jews, and the wearing of a Jewish badge.^[10] The construction of new synagogues was also prohibited. In addition, earlier rules set out at the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 were enforced.^[11] In the Fourth Lateran Council, seventy Canons were decreed, four (67-70) of which consisted of rules in relation to Jews. This included: 1. Jews should be compelled to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings to the churches, and refrain from immoderate interest on loans. 2. Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province must be distinguished from the Christian by a difference of dress. On Passion Sunday and the last three days of Holy Week they may not appear in public.^[12] 3. Jews are not to be given public offices. Anyone instrumental in doing this is to be punished. A Jewish official is to be denied all intercourse with Christians. 4. Jews who have received baptism are to be restrained by the prelates from returning to their former rite.^[13]

Robert of Reading – Haggai of Oxford 1275

A second story of a Christian convert to Judaism in England in the 13^th century occurred in 1275, by a Dominican preacher, Robert of Reading, who studied Hebrew, at the initiative of Catalan Dominican friar, Raymond de Penyaforte (1175-1275), in order to convert Jews to Christianity through their own writings, but instead became inspired by Judaism, converted, chose the name Haggai, and married a Jewish woman in the summer of 1275. This story is recorded by Professor Heinrich Gratez (1817-1891) in History of the Jews,^[14]concluding that despite Haggai defending his new faith after being summoned to answer for his apostasy, and Edward I handing him over for punishment to the archbishop of Canterbury, it appears he was left unharmed. While Christian conversion to Judaism appear to be rare, the conversions of 1222 and 1275 were not the first cases of Christian clergy converting to other religions in Europe, as Vecelin, chaplain of Duke Konrad, a relative of the Holy Emperor Henri II (973-1024) converted to Judaism in 1005,^[15] and Renant, Duke of Sens, in 1015.^[16] In addition, Pope Gregory IX, on March 3, 1231 addressed the issue of poor Christians converting to Islam.^[17] The story of Robert of Reading is also found in Shevet Yehudah, written by Solomon ibn Verga (b. 1460).

1275 conversion and the expulsion

According to Heinrich Gratez, there is a direct line from the conversion of 1275 to the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290. Incited by the Dominicans and the queen-mother, Eleanor, the House of Commons passed a statute called the Statute of Judaism (Statutum de Judeismo), in 1275, prohibiting usury, allowed to reside only in royal cities and boroughs, limited ability to collect full loans, beyond their property, Easter tax of three pence to the king for every Jew above twelve years of age, the enforcement of the wearing of badges and forbade all interaction with Christians. This was followed in 1278 by the false counterfeit and coin clipping allegations, which led to the imprisonment of all the Jews of England, together with their wives and children, on Friday, 17th November, 1278. In total, 293 Jews were hanged, and others imprisoned and expelled. In 1279, a massacre of the Jews of London took place on 2 April, in response to the allegation of the crucifixion of a Christian child by the Jews of Northampton. In 1280, in response to allegation of Jews disrespecting Christian emblems, Jews were forced to attend sermons by Dominicans without contradiction, and in May, 1281, the king bestowed the chief rabbinate on Eleanor’s favoured choice for the position, Hagin (Chaim) Denlacres, and his heirs. On the 16^th of April, 1287, after a Church assembly in Exeter, all the canonical resolutions against the Jews were renewed, and all the Jews of England, including women and children were arrested and not released until 2 May for a large ransom. Incited further by the Dominicans and the queen mother, due to allegations before Pope Honorius IV that baptized Jews were being encouraged to return to Judaism, and Christians were being invited on Shabbat and festivals to the synagogue, enticing them to adopt Jewish custom, Edward I issued an edict on 18 July, 1290, without consent of parliament, for expulsion of all the Jews from England by 1^st November. By 9^th of October, 16,511 Jews left the country, not to return for hundreds of years.

Cecil Roth argues, however, the reason for the expulsion had more to do with economics: the failure of the aims of the Statute of Judaism, prohibiting usury^[18] and for Jews to work in more conventional occupations. This effort was in fact defeated by oppressive decrees of the Lateran Councils that prohibited interaction between Jews and Christians, and an impoverished community no longer useful, led to their expulsion.^[19]

H.H. Ben-Sasson in A History of the Jewish People,^[20] argues further that the Statute of Judaism, prohibiting Jews from practising usury was a response, not to the conversion of the deacon, but in response to a ban on usury inspired by a will left by Prince Brabant in 1261, expelling all Jews and Christian money lenders, except those who give up usury and turn to commerce. Thomas Aquinas wrote in response to the widow in March 1274 that Jews may not be deprived of all that is necessary to sustain life, but one may also not benefit from Jewish property, as this is benefiting from usury. They would do better to compel the Jews to work for their living, as is done in parts of Italy, rather than to allow them to live in idleness and grow rich from usury. It was a year after this theologically based decision that Edward I put this in practice with the Statute of Judaism, which categorically prohibited the practise of usury, while expressly permitting them to be merchants and craftsmen and lease land for the purpose of cultivation for up to ten years. However, this was not for the benefit of the Jews, and led to a worsening of their situation, since they still had to wear badges of infamy and restriction on where they may live. This led to a proposal to reverse the probation on usury in 1290, as long as interest did not accrue more than three years. However, the expulsion brought this to a close without it ever having reached the law books.^[21]

Discrepancy in the 1222 martyrdom

Despite the reliability of the main facts of what happened in 1222, there are significant discrepancies between the accounts in the 13^th century. The five 13^th century accounts of the event are as follows:

1. Walter of Coventry

In Memoriale of Walter of Coventry, the account is recorded by a canon of Barnwell, as follows:^[22] ‘But another deacon had sinned enormously; he had renounced the Christian faith; blaspheming and apostatising, he had caused himself to be circumcised in imitation of the Jewish rite. He was degraded by the lord of Canterbury outside the church and before the people. Relinquished by the clergy, he was as a layman and captured apostate delivered over to be condemned by the judgment of the lay court, and being at once (statim) delivered to the flames he died a miserable death.’

2. Ralph of Coggeshall

English chronicler Ralph of Coggeshall (died after 1227) writes:^[23]‘degraded an apostate deacon, who for the love of a Jewess had circumcised himself. When he had been degraded he was burnt by the servants of the lord Fawkes.

3. Henry of Bracton

Jurist and cleric Harry of Bracton (c. 1210 – c. 1268), author of De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliæ^[24] (On the Laws and Customs of England) records the event: ‘Unless indeed he is convicted of apostasy, for then he is to be first degraded and then burnt by the lay power (per manum laicalem), as happened at the Oxford Council holden by Stephen Archbishop of Canterbury of happy memory, touching a deacon who apostatised for a Jewess, and who, when he had been degraded by the bishop, was at once (statim) delivered to the fire by the lay power.’

4. Cistercian house of Waverley

In the annals of England’s oldest Abbey, Cistercian house of Waverley in Surrey, it states:^[25] ‘In this council an apostate deacon who had married (duxerat) a Jewess was degraded and afterwards burnt.’

5. Prior Richard Morins of Dunstable priory

Prior of the Dunstable priory, Richard de Morins, also known as Richard of Mores (c. 1161–1242), records the event in the Dunstable Annals, as a possible eyewitness: ‘In this council there was condemned to the flames, after his degradation, a deacon who for the love of a Jewess had been circumcised; and he was burnt with fire outside the town by the king’s bailiffs who were present on the spot (ibidem praesentes).’

a. Apostasy / blaspheming

The common facts of the story are pertaining to three of the details: the episode happened with a deacon, as recorded by all five accounts, and that he was burnt alive. The reasons for this punishment is however unclear. In four of the above sources, it says he was an apostate. In one source, the Prior of the Dunstable priory, by Richard de Morins, a possible eyewitness, it writes: ‘for the love of a Jewess had been circumcised,’ with no mention of apostasy. Only in one source, in the annals of Walter of Coventry, does it say the deacon was guilty of blaspheming, while the other four sources does not mention this allegation.

b. Circumcision

In three of the sources, it states as a reason for his punishment was the fact that he had himself circumcised. This is found in the account of Walter of Coventry, and Ralph of Coggeshall andDunstable priory. The other two accounts, by Cistercian house of Waverley and Henry of Bracton, there is no mention of circumcision.

c. Reason for circumcision

Among the three accounts that mentions circumcision, there is difference of opinion what the motive for circumcision was. In the account of Walter of Coventry, it states: in imitation of the Jewish rite, while Ralph of Coggeshall andRichard de Morins write: for the love of a Jewess.

d. For the love of a Jewess

The involvement of a Jewish woman as a motive for the conversion is itself contested in the versions of the accounts. In Memoriale of Walter of Coventry, it omits any mention of a motive or involvement of a Jewish woman in the conversion of circumcision of the deacon. On the contrary, it offers an account that suggests no ulterior motive, other than ‘in imitation of the Jewish rite.’ In the four other accounts, however, mention is made of a Jewish woman, as part of the narrative.

e. Role of the Jewess

Amongst the four accounts that does mentioned the involvement of a woman, there is significant difference amongst the sources, what precise role the Jewish woman played in the narrative of the deacon’s conversion: In the account of Ralph of Coggeshall, the deacon was already an apostate, but circumcised himself for love of a Jewess. The Jewish woman, according to this account, was not the cause for his apostasy, suggesting he had already apostatised on his own accord from Christianity, followed by which he met a Jewish woman, whom he wished to marry. This would mean his conversion to Judaism was not necessarily motivated by the love for the Jewess but had his own prior motives. The same is the case regarding the account of Cistercian house of Waverley, where it states: ‘an apostate deacon who had married (duxerat) a Jew,’ suggesting he may have been already an apostate deacon, who later married a Jew. According to these two sources, then, the unusually harsh punishment was not for the fact that he was an apostate per se, but that he married a Jewish woman, and converted to Judaism. In just one source, in the account of possibly eyewitness, Richard de Morins, Prior of the Dunstable priory, it suggests that the deacon was not an apostate prior to having met the Jewess, and the deacon’s conversion to Judaism, including having himself circumcised was for the love of a Jewess. This latter account – the deacon was wholly motivated to convert and circumcise for love of a Jewess - is reflected in the statement by Frederic Maitland, who unquestioningly accepts the narrative, twice using the word ‘pervert’ in relation to the deacon,^[26] despite four accounts suggesting otherwise.

Converting for love

This question about the authenticity of the account that the deacon converted to ‘Judaism for love of the Jewess’ is an issue also in Jewish law: is ulterior motive for conversion to Judaism valid? The primary text that deals with conversion in Jewish law is the Talmud in ‘tractate gerim’ (converts), where it precludes one who converts for marriage. It states (1:7):

Anyone who becomes a proselyte for the sake of [marrying a Jewish] woman, or out of fear, or love is not a proselyte. Similarly R. Judah and R. Nehemiah said: All [the Gentiles] who were converted in the days of Mordecai and Esther were not genuine proselytes, as it is stated, ‘And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them.’ Anyone who is not converted from purely religious motives is not a proselyte.

Maimonides codifies this in Mishneh Torah, laws of forbidden relations (13:14):

The proper way of performing the mitzvah is when a male or a female prospective convert comes, we inspect his motives for conversion. Perhaps he is coming for the sake of financial gain, in order to receive a position of authority, or he desires to enter our faith because of fear. For a man, we check whether he focused his attention on a Jewish woman. For a woman, we check whether she focused her attention on a Jewish youth. If we find no ulterior motive, we inform them of the heaviness of the yoke of the Torah and the difficulty the common people have in observing it so that they will abandon [their desire]. If they accept [this introduction] and do not abandon their resolve and thus we see that they are motivated by love, we accept them, as [indicated by Ruth 1:18]: "And she saw that she was exerting herself to continue with her and she ceased speaking with her."

Based on Maimonides’ code of Jewish law, Mishneh Torah, R. Jacob ben Judah Chazan of London in 1279 compiled a similar compendium of Jewish law, Etz Chaim (Tree of Life) for England, with rulings and customs that reflect Ashkenazic customs and traditions. In this work he gathered Maimonides’ writing on conversion spread in three places throughout his work (Avodah Zara ch. 10, Issurei Biah ch. 13-14, Melachim ch. 5, 8 & 10) and revised them to be a stand alone section entitled: ‘laws of converts’ (hilchot gerim). In this section, he writes: ‘The order of accepting righteous converts is when he comes to convert, one should check if it is because of fear or lust for a Jewish woman. He concludes, however, as Maimonides does: ‘When a court did not check a [potential] converts background and did not inform him of the mitzvot and the punishment for [the failure to observe] the mitzvot and he circumcised himself and immersed in the presence of three ordinary people, he is a convert. Even if it is discovered that he converted for an ulterior motive, since he circumcised himself and converted, he has departed from the category of gentiles and we view him with skepticism until his righteousness is revealed.’^[27]

Uncertainty

Based on the above five variants in the accounts of this event, beyond the two details that are found in all the narratives, that the episode occurred with a deacon, who converted to Judaism and that he was burnt, there is lack of certainty what exactly occurred, the sequence and for what justification. This has considerable implications for the nature of the event and justification for the unusual punishment, as Maitland point out, even for 13^th century England. This unusual and perhaps unjustified punishment, even in the law of 13^th century England, may explain perhaps why the whole event was not recorded in the annals of Osney Abbey, where the event took place.

For this reason,it seems,American historian Solomon Grayzel (1896-1980), author of A History of the Jews, limits the description of the event to a bear minimum, in his book, ‘The Church and the Jews in the 13^th century’ (1933), he cites Walter of Coventry’s account, but omits much of the unsubstantiated details recorded there. He writes:^[28] ‘According to Walter of Coventry, a deacon who had converted to Judaism was at this Council (The Council of Oxford, April 17, 1222) condemned to be burned.’^[29]

Agreement – date and unnamed

As mentioned, despite the above discrepancies in the 13^th century accounts, there is agreement that the event took place concerning a certain deacon, who converted to Judaism and was subsequently burnt. The date of the Council of Oxford and thus when the martyrdom took place is also agreed, as the accounts state that the deacon was degraded and then burnt. In some of the accounts, in states: ‘on the spot’ (ibidem praesentes) or ‘at once’ (statim), clarifying the punishment took place the same day as the Council of Oxford convened: 17 April, 1222. There is also agreement in all the five sources that the name of the deacon is unknown, and certainly the name of the Jewess is unknown.

Osney Abbey plaque

Based on the above study, we may analyse the modern plaque, set up in 1931 by Hebrert Loewe, commemorating the martyrdom on the former site of Osney Abbey. It states:^[30]

Near this stone in Osney Abbey,
Robert of Reading,
Otherwise Haggai of Oxford,
Suffered for his faith
On Sunday 17 April 1222 A.D.
Corresponding to 4 Iyyar 4982 A.M

The date and location is indeed correct since the event took place immediately after the degrading of the deacon, undertaken at the Council of Oxford on 17 April, 1222, corresponding to 4 Iyyar 4982. The ambiguity of the reason for the martyrdom - ‘Suffered for his faith’ - is deliberate, as explained above, since there is lack of clarity whether he suffered because of his Jewish faith, having performed circumcision and converted to Judaism, or his apostasy and blasphemy against Christianity, which took place independently of and prior to converting to Judaism. Certainly, however, at the time of his death, he had converted to Judaism, and is thus considered a martyr in the Jewish tradition. Reflecting, however, the minimalist interpretation of the sequence of what transpired, the author of the plaque decided on the non-descript line: ‘suffered for his faith.’

There seems to be however difficulty in the decision of the author of the plaque to give a name to the deacon, not mentioned in any of the five 13^th century accounts. The plaque names the deacon: ‘Robert of Reading, otherwise known as Haggai of Oxford.’ This is not necessarily contradictory to the five 13^th accounts, since they in fact give no name to the deacon, it is inconsistent with the mention by Graetz, that Robert of Reading, known as Haggai, converted without any punishment in 1275, 15 years prior to the expulsion. Loewe combines two distinct episodes into a single event. A reason for this mistake may be from the fact that Herbert Loewe may have used the book, The Church and the Jews in the 13^th century’ by Solomon Grayzel, found in his personal library, containing his name and address as Queens’ College, Cambridge on the inside front cover.^[31] Since the book states: ‘According to Walter of Coventry, a deacon who had converted to Judaism was at this Council (The Council of Oxford, April 17, 1222) condemned to be burned,’ without a name, he confused the name of the deacon who converted in 1275 with the deacon of 1222. Alternatively, the name Haggai was also the name the deacon assumed in 1222.^[32]

Cecil Roth, in Encyclopedia Judaica, published in 1971, under the entry Robert of Reading, writes: ‘English convert to Judaism. A Dominican friar, he was stimulated by his study of the Bible to adopt the Jewish religion, under the name Haggai, and subsequently married a Jewess.’ Roth adds, however: ‘he is often confused with an anonymous Oxford deacon who converted to Judaism and was burned in 1222. So far as is known, he did not suffer in consequence, though some chroniclers seem to suggest that the episode was partly responsible for the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290.’^[33] His use of the phrase ‘suffer’ is in reference to the wording in Loewe’s deemed inaccurate plaque: ‘Robert of Reading, otherwise Haggai of Oxford, suffered for his faith on Sunday 17 April 1222 A.D.’

In addition, it would seem implausible Robert of Reading took place in 1222, since, as Graetz mentions, the conversion of Robert of Reading was inspired by his study of Hebrew and, as Roth writes, ‘study of the Bible. This was an initiative of Catalan friar, Raymond de Penyaforte (1175-1275), to convert Jews to Christianity through their own writings, instituted in 1236 at the Provincial Chapter of the Dominican Order of Paris, to set up schools for the study of Oriental languages, including Hebrew (Studia Linguarum) for missionary purposes.^[34] The date 1236 precludes the conversion of Robert of Reading to have taken place earlier in 1222.

In conclusion, we have presented the case of the deacons who converted to Judaism in the 13^th century, one of whom was martyred at Osney Abbey on 17^th April, 1222. We demonstrated that when looking closely at the records, the details of the actual event, including apostasy, blasphemy, circumcision and inauthentic conversion only for love of a Jewish women, are all uncertain and should be suspect. In addition, the plaque at Osney Mill Marina on the site of the former Osney Abbey is certainly inaccurate, as Cecil Roth points on in 1977. Nevertheless, the basic episode of a deacon who circumcised and converted to Judaism and married a Jewish woman, most likely after he had decided to leave his former faith, had a tragic end by becoming a martyr of the Jewish people, being burnt at the stake for his belief Sunday, 17 April 1222 A.D, corresponding to 4^th Iyyar. With the detailed knowledge that is acknowledged as true, the anniversary of his passing should be commemorated, following Jewish tradition, as a day of memorial, known as a yahrtzeit, for the Jewish community of Oxford, allowing his memory to be a blessing.^[35]

^[1] Solomon Graysel, p. 50: Jews were not subjects of church government, only the state could rule them and responsible for them.Church had difficulty getting the nobility to follow its orders. It therefore resorted to threats of excommunication against Christians who did not follow the church’s Jewish policy. If the prelate was also civil head of a district, church regulations were easily enforceable. When not, the prelate would sometimes take authority in his own hands, without any objection. In the Council of Oxford, the clergy were urged to inflict upon the Jews not only regular punishment of the boycott, but also any extraordinary punishment the local church might devise. This seems to have been the case with the Deacon convert in 1222. In some cases, Solomon Graysel writes (p. 314), tension existed between the church and the civil powers, for example, Archbishop Stephen Langton and Hugo de Welles, Bishop of Lincoln, and also the Bishop of Norwich decreed not to sell food to Jews, but was defeated by the king by a counter letter to the Sheriff of Lincoln and Mayor of Canterbury.

^[2] https://www.oxfordhistory.org.uk/streets/inscriptions/south_west/robert_reading.html.

^[3] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Walter-of-Coventry. He probably belonged to a religious house in the diocese of York. Walter was not a historian or chronicler in his own right; he merely brought together the works of Marianus Scotus, Florence of Worcester, Henry of Huntingdon, Roger of Hoveden, and an anonymous annalist from the Augustinian priory of Barnwell, Cambridgeshire. The Barnwell chronicle, the most important part of Walter’s collection, covers the period 1201–25 and is the most valuable contemporary source for King John’s reign and especially for his struggle with the church and the English barons. The last date given in the Memoriale is 1293. See Historical Collections of Walter of Coventry. Preface by Dr Stubbs, vol. II., p. ix, cited by Frederic William Maitland, vol. 1.

^[4] P. 314.

^[5] Cf. Rigg and JHSE, 1. c. (Cf. H. Finke p. 50), and it is to this that Gratez (l. c.) thinks the Council here refers.

^[6] Dr Luard’s Preface, p. x, cited by Maitland: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/fisher-the-collected-papers-of-frederic-william-maitland-vol-1.

^[7] https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/fisher-the-collected-papers-of-frederic-william-maitland-vol-1.

^[8] https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/fisher-the-collected-papers-of-frederic-william-maitland-vol-1.

^[9] Punishments for heresy was usually immurement, as evident from the punishment delivered to a priest at the same Council of Oxford.

^[10] Shevet Yehudah, p. 77: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44236&st=&pgnum=69. Solomon Graysel, regarding badges, p. 68, p. 315 and regarding badge for women p. 314 footnote 3.

^[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Oxford.

^[12] Solomon Graysel, p. 34: Innocent III complained to the king of France that on Good Friday, Jews by their improprieties dissuade Christians from worshipping, and in IV Lateran council urged its repression and establishment of a Jewish badge. Local councils went furtherforbade appearance of Jews during holy week, forbade work on Sundays and holidays, closed Jewish owned markets and even within their homes not eat meat whenever Christians were forbidden. Pope Alexander III ordered on holy days Jews to keep their doors and windows closed. Avignon in 1243 also ordered Jews above nine must hide from view when meeting a host-bearing procession, or pay a fine of five soldi. In Pamiers, Jews were forbidden entering public squares on Sundays. By the end of the 14^th century, Jews of Spain were ordered by civil constitution to kneel at the passage of the host. James I of Aragon in the 13^th century already issued this decree. In the Aiete Partidas responsibility was declined for Jews who suffer harm on the streets between Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

^[13] https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/lateran4.asp.

^[14] History of the Jews, H. Graetz, vol. 3, ch. 18, p. 640. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43337/43337-h/43337-h.htm#Page_641.

^[15] Pertz, Monumenta, Vol. 2., p. 93, cited in The History of Anti-Semitism: Time of Christ to Court Jews, Poliakov, P. 36.

^[16] Raoul Glaber, Les Histoires III, 6, cited in The History of Anti-Semitism: Time of Christ to Court Jews, Poliakov, P. 36.

^[17] Solomon Graysel, p. 185.

^[18] This reason: ‘because of their usuries’ was given for the expulsion of the Jews from Fribourg and Zurich in 1424. The history of Anti-Semitism, Leon Poliakov, p. 119.

^[19] A sort history of the Jewish people, by Cecil Roth, p. 225.

^[20] A History of the Jewish People, edited by H.H. Ben-Sasson, p. 474-5.

^[21] Shevet Yehudah, Solomon ibn Verga (c. 1460 – 1554), p. 28-9, discusses the expulsion.

^[22] Historical Collections of Walter of Coventry. Preface by Dr Stubbs, vol. II., p. ix, cited by Frederic William Maitland, vol. 1.

^[23] Ralph of Coggeshall, p. 190. Cited by Frederic William Maitland, vol. 1.

^[24] De legibus et consuetudinibus Angliæ (On the Laws and Customs of England), f. 123b.

^[25] Ann. Monast., vol. II., p. 296, cited by Maitland: https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/fisher-the-collected-papers-of-frederic-william-maitland-vol-1.

^[26] https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/fisher-the-collected-papers-of-frederic-william-maitland-vol-1.

^[27] It continues stating furthermore: ‘Even if afterwards, [the convert] worships false deities, he is like an apostate Jew. [If he] consecrates [a woman,] the consecration is valid, and it is a mitzvah to return his lost object. For since he immersed himself he became a Jew. For this reason, Samson and Solomon maintained their wives even though their inner feelings were revealed.’ According to the Magid Mishneh, this is only if he reverts to worship false dieties for reasons of lust (le-te-a-von), not ideologically. Kesef Mishneh argues that it does not apply to a case of a convert who returns to serving idolatry.

^[28] P. 314.

^[29] Cf. Rigg and JHSE, 1. c. (Cf. H. Finke p. 50), and it is to this that Gratez (l. c.) thinks the Council here refers.

^[30] https://www.oxfordhistory.org.uk/streets/inscriptions/south_west/robert_reading.html.

^[31] After the passing of Herbert Loewe’s son Raphael Loewe, the book was given to the Cambridge Jewish community at the Chabad House of Cambridge, borrowed for the purpose of writing this essay.

^[32] It’s highly unlikely that his name was also Robert of Reading.

^[33] Biography: Abraham and Maitland, in JHSET, 16 (1908-10), 254-76l Roth, England, 76,83. (C.R.).

^[34] David C. Lindberg, Science in the Middle Ages, p. 77.

^[35] For Hebrew sources about Jewish experience of Christendom in the Middle Ages, see Shevet Yehuda, by Solomon ibn Virga, a Jewish chronicler who had been expelled from Spain. The historian Joseph Hacohen tells a similar tale in his Emek Habakha (‘Vale of Tears’), a chronicle of Jewish history traditionally read by some Italian Jews on Tisha B’Av. In that version, the priest even dresses up as a Jew in order to be able to speak with the woman of his desire.

ENGLAND'S FIRST COFFEE HOUSE IN 17th CENTURY & JEWISH TRADITION

Thu, 7 Mar 2024 1:42:00 PM

The history of coffee houses in England is intimately connected to the return of the Jews to England 366 years after their expulsion in 1290. The first coffee house in England, and Europe, is recorded by Anthony Wood to have been opened in Oxford by a Jewish merchant from Turkey, most likely Smyrna, in 1650,^[1] a few years before the formal readmission of the Jews to England in 1656. Called a Jewish beverage (mashke yisrael), due to its popularity amongst the Jews, or ‘black liquid’ (mei shichur),^[2] it provoked major controversies in the Jewish community, as it did in society at large. In this essay, we will explore these controversies in detail.

The opponents of coffee included Muslims and Christians whom prohibited it at different stages, due to it being perceived a ‘sinful drink.’ Some protestant landowners in Germany prohibited dissemination of coffee in 1611, which lasted for around a century in the north and east of Germany, until Frederick II of Prussia decriminalized their consumption and placed a tax on it.^[3] Some catholic priests called coffee ‘a bitter invention of Satan,’ because they saw it as a possible substitute for wine, which had been sanctified for the sacraments. Pope Clement VIII baptised it in 1600 and made it permissible to Catholics. Originally called ‘the wine of Islam,’^[4] in 1511, the governor of Mecca, Khair Bey, prohibited the consumption of coffee, and had all coffee shops closed. In 1532, the same happened in Cairo,^[5] as a parallel was drawn with wine that is prohibited in the Koran.^[6] In Russia, coffee was banned with penalties including torture and mutilation. When the tsarist police found somebody imprisoned for a nervous breakdown, they attributed it to coffee.

In England, in 1674, The Women’s Petition Against Coffee was published.^[7] Around the same time, coffee was perceived a political drink, causing Charles II to issue a proclamation on 29 December, 1675, for the suppressions of coffee houses on 10 January, only to be repealed on the 8^th January,^[8] due to public opposition.^[9] Seeing coffee houses as anti-Royallist establishments, where politics of the day was discussed freely, and pamphlets distributed, the edict stated: ‘by occasion of the meetings of such persons therein, diverse False, Malitious and Scandalous Reports are devised and spread abroad, to the Defamation of His Majesties Government, and to the Disturbance of the Peace and Quiet of the Realm.’^[10] Earlier, in 1666, Earl of Clarendon proposed to the Privy Council closing down coffee houses, only to be persuaded otherwise, reminded by William Coventry that in ‘Cromwell’s times the King’s friends had used more liberty of Speech in these Places than They durst do in any other.’^[11] The negative attitude towards coffee drinking in England, appears much earlier, when it was consumed by a student called Nathaniel Conopius,^[12] who ‘did brew his own caffeine in 1637, and did corrupt other inmates.’^[13] It was in the private use as a brain stimulant. This was recorded to have taken place at Balliol college, Oxford: ‘the first sinner to drink Coffee, was sent down for his crime of stimulating his cramming.’ The controversy, however, eventually subsided, becoming the second most popular drink after water, drunken by men and women, and people from all religions and nationalities, with as estimated two billion cups of coffee drunk daily worldwide. In this essay, in the context of coffee being a controversial drink, I would like to present three questions related to Jews and coffee: 1. did Jews ban coffee or coffee houses, as other religions and countries? 2. did Jews drink coffee differently, and, 3. did a Jew open the first coffee house in England in the 17^th century, as recorded in many accounts of the history of coffee houses in England? As we will see, while the first question is no longer relevant, the latter two questions remain until today, despite the issue of coffee as a controversial drink has long been forgotten.

Jews and coffee

The first connection made between coffee and the Jews is by a French traveller named Du Mont who claimed that the red pottage (e-dom) Jacob served Esau at the time of the sale of his birth right: ‘Esau said to Jacob, “Give me some of that red stuff to gulp down, for I am famished”—which is why he was named Edom’ (Genesis 25:30), refers to coffee berries, which turns red when ripe. Although it later (25:34) refers to lentils (ne-zid a-da-shim), according to the R. Moses Alshich (1508-1593), the ‘red stuff,’ without any description, refers to a separate unknown dish. Du Mont also claimed the roasted grain (ka-li) that Boaz ordered to be given to Ruth (Ruth 2:14) may have been roasted coffee beans. The word used, ‘ka-li,’ generally translated as parched grain, may be found also in Leviticus 23:14: ‘Until that very day, until you have brought the offering of your God, you shall eat no bread or parched grain or fresh ears.’

Did Jews ban coffee?

The premise to the question whether there was a ban on coffee drinking amongst Jews is that, besides wine, due to concern of idolatry practises, there are no prohibitions on other natural drinks. This is the case with beer and other beverages. Beer, when made with malted cereal, yeast, water, and hops, is accepted as kosher. The same should be the case with coffee, made from the coffee plant. The bean or berry is extracted from the coffee plant, roasted, pounded and then mixed with boiling water. There are two considerations regarding its prohibition: a. the roasting of the beans by a non-Jew, and b. the making of a cup of coffee itself by a non-Jew. Both these issues are subject to major disputes amongst the rabbis. Regarding the roasted beans, Maimonides (Mishneh Torah Machalot Asurot 17) maintains that roasted beans themselves do not constitute food ‘worthy for the table of kings’ (o-leh al shul-chan me-la-chim) and is therefore permitted even when roasted by a non-Jew.^[14] This is also the view of 16^th century legalists, both Sefardic and Ashkenazic, R. Yosef Karo (1488-1575) and R. Moses Isserles (1530-1572), as was widespread custom amongst the sages in Salonica.

Jerusalem born Kabbalist Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534-1572), however, a century before the time of the opening of coffee houses in England prohibits drinking coffee from a non-Jewish run coffee house since roasted beans does constitute ‘food worthy for the table of kings’ and thus prohibited under the prohibition of food cooked by a non-Jew. The subsequent mixing with water does not undo the roasting. R. (Chacham) Yosef Chaim (1832-1909), known as the Ben Ish Chai, writes that while we follow R. Isaac Luria in matters related to prayer, based on teachings of the Kabbalah, we don’t follow him in legal matters.^[15]

In Italy, R. Hezekiah da Silva, born in Livorno, author of Jewish legal work Pri Chadash (1656 - 1695), without taking a side about the halachic status of a roasted coffee bean, argues that even following the view that roasted beans does constitute ‘food worthy for the table of kings,’ and thus subject to the prohibition of consuming food cooked by a non-Jew, once the roasted beans enter the cup of water, it becomes ‘nullified one in sixty’ and the cup of coffee is halachicly permitted to drink. The second concern is regarding the brewing of the coffee by a non-Jew. Turkish R. Chaim Benveniste, who lived near Smyrna, writes that he used to drink coffee made by a non-Jew but stopped, as he could not find a reason to permit it.^[16] He acknowledges, however, that the wide-spread custom is to permit drinking coffee, whether cooked by Jew or non-Jew, and he is powerless to prohibit it.^[17]

Non-Jewish coffee houses

A similar argument exists in the Jewish community regarding visiting coffee houses, unrelated to who roasted the beans. R. Chaim Yosef David Azulai, known as the Chida (1724 –1806), writes^[18] that Jews should not visit non-Jewish owned coffee house because of social interaction with gentiles that may lead to intermarriage, similar to the prohibition against taverns. Similarly, Chief Rabbi of Egypt, R. Yaakov de Castro (1525-1610) also prohibited visiting non-Jewish owned coffee houses, like taverns. R. Moses Hagiz (1671 – c. 1750) writes however in Halachot Ketanot (1:9) there is no comparison between taverns and coffee houses, but one should nevertheless refrain from coffee houses due to them being places of scoffers, transgressing Psalms 1:1: ‘do not join the company of the insolent.’^[19] Despite the above views, Abigail Green writes in her book Moses Montefiore^[20] about Jewish life in Livorno, Italy, in the second half of the 18^th century, that ‘Jews were integrated into the life of the town and Jewish merchants thronged the coffeehouses of the elegant Via Ferdinanda, with their gaily painted walls and dazzling display of mirrors.’

Jewish owned coffee houses

The same tension can be found in Prague in the 18^th century regarding Jewish owned coffee houses. In the Jewish Museum of Prague, there is a hand-written Pinkas (minute book) of the Rabbinic Court of the Holy Congregation of Prague, recording, in a mix of Yiddish and Hebrew, the decisions of the rabbinic court, from 1755. There are seven discussions about coffee houses between 1757 and 1774. It begins by taking a hard line, stating that ideally the coffee houses in the Jewish ghetto should be closed, and people should instead dedicate their time to Torah study. Since that is impossible, they should open only for an hour in the morning, after morning services at synagogue, and then for an hour following afternoon services. Women should never enter coffee houses.^[21] With regard to Shabbat, ‘no man should dare to go to the coffee house and drink coffee there on the holy Sabbath. This is punishable with a large fine!’ In a further paragraph, however, it relaxes this edict, allowing coffee houses to be opened at all hours on weekdays besides during the actual times of prayer, and on Shabbat, for take-out only, for the sake of enjoyment of Shabbat, since not everyone is able to prepare coffee for himself on Shabbat at home. In 1758 and 1761, they ruled that sale of coffee for take out on Shabbat was only allowed until noon, and without milk. In 1764, a ban was placed on coffee houses being open, for neither men or women, after 6pm, during weekdays.^[22] The ban of sale of coffee to non-Jews on Shabbat was enforced in 1774, due to the prohibition of performing commerce on the Shabbat.^[23]

A distinction may be made between coffee houses in different places. Prof. Abigaill Green writes:^[24] ‘An English coffee house has no resemblance to a French or German one. You neither see billiards not backgammon tables; you do not even hear the least noise; everybody speaks in low tone for fear of disturbing the company. They were places not only to read the newspapers but to transact business. Associations, insurances, bets, the trade in foreign bills; all of these things are not only talked of, but executed in these public places.’ The coffee houses were first places for people desiring to escape from an atmosphere of political strife, relaxation from more serious occupations by meeting for friendly and informal discussions, as well as places of learning, as John Houghton, a Cambridge Professor writes: a man might pick up more useful knowledge at these places that he could by application to his books for a whole month, and, in the name of a former member of the Royal Society, ventures to compare these popular resorts to the University itself.^[25] In 1661, however, Woods complains bitterly that scholarly topics have ceased, so that ‘nothing but news and the affairs of Christendom is discoursed off and also generally at coffee houses.’ The initiators of this enterprise in England, then, was not merely responding to an opportunity that became available due to the Puritan campaign against the ‘growing evil’ of taverns and ale houses; coffee was seen as a substitute, as it did not make the person drunk and instead made a person feel better and brighter.^[26] It appears the idea of the first coffee houses in England, opened by Jacob and others who followed in Oxford, as Arthur Tillyard, to be places for the attainment of knowledge, known as ‘Penny Universities,’ alongside the university that would have been inaccessible to non-Christians and those unable to afford. Such early coffee houses, it would seem, would not have been the kind of places R. Moses Hagiz referred to as ‘places of insolence.’

In summary, we established that, despite a variety of views, the widespread Jewish custom was not to ban coffee, or visit coffee houses, whether prepared or owned by a Jew or non-Jew. Jacob’s coffee house would have, in any event, been the kind of coffee house described positively above, from the perspective of Jewish law.

Making coffee on Shabbat

A further dispute about coffee that caused a schism amongst the Jews was not about the actual drinking of coffee, but how it was drunk. This relates to drinking coffee on Shabbat. This would have been relevant, both in places where coffee was made in people’s private homes, as recorded in The Sassoon Dynasty,^[27] ‘householder permitted fire to be used once more after the Sabbatical rest, and the company was regaled on coffee and narghiles,’ as well as places like the ghetto in Prague, where coffee would be drunk only in a coffee house or as take-out^[28] from a coffee house.^[29] This led to a major conflict amongst the rabbis: how may coffee be made on Shabbat? This remains a contentious issue until today.

Ground coffee

This subject is found in a responsa on Jewish law by Egyptian Rabbi Abraham ben Mordecai ha-Levi (late 17th century), known as Mahara Ha-Levi.^[30] In his responsa Ginnat Veradim (3:2), the following question about cooking on Shabbat is raised:

A Jewish beverage whereby water was boiled and one mixes coffee in it. On occasion, they did not place as much coffee as was needed when it was still boiling on the fire, and when the coffee is being drunk in cups, one adds and places from the ground coffee into the cup to enhance the aroma and improve the coffee. If this happened on Shabbat, when they did not find the coffee prepared properly, is it permitted to add and put coffee in the cups, as it would be done during the week, or is there concern that it violates the prohibition of cooking on Shabbat and it is therefore prohibited?

Reason it should be permitted

The essential question is: does cooking coffee, after it had already been roasted, constitute cooking on Shabbat? Rabbi Abraham ha-Levi argues that it is prohibited to cook the coffee on Shabbat even in a secondary vessel. He gives two principle arguments: firstly, it constitutes straight cooking in the first instance on Shabbat, since the pounding of the coffee after the roasting of the beans, returns the roasted bean to its pre-edible state, as it is no longer edible once powdered, without cooking. The second argument is that Rabbi Eliezer of Metz in the 11th century prohibited ‘cooking after roasting’ on Shabbat even in a secondary vessel.

Despite lengthy and heated arguments, referred to at one point as a ‘war’ amongst the rabbis, no consensus developed and remains inconclusive and contentious until this day. While the first ‘pounding nullifies the roasting’ argument appears to be rebutted, reduced to an argument about personal preference – are pounded roasted coffee beans eaten by themselves, the ‘cooking after roasting’ argument remains contentious. The following is the background and outline of the battle lines of this heated controversy.

Talmud: recooking

The principle text for the issue of recooking on Shabbat is from the Talmud (Shabbat 145b):

Any food item that was placed in hot water, before Shabbat, one may soak it in hot water on Shabbat. And anything that was not placed in hot water before Shabbat, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbat but may not soak it, with the exception of old salted fish and small salted fish and the kolyas ha’ispanin fish, for which rinsing with hot water itself is completion of the prohibited labor of cooking.^[31]

Following this reasoning, coffee beans that had already been roasted before Shabbat should count as a cooked food before Shabbat, and therefore may be recooked on Shabbat, as this does not constitute cooking (if dry). The fact that it was roasted or baked - and not cooked - should not make any difference to this principle, as the Talmud does not differentiate between cooking and roasting: if done before Shabbat, may be recooked on Shabbat.^[32]

Medieval dispute: roasting after cooking

In the medieval period, however, a distinction began to be argued, between an item of food that had been cooked before Shabbat, which may be recooked again, and a roasted or baked item that may not be cooked on Shabbat. There are three main views on this subject in the medieval period: 12^th century R. Eliezer of Metz (d. 1198), in his legal work Sefer Yere-im, writes that food that had been roasted, its cooking in hot water constitutes cooking (biblically) on Shabbat even in a secondary vessel.^[33] The interpretation of his view is however subject to dispute: French Rabbi Moses of Coucy (d, 1260), author of Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, and 13^th century German Rabbi Meir Ha-kohen, in his work on Maimonides, Hagahot Maimoniyot, say that this prohibition by R. Eliezer of Metz is only precautionary, due to uncertainty which foods cook even in a secondary vessel. They agree however that it does cook in a primary vessel. French Rabbi Isaac of Corbeil (d. 1280), author of Sefer Mitzvot Katan, argues that R. Eliezer of Metz’s prohibition of ‘cooking after roasting’ pertains to a primary vessel, but not at all to a secondary vessel.^[34] A second view is R. Jacob ben Asher (1270-1340), known as the Tur, who rejects the view of R. Eliezer of Metz arguing: there is ‘cooking after roasting’ in a primary vessel, but not in a secondary vessel. A third view is German TosafistR. Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi (d. 1225), known as Ra’avya, who arguesthere is no concept of ‘cooking after roasting’ at all.

Talmud source: boiled matza

Although there is no clear source in the Talmud in the laws of Shabbat discussing cooking after roasting or baking, R. Eliezer of Metz basis his view on another Talmudic source from the laws of Passover (Pesachim 41a): ‘R. Yosei says: One can fulfill his obligation to eat matza with a wafer that has been soaked in a cooked dish but not with a boiled wafer, even if it has not dissolved.’ R. Yosei invalidates the eating of cooked matzah on the night of Passover, because it no longer constitutes baked matza. This implies that cooking is effective after baking. The same would be true regarding the effect of cooking after roasting. Since the halacha follows the view of R. Yosei, it is forbidden to cook food after baking or roasting on Shabbat. R. Elazar of Bonn, however, rejects the relevance of this Talmudic source to the laws of Shabbat, since matza is disqualified, not because boiling in water constitutes cooking after baking, but rather it dulls the taste of the matza, which is necessary for the mitzvah of eating matza on Passover.^[35] Rabbi Joseph Karo (1488-1575) acknowledges this is a strong challenge against the view of R. Eliezer of Metz.

Jewish law in 16^th century: cooking after roasting

In the 16^th century, R. Joseph Karo (1488-1575) brings two of the above opinions in his code of Jewish law,^[36] both recognising the prohibition in principle of ‘cooking after roasting or baking:’ 1. the view of R. Eliezer of Metz, prohibiting even in a secondary vessel. 2. the view that it is permitted, but without elaborating. This left the second, deciding view of R. Joseph Karo open to interpretation: Algiers Rabbi Yehuda Ayash (1688-1760) and R. Joseph ben Meir Teomim (1727–1792) argue that the second and deciding opinion of R. Joseph Karo is that of R.Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi,disputing the premise that it is prohibited to ‘cook after baking or roasting’ on Shabbat at all, thereby permitting cooking after roasting even in a primary vessel. Others, like Ashkenazic authority, R. Moses Isserles, known as the Rema (c. 1520-1572), argue that the second, deciding^[37] view mentioned by R. Joseph Karo is that of R. Jacob ben Asher, permitting only a secondary vessel, but not a primary vessel. According to both views, then, a primary vessel is prohibited according to R. Joseph Karo.

R. Moses Isserles, in his gloss to R. Joseph Karo’s code of Jewish law, cites an additional opinion of R. Eliezer ben Yoel HaLevi who permits ‘cooking after roasting or baking’ even in a primary vessel. He concludes, however, that the prevailing custom in his place is not to place bread in boiling hot soup, even in a secondary vessel, as per the view of R. Eliezer of Metz. Turkish R. Chaim Benveniste (1603–1673), author of Knesset ha-gedolah, says that the prevalent custom in his place is to permit ‘cooking after roasting or baking’ in a secondary vessel. Amsterdam R. Abraham Cohen Pimentel (d. 1697), author of Minchat Kohen (Sha-ar sheni, ch, 4) writes, one should follow R. Eliezer of Metz prohibiting recooking in a primary vessel, but need not be stringent in a secondary vessel, stating: ‘I never saw anyone concerned about this.’

17^th century Jewish law: Coffee on Shabbat

This major dispute regarding recooking on Shabbat became relevant with the advent of coffee houses in the 17^th century. Chief Rabbi of Egypt, R. Avraham ben Mordechai Ha-Levi (1650-1712) argued that the law is one should not scatter coffee powder on a cup of hot water on Shabbat, even in a secondary vessel, and one who does so, should be concerned to bring a sin during the Temple period. Rabbi of Alexandria, R. Jacob Al-Faraji, Salonika born R. Moshe ibn Habib (1654-1696), Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem R. Abraham ben David Yitzhaki (1661-1729), author of Zera Avraham, and R. Moshe Ḥayyun, all argue that it is permitted to place coffee even in a secondary vessel. R. Abraham ben David Yitzhaki mediated, however, that it is fitting to be stringent ab initio, but those who are lenient follow all the great authorities in Jewish law. Amsterdam Rabbi Moses Hagiz (1671 – c. 1750) also writes, in his legal work Etz Chaim, that one should be stringent. Rabbi Yishmael Hacohen, Chief Rabbi of Modena (1786-1796), author of Zera Emet,^[38] however, followed the view of R. Jacob Al-Faraji, permitting even in a secondary vessel.

In the 19^th century, Turkish Rabbi Haim Palachi (1788–1868), wrote in his work Lev Chaim^[39] that it is forbidden to place coffee powder into a cup and pour over it boiling hot water, just as one may not pour boiling water on tea leaves, unless the coffee essence has already been cooked before Shabbat. This dispute continued into the 20^th century: Moroccan R. Raphael Baruch Toledano (1890-1982) codified that ‘cooking after baking’ is prohibited even in a secondary vessel, while Sephardi Chief Rabbi of Israel, R. Ovadiah Yosef (1920-2013), writes in Yabia Omer (6:48) that it is permitted even in a primary vessel, following the view above of R. Yehudah Ayash, that the second decisive opinion of R. Joseph Karo that permits cooking after roasting or baking refers even to a primary vessel. He therefore writes in his work Yechaveh Da-at (2:44) that one may pour boiling hot water directly from the kettle on Shabbat onto the coffee without concern.

R. Moshe Halevi (1961-2001), Sephardic authority of Jewish law in Israel, author of Menuchat Ahava on laws of Shabbat (2:10:26) writes that he follows the view that it is permitted even to pour from a primary vessel. He concludes, however, that Ashkenazim are stringent, while Sephardim are lenient, and such should be the law for the respective communities. Most recently, in 2018, R. Moshe Hadad, author of Yismach Moshe, wrote in an essay, published in halachic journal Rav Brachot, that the latter opinions are incorrect, and the views cited from the 17^th century when the coffee houses were first opened were in fact correct that a primary vessel is prohibited according all opinions. Their dispute was only pertaining to the secondary vessel.^[40] In conclusion, the dispute about how to make a cup of coffee on Shabbat is a subject that began in the abstract in the 12^th century, but became relevant in the 17^th century, with the spread of coffee as a drink, and the opening and popularity of coffee houses, that were open, as mentioned, also on Shabbat. With the existence of a small Jewish community in Oxford in the 17^th century, as evident from Wood’s diary pertaining to Jacob’s coffee house at the Angel, as well as coffee house owner Cirques Jobson opposite, in 1654, the question about how to prepare a cup of coffee on the Shabbat may have been relevant. As mentioned, this dispute remains a source of tension in the Jewish world until today.

First coffee house in England

Having established that Jews did not ban coffee, and drinking coffee is permitted, the idea that a Jew – not described as a converso or new Christian - opened the first coffee house in England and, indeed Christian Europe is conceivable. The rise of coffee houses in England happened in the mid-1600s, a few years before the readmission of the Jews to England in the 1656. On Oxford's High Street, the present-day Grand Café claims to be the oldest coffee house in England. Opposite, Queen’s Lane Coffee House also claims to be the oldest in Europe, founded in 1654. The source for the claim that the first coffee house in England was opened by a Jew is from the diary of 17^th century antiquarian Anthony Wood (17 December, 1632-1695), who was born and passed away in Postmasters' Hall, leased from and directly opposite the forefront of Merton College. He wrote a massive two volume Historia et antiquitates universitatis Oxoniensis, known simply as the Historia, in 1674, translated posthumously into 4 volumes in English in 1786-96, as History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford. In addition, he wrote a two volume Athena Oxonienses and Fasti, known simply as the Athena, consisting of a bio-bibliography of 1500 graduates and persons connected to Oxford University, published in 1691-92. A second edition of the Athena was published in 1721, with a further 500 lives.

In response to severe criticism, consisting of a trial for defamation, after the publication of the Athena, Anthony Woods wrote a number of defences, including The Diarie of the Life of Anthony a Wood Historiographer and Antiquarie of the most famous Universitie of Oxford, which he later retitled Secretum Antonii.^[41] The Secretum is work consisting of entries in a diary of events that took place around Anthony Wood in Oxford, pertaining to life, deaths and events in the city and the University of Oxford. The date of the first entry is 17 December 1632, regarding his birth, and final entry is 6 July, 1672, recording receipt and note of thanks for the book sent to him by Elias Ashmole Esquire, entitled, The Institutions, Lawes, and Cereonies of the noble Order of the Garter.

The Secretum was written in twoversions: the first was written in first person, and then revised in third person, to make it more readable, resulting, amongst also the many changes in spelling, abbreviations and punctuations, many hundreds of variations between the two versions (the Life of AW in his own words, N. Kiessling, p. 170). Another difference is the first version reaches the year 1659, while the second continues in 1672. As the second version was still being written a few days before Wood’s death, he writes in third person about his impending passing. The first version manuscript is held at the British Library, known as British Library, MS Harley 5409. Thesecond version, The Secretum is held at the Bodleian Library, shelf marked Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 102. The Secretum was not published during the author’s lifetime. After Anthony Wood’s passing, the manuscript was given to one of the executors of Wood’s estate, chaplain of All Soul’s college, Thomas Tanner, who allowed Oxford antiquarian Thomas Hearne to publish it for the first time in 1730. Thomas Bodley’s librarian William Huddesford republished Hearne’s edition in 1772, it was re-edited by Philip Bliss in 1813, and again by Andrew Clark in 1891-1900. The first critical edition, with comparisons with the first version, is by Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at Washington State University, Nicolas K. Kiessling, in 2009, published by the Bodleian Library, entitled The Life of Anthony Wood.

Jews in Anthony Wood

The period in British history that the book covers is the most significant in modern history for the Jews of Britain: the readmission of the Jews to England, that was made possible after the Personal Rule by Charles I was implemented, without recourse of parliament, between 1629 and 1640. This led to the Civil War, also known as War of the Three Kingdoms, the defeat of Charles I to the armies of the English and Scottish parliaments, led by Oliver Cromwell, in 1645, his captivity and eventual execution in 1649. This was followed by the establishment of The Protectorate, ruled by Cromwell as Lord Protector from December 1653 until his death in September 1658, and the Restoration of Charles II in 1660. It was during the rule of Cromwell that Menasseh ben Israel successfully petitioned and gained permission for the Jews to be readmitted to England after their expulsion in 1290 under the Edward I. Despite this historic period for the Jewish community, in the 77 entries in the diary, there is not a single mention in The Secretum about the return of the Jews. Five of these entries relate however to coffee, three of which relate to Jews and coffee.

There is mention in Wood’s Athena about secret Jews living in England at the time. One can be found on p. 141-3: Johan Ludovic Vives (1492-1540), who, according to Oxford Bibliographies, was born into a Jewish converso family in Valenza, Spain, studied logic in Paris, and then became noted for his study of humanities, first in the University of Lovain, and on 15 July, 1517, was made one of the first fellows of Corpus Christi college, Oxford, by the founder himself. He was first invited by Cardinal Wolsey to Oxford in 1523, arriving in August or September, and Katherine of Oregon had great respect for him. Before coming to Oxford, he published, contra Pseeudo-Dialectus, and, while in Oxford, De ratione studii puerilis, and De consultation. He retired in Bruges in Flanders. In around 1524, his father, grandmother and great-grandfather, as well as members of their wider family, were executed as Judaizers at the behest of the Spanish Inquisition, after his uncle was accused of having a secret synagogue in his house.^[42] No mention of him being a Jew is mentioned, however, by Anthony Wood in the Athena.

Another secret Jew is mentioned in The Secretum, without indicating his religion: Jacob Bobart the elder (c. 1599 - 1680), who arrived in Oxford from Brunswick, Germany, in 1641, and become the first Keeper of the Physic Garden, later known as Botanic Garden. It records in the Secretum on 6 July, 1669, that when Elias Ashmole Esquire visited Oxford for seven days, he was often together with Anthony Wood ‘in the Physick Garden with Jacob Bobart the Keeper (an old acquaintance of Mr. Ashmole) who shewd them many choice plants, Herbs, Grafts, and other Curiosities to Mr. Ashmoles great content.’^[43]

Jews and coffee in Anthony Wood

The Diarie

In addition to the above-mentioned, there are three entries overtly related to Jews in Wood’s diaries, all in connection with coffee in Oxford. In the earlier version of The Secretum, known as The Diarie, British Library MS Harley 5409 (fol. 42), it states that coffee was drunk in private in Oxford since 1650, but in 1654, was publicly sold by a Jew at or near the Angel. This entry is recorded between August 10 and April 25, 1654, corresponding to the 6^th year of Charles II (counting from when he became of Scotland in 1649) and half a year from the Protectorate Oliver (Cromwell). The text states:^[44]

Coffey, which had been drank by

some persons in Oxon. 1650, was this

yeare publickly sold at or neare the

Angel within the East Gate of Oxon,

as also Chocolate by an outlander

or a Jew.

The Secretum

Inthe revisededition, The Secretum, Bodleian Library, MS Tanner 102 (fol. 16v), it has a modified entry recorded on an earlier date: after the entry for January 22, 1650 (according to the Julian calendar that ended 24 March; 1651 according the Gregorian calendar), corresponding to the second year of Charles II. The text states:^[45]

This yeare Jacob a Jew opened a Coffey house at

the Angel in the parish of S. Peter in the East, Oxon,

and there it was by some, who delighted in Noveltie, drank

When he left Oxon he sold it in Old Southampton

buildings in Holborne neare London, and was living

there 1671 - See in 1654.

This revised version serves as the basis for the fact that the earliest coffee house in England and Christendom was opened by Jacob a Jew in Oxford in 1650.

The Angel

The Angel was a small inn called the Tabard in 1391. In 1510, it was enlarged by Magdalen college and its name was changed to the Angel, becoming Oxford’s largest hotel (before the Randolph hotel opened on Beaumont Street in 1866) and coaching station. It was enlarged again and rebuilt around 1663, so that its eventual frontage measured 110 feet, and 326 feet in depth, extending from High Street to Coach and Horses Lane, currently known as Merton Street. The location was on the corner of High Street and Merton Street.^[46] Behind the inn, extending to Merton Street, were workshops, offices, thirteen cottages, granaries, coach-houses, and very extensive stabling. Horses were grazed overnight on the land beyond Magdalen deer park, still known as Angel and Greyhound Meadow. Most of the land was held as a leasehold under Magdalen College, while the remainder, under University and Oriel Colleges. The inn eventually declined, following the opening of the railways to Oxford in the 1840s, and in March, 1855, the Angel, as a whole, or as individual lots, were put up for sale. In 1865, the inn was sold by itself in an auction to Oxford University for £1,800. In 1869, the rear of the inn was demolished, including four front facing buildings on High Street (80, 81 and 82 High Street, plus one other), and in 1876, the Angel (let as shops at that time) was demolished to make way for the Examination Schools, completed in 1882.^[47] The adjacent properties at 83 and 84 High Street were sold separately to the grocer Francis Cooper for £2,350. The use of a part of the Angel, at 83 and 84 High St, as a coffee house becomes apparent at the time of the proposed selling of the site in parts in 1855, where a patrt of the site was still described a Coffee Room. In the auction notice, in Jackson’s Oxford Journal of 24 March, 1855, it records:

Lot 1 will comprise the splendid Coffee Room (now 83/84 High Street), 43 feet by 29 feet, 6 sitting rooms, 17 sleeping apartments, 2 water closets, china closet, kitchen, larder, extensive cellars, coach houses and garden.^[48]

According to the above, the exact site of Jacob’s coffee house was not part of the original Angel hotel, but adjacent, that became party of the larger site, thus explaining Anthony Wood’s approximate description of Jacob’s coffee house: ‘at or neare the Angel.’ David Haron similarly writes: ‘attached to the Angel Inn.’^[49] As the Coffee Room in the 19^th century consisted of both properties, 83 and 84 High Street, combined, the same would have been the case with Jacob’s coffee house. One may conclude, therefore, Jacob’s coffee house comprised of the site that is now the Grand Café at 84 High Street, and also the adjacent Oxford Bus Company, at 83 High Street, currently used as a rest for its drivers.

1654 entry

In The Secretum, Bodleian Library MS Tanner 102 (fol. 20v),^[50] it further states after August 10, 1654, corresponding to the 6^th year of Charles II and half a year to Oliver Cromwell:

Cirques Jobson a Jew and Jacobite, borne neare

Mount-Libanus sold Coffey in Oxon in an House between

Edmund hall and Queens coll. corner - See in the

yeare 1650 and 1655.

The location of Cirques Jobson’s coffee house is the site of today’s Queen’s Lane coffee house. Following the first coffee house in Oxford, in 1650, the first coffee house in London was opened by Pasqua Rosée, a Greek servant of wealthy Levant merchant Daniel Edwards after he returned to London from Smyrna, Turkey. Rosee served Edwards coffee, but after attracting many people to their house, Rosee opened a coffee house near the Royal Exchange in 1654, or possibly as early as 1652.^[51] Thus, the coffee house, opened by Jacob in 1650, makes it the first public coffee house in England,^[52] a claim accepted by many historians, as can be found in Jewish Life in the Middle Ages (London, 1896) by Israel Abrahams (1858-1925), stating: ‘coffee was introduced into England by Jews;’ The Penny Universities: A History of Coffee Houses, by Aytoun Ellis (1956); The Social Life of Coffee The emergence of the British coffeehouse by Brian Cowan (Yale, 2005);^[53] and Oxford: A Cultural and Literary Companion byDavid Horan,^[54]as well as a display at the Museum of Oxford.^[55]

Significance

The significance of this is, as historian Dr. Matthew Green argues, that coffee, taking over from ale as the drink of choice, triggered a dawn of sobriety that laid the foundations for Britain’s spectacular economic growth in the late seventeenth century.^[56] This was facilitated not through drinking coffee per se but the creation of the coffee house, enabling the creation of a public space for social, intellectual and, importantly for modern Britain, economic activity. This included the first trading of stocks and shares that took place at Jonathan’s coffee house in Change Alley, around 1680, eventually becoming the London Stock Exchange; the insurance market Lloyd’s of London in 1688, evolved from merchants, ship owners and their captains, who gathered at Lloyd’s coffee house in Lombard Street,^[57] named after its owner, Edward Lloyd; as well as the Royal Society and Sotheby’s and Christie’s, all started at coffee houses.^[58]

Return of the Jews to England

Despite the significance of the opening of the first coffee houses in England, we are told very little about the person, who brough coffee houses to Britain, besides the fact that he was a Jew, living in Oxford in 1650, who opened a coffee house near or at the Angel. For this reason, perhaps, some questioned whether Jacob even existed,^[59] or he is completely ignored. The fact that Anthony Wood would have, however, known the details of this coffee house owner is plausible, despite omitting his name in the first version, considering the proximity of the Angel to the Postmasters house, opposite Merton college, where Anthony Wood lived. Despite Oxford being a busy city, Jacob would have been a nearby neighbour with Wood.

What was a Jew doing in England in 1650, before Jews were officially allowed to return in 1656? A brief history of Jews in England, from the period of the expulsion until the resettlement, will help explain the context of Jacob, an identified Jew, not secret, opening the first coffee house in England, before the readmission, in 1650. Despite having been invited and of great benefit to Norman kings, centuries of intolerance and exclusion of Jews began in 1275, with the Statute of Jewry, which forbade Jews from lending on interest, forcing them to live only in the king’s own cities and boroughs, where the Chests of Chirographs of the Jewry were located, over seven-year-olds must wear a yellow felt badge with the tablets, earn a living only by merchandise and labour, pay an Easter tax, and Christians not allowed to mix with Jews, besides for buying and selling. This led to the edict of expulsion on 17 July, 1290, expelling ‘faithless Jews’ from Britain by 1 November. Intolerance of Jews in England continued unabated until the 17^th century. In the 16^th century, Lord William Cecil Burghley (1520-1598), chief adviser of Queen Elizabeth I, twice Secretary of State and Lord High Treasurer,^[60] declared: ‘That state could never be in safety where there was a toleration of two religions. For there is no enmity so great as that for religion; and therefore they that differ in the service of their G-d can never agree in the service of their country.’^[61] Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634), wrote in 1608, that between Christians and all infidels, including Jews, there is a perpetual hostility, and can be no peace.^[62]

The only presence of Jews in England during this period were clandestine Jews, living as Christians, in London and Bristol. Even this was supressed, as reflected in a report from London on 20 August, 1609, by the Venetian Ambassador Marcantonio Correr: ‘many Portuguese merchants in this city have been discovered to be living secretly as Jews. Some have already left and others have had a little grace granted to allow them to wind up their business in spite of the laws, which are very severe on this subject. These men are such scoundrels that, I am told, the better to hide themselves they have not only frequently attended Mass at some one or other of the Embassies, but have actually received the Holy Eucharist.’ Strong police action was taken against the ‘New Christian’ community that caused many to leave England.^[63] The same intolerance towards Jews in the beginning of the 17^th century was also evident in Oxford. Jacob Wolfgang had to convert to Christianity to became reader at the Bodleian Library on 22 May, 1608.^[64]

At the same time, there was a combination of scholarly curiosity and restraint towards the Jewish religion by James I, as reflected by the fact that he welcomed information about Jewish rituals supplied by the work of Leon de Modena (1571–1648). In Oxford, in particular, Christians were attracted by Jewish mysticism, to deepen their own understanding of Christianity. English intellectuals, as John Seldon (1584-1654), John Lightfoot (1602-1675), Edward Pococke (1604-1691), and John Milton (1608-1674) also had considerable interest in rabbinic works. The founder of the Bodleian Library, Sir Thomas Bodley (1545-1613), accumulated a great Hebrew collection of books.^[65] In December 1607, Thomas Bodley instructed his assistant Thomas James 'to gette the helpe of a Jewe, for the Hebrewe catalogue.

This period was an intermediate stage, whereby forced conversion was no longer an ideal, or seen as effective, but England was still not ready to allow Jews to live openly in the realm. Composer of Church music, Robert Parsons (1535-1572), on a visit to England in 1580, objected to forcing a Jew to swear that there was a blessed Trinity. In 1613, a learned Italian scholar, Jacob Barnett, a secretary for Huguenot (humanist) scholar Isaac Casaubon (1559–1614), was incarcerated and taunted by professors at Oxford’s Bocardo prison for not turning up to be baptised, in order to get a position at the university. He was subsequently released on the grounds that there was no law in England that Jews had to convert to Christianity. He was nevertheless banished from England by James I.^[66]

England, however, subsequently began turning towards the idea that Jews should be welcomed back, even if it was for the reason of conversion to Christianity and commerce. Puritan Thomas Draxe published in 1608 The World’s Resurrection, or the Generall Calling of the Jews, in which he emphasised the historic achievement of the dispersed Jews in having, despite all persecutions and wanderings, preserved the authentic Hebrew Bible for posterity and declared: ‘we must nor roightly either contemne, must less condemne the Jews, nor expel them out of our coasts and countries, but hope well of them, pray for them, ^[67]and labour to win the by our Holy zeal and Christian example.’ In 1614, distinguished Baptist Leonard Busher presented to James I the memorandum Religious Peace; or, a Plea for Liberty of Conscience, arguing that Jews should be readmitted to England as they would ‘inhabit and dwell under his majesty’s dominion to the great profit of his realms, and to their furtherance in the faith; the which we are bound to seek in all love and peace, as well as others, to our utmost endeavours, for Christ hath commanded to teach all nations.’ He also argued conversion by force is usually inefficacious. This memorandum was republished in 1646 and was widely publicised, especially among the religious dissenters. Sir Henry Finch (1558-1625), in a famous treatise, published in 1621, went even further envisaging the messianic era would be ushered in trough the restoration of the Jews to the Holy Land, where all the tribes shall be united.^[68] Although, Finch was censured for the consideration of such ideas, by Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University John Prideaux, and William Laud, who later became Archbishop of Canterbury, in Parliament, it was echoed by Christian Hebraist John Weemes in 1636, arguing that Jews who wish to come to England and hold onto their old religion should be allowed to do so, including performing circumcision and erecting synagogues, but ought to be subject to certain disabilities, such as the prohibition against employing Christian servants.^[69] These pro-Jewish sentiments came to the fore during the Civil War of the 1640s, after the execution of Charles I in 1649 and Cromwell’s rise to power. The subject of toleration of all religious dissenters, including Jews, became an issue of paramount importance during those years. Chaplain in Cromwell’s revolutionary army, Hugh Peters, suggested in 1647 that ‘strangers even Jews, admitted to trade and live with us.’ Samuel Richardson wrote in the same year that one may attribute many of England’s troubles to G-d retribution for the country’s general religious intolerance, for banishing the people of G-d into so many wildernesses.’ Similarly, Roger Williams wrote in The Bloody Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience, Discussed in a Conference between Truth and Peace, published in 1644, demanded that Jews be given the opportunity of proving that they could be good and faithful citizens. In a pamphlet in 1652, he argued that for their ‘hard measure, I fear, the nations and England hath yet a score to pay.’ In 1648, Edward Nicholas gave a keynote speech, entitled: ‘Apology for the Honourable Nation of the Jews, and All the Sons of Israel,’ concluding with an appeal: ‘that the same Authority that proceeded against them formerly, that now the same power and authority will repeal those Laws made against them. That our receiving them again, and giving them all possible satisfaction, and restoring them to commerce in this kingdom, may be exemplary to other Nations that have done them, and continue to do them wrong; till which time (G-d putting their tears into his bottle) G-d will charge their sufferings upon us, and will avenge them on their persecutors.’

With this newfound tolerance in England, arose the petition in 1649 to the English parliament, for the Repealing of the Act of Parliament for the Banishment of the Jews out of England and for their readmission. It was presented from English widow, Baptist Joanna and her son Ebenezer Cartwright, living in Amsterdam, which marked the beginning of an active movement and formal recognition of the resettlement of Jews in the British Isles.^[70] A further letter, dated 24 March, 1655, came from Menasseh ben Israel who came from Amsterdam to England to petition Cromwell to readmit Jews and allow them to worship. In 1656, Cromwell formally gave Jews permission ‘to meet privately in their houses for prayer’ and to lease a cemetery. In 1657, about thirty Sephardi families, including Antonio Fernandez (Abraham Israel) Carvajal and family members, were granted permission to establish a synagogue in Creechurch Lane, London.^[71] The first purpose-built synagogue was opened in 1701, known as Bevis Marks Synagogue, the oldest synagogue in the United Kingdom.

The first Jew to become a British citizen after the readmission was Antonio Fernandez Carvajal. He had settled in London in 1630 and was joined in London by other New Christian refugees from Rouen. This small group openly professed Catholicism, but held ‘Jewish Divine services’ in Carvajal’s residence. In 1645, when Carvajal was denounced under the Act of Conformity, even his competitors joined in petitioning parliament on his behalf, and the House of Lords quashed the proceedings,^[72] paving the way for the eventual reversal of the centuries old policy of intolerance.

Based on this brief history, while the formal readmission of the Jews to England took place only in 1656, the struggle for religious tolerance took place gradually over a century, during which time Jews lived in England in clandestine communities. Despite the harsh measures against the community in 1609, towards the 1640s, a growing tolerance had developed, allowing even Jewish prayer services to being held in private homes. This culminated with petitions for the formal readmittance. It is in the context of this newfound tolerance, we find Jacob, perhaps the first openly identified Jew, living in Oxford in 1650.

The brief history may also explain why Anthony Wood, in his first version, omitted the mention of Jacob a Jew. When he wrote the first version, the environment in England may have been such that it was not yet acceptable to be identified openly as a Jew in England. When writing the second version, however, after the great changes in England and its newfound tolerance, it was perfectly acceptable.

Who is Jacob?

Having giving the context of a Jew openly living in Oxford in 1650, and the historic significance of opening England’s first coffee house in England in 1650, we have little information about who this Jacob was. We are aware, however, of a number of Jews called Jacob in 17^th century England, some of whom may be a candidate for Jacob the coffee house owner. As mentioned, Jacob Wolfgang converted to Christianity to become a member of Oxford University in 1608. A learned Italian Jew, called Jacob Barnett, arrived in Oxford in 1613, together with Isaac Causabon, before being banished for not willing to undergo baptism at the university church. In addition, in 1641, Botanist Jacob Bobart the Elder (1599-1680) came to Oxford from Germany to be the first director of the Physic Garden, later known as Botanic Garden,^[73] and his eldest son, born in Oxford in 1641, was also called Jacob Bobart the Younger (d. 1719).

Other people called Jacob in 17^th century England were Haham R. Jacob Sasportas (1610-1698), who joined Menasseh ben Israel when he came from Amsterdam to England to petition Cromwell to readmit the Jews. He subsequently served as the third rabbi of the Sephardi Community in London from 1664 to 1665. Finally, there is Haham Rabbi Jacob Abendana (1630-1685), who served as the fifth rabbi of the Sephardi Community in London from 1681 to 1685. His younger brother was Isaac Abendana, who arrived in Oxford in 1676, and in 1689 took a teaching position at Magdalen College, Oxford.

From the above, it is interesting to speculate whether the Jacob, who opened the coffee house in 1650 may have been the same as Jacob Bobart the Elder who came to Oxford in 1641, and is also mentioned by Anthony Wood in the Secretum on 6 July, 1669: when Elias Ashmole Esquire visited Oxford for seven days, he was often together with Anthony Wood ‘in the Physick Garden with Jacob Bobart the Keeper (an old acquaintance of Mr. Ashmole) who shewd them many choice plants, Herbs, Grafts, and other Curiosities to Mr. Ashmoles great content.’^[74] His fascination with plants may have included also the coffee plant. The problem with this identification is that Anthony Wood writes that Jacob left Oxford and sold coffee in Old Southampton buildings in Holborne, near London, in 1671. Jacob Bobart, however, died in Oxford on 4 February 1680, and buried in the churchyard of St Peter-in-the-East.^[75]

Challenge

Despite the mention in Wood’s diary that the first coffee house in England was opened in Oxford in 1650 by Jacob a Jew, and the plausibility of this, based on everything we have discussed so far, the narrative is contested. It first becomes undermined by Daniel Edwards putting out adverts for Pasqua Rosée’s first coffee house in England: ‘The Vertue of the Coffee drink. First publiquely made and sold in England by Pasqua Rosée.’^[76] In Essential Guide to Coffee (2019) by J. Garcia Curado, it states: ‘In the south and west of Europe, a greater tolerance of coffee was observed. In the 1650s, it began to be imported and consumed in England, and coffee shops were opened in both London and Oxford. The first coffee shop in London opened in 1652.’ In The philosophy of coffee^[77] (2018) by Brian Williams, it states: ‘Not long after London’s first coffee house opened in 1652, local taverns tried to have the coffeehouses banned, fearful of the competition they provided.’ In How to drink coffee (2023) by Sarah Ford, it merely states: ‘By the 17^th century, coffee, tea and chocolate were all popular in England, when the first coffeehouse had opened in 1652.’ In The world atlas of coffee (2014) by James Hoffman, it states: ‘the first coffee house in London opened in 1652 and began a hundred-year love affair between the drink and the city.’ In all the above, no mention of England’s first coffee house in Oxford in 1650. In The curious Barista’s Guide to Coffee (2015) by Tristan Stephenson, it places Oxford’s first coffee house over a decade later:

By the early 1600s, the coffee bean had made its way to British shores and in 1652 the first European coffee house opened in London. Pasqua Rosee’s coffee house was actually more of a stall, located in the churchyard of St Michael’s, just off London’s bustling Cornhill. A shrewd businessman, he teamed up with Christopher Bowman, a freeman of the City of London, in order to appease the resistance of local alehouse owners to an outsider. The store was a big hit, the stall soon became a large house, as it relocated across the road. Coffee shops popped up in London like toadstalls in the night. A mere ten years after Rosee’s shop served its first cup, there were thought to be nearly 100 ‘coffee men’ in London, with coffee houses also opening in Oxford and Cambridge. By the turn of the 18^th century, some estimated at more than 1,000.

In Coffee: A Global History (2018)^[78] by Jonathan Morris, it leaves it ambiguous. It first ignores the Oxford coffee house: ‘London was home to Europe’s first coffee houses, yet the British were among the last and the least active of the European coffee producers.’ In a chart, entitled: ‘Diffusion of Coffee Houses in Europe, on the same page, he cites Oxford’s coffee house but with a question mark. The chart records by countries three lists: First Record of Coffee in Territory, First Commercial Shipment Received, and First Coffee House Opened. For England, it records: ‘First Record of Coffee in Territory - 1637 Oxford; First Commercial Shipment Received - 1657 London; and First Coffee House Opened - 1650 Oxford? 1652 London.’ Further in the book, Morris questions where Jacob even existed. He writes:^[79] ‘A Jewish manservant from the Levant named Jacob has sometimes been credited with opening a coffee house in the same city (Oxford) in 1650, but if he existed, he probably served, rather than sold, coffee to his master’s companions. There is no doubt however, that Pasqua Rosee, an ethnic Armenian from the Ottoman city of Smyrna (now Izmir) opened London’s, and Europe’s, first documented coffee house sometime between 1652 and 1654. Such was the new institution’s swift take-off, there were 82 coffee-house keepers registered in 1663 with the City of London authorities.’ When discussing Oxford’s coffee houses, further in the book, Morris, in fact, omits Jacob’s existence entirely:^[80] ‘That was true in Oxford, where the first documented coffee house outside the capital was opened by apothecary Arthur Tillyard in 1656. Tillyard was encouraged to do so by some royalists, now living in Oxon, and by others who esteemed themselves either virtuosi or wits.’

This dispute, whether the opening of the coffee house by Jacob at the Angel in 1650 is a true fact, can be seen today in Oxford, by the contradictory adverts, displayed publicly at the two historic coffee houses in Oxford on the High Street. Queens Lane Coffee House, which Wood’s mentioned was opened by Cirques Jobson in 1654, advertises itself: ‘Established in 1654. The oldest coffee house in Europe.’ Opposite, in the window of the Grand Café – the site of Jacob’s coffee house, opened in 1650, it advertises itself: The Grand Cafe stands on the site of the oldest coffee house in England established c. 1650.’

Ambiguity in Wood

The reason for this contest, obfuscation and confusion is due to an ambiguity in Wood’s diaries, as argued by Professor Markman Ellis in his book, The Coffee-House: A Cultural History (2004).^[81] The problem is as follows: In the earlier version of the diary (British Library MS Harley 5409), it references the coffee house at the Angel in the year 1654, stating in August: ‘Coffey, which had been drank by some persons in Oxon. 1650,’ suggesting only private drinking of coffee took place in 1650, with no mention of Jacob a Jew opening a coffee house in that year. It only writes that coffee was ‘publickly sold at or neare the Angel by an outlander or a Jew near or at the Angel’ in 1654. This implies, the coffee house at the Angel only opened in 1654. In the revised version of the diary by Wood, The Secretum (Oxford MS Tanner 102), the entry is inserted in 1650 and includes the details about the opening of a public coffee house at the Angel by Jacob, a Jew. In addition, in The Secretum, there is no specific date for this record: it appears between 22 January and 7 April, 1650, but has no specific date for the entry, unlike many other entries. It would seem then there had been a lifting of a part of the entry from the first version, recorded in 1654, to the earlier year in the revised version. This may be alluded to from the phrase: ‘this yeare’ in The Secretum. Whereas in the first version, the phrase: ‘this yeare’ clearly refers to 1654, where the entry is found, in the second version, now discussing exclusively about the opening of a public coffee house, omitting the beginning about private drinking of coffee, it nevertheless retains the phrase ‘this yeare,’ but is now referring to the earlier year 1650, where the entry has now been placed.

A reason this occurred is self-evident: the diary of Anthony Wood is not a daily recording of events in his life, like other diaries, for example, the diary of Samuel Pepys, but rather a writing of events from memory after or indeed before events have happened. This is evident from the fact that it records an entry about the day of his birth and christening. It’s possible that entries, therefore, may have been recorded in proximity to certain dates, but not necessarily insisting the event definitely occurred on that particular date, since it being written from memory, in some cases, many years after the event.

One may argue, also, in the case of the coffee house, since there is the mention of 1650 in the entry about coffee, in the first version, even though, in the first version, it is referring only to private drinking of coffee, not the opening of a public coffee house, in the revised version, it is sufficient for it to be lifted as a relevant date to be included in the diary in the year 1650, despite the fact the public coffee house opened only in 1654.

This style of diary that allows details to be added in a related year, but not necessarily meant to be precise, is found to have happened in the further editing of the diary by Andrew Clark in 1890, where he adds a specific date ‘March 1650’ for the entry of the opening of the public coffee house by Jacob at the Angel. This date of ‘March’ is certainly not in the later version, Oxford MS Tanner 102, and unlikely intended to give an accurate date of when the coffee shop actually opened. The date that the entry about Jacob’s coffee house is placed in The Secretum (the second version of the diary) is a continuation, but separate paragraph of the an entry, recorded under the date heading: 22 January, 1650. The reason why Clark recorded March as the month the coffee house opened in 1650, is due to its juxtaposition with another entry, related in subject and proximity in date, taken from Anthony Wood’s collection of other writings, inserted in the 19^th century in The Secretum by Andrew Clark alone. In the editing of The Secretum in 1890, nearly two hundred after Wood’s passing, under the title: The Life and Times of Anthony Wood, antiquary, of Oxford, 1632-1695, described by himself, collected from his Diaries and other papers by Andrew Clark MA, Clark extracts pieces from other papers of Anthony Wood, and inserts them as diary notes in the place and date where they appear to belong in The Secretum. This is decided based on a date merely mentioned in the particular note. This occurs with an entry added by Clark just before the entry about Jacob’s coffee house in The Secretum in the date 1650. The additional entry is about the beheading of Royallist Sir Henry Hyde by Parliamentarian soldiers on 4^th March 1650:^[82]

March. – (Sir Henry Hyde, brother to Dr. Alexander Hide, afterwards bishop of Salisbury, behaded, T., 4 Mar. 1650. His crime was the receiving, and acting by virtue of, a commission from Charles Stuart as ‘King of Great Britaine France and Ireland, being qualified by him as his agent to the court of the Great Mogul Turk with intent to destroy the trade of the Turkey company and the parliament’s interest, not only in Constantinople but also in Mytylene, Anatolia, and Smyrna (in which he has a commission to be consul). His aime being likewise to seize upon the English merchants’ goods for the use of the said Charles Stuart. For the effecting of which designe he presume’s to discharge Sir Thomas Bendish of the embassie, being leiger there for the state of England’ he procured audience of the Great Visier and raised great feares and uproars among the merchants, etc.

As the date of this note relates to 4 March, 1650, Clark inserted it into his published 19^th century version of The Secretum inMarch, 1650. Since the subject of the note is about Henry Hyde being executed for being an ambassador for Charles I to Turkey with the aim of destroying the trade of the Turkey company, which most likely included coffee, and the date March 1650, Clark decided that the entry belongs after the entry of 22 January and before 7 April, 1650. This necessarily places it just before the undated entry about Jacob’s coffee house, forcing a narrower date for the opening of Jacob’s coffee house: between 4 March and 7 April, 1650. It should be noted, however, that, contrary to Ellis’ view, Clark does not explicitly write the date ‘March’ above the entry of Jacob’s coffee house: the ‘March’ date is found only above the new entry about Henry Hyde’s execution. It does however give no room for any other month for the opening of Jacob’s coffee house, contrary to the original text in The Secretum. Conceivably, prior to Clark’s additional entry, the opening of Jacob’s coffee house, as recorded in The Secretum, could have been any other date between 22 January and 25 March.

The reason for the end date: 25 March is due to the recording of the beginning of the Julian new year: ‘1651’ above the diary entry that appears after Jacob’s coffee house, where it stetaes the new year: ‘1651.’ This necessarily makes the entry about Jacob’s coffee house to have taken place during 1650 (Julian year). The heading ‘March’ for the new entry about Henry Hyde, therefore forces the date for Jacob’s house opening to be between 5 and 24 March, 1650. As Ellis argues, the precise dating of the opening of Jacob’s coffee house, by Clark, as ‘March’ is then indeed conjectural, as there is no basis for this accuracy of dating in The Secretum, and certainly not in the earlier version of the diary, that appears to have it in a completely different year (1654).

In summary, the Julian year 1650 (Gregorian year 1651) as the date for the opening of Jacob’s coffee house at the Angel, as recorded in The Secretum, is not supported by the earlier version of the diary and thus unreliable. The dating of March for the opening of Jacob’s coffee house, lifted from Wood’s other papers, further produces an impression of a possible corruption of the entry about this historical fact about Jewish history of England.

Counterargument

The counter argument, however, supporting the earlier date for the opening of Jacob’s house is nevertheless, equally, and perhaps even more compelling. As a general observation: when an author has an earlier version of a text and then revises, with a great number of variations, some whole paragraphs, as with the addition of the second coffee house, opened by Cirques Jobson, a Jew from Mount-Lebanus, in 1654, and hundreds of minor changes, including spelling of words, punctuations, and abbreviations, the second version should be considered more reliable, even if aspects of the textual history seem confusing.

In addition, it seems the first version is not as precise from a number of entries, where phrases like ‘I think’ and ‘as I remember’ is found, for example, in 1654. In the first version, Wood writes:^[83] ‘after dinner wee were entertain’d by some of the neighbours, who danced (as I remember) in the green.’ Then it continues: ‘Afterwards wee went (I think) to Kidlington.’ Similarly, regarding the dating of years, Wood writes:^[84] ‘I believe in 1654, in the beginning of the yeare, the first Quakers came…and I think they came to Oxford that yeare and had a solemn meeting there in an old stone-house against New (Inn), see my pamphlets of their abuses by scholars among ‘Oxford papers.’ Omitting phrases that reflect doubt in the second version points to accuracy in the second version.

The same argument can be made regarding the entry about the coffee houses between the two versions: 1. The fact that the first version writes ambiguously ‘some persons’ regarding the drinking of coffee in 1650, shows a limited knowledge, similar to the above language reflecting doubt. The second version omits the ambiguous phrase ‘some persons’ and adds a name, Jacob a Jew. 2. The first version further shows limited knowledge of the facts, by writing doubtfully: ‘an outlander or a Jew.’ The second version clarifies that the person who opened the coffee house at the Angel was in fact ‘Jacob a Jew.’ 3. The additional paragraph about Cirques Jobson, with his name explicitly mentioned, describing him in such detail as a Jew and a Jacobite, omitted in the first version, shows the second version was written after researching the topic more thoroughly. 4. Written after being accused of defamation in his earlier work, accuracy of details would have been important, thus the reason for the diary’s editing and revision. This all suggests the first version, written from memory, with limited knowledge of facts in some cases, was meant to be revised and more thoroughly researched for a second version. In the case of the coffee houses, in the first version, Woods evidently confused and combined Jacob’s and Cirques’ coffee houses together, and was unaware that there was selling coffee publicly at the Angel as early as 1650. This was corrected in the second version, where the two accounts with their details and names of persons are placed in the corrects years and places in the diary, thus concurring with Clark’s view in the 19^th century that the first coffee house in Oxford opened in 1650, and the second coffee house by Cirques Jobson in 1654.^[85]

Conclusion

We presented a detailed study about the issues surrounding Jews and coffee in 17^th century England and other places. While Jews never banned coffee as a drink, unlike other religions and countries, other aspects of coffee proved highly controversial, some dividing Jewish communities until today. This includes: entering a coffee house, drinking coffee roasted by a non-Jew, and the correct way to make a cup of coffee on Shabbat. While the widespread custom is to permit the first two, considering the fact the early coffee house a mini-academic institution, the latter issue, regarding preparing coffee on Shabbat, remains a dispute until today. In addition, we outlined an extensive discussion about the reliability of the historical fact that the first coffee houses in England was opened by a Jew in Oxford in 1650. If this is the case, which we argued should be seen as reliable, it would mean that a Jewish immigrant trader, even before Jews were officially live in England, was involved in triggering England’s enormous economic growth in the 17th century, which helped make England a world centre for finance and academia until today.

^[1] https://www.thehistoryoflondon.co.uk/coffee-houses/.

^[2] Ginat Veradim ch. 3. Sha-a lot u-teshuvot Bei chayei by R. Chaim ben Israel Benvenisti (1603-1673), Yoreh Deah 155.

^[3] Essential Guide to Coffee, editors.

^[4] Coffee: A Global History by Jonathan Morris, p. 8.

^[5] The world atlas of coffee by James Hoffman.

^[6] Essential Guide to Coffee, editors.

^[7] The philosophy of coffee, Brian Williams, p. 31-32.

^[8] Oxford: A Cultural and Literary Companion, David Horan, p. 67.

^[9] The philosophy of coffee, Brian Williams, p. 32.

^[10] https://legallegacy.wordpress.com/2019/12/29/december-29-1675-king-charles-ii-of-england-bans-coffee-houses/. Accessed 1 March, 2024.

^[11] Coffee: A Global History (p. 69), Jonathan Morris, p. 71.

^[12] Oxford: A Cultural and Literary Companion, David Horan, p. 67.

^[13] www.pepysdiary.com/encyclopedia/361/#c86092.

^[14] Avodah Zara 37b.

^[15] Sha-a lot Teshuvot R. Yosef Karo, citing a responsa of his uncle R. Yitzchak Karo: The rule regarding Kabbalists conflicting with Jewish law, as recorded in the Talmud, is as follows: R. David ben Zimra, known as Radbaz (1479-1573) writes in his responsa (4:2214): if Kabbalists contradict a decided law in the Talmud, the view in the Kabbalah is not followed. If the dispute in the Talmud is undecided, and Kabbalah decides one view, this may be followed. This is the case with the undecided dispute about wearing tefillin on Chol Ha-moed and the preference of levirate marriage over chalitzah. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19556&st=&pgnum=131&hilite=. See also Radbaz 4:1051.

^[16] Sha-a lot u-teshuvot Bei chayei by R. Chaim ben Israel Benveniste (1603-1673), Yoreh Deah 155.

^[17] The drinking of coffee by nobility, making it subject, according to some opinions, to the prohibition against eating food cooked by a non-Jew, if ‘served at the table of kings,’ is evident from The Sassoon Dynasty by Cecil Roth, p. 161: ‘This style of life could not long persist in members of the Marlborough House set. It was difficult for even the most devoted of traditionalists to be scrupulous about the dietetic observances when he was invited to dine with the Heir Apparent to the Throne of England, or to refuse to serve milk with the after-dinner coffee when he entertained the nobility.’

^[18] Birkei Yosef, kuntres shi-yurei brachah yoreh de-ah 113:3.

^[19] Chavot Ya-ir 4:42.

^[20] Moses Montefiore: Jewish liberator, Imperial hero, p. 12.

^[21] This was the case also in England, where women were excluded from coffee houses. The philosophy of coffee, Brian Williams, p. 31.

^[22] It stated: ‘due to the travails of war and other concerns, many have protested that we cannot be so stringent on this matter… the way to distance from sin will be that on the holy Sabbath, no one should go to the coffee houses to drink coffee, but anyone who wishes to drink should bring it to his home. And on weekdays, any time they are praying in the Old New Synagogue (Altneuschul), no man should dare go drink in the coffee house.’

^[23] Maoz Kahana: https://blog.nli.org.il/en/coffee-houses-on-shabbat/.

^[24] Moses Montefiore: Jewish liberator, Imperial hero, p. 27.

^[25] Early History of Coffee Houses in England, p. 79.

^[26] The first English Coffee House, p. 29-30.

^[27] P. 56. https://www.seekingmyroots.com/members/files/G005666.pdf.

^[28] According to Dayan David, of the Sephardic Beit Din in London, in Burma in the 20^th century, Jews would drink coffee on Shabbat, by a non-Jew visiting the coffee house and pouring it for people in cups in the town. In Bombay, it seems that Jews did not drink coffee on Shabbat, as recorded in The Sassoon Dynasty (p. 56): ‘At sundown, the evening service would be mellifluously recited; after which the pious householder permitted fire to be used once more after the Sabbatical rest, and the company was regaled on coffee and narghiles.’

^[29] It is for this reason that drinking of tea eventually took over the popularity of coffee in the 18^th century.

^[30] In 1684 Abraham succeeded his father as head of the Egyptian rabbinate. His son-in-law, the physician Ḥayyim b. Moses Tawil, published a collection of Abraham's responsa (arranged in the order of the four Turim) and a treatise on divorce entitled Ginat Veradim (Constantinople, 1716–17) and Ya’ir Netiv (1718), respectively. In Venice, Abraham printed his father's responsa Darkhei No'am (1697–98), adding to it his own treatise on circumcision which involved him in a halakhic controversy with his contemporaries.

^[31] There are four interpretations offered to this principle: a. Tosafists (Shabbat 39a) and R. Jacob b. Asher (Tur, Orach Chaim 318) say that food that has been fully cooked before Shabbat may be reheated on Shabbat. b. Rashi interprets the principle pertaining not to cooked food, but salted food that had been soaked before Shabbat. c. Rabbi Vidal of Tolosa, author of Maggid Mishneh, states that it is referring to food that has been partially cooked before Shabbat. d. Maimonides states: ‘When food has been cooked before the Sabbath or soaked in hot water before the Sabbath, one is permitted to soak it in hot water on the Sabbath even though it is presently cold.’ R. Joseph Karo interprets Maimonides as referring to any – salted or unsalted - food that may have been soaked in boiling hot water, as sufficient to be considered cooked before Shabbat so that it may be cooked on Shabbat.

^[32] Maimonides, in his legal work Mishneh Torah, Laws of Shabbat, chapters 9 and 22, also does not make any distinction.

^[33] This view is brought in Mordechai, Shabbat 320.

^[34] He may have had a variant in the manuscript.

^[35] He supports this challenge – that cooking after baking does not constitute cooking on Shabbat, as opposed to matza on Passover – from the decisive view in the Talmud that cooked vegetables still require the blessing over the fruit from the ground (boreh pri ha-adamah), despite it having been altered in the process of their stewing, as this doesn’t fundamentally change their constitution. The same is the case with cooking after baking: it doesn’t constitute a fundamental change and thus one is not liable.

^[36] Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 318:5.

^[37] Sefer Hazichronot says the opposite: halacha follows the first view in Shulchan Aruch, when the first view prohibits.

^[38] Zera Emet ch. 39.

^[39] Lev Chaim 2:55.

^[40] This was based on the way they read the view of R. Joseph Karo’s second decisive opinion that it is permitted, pertaining only to a secondary vessel, but a primary vessel remains in fact prohibited.

^[41] The Life of Anthony Wood in his own words, N. Kiessling, p. viii.

^[42] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Luis_Vives.

^[43] The Life of Anthony Wood, p. 115.

^[44] The Life of Anthony Wood, p. 192.

^[45] The Life of Anthony Wood, p. 36.

^[46] Oxford: A Cultural and Literary Companion, p. 67.

^[47] https://www.oxfordhistory.org.uk/high/tour/south/angel_hotel.html. Accessed 11 March, 2024.

^[48] https://www.oxfordhistory.org.uk/high/tour/south/angel_hotel.html. Accessed 11 March, 2024.

^[49] Oxford: A Cultural and Literary Companion, p. 67.

^[50] The Life of Anthony Wood, p. 44.

^[51] The year Edwards married Mary, the eldest daughter of merchant Thomas Hodges, which facilitated Rosée to open the coffee house, in partnership with Edwards’ father in law’s former apprentice, Christopher Bowman - a freeman of the City. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasqua_Rosee

^[52] The connection of Jews to the spread of coffee houses round the world is mentioned by Ottoman chronicler İbrahim Peçevi, who reports in his writings (1642–49) about the opening of the first coffeehouse in Istanbul: ‘Until the year 962 [1555], in the High, G-d-Guarded city of Constantinople, as well as in Ottoman lands generally, coffee and coffeehouses did not exist. About that year, a fellow called Hakam from Aleppo and a wag called Shams from Damascus came to the city; they each opened a large shop in the district called Tahtakale, and began to purvey coffee.’ Outside the Ottoman Empire, the first coffee house is said to have appeared in 1632 in Livorno by a Jewish merchant, or later in 1640, in Venice.

^[53] P. 90.

^[54] P. 67. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wR8nb-LYHBMC&q=oxford+coffee+nathaniel&pg=PA67&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=oxford%20coffee%20nathaniel&f=false. Accessed 10 March, 2024.

^[55] https://museumofoxford.org/how-the-jewish-community-of-oxford-brought-coffee-to-england.

^[56] The philosophy of coffee, Brian Williams, p. 45.

^[57] The philosophy of coffee, Brian Williams, p. 46.

^[58] https://conversational-leadership.net/coffee-houses/.

^[59] Jonathan Morris, Coffee: A Global History.

^[60] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cecil,_1st_Baron_Burghley.

^[61] A social and religious history of the Jews, Salo Wittmayer Baron, vol. 15, p. 138.

^[62] A social and religious history of the Jews, Salo Wittmayer Baron, vol. 15, p. 140.

^[63] A social and religious history of the Jews, Salo Wittmayer Baron, vol. 15, p. 139.

^[64] https://www.darkoxfordshire.co.uk/explore/jacob-barnet-flees-his-own-baptism/. https://www.oxfordchabad.org/templates/articlecco_cdo/aid/457389/jewish/Oxford-Jewish-Personalities.htm

^[65] A social and religious history of the Jews, Salo Wittmayer Baron, vol. 15, p. 143.

^[66] A social and religious history of the Jews, Salo Wittmayer Baron, vol. 15, p. 144.

^[67] A social and religious history of the Jews, Salo Wittmayer Baron, vol. 15, p. 145.

^[68] Psalms 122.

^[69] A social and religious history of the Jews, Salo Wittmayer Baron, vol. 15, p. 147.

^[70] A social and religious history of the Jews, Salo Wittmayer Baron, vol. 15, p. 151.

^[71] https://www.jewishgen.org/jcr-uk/london/city_creechurch/index.htm.

^[72] A social and religious history of the Jews, Salo Wittmayer Baron, vol. 15, p. 150-151.

^[73] The problem with this idea is that

^[74] The Life of Anthony Wood, p. 115.

^[75] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Bobart_the_Elder.

^[76] Coffee: A Global History (p. 69), Jonathan Morris

^[77] P. 45.

^[78] P. 65-66.

^[79] P. 69.

^[80] P. 71-72.

^[81] P. 30.

^[82] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=L0IPAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false, p. 168.

^[83] Woods life and times, p. 190.

^[84] Wood MS. F. 1, p. 1082 / Woods life and times, p. 191.

^[85] The opening of the coffee houses by Jacob and Cirques was followed by Arthur Tillyard in 1656 who sold coffee publicly in his house against All Souls. Tillyard's coffee house would continue trading after 1660 when Charles II was restored to the throne. Woods writes in the Secretum for March 1656:^[85] ‘In this yeare Arthur Tillyard an Apothecary and great Royallist sold coffey publickly in his House against All-Soules Coll - He was encouraged so to do by som Royallists now living in Oxon, and by others who esteem’d themselves either Virtuosi or Witts. There were others also, as John Lamphire a Physitian lately ejected from New College, who was sometimes the natural Droll of the Company, the two Wrens, Sojournours in Oxon, Mathew and Thomas sons of Dr Bishop of Ely &c. This coffey house continued till his Majesties Returne and after, and then they became more frequent, and had an Excise set upon Coffey. encouraged by the society of young students, an apothecary and Royallist named Arthur Tillyard began to sell ‘coffey publickly in his house against All Souls College.’’ The veracity of the account about Jacob’s coffee house, may be deduced from the unquestioning veracity of other coffee houses and drinking in Oxford: the first use of the bean in England was also in Oxford: the private use as a brain stimulant, recorded to have taken place at Balliol college, Oxford ‘the first sinner to drink Coffee, and was sent down for his crime of stimulating his cramming.’ In 1650, in the house of Daniel Edwards, after returning from Smyrna, Anatolia, it we’re told he drank two or three dishes at a time of coffee, twice or thrice a day’ (The First English Coffee House, p. 29-30). The same may be said regarding the beginning of Jacob’s coffee house, as indicated in the Harley manuscript entry: ‘Coffey, which had been drank by some persons in Oxon. 1650,’ implying that it was drunken in private first, followed by coffee drinking in a publicly setting: ‘was this yeare publickly sold at or neare the Angel within the East Gate of Oxon. as also Chocolate by an outlander or a Jew.’ After the first opening of a coffee house in Oxford, the growth and popularity of coffee houses is evident by the fact that in 1663 there were already 83 coffee houses in London (Inglis, Lucy (2014). Georgian London: Into the Streets. London: Penguin).

PLAIN MEANING OF SCRIPTURE: RASHI ON GENESIS 3:8

Thu, 15 Feb 2024 3:23:00 PM

Introduction

In Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 3:8, it states: ‘I have come only to explain the plain meaning of scripture (p’shuto shel mikra).’ This early comment in Genesis, among many other similar statements, is understood by some supercommentaries to serve as a fundamental guiding principle for Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. There are three general views pertaining to the nature of Rashi’s commentary: a. some argue that Rashi is not at all a commentary committed to p’shat, since it primarily cites midrash. This is the view of R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (1009-1167) and found in the introduction to Sefer ha-Zikaron commentary on the Torah.^[1] This is the view of Avraham Grossman and Daniel Sperber, who both follow the view that Rashi is not a ‘pashtan.’ A second view is R. Elijah Mizrachi, who maintains that Rashi is close to p’shat.^[2] A third view is Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, known as the Lubavitcher Rebbe (1902-1994), that Rashi is committed to p’shat, and when citing midrash, it is selective, and, in many cases, rewords the midrashic text to be consistent with ‘p’shat.’ We will explore this principle through the variants of Rashi’s comment on Genesis 3:8, as found in the numerous manuscripts of Rashi at Oxford’s Bodleian Library and other libraries that house manuscripts of Rashi.

Genesis 3:8

The basis for the idea that Rashi is committed to the interpretation of p’shat in his commentary is from his comment on Genesis 3:8. The verse states: ‘They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day; and the Human and his wife hid from G-d among the trees of the garden.’

Midrash: Sound, Essence of the Divine, trees, man

Midrash Rabba (19:7-8) presents four interpretations: 1. Rabbi Ḥalfon said: We have heard that walking about [hi-lukh] is [an expression] used regarding sound. 2. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: ‘me-halekh’ is not written here, but rather: ‘mit-halekh,’ [which connotes] leaping up and ascending. The essence of the Divine Presence had been in the lower world, but when Adam the first man sinned the Divine Presence removed itself up to the first firmament. 3. They heard the voice of the trees saying: ‘This is the thief who deceived his Creator.’ 4. The voice is referring to the angels and ‘going’ refers to man: They heard the voice of the angels saying: ‘The L-rd G-d is going to those in the garden (to punish them).’ Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Yitzḥak, Rabbi Levi said: [The angels said:] ‘Is the one in the garden to die [met]?’According to this interpretation, ‘mit-halekh’ is interpreted as two words: Is he going to die [met], that man walking [‘holekh’] in the garden?

Medieval: man, voice, revelation

The medieval commentators also dispute the meaning of the verse: 1. Spanish grammarian, R. Jonah ibn Janah, says that ‘walking’ refers to man and is to be interpreted as follows: And they heard the voice of G-d as man was walking in the garden. Likewise, R. Jonah ibn Ganach writes that the meaning of the verse is: and man was walking in the garden toward the cool of the day. The sense of the verse thus being that while man was walking in the garden, he heard the voice of G-d. R. Abraham ibn Ezra, as Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed, writes that the verse employs the term: ‘holekh’ (walking) when referring to a voice, as found in Jeremiah (46:22): ‘The sound thereof shall go (yelekh) like the serpent’s,’ and Exodus (19:19): ‘And when the voice of the horn waxed (holekh) louder and louder.’ Nachmanides argues that it denotes revelation or departure of revelation: the sense of ‘walking in the garden of Eden’ is similar to that of the verses: ‘And I will walk among you’ (Leviticus 26:12); ‘And the Eternal went as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham’ (Genesis 18:33);’ ‘I will go and return to My place’ (Hosea 5:15). All these verses indicate a revelation of the Divine Presence in that place or the departure from the place wherein He was revealed.

Rashi

Rashi presents two comments on the verse in the printed edition:

‘And they heard:’ There are many Midrashic explanations and our teachers have already collected them in their appropriate places in Genesis Rabbah and in other Midrashim. I, however, am only concerned with the plain sense of Scripture and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them.

In a second comment, Rashi writes:

‘And they heard:’ What did they hear? They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, that walked (sounded) in the garden.

Rashi’s view is, similar to the first opinion found in the midrash, and Ibn Ezra and Maimonides, that: ‘mit-halekh’ (walking) refers, not to G-d, but the sound of G-d.

Ambiguities in Rashi’s comment

There are a number of ambiguities in Rashi:

1. Is Rashi stating there are two methods of interpretation in his commentary: a. p’shat and b. ‘such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them,’ or a single method: p’shat, and that the Agadoth citedare also in the category of p’shat?

2. Assuming Rashi discusses two methods, as a in 1 above, is Rashi’s second comment: ‘and they heard: What did they hear? They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, that walked (sounded) in the garden,’ following p’shat or ‘Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them?’

3. Is the principle ‘I have come only to explain p’shat and such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them’ local to the particular verse or a principle for the whole commentary?

4. Is Rashi commenting that the word: ‘mit-ha-lekh’ (going) refers to G-d or the voice?

Manuscripts – single interpretation – p’shat

I would like to argue that the various ways of understanding Rashi’s comment are reflected in the variants of this text among eight manuscripts of Rashi, held at the Bodleian Library and other libraries. The variants in comment are as follows:

1. ‘u’sh’mu’o’

In the following five Oxford manuscripts: CCCMS165, MS. Opp. 34 (1201-1225), MS. Canon. Or. 81 (1396), MS. Michael 384 (1399), MS. Opp. 35 (1408), after: ‘I, however, am only concerned with the plain sense of Scripture and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture,’ it states: ‘u’sh’mu’o’ (and its plain meaning). The phrase: ‘u’sh’mu’o’ is not found in the printed edition.

In MS. Opp. 14 (1340), it has the word ‘p’shu’to’ (its plain meaning), instead of ‘u’sh’mu’o,’ signifying their similar meaning.

In a single 15^th century Oxford manuscript: MS. Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425), the word ‘u’sh’mu’o’ is omitted, and instead the text is closest to the printed edition: ‘and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them.’

This, however, does not change the intent of Rashi’s comment, suggesting Rashi’s preference for a non-literal interpretation of the text, since, on the contrary, this manuscript omits completely the second half of the comment: ‘and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture,’ implying that Rashi is only concerned with p’shat.

Use of u’sh’mu’o

The use of this word may be found in the Mechilta DeRabbi Yishmael (Tractate Pischa 17):

‘Between your eyes:’ on top of the head. You say on top of the head, but perhaps (the intent is) literally (k-sh’mu’o), ‘between your eyes?’ It is, therefore, written (Deuteronomy 14:1) ‘Sons are you to the L–rd your G–d. You shall not gash yourselves, and you shall not make a bald spot between your eyes for the dead.’ Just as there, the top of the head is meant, so, here.

The phrase can be found also in Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 10:2; 29b): ‘Mine is Manasse (Psalm 60:7), its plain meaning (k’sh’mu’o),’ i.e. referring plainly to Manasse, king of Judah. In both cases, the meaning of ‘k’sh’mu’o’ is: ‘its literal meaning,’ which is the same as p’shat (plain meaning).

2. 'k’mash’ma’o’ / ‘mas’hma’o’ / ‘u’mas’hma’o’

A further variant in the manuscripts, compared to the printed edition, is the word: ‘k’mash’ma’o.’ This appears in manuscripts at the beginning of the second half of the comment: ‘And they heard:’ What did they hear? They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, that walked (sounded) in the garden.’ Instead of the second repeated cited word from the verse: ‘And they heard,’ followed by the question in the opening of the comment: ‘What did they hear?’ it states: ‘k’mash’ma’o’ (like its plain meaning). This is then followed by the comment: ‘They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, that walked (sounded) in the garden.’ The word ‘k’mash’ma’o’ can be found in the following Oxford manuscripts: CCCMS 165, MS Opp. 34 (1201-1225), MS. Opp. 14 (1340), MS. Canon. Or. 81 (1396) (‘mas’hma’o’), MS. Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425) (‘u’mas’hma’o’). Only in a single manuscript, MS. Opp. 35 (1408), it states, like the printed edition, a repeat of the opening: ‘And they heard,’ without the question: ‘what did they hear?’

The inclusion of the word: ‘k’mash’ma’o’ (like its literal meaning) is the same as ‘u’sh’mu’o’ (and its plain meaning), further implying that the intent of the comment of Rashi in interpreting the verse: ‘And they heard the voice of G-d going in the garden’ according to its plain meaning.

There are variants, however, how the word: ‘k’mash’ma’o’ is found amongst the manuscripts: in most of the manuscripts, it states: ‘k’mash’ma’o’ (like its plain meaning),but in MS. Canon. Or. 81 (1396) it states: ‘mas’hma’o’ (without the prefix ‘kaf’),and in MS. Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425) it states: ‘u’mas’hma’o’ (with a prefix vav).^[3]

Use of the word

The use of the word: ‘k’mash’ma’o’ can be find in Rashi’s commentary in conjunction with the term p’shat in Genesis 8:7:

Until the waters were dried up: The real sense of the verse is what it plainly implies (p’shu’to k’mash’ma’o) (until the waters of the Flood were dried up); but the Midrashic explanation (Genesis Rabbah 33:5) is: The raven went to and fro in the world being kept in readiness for another errand during the time when the rain was withheld and the waters dried up in the days of Elijah, as it is said, (1 Kings 17:6) “And the ravens brought him bread and flesh”.

Printed edition – two levels of interpretation

In the printed edition, both phrases: ‘u’sh’mu’o’(its plain meaning)and‘k’mash’ma’o’ (like its plain meaning) are omitted. Instead of ‘u’sh’mu’o’(its plain meaning) the word ‘davar’ is added, referencing the verse in I Proverbs 25:11: ‘Like golden apples in silver showpieces, is a phrase well turned (da-var da-vur al of-nov).’ In all the manuscripts, only the last two words appear: ‘da-vur al of-nov.’ In the printed edition, the additional word: ‘davar’ (speech) is added at the beginning. The literal meaning of the sentence, as explained by Rashi on Proverbs, is: ‘a word spoken with proper basis.’

In place of ‘k’mash’ma’o’ (like its plain meaning), the printed version of Rashi’s comment inserts a new opening of a comment. It repeats the citation of the word from the verse: ‘and they heard’ (va-yish-me-u), and comments: ‘They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, that walked (sounded) in the garden.’

Summary

The implication of the analysis of the textual history of Rashi’s comment on Genesis 3:8, comparing the manuscripts and published edition, appears to reflect the question whether this comment indicates two levels of interpretation: p’shat and midrash or just p’shat. In the manuscripts, the emphasis appears to be a singular level of interpretation: the plain meaning of the text, as there is no difference in meaning between p’shat, and ‘sh’mu’o,’ despite the latter being juxtaposed to second half of the comment relating to Aggadah. In the printed edition, with the omission of the repeat of the concept of p’shat (u’sh’mu’o), two distinct concepts of interpretation become apparent: p’shat and ‘such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them’ that is not regarded as (the same level of) p’shat as the first.

Omission of second method completely

The view reflected in the manuscripts that omits a second method of interpretation - Aggadah, distinct from p’shat, is most reflected in MS Opp. 14 (1340), where it repeats the phrase: ‘up’shu-to’ (and its plain meaning) after the phrase: ‘such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture,’ and MS. Canon. Or. 35 that omits all-together the phrase: ‘such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them’ all-together. This manuscript, in fact, combines both methods into one: while in most versions it uses the term ‘ha-me-ya-she-vet’ (explains) in the second method when stating: ‘and such Agadoth that explain (‘ha-me-ya-she-vet’) the words of Scripture,’ and ‘le-fa-resh’ (to explain) in the first methid, when stating: ‘I have come only to explain - ‘le-fa-resh’ - the plain meaning of scripture,’ MS. Canon. Or. 35 omits the second method: ‘and such Agadoth that explain (‘ha-me-ya-she-vet’) the words of Scripture, and, instead, uses the word: ‘le-ya-shev’ (to explain) in the first method: ‘I have come only to explain – ‘le-ya-shev’ - the plain meaning of scripture.’ This further illustrates the desire of the manuscript versions not see a distinction between p’shat and non-p’shat pertaining to the statement: ‘and such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture.’

3. Walking - she-ha-ya’

The above evolution of the text of Rashi from a singular concept of p’shat to a two-level concept of p’shat explains a third variant in the manuscripts. This relates to Rashi’s insertion of the word: ‘she-ha-yah’ (that was), to assist with the understanding of the precise meaning of verse. The verse states: ‘They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day.’ Rashi, in the printed edition, adds: ‘she-ha-ya’ (that was) between ‘the sound of G-d’ and ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech). The difficulty in the meaning fo the text is: does ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech) relate to ‘G-d’ – the word juxtaposed to the word: ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech), or the ‘sound’ (kol) – the earlier word? The most literal meaning is the former, relating to ‘G-d,’ since, firstly, ‘sound’ does not ‘walk’ in a garden, in the literal sense; it may be heard in the garden. On the other hand, G-d is omnipresent. For this reason, the midrash interprets in its first explanation that ‘walking’ refers to the ‘sound’ (kol). This, however, by definition is an opinion that appears in the midrash. As Rashi is making a distinction between midrash and p’shat, it would seem to be rejecting this interpretation, as well as other more far-fetched midrashic interpretations, in favour of the p’shat: it refers literally to G-d, who was walking in the garden. To clarify this point in the printed edition, Rashi inserts the word: ‘she-haya’ (that was) between the words: ‘the sound of G-d’ (kol Ha-shem Elo-kim) and ‘walking’ (mit-ha-lech), identifying G-d as the subject that was (she-haya) ‘walking’ in the garden (as opposed to the sound).

This understanding of Rashi is the view of R. Judah Loew (d. 1609). The reason he gives for this interpretation is that the verb: ‘mit-halech,’ in the reflexive form, denotes one who is doing something of one’s own volition. If it would refer to the ‘kol’ (sound), it would have stated: ‘yelech,’ as in Exodus (19:19): ‘The blare of the horn went (‘yelech’) louder and louder.’ To clarify this, Rashi adds: ‘she-haya’ (who was), identifying G-d as the subject that was ‘walking’ in the garden.

A second interpretation of Rashi is by R. David HaLevi Segal (1586–1667), in his commentary Divre Dovid, who argues the complete opposite: Rashi intends, with the additional word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was) that it was the ‘sound’ that was ‘walking’ in the garden, as the midrash argues in the first interpretation: ‘We have heard that walking about [hilukh] is [an expression] used regarding sound.’

While the word ‘she-hayah’ (that was) can, in theory, apply to either: the words immediately juxtaposed (Ha-shem Elo-kim – G-d), or the earlier word: ‘kol’ (sound), the latter is less p’shat and more midrashic, as indicated from the fact that this view is in fact cited in the midrash. The former is more the plain meaning of the text, as the words are juxtaposed.

The two interpretations of how to understand Rashi’s intention in his comment explaining what it was that was ‘walking in the garden’ – ‘G-d’ or the ‘voice’ - are reflected in the variants in the manuscripts pertaining to the exact place the word: ‘she-haya’ (that was) is inserted in Rashi’s comment: In MS. Opp. 14 (1340), ‘she-haya’ (that was) is found, as in the printed version, between ‘G-d’ and ‘walking,’ suggesting the possibility it was the ‘sound’ that was ‘walking’ (travelling) in the garden, as per the view of R. David HaLevi Segal. They heard the sound of G-d walking (mit-ha-lech) about in the garden at the breezy time of day

In other manuscripts, however, it makes it abundantly clear that the intension of Rashi is to interpret the verse that it was G-d who was walking in the garden. In CCCMS165, it states: ‘they heard the sound of the Holy one, blessed be He, that (she-hayah) the Holy one, blessed be He was walking in the garden.’ The double expression: ‘the Holy one, blessed be He’ before and after ‘she-hayah’ (who was) makes abundantly clear that the intension of Rashi is that it was G-d who was walking in the garden. Rashi MS Munich 5, Leiden 1, BL 26917 also follows this wording. Similarly, in MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-1225), it states: ‘they heard the sound’ and then writes: ‘she-hayah’ (that) the Holy one, blessed be He was walking in the garden. Even though it states ‘the Holy one, blessed be He’ just once, unlike CCCMS165, the placing of the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that) before the words: ‘the Holy one, blessed be He,’ makes clear that the intension of Rashi is that it was G-d who was walking in the garden.

Reflecting the ambiguity in the intention of Rashi, MS. Canon. Or. 81 and MS Canon. Or. 35 (1401-1425), omits the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was) all-together; MS. Michael 384 (1399) goes further and omits, not only the word: ‘she-hayah’ (that was), but the whole (second) comment on the verse: ‘and they heard the sound of G-d walking in the garden at the breezy time of day. Similarly, MS. Opp. 35 (1408) omits ‘in the garden’ (be-gan), writing only: ‘they heard the voice, the Holy one, blessed be He, was (ha-yah) walking (mit-ha-lech) at the breezy time of day.’ This suggests ‘walking’ refers to the sound that was heard at a specific time of day – ‘the breezy time of day’ (l’ru-ach ha-yom), but not saying anything about ‘G-d’ or the ’sound’ in reference to going in the garden. In this regard, the manuscript may be suggesting, as per the interpretation of R. Jonah ibn Janah and R. Jonah ibn Ganach, mentioned above, that it is referring to the ‘man’ who is ‘in the garden’ whom ‘hears the sound of G-d at the breezy time of day,’ avoiding the above dispute.

It would seem that the two ways to understand Rashi’s interpretation of ‘the voice of G-d going in the garden’ – midrashic, referring to the ‘voice,’ or literal, referring to ‘G-d,’ as proposed by R. Judah Loew and R. David Segal are reflected in our opening question: is Rashi on Genesis 3:8 exclusively p’shat, as it appears from the many of the manuscripts, as explaind earlier, or embraces midrash, albeit only when they explain the words of Scripture.

Conclusion

The principle that Rashi is ‘only coming to explain the plain meaning of scripture’ (p’shat) is understood in more than one way: encompassing his whole commentary or local to the particular verse. We argued that the manuscripts and textual history of this comment of Rashi on Genesis 3:8 reveals an ambiguity regarding the intension of Rashi in this comment. The majority of the manuscripts by including the word: ‘u’shmu’o’ (and its literal meaning) appears to not make a distinction between p’shat and midrash: they are both intended to be p’shat. The printed version, with the omission of the word: ‘u’shmu’o’ (and its literal meaning) clarifies that Rashi intends to communicate two methods of interpretation in his commentary: p’shat and ‘Aggadah ha-me-ya-shevet’ (explains) that is not p’shat (to the same degree) as the first method. This ambiguity has led to other variants in this comment, providing differing views on the meaning of the verse in Genesis 3:8 regarding what it was that was heard walking in the garden, and the intention of the insertion of the clarifying word ‘she-haya’ (it was) in Rashi’s commentary. The textual history, as reflected in the manuscripts, however, gives us insight into Rashi’s mind when he first wrote the commentary: accepting Genesis 3:8 as a principle for his whole commentary, it was intended to be in fact a work focused exclusively on p’shat.

^[1] Oxford MS. Opp. 218.

^[2] See: https://www.thetorah.com/article/rashi-on-the-torah-what-kind-of-commentary-is-it.

^[3] See Mishnah Kiddushin 3:4: ‘Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: it was necessary to state the matter, as otherwise, it might have meant (b’mash’ma) that they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan.’ Also, Bechorot 9:1: ‘the verse states: “And all the tithe of the herd or the flock, whatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be sacred to the Lord” (Leviticus 27:32), indicating that with regard to animal tithe, all animals that are included in the term flock are (mash-ma) one species.’ According to this, there may be differences in the use of this word amongst the manuscripts: When employed without the prefix ‘kaf,’ it means: ‘its meaning,’ not necessarily ‘plain meaning.’ This is found in Rashi on Leviticus 11:10: ‘The prolific creatures (she-retz): Everywhere this word denotes (mash-ma’o) a low (small) being that creeps and moves along upon the ground.’ With the prefix ‘kaf’ (‘k’mash’ma’o’), as found in MS. Canon. 81, combined with the mention of the intention to follow p’shat, as in MS. Canon. Or. 35, it seems clear that the intention of the use of the word is plain meaning.

The basic mitzvah of Chanukah: a study in the manuscript of the Talmud at the Bodleian library

Thu, 14 Dec 2023 4:35:00 PM

The main custom on the holiday of Chanukah is the lighting of the menorah, to recall the miracle of the lights. This is primarily sourced in the Talmud (Shabbat 21b):

What is Hanukkah? The Sages taught: On the twenty-fifth of Kislev, the days of Hanukkah are eight. One may not eulogize on them and one may not fast on them. When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary, they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days. The next year the Sages instituted those days and made them holidays with hallel and thanksgiving.

Six ways to light the Menorah

The subject of how exactly the Menorah should be lit is however subject to a dispute. There are in total seven possibilities:

1. A single candle each night per household,

2. A single candle each night per every member of the household.

3. Increasing a candle each night per household,

4. Increasing a candle each night per member of the household,

5. Decreasing a candle each night per household,

6. Decreasing a candle each night per member of the household.

The reason why there are manypossibilities is due to three reasons: a dispute among the sages of the Mishnah, a dispute how a text of the Talmud should be read and a variant in the Talmudic text amongst the editions of the Talmud, in particular because of a version of the Talmud found in a manuscript in the Bodleian Library. We will begin by presenting the text of the Talmud on the method of the lighting of the Menorah as found in the printed edition of the Talmud (Shabbat 21b):

The Sages taught: The mitzva of Chanukah a light, a person, and his household. And the mehadrin, i.e., those who are meticulous, a light for each and every one in the household. And the mehadrin min hamehadrin, who are even more meticulous, adjust the number of lights daily. Beit Shammai say: On the first day one kindles eight lights and, from there on, gradually decreases. And Beit Hillel say: On the first day one kindles one light, and from there on, gradually increases.

Three categories of lighting

The simple reading of the Talmud is that there are three categories of how to light:

1. The basic mitzvah: one per household every night

2. The mehadrin – meticulous: one per household member every night

3. The mehadrin min hamehadrin - even more meticulous – adjust the number of candles per night. This is either increasing according to the School of Hillel or decreasing according to the School of Shamai.

There is a dispute however whether the number 3 (mehadrin min hamehadrin – most meticulous) - adjusting the number of candles per night - is an addition to number 2 (mehadrin), which would mean each member of the household should adjust the number per night, or an addition only to number 1 (basic mitzvah), which would mean adjusting the number of candles per night but only for the household. In the former number 3 is adding to number 2, in the latter number 3 is an alternative to number 2. This dispute, how one should read the Talmud is the two opinions of Maimonides and Tasafot.

Maimonides maintains that one who acts mehadrin min hamehadrin – most meticulous – every member of the household should increase each night. This would mean, if there were ten members of the household, the first night ten would be lit and on the eighth night eighty candles are lit. It states in Mishneh Torah (Laws of Megillah and Chanukah 4:1):

How many candles should one light on Chanukah? The mitzvah is that a single candle should be lit in each and every house, regardless of whether there are many members of the household, or merely one person [lives] there. A person who performs the mitzvah in a beautiful and conscientious manner should light candles for every member of the household, whether male or female. A person who is even more conscientious in his performance of the mitzvah than this and observes the mitzvah in the most desirable manner should light candles for every member of his household, a candle for each individual, whether male or female, on the first night. On each subsequent night, he should add a candle [for each of the members of the household].

What does the above imply? When there are ten members of a household, on the first night one lights ten candles, on the second night - twenty, on the third night - thirty, until on the eighth night, one lights eighty candles.

The Tosafot writes that mehadrin min hamehadrin is only following the basic mitzvah of lighting one per household, since if it each member of the household would adjust each night, the significant number of candles would no longer indicate which night of Chanukah it is but rather one may think it reflects the number of household members. This is view is articulated in Tosafot on Shabbat 21b:

It seems to Ri that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel refer only to "a man and his household" (i.e. the head of the household alone lighting on behalf of his entire family). Because in this way, there is more beautification; since there is something recognizable when he keeps adding or removing [lights], corresponding to the days that are entering (the days of Channukah still to come) or exiting (the days of Channukah that have already passed). However, if he makes a light for each one (i.e. each member of his household gets his own light), even if he adds from now onwards, there is nothing recognizable, because [people] would think that this is the number of people in the household (i.e. instead of attributing the increase or decrease in lights to the intention of the owner to correspond to the day of Chanukah, people would attribute it to the intention to correspond to the number of people in the household).

Maimonides writes (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Megillah and Chanukah 4:1) that despite his own opinion, the custom in Spain followed the view of the Tosafists:

It is common custom in all of our cities in Spain that a single candle is lit for all the members of the household on the first night. We proceed to add a new candle on each and every night, until on the eighth night eight candles are lit. [This practice is followed] regardless of whether there are many members of the household or only one man [is lighting candles].

Rabbi Joseph Karo in his Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 671:2) quotes the custom cited by Maimonides as halachah. The Ashkenazic authority of Jewish law, R. Moses Isserles, known as the Ramah, writes that in Ashkenazic communities the custom is to fulfill the mitzvah in the manner of mehadrin min hamehadrin - i.e., each member of the household lights candles, and each night an additional candle is added, as per the view of Maimonides.

Reason for dispute

The reason for this dispute is based on different ways to understand the proposed definition of the degrees of the performance of the mitzvah of the Chanukah candles: are they merely enhancing the basic mitzvah or different ways to perform the basic mitzvah? Maimonides maintains that the basic mitzvah is a single candle per night per household. Anything beyond that is merely an enhancement of the basic mitzvah. In this context, there is the basic mitzvah and one can also further enhance the mitzvah by each family member lighting. One can enhance the mitzva even more by increasing the lights by adjusting per night.

Another way to define the structuring of the degrees of the performance of the mitzvah is that there are different ways of fulfilling the basic mitzvah: a. the simplest – one per night for household, 2. every member of the household lighting a candle or, alternatively, 3. one can perform the mitzvah by adjusting per night. In this context, there is no intention to suggest that that there is any enhancement of the mitzvah by each member lighting an additional candle per night. This is not one of the ways in which the mitzvah can be performed. This point is made by 16^th century R. Abraham de Boton, in his commentary on Maimonides Mishneh Torah, Lechem Mishneh:

Since Maimonides maintains that the mehadrin min hamehadrin (most meticulous) also observe the practice of the mehadrin (meticulous), this custom seems inappropriate. It is not the custom of the mehadrin min hamehadrin (most meticulous), nor is it the minimum requirement of the law.

Common denominator

The common denominator in all the above is that a way to light the menorah is to light one candle each night per household. This is articulated by Rashi in his interpretation of the opening of the text of the Talmud (Shabbat 21b): ‘The mitzvah of Chanukahisa light, a person and his household.’

New way to read the Talmud

With this introduction, I would like to present a new way of reading the above text of the Talmud that will provide a different way of understanding the structuring of the degrees of the performance of lighting the Menorah on Chanukah. In most of the manuscripts of the Talmud, the text of the Talmud is the same as the printed. This is how it is found in the Munich 5 Talmud, completed in the year 1342 by Shlomo ben Shimshon, copying by hand the of the complete Babylonian Talmud in one volume containing 577 pages. The type of script Shlomo ben Shimshon used was not the elegant square script commonly used for writing canonical treatises, but a semi-cursive script — that enabled a denser and more massive script and with which the copyist was able to include all 37 tractates of the Talmud in addition to the Mishna in a single volume. Apparently, Shlomo ben Shimshon’s achievement is unprecedented — not only for being the only volume of the Babylonian Talmud preserved in manuscript, but primarily for being the only one created from the outset as a single volume. In this version it states: ‘The sages taught: the mitzva of the candle of Chanukah is a man and his household.

MS Opp. 765

This is also how it is found in an Oxford manuscript of the Talmud, that was copied from the printed edition. The manuscript is part of a set of eight miniature volumes of the Talmud, shelfmark Opp. 765-772. The tractate Shabbat is Opp. 765 with a statement on the first page stating that it was a gift presented to Rabbi David Oppenheimer (1664-1736), Chief Rabbi of Prague and Nikolsberg, suggesting a date after 1702. According to Adolf Neubauer, it was presented to him at Nikolsberg. It has paging of the printed version indicated on the margin. The version of this text about how to light the Menorah is also the same as the printed edition.

MS Opp. Add. Fol. 23

In the Bodleian Library, there is however a further beautiful very large manuscript volume of the Talmud from the 16^th century belonging to the Oppenheimer collection: MS Opp. Add. Fol. 23, known as Oxford 366, after the Neubauer catalogue number. It consists of the first two orders of Zeraim and Moed, ending with the tractate of Shekalim. It includes the tractate of Shabbat that has the text relating to the lighting of the Menorah on Chanukah. An owner of the manuscript was Abraham ben Yitzchak ha-Levi Abkrat, bought in Cairo in the year 1557. The manuscript of the Talmud is in a format that existed before the landmark Bomberg printing in Venice of the Talmud of the first edition in 1519/20 - 1523) and a second edition 1525-1539, which created the format and pagination that we are accustomed to today. In addition, there is no commentary on the page of the Talmud and the structure of chapters are the complete text of the Mishnah an only then the discourse of the Talmud, known as gemara. In this edition, there is a change in the text, not found in any other extant version. The text states: ‘The sages taught: The mitzva of Hanukkah a light, a person, and his house. Do you think a light, a person, and his household? Rather say: a light, a person, in his house.’

This text has two parts: its initial interpretation and its corrected interpretation. The initial interpretation is the standard reading above that the basic mitzvah: each day to have a light kindled by one person, the head of the household, for himself and his household. This interpretation is however rejected and corrected that that this not what the intention of the Talmud is but rather that the menorah should be lit in his house. It is in fact not telling anything about the numbers of candles to be lit.

Accordingly, the two degrees of mehadrin (meticulous)and mehadrin min hamehadrin (very meticulous)are certainly not meant to present ways to enhance the mitzvah but rather two ways the basic mitzvah can be performed: 1. Mehadrin (meticulous): one candle each night per member of the household, 2. mehadrin min hamehadrin (very meticulous): adjust per night.

This reading of the text of the Talmud certainly does not lend itself to the view of Maimonides (adjust per household members and per night), since Maimonides’ view makes sense only if there are three degrees: the basic mitzvah, mehadrin (meticulous) and mehadrin min hamehadrin (most meticulous), cumulatively. If, however, there is the rejection of the first basic level (one per household per night) and only presenting two options, it would seem that there are in fact only two possible options how to light the Menorah (as argued above by the Lechem Mishneh).

Second variant

A further significant variant is the opening of the text of the Talmud. In the Talmud MS Munich 5 version it states: ‘Mitzvat ner chanukah ish u’beto’ (the mitzvah of the lighting of the Menorah on Chanukah is man, and his household). In the Oxford Talmud MS Opp. 765, it states: ‘Mitzvat chanukah ner ish u’beto’ (the mitzvah of Chanukah is a candle, man, and his household). This is also how it is found in Oxford Talmud MS Opp. Add. Fol. 23.

The difference is: according the first version - Munich 5, that places the word ‘ner’ (candle) at the beginning of the sentence, the Talmud is informing how to light the menorah on Chanukah. According to MS Opp. 765 and MS Opp. Add. Fol. 23, that places the word ‘ner’ (candle) in the second half of the sentence, the Talmud is informing what is the mitzvah of Chanukah. This is significant for our discussion, and consistent with our argument above. Since MS Opp. Add. Fol. 23 is informing what the mitzvah of Chanukah is in its opening, it is not necessarily out to tell us yet how it should be performed in detail. Thus, it clarifies, that the basic mitzvah is to light a candle in the person’s home. It then continues to discuss the number of candles: how the Menorah should be lit. According to this, there is no basic mitzvah to light just one candle per household. There are only two options for the basic mitzvah; one per household member and adjustment of numbers of candles per night. According to Munich 5, however, the text is in fact informing the basic mitzvah: one candle per household, and then continues to detail further enhanced options of lighting the Menorah.

Response to Anti-Semitism: strengthening of Jewish identity and universal education

Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:36:00 AM

Introduction

One of the oldest hatreds in the world is Anti-Semitism. This has taken on many forms, from ancient times until today, giving rise to countless books and articles on its causes and ways to counter it. Leon Poliakov writes in his foreword to The History of Anti-Semitism: there are two hypotheses on the origin of modern Anti-Semitism: Anti-Semitism that arises out of Christendom, and the supernatural explanation: ‘by virtue of the mysterious design of Providence, the Jews having been assigned a special role among the nations, playing it first among the so-called Noachian peoples – those practicing a religion that derives from the Hebrew Bible.’ This is reflected in an interpretation of the statement in the Talmud (Pesachim 87b): ‘G-d performed a charitable deed toward Israel in that He scattered them [pizran] among the nations.’ This Divine plan, either to assist in their survival or to be a light unto the nations, has been a cause of ancient and modern Anti-Semitism. In this essay, I would like to present approaches how to respond, in particular, to modern Anti-Semitism, from a traditional Jewish perspective, that recognizes its existence, identifies a cause, and ideas how to respond to it.

Jewish life at Oxford during WWII

A case study is the city of Oxford, before and during the Second World War, in light of an increase in size of the Jewish community in the city. Anti-Semitism in Oxford took two forms: relating to Jewish academics seeking a university position, as in the case of Isaiah Berlin’s appointment to All Souls, Albert Einstein to Christ Church and Hans Krebs’ admission into a Common Room. The second form was a popular negative attitude towards Jewish refugees. The Jewish population of Oxford had risen noticeably during the Second World War, as a result of the evacuation of Jewish mothers and children, blind persons, hospital patients and others from London. Reflecting the growth, instead of approximately 30 families before the war, over 200 people attended synagogue on Yom Kippur in 1939.

In the same year, it was believed there were some 200 London children in Oxford and more in the surrounding districts. During this time, numerous organisations were founded and flourished, including Oxford University Jewish Society (OUJS); Oxford Zionist Society (formed in 1939); Oxford Women’s Zionist Society (November, 1940); Theodor Herzl society; Federation of Women Zionists (FWZ); Jewish National Fund (JNF); The Jufra Club, which served during the war as rallying point for German-Jewish women and girls, chaired for its first two years, until April, 1941, by Mrs. Ettinghausen; Oxford Jewish Youth Club (November 1940); and The Jewish Religious Union (January, 1941). In December, 1939, the local branch of FWZ merged with the Oxford Zionist Society.

Anti-Semitism in Oxford during WWII

On 10 October 1941, it was reported by a letter from ‘Oxford Evacuee’ that there are queues for kosher meat but under control. On 17 October 1941, a letter from ‘Another Customer’ says that the ‘scenes at the kosher butchers are causing anti-Semitism. Obviously, it continued, it has been difficult for a community of 30 souls to be swollen suddenly to 2,000.’ On 24 October 1941, once again, a letter from Joseh Hirsch reported that as a member of the Oxford Jewish Congregation he wrote to the Committee on July 28 pointing out the unsatisfactory state of meat distribution. The letter was not acknowledged, however, nor a second letter to the wardens. He writes: ‘some people are buying trefa meat because of difficulty of buying kosher meat. He has been informed that some are buying trefa meat and koshering it.’On 31 October 1941, it was reported in a letter to the Jewish Chronicle regarding the growth of anti-Semitism in Oxford, referred to in sermon in synagogue during Kol Nidrei. It stated that scenes at the kosher butcher are a cause and reflected in advertisement columns of the local press. In Jews of Oxford, on this subject, it omits the subject of Anti-Semitism in this regard, saying rather: ‘There were public relation problems, gradually solved, in the large Jewish queues in the narrow alleys of the Covered Market, and the customers themselves complained that the shop was not kept in a clean state and that fowls were killed in the shop in the presence of women and children.’

Anti-Semitism in England during the war

Approaches

There are two classic approaches to respond to Anti-Semitism: the first, make oneself less noticeable through assimilation; a second approach, to enclave. This may mitigate potential friction, but does not deal with the issue: the inability for society to embrace the other. A third approach is to remain steadfast of one’s identity in the face of opposition. A fourth approach is education. The latter two approaches may be found in the work of R. Menachem M. Schneerson, known as the Rebbe, who lived through Soviet Russia, losing his father, R. Levi Yitzchak Schneerson, to ill health in forced exile in Kazakhstan in 1939, and witnessed the rise of Nazi Germany in 1933, and invasion of Paris in 1940. He fled, first to Vichy, then Lisbon, from where he sailed to America, in June, 1941. His wife’s sister and husband perished in the Holocaust. His life’s work was to rebuild Jewish life.

Strengthening Jewish identity

The first approach - strengthening Jewish identity – can be found in two correspondences. In 1969, opposing the flight of the Jewish community from a neighborhood in Brooklyn, he wrote: ‘should a Jew feel so insecure in the presence of a non-Jew and have an inferiority complex?’ In 1970, regarding the struggle for Soviet Jewry, he wrote: the antidote is for the strengthening of the principle that Jews are responsible for one another in a positive way. Every extra effort in observing Judaism on behalf of our unfortunate brethren who are not free to observe, will directly benefit them, in precisely the same way as any benefit to one part of the body benefits the whole body. In 1977, to a Ukrainian Jewish socialist, he wrote: ‘since we cannot rely on the kindness of nations, it is vitally necessary that Jews everywhere should turn their hearts and minds inwardly, and strengthen their identification with our great historic spiritual heritage, which has been the real unifying force of our Jewish people and has preserved our people through the ages - a tiny minority in a hostile world.’ Similarly, in 1982, regarding Terezin Requiem, he wrote: ‘There is no need to point out to you that anti-Jewish feeling has recently grown worse and there seems little Jews can do to improve that feeling. What is important, however, is to remember that the best memorial for our Martyrs, who died because of their Jewishness in the sanctification of G-d’s name, is the strengthening and spreading of Yiddishkeit everywhere.’

Education

The second approach is education about universal ethics and morality. In 1973, in a letter to Mr. Z. Jaffe, the Rebbe suggested: ‘the reason for Anti-Semitism - and indifference during the Holocaust - is the inability for nations to be altruistic.’ In 1975, however, he reflected on the potential of education: ‘Jews have a duty to encourage and help every person to abide by the Divine commandments which have been given to all mankind, namely, the so-called Seven Precepts Given to the Children of Noah, which are the minimum standards of universal ethics and morality, law and order, without which no human society can long survive.’ In 1982, he further argued, in relation to opposition to public Menorah lightings: discrimination against minorities is a reflection of a society that does not live up to the Divine moral precepts, which G-d ordained for the descendants of Noah, i.e. all humanity, as stated in Genesis 9:1-17. Education as a way to respond to Anti-Semitism was raised also in public addresses. On 19^th October, 1981, in an address to women, the Rebbe argued the mission of the Jewish people, in addition to observing Torah and mitzvot, to make the world an abode for the Divine, is to illuminate the world, regardless of the dense darkness that exists. There is possibility to educate the nations of the world to observe the precepts stated in the seven Noahide laws, so their behaviour is with true humanity (anushiyuot amitit).^[1]

Belief in G-d

A key aspect of the Seven Noahide Laws is the belief in G-d. The idea that belief in G-d is a basis for morality is the basis for many of the narratives in the Torah, including the story of the flood (Genesis 6:11), Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:4), Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:20), as well as the Book of Jonah, where it states (Jonah 3:5): ‘The people of Nineveh believed G-d. They proclaimed a fast, and great and small alike put on sackcloth.’ The argument for education is twofold: belief in G-d as the foundation to morality, and the moral precepts themselves. Both are referred to when Maimonides, laws of kings (8:10) writes: ‘Moses was commanded by the Almighty to compel all the inhabitants of the world to accept the commandments given to Noah's descendants.’ Applying this teaching, on 13 Tammuz, 1962,^[2] the Rebbe argued to support prayer in non-Jewish public schools, as it fulfils a key aspect of the Seven Noahide Laws: belief in one G-d. In 1963 (Shavuot),^[3] he placed these laws for non-Jews on par with Jewish law from Sinai.

In December, 1980 (19 Kislev),^[4] the Rebbe argued that education about belief in G-d as part of Seven Noahide Laws can also serve to combat Anti-Semitism and prevent another Holocaust. The rationale is, as German philosopher Karl Lowith, student of Heidegger, argued, that 20^th century philosophy viewed itself as a secular break with theology but in fact retained the religious idea that history is moving towards a messianic concept of perfection. This ‘secularisation of history’ led to the horrors of the Holocaust. The Rebbe argued, accordingly, restoring western civilisation on a theological foundation can prevent further tragedies to occur. In April, 1983 (end of Passover),^[5] he argued once more that education of society to believe in G-d and uphold the Noahide moral principles: charity, oppose theft and murder is beneficial to prevent another Holocaust.^[6]

Conclusion

We presented Anti-Semitism as a phenomenon that exists in a world where Jews live among the nations, compared, in Jewish teaching, to a lamb among seventy wolves (Tanchuma, Toldot 5). Despite the belief that G-d protects the Jews in a time of exile, Anti-Semitism has always existed and has been manifest in various forms and to different degrees of intensity. We presented, as a case study, the experience of the Jewish community in Oxford during the Second World War. There are four responses to Anti-Semitism: assimilation, enclave, defiance and education. The approach we presented from the thought of the Rebbe relates to the latter two: initially, resigning to the former, emphasising the importance of strengthening Jewish identity, while in the 1980s focusing primarily on the importance of education as a way to make the world a more moral, tolerant and altruistic place.

^[1] Hitva’adiyot 5743, vol. 1, p. 392.

^[2] Torah Menachem 34:152.

^[3] Likkutei Sichot 4:1094: The discussion takes place on the subject of the decalogue in Deuteronomy 5:19, where it states: ‘a might voice, and He did not cease.’ The idea of the unceasing word of G-d at Sinai, firstly, relates to the idea that the Divine voice continues in the learning of the Torah of each individual, and secondly, the voice heard at Mount Sinai was heard in seventy languages. The latter is manifest in the study of the Torah for Jews and the seven Noahide laws for non-Jews. The universal relevance of the Torah and mitzvot was further developed in a discourse on Simchat Torah, 1969, where a distinction was made between the transcendent nature of the mitzvot and their universal aspect: to refine the human being (Genesis Rabba 44:1). The latter is relevant to every human being through the Seven Noahide Laws that should be upheld as Divine ordinances from Sinai, just as the many additional laws given to Jews at Sinai.

^[4] Sichot Kodesh 5741, vol. 1, p. 553-554: This is in the context of a question posed on the focus of a letter written by the founder of Chabad, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, known as the Alter Rebbe (1745-1813), upon his release from Tsarist prison in 1798, in which he wrote to R. Levi Yitzchak Barditchev that: ‘unfathomable and marvelous (Isaiah 28:29) is the great and holy name of G-d that it became great and sanctified in public, especially in the eyes of all the ministers and the nations that are in all the provinces of the king (Esther 1:16).’ The Rebbe found perplexing that the Alter Rebbe spoke about the matter of his release in relation to the non-Jew, as opposed to the internal spiritual lesson that may be derived from his release, namely a renewed effort to strengthening the dissemination of the teachings of Chassidut, for which reason it was perceived he had been imprisoned. The answer he gives is that the concept found in this letter – moral behaviour of the non-Jewish officials to release the Alter Rebbe predicated on an acknowledgement of the Divine as the source of moral conduct - is based on the teaching of Maimonides in the laws of kings (8:11): the following of the seven laws of Noah must be based, not on logic, but G-d, since it is only this foundation that guarantees the moral purpose of existence, as mentioned in Isaiah 45:18: ‘G-d did not create the world a waste, but formed it for habitation.’ Drawing on the 12^th century work of Maimonides and its 19^th century application in the letter of the Alter Rebbe upon his release from Tsarist prison, the Rebbe reapplied this concept as a response to European Anti-Semitism in the 20^th century and its tragic consequences in the Holocaust. He argued that the cause of 20^th century Anti-Semitism was different than classic Anti-Semitism, namely Christian intolerance of the Jew. It was inspired by ideas found in the works of German philosophy (Kant, Hegel, Schelling, Nietzsche, and Heidegger), that thought human beings are autonomous, rational and ethical individuals, while the Jewish religion and the Jewish nation is heteronomous, i.e. acting in accordance with one's desires rather than reason. This belief led to them being excluded from the body politic of society as the Other. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004724410403400417?journalCode=jesa). The teachings of the Seven Noahide Laws, as presented by Maimonides, predicated on belief in G-d as the ultimate authority for a human being’s morality, then, opposes German idealism, and would thus also eliminate modern Anti-Semitism.

^[5] Torat Menachem Hitvaduyot 5743, vol. 3, p. 1326-1343. On p. 1334 (section 40), it discusses the importance of promoting the Seven Noahide Laws among the nations for the benefit of the Jews, while living in exile, as was the case during the Holocaust, when there were righteous gentiles – not most or even half of the population – but they nevertheless saved tens of thousands of Jews, because they knew of the concept of charity, and opposed theft and murder.

^[6] Yitshak Krauss argued that the motive of the Rebbe was part of a messianic theme. Naftali Loewenthal (Hasidism Beyond Modernity, p. 121-2) argued that, additionally, with the spread of Chabad chassidim and emissaries worldwide, there was a desire to create a ‘universe of discourse to share perspectives and communicate with the gentiles with whom they came in contact.’ I would like to argue that an important aspect of this was for the Rebbe, as a leader of world Jewry, witnessing the unceasing and even increasing phenomenon of Anti-Semitism in America and worldwide, forty years after the decimation of a third of Jewry in the Holocaust, and the inability of all previous ideas to eradicate it, a new and more effective method should be employed.

Maimonides on the sounding of the Shofar through the manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah at the Bodleian Library

Thu, 14 Sep 2023 7:46:00 PM

Maimonides on the sounding of the Shofar through the manuscripts of the Mishneh Torah at the Bodleian Library

The central tradition on the festival of Rosh Hashana is to hear the sounding of the Shofar, as it states in Leviticus 23:24: ‘Speak to the Israelite people thus: In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe complete rest, a sacred occasion commemorated with loud blasts.’ Similarly, it states in Numbers 29:1: ‘In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe a sacred occasion: you shall not work at your occupations. You shall observe it as a day when the horn is sounded.’ While the Torah does not give any reason for this mitzvah, numerous reasons are given through the centries. In the 5^th century midrashic work, Pesikta derav Kahanna (24:1), it gives a reason, based on Amos 3:6: ‘When a ram’s horn is sounded in a town, do the people not take alarm. The ‘ram’s horn’ refers to Rosh Hashana and ‘the people’ refers to Israel.

Saadia Gaon

Saadia Gaon, cited by 14^th century R. David Abudarham (Rosh Hashana, Tekiat Shofar 15), offers ten reasons. 1. This day is the beginning of creation when G-d created the world and ruled over it. At the beginning of a king's reign, they sounds the trumpets and shofars, to promulgate in all locations that the new reign has begun; likewise, we accept upon ourselves G-d's reign on this day by sounding the shofar. 2. Rosh Hashana is the first of the Ten Days of Teshuva, and we blow the shofar in order to announce that all those who wish to do teshuva, should do so. 3. The shofar reminds us of the shofar at Mt. Sinai, when we accepted the Torah. 4. The shofar reminds us of the Prophets, whose voice exhorts us to improve our ways. 5. The Shofar reminds us of the destruction of the Holy Temple and the cries of war. When we hear this sound, we will beseech G-d to rebuild the Temple. 6. The shofar (ram's horn) reminds us of the Binding of Isaac, who was ready to surrender his life for the sake of Heaven; likewise, we should also dedicate ourselves to sanctifying His name, and He will surely recall us for the good. 7. When we hear the sound of the shofar, we will tremble. This is the nature of the sound of the shofar, it causes one to tremble with trepidation. 8. The shofar reminds us of the Day of Judgment. 9. The shofar reminds us of the ingathering of the exiles when the shofar will be sounded, and this causes us to yearn for that time. 10. The shofar reminds us to believe in the resurrection of the dead.

Maimonides

Maimonides also gives a reason, similar to Pessikta deRav Kahanna: to awaken the person to repentance. In this essay, we would like to explore the reason given by Maimonides in detail as found in the printed edition and manuscripts of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah in the Bodleian Library. In particular, we will do this surveying a number of some minor, some significant variants of this text between the printed edition and the manuscripts and among the manuscripts. Finally, we try to explain the significance of these variants, how they impact the teaching that Maimonides is conveying regarding this all-important mitzvah on Rosh Hashana. In Mishneh Torah, Laws of repentance 3:4, it states:

Even though the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah is a decree (gezeirat ha-katuv), it contains an allusion (remez yesh bo). It is as if [the shofar's call] is saying: Wake up you sleepy ones from your sleep and you who slumber, arise. Inspect your deeds, repent, remember your Creator. Those who forget the truth in the vanities of time and throughout the entire year, devote their energies to vanity and emptiness which will not benefit or save: Look to your souls. Improve your ways and your deeds and let every one of you abandon his evil path and thoughts.

Accordingly, throughout the entire year, a person should always look at himself as equally balanced between merit and sin and the world as equally balanced between merit and sin. If he performs one sin, he tips his balance and that of the entire world to the side of guilt and brings destruction upon himself. On the other hand, if he performs one mitzvah, he tips his balance and that of the entire world to the side of merit and brings deliverance and salvation to himself and others. This is implied by [Proverbs 10:25] "A righteous man is the foundation of the world," i.e., he who acted righteously, tipped the balance of the entire world to merit and saved it. For these reasons, it is customary for all of Israel to give profusely to charity, perform many good deeds, and be occupied with mitzvot from Rosh HaShanah until Yom Kippur to a greater extent than during the remainder of the year. During these ten days, the custom is for everyone to rise [while it is still] night and pray in the synagogues with heart-rending words of supplication until daybreak.

Source of Maimonides

As R. Shem Tov ben Abraham ibn Gaon (1283 – c. 1330) in his commentary on the Mishneh Torah, Migdal Oz, and R. Menahem Krakovski (1869-1929), in Avodat ha-melech, point out, the source for Maimonides’ connection between the Shofar and call for repentance is from the midrash (Leviticus rabba 29:6):

On this month, rejuvenate your deeds with the shofar; on this month, improve (shapru) your deeds. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, "If you have improved your deeds, I will surely do like this shofar for you: Just like this shofar takes in [air] on this [side] and releases [it] on that [side], so too will I stand up from the throne of justice and sit on the throne of mercy and reverse the trait of justice for you into the trait of mercy." When? In the seventh month.

While the origin for the idea of repentance found in the shofar predates Maimonides, and some of the wording appears to arise from the midrash, the precise wording that Maimonides uses appears original.

Unstable text

We would like to begin by presenting this text of Maimonides with its many variants in the manuscripts, as found in the Bodleian Library, before the work was printed in the 15^th century, demonstrating that this is not a stable text. The Mishneh Torah was first printed circa 1473-1475 in Italy (probably Rome), then in other cities in Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, and Turkey. David and Samuel Ibn Nahmias printed a Mishneh Torah in Constantinople in 1509. In 1524, the master Venetian printer Daniel Bomberg produced a beautiful, well-edited Mishneh torah in two large volumes. In 1550, the new printing firm established by Alvise Bragadini came out with a Mishneh torah with notes by R. Meir Katzenellenbogen of Padua. Marco Antonio Giustiniani’s printing house published its edition in 1550-1. Bragadini continued to print until 1575, his last work being Mishneh Torah, published in 1574-75. In the middle of the seventeenth century, Joseph Athias established a combined Hebrew-Dutch printing house in Amsterdam, which turned into a success. His son, Immanuel Athias took over the management of the Hebrew printing in 1685. In 1702, he published Maimonides' Mishneh Torah in four volumes. The most common printed version today is the Warsaw-Vilna edition, circa 1900. Prior to the printing, however, many manuscripts existed, many of which may be found at Oxford’s Bodleian library. We will present the differences of the versions of the text regarding the reason for the sounding of the shofar on Rosh Hashana as found in the mansucripts.

Variant 1: ‘Gezerat ha-katuv’ (Scriptural decree)

In the opening of the text, it states: ‘Even though the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah is a decree (gezeirat ha-katuv).’ In some of the manuscripts the suffix: ‘hi’ (it is) is added: ‘gezeirat ha-katuv hi.’ In MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, it is added in the margin, as a correction and in Ashkenaz MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), it is added in the main text. In the other manuscripts it is omitted. This includes: MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), MS Opp. 156, Etz Chaim (Leipzig).

The inclusion of the suffix: ‘hi’ (it is), when stating that a law is a Scriptural decree (gezeirat ha-katuv hi), is typical for this sentence. This precise phrase – the mitzva is a Scriptural decree but contains an allusion - can be found in Maimonides’ Mishne Torah, in the laws of Mikvaot (11:12):

It is a clear and apparent matter that the concepts of purity and impurity are Scriptural decrees (gezeirat ha-katuv hen) and they are not matters determined by a person's understanding and they are included in the category of chukim. Similarly, immersion in a mikveh to ascend from impurity is included in the category of chukim, because impurity is not mud or filth that can be washed away with water. Instead, the immersion is a Scriptural decree (gezeirat ha-katuv hi) and requires focusing the intent of one's heart. Therefore, our Sages said: "When one immersed, but did not intend to purify himself," it is as if he did not immerse. Nevertheless, there is an allusion (remez) involved: One who focuses his heart on purifying himself becomes purified once he immerses, even though there was no change in his body. Similarly, one who focuses his heart on purifying his soul from the impurities of the soul, which are wicked thoughts and bad character traits, becomes purified when he resolves within his heart to distance himself from such counsel and immerse his soul in the waters of knowledge. And Ezekiel 36:25 states: "I will pour over you pure water and you will be purified from all your impurities and from all your false deities, I will purify you."

A possible reason for the omission of the word 'hi' (it is), after: ‘the sounding of the shofar on Rosh HaShanah is a decree (gezeirat ha-katuv),’ is to make a distinction between the actual sounding of the shofar that has a reason - a call to repent - and its ultimate purpose: to precipitate, through repentance, a desire within G-d to be sovereign over the universe (Saadia Gaon’s first reason). Since it is not the actual sounding of the shofar that is beyond rationale, it omits the emphatic word: ‘hi’ (it is).

Variant 2: ‘Remez’ (Allusion)

In all the versions of Mishneh Torah, it states that despite shofar being a Scriptural decree, there it contains an allusion (remez), i.e. repentance. In English medieval compendium of Jewish law Etz Chaim, produced in 1279, in Laws of repentance (ch. 1), citing Maimonides’ text, it however omits the word ‘remez’ (allusion) and, instead paraphrases the continued words found in the text: ‘rotzeh lomar’ (intending to say), suggesting the concept of repentance reflected in the sounding of the shofar may have a closer relationship with the Scripture than a hint by allagory.

Variant 3: ‘remez yesh bo’ (it contains an allusion)

In most of the versions, after the words: ‘an allusion’ (remez yesh), it states in the masculine: ‘bo’ (in it). In MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, it has, however, the feminine: ‘bah’ (in it). This variant is highlighted also by R. Menachem M. Schneerson in Likkutei Sichot (14:124, f.12), commenting that Taimanite editions have the feminine: ‘bah’ (in it). MS Huntington 80, with Maimonides’ signature, authenticating the version, has the masculine: ‘bo’ (in it). The use of the masculine: ‘bo’ is gender-consistent with the (masculine) word: ‘hakatuv’ (Scriptural). In this manner, the text is being consistent: ‘although it is a scriptural decree, it – the scripture (masculine) - has an allusion ‘in it’ - ‘bo’ (masculine).

Thus, in MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, where the feminine word: ‘hi’ (it is) is added in the margin after: ‘Scriptural decree’ (gezeirat ha-katuv), it makes sense there would also be the change to the feminine ‘bah (in it), after ‘remez yesh’ (there is an allusion). There is an inconsistency, however, in MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400), where the feminine suffix: ‘hi’ is added in the main text after ‘gezeirat hakatuv’ (Scriptural decree), but retains the masculine ‘bo’ (contains) in the sentence (remez yesh bo). In the Laws of Mikvaot, Maimonides avoids the gender issue, by stating: ‘there is an allusion involved in the matter (b’davar).

Variant 4: ‘Uru, uru’ (wake up, wake up)

The idea that the sounding of the shofar alludes to is to wake up and repent. The Mishneh Torah writes in the standard edition: ‘Wake up (uru) you sleepy ones (ye-sheinim) from your sleep (mi-she-natchem) and you who slumber (ve-n ir-da-mim), arise (ha-ki-tzu) from your slumber (mi-tar-de-ma-tei-chem). Inspect your deeds (ve-chap-su be’ma-a-se-chem), repent (ve-chiz-ru bi-teshuva), remember your Creator (ve-zi-chru bo-ra-a-chem).’

The standard text has in the opening of this sentence once the word: ‘wake up’ (uru). This is how it can be found in MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, and MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?). In many of the manuscripts, however, it has twice: ‘wake up, wake up’ (uru uru). This can be found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Opp. 156, and Etz Chaim (Leipzig). Aware of how carefully Maimonides was when writing each word of his text, as testified by the corrections made in MS Huntington 80, what would be the reason to have the phrase ‘wake up’ (uru) repeated?

The overall idea of calling man to wake up and repent can be found in Selichot Edot HaMizrach (4), where it states: ‘O man, why are you sleeping? Arise, call out with supplications! Pour out speech, seek forgiveness from the Master of masters.’ This text is taken from Jonah 1:6: ‘The captain went over to him and cried out, “How can you be sleeping so soundly! Arise, call upon your god! Perhaps the god will be kind to us and we will not perish.”’

The midrash Tanchumah (Vayikra 8:1) explains that the reason Jonah refused to travel to Ninveh was because he knew they would immediately repent and this would be used by G-d as a criticism against Israel who sins and does not repent immediately. Jonah said, "I am fleeing from in front of Him to a place where His glory is not [found]. What shall I do? If I ascend to the heavens, His glory is there, as it is stated (Psalms 113:4), 'upon the heavens is His glory.' And if upon the earth, His glory is there [too], as it is stated (Isaiah 6:3), 'the whole earth is full of His glory.' Behold, I will flee to the sea, as His glory is not stated there." [So] he went down to Jaffa…He said to [the boatsmen], "I will come with you." And the way of all ships is that when a man exits from them, he gives his payment. But in the joy of Jonah's heart, He preceded and gave his wage [right away], as it is stated (Jonah 1:3), "And Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from in front of the Lord [... and he gave its pay]."Jonah dozed off and was sleeping in the distress of his soul; and the captain came to him. He said to him, "Behold, we are standing between death and life, and you are dozing off? From which people are you?" He said to them, "I am a Hebrew." They said to him, "And have we not heard that the G-d of the Hebrews is great? 'Cry out to your G-d' (Jonah 1:6). Maybe He will do for us like all of His wonders at the Red Sea." He said to them, "This distress has come upon you because of me, as I am fleeing from in front of Him, as I thought that His glory was not in the sea, and now I see that His glory is on the dry land and in the sea." He said to them, "Because of me; 'Lift me and put me in the sea, and the sea will be quiet upon you' (Jonah 1:12)."

The phrase from Jonah 1:6: ‘How can you be sleeping so soundly! Arise, call upon your G-d,’ is expounded in the midrash: ‘Behold, we are standing between death and life, and you are dozing off’ and its use in the Selichot may be an aspect of the inspiration for this passage - ‘wake up’ - in Maimonides relating to the call of the shofar. This may also explain the double phrase: ‘wake up, wake up,’ as it states in Jonah, both ‘How can you be sleeping’ and ‘arise.’ I would like to propose, however, a further, more explicit source for the double: ‘wake up,’ as found in Psalms and Isaiah.

In Psalms 57:9, it states: ‘Awake, O my soul (lit. honour)! Awake, O harp and lyre! I will wake the dawn.’ There are two interpretations for the double ‘Awake:’ Rashi comments the first is to negate the sleeping practice of other kings: ‘Awaken, my honour and let me not sleep until three hours of the day have passed, as other kings do.’ The second, ‘Awaken’ is being addressed to the lyre and harp: Awaken me, you lyre and harp hanging on my bed, open to the north side. And as soon as midnight arrived, the north wind would blow on it, and David would get up and engage in Torah (see also Rashi on Berachot 3b and 4a).

R’ David Kimchi, known as Redak, offers a further interpretation: when G-d saves David from the hands of his enemy, he will sing to G-d with his mouth and also play music with instruments. Thus, he will say to his soul (ke’vo-di): ‘Awaken to compose words of song and thanksgiving, and a second ‘Awaken’ to the lyre and harp, when ‘I awaken at dawn.’ In both these commentaries, the double ‘awaken’ are used as a transitive verb with different focuses. Maimonides, in laws of repentance, however uses the double phrase as an intransitive verb and the second appears redundant. There are a number of approaches to this problem.

Omission

As mentioned, many of the manuscripts omits the second ‘wake up.’ This may also be the case in MS. Marsh 509, where a slight erasure appears on the second ‘uru’ (wake up). This resolves the issue.

Interpretation

A second approach is to interpret the double phrase, similar to the way it is understood in Psalms 57:9. This can be found in manuscript MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), where it breaks up the two phrases: it first states: ‘wake up, sleepy ones’ (uru ye-sheinim), and then ‘wake up from your sleep’ (uru mi-she-nat-chem). As Rashi on Psalms explains, the first implies the negative: ‘do not sleep’ and the second, the positive: ‘wake up.’ The intention of this manuscript is not to change the original text, but rather interpret and validate the double phrase. This is similar to the approach of Abrabanel on Isaiah 51:9, where he expounds that the three times the verse states: ‘Awake’ refers to different aspects of the words of comfort that the verse is conveying: ‘the days of old,’ refers to the promise given to Abraham, to increase his progeny, ‘former ages,’ referring to receiving the Torah, and ‘hacked Rahab,’ referring to punishment for the wicked. In a similar vein, the first ‘wake up’ may refer to awaken from being asleep, while the second one is not to be lazy, as in Proverbs 6:9: ‘How long will you lie there, lazybones; When will you wake from your sleep?’

Using a biblical verse

A third approach is to embrace the redundancy of the text, and understand it in the context of its scriptural source. This may be understood in light of the verse in Isaiah 51:9: ‘Awake, awake, clothe yourself with splendor. O arm of the Eternal One! Awake as in days of old, as in former ages! It was you that hacked Rahab in pieces, that pierced the Dragon.’ This passage serves as the basis for the Shabbat piyyut: ‘Arouse yourself, arouse yourself, for your light has come; arise, shine. Awake, awake, utter a song; the glory of the L-rd is revealed upon you.’ Leviticus Rabba (10:2) reflects on the double words found frequently in Isaiah as not needing any explanation:

As you live, whereas all prophets prophesied single words of comfort, you shall double words of cheer; for instance, ‘Awake, awake’ (Isaiah 51:9); ‘Awaken yourself, awaken yourself’ (Isaiah 51:17); ‘Rejoice, yes, I will rejoice’ (Isaiah 61:10); ‘I, even I, He that comforts you’ (Isaiah 51:12); ‘Comfort you, comfort you, my people’ (Isaiah 40:1).

Other obvious instances of double words in Isaiah include: ‘Turn, turn away (suru suru), touch naught impure, as you depart from there; Keep pure, as you go forth from there, You who bear the vessels of G-d’ (Isaiah 52:11), and ‘says: Build up, build up a highway (solu solu)! Clear a road! Remove all obstacles from the road of My people! (Isaiah 57:14). Thus, we may conclude that Maimonides is borrowing from the text of Isaiah, where the doubling ‘awaken, awaken’ is found, with no need for any explanation.

Source for precise wording - 'uru' (wake up)

Despite all the above, the only place where the exact double phrase: ‘uru uru’ (wake up, wake up), in the plural, can be found is in Josippon - a chronicle of Jewish history from Adam to the age of Titus, named after its supposed author, Josephus Flavius, though composed in the 10th century in Southern Italy. It was written in Hebrew and translated into Arabic. It states (6:60):

And now his sins have ensnared him, and he has arrived in the eye of the punishment of death and he wishes to be saved from it with words that are abhorrent, containing falseness and deceit: wake up, wake up (uru uru), and arrange your bones before the king. And now, who will the king find righteous and who wicked.

Variant 5: ‘Mi-tnu-mat-chem’ (from your slumber)

The text continues: ‘and you who slumber (ve-n ir-da-mim), arise (ha-ki-tzu) from your slumber (mi-tar-dei-mat-chem).’ This word: ‘mi-tar-dei-mat-chem’ is how it can be found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), MS Opp. 156, and Etz Chaim (Leipzig). In other versions it states: ‘mi-tnu-mat-chem’ (your slumber).This can be found inMS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient).

There is a difference in meaning between ‘tenumah’ and ‘tardemah.’ In Proverbs 6:4, it states: ‘Give your eyes no sleep, Your pupils no slumber (tenumah), and Proverbs 6:9-10, it states: How long will you lie there, lazybones; When will you wake from your sleep? A bit more sleep, a bit more slumber (tenumah).’

In Genesis 2:21, it states: ‘So G-d cast a deep sleep (tardemah) upon the Human; and, while he slept, [G-d] took one of his sides and closed up the flesh at that site.’ Similarly, in Genesis 15:12, it states: ‘As the sun was about to set, a deep sleep (tardemah) fell upon Abram, and a great dark dread descended upon him.’ Ibn Ezra explains on Genesis 2:21: ‘Tardemah is a deeper sleep than shenah, and shenah is a deeper sleep than tenumah.’ Abrabanel points out that the sleep of Adam was so deep that he lost all sense of pain, unaware that one of his sides was being taken to form Eve. This allowed for her sudden appearance, when he awoke, and thus joy when discovering her. The Malbim on Proverbs 6:4, also translates ‘tenumah’ as a light sleep (shenah kalah), citing Isaiah 5:27: ‘In its ranks, none is weary or stumbles, they never sleep (yanum) or slumber (yishan).’ Ibn Ezra comments: ‘nom’ signifies a sleep of a less profound kind than ‘yashen.’ He will not slumber (yanum), much less will he sleep (yishan).’ Similarly, in Psalms 121: ‘See, the guardian of Israel, neither slumbers (yanum) nor (certainly not) sleeps (yishan)!’

In a spiritual sense, R. Joseph I. Schneerson explains in a discourse on the 1^st day of Rosh Hashana 1950 (Sefer ha-mamorim 5710, p. 9), the distinction between ‘shenah’ and ‘tardemah’ is: sleep is one knows that truth exists, but one confuses it with falseness and is distant from it. Slumber is one forgets there is something called truth. Based on the above, ‘tenumah’ is a light sleep, ‘shenah’ is a deep sleep, and ‘tardemah’ is a very deep sleep, accompanied by the loss of all one’s senses.

Similarly, the midrash (Genesis Rabbah 17:5) counts three types of sleep in a descending order: sleep (tardemat shenah), unconsciousness sleep (tardemat marmitah), and sleep of folly (tardemah shel shtut), as it states (Isaiah 29:11): ‘For G-d has spread over you a spirit of deep sleep.’ R. Joseph I. Schneersohn interprets these three categories as: one who does not study Torah, nor serve G-d, one who forgets about the service of G-d, becoming spiritually unconscious, and one from whom the truth of G-d is concealed. This all begins with lethargy, as it states (Proverbs 19:15): ‘Laziness induces sleep, and a negligent person will go hungry.’

Descending

Based on these distinctions, there are two ways to understand the text of Maimonides in relation to the sounding of the shofar as a wake up call for repentance: in descending order - going from a person that is in a bad spiritual state to one who is in an even worse spiritual state. This would be the version that reads: ‘mi-tar-dei-mat-chem’ (awaken from your slumber). It begins with ‘wake up’ from your sleep (shenah) and then progresses with one who is in a worse spiritual state: a state of slumber (mi-tar-dei-mat-chem). In this context, Maimonides continues with a text that defines a person in this lowly state: ‘remember your Creator, those who forget the truth in the vanities of time and throughout the entire year, devote their energies to vanity and emptiness which will not benefit or save.’

Ascending

The version that uses the weaker term: ‘mi-tnu-mat-chem,’ reflects an ascending order, from worse to not so bad: first, it talks about the shofar waking one up from a deep sleep (shenah) and then from a lesser form of sleep (tenumah). According to this reading, the continuation: ‘remember your Creator’ refers to a person who is even on a higher spiritual level but still needs awakening: not to repent for bad deeds, but one who needs reminding to contemplate about G-d, rather than one’s own satisfaction, when studying Torah, as interpreted by R. Tzadok HaKohen of Lublin (Likutei Maamarim, Compositions on the Festivals 13). Alternatively, the desire of the soul to ascend, as opposed to fulfil the will of G-d to focus on observance of mitzvot in the physical realm, as argued by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem M. Schneerson (Likkutei Sichot 2:649). This ascending order is similar to the verse in Proverbs (6:9-10): ‘When will you wake from your sleep? A bit more sleep (deep sleep), a bit more slumber (light sleep), a bit more hugging yourself in bed (laziness).’

Uru, uru (wake up, wake up)

These various levels of ‘sleep’ that exists in Jewish thought, including laziness, sleep, unconsciousness, and sleep of folly, explains the version that includes a deeper level of sleep (tardemah). In addition, it explains the earlier variant: the double term ‘uru, uru’ (wake up, wake up), as the first may refer to ‘wake up’ from the ‘laziness,’ that precipitates ‘sleep,’ while the second in descending order refers to waking up from ‘sleep’ itself. As mentioned, this may be the understanding of MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), where it breaks up the two phrases: it first states: ‘wake up, sleepy ones’ (uru ye-sheinim), and then ‘wake up from your sleep’ (uru mi-she-nat-chem).

Variant 6: ‘Be-ma-a-sechem’ (your deeds)

The text continues: ‘inspect your deeds’ (ve-chap-su be’ma-a-se-chem). In most of the versions it states: ‘be’ma-a-se-chem’ (in your deeds). This (be’ma-a-se-chem) is how it can be found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), MS Opp. 156, and Etz Chaim (Leipzig). In one version, it omits the prefix ‘bet’ and just states: ‘ma-a-se-chem’ (your deeds). This can be found in MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz).

Variant 7: ‘Vechizru b’Teshuva’ (repent)

The text continues: ‘repent’ (ve-chaz-ru bi-teshuva). The literal translation is ‘return in repentance.’ This (ve-chaz-ru) is how it can be found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Opp. 156, and Etz Chaim (Leipzig).

In MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), it states: ‘ve-hiz-ha-ru’ (be careful in repentance). In MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), it first had ‘ve-hiz-ha-ru’ (be careful in repentance), and was corrected by rewriting the first letter ‘he’ into a ‘chet,’ and typographical removal dots placed on the second ‘he,’ so to allow the correct word to be read: ‘ve-chaz-ru’ (return). In Etz Chaim (Leipzig), there appears to have been also some correction to this word. It is unclear the reason for this variant: the two words may have become confused due to their similarity. A possibility is since the word ‘teshuva’ literallymeans ‘return,’ it may be redundant to state: return in ‘teshuvah.’

Variant 8: 've-zi-chru bo-ra-a-chem' (And remember your Creator, those who forget the truth)

The text continues: ‘and remember your Creator’ (ve-zi-chru bo-ra-a-chem), those who forget the truth.’ There are three variants in this sentence. The words: ‘and remember your Creator’ (ve-zi-chru bo-ra-a-chem), with the conjunctive ‘vav’ (and) before ‘remember:’ ‘Ve-zi-chru’ (and remember) is how it is found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), MS Opp. 156, and Etz Chaim (Leipzig). In MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, it has a space before ‘zichru’ (remember) and omits the ‘vav’ (and).

Variant 9: ‘Bora-achem’ (your Creator)

A further variant in this sentence: the word: ‘Bora-achem’ (your Creator). This is how it is found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), MS Opp. 156. InMS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?), it spells ‘Bora-achem’ (your Creator) without the vowel: ‘vav, ’after the ‘bet.’ In MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), it states with an additional ‘yud’ inserted: ‘Borei-chem.’ In Etz Chaim (Leipzig), it first has the word ‘Bore’ (Creator), but corrected by a later hand with the suffix: ‘chem’ (your).

Variant 10: ‘Eilu’ (those)

Finally, after the words: ‘remember your Creator;’ it continues: ‘those (eilu) who forget the truth in the vanities of time and throughout the entire year, devote their energies to vanity and emptiness which will not benefit or save: Look to your souls. Improve your ways and your deeds and let every one of you abandon his evil path and thoughts.’ The inclusion of the word: ‘eilu’ (those), before ‘who forget the truth,’ after ‘remember your Creator,’ is intended to serve as an indicator that it is now presenting an interpretation to the statement ‘remember your Creator,’ namely: it refers to ‘those (eilu) who forget the truth in the vanities of time and throughout the entire year, devote their energies to vanity and emptiness which will not benefit or save.’ This phrase (eilu) is found in MS Huntington 80 (Egypt), MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400, Ashkenaz), MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, MS Marsh 97, MS Marsh 509 (1376–1425, Orient), and MS Marsh 116 (1301–1325, North Africa?).

In MS. Canonici Or. 78 (1284, Spain), however, the word: ‘eilu’ (those) was first omitted, and then added between the lines. In MS. Pococke 307 (1301-1400, Spain), after ‘remember your Creator,’ it states: ‘and do not be from those who forget the truth in the vanity of time.’ In the margin, after ‘do not be’ (ve-al tih-yu), it adds: ‘like those’ (kemo eilu): ‘remember your Creator and do not be like those (kemo eilu) who forget the truth in the vanity of time.’ In MS Opp. 156, there seems to be a correction, forming the word: ‘atem’ (you). In Etz Chaim, it states: ‘and remember your Creator,’ omitting the rest of the paragraph.

Reason for the last three variants

A reason for these last three variants appears to be due to a question that arises in Maimonides’ text: why does ‘remember your Creator’ not come at the beginning of the paragraph; surely, remembering G-d is the primary inspiration to repent and forgetfulness cause for one’s spiritual decline? There are a number of answers to this question, reflected in the variants in the manuscripts.

1. MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30 responds to this question by arguing that the statement is in fact not a continuation from the previous imperatives but a new sentence. This manuscript therefore leaves a break before ‘remember your Creator’ and omits the conjunctive prefix ‘vav’ (and). It is engaging in a general commentary on the verse in Ecclesiastes 12:1: ‘Remember your Creator (zechor et bor-a-chah) in the days of your youth,’ unrelated directly to the previous statements.

2. A difference in the spelling of the word ‘bor-a-chem’ may allude to a different meaning all together. The phrase ‘zichru bo-ra-a-chem,’ as mentioned, is citing a verse from Ecclesiastes 12:1: ‘Remember your Creator (zechor et bor-a-chah) in the days of your youth.’ In Ethics of the Fathers (3:1), there are two additional ways to understand the word ‘bor-a-chah:’ 1. remember ‘your pit (bor-e-chah), your grave’, and 2. remember ‘your well’ (be-e-re-chah), that flows from its source, that is, the putrid drop of semen and whitenes. Both these contemplations – one’s humble origin and death - should cause a person to repent. In this light, it is in theme with the previous words concerning repentance.

3. In 1906, Rabbi Shalom Dovber Schneersohn (1860-1920), known as the Rashab, explained that Maimonides structures the text on the Talmudic statement (Rosh Hashana 34b):

Rabba said that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Recite before Me on Rosh HaShana Kingship, Remembrances, and Shofarot. Kingship, so that you will crown Me as King over you; Remembrances, so that your remembrance will rise before Me for good. And with what? With the shofar.

‘Wake up’ and ‘repent’ refers to ‘kingship,’ ‘remember your Creator’ refers to ‘remembrance,’ and ‘improve your ways’ refers to ‘shofar.’ In this manner, it is in fact a single coherent text, presenting three themes, and the conjunctive ‘vav’ (and) is correct.^[1]

4. A further explanation may be found based on the above-mentioned talk given by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem Schneerson on Simchat Torah, 1957, published in Likkutei Sichot (2:649): The phrase: ‘remember your creator - those who forget the truth in the vanities of time and throughout the entire year, devote their energies to vanity and emptiness which will not benefit or save (asher lo 'lo ya-il ve-lo yatzil),’^[2] refers not to one who is spiritually asleep, unable to serve G-d, but on the contrary, a lofty concept of sleep, as the midrash states (Genesis rabba 14): ‘at the time a person sleeps, the soul ascends, and draws to the person life from Above.’ This is also an understanding given to the concern in the Mishnah (Yoma 1:5) of the High Priest falling asleep on the night of Yom Kipppur in the Temple. In this context, the whole text concerning the reason for the sounding of the shofar is addressing a single concern: one who aspires for the spiritual (sleep) and forgetting that the true will of G-d (remember your Creator) is to perform the mitzvot in this physical world and make the world a dwelling for the Divine (Tanchuma Naso).

Conclusion

Maimonides understands the sounding of the shofar as a decree but nevertheless alludes to the call to repent. We presented numerous variants in this text and argued that they all reflect different ways in which a person may need waking up from a spiritual sleep on Rosh Hashana. This may be a person who is such a deep sleep – sleep of folly - that one is in a state of unconsciousness in relation to the service of G-d, due to being immersed in the material world. On the other end of the spectrum, one may read the text of Maimonides addressing one who only aspires to unite with G-d, negating all connection with the physical world. Indeed, it is possible that Maimonides is being deliberately ambiguous in this text, allowing for the flexibility of it being read by the individual according the spiritual state one finds oneself and thus the call to repent that is facilitated by the sounding of the shofar.

PART II

The concept of Divine sleep through the work of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah at the Bodleian Library

An important subject in medieval Jewish philosophy is the negation of the incorporeality of G-d. Maimonides dedicates much of the first volume of his Guide for the Perplexed^[3] to this principle and articulates this also in his legal work Mishneh Torah.^[4] Although the Torah describes G-d in numerous places in corporeal terms, as it states: ‘G-d hears the cries of the Israelites,’^[5] and ‘G-d smelled the pleasant aroma,’^[6] Maimonides applies the Talmudic dictum that the Torah is speaking in the language of man,^[7] interpreted to mean that the Torah does not in any way intend to suggest that G-d has a human body or corporeal form – a proposition that to most medieval Jewish philosophers is heresy. In this essay, we will focus on a particular concept of apparent corporeality of the Divine: the subject of sleep in relation to G-d. We will first present the view of Maimonides that there is no sleep for G-d, despite the references in Scripture to the contrary. We will then present a further development in Jewish thought regarding Divine sleep, suggesting that there are in fact four scenarios of sleep in the Divine. We will proceed to define the concept of sleep in the Divine and further present the different stages of sleep. We will finally explain that, despite these descriptions of Divine sleep and awakening, the later development of Divine sleep in Jewish thought is in fact compatible with Maimonides’ view that G-d does not sleep. In conclusion, we will be able to understand a difference in the version of Maimonides regarding the concept of ‘sleep’ and ‘awake’ in the Divine, comparing how it is written in the published edition of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah and the version found in Oxford’s Huntington 80 manuscript of the Mishneh Torah, which contains and is validated by Maimonides’ own signature.

G-d does not sleep, as G-d is not corporeal

In the Mishneh Torah (Yesodei Hatorah 1:11), Maimonides clarifies that one cannot describe G-d as either asleep or waking:^[8]

Since it has been clarified that G-d does not have a body or corporeal form, it is also clear that none of the functions of the body are appropriate to Him; neither connection nor separation, neither place nor measure, neither ascent nor descent, neither right nor left, neither front nor back, neither standing nor sitting. He is not found within time, so that He would possess a beginning, an end or age. He does not change, for there is nothing that can cause Him to change. The concept of death is not applicable to Him, nor is that of life, within the context of physical life. The concept of foolishness is not applicable to Him, not is that of wisdom in terms of human wisdom. Neither sleep norwaking (hakitzah), neither anger nor laughter, neither joy nor sadness, neither silence nor speech in the human understanding of speech are appropriate terms with which to describe Him. Our sages declared: Above, there is no sitting or standing, separation or connection.

G-d does sleep

In Scripture however there are no less than five verses that imply the notion that G-d is sometimes in a state of sleep. This includes the verse in Psalms:^[9] ‘Arouse (ha’ira) Yourself and awaken (hakitzah) to my judgment, my G-d and my Lord, to my cause.’ Also, in Psalms it says:^[10] ‘Awaken (urah)! Why should You sleep, O Lord? Arouse (hakitzah) Yourself, forsake not forever.’ Likewise, in Psalms, it states:^[11] ‘Without iniquity, they run and prepare themselves; awaken (urah) towards me and see. And You, O L-rd, G-d of Hosts, G-d of Israel, arise (hakitzah) to visit upon all the nations; be not gracious to any treacherous workers of iniquity forever.’ Similarly, in Psalms, it states:^[12] ‘And the Lord awoke (vayikatz) as one asleep, as a mighty man, shouting from wine.’

The concept of sleep is also implied in the Talmudic teaching on Esther:^[13] ‘On that night the sleep of the king was disturbed’. The Talmud comments:^[14] ‘Rabbi Tanchum explains, the sleep of the King of the Universe was disturbed’. This verse is considered the beginning of the miracle, leading to Haman’s downfall. The idea of sleep and awaking in reference to G-d is further expressed in the following teaching of the Talmud (Sotah 14a):

Yochanan the High Priest abolished the tradition of the wakers (meorerim). Rehabah said: The Levites used daily to stand upon the dais of the Temple in Jerusalem and exclaim: Awaken, why do You sleep, O Lord? He said to them, Does, then, the Al-Mighty sleep? Has it not been stated (Psalms 121): Behold, He that guards Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep! But so long as Israel abides in suffering and idolaters in peace and prosperity, the words ‘Awake, why do You sleep, O Lord?’ should be uttered.’

()

Not literal

According to traditional commentaries on the Torah, as well as Maimonides, the notion that G-d is sometimes asleep should not be understood literally. The concept of sleep refers to a situation when one may expect a reaction from G-d due to the behaviour of man but no reaction is forthcoming, similar to the question: why do the righteous suffer and the wicked prosper? Lack of reaction is perceived ‘as if’ G-d is asleep, similar to a person who does not react to provocation when asleep. This is the case when, for example, the Philistines captured the Holy Ark and there was no immediate response from G-d to this provocation. When G-d later reacted to the Philistines it is referred to as if G-d had awoken.^[15] Similarly, the period when G-d allows for the sins of Israel to accumulate without punishment is perceived as if G-d is asleep followed by an awakening when Israel is punished.^[16]

Similarly, the Talmud (Sotah 47a & 48a) records that Yochanan the High Priest abolished the tradition of the awakers in the Temple when the Jews lived in prosperity, since the metaphor of sleep is only applicable when the Jews suffer but not when they flourish. If one would call G-d to awaken when the Jews flourish it would suggest the call for G-d to awaken is literal and not just a metaphor.^[17] The common understanding then is that one cannot attribute any concept of sleep at all to G-d; it is merely our perception of G-d’s behaviour that causes us to attribute sleep to G-d but there is in fact no such change of state of consciousness in G-d. It follows therefore that one can equally not apply the term awaking (hakatzah) to G-d. This is consistent with the view of Maimonides that one can apply to G-d neither sleep nor waking.

This view is later articulated in the 16^th-17^th century by Rabbi Yedidyah Norzi (1560-1626) in his commentary Minhat Shai where he suggests that the Masoretic vertical line between ‘L-rd’ and ‘awoke’ in Psalms 78:65: ‘And the L-rd awoke (vayikatz) as one asleep,’ is to indicate that in fact there is ‘no awake (yekitzah) nor sleep in G-d.’^[18]

G-d’s withdrawal

While Maimonides insists there is no sleep or waking in G-d, subsequently, however, Jewish thought develops the notion that the idea of sleep in G-d, as represented in Psalms and the Talmud, does exist in some form. It is not merely a metaphor to define our perception of G-d, but a concept of sleep in G-d that reflects a change in consciousness similar to that which occurs when asleep. This idea is presented in the context of four cases: 1. The Jerusalem Temple at night when the gates of the Temple courtyard close; 2. Evening of Rosh Hashana; 3. Exile; 4. A person’s personal distance from G-d.

Jerusalem Temple

The Jerusalem Temple had seven gates around the courtyard, which would be closed during the night and opened during the day. The premise is that the design and functions of the Temple were Divinely inspired, as it states in I Chronicles (28:19): ‘All was in writing, from the hand of the Lord, which He gave me to understand, all the works of the pattern’. Furthermore, according to the Zohar (Shlach Lecha), all the aspects of the Temple have a corresponding function in the Divine.^[19] Based on this premise, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi in 1805^[20] explains that the opening of the gates of the Temple reflects revelation of Divine wisdom and the closing of the gates represents concealment of the Divine wisdom. Concealment of the Divine is described as being similar to the Divine being asleep by two characteristics: decrease in brain activity represented by the concealment of the Divine intellect from the emotions, and the slower blood circulation represented by a diminishing of life flow from the Divine into existence.

Evening of Rosh Hashana

In 1799,^[21] Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi presents this process to explain the spiritual dimension of what occurs prior to the sounding of the Shofar on Rosh Hashana. The Tikkunei Zohar explains the Divine enters into a state of sleep on the eve of Rosh Hashana, only to be awoken by the sounding of the Shofar when the Divine intellect and desire for existence is restored to the world. The idea of Divine awakening through the Shofar may be seen in the context of the parallel spiritual awakening of man by the sound of the Shofar, as Maimonides writes:^[22] ‘Even though the sounding of the Shofar on Rosh Hashanah is a decree, it contains an allusion. It is as if is saying: Awake, you sleepers from your sleep. Arouse you slumberers from your slumber and ponder your deeds; remember your Creator and return to G-d in repentance. Do not be like those who miss the truth in pursuit of shadows and waste their years seeking vanity. Look well to your souls and consider your deeds; turn away from your wrong ways and improper thoughts.’

Song of Songs - exile

The idea of sleep is likewise represented in the Zohar based on an interpretation of the passage in Song of Songs:^[23] I am asleep but my heart is awake.” This is understood as to be referring to the experience of exile, when revelation is absent. This is illustrated also in the Talmud (Yoma 69b): “If G-d is profoundly hidden after the destruction of the Temple, how do we know G-d’s presence?”^[24]

Distance

Finally, Divine sleep is a reaction to the state of sleep of the human being. When a person falls spiritually asleep by choosing to distance him or herself from G-d, in pursuit of the material, there is a corresponding sleeping of the Divine.^[25] This is reflected in the Talmudic commentary on Esther (6:1): ‘On that night the sleep of the king was disturbed.’ The Talmud comments (Megillah 15b) that due to the spiritual awakening of the Jewish people at that time the sleep of the King of the Universe was stirred.

Religious response to the Holocaust

An extensive literature has developed on the question of G-d in the Holocaust. The fundamental question is: if G-d exists, how can He have allowed such suffering to occur? R Abraham Joshua Heschel^[26] (1907-1972) writes the Holocaust occurred when G-d was in hiding. Isaiah states (45:15): ‘Indeed You are a G-d who conceals Himself, O G-d of Israel, the Saviour.’ Similarly, in Deuteronomy (31:18), it says:’ But I will have concealed My face on that day because of all the evil that they perpetrated, for they have turned to other gods.’ Heschel explains that when the people forsake Him, breaking the covenant that He has made with them, He forsakes them and hides his face from them. Although Heschel talks about a hiding G-d, not a permanently hidden G-d, by man hiding from G-d, G-d withdraws, leaving man alone, and does not interfere with their actions, nor intervene in their consciousness. This is what happened when Adam ate from the forbidden fruit. He hid from G-d, provoking G-d to ask man, where are you? This original sin caused a withdrawal of G-d, similar to the concept of G-d’s sleep during exile, allowing calamity to occur.

Professor Pinchas Peli (1930-1898) also talks of the hidden face of G-d during the Holocaust, though he questions whether it is a sufficient response.^[27] He points out the parallel between the hiddenness of G-d in Deuteronomy and Isaiah, and G-d being described as asleep in Psalms. This is also evident in the juxtaposition in Psalms (44:24-25): ‘Awaken, why do You sleep, O L-rd? Arouse Yourself, forsake not forever! Why do You conceal Your face, do you forget our affliction and oppression?’

R. Joseph I Schneersohn, the sixth Lubavitcher Rebbe, known as the Rayatz, issued four proclamations during the war period in 1941, published in his journal Hakeriah Vehakedushah.^[28] The first one was entitled Kol Kore fun’m Lubavitcher Rabin on 26 May 1941, published in June 1941; the second was written on 11 June 1941, entitled Tsvayter Kol Kore fun’m Lubavitcher Rabin, published in July, 1941; a third was written on 8 July, 1941, entitled Dritter Kol Kore fun’m Lubavitcher Rabin, published August 1941; and a fourth on 11 September 1941, entitled Ferter Kol Kore fun’m Lubavitcher Rabin Shlita, published October 1942.

A central theme in these proclamations is that the painful events in Europe are signs of the impending and imminent arrival of the Messianic era, that will be preceded by profound suffering, described in the Talmud as the birth pangs of the Messianic era.^[29] In these proclamations there is an urgent call for the Jewish people to repent in order to bring about the redemption sooner and thus prevent greater tragedy. The Rayatz lamented the destruction of the soul of the Jewish people through assimilation in the West, while the destruction of the body of the Jewish people was taking place in the East. This call by the Rayatz for the Jewish people to repent and avoid tragedy is understood in the context of G-d’s hiddenness and sleep: the idea is that by the urgent call for the awakening of the Jewish people to repent, there will be an inevitable awakening of G-d, resulting in revelation and redemption.^[30]

Sleep but awake

The concept of G-d being asleep or awake is however problematic from Maimonides’ point of view, as stated above. It would appear to be also in contradiction to the verse in Psalms (121:4): ‘Behold the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.’ Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi reconciles this by making a distinction between the essence of G-d that always remains awake and His emanation that may be in a state of sleep. In a commentary on the Shabbat prayers, from 1807,^[31] he raises a difficulty in the statement: ‘He neither slumbers nor sleeps. He Who rouses the sleepers and awakens the slumberers.’ The juxtaposition of G-d not sleeping and G-d awaking refers to the notion: in essence he does not asleep, as in Malachi (3:6): ‘For I, the Lord, have not changed.’ Accordingly, Maimonides would also agree that ‘neither sleep norwaking (hakitzah)’ is applicable to G-d only on the level of G-d’s true essence, as on this level, He also does not hide.

Hakitzah or Hakatzah?

It is interesting that the Hebrew word for ‘waking’ in most published editions of the Mishneh Torah and some of the Yemenite manuscripts^[32] is hakitzah (with the Hebrew letter ‘yud’). In the Oxford Huntington 80 manuscript of the Mishneh Torah^[33], some Yemenite manuscripts,^[34] as well as Sefardic and Ashkenazic manuscripts, the word is hakatzah (without the Hebrew letter ‘yud’). In the early printed Mishneh Torah in Venice 1550-51, the word hakatzah is also used. Is there any significance to this difference?

Hakitza

The word that is most commonly used is hakitzah. In fact, it is found seven times in the book of Psalms and other books of the Torah. In Psalms (17:15), it states: ‘I will see Your face^[35] with righteousness; I will be satisfied with Your image upon the awakening (b’hakitz).’ Similarly in Psalms (35:23), it states: ‘Arouse (ha’ira) Yourself and awaken (hakitzah) to my judgment, my G-d and my Lord, to my cause.’ Also, in Psalms (44:24), it says: ‘Awaken (urah)! Why should You sleep, O Lord? Arouse (hakitzah) Yourself, forsake not forever.’ Likewise in Psalms (59:5-6) it states: ‘Without iniquity, they run and prepare themselves; awaken (urah) towards me and see. And You, O L-rd, G-d of Hosts, G-d of Israel, arise (hakitzah) to visit upon all the nations; be not gracious to any treacherous workers of iniquity forever.’ Similarly in Psalms (73:20), it states: ‘As a dream without awakening (m’hakitz); O Lord, in the city You will despise their form,’ and elsewhere in Psalms (78:65): ‘And the Lord awoke (vayikatz) as one asleep, as a mighty man, shouting from wine.’ Similarly, in Habakkuk (2:19), it states: ‘Woe to him who says to the wood, "Awaken (Hakitzah)!"; to the dumb stone, "Arise!" Shall it teach? Behold it is overlaid with gold and silver, and no spirit is within it.’ Finally, in Isaiah (26:19), it says: ‘May Your dead live, 'My corpses shall rise; awaken (hokitzu)^[36] and sing, you who dwell in the dust, for a dew of lights is your dew, and [to the] earth You shall cast the slackers,’ and in Daniel (12:2), it says: ‘And many who sleep in the dust of the earth will awaken (yokitzu) these for eternal life, and those for disgrace, for eternal abhorrence.’

Awake or awaken

While ‘hakitzah’ implies the imperative, the word ‘b’hakitz’^[37] refers to the state of awaking. The actual meaning of the word ‘b’hakitz’ is a subject of dispute between the two foremost Biblical commentators, R. Shlomo Yitzchaki, known as Rashi (1040-1105), and R. Abraham ibn Ezra (1089-1167). According to Rashi, when the verse states (Psalms 17:15): ‘I will see Your face with righteousness; I will be satisfied with Your image upon the awakening (b’hakitz)’ – this means ‘upon the awakening of the dead, referring to the Jewish concept of the resurrection of the dead in the Messianic era. This translation follows the Midrashic interpretation (Midrash Tehilim 17:15): ‘I will be satisfied with the vision of Your image when the dead awaken from their sleep (ha-kotzat ha-meisim).’ According to Rashi and the Midrash, ‘b’hakitz’ and ‘hakotzas’ means waking up from being asleep.

Ibn Ezra in his commentary translates the verse differently: ‘I am satisfied from the delight of G-d (not in a dream but) when awake (b’hakitz).’ Thus, ibn Ezra interprets the word ‘b’hakitz’ - while awake, not waking up. The same may be argued regarding the word ‘hakitzah.’ In most of the cases, the word ‘hakitzah’ follows the word ‘urah or ha’irah’ – arouse. The word ‘hakitzah’ then would mean to be awake, as opposed to wake up. R. David Kimchi (1160-1235), known as Redak, seems to indicate this in his commentary on Psalms (35:23): ‘Arouse (ha-ira) Yourself and awaken (hakitzah) to my judgment.’ Redak explains the second term ‘awaken’ (hakitzah) after ‘arouse’ (ha-ira) as saying that G-d should no longer be as if asleep, but rather be awake. The same interpretation is given for the verse (Psalms 44:24): ‘Arouse! Why should You sleep, O L-rd? Awaken (hakitzah) Yourself, forsake not forever.’ Redak explains that the first ‘Arouse’ (urah) is the request that G-d should awaken from being (as) asleep in the face of suffering; the second ‘Awaken’ (hakitzah) is interpreted to mean that G-d should be awake from today onwards. Thus, we have two possible meanings to the word ‘hakitzah:’ ‘awaken’ and ‘be awake.’

Hakatzah

The word hakatzah however appears much less in Scripture if at all. The word seems to only be found in the context of the Midrashic teaching, mentioned above, on Psalms where it says in the construct form: ‘hakatzat hameisim’ (the awaking of the dead). In addition, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 65, Sefer ha-Aruch kuf) describes blasphemy as a sin related to the movement of the lips (hakotzas sfosov). It would appear then that while ‘hakitzah’ may be translated either as ‘awaken’ or ‘awake,’ ‘hakatzah’ has only one meaning: ‘awaken.’ Accordingly, we may argue that the difference between to the two versions in the Mishneh Torah: ‘hakitzah’ and ‘hakatzah’ has to do with the following consideration: to negate G-d being awake would imply imperfection,^[38] because surely G-d is awake, whereas to negate the idea of G-d waking-up, implies, on the contrary, G-d’s perfection, as He does not sleep and does not need to ‘wake-up.’ For this reason, the Oxford Huntington 80 manuscript, authenticated by Maimonides, writes: ‘hakatzah’ (waking-up), which is not appropriate concerning G-d, as opposed to ‘hakitzah’ (awake). Had it written ‘hakitzah’ (awake), it would have required the qualification that it does not refer to awake ‘in the same way that human beings are awake,’ as Maimonides clarifies regarding the applicability of the words: ‘life’ and wisdom’ to G-d.

Imperative

A further consideration is: ‘hakitzah’ is used in Psalms in the imperative, similar to the words ‘ha-irah’ (shine your countenance),^[39] ‘ha-azinah’ (hearken to my cries),^[40] ‘hoshiah’ (deliver Your people)^[41] and ‘ha’ira’ (arouse).^[42] As it would not make sense for Maimonides to have written the negation of ‘awake’ of the Divine in the imperative, the word ‘hakatza’ (the passive form of waking up) is more appropriate.

Conclusion

We presented the subject of sleep concerning G-d. There seems to be a contradiction between various verse, whereby some suggest G-d does not sleep and others talks about G-d waking up. This question became especially relevant in the discussions about the presence of G-d in the Holocaust. We reconciled that on the highest level of G-d’s true being, G-d indeed does not sleep and is never hidden. On the lower level of G-d emanation there may be hiddenness and sleep. Maimonides may also agree with this distinction, and the statement in Yesodei Ha-Torah that one cannot say G-d awakens or is awake is in this context. We concluded by presenting an in-depth analysis of the text of the Mishneh Torah, according to the Oxford Huntington 80 version that uses the term ‘hakatzah’ (wake-up), since it is part of G-d’s perfection to say that G-d is ‘awake’ (hakitzah) while it undermines G-d’s perfection to say that G-d ‘wakes-up’ (hakatzah).

^[1] Other variants relate to the words: ‘Veshogim/n,’ ‘kol sh'neham’ and ‘Kol adam.’

^[2] In MS. Opp. Add. Fol. 30, it omits: 'lo ya-il' (will not benefit), and only says: ‘lo ya-tzil’ (will not save). MS. Laud Or. 152 (1376-1400 Ashkenaz) states: ‘lo ya-il ve-yatzil.’ In MS Marsh 97, it omits ‘asher,’ and then corrected and added between the lines.

^[3] 1:26.

^[4] Yesodei HaTorah 1:8-12.

^[5] Exodus 6:5.

^[6] Genesis 8:21.

^[7] Talmud Berachot 31b; Ketubot 67a. The Talmud refers to the style of the text of the Scripture but Maimonides expands this to negate the simple meaning of the text when it seems to indicate Divine corporeality.

^[8] Yesodei Hatorah 1:11.

^[9] 35:23.

^[10] 44:24.

^[11] 59:5-6.

^[12] 78:65.

^[13] 6:1.

^[14] Megillah 15b.

^[15] Rabbi Dovid Kimchi and ibn Ezra to Psalms 78:65-66.

^[16] Commentary of 18th century David Altschuler Metzudat Dovid on Psalms 78:65-66.

^[17] Chazon Yechezkel Biurim 13:9.

^[18] In I Kings 18:26-27, the idea of a deity sleeping or awaking is applied to Baal: “They took the bull that he gave them and prepared [it]. And they called in the name of the Baal from the morning until noon, saying, "O Baal, answer us!" But there was no voice and no answer, and they hopped on the altar that they had made. And it was at noon that Elijah scoffed at them, and he said, "Call with a loud voice, for he is a god. [Perhaps] he is talking or he is pursuing [enemies] or he is on a journey; perhaps he is sleeping and will awaken”.

^[19] The Zohar writes when the gates of the Temple are closed at night the gates to Paradise are closed.

^[20] Siddur Rabeinu Hazoken, Sha’ar Hamilah p. 147 (Hebrew page numbers); The discourse was delivered on Thursday, 21 November, 1805 at a circumcision ceremony meal.

^[21] Siddur Rabeinu Hazoken, Sha’ar HaTekios p. 492. The discourse was delivered on the second night of Rosh Hashanah 1799.

^[22] Laws of Repentance 3:4.

^[23] 5:2.

^[24] Another metaphor for the distance between G-d and the Jewish people during a period of exile and sin is divorce (Jeremiah 3:8). This divorce is however never complete and no bill of divorce is ever given (Isaiah 50:1; Sanhedrin 105a), allowing always for the possibility of the resumption of the relationship. According to Rabbi Menachem M. Schneersohn, known as the Rebbe, the correct metaphor is of a temporary separation when a spouse may have travelled overseas and has yet to return but no divorce has taken place (Lamentations Rabbah 1:3).

^[25] Likkutei Sichot 9:193; Torah Ohr, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, p. 35.

^[26] Katz S., Biderman S., Greenberg G. (eds) (2007). Wrestling with G-d: Jewish Theological Responses during and after the Holocaust. OUP, 378.

^[27] Katz S., Biderman S., Greenberg G. (eds) (2007), 259.

^[28] Katz S., Biderman S., Greenberg G. (eds) (2007), 171-190.

^[29] Sanhedrin 98a.

^[30] The call of the Rayatz during the war and subsequent years was: l’alter l’Teshuva, l’alter l’Geulah (immediate repentance, immediate redemption).

^[31] Siddur Rabeinu Hazoken, Shacharit l”Shabbat, p. 389.

^[32] Shabsai Frankel edition of Mishneh Torah, Sefer Hamada, p.514.

^[33] MS Hunt. 80 fol. 35a.

^[34] The Shechter manuscript (viewed as closest to the Huntington 80) and Sasson manuscripts of Mishneh Torah – both Yemenite copies.

^[35] See Guide for the Perplexed 1:3.

^[36] See Rashi: All this the Holy One, blessed be He, shall say to them. “Awaken and sing,” is an imperative form.

^[37] Psalms 17:15.

^[38] Guide for the Perplexed 1:26.

^[39] Psalms 31:17.

^[40] Psalms 39:13.

^[41] Psalms 28:9.

^[42] Psalms 35:23.

Exploring a plaque at the site of the medieval Oxford Synagogue at Christ Church, University of Oxford

Thu, 24 Aug 2023 7:36:00 AM

Introduction

In commemoration of 500 years since the beginning of the study, teaching and collecting of Hebrew at Christ Church, under Henry VIII, we would like to explore the idea of a plaque to commemorate the site of the Oxford medieval synagogue on St. Aldate's, Oxford.

The concept of the plaque and method of recording the years (start date and end date) may be modelled on a system employed by Professor Herbert Loewe, who served as Professor of Semitic languages at University of Oxford between 1913 and 1931. Before departing Oxford for Cambridge in 1931, he went around Oxford with colleagues, and placed three Jewish heritage plaques, including the Oxford University Botanic Garden, marking the site of the medieval Jewish cemetery, Town Hall, marking the site of Great Jewry Street and its nearby synagogue, and Osney Abbey, commemorating the site of the Jewish martyr for his faith, Robert of Reading, in 1222.

In light of Loewe's insights and wisdom in the plaques he formed, a similar arrangement may be explored, while paying also respect to Christ Church's role in the study of Hebrew at Oxford. The plaque may consist of English and also Hebrew texts in three parts:

1. An opening biblical passage relating to the site.

2. Brief statement of commemoration of the site as a synagogue.

3. The years it served as a synagogue, between 1228-1290.

Part 1: The opening of the plaque

The plaque opens with the verse in Hebrew from Numbers 24:5:

'How goodly are your tents, O Jacob, Your dwellings, O Israel!'

This is the prayer that is recited in the morning prayers in the Ashkenaz prayer book for entering into a place of prayer.

Part 2: Statement about the site

This is followed by the heading:

‘This stone marks the site of the medieval Oxford Synagogue, founded by Copin of Worcester - 1228-1290.’

Part 3: Dates

As with Loewe’s plaque, and in Jewish textual tradition, the years are recorded through the use of a chronogram, representing the start date – the year of the founding of the synagogue in 1228, by Copin of Worcester, and the end date – 1290, the date of the expulsion of the Jews from England under Edward I.

This starts with the Hebrew word: ‘משנת’ (m’shnat) – ‘from the year.’

This is followed by the chronogram of the start year 1228:

This may be represented by a chronogram (through the system of gematria) of the 9 Hebrew letters from the verse in Isaiah 56:7: ‘And let them rejoice in My house of prayer.’

וְשִׂמַּחְתִּים֙ בְּבֵ֣ית תְּפִלָּתִי֔

This chronogram, demonstrated by the above letters in bold, calculates 988 - the Hebrew start date - the purchase of the site by Copin of Worcester and founding of the synagogue: 988^th year of the fifth millennium (4988), i.e. 1228.

The end date may be represented by a chronogram from Amos 4:12: ‘Prepare to meet your G-d, O Israel!’ The single Hebrew letter ‘nun’ in the word: ‘הִכּוֹן’ (prepare) denotes the Hebrew numeral 50, representing the fiftieth year of the sixth millennium (5050), i.e. 1290, the year of the expulsion.

The use of the latter verse is inspired by the statement in the Talmud (Shabbat 10a) regarding prayer: ‘When there is peace in the world, Rav Kahane would dress, and cover himself, and wrap himself, and pray. He said: “Prepare (hikon ‘הִכּוֹן’) to greet your G-d, Israel” (Amos 4:12).

Crowns and diamonds

As with Loewe’s plaque, the start date will be indicated by subtle masoretic crowns above the Hebrew letters representing the start date (1228), and a single diamond above the Hebrew letter representing the end date (1290).

Location:

The proposed location of the plaque would be on the façade of the building facing St Aldate’s, on the precise site where the synagogue was located, as per the above image.

According to the above, the proposed plaque (with addition of crowns above nine letters and a diamond above one letter, representing the chronogram) would be as follows:

מה טבו אהליך יעקב משכנתיך ישראל

THIS STONE MARKS THE SITE OF THE MEDIEVAL SYNAGOGUE

משנת ושמחתים בבית תפלתי

עד שנת הכון לקראת אלה-יך ישראל

ד’תתקפח - ה’ן

(4988 – 5050)

Founded by Copin of Worcester

1228-1290

As this is a work in progress, we would be delighted to hear any feedback and indeed if you support this proposal. Support may be shown by simply sending an email to: info@oxfordchabad.org with the word 'CHCH synagogue plaque support' in the subject. For any comments and thoughts on this please also send an email to: info@oxfordchabad.org

Thank you for supporting Jewish heritage in Oxford.

To read an essay about the history of the Oxford medieval synagogue, please click here.

How Rabbi Tzvi Hersh Ashkenazi (the Chacham Tzvi) defended the view of Rabbi David Nieto in London in the 18th century

Thu, 6 Jul 2023 11:07:00 AM

The holiday of Purim is an exilic holiday that took place when the Jews resided under the rule of the Persian empire, during which time the threat of genocide occurred by the minister to the king, Haman. Following the downfall of Haman and the survival of the Jewish people, the holiday of Purim was established with the reading of the Megillah and other traditions of the holiday. As with other exilic holidays, like Chanukah, the miracle of the survival of the Jewish people during Purim, while caused by the miraculous, beyond nature, did not stray from the course of nature.^[1] This is unlike the miracles of the Exodus and the splitting of the sea, amongst other miracles that are regarded as open miracles beyond the confines of nature. This raises the question: how does Jewish thought view nature?

The concept of ‘nature’ is ancient. Socrates says that he was quite interested in the study of nature as a young man, especially the causes of things: why they come into being, why they perish, and why they exist (96a). The word nature is borrowed from the Old French nature and is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition", and in ancient times, literally meant "birth". In ancient philosophy, natura is mostly used as the Latin translation of the Greek word physis, which originally related to the intrinsic characteristics of plants, animals, and other features of the world to develop of their own accord. In this context, we will present a major controversy regarding the concept of ‘nature’ in 18^th century Anglo-Jewry, how it was resolved and its reception in Chabad Chassidic philosophy, as well its relation to Purim. One of the major controversies in Anglo-Jewry of the 18^th century pertains to a dispute in 1795, when Rabbi David Nieto of London, who was born in Venice, in 1654, and became, in 1702, the second Chacham of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue in London, after Solomon Ayllon. David Nieto was a vocal opponent of Shabetai Zevi,^[2] but entered in a controversy when he expressed a view that was deemed to be heretical and bordering upon the doctrine of Baruch Spinoza. The matter was brought before Rabbi Zvi Hirsch ben Jacob Ashkenazi (1660-1718) known as the Chacham Zvi, who accepted Nieto’s explanation.^[3] This matter is presented in a responsa of Rabbi Ashkenazi in chapter 18, in his legal work, Sha-alat Teshuvot Chacham Zvi, published in Amsterdam 1712.

The question was sent by the leaders of the community of Sharei shamayim in London. They initially present the drasha that Rabbi David Nieto gave stating that nature and G-d and G-d and nature are one. He proves this from the verse in Psalms 147:8: ‘who covers the heavens with clouds, provides rain for the earth, makes mountains put forth grass,’ and the prayer in the Amidah: ‘Causer of the wind to blow and of the rain to fall.’ He argues further that the term ‘nature’ is a phrase that was invented lately, four or five hundred years earlier, as it is not mentioned by our sages. It is, rather, G-d who causes the wind to blow, rain to fall and the plants to flower. We conclude from this that what the world calls nature is in fact G-d and nature does not in fact exist. It is that which is G-d’s hashgacha (providence) that they call nature. Thus, nature and G-d and G-d and nature are one. He stated that this view is correct, pious and sacred and whoever does not believe in this, is a heretic. On this view, complaints were made that he was straying from the word of G-d. In a response, Rabbi Nieto defended his view by making a distinction between the detailed properties of nature that are not sentient, like temperature of fire, which are not a part of G-d, and the designer of nature that is by the providence of G-d.

Rabbi Ashkenazi responds, firstly, by stating that he sees the words of the most prominent sage that they are in fact consistent with Jewish belief, and had already been stated by Rabbi Judah Halevi (1075-1141) in Kuzari, essay 1:77:

The Rabbi: Certainly; but the elements, moon, sun and stars have powers such as warming, cooling, moistening, drying, etc., but do not merit that wisdom should be ascribed to them, or be reckoned more than a function. Forming, measuring, producing, however, and all that shows an intention, can only be ascribed to the All-wise and Almighty. There is no harm in calling the power which arranges matter by means of heat and cooling, 'Nature,' but all intelligence must be denied it. So must the faculty of creating the embryo be denied to human beings, because they only aid matter in receiving human form from its wise Creator. Thou must not deem it improbable that exalted divine traces should be visible in this material world, when this matter is prepared to receive them. Here are to be found the roots of faith as well as of unbelief.

Rabbi Ashkenazi then proceeds to cite the 16^th century commentary on the Kuzari, Kol Yehudah (Venice 1594) by Italian R. Judah Moscato (1530-1593), to clarify what nature exactly is, according R. Judah Halevi. In this context, R. Judah Moscato first quotes Maimonides in the Guide for the Perplexed (2:14), who writes: ‘The actions of G-d are perfect; they are in no way defective, nor do they contain anything useless or superfluous. In similar terms Aristotle frequently praises Him, when he says that Nature is wise and does nothing in vain, but makes everything as perfect as possible.’ Further in the Guide for the Perplexed (3:19), it clarifies, however, that nature itsel is not an intellectual being, but rather an intellectual cause endows (hit-bi-a) everything with its natural properties (ko-ach tiv-i).In conclusion, R. Judah Moscato writes that G-d is called ‘nature’:^[4]

In truth, G-d is called ‘nature,’ as mentioned there, since he stamps with his seal all the coins of creation. This is the meaning of the statement of the sages in Talmud (Avodah Zara 3b): ‘The Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and sustains the entire world, from the horns of wild oxen to the eggs of lice.’ The sages indicated that even the smallest of insects was created by G-d, Himself. For this reason, it states ‘eggs of lice’ and not just ‘lice,’ and the ‘horns of wild oxen’ and not just ‘wild oxen,’ to present the fundamental idea that everything is in the hands and providence of G-d, and G-d did not appoint an officer, minister or prince over them.

In the context of this view of R. Judah Moscato, in his understanding of the Kuzari, Rabbi Ashkenazi approves the views espoused by R. David Nieto in London. He writes: ‘We need to pay gratitude to the all-encompassing sage the prominent honourable, Rabbi David Nieto or his sermon (drasha) that he expounded to warn the people not to stray in their hearts after the views of the philosophers regarding ‘nature,’ as from it has come many dangers, and instead he illuminated their eyes with his true belie that everything is with the providence from Him, may He be blessed.’

Reception – view of the Chacham Tzvi – no ‘nature’

Although the view that there is no such thing as nature was articulated by R. David Nieto, and supported by Chacham Tzvi, by citing R. Judah Moscato in his interpretation of the Kuzari, this view within Jewish thought on the concept of ‘nature’ became subsequently attributed to the view of the Chacham Tzvi and cited as such until today. Moving further away from the original responsa, a further variation is made: while the view of R. Judah Moscato is presented in the responsa as a support for the view articulated by R. David Nieto, in its denial of the existence of a concept called ‘nature,’ in subsequent generations, their views are cited as two different explanations for the idea of ‘nature.’

This can be seen in the work of Rabbi Shalom Dov Ber of Lubavitch, who, in 1918 (Sefer hamamorim 5678, p. 89), presents five explanations for the concept of ‘nature:’

1. Teshuvat Chacham Tzvi: it’s a newly invented name by later philosophers, for in truth the idea of ‘nature’ is not applicable at all, as all comes directly from G-d, as it states in Psalms 147, but rather everything is miracles, only that they are performed frequently.

2. It states in Mishnah Sanhedrin (4:5): ‘a person stamps (טוֹבֵע ) several coins with one seal, they are all similar to each other. But the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, Blessed be He, stamped all people with the seal of Adam the first man.’ Maimonides explains that ‘seal of Adam the first man’ refers to the form of the species of man which makes the person a person. This refers to the form of the soul. In the context of the world, ‘nature’ refers to the Divine life that controls the world.

3. It is derived from the word ‘drowned’ (tub-u), as in Exodus 15:4: ‘drowned in the Sea of Reeds.’ The analogy is a stone that falls into the water and is covered by the water, but with no change occurring to the stone itself. This refers to the Divine radiance and life that becomes garbed and captured in the physicality of the world, and which becomes concealed by the world.

4. The Tanya (ch. 19) states: ‘Nature’ is an applied term for anything that is not in the realm of reason and comprehension. This refers to creation of the universe ex nihilo, which defies human comprehension. It is merely how the Creator endowed (hit-bi-a) it with the ability to come into being.

In 1938, Rabbi Joseph I. Schneerson presented a fifth view: ‘Nature’ means hidden and covered: how G-d is constantly present in the world, but hidden from that which is created.

Nature does exist

According to the above five interpretations, apart from the view of the Chacham Tzvi, in his articulation of the view of R. David Nieto, the term ‘nature’ (teva) does exist and refers to the concealment of G-d within either the creation, running or material existence of the world. In summary: there are two views regarding ‘nature:’ a. R. David Nieto’s view that there is no distinction between ‘nature’ and ‘miracles:’ the natural world in all its minute details is an open and constant miracle. b. G-d concealment within the world is ‘nature.’

Covenant of Noah – ‘nature’ receives Divine characteristics

Support for the idea of a distinct concept called ‘nature,’ in terms of the running of the universe in a set pattern of laws, may be derived from Genesis 8:22, where it states in the covenant to Noah after the flood: ‘And G-d smelled the pleasing odour, and G-d resolved: “Never again will I doom the earth because of humankind, since the devising of the human mind are evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living being, as I have done. So long as the earth endures, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night shall not cease.” This suggests the concept of ‘nature’ is the unchanging laws of nature.

However, the argument made in Jewish thought is the opposite: an indication of the concept of nature, in contrast to G-d, is the fact that the natural world is by definition in decline. It is rather the covenant of Noah by G-d that endowed the world with the characteristic of the immutability of the laws of nature. This means, that ‘nature’ in itself is the world that is in constant decay and decline, as is the nature of the natural world, whereby plants wither, the seasons change and man is mortal. The covenant of Noah, then, with its promise of the preservation and lack of cessation of the seasons, endowed the world not a covenant with nature, but a connection to the Divine, beyond. Nature, as G-d, by definition, defies the concept of decline and change, as stated in Malachi 3:6: ‘For I am the L-rd - I have not changed; and you are the children of Jacob—you have not ceased to be.’ This idea that there are two distinct concepts: nature and beyond nature, and ‘nature’ also points to the belief in G-d that is beyond nature is articulated by 15^th century R. Isaac Arama (1420-1494) in his work Akeidah (Bo, Gate 38), where he argues based on Exodus Raba 15:11: ‘When G-d chose His world he set the beginning of the months and years’ that we can derive knowledge of the Divine from the establishment of the natural world. R. Isaac Arama writes: just like the order of the existence of the establishment of nature testifies to the true existence of His being, may He be blessed, so does the shattering of the laws of nature (through miracles) tell the greatness of the name of the glory of His kingship.’

Error! Filename not specified.

This idea still suggests a distinction between two concepts: ‘nature’ that is by definition set in a motion of decline, and the Divine and the miraculous that is beyond nature. Does Jewish thought embrace, however, the idea, articulated by Rabbi David Nieto that ‘nature’ itself is a reflection of the Ein Sof, beyond nature? This question is compounded by the fundamental principle in Jewish philosophy as argued by Sa-adiah Gaon in Emunot ve-deot (1:1) and the Guide for the Perplexed (2:12) that finitude cannot be a receptacle for infinitude.

The embracing of the concept of ‘nature’ as not a real phenomenon in Chabad philosophy, following the Chacham Tzvi, may be found in the work of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi in Likkutei Torah (Re-eh 22c), where he writes:

The Divine name ‘E-lokim’ is gematria ‘hateva’ (nature), which means because ‘E-lokim’ acts as a shield to ‘Hava-yeh’ as a shield of the sun, that conceals on the revelation of ‘Hava-yeh’ – and from this is derived that which the world runs according to nature – this concealment is called ‘teva,’ even though it is all from the Divine name ‘Hava-yeh,’ who renews creation every day with His goodness. He concludes: see Chacham Tzvi who writes close to what I have written.

The above however still suggests there is the concealment of the Divine and that which is beyond concealment. The idea that ‘nature’ in its concealment of the Divine may also reflect the Divine is argued by Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, known as the Rebbe, in 1952 in Sefer hamamorim 5712 (p.338-9). He argues that the reason the world appears an independent being, is because in its source, it comes from the Atzmut, that derives its very being also from itself, without any cause. This means that the power of the Atzmut is not only found in the power of creation but in the material physicality of the world itself, as reflected in Isaiah 44:6: ‘I am the first and I am the last, and there is no god but Me.’ In 1966, in Likkutei Sichot (5:98 f.19), the Rebbe argues further that the although the immutability of nature is a reflection of the Divine, beyond nature, this is in fact manifest within nature, that they themselves, in species, are immutable, similar to Moses, where it states in Deuteronomy 34:7: ‘Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died; his eyes were undimmed and his vigor unabated.’ In 1981, in Likkutei Sichot 20:35 f. 31, he takes this point further by arguing that the statement is Genesis that the seasons will not cease should be understood not just as the external power of the Divine Ein sof, above nature, but from within nature itself. This appears to finally embrace the view of the Chacham Tzvi, that the world is not only a concealment of the Ein Sof, or points to the Ein Sof, but is a manifestation of the Ein Sof.

Miracles – beyond nature

This is consistent with the idea of Purim as a miracle that is vested within nature, whereby the most profonde miracles are that in which the Ein Sof is revealed within the workings of nature itself, revealing that in truth, following the view of the Chacham Tzvi, in validating the view of R. David Nieto, the natural world and the Ein Sof are not two separate phenomena but one of the same.

Based on the second view above, the idea of miracles is that which is beyond nature. The word for miracles in Hebrew is from Numbers 21:8: ‘Make yourself a serpent and put it on a pole,’ and Isaiah 49:22: ‘So said the Lord G-d, "Behold I will raise My hand to the nations, and to the peoples will I raise My standard (a-rim ni-si).’ In this context, there are two kinds of miracles: ones which are completely beyond nature and ones which is within nature but in an elevated state (romemut ha-teva). While the former transcends nature, the latter demonstrates the truth of the matter that nature itself is beyond nature.^[5]

^[1] Torah Ohr, 93c and 100a: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=16069&st=&pgnum=194.

^[2] Author of Eish dat: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=23808&st=&pgnum=1&hilite=.

^[3] Encyclopaedia Judaica vol. 3, p. 734, and Mateh Dan – Kuzari sheni: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=42796&pgnum=1.

^[4] https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24846&st=&pgnum=66.

^[5] Sefer ha-mamorim 5698, p. 171.

Parsha and Manuscript: Mishpatim: 'If you lend money to My people'

Fri, 17 Mar 2023 1:29:00 PM

It states in Exodus 22:24: ‘If (im) you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, do not act toward them as a creditor; exact no interest from them.’ In Mechilta d’Rabbi Yishmael (Mishpatim, ch. 19), it clarifies that the interpretation of this verse is that it is not optional, but there is an obligation to lend money to the poor:

R. Yishmael said: wherever ‘im’ occurs in Scripture it is used of an act the performance of which is optional, except in three instances, of which this is one. Other cases include Exodus 20:22: ‘And if (when) you make for Me an altar of stones, do not build it of hewn stones,’ and Leviticus 2:14: ‘And if (when) thou offerest the meal-offering of first-fruits.’^[1]

The proof that ‘im’ (if) in this case means ‘when,’ and that is obligatory, is from Deuteronomy 15:7-8, where it states the obligation to lend:

If, however, there is a needy person among you, one of your kin in any of your settlements in the land that your G-d is giving you, do not harden your heart and shut your hand against your needy kin. Rather, you must open your hand and lend whatever is sufficient to meet the need.

The view that there is an obligation to lend to the poor is codified in all the major works of Jewish law: Sefer Mitzvot Katan (248:2), Sefer Hamitzvot Gadol (positive commandment 93), and Maimonides’ Sefer Hamitzvot (positive commandment 197), and Mishneh Torah, Laws of lending and borrowing (ch. 7), where it states: ‘It is a positive commandment to lend money to the poor among Israel, as Exodus 23:24 states: "If you will lend money to My nation, to the poor among you." Lest one think that this is a matter left to the person's choice, it is also stated Deuteronomy 15:8: "You shall certainly loan to him."’ The virtue of lending a loan to one in need is reflected also in Psalms (112:5): ‘All goes well with the man who lends generously, who conducts his affairs with equity.’ Similarly, the Talmud (Yevamot 63a) states: one who lends a sela to a pauper at his time of need, about him the verse states: “Then shall you call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry, and He will say: Here I am” (Isaiah 58:9).

Rashi

Rashi, in his commentary on Exodus 22:24, also cites the view of R. Yishmael:

If thou lend money to any of my people: R. Yishmael said: wherever ‘im’ occurs in Scripture it is used of an act the performance of which is optional, except in three instances, of which this is one.

In the manuscripts of Rashi, there are, however, three versions of this comment:

1. In Leipzig MS 1, CCCMS165, MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-25), MS. Canon. Or. 81 (1396), MS. Canonici Or. 35 (1401-25), MS. Oppenheim 35 (1408), it omits: ‘to my people’ (et ha-ani) in the citation of the verse. In MS. Oppenheim Add. 4° 188 (1301-1400) and MS. Michael 384 (1399), it, however, includes it, as found in the printed version.

2. In ItalianMS. Michael 384 (1399) and MS. Oppenheim Add. 4° 188 (1301-1400), it omits the name: R. Yishmael.

3. In MS. Oppenheim 34 (1201-25), it adds in the margin: ‘And according to the plain meaning of the text (p’shat), if you have money, you shall lend to any of my people, as an obligation.’

What is the reason for these variants? While there is no dispute about the fact there is an obligation to lend in Jewish law, there are two ways to understand Exodus 22:24: ‘If (im) you lend money to My people.’ 1. ‘im’ means ‘when’ and is obligatory. 2. ‘im’ in this case means ‘if’ – optional, even though it is not disputing the fact that in principle there is an obligation to lend. Following the former (obligatory), the verse may be read in the following five ways:

‘Im’ – ‘when’

a. In Exodus Rabba (31:6), it interprets the verse: when one has lent money to the poor, do not press him. This is also how it is phrased in Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, negative commandment 185. Similarly, R. Judah Loewe explains this as the simplest meaning of the text. It is not to inform the obligation to lend in itself, but rather ‘when’ one performs the mitzvah of lending in the way that G-d commanded, they should not press the borrower for repayment.

b. In Exodus Rabba (31:17), it reads the verse: ‘when’ you lend money to My people, to the poor among you, without taking interest, then you will be with Me (G-d). Thus, instead of reading: ‘ami’ (my people), one should read: ‘imi’ (with Me), indicating that one is ‘with G-d’ by lending to the poor without interest.

c. In Midrash Tanchuma, cited by Hadar Zekeinim, it interprets the verse: ‘when’ one lends to the poor, one is ‘in G-d’s midst.’^[2]

d. In Exodus Rabba (31:13), it interprets the verse as suggesting the poor who require a loan are close to G-d. Instead of reading, ‘ami’ (my people), one should read ‘imi’ (with Me), indicating that G-d cleaves to the poor.

e. R. Ephraim Lunshitz explains that the verse is informing two reasons one should lend to the poor: a. the poor person is amongst ‘My people’ and it is therefore as if one is lending to G-d, who is guaranteed to repay. b. the phrase ‘to the poor among you’ informs that the poor gives merit to the lender, more than the lender gives to the borrower.

‘Im’ – ‘if’

A second interpretation is to read ‘im’ as: ‘if,’ reflecting a qualification or condition to the obligation to lend: there are circumstances when one may not be obligated to lend, even though lending, when applicable, is an obligation. This may be understood in the following ten ways:

Trustworthy

ben Isaac Messer Leon (1166–1224), and R. Yehudah Chasid, cited by R. Asher ben Yechiel, known as the Rosh (1250-1327), and R. Isaac ben Asher HaLevi, known as Riva (11-12th century), respectively, explain the obligation refers to a trustworthy borrower, to whom one is obligated to lend, but one is noty obligated to lend to an untrustworthy borrower. This is codified in Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat (97:4): ‘in a case where the borrower is known to be a person who spends the borrowed money unnecessarily or loses the money, it is better not to lend to such a person.’^[3]

Can afford

b. Ibn Ezra explains the verse: If the L-rd gave you enough wealth so that you are able to lend to the poor, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor, in that he favours you because of your kindness. R. Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michel Wisser, known as Malbim (1809-1879), similarly, explains that the phrase ‘if’ is merely to say that it is only if one has money, and the poor person needs a loan, then one is obligated to lend. If one cannot afford to lend, there is no such obligation.

Sinful

c. Sforno interprets the verse relating to the borrower: if this is an Israelite on whom the promise that “there will not be a destitute person among you” has not been fulfilled. (Deuteronomy 15:4), and instead the individual in need of a loan is the one who became subject to another promise (threat) written in the Torah in Deuteronomy 15,11: “there will never be a total absence of destitute people, etc.” - when such a situation arises, the victim will require a loan. Similarly, according to R. Shimon Bar Yochai in Berachot 35b,if one dedicates oneself exclusively to Torah, their work is performed by others, as it is stated: “And strangers will stand and feed your flocks, and foreigners will be your plowmen and your vinedressers” (Isaiah 61:5). In such case, there will be no need for loans. Following this view, the need for a loan is when one is not performing G-d’s will, thus diminishing the obligation to lend, reflected in the conditional phrase ‘if.’

Preserve wealth by lending without interest

d. In Exodus Rabba (31:11), it suggests that the focus of the verse is on the second half of the verse concerning the prohibition: ‘exact no interest from them.’ In this context, it is saying: If you want to preserve your money ‘with you’ (imach) - while you lend money, then ‘exact no interest from them.’

Non-Jew

e. R. Joshua HaCohen Falk (1555 - 1614), in his commentary, Me'irat Einayim, to the Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 97:1, interprets the verse: when one lends, one should prioritise a Jew over a non-Jew, even if the Jew is not paying interest and the non-Jew is. R. Elijah Mizrachi (1455-1525), also argues that the purpose of the verse is to inform the negative: when you lend money, it should be to My people, and not to a non-Jew. The Talmud in tractate Bava Metzia (71a) states:

There are who teach that which Rav Huna that which Rav Yosef taught: “If you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor person who is with you” (Exodus 22:24). The term “My people” teaches that if one of My people, i.e., a Jew, and a gentile both come to borrow money from you, My people take precedence. The term “the poor person” teaches that if a poor person and a rich person come to borrow money, the poor person takes precedence. And from the term: “Who is with you,” it is derived: If your poor person, meaning one of your relatives, and one of the poor of your city come to borrow money, your poor person takes precedence. If it is between one of the poor of your city and one of the poor of another city, the one of the poor of your city takes precedence.

This suggests a case where there is the option to give a loan to a Jew or a non-Jew and the obligation is to give the loan to the Jew and not the non-Jew. This justified the phrase ‘if:’ if a Jew and non-Jew approach you for a loan, one should prioritise the Jew.

Silver and not gold – still obligated to lend

f. R. Moses Alshich (1508-159) On Exodus 22:24:1 suggests the verse is stating that if one only has silver and not gold, one should not refrain from lending until one has gold, but rather one should lend with the silver one has.

Money – forbidden to press for money, may press for items

g. R. Yisrael Meir Kagan (1838-1933), known as the Chafetz Chaim, in his work Ahavat chessed (1:1) interprets the verse as stating that if one lends money (not other items), one may not oppress the borrower for repayment if it has already been spent and he has no money to repay. If one, however, lends an item or vessel, one is permitted to pressure the borrower for repayment.

Money belongs to borrower if one has excess

h. Or HaChaim on Exodus 22:24:2 explains the reason for the optional language, despite it being an obligation to lend, is to inform the idea that ‘if you become aware that you have more money than you need for your personal requirements it is clear that the excess had originally belonged to someone else, i.e. "the poor amongst you." This is a clear hint that you should open your hand to lend to the poor part of what used to be his, or had been intended for him.’

Free choice

i. R. Judah Loewe says that the verse expresses the odea that one should perform a mitzvah not in a way that one is forced to do so by the command of G-d, but rather by one’s own volition. For this reason, it states: ‘if one lends.’

Lending is inferior to gift

j. While Jewish law states lending is superior to a charitable gift, since the person is not put to shame by accepting gifts,^[4] R. Isaac Arama, in Akeidat Yitzchak (69:1:7) and Abrabanel argues that the verse informs: If you do not do your duty and give to your fellow Jew, but you merely loan him, then at least you must not charge interest. Else, you would be treating him like a gentile.

Manuscripts

The above ten interpretations indicate a condition to the giving of a loan, thus justifying the phrase ‘if.’ Based on the above two approaches, whether the verse aimes to limit the circumstances and conditions of the obligation to give a loan, or to positively obligate lending a loan and the related virtue and ethical requirements, we may explain the variants in the manuscripts.

To My people

The inclusion of: ‘to My people’ in the citation of the verse in Rashi’s comment aims to negate the interpretation of R. Joshua HaCohen Falk (1555 - 1614) and R. Elijah Mizrachi (1455-1525), justifying the phrase ‘im’ (if) in the verse. Had it not stated ‘to my people’ in the citation of the verse, one may have read the verse as referring to a case when one has the option to lend to a Jew or a non-Jew, in which case, one should give priority to ‘My people.’ By including: ‘to My people’ it clarifies that the verse is talking exclusively about a case when only a Jew is requesting a loan, without an alternative option. This, then, is consistent with the interpretation of R. Yishmael that ‘im’ (if) implies in this case ‘when,’ i.e. obligation.^[5]

Conversely, the omission of the words: ‘to any of my people’ alludes to the interpretation of R. Joshua HaCohen Falk and R. Elijah Mizrachi (1455-1525).

R. Yishmael

Similarly, the inclusion of the name R. Yishmael – the author of the view that ‘im’ in this case means ‘when,’ i.e. an unconditional obligation to lend, emphasises further the interpretation of the verse that there is an obligation to lend, and one should not consider otherwise. This alludes to the view of the same R. Yishmael found in the Talmud (Berachot 35b) that, contrary to the view of R. Ovadia Sforno (1475-1550) mentioned above, it is not due to a sin that one may require a loan, justifying the obligation to lend to him. The Talmud states:

The Sages taught: What is the meaning of that which the verse states: “And you shall gather your grain”? Because it is stated: “This Torah shall not depart from your mouths,” (Joshua 1:8), I might have thought that these matters are to be understood as they are written; one is to literally spend his days immersed exclusively in Torah study. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall gather your grain, your wine and your oil,” assume in their regard, the way of the world; set aside time not only for Torah, but also for work. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Is it possible that a person plows in the plowing season and sows in the sowing season and harvests in the harvest season and threshes in the threshing season and winnows in the windy season, as grain is separated from the chaff by means of the wind, and is constantly busy; what will become of Torah? Rather, one must dedicate himself exclusively to Torah at the expense of other endeavors; as when Israel performs God’s will, their work is performed by others, as it is stated: “And strangers will stand and feed your flocks, and foreigners will be your plowmen and your vinedressers” (Isaiah 61:5). When Israel does not perform God’s will, their work is performed by them themselves, as it is stated: “And you shall gather your grain.” Moreover, if Israel fails to perform G-d’s will, others’ work will be performed by them, as it is stated: “You shall serve your enemy whom G-d shall send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness and in want of all things” (Deuteronomy 28:48).

The view of R. Yishmael is that one must combine learning Torah with working for a living, for this is the way of the natural world and one should exclusively study Torah and rely on G-d to provide. Thus, if one requires a loan, it is not due to neglect of Torah study. It is therefore obligatory to help such a person. The addition of the name R. Yishmael in the commentary of Rashi, thus, reinforces this obligation.

Marginal note

Finally, the additional comment in the margin, stating the plain meaning of the text: ‘if you have money, you shall lend to My people, i.e. an obligation,’ translating the word ‘im’ – ‘if,’ follows the interpretation of Ibn Ezra, and the Malbim. The omission of this marginal note, aims to negate this interpretation, suggesting that in the view of Rashi, the interpretation of R. Yishmael, translating ‘im’ as ‘when’ – i.e. an unconditional obligation to lend, should not be seen as midrashic, but also the plain meaning of the text.

^[1] Two further cases that are not part of the three cited by R. Yishmael, but are nevertheless obligatory, include: a. Numbers 36:4: ‘And even if (when) the Israelites observe the jubilee, their share will be added to that of the tribe into which they become [wives], and their share will be cut off from the ancestral portion of our tribe,’ and b. Exodus 21:30: ‘If ransom is imposed, the owner must pay whatever is imposed to redeem the owner’s own life.’

^[2] See Sefer hamamarim, Parshat Mishpatim 5727, by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, R. Menachem M. Schneerson, citing R. Shmuel of Lubavitch, known as Maharash, in a discourse from 1867.

^[3] Rashi on Shavuot 39a writes that one is sinful and liable for an oath in vain if one lends money to a person who is untrustworthy.

^[4] Ahavath Chesed 1:1.

^[5] Likkutei Sichot 11, p. 103.

Parsha and manuscript - Bo: Warning Pharaoh about the plague of locusts

Thu, 26 Jan 2023 11:27:00 AM

Before the Exodus, G-d struck Egypt with ten plagues. The plagues contained four aspects: G-d asking Moses to go to Pharaoh to let the people go and warn him of the consequences of the plagues if he refuses; Moses asking Pharaoh to let the people go and warn of the impending plague if he refuses; hardening of Pharaoh’s heart and his refusal’ and the actual plague. Similarly, before the plague of locusts, it states (Exodus 10:1-6):

Then G-d said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh. For I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his courtiers, in order that I may display these My signs among them, (2) and that you may recount in the hearing of your child and of your child’s child how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I displayed My signs among them—in order that you may know that I am G-d.” (3) So Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said to him, “Thus says G-d, the G-d of the Hebrews, ‘How long will you refuse to humble yourself before Me? Let My people go that they may worship Me. (4) For if you refuse to let My people go, tomorrow I will bring locusts on your territory. (5) They shall cover the surface of the land, so that no one will be able to see the land. They shall devour the surviving remnant that was left to you after the hail; and they shall eat away all your trees that grow in the field.

The structure of this plague is: in verses 1 and 2, G-d tells Moses to go to Pharaoh; verse 3, Moses goes to Pharaoh, asking him to the let the people go; verses 4 and 5, Moses’ warning of the consequences of the plague of locusts if he refuses. This is followed by verse 12-15 with the actual plague of locusts:

Then G-d said to Moses, “Hold out your arm over the land of Egypt for the locusts, that they may come upon the land of Egypt and eat up all the grasses in the land, whatever the hail has left.” So Moses held out his rod over the land of Egypt, and G-d drove an east wind over the land all that day and all night; and when morning came, the east wind had brought the locusts. Locusts invaded all the land of Egypt and settled within all the territory of Egypt in a thick mass; never before had there been so many, nor will there ever be so many again. They hid all the land from view, and the land was darkened; and they ate up all the grasses of the field and all the fruit of the trees which the hail had left, so that nothing green was left, of tree or grass of the field, in all the land of Egypt.

No instruction of warning

In the case of the locusts, however, when asking of Moses to go to Pharaoh, it omits what Moses should actually say to Pharaoh. It only states (Exodus 10:1-2): ‘Then G-d said to Moses, “Go to Pharaoh. For I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his courtiers, in order that I may display these My signs among them.’ Rashi, on Exodus 10:1, comments on this and inserts: ‘and warn him’ (ve-hit-re bo). R. Elijah Mizrachi (1425-1555), R. Judah Loewe (1520-1609) and R. Obadiah Bertinoro (c.1540-c.1516) explain that the reason for this addition in Rashi is to fill in the missing biblical text, that although it does not say explicitly that G-d instructed Moses to warn Pharaoh, the subsequent warning, as cited in verses 4 and 5, was not based on his own understanding of what G-d wanted him to say, but by the command of G-d, similar to the warning prior to other plagues.

Variants in the Rashi manuscripts

There are four versions of this comment of Rashi in the manuscripts and the published edition:

1. In the published edition, it cites the words: ‘And the L-rd said to Moses: Go to Pharaoh’ and comments: ‘and warn him.’ This is found in the Bomberg Chumash with Rashi, printed in Venice 1547, as well as manuscripts: Frankfurt MS 19, Breslau MS 102, Breslau MS 10, Paris MS 159, and Paris MS 157.

2. In manuscripts of Rashi: MS Leipzig B.H.1, MS Munich 5, as well as Oxford manuscripts of Rashi: Oxford MS CCC 165, Oxford MS Oppenheim 34 (1201-1225), British Library MS Or 2696 (1350-1399), and Ashkenaz Oxford MS. Oppenheim 35 (1408), the comment is omitted completely. In most of the versions that omit the commentary, the commentary on Exodus chapter 10 begins with the title of the parsha: ‘Go to Pharaoh’ (bo el Pharaoh), and proceeds straight into the comment on the following words in the verse: ‘I may set’ (shi-ti). In MS Munich 5, it includes in the opening the sentence: ‘And the L-rd said to Moses: Go unto Pharaoh, etc.,’ but omits the comment: ‘and warn him,’ and instead proceeds with the comment on the following words in the verse: ‘I may set’ (shi-ti).

3. In Oxford MS. Oppenheim Add. 4° 188 (1301-1400), the comment is added in the margin: ‘Go to Pharaoh: and warn him.’ In Oxford MS. Canonici Or. 35 (1401-25), the comment is also added as a marginal note, but above the line of the main text. In Oxford MS. Canonici Or. 81 (1396), it utilises the name of the Parsha in large font: ‘Go to Pharaoh’ (Bo el Pharaoh) and adds in the margin above the main text: ’and warn him.’ These manuscripts omit, however, the opening of the verse: ‘And G-d said to Moses.’

4. In Italian MS. Michael 384 (1399) from Camerino, it has the comment included in the main commentary, after the heading: ‘Go to Pharaoh,’ but omitting the opening of the verse: ‘And G-d said to Moses.’ This is also the version cited by R. Elijah Mizrachi, R. Judah Loewe and R. Obadiah Bertinoro.

One can summarise the variants into three categories: a. omission, b. addition of the comment, citing just: ‘Go to Pharaoh,’ and, c. addition of the comment, including the opening of the verse: ‘And the L-rd said to Moses.’ The history of the text appears to be: first, it was omitted, as indicated from MS Leipzig 1 and Oxford CCC 165 manuscripts, beginning the commentary on Exodus chapter 10 with just the words: ‘Go to Pharaoh.’ The opening was then expanded to include: ‘And the L-rd said to Moses: Go to Pharaoh, etc.,’ but still omitting the comment: ‘and warn him.’ The comment: ‘and warn him’ was then added as a marginal note, perhaps by a disciple of Rashi, following by including it in the main commentary. In the process of including the comment in the main commentary, it seems to have first utilised for this comment just the citation from the verse: ‘Go to Pharaoh,’ but then expanded, perhaps following MS Munich 5, to include also: ‘And the L-rd said to Moses.’ Combining the full opening of the verse, as found in some of the early manuscripts, and the additional comment, became the published version in 1547. What is the reason for these variants?

Four interpretations

Four interpretations help us understand the comment of Rashi:[1]

1. As mentioned, R. Elijah Mizrachi, R. Judah Loewe and R. Obadiah Bertinoro explain, the comment of Rashi is merely to highlight that the subsequent warning of Pharaoh in verses 4 and 5, is in fact issued by the command of G-d and not drawn from Moses’ own logic. The same is the case with the plague of the firstborn, where it states (Exodus 11:4): ‘Moses said, Thus says G-d: Toward midnight I will go forth among the Egyptians,’ but there is no statement saying that G-d actually said this to Moses. Nevertheless, it is clear that Moses would not issue a statement in the name of G-d, if G-d had not instructed him to. Furthermore, in some cases, the Torah does not provide information about a statement from G-d for Moses to convey to Pharaoh and there is no actual statement to Pharaoh, but nevertheless, this does not mean there was no instruction. This is the case with the plague of boils, where it only states (Exodus 9:8): ‘Then G-d said to Moses and Aaron, “Each of you take handfuls of soot from the kiln, and let Moses throw it toward the sky in the sight of Pharaoh.”’ Similarly, with the plague of darkness, it just states (Exodus 10:21): ‘Then G-d said to Moses, “Hold out your arm toward the sky that there may be darkness upon the land of Egypt, a darkness that can be touched.”’

2. A further interpretation of Rashi’s comment is that there is a distinction between warning and testifying about impending plagues. In Exodus Rabba 9:12 and Midrash Tanchuma, Vaera 13, it states:

‘And a full seven days were completed after G-d struck the [Nile] River’ - Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Nechemiah (disagree). One says he warned them for twenty four days so that the plague wouldn’t come, and for seven days they experienced the plague. The other says for seven days he warned them, and for twenty four days they experienced the plague. According to the opinion of the one who says for twenty four days he warned, and the plague took seven days; and according to the opinion of the one who says for seven days he warned and the plague took twenty four days, [we find that] ‘a full seven days were completed after, etc’ - that he warned them regarding the next plague.

This suggests that Moses warned Pharaoh before each plague. Rashi on Exodus 7:21 comments, however, there were two kinds of warning:

And there was completed (the verb is singular) the number of seven days during which the river did not return to its original condition. For each plague functioned a quarter of a month and for three quarters he testified and warned them.’

The term ‘warning’ suggests uncertainty as to the impending plague actually occurring, since Pharaoh may heed the warning. The term ‘testifying’ about the impending plague suggests, however, certainty regarding the impending plague, as it is a punishment not for the future - not heeding G-d about the Exodus, but rather past refusal. The latter certainty occurs in the case of the first plague of blood, where it states in Exodus 7:16:

And say to him, ‘L-rd, the G-d of the Hebrews, sent me to you to say, “Let My people go that they may worship Me in the wilderness.” But you have paid no heed until now.’ Thus says G-d, “By this you shall know that I am G-d.” See, I shall strike the water in the Nile with the rod that is in my hand, and it will be turned into blood.’

With the plague of frogs, however, the warning was a stipulation (Exodus 7:27): ‘If you refuse to let them go, then I will plague your whole country with frogs.’ The same is the case with swarms of insects (Exodus 8:17) and pestilence (Exodus 9:2). In this context, the comment of Rashi: ‘and warn him,’ pertaining to the plague of locusts, is to inform that the nature of the statement was a ‘warning,’ as opposed to testimony. Although not explicit, this is deduced from verse 4, when Moses issues this warning to Pharaoh: ‘For if you refuse to let My people go, tomorrow I will bring locusts on your territory.’

The reason why the comment of Rashi is necessary, is because the biblical text may be understood differently: a. it says in verse 3: ‘How long will you refuse to humble yourself before Me? Let My people go that they may worship Me.’ This implies the plague of locusts is for the past refusal to free the Jews. Furthermore, it states in verse 2: ‘I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his courtiers, in order that I may display these My signs among them.’ This suggests the warning is in the manner of testimony, despite the language in verse 4: ‘For if you refuse to let My people go, tomorrow I will bring locusts on your territory.’ For this reason, Rashi clarifies that it was in fact a conditional warning.

3. A third interpretation is that the comment of Rashi aims to answer a problem in the text: why is it necessary to state that G-d will harden his heart (Exodus 10:1): ‘For I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his courtiers,’ when this had already been stated on three occasions: Exodus 4:21, 7:3 and 9:12. Relating to the actual hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, the Torah states this on six occasions, before the plague of locusts, including Exodus 7:13, 7:22, 8:11, 8:15, 8:28 and 9:7, and in Exodus 8:11 it clarifies that the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, seemingly on his own volition, was in fact ‘as G-d had spoken:’ ‘But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he became stubborn and would not heed them, as G-d had spoken.’ What is then the reason why it states an additional time: ‘Then G-d said to Moses, Go to Pharaoh. For I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his courtiers’? The comment of Rashi: ‘and warn him’ may be explained in light of the following verse: ‘in order that I may display these My signs among them, and that you may recount in the hearing of your child and of your child’s child how I made a mockery of the Egyptians and how I displayed My signs among them—in order that you may know that I am G-d.’ The ‘mockery’ is the fact that Pharaoh, on one hand, is being warned to let the Jews leave Egypt, implying freewill, but in fact ‘I have hardened his heart’ – he had lost all ability to choose otherwise, demonstrating the power of the Al-mighty.

4. A fourth interpretation is that the comment of Rashi aims to reconcile a different problem in the biblical text: what is the logic in the statement: ‘Then G-d said to Moses, Go to Pharaoh. For I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his courtiers, in order that I may display these My signs among them’? How is: ‘I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his courtiers’ a reason to ‘Go to Pharaoh?’ If Pharaoh’s heart is hardened, that is a reason not to warn him! As above, the comment of Rashi: ‘and warn him’ aims to explain this reasoning, based on the following verse: ‘I made a mockery of the Egyptians:’ on one hand, being warned while in fact ‘I have hardened his heart’ demonstrated to Pharaoh the power of the Al-mighty.

Variants in the manuscripts

This explains the reason for the variants in the manuscripts of Rashi’s commentary on Exodus 10:1. The version that has the comment ‘and warn them’ omitted, suggests the purpose of the comment, following the understanding of R. Elijah Mizrachi, R. Judah Loewe and R. Obadiah Bertinoro, is merely to state the obvious: G-d did in fact tell Moses to warn Pharaoh about the locusts, even though it is not explicitly mentioned. For this reason it is omitted. The versions that have it included, with the addition: ‘And G-d said to Moses,’ clarifies that despite the obvious, that G-d told Moses to warn Pharaoh about the plague of locusts, it was nevertheless necessary to have it included, for clarity.

The editions that have the comment added, but without: ‘And G-d said to Moses’ in the beginning, citing only: ‘Go to Pharaoh,’ suggest that the comment is not merely to explain the obvious, that it was G-d who told Moses to warn Pharaoh, but to either negate a valid misunderstanding in the text or reconcile a problem in the text: This was a. to negate the idea that the prediction of the plague of locusts was not in fact a warning but a testimony, b. to explain why G-d’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart is a reason to go to Pharaoh – in order to mock him, c. and why the statement about G-d hardening Pharaoh’s heart is necessary at all, as it had already been stated previously on more than one occasion. The warning of Pharaoh in this case, alongside G-d’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, was intended to mock Pharaoh, demonstrating the power of the Al-mighty and bringing the knowledge of the existence of G-d to Egypt – the ultimate purpose of the Exodus.

[1] See Likkutei Sichot 6:57-62.

GASTER TANYA IN MANUSCRIPT AT THE BRITISH LIBRARY - BL Or 10456 (1775-1796)

Sat, 17 Dec 2022 9:27:00 PM

INTRODUCTION

PART 1: BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TEACHING, WRITING, DISTRIBUTION, EDITING AND PRINTING OF THE TANYA

The work of the Tanya is a work of Jewish mysticism regarded as the foundational work^[1] of Chabad philosophy (Torat Chassidut Chabad), authored by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, known as the Alter Rebbe (1745-1813). It was first taught orally over a number of years, beginning in 1782 (5542), and then a second time over a three-year period, beginning on Rosh Hashanah, in September, 1789 (5550). The first three chapters were taught on Rosh Hashanah, and then continuing once a month on Shabbat, and other special occasions. This concluded on 14 November, 1793 (10 Kislev 5554).^[2]

Similar to the teaching of the Tanya, its development and distribution as a text also happened in stages. Rabbi Shneur Zalman first began to write the Tanya in 1776, three years after the passing of his teacher, R. Dovber, the Maggid of Mezritch.^[3] The first few chapters were released to be copied in 1785, after it had been taught for the first time. The main distribution of the work, in pamphlet form, took place in 1792. First, thirty chapters were given to copyists, followed by an additional thirteen chapters, and then the remaining chapters, completing the work as a compilation of fifty-one chapters.^[4] The work was then known as Sefer ha-eitzos (book of advice), Sefer ha-birur (book of clarifications) and Sefer ha-avodah (book of service), in addition to commonly given name by the Chassidim, Tanya.^[5]

In 1796, due to many errors corrupting the text, both, accidental by copyists, and intentional by detractors of the Chassidim, the pamphlets were turned into a single work, producing the first printed edition, together with an additional part, Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, in Slavita, on 20 December, 1796 (20 Kislev^[6] 5557).^[7] Over a two-year period, R. Shneur Zalman edited the entire work, including adding and omitting parts of chapters, as well as adding two whole chapters, which completed the work in its current form, consisting of 53 chapters. The two additional complete chapters that were added were what is now chapter thirty, originally written by Rabbi Shneur Zalman as part of a separate work, Igeret ha-teshuva,^[8] and chapter 32, on the subject of love for one’s fellow. The expansion of the Tanya into 53 chapters became of significance when Rabbi Shneur Zalman was imprisoned in the Petropavlovsk (The Peter and Paul Fortress), in St Petersburg, in 1798 (5559), on trumped up charges of treason, for those amount of days, until his release on 27 November, 1798 (19^th Kislev, 5559) by the order of Paul I of Russia.^[9] His imprisonment for 53 days was seen by Chassidim as corresponding to the 53 chapters of the Tanya, where he reveals the inner teachings of the Torah (Chassidut) in intelligible discourses.^[10]

A further printing during the lifetime of R. Shneur Zalman took place in 1806, including also Igeret ha-Teshuvaah.^[11] While the printing of the Tanya in 1796 took place due to many errors, the editing of the text continued also after the life of R. Shneur Zalman, to, both, fix obvious errors that had not been corrected by Rabbi Shneur Zalman, and many that had crept into to the text since the printing. Within a hundred years since the first printing of the Tanya in 1796, thirty four printings of the Tanya took place, with many printing errors infiltrating the text. In 1896, the fifth Chabad Rebbe, R. Shalom Dovber, asked his chassid, R. Asher Grossman, known as Reb Asher of Nikolayev, to edit the Tanya, and correct all typographical errors. This included many minor changes, like the spelling of words and changing of word orders, by comparing the text against earlier manuscripts.^[12] A total of a thousand corrections were made at this point. Unlike the first editing by the author, these corrections would not have added or omitted any part of the text that would have led to a different meaning in the text, unless they were found in an earlier manuscript. This work was completed in December, 1899, on 19 Kislev (5660), and given to the printers in Vilna, on the first day of Chanukah.^[13] Due to the sensitivity of this work, R. Shalom Dovber did not allow his name to be mentioned, even as an acrostic, in connection with the editing of the work.^[14] This printed edition basically closed the text of the Tanya, providing templates for almost all subsequent printings of the Tanya. Nevertheless, further editing of the Tanya took place with some minor changes being made within the text of the Tanya. This included a single correction to Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Igeret Hakodesh and Kuntres Acharon respectively in the 1809 Vilna edition.^[15]

Further corrections were made by the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, prepared as an addendum for the printing of the Tanya in Brooklyn, 1954. They were inserted in two sections of an addendum: 160 corrections were included in: ‘Luach haTikun’ (index of corrections)^[16] and approximately 270 suggested corrections in ‘ha-orot ve-tikunim’ (notes and corrections). The former are obvious corrections, like incorrect spelling of words, like ‘Zohar’ with a ‘yud,’ and ‘me’od’ without a ‘vav’; the latter are suggested corrections that may be read correctly also without the amendment. For the 1954 edition, some of the corrections documented in ‘Luach haTikun’ were amended inside the text, while still being recorded in the ‘Luach haTikun;’ many others were recorded only in the ‘Luach haTikun’ – not amended in the text.^[17] Further corrections appear to have been made inside the text for the 1958 edition.^[18] Although these emendations were incorporated in 1983, in the printing of the ‘Lessons in Tanya,’^[19] by R. Yosef Weinberg (d. 2012), they remained an index of corrections in all the standard editions of the Tanya. The final stage of this editorial history of the Tanya took place in 2010, when Rabbi Yoel Kahan (1930 – 1921), who served as the chief editor of Chabad Chassidut from 1950, instructed for all the corrections, placed in ‘Luach haTikun,’ to be incorporated in the main text of the Tanya, while suggested correctionsin ‘Ha-orot ve-tikunim’ remain in the addendum.^[20]

Other corrections were made by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, but were included only as footnotes in a separate commentary on the Tanya, ‘Lessons in Tanya,’ published in 1983. This work benefited from being examined and edited by the Rebbe, as well as containing many footnotes with his comments, including suggested corrections to the text.^[21] An example of such a correction may be found in the approbation: ‘on seeing the saintly hands (ye-dei ko-desh) of the author.’ The Rebbe suggests amending: ‘hands of’ to ‘handwriting of.’^[22] A further suggested correction is found in chapter 40 in the printed version (38 in the manuscript),^[23] where it states: ‘u’vo hen gu-fe ha-lachot she-b’mishnah’ (wherein are the ‘bodies’ of the halachot of the Mishnah). The word ‘u’vo’ (wherein) - spelled vav, vet, vav – appears to be a typographical error, and should be corrected with the spelling of the Hebrew letter ‘vav’ - spelled vav, alef, vav. This wouldoffer the following meaning: the Hebrew letter ‘vav’ represents the ‘body’ of the laws in the Mishnah (since Mishnah is at the level of Yetzirah).^[24]

The manuscript version of the Tanya found at the British Library, totalling 48 chapters,^[25] thus, represents a rare extant copy of the work of the Tanya in its early manuscript form, before or in the early stages of the editing of the Tanya by Rabbi Shneur Zalman for the purpose of its printing in 1796. The aim of this work is to present a detailed study of the textual history of the Tanya, and thereby also its intellectual history. This will be done by documenting and offering explanations, mostly culled from the various commentaries on the Tanya, to many of the textual variants in the BL Tanya, compared to the printed version, with the aim of offering a deeper and enriched understanding of the final text of the Tanya that is so commonly studied today.

PART 2: STUDYING THE EARLIER EDITION OF THE TANYA

With the printing of the Tanya in 1796, an effort was made to gather all the earlier editions of the Tanya that contained errors. This is indicated by the fact that only nine manuscripts are known to exist in the world today and for centuries the study of the Tanya has been focused only on the printed version. Commentaries on the Tanya, by the leaders of Chabad and prominent Chassidim, dwell on the printed text. They explain, elucidate, and footnote the printed text but rarely discuss the earlier version or variants between the manuscript versions and the printed edition. This is unlike the earlier edition of the Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi Shneur Zalman – his major other work, printed also during his life time - that is discussed at length.^[26]

A reason for this may be connected with a reluctance to offer interpretation on one’s own to the work of the Tanya beyond explaining and elucidating the plain meaning of the text. In an open letter to chassidim in 1913,^[27] Rabbi Sholom Dovber Schneersohn (1860-1920) strictly prohibited offering one’s own explanations (p’shetelech) to the text of the Tanya. The reason being that the work was carefully worded, guided by layers of ideas drawn from the esoteric teachings of the Torah, and intentions pertaining to the choice and spelling of words were known only to the author. Certain chapters that may be expounded were done by the author’s grandson, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch, known as the Tzemach Tzedek (1789-1866), in his commentary on the Tanya. However, any further attempt to elaborate on the work, while it may produce logical explanations, will not reach the depth of the intention of the text, almost definitely not be consistent with the true intention of the author, and will thus be erroneous, causing a neglect of Torah study and the usurping of the text. If this was a correct method of study of the Tanya, there would have been surely a tradition of such a method from the earlier Chassidim, which is unknown to us. The only exception, permitting extrapolating on one’s own the text of the Tanya, was suggested by the father of the Rashab, the fourth leader of Chabad, Rabbi Shmuel of Lubavitch, known as the Maharash (1834 -1882). He stipulated that when it serves to inspire a person in one’s service of G-d, even if it is not consistent with the true meaning of the text, one may extrapolate the text. In fact, he said, one should consider, after studying a chapter in the Tanya, what personal spiritual path in the service of G-d, meditation or practical advice can be derived from the text.

In 1942, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, son of Rabbi Sholom Dovber, once again discussed this prohibition, while citing the above^[28] concession. Similarly, in 1956, the Rebbe^[29] cited the content of this open letter by the Rashab, while proceeding to elaborate on the Tanya, offering a comment, based on the statement in Sefer Yetzirah 1:7: ‘the end is rooted in the beginning,’ connecting the closing of the fifth book of the Tanya, where it closes with the idea: ‘The state of "Observe" in the inwardness (of Shabbat) is refraining from speech about material affairs, as G‑d ceased from the Ten Utterances through which physical heaven and earth were created. For one parallel to the other,’ with the opening phrase of the Tanya: ‘Compiled from (sacred) books and from sages, exalted saints, whose souls are in Eden; based on the verse (Deuteronomy 30:14): "For it is exceedingly near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do;" to explain clearly how it is exceedingly near, in a lengthy and short way, with the aid of the Holy One, may He be blessed.’ The suggested connection is that in both instances it presupposes that man is essentially connected with the Essence of the Divine, despite the gulf between G-d and man, being a soul enclothed in a physical body. For this reason, a. man is commanded to refrain from speech on Shabbat, just as G-d refrained from the Ten Utterances through which physical heaven and earth were created, and b. love of G-d is ‘exceedingly near to you.’ Recognising the innovation of this comment, since the part of the Tanya that includes letters of Rabbi Shneur Zalman – Igerot ha-Kodesh - was included as part of the main work only after the lifetime of the author, for the 1814 edition in Shklav.^[30] Furthermore, the final letter that is now part of Kuntres Acharon – the fifth section of the Tanya- was possibly included by mistake, due to a note on the manuscript of the letter that suggested it belonged with the other letters, but is in fact unrelated. Despite this, the Rebbe justified the comment, since a lesson many be derived in the service of G-d.^[31] This reluctance to probe the text of the Tanya on one’s own may have led to a reluctance to study the text of the Tanya based on the earlier version that had been viewed as corrupted by innumerable copyist errors, and corrected by the author himself, producing the printed edition.

Despite this, in 1978, on the second day of Shavuot, the method of the study of the Tanya, focusing on the variants between the earlier version (mahadura kamma) and the printed edition, and amongst the manuscripts themselves, was validated by the Rebbe. He initially questioned its validity, since the author of the Tanya seemed to have desired the replacement of the manuscripts, when he went through the process of editing the manuscripts for printing.^[32] The Rebbe argued, however, that, as with earlier editions of other works, there is value in studying and analysing the earlier edition of the Tanya, offering two reasons: firstly, the earlier version was not a first draft that was not intended to be studied until corrected and final draft completed, but, rather, an authorised text, distributed widely by the author, and studied over many years, before the printing of the Tanya with its many modifications.

Secondly, there is, in any event, value in studying an earlier version of a text, as it reveals the intellectual history of a text and the thought process of its author. This gives a deeper understanding into the final version of a text. Interest into an earlier version of a text, even if subsequently replaced, may be found in other instances in Jewish thought, as the Mishna states in Ketubot (57a): ‘This set of rulings, concerning the permission granted a betrothed woman whose wedding date has arrived to partake of teruma, is in accordance with the initial version of the mishna’ (Mishna rishonah).’ Similarly, in tractate Yevamot (30a): ‘However, a mishna does not move from its place,’ – even after it had become succeeded by a later text and is deemed as no longer necessary.’ In the 16^th century, in the work of Rabbi Isaac Luria, there are numerous instances where it alludes to a first version and second version of the text.

Study of the variants

This led, at the behest of the Rebbe,^[33] in 1981, to the publication, by R. Shalom Ber Levin, of a full manuscript version of the Tanya, entitled: ‘Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma (m’ktav yad).’ The main text is a transcript of what is regarded as the oldest extant manuscript of the Tanya, with all the variants amongst the 12 manuscripts referenced in footnotes, together with suggested explanations for the variants, in some cases arguing for the preference of one version of the other. An earlier referencing of the variants may be found in the margin of the first printed edition of the Tanya, discovered by R. Yehoshua Mondshine (1947-2014), copies of which is held at the Lubavitch Library.^[34]

R. Aaron Chitrik (d. 2011), in Likkutei Amarim Tanya Betziruf Marei Mekomos, also on occasion refers to the earlier manuscript editions. This can be found^[35] for example in chapter 16, where it states in the printed edition of the Tanya: ‘The love and fear referred to as tevunah, although not heartfelt emotions, nevertheless serve as “wings” for one’s Torah and mitzvot in the same way as if he practiced them with real (mamash) fear and love as revealed in the heart.’ In this context, he references the omission of the word: ‘mamash’ in two of the manuscripts.

PART 3: TANYA MANUSCRIPTS

There are seven extant manuscript versions of the first part of the Tanya, Likkutei Amarim. Six may be found in the Lubavitch Library and one at the British Library, known as BL Or 10456 (1775-1796), and referred to in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma asMS 9. The oldest of these manuscripts is thought to be MS no. 7, published in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma (m’ktav yad) (Kehot, 1981). This is known in the Lubavitch Library as MS Tanya 750.^[36] Other Tanya manuscripts at the Lubavitch Library are: MS Tanya 263 (MS 2 in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma); MS Tanya 265 (MS 3 in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma); MS Tanya 1118 (MS 5 in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma); MS Tanya 262 (MS 6 in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma); MS Tanya 268 (MS 8 in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma). In addition, four folios exist from chapters 10 and 12, in the handwriting of R. Shneur Zalman himself.^[37] These folios were first published in the Chabad journal Hatomim, vol. 2 (1935-8), and then in all standard editions of the Tanya, published since 1957.

The BL manuscript of the Tanya, thus, reflects an edition of the Tanya that is called Mahadura Kamma (earlier version), before it was printed in 1796, with many variants that we do not have in the printed version today. This includes omissions that were later added; additions that were later removed; additions in the margin as replacement for wrong words in the text, and as additions to omitted words. These corrections may reflect a work written during the process of the editing of the text by Rabbi Shneur Zalman, thus including some corrections. Alternatively, it may point to the fact that during the pamphlet stage of the Tanya, corrections were being made by copyists or others, scholars or otherwise, on their own, as was thought to be necessary from the meaning of the text or by comparing the text to other extant manuscripts that were abound.

PART 4: THE BRITISH LIBRARY TANYA MS

1. Details

The original owner of the manuscript is documented on the first page as being Rabbi Yosef of Slutsk^[38] - a mitnagdic town, that was known for its strong opposition to Chassidism, as recorded by Rabbi Shneur Zalman in 1801.^[39] The manuscript, somehow, made its way to Israel, where German born Jewish missionary Joseph Wolf (b. 1795, Wielersback, Bavaria), son of a German rabbi, bought it and sent it to England for his patron Henry Drummond (1786-1860). It was subsequently deposited with the ‘London Society for promoting Christianity amongst the Jews.’ On 25 September 1912, it was bought^[40] by the leader of the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish congregation in London, Moses Gaster (1856 - 1939), who held a lectureship, in 1886 and 1891, in Slavonic literature at the University of Oxford, while becoming the Hakham of the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish congregation in London, in 1887. It was finally acquired by the British Museum in 1925.

The BL manuscript of the Tanya is entitled ‘Kitzur Likkutei Amarim’ and was written between 1775-1799 in Ashkenazi semi-cursive, cursive and square script. The text of the manuscript was composed by three hands: Chapters 1-39 (folios 3a-32a), corresponding to chapter 41 in the printed version, by one hand, in semi cursive script, called Rashi. To indicate the end of the work, as this manuscript was originally copied, it states: se-li-kah lah bi-se-ya-a-ta di-she-ma-ya’ (completed with the assistance of Heaven).^[41] Chapter 40 (folios 32b-35a), corresponding to chapter 42 and 43 in the printed version, by a second hand, in cursive Ashkenazi script. Chapters 42-48, corresponding to chapters 44-50 in the printed version (chapter 41 is not indicated) by a third hand, also in cursive Ashkenazi script (folios 35a-42b).^[42] Like the first part, the second and third parts, written in different hands, are also mahadura kamma (first version), with many variants, including additions and omissions, minor and significant, compared to the printed version.

2. Scholar scribe

It is difficult to determine whether the scribe was a scholar or laymen hired as a scribe. One way to ascertain the kind of scribe is by analysing the nature of the errors in the text. In chapter 23, it suggests that the scribe was not necessary a scholar, as the error – a change from a mem to a vav changes the meaning of the text, in a way that the text loses its meaning. It states: Moreover, their unity, i.e., the unity of the divine soul and its faculties with G-d that is attained through Torah study, is even more exalted and more powerful than the unity (me-a-cher) of G-d’s infinite light with the upper (spiritual) worlds.’ In the BL manuscript (fol. 17) it states: ‘and the unity’ (ve-a-cher). This mistake, as opposed to other variants, indicates the scribe was either a hired scribe, or at this point in the text, not paying attention to the meaning of the text he was transcribing. A further mistake in the text is a citation from Likkutei Torah of the Arizal, in chapter 34 in the BL manuscript (chapter 36 in the printed version), where the source given is Yalkut Torah, instead of Likkutei Torah. This is an obvious mistake regarding a work that is quite well known.^[43] While there are other obvious mistakes in the manuscript unique to the BL Tanya copy, they may be copied from a copy that also had the particular mistake. It is however difficult to say that a mistaken reference regarding a known work was from an earlier copy, as it would have likely been corrected. This may suggest that the copier was not a scholar scribe.

A similar proof can be made from a mistake in which the text does not make sense, as copied. This can be found in chapter 36 (38 in the printed version) where two mistakes appear that renders the text incomprehensible. A first case is the word ‘And the illumination (ve-ha-arat) of the supernal will that radiates and is clothed in this kavanah is infinitely greater and loftier than the illumination of the supernal will that radiates and is clothed in the performance of the mitzvot themselves, in action and speech, without kavanah.’ In the MS, it had a prefix ‘mem’ (from/than) before ‘ha-arat’ (the illumination). In a different hand, it was corrected with a ‘vav’ added over the ‘mem’ to replace it. Similarly, in the same chapter, the Tanya writes: ‘Similar to the superiority of the light of the soul over (al) the body.’ In the MS, it states: ‘with the body’ (im ha-guf). These mistakes make the text incomprehensible.

In chapter 40 (43 in printed version), it states: ‘Ahavat olam, however, is that which comes (hi ha-ba-ah) from the understanding (me-ha-te-vu-nah) and knowledge of the greatness of G-d, the blessed Ein Sof, Who fills all worlds, and encompasses all worlds.’ In the BL Tanya MS, however, instead of: ‘hi ha-ba-ah’ (is that which comes), it omits ‘hi’ and shortens ‘ha-ba-ah’ (comes) to ‘ha-ba’ (to come), producing the reading of the text: ‘Ahavat olam ha-ba’ (love of the world to come).^[44] This mistake, which is not found in any other of the manuscripts, appears to reflect a scribe who was copying a text without understanding what he was copying. When he saw the word: ‘olam’ and then: ‘ha-ba’ in close proximity – despite the word ‘hi’ in between, he omitted the word: ‘hi’ and wrote: ‘olam ha-ba’ (the world to come), since these words appear together in other contexts, but makes no sense in this case. This suggests a scribe who was either ignorant or was not concerned with the meaning of the text while copying.

3. Change in the text size

There is a change of the size of the script on fol. 16, in ch. 21 of the BL Tanya, thoughthe same hand. The reason for this may be to enable the text to fit within the folios of the manuscript.

4. End of chapters – illuminations

Most end of chapters in the BL Tanya manuscript are indicated by a colon. At the end of chapter 26, and sporadically afterwards, including chapters: 27, 28, 30, 32, and at the end of 39, which is the final chapter with the same hand, the endings are indicated with an illumination.^[45]

5. Unique among the manuscripts

Many of the variants in the BL Tanya manuscript are unique variants that may only be found in the BL manuscript and not in any of the other Tanya manuscripts. This applies to spelling of words, word order and also actual wording. This may be found for example in ch. 19, where the word te-shu-ka-to can be found in the BL manuscript, instead of ve-cha-she-ka, as found in all the other versions.^[46] Also, in ch. 19, it states: ‘Now this is a general principle in the whole realm of holiness: Holiness is only that which derives from chochmah.’ In the BL MS it addsthe word: gadol (great)after k’lal’ (principle). This is not found in any other of the manuscripts. Similarly, the order of the words in ch. 19: mit-na-ne-a le-ma-ala ta-mid, as opposed to ta-mid le-ma-ala is also unique to the BL Tanya manuscript.^[47] Similarly, in ch. 20, only the BL Tanya adds the word: k-lal (at all), at the end of the sentence: ‘This emphasis provided by the repeated phrase, “You are He who…,” means: “You are exactly the same ‘He’ before and after creation, without any change at all (k-lal).”’

Another example of a variant that is unique to the BL manuscript is a change of a single word that has significance to the meaning of the text. In the printed version, in ch. 20, it states: ‘Only after the desire and craving have already descended into his heart, through the stimulus of his wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, and only after they have ascended once again from the heart back to the brain to think and meditate on how to implement his desire by actually obtaining that food or actually studying that subject, it is only at this point that “letters” are born (nol-du) in one’s mind, corresponding to the language of each of the nations, who employ these letters when speaking and thinking about everything in the world.’ In the BL MS, instead of: ‘born’ (nol-du), it states: ‘revealed’ (nig-leh), suggesting that there are in fact ‘letters’ in the mind, before the level of thought for the purpose of implementation of an idea.

In chapter 23, while presenting the argument that there is advantage in Torah study over performance of mitzvot, due to the profound unity with G-d when studying Torah, it states: ‘In fact, the Torah, G-d’s will, is described as “encompassing” all the worlds, meaning that it is at a level that cannot become clothed within the worlds but rather animates and illuminates them as if from a distance, from above, in a transcending and “encompassing” manner,’ and it is this level which transcends all the worlds that is clothed in a truly (ma-mash) revealed form in one’s soul and his soul-garments when he studies Torah. In the printed version it emphasises: ‘truly (ma-mash) revealed,’ while in the BL manuscript it omits: ‘truly’ (ma-mash). This de-emphasis of the concept that G-d on a transcendent level is truly revealed when studying Torah, is found only in the BL manuscript.^[48]

In chapter 44 (46 in the printed version), it says that when a person performs a mitzvah it as a union with G-d, similar to the patriarchs who were on the level of a “vehicle” (Merkava) unto Him. In the BL MS, it states: ‘And so it is ‘ma-mash’ (really) with the soul of every Jew at the time he is occupied with Torah and the mitzvot. In the printed version and all other manuscripts of the Tanya, the word ‘ma-mash’ (really) is omitted. This appears to be a significant variant, suggesting in the printed version that the performance of mitzvot of every Jew is not exactly the same as the patriarchs.^[49]

6. Chronology

Out of the manuscripts of the Tanya that exists today, it’s interesting to try to determine the

chronology of the BL Tanya MS. One method to do this is to find a significant section that

appears in the printed version and also all the other manuscripts, but omitted in the BL Tanya

MS. This would suggest that the BL Tanya MS was copied at an earlier time than the other

manuscripts. This may be found in the chapter 31 (33 in the printed version), where the

following paragraph is found in the printed version and all the other manuscripts but omitted

in the BL Tanya MS: ‘the End of Days,’ when He will banish the spirit of impurity from the

earth, and ‘G-d’s glory will be revealed, and all flesh together will behold it.’

PART 5: CORRECTIONS IN THE BL TANYA MANUSCRIPT

There are a number of corrections made to the text of the BL Tanya, reflected the editing process of the Tanya during the manuscript stage itself. This could have taken place either as part of the editing process for the printing by the author, shared with the public, and incorporated in the manuscripts. Alternatively, corrections of errors in the text were made independently of the printing, either as instructed by the author, or by the scribe, or owner of the manuscript. Such corrections are shown in the BL Tanya manuscript, where numerous corrections are made in between the lines or in the margins. The following are the kinds of corrections made in the text:

1. Brackets

Errors may have been made by the scribe while copying the text and perhaps corrected immediately by placing the erroneous word in a bracket and then the correct word following the bracket. This can be seen for example in chapter 20, where it states: ‘this word is as naught when compared with the essence and entity of the soul, these being its ten attributes mentioned above: chochmah, binah, daat, and so on, from which are derived the letters of thought (mach-sha-vah) that are clothed in one’s speech, when it is uttered.’ In the manuscript it initially stated: ‘letters of speech (ha-di-bu-rim),’ which makes no sense with the subsequent words: ‘that are clothed in one’s speech.’ The scribe wrote: ‘ha-di-bu-rim’ (speech) mistakenly and proceeded to correct his mistake by placing the mistaken word in brackets, and continued with the corrected text.

Similarly, in chapter 38, it states: ‘the neshamah needs no tikun (mending) for herself by means of the commandments.’ In the BL Tanya, chapter 36 (corresponding to chapter 38 in the printed version), it adds: ‘ke-lal’ (at all). This is however placed in brackets, suggesting that it should be removed. It is in fact omitted in the printed version.

This occurs also with a mistaken spelling of a word, in chapter 20, where a ‘vav,’ instead of a ‘yud,’ was written in the word: ‘eizeh’ (some), thereby changing the meaning of the word. The word with the wrong letter was placed in brackets and corrected with the subsequent text.

2. In between lines

A further method of corrections is by the adding of a missing work above the line. This can be found in ch. 20, where the word ‘be-po-el’ (actually), is added in between the lines.

A further example of a correction above the line is the correction of a single letter of a word, written in error, and not wanting to erase and rewrite the whole word. This can be found in chapter 36 in the BL Tanya (38 in the printed version), where it has a prefix ‘mem’ (from/than) before ‘ha-a-rat’ (the illumination). In a different hand, the conjunctive ‘vav’ (and) was added above the ‘mem,’ presenting the word: ‘ve-ha-arat’ (and the illumination) enabling the following text to make sense: ‘and the illumination (ve-ha-arat) of the supernal will that radiates and is clothed in this kavanah is infinitely greater and loftier than the illumination of the supernal will that radiates and is clothed in the performance of the mitzvot themselves, in action and speech, without kavanah.’

An addition example of this is found in chapter 36 in the BL Tanya (38 in the printed version). In the printed version it states: ‘ G‑d animates and brings into existence ex nihilo (me-a-yin le-yesh).’ In the BL Tanya MS it omits: ‘le-yesh,’ by mistake, and adds it above the line.

3. Margins

Some corrections are made on the margin of the text. In chapter 22, two corrections may be found by a later hand in the margin. The Tanya states: ‘The meaning of “hinder-part” is exemplified in the act of a person who gives something unwillingly (she-lo bir-tzo-no).’ In the BL Tanya MS, fol. 17, it states: ‘ba-al kor-cho’ (by coercion). In the margin, however, by a different hand, it adds: ‘she-lo bir-tzo-no’ (unwillingly).An identical correction is made a second time in the same chapter.

4. Mistaken correction within the text

In some cases, a correction is made by seemingly a different hand, but unnecessarily, as evident from the fact that it is subsequently removed in the printed version. In chapter 38, it states: ‘Now, just as the illumination (ha-arah) and the flow of vitality found in the mineral and vegetable [categories] bears no comparison or likeness to the illumination (le-ha-arah) and flow of vitality clothed in animals and man.’ In the BL Tanya MS, fol. 27, in chapter 36 (38 in the printed version), it states: ‘le-ha-a-rah’ (to the illumination), with a prefix ‘lamed,’ twice in the sentence. The first appears to have been a correction, as the prefix ‘lamed’ is different than other ‘lameds’ in the text. The correction seems, however, to have been unnecessary and redundant, and is subsequently omitted in the printed version.

5. Vertical correction in the margin

In chapter 36 (38 in the printed version), fol. 27, there is a correction added vertically in the margin. The sentence relates to the superiority of the action of a mitzvah over intent. The Tanya writes: ‘If one spoke the words but did not concentrate his thought, he has, post facto, fulfilled his obligation, because the soul does not need to perfect itself through mitzvot; rather, to draw down light to perfect the vital soul and the body.’ In the margin, in a vertical marginal note, it adds: ‘to repeat them, except for the first verse of Shema and the first blessing in Shemoneh Esrei. The reason is that the neshamah needs no tikun (mending), etc.’

PART 5: VARIANTS

There are two categories of variants amongst the manuscripts and between the manuscripts and the printed version: minor and significant that alters the meaning of the text. In the former they relate to a. spelling and order of particular words; b. addition or omission of a single word; c. addition or omission of more than one word, d. inclusion and omission of whole sentences, e. inclusion and omission of significant sections of chapters, f. inclusion and omission whole chapters. Some of the above are seemingly minor textual variants, that do not appear to significantly change the meaning of subject matter of the text, while others relate to significant differences. In addition, some variants are found also in other manuscripts, while some are unique to the BL manuscript. We will now in more detail outline the categories of variants that are in the first category, ones that don’t seem to change the meaning of the text in a significant way, but were nevertheless amended in either the first editing by the author or in the process of the printing in 1899. We will then proceed to outline what seems to be some of the significant changes.

While it is impossible to know with certainty at which time the edits were made, as they could have taken place during the first editing by the author or second editing of the text, under the guidance of the Rashab, it is safe to say with almost certainty that the minor edits may have been conducted by either period, while the significant changes that including adding or omitting significant sections would have only. Been conducted by the author himself before the printing in 1796. A further observation and complexity in knowing exactly when particular edits were made is that the editing of the work that involved significant changes may have been conducted not necessarily in the context of the printing, but in the manuscript stage, but we no longer have copies of the manuscripts that include these changes. It may have the case therefore that significant changes were made earlier as part a the editing of the work that was an ongoing process within the manuscripts and the editing for the printing was primarily to fix copy errors. This distinction between the minor scribal errors that were corrected for the printing and the significant changes that were made not specifically for the printing, but incorporated in the printing, is in fact suggested from the approbation by Rabbi Meshulam Zusil of Anipoli (1718-1800), included in the printed edition, where it says: ‘It was [the Alter Rebbe’s] intention not to publish these writings, for it is not his custom. But because these pamphlets have spread among all Israel in numerous copies by sundry copyists, and, as a result of the many and various transcriptions, the copyists’ errors have multiplied exceedingly, he was compelled to bring these pamphlets to the printing press.’ Nevertheless, the purpose of our study is to outline the variants of the two editions that we have before us: the BL manuscript version, representing the earlier version, and the printed edition. In this context, we proceed to outline the following eleven kinds of minor variants:

Minor variants

1. Clarity

Some variants are for the purpose of clarity of meaning, so as not to allow for a misunderstanding of the text. This can be found in chapter 18, where the word ‘she-bah’ is added in the printed version: ‘its faculty of chochmah.’ The word ‘she-bah’ (its) is added to emphasise that the light of the Ein Sof is vested in every person’s soul through its vestment in their faculty of wisdom, as opposed to the supernal wisdom of the Divine.^[50]

A similar correction appears in chapter 19, where it states in the printed version: ‘For this [nature] is the soul’s (she-be-nefesh) faculty of chochmah.’ In the MS, however, it omits:‘she-be-nefesh’ (soul’s) and merely states: ‘for this [nature] is the faculty of chochmah.’

2. Same word on two lines

Some omissions of sections of lines that appear significant to the meaning but are in fact due only to a word that appears twice on two consecutive lines. The scribe wrote the word the first time it appeared and then picked up the text from where it continued after the second time the same word appeared on the following line, omitting the text in between. This occurs in chapter 18, where it states: ‘Rather, they are prepared to sacrifice their lives without any (shum) knowledge or reflection but as though it were absolutely impossible to renounce the one G-d, without any (shum) reason or rational argument whatsoever.’ In the BL Tanya manuscript, the scribe omits the text in between the two repeated Hebrew words: shum, thereby omitting a significant concept pertaining to free will to renounce the one G-d: that one is prepared to sacrifice one’s life for one’s faith, due to the fact that it is impossible for a Jew to do otherwise.^[51]

The same appears to happen in ch. 19, where the sentence: ‘Here, too - the inference of the word “nature” is that the soul’s will and desire is not based on reason, knowledge,’ is omitted, as the word: ‘knowledge’ (da-at) is repeated three times in close proximity. Similarly, in chapter 23, in the MS, it omits the paragraph: ‘Since He is the Knower, the Knowledge… [and the subject Known]. This is what is meant by the statement that “The Torah and G-d are absolutely one”—they are not merely “organs of the King,” as are the mitzvot.’ The omission of this paragraph is found only in the BL MS, and appears to be a scribal error, as the words: ‘in a perfect unity’ (be-tach-lit ha-yichud) is repeated twice in close proximity in the text of the Tanya and the scribe most likely made an error omitting the section in between.^[52] It indicates, as with the above similar omissions, the copy of the Tanya the scribe was using as his master copy, had the repeated words above each other, causing this mistake to occur.

3. Word order

Some of the variants in the manuscripts, compared to the printed version, is the word order in the text. For example, in ch. 19, it states: ‘like the flame of a candle, whose nature it is always to flicker upward.’ In the manuscript, it writes the following order in this statement in the Hebrew: ‘flickers upward (le’ma-alah) always (ta-mid) in its nature.’ In the printed edition, however, it writes in the reverse word order: ‘flickers always (ta-mid) upward (le’ma-alah) in its nature.’ The difference between these two is just word order, without any significant meaning. Also, in ch, 20, it states: ‘comprise the entire Torah - hem ke-lalut kol ha-Torah kulah.’ In the BL MS it states ‘hem’ at the end of the sentence.

4. Similar words and no change in meaning

Sometimes words in the manuscript are very similar to a word that is found in the printed version, suggesting the scribe may have copied the word wrongly, without a change in the overall understanding of the text. This can be found in ch. 19, where it states: ‘Although the kelipot prevailed over all his life, and he was impotent against them - lo ya-chol la-hem.’ In the MS, instead of ‘lahem,’ it writes: ‘le-hi-la-chem,’ implying the following: ‘he was unable to fight against them’ (lo ya-chol le-hi-la-chem). The idea that the person is ‘impotent’ or ‘unable to fight against the kelipah’ is basically expressing the same concept. The difference is just in the additional two Hebrew letters ‘lamed’ and ‘chet’, that turn ‘la-hem’ into ‘le-hi-la-chem.’

5. Gender

In the MS, concern is not given for gender justification. For example, in chapter 38 (40 in the printed version), in the printed edition, it states: ‘Though these are holy letters’ – in the Hebrew, both: ‘o-ti-yot’ (letters) and ‘ ke-do-shot’ (holy) are in the feminine. In the MS, fol. 29, it states: ‘o-ti-yot’ (letters) in the feminine but ‘ke-do-shim’ (holy) in the masculine.

6. Verse citation – additions

Many of the variants relate to the citation of verses. In some cases, additional words are added in the printed version, and in other case additional words are found in the manuscripts, omitted in the printed version. This can be found in ch. 19, relating to the few verses cited regarding the concept that ‘all the kelipot become nullified, and they vanish as though they had never been in the presence of the L-rd.’ In this context, three verses are cited, one from Isaiah and three from Psalms, It states: ‘Soit is written: “All the nations are as nothing before Him (Isaiah 40:17)”; and “For all Your enemies, O L-rd, Your enemies will perish, they will be scattered (Psalms 92:10)”; and again, “As wax melts before fire, so shall the wicked perish (Psalms 68:3)”; and “The hills melted like wax (Psalms 97:5).” In the manuscript, the verse from Isaiah and two of the verses of Psalms have additional words from the verse, compared to the printed version, while one verse from Psalms has additional words in the printed version. This can be also found in chapter 27 (39 in the printed version), where the verses in Ezekiel 1:10 is cited in the BL MS with the additional word: ‘le-ar-ba-atom’ (each of the four sides). This word is omitted in the printed version.

A reason for the change in citations of verses is due to the author being more particular about the precise words from a verse that is most relevant to the concept being discussed in the text. This variant is related to a further variant in the text. Employed in the text of the Tanya is a careful use of the word ‘etc’ (ve-chul-hu), whereby on occasion, it states: ‘etc’ (chul-hu), without the prefix ‘vav’ (and), while on occasion it includes the prefix: ‘vav’ (and) before ‘etc’ (ve-chul-hu) – with a vav. In a case where additional words of a verse are pertinent to the subject, ‘and etc’ (ve-chul-hu) – with a vav is used, while in a case where theadditional words of a verse are not directly pertinent, ‘etc’ (chul-hu) – without a vav is used. It is possible that this system was more carefully refined in the editing of the printed edition.

7. Precise verse citation

A further variant in citation of verses between the manuscript and the printed edition is when in the manuscript it may not have been concerned with the precise wording of a verse, while in the editing of the Tanya for the printing, it was more precise and made corrections when necessary. This occurs in chapter 30 in the BL Tanya manuscript (chapter 31 in the printed version), where it cites II Samuel 22:3 inaccurately: “[He is] my high tower and my stronghold (u-me-u-zi),” and is corrected for the printed version, based on the actual wording in the verse: “[He is] my high tower and my refuge (u-me-nu-si).”

This also occurs in the second section of the manuscript, in chapter 45 (47 in the printed version, where it cites the verse from Genesis 12:9: “And Abram journeyed, going on (ha-loch) and on (ve-na-so-a).” In the MS, instead of the infinitive absolute: ‘ha-loch ve-na-so-a,’ it writes the phrase in the participle: ‘ho-lech (going) ve-no-se-a’ (and on).

8. Plural

Variants between the BL manuscript and the printed version involve also the consistency of the form of the numbers. In the manuscript, effort is not made to make the number form consistent with the nouns. In the printed version, changes are made to make them consistent. An example of this may be found in chapter 36 (38 in the printed version), where it states: ‘in order to attach to Him his divine soul (naf-sho ha-Elo-kit) and its garments (u-le-vu-she-ha).’ The term: ‘u-le-vu-she-ha’ (its garments) reflects the singular ‘soul.’ In the MS, it however states: ‘u-le-vu-she-hen’ (their garments).

9. Addition of a single word to correct mistaken understanding

Some variants appear to have been made with some consideration, as they alter the meaning of the text, either subtly or substantially. An example of this is in ch. 19, where in the manuscript appears the inclusion of the word ‘great’ in the sentence: ‘Now this is a great principle in the whole realm of holiness: Holiness is only that which derives from chochmah.’ In the printed version, the term ‘great principle’ is changed to just ‘principle.’

10. Prefixes

Some variants relate to prefixes. For example, in chapter 25, it states: ‘Similarly, with regard to devout prayer, he should exert himself with all the strength he can muster.’ In the printed version it states: ‘l’tefilah be-kavanah’ (to devout prayer), while in the BL manuscript it states with a ‘beit’ prefix: ‘b’tefilah be-kavanah.’ Both carry the same meaning. In this study, we have not listed all of these variants, due to the numerous numbers of these kind of variants and, in the vast majority, contain no significance in regard to the meaning of the text.

11. Sources added in the printed version

One of the things that were added in the printed version are sources for what is being discussed in the Tanya. This becomes apparent when a source for an idea seems to have been omitted in the manuscripts, but appears in the printed version. This may have been due to a request for sources to be added for those who desired to look into the sources for what is being discussed in the Tanya. This can be found in chapter 37 (39 in the printed version), where it states: ‘And their fear and love [of G-d] is natural to them, as is written in Raaya Mehemna (Parashat Pinchas).’ In the BL MS, fol. 28, it omits: ‘as is written in Raaya Mehemna (Parashat Pinchas).’ In some cases, a reference with a source is found in brackets in the BL manuscript. In the printed version, the brackets are removed, and thus has the reference with the source in the main text. This appears in chapter 37 (39 in the printed version), pertaining to the following paragraph: ‘This love being called ‘re’uta deliba,’ as mentioned above. From this ‘re’uta deliba,’ a garment is formed for the soul in the World of Beriah, which is the Higher Garden of Eden, as will be discussed further and as is written in the Zohar, Parashat Vayakhel.’ In the BL MS, the source together with the whole sentence appears in brackets, while in the printed version the brackets are removed. The omission of sources and then adding them reflects the possibility that that Rabbi Shneur Zalman initially may not have intended to have the sources in the main text, to be as clear as possible without making the text fragmented by citing its sources in the text. He may have thought it sufficient the introduction that the Tanya is culled ‘from the works of scribes and books,’ referring also to the mystical works.

PART 6: SIGNIFICANT VARIANTS

Some of the variants are not insignificant, relating to typographical errors, but, rather, omission or addition of a single word or words, that are of significance, and involving change of thought or additional new concepts, most likely done by the author himself. This reflects the possibility that in the earlier stage, some ideas may not have been developed or thought to be included by the author, though at a later stage, during the process of preparing the text for printing or earlier,^[53] it was decided to include them. This includes the following sixteen ideas:

1. Parents cannot impact the soul born

In chapter 2, in the printed version, it makes a distinction between the soul and the garments of the soul. While the former can be impacted by the deeds of the parents, the soul itself cannot be affected. The parents may have a lowly soul, while a child is born with a lofty soul. It states: ‘As for what is written in the Zohar and in Zohar Chadash that the essential factor is to conduct oneself in a holy manner during sexual union, which is not the case with the children of the simple folk and their ilk, this is because no nefesh, ruach, and neshamah is without a garment which stems from the nefesh of its father’s and mother’s essence. All the commandments that it fulfills are influenced by that garment; even the benevolence that flows to one from heaven is all given through that garment. Now, if the person sanctifies himself, he will bring forth a holy garment for the neshamah of his child. However great a soul it may be, it still needs the father’s sanctification. But the soul itself, it sometimes happens that the soul of an infinitely lofty person comes to be the son of an ignoble and lowly person. All this has been explained by Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, of blessed memory, in Likkutei Torah on Parashat Vayera and in Taamei Hamitzvot on Parashat Bereishit.’ This distinction, drawn from R. Isaac Luria is omitted in the BL manuscript.

2. Misfortune with joy

A variant of a single word is in chapter 26: ‘The Sages (Berachot 9:5) explains that one should accept misfortune with joy, like the joy in a visible and obvious good.’ In the MS, it adds: ‘ma-mash’ (real), in the sentence: ‘one should accept misfortune with real (ma-mash) joy, like the joy in a visible and obvious good. Including the word ‘ma-mash’ in the manuscript, implies that the joy derived from misfortune may be exactly the same as joy for the good. Removing the word ‘ma-mash’ acknowledges the fact that even with the belief in the statement in the Talmud (Berachot 60a): ‘Just as one recites a blessing for his good fortune, so too must he recite a blessing for misfortune, they are not exactly the same.’^[54]

Error! Filename not specified.

3. Difference between atzvut (sadness)and merirut (bitterness)

In chapter 30, in the manuscript, which is chapter 31 in the printed version, the difference between ‘atzvut’ and ‘merirut’ is omitted. ‘Atzvut’ means that one’s heart is as dull as a stone and has no vitality, while ‘merirut’ reflects the contrary: the very fact that one is moved to be embittered, is itself a sign of life, except that this vitality derives from the holy attributes of severity.

4. Take stock of one’s whole life

A further concept that is omitted is in chapter 29 that a person should contemplate not only about sins one has committed, but to ‘take stock with his soul of all his thoughts, utterances, and actions that have come and gone since the day he came into being and until the present day: were they all of the realm of holiness or of the realm of impurity (G-d deliver us)?’ This emphasis on the need to take stock not just of one’s past day, but one’s entire life, is omitted in the manuscript.

5. Mitigating blame for one’s remoteness from G-d

At the end of chapter 31 in the printed version, it adds a section, articulating words of comfort for the distress one may experience when reflecting on one’s remoteness from G-d: ‘Ultimately one is not to be blamed for this remoteness, since, it was G-d who created man in a way that caused the divine soul, a part of His light, to descend into the body and be clothed in a ‘serpent’s skin’ and a ‘fetid drop,’ enabling such a remoteness.’ These words of ‘comfort’ are omitted in the manuscript at the end of chapter 30 (corresponding to chapter 31 in the printed version).

6. service of a benuni is also a true service of G-d

A further idea that is omitted in the manuscript, but developed in the printed edition, may be found in chapter 13, that the service of a benuni is also a true service of G-d, even though it is not absolute truth (emet la-ami-to): ‘Nevertheless, in relation to the rank of the beinoni, [this level of love] is regarded as a truly perfect service in terms of their level of truth, i.e., the level of beinonim.’

7. Love your fellow as yourself

The concept of the ‘direct and easy path toward fulfilling the mitzvah, ‘Love your fellow as yourself’ (Leviticus 19:18), in chapter 32 in the printed version, that derives from the discussion in chapter 31, relating to the preciousness and joy on account of one’s Divine soul, even while the body remains remote from G-d - is omitted.

8. Simultaneous joy on account of the soul and bitterness on the remoteness of the body

A further idea that is omitted is the articulation of the concept found at the end of chapter 34 in the printed version, but omitted in all the manuscripts (end of chapter 32 in the BL Tanya) that one should have joy on account of the soul and bitterness on the remoteness of the body at the same time. This idea is also found in Igeret ha-Teshuva chapter 11. In Likkutei Biurim on Igeret Hateshuva chapter 11, it explains that this is the level of the beinuni, who can achieve this concept. This suggests that the earlier version, in the manuscripts, that does not include this addition, may be because initially the Tanya was written for a narrower group of people in mind, who were not on the level of this concept in the fullest sense, and therefore not articulated.

In the printed version, that was developed later, after folios had been distributed, read, and feedback received, this paragraph was added, due to the realisation that the Tanya be broadened to include also those who were capable of this concept.^[55] This allows us to suggest an underlying theory in an aspect of the editing of the Tanya, namely that the Tanya was written at a particular stage in time when it was intended for a narrower group of Chassidim in mind, who were on a lower level of avodah, and then expanded in the printed version, thus some of the variants. It is also possible, that the additions of certain ideas were in response to questions posed by the Chassidim or other readers of the text.

9. How to avoid forgetting one’s studies

In chapter 35 (37 in the printed version), the paragraph about the need to apply all one’s strength to the holiness of Torah and prayer, thereby weakening the power of the body and animal soul and helping a person against forgetfulness - is omitted. This addition in the printed version suggests that in the process of the editing of the Tanya a question regarding how a person may avoid forgetting one’s studies may be achieved. This suggests a further reason for the variants namely, in response to subjects that may not have been considered earlier, but were later seen as pertinent.

10. Unity with G-d through Torah study; purpose of creation through Mitzvot

At the end of chapter 35 (37 in the printed version), the BL manuscript omits a lengthy section developing further the idea of the superiority of Torah study over Mitzvot, in addition to the idea that Torah study is superior due to the fact that it involves the absorption into holiness of one’s inner garments – thought and speech. More importantly, it argues, Torah study affects a greater unity with G-d. The purpose of creation is nevertheless through Mitzvot.

11. Superior calling of G-d through Torah study

A further concept that is omitted in the same section is the superiority of Torah study over direct calling of G-d. This superior calling of G-d through Torah study should infuse a person with reverence when studying Torah, as explained in chapter 23. A reason for this addition in the printed version may reflect questions raised concerning the apparent lesser importance of Torah study, after having emphasised in great length the superiority of Mitzvot due to fulfilling the purpose of creation and of man, to create a dwelling place for G-d in the lower world. In addition, the need to explain how a person finds fear of G-d in Torah study. The last point in the section added in the printed version, may reflect an argument that one may call G-d directly without the Torah.

12. Two levels of righteous

In chapter 37 (39 in the oriented version), a distinction is made, in the printed version, between two levels of tzadikim: on the level of neshomo and on the level of ruach. The tzadikim on the level of neshomo have their abode in the level of Beriah, while tzadikim on the level of ruach, along with all other souls, ascend only on occasion: Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh. This distinction is not made in the manuscripts and only added in the printed version.

13. Distinction between abode of the soul and its service

In chapter 37 (39 in the priented version), a further distinction is made: the ‘abode’ of the soul resides in the ‘world’ of beriah or yetzirah; its ‘service’ unifies with the Divine sefirot that radiates in that world. This distinction is only made in the printed version and omitted in the manuscript.

14. No contraction at all in Atzilut

In chapter 37 (39 in the printed version), fol 29, the phrase: ‘kol kach’ (to such a great degree), regarding the lack of contraction (tzim-tzum) of the sefirot of Atzilut, is omitted, suggesting there is no contraction at all, while in the printed version, it adds the words: ‘kol kach:’ ‘The created intellectual beings [of Beriah] cannot, however, apprehend ChaBaD as they are in the World of Atzilut, where the ChaBaD are not contracted to such a great degree (kol kach). In the ‘Lessons in English Tanya’ it adds a comment explaining the reason for the addition ‘kol kach’ (to such a great degree): ‘for the very fact of their being sefirot (i.e., individual, defined categories) indicates that ChaBaD are merely contracted, limited manifestations of the undefinable Ein Sof; the degree of contraction, however, is much less than that of Beriah, and therefore, the creatures of Beriah cannot receive intellectual illumination from ChaBaD of Atzilut.’ The omission of ‘kol kach’ (to such a great degree) in the manuscript may be understood however in a relative context, that compared to the contraction in Beriah, there is no contraction in Atzilut, but in fact there is some degree of contraction by the fact that they are called sefirot.

15. Natural fear and love in one’s mind

In chapter 36 and 37 (38 and 39 in the printed version), the manuscript omits the concept of natural fear and love in one’s mind (b’mocho).

16. Does not rise at all without arousing fear and love

In chapter 36 and 37 (38 and 39 in the printed version), the manuscript does not make a distinction between the ‘abode’ (ma-dor) of the souls and the Torah study and service that rises to the ten sefirot. For this reason, the printed version states: ‘divine service performed without arousing one’s fear and love remains in the world of separation, in the externality of the worlds,’ while the manuscript states: ‘remains in this world.’ According to the printed version, divine service performed without arousing one’s fear and love may indeed rise to the externality of the worlds, the world of yetzirah, though not the ten sefirot. According to the manuscript, however, such service remains in this lowest world and does not rise at all to the higher worlds.^[56]

17. Remembering is also sufficient

In the middle of chapter 40 (the end of chapter 42 in the printed version) it adds in the printed version: ‘There should also be a constant remembrance of the dictum of the Sages, of blessed memory, “acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,” which parallels the injunction, “You shall appoint a king over you,” as has been explained elsewhere, and so on. For G-d, blessed be He, forgoes the higher and lower worlds, and uniquely bestows His kingdom upon us, etc. and we accept, etc. And this is the significance of the obeisances in the prayer of the Eighteen Benedictions following the verbal acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven in the Reading of Shema, whereby one accepts it once again in actual deed and so on, as is explained elsewhere.’

In the MS, this paragraph is omitted. The addition of this paragraph in the printed version is for the following categories of people: a. the person whose meditation produces a fear of G-d but since meditation is not possible at all times, a simple ‘constant remembrance of the dictum of the Sages, of blessed memory, “acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,” is sufficient. b. a person whose meditation is not effective in producing in his emotions a fear of G-d. This seems to be even less demanding than what the Tanya proposes earlier regarding remembering ‘as in the case of a mortal king, the fear of him relates mainly to his inner essence and vitality,’ since this ‘remembrance’ requires ‘training to habituate one’s mind and thought continuously so that it always remains imprinted in his heart and mind.’ Conversely, the additional remembrance of “acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,” does not require ‘training to habituate one’s mind.’^[57] It would seem that the Tanya, as reflected in the manuscript, initially was aimed towards the person who is inclined to meditation or at least the person who has the ability of ‘training to habituate one’s mind and thought continuously so that it always remains imprinted in his heart and mind.’ In the printed version, the Tanya expanded further its categories to make room for a person who may not only be unable to meditate but even remember in a manner of ‘train to habituate one’s mind and thought continuously so that it always remains imprinted in his heart and mind.’

PART 7: SECTIONS AND WHOLE CHAPTERS OMITTED

In numerous places, there are not just variants in the text but whole sentences and sections of chapters added or omitted. This can be found in the following places: In chapter 31 (33 in the printed version), the following short paragraph is found in the printed version in brackets and without brackets in other manuscripts: ‘the End of Days, when He will banish the spirit of impurity from the earth, and G-d’s glory will be revealed, and all flesh together will behold it.’ In the MS, this sentence, is omitted.^[58] Likewise, in chapter 35 (37 in the printed version), the paragraph about the need to apply all one’s strength to the holiness of Torah and prayer, thereby weakening the power of the body and animal soul and helping a person against forgetfulness, is omitted. At the end of chapter 35 (37 in the printed version), the BL manuscript omits a lengthy section developing further the superiority of Torah study over mitzvot, namely: Torah study affects a greater unity with G-d that with mitzvot, despite the purpose of creation being achieved through mitzvot. A further concept that is omitted in the same section is the superiority of Torah study over direct calling of G-d. In chapter 38 in the BL Tanya (chapter 40 in the printed version), the section elaborating on the comparison of the figure of the bird with the world of yetzirah, in relation to the study of Mishnah, with love and fear of G-d, is omitted.

Whole chapters omitted

In the manuscript, there are differences relating to not just particular ideas that were developed in the process of the printing of the Tanya, but entire chapters were omitted in the manuscript and added in the printing of the Tanya. This includes chapter 30 in the printed version that begins with: ‘One must also set his heart to fulfill the instruction of our Sages: “Be lowly of spirit before every man.”’ This chapter is completely omitted in the manuscript. The subsequent chapter numbers are thus also different than the printed edition.

In addition, chapter 32 in the printed version, beginning with: ‘Acting on the advice mentionedabove - to view one’s body with scorn and contempt and to find joy in the joy of the soul alone - is a direct and easy path toward fulfilling the mitzvah, “You shall love your fellow as yourself,” with regard to every Jew both great and small - in spiritual stature,’ is omitted in the manuscript. This makes subsequent chapter numbers in the manuscript two chapters off compared to the printed edition.

^[1] Sefer ha-mamarim 5668, p. 309.

^[2] The passing of Devorah Leah, the daughter of the Alter, in 1793, was seen in connection with the steadfast commitment to the teachings of the Tanya during this time, despite intense opposition.

^[3] SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 29. Alternative view is that the writing began during the lifetime of Rabbi Dovber, in 1771-2. The discrepancy is due to a letter by Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn that states that the Alter Rebbe worked on the Tanya for twenty years. The end date may be the date of the printing of the Tanya in 1796, or its distribution to the copyists in 1792.

^[4] The final chapters were given to the copyists before they had been taught orally for the second time.

^[5] SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 14-15.

^[6] The intended publishing date was the 19 Kislev, the yahrtzeit of Rabbi Dovber, the Maggid of Mezritch, the teacher of Rabbi Shneur Zalman. The desire to connect the publishing of the Tanya suggests a connection with the Maggid of Mezritch, perhaps suggesting that work on the ideas of the Tanya in fact began during his lifetime. See SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 29, where this question, whether the twenty years of working on the Tanya, as referenced by the Rayatz, begins during or after the lifetime of the Maggid, is left open.

^[7] The copy we have today is based on the third edition, printed in Shklov, 1814, and its further editing in 1896. Other printings during the Alter Rebbe’s lifetime include: 1797, 1799, 1806. Kitzurim v’ha-ros, p. 139.

^[8] Iggeret ha-teshuvah was most likely written before the other parts of the Tanya. See SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 37.

^[9] Sefer Hasichot 5703, p. 59.

^[10] Sefer ha-mamarim 5668, p. 309. Although it was taught before his imprisonment in St Petersburg, when his teachings were not as intelligible, the work of the Tanya, as a foundational text of Chassidut, was aimed to be an intelligible text. In this sicha, the Rashab writes that there is no loftier text that the Tanya.

^[11] An unauthorised printing took place in 1799 with Iggeret ha-teshuvah added, by a chassid in Zolkiev, Romania. SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 38-39.

^[12] SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 46.

^[13] SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 43-47.

^[14] SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 46.

^[15] See Likkuteri Amaraim im targum angli, defusei Tanya (London, 1981), p. 412-3. Corrections were for obvious mistakes, including: 1. Ch.1 in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah (p. 76b, line 10): ‘be-sha-ma-yim’ (in the heavens); 2. Igeret Hakodesh (p. 133a): ‘a-le-hem’ (to them); 3. Kuntres Acharon (p. 151a) - addingin brackets:‘uliy tza-rich lih-yot le-vad’ (maybe should be ‘only’).

^[16] Likkuteri Amaraim im targum angli (London, 1981) p. 190-193.

^[17] Likkuteri Amaraim im targum angli (London, 1981) p. v and p. 379.

^[18] Lessons in Tanya, Vol. 1, p. ix.

^[19] Lessons in Tanya, Vol. 1, p. ix. An example of this is the spelling of the word ‘me-od’ on the ‘Title page,’ where the second time the word is mentioned, it has been corrected to be with the same spelling as the first - without a ‘vav.’ See Lessons in Tanya, Vol. 1, p. 1.

^[20] Conversation with R. Avrohom Dovid Vaisfiche (4 July, 5782).

^[21] https://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/6237/jewish/Lessons-in-Tanya.htm.

^[22] Lessons in Tanya, vol. 1, Approbations, p. 8, f.8.

^[23] Lessons in Tanya, Chapter Forty, p. 571, f.12.

^[24] This correction appears in the Shiurim be’sefer haTanya.

^[25] The first section contains 39 chapters, followed by the addition of chapter 40, and then an additional section, completing 48 chapters.

^[26] In the introduction to the Mahadura Batra (later edition), it states: ‘This [manuscript] was found among the sacred writings of our late revered master, the Rebbe. When, with the Divine inspiration that rested upon him, he began to compose a second edition of the Shulchan Aruch, he added many new laws. Though many matters had already been stated we felt that they should not be passed over, so that nothing would be lacking, and the [original] teaching would not be laid aside.’

^[27] Igrot Kodesh Rabbi Shalom Dovber Schneersohn, vol. 2, p. 720. See footnote on p. 713 that it was written in the winter of 5674, which may correspond to 1914. This was written in the form of an open letter sent to all the Chassidim about the study of Chassidut in general. It was reprinted in the journal Ha-Tamim, choveret 3, p. 58 [290]; and Kuntrus Etz Chaim, p. 82.

^[28] Sefer Hasichot 5702, p. 83 (cited in Torat Menachem vol. 15, p. 275).

^[29] Torat Menachem vol. 15, p. 275-280.

^[30] Hayom Yom, 20 Kislev. See also Likkute amarim tanya, mahadurotov, targuimov u’biurov, R. Yehoshua Mondshine, p. 21. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24552&st=&pgnum=19.

^[31] Hayom Yom, 20 Kislev. See also Likkute amarim tanya, mahadurotov, targuimov u’biurov, R. Yehoshua Mondshine, p. 21. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24552&st=&pgnum=19.

^[32] Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma, p. 7.

^[33] See detailed description at: https://store.kehotonline.com/mobile/prodinfo.asp?number=HAR-LIKUAMK. Accessed 6 Dec, 2022.

^[34] Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma, p. 5, f.6.

^[35] P. 290 & 293. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19787&st=&pgnum=360.

^[36] Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma, p. 5.

^[37] This is the view of the Rayatz, R. Yosef Yitzchok Schnnersohn in a letter published alongside the folios in the back of the Tanya.

^[38] http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=or_10456_f001r#.

^[39] Igrot Kodesh Admur Hazaken, p. 105.

^[40] See Naftali Loewenthal, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi’s Kitzur Likkutei Amarim British Library Or 10456, Studies in Jewish Manuscripts, p. 105.

^[41] At the end of chapter 39 in MS 6 and MS 8, it states: ‘sa-lik’ (end).

^[42] A further hand wrote (F. 43v) a recipe for a lemon flavoured liquor, made by mixing ethyl alcohol, water and sugar.

^[43] Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma, p. 270, f.29.

^[44] In Tanya MS 5, it also shortens ‘ha-ba-ah’ to ‘ha-ba’ but negates the possible reading – ‘love of the word to come’ by retaining ‘hi’ (it is). In the BL Tanya, however, it produces an erroneous idea that the second love is not a love that is derived from meditating about the greatness of G-d but a love for ‘olam ha-ba’ – the world to come. This would contradict the notion expressed by Maimonides in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuva (10:4) that one should serve G-d out of love for its own sake and not for a portion in the world to come. In addition, the idea is negated by the well-known saying of Rabbi Shneur Zalman: ‘I don't want your Paradise, I don't want your World to Come, I want only You alone.’

^[45] It is not clear what the reason for this change in endings is, though it is interesting that the subject of the chapter where this phenomenon begins is about the subject of joy that comes after sadness due to one’s sins.

^[46] Tanya Mahadura kamma, p. 133, f.8.

^[47] Tanya Mahadura kamma, p. 132, f.3.

^[48] Tanya Mahadura kamma, p. 165, f.50.

^[49] This variant is overlooked in Likkutei amaraim mahadura kamma, p. 384.

^[50] Tanya, Mahadura Kamma, p. 130, f. 36-37.

^[51] Tanya, Mahadura Kamma, p. 131, f. 39.

^[52] Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma, p. 163, f. 34-7.

^[53] Although the approbation discusses only errors, it doesn’t preclude the possibility that more significant changes were also in fact made in the process of the printing, and if not for the need to edit the minor errors for the printing, the more significant changes also would not have been made.

^[54] See Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kammma, p. 192.

^[55] See Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma p. 253, f.33.

^[56] Likkutei Amaram Mahadura Kamma p. 309, f. 63.

^[57] Likkutei Biurim vol. 1, p. 269.

^[58] This paragraph is however found either in Rashi script or in brackets in all the other manuscripts of the Tanya, suggesting the paragraph was added at a later date of the copying of this manuscript. This would indicate that the BL MS of the Tanya was from an earlier script in the development of the Tanya.

The Lubavitcher Rebbe’s commentary on Rashi and Maimonides: a similar approach

Sun, 13 Nov 2022 7:37:00 PM

On the last day of Passover, 1984, the Lubavitcher Rebbe instituted a new custom: the study of a section of Maimonides daily that was aimed to unite the entire Jewish people by studying the same subject of the Torah daily. With this, also began the second significant commentary of the Rebbe on a classical work of the Torah: the legal work of Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. This initiative came after eighteen years of the development of the Rebbe’s commentary on Rashi, that began in October, 1964, after the passing of his mother, Rebetzin Chana. In this essay, I would like to explore a similarity between these two commentaries: an approach that allowed the Rebbe to develop a unique commentary on two classic works of the Torah, despite hundreds of commentaries already written on these two works.

Three approaches to questions on Rashi

We will present three approaches to the Rebbe’s commentary on Rashi:

1. The steadfast conviction that Rashi’s entire commentary is based on a single foundational principle, as articulated in his commentary on Genesis 3:8: ‘I, however, am only concerned with the plain sense of Scripture and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them.’

2. The second principle is that every word and even every letter in Rashi’s commentary is precise and has significance.

3. Thirdly, the ability to draw ethical and spiritual teachings from Rashi’s commentary.

The approximately eight hundred studies of the Rebbe are almost all based on lines of questioning derived from these principles. While the principles seem self-evident, many of the great commentators on Rashi in the 16^th century, like Rabbis Elijah Mizrachi, Judah Loewe, and David Pardo do not insist that Rashi must be viewed by these principles, preferring to explain Rashi in halachic or midrashic terms. Some go further to argue that the first principle is only a local principle for the particular verse in Genesis that it is addressing.

The idea that a principle articulated by the author provides an absolute foundation to the entire text that ensues, thus allowing for a line of questioning at any point when the text does not seem to be consistent with the said principle, is the methodology of the Rebbe regarding the work of Rashi, and also on Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah.

Establishing and persistently questioning based on a single principle

Halacha

The principle that serves as a reoccurring line of questioning in the Rebbe’s commentary on Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah is found in the introduction to the work:

Therefore, I girded my loins - I, Moses, the son of Maimon, of Spain. I relied upon the Rock, blessed be He. I contemplated all these texts and sought to compose [a work which would include the conclusions] derived from all these texts regarding the forbidden and the permitted, the impure and the pure, and the remainder of the Torah's laws, all in clear and concise terms (בלשון ברורה ודרך קצרה), so that the entire Oral Law could be organized in each person's mouth without questions or objections… I saw fit to divide this text into [separate] halachot (הלכות הלכות) pertaining to each [particular] subject, and, within the context of a single subject, to divide those halachot into chapters. Each and every chapter is divided into smaller halachot so that they can be ordered in one's memory.

Although, the above paragraph is referring to the organisation of the work into subjects, the statement that Maimonides aimed to ‘divide this text into [separate] halachot’ is understood, in the view of the Rebbe, to mean that the entire work is only legal in nature. This interpretation of the above passage establishes a principle that allows for a line of questioning throughout the Mishneh Torah, whenever a text does not seem to be a clear halacha.

R. Jacob Emden

The principle that everything in the work of the Mishneh Torah is halacha is in itself not an innovation of the Rebbe. It was articulated earlier by German Rabbi Jacob Emden, known as the Ya-avetz (1697-1776). He writes as follows:

It is known that all his words are spoken in relation to halacha, either laws pertaining to the Messianic era or nowadays. Words that one cannot deduce law from, neither ethics, conduct, or other necessary knowledge, it is not the way of Maimonides to deal with them in his composition of the Mishneh Torah.

Jacob Emden poses a question in the Mishneh Torah based on this principle, in the laws of Beit Habechirah 4:1:

When Solomon built the Temple, knowing that it would at the end be destroyed, he constructed underneath a place where to hide the Ark in deep and winding secret tunnels. At the command of King Josiah, it was concealed in the place which Solomon had built.

This text sides with the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah ben Lakish in the Talmud in tractate Yoma (53b), drawing on the verse in I Kings 8:8: ‘And the ends of the staves were seen from the sacred place before the partition, but they could not be seen without; and they are there to this day,’ as opposed to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai, who say that the ark was exiled to Babylon.

Jacob Emden however poses the question: what is the halachic relevance of this statement in the Mishneh Torah – it doesn’t seem to offer any practical relevance. This text is problematised also by Rabbi Moshe Schreiber, known as Chatam Sofer (1762-1839). The answer given is that the subject is relevant whether there is sanctity today on the Temple Mount, in opposition to the opinion of Judah ha-Nasi in the Talmud in tractate Chullin (7a), who has the view that the sanctity of the land departed when the Jews were exiled into Babylon.^[1]

Not only halacha – R. Joseph Karo

Some of the major commentators on Maimonides do not appear to agree with the principle, however. This becomes apparent in the context of the question raised regarding the halacha in the laws of Vessels of the Temple 3:12:

The statements found in the words of the prophets that the priests would wear an ephod of linen does not mean that they were High Priests. For the High Priest's ephod was not of linen [alone]. For the Levites would also wear such a garment, for the prophet Samuel was a Levite, and [I Samuel 2:18] describes him as "a youth, girded with a linen ">and those who were fit to have the Holy Spirit rest upon them to make it known that such a person reached a rung equivalent to that of the High Priest who speaks with the Holy Spirit via the medium of the ephod and the breastplate.

of linen – more appropriate for biblical commentary – is to reconcile this text with the verse in I Samuel 22:18: ‘Thereupon the king said to Doeg, “You, Doeg, go and strike down the priests.” And Doeg the Edomite went and struck down the priests himself; that day, he killed eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod.’ In a study on Maimonides in 1987, the Rebbe rejects this answer, due to the fact that the aim of Maimonides’ work is exclusive legal.^[2]

This line of questioning, while on occasion raised by others, as above by Jacob Emden and indirectly by the Chatam Sofer, is adopted by the Rebbe as a key methodology in his commentary on the Mishneh Torah, insistingthat every line and word in the Mishneh Torah is subject to this line of questioning. This insisting on consistency following a principle for an entire work appears to be the unique approach of the Rebbe in his scholarship, as is the case with his commentary on Rashi. The answer given is consistent with the law in Foundations of the Torah (10:13): ‘The presence of a prophet among us is for no other purpose save that of foretelling things that are to come to pass in the world such as plenty, famine, war, peace and like matters. For, even of private matters he is informed. For instance, Saul when he sustained a loss he went to a prophet to inquire for its whereabouts. Similar matters to these the prophet may tell, not to create another religion, or add a commandment, or diminish.’ For this reason, they wore Ephod of linen, to allow people to know who they ask for their private matters, for which the High Priest was not available for.

Examples of where this line of questioning is raised includes the following:^[3]

1. G-d’s existence

In a series of talks that took place on 11^th Nissan, Final Day of Passover, and Shabbat Parshat Emor in 1984, and further discussed on Shabbat Parshat Vaera 1985,^[4] the text in the beginning of the Mishneh Torah was problematised for its halachic relevance:

1. The foundation of all foundations and the pillar of wisdom is to know that there is a Primary Being who brought into being all existence. All the beings of the heavens, the earth, and what is between them came into existence only from the truth of His being. 2. If one would imagine that He does not exist, no other being could possibly exist. 3. If one would imagine that none of the entities aside from Him exist, He alone would continue to exist, and the nullification of their [existence] would not nullify His existence, because all the [other] entities require Him and He, blessed be He, does not require them nor any one of them. Therefore, the truth of His [being] does not resemble the truth of any of their [beings]. 4. This is implied by the prophet's statement [Jeremiah 10:10]: "And G-d, your Lord, is true" - i.e., He alone is true and no other entity possesses truth that compares to His truth. This is what [is meant by] the Torah's statement [Deuteronomy 4:35]: "There is nothing else aside from Him" - i.e., aside from Him, there is no true existence like His. 5. This entity is the G-d of the world and the Lord of the entire earth. He controls the sphere with infinite and unbounded power. This power [continues] without interruption, because the sphere is constantly revolving, and it is impossible for it to revolve without someone causing it to revolve. [That one is] He, blessed be He, who causes it to revolve without a hand or any [other] corporeal dimension. 6. The knowledge of this concept is a positive commandment, as [implied by Exodus 20:2]: "I am G-d, your Lord...."

2. Healthy living

In 1983, the question was raised on the text in Laws of De-ot, chapter 4, where it details in great length how one should stay healthy, much of which Maimonides would have been aware that will no longer be relevant in future times and other places, just as things had changed from the times of the Talmud to the 12^th century, when Maimonides lived.^[5] The Mishneh Torah states:

(1) Seeing that the maintenance of the body in a healthy and sound condition is a God-chosen way, for, lo, it is impossible that one should understand or know aught of the divine knowledge concerning the Creator when he is sick, it is necessary for man to distance himself from things which destroy the body, and accustom himself in things which are healthful and life-imparting. These are: never shall man partake food save when hungry, nor drink save when thirsty; he shall not defer elimination even one minute, but the moment he feels the need to evacuate urine or feces he must rise immediately.

3. Mnemonic

In 1981, the question was raised regarding the end of the following text found in chapter three in the laws of Chanukah:

(12) The custom of reading the Hallel in the days of the early Sages was like this: After the [leader] who reads out the Hallel recites the blessing and begins and says, "Halleluyah" — [then] all of the people answer, "Halleluyah." And he [continues] and says, "Praise, servants of the Lord" — and all of the people answer, "Halleluyah." And he [continues] and says, "Praise the name of the Lord" — and all of the people answer, "Halleluyah." And he [continues] and says, "May the name of the Lord be blessed from now and forever" — and all of the people answer, "Halleluyah." And likewise for each and every thing; until they come out answering "Halleluyah" one hundred and twenty-three times in all of the Hallel. Its mnemonic is the years (lifespan) of Aaron.

What’s the halachic relevance of the mnemonic, found in the Jerusalem Talmud tractate Shabbat (16:1)? The answer given is to emphasise that the recitation of all 123 times Hallelukah is a singleconcept, as the singularity of the years of a person’s life.^[6]

4. List of many examples of ‘two letters’ on Shabbat

In the Talmud in tractate Shabbat 103b, it states:

Rabbi Yehuda says: One is liable evenif he wrote only two letters that are one type of letter, e.g., shesh [shin shin], tet [tav tav], rar [reish reish], gag [gimmel gimmel], ḥaḥ [ḥet ḥet].

In the Mishneh Torah, Laws of Shabbat 11:10, it cites the same law:

One who writes a letter twice and it is a word – such as dad (breast), tat (below), gag (roof), rar (flow), sas (rejoiced), sas (a moth) and chach (hook) – is liable. And one who writes in any script and in any language is liable, and [likewise] even for two signs.

The question raised is: Since Rambam is Halachot, what is the reason for bringing all the examples found in the Talmud, as well as additional examples that are not cited in the Talmud?^[7]

Reason for the precise order

A further line of questioning is the precise order of how things are listed in a halachah. In the above halacha, the premise is that the order must be precise, particularly, as it is different to how it is found in the Talmud.

Unique approach

Recognising the uniqueness of the Rebbe’s approach to the study of Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah, similar to his approach to the study of Rashi on the Torah, in regards to the line of questioning that is permitted, the Rebbe states: until now I have not found that someone has raised this question, because it is not the kind of questions other commentators concern themselves with.

Concise

To a lesser degree, another principle in the introduction also serves as line of questioning: the work of the Mishneh Torah is ‘all in clear and concise terms.’ This precludes the type of convoluted answers that may be given to questions that arise in the text of the Mishneh Torah.

Ethics of the fathers

Incidentally, the same approach is taken in the Rebbe’s commentary on Ethics of the Fathers. The Talmud states in tractate Bava Kamma (30a): ‘Rava said: One who wants to be pious should observe the matters of tractate Avot.’ Pious refers to one who is righteous and goes beyond the letter of law. Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet comments that this refers to the specific teaching in 5:10: ‘[One that says:] “mine is yours and yours is yours” is a pious person.’ The understanding of this premise, in the commentary of the Rebbe, is that every single teaching without exception in the whole tractate, even regarding parts that do not appear to be ethical teachings, but rather narrative, like the opening ‘Moses received the Torah at Sinai,’ must also be understood in the context of one who goes beyond the letter of the law.^[8]

Also, classic questioning on Maimonides

In addition to this line of questioning, the more classic line of questioning was also employed in the Rebbe’s commentary. This is the classic methodology of identifying a contradiction in the text from one law to another, either explicitly or by implication. This was done regarding the text in the Laws of prayer. In chapter 4:1, it states that devotion is needed for the entire service:

There are five requisites, the absence of which hinder the [proper] recital of a Service, even when its due time has arrived; Cleansing the hands, Covering the body, Assurance as to the cleanliness of the place where the prayers are recited, Removal of distractions, and Concentration of the mind.

In chapter 10:1, it states that concentration is only required in the first part of the Amidah prayer:

(1) If one has recited the Amidah without devotion, he should recite it again devoutly. If he, however, concentrated his attention during the recital of the first blessing, he need not read the prayer again. If one committed an error in one of the first three blessings, he has to turn back to the beginning of the Amidah. If he made a mistake in one of the last three blessings, he turns back to the blessing relating to the restoration of the Temple Service. If he made a mistake in one of the intermediate blessings, he turns back to the beginning of the blessing in which he made the mistake, and then continues the Service in regular order to the end. The reader, if he makes a mistake when reading the Amidah aloud, follows the same rules.

The answer to this question is presented by Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik (1853-1918) in his commentary on Maimonides and adapted by the Rebbe in his commentary. There are two ideas in devotion: general and particular. In the context the Rebbe rejects a more convoluted answer that the text in chapter 10 (nine chapter later) is qualifying the earlier text. This would counter the statement in Maimonides’ introduction that the work is meant to be clear and price.^[9]

Conclusion

In this essay, we have tried to argue that in the two principle commentaries of the Rebbe – on Rashi and Maimonides’ Mishneh Torah – a consistent pattern can be found in the approach to the line of questioning in both works. Despite, one a commentary on the Torah, and the other a work on Jewish law, a similar method is used in analysing the text on many occasions. In both cases, the Rebbe highlights his approach as unique amongst the myriads of commentators on these works.

^[1] Chiddushei Chatam Sofer on Chullin 7a.

^[2] Likkutei Sichot 31:156-7.

^[3] Another line of questioning is why certain halachot are recorded in the placed the are locatd and not elsewhere. This question is posed in Likkute Sichot 23:233, regarding the laws of Hallel in the Laws of Chanukah. Also, regarding the law of Kiddush in the laws of Chanukah.

^[4] Yenah Malchut, vol. 1, p. 48. Likkutei Sichot Yitro 1985.

^[5] Likkutei Sichot 23:36.

^[6] Likkutei Sichot 23:230.

^[7] Yen malchut vol 1, p. 138. Sichat 2nd day Shavuot, 1984.

^[8] Introduction (mavo) to Biurim l’Pirkei Avot, p. VIII.

^[9]Chiddushei Rabbeinu Chaim HaLevi Al-HaRambam, p. 1.